Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[LordSlowpoke]

i've been meaning to change it into something else but i had no decent ideas

so i just converted the original into fraktur

now it's so edgy the bfv must be keeping tabs on me, heh

[Helgoland]

Be careful, they might try to give you money and sell you weapons

[Sergarr]

Hey, I'm on your side - my criterion for a sufficiently strong German army is that it should be able, together with the Polish army, to at least fight the Russian army to a standstill in a conventional war. I don't like having to rely on the US, and I really, really dislike the prospect of having to rely on a Le Pen-led France.

It seems like every new thing I hear about Le Pen makes her and FN even more concerning than before.

Huh? Explain - I think I'm missing something.

I didn't understand your comment about Le Pen, so I looked at FN's wikipedia page to see if I could get some insight. There I found that they oppose the sanctions on Russia (and maybe support their claim on Crimea?) and sent a guy over there in March to mark the independence of the People's Republic of Donetsk. That may not have been what you were referring to, but it was still a surprise to find that a major party in Western Europe had such a stance.

That's because they're Russian shills. No really, they get paid by Russia and everything.

ITT: A Pole praises the might of Russian army (in an insane way, because T-34s have been completely retired a long time ago) and disses American and European ones.

How ironic.

AFAIK, T-34-85Ms are still kept in warehouses (they aren't really reserves per se, but if there was a need Russia could still roll a quite a few of them out, though nowadays they are used for films and reentacting at best). And I'm pretty much providing an only one example on how they would actually win something (modern combat is about hitting hard in small numbers, wether it is conventional or guerilla). I do agree that this isin't Soviet Union (yet) and (hopefully) Russians have enough sense to not enjoy being cannon fodder. Also, I don't really see how that's ironic. I'm a Pole. Don't expect me to think of "allies" highly, expect me to think of enemies as of big powers and expect me to say that Poland is going to win anyway.

News flash: Europeans outnumber Russians at least 5:1. So this part:

Reserves would be useless in a showdown between modern forces.  What would Russian forces do if French and German helicopters made it impossible for them to operate supply lines of trucks?  Walk their supplies in on backpacks?

Basically, the idea would be to defend the supply lines with real army, and send the reserves forward, in Soviet style. I'm conviced that if you used enough T-34s and other old shit, NATO forces in the area would simply not have enough dakka to defend the whole "frontline", and all those "outdated reserve shits" would still wreak havoc behind the actual army, they're still pretty killy. And if the allied go back to fight them, they have to give ground to regular Russian army.

is completely and absolutely wrong. Also, NATO's focus on airforce means that there's no "frontline" to speak of.

[mainiac]

There were frontlines in '91 and '03 so I dont see why a focus on airpower means there wont be a front.  Nobody has tanks that can drive all the way across Poland without refueling.

[Sergarr]

There were frontlines in '91 and '03 so I dont see why a focus on airpower means there wont be a front.  Nobody has tanks that can drive all the way across Poland without refueling.

But focus on airpower means that this doesn't apply:

NATO forces in the area would simply not have enough dakka to defend the whole "frontline"...
And if the allied go back to fight them, they have to give ground to regular Russian army.

Which is why I've wrote "frontline" in quotes.

[Sheb]

Kot, you seems to be confused about the F-35. No one ever suggested bringing troops in it. However, the Marines kept insisting on VTOL capabilities, which mean a big-ass fan had to be installed in the middle of the plane. It's not present in the other variants of the JSF, but it caused enough design issues to make the whole plane significantly worse.

[Kot]

Kot, you seems to be confused about the F-35. No one ever suggested bringing troops in it. However, the Marines kept insisting on VTOL capabilities, which mean a big-ass fan had to be installed in the middle of the plane. It's not present in the other variants of the JSF, but it caused enough design issues to make the whole plane significantly worse.

I am not confused, just... misinformed. I did research and it seems the whole idea orginated from /k/ when someone jokingly asked about "What if it could carry a 6 man element?" and it finally evolved into pretty much hearsay and "supersonic stealth plane that could quickly and stealthily penetrate enemy airspace, drop a unit of special forces, and then peace the fuck out". Which isin't really that retarded idea but surely not something you want in JSF. After that it was disscussed (pretty seriously) a bit around aviation forums and /k/, so, well...

[smjjames]

Kot, you seems to be confused about the F-35. No one ever suggested bringing troops in it. However, the Marines kept insisting on VTOL capabilities, which mean a big-ass fan had to be installed in the middle of the plane. It's not present in the other variants of the JSF, but it caused enough design issues to make the whole plane significantly worse.

I am not confused, just... misinformed. I did research and it seems the whole idea orginated from /k/ when someone jokingly asked about "What if it could carry a 6 man element?" and it finally evolved into pretty much hearsay and "supersonic stealth plane that could quickly and stealthily penetrate enemy airspace, drop a unit of special forces, and then peace the fuck out". Which isin't really that retarded idea but surely not something you want in JSF. After that it was disscussed (pretty seriously) a bit around aviation forums and /k/, so, well...

4chan =/= what they are thinking in military R&D.

[FritzPL]

Remember that one time when a /k/omrade mixed '93 octane with rubbing alcohol and Styrofoam' and then went hunting? The result was highly effective in that combustion was instantaneous and the game perished immediately, but unfortunately for OP the USA signed some papers in 1955 which forbid the use of such firearms in war.
Besides, honestly, I like a good kek from time to time, but taking what someone typed on /k/ seriously? Consult your internet surfing manual before you cause danger to yourself and people around you, please.

[Kot]

Remember that one time when a /k/omrade mixed '93 octane with rubbing alcohol and Styrofoam' and then went hunting? The result was highly effective in that combustion was instantaneous and the game perished immediately, but unfortunately for OP the USA signed some papers in 1955 which forbid the use of such firearms in war.
Besides, honestly, I like a good kek from time to time, but taking what someone typed on /k/ seriously? Consult your internet surfing manual before you cause danger to yourself and people around you, please.

I didin't took /k/ seriously, I took srs aviatiuns forems seriously. I just traced the idea back to /k/.

[FritzPL]

The point still stands:
Internet forumites =/= military r&d.
This might doesn't apply to small arms and other armaments available to general populace - as seen in the example I've mentioned and certainly, numerous others - where modifying your gun and experimenting with it is done at your own risk and for your own entertainment/use. With a fifth generation stealth multi-role fighter costing $104 million, one does not have such freedom.
It can be discussed about, speculated about, theorised - but not taken as something that would actually work and be implemented.

[Zangi]

The point still stands:
Internet forumites =/= military r&d.
This might doesn't apply to small arms and other armaments available to general populace - as seen in the example I've mentioned and certainly, numerous others - where modifying your gun and experimenting with it is done at your own risk and for your own entertainment/use. With a fifth generation stealth multi-role fighter costing $104 million, one does not have such freedom.
It can be discussed about, speculated about, theorised - but not taken as something that would actually work and be implemented.

I don't know... military r&d still needs humans generating ideas...  The main difference is probably filters in place to keep most of the stupid out... and the given fact that military r&d simply ain't just out there for the public to witness. 
Internet forumites have no filter in any way whatsoever.

[Loud Whispers]

Remember that one time when a /k/omrade mixed '93 octane with rubbing alcohol and Styrofoam' and then went hunting? The result was highly effective in that combustion was instantaneous and the game perished immediately, but unfortunately for OP the USA signed some papers in 1955 which forbid the use of such firearms in war.
Besides, honestly, I like a good kek from time to time, but taking what someone typed on /k/ seriously? Consult your internet surfing manual before you cause danger to yourself and people around you, please.

Yeah he accidentally caused a forest fire

[Jopax]

It's not just about the ideas, it's about the need for said solutions. Just think about it. Why would the marines, a branch of the military specialising in naval assaults and operations have any need for a fighter capable of delivering stupidly small numbers of soliders way behind enemy lines. The airforce/rangers/whatever other airborne troops have that as their job and they already have more than capable tools to do it properly.

Remember, the way the US military operates is that things are developed when somebody asks for them, they don't just fling ideas at a wall to see what sticks (well they do but that's the more theoretical part of it, the more practical projecs aren't like that)

[Frumple]

It's not just about the ideas, it's about the need for said solutions. Just think about it. Why would the marines, a branch of the military specialising in naval assaults and operations have any need for a fighter capable of delivering stupidly small numbers of soliders way behind enemy lines.

... you do realize that the marines, and the navy in general, have a pretty significant air component, right? Naval assaults and operations nowadays can pretty easily involve a lot of flying stuff, and that's often handled in-house, so to speak, instead of involving other branches of the military.

E: Though the discussion is probably one better had... elsewhere. Armchair general thread, maybe, I'unno. This doesn't really have much import for europe, beyond noting what should be the obvious fact one should take anything said on milspec et al forums/websites with great heaping mounds of salt.