If you want to bitch about military helicopters bitch about the ****ing Osprey boondoggle. ****ing military and ****ing Boeing with one ****ed up aircraft which is ****ing the taxpayer in the ****ing ass.
I remember listening to a British traffic controller giving a speech to bankers one time, explaining how you fly a helicopter. "You move the controls around, and see what the helicopter does. Then, if you ever want the helicopter to do the same thing again, put the controls back in that position."
If a Russian Ambassador is attacked, or an embassy bombed, or a coalition plane shot down by "friendly fire" then there should be a court-marshall. No exceptoins. It seems the military leaders are not taking responsibility for grave mistakes, and that is unacceptable.
No exceptions? What if nobody's at fault? What if somebody is at fault, but there was somebody else sitting next to them yelling, "Hey! Don't shoot that tank!!"? Do they get a court marshal too?
I think it goes: investigation, then court marshal. The investigation part determines who, if anybody, should get a court marshal; just like in civilian life. When there's a crime, you don't immediately go to court. There's an investigation first. You need to figure out who should be charged with what.
Makes me wonder: I bet we've killed less of our own with friendly fire than the Iraqi thugs/militia have of their own innocent civilians with purposeful, vicious "unfriendly" fire.
This will probably be one of those odd situations that, when all is said and done, more of our military will have died from friendly fire incidents and mechanical accidents than from actual enemy fire or fighting.
This whole thing about "elite" and supposed bad-ass Republican Guard seems like anything but, doesn't it?
This will probably be one of those odd situations that, when all is said and done, more of our military will have died from friendly fire incidents and mechanical accidents than from actual enemy fire or fighting.
Hey! I was the 1st on this board to wonder that.
If it wasn't for one unfortunate SCUD missile in the first Gulf action, the numbers would have been very close to 50/50 for casualties due to friendly fire and enemy fire. This Gulf action is an invasion, so there will probably more deaths due to enemy fire, but it is a close thing. Saddam Hussein really didn't do the smart thing, maybe he is, who knows, but it's good that he's not.
Quote:
This whole thing about "elite" and supposed bad-ass Republican Guard seems like anything but, doesn't it?
Eh... Iraq was and is harmless. I don't know where you get the idea that they were dangerous. Militarily, they are at half the strength and a tenth of the capability they were at during the first Gulf war, which wasn't that good in the first place.
the best description i ever heard between planes and helicoptors was from a guy who was a pilot. he said
"the fundamental difference between a plane and a helicopter is that a plane wants to fly, a helicoptor wants to crash"
My father was an air force pilot (including three years on exchange from Canada to the USAF) and flew all kinds of fixed-wing planes, from fighters to large sea patrol aircraft. He was reluctant to even ride in a helicopter, however. Fixed-wing pilots generally don't trust them. The quote that you give - which I had never heard before - perhaps sums up the reason why.
This is post is too long for me to read all of right now so forgive me if it has been mentioned before.....but I'm sure you have all heard of the Concrete bombs.
Eh... Iraq was and is harmless. I don't know where you get the idea that they were dangerous. Militarily, they are at half the strength and a tenth of the capability they were at during the first Gulf war, which wasn't that good in the first place.
I am SO glad you wrote that, because "where I got that idea from" is watching/listening to this breathless build-up from the print and broadcast media about how these are the supposed "best of the best" in that country and that the U.S. "has its work cut out for them" and stuff like that. Watching the opening hours and days of this war, you would swear that some commentators, columnists, reporters, etc. were possibly excited at the prospect of the U.S. being on the receiving end of an ass whipping by Saddam's guys.
My comment was pretty much rhetorical and sarcastic, commenting on this supposed "bad ass" elite Republican Guard being not so. But it wasn't ME that built all this up (what the hell do I know about Iraqi military structure, training, status, etc.?).
Just a small chuckle directed at both the Republican Guard for being so cowardly and incompetent AND the U.S. media for its inability to see it, that's all.
I don't think any country or army in the world would stand a chance against the U.S., except probably China. But certainly not Iraq, and certainly not in the brutal, cowardly way in which they've been conducting themselves. They seem a bit desperate and rag-tag.
Which, being American and all, kinda makes me happy. BTW, am I allowed to say that without sounding too simplistic, jingoistic or bloodthirsty to some of you? Just checking...
This is post is too long for me to read all of right now so forgive me if it has been mentioned before.....but I'm sure you have all heard of the Concrete bombs.
now THAT'S advanced.
Fourth Generation warfare meets 21st century technology! It's like the fabled anti-gravity pen NASA developed for space while the Russians used a pencil.
I just knew someone would post this. I've heard of the debunking of this story, but I figured that if I mentioned this, it would either derail the thread even further or make me look paranoid. 'Nuff said of that, eh?
I am SO glad you wrote that, because "where I got that idea from" is watching/listening to this breathless build-up from the print and broadcast media ... excited at the prospect of the U.S. being on the receiving end of an ass whipping by Saddam's guys.
scates, you didn't read the sarcasm dripping from that one sentence (where did you get that idea...)? Oh well.
