Well, I never called the USMC sane, have it? Uncle Sam's Misguided Children are effectively the dregs of US Trailer parks given some sembelance of training, filled with some vauge form of 'Eiliteness', then used as assault troops (jam the door open with their bodies) to clear a path for the US Army.
BF Evo, future weapons
- Thread starter Reaverman
- Start date
Umm... no. Nuclear weapons basically fall under two groups. The land based nuclear weapons are under (now) the USAF's control and the Sea based ones are under the Navy's control. The Marines do have men stationed on Navy vessels, but the ones carrying nuclear weapons are typically the Submarines, which do not carry Marines.
as were on about the ospray here are some cool vids of us technology in action
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2826766802336101610&q=Osprey
when it did finaly work
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7973936019017194010&q=Osprey
and the funky sound it makes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3369931977957110680&q=Osprey
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2826766802336101610&q=Osprey
when it did finaly work
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7973936019017194010&q=Osprey
and the funky sound it makes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3369931977957110680&q=Osprey
Yer the US Army doesnt need no stkinin nukes ^^.
Although 2 years of AFKN, you dont get too much exposure to the Army.
Its just really funny that the US and especially the politicians are heavy on spending money for weapons that are really great at taking out other high tech weapon systems. Which are mostly manufactured in Europe. Russia doesnt have the money to fund its own army, and China isnt up to scratch yet.
And the biggest front is Al Quaida and religious fanatics. Yet those guys rarely drive T-80s or Leopards or Challengers............If they ever form an army at all.............
Although 2 years of AFKN, you dont get too much exposure to the Army.
Its just really funny that the US and especially the politicians are heavy on spending money for weapons that are really great at taking out other high tech weapon systems. Which are mostly manufactured in Europe. Russia doesnt have the money to fund its own army, and China isnt up to scratch yet.
And the biggest front is Al Quaida and religious fanatics. Yet those guys rarely drive T-80s or Leopards or Challengers............If they ever form an army at all.............
Lane Shutt
Mongoose
Hiromoon said:
Back when aircraft carriers deployed with nukes they had a Marine security det to guard them. They also act as security force at storage facilities.
Reaverman said:
Damaged not sunk. The Argentine frigate ARA Guerrico was damaged by fire from Royal Marines at Grytviken, South Georgia. At a range of 500m the marines fired on the Guerrico with LAW, Carl Gustav anti-tank weapons. One gustav round struck the ship at the waterline, another struck the exocet missile launcher. Two LAW rounds put the 100mm gun out of action and of course the rest of the marines fired their small arms at the Guerrico as well. After substaining this damage the Guerrico withdrew.
Cheers
Derek
Voronesh said:
Not really sure what you are getting at here? There are many different weapon systems currently in development. Some are the super high tech stuff but there is also a considerable amount of work being done on precision weapons to counter the terrorists that have very practical uses on todays battlefield.
5.56 Surgeon
Mongoose
Hiromoon said:
And yet when the Army proceeds to totally Fubar an operation, who gets called in to finish it? The Marines. While the Army sets behind their fences, who goes out on patrol? The Marines.
Anyone else noticing a trend here?
well if I were an commander i would send the worst troops on the dangerous patrol and keep the real army save until the enemy is found.
Also i wouldn't want to risk my best troops when an operation has practically failed, but i would throw in the worst troops i have, what bad could it do?
long story short: marines are disposable (at least for a commander with the same loathing for his troops as i have for my digital and tabletop underlings :twisted: )
Also i wouldn't want to risk my best troops when an operation has practically failed, but i would throw in the worst troops i have, what bad could it do?
long story short: marines are disposable (at least for a commander with the same loathing for his troops as i have for my digital and tabletop underlings :twisted: )
Grimm said:
Point is. Terrorists rarely need precise weaponry. Right before the Iraq war the US tested the MOAB, what for? Cant use it against terrorists.
You need lots of grunts do go down there and scoure the area. Not precise bomb something and say sorry when you DO hit a hospital. (I know nothing is failsafe, but grunts happen to be able to differentiate a hospital from the next best building alot better).
And on the debate Army vs Marines. During the Korean war, the Army has shown just how much better it is.
There is a reason that AFKN mentions the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines. Thats it, theres no army.
captainsmirk
Mongoose
But what if the terrorists were actually in the hospital, will sending the grunts cause any less damage and kill any less civilians if the terrorists are using them as human shields? Not if using normal urban combat tactics they won't...
And the fact is that the terrorists are more likely to be in the hospital not in the building next door, just for the very reason that it looks bad when we bomb it. But we didn't find any terrorist bodies inside you say? How do we tell the terrorist from any other civilian? He is wearing a uniform...
Why did US troops in Vietnam end up killing so many innocent women and children, some times because in the past some of those "innocent" women and children had turned out to Viet Cong and chucked a grenade at them...
Consider that most of the killing going on in Iraq these days is actually Iraqis blowing each other up, and not much to do with us at all. Thats what comes of having a country which is actually three stuck together I suppose...
Nick
And the fact is that the terrorists are more likely to be in the hospital not in the building next door, just for the very reason that it looks bad when we bomb it. But we didn't find any terrorist bodies inside you say? How do we tell the terrorist from any other civilian? He is wearing a uniform...
Why did US troops in Vietnam end up killing so many innocent women and children, some times because in the past some of those "innocent" women and children had turned out to Viet Cong and chucked a grenade at them...
Consider that most of the killing going on in Iraq these days is actually Iraqis blowing each other up, and not much to do with us at all. Thats what comes of having a country which is actually three stuck together I suppose...
Nick
Voronesh said:
The MOAB test was nothing more than saber rattling. The US was sending a clear message that "we don't need nukes to get you".
Development on precision weapons has advanced to take on the terrorist threats. They are the weapon of choice for airstrikes and have nearly replaced artillery for small engagements. The US has been testing a 250lb GPS bomb solely to take out high value targets while minimizing collateral damage. US warfighting capabilities and doctrine have changed dramatically in the last few years. The US military fights very differently today then it did back in the first Gulf War.
captainsmirk said:
Sounds like a tactic a group like Hezbolah might use? Did you notice how the press always reported civilian casualties but rarely mentioned militants during the fighting in Lebanon? The press couldn't tell them apart because the militants wanted to look like civilians. I'm sure the Israeli army had a pretty good idea of who was who.
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Yep we do seem to have gone off tangent a bit here...
Nick
Nick
Similar threads
