Best Fighting Force on the Planet - Page 3 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Military Weapons Forum AR15, AK47, SKS, H&K, Galil, CETME, FN/FAL, Tanks, Ships, Jets, Helicopters....

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
North Korea Air Force vs US Air Force wiprepper Manmade and Natural Disasters 103 08-30-2015 12:54 AM
Lower Michigan Force On Force Handgun Or Basic Tactical Carbine Training? gwg678 Firearms General Discussion 10 05-31-2015 09:03 PM
Force on Force videos BUSHER Firearms General Discussion 6 03-17-2013 10:22 AM
Airsoft force vs force as training tool merlinfire Firearms General Discussion 7 03-01-2013 03:15 PM
Planet X cragmor Controversial News and Alternative Politics 6 12-30-2011 10:48 PM
Force on Force Drills zja08 Firearms General Discussion 4 03-26-2011 09:08 AM
planet x 4fish Controversial News and Alternative Politics 52 11-17-2009 05:48 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-04-2013, 04:40 PM
TENNGRIZZ TENNGRIZZ is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: IN TRANSITION
Posts: 7,772
Thanks: 139,416
Thanked 21,391 Times in 5,965 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCPigpen View Post
We'll call it a tie.
NO TIE AMERICAS BATTALION 2/8
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TENNGRIZZ For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 04:46 PM
usmc0341's Avatar
usmc0341 usmc0341 is offline
Knowledge is Power
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,514
Thanks: 9,295
Thanked 8,886 Times in 2,878 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Expatman View Post
My recommendation is U.S. Army AIRBORNE!!!!! Of course. "ALL THE WAY!!"


But, since you brought it up, the Fish and Game Dept. could easily best any Marine I have ever trained with.

And thats how we can tell you have never trained with Marines hahaha! We are the only branch of the military That the air force gets hazardous duty/ imminent danger pay JUST FOR SERVING WITH! It doesn't even have to be a combat op
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to usmc0341 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 04:47 PM
SCPigpen's Avatar
SCPigpen SCPigpen is offline
Shade Tree Gynecologist
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Down South
Posts: 3,631
Thanks: 887
Thanked 6,802 Times in 2,292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TENNGRIZZ View Post
NO TIE AMERICAS BATTALION 2/8
Phtttttttt
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SCPigpen For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 04:52 PM
NHP1127's Avatar
NHP1127 NHP1127 is offline
I sell US Military MRE's
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 6,475
Thanks: 1,188
Thanked 8,629 Times in 3,291 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLongRoad View Post
Artillery and tanks are irrelevant/obsolete in the modern battlefield. Fast air and drones can achieve anything that big guns can, with far more precision and firepower. The last war where heavy armour and artillery were actually integral to success, was WW2. And that was only because air support wasn't effective and the fact that the enemy had tanks as well.

The only people who think tanks and artillery are useful, are either in an armoured or artillery based unit themselves, or are trying to compensate for something. They're not alone in their delusions however, battleships and fighter jets are also completely unjustifiable in modern war.

Whichever force has the best trained and equipped infantry, fast air and no politicians telling them how to fight, is the one that will win. Unfortunately, all western armies are plagued by politics and so cannot truly be effective. The closest thing that fits the bill is whichever mercenary outfit is fit for purpose, Academi, formally Blackwater, sounds about right.
Thanks for confirming you are a complete nut job.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NHP1127 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 04:55 PM
Kimberuser Kimberuser is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 391
Thanks: 300
Thanked 662 Times in 222 Posts
Default

Quote:
Artillery and tanks are irrelevant/obsolete in the modern battlefield. Fast air and drones can achieve anything that big guns can, with far more precision and firepower. The last war where heavy armour and artillery were actually integral to success, was WW2. And that was only because air support wasn't effective and the fact that the enemy had tanks as well.

The only people who think tanks and artillery are useful, are either in an armoured or artillery based unit themselves, or are trying to compensate for something. They're not alone in their delusions however, battleships and fighter jets are also completely unjustifiable in modern war.

Whichever force has the best trained and equipped infantry, fast air and no politicians telling them how to fight, is the one that will win. Unfortunately, all western armies are plagued by politics and so cannot truly be effective. The closest thing that fits the bill is whichever mercenary outfit is fit for purpose, Academi, formally Blackwater, sounds about right.
I could not disagree with you more, drones have been easily shot down, heck even the outdated Iraqi army shot down drones. Battlefields are large, and air force is not going to win a war on its own, they cannot find targets without boots on the ground. I was a FO and I worked with AF, JTACs and all, and you know what the most effective bombs in Afghanistan were? Well, they were not JDAMS, in fact they were Mark 80s, and 81s, (if memory serves me write on nomenclature). Not everything is like you see on tv, unguided bombs are more effective then guided bombs. I say this because war is not what you see on TV, artillery has AA, and Air Force cannot possibly strike all the targets on the battlefield, it just is not possible.

Modern war is fought with armor, look at both Iraq wars, armor pushed through the Iraqi defenses. Artillery is still and will always be king of battle, infantry are the queens, this is widely accepted in the army. To dismiss the use of artillery is silly, to dismiss the use of armor is also silly. The big guns will always be used in war, they are the dominate forces on the battlefield, not SF or Rangers. (Though they are studs, they do not have the firepower of armor.)
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kimberuser For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 04:56 PM
NavigatinCollapse's Avatar
NavigatinCollapse NavigatinCollapse is offline
Dirty or clean.Wet or dry
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Age: 36
Posts: 2,016
Thanks: 5,879
Thanked 1,908 Times in 869 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHP1127 View Post
No contest. The United States Marine Corp... bar none. Here the facts. They are completely self contained and can move more COMBINED ARMS and heavy fighting power to anywhere in the world faster than anyone. They have the worlds best amphibious capability which gives them access to strike anywhere.

The Marine Corp mission is a strike force that is fast and powerful but not heavy and lumbering like the Army. In a major conflict, the Marines are to attack and secure the objective and then long term Army units with supply chains would relieve them and the Marines would move on.

The USMC has its own air assets. They have their OWN fighter jets, attack helicopters, transports, etc. They have their own artillery assets. They have their own tank and armor assets. They have their own infantry and recon units. Marines run the finest sniper school in the world.. Quantico, VA. Most importantly, they have the capability to bring all these forces together in very short notice and hit where they choose.

And finally. The USMC has the training and standards. EVERY Marine is a rifleman. This includes pilots, lawyers, cooks, tankers, Motor T, etc. Everyone goes thru infantry training FIRST. Then they move on to their MOS (military occupational specialty). This training allows all Marines to understand basic infantry tactics and marksmanship and allows all units to coordinate and "speak the same language". This training is also what gives the Marines their camaraderie.

There are LOTs of great units in the world but the USMC has the biggest, fastest, hardest hitting bad-azz capabilities bar none.
Excellent point. Marine logistics is much better than Army. Even trying to get resupplied ammo oconus in Iraq with Army was a bureaucratic nightmare sometimes. When we got to point B after a long a$$ convoy and need a resupply of ammo, all the Marines asked was what kind and how much. I had to go to the 1st sgt just get more than 100 rounds for our crew served weapons per vehicle for a 400 mile trip.

The poles are no slouches either. Everybody forgets about them.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to NavigatinCollapse For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 05:07 PM
Expatman's Avatar
Expatman Expatman is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: S.W. Florida/Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 1,246
Thanks: 1,549
Thanked 1,828 Times in 701 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by usmc0341 View Post
And thats how we can tell you have never trained with Marines hahaha! We are the only branch of the military That the air force gets hazardous duty/ imminent danger pay JUST FOR SERVING WITH! It doesn't even have to be a combat op
LOL!

Wrong!

They get it for dropping Paratroopers as well.


In an attempt to address the OP topic, here is an experience I had.

In 1992 I got a chance to go to Israel on a training exchange with the 24th MEU. We stayed on the USS Inchon and were docked in Haifa, Israel. While the IDF is often touted as great on this site, what I found was that they were simply different. This does not mean they sucked but they just did things differently than us. They seemed to be much less safety oriented than U.S. forces and that did lend itself to some very good training. In the end however, they were still just like us, but with a different accent.

The Marines of the 24th MEU; meh. They seemed to be very impressed with us (Paratroopers) and our ability to go out drinking every night and still smoke them in the field. I chalked that up to them being pent up on that ship for months at a time where as we were generally out and about with better PT options. They also seemed to generally have more upper body muscle mass than the average one of us. Again I chalked that up to being on the ship all the time and I assume more weight lifting where we concentrated on a lot more endurance running and other exercises that are similar to todays crossfit routines.

I had the opportunity to train with a huge variety of foreign forces during my time in the service. UK Royal Marines, 1st Para, Italian alpine mountain troops, paratroopers, German paratroopers, Spanish infantry, Turkish infantry, IDF, Marines from Norway, and some limited exposure to French FL.

In all of the above mentioned examples one thing stood out in my mind. As Americans we seem to be very upper body centric in our fitness levels. All of the other forces seemed to be more centered around cardio endurance at the expense of upper body strength. Just something that stood out to me.

In the end I consider mine to be an educated opinion and I am comfortable saying that man for man the U.S. offers the best fighting man on the planet.

Oh, then there are Marines........
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Expatman For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 05:09 PM
Wapitichaser's Avatar
Wapitichaser Wapitichaser is offline
East young man, go East!
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Montana
Posts: 608
Thanks: 453
Thanked 703 Times in 296 Posts
Default

Rhodesian Fireforce
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wapitichaser For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 05:43 PM
TheLongRoad TheLongRoad is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 777
Thanks: 101
Thanked 1,428 Times in 492 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimberuser View Post
I could not disagree with you more, drones have been easily shot down, heck even the outdated Iraqi army shot down drones. Battlefields are large, and air force is not going to win a war on its own, they cannot find targets without boots on the ground. I was a FO and I worked with AF, JTACs and all, and you know what the most effective bombs in Afghanistan were? Well, they were not JDAMS, in fact they were Mark 80s, and 81s, (if memory serves me write on nomenclature). Not everything is like you see on tv, unguided bombs are more effective then guided bombs. I say this because war is not what you see on TV, artillery has AA, and Air Force cannot possibly strike all the targets on the battlefield, it just is not possible.

Modern war is fought with armor, look at both Iraq wars, armor pushed through the Iraqi defenses. Artillery is still and will always be king of battle, infantry are the queens, this is widely accepted in the army. To dismiss the use of artillery is silly, to dismiss the use of armor is also silly. The big guns will always be used in war, they are the dominate forces on the battlefield, not SF or Rangers. (Though they are studs, they do not have the firepower of armor.)
Didn't say that a war could be won by air force alone, nor did I dismiss the use of armor. Tanks, sure, absolute junk. APC's on the other hand, are vital. Infantry based light artillery in the form of 105mm or similar platforms and mortars are useful on an ad-hoc basis, perhaps I should have been clearer. Heavy and mobile artillery in the form of big guns, are what I am against. Platforms such as the MLRS can also be very effective, but again fast air would be superior. Both in terms of firepower and logistics.

Purely from a logistics perspective, heavy/mobile artillery and tanks are not worth the hassle whatsoever. A submarine or ground attack jet/drone, vastly superior in practically any situation. What is simpler and more effective: spending a few weeks hauling a tank division halfway around the world, having to also supply the armor with men, ammo, fuel, which also requires extra men, ammo and fuel, to go fire a few shells in the general direction of an enemy. An enemy that may well have moved on, long before the ordnance starts hitting the vicinity, or firing a missile from a sub or plane?

To deny the superiority of fast air and special forces/elite infantry over artillery and heavy armor is ludicrous. What has an occupying western army actually achieved in the past 50 years aside from 'liberating' Kuwait in 1990? For all the technology and training, so little has actually been achieved, that calling them 'effective' is largely a misnomer.

Also your point about the Iraqi army 'easily' shooting down drones is irrelevant. In the entire operational history of the Predator Drone, only 4 have been shot down by enemy fire, 3 of which in Iraq. One in air to air combat with a MiG BEFORE the second Gulf War started, the rest by SAM launchers in the early days of the war. These SAM launchers themselves being taken out by fast air and special forces.

I know war isn't what it looks like on tv, I served with the Royal Signals in the UK. I also know how proudly people in the artillery and tank regiments defend their traditions and ability to destroy things from far away. But even the most stalwart defender of obsolete equipment has been able to see things are changing.

In the first world war it was machine guns, second world war it was tanks, vietnam it was helicopters, iraq it was fast air, afghanistan it is special forces. Denial is best left to politicians and sheeple, rather than military personnel.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to TheLongRoad For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 06:08 PM
lyingelk's Avatar
lyingelk lyingelk is offline
Target Shooter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 543
Thanks: 254
Thanked 711 Times in 304 Posts
Default

Take a 18 to 24 year old run him thru boot camp, when he earns the right to be called a Marine keep up the training. When his attitude is right turn his ass loose. Semper Fi !
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lyingelk For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 06:52 PM
Unobtanium's Avatar
Unobtanium Unobtanium is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NW,AR
Age: 33
Posts: 9,945
Thanks: 4,259
Thanked 9,056 Times in 4,479 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diluted View Post
FWIW most tier 1 units all receive roughly the same training... The reasoning behind that is they are all part of JSOC and often have embedded positions within other branches.

I wasn't tier 1 by any means but I've been down range with army, navy, and brits at different points in time while being Air Force
Correct, the Army SOF I have trained with often trains SEALS. At that level, everyone is rubbing elbo's with everyone.


Also of note, some of the most impressive SHOOTERS in the courses have been contractors. Last course I attended, one guy's support-size pistol was the same as his strong-side for speed/accuracy, almost, and reloading it 1- handed seemed no issue for them at all.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Unobtanium For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 07:00 PM
NHP1127's Avatar
NHP1127 NHP1127 is offline
I sell US Military MRE's
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 6,475
Thanks: 1,188
Thanked 8,629 Times in 3,291 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Expatman View Post
LOL!

Wrong!

They get it for dropping Paratroopers as well.


In an attempt to address the OP topic, here is an experience I had.

In 1992 I got a chance to go to Israel on a training exchange with the 24th MEU. We stayed on the USS Inchon and were docked in Haifa, Israel. While the IDF is often touted as great on this site, what I found was that they were simply different. This does not mean they sucked but they just did things differently than us. They seemed to be much less safety oriented than U.S. forces and that did lend itself to some very good training. In the end however, they were still just like us, but with a different accent.

The Marines of the 24th MEU; meh. They seemed to be very impressed with us (Paratroopers) and our ability to go out drinking every night and still smoke them in the field. I chalked that up to them being pent up on that ship for months at a time where as we were generally out and about with better PT options. They also seemed to generally have more upper body muscle mass than the average one of us. Again I chalked that up to being on the ship all the time and I assume more weight lifting where we concentrated on a lot more endurance running and other exercises that are similar to todays crossfit routines.

I had the opportunity to train with a huge variety of foreign forces during my time in the service. UK Royal Marines, 1st Para, Italian alpine mountain troops, paratroopers, German paratroopers, Spanish infantry, Turkish infantry, IDF, Marines from Norway, and some limited exposure to French FL.

In all of the above mentioned examples one thing stood out in my mind. As Americans we seem to be very upper body centric in our fitness levels. All of the other forces seemed to be more centered around cardio endurance at the expense of upper body strength. Just something that stood out to me.

In the end I consider mine to be an educated opinion and I am comfortable saying that man for man the U.S. offers the best fighting man on the planet.

Oh, then there are Marines........
Reality is the Marine PFT (physical fitness test) is much tougher. Marine rifle qualification is at longer distance and Marine training is better. We also know that Marines who attend Ranger school are always at the top of their Army class.
People join the Army because they know they can't make the Marines.

The Army wears womens hats. I think you call them berets. The Army also gives out shiny medals for things like hang nails and good conduct medals for monthly bloating and irritability.
LOL.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NHP1127 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 07:03 PM
Andrew Jackson's Avatar
Andrew Jackson Andrew Jackson is offline
Errrrr
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 'Merica!
Age: 35
Posts: 5,668
Thanks: 10,850
Thanked 14,237 Times in 3,921 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCPigpen View Post
1st Battalion, 5th Marines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usmc0341 View Post
NEGATIVE! 3/3!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCPigpen View Post
We'll call it a tie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TENNGRIZZ View Post
NO TIE AMERICAS BATTALION 2/8
Your all wrong! 1/2 all the way.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Andrew Jackson For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 07:24 PM
NHP1127's Avatar
NHP1127 NHP1127 is offline
I sell US Military MRE's
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 6,475
Thanks: 1,188
Thanked 8,629 Times in 3,291 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLongRoad View Post
Didn't say that a war could be won by air force alone, nor did I dismiss the use of armor. Tanks, sure, absolute junk. APC's on the other hand, are vital. Infantry based light artillery in the form of 105mm or similar platforms and mortars are useful on an ad-hoc basis, perhaps I should have been clearer. Heavy and mobile artillery in the form of big guns, are what I am against. Platforms such as the MLRS can also be very effective, but again fast air would be superior. Both in terms of firepower and logistics.

Purely from a logistics perspective, heavy/mobile artillery and tanks are not worth the hassle whatsoever. A submarine or ground attack jet/drone, vastly superior in practically any situation. What is simpler and more effective: spending a few weeks hauling a tank division halfway around the world, having to also supply the armor with men, ammo, fuel, which also requires extra men, ammo and fuel, to go fire a few shells in the general direction of an enemy. An enemy that may well have moved on, long before the ordnance starts hitting the vicinity, or firing a missile from a sub or plane?

To deny the superiority of fast air and special forces/elite infantry over artillery and heavy armor is ludicrous. What has an occupying western army actually achieved in the past 50 years aside from 'liberating' Kuwait in 1990? For all the technology and training, so little has actually been achieved, that calling them 'effective' is largely a misnomer.

Also your point about the Iraqi army 'easily' shooting down drones is irrelevant. In the entire operational history of the Predator Drone, only 4 have been shot down by enemy fire, 3 of which in Iraq. One in air to air combat with a MiG BEFORE the second Gulf War started, the rest by SAM launchers in the early days of the war. These SAM launchers themselves being taken out by fast air and special forces.

I know war isn't what it looks like on tv, I served with the Royal Signals in the UK. I also know how proudly people in the artillery and tank regiments defend their traditions and ability to destroy things from far away. But even the most stalwart defender of obsolete equipment has been able to see things are changing.

In the first world war it was machine guns, second world war it was tanks, vietnam it was helicopters, iraq it was fast air, afghanistan it is special forces. Denial is best left to politicians and sheeple, rather than military personnel.
Ummm no. An example of your ignorance: the Gulf war was all about Tank Vs tank, armor and arty. It was pure desert warfare and that is where the modern tank shines. Modern warfare is about combined arms- Airpower, tanks, arty, infantry... all used in a coordinated effort. You do know that even a lowly modern day infantryman can use a stinger missile to shoot down a 15 million jet?
Drones are simply another tool and like all weapons, there are military countermeasures.
Sorry but for being in the Royal Signal Corp, you are pretty ignorant.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-04-2013, 07:25 PM
SCPigpen's Avatar
SCPigpen SCPigpen is offline
Shade Tree Gynecologist
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Down South
Posts: 3,631
Thanks: 887
Thanked 6,802 Times in 2,292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Jackson View Post
Your all wrong! 1/2 all the way.
I think we are all right.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SCPigpen For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 07:31 PM
SCPigpen's Avatar
SCPigpen SCPigpen is offline
Shade Tree Gynecologist
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Down South
Posts: 3,631
Thanks: 887
Thanked 6,802 Times in 2,292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHP1127 View Post
Reality is the Marine PFT (physical fitness test) is much tougher. Marine rifle qualification is at longer distance and Marine training is better. We also know that Marines who attend Ranger school are always at the top of their Army class.
People join the Army because they know they can't make the Marines.

The Army wears womens hats. I think you call them berets. The Army also gives out shiny medals for things like hang nails and good conduct medals for monthly bloating and irritability.
LOL.
I got to agree with the medal and badge thing. Army gets a badge for just about everything. In the Marines, its just part of the job and is expected.

I don't discount the Army, they are good. I just think as s whole, Marines are more well rounded, in the field.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SCPigpen For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 07:35 PM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 64
Posts: 3,947
Thanks: 311
Thanked 7,924 Times in 2,663 Posts
Default

A platoon of PMS mothers protecting their young.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to jetgraphics For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 07:57 PM
grunt72's Avatar
grunt72 grunt72 is offline
Purveyor of Truth
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 69
Thanks: 222
Thanked 115 Times in 39 Posts
Default

You must be kidding! Airborne? What exactly are any accomplishemnt of those units? Set piece warfare in the European theatre? Try Pelau, Guadalcanal or Iwo..Korea, didn't the Army leave us at Chosin? We did fight our way out and brought you back your wounded, no thanks needed it is just what Marines do!..Vietnam..You Airborne, you know of Dak To? Compare that to what the Corps accomplished at Khe Sanh and Hue City. I do believe you GI's were having a little problem at a place called Fallujah in the Sandbox, but they didn't think you Airborne girls in the 82nd could handle it so the called the Corps in again to clen up you doggy's mess..General Mattis did a magnificent job..Know your history, doggy.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to grunt72 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 07:59 PM
grunt72's Avatar
grunt72 grunt72 is offline
Purveyor of Truth
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 69
Thanks: 222
Thanked 115 Times in 39 Posts
Default

No offense to any Soldiers intended, I thank you for your service. Just needed to point out the facts to the beanie baby..
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to grunt72 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-04-2013, 08:14 PM
TheLongRoad TheLongRoad is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 777
Thanks: 101
Thanked 1,428 Times in 492 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHP1127 View Post
Ummm no. An example of your ignorance: the Gulf war was all about Tank Vs tank, armor and arty. It was pure desert warfare and that is where the modern tank shines. Modern warfare is about combined arms- Airpower, tanks, arty, infantry... all used in a coordinated effort. You do know that even a lowly modern day infantryman can use a stinger missile to shoot down a 15 million jet?
Drones are simply another tool and like all weapons, there are military countermeasures.
Sorry but for being in the Royal Signal Corp, you are pretty ignorant.
Where have I claimed that jets and drones can't be shot down? Simply stated that they are more effective than tanks and artillery. First gulf war, was the most sophisticated tanks in the world vs some of the worst, piloted by poorly trained and unmotivated soldiers. The vast majority of enemy tanks were destroyed from the air. Actual tank vs tank fighting was rare, and when it happened, it was a one sided battle from the start.

I'll stress again, MODERN WAR. Do the taliban have tanks? Do the suicide bombers and terrorist cells have tanks? The only time tanks will ever fight tanks again is in a world war 3 scenario. And in all likelihood, air support will take out any tanks anyway. So again, what use are they?

Of course I support combined arms strategies, anyone with sense would. But tanks, artillery, warships and fighter jets, absolutely are not necessary to win a war. There are plenty of better, faster, more destructive alternatives that can be used. Those systems are obsolete.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to TheLongRoad For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net