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.

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.

EVarn:
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
.

EVarn:

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
.
.

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.

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.

mzilakazi:
SA defeated the Germans and took over Namibia as their trophy. They literally colonised Namibia afterwards.

EVarn:
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:

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.

mzilakazi:



Your analysis is untrue in every respect.

ActivateKruger:
Observe a Nigerian Mall in Lagos (the city we're currently colonizing)

ActivateKruger:


Then we brought in the South African economic machinery, today Namibia is more like an external province of South Africa....

Now....We're busy colonizing Nigeria

Patchesagain:


Quote where I said that.


Ok, if you insist:



Its pretty clear that you think air at high altitude is more dense because it is cold... the irony that you have been bragging about superior nigerian education is too much for my sides

Now the Indian army video NEVER said what you claimed, the army Bofors artillery officer said range is 41km at altitude, simple.

[size=15pt]This is a lie[/size]

at exactly 2:36 in the video he says "at high altitude areas the gun acheives a maximum range of 42.3km"

The officer did NOT define it as low altitude, medium altitude, or high altitude.....there are 3 levels of altitude and all of them above ground/sea level. You are the one who personally claimed that the man meant high altitude because you want to twist the information to commit fraud as usual. Also the army Captain did not specify what is at altitude, the gun or the target far away.
He just said "At altitude". Finish.

He defined it as "high altitude areas"

Thus he meant high altitude.

As usual, you are the one who is commuting complete and utter fraud

and, as usual, when losing an argument you claim every-one else is commiting fraud, acting like you are some honest victim

You have been completely and utterly exposed in every way

You are the one changing the analysis to high altitude, gun sitting on mountain top where there is snow and nobody can climb, then Bofors is heavy artillery too heavy for Indian helicopters to sling airlift.

Indian army has the Chinook - the Chinhook can sling the FH77 with ease.

They also have roads in the Himalaya's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khardung_La sits at 5,359m above sea-level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsimik_La sits at 5,777m above sea-level

This means that they can drive the guns up to where the air is half as dense as it is at sea level

It does not need to be on the top of a mountain when the average altitude of the Himalaya's is over 6000m above sea level - it simply has to be in the mountain range.

This has been a wonderfull few days for me, I have broken Augugugbgugug and exposed his lies on a day to day basis.

sirjerry:
No you are not, "colonize" that word itself is old, nigerians are not going to colonize SA, we are going to own it like a slave.

agaugust:



Thanks for admitting the Bofors range is 42.3km, longer range than the 41km I said before from army guide website. Thanks

Thanks for proving me right with your 3 photos, the gun is shown on flat lands, pointing barrel towards high altitude mountains....

Proves me right, the artillery is on flat ground at the bottom of the mountains while the target enemy is sitting on high altitude mountains where the Bofors has advantage of seeing the higher ground targets up to 42.3km

Thanks @Patches for providing 3 photo evidences to prove yourself ABSOLUTELY WRONG

.

Patchesagain:


Quote where I said that.


Ok, if you insist:



Its pretty clear that you think air at high altitude is more dense because it is cold... the irony that you have been bragging about superior nigerian education is too much for my sides

Now the Indian army video NEVER said what you claimed, the army Bofors artillery officer said range is 41km at altitude, simple.

This is a lie

in the video he says "at high altitude areas the gun acheives a maximum range of 42.3km"

The officer did NOT define it as low altitude, medium altitude, or high altitude.....there are 3 levels of altitude and all of them above ground/sea level. You are the one who personally claimed that the man meant high altitude because you want to twist the information to commit fraud as usual. Also the army Captain did not specify what is at altitude, the gun or the target far away.
He just said "At altitude". Finish.

He defined it as "high altitude areas"

Thus he meant high altitude.

As usual, you are the one who is commuting complete and utter fraud

and, as usual, when losing an argument you claim every-one else is commiting fraud, acting like you are some honest victim

You have been completely and utterly exposed in every way

You are the one changing the analysis to high altitude, gun sitting on mountain top where there is snow and nobody can climb, then Bofors is heavy artillery too heavy for Indian helicopters to sling airlift.

Indian army has the Chinook - the Chinhook can sling the FH77 with ease.

They also have roads in the Himalaya's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khardung_La sits at 5,359m above sea-level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsimik_La sits at 5,777m above sea-level

This means that they can drive the guns up to where the air is half as dense as it is at sea level

It does not need to be on the top of a mountain when the average altitude of the Himalaya's is over 6000m above sea level - it simply has to be in the mountain range.

This has been a wonderfull few days for me, I have broken Augugugbgugug and exposed his lies on a day to day basis.

Proves me right, prove you wrong, the artillery is clearly on flat ground at the bottom of the mountains while the target enemy is sitting on high altitude mountains where the Bofors has advantage of seeing the higher ground targets up to 42.3km

agaugust:



Thanks for admitting the Bofors range is 42.3km, longer range than the 41km I said before from army guide website. Thanks

Thanks for proving me right with your 3 photos, the gun is shown on flat lands, pointing barrel towards high altitude mountains....

Your photo clearly proves the gun is NOT on the mountain, it is on flat ground with brown soil, gun points to mountain target, the mountain is white covered with snow and colour is white.

The gun is placed on brown coloured flat ground, not white snow mountain

Proves me right, the artillery is on flat ground at the bottom of the mountains while the target enemy is sitting on high altitude mountains where the Bofors has advantage of seeing the higher ground targets up to 42.3km

Thanks @Patches for providing 3 photo evidences to prove yourself ABSOLUTELY WRONG

.

sirjerry:
No you are not, "colonize" that word itself is old, nigerians are not going to colonize SA, we are going to own it like a slave.

agaugust:



Thanks for admitting the Bofors range is 42.3km, longer range than the 41km I said before from army guide website. Thanks

Thanks for proving me right with your 3 photos, the gun is shown on flat lands, pointing barrel towards high altitude mountains....

Proves me right, the artillery is on flat ground at the bottom of the mountains while the target enemy is sitting on high altitude mountains where the Bofors has advantage of seeing the higher ground targets up to 42.3km

Thanks @Patches for providing 3 photo evidences to prove yourself ABSOLUTELY WRONG

.

agaugust:



Unfortunately for you, your quoted 5.7km lands are not where the Bofors was used in battle, it was in Kargil and the altitude of Kargil is far much lower at only average 2.6km and that includes the snowy slippery slopes of mountains where artillery gun cannot climb, force of gravity will pull it down, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil, and Indian helicopters cannot lift the heavy 24,000 pounds Bofors guns.

Sorry you messed up again as usual, you are locked in a perpetual trap with this argument


Thanks for admitting the Bofors range is 42.3km, longer range than the 41km I said before from army guide website. Thanks

Thanks for proving me right with your 3 photos, the gun is shown on flat lands, pointing barrel towards high altitude mountains....

Your photo clearly proves the gun is NOT on the mountain, it is on flat ground with brown soil, gun points to mountain target, the mountain is white covered with snow and colour is white.

The gun is placed on brown coloured flat ground, not white snow mountain

Proves me right, prove you wrong, the artillery is clearly on flat ground at the bottom of the mountains while the target enemy is sitting on high altitude mountains where the Bofors has advantage of seeing the higher ground targets up to 42.3km

Thanks @Patches for providing 3 photo evidences to prove yourself ABSOLUTELY WRONG

.

mzilakazi:


Everything is proudly South African in that structure. Anyway, it is shoprite who are the owners of the mall. They have been busted economically.

ActivateKruger:


This is what a life of a Nigerian commercial worker is starting to look like...


- He works for the South African RMB
- He gets paid his salary at Stanbik Bank
- He pays for his monthly telephone bills at MTN
- He pays his monthly satellite TV subscription at DSTV
- He buys his monthly grocery in Shoprite

Patchesagain:


We own them

#Hegemony

Patchesagain:


Augustus. I dont think I can make this any more simple for you.

That range is only acheivable at high altitude

The pictures are of guns at high altitude

The base of the mountains is at... you guessed it (probably not)... high altitude

Or do you not understand geography as well as basic physics?

There is no where in Africa where such altitude can be achieved

The Indian Officer did not say "the range is achieved when on the top of mountains" he said "at high altitude"

Please explain to the forum why altitude is irrelevant and why they must be on a mountain top.

Fact of the matter is that the maximum attainable range of the Bofors FH77B in Africa is around 20km.

agaugust:


Fact remains that artillery shell is slower and loses range in cold Himalayas mountain because cold air is heavier than warm air, and Indian Himalayas is snow covered and snow cold as proved by your own photos, so it actually reduces artillery range, it does NOT increase it.


.

agaugust:


Who told you there is no 2.6km mountain or altitude land in Africa?

.

agaugust:



20km range for Bofors?

Thé Indian army video at about 2:20 mins says with ordinary HE shells the range of Bofors FH-77B is 31km, so you now cut it down to 20km in your desperation and fraud ?

.

mzilakazi:



Nigeria was no where to be found in WW1 and WW2.