What do you think is the baddest ass piece of military hardware? - Page 8

Ted Striker · January 4, 2004, 20:40

what kind of answer is taht dickhead

Verto · January 4, 2004, 20:42

It appears to be from the MLRS Rocket Artillery System, which can, if I remember correctly, fire 12 missiles under 60 seconds, to a distance of 30 kilometers.

I just recently did a bit of research on em.

Ted Striker · January 4, 2004, 20:44

well you guys do know there is a lazer out that is mad powerful

Verto · January 4, 2004, 20:46

Yes, but it only works when the hidden US base on the moon is facing the planet.

Ted Striker · January 4, 2004, 20:47

this ain't no joke player

Lonestar · January 4, 2004, 20:49

Yes, yes it is.

Verto · January 4, 2004, 20:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
this ain't no joke player

Neither was my comment. Oh, you must not be cleared for that...

Ted Striker · January 4, 2004, 20:49

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/12/airborne.laser/

Lonestar · January 4, 2004, 20:50

So it's a laser that can stun the navigational abilities of a ICBM.

Sikander · January 4, 2004, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Were did Wittmann fight? did he kill rooskies or yanks?

Mostly Ruskiye, but he also made an appearance near Caen and took out about a dozen British Shermans singlehandedly. He was killed (assumed killed anyway) in a carpet bombing later in the Normandy Campaign.

Pekka · January 4, 2004, 20:55

I'd say... me!

Ted Striker · January 4, 2004, 20:56

not sure if the goal is to disable it or blow it up

but the reason they are using a laser is that they can lock onto the target and hold onto it while they blast it repeatedly, instead of going for a "hit and miss" approach

Quote:

The high-power laser is coupled with a revolutionary optical system capable of focusing a basketball-sized spot of heat that can burn through a missile skin from hundreds of miles away.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-02b.html

Verto · January 4, 2004, 20:57

I think you are violating the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.

Lonestar · January 4, 2004, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
I think you are violating the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.

Not in Finland

Jack_www · January 4, 2004, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph
Now Serb is not going to like this but it would not be stalemate, I assured you.
Russia, 134 million pop. 50% or so are woman. 62 million men left. How many under 50 years of age?
Let's say 50%. 31 million to fight.
US, 280 million pop. 51% are woman. 135 million men.
I think it up to 54% are under 50. About 66 to 68 million are able to fight. That is about 2 to 1 for the USA.

The best equipment is still the F-14, 15, 16, and 18. They have never lost a air to air battle while being flown by US pilot. The best Tank is the M1A2. They have never lost a battle with an another tank.

Remember the first Gulf War, and you saw the picture of the highway with all of the bomb out vehicle, well there is this guy who was there, now working with me, and he told me, that picture was only part of it. He said it was far worse than they were allow to show.

Serb the F-117 that was shot down because the people on the ground saw the plane. Maybe it was not dark enough or the plane was to low or what ever, but they saw it with their eyes and fired the missile and shot it down. If you can see it, you can shoot at it. If you cannot see it, it petty hard to shoot at.

Also the SU-30 is just an update of the SU-27.

First I am not talking about modern day Russia, I am talking about the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has 233 million or so people before it broke up. So during the cold war it had close to the same population as the United States.

Second the Soviet Union had a massive armed force. It was huge. They also enaged in the draft even in peacetime. Yet their training was not as good as US troops training.

Thrid, there was a M1 Abrams tank lost in the Gulf War, or least it was dissabled. A tank was told to watch over some POWs, and their was a T-72 near by that they did not know about and was able to dissable their tank. The crew survived though. Russia, unlike Iraq, can use the same depleted uranium round that the US uses. That can go through any armor know today. Like I said, the main reason why the US did not lose so many tanks was that they out ranged the Iraq tanks. Also Iraq had not airforce to speak of while the Soviets had a huge airforce.

Also if you think about it, none of the US modern fighters have really enaged in much air to air battles with other fighters in a long time. So since they have been tested you cant know for sure. Also why do you think they want to replace all their air superiority fighters with the F-22?

