Originally Posted by
Like-minded
Never seen more bollocks here
True
for air-to-air and you don't need that big rounds to destroy an aircraft
fighter jets due to their speed and high rate of fire can only achieve a small blast radius and is more suitable to buildings and general area suppression than anti-infantry.
HE rounds are an effective prophylactic instrument against personnel in the open - it sends them to ground. Unfortunately an estimated 10% failure rate creates a high EOD hazard to subsequent friendly movement. For this reason, amongst others, there is a move towards kinetic energy munitions, ie tungsten-nylon rather than HE.
cluster munitions and it’s a shame we’re dispensing with them now
but we are doing so for the same reasons we are switching from HE.
F-16 and its accuracy is many times worse off than the oldest PGM
Not from where I stand.
Furthermore you're restricted to weather conditions and certain flight profiles.
True.
If the GR9 is doing well, American air wouldn't have to pick up the burden all the time.
Nonsense, this is a numbers issue not an effectiveness one.
Face it, Europe is so risk averse (look at your economy and cradle to grave welfare) and so casualties averse (NATO yuks) that America firepower, aggression and leadership is just something you'll have to accept.
Actually it is US Forces that are historically risk averse. This dates from the War of Northern Aggression or Civil War when there was enormous slaughter on both sides. From then on the US sought a technical solution to military issues.
This was reinforced in the 1917-1918 war when having watched the European armies slaughter each other they chose a less risky path (very sensibly). Maybe the 1914-1919 war in Europe has something to do with being risk averse.
In the 1941-1945 war the US again used technological muscle and out produced the enemy in tanks, aircraft, ships and fuel. I acknowledge the war was bloody and boots on the ground were also provided in great numbers.
The Indo-China conflict was again costly in men but it also led to many technological attempts to solve the problem - Agent Orange for instance.
And btw, when is the British military going to learn new methods of fighting war? I see your infantry still walking around everywhere.
We have mechanised infantry and light infantry. They both have their uses. I am sure many US units are also not dependent on mechanisation.
Korea was a victory.
No it wasn't. It was not a defeat and it is not over, it is actually an armistice truce in 1953. It is called the war that never ended. If it hasn't ended you cannot have won.
Iraq, if you're reading the news, is a victory.
Moot point.
I don't see how we can lose Afghanistan either.
The only country to date that has won a war in Afghansitan is Afghanistan. What criteria will be used to judge 'end' and 'victory'?
BA (Hons) History