isn't that the ship that hacks the enemy radar?OmS-NAS wrote:
i think that i saw on discovery once that we had in norway a ship that could outrun the most of small naval things.. lets se if i can find a link.
hereyago:
http://www.knmskjold.org/english/index.html
Im not an millitarynerd, so you figure out the details..
OmS
I can't imagine another reason why they would use a weapon which is not standard for British Forces.WolfSheep wrote:
They do? Well, we don't and I never heard or saw them with M16 but I know that this doesn't mean you're wrong - but I don't believe that simply using the M-16 means that it is their prefered weapon.
Russian Equipment sucks. They managed to copy a B29 they stole and were able to produce it at about the same time the USA produced the B52 wich is so effective its still being employed with sucsess.
When US Navy SEALS visited the Russian Equivalent in a joint traning venture they said it was like being in a museum the shit was all old and much was German WWII issue.
The Black Eagle is a peice of shit T80 retro fitted with reactive armor. Reactive armor is a quick fix Up grade if your system is old and you want to squeeze a couple more years out of it. The USA puts it on old M60 Tanks it dosn't want to junk yet. Any Real tanker ( Abrams Challenger II ) would be licking his chops to face of with that repackaged piece of Crap they call the Black Eagle. (its even a stupid name, it dosn't fly ).
the speed is classified ! ? give me a break. Its the same chassies as the T72 How fast Do you think it goes?
with a better engine maybe to mph faster .
Russia's main bomber was a prop plane. They were 20 years behind. Their practicaly a third World country.
They cant even pave roads or produce tiolet paper.
They should stick to producing Vodka and Mail order Brides.
Almost all NYC strippers are Russian ? whats up with that ?
When US Navy SEALS visited the Russian Equivalent in a joint traning venture they said it was like being in a museum the shit was all old and much was German WWII issue.
The Black Eagle is a peice of shit T80 retro fitted with reactive armor. Reactive armor is a quick fix Up grade if your system is old and you want to squeeze a couple more years out of it. The USA puts it on old M60 Tanks it dosn't want to junk yet. Any Real tanker ( Abrams Challenger II ) would be licking his chops to face of with that repackaged piece of Crap they call the Black Eagle. (its even a stupid name, it dosn't fly ).
the speed is classified ! ? give me a break. Its the same chassies as the T72 How fast Do you think it goes?
with a better engine maybe to mph faster .
Russia's main bomber was a prop plane. They were 20 years behind. Their practicaly a third World country.
They cant even pave roads or produce tiolet paper.
They should stick to producing Vodka and Mail order Brides.
Almost all NYC strippers are Russian ? whats up with that ?
It's called "Foreign weapons training" - they have to be perfect shots and familiar with every weapon system (at least with the ones of their allies). I've used an AK as well but I wouldn't consider it as my first choice, if asked.whittsend wrote:
I can't imagine another reason why they would use a weapon which is not standard for British Forces.WolfSheep wrote:
They do? Well, we don't and I never heard or saw them with M16 but I know that this doesn't mean you're wrong - but I don't believe that simply using the M-16 means that it is their prefered weapon.
I don't know, the statement "The SAS uses M-16" can mean a whole lot of things - maybe they use it in close combat like some kind of baseball bat or they use it as chewing bone for their dogs.
A bit more detail about what they are using it for would be interesting.
Last edited by WolfSheep (2006-02-02 09:51:52)
Lmao. Not for close combat, youd break the silly plastic thing.WolfSheep wrote:
It's called "Foreign weapons training" - they have to be perfect shots and familiar with every weapon system (at least with the ones of their allies). I've used an AK as well but I wouldn't consider it as my first choice, if asked.whittsend wrote:
I can't imagine another reason why they would use a weapon which is not standard for British Forces.WolfSheep wrote:
They do? Well, we don't and I never heard or saw them with M16 but I know that this doesn't mean you're wrong - but I don't believe that simply using the M-16 means that it is their prefered weapon.
I don't know, the statement "The SAS uses M-16" can mean a whole lot of things - maybe they use it in close combat like some kind of baseball bat or they use it as chewing bone for their dogs.
