User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:42:43 PM EDT
[#1]
inshalla
yes this smells of accident   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:58:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
mehyt? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How do you say "meh" in Russian. mehyt? shol shoI direct translate is OK whatever DUMALAT is think also important in this thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:07:53 AM EDT
[#3]
CNN claims Russian missiles crashed in Iran, Moscow refutes, US can’t confirmhttps://www.rt.com/news/318059-russia-syria-ccn-iran-missiles/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:09:32 AM EDT
[#4]
As with many other systems, in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, the performance of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk was overrated. At the time, the U.S. military reported that of the 288 Tomahawks launched at the Iraqis, eight malfunctioned after launch, 45 missed their targets, two were shot down and 233 scored hits. However, in the years that followed, serious studies found that the Tomahawk's success rate had been significantly overstated. It is now widely believed that Tomahawks destroyed their targets less than 40 percent of the time. However, wonder what our accuracy rate was in 2003. Probably classified. I was in iraq in 03 in baghdad by April we were hitting certain windows with our smart weapons I was in a hanger near ramadi inMarch 03 where a warhead of some type went right in thr hanger door and blew the roof off. there were the remains of 2 barley identifiable mig 25s in it. I pulled a jdam out of a house once it went of course it disarmed itself- our tech is pretty good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:27:18 AM EDT
[#5]
You think thats bad? America bombed a hospital just a few days ago. Too much budwieser.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:49:10 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell. 
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Or basic hygiene. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:56:15 AM EDT
[#7]
The question I want answered is exactly how accurate were the missiles that supposedly were on target?
Did they hit the city, the block or the building they were targeting? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:25:24 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree with your assessment to some degree. The Russians are capable of producing exceptional weapons & technology. They fired what 36 cruise missles and one of them went off course. These are also barely out of prototype. Lets look at it another way, an American cruise missle hits right 98% of the time but costs 1.5 million. A Russian missle hits right 88% percent of the time but costs 400,000. They can and will fire 4 for every 1 or ours. In fact they say that they launched two missles per site this last week. Also the are willing to use cluster/fuel air explosives in their warheads. They might not be as great as our stuff but it gets the job done without costing two arms and a leg. Some Russian weapons I can tell you are every bit a match for what we issue. Case in point the T90MS is an awsome tank, I use to think like most Americans that they were junk but recent events in Ukraine have changed my mind. With the help of France/Germany and the USA they have been able to bring that tank up to western standards, probably even exceeding the M1. Also some of their new missle systems, radar, artillery, electric warefare measures have caused serious problems for western gear. Before you blast me I can say that I wish it were not so and only came to that opinion after assessing the Ukrainian conflict. The armor on the t90 with the newest reactive armor is pretty much inpenetrable by anything except top attack munitions,. Even western tandem warheads and sabots failed to destroy them in the few occasions they were available. Usually the Russians export thier crap stuff to the ME and that is usually what we encounter Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. I disagree with your assessment to some degree. The Russians are capable of producing exceptional weapons & technology. They fired what 36 cruise missles and one of them went off course. These are also barely out of prototype. Lets look at it another way, an American cruise missle hits right 98% of the time but costs 1.5 million. A Russian missle hits right 88% percent of the time but costs 400,000. They can and will fire 4 for every 1 or ours. In fact they say that they launched two missles per site this last week. Also the are willing to use cluster/fuel air explosives in their warheads. They might not be as great as our stuff but it gets the job done without costing two arms and a leg. Some Russian weapons I can tell you are every bit a match for what we issue. Case in point the T90MS is an awsome tank, I use to think like most Americans that they were junk but recent events in Ukraine have changed my mind. With the help of France/Germany and the USA they have been able to bring that tank up to western standards, probably even exceeding the M1. Also some of their new missle systems, radar, artillery, electric warefare measures have caused serious problems for western gear. Before you blast me I can say that I wish it were not so and only came to that opinion after assessing the Ukrainian conflict. The armor on the t90 with the newest reactive armor is pretty much inpenetrable by anything except top attack munitions,. Even western tandem warheads and sabots failed to destroy them in the few occasions they were available. Usually the Russians export thier crap stuff to the ME and that is usually what we encounter I agree. The Germans said the same about the Russians prior to invading. They got