A "Gun Martial Art"?

[CuongNhuka]

Actually I've heard of our military practicing shooting the canopy of enemy fighters while they are still on the air strip using snipers. The snipers would get withing range (.338 Laupa and .50s will do that) and wait till our attacking aircraft are geting near, but before they can scramble. Then hit the canopy's to disable the defending force till the air assault hits. After than turn the guns on the SAMs to interfear with them.

So yes, there are ways for rifles to give a modern force problems. But I just doubt the terrorist in Afghanistan have the methods to deal with UAVs, laser and GPS guided munitions, spy satelites, NVDs, and all the goodies we have and are thinking up now. See, some of the newist UAVs are the size of the mouse you use on your PC! Even have a bomb built in if desired.

And guys, any of you ever hear of a UAV aircraft carrier? That is a small 1000 ton ship with purely UAVs? I suspect this will be the way to deal with pirates soon, and maybe Taliban, from affair. The 'pilots' will be munching cheesburgers back in Houston while flying over Afghanistain, or Somali.

Yes we can outlast them if we play it right. I remember Admiral Zumwalt, back in the '60s, told the president to NOT go in land heavy (that is grunts on the ground) but to go in sea and air heavy. Of course LBJ did the opposite, and learned, at great cost, we can't keep that up for ever. It got to where we were loosing over 100 GI's a day.

We have done very very well in Iraq for what it cost us. Way less than any other war. But we can and should improve.

So don't be suprised if one day the 'Terminator' is no joke.

Deaf

The problem is, only a person who is there seeing what is going on can tell what to do. So, Arti and Naval Guns are of limited use in this kind of war (a mainly MOUT and/or hit-n-run battles). A pilot can only do so much. I said it some were earlier, but one of my combat instructors told us a US Airforce pilot hit a Marine tank during the 1st Gulf War because the nuckle head thought it was a Russian tank! An overhead view is limiting.

A mouse-sized UAV is cool, but it's.... well, it's stupid. In a sense. I'm geussing it would come with regular and infared sights in atleast three directions (forward, down, and back), with some form of sound transmission, and probably some awe-inspiring range. I'm geussing it's also wildly expensive to make, maintain and operate (imagine the cost of a battery pack for that thing). There's probably also a delay from when something happens near the machine and when the pilot back in Offut Airforce Base finds out about it. And I'm sure there are ways to jam it's transmissions (copper wire jams cell phone signels, and might do something similar with a UAV communications). A UAV is a great tool, don't get me wrong, but the chances of it, or anything else, replacing guys in the feild completly.... well, I just don't see it happening in my life time. It's be awesome if it did though.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Actually I've heard of our military practicing shooting the canopy of enemy fighters while they are still on the air strip using snipers. The snipers would get withing range (.338 Laupa and .50s will do that) and wait till our attacking aircraft are geting near, but before they can scramble. Then hit the canopy's to disable the defending force till the air assault hits. After than turn the guns on the SAMs to interfear with them.

So yes, there are ways for rifles to give a modern force problems. But I just doubt the terrorist in Afghanistan have the methods to deal with UAVs, laser and GPS guided munitions, spy satelites, NVDs, and all the goodies we have and are thinking up now. See, some of the newist UAVs are the size of the mouse you use on your PC! Even have a bomb built in if desired.

And guys, any of you ever hear of a UAV aircraft carrier? That is a small 1000 ton ship with purely UAVs? I suspect this will be the way to deal with pirates soon, and maybe Taliban, from affair. The 'pilots' will be munching cheesburgers back in Houston while flying over Afghanistain, or Somali.

Yes we can outlast them if we play it right. I remember Admiral Zumwalt, back in the '60s, told the president to NOT go in land heavy (that is grunts on the ground) but to go in sea and air heavy. Of course LBJ did the opposite, and learned, at great cost, we can't keep that up for ever. It got to where we were loosing over 100 GI's a day.

We have done very very well in Iraq for what it cost us. Way less than any other war. But we can and should improve.

So don't be suprised if one day the 'Terminator' is no joke.

Deaf

We can't outlast them.......we lack the cultural attention span to outlast them. If it takes more than a TV season to resolve a complex situation in America, we think someone has screwed up. Decades? What the hell is that?

We are technology heavy as a nation, and we rely too much on it. We think we can create a techno-marvel to deal with every problem.....F-22's, UAV's, the next new super-widget........those things are great, but ultimately wars are not won that way.

Wars are won by will........and as long as our enemy believes all he has to do is outlast the current administration, we're always behind the power curve.

 

[searcher]

And guys, any of you ever hear of a UAV aircraft carrier? That is a small 1000 ton ship with purely UAVs? I suspect this will be the way to deal with pirates soon, and maybe Taliban, from affair. The 'pilots' will be munching cheesburgers back in Houston while flying over Afghanistain, or Somali.

Deaf

The way to deal with the Taliban is Tactical Nuclear Weapons. I knwo that it might be considered a little over the top, but it would save American lives. And with controlled payloads, it would minimize collateral damage.


And while I am at it, remember what happened when the Terminators were created.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The problem is, only a person who is there seeing what is going on can tell what to do. So, Arti and Naval Guns are of limited use in this kind of war (a mainly MOUT and/or hit-n-run battles). A pilot can only do so much. I said it some were earlier, but one of my combat instructors told us a US Airforce pilot hit a Marine tank during the 1st Gulf War because the nuckle head thought it was a Russian tank! An overhead view is limiting.

A mouse-sized UAV is cool, but it's.... well, it's stupid. In a sense. I'm geussing it would come with regular and infared sights in atleast three directions (forward, down, and back), with some form of sound transmission, and probably some awe-inspiring range. I'm geussing it's also wildly expensive to make, maintain and operate (imagine the cost of a battery pack for that thing). There's probably also a delay from when something happens near the machine and when the pilot back in Offut Airforce Base finds out about it. And I'm sure there are ways to jam it's transmissions (copper wire jams cell phone signels, and might do something similar with a UAV communications). A UAV is a great tool, don't get me wrong, but the chances of it, or anything else, replacing guys in the feild completly.... well, I just don't see it happening in my life time. It's be awesome if it did though.

What success has been gained in Afghanistan and Iraq have been low-key, small unit operations. This is a 4GW conflict that can't be won with 500 pound bombs. There is much truth in the notion that ever dead non-combatant killed as the result of collateral damage creates 10 insurgents.

But the military has done a wonderful job adapting to that reality in the past couple of years, and using tactics that work to fight this kind of conflict. Ultimately, though, I still don't believe we have the political will to sustain it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The way to deal with the Taliban is Tactical Nuclear Weapons. I knwo that it might be considered a little over the top, but it would save American lives. And with controlled payloads, it would minimize collateral damage.


And while I am at it, remember what happened when the Terminators were created.

Tactical Nuclear Weapons to deal with the Taliban is like burning your house down to cure a roach problem. Such things are a visceral joy to say, but they really don't make sense in practice.

Moreover, you have 1 Billion Muslims on the planet, with 10 percent qualifying as 'fundamentalists'.......drop a nuclear device in such a conflict on a Muslim population and you've just declared war on the entire religion.......and created sympathy and support for them from Russia and China.

 

[MBuzzy]

The problem is, only a person who is there seeing what is going on can tell what to do.

Fortunately, that is no longer true. There are most certainly some jobs that can ONLY be done by a human on location, in fact, there are many jobs that require a man. But technology is moving fast and there are people behind the controls of any unmanned vehicle. And they can see just as much, if not more than the men in the field. Of course, I'm thinking from a much more broad perspective than banging down doors. UVs are not robots or AI, they are an extension of a person.

So, Arti and Naval Guns are of limited use in this kind of war (a mainly MOUT and/or hit-n-run battles). A pilot can only do so much. I said it some were earlier, but one of my combat instructors told us a US Airforce pilot hit a Marine tank during the 1st Gulf War because the nuckle head thought it was a Russian tank! An overhead view is limiting.

I realize that you heard this story from someone and if you search the news, you will find plenty more instances of pilots firing on the wrong targets...including embassies, hospitals, friendly tanks, troops, you name it. But remember, there are plenty of ground troop friendly fire instances as well. Despite what you may see in movies, target selection isn't a bunch of guys flying around blowing up what they feel like. It is based on a great deal of intelligence and targeting tracking and identification technology that is beyond what you can probably imagine. When mistakes like this happen, the system broke. It happens everywhere.

A mouse-sized UAV is cool, but it's.... well, it's stupid. In a sense. I'm geussing it would come with regular and infared sights in atleast three directions (forward, down, and back), with some form of sound transmission, and probably some awe-inspiring range. I'm geussing it's also wildly expensive to make, maintain and operate (imagine the cost of a battery pack for that thing). There's probably also a delay from when something happens near the machine and when the pilot back in Offut Airforce Base finds out about it. And I'm sure there are ways to jam it's transmissions (copper wire jams cell phone signels, and might do something similar with a UAV communications). A UAV is a great tool, don't get me wrong, but the chances of it, or anything else, replacing guys in the feild completly.... well, I just don't see it happening in my life time. It's be awesome if it did though.

