Rusty have you not watched the vids about the M16/AR vs. the AK I suggested in the other thread ?? It was disproven in 2 seperate videos by 2 seperate uploaders that the unreliabilty of the M16 is a myth. Which only came about, as I understand it, that the first weapons issued had no cleaning kit and also the ammo was not 100% the best at first...someone wanted to save some $ in cheaper ammo for the new rifle. And this did not work well, but when problems were solved the AR is quite good (except probably "Mannstopwirkung" and range eg. compared to G3)
However with the other topics I kind of agree:
"1. F35 is crap. I call it as I see it and as it is.
2. M16/M4 is also crap. 50+ years they still haven't overcome the design flaws.
3. Abrams isn't crap, it's just a tank and the era of the AFV is over.
4. voting as it is a scam."
5. propaganda pieces for.........the CIA.
1. Yup- It seems the F35 is an ok aircraft to perhaps succeed the Harrier...but the Harrier still is bad ass and also looks better. But for this the price tag seeems way to high. Seems F35 will struggle against most modern SU30/35 etc versions (and their Chinese derivates ? I do not know much about the modern aircraft from China etc). Also the Eurofighter seems to be better in air combat. Possibly the F35 has a small advantage in BVR tho. Depends on who sees whom first and who shoots first. The Typhoon now has also a good LR missile btw. I was quite surprised to hear that the load out of F35 is quite small and it has an internal weapons bay (for "stealth") however if he shoots missiles or drops bombs the stealth is broken when the bay opens and then the F35 can be detected easily. When he uses weapons under the wings then the same story, not stealth will suffer..also wing loading is said to be quite high (= impacts manouvre eg.). Also not the fastest plane.. so has probs outmanouvering incoming missiles and also cannot outrun them...mhhhh..so must depend much on the ECM system...bit risky
2. Nope, see above (also are here not some people who served and can comment how they found the M16?)
3. Yes and no, yes to the first but the tank will always be very very welcome by every infantry commander. Just remember how glad the Germans in A´stan when they got as few "lowly" old Marders and 155mm SP guns. I also read an interview with British and Danish guys- (in case of the Danish it was in the Balcans, called Op. Bollebank (sp?) a few Leo1 helped them out greatly against the Serbs..
4. Yes, I have also come to the conclusion in the last 2-3 years, that voting mostly is a show for the "sheep"
5. At least it was partly the case (if it is still today I do not know), see CIAs Op. Mockingbird.
Edit to add this video about Op. Bollebank see how glad they were they had tanks...(only in DANISH tho):
(Note the comment by the Swedish soldier under video)
Edit2, here a cool historic video about the Marder some may not know it. Of course it is quite obsolete these days. I still like it more then the newer Puma - also I am kind of 80ties/early 90ties guy. After that I kind of lost interest in new millitary developments for some reason and in the 80ties the Marder was quite good. The BMP2 however might be a bit better perhaps cause it has 30mm gun and has a lower silouhette. But the Marder sounds and looks better :)
FUNNY,note the bearded guy at 0:09 he looks like "Oddball" in Kellys heros LOL Btw. does anyone read this long posts
< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 7/22/2019 6:27:34 PM >