on febuary 9th I am going for a physical fitness evaluation to determine if I am physically fit enough to meet the minimum requirements for the Canadian Reserves, because courses will begin febuary 24th.
As such I need to be able to do 19 pushups, 19 situps and I think run laps. I know when I originally took a test there was the above and a "steps" test to test blood pressure and coordination not sure if im doing that particular test.
So ya I started doing push ups and some jogging, what should I do to hit the minimum (preferable past the minimum).
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
In short, do pushups, do situps, and run. Nothing fancy needed. How close are you?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
First, start sooner.
Second, how did you ever allow yourself to get into a shape where you could't do 19 situps and 19 push ups?
Third, do sit ups and push ups, as well as pull ups, and something to increase your endurance (like running).
Forth, don't allow yourself to reach the point where you can not do 20 sit ups and 20 push ups again. Even that level of fitness is virtually no fitness at all.
If you plan to live a long and healthy life, then on any day between now and the day you die, you should be able to do 20/20 at the drop of a hat, and further, should be maintain you endurance at a level that does not cause to to drop dead of a heart attack from running across the street for a pack of dognuts.
Sorry, for the sarcasm.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I can do 19 pushups, situps were wierd I KNOW I can do like 30-40 but for some reson on occasion i ouldnt go past 16 wierd, during the gym I could do a high number but in other places i couldnt sit back up.
As to why im in bad shape, over eating, and gamer nerdy habits need I say more?
But I need to make sure I can do the minimum as easily and with as little effort as possible since the physical training will probly kill me If I can only do the bare minimum.
*note Canadian infantry training is harder then US Rangers training proven fact.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Err... Fact proven by who?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I think I could do 19 push ups if I had to, but I do wonder.
I know many people who couldn't do 5 push ups if you asked them to, however.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote:Canadian infantry training is harder then US Rangers training proven fact.
Considering that this sentence makes no sense as is, I'll change the then to a than...and, then,
quote: Canadian infantry training is harder than US Rangers training proven fact.
The statement makes sense! The training of Candian infantry soldiers is harder than "US Rangers training proven fact." Logik.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Other than my mother, I don't think I know a single person IRL that can't hack 19 situps and 19 pushups.
You tell that to a Ranger he'll annex Canada by himself.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
US spec ops soldier testimony while on tour with Canadian soldiers during actions in Afganistan confirm this, I lack a link but friends currently in the army tell me that this is indeed true.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
BlueWizard's got some good advice for all of us!!
Do good work, Blayne Bradley...
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Rule #1 for getting in shape: Unplug.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Valentine014: Rule #1 for getting in shape: Unplug.
The truth! I can testify!
My workout: 100 jumping jacks, 50 straight and 50 crossed. 20 pushupsx2 or 3 if I can make it. 20 Leglifts & 20 crunches and Curls with weight increasing with fewer reps.
I started at 10 pushups, and within 2 weeks I was able to get to 20. The important thing is to always push yourself above and beyond.
Go for it! Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
just exercise every single day- don't miss any andd you'll get better quickly
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Check out Annex A to this document. It's the workout regimen the Army Reserves over here recommend prior to joining up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't believe Canadian infantry has harder training than US Rangers. I'm not sure I believe Canadian infantry has harder training than US Army regulars.
I'd have to see some documentation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:*note Canadian infantry training is harder then US Rangers training proven fact.
lies lies lies
fake edit: lies Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Mmmm, not sure I could add anything here. It's been said. For situps, you may find that you don't have to go all the way down straight (If you call that a cheat, then you should see what my Marine buddies do). Run slow, it is harder (ooooh is it ever). Though, I can't see why it should be so tough.
19? They have you just do 19? How fast do you have to do them in? Oh, for situps, don't place your hands behind your head and lift your head up. You get more out of crossing them across your chest. Don't move them off the shoulders. Either hold onto your shoulders or grab a small hold on your work out shirt. After a while it gets tough to keep to that. Most will want to move their arms for relief they think they need.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I started running 2 weeks ago. The first day was pitiful. Every day, just a little further.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Starting the whole running process is always pitiful. Your cardiovascular system attempts to mutiny, blocks turn into miles, your calves fill themselves chock full with lactic acid ..
Unsurprisingly, it's best to go through the hurt while you're still on your own time. Makes basic a hell of a lot easier. And less embarrassing than it normally has to be.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Yeah, just don't let yourself slip into complacency or worse. Just keep on doing one or two more a day. If you can't manage that, go for a couple days before moving up. But always be trying to do more.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dude, Blayne, I just watched my girlfriend do 20 pushups. Get a grip.
Posted by signal (Member # 6828) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't believe Canadian infantry has harder training than US Rangers. I'm not sure I believe Canadian infantry even exist .
I'd have to see some documentation.
Fixed. Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Hi Blayne,
Anything you do is better than nothing. My guess is that concentrating on CV fitness will help more than anything else. At least you will have more stamina to perform the various reps.
Despite this being a 12 week programme aimed at preparing you for a fitness test that is probably not as demanding as the one for the Canadian Army, but hey, it's a good guide.
I wish you all the very best of luck,and let us know how you get on!
And don't forget: START NOW!!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You could always give your keyboard and mouse to your parents and tell them not to give them back to you until you can do 19 pushups and 19 situps.
Or maybe you can go to your local nursing home and train with the other old folks.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
As my cousin is an Army Ranger who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I can tell you that your Army "buddies" are full of horseshit.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
uuum no they're not.
I'm heading to te gym today, gonna bring some friends along.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Blayne, as I am not in third grade, I'm not going to play this game with you.
Prove your assertion, or at least support it in some way.
Why is it that only 1/3rd of the people who attempt Ranger school complete it? Those that make the attempt are usually the best and the brightest, but they find themselves psychologically and physically taxed to their very limit.
The number of people who pass seems like a good measure of how difficult the course is. Are you telling me that less than a third of the raw recruits in the Canadian Infantry pass due to its gruelling nature? I see nothing supporting that online.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
How do they come up with a number like 19? Why not just make it 20? A number like 19 implies a level of accuracy in someone's study that I don't think exists.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Maybe not being able to do 20 pushups is laughable, but when I started working out in college, I'm not sure I could do *one*. Certainly not five.
I started bench pressing with just the bar, no weights on it.
You can only start from where you are!
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
You can also try starting your push-ups from your knees, rather than your feet. They are much easier. Or try doing them against the wall.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:uuum no they're not.
Scathing counterpoint there, Blayne.
But seriously, dude. Let's talk about who the rangers are: They're an 'elite light infantry special forces squadron.' Basic combat training, advanced individual training, and military occupational specialty completion is the absolute minimum training requirement for anyone who can be subsequently accepted into prospective Ranger service. They then have to finish Ground Week, Tower Week and Jump Week at the United States Army Airborne School, whereupon they may qualify for the Ranger programs, which include heavy doses of land navigation and air operations training. Should they complete the Ranger Indoctrination/Orientation program, they MAY be cleared for the United States Ranger School at Fort Benning, Camp Merril, and Camp Rudder.
Ranger school is an intense training program that is designed to cater only to the elite prospects of the extraordinarily few people who even qualify for the potential to enter ranger school, so it's the cream of the crop going in. Only a third of the prospects will pass the course, the rest will wash out over the grueling 26 week long ordeal, which most rangers say will have reduced them from their peak physical condition to their lowest point.
Over the grueling three-phase course, they're operating with 45kg packs and averaging over 19 hours of activity a day, averaging less than two hours of sleep a night and eating less than two meals a day. It is about the toughest physical endurance training regimen in the armed services, really only rivaled by the Navy SEALS, but this is to be expected of any Special Operations force, which is typically comprised of the most significantly able bodies in any branch, and is possessed of the most rigorous training. The Rangers, specifically as a flexible and fully elite light operations unit that can be deployed to any point on the globe within 18 hours. They are extraordinarily qualified for use in airborne, air assault, light infantry and direct action operations, raids, infiltration and exfiltration by air, land or sea, airfield seizure, recovery of personnel and special equipment, and support of general purpose forces (the regular grunts).
You aren't even claiming that it's equivalent to Canada's special operations training, you're claiming it's easier than Canadian basic infantry training.
It would be very unusual if this were the case, as nearly nobody in the entire Canadian population would have the physical capacity to successfully complete canadian army basic. Fortunately, it's easy to deduce that this is not the case and a good acid test of this deduction is that it is humanly possible for you to qualify for entry on the merit of 19 pushups and 19 situps.
Posted by Naked_Valkyrie (Member # 10126) on :
Canada has an Army? I thought that is where you go to stay out of the Army!
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naked_Valkyrie: Canada has an Army? I thought that is where you go to stay out of the Army!
Canada doesn't need an army, they have moose.
Posted by Naked_Valkyrie (Member # 10126) on :
is papa moose Canadian?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
People. Enough with the Canada-bashing, ok? You might want to remember that the US has lost big every time they tried to invade the place. And that's with five times the population. Any mockery should go the other way, except of course that Americans are already so totally open to mockery for being utterly ignorant of history and good manners; pointing out that their army has, historically, utterly sucked would just be icing on the cake of their humiliation.
Posted by Naked_Valkyrie (Member # 10126) on :
We fought a war with Canada? I thought we won all the wars we where in except the one in Veitnam?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
my grandpa can beat up your grandpa.
*shrug* maybe they're exagerating but there is a confirmed incident where US solders gave theyre weapons to the Canadians camped out with them, (the Canadian weapons were father back in the cave) on the basis that the Canadian soldiers could use theyre guns better.
It also cannot be denied that Canadian soldiers do tend to perform extraordinarily in their duties, prominant examples are canadians winning inernational wargames, tank training skirmishes, and sniper "competition" in Afghanistan.
