₦airaland Forum

FOR F_UCK SAKE!!!!
.
.
.
.
we lost out of AFCON,oh God!,i feel like strangling somebody,preferably a saffer.oh!!!!,if it wasnt that it will cause a diplomatic row,i would have....

ActivateKruger:
That even worse, 3000 killed in an ambush and 3000 killed while crossing a river.
#UselessArmy

MUMU!!!
a few soldiers were ambushed while crossing the creek,by militants who knew the terrain like the back of their palms!.

goal!!!!
.
.
.
.
Nigeria 2 - 2 Bafana bafana
.
.
you gotta see the roar in uyo stadium.
.
.
.
.
#GONIGERIA

ActivateKruger:
The Nigerian Army lost 3000+ soldiers just trying to cross a river to rebels.

thats a lie.they were ambushed by the militants.and that figure is over-inflated!

#INSERTED
.
.
.
.
i cant believe that the banana bafana scored a frigging goal!,second half is gonna be different though

MikeCZAR:
- Name our out dated equipment.
- Sea battle: SAN is the only sub-saharan navy to sink an enemy warship.Air battle: SAAF fought in the skies from WW1, WW2, Korean war to the bush war.
Land battles: Too many to mention.
- Our few men = Many in All sub-saharan armies. Our standards are high.
- Named the grounded "equipment".

catfish,
-many of your gripen are grounded.
-your submarines are no better than cans of sardine under the sea.
-many of your pilots are too old to even fly a red kite.
-your infantry lacks training and discipline{which is rather obvious as they always stick their d_icks into anything with holes}
-your logistics lack maintainance
-most of your weapons are outdated,and even obsolete
-most of your soldiers are HIV infested{like i said,they f.uck anything with a hitched-up skirt or sagging trousers}
-you lack funds to upgrade many outdated equipments

patches689:
- all but 14 Gripen operational
- all 24 hawk operational - all 35 Pilatus PC-7 MkII operational
- all 40 Oryx operational
- all 29 Augusta operational
and so on and so forth.
You say that we dont have enough pilots? When questioned before Parliament, the SAAF cheif stated that 52 Hawk Pilots and 18 Gripen pilots were qualified.This means that we have more jetqualified pilots than Nigeria has Jets..
Come at me bro.

*smiles*i'm gonna knock you up,you gonna scream for mama.check this out:
-though the SANDF has a number of aircrafts,they dont have enough personnel to fly them
-most of your aircrafts are grounded
-you lack funds to upgrade and repair your grounded fleet
-most of your equipments are outdated
-your infantry lack training and discipline
.
check this out:
http://m.mg.co.za/index.php?view=article&urlid=2012-05-04-lack-of-fund-leaves-sa-vulnerable
.
you dont believe?,then check this out
.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2O10U20140325?irpc=932
.

[quote author=patches689 post=28159442][/quote]-most of the SANDF aircrafts are grounded{unoperational}
-though your aircrafts are few,your pilots are even fewer
-your infantry comprises of weak gandalfs who arent fit to set seige on a hamlet talkless of a fortress
i could go on tearing your precious military apart,but in the end,we all know how weak you military is,so its a mute point.

andrewza:
No more outdated than any other country. I mean the ratel is 1970s but so are a lot of things used by first world countries
And Neither has Nigeria, though there is no Nay in Africa for SAN to fight with, we could sink a lot of the ships used in Africa..I mean really this shows you fing retarrd
Again not a issue uncomen in the world today, even the Germans are struggling.
You mean the best equipped infantry in Africa, with the best training in Africa with the most support in Africa?

SA has the best infantry in africa?*i laugh in korean*,i can almost see your ignorance fogging my screen,the SANDF is a 1970 army that somehow slipped into the 21th century through a time travel gone wrong.a few hundred units of pharaoh's iron chariots can overwhelm your precious "sophisticated" tanks.your airforce is nigh non existent,your navy cannot even catch pirates,you even said in your words that: "we have few people to man our weapons"

patches689:
SANDF is:
- Better equipped
- Better trained
- more advanced (SANDF = Modern Digital Army. NA = 1970's/1980's army)
- more experienced in conventional war
We are also more mobile, have more precision fire power and have better Special Forces
The SANDF is a high speed low drag formation that will employ maneuver warfare and critical mass to strike at the COG of your military....
But,let me put it simply,in terms we all understand. We would do to you what the Germans did to the French with Blitzkreig.

the SANDF:
-uses outdated equippments
-havent fought a air,land and sea battle ever before
-havent solely fought in a conventional warfare{without losing}
-have few trained personnel to man their "sophisticated" equippments
-have one of africa's{and the world's} weakest airforce
-have half of their military equippments grounded due to lack of funds and aviation fuel
-has one of the world's weakest infantry with half dead soldiers
so tell me,how are you gonna blitz the NA?

patches689:
We lost 2000 men
We inflicted 7000 casualties
We held the line against the german 9th division... despite being outnumbered 2.5:1

*you lost over 2000 men,while the rest fled.
*you held the line for a while,until the germans got reinforcement and you began making series of "withdrawals".
*you were able to inflict that much casualty on the germans because you caught them off guard.

mzilakazi:
BH defeat over 300 soldiers every time, so Lesotho which is better armed than BH will do much better. They will even defeat you.

you must be drunk,the lesotho military is not even fit to battle the togolese police force.the nigerian police force can invade and conquer lesotho in a few hours.

mzilakazi:
That's, untrue. My great, great grandfather fought in that battle. It was not just him but thousands of SA.

and pray tell me,how would you know if this "great,great grandfather" of yours fought in the namibian war?.i guess your great great grandfather didnt tell you that SA was more likely to win due to the crisis in germany{and the distance between germany and namibia},so it wasnt due to the power,strength or skill of he and his colleagues{your soldiers}.period.

mzilakazi:
Nigerian military has a strength of 130 000 men and even Lesotho will crash it without any resistance. Your military is equipment less.

havent we discussed and closed this chapter before?!,dont disgrace yourself with ignorance.morgana's b_oobs!,how will lesotho even win against just 50 of our soldiers?,you're indeed a clown.

patches689:
I guess you missed the part where our Brigade destroyed a German division in the process

I guess the fact that the Brigade should be pushed back by a Division is also lost on you

nonsense,the germans werent even focused on the delville battle!,that you managed to catch the germans of guard in the initial assault does not prove anything,nearly the whole of your brigade was wiped out in the end.

mzilakazi:
In conclusion of everything else, the German were bitterly defeated by only SA forces in Namibia and left the country. SA then took Namibia as a trophy.

what part of the khalahari did you emerge from?,what height of the drakensberg did you descend from?....germany is thousands of km away from namibia,while SA is practically in the same region!,and to add to the matter,germany was fighting a battle against the allied forces in europe!,of course these were enough to make germany loose hold on the african continent.the same way ethiopia was able to repel italian forces,because of the war in europe and north africa.catfish.

mzilakazi:
@Evarn, go and sit down boss, you really do not have a military at all. No wonder, civilians are helping your military because they have realised something problematic within your force. However, let me remind you that your military can never stand before SANDFs way. We can crush it and colonise the whole of Nigeria.

you must be high on some kind of imported weed,if you think the SANDF,that is one half filled with old senile dingbats who can practically smell their graves and another half filled with HIV infested s.ex maniacs,can "crush" the nigerian army of over 210,000 fresh and strong young men who are ready to pump your brains full of lead.you must really be desperate to "colonize" nigeria,perhaps to greedily loot our soil,but you know what amuses me?,no?,what amuses me most is that you cant even take on boko haram,talk less of the NA.where was this stiff necked nose-in-the-air arrogance when castro forced you to your knees to beg for a cease-fire?,clown.

andrewza:
And in the case of France the SA forces did both. Though the brige has a whole only did one.Hence SA did not retreat. Sure a few solders here and there did. But when germany invaded France in WW2 there where cases where germany forces all so retreted. In fact the french CHA2B tanks out gunned and armoured the german tanks and could did force germans forces to retreat. But the battloins, brigads, divstion and Army groups has a whole never retreated.

you make me smile love,even you know that over a quater of your most vaunted brigade fled the battle in france,do not preach petty sentiments to me.though the SAB initially secured and held delville,german forces later pushed the south africans from the south of delville up north with constant bombardment that killed over half of your men.the invasion of france was another thing entirely,adolf hitler was a very arrogant man,a mistake that he paid dearly for,if germany hadnt antagonized USSR,history would have been different

andrewza:
Because many times the Nigerians are routed or forced to withdraw from a major stragic objective.And Nigeria is fighting BH sa fought Germany.I all so tend to keeping my mocking on this very thread,but even here I await the fully story.I mean I could start mocking at how Nigeria lost another attack chopper in a fatal crash.But instead I will say NAF is run by morons for waisting money on buying one of the best transport choppers in a VIP transport role.