smoked. Could the Russians have won without Lend lease? No, but their most important weapons were Russian. T34 Ppsh Katyusha Russian resilience Additionally, the west also has had it's weapons that were hyped up to be way more capable than they actually were. Phoenix missile Sea Dart F105 American "guarantees" We just get to crow about Russian failures more than we do our own. The fact of the matter is, Russian scientists are every bit as smart as those in the West. Most of the US advances in weapons technology, the Russians found a counter to it. The monkey model Russian exports crewed by Arabs is completely different to the actual Russian Weapon, crewed by Russians. At the end of the day the US has the best equipment, but hasn't won a war in 70 years. It is only prudent that we expect the Russian tech to be as good if not better than they say it is. Rpg 27 or 29 I forget which and the S500 SAM are very good examples of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:32:06 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ha Ha I wanted to post this... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:33:14 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is how WWIII could start... Russian cruise missiles accidentally hit a U.S. carrier. lol, like obama would do anything but apologize for their lost missle |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:27:11 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tell it to the Nazis. The Russians have one other thhing on their side. They don't care how many casualties they incur during a military operation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Russians are a joke. Only thing they ever had going for them was strength in numbers and big enough nukes to negate a minute of continent accuracy. Tell it to the Nazis. The Russians have one other thhing on their side. They don't care how many casualties they incur during a military operation. That was true in WWII, but the Russian birthrate and population are falling. There military, really, is defensive only at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:34:13 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. The Germans said the same about the Russians prior to invading. They got smoked. Could the Russians have won without Lend lease? No, but their most important weapons were Russian. T34 Ppsh Katyusha Russian resilience Additionally, the west also has had it's weapons that were hyped up to be way more capable than they actually were. Phoenix missile Sea Dart F105 American "guarantees" We just get to crow about Russian failures more than we do our own. The fact of the matter is, Russian scientists are every bit as smart as those in the West. Most of the US advances in weapons technology, the Russians found a counter to it. The monkey model Russian exports crewed by Arabs is completely different to the actual Russian Weapon, crewed by Russians. At the end of the day the US has the best equipment, but hasn't won a war in 70 years. It is only prudent that we expect the Russian tech to be as good if not better than they say it is. Rpg 27 or 29 I forget which and the S500 SAM are very good examples of this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. I disagree with your assessment to some degree. The Russians are capable of producing exceptional weapons & technology. They fired what 36 cruise missles and one of them went off course. These are also barely out of prototype. Lets look at it another way, an American cruise missle hits right 98% of the time but costs 1.5 million. A Russian missle hits right 88% percent of the time but costs 400,000. They can and will fire 4 for every 1 or ours. In fact they say that they launched two missles per site this last week. Also the are willing to use cluster/fuel air explosives in their warheads. They might not be as great as our stuff but it gets the job done without costing two arms and a leg. Some Russian weapons I can tell you are every bit a match for what we issue. Case in point the T90MS is an awsome tank, I use to think like most Americans that they were junk but recent events in Ukraine have changed my mind. With the help of France/Germany and the USA they have been able to bring that tank up to western standards, probably even exceeding the M1. Also some of their new missle systems, radar, artillery, electric warefare measures have caused serious problems for western gear. Before you blast me I can say that I wish it were not so and only came to that opinion after assessing the Ukrainian conflict. The armor on the t90 with the newest reactive armor is pretty much inpenetrable by anything except top attack munitions,. Even western tandem warheads and sabots failed to destroy them in the few occasions they were available. Usually the Russians export thier crap stuff to the ME and that is usually what we encounter I agree. The Germans said the same about the Russians prior to invading. They got smoked. Could the Russians have won without Lend lease? No, but their most important weapons were Russian. T34 Ppsh Katyusha Russian resilience Additionally, the west also has had it's weapons that were hyped up to be way more capable than they actually were. Phoenix missile Sea Dart F105 American "guarantees" We just get to crow about Russian failures more than we do our own. The fact of the matter is, Russian scientists are every bit as smart as those in the West. Most of the US advances in weapons technology, the Russians found a counter to it. The monkey model Russian exports crewed by Arabs is completely different to the actual Russian Weapon, crewed by Russians. At the end of the day the US has the best equipment, but hasn't won a war in 70 years. It is only prudent that we expect the Russian tech to be as good if not better than they say it is. Rpg 