NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone but me think that the U.S. is using 20th century warfare tactics that were developed to fight the Soviet Union in the COld War but are rendered obsolete by 21st century guerilla/insurgent/terrorist/extremist factions/movements? For example, what use are tanks in an urban enviornment against an enemy that has no tanks?
What I'm trying to get at is that the U.S. is not adapting to the new kinds of warfare that have developed, such as electronic warfare (which China is definitely ahead of us in) and guerilla warfare/ insurgency. This idea is based on how the US military has operated within the last 50 years, primarily the Iraqi occupation and the Vietnam conflict. So what's your take?

Shut down the bases in Germany, Korea, Okinawa

End the wars

Bring home the troops

we have these units called rangers and special forces.

the tank is also useful as a bullet proof explosion resistant movable base of fire. sniper on the second from a window ? the tank can fire a round that will remove the entire room.

UAV's mechanized infantry units. Air assault units. helicopter support.

Shut down the bases in Germany, Korea, Okinawa

End the wars

Bring home the troops

What do you have against local economies? Did a local economy break into your house when you were a kid, rape you repeatedly, and kick your puppy while making you watch?

What do you have against local economies? Did a local economy break into your house when you were a kid, rape you repeatedly, and kick your puppy while making you watch?

Actually I love local economies and give them a handjob every day.

Shut down the bases in Germany, Korea, Okinawa

End the wars

Bring home the troops

Move the bases in Germany to Poland.
move the bases in Korea into the countryside of Korea the bases in down town Seoul are inconvenient for our troops, and they piss off the Koreans.
Okinawa is fine and very useful for responding to a threat in the Asian theater.

the tank is also useful as a bullet proof explosion resistant movable base of fire.

Five to ten kilos of RDX under a pressure triggered copper lined plate makes this statement patently false.

Move the bases in Germany to Poland.
move the bases in Korea into the countryside of Korea the bases in down town Seoul are inconvenient for our troops, and they piss off the Koreans.
Okinawa is fine and very useful for responding to a threat in the Asian theater.

Abandon Poland to Putin

Let China take care of Kim Jong Il

Fuck Okinawa

Five to ten kilos of RDX under a pressure triggered copper lined plate makes this statement patently false.

actually. actually no it still resist the explosion even if it fails. that's standard use counter measures for mines and IEDs.

Abandon Poland to Putin
yes sucha good example to abandon our NATO allies. Should we return East Germany while we are at it ?

Let China take care of Kim Jong Il

China would have a hard time with that. the North Korean Military would fight to the death absorption by China. You have a much greater chance reunifing Korea then making north Korea part of china.

Fuck Okinawa

have you been there ? the beaches are great. got to be one of the best vacation spots for our military in the world. Also useful in keeping China out of Taiwan.

yes sucha good example to abandon our NATO allies. Should we return East Germany while we are at it ?
Solution: Disband NATO

China would have a hard time with that. the North Korean Military would fight to the death absorption by China. You have a much greater chance reunifing Korea then making north Korea part of china.
China would be fool to try to absorb N Korea. Instead China will just make sure Kim doesn't invade South Korea as that would fuck up China's economy which is so interconnected with S Korea's.

Kim Jong Il nothing better than a latter day version of Enver Hoxa. A client madman kept on China's short leash.

have you been there ? the beaches are great. got to be one of the best vacation spots for our military in the world. Also useful in keeping China out of Taiwan.

Taiwan by itself can keep China out of Taiwan, as long as it doesn't offically declare independence.

we have these units called rangers and special forces.

the tank is also useful as a bullet proof explosion resistant movable base of fire. sniper on the second from a window ? the tank can fire a round that will remove the entire room.

UAV's mechanized infantry units. Air assault units. helicopter support.

Spec Ops, huh? So how effective were they in the Vietnam War?

Why spend approx. 4.5 million to destroy a single sniper? And what about collateral damage, especially when the US should be trying to gain the support of the locals instead of destroying their homes?

UAV's, mechanized infantry units, air assault units and helicopter support... sounds very effective against a conventional army. But what use are they when fighting insurgents like the Viet Cong or Al Quaeda? Hell, the US hasn't even caught Osama yet.

Hell, the US hasn't even caught Osama yet....We're still trying to catch him?

actually. actually no it still resist the explosion even if it fails. that's standard use counter measures for mines and IEDs.

Please. Tanks universally have terrible belly armor, and nobody puts reactive armor on it. Few tanks mount mine rollers as standard either. And even then, lone tanks are very vulnerable to close range ambushes where satchel charges are aplenty and can be tossed under the turret. The shell might survive, but everything inside wouldn't. It'd be a burned out hulk.

Spec Ops, huh? So how effective were they in the Vietnam War?
Very effective. they trained the Montagnard on the boarder between North and South Vietnam. In order to supply the Vietcong North Vietnam had to take a round about way through Laos and Cambodia(called the Ho Chi Minh trail). Government Policy however didn't allow the training of a counter insurgency in Cambodia, and Laos (would you like to have a US trained and armed insurgency in your back yard). We failed Vietnam because we were forced into a conventional war.

Why spend approx. 4.5 million to destroy a single sniper? And what about collateral damage, especially when the US should be trying to gain the support of the locals instead of destroying their homes?
Source ??? My supply order form listed a tank's Composition B round at 750 dollars. given this was in 2002.

UAV's, mechanized infantry units, air assault units and helicopter support... sounds very effective against a conventional army. But what use are they when fighting insurgents like the Viet Cong or Al Quaeda? Hell, the US hasn't even caught Osama yet.

you should study how they have been used.

Helicopters have been used to drop troops on the other side of enemy positions allowing them to be surrounded. armored personal carriers can be used to move troops across an open space so they can get inside a building so they can ferret out those sniper.

As for Bin Laden that likely has more to do with he is in Pakistan and we don't like crossing the boarder for more then a few hours at a time.

UAV's, mechanized infantry units, air assault units and helicopter support... sounds very effective against a conventional army. But what use are they when fighting insurgents like the Viet Cong or Al Quaeda? Hell, the US hasn't even caught Osama yet.

honestly, the best weapons to combat insurgents with are chemical munitions. This comes with the negative side effect of ecologically damage and 'collateral damage', but why not?

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the reason we faced so much opposition in Iraq was because we weren't brutal enough.

The old saying is that wars are always fought with the mindset of the previous conflict. I don't know whether that's true, but I understand why Iraq and Afghanistan are messed up. Soldiers aren't cops. Soldiers are trained to kill people and break things so the enemy can't kill you or break your stuff. Now they're stuck trying to be police in a nation that doesn't want foreigners running the country.

