Poll for americans only

[swallowmewhole]

lol!! :rofl2:

OK, so you talked me out of conquering the Falklands. But now you have me thinkin' about invading Argentina. :rubbel:

 

[vodkazvictim]

Since you replied with a cogent, coherent reply; I will do the same. Of course we have certain equipment that isn't as good as it should be. It's the US military, of course there is going to be waste. The problem is that much of the things you have previously claimed were, "over-hyped, inneficient and under-capable", is fine equipment, you are the only voice anywhere that claims it isn't, and you have no actual experience to back up any of the accusations you have made. Those are the facts.

You have also refused to factor in the fact that many weapons systems, etc, were built in a different time for different purposes. Did you know that for all the combat missions the B-52 has ever flown, it has never flown the mission that it was designed and built for? In other words, we did what we had to at the time and then modified and adapted where/when we had too. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Apparently the L85 is working properly now. It only took H&K to make it work. And in either case, it took too damn long for the Brits to take the problem seriously. You don't fuck around with a main battle rifle. That's me, in a nice way, saying you fix your problems, we'll fix ours.

And if you can't take the Falkland Fucking Islands, you got way more problems than we do.

You say "Of course there's going to be waste." as though that makes it ecusable, but I believe that it's not; lets not forget that the waste essentially results in soldiers dying for a profit margin.

I'm not the only one. Many people, including U.S. service personnell have criticised many of the major systems. I normally target the M1 due to it's weight and high IR sig, but let's instead look at infantry for a moment: The M16 series has a poor reliability reputation, you and others would agree that they're underpowered and the inventor of interceptor body armour himself now says that their are superior alternatives available. Given the stellar budget, one would expect better of the U.S. military.

I don't remember "refusing" to factor that in.
As concerns the Buff, what I love is it's immense flexibility and long service life; I regard flexibility as a strength.
Yes, the L85 series has a chequered history. I don't deny it. Frankly I think we'd have done better purchasing Steyr Aug's/Manufacturing rights for them.
Assuming that the M.O.D. is telling the truth for once, the L85 is now a formiddable weapons system (that can't fire from the other shoulder), but it's also the worlds most expensive standard assault rifle, last time I checked. Being the worlds most expensive, you'd expect it to be the best, but that appears not to be the case.

I'll pay attention to the problems that you're military has if I want to. You're more than welcome to pay attention to those of the British military. You seem to think I only target the american military, but I can assure you that you're wrong.

Why would there be fighting then? Or is this an academic 'what if'? I must confess I didn't pay any attention to past conflicts while I was living in the UK.


Sure, but a quick look down most British high streets will show you mostly foreign-owned (mostly American) businesses. I even found an ASDA that didn't even pretend it wasn't Wal-Mart (that is to say, the Wal-Mart logo was prominent and larger than the ASDA sign, as opposed to the typical 'part of the Wal-Mart family' fine print I saw on most ASDA signs).

Though perhaps its finance the UK's corporate imperialism shines; I must confess again I know very little there, other than that it seems to be an unfortunately large portion of the country's GDP.

We'd be fighting because the Argies have recently showed increased interest in Las Malvinas, the Brits recently sent a destroyer and a squadroon of Typhoons (LOL!) out there and what with call me dave's drooping popularity he may well regard a war with the Argies in that region as the saviour of his premiership in the same way it was widely considered to be a boon to Thatcher.
BTW, do any other Brits feel like we're back in the '80s?

Well you're "strategic bombers" became obsolete when you introduced SLBMs and cruise missiles into the inventory.




It shows.

I could convince you that strategic bombers are still valuable by pointing out their flexibility, but I believe the most potent way to make you regret that comment is to write this:
"Hark, did somebody hear Kruschev speak?"

 

[Mayhem]

You say "Of course there's going to be waste." as though that makes it ecusable, but I believe that it's not; lets not forget that the waste essentially results in soldiers dying for a profit margin.

I'm not the only one. Many people, including U.S. service personnell have criticised many of the major systems. I normally target the M1 due to it's weight and high IR sig, but let's instead look at infantry for a moment: The M16 series has a poor reliability reputation, you and others would agree that they're underpowered and the inventor of interceptor body armour himself now says that their are superior alternatives available. Given the stellar budget, one would expect better of the U.S. military.

