If you were soldier in a war, which nationals would you like to fight alonside you? - Page 3

Alexander's Horse · June 22, 2002, 11:17

No Australians in the poll? You want to lose or something?

On the tense Eve of D Day Field Marshal Montgomery said, "I wish I had the Australians."

Ah well

I'd go for the Yanks - we like fighting beside them, go to all their wars

Brits would be a close second. Best infantry in the world.

DinoDoc · June 22, 2002, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
On the tense Eve of D Day Field Marshal Montgomery said, "I wish I had the Australians."

British generals are famed for fighting to the last Australian.

Quote:

I'd go for the Yanks - we like fighting beside them, go to all their wars

I hope we put on a good show for you.

Alexander's Horse · June 22, 2002, 11:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

British generals are famed for fighting to the last Australian.

Sadly that is true - in World War 1 we had the highest casualty rate of any combatant country.

Our casualty rate was 65% because the Brits used our infantry as shock troops

There were 210,000 casualties out of 330,000 troops sent to Europe, most on the Western front. The entire Australian population at the time was under 5 million.

Andemagne · June 23, 2002, 17:15

americans.
'cos
"superior training and superior weaponry have, when taken together, geomethrical effect on over all military strenght. well trained and well equiped troops can stand up to many more times of their lesser brethen than linear arithmetic seem to indicate"
Colonel Corazon Santiago - Spartan Battle Manual

dunno really

VetLegion · June 23, 2002, 18:07

I remember that from colonel santiago

she forgot one thing, morale.

superior training and equipement can be more then equaled by superior determination and knowledge of the enviroment

AH, and you still have the queen as, well, queen.

(sorry about kiwis, I really thought it meant aussies and new zaleanders together)

Anodyne · June 23, 2002, 18:29

Hey, you cucumber-boys:

Gurkhas are NEPALESE!

markusf · June 23, 2002, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Sadly that is true - in World War 1 we had the highest casualty rate of any combatant country.

Our casualty rate was 65% because the Brits used our infantry as shock troops

There were 210,000 casualties out of 330,000 troops sent to Europe, most on the Western front. The entire Australian population at the time was under 5 million.

Same with canada as well, all the troops from the colonies where just cannon fodder so british soldiers wouldn't have to die. Something to be pround of

markusf · June 23, 2002, 19:59

If you look at the USA stats you will notice they killed more of their own people and allies then the enemy did In Iraq and in afganistan

General Ludd · June 23, 2002, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf

Same with canada as well, all the troops from the colonies where just cannon fodder so british soldiers wouldn't have to die. Something to be pround of

Reminds me of a picute that I have lying around on my hard drive...

(It's an edited version of a famous WW2 propaganda poster which said "Let's go Canada!")

VetLegion · June 23, 2002, 20:36

Alexander's Horse · June 23, 2002, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion

(sorry about kiwis, I really thought it meant aussies and new zaleanders together)

Right - that's like lumping the Germans in with Austria and calling it Austria

Sava · June 23, 2002, 20:43

Can I choose who I'd like to fight against?

Pekka · June 23, 2002, 20:44

Americans would be the best for us i think, then maybe brits etc... but i'd be personally most comfortable with germans. I mean our army with theirs. There in the same level with thinking and when it comes to fighting imo.

edit: The right word would be compability.

VetLegion · June 23, 2002, 21:02

Quote:

Right - that's like lumping the Germans in with Austria and calling it Austria

sheep ****gers look same to me

besides do you know difference between slovenia and slovakia for example? nobody knows it all

pekka you stabbed them in the back once, no way any german would think you can be compatible again

TCO · June 23, 2002, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Right - that's like lumping the Germans in with Austria and calling it Austria

West Islander...

Pekka · June 23, 2002, 21:10

VetLegion, what do you mean we stabbed them in the back? When we had to 'fight' against them it was because of the treaty with russians. War was over. German was losing bad too, they didn't leave when we demanded, so there was very little that could of been done. Besides it wasn't really fighting, germans got away on their own.
And since we weren't allies, i can't see your point.

VetLegion · June 23, 2002, 21:24

they help you out against the russians, and you agree with stalin and kick them out head first

you finns have cold hearts

Pekka · June 23, 2002, 21:36

Yes, well we help them fighting the soviets too. It goes both ways you know

. We decided to make peace, and that meant germans couldn't use our land for attacking any more. That's far from stabbing in the back.

