War, what is it good for?

Premium Media Content
Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread


So they're parking their land vehicles on the decks of their ships to make up for the ship's shoddy defenses.

For armies that can't afford to have a weapons system for every problem, I'd say that's pretty ingenious. But this a supposed to be one of the most powerful militaries in the world - they shouldn't have to be MacGyvering like this.
 
First of all, yeah, way to adapt and overcome. Secondly, I don't think they ever thought of it, because they're to arrogant to believe they're vulnerable to ******. The Russians, like Hitler, are very tunnel visional. They believe a strong, specific "thing" will conquer all. With Hitler it was GIANT tanks, that ended up being to heavy for mud and snow in Russian winters, and the misguided belief that heavy machine guns, were more important then individually, well armed soldiers. He was clueless to the production of the first assault rifle ever, the Sturmgewehr, and it was a massive step up from the main battle rifles they were using. With Russia, it seems to be subs, and missiles. Or it least I think so. Now America has a ship mounted anti missile defense system called the "Phalanx". It looks like R2D2, with a multi barrel chain *** sticking out of it, and it fires so fast, it sounds like an electric motor Whirring. I think another factor is, Russia never looked at the possibility they might actually fight a war of attrition. I think they expected everyone to back down on them, when they puffed out their chest, and because they don't seem to feel the need to have a carrier group in every single region of the globe, their navel ***** isn't set up for retaliation. Hell, they have a super carrier in dry dock, that's been getting updated forever, and has just been pushed back another few months. On top of that, no other country spends what we do on the military. I think more then half of America's budget goes to building arms. If we stopped babysitting and funding every other country, we might be able to save a few billion here or there.

Premium Link Upgrade ​

 
Premium Image Content
Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread


Yes, the CIWS is pretty cool. I'm no expert, but I recall the thing fires so fast, even a full ammo it can only fire for a minute or 2. And because it's externally mounted, reloading has to be done manually by people on the deck - i.e. literally carrying the crate of ammo and feeding it in. Not the most intuitive system under battlefield conditions..
Still, if a missile is so close it can be shot down by a Gatling, it's literally the last line of defense, so I guess it doesn't need to fire that long.

You're bang on about Russia not even imagining this could be a war of attrition. And in that respect, the sanctions are effective, since they are hemorrhaging money right now. I feel that sooner or later they are going to try blitzkrieg'ing using everything they've got, because trickling it in clearly isn't getting the results, nor sustainable. I think they can feel comfortable in thinking that as long as they don't ****** NATO, no country is going to ****** them, so they can pull divisions/resources from everywhere else and throw it into the mix.
 
I'm not sure how they reload it either, but it's got to be some sort of quick reload system. They aren't going to put men at risk, by keeping them on deck for extended periods of time. It's probably belt or chain fed, and loaded up from below. Or at least I would hope they don't expect soldiers to climb up those steps when the vessel under fire. And you are correct about the last resort use. Also, I think it's a pretty large round, for full auto, like 20mm, which isn't quite an inch, but much larger then the old basic Browning M1A2 .50 caliber machine guns they used in Viet Nam, and earlier, against planes and such. I think that it would look much better with some sort of paint on it. Like a flaming skull, or a Jolly Roger. Something that screams, 'YEAH, WELL FUCK YOU TOO!!'.
 
Premium Link Upgrade

This article is pretty long, and very dry reading, but it dives deeply into the possibility of the use of nukes.
I came away from it, a little less sure of what the hell is going to happen....but I haven't coffee yet.

Premium Link Upgrade

This seems incredibly stupid. I don't think we should have gotten rid of all of the battleships, now the missile cruisers? I find it hard to grasp, how you can have a navy, with only aircraft carriers, amphibious landing ships, subs, and a few support ships. I think we are relying on our aircraft carriers to much, and we need those cruisers for defense of the fleet, and for offensive missile strikes. You can't always count on submarines and planes.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Daystar said:
Premium Link Upgrade

This article is pretty long, and very dry reading, but it dives deeply into the possibility of the use of nukes.
I came away from it, a little less sure of what the hell is going to happen....but I haven't coffee yet.

Premium Link Upgrade

This seems incredibly stupid. I don't think we should have gotten rid of all of the battleships, now the missile cruisers? I find it hard to grasp, how you can have a navy, with only aircraft carriers, amphibious landing ships, subs, and a few support ships. I think we are relying on our aircraft carriers to much, and we need those cruisers for defense of the fleet, and for offensive missile strikes. You can't always count on submarines and planes.
Click to expand...

Kinda reminds me of the Marine's decision to drop all their tanks by 2023.
Premium Link Upgrade

I get that it's not a perfect comparison (since the army still has tanks) but if the argument is "we can just use the army", then what's the point of having land combat units in the marines? Tanks have gotten a really bad rap since the Ukraine war, but we shouldn't forget that in large part due to the Russians not knowing how to use them or maintain them. I think with all press about javelins tearing up rusky tanks, people are getting the impression you can just hide some people along the road and take out entire tank columns like sitting ducks.

