You have to admit that there's a lot of studies showing it doesn't have stopping power. However, if somebody looked at accuracy of shots, I am sure it'd be better.
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
M16 does NOT suck.
Ever fired one ? Stop watching tv and playing soldier.
You are clueless.
The M16/M4 is a perfectly fine assault rifle for any self-respecting rifleman.Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
M16 does NOT suck.
Ever fired one ? Stop watching tv and playing soldier.
You are clueless.
You have to admit that there's a lot of studies showing it doesn't have stopping power. However, if somebody looked at accuracy of shots, I am sure it'd be better.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
M16 does NOT suck.
Ever fired one ? Stop watching tv and playing soldier.
You are clueless.
You have to admit that there's a lot of studies showing it doesn't have stopping power. However, if somebody looked at accuracy of shots, I am sure it'd be better.
Originally posted by: palehorse
The M16/M4 is a perfectly fine assault rifle for any self-respecting rifleman.Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
M16 does NOT suck.
Ever fired one ? Stop watching tv and playing soldier.
You are clueless.
You have to admit that there's a lot of studies showing it doesn't have stopping power. However, if somebody looked at accuracy of shots, I am sure it'd be better.
Now, if you want something to complain about, lobby for a return to my old .45 instead of the beretta 9mm POS we carry now... uhg. And, while you're at it, get them to drop the ban on non-standard ammo... give us .45 hollows, or other modern ammo, for the win!
/hijack off
fixed... the 60's are mostly ancient history by now.Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You have to admit that there's a lot of studies showing it doesn't have stopping power. However, if somebody looked at accuracy of shots, I am sure it'd be better.
It's good enough to get the job done, and done well.
If you want stopping power you're bringing along M82s and M249s/M240s anyways.
Nope.. not in the regular Army anyways. The standard issue is now the M9 (Beretta 92F); and, since we're limited to standard NATO ball ammo, it's an almost useless pile of shit.Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
No more M1911 variants?
Meaningless. Russia's economy is a tiny fraction of the US'.Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Your example of a crashed B2 is silly, these things happen all the time. I can find endless vids of Russian military craft crashing.
Saying the US is overstated because of Iraq is like saying Germany was overstated in WWII because it couldn't fully crush the underground resistance. The US never, ever had a problem against Iraq's military; it was more a training exercise than anything else. Its problem is in controlling the local population, something an invading force often has to worry about, but is a non-issue if a country is trying to defend itself.
China has quantity over quality. How would they move those troops around? How would Russia? US' navy is eons beyond either of those countries in navy and air force, both key parts of the equation.US soldiers badly trained compared to other countries? You clearly don't know jack squat about the US military (which spends way more per troop on training than most if not all other countries and superiorly equips them as well) and news flash: any country with a volunteer army is likely to have it more likely filled with mechanics' kids than law students.Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best)
China could not do as you say because they need the US more than the US needs China.
Yes, to put this in perspective Russia operates one broke ass carrier that almost never leaves port because its to expensive to sortie and has never worked right. The US has 11 operational super carriers complete with battle groups. The USN would take the Russian navy apart in a couple days.
maybe you haven't heard but Russia is now rolling in Billions of petro dollars
Text
quote from article:
In 1998, with oil selling at $14 a barrel, the country defaulted on debts and devalued the ruble. In 1999, Russia's public debt amounted to 96 percent of its gross domestic product. Following Monday's payment, it will fall to 9 percent, officials said.
Russia is now the world's largest exporter of natural gas and the world's second-largest exporter of oil. With prices at historic highs, the country is swimming in cash.
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
Not at all, man.
Seriously, looking at the USA's past three big wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, its power is widely overstated. Not only are the other countries (China and Russia and others) catching the US in terms of technology (see China's newest fighters and submarines) but they greatly outnumber the USA (provided Putin imposes conscription, and that may work over there...). Furthermore, Europe is pretty small whereas China and Russia are two of the biggest countries and so far, every power that has tried to take down Russia couldn't (France - Napoleon and Nazis - Hitler) manage it.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
As for the Arab States, they might as well join Russia and kick out the "infidels" from their holy soil (i.e. USA's bases in Saudi Arabia). So, they can cut off the USA and Europe's supplies in oil (easy to do, stop sending cargos to their ports..., as easy as that). So, Russia can still have some and China as well.
Furthermore, China, to help Russia and also gain from a weakened West, will sell its US Gov't Bonds to crush the US currency for good. Oil shortages will cause its price to dramatically increase... and on and on.
It is possible..
