Give that young lady a prize. I could point out that the Germans had better machine guns in both wars, but your analysis is spot on so I won't quibble.Shivari post=18.73207.788549 said:
Who's the next world superpower?
- Thread starter black lincon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's always tied to transportation and fuelJohn Galt post=18.73207.787760 said:
for example; Britain had Coal and the largest navy
as oil became big in the 1920's and a war had already depleted their navy;
then another war broke out an isolationist country started sociallizing
10 years later America takes over with oil and highest Aero space engineering,
so China relies on oil as well, so as soon as another country perfects alternative fuels
I fear very little from the world,
(Except for Saudi Arabia - have you heard of Dulbia-land = paid by U.S. dollars of Course!)
I think India and China are more than likely to become the next superpower. Together they make up a third of the world.
However it is likely that as oil suplies run low the next super power may become an oil heavy nation.
However it is likely that as oil suplies run low the next super power may become an oil heavy nation.
The thing is like it or not, the U.S. will be the decider of what happens for at least the next half-century. While China's economy is growing by leaps and bounds, it is all highly dependent on the U.S. economy. If Americans lose our ability to walk down to Wal Mart on a whim and buy whatever we want, then we will import far less from China (as most things at Wal Mart nowadays come from China). Less importation means less money for China and companies will have to scale back to retain profits. Millions of out-of-work peasants roaming the Chinese countryside... recipe for change. While this change may be good, it will tear apart the nation for a while anyhow.
Sounds familiar?
It's exactly what happened in China before with Mao Zedong's communist revolution supported by disgruntled peasants who were economically raped as a result of centuries of European influence and imperialism.
Sounds familiar?
It's exactly what happened in China before with Mao Zedong's communist revolution supported by disgruntled peasants who were economically raped as a result of centuries of European influence and imperialism.
Greenland. Now that the ice caps are melting, massive amounts of natural resources are being discovered.
#1 I was talking about battles they lost battles because of lack of machine guns if you didn't realize that sorry.Shivari post=18.73207.788549 said:
#2 no the Russians did not have more machine guns per battalion they had at least 10 less so I have no idea where your getting you numbers.
They didn't lack machine guns though, so that's not why they would lose a battle!black lincon post=18.73207.788589 said:
The Germans had six per battalion, the Russians had eight per battalion.
Source: Jordan, Jonathan W. (November 1, 2002). "Weaponry: Hiram Maxim's machine gun probably claimed more lives than any other weapon ever made" (in English). Military History 19 (4): 16. ISSN 08897328.
Mentioned on Wikipedia, citing this source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Machine_guns
Please, just give it up.
It'll be Oceania. >.>
In all seriousness (or at the very least, not relating to Ninteen Eighty-Four) it will probably be China, unless the US somehow manages to preform a miracle heelface turn and get out of this recession. Which is unlikely.
In all seriousness (or at the very least, not relating to Ninteen Eighty-Four) it will probably be China, unless the US somehow manages to preform a miracle heelface turn and get out of this recession. Which is unlikely.
Interestingly enough, Kevin Rudd is actually looking at Pacific Nations Forum, similar to, but possibly more extensive than the EU.milskidasith post=18.73207.788600 said:
One of the biggest reasons the Russians lost to the Finns in the Winter War was that the Finnish army was the first adopter of an infantry machine gun as a standard armament. Russia, realising their mistake started outfitting themselves with machine guns like the famous PPSh:black lincon post=18.73207.788589 said:
"A few hundred weapons were produced in November 1941 and another 155,000 were produced over the next five months. By spring 1942, the PPSh factories were producing roughly 3,000 units a day.[2] The PPSh-41 was a classic example of a design adapted for mass production (other examples of such wartime design were the M3 Grease Gun, MP40 and the Sten). Its parts (excluding the barrel) could be produced by a relatively unskilled workforce with simple equipment available in an auto repair garage or tin shop, freeing up more skilled workers to other tasks. The PPSh-41 used 87 components compared to 95 for the PPD-40 and the PPSh could be manufactured with 7.3 machining hours compared with 13.7 hours for the PPD. [3] ... Over 6 million of these weapons were produced by the end of the war. The Soviets would often equip whole regiments and even entire divisions with the weapon, giving them unmatched short-range firepower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41
I don't know how many of the German infantry machine guns were built during the war but 6 million sounds like a tough number to beat. By comparison, only 1 million of the MP-40 and all its variants were built over the same period. It also should be mentioned that Russian industrial capacity far outstripped Germany; at some points in the war, IIRC, Russia was building three times as many tanks as Germany, if not more.
So... Brazil? I mean, they are leading the world in terms of bio-fuels and ethanol, so according to you, they have a good chance of becoming the next world superpower? Good...Delta4845 post=18.73207.788566 said:
Edit:
I'm agreeing with your assessment of India's position.EnzoHonda post=18.73207.788543 said:
Though, and this is what really sets it apart from China, India has a major share in the IT industry, meaning that even if nations and TNCs slow down their demand for mass produced goods, India still has the major IT market to keep it going, which will last for a very long time. I mean, if Wall Street crashes, pretty much all countries will end up losing business in the secondary industry (except for, say, North Korea, what with their closed economy and all). Thing is, India still has its IT industry, which, while it will take a massive hit in the public sales, will still have the massive market with governments and other major TNCs.
You don't know me so I'll forgive you for asking me to give up and I won't.Shivari post=18.73207.788596 said:
I looked up your source and it doesn't seem to exist I found the article that cites it but not the article itself. And if you get to claim that getting a good grade in world history makes you an expert so do I. I got an A as well but my teacher wrote a book on WWI and it said quite clearly in it Germans had about 35 machine guns per battalion Russians had 15.
The book was unpublished but it was big, 100+ pages on printer paper, so please don't ask me to cite it.
think of this as an example of why lots of wars start where both really stubborn.bluemarsman post=18.73207.788612 said:
It was cited on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Machine_gunsblack lincon post=18.73207.788610 said:
And the article probably hasn't been posted on the net, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
1. Please find me a real source for this 35:15 ratio then. I shouldn't have to do the research for you.
2. but it was big? Now why didn't you say that in the first place? Because we all know that the determining factor in a book's credibility is size!
Seriously though, if your sources are imaginary, then you're not going to get anywhere here.
And please, I just wrote a 100 page document on how Germany's machine guns shot out Toaster Strudel. That doesn't mean it's factual.
They've got flying men! And a techno-samurai! Haven't you see the Gilliam documentary?Delta4845 post=18.73207.788644 said: