Real life earth vs holy britannian empire (code geass) page 4 spacebattles forums gas equations chemistry


Click to expand…Experimentals like Shen Hu should have a considerably superior float system compared to mass produced frames, if nothing else because the former faced the problem of not having a pilot tolerant to its kinetic capabilities when it was built and had to be shelved for a time. This is further evidenced by the mass produced Gawain-derived models like Gareth falling to low velocity, unguided weapons in battles, indicating lackluster maneuverability compared to some experimental frames. Jeremiah in the battle with VV dodged one or two attacks but those were woefully slow harpoon shots. Siegfried that he was piloting was itself a painfully 6 gas laws slow machine compared to the later gen frames, failing to evade autocannon fire and relying on electromagnetic screens and rotation, with nothing to show for itself that could put it remotely close to LA, Shen or Galahad (which was piloted by a guy that could see the future).

With so many compounding factors I still dont see how Brittania could avoid sustaining catastrophic and extremely disproportionate losses (in materials but more importantly valuable personnel) in the first days in the immediate vicinity of the portal. Britannia’s biggest battles don’t hold a candle to what NATO and the many electricity 3 phase vs single phase mutual defense treaty signatories could scramble to the region.

Click to expand…Britannia is a world-spanning empire though; they have complete control over North and South America, Russia a shell gas station near me, and have considerable holdings in the northern and southern parts of Africa. That’s such a vast wealth of resources and population at their fingertips, they’d surely be able to muster a force capable of matching whatever NATO could bring. Perhaps not within the three weeks beforehand, but then, neither would NATO be able to bring its full force to bear in three weeks either.

Besides, even if Britannia suffers major losses during the initial assault, their technological superiority means they’re bound to maul the NATO forces just as badly, and NATO’s respective industry’s, economies, and populations aren’t geared towards war like Britannia’s probably are. NATO would have a very difficult time of quickly replacing their losses in personnel and equipment quickly electricity and magnetism worksheets 4th grade, whereas Britannia would probably have the measures in place to replenish their forces. Not instantly, but far quicker than what NATO could manage without the sufficient time to bring their nations up to full war readiness.

Think about it, they enslaved local population to work in death camp their industries oversea, treating them like dirt. In order to keep, well, order, they have to station quite a lot of garrison in every oversea territory, tying up their resource, manpower, and logistic to keep the local in line lest they revolt. And this’s modern age where asymmetric warfare clearly takes root, so not having garrison is not an option when they’re breeding such resentment and grief everywhere they step foot on.

And then there’s their economy and industry which practically just half-a-step above outright slave labor. But that kind of practice just won’t have productivity to support their conquest in Modern age where it’s the skilled labor that’s needed to keep their war machine running. Not to mention, again 3 gases in the atmosphere, manpower tying up in military which reduce the number of labor for other sectors to keep the nation going. And I haven’t mention sabotage yet, have anyone remember how slave labors in Nazi death camp sabotaged the war equipment part they were producing?

1. Why are we assuming that us, humans on Earth, will have the response to jump to NUKE THEM ALL! to another group of humans with unknown but presumably massive capability of WMD retaliation? Humans aren’t all bloodthirsty monsters who’s response to a foreign entity is to simply reduce them and their entire civilization into ash. Humans across the world view nuclear weapons as horrific weaponry we don’t use, why would that change 9gag nsfw, especially not knowing if they possess the ability to strike back with nukes or, looking at their superior tech, something more powerful? It seems ridiculous to say we resort to nukes.

2. Why are people assuming nuclear weapons are an end-all-be-all weapon here? Looking at the capabilities of the weapons the Brittanians can deploy, and nuclear weapons ability vs Cold War era vehicles (aka a 9kt nuclear weapon detonating 500 meters from a cold war era tank couldn’t destroy it, though it was damaged, however the crew would have died) and their ability, it seems completely plausible, even likely, that things that can casually shrug off anti-tank weapons electricity facts label (later generation Knightmares can take hails of AT fire with almost no damage) and accelerate to multi-mach speed at hundreds or thousands of gees could easily survive nuclear weapons going off anywhere near them, or otherwise move away from ordinance or even intercept it.