80 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

hehe, its not like the end of the world kinda news im bringing in, but i just got a call from a buddy which is in the military. they are having some international training up here in my area with people from us, italy, sweden, finland and probably some other countries.

the US forces came out of the airport with brand new desert boots. now that gave the norwegian soldiers up here a good laugh. dunno how good those boots are in 3 feet of snow/slugde.

anyway, the main thing that i wanted to post about was the fact that some of the american troops were given a job to get to a certain position and confront the enemy. some norwegian troopers had the same objective so i guess they were to fight each other. but before they got up to each other, they came into a mob of people who were standing in the way, blocking it. the norwegians got an agreement with the people to pass, the americans shot after them to get through.

quite different ways of solving a situation i must say, the old saying "shoot first, ask questions later" comes to mind

Edited by duke_Qa, 09 March 2005 - 12:26 AM.

[Ash]

Nothing new there, then...

But I also think the desert boot thing is funny. Although I shouldn't. That sort of military (mis)management affects British armed forces constantly.

Tanks that die due to sand. Guns that die due to sand (assuming the firing pin doesn't fly out). Mortars that CLOG UP due to sand. Uniforms in temperate camo. Uniforms that are clearly not designed for desert warfare. Lack of boots at all (never mind desert boots). Chinooks launched from carriers that can't cope with sea air or sea winds...

The list goes on and on.

[MSpencer]

Those "Chinooks from carriers" are Marine CH46Es, and they've been in service since early Vietnam. Because of lack of funding, FMF can't replace them completely, that's why the Osprey is being rushed into service.

[Ash]

The point is, they're not adequate for the job at hand. People DIE because of this. People HAVE died.

If it doesn't work, don't fucking use it. That's a message to American and British military, since they can't seem to figure it.

[MSpencer]

Maybe you don't get it. It's in the inventory and works most of the time, and there is no money to replace it. The role it takes up is vital because it is a long range transport helicopter, and mistakes are rare and normally due to shoddy maintenance due to lack of spare parts.

[Ash]

...or high winds off of carriers...

That's all well and good, but think about it.


You're in a desert where the temperature's 37 above during the day, and about 5 or more below during the night.
You are wearing gear that will not camouflage you in the terrain. Nor will it facilitate such temperatures (ie, it will not keep you warm, nor will it keep you cool, for it is used in temperate situations)
You are holding a weapon that is unreliable in ANY conditions. It overheats easy (which is all well and good till you remember the temperature's 37 above already, and metal conducts heat rather willingly).
Your partner is carrying a GPMG, which clogs up with sand in a heartbeat. And you are standing in a desert which is prone to sandstorms and dust devils.
Behind you is an MBT. It is currently broken down due to sand intake.
To the left of the tank is a mortar pit. Which has also become clogged with sand.
You get on the radio. You find it is broken. Like all the other radios on camp.
You deploy a TACBE (which luckily isn't broken), and call for backup from your buddies on a nearby carrier. They decide to send you a chopper full of soldiers to assist you, hopefully carrying weapons that have NOT become jammed or clogged due to the fact they've been on the carrier and not deployed to where you are yet.

Your reinforcement chopper does not arrive, as it has crashed due to sea winds, because it is not designed for sea work, or because, oops! the mechanic was too incompetent/lazy to keep it in proper working order.

Across from you is an enemy who knows his terrain, has AKs and other weapons that work in the sand, are accustomed to, and able to work in, the heat, and are also equipped with kit that lets them.

Somehow, I don't think you're going to be too happy with Command. It's all well and good you making excuses for military incompetence, Spence, but these guys put their lives on the line out there, supposedly under the pretext of freedom and keeping the peace.

The ministries of defence/defense (depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on) could at least have the decency to give these people equipment they can depend upon. Because at the end of the day, in war, it's not much good standing out like a sore thumb with a gun that won't fire. You can't just go in shouting: "BANGBANGBANGBANG" and hoping that'll work, after all!

[Silent_Killa]

You are wearing gear that will not camouflage you in the terrain. Nor will it facilitate such temperatures (ie, it will not keep you warm, nor will it keep you cool, for it is used in temperate situations)

if you want to buy the new uniforms go ahead

You are holding a weapon that is unreliable in ANY conditions. It overheats easy (which is all well and good till you remember the temperature's 37 above already, and metal conducts heat rather willingly).

I'm assuming you're talking about the SA-80 because the M-16A2 is far less prone to jamming... I'll take an M-16 to an AK any day...

Behind you is an MBT. It is currently broken down due to sand intake.

I don't recall a whole lot of Challenger 2s and Abrams breaking down...

Your reinforcement chopper does not arrive, as it has crashed due to sea winds, because it is not designed for sea work, or because, oops! the mechanic was too incompetent/lazy to keep it in proper working order.

there is no money to replace it... the military isn't going to make a different hello for every possible situation

Across from you is an enemy who knows his terrain, has AKs and other weapons that work in the sand, are accustomed to, and able to work in, the heat, and are also equipped with kit that lets them.

that's how it always is when you're on foreign soil, homefield advantage

The ministries of defence/defense (depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on) could at least have the decency to give these people equipment they can depend upon. Because at the end of the day, in war, it's not much good standing out like a sore thumb with a gun that won't fire. You can't just go in shouting: "BANGBANGBANGBANG" and hoping that'll work, after all!

yeah, that's what all the soldiers in Iraq have been doing

[Ash]

[quote name='Silent_Killa' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:53 AM']
[quote]if you want to buy the new uniforms go ahead[/quote]
If I was working for the army, I expect my battledress to be fully bought and paid for by my Government. I shouldn't have to fork out for my own desert gear for when I'm on ops in the desert...

[quote]I'm assuming you're talking about the SA-80 because the M-16A2 is far less prone to jamming... I'll take an M-16 to an AK any day...[/quote]
SA80 is crap, yes. I was mostly referring to that. But the M16 has a much larger amount of individual parts. The AK can be put back together wrong and still work.

[quote]I don't recall a whole lot of Challenger 2s and Abrams breaking down...[/quote]
Some of the Challengers did. They got their engines knackered by sand intake.

[quote]there is no money to replace it... the military isn't going to make a different hello for every possible situation[/quote]
Can you not get it into your head? Is the lives of your soldiers so fucking worthless that you're not even willing to spend the money it costs to buy equipment that WORKS!? For God's sake, you've just repeated what Spencer said. And it wasn't right the first time.

[quote]that's how it always is when you're on foreign soil, homefield advantage[/quote]
Yes. That's true. But you want to minimise that advantage as much as possible.

[quote]yeah, that's what all the soldiers in Iraq have been doing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote]
The most of them may as well have been for all the use their equipment was. It's a liability. The modern soldier should be able to depend on his equipment. This isn't World War 1 now...

[Silent_Killa]

SA80 is crap, yes. I was mostly referring to that. But the M16 has a much larger amount of individual parts. The AK can be put back together wrong and still work.

that's why people are trained to put it together correctly... and for that matter, both the SA80 and M16 are due to be replaced by the G36 and M8

Some of the Challengers did. They got their engines knackered by sand intake.

still fared a lot better than the T-72's

Can you not get it into your head? Is the lives of your soldiers so fucking worthless that you're not even willing to spend the money it costs to buy equipment that WORKS!? For God's sake, you've just repeated what Spencer said. And it wasn't right the first time.

the question is can you get it through your head? THERE IS NO MONEY... I wish we could build a different hellicopter for every situation, it's just not possible

Yes. That's true. But you want to minimise that advantage as much as possible.

and we have as much of an advantage as possible

The most of them may as well have been for all the use their equipment was. It's a liability. The modern soldier should be able to depend on his equipment. This isn't World War 1 now...

usually, they can depend on their equipment, things break, sometimes there's nothing you can do...

bottom line is, this isn't a fairy tale world, not everything can be perfectly engineered, paid for with imaginary money, and built in one day...

Edited by Silent_Killa, 21 March 2005 - 09:42 PM.

[Blodo]

the question is can you get it through your head? THERE IS NO MONEY... I wish we could build a different hellicopter for every situation, it's just not possible

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure? Do you have e.g. the US bilance (or whatever its called) for the last year? How about ask good ol' George where is all that cash from the iraqi oil going?

[Mastermind]

What cash from the Iraqi oil? We are spending millions of dollars a day just trying to maintain the peace in Iraq. Even if there were money coming from the oil, it would go to the companies who extract it, not the government. That is the biggest reason I don't see how the oil argument works. The money does NOT go straight into our government. If we were only there for the oil, why didn't we just use neutron bombs on the whole place, and waltz in when the radiation died down and take it?

[spider-man_2099]

Because the US is all for peace and...stuff, besides, the US doesn't have WMDs...

[Tom]

Another one of Georges famous quotes: "When we talk about war we are really talking about peace." ROFL

What cash from the Iraqi oil? We are spending millions of dollars a day just trying to maintain the peace in Iraq. Even if there were money coming from the oil, it would go to the companies who extract it, not the government. That is the biggest reason I don't see how the oil argument works. The money does NOT go straight into our government. If we were only there for the oil, why didn't we just use neutron bombs on the whole place, and waltz in when the radiation died down and take it?

Because bombing it like that would wake the world up to what Bush is really like rather than pretend hes not a problem to world security, so you do it the long way round. You set up a "democracy" or banana republic as it should be best known, you then make sure these guys suck your ass for the rest of their lives and sell you the oil at cheap prices giving you more amount of oil for your own country. You can sell it, become rich yourselves and even have a reason to not change your world destroying ways. Or you could just be called Halliburton and somehow sneak pass every americans field of vision into Iraq and spend their tax money there on some sort of secret project and if you are called Dick Cheney, deny it or deny you have nothing to do with it when you still have over 1 million stock options for that company.

[Andre27]

Because the US is all for peace and...stuff, besides, the US doesn't have WMDs...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're talking about the only country to ever use a Nuclear Device in anger (war).

Unless the USA has secretly gotten rid of their Nukes, which wouldn't be such a bad idea b.t.w. since they're resource draining hulks, it is safe to assume they still have them.

[Tom]

Unless the USA has secretly gotten rid of their Nukes, which wouldn't be such a bad idea b.t.w. since they're resource draining hulks, it is safe to assume they still have them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes they still have them and Bush is now funding money into developing "mini-nukes" right now. Search for the RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Apparently its 5 kilotons and could level out a one mile radius where ever dropped. Apparently it would only take 3 of these RNEPs to be as powerful as the bomb that leveled out Hiroshima.

[MSpencer]

You know that project was cancelled in the 80s after the Cold War ended?

And you know, there ARE helicopters for every situation. They're simply modified models of the exisiting ones.
Take for example the H-60 chassis.
AH60L - Gunship used by SOC
MH60L - Urban special operations transport
MH60K - Enhanced, long range special operations transport
SH60R - Enhanced ASW aircraft with capability to do air to surface and a variety of roles
UH60L - Standard transport version
UH60Q - Medevac version
Among many, many, many others.

Also the CH46 is due to be replaced by some obscure variant of the SH60 which is a better air frame.

Edited by MSpencer, 22 March 2005 - 09:51 PM.

[Tom]

It was in his $15million military budget for 2003 apparently.

[Silent_Killa]

Because bombing it like that would wake the world up to what Bush is really like rather than pretend hes not a problem to world security, so you do it the long way round. You set up a "democracy" or banana republic as it should be best known, you then make sure these guys suck your ass for the rest of their lives and sell you the oil at cheap prices giving you more amount of oil for your own country. You can sell it, become rich yourselves and even have a reason to not change your world destroying ways. Or you could just be called Halliburton and somehow sneak pass every americans field of vision into Iraq and spend their tax money there on some sort of secret project and if you are called Dick Cheney, deny it or deny you have nothing to do with it when you still have over 1 million stock options for that company.

wait, lemme get this straight, you're saying that the US government went to war for oil, which it doesn't buy... or that George Bush is securing oil so that the Iraq will be forced to give him cheap oil when he has absolutely no power

[Blodo]

Youre so not getting his point. Your government is the occupant, so noone has anything to say to them. If the oil is extracted and shipped to america, itll cause the prices on oil to go down, therefore companies make more and pay a bigger tax. To me one of the reasons for this war is to make a last ditch effort to save the USA economy, which your government (surprisingly similarly to the soviet one before they fell) is too proud to admit. Its almost obvious that all that effort put into the cold war is now yelling right back at them, like all the nukes (which someone graciously pointed out earlier in this topic) which are draining resources like crazy even tho the USA government is 'making attempts' at disarming the payloads. And maybe ill just omit the personal gain a surprising amount of people is getting throughout the period of the iraq occupation, everyone knows about that right?

Edited by Blodo, 23 March 2005 - 12:34 AM.

[Silent_Killa]

can some people try to use factual information in their posts?