Army Guy Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 useless cans unless you want to attack Grenada or some equivalent powerhouse...how long did the General Belgrano last vs a modern navy? I'm sure some navy guy can provide a more detailed picture, but the Belgrano was a cruiser. much smaller than the avg Battleship, she was also built during the second world war, but i doubt she was as modern as say the retired Missouri and her battle group. Correct me if i'm wrong but within the US navy the Battleship was the central part of a battle group, much like the Aircraft carrier is today, and like any naval battle group it's strength was in that battle group as a whole, each ship bringing something to the table...All that being said i have my doubts that a modern sub could have gotten past the battle groups own hunter killer subs, but anything is possiable... again, great vs the Grenada's and Iraq of the world vs a Navy equipped with nuclear tipped cruise missiles the entire carrier fleet is obsolete...I trust the opinion of my Bro-in-law Commander RCN(his specialty weapons systems and anti submarine warfare) estimate of survival time in nuclear naval engagement 15 minutes I think you underestamate the power of a carrier fleet and what it brings to the table, such as enough fire power to wipe out entire countries...If a Carrier group can make Mother Russia sit up and take notice...then thier has to be something about the abilities a carrier groups brings to the table...I'm sure even China would not want serveral Carrier groups parked off it's coast... 15 mins survival time, back in the day, when i was a young buck the avg survival time for the avg infanteer on a modern battle field was 7 seconds, from the time you stepped foot on it until someone carried you off...and yet the Infanteer will always have a role to play on the battle field...like i said before every thing has it's place it's use, and when combined that is when you see it's true value... no one says there won't be a need for aircraft but the days of fighters are numbered and we don't need anything this sophisticated and expensive, a better bigger fleet of helicopters has more value... In what way are they numbered, Just because the world is tuned itself into this Insurgent warfare rules concept don't for one second believe that the defense of this nation does not require fast air...it is a critical tool as important as ships, troops, tanks etc...much like chess each piece has a role to play, and when they are combined that is what makes them so deadly....without an aircraft to sweep the skies clean of enemy aircraft, ground forces are vunable to airstrikes...Ask the Iraqis, or Germans what it is like not to have air superiority....now add the valuable platform for delivering ordance on target on demand...good in any kind of war fare...you want a mulit task aircraft you need to pay for that... As for your fleet of helo's anything that flys is missle bait...the closer to the ground you get you alos have to worry about ground fire...Not only is the Leo IIA6 excellent at killing other tanks, but it is also very good a killing helo's, it's fire control systems are more than capable of tracking slow movers such as attack and transport helos' not only tracking them but predicting where they are going to when the shot arrives on target...top all that off with thousands of pissed off grunts like me with a some sort of wpn and you have a very deadly enviroment.... tanks are effective when the other side doesn't have the capability to destroy them...Israel learned that when it's tank force was pounded by Hezbollah missiles and forced Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon...if the Taliban had these missiles Canadian tanks would be neutralized and wouldn't even leave their bases, just as stinger missiles neutralized the Soviet attack helicopters 30 yrs ago... They do have a vast aray of anti tank missles available to them....however as i said a couple times already, when every wpns sys is used together it can not be defeated by one wpns sys alone...Inf screen for enemy inf , tanks provided direct and indirect fire when need, Attack helos provide the same in the air for all ground forces, etc etc when used together no one can get close enough to use those wpns...hence why they have relied on the IED, and commnad detonated the devices and have scored and damaged serveral of our tanks.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 I suggest you read it again... here is the Angara first stage being used by South Korea... That's not an Angara rocket. That's the Naro which uses a single Russian R-151 engine. A tiny rocket capable of maybe 100kg to LEO. The Energia used a version of the same engine, shall we say it is also the Angara rocket? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Wilber Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 a battleship survive a direct hit from a nuclear tipped cruise missile what colour is the sky in your world? here is the variation of the Russian missile, being supersonic it's already faster than a bullet the next generation will be Hypersonic... What can survive a direct hit from a nuclear weapon? That's the idea behind nukes, you don't need direct hits. what's your point?..read the thread The point is you seem to have difficulty telling the difference between conventional and nuclear warfare. BS the Russians do what they always do as do the Americans, they never violated Canadian airspace that was just Harper playing Captain Canada... They were doing it all through the cold war. There are any number of photographs of CAF F-18's intercepting Bears. So we have no need to intercept foreign military aircraft entering our airspace without our permission or no capability of providing air cover for our ships intercepting foreign naval vessels who enter our waters without our permission? Some of which may carry aircraft of their own. The Spanish navy has a Harrier equipped carrier and eventually a new ship with F-35's. If they had wanted to push the issue during the "Cod War", we would have no way of countering that without F-18's. irrelevant question... Perfectly relevent. What is your solution,a one size fits all military concept consisting of an arsenal of nuclear tipped cruise missles to nuke the crap out of anyone who interferes with us, as everthing else seems to be useless in your opinion, or just do nothing at all? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
wyly Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 I'm sure some navy guy can provide a more detailed picture, but the Belgrano was a cruiser. much smaller than the avg Battleship, she was also built during the second world war, but i doubt she was as modern as say the retired Missouri and her battle group. Correct me if i'm wrong but within the US navy the Battleship was the central part of a battle group, much like the Aircraft carrier is today, and like any naval battle group it's strength was in that battle group as a whole, each ship bringing something to the table...All that being said i have my doubts that a modern sub could have gotten past the battle groups own hunter killer subs, but anything is possiable... the role of the battleship changed from primary weapon to that off mobile artillery platform for landings, the carrier became the prime offensive weapon...as for subs getting past modern battle groups, my bro-in-law was quite delighted telling me how an antiquated Canadian sub in mock naval battle got in past a battle group tagged a US carrier and then escaped clean...I think you underestamate the power of a carrier fleet and what it brings to the table, such as enough fire power to wipe out entire countries...If a Carrier group can make Mother Russia sit up and take notice...then thier has to be something about the abilities a carrier groups brings to the table...I'm sure even China would not want serveral Carrier groups parked off it's coast...not any country capable of retaliating in equal devastating force...Grenada Iraq ok China, Russia that would be foolish...a carrier force wasn't able to bring down the N Vietnam regime government despite near absolute control of sea and sky and years of bombing...you be mistaken if you think the US Navy hasn't sat up and taken notice of the Russian and Chinese new cruise missiles...15 mins survival time, back in the day, when i was a young buck the avg survival time for the avg infanteer on a modern battle field was 7 seconds, from the time you stepped foot on it until someone carried you off...and yet the Infanteer will always have a role to play on the battle field...like i said before every thing has it's place it's use, and when combined that is when you see it's true value...that's getting away from the point a carrier group is defenseless vs the new Cruise Missiles...until they have a counter to them the carrier fleet is neutralized vs countries that possess them, they can only try stay out of range...and if you can't get the carriers near to the target to strike they're not much of a threat...In what way are they numbered, Just because the world is tuned itself into this Insurgent warfare rules concept don't for one second believe that the defense of this nation does not require fast air...it is a critical tool as important as ships, troops, tanks etc...much like chess each piece has a role to play, and when they are combined that is what makes them so deadly....without an aircraft to sweep the skies clean of enemy aircraft, ground forces are vunable to airstrikes...Ask the Iraqis, or Germans what it is like not to have air superiority....now add the valuable platform for delivering ordance on target on demand...good in any kind of war fare...you want a mulit task aircraft you need to pay for that...with advanced missile technology I don't see a need for advanced fighters for much longer...when it air power was demonstrated to be superior over battleships the US navy rejected the idea because battleship still gave them woodies and they continued building battleships, not until dec 7th '41 did they see the light...same with fighters, flyboys still get wood thinking about them but advanced missile technology and drones will end their glory days...a missile equipped drone or missile alone will deliver ordnance on target on demand at less cost and fewer lives lost...As for your fleet of helo's anything that flys is missle bait...the closer to the ground you get you alos have to worry about ground fire...Not only is the Leo IIA6 excellent at killing other tanks, but it is also very good a killing helo's, it's fire control systems are more than capable of tracking slow movers such as attack and transport helos' not only tracking them but predicting where they are going to when the shot arrives on target...top all that off with thousands of pissed off grunts like me with a some sort of wpn and you have a very deadly enviroment.... yup everything will be missile