Advertisement
by OMGeverynameistaken » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:55 pm
by The Amyclae » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:56 pm
The Grand World Order wrote:OP Restrepo, anyone?
(It's in parts, because the English full version got taken down.)
The establishment of a fortified defensive position changed the outcome of the US's operations in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan. To say that forts have no use it utter crap, sorry.
by The Grand World Order » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:00 pm
The Amyclae wrote:Hey, if you want to call an observation post a "fort," sure...
I'm not saying that digging a foxhole, or throwing together a prefab is not a possibility. Having a little concrete facility (like a bunker with some slits for firing or someshit) is done all the time. But building a permanent facility (or series of facilities) that can successfully defend a sizable quantity of forces isn't done. Forts, as I understand them, were strategically significant. They were the focus of campaigns and the reasons to sue for peace or declare victory. Saying that some OP has that same sort of heft, though, risks making the word "fort" be... Anything.
by Allanea » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:03 pm
by The Greater Aryan Race » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:13 pm
The Grand World Order wrote:Then there's Singapore, which, I understand, is essentially a city mixed with a fortress.
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:So, uh... Is this another one of those threads where everyone is supposed to feel outraged and circle-jerk in agreement of how injust and terrible the described incident is?
Because if it is, I'm probably going to say something mean and contrary just to contradict the majority.
by The Grand World Order » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:29 pm
The Greater Aryan Race wrote:The Grand World Order wrote:Then there's Singapore, which, I understand, is essentially a city mixed with a fortress.
Could you kindly clarify that?
I haven't really seen any modern-day fortifications in Singapore even though I live there. Most of these so-called fortifications existed during the Colonial-era and were built by the British to defend Singapore. Fat lot of good these things did when the Japanese invaded.
by Kouralia » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:12 am
by Mikoyan-Guryevich » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:29 am
The Grand World Order wrote:The Greater Aryan Race wrote:
Could you kindly clarify that?
I haven't really seen any modern-day fortifications in Singapore even though I live there. Most of these so-called fortifications existed during the Colonial-era and were built by the British to defend Singapore. Fat lot of good these things did when the Japanese invaded.
It's something I heard from a fellow NSer who has experience with the Singaporean Army, will clarify later.
by The Greater Aryan Race » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:41 am
Mikoyan-Guryevich wrote:It isn't true. Singapore has a lot of military establishments in a very small area but it's a stretch of the imagination to say it's a fortified city.
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:So, uh... Is this another one of those threads where everyone is supposed to feel outraged and circle-jerk in agreement of how injust and terrible the described incident is?
Because if it is, I'm probably going to say something mean and contrary just to contradict the majority.
by Emerada » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:00 am
by Jagalonia » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:12 am
The Amyclae wrote:The Grand World Order wrote:OP Restrepo, anyone?
(It's in parts, because the English full version got taken down.)
The establishment of a fortified defensive position changed the outcome of the US's operations in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan. To say that forts have no use it utter crap, sorry.
Hey, if you want to call an observation post a "fort," sure...
I'm not saying that digging a foxhole, or throwing together a prefab is not a possibility. Having a little concrete facility (like a bunker with some slits for firing or someshit) is done all the time. But building a permanent facility (or series of facilities) that can successfully defend a sizable quantity of forces isn't done. Forts, as I understand them, were strategically significant. They were the focus of campaigns and the reasons to sue for peace or declare victory. Saying that some OP has that same sort of heft, though, risks making the word "fort" be... Anything.
Tokyoni wrote:Hitler's mustache looks weird. Adam Smith was a drunken fatass. There, I've just pwned fascism and capitalism by such "logic".
Edlichbury wrote:OOC: If Knootoss can claim alcohol is a biological weapon, I can claim sentient Milk-People.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
by Jagalonia » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:14 am
Emerada wrote:I have a question about airship. I know it's obsolete technology, but I'd like to use it in my role-playing. What do you guy think would be a role of airship in modern world combat, giving that this airship is state of art vehicle with much better payload than their ancestors, minimum leakage, and more agile.
I'm thinking to use it in role-playing as airfield establishment unit, a fleet of airships deploy to secured ground, carrying temporary airfield facilities that could establish one in a week or so, I think.
Tokyoni wrote:Hitler's mustache looks weird. Adam Smith was a drunken fatass. There, I've just pwned fascism and capitalism by such "logic".
Edlichbury wrote:OOC: If Knootoss can claim alcohol is a biological weapon, I can claim sentient Milk-People.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
by Allanea » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:38 am
Permanent positions were made obsolete when missiles became accurate to the meter. Once you know where the position is, it's not hard to hit it. Which is why most modern doctrines involve a "Shoot and scoot", which essencialy makes it so your forces are harder to hit. Really, if you're sitting in one place for months at a time in a warzone, you're asking to get your ass blown up.
Really, if you're sitting in one place for months at a time in a warzone, you're asking to get your ass blown up.
by The Anglo-Saxon Empire » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:21 am
Kouralia wrote:The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:Not sure if that is a good thing.
One of them has a medal for bravery and both of them are among the most respected staff members at the school, out of like 500: so I'd say it probably is. Oh, and one of them owns an MG42, a Chinese AK knock-off and a Walther P38. (thus making him awesome)
by Jagalonia » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:19 am
Allanea wrote:Beyond that....I can't see a use for them....
Small, drone dirigibles are also used IRL for artillery spotting.
Tokyoni wrote:Hitler's mustache looks weird. Adam Smith was a drunken fatass. There, I've just pwned fascism and capitalism by such "logic".
Edlichbury wrote:OOC: If Knootoss can claim alcohol is a biological weapon, I can claim sentient Milk-People.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
by Jagalonia » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:22 am
Allanea wrote:Permanent positions were made obsolete when missiles became accurate to the meter. Once you know where the position is, it's not hard to hit it. Which is why most modern doctrines involve a "Shoot and scoot", which essencialy makes it so your forces are harder to hit. Really, if you're sitting in one place for months at a time in a warzone, you're asking to get your ass blown up.
Missiles are also expensive.
If it takes me five hours and some concrete to build a position, and that takes a $150,000 missile to destroy... well then.Really, if you're sitting in one place for months at a time in a warzone, you're asking to get your ass blown up.
Isn't it awesome that this isn't how fortifications work?
Tokyoni wrote:Hitler's mustache looks weird. Adam Smith was a drunken fatass. There, I've just pwned fascism and capitalism by such "logic".
Edlichbury wrote:OOC: If Knootoss can claim alcohol is a biological weapon, I can claim sentient Milk-People.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
by Galla- » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:22 am
Jagalonia wrote:The Amyclae wrote:Hey, if you want to call an observation post a "fort," sure...
I'm not saying that digging a foxhole, or throwing together a prefab is not a possibility. Having a little concrete facility (like a bunker with some slits for firing or someshit) is done all the time. But building a permanent facility (or series of facilities) that can successfully defend a sizable quantity of forces isn't done. Forts, as I understand them, were strategically significant. They were the focus of campaigns and the reasons to sue for peace or declare victory. Saying that some OP has that same sort of heft, though, risks making the word "fort" be... Anything.
Permanent positions were made obsolete when missiles became accurate to the meter. Once you know where the position is, it's not hard to hit it. Which is why most modern doctrines involve a "Shoot and scoot", which essencialy makes it so your forces are harder to hit. Really, if you're sitting in one place for months at a time in a warzone, you're asking to get your ass blown up.
Fashiontopia wrote:Look don't come here talking bad about Americans, that will get you cussed out faster than relativity.
Besides: Most posters in this thread are Americans, and others who are non-Americans have no problems co-existing so shut that trap...
by The Anglo-Saxon Empire » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:07 pm
Galla- wrote:Jagalonia wrote:Permanent positions were made obsolete when missiles became accurate to the meter. Once you know where the position is, it's not hard to hit it. Which is why most modern doctrines involve a "Shoot and scoot", which essencialy makes it so your forces are harder to hit. Really, if you're sitting in one place for months at a time in a warzone, you're asking to get your ass blown up.
If you're wasting guided missiles on slit trenches and foxholes, then I've already won the war.
by Galla- » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:18 pm
Fashiontopia wrote:Look don't come here talking bad about Americans, that will get you cussed out faster than relativity.
Besides: Most posters in this thread are Americans, and others who are non-Americans have no problems co-existing so shut that trap...
by Kouralia » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:22 pm
by Radictistan » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:39 pm
by Jagalonia » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:41 pm
Galla- wrote:Jagalonia wrote:Permanent positions were made obsolete when missiles became accurate to the meter. Once you know where the position is, it's not hard to hit it. Which is why most modern doctrines involve a "Shoot and scoot", which essencialy makes it so your forces are harder to hit. Really, if you're sitting in one place for months at a time in a warzone, you're asking to get your ass blown up.
If you're wasting guided missiles on slit trenches and foxholes, then I've already won the war.
Tokyoni wrote:Hitler's mustache looks weird. Adam Smith was a drunken fatass. There, I've just pwned fascism and capitalism by such "logic".
Edlichbury wrote:OOC: If Knootoss can claim alcohol is a biological weapon, I can claim sentient Milk-People.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
by Jagalonia » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:43 pm
Tokyoni wrote:Hitler's mustache looks weird. Adam Smith was a drunken fatass. There, I've just pwned fascism and capitalism by such "logic".
Edlichbury wrote:OOC: If Knootoss can claim alcohol is a biological weapon, I can claim sentient Milk-People.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
by Galla- » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:57 pm
Jagalonia wrote:Galla- wrote:
If you're wasting guided missiles on slit trenches and foxholes, then I've already won the war.
I'm not talking about slit trenches and foxholes. Standard artillery munitions work great against those. I'm talking about heavily fortified complexes. Like the maginot line, or some such.
EDIT: Also, the Carl Gustaf 84mm does have earth penetrating rounds. It looks cool watching a bunker explode from the inside.
Jagalonia wrote:
If it comes straight down on the tank (Which artillery munitions do...) It'll be a kill. If the shell lands beside the tank, you might get a mobility kill, but the tank will still be (Reletavely) operational.
Fashiontopia wrote:Look don't come here talking bad about Americans, that will get you cussed out faster than relativity.
Besides: Most posters in this thread are Americans, and others who are non-Americans have no problems co-existing so shut that trap...
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Janpia
Advertisement