Wow....I would say that you better get used to the idea and a lot sooner than you think. The Marines and Army are already using UAVs that are about the size of a bird. EOD in all services uses Robots that come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes for a wide variety of USES. If I had a Chemical detection UV, no matter the size that could go sample without putting a human in harm's way - I'll take it. Nanotechnologies are progressing at rates that you can't imagine. The size of boards and speed of processing is doubling almost every year.

As for how UAVs actually work and whether they can be interfered with or jammed....well, I really can't talk about that in open forum, but let's just say that we don't have to worry about it happening....we've thought of that. REALLY REALLY smart people have thought of that.

Personally, as the person who would have to write a letter to a parent, damn the cost, if we can replace ANY troop with a UV or UAV, I say do it. The technology is there to see MUCH more than any human can. We still have a ways to go in terms of dexterity and there are some jobs that will NEVER be taken over, but we WILL see unmanned land combat vehicles in our lifetime.....even in our military tenure. I believe that we will also see the practical elimination of manned combat flights. Having a live pilot doesn't make sense any more. A UAV can do more, faster, more effectively for FAR cheaper with no danger to a human. Yes, UAVs are cheaper than manned aircraft.

BUT, I fear that we have again moved pretty far from the beaten path of this thread. Our art's founder's use of weapons and the creation of a gun martial art is pretty far from where we've gotten to!

 

[The Last Legionary]

I love you guys. Letting a boot bug you out. Give it some time. Soon as his cherry pops and he's brownstained his shorts, he'll get it. He don't get that he's talking vets who've already been there, done that. Rather than telling you lot his boot tales shouldn't he be Yes Siring ya'll?

How do you make a booty drop and give you 40 on a chat site? :rofl:

 

[MBuzzy]

I love you guys. Letting a boot bug you out. Give it some time. Soon as his cherry pops and he's brownstained his shorts, he'll get it. He don't get that he's talking vets who've already been there, done that. Rather than telling you lot his boot tales shouldn't he be Yes Siring ya'll?

How do you make a booty drop and give you 40 on a chat site? :rofl:

hahaha.....I consider it training tomorrow's NCOs!

Anyway, I'm in the Air Force....I don't think I've EVER made someone do push ups. I have told people to knock off all the saluting and "sir"ing though.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Fortunately, that is no longer true.

You know very well that I meant that only in refernce to Arti and Naval guns in a MOUT enviroment.

I realize that you heard this story from someone and if you search the news, you will find plenty more instances of pilots firing on the wrong targets...including embassies, hospitals, friendly tanks, troops, you name it. But remember, there are plenty of ground troop friendly fire instances as well. Despite what you may see in movies, target selection isn't a bunch of guys flying around blowing up what they feel like. It is based on a great deal of intelligence and targeting tracking and identification technology that is beyond what you can probably imagine. When mistakes like this happen, the system broke. It happens everywhere.

I know, but I have a feeling that it is easier to tell the nationality of a tank if you have a front view.

Wow....I would say that you better get used to the idea and a lot sooner than you think. The Marines and Army are already using UAVs that are about the size of a bird. EOD in all services uses Robots that come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes for a wide variety of USES. If I had a Chemical detection UV, no matter the size that could go sample without putting a human in harm's way - I'll take it. Nanotechnologies are progressing at rates that you can't imagine. The size of boards and speed of processing is doubling almost every year.

I hope I am wrong. I just have a feeling that there is going to be quite a long time till the entire military is being operated out of a computer room somewere under a mountain.

Personally, as the person who would have to write a letter to a parent, damn the cost, if we can replace ANY troop with a UV or UAV, I say do it. The technology is there to see MUCH more than any human can.

And I agree. But, do the pencil pusers in Washington agree? Thats the problem. For pretty much everything (expect flights) a UAV would be massivly more expensive. Thats why I think it will be awhile before we see the large-scale use of UAVs in the military.

 

[jarrod]

Would you say an AK-47 is a better weapon when it comes to not jamming?

yes, AKs are famously reliable & will operate in the most extreme conditions.

as sgtmac said, they shoot better than most shooters.

jf

 

[searcher]

Tactical Nuclear Weapons to deal with the Taliban is like burning your house down to cure a roach problem. Such things are a visceral joy to say, but they really don't make sense in practice.

Moreover, you have 1 Billion Muslims on the planet, with 10 percent qualifying as 'fundamentalists'.......drop a nuclear device in such a conflict on a Muslim population and you've just declared war on the entire religion.......and created sympathy and support for them from Russia and China.

And we all saw how that didn't work with Japan in WWII:shrug:. I did not say it was an ideal situation, but I still think it would serve its purpose.

 

[jarrod]

And we all saw how that didn't work with Japan in WWII:shrug:. I did not say it was an ideal situation, but I still think it would serve its purpose.

one of the major differences is that japan operated with a centralized government which could issue a surrender. in this case, we're not at war with a nation, but with "terror". i don't know who surrenders on terror's behalf.

jf

 

[Archangel M]

I realize that you heard this story from someone and if you search the news, you will find plenty more instances of pilots firing on the wrong targets...including embassies, hospitals, friendly tanks, troops, you name it. But remember, there are plenty of ground troop friendly fire instances as well. Despite what you may see in movies, target selection isn't a bunch of guys flying around blowing up what they feel like. It is based on a great deal of intelligence and targeting tracking and identification technology that is beyond what you can probably imagine. When mistakes like this happen, the system broke. It happens everywhere.

But to take the kids side, when a flyboy ****s up and drops a few 500 lb'ers on a hospital the end result is gonna be worse than when a few grunts fire off a bunch of rounds in the wrong direction. Boots on the ground was..is...and will always be the only way to impose your military will effectively on an enemy nation IMO.

 

[Archangel M]

yes, AKs are famously reliable & will operate in the most extreme conditions.

as sgtmac said, they shoot better than most shooters.

jf

Depends on the range...a Marine would never be able to do at 500 M with an AK what he can do with an M16A2. For that matter I dont think I could hit the 300 M Army pop-up with an AK as easily as I did with the M16. For the range and purpose it was designed for though, and for the level of care and training the soldier carrying it was to get, the AK was the ideal design..

 

[MBuzzy]

But to take the kids side, when a flyboy ****s up and drops a few 500 lb'ers on a hospital the end result is gonna be worse than when a few grunts fire off a bunch of rounds in the wrong direction.

That's a great point, they have a lot more latitude to cause MUCH more damage. I suppose that is why they have so many more checks and balances. I mean, the only thing that keeps an infantry member from firing into a crowd or popping off some civilians is training and morality. It is a little harder for a pilot to fire, they get more training, and are monitored a lot more closely, but they still screw up. And you're right, when they do, it is MUCH worse than when someone on the ground screws up.

Boots on the ground was..is...and will always be the only way to impose your military will effectively on an enemy nation IMO.

I think that the only way to effectively impose your will is through the combination of military capability. At least in today's world, ground troops are much less effective without air support and air support can clear out some OPFOR before the ground troops get there. Air Support can't occupy territory or talk to locals. And NO ONE can get ANYWHERE without the Navy or AF's transportation.

In the end, the ground troops are the ones who occupy territory and kick down doors. But there is a long tail of the spear....they can't do it without the help of all of the other services.

This is of course in today's world. Before airplanes, Air Forces weren't needed....but now other people have planes, so we need them to compete.

 

[sgtmac_46]

And we all saw how that didn't work with Japan in WWII:shrug:. I did not say it was an ideal situation, but I still think it would serve its purpose.

WWII was industrial war where we were fighting a government with an industrial base, that industrial base being the strategic resources. In any war the way to win is to attack the strategic resources of the enemy.

The problem is that you've misidentified the strategic resources of the Taliban. This is 4GW......not only would your idea not be 'ideal'.....it would only SERVE the purpose of the Global Jihadists. Yeah, you might nuke a couple thousand Taliban......and create a MILLION more global jihadists in the process.

Japan is a very poor analogy, as Japan was a nation-state, a government, that the people were loyal to. Remove the government or make it capitulate, and the conflict is over. In fact, with long established nation states like Germany and Japan, once the central government capitulates there is no question that fighting will shortly end due to the long tradition of civil government

Fundamentalist ISLAM is not a government, it's an ideology, and it's leadership is decentralized. It's not like fighting an enemy with a single brain. It's like fighting a roach infestation in your house.....burning the house down isn't a solution. You have to fight the problem on a multitude of levels.....you must attack the individual bugs themselves by attacking and killing them, but you must also work to clean up the cultural and political situations that attract them and allow them to grow!

 

[elder999]

I understand the origin of the term, but a koryu art on the use of matchlocks isn't exactly the same as clearing a jam in an AR.

Yeah...of course, there's this little gem I acquired recently:

 

[Carol]

Yeah...of course, there's this little gem I acquired recently:

Thats because in Japan, all fighting with modern weapons begins while standing in Nanami Heiko Dachi :rofl:

 

[tellner]

Elder, if I ever have to fight someone who has been trained in gun and knife technique