The †roll Cave ®™

[Cerberus]

Hey, what about the French?
They were the first to surrender.
The Italians were just incompetent.

[snejdarek]

Here is Charlie Hebdo office simulation with only 1 CC on site. So it is true that one concealed carrier is by far not enough.

Gun Owners Participate In Simulation Of Paris Massacre

FYI

OK, lets imagine Charlie Hebdo is in Prague or in Austin, TX. There are about 20 people inside. They get death threats daily and they were firebombed in 2011. In such situation, if I am very sceptic, I think there would be at least 6 people with their CC pistols. If I were optimistic, I’d say 12-15 with CC pistols (half of them trained enough to be very effective) and 2-4 SBRs relatively quickly accessible (I know I would have one near if I got daily death threats at the work address).

With the pesimistic number the worst case scenario would be probably about the same death toll between the newspapermen, but with the two perps being unable to get out on their own.

Now the second Paris case. If there was a SINGLE person with CC firearm, it would have ended quite fast. Just ANYONE shooting him while he is not looking their way. Four lives would have been saved.

[SirWarriant]

The only thing i thought was dumb about that simulation is why did the “terrorists” have tactical training. They should have given someone the roles who had no experience like the civilians.

Austin, TX.

Austin’s pretty liberal so i doubt many people there would be armed but im just nitpicking.

[TheDivineInfidel]

The only thing i thought was dumb about that simulation is why did the “terrorists” have tactical training. They should have given someone the roles who had no experience like the civilians.

that would have been unrealistic then . the two gunmen were trained by al queada . they were no push overs . al queada fighter do NOT spray and pray they are extremely well disciplined and trained.

[TheDivineInfidel]

Yeah so it would make sense to send about 1/4 of their military force and to keep the rest to protect the homeland.

never would that happen i can tell you that for a fact . they would send a division.

Supplying an army with food, fuel and medical supplies is much easier than it was back in world war 2. Its as simple as flying a plane across the Atlantic or sending a ship. I doubt Russia would try to control our shipping lanes because our navy is far more powerful and larger than theirs is.

yes you hold a point however i modern day soldier requires more kit and more expensive kit . so in WW2 a soldier only carried about half of what they would today if that .

I doubt Russia would try to control our shipping lanes because our navy is far more powerful and larger than theirs is.

correct . they could harass but thats about it .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:248, topic:21032”]
Support could also come from Europe as well remember we’ve done this before. Like i said Supplying is easier now and if we could supply over half a million men on both fronts in the 40s im pretty sure we could do it in the 21st century. In case you didn’t see me say this in my last post this is a defensive of Europe with the defensive line probably being Germany.
[/quote] this is where your living in a dream world no army in europe has the infrastructure to support so many extra troops . .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:248, topic:21032”]
The numbers i gave out are really not that ridiculous. The United States has proven many times that they can pretty much go from having no military to having an extremely powerful well equipped well supplied military.
[/quote] of course the numbers could be raised but today an army of that size is not needed even in this situation a million men would be plenty . however even if the number was need we simply dont have the logistics in place . a modern solider needs 40 logistics troops backing him up .
it is far better to have a small well equipped force than one large rumble of shit .
like you said yesterday about war game and how you send all these tanks only to see them destroyed by a anti tank unit . it works the same in real life in many ways . with todays tech numbers have become worthless . take Iraq for example on most occasions the coalition were hugely outnumbered but the kit we had was so far ahead . on most occasions a single british tank would have to fight 5+ enemy tanks . yet we never lost a single tank to enemy fire .
sheer numbers are irrelevant in modern warefare .
russia would gain air dominance over europe for the simple fact that they possess the most hight tech AA on the planet and todays jets cost so much there isnt a hope in hell the US air force would risk losing a squadron of f-22’s .
and this is why russia would win . i have experienced how the generals think . everything is down to the cost . who can afford to lose more kit . russia’s kit is fairly cheap yet can keep up with anything NATO threw at it . the up to date T-90’s could give any tank in NATO run for its money at half the cost .
to simplfly this . you’re thinking how to win a war where as the government thinks
"ok so you destroyed the russian position and destroyed about £500M worth of kit but we have lost about £20bn worth of kit ? " and thats how the world goes round .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:248, topic:21032”]
What reason would China have joining a war other than their alliance with Russia? Most of our big companies like Apple have their factory’s in China. They export 90% of their shit to us if they went to war with us they would fall so hard on their asses. Not to mention if they went to war with us Japan, Twain, and several other Asian country’s would attack China because they are allies with the U.S. It would be world war 3 and would be a valid reason for a draft. Im also sure Australia would be at war with China as well. So that would be a war on 2 fronts.
[/quote] china would back russia as its 1. their ally
2. it gives them an excuse to fuck japan up who couldnt do shit has they have no attacking force its a defence force . they harmless as with Australia really . china is the only one in that region maybe south korea who could conduct a proper all out war . Australia would require help . but ohh yea you have sent it all yo europe japan would fall in a weekend

[SirWarriant]

Well then the hope would be there would be more than one in the room. 6 of them as you stated armed could quite possibly stop the shooters.

the two gunmen were trained by al queada

I was not aware of that

never would that happen i can tell you that for a fact . they would send a division.

How could you possibly just know that?

yes you hold a point however i modern day soldier requires more kit and more expensive kit . so in WW2 a soldier only carried about half of what they would today if that .

Good thing we spend trillions on our military

correct . they could harass but thats about it .

We could likely cut off their shipping lanes with our superior navy.

this is where your living in a dream world no army in europe has the infrastructure to support so many extra troops . .

There are plenty of roads and highways yes? Americas highways were modled after Germanys and were also intended to act as a run way for planes and war and as a way for troops to get across country quickly. Im willing to bet there is quite a bit more roads then in Europe now then in 1944 and the allies had over a million troops over in Europe.

of course the numbers could be raised but today an army of that size is not needed even in this situation a million men would be plenty . however even if the number was need we simply dont have the logistics in place . a modern solider needs 40 logistics troops backing him up . it is far better to have a small well equipped force than one large rumble of shit .

Well then why were the numbers important earlier? You said Russia would easily outnumber the NATO forces currently in Europe then that 115,000 men could hold off against the million man force Russia would throw at them right? Not to mention the back up coming from North America.

with todays tech numbers have become worthless

Ok but thats contradicting what you said above.

russia would gain air dominance over europe for the simple fact that they possess the most hight tech AA on the planet and todays jets cost so much there isnt a hope in hell the US air force would risk losing a squadron of f-22’s .

You’re making it seem like if we lose one plane that the war is lost we have a huge amount of jets. The coalition would far outnumber Russia in the air hell the United States alone has far more planes then Russia. Their new anti air weapon would not be able to have firing range all over Europe like you’re making it seem. Its a hand held weapon so its not a super weapon that would guarantee a Russian victory.

the up to date T-90’s could give any tank in NATO run for its money at half the cost .

The Abrams is both faster and has better armor than the T-90 and there are 8,000 Abrams compared to 2,000 T-90s. I dont agree that numbers are irrelevant when the technology is equal (bit better in NATOS case). Ill give you a scenario there are 2 tanks fighting 1 tank. The 2 tanks are faster and have better armor, who do you think is going to win? Numbers may be irrelevant if your technology is far ahead of your enemies but this would be modern countries fighting. You are right about the cost. Abrams cost around 6 million and T-90s cost about 2 million. But we already have an excess amount of Abrams.

china would back russia as its 1. their ally 2. it gives them an excuse to fuck japan up who couldnt do shit has they have no attacking force its a defence force . they harmless as with Australia really . china is the only one in that region maybe south korea who could conduct a proper all out war . Australia would require help . but ohh yea you have sent it all yo europe japan would fall in a weekend

Pretty much all of Asia would jump at the chance to attack China. literally all China has is a shit ton of men which you just explained are irrelevant. This would be world war 3 a war in Asia and Europe so that would be a matter of survival so that would probably mean a draft I also might add how is China geting to Japan? With their 1 air craft carrier from the 50s that is used for show or their 500 jets Also China going to war with us ruins their economy and they can no longer pay for any new military equipment because no else buys their cheap shit but us.

.

[TheDivineInfidel]

How could you possibly just know that?

because thats all they could spare . canada is a big country with a small army . conserding they only sent 700 to afgan i highly doubt they are going to send 30,000 troops out of 60,000 regulars the reserves are irrelevant to be honest. canada isnt going to call up its reserves unless they were being invaded .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:254, topic:21032”]
Good thing we spend trillions on our military
[/quote] you dont get the point

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:254, topic:21032”]
We could likely cut off their shipping lanes with our superior navy.
[/quote] shipping lanes ? why would russia need shipping lanes there connected by land to europe ?

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:254, topic:21032”]
There are plenty of roads and highways yes? Americas highways were modled after Germanys and were also intended to act as a run way for planes and war and as a way for troops to get across country quickly. Im willing to bet there is quite a bit more roads then in Europe now then in 1944 and the allies had over a million troops over in Europe.
[/quote] you have missed my point again im not talking about roads im talking about where are you going to house them and there kit . set up fuel dumps etc . all of this yes could be put in place but not over night it would take months in that time russia could steam role past germany

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:254, topic:21032”]
Well then why were the numbers important earlier? You said Russia would easily outnumber the NATO forces currently in Europe then that 115,000 men could hold off against the million man force Russia would throw at them right? Not to mention the back up coming from North America.
[/quote] no i dont mean completly irrelevent . i mean its better to have an army of 1 million well equipped and trainned troops than to have 4 million with expensive kit , little training , no experience that = a lot of kit lost = lot of money lost = war lost

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:254, topic:21032”]
You’re making it seem like if we lose one plane that the war is lost we have a huge amount of jets. The coalition would far outnumber Russia in the air hell the United States alone has far more planes then Russia. Their new anti air weapon would not be able to have firing range all over Europe like you’re making it seem. Its a hand held weapon so its not a super weapon that would guarantee a Russian victory.
[/quote] no see your coming at this from the way the governments should but thats not how a western force is run . a western force is like a bussiness . if you spend £20bn taking a position that is being defended by £100M worth of kit and you destroy half there force and they pull back so say £50M worth of kit but doing this you have lost £1bn worth of kit the politicians see this as a defeat and will turn round and decide to go for peaceful methods . a squadron of f-22’s is a shit ton of money so when you lose them it hurts to replace . but when russia loses a jet worth 10% of the worth of the f-22 it doesnt hurt so much to replace .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:254, topic:21032”]
he Abrams is both faster and has better armor than the T-90 and there are 8,000 Abrams compared to 2,000 T-90s. I dont agree that numbers are irrelevant when the technology is equal (bit better in NATOS case). Ill give you a scenario there are 2 tanks fighting 1 tank. The 2 tanks are faster and have better armor, who do you think is going to win? Numbers may be irrelevant if your technology is far ahead of your enemies but this would be modern countries fighting. You are right about the cost. Abrams cost around 6 million and T-90s cost about 2 million. But we already have an excess amount of Abrams.
[/quote] depends on where the tanks are positioned a T-90AM could beat an abrams hands down in the right hands . you are most likely looking at an old variant of the T-90 . the newer ones are cheap and deadly , meaning they can be replaced easer than the abrams .

Pretty much all of Asia would jump at the chance to attack China. literally all China has is a shit ton of men which you just explained are irrelevant. This would be world war 3 a war in Asia and Europe so that would be a matter of survival so that would probably mean a draft I also might add how is China geting to Japan? With their 1 air craft carrier from the 50s that is used for show or their 500 jets Also China going to war with us ruins their economy and they can no longer pay for any new military equipment because no else buys their cheap shit but us.

.

why would they need an aircraft carrier ? there jets can reach from their main airbases . actually going to war with china would ruin YOUR economy or have you forget about all the debt you owe them and the fact that if they stopped trading with you , you would lose like your entire manufactures supply . they have the world by the balls .

there isnt a single nation in asia that could take on china

plus what are you going to fight them with ? you have sent your entire force to europe remember

[TheDivineInfidel]

Their new anti air weapon would not be able to have firing range all over Europe like you’re making it seem. Its a hand held weapon so its not a super weapon that would guarantee a Russian victory.

hand held ? what you talking about . the russian S-400 has a range of 400+km and the new s-500 will have a range of 600+km . these would move with the main force to ensure a dome of air defence over the force at all times , Russia would not move ground troops out of the dome meaning your jets to attack would have to enter and risk being shot down . something the politicians wouldnt allow

[SirWarriant]

because thats all they could spare . canada is a big country with a small army . conserding they only sent 700 to afgan i highly doubt they are going to send 30,000 troops out of 60,000 regulars the reserves are irrelevant to be honest. canada isnt going to call up its reserves unless they were being invaded .

This is a much bigger war than afgan and would threaten Canada.

shipping lanes ? why would russia need shipping lanes there connected by land to europe ?

War breaks out and Europe stops all trade with Russia meaning they would probably get supplies from China. Cut them off from China and they would get hungry. Russia doesn’t have many farms the vast majority of Russia is un farm able land. Meanwhile the U.S has literally shit tons of Farms and is the number 1 suppler of food. Russian army goes hungry Coalition army does not.

you have missed my point again im not talking about roads im talking about where are you going to house them and there kit . set up fuel dumps etc . all of this yes could be put in place but not over night it would take months in that time russia could steam role past germany

Where is the Russian army going to house them? Or after every attack are they just going back to Russia? The russian border is quite far from Germany not as far as the U.S but still far. The 115,000 troops already in Europe have the housing and “kit” taken care of. The kits of the active troops being sent to Europe are also already provide for them.

no i dont mean completly irrelevent . i mean its better to have an army of 1 million well equipped and trainned troops than to have 4 million with expensive kit , little training , no experience that = a lot of kit lost = lot of money lost = war lost

The active ones in Europe and the United State are already trained.

a squadron of f-22’s is a shit ton of money so when you lose them it hurts to replace . but when russia loses a jet worth 10% of the worth of the f-22 it doesnt hurt so much to replace .

As i already said we have too many jets as of right now.

depends on where the tanks are positioned a T-90AM could beat an abrams hands down in the right hands . you are most likely looking at an old variant of the T-90 . the newer ones are cheap and deadly , meaning they can be replaced easer than the abrams .

No im looking at the one being used by the Russia army right now. Im not talking about the one coming in 2016 because the war is happening now with the equipment the countries not the ones they might have in 2016.

why would they need an aircraft carrier ? there jets can reach from their main airbases . actually going to war with china would ruin YOUR economy or have you forget about all the debt you owe them and the fact that if they stopped trading with you , you would lose like your entire manufactures supply . they have the world by the balls .

Japan has AA im sure and we have a size able force stationed there right now. China has only around 500 jets at is disposal right now so they probably wouldn’t risk them. The other things you listed above are the exact reason China would not go to war with us. It would hurt them more than it would hurt us. We buy way more from them then they buy from us.

plus what are you going to fight them with ? you have sent your entire force to europe remember

I didn’t take all of them to Europe There are still around 300,000 active left at the United States and 800,000 thousand in reserve.

there isnt a single nation in asia that could take on china

China is the most over rated countries when it comes to military power. The ONLY thing they have is man power. Their invasion of Vietnam failed miserably for them even though they sent tons of men.

[TheDivineInfidel]

War breaks out and Europe stops all trade with Russia meaning they would probably get supplies from China. Cut them off from China and they would get hungry. Russia doesn’t have many farms the vast majority of Russia is un farm able land. Meanwhile the U.S has literally shit tons of Farms and is the number 1 suppler of food. Russian army goes hungry Coalition army does not.

i dont mean to insult you but have you ever seen a map of the world ? china borders russia , how to you propose cutting them off ?

Where is the Russian army going to house them? Or after every attack are they just going back to Russia? The russian border is quite far from Germany not as far as the U.S but still far. The 115,000 troops already in Europe have the housing and “kit” taken care of. The kits of the active troops being sent to Europe are also already provide for them.

russia has the luxury of being able to rotate troops back to russia to rearm . and recoup .
they wouldnt deploy the entire force into combat at once so as an advancing force they would be able to use makeshift camps as they went and have a steady stream of kit coming by land . they would be able to replace the kit much faster than the US ,

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:257, topic:21032”]
The active ones in Europe and the United State are already trained.
[/quote] im talking about the extra 3-8 million you mentioned earlier

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:257, topic:21032”]
No im looking at the one being used by the Russia army right now. Im not talking about the one coming in 2016 because the war is happening now with the equipment the countries not the ones they might have in 2016.
[/quote] so am i the T-90AM is the main one in use now . the Armata tank coming in 2016 shits all over the abrams .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:257, topic:21032”]
Japan has AA im sure and we have a size able force stationed there right now. China has only around 500 jets at is disposal right now so they probably wouldn’t risk them. The other things you listed above are the exact reason China would not go to war with us. It would hurt them more than it would hurt us. We buy way more from them then they buy from us.
[/quote] japans force is tiny and irrelevant it relies on us support that you wouldnt be able to give at the needed scale .
to even try and say japan could hold china is shocking in its self . im afraid you have your american hat on . take it off and look at this sensibly .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:257, topic:21032”]
I didn’t take all of them to Europe There are still around 300,000 active left at the United States and 800,000 thousand in reserve.
[/quote] what and leave the US open to invasion ? dont think so you would keep at least 500,000 active personnel in the US .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:257, topic:21032”]
China is the most over rated countries when it comes to military power. The ONLY thing they have is man power. Their invasion of Vietnam failed miserably for them even though they sent tons of men.
[/quote] you have the american hat on again . there force like russias has modernised HUGELY over the last 5 years there troops would have no issue going toe to toe with NATO’s

[SirWarriant]

i dont mean to insult you but have you ever seen a map of the world ? china borders russia ? how to you prose cutting them off ?

It borders the cold as siberian part. It would be pretty damn hard getting suplies through that. Russia’s AA guns would be busy defending the European front so our jets could make easy meat of the supply planes(good luck getting supply trucks through siberia). Our jets of course could come from a few of our 11 super carriers which we could park off Russia’s eastern coast.

russia has the luxury of being able to rotate troops back to russia to rearm . and recoup . they wouldnt deploy the entire force into combat at once so as an advancing force they would be able to use makeshift camps as they went and have a steady stream of kit coming by land . they would be able to replace the kit much faster than the US ,

But surely all the other European countries fighting in the coalition would help supply the army in between us Supply drops.

im talking about the extra 3-8 million you mentioned earlier

That would be the numbers if there was a draft. We have a huge surplus of military equipment

japans force is tiny and irrelevant it relies on us support that you wouldnt be able to give at the needed scale . to even try and say japan could hold china is shocking in its self . im afraid you have your american hat on . take it off and look at this sensibly .

We have troops stationed there and China would never be able to land troops in Japan. There air force is tiny and their navy is pretty much nonexistent. Their only hope would be to bomb japan but we already have aircraft in that area with one of our fleets stationed near Korea.

what and leave the US open to invasion ? dont think so you would keep at least 500,000 active personnel in the US .

Invade the U.S lelz thats a good one. Who’s going to invade us if you dont mind me asking? Russia is busy fighting the coalition force in Europe and China is bottled up in their country with no real way of getting the massive invasion force all the way across the Pacific past our navy and air force then all of our costal defenses The 800,000 reserve and the national guard. Oh and an armed population of 320 million people. Good luck even trying to get near the U.S with an invasion force.

you have the american hat on again . there force like russias has modernised HUGELY over the last 5 years there troops would have no issue going toe to toe with NATO’s

Yes i know they have but China still could not fight the U.S in open war. They have an air force of around 500 fighters compared to our 8,000 and they have pretty much no navy compared to our massive powerful one. They have a shit ton of men but no real way to get them anywhere. There jets (which they stole the plans from us) are good but they have to few. There tanks are considered better than the Abrams but the have very very little of them.

[TheDivineInfidel]

It borders the cold as siberian part. It would be pretty damn hard getting suplies through that. Russia’s AA guns would be busy defending the European front so our jets could make easy meat of the supply planes(good luck getting supply trucks through siberia). Our jets of course could come from a few of our 11 super carriers which we could park off Russia’s eastern coast.

by rail and air . putting your carriers on their eastern flank would be the worst possible idea because now you would be in range of both russia and china’s long range AA . and anti ship missiles . you wouldnt commit all 11 aircraft carriers you would commit maybe 4 at tops .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:259, topic:21032”]
But surely all the other European countries fighting in the coalition would help supply the army in between us Supply drops.
[/quote] we would supply our own forces not yours our weapons use different rounds to yours .
thats always a classic with the british .50 CAL’s
we would get sent US rounds which just jam every single time in british weapons for whatever reason . so suddenly it dawns on yiur that out of the 10,000 rounds you have only 1000 will work haha
so no we couldnt help supply your troops because we would be struggling to supply our own . WW2 we could have done it as we did today no army in europe could support an army of such size .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:259, topic:21032”]
We have troops stationed there and China would never be able to land troops in Japan. There air force is tiny and their navy is pretty much nonexistent. Their only hope would be to bomb japan but we already have aircraft in that area with one of our fleets stationed near Korea
[/quote] of course they could . they wouldnt need navel dominace because there anti-ship and anti-air missles reach japan so all they would need is a defensive parameter and a solid flow of transport ships , cruise ships anything to get the troops across plus the air , which they would control . china actually has 1100 fighters but they could turn out thousands in a matter of hours with there production .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:259, topic:21032”]
Invade the U.S lelz thats a good one. Who’s going to invade us if you dont mind me asking? Russia is busy fighting the coalition force in Europe and China is bottled up in their country with no real way of getting the massive invasion force all the way across the Pacific past our navy and air force then all of our costal defenses The 800,000 reserve and the national guard. Oh and an armed population of 320 million people. Good luck even trying to get near the U.S with an invasion force.
[/quote]as unlikely as it seems it has to be prepared for the US would leave at 500,000 active troops back simples .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:259, topic:21032”]
Yes i know they have but China still could not fight the U.S in open war. They have an air force of around 500 fighters compared to our 8,000 and they have pretty much no navy compared to our massive powerful one. They have a shit ton of men but no real way to get them anywhere. There jets (which they stole the plans from us) are good but they have to few. There tanks are considered better than the Abrams but the have very very little of them.
[/quote] of course they could depneding on location a land battle they could give you a hard time they have beat NATO before in the korean war they pushed the entire UN force back from the Chinese border back to seoul and the US troops actually were one of the worse at holding them . i can stand tall with the fact that they struggled pushing the british back

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:259, topic:21032”]
There jets (which they stole the plans from us) are good but they have to few. There tanks are considered better than the Abrams but the have very very little of them.
[/quote] where are you reading this bullshit from ? china have the largest tank force on the planet , the air force is nothing like the US air force its more like the russian in design

[TheDivineInfidel]

you have to travel thousands of miles to fight , russia and china do not that puts you at a huge disadvantage

[TheDivineInfidel]

to conclude this all lets agree that neither side could out right win so it would be hundreds of thousands dead and nothing gained for either side

[McWonderBeast]

I’m a potato.

[TheDivineInfidel]

[TheDivineInfidel]

im not saying putin is humiliating president obama , but the last time a Russian treated an African american this way , Apollo creed died …

[TheDivineInfidel]

[TheDivineInfidel]

[1kagetora]

I drew it vertically.