What’s with the German uniforms? Are the Bundeswehr involved in the game?

Comment by Tony — June 1, 2008 @ 10:19 pm

thats my question as well. never played stalker but it looked good. what kinda weapons are they using? doesnt look like a paint marker, unless its a tactmark.

Comment by Pants — June 1, 2008 @ 11:05 pm

airsoft perhaps ?

Comment by GorillaMunch — June 1, 2008 @ 11:25 pm

i could go there.

I believe they’re using high end airsoft guns. Although the outfits need a bit of work to be truly STALKERish. Not a bad job though.

Comment by Seth_Dracovitch — June 2, 2008 @ 11:25 am

You do realize that the game is actually based on a novel, don’t you?

Comment by Darth Vasya — June 3, 2008 @ 8:07 pm

Game? I thought they were remaking the movie, not the game.

Comment by tiki god — June 3, 2008 @ 11:55 pm

The movie. Based on the same novel. Notice, however, how everybody seems to consider it to be enactment of the game.

Comment by Darth Vasya — June 4, 2008 @ 1:22 am

all hail thy leader

Comment by batmanturbod — May 24, 2008 @ 8:12 am

This is how I want to grow my facial hair…

Comment by Drewlicious — May 24, 2008 @ 10:52 am

Isn’t this a captain morgan type fellow?

Comment by frogurtx — May 24, 2008 @ 12:16 pm

sweet! frogurtx FTW.

Comment by natedog — May 24, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

a list that was emailed to me yesterday. not sure how factual it is.

The active ingredient in Coke is phosphoric acid. Its pH is 2.8. It will dissolve a nail in about 4 days. Phosphoric acid also leaches calcium from bones and is a major contributor to the rising increase in osteoporosis.

To carry Coca-Cola syrup (the concentrate) the commercial truck must use the Hazardous material place cards reserved for Highly corrosive materials.

The distributors of coke have been using it to clean the engines of their trucks for about 20 years!

In many states (in the USA) the highway patrol carries two gallons of coke in the truck to remove blood from the highway after a car accident.

To clean a toilet: Pour a can of Coca-Cola into the toilet bowl and let the “real thing” sit for one hour, then flush clean.

The citric acid in Coke removes stains from vitreous China.

To remove rust spots from chrome car bumpers, rub the bumper with a rumpled-up piece of Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil dipped in Coca-Cola.

To clean corrosion from car battery terminals: Pour a can of Coca-Cola over the terminals to bubble away the corrosion.

To loosen a rusted bolt: Applying a cloth soaked in Coca-Cola to the rusted bolt for several minutes.

To remove grease from clothes: Empty a can of coke into a load of greasy clothes, add detergent, and run through a regular cycle. The Coca-Cola will help loosen grease stains.

It will also clean road haze from your windshield.

Comment by natedog — May 24, 2008 @ 12:57 pm

well piss. i totally posted that on the wrong picture.

fuck.

Comment by natedog — May 24, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

Frogurt beat me to it.

Comment by Shanghai_Factor — May 24, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

Looks like Lenin.

Comment by MrPsychic — May 24, 2008 @ 3:19 pm

@natedog
that list is mostly crap. mostly.

JD’s death was hilariously stupid. He apparently forgot the safe combination, kicked it, and ended up giving himself blood poisoning.

Comment by tiki god — May 24, 2008 @ 3:36 pm

@natedog
not totally wrong, Jack and coke go well together!

Comment by colonel-yum-yum — May 26, 2008 @ 4:05 am

lol i had no idea wat was with this pic untill i noticed what was going on in the front there….

Comment by xaldinlancer — May 11, 2008 @ 6:44 am

so much win

Comment by Andre666 — May 11, 2008 @ 7:31 am

Is it just me or does the shadow on the teacher’s face makes it look like she has some kind of facial hair?

Comment by OmfgWtfZergd — May 11, 2008 @ 9:11 am

Enroll me in this school.

NOW.

Comment by Gunface01 — May 11, 2008 @ 9:34 am

One of those girls looks like a man.

Comment by Bran — May 11, 2008 @ 10:57 am

Needs a giant Mech behind them

Comment by MrPsychic — May 11, 2008 @ 2:07 pm

Oh yeah! Front row tongue lashing

Comment by Nerozx — May 11, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

OMFG
that’s a bunch of win right there.

Comment by vutterfly — May 11, 2008 @ 5:12 pm

The two guys on the side just launched Core Fighters off their arms. The giant robots will come. And then hopefully those girls will cum.

Comment by RSIxidor — May 12, 2008 @ 8:20 am

And why the fuck is there a vintage gay image ad over there ->

Comment by RSIxidor — May 12, 2008 @ 8:21 am

It’s like everyone in Japan is aware of the stereotypes pertaining to themselves, and these students decided to act them all out in one picture.

Comment by Camiam321 — May 13, 2008 @ 8:03 am

I don’t know about the sentence structrure in my previous comment. Forgive me. I am an artist, not a Grammartician! hahhaa I made up a new word!

Comment by Camiam321 — May 13, 2008 @ 8:04 am

Hey, there is nothing funny about down syndrome … except maybe this pic.

Comment by BowToMe — April 17, 2008 @ 12:28 am

If you had jorge posada’s giant ass coming at you, you’d probably have that look on your face too.

Comment by collegeboy — April 17, 2008 @ 12:40 am

“it’s a ball, eh-pluh!”

Comment by Billy Manic — April 17, 2008 @ 12:54 am

looks like a cross between Moe from the three stooges and stewart from mad tv.

shopped?
i mean cmon.
l00k at t3h pixlz AWMG [/sarcasm]

Comment by Pants — April 17, 2008 @ 1:20 am

God loves the Yankees.

Comment by tripolar — April 17, 2008 @ 1:26 am

And the Lord said unto you……….
…….
…..
GO SOXs

Comment by paddymcpub — April 17, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

Also it’s funny how everybody looks so bored while the guy flies towards them.

Comment by Hepathos — April 19, 2008 @ 12:31 am

Might be on to something…

Goatse guy = O’Reilly? The plot thickens.

Comment by FlyingMantisShrimp — April 11, 2008 @ 2:08 am

i got the joke without reading the headline
that cant be a good sign

Comment by inc0gni2 — April 11, 2008 @ 3:16 am

He looks so happy about it…

Comment by jadechimera — April 11, 2008 @ 5:25 pm

He looks so seductive…

Bow chika bow wow

Comment by purple banana — April 12, 2008 @ 11:33 am

If this is shopped I shall surely die of disappointment.

Comment by Smedlorificus — April 13, 2008 @ 4:47 am

Not strawberry, Lychee, which is probably worse.

Comment by numb7rs — March 18, 2008 @ 2:48 am

So that would be soft brown goo coming out of the chocolate tube? And then you put it in your mouth? Well, the Japanese do love shit…..

Comment by SouthernOracle — March 18, 2008 @ 8:25 am

They probably taste better than regular Closeup toothpaste.

Rimming a donkey probably tastes better than regular Closeup toothpaste.

Comment by dorix — March 18, 2008 @ 10:48 am

Nonsense. The packaging clearly states it is “flavalicious”.

Comment by flintlocke — March 18, 2008 @ 1:01 pm

@SouthernOral

it’s not from Japan. I can tell because the English kinda makes sense and there is no Japanese on it.

Comment by monkeybum — March 18, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

this reminds me of that Mr Bean episode where he painted his apartment by blowing up a paint can. and covered up all his stuff with paper, much like this xD

Comment by xaldinlancer — March 14, 2008 @ 9:19 am

At least it makes your workplace look shiny, even if it’s dull and lifeless.

Comment by Sticky — March 14, 2008 @ 9:36 am

pwned?

Comment by Mayy — March 14, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

It’s like an early Dr Who episode

Comment by Mack — March 14, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

@xaldinlancer

I remember that episode. that was back when he was actually funny.

Comment by pedantic — March 14, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

Come on people, he’s just a reasonable guy protecting his stuff from the government’s mind controlling rays.

Comment by Sarcastastic — March 14, 2008 @ 4:57 pm

I think its a good trick to play on a co-worker…Runs off to buy crates of tinfoil…

Comment by hvymetal86 — March 14, 2008 @ 7:09 pm

lol
you have scheduled rounds?
neat

Comment by TrikYodz — March 2, 2008 @ 12:23 pm

Having scheduled rounds of the internet is very important. Otherwise you might find yourself lost, stumbling from one strange site to another in a vain attempt to find your way back to something civilized, until finally you find yourself Googling “uterus” to make sure you’re not confusing it with “urethra”, only to find that you did a Google Image search instead.

No one is prepared for that kind of horror.

Comment by AgZed — March 2, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

uncanny resemblance

Comment by Camiam321 — March 2, 2008 @ 2:21 pm

Uncanny? This cat looks more like Wilford Brimley than Wilford Brimley himself.

Comment by Tony — March 2, 2008 @ 4:22 pm

get over yourself, whoever you are :p

Comment by cpnichol — March 2, 2008 @ 8:28 pm

I once had neighbors who had a beagle. Good dog. Only barked once. Of course, that bark lasted 14 years…

Comment by Gary Scenario — March 2, 2008 @ 8:13 am

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Comment by Gunface01 — March 2, 2008 @ 11:50 am

Is it just me or does he have really evil eyes.

Comment by Wip3outUK — March 2, 2008 @ 6:33 pm

@Wip3out
It’s just you.

Comment by Max — March 3, 2008 @ 11:43 am

my beagle never barks unless my other dog is barking too. He’s a quiet quiet beagle!

Comment by tiki god — March 3, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

The Marines. No contest. It would be one LONG afternoon, though.

Comment by wookie_x — February 23, 2008 @ 5:02 am

It almost seems like this has some kind of point. Can someone help me out here?

Comment by Caio — February 23, 2008 @ 5:09 am

Depends on whether the Brits flee. If they don’t, like, no ammo.

Comment by Frank McColbert — February 23, 2008 @ 5:20 am

Definetly the brits.
Seriously, 112.000 contra 100? No way.

Comment by Gilly — February 23, 2008 @ 5:55 am

Think 300.

If the marines have automatic weapons, decent ammo supply, and positioning… there is no way they could lose. Especially since the British style of fighting at the time was to march in columns to engage the enemy, like shown in the photo.

Comment by Paul_Is_Drunk — February 23, 2008 @ 7:21 am

I don’t care how much ammo or how big their guns are. 112 000 soldiers could “swarm” the 100 marines and take their weapons. This is precisely how the weaker Americans Tanks defeated the powerful German Tanks in WWII. This is why the Vietnamese kicked your asses, and why Iraq is turning out the same way. Superior technology is no match for superior numbers.
.
Plus, don’t forget the Brits have cannons. No one has invented a cannon ball-proof vest, yet.

Comment by AlecDalek — February 23, 2008 @ 8:11 am

@Alec
Enough with the trolling already. Just how big is your insecurity complex with America? Es ist interessant für mich, den nur Kanadier so emotional werden, wenn Amerika vorgebracht ist.
~
Canons? Simple: Don’t fortify in one huge group like the British do. Canons are pretty worthless if AT BEST you can only hit one guy.
~
Swarming? Disperse, camouflage, and hit & run tactics. You seem to forget the British style of fighting at the time was in columns.
~
If we’re going to get hypothetical in saying they decide to use ’swarm’ tactics, then grenades, landmines, and AGAIN strategic placement. Note that does not mean grouping in one huge easily hittable mass.
~
I think the biggest question here, given automatic weapons versus weapons that could take up to a minute to load, is just how high bodies could stack before they create strategic obstacles.

