our (US) weapons against the worlds - Page 2

September 5th, 2004  
I think we are talking about weapons made by the USA.
September 5th, 2004  
Overall I think the US has the best weapons. We might not have the best rifle or whatever but pretty much everything we use is top of the line.

"I'm impressed by US weaponry, but in my personal opinion, Canada has some 'superior' weapons in some fields. Mind you...it might not just be the weapons, but the personelle using them."
I dont know about all of that.....
September 6th, 2004  
Jason Bourne
weapons wise i would have to say that we are the most advanced overall, NOTICE THE WORD OVERALL, meaning some other countries might have some stuff better then us but pretty much overall of our equip. we have stae-of-the-art, but then again all of our weapons are built by the "lowest bidder" that's scary huh, not to mention we do alot of trading with Britain and the other countries who also have state-of-the-art equip.
September 6th, 2004  
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
I think we are talking about weapons made by the USA.
Oh i was a bit off the side then
September 11th, 2004  
Originally Posted by webs
how are our weapons compared to all the other countries?
In reality the difference between the US and even its allies is almost perverted.

The US alone spends nearly as much on defense as the rest of the world COMBINED!

The worlds most powerful AF is the US AF. Second is the US Navy.

The US Coast Guard is bigger and better equipped than MOST Navies’ in the world.

Went conducting Joint/Combined arms operations with allies almost ALL high-risk missions in the air are given to the US. This was the case in Persian Gulf 1, over Serbia and Persian Gulf 2.

The US has to drop down in a lot of its commo equipment since even the allies can't frequency hop in Cipher text in part and when we go secure they can no longer communicate with us because their stuff is so old compared to ours.

Compared to Germany. Europe’s biggest economy and in brute manpower one of the largest militaries in Europe spends 1/7 on defense and now with this war just 1/10 that of the US.

While the US is fielding the F22 already, the Europeans have a less capable Eurofighter that still does not work. While the US already fly’s the AH64"D", the Europeans are still dreaming of a Tiger, which still does not work. As US soldiers get "Standard" IBA body armor and had Kevlar types already in 1980, the German Army has just since 1997 or so begun to field Kevlar to their troops. Many still have nothing, not even a Kevlar helmet and are left with a steel pot. Not even the G-36 has taken over since MANY still carry the G3.

soon JSF
Space based intel/commo
Seawolf/Virginia Class
Super Carriers
HARM/PGM/NPGM/GPS and so fourth.

These are realities, not wishful thinking.

There is a reason why everyone compares their stuff to that of the US.

Fact is some even have a niche here or there where they have better equipment. But when viewed collectively and in a bigger picture NO ONE ON EARTH is equipped comparably. Example Germany struts their Howitzer 2000. But their version of AFATADS is less capable. BAT? Don't have it. Copperhead? Nope. Their 105mm? Less capable, in fact it's our old one. Their M109G3 which still comprises a large part of their 155 howitzers? Less capable than the M109A6. M270A2? Nope, older version. ATACMS? Nope. Q36 and Q37? Nope. Just now they’re building their own hybrid systems since they can't afford two separate ones. It will be less capable than our big one and less mobile and much bigger than our forward pushed smaller one. In fact they until recent used "Green Archer" our old 70s radar. Is all of their systems tied into a FBCB2? Nope.

Ask which one has the better arty and they will tell you "Why of course ours, we have the Howitzer 2000".

Ask a Russian to compare Attack aviation and they'll throw out some helicopter of which only 2 are flying! Our AH64D is more capable than their Mi24 which "IS" their backbone to this day. Just like the T72 is their MBT to this day.

As we shoot people with drones in Yemen commanded from Langley VA, others speculate and throw out hypothetical nonsense which supposedly matches US hardware.

At the expense of sounding arrogant, the US is unmatched in equipment compared to ANYONE in Air Sea or Land. While not the biggest in personnel strength, the US is in many areas a technological leader, has 25% of the global economy within its own boarders and is resource rich with a skilled labor pool. This allows for a lot, because if the US so chooses, it can build SDI with an ABL or anything else that is technologically feasible at the time. It's ONLY a question of commitment and how bad we really want it.

When viewing the US armed forces, remember that this difference in capabilities is real even at the individual soldier level but can be argued here and there, but once you go into the realm of strategic equipment and capital goods, the disparity becomes very evident. Then you realize that we have 12 Super carriers and the rest of the world none. That we can communicate globally via satellite MILITARY communications systems and Europe cannot. That we have strategic lift assets that allow us to move whole DIVISIONS in hours via C5/C17/C141 and NO ONE even remotely matches that. That we can with the push of a button destroy any satellite at will. That we have bombers B2s that have global reach and are capable of overcoming even the best IADS. Frankly, we scare people. Even our allies.

In 2003 the US was involved with forces on the ground in:

S. Korea
Republic of Georgia

Fact is, we're not even maxed out yet. We can maintain this indefinitely and at the cost of sounding sick, we can deal with this level of casualties indefinitely as well. Statistically our casualties in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines and elsewhere for the whole year of 2003 and even current in 2004 has a marginal impact at best. Besides a "Media" factor, there is no real damage being done to the US armed forces through enemy activity or the tempo at which we are operating. Our ability to function and project force has in no way been hindered through the tempo or loss of life. Strategically, Operationally and even at the Tactical level the US forces are not even scratched in their abilities. Casualties are 1/3 from accidents, which would occur elsewhere too. Above the normal baseline of casualties we suffer anyway (car/motorcycle accidents, alcohol poisoning etc) lies about 2/3 of the casualties we have from actual combat. A lot of this success can be attributed to the technological and material advantage that the US brings to a fight.
September 11th, 2004  
The T72 beeing their backbone?
September 11th, 2004  
actualy, he is right. The T72 remains their backbone. But remember they have alot of them....[/u]
September 11th, 2004  
Originally Posted by AlexKall
The T72 beeing their backbone?
Not only is the T72 their main stay tank to this day; the T90 is nothing more than a T72 on steriods with the same inherent design flaws and limitations.
September 11th, 2004  
And with alot of improvments.
September 12th, 2004  
Okeeey, you lern something new everyday