Military fanboys

[u&t]

Originally Posted by BME

Optic camoflauge is like 100 years into the future.

Uhm no. There have been experiments going on for years with optic camo for airplanes. It's basically just lamps on the underside of the plane but it's there to make the plane "invisible" from the ground.

Predator style camo is far away but uniforms with adaptive camoflague patterns are not. As soon as someone figures out how to print a durable display on cloth we will have it. People are already working on it so we shouldn't have to wait too long for it.

[Silent Spring]

I heard about that new type of camo where each pattern, and each speck was computer calculated to be more unoticable, I don't know how a computer can calculate it but there we are, It's composed of much smaller patches comparded to today's camo

[Mad Cat]

Originally Posted by Zoro

I doubt the Particle cannon will be done in 20 yrs, and it seems impossible for a terrorist organization to get so big and strong.

Oh no my friend.
Wasent it impossible to crash planes in to world traid center?
Terror organizations lay low until they make thair move and show you how big they are.
Anyways nothing is really impossible anymore

[Go-lytely]

Originally Posted by Mad Cat

Oh no my friend.
Wasent it impossible to crash planes in to world traid center?
Terror organizations lay low until they make thair move and show you how big they are.
Anyways nothing is really impossible anymore

No, it wasnt impossible. It was only a lack of naivete on America's part that allowed the World Trade Centers to be attacked. The previous World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the naval ship Cole, the attacks on embassies in Kenya; the signs were all there that a more threatening attack was to come.

[Mr. Bushido]

Originally Posted by Mad Cat

Oh no my friend.
Wasent it impossible to crash planes in to world traid center?
Terror organizations lay low until they make thair move and show you how big they are.
Anyways nothing is really impossible anymore

it was virtually impossible. Carriers were ready to fire off planes to shoot down the 2nd plane at least. Bush knew, he just didnt stop it, he could've. The Navy and their carriers are everywhere, and those jets can shoot those planes out of the sky.

BTW: in C&C Generals the GLA is big enough to fight head on with China and USA. Both of them in fact on 2 fronts. Asia and Middle East. And in the expansion they all fight in Europe China AND USA vs GLA. THATS BIG. i meant its impossible like that.

[Mad Cat]

Originally Posted by Zoro

it was virtually impossible. Carriers were ready to fire off planes to shoot down the 2nd plane at least. Bush knew, he just didnt stop it, he could've. The Navy and their carriers are everywhere, and those jets can shoot those planes out of the sky.

BTW: in C&C Generals the GLA is big enough to fight head on with China and USA. Both of them in fact on 2 fronts. Asia and Middle East. And in the expansion they all fight in Europe China AND USA vs GLA. THATS BIG. i meant its impossible like that.

Its in the future and its not impossible.
Wasent impossible for germany to get that big army just before second world war?
The thing is that nothing is really impossible, sure its impossible right now but what about 10, 20 years?

[Moon The Cat]

I think my only on this thread (since I don't know about guns, tanks, airplanes..)is that Command & Conquer: Generals rocks!.

[Mr. Bushido]

Originally Posted by Mad Cat

Its in the future and its not impossible.
Wasent impossible for germany to get that big army just before second world war?
The thing is that nothing is really impossible, sure its impossible right now but what about 10, 20 years?

in 20 yrs? come on, its 99% unlikely. I wont say 100% cuz ure right, its not IMPOSSIBLE. but its pretty farfetched dont you think? I mean to face the 2 most powerful armies at once.

Germany? Appeasement, remember? btw the german army was weaker than cechoslavakia (spelling) when the Congress at Berlin decided to let Hitler annex it. Why there is quite a lot of tanks he can use as scrape metal for his panzers. Sweden i believe was neutral and sold germany SHITload of raw materials. Germany took Poland because they technically had no airpower. He overran a MUCH more powerful french army. drove the British away. He was able to take Europe like that. Once he done that he was powerful. Before he did this Hitler and germany was still weak. It was the incompetence of Poland, the diplomats of Europe, and the French.

Besides when he was faced against Britian, USA, and Russia he completely fell.
you also forget countries has a steady source of money, while terrorists have to find illegal ways to fund an army like that. Plus where will these terroists find factories for heavy armour?

[Silent Spring]

I agree, it'll be very difficult for a terrorist organization to grow large enough to have their own military with tanks, missles, rockets, AA-guns and actually go up in a face to face battle with the United States and China. If they actually had a face to face battle (ambushes don't count) they would be crushed.

[Mr. Bushido]

Originally Posted by Silent Spring

I agree, it'll be very difficult for a terrorist organization to grow large enough to have their own military with tanks, missles, rockets, AA-guns and actually go up in a face to face battle with the United States and China. If they actually had a face to face battle (ambushes don't count) they would be crushed.

US wouldnt even bother sending ground troops. Just bomb them with planes and ships. and china's 2 million soldiers would run over them. LIterary

[144M_HYPERION]

China will not have a 2 million army in the near future. They are reducing the amount of manpower in the army now. 200,000 troops will be disband this year.

As for terrorist attack ... their best method is hit and run ... I doubt they will attack in open field. IMO

[Mad Cat]

Originally Posted by Zoro

in 20 yrs? come on, its 99% unlikely. I wont say 100% cuz ure right, its not IMPOSSIBLE. but its pretty farfetched dont you think? I mean to face the 2 most powerful armies at once.

Germany? Appeasement, remember? btw the german army was weaker than cechoslavakia (spelling) when the Congress at Berlin decided to let Hitler annex it. Why there is quite a lot of tanks he can use as scrape metal for his panzers. Sweden i believe was neutral and sold germany SHITload of raw materials. Germany took Poland because they technically had no airpower. He overran a MUCH more powerful french army. drove the British away. He was able to take Europe like that. Once he done that he was powerful. Before he did this Hitler and germany was still weak. It was the incompetence of Poland, the diplomats of Europe, and the French.

Besides when he was faced against Britian, USA, and Russia he completely fell.
you also forget countries has a steady source of money, while terrorists have to find illegal ways to fund an army like that. Plus where will these terroists find factories for heavy armour?

I hope that its not gonna be like CC: generals with that big terror group and sweden sold shit loads of raw meterials to germany becouse germany would take just take it if we didnt and if they took it the allies would bomb it so its better for the to buy it then take it with force.
Anyways we dont know how it will look in 10 to 20 years.

[amaius]

have you guy's ever heard of the Eurocorps and the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF), it's the European Unions own army and well gendarmerie. have you?

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by BME

Optic camoflauge is like 100 years into the future.

I'ld be not so sure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_metamaterials

[Drake]

Even thought its quite a big necro, Drake approves of this thread.

Click my sig please to see why.

[Lost Cause]

My husband is a Marine and currently in Iraq,he recently told me in an E-mail home that the U.S. Military/DOD is coinsidering dumping the M-16/M-4 rifle for something new. He said he saw some spec-ops types with something called a scar(?)and a 416(?) What are those and what in your opinion would the U.S. choose for it's new assault rifle?

[JMvS]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

My husband is a Marine and currently in Iraq,he recently told me in an E-mail home that the U.S. Military/DOD is coinsidering dumping the M-16/M-4 rifle for something new. He said he saw some spec-ops types with something called a scar(?)and a 416(?) What are those and what in your opinion would the U.S. choose for it's new assault rifle?

Would be the Heckler & Koch HK416, and the FN SCAR.
Not being American, I don't have any opinion regarding those, safe for the M-16 being crap with lots of added gizmos. But maybe I'm biased since my service weapon here in Switzerland is a SG 550.

Edit: after a little reading, it seems both will substantially more reliable and resilient than M-16/M-4. Cold forged steel barrels being what you find in superior quality rifles like ours.

Edit 2: For the hardware fanboy side, I totally dig our upgraded F/A-18 C/D Hornets and MOWAG Piranha and even Duro.
For expected hardware, before it was postponed for economic reasons, I was totally rooting for the JAS 39 Gripen to replace our old Northrop F-5E/F Tiger II, in the competition versus the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
And for the old hardware, I am forever in love with my gramps old Luger Parabellum, the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and our canard and radar upgraded Dassault Mirage IIIS.

Mirage... so beautiful in action...

[Drake]

This says it all with regards to the US armys current choice of weapon compared to its more modern competition.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Drake

This says it all with regards to the US armys current choice of weapon compared to its more modern competition.

I think with the ACOG and lower recoil from the lower caliber, the soldiers aren't complaining about their shots going all the way off, and putting headshots downrange isn't a big issue.

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think with the ACOG and lower recoil from the lower caliber, the soldiers aren't complaining about their shots going all the way off, and putting headshots downrange isn't a big issue.

I can vouch for that one! On his first tour of duty my husband said they were making head shots on insurrectionist out to 100yds. with scope equipped M-16A4s! Matter of fact it caused such a stir that DOD launched an investigation into it!