Ted Striker · January 4, 2004, 21:36

so we can kick more azz

MattyBoy · January 4, 2004, 23:57

The battering ram used in Return of the King to breach the outer defenses of Minas Tirith.

Kuciwalker · January 5, 2004, 00:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
Yes, but it only works when the hidden US base on the moon is facing the planet.

The same side of the moon always faces the planet

Serb · January 5, 2004, 00:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www

can you tell us? I really dont know.

It's reconnaissance AFV "Stalker" made with use of stealth technology. It's joint project of Byelorussian and Russian developers. Agile, stealthy and deadly.

Serb · January 5, 2004, 00:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Something new for US military? Saw a story somewhere... Can't recall the name, though.

Nope, it's something new for Russian military.
http://www.minotor-service.com/index...age=2t&lang=en

Kingof the Apes · January 5, 2004, 01:09

Now this is interesting:
http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm

Serb · January 5, 2004, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph
Now Serb is not going to like this but it would not be stalemate, I assured you.
Russia, 134 million pop. 50% or so are woman. 62 million men left. How many under 50 years of age?
Let's say 50%. 31 million to fight.
US, 280 million pop. 51% are woman. 135 million men.
I think it up to 54% are under 50. About 66 to 68 million are able to fight. That is about 2 to 1 for the USA.

In accordance with newest statistic data in 2003, in Russian Federation lived 147 millions.
In 1991, in Soviet Union lived 291 millions.

Quote:

The best equipment is still the F-14, 15, 16, and 18. They have never lost a air to air battle while being flown by US pilot. The best Tank is the M1A2. They have never lost a battle with an another tank.

They never fought versus their Russian counterparts (Su-27, Su-30, T-80U, T90) piloted by Russians.

Quote:

Remember the first Gulf War, and you saw the picture of the highway with all of the bomb out vehicle, well there is this guy who was there, now working with me, and he told me, that picture was only part of it. He said it was far worse than they were allow to show.

Had Iraqis American equipment of 80's, the result would be the same.

Quote:

Serb the F-117 that was shot down because the people on the ground saw the plane. Maybe it was not dark enough or the plane was to low or what ever, but they saw it with their eyes and fired the missile and shot it down. If you can see it, you can shoot at it. If you cannot see it, it petty hard to shoot at.

I just curious, where did you get those details?

Quote:

Also the SU-30 is just an update of the SU-27.

In this case F-15 is just an update of the F-4.

Serb · January 5, 2004, 02:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278

Breaking a treaty - One party to the treaty unilaterally refusing to fulfill a treaty obligation without cause or never intending to fulfill them in the first place. (example: German violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 to attack the Soviet Union)

Withdrawing from a treaty - Giving notice, within the provisions of the treaty, that you no longer wish to be bound by the terms of the treaty after a specified time. (example: DeGaulle taking France out of NATO)

The difference, you see, is that breaking a treaty is generally considered illegal and dishonorable. Withdrawing from a treaty, however, is entirely legal when allowed by that treaty, another treaty, or by consent of the parties to the treaty.

So, to bring it all together, President Bush withdrawing the US from the ABM Treaty is entirely legal because the provisions of the treaty allow it as long as formal notice was given.

Hope that helps.

I know the difference, but I guess I've made a mistake. You said - "Our (USA) track record is still better in that regard" and I thought you're saying that Russia brake/withdraw from treaties more often than USA. That's why I asked you to bring an example when we broke a treaty last time.

Serb · January 5, 2004, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Vince278

I'm sure they didn't think of themselves as traitors.

Who cares what think about themselves. They are traitors in accordance with law.

Serb · January 5, 2004, 03:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
It appears to be from the MLRS Rocket Artillery System, which can, if I remember correctly, fire 12 missiles under 60 seconds, to a distance of 30 kilometers.

Russian MLRS Smerch (Tornado), fire 12 guided missiles under 38 seconds to a distance of 70 km, covering an area of 672 000 square meters.

BOOM!!!.