I don't remember "refusing" to factor that in.
As concerns the Buff, what I love is it's immense flexibility and long service life; I regard flexibility as a strength.
Yes, the L85 series has a chequered history. I don't deny it. Frankly I think we'd have done better purchasing Steyr Aug's/Manufacturing rights for them.
Assuming that the M.O.D. is telling the truth for once, the L85 is now a formiddable weapons system (that can't fire from the other shoulder), but it's also the worlds most expensive standard assault rifle, last time I checked. Being the worlds most expensive, you'd expect it to be the best, but that appears not to be the case.

I'll pay attention to the problems that you're military has if I want to. You're more than welcome to pay attention to those of the British military. You seem to think I only target the american military, but I can assure you that you're wrong.

This is where we are back to you being an armchair commando who has no clue. The M16 has a terrific reliability reputation. Period. To say otherwise is further proof of your confusion and dementia. And it is also proof that you have no experience with the topics you like to pontificate about.

There are better alternatives to the 5.56 NATO rd. Now there are alternatives, and I think the military should examine them. But these alternatives weren't in play 20 - 30 years ago. So we deal with it now, not bitch that we didn't do it 20 - 30 years ago.

Yes, the L85 series has a chequered history. I don't deny it.

Well, you did deny it in a past thread. I remember.
If the L85 is the most expensive assault rifle, then good job beating the SIG 550. Of course, if anyone is going to over price their battle rifle past the Swiss, it's going to be the Brits.

If you have a better design than the M1, quit keeping it to yourself and get it to the manufacturers. It's weight comes from its armor, it's armor is what keeps the crew alive (I have first hand experience in this). Bitching about a tanks weight is like bitching about ships that float.

 

[Trident1]

I could convince you that strategic bombers are still valuable by pointing out their flexibility, but I believe the most potent way to make you regret that comment is to write this:
"Hark, did somebody hear Kruschev speak?"

Hey blame Labour...................they love cutting anything military.

 

[Red Spyder]

Argentina should let the Falklands decide. The population there is mostly British, not even Hispanics if any, so let them decide if they want to leave the UK and join with Argentina or stay with the UK. Self determination, people!!!

 

[vodkazvictim]

This is where we are back to you being an armchair commando who has no clue. The M16 has a terrific reliability reputation. Period. To say otherwise is further proof of your confusion and dementia. And it is also proof that you have no experience with the topics you like to pontificate about.

There are better alternatives to the 5.56 NATO rd. Now there are alternatives, and I think the military should examine them. But these alternatives weren't in play 20 - 30 years ago. So we deal with it now, not bitch that we didn't do it 20 - 30 years ago.




Well, you did deny it in a past thread. I remember.
If the L85 is the most expensive assault rifle, then good job beating the SIG 550. Of course, if anyone is going to over price their battle rifle past the Swiss, it's going to be the Brits.

If you have a better design than the M1, quit keeping it to yourself and get it to the manufacturers. It's weight comes from its armor, it's armor is what keeps the crew alive (I have first hand experience in this). Bitching about a tanks weight is like bitching about ships that float.

WHICH M16? Because the M16A1 famously jammed after firing 3 rounds.
The M4 carbine is known to collapse partially into it's butt, requiring parts replacement.
So again, which M16? The M16 has a famoulsy poor reputation for reliability, from what I've heard.
This video cites some poor reliability reputation of the M16:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6iNYhttGlM
[youteube]v=V6iNYhttGlM[/youtube]

As concerns the 5.56 round, it didn't exist then (technically), so why not just develop a better round then? And frankly I've no problem with adopting a better round.
As for stop bitching about it, I'll bitch if I choose. Lets not forget that we had the round forced upon us, such an activity is prone to produce bitching, n'est pas?
If I defended the L85, it was probably me defending the L85a2 or saying that in comparison to a poorer rifle it was the superior rifle.

Why would the manufacturers care? Soviet tanks have been firing air-bursting HE for years. The M1 doesn't.
Soviet tanks have been barrel-launching ATGMS since the '70s. Despite 3 programs all costing a pretty penny, the M1 doesn't. So why tell the manufacturers? They clearly don't care.

I'm sure I don't have to educate you when it comes to armour and weight. The M1 could do better. Ever seen an M1 with E.R.A.?

Hey blame Labour...................they love cutting anything military.

Yeah, because the way to make something work is to throw money at it, right?
Don't talk to me about Britain, you know nothing about it.

If I remember correctly then it was a Labour government who decided to invest in the F35 project. So stealthy that it's involvement in Libya is completely undocumented.