Regrading urban warfare: mechanized cavalry is somewhat limited in effectiveness. Combat falls to the individual rifleman perhaps more than any other environment, and the rifleman is handicapped with the M16/M4. Our troops would be better off using a 7.62x39mm AK-47 type rifle for reliability in that environment and stopping power in sudden firefights.

Mercenaries like Blackwater have to be the worst possible solution to the security concerns in Iraq. They seem to have no reason whatsoever to respect the lives of the innocent. They get paid the same whether we win or lose, and they probably get better pay if there is greater danger.

One final note: OBAMA! END THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NOW! BRING THE TROOPS HOME!

Very effective. they trained the Montagnard on the boarder between North and South Vietnam. In order to supply the Vietcong North Vietnam had to take a round about way through Laos and Cambodia(called the Ho Chi Minh trail). Government Policy however didn't allow the training of a counter insurgency in Cambodia, and Laos (would you like to have a US trained and armed insurgency in your back yard). We failed Vietnam because we were forced into a conventional war.


Or maybe the US tried to use Cold War warfare tactics (establishing fire bases, carpet bombing, etc.) that would've destroyed any conventional military but were rendered practically useless against the Vietcong and NVA.


Source ??? My supply order form listed a tank's Composition B round at 750 dollars. given this was in 2002.

M1A2 Abrams Tank (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/lima.htm#prof)


GDLS is under a multi-year Army contract to upgrade approximately 600 M1/IPM1 tanks to M1A2. The plan is to upgrade 10 tanks a month over a five-year period. The cost of a new M1A2 tank is approximately $4.3 million.
(18th Paragraph from the top)


Well, you'd also have to consider having the tank built in the first place for that round to be used.


you should study how they have been used.

Helicopters have been used to drop troops on the other side of enemy positions allowing them to be surrounded. armored personal carriers can be used to move troops across an open space so they can get inside a building so they can ferret out those sniper.


The problem is that they have been developed for a conventional war against the Soviet Union. What use is flanking and surrounding an enemy that is hiding among civilians?

M1A2 Abrams Tank (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/lima.htm#prof)



Well, you'd also have to consider having the tank built in the first place for that round to be used.

But they're used more than once, and for more purposes than that.

The problem is that they have been developed for a conventional war against the Soviet Union. What use is flanking and surrounding an enemy that is hiding among civilians?

Quite a lot, actually. If you get close, you can kill the insurgents with targetted fire while limiting civilian casualties. You prevent "strike and fade" tactics. If the insurgent attempts to escape by mingling with civilians, simply take the group into custody and interrogate everybody - insurgents (especially in circumstances, such as Iraq, where most of the insurgents are not locals) can usually be told from civilians relatively easily in a controlled situation. Even if a few of them make it through, you'll still collect their weapons and equipment, making it still more expensive for the insurgency (and that's never a bad thing).

Your basic mistake is in believing the silly propaganda that these tactics didn't work in Vietnam. The fact is, they did. The Viet Minh/Viet Cong was losing badly when they set off the Tet Offensive; it was, largely, an act of desperation. And it's utter failure (in a military sense)was the end - post Tet, US military forces primarily engaged North Vietnamese Army elements. The Minh/Cong were reduced to a low level insurgency well within the capacity of ARVN to deal with.

battle tanks in an urban environment are very good at knocking down the houses of innocent civilians. this is not such a good technique for winning hearts and minds.

battle tanks in an urban environment are very good at knocking down the houses of innocent civilians. this is not such a good technique for winning hearts and minds.

there is not really away for the military to be in a country and win hearts and minds. the military needs not to concern itself with these things and focus on killing the sniper.

what use are tanks in an urban enviornment against an enemy that has no tanks?
Making the enemy shit themselves in fear as a 50 ton vehicle trundles down the road before unleashing machine gun fire. Through the wall. At night. Which you can't really fight back against.
What I'm trying to get at is that the U.S. is not adapting to the new kinds of warfare that have developed, such as electronic warfare (which China is definitely ahead of us in) and guerilla warfare/ insurgency. This idea is based on how the US military has operated within the last 50 years, primarily the Iraqi occupation and the Vietnam conflict. So what's your take?
1) I'm sure that the Chinese aren't more developed in electronic warfare than the US, seeing as their computers are pretty pish and hence not very good at beating those they're up against. Yeah, you get the odd report of some Chinese hacker getting into the Pentagon or whatever, but doubtless our side does the same, and probably more.
2) Why would the US have to be good at guerilla warfare? It can bomb the shit out of anything it chooses to, thus rendering it more suited to do other things. If it's not good at controlling insurgencies, that's a different, if related issue, which I'd put down to the sheer amount of overpowered gizmos it has at its control.

If your officers were trained for back when we were trying to stop Ivan from breaching the Fulda Gap by dropping masses of clusterbombs on them, and such capabilities have only expanded in recent years, then it's a bit hard to adapt to things like "running patrols in non-threatening vehicles so the general populace is more chillaxed", something the US seems to have missed the point of in the Stryker, which is a big, noisy machine with a grenade launcher on top (but hey, it has wheels so err that has to count for something), but is at the same time only as well-protected as an M113, really begging the question "why did they think this would be a good idea?", but there we go.

You can't start a war of liberation then ignore the civilian population, and claim that you don't need the civlians hearts and minds. Thats stupid. How do you then justify the war. And if you aren't fighting a war of liberation then you are probably evil. And when was the last time the USA didn't fight a war for a foreign peoples liberty? World War 2 maybe even World War One

You can't start a war of liberation then ignore the civilian population, and claim that you don't need the civlians hearts and minds. Thats stupid. How do you then justify the war. And if you aren't fighting a war of liberation then you are probably evil.
You need the hearts and minds of the civilian population, but that should not be left to soldiers.

And if you aren't fighting a war of liberation then you are probably evil.

Let's face it, Iraq wasn't really started for any reason whatsoever. And let's also face that war is probably not the best way to "liberate" anything.

Let's face it, Iraq wasn't really started for any reason whatsoever.
Simply untrue. The reasons were just ones like "oil is cool" and "this'll show any of you arseholes that selling oil in Euros is a sure way to get an arse-kicking".
And let's also face that war is probably not the best way to "liberate" anything.
Sorta kicked Nazism in the face and left it bleeding to death on the pavement circa 1945.

And let's also face that war is probably not the best way to "liberate" anything.

Know a few black people in North America who just might disagree...

Making the enemy shit themselves in fear as a 50 ton vehicle trundles down the road before unleashing machine gun fire. Through the wall. At night. Which you can't really fight back against.

Rubbish. Tanks without an infantry screen in urban environments or heavily forested areas are almost steel coffins just waiting for anyone with a handful of molotov cocktails and a good throwing arm. If you slap a liter or so of gasoline over the turbine of a M1A2, the heat will set off the gasoline, and that has the potential to ignite it's own fuel stores.

And that's not counting any satchel charges or IEDs that aren't that hard to make. You don't even need that powerful a charge if all you want is a mobility kill by taking out its treads.

Tanks excel in areas where mobility and range allows them to suppress infantry outside of their effective range. In densely packed environments where visibility is limited, the only advantage you really have then is being bullet proof and having a decent demolition weapon, which doesn't count for much against any infantry with explosive charges or RPGs.

Simply untrue. The reasons were just ones like "oil is cool" and "this'll show any of you arseholes that selling oil in Euros is a sure way to get an arse-kicking".


who sells Oil in euros. the only one I have even heard about is Iran, and that has more to do with the US wont trade with them and they had too hard of a time getting enough dollars to maintain the exchange.
Even the London oil exchange uses dollars.

Rubbish. Tanks without an infantry screen in urban environments or heavily forested areas are almost steel coffins just waiting for anyone with a handful of molotov cocktails and a good throwing arm.
Yeah, luckily we sorted out that combined arms shit in the 1930s and all.
If you slap a liter or so of gasoline over the turbine of a M1A2, the heat will set off the gasoline, and that has the potential to ignite it's own fuel stores.
Unless it's running on diesel at the time, at which point you get laughed at by your insurgent pals in the brief span of time before you all die.
And that's not counting any satchel charges or IEDs that aren't that hard to make. You don't even need that powerful a charge if all you want is a mobility kill by taking out its treads.

Tanks excel in areas where mobility and range allows them to suppress infantry outside of their effective range. In densely packed environments where visibility is limited, the only advantage you really have then is being bullet proof and having a decent demolition weapon, which doesn't count for much against any infantry with explosive charges or RPGs.
Again, combined arms yo.

who sells Oil in euros.
Iraq was planning to pre-invasion. Surprisingly this has changed.
Even the London oil exchange uses dollars.
Well yes. Because that's the currency which the whole affair is conducted in.

Yeah, luckily we sorted out that combined arms shit in the 1930s and all.

Which explains how an insurgent managed to sneak up behind a M1A2 in Iraq, kill the commander at point blank range (who was standing on the cupola), and run off without anyone stopping him. How fortunate for the rest of the crew that the insurgent lacked a grenade to follow up with. Right. American combined arms.


Unless it's running on diesel at the time, at which point you get laughed at by your insurgent pals in the brief span of time before you all die.

M1A2s use JP-8 for fuel. That's jet fuel. They generally don't use diesel, which was originally sprayed on the very hot manifold to make smoke screens. The only one laughing is the tankers believing in their untouchable superiority. The smart infantryman just grins as they die burning.

Iraq was planning to pre-invasion. Surprisingly this has changed.



that likely had more to do with the US wasn't trading with them and they lacked enough dollars to maintain currency reserves for trading in dollars.
not to mention weren't they only supposed to be trading Oil for food. that's more of barter exchange.

Which explains how an insurgent managed to sneak up behind a M1A2 in Iraq, kill the commander at point blank range (who was standing on the cupola), and run off without anyone stopping him. How fortunate for the rest of the crew that the insurgent lacked a grenade to follow up with. Right. American combined arms.
Uhu... ok so you have the odd affair with a tank commander being rather casual and getting iced for it. Obviously this shows a massive and inherent problem with tanks in an urban environment.
M1A2s use JP-8 for fuel. That's jet fuel. They generally don't use diesel.
Eh IIRC they use a whole variety of different fuels, some of which are more volatile than others. In any case, I doubt some arsehole with a molotov is off to take out an M1A2 and all that.

A handful have been lost so far in the war in Iraq. Not one British tank has been completely put out of action. If tanks were oh so easy to kill, surely we'd be shipping in fleets of the buggers all the time to make up for our obviously massive losses as tanks are just matchboxes on tracks and shit aye?

Or maybe the US tried to use Cold War warfare tactics (establishing fire bases, carpet bombing, etc.) that would've destroyed any conventional military but were rendered practically useless against the Vietcong and NVA.


It's not a tactical matter, it's a strategic matter--we lost in Vietnam because we used the draft, which destroyed popular tolerance for a long-term war. Get it right.

that likely had more to do with the US wasn't trading with them and they lacked enough dollars to maintain currency reserves for trading in dollars.
And yet they had plenty of Euros kicking about?
not to mention weren't they only supposed to be trading Oil for food. that's more of barter exchange.
Yeah, Oil for Food was a massive UN failure, which was corrupt up the arse.

M1A2s use JP-8 for fuel. That's jet fuel. They generally don't use diesel, which was originally sprayed on the very hot manifold to make smoke screens. The only one laughing is the tankers believing in their untouchable superiority. The smart infantryman just grins as they die burning.

Jp-8 is similar to diesel it is ran in unmodified diesel engines.

then again jet fuel is also like that in modern times. The idea has been to make jet fuel less volatile and safer.

Uhu... ok so you have the odd affair with a tank commander being rather casual and getting iced for it. Obviously this shows a massive and inherent problem with tanks in an urban environment.

You're missing the point. The tank had no infantry screen. It was puttering around by itself.


Eh IIRC they use a whole variety of different fuels, some of which are more volatile than others. In any case, I doubt some arsehole with a molotov is off to take out an M1A2 and all that.

They originally had diesel IIRC, but switched to JP-8 for some reason or another.


A handful have been lost so far in the war in Iraq. Not one British tank has been completely put out of action. If tanks were oh so easy to kill, surely we'd be shipping in fleets of the buggers all the time to make up for our obviously massive losses as tanks are just matchboxes on tracks and shit aye?

The only reason why there hasn't been more losses is because they stopped using them so often. Whoever was in command finally wised up and realized tanks in urban environments, especially counter insurgency ops and peacekeeping, are worthless compared to the high value target they represent.

And that's not counting the fact that these tanks simply weren't built for high temperature environments loaded with dust and grit. A tank without treads is a bunker at best, and those things just melt in the heat, not counting the finickiness of the turbine to grit. From what I remember, the only service center for the tanks back in the US is already having problems finding replacement parts.

Jp-8 is similar to diesel it is ran in unmodified diesel engines.

then again jet fuel is also like that in modern times. The idea has been to make jet fuel less volatile and safer.

They used to spray diesel on the manifold to make smoke screens. They don't do that with JP-8 because it causes the tank to catch fire. It's still pretty damned dangerous.

China would have a hard time with that. the North Korean Military would fight to the death absorption by China. You have a much greater chance reunifing Korea then making north Korea part of china.

China created North Korea, they made Kim Jong Il, he has gone a little rogue on them, but they can still pull back the leash.

And yet they had plenty of Euros kicking about?

Yeah, Oil for Food was a massive UN failure, which was corrupt up the arse.

compared to dollars yes.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19851.pdf
go to CRS(page) 12. the french alone accounted for more then double the trade goods of the US exchanged with Iraq. Never mind the rest of the Euro zone.

the reason oil exchanges are in dollars is you make more money. If you have dollars in your foreign reserves there is no reason not to exchange in dollars.
If your Foreign exchange however is too low on dollars due to US trade sanctions you have to use something else.

You're missing the point. The tank had no infantry screen. It was puttering around by itself.
Yeah, and you're missing mine - the only casualty was a cocky TC. The tank was not destroyed. Nor did it get mobility-killed. The crew was doubtless more dejected and stunned than on fire and dying.
They originally had diesel IIRC, but switched to JP-8 for some reason or another.
Probably better fuel economy.
The only reason why there hasn't been more losses is because they stopped using them so often.
Or maybe because tanks have chobham armour instead of some kind of compound of petrol and egg boxes as you seem to be suggesting.
Whoever was in command finally wised up and realized tanks in urban environments, especially counter insurgency ops and peacekeeping, are worthless compared to the high value target they represent.
Or that to fire anything larger than the .50cal you need to ask the higher-ups if there are any journalists around, which is just a pain in the arse and ruined previous serviceable vehicles like the Ontos in a very similar fashion.
And that's not counting the fact that these tanks simply weren't built for high temperature environments loaded with dust and grit. A tank without treads is a bunker at best, and those things just melt in the heat, not counting the finickiness of the turbine to grit. From what I remember, the only service center for the tanks back in the US is already having problems finding replacement parts.
Uhu...
They used to spray diesel on the manifold to make smoke screens. They don't do that with JP-8 because it causes the tank to catch fire. It's still pretty damned dangerous.
It's not going to brew your tank up when someone lobs a molotov at it, though.

compared to dollars yes
Oh, fair enough, I didn't know, thanks for telling me.

Yeah, and you're missing mine - the only casualty was a cocky TC. The tank was not destroyed. Nor did it get mobility-killed. The crew was doubtless more dejected and stunned than on fire and dying.

The crew was lucky the insurgent didn't have a grenade to lob into the hatch. Come to think of it, the gunner died as well IIRC, since he was also looking out of his hatch. The driver and the loader didn't realize until he was well away.

That's all it came down to it. Dumb luck. A better prepared insurgent would have been able to turn the tank into a coffin.


Or maybe because tanks have chobham armour instead of some kind of compound of petrol and egg boxes as you seem to be suggesting.

Chobham armor and composite plates are of less use in urban environments than you think. There are a great many ways that an infantryman can crack open a tank like an egg if he has enough explosives. He just has to get close enough. Tanks have their strengths, but they're blunted when you don't have the long sight lines and high mobility that wide open areas afford them.

You seem to be arguing that tanks are this weird kind of invincible fortress that can only be cracked open by another tank, or maybe dedicated anti-tank infantry, no matter the fighting environment. That's simply not true.


Or that to fire anything larger than the .50cal you need to ask the higher-ups if there are any journalists around, which is just a pain in the arse and ruined previous serviceable vehicles like the Ontos in a very similar fashion.


Now you're just reaching.


Uhu...

You can try talking to Walloncholia, assuming I got his name right. He served there and knows what I'm talking about.


It's not going to brew your tank up when someone lobs a molotov at it, though.

A molotov in the right place will brew up the tank. If you can set the engine alight, that's it, you bail or you burn. Automatic extinguishers helped mitigate the problem, but it's still a big weakness on tanks.

China created North Korea, they made Kim Jong Il, he has gone a little rogue on them, but they can still pull back the leash.

The soviets had more a hand in his creation then the Chinese did. When there were two Communist powers Kim Il Sung was an expert on playing them off against each other.
If china Marched South, North Korea could fight them to a standstill unless China was willing to entirely mobilize, and that would destroy the Chinese economy.
trying to dislodge 5 million north Koreans from the mountains(which is most of Korea) is something I doubt even the Chinese in alliance with the US could do.

Look at North Korea's domestic polices they are trying to phase out Chinese loan words (which makes up 50% of the Korean language).

Does anyone but me think that the U.S. is using 20th century warfare tactics that were developed to fight the Soviet Union in the COld War but are rendered obsolete by 21st century guerilla/insurgent/terrorist/extremist factions/movements? For example, what use are tanks in an urban enviornment against an enemy that has no tanks?
What I'm trying to get at is that the U.S. is not adapting to the new kinds of warfare that have developed, such as electronic warfare (which China is definitely ahead of us in) and guerilla warfare/ insurgency. This idea is based on how the US military has operated within the last 50 years, primarily the Iraqi occupation and the Vietnam conflict. So what's your take?

You obviously do not understand how wars are conducted and how we go about fighting the insurgents. Its not your fault, I'm not insulting you man. Most civilians simply do not understand the way we do things because they do not have the background to understand the means by which wars are conducted or have the assets to know the way even the insurgents fight. What CNN tells you is happenig is not always the same as what really is :tongue: If you would like, I'll evaluate everything you just said and refute it using knowledge from someone who knows.

Tanks: We don't use them in the sense of barreling down the streets searching for armored contacts. What often times happens is that a nest of insurgent fighters get holed up in a building and American forces can't root 'em out. An airstrike is out of the question as is Artillery because of the risk for damaging other areas and hurting innocents. An M1A2 Abrams doesn't have that problem. It can blast the house down with one shot or rake fire through the windows with its coaxial guns keeping the enemies heads down long enough for an M136AT4 round to get pumped through the necessary window. Additionally, have you ever SEEN an Abrams A2? Its HUGE. Its bigger than most apartment rooms. No insurgent is going to want to go up against a platoon of those things (4 A2s and a Bradley).

Electronic Warfare: We have the most sophisticated electronic warfare team in the world. NOONE has the capabilities we do. China is PATHETIC militarily. I've been there, met with Chinese General Staffers, hell I even had breakfast with their version of a two star one morning while I was in Beijing. They're really not all that technologically advanced at all. 99% of their military equipment is either old Soviet Era stuff from the 60s, or a direct copy of old soviet era stuff from later periods. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Chinese PLA have this vaunted military: they don't. The US has entire teams of people in the Army, Navy, and Air Force whos only job is to act as an electronic warfare force, hacking into enemy national web systems, ruining them, an generally wreaking havoc using the internet and well placed viruses. Thats a very general and basic analysis of what they do, but I think you get the idea. Its all highly sophisticated, very well developed, and unparalleled by any other global military.