Alexander's Horse · June 23, 2002, 22:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Can I choose who I'd like to fight against?

If you keep coming up with those beautiful avatars you can choose anything you like.

Sava · June 23, 2002, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

If you keep coming up with those beautiful avatars you can choose anything you like.

thank you, lots of people like this newest avatar of mine... I have many more that I will be rotating

Wernazuma III · June 24, 2002, 14:44

Just from reading the first page, I've got to add a bit.

Why would Austrians be such a laughable choice? I mean, there's even the Italians as a choice!

No, really: What's so stupid about it? Because Austrians were the first to defeat Napoleon in a land battle? Because they and the Polish (probably laughable too???) were those who stopped the Turks from marching through Europe? Because they were part of the german military in WWII?

The only really pathetic nation are the Italians. They lost I think every war. They managed to lose every war victoriously though, what accounts for their cleverness. In the Risorgimento all battles between Italians and Austrians were won by the Austrians. We lost the decisive ones though against the French...
In WWI they joined the Allies although they had treaties with Germany and Austria. Probably they simply did so, because they thought that the Central Pwers would lose anyway. The Austrian army crushed the Italian forces driving them in front of them through northern Italy. But smart as the Italians are they had chosen the stronger allies so they again won a lost war...
(here's a nice joke for you from WWI:
Der Kaiser ward gefragt: Sind denn die Italiener tüchtig?
Der Kaiser sagt: Das weiß ich nicht, ich kenne sie nur
flüchtig."
In English it could be:
The emperor was asked: Are italians quite cunning?
The emperor says: Well, I don't know, I've seen them only running.)

And then, WWII, what shall I say? If I had to give a monocausal reason why the Germans lost WWII, I'd say: The Italians. Whether in Africa or Russia, Italian Batallions and Divisions were nothing but a pain in the as*! And they had the great idea to invade Greece. They failed so badly that Hitler had to invade the Balkans, what split his forces severely, forces he badly needed in the upcoming years in Russia... There was a German saying that an italian tank has 5 gears: 1 forward and 4 back...
Now we could think, the Italians chose the wrong ally. Well, yes they did, but they noticed early enough to revolt, switch sides and turn it into a draw...

VetLegion · June 24, 2002, 15:26

Quote:

We decided to make peace, and that meant germans couldn't use our land for attacking any more. That's far from stabbing in the back.

after germans give you weapons ammo, it is actually book definition fo backstabbing

Quote:

Why would Austrians be such a laughable choice?

quote to me battles Austrians won themselves? austrian forces always consisted of the subjugated peoples in the empire, croats, slovenians, hungarians, checz, polish and ofcourse germans,austrians.

about the turks? bah being a croatian I know what happened, see you northerners paid the taxes which king spent on defence, but we did disproportionate amount of actual fighting and bleeding

btw I never said Austrians are 'laughable choice'

they are ok choice but there is no more place in the poll

Ned · June 24, 2002, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
No Australians?

Germans probably got this on lock just because man for man, they should've won both world wars. The militaristic tradition of Prussia made the Germans probably the best soldiers in the world.

The Japanese, breed from centuries of militaristic tradition, would also make excellent soldiers but not particularily lasting ones. Unlike the Germans who would use their brains if outnumbered and try to fight another day (but take out as many enemies before leaving), Japanese soldiers have always been more likely to Banzai and get mowed down.

The Israelis have a much more recent but much more utilized militarism so they would be excellent soldiers as well. Muslims (turks and afghans) could potentially become excellent soldiers but would be a bit too much like the Japanese.

thanks

Albert, you know whether or not the current German army is as well-trained and well lead as German army in World War II?

VetLegion · June 24, 2002, 15:48

and about Italians, there is a funny movie (mediteraneo?) where some italians got stranded on an uniportant island in greece... they sing eat play drink **** the local buissiness woman and then the war is over

also a turk sells them hasish and robbs them

Wernazuma III · June 24, 2002, 15:50

Quote:

quote to me battles Austrians won themselves? austrian forces always consisted of the subjugated peoples in the empire, croats, slovenians, hungarians, checz, polish and ofcourse germans,austrians.

If you define Austrians like this, there is no Austrians at all! I don't agree with you that those peoples were subjugated (BTW: If they were, wouldn't that account for our military?...). Slovenians were as little or much subjects of the Habsburgs as "German" Austrians were. The opinion that they were "subjugated" is from the 19th century only (and quite a bit true in this period, due to german-austrian nationalism).
If the "subjugated" would be the core of the military, don't you think they would have freed themselves?