A bit more detail about what they are using it for would be interesting.
Please don't address me in a patronising tone...I don't deserve it. I am a 12 year army veteran, Infantry and MP, with 21 months of combat action under my belt; not some 16 year old kid with an internet connection, who likes pictures of guns. I still don't know exactly what you do, but I suspect I have fired more rounds in combat than you have fired under any circumstances. Using a phrase like, "It's called 'Foreign weapons training'" is demeaining, and frankly I don't see you being justified in demeaning my knowledge of the subject.WolfSheep wrote:
It's called "Foreign weapons training" - they have to be perfect shots and familiar with every weapon system (at least with the ones of their allies). I've used an AK as well but I wouldn't consider it as my first choice, if asked.whittsend wrote:
I can't imagine another reason why they would use a weapon which is not standard for British Forces.WolfSheep wrote:
They do? Well, we don't and I never heard or saw them with M16 but I know that this doesn't mean you're wrong - but I don't believe that simply using the M-16 means that it is their prefered weapon.
I don't know, the statement "The SAS uses M-16" can mean a whole lot of things - maybe they use it in close combat like some kind of baseball bat or they use it as chewing bone for their dogs.
A bit more detail about what they are using it for would be interesting.
The SAS uses M-16s as their standard rifle (or did, at least as recently as two or three years ago)...they don't just play with it for familiarization. Here are two links.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm
"M16 rifles are used by many foreign military groups, most notably the British SAS, who preferred the M16 over the infamous L85A1 rifle, and by many others."
http://www.geocities.com/saspastandpres … onsmod.htm
"Most soldiers on SAS selection will be familiar with the SA80, the standard personal weapon in use with the British Army. However, the Regiment dislikes the SA80 and has tended to use the American M16."
"The M16, with a 203 grenade launcher clipped underneath is the preferred weapon of any SAS soldier operating in combat mode. Despite challenges from newer types of weapon, the M16 has remained a firm favourite within the Regiment. There are many reasons for this: it is reliable, able to operte in all conditions; it is accurate and suitable for both for close work in the jungle as well as in wider open spaces of the desert. It is light as is the ammunition and with a 30 round magazine, it keeps up a good fire pattern. It lso can be fitted with a simple bipod under the barrel."
Whittsend, I don't know who ruined your day, but the last thing I wanted to do was to say that you have no clue what you're talking about. I'm responsible for what I am writing, not of what you make out of it. If my phrases seemed to be aggressive or smth. like that then I am (once again) sorry, it's a matter of my insufficient english skills.
I take you serious and I don't know what leads you to a statement like
I hope things are clear again and we can talk about it one a professionell level again.
-cut-
We have to draw a line between the spec ops community and the "average soldier".
I think we don't have to talk about the fact that it's easier for a "average" soldier to get better shooting results with less training effort with a rifle equipped with holosight and scope -> G36
But the spec ops community uses the G36K or G36C (which is the shortest of the 3), these two rifles come with picanny rails and are equipped with other sights. Because of the shorter barrel and the changed sights, it doesn't fit so well for a, let's say, "not so well trained" soldier.
Your sources aren't verified, but as I haven't any other, I won't break this.
I think we also agree about the fact, that spec ops use equipment fitting to the expected environment/type of mission. So an overall "SAS uses M-16" may fit for some cases, but never vor every mission.
Since no one of us has served with SAS, we will never know.
I take you serious and I don't know what leads you to a statement like
Is this your way to make yourself more serious? I don't think so, it would be quite embarassing."but I suspect I have fired more rounds in combat than you have fired under any circumstances"
I hope things are clear again and we can talk about it one a professionell level again.
-cut-
We have to draw a line between the spec ops community and the "average soldier".
I think we don't have to talk about the fact that it's easier for a "average" soldier to get better shooting results with less training effort with a rifle equipped with holosight and scope -> G36
But the spec ops community uses the G36K or G36C (which is the shortest of the 3), these two rifles come with picanny rails and are equipped with other sights. Because of the shorter barrel and the changed sights, it doesn't fit so well for a, let's say, "not so well trained" soldier.
