we prefer the term *recruited*. :winkwink:

ours too :(

there were canadian nazis?

i did not know that.

If Germany was able to mass produce the first jet fighter.... It would have changed everything.

Oh Hi there! :hi:hi

i'm going totally by memory here but didn't adolph put the kabash on the me262 for years?

he screwed it up by demanding to turn it into a bomber instead.

payload too small, engines not powerful enough to carry the load and an otherwise excellent plane wasted on the wrong purpose

"lost" is a wrong word to use... nobody lost in Afghanistan, not Russians, not Americans... both came there, stayed there, controlled territory, got tired of wasting money and dealing with poor brain washed lunatics (which don't care about their own life and blow themselves up) and left... if let's say USA was in a war with Afghanistan, and Afghanistan pushed back, came and destroyed most major cities inside America and America would sign it gives up than THAT'S what I call LOST... how can you loose if your actual country inside didn't suffer, but other country got bombed to stone age ?

oh right right right, thanks ! :thumbsup haha, he was such a tard.

lost is the perfect word to use.

Germany could have mass produced it. However Hitler was more worried about a jet powered bomber, by the time they refocused on the fighter it was too little too late. Had they focused on the fighter, the allied bombing raids might not have been so effective.

oh, are you British? I thought you was American. the first operational jet fighter was the UK's Gloster Meteor.

Yeah, Hilter didn't see the value in having a jet fighter... If I remember correctly, he started and stopped the program many times, and made so many changes to the program that it never really got off...

It depends on what you consider a victory. Winning a war used to mean "unconditional surrender". Germany and Japan come to mind here. Since then, the lines are less clear.

Iraq was a victory for the US. The US took control of the government, it's military, and the entire country.

You can argue that Afghanistan - for both the US and the Russians - was a victory. In both cases the military was defeated, the government replaced, and most of the country occupied. However, in countries such as Afghanistan (and Pakistan) the government isn't in control of the entire country. In Afghanistan, no matter what government is in control there will always be multiple armed groups trying to over throw them. But did Afghanistan ever attack Russia? Nope. Did Afghanistan ever invade the US? Nope. Not a clear victory for anyone, but I wouldn't really call it a defeat for Russia or the US. At a certain point fighting a war is not viable from a political standpoint.

Yes Russian army is good as the US army, only in propaganda they are several years behind.

rochard and i will have to disagree on the outcome of afghanistan but we do agree that in war there are the victors and the vanquished.


a stalemate against a guerilla force is not a victory.

I wasn't interested in you evading the question when I asked it several times, what makes you think I'm interested in you evading it now I've given up asking? Go back to pretending you were simply trolling Richard, or trying to generate 25 more posts.

In a world where unstoppable missiles travel for miles, there's no need for planes, manned or unmanned.

Of course. No big deal. We have an unlimited supply. They can be replaced in minutes at no cost.

lighten up francis. you might think you are clever but shocker, you're typical.

ok - you win

but i'm not american either

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Russia > USA. Sorry to disappoint.

Long range missiles cost a lot of money and you can only carry so many on a war ship.. Aircraft and the ability to bomb are better suited for lower level targets.

The advantage of the drone vs the plane, as I mentioned.. When a drone gets shot down you aren't losing the pilot. The drone can be replaced in a short time just as the airplane can, however it takes years of training to replace that pilot.

Got an answer yet?

We will always need planes - wars are won with planes, not missiles. Air superiority is the key to everything.

We do not have an unlimited supply of pilots. It takes years to train a pilot. Although, I would imagine in the future with unmanned planes.... They will become a lot easier to fly.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


oh fuck this is classic. :1orglaugh


i'm in stitches.

The years of training may explain why, in fact, hardly any pilots are killed by being shot down by enemy forces. That and the fact we never take on anything more dangerous than a bunch of peasants in pajamas armed with AK47s.

Post a few more ":1orglaugh", some people might not be convinced.

ok. 1 more for you, but only since you haven't figured it out yet.

:1orglaugh

Figured what out? Why you're calling me "francis"? You're right. But it's funny.

i saw that unmanned/piloted flight btw.. very cool

think the benefit of remote/computer is the maneuvers that can be done.. only limits to planes atm are the pilots.. no pilots, a lot less limits

question is why it took so long to switch?

dehumanising war will turn out to be a very bad thing.



http://current.com/1kf8okc

6 Technologies for Dehumanising War

Aerial Drones: Surveillance drones and weaponized drones have taken center stage, bringing death from above via remote control, often from thousands of miles away. The video game culture surely has lent a hand in creating the disconnect from buttons pushed and real lives lost. The latest offering are backpack-sized suicide drones that can fly autonomously, or via remote control.

Robots and Unmanned Ground Vehicles: Human troops on the ground already have partnered with thousands of robots to secure roadside bombs, conduct surveillance missions, and serve as battle-ready auxiliaries or autonomous agents. Unmanned tank turrets have been introduced to strafe the enemy, as well as an assortment of vehicles and even navy vessels to patrol the seas without on-board operators.

Cargo delivery: Lockheed Martin has just announced a resounding success with their K-MAX system of ?autonomous and remote control? helicopters that can re-supply troops. This cargo delivery system could potentially merge with robotic forces on the ground, completely eliminating the need for humans on either end.

Nanotech: The miniaturization of drones seems to have no end. Literal swarms of cyborg insects can surveil the most impenetrable locations. With President Obama?s 2011 Nanotechnology Initiative (pdf) having been fully funded, this has been signed on as the future of non-human war. DARPA has tested nano-enhanced hybrids for body and vehicle armor, paving the way for the likelihood of full-fledged human augmentation to merge nature and machine.

Cyborgs: Modern science has merged with the unending military budget to make the cyborgs of science fiction a near-term reality. Insect cyborgs are well-established as a recognizance tool, while Bullet-proof skin will augment any humans that might be left on the battlefield. Human augmentation has reached a new level with the XOS exo-skeleton that creates a real-world Iron Man with superhuman strength and abilities. Augmented Cognition Technology programs have been spearheaded by defense contracting giant Honeywell, which offers a full-spectrum computer-body interface to analyze and potentially program soldiers? physical and mental states via computer.

Computers and Cyberwar: The merging of the virtual landscape with the real is where humans could become redundant. The Department of Defense and Homeland Security have made it clear that cyber terrorism is the next great threat. Furthermore, they have announced that the cyber battlefield will be a representation of the real one, with computer attacks prompting real-world response. This could be the last step of full integration, as computers and communications networks connect in one overall web of attack and response ? with humanity left only to wonder how things could have spiraled so far out of control. Are we facing future wars conducted only between drones? How long before their autonomous capabilities go too far?

The benefit is you don't have a pilot who may have issues about bombing a school. A problem you don't have when someone like Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld has his finger on the button in a Pentagon control room.

doesn't seem to be much of a problem :disgust

however it was interesting reading about how many canadian 'non completed sorties', cause, from what i interpreted, pilots were refusing to fire

While I'm not knocking the skill of pilots of any nation... The only way to take down an aircraft is either by air to air missile or ground to air missile. Take out the command and control and the defender cannot use either.

You have that backwards. We have issues with dropping bombs on schools, etc, while the other side intentionally uses them to hide in.

The technology being applied to warfare today is beyond frightening.

We will get to a point where one man will issue a command, and thousands of unmanned fighters and bombers automatically lift off, travel half way around the world, seek out targets, attack, return and refuel, and continue to patrol a country's airspace for months until all targets are destroyed....

That's some scary shit - and we might just see it in our lifetime.

Do you mean "lend lease"? I have no idea what Stalin did, but I was learning about it when I was a soviet schoolboy. And yes, the USA don't just simple "helped" Russia with the weapon etc. They just did their business on that war and supplied everything in exchange for gold.

When exactly the second front was opened? Where the Soviet army was at that times?

yea i am inclined to agree.

and with this development:

http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/...s-into-effect/

yes. scary shit.

You are, and a very brainwashed ones if you consider the successful manned Moon landing as winning of the whole space race.

Not mine (I wasn't even born at that times). However it's better to kill a dog (actually I love dogs a lot because they our best friends) rather to fry a whole shuttle crew (or even two of 'em) :2 cents:

isn't that what happened every time the russians tried to get people through the belt?

not much of a tease..

Didn't get it. Sorry.

'or even two of em'

that was a dig at blown up shuttles yes?

Russians, trying to get astronauts through the van allen belt, fried at least 3 crews :2 cents:

Really? Any sources?

http://static.neatoshop.com/images/p...3-l.jpg?v=4733

sure, lets play

the first person who comes up with a government issued detailed report on failure outta the USSR wins

you go first.

There's a documentary called 'The Truth About Killing' (actually it's on Youtube, I may watch it again) which is about how, in the wake of the Vietnam war, the US military (successfully) attempted to stamp out soldiers' normal, innate aversion to killing other people.

Apparently in the Vietnam war, WWII and other prior wars, something like 90% (or some equally surprising number) of soldiers either didn't shoot or deliberately missed the enemy.

Whereas we bravely stay in subs and drone operations rooms thousand of miles away.

Out of curiosity, where would you stand if you were resisting a powerful enemy that invaded the US? The middle of a parking lot?

And it becomes self-aware 2:14 am Eastern time, August 29th. :winkwink: Not sure which year.

Probably murdering officers at Katyn, Poland, which you invaded with your Nazi allies.

Whaaaat??? :upsidedow

yea i was reading about that.. came across this:

http://www.historynet.com/men-agains...ietnam-war.htm

which talks about that entire theory and its source.. still, the 'after interviews' of this article writer still claims that 20% don't fire