If I remember correctly then it was Labour that invested in BOWMAN military radios. They work so well that the troops say that BOWMAN stands for Better Off With Map and Nokia.

If I remember correctly Labour upgraded the L85a1 to the A2.

If I remember correctly it was labour who invested in the (superior) British Apache program.

So don't tell me that labour isn't equally as guilty of throwing money at defense manufacturers as the conservatwunts.

Argentina should let the Falklands decide. The population there is mostly British, not even Hispanics if any, so let them decide if they want to leave the UK and join with Argentina or stay with the UK. Self determination, people!!!

The Falklands SHOULD be allowed to decide.
I've heard that they wanted to be English. But of course, living in England I would hear that.

 

[Trident1]

Your Labour people scrapped the TSR2 then they ditched the F-111K Merlin.

 

[Mayhem]

When the M16 was initially tested with the 5.56 rd., the test ammo used a type of gunpowder called "stick" gunpowder. When everything was settled on and the rifle/ammo was deployed to Vietnam. Except the ammo manufacturers switched from "stick" powder to "ball" powder. The performance was the same but the ball powder gummed up the mechanism, in the humid wet environment. This was unforseen at the time. There was no negligence, no evildoing. It was a mistake. Coincidentally, some idiot decided that the M16 was a "self-cleaning" rifle. This was criminal negligence and I hope someone paid for it. In either case, once stick powder was reintroduced and once cleaning kits were made available, any and all reliability problems attributed to the M16 (and NOT the magazines, ammo, performed maintenance) disappeared once and for all.

This is not revisionist history. This is me knowing exactly what I'm talking about and you, not.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Your Labour people scrapped the TSR2 then they ditched the F-111K Merlin.

Assuming that I believe you without checking the facts, so what?
Military spending needs to be not too little and not too much. I'm sure both Labour and Tories have cut in the wrong places while throwing money in questionable directions.
I think you assume I'm in some sort of hurry to defend Labour. If so I'm afraid you're mistaken.

When the M16 was initially tested with the 5.56 rd., the test ammo used a type of gunpowder called "stick" gunpowder. When everything was settled on and the rifle/ammo was deployed to Vietnam. Except the ammo manufacturers switched from "stick" powder to "ball" powder. The performance was the same but the ball powder gummed up the mechanism, in the humid wet environment. This was unforseen at the time. There was no negligence, no evildoing. It was a mistake. Coincidentally, some idiot decided that the M16 was a "self-cleaning" rifle. This was criminal negligence and I hope someone paid for it. In either case, once stick powder was reintroduced and once cleaning kits were made available, any and all reliability problems attributed to the M16 (and NOT the magazines, ammo, performed maintenance) disappeared once and for all.

This is not revisionist history. This is me knowing exactly what I'm talking about and you, not.

I'd heard about the self-cleaning thing and may have heard about the powder issues, but the fact is that the M16 has a poor reliability reputation.
Whether that reputation is from the two issues you just pointed out or stems from further reliability problems with the M16 as well, I'm not sure, let's say that issues with M16 reliability are now fixed, it still has a poor reputation for reliability today.

I never accused you of revisionist history, and I know something. I don't profess infallibility, don't act like I do.

 

[Trident1]

Assuming that I believe you without checking the facts, so what?
Military spending needs to be not too little and not too much. I'm sure both Labour and Tories have cut in the wrong places while throwing money in questionable directions.
I think you assume I'm in some sort of hurry to defend Labour. If so I'm afraid you're mistaken.

You need to read about the TSR2. An aircraft ahead of it's time, a marvel of aviation destroyed by the gov't. They even axed the incredible F-111K. When it came to supplying the F-4K the gov't had the Air Force put RR engines instead of PrattWhitneys cutting the performance. All in an effort to Buy British even if it was a detriment to their own military.

 

[Mayhem]

I'd heard about the self-cleaning thing and may have heard about the powder issues, but the fact is that the M16 has a poor reliability reputation.
Whether that reputation is from the two issues you just pointed out or stems from further reliability problems with the M16 as well, I'm not sure, let's say that issues with M16 reliability are now fixed, it still has a poor reputation for reliability today.

What part of "No it doesn't" are you not grasping? I served in the '80s to mid '90s and there were no reliability issues nor was anyone complaining. I'm sorry that reality doesn't fit with the magazine article you've been reading. Your stance on this is completely false and I served for 8 years just to make sure.

And you "may have heard"??? If you do not know the circumstances behind this, then you are not any kind of authority on this subject and you should just quit while you're behind. So much for "checking the facts".

 

[vodkazvictim]

You need to read about the TSR2. An aircraft ahead of it's time, a marvel of aviation destroyed by the gov't. They even axed the incredible F-111K. When it came to supplying the F-4K the gov't had the Air Force put RR engines instead of PrattWhitneys cutting the performance. All in an effort to Buy British even if it was a detriment to their own military.

I've read about the TSR2. There are certain similarities to the Avro Arrow in the story of it. So what? Governments make poor choices when it comes to military spending regardless of their idealogy.
As for the F111K, I never heard of it, but I've never been a great fan of the F111 series.

The yanks developed the M60 starship.
The Soviets developed the IT1 Drakon.
The Brits developed a tank transporter too narrow for country roads (this was develoed to replace the former tank transporter, which was deemed in need of replacement because it was... Too narrow for country roads!)
Russia developed the Azkhaban.
The Russian empire developed the Tsar Tank.
The Germans developed the Maus.
Need I really go on?

What part of "No it doesn't" are you not grasping? I served in the '80s to mid '90s and there were no reliability issues nor was anyone complaining. I'm sorry that reality doesn't fit with the magazine article you've been reading. Your stance on this is completely false and I served for 8 years just to make sure.

And you "may have heard"??? If you do not know the circumstances behind this, then you are not any kind of authority on this subject and you should just quit while you're behind. So much for "checking the facts".

OK, so maybe it no longer has a bad reputation in the U.S., but I assure you that it's reputation remains poor in the rest of the world. Just as the AKM has a good rep and the L85a2 inherited the bad reputation of the L85a1.

As for "I may have heard" it's hard to remember what I've read and not, so when I read something and it seems familiar it may be De Ja Vu or i may remember it.
I don't have all the time in the world to research everything.

 

[ballzano]

Im pretty sure we would be helping them, alot if the need arose. We have alot of weapon systems in common that are constantly being upgraded and the real world combat testing/using is invaluable. I don't think U.S. troops would be used. It would be more of a intelligence operation

 

[Will E Worm]

Be diplomatic. America takes control and they have visiting rights.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Im pretty sure we would be helping them, alot if the need arose. We have alot of weapon systems in common that are constantly being upgraded and the real world combat testing/using is invaluable. I don't think U.S. troops would be used. It would be more of a intelligence operation

:yawn:
Like last time?
Like what? F35?
Like last time?

Be diplomatic. America takes control and they have visiting rights.

Dream on wurm, America has more problems than solutions. When Australia imported the M1 they had trouble finding a port capable of offloading their shiny new toys.
Australia is a 1st world country, so imagine the problems deploying M1s to a combat zone.
Face it; America is now as it always was; a paper tiger. Kiss my hairy arse, wurm.

 

[Will E Worm]

Dream on wurm, america has more problems than solutions. When Australia imported the M1 they had trouble finding a port capable of offloading their shiny new toys.
Australia is a 1st world country, so imagine the problems deploying M1s to a combat zone.
Face it; america is now as it always was; a paper tiger. Kiss my hairy arse, wurm.

Excuse me!? :nono: :booty::moon:

I did not bring up the Fascist country of Australia.

 

[Trident1]

Vodka I have to admit of all the posters here; your tangents concerning military minutiae are bizarre. Do you drink when you post?

 

[CptHa]

America a paper tiger? Funny, I remember the same thing being said by every dictatorship under the sun in the 20th century.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Excuse me!? :nono: :booty::moon:

I did not bring up the Fascist country of Australia.

Are you trying to tell me the M1s used by the Aussies are somehow different to the M1s used by america? Should you really know something before you express an opinion?

Vodka I have to admit of all the posters here; your tangents concerning military minutiae are bizarre. Do you drink when you post?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but never do I trust in Reagan and economics as You Mistakenly do. Me>you still. Suck it (and yes, I have been drinking tonight, but fuck you.)

America a paper tiger? Funny, I remember the same thing being said by every dictatorship under the sun in the 20th century.

Which makes them wrong because? C'mon, it took you two attempts to take Iraq and that was after years of war with Iran to wear them down (not to mention Saddam's "leadership".)

 

[Trident1]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but never do I trust in Reagan and economics as You Mistakenly do. Me>you still. Suck it (and yes, I have been drinking tonight, but fuck you.)

Your Greek wife must roll her eyes when you drink.