Military Discussion Thread

[cjsoques 0]

Hi all

The vehicle is not visible in the area until some time after the event check the video if you want DM.

That he was driving his children to school is also available in various news out lets and linked on the site where the original video is posted.

Oh and please do not try to hide a bad argument behind a faux national umbrage at a nonexistent slur, I did not say anything to imply a nation was evil anywhere in this thread.

Being professional requires you to be professional at all times, kind of inherent in the concept of professional. Either way shooting the wounded and those rendering aid to the wounded does not qualify as professional even for half blind 1% professional soldier for 1% of the time.

I think US soldiers in general are considerably more than 1% professional more than 1% of the time; of course if you want to dispute that with me, by all means do so DM.

Kind Regards walker

Walker you have no source stating the fact that this van was completely innoncent.

Read the military report I said. They never mentioned anything you say about the van being kids going to school. Find the reference where you found this information.

The report also mentioned that the ground troops were under constant fire (throughout the entire engagement 1000 to 1330 or so)...even while investigating the bodies after the Apache attack. The apache attack was only one small part of the engagement in the area.

If you are only going off of the wikileaks video and site you are going off of heavily biased information that is cleaned and edited to see it a certain way.

Read the report.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Can one be sure that soldiers are doing the right thing - everywhere?

McChrystal reins in night raids

NATO admits Killing Afghan Woman

[walker 0]

Hi cjsoques

The video I have been watching is the unedited original supplied to wikileaks, not the shortened version on wikileaks own site or any of the seriously cut and edited media versions. So far it is the most complete video on which one can make any analysis or conclusions. It is the extended version from which the transcript of the coms was taken and on that same site.

If the Pentagon wished to release a more complete version it can. Reuters asked them to do so. So far the Pentagon has refused.

In either case I have seen no evidence what so ever to suggest the father of the children was doing anything other than driving his children to school. And AFAIK all available video does not show the vehicle present until it stops to help pick up the wounded.

As to the interview with the family of the children confirming the father was driving the children to school it is now on many news media sites, New York Times good enough for you?

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/wikileaks-defends-release-of-video-showing-killing-of-journalists-in-iraq/

Bottom Video 51 seconds in read the text.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 7, 2010 by walker

[Tonci87 163]

Who can Tell that the Van was not innocent? Me personally didn´t see a Weapon in the Drivers Hands, or him picking up Weapons or something. He only tried to help the wounded Man on the Ground, something wich is truly honourfull and brave. The Apache Crew did the right Thing when firing at the Crowd, but they F*** up pretty bad when they fired at the van because it COULD be someone who`s coming to pick up Weapons and Bodies. If this is allright to you, then I suggest the US to Bomb whole Bagdad to pieces, because there COULD be a Weapon in each House.

The other Apache Crew didn´t behave any better, they fired at a badly wounded Person that was already unable to do any harm to someone. I would still like to see their recording of the Situation

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I´m sure you all herad of the Video released on Wikileak showing the Apaches killing two reporters and some civilians. The Threads about it were closed but I would like to know your point of View. What do you think? Did the Apache Crews what they were supposed to do, or did they any Mistakes?

The link to said video - Collateral Murder -

Quite an interesting situation here, considering who Reutrers & AP are. The list keeps building up: perhaps the ones on this list will be tried in a some UN court like in 1945 by the time Mr. President of the United States Barack Obama finishes with the planned 'change', or maybe the US military will be involved in some violent uprising on home soil, but that would be an ideal scenario for people looking to integrate the US into a Global system of governance.

I refrain from commenting further, knowing that it would get me banned here. Definition of here: 'a forum of people that serve the King and Country, loyally, forever; even when their 401k is stolen & the Treasury is looted.".

P.S. I've noticed that a thread was closed bearing the name of the video, original post edited, possibly containing the above mentioned URL to Youtube with the video. (I have to sacrifice some dignity to get a few messages across, URL removed - Google it) If the link gets me banned, so be it - it only reinforces the definition of here even more. I humbly ask that you only edit the link and leave my post intact. Thank you.

Ever wonder why Youtube will not remove videos like that mentioned above? Hmmm...HMM? I kid, I kid; look back on Nuremberg Trials. Go GOOGLE!

