Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Russia have to pull out of Afgan. after like a 10 year war or somthing withouth ANY results?ilyandor wrote:
Challanger 2??? LOL...the Black Eagle will eat it for breakfast!
-no matter what us BF2 geeks say, Russian technology is the best...
if the Black eagle under any circumstances were to prove itself as an adversary to the challenger 2.wtf.panda wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Russia have to pull out of Afgan. after like a 10 year war or somthing withouth ANY results?ilyandor wrote:
Challanger 2??? LOL...the Black Eagle will eat it for breakfast!
-no matter what us BF2 geeks say, Russian technology is the best...
And didn't American forces totally wipe out the resistance there in a month or maybe two?
Nuff said and Russians.
damn straight,Eckzack wrote:
Heckler & Koch... nuff said
no recoil = laser-accuracySpark wrote:
Woah. That's scary. Can we get a nice pic?
Imagine that thing blended with the 1-million rounds per minute monster...
Although I wouldn't bank it on accuracy...
This weapon isn't a small arm : it's a Heavy MG that can be adapt to aircrafts (with a 30 mm caliber for example) or maybe with tanks (imagine that thing firing 120mm shells ). I talk about the technology it uses : electromagnetic cannon, and I believe that in around 20 years this weapon will rule battlefields, instant killing planes, tanks and infantry from miles away. DREADful. For countering it, we'll surely have to invent stronger magnetic fields or something to stop that uber cannon.whittsend wrote:
Of course...because we all know US military strength is entirely based upon our small arms
HorseASS77 you are the biggest patriotic dumbshit i've seen yet. Show me where the fuck do you get your facts from, you stupid fuck. Back up the shit you say. And stop fucking crying, "ohh Russians stole our plane", "they are 20yrs behind" STFU. Your mama is 20yrs behind. That is all. Just had to get out of my system.Horseman 77 wrote:
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 ?
AND WHAT DID YOU WIN?????????????????????????DarkObsidian wrote:
It's understandable that you will think that your country is superior by nature.
However, I KNOW my country is superior, and it's yet to be matched with a challenge it couldn't handle.
Don't even try the Vietnam card, because as far as the mission goal, we WON Vietnam.
I'm glad someone had balls to bring it up. {thumbs up}tehmoogles wrote:
America is losing the Iraq War as far as the mission goal is concerned. They also screwed up big time giving Saddam weapons. You're fighting against your own weapons.
Also, you would NOT have won the Revolution without the French.
I wonder how many American forces would be wiped out without your air support?? All that you would wipe out is you ass.wtf.panda wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Russia have to pull out of Afgan. after like a 10 year war or somthing withouth ANY results?ilyandor wrote:
Challanger 2??? LOL...the Black Eagle will eat it for breakfast!
-no matter what us BF2 geeks say, Russian technology is the best...
And didn't American forces totally wipe out the resistance there in a month or maybe two?
Nuff said and Russians.
Last edited by Kolhozik (2006-03-09 17:49:15)
I completely agree with you. From the way you put all your thoughts down i can see that you are not some 15yo. I never said anything about Russia being better than US, and will not ever make that statement simply because every country has its + and -. Nice talking to you Matrix.J.Matrix wrote:
Ahh the Black Eagle debate, great.
Okay, the first version of the BE seen was basically the same dimensions as the T-80U (based from that chasis). The next time it was seen they added an extra road wheel, stretching it a little.
Horseman77 was a little rough in his handling of the Russians, but his facts do stand up. When you don't design a new tank chasis you're limiting yourself from the beginning. You can put all the extra armor you want on there, it'll just be a more satisfying kill for the pilot who kills with with a Hellfire or any unguided/guided bomb.
The Black Eagle really isn't anything to write home about, guys. Yes, it's well protected, there are also rumors about the main gun ("currently" 125mm) being upgraded to 150-155mm. All very nice, but it really doesn't matter. No tank is invulnerable to modern infantry anti-tank weapons. Okay, 1000mm of armor on the font plus ERA? Great. Too bad a hit in the tracks will disable it and another hit in the ass will kill it.
The Challenger II L-30 gun (the only rifled 120mm gun in NATO, I believe) is the most accurate, combined with ammunition used, it's also the most deadly.
See, I can spout that off and you can come back and say "Yeah well the BE's armor will defeat any round." Okay, great. Let's all wait for the great NATO vs. Russia war. Oh that's right - it's not going to happen.
Even if it did, Russia isn't BUYING the BE, the T-90 and T-95 represent the next generation.
I really don't want to get into a flame war here, let's have a serious discussion. My country is better than your country got old in the 5th grade, so leave it out.
1) You implied that all a country needed to have a military superior to the US's is this weapon. 2) The article you supplied said this weapon would be in .308 and .50. That is SMALL ARMS. You are implying that US military power is based on small arms. That is ignorant and silly; it is based on economic power. So you can build this? Great, we can afford to build more of them than you can. The cold war was won because we could outspend the USSR, not because we could outfight them. But, if you don't believe it, by all means, break the bank trying to outspend the US.sheggalism wrote:
This weapon isn't a small arm : it's a Heavy MG that can be adapt to aircrafts (with a 30 mm caliber for example) or maybe with tanks (imagine that thing firing 120mm shells ). I talk about the technology it uses : electromagnetic cannon, and I believe that in around 20 years this weapon will rule battlefields, instant killing planes, tanks and infantry from miles away. DREADful. For countering it, we'll surely have to invent stronger magnetic fields or something to stop that uber cannon.
Did you read any of the rest of this thread, or just the bits you agree with? 1) One can argue about France's role in the Revolution (though they certainly did help); 2) Please, show me ONE weapon system that the US sold to Iraq. I suspect you will have a hard time because it NEVER HAPPENED. This has already been discussed. Please read the whole thread before you post stupid things like this.Kolhozik wrote:
I'm glad someone had balls to bring it up. {thumbs up}tehmoogles wrote:
America is losing the Iraq War as far as the mission goal is concerned. They also screwed up big time giving Saddam weapons. You're fighting against your own weapons.
Also, you would NOT have won the Revolution without the French.
In response to this nonsense I'll just quote myself from another thread:herrr_smity wrote:
superior results because the united stats has a ability to attack small shit country's.
not other industrialized countries
whittsend wrote:
Your comments are based on several false premises: 1) That warfare should be fair; 2) That the US fights because they are some kind of global bully; 3) That the US fights to right wrongs; 4) That the US is cowardly and never fights strong nations.Nachox2 wrote:
I believe that the biggest human rights violators in the world are N Korea and China. However, the USA seems to ignore it, primarily because they can nuke us back. So attacking the weak and ignoring the stronger evils makes the US a cowardly nation.
I'll address each of your false premises, but the central fact of which you are woefully ignorant is this: "War is the continuation of foreign policy by other means." It was said by Clausewicz and it is absolutely true.
1) As far as attacking the weak goes, if a state has a foreign policy objective vis a vis a country, and is willing to go to war over it, are you suggesting they shouldn't if the country is weaker, because it isn't fair? I've seen some stupid things implied on this forum, but if that is what you are saying, that really takes the cake. You see, the foreign policy objective doesn't go away because the enemy is weak.
2&3) War is used to acheive foreign policy objectives when diplomacy fails - that's it. A nation can be the worst in the world, but the US won't fight with that nation if it doesn't have a foreign policy objective there. Most people are too dim to remember, but it was Bush's stated foreign policy, even before he was elected, to deal with Iraq. Diplomacy had been given over a decade with respect to Iraq, I think it is safe to say that it had failed.
4) There was this little thing back in the 1950s called the Korean war, during which, the US and its allies were unable to prevail against the Chinese and the North Koreans. Now, why haven't we gone back since then? Because we couldn't win in the 50s, when we had nuclear weapons and they didn't, it wouldn't be smart to fight again when their military is drastically improved, and they now have quite a few nukes of their own. You see, back in the 50s, MacArthur was fired because Truman didn't like his insistance on the use of Nuclear weapons (once in a while a politician does the right thing). Given that we couldn't win in the 50s without Nuclear weapons, and that now such a battle might involve global thermonuclear war, our leaders decline to re-open the conflict. That isn't cowardice, that is prudence. Then, as now, the use of Nuclear Weapons is bad. Truman knew this. To start a 'fair' conflict, against a strong nation, that would almost certainly involve an intercontinental nuclear exchange, (as you seem to think we should to prove our valor,) is stupid.
Moving on: More recently, during first Gulf war, Iraq had the 5th largest army in the world, and no nuclear weapons. It was far from certain, at the time, that we would get off as lightly on the ground as we did (I am not suggesting that anyone thought we would not win, just that many thought we would have had a lot more casualties). Seriously, that is about as big a fight as reasonably could be engaged in without starting a worldwide nuclear exchange. So much for the colossally idiotic notion that the US is a cowardly state.
The arguments you make here, while having some merit, are dissonent and do not support any point I can see.herrr_smity wrote:
you are all looking at the wrong things a war machine isent the wepons but the pepole that operates the wepons.
hand a gun to a civiilians you will get the abilitey to start opertation human shield but hand the same gun to soldiers and you get an army
sure the united states has some mighty fine hardware but it dosent mean that its the best.
what i was trying to say maybe it didnt come out in the best way, was that a machine is only as good as the human driving the machine.whittsend wrote:
The arguments you make here, while having some merit, are dissonent and do not support any point I can see.herrr_smity wrote:
you are all looking at the wrong things a war machine isent the wepons but the pepole that operates the wepons.
hand a gun to a civiilians you will get the abilitey to start opertation human shield but hand the same gun to soldiers and you get an army
sure the united states has some mighty fine hardware but it dosent mean that its the best.
As far as US military hardware being the best, I'll relay a little Anecdote:
When Muskets were first invented, Longbowmen were an established fact. Taking a musketman and a longbowman side by side, the longbowman was faster, more accurate and had better range than the musketman. Using what I perceive your argument for hardware being 'the best', I suspect you would say a longbow was a better weapon than the musket. Was it odd then that few nations stuck with the longbow? Not really. Why? Musketmen cost a fraction of what longbowmen cost, and took less time to train. You are training 100 longbowmen? Great, I can train 1000 musketmen for the same money, in half the time, and they are going to knock the shit out of your longbowmen.
The same applies today. You have a really neat piece of technical equipment? Great, I have a piece of equipment that is almost as good, and I have many more of them.
Which one is better? The one that will win. Looking at the military balance today, guess which country is most likely to win in a given conflict?
And that is fair enough. In fact, a few people have said that already. Are you simply stating the obvious, or is there something you are trying to say about the training level of US troops?herrr_smity wrote:
what i was trying to say maybe it didnt come out in the best way, was that a machine is only as good as the human driving the machine.
Why are Russian's even considered when one of their own just admitted to losing to the U.S?Kolhozik wrote:
I wonder how many American forces would be wiped out without your air support?? All that you would wipe out is you ass.wtf.panda wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Russia have to pull out of Afgan. after like a 10 year war or somthing withouth ANY results?ilyandor wrote:
Challanger 2??? LOL...the Black Eagle will eat it for breakfast!
-no matter what us BF2 geeks say, Russian technology is the best...
And didn't American forces totally wipe out the resistance there in a month or maybe two?
Nuff said and Russians.
The USSR lost that war because US was helping those fuckers, who eventualy fucked the US in the ass on (not to bring it up, but i guess i'll just have to) 9-11. No offence to the families of the victims, my friend died in the fucking WTC. <RIP Bro>.
And what are the results after the GRINGOs been in Afgan??? You killed a bunch of innocent people and still did get that fuckin bin Laden motherfucker. And still after the Bush anounced the victory, WHY DO AMERICAN SOLDIERS STILL DIE IN IRAQ/AFGAN?????????????????????????????????????????????