dfa2c4a2-344a-448b-adea-ed0d9d5ad6a7-image.png
LOL Things the American Military has tried to make
-
If he does not reply to me with gibberish examples and commentary. Yea sure.
Note who starts problems first. That’s the problem.
So which is it?
A: Is the methodology Bad?
OR
B: Was Dieppe NOT as bad as Gallipoli?Neither, Garg is bad. LOL Win again!
-
2 men enter, 1 man leaves
-
Exactly :)
Leaves
-
Exactly Smiley
Leaves
[edited by GG, c’mon!] He didn’t say that.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
Wow… Tax dollars hard at work.
Hahahaha! :lol:
I tend to believe there is inherently less waste in military spending than elsewhere in the federal budget, but there are some damn stupid ideas out there.
-
This was a civil thread before I left for my doctors appointment. I come back to find Imperious Leader and ONLY Imperious Leader engaged in petty name calling.
I knew insane, off the wall examples would be presented. I guess i won my bet. That is not a battle moron. We are talking about Historical battles in History. You just disagree with anything i say and look stupid for it.
Calling a member of AA.org a “moron” and “look stupid for it” is unacceptable.
Garg has not engaged in name calling, there is only one here who is violating the spirit if not the rules of this place, that is Imperious Leader.
This thread was about silly military systems. There is only one troll here. Imperious Leader came in here and hijacked it by making a silly claim in a thread started by Garg which is the classic definition of troll.
This is the second time I am saying how ironic it is for Imperious Leader to be dropping the troll moniker. I suppose I should take screen shots of this thread before posts by Imperious Leader start vanishing again.
Imperious Leader, your moderating abilities and character in general are becoming a disappointment to me. I do appreciate the positive energy over the years you have contributed to the AA world. What has become of that person?
-
@Imperious:
Neither, Garg is bad. LOL Win again!
Hahahaha! Â :lol:
Nice… Quite intelligent. :roll:
-
Back to debating the trolling points at least and maybe if time permits the actual topic of this thread before it was hijacked/trolled.
The attack on Pearl Harbour lead to the the destruction of Imperial Japan, 100%. As a military plan, one where the results lead to the destruction of your empire 100% would be classified as a failure in my books if not the majority of non-trolls.
My example against your % loss metric of a 4 man squad versus D-Day was just an extreme example. A survey says even most trolls would understand this comparison. To imply that I thought Dieppe consisted of just 4 men and was 100% successful AND that that was what I was implying is just causes me to throw your hand up in the air in frustration. I will use logic.
Either you:
A) did
or
B) did not think this
Before you say it I know this is a tautology.
So if
A) then I greatly overestimated your intelligence
or
B) Then you are a troll
A or B, your reply is awaited Imperious.
-
When military spending results in darpanet that is money very well spent. I wonder though how comfortable some people are with what military research could lead to in so far as shaping society. DARPAnet begetting the internet is easy in retrospect. I wonder about energy independence and climate change research spending. If something requires a high risk, large investment and long term payout who better than the ‘government’?
I just wonder how many gay bomb projects are out there that live in the darkness that military secrets must live in?
-
@Imperious:
I also clarified that the methodology you are using is poor IL.
You didn’t clarify anything, instead i used your example against you. You can’t compare losses in battle by just identifying how many, because the battles have different numbers.
But you CAN identify total % of force lost to compare them. Singapore was a 100% force lost.
Yep clear winner…me LOL
Let’s look at these battles without the numbers. The U.S recoveried from it’s defeat in the Phillinies to exit the war as a world power. Singapore was the begining of the end of the British Empire.
-
The British Empire was in real decline when they had to fight Germany alone for awhile. Singapore I think was the road sign everyone finally could remember.
-
I agree but a truce was called. Lets note if it ends, who is the party that does that.
To do that you note who reply’s first to whom.
@ Crunch, sorry you got mad. I can only offer you my opinion of how to compare military defeats. It works for me because i am comparing battles, not 4 man commando operations where 4 dudes got shot, netting 100% lost. That is ridiculous example of how to twist an argument that was never submitted.
Nothing wrong with comparing two battles:
example: 500,000 men deployed and they lose 100,000
example: 100,000 men deployed and they lose 80,000The second battle is worse in terms of total force lost. That is an indication ( whether anybody likes it or not) of assessing how big of a military disaster can be compared with another.
If you just compare 100,000 to 80,000 you got no frame of reference.
Just like Romney’s taxes. He paid 2 million and another 4 million to charity. But he only paid 13% of his income in taxes. That’s why they never make the argument about raw numbers because you got no frame of reference. Everybody reports the % because it is the only manner where people who pay less can compare the rate that they pay to him.
Pretty basic stuff.
-
The U.S recovered from it’s defeat in the Philippines to exit the war as a world power. Singapore was the beginning of the end of the British Empire.
Right, but i am only interested in comparing the actual battles, rather than what developed from it. Regarding the example about Hawaii, which is true in terms of the ultimate victory, but Japanese defeat ALSO made them greater than ever in the post war period, so it can be argued ( if we entertain the notion that one battle must tie into a result years latter) that Japan did good to attack Hawaii because her defeat ended the half baked political philosophy that dominated the state. Democratization was the best thing Japan got from the war.
Who says you can only compare one time-frame, i say if you have such an argument it must also be for different periods.
-
This was a civil thread before I left for my doctors appointment. I come back to find Imperious Leader and ONLY Imperious Leader engaged in petty name calling.
Whatever, You guys are just made because IL said not nice things about Canada. :-D
Is there even a point to this thread any more, and if there is what was it to begin with? American military dose stupid things? Cause boy could we get way deeper down the rabbit hole then this, doing dumb things is one of the few things the US military excels at!
-
The thread certainly was not “American military dose (sic) stupid things”. Please read the thread carefully before going off half-cocked.
If you are correct in that:
You guys are just made because IL said not nice things about Canada.
Then that would be classic troll like behaviour. I think Cylde you are correct.
-
After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971, President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93-148) over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president’s claimed powers. Today, Congress recognizes no claimed power of the president to wage war outside of the War Powers Resolution. A Presidental decree does not mean we have declared war.
So does this in make Vietnam a declared war, or just a police action? Any thoughts on this?
-
So does this in make Vietnam a declared war, or just a police action? Any thoughts on this?
It makes it a new thread.
-
Il sorry about that. My fault.
Now for a really stupid US Army idea, Ever heard of this?
Over a period of three decades four successive generations of upgraded forward area air defense systems – from Mauler to Roland to Sgt. York to ADATS – were all canceled, at a total cost of more than $6.7 billion. The M247 Sergeant York DIVAD (Division Air Defence gun) was born of the Army’s need for a replacement for the ageing M163 20mm Vulcan A/A gun and M48 Chaparral missile systems. With the Soviet Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter being fitted with the longer range AT-6 SPIRAL Anti-tank missiles and twin barrelled 23mm cannon, and the Mi-28 Havoc nearing deployment, the M163 and M48 systems would be out-classed in a future conflict. In addition, the Soviet’s ZSU-23/4 SHILKA Quad 23mm A/A gun combined a radar with a proven gun fitted to an existing chassis resulting in a highly successful and lethal design.The new self-propelled anti-aircraft gun system was to be based on the M48A5 tank chassis, using as much off-the-shelf equipment as possible. Two designs were submitted, one from General Dynamics using twin 35mm Oerlikon cannon (as with the West German Leopard) and the other from Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation which utilised twin 40mm L/70 Bofors Guns. In May 1981 the Ford Aerospace entry was selected and designated M247 Sergeant York, featuring the twin 40mm guns mounted in a new box like armoured turret with both tracking and surveillance radar fitted atop, these could be folded down to reduce overall height. The gunner was provided with roof mounted sight incorporating a laser range-finder. the commander having a panoramic roof mounted periscope and fixed periscopes. The radar was a modified version of the Westinghouse APG-66 system used in the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
With the first production vehicles being delivered in late 1983 many problems remained, the most serious being the radar’s inability to track low flying targets due to excessive ground clutter. The radar could not distinguish between a hovering helicopter and a clump of trees. And when tracking high flying targets, the radar return from the gun barrel tips confused the fire control system. Turret traverse was also too slow to track a fast crossing target. The ECM (electronic counter-measures) suite could be defeated by only minor jamming. And the use of the 30 year old M48 chassis design meant the vehicle had trouble keeping pace with the newer M1 Abrams and M2/3 Bradley’s, the very vehicles it was designed to protect.
These problems proved insurmountable, and in December 1986 after about 50 vehicles had been produced the entire program was terminated.
-
Man you know alot about this. Holy crap. :-D
-
Another expensive US defense project which went nowhere was the AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow loitering anti-radiation missile. About 4 billion dollars were spent on it, for a total output of zero production models.
Suggested Topics
