scout

any one knows?

what a shame, and we all were having such a jolly history lesson

i know in real life they have, what about the game?

i might add that the "battle of the buldge" is what finally enabled the US,UK etc. to capture part of germany

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ChickenHawk @ April 06 2002,22:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Russia was stretched to breaking point in world war 2, the line just, only just held. I'm pretty sure that the German troops from the Western front combined with the troops from North Africa would have been enough to break them.<span id='postcolor'> [North Africa would have fallen because we wouldnt get any supplies through if mainland brit fell.] wrong! what cracked Rommel's attack wasnt brilliant work done by Montgomery or any allied general but the fact that a combination of SF-OP of the british secret service and effective sub war by the brits denied him fuel rendering useless most of his tanks on the eve of el-almein. if britain fell, of course that would end too, but we know that the germans didnt have the capability of conducting major amph-op of this magnitude. [Maybe, but he would have better logistics and a far greater number of troops from the whole of the Western front to throw at the Russians.] maybe he would have more troops but again, not winter equipment, which meant problems of suppling the troops, feeding them, clothing them etc. it meant also longer and more vulnerable lines of supplies. [if the Japs never attacked Pearl I think they would have sided with Germany in attacking Russia in the East. They owned China and the Pacific by 1941.] wrong again, the jap army wasnt ready to fight the russians and actually feared the option of russian interference and because of that a non-aggression pact was signed between japan and USSR. the soviet army actually defeated the japs in series of battles in siberia in '39. led by marshal Zhukov who later beat the crap out of the germans [Hitler could also have used his troops from North Africa, Rommel etc.] answered already. [burma and India would have fallen and probably Australia and New Zealand.] by whom? japs or germans? [You would also have the whole might of the German Navy, the Scharnhost, Bismarck and all the U boats. You would'nt have the code cracked to track them either] except the U-boats there was no german navy, and the brits did manage to adopt tactics to deal with them he could use his bombers IF he didnt attack britain in the first place [Russia was stretched to breaking point in world war 2, the line just, only just held. I'm pretty sure that the German troops from the Western front combined with the troops from North Africa would have been enough to break them.] yes and no. what defeated the germans was first the winter and the late start of operation "barbarosa", in the winter the russians managed to train more troops and to move the factories to the ural area. the german would probably win more teritorry but thats the whole point of soviet tactics: "they attack, we fall back they stop, we harrass, they hesitate, we attack" (actually mao said that but it fit the russian tactics.) in the end the germans would sucumb to the supirior number of men the russians could put on the field. just take a map of former USSR and look how much the germans captured. small eh?

as for WWI the american troops actually ended the stand-off cause by then both sided were suffering heavy losses and couldn't mount any serious offrnsive, what tipped the balance WERE the amount of troops and tanks the US supplied.

after hitler invaded russian the situation was this: he was complicated fighting the brits in north africa, he was afraid of any british action in france so he had to hold troops there too, occupation of norway? any way as u know the germans werent ready for winter warfare, and the fact that the japanese didnt intend to attack russia just freed 1.5 million seasoned troops from the siberian front. thats what toppled germany in the end. the partisans added to the mayhem of course. in the end, the additional troops that the germans could throw in would only stall, not prevent the russian victory

little correction: if the us wouldnt enter the war, whole europe would be red. the russians started to win before us came into the war.

usually targets move too fast for this kind of calculation. thats why u train alot, so u could do it with a relative ease.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ April 06 2002,20:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir u american soldiers came over to england and wouldn't even do the course at Chilwell army base saing "its to hard, we mite get injured" and we british do the course everyday. So i wonder whos getting the hands dirty? We british soldiers are better then u amrican crap. <span id='postcolor'> Really!!! Then why did we have to save you from the Germans twice you fucking limey. Unless you are in the 22nd SAS, you need to shut the fuck up you slack jawed faggot.<span id='postcolor'> temper, temper if it were censured all u would read is a big *BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*

ROFL...................... thats a good one!

while i was in south lebanon we got a call that there is a pursuit after 3 hezbullahs, and ive got an order "wait for the regiment CO" here we go again......... well the CO arrived (cause he wont miss a good chase) and with him....... some kind of senior officer from the US army. so these two trigger happy folks just humped hills with us. in the end, we didnt catch a thing but the two of them had a great time, cause all u could see of them was their teeth, open in a wide grin, everything else was smeared in mud.

i know they have safes, and i know they tend to rocket upwards, in the first seconds. i also know that the Tow and AT-4 can be controled only 150 m. of flight.

okay jim, the article shows itself that the man was carrying a bomb belt. was he executed? or was he shot while trying to activate the bomb?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ April 06 2002,19:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> quote:" without an Israel that kept on expanding its territory continuously, there would have been no PLO fighting against it" wrong, the PLO was born before six-day war, as a continue to the "fideayun" that terrorised israel from 1948. qoute: "Both, Arafat and Sharon don´t fit into modern politics, infact they are the worst combination for a future peace in the region, and are more of a guarantee that it only will get worse than it already is." i completly agree. fact is that israelis that entered palestinian controled cities were and are in grave danger of being killed, but they are roaming free in the streets of israel. might i remind u that the IDF entered after months of suicide bombers, after that Arafat promised to restrain his people, but did exactly the opposite. all i can say is if there is anyone who wants peace in the palestinian side, let him come forward, cause im tired of being slapped every time i do. this conflict didn't became yesterday, it was supposed to be finished in 1993. instead all we got is blown busses and all we've done is to hand over more territories. i believe that there are people in the west bank that wants peace. i know that the PA does'nt.

what about building some kind of "procupine"? couple of bunkers with comunicating ditches (?)

btw. how about silenced sniper rifle that fires sub-sonic 0.45 bullet? i know it exists, it good for up-to 300 m.

thank you! now i really understand that ur objective. the even-handed way u see things is just marvelous. next u'll tell me that the islamic jihad, doesnt really want to stop any cease fire talks right? and for the third time: what is the source u have for this "execution"?

what about the guardian? are they biased too? and again, what are your sources for this "execution"?

here's another one:attack on medics station that happened in effrat. another onr from the guardian guardian and by the way, u didnt answer my question: where r u getting ur info from? here's the goal of islamic Jihad from www.csmonitor.com: "Red, Black, and their handler identify the main criteria of a mission's success: a high number of casualties, the penetration of the Israeli security cordon, and the derailment of whatever negotiations or cease-fire efforts are under way." "The organization's goals are to "escalate the conflict" so that the "Islamic world" will join the Palestinian struggle, to "balance the terror" that the Israelis inflict on Palestinians and to demonstrate that the Israeli security forces are not invincible." "He is unfazed by questions about the legitimacy of actions in which civilians and even children are killed. "According to my religion, I'm doing Jewish children a favor, because if they get killed [in an operation] they go to Heaven instead of dying as a soldier and going to Hell," he says."

here is one link to some news agency , this one has short story about the "peace" process and palestinian attacks from1993: news froom the mid-east

can u read hebrew? cause i know english TV networks dont cover this stuff. oh, damn, u dont believe what any israeli media says right? and please tell me, were do YOU get your info from?

i really dont know the difference between the two, but my car-15 shoots regular 0.22 ammo. i know the 9 mm kind cause thats what our CT groups use.

i know, it biased right? are u sure ur objective?

did u know that almost in every suicide event, there are other members that has the job of hitting medics and doctors when they arrive? again, thats old news, since 1995.