losing choppers during a campaign or even during training,isnt a strange thing in the military.France,USA and others lose drones and jets virtually every month against ISIS.their is nothing to mock about our war against boko haram,we are winning,not being "relieved" by the british.contrary to your misguided opinion,we didnt waste any money buying useless aircrafts,we bought the aircrafts that we needed,unlike the SAAF,who despite their paltry number of aircrafts,neither has the manpower nor aviation fuel to fly them.

andrewza:
Germany threw divisstions at 1 SA infantry brigade and dropped so many shells there only 1 tree survide.They inflect well past 70% cassulties on the SA forces and only got a nearly won.Many SA solders simply ran out of ammo and either withdrew or got captuerd.But the fact is the SA brigade held the woods untill relvied even after suvering losses well beyond that of what a fighting force is expected to survive.
People have this bad misconcepstion on withdrwaing. There is nothing wrong with withdrawing. Routing is a problem.

we are saying the same thing love,in your words,you said"they{germany} inflected over 70% casualties on SA force"...."many soldiers ran out of ammo and simply withdrew or were captured"- which means germany nearly{perhaps already} won!....you also said : "people have bad misconception about withdrawing,there is nothing wrong with withdrawing"-well,tell that to your fellow saffers who dont know the difference between tactical maneover and "fleeing"

andrewza:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_(military)
A withdrawal is a type of military operation, generally meaning retreating forces.A withdrawal may be....a general retreat
The term retreat is mostly miss used. The correct term is rout
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rout
A rout is a chaotic and disorderly retreat or withdrawal of troops from a battlefield, resulting in the victory of the opposing party, or following defeat, a collapse of discipline, or poor morale.
A routed army often disintegrates into of "every man for himself" or sauve qui peut as the survivors flee for safety.

in your own words you said "a withdrawal may be a general retreat".let me lecture you:
.
.
there are two types of withdrawal;
(a)the tactical withdrawal- this is when troops withdraw force from a place in order to reinforce,restrategize or frustrate the opponent into making a field blunder.
.
.
(b)retreat- this is when troops are facing superior opponents and are in risk of being routed.

mzilakazi:
You are lying my Friend. Withdrawal can be done for political reasons, relieve or as a result of overwhelming pressure from international community and is not dependent on whether defeat was looming or not. Retreat is something else, it can either be strategic for reinforcement purposes or maneuverable as in when your forces have been overpowered and taking to their heels. The difference between the two is that withdrawal is always seem to be permanent in contrast to retreat which always is temporary. Many jurnos do not know how to differentiate between the two and use the two words interchangeably without knowledge unless the writer is a war journalist who also happened to be soldiers in their lifetime.

on a second thought,i think that i'll have to agree with you,however,withdrawal when used in context of resistance from a more powerful foe,equals retreat,and retreat means conceding gained grounds{except its a tactical maneover of course},germany nearly won.

mzilakazi:
You are lying my Friend. Withdrawal can be done for political reasons, relieve or as a result of overwhelming pressure from international community and is not dependent on whether defeat was looming or not. Retreat is something else, it can either be strategic for reinforcement purposes or maneuverable as in when your forces have been overpowered and taking to their heels. The difference between the two is that withdrawal is always seem to be permanent in contrast to retreat which always is temporary. Many jurnos do not know how to differentiate between the two and use the two words interchangeably without knowledge unless the writer is a war journalist who also happened to be soldiers in their lifetime.

on a second thought,perhaps i will have to agree with you,however,withdrawal when used in context of resistance from a more powerful opponent,equals retreat,and when you retreat{withdraw} from a place,you concede the territory gained throughout the campaign.

