Us Navy Beaten?
CMEast
Join Date: 2002-05-19 Member: 632Members
Join Date: 2002-05-19 Member: 632Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">An interesting article</div> Click <a href='http://207.44.245.159/article7147.htm' target='_blank'>here</a> for some interesting facts (and some opinions too) about the US Navy and Iran.
I don't have an opinion on it, just thought it was worth reading, I know that many of you will though so I posted it here rather than in Off-Topic.
I don't have an opinion on it, just thought it was worth reading, I know that many of you will though so I posted it here rather than in Off-Topic.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
p.s.: there's a reason the stuff on this site isn't on CNN.
Read up on the C-17. Then imagine what sort of tactical changes will be made when sea access is restricted in the gulf.
The United States has non-nuclear EMP weapons, which could be used to destroy the missile's guidance system.
It is ironic that he states this, because his entire description of the sunburn is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. It's just not that simple.
The article is a leftist leaning war protest, nothing more.
Laughable.
Ever heard of Vietnam?
(A bit off-topic, but I had to write that. ^^)
Additionally, our forces in VN had no clear goal and no timeline for it, we were standing around getting shot at. I believe the reality is that if we'd pushed an offensive with clear goals for taking territory, we'd've crushed the NV army. Of course, we'd then be presented with the problems inherent in occupying a foreign land, but we'd also have the South Koreans to shoulder much of that burden. But then, this is all pure speculation. The only place where I'm standing on firm ground regarding VN is that the lack of any sort of coherent stated objective was very damaging to the military situation. If it had been something as simple as "defend the border," we could have cleared a hundred yard swath of jungle across the country, set up checkpoints at all the roads, and shot anyone in the dead man's land. You know, like in Korea. But we had some kind of crazy shifting border to defend, incursions into NV, incursions into Cambodia, random attacks to take random hills and villages, abandon them, and take them again a week later. That's the origin of the phrase "porkchop hill", some crazy jackass general had his troops take the same hill three times just to prove they could. Any war where you're engaging in stunts like that is going to be problematic. We did not, however, lose it due to inferiority in our soldiers, weapons, or training.
We could bomb an entire country to rubble, but that doesn't qualify as a "win." People can live in holes or caves and merrily cause trouble, waiting for us to shoot ourselves in the foot. Hey, that sounds a lot like Afganistan. Or lots of other wars.
If there was a WW2 style war in the current age, then we'd rip up. But it's really, really unlikely that it would happen.
Ever heard of Vietnam?
(A bit off-topic, but I had to write that. ^^) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They did not withstand us. They died by the millions, over 5 million combined deaths from their civilians and soliders, versus our 50,000 US troops death. You call that a US defeat?
Pulling out of vietnam was a political desicion, not a military one.
Ever heard of Vietnam?
(A bit off-topic, but I had to write that. ^^) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They did not withstand us. They died by the millions, over 5 million combined deaths from their civilians and soliders, versus our 50,000 US troops death. You call that a US defeat?
Pulling out of vietnam was a political desicion, not a military one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You still didn't win.
I just hope to God that no one gets any cute ideas, because I'm fairly positive that a properly placed attack on the US could prevoke said country to spontaniously becoming a nuclear hole in the ground. Expecially while bush is in charge.
british marine vs an american marine... see what happens.
The simple known fact is that the american military is too dependent on it's technology and equipment, and not on the intelligence and efficiency of its men. TBH, america is only good at war because of their numbers, and their ability to make top quality killing thingies (guns). But, it's a known fact that the track record of many european armies and defence forces are better than america, The UK being a fine example.
for the actual topic?
one weapon (short of a nuke, and even then there is question) will not end a war.
ok, so they have a missile that is realy nasty vs ships. This is leaving out the rest of our military forces.
The weapon needs a delivery system, ok well that is a plane. Who wants to match any countries planes VS the USAF?
Once an overt attack like this starts then the US will not sit on it's lorels and fight a defensive war, it just isn't part of American politics (outside of Vietnam). The war will be brought to the offending country, and then a combination of air and ground superiority will end it.
As for Vietnam? Wasn't a war, was a defensive action that just sucked. Yah we got our arses handed to us, but that was b/c the entire idea was stupid (sit in one 1/2 of a country and defend it from the other 1/2 with out actualy invading... wth?)
As for the US Military VS any one eleses?
There isn't much difference between each individual soldier
The strength of a military force dosn't lie in each soldier, it lies in the over arcing view. The chain of comand, the avaliable tech, the ability to deliver troops, weapons, and suplies to any given location, and intelegence (in the gonvernmental sense, not as in Bush is an idiot).
The simple known fact is that the american military is too dependent on it's technology and equipment, and not on the intelligence and efficiency of its men. TBH, america is only good at war because of their numbers, and their ability to make top quality killing thingies (guns). But, it's a known fact that the track record of many european armies and defence forces are better than america, The UK being a fine example. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
American marine calls in an air strike and wins without even seeing the Brit. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sure we depend on out technology...because it works and saves lives.
Now I'll admit our regular run of the mill Army private doesn?t go through the most rigorous of training, ask anyone who's been through Fort Jackson. But I really doubt you can find better fighting men then American Special Forces, Delta Force, SEAL's, Rangers etc.
But of course this is all speculation suffice to say no one European country could defeat the US, most likely not all of them together if it stayed conventional.
"(e)kent's post brings little to nothing to the table, these kinds of posts are frowned upon <i>especially</i> in discussion."
Don't post just to say this again or you may see yourself restricted from discussions.</span>
I wouldn't worry, I highly doubt this guy knows more about a Russian missile then our military knows. If in fact this missile is as good as is said here then I'm sure preparations have been made, one thing the US does do right is protect its carriers.
This is nothing but an overblown doomsday scenario I wouldn't put any stock in it.
I wouldn't worry, I highly doubt this guy knows more about a Russian missile then our military knows. If in fact this missile is as good as is said here then I'm sure preparations have been made, one thing the US does do right is protect its carriers.
This is nothing but an overblown doomsday scenario I wouldn't put any stock in it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Knowing the Chineese, this is nothing more than them puffing thier chest out anyways. Thier relations with the US aren't acctually that terrible, certianly not bad enough to start unprovoked war at least. Like you say, now that we know its out there, there are going to be counter mesures up the wazzoo.
ok, so they have a missile that is realy nasty vs ships. This is leaving out the rest of our military forces.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As US troops most certainly will be an expeditionaty force, they are dependant on their fleet for support, and most notably on their aircraft carriers. can you imagine what happens if one of those beasts is sunk by a couple of supersonic missles? Desaster.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The weapon needs a delivery system, ok well that is a plane. Who wants to match any countries planes VS the USAF?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not only the planes. Exept the F/A22, your Fightercraft is not any better than their third generation Soviet counterparts. It is a matter of experieneced and trained pilots and effective weapon guidiance systems. Besides, the Moskit Missle has a great enough range to be fired from a costal area in case of the Gulf or from a plane way out of range for any effective interception pattern. The problem is, that the slow subsonic Anti ship missles won't reach their target if fired from afar, because the ships defenses. The Moskit can do this, as it is extremle fast, difficulty to track and performs iradical evasive actions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->one weapon (short of a nuke, and even then there is question) will not end a war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In case of this one weapon destroying an entire carrier-tasks force or the entire ground force preparing for the attack several month in a neighboring country....yes, it will end the war before it began. That is the reason why every small country considered "evil" by the US administration is trying to get a nuke. Take Noth Korea, The US will not bother with them anymore because they already have the nuke. It is a bit sad that being a nuclear power is the only way to remain a sovereing nation these days.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The strength of a military force dosn't lie in each soldier, it lies in the over arcing view. The chain of comand, the avaliable tech, the ability to deliver troops, weapons, and suplies to any given location, and intelegence (in the gonvernmental sense, not as in Bush is an idiot).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sum it all up. It lies in money. The more money, the better the guns. Period.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once an overt attack like this starts then the US will not sit on it's lorels and fight a defensive war, it just isn't part of American politics (outside of Vietnam). The war will be brought to the offending country, and then a combination of air and ground superiority will end it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you are right, considering that Saddam sat 6 month waiting for the attack instead of simply strike out first to Saudi Arabia and the US troops preparing.
This "tactic" will work until one day one of the bad boys the US are besieging will initiate an preemtive strike while the US troops are in disorder, and this will be desastrous.
<a href='http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/' target='_blank'>behold the power of german submarines <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--></a>
<a href='http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm' target='_blank'>furthermore, behold the power of German tanks!</a><!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Shall I get started on infantry rifles?
<a href='http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm' target='_blank'>OICW</a>
<a href='http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm' target='_blank'>XM8</a>
note that the US state department ordered tests on these for replacement of US Toops infantry weapons.
or go for the classic
<a href='http://www.hkpro.com/mp5.htm' target='_blank'>everyone loves it, even Hollywood <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--></a>
<a href='http://www.hkpro.com/video/MP5.mov' target='_blank'>clip of MP5</a>. Don't do that with your M-4 carbine kids....
<a href='http://www.hkpro.com/g3.htm' target='_blank'>best rifle <i>evar!</i></a>
<a href='http://www.eurofighter.com/Default.asp?Flash=True' target='_blank'>not purely german, but....</a>
That baby can do anything the F/A 22 can do. Absolutely everything!
Besides it has about 3 time the weapon payload and coasts only roughly more than one third of a Raptor. Plus, being the second most advanced air-superiority fighter in the world, it is also sports excellent air-to-ground capabilities.
Its not perfect yet, the prototypes have a big list of bugs (like the mounting of the gun which is too week so it can't be fired..... but hey its a prototype)
Only advantage of the F/A 22 is the stealth ability which is gone as soon as it opens the missle bays....
and last not least for the chopperfans:
<a href='http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tiger/' target='_blank'>since the comanche was a big blow in the dust....</a>
here comes the state of the art attack chopper. Simple, sturdy, reliable. And it does not fall from the sky like Apachies even without combat as soon as its not used in flat desert ares, like in Bosnia....
Ill try and find an english article about the new F124 and 125 Frigattes currently developed in germany (sea testings of the F124 prototype have already begun)
That ship is currently the most technically advanced fleet protection system available.
You're right. The US is no longer the world superpower. Europe, lead the way into dominance of the United States military. Please, we've gone too far with our lone superpowerness, etc etc.