bait...grunts with missiles will rule the battlefield...They do have a vast aray of anti tank missles available to them....however as i said a couple times already, when every wpns sys is used together it can not be defeated by one wpns sys alone...Inf screen for enemy inf , tanks provided direct and indirect fire when need, Attack helos provide the same in the air for all ground forces, etc etc when used together no one can get close enough to use those wpns...hence why they have relied on the IED, and commnad detonated the devices and have scored and damaged serveral of our tanks....Hezbollah used a combination of IEDs mortars to disable tanks and stop infantry support, then missiles to take out tanks and keep copters at bay ...even though they were badly outnumbered they halted an advanced armored force, grunts with technology ruled the day... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 What can survive a direct hit from a nuclear weapon? That's the idea behind nukes, you don't need direct hits. Wilbur-"The US used WW2 battleships to bombard coastal installations up until after the first gulf war. With its armour a properly equipped WW2 battleship could probably survive a nuclear attack better than the most modern ships." Sunburn missiles don't miss, shoot it down or get hit...ships are motionless targets relative to the cruise missile attack speed... The point is you seem to have difficulty telling the difference between conventional and nuclear warfare. you have a problem reading a thread... They were doing it all through the cold war. There are any number of photographs of CAF F-18's intercepting Bears. So we have no need to intercept foreign military aircraft entering our airspace without our permission or no capability of providing air cover for our ships intercepting foreign naval vessels who enter our waters without our permission? Some of which may carry aircraft of their own. The Spanish navy has a Harrier equipped carrier and eventually a new ship with F-35's. If they had wanted to push the issue during the "Cod War", we would have no way of countering that without F-18's. bull-the the russians never entered our airspace pure propaganda fantasy...the russians recognize our claim of the NWP the americans do not, the americans do not ask for permission to enter our waters they just inform us when they do it...counter the spanish navy, buy a half dozen Russian Sunburn cruise missiles, Spanish navy neutralized... Perfectly relevent. What is your solution,a one size fits all military concept consisting of an arsenal of nuclear tipped cruise missles to nuke the crap out of anyone who interferes with us, as everthing else seems to be useless in your opinion, or just do nothing at all?read the thread... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 Maybe pick up some MiGs and T-92s while we're at it. Зa родины!! Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) Sunburn missiles don't miss, shoot it down or get hit...ships are motionless targets relative to the cruise missile attack speed... You do realize that this threat...subsonic/supersonic missile vs ship...has been around since WW2. There have been Russian weapons like the Kingbolt, Kingfish, Kitchen, etc, throught the Cold War and beyond. The 'experts' said the Exocet would spell the end of surface navies, too. I note that ships are still in use. Edited November 26, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Wilber Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 Wilbur-"The US used WW2 battleships to bombard coastal installations up until after the first gulf war. With its armour a properly equipped WW2 battleship could probably survive a nuclear attack better than the most modern ships." Sunburn missiles don't miss, shoot it down or get hit...ships are motionless targets relative to the cruise missile attack speed... you have a problem reading a thread... bull-the the russians never entered our airspace pure propaganda fantasy...the russians recognize our claim of the NWP the americans do not, the americans do not ask for permission to enter our waters they just inform us when they do it...counter the spanish navy, buy a half dozen Russian Sunburn cruise missiles, Spanish navy neutralized... read the thread... I'm just reading your posts. Whether the Russians or Americans enter or not is irrelevant, the fact is they both constantly probe for weakness and test readiness. It seems you want to change us from a country that has forsaken nuclear weapons to one that has no other option than nuclear weapons. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Army Guy Posted November 26, 2009 Report Posted November 26, 2009 the role of the battleship changed from primary weapon to that off mobile artillery platform for landings, the carrier became the prime offensive weapon...as for subs getting past modern battle groups, my bro-in-law was quite delighted telling me how an antiquated Canadian sub in mock naval battle got in past a battle group tagged a US carrier and then escaped clean... But the piont is it still had a role to play, yes it was re roled to keep up with ever changing tactics, and new tech, once tech allowed for a ship designed for the littoral role then the battleship as we know it was retired or should we say redesigned into a smaller lighter ship... Anything is possiable, i'm sure the German U boat commanders also have a great many of these stories as well, but then again so do the destroyers, and frigs and covette guys...sometimes murphy smiles upon you sometimes he sticks it to you.... not any country capable of retaliating in equal devastating force...Grenada Iraq ok China, Russia that would be foolish...a carrier force wasn't able to bring down the N Vietnam regime government despite near absolute control of sea and sky and years of bombing...you be mistaken if you think the US Navy hasn't sat up and taken notice of the Russian and Chinese new cruise missiles... One also has to put into contect the rules of engagement, even during the Vietnam war i'm sure carriers carried Nuk wpns...And from what i've read the new russian missle has perked up a shit load of US navy guys....as i'm sure a counter measure is on the books...all i'm saying is one wpns sys does not make an entire carrier battle group obsolete. with advanced missile technology I don't see a need for advanced fighters for much longer...when it air power was demonstrated to be superior over battleships the US navy rejected the idea because battleship still gave them woodies and they continued building battleships, not until dec 7th '41 did they see the light...same with fighters, flyboys still get wood thinking about them but advanced missile technology and drones will end their glory days...a missile equipped drone or missile alone will deliver ordnance on target on demand at less cost and fewer lives lost... So in ensence your saying manned fighters are going to be obsolete...that UCAV's of some form will rule tomorrow. That starts up an entirely new subject.... yup everything will be missile bait...grunts with missiles will rule the battlefield... I guess i have some job security....i was kind of hoping for the opposite... Hezbollah used a combination of IEDs mortars to disable tanks and stop infantry support, then missiles to take out tanks and keep copters at bay ...even though they were badly outnumbered they halted an advanced armored force, grunts with technology ruled the day... My basic training Sgt, had a saying you can stop anything with the correct amount of balls and steel.... once a force is stalled it is hard for them to regain momentum needed to overcome an obsticle....such as a simple anti tank ditch...what works for them will also work in reverse...put enough metal on targets and something is going to give....we all don't get this lucky, thank god that the Taliban have not found this correct measure....but normally armoured forces do very well again'st grunts.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
DogOnPorch Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 During WW2 a well placed panzerfaust could take out even a JS-II. Today is no different. But the Merkava is none-the-less still the top defensive tank in the world. Very few have been truely lost in battle. Here's one taking several RPG-7 hits while 'tracked' during Lebanon. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wyly Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) One also has to put into contect the rules of engagement, even during the Vietnam war i'm sure carriers carried Nuk wpns...ya but you need to measure the proper force in the proper situation...nuking a a non nuclear country wouldn't be cool and it would draw in other nuclear powers into the conflict and no one wants to go there...And from what i've read the new russian missle has perked up a shit load of US navy guys....as i'm sure a counter measure is on the books...all i'm saying is one wpns sys does not make an entire carrier battle group obsolete.true but a one weapon or technological advance can turn the entire system of warfare on it's head there are examples all through history...the stirrup, chariot, English long bow, musket, artillery, breech loaders, machine gun, tank, airplane, carrier, with each advance invariably another piece of technology or tactic disappeared...supersonic and later hypersonic missiles will bring major changes to warfare at every level...So in ensence your saying manned fighters are going to be obsolete...that UCAV's of some form will rule tomorrow. That starts up an entirely new subject....but that's the point, we don't need to spend horrific amounts of cash on planes we don't need to fight an enemy we don't have, and for those that could possibly be a threat to us these planes will not save us...as long as we have planes better than the Taliban and Grenada's and Serbia's of the world we're ok...UCAV's will be be cheaper and better than today's fighters without a human to slow them down...I guess i have some job security....i was kind of hoping for the opposite... it should be comforting to know that in the future you need not fear a tank or air attack, they'll fear the unseen grunt hiding in the trees with a portable missile that will vaporize them... thank god that the Taliban have not found this correct measure....but normally armoured forces do very well again'st grunts.... probably better to thank the Iranians for not supplying the Taliban with Russian missile technology... Edited November 27, 2009 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 It seems you want to change us from a country that has forsaken nuclear weapons to one that has no other option than nuclear weapons. I'm ok with Canada having nuclear weapons, NO ONE! will fuck with us if we have them or dispute our ownership and sovereignty of the NWP... on kinetic energy alone(no warhead)a Sunburn missile will severely damage any smaller ship forcing it out of action, add a conventional warhead and even the biggest ships will take massive damage... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 You do realize that this threat...subsonic/supersonic missile vs ship...has been around since WW2. There have been Russian weapons like the Kingbolt, Kingfish, Kitchen, etc, throught the Cold War and beyond. The 'experts' said the Exocet would spell the end of surface navies, too. I note that ships are still in use. not until the introduction of the Exocet in the 80s did cruise missiles have an effect, it changed Navies everywhere, a fishing boat with an Exocet was now capable of taking out the best technology any navy had...the latest cruise missiles are fare in advance of the Exocet...there is only so much you can alter technology before you need to dispose of it completely...soldiers in Armor improved on the technology for generations until they were human tanks but all that armor technology disappeared on the arrival of the musket, a peasant with a musket and a weeks training could take out the best trained and equipped Knight with one shot from 100meters... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 That's not an Angara rocket. That's the Naro which uses a single Russian R-151 engine. A tiny rocket capable of maybe 100kg to LEO. The Energia used a version of the same engine, shall we say it is also the Angara rocket? the Naro is S koreas name for the entire rocket...the first stage is from the Russian Angara project the Angara system has 7 potential variants from small to heavy lift payloads :lol: laughing last is always best Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest American Woman Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 Not to mention that Laugheed Martin Does have production facilities in Canada, It would be nice to build some components for it. That makes sense; I hadn't thought of it from that end. Quote
Wilber Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 I'm ok with Canada having nuclear weapons, NO ONE! will fuck with us if we have them or dispute our ownership and sovereignty of the NWP... on kinetic energy alone(no warhead)a Sunburn missile will severely damage any smaller ship forcing it out of action, add a conventional warhead and even the biggest ships will take massive damage... Does this mean you believe all countries should have them? That the world would be a safer place it they did? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
DogOnPorch Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 not until the introduction of the Exocet in the 80s did cruise missiles have an effect, it changed Navies everywhere, a fishing boat with an Exocet was now capable of taking out the best technology any navy had...the latest cruise missiles are fare in advance of the Exocet...there is only so much you can alter technology before you need to dispose of it completely...soldiers in Armor improved on the technology for generations until they were human tanks but all that armor technology disappeared on the arrival of the musket, a peasant with a musket and a weeks training could take out the best trained and equipped Knight with one shot from 100meters... Cruise missiles have been around since WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293 the Naro is S koreas name for the entire rocket...the first stage is from the Russian Angara project the Angara system has 7 potential variants from small to heavy lift payloads laughing last is always best It's called a Naro? Wow. Never would have figured that. And uses a new Russian rocket you say? That's not an Angara rocket. That's the Naro which uses a single Russian R-151 engine. A tiny rocket capable of maybe 100kg to LEO. The Energia used a version of the same engine, shall we say it is also the Angara rocket? Still no pictures or vids...nor will you find any...this replacement for the Proton will be some time away still. But as mentioned, it is intended for unmanned launches...not Russians to the Moon. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 I would like to see a fishing boat kitted withn an exocet....I'm sure it's possible....and would be a real threat to other fishing boats... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 I would like to see a fishing boat kitted withn an exocet....I'm sure it's possible....and would be a real threat to other fishing boats... It would probably become an example of one of the first 'cruise' weapons used in warfare: the fire ship. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Moonbox Posted November 27, 2009 Report Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) true but a one weapon or technological advance can turn the entire system of warfare on it's head there are examples all through history...the stirrup, chariot, English long bow, musket, artillery, breech loaders, machine gun, tank, airplane, carrier, with each advance invariably another piece of technology or tactic disappeared...supersonic and later hypersonic missiles will bring major changes to warfare at every level... These weapons and tactics brought changes. That's all. You act as though one weapon all of the sudden erases the need/use for entire armies/navies. A lot of the time tactics simply evolved to develop a quick counter. The stirrup and chariot encouraged training and cohesion in infantry. A competent commander could make cavalry look foolish. The longbow and the musket certainly could pierce armor, but it took hundreds of years for it to get to the point where the armored horseman was obsolete. Military tactics/equipment are always going to be constantly evolving, and the cruise missile is something that modern navies have and will continue to adapt against. One problem with the cruise missile is that it has to be able to actually target a carrier. It's not simply a matter of saying, "Hey, there's a carrier 400 miles off our coast, let's wax it!". They need a good way to find it and target it, and it's standard practice for any modern armed force to take out the eyes and ears of the enemy before moving big assets into the field of fire. This in itself is a defense against cruise missiles. Edited November 27, 2009 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
wyly Posted November 28, 2009 Report Posted November 28, 2009 These weapons and tactics brought changes. That's all. You act as though one weapon all of the sudden erases the need/use for entire armies/navies. A lot of the time tactics simply evolved to develop a quick counter. The stirrup and chariot encouraged training and cohesion in infantry. A competent commander could make cavalry look foolish. The longbow and the musket certainly could pierce armor, but it took hundreds of years for it to get to the point where the armored horseman was obsolete. Military tactics/equipment are always going to be constantly evolving, and the cruise missile is something that modern navies have and will continue to adapt against. from the introduction and efficient mass production of the musket early in the 15th century the age of fully armored knights was over by the end of the century...the reign of the battleship ended in one day...One problem with the cruise missile is that it has to be able to actually target a carrier. It's not simply a matter of saying, "Hey, there's a carrier 400 miles off our coast, let's wax it!". They need a good way to find it and target it, and it's standard practice for any modern armed force to take out the eyes and ears of the enemy before moving big assets into the field of fire. This in itself is a defense against cruise missiles. hmm from my brother-in-law the naval warfare expert(25yrs of weapons systems, electrical engineer) "we know where all their ships are they know where all our ships are" there is no hiding,(submarines more questionable)...plus the latest generations of missiles once launched are fire and forget, they operate independently, they can identify their target in a crowd from altitude, dive to the deck and take evasive action on the run in, all independently, these missiles have their own eyes and ears...the US was never able to stop the scud missile attacks, the famed Patriot missile defense had at best one possible hit on the primitive Scuds... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 28, 2009 Report Posted November 28, 2009 from the introduction and efficient mass production of the musket early in the 15th century the age of fully armored knights was over by the end of the century...the reign of the battleship ended in one day... The start of the end of the armoured knight was the british longbow. Quote
wyly Posted November 28, 2009 Report Posted November 28, 2009 Cruise missiles have been around since WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293 It's called a Naro? Wow. Never would have figured that. And uses a new Russian rocket you say? Still no pictures or vids...nor will you find any...this replacement for the Proton will be some time away still. But as mentioned, it is intended for unmanned launches...not Russians to the Moon. grow up... 2009 Aug. 25: South-Korean Naro-1 (KSLV-1) launch vehicle, employing Angara's URM first stage booster, delivers the STSAT-2 satellite from the Naro space center, South Korea. The mission was delayed from mid-August 2009. Angara comes in a number of variations for easy exchange of common systems...Angara 7 is the moon expedition rocket Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted November 28, 2009 Report Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) The start of the end of the armoured knight was the british longbow. it wasn't really the crossbow did as much damage, bowman were effective as long as they were protected by pikemen, once knights closed they were slaughtered... the famous destruction of French knights at Crécy had as more too do with the weather, french arrogance and terrible tactics...knights continued on until the muskets came into widespread use about 1420's and ended about 1500... Edited November 28, 2009 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 28, 2009 Report Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) it wasn't really the crossbow did as much damage, bowman were effective as long as they were protected by pikemen, once knights closed they were slaughtered... the famous destruction of French knights at Crécy had as more too do with the weather, french arrogance and terrible tactics...knights continued on until the muskets came into widespread use about 1420's and ended about 1500... The English longbow completely changed the power dynamic amongst the peasants it ment they could kill knights. which is one hell of a thing for a peasant to do. It was the begining of the end for the knight. Muskets in the 1400's sucked give me a bow over that anyday. IT wasn't until the 1600's that the longbow stopped being used. Edited November 28, 2009 by TrueMetis Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.