• Iran claims it has produced laser-guided shells
    78 replies, posted
[QUOTE=jip;34474937]Look up Afghanistan and Iraq then tell me they arent good at fighting a modern insurgency. Vietnam was YEARS ago, kind of like saying "Soviets used human bullet sponge tactics in WW2 so that reflects their modern Russian counterpart."[/QUOTE]Way to get the point. Post Saddam NATO/Allied deaths are around 24,500, with Insurgent deaths somewhere between 28,736-37,120. Now, all of this would have been avoided if our forces adapted properly. A force following a proper strategy facing against such poorly armed combatants would have no problem. Not to mention indiscriminate bombing has a tendency of increasing support for the Insurgency.
There's more or less nothing that can currently combat the raptor in the air. No matter what to be honest. I'd personally disagree on american armour being better though currently. Overall I'd say that the US has the strongest navy and airforce, but as far as ground units go, it's lagging a bit behind to some of it's counterparts.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34475001]*sigh* It happened. Get over it. Look at a map. South Korea is still there. Victory -> US.[/QUOTE] So is North Korea. [QUOTE=GunFox;34475001]We lost 60,000 men. They lost 1.2 million. Yeah, we were totally getting our asses kicked.[/QUOTE] You [i]fled the country.[/i] Just because your military had access to Napalm and chemical weaponry that was even forbidden to use at the time of the war and managed to subsequently decimate the civillian population doesn't give you any right to masturbate to us american world dominace fantasies. [QUOTE=GunFox;34475001]Whatever though. Here, lets try this from another angle. Who has a [I]better[/I] military?[/QUOTE] You had the better military. It still didn't work. No military or public goals have been achieved by the US military since the Korean War. Except for maybe one time where they knocked over a bronze Saddam statue. Well worth toppling the world economy over.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34475038]Way to get the point. Post Saddam NATO/Allied deaths are around 24,500, with Insurgent deaths somewhere between 28,736-37,120. Now, all of this would have been avoided if our forces adapted properly. A force following a proper strategy facing against such poorly armed combatants would have no problem. Not to mention indiscriminate bombing has a tendency of increasing support for the Insurgency.[/QUOTE] Afghanistan currently has 2,792 coalition casualties while the Taliban casualties are estimated higher then 42,000. Iraq invasion 03-03 casualties were 200 US/Britain and 30,000 Iraq combatant casualties. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Isuzu;34475065]So is North Korea. You [i]fled the country.[/i] Just because your military had access to Napalm and chemical weaponry that was even forbidden to use at the time of the war and managed to subsequently decimate the civillian population doesn't give you any right to masturbate to us american world dominace fantasies. You had the better military. It still didn't work. No military or public goals have been achieved by the US military since the Korean War. Except for maybe one time where they knocked over a bronze Saddam statue. [B]Well worth toppling the world economy over.[/B][/QUOTE] Iraq invasion did not topple the economy.. the economy was doing well in the early 2000's. As to your "money:combatant loss" argument, in North America.. we're willing to spend money to protect lives.
[QUOTE=jip;34474997]The Su-35BM is superior to the F-18, Russia managed to create T-50 while maintaining extremely low cost and easy maintainability which are both accented by the things ability to out perform the F-22 in a dogfight, a thing the F-22 was designed to do. Though its a prototype and we're not sure what tech they have implemented but they released performance notes.[/QUOTE] The F-22 is out performed by several aircraft in terms of maneuverability in a dog fight. The F-22 is never supposed to dog fight. It doesn't do it. It will flee before entering a fair fight, and can easily do so. On board RADAR on fighter aircraft don't have a hope in hell of detecting the F-22, which allows it to get more than close enough to target you with sidewinders. You have 10 to 15 seconds from that point to detect and evade a missile that has appeared out of nowhere. Which assumes you can detect it at all, as sidewinders have an extremely small RADAR cross section and are passive missiles, meaning no RADAR warning. Very little is even known about the Su-35BM. There are what? Like two or three that even exist at this point? And only a handful of non-BM models beyond that. The SU-35 isn't even a carrier launched aircraft and has nowhere near the flexibility of the F-18. I don't see how you are even comparing them. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Isuzu;34475065]So is North Korea.[/quote] I don't recall agreeing to defend North Korea, or to claim North Korea for South Korea. [quote] You [i]fled the country.[/i] Just because your military had access to Napalm and chemical weaponry that was even forbidden to use at the time of the war and managed to subsequently decimate the civillian population doesn't give you any right to masturbate to us american world dominace fantasies. [/quote] The US can employ napalm all it wishes. There are no restrictions on incendiary weapons. [quote]You had the better military. It still didn't work. No military or public goals have been achieved by the US military since the Korean War. Except for maybe one time where they knocked over a bronze Saddam statue. Well worth toppling the world economy over.[/QUOTE] Got the angst out of your system yet?
[QUOTE=jip;34475100]Afghanistan currently has 2,792 coalition casualties while the Taliban casualties are estimated higher then 42,000. Iraq invasion 03-03 casualties were 200 US/Britain and 30,000 Iraq combatant casualties.[/QUOTE]Which further proves my point, Coalition casualties in Afghanistan were so low because the Coalition had Afghan National strategists who knew the land, and how to successfully combat the Taliban using tactics to counter the Taliban's unconventional methods. This all went down the hill when Karzai went in power. The war in Iraq [against Saddam's security forces went so well because that was a conventional war.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34475137]The F-22 is out performed by several aircraft in terms of maneuverability in a dog fight. The F-22 is never supposed to dog fight. It doesn't do it. It will flee before entering a fair fight, and can easily do so. On board RADAR on fighter aircraft don't have a hope in hell of detecting the F-22, which allows it to get more than close enough to target you with sidewinders. You have 10 to 15 seconds from that point to detect and evade a missile that has appeared out of nowhere. Which assumes you can detect it at all, as sidewinders have an extremely small RADAR cross section and are passive missiles, meaning no RADAR warning. Very little is even known about the Su-35BM. There are what? Like two or three that even exist at this point? And only a handful of non-BM models beyond that. The SU-35 isn't even a carrier launched aircraft and has nowhere near the flexibility of the F-18. I don't see how you are even comparing them.[/QUOTE] Because they're comparable aircraft, if you wanted strictly carrier launched.. the Mig-35 could out do a F18 easily due to technical advantages and raw maneuverability. The T-50 and J-20 are both stealth fighters aswell, so the F-22 would easily have the same difficulties. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34475180]Which further proves my point, Coalition casualties in Afghanistan were so low because the Coalition had Afghan National strategists who knew the land, and how to successfully combat the Taliban using tactics to counter the Taliban's unconventional methods. This all went down the hill when Karzai went in power. The war in Iraq [against Saddam's security forces went so well because that was a conventional war.[/QUOTE] Exactly, and U.S. tactics obviously played a major role in getting those aides and doing the actual operation while taking minimal casualties.
[QUOTE=jip;34475182]Because they're comparable aircraft, if you wanted strictly carrier launched.. the Mig-35 could out do a F18 easily due to technical advantages and raw maneuverability. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline][/QUOTE] The F-18 is a mass production multirole fighter that has been in service for over a decade. Three Mig-35's currently exist. I'm not sure we have sufficient evidence for much of anything at this point. :P
Yes, because Russia needs to get their stuff in gear and figure out what they're going to mass produce instead of funding multiple design bureaus making variants of older air frames. I'm guessing its going to be T-50 and Mig-35. US has the production and quantity advantage. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] Thus, #1 military on earth goes to USA.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34475137]I don't recall agreeing to defend North Korea, or to claim North Korea for South Korea.[/QUOTE] I don't recall you admitting you almost got your ass handed to you on a silver plate by communists. [QUOTE=GunFox;34475137]The US can employ napalm all it wishes. There are no restrictions on incendiary weapons.[/QUOTE] Fine. You still didn't manage to win wars with it. [QUOTE=GunFox;34475137]Got the angst out of your system yet?[/QUOTE] Listen, I am not here to make you feel angry or bad for doubting the capabilities of your army or talk shit about your country. You can try to be as zingy or funny as you want. It still won't hide the fact that while you claim your military is the best equipped military the planet has ever seen, which is true, it is not effective. None of the actual public goals on the war of terror have been achieved. The US is not a safer place, Iraq is not a safer place, the middle east is not a safer place. Infact, because of the USs completely unneeded intervention, the entire western and middle eastern world has become unsafe and a target for terror. The entire conflict has resulted in nothing but destruction and humane catastrophees, a dead world economy and the upcoming of a restrictive United States government with an outdated infrastructure that second world countries are closing in upon. You have nothing to laugh about. I am a couple thousand miles away enjoying easily payable college education, less restrictive social policies and freedom while unharmed by debt. You can be as snide as you want with me, in the end it's your rear end that has an uncertain future. I know your situation sucks and I can understand why you are feeling cornered. I would too. But the first step to a cure for the mess your country is in is to actually step away from the denial, face the world stage and see what is actually going on. The US is on a steep decline. I am not trying to make fun of you for that or poke you in the side like an annoying asshole though it might seem that way. I am just telling you what's up so you can go and fix it. I can't help you, I am far away. All I can tell you is what the world and the US currently looks like in an unbiased fashion. And it doesn't look good. Like at all. Never forget that Propaganda always works in two directions and you've been growing up under western propaganda for all your life. Looking at your posts makes it pretty clear. No one outside the US would argue as despicably as you have in this thread.
[QUOTE=GunFox;34475001]We lost 60,000 men. They lost 1.2 million. Yeah, we were totally getting our asses kicked. Whatever though. Here, lets try this from another angle. Who has a [I]better[/I] military?[/QUOTE] You do realise that American and South forces took [B]MORE CAUSALITIES[/B] than the north right? Which was an astounding feat for the North considering one US Battalion had more supplies than their entire army. I do chuckle when Americans deploy that statistical defence mechanism. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] Hell you guys couldn't even mount a successful offensive for 11 years against a smaller force. Nor did you ever have complete air superiority.
[QUOTE=jip;34475182]Because they're comparable aircraft, if you wanted strictly carrier launched.. the Mig-35 could out do a F18 easily due to technical advantages and raw maneuverability. The T-50 and J-20 are both stealth fighters aswell, so the F-22 would easily have the same difficulties. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] Exactly, and U.S. tactics obviously played a major role in getting those aides and doing the actual operation while taking minimal casualties.[/QUOTE] Except you want the f-35 to compare to the new migs or new dassaults which are relatively comperable aircraft. The f-22 is then a grade above the rest and will usually decimate enemy air targets from beyond their own engadgment range. I'd say the bigger issue as far as militaries go is investment returns. It often feels that that the US is spending more on their military for less return. Admittedly as far as RnD goes the most expensive one is European design. Though there's multiple reasons for it including fragmentation. Also as far as major military powers go (US, EU, RF, PRC) none could mount a successful invasion against each other. Power projection and new technologies kinda kill it.
Cool, we had laser guided shells 44 years ago.
[QUOTE=jip;34473068]Thats cool tech I did not know it existed in actual usage. Laze a target and then artillery guides itself down without the need for precision fire and compensation?[/QUOTE] Pretty much how they work as far as I understand. I think the US has had them for decades though, its a clever idea really. Its all weather precision munitions.
fucks sake not another one of these threads *not getting involved in US IS #1 debate this time* anyways, this really isn't impressive considering the US already has SADARM cluster munitions that are extremely more effective against armor. [img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/sadarm-fire.jpg[/img] kerphoom
Love how the thread was about Iran dick-waving and now it's about the Korean War.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;34478537]Love how the thread was about Iran dick-waving and now it's about the Korean War.[/QUOTE] this is why I avoid these discussions.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;34476033]You do realise that American and South forces took [B]MORE CAUSALITIES[/B] than the north right? Which was an astounding feat for the North considering one US Battalion had more supplies than their entire army. I do chuckle when Americans deploy that statistical defence mechanism. [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] Hell you guys couldn't even mount a successful offensive for 11 years against a smaller force. Nor did you ever have complete air superiority.[/QUOTE] Unless you count the chineese casualties (Which you really should.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.