Edited April 8, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[HyperU2 11]

Even if you feel the soldiers in the video acted wrongly, it's hard to take you serious when you blame it on tyrannical imperialism. It's one incident, by less than 1%. They still looked to me like a more legitimate target than the 100 killed in Baghdad last week that no one is crying about.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

...a more legitimate target than the 100 killed in Baghdad last week that no one is crying about.

That is the problem.

There were no accusations of imperialism in my post. We acknowledge the work the US is doing and respect our humble servant with it's ability to project force anywhere on the Planet.

But then there comes a time when lives will have to be restored; they will want blood and post-war rebuilding of Iraq hasn't even begun yet, if you get my drift.

---------- Post added at 03:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 AM ----------

Even if you feel the soldiers in the video acted wrongly

There will be no space for emotions in a Court of Law. The immunity that US personnel currently enjoy will not last forever, do you really think there will be no consequences?

Edited April 8, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[cjsoques 0]

Hi cjsoques

The video I have been watching is the unedited original supplied to wikileaks, not the shortened version on wikileaks own site or any of the seriously cut and edited media versions. So far it is the most complete video on which one can make any analysis or conclusions. It is the extended version from which the transcript of the coms was taken and on that same site.

If the Pentagon wished to release a more complete version it can. Reuters asked them to do so. So far the Pentagon has refused.

In either case I have seen no evidence what so ever to suggest the father of the children was doing anything other than driving his children to school. And AFAIK all available video does not show the vehicle present until it stops to help pick up the wounded.

As to the interview with the family of the children confirming the father was driving the children to school it is now on many news media sites, New York Times good enough for you?

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/wikileaks-defends-release-of-video-showing-killing-of-journalists-in-iraq/

Bottom Video 51 seconds in read the text.

Kind Regards walker

You should not state things as fact when they are not...if you don't have a source knowing that this guy was simply not an insurgent with kids (insurgents can have kids you know) and not an innocent bystander trying to help. Like I said they don't have rules, they would bring children to a warzone...and this was a well established warzone by this time.

If you don't have a source stating this was a civilian taking children to school...why didn't they stay home from school in a warzone?? who goes to school at a 11am?? Like I said you shouldn't make things up that aren't there unless you have a source.

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

For me the movie that got released about the apache shooting(old footage btw) It speaks for itself, there is not a single weapon in any frames(only unarmed ppl) and 2 journalist how ones they got in the screen they become the main target to the apache crew and they did every thing to kill them and destroy there equipment (press was free game during war and occupation off Iraq)

and there are tons off other pics and report where countless unarmed and innocent ppl got shot to pieces for nothing, because couple off grunts got scared and started to shoot at evey thing that moved(ppl,donkey's,dogs,...)

And we can go on and on about this.

Think its good to see footage like this got out insted off beeing trown in a big vault with the other secrets:D

just my 5 cent

[dm 9]

there is not a single weapon in any frames(only unarmed ppl) and 2 journalist how ones they got in the screen they become the main target to the apache crew and they did every thing to kill them and destroy there equipment (press was free game during war and occupation off Iraq)

Got any sources for that press comment? Or are you just making shit up?

I know that ~140 journalists of various nationalities have died in the middle east since 2001. They have been killed by both sides in equal measure. But thats the risk you take when you go to a war zone and actively seek out the fighting...

Edit: this whole topics of journalists being killed, the evil ah-merrikun empire and what not is REALLY more suited for the other more related threads

Middle East thread 1

Middle East thread 2

Take your pick...

Edited April 8, 2010 by DM

[Placebo 28]

For me the movie that got released about the apache shooting(old footage btw) It speaks for itself, there is not a single weapon in any frames(only unarmed ppl) and 2 journalist how ones they got in the screen they become the main target to the apache crew and they did every thing to kill them and destroy there equipment (press was free game during war and occupation off Iraq)

and there are tons off other pics and report where countless unarmed and innocent ppl got shot to pieces for nothing, because couple off grunts got scared and started to shoot at evey thing that moved(ppl,donkey's,dogs,...)

And we can go on and on about this.

Think its good to see footage like this got out insted off beeing trown in a big vault with the other secrets:D

just my 5 cent

Nowt to do with this topic though so please drop it or move to another thread.

[Tonci87 163]

Sorry Placebo, this got really OT. My intential question which I should have made clearer was if the military, in this case the US, should shoot on unarmed and or wounded people, and If Yes, under which circumstances. I think thats not Offtopic? Otherwise this Thread would be only good for who has the best Tank Discussions^^

[LoLL 10]

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which tank is the baddest of them all? This is a question that will touch off a major debate, particularly when one compares two tanks head-to-head. The latest such matchup is the 50-ton T-95, which is in development in Russia, versus the M1A2 Abrams, the front-line tank of the United States Army.

The T-95 is a new design. It will apparently carry a 152mm gun/missile launcher in a new turret designed to lower the silhouette even more than the current low slung T-72 series of tanks. The main gun will carry more of a punch than the 125mm gun used on current Russian tanks. This is a result of lessons learned from Desert Storm, when 125mm armor-piercing rounds bounced off M1A1 Abrams tanks, even when fired from as close as 400 meters. The other major advance will include systems designed to decoy anti-tank missiles (like the Hellfire, Javelin, and TOW). The goal is to jam the sighting systems and to confuse the aim. This also is intended to work against the sighting system for tank guns. Tanks often spend time fighting each other, and their sights work much like the sights used to target and guide anti-tank missiles. The real question is whether the T-95 will see production beyond a few prototypes. Its main competitor, the T-80UM2 ?Black Eagle,? has the advantage of being cheaper and an upgrade of the T-80, which is currently in service. The T-95 will need time to have all the kinks worked out of its design. Much of that has already been done with the basic design of the T-80, and the ?Black Eagle? will not need as much time to be ready for deployment. The T-95 has improved crew survivability over the T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks that the Russians currently use, but that is really not saying much, given the fact that the T-72 and its successors provided practically nothing in that area.

That said, the Americans have not stood pat with the M1A1. The 69-ton M1A2 is nearing ten years old. Its major changes are not in terms of the weapons (it maintains the same weapons as the M1A1: a 120mm main gun, a 12.7mm gun for the commander, and two 7.62mm machine guns ? one coaxial with the main gun, the other mounted on the loader?s hatch), but instead, the M1A2 is designed to exchange information with other vehicles faster through IVIS (Inter-Vehicle Information System). IVIS would allow a tank crew to find out what other tank crews are seeing, and to tell those other crews what they see, but troops have reportedly found it to be inconvenient. As a result, crews of the M1A2 will have a clearer picture of the battlefield than their opponents in other tanks when IVIS is used. That pays dividends. Having a good gun is nice, but you have to know where to point it. The American crews will know faster than their opponents due to IVIS. That means they are more likely to get in the first shot. The fire-control system remains perhaps the best in the world. When an Abrams fires at a target, it is probably going to hit the target. The results will usually be fatal to its target.

The technical specifications do not tell the whole story. The real difference is made in crew quality ? and American tank crews have the decided edge over their counterparts in other countries. This is due to two factors: Combat experience in two wars since 1990, and much better training, most notably at the National Training Center. The former is arguably the best teacher in the world. It brutally shows what was done right and wrong, and grading is not on a curve. The latter is the toughest training regime in the world ? often American combat veterans have compared fighting in Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom to the NTC, with the caveat that the Iraqis weren?t as good as the OPFOR (the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment). Training at home bases (American tank crews fire about 100 rounds per year, in addition to demonstrations and NTC rotations) and the constant use of simulators add to the American edge in training.

The T-95, should it enter service, might have a better gun and could exceed the M1A2's 429-kilometer range (Russian tanks usually have a range of 550-650 kilometers when equipped with extra fuel tanks), but the M1A2 is superior in most other aspects by which a tank is judged, particularly in fire control, crew survivability, the IVIS system (when used), and since it is already in service. It might cost $4.3 million per tank when compared to the $1.8 million Pakistan paid for each of the 320 T-80UDs Pakistan bought from the Ukraine, but the U.S. Army, in battles like 73 Easting (where the M1A1HA-equipped Eagle Troop of the 2nd ACR under H.R. McMaster, with other units, defeated elements of the Tawakalna Division) during Desert Storm, has proven that the M1 series of tanks can win when badly outnumbered. The M1A2 still rules the battlefield, and will for the foreseeable future.

New Russian tank is coming!

[riffleman 20]

Indian Arjun tank which is based on T90 have some features of abrham.

One intresting thing india armor crew try to show some defects in T90 by damaging its gear box etc in trial.reports said that some officers of armor unit have link with western tank makers.

[HyperU2 11]

Osprey down. Never liked these things.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100409/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrest_20100409094358

[riffleman 20]

The crash means that 151 foreign troops have now died in Afghanistan this year

hurting NATO this very much.

[dm 9]

Osprey down. Never liked these things.

Maybe they'll nickname it like the blackhawk, and start calling it the crashprey? :D

Edited April 10, 2010 by DM

[Tonci87 163]

The Osprey has actually a very cool concept behind it, the only need to work on it more. They crash way to easy as they are now.

[Baff1 0]

Here's the promotional video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqwMzQiXlK0

<object width="660" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqwMzQiXlK0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqwMzQiXlK0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object>

Here's the news story.

"A powerful cruise missile that can launched from a shipping container has been offered for sale by a Russian company, raising fears of ballistic weapons infiltration.

Called the Club - K container missile system, the weapon can be loaded onto a lorry, ship, or train and moved into position before launching it, The Telegraph reported Monday.

It is designed to be hidden as a standard 40 feet shipping container that cannot be identified until it is activated and experts fear that the missile attack system could change the game in wars.

Costing an estimated 10 million pounds, each container is fitted with four cruise anti-ship or land attack missiles and the system represents an affordable 'strategic level weapon', the media report said.

Iran and Venezuela have reportedly evinced interest in the deadly weapon.

The missile is being marketed at the Defence Services Asia exhibition in Malaysia this week by its manufacturer, Novator.

The Russian firm has released a dramatic marketing film, which shows Club-K containers placed on ships, trucks and trains as a neighbouring country prepares to invade. The enemy is beaten back by the cruise missile counter attack.

'This Club-K is game changing with the ability to wipe out an aircraft carrier 200 miles away. The threat is immense in that no one can tell how far deployed your missiles could be,' The Telegraph quoted Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, as saying.

'What alerted me to this was that the Russians were advertising it at specific international defence event and they have marketed it very squarely at anyone under threat of action from the US.'

Reuben Johnson, a Pentagon defence consultant, said 'you cannot readily identify what's being used as a launcher because it's very carefully disguised'.

'Someone could sail off your shore looking innocuous then the next minute big explosions are going off at your military installations.'

http://sify.com/news/now-a-missile-in-shipping-box-on-sale-news-international-ke0lucaebae.html

[icebreakr 3107]

Container on an US-made Mack truck... lovely CGI :)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Shouldnt this go here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=96855 ?

btw this missile system isnt a brand new system like some news describe it. ;)

[maturin 12]

Soundtrack is... 'Born Free, as Free as the Wind Blows' and 'Pirates of the Carribean?'

Really Ruski?

Edited April 27, 2010 by maturin

[TangoRomeo 10]

Even if you feel the soldiers in the video acted wrongly ...

Then why the cover-up? To me the whole incident looks and reads like it least required a gunship crewed by 2 overambitious blokes. Also read: An Open Letter of Reconciliation and Responsibility

I salute these guys as much as the people who stepped up to speak the truth about Haditha, Abu Ghraib or Tillmanns death ...

[BronzeEagle 2]

sorry to go offtopic but don't you guys think in this war in afghanistan it would be wise for allied forces to use spec ops to locate enemy encampments then not only have them begin the attack but also call in conventional forces to back them up and im not just talking artillery i mean boots on the ground quick response forces like airborne, etc. im not sure about reports but im not hearing enough about this tactic. just wanted to spread the word.

[*LK1* 10]

Osprey down. Never liked these things.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100409/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrest_20100409094358

osprey looks like a big expensive not very usefull project.AKA wast of money..