Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Africa vs Latin America |
Post Reply 
|
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Paul 
General 
AE Immoderator Joined: 21-Aug-2004 Location: Hyperborea Online Status: Offline Posts: 952 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Africa vs Latin AmericaPosted: 26-Mar-2005 at 15:40 |
|
Definately the most intriguing continental match up. The battlefield is Australia after the whole population was forceably fed to sharks so devoid of people. Both the African and Latin American armies have deployed in opposite ends of the country. Who'll win the fight which could see South Africans clash with Argentinians, the might of Honduras scrap with The Ivory Coast and Cubans fight Libyans? A close one this. Edited by Paul |
|
|
Light blue touch paper and stand well back
http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
|
 |
|
|
TheDiplomat
Arch Duke 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 09-Aug-2004 Location: Turkey Online Status: Offline Posts: 1988 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Mar-2005 at 06:46 |
|
Definately... Brazilians would crush Nigerians...and Algerians would teach a good lesson to Chile.
|
|
|
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!
|
|
|
|
|
Janissary 
Joined: 06-Feb-2005 Location: Sweden Online Status: Offline Posts: 28 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 09:57 |
|
Latin America all the way!
Edited by Abakan |
|
|
|
|
Riain
Knight 
Joined: 10-Feb-2005 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 84 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 16:37 |
|
South Africa could give a good account of itself, even more these days than during white rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator Joined: 21-Aug-2004 Location: Hyperborea Online Status: Offline Posts: 952 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 17:26 |
|
Yeah, the South Africans will take on the whole of South America alone, leaving Central America the rest of Africa alone. Egypts probably a match for Mexico, so that's Libya, Nigeria, Kenya + a billion friends for Cuba and the other small countries to stop. I voted for Africa. |
|
|
Light blue touch paper and stand well back
http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
|
|
|
|
Vamun Tianshu
Baron 
Joined: 15-Dec-2004 Location: Japan Online Status: Offline Posts: 418 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 17:31 |
|
I don't think the South Africans can take on the whole of South America.The Brazilians and Peruvians will put up most of the fight,with the Venezualans close behind them.Oh yeah,and the Mexicans can easily defeat many africans.Lets not forget Colombia Edited by Vamun Tianshu |
|
In Honor |
|
|
|
|
RED GUARD
Earl 
Joined: 06-Mar-2005 Location: China Online Status: Offline Posts: 292 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 20:24 |
|
Hmm... tough decision, I mean
Africa's got the fighting experince after of those civil wars while
Latin America has the more modernized army.
|
|
|
Quotes by your's turly:
"I came, I saw, and I conquered... but only for the weekend" "This is my tank, this is my weapon, and this is my pride." "Power comes from a barrel of a gun." |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2008 at 22:52 |
|
africans wont unite completely bcuz of stupid tribal meanz...dey wud b dying of aids n latin american wud b less custom 2 war but wud have a stronger unity n better trained military structure n doctors |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2008 at 23:41 |
Of course Brazilians would crash the Nigerians quite easily, but if you think Algerians would defeat Chileans... my godness... How wrong you are.
Chileans are the best warriors at this side of South America. Most organized and couragious than most of our countries in South America.
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Dec-2008 at 23:43 |
|
By the way, Latin Americans have already fought in Africa. Cubans fought against the South African army in there, and gave them a lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod
Knight
Joined: 11-Oct-2008 Location: Melbourne Online Status: Offline Posts: 98 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Dec-2008 at 12:01 |
|
My bets are on Africa. Manpower + experience fighting wars + countries like Egypt and Libya with pretty good military (+ Somali pirates? =P)
|
|
|
"All the true heroes of history will be forgotten and all the villains will be remembered as heroes."
- Leo Tolstoy |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 01:12 |
|
You have no idea.
Armed forces like Chilean, Brazilian and others are top for non-nuclear nations. It was not coincidence that a "third world country" like Argentina sunk ships and produced hundred of casualties to the Brits during the Falklands war.
Mampower don't count with countries like Brazil that have hundred of million of people, or against countries that have smaller population but full fleets of top fighters, up to date technology and disciplinated armies.
Besides, Africa is light years behind development with respect to leader countries in Latin America.
Edited by pinguin - 28-Dec-2008 at 01:15 |
|
|
|
|
longshanks31
Colonel 
Joined: 03-Jul-2007 Location: Great Britain Online Status: Offline Posts: 572 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 01:36 |
|
If Australia be the battleground ships and Navy are key.
I cant say ive calculated it but i will get my books of lists out in the morning and do just that.
Though from memory i feel that south america has the upper hand.
If we combine south americas navies into a fleet of single purposes it would be a very poor admiral that lost to the african fleet.
I know north africa and a few others all have capital ships but for quality and use it just does not measure up i think.
Australia will be speaking spanish i reckon though i will look up figures in the morning and work it out.
However with 20 odd million aussies fed to sharks i reckon the big fat sharks would form an unbreakable barrier of blubber around the island.
|
|
|
long live the king of bhutan
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 02:14 |
|
Just as an example. This is the modern Chilean fleet, which is less that a ten percent of the Brazilian navy.         The Chilean navy not only protect our territory, but keep the contact with far away places such as easter island and antartida.
That can be combined with our air force:
 We also have troops in places like Haiti. Troops that we transported ourselves there... (no free ride from the UN)
   Yeap. I bet we could give a good fight.
Edited by pinguin - 28-Dec-2008 at 02:20 |
|
|
|
|
longshanks31
Colonel
Joined: 03-Jul-2007 Location: Great Britain Online Status: Offline Posts: 572 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 02:25 |
|
Plus Chile has nice modern ports too, this is starting to feel like a non contest.
Brazils aircraft carrier flanked by the best ships Chile, Brazil and Argentina have would put the African fleet out of business before it saw the shore i reckon.
|
|
|
long live the king of bhutan
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 03:54 |
|
Brazilians make theirs own fighter planes, for instance.
Take a look at some forces of South America.
Venezuela:
  Brazilian navy,
 Minas Gerais carrier
 Submarines, made in Brazil. A project is going on to build a nuclear sub.
Armada Argentina  |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 11:26 |
|
And these pictures are from Cubans in Angola:
     Cubans were decisive in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, where South Africans lost.
So, Latinos have already prove they can defeat South Africa
 |
|
|
|
|
longshanks31
Colonel
Joined: 03-Jul-2007 Location: Great Britain Online Status: Offline Posts: 572 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 13:44 |
|
I have done my calculations and for navy south america scored 75 points to africas 45, that is clear cut, if we put it in simple terms it would be a miracle for africa to win at sea. Like the modern dutch navy beating the french not very likely, with the sea battle won africa can do nothing. I was really shocked by what i found out, Egypt was the only nation to offer a decent navy but even that was not as good as peru on its own. Venezuala too has come on in leaps and bounds, Africa has an advantage for land forces, in particular tanks, but they are useless if they cant be transported to the theatre of war. So my verdict for what little its worth is south america by a million miles. |
|
|
long live the king of bhutan
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2008 at 23:06 |
|
Egypt against Brazil? More tanks? Hard to believe. I bet with the tanks available in Brazil alone is more than enough.
Once again, how modern are the tanks of Egypt?
In South America we got the latest materials in large number.
  On the other hand, Brazil manufactures its own helicopters
The problem with comparing Africa and Latin America is simply ignoring the economical divide between both regions. Latin America is far more developed than Africa and its standard of living is a lot higher. More money, more resources and more educated people simply means better armies, navies and air forces. Besides, countries like Brazil, Argentina and Chile can produce some of theirs own weapons.
The only thing Latin America lacks are nuclear weapons, but it is not that we couldn't build one (a simple task) but having them would be a political nighmare in the Americas, so treaties were signed decades ago to prevent that for happening. Brazil is going to have a nuclear sub, though, in a decade from now.
Yes, I know that for the average Westerner, Latin America and Africa "look" the same, and that the only news that usually reach outside the region are the guerrillas of Colombia or the narco wars in Tijuana.
But outsiders better get informed about the details of productivity, economic production, standard of living, education, infrastructura, etc, in every country of Latin America, before start comparing pears with apples.
Latin America is not Africa, thanks.
Edited by pinguin - 28-Dec-2008 at 23:11 |
|
|
|
|
opuslola
Tsar 
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jan-2010 at 19:14 |
|
Again, a scenerio that cannot really be conceived! OK, let's assume that the continents were forciblly pushed back together? That is S. America became attached to Africa again?
The real question then would be, "just when?" And thus, it is a question without a reason! Regards, |
|
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
