Ya clown! We were the dominant world power for years, then you took over, now it's gonna be the Chinese and Russians, that rule the roost! The US are a spent force and you know it? Worlds top nation? For what, arrogance? That's about it!

Ya clown! We were the dominant world power for years, then you took over, now it's gonna be the Chinese and Russians, that rule the roost! The US are a spent force and you know it? Worlds top nation? For what, arrogance? That's about it!

If the US didn't step in the Nazi's would have taken over. If it weren't for the US figuring out and developing the technology to spot and sink the U-Boats, which we showed you guys(btw your welcome for that) since U-Boats were causing havoc on all your shipping lines and routes. England may have been a power a couple hundred years ago, but like I said that war like 250 years ago.

as it stands now, we are top dawg... where is England on that list?
I'm guessing just below France...

about the time when America sent them home crying...

Then we handled Japan by ourselves.

Then we handled Japan by ourselves.

Yeah and has backup too...

Vladimir Putin: The US Administration is Lying Shamelessly about Syria

Yeah and has backup too...

Vladimir Putin: The US Administration is Lying Shamelessly about Syria

I wouldn't go that far. They are, well were our closest ally before Obama messed everything up. They do have a great military, great weapons and yes great special forces. That is why we always went to them first after 9/11 and Iraq.

The only thing really outdated is their Air Force which we are helping them out with by letting them get the F-35 fighter.

Nothing is as bad as the French military other then Irans. At least France has Nuclear weapons, long range military Navy vessels and Subs etc. They still have yet to win a war though.

I wouldn't go that far. They are, well were our closest ally before Obama messed everything up. They do have a great military, great weapons and yes great special forces. That is why we always went to them first after 9/11 and Iraq.

The only thing really outdated is their Air Force which we are helping them out with by letting them get the F-35 fighter.

Nothing is as bad as the French military other then Irans. At least France has Nuclear weapons, long range military Navy vessels and Subs etc. They still have yet to win a war though.

Ironically, the link above led me to a video of "Blurred Lines"!

If the US didn't step in the Nazi's would have taken over. If it weren't for the US figuring out and developing the technology to spot and sink the U-Boats, which we showed you guys(btw your welcome for that) since U-Boats were causing havoc on all your shipping lines and routes. England may have been a power a couple hundred years ago, but like I said that war like 250 years ago.

I think they beat England a few times...

I hope he realizes that the 5th fleet is bigger then the whole Iranian Navy. Not to mention at that point the Air Force would probably be used to strike inland targets like Nuclear facilities and that we have Coast Guard Cutters down there are well which become part of the Navy during an attack.

Iran would be severely F'd if they tried, even they have to know that.

WhoTF said anything about the US was going to bother them?
But keeping an eye on them is just prudent!

Or we can deploy SEALS from a Sub to sabotage the vessels to make them break down at some point making Iran look the incompetent idiots they really are.

as it stands now, we are top dawg... where is England on that list?
I'm guessing just below France...

I wouldn't go that far. They are, well were our closest ally before Obama messed everything up. They do have a great military, great weapons and yes great special forces. That is why we always went to them first after 9/11 and Iraq.

The only thing really outdated is their Air Force which we are helping them out with by letting them get the F-35 fighter.

Nothing is as bad as the French military other then Irans. At least France has Nuclear weapons, long range military Navy vessels and Subs etc. They still have yet to win a war though.

LOL, what? More spin? And a BoobToob video to boot! The rest was just irrelevant. I hope you realise how much Putin has invested in this campaign, and how desperately he needs Assad to remain in office?

Somehow, I don't think you do...

1. The Soviets had Germany surely and entirely defeated by mid 1943 (Battle of the Kuban as follow up to Stalingrad), nothing the US or England did in any way affected it or the outcome of the war. By Kursk even Hitler knew the war was lost and it was the Front against the USSR which did it. They were outnumbered 5 to 1 in men and 2 to 1 in equipment and upwards on every eastern front from then until the end of the war, nothing that happened in the west, not any materiel supply from the west, none of it had any genuine strategic impact on the conclusion of the war for Germany.
The only question, which was openly discussed between the both Presidents and Churchill was the role western powers would have in continental Europe after the war was over, or if they'd just let the Soviet Union control everything from the Bering Strait to France.
That's what US/British continued offensives from the Torch landings onwards really (the British ULTRA had already cracked all German comms codes), nothing from this point had any effect on the outcome of the war from the Russian side. As it was the Germans were so efficient even in defeat, they managed to concentrate all forces in the west in December and all forces in the east in March.
Really, all forces, just about every fighter plane over here, then hang on guys, move a thousand km that way and fight. They accomplished that, so you wouldn't see much difference in the size of force commitment to any counteroffensives whether or not the west was involved in the conclusion of the war, they would have no greater impact against the three primary Soviet offensives, each with more capacity for warfare than the entire German military twice over at this point, we're talking about three entire air armies bigger than the entire Luftwaffe on each battlefront, with equivalent equipment or better, and equal training (Soviets modernized in late 1942 and opened up Ace schools for advanced pilot training).

