Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 07:14:00 -
[241]
With this taser... they won't get back up
Originally by: ISD Valorem The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.
Weekly quote: "Villains always have antidotes... They're funny that way." ~The Tick |
Valan
The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 08:43:00 -
[242]
Well eventually found out whether the Typhoon can compete with the F-22. The USA won't be selling any F-22s to anyone.
Someone will be selling Typhoons to the Arabian nations so you'll come across them soon. Pilots may not be upto to scratch but the planes will be.
It looks promising for the Typhoon the US test pilots were very complimentary. To be honest he looked shocked and a little bemused don't think he was expecting it to handle that well. The guy said he'd never flown anything like it.
With being designed to be very unstable and hence very agile it needs loads of computer power to keep it in the air. Would be interested to know how reilient it is to bullets and shrapnel.
I was under the impression the Typhoon was built as a multi role aircraft?
/start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig |
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 09:11:00 -
[243]
It is a multi role. From looking on Wikipedia there are different vairiants for each role, bomber configurations and dogfighter configurations ect. They were surprised? What were they expececting, it's Europes main fighter jet I think they said on Top Gear it has light armor, it is desighned to evade getting hit in the first place as opposed to taking damage, speed tanking ftw!
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
Dalanoria
Northern Intelligence Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 09:13:00 -
[244]
Hrm, China has a large military, but wars are won with Aircraft Carriers and having friends like the UK.
UK and American forces combined cannot be stopped, wars can be won in days with their combined might. Having served in the US Army along side Canadians (Blood thristy sons of *****es) and UK soldiers, using their equipment built in their countrys.Ive got to say, Russia cannot supply China with even an ounce of what we have combined...
|
Socrates Nacht
Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 11:29:00 -
[245]
Edited by: Socrates Nacht on 29/11/2007 11:31:16 I think we are all missing a point here...
You can have the biggest, best trained, best equipped military in the world but without the political will to allow that military to operate to its fullest thenm they will be almost impotent against a force where the opponents have no such restrictions.
I think the developed nations do not have the ability to conduct unrestricted warfare any more against a nation. The political masters will not let them. ROE's are commonplace even in such events as the invasion of Iraq.
Faced against a opponent who is happy to carry out totally unrestricted warfare the modern military has its hand tied behind its back.
That said I would say the UK military punches far above its weight compared to other countries. its small numbers and lack of heavy lift logistics is its main problem
|
Kirjava
Lothian Quay Industries Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 11:36:00 -
[246]
Soc, UK logistics is getting a heavy boost with the new Aircraft carrier's HMS Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales to augment the Invincible series for the forseeable future. Developed nations do have the ability for unrestricted warfare, I cannot see Military leaders allowing their people to be slaughtered on masse just to keep the moral high ground, they may even take power for the duration of the war if the Civilian governent is deeped incompetent and unfit for command if the mainland was attacked (I am thinking of Britian here).
Rate my charecters please - 2M isk for a good review for the first 3 people!! |
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 12:33:00 -
[247]
Edited by: SoftRevolution on 29/11/2007 12:35:13 The F-22 has brochure multirole capability too (i.e. it can carry a JDAM or two).
Are any of the Eurofighters operators actually planning on using it for ground attack and the like?
Developed nations are restrained not just by ROEs but by the voters back home. EVE RELATED CONTENT |
Valan
The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 13:01:00 -
[248]
Originally by: SoftRevolution
Are any of the Eurofighters operators actually planning on using it for ground attack and the like?
Developed nations are restrained not just by ROEs but by the voters back home.
Yes due to the fact we can't afford to design two different ones. The Tornado was an interceptor and ground strike craft.
Flying the flag for the old UK again. All the Iraqi airstrips were pretty much done by Tornados in the first Gulf war with the JP233s.
US politicians did claim that public opinion led to the early end of the first Gulf war hence ****** was left in power.