You want battles? Some examples:
Turkish Wars:
Extract: Vienna; Karlowitz; Belgrad;
Napoleonic Wars:
Aspern-Essling; First land battle ever won against Napoleon
2 out of 3 battles in the heroic fight of Tyrolean partisans against French and Bavarian forces during Napoleonic occupation
WWIseveral Isonzo battles; defeating Serbia...

Quote:

about the turks? bah being a croatian I know what happened, see you northerners paid the taxes which king spent on defence, but we did disproportionate amount of actual fighting and bleeding

Pah, we "northeners" bleeded quite a bit too. The Turks raided my area several times. We simply were strong enough to fend them off, so we didn't have to bleed for such a long time.

Wernazuma III · June 24, 2002, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion
and about Italians, there is a funny movie (mediteraneo?) where some italians got stranded on an uniportant island in greece... they sing eat play drink **** the local buissiness woman and then the war is over

also a turk sells them hasish and robbs them

Yes, great film, liked it too

gopher · June 24, 2002, 16:03

The French get a bad rap here in the US, but I almost voted for them (I picked Krauts, BTW). If you just skip over WW2 and Indochina/Algeria, there is a warrior history there. Give me a comrade from Verdun or the Imperial Guard. That is, if I ran out of Prussians

Giovanni Wine · June 24, 2002, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Just from reading the first page, I've got to add a bit.

Why would Austrians be such a laughable choice? I mean, there's even the Italians as a choice!

No, really: What's so stupid about it? Because Austrians were the first to defeat Napoleon in a land battle? Because they and the Polish (probably laughable too???) were those who stopped the Turks from marching through Europe? Because they were part of the german military in WWII?

The only really pathetic nation are the Italians. They lost I think every war. They managed to lose every war victoriously though, what accounts for their cleverness. In the Risorgimento all battles between Italians and Austrians were won by the Austrians. We lost the decisive ones though against the French...
In WWI they joined the Allies although they had treaties with Germany and Austria. Probably they simply did so, because they thought that the Central Pwers would lose anyway. The Austrian army crushed the Italian forces driving them in front of them through northern Italy. But smart as the Italians are they had chosen the stronger allies so they again won a lost war...
(here's a nice joke for you from WWI:
Der Kaiser ward gefragt: Sind denn die Italiener tüchtig?
Der Kaiser sagt: Das weiß ich nicht, ich kenne sie nur
flüchtig."
In English it could be:
The emperor was asked: Are italians quite cunning?
The emperor says: Well, I don't know, I've seen them only running.)

And then, WWII, what shall I say? If I had to give a monocausal reason why the Germans lost WWII, I'd say: The Italians. Whether in Africa or Russia, Italian Batallions and Divisions were nothing but a pain in the as*! And they had the great idea to invade Greece. They failed so badly that Hitler had to invade the Balkans, what split his forces severely, forces he badly needed in the upcoming years in Russia... There was a German saying that an italian tank has 5 gears: 1 forward and 4 back...
Now we could think, the Italians chose the wrong ally. Well, yes they did, but they noticed early enough to revolt, switch sides and turn it into a draw...

Ehmm...
So what?
Everything you say is true but.... people can choose to fight alongside Italy (if they are crazy/stupid enough) even if we suck as soldiers, many people fought with us during many wars, the Italian-American New York Major Fiorello La Guardia is a very good example, during WW1 he went to the Italian front as a pilot, and he achieved the Italian silver cross for militaristic achievement.

I mean... we are extremely poor soldiers and very bad fighters (no shame in admiting that IMHO), but why does that should preclud peopefrom chosing to fight with us?

Saluti

VetLegion · June 24, 2002, 16:19

Giovanni, I think that if Italians for example had to fight to defend Italy they would perform good - so I dont think you are bad fighters per se

It is a combination of bad leadership, lack of morale and cause and other factors that created the image of Italians as poor soldiers. Now you ll just have to live with the jokes

btw., you remember sgt. Bertorelli from 'Allo Allo'? - mamma mia, it was a big mistaka to maka!!
hilarious

VetLegion · June 24, 2002, 16:23

Wernezuma, not to say Austrians cant fight, I only say that for me Austro-Hungarian army of WWI for example is just such, a combo of nationalities (Austrians the officers, others the cannon fodder

). I cant separate that and think of Austrians only.