Will There Be A WWIII. Thoughts?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by clayton, Mar 31, 2010.

  1. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380

    I never said he wasn't a good man in that he wanted success and that he wasn't trying to do the right things.

    what i said was he went about it, during the war times wrongly.

    he cost allot of Allie lives, just so he can look good. I read a few of his orders and shit that he has done in my Grand fathers letters home, from the front lines.

    and of course the propaganda press will not show the bad about him, he was an American hero. he had to look good for the public, but there are a few good ww2 documentary's out that releases a bit of the bad out.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    first off, what the hell did that have to do with anything I just said

    And second, you are ridiculously wrong.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    for one you stated Air craft carriers twice, and last i checked, fighters a stationed on them.

    and dude, now that bombers are as stealthy and fast as they are, there is little need for a huge fighter jet fleet. fighters purpose is to protect the bombers.

    and todays bombers need little protection. and also, fighters don't win wars tanks and solders do., most anti ground defenses in any of the modern armies would knock fighters out of the sky's like they were rocks with wings.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,025
    Really?
    How many jet fighters were designed as bomber escort?
    The'yre designed mostly to shoot down bombers.

    Except that since (and including) WWII it's been more or less a truism that the side without air superiority loses.
    Oh yeah, rocks with wings. That would be why armies are constantly screaming for more and better anti-aircraft protection.
     
  8. clayton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    Ok people calm down.You don't have to tell people off over this ok please stay inside the guidelines of the thread and the rules, Thank You.
     
  9. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    I'm not telling no one off, just stating my opinion, if people want to get but hurt, :shrug:

    OK so fighters are meant to kill bombers, which are usually at the target drooped there payload and gone b4 fighters even get a chance, to take a shot. refering To tadays modern tech. and to say fighters were not designed to protect bombers is far from wrong.

    it works both ways fighter attacks bombers and protects bombers.

    But now that bombers are so fast and advanced, the real use of fighters is very less as important as it was damn even 20 years ago.
     
  10. clayton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    No Soullust your not telling anyone of I'm talking about other people your doing fine.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,025
    Keep trying.
    Most fighters are designed to get the bomber long before it reaches the target - because bombers tend to carry things like stand-off missiles. Hence it is necessary to hit them before they launch their missiles. For example the Tornado F.3 ADV was designed to kill Soviet bombers somewhere around Greenland when they were intended to hit targets in the UK.
    And this has been true (at least) since nuclear weapons were introduced: the bomber requires knocking down well away from its target.

    Again you need to look up some reliable reference material.
    Fighters tend to be cheaper than bombers and configurable for more roles - interceptor, air superiority, counter-air, SEAD, DEAD, AND bombing.
    The fighter is more important than it was 20 years ago. All countries are strapped for cash and the fighter is cheaper multi-role option. The (dedicated) bomber is a luxury that few countries can afford to build or operate.
    And I dispute your comment "now that bombers are so fast" - ever heard of the B-58? Mach 2, entered service ~1958, left service 1969 i.e. 30 years ago. What matches that that's around these days?
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2010
  12. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    B-2 Spirit

    "The B-2's low-observable, or "stealth", characteristics give it the ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses to attack its most heavily defended targets.

    In 2008, the US Congress funded upgrades to the B-2s weapon control systems for hitting moving targets."

    in the late night hours when these bad boys take flight, have fun seeing them b4 they see you. because by the time you know they were there, your base, factory, airport, military brigade what ever the target is, is well up in flames, while the pilot is having a cigar in another victories mission.



    I seen what these things were capable of first hand, and even though there not as fast as fighters, an invisible piece of metal moving through the air at just under Mach speeds, in the twilight hours. I think 500-600 miles is plenty fast.(I didn't say the fastest)

    all so if ww3 broke out, do you really think countries will give a shit about being cash strapped, the USA will be pumping shit out like this at 10 a day, and i am sure the rest of us in NATO will be as well. todays money is nothing but paper, if a war broke out resources is where it will be at, and cost will have no meaning.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
     
  13. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    There is no such thing as a war fought with the same national vigor as WWII without WMDs - WWII was a total war, and anyway included the use of WMDs in the first place. Any hypothetical conflict on that scale is necessarily a nuclear war.

    I'm not sure that's true, but it's irrelevant: nuclear wars don't feature "battles" as such, and anyway 40k dead is chump change in a nuclear war.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,025
    I'm quite aware of the B-2. How does that make your point?
    Especially as they reinforce my point: cost.

    Even if it came to war there's still cash to be found. How could "the rest of NATO" "pump them out" when the rest of NATO doesn't even have designs on the drawing board?
    You are aware of how long it takes to get a new design done, tested and built and into production aren't you? On the evidence, no you aren't.
    And as for the US "pumping them out" again: production times and cost-benefits of the B-2 vs. smaller cheaper and therefore more numerous aircraft. You can provide equipment for a lot of fighter squadrons (or troops) with a billion dollars (roughly one B-2).
     
  15. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    hey dude, i am stating this from my personal experiences and my oppinion, after all everything is opinion and nothing is fact, and and if a war broke out again i know this for a fact that money will mean crapp, if the USA needs the raw resources to build a million stealth bombers, because they will give us the allies a quick victory, you guys would have the resources, life is more important then useless paper money. and i did say that wrong i should have stated NATO countries like Canada would be spitting out tanks, Apache's, ammunition, anti air, by the tons, who cares if only the USA can build them were on the same side and will be if ww3 breaks out. and if the USA needs anything to make more b-2s, if they will win us the war, trust me you will have, free if it means saving lives, and trust me Canada has the resources, and so does the U.S.A to produce allot of shit and i am sure with lets say ten two one 3-4 000 000 Canadian solders, and 30-40 million American solders fighting and dieing, along with millions of our allies solders, fighting and dieing, our combined resources will give any of our nations anything they need free and or on a seriously long term loan. again cash is void.

    and dude 1 b2 bomber could do the damage of thirty fighter jet, just by the shear fact of the pay load either one could hold.
     
  16. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    I disagree.....Thach Weave needed two fighter or more to execute, so it is not crap 1 on 1....

    Yeah just like how they owned Russia in the Russo-Japanese war despite being only modernized for about 50 years.....

    Japan didn't have the resources to keep up with the war.....
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,025
    Except that, when it comes to designing, building, flying and using military technology there are facts.

    Oh yeah, I mean the USA can find a million billion dollars just like that. Please check out how war economies work. And also check out how long it takes to build a B-2. Quick victory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Again, try to find out actual facts on how long it takes to get something like Apache into production. Especially if there's no previously-existing manufacturing capability.

    You obviously haven't read anything on how economies operate in war time.

    Again, you should check facts.
    B-2: 23 tonne payload. Cost ~1 billion.
    F-15E: 11 tonne payload. Cost ~ 50 million.
    So that would make the B-2 equivalent to around 7% of thirty fighters, and those thirty can hit 30 separate targets at once and "only" cost a total of 1.5 times as much. In addition to which they can be use for other roles: stopping other bombers, air superiority, counter-air...
     
  18. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    B-2 is way too expensive to maintain, that is why there is only 1 small wing of B-2s in the US Air Force. Northdrop, Boeing and Lockheed Martin isn't going to hand out free weapons to the USA. It is about $2.1 billion USD each....

    Most fighters in WWII are used to intercept bombers long before they reach the target. There are exceptions of those used to escort bombers. There is also the exception of fighter/bombers, which is used tactically not strategically.

    Canada doesn't have the money to fund a huge army.....USA is not going to hand out free weapons ( at least the best ones ) no matter what, NATO or no NATO. If we want it, we have to negotiate with the USA and we have to buy it for a lot more then what they are buying it at.

    Cash is not void....if the military wants it, they have to buy it.

    Due to the cost, the USA is not planning on buying more B-2s.

    B-2s is a great weapons system, but it is way too expensive.

    Well bombers are actually not that fast compared to some fighters out there.....
     
  19. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    B-2 is two million sorry mate, it is $2.1 Billion USD not 1 billion. NOT INCLUDING AMMUNITION.
     
  20. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    The japanese had the most arrogant closed minded way to wage war and that was the code of bushido, shogun, I wrote a 17 page paper on this subject, I know a lot about it.

    And soullost your opinion is just dumb. End of story, fighters serve a massive role, look at israels tactics, they focus heavily on fighters and they kick ass with them.

    Also, back to shogun, the thatch weave was not the only tactic and was not the best one, once you took away the zeros maneuvorability it was a crappy fighter. Americans figured out how to do that very quickly
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,025
    Depends whether you count R&D costs per aircraft or just fly-away.
    Wiki. (Not the most reliable of sources, but it tallies with others I've seen).
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-2-production.htm
     
  22. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Thach weave WAS the best....

    I know a lot about it, I know Japanese and I know Japanese culture, it was also the prime minister's fault....plus they were fighting on three fronts with very limited resources, unlike Germany who had greater resources. You have to remember their are an island nation.....
    I know Bushido is very important to them, it is a very important part of their culture, it is their code of honor, but to say the most arrogant and close-minded....the Battle of Midway was one of the major causes of their downfall, so was the Mariana Turkey Shoot ( I really don't like that term ).

    Yes, I know the Zero have weak armor and weapons....it was also a carrier based fighter, keep that in mind.
     
  23. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    If I remember correctly, the USAF didn't take that offer...
     

Share This Page