Weapons and Warfare

[Sonic Glitch]

And how're we doing with those?

How often do you hear of Iraq these days? The place isn't fixed, and won't be for years to come, but compared with a few years ago it's remarkably calm. Afghanistan is another matter, partially because of the sheer numbers that would be required to secure the country properly, partially because the insurgents are even more effective (both in terms of equipment and ability) than Iraq (unsurprising, given that they've been in a near-constant state of war for thirty years). Nonetheless, the basic principles remain the same, and if the numpty you elected doesn't do something stupid (such as withdrawing before the ANA is in a position to take over), the campaign is winnable.

Honestly, ti seems like Afghanistan takes the place of the Forgotten War in our media. I don't know about others on the board spread throughout the U.S. but I hear much more about Iraq than I do about Afghanistan. I'm not saying that's the way it should be but that seems to be where our focus is, despite the fact that right now the harder fight is in Afghanistan.

[Lighthawk]

New Topic: Flame throwers. While they certainly rank high on the awesome scale, they don't seem to be very practical as far as being true weapons of war. Bulky, heavy, short ranged, is there anything that really makes these worthwhile for an modern army to have?

[Mikey]

Two things: 1) fear factor. Fear of fire is primal and innate. 2) At the time of their greatest use (late WWII) there was no better man-pack weapon for use against covered or hardened positions.

[Tsukiyumi]

They also still work well against assh*les in caves.

[Reliant121]

Burning jungles is probably beneficial to prevent tropical guerilla warfare.

[kostmayer]

They're great for cooking steaks too.

"I want mine rare - rare but not bloody"

[Captain Seafort]

Burning jungles is probably beneficial to give the enemy a million new recruits for tropical guerilla warfare.

Fixed for you. Large scale use of napalm (flamethrowers would be ridiculously ineffective on the scales you're talking about) is not the best tactic to win friends and influence people.

[Tsukiyumi]

They're great for cooking steaks too.

"I want mine rare - rare but not bloody"

[Reliant121]

Burning jungles is probably beneficial to give the enemy a million new recruits for tropical guerilla warfare.

Fixed for you. Large scale use of napalm (flamethrowers would be ridiculously ineffective on the scales you're talking about) is not the best tactic to win friends and influence people.

Who needs friends

[Captain Seafort]

Who needs friends

Anyone who wants a hope in hell of winning a guerilla war - unless the locals are on your side you will lose.

[Reliant121]

Of course, I meant it in jest.

[Mikey]

What do you mean, Seafort? It worked so well for us in 'Nam!

[Tyyr]

Given modern sensibilities I don't think you'll find anyone pushing their use too hard. Especially since the job they were best at, bunker killing, has pretty much been taken over by man portable missiles and rockets which are a hell of a lot safer.

[Mikey]

That's why I said "at the time of their greatest use." During island-hopping, every landing squad of devil dogs had a flame trooper to deal with pillboxes and bunkers. Now, with easily portable anti-installation rockets and missiles, the limited range and exposure of the user of a flamethrower isn't neccesary. Hell, even the old warhorse Carl Gustav (still in use by the Rangers, BTW) comes with an anti-installation round now.

[Captain Seafort]

Given modern sensibilities I don't think you'll find anyone pushing their use too hard. Especially since the job they were best at, bunker killing, has pretty much been taken over by man portable missiles and rockets which are a hell of a lot safer.

They're also a lot less effective, as they only knock out the bunkers they hit. A Crocodile would neutralise every bunker in sight.