Author Topic: Hilarious Military Sattire  (Read 2960 times)

Darksealicous

  • Full Clan Member

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 379
  • Personal Text
    Corporal

FlatkinG

  • Administrator

  • Offline
  • *****
  • =]UG[= Admin

  • 1609
  • Personal Text
    Colonel
Re: Hilarious Military Sattire
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2011, 06:55:29 AM »
lol, i liked the bradley until i saw this, kinda points out how stupid it really is..
Perfectionist.

Soulrogue

  • Global Moderator

  • Offline
  • *****
  • =]UG[= Mod

  • 670
  • Personal Text
    Lieutenant
Re: Hilarious Military Sattire
« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2011, 02:53:09 PM »
Hahah nice vid, i'd like to bring up that 11 men is a weird ass number asfar as i know? the general rule for an military squad is 6 same as PR so to me the troop carrying capacity is fine, scout = fail. extra weapons? seem rather useful to me honestly, it's more of an anti infantry and un-armored targets cannon, with anti tank rockets for armor, so the weapons system honestly seems to work for me, it has enough fire power to take out anything except aircraft. as of the armor i really have no idea what it's like nowdays, they have the anti rocket defense system on it though so rpgs and rockets ect all get shot out of the air same as they do against our tanks.


Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash.
Gen. George S Patton

FlatkinG

  • Administrator

  • Offline
  • *****
  • =]UG[= Admin

  • 1609
  • Personal Text
    Colonel
Re: Hilarious Military Sattire
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2011, 11:40:35 PM »
all u just said is only half true and half wrong
intantry section is 12 man sometimes its made up of 8 but that had recently changed, a squad can change sizes but almost always 4 to a squad or group, the word squad is almost never used, so a 6 man team is pretty useless really except for all around defense for the vehicle if it needed it, but typically never would giving its role.(personally i think the carry space is better used for carrying wounded away from a hot zone than transporting troops to a fight)

anti rocket defense systems?... theres only a few kinds, one is a jammer to disrupt "missiles" which is almost useless and the other is called "iron fist" which Israel made to shoot down rpg's but almost no vehicle except some Israeli transport vehicles
not even in large production have them at this time, and russians have their own version on their tanks.
Perfectionist.

Soulrogue

  • Global Moderator

  • Offline
  • *****
  • =]UG[= Mod

  • 670
  • Personal Text
    Lieutenant
Re: Hilarious Military Sattire
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2011, 01:47:02 PM »
i've seen them on Abrams and Bradley's before but maybe that was put on for the documentary and isn't standard issue, it fired a counter rocket to strike the incoming object out of the air.


Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash.
Gen. George S Patton

Nasty

  • Full Clan Member

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 311
  • Personal Text
    Corporal
Re: Hilarious Military Sattire
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2011, 06:46:24 PM »
Hahah nice vid, i'd like to bring up that 11 men is a weird ass number asfar as i know? the general rule for an military squad is 6 same as PR so to me the troop carrying capacity is fine,
...has enough fire power to take out anything except aircraft.
...they have the anti rocket defense system on it though so rpgs and rockets ect all get shot out of the air same as they do against our tanks.

Squad/Section sizes do vary (and the americans use the word squad, flat, the brits use section). across different countries and era's with European countries sticking to 8 man units up until more recently than America. While six man positions and units might occur they dont fit neatly into the math and thus i highly doubt they're specifically planned for, for much more than just seats on a transport.

Your 20mm to 30mm cannon would work fantastically on any sort of low flying (less than 3-6km altitude) light aircraft or helicopter btw, so long as the barrel has the traverse and I'm pretty sure it would.

And the anti rocket system. Lol, just lol. Yes they've been making these prototypes for years and years but can you simply imagine the legal liabilities involved with having a system slaved to a COMPUTER and some weird fucking SENSORS that is allowed to fire at will (or whenever a button is held down, whatever) in any direction it feels like?

I have no doubt the human race is capable of producing such wonders but its the same as platooning cars on the freeway slaved together by computer. Awesome idea but how much of a plunge is it to actually implement?

Darksealicous

  • Full Clan Member

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 379
  • Personal Text
    Corporal
Re: Hilarious Military Sattire
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2011, 04:55:12 PM »
Anti Missile Systems fit quite nicely on Ships for example the PHALANX CWS(close weapon system).
Designed by australians used all arounudt the world. Locks onto a missile and fires a wall of rounds towards it.
Typically anti missile weapons on land Vehicles just wouldn't be productive because of the reduced range and capable radar on a Land Vehicle. There are much smaller versions of the PHALANX that could fit on a Tank..... Its unclas stuff you can read anywhere.

Nasty

  • Full Clan Member

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 311
  • Personal Text
    Corporal
Re: Hilarious Military Sattire
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2011, 01:00:33 AM »
ITT nasty's ignorance of modern squad layouts :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_%28military_unit%29

ships at sea have a million advantages that an afv/building/person does not possess tho. Massive radars that can spot a missile minutes away, massive size allowing it to support a full crew of people on board to arm the CIWS, clear line of sight because its over the ocean (not absolutely necessary I know but it would significantly aid a missiles detection), and they operate in an area you can be reasonably certain is free of noncombatants before they start haphazardly spitting out 20mm cannon rounds and just about every missile the (justifiably) scared as shit operators have access too.

As for land, for missiles that are traveling a long distance out in the open, or perhaps if the radar's on the CIWS were networked with some fucking quick as shit signals its feasible. I just don't see any democratic military actually doing it until we are basically in another age of electronics where shit doesn't fail, purely because of the risk to human life, property and military equipment in the vicinity.

You'd also pretty much need a dedicated operator.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 01:06:14 AM by Nasty »

Darksealicous

  • Full Clan Member

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 379
  • Personal Text
    Corporal
Re: Hilarious Military Sattire
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2011, 07:32:24 AM »
Navy is way better eh.