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.

 

U.S. vs. China

page: 34
1
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Not likely?
When war is near you do what is needed no matter how unlikely it seemed before hand.
A large force does not need to hide in the tunnels , they can spread out but only require an entrance.


OH, so every time American planes role around all the Chinese will run into big holes in the ground. You know, this just gives America a chance to see where they are, and drop bumper busters. At the very best for them, we'll just destroy their equipment.


Why need fixed defenses when you can outmanovour and enemy and spring up everywhere.
The enemy cannot relax or take a break if they dont know where you are.
China also has a massive coast to protect


What you're talking is simply impossible. These tunnels would end up being a Wonder of the World if they could be made. It would require building tunnels wide enough for en entire army, and stretch across the Chinese coast at the very least.


It takes hours to get a stalite into position, takes time to get a jet across the pacific an takes hours for spies to get and deliver reports.


When you have about 30 satellites, you can pretty much moniter any spot at any time. The rest is usless. It takes more then hours to move an army. A few hundred thousand men are pretty hard to make disappear.

It doesn't matter if we have real time intelligence, anyway. We just have to know where some of the main tunnels would be, and we can destroy them long before any invasion.


Yeah a minesweeper, as i checked in the US navy there are none in service


The US Navy? That thing was on a Sherman tank. It was designed just for D-Day.


He he i know that tale , want to know the thing about it?
Only the british used it, thats right americans didnt.
The americans during WW2 said they didnt need a "useless quentesentiol british toy" and many of thier vehicles where downed by mines.
Source - www.pbs.org...


I didn't see anything on there backing up your claim.


So you think you could keep an attack force fully supplied and make it easily break into china?? Doubt it severly.


You haven't really given much reason why you doubt, it just made up some crazy stuff about massive tunnel systems and mines.


is he real china doesnt have taht much more in its army than america sorry to point this out but its has 2 million its the peoples liberation armyand god knows how amny in its own army


America has about 1.4 million men, and that's after making cuts to our military at the end of the Cold War. We used to have the capability to fight wars on multiple continents, and we had an army a lot better trained then the PLA.

[edit on 30-12-2004 by Disturbed Deliverer]




posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
OH, so every time American planes role around all the Chinese will run into big holes in the ground. You know, this just gives America a chance to see where they are, and drop bumper busters. At the very best for them, we'll just destroy their equipment.

yeah suren when america finds one hole they will fire a missile off , sure do that ! Just collapse the tunnel and never find out where it leads




What you're talking is simply impossible. These tunnels would end up being a Wonder of the World if they could be made. It would require building tunnels wide enough for en entire army, and stretch across the Chinese coast at the very least.

WHA?
You think they are going to drive tanks ?
Dude im talking about tunnels big enough for 1 person , long tunnels.



When you have about 30 satellites, you can pretty much moniter any spot at any time. The rest is usless. It takes more then hours to move an army. A few hundred thousand men are pretty hard to make disappear.

A few hundred thousand scattered men are hard to find.
So one satalite can photograph the entire of china?
Dude you need to look up some physics books and what about americas satalites going every where else !


It doesn't matter if we have real time intelligence, anyway. We just have to know where some of the main tunnels would be, and we can destroy them long before any invasion.

Oh yeah so sure, like the US intel can find every tunnel. HA even some russian tunnels stayed hidden.


The US Navy? That thing was on a Sherman tank. It was designed just for D-Day.

Yeah what about MINES in the water? Oh yeah lets send a few divers , sure oh would you look at that a sniper with thermal gogles is watching the beach, BANG one less dive team.



I didn't see anything on there backing up your claim.

Then watch the history channel sometime.
If you want proof i will give you a link, now come on if you did look up on it then you surely would have read about what happened when it was used.



You haven't really given much reason why you doubt, it just made up some crazy stuff about massive tunnel systems and mines.

Tunnels wherent crazy in vietnam or korea or WW2 where they?


[edit on 30-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   

yeah suren when america finds one hole they will fire a missile off , sure do that ! Just collapse the tunnel and never find out where it leads


If you cave in the tunnel at the right spot, you could cut the entire army off.

And we'd be hitting multiple spots.


WHA?
You think they are going to drive tanks ?
Dude im talking about tunnels big enough for 1 person , long tunnels.


Then they'd be useless in a defense of the Chinese coast. You could not move significant numbers through those tunnels, let alone the essential equipment. This wouldn't protect the Chinese defenders at all.


A few hundred thousand scattered men are hard to find.
So one satalite can photograph the entire of china?
Dude you need to look up some physics books and what about americas satalites going every where else !


One satellite probably is covering a large portion of China at all times. At the altitude, one can cover massive areas. America has a large number of satellites.


Oh yeah so sure, like the US intel can find every tunnel. HA even some russian tunnels stayed hidden


We wouldn't need to find every tunnel. They wouldn't even be of that much importance. You couldn't move many men through these. A few hundred tops.


Yeah what about MINES in the water? Oh yeah lets send a few divers , sure oh would you look at that a sniper with thermal gogles is watching the beach, BANG one less dive team.


If we were invading China, we'd ultimately have boosted our navy up big time. Something as simply as mine sweepers wouldn't be left out if there was a real threat. If you watch the History Channel so much, you should know that we built loads of equipment specifically for D-Day.

[quoteThen watch the history channel sometime.
If you want proof i will give you a link, now come on if you did look up on it then you surely would have read about what happened when it was used.

I would like to see a link.

Either way, I don't see why you'd use the site I gave as a source to back up a claim that wasn't even made in it.


Tunnels wherent crazy in vietnam or korea or WW2 where they?


They hardly played the type of factor you're suggesting.

The Chinese can try to build a tunnel system like North Korea. It's certainly not going to tip the scale in their favor.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
If you cave in the tunnel at the right spot, you could cut the entire army off.

And we'd be hitting multiple spots.

Yeah if your lucky, remember finding them is harder


Then they'd be useless in a defense of the Chinese coast. You could not move significant numbers through those tunnels, let alone the essential equipment. This wouldn't protect the Chinese defenders at all.

Really?
Wasnt like that in korea and vietnam. Remember a small but well armed army could stop an entire army, remember in ww2 when snipers stopped armies?
Imagine that on a larger scale.


One satellite probably is covering a large portion of China at all times. At the altitude, one can cover massive areas. America has a large number of satellites.

One can cover a massive area but to get all of china in great detail?
Not easy, most likely impossible.
America has its satalites all over the globe BUT it needs them there.




We wouldn't need to find every tunnel. They wouldn't even be of that much importance. You couldn't move many men through these. A few hundred tops.

Really?
In korea and vietnam they managed to move an entire army there, and americas troops above surface would be very easy targets.



If we were invading China, we'd ultimately have boosted our navy up big time. Something as simply as mine sweepers wouldn't be left out if there was a real threat. If you watch the History Channel so much, you should know that we built loads of equipment specifically for D-Day.

Yeah you did , but neglected to build anti mine tanks?
How is the navy going to un mine a position if its being shelled at from inshore.


I would like to see a link.

Either way, I don't see why you'd use the site I gave as a source to back up a claim that wasn't even made in it.

British "crab" tank
Happy?
i didnt.


They hardly played the type of factor you're suggesting.

The Chinese can try to build a tunnel system like North Korea. It's certainly not going to tip the scale in their favor.

Ha! the vietnamese and koreans had supply lines all across the country using them, They invented a whole new type of unit to deal with them.
The koreans and vietnamese survived, agent orange,napalm and heavy B52 bombing's yet they survived.
The US doesnt have the capability to destroy them all.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Okay... say the US manages to get it's fleet within range of the Chinese coast with enough time to launch as many planes as possible, while somehow resisting the anti-ship cruise missile bombardment... they are going to have to find a way past these.

FT-2000 Anti-Radiation Surface-to-Air Missile






The HT-233 phased array radar is claimed to be able to engage 50 targets simultaneously


S-300PMU (SA-10) Surface-to-Air Missile






The vertically launched S-300 missile uses a single-stage solid propellant rocket motor. It is normally armed with a 100 kg HE-fragmentation warhead with a proximity fuse, though a low yield tactical nuclear type is believed to be an alternative warhead option. The missile's vertical launch trajectory provides fastest available reaction time capability to counter targets approaching from any azimuth. Missile engagement altitude extends from 25 m up to about 30,000 m. The maximum engagement range is stated as at least 90,000 m, though in practice it is probably greater.


Type 95 Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Artillery






Compared with previous SPAAA systems the PLA has developed, the Type 95 is much more advanced and capable. The system is designed to provide short-range air defence, day/night and in all weather conditions. It can be added with four QW-2 short-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) to form a SPAAA/SAM system that capable of engaging all threat targets including fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) within the range of its SAM/AAA weapons. It is carried on a tracked chassis to keep the pace with main battle tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles.


KS-1 Surface-to-Air Missile




The KS-1 was reportedely first tested in 1989. The system is highlighted by its SJ-212 phased array radar, with a search range of 115 km, a tracing range of 80 km and guiding range of 50 km. The radar is working at G-band, being able to guide six missiles to attack three to six targets. It is also said to have an impressive anti-jamming capability.

Derived from the second- (upper-) stage of the HQ-2, the KS-1 missile has a slant range of 42 km, boosted by solid rocket engine. Apart from aircraft, the missile could also shoot down air-to-surface missiles. The KS-1 missile is comparable in size to the Russian S-300, but can only be launched from a fixed slant launcher, each mounting two missiles, which caused longer reaction and re-loading time.

A typical KS-1 battery consists of a phased-array radar guidance radar station, four twin-rail launchers mounted on a flatbed trucks or a four-leg pedestal, and associated reload, test, and maintenance vehicles. A total of 24 missiles, including 8 ready-to-launch missiles, are available to the battery.


HQ-2 Surface-to-Air Missile






The HQ-2 is a large two-stage missile designed to intercept high-altitude targets like strategic bombers and spy planes. Its radar guidance guarantees a single-shot hit probability of 68%, but according to the American's experience in the Vietnam War, this ratio drops sharply when the missile is used in a strong electronic jamming environment.

The second-stage of the HQ-2 missile is a large liquid rocket, which makes it inconvenient to be maintained and transported. Each missile is carried by a semi-trailer towed by a 6 x 6 truck, and needs to be loaded onto a fixed launcher before firing. The loading usually takes about 5 minutes but this really depends on the training and experience of missile operators.

The basic operational unit of the HQ-2 SAM is battalion, each include six launchers, around 18 missiles, an early-warning radar, a homing radar and support vehicles (command, power, communications, etc.)


Type 730 Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Artillery




Developed in the 1990s, the Type 730 CIWS is the newest short-range air defence system for the Type 052B/C missile destroyer. The system resembles the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS in appearance, but its 30mm gun is said to be derived from the Russian AK-630 design. The seven gun barrels are driven by external power, with a maximum cyclic rate of fire of 4,600~5,800 rounds/min.

The fire-control of the original Type 730 CIWS includes a Type 347G searching radar working at I-band and an OFC-3 electro-optical director, but the latter has been removed from the ground variant, possibly due to its expensive cost. The maximum detection range of the fire control radar is 15km to radar cross section (RCS) 2 targets, and 20km to RCS 10 targets.


Simply put... china has a well advanced and integrated anti-aircraft network that is going to make any US attempt at air supperiotity very difficult

[edit on 31-12-2004 by Lucretius]


[edit on 31-12-2004 by Lucretius]



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Really?
Wasnt like that in korea and vietnam. Remember a small but well armed army could stop an entire army, remember in ww2 when snipers stopped armies?
Imagine that on a larger scale.


A larger scale? What's China really going to do? The type of tunnels you'd suggest wouldn't be anymore useful then they have been in the past, which isn't very.

I don't remember ever hearing about snipers stoping entire armies, either.


One can cover a massive area but to get all of china in great detail?
Not easy, most likely impossible.
America has its satalites all over the globe BUT it needs them there.


The only thing that limits coverage is really how fast it can take pictures.

If anything sticks out, you can moniter it more closely with spy planes.


Really?
In korea and vietnam they managed to move an entire army there, and americas troops above surface would be very easy targets.


It never got them very far.


Yeah you did , but neglected to build anti mine tanks?
How is the navy going to un mine a position if its being shelled at from inshore.


Whatever forces are on shore will be whiped out. This isn't WW2. The bombing capabilities have are exponentially better. China's neary defenses would be gone. Plus, the navy can attack from miles away with modern weapons.


British "crab" tank
Happy?
i didnt.


That didn't back up your claim at all.

Special units were sent on land the nights before to clear paths for our troops on the beaches during D-Day.

I've yet to find a thing backing up your claim America took heavy damage from mines. I've never heard anything like that before. I've always been under the impression they were fairly ineffective.

Whatever was done, it worked.


Ha! the vietnamese and koreans had supply lines all across the country using them, They invented a whole new type of unit to deal with them.
The koreans and vietnamese survived, agent orange,napalm and heavy B52 bombing's yet they survived.
The US doesnt have the capability to destroy them all.


We don't have to destroy them all. China's a lot larger then Korea or Vietnam, and the tunnel systems they use, or have aren't nearly as elaborate as what you're suggesting. They were never as effective as you claim.



Okay... say the US manages to get it's fleet within range of the Chinese coast with enough time to launch as many planes as possible, while somehow resisting the anti-ship cruise missile bombardment... they are going to have to find a way past these.


I believe I asked for someone to point out an example of when SAM's have shown to be effective in real combat. I did not ask to see a bunch of "Chinese" (basically Russian) toys.

I'm well aware of China's layered air defenses. It's not going to do much against America's latest stealth bombers. It would only take a few sorites from B-2's to take out the more advanced SAM's, and then we can move in our normal bombers to mop up. The Chinese airforce will be no threat for at least another few decades.

And America does not have to worry about getting its carriers close to China. We can use many nations in the area as staging points for air attacks. Japan, and Australia wouldn't have much problem with it. India could be on board. There's also Afghanistan.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


A larger scale? What's China really going to do? The type of tunnels you'd suggest wouldn't be anymore useful then they have been in the past, which isn't very.

I don't remember ever hearing about snipers stoping entire armies, either.

Really?
Jeez man you have your head in the coulds or something.
Do you know what advantages of and army in tunnels are?
Unseen,sneaky and unpredictable.



The only thing that limits coverage is really how fast it can take pictures.

If anything sticks out, you can moniter it more closely with spy planes.

With multiple layers of sams then your plane will have a hard time.
The chinese are good camoflauge people.



It never got them very far.

As i remember the usa pulled out of vietnam...
Korea was won with multiple countries joining in.



Whatever forces are on shore will be whiped out. This isn't WW2. The bombing capabilities have are exponentially better. China's neary defenses would be gone. Plus, the navy can attack from miles away with modern weapons.

Ha ! Thats being overconfident.
What about RPG's?
Hand held missle launchers, mobile launchers.
This isnt WW2 so you dont have an "atlantic wall" there to bomb.


That didn't back up your claim at all.

Wha?
I gave you a linnk!
ill give you another jeez!
British armoured fighting vehicles


Special units were sent on land the nights before to clear paths for our troops on the beaches during D-Day.

That didnt work so well now did it?
Massive casualties.
Hell i know this the british even sent a special force to secure a bridge first tand they didnt get relived till british 45 comando, i think, relived them but came under heavy sniper fire.


I've yet to find a thing backing up your claim America took heavy damage from mines. I've never heard anything like that before. I've always been under the impression they were fairly ineffective.

They ineffective since america lost most of its shermans due to launching them too far out.


Whatever was done, it worked.

It worked because the fuheer of germany had control of panzers.
If they could have moved then we wouldnt have won the war.



We don't have to destroy them all. China's a lot larger then Korea or Vietnam, and the tunnel systems they use, or have aren't nearly as elaborate as what you're suggesting. They were never as effective as you claim.

Why where they not effective?
Supply lines worked fine.


I believe I asked for someone to point out an example of when SAM's have shown to be effective in real combat. I did not ask to see a bunch of "Chinese" (basically Russian) toys.

Well lets see when did an armed conflict between two well armed countries happened that shows that SAM's are inneffective?


I'm well aware of China's layered air defenses. It's not going to do much against America's latest stealth bombers. It would only take a few sorites from B-2's to take out the more advanced SAM's, and then we can move in our normal bombers to mop up. The Chinese airforce will be no threat for at least another few decades.

Many types of radar are in china, many radars can find one plane.
The USA would lose a LOT of planes.


And America does not have to worry about getting its carriers close to China. We can use many nations in the area as staging points for air attacks. Japan, and Australia wouldn't have much problem with it. India could be on board. There's also Afghanistan.

Yeah iraq's secure enough for a B2?
You can stage there but it would a logistical nightmare.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
considering that the US has trouble finding the remenants of the taliban and the insurgents in afghanistan and iraq... what's to say they will have more success searching out every last AA and SAM site in a country with the same land area as the US?

I didn't even mention the vast array of short and medium range SAM's china currently fields.

Also take a look at this



DK-9 SAM/AAA Integrated Air Defence System


The Di Kong-9 (DK-9, also known as 930 system) is an integrated air defence system consisting of the PL-9C surface-to-air missile (SAM), 37mm/35mm anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), target search radar, and fire control system. It is the PLA's first SAM/AAA integrated tactical air defence designed to provide tactical field air defence at army division level.







As the threats of modern attack aircraft and helicopters grow, conventional anti-aircraft artillery weapons are no longer capable of providing the air defence cover the ground forces need in battlefield. The surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, though much more capable, are too expensive to be deployed in vast quantities to cover every corner. One solution to this problem is to combine the two systems to form an integrated air defence system. In a typical engagement the SAM would be used to engage targets at longer range, while the AAA is used to engage targets at short range and lower altitude. Additionally, by sharing the same target search radar and fire control system, the users do not have to deploy two separate systems, which would reduce the unit costs of the system and simplify the crew training.

The PLA began to deploy the SAM systems and AAA weapons in a combined unit to provide improved air defence capability in the mid-1980s. Initially this was merely a mixture of conventional AAA batteries and shoulder launched SAMs, but this later has developed into a more coordinated manner involving target information and fire control data sharing. The DK-9 SAM/AAA integrated air defence system is one of the results of this development trend.

A typical DK-9 battalion includes:


Battalion C3I post X 1
IBIS searching radar X 1
Electro-optical director X 1

Company command post X 1
Type 702 fire-control unit X 1
SAM launcher (4 missiles) X 1
Twin-35mm/37mm AAA X 2
Company command post X 1
Type 702 fire-control unit X 1
SAM launcher (4 missiles) X 1
Twin-35mm/37mm AAA X 2
Company command post X 1
Type 702 fire-control unit X 1
SAM launcher (4 missiles) X 1
Twin-35mm/37mm AAA X 2


The PL-9D (also known as DK-9) is a mobile, low-altitude, surface-to-air missile system providing air defence to ground troops. The missile was a derived from the PL-9 short-range infrared-homing air-to-air missile (AAM), which was reported to be a Chinese copy of the Israeli Python-3, with all-aspect attack ability and manoeuvrability comparable to the U.S. AIM-9L/M 'Sidewinder' and Russian R-73 (AA-11) missile.


[edit on 31-12-2004 by Lucretius]



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Actually, Steath UCAV/UAV and modern stealth fighters don't get picked up by air defences until its to late to react. So it would be very easy, knocking them out 1 by 1 to create a passage for less stealthy aircraft like the B-52 to bombard.


And with the advancing of the laser defence, for example on the JSF laser addidtion, still far away, but closer, stealth is not needed to defend unless the speed of light it bypassable.

[edit on 31-12-2004 by Laxpla]



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Actually, Steath UCAV/UAV and modern stealth fighters don't get picked up by air defences until its to late to react. So it would be very easy, knocking them out 1 by 1 to create a passage for less stealthy aircraft like the B-52 to bombard.

You sure?
What about ,multi-layering of SAM's and radar instelations.



And with the advancing of the laser defence, for example on the JSF laser addidtion, still far away, but closer, stealth is not needed to defend unless the speed of light it bypassable.

[edit on 31-12-2004 by Laxpla]

The laser option is not really useable now is it?
Unless the US is planning on upgradeing every JSF in the fleet?



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Really?
Jeez man you have your head in the coulds or something.
Do you know what advantages of and army in tunnels are?
Unseen,sneaky and unpredictable.


They've never played a large role in a war I know of. They're best for transporting small groups, but not entire armies.


With multiple layers of sams then your plane will have a hard time.
The chinese are good camoflauge people.


SAM's are very hard to hide. Besides, the Chinese set up Iraq's air defenses the second time around. Air defenses was one of the only areas Iraq had improved upon. They had no impact.


As i remember the usa pulled out of vietnam...
Korea was won with multiple countries joining in.


The UN provided something like 10-20 thousand troops. Americans made up the core, along with the South Koreans.


Ha ! Thats being overconfident.
What about RPG's?
Hand held missle launchers, mobile launchers.
This isnt WW2 so you dont have an "atlantic wall" there to bomb.


Great, so the tunnels entrances near the beaches will be destroyed. We'll just carpet the entire area.

And you could not defend a beach with simply light weapons. You'd need heavy equipment to drive off America.


Wha?
I gave you a linnk!
ill give you another jeez!
British armoured fighting vehicles


Sorry, that didn't back up your claim, either. Do you actually know what you said? None of your links stated that the Americans didn't use these crab tanks, or anything close to America being too arrogant to use it.


That didnt work so well now did it?
Massive casualties.
Hell i know this the british even sent a special force to secure a bridge first tand they didnt get relived till british 45 comando, i think, relived them but came under heavy sniper fire.


There were hardly massive casualties from mines. That's a baseless statement. You had a bunch of troops trying to make an ampibious invasion on a heavily fortified beach, where they had the higher ground, and large cliffs. Claiming mines were the reason for casualties is just dumb. Go get a link if you want to make that claim.


They ineffective since america lost most of its shermans due to launching them too far out


That has nothing to do with what I stated, and it contradicts your claim that mines inflicted heavy casualties to our forces.


It worked because the fuheer of germany had control of panzers.
If they could have moved then we wouldnt have won the war.


It's not so simple as that. A lot of that had to do with the fact that communications were damaged in the lead up to the war. Today we can to worse to the Chinese communications.


Why where they not effective?
Supply lines worked fine.


I've never heard they were used to transfer supplies. I doubt they were large enough for anything major. They were using very small, hit and run forces, so what large supplies would they have needed? The Koreans lost, and even the casualties suffered by the Vietcong were multiple times that of the Americans.


Well lets see when did an armed conflict between two well armed countries happened that shows that SAM's are inneffective?


Iraq was a very well armed force. They had the very best Russian SAM's. Same with Syria. They were completely ineffective.


Many types of radar are in china, many radars can find one plane.
The USA would lose a LOT of planes.


Those radars can be jammed, and taken out with cruise missiles before planes ever come in. Bombing comes in waves. First you have cruise missiles. Then you have the stealth bombers. Then the B-52's.


Yeah iraq's secure enough for a B2?
You can stage there but it would a logistical nightmare


I said Afghanistan, not Iraq. Although a B-2 wouldn't be launched from Iraq, or anywhere else in the world but America.


considering that the US has trouble finding the remenants of the taliban and the insurgents in afghanistan and iraq... what's to say they will have more success searching out every last AA and SAM site in a country with the same land area as the US?


Humans are far harder to track then SAM's. As soon as the Chinese uses their radar, we'll know where they are.

None of these things matter. They aren't that much more impressive for their time than Iraq's defenses were.

People constantly underestimate America. In every war we've fought in we were supposed to take heavy casualties. The great Russian equipment, and SAM's were suppoesd to stop us. It's yet to happen.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

They've never played a large role in a war I know of. They're best for transporting small groups, but not entire armies.

Sure not entire armies but a small force can cause damage.
Hell imagine MULTIPLE ammounts of that! thats what it would be like.


SAM's are very hard to hide. Besides, the Chinese set up Iraq's air defenses the second time around. Air defenses was one of the only areas Iraq had improved upon. They had no impact.

Yeah the iraqi's like they would give them 100% invincible screen.
Also how can hideing a truck in 200 miles squared be difficult?


The UN provided something like 10-20 thousand troops. Americans made up the core, along with the South Koreans.

Yeah, point is?
Coalition forces made a definite impact.
Hell a company of argyles stormed a hill in less than an hour that the americans said coudlnt be done.


Great, so the tunnels entrances near the beaches will be destroyed. We'll just carpet the entire area.

Oh yeah like they made a real effect in korea!


And you could not defend a beach with simply light weapons. You'd need heavy equipment to drive off America.

Netheir can you just, land a platoon of abrahms onto an unsecured beach.
Opps one track stuck in the mud , "oh crap!" would be the exsclamation from the tank comander!



Sorry, that didn't back up your claim, either. Do you actually know what you said? None of your links stated that the Americans didn't use these crab tanks, or anything close to America being too arrogant to use it.

It said "british" tanks didnt it!
How could american tanks even have that if they sank ten miles offshore!



There were hardly massive casualties from mines. That's a baseless statement. You had a bunch of troops trying to make an ampibious invasion on a heavily fortified beach, where they had the higher ground, and large cliffs. Claiming mines were the reason for casualties is just dumb. Go get a link if you want to make that claim.

I am talking about the airborne invasion!


That has nothing to do with what I stated, and it contradicts your claim that mines inflicted heavy casualties to our forces.

WTF i said the airborne invasion had heavy casualties not the mines!


It's not so simple as that. A lot of that had to do with the fact that communications were damaged in the lead up to the war. Today we can to worse to the Chinese communications.

Really?
So thats why the german general in charge phone hitler but was told to ,"phone later" because he was asleep. Even military officials say that!



I've never heard they were used to transfer supplies. I doubt they were large enough for anything major. They were using very small, hit and run forces, so what large supplies would they have needed? The Koreans lost, and even the casualties suffered by the Vietcong were multiple times that of the Americans.

They where used to supply weapons and troops! Also how can you call hill 282 a hit and run attack???


Iraq was a very well armed force. They had the very best Russian SAM's. Same with Syria. They were completely ineffective.

I dont think they where "the very best" as you so calmly put it.



Those radars can be jammed, and taken out with cruise missiles before planes ever come in. Bombing comes in waves. First you have cruise missiles. Then you have the stealth bombers. Then the B-52's.

Jammed radars only work for a while and frankly i think using cruisemissiles you'll need a launching platform no?
The only real undetectable approach would be the sea, now tell me how a naval task force with enough missiles is going to be sneaky?



I said Afghanistan, not Iraq. Although a B-2 wouldn't be launched from Iraq, or anywhere else in the world but America.

My mistake.
Yeah inflight refueling BUT the enemy can detect a tanker since they are not stealth unless the US is keeping a secret super stealth tanker from the worlds eyes?


Humans are far harder to track then SAM's. As soon as the Chinese uses their radar, we'll know where they are.

Yeah and as soon as americans land thier forces the land army will find them, a massive attack like D-Day would be suicidal and extremely costly, more than the american public would be willing to pay.


None of these things matter. They aren't that much more impressive for their time than Iraq's defenses were.

Lets see, T-55's VS chally 2 or abrahms?
Hmmm?
Or even better RPG vs abrahms?


People constantly underestimate America. In every war we've fought in we were supposed to take heavy casualties. The great Russian equipment, and SAM's were suppoesd to stop us. It's yet to happen.

