The military discussion thread - General

[QUOTE=Mabus;34390266]Canned Guinness is nothin' special man don't worry bout it. The only pint of that stuff that's worth writing home about is the pulled kind from a decent pub.[/QUOTE] True, but it's a damned better sight than the piss-water we drink over here in the states. Budweiser and the like. [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] The only reason people can drink 20+ beers here in the states is because it's water!

[QUOTE=ewitwins;34390682]True, but it's a damned better sight than the piss-water we drink over here in the states. Budweiser and the like. [editline]25th January 2012[/editline] The only reason people can drink 20+ beers here in the states is because it's water![/QUOTE] heineken and hacker-pschorr are pretty fuckin good, but imports.

Does anybody know how the hell this guy got hold of this firearm? (Okay, never mind, he said he got it from the Institute of Military Technology, but still…) [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dxm_W3uNYw[/media] I also read a while back, on another forum that some guy in Pakistan bought an A2 and I was wondering how the hell civilians get their hands on these because AFAIK they aren't easily obtained for civilian use, if at all. [b]Edit:[/b] The post in mind; [url]http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=382937[/url] Unfortunately the pictures are no longer available but I am going to hazard a guess and say it wasn't obtained legally.

[QUOTE=Killerjc;34307224]actually the reason they surrendered in WW2 was because they built up all their forces on the french-german border and not at all near belgium, refused to help belgium, and then germany invaded through belgium. the french military was so soaked with victory that they decided no frenchmen had to die so they built a massive line of artillery and fortifications and absolutely refused to deploy out of there. it's even funnier when you realize the french had the german invasion plans yet refused to use them to their advantage.[/QUOTE] :eng101: They had outdated plans. Belgium wanted its neutrality respected.

A while ago in Sensationalist Headlines, somebody posted that soldiers in the Vietnam War used line formations and fired by rank. I thought this was crazy, and I had never heard of this, but everyone just rated me dumb. Was I just being trolled or what? I've researched into this and I've found nothing about formations in the Vietnam War.

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;34438502]A while ago in Sensationalist Headlines, somebody posted that soldiers in the Vietnam War used line formations and fired by rank. I thought this was crazy, and I had never heard of this, but everyone just rated me dumb. Was I just being trolled or what? I've researched into this and I've found nothing about formations in the Vietnam War.[/QUOTE] Actually, I have heard about them firing in line formation during the Vietnam war. I can't give you much more information besides that I've seen clips of units approaching tree-lines, someone spotting Vietcong, and then they line up and open fire on the entire grove.

The american military is the biggest welfare project ever. Also, the industrialization and lack for a genuine quest for peace is one of the current biggest ongoing warcrimes.

How effective is the Pixel camo? I see so many armies adapting it, but I heard some are gimmicks, that they are doing it to copy others. Is it true?

[QUOTE=newbs;34439007]The american military is the biggest welfare project ever. Also, the industrialization and lack for a genuine quest for peace is one of the current biggest ongoing warcrimes.[/QUOTE] this is true [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] how many of you nerdes are even in the military how many of you are even in a job that matters (combat arms)

[QUOTE=shian;34441834]How effective is the Pixel camo? I see so many armies adapting it, but I heard some are gimmicks, that they are doing it to copy others. Is it true?[/QUOTE] dont get me started on camouflage patterns and military uniforms

[QUOTE=W0w00t;34442575]dont get me started on camouflage patterns and military uniforms[/QUOTE] Aquaflauge son you ain't got shit on the Navy.

the whole platoon needs ghillie suits by next week cept this guy and his compatriot rtochat: fallin asleep with the mic taped to your head and volume on max like a non-ghillie wearin boss

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;34438502]A while ago in Sensationalist Headlines, somebody posted that soldiers in the Vietnam War used line formations and fired by rank. I thought this was crazy, and I had never heard of this, but everyone just rated me dumb. Was I just being trolled or what? I've researched into this and I've found nothing about formations in the Vietnam War.[/QUOTE] it's not exactly gunpowder era fire by rank, but they would form a loose line and all open fire on a single target this was based on research [sp]that made people say no shit sherlock[/sp] that said more ammo expended=more enemy killed

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;34438502]A while ago in Sensationalist Headlines, somebody posted that soldiers in the Vietnam War used line formations and fired by rank. I thought this was crazy, and I had never heard of this, but everyone just rated me dumb. Was I just being trolled or what? I've researched into this and I've found nothing about formations in the Vietnam War.[/QUOTE] Sort of, you may have just misread something out of context. It's certainly not firing by rank and standing out in the open. Infantry formations in vietnam are the same ones used today. It's largely situational but the main ones taught IIRC are: single file/column staggered file/column Line abreast arrowhead/wedge The one you are asking about is the line abreast, which while similar to what they did in musket era, isn't the same in how it's applied. "THE LINE FORMATION The most basic of all formations puts all three squads of a platoon in a straight line abreast of each other, with the platoon leader providing command & control from a position slightly to the rear. . This is an all-out assault position, concentrating maximum firepower to the front of the platoon, but neglecting the flanks. It therefore should only be used when the location of the enemy is known (to the front) and/or when adjacent friendly units are capable of securing the flanks of the platoon. By attacking from the flanks, the enemy otherwise would be able to bring his entire assaulting formation to bear on each squad pretty much one at a time, thereby rolling it up from the side with little difficulty. The line formation is mostly used when the platoon is tasked with providing suppressive fire onto a certain enemy location from within an extended friendly line (as preparation for and/or during an assault), but it can also be used as a "human wave" attack on a known (and hopefully suppressed) enemy location (the latter use is specifically mentioned in George Forty's "DS Army Handbook 1939-1945", page 174 "Assault Doctrine" )." And when the bullets start flying you're going to get on your belly and start organizing tactical maneuvers etc, rather than stand and launch volleys like they did with muskets. Actual infantry soldiers may want to comment further, if we have any here.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;34450993]Sort of, you may have just misread something out of context. It's certainly not firing by rank and standing out in the open. Infantry formations in vietnam are the same ones used today. It's largely situational but the main ones taught IIRC are: single file/column staggered file/column Line abreast arrowhead/wedge The one you are asking about is the line abreast, which while similar to what they did in musket era, isn't the same in how it's applied. "THE LINE FORMATION The most basic of all formations puts all three squads of a platoon in a straight line abreast of each other, with the platoon leader providing command & control from a position slightly to the rear. . This is an all-out assault position, concentrating maximum firepower to the front of the platoon, but neglecting the flanks. It therefore should only be used when the location of the enemy is known (to the front) and/or when adjacent friendly units are capable of securing the flanks of the platoon. By attacking from the flanks, the enemy otherwise would be able to bring his entire assaulting formation to bear on each squad pretty much one at a time, thereby rolling it up from the side with little difficulty. The line formation is mostly used when the platoon is tasked with providing suppressive fire onto a certain enemy location from within an extended friendly line (as preparation for and/or during an assault), but it can also be used as a "human wave" attack on a known (and hopefully suppressed) enemy location (the latter use is specifically mentioned in George Forty's "DS Army Handbook 1939-1945", page 174 "Assault Doctrine" )." And when the bullets start flying you're going to get on your belly and start organizing tactical maneuvers etc, rather than stand and launch volleys like they did with muskets. Actual infantry soldiers may want to comment further, if we have any here.[/QUOTE] I'm an Infantryman and this is basically just battle drill 1/1a, platoon/squad attack In the case of squad attack, you'll have one team get "on line" with each other and just start shooting really really fast at suspected or known enemy locations while your team leader controls the rate of fire (which will be cyclic for the first minute or so, then will taper off to rapid/sustained). The squad leader, who will by now have ran up to the alpha team leader to get eyes on the enemy, will go to the trail team (bravo team in the event the attack is to the 12) and lead them in a bold flanking maneuver. That's a really rough and short explanation and the only battle drill we really train on is "break contact" anyway since we're a light recon unit. It's not "line formations" or "fire by rank", but elements get "on line" with each other for command/control reasons and because it lets you get the most amount of firepower on target. Also soldiers aren't shoulder to shoulder, ideally they will be at least 15 meters apart depending on the terrain (the farther the better).

Can someone explain this [img]https://6143099589276196358-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/stingraysheligalleries/mil-mi-24/Mi-24D%20Hawk%20missile.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cq9CpxzK9w_TCIgtHoeDbNW4kPDrWbzvrz8Q1dlpFbiMTd7jLwBvnRdNYUDStE_FEoEOiCGO6X2VMdbinFdCYO851KHkM19MGqDzX-3TZ_yb-yCEKcITNs746nyBZEoWmTUsglU-akc6dhZopYF6p3XTJYcn2hDcaZ7iDPIgmYyJP7JGZ35JeMlB9D1si3tW3yHHy1PS_5i4Z-OIaalGr06kw5Eds7kwjbMhISjL-5OrdpMdg8%3D&attredirects=1[/img]