Trust me we're kicking the CRAP out of the little bastards over there. Whereever the fuckers pop up we knock their teeth out. We've almost destroyed the Iraqi insurgency, especially after Operation Phantom Fury broke the back of the Sunni Anbar Rebellion, and then there was Muqtada's Diyala Shia Uprising with his "Mahdi Army" (Army of the Messiah). I'd like to add that Baqubah has been largely secured since 2006 (capital of Diyala) because of Operation Arrowhead Ripper and the Mahdi Militiamen were relocated to Sadr City (formerly Saddam City) in Baghdad (completely I mean...they started up there but spread out all over Iraq, after being crushed in Diyala and a few other places they withdrew to their relatively secure station in Sadr City) (-sadly they were replaced by Al-Qaeda, but Operation Phantom Phoenix drove them out). Muqtada draws his support from the poor slum area there. Thing is, theres a power vaccuum. Criminals like Muqtada al-Sadr are going to rise up and try to take it for themselves, and using their twisted Wahabi version of Islam they can appeal to the uneducated, unsophisticated, disenfrachised youth of Iraq, Syria, and the rest of the middle east. Most of them feel they've been pissed on by the West in favor of Israel, and they're right to a degree. The only issue we really have is in Afghanistan because the Taliban are freely allowed to operate out of West Pakistan without us going after them and annihilating them like we should. The Pakistanis pussed out and gave in last month, so we should go in and take care of business ourselves.


If you or anyone else has any questions, comments, or want to debate me, feel free. (:

in Afghanistan because the Taliban are freely allowed to operate out of West Pakistan without us going after them and annihilating them like we should. The Pakistanis pussed out and gave in last month, so we should go in and take care of business ourselves.


Obama said he would go into Pakistan to get Bin laden and the Taliban if needed, I am waiting to see if he keeps that promise.

Obama said he would go into Pakistan to get Bin laden and the Taliban if needed, I am waiting to see if he keeps that promise.

As am I. I may be a very conservative guy and generally disagree with Obama on a lot of things, but I think the guy is just plain cool :tongue:

I just hope he doesn't disappoint us all and drop the ball...and trust me I don't do mulligans easily :tongue:

The crew was lucky the insurgent didn't have a grenade to lob into the hatch. Come to think of it, the gunner died as well IIRC, since he was also looking out of his hatch. The driver and the loader didn't realize until he was well away.

That's all it came down to it. Dumb luck. A better prepared insurgent would have been able to turn the tank into a coffin.


Ah, no, he wouldn't, actually. The Abrams has a compartmentalized interior - a single grenade won't kill more than one man. However, I believe a satchel charge would have been enough to blow the compartmentalization and kill the crew.

Ah, no, he wouldn't, actually. The Abrams has a compartmentalized interior - a single grenade won't kill more than one man. However, I believe a satchel charge would have been enough to blow the compartmentalization and kill the crew.

Depends on the grenade type. I'm given to understand that the RKG-3 anti-tank grenade has been popping up now and again in Iraq although it's used against Humvees these days. Useless against the armor of an M1A2, but the same can't be said if you throw it inside the compartment.

SNIP

what he said only with British snobbery, a mention of Infantry and the inclusion that British tanks have built in tea makers which are vital for any war effort

Depends on the grenade type. I'm given to understand that the RKG-3 anti-tank grenade has been popping up now and again in Iraq although it's used against Humvees these days. Useless against the armor of an M1A2, but the same can't be said if you throw it inside the compartment.

True. Personally, I wouldn't want to try to throw one of those things - they're quite heavy and none too effective unless placed. Still they were designed for use in swarm attacks against armor, which is what we're basically talking about.

SNIP

OR you could just swipe a Javelin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuMO3gqAJLY) (quite a few have become unaccounted for) and pray that your not spotted

OR you could just swipe a Javelin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuMO3gqAJLY) (quite a few have become unaccounted for) and pray that your not spotted

i want to own a javelin missile system.

Combat falls to the individual rifleman perhaps more than any other environment, and the rifleman is handicapped with the M16/M4. Our troops would be better off using a 7.62x39mm AK-47 type rifle for reliability in that environment and stopping power in sudden firefights.



You'd be able to shoot through walls easily, that's about it's only advantage. Not only that, going by pictures I've seen, U.S. troops would be pretty limited to what kind of crap they can slap on the gun. You also can't carry as much ammunition [comfortably; When I carried an AKM around I traded the weight of my body armor for extra mags, and it still felt heavy].

<snip>
Electronic Warfare: We have the most sophisticated electronic warfare team in the world. NOONE has the capabilities we do. China is PATHETIC militarily. I've been there, met with Chinese General Staffers, hell I even had breakfast with their version of a two star one morning while I was in Beijing. They're really not all that technologically advanced at all. 99% of their military equipment is either old Soviet Era stuff from the 60s, or a direct copy of old soviet era stuff from later periods. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Chinese PLA have this vaunted military: they don't. The US has entire teams of people in the Army, Navy, and Air Force whos only job is to act as an electronic warfare force, hacking into enemy national web systems, ruining them, an generally wreaking havoc using the internet and well placed viruses. Thats a very general and basic analysis of what they do, but I think you get the idea. Its all highly sophisticated, very well developed, and unparalleled by any other global military.
<snip>

You forgot the USMC who do this as well, not only do they hack you but they find out your location and knock on your door.

You'd be able to shoot through walls easily, that's about it's only advantage. Not only that, going by pictures I've seen, U.S. troops would be pretty limited to what kind of crap they can slap on the gun. You also can't carry as much ammunition [comfortably; When I carried an AKM around I traded the weight of my body armor for extra mags, and it still felt heavy].

I'd have to agree with you there. I've fired the AK-74 and AKM, and used the M-16 (okay, M-17EI) as my field weapon (the M-4 was after my time). The 5.56mm rounds punched hard enough, and I could carry close to twice the amount of ammo, plus I'd rate the M-16 as slightly more accurate. Heavier impacts don't matter if you don't hit the target.

You'd be able to shoot through walls easily, that's about it's only advantage. Not only that, going by pictures I've seen, U.S. troops would be pretty limited to what kind of crap they can slap on the gun. You also can't carry as much ammunition [comfortably; When I carried an AKM around I traded the weight of my body armor for extra mags, and it still felt heavy].

Not to mention that the heaviest version of the M16 is a pound lighter than the heaviest version of the AK-47, while the M4 is lighter than all but the lightest version of the AK-74.

Tanks are only useful in urban environments with infantry cover; as has already been stated.

Likewise, bombers are only useful in areas with good air defense when escorted by fighters. Aircraft carriers are only useful in areas where submarines operate when they're escorted by frigates or destroyers. Et cetera.

Maybe I've spent too much time on the roleplay forums, but these seem like the kind of things that should be obvious to anyone with a decent knowledge of tactics.

Maybe I'm just a silly civilian and all, but since when has guerilla warfare been new? I mean, the simple fact that we didn't have to invent a word for the insurgency suggests that this kind of thing has happened before.

i want to own a javelin missile system.

Saying that is suggesting that there are people who do not want to own a Javelin.:D

We have the most sophisticated electronic warfare team in the world. NOONE has the capabilities we do.
How on earth do you know that?

Have you access to all militaries/electronic warfare groups in the world?

How on earth do you know that?

Have you access to all militaries/electronic warfare groups in the world?

I do. I'm his informant. :p

I thought it was pretty funny when non-government/military hackers shut down Georgia's internet this past August.

I thought it was pretty funny when non-government/military hackers shut down Georgia's internet this past August.

Which Georgia?

what he said only with British snobbery, a mention of Infantry and the inclusion that British tanks have built in tea makers which are vital for any war effort

How... stereotypical.

I suppose all British officers also have waxed moustaches and wear monocles, and come from highly aristocratic families where people still say things like "I say, what a jolly fine day it is, old chap, wot?"

:P

Which Georgia?

Both.


>.>

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1697/1235793112087.th.jpg (http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1235793112087.jpg)

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6011/2hqw20x.th.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2hqw20x.jpg)

Both.


>.>

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1697/1235793112087.th.jpg (http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1235793112087.jpg)

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6011/2hqw20x.th.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2hqw20x.jpg)

That is both awesome, and one epic

http://media.g4tv.com/images/blog/2007/11/27/633317514784490542.jpg

I thought it was pretty funny when non-government/military hackers shut down Georgia's internet this past August.

Russia's made quite the investment in EW capabilities. Remember when your military attacked the entirety of Estonia's information infrastructure because they moved a war memorial, from a war they aren't particularly grateful for Russia's intervention in?

Does anyone but me think that the U.S. is using 20th century warfare tactics that were developed to fight the Soviet Union in the COld War but are rendered obsolete by 21st century guerilla/insurgent/terrorist/extremist factions/movements? For example, what use are tanks in an urban enviornment against an enemy that has no tanks?
What I'm trying to get at is that the U.S. is not adapting to the new kinds of warfare that have developed, such as electronic warfare (which China is definitely ahead of us in) and guerilla warfare/ insurgency. This idea is based on how the US military has operated within the last 50 years, primarily the Iraqi occupation and the Vietnam conflict. So what's your take?

you fail at strategy.

<snip>

You forgot the USMC who do this as well, not only do they hack you but they find out your location and knock on your door.

I'm a Marine ;)

I only didn't mention them because most EM/ECM/ECCM for the Marines is handled by the Navy.

Saying that is suggesting that there are people who do not want to own a Javelin.:D

I am sure hippies think they should be outlawed or restricted.

First of all the Abrams is an American tank you dumbass. Second of all I think I'm much more qualified to make an assessment of what is useful in a military conflict than you are civvie.

Chinese citizens are more aware and knowledgeable of the Chinese government than us Westerners are.

How on earth do you know that?

Have you access to all militaries/electronic warfare groups in the world?

Well first of all, my specialization is Military Intelligence, so its my JOB to know all that. lol

Chinese citizens are more aware and knowledgeable of the Chinese government than us Westerners are.

Not really. Most information about the innerworkings of the Chinese government are held from the West as well as the people in about equal quantities. But the fact remains that they are technologically severely inferior. The only country that MIGHT be close is Britain, maybe Japan because they spend so much on their military. But I seriously doubt it.

SNIP

If you or anyone else has any questions, comments, or want to debate me, feel free. (:

Thanks for clarifying. Can you recommend any books or websites that have reliable info?

Well first of all, my specialization is Military Intelligence, so its my JOB to know all that. lol

And you talk about this on an internet forum that could easily be monitored by agents of, say, the Taliban?

(Although in reality, come to think of it, of course a military intelligence person would talk about how much better the US military is than all others, to discourage such Taliban agents. Unless that's just what they want me to think! *puts on tinfoil hat*)

Thanks for clarifying. Can you recommend any books or websites that have reliable info?

Definitely. For the invasion, General Scales wrote a great one called "The Iraq War: A Military history"

For the insurgency...well Cobra II by General Trainor is very informative, The Devil's Sandbox by John Bruning is good despite being more of a battalion history...it has good background info. Theres a book called "Muqtada" by Patrick Cockburn...one called The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr which is extremely informative. Anything by Ahmed Rashid is AWESOME. His book "Taliban" isthe US Military's primer on the Taliban movement. He also wrote one recently called Descent into Chaos about the occupation of Afghanistan which is very good as well, though I felt he was a little too dour about the US's chances of victory there. Most people say he's just being honest *shrug*, I guess you could say that unless the political administration decides to do the right thing then he's absolutely right...read the book though! I higly recommend it! And finally "The Occupation of Iraq" by Ali Allawi is awesome.


I have over a hundred books on the subject and easily a thousand books in all. Not only do I love reading but it helps with collecting information to make me better at my job. I'd recommend reading them. If you want anymore recommendations telegram me an I'll send you some good book links to check out!

And you talk about this on an internet forum that could easily be monitored by agents of, say, the Taliban?

(Although in reality, come to think of it, of course a military intelligence person would talk about how much better the US military is than all others, to discourage such Taliban agents. Unless that's just what they want me to think! *puts on tinfoil hat*)

I didn't say anything classified, and I really don't have any access to information thats of any consequence anyway. Everything I know you can find somewhere in books or the internet.

EDIT: besides. Even if the Taliban WERE monitoring this, which I doubt, they'd do well to read it and understand it, since their cause is hopeless anyway.

I didn't say anything classified, and I really don't have any access to information thats of any consequence anyway. Everything I know you can find somewhere in books or the internet.

Yeah, I suppose that's true. Still, you wouldn't exactly say, "Well, the Army's major weakness in urban warfare is that if you use X weapon in exactly Y place on this tank -- see diagram Fig. 1 -- it causes it to blow up due to a manufacturer error in some A2 models...."

;)

Idk about the actual ground tactics...

But as far as world policy is concerned, I do believe that we've been erroneously applying the Cold War Containment Policy to attempting to combat Islamic Terrorism over the last decade...

Im hoping the current administration realizes the difference between a terror network and the USSR...hopefully....

Yeah, I suppose that's true. Still, you wouldn't exactly say, "Well, the Army's major weakness in urban warfare is that if you use X weapon in exactly Y place on this tank -- see diagram Fig. 1 -- it causes it to blow up due to a manufacturer error in some A2 models...."

;)

hahaha very true buddy. Thing is, war doesn't work that way. You can use anyweapon and be successful, just depends on how you use them and what you do. One example is in the battle of Diyala Province one Staff Sergeant I heard of from the First Infantry wrote an article about how the only reason the Mahdi Army militiamen weren't having more success in killing American troops was, for one, they weren't trained to lead their targets. They'd spray gunfire right AT the troops rather than whats called "fingering", which means putting your bullets a thumb point ahead which would have them run right into it.

Believe it or not you'd be AMAZED at how many flintlock rifles that have been uncovered all over the place. Its actually astounding. I have to give it to the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents (alot of them anyway...some are just pussies but there are some who are tough hombres...alot of the Chechen volunteers to be exact but I'll explain them in a minute) they're tough bastards. They'll take pop shots at passing M998s (humvees) with those things and all.

About the Chechens (offtopic but kind of fun): Originally, there were numerous blonde hair blue eyed guys wandering around Iraqi cities with strong Insurgent presences freely. The Intel community was like "What the hell?!!" and thought they were like, KGB or maybe even CIA Special Activities Division types that we weren't informed about. Well...turns out they were Chechen volunteers. There are a minority of Chechen Muslims who are blonde with blue eyes and alot of them came down to Iraq to fight. We'd ignore them thinking they were okay, until they blew themselves up or pulled a concealed weapon and starting firing. Thats mostly stopped now, but it still happens. Kind of a funny story in a mishap in military intelligence...

I'd also like to add that it is nearly impossible to destroy an M1A2. Hellfire Missiles bounce off its armor, and tank shells make dents but do little else. You have to blow off its treads which are also extremely difficult to do. The insurgents know that, and they usually run away when they come around or set up bombs at track level to try. They often fail but every now and then one gets destroyed. I think we've lost three in this war.

hahaha very true buddy. Thing is, war doesn't work that way. You can use anyweapon and be successful, just depends on how you use them and what you do.
Aye. I once considered writing one of those guides to NS warfare, which emphasized the necessity of decent tactics, but someone else (Daehanjeiguk, I think) got to it first. But yes, the insurgents could still conceivably lose even if they had the A2s, the fighter jets etc., and the US troops just had their guns, mortars, and whatever they could improvise, if they didn't use them effectively or lacked coordination or whatever.

About the Chechens (offtopic but kind of fun): Originally, there were numerous blonde hair blue eyed guys wandering around Iraqi cities with strong Insurgent presences freely. The Intel community was like "What the hell?!!" and thought they were like, KGB or maybe even CIA Special Activities Division types that we weren't informed about. Well...turns out they were Chechen volunteers. There are a minority of Chechen Muslims who are blonde with blue eyes and alot of them came down to Iraq to fight. We'd ignore them thinking they were okay, until they blew themselves up or pulled a concealed weapon and starting firing. Thats mostly stopped now, but it still happens. Kind of a funny story in a mishap in military intelligence...
Lol, that is funny. Although with somewhat unfortunate implications. <.<

I'd also like to add that it is nearly impossible to destroy an M1A2. Hellfire Missiles bounce off its armor, and tank shells make dents but do little else.

I find the two rather improbable, unless the Hellfire missile was a dud. And if memory serves, one M1A2 was disabled by friendly fire from another one, a lot more than mere denting. I'd also like to see how well it fares against newer generation tandem warhead RPGs. Killing tanks isn't as nearly impossible as it sounds for an infantryman, as long as you keep your head and don't do something monumentally stupid like a frontal assault.

You obviously do not understand how wars are conducted and how we go about fighting the insurgents. Its not your fault, I'm not insulting you man. Most civilians simply do not understand the way we do things because they do not have the background to understand the means by which wars are conducted or have the assets to know the way even the insurgents fight. What CNN tells you is happenig is not always the same as what really is :tongue: If you would like, I'll evaluate everything you just said and refute it using knowledge from someone who knows.

-snip-

If you or anyone else has any questions, comments, or want to debate me, feel free. (:

Good to hear a reasonable & informed voice chime in. It seemed like there was nothiong but a a lot of chattering nonsense up til that. :)

Definitely. For the invasion, General Scales wrote a great one called "The Iraq War: A Military history"

For the insurgency...well Cobra II by General Trainor is very informative, The Devil's Sandbox by John Bruning is good despite being more of a battalion history...it has good background info. Theres a book called "Muqtada" by Patrick Cockburn...one called The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr which is extremely informative. Anything by Ahmed Rashid is AWESOME. His book "Taliban" isthe US Military's primer on the Taliban movement. He also wrote one recently called Descent into Chaos about the occupation of Afghanistan which is very good as well, though I felt he was a little too dour about the US's chances of victory there. Most people say he's just being honest *shrug*, I guess you could say that unless the political administration decides to do the right thing then he's absolutely right...read the book though! I higly recommend it! And finally "The Occupation of Iraq" by Ali Allawi is awesome.


I have over a hundred books on the subject and easily a thousand books in all. Not only do I love reading but it helps with collecting information to make me better at my job. I'd recommend reading them. If you want anymore recommendations telegram me an I'll send you some good book links to check out!

I assume you've read Tom Ricks' Fiasco, yes? Any comment on it?

I find the two rather improbable, unless the Hellfire missile was a dud. And if memory serves, one M1A2 was disabled by friendly fire from another one, a lot more than mere denting. I'd also like to see how well it fares against newer generation tandem warhead RPGs. Killing tanks isn't as nearly impossible as it sounds for an infantryman, as long as you keep your head and don't do something monumentally stupid like a frontal assault.

No, he's almost certainly right on the Hellfire. The Hellfire uses an HEAT charge to penetrate it's target; these types of warheads were designed to punch out old-style steel-hulled vehicles. Modern CHOBHAM and other laminate armours were in part developed to counter exactly this threat. The chances of a Hellfire killing an M1A2 with a single shot is minimal. (Unfortunately, the same is true of the Russian T-80 and British Challenger II. The Hellfire is becoming obsolete, with no real replacement in sight.)

Also, the M1A2 uses a high-velocity 125mm gun, 5mm larger than the Rheinmetall L55 used on the Challenger and the guns of the T-72 or T-80 Russian models, but has almost zero chance of penetrating it's own Glacis Plate with a SABOT round. The friendly-fire kill was almost certainly a SABOT, and from behind. Given it's sheer weight of armour, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if any hand-held weapon could do anything more than remove a track - and mobility kills such as that can be fixed in the field.

The only way Infantry can reliably kill an Abrams is by the old-fashioned Swarm Attack. At very close range, vision blocks, engine air intakes and other points of weakness become targettable, bypassing the tank's natural toughness.

I find the two rather improbable, unless the Hellfire missile was a dud. And if memory serves, one M1A2 was disabled by friendly fire from another one, a lot more than mere denting. I'd also like to see how well it fares against newer generation tandem warhead RPGs. Killing tanks isn't as nearly impossible as it sounds for an infantryman, as long as you keep your head and don't do something monumentally stupid like a frontal assault.

the M1abrams was likely firing depleted uranium rounds. Penetrating power from hell.

No, he's almost certainly right on the Hellfire.

Nah, I was referring to his statement that it'd bounce off the armor. It'd detonate against the armor, certainly, but probably not penetrate.


The only way Infantry can reliably kill an Abrams is by the old-fashioned Swarm Attack. At very close range, vision blocks, engine air intakes and other points of weakness become targettable, bypassing the tank's natural toughness.

And all of these become much easier to do in cramped quarters, both wooded and urban, but more on urban because there are a great many more places you can set up ambushes. Swarm attacks by infantry don't work very well against tanks out in the open where it's superior armament can cut you down with ease while sitting behind its armor. But in an urban environment, especially built up ones, that superior range accounts for nothing because you can close the distance a lot easier without being spotted.

It's why infantry screens for tanks are so important in these sort of environments.

As for handheld explosives being only capable of destroying a track, it depends on whether you consider satchel charges handheld or not I suppose. About three-four kilos of good explosive slapped onto the sprocket might do some serious mobility damage I imagine.

And all of these become much easier to do in cramped quarters, both wooded and urban, but more on urban because there are a great many more places you can set up ambushes. Swarm attacks by infantry don't work very well against tanks out in the open where it's superior armament can cut you down with ease while sitting behind its armor. But in an urban environment, especially built up ones, that superior range accounts for nothing because you can close the distance a lot easier without being spotted.

It's why infantry screens for tanks are so important in these sort of environments.

As for handheld explosives being only capable of destroying a track, it depends on whether you consider satchel charges handheld or not I suppose. About three-four kilos of good explosive slapped onto the sprocket might do some serious mobility damage I imagine.
who is going to put a tank in an urban environment without infantry support?

How many successful swarm attacks have occurred in Iraq ?

who is going to put a tank in an urban environment without infantry support?

Americans for one. That M1A2 tank commander and his loader/gunner didn't just get heart attacks and keel over all of a sudden.

They might have wised up by now though.

Americans for one. That M1A2 tank commander and his loader/gunner didn't just get heart attacks and keel over all of a sudden.

They might have wised up by now though.

You have one example and say that American military policy is bad.

Is that right?

You have one example and say that American military policy is bad.

I'd say arrogant, more than bad. They learn, no doubt, but it takes a bloody nose for them to learn their lessons. Hardly a unique trait in any military organization that prides itself on being the biggest and the best in the world.

I'd say arrogant, more than bad. They learn, no doubt, but it takes a bloody nose for them to learn their lessons. Hardly a unique trait in any military organization that prides itself on being the biggest and the best in the world.

Because of one example.

China created North Korea, they made Kim Jong Il, he has gone a little rogue on them, but they can still pull back the leash.
The soviets had more a hand in his creation then the Chinese did. When there were two Communist powers Kim Il Sung was an expert on playing them off against each other.
If china Marched South, North Korea could fight them to a standstill unless China was willing to entirely mobilize, and that would destroy the Chinese economy.
trying to dislodge 5 million north Koreans from the mountains(which is most of Korea) is something I doubt even the Chinese in alliance with the US could do.

Look at North Korea's domestic polices they are trying to phase out Chinese loan words (which makes up 50% of the Korean language).

China would never march on N Korea and Kim Jong Il's not as crazy as people think. China needs N Korea as leverage against Japan. Kim Jong Il needs Chinese foreign aid to even stay viable as an entity. China and N Korea are both comfortable with, even if they aren't "satisfied" , with the status quo vis a vis S Korea and Japan. The US really doesn't need to get mixed up with these people. If US withdrew military bases from S Korea there's no way N Korea would invade south. China would never allow Kim Jong Il to invade one of China's biggest trading partners and would dangle economic incentives for Kim to make sure this doesn't happen. And Kim Jong Il would most likely voluntarily de-escalate tensions if US withdraws from Korea.

The US really is the world's Joker and brings out the worst in all the tinpot dictators. All the tinpot dictators and bogeymen would not be so crazy if the US isn't always trying to get a rise out of em.

China would never march on N Korea and Kim Jong Il's not as crazy as people think. China needs N Korea as leverage against Japan. Kim Jong Il needs Chinese foreign aid to even stay viable as an entity. China and N Korea are both comfortable with, even if they aren't "satisfied" , with the status quo vis a vis S Korea and Japan. The US really doesn't need to get mixed up with these people. If US withdrew military bases from S Korea there's no way N Korea would invade south. China would never allow Kim Jong Il to invade one of China's biggest trading partners and would dangle economic incentives for Kim to make sure this doesn't happen. And Kim Jong Il would most likely voluntarily de-escalate tensions if US withdraws from Korea.

The US really is the world's Joker and brings out the worst in all the tinpot dictators. All the tinpot dictators and bogeymen would not be so crazy if the US isn't always trying to get a rise out of em.

China views north Korea as a buffer state. If the US were to leave China would like stay out of any conflict.

the problem is China really doesn't have much control over North Korea.
the nuclear explosion (well fizzle) was despite China telling them not to do it.

Because of one example.

I can point out another where US admirals were so cocksure about themselves and what their enemy would do that they lost an entire fleet and over several thousand marines because their underarmed, undermanned and outgunned, opponent wouldn't behave in the way they wanted him to. Fortunately for them, it was only a naval exercise.

Unfortunately for the men under their command, they then played necromancer and then brought the dead back to life, and then simply told their opponents troops to follow their orders and not his.

It's painfully apparent that they won't learn until they lose an actual fleet and tens of thousands of people. And maybe not even then.

And that's why there are excercises, you know, to train people.

China views north Korea as a buffer state. If the US were to leave China would like stay out of any conflict.

the problem is China really doesn't have much control over North Korea.
the nuclear explosion (well fizzle) was despite China telling them not to do it.
China has more than enough financial influence with Kim Jong Il to make sure he doesn't invade S Korea. Nither China nor Kim are as crazy or suicidal as people think.

China has more than enough financial influence with Kim Jong Il to make sure he doesn't invade S Korea. Nither China nor Kim are as crazy or suicidal as people think.

I don't know if you can use the term financial influence in a country like north Korea. Barter influence maybe.

And that's why there are excercises, you know, to train people.

Exercises only work if the people learn from their mistakes. These mental midgets in ranking uniforms didn't. Did they go "Clever trick, let's see what we can do to work around that"? No. They simply went "Nuh uh, it didn't happen. You can't do that. We won't let you even though it's perfectly viable. Here, use this trick that we've spent millions of dollars and months undermining instead."

And of course, there's the prime example. Mr "Stay the bloody, mined course in range of enemy artillery."