Your sources aren't verified, but as I haven't any other, I won't break this.
I think we also agree about the fact, that spec ops use equipment fitting to the expected environment/type of mission. So an overall "SAS uses M-16" may fit for some cases, but never vor every mission.
Since no one of us has served with SAS, we will never know.
I won't belabour the point.WolfSheep wrote:
I hope things are clear again and we can talk about it one a professionell level again.
Certainly. Spec Ops will use whatever they wish to, more or less.WolfSheep wrote:
We have to draw a line between the spec ops community and the "average soldier".
I cannot speak to the ability of a regular ground pounder to use one over the other, as I have only fired an HK on a "just messing around" level. Never taken it to a proper range.WolfSheep wrote:
I think we don't have to talk about the fact that it's easier for a "average" soldier to get better shooting results with less training effort with a rifle equipped with holosight and scope -> G36
But the spec ops community uses the G36K or G36C (which is the shortest of the 3), these two rifles come with picanny rails and are equipped with other sights. Because of the shorter barrel and the changed sights, it doesn't fit so well for a, let's say, "not so well trained" soldier.
I agree, those pages are not an indication of the absolute truth. They are, however, two independent sources saying more or less the same thing: SAS uses the M-16 as it's standard weapon. If you can find a page indicating something to the contrary I would be interested to see it. To be honest, I thought the use of the M-16 by the SAS was more or less common knowledge. I won't say that the SAS never use other weapons, but It was my understanding that the M-16 was the primary weapon system they used for standard combat ops (and might still be - I don't know, and I very much doubt we will find anything "official" to say one way or the other) and those pages (for what they were worth) fail to contradict that.WolfSheep wrote:
Your sources aren't verified, but as I haven't any other, I won't break this.
I think we also agree about the fact, that spec ops use equipment fitting to the expected environment/type of mission. So an overall "SAS uses M-16" may fit for some cases, but never vor every mission.
Shudder to think what could happen with all 6 of those bad boys Bopping around the Harbor!WilhelmSissener wrote:
isn't that the ship that hacks the enemy radar?OmS-NAS wrote:
i think that i saw on discovery once that we had in norway a ship that could outrun the most of small naval things.. lets se if i can find a link.
hereyago:
http://www.knmskjold.org/english/index.html
Im not an millitarynerd, so you figure out the details..
OmS
gives ya chills
@Witsand - u are confusing S300 with SAM systems such as SAM 5 and 6 ... which are more than 20 years old... Iraq did not have S300, not to mention S400 or something even more modern...
BTW with those you can take out F117 stealth. Don't believe google it with keywords Stealth Serbia or visit directly http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 … lick-refer BTW, that one was shot down with SAM 3 which is from 60's...
Imagine what S300 can do to anything that flies?! OR not to mention S400 maybe something to read on http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/ … 91010.aspx
BTW with those you can take out F117 stealth. Don't believe google it with keywords Stealth Serbia or visit directly http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 … lick-refer BTW, that one was shot down with SAM 3 which is from 60's...
Imagine what S300 can do to anything that flies?! OR not to mention S400 maybe something to read on http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/ … 91010.aspx
The downing of the F117 was only possible because of a french officer passing by flight data to the serbs - if you know where the bird's going to be it's easy to shoot it down, even if it's a stealth.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I know of it and I think the chance for a AA system like this, it would be quite hard to spot and shot a bird like the F117 without knowing when and where it's coming from.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I know of it and I think the chance for a AA system like this, it would be quite hard to spot and shot a bird like the F117 without knowing when and where it's coming from.
Reliable, able to operte in all conditions? Simply not true. Sure, it's more reliable then the L85A1 (and A2 for that matter). And before you ask; yes I write from my own experience.whittsend wrote:
"The M16, with a 203 grenade launcher clipped underneath is the preferred weapon of any SAS soldier operating in combat mode. Despite challenges from newer types of weapon, the M16 has remained a firm favourite within the Regiment. There are many reasons for this: it is reliable, able to operte in all conditions; it is accurate and suitable for both for close work in the jungle as well as in wider open spaces of the desert. It is light as is the ammunition and with a 30 round magazine, it keeps up a good fire pattern. It lso can be fitted with a simple bipod under the barrel."