[QUOTE=shian;34911522]Can someone explain this [img]https://6143099589276196358-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/stingraysheligalleries/mil-mi-24/Mi-24D%20Hawk%20missile.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cq9CpxzK9w_TCIgtHoeDbNW4kPDrWbzvrz8Q1dlpFbiMTd7jLwBvnRdNYUDStE_FEoEOiCGO6X2VMdbinFdCYO851KHkM19MGqDzX-3TZ_yb-yCEKcITNs746nyBZEoWmTUsglU-akc6dhZopYF6p3XTJYcn2hDcaZ7iDPIgmYyJP7JGZ35JeMlB9D1si3tW3yHHy1PS_5i4Z-OIaalGr06kw5Eds7kwjbMhISjL-5OrdpMdg8%3D&attredirects=1[/img][/QUOTE] From wikipedia: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24_variants"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24_variants[/URL] [I]The Mi-24D was a purer gunship than the earlier variants. It entered production in 1973. The Mi-24D has a redesigned forward fuselage, with two separate cockpits for the pilot and gunner. It is armed with a single 12.7-mm four-barrel Yak-B machine-gun under the nose. It can carry four 57-mm rocket pods, four SACLOS 9M17 Phalanga anti-tank missiles (a significant enhancement compared to the MCLOS system found on the Mi-24A), plus bombs and other weapons. [U]One Mi-24D was sold to Poland in January 1996 and was used by the WTD 61 in Manching during 1994 for tests with the head of a Hawk missile in place of the chin-mounted gun. This version also had an unidentified modification in the rear cabin window on the starboard side.[/U][/I] [I]Mi-24D used for tests with the head of a Hawk missile in place of the chin-mounted gun.[/I] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Mi-24_with_Hawk_head..png[/IMG] Tough I have no idea why someone would do that

I don't know what it is, but something about the Union uniforms during the American Civil war are just really eye catching to me. I think it might just be the simplistic color scheme and fabric patterns are kind of just reflective on the state of the nation at that time. You know, had to mass produce uniforms as quickly as they could so they made them as simple as they could. Bah I dunno maybe I just like the blue, it looks sharp. I'm also very fascinated by the whole era so that is probably also a massive contributing factor. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Union_soldier_1858.jpg[/img] Call me crazy but I just like the look of them.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34271108]oh god this is going to be a shitfest :staying away: just like the 1000 marines vs. 100 SAS thread was in BF2s :shudder: but I might as well pose a question for you all what's [B]your[/B] opinion on the militarization of space?[/QUOTE] I think that whole "HURR DURR NO NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS IN SPACE" thing is kinda dumb. Now we'll never get space travel. Also, the SAS is not an occupation force, they're strictly missions and crap.

If I had to choose a uniform it would be the U.S. green service uniform- just has a attractive thing to it because i love history around the 50's

[QUOTE=McNab;34274923]Well hoip doip everybody knows that. It just looks terrible.[/QUOTE] Australia's Navy uniforms look pretty sick. [editline]29th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lizzrd;34278087]Paratroopers dropped from B2s. Imagine the possibilities.[/QUOTE] A few more crashed B-2s? [editline]29th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ultra_bright;34292945]Is it worth joining the air cadets if you're thinking about joining the air force?[/QUOTE] The AFC in Australia is pretty awesome, I'd advise it.

[img]http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/new_ran_uniforms.jpg[/img] I actually kinda like it.

so guyz who agrees that ak-47 with holo + noobtub is best??? i personaly think the damag is good enuf

Why do people bother shooting at the enemy flying in a helicopter with a M4? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2_DF4aTc0c&feature=player_embedded#![/media]

Because the rotor blades on a helicopter are really really fragile, a decent amount of fire from an assault rifle could bring a chopper down. [editline]29th February 2012[/editline] Wait, my bad, thought you meant people shooting at helicopters from the ground, not out of one.

[QUOTE=LordLoss;34928550]Because the rotor blades on a helicopter are really really fragile, a decent amount of fire from an assault rifle could bring a chopper down. [editline]29th February 2012[/editline] Wait, my bad, thought you meant people shooting at helicopters from the ground, not out of one.[/QUOTE] you answered his question correctly though :v:

they might do it so it seems like their heli has more guns than it actually has.

Scares the shit out of someone when you don't just have missiles after you but also someone with an assault rifle. Fshiou fshiou fshiou fshiou tatatatatat fshiou fshiou tatatat fshiou tatatat fshiou fshiou fshiou tatatatatatatat [editline]29th February 2012[/editline] Or maybe just because it feels fucking awesome.

What are the people of those military exercises from? Actors?

WTF? A clip in a m249? [img]http://i40.tinypic.com/2zq55yw.jpg[/img]