BF2S Forums Better War Machines than America's - Post here!

you can have the best equipment in the world,
but if your blokes, command +support isnt up to it,
youre not likely to survive.

Beefy wrote:

I would say robots in japanese anime is better then American tanks
but since its fact only, i reckon Japanese F2 fighter is far more better then any American fighter

in the future... japan would developt gundams!!!

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.

Russians have far better hardware then the americans. It might not be as high-tech as the US army but it sure does its job in numbers.

And don't start that "we kicked iraq ass with the m1a2SEP" crap as they were t-70's and t-80's.

t-90s > m1a2
125mm smoothbore cannon > 120mm smoothbore

bmp-3m > Bradley m2/m3
100mm 2A70 semi-auto rifled gun/missile launcher > 25mm M242 Bushmaster chain gun
none > BGM-71 TOW

m1 Tunguska > Linebacker m6
9x 9M311-M1 surface-to-air missiles - 4x RMP FIM-92D // the Block I FIM-92E Fire & Forget Stingers
Two twin-barrel 30mm anti-aircraft guns > 25mm M242 Bushmaster chain gun
any fuel! > diesel only

In these examples I'd go for the russian hardware. It has so much more to offer, and many middle-eastern countries and african (morocco) ordererd russian hardware because it is cheaper, cheaper to maintain, and easier to use.

Simply having a larger caliber gun does not mean superiority. 
In tanks, accuracy is nearly all important (in my opinoin).  I don't care how much DU you can throw around if the other guy hit you first.  So, which tanks have the best targeting systems?  From what I have heard, it is the Abrams

The USAF will win most any air battle because we have good technology and good communication.  Data-linked F-22s and AWACS give the US a huge advantage.  The USAF is maneuvering into a better position before the enemy knows that the USAF is even there.

To those who know, how does the M8 compare to the G36?

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.

1) Can you name the mission goal?

2)  Name one weapon system that the US sold to Iraq.  Just one.

3) The Revolutionary war WOULD have taken much longer without the French, but wouldn't necessarily have been a loss.

Looking forward to a spirited debate on three topics you clearly don't understand.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-07 13:14:11)

Corrupt wrote:

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

Corrupt wrote:

Eurofighter would give the Raptor a run for its money in an air battle.

Right.... The raptor has no one to match it

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.

What r u talkin bout? do ur reasearch next time b4 u open ur mouth

.... im sry if the american skools didnt teach me to spel gewd like u forigners

With that weapon any army in the world could match today's US world military domination : the DREAD

Duramen1 wrote:

oh and about that japan video i thought we were talking about machines that compaired to the US's   everything in that video was from the US (there was one plane a boat and an apc that i didn't recognize)

awax, f-16, f-15, appachies, cobras, those lines of boats, the sub, tommahawks, the hewies its all American

japans defence force uses all american equipment and hell they were originally trained by the US so we wouldn't have to protect them any longer (and yes we had to it was terms of the end of WWII, no army for them but we protect them)

The Japanese heavily modify/replace every electronic system in their military equipment that is shipped from the  US....

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

just going to chime in on this one whittsend, but by mission goal I think he means the seizure of weapons of mass destruction, which was our initial reason to go in. No WMDs found thus far.

That is not the current mission goal, however, and I am wondering if our big-mouthed friend has a clue byond what they tell him on Romper Room.

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

In terms of your point #2, I dont believe the US sold any armament to the Iraqis

Give that man a cigar.

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

(although I have heard here and there about transfer of chemical weapons...still unsubstantiated rumors though).

I doubt it's true.  We never really trusted Saddam, I can't believe we would have sold chemical weapons to him.

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

However, the US has sold weapons to Iran (who I dont believe we consider friendly). At least 79 F14 Tomcats (oldies, but still better than some POS MiG-21 "Fishbed") along with small arms.

ALL of the weapons the US sold to Iran were sold under the regime of the Shah, which we basically installed via a coup.  Upon the Islamic revolution in '79-'80, we ceased selling spare parts....so, although the f-14 is a VERY capable aircraft, it is extremely unlikely that any of Iran's are capable of flight.

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

As for point #3, I agree with you that it wouldnt have necessarily been a loss, but I do believe that the chance of US success would have been greatly reduced without the assistance of the French.

I don't disagree, but it wasn't ALL France.  American forces under Washington had some success keeping the the war going until the French aid finally materialized and sealed the deal.

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

By the way, DarkObsidian, if our mission goal in Vietnam was losing 58,226 soldiers to NVA and Viet Cong and then pulling out without a decisive victory, than f**king mission accomplished. If you can present credible evidence that contradicts this, I will gladly revise my point...

The mission goal in Vietnam was simply to ensure the survival of the South Vietnamese Republic, and while we were there...mission accomplished.  Secondary goals; Under Westmoreland it was body count (which is where we get the phrase "confirmed kill.")  Back then the goal was to kill as many of the enemy as possible in an effort to get them to cease their efforts through attrition.  This was not a great strategy, but it wasn't as ridiculous as some think.  The Vietnamese have admitted that by the time the US withdrew in 1972, the Viet Cong was virtually eliminated as a fighting force, and the NVA had suffered staggering casualties (Vietnamese Deaths are estimated in the range of 600,000 - ten times those of US deaths).  Anyway, the philosophy changed under Abrams from attrition to attacking their supply base (i.e. Ho Chi Minh trail and dumps in Cambodia and Laos), which proved immediately successful.  Unfortunately, by that time the political winds in the US had assured that our troops would leave, regardless of their successes.

sheggalism wrote:

With that weapon any army in the world could match today's US world military domination : the DREAD

Of course...because we all know US military strength is entirely based upon our small arms

arguing over lost wars. hmm smart

Ok guys here is my thoughts.

You can have the best weapons systems in the world. But, it all comes down to training. Without training any army could be defeated.

I am a former Marine training has saved my arse server times. I loved my M16A2 I had it zeroed in and it worked just fine for me in all conditions: High Temps, Cold weather etc.
I kept it clean all the time and when it waranted put some extra CLP on it to keep it from freezing up.

Last edited by RogueWarrior (2006-03-09 22:17:14)