An La-7 is just plain better than an Fw-190 of any sort. A Yak-9, 9U or late 7B is easily as good as the best hunter-Messer 109G-10 or late G-14/AS, at low altitude at least which is where all the fighting at that stage became (supporting ground attack aircraft at fairly low alt). With numbers and pilot equivalence, the math is they win no matter what you do. That is the truth about WW2 and note I didn't put lend lease aircraft in there, they just weren't needed anything like as much as the US patriotic media claims, they just plain weren't. The only battle lend-lease US materiel was decisive was in the Kuban, but that German force would've been swallowed up anyway by the advance from the new industrial plants now producing at maximum capacity (thousands of excellent planes, tanks and guns per month). It was one battle in a sea of bigger battles the Russians won with no help, because they relocated industry just before the invasion. That won the war in Europe, nothing else. Nothing. Battle of Britain, occupied France, Africa/Med, allied/puppet treaties, none of it made any difference to the outcome of the war from that point.

2. The British deveoped technology to defeat the U-boats, what they lacked was the industrial power to challenge a Germany which now had the industries of Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland and France at their disposal and were friendly with a few others like Spain, Hungary, Italy, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Finland, the Swedes. They were even sweet talking the Iraqi's or Iranians, can't remember which one, they gave them Fw-190A fighters with downgraded armament, they kept using them after the war. Iraq maybe?

What I'm saying is the British simply didn't have the industrial economy to produce an intercontinental bomber, the US had the private sector industrial complex to work with using competition bidding for military contracts, which allowed for profiteering but also backed by a massive industrial capacity meant for reliable, state of the art equipment with very friendly terms on supporting the right war effort.

It was very cool what the US was doing, industrially supporting the war efforts of beleaguered nations, it was fairly clear the Axis of WW2 were from the beginning, extremely aggressive by nature. It was like helping against the school bully.

But the 1cm wavelength radar set was all British and that, when fitted to an American ultra-long range maritime patroller like the B-24 "Liberator", is what won the U-boat war as the single most significant introduction in terms of numbers destroyed and areas of ocean completely cleared of U-boat activity.

British technology, US industry, it was a winning combination when you're already flat out building Spitfires, developing Tempests, building battleships, updating old battleships, repairing battleships, replacing sunk aircraft carriers, replacing entire squadrons of bombers lost in action due to navigational error (lost 30-something over Norway once, the boss got sacked/replaced for that and air force laid low with press meets for a while, then y'know Coventry gets bombed and it's all forgotten).

3. England is a nuclear power. It is capable of lobbing Trident D4 SLBMs on DC if it felt like it, a frew hundred warheads actually, no lie. The nukes themselves are home cooked and actually rate well advanced in contemporary tech, at least as good as anything local.
Sure that'd be suicidal but that's the point of MAD, which essentially is still the watchword in relations between nuclear powers.
Let's say the school bully picked up a brick to smash you in the head with, well at this point it's do or die because he's going to do such bad damage anyway, you have to do whatever you can't regardless of any plan for success or failure. You're done either way.
That's MAD, the nuclear policy. If you're going to bully me, and you have nukes, and I have nukes, in order to argue with you I must be prepared to use my nukes, I'm dead either way.
MAD is the guarantee that any nuclear power will respond to direct aggression (state of warfare) by any other nuclear power with the use of nuclear weapons.
It was actually established in 1958 in relation to the threat of a formal Soviet move into East Germany which would wind up in an invasion of Western Germany (Soviet "reunification"). NATO formally declared that any move into East Germany by Soviet forces under the direct command of the Kremlin would result in breach of an international treaty, and lead to a nuclear response by the United States. To push their point home the US put Jupiter missiles in Turkey, which could reach within Soviet borders as far as their major military training academies. It was in response to this that the Soviet tried to put MRBM, IRBM and even a stockpile of tactical nukes in Cuba.

Rest assured that because of how nukes devastate the planet, any nuclear power which seriously threatens another nuclear power is going to get nuked first. That's MAD. So don't do it.

That means Britain too, genius.