I don't know if you remember the pictures of the Apache hunting a single soldier with its cannon when he was trying to hide. It portrayed inhumane force, the enemy was obviously defeated and we were still killing them. the armed forces don't seem to have an issue with unrestrained force its the public vote.
/start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig |
Locus Bey
Gallente Nova-Tek
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 13:06:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Socrates Nacht Edited by: Socrates Nacht on 29/11/2007 11:31:16 I think we are all missing a point here...
You can have the biggest, best trained, best equipped military in the world but without the political will to allow that military to operate to its fullest thenm they will be almost impotent against a force where the opponents have no such restrictions.
I think the developed nations do not have the ability to conduct unrestricted warfare any more against a nation. The political masters will not let them. ROE's are commonplace even in such events as the invasion of Iraq.
Faced against a opponent who is happy to carry out totally unrestricted warfare the modern military has its hand tied behind its back.
I take issue with your point about unrestricted warfare. In many cases, such as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict it is probably better to describe the 'unrestricted' warfare of the Palestinians, as only means available. If you lack the high-tech weaponry of your opponent, you do what you have to. Vietnam being another example. If this is an ongoing conflict, again like Palestine, where generation after generation, you are under siege, surely it is understandable that you will resort to 'extreme' methods, whether it be for military or political ends.
I think this thread also neglects to address that a military should also be judged by its ability to act as a successful strategist, peacekeeper, rebuilder, negotiator. More than one of the leading contenders discussed here, would fail miserably if this was added to the mix.
|
Captain Blart
Hideous Mutant Freekz
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 13:07:00 -
[250]
Edited by: Captain Blart on 29/11/2007 13:07:36 Asking who have the best military in the world is like asking which race in Eve online is the best for PvP .
If you think in terms of technology and numbers, ofc US come first but modern war is not about numbers and technology only. Look at that mess in Irak, americans have been there for years and the only thing they have been able to secure is petrol rigs so it does not matter how many tanks, nuclear bombs , ships you do have if you sucks at urban warfare, wich play a big role in modern warfare. Invading a country needs a lot of firepower but being able to secure a country is another ballgame
Motivation of the troops also play a big role , its better to have 20 mens ready to fight to death with little equipment than 100 men with high tech weaponry but who cant take pressure well under very harsch environments.
Also information research ON THE FIELD plays a big part of nodern warfare, its not all about satelites, its more about gainig informations through local ppopulation.
etc etc..
|
|
ry ry
StateCorp Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 13:08:00 -
[251]
were tornadoes really used as interceptors? can't see them being much good at it.
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 13:45:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Kirjava It is a multi role. From looking on Wikipedia there are different vairiants for each role, bomber configurations and dogfighter configurations ect.
I have not looked up the Wiki article but then Wiki is, well, Wiki and while cool not necessarily authoritative.
Anyway, my thoughts on the Eurofighter not having a ground attack ability (currently) came from the following:
Quote: Eurofighter Signs Typhoon Ground Attack Upgrade Deal Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:05pm BST
LONDON (Reuters) - The Eurofighter consortium has signed an upgrade contract valued at about 830 million pounds ($1.63 billion) to enable Typhoon fighters jets to attack ground targets, Britain's Ministry of Defense said on Friday.
SOURCE: http://uk.reuters.com/article/basicIndustries/idUKL3020081020070330
Seems an odd thing to do if the Eurofighter already has a ground attack mode. Maybe they finished the upgrade already but that would seem unusually fast for this sort of thing.
|
Valan
The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 14:07:00 -
[253]
Originally by: ry ry were tornadoes really used as interceptors? can't see them being much good at it.
Tornado F3.
Before the got the Radar upto speed they filled the nose cone with concrete to balance it out
/start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig |
Iratus Caelestis
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 15:07:00 -
[254]
Impossible question really as it depends on the metrics you judge on.
Americans have the best technology... but rely too much on technology. British have probably the best training, but the Army can only just field a Corps and are under equipped. Israeli's are the most experienced but rely too much on conscription.
