A 6th ship arrives in the Mediterranean with hundreds of Marines onboard - Polidicks

[QUOTE=bravehat;42031239]If they invade Syria a lot of people will start dying, you're not gonna be fighting fucking shepherds with 20 year old rifles and some ANFO, you're talking an organised military that isn't averse to levelling cities with artillery to hit their targets.[/QUOTE] To bad Iraq had one of the largest militarys in the world during the Gulf War. And we slapped their shit like non-other. We had more troops in the gulf war die due to accidents and friendly fire than we did to the enemy.

i do wonder how they'll be able to fire while handstanding their way across the battlefield

[QUOTE=ewitwins;42034549]I don't think you understand how wrong you are, so let's work on giving you some numbers, aye? 10,885 Armoured Fighting Vehicles: 6450 Main battle tanks (including 1,150 in storage) 1,125 Amphibious Armoured Scout Cars 2,950 Infantry fighting vehicles 1,860 Armoured personnel carriers 4,815+ Towed Artillery Pieces: 1,010+ Mortars 2,130+ Gun/Howitzers (400 in storage) 1,675+ Anti-aircraft guns (300+ in storage) 1,136 Self-Propelled Artillery Pieces: 485 Self-propelled howitzers 650 Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (240 in storage) 6,890+ Anti Tank Guided Weapon Launchers (4,290 in storage) 500+ Multiple Launch Rocket Systems 86+ Tactical ballistic missile launchers 4,235+ Surface to Air Missile Launchers: 4,000+ MANPADS 235 Self-propelled air-defence systems Long story short: The United States armed forces would probably win some sort of ground offensive against the Syrian military, but it would be long, nasty, drawn-out, and would result in sustained casualties. It's the equivalent of fighting a miniature Russian military, because they're basically just as well-equipped.[/QUOTE] that is LOTS OF guns and shit

[QUOTE=ewitwins;42034549]I don't think you understand how wrong you are, so let's work on giving you some numbers, aye? 10,885 Armoured Fighting Vehicles: 6450 Main battle tanks (including 1,150 in storage) 1,125 Amphibious Armoured Scout Cars 2,950 Infantry fighting vehicles 1,860 Armoured personnel carriers 4,815+ Towed Artillery Pieces: 1,010+ Mortars 2,130+ Gun/Howitzers (400 in storage) 1,675+ Anti-aircraft guns (300+ in storage) 1,136 Self-Propelled Artillery Pieces: 485 Self-propelled howitzers 650 Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (240 in storage) 6,890+ Anti Tank Guided Weapon Launchers (4,290 in storage) 500+ Multiple Launch Rocket Systems 86+ Tactical ballistic missile launchers 4,235+ Surface to Air Missile Launchers: 4,000+ MANPADS 235 Self-propelled air-defence systems Long story short: The United States armed forces would probably win some sort of ground offensive against the Syrian military, but it would be long, nasty, drawn-out, and would result in sustained casualties. It's the equivalent of fighting a miniature Russian military, because they're basically just as well-equipped.[/QUOTE] most of that stuff is soviet era tech lmao

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;42030944]thousands of US troops just handstand into Syria[/QUOTE] tbh they should just use segways.

[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;42036329]most of that stuff is soviet era tech lmao[/QUOTE] you can still kill someone with rocks and sticks and those have been around for a fuckton longer

[QUOTE=Coppermoss;42030936]"Remember: No boots on the ground!"[/QUOTE] And thus, the US Marines begin the world's first tactical game of "The Floor is Lava". [editline]1st September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;42036329]most of that stuff is soviet era tech lmao[/QUOTE] Yup, Everyone knows that missiles have a sell-by date, just like yoghurt!

"Lets keep these marines on board in case the ship goes down" (not making a serious point just observing)

[QUOTE=Hardpoint Nomad;42036859]you can still kill someone with rocks and sticks and those have been around for a fuckton longer[/QUOTE] yeah but it don't mean shit if you can't use them effectively. We steamrolled Iraq, and at the time it had a much better military then modern Syria.

[QUOTE=Drsalvador;42036879] Yup, Everyone knows that missiles have a sell-by date, just like yoghurt![/QUOTE] Actually some do, like stinger missiles have a gas which slowly degrades over time making them useless. Its why the Americans aren't [I]that[/I] worried about the thousands they gave away around the world. That said, it is dumb as hell to discount an army just because they use old equipment. Pretty sure under estimating your opponent is a pretty big no no in war anyway. Kinda how the Americans became so screwed in Iraq.

