Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 215

Thread: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

  1. #101
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Purdy much what I just said.
    If you can't read sure.

    Tankers don't work that way. It wouldn't be crazy, it would be friggin stupid, esepcially since tankers don't have any defensive armaments.
    Tankers can drop their fuel in an emergency. And it would be crazy to actually use a tanker like that. That said, it does have the capacity to be ground support and defensive weapons are irrelevant here.

    So, no, not any aircraft can be a ground support aircraft, of the same caliber of an A-10.
    Did I say any aircraft can be of the same caliber of close ground support as A-10? No. I did not. Read more carefully. I said that basically any aircraft can be ground support. There's a difference between close ground support and merely ground support. I suggest you learn it.

    Don't attempt to lecture me on A-10s. I know how they work. You need in the future to differentiate close ground support with mere ground support. You appear to understand it now, do so in the future.

    8 million troops died during the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqi army wasn't a joke. Anyone that thinks so has zero understanding of combat opwer and it's employment on the battlefield.
    Actually yes, Iraq's army was a joke. Iran had a seriously subpar military after sanctions and military purges. Reliance upon unarmed human waves drastically increased casualties in the war. Sending unarmed boys against machine gun nests and mine fields will increases total dead. It does not mean Iraq's military was good. By your measure, sending civil war soldiers against WWI machine guns means that the army with machine guns is good in today's battlefield. No, it's not. Iraq's army was a joke as evident by its crushing defeat in Desert Storm. 3 years later Iraq was pulverized. Anyone who thinks Iraq's military wasn't a joke has zero understanding of combat power and it's employment on the battlefield.

    10 years ago, maybe. That's a big maybe, since the Israelis have never deployed forces outside the ME.
    Which is irrelevant to the discussion. Israel has dealt with asymmetrical warfare on a large scale for far longer then the US has.

    All the technology on earth isn't going to take away from the fact that you can win a war from the air. The only way to win it, is to put infantry soldiers on the ground.
    Wrong again. You can "win" a war from a desk in the sense of reducing your enemy's capacity to fight to rubble. What you cannot do is take and hold territory. Well, at the moment that is. A robot army controlled remotely could in theory achieve an occupation.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #102
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    the other cost of war, today: 31 Americans Killed in Afghanistan

    A military helicopter crashed in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops and seven Afghan commandos, the country's president said Saturday. An American official said it was apparently shot down, in the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.

    The Taliban claimed they downed the helicopter with rocket fire while it was taking part in a raid on a house where insurgents were gathered in the province of Wardak late Friday. It said wreckage of the craft was strewn at the scene.

    NATO confirmed the overnight crash took place and that there "was enemy activity in the area." But it said it was still investigating the cause and conducting a recovery operation at the site. It did not release details or casualty figures.

    "We are in the process of accessing the facts," said U.S. Air Force Capt. Justin Brockhoff, a NATO spokesman.

    But a senior U.S. administration official in Washington said it was apparently shot down. by insurgents. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the crash is still being investigated.

    The toll would surpass the worst single day loss of life for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001 - the June 28, 2005 downing of a military helicopter in eastern Kunar province. In that incident, 16 Navy SEALs and Army special operations troops were killed when their craft was shot down while on a mission to rescue four SEALs under attack by the Taliban. Three of the SEALs being rescued were also killed and the fourth wounded. It was the highest one-day death toll for the Navy Special Warfare personnel since World War II.
    pray

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    the other cost of war, today:

    pray
    Or bring them home.

  4. #104
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    If you can't read sure.
    I'm already sure. That's why I said it.



    Tankers can drop their fuel in an emergency. And it would be crazy to actually use a tanker like that. That said, it does have the capacity to be ground support and defensive weapons are irrelevant here.
    An refueling aircraft, in know way, can be a ground support aircraft. You've been watching too much TV. That's Hollyweird, nor reality.



    Did I say any aircraft can be of the same caliber of close ground support as A-10? No. I did not. Read more carefully. I said that basically any aircraft can be ground support. There's a difference between close ground support and merely ground support. I suggest you learn it.

    Don't attempt to lecture me on A-10s. I know how they work. You need in the future to differentiate close ground support with mere ground support. You appear to understand it now, do so in the future.
    Maybe you need to go back and read my posts, because you seem to be seriously hung up on the difference between close ground support and ground support. But, what you actually should be saying is, close air support and close air support is what I've been talking about all along and somehow you spun off into this tangent about refueling aircraft can be close air support aircraft.




    Actually yes, Iraq's army was a joke. Iran had a seriously subpar military after sanctions and military purges. Reliance upon unarmed human waves drastically increased casualties in the war. Sending unarmed boys against machine gun nests and mine fields will increases total dead. It does not mean Iraq's military was good. By your measure, sending civil war soldiers against WWI machine guns means that the army with machine guns is good in today's battlefield. No, it's not. Iraq's army was a joke as evident by its crushing defeat in Desert Storm. 3 years later Iraq was pulverized. Anyone who thinks Iraq's military wasn't a joke has zero understanding of combat power and it's employment on the battlefield.
    The Iraqi army had the potential to be a dangerous force. The reason they broke so quickly, is because we destroyed their command and control structure and their communications. Leadership and communications are two elements of combat power and without them, an army can't function. Had we not done that, Desert Storm would have turned into a slug fest.

    It boils down to, "combat power and it's employment on the battlefield".


    Which is irrelevant to the discussion. Israel has dealt with asymmetrical warfare on a large scale for far longer then the US has.
    Actually, Israel hasn't dealt with as much asymmetrical combat as the U.S. has. But, don't let reality get in the way of your spin.



    Wrong again. You can "win" a war from a desk in the sense of reducing your enemy's capacity to fight to rubble. What you cannot do is take and hold territory. Well, at the moment that is. A robot army controlled remotely could in theory achieve an occupation.
    You can't win a war from any place but the ground, with infantry units. No tactical treatise exists that suggests otherwise, nor will there ever be one that does.

  5. #105
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    An refueling aircraft, in know way, can be a ground support aircraft. You've been watching too much TV. That's Hollyweird, nor reality.
    I'm merely discussing the technical capabilities of a refueling to drop fuel. Basically it turns into a airborne flame thrower. Crazy? Absolutely. But I've said that three times which suggests you do not have good English comprehension skills.

    Maybe you need to go back and read my posts, because you seem to be seriously hung up on the difference between close ground support and ground support.
    Hardly, as usual, I'm pointing out where you went wrong.

    But, what you actually should be saying is, close air support and close air support is what I've been talking about all along and somehow you spun off into this tangent about refueling aircraft can be close air support aircraft.
    Hardly, only recently did you make a distinction between the two.

    The Iraqi army had the potential to be a dangerous force.
    So did the Zulus in the 1800s. Tell that to the British.

    The reason they broke so quickly, is because we destroyed their command and control structure and their communications. Leadership and communications are two elements of combat power and without them, an army can't function. Had we not done that, Desert Storm would have turned into a slug fest.
    Not entirely. The Iraqi military was poorly trained, poor disciplined, was using inferior weapons and used tactics that did not take into the effect modern precision weapons. The idiots dug tanks in without realizing it made them exceptionally easy to pick off from the air. And they learned the second time around. The Republican Guard rather then making a stand like they did in 1991, melted away in 2003 into the cities where they could harness their tactical advantages at the same time minimizing their opponents. Essentially they went into Desert Storm completely unprepared militarily, tactically and strategically. While it is absolutely true that the communication and command structure was poorly designed to actually fight a war as opposed to prevent a coup, NATO was basically fighting a vastly inferior enemy. Iraq's military was a joke coming out of the Iran-Iraq war. The fact they had to resort to chemical weapons to stop advancing unarmed children should tell you something.

    It boils down to, "combat power and it's employment on the battlefield".
    Fix your grammar. Periods go inside the quotation. And it's more then combat power.

    Actually, Israel hasn't dealt with as much asymmetrical combat as the U.S. has. But, don't let reality get in the way of your spin.
    Oh man. Tasha would rip you a new one on that comment. Apparently occupation of Lebanon for decades just doesn't count. Not to mention DOUBLE Palestinian uprisings. And apparently taking East Jerusalem doesn't count either.

    You can't win a war from any place but the ground, with infantry units. No tactical treatise exists that suggests otherwise, nor will there ever be one that does.
    Kosovo suggests otherwise. But that depends on how you define "winning."
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #106
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I'm merely discussing the technical capabilities of a refueling to drop fuel. Basically it turns into a airborne flame thrower. Crazy? Absolutely. But I've said that three times which suggests you do not have good English comprehension skills.
    No it doesn't. A tanker can't jettison fuel that way, plus their no way to ignite the fuel stream.





    Hardly, as usual, I'm pointing out where you went wrong.
    Like your claim that a KC-130 can be used as a flying flame thrower?



    Hardly, only recently did you make a distinction between the two.
    I mistakenly assumed that already knew the difference.



    So did the Zulus in the 1800s. Tell that to the British.
    The Zulus had repeating rifles and artillery? No? Didn't think so.



    Not entirely. The Iraqi military was poorly trained, poor disciplined, was using inferior weapons and used tactics that did not take into the effect modern precision weapons. The idiots dug tanks in without realizing it made them exceptionally easy to pick off from the air. And they learned the second time around. The Republican Guard rather then making a stand like they did in 1991, melted away in 2003 into the cities where they could harness their tactical advantages at the same time minimizing their opponents. Essentially they went into Desert Storm completely unprepared militarily, tactically and strategically. While it is absolutely true that the communication and command structure was poorly designed to actually fight a war as opposed to prevent a coup, NATO was basically fighting a vastly inferior enemy. Iraq's military was a joke coming out of the Iran-Iraq war. The fact they had to resort to chemical weapons to stop advancing unarmed children should tell you something.
    Of course they dug in their tanks. That what an army does when building a defensive line.

    It's called a, "defilade", and is common practice for protecting armored vehicles from direct fire.

    Hull-down - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The only problem the Iraqis had, was our air supremacy.


    Fix your grammar. Periods go inside the quotation. And it's more then combat power.
    My grammer? You don't even understand what combat power is, or how it relates to warfare.





    Oh man. Tasha would rip you a new one on that comment. Apparently occupation of Lebanon for decades just doesn't count. Not to mention DOUBLE Palestinian uprisings. And apparently taking East Jerusalem doesn't count either.
    How many Israeli troops served in Vietnam? Korea? The PTO? None, right?



    Kosovo suggests otherwise. But that depends on how you define "winning."
    Yeah, Kosovo proves that you can win a war from the air. We allowed the entire Serbian Army to march home, intact and under arms. Nothing was accomplished in Kosovo.

  7. #107
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    No it doesn't. A tanker can't jettison fuel that way, plus their no way to ignite the fuel stream.
    Apparently you never heard of a emergency dumping. Furthermore, they don't need to light it themselves. The ground support troops they are supporting can do that.

    By the way, due to your inability to comprehend English at an adult level, I'm going to say that this is for the fourth time, crazy.

    Like your claim that a KC-130 can be used as a flying flame thrower?
    Not in a sensible way. Oh wait, did I say it was a reasonable tactic or are you still unable to read properly? There seems to be a theme here. The more blindly partisan you are, the less you comprehend English.

    The Zulus had repeating rifles and artillery? No? Didn't think so.
    They also wiped out the British. Or are you unaware of that? Just as you are unaware of so many things?

    Of course they dug in their tanks. That what an army does when building a defensive line.
    Which is utterly retarded when your enemy has airborne dedicated tank killers.

    The only problem the Iraqis had, was our air supremacy.
    Hence why they went into Desert Storm completely unprepared.

    You are still wrong about Iraq's military not being a joke.

    My grammer? You don't even understand what combat power is, or how it relates to warfare.
    See above. I pointed out several items before you did. Seriously, why do I have to constantly correct your screw ups?

    How many Israeli troops served in Vietnam? Korea? The PTO? None, right?
    Korea was hardly an asymmetrical fight. The fact that you are bringing that up suggests you don't understand. Furthermore, Vietnam was both a conventional and unconventional war.

    You do know what asymmetrical warfare is no? Honestly, with you, I assume you don't considering your history.

    Yeah, Kosovo proves that you can win a war from the air. We allowed the entire Serbian Army to march home, intact and under arms. Nothing was accomplished in Kosovo.
    O'rly? Serbia's infrastructure was ruined. Bridges, power plants, military bases, roads, sewage, the list goes on and on. Its military was highly demoralized. In terms of actual operations, it couldn't move a tank once the KLA was serving as spotters for NATO aircraft. Sure, the early part of the conflict Serbs took relatively few losses, but that changed once the KLA got them to actually fight out in the open. The entire Serbian army was not intact nor under arms. War is hardly about just military assets being destroyed. What good is an army if you do not have the capacity to support it for any real length of time?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #108
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    Glad to see there is increased pressure for President Obama to adhere to our agreement with Iraq to have US troops out by the end of the year.

    93 Lawmakers Urge President Obama To Stick To Iraq Withdrawal Deadline

    "WASHINGTON -- As the United States and Iraq debate whether to keep American forces involved in the war beyond the end of the year, 93 members of Congress have signed a letter to President Obama urging him to stick by the planned withdrawal date.
    The letter was spearheaded by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Water Jones (R-N.C.), two of the leading voices pushing for a more rapid withdrawal in Afghanistan as well.
    "We are deeply concerned to learn that your Administration is considering plans to keep potentially thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year," the lawmakers wrote. "Extending our presence in Iraq is counterproductive -- the Iraqi people do not support our continued occupation. Remaining in Iraq would only further strengthen the perception that we are an occupying force with no intention of leaving Iraq."

    93 Lawmakers Urge President Obama To Stick To Iraq Withdrawal Deadline
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    09-14-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    879

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    They spend money in this way.

    $12 Billion For Them - 1.5 Million Homeless For Us

    Lilith
    - 7 days ago - rense.com

    Does anyone possess a clue as to why our U.S. government spends $12 billion every 30 days in Afghanistan and Iraq while 1.5 million of our citizens remain homeless and 13.4 million American children live in poverty?

    $12 Billion For Them - 1.5 Million Homeless For Us - Care2 News Network

  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: ‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Defense, along with entitlements, need to reduce themselves by at least 1/3rd over the next decade. We do not need war time level spending as the norm for our defense budget. Its not sustainable, nor intelligent, nor fiscally responsible, nor even necessary and would produce an atmosphere and beuracracy of waste as we move farther from the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will however be a slow trickle in a larger budget if entitlements aren't cut along side with it.
    George Washington got into a similar argument. He argued that the enemy ought to be considered when deciding just how much to spend on preparations for war. He won the argument.

Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •