If you were soldier in a war, which nationals would you like to fight alonside you?

[Alexander's Horse]

No Australians in the poll? You want to lose or something?

On the tense Eve of D Day Field Marshal Montgomery said, "I wish I had the Australians."

Ah well

I'd go for the Yanks - we like fighting beside them, go to all their wars

Brits would be a close second. Best infantry in the world.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
On the tense Eve of D Day Field Marshal Montgomery said, "I wish I had the Australians."

British generals are famed for fighting to the last Australian.

I'd go for the Yanks - we like fighting beside them, go to all their wars

I hope we put on a good show for you.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


British generals are famed for fighting to the last Australian.

Sadly that is true - in World War 1 we had the highest casualty rate of any combatant country.

Our casualty rate was 65% because the Brits used our infantry as shock troops

There were 210,000 casualties out of 330,000 troops sent to Europe, most on the Western front. The entire Australian population at the time was under 5 million.

[Andemagne]

americans.
'cos
"superior training and superior weaponry have, when taken together, geomethrical effect on over all military strenght. well trained and well equiped troops can stand up to many more times of their lesser brethen than linear arithmetic seem to indicate"
Colonel Corazon Santiago - Spartan Battle Manual



dunno really

[VetLegion]

I remember that from colonel santiago

she forgot one thing, morale.

superior training and equipement can be more then equaled by superior determination and knowledge of the enviroment

AH, and you still have the queen as, well, queen.

(sorry about kiwis, I really thought it meant aussies and new zaleanders together)

[Anodyne]

Hey, you cucumber-boys:

Gurkhas are NEPALESE!

[markusf]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Sadly that is true - in World War 1 we had the highest casualty rate of any combatant country.

Our casualty rate was 65% because the Brits used our infantry as shock troops

There were 210,000 casualties out of 330,000 troops sent to Europe, most on the Western front. The entire Australian population at the time was under 5 million.

Same with canada as well, all the troops from the colonies where just cannon fodder so british soldiers wouldn't have to die. Something to be pround of

[markusf]

If you look at the USA stats you will notice they killed more of their own people and allies then the enemy did In Iraq and in afganistan

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by markusf


Same with canada as well, all the troops from the colonies where just cannon fodder so british soldiers wouldn't have to die. Something to be pround of

Reminds me of a picute that I have lying around on my hard drive...



(It's an edited version of a famous WW2 propaganda poster which said "Let's go Canada!")

[VetLegion]

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by VetLegion

(sorry about kiwis, I really thought it meant aussies and new zaleanders together)

Right - that's like lumping the Germans in with Austria and calling it Austria

[Sava]

Can I choose who I'd like to fight against?

[Pekka]

Americans would be the best for us i think, then maybe brits etc... but i'd be personally most comfortable with germans. I mean our army with theirs. There in the same level with thinking and when it comes to fighting imo.

edit: The right word would be compability.

[VetLegion]

Right - that's like lumping the Germans in with Austria and calling it Austria

sheep ****gers look same to me

besides do you know difference between slovenia and slovakia for example? nobody knows it all

pekka you stabbed them in the back once, no way any german would think you can be compatible again

[TCO]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Right - that's like lumping the Germans in with Austria and calling it Austria

West Islander...