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
Not at all, man.
Seriously, looking at the USA's past three big wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, its power is widely overstated. Not only are the other countries (China and Russia and others) catching the US in terms of technology (see China's newest fighters and submarines) but they greatly outnumber the USA (provided Putin imposes conscription, and that may work over there...). Furthermore, Europe is pretty small whereas China and Russia are two of the biggest countries and so far, every power that has tried to take down Russia couldn't (France - Napoleon and Nazis - Hitler) manage it.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
As for the Arab States, they might as well join Russia and kick out the "infidels" from their holy soil (i.e. USA's bases in Saudi Arabia). So, they can cut off the USA and Europe's supplies in oil (easy to do, stop sending cargos to their ports..., as easy as that). So, Russia can still have some and China as well.
Furthermore, China, to help Russia and also gain from a weakened West, will sell its US Gov't Bonds to crush the US currency for good. Oil shortages will cause its price to dramatically increase... and on and on.
It is possible..
Dude....what? We mopped the floor with Iraq and Afghanistan. These ongoing skirmishes over there are an afterthought - yes, an expensive one, but still. When it comes to straight up invading and conquering a country, I'd say we've been pretty successful lately.
You talk about the US technology failing to produce...have you heard of the F-22? There is nothing in the world that can compete with the F-22.
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
Not at all, man.
Seriously, looking at the USA's past three big wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, its power is widely overstated. Not only are the other countries (China and Russia and others) catching the US in terms of technology (see China's newest fighters and submarines) but they greatly outnumber the USA (provided Putin imposes conscription, and that may work over there...). Furthermore, Europe is pretty small whereas China and Russia are two of the biggest countries and so far, every power that has tried to take down Russia couldn't (France - Napoleon and Nazis - Hitler) manage it.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
As for the Arab States, they might as well join Russia and kick out the "infidels" from their holy soil (i.e. USA's bases in Saudi Arabia). So, they can cut off the USA and Europe's supplies in oil (easy to do, stop sending cargos to their ports..., as easy as that). So, Russia can still have some and China as well.
Furthermore, China, to help Russia and also gain from a weakened West, will sell its US Gov't Bonds to crush the US currency for good. Oil shortages will cause its price to dramatically increase... and on and on.
It is possible..
Dude....what? We mopped the floor with Iraq and Afghanistan. These ongoing skirmishes over there are an afterthought - yes, an expensive one, but still. When it comes to straight up invading and conquering a country, I'd say we've been pretty successful lately.
You talk about the US technology failing to produce...have you heard of the F-22? There is nothing in the world that can compete with the F-22.
Huh? This... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
And.. the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Su37, the Rafale..
Invading third-world countries is easy. Invading a former military power, on the rise economically (actually with a pretty big "bankroll" due to its abundant natural resources, which the USA needs), with a vast territory is another story. An operation of this scale will likely cost around $5 Trillion (provided that the current Iraq War is costing around $2 Trillion for 5 years according to recent estimates), and the USA cannot afford this. With ever increasing deficit/debt, crumbling infrastructures and with the credit crisis, the USA better stay quiet and obedient for awhile. The USA are at the mercy of every oil-producing country/every economically rising country (B.R.I.C.)...
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
Not at all, man.
Seriously, looking at the USA's past three big wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, its power is widely overstated. Not only are the other countries (China and Russia and others) catching the US in terms of technology (see China's newest fighters and submarines) but they greatly outnumber the USA (provided Putin imposes conscription, and that may work over there...). Furthermore, Europe is pretty small whereas China and Russia are two of the biggest countries and so far, every power that has tried to take down Russia couldn't (France - Napoleon and Nazis - Hitler) manage it.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
As for the Arab States, they might as well join Russia and kick out the "infidels" from their holy soil (i.e. USA's bases in Saudi Arabia). So, they can cut off the USA and Europe's supplies in oil (easy to do, stop sending cargos to their ports..., as easy as that). So, Russia can still have some and China as well.
Furthermore, China, to help Russia and also gain from a weakened West, will sell its US Gov't Bonds to crush the US currency for good. Oil shortages will cause its price to dramatically increase... and on and on.
It is possible..
Dude....what? We mopped the floor with Iraq and Afghanistan. These ongoing skirmishes over there are an afterthought - yes, an expensive one, but still. When it comes to straight up invading and conquering a country, I'd say we've been pretty successful lately.
You talk about the US technology failing to produce...have you heard of the F-22? There is nothing in the world that can compete with the F-22.
Huh? This... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
And.. the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Su37, the Rafale..
Invading third-world countries is easy. Invading a former military power, on the rise economically (actually with a pretty big "bankroll" due to its abundant natural resources, which the USA needs), with a vast territory is another story. An operation of this scale will likely cost around $5 Trillion (provided that the current Iraq War is costing around $2 Trillion for 5 years according to recent estimates), and the USA cannot afford this. With ever increasing deficit/debt, crumbling infrastructures and with the credit crisis, the USA better stay quiet and obedient for awhile. The USA are at the mercy of every oil-producing country/every economically rising country (B.R.I.C.)...
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Russia wins....
Russia will get help from China, Iran and all Arab States. At the same time, Arab States will cut the West's supplies in oil.
Western World will be owned by the East (Russia, China, Middle East).
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
Not at all, man.
Seriously, looking at the USA's past three big wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, its power is widely overstated. Not only are the other countries (China and Russia and others) catching the US in terms of technology (see China's newest fighters and submarines) but they greatly outnumber the USA (provided Putin imposes conscription, and that may work over there...). Furthermore, Europe is pretty small whereas China and Russia are two of the biggest countries and so far, every power that has tried to take down Russia couldn't (France - Napoleon and Nazis - Hitler) manage it.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
As for the Arab States, they might as well join Russia and kick out the "infidels" from their holy soil (i.e. USA's bases in Saudi Arabia). So, they can cut off the USA and Europe's supplies in oil (easy to do, stop sending cargos to their ports..., as easy as that). So, Russia can still have some and China as well.
Furthermore, China, to help Russia and also gain from a weakened West, will sell its US Gov't Bonds to crush the US currency for good. Oil shortages will cause its price to dramatically increase... and on and on.
It is possible..
Originally posted by: Genx87
I thought we had about 100,000 troops in Germany? I know there were plans to cut them a few years back but no idea if they went through?
Originally posted by: Genx87
I thought we had about 100,000 troops in Germany? I know there were plans to cut them a few years back but no idea if they went through?
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Genx87
I thought we had about 100,000 troops in Germany? I know there were plans to cut them a few years back but no idea if they went through?
we have around 75K. but that is not all combat troops most are support.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.
Not at all, man.
Seriously, looking at the USA's past three big wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, its power is widely overstated. Not only are the other countries (China and Russia and others) catching the US in terms of technology (see China's newest fighters and submarines) but they greatly outnumber the USA (provided Putin imposes conscription, and that may work over there...). Furthermore, Europe is pretty small whereas China and Russia are two of the biggest countries and so far, every power that has tried to take down Russia couldn't (France - Napoleon and Nazis - Hitler) manage it.
The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).
As for the Arab States, they might as well join Russia and kick out the "infidels" from their holy soil (i.e. USA's bases in Saudi Arabia). So, they can cut off the USA and Europe's supplies in oil (easy to do, stop sending cargos to their ports..., as easy as that). So, Russia can still have some and China as well.
Furthermore, China, to help Russia and also gain from a weakened West, will sell its US Gov't Bonds to crush the US currency for good. Oil shortages will cause its price to dramatically increase... and on and on.
It is possible..
What China submarine can even hold a candle to the Virginia or Seawolf class, let alone a modern 688? none.
What Chinese or Russian aircraft can hold a candle to an F-22 flight? none. Sure, they have pretty demonstrations in Russia, but no ability to actually afford to equip their military.
Casualties? We've had less than 2% casualties in Iraq. Big fucking deal. What was the number of casualties Russia sustained in Afghanistan? Urban warfare with a disaggregated army has never been easy, history has proven that.
Many B-2's crashing? One has crashed, where are the rest?
Poorly trained? we have the best trained military in the world. Only the best units from Israel, GB, or Germany, could match the upper level (not best) units in the US. Volunteer armies not being better?
What the fuck are you smoking? Professional volunteer armies have shown to be the best armies in the world throughout history. Conscript armies are nothing more than meatshield armies and have been proven as such. They depend on officers too much and give too little weight to the professional non-com structure. Sounds like you're an idiot reading websites with little appreciation for history.
The ME wouldn't dare kick us out. As far as selling the bonds. Great, sell them. We'll buy them back for pennies on the dollar and retire them. meanwhile, those foreign governments will lose trillions. It'll make our goods immensely cheap and unburden the US economy from interest payments. Oil may be a problem, but it's a smaller one than anything else, considering we can innovate around it pretty quickly.
Now you fail at economics.
It's funny that you think you know so much, but really, know so little.