Emp_Palpatine

No I-phone here, because of the national day. All will be closed, so in order to avoid a catastrophic launch, they decided to report it to next week. By the way, I'm quite conservative with phone, still using a good old black and white screen nokia who can only be used... as a phone! I do prefer a phone-only thing, but hey! I'm in the rear-guard!

Very interesting, indeed! This man stress an important point: where does truth lies? What's sure is that we won't know the very truth about some air campaigns for a long time. Nowadays, among french air historian, the kill ration and number of kills of the Armée de l'Air in 1940 is still debated, with figures ranges from 600 to more than 1200. Events by far more recent and by far still very political are not quite prone to truth too. I'm quite sure surprises await historians in the study of 1982 war or of the Falkland campaign (I'm just reading a 100pages + special issue of a french air history mag on the Falkland war, and it seems that some argentine claims and strange brit losses should be studied). Let's remind the kosovo war: Serbian forces were supposed to have been destroyed, according to governments and military spokesmen. When the campaign was over, they were not able to hide the images of hundreds of Serbian tanks rolling back to Belgrade. Nowaday, it's quite common in specialized publications to have reports and studies lessening the effectiviness of NATO strikes. As for this MiG 23 issue. I've heard before, and in divergent sources, of the victories in South Africa and the Soviet ones against Pakistan's F-16. I'm quite sure they are true. For 1982 onward, due to the heavily propaganda loaded atmosphere surrounding these conflicts, I don't know. Can we trust Israelis reports, who have an interest in keeping the uber-army reputation? Or baathist Syria who is not the last to use propaganda? Wait and see, and as did officers in the last wars, just divide the claimed kills by four!

All, right, all right. You won. I'm checking on e-bay and Priceminister. Good Job...

Are you speaking about saber aces? It was not a so great game IMHO actually...

France did not leave the military alliance, the Atlantic pact. What France government did at that time was to leave the integrated command structures, in order to have french commanded by french (especially the nukes). But as De Gaulle said several time (and his successors too): in case of any invasion of western Europe, France would have stood with its allies. In an even more precise way: it is doubtfull that french 1st army (the one in FRG) would have stood still with soviet shells and bombs falling, tanks rolling, etc... France could have been neutral were the occupations forces withdrawn from FRG, but staying in the military alliance and staying in Germany indicated to the soviet what to expect from France: resistance alongside Nato, plus France independance to use its own armies and nukes if necessary (read in case of too heavy bombardement or french territory invasion). For me: definitively in. Sweden was and still is neutral. Swedish had to answer here: it's conceivable that some operations would have been conducted against Norway by the Soviet. Would and could Sweden have been dragged into the conflict despite of neutrality?

Indeed. And don't mind my answer too! Disagree and debate is not lack of respect and estime! :yes: Nowadays so-called "european idea" is just some dreams from statist technocrats whose main purpose is to limit more and more member states rights to govern themselves in the way they want. Please understand me correctly: being opposed to the EU does not mean "hey, let's frak up Spain, UK, or Germany! Let's make war in Europe!" That's a common legend used in pro-EU propaganda: that EEC/EU did bring peace. That's an utter nonsense. What bring peace between Europeans was MAD, US/Nato and the soviet threat: we had better to do than pissing each other off, that is protecting ourselves from Soviets. No problem at all with reconciliation, alliance and friendship. But it's not because I'm no at ease with my former ennemy that I had to marry him. More or less. France was never a federal state, so it's pointless here. (BTW, provinces were ways more free before the revolution [which should be understood as an error that prevented us from following a british-like evolution, more stable and peacefull] ) Germans had nazism that destroyed the 2nd Reich (States, from what I know, were quite free in it, Bavaria even had its own diplomatic network), the new federalism is way more intrusive. Have you ever voted for Baroso? You are indeed using an interesting example, that of Soviet Union. Just like soviet Union, we have recurrent election for a mock parliament who can only give some advices. Like in Soviet Union, what count is what the politburo (ie Commission) wants. See Ireland case (or France, Netherlands, Denmark...): they did reject the treaty? All right, let's make vote again. And again. And again! Until the right answer comes. You say the EU is still defining itself. I do agree. But I do think too that it's defining itself in a way I do not like. As I said before: if the EU were an almost non-interventionnist Confederation (let's say money, free trade), I wouldn't have much to say against it. It's not the case. It is a technocratic structure, dominated by liberal (in the US sense) ideological crusaders who think they have the duty to do what they want for the realization of their European dream. If the people disagree, let's change the people! If the Union is to grow, ho my, I'm afraid! It is nowaday so disrespectful of States rights and people choices that I can't just imagine what it could be if it has to be mature. But the fact is that we are not in 1775. And that is true for the EU ideal too. And that's why it is doomed: we are not in 1775, 'cause there is no popular support for the EU, because the EU is no longer a solution but a problem, because if we were in 1775, the EU may play the King's role (acting against local traditions, wills and institutions... as it does). So say we all for politcians! By the way, I don't understand you point: melting french ethnic uprisings with Spanish strikes and radicals demonstrations... Speaking of what I know, french uprisings, wether the state is french or european won't change anything in their open rebellion against law. That's no cry of despair but power struggles between the states and gangs. A fight the state lost. More generally, I don't think the EU is a king of hope for most people. The fact is: would french or italian be willing to die for protecting Latvia? I don't think so. The EU institutions wouldn't even want to fight. This is the 21st century? That's right! Europe's times are over. Just have a look: no babies, or instability generating immigration; poor military, ill-oriented and suicidal diplomacy, self-hate of its own values and history... You won't make a giant assembling ill limbs and senile spirits. Let's stand by stronger friends and civilization brethern instead of losing our time with EU. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p1BseAzgS4 "I'm Palpat and I approve this video".

Wishing: -French air force in 1968 and 1979 -Austrian Draken? -More WP squadrons (GDR and such) -A mid-1980 campaign? (With Mirage 2000, and why not advanced MiGs?)

Ok, so it will speed up the process. The joining of strangers in the US is more often showed as a new bargain decided by a defeated US in european (all anti-war) papers: nationality in exchange of duty. Thanks a lot for having clarified it to me.

"Keeper of the Empire's Sky"

Storm in dawn, French MS 406 above Lorraine, February 1940.

Ok then. But what's the deal with these stories we are keeping told in Europe: migrants joining the army in order to get the nationality (the whole thing showed in the anti-war usual propaganda you might figure alone, blahblahblah foreign mercenaries... blahblahblah exploiting poor people)?

It's way simpler in Thirdwire's than in other sims. (no cams to lock on, etc) Basically, you need to select your target with the e key. Let's say you've been sent on a strike against the Evil comm building: press "e", it will be selectionned. Once in range, fire your maverick, and voila! I've wondered a lot for LGB, as my F-18 was not able to load a designation pod. Actually, you do not need one (might not be simulated by the engine yet). Just do the same: e key, and drop once in range. I fired my first LGB since Fighter Anthology yesterday, I used this way, and it worked. Unguided bombing needs practice. A lot of. Some modern planes do have CCIP, but most older ones (early 70's and before) do not. Therefore it's indeed in WW2 fashion: dive bombing and eye-ball mark I target computer. :yes:

Great respect for him. BTW, is there in the US something like the French (and Spanish too) Foreign Legion? A corps for foreigners where you get French if wounded/killed or after Duty? Actually, even french can enlist: foreign legion ask no question and do not check real names/nationality as to allow people to start new lifes.

Thanks for the pics!

Kippour too, mate, Kippour too!

Was speaking about majesty of the tone. (Would had Japan too) On others subjects (general tone, etc) others rocks too: Brazil, Soviet/Russia, Italy, Spain...

I just don't want it. It does not fit european history, it does not fit my own vision of what the continent is. I'm even hostile to European Union. We are not the US, born in the hope of freedom and united for it. Nowadays so-called "european idea" is just some dreams from statist technocrats whose main purpose is to limit more and more member states rights to govern themselves in the way they want. US states are more free within the Union that we are in the EU. And those people aren't even elected! The very fundations of the EU are bad. That would be Union would be nothing but some tyrannical supra-governement whose goal would be to suppress any national feeling in exchange for an artificial and progressist european ideal. What ideal? The one wehre Ireland shall revote because when asked, people might only say "yes"? The right to forbid death penalty, legalize abortion, decrete the size of potatoes, prices in restaurants, press rules or whatever within the whole union? There are and would be no more national freedom. That's not a political construction, build for greatest strength, as the EU do not want to stand up strong for freedom and the western world. That's an ideological one, whose goal is to bring people to bright progressive days by intervening undemocraticaly in their daily lifes and to kneel down before any outside danger in profound self-hate (hence the antiamericanism, as US do dare to be still proud! What a sin! ) Last but not least, I don't think that nations that existed for millenia (France, England...) or centuries, and that are so differents (germanic, romans, slavic nations) should and could unit themselves. The US had english, a common struggle and a common identity background. Europe does not and never will. Do a free-market zone as you want, two tumbs up! But I will never accept any EU federation or army. Actually not on the current basis. Speak of confederate states, with only minimal things in the confederation hands (the less things, the less oppression)and I might be more interested. I guess eastern europeans, who still understand the true meaning of independence and freedom do bring a clear answer: their priority was and still is NATO, before the EU. Why? because they know NATO is crucial to security; because they know they can't hope for any help from western europe who'd rather surrender than to fight anybody. Speaking as a strong anti-EU believing that the continent should follow Switzerland path in being not involved in world matters, letting the more rationnal organisation (nation-state) stand, and just enjoy our prosperity.

I spoke a few days ago about french army problems. Here is a new one: http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/0...FRANCE-ARMY.php Sunday, during a show, people were shoot with live ammunition. This put in light heavy problem unofficially spoked about by military men (included some I've met): lack of training in shooting/arms manipulation because of the logistical nightmare the FAMAS is, and because of not enough money. Bad plannings, trainings etc too. Today, the Chief of staff resigned. Most politic analysts agree on the fact that the accident is not the sole fact of this resignation, and that the growing dissent in the army has much to do with it. What's your opinion of this accident? I have no military training, but I used to shoot a lot and my instructor always told me to act just like my arm was fully loaded with live ammo, not to aim people, open the breech when not used, etc etc. I'm quite surprised that for this show, they choose to direct fire to the public by hidding there one of the targets, I'm surpised that basic cautons have been by passed... Hope the wounded will get well.

No need to say that! We all agree... or get a roundhouse kick in the face! But Mac Gyver is second only to Chuck.

Mac Gyver is the best! Pewh... Bower...

Happy independence day, american fellows! :yes:

I've not been clear enough: I haven't heard that the US did get involved directly in the thing, but that their logistical and training help a few years ago helped Colombian forces to raise their standart. Actually, that's what I heard from some obscure military analyst in TV, might just be crap.

Not quite the largest, but indeed one of the best ones! In two-three years (1937 onward), rearmament efforts made wonders! And on 10 May 1940, when Germany attacked, we fielded almost the same number of troops and had more tanks (and better ones). What made the difference? We lacked bombers and fighters: our industry was not modern enough to fulfill the army demand (hence the huge numbers of planes (P 36, P40, Bostons, and even prototypes like P38 and B-24) we bought or at least commanded from the US in 1939, 1940.). The really difference was fighting spirit in the state elite and army and in some part of the society: politician and lots of high ranking officers did not believe in victory, and the 30's pacifism had made tremendous dommages in the population. But the troops did indeed fought like lions. Some town changed hands 17 times! The invasion cost, for 45 days, 100 000 dead to germany, and 150 000 (or more...) to us. But with retarded defense doctrine (that defensive thing), bravery was not enough. And in June, as Germany had broken the line for the second time after awfull battles on the Somme, the pacifists and defeatist jump on the occasion to surrender. Not from neighbours, indeed. But who can tell? But from the south? from China or Russia in the future? And what about the defense of our oversea possessions? In a case of a Falkland-like attack on our islands (possible from Brasil, Venezuela, Indonesia...), we just can't defend or reconquer them.

Great for the Navy. Our next career is postponed without delays. Read: cancelled. And the only one is always in drydock. There is even no needs for a Trafalgar.

What is certain is that without US help, Colombian army and Special forces wouldn't have been able to perform such operations. Analysts here are saying that since a few year, colombian forces performances are sort of "skyrocketting".