Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I did.
I know. But I contradicted you. HA!
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because it's the only way to replicate the circumstances you suggested. Two guys with nothing but a machine-gun would have to be Captain America and Reed Richards to dismount it and turn it into a loaded, highly accurate RPG launcher.
The "circumstance" does not specify where they are, and for what reason. They just step out of the way, and fire an RPG. That's it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because they're guys who have decided to fight catapults with machine-guns. They have no choice in the matter. Either they fight catapult with machine guns or they don't (in which case they cease to exist, as they are hypothetical soldiers that exist only for the moronic task of fighting catapults with machine guns).
No they didn't. They decided to use automatic assault rifles...standard issue, and they happen to have an RPG member in the platoon. Woo woot!
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Go back and read the comment that started this particuar line of discussion.
Read the whole thread before interjecting my dose of reality. 😄
I liked the post that the OP of the Romans vs US thread posted about how the Romans build nuclear bombs for their catapults.
Only, they have no means to manufacture weapons-grade materials, nor create an implosion fuse to set off the reaction, nor any of the knowlege needed to do any of this. They haven't even gotten to firearms yet. Absolute dumbass.
Originally posted by inimalist
this is true, but neither of those insurgencies are bent on military victories. The Roman military wasn't built to run guerrilla tactics.EDIT: what I mean is, they were meant to create a situation of attrition from indirect conflict, whereas the Romans had a conventional army based on direct conflict.
How are the Romans going to beat an aircraft carrier? Or nuclear subs?
You missunderstood. I never said either would win the other in the sense the way it is presented in the first post.
It is ridiculous to compare Roman army with fighting jets, and even more ridiculous to go into it, at all.
This was not the point I was raising.
But if Romans were put up to speed with the technology and modern warfare or USA was to go back to basics, Romans may have had an advantage.
The reason above poll does not work is percicely because the way we wage war has changed - the tactics are not straight out war on a field, and therefore cannot be compared.
We can debate if the Romans would be succesfull in utilising their military minds to adapt to modern warfare.
One thing we can be fairly sure of is that if USA is to go back to the rules and weapons of olden warfare they would be crushed by Romans, purely because of the tactics which USA military lacks on the ground and which Romans had.
The reason USA lacks tactics on the ground is precicely because they have fighting jets and nukes, and because the way we wage war is changed.
From that point of view, as I am about to repeat myself, if USA is to be equated with Romans, we can conclude with some confidence that Romans would crush USA, but what we can discuss and never be sure of, is if Romans were to be equated with USA and modern warfare, would they adapt well to the new rules of war, or not.
Originally posted by jaden101
I wonder how long it'll take Hewhoknowsall to change the thread from the Roman empire to the Lord of the rings armies because he's still bitter about the thread getting closed.
Please explain WHERE I said that. I'm not at all upset about it, so why do you say something with absolutely no basis? BTW, I was gone for a week because I was on vacation.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Romans were so successful in their time not because they had more advanced weapons and a lot of people, but because they had the best strategy.
USA is unsuccesful in Iraq, Afghanistan and was so in Vietnam because it has the most advanced weapons but very weak strategy.A famous Arab proverb says:
An army of sheep lead by a lion will defeat an army of lions lead by a sheep.
That was all guerrilla warfare. Especially the first two, because the terrorists don't show themselves/wear the same clothing as citizens, so it's sorta hard to find them isn't it? And their goal isn't to conquer the nation or otherwise they would've won a long time ago, ie the gulf war.
And aren't US Generals better than Roman ones given that the latter were often chosen by nobility and not skill?
Originally posted by AngryManatee
I liked the post that the OP of the Romans vs US thread posted about how the Romans build nuclear bombs for their catapults.Only, they have no means to manufacture weapons-grade materials, nor create an implosion fuse to set off the reaction, nor any of the knowlege needed to do any of this. They haven't even gotten to firearms yet. Absolute dumbass.
That wasn't me! Why do you have to make things up?????
Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
That was all guerrilla warfare. Especially the first two, because the terrorists don't show themselves/wear the same clothing as citizens, so it's sorta hard to find them isn't it? And their goal isn't to conquer the nation or otherwise they would've won a long time ago, ie the gulf war.And aren't US Generals better than Roman ones given that the latter were often chosen by nobility and not skill?
That wasn't me! Why do you have to make things up?????
Erm, no. America is trying to conquer the said countries but has failed and continues to fail.
If you declare a war on a country, you do need to subjugate the enemy, ie conquer the country or make the surrender in order to claim victory. How difficult is that?
And regardless of if it's a guerrilla warfare or not is not an excuse.
If those are the rules of the war, either adapt to it and have a better strategy than opponent, or don't start wars at all.
Saying, ''well its a guerrilla warfare and soldiers are dressing up as bla bla bla'' is a lame ass excuse from a country which claims to be the best military power in the world - in all retrospects.
That is the problem they should have thought of before invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraqis and Afghanistanis certainly thought of it and it is working better for them than an all out military confrontation.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The "circumstance" does not specify where they are, and for what reason. They just step out of the way, and fire an RPG. That's it.
If they're just using a machine gun then by definition they cannot have an RPG. It's that simple.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No they didn't. They decided to use automatic assault rifles...standard issue, and they happen to have an RPG member in the platoon. Woo woot!
How are they producing these things when THEY ONLY HAVE A MACHINE GUN?
Originally posted by AngryManatee
So fun, but so time consuming!Note: the expansion to EE II actually has ragdoll physics for when you fire artillary or cannon fire at soldiers. Funny stuff XD
damn, never played number 2. But ya, some epic games going from prehistory to mechs, but days are lost so quickly.
LoL, all this nonsense about America; all spawned from anti-American foolery. Fact is, in an all out war, America's military defeats any single country in the world right now, and multiple countries in many a scenario. Comes down to who has the bigger Military budget and better weapons.
Vietnam did not defeat America, America defeated America in that war. Mass protest in the U.S., idiots like Jane Fonda taking pictures with the Vietcon, etc. etc. etc.
Iraq, America smashed Saddam's army with ease, the colossal error was taking out Saddam and expecting the country would come together. Bush Sr. did not make this mistake in the first Iraq campaign.
Afghanistan isn't a war, it's little more than an ongoing enemy mine sweep; I'm pretty sure more Aghan combatants are dieing than U.S. soldiers.
I'm starting to wish Ron Paul had won and had been able to put his radical ideas into play.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Erm, no. America is trying to conquer the said countries but has failed and continues to fail.
If you declare a war on a country, you do need to subjugate the enemy, ie conquer the country or make the surrender in order to claim victory. How difficult is that?And regardless of if it's a guerrilla warfare or not is not an excuse.
If those are the rules of the war, either adapt to it and have a better strategy than opponent, or don't start wars at all.
Saying, ''well its a guerrilla warfare and soldiers are dressing up as bla bla bla'' is a lame ass excuse from a country which claims to be the best military power in the world - in all retrospects.
That is the problem they should have thought of before invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraqis and Afghanistanis certainly thought of it and it is working better for them than an all out military confrontation.
Originally posted by Rogue JediSomeone? Anyone?
Bear with me here in case I am wrong, but question:Are we talking about the full might of the modern United States armed forces versus the full might of the Roman Army? Or are there certain restrictions? Can the United States modern forces only use certain weapons?
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Someone? Anyone?