If the question was who would win a war you still couldn't answer it. A conventional war would basically come down to industrial capacity and no-one can touch America or China for that. America would probably edge it because mass production would be higher technology equipment (The F22 would get bloody cheap if they had to crank out 30,000 of them) but let's hope we never have to find out.
|
Harald Normansson
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 15:35:00 -
[255]
The Icelandic army, of course!
...oh wait, we don't have one. Naturally, the one with the most nukes. But then, you can't win a nuclear war anyway.
|
Thorliaron
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 15:53:00 -
[256]
We will find out which countries have the best army's in proberly 1-5 years time, WW3 is just a formality really what with Russia moving its missiles to its westen border and the re-arming of its army. The east is going to get hotter soon what with China emerging as a power block, Russia using its nautral resources as a weapon. Pakistan's unstabilty (its got nukes aswell remeber), Iran's contiuned instance on nuclear techonolgy, Isreal on the constant counter-offensive, Financial turmoil.
Its only a matter of time till someone makes a major mistake (like invading/dropping a bomb on Iran?) and everyone gets a bit annoyed, ofcourse Europe will proberly see the most ground fighting as usual.
|
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 16:50:00 -
[257]
holy, c... some people give me the shivers.
best military is of course the one that sees the least action and does the most useful stuff... i.e. helping the citizens after disasters or just simple and outright nosepicking.
people like you that go around spouting military strength and whatnot should really start to think things over. i mean... youre all being bloody serious, arentcha?
and dont give me those old fashioned lies why one needs military strength. lemme just quote monty python, since i couldnt find the according film piece anywhere:
Quote: General: Well, of course, warfare isn't all fun. Right, stop that. It's all very well to laugh at the Military, but when one considers the meaning of life it is a struggle between alternative viewpoints of life itself. And without the ability to defend one's own viewpoint against other perhaps more aggressive ideologies then reasonableness and moderation could quite simply disappear. That is why we'll always need an army and may God strike me down were it to be otherwise.
[The Hand of god descends and vaporizes him.]
got it?
|
John Basher
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 16:58:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Thorliaron We will find out which countries have the best army's in proberly 1-5 years time, WW3 is just a formality really what with Russia moving its missiles to its westen border and the re-arming of its army. The east is going to get hotter soon what with China emerging as a power block, Russia using its nautral resources as a weapon. Pakistan's unstabilty (its got nukes aswell remeber), Iran's contiuned instance on nuclear techonolgy, Isreal on the constant counter-offensive, Financial turmoil.
Its only a matter of time till someone makes a major mistake (like invading/dropping a bomb on Iran?) and everyone gets a bit annoyed, ofcourse Europe will proberly see the most ground fighting as usual.
Better prepare for thermonuclear war then. Every Nato war simulation of east vs. west ends with either side resorting to the bomb.
|
Jupiter Sun
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 17:01:00 -
[259]
give the brits some decent working equipment and they'll get the job done.
|
Jupiter Sun
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 17:03:00 -
[260]
Originally by: John Basher
Originally by: Thorliaron We will find out which countries have the best army's in proberly 1-5 years time, WW3 is just a formality really what with Russia moving its missiles to its westen border and the re-arming of its army. The east is going to get hotter soon what with China emerging as a power block, Russia using its nautral resources as a weapon. Pakistan's unstabilty (its got nukes aswell remeber), Iran's contiuned instance on nuclear techonolgy, Isreal on the constant counter-offensive, Financial turmoil.
Its only a matter of time till someone makes a major mistake (like invading/dropping a bomb on Iran?) and everyone gets a bit annoyed, ofcourse Europe will proberly see the most ground fighting as usual.
Better prepare for thermonuclear war then. Every Nato war simulation of east vs. west ends with either side resorting to the bomb.
strange, mine ended with 133 battleships attacking a sniper.
mine is obviously more accurate.
|
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 17:15:00 -
[261]
Huh.... my simulation ended with Iran trying to nuke Israel but missing and flattening half of Egypt
Originally by: ISD Valorem The Devs have stated multiple times that they are looking at the Amarr issues.