27 or 29 I forget which and the S500 SAM are very good examples of this. Yeah, the Germans got smoked after they invaded. Was this before or after the Germans were encircling entire Russian Army Fronts and forcing them to surrender or die? You're still missing a pretty huge factor and you might not be able to comprehend the significance. How good can an army be when it has no functional NCO corp and its enlisted only served historically for 2 years, and now they only serve for 1? What about an army that doesn't enforce proper discipline? You could give these people the greatest technology known to man, that would work magnificently and perfectly, and they would still fuck it up. Because they have no institutional ranks of knowledge, because the officers aren't capable alone of enforcing discipline among the troops, and the enlisted have no time to become proficient in the myriad of individual and collective tasks necessary to become combat ready. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 10:45:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course not, but like the LRF and composite armor incorporated into the T-64 fielded in the late '60s (while we were still tooling around with M48s and M60s with RHA and analog FC computers), the Russians seem willing to exploit innovative technology to overcome other shortcomings. Execution may be mediocre, but when it does actually work..... Not to mention, they seem to have the ability to field new technology without showing their hand years in advance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> lol. Nope. They were just big. Some were pretty darn fast, but all were still basically shit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Mig 29 not carry a missile that had off-boresight capability well before we did? Doesn't mean it actually worked consistently. Of course not, but like the LRF and composite armor incorporated into the T-64 fielded in the late '60s (while we were still tooling around with M48s and M60s with RHA and analog FC computers), the Russians seem willing to exploit innovative technology to overcome other shortcomings. Execution may be mediocre, but when it does actually work..... Not to mention, they seem to have the ability to field new technology without showing their hand years in advance. Yeah, all true. And sometimes their shit execution actually had unintended benefits to them. I won't go into the details, since it was classified when I saw it. Also have to give them credit for the idea of Explosive Reactive Armor, although I bet it gave the guys "protected" by it one hell of a case of tinnitus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 11:01:43 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also have to give them credit for the idea of Explosive Reactive Armor, although I bet it gave the guys "protected" by it one hell of a case of tinnitus. It's a little rough on the infantry supporting your tank, too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:17:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, all true. And sometimes their shit execution actually had unintended benefits to them. I won't go into the details, since it was classified when I saw it. Also have to give them credit for the idea of Explosive Reactive Armor, although I bet it gave the guys "protected" by it one hell of a case of tinnitus. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> lol. Nope. They were just big. Some were pretty darn fast, but all were still basically shit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Mig 29 not carry a missile that had off-boresight capability well before we did? Doesn't mean it actually worked consistently. Of course not, but like the LRF and composite armor incorporated into the T-64 fielded in the late '60s (while we were still tooling around with M48s and M60s with RHA and analog FC computers), the Russians seem willing to exploit innovative technology to overcome other shortcomings. Execution may be mediocre, but when it does actually work..... Not to mention, they seem to have the ability to field new technology without showing their hand years in advance. Yeah, all true. And sometimes their shit execution actually had unintended benefits to them. I won't go into the details, since it was classified when I saw it. Also have to give them credit for the idea of Explosive Reactive Armor, although I bet it gave the guys "protected" by it one hell of a case of tinnitus. Do they get credit for ERA? I honestly don't know. Presently, they claim they can defeat our KE main gun ammo with it, and we've had to make changes to same to compensate for the ERA they've fielded. That tells me they may be at least somewhat credible in what they claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:20:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a little rough on the infantry supporting your tank, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Also have to give them credit for the idea of Explosive Reactive Armor, although I bet it gave the guys "protected" by it one hell of a case of tinnitus. It's a little rough on the infantry supporting your tank, too. The inside of a tank is well insulated against the noises of the battlefield, even with the hatches open. Also, ERA tiles exploding against HEAT warheads would pale in comparison to being dismounted near an armored vehicle that's cooking off because one of your rounds penetrated. Ask me how I know 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:22:41 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:23:45 PM EDT
[#18]
Did the missiles actually blow up or did they just deliver some tech to a nicely designated sand dune.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:30:03 PM EDT
[#19]
I have no problem with that......Go big or go home Putin. Get Some.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:44:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, the Germans got smoked after they invaded. Was this before or after the Germans were encircling entire Russian Army Fronts and forcing them to surrender or die? You're still missing a pretty huge factor and you might not be able to comprehend the significance. How good can an army be when it has no functional NCO corp and its enlisted only served historically for 2 years, and now they only serve for 1? What about an army that doesn't enforce proper discipline? You could give these people the greatest technology known to man, that would work magnificently and perfectly, and they would still fuck it up. Because they have no institutional ranks of knowledge, because the officers aren't capable alone of enforcing discipline among the troops, and the enlisted have no time to become proficient in the myriad of individual and collective tasks necessary to become combat ready. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. I disagree with your assessment to some degree. The Russians are capable of producing exceptional weapons & technology. They fired what 36 cruise missles and one of them went off course. These are also barely out of prototype. Lets look at it another way, an American cruise missle hits right 98% of the time but costs 1.5 million. A Russian missle hits right 88% percent of the time but costs 400,000. They can and will fire 4 for every 1 or ours. In fact they say that they launched two missles per site this last week. Also the are willing to use cluster/fuel air explosives in their warheads. They might not be as great as our stuff but it gets the job done without costing two arms and a leg. Some Russian weapons I can tell you are every bit a match for what we issue. Case in point the T90MS is an awsome tank, I use to think like most Americans that they were junk but recent events in Ukraine have changed my mind. With the help of France/Germany and the USA they have been able to bring that tank up to western standards, probably even exceeding the M1. Also some of their new missle systems, radar, artillery, electric warefare measures have caused serious problems for western gear. Before you blast me I can say that I wish it were not so and only came to that opinion after assessing the Ukrainian conflict. The armor on the t90 with the newest reactive armor is pretty much inpenetrable by anything except top attack munitions,. Even western tandem warheads and sabots failed to destroy them in the few occasions they were available. Usually the Russians export thier crap stuff to the ME and that is usually what we encounter I agree. The Germans said the same about the Russians prior to invading. They got smoked. Could the Russians have won without Lend lease? No, but their most important weapons were Russian. T34 Ppsh Katyusha Russian resilience Additionally, the west also has had it's weapons that were hyped up to be way more capable than they actually were. Phoenix missile Sea Dart F105 American "guarantees" We just get to crow about Russian failures more than we do our own. The fact of the matter is, Russian scientists are every bit as smart as those in the West. Most of the US advances in weapons technology, the Russians found a counter to it. The monkey model Russian exports crewed by Arabs is completely different to the actual Russian Weapon, crewed by Russians. At the end of the day the US has the best equipment, but hasn't won a war in 70 years. It is only prudent that we expect the Russian tech to be as good if not better than they say it is. Rpg 27 or 29 I forget which and the S500 SAM are very good examples of this. Yeah, the Germans got smoked after they invaded. Was this before or after the Germans were encircling entire Russian Army Fronts and forcing them to surrender or die? You're still missing a pretty huge factor and you might not be able to comprehend the significance. How good can an army be when it has no functional NCO corp and its enlisted only served historically for 2 years, and now they only serve for 1? What about an army that doesn't enforce proper discipline? You could give these people the greatest technology known to man, that would work magnificently and perfectly, and they would still fuck it up. Because they have no institutional ranks of knowledge, because the officers aren't capable alone of enforcing discipline among the troops, and the enlisted have no time to become proficient in the myriad of individual and collective tasks necessary to become combat ready. After. When they were in Berlin raping everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:55:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryI saw quite a few TOW ATGMs fail to work when I was an 0352. Failure of the rocket motor to ignite (pops out of the tube and flops on the ground in front of the launcher), failure of the guidance system to function (missile flies up in the air at a 45 degree angle), etc., etc. LMSC and the USN had quite a few launch failures when the D5 FBM was in development. It took some time to sort that out. The first SM-2MR surface-to-air missile to be fired by the USS Vincennes at an Iranian Airbus A300B2-203 came out of the launch tube and fell into the ocean because the rocket motor failed to ignite. The Vincennes had to fire a second missile to shoot down IA flight 655. It's ordnance. Failures happen. About the only thing I've never seen *not* function like it was supposed to was small arms ammo. Everything else up to 155 mm arty and beyond has issues with working as designed. If it makes you feel any worse, my old man used to interact at work with P3 Orion crews from NAS Moffet Field, who informed him that they'd indeed lose track of Soviet subs that they had acquired and were following as they patrolled the Pacific close to our waters. Those weren't training missions, so if the balloon went up, nothing was guaranteed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:59:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Russia and Iran get along. I would consider a little plausible deniability on Iran’s part:
Dear Russia, We’ve got some moderates at grid 221232324345478. Can you drop a couple of cruise missiles on them? Then we will issue a strongly worded press release blaming you. Beer, pizza and Bacha Bazi at my house tonight. Love Iran |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:06:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia and Iran get along. I would consider a little plausible deniability on Iran’s part: Dear Russia, We’ve got some moderates at grid 221232324345478. Can you drop a couple of cruise missiles on them? Then we will issue a strongly worded press release blaming you. Beer, pizza and Bacha Bazi at my house tonight. Love Iran If the missiles did anything other than sputter out and land in the middle of the Iranian desert there would have been a lot more info in the "leak". It an obvious calculated leak to embarrass Russia |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:13:30 PM EDT
[#24]
So Russkie missiles have a CEP of 1,800 plus miles?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can see how a slight error would result in Iran getting hit though... http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/a913ab56-678e-11e5-a57f-21b88f7d973f.img |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 2:19:14 PM EDT
[#25]
Doesn't Iran have some Kurds up in their Northwest? Maybe Kurds there were supporting Kurds in the fight in Syria......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 4:21:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryI remember the redhead from the second gif. She was hot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:02:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The inside of a tank is well insulated against the noises of the battlefield, even with the hatches open. Also, ERA tiles exploding against HEAT warheads would pale in comparison to being dismounted near an armored vehicle that's cooking off because one of your rounds penetrated. Ask me how I know Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Also have to give them credit for the idea of Explosive Reactive Armor, although I bet it gave the guys "protected" by it one hell of a case of tinnitus. It's a little rough on the infantry supporting your tank, too. The inside of a tank is well insulated against the noises of the battlefield, even with the hatches open. Also, ERA tiles exploding against HEAT warheads would pale in comparison to being dismounted near an armored vehicle that's cooking off because one of your rounds penetrated. Ask me how I know Not to mention the fact that if you are hanging around near a HEAT warhead going off period, you're already having a pretty sporty day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:14:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw quite a few TOW ATGMs fail to work when I was an 0352. Failure of the rocket motor to ignite (pops out of the tube and flops on the ground in front of the launcher), failure of the guidance system to function (missile flies up in the air at a 45 degree angle), etc., etc. LMSC and the USN had quite a few launch failures when the D5 FBM was in development. It took some time to sort that out. The first SM-2MR surface-to-air missile to be fired by the USS Vincennes at an Iranian Airbus A300B2-203 came out of the launch tube and fell into the ocean because the rocket motor failed to ignite. The Vincennes had to fire a second missile to shoot down IA flight 655. It's ordnance. Failures happen. About the only thing I've never seen *not* function like it was supposed to was small arms ammo. Everything else up to 155 mm arty and beyond has issues with working as designed. If it makes you feel any worse, my old man used to interact at work with P3 Orion crews from NAS Moffet Field, who informed him that they'd indeed lose track of Soviet subs that they had acquired and were following as they patrolled the Pacific close to our waters. Those weren't training missions, so if the balloon went up, nothing was guaranteed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw quite a few TOW ATGMs fail to work when I was an 0352. Failure of the rocket motor to ignite (pops out of the tube and flops on the ground in front of the launcher), failure of the guidance system to function (missile flies up in the air at a 45 degree angle), etc., etc. LMSC and the USN had quite a few launch failures when the D5 FBM was in development. It took some time to sort that out. The first SM-2MR surface-to-air missile to be fired by the USS Vincennes at an Iranian Airbus A300B2-203 came out of the launch tube and fell into the ocean because the rocket motor failed to ignite. The Vincennes had to fire a second missile to shoot down IA flight 655. It's ordnance. Failures happen. About the only thing I've never seen *not* function like it was supposed to was small arms ammo. Everything else up to 155 mm arty and beyond has issues with working as designed. If it makes you feel any worse, my old man used to interact at work with P3 Orion crews from NAS Moffet Field, who informed him that they'd indeed lose track of Soviet subs that they had acquired and were following as they patrolled the Pacific close to our waters. Those weren't training missions, so if the balloon went up, nothing was guaranteed. I think you mean "off the rail." Vincennes had Mk-26s, not VLS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 5:33:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell.
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Do you remember how nearly impenetrable the Iron Curtain was? It took years to get info out of there that amounted to anything. Any info we got on conditions and battle readiness was nearly outdated by the time we got it. Then we would have to weigh that info against propaganda and misinformation that was being leaked out. Due to their manpower advantage we always overestimated so that we could counter that. That was policy. The problem with the Russians now is that their weapons and tactics were built around the idea of them having overwhelming numerical advantages, but now they do not have the numbers make efficient use of their forces and equipment, along with the economic collapse that they had during the breakup ( before and after the fall ), which rendered a lot of their equipment useless and relegated to boneyards and scrapheaps. Then factor in the former Soviet states where tons of hardware were left in place, and used by their now , new enemies. Even though we have the hindsight to see the weakness that existed in the USSR clearly, it seems excessive that we spent that much and pushed ourselves that far, but , during those days, we had no choice with the info we had. Look at it like the Russkies were the Wizard of Oz, before anyone knew he wasn't all powerful. All the shit that the Wizard pulled to make himself look like the most powerful being on the planet, is the same way that the Soviets did to the world. We only found out he was a broken down old man after the curtain fell. I don't know how old you are, but if you were of military age in the 70s or 80s ( or earlier ), the wizard was still the wizard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:10:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you mean "off the rail." Vincennes had Mk-26s, not VLS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I saw quite a few TOW ATGMs fail to work when I was an 0352. Failure of the rocket motor to ignite (pops out of the tube and flops on the ground in front of the launcher), failure of the guidance system to function (missile flies up in the air at a 45 degree angle), etc., etc. LMSC and the USN had quite a few launch failures when the D5 FBM was in development. It took some time to sort that out. The first SM-2MR surface-to-air missile to be fired by the USS Vincennes at an Iranian Airbus A300B2-203 came out of the launch tube and fell into the ocean because the rocket motor failed to ignite. The Vincennes had to fire a second missile to shoot down IA flight 655. It's ordnance. Failures happen. About the only thing I've never seen *not* function like it was supposed to was small arms ammo. Everything else up to 155 mm arty and beyond has issues with working as designed. If it makes you feel any worse, my old man used to interact at work with P3 Orion crews from NAS Moffet Field, who informed him that they'd indeed lose track of Soviet subs that they had acquired and were following as they patrolled the Pacific close to our waters. Those weren't training missions, so if the balloon went up, nothing was guaranteed. I think you mean "off the rail." Vincennes had Mk-26s, not VLS. Thanks for the correction. I remember watching it on the news years ago and thinking how anti-climatic it was. "FIRE!" (plunk) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:18:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, Russia's blowing shit up in Iran, too? Not seeing a downside . . . 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 6:19:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CNN claims Russian missiles crashed in Iran, Moscow refutes, US can’t confirmhttps://www.rt.com/news/318059-russia-syria-ccn-iran-missiles/ Look for spike in dead goat reporting... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2015 2:12:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you remember how nearly impenetrable the Iron Curtain was? It took years to get info out of there that amounted to anything. Any info we got on conditions and battle readiness was nearly outdated by the time we got it. Then we would have to weigh that info against propaganda and misinformation that was being leaked out. Due to their manpower advantage we always overestimated so that we could counter that. That was policy. The problem with the Russians now is that their weapons and tactics were built around the idea of them having overwhelming numerical advantages, but now they do not have the numbers make efficient use of their forces and equipment, along with the economic collapse that they had during the breakup ( before and after the fall ), which rendered a lot of their equipment useless and relegated to boneyards and scrapheaps. Then factor in the former Soviet states where tons of hardware were left in place, and used by their now , new enemies. Even though we have the hindsight to see the weakness that existed in the USSR clearly, it seems excessive that we spent that much and pushed ourselves that far, but , during those days, we had no choice with the info we had. Look at it like the Russkies were the Wizard of Oz, before anyone knew he wasn't all powerful. All the shit that the Wizard pulled to make himself look like the most powerful being on the planet, is the same way that the Soviets did to the world. We only found out he was a broken down old man after the curtain fell. I don't know how old you are, but if you were of military age in the 70s or 80s ( or earlier ), the wizard was still the wizard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell.
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Do you remember how nearly impenetrable the Iron Curtain was? It took years to get info out of there that amounted to anything. Any info we got on conditions and battle readiness was nearly outdated by the time we got it. Then we would have to weigh that info against propaganda and misinformation that was being leaked out. Due to their manpower advantage we always overestimated so that we could counter that. That was policy. The problem with the Russians now is that their weapons and tactics were built around the idea of them having overwhelming numerical advantages, but now they do not have the numbers make efficient use of their forces and equipment, along with the economic collapse that they had during the breakup ( before and after the fall ), which rendered a lot of their equipment useless and relegated to boneyards and scrapheaps. Then factor in the former Soviet states where tons of hardware were left in place, and used by their now , new enemies. Even though we have the hindsight to see the weakness that existed in the USSR clearly, it seems excessive that we spent that much and pushed ourselves that far, but , during those days, we had no choice with the info we had. Look at it like the Russkies were the Wizard of Oz, before anyone knew he wasn't all powerful. All the shit that the Wizard pulled to make himself look like the most powerful being on the planet, is the same way that the Soviets did to the world. We only found out he was a broken down old man after the curtain fell. I don't know how old you are, but if you were of military age in the 70s or 80s ( or earlier ), the wizard was still the wizard. Thank you for that write up. Very good. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
