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.

 

New Canadian Weapon sure to cause New Arms Race!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Well.. listening to rock music from the safety of an M1A1 and cowardly blowing away stone-throwing civilians, I'd call that unprofessional.


Well... typing from the safety of a computer keyboard half way around the world while making dumb and ridicules statements, I'd call that pretty idiotic. But as you said, back to the OP.




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
The bit about entertaining yourself when you've got your hands on a trigger or something is questionable..
Shouldn't it be disallowed?
I mean its ok if you're on some solo suicide mission deep in enemy territory and you need something to keep your morale up, but in co-ordinated assaults involving other team-mates,allies and possibly civilians; its definitely questionable..
Can any of you describe the actual instances in which this happens has/ happened?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
It does seem to be common in US Army Armoured units. I've seen tank/bradley crews interviewed on TV saying about how they played Metallica on GW2

Personally I think it's to keep the video game generation entertained.

Agree it seems very sloppy to allow this on ops.

Loaning Brit vehicles and showing our many flags to US troops is nothing new, the tendancy for US troops to shoot at anything 'different' has been a feature of both GW campaigns. As most US allies know the US army are big on firepower, poor on tactics and NCO quality.

For all you Brit bashers out there ask yourselves this - could the US Army have re-taken the Falklands with the same number of troops / level of air/naval support? As it involved walking and no ice-cream re-supply the answer is obviously not.

On the investigations / reluctance to open fire, this has been known for some time and was completely inevitable. The process started in Nothern Ireland with Lee Clegg.

en.wikipedia.org...

It comes from stupid politicians not trusting the British Army who, generally, only use deadly force when justified - as any fule kno.


@Retseh - again your ignorance is showing (not shy are you!). British troops no longer carry the L85. All troops now have L85A2. Certainly not perfect and less-liked than the much-missed SLR but much, much better than the original.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Agree it seems very sloppy to allow this on ops.


If it does not affect troop performance against the enemy I see no problem with it.


Originally posted by Strangerous
As most US allies know the US army are big on firepower, poor on tactics and NCO quality.


That's a big statement, care to back it up?


Originally posted by Strangerous
As it involved walking and no ice-cream re-supply the answer is obviously not.


Speaking of not being shy and ignorant, I wonder how you could possibly know this? And by the way, seeing as how the US would have never been in that position to begin with it says a lot about how unprofessional we are.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I know Canada's military has turned into crap, but so has the USA's, except more of their troops die. Our troops are more adverse, but have to wear stupid red suits and march WAY too hardcore. I was in military school for part of my highschool at Robert Land Academy and all of the senior staff were actual veterans and probably shouldn't have been working there in my opinion. In WW2 we did our share and paid our price.. but our veterans and wounded don't get f'd over (usually
) Oh yeah and now they all get D.U poisoning too.. yayy. Then again Canada mines a majority of the D.U.


[edit on 18-12-2006 by Trauma]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
You see no problem fighting in a tank/AV with loud rock music blaring? What apart from comms difficulties, insulation from the consequences of your actions and depravation of faculties?

Your army contains, I'm sure, many brave individuals but your tactics are generally poor (as seen on TV), you reliance on firepower is well-known, shame about the marksmanship, and the poor quality of your NCO's is evidenced by the fact that many of the recent abuses committed by your forces (prisoner torture, raping and killing etc etc) have directly involved NCO's.

The point about the Falklands was about comparing like with like (as you know) don't dodge the point. Your own DoD said it was a superb effort by the Paras and Marines, demonstrated the quality of our troops and was a testament to their training.

We took 1.035 casualties in the Falklands - you took 349 invading Panama and 135 invading Grenada. Given the distances involved, the numbers and quality of the oppositions I think the numbers speak for themselves.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   
The Falklands is also a lot about Argentinian stupidity..
Which the British did well to capitalise on.. taking nothing away from them..



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
For all you Brit bashers out there ask yourselves this - could the US Army have re-taken the Falklands with the same number of troops / level of air/naval support? As it involved walking and no ice-cream re-supply the answer is obviously not.


Well considering that we probably wouldn't have lost them in the first place, I say yes we could have. The problem is that you Brits have emasculated your armed services. You no longer have the power projection capability that you had 40 years ago. Because of this it is my belief that the Argentinians felt that at the time that you wouldn't try to retake the Falklands.

Please don't take this as a slight to UK Military personel, because it isn't meant that way. The Falklands were re-taken on a shoestring because a shoestring was all you had. Your Government put you in that position.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I think we can all agree that we have to look back to WWII to find American and British fighting forces that were efficient, intelligent and fearsome. I believe both sides have suffered changes. Especially in training where it's been severely softened.

I don't blame the troops, I blame the training. We need to go back to the training of old.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I am not sure about the Canadians, but I know two of my friends in Iraq (British forces) are more worried about getting shot or bombed by the US than they are by the Iraq militia.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
How did a humerous thread about Canadians on a trike turn into a wang contest? Sorry state of affairs.

But, I might be forgiven for chiming in about the Falklands. We honestly didn't think they would attempt it, but then, the Argies didn't think we would try to take them back. When the argies did invade, the 81 Royal Marines stood fast, inflicted casualties while taking virtually none themselves and even damaged an Argie Frigate with an ATGM. We only surrendered as the Governor didn't want to see the RM and the local miltia get massacred, which is what would have happened. All the men there were willing to go down fighting.

As it happens, the Falklands was a bloody good turn of events, for the Navy especially. It highlighted weaknesses that would have otherwise gone unnoticed, such as CIWS and lack of carriers (just before the FL we were about to scrap even our little-bitty ones!!).



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
How did a humerous thread about Canadians on a trike turn into a wang contest? Sorry state of affairs.

But, I might be forgiven for chiming in about the Falklands. We honestly didn't think they would attempt it, but then, the Argies didn't think we would try to take them back. When the argies did invade, the 81 Royal Marines stood fast, inflicted casualties while taking virtually none themselves and even damaged an Argie Frigate with an ATGM. We only surrendered as the Governor didn't want to see the RM and the local miltia get massacred, which is what would have happened. All the men there were willing to go down fighting.

As it happens, the Falklands was a bloody good turn of events, for the Navy especially. It highlighted weaknesses that would have otherwise gone unnoticed, such as CIWS and lack of carriers (just before the FL we were about to scrap even our little-bitty ones!!).


As I said in my post, my statements were not against the UK Military. The issue was raised about the US not being able to take the Falklands. My statements were intended to point out that the UK Government, by making the cuts that it did made the job of re-taking the Falklands much harder than it had to be. My statement about not having lost the Falklands in the first place was intended to show if the cuts hadn't been made the Argintinians probably wouldn't have tried to take them in the first place.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Yeah, I know. I wasn't trying to get my wang out. Just making observations on the conflict in general. The Navy was facing almost certain extinction prior to the Falklands. It was good for them it happened, in a way.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Well.. listening to rock music from the safety of an M1A1 and cowardly blowing away stone-throwing civilians, I'd call that unprofessional. It's just one of the many things that happen. Laughing about this stuff though, is worse.

Anyhow, back to topic. You guys need your military fix.



YES, BACK TO TOPIC.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by sardion2000
Apparently the Euros think we are too reckless and aggressive over in Afghanistan.


*Cough* They're Euros *Cough* Anything more than a smile and a wave is consider too aggressive.



no friggin kidding! of course they perfer to bring them into an enclosure and beat them with pipes


talk about a pension for spanking, I think britain tops them all


"ok lads! you find them insurgents, and we will cane them!"



[edit on 17-12-2006 by XphilesPhan]


Naughty, naughty! Who's a little pervert then?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I knew my friendly fire link spark something knowing you guys meh, Anyway any more hillarious pictures ^_^



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Considering this is the weaponry forum of ATS there should have been conspiricy involved somewhat, but I decided to leave this thread for a few days cause it is the silly season after all.

It's time to move it to it's proper forum.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by SteveR
Well.. listening to rock music from the safety of an M1A1 and cowardly blowing away stone-throwing civilians, I'd call that unprofessional.


Well... typing from the safety of a computer keyboard half way around the world while making dumb and ridicules statements, I'd call that pretty idiotic. But as you said, back to the OP.



Here's an offer to take this to the debate forum. I beleive it was partly created to house one on one disputes. And, I didn't choose this method of communication for it's safety.. neither did you.

Just for the record, I've no axe to grind.. just like to set facts straight. You game?



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
What's the topic? Tell me that and I'm on.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
Let's not pick on the Canadian Military.
We have some fine helicopters that we try to keep upright as much as possible.





Very bad taste. Honestly as one a canadian and two a support of our military (im sure americans would understand) I find that comment our of lines espesially since 4 crew members lost there lives in that accident.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join