our (US) weapons against the worlds

Superb. We are either better or on par with other nations. There are very few instances of superiority in equipment. And even those are debatable
 
First of all, the topic belongs under military hardware. Anyways, every militarily advanced nation out there has something to equal or come close to equalling our lovely US military stuffs in almost every category. We have more AWACS and Aircraft Carriers than anyone by a long shot of course. I don't know of anything slated to begin production that would outclass the F22 (exceptions being American made anyways, if there are any).

In tanks, basically latest M1 Abrams = latest Merkava = latest Crusader = T90 ... The winner of best assault rifle is not obvious, and is also dependent on preference and personal opinion. Etc, etc, etc.

You should look through the posts in Military Hardware, there's a ton of comparisons with lots of good info on stuff.
 
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.
 
Re: our weapons against the worlds

I guess one would have to classify by "our weapons" do you mean weapons made in the US or weapons used by the US in service.

webs said:
how are our weapons compared to all the other countries?
Click to expand...
 
Please try to present some facts here as well, so we don't end up with another one of those "my father can beat your father (country) anyday.... blindfolded, on fone foot, with his arms tied behind his back..." threads.. ;)
 
Redleg said:
Please try to present some facts here as well, so we don't end up with another one of those "my father can beat your father (country) anyday.... blindfolded, on fone foot, with his arms tied behind his back..." threads.. ;)
Click to expand...

But my father can do that to your father, god damnit! just kidding

Im sure that most modern countries have a rather equal arsenal as many weapons and systems are manufactured by/in cooperation with other countries weapon manufactures.

Like United Defence.

http://www.uniteddefense.com

Which is a american company that has bought other countries weapon manufactures. The companys are still based in the original contry and obays local laws and have local workers, in this way you get the original companys knowlage but still own them. In this way its easyer to cooperate.
 
But again how would the OUR or the US weapons be defined? weapons made in the USA, weapons made for the USA? Weapons used by the USA.


For example if one were to say the m249 saw is the best light MG/squad automatic weapon...neat but not made in the US but used by the US.

SHERMAN said:
I suggest you change the topic name to USA weapons. "our" is not a good termin an International forum. I have to say the USa has very impressive weapons indeed. I think one of the main advantages is in on-the-field intell and conroll, such as the UAVs:
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/uav.htm

And the AWACS system:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/e-3.htm
Click to expand...
 
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.....
 
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.
 
webs said:
how are our weapons compared to all the other countries?
Click to expand...

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.

M1114
AH64D
M270A2
PATRIOT GEMS2 and PAC3
F22
soon JSF
PVS-14/7D
EOTEC/PAC4/PEQ2/ACOG
M2A3
M1A2SEP
M109A6
ATACMS
IBA
Javelin
TOW2B
C17
C5
F117
B2
C130J/H
Space based intel/commo
Q37
BAT
SDARM
HARPOON
Seawolf/Virginia Class
AIM9X
AIM120C
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:

Sinai
Bosnia
Macedonia
Kosovo
Iraq
Afganistan
Uzbeckistan
Kazastan
Philippines
S. Korea
Haiti
Columbia
Thailand
Liberia
Sudan
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.
 
AlexKall said:
The T72 beeing their backbone? :?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top