It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by danwild6
The M-16 had its fair share of problems early on but they were dealt with long ago. I'm continueing to here from Brits about their SA-80's jamming and its overall poor performance. I guess thats why the SAS use the M-16.
All Posters Read This!
Please could members refrain from starting threads that are based around:
what is your favourite gun
who would win if the ??? and ??? went to war with each other
who has the best army/navy/airforce/secret service........
etc etc ...
This forum is for information about Military weapons technology past, present, and future.
Originally posted by danwild6
The M-16 had its fair share of problems early on but they were dealt with long ago. I'm continueing to here from Brits about their SA-80's jamming and its overall poor performance. I guess thats why the SAS use the M-16.
The Ministry of Defence has also "relied extensively on cannibalising equipment", taking parts from ships, tanks and aircraft so others can function properly. During the invasion of Iraq, the army "cannibalised 44 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, some 22% of the non-deployed fleet", says the committee. The RAF could deploy 44 Tornado aircraft only after "robbing" 1,622 parts from other planes.
full article here politics.guardian.co.uk...
The crisis has emerged at a time when the Army is operating at full-stretch with up to 9,000 troops deployed in Iraq and 4,000 training for a possible deployment to Afghanistan next spring.
The astonishing admission that soldiers do not have enough blank ammunition comes after disclosures of other crucial equipment shortages earlier this year - including insufficient training rounds for grenade launchers and cleaning kits for machine-guns
full article here www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/07/17/nbang17.xml
Originally posted by fritz
Small, in this case, is better. A long, long way better. Nowadays, there is something called the Future Armed Services or FAS.
Originally posted by Strangerous
One thing that worries me is the reduction of the TA.
The TA stood 100K strong and was a primarily infantry-based force distributed throughout the country we now have only 35,000 man TA which is primarily a support organisation for the regulars.
This is fine for a hi-tech expeditionary warfare environment but provides very little for home defence / police support / disaster relief.
Very short-sighted IMO - I don't see why we couldn't have retained a strong TA / Militia force to cover home defence and other unforeseen needs.
Originally posted by st3ve_o
i think thats plently for what we need, but as said what we need to do is stop sending our troops everywhere the world and we'll be ok!!
so its not like anyones going to be invade us it??
the only country that could possibly do that is america itself.
[edit on 30-3-2006 by st3ve_o]
Originally posted by devilwasp
What we "need" , what in your opinion is "what we need"?
Originally posted by devilwasp
There are many countries with the capability and the more we let our tech and numbers slip the more their grows.
Soon we wont be able to defend the falklands, gibraltar or any far off allies except with token forces.
Soon we will be restricted to US airbases and fighter ranges.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Wrong, there are many countries with the capability to take us down or atleast give us a bloody nose...given a few years.
I'd not like to see how sea harrier does against a mig with only stingers.
I'd not like to see how our marines do in another country having air support only from lynxs and merlin helicopters...