ITT: I will answer questions about military equipment/history. by Kurayami - Page 7 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page ITT: I will answer questions about military equipment/history.
Page 7 of 13
Thread Tools
Gandalf
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
121 - 12-22-2008, 04:02
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by james View Post
kura what do you think the future of warfare is?

more low intensity, asymmetrical conflicts like iraq?

will we ever see large scale battles and massive sweeping invasions like WW2?
I guess desert storm wasn't massive enough for you?
 
Gandalf is offline
 
Sponsored Links
JodoFett
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
122 - 12-22-2008, 04:05
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf View Post
Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those crazy Jews always getting themselves into trouble.
 
JodoFett is offline
 
Gandalf
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
123 - 12-22-2008, 04:14
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurayami View Post
The top two scoring pilots were Russian.

Regardless of any fudged numbers, I think that says enough in terms of direct comparisons.
That doesn't mean anything. The majority of russian "aces" inflated their numbers shooting down bombers, while F-86 pilots shot down other migs almost exclusively. Even the most conservative estimates call the ratio at 1.3:1, which means in the end, we shot down more of them then they did us.

And it's comparing apples and oranges in trying to say one is better than the other. One was designed for turn fights, the other for boom and zoom. They both excelled at what they were designed for.
 
Gandalf is offline
 
MC Hamster
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
124 - 12-22-2008, 04:22
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurayami View Post
It's pretty ****ty.
As far as I know, they're still driving around Leo 1s.
Australia took delivery of their first M1A1s a couple of years ago, we're all Abrams, now.... and ours run Diesel, not kero The ASLAV is an very popular variant of the LAV-25.. especially in Iraq, where the Air Conditioning they're standard with (they were expected to be operating in the Australian desert, but Iraq's will do, too)

Quote:
I think they just got M109s for mobile arty within the past year or so as well.
Not that I've heard of. I think we're still vacant in the SP Arty stakes.. M198s and L119s.. there's a project around that's looking for one, but I don't think any US designs are in the short-list (Actually.. wikipedia says: PzH 2000 (Germany/Netherlands), K9 Thunder (South Korea), G6 (South Africa), Bofors ARCHER (Sweden). The 777 is in there for towed guns, though.



Other than that, there's the modernising of the air force - we've recently picked up some C5s for our heavy lift (mainly for the Abrams, I believe), and there's a deal to pick up some Super Hornets, though I think that may be being reviewed (which makes sense - the main advantages of the E/F over the A/Bs we operate centre around carrier operations - and we don't run any carriers.

We're part of the JSF project, and will be fielding F35s when they're finally done.. Assuming the government doesn't get cold feet on that one, too. There's still an amount of talk of trying to get hold of F22s, which would be interesting since the US doesn't want to export them...

There's also the new ARH Tigers for armed recon and light gunship duties.

Navally speaking, we've got a fairly light weight fleet: a bunch of missile frigates with helipads is about the biggest we go. That said, there's two "Wasp" style amphib assault ships on the drawing board, and speculation of modifying our JSF order to include some B variants to operate off them, turning them effectively into mini-carriers (that maintain that amphibious assault capability, too).


So.. yeah, things aren't too bad at present, though there's certainly some gaps that have opened over the years. Much of that is being addressed though and should be sorted in the next 5-10 years.

Bear in mind we have a population the size of New York City, so we're never going to be heavyweights in the international arena. That said, we're probably the strongest power in the region (S.E Asia & the South Pacific), and we do our little 'Deputy Down Under' bit here fairly well. No doubt though that we rely on that ANZUS alliance for our overall strategic defence, contributing what and where we can to aid you guys out in shooting up whatever part of the world is currently pissing you off. We've still got troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (including the SASR, who pretty much live for that sort of deep, extended recon stuff).


We're not really set up for big wars. We just don't have the manpower for that. Instead, I get the feeling the strategic goal is to be able to help out with those ancillary roles.. Backing up and assisting the US in those larger scale conflicts, as well as working independently on smaller scale stuff... Regional peacekeeping, that sort of thing. Rapid reaction to more 'skirmish' type stuff - which is where I think those amphib ships will come in really handy in future.
 
MC Hamster is offline
 
Cav Scout
VeteranXX
Old
125 - 12-22-2008, 04:30
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurayami View Post
Who won?
Of course, I won. I'm the baddest human being on the planet. I maintain that philosophy always. If someone beats me in hand to hand combat, I will do whatever it takes to reclaim my throne.

It's the warrior philosophy. I will never be subdued. I play dirty.
 
Cav Scout is offline
 
MC Hamster
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
126 - 12-22-2008, 04:46
Reply With Quote
But.. questions:

* What is your opinion on the Tirpitz Plan, and do you see any relevance from it with todays asymmetrical conflicts?

* Given that the US military derives such a significant portion of its strength from the money that is fed into it from the US economy, at what point does "the economy" become a military target? If a ball-bearing factory can be a military target because its output goes into military equipment, is it not possible for a bank to be a military target for the same reasons? A Stock Exchange? Any business which provides tax dollars which fund the military? Where is the line between civilian and military?

* With that, along with lessons in propaganda and management of public opinion from Vietnam onward in mind: do you draw a distinction between guerrilla warfare and terrorism, and if so, where?
 
MC Hamster is offline
 
hyperlite
VeteranXV
Old
127 - 12-22-2008, 04:56
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MC Hamster View Post
But.. questions:

* What is your opinion on the Tirpitz Plan, and do you see any relevance from it with todays asymmetrical conflicts?

* Given that the US military derives such a significant portion of its strength from the money that is fed into it from the US economy, at what point does "the economy" become a military target? If a ball-bearing factory can be a military target because its output goes into military equipment, is it not possible for a bank to be a military target for the same reasons? A Stock Exchange? Any business which provides tax dollars which fund the military? Where is the line between civilian and military?

* With that, along with lessons in propaganda and management of public opinion from Vietnam onward in mind: do you draw a distinction between guerrilla warfare and terrorism, and if so, where?
whoa you need to slow your thought process and drink a nice cold fosters
 
hyperlite is offline
 
TachikomaPilot
Veteran++
Old
128 - 12-22-2008, 05:23
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurayami View Post
Yes.

However

It would have resulted in a division of Japan similar to what was seen in Germany. Projections also factor in approximately ~1,000,000 additional total casualties (that's just for Operation Downfall--it does not factor in a Soviet landing on the main islands.)
The USSR declared war on Japan AFTER Japan surrendered, so would the USSR have declared war at all had Japan not surrendered and fought on?

EDIT: Also is the McCollum Memo proof that FDR provoked a war with japan to get the U.S. involved in WW2?

Why do you say that the YF23 is better than the F22 when the F22 is considered more agile? (As per the almighty Wiki)

And finally, do you think that secret failed aircraft projects (such as aircraft powered by liquid sodium)will ever be revealed by the U.S. government?
 
TachikomaPilot is offline
 
Last edited by TachikomaPilot; 12-22-2008 at 05:27..
Noumenon
VeteranXX
Old
129 - 12-22-2008, 05:39
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav Scout View Post
Of course, I won. I'm the baddest human being on the planet. I maintain that philosophy always. If someone beats me in hand to hand combat, I will do whatever it takes to reclaim my throne.

It's the warrior philosophy. I will never be subdued. I play dirty.
Jesus, its like you were BORN in "the Haven".
 
Noumenon is offline
 
HomeSlice
VeteranX
Old
130 - 12-22-2008, 05:47
Reply With Quote
Dear Kura,

I have an academic pointless question for you.

If you took 4 M1A1 tanks, crewed by the nerd-virgins of TW and put them up against Michael Wittmann with 1 Tiger tank, who would win?

Love,
HomeSlice
 
HomeSlice is offline
 
TachikomaPilot
Veteran++
Old
131 - 12-22-2008, 05:49
Reply With Quote
I heard that hand to hand combat training (LINE, MCMAP) in the military is ineffective in real life. Is that true?
 
TachikomaPilot is offline
 
james
VeteranX
Old
132 - 12-22-2008, 06:14
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TachikomaPilot View Post
I heard that hand to hand combat training (LINE, MCMAP) in the military is ineffective in real life. Is that true?
depends on what you want...
 
james is offline
 
james
VeteranX
Old
133 - 12-22-2008, 06:30
Reply With Quote
I'll add on to that: A large portion in determining the victory in hand to hand combat is the determination on the part of the winner.

The desire and will to do everything necessary to destroy your enemy in close combat.

A "violence of action" as Musashi put it in another thread (On another subject he was speaking, but it is still relevant)

Your best bet when engaging to hand to hand combat is that your tenacity is several measures higher than your opponents, who does not truly wish to battle to the death (or even serious injury) and that your action will quickly overwhelm them in to submission
 
james is offline
 
Last edited by james; 12-22-2008 at 06:32..
MC Hamster
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
134 - 12-22-2008, 06:35
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TachikomaPilot View Post
The USSR declared war on Japan AFTER Japan surrendered, so would the USSR have declared war at all had Japan not surrendered and fought on?

Why do you say that the YF23 is better than the F22 when the F22 is considered more agile? (As per the almighty Wiki)
I won't answer for Kura, but my understanding of it was that the USSR was gearing up to go at Japan. Finishing it all off before they joined and gained a say in any surrender terms was one of the main reasons for the nukes.

As to the 22/23 thing:

Yes, with the vectored thrust, the 22 is more agile than the 23. What's the point of that, though? The days of a fighter needing to get onto their opponents tail in extreme dogfights are long gone. The question that needs to be asked is: is the 22 more agile than the missile that's locked onto it? To which the answer is: no. It's also low speed maneuverability, where the major point of the plane was the ability to spend most of its life above mach 1. So it's really a moot point, and was not a priority in the initial ATF requirements.

The 23 was more stealthy - particularly in the IR stakes. The exhausts of the 23 allowed for much greater mixing of cool air into the exhaust, especially from underneath. The vaunted vectoring nozzles of the 22 do nothing whatsoever for that, and although it has a fairly low (though reportedly still not as low as the 23) radar signature, it's still quite painfully obvious to a thermal seeker.

Their performance figures are still classified, I believe, but what did make it out was that the 23 was slightly faster - a fact most likely to its more aerodynamic airframe. The 22 - built by Lockheed, uses an evolution of the stealth measures used for the F117 - it's quite angular (even though it's been smoothed out). The 23 - built by Northrop, is an evolution of the principles behind the B2: it's a lot smoother, more rounded. It makes a lot of use of body lift as well. It also had a larger internal fuel capacity to go with that, which would have given it a far greater combat radius and CAP endurance, while reducing the need for in-flight refueling, which is no small thing with the strain on the tanker fleet at the moment.

Where the 23 fell down was its cost. Unfortunately, Northrop hadn't learned Lockheed's trick of quoting some random figure for a price in the quote, then jacking it up after the deal's done. Lockheed won the contract, and the cost soared almost immediately. That's not to say Northrop would have been any different: the B2 wound up being a lot more expensive than originally envisioned.

So yeah. The one single advantage (technical advantage) the 22 has over the 23 is its low-speed maneuverability, which wasn't actually "on the list" of things the USAF wanted, anyway.
 
MC Hamster is offline
 
Last edited by MC Hamster; 12-22-2008 at 06:45..
james
VeteranX
Old
135 - 12-22-2008, 06:42
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf View Post
I guess desert storm wasn't massive enough for you?
Desert Storm was 18 years ago. And we haven't had anything like that since, except the initial invasion of Iraq.
 
james is offline
 
MC Hamster
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
136 - 12-22-2008, 06:44
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeSlice View Post
Dear Kura,

I have an academic pointless question for you.

If you took 4 M1A1 tanks, crewed by the nerd-virgins of TW and put them up against Michael Wittmann with 1 Tiger tank, who would win?

Love,
HomeSlice
The 88mm gun on the Tiger could penetrate a maximum of something like 240mm of steel.

The frontal armor of an Abrams is an equivalent of over 900mm. Not sure about the rear.

It might be possible that a straight-on shot at point-blank range from the tiger would penetrate the ass end of an abrams... enough at least to immobilise it.


But then.... if the nerdvirgins had a clue, they could just sit in a nice little circle with their butts all covered by each other until night time, turn on the FLIR and... no more tiger.
 
MC Hamster is offline
 
veritas
Veteran4
Old
137 - 12-22-2008, 07:33
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MC Hamster View Post
It also had a larger internal fuel capacity to go with that, which would have given it a far greater combat radius and CAP endurance, while reducing the need for in-flight refueling, which is no small thing with the strain on the tanker fleet at the moment.

Where the 23 fell down was its cost. Unfortunately, Northrop hadn't learned Lockheed's trick of quoting some random figure for a price in the quote, then jacking it up after the deal's done. Lockheed won the contract, and the cost soared almost immediately. That's not to say Northrop would have been any different: the B2 wound up being a lot more expensive than originally envisioned.

So yeah. The one single advantage (technical advantage) the 22 has over the 23 is its low-speed maneuverability, which wasn't actually "on the list" of things the USAF wanted, anyway.
Exactly, and if the KC-45 project would have went through (and it looks like it's going to come back and NG will win it again) there wouldn't be as much of a strain because the aging tankers would get rotated to retirement pretty quickly. But Boeing, as always whined as always because they couldn't keep up. Regardless of whether or not their data was 100% up to date (which you'd think they'd be making sure it was) they didn't provide the superior product, period. Let alone on schedule.

Lockheed has always fought dirty for contracts, but I suppose they have to considering the way they run their corporation. They really don't push the revenue numbers you'd expect considering how many high bid contracts they receive.

The YF-23 was actually looked at for an interim boming program not long ago, but I think it got scrapped.

Kura, if you enjoy military history and especially aviation so much why don't you look into becoming a pilot? I mean you are graduating with a bachelors in the not to distant future, right?
 
veritas is offline
 
Prophecy
VeteranXV
Old
138 - 12-22-2008, 07:43
Reply With Quote
What would you say the development cycle of US "cool" hardware is prior to its actual usage date ?

ie. How long was stealth technology in its usable form developed prior to actual combat usage.

And based on this, what can we expect from the US in the near to somewhat near future ?
 
Prophecy is offline
 
KittyCat
VeteranXX
Old
139 - 12-22-2008, 07:51
Reply With Quote
Kurayami what is the closest military base to your house in Tolland, CT?
 
KittyCat is offline
 
HatMan
VeteranX
Old
140 - 12-22-2008, 07:55
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyCat View Post
Kurayami what is the closest military base to your house in Tolland, CT?
It took 7 pages but now it's a real Kura thread.
 
HatMan is offline
 
Page 7 of 13
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page ITT: I will answer questions about military equipment/history.

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
kurayamiwar.com


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:32.