Weekly quote: "Villains always have antidotes... They're funny that way." ~The Tick |
hattifnatt
Gallente The Movement
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 17:19:00 -
[262]
My simulation ended with 'unknown error' i suxz at grammar, k? |
Reap Ares
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 17:48:00 -
[263]
Whats this **** I've been getting url to all day?
|
Harald Normansson
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 17:52:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Reap Ares
So true. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Hayha
|
DarkMatter
Sintered Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 19:38:00 -
[265]
Edited by: DarkMatter on 29/11/2007 19:40:11
Quote: Invading a country needs a lot of firepower but being able to secure a country is another ballgame
No military in the world could secure Iraq. Eventually, the Iraqi's will have to secure their country themselves, you just have to give them time.
It's the military's job to go out and kill another countries military, the US can do that better than anyone.
Securing a foreign nation is more political, and even cultural... Something the US and Iraq are not up to the challenge for... China, UK, Russia, none of their military forces could "secure Iraq"...
The military is for blowing stuff up, or a deterrent to other militaries who would like to blow your stuff up... There is no middle ground IMO...
The only way to win an urban war is to remove the "urban" part completely... Something NO military in the world will do these days...
My Current Project |
Commander Prishe
Caldari The LoneStar Corp Edge Of Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 19:57:00 -
[266]
Britian may not have the largest military forces now, but there was a day..
Quoted from wiki.
The British Empire was the largest empire in history and for a time was the foremost global power. It was a product of the European age of discovery, which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European colonial empires.
By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population. It covered about 36.6 million km¦ (14.2 million square miles), about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its legacy is widespread, in legal and governmental systems, economic practice, militarily, educational systems, sports (such as cricket, rugby and football), and in the global spread of the English language.
At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous colonies or subject nations.
ahh the good old days..
|
Sereifex Daku
Gemini Sun Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 20:00:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Commander Prishe Britian may not have the largest military forces now, but there was a day..
Quoted from wiki.
The British Empire was the largest empire in history and for a time was the foremost global power. It was a product of the European age of discovery, which began with the maritime explorations of the 15th century, that sparked the era of the European colonial empires.
By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population. It covered about 36.6 million km¦ (14.2 million square miles), about a quarter of Earth's total land area. As a result, its legacy is widespread, in legal and governmental systems, economic practice, militarily, educational systems, sports (such as cricket, rugby and football), and in the global spread of the English language.
At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous colonies or subject nations.
ahh the good old days..
Then we lost our way,allied ourselves with the French, began helping smaller nations and, as a result, grinded ourselves down fighting the Germans.
|
Avery Fatwallet
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 20:11:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Commander Prishe At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous colonies or subject nations.
isnt that quote... well... a lot older than the idea of "britain" itself?
i cant remember ... romans? alexander the great? im bad at history. but im pretty sure that quote is from somewhere else.
not that it would matter...
|
Achuramale
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 20:18:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Harald Normansson
So true. Also, Simo HSyhS
Yep he has the most kills of any sniper counting all modern wars since WW1. 542 confirmed kills and rumored another 200 from fighting with his SMG in hand. |
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 22:17:00 -
[270]
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 29/11/2007 22:16:54
Originally by: Avery Fatwallet
Quote: General: Well, of course, warfare isn't all fun. Right, stop that. It's all very well to laugh at the Military, but when one considers the meaning of life it is a struggle between alternative viewpoints of life itself. And without the ability to defend one's own viewpoint against other perhaps more aggressive ideologies then reasonableness and moderation could quite simply disappear. That is why we'll always need an army and may God strike me down were it to be otherwise.
[The Hand of god descends and vaporizes him.]
got it?
Quote: Sergeant Major: DON'T STAND THERE GAWPING! LIKE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THE HAND O' GOD BEFORE!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |