quote:

jd writes "The University of Tokyo has developed the illusion of invisibility, under the name of 'Optical Camouflage.' The system is remarkably simple - you have a mix of light-sensitive and light-emitting devices attached to an adapted reflective surface. The devices are hooked to a computer, which simply projects on each side whatever is on the opposite side. The result is more of a translucent look, than real invisibility, but the potential is there. The inventer's next objective is to make walls that are invisible, using the same technology. Project a real outside image onto an interior wall without windows. This almost sounds more frightening than the cloak, since there's no reason why the sensors would have to be placed outside. Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube. Zero privacy. The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there." Update: 06/15 00:20 GMT by T: You may remember we mentioned this project when it was cloak-only

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:22 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Jeehee ik sta er ook op

Artikel over die Japanse cloaking apparaat.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/14/2252247
[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:22 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Jeehee ik sta er ook op

Artikel over die Japanse cloaking apparaat.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/14/2252247
[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:25 schreef Strijder het volgende:

[..]

Heb er een keertje een filmpje over gezien.


Maar dat was nep.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:26 schreef Wuder het volgende:
En voor de regenachtige zomer-vakantie dagen, waarbij je je beide benen hebt gebroken en al je vrienden op vakantie zijn, interessant leesvoer :


LEARNING FROM THE STONES: A Go APPROACH TO MASTERING CHINA'S STRATEGIC CONCEPT, SHI

Authored By: Dr. David Lai

Publication Details:
Publication Date: May 2004
Type: Monograph
Length: 35 pages
ISBN: 1-58487-158-X

Synopsis:
To help with the process of identifying those new and untested strategic concepts that merit further examination, the Strategic Studies Institute is publishing a special series called "Advancing Strategic Thought." This provides a venue--a safe haven--for creative, innovative, and experimental thinking about national security policy and military strategy. In this monograph, the author uses the ancient game of Go as a metaphor for the Chinese approach to strategy. He shows that this is very different than the linear method that underlies American strategy. By better understanding Go, he argues, American strategies could better understand Chinese strategy.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/00368.pdf

quote:

[b]Piro - woensdag 16 juni 2004 @ 23:17
quote:
Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 20:24 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Was een week geleden ofzo. Die prototype was extreem laag gebouw en de 'turret' was leeg. De twee bemanningsleden zaten in de romp.
[..]

VS kan niet op alle gebieden de koploper zijn, ook Amerika heeft beperkte bronnen. Wat ze op een gebied verliezen maken ze op een ander onderdeel meer dan goed. (Laserwapens, kruisraketten, etc.)

Natuurlijk niet, heb je ook volledig gelijk in, elk leger zijn eigen prioriteiten. Rusland heeft bij lange na de bling niet om met onzin zoals laser en railgunsystemen te klooien, maar even so: als met een technologisch minder geavanceerde voorraadkist en een kleiner budget een tank gecreerd kan worden die toch zoveel nieuwe snufjes heeft: wat let ze?
Ik bedoel, de VS wil zich altijd profileren als de meest geavanceerde legermacht, wat ze m.i. aardig lukt, maar op dit tempo worden ze ingehaald door een land met een fractie van hun defensiebegroting.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:26 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Ik zag het voor het eerst in Kijk.. nou eerlijk gezegd vond ik die gozer die het aanhad niet egt "onzichtbaar"...

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:32 schreef Wuder het volgende:
En ik vind trouwens dat je een google linkje naar Sun Tzu: The Art of War moet maken..

Hier alvast een site: http://www.sonshi.com/

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:34 schreef Piro het volgende:
Game on!
Plaatjes
M1A2 Abrams:
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]

M993
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]

M106 Paladin howitser
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]

M2A3 Bradley
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]


CVN 71 (USN)
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]

B1B (USAF)
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]

Ik ben de onbetwiste nieuwe plaatjeshoer.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:34 schreef Piro het volgende:

M106 Paladin howitser
[afbeelding]

quote:

PzH200

Lengte (zonder schietbuis) 8330 mm
Lengte (met schietbuis) 11630 mm.
Breedte 3560 mm.
Hoogte (minimaal) 3065 mm.
Hoogte (maximaal) 3460 mm (met mitrailleur en periscoop)
Gewicht 55 ton
Motor 8 cilinder diesel, 736kW
Bemanning 5 personen
Bewapening 155 mm L52
MAG 2000, mitrailleur
Rookgranaatwerpers
De PzH2000 zal vanaf 2005 de M-109 A2/90 gaan vervangen. De instroming zal gefaseerd plaatsvinden. Elk jaar wordt er één afdeling veldartillerie omgeschoold. De planning van begin 2003 is, dat in 2007 de eerste van de drie afdelingen veldartillerie voorzien is van de PzH2000. In 2008 en 2009 volgen de andere twee.
Elke afdeling zal 18 stuks tot zijn beschikking krijgen. Drie voertuigen voor algemene reserve, maakt dat het totaal aantal op 57 stuks uitkomt. De grootste verbeteringen ten opzichte van de M-109 A2/90 zijn de verdere dracht, betere bepantsering, betere terreinvaardigheid en hogere vuursnelheid. Door het geautomatiseerde laden van de 45-50 kg zware projectielen, zijn ook de arbeidsomstandigheden sterk verbeterd.
De dracht van de PzH2000 bedraagt afhankelijk van de gebruikte projectielen tussen de 30 en de 40 km, waar de M-109 A2/90 een dracht van 18 km had.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:41 schreef Wuder het volgende:
niet goed opgelet in de OP

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:27 schreef Strijder het volgende:

[..]

Natuurlijk weten we nog niet 10 % van wat er in de laboratoria ligt, maar de VS is echt niet zo heel ver voor op andere landen hoor.
En vaak zijn de meest simpele dingen het beste, dus heb je bijvoorbeeld net een dure nieuwe tank, komen de Russen met 152 mm, dag nieuwe tank.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:44 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]

De linker:
[..]

quote:

The M109A6 Paladin is capable of firing up to four rounds per minute to ranges of 30 kilometers. The Paladin features increased survivability characteristics such as day/night operability, NBC protection with climate control and secure voice and digital communications. The crew remains in the vehicle throughout the mission.

quote:

The M109A2/A3/A4 howitzers uses M185 cannon and achieves a range of 23,500 meters.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:36 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Heeft iemand nog een link naar hoe een Amerikaanse gemechaniseerd eenheid ingedeeld wordt?

Hoe de Bradleys gebruikt worden icm met Infantry?

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:48 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]


[..]

Vermoed dat de eerste M109 nog 18km ver kon dan, van wie is dat ding dat jij quotte? Nederland?
[..]

Klopt ongeveer wel met jouw cijfers ja.

quote:

June 16, 2004: A U.S. government report (The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission annual report) called for a halt to Israeli export of high tech weapons and military equipment to China. Aside from the fact that Chinese and American forces might be fighting each other over Taiwan, there is also the problem that China freely steals any military technology it gets a hold of, and sells its own copies of those weapons to just about anyone with cash.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:45 schreef N_I_ het volgende:
Hey mensen als jullie foto's posten scale ze tenminste down... Dit begint een beetje irritant te worden.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:47 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

M'n post wat doe je. !
Zal er wel clickable thumbnails van maken ofzo.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:47 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Iemand moet ze een halt toeroepen voordat het echt uit de hand loopt.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:47 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Iemand moet ze een halt toeroepen voordat het echt uit de hand loopt.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:49 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Nee, die foto's in de topic zelf zijn wel vet maar de resolutie is een beetje hoog.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:49 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Waarom?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:50 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Amerika kan Israël wel onder druk zetten.
Gewoon even iets roepen over Amerikaanse steun aan Israël en het is rap afgelopen met die grappen.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:49 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Waarom?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:50 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, hou het per foto niet boven de 200 kB

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:53 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Ik bedoelde meer China een halt toeroepen. Dat van Israël is vanzelfsprekend.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 juni 2004 23:27 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]


http://www.globalsecurity(...)y/army/fm/index.html

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:56 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Hier een site over de Chinese PAP martial-arts training methodes

http://www.rovere.com/article.html

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:02 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Interessant.
Heb het knife fighting artikel eens doorgelezen. Leuke link voor de OP.
Als ik het goed begrijp is het mes daar nog prominent aanwezig?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:53 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Geen enkele mogendheid is gebaat bij een oorlog, en als die er komt dan gaat dat verregaande gevolgen hebben voor beide landen.
China's infrastructuur zal helemaal tot pulp worden gebombardeerd en de Westerse bedrijven raken een hoop investering kwijt.
Now is not the time, zegmaar. De verkoop van wapensystemen aan bananenrepubliekjes als Pakistan ziet trouwens helemaal niemand zitten, komen ze binnenkort ook nog met een nucleare kruisraket aan.

quote:

China is undergoing a transportation crises that has military and diplomatic overtones. As China's economy has boomed in the last two decades, the state owned railroad system has not put money into expanding the railroads to keep pace. As a result, many businesses are forced to cut back their expansion plans until the railroad capacity can catch up. But this problem has resulted in Taiwan's ability to bomb key Chinese economic targets if there should ever be a war with Taiwan. China's purchase of highly capable Russian Su-30 long range bombers has made Chinese generals aware that Taiwan has long had the same capability in its fleet of F-16 aircraft. If was the F-16 that Israel used in 1981 to make a daring, long range attack that destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. Now news stories are appearing describing Taiwanese spies, carrying GPS devices, caught around key Chinese economic targets. And now everyone realizes that Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian has, since being elected in 2000, been preparing a "Scorpion Defense" against a Chinese attack. Such a strategy only works if it is out in the open where the Chinese population and leadership can be properly terrified. Now it's in the open, because of public remarks by Taiwanese officials.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:04 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Ja

De PAP is gewoon politie en die hebben meer aan techniek om messen te ontwijken dan anti-tankgranaten..

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:13 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]


[..]

China's strekste punt is ook haar zwakste punt, haar omvang. Gelukkig voor ons houdt Taiwan China nog een beetje in de gaten maar Taiwan zal het zeker niet alleen aankunnen.

_{En nee, ik weet niet wat er precies verkocht is} Bron

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:16 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Dat heeft elke infanterist, tanks hebben meer aan AT ontwijkingsmethoden.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:23 schreef Piro het volgende:
N_I_: Interessant, een heel topic erover, de geschreven stukken zijn informatief, maar het niveau van de BBS gebruikertjes daar is bedroevend laag, don't bother.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:23 schreef Piro het volgende:
N_I_: Interessant, een heel topic erover, de geschreven stukken zijn informatief, maar het niveau van de BBS gebruikertjes daar is bedroevend laag, don't bother.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:21 schreef N_I_ het volgende:
China's population density

[afbeelding]

Major cities

[afbeelding]

Industry

[afbeelding]

Special economic zone's

[afbeelding]

China's als land is onmogelijk te bezetten maar het land volledig ontwrichten is erg makkelijk.
Bombardeer 'gewoon' alle energieopwekkingscentrales, belangrijke bruggen, spoorwegen, havens, telefooncentrales kapot en je hebt China op haar knieën. En het doordat de economie aan de kust gevestigd is kunnen amerikaanse battleships de vliegtuigen bijstaan.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:17 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]



Maar ik denk dat Close-Combat training nog best wel belangrijk is. Het wordt misschien niet zovaak meer gebruikt, maar het is altidj "voor het geval dat". Straks raken je kogels een keer op en dan heb je geen mogelijkheden behalven overgeven

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:28 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

ik persoonlijk vind het nutteloos

als je kogels op zijn dan trek je je terug richting logistiek voor nieuwe kogels, je gaat niet met een bewapende tegenstander op de vuist want hij schiet je gewoon dood.

in het alleruiterste geval zou is het handig als je wat martial arts kent, maar zaak is om dat geval te mijden als de pest en de tijd die het kost om er redelijk goed in te worden kan nuttiger besteed worden

geld ook

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:27 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Bommenwerpers kunnen ook relatief kort boven vijandelijk gebied blijven, voor een B2 is dit minder belangerijk, maar B1 en B52 bommenwerpers hebben ondanks hun hoge ceiling nog steeds geen stealth wat toch een sxtra stukje veiligheid is.

Unarmed combat kennen ze bij de VS ook, maar ik geloof dat ze minder nadruk leggen op het mes en meer op ontwapenen en met de blote vuist (boksbeugel ).

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:30 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Een mes geeft tog wel meer schade tog?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 10:56 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Hier een site over de Chinese PAP martial-arts training methodes

http://www.rovere.com/article.html

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:28 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Taiwan is kleine kut land en verdient het om ingelijfd te worden bij het almachtige moederland

Nee, maar boeit me niet heel erg of de VS helpt. Als Taiwan onafhankelijk wordt, valt de PLA aan. Simpel.

De VS zetten nu ook druk op Taiwan om het niet uit te roepen. De VS hebben liever gewoon de huidige situatie, hoeven zij zelf tenminste geen bodybags te gebruiken.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:28 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Taiwan is kleine kut land en verdient het om ingelijfd te worden bij het almachtige moederland

Nee, maar boeit me niet heel erg of de VS helpt. Als Taiwan onafhankelijk wordt, valt de PLA aan. Simpel.

De VS zetten nu ook druk op Taiwan om het niet uit te roepen. De VS hebben liever gewoon de huidige situatie, hoeven zij zelf tenminste geen bodybags te gebruiken.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:29 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Ach ja... zo kun je het ook brengen Ik vind dat elke soldaat wel de basics moet kennen. Het is ook een beetje zelfkennis tog?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:37 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

In geval van extreme nood ja, maar als je je terug kan trekken, DOE HET.
Bovendien: elke soldaat heeft wat, 6-10 magazijnen inclusief het magazijn in zijn geweer.
De NATO landen leggen de nadruk op gerichte enkele schoten (In Afghanistan kon je dat ook zien, als er een schot viel was het een Amerikaan, korte bursts automatisch vuur was het een Afghaan, WW1 idem. )
Dat is 210-330 kogels die hij kan verschieten. Daar kom je echt wel een dag mee door, het is geen Vietnam meer. (Al kan dat wel het geval worden)

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:39 schreef sp3c het volgende:
foto's van de hrms 7 provincien & hrms de Ruyter vanaf de hrms Tjerk Hiddes (of diens helikopter)
[blaat

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:44 schreef Piro het volgende:
Wat een beschaafde bootjes allemaal zeg, heel strak.

En heeft de politie geen pistolen daar?

quote:

China continues to threaten Taiwan with dire consequences if the island does not surrender it's independence and merge with China. But it's becoming increasingly obvious that China does not have the military capability to take Taiwan by force, and would risk economic ruin by attempting to blockade Taiwan (because Chinese ports could be blocked by mines in retaliation.) No one wants to say out loud that the Chinese are a paper tiger, as it appears quite safe to allow the Chinese to rant and otherwise do no damage to Taiwan.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:44 schreef Piro het volgende:
Wat een beschaafde bootjes allemaal zeg, heel strak.

En heeft de politie geen pistolen daar?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:47 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Er wordt gewoon veel aandacht besteed aan het ongewapend overmeesteren van de verdachte, net zoals het hier het geval is. _{Bij de politie dan}

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:47 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Jawel, maar de politie die gelijk zijn vuisten gebruikt schrikt meer af dan de "ze-schieten-toch-niet" mentaliteit. In Engeland is het ook zo. Die hebben vaak ook alleen maar een knuppel.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:47 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Zit wel wat in eigenlijk. Waarom is Taiwan niet onmiddelijk ingenomen na het oprichten van de PRC?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:49 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Ik schrik toch een behoorlijke hoop meer van een pistool tegen mijn kop waarna mij vriendelijk doch dringend verzocht word mijn handen op mijn hoofd te leggen. Of ben ik alleen in deze?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:47 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Zo kan het ook. Niet een manier waarvan ik voorstander ben.

Hoeveel van die bootjes heeft Nederland nou?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:52 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Tsja, de amerikaanse aanapak. Aan de ene kant effectief, maar aan de andere kant een beetje overkill. En gezien het verschil in wapenwetten tussen NL en de VS werkt de nederlandse aanpak goed genoeg voor Nederland. In Rusland dragen ze gewoon Kalashnikov's bij zich omdat daar gewoon een hele andere situatie is dan hier bijvoorbeeld.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:53 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

3 op het moment, 7 provincien (f802), Tromp (f803) en de Ruyter (f804)

hrms evertsen (f805) wordt dit jaar als het goed is in dienst genomen

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:59 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Hoeveel willen ze er in totaal?

quote:

En waar is F801?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 12:18 schreef N_I_ het volgende:
Ik vind dat de Nederlandse krijgsmacht jaarlijkse parade's mag houden om wat aan de PR te doen. Ik begon vandaag op school erover dat Nederland een van de beste schepen in hun klasse heeft van de wereld, begonnen ze opeens te lachen. En grapjes te maken dat het vast roeibootjes waren.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 12:25 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Wat? je bedoelt dat de marine eindelijk van spierkracht naar dieselkracht is gegaan? T'is niet waaar! !
Maar laten we wel wezen, Nederland heeft niet zo gek veel leuke spulletjes waarmee we kunnen gaan paraderen, bovendien ben je na 45 minuten tot een uur wel klaar.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 12:18 schreef N_I_ het volgende:
Ik vind dat de Nederlandse krijgsmacht jaarlijkse parade's mag houden om wat aan de PR te doen. Ik begon vandaag op school erover dat Nederland een van de beste schepen in hun klasse heeft van de wereld, begonnen ze opeens te lachen. En grapjes te maken dat het vast roeibootjes waren.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 12:20 schreef Piro het volgende:
Vliegdekscheepjes?
Helicopterdekscheepjes bedoel je dan zeker?
Waarom trouwens niet meer? 4 bootjes is nie veel, of kunnen ze alles alleen?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 12:48 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

mjah parades gaan me wat ver, de Nederlandse krijgsmacht werkt gewoon niet op die manier iedereen zou eigenwijs een andere kant oplopen ... we zijn China niet, wij denken voor onszelf

de krijgsmacht doet genoeg aan PR, neem bv de presentaties van nieuwe lichtingen voor buitenlandse missies of de open dagen, chinooks met bevrijdingsfestivals etc. ... er is in de media gewoon geen aandacht voor (want ze zijn allemaal links)

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 13:00 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Het linkse tuig!
De nederlandse krijgsmacht heeft inderdaad wel veel open dagen wat ik een mooi initiatief vind, niemand heeft er last van en je hebt alle faciliteiten aanwezig op je basis.
Ben er nog nooit geweest maar lijkt me wel een leuk bezoek.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 14:30 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, je mag zelfs met die Dimacos schieten

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 14:30 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, je mag zelfs met die Dimacos schieten

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 13:00 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Het linkse tuig!
De nederlandse krijgsmacht heeft inderdaad wel veel open dagen wat ik een mooi initiatief vind, niemand heeft er last van en je hebt alle faciliteiten aanwezig op je basis.
Ben er nog nooit geweest maar lijkt me wel een leuk bezoek.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 12:58 schreef Piro het volgende:
Even snel verhaaltje.

Munitie voor geweren.
Voorbeeld: [afbeelding].

Geweermunitie bestaat meestal uit vier (4) delen.
1. De kogel.
2. De shell
3. De primer
4. Het powder

Op dit plaatje zijn 1 en 2 zichtbaar.
Het onderste stuk is de shell, hierin zit de primer en wordt de kogel vastgehouden.
Als je een magazijngeladen geweer neemt is het schieten een relatief simpel proces.

1. Bolt open, nieuwe kogel wordt aan de kamer gevoerd.
2. Bolt dicht en secure, kogel zit in de kamer.
3. Pin slaat op de achterkant van de kogel, primer wordt ontstoken, powder ontploft, kogel wordt uit de shell geforceerd.
4. Bolt cycle. Bolt opent, forceert de shell uit de kamer, bolt gaat dicht, voert een nieuwe kogel aan de kamer.
5. Zie stap 3.

Zo werkt een geweer grofweg.
Kalibers.
Kalibers worden vaak in 2 maten weergegeven.
.45 .338 .50 .40, et cetera. Dat zijn maten in inches die alleen voor de diameter opgaan.
7.62x39
7.62x51
9x19 zijn maten in millimeters voor lengte en diameter van de boring.
7.62 is de diameter van de boor in millimeters gemeten vanuit de groef van de geriflede loop. Als een kanon smoothbore is dan is het gewoon de diameter van de loop.
Het tweede getal staat voor de lengte van de kogel in mm.
7.62 nato heeft dus een boor van 7.62mm en een lengte van 51mm.
In rusland is het eerste getal identiek maar is de kogel slechts 39 mm lang.
Laat je vooral niet misleiden als er wordt gezegd dat er een kogel in een wapen past als dat op het eerste gezicht niet zo is, de boring kan gelijk zijn aan die van een veel grotere kogel, maar de lengte hoeft dat niet altijd te zijn!

Voor wie ooit een kogel heeft gezien zal merken dat de hele kogels vaak een genekte shell hebben. Type bierflesje.
Alleen de kogel ZELF is volgens het opgegeven kaliber gemaakt, de shell is breder en kan dus niet door de loop! De dikte van de shell is vaak ook niet representatief voor het bepalen van kaliber.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 11:39 schreef sp3c het volgende:
foto's van de hrms 7 provincien & hrms de Ruyter vanaf de hrms Tjerk Hiddes (of diens helikopter)
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]
[afbeelding]

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 14:48 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]

Zal ik het in de OP zetten?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 14:59 schreef sp3c het volgende:
en 1 met de nieuwe heli
[afbeelding]

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 15:40 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Die Black Shark is ook gewoon een grote afschrikmiddel met brute-kracht net als de Hind

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 15:40 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Die Black Shark is ook gewoon een grote afschrikmiddel met brute-kracht net als de Hind

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 16:33 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Ben trouwens GESLAAGD

Nu hopen dat ik door de Geneeskunde loting kom..

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 15:34 schreef sp3c het volgende:
in de laatste 'onze luchtmacht' staat overigens dat Rusland heeft gekozen voor de Mil 28 ipv de Ka 50/52 als standaard gevechtshelikopter

quote:

MI-28A/N HAVOC ATTACK HELICOPTER, RUSSIA

The Mi-28 combat helicopter has been developed by Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant and is known by the NATO codename Havoc. In August 1996 Mil rolled out a prototype of the day and night capable version, the Mi-28N Night Havoc. The Mi-28N prototype is being flight-tested and the Russian Air Force has plans to procure up to 50 of this variant, to be delivered by 2010. Mi-28 can fly at a maximum speed of 300km/h, can fly rearwards and sideways at speeds up to 100km/h and is able to hover turn at 45° per second.

DESIGN

The helicopter design is based on the conventional pod and boom configuration with a tail rotor. The main rotor head has elastomeric bearings and the main rotor blades are made from composite materials. The tail rotor is designed on a biplane configuration with independently controlled X-shaped blades. A new design of all plastic rotor blades, which can sustain hits from 30mm shells, has been installed on the Night Havoc Mi-28N helicopter.

The helicopter has non-retractable tricycle tailwheel type landing gear. The energy absorbing landing gear and seats protect the crew in a crash landing or in a low-altitude vertical fall. The crew are able to survive a vertical fall up to 12m/s. The Mi-28 has a fully armoured cabin including the windshield which withstands impact by 7.62mm and 12.7mm bullets and 20mm shell fragments.

WEAPONS

The Mi-28A has small sweptback mid-mounted stubwings with four suspension units. Countermeasures pods are mounted on the wingtips. The helicopter can be armed with a mixture of air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, unguided rockets and podded guns.

The Mi-28 and Mi-28N Night Havoc are armed with Shturm and Ataka anti-tank missiles supplied by the Kolumna Design Bureau (KBM). Up to 16 anti-tank missiles can be mounted on the helicopter. Shturm is a short-range radio command-guided missile. The Ataka missile's guidance is by narrow radar beam and maximum range of the missile is 8km. The missile has a tandem shaped charge warhead for penetration of 950mm to 1,000mm armour.

The helicopter can also carry four containers each with twenty 80mm unguided rockets or with five 122mm rockets. The helicopter can alternatively carry containers with grenade launchers, 23mm guns, 12.7mm and 7.62mm machine guns, aerial bombs and incendiary tanks.

The helicopter is equipped with a turreted 2A42 30mm cannon, stabilised in two axes, with a muzzle velocity of 1,000m/s.

FIRE CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE

The pilot uses a helmet mounted target designator which allocates the target to the navigator's surveillance and fire control system. The navigator/weapons officer is then able to deploy guided weapons or gun against the target. The targeting system follows the direction of the pilot's eyes.

The integrated surveillance and fire control system has two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow field of view optical television channel and laser rangefinder. The system can move within 110° in azimuth and from +13° to -40° in elevation.

ENGINES

The Mi-28A helicopter is powered by two TV3-117VMA turboshaft engines, fitted on either side of the fuselage. It is equipped with an auxiliary power unit for self- contained operation. The thermal signature of the helicopter has been reduced by a factor of 2.5x compared to its predecessor, the Mi-24.

MI-28N NIGHT HAVOC

The Night Havoc helicopter retains most of the structural design of the Mi-28. The main difference is the installation of an integrated electronic combat system. Other modifications include new main gearbox for transmitting higher power to the rotor; new high efficiency blades with swept-shaped tips; and an engine fuel injection control system.

The main sensors of the integrated electronic combat system are the microwave radar antenna mounted above the rotor head and a FLIR (forward looking infrared) system. The system displays the helicopter location on a moving map indicator, and flight, systems and target information on liquid crystal displays. The crew are equipped with night vision goggles.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 17:07 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:
over die apache staat dat NL zijn langbow upgrade al heeft gehad maar in irak vliegen ze nog steeds zonder hoe zit dat

verder heeft NL ook counter meassures in zijn apache zitten (flare en chaff en heel de shit)

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 17:13 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

wel besteld maar niet betaald oid komt er steeds niet van ofzo

de Nederlandse Apache gebruikt hetzelfde automatische zelfverdedigingssysteem tegen raketten als de chinooks, met extra sensoren en chafs/flares in pods aan de zijkant van de vleugels ... Amerikanen hebben dit (nog?) niet

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 17:10 schreef Wuder het volgende:
OMFG! Die MI-28 ziet er belachelijk stoer uit... Ik sta altijd versteld van hoe de Russen bakbeesten creeërt..

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 16:13 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

nee tis een tankkiller net als de Apache, is naar het schijnt ook niet zo stevig (wel erg lenig) net als de Apache moet je je er meer mee verstoppen.

de Hind is 4x zo zwaar bewapend ofzo, die vliegt gewoon recht op zijn doel af en begint te knallen en als het klaar is zet hij wat commando's af om te kijken of er nog overlevenden zijn

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 15:33 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Apache is een mietje vergeleken met deze bakbeest

En trouwens, ik heb het ultieme bewijs gevonden van de lafheid van VS soldaten. Ze zijn gewoon een stelletje mietjes!!!

[afbeelding]



Zelf betwijfel ik of je zo niet nog makkelijker geraakt zult worden

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 17:30 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind de amerikaanse Apache er futuristischer (lees:mooier) eruitzien. Maar de esthetische waarde van de helicopters doet er niet echt toe. Rusland heeft de kennis om ontzettend goede oorlogsmachines te bouwen maar met kennis alleen kom je er niet. Als Rusland en China nou een soort unie zouden sluiten waarin Rusland 'the brains' en China 'de muscle' zou zijn. Zou dat de komst van een nieuwe worldpower betekenen, maar het wantrouwen tussen die twee landen is nog altijd te groot om tot zulke drastische maatregelen over te gaan.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 17:58 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

When hell freezes over.
Ik zie zelfs eerder gebeuren dat Rusland bij de EU komt, en dat gebeurt op termijn echt wel.
Veel Russen trekken al naar Europa en een gigantisch groot aantal exacte wetenschappers werkt voor Europese en Amerikaanse onderzoekslaboratoria en universiteiten.
Poetin heeft minder wantrouwen jegens de EU dan jegens China, temeer vanwege nog niet opgeloste grensconflicten en een relatie die onder veel hogere spanning staat dan die met de EU.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 18:06 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Tsja, op economisch gebied sluit China beter aan bij Rusland maar de etnische/culturele verschillen zijn gewoonweg te groot om het acceptabel te maken voor de russen, en of chinezen het zelf ook zouden willen weet ik het niet. Ik zie Rusland niet bij de EU komen, voorlopig niet in ieder geval. De westerse bedrijven worden afgeschrikt door de enorme corruptie die er in het land heerst. Eerst Oekraïne erbij en als dat goed gaat kan Rusland/EU overgehaald worden. Ze moeten in ieder geval vaart maken voordat 'de rus' zoals we die kennen uitgestorven is.

Rusland: wederopstanding van een reus?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 17:50 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Kan heel veel hebben ook, ding is beestachtig sterk maar behoorlijk lomp.
Ik hoorde (niet officieel) dat de laaste incarnatie van de HIND een rakettreffer tegen zijn zijkant kan hebben.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 19:41 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Wat voor raket?

quote:

Horrifying US Secret
Weapon Unleashed In Baghdad
Exclusive By Bill Dash
c. 2003 All Rights Reserved
8-25-03


A nightmarish US super weapon reportedly was employed by American ground forces during chaotic street fighting in Baghdad. The secret tank-mounted weapon was witnessed in all its frightening power by Majid al-Ghazali, a seasoned Iraqi infantryman who described the device and its gruesome effects as unlike anything he had ever encountered in his lengthy military service. The disturbing revelation is yet another piece of cinematic evidence brought back from postwar Iraq by intrepid filmmaker Patrick Dillon.

In the film, al-Ghazali, whose english is less than fluent, describes the weapon as reminiscent of a flame thrower, only immensely more powerful. It is unclear what principle the weapon is based on. Searching for a description, al-Ghazali said it appeared to be shooting concentrated lightning bolts rather than just ordinary flames. Drawing on his many years as a professional engineer, al-Ghazali speculates that radiation of some kind probably figures into the weapon's hideous capabilities. Like all men in Saddam's Iraq, al-Ghazali was compelled to serve in the Iraqi equivalent of the Army National Guard and fought in three wars over the past thirty-odd years. Via email, he told me he has seen virtually every type of conventional weapon employed in battle, and is well acquainted with their effects on people and machines, but nothing in his extensive combat experience prepared him for the shock of what he saw in Baghdad on April 12th.

On that date, al-Ghazali and his family sheltered in their house as a fierce street battle erupted in his neighborhood. In the midst of the fighting, he noticed that the Americans had called up an oddly configured tank. Then to his amazement the tank suddenly let loose a blinding stream of what seemed like fire and lightning, engulfing a large passenger bus and three automobiles. Within seconds the bus had become semi-molten, sagging "like a wet rag" as he put it. He said the bus rapidly melted under this withering blast, shrinking until it was a twisted blob about the dimensions of a VW bug. As if that were not bizarre enough, al-Ghazali explicitly describes seeing numerous human bodies shriveled to the size of newborn babies. By the time local street fighting ended that day, he estimates between 500 and 600 soldiers and civilians had been cooked alive as a result of the mysterious tank-mounted device.

In a city littered everywhere with burned-out civilian and military vehicles, US forces were abnormally scrupulous about immediately detailing bulldozers and shovel crews to the job of burying the grim wreckage. Nevertheless, telltale remnants remained as Dillon found when al-Ghazali later took him to the site. Dillon said they easily uncovered large puddles of resolidified metal and mounds of weird fibrous material that, al-Ghazali explained, were all that remained of the vehicles' tires. Dillon, who accumulated plenty of battlefield experience as a medic in Viet-Nam, and has since covered a number of wars from Somalia to Kosovo, told me that he has witnessed every kind of conventional ordnance that can be used on humans and vehicles. " I've seen a freaking smorgasbord of destruction in my life," he said, "flame-throwers, napalm, white phosphorous, thermite, you name it. I know of nothing short of an H-bomb that conceivably might cause a bus to instantly liquefy or that can flash broil a human body down to the size of an infant. God pity humanity if that thing is a preview of what's in store for the 21st century."

For Majid al-Ghazali, images of the terrifying weapon and its victims haunt his every day. In addition to his work as an engineer, he is also a highly accomplished classical violinist, occupying the first chair in the Baghdad Symphony. He is widely acknowledged as one of the preeminent violinists in the Middle East. Besides his family, one of his greatest joys is teaching at Baghdad's premier music conservatory. Unfortunately, the conservatory was utterly destroyed. Yet somehow, despite the war's horrors and its seemingly endless privations, he manages to maintain a remarkably hopeful outlook. He recently informed me that the Baghdad Symphony continues to exist and has been invited to perform in the United States in December.

Copyright ©2003 - Bill Dash

See also associated article by Bill Dash...

Iraqi Commander Swears He Saw US Evacuate Saddam




Comment

From Fred Gunn

Hi Jeff,

Found this article from Cox News published on Thursday, August 15, 2002 and knew I had to send you this link:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/82658_micro15.shtml

It was truly terrifying reading the article on your newsite about Patrick Dillon's far reaching journalism into the war in Iraq. There's a true hero in my mind. The weapons described by Majid al-Ghazali would seem to me to fit into the electromagnetic pulse weapons category. And then, these weapons are mentioned in a New York Post article the day before the Cox News article appeared, and President Bush speaks of using these pulse weapons as a means to "disable Saddam (Hussein)'s entire command and control structure."

Super surge protectors are being designed that would possibly block the pulse of the weapon. I put the two together in my mind's eye and I saw the opening scene from the Terminator movie.

It had better be a brave new world, with governments beginning to wield these sorts of weapons into our battlefields now. Who knows where next.

The Cox News article goes on to say China, Great Britain and France are also experimenting with these arsenals. No mention of Russia, though. Interesting.

Peace please,

Fred Gunn
San Diego


Super-Secret Microwave Weapons May Be Used In Iraq

By George Edmonson
Cox News Service
August 15, 2002

WASHINGTON -- An army may still travel on its stomach, but a vital point of attack these days is the brain -- the electronic brain.

With modern warfare so dependent on computers and communications devices, a weapon that renders them useless could be invaluable. And after decades of research, U.S. scientists and engineers may be close to fielding an effective technology known as high-powered microwave weapons.

At least, that is the latest buzz. Recent articles have speculated microwave weapons could be deployed if the United States invades Iraq. But some experts -- including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- say considerable work remains.

"It's been this elegant promise for decades that never quite seems to happen," said John Alexander, author of "Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in Twenty-First Century Warfare" and a retired Army colonel who directed non-lethal weapons development at Los Alamos National Laboratory. "The check's always in the mail."

The concept behind high-powered microwave weapons is simple. A burst of electromagnetic energy is created and directed at an enemy's electronics. The force burns them out much like a lightning strike can destroy home appliances.

Challenges, though, lie in a number of areas, according to several experts.

For example, delivering the weapons would likely be done by cruise missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles to help get close to the target. That requires making the weapons not only high powered, but also rugged and relatively small, which Air Force Col. Eileen Walling labeled "extremely challenging and technically difficult" in a paper she wrote in 2000 on the weapons.

Alexander explained another problem: unpredictability, even when everything goes right.

"Electrical components are really rather tricky," he said. "You can put the same amount of energy into 10 identical targets and you can destroy two of them, upset five of them and, in three of them, nothing happens."

High-powered microwave weapons are one component of a broader category known as directed energy weapons that includes lasers.

"When people are talking about high-powered microwave weapons, they're not talking about a single device like the stealth bomber," said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a Washington-area policy organization seeking to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. "Rather, they're talking about a physical principle and an effect which can be generated a number of different ways for a number of different purposes."

Most of the Defense Department's work on high-powered microwave weapons takes place at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, N.M..

"We are looking at different sources and devices that can produce that microwave energy and propel it," said Rich Garcia, a spokesman for the project where nearly all of the work is classified.

Researchers also are exploring ways to block incoming high-powered microwave weapons. That will require something of a super surge protector, experts point out, because the blasts are so intense and brief they can escape detection.

The former Soviet Union once was deeply involved in exploring high-powered microwave weapons, but it is now thought Russia is no longer pursuing them. Other nations believed to be conducting research are China, Great Britain and France.

Earlier this month, the widely respected magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology printed an article stating that "an attack on Iraq is expected to see the first use of high-power microwave weapons..."

The New York Post, citing unnamed U.S. military officials, reported yesterday that a preliminary Iraq battle plan "outlined for President Bush last week calls for the most extensive use of electronic and psychological warfare in history -- including secret new electromagnetic pulse weapons to disable Saddam (Hussein)'s entire command and control structure."

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:31 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

http://www.rense.com/general40/secret.htm Mysterieus...

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 14:30 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, je mag zelfs met die Dimacos schieten

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:44 schreef Piro het volgende:
Een ding snap ik alleen niet. Rusland heeft ervaring met dit soort prototypes maar doet er nu niks meer mee.
De VS heeft volgens dit stuk een operationeel voertuig. China researched.
Waarom Rusland niet? Hebben ze de research verkocht (wat ik niet reeël acht)?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:43 schreef HAL9000S het volgende:

[..]

Ach..Dimaco is voor mietjes Hier in Irak heb ik al meerdere malen met onderschepte AK47's geschoten en met de Minime, ook leuk geweertje.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:43 schreef HAL9000S het volgende:

[..]

Ach..Dimaco is voor mietjes Hier in Irak heb ik al meerdere malen met onderschepte AK47's geschoten en met de Minime, ook leuk geweertje.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:43 schreef HAL9000S het volgende:

[..]

Ach..Dimaco is voor mietjes Hier in Irak heb ik al meerdere malen met onderschepte AK47's geschoten en met de Minime, ook leuk geweertje.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:47 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Wat is een minime_foto's? En hoe vond je het 'schietgedrag' van de AK's vergeleken met je eigen wapens?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:46 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Ze hebben het geld niet?

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:47 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Wat is een minime_foto's? En hoe vond je het 'schietgedrag' van de AK's vergeleken met je eigen wapens?

quote:

MINIMI

Kaliber 5,56 x 45 mm NATO
Vuursnelheid 700-1000 schoten per minuut
Max. effectieve dracht 800 meter
Gewicht zonder hydraulic buffer 7,1kg
Gewicht met hydraulic buffer 7,22 kg
Lengte extended sliding butt 914 mm
Lengte retracted sliding butt 766 mm



De MINIMI is een bandgevoed machinegeweer. Ook is er echter de mogelijkheid om een type M16 magazijn met 30 patronen te gebruiken. Hiervoor is geen modificatie nodig. De loop is makkelijk en snel te verwijderen (in minder dan 6 seconden), zodat er een lange periode achter elkaar geschoten kan worden.
Voor de onderhoudsmiddelen voor de gebruiker is een handige oplossing gevonden. Deze zijn namelijk opgeborgen in de handbeschermers. De MINIMI is tevens eenvoudig uit elkaar te halen voor onderhoud.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:50 schreef N_I_ het volgende:
Ik vind wel dat we een eigen subforum verdienen gezien de snelheid waarmee de topics vollopen. Ook zal de animo groter zijn als het bekend wordt dat er een speciaal forum voor defensie/wapen-gerelateerde zaken is.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:52 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]

Probleem is dan alleen vrees ik, dat er meer zullen zijn die dat gaan willen.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:56 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Kom op, voetbal kan ook in sport, wat is dat voor gezeur.
Kun je alle wapen ID topics enzovoorts naar DEF schuiven.

quote:

Op zondag 21 maart 2004 14:40 schreef Piro het volgende:
Bouttopic.

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 22:12 schreef Piro het volgende:
Speciaal voor N_I_.
# Bring a weapon. Preferably, bring at least two. Bring all of your friends who have weapons. Bring their friends who have weapons.
# Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
# Only hits count. Close doesn't count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
# If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough, nor using cover correctly.
# Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
# If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a big weaponand a friend with a big weapon.
# In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived and who didn't.
# If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
# Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting is more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the weapon.
# Use a weaponthat works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."
# Someday someone may kill you with your own weapon, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
# In combat, there are no rules, always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
# Have a plan.
# Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
# Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The visible target should be in FRONT of YOUR weapon.
# Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
# Don't drop your guard.
# Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
# Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).
# Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
# The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
# Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
# Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
# Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
# Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a ".4."

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 22:12 schreef Piro het volgende:
Speciaal voor N_I_.
# Bring a weapon. Preferably, bring at least two. Bring all of your friends who have weapons. Bring their friends who have weapons.
# Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
# Only hits count. Close doesn't count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
# If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough, nor using cover correctly.
# Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
# If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a big weaponand a friend with a big weapon.
# In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived and who didn't.
# If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
# Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting is more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the weapon.
# Use a weaponthat works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."
# Someday someone may kill you with your own weapon, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
# In combat, there are no rules, always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
# Have a plan.
# Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
# Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The visible target should be in FRONT of YOUR weapon.
# Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
# Don't drop your guard.
# Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
# Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).
# Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
# The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
# Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
# Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
# Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
# Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a ".4."

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 20:31 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

http://www.rense.com/general40/secret.htm Mysterieus...

quote:

Op donderdag 17 juni 2004 23:59 schreef HarigeKerel het volgende:

[..]

Rense is een bullshit site met de meest belachelijke onzin.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 00:02 schreef Piro het volgende:

Bron? Link?

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 00:05 schreef HarigeKerel het volgende:

[..]

http://www.rense.com
Surf er maar even rond, alleen David Icke is nog gekker


Dit bv: http://www.rense.com/general53/isswrr.htm

quote:

2 Russians Detained for Smuggling Belarus Combat Vehicles

Two Russians were detained by custom guards June 10 after attempting to smuggle in two armored cars from neighboring Belarus, Interfax reported.

The suspects were transporting two reconnaissance military vehicles through village roads, in an attempt to avoid the border between Russia and Belarus, a source in the state border inspectorate told Interfax.

After hearing the reports, special police and road patrol joined in an effort to detain the smugglers.

The military vehicles had belonged to Belarus’ Defense Ministry, but were transferred to a smaller regional bureau for road control in capital Minsk. The smugglers’ documents showed that they had bought the vehicles there legally — the suspects said they bought the vehicles for 120,000 rubles (over $4,000) for a fishing and hunting trip.

The smugglers are being charged with failure to pay customs tariffs, for which the penalty is a fine. But as the source told the news agency, if the Russian Defense Ministry finds that the vehicles may be used for actual combat, the suspects may face a prison sentence of up to seven years.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 00:14 schreef Piro het volgende:


Nuff said.
Is het helemaal fictie?

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 00:16 schreef HarigeKerel het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt mij wel, als je het TRU forum weleens bezoekt ga je dat soort sites vanzelf wel op hun waarde schatten als amusement
Het trieste alleen is dat er zelfs fokkers zijn die alles geloven wat er staat

quote:

The average age of the Infantryman is 19 years.

He is a short haired, tight-muscled kid who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears, not old enough to buy a beer, but old enough to die for his country. He never really cared much for work and he would rather wax his own car than wash his father's; but he has never collected unemployment either.

He's a recent High School graduate; he was probably an average student, pursued some form of sport activities, drives a ten year old jalopy, and has a steady girlfriend that either broke up with him when he left, or swears to be waiting when he returns from half a world away.

He listens to rock and roll or hip hop or rap or jazz or swing and 155mm Howitzers.

He is 10 or 15 pounds lighter now than when he was at home because he is working or fighting from before dawn to well after dusk.

He has trouble spelling, thus letter writing is a pain for him, but he can field strip a rifle in 30 seconds and reassemble it in less - in the dark. He can recite to you the nomenclature of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either one effectively if he must.

He digs foxholes and latrines and can apply first aid like a professional.

He can march until he is told to stop or stop until he is told to march.

He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation, but he is not without spirit or individual dignity.

He is self-sufficient. He has two sets of fatigues: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his canteens full and his feet dry. He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes, and fix his own hurts. If you're thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food. He'll even split his ammunition with you in the midst of battle when you run low. He has learned to use his hands like weapons and weapons like they were his hands. He can save your life - or take it, because that is his job.

He will often do twice the work of a civilian, draw half the pay and still find ironic humor in it all. He has seen more suffering and death then he should have in his short lifetime.

He has stood atop mountains of dead bodies, and helped to create them.

He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and is unashamed.

He feels every note of the National Anthem vibrate through his body while at rigid attention, while tempering the burning desire to 'square-away' those around him who haven't bothered to stand, remove their hat, or even stop talking. In an odd twist, day in and day out, far from home, he defends their right to be disrespectful.

Just as did his Father, Grandfather, and Great-grandfather, he is paying the price for our freedom.

Beardless or not, he is not a boy.

He is the American Fighting Man that has kept this country free for over 200 years. He has asked nothing in return, except our friendship and understanding.

Remember him, always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 01:39 schreef N_I_ het volgende:
Ik heb dit al eerder gepost dacht ik maar ik post het met plezier nog een keer:
[..]

quote:

>The elderly American gentleman arrived in Paris by plane. At French
>Customs,
>he fumbled for his passport. "You 'ave been to France before, monsieur?"
>the
>customs officer asked sarcastically. The old gent admitted that he had
been
>to France previously. "Zen, you should know enough to 'ave your passport
>ready for inspection." The American said, "The last time I was here, I
>didn't have to show it." "Impossible. You Americans alwayz 'ave to show
>your passports on arrival in France!" The American senior gave the
>Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. "Well, when I came
>ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day , I couldn't find any ****ing Frenchmen to
>show it to."

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 10:06 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

quote:

YPR
Soort voertuig: Gepantserd rups voertuig.
Taak: algemeen.
Gewicht: 13 ton.
Nationalitiet: USA.
Jaar invoer: 1977 en 1980
Bemanning: 3
Bewapening: .50 M2 HB of 25 mm Oerlikon (PRI) of 3x TOW2 (PRAT)
Motor: 6 cilinder 2T 246 PK
Aantal (alle varianten): 1590
Lengte: 5259 tot 5520 mm.
Breedte: 2820 tot 3130 mm.

De YPR hoort niet tot de standaard voertuigen van De Luchtmobiele Brigade maar worden tijdens uitzending toegevoegd voor transport en het verplaatsen van mortieren 120 mm. De Mortier compagnie had er in 1996 13 stuks tot hun beschikking en alle manschappen hadden een omschakel cursus voor de YPR achter de rug. een rijbewijs is natuurlijk gewenst. Foto laat een PRI zien, er wordt echter in Bosnië gebruik gemaakt van de YPR 765 mortiertrekker die het zware geschut mist.
Herkeningskenmerken

1. Bewapening op affuit, elektrisch of handbediening.
2. Luik : rechthoekig,slaat naar achteren open.
3. Uitlaat : rechts voor
4. Laadklep : vierkant met ovale deur met schietpoort
5. Rbli: op de boeg
6. Boeggolfkeerplaat : grote, bolle plank.
7. Schietpoorten : 2 x links en 2 x rechts

Loopwerk: CL 5 VA hol en glad

Technische gegevens.
Lengte : 5,26 m
Breedte : 2,82 m
Hoogte : 2,20 m
Gewicht : 12,6 ton
Bemanning : variabel
Br. rupsband : 0,38 m
Bodemvrijheid : 0,43 m

Prestaties
Motor : 6 cyl TD
Vermogen : 196 kW
Max.snelheid : 64 km/u
Max.rijbereik : 483 km
Overschr verm. : 1,68 m
Klimvermogen : 30 graden
Opstap : 0,64 m
Waadvermogen : amf- 6 km/u
NBC-beschermend : nee

Hoofdbewapening (niet bij LMB)
Kaliber : 12,7 mm
eff. dracht : 1200 m
Vuursnelheid : 550 sch/min
Munitie voorraad :1800 patronen

Nevenbewapening
Geen
Opm.Varinaten : YPR-765 CO, YPR-765 PRGWT, YPR-765 Mortiertrekker

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 15:49 schreef Piro het volgende:
Als ie zo dramatisch is, waarom kopen de Turken en Z. Koreanen hem dan?

Overigens een vraag voor jullie allemaal: stel je zit in een gevechtssituatie.
Welk klimaat/landschap geniet de eerste keus, en waar zou je het liefst helemaal nooit vechten?

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 15:49 schreef Piro het volgende:
Als ie zo dramatisch is, waarom kopen de Turken en Z. Koreanen hem dan?

Overigens een vraag voor jullie allemaal: stel je zit in een gevechtssituatie.
Welk klimaat/landschap geniet de eerste keus, en waar zou je het liefst helemaal nooit vechten?

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 15:49 schreef Piro het volgende:
Als ie zo dramatisch is, waarom kopen de Turken en Z. Koreanen hem dan?

Overigens een vraag voor jullie allemaal: stel je zit in een gevechtssituatie.
Welk klimaat/landschap geniet de eerste keus, en waar zou je het liefst helemaal nooit vechten?

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 17:33 schreef sp3c het volgende:
het is best een redelijk voertuig hoor ... alleen is het voertuig sterk veroudert en vrij lang al in dienst waardoor je er met een katapult gaten in kunt schieten.

moet vooral vervangen worden vanwege ouderdom

eerste keus is imo cv90

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 17:53 schreef sp3c het volgende:
strdswag0n (oid ) is zweeds voor tank voor zover ik weet het het ding mbt 103 S oid

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 19:39 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:
die cv90 lijkt eerder een tank dan waarnu de yper voor diend
jezus wat een bakbeest

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 18:04 schreef Strijder het volgende:
Van die CV90 zijn trouwens ook een boel afgeleide wagens:
[afbeelding]

Dit is de anti-lucht:
[afbeelding]

Khad hem net al gepost, maar dit is dus de recovery-variant (bergingstank):
[afbeelding]

De commando-versie:
[afbeelding]

Eentje met 105mm:
[afbeelding]

En eentje met 120mm:
[afbeelding]

En deze heeft 2 keer een 120mm mortier:
[afbeelding]


Iemand enig idee waarom deze mensen zo zwaar (en onhandig !) gekleed zijn ?
[afbeelding]

En deze, tanks in de sneeuw
[afbeelding]

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 18:04 schreef Strijder het volgende:

Iemand enig idee waarom deze mensen zo zwaar (en onhandig !) gekleed zijn ?

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 21:46 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Nederlandse handmortier

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 21:59 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]

60mm

Maar die blik en hoe hij dat ding vast houdt

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 22:08 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Ach ja... ik zou zo'n mortier in ieder geval niet in me kont willen hebben..

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 10:06 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 18 juni 2004 19:39 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:
die cv90 lijkt eerder een tank dan waarnu de yper voor diend
jezus wat een bakbeest

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 10:45 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

ja dat bedoelde ik ook met 'gaat de ypr vervangen '

is geen tank maar een pantservoertuig ... nederland gaat waarschijnlijk alleen de versie met (30 mm?) snelvuurkanon kopen.

Al die andere zijn niet zo noodzakelijk voor ons aangezien de Fennek een anti-tank (Tow of Gil/Spike) en luchtafweer (Stinger) uitvoering krijgt ... maar die mortieren vind ik wel leuk

quote:

WHERE HAS ALL OUR FIRE SUPPORT GONE?????????

CPT Frank Sherman, U.S. Army "C" Company Commander of 3rd/73rd Armor who parachute airdropped in his light tanks to support the 82nd Airborne Division writes; "Our first encounter with the Panamanian Defense Force (PDF) occurred as the infantrymen of 1st Battalion, 504th PIR were establishing a supply route from Toucumen International Airport to their initial objective of Tinajitas. The convoy had only moved a few kilometers when it stopped to clear a roadblock located on a bridge. As the Sheridansmoved to the edge of the highway to support the infantry, SSG Troxell, the lead tank commander, called me on the radio and stated, 'This is hell of a place for an obstacle, buildings all around and no cover. It looks like swamps on both sides of the road'. As the infantry dismounted and began to execute their obstacle drill, they began receiving automatic weapons fire from the buildings no more than 50 meters away. The lead tank commander opened up with .50 caliber fire as the wing tank commander screamed to his gunner to identify the threat. A moment later, SFC Freeman, 1st Platoon sergeant, yelled, 'I got 'em, concrete building, second floor, fourth window from the right'...He fired a 152mm heat round at the target, ripping through the room, collapsing the right side of the building. The enemy fire stopped and the infantry finished clearing the roadblock..."

LTC John Barker, U.S. Army, former XO of 3rd/73rd Armor says:

"The Sheridan with its 152mm main gun was the near-perfect light infantry support vehicle. It could swim. It had thermal sights. It had long-range armor destruction capability equal to or greater than a Hellfire missile (check your PH/PK classified data!) The Shillelagh with its 152mm HEAT round could blow a hole in a reinforced concrete wall large enough for infantry soldiers to walk through side by side. An infantry leader could use the external phone, it boasted a flechette' round that could blast 17,000 one-inch nails into enemy infantry as close support, and oh by the way, you could parachute it into combat for those nasty 'forced entry' missions typically laid at the feet of the Paratroopers of the "Devils in Baggy Pants", "Panthers" and "Falcons" of the 82d....."

Quotes from U.S. Army Armor magazine, Jan-Feb 1997, Mar-Apr 1990, pg 15.

Robert W. Black, in his book, "Rangers in World War II" said the following about the disastrous Dieppe Raid where commandos assaulted fortified positions with little fire support other than what they carried in their hands;

"68% of the 4,963 Canadian troops were casualties and 913 were killed outright.... On August 19, 1942, the Canadians did all that flesh could do against fire, but has been proven on battlefield after battlefield against an aroused, entrenched enemy, COURAGE IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR FIRE SUPPORT..."

"Within this evolutionary climate, fiscal realities and the aging of existing systems have resulted in a significant gap in our forced/early entry capabilities. The deactivation of the 3d Battalion, 73d Armor, coupled with the termination of the Armored Gun System (AGS), has created a critical need for enhanced direct fire assault support and anti-armor capabilities for forced/early entry forces".

Official U.S. Army ACTD web site statement

WHAT DO WE DO? WE GET RID OF ALMOST EVERY HEAVY DIRECT FIRE SYSTEM WE HAVE!

Despite urban combat realities, we've mothballed our Iowa Class battleships, retired the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle (CEV) with 165mm demolition gun, withdrawn the M551 Sheridans to NTC as training aids, cancelled the M8 Ridgway Armored Gun System, thrown M113s into the sea to feed fish leaving us with the only BIG GUN to win a direct-fire urban fight on a 70-ton Abrams tank that is too big to fit into narrow Third World Country streets and too heavy to fly in large numbers or airdrop to accompany our light troops who are the first to fight. Even if M1s can be delivered in time, their turbine engine exhaust prevents infantry from following behind to use the tank as moving cover in a city fight or to tow trailers with more main gun ammunition and/or supplies for infantry. "Passing the buck" to other combat arms/services does not work.



Relying on Aircraft for fire support in a city fight to make up for a lack of ground level SHOCK ACTION has been proven ineffective at key moments in Panama and Somalia.

Cpt James Lechner was a Fire Support Officer with 3d Battalion, 75th Rangers in Somalia and wounded in the tragic October 3-4, 1993 battle with Aideed's gunmen that claimed the lives of many Americans due primarily to a lack of armored vehicle fire support:

"...the U.S. Air Force can only safely and effectively provide CAS to within a very limited proximity of friendly troops. The limitations of CAS with most fixed-wing aircraft and ordnance provides the enemy a relatively large zone in which to operate unhindered by the potentially devastating effects of aviation assets...

An Air Force TACP writes in to a www.news group:

"Capt. Gary Jinks and I were the AF targeting officers assigned to Just Cause. In one of our first meetings the lack of arty support was a prime concern. Gary and I suggested that we get a battle wagon off each coast and that would allow us to range all of the primary targets. The response from an Airborne Army full bull [Colonel] was 'This is an Army show, the Navy won't play.'

Well, they did, and lost someone, and we never did get the arty support required. The AC-130's did a good job, but had point detonating fuzes instead of the delayed fuzes required for the cement buildings in Panama, another point raised by Gary and myself.

Having said that, the worker bees got along well and did what had to be done. The problems were at the upper levels.

And yes, it was a real war. I was at Ft. Clayton the nights the PDF dropped mortar rounds on us. No fun".

Nor can indirect fire from Artillery or naval guns be counted on to work even if they are available:

IN 0531 Combat in built-up areas states:

"The direct-fire system is the most effective fire support in built-up areas. Once a target can be located in a building, one or two direct-fire rounds can accomplish what entire salvos of indirect-fire artillery cannot. Direct fire support is key to success in fighting in built-up areas..."

"Securing and/or clearing a built-up area is very manpower-intensive. A city block in Panama City often included 50 buildings, many of them multiple storied, to include high rises. Most buildings were constructed of concrete reinforced with rebar."

U.S. Army Lesson Learned: Operation Just Cause Building Clearing

"The 25mm gun produces its best urban target results when fired perpindicular to a hard surface (zero obliquity). In combat in built-up areas however, finding a covered firing position permitting low obliquity firing is unlikely unless the streets and gaps between buildings are wide. Most shots impact the target at an angle which normally reduces penetration. With the armor-piercing, discarding sabot with tracer (APDS-T) round, an angle of obliquity of up to 20 degrees can actually improve breaching. The rounds tend to dislodge more wall material for each shot, but do not penetrate as deeply into the structure"



"Reinforced concrete walls which are 12 to 20 inches thick, present problems for the 25mm gun when trying to create breech holes. It is relatively easy to penetrate, fracture, and clear away the concrete, but the reinforcing rods remain in place"

---IN 0531 Combat in built-up areas

"From a historical perspective you are absolutely right about the need for large caliber guns using direct fire in urban fighting. The Germans and the Russians considered it imperative to have big guns in street fighting. In Patton's book "War as I Knew It" he describes using 155mm SP guns firing one round at a very obtuse angle to breach all the buildings on one side of the street. A 25mm gun would be of little value. While visiting a cemetery in Luxembourg I met an infantrymen from 3rd Army. I was reading the book at the time and over a beer or two he told me exactly how it was done.

They would fire the gun on the right side of the street and clear the first house. He related how many times it would kill or wound the majority of the defenders in the lower level of the buildings. Then you put a Bazooka team in the back yard of the first house cleared and slowly work up the block using the backyards and the whole created by the 155.

One point he emphasized over and over. Even tracked vehicles could not move down the streets because of road blocks. The guns had to have engineer support to move though the backyards and alleys. Usually when the attack on a block began the guns would reposition themselves to fire on the left side of the street as the attack progressed. All commo was with wire."

Emery Nelson

Yet we're spending BILLIONS$ on a fast water swimming assault vehicle and putting the same 25mm "pop gun" on it that poorly armored 8x8 LAV-25 cars and tracked M2/3 Bradley IFVs now have! Thus, all Light, Airborne and HEAVY troops will have only "garden hose" area suppressive weapons--25mm---or low-velocity 40mm and .50 caliber HMGs mounted on vulnerable wheeled HMMWVs---Somalia's debacle all over again. Our men pinned down by superior numbmrs of enemies firing bargain-basement AKM automatic weapons and RPG fire plus their own 30mm AGS-17 and CHICOM W-87 man-portable autogrenade launchers behind urban cover are not going to be able to stand up in the open and shoulder fire bulky rockets and missiles (AT4/M72A2 LAWs, 83mm SMAWs, M67 90mm and M3 Carl Gustav RAAWS 84mm RRs, Dragon, Javelin, Predator-Broadsword MPIM, ATGMs) to regain fire superiority. We're fighting at best "even" and more likely losing.

So even if the "Heavy" forces can arrive before the battle is over they'll have 25mm "garden hoses", and a handful of 70-ton immobile tanks to do all the bunker busting, building clearing once done by the M728 CEV, AND kill enemy tanks with a mere 40 main gun rounds onboard? "That dog won't hunt".

WHY WIRE-GUIDED MISSILES WILL NOT WIN THE CLOSE FIGHT FOR US

Wire guided missiles will fail miserably in closed terrain like Korea against a swarming enemy. A good crew can fire two rounds of high velocity ammo from a gun, before one round from a wire guided missile can reach it's target. LOSAT and high velocity laser beam riding missiles (Hellfire) are the only smart way to use missiles, but they are not available on ground mounts/vehicles yet in the U.S. Army. There is still a big place for guns on the modern battlefield, especially combined with the latest range finders and the latest optical advances like FLIR to get 100% one-hot/one kill capability, day or night. With the proper use of technology they can have the same first round hit probability as the wire guided missile.

We have heard some suggestions lately that tanks are done. We do not concur.

Highly mobile gun platforms will always have tremendous advantages. We may have to change the shape and improve ballistic protection but they are too important not to have. Right now if we had a decent light tank with a good gun and the right ammo (HEAT, AP, HE-FRAG, HEP, and Canister) we could optimize the tanks abilities and move them quickly all over the world. This could be done at considerably less cost and greater speed than the M1 and other heavy land-mastadon MBTs.

The following quote from the Korean war Web site has me grinding my teeth.

"Russian weaponry, as Russian equipment generally, had one marked characteristic: it was extremely rugged, of the simplest design consistent with efficiency, and very easy to maintain, making it suitable for the equipping of peasant armies. Despite its simplicity and lack of refinement, it was good.

What's wrong with non-peasant armies having good simple and reliable equipment?

The old Soviet union produced a variety of weaponry, meant to fight on all battlefields for about a tenth of what we spent. Towards the end of the Soviet Union they started trying to copy us. Recently in Grozny they had to ship AT Guns and Heavy Mortars from reserve units to the city. The western-style equipment for open area Desert Storms were all but useless in the closed terrain fight. They were reduced to fighting the Chechens with AKs and other personnel weapons, which of course the Chechans had, too and in greater numbers. The simple RPG-7 was the deciding factor in most fighting. The Soviets didn't have enough of them and believed that mechanized units with BMPs and MBTs would do the job. Wire guided missiles turned out to be useless and the lack of HE in tanks made them ineffective after firing most of their HE (five rounds). The Soviets were the last country on earth to produce assault guns and towed anti-tank guns. They had mothballed them in the late eighties and were forced to bring them back for Grozny. We can't even bring them out of storage. The Russians were lucky.

ARE WE GOING TO BE OUT-GUNNED ON THE NEXT BATTLEFIELD?



Even if we get the open terrain fight, we lust for, the cards are stacked against us. The Russian's swimming AFV, on sale to anyone with a modest amount of money, the BMP-3 in comparison is a light tank that can hold a squad of infantry---it has a 100mm main gun that fires HE to demolish buildings, can fire long-range ATGMs through its barrel, AND a 30mm autocannon "pop-gun" and medium machine gun as ONE UNIT in the turret. Its has 500 horsepower pushing just 18 tons of vehicle--the Bradley is about the same power pushing 33 tons of vehicle with a 25mm "pop gun". The BMP-3 if it can shoot on the move, out-classes the Bradley in every category except protection---but if the BMP-3 hits the Bradley first by its terrain agility with a long-range, signature-less ATGM, will this be enough? What matters in future armored warfare is ABSOLUTE MOBILITY in all situations--including swimming----to get into FIRING POSITION first with a long range "smart" ATGM. This includes "stealth" to not be seen or detected in the first place. A silenced "stealth" BMP-3 is our worse nightmare, we create for ourselves by putting "pop guns" instead of real guns on our vehicles leaving only a handful of M1s with big guns to fire support for the infantry, play engineer vehicle AND destroy enemy tanks AND BMP-3s----if they can get within 120mm main gun range without being destroyed first by the BMP-3's ATGMs. We may be out-gunned in close and at a distance...

WHAT WE CAN DO TODAY TO GET BIG GUNS TO THE BATTLE?



The U.S. being "out-gunned" began in WWII, where then Colonel James M. Gavin's Paratroopers fired 2.36" bazookas at German Tiger I tanks and got killed on Biazza Ridge on Sicily. Fortunately the wily Gavin insisted on taking 75mm pack howitzers instead of light mortars and he held the ridge, saving the invasion of Sicily. Immediately work on a 75mm recoilless rifle that could be air-delivered began and was used by the 17th Airborne Division for the jump across the Rhine in 1945. General Gavin wrote in Airborne Warfare after the war:

"I should point out the rapid strides toward improvement of the weapons now available to Airborne troops for ground combat. Recoilless artillery, hollow charge weapons such as the bazooka and panzerfaust, lighter metal in weapons construction have all improved the chances of survival on the battlefield for Airborne units of all sizes. In fact they can not only survive, they can carry the attack to the enemy deep in his own territory.

It is interesting now to recall that as late as 1942 the faculty of one of our leading service chools was generally of the belief that Airborne operations were "impossible" on a divisional scale..

The 75mm Recoilless Rifle grew to be the awesome 106mm Recoilless Rifle!



Dominican Republic, 1965

"Elements of the 82d Airborne Division discovered the anti-sniper possibilities of the 106mm Recoilless Rifle in their Santo Domingo operation....if you can do the job with firepower instead of troops, then thats the right way.

..elements of the 1/17th Cavalry had to push to the west bank of the Ozama river across the Duarte Bridge, which was nearly a kilometer long. When the point element was almost to the western end, they began receiving heavy sniper fire from an apartment house, pinning down the element and inflicting casualties.

Other elements supporting by fire from the east bank, but the apartment house was beyond the tracer burnout of their M60s. As a result, jeep-mounted 106mm Recoilless Rifles were brought up. The .50 caliber spotter rounds were adjusted on the sniper's windows. Then, whenever a gunner saw a puff of smoke at the windows he was covering, he fired his main gun. The sniper's effectiveness was quickly diminished, which allowed the unit on the bridge to finish its push to the west bank of the river.

Vietnam, Hue City, 1968

A squad leader who served in World War II and Korea said: "we used to send four marines to get a sniper. But here, the AK47 on automatic can pin down a whole company just like a well-emplaced machine gun"

Unlike the jeep-mounted 106, the Ontos provided some limited cover for its gunner. It was more maneuverable in narrow streets than a tank, allowing it to move quickly to a covered position after expending its ordnance. The gunner could ripple fire his weapons with HEAT, HEP-T and flechette rounds.

Crew served Recoilles Rifles can be employed in pairs or loaded with an anti-personnel round, a single 106 can be combined with several LAWS.

--CPT Grady Smith "Old Doctrine, New Techniques", Infantry magazine, May-June 1971, Page 28

"CPT Smith's asessment of the value of the 106mm Recoilless Rifle is quite accurate. In Hue, it was a real workhorse. By "trial and error" we learned several helpful points in mind when deploying the 106mm in a city environment. We found that it was more effective to aim the 106 just below the window where the snipers werre located, rather than fire through the opening. This creates more shrapnel than a round that sails through the room. This is equally true for the LAW and the 3.5 rocket launcher.

In Hue, we also learned that NVA, positioned along a street several blocks away were able to place accurate grazing fire down the street. Since the street had to be crossed, we used the backblast smoke of the 106 to cover and conceal movement across the street. This was done by popping smoke, a tactic that always drew enemy fire, to reveal the enemy's location.



Then a "mule mounted" 106 was moved partially into the street and a round was fired at the NVA position. (The jeep mounted 106 could be employed in the same way.) This caused the enemy to duck their heads and allowed us to move across the street, concealed by the backblast smoke and dust. Once a foothold was gained in the next block, fire could be directed from a new position to eliminate the NVA resistance.

CPT G.R. Christmas, Instructor U.S. Army Institute for Military Assistance, Nov-Dec 1971 Infantry magazine page 53

"The 106 is a real combat veteran. It has been extremely effective in Vietnam, primarily as an anti-personnel weapon utrilizing the beehive round. However the 106 doesn't fully meet the HAW requirements and is programmed to be replaced in the near future by the TOW."

MAJ Robert Dutcher and CPT John Cooke "HAW, MAW, LAW: the anti-armor family", Jan-Feb Infantry magazine, Page 50

Mavinga, Angola, 1990



The forces of UNITA used HUMMWV-mounted 106mm Recoilless rifles to decisive effect in the 1990 battle of Mavinga. U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group "Green Berets" used 106mm RR mounted HMMWVs to storm back into Kuwait with Arab coalition forces they were advising. The 106mm RR is a battle winner from the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Israel, the airfield at Entebbe...Both the Israeli Defense Force and Taiwan make their own 106mm RRs and ammo.

However in the late 1970s for the majority of the U.S. military, we replace 106s with TOW HAW ATGMs to destroy Soviet tanks at the Fulda Gap, all the hard-lessons learned in Vietnam, discarded, along with many combat leaders. But the threat of overwhelming Russian tank armies is over, the enemy is an irregular hiding in the city, like the VC/NVA. These same Battle-proven M40A2 106mm Recoilless Rifles are awaiting a use in U.S. Army Anniston arsenal storage and are ORGANIC to U.S. Army Special Forces Operational Detachments. 250,000 rounds of bunker-busting HEP, APERS "beehive" flechettes, and HEAT are in storage. New Bofors 3A-HEAT-T 106mm rounds will defeat the latest tanks with explosive reactive armor tiles on, is effective out to 1800 meters and is 90% first round hit accurate using the Canadian CLASS laser sight. The Canadian Army used to mount 106mm RRs on M113 APCs, jeeps, the Australian Army's on M113 AFVs and Land Rovers;



We could mount them using the $6900 kit available from AM General that installs within hours to any generic soft-top M998 HMMWV 4x4 vehicle. Honduras, Taiwan and Morocco have HMMWV-106mm RRs. The 106mm RR will mount on the new diesel John Deere Para-Gator 2x4 vehicle like the old M274 MULE did, but with better off-road performance; and it will fit into the tiny multi-BILLION$$ dollar CV-22 Osprey. Mount a dozen 106mm RRs on Para-Gators or designated HMMWVs in an Airborne Infantry Battalion's Anti-Armor Company, redesignated: "Anti-Armor-Assault" Company. The German 3-ton Wiesel tracked, armored fighting vehicle is an even better choice for helicopter-borne units like the 101st Air Assault Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky since it can also fit INSIDE CH-47D Chinooks. The U.S. Army owns 6 Wiesels for R & D work.

An Ontos that works? German Wiesel today



The fastest, most economical solution is to mount the 106mm under armor protection for the gunner, is the plentiful, combat-proven M113A3 Gavin Armored Fighting Vehicle right roof antennae mount like the Australian Army is doing now, and we did once in Vietnam. With applique' armor, the tracked M113A3 is proof against HMGs, RPGs, cannon and has its fuel tanks outside the vehicle.....



This is the simplest, cheapest way to get a BIG GUN on a LIGHT ARMORED VEHICLE platform NOW that can be airdropped and go anywhere our light troops go. As General Patton liked to say: "Better is a good plan executed with audacity NOW than a perfect plan too late..." Replace 22,000 pound FMTV 2.5/5 ton trucks now in service with a dozen 22,000 pound combat-proven M113A3s to a designated Airborne infantry battalion in each of the 82d Airborne Division's 3 Ready Brigades, arm two with 106mm RRs, CLASS laser sights and kits. Pair up a M113A3 Gavin with Mk-19 40mm and a M113A3 with 106mm RR to work together; one suppresses while the other obliterates the target with one shot of 106mm RR fire. Put Tank-Infantry phones removed from old M60 tanks or M551 Sheridans on the tail end of the M113A3 for better communication during a loud firefight.



There are myriad mounting options of 106mm RRs to M113A3s; the dual 106mm RR TC turret that keeps the gunner under armor protection is available from CETME in Spain. The TC-7/106 turret means only one crew member has to briefly expose his upper body to reload the weapons. The gunner aims the rifles within the vehicle with the reloading carried out through the troop hatch. Both traverse and elevation are hydraulic with the gunner's handle having fast target search at 15 degrees a second. The turret also has a .50 caliber Heavy Machine Gun and the .50 cal spotting rifle on the right hand RR.

Empressa Nacional Santa Barbera
Julian Camarillo 3
28037 Madird, Spain Telephone: (91) 585-0100 Telex: 44466 ENSB E Fax: (91) 585-0268

Pakistan has a twin 106mm RR mount on their M113s with a laser range-finder that extends effective range out to 1500 meters using old ammunition. POF, Wah Cantonnement, Pakistan Telex: 5840 POPAC PK. Maybe we can have Pakistan and Spain fight with us the next time there is a war?

These are all fine options, too.... LETS JUST DO IT.

quote:

Taiwan Strait is becoming a time-bomb that is so deadly that when it explodes, the good part of the world will probably be brought down with it, thanks to the efforts by the three main players - the U.S., China and Taiwan, although I think to list taiwan as one of the mjor player is kind of flattering.

I think most of the posts here by the China study Guru's are simply shallow. They are obessed with comparing specific weapon models and discussing meaningless rumers and lies, some even take pains to speculate what taiwanes think. Taiwan's fate is doomed by one single most important factor - geopolitics. What Taiwan wants - either independence or unification with China -- matters little - in the long run. What really matter is what 1.4billion people in China think and how far they would go to get taiwan back.

I feel bad about U.S. intention on Taiwan issue. Every grow-up with a normal I.Q. in this world knows that the U.S. is using TW as a pawn to contain China. To the people living in China, its like someone holding a grip on your ball and smiling:"Come this way, not to mention the handsome profits ripped by arms cartels in the U.S. - without their money, there will be no election compains, no elected president.

To China, use of force is inevitable, it's just a question of when and how. Of coure Chinese will prepare for the worst senario - a full scle US intervention - a veiled threat that does not exclude the possibility of full scale nuclear war that China takes seriously.

That's exactly what U.S. is doing, to create another nuclear gozilla. Americans are confident that they could handle a nuclear superpower with a size as big as China, just like they qelled the similar threats from the old soviet union - just another cold war - and China will implode or crumple or disintegrate under the strain of arm race or sanctions. A lot of American politicians want to see China build up its military power, so they could have a enemy to fight against, and get the Americans united into one. Besides, there are always the luring profits from arms sale....

And China is responding, as a result of no other options (leting TW have her own way is definitely not an option, go ask any officials or street paddlers in China and you will find out it's true). China's conventional arms capability will win herself any frontier wars (including TW) and prevail over any invasions, and will never be able to beat U.S. conventional forces in terms of all-out war. But when it comes to nuke war, that is a different story.

Nothing, absolutely nothing can rock the U.S. from its foundations, not advanced fighter jets, misile cruisers, bombers, not trade, investment, not even terrorist attacks, except a nuclear capability that can trade mutual destructions with the U.S.

China is gradually sliding into that path, again thanks to a push in the back from the U.S. . Chinese used to think they could settle with taiwan like two brothers of the same family. Now they are giving up the illusions and are bracing up to face the cold hard reality. They almost screamed at Uncle Sam: Let your hands off TW, and we will be fine to put up to your policing and leading the world. But Uncle Sam wouldn't listen.

What the U.S is doing to tw is giving China a incentive to raise its nuclear arsennal storage. The U.S. is blindly confident the China won't be able to do it, or if they do, they won't dare to use them or to proliferate them first. Besides, TMD will always be the last Ace in the sleeves. So the U.S. says: Just bring it on!

A stupid self-fulfilled provercy, that's twenty years down the road.

If China can choose its position in the international society, it will probably choose to become a economic power house with very modest military capability. But The situation in Taiwan does not alow them so. While on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean, common values, idealisms are prevailing over geopolitics in deciding whether to go to war or not.

Geopolitically speaking, a war between the U.S. and China is simply bizzare and unthinkable, because the two countries does not share a border and are devided by thousands of miles of sea. But somehow, the war is looming on the horrizen.

There will be no winners emerging from this war, especially for taiwan. Anyway, it is coming.

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 10:52 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Weer even over de PRC-Taiwan-USA, dit las in op een een ander forum:
[..]

Spuit je gal hierover

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 11:05 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Raad eens wat dit is:

[afbeelding]

[afbeelding]

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 10:52 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Slechte beslissing, ze kunnen beter voor een groter kaliber gaan.
[..]

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 11:05 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Raad eens wat dit is:

[afbeelding]

[afbeelding]

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 11:05 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Raad eens wat dit is:

[afbeelding]

[afbeelding]

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 11:11 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

samenvatting!!!

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 11:19 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Korte samenvatting

Doordat 'the battlefield' verplaatst is naar steden is het dom om op al onze voertuigen 25 mm / 30 mm kannonen te plaatsen. De TOW's en al die andere geleide raketten zijn onhandig in de stad. Net als de 70 ton mammoet (Abram) die niet eens kan omkeren in een nauwe straat. Installeer 106 mm kannon op Hummers en het probleem is opgelost. En de Bradleys zuigen vergeleken met de russische BMP-3.

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/popguns.htm

[afbeelding]

[afbeelding]

[afbeelding]

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 11:40 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

mjah ben ik het toch niet mee eens, kijk maar naar Irak de hummers blijken juist zeer kwetsbaar in verhouding ... en ze worden niet uitgeschakelt door doelen waar je 100+ mm granaten op kunt slingeren maar door mijnen en in hinderlagen. bovendien zijn recoilless rifles (terugstootloze vuurmond) log en duurt het herladen lang ... niet wat je wilt als de plaatselijke moskee leegstroomt in jouw richting

dan heb ik liever meer bescherming, een geweergroep pantserinfanterie en een snelvuurkanon in een toren in ruil voor wat minder mobiliteit

quote:

One of my friends I grew up with, who has been in both Afganistan and Iraq came home (he got wounded, then took his 30 day vacation) who was hit by a mortar round in Afganistan, then his humvee was struck by an RPG
which he'se out of action still from (broken ribs, punctured lung, bad concussion, and contusions) was talking about how reliable his M-4 is.
Pretty much he said, the Iraqi's that attack US troops set up ambushes, they fire some rounds or light something on fire, his unit must then enter the area in response to the potential violence (like police) only they send out a column. When they get close enough the attackers fire RPGs and mortars then when the column stops they send in a volley of small arms fire and then thier gone, sometimes before you even see them.
I asked him which rifle he'd rather have his M-4 or an AK, he said right away the M-4. AK-47's aren't accurate he claimed, no one in his unit has ever been "shot" with one, all the deaths and casualties they take are mostly from RPG's mortars and rockets.
The main problem is target detection, so they carry lots of ammo, 1000 rounds minimum. When they get hit, "everyone who can still fight just starts shooting at anything that looks suspicious," he said "its nothing to let loose 500 rounds. Most attacks happen at night, so its hard to see what your shooting at." He went on to say, a quick cleaning of the M-4 a couple times a day, due mostly to shooting it at night when things get wild keeps it shooting. He had not had a jam either in Afganistan or Iraq. "the rifles barrels have to be cleaned alot, so you can hit what you aim at, after 500 or so rounds... any rifle would need cleaning."
Sand is a problem, but its just as bad if not worse for AK's, lots of the captured AK's were inoperative from sand. The M-4 is pretty easy to seal up, a wrap of tape around the mag where it goes into the magwell creates a seal there. A condom or plastic bag for the muzzle, then close the dust flap on the ejection port.
These are the things I was told by someone who was "there" but I got the impressions the rifles dont do to much of the killing is more or less a war of bigger guns like Bushmaster auto cannons, mortars, blackhawks with mini-guns, ect... "if it were up to just the guys with rifles? It would be alot worse, for us- but we'd still have an edge, our guns are accurate..."
Some other things I recall him saying-

"Sometimes we have shoot outs with them, and we have to stop them with or rifles and MG's, I get under the Hummer and line 'em up and fire they go down and the threat is gone... some of them have been in the Iraqi army and republican gaurd, they have training, they are poorly armed... thier AK rifles are dangerous at pistol ranges...Thier RPG's are accurate...Our flak vests wont stop thier snipers rounds (dragunovs)... They use night vision too... I dont know why they keep sending us in when they know we'll be ambushed... We usually fight at 200 yards... I dont think they are trying to kill us with the AK's, just scare us... I dont want to go back, its awful, dont get into it...

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 11:52 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Maar met meer vuurkracht kun je ook door obstakels heen schieten. Wat nogal moeilijk gaat met 30 mm. En de meeste doden aan de amerikaanse zijde worden veroorzaakt door RPG's en dergelijke.
[..]

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 12:01 schreef sp3c het volgende:

[..]

ook rpg's kun je vanuit hinderlagen afvuren, dat hoort er gewoon bij in die contreien (en rpg op 2 man oid
in een hinderlaag heb je nix aan meer vuurkracht, je wilt een snellere vuursnelheid

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 12:08 schreef sp3c het volgende:
tuurlijk en ik ben het er niet mee eens

doe mij een snelvuurkanon, pantser, rookgranaten en een geweergroep infanterie en ik voel me veiliger dan vanuit de MB met een 100 mm recoilless kanon erop

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 12:17 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]

Zou ik persoonlijk ook liever hebben
Liever iets wat snel vuurt

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 12:51 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Ik geef liever een harde stoot dan tien van die bitchslaps.. maarja.. Iedereen zijn eigen mening.

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 12:17 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]

Zou ik persoonlijk ook liever hebben
Liever iets wat snel vuurt

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 12:54 schreef Piro het volgende:
Ho jezus zeg.
Nieuw vlees in de kuip!

Ik ben het deels eens met de trend van kleiner kaliber.
Kun je meer van meedragen kan vaak sneller verschoten worden.
Groot kaliber zie ik meer als een ideaal voor dingen als howitsers en tanks.
Technical recoilless rifles zijn leuk op afstand, maar verliezen het dan weer van conventionele 105mm kanonnen op gebied van range. Close in zijn het fijne dingen maar heb je het probleem van de relatief langere herlaadtijd, pak dan gewoon een disposable anti-beton raket. Panzerfaust maar dan anders. en maai met een machinegeweer alles neer wat eruit stroomt.

Dat grote stuk lees ik zometeen wel. Ben een beetje afwezig geweest.

quote:

RUN-AND-SHOOT CAPABILITY FOR DISPOSIBLE ROCKETS LIKE SMAW-D TO COUNTER RPGS

We need a run-and-shoot capability for SMAW-D like the RPG with pistol grips has.

We need to be able to extend SMAW-D and then run short distances with it on our shoulder, ready-to-fire. We losee too many valuable seconds opening up disposible rocket tubes and unfolding sights and the enemy pins us down with his RPGs fired first.

Why didn't our disposible rockets defeat the RPGs in Somalia?

Who can fire faster?

quote:

MILES Simulations leading us to the wrong conclusions about the battlefield

OUR TTP, THEIR RPGs



"Quite clearly does our system realize, that will is a unknown quantity, for our regulations are never tired of reminding us that the supreme object in war is to impose our will upon our enemy; but in peace time this imposition is the perquisite of the few to the utter detriment of the many, and again very largely because of the canonization of the regulations. If what is written is holy writ, then it stands outside criticism and cannot be questioned. Those in control will not be asked awkward questions, and those under control, having to follow the regulations, do so automatically with the minimum appeal to their brains, 'How comforting,' they all instinctively cry, 'here is a book which spares us the trouble of thinking!' Thus are brains ossified and thus are battles lost, for only in the Spartan theory of war can a general know with any certainty what his opponent is going to do. 'This is why military thought always tends to get back to the 'push of pike' idea - it is as simple its pushing a 'pram' or a wheelbarrow -- the tactics of the nursery and of a primitive agricultural age.

What does imposition of will demand? Reason; for in war each of the opposing wills is attempting to express a reason in order to gain an end. 'There must be a reason for each action carried out during a war, and ... it must be a good reason or a bad reason; and if we have no reason at all, which has frequently happened in war, we reduce ourselves to the position of lunatics.

'If we understand the true reason for any single event, then we shall be able to work out the chain of cause and effect, and, if we can do this, we shall foresee 'events and so be in a position to prepare ourselves to meet them. Our reason is the director of our actions and also the spirit of our plan.... We must analyse its motive and discover where it has failed us; thus we shall turn errors to our advantage by compelling them to teach us.' [The Foundation of the Science of War, Colonel J.F.C. Fuller, p. 94 (1926).]

Why do we so persistently fail to do so? Not only because we lack imagination, but because we suppress the little that we have. The reasoning of our tactics is not based on the possibilities, or even probabilities, of the next war, not even on the actualities of the last, but on the impossibilities of the one before it. If we wish to think clearly, we must cease imitating; if we wish to cease imitating, we must make use of our imagination. We must train ourselves for the unexpected in place of training others for the cut and dried. Audacity, and not caution, must be our watchword. Safety first may make a good midwife, but it will never make a good general."

---British Army General and reformer, JFC Fuller, Generalship: its Diseases and their Cure

DECISIVE GROUND MANEUVER is the correct strategy to win wars because people live on the ground, not in the air. We HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO WIN "KOSOVOS" ON THE GROUND, and with zero/low casualties---as the air power firepower option always boasts of being able to do. Conveniently saying its "unwinnable" is running away from the problem. The future face of war is in dirty, closed terrain fights like Kosovo, Chechnya, Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Philipines not necessarily clearly seperated armies in the open as in Desert Storm (Iraq). Its going to take technotactical thinking by smart, morally-sound, empowered men on the ground to keep freedom alive in the 21st century.

MILES MIRAGE

The reports of battle experiences from recent conflicts are not favorable to the current U.S. style of infantry-based ground warfare embodied in its current rifle/machine gun dominated Tactics, Techniqes and Procedures (TTP). The reason is that our TTP technotactics are being driven primarily by the lessons learned at Combat Training Centers (CTCs) like NTC and JRTC which use the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) or "laser tag" simulation system to replicate NON-EXPLOSIVE DIRECT-FIRE WEAPONS. MILES does not simulate artillery and mortar bursts, explosions from Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) guns, RPGs, Grenades and rockets. The Chinese are mass-producing a one-man portable 35mm automatic grenade launcher, the W-87. In a few decades we are being promised a 20mm exploding shell/5.56mm Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) from U.S. Army small arms R&D. THESE are the main Soldier casualty-producing weapons according to U.S. Army battle studies. Yet, we do not simulate them adequately. And because of NO simulations of the vulnerability of air-filled rubber tires at fantasy places like NTC where they get to rumble around like hot rods free of enemy artillery and fire effects, the Army is unwisely wanting to buy vulnerable LAV-III armored cars to equip its air-deployable IBCTS instead of tactically-sound, mobile in the face of enemy fire tracked M113A3/4s and M8 Armored Gun Systems.

Careers are made or broke at CTCs.

Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) are written according to the outcomes of the laser tag "garden hose" type of war we wage at the CTCs. Our training stresses making every Soldier a "Sergeant York" capable of precision-aimed fire with his M16A2 rifle or 5.56mm M4 carbine. Thus, a generation of Army combat leaders walk away from the CTCs with an over-emphasis on small caliber, suppressive fire weaponry which perpetuates itself in Army weapons Research and Development (R&D) and purchases when they become controllers of the Army's purse strings. The tragedy and bottom line is that it doesn't work in combat against an able foe who uses explosives effect weaponry in a close fight (VC/NVA, Chechans, Somali, Afghan gunmen) and hide behind cover impenetrable by our 5.56mm and 7.62mm bullets.

Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) Shock Action/Firepower not appreciated

When MILES is attached to an AFV, it fires a narrow laser beam that can hit another MILES equipped AFV and disable/kill it, but the EXPLOSIVE effect of the large caliber shell blasting open a hole in a building or wiping out a bunker or dug-in enemy position is not replicated. Our Soldiers playing the role of enemy OPosing FORces (OPFOR) in a fighting position are impervious to fire as long as no laser beams reach into their firing holes and strike their MILES helmet/harness detector circles. Thus, Light Infantry Division commanders in field exercises maneuver on these positions using foot troops with their own hand-held weapon MILES fire, resulting in lots of simulated casualties. More dangerous is that MANY Light fighters due to MILES coloring their thinking, overlook the benefits of having a light AFV with a big cannon firing once and taking out the enemy position without need of bloody infantry frontal assaults. Many are "anti-AFV". This is how light AFVs like the M8 Armored Gun System get cancelled and the M113A3 which has been around for years--do not get adopted by LIDs like the 82nd Airborne Division which need them desperately for air-droppable, parachute-forced-entry armored mobility and firepower now that the M551 Sheridan light tank battalion has been retired to NTC/JRTC to be OPFOR war props. We learned the need for things like a 106mm Recoilless rifle on a vehicle in places like Vietnam where the explosive effects were real and could not overlooked as the casualties were real. Will we have to re-learn these lessons again? Or were our casualties in Somalia written off as an aberation due to politicians sending us on a "wrong mission"? Using poor political decisions hinders correcting our own military force structure and TTP mistakes.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7963/war1.htm

Do Combat Engineers shoot bunkers anymore?

MILES "lessons learned" has harmed Combat Engineers by over the years marginalizing the utility of the 165mm demolition gun on the now retired M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle, which has no gun-equipped replacement. Instead, the institutional success of the Desert Storm AFV stampede in the open deserts of the Middle East has made mine breeching/clearing the main emphasis instead of the more likely urban conflict obstacles/building demolition. A generation of Soldiers is being taught to run up to an obstacle to hand emplace a demolition charge because Armor branch hasn't fielded a high explosive plastic round for its tanks, and CTCs will not simulate the explosive effect regardless. Engineers are the main way to reduce casualties in maneuver warfare. they have the ability to protect units in the defense and overcome terrain that is not favorable to maneuver. When we use them just in breaching operations we have already failed. Obviously we can't always bypass strong defenses but where possible we should and we can do that by using Engineers to move us over and through unfavorable terrain at night and in bad weather. There couldn't possibly be anything more satisfying than pinning an enemy unit against there own strong defenses by attacking them from the rear. The British having to retreat through there own mine fields in North Africa after being out maneuvered by the Afrika Corps comes to mind. Sherman using two "Flying Columns" to sweep through the south in the U.S. civil war to destroy the enemy's logistical ability to wage war and going to ground when he actually had to fight is another example. Engineers preparing strong defensive positions (RPG Screens in the ground?) on short notice can reduce our casualties and increase theirs.

Rocket volley/barrage fire not done in training, not a viable tactic



Combat in Somalia "Blackhawk Down!" and recently on Robert's Ridge Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda have highlighted the asymmetric disadvantage U.S. forces are in against enemies with dozens of Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs).

The RPG (15 lbs.) is derived from the highly successful disposible WWII German Panzerfaust, nothing is better for infantry in the sense that it's easily man-portable, accurate and "ROBUST"; reusable. The Russians have improved on it in several important ways. Try getting one squad to carry six disposible M136s ("AT4s" for 84mm; 6 x 15 lbs = 90 pounds) or even M72 LAWs (6 x 5 lbs. = 30 lbs). AT4s are as big as a house (over 36" long) and weighs as much as a reuseable, loaded RPG. It's OK if you're not on the move but for maneuver the name of the game is the RPG-7, which doesn't have to be opened, and can be run and carried into battle, ready-to-fire with a pistol grip. The RPG family shoots a wide range of ammunition; comparable to the the IDF B-300 or Mk153 SMAW (83mm) or the M3 RAAWS Carl Gustav (Same 84mm rocket as AT4 but in smaller package that connects into launcher tube), including a tandem warhead that can defeat single-layer ERA and the OG-7V thermobaric round, and it does this as a lighter package overall.

In the mid-1980s we made an effort to wean the Mujahideen off of their RPGs and arm them with disposible 66mm LAWs, and heavier 84mm Carl Gustavs. The thinking was that we could more give them "better" weapons and more mobility (we tried to get them to use many western weapons and had some successes like the Stinger MANPADS but were mostly unsuccessful). The Muj didn't like our choices and kept their RPGs but asked for Pakistani/PLA versions which were lighter and more accurate than the Soviet version. See:

Les Grau's Report on Afghan Weapons

An interesting thing was going on about this same time. The Soviet Spetznaz in Afghanistan was issued the Soviet version of LAW called the RPG-18 as TO&E. They also switched to the Paki/PLA version of the RPG because it was light, more accurate, easier to carry and delivers more firepower than any throw-away rockets. The rockets self-destruct at 1100 hundred meters which makes it great for use against aircraft and for airburst on area targets.

During the Vietnam war, we used disposible 66mm LAWs which have to be opened to fire and the VC/NVA used RPGs which are carried ready-to-fire. The RAND Corporation interviewed thousands of prisoners through 1970 and it came back time and time again that they regarded the RPG as central to their ability to maneuver while U.S. forces were hindered in both maneuver and assault on fixed positions (bunkers) because we lacked them (of course you also have to want to maneuver in the first place which we didn't). Everything considered there's no better infantry weapon in the world and we should put a handful in every infantry squad. We should not allow any U.S. weapons designer or service to make any changes at all to the basic weapon, only a bracket to fit current night vision devices. We need them before the next millennium. Of course the U.S. military doesn't agree because its still tries to suppress the enemy with the "garden hose" paradigm of bullets and ignores the shock effects of multiple rockets..oor worse thinks distant aircraft can be called in, flown by strangers and bomb the enemy for us.

The way U.S. infantry does business is deficient and we should do things differently than the way current FMs describe. We should lose a M249 LMG from the Rifle Squad replaced with a RPG. The RPG can facilitate maneuver by taking out opposing MGs. If you just intend to go to ground on contact and not maneuver however, which happens at times even if you have RPGs, then don't adopt them. Much of our preference for MGs over RPGs has lots to do with Vietnam but goes back to WWI. American infantry gets pinned down easily enough because we prefer to bring in firepower from other than organic squad, plt, and company assets on contact, and use it as a SHIELD. This is seen as producing less casualties and it's solidly ingrained in our infantry. We believe that we could maneuver using company squad, plt and company RPGs to attack MG swept battlefield (first seen in the Boer War!) and save our fire support for use on hard targets instead of as a shield. A squad cannot easily maneuver against bunkers without something like an RPG providing its base of SHOCK ACTION fire. During WWII, 3rd U.S. Army (the Germans originated this in WWI using flame throwers to achieve shock action) perfected this technique using the 2.36 inch "Bazooka" (rocket launcher) to destroy "pillboxes" on the Sigfried Line. The point is that infantry in the open is getting to be a rarity and we need a way to deal with dug-in infantry to enhance our manuever but in the case of the NVA, a way to make the enemy maneuvering infantry go-to-ground for us to decisively maneuver on them: flank, encircle, collapse and cut-off.

A couple years ago one of the authors sought to redress the lack of simulators for disposible rockets like the LAW and AT4 by a suggestion to the Army Ideas for Excellence Program (AIEP) that we field a simple, low-cost device that would fire a pyrotechnic from an empty rocket tube since dry firing them is not taken seriously. The Bureaucratician wrote back saying "we already have VIPER MILES simulators". His excuse for inaction doesn't hold because the VIPER MILES fires a narrow laser beam and is good only against another vehicle with MILES fitted. So leaders view them as ways to volley-fire to kill enemy AFVs, not buildings, bunkers and dug-in enemy positions or even helicopters like our enemy does. We draw the wrong lessons on the utility of disposible rockets because of this. Next, we do not have very many of the VIPER MILES simulators. Not enough to achieve a RPG-like volley fire effect that each Soldier having several LAWs or rifle grenades would have. Not enough for every unit in the Army to home station train on them. The disposable rocket is a round of ammunition and doesn't sit in the arms room requiring annual qualification as rifles/machine guns do. It gets ignored as a weapon system. Most of the time the empty tubes are turned in and destroyed. We cannot even keep the empties to provide a TOW tube to practice reloading the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV) launcher or an empty M136 AT4 to get ready for EIB. A special TOW dummy round has to be ordered from the "supply system" and there is always some excuse about not having enough money or none in stock. You then offer to pay for the thing yourself and that isn't acceptible either. The "system" doesn't want you to be combat ready or "be all that your unit can be".

To be a viable tactic, units must practice the technique of firing disposable rockets en masse in ALL tactical training. They need LOTS of them to do this, and sadly a pyrotechnic is needed to reward them for their effort with a simulation. Thus, most U.S. Army leaders overlook the disposable rocket as a point target destructive means or for a base-of-fire.

A Company Commander of 101st Airborne "Screaming Eagles" writes:

"I enjoyed the piece on the RPGs/LAWs in combat (MOUT). I have been a firm believer and practicioner of the same when I was a commander. My friend was able to convince his OC about the use of Vipers to breach/clear the toehold during a MOUT exercise at FT Campbell. The results were superb. It only requires good OC coverage and adjudication. Most guys don't think to ask for it though."

FIRE ITSELF AS A SHIELD?

"The differance between cover and concealment is clear to any infantryman. At the CMTC [Editor: A CTC in Germany], however, concealment IS cover. I quickly found that it is futile to fire the 25mm gun at an OPFOR RPG team behind a bush. The foliage itself provided a MILES berm, giving the advantage to the well-trained OPFOR. The same may be done with BFVs. Actually it is proper doctrine to use concealment of the brush in masking movements; the side effect just happens to be cover as well. Inadvertently, hand-held smoke also creates a MILES berm. I believe this is cheating with MILES and teaching BFV crewmen bad habits."

"Combat Maneuver Training Center Lessons from the Platoon leader's perspective", May-August 1998 Infantry magazine, LT Ross Lightsey and SFC George Brooks

Inevitably, our tactics are skewed in favor of using non-explosive bullets to create bases-of-fire using the "garden hose" effect of rifles/machine guns. Thanks to MILES, we have turned infantry tactics into a gunfighter's paradise. Fire itself is being used to keep the enemy at bay. Because vegetation can stop the MILES laser beam, it is teaching a generation of Soldiers that cover and concealment are the same thing. In Somalia, TF Ranger went in without armored vehicles thinking it could shoot its way in and out of the battle. It worked until the enemy began hitting our men, wounding them into bleeding casualties requiring immediate medical attention. Then the force, unable to move with maximum bi-pedal efficiency (walk/run) became pinned down, unable to move by enemy fire. Their only shield was the fire from their rifles/machine guns, and ammunition quickly began to run out. Soldiers manning machine guns from the roofs of HMMWV wheeled vehicles were hit and killed as bullets reached exposed upper torsos. TF Ranger was finally rescued when a "shield" on wheels/tracks: allied AFVs were fought into them by the 10th Mountain Division (L), but even then they were reluctant to mount them!

A noted Retired U.S. Army combat-experienced General writes:

"[MG Robert] Scales next book has some interesting data. As I recall, Infantry are 10% of the force and suffer 40-50% of the casualties. More than half of the Americans killed in combat over the last 50 years were killed by the lowly mortar. I.E. they move disperse and take cover quickly. That's how they survive. When infantrymen are caught by a rapid response, reasonably accurate weapon of high lethality, they die in large numbers and the assault is over. That is the reason for armored infantry-- to sustain the momentum of the offense. Light infantry has to be delivered quickly and dispersed or committed into the kind of terrain that affords them survivability. In your concept critical friendly zones would be set up on the LZ and massive counterfires placed on hair-trigger. Nothing is risk free, but your way is much easier to manage.

On scouts, stealth is survival only to a point. That's fine if two Brigades are trying to establish contact across 1,000 miles of desert. But things change when they close to 25, 10, 5 or 2 Km. Scout organization has to be able to adapt from passive surveillance to fighting for tactical intelligence when necessary. That is why the current Hummwv setup in armor and infantry units is ludicrous. They need a mix of wheel/track/armored gun - with integrated fire support. Building recon elements in maneuver brigades separate from Colts in Divarty and ADA recon in the ADA Battalion is one of the dumber things we have done. Once again branch primacy in TRADOC has taken us to a stovepipe serving solution that is deliberately handicaps the commanders efforts to integrate combined arms for combat effects."

OVERCOME-BY-EVENTS?

When we actually go into a conflict, and experience a close-in fight, we are stunned and pinned down by the massed use of RPGs against us as their explosive effects rip into the bodies of our men. In contrast, our enemies fire RPGs like they were water. RPGs demolish buildings, soft-skin vehicles, they air-burst them to down Blackhawk helicopters in Somalia. In the Falklands war, British SAS troops used disposable rockets to demolish Argentine buildings and raid airfields. The cause of this is MILES, bad TTP being used, prejudicial thinking of our commanders and poor force structure/design.

HOW THE ARMY SELLS ITSELF SHORT

The acceptance that ground maneuver that encounters close range infantry fighting will inevitably result in friendly deaths is a lie. This misconception is based on our own incompetence not what the actual potential of ground maneuver is. Its only because we have not created SIGNIFICANT SUPERIORITY IN OPEN AND CLOSED TERRAIN WARFARE in our ground forces that we continue to sell them short. If you looked at the battlefield OBJECTIVELY, one would see there is MORE to work with on the ground than in the air/sea. In the air or on the sea, there is really no cover, the only protection is that humans do not live in the medium of the air or the sea and are not physically there to launch weapons at ships/aircraft. However, sensors can reach out into the air/sea and strike ships/planes. In contrast, there are all kinds of terrain and vegetation to shield/hide ground forces on the ground if they can prevent the enemy from reaching into a firing position at all---then we have achieved decisive maneuver capability. We are rapidly "digitizing" our Army so it can have "situational awareness" to see through the fog of war and maneuver at the enemy's weakest spots and destroy his centers of cohesion. Once these are destroyed or blocked from him, the enemy can no longer continue to fight. But we cannot exploit digitization if we are pinned down with a computer screen. As Gen Depuy said: "Maneuver must be earned".

BETTER TTP: STRAIGHT-ARM TACTICS

To do this, we need ground forces that do not rely on Close Air Support (CAS) and/or inorganic supporting arms as their "crutch" to regain maneuver when the enemy IS encountered in close battle-usually with the massed use of Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) and AKM automatic weapons fire from 300 meters that irregular units like the Serbian/Taliban forces are equipped with. In general, as our forces move in, we must keep the enemy 300 meters away, and this "straight arm" (akin to a football running back in the open field) must be organic to the ground force on the move, not just temporary from a CAS aircraft. Combine digital "situational awareness" with a light tracked, Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV), the M113A3 with a 120mm heavy mortar and 40mm Grenade Machine Gun (M1064A3 with MK-19) and make them organic to the light infantry divisions of the U.S. Army. The light AFV must be the base-of-fire element in the air-deployed Light Infantry Divisions (LIDs) because a weapons or machine gun squad (men on foot) firing bullets in a "garden hose" manner cannot fire if they are being pulverized themselves by enemy explosive weapons effects. M1064A3s with 120mm mortars/MK-19 GMGs need to become habitual members of the "Company Team" used by heavy divisions. A MK-19 40mm GMG mount on the outside of the BFV BC's hatch should be fielded throughout the M2A3 force to redress the heavy division's lack of indirect fire capability in uneven and urban terrains. The light AFV with indirect fire mortar and GMG can keep a steady pressure on the enemy as it maneuvers under armor protection from the enemy's explosive effects and small arms fire.

This can be easily accomplished by assigning existing XVIII Airborne Corps 3rd Infantry division M1064A3 120mm units to the Army's 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault Divisions that would be used to rapidly maneuver on an enemy that hides in the closed terrain like the Serbs in Kosovo. Replacing the M2 .50 cal HMG with the MK-19 GMG on selected M1064A3s could also be done immediately without cost to the Army.

The 120mm mortar can range out to 7 kilometers; we could then control the high ground by our physical PRESENCE and we could reach into the low ground the enemy would have to travel across. This prevents the force from having to be on the forward, exposed slope of terrain or have to "bait" the enemy into a close-range decisive engagement (less than 1 km) just so its organicc infantry weapons can reach. The enemy can be reached without us coming to him, he must come to us to dislodge us.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/120mortars.htm

OUR OWN RPGs: LAW Rocket and Rifle Propelled Grenades

If the enemy does get into a close range RPG/AKM fight, we need our own explosives effect dominating weapons, NOW not 10 years from now by OICW. The quick solution is to buy immediately the best, most lethal family of bullet-thru Rifle Propelled Grenades (OSHA regulations be damned) and get the men firing them on the live fire range ASAP. Lots of them to see their explosive effects on various targets to appreciate their benefits and perfect aiming.

http://www.geocities.com/(...)iflehandgrenades.htm

Complimenting this would be an immediate buy of lightweight, compact M72A3/4/5/6 enhanced warhead LAW disposible rockets and firing them on the range for barrage effects to counter the RPG scourge as LTC Harris advocated in the Infantry magazine 2 years go. The current AT4 is superb, but at 14.8 pounds cannot be carried en masse by each Soldier to achieve RPG-like massed explosive effects. Disposible ockets should have a pistol grip so they can be run and carried ready-to-fire. Eventually we will need reusable RPGs.

The Russians could have eliminated that massed RPG fire in Grozny if they had these things. After the Israeli's adopted bullet-trap rifle grenades, they became widespread and the latest versions have the bullet shoot THROUGH feature and have the same explosive power as a 60mm mortar. Every Infantryman with a massed LAW and rifle grenade fire capability would gain confidence while our enemies would lose confidence in massed RPGs by a few selected gunners. We would have more RPGs than the enemy would. Keeping RPGs beyond the 300 meter line but having the lead element on foot get inside the 50 meter RPG arming line ahead of the AFVs and suppressing RPG gunners from there are good Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) to negate the enemy. Many ground tacticians like the RPG but report it's weakness is the gunner always ended up being exposed and given away by it's signature. This is anecdotal but we can see video footage of the Mujahideen firing RPGs at the Russians and seeing the wisdom of this observation.

Empty LAW rockets, TOW tubes should be accessible by a simple written request of unit commanders to the Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) after they are satisfied that the live round was fired out of the tube.

RUN-AND-SHOOT CAPABILITY FOR DISPOSIBLE ROCKETS LIKE SMAW-D TO COUNTER RPGS

We need a run-and-shoot capability for SMAW-D like the RPG with pistol grips has.

We need to be able to extend SMAW-D and then run short distances with it on our shoulder, ready-to-fire. We losee too many valuable seconds opening up disposible rocket tubes and unfolding sights and the enemy pins us down with his RPGs fired first.

Why didn't our disposible rockets defeat the RPGs in Somalia?

Who can fire faster?


CHICOM disposible rockets like the PF-89 above have firing grips to run into firing position ready to launch

We need:

a. CHICOM PF-89 or RPG-like forward pistol grip on our M136 AT4 and M141 SMAW-D disposible rockets
b. A secure shoulder stop not the current flimsy one

1. Running ready-to-fire (sights can be closed or open, not armed):

SMAW-D or AT4 on shoulder extended
Right hand on forward pistol grip

2. Firing

Firing controls do not have to change!!!

a. Soldier arms weapon
b. Opens sights if not open already
c. Instead of grasping the sling (Soldiers will forget!!) they grasp the forward pistol with their left hand
d. fire with their right hand

We must stop being outgunned by RPGs!

LOW-COST, SIMPLE NON-LETHAL DISPOSIBLE ROCKET TRAINING SIMULATOR NEEDED

We need to stop the BS and the excuses. In addition to the run and shoot capability we need a sub-caliber training device using SIMUNITION's non-lethal soap bullets so we can shoot the SMAW-D simulator ANYWHERE to include force-on-force as long as the men are wearing eyegoggles etc.

Let's contact SIMUNITION Company and get a FX (what they call their non-lethal soap bullet) and get it to shoot through SMAW-D, AT4, Carl Gustav RAAWS tubes and be ballistically matched to its rocket.

WHERE IS THE SMAW-D, M3 "Carl Gustav" RAAWS ROCKET ENGAGEMENT SKILL TRAINER COMPUTER SIMULATIONS?

Recently I got to spend a day shooting the Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) virtual reality simulator for bullet-shooting small-arms at Fort Bragg, NC.

www.eccic.com/EST.html

Everyone was very impressed and happy with the experience. However, it was apparant that while rifles, pistols and machine guns of the current garden-hose mentality were present, NO ROCKETS WERE SIMULATED. Though later I found out the M136 AT4 is a weapon simulated by EST. We didn't know this or request to shoot it.

Anyone who has seen the film "Blackhawk Down!" will notice how America's enemies can run into and out of firing position with RPGs on their backs which are in a ready-to-fire mode with pistol grip and shoulder stop. In contrast America's disposible rockets have to be extended and/or opened to fire and have no grips except he tube itself. Throughout the movie depicting the actual events of October 3, 1993, only one U.S. AT4 rocket was fired, while the bad guys shot down helicopters, blasted our HMMWBV and 5 ton trucks and pinned our men down.

I don't know about you, but as a Soldier I am SICK AND TIRED OF BEING OUTGUNNED ON THE MODERN BATTLEFIELD. We need improved rockets NOW that can be run in a ready-to-fire manner and we need these weapons simulated on the EST system pronto. This non-sense that since disposible rockets are not a TOE weapon and tested annually for promotion points/unit treadiness they get ignored must STOP.

We must field a M141 SMAW-D, and M3 RAAWS rocket simulation capability to the otherwise excellent EST system.

THE BEST SHIELD IS A SHIELD

Our vehicles--ALL OF THEM---need wire screen fitted to their outsides to pre-detonate RPGs as retired LTC Lester Grau writes in the May-Aug 1998 Infantry magazine. This needs to be done NOW on a crash basis. ALL wheeled vehicles should be armed with at least a machine gun and a SHIELD to protect the gunner. Troops riding in back face outward and the rear tail gate can open instantly (redesign the current screw in closing mechanism) or is removed completely. All vehicles sandbagged or hardened with armor panels before entering a war zone.

We need to develop and field a lightweight gunshield that would attach to the end of our garden-hose weapons (rifles, machine guns) so they CAN be fired in the face of enemy fire and regain fire superiority. Trying to stop bullets at the chest with body armor is too late. We need MISSION MOBILITY in the face of enemy fire, not just KIA protection.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/gunshield.htm

BETTER SIMULATIONS AT CTCs

The "fire marker" system at JRTC has the potential to solve the AFV gun explosive effects problem by having a person run to the area an AFV gun aims at and using simulation charges "mark" a building/bunker/fighting position/obstacle as being blasted to bits. Artillery fire makers should be at NTC and not just JRTC.

For the close-range combat at Shughart-Gordon MOUT site, we should at the "pausex" turn in our weapons bolts/magazines and place SIMUNITION FX bolts and magazines. These are means to fire LIVE but non-lethal ammunition that on impact leaves a red or blue paint mark on the unlucky person. OWWW. Soldiers wear body armor and protective goggles. SIMUNITION FX needs to be developed to shoot through RPG, SMAW-D, Carl Gustav and AT4 training aids with a large green color mark to simulate explosive weaponry effects against buildings and vehicles. We should invest in paintball claymore mines, grenades, grenade launchers and mortars to make our Soldiers respect these weapons in training. Some sort of AFV main gun paint round needs to be developed, too. The Tippman Ordnance Company already has these devices ready-to-go. There are many paint-ball grenades, grenade launchers, claymore mines, mortar launchers in use to better ceate the indirect fire and grenade effects that MILES-type laser ?tag? systems cannot relicate. The U.S. Army should as soon as possible develop paintball launching adaptors to interface with its existing M120 120mm mortars and M203 40mm grenade launchers to increase training realism to compliment the urban combat advances made possible by SIMUNITION FX rounds. It may be a pyrotechnic or a compressed air propelling system. The paintball grenades and claymore mines are good-to-go as-is and just need to be widely purchased for Army MOUT training. When Soldiers realize the realism that paintball type technology offers to Army urban and close combat training, being a Soldier will become ?fun? again while the deadly need for high levels of proficiency will not be lost on them. Getting hit by a SIMUNITION FX round hurts and serves as a reminder of what a real bullet could do and is a catlyst to quicken the training efforts of everyone.

Paintball Experts (Claymores, mortars, Grenade launcher paint balls)

www.tippmannexplosives.com

howitzer.htm
mortars.htm
mines.htm
grenades.htm
grenade_launchers.htm

www.tippmannordnance.com

Tippmann Ordnance Co.
1000 S. Lincoln, Unit T
Loveland, CO 80537
Toll Free 1-888-315-5270

WHAT IS SIMUNITION FX ROUNDS?

If you haven't already found out by a welt on your skin than read on!

Click here:

Description of the System

Uses clear plastic magazines to clearly indicate SIMUNITIONS are being fired

Manufacturer:

Division SNC Technologies Inc.
Canada and overseas Tel: (450) 581-5999 Fax: (450) 581-0231
USA Tel: 1-800-465-8255

E-Mail: technical@simunition.ca

Lou Solis
Tel: (678) 482-8174
Fax: (678) 482-7988
Cell. : (404) 915-6807
E-mail: simusalou@earthlink.net
Regional Manager, East Coast:
Connecticut - Delaware - District of Columbia - Florida - Georgia - Maine - Maryland - Massachusetts New Hampshire - New Jersey - New York - South - Carolina - North Carolina - Pennsylvania - Rhode Island - Vermont - Virginia

Randy Clifton
Tel.: (952) 997-3856
Fax: (952) 997-3884
Cell. : (612) 817-6560
E-mail: rcsimusa@aol.com
Regional Manager, Central United States:
Alabama - Arkansas - Illinois - Iowa - Indiana - Kansas - Kentucky - Louisiana -Michigan Minnesota Mississipi - Missouri - New Mexico - North Dakota - Ohio - Oklahoma - South Dakota Tennessee Texas - Wisconsin - Nebraska

UPDATE 2002: grenade fix

Buy Tippman Paintball grenades to properly replicate M67 and other type hand grenades in training. Cost is $5 each (suck it up and be a professional).

SQUAD BUSTER: non-explosive PAINT GRENADE



The Patented Tippmann "Squad Buster" non-toxic paint grenade adds a new dimension to the game. Just pull pin and throw. Upon impact, the "Squad Buster" releases a swirling fury of non-toxic, water-soluble paint with a 30 foot plus "marking zone"

CALL (219)749-6022 TO ORDER SOME TODAY!

Technical Information

Model : M.S.R.P Tippmann "Squad Buster"

Height : 6.25 Inches

Width : 3.25 Inches

Weight : 11 Ounces

Paint : Blue, Non-Toxic, Water Soluable

$5.00

BETTER URBAN COMBAT TACTICS



Rifle-Launched Entry Munitions (RLEM) (see above) allow a remote ballistic breach of an exterior door or window without having the assault or breaching element physically present at the breach (entry) point. This allows the assault element to assume a posture for entry in the last covered and concealed position before the breach. The RLEM firer is not normally part of the assault element, but rather a part of the breaching or support element. This allows the RLEM to be fired from one position while the assault element waits in another position. In the event that the first round does not affect the breach, either the firer should prepare a second round for the breach or a second firer should be prepared to engage the target.

The RLEM is very similar to the bullet-trap Launched Grappling Hook (LGH) Company "A" used to breach mines for its JRTC rotation last year.

The U.S. Army is trying to procure munition from Israel that can blow open doors from 20 meters away.

by SFC Connie E. Dickey
U.S. Army News Service

The Rifle Launched Entry Munition (RLEM) can allow assault teams to blow open doors without compromising their position, which can increase a Soldier's survivability.

The request for 450 for rapid acquisition forces is pending receipt of funding with Urgent Materiel Release expected in January 2000. "We began preparing for its procurement in September-October of last year," said Peter Errante, ammunition team leader with the Army's small arms office at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.

"The capability it has of allowing Soldiers to engage a target without having to be right up on the door, is a real advantage." He said the weapon was one of several seen during an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD)held in January-February 1998. "Because of its technology and capability it seemed to be worthwhile in pursuing," he said.

The Picatinny Arsenal office is analyzing shared technology data received from Israel as well as conducting its own testing of the weapon. "We are responsible for the testing and the Army will decide who will get the weapon and when and where it will be used," Errante said. He said once funding is received and the ammunition is delivered, initial tests would be done at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., with selected military units doing some operational testing.

Even though an Urgent Materiel Release is expected, that doesn't mean the RLEM will be in Soldiers' hands any time soon. "Additional technical and operational testing will still be required and the ammunition is not expected to be type classified standard (meeting all the technical, operational, logistics and safety criteria required for fielding) until fiscal year 01," Errante said. But once fielded "it would be ideal for MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) applications," Errante said.

That capability could be used during peacekeeping operations, although Errante could not say if the Army would be using the munition in its peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo or elsewhere in the Balkans.

The RLEM is actually an aluminum rod that attaches to a 150-gram (5.25 ounces) explosive. The projectile can be attached to an M16 rifle or an M4 carbine and is launched using a standard bullet.

According to Errante, the explosive detonates when the rod hits the door creating an overpressure (pressure that is significantly above the normal). "The overpressure will buckle a metal door."

The munition is also effective against a wooden or a thinly constructed door. "Additionally, if the door is booby trapped, the RLEM will be able to destroy them too," said Alan Li, of the small arms office. According to a fact sheet on the RLEM, since there is very little collateral damage, assault teams can be in close proximity of the door and would be able to quickly enter the facility.

Errante said the applicability for the munition could be extended to civilian law enforcement agencies, although he knows of none in the United States that are using the RLEM now.

The munition is made by Rafael Armament Development Authority in Haifa, Israel and is called the Simon Door Broaching Rifle Grenade. It was developed for and has been used by Israeli Special Forces for the past seven years.

isayeret.com

The Israeli Special Forces Home Page: Tactical Gear: Simon Door Breaching Rifle Grenade



The Simon Door Breaching Rifle Grenade (a.k.a. Rifle Launched Entry Munition - RLEM) is a ground breaking device in the areas of Counter Terror (CT), hostage rescue and any other military, paramilitary or law enforcement scenario that requires the use of hot/dynamic entry (entering a building using explosives). Prior to the invention of the Simon, if a such scenario occurred (usually involving lock and barricaded doors) the operators from the designated unit had to personally approach the door and place the explosives, hence not only compromising the vital surprise element of the raid, but also physically risking themselves as well as potential hostages.

The Simon, however, solved all this problems. The Simon is remotely operated and therefore totally eliminates the risk to the operator and reduces the probability of detection. It's made of two main parts: shaped explosive charge (back part, similar in shape to a standard rifle grenade) and a stand off road (front part). Both parts are in plastic housing which makes the Simon a light and therefore very portable device. The Simon can be fired only few meters away from the targeted door and blast open most types of conventional doors. After it's fired (using standard rifle grenade ammunition), the Simon automatically self armed itself. When the stand off road impact the door, the explosive charge blow, causing the door to slam in, making clear path for the entry team. Since the door slamming is a result of the impact wave rather then a direct contact with the explosives (due to the stand off road), the door depart form its axis as a one intact part, rather then breaks into several pieces (that can risk any hostages present), like often happen when using manually set explosives.

Another major advantage of the Simon is preventing the operator for estimating how much explosives should be used on a specific door. Since, as mentioned above, the door slams in due to the impact wave rather then a direct contact with the explosive, the Simon is effective against most door types. This enable the assault team more tactical freedom, because it doesn't requires a demolition expert to use the Simon but instead each and every operator can perfectly use the Simon with minimum practice. However, this doesn't mean the demolition craft is no more needed in entry teams. Its still needed in situations when the Simon can't be used such as one small room parameters and when there is not enough safety distance to launch it.

The only drawback to the Simon is his high-penetration power. The Simon was design to break through all types of conventional doors including barricaded steal doors. When the Simon is being used against a light and not barricaded door, the door will slams in very strongly. Thus, if there is a hostage right behind the door, or even few meters behind it, he is going to take a major hit, most probably a lethal one. Hence, in such situations (i.e. one-room apartments) the more conventional approach of placing the explosives manually is due. This is a tactical limitation that should be taken into consideration prior to the utilization of the Simon. However, if there aren't any hostages present and the operation is a military style one, hence the mission is killing rather then saving lives, then this disadvantage immediately turn into an advantage adding to the killing potential of the entry team.

Unfortunately this was vividly displayed in the Nachshon Vaxman incident. In October 14, 1994 Vaxman, a Soldier in the Golany Infantry Bridge, was kidnapped by three Palestinian terrorists. The terrorists and their hostage barricaded themselves in a house located in a village near the Ramala City in the Occupied Territories. Sayeret MATKAL (the IDF's primary Special Forces unit akin to U.S. Army's SFOD-D or "Delta Force") was selected to carry out the assault and conducted the raid. During the raid the entry element arrived at a steal door leading to a small room in which the hostage and the terrorists where. Sayeret MATKAL's Soldiers under-estimated the strength of the door and therefore placed under-power explosives. The charges failed to blast open the door and the Soldiers had to replaced new and more powerful charges. The surprise element was of course lost, the terrorists exulted the hostage and were later gunned down by the entry team.

Tragically, this was the exact scenario in which the Simon can't be used. not only were the rooms in the house too close together to enable safe usage of the Simon, but the hostage was also right behind the door acting as a human shield. Any attempt to use the Simon would have caused the steal door to strongly slam against in the room and against his head, inflicting severe if not fatal injury.

The Israeli Armament Development Authority (RAFAEL) developed the Simon in the late 1980's. It entered service in the Israeli Special Forces (SF) in 1992 and like most other Israeli security/defense products was offered for export few years later in the late 1990's. To this date the non-Israeli countries who bought the Simon are the U.S (since 2000) and France, at a cost of around 1500$ per one Simon RLEM.

The following series of photos show the Simon used by a unit YAMAM's (Israel's elite domestic CT unit) operator during a part testing part demonstration of the device. Those photos not only give a rare view to this unique device, but also provide a comprehensive look on unit YAMAM's state of art arsenal. Due to its almost unlimited budget, unit YAMAM is the best equipped SF unit in Israel, even more then the rich IDF's Takeover units Sayeret MATKAL and Shayetet 13 (the IDF's Naval Commando unit). Unit YAMAM is in fact the only unit in Israel that is equipped in western standards.

Unit YAMAM operator using the Simon. Note that the rifle is a 14.5 inch barrel M4 (the carbine version of the M16A2) rather then standard issue primary weapon of unit YAMAM - a 11.5 inch barrel Colt Commando. The reason for this different choice of weapons is that extreme short barrel weapon, like the Colt Commando, don't built enough gas pressure in their barrels to safely fire rifle grenades, and in some cases the barrel is even too short to properly mount such grenades. The M4 is also fitted with a rubber but stock, an Aimpoint 5000 red dot optic and a handguards Rail Interface System (RIS), which allows locating, removal and relocating of optics and other accessories without losing aim.

The Israeli civilian SF units are the only ones Israeli who use the M4. The IDF's Units had a financial problem switching from their CAR-15 (the carbine version of the M16A1) to the M4. So instead they created a half-breed, mounting a 1 in 7 twist heavy barrel on the CAR-15 and drilled 1-2 additional holes in the CAR-15's stock (same as the M4 four position stock).

The sidearm is Glock 17 9mm, which is the standard sidearm of unit YAMAM. Note that in combat situation unit YAMAM's operators hold their sidearm in easy to reach thigh tactical holsters. However, since this is only a demonstration, the operator placed the handgun in his vest's empty magazine pouch (which is empty because the magazine is now inserted in the M4). Note that the Glock is only use by unit YAMAM. The rest of the Israeli civilian SF units use the Israeli Military Industries (IMI) Jericho 941 9mm, and the IDF units use either the Sig Sauer P226 or the FN High Power handguns.

The operator is wearing a standers unit YAMAM's entry element vest made by the Israeli company Kata, YAMAM gray Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) and a Oakley protective eyewear.

Note the unique helmet mounted accessory - it's a flashlight used when no flashlight is mounted on the primary weapon (like In this case). However, usually unit YAMAM's operators have a Visible Light Illuminator (VLI) flashlight device attached to under their Colt Commando's handguards. Therefore their helmet-mounted accessories are either a fiber optic mini cameras or a monocular Night Vision Goggles (NVG). Note the looped electric cable around the flashlight base. During operational usage this cable is connected to a massive battery located in the back of the operator vest, which allows long hours of illumination without adding additional weight to the already heavy helmet.

Mounting the Simon on the M4/M16

Aiming

Few Seconds after firing, The Simon on its way to the targeted door. Note the short distance from which the Simon is being fired. Take into consideration that this close range includes fire range safety distance. Hence, in real situation the Simon can be fired from much shorter range. This allows great tactical flexibility including using the Simon against inner doors, rather then external ones, once the entry team has already entered the parameter.



Moment of impact.

After the impact

Note the clear, almost surgical removal of the door, with minor if any collateral damage to the structure. Also, note the red color writing on the right side on back of the operator vest. The writing says "Kata", an Israeli based company formed by two ex-Israeli SF Soldiers, which makes excellent tactical gear, especially vests.

RLEM SIMULATOR NOW

The old adage, ?You fight as you train? is a warning to the wise that we have to be as realistic as possible or else pay for it when the bullets are for real. We are unfortunately not doing this due to the limitations on the amount of destructiveness we can apply to training structures and our people. The key weakness has been that we cannot use live ammunition, but this has been recently solved by using less powerful ammunition with non-lethal plastic bullets filled with paintball type colors like SIMUNITION. The realism now matches the firepower effects of real bullets and our tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) can develop in more realistic ways at least for the close ranges in an urban setting where SIMUNITIONs are effective (under 100 meters).

One area where we are still weak is in team entry into a room through a predictable door using predictable ?stacking? techniques. This may be ok for police SWAT situations but it?s a disaster waiting to happen in urban combat where its live or die not freedom or arrest. The solution has always been in a combat situation to enter a building or a room at a point of our chosing where booby-traps and enemy fires are not likely to be in place using a breach hole. Breach holes can be made by the explosive effects of a tank main gun, autocannon fired in a continuous stream, demolitions charges or today with an infantryman firing a breaching charge from a safe stand-off.

The U.S. Army is proceeding with the Rifle Launched Entry Munition (RLEM), which is a bullet-trap rifle grenade that upon contact after launch creates a breach hole in building walls. We need to be able to simulate it in training or else our TTP will not reflect the reality of its existence and capabilities and we will continue to execute the increasingly risky predictable door-entry TTP.

FM 7-8 Change 1
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-8/ch6.htm

LREM Picture:
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-8/image286.gif

How to simulate the RLEM?

I propose we take the currently type-classified U.S. Army Launched Grappling Hook (LGH) and remove or cover its snag wires with a soft plastic cap holding paintball pellets. Upon launch using a full-power blank, the RLEM simulator flies towards the wall and upon impact splatters paint ball pellets marking where the breach hole is. The team then gets to proceed through the nearest door to that spot via referee (Observer/Controller: O/C) and "enter" the building from that unexpected point on. Obviously if holes are cut-out of MOUT buildings and covered with plywood the plywood could be removed to simulate a breach hole being created.

What we need is get the LGH maker (SAA Intnl), the RLEM maker (Rafael, Israeli company) and Tippman (Paintballs) to join together to make the RLEM simulator for the U.S. Army to mass produce it and make it available for all Army units to better train as we need to fight.

URBAN COMBAT TODAY: SEE THE ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCE COMBAT TERRORISTS



IDF in action in combat TODAY photo album

WARNING: NOT FOR THE WEAK OF HEART. THIS IS WHAT IT REALLY IS ALL ABOUT AND WHAT IT TAKES TO KEEP PEOPLE FREE AND ALIVE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE THEM DEAD.

URBAN COMBAT READINGS ONLINE:

FM 7-8 Rifle Squad, Change 1: URBAN OPERATIONS

FM 7-30 Infantry Brigade; Appendix J: URBAN OPERATIONS

Appendix E: LIGHT/MECHANIZED/SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES OPERATIONS

FM 90-10-1 AN INFANTRYMAN'S GUIDE TO COMBAT IN BUILT-UP AREAS, 12 MAY 1993 , CHANGE 1, 3 OCTOBER 1995

IBCT URBAN OPERATIONS

Where the draft manuals are located:

http://doctrine.army.mil/
· http://doctrine.army.mil/temp/default.htm
http://192.111.52.91/resdoc/doctrine/frames.htm

What you find under Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) at the TRADOC web site:

FM 7-4 The Interim Brigade Reconnaissance Platoon (Coordinating Draft)
FM 7-5 The Interim Brigade Infantry Squad and Platoon (Coordinating Draft)
FM 7-12 The Interim Brigade Infantry Company (Preliminary Draft)
FM 7-22 The Interim Brigade Infantry Battalion (Preliminary Draft)
FM 7-32 The Interim Brigade Combat Team (Preliminary Draft)

To get a TRADOC doctrine password:

http://doctrine.army.mil/temp/restricted_website_instructions.htm

To get a .mil domain email address needed to get that password.....

U.S. Army Knowledge Online (AKO)

www.army.mil/ako/

BETTER DEFENSIVE TACTICS

Another danger of the MILES illusion is that direct fire "gunslinger" tactics result in our men using forward slope defenses which expose them to early enemy observation, and constant enemy pummeling by artillery and mortars long before the enemy even gets within organic infantry weapons range!!! The British Army use of the reverse slope defense was KEY TO THEIR VICTORY in the Falklands war, while the Argentine use of the forward slope defense allowed naval gunfire, 105mm light guns and MILAN ATGMs to destroy their lines of defense, which hastened their defeat.

HISTORY PROVES OUR POINTS: U.S. ARMY RESCUE OF marines AT KHE SANH

One of this pages' authors writes. The 1st Cav took the credit for opening the road but it was actually done by elements of the 11th ACR and some Armored Cav Bns attached to the 1st Cav. Of course the Mc and 1st Cav took all the credit. I served with many of the men who participated in that operation and they were very proud of it. That as one of the few times they got a chance to do their jobs and they loved it. They made hooks into the surrounding jungle and would pop up a klink down the road and the engineers would work the area in between. That was where I first heard of using mortars in mobile operations. One of my Recon Plt leaders was a Troop Commander there and he used three 4.2 inch heavy mortars (saw the pictures) and a lead element of M113 mounted Vulcan 20mm miniguns (saw the pictures) to fix ambushing NVA.



Then -113s and Sheridans would crash into the jungle and attack them from behind. The NVA were not able to deal with that and they kept up the pressure (means go fast) until they reached what the official Mc history called a "link up from the Khe Sanh side". The Story I heard was they linked up about a mile and a half outside the main gate and that was only because the Cav units were ordered to halt and wait for the marines. This was supposedly to prevent a friendly fire accident but some people believe different.

One of the unusual things about this operation is the desperation to relieve the marines was so great the AC units were allowed for one of the first times to fight as they saw fit. Up until that time an ambushed Cav unit would turn online and make a frontal attack into the ambush. The NVA would mine the front of their positions and dig in deep. The result would be the tracks hitting mines and being destroyed by RPGs. They would use air burst from the mortars in front of the Ambush to destroy mines. Not always successful but definitely helpful.

It takes a THINKING military to do air/ground maneuver

General JFC Fuller writes about tactical inflexibility:

"Normally, in a higher command exercise, a scheme is set in which it is the rule and not the exception for the staff of each formation concerned to work out each problem, and every detail of each problem, whilst its general, the one man who should be tested, sits aside, often taking a dolce far niente interest in proceedings. When the pow-wow takes place, there is usually a prolonged discussion on the official form of the operation orders (incidentally a form seldom used in war), orders made out by the staff. This frequently leads to these humble servants being flayed alive whilst their masters frown opprobrium upon them even if they are not quite certain what all the trouble is about.

I have worked out scores of exercises, and taken part in dozens of staff tours, and though I am of opinion that my various generals seldom satisfied their intellectual hunger, I anyhow learnt this: that exercises set to bring out definite tactical lessons are not worth the setting. What an exercise should bring out is the personality and common sense of the generals. What do they know and what do they not know; what will they dare to do and what will they not dare to do? On such things will future victory and defeat depend, far more so than on dotting the t's and crossing the i's of operation orders."

Like the French generals who we learned from in WWI, the U.S. military is based on blind obedience to regiment large groups of men to march to their deaths synchonized to massive amounts of firepower. The Generals/Admirals in charge now resist empowerment and creating a thinking military because its easier to control people in the dark than it is to have them knowledgeable and making their leaders stay on their toes by having to continue to lead the way with new tactics, techniques and procedures. Its better to deal with Article 15s and drunk/disorderly conduct than the E4 aware of his naval service professional history (USS Maine, Pearl Harbor) asking you why your deck machine guns are not being manned to repel suicide boats as you steam into a Moslem fundamentalist country? Basically, General officers realize the enlisted man brutalized in basic training cannot be trusted with live ammunition because they know his head is NOT in the game and cannot be trusted. Trust takes too long and is too hard, and you can?t have trust with rank-has-its-priveliges (RHIP). This is why U.S. military personnel weaned on a draftee blind-obedience culture continue to get blown up by asymmetric enemy attacks, because they are not thinking warriors who can be trusted with live ammunition to defend themselves.

Those that say we do not need a professional, thinking, alert military culture because we can bomb enemies into submission from a distance forget that it has never worked that way and men on the ground or water?s surface always are

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 13:39 schreef Piro het volgende:
N_I_. Genoeg stukjes tot ik ze allemaal heb gelezen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 14:00 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Eigenlijk moeten we een topic per onderwerp openen maar dan raken we ze kwijt, omdat we geen eigen subforum hebben.

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 14:03 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]

Misschien toch maar is de admins gaan praten dan
Zou wel lachen zijn als we een subforum zouden krijgen.

Maaaaar.....wat mag/kan er dan in komen?
Werkelijk alles wat dan maar met defensie en oorlog heeft te maken?
Vanaf het begin van de WOII tot nu weet ik wel wat vanaf maar daarvoor echt niet.

Dus waar trek je dan de grens?

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 14:04 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Komt er nog een defensie forum?

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 14:16 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]

Heb er gereageerd

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 14:17 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Met je kloon?

quote:

May 28, 2004: In the last two decades, there?s been a an enormous jump in technology available for protecting tanks. You can?t just call it ?armor protection? anymore, because what protects a tank these days is not just thick slabs of steel. During the 1980s, composite armor and ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) were introduced. Composite armor was layers of metal, ceramics and other materials (the exact composition is kept secret). This combination proved much more resistant to all types of tank shells or missile warheads. ERA was blocks of explosives fitted to the outside of a tank. When a shell or missile hit a block of ERA, it exploded, and greatly diminished the penetrating effect. This complicated attempts to describe how ?thick? armor was anymore. Thus began the practice of describing composite armor and ERA in terms if ?equivalent? (to steel) thickness.

Composite armor and ERA made it safer to be inside a tank. For example, during the 1970s, the most common Russian 125mm tank gun shell, the BM-17, could penetrate 250mm of steel at 2,000 meters range. Russia also had a more expensive BM-12 shell (issued in smaller quantities) that could penetrate 350mm. The U.S. M-735 shell could go through 330mm at 2,000 meters. The most modern Russian tank at the time, the T-72, had maximum frontal armor of 350mm. But most of the T-72 was covered with thinner armor, and the most common Russian tank was still the T-55, with max armor of 200mm. The U.S. M-60 tanks had maximum armor of 260mm. Both Russian and American tanks used shaped charge (HEAT) shells, that could go through 400mm of armor.

Today, the composite armor of the U.S. M-1A2 has ?equivalent? armor thickness of 960mm against shells and 1620mm against HEAT. The Russian T-90 (the latest version) has a max of 850mm and 1200mm. But the max penetration for a Russian 125mm shell is 650mm at 2,000 kilometers (the BM-42M). Ukraine says it has a 125mm shell that can do 760mm. The U.S. 120mm M829A3 can go through 960mm, although the most widely used shell is the M829A2, which can only penetrate 750mm.

Thus, while the M-1 has a reputation for being invulnerable, it isn?t. But as a practical matter, it has been because, so far, the M-1 has only encountered older tanks. In the two wars with Iraq, M-1s were facing T-72s, which had maximum armor of 430mm and a 125mm gun firing older ammo that had a penetration of 250mm or so. Iran or China, however, equip some of their tanks with ERA, giving them a protection of about 800mm. But more ominously, the 125mm guns of those tanks can use much better ammo, and get penetration of up to 700mm. The M-1 has a lot of thinner armor that can be ripped through with sells like that.

However, the M-1 does, at the moment, have the best combination of combat proven armor protection, very effective shells and well trained crews, in the world. The M-1 is also the most numerous of the tanks of its class (like the German Leopard or British Challenger) and is constantly upgraded. So while the M-1 is neither invulnerable nor invincible, but no foreign tank crew would look forward to going into battle against M-1s.

quote:

When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

quote:

Kontakt-5 Heavy ERA

The development of Kontakt EDZ logically led to the development of a later version, called Kontakt-5, which was optimized to be effective not only against HEAT jets, but also APFSDS long rods. It was first deployed around 1985 on the first T-80Us. It is claimed that Kontakt-5 provides about 300 mm RHA equivalent of additional protection against APFSDS rounds, which corresponds to an increase of about 160% over the base armour of the T-80U (~720 mm total).

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 16:21 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Een tank beschermd door ERA-armour:

[afbeelding]

ERA doet wonderen:
[..]

[afbeelding]
[..]

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 10:52 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Weer even over de PRC-Taiwan-USA, dit las in op een een ander forum:
[..]

Spuit je gal hierover

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 17:13 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Oceaan maakt geen zak uit.
Kernwapens gebruikt geen van beiden.
Noord Korea schijnt ze te hebben en gebruikt ze slechts om een statement te maken.
Kim noch Jintao zijn achterlijk genoeg om elkaar en de VS met atoomwapens te beschieten.
Hooguit een tweede koude oorlog met Taiwan en Korea als inzet.

Trouwens: Bron?

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 10:52 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Weer even over de PRC-Taiwan-USA, dit las in op een een ander forum:
[..]

Spuit je gal hierover

quote:

Op zaterdag 19 juni 2004 18:31 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

Tsja, geschiedenis herhaalt zich zeggen ze en de VS doet hetzelfde bij China wat ze ook bij Sovjet-Unie gedaan hebben. Alleen is China geen door een oorlog toegetakelde gewonde beer, zoals Sovjet-Unie dat was indertijd maar een opkomende economische wereldmacht.

Als PLA voet zet op Taiwan zal de VS zich zeer zeker inmengen en hun beste mannen en materieel erop afsturen. China zal het dan ook zeer zeker afleggen op conventioneel gebied. Als China dom genoeg zal zijn om kernwapens te gebruiken zal dat het einde van LA, Sanfran en andere grote steden aan de West-Coast betekenen maar ook het einde van heel China zoals we die nu kennen.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 01:27 schreef Piro het volgende:
War aint about who's right, it's about who's left.
En als er met kernwapens wordt gegooid dan is er niemand left. De VS en China zijn een grote radioactieve woestijn en wat er van Taiwan over is zal niet blij zijn, evenals Korea en Japan.
Bovendien gaan Kim Jong en welk land de VS nog meer niet mag er ook aan, als we dan toch gaan smijten, neem er zoveel mogelijk mee.

China speelt een indrukwekkend spelletje blufpoker, net als Noord Korea. Beiden kunnen het doen, maar beiden zijn niet stom genoeg. We hebben 50 jaar in de koude oorlog gezeten waarin werd bewapend als bijna nooit tevoren en daar werden ook geen kernwapens gesmeten, het scheelde vaak niet veel, maar geen van allen wilde eraan. En Stalin was toch een slag gestoorder dan Jintao nu is.

China wil meespelen, dan moet je de vijand geen excuus geven je hele land dmv atoomwapens met de grond gelijk te maken, dan zijn al je ontwikkelingen voor niks geweest en kijkt het overblijfsel van de wereld je het eerste millennium NOOIT weer aan.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 03:13 schreef Strijder het volgende:

[..]

Je leest het niet goed.
Als er kernbommen worden gebruikt, dan zal China er voor zorgen dat niet alleen China ten onder gaat.

En het is niet China die blufpoker speelt, de VS probeert de hele wereld voor haar karretje te spannen. Bijvoorbeeld door zelf meer aan defensie uit te geven dan de rest van de wereld (en niet alleen aan nieuwe tanks of vliegtuigen, waarvan de ontwikkeling vaak nog weer ergens anders van wordt betaald). Het woord defensie (zoals in dit topic) betekent verdediging. Waarom alleen maar aanvalswapens maken ? Zweden kan het toch perfect met alleen verdegingswapens ? Wat moet Amerika, dat op een van de meest veilige plaatsen ter wereld zit, met al dat spul ? Waarom wil ze niet dat anderen sterk(er) worden ? Waarom mogen interne ruzies (Taiwan en China claimen allebei China te zijn) niet intern worden uitgevochten ?

War ain't about right or left, but who who lives the longest (and then still may loose).

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 11:31 schreef HarigeKerel het volgende:
Om 12.05 op NED2

Koninklijke Luchtmacht
Een kijkje achter de schermen
tijdens de Open Dagen van de Koninklijke Luchtmacht. Het programma Koninklijke Luchtmacht is opgenomen tijdens de Open Dagen die dit jaar werden gehouden op vliegveld Volkel. Bert Kuizenga leidt de kijker langs alles wat er tijdens de Open Dagen te beleven viel. Dat varieert van demonstraties van jachtvliegtuigen, helikopters en historische vliegtuigen tot vluchten van speciale demonstratie-teams. In het bijzonder wordt één demonstratie-vlieger gevolgd tijdens de voorbereidingen op de vliegshow. Hij vertelt over zijn beweegredenen om luchtmachtpiloot te worden en over wat er allemaal komt kijken bij het vliegen van demo-shows. Ook zal er een overzicht worden gegeven van demo-vliegshows uit de oude doos en over de ontwikkeling van de luchtmacht van de afgelopen 60 jaar. Daarbij zal onder andere aandacht zijn voor de ontwikkeling van de Joint Strike Fighter en de toepassing van onbemande spionagevliegtuigen. Verder is er een portret van judoka Mark Huizinga, die topsport combineert met een baan bij de luchtmacht. Aan zijn prestaties als sporter te merken, is dat zeer wel mogelijk.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 03:13 schreef Strijder het volgende:

[..]

Je leest het niet goed.
Als er kernbommen worden gebruikt, dan zal China er voor zorgen dat niet alleen China ten onder gaat.

quote:

En het is niet China die blufpoker speelt, de VS probeert de hele wereld voor haar karretje te spannen. Bijvoorbeeld door zelf meer aan defensie uit te geven dan de rest van de wereld (en niet alleen aan nieuwe tanks of vliegtuigen, waarvan de ontwikkeling vaak nog weer ergens anders van wordt betaald). Het woord defensie (zoals in dit topic) betekent verdediging.

quote:

Waarom alleen maar aanvalswapens maken ? Zweden kan het toch perfect met alleen verdegingswapens ? Wat moet Amerika, dat op een van de meest veilige plaatsen ter wereld zit, met al dat spul ? Waarom wil ze niet dat anderen sterk(er) worden ? Waarom mogen interne ruzies (Taiwan en China claimen allebei China te zijn) niet intern worden uitgevochten ?

War ain't about right or left, but who who lives the longest (and then still may loose).

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 14:08 schreef Nimitz het volgende:
ik ben lekker live in Volkel geweest

't was zeer leuk. Leuke static show, mooie demo's (ook de luchtdebielen brigade) en de landmacht vond ik goed vertegenwoordigd voor een open dag van de luchtmacht.

Show van de F18 was de moeite waard. Mooi geluid!

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 14:16 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

En de VS blaast elk land wat zij als schurkenstaat zien de tering in, zo'n 90% heeft toch geen kernwapens en als ze die wel hebben kunnen ze de VS niet bereiken.
De aftermath zal waarschijnlijk iets in de trend zijn van: De VS, China, Noord Korea, half Afrika, het Midden Oosten en Colombia kapot.
Zuidoost Azië en de mediterrane landen zitten met een fijne dosis radioactieve vergiftiging opgescheept en de economie ligt in puin, wereldwijd.
Kernwapens zijn niet 'the way', dat weet China, dat weet de VS.

Denk je dat Hu Jintao zin heeft om te zien hoe 'de vijand' zijn hele arsenaal op het moederland leegschiet?
Dan is men bezig met ontwikkeling en is ie zo stom om kernwapens te gebruiken. Gevolg: de afgelopen 50 jaar zijn voor niks geweest omdat ie helemaal tot as gebombardeerd wordt en de aanstichter van een kernoorlog gaat de geschiedenis in, en dat is niet positief. China wordt dan door geen enkele regering meer aangekeken. Als dat is waar Jintao op aanstuurt, okee.
Maar zo stom is ie niet.
[..]

Wat heeft het defensiebudget met 'voor het karretje spannen' te maken?
Volgens die logica geeft Nederland ook veel te veel geld uit aan tanks. We hadden in 1990 meer artillerie dan Engeland, we hebben meer dan de helft van Frankrijks hele tankarsenaal terwijl zij 3-4x zoveel inwoners hebben. Wat moet een klein kloteland als Nederland nou met 200 tanks?
Bovendien omvat een ministerie van defensie een gehele krijgsmacht. En een krijgsmacht moet op alles voorbereid zijn.
[..]

Waar haal jij vandaan dat men alleen aanvalswapens bouwt? Elk wapen is per definitie bedoeld om aan te vallen. Die Abrams kan net zo hard worden ingezet om een gebied te verdedigen, die JSF kan ook vliegtuigen boven VS luchtruim neerhalen.
Een Ja 37 Draken kan net zo goed boven Irak vliegtuigen neerhalen dan boven Zweden.
Waarom mocht de eerste wereldoorlog niet tussen de Geällieerden en de Centralen worden uitgevochten, waarom mocht WW2 dat niet?
China ontvangt steun en verleent steun, waarom zou Taiwan het niet mogen? Het gaat om belangen.
China wil land van Rusland hebben maar dat krijgen ze niet als het aan Rusland ligt.
China wil Taiwan hebben en dat krijgen ze ook niet als het aan de VS of Taiwan ligt.
China heeft er belang bij dat Taiwan en Siberie worden afgestaan, maar dat druist tegen de Russische, Taiwanese en Amerikaanse belangen in. Dus krijg je dit soort situaties.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 11:31 schreef HarigeKerel het volgende:
Om 12.05 op NED2

Koninklijke Luchtmacht
Een kijkje achter de schermen
tijdens de Open Dagen van de Koninklijke Luchtmacht. Het programma Koninklijke Luchtmacht is opgenomen tijdens de Open Dagen die dit jaar werden gehouden op vliegveld Volkel. Bert Kuizenga leidt de kijker langs alles wat er tijdens de Open Dagen te beleven viel. Dat varieert van demonstraties van jachtvliegtuigen, helikopters en historische vliegtuigen tot vluchten van speciale demonstratie-teams. In het bijzonder wordt één demonstratie-vlieger gevolgd tijdens de voorbereidingen op de vliegshow. Hij vertelt over zijn beweegredenen om luchtmachtpiloot te worden en over wat er allemaal komt kijken bij het vliegen van demo-shows. Ook zal er een overzicht worden gegeven van demo-vliegshows uit de oude doos en over de ontwikkeling van de luchtmacht van de afgelopen 60 jaar. Daarbij zal onder andere aandacht zijn voor de ontwikkeling van de Joint Strike Fighter en de toepassing van onbemande spionagevliegtuigen. Verder is er een portret van judoka Mark Huizinga, die topsport combineert met een baan bij de luchtmacht. Aan zijn prestaties als sporter te merken, is dat zeer wel mogelijk.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 14:20 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Mooie post

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 14:22 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:

[..]

dat er aandacht besteed word aan de jsf en uav vind ik misleiodend over beide word maar 1 vraag gesteld

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 14:30 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Dank u.
Het is wel vaak zo.
Heel weinig landen voeren oorlog met elkaar omdat ze een hekel aan elkaar hebben.
Ik durf te wedden dat 100% van de Amerikaanse en Chinese soldaten het met elkaar kunnen vinden.
Misschien niet iedereen van iedereen, maar ik acht het onmogelijk dat ze bij elkaars strijdmachten niet een persoon vinden waarmee ze kunnen opschieten.
China-Taiwan idem.
Er is geen fundamentele haat vanuit de VS jegens China, noch vanuit China jegens Taiwan.
Allen hebben gewoon andere belangen, en die van de VS en Taiwan komen dermate overeen dat ze elkaar steunen

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 15:51 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Klopt

Maar zo kun je alle conflicten klassificeren. Alhoewel er bij beide partijen toch wel haat is. Amerikanen zien de Chinezen als vuile communisten die ver-Amerikaans moeten worden en de Chinezen zien de Amerikanen als arrogante idioten die denken dat ze superieur zijn.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 16:06 schreef HarigeKerel het volgende:
Sterker nog, er zijn ook Chinese Amerikanen

Lucy Lu bv

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 16:08 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Lelijk spook.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 16:10 schreef HarigeKerel het volgende:

[..]

Meen je dat nou?
Zelf val ik niet zo op Asians maar bij Lucy doen die sproetjes het hem als ze boos kijkt in Ally McBeal

[afbeelding]
Met boutje

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 14:16 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

En de VS blaast elk land wat zij als schurkenstaat zien de tering in, zo'n 90% heeft toch geen kernwapens en als ze die wel hebben kunnen ze de VS niet bereiken.

quote:

De aftermath zal waarschijnlijk iets in de trend zijn van: De VS, China, Noord Korea, half Afrika, het Midden Oosten en Colombia kapot.
Zuidoost Azië en de mediterrane landen zitten met een fijne dosis radioactieve vergiftiging opgescheept en de economie ligt in puin, wereldwijd.
Kernwapens zijn niet 'the way', dat weet China, dat weet de VS.

Denk je dat Hu Jintao zin heeft om te zien hoe 'de vijand' zijn hele arsenaal op het moederland leegschiet?
Dan is men bezig met ontwikkeling en is ie zo stom om kernwapens te gebruiken. Gevolg: de afgelopen 50 jaar zijn voor niks geweest omdat ie helemaal tot as gebombardeerd wordt en de aanstichter van een kernoorlog gaat de geschiedenis in, en dat is niet positief. China wordt dan door geen enkele regering meer aangekeken. Als dat is waar Jintao op aanstuurt, okee.
Maar zo stom is ie niet.

quote:

[..]

Wat heeft het defensiebudget met 'voor het karretje spannen' te maken?
Volgens die logica geeft Nederland ook veel te veel geld uit aan tanks. We hadden in 1990 meer artillerie dan Engeland, we hebben meer dan de helft van Frankrijks hele tankarsenaal terwijl zij 3-4x zoveel inwoners hebben. Wat moet een klein kloteland als Nederland nou met 200 tanks?
Bovendien omvat een ministerie van defensie een gehele krijgsmacht. En een krijgsmacht moet op alles voorbereid zijn.
[..]

Waar haal jij vandaan dat men alleen aanvalswapens bouwt? Elk wapen is per definitie bedoeld om aan te vallen. Die Abrams kan net zo hard worden ingezet om een gebied te verdedigen, die JSF kan ook vliegtuigen boven VS luchtruim neerhalen.
Een Ja 37 Draken kan net zo goed boven Irak vliegtuigen neerhalen dan boven Zweden.

quote:

Waarom mocht de eerste wereldoorlog niet tussen de Geällieerden en de Centralen worden uitgevochten, waarom mocht WW2 dat niet?

quote:

China ontvangt steun en verleent steun, waarom zou Taiwan het niet mogen? Het gaat om belangen.
China wil land van Rusland hebben maar dat krijgen ze niet als het aan Rusland ligt.
China wil Taiwan hebben en dat krijgen ze ook niet als het aan de VS of Taiwan ligt.
China heeft er belang bij dat Taiwan en Siberie worden afgestaan, maar dat druist tegen de Russische, Taiwanese en Amerikaanse belangen in. Dus krijg je dit soort situaties.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 14:30 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Dank u.
Het is wel vaak zo.
Heel weinig landen voeren oorlog met elkaar omdat ze een hekel aan elkaar hebben.
Ik durf te wedden dat 100% van de Amerikaanse en Chinese soldaten het met elkaar kunnen vinden.
Misschien niet iedereen van iedereen, maar ik acht het onmogelijk dat ze bij elkaars strijdmachten niet een persoon vinden waarmee ze kunnen opschieten.
China-Taiwan idem.
Er is geen fundamentele haat vanuit de VS jegens China, noch vanuit China jegens Taiwan.
Allen hebben gewoon andere belangen, en die van de VS en Taiwan komen dermate overeen dat ze elkaar steunen

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 16:04 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Uuh. Nee. Amerikanen hebben over het algemeen iets tegen het regime. Nou heb je de selecte kliek white power en dat soort wereldvreemde figuren, maar over het algemeen kun je in de VS spreken van vreedzame coëxistentie tussen Chinezen en Amerikanen.

Men heeft iets tegen het regime en niet tegen de bevolking.

Het haat gedeelte postte ik eerder om Strijder duidelijk te maken dat geen van beide landen een voldoende grote hekel aan elkaar hebben dat ze M.A.D. als bijkomstigheid zien.
Beiden willen ontwikkelen, rijker worden en over het algemeen is een kernoorlog funest voor de bevolkingsgroei, productiviteit, economische groei en status quo.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 16:50 schreef Strijder het volgende:

Hitler verklaarde de VS de oorlog. Overigens wilde de Amerikanen geen oorlog met Duitsland, wel Roosevelt (hun president). Toen Japan (bondgenoot van Duitsland) de VS aanviel, was Duitsland indirect al in oorlog met de VS.
[..]

quote:

Wat zijn de Amerikaanse belangen bij Taiwan ?

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 16:50 schreef Strijder het volgende:

[..]

Noord-Korea wel.

quote:

[..]

China bestaat dan niet meer, net als de VS. Er staat ook als.

quote:

[..]

Het heet niet voor niets ministerie van Defensie. Die naam is er overigens pas sinds 1959, voorheen was het ministerie van Oorlog. En er wordt steeds meer bezuinigd op dat ministerie, daarom zijn het nu ook zoveel minder tanks.

quote:

Natuurlijk kan je met een wapen ook aanvallen, maar dat was niet wat ik bedoelde.
Wat ik bedoelde was, waarom zou je zo enorm veel geld steken in het overal ter wereld (waar jij niet wordt bedreigd) kunnen meppen met je leger ? Dat je veel geld uitgeeft aan je krijgsmacht, op zich geen probleem mee (beter een goed klein dan een slecht groot), maar ik bedoelde de middelen/manieren om het te gebruiken.

quote:

Het is leuk dat wij zowel in de Sahara als in Siberië als in het regenwoud van Brazilië als ... kunnen vechten. Alleen we hoeven het niet, simpelweg omdat Nederland geen woestijn heeft, of taiga, of regenwoud, of .... Dat het [b]kan, op verzoek van de VN[b] is wat anders (plus dat andere landen wel gespecialiseerd zijn in woestijn etc.).

quote:

Maar je leger op al die plaatsen voorbereiden is gewoon achterlijk, omdat je land maar op 1 plaats ligt. De VS zullen voorlopig echt niet worden binnengevallen door boze Canadezen of woeste Mexicanen (of Cubanen/Haïtianen/etc.). Waarom dan toch kernraketten voor de hele wereld ? Waarom bommenwerpers voor de hele wereld ? Waarom vliegdekschepen om de hele wereld te bereiken ?

quote:

En waarom die wapens inzetten om aan jouw eisen te voldoen ? Nooit gehoord van vriendelijkheid, diplomatie, zelf eens iets doen ? Altijd met de dreiging van hun 'defensie'.

quote:

[..]

Hitler verklaarde de VS de oorlog. Overigens wilde de Amerikanen geen oorlog met Duitsland, wel Roosevelt (hun president). Toen Japan (bondgenoot van Duitsland) de VS aanviel, was Duitsland indirect al in oorlog met de VS.
[..]

Wat zijn de Amerikaanse belangen bij Taiwan ?

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 16:19 schreef Piro het volgende:
Nog 40 posts, heeft geen haast.
Moet N_I_ wel even beloven dat ie de lange stukjes die hij heeft neergezet in topic VII weer post, ik heb ze nog steeds niet helemaal gelezen.
Of minstens een bron.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 17:39 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]
Als je een kleinere troepenmacht kan onderhouden die dezelfde slagkracht bezit dan is dat voor veel landen reden om te bezuinigen.

quote:

[..]

Omdat overal op de wereld een potentieele belangenverstrengeling kan voorkomen. Dat is net zoiets als vragen: waarom overal politie, niet in elke buurt loopt een crimineel rond.

quote:

[..]

Wel ja. Je zal maar eens op vredesmissie moeten naar de Jungle, of je zet je leger in omdat een en of andere geflipte figuur je aanvalt, en dan blijkt het niet te kunnen functioneren omdat ze er nooit voor hebben getrained.
Waarom wiskunde leren als je een taal gaat studeren? Omdat je het toch moet kunnen, just in case.

quote:

[..]
Weet je wel waar je het over hebt? De VS is een van de landen met de grootste biodiversiteit in haar eigen staatsgrenzen.
Je hebt poolklimaat in Alaska, Woestijnklimaat in Arizona, uitgestrekte vlakten, moerassen in de Everglades, Landklimaat aan de Oostkust, bijna tropisch klimaat in Californië en een ongekende verscheidenheid in flora en fauna. Voor de VS speciaal maar ook voor andere legers is het bittere noodzaak om overal op de wereld de vijand aan te kunnen, of het nou op Anarctica of midden in de Atacama is, jij moet kunnen functioneren, als jij dat niet kan en je vijand wel dan word de vloer met je aangeveegd.
Rommel was een Afrika veteraan, toen de VS voor het eerst landden in Afrika werden ze door Rommel met minder tanks en versterking vierkant in elkaar getrapt, en jij wil beweren dat het achterlijk is? .
Jij en je wapens moeten globaal ingezet kunnen worden, en als je vliegdekschepen zonder brandstofproblemen de hele oceaan over kunnen is dat alleen maar mooi, als je bommenwerpers non stop missies kunnen vliegen van Guam naar Choybalsan om vervolgens nog even als lanceerplatform gebruikt te kunnen worden, dan is dat alleen maar mooi.

quote:

[..]

Als de VS bij elke irritatie een oorlog was gestart dan had het er nu heel anders uitgezien.

quote:

[..]
En WW1? Wat was daar de motivatie dan? .

quote:

De Amerikaanse belangen bij Taiwan is het feit dat Taiwan een regering heeft waarmee ze goed kunnen opschieten, de Taiwanese economie zowat een onderdeel is van die van de VS, en het feit dat Taiwan een grote afnemer is van wapentuig.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 17:53 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Vroeger heette Ministerie van Defensie toch Ministerie van Oorlog?

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 17:53 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/ttprpg.htm

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/popguns.htm

En ik geloof niet dat er een intense haat bestaat tussen chinezen (asians) en amerikanen. Toen ik in de VS was hadden alle soorten mensen amerikaanse vlaggetjes op hun auto ( zwarten,blanken en asians). Daar ben je gewoon 'american' en als je niet wit bent dan heet je afro-american of native-american , vul zelf maar in. Op gebied van discriminatie (bestrijding ervan) en intergratie doet Amerika het heel goed.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 17:53 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/ttprpg.htm

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/popguns.htm

En ik geloof niet dat er een intense haat bestaat tussen chinezen (asians) en amerikanen. Toen ik in de VS was hadden alle soorten mensen amerikaanse vlaggetjes op hun auto ( zwarten,blanken en asians). Daar ben je gewoon 'american' en als je niet wit bent dan heet je afro-american of native-american , vul zelf maar in. Op gebied van discriminatie (bestrijding ervan) en intergratie doet Amerika het heel goed.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 17:53 schreef N_I_ het volgende:

[..]

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/ttprpg.htm

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/popguns.htm

En ik geloof niet dat er een intense haat bestaat tussen chinezen (asians) en amerikanen. Toen ik in de VS was hadden alle soorten mensen amerikaanse vlaggetjes op hun auto ( zwarten,blanken en asians). Daar ben je gewoon 'american' en als je niet wit bent dan heet je afro-american of native-american , vul zelf maar in. Op gebied van discriminatie (bestrijding ervan) en intergratie doet Amerika het heel goed.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 17:59 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Wat is die laatste?

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:01 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Chief Warrant Officer.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 17:57 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Dat is ook maar sinds kort..

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:03 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Zeker niet.
De VS heeft zijn deel rassenhaat gehad, maar iedereen voelt zich op de eerste plaats toch een Amerikaan, ook de gediscrimineerde groeperingen. Daar is het argument niet 'omdat we turks/marrokaans zijn' maar 'wij zijn even goed Amerikanen als jullie'.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:01 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Wat doet hij eigenlijk?

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:03 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Ach ja, van mij mogen ze dat voelen Als ze maar niet teveel bemoeien met de wereld..

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 17:57 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Dat is ook maar sinds kort..

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:05 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Warrant officers zijn officieren die net geen officier zijn zegmaar.
Veldofficieren.
Zit tussen het E tract en het O tract in en hun rangen gaan van W1 tot W5.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:05 schreef Wuder het volgende:
[afbeelding]

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 17:54 schreef Strijder het volgende:

[..]

Niet alle landen blijkbaar (terwijl het zeker wel zou kunnen).

quote:

[..]

In Nederland hebben we te weinig politie (of ze doen in ieder geval niets).
Maar om een overdaad aan agenten te hebben en die overal in te zetten klopt ook niet.

quote:

[..]

Je kan er wel op trainen, maar er zijn zat landen die die ervaring al hebben (omdat ze zelf zo'n landschap hebben ofzo). Het is niet erg om er op te trainen, maar het hoeft totaal niet.

quote:

[..]

Waarom zou dat moeten ? Niet uit begreiging van de VS in ieder geval, en ook niet om vrede te brengen (want ze doen haast nooit mee met de VN, en als wel, dan worden ze eruit geschopt door de vijand).

quote:

[..]

De VS heeft al heel wat oorlogen laten ontstaan, het had er heel wat anders uit kunnen zien.

quote:

[..]

De aanval op de Louisitana (dat schip).

quote:

[..]

Aha, dus gewoon oorlogspolitiek.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:11 schreef SHERMAN het volgende:

[..]

Stoer

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:06 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

Weer wat geleerd

Trouwens, in WW2, die Amerikaanse markeringen van officieren op hun helmen. Dat zou een makkelijke herkenning zijn geweest voor snipers

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:17 schreef Wuder het volgende:

[..]

De PLA, master of PR

Maar dit was geen PR. Dit was iets van evenwichtsgevoel van SpecialOps te trainen..

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:20 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Of het rode kruis op de uniformen van medics.
Die gingen als eerste neer, en heden ten dage nog als de vijand weet wat de medic of de officier is.
In oorlogssituaties heeft bijna alles hetzelfde uniform en zijn er alleen hele subtiele dingen die een officier van een soldaat onderschijden.
Zelfs de Med-evac helicopters hebben in oorlogstijd een zwart kruis ipv een rood, of het wordt helemaal weggehaald.

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:20 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Op een stapel banden? Of wat is het precies?

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:21 schreef Wuder het volgende:
Dit heeft trouwens niet zoveel met dit topic te maken, maar ik verveelde me even.

[afbeelding]

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:16 schreef Piro het volgende:

[..]

Klets. Als die 1000 tanks uit 1990 beter waren geweest dan die 300 tanks die we heden ten dage hebben dan zou men ze erin hebben gehouden, overstappen kost geld en doe je alleen als de baten tegen de kosten opwegen.

quote:

[..]

In Japan heeft men een politiebureau per huizenblok. Dat zijn dus 3-10 agenten per huizenblok die er 24/7 zijn.
Hun criminaliteitscijfer behoort tot de laagsten ter wereld en hun politiedekking tot de hoogste.

quote:

Piro - zondag 20 juni 2004 @ 17:39
[..]
Omdat overal op de wereld een potentieele belangenverstrengeling kan voorkomen. Dat is net zoiets als vragen: waarom overal politie, niet in elke buurt loopt een crimineel rond.
[..]

quote:

This takes the cake. Natuurlijk moet het wel. Traint de PLA niet op uiteenlopende omstandigheden?
Elk leger doet dat, dat leger X het landschap niet heeft hoeft niet te betekenen dat ze er nooit zullen zijn. Stel je voor dat Nederland nooit op woestijn of arctisch klimaat had getrained zeg, zou nog mooi zijn geweest als ze in Irak werden neergezet.

quote:

[..]

Uit wens van de landen waarin ze bases hebben misschien? Is het ooit bij je opgekomen dat wanneer de regeringen van het land niet eens zijn met het feit dat de VS er een basis heeft die basissen gewoon worden opgedoekt?
Saudi Arabië, Korea, Duitsland, de UK en weet ik veel waar ze nog meer zitten kunnen zo een voorstel aannemen dat de VS verbiedt nog langer troepen in hun land te zetten.

quote:

[..]

Zoals?

quote:

[..]

Zinken van voorraden die naar de UK gingen afaik, ik weet niet of het precies dat schip was.

quote:

[..]

Wat dacht jij dan?

quote:

Op zondag 20 juni 2004 18:05 schreef Wuder het volgende:
[afbeelding]