SpudFiles

POLAND_SPUD wrote:however I would like to know if they are one use only ?

Depends on the system in question. Some are. Some aren't.

THUNDERLORD wrote:I bet some of the shoulder fired stuff today would've made about a 4-8 foot Hole in the side of that OP vehicle.

Even the heaviest World War Two vehicles wouldn't really stand a chance against modern anti-tank weapons, the days when it was just a matter of making the armour thicker to resist ever greater kinetic projectiles are long over. There are so many effective ways of attacking a tank that people continue to question (as they have done for a long time) if its day on the battlefield is now over, but it looks like they'll be around for a while anyway.

{that's just my thoughts (yeah I know it's off topic)}

Depends on the system in question. Some are. Some aren't.

AFAIK they are quite expensive... a single use 100.000$ (that's just a guess mostlikly they are more expensive) system to stop a 100$ RPG, sounds strange isn't?

if the system protects a 10.000.000 tank or IFV from being destroyed that's ok but where does it lead ? if they fire 100 RPGs/day, anyone using the system has to pay for replacing 'these systems' 10 mln $ a day(or at least one part of them but that's still cost some $$$)

it's the same with the ground based version of phalanx (CIWS whatever you call it)... this thing is meant to protect important facilities from artilerry and mortar rounds, rockets and so on before they hit their target.... this sound impresive but again to destroy a 100 $ mortar round you have to send several thousand rounds and they are not dirt cheap

so to sum it up, don't you think that some developed countries put to much on their economies by developing advanced (and expensive) weaponry?
USA has real difficulties when fighting in Afganistan and IRAQ don't you get the impresion that they have not started war with Iran just because they know that they couldn't cope with fighting in 3 places at once?

...USA has real difficulties when fighting in Afganistan and IRAQ don't you get the impresion that they have not started war with Iran just because they know that they couldn't cope with fighting in 3 places at once?

The US military has a force to fight two fronts with 3-1 against the enemy and far better weapons (Best in the world).
The only thing stopping them from rolling all over Iran is what Mainly the U.N. But also what the public would think. Same thing with Iraq.

If they were fighting to take over that would've been done years ago after the first battles. That's the thing that seems stupid to me.

The cost of the weaponry is interesting, But since the government is spending tax dollars a lot of that just gets re-circulated anyway.
Probably through a lot of thier friends companies...

But anyway just shows the might of "The New World Order" when they can shoot $12,000 missiles at jeeps even junkers and $80,000+ to shoot obsolete Russian armor.

BTW, Wonder if the battle the OP was in looked like
This! 8) 8) 8)
Course this one sums up the only winning strategy for any war!

no offence but US don't give a shXX about the U.N... If they could do it they'd have already done that.....

I don't know how much you really know about Iraq and Afganistan because of Fox news and other 'reliable sorces' but it hasn't been going well... anyway what I wrote above was not particularly about US but I can use US to explain that, no problem

The US military has a force to fight two fronts with 3-1 against the enemy and far better weapons (Best in the world).

every army has a group of 'line' units that are equiped and skilled enough to be used effectively the rest is basically of no use...

...and you need a lot of troops to occupy even a small country..
Iraq and afganistan are rather big so the US military really needs a lot of troops present there....
they can send there their line troops but after a few months they have to replace them.... when you replace them with less skilled soldiers it's envitable that there will be more casualities

what is more you have to send food, ammo, everything and even toilets there and it all cost $$$... (think how much it would cost to order a QEV valve from Mcmaster to afganistan and then you'll get the idea )

it's said the regular army loses if it does not win, while it is enough for the guerrillas not to lose to continue dreaming about triumph...it's even more true when you spend on army more $$$ than any other country in the world

POLAND_SPUD wrote:AFAIK they are quite expensive... a single use 100.000$ (that's just a guess mostlikly they are more expensive) system to stop a 100$ RPG, sounds strange isn't?

Nah, there's nothing in them that would cost that much per shot. Sure, the radars and such are expensive, but the actual energetics (ie, the "one shot components") shouldn't be horribly expensive. A few thousand bucks at most (production costs; not prototype).

if the system protects a 10.000.000 tank or IFV from being destroyed that's ok but where does it lead ? if they fire 100 RPGs/day, anyone using the system has to pay for replacing 'these systems' 10 mln $ a day(or at least one part of them but that's still cost some $$$)

Even if true, it's still a lot cheaper than buying new tanks everytime somebody pops a shot at you.

so to sum it up, don't you think that some developed countries put to much on their economies by developing advanced (and expensive) weaponry?

They may punish their militaries by maintaining strong militaries in general, but advanced weapons generally DO save money in the long run. The most obvious example would be laser guided bombs....

(costs pulled out of my arse for purposes of discussion only)

Laser guided bomb: $500,000
Dumb bomb: $10,000

OK, so I can buy 50 dumb bombs for the cost of 1 laser guided bomb. Cool!

Now lets say I want to kill something to a certainty of 0.95%.

Pk for LGB: 0.95
Pk for DB: 0.10

Hey, on LGB? One kill!

Dumb bombs? Sorry, you'll need.... (does some quick math) 29 bombs to do the same task.

So now we're at $500k vs. $290k. Hey, dumb bombs are still cheaper!

But remember those bombs don't deliver themselves. You'll need on the order of 5 planes to deliver those bombs. Call it $50k per mission... Hey, suddenly your cost is about the same ($550k vs. $540k)! Throw in the fact that you're now risking losing 5 planes instead of losing just one.....

Point being that there's more to the equation than just the cost of a weapon.

USA has real difficulties when fighting in Afganistan and IRAQ don't you get the impresion that they have not started war with Iran just because they know that they couldn't cope with fighting in 3 places at once?

Nah... We have no problems fighting. What we have problems doing is keeping peace. Those are two very different tasks.

penetration most spudders can only dream of...

I'm beginning to think Larda doesn't have to keep dreaming anymore

wow i would be vlasting down peoples doors if i had a gun that could do that...id knock thy say whos there an id be like


LARRY THE CABLE GUY BITCH....BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM...
lmao im to tired i g2g get some z's lmao

In addition to the tanks mentioned earlier..... This beast.[/url]

POLAND_SPUD wrote:I don't know how much you really know about Iraq and Afganistan because of Fox news and other 'reliable sorces' but it hasn't been going well... anyway what I wrote above was not particularly about US but I can use US to explain that, no problem

Not this again. It's not likely you even get Fox News so you can't speak from personal experience. Actually Fox News IS a fair and reliable presenter of news, and has by far the largest cable viewership in the US. Anyone that says otherwise is purveying a lie with a hard left wing agenda.

Actually, I would recommend The Drudge Report for quick and reasonably complete American and some international news. It's actually a compilation of reports from many other sources.

POLAND_SPUD wrote:...no offence but US don't give a shXX about the U.N...

None taken. Enough Proof they could beat any other country in U.N.?
But they do give shxx about U.N. (Unfortunately US is still paying debts from WW2) Pretty stupid IMO.

...I don't know how much you really know about Iraq and Afganistan because of Fox news and other 'reliable sorces' but it hasn't been going well...

I Don't watch fox news or hardly any news as a matter of fact, I only speak from personal experience and the fact that I lived near a base and spoke to several returning soldiers on a daily basis.
Maybe some aspects aren't going well. But for normal civilians, we don't even notice a war is going on. That's how much of our capacity is being used on it. Sort of like a boxer who isn't even breaking a sweat while basically kicking @ss really. (maybe getting little sissy slaps back)

...and you need a lot of troops to occupy even a small country..
Iraq and afganistan are rather big so the US military really needs a lot of troops present there....
they can send there their line troops but after a few months they have to replace them.... when you replace them with less skilled soldiers it's envitable that there will be more casualities

I forgot to mention in addition to having the best arms in the world the US military is the best trained and best physical health in the world.
Training/replacing troops is no a problem. Probably even if they had 100 times the current casualties or more.
As far as the occupying, they better pray (more than 7 times a day) the US doesn't change it's peace keeping policy (at it's own expense right now). Pretty futile resistance when you think about it. Even if they started to win, Imagine if US got pissed off for real.

...it's said the regular army loses if it does not win, while it is enough for the guerrillas not to lose to continue dreaming about triumph...it's even more true when you spend on army more $$$ than any other country in the world...

Same thing pretty futile when you think about it.
It's not just that they have better more expensive weapons, with each accurate weapon several cheap ones are rendered useless and never used. The Money issue I've already explained they have it, it gets recirculated into the economy and people here don't even notice a war is going on.
But you're correct they may just back out all together since it's sort of pointless mission and there's nothing in it for normal citizens. Pretty crazy that they're there IMO. But no reason not to finish what they've started. (More than likely they won't. No way).

Biggest threat to US I forsee is... this election... maybe they deserve whatever happens.

my mini pillbottle combustion has twice that penetration...pfft...the q-tips i fire can penetrate 1m thick titanium...did you guys know that?

@D_Hall yeah I get you point....
I was reffering more to the theory (or whatever you want to call it) that current systems are so advanced that in order to increase effectivness of anything by 10% you have to spend 60% more on its development....

...of course that 10% is likely to give you an edge on the battlefield
but it's not really cost effecient when you are fighting with a comparable enemy not with some 3rd world country

Wars are all about money...During IIWW germans had the best tanks, some of them were real masterpieces (expensive) but eventually their economy couldn't produce enough of them that's why they were beaten...

What we have problems doing is keeping peace. Those are two very different tasks.

When you invade a country it can't be peace keeping anymore....
let's say that I know what you mean - unfortunatelly you can't win a war by moving in, beating an enemy with very advanced weaponry and moving out....


@thunderlord

...no offence but US don't give a shXX about the U.N...

None taken. Enough Proof they could beat any other country in U.N.?

ok you are right, let's nuke France

@starman
I've seen their coverage on the war in Iraq... and I have to tell you that information you (Americans) get is different from what you see in other countries... I know you may think that it's the same all around the world but it's not... and I don't want to discuss which one is closer to the truth becasue that's pointless

@MrCrowley

I'm beginning to think Larda doesn't have to keep dreaming anymore

sooo true.. that guy amazes me.. he has access to machinery that other spudders can only dream of..... I think he should start a new religion or something

SEAKING9006 wrote:In addition to the tanks mentioned earlier..... This beast.

If some Nazis had their way, it could have been much, MUCH worse!

I'm beginning to think Larda doesn't have to keep dreaming anymore

If he scales things up, I'm sure he could give the '88 a run for its money

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:If some Nazis had their way, it could have been much, MUCH worse!

Hmm, it looks like Games Workshop might got hold of those old Nazi blueprints:

Either that, or they were smoking some very strong old tweed socks.