Weapons that changed war..

FlyNavy said:
you forgot the horse. it's been a military weapon for the past 6000 years and was one of the key reasons europeans gained hegemony over half the world
Click to expand...

True, but I would say "beasts of labor" as opposed to horses specifically. Just like saying "ships" as opposed to "submarines, battlecruisers, destroyers, cutters" so on.
 
I thought it was interesting that Mack put the military/industrial complex at number one and I'm inclined to agree
 
he's a cool guy but there's a lot of errors and inconsistencies in his show. they need to do a little more fact checking and fraking ex-seal should know better than to claim the barret is the best sniper rifle out there
 
FlyNavy said:
he's a cool guy but there's a lot of errors and inconsistencies in his show. they need to do a little more fact checking and fraking ex-seal should know better than to claim the barret is the best sniper rifle out there
Click to expand...

In the first episode, he said 'The AK 47 shoots the same 7.62mm round as the M14.' I turned it off and have refused to watch it since.
 
I obviously don't know a thing about guns for the most part but I like the technological aspects that are impacting weaponry. I find that intriguing.
 
Dysfunctional said:
I think if you average military training accident deaths since WW2, you will find they are significantly greater than IED deaths in Iraq (or the deaths in Iraq in general). The sum is paltry. In fact, if you add together both Gulf conflicts (which are really one), they can hardly be called a war at all. The loss to the US has been financial. But I guess that has to be balanced against what we learned. We have fine tuned our front line ground forces with drones, Aim-Point optics, night vision and further finessed the c-130 gun ships. We have improved our front line medical care.
Click to expand...

My comment was just a pointless reflection. It really has nothing to do with the survey or anything else. I merely said that no weapon has been used with more efficacy than the IED in Iraq or Afghanistan.
 
Sarcasmo said:
My comment was just a pointless reflection. It really has nothing to do with the survey or anything else. I merely said that no weapon has been used with more efficacy than the IED in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

You know there are many other wars that have nothing to do with America, right Texan?
 
Sarcasmo said:
My comment was just a pointless reflection. It really has nothing to do with the survey or anything else. I merely said that no weapon has been used with more efficacy than the IED in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Only in drawing the attention of cameras. So, as an extension of politics... yes.

As an actual weapon, it kills few and in any real military operation could stop nothing.
 
Dysfunctional said:
Only in drawing the attention of cameras. So, as an extension of politics... yes.

As an actual weapon, it kills few and in any real military operation could stop nothing.
Click to expand...

As evidenced in Fallujah. We located and disarmed countless IEDs, including entire daisy-chained streets. It's a shock weapon, nothing more. In terms of casualties Iraq has so far been a massive success. When else have been engaged in a years-long war and only suffered a few thousand deaths, many of which weren't even combat related?
 
Sarcasmo said:
As evidenced in Fallujah. We located and disarmed countless IEDs, including entire daisy-chained streets. It's a shock weapon, nothing more. In terms of casualties Iraq has so far been a massive success. When else have been engaged in a years-long war and only suffered a few thousand deaths, many of which weren't even combat related?
Click to expand...

Well... The military normally racks up a couple hundred kills through accidents every year without even fighting.
 
The invasion of Iraq was a HUGE success. Only like 2 troops lost in the entire op. Death and Destruction is what our military is all about...

Occupation... whole nother ball game.
 
Honestly I would have to say gunpowder and the tank as the defining moments when the nature of war changed.

it used to be a battle of generalship and training of individual soldiers that copuld make or break a battle but with the inclusion of guns and tanks into a battle it became more of a give the body a gun or give the dozer driver a tank and you suddenly have a semi effective fighting force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back