Comment by Paul_Is_Drunk — February 23, 2008 @ 8:29 am

If the 120,000 soldiers were all stuck in a giant pit, yeah the marines could beat them pretty easily.

If they’re in a big, open, flat field, starting not too far away from each other, then no.

The soldiers would be able to rush the marines and overwhelm them with brute force. They’d take massive casualties, but they win.

If we’re talking about a ‘war’ of sorts rather then a battle, with forces spread over a varying landscape, my money’s on the marines, depending on how smart organised and suicidal the soldiers are.

Comment by The Lawnmower — February 23, 2008 @ 8:56 am

@Paul_Is_Drunk
Me, troll? Pot, kettle, black. Don’t call it trolling just because you disagree. So the Americans defeated these same 112 000 British troops in the war of independence through superior numbers, but now that doesn’t count?
.
And I let it pass before, but I’ll jump on it now. You used “300″ as an example. Might I remind you they were also utterly defeated by superior numbers. Sure they put up a hell of a fight, but they lost. You really should watch these films all the way to the end. You’re you own worst enemy.

Comment by AlecDalek — February 23, 2008 @ 9:00 am

*Ambush and camoflauge tactics. The British Army just stand there and fire at the opposing force. In the Revolutionary War, it was considered honorable for the British to stand in perfect unison, as well as FIRE in perfect unison, without moving foreward unless directed. Marines may use strategic positions, such as beneath haystacks or upon riverbays where they will call out enemy positions. Easily, 1,000 British will fall before a Marine dies.

Comment by Gunface01 — February 23, 2008 @ 9:14 am

One word, guys:

Artillery.

So, unless the marines have a couple of big guns themselves, sorry.

Comment by phaed — February 23, 2008 @ 9:14 am

Also:

ZOMG BRIT RUSH

Comment by phaed — February 23, 2008 @ 9:15 am

I’m leaning towards the US. Especially if they have anything other then the standard guns (A chopper, tankish vehicle ect. Any of that would sereously fuck them up.)

And Phaed, wouldn’t a marine be able to pick off the artillery men? Based on the research I didn’t do, I’m going to assume that a modern marine has a longer range then a 250 year old cannon.

Comment by Sorryyoulost — February 23, 2008 @ 9:47 am

what was the range of a civil war cannon?
m-16’s alone can reach out and touch someone accurately to about 600 meters with just a reasonably trained shooter.
I’d say if the brits fought in columns as they traditionally did and the marines fought guerrilla style hit and move hit and move..I’d vote for the marines.

Comment by wolfbainx — February 23, 2008 @ 10:17 am

What’s a (presumably American) Civil War cannon got to do with this?

Comment by AKircher — February 23, 2008 @ 10:51 am

I’d have to go with the Marines. Considering how it was “honorable” to stand in lines and shoot while even then Americans were going “Hey! Trees block bullets!” and the fact that a bullet is considerably more accurate than a ball and that same ball would more than likely be stopped by a vest, 100 US Marines would probably take a good deal of casualties, but win.

I predict 50,000 British losses for the day, while 63 Marines die, depending on medical aid available.

Comment by Sticky — February 23, 2008 @ 10:55 am

@Alec
Perhaps it’s a knee jerk reaction on my part from several of your previous posts of “Haha, America sucks, and here’s a bunch of reasons why!” …this time, admittedly, you’re in more of a passive aggressive USA bashing mode. Either way, you have some strong insecurity issues.
~
If the British army gets canons, wouldn’t the marines get tanks, etc? I think a single tank could cause some serious casualties.

Comment by Paul_Is_Drunk — February 23, 2008 @ 11:10 am

Why would I be the one with insecurity issues? You’re the one that is being sensitive to jabs and perceived jabs at your homeland. I just call it like it is.

Comment by AlecDalek — February 23, 2008 @ 11:25 am

You’re also completely off topic, AlecDalek. Go use the forum if you want to troll. Thanks mate.

The Brits only get cannons if the Marines get tanks. Either way, the Brits are screwed so long as the Marines have enough ammo to kill enough people that the Brits decide to retreat. It shouldn’t take too long, though.

*Puts his chips on the Marines for the win*

Comment by Guswut — February 23, 2008 @ 11:47 am

Can we all at least agree that this is kind of comparing apples to oranges?

Lets just turn it over to Mythbusters and call it a day.

(IMHIO Marines would likely win, as they would fight on favorable ground in the first place, rather than line up for the brits and go “OK, we agree to be shot at now!”)

Comment by worldspawn — February 23, 2008 @ 12:04 pm

how much does 112,000 rounds of modern ammunition weigh ?

Comment by JustSomeGuy — February 23, 2008 @ 12:20 pm

155 rounds of 7.7mm weights 10lbs… so about 7,225 lbs… distributed over 100 infantrymen… roughly 72lbs a piece to carry. Of course, that assumes they don’t store and stash for upward mobility.

Comment by Paul_Is_Drunk — February 23, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

except the m4/m16 shoots a 5.56

I’d go with marines. 10 rifle squads of marines could easily decimate 1000 colonial period brits in a matter of minutes. If we are talking a company of marines (About 120) with standard infantry company supplies (claymores, 4 weapons squads with an MG, 2AR and AT4), easily massive casualties. The marines would essentially need an unimaginable amount of ammo.

Comment by njch412 — February 23, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

Holy fuck, that weight is impossible to carry alone, so that means they CAN be rushed! Because in order to win, they’d have to sit on their ammo, at least till it becomes a manageable weight, plus you can only assume they can kill 100 opponents at once, so in essence they’d get 112 “shots” each to make it with the most efficiency, which, having myself played a marathon match of duck hunt, is do-able.

Comment by mgear — February 23, 2008 @ 1:09 pm

I see it turning out something like Rorke’s Drift from the anglo-zulu war (the movie zulu) 140 british vs. 5000 zulus. British won with 17 dead to 600. Although the entire british army I think would include cannon, morters, snipers, rangers, engineers and logistical support. 112000 is a hell of a lot. British victory.

Comment by onthebeach — February 23, 2008 @ 1:22 pm

I’ve read enough comic book crossovers to guess that they would fight for while, then realize that they are really on the same side and team up t0 go fight Napoleon.

Comment by reboot — February 23, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

@mgear :

For sure, you mean 1120 shots, not 112.

I think, the Marines will need a hell of a lot more ammo, because not every shot hits his target. Plus, they may need spare guns, because gun’s barrell don’t like to become overheated…

Comment by lolle23 — February 23, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

Edwaaaaaaaaaaaaard Longshanks!

Comment by Sneaky Snake — February 23, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

Even if this was an open fight in a field like a lot people seem to assume it is, the marines would retreat and wait for strategic advantage. Be that better terrain, a night ambush, or even distractions with creative flanking maneuvers.
~
@mgear
72lbs isn’t that heavy. I was routinely carrying 60lbs on hilly terrain while wildland firefighting. Certainly not comfortable, but doable.
~
It’s moot anyway, as if the marines were worth their salt they’d be doing hit and run tactics, with reserve ammo stashes for mobility.

Comment by Paul_Is_Drunk — February 23, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

@Alek “This is why the Vietnamese kicked your asses, and why Iraq is turning out the same way. Superior technology is no match for superior numbers.”

It’s not exactly “sheer numbers” that won the Vietnamese war and is causing the mess in Iraq. Both were/are the kind of wars the U.S. was not prepared to fight at the time. I.e., the U.S. and its train of thought/strategem for war was/is unsuited for both conflicts.

Comment by FlyingMantisShrimp — February 23, 2008 @ 2:23 pm

Point of Order: The original proposition says nothing about either side having any weapons. Nor does it define the nature of the contest or the conditions of victory.
So its safe to assume that’s its a hopscotch tournament held in the Roman Coliseum. Which the marines would easily win because everyone in the British Army during the revolutionary war is already dead.

Comment by reboot — February 23, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

Also, as to the whole 100 Marines vs 112,000 British “Revolutionary War-era” troops, I’d say the Marines would win because of superior weapons, tactics, and training.

The weapons used by the Marines would have a much better range, accuracy, and much more lethality. Plus, the British would be fighting like they were trained: in those tightly-packed, box formations. This is a wet dream for any crew-served weapon operator. (E.g. M2 .50 MG)

Also, as for the talk of artillery or any other sort of support, the Marines would again have a distinct advantage if they had any sort of artillery support whatsoever. You’re talking shells that have a killing radius of 50m and a “casualty” radius of 100m.

Comment by FlyingMantisShrimp — February 23, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

But Reboot probably brings up the best point out of all of this nonsense.

Comment by FlyingMantisShrimp — February 23, 2008 @ 2:33 pm

A couple gangsters against the British ground forces?

Two against a .22? Who do you think’s gonna win that fight?

Ten to one it’s the gangsters. Those Dragoons don’t even know how to fight.

Comment by Caio — February 23, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

I’d have to give it to the Americans. After a couple hundred British got machine-gunned, the rest would say, “Sod this. If you need us we’ll be in the pub.” Then they’d go to the pub, have one sip of American beer and flee back to England to enjoy their luke-warm lager.

Comment by AgZed — February 23, 2008 @ 6:33 pm

the brits would get rocked. it wouldn’t even be fair. numbers would make a difference if they fought in the same manner, but the brit’s style makes numbers pointless. if this battle were between the brits and some SEALS, then it wouldn’t be a battle, it would be a free $0.75 ass raping

Comment by RPTM6 — February 23, 2008 @ 6:53 pm

whoaaaa, long comment thread is long!!

Comment by xaldinlancer — February 23, 2008 @ 7:06 pm

would 112,000 brits be _willing_ to keep charging towards the Americans after seeing the first 50,000 or so get cut down? no.

Comment by yoodle — February 23, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

arg, what a stupid thread. As Reboot glibly and overly-subtly pointed out, battles aren’t measured in technology and training alone. Some considerations:

1) Where? What type of terrain?
2) Under what circumstances?
3) Organization on both sides?

And so on. Without any of that info, this is about as stupid as the Enterprise vs. Deathstar debate.

Also, keep in mind that far more American marines have been massacred by fewer and worse-armed troops with a strategic advantage. Without any context, this is amazingly retarded.

Comment by Caio — February 23, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

But I’ll throw in my two cents anyway:

Say the 100 American marines were former mafia bosses who had just got out of jail to live with their ‘mom’. Then we find out that the mom isn’t actually the marines’ mom, but the mom of one of the victims of the marines’ mafia campaign. But then the British Army, sensing a power vacuum in local mafia activity, bribes some corrupt politicians and takes over the town.

Now, the 100 marines living with their foster mom try to leave their life of crime behind and work as a mechanic. However, the Brits, knowing of the Marines’ former underworld dominance, are constantly suspicious, and demand the marines cut the tendons in their hands in exchange for peace. Seeing this as an opportunity to protect their life as mechanics and to protect their foster mom, the marines comply, and hope the brits leave them alone. Fortunately the Brit, jeff, who is supposed the tendons is sympathetic with the marines and only makes a superficial cut.

Then they kill the foster mom of the marines. Fuelled by revenge for the foster mom who promised them a legitimate life, the marines enter the mafia headquarters, scream, “Jeff, if you want to live, leave now!!”, kill all of the British single handedly, and then set the British mafia headquarters on fire. Then the marines let themselves die in the fire, knowing that they could never return to crime, but have already gone to far to live on the straight and narrow. Thus our tragic tale is complete.

Comment by Caio — February 23, 2008 @ 7:46 pm

Caio, for the record:

Death Star.

Comment by FlyingMantisShrimp — February 23, 2008 @ 9:23 pm

I second Death Star.
~
Unless, of course, the Enterprise had artillery back-up. Then we’re talking a whole different ballgame.

Comment by Paul_Is_Drunk — February 23, 2008 @ 10:55 pm

Marines.

Why?

Grenades.Lots of them.Really fast throwing.Grenades.

Comment by w0x — February 24, 2008 @ 5:05 am

“# Paul_Is_Drunk on February 23rd, 2008 7:21 am

Think 300.

If the marines have automatic weapons, decent ammo supply, and positioning… there is no way they could lose. Especially since the British style of fighting at the time was to march in columns to engage the enemy, like shown in the photo.”

Paul, take another look at the picture. That’s a line (rank), not a column(file). The French fought in columns, one of the reasons they got thrased by in English in the Napoleonic Wars, who arranged themselves in lines, usually two deep, to put a greater number of troops in a position to use their weapons.

Comment by 24601 — February 24, 2008 @ 7:56 am

headpalm.jpg
~
I only meant 300 as an example of how a smaller number of troops engaged and successfully fought a larger army. I invoked it because I thought everyone on this board would easily be familiar with it, not because -as people seem to think- I was using it as a cornerstone in my argument.
~
Also, the French whooped the English in the Napoleonic Wars. The only true advantage the British had was Naval superiority, which is how they were able to block trade and maintain longterm limited contact ground warfare.

Comment by Paul_Is_Drunk — February 24, 2008 @ 8:27 am

‘Whooped’ the English, eh? I guess that’s why they wo.. oh, wait. Nicely paraphrased from the wikipedia article, by the way. Cute. Besides, quit it with the straw man; I was referring to the tactical superiority of a two-deep line as shown, as opposed to the column tactic favoured by the French, and pointing out how you misrepresented British infantry tactics.

Comment by 24601 — February 24, 2008 @ 9:44 am

Columns/ranks… es ist mir Egal. Ich habe einen Fehler gemacht. Semantisch.
~
The main argument here is numbers versus armament and tactics. Tactics being that the British did not commit hit and run tactics, but rather open field warfare.
~
Oh, and Jean Valjean, what were you doing looking at that article at Wikipedia?

Comment by Paul_Is_Drunk — February 24, 2008 @ 10:59 am

P.S. In a debate, that’s called a ‘digression.’

Comment by Paul_Is_Drunk — February 24, 2008 @ 11:02 am

try to keep it all in engrish kids

Comment by tiki god — February 24, 2008 @ 11:58 am

OK, let’s make this more interesting… The entire *American* army during the Revolutionary War, Vs. 500 *French* marines.

Who wins?

Comment by phaed — February 24, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

Howabout this: 1 billion of Alexander’s Hopolites vs. Rocky?

Comment by Caio — February 24, 2008 @ 5:53 pm

Marines.

Comment by knogoodidleft — February 24, 2008 @ 6:36 pm

Not enough info provided to determine.

Comment by casemods — February 24, 2008 @ 7:52 pm

@Caio
Well how deep would the Hoplites’ lines be? Any more than 3 and Rocky would take them easy.

Comment by Max — February 25, 2008 @ 11:01 am

I see one fatal flaw for the marines, they better have a hell of a lot of ammo

Comment by AngryGuy — February 26, 2008 @ 1:23 pm

@24601
You didn’t read earlier in the thread. The guys in 300 all died. They put up a hell of a fight, but they were all defeated by superior numbers.

Comment by AlecDalek — February 29, 2008 @ 4:32 pm