I have no proof yes, but every exageration has some level of truth.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Any mockery should go the other way, except of course that Americans are already so totally open to mockery for being utterly ignorant of history and good manners
*dies from irony overdose*
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
my grandpa can beat up your grandpa.
*shrug* maybe they're exagerating but there is a confirmed incident where US solders gave theyre weapons to the Canadians camped out with them, (the Canadian weapons were father back in the cave) on the basis that the Canadian soldiers could use theyre guns better.
It also cannot be denied that Canadian soldiers do tend to perform extraordinarily in their duties, prominant examples are canadians winning inernational wargames, tank training skirmishes, and sniper "competition" in Afghanistan.
I have no proof yes, but every exageration has some level of truth.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:...might want to remember that the US has lost big every time they tried to invade the place.
A lot of things were different 200 years ago, or have we attempted to invade Canada more recently than the War of 1812?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You might want to remember that the US has lost big every time they tried to invade the place. And that's with five times the population. Any mockery should go the other way, except of course that Americans are already so totally open to mockery for being utterly ignorant of history and good manners; pointing out that their army has, historically, utterly sucked would just be icing on the cake of their humiliation.
Ummmm, yes. Evidently you have them yankees licked in the field of good manners. That's why you get to be so boastful about it?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:there is a confirmed incident where US solders gave theyre weapons to the Canadians camped out with them, (the Canadian weapons were father back in the cave) on the basis that the Canadian soldiers could use theyre guns better.
Again...if this is confirmed then please, by all means, provide proof.
Posted by Naked_Valkyrie (Member # 10126) on :
It makes sense if Canada has a small military then they are the ones that want to be in for life so they might be better on average but not really very strong as an army.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Naked_Valkyrie: We fought a war with Canada? I thought we won all the wars we where in except the one in Veitnam?
Right-ho. I rest my case. Sheer ignorance, and of their own istory at that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:...might want to remember that the US has lost big every time they tried to invade the place.
A lot of things were different 200 years ago, or have we attempted to invade Canada more recently than the War of 1812?
Yep. And got your asses kicked. Again.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Please!?! The Fenian raids?!? A couple hundred Irishmen with anger issues constitues a war?!
Hell, in that case, come time for the next family reunion, we're invading Canada!
I'm guessing we can easily take Montreal, or at the very least inflict some of our stereotypical American rudeness on them for foisting Celine Dion onto us.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
edited.
Because I realized that just because other people are snippy doesn't mean I have to be.
[ January 23, 2007, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: cmc ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Sidenote on the Fenian raids...supported by your own linked article...
The Canadians were beaten by the Fenians, with the Fenians retreating only because of their lack of a supply chain and approaching British regulars.
Is this what amounts to an ass-kicking in Canada?
Posted by Naked_Valkyrie (Member # 10126) on :
I just joined up and I am called ignorant by a man who cannot do 19 sit-ups? I guess you need something to be boastful about. Maybe this is the wrong place to ask questions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
When the invading army retreats because it hasn't got the basic competence to ensure enough ammunition and food, and because it's afraid to fight the army it intended to defeat... Yes, I call that an ass-kicking.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I just joined up and I am called ignorant by a man who cannot do 19 sit-ups? I guess you need something to be boastful about. Maybe this is the wrong place to ask questions.
First, you seem to be confusing me and Blayne. I can do 19 sit-ups. Heck, my girlfriend can do 19 sit-ups. Second, that has, in any case, nothing to do with ignorance. You are clearly ignorant of your own country's history. Some people would take that as an opportunity to learn something.
It may be worth noting, though, that I do have a bit of a reputation for snark on this board. You might find it better to ignore me until you're up to speed on basic things; others here are better at the gentle correction.
quote:Because I realized that just because other people are snippy doesn't mean I have to be.
Responding to your original post: She is neither stupid nor ignorant, and therefore does not get the rough edge of my tongue.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Everyone's ignorant about something. You seem to be confusing ignorance with willful ignorance.
There's nothing wrong with being ignorant.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Rave Time!
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:When the invading army retreats because it hasn't got the basic competence to ensure enough ammunition and food, and because it's afraid to fight the army it intended to defeat... Yes, I call that an ass-kicking.
KOM, A few things in response.
1st: You're willfully ignoring what an army is. A few hundred Irish with a grudge doesn't constitute an army.
2nd: The actual U.S. Army stopped about 3,000 Fenians from crossing into Canada and doing some serious damage. This, in addition to the supply issues, played a part in their retreat.
3rd: Can you explain how a tactical retreat is an ass-kicking? Did the Canadians that retreated from the Fenians get their asses kicked too? Or is just the final outcome that makes that determination?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I prefer final outcome, that way Vietnam can be easily classified as America getting its ass kicked and as such allowing us to ignore the inconvenient facts of the US never losing a single engagement at the company level due to its overwhelming air suporiority at the time.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Blayne, You use whichever self-delusion that helps you sleep at night, and i promise I'll do my best not to upset your skewed view of reality.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
The War of 1812 was officially with Britain, no? The USA still had its ass beaten, sure, on too many painful fronts to discuss, but, well...
Imagine what would happen if Canada tried to invade the US today ^^.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
We'd get good transit systems and national health care?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
HumanTarget, wtf are you talking about and why are you calling me deluded and how is my reality skewed.
Are you denying that the US won nearly every single military engagement vs the VC and NVA? Or are you being a **** disturber because it floats your boat?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: We'd get good transit systems and national health care?
Heh.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:HumanTarget, wtf are you talking about and why are you calling me deluded and how is my reality skewed.
Let's see...your exact quote,
quote:that way Vietnam can be easily classified as America getting its ass kicked and as such allowing us to ignore the inconvenient facts of the US never losing a single engagement at the company level
shows you asserting a point that disagrees with your own logic. If we in fact won every engagement on a military level, then how did we get our asses kicked? Asserting that we got our ass kicked even though we won every battle seems a bit backwards to me. Hence the delusional comment.
quote:Are you denying that the US won nearly every single military engagement vs the VC and NVA?
Couldn't tell you. Either way, it's not relevant, especially if your stated intention is to gloat that the U.S. lost the war in Vietnam.
quote:Or are you being a **** disturber because it floats your boat?
It's been a while since I've posted, and I had just forgotten what a pleasure it was dealing with you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It is obvious you take pleasure insulting me otherwise you would see the irony in my statement. I am not discussing an issue which you have purposely misunderstood to the greatest degree.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Blayne, Your irony is routinely missed, so you'll have to excuse me if I've become the latest victim.
In the future, you might make more of an effort to be understood, rather than hiding behind supposed personal attacks and assertions that any misunderstandings could only be intentional, as opposed to actually being affected by your poorly worded statements.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Davidson's Law strikes again.
Subtle, but inescapable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
where did he strike this time.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Okay, advice for getting into shape in under 18 days.
STEP 1: Set aside plenty of time for an online long-derailed discussion of the topic.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
THT's use of 'affect' when 'effect' is the correct word.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: Imagine what would happen if Canada tried to invade the US today.
The Canadians troops would be stopped at the border crossing and asked for the passports. They would produce them and be welcomed into the US. Countering US troops would be allowed into Canada but when they tried to return to the US side of the border they too would be asked for passports. Only 2 in 10 would have passports and they would be refused entry.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
US troop can use their military ID cards to re-enter the country.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: We'd get good transit systems and national health care?
And beer with more alcohol in it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Are you denying that the US won nearly every single military engagement vs the VC and NVA?
If he won't, I will. This is a popular myth that just doesn't agree with ground truth. I recommend you see to documentaries on the subject. "Two days in October" and "Sir no Sir".
For example: In Oct. 1967 US commanders lead troops into a VC ambush where they were slaughtered.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Avoiding the military debate:
Every hour or so, drop and do five pushups. Just knock'em out.
Do a couple of lunges - no more than five per leg.
Sit and do a couple of situps.
Get your body used to doing the exercises in small amounts and build up to larger amounts.
In the evenings, push yourself (no pun intended) by exercising to "muscle failure".
-Trevor
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
kk all good advice, and when I mean nver lost a battle I mean above the company level, which I think I mentioned although probly not clearly enough I read a very intesting book(s) on the Vietnam war.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We're forgetting the part where America kicked it's own ass. But whatever, Belgium could take it any day! Go Belgium!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
KoM amuses me That and I love how he likes to perpetuate negative stereotypes and pluralizes when a single person doesn't know his history well enough. I guess that means we're ALL stupid. From that, I'm to deduce that all of KoM's countrymen are snobby, uptight, arrogant pricks.
We won the Revolutionary War, against the most powerful nation on earth at the time. We won the War of 1812, against the most powerful nation on earth for a second time. If you want to celebrate the fact that British regulars repulsed American militia in their invasion of Canada, then by all means, do so. Repelling a concentrated effort, no matter how crappy it might have been, by a foreign nation is always cause for celebration. The fact that Canada hasn't had to face any serious threat of invasion in the last 200 years is I guess irrelevant. Obviously those wily Canadians can never be bested.
The US Military record is admirable, I don't really see where anyone has proof to argue otherwise.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:We won the Revolutionary War, against the most powerful nation on earth at the time.
France and Spain won the Revolutionary War, and at the time Britain was nowhere near the dominant position it had after the Napoleonic Wars. You lot were along for the ride.
quote:We won the War of 1812, against the most powerful nation on earth for a second time.
Which is why not a single one of your casus belli made it into the peace treaty. And, again, Nappy had far more to do with the outcome than any fighting on American soil.
quote:That and I love how he likes to perpetuate negative stereotypes and pluralizes when a single person doesn't know his history well enough.
Possibly you missed the irony inherent in complaining about people perpetuating stereotypes, by doing so myself. This was intended as a subtle form of humour. My mistake; I forgot that my audience was composed of rough colonials, whose idea of humour is a bear-baiting party. Next time I try for humour, I shall make sure to include bells, whistles, and gongs as a visual aid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hm, well in that case, American won WW2, France and the UK were just along for the ride. Thanks for giving us a place to land all our boats and big shiny bombers.
Was it another joke of yours that Americans apparently got their "asses kicked" when they lost after half hearted efforts to invade Canada, but when America beats the British it wasn't our doing, it was because of third party intervention?
Maybe in the future you should actually be funny, just a suggestion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:KoM amuses me That and I love how he likes to perpetuate negative stereotypes and pluralizes when a single person doesn't know his history well enough. I guess that means we're ALL stupid. From that, I'm to deduce that all of KoM's countrymen are snobby, uptight, arrogant pricks.
Psh. Belgium laughs at both of your obvious cultural inferiorities.
Ignorant north americaners, we sneer in your general direction.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I forgot that my audience was composed of rough colonials, whose idea of humour is a bear-baiting party.
Arf arf - that's rich coming from a rough colonial whose idea of fun is a moose-baiting party.
BTW, the British have never been dominant, were more passive-aggressive in an underhanded sort of way. And we have jolly nice flag.
Toodle-pip Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Hell, in that case, come time for the next family reunion, we're invading Canada!
I'm guessing we can easily take Montreal, or at the very least inflict some of our stereotypical American rudeness on them for foisting Celine Dion onto us.
Do us a favor and take Saskatchewan. Or Newfoundland. Or better yet, take both. Please. Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Belgium could have you all. With one hand tied behind its' back (with red tape).
Or it would challange the US to a beer competition.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: We'd get good transit systems and national health care?
And beer with more alcohol in it.
And Smarties and Shreddies. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven:
And we have jolly nice flag.
And you used have an even better one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven: Belgium could have you all. With one hand tied behind its' back (with red tape).
Or it would challange the US to a beer competition.
I'd have to vote for the Belgians. It's the only beer I can really tolerate.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Shirley the Gadsden Flag was American?
I was talking about the Union Flag... Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lyrhawn, KoM's major points are perfectly valid: we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812, and only "won" the Revolutionary War because France got involved.
That said, counting the Fenian raids as an invading American army is a bit of a stretch, given that American forces were actually attempting to prevent the raids.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Canadians have fought a good many wars and performed extraordinarily, WWI (Vimmy ridge anyone?), WWII (we couldve won at Dieppe if it werent for them Brits slowing us down ), Korean War, Afghanistan, and in peacekeeping thingies all over the world just because we havent been expressedly invaded doesnt mean we havent fought.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also, the USA did not "win" WWII, the war was fought and won in the Eastern Front.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Lyrhawn, KoM's major points are perfectly valid: we got our butts kicked in the War of 1812, and only "won" the Revolutionary War because France got involved.
And also Mel Gibson.
-pH
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Also, the USA did not "win" WWII, the war was fought and won in the Eastern Front.
A novel take on the history of WWII. I assume that the Pacific Theatre, the campaigns in North Africa, Italy or Western Europe were just a day out for the boys then?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:And also Mel Gibson
And also Jean Laffite. Horray for Pirates. I'll bet he could do twenty push-ups!
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
I think that it's to Canada's credit that they don't need as large of an army as the US, or have to fight as many people. The rest of the world generally likes Canadians and they have few enemies...
maybe because their "well trained" army does not go about invading whatever country the president feels like invading...
i have no doubt that US spec ops is trained way better than the canadian light infantry, and i sincerely doubt that the americans handed over their guns to canadians to improve utility of the guns.
but i still think it's to the canadians' credit that they dont have to fight as much.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
compare the ratios of equipment used/lost of each theatre and you'll realize that aside from shortening the war the North African threatre and French threatres did little to the actual winning of the war, they shortened it by a few months but by no means were they responsible for its conclosion. It was the Red Army that finally circled and occupied Berlin, that destroyed the mighty 6th Army Group, that smashed Germanies irreplaceanle AFV stock at Kursk, that destroyed the forces sieging Leningrad and anniliated army group center.
The back of the werhmaht(sp?) was broken in Poland with Zhukov's race to Berlin, The germans in France were only fighting holding actions, The ardennes offence lacked the manpower to repeat its performence of 1940.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: I think that it's to Canada's credit that they don't need as large of an army as the US, or have to fight as many people. The rest of the world generally likes Canadians and they have few enemies...
Here we see the Canadian in its natural habitat. The Canadian, a generally peaceful creature, has few natural enemies... (/Nature Show Voiceover)
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Also, the USA did not "win" WWII, the war was fought and won in the Eastern Front.
A novel take on the history of WWII. I assume that the Pacific Theatre, the campaigns in North Africa, Italy or Western Europe were just a day out for the boys then?
Sorry, but yes. Oh, the Pacific campaign kept the Japanese from biting the ankles of the Russians, but North Africa prolonged the war a bit by preventing the Italians from sending any troops to the Eastern front, where they'd have given the Russians some easy breakthroughs. As for Western Europe: Look up some German orders of battle, and consider whether that handful of garrison troops would really have made any difference in the east.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And having Europe under Soviet control would have been a walk in the park.
Sorry we wasted our time.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Mussilini sent 200,000 italians in 41' to the Eastern front, thse 200,000 could have swung the war in North Africa in Rommel's favor, since the equipment, spare parts and supplies needed to sustain italian activity in the east could have been used in North Africa.
The Japanese had a "northern resources area" and a southern one, they choose the southern one on US provocation, while it is concievable had Japan tied down Siberian troops germany wouldve possibly been able to maybe take Moscow but nonetheless the Japanese planned and determined long before June 22nd that they were going after the states, the Entire Pacific theatre should easily be considered a separate war as the Japanese ad the Germans had little to no coordination.
Germany was already being pushed back and lacked all hope for victory in 1944, normandy only sped up the process.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
k, what happens if due to whatever reason I forget to do pushups until really late at night is it still benficial to do them? I'm doing them anyways on the safe side.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And having Europe under Soviet control would have been a walk in the park.
Sorry we wasted our time.
A completely separate issue from what was asked. And anyway, why you say "we", postmodern boy? You weren't even born at the time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Unless you are a vampire, I don't see how time of day matters much. Assuming you are awake enough not to injure yourself, and don't make noise that bothers the downstairs neighbors.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Russian Communism mixing with West Europe Socialism possibly wouldve mellowed out the Soviet Union in a way Kruschev would never accomplish.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And having Europe under Soviet control would have been a walk in the park.
Sorry we wasted our time.
A completely separate issue from what was asked. And anyway, why you say "we", postmodern boy? You weren't even born at the time.
So I brought it into the fold, now it's a part of the equation, and really should have been all along, if you're working with the assumption that US involvement in Europe was completely useless, as you seem to be.
And I say we as in America, like when I say WE won whatever war or when you say "YOU" lost whatever war. I didn't lose Vietnam, I wasn't born yet. I didn't win WWII, I wasn't born yet. If we're going to get tripped up on second person pronouns, we might as well stop discussing now.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: k, what happens if due to whatever reason I forget to do pushups until really late at night is it still benficial to do them? I'm doing them anyways on the safe side.
So, you forgot to do your pushups, but remembered to posts 18 times on hatrack yesterday?
Priorities, dude.
Y'know what might be a really good exercise for you? Every time you hit 'add reply', drop down and crank out 5 pushups. You should be done by the time the thread refreshes, and throughout the course of the day you'd get some serious work in.
[ January 25, 2007, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: El JT de Spang ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Blayne, At your level of strength, you don't really have to worry about over-doing pushups or hurting yourself by doing them at the wrong time. The amount you are doing is going to cause very minor injuries at worst. You should actually be pushing yourself as hard as you can at this stage. It's going to hurt, but it's not dangerous and it'll give you the best gains over a short period of time.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Seriously Blayne for your sake, turn the computer off and focus. Unless you're trying to in basic training as bad as possible.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I don't know that that advice is very useful, Wowbagger. It's solid, it makes sense, and Blayne would undoubtedly benefit from following it, but I don't think that turning off the computer is on the table as an option for Blayne right now. Given that, I think that JT's advice about his doing some kind of exercise every time he posts something is a good idea.
For that matter, Blayne, you could expand it and do a half dozen situps or something every time you save a game you're playing/complete a level/whathaveyou.
[ January 25, 2007, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
putting it into practice.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's great, Blayne!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So I brought it into the fold, now it's a part of the equation, and really should have been all along, if you're working with the assumption that US involvement in Europe was completely useless, as you seem to be.
We were discussing whether the US contributions to WWII were decisive for victory over Germany. You were unable to produce any argument showing that it was. You brought in the victory over the USSR instead; this is a red herring, and a dishonest form of argument.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The US could not have prevented the USSR from gaining any clear advantage in a military struggle for the Hegemony of Europe had the USSR attacked in 1949. The Soviet Army was at its most efficient, best organized, trained and best equiped. The Red Army between 1945-1953 was an Army of Victory and possessed the military might, industrial productivity, infastructure and political will to overrun the West.
The Red Army had easily 300 combat ready Divisions, every infantry division had a tank battalion, every tank division had a heavy tank battalion, the army was all in all equipped with an ungodly amount of artilery, and possessed an extremely large and at this point well experianced modern airforce.
Had they wanted to I see in no certain terms that the West could have held off the Russians, its possible the Maginot Line could've held them off but not for long, France had not recovered from German occupaton and England was far to exshausted from the war to give a good fight against a determined, well equipped, battle hardened Soviet Army.
It would have been the United States Army doing most of the fighting and their airforce, the US Army wasnt that large of a presence in Europe with the longest supply line possible 8000 miles of Ocean, significant versus the germans but not against the massive amount of upgraded T-34's, IS-3 tanks, and depending on how long the war lasted T-54's.
The discussion is about whether the US and the West made any significant difference to the War in europe, if you wish to discuss whether they could have stopped the Soviet Union should the USSR kept going after taking Berlin... The Allies would have put up a fight yes and would have been the most desparate fight the west has ever put up but would they have held off the Russians without giving up massive amounts of land in the process? Doubtful.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The Red Army between 1945-1953 was an Army of Victory and possessed the military might, industrial productivity, infastructure and political will to overrun the West.
It reads like something ripped from a propaganda pamphlet. It is nice to see a worldview free of the the wrongthink taint of the capitalist running-dog western lackeys!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There was no way the Soviet Union could have put up the kind of fight against the West that they did against the Germans. The subject populations would rise in instant revolt - fighting the Nazis is one thing, and even at that, the regime tottered before the death squads moved in; but against the democratic West? The supply lines would grind to a halt without Lend-Lease supplies. Moscow would be nuked. The T-34 was showing its age badly even against German equipment, much less against the new stuff coming online in 1947 - just in time for the party! As for the IS-3, it was a monstrosity, completely impossible to supply with the amounts of fuel it consumed. There would be instant German re-unification and rearmament, and this time they'd be supplied from the West - Hitler's dream of the bulwark against Bolshevism, without the stupidities of the Nazi administration. China would invade Siberia. (Gnarf! China bite ankles!)
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Sounds like someone needs to make an alternative reality rule-book for Axis and Allies!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
my source is Liddel Hart and about a dozen other WestermGenerals who wrote extensively about the Red/Soviet Army. So unless your sporting Stars on your soldiers and possess their experiance and tactical and strategic knowhow...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It doesn't occur to you that generals after WWII had an obvious ulterior motive for exaggerating the strength of the Red Army? In any case, appeal to authority is a really bad form of argument, especially when it's so vague as "a dozen generals". My dozen generals can beat your dozen generals any day of the week, and anyway I gave an actual argument for my position; why don't you go see whether your sources dealt with that argument or not? Then, if they do, tell us how.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The Soviet Army was at its most efficient, best organized, trained and best equiped. The Red Army between 1945-1953 was an Army of Victory and possessed the military might, industrial productivity, infastructure and political will to overrun the West.
The Red Army had easily 300 combat ready Divisions, every infantry division had a tank battalion, every tank division had a heavy tank battalion, the army was all in all equipped with an ungodly amount of artilery, and possessed an extremely large and at this point well experianced modern airforce.
Had they wanted to I see in no certain terms that the West could have held off the Russians, its possible the Maginot Line could've held them off but not for long, France had not recovered from German occupaton and England was far to exshausted from the war to give a good fight against a determined, well equipped, battle hardened Soviet Army.
Give me a link for proof Blayne. A real link. Russia has NEVER won an offensive war in their history except for, to use the term, going along for the ride. They have, however, won every defensive war.
Edit to add: Blayne, use the spell check. You were getting so good.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Russia has NEVER won an offensive war in their history except for, to use the term, going along for the ride.
Oh, come now. That's an even worse argument than appeal to authority. What is the magic of that word, 'offensive', that suddenly turns Russian soldiers to mud?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Manstein, Gudarian, Model, Hart, and a few American ones as well.
As for the content of the book I have read it twice cover to cover, please explain to me how I can provide links to its content online.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
In their history, they have never won an offensive war. Battles, yes. I don't know why, and no one else I know of knows why either. But if you want to get into a pissing match, I'm not game for it. It's past 6pm over here, and I am late for the bar call. I have better places to be.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also Russia won vs Sweden in an offensive war here:
Plenty of offencive victories.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:So I brought it into the fold, now it's a part of the equation, and really should have been all along, if you're working with the assumption that US involvement in Europe was completely useless, as you seem to be.
We were discussing whether the US contributions to WWII were decisive for victory over Germany. You were unable to produce any argument showing that it was. You brought in the victory over the USSR instead; this is a red herring, and a dishonest form of argument.
I don't think it's irrelevant, but fine, we'll stick to US contributions to victory over Germany.
Without the US Britain would have lost, either starved out our just plain beaten from lack of materiel. We sent them food at great cost, and in the early stages resupplied their air force. And the USSR would have lost on the east. Why? Lend-Lease. Russia wouldn't have had a functional air force without us, wouldn't have produced nearly enough tanks to win (because they only produced .1% of the 2000 locomotives the heavily rail dependent nation got during the war), and they wouldn't have been able to move materiel around nearly well enough without us providing 2/3rds of the trucks used to move supplies around during the war as well. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the materiel they recieved from us. Crediting the USSR with winning the whole thing while ignoring what allowed them to do it is a bit dishonest too don't you think?
To say nothing of the US bombing efforts that hurt German industry and supplies, and considering how quickly they increased production, one wonders how much worse it would have been without help.
I remain wholly unconvinced that Germany could have been repulsed, let alone totally overrun without US involvement.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Without the US Britain would have lost, either starved out our just plain beaten from lack of materiel. We sent them food at great cost, and in the early stages resupplied their air force. And the USSR would have lost on the east. Why? Lend-Lease. Russia wouldn't have had a functional air force without us, wouldn't have produced nearly enough tanks to win (because they only produced .1% of the 2000 locomotives the heavily rail dependent nation got during the war), and they wouldn't have been able to move materiel around nearly well enough without us providing 2/3rds of the trucks used to move supplies around during the war as well. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the materiel they recieved from us. Crediting the USSR with winning the whole thing while ignoring what allowed them to do it is a bit dishonest too don't you think?
All right; this is fair enough. I'm not completely convinced Lend-Lease was decisive in the Russian victory, but it was certainly a large factor. However, that doesn't have anything to do with the military contributions of the US; and as you will recall, we were originally discussing military history and traditions.
quote:To say nothing of the US bombing efforts that hurt German industry and supplies, and considering how quickly they increased production, one wonders how much worse it would have been without help.
The effectivenes of the strategic bombing campaign was rather dubious. Sure, it hurt the Germans, but there's quite a bit of evidence that it hurt the Americans even more by tying up their production. For the metal and labour involved in one bomber, you could get a large number of tanks and trucks, which might have been Lend-Leased or used for an earlier Normandy invasion. Not to mention all that skilled manpower lost as bombing crews.
Blayne, could you please edit that long URL so it doesn't screw up the page?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This thread cracks me up. What's it going to migrate to next? The controversy of using atomic bombs on Japan? Utilitarian justifications for Apartheid? Dutch medical ethics? The Bell Curve? Revisionist history worship of Mao? It's a journey of mystery!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
PapaMouse fixed it already.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
No, actually, I didn't. Unless I was sleep-moderating. And without sleeping even.
Have you been doing your exercises for each of these posts today? I notice your posting rate has gone way down since yesterday....
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I sure as heck didnt fix it, whe I got the message on my screen it was fixed and yes I am doing 5 pushups. my arms hurt.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: [QUOTE][Russia has] won every defensive war.
You're forgetting the Golden Horde.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
I call that poor logistics and an advance to the rear.
A proper beating would be if they ran because they were out gunned even with a numerical advantage. If you have no food or ammo, its smart to advance to the rear, and then come back better equipt later.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: [QUOTE][Russia has] won every defensive war.
You're forgetting the Golden Horde.
And the Vikings.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
*Five belly crunchers*
Personally I think trying to identify a single factor that lead to Allied victory in WWII is a futile exercise.
What I'm getting at is that in my opinion there can be no "one deciding factor" in a conflict so widespread and which was fought on so many fronts.
Had the US not become involved, things would have turned out differently. US aid helped Britain to continue fighting through until 1942, and we held out without having to fight an invading force or worse surrender. It scares me to think how the UK would have behaved under Nazi occupation. I rather fear we would have adapted very well. Perhaps a counter-factual for another day.
However, history shows that the US did join in, the Axis forces were defeated and the Red Army stopped it's advance in Berlin. A final act before the iron curtain closed and we settled down to 40+ years of cold war.
Now then - imagine Stalingrad falls. Russians are pushed back and the Nazis reach the oil and gas in Georgia and the Caspian. What happens next?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
if Stalingrad fell the 6th Army would still have gotten smashed with Zhukov's counter attack, the germans had way too little manpower defending way to large a front.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If your arms hurt, you're very likely not doing the push ups correctly. Push ups barely use any muscles in the arms. The area that should be aching is your arm pit/outside chest area. Where on your arms are you hurting?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I sure as heck didnt fix it, whe I got the message on my screen it was fixed and yes I am doing 5 pushups. my arms hurt.
That's awesome! Stick with it and you'll have guns so big you'll have to register them with the government. Though you'd probably be better served chopping your arms off and giving them to a U.S. spec ops soldier.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
they ache somewhatabove th elboe joint.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sounds like your tricep. We are talking about the back of your arm, right? That's an odd place to ache, but it does get used somewhat. How are you doing the push-ups?
Standard position is to have your body straight, legs together, hands touching the ground on a line a little below the shoulder - lined up around the upper chest, and out enough that your arms make around an 80-85 degree angle with the ground when your whole body is touching the ground.
The force from the push up comes nearly completely from your pectoral muscles. You should be feeling the strain there. Of course, if you're feeling an ache, as opposed to any sort of sharp pain in your triceps, I don't know that it is anything to get to worried about.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It's been my experience that standards pushups target the triceps at least as much as they do the pecs. Unfortunate, but inevitable.
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That and I love how he likes to perpetuate negative stereotypes and pluralizes when a single person doesn't know his history well enough. I guess that means we're ALL stupid. From that, I'm to deduce that all of KoM's countrymen are snobby, uptight, arrogant pricks.![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
), Korean War, Afghanistan, and in peacekeeping thingies all over the world just because we havent been expressedly invaded doesnt mean we havent fought.