Key word here–JUNGLE.
1 Like
I never suggested they would, but if the hidden sniper decided to fire, he could easily take a few out before they even knew they were getting shot at.
now lets not start playing stupid here …you will know the most here how untrue your point there is .
we both know the entire of alaska is not flat and open …
and there would be no need for an OP in a flat and open area with nothing in it .
but even in your image i can assure you a concealed OP could be set up which would not be spotted . it would be done at a further distance , set up at night and dug into the floor slightly , the soldiers would lay into it and cover themselves with the earth to blend with the surrounding area , they would observe through scopes and record activity , then slip away during the night .
it would not be spotted for a very simple reason …you would not be looking for it . you would never know they were watching until you were attacked .
as i said if you all got into a line and went across the area inch by inch , you would find them . but you wouldnt because you would have no suspicion you are being watched
yes …he could in theory .
in terms of at a harbour position , i doubt it , a good harbour position would be in an area where it could not be shot at from long range and you wouldnt spot in from a long distance .
in terms of when they were moving again yes in theory but in reality the idea you as a marksmen can drop 3 or 4 or however men in quick succession is bollocks .
you could if it was completely flat terrain absolutely zero cover but if that was the case the patrol simply wouldnt be there . as its basic infantry training …you dont walk across flat open land EVER .
in reality the moment you shoot one the rest will jump into cover before you have a chance to line up your next shot , when your shot at you can normally work out a general direction it come from and from the wound on your buddy .
a firefight is never about who is the best shot . its like a street fight , you could be the best kung fu kid in your area , state champion . get into a street fight and get your arse kicked because the dynamics surrounding the fight have completely changed .
people that compare combat to shooting deer are fools . being a good hunter gives you a good foundation to be a good soldier but you still need that training .
a modern firefight is won by whoever can put down the most sustained amount of fire-power . which is why the taliban are actually very good .
they will put some serious fire down on you and keep your head down and constantly they will move . keeping you guessing . then its down to the ISAF troops to work well and work out where they are and start rattling rounds in there direction so you keep their heads down and you can out manoeuvre them .
the idea you can pop up at 500 yards and BOOM HEADSHOT . is a childish image of war . its nothing like hunting your entire mentality is different , the entire situation is different . being a good shot is maybe at a push 10% of being a good soldier
See that dip in the land between the tree-filled terrain and the mountain in the far distance in the photo you posted? Know what is down there? The ocean. That is because the temporal rain forest you pictured only takes place around the southern coast. I didn’t even mention the northern third of Alaska, which looks like this:
The lower two thirds of Alaska is almost entirely tundra:
Now if I remember my history correctly (and as I am an historian by trade, I should) you Brits had a rather hard time with those American hillbillies back between 1775 and 1783, when a bunch of hillbillies forced a surrender from the most powerful military in the world at the time. I think I also remember a bunch of American hillbillies who were responsible for pulling your fat from the fire when Old Uncle Adolf had you bent over and was doing a very good job of buggering your bum.
I am the last one who would berate Special Forces, but they are just human beings, and they are not perfect. And with the very high ratio of ex-military living in Alaska, there are probably as many people there who have had SF training as there would be coming in from outside. An Alaskan invasion would be bloody all around.
we had already won the battle of britain before you arrived we was under no threat what so ever from a german invasion after this event hitler had turned his attention to russia .
you should know this
from both photos you posted OP’s could be established and concealed , but as we can both see in both pictures there is no need for one in any of them areas .
an invasion would be bloody yes i dont doubt it but make no mistake it could be done .
the invasion would likely begin with a special forces staking out the area it would involve very very little fighting if any and they would not be spotted im confident of that .
the main invasion force would im sure have a hard time with the locals but without the confines of such …western rules of engagement would likely overcome any resistance but of course at a price
as a historian i would of thought you would know better than too suggest the US had in anyway saved the UK from a german victory . the US complemented the effort immensely and played a large role in a JOINT allied victory achieved by the sacrifice of the people of every allied nation .
i would of expected a man of your trade and age to be mature enough to know this and to respect this but nope it seems you also contain the american bug of thinking you saved the world .