Compared with the weapons i have had the chanse to use. G3A3 (AG-3), FN FNC, G-36E. The L85A1 is horrible! 30 rond mag, 5 missfired. M16 not very good, only 2 missfired, however the magazine stuck and after we got it loose, ice had frozen in the locking lugs, so the weapon was useless at that point. Even the forward assist didn't do the trick.
However this was in winter time, i have no exp. with any weapon in dessert or jugle conditions.
I don't think I'm confusing it with anything. If you read back, you will see that I'm the one who said he wasn't familiar with it. I did do a bit of reading since then. One article said that the statistics of the S400 were very impressive, but "...The Russians have a tendency to exaggerate the capabilities of their weapons systems..."1234BGD wrote:
@Witsand - u are confusing S300 with SAM systems such as SAM 5 and 6 ... which are more than 20 years old... Iraq did not have S300, not to mention S400 or something even more modern...
When it demonstrates that it is better than the Patriot in combat, then I'll be impressed. Until then, it's just another paper weapon system.
I have used the M-16 In the woods of Georgia and North Carolina, the Swamps of Louisiana, the snows of Ft. Drum, the Jungles of Panama, the streets of Haiti and Somalia, and the Sands of Iraq. Never had any serious problems with it. It only takes a little daily maintenance to keep it operating well. I don't know why you think there is a problem with it - I think the quoted assessment is just fine.Speed84 wrote:
Reliable, able to operte in all conditions? Simply not true. Sure, it's more reliable then the L85A1 (and A2 for that matter). And before you ask; yes I write from my own experience.
Used the G3A3 in the montains of Afghanistan, and the woods of Kosovo. Never needed any day-to-day maintenence. My American partners on the other hand, needed to put more of an effort in keeping their weapon combat ready. Twice i can recall "fuck its jammed!", but that may as well be user error, im no expert on the weapon.
The M-16 that I tested in the cold nothern regions of Norway, was not user friendly. Missfire was to commonplace to entrust ones life on. (by my account). But if it works elsewhere, good for you! (no realy...i meen it) What ever you do, dont go near the L85A1 in -5 or below!! It wil KILL you!
The M-16 that I tested in the cold nothern regions of Norway, was not user friendly. Missfire was to commonplace to entrust ones life on. (by my account). But if it works elsewhere, good for you! (no realy...i meen it) What ever you do, dont go near the L85A1 in -5 or below!! It wil KILL you!
It's always difficult to judge whose weapon systems are better. It is obvious though that the US invests more in their hardware simply because they are the one country who is most likely to use it on a regular basis. That's the main reason why especially their Jets and Bombers are top-notch.
Also, and I believe that is even more important than the equipment itself is the state of training and combat experience of the troops operating the hardware. In that regard, the quality of the US forces is unmatched. Most soldiers will indeed have actual combat experience with the weapon system they are using, while most European soldiers - as good as the equipment may be - mostly haven't used it in a real conflict.
In the end, it will always be the quality of the crew that will make the difference if the equipment is kind of the same. And in that regard, no training can beat out actual combat experience.
and yes, I know that europeans are fighting in the war on terror and stuff, but not in the kind of numbers the americans do. In general, the US soldier will have more combat experience.
With that said, here is my list:
Air Force/Jets - US is way better
Navy - same as above
APC's / MBT's - all are level. quality of the crew makes the difference
Small Arms - I'll give H&K G36 a slight edge over the M16 / L85A, but that's only in a technology sense.
In the end, it all comes down to who is better at operating the weapon.
Also, and I believe that is even more important than the equipment itself is the state of training and combat experience of the troops operating the hardware. In that regard, the quality of the US forces is unmatched. Most soldiers will indeed have actual combat experience with the weapon system they are using, while most European soldiers - as good as the equipment may be - mostly haven't used it in a real conflict.
In the end, it will always be the quality of the crew that will make the difference if the equipment is kind of the same. And in that regard, no training can beat out actual combat experience.
and yes, I know that europeans are fighting in the war on terror and stuff, but not in the kind of numbers the americans do. In general, the US soldier will have more combat experience.
With that said, here is my list:
Air Force/Jets - US is way better
Navy - same as above
APC's / MBT's - all are level. quality of the crew makes the difference
Small Arms - I'll give H&K G36 a slight edge over the M16 / L85A, but that's only in a technology sense.
In the end, it all comes down to who is better at operating the weapon.
Quite true!
But howcome did the Norwegian, German, Danish and Dutch have a better combat record in Kosovo? (On the infatery/armour level, im from the army you see.) Not that i know if the US forces that where there had any combat experience. Some of them seemed a bit "lost".
But howcome did the Norwegian, German, Danish and Dutch have a better combat record in Kosovo? (On the infatery/armour level, im from the army you see.) Not that i know if the US forces that where there had any combat experience. Some of them seemed a bit "lost".
As I said above, I don't do generalisations - but I will never forget the Squad of USMC guys, sitting in the wood on their helmets and simply doing nothing during a military contest.
We asked them what they're doing (the task was to go through checkpoints and pass different situations).
"Our GPS is fucked up and we have no idea where to go."
We picked them up and after they got new batteries they were happy and on the road.
This is not standart, I hope, but it shows what too much tech could mean, and no one uses more tech than the US.
Btw: The US did good in the ranking over all, so don't mistake this as "Anti US Posting".
We asked them what they're doing (the task was to go through checkpoints and pass different situations).
"Our GPS is fucked up and we have no idea where to go."
We picked them up and after they got new batteries they were happy and on the road.
This is not standart, I hope, but it shows what too much tech could mean, and no one uses more tech than the US.
Btw: The US did good in the ranking over all, so don't mistake this as "Anti US Posting".
Last edited by WolfSheep (2006-02-03 06:39:57)
the eurofighter has been in development longer than the raptor yet it does not have the same amount of stealth or weapons technology as the american aircraft. 80s technology aint gonna win against 90s technology.WolfSheep wrote:
EF 2000 is a nice piece of development, but if the US had spent that much money in a project, it would be the same, I guess. Have in mind that the EF 2000 is developed since 1986 or smth. like that.
and dont even compare the eurofighter to the f-35 because by the time it comes into service the eurofighter would be obsolete. at its current configuration the f-35 has a weak engine. block 50 f-16s have more power than the f-35 prototypes. comparing an aircraft in development to one that is in production is stupid.
to those who believe the su-35 is better than the f-15 need to take a closer look at the data from that study. it clearly states that the su-35 will only win a dogfight if the speed is below 250 knots. anything above that and the f-15 will have the su-35 for breakfast, lunch and dinner. it all boils down to which pilot is more skilled at forcing the enemy to fight in their own terms according to the abilities of their aircraft. the su-35 is more maneuverable at low speed than the f-15. but once the fight goes to higher altitude and faster speed then the su-35 is an easy target for the eagle pilot.
dont belittle that sam-3 of the soviets. i have interviewed an f-18 pilot who served in iraq during the second gulf war and he said that if it were not for the wild weasel support they had during cap (combat air patrol) missions those sam-3s would have taken lots of american fighters out of the sky. he said that a sam-3 missile lock is guaranteed death for a pilot. but the iraqi army were firing the sam-3 missiles blind into american aircrafts for fear of being tracked down by harm missiles if they turned on their radars.1234BGD wrote:
BTW with those you can take out F117 stealth. Don't believe google it with keywords Stealth Serbia or visit directly http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 … lick-refer BTW, that one was shot down with SAM 3 which is from 60's...
Sadly, it is all too common among the younger troops. When I learned how to do land nav, only officers had GPS. Now everyone has it, so the younger soldiers don't take it seriously when we teach them how to land nav without it.WolfSheep wrote:
"Our GPS is fucked up and we have no idea where to go."
This is not standart, I hope, but it shows what too much tech could mean, and no one uses more tech than the US.
Btw: The US did good in the ranking over all, so don't mistake this as "Anti US Posting".
I agree with you 100%...soldiers should not have to rely on tech for something as simple as land nav. You should be able to do it with a map and a compass. They shouldn't even give the soldiers GPS until they go to combat...if they use their own skills in training, they won't be up shit creek when the GPS fails in combat.
Thats important with close to everything you do in the military: keep it simple. The US has acces to a range of fine hightech eqipment. However as you state, you can and should never rely your life on a set of batteries. Most of us has a lession to lern here. Due to the fact that the US is not alone with this problem; they are only currently the most vissible with the problem.whittsend wrote:
Sadly, it is all too common among the younger troops. When I learned how to do land nav, only officers had GPS. Now everyone has it, so the younger soldiers don't take it seriously when we teach them how to land nav without it.WolfSheep wrote:
"Our GPS is fucked up and we have no idea where to go."
This is not standart, I hope, but it shows what too much tech could mean, and no one uses more tech than the US.
Btw: The US did good in the ranking over all, so don't mistake this as "Anti US Posting".
I agree with you 100%...soldiers should not have to rely on tech for something as simple as land nav. You should be able to do it with a map and a compass. They shouldn't even give the soldiers GPS until they go to combat...if they use their own skills in training, they won't be up shit creek when the GPS fails in combat.
But as you seem to be either a experienced nco or officer; is this a lack of propper traning? Or does simply the troops take the easy way out to often? (not trained with gps)
I am an NCO.Speed84 wrote:
Thats important with close to everything you do in the military: keep it simple. The US has acces to a range of fine hightech eqipment. However as you state, you can and should never rely your life on a set of batteries. Most of us has a lession to lern here. Due to the fact that the US is not alone with this problem; they are only currently the most vissible with the problem.
But as you seem to be either a experienced nco or officer; is this a lack of propper traning? Or does simply the troops take the easy way out to often? (not trained with gps)
I wouldn't say it is lack of proper training, they still teach land nav in basic, but I think they show them the GPS now as well. So, there is an element of, "Shit, if I'm going to have a GPS anyway, I don't have to worry about this other stuff as much." Soldiers committ to memory what they want to unless you force them to do otherwise; unfortunately, at the company level, many of the officers are young and have the same mindset, so land nav isn't a priorty on the company training list.
I am in the MPs now, and it has been several years since I was in the Infantry...things may be different there (they certainly were when I was in the Infantry).
I always tell my troops that there are three things that every soldier needs to know how to do:
1) Land Navigate
2) Use a radio
3) Call for fire (artillery or air support)
A soldier who can do these can be effective, even if he doesn't have a rifle. Anyway, because of this personal bias of mine, I teach these things whenever I have the option. Especially Land Navigation; practice really helps.
Edit: So, I guess the answer to your question is that the troops take the easy way out, and their chain of command lets them get away with it. The result is that they don't have the expertise in Land Navigation that they should.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-02-03 10:14:03)
Dont forget there are probably tons of things the world doesnt know about yet that are being tested and made at Area-51. We probably have tons of stuff no one knows about.
We still have that american radioset form the 60's. I think you see them in Vietnam war films. Do you have any effective radio system that is lighter. (with the same range/endurence) Its being phazed out, but that wil take time. The HV (Home Gard) wil sill be stuck with it for years to come.
I know its off topic, so flame on...
I know its off topic, so flame on...
Get the facts straight before you start typing please, "it's a draw" where do you get your info, there are several compare aircraft sites, so please get real.Corrupt wrote:
If we match it its a draw, we better it, or attack its weaknesses. Id put money on the Eurofighter with reasonable confidence of it winning.Lib-Sl@yer wrote:
Right.... The raptor has no one to match itCorrupt wrote:
Eurofighter would give the Raptor a run for its money in an air battle.
Your confidence of what I'm thinking to myself, if you do any kind of comparison the EF2000 does not even come close to the F-22 Raptor let alone the F-35. EF2000's are not as fast, less manuverable, has alot less weaponry, it doesn't even come close to having anywhere near the tracking systems, and beside all of that the Raptor would blow a Euro away and the Euro woudn't even know the Raptor was there END OF STORY.
A F-15 air supp. fighter would take a EF2000 thats more of a even match!!