The Iraqis are so incompetent, so impotent that they couldn't take advantage of a colossal mistake by American and British forces. The Americans overextended themselves heading for Baghdad. If the Iraqi's had adequate air defenses for their army, they should have retreated from Najaf, Nasiryah, Karbalah and let the Americans get all the way Baghdad, flanked the American army (going through Syria, Iran, whatever) and cut off their supply lines. The rest is encircling, lobbing lots of artillary shells and waiting until the American's supplies run out. That's why all the military folks were so pissed off, an entire Army division, possibly 2, couldn't have been wiped out.
Of course, since there were no defenses from air power, the USA/GB could really do whatever they please. Man, that 6 day "operational pause" cost me my 2 week prediction!
Quote:
I don't think any country or army in the world would stand a chance against the U.S., except probably China.
Without air defenses, and army is worthless. It doesn't matter how big and well trained they are, without air defenses, armies are nothing but strafing and bomb targets.
Quote:
But certainly not Iraq, and certainly not in the brutal, cowardly way in which they've been conducting themselves. They seem a bit desperate and rag-tag.
Feh, if I were them, I'd be even more cowardly. Hussein should have let the invaders come in at will, establish a new regime, and then started guerilla/terrorist tactics and a political/propoganda campaign. Putting up resources to fight an enemy with overwhelming technological superiority is wasteful. You don't want loyalists killed, you want them to spread the word. It's fortunate that Hussein doesn't appear to be doing that.
re: helicoptors. They have saved more lives than they have killed. A whole lot more. The primary reason casualty rates have become so small is because of emergency medicine and the ability to get wounded to safety. Helicoptors play a big role in that. It's an overwhelming plus just for that alone.
THT, I totally agree with your assertions on the incompetence of the iraqi millitary. Surely (but luckily not so) they could have employed better tactics than they have.
The inability to even cut of the roads into Bagdad are just amazing. I expected them to at least be able to blow up those main bridges.
Lets hope the easy (but predictable) successes of this war doesn't lead us directly into the next...
In regards to the air defences, the superiority of US surveilance doesn't give a regular army in a dessert country much chance. An irregular army however, in populated or overgrown areas, could still retain a fighting ability.
In regards to the air defences, the superiority of US surveilance doesn't give a regular army in a dessert country much chance. An irregular army however, in populated or overgrown areas, could still retain a fighting ability.
Yep, most of what we will be seeing in the foreseeable future will be a war of attrition.
Comments
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
If you want to bitch about military helicopters bitch about the ****ing Osprey boondoggle. ****ing military and ****ing Boeing with one ****ed up aircraft which is ****ing the taxpayer in the ****ing ass.
post of the ****ing week.
If you want precision, try surgery, or voting booths, or airline luggage logistics.
If you think those helicopters are bad, what about the Canadian ones?
(link)
I remember listening to a British traffic controller giving a speech to bankers one time, explaining how you fly a helicopter. "You move the controls around, and see what the helicopter does. Then, if you ever want the helicopter to do the same thing again, put the controls back in that position."
Well, he's much funnier than I.
Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights
It's a war.
If you want precision, try surgery, or voting booths, or airline luggage logistics.
Post of the day
Originally posted by tonton
If a Russian Ambassador is attacked, or an embassy bombed, or a coalition plane shot down by "friendly fire" then there should be a court-marshall. No exceptoins. It seems the military leaders are not taking responsibility for grave mistakes, and that is unacceptable.
No exceptions? What if nobody's at fault? What if somebody is at fault, but there was somebody else sitting next to them yelling, "Hey! Don't shoot that tank!!"? Do they get a court marshal too?
I think it goes: investigation, then court marshal. The investigation part determines who, if anybody, should get a court marshal; just like in civilian life. When there's a crime, you don't immediately go to court. There's an investigation first. You need to figure out who should be charged with what.
This will probably be one of those odd situations that, when all is said and done, more of our military will have died from friendly fire incidents and mechanical accidents than from actual enemy fire or fighting.
This whole thing about "elite" and supposed bad-ass Republican Guard seems like anything but, doesn't it?
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe you should take a fresh look at how far the US goes to spare lives. You're extreme anti-americanism is clouding your judgment in this area.
Actually Scott, your unbridled jingoism keeps your view biased.
Originally posted by pscates
This will probably be one of those odd situations that, when all is said and done, more of our military will have died from friendly fire incidents and mechanical accidents than from actual enemy fire or fighting.
Hey! I was the 1st on this board to wonder that.
If it wasn't for one unfortunate SCUD missile in the first Gulf action, the numbers would have been very close to 50/50 for casualties due to friendly fire and enemy fire. This Gulf action is an invasion, so there will probably more deaths due to enemy fire, but it is a close thing. Saddam Hussein really didn't do the smart thing, maybe he is, who knows, but it's good that he's not.
This whole thing about "elite" and supposed bad-ass Republican Guard seems like anything but, doesn't it?
Eh... Iraq was and is harmless. I don't know where you get the idea that they were dangerous. Militarily, they are at half the strength and a tenth of the capability they were at during the first Gulf war, which wasn't that good in the first place.
Originally posted by alcimedes
the best description i ever heard between planes and helicoptors was from a guy who was a pilot. he said
"the fundamental difference between a plane and a helicopter is that a plane wants to fly, a helicoptor wants to crash"
My father was an air force pilot (including three years on exchange from Canada to the USAF) and flew all kinds of fixed-wing planes, from fighters to large sea patrol aircraft. He was reluctant to even ride in a helicopter, however. Fixed-wing pilots generally don't trust them. The quote that you give - which I had never heard before - perhaps sums up the reason why.
now THAT'S advanced.
Originally posted by THT
Eh... Iraq was and is harmless. I don't know where you get the idea that they were dangerous. Militarily, they are at half the strength and a tenth of the capability they were at during the first Gulf war, which wasn't that good in the first place.
I am SO glad you wrote that, because "where I got that idea from" is watching/listening to this breathless build-up from the print and broadcast media about how these are the supposed "best of the best" in that country and that the U.S. "has its work cut out for them" and stuff like that. Watching the opening hours and days of this war, you would swear that some commentators, columnists, reporters, etc. were possibly excited at the prospect of the U.S. being on the receiving end of an ass whipping by Saddam's guys.
My comment was pretty much rhetorical and sarcastic, commenting on this supposed "bad ass" elite Republican Guard being not so. But it wasn't ME that built all this up (what the hell do I know about Iraqi military structure, training, status, etc.?).
Just a small chuckle directed at both the Republican Guard for being so cowardly and incompetent AND the U.S. media for its inability to see it, that's all.
I don't think any country or army in the world would stand a chance against the U.S., except probably China. But certainly not Iraq, and certainly not in the brutal, cowardly way in which they've been conducting themselves. They seem a bit desperate and rag-tag.
Which, being American and all, kinda makes me happy. BTW, am I allowed to say that without sounding too simplistic, jingoistic or bloodthirsty to some of you? Just checking...
Originally posted by Wrong Robust
This is post is too long for me to read all of right now so forgive me if it has been mentioned before.....but I'm sure you have all heard of the Concrete bombs.
now THAT'S advanced.
Originally posted by alcimedes
NASA space pen vs. Russian pencil
I just knew someone would post this.
Originally posted by pscates
I am SO glad you wrote that, because "where I got that idea from" is watching/listening to this breathless build-up from the print and broadcast media ... excited at the prospect of the U.S. being on the receiving end of an ass whipping by Saddam's guys.
scates, you didn't read the sarcasm dripping from that one sentence (where did you get that idea...)? Oh well.
The Iraqis are so incompetent, so impotent that they couldn't take advantage of a colossal mistake by American and British forces. The Americans overextended themselves heading for Baghdad. If the Iraqi's had adequate air defenses for their army, they should have retreated from Najaf, Nasiryah, Karbalah and let the Americans get all the way Baghdad, flanked the American army (going through Syria, Iran, whatever) and cut off their supply lines. The rest is encircling, lobbing lots of artillary shells and waiting until the American's supplies run out. That's why all the military folks were so pissed off, an entire Army division, possibly 2, couldn't have been wiped out.
Of course, since there were no defenses from air power, the USA/GB could really do whatever they please. Man, that 6 day "operational pause" cost me my 2 week prediction!
I don't think any country or army in the world would stand a chance against the U.S., except probably China.
Without air defenses, and army is worthless. It doesn't matter how big and well trained they are, without air defenses, armies are nothing but strafing and bomb targets.
But certainly not Iraq, and certainly not in the brutal, cowardly way in which they've been conducting themselves. They seem a bit desperate and rag-tag.
Feh, if I were them, I'd be even more cowardly. Hussein should have let the invaders come in at will, establish a new regime, and then started guerilla/terrorist tactics and a political/propoganda campaign. Putting up resources to fight an enemy with overwhelming technological superiority is wasteful. You don't want loyalists killed, you want them to spread the word. It's fortunate that Hussein doesn't appear to be doing that.
re: helicoptors. They have saved more lives than they have killed. A whole lot more. The primary reason casualty rates have become so small is because of emergency medicine and the ability to get wounded to safety. Helicoptors play a big role in that. It's an overwhelming plus just for that alone.
The inability to even cut of the roads into Bagdad are just amazing. I expected them to at least be able to blow up those main bridges.
Lets hope the easy (but predictable) successes of this war doesn't lead us directly into the next...
Originally posted by tonton
And why are we spending our tax dollars blowing up statues?
Perhaps there is underground biological weapons factories under them. Or Scud missile launcers. They must be somewhere...
Originally posted by New
In regards to the air defences, the superiority of US surveilance doesn't give a regular army in a dessert country much chance. An irregular army however, in populated or overgrown areas, could still retain a fighting ability.
Yep, most of what we will be seeing in the foreseeable future will be a war of attrition.