#INSERTED
.
.
.
.
We gonna knock the banana bafanas tomorrow!,we gonna send the saffers and their fans crying home.to ALL THE BANANA BAFANA FANS out there,i've only got one warning for you:
.
"beware bafanas,for thou wrestle not against angola and lesotho,but against the african principality,"THE SUPER EAGLES!" and their winning powers,against coach keshi and his top players in high places."
.
.
PAIX

andrewza:
Withdraw and Retreat is not the same thing.

oh
.
.
my
.
.
God ! ! ! !
.
.
like seriously?,what is the difference between withdrawing and retreating or even conceding?!,all are moves made by the military when facing superior and overwhelming firepower....perhaps you need to be lectured on military matters,please tell me where you live in SA.
.
.
even your compatriot,mzilakazi,bowed before my superior analysis,so why forment such lies?
.
.

mzilakazi:
Your analysis is untrue in every respect.

are you crying?,'cos i can practically see the tear drops on my screen.anyway,your post is empty without proof.

mzilakazi:
In simple language RWAFF is not equivalent to Nigeria. Sierra Leone and Ghanaian people and other neighbouring countries have the stake to claim as well. I am not interested in quasi-NATO forces of west Africa, the so called Alliance and neither am I interested in who contributed more soldiers.

more noise-making,its no wonder that you guys invented the vuvuzela.whats the difference between the modern day ECOMOG and the nigerian army?,in the time RWAFF was formed,no other west african nation had a military,it was subsequently prior to the formation of the west african allied forces that gambia,ghana,sierra leone and co formed a military force.

mzilakazi:
Relieve is not tantamount to withdrawal. Troops are relieved in warzone on the cycles of quarterly or half-yearly bases. Your insinuation that SA troops were defeated is rather fallacious and out of context because the source does not substantiate it either. Hence, you are a loser.

indeed.no,i didnt say that you lost,i said that "iminent defeat was looming",if the british hadnt 'relieved' you of your task,do you think that the SANDF{SAB} would have lasted longer,after "exhausting" themselves against german defense,and a series of withdrawals?

mzilakazi:
I say again, Nigeria's contribution in both WW1 & 2 is non-existent. SA fought alone to defeat the Germans in Namibia and colonised the South West Africa as a result. We fought the Italians also. Nigeria's contribution in Angola is speculative and hence amount to fallacy. Nigerian forces were very afraid and scared to see SADF to the core.

lest i forget,did you just say "nigeria's contribution to angola is speculative"?,perhaps the below article will soothe your perboiled reasoning.
.
.
.
.
http://www.rhodesia.nl/moss4.htm
.
.
why would the then british backed nigerian army be afraid of a biltong-munching redneck army?

mzilakazi:
I say again, Nigeria's contribution in both WW1 & 2 is non-existent. SA fought alone to defeat the Germans in Namibia and colonised the South West Africa as a result. We fought the Italians also. Nigeria's contribution in Angola is speculative and hence amount to fallacy. Nigerian forces were very afraid and scared to see SADF to the core.

well well,now what do we have here?....lies as usual?,alright,let me enjoy tearing you flimsy opinions apart,i do so love doing it.
.
.
.
.
did you just say "nigeria's contribution to both WW 1&2 was non-existent"?...so the 90,000 soldiers that were deployed to south east asia in 1943 were "non-existent contributions"?,the battalions of nigerian soldiers who fought in the burma war was "non-existent contribution"?,the mostly nigerian RWAFF that ousted german colonies on africa was a "non-existent contribution"?,the article below will refresh you brain
.
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8201717.stm
.
.

Patchesagain:
"paltry contribution"
You mean the total of 231 000 South African men who fought in the war?
Dude, just as an example, where the 1st (South African) Infantry Brigade inflicted over 7000 casualties for the loss of only 2 500 men and is largely credited with the destruction of one of Germanys best divisions (9th Division)
The Battle of Delville Wood.

the south african brigade later wore themselves out against german defense as they were initially tasked by the british to "secure the forest".tell me,isnt it true that after 'defeating' the german battalion,the german later retaliated killing thousands of soldiers,and making the south africans withdraw from some of the captured south delville wood?,werent the south africans later relieved by the british after a series of withdrawals,with iminent defeat looming?.perhaps the below article will reboot your medulla
.
.
.
.
http://www.cwgc.org/somme/content.asp?menuid=4&id=4&menuname=Delville+wood&menu=main
.

mzilakazi:
That was not Nigeria it was merely allied forces of west Africa in general.


Nigeria is not there but SA is surely there.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

what is the difference between the RWAFF and ECOMOG?,they were{and are} made up of 80% nigerian army!.SA's paltry contribution to WW I was due to the british and german role in the war.