[QUOTE=Drsalvador;42036879] Yup, Everyone knows that missiles have a sell-by date, just like yoghurt![/QUOTE] actually they do have a sell by date.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42036963]yeah but it don't mean shit if you can't use them effectively. We steamrolled Iraq, and at the time it had a much better military then modern Syria.[/QUOTE] Hahaha, no you didn't. An army was defeated within a few weeks then an insurgency managed to drag you into a ~ten year war, using soviet era tech and homemade explosives. If anything Iraq should be taken as an example of why you shouldn't under estimate your enemy.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42036963]yeah but it don't mean shit if you can't use them effectively. We steamrolled Iraq, and at the time it had a much better military then modern Syria.[/QUOTE] They had the third largest army in the world if I'm not mistaken

[QUOTE=Jsm;42036975]Hahaha, no you didn't. An army was defeated within a few weeks then an insurgency managed to drag you into a ~ten year war, using soviet era tech and homemade explosives. If anything Iraq should be taken as an example of why you shouldn't under estimate your enemy.[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware the Syrian military was made up of insurgents.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42036975]Hahaha, no you didn't. An army was defeated within a few weeks then an insurgency managed to drag you into a ~ten year war, using soviet era tech and homemade explosives. If anything Iraq should be taken as an example of why you shouldn't under estimate your enemy.[/QUOTE] If they just pulled out and wen't 'mission accomplished' when they ended his regime, they would have be graced with the greatest military victory of all time They completely demolished the Iraq armed forces, and they were in the top 5 back then

[QUOTE=Jsm;42036966]Actually some do, like stinger missiles have a gas which slowly degrades over time making them useless. Its why the Americans aren't [I]that[/I] worried about the thousands they gave away around the world. That said, it is dumb as hell to discount an army just because they use old equipment. Pretty sure under estimating your opponent is a pretty big no no in war anyway. Kinda how the Americans became so screwed in Iraq.[/QUOTE] We became screwed in Iraq and Afghanistan, because a lot of people there don't have a sense of community, and it's also hard to fight people who don't look any different from any civilians. Not to mention, a lot of older males in such places carry guns. So it's EXTREMELY hard to tell who is who is insurgent. Any nation whom has ever fought a guerrilla army, has had the exact same problems. Fighting a conventional army is completely different.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42037007]I wasn't aware the Syrian military was made up of insurgents.[/QUOTE] That isn't the point I am making at all, you are suggesting that old equipment isn't a match for a modern army. The insurgency in Iraq completely disproved this point, a modern army had quite a hard time against an opponent that many considered to be inferior and have terrible equipment. [editline]1st September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;42037054]We became screwed in Iraq and Afghanistan, because a lot of people there don't have a sense of community, and it's also hard to fight people who don't look any different from any civilians. Not to mention, a lot of older males in such places carry guns. So it's EXTREMELY hard to tell who is who is insurgent. Any nation whom has ever fought a guerrilla army, has had the exact same problems. Fighting a conventional army is completely different.[/QUOTE] That might be so, but the equipment they used was still pretty old. Therefore making the argument that an invasion of Syria would be easy because they have old (I wouldn't call it old but hey ho) equipment just silly.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42037066]That isn't the point I am making at all, you are suggesting that old equipment isn't a match for a modern army. The insurgency in Iraq completely disproved this point, a modern army had quite a hard time against an opponent that many considered to be inferior and have terrible equipment.[/QUOTE] Yes that would matter if they were fighting an insurgency. The US military will steamroll the Syrian military because they are a conventional fighting force geared towards conventional war.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42037089]Yes that would matter if they were fighting an insurgency. The US military will steamroll the Syrian military because they are a conventional fighting force geared towards conventional war.[/QUOTE] That might be the case, but it is irrelevant to what people are saying. People in this thread are saying it would be easy because of the old equipment which is just completely crazy. And again, only a silly person would ever underestimate their opponent. This is an idea going back thousands and thousands of years, just because the US army has some pretty amazing stuff doesn't mean that the idea should be thrown out of the window.

Consider this. The M1 Abrams steamrolled the Iraqi T-72s in the gulf war. What makes you think that it would do worse against Syrian T-72s decades later? [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Jsm;42037122]That might be the case, but it is irrelevant to what people are saying. People in this thread are saying it would be easy because of the old equipment which is just completely crazy. And again, only a silly person would ever underestimate their opponent. This is an idea going back thousands and thousands of years, just because the US army has some pretty amazing stuff doesn't mean that the idea should be thrown out of the window.[/QUOTE] The Syrians are using old Soviet equipment that we have consistently outperformed and beat for 40 years.

I think that if we are going to throw missiles into Syria we shouldn't just drop a few as a warning, because Assad isn't going to listen.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;42037127]Consider this. The M1 Abrams steamrolled the Iraqi T-72s in the gulf war. What makes you think that it would do worse against Syrian T-72s decades later? [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] The Syrians are using old Soviet equipment that we have consistently outperformed and beat for 40 years.[/QUOTE] We steamrolled those T-72s because they were export models - with far less armor than the variants the USSR themselves used - and with vastly outdated ammunition that could not penetrate even half of what modern Russian ammunition of this decade can penetrate. Syrian T-72s, on the other hand, have vastly superior armor with modern reactive tiles, and also use modern ammunition. It would be a legitimate threat, not something we could as easily steamroll.

[QUOTE=Jsm;42037066]That isn't the point I am making at all, you are suggesting that old equipment isn't a match for a modern army. The insurgency in Iraq completely disproved this point, a modern army had quite a hard time against an opponent that many considered to be inferior and have terrible equipment. [editline]1st September 2013[/editline] That might be so, but the equipment they used was still pretty old. Therefore making the argument that an invasion of Syria would be easy because they have old (I wouldn't call it old but hey ho) equipment just silly.[/QUOTE] An insurgency isn't a modern army, Iraq's former military was a modern army with dated equipment. They fared horribly against coalition forces. I'm not just waving my U.S war boner around, many of the battles fought where amazingly one sided due directly to the technology gap between forces. [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyborg_Kane;42037212]We steamrolled those T-72s because they were export models - with far less armor than the variants the USSR themselves used - and with vastly outdated ammunition that could not penetrate even half of what modern Russian ammunition of this decade can penetrate. Syrian T-72s, on the other hand, have vastly superior armor with modern reactive tiles, and also use modern ammunition. It would be a legitimate threat, not something we could as easily steamroll.[/QUOTE] Source kind sir?

[QUOTE=Cyborg_Kane;42037212]We steamrolled those T-72s because they were export models - with far less armor than the variants the USSR themselves used - and with vastly outdated ammunition that could not penetrate even half of what modern Russian ammunition of this decade can penetrate. Syrian T-72s, on the other hand, have vastly superior armor with modern reactive tiles, and also use modern ammunition. It would be a legitimate threat, not something we could as easily steamroll.[/QUOTE] dis nigga came back after 8 years to butt plug u

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;42037256] Source kind sir?[/QUOTE] Pretty much any description you will find of the Lion of Babylon will indicate it is a reverse-engineered derivative of the T-72M1; the Soviet export variant stripped of advanced target acquisition systems, and with much thinner armor compared to Soviet models. Soviets also had developed rounds specifically for export, and to my knowledge I don't think the Iraqis acquired nor developed anything more advanced. I can't cite a source at this time,though.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;42037256]An insurgency isn't a modern army, Iraq's former military was a modern army with dated equipment. They fared horribly against coalition forces. I'm not just waving my U.S war boner around, many of the battles fought where amazingly one sided due directly to the technology gap between forces. [editline]31st August 2013[/editline] Source kind sir?[/QUOTE] You can look it up anywhere. Russia pretty much sold cobbled together shit to a lot of the third world countries. To the point where you could de-tread/de-wheel their tanks with machine guns because the bolts they used to cobble those tanks together weren't always the correct parts.

People are misunderestimating the US military in this thread.

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;42031149]Except. The Syrians have a 'formidable' military, and WE WILL take casualties[/QUOTE] Not to mention that a rebel victory at this point will potentially lead to ethnic cleansings, death squads and an islamist government. Not that the current government is any better though

Underestimating*

I mean it's not something I want us to get involved in at all considering a ground war would be a pointless waste of our soldiers lives, but if the rest of the world seems content to do literally nothing, I guess someone has to.