Noone just throws half of it's inventory at you for only 1/4 of its price.
Yes, vastly superior technology. Everyone understands that about the Persian Wars. Unit for unit, a greek phalanx was superior to any Persian unit - and your claim that only the Spartans had 'considerably better training' is utterly laughable. Every hoplite, to a man, could be said to have considerably better training, since the phalanx formation demanded it."Vastly superior technology"? We're compairing people who where using spears and bows and arrows. Yes, the Greeks had moderatly superior technology. Only the Spartans had considerably better training, and they where still vastly outnumbered by the Persians. The Persians where also battle hardened and experience, and war is a soldier's best training. But seriously, when you say vastly superior technology, it sounds like you're comparing the British to the Zulu, and speaking of which...
Yes, a skirmish. Not a war. Learn the difference between tactics and strategy.A tactical skirmish? It was 139 soldiers, about half of them wounded, fighting off an attacking force of 4,000 Zulu - about a 28:1 force ratio in favor of the Zulu. The British won because they employed excellent teactics.
So what? Again, you're waxing poetic about battles, not wars.This , however, was immediatly following the defeat of Chelmsford's center invading column. The initial British defeat in the Zulu war was so decisive that British forces had to withdraw from Zululand and restage the invasion. Why where the British initially defeated, despite having vastly superior technology? It was because of extremely poor decisions made at the tactical and operational level by the British.
LOL. Really? So being surrounded on two seperate flanks is a 'huge defensive advantage'? Can you point to any natural defensive positions that the Russians would have trouble overcoming? Substantiate your claims, please.Saying that war is mearly a game of numbers is crazy talk. No force, no matter how overwhelming, can achieve victory without sound strategy. Georgia, geographically speaking, has a huge defensive advantage.
Are you on some sort of narcotic? So let's get this straight, the Georgians are going to blitzkrieg through South Ossetia and Abkhazia - simultaneously - mind you - so that the Russians will have no choice but to mount an amphibious or airborne assault? ROFLMAO. And apparently the Russians are not going to notice the preparations for an offensive like this, and of course, Georgia's massive air superiority will ensure that the VVS doesn't pound said offensive to dust - never mind whilst the strategics pepper Georgia with cruise missiles and destroy its infrastructure.They still have numerical superiority over the Russians in the immediate Georgian region. If they successfully drove the Russians out in an initital offensive, then they could fortify their perimeter along the coast and mountains. This would force the Russians to mount either an amphibious or airborne operation against Georgia in order to drive the Georgians out. Either campaigns would involve a high amount of risk and most likely result in a high number of casualties. The casualty count might be too high for the Russian public to tolerate, and could perhaps mount calls to find a political solution to end the war. The Georgians could achieve the initial push required by utilizing suprize and mass. They don't have the necessary equipment to do it now, but if they continue to procure equipment from the Ukraine and other sources, and continue building up an all-volunteer, professional military, they could have the capability for such an operation in 5-10 years. I doubt, however, that Georgia either has the political will or economical capacity to ever prepare their military for such an operaion.
That's similarly laughable, given the parlous state of North Korea's military, and the ease with which preparations for an offensive can be discerned.An examle of another region this scenario could play out is Korea. If the North threw everything they had at us tomorrow, and achieved suprise, I sincerely doubt we would be able to push them back before they advanced well beynd Seoul and in the process reduced much of the country to rubble. Sure we train for such a contingency, but we really don't believe the North will ever suddenly come over the border without warning, and we are therefore are unprepared for a sudden agressive move by North Korea.
I don't know who the hell you're talking about, but it's not Georgia.And BTW, our conventional military capabilities are far superior to Russia's.
You've got no idea what you're talking about. A paltry force of cuban exiles, and two wars where guerilla warfare drove an invader out even though they had obvious superiority at the tactical level are not at all equivalent to 'repel an American invasion' in the conventional sense. But hey, if you think Georgia is going to destroy the flower of its nationhood like the decade-long horrors of Vietnam and Afghanistan, that's your issue.Not so much in our technological aspect, where we have a slight advantage, but more so in our training aspect, in which we have a huge advantage. And yes, Georgia could absolutely repel an American invasion if they deployed the right strategy and if America went in without properly planning for the invasion. Such was the case in the Bay of Pigs, such was the case in Vietnam, and such was the case for the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Refer above. Your continued insistence that France and Georgia are equivalent nations in equivalent positions is just obscene in how historically absurd it is.You should study the invasion of France by the First and Second coalitions , as well as the Seven Years War, as excellent examples where nations (France in the former case, Prussia in the later case) fought off invasions by multiple enemies boasting overall larger armies and invading from multiple fronts simultaneously. Fredrick The Great isn't called "The Great" for nothing.
Noone just throws half of it's inventory at you for only 1/4 of its price.
Wrong, again The Rustavi metallurgical plant is NOT NEW but has a NEW website ...... It btw is the second largest and does also produce parts for the T-72
This thread has degenerated from reposted pictures to reposted retarded flames, piss/***** envy contests. Well done both sides....
People just do not read ! Actually, TAM produced parts for russian sateliitles and shuttles. Just visit the links.
Last I checked, TAM doesn't make tanks, which was the claim you were being asked about.
TAM made enough for Russia to be at least recognized by Russia
Last edited by GeneralL; 09-23-2009 at 04:10 AM.
Highly doubtful.I do know they produce an engine that goes into there Su 27's, and J-10 to replace the Russian powerplant. the Shenyang WS-10. Whether or not China wants to support Georgia I do not know, proxies are always an option.
A musket is a musket. There was no military technological overmatch in those days.Man to man Napoleans enemies where better equipped. Something I read in a book, long time ago.
That picture from who-knows-where is hardly representative of your typical Persian infantry. That their shields were mainly wicker is a historical fact.The one in the middle is Persian, hardly wicker sticks and cloth armor.
Luckily said disadvantage didn't help the Persians any, which was the point.Add the the fact that their are advantages and disadvantages to the Greek bronze armor as well (weight mainly).
Gentleman, lets leave this as a pictures and videos forum before it gets locked.