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

[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because they were export models - with far less armor than the variants the USSR themselves used - and with vastly outdated ammunition that could not penetrate even half of what modern Russian ammunition of this decade can penetrate.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] This. The Syrian T-72's are much more advanced than the Iraqi T-72's. Iraqi T-72's had crap armour, crap ammo, shit or no targeting systems, all that. Syrian T-72's are much more modern, they have targeting systems, they have thicker armour, composite armour, and reactive armour, they have targeting systems, and they have better ammunition. The Ammunition used by Iraq was softer than the Armour on an Abrams, it was next to harmless. That isn't the case here, Syrian Tanks can pose a threat to ours. That's not to say they're better, the Abrams outclass it in every way possible. It just won't be as much as a walk in the park as invading Iraq was.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42037573]This. The Syrian T-72's are much more advanced than the Iraqi T-72's. Iraqi T-72's had crap armour, crap ammo, shit or no targeting systems, all that. Syrian T-72's are much more modern, they have targeting systems, they have thicker armour, composite armour, and reactive armour, they have targeting systems, and they have better ammunition. The Ammunition used by Iraq was softer than the Armour on an Abrams, it was next to harmless. That isn't the case here, Syrian Tanks can pose a threat to ours. That's not to say they're better, the Abrams outclass it in every way possible. It just won't be as much as a walk in the park as invading Iraq was.[/QUOTE] but the syrian t72 are being taken out by rebels with rpgs so i doubt the m1a1 would have much trouble taking them out

[QUOTE=Gatsby;42037487]People are misunderestimating the US military in this thread.[/QUOTE] Of all threads on this forum to accidentally use a Bushism in..

there isn't a single state in africa or the middle east (apart from US allies turkey and israel) that would be able to stand up to USA military that's pretty much just a fact. those 5 warships could decimate the whole country by themselves i bet and that aircraft carrier in red sea would be able to wipe out any syrian air force easily. it's just a fact usa military is above every other military on earth that's why the only halfway effective way of fighting them has been insurgency

Just to make it clear I don't support action in Syria, but you all are seriously underestimating the capabilities of the US army. The best thing is that we wouldn't even need to fight any ground war. With the resolve to do it, we would decimate the Syrian army in a few days. Just look at the early weeks of the Iraq war. 20 year old technology will not win anything.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];42038449']Just look at the early weeks of the Iraq war. 20 year old technology will not win anything.[/QUOTE] We're saying that the Syrian Army is more advanced than the Iraqi Army was.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42038508]We're saying that the Syrian Army is more advanced than the Iraqi Army was.[/QUOTE] They're still, like the Iraqi Army, not a huge threat to us, and while we would sustain a few casualties taking the ground, it wouldn't be that difficult, just like the invasion of Iraq was. People are saying that their army screwed us for ten years, that wasn't them, that was insurgents fighting a guerilla war, which is hell for ANY conventional army.

[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] IIRC, reactive armor plating is only useful for shaped charges, an APFSDS would punch through it like a hot knife through warm butter. Also the M1 Abrams uses armor that is incredibly difficult to penetrate. The biggest threat to the tank battalions is the Syrian army getting smart and blowing up the fuel trucks.

Lots of good points in this thread about the conventional capabilities of both militaries. I do think that if the Marines were put against syria's regular infantry, there would be a stupid amount of casualties on both sides for that reason alone, I do not agree with land forces being utilized for this conflict.

Those Marines are probably there to help with any Embassy evacuations in the area in the event that we start a bombing campaign, kinda like when we had to shut down those 28-30 Embassys a month ago because of the "biggest terror threat since 9/11"

[QUOTE=zombini;42038774]IIRC, reactive armor plating is only useful for shaped charges, an APFSDS would punch through it like a hot knife through warm butter. Also the M1 Abrams uses armor that is incredibly difficult to penetrate. The biggest threat to the tank battalions is the Syrian army getting smart and blowing up the fuel trucks.[/QUOTE] Modern reactive armor does, in fact, provide *some* degree of protection vs. discarding sabot rounds - though either way, I can't be sure if Syrian tanks could withstand a frontal hit. Nonetheless, even with the Abrams armor, it's not invincible. Modern Russian rounds, should Syria have any, *could* penetrate the Abrams frontally, and most certainly through the side. It would boil down to which tank sees who first. We'd still win, but we'd take far more casualties than we did in Iraq.

Assad or rebels, whoever wins we lose.

This reminds me of how I play Civ 5. I like to move my troops near whatever civilization I want to attack before actually declaring war and I tell my friends that I'm not going to attack.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;42030985]good. I for one don't care if we use this tactic. Our people don't die, and we rape the shit out of the Syrian government.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y16Tzksgko[/media]

[QUOTE=Nestophales;42038886]Those Marines are probably there to help with any Embassy evacuations in the area in the event that we start a bombing campaign, kinda like when we had to shut down those 28-30 Embassys a month ago because of the "biggest terror threat since 9/11"[/QUOTE] Those Marines are there because they're on an MEU. There are hundreds of Marines in any sea at any given time, who go through a 6 month rotation. This has been going on for years, it's nothing new.

[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] You make it sound like we did a Stirling job over there...

[QUOTE=Jsm;42036966]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]The US wiped the floor with the Iraqi military. It's the insurgency that's been kicking the shit out of them for the past decade, so Iraq's military equipment doesn't really enter into the equation at all (with the notable exception of IED material like artillery shells)

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;42031187]I'm all for making fun of the Corp, but are you saying that marines aren't real military?[/QUOTE] The dumb.. It hurts

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;42040881]The US wiped the floor with the Iraqi military. It's the insurgency that's been kicking the shit out of them for the past decade, so Iraq's military equipment doesn't really enter into the equation at all (with the notable exception of IED material like artillery shells)[/QUOTE] The insurgency kicked us over politically and morally, not tactically. Most of the time atleast

[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;42044954]The insurgency kicked us over politically and morally, not tactically. Most of the time atleast[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_medina_ridge[/url] [b]US Casualties[/b] 1 KIA, 30 wounded, 1 tank lost [b]Iraqi Casualties[/b] 187 tanks destroyed, 127 AFVs destroyed

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;42045203][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_medina_ridge[/url] [b]US Casualties[/b] 1 KIA, 30 wounded, 1 tank lost [b]Iraqi Casualties[/b] 187 tanks destroyed, 127 AFVs destroyed[/QUOTE] I am fully aware of that victory, *cough* slaughter* What are you trying to prove? That was against a conventional army in the first Gulf War

I guess 45 people weren't smart enough to understand my post, because if they had read the article they referred to only using missiles from an off-shore attack. Not once did I say put the soldiers in, I said the tactic of using missiles instead of people was smart.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;42045203][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_medina_ridge[/url] [b]US Casualties[/b] 1 KIA, 30 wounded, 1 tank lost [b]Iraqi Casualties[/b] 187 tanks destroyed, 127 AFVs destroyed[/QUOTE] The one dead American was from friendly fire.

[QUOTE=ShazzyFreak0;42036329]most of that stuff is soviet era tech lmao[/QUOTE] A gun is a gun and a rocket is a rocket. Age might matter when it comes to tank shells and missiles, but an artillery shell made in 1983 blows up just as well as an artillery shell made in 2012. Same thing applies for a bullet fired from a gun. You could be fighting against guys using MP40's and MG32's, and you'd still take casualties. The same thing applies to jets and AA's. If you lead your target and put enough ordinance into the sky, you're bound to hit something. Hell, the NATO air units enforcing the "no-fly" zone over Libya lost a jet or two.

If you depose of Assad, Syria might be worse off due to the fact that the rebels aren't 1 cohesive group.

[QUOTE=Valiantttt;42051869]If you depose of Assad, Syria might be worse off due to the fact that the rebels aren't 1 cohesive group.[/QUOTE] Good thing nobody is proposing regime change, just a bombing campaign as punishment.

They started moving hundreds of troops + missile systems to the area months ago. Does anyone remember those "training exercises" in Jordan? The inevitable war and incited revolts with Assad & friends was planned decades ago. The US, al-qaeda/FSA and the Muslim brotherhood is just doing the Zionists bidding.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;42051838]A gun is a gun and a rocket is a rocket. Age might matter when it comes to tank shells and missiles, but an artillery shell made in 1983 blows up just as well as an artillery shell made in 2012. Same thing applies for a bullet fired from a gun. You could be fighting against guys using MP40's and MG32's, and you'd still take casualties. The same thing applies to jets and AA's. If you lead your target and put enough ordinance into the sky, you're bound to hit something. Hell, the NATO air units enforcing the "no-fly" zone over Libya lost a jet or two.[/QUOTE] If old landmines from the Second World War can still kill people today, I'm pretty sure a Cold War era missile can still do damage.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;42045203][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_medina_ridge[/url] [b]US Casualties[/b] 1 KIA, 30 wounded, 1 tank lost [b]Iraqi Casualties[/b] 187 tanks destroyed, 127 AFVs destroyed[/QUOTE] That doesn't really have to do with anything he said.

[QUOTE=Tengil;42051941]They started moving hundreds of troops + missile systems to the area months ago. Does anyone remember those "training exercises" in Jordan? The inevitable war and incited revolts with Assad & friends was planned decades ago. The US, al-qaeda/FSA and the Muslim brotherhood is just doing the Zionists bidding.[/QUOTE]It's often amusing (though more often rather depressing) that people still believe Jews control world politics.