Printable View
Actually, the intelligence side of the Osama mission was pretty impressive, they basically stalked everyone who has links with Al Qaeda for years following breadcrumbs till they kept notes of the messenger and increased priority level by level till they had a good level of suspicion.
I suppose you mean the Osama mission, the Obama mission just stalked everybody who has links with American voters by sending them dozens of emails AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
And we just learned how the NSA and other US security agencies are stalking everyone with all the means at their disposal, nothing to do with the Special Forces themselves though.
I don't know who the best are but one of the best with the coolest nickname was "Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare" in WWII.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci...ions_Executive
See? This is why the actual English should be the shining beacon of the English language, and anyone speaking USAnian should.. Learn to speak English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I didn't quite get why they needed stealth choppers when they were flying alongside 3 regular ones which used radar jammers or whatever that tech does.
Oh, and the pilot managed to crash one of the two stealth choppers when landing in the courtyard, so the SEALs had to demo it upon exit. Which they sort of messed up, because the tail rotor survived.
Beware the upcoming pakistani stealth choppers!
When we are talking about conventional forces - what are the equivalents to the US Marine corps for other countries when it comes to power projection overseas? And I saw in the Ukraine thread that GC stated that Russian tanks are equal or superior to the Abrhams currently employed by the US forces. But isn't anti-tank warfare the primary reason why the USA has about 8000 choppers employed in its army?
Good question about the stealth helicopters.
As for the tanks, apparently none of them are invulnerable or going to survive a lot of hits by anything modern. With older equipment you can probably hit them several times in the front as can be seen on videos from Syria with older T-72 models. But the Syrian rebels do not really seploay top attack missiles or similar measures. Russian tanks have some newer protection systems anyway, such as the Shtora laser disruption system or the ARENA active protection system that blows up incoming rockets/missiles before impact. Several other nations like the US and Israel are developing similar active protection systems but my completely uninformed impression is that Russia is a bit ahead as I have not yet seen an Abrams equipped with such a system while there are a few videos on youtube demonstrating ARENA at least in live fire tests.
Either way the US would have to get Abrams to Crimea first. I'm not sure a D-Day-style beach invasion would be popular or work quite as well as it did in 1944 given that Russia would fire quite a lot of stuff at the incoming ships.
As for helicopters, yes, but helicopters alone only really work with some sort of air superiority and I'm not sure how the helicopter vs. ground-based air defense game is going these days. The Russians surely have sophisticated and modern systems in these areas and a few helicopters of their own.
And concerning Marine Corps, quite a few countries have those, Netherlands, Britain, France, Russia. Germany does not because force projection was not really a goal here since the third reich projected a little too much force in its days.
Ah yes, the Nazis. If only they had been a little less bonkers, Germany would probably have been the #3 military in the world today. That's probably the reason why you also lack nuclear arms I guess?
Also, air defence systems work over Russia, but the Crimea is probably not that well defended. And the USA still has the largest air fleet as well. And probably the best one tech wise.
I can comment few basic things about modern MBT´s and bit more about how to defeat them from my limited knowledge. Im sure GC can tell you just about everything from tankers view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myth
Basically East and West have bit different approach to basic tank armor.
Western armor generally has composite armor, which means layers of different materials, functioning so that the different layers eat up the kinetic or explosive force of the projectile, thus denying penetration.
Eastern (Russian) armor is usually solid steel, but has nova days ERA, which is very interesting approach. It is basically lot of shaped charges placed on top the steel armor. It´s function is to defeat the incoming projectile by counter energy.
Of course as armor develops, so will the means to defeat armor. The most modern AT missiles have tandem HEAT warheads where two warheads hit one after another the same spot in the armor, thus defeating both classic Western and Eastern countermeasures many times. In Finnish inventory such AT missile is PSTOHJ 2000M (aka Eurospike) our lighter AT system is NLAW, which is a one man portable fire and forget AT missile which missile has double sensor for defeating systems like SHTORA. It is interesting indeed if countermeasure like ARENA can still defeat both. But i bet there is little it can do about multiple incoming projectiles. Like said earlier. It is endless race and there are lot of very deadly stuff around.
Of course portable AT missiles are not at all only ways to effectively destroy armor. With enough HE you can destroy anything and the classic approach of large caliber kinetic projectiles like modern tank guns and autocannons for example GAU- 8 of US A-10 attack aircraft can defeat tanks.
All in all we can never be sure what works and what not to most modern designs, unless there would be a war between two sides with latest equipments, which i think in the end we really dont want to witness.
Up to date ratings on tanks. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/...ttle_tanks.htm
The Air Farce is retiring the A-10. They never liked it. It supports the Army and it is more glamorous to fly fighter planes.
I think that is a big mistake. Talk about bang for a buck when one talks about A-10. Maybe we can buy some of them dirt cheap like the Dutch Leopard 2a6 fleet? Petty, pretty please..?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
That's not entirely true as the Soviet T-64 was the first tank in the world to deploy composite armor and was later developed into the T-80, which is still in use today. I'm not sure to what extent the T-72 and T-90 family uses composite or whether they just rely on ERA as you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
The Leopard 2 A5 and A6 also uses a clever system of spaced armor on the turret.
Indeed, but I suppose having ARENA is still better than not having ARENA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Well, I often hear the tank that hits first with a shot from the cannon is the tank that wins. On the other hand Russian tanks extend their range and accuracy by a large margin by deploying anti tank missiles fired from their guns. the autocannons usually just work because they're on a plane and can hit from above or other unsuitable angles, at the same time the airplane is a nice target for anti air assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I thought we're all looking forward to US vs. Russia on the Crimean peninsula. I could swear some Janes' flight sim or so was situated there. We could also reeneact it in Operation Flashpoint or maybe ArmA 2. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Thank you for the information. ~:) Like i said there are many people far more knowledgeable concerning tanks then i am as im no tanker. I know just some basic things. If it helps anyway. I have at least been driven over by T-55M.We were lined in the ground with my squad in basic training. Apparently to get "familiar" with tanks. All i was wishing was that the driver could drive straight with that old modified colossus.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I can't believe your troops still do that!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
So did the Swedes, when we still expected trench warfare...
No big flame on your defensive capabilities though, compared to Sweden. You even have an army and stuff....
Again? They "retired" the A10 shortly after Desert Storm, twenty years ago. That retirement didn't work out. Does anybody believe it will be permanent and total this round?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Last I heard they were keeping it until 2028 or so. It's just too damn good.
At least back in 1999 it was basic stuff.:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Regarding Swedish stuff.I think you are manufacturing lot of exellent material, like things we are already using, namely NLAW, CV-90 IFV and if i recall right also AMOS advanced mortar system is a joint effort of Finland and Sweden. One thing ive never figured out as an old infantryman is that why on earth our retards at the defense ministry have not bought these from you as our army has mortars like now tomorrow and they arent exactly very expensive AT material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strix_mortar_round
Yesterday i read from our news papers that there is now actually talk in Sweden also, if you guys should increase your defense spending a bit. Am i right?
Yeah, Sweden have great military toys. We just don't have the manpower to operate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
You are right, Sweden just decided to raise our budget for the military. We have also stationed as many as 2 fighter jets on Gotland, I am sure that will keep the Russian Bear at bay.
Honestly speaking, I give it a 50/50 chance that the raised military budget goes straight to supporting transexual personel in the field with a gender neutral toilet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
LOL http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/02/face-...ir-force-base/
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Because the war on terror and the future of Ukraine depend entirely on troops stationed in Japan who have no orders to mobilize...Quote:
While Russia invades Ukraine, as Islamic terrorist factions plot the West’s destruction, [...]
It's okay. As long as they're good at killing people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Hardly new news that military entertainers may have a higher percentage of alternative lifestyles then the norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Heck the Brits used to have a TV sitcom that had that range of characters made in the seventies and set in WWII. "It Ain't Half Hot Mum"
BBC wins again.
"Why" questions relating to human affairs are almost always answered in the same way: money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
The air force needs those specialists so that the air force does not appear to be inadequate and insure that it's percentage of the funding is not diminished. Remember, our military is paid to confront the opponents of the USA, but our military knows that the REAL enemy is the competing services in other offices at the Pentagon. Hackworth called it "perfumed prince" logic.
One thing not mentioned...
The best special forces is the ones trained for the battle they get.
I am about 100% sure that Austrian Gebirgsjäger would kick behinds in a defensive battle in mountaineous terrain. I am equally sure they would be rather worthless storming beaches.
SAS will beat most others in jungle warfare, as they train for it... Whereas the French Foreign Legion excell in the desert.
There really is no way to say who is "the best", as it depends on the battleground, and how well various trainings corresponds to it.
Only until the Spetsnaz arrive. Don't fall for their propaganda, vodka > training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
What have you been smoking?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m17ROteNP3E
The FFL gets very tough jungle training and they also work a lot in the jungle.
Spetsnaz are sent into the jungle at age five and may only return home after they have wrestled and domesticated a siberian tiger.
My bad, I should have known that. Read up on it and stuff even, oh well, shows what pot will do to your memory :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar