|
Duzzy Funlop posted:The Predator shot back...? To be fair the Predator shot first, the Foxbat shot back.
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Unless you think the footage was altered in some manner, the Foxbat shot first. Unless this is a different event than the 2002 shoot down, the account I read said the foxbat went into the no fly zone and the drone operator decided to have a crack. The drone missed and the foxbot then shot it down.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Rigel posted:That dude drags a Norwegian flag around in the snow, are other countries not as reverent as U.S.A No. 1? Nah, I dont think many European countries get misty eyed when they see their flag fluttering in the wind. In the UK you could wipe your arse with the Union Jack and no one would give a crap.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Can you US fellas answer me this, does the Garand below have its bolt in?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I can't say with certainty from that picture alone because if the bolt is in it is locked back (which is why you can't see it and why you can see the follower where the bolt would be if it was forward; also the charging handle is locked to the rear), but I would be shocked if it wasn't in since it would look rather funny when the bolt was supposed to be forward, which would be most of the time. I'm not familiar with the M1 manual of arms, but I would imagine the Marine in the picture is performing something like inspection arms, which is why he has the bolt locked back. Okay thanks for that, I am specifically looking for pictures of marines with no bolts in their Garands. I have not had much look so far though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This includes potentially having to re-fight the Falklands War, and lord knows whether they'll have air cover or not. There are Eurofighters stationed on the Falklands. Unless we are talking about decades down the line, Argentina is in no shape currently or the near future to fight over the Falklands again.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Christoff posted:But I mean what were they thinking the first time? That they'd win? They came very close to winning. One exocet hitting the right ship would have meant a complete loss. Losing the Atlantic Conveyor was pretty devastating but losing the Hermes or Invincible would have been game over. Granted they would not have been able to land any more men or equipment by sea because of the submarines but we would not have been able to provide any air defence. Vasudus posted:They also probably figured that no empire would want to spend the amount of money it would cost to reclaim some meaningless land on the other side of the world for the sake of ARE EMPIRE. Especially when they were in rough economic times. Boy, were they loving wrong. Granted it was ARE EMPIRE but it was the right thing to do to fight the junta. Mortabis posted:Weren't the British inclined to just hand them over beforehand? Now the existence of a British colony on the Falklands is a symbol of their geopolitical muscle and they'll never give it up. There were talks in cabinet of handing it over, but I think talk would have been about it. The Falklands are a pain in the arse and it would be a real blessing if the Argentinian government wasn't such a bunch of stupid tossers. 98% of the people on the islands voted to stay a British protectorate earlier this year so its going to be a long time before Argentina gets a sniff. Limp Wristed Limey fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Not according to some prize English crazies. Somehow it's the fault of the British that Argentina decided to launch a surprise invasion of the Falklands. Thats because they are idiots. I have seen people on the left weep about the injustice of Israel taking Palestinian land and then in the next sentence complain about how awful Thatcher was for fighting a poor helpless military junta that murdered 20,000 of their political opponents. There was talk of US carriers helping if things got out of hand but again it was just talk and rumours. I would love to find out what the US would have done if the UK had been defeated. The Reagan administration was not happy with the conflict at all. They did provide a new version of the sidewinder though and they did provide satellite intelligence. The Frence surprisingly provided assistence, they gave us a lot of information on the exocet.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Someone mentioned above that the carriers would have been supplied with "contractors", thats something I had not heard of. Talk of handing over a carrier sure but like you said I dont think it would be a simple case of handing them over. Also the logistics and training of manning the carrier with a Royal Navy crew. I have not served in the Navy but I dont think getting a ship you have never trained on and suddenly taking it into a warzone would be a very good idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 07:58
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:There were serious disagreements between Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Weinberger, but Weinberger won, and US support was more than just AIM-9Ls and satellite images, the war wouldn't have been possible without using Ascension Island and the USAF base there. Granted Ascension was important but I am not sure you could class it as mission critical. It looks like a lot of the fuel released for our use was used in the Black Buck raids. I would not say these were a huge success.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
Its also worth noting that the Belgrano was sailing out of a warzone with its water tight doors open.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:And also that it was sunk with pre-WWII-era torpedoes. It managed to survive Pearl Harbour and WW2 as well.  
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
I can only hope that some of the PM's have requested the sub commanders not to retaliate (I doubt it though). One thing we can be pretty much be certain of is the words on Thatchers letter.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
I have wondered about the effectiveness of the F-22. Obviously it is the most advanced fighter in the world and very expensive but you hear about these scenarios where a single F-22 has death blossomed 100 F-16's in an engagement. Is the F-22 the grim reaper of the skies or are the scenarios setup to give itself an advantage?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 12:07
|
|
|
The US has produced some of the best looking jets but there is something that does not look right with the F-35's.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
BOPE try their hardest to reduce Brazil's population at every available opportunity. I wish I could find the picture of one of the troopers smoking a cigar while stepping over a pile of bodies in an alleyway.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
gleep gloop posted:So they're the guys pretty much murdering people all day to clean up for the Olympics or world cup or whatever? I think they have been murdering people for a lot longer than the Olympics/world cup clean up. I have only watched a couple of documentaries about them but I know they usually leave a long trail of bodies when they go to the favelas.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You don't want to rob a pizza shop when the Brazilian cops are around, either. Wait for backup? Set up a perimeter? gently caress no, let's just empty the whole magazine through the front door. I saw this a couple of days ago. I just can't get my head around just blasting through the door when you have innocent people inside.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Bullet proof super soldiers? What else are you dreaming up Kim!!!!!!!! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 11:54
|
|
