Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America's Worst Enemy in History
mongyu    1/2/2008 8:16:10 AM
The title says it all: Who do you think has been the greatest enemy ever to threaten America? My vote goes to the British hands down. No other country ever came as close as the British to physically ending the United States in our history. The Germans and the Japanese were formidable in their own right, but neither [or even both] could reasonably invade the United States. The Soviet Union had the theoretical potential to destroy the United States, but I think everyone agrees that this was not a practical capability in the way the British Empire's ability to take Washington DC was. The Soviets were a dangerous enemy ideologically in the way it could convert adherents in America, but they never out-did the British who successfully supported a rebellion in the United States by funding, arming, and giving moral support to the Confederacy. So what country would you choose?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
paul1970       2/13/2008 5:49:14 AM










 








teach?  you don't seem qualified to even take the class herald.








expert is rich given your track record of errors in this thread.  the horses is horses line was i believe when you jumped the shark.








I know what the march rate for horse cavalry is, grain requirements, feed allotment, burden loading, shelter requirement optimum picket spacing, length of tether line to the picket line, rest periods, chief medical conditions that worried cavalry officers and effective logistics reach from a horse depot is, cretin. CREF above my comments to Nichy about horse cavalry.

Do you? Nope.

Like I said, I'll teach you, bozo, if you want to learn.

Until then you are about as qualified as BW on any subject you address. ESPECIALLY barges.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Herald  






but you are the one who thinks that horses from the HYW and ACW charge at the same speed......    that like saying a ford escort goes at the same speed as lotus or that a speedboat goes at the same spped as a tug or that a musket is as fast firing as a bolt action or ad infini......



 



and what was this in reference to????? "REREAD where I told you exactly what the English wore before I posted that picture, buffoon."



you keep saying that you have addressed things or said it previously but as so vague as to woerk out out what considering your chameleon like ability to change mid thread.



I said a horse is a horse. Why? Because as far as I was concerned the time offset of ground covered while within indirect and direct archery mattered, not what  kind of horse covered it.

Otherwise why do the math to work out the MERS?

But you are so stupid you don't see this.

I work with numbers. I don't give a damn about your delusional nitpicks about types of horses. I even went so far as to set three ranges to test your stupid hypothesus to see if it made any difference. What interested me is could archery alone stop a cavalry charge at Crecy. The answer is NO. Spearmen and obstacles could and did-repeatedly.

Now I admitn that you are one of the most stupid and persistent morons it has been my displeasure to  debate, but I'd tghink you'd at least have enough sense to see that the heart of your silly argument was destroyed forty posts ago. you quibble nitpick and say I don't know a Clydesdale from a quarterhorse. Well guess what cretin. I do and  IT DOESN'T MATTER.

What matters are the numbers.

THE NUMBERS.  

Ger it, the numbers?

You fail by the numbers so you try this liberal arts malarkey as if this was some debating contest where you win on style.

Take your debating style into battle, clown, and see how long you last.

What works masthematicaly on  February 13, 2008 for me worked as well on August 26th 1346.

Edward did his math, and Philip didn't.

Who won, cretin?

Herald
 



 
 
"I said a horse is a horse. Why? Because as far as I was concerned the time offset of ground covered while within indirect and direct archery mattered, not what  kind of horse covered it."
 
you also said they charged at the gallop... basically you show that you didn't bother to read on the subject before posting... and now a
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You have been answered on the Crecy thread moron. Confine your inept stupidity to there.   2/13/2008 11:22:08 AM
I never repeat myself more than five times.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You have been answered on the Crecy thread moron. Confine your inept stupidity to there.   2/13/2008 11:22:37 AM
I never repeat myself more than five times.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       2/13/2008 11:28:45 AM
I know what the march rate for horse cavalry is, grain requirements, feed allotment, burden loading, shelter requirement optimum picket spacing, length of tether line to the picket line, rest periods, chief medical conditions that worried cavalry officers and effective logistics reach from a horse depot is, cretin. CREF above my comments to Nichy about horse cavalry.
 
well yippee for you herald.  the small fact that none of that has any real bearing on the subject at hand doesn't matter i take it to you?  knowing you those numbers will be from the acw to boot.
 
is it even possible for you to stay somewhat on topic during one of these discussions without dragging in utterly irrelevant crap?
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       2/14/2008 4:57:34 AM

I never repeat myself more than five times.

Herald



is that because you keep forgetting what you said previously.....    you arguments change constantly.... mine have been consistant... and whether you don't repeat more than 5 times or not is rather moot since you keep posting incorrect infomation that anybody picking a book up instead of googling will easily be able to dismiss as drivel. YOU KEEP GETTING THE FACTS WRONG. it shows you to be a poor researcher or a liar.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       2/14/2008 9:28:27 AM
















 










teach?  you don't seem qualified to even take the class herald.










expert is rich given your track record of errors in this thread.  the horses is horses line was i believe when you jumped the shark.










I know what the march rate for horse cavalry is, grain requirements, feed allotment, burden loading, shelter requirement optimum picket spacing, length of tether line to the picket line, rest periods, chief medical conditions that worried cavalry officers and effective logistics reach from a horse depot is, cretin. CREF above my comments to Nichy about horse cavalry.

Do you? Nope.

Like I said, I'll teach you, bozo, if you want to learn.

Until then you are about as qualified as BW on any subject you address. ESPECIALLY barges.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Herald  








but you are the one who thinks that horses from the HYW and ACW charge at the same speed......    that like saying a ford escort goes at the same speed as lotus or that a speedboat goes at the same spped as a tug or that a musket is as fast firing as a bolt action or ad infini......





 





and what was this in reference to????? "REREAD where I told you exactly what the English wore before I posted that picture, buffoon."





you keep saying that you have addressed things or said it previously but as so vague as to woerk out out what considering your chameleon like ability to change mid thread.





I said a horse is a horse. Why? Because as far as I was concerned the time offset of ground covered while within indirect and direct archery mattered, not what  kind of horse covered it.

Otherwise why do the math to work out the MERS?

But you are so stupid you don't see this.

I work with numbers. I don't give a damn about your delusional nitpicks about types of horses. I even went so far as to set three ranges to test your stupid hypothesus to see if it made any difference. What interested me is could archery alone stop a cavalry charge at Crecy. The answer is NO. Spearmen and obstacles could and did-repeatedly.

Now I admitn that you are one of the most stupid and persistent morons it has been my displeasure to  debate, but I'd tghink you'd at least have enough sense to see that the heart of your silly argument was destroyed forty posts ago. you quibble nitpick and say I don't know a Clydesdale from a quarterhorse. Well guess what cretin. I do and  IT DOESN'T MATTER.

What matters are the numbers.

THE NUMBERS.  

Ger it, the numbers?

You fail by the numbers so you try this liberal arts malarkey as if this was some debating contest where you win on style.

Take your debating style into battle, clown, and see how long you last.

What works masthematicaly on  February 13, 2008 for me worked as well on August 26th 1346.

Edward did his math, and Philip didn't.

Who won, cretin?

Herald
 




 

 

"I said a hors
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Stick to the Crecy thread, moron.   2/14/2008 11:45:37 AM
I answer you there. Latest posted garbage is meaningless noise.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       2/14/2008 12:15:05 PM
What matters are the numbers.

THE NUMBERS.  

Ger it, the numbers?

You fail by the numbers so you try this liberal arts malarkey as if this was some debating contest where you win on style.
 
the problem with this is that your analysis has been consistently based on bad numbers.  if you plug bad numbers into your math you will get junk out of the exercise.  for an engineer this is unforgiveably sloppy.
 
btw your claim to becoming an expert in what 2 weeks is pretty funny given you are disagreeing significantly with people who have doctorates in this time period.  gee who to trust on this?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Post all future reploes in the Crecy thread you contemptible fool.   2/14/2008 1:15:34 PM

What matters are the numbers.

THE NUMBERS.  

Get it, the numbers?

You fail by the numbers so you try this liberal arts malarkey as if this was some debating contest where you win on style.

 

the problem with this is that your analysis has been consistently based on bad numbers.  if you plug bad numbers into your math you will get junk out of the exercise.  for an engineer this is unforgiveably sloppy.

 

btw your claim to becoming an expert in what 2 weeks is pretty funny given you are disagreeing significantly with people who have doctorates in this time period.  gee who to trust on this?

 

 

1. Appeal to unnamed experts, again.
2. For an idiot who cannot even do a proper source citation or perform simple cretin math, I find you questioning my calculations to be a farce.
3. As I say repeatedly, the calculations are there. The assumptions and the start points I spell out. you can't do the math, you can't find one meritable argument on point that negates the conclusions and you have the effrontery to claim that you can just dismiss the results with a tain't so.
4. I hadn't done this type of analysis for Crecy, until now, but I've done it for Iraq, where I demonstrated you were an idiot, and I've done it for Halsey, I've done it for the Falklands, for the Rafale, for the Australians when i've discussed with them some of their defense issues.
5. I've even done it for a subject where I am not an expert which is small arms. I've gone head to head with genuine experts in their fields and I've exchanged ideas and actually had them confirm my analysis or legitimately correct it with expert input, but not throw it out the window as it was mainly accurate.

Why is it, that it with you two idiots, who wouldn't know know a speculum from a spectrum, that I get this stupid  "tain't so" argument?

By the way  NAME  YOUR  EXPERTS, cretin.

But do it in the Crecy thread from here on in.

And do yourself a favor, learn how to do some SIMPLE math.

With contempt, cretin.

Herald



My track record here after a year is long


 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       2/15/2008 6:05:51 AM




What matters are the numbers.

THE NUMBERS.  

Get it, the numbers?

You fail by the numbers so you try this liberal arts malarkey as if this was some debating contest where you win on style.



 



the problem with this is that your analysis has been consistently based on bad numbers.  if you plug bad numbers into your math you will get junk out of the exercise.  for an engineer this is unforgiveably sloppy.



 



btw your claim to becoming an expert in what 2 weeks is pretty funny given you are disagreeing significantly with people who have doctorates in this time period.  gee who to trust on this?



 



 



1. Appeal to unnamed experts, again.
2. For an idiot who cannot even do a proper source citation or perform simple cretin math, I find you questioning my calculations to be a farce.
3. As I say repeatedly, the calculations are there. The assumptions and the start points I spell out. you can't do the math, you can't find one meritable argument on point that negates the conclusions and you have the effrontery to claim that you can just dismiss the results with a tain't so.
4. I hadn't done this type of analysis for Crecy, until now, but I've done it for Iraq, where I demonstrated you were an idiot, and I've done it for Halsey, I've done it for the Falklands, for the Rafale, for the Australians when i've discussed with them some of their defense issues.
5. I've even done it for a subject where I am not an expert which is small arms. I've gone head to head with genuine experts in their fields and I've exchanged ideas and actually had them confirm my analysis or legitimately correct it with expert input, but not throw it out the window as it was mainly accurate.

Why is it, that it with you two idiots, who wouldn't know know a speculum from a spectrum, that I get this stupid  "tain't so" argument?

By the way  NAME  YOUR  EXPERTS, cretin.

But do it in the Crecy thread from here on in.

And do yourself a favor, learn how to do some SIMPLE math.

With contempt, cretin.

Herald



My track record here after a year is long

track record on one subject does not mean that you are any good on another...  just because someone is good on latin doesn'tmean they are good with chinese.... you may be good on modern stuff but that does not mean a jot when looking back on history.
 
 
your record on HYW is a catalog of basic historical mistakes (wrong armour and charge at gallop) and science not taking the main factors into account.... (human reaction, unarmoured horses) your analysis is poor because you are blinkered...you came to the debate knowing almost nothing about the period (as you alluded yourself in a recent post) and have been trying to prove your initial views with science that doesn't fit with the actual events as recorded at ther time.
as for the names of experts and specific books... the ones I have cited many times.... the ones you slagged off when I gave them to Wicked Chinchilla (so presumably you bothered to check them out before you just slagged them off or did you just do what you usually do and put mouth into drive before engaging brain???) some are those same experts you now use in your science at the same time as slagging them off because you never checked WHO ACTUALLY DID THE SCIENCE. do you want me to post them all again or are you capable of reading what is already there... btw.. if I asked you that then you would tell me to do my own research...
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics