• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Army to Up-Armor Two More Brigades

beerftw said:
Yes they are used by the military, in a realistic assesment of what an all out war against a competent military would be like in an urban environment.

But do you have a counter to this argument, I doubt you do since you think amraams can be used to assault a country by carrier not knowing they are not carrier launched and they are also air to air meaning aircraft can not use them except against other aircraft.
Click to expand...
You said that to take the 75% sustained down to 50% and even 35% was acceptable if only to hold an urban area temporarily. Please substantiate your claim.
 
Tom Horn said:
You said that to take the 75% sustained down to 50% and even 35% was acceptable if only to hold an urban area temporarily. Please substantiate your claim.
Click to expand...

I never said bring 75% down to 50%, I said 50% down to 35% as a hypothetical. The army lists 75% as acceptable, they however always in every attempt aim to go vastly lower, every life not wasted and every expensive piece of gear not lost is for the better. I gave a hypothetical where a 50% loss occurred but technology could drop it to 35%, which is a gain no matter how you look at it, while you are fixated on ignoring reality and challenging the army's 75% number which does not mean 75% will die in urban combat but rather they can expect up to 75% and still consider it a victory due to how urban combat is fought.
 
beerftw said:
I never said bring 75% down to 50%, I said 50% down to 35% as a hypothetical. The army lists 75% as acceptable, they however always in every attempt aim to go vastly lower, every life not wasted and every expensive piece of gear not lost is for the better. I gave a hypothetical where a 50% loss occurred but technology could drop it to 35%, which is a gain no matter how you look at it, while you are fixated on ignoring reality and challenging the army's 75% number which does not mean 75% will die in urban combat but rather they can expect up to 75% and still consider it a victory due to how urban combat is fought.
Click to expand...
” the army lists “ yet, you had no idea that a strap affixed to your sidearm is required during urban combat.
 
When you go to the range, what type of strap do you use?
 
Tom Horn said:
” the army lists “ yet, you had no idea that a strap affixed to your sidearm is required during urban combat.
Click to expand...

The army does not call it a strap you moron, it is a sling, it is to be in the low ready position reguardless, you seem to be the most ignorant person I have ever run across posting in the military forums.
 
Tom Horn said:
When you go to the range, what type of strap do you use?
Click to expand...

The military uses a sling not a strap, this was pointed out to you in another thread, either way a sling is not essential for a range, a sling is essential to secure a rifle in a manner it leaves both hands free but could be used in a rapid manner if needed.
 
It took you that long to find out that it’s called a sling? Carry on. I’ve got drying paint to attend to.
 
Tom Horn said:
It took you that long to find out that it’s called a sling? Carry on. I’ve got drying paint to attend to.
Click to expand...

I pointed it out in the other thread and plenty of time after I posted such you still called it a strap, sorry I have military experience and you just have none, as no one who served in the military would use terms you have.
 
Tom Horn said:
” the army lists “ yet, you had no idea that a strap affixed to your sidearm is required during urban combat.
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about. I have been to combat in urban environments multiple times. Not once was there a strap on my sidearm.
 
Last edited:
beerftw said:
The army does not call it a strap you moron, it is a sling, it is to be in the low ready position reguardless, you seem to be the most ignorant person I have ever run across posting in the military forums.
Click to expand...


I honestly have zero idea what he is talking about, mostly because it's nonsense. And a sidearm refers to a pistol not a rifle so he is either not talking about a song or he doesn't know what a sidearm is.
 
beerftw said:
Cities do negate technology somewhat, however technology can improve odds. But in reality the us govt considers 75% loss as still being a victory in urban combat, this is based off of how deadly urban combat is, and thankfully we have been fighting insurgents in urban combat rather than an organized military force, as such fights get brutal no matter how well trained a military is.

If 75% is an acceptable loss, and lets say if we had to fight a real army in urban combat and suffered a 50% loss while they suffered a 90% loss, and some high tech stuff dropped us down to a 35% loss, I would say the tech is not worthless.
Click to expand...

Maybe a better approach would be to not fight in cities. They can be bypassed and isolated.
 
Waddy said:
Maybe a better approach would be to not fight in cities. They can be bypassed and isolated.
Click to expand...

They really can not just be bypassed it is not that simple. Now against less equipped enemies especially those without nightvision, night time combat is a highly effective way to reduce combat casualties in urban environments.
 
beerftw said:
They really can not just be bypassed it is not that simple. Now against less equipped enemies especially those without nightvision, night time combat is a highly effective way to reduce combat casualties in urban environments.
Click to expand...

I read where the Russians have copied our best night vision technology.
 
Waddy said:
I read where the Russians have copied our best night vision technology.
Click to expand...

Russians already had nvg tech, What they tried to copy was integration between the low and high spectrums so green nvg vision and thermal could be integrated into one device. Russia has been able to keep up for quite some time on both thermal and nvg, but has been using them as seperate devices, which means more gear to carry and more logistics, while america has made the same tech merged in some devices and made them smaller and lighter.

However with third world countries where night time fighting is often used in urban combat, gen 1 and gen 2 are all that is available, gen one russian nvg is widely available, but is pretty crappy, But russia has stockpiles of them because during the soviet union first gen nvg tech was a fraction of the cost, and with a giant military to arm they needed cost cutting somewhere. Second gen I have rarely seen available through russia as their military still widely uses it for general forces where more expensive nvg's are not needed. Gen 2 is available through the civilian market but gen 1 russian surplus can cost around 300 bucks a set, gen 2 russian surplus or civilian can cost around 1500-10k a set, not something your average ragtag insurgent can spring for.
 
beerftw said:
Russians already had nvg tech, What they tried to copy was integration between the low and high spectrums so green nvg vision and thermal could be integrated into one device. Russia has been able to keep up for quite some time on both thermal and nvg, but has been using them as seperate devices, which means more gear to carry and more logistics, while america has made the same tech merged in some devices and made them smaller and lighter.

However with third world countries where night time fighting is often used in urban combat, gen 1 and gen 2 are all that is available, gen one russian nvg is widely available, but is pretty crappy, But russia has stockpiles of them because during the soviet union first gen nvg tech was a fraction of the cost, and with a giant military to arm they needed cost cutting somewhere. Second gen I have rarely seen available through russia as their military still widely uses it for general forces where more expensive nvg's are not needed. Gen 2 is available through the civilian market but gen 1 russian surplus can cost around 300 bucks a set, gen 2 russian surplus or civilian can cost around 1500-10k a set, not something your average ragtag insurgent can spring for.
Click to expand...

Insurgents don't "spring" for much of anything; they have sponsors. Those sponsors supply them with what they are willing to give up, so sometimes first class but sometimes old stuff. One great advantage an insurgent often has is they are fighting in a city they know well. And they can blend in. They know where the IED's are, and who will help them. Often, we don't know friend from foe. And fighting street by street in a large urban area can become quickly disorienting. Despite all this talk about the advantages of technology, urban fighting will always mean lots of body bags. Maybe a few less if the technology really works, but still an incredibly dangerous place to be fighting. And insurgents are usually only too willing to trade causalities. We aren't; that is why we pulled out of Vietnam. And jungle warfare is a lot like urban warfare as far as causalities go. The US Army isn't built for either. Put them on an open desert or the plains of Eastern Europe and they excel.
 
braindrain said:
I honestly have zero idea what he is talking about, mostly because it's nonsense. And a sidearm refers to a pistol not a rifle so he is either not talking about a song or he doesn't know what a sidearm is.
Click to expand...

In Somalia we had Lanyards on our Berettas. Maybe that is what he was thinking. But we never called them straps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom