Sorry, but that’s very incorrect. In fact, it’s way, way off the mark. The United States lost 405,000+ men in WWII, and 53,000+ in Korea. Look it up, because apprearently, you haven’t. BTW, my father was there in Korea, he went all the way up to Chosin and fought there in a foxhole. : )
What the heck are you thinking?
And you called me an idiot. Sheesh. :roll:
Indeed. That alone made it inferior to the Mustang. It’s gun was too weak and had penetration problems. 
Oh by the way, another war the US won was against Britain when they came at us in 1812. As my American History classes serve me, I don’t think anyone fought with the US either. maybe a few native Americans shot arrows though. Just the US vrs Britain. Those Brits are stubborned eh? Twice in less than 40 years they tried.
I have not been doing anything but defending against your attacks on my country, but if you’d like me to give you some facts and boast just a little, as you have been doing about Britain while insulting my country, here goes:
On Iraq: Incorrect. You mean the French. The French were the 1st over the border on the left flank. THE FRENCH were the diversion, not the small force of British that were with the Americans on the right flank. Naturally, he kept the Brits and the French sperate from each other. LOL The operation was planned by US General Shwartzkauf, and he sent in the French on the left as a diversion. He called it the “long bomb fake”, like in a football (American football) game. On the right flank was a batallion of US and a small force of British soldiers. As it were, the vast majority of the fighting was done by the US army, as has been the case with every war the US has been involved in. So your insults about the US can’t win a war without help is just more of your insulting crap. The war had already been won from the air by US air forces before a single soldier stepped into Iraq. LOL
We didn’t need anyone to help us in Iraq as you suggest. We won the war by devestating the enemy on the ground from the air in 6 weeks before we sent a single man in. All the soldiers and tanks did was finish them off and secure the land. When the soldiers did roll in, they fought a few skirmishes with tanks and small arms and looked around at all of the devestation caused by the American air forces. Roads were littered, yes littered with destroyed Iraqi - tens of thousands of them. The US only got other nations involved so it would be a coalition thing and we could get the UN to take some respoinsibility for the war. Other nations joined in with small numbers of troops as a political thing. Let’s see, I think about 5-6,000 soldiers went to Iraq this last time and served as police forces. : ) None went into regular combat. The US lost less than 140 men in Iraq, and destroyed tens of thousands of Iraqi. Talk about a kill ratio. There’s never been one like that in history.
Even at Chosin (the bloodiest battle in the history of modern warfare) in Korea most of the 27,000 (20,000 UN, 7.000 US) remained in the rear firing artillery while the 7th US Marines Division - 7,000 men is all, were at the front lines and fought most of the 240,000 Chinese who attacked… by themselfves, and achieved a 10-1 kill ration in -40 F weather. They used oil-based hair tonic to lubricate the action of thier M1 Carbines and keep them firing in the extreme cold.
Britain has fought few wars without allies too, as have most nations. So what is your stupid point? None. You just want to gripe. All of this because you want to insult my country and gripe.
For that matter, the US didn’t even come close to throwing all it had into WWII. We used what we had on hand and what we could manufacture in a year. Had the US thrown all it had into the war, we would have drafted an army of 10,000,000+ men and sent hundreds of thousands of tanks and planes. Afterall, the US population was 120,000,000+ back then. It simply did not take all of that to do the job. We re-tooled existing factories and hired companies to make things for the war. There were no government built factories. but there could have been hundreds of them. We just didn’t need all of that to push the Germans back on the west. When the Japanese destroyed half of our navy at once, we built it again, but larger, in less than 1 year.
The point I am making, is that your insults about the US having needed help to win wars does not hold water. They are simply empty insults.
The only problem I have with you, is that you keep insulting my country by inserting little insults between the words of your sentences. You can be incorrect about what was the best fighter in WWII all you like. I could care less what you think of it. But I have asked you several times to keep your nationalistic bashing out of it. You are the only one here doing that, and it should stop.
This is not the appropiate place for insulting other nations, making nationalistic snide remarks, and name calling. If it bugs you that Britain no longer has an empire, that’s one thing, but you really need to stop insulting my country and refering to it as the “commonwealth” and other such childish things. That era ended hundreds of years ago. So far you have trolled every other post I have made on other threads in this forum to try to start an argument, because that’s how childish you are. You even made up some fake reference about some imaginary person stating that they happened to know that memebers of the Russian army dislike a movie I suggested in a movie thread, simply to be inciteful and start a childish argument. My God boy. You are desperate aren’t you?
Your kind is not uncommon in forums - those few who troll threads to incite others, bash other people’s countries, insult them with name calling, seek to start arguments instead of calmly discuss, and actively try to incite others - those who simply cannot accept than anything that comes from their country is not and has not always been the best of it’s kind in the world. That world is long, long gone my friend. Insulting other people’s countries and trolling them to start childish arguments does does not earn you respect.
Grow up and act like a member of the world society why don’t you. Just please keep your insolent counry bashing and name calling to yourself and out of the forum. Then you can discuss things without calling people names and insulting their country, and you can be respectable.[/quote]
Dude, just cut the crap out o.k.? WTF was this post? 90% wasnt related to WW2, so maybe u should bug off. And I agree with Komissar you are an idiot, maybe you should read my post eh? Spitfire being outgunned is not true. Let me explain something to you IRONMAN cause you dont seem to know much about WW2 planes. The Spitfire was built in many versions that had different speeds and armament. Yes at one time the Spitfire did have 0.303 gun. But I think we are all talking about the Griffon engined Spitfire This verson of the Spitfire came out at around the same time as the P-51 (the merlin engined one, the one that actually got its fame from).
The Spitfire was armed with four 20mm(0.78in.)Hispano cannons, and up to 1,000lbs in bombs or rocket projectiles.
The P-51 was armed with six 0.5in. Browning machine guns, max bomb load of 2,000lb or you could have six 5in. rocket projectiles
I dont know if you can read, but the Spitfire was not outgunned. But anyway please read my post on page 3, as I have related the two planes using facts.