The Abrams (and Bradleys) did a great job in Iraq, and you will pretty much always need some sort of heavy armour to win a ground battle against an entrenched enemy.

Coincidentally, when the first Top *** came out, the US Navy saw the biggest jump in recruitment outside of an actual war, but I'm willing to bet not many of those wanted to be sailors. Similarly, I wonder if they'll see another jump for Navy pilots with Top *** 2?
 
I whole heartedly agree. Armor is absolutely essential to a ground war. I hadn't heard that claim by the Marine's, and I find it a little more, then disturbing. Especially when you consider we have really good armor, and we sure as hell know how to deploy it effectively. I think it would be incredibly irresponsible to put boots on the ground, with out any armored support. You would think they would remember what happened in somalia without fire support. You have to have something like that, and a tank is the best way to go. Mobile guns like the Paladin, are great, but they can't get around like a tank. If anything, figure out how to do away with the smaller howitzers that are Jeep or truck towed, and use the tanks in that capacity, alongside the Paladin's. They already did away with off shore battleship bombardment, they have to keep something in the 100mm and larger category.
 
bubb said:
"War, what is it good for?" Profit?

Premium Link Upgrade
Click to expand...
The only people that win during a war, are the suppliers, no matter what the cost. Here's another example. This company is owned in part by the French government.

Premium Link Upgrade
 
If that's the new German, main battle tank, I've heard it's bad ass. It looks really good too. I can't wait until we get hover tanks, like Sgt. Hatred had, when he was with the Guild.

And back up a couple of posts. Why in the hell would America want to get rid of tanks, when it's obvious to other countries, they matter. I mean, we all know Hitler was a fucked up piece of ****, but he knew enough to give his Generals good tanks, at least until the last couple of models, and their flaw was weight. In todays world, they would just widen the tracks, and reduce ground pressure.
 
bubb said:
Don't tell me Vlad isn't making money on the war.
Click to expand...
Ok, so the only people that lose, are the soldiers and civilians, would be a better way to say it I guess, but I think you know what I was getting at.
 
bubb said:
"War, what is it good for?" Profit?

Premium Link Upgrade
Click to expand...

Russia’s revenues from fossil fuels, by far its biggest export, soared to records in the first 100 days of its war on Ukraine, driven by a windfall from oil sales amid surging prices, a new analysis shows.

Russia earned what is very likely a record 93 billion euros in revenue from exports of oil, gas and coal in the first 100 days of the country’s invasion of Ukraine, according to data analyzed by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a research organization based in Helsinki. About two-thirds of those earnings, the equivalent of about $97 billion, came from oil, and most of the remainder from natural gas.
Click to expand...
Dafuq?
Weren't we in this gas crisis because we boycotted Russian oil?

The EU also reduced its imports of Russian crude oil, which declined 18% in May. But that dip was made up by India and the United Arab Emirates, leading to no net change in Russia’s oil export volumes, the research showed. India has become a significant importer of Russian crude oil, buying 18% of the country’s exports over the 100-day period.
Click to expand...
Overall, China was the largest importer of Russian fossil fuels over the 100-day period, edging out Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. China imported the most oil; Japan was the top purchaser of Russian coal.
Click to expand...

So much for solidarity...
 
Premium Link Upgrade

The U.S. wants to phase out tanks, but dump piles of money into higher tech self propelled artillery? To me, that seems unrealistic. We need both, but a Paladin isn't going to hoof it on down the road at 50mph, while it's *** remains on target.
 
Not to sound apathetic but... Do you find interest in the war in Ukraine has run its course?

The war is still on but the news feed about it makes it sound like not much is happening. No "last stand" sieges, missile attacks on hospitals, etc. It's literally gone from the front pages now, and I don't think anyone would blame you if you thought it was over.
 
tvstrip said:
Not to sound apathetic but... Do you find interest in the war in Ukraine has run its course?

The war is still on but the news feed about it makes it sound like not much is happening. No "last stand" sieges, missile attacks on hospitals, etc. It's literally gone from the front pages now, and I don't think anyone would blame you if you thought it was over.
Click to expand...
Part of it is because everything tends to blend together in time as it becomes one gigantic quagmire of attrition. The relative same stuff would be repeated day after day baring something unusually newsworthy. I don't agree with it but it's probably they way a lot of people feel.

The other part of it is because most people in the modern day have the attention span of gerbils and some ********* gossip or other nonsensical thing has caught their attention instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Johan
Russia's plans for 2024 : Trump-Gabbard 2024 + get America even more polarised
Replies
8
Views
4K
gmase
gmase
Johan
Russian State TV producer interrupts broadcast with "No War" sign
Replies
6
Views
3K
Mr. Daystar
Mr. Daystar
Johan
What does "woke" means ?
Replies
17
Views
6K
Little Red Wagon Repairman
Little Red Wagon Repairman
Johan
Trump trusts Russia over US intelligence
2 3
Replies
53
Views
12K
georges
georges
O
The Carnal Couple: Angels v.1 - Grace (FFM, ATM, BBC, ORGY)
Replies
7
Views
11K
onyxandpearl
O
Back
Top