So I suppose you believe had the U.S. never entered the war, then Britain would have just won the day without us, eh? Honestly, had the U.S. never entered the war, it was probably more likely that you would be speaking Russian today than German, but that would be little consolation I fear.
Wow, another post before I could even reply. I must have touched a nerve! Well, this is called the troll cave, so what do you expect? LOL
had the US never got involved Hitler would have lost still no doubt it would have went on for much longer and at a greater cost for the UK and her allies .
i doubt it . but i wont get into another argument about what if’s there is zero point .
but i would question the entire course of history and relations after the war .
the US and the soviet union both power hungry nations at the time , came head to head , confrontation was inevitable.
what period of history do you cover by trade ?
Actually, my areas of specialty are rather diverse, maybe even odd. The Byzantine Empire, and Native American History. I have been intrigued by (pun intended!) the Byzantine Empire for a long time, but only in the last several years did I become very interested in Native American history, spurred mostly by my confirmation (by DNA) of an old family story that I am part Cherokee. My family has lived for many generations in the mountains of north Georgia, (so yes, I am a real hillbilly) so the geography always made it possible.
Yes, the time after the war was filled with many mistakes, not the least of which was Eisenhower allowing himself to be scared by the “threat of communism” into supporting Churchill’s desire to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953, leading to all the problems we have in the middle east today. (U.S. Operation APAjax, lead by Kermit Roosevelt, and British Operation Boot)
Edit–I often tell people that it was actually the U.S. and Britain that created the regime of the Ayatollahs in Iran, and it is amazing how many people bury their heads in the sand and won’t believe a word of it. Sad.
i would disagree with it being the route cause . the route cause is down to islam and the shia’s and sunnis desire to murder eachother . the west has made it worse yes but the issues were always there . you could nit pick at different events through out history in terms of the UK there is a list as long as your arm of the fuck up’s and the wars we have indirectly or directly caused but it was hardly paradise before we got involved .
i think the issue is us in the west thinking we have the answer that democracy is best . In reality we dont have a clue .
Okay, I am going to flesh out my reasoning with a few words as possible.
- The Anglo-American oil company, which later became BP, was pumping oil from Iran. Iran did not have the knowledge to do it themselves, so Britain supplied the equipment and expertise.
- The exact same thing was happening in Saudi Arabia, but it was the Americans pumping the oil.
- The Americans were sharing profits with the Saudis at a 50/50 rate, but Britain was only giving the Iranians 5% of the profits.
- Iranians wanted the same deal the Americans were giving, and when Britain refused, Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh threatened to nationalize the oil fields.
- Mossadegh visited America and met with President Harry Truman, who did pledge some aide, but refused requests for military equipment.
- Churchill approaches Truman to see if the U.S. would support military action by Britain against Iran. Truman flatly refused. (1952, Truman’s last year in office)
- Churchill approached Truman to see if the U.S. would support a plan to overthrow the government of Iran. Again, Truman gave an emphatic “No!”
- 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower becomes President of the U.S. Churchill approaches Eisenhower about Iran, and claims if something is not done, the communists will take power in Iran. Nothing could have been farther from the truth.
- Eisenhower buys it, and assigns Kermit Roosevelt, son of former President Teddy Roosevelt to oversee the U.S. part of the plan.
- Roosevelt and his American and British cohorts managed to initiate a coup which ended with Shah Razi Pahlavi becoming the tyrant king of Iran. He gave away Iran’s resources, kept the population in abject poverty, and ruled brutally for 26 years, until the Islamic revolution of 1979.
On the government of Iran:
Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was a democratically-elected leader of Iran. Iran had also formed a Parliament, much along the lines of the British system (with some differences). The people were strongly behing Mossadegh and the Mullahs had very little power in Iran. The Mullahs even went so far as to support Mossadegh–they didn’t really want to, but saw him as the lesser of evils. Iran was well on its way to becoming a democracy.
