Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Regional Summary




Founded - 30 April 2005
Population - 165 Nations
World Ranking - 61
Regional Power - High

Government of the Global Right Alliance


Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate
Pidgeon Island

Members of the Committee
TBA

World Assembly Delegate
Angusp (aka Bodegraven)

High General of the GRADF
Joe Bobs
Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums!

Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register.

Join our Community


Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system.

I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way.

Getting Started


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
fourth anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie
Topic Started: Mar 10 2007, 10:14 PM (380 Views)
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spare a thought for someone who died trying to help others.

Rachel's war

I only wish I had a small % of her bravery.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
VincentDantes
Member Avatar
Independant by Cynicism
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well it has become grammatically commonplace here in North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That's American-English, not English. L+H is meant to speak correct English since he's from Ireland.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Love and Honour
Mar 20 2007, 05:27 PM
and do I care ;)

B)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
PI... are you 8 or something? Try reading books sometimes... You'll find that most gramatical laws can be bent if not broken. That's equally as conventional as the conventions which people like you cling to.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Calculators
Member Avatar
How very dare you
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The only word I do not start a sentance with is "so".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
PI try reading some James Joyce
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It is perfectly acceptable to start a sentance with 'and'.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arov
Member Avatar
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourt...74439278&sr=8-1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Look nothing I do is acceptable to the twat so nothing you say to correct him will be heeded.

And it is of no consequence anyhow as most people (everyone 'cept himself) consider him to be the best example of the regressive gene in action.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fighter4u
Member Avatar
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dupitable
Mar 18 2007, 09:45 PM
Actualy I would have said Anschlus was his main objective.

Quote:
 
And jivdom try defending half the world with the navy...


Try attacking half the world with as smaller one ;)

Quote:
 
Dup yeah.But the Brtish and German planes were a excat match for each other.


Wrong again. The German fighter planes and squad tactics were vastly superior to those of the British. Their tactics are still used today by the US airforce. Hitler lost the Battle of Britain for the reasons I explained which you seem to have ignored.

Actually the German and Brtish fighter planes were a excat match for each other. I stupidly said Germand Briian were tied.I ment the dogfights. I know this because of that thing I call the Histroy channel. And Dup the reason why German planes could only fight for 3 min.s was because of their fuel using engines. As you "know" the Brtish plane use steam and such the German planes could go higher in the sky which is a VERY good thing in a dogfight. If a British plane try to match the height it engine would stall and the plane would crash.

Also the British fighter defense system were even better. The German neve rlearned to time their attack to catch British planes refueling.Aslo Britian has it string of radar centers to warn of attack.

And it easyer to attack with a navy then to defend.As with defending to have to stay in one place. With attacking you can strike at will where ever you want.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yes as displayed by the Spanish Armarda...

And you have just disproved your own point by the way. You say British and German planes were an exact match for each other, then you explain why they aren't.

Quote:
 
I know this because of that thing I call the Histroy channel.


Ah yes the history channel which was once quited as saying AK47s never have to be cleaned. Yes I would place all my trust in them rather than my grandfather who was trained as an airforce pilot in WW2.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Calculators
Member Avatar
How very dare you
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The only thing that I have watched on the History channel is "IF Hitler took over Britain" and it was basically saying that he would crucify people with the Nazi swatzika and not the traditional cross.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VincentDantes
Member Avatar
Independant by Cynicism
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm sure your grandfather knows all about AK-47's, being in the 2nd world war, where they were so common.

I saw footage on the history channel where they drove over an AK with a Humvee in the desert. Buried it in sand. Dumped it in muddy water and it still fired.

It is possible for it to jam, and it should be cleaned and is cleaned by any soldier that has received any proper training. But generally they are very reliable and stupid people that aren't soldiers and know nothing of guns except to pull the trigger are perfect for the AK.

In fact American Vietnam soldiers were sometimes known to pickup enemy AK-47's because they didn't jam nearly as much as their m-16's. But they would pick this gun up knowing full well that if they were out of direct eye contact with their fellow soldiers they would run the risk of being shot at by their own side. Because the AK had a distinctive sound that was obviously different from that of the m-16.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VincentDantes
Member Avatar
Independant by Cynicism
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The history or discovery channel did have some cool shows about the best modern jet, and the best modern tank and a couple of other really cool military type shows.