So vietnam didnt have high losses?
Or WW2?
I bet that the troops that died in those wars are really happy that your justifying a thier sacrifice for another war!



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Sure not entire armies but a small force can cause damage.
Hell imagine MULTIPLE ammounts of that! thats what it would be like


They can't be the deciding factor in a war. They can't play as large a role as you seem to think. You can go look at past wars to see that.


Yeah the iraqi's like they would give them 100% invincible screen.
Also how can hideing a truck in 200 miles squared be difficult?


Thousands of pictures can be taken a minute, we have almost constant coverage. That, plus what we gain from things like spies gives us a good idea. Once those SAM's turn on, we'll know their location, as well.


Yeah, point is?
Coalition forces made a definite impact.
Hell a company of argyles stormed a hill in less than an hour that the americans said coudlnt be done.


The UN forces made a minimal impact. It was an American/Korean war.


Oh yeah like they made a real effect in korea!


You like to make statements, but you don't seem to like to back them up.


Netheir can you just, land a platoon of abrahms onto an unsecured beach.
Opps one track stuck in the mud , "oh crap!" would be the exsclamation from the tank comander!


Our tanks operate under the harshest conditions in the desert, and you think they can't handle a Chinese beach? Hell, they handled the beaches of Normandy with the cliffs, mines and hedgerows just fine.


It said "british" tanks didnt it!
How could american tanks even have that if they sank ten miles offshore!


Do you honestly believe statements like this? How could anyone believe America lost all their tanks 10 miles from shore?

And it said British tank. So what? It also said it was an ally coutermeasure. It could have been an idea from the British. I don't know. It doesn't back up your claim.


I am talking about the airborne invasion!


Airborne invasion? That had what to do with mines? Better yet, when was there any airborn invasion by the allies? We had limited numbers of paratroopers, but that certainly wasn't an invasion force.


Really?
So thats why the german general in charge phone hitler but was told to ,"phone later" because he was asleep. Even military officials say that!


I didn't say there wasn't a delay of the German forces, I said that no one can know whether that would have been a deciding factor. Many of our forces were still attacked by large numbers of Panzers, and almost complete cut off. Hell, Patton was attacked by three Panzer armies at once when he was just making his breakout in France. Allied bombing pretty much demolished the German forces. If we could do that then, what could we do now with superior bombing capabilities against an inferior infantry force like China's?


They where used to supply weapons and troops! Also how can you call hill 282 a hit and run attack???


How about you explain your position a little more thoroughly.

None of these things worked well for the North Koreans.


I dont think they where "the very best" as you so calmly put it.


Then you haven't looked into it:


By the summer of 1990, Iraq possessed 16,000 radar-guided and heatseeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), including the Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-14, and SA-16, and the Franco-German Roland. Additional air defense was provided by Air Force interceptors and organic Army assets, including the SA-7/14, SA-8, SA-9/13, SA-16 missile systems, and the ZSU-23/4 self-propelled AAA system. In addition, the Iraqi air defense had more than 7,500 AAA pieces protecting all targets of value, some deployed on the roofs of numerous buildings in Baghdad housing government facilities. These weapons -- 57-mm and 37-mm AAA pieces, ZSU-23/4 and ZSU-57/2 self-propelled AAA systems, and hundreds of 14.5-mm and 23-mm light antiaircraft weapons -- formed the backbone of the integrated air defense network. In major high value target areas (such as Baghdad, airfields, chemical agent production complexes, and nuclear facilities) the combined arms air defense could prove lethal to aircraft operating below 10,000 feet.


Those were top of the line SAM's during the time period.

Also:


By 2002 Iraq's military had modifyied its once standard Soviet-era air-defense systems with newer equipment from a variety of sources. The result was that Iraq's air-defense systems were becoming amalgams of Western, old East European, and Far Eastern technologies that behaved in non-standard ways. That made them less predictable for the US and British planes that were their targets and they became increasingly difficult to counter. Assistance from the Chinese had been forthcoming in terms of laying fiber-optic cables between the various air-defense nodes, particularly in southern Iraq. The purpose behind this is to reduce the electronic emissions given out by the air-defense facilities which, normally, the Americans either would jam or spoof [electronically deceive], or indeed collect intelligence data from.


Source - globalsecurity.org...


Jammed radars only work for a while and frankly i think using cruisemissiles you'll need a launching platform no?
The only real undetectable approach would be the sea, now tell me how a naval task force with enough missiles is going to be sneaky?


We have bases across the region. We can use basically any plane to fire cruise missiles. A B-2 could handle the task perfectly.


My mistake.
Yeah inflight refueling BUT the enemy can detect a tanker since they are not stealth unless the US is keeping a secret super stealth tanker from the worlds eyes?


I have heard talk of building a stealth tanker, but that's not the point...

China doesn't have any bases outside of China. America has them all over. America can park its navy at many spots, and be safe from Chinese attack. A B-2 could possibly come from Japan or Australia.


Yeah and as soon as americans land thier forces the land army will find them, a massive attack like D-Day would be suicidal and extremely costly, more than the american public would be willing to pay.


Not true at all. The American public will except losses for a cause they believe in, and will take into account who we're fighting. America is as resiliant a country as any other in the world. Our people are as brave as any Russians or Chinese.

And most ground forces could potentially be demolished by bombers before we ever land. With modern technology, we can get air support a lot quicker then during WW2.


Lets see, T-55's VS chally 2 or abrahms?
Hmmm?
Or even better RPG vs abrahms?


T-55's? The Iraqi's had 1000 T-72's, another 1500 T-62's. Those were the main tanks Russia was using at the time. And we were using M1's, which are far inferior to what we have today.


So vietnam didnt have high losses?
Or WW2?
I bet that the troops that died in those wars are really happy that your justifying a thier sacrifice for another war!


WW2 was after America basically scrapped most of its military during the Great Depression. And we hardly suffered the type of casualties Russia did. The Russians would basically sacrafice wave after wave of Russians to overwhelm the Germans.

During Vietnam, we really didn't suffer huge casualties considering it was a ten year war, and we had limitations placed on our troops that were simply unrealistic. It was a political screw up.

This neglects the wars we've fought since then, or even before that, though.

I don't know of any nation that has a military record as disasterous as the Russian's.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Freaken lighten up with the quotes!


What would you rather be in?

An F/A-18E-G Super Bug that can really pop up the speed to ~900 MPH when the tough gets going, turn on his music really loud and good, deploy physical toyed decoys, have ~60-100 chaff flair each, and had a good load out of HARMS OR an immobile SAM site that gets a current gen HARM launched at it as soon as it starts to sing?

Odds are against the SAM site, and have been ever since Vietnam when they came online.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
They can't be the deciding factor in a war. They can't play as large a role as you seem to think. You can go look at past wars to see that.

Really?
I thought a force popping up behind enemy lines would be a SERIOS threat and could tip the balance but hey there you go i get it wrong!



Thousands of pictures can be taken a minute, we have almost constant coverage. That, plus what we gain from things like spies gives us a good idea. Once those SAM's turn on, we'll know their location, as well.

Thousands of pictures of high definition over several hundered square miles mabye but not all of china and thats not includeing cloud cover.



The UN forces made a minimal impact. It was an American/Korean war.

UMM i think the Argyll's might have something to say about that or the RAF shooting down migs (jets) with props..


You like to make statements, but you don't seem to like to back them up.

Exscuse me?
I have backed up my story twice!



Our tanks operate under the harshest conditions in the desert, and you think they can't handle a Chinese beach? Hell, they handled the beaches of Normandy with the cliffs, mines and hedgerows just fine.

They handled them because the beach was clear.
They handled them because the beach had been prepared for them.
Military forces MUST send in light troops (marines) to secure the land.
I dont remember any shermans scaleing cliff faces on normandy.



Do you honestly believe statements like this? How could anyone believe America lost all their tanks 10 miles from shore?

.........you sent your tanks out to early do you want me to back that up as well?


And it said British tank. So what? It also said it was an ally coutermeasure. It could have been an idea from the British. I don't know. It doesn't back up your claim.

It was originally initiated by south africans i believe then made in britain.
"Special versions were developed for the Battle of Normandy. Developed under the leadership of Major-General Percy Hobart,"

from en.wikipedia.org...]
Also
users.swing.be...
"First version of a Sherman Crab, developped by the British in 1943"



Airborne invasion? That had what to do with mines? Better yet, when was there any airborn invasion by the allies? We had limited numbers of paratroopers, but that certainly wasn't an invasion force.

The airborne invasion force assisted the sea attack.
Both recieved heavy casualties.
Why are you still going on about mines!




I didn't say there wasn't a delay of the German forces, I said that no one can know whether that would have been a deciding factor. Many of our forces were still attacked by large numbers of Panzers, and almost complete cut off. Hell, Patton was attacked by three Panzer armies at once when he was just making his breakout in France. Allied bombing pretty much demolished the German forces. If we could do that then, what could we do now with superior bombing capabilities against an inferior infantry force like China's?

German armoured forces could have swung through pegasus bridge, lightly defended by british 6th para division and gone and wiped out the invasion force on the beaches.
Luckily the fuhrer didnt allow any tank movements with out his knowledge or aprroval.



How about you explain your position a little more thoroughly.

The british had 2 battalions over there helping americans, on the front lines.
The argylls came in with 2 comanies and about 150 where killed or wounded after an american friendly fire incident and surviveing wave after wave of assualts.
Now you tell me that they "didnt do much"



None of these things worked well for the North Koreans.

How did they not?


Those were top of the line SAM's during the time period.

That may be but who was manning them is another factor.
Also china has also upped her defense since then.
So those may well have been useless bu the new systems are not tested agaisnt american fighters and nethier is america's latest fighter been tested against latest SAM's in actual combat.




We have bases across the region. We can use basically any plane to fire cruise missiles. A B-2 could handle the task perfectly.

Yeah BUT a plane can be shot down, the chinese no doubt have information of american bases and would most likely put them out of commision.


I have heard talk of building a stealth tanker, but that's not the point...

It would be useless except for supplying stealth fighters and america doesnt really use stealth fighters for long missions and now its tactics are to use AWACS to support so supprise is only where the attack will come from not if it is there.


China doesn't have any bases outside of China. America has them all over. America can park its navy at many spots, and be safe from Chinese attack. A B-2 could possibly come from Japan or Australia.

Yeah but a B2 can be shot down, a navy is very vunerable to china's latest A2S/S2S/G2S missle. THE most advanced missile in the world that america has yet to aquire.




Not true at all. The American public will except losses for a cause they believe in, and will take into account who we're fighting. America is as resiliant a country as any other in the world. Our people are as brave as any Russians or Chinese.

Yeah but the reasons why they are dieing change the scope completly, you cant say that a countries population will follow its army into every war.


And most ground forces could potentially be demolished by bombers before we ever land. With modern technology, we can get air support a lot quicker then during WW2.

Yeah and chinese can hide quicker than america can scramble a bomber.



T-55's? The Iraqi's had 1000 T-72's, another 1500 T-62's. Those were the main tanks Russia was using at the time. And we were using M1's, which are far inferior to what we have today.

The Us forces where using M1A1 abrahms which now are being replaced by the M1A2 tanks but slowly.

The iraqi's did use T-55's , want a picture from the MOD site of a burnt out T-55 taken by a challenger crew to prove it?
I believe the russians where using the T-80 then.




WW2 was after America basically scrapped most of its military during the Great Depression. And we hardly suffered the type of casualties Russia did. The Russians would basically sacrafice wave after wave of Russians to overwhelm the Germans.

Yeah , thats all they could do really.
The germans did sort of stab them in the back. Besides russian tactics of overwhelming got the job done.


During Vietnam, we really didn't suffer huge casualties considering it was a ten year war, and we had limitations placed on our troops that were simply unrealistic. It was a political screw up.

Define "huge".


This neglects the wars we've fought since then, or even before that, though.
[/qupte]
Care to elaborate?


I don't know of any nation that has a military record as disasterous as the Russian's.

I wouldnt say dissaterous, they done pretty well and why are you putting them down?
They have went up against the best of the best and although beaten they learned from it.
They still make the most heavily armoured helicopters in the world.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Freaken lighten up with the quotes!


What would you rather be in?

An F/A-18E-G Super Bug that can really pop up the speed to ~900 MPH when the tough gets going, turn on his music really loud and good, deploy physical toyed decoys, have ~60-100 chaff flair each, and had a good load out of HARMS OR an immobile SAM site that gets a current gen HARM launched at it as soon as it starts to sing?

Odds are against the SAM site, and have been ever since Vietnam when they came online.

Well most of chinas ones are not immobile and are mobile. Besides turn of the radar and your safe.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   



Well most of chinas ones are not immobile and are mobile. Besides turn of the radar and your safe.


Then we have a problem... How is a HARM going to fire at a SAM site with its feeder radar off? How it the SAM site going to fire with its feeder radar off? Oh, and SAM sites arent mobile to a fighter jet with HARMs




UMM i think the Argyll's might have something to say about that or the RAF shooting down migs (jets) with props..


More then 90% of the kills where done by USAF and USN fighter jets...





So those may well have been useless bu the new systems are not tested agaisnt american fighters and nethier is america's latest fighter been tested against latest SAM's in actual combat.


Make no mistake about it, USAF and USN fighters have come further along the road since Vietnam then SAMs have...




Yeah BUT a plane can be shot down, the chinese no doubt have information of american bases and would most likely put them out of commision.


Who doesnt know where American military bases are? So, little china has all of a sudden become a super power with a 2000 plane stealth airforce that has intercontinental ability?




It would be useless except for supplying stealth fighters and america doesnt really use stealth fighters for long missions and now its tactics are to use AWACS to support so supprise is only where the attack will come from not if it is there.


Stealthy assets are used on the longest of missions. B-2s being sent from the Indian ocean and CONUS, F-117s that would rather be sent from the comfort of a climate controlled bunker and soon to be rapid action force consisting of F-117s, B-2s, and F/A-22s.




Yeah but a B2 can be shot down, a navy is very vunerable to china's latest A2S/S2S/G2S missle. THE most advanced missile in the world that america has yet to aquire.


First off, get this invulnerable B-2/F/A-22 thing out of youre head. You wont see one shot down in youre lifetime no matter how much you want to see the said happen...
Their bases are more vulnerable then US CBGs and would certainly be wiped out the first few hours of the war.




Yeah and chinese can hide quicker than america can scramble a bomber.


So, a busted, possible useless infrastructure with the only radar left operating are a few dinky SAM site's from a country that doesnt poses a radar that doesnt exist that cant pick up a stealthy B-2 with ~80 SDBs at angles 40?




The Us forces where using M1A1 abrahms which now are being replaced by the M1A2 tanks but slowly.


I dont think tanks will be useful with ~400 or 500 Super Hornets and Vipers roaming the skies...



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Laxpla
Actually, Steath UCAV/UAV and modern stealth fighters don't get picked up by air defences until its to late to react. So it would be very easy, knocking them out 1 by 1 to create a passage for less stealthy aircraft like the B-52 to bombard.

You sure?
What about ,multi-layering of SAM's and radar instelations.



And with the advancing of the laser defence, for example on the JSF laser addidtion, still far away, but closer, stealth is not needed to defend unless the speed of light it bypassable.

[edit on 31-12-2004 by Laxpla]

The laser option is not really useable now is it?
Unless the US is planning on upgradeing every JSF in the fleet?


Multilayering, thats the job for UCAV to wipe out the area, chances are that you cannon't detect the Raptor or UCAV. The UCAV can bypass the new and advanced S-400, allowing easy access to demolition to targets.

Well, in the future maby there can be a dedicated aircraft much like the Airborne Laser, but with many 100kw lasers to discard a squadron's enemys missles and aircraft itself. It isn't that far away actually. If we got a Airborne Laser up for testing this year to shoot down Ballistic missles, iam sure it will be soon for baby missles.



Yes ChrisRT, man I started reading a quote or two then said god dam, wtf is up with all this, ill come back after someone wins the arguement

[edit on 31-12-2004 by Laxpla]



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   


Yes ChrisRT, man I started reading a quote or two then said god dam, wtf is up with all this, ill come back after someone wins the arguement


I hear that! Unfortunately there are more boneheads then people actually willing to accept reality. This thread isnt going to have a winner... We'll let the military hardware speak for itself in the end.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Haha I know,I found this online, Ill probably get banned





I hope no one takes it offensive. I have many disabled friends and they are all very nice.




top topics



 
1
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join