When the coup took place, Mossadegh was arrested and imprisoned until his death three years later. Shah Pahlavi made himself rich by giving away the resources of Iran to the west, and keeping his own people in poverty. After 26 years of this, the people were ready to listen to anyone who claimed to be able to change this situation. As Mossadegh and any others who supported secular democracy had already been eradicated, the Mullahs were the only ones left for Iranian people to turn to.
There is no doubt that America and Britain are the fathers of the Regime of the Ayatollahs in Iran since 1979 until today. Iran believed in the U.S.–even idolized the U.S.–as a fair and just nation (50/50 profits) so it stung the Iranian people all the more when it was the U.S. who stabbed them in the back.
Then there is the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88, but I won’t get into all of that right now!
1 Like
I love that show, it and finding Bigfoot never fail to bring a smile to my face. 
There would have been no victory for the U.K without the 31 billion dollars worth of support we gave you, not to mention the man power. The idea that they would have been able to invade mainland Europe without the U.S is laughable. Russia probably still would have won, but the U.K would be an occupied nation either way. But many people also forget the Japan factor, since the U.S destroyed Japans air force and naval force, without a U.S intervention it could have very well tipped the balance in the axis favor.
Of course you can’t say for sure, but it’s almost certain the U.K would not have won. The Battle of Britain was a very narrow victory considering how few planes you had in reserve. I’m not claiming the U.S saved the world, but they did pull the U.K out of fire. I’m sorry if that insults your pride but it’s true, i don’t get why so many Brits can’t accept that they needed help, and continue with the delusion that they would have been able to win without U.S support.
We both needed each other to win that war, the U.S would not have been able to invade Europe without the U.K, and the U.K wouldn’t have been able to continue the war without U.S supplies let along invade Europe. If you took any of the “big three” out of that war it could have resulted in a German victory.
Even if they weren’t under the threat of invasion, they were under threat of being bombed/ starved out. Granted that ended when they won the battle of Britain, but they were only able to do so because of being kept afloat by U.S supplies, and German over confidence.
1 Like
Well, I did specify “all of the problems WE have in the middle east.” Sunni/Shia infighting did not have to include the U.S. I believe in outing the truth, no matter how unpopular that truth may be. And the real truth is that the U.S.'s problems in the middle east actually started in 1948, when in a glaring but rare moment of weakness, President Harry Truman caved to the political pressures from the Jewish community and went against his better judgement to support the forming of a Jewish state in the middle of the Arab world. That guaranteed problems for the U.S. Then following this up with the interference and overthrow of the government of Iran, in less than a decade, the U.S. made decisions that would cause at least a century of turmoil and bad feelings. All of these things are documented facts, including the pressure necessary to get Truman to change his mind. Truman himself speaks of it, and roughly paraphrased, he said he had never, in all his time in politics, known the kind of unrelenting pressure placed upon him by the Jewish community–and in the end, he caved.
Then there was the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, where an aggressive Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in an effort to take over land along their border. Amazingly, Ronald Reagan supported the attacker, Iraq, against a peaceful Iran who was simply defending their territory, just like any other nation would do.
Reagan removed Iraq from the “sponsors of state terrorism” list so the U.S. could legally sell weapons to Iraq, while keeping an embargo on Iran–meaning that Iran could not get spare parts for any of their American-built air force that they had purchased from America, and could only buy second-rate equipment from China.
We (the U.S.) and Germany both sold chemicals to Iraq that were used for making nerve gas, even though it was strictly banned by International law. The nerve gas was used by Iraq (against both military and civilian targets, even in cities) to kill 40,000 Iranians, and to permanently disable 50,000 more. Not only that, but we also supplied Saddam with satellite intelligence to give him a leg up on troop movements. Then there is the fact that we sank half of Iran’s Navy, even though we were not combatants in the conflict, and allowed Iraq to fly the U.S. flag on their oil tankers so Iran dared not continue sinking them–even though they were not bound for U.S. ports (The U.S. only got 4% of our oil from Iraq).
When you look at the entire picture, it becomes quite clear how the U.S. earned our nickname of “The Great Satan” in the middle east. It seems absolutely ridiculous to believe that any people would still be friendly to us, given all we have done.
Some people try to use the taking of hostages by Iran in 1979 as some kind of justification for actions, but the biggest actions took place long before that, and that embassy attack was not done by the government of Iran, but was accomplished by a bunch of college students who saw Shah Pahlavi being sent to the U.S., where they feared he would be given asylum and escape justice for his decades of crime. The hostages were released unharmed.
Given that Iran was moving toward a secular democratic government with Mossadegh as Prime Minister, a full Parliament, and a Shah as more of a figure head of government, the system they were putting in place was actually modeled after the British system of government. Had the U.S. supported Mossadegh, the middle east could have been a very different place today!
1 Like
i dont doubt for a second the support you gave us playing a large part in us achieving victory here in terms of financial aid . i dont doubt for a second the US contribution to the war effort .
this is not laughable what so ever . it would have took us much longer to construct a force able to do it but we could of had we committed more commonwealth troops to Europe and called up more troops from the empire as a whole .
but it would have took a lot longer to do .
the US were able to provide a huge amount of FRESH troops very quickly far quicker than we would have been able to mobilise . the russians would have steamed rolled still and an allied victory would have ensured still im sure . As for the assumption starlin would have went for us after i would argue against that . i would argue against the entire course of history afterwards .
but sticking to WW2 .
irrelevant of how many reserve planes we had , we could have built more which we did anyway afterwards . we won . hitler accepted defeat and turned away he had no intention of invading us after that point (at least until he had beat the USSR ) .
its not about us accepting we needed help of course we did hence why we asked for it .
its the american attitude that the US won the war and the world owes you something . its another factor in why so many think Americans are ignorant c**ts . the "we saved your ass in WW2 " … no you contributed in WW2 and played a vital part in a joint victory
i would disagree with this somewhat .
if you took the US out germany would have still lost
took the UK out germany would have still lost
but if you took the USSR out im not sure the US and UK could have coped with the full strength of the German military as i dont think the russians would have either
every side i think was fundamental to victory in the time scale it was done in , but i think you could play around with it and still get victory in a longer period .
How exactly would the U.K supply these troops, when they were so dependent on U.S supplies? Giving Germany more time would simple make it even harder to dig them out, the Atlantic wall was only around 15% complete when the allies invaded Normandy. Giving Germany more time would equal more planes, more tanks ect.
You’re not thinking about this realistically, there is no way in hell Britain could have invaded France without the U.S. Also please remember Germany had already beaten the Brits in France.
No it is not, had the U.K lost many more planes Germany would have had air superiority over the U.K, which would have been game over for them. Germany would have just bombed the living shit out of the U.K, sending massive bombing raids day and night, it would have looked similar to what the U.S did to Japan.
The brits already had few enough planes to begin with, and without U.S supplies they would have had even less.
Well considering the U.S dropped everything and sent 400,000 young men to die in Europe, even though the Nazis were zero threat to them i would say the attitude that Europe owes the U.S isn’t unwarranted. The U.S was attacked by Japan, and they could have easily just gone to war with them, but they decided to help liberate Europe, and go after Germany first, which costed the U.S far more money and men. And let’s also not forget the Marshall plan and the billions of dollars in aid the U.S gave to Europe.
So yes the U.S did make your issues their issues, weather you like it or not. I really don’t see how you can argue that Europe doesn’t owe the U.S. When has Europe repaid the debt, when was the last time hundreds of thousands of Europeans died on American soil for our freedoms?
I said could have, the main reason Germany lost was that they were fighting a war on multiple fronts. There was simply no way invasion of France would have worked without the U.S and the commonwealth both working together. I’m sure the U.K still could have forced Germany out of North Africa, but invading Europe is another matter entirely. It was a monumental task, that one nation alone was not capable of doing.
