RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-28-2011, 09:49 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Yup! It's been said that the US Army fights better at night than during the day.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-28-2011, 12:28 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
Yup! It's been said that the US Army fights better at night than during the day.
We used to say that even back when I was in in the 82nd -- "We own the night." And we didn't have as many NODs as they have now.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-28-2011, 03:26 PM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Yeah and where were the elbow and knee pads back in the day...lol Let alone the body armor or the optics. Also back then Molle gear was still in the testing phase. Special Forces, Rangers, 1st Cavalry and other selected units were testing it. We still had the old Y and H harness.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-28-2011, 03:58 PM
Rockwolf66's Avatar
Rockwolf66 Rockwolf66 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 288
Default

very impressive list.

Mind if i post it on another forum?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-28-2011, 11:10 PM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

The unfortunate part is that a portion of that stuff is actually junk that any Joe who's serious about kit and functionality has to replace out of their own pocket because the procurement dolts strike out again and again on the best tool for the job.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2011, 08:54 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwolf66 View Post
very impressive list.

Mind if i post it on another forum?
Not a problem, the source is the 28 February 2011 issue of the Army Times.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-01-2011, 08:59 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull View Post
Yeah and where were the elbow and knee pads back in the day...lol Let alone the body armor or the optics. Also back then Molle gear was still in the testing phase. Special Forces, Rangers, 1st Cavalry and other selected units were testing it. We still had the old Y and H harness.
Started out with ALICE, then came the LLBLV, the Ranger Vests, those knock offs of Israeli webbing, MOLLE was just coming into service when I medicaled out...And 30 years later, still have 3 duffel bags of TA-50 that have seen more use camping and hunting!

Elbow and kee pads...I still shake my head over those. Didn't have it in the day, didn't need it. Men were Men and Real Men Drank the Blood of Their Enemies in Lou of Lifer Juice!!!!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-01-2011, 09:09 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Here are some of the latest items from the 2011 Military Budget:

$733 million for the purchase of 100 Stryker NBC-Recon variants...got to get ride of the M-93! Not Purchased Here! Has it occurred to anyone else, that like cockroaches, Strykers are breeding faster than they can be killed off?

$14 million for the midlife service extension program for the Stinger MANPADs.

$884 million for the Ground Combat Vehicle, this is the replacement vehicle for the M-113.

$1.4 billion for the CH-47F, purchase of 47 ac.

$1.5 billion for the UH-60M, purchase of 71 ac.

An item of intrest is the decision to purchase 9,212 AN/PPS-26 Detectors. These are designed to detect a human target through up to 8 inches of abode walls or other barriers. Scale of issue is to be one per rifle squad. Hmmmm.

The Army is also planning to spend several millions in R&D to develop a new series of ultra-lightweight rechargable batteries...
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-05-2011, 01:08 PM
Abbott Shaull Abbott Shaull is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere in the Eastern U.P. on the edge of Civilization.
Posts: 1,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
Here are some of the latest items from the 2011 Military Budget:

$733 million for the purchase of 100 Stryker NBC-Recon variants...got to get ride of the M-93! Not Purchased Here! Has it occurred to anyone else, that like cockroaches, Strykers are breeding faster than they can be killed off?

$884 million for the Ground Combat Vehicle, this is the replacement vehicle for the M-113.

$1.4 billion for the CH-47F, purchase of 47 ac.

The Army is also planning to spend several millions in R&D to develop a new series of ultra-lightweight rechargable batteries...
Gee they still making CH-47 thought production was done.

Replacing the M-113 don't think this will happen in our lifetime. One of those things when you build a purpose.

Uhm... Stryker seems to be only the contender in the last 50 years that can replace the M-113 series of family.

Wow they need these batteries since when and they have had the technology to research it since when, and they are now only looking for it to be developed.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-05-2011, 03:31 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull View Post
Gee they still making CH-47 thought production was done.
These are supposed to be the first totally new Chinook air frames for the US Army in 20 years....

Quote:
Replacing the M-113 don't think this will happen in our lifetime. One of those things when you build a purpose.
Who would ever have thought that this day would come. Almost 45 years of M-113 service; almost as good as the ole Sherman!


Quote:
Wow they need these batteries since when and they have had the technology to research it since when, and they are now only looking for it to be developed.
We've needed lightweight, rechargable batteries for several dozen years now. Guess it took $2.5 million and a year for some thinktank on the ole Parkway to decide that lightweight, rechargable batteries may be a good idea.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-05-2011, 04:26 PM
Panther Al's Avatar
Panther Al Panther Al is offline
Sabre Ready!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DC Area
Posts: 849
Send a message via AIM to Panther Al
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post

$884 million for the Ground Combat Vehicle, this is the replacement vehicle for the M-113.

$1.4 billion for the CH-47F, purchase of 47 ac.

$1.5 billion for the UH-60M, purchase of 71 ac.
OK, Question one: Do they have a replacement lined up, or is this research into finding one for the M113?
Question two: Does this mean the old adage of if it doens't leak, don't fly in it, will no longer be a indicator of the safety of the Sh!thook?
And three, So... these won't get the name of CrashHawk one hopes?
__________________
Member of the Bofors fan club! The M1911 of automatic cannon.

Proud fan(atic) of the CV90 Series.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-05-2011, 04:56 PM
HorseSoldier HorseSoldier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 846
Default

Research on.

The Ground Combat Vehicle program replaced the Future Combat System program, with a replacement for the M113 being its first milestone goal. They haven't got to the prototype stage yet.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-06-2011, 07:33 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther Al View Post
OK, Question one: Do they have a replacement lined up, or is this research into finding one for the M113?
Question two: Does this mean the old adage of if it doens't leak, don't fly in it, will no longer be a indicator of the safety of the Sh!thook?
And three, So... these won't get the name of CrashHawk one hopes?
According to the article, they actually got rid of one of the three emergency flight backups....just think! A Chinook without leaks...think of all the savings since the crew chiefs will no longer need to carry a case of hydralic juice on every flight!
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.