The coolest thing about the best tank show was that the American Abrams tank did not win. The Leopard tank won which in that show was shown being used by Fins. Although many country's use that tank.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yea, but the Finns rock.

Quote:
 
I'm sure your grandfather knows all about AK-47's, being in the 2nd world war, where they were so common.


Nope, but he sure as hell knew about the Battle of Britain :rolleyes:

And AKs are reliable, but not as reliable as everyone would like to think. They certainly need cleaning as any rifle does. The nutural build up of shite that occurs from firing them, which is a lot worse for the gun than sticking the barrel in some mud, builds up in the gas tube and stops the recoil action.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fighter4u
Member Avatar
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dup no I proved my point. The German plane couldn't battle for longer then 3 min.s. The Brtish planes could climb very high. Where one was weak the other was strong. I forget what else the show talk about those because it was a while ago. But it has a cool tank thing. where even those a German tank out match a ally tank. The allys tanks would travel in squads and while the first three tanks were being blown up the last one in line would hit the German rear and blown it up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
fighter4u
Mar 22 2007, 11:34 PM
Dup no I proved my point.

You've definately proved something...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VincentDantes
Member Avatar
Independant by Cynicism
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I've seen those same shows as F4U..he just doesn't know how to describe what he saw.

In terms of the Spitfire and Fokker planes, the Fokkers had certain strengths like more powerful guns and weaknesses like bad visibility and maneuverability. While the Spitfires had worse guns they had better visibility due to the cockpit design and better maneuverability.

I'm not listing all the strengths and weaknesses but according to the way the show on the History Channel evaluated the two planes they balanced each other out.

Where the Fokker was weak, the spitfire was strong, where the spitfire was weak the Fokker was strong. They basically weighed the strengths and weaknesses of the two.

But where I think F4U is wrong [and I could also be wrong about that since I saw that show a long time ago] is that in the end they did choose a winner. The point of the show is to show why one military vehicle is better than the other through the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses.


As for the tank, they compared the Tiger tank vs the Sherman Tank. Although the main tank of Nazi Germany was the Panzer since it was easier and faster to make. The Tiger was really more of a novelty tank. Anyways in that show they listed all the many ways a single Sherman was no match for a Tiger. It's armour was no slanted, it was fairly thin. It's gun could not penetrate the armoured areas of the Tiger [front,sides etc].

So one on one it was not match for a tiger.

The Tiger's gun was of a bigger caliber and could easily pierce Sherman armour. It's armour was thick and in certain areas it was slanted which is the secret to doubling your armour thickness without making the tank heavier.

The Tiger was plagued by many things like being too costly to manufacture, it was too heavy so it couldn't really cross most bridges and it got bogged down it mud. It's engine wasn't reliable and regularly failed. It cost too much too fuel regularly. The turn rate of the turret was very slow.


But in the end the winner was the Sherman because it was smaller, lighter, faster, and easy and not nearly as costly to manufacture. It was mass produced by many factories overseas.

It could easily outrun the Tiger, and its engine was fairly reliable. When hunting tigers the Sherman operated in groups. So while the Tiger could only concentrate on one Sherman the others would get behind the tiger and target its weak spot [the back where engine exhaust is].

But in this they showed that if a party of Sherman's was travelling and a Tiger was hidden, it would take the first shot, kill one Sherman. Then the other 2 or 3 would speed up and try to flank it. While the Tigers slow turret attempted to turn it would probably get off one more kill-shot before the last Sherman got behind it and destroyed it.


In the end they say that a Sherman is no match for a Tiger but the reason the victory went to the sherman is because it was a financially feasible tank that was mass produced. So while on German Tiger took out 3 or Shermans before getting destroyed. 60 more Shermans would arrive from overseas.


Do keep in mind it is a British made show.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fighter4u
Member Avatar
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
VD FTW!

Yeah I not sur eif they named a winner either. But I pretty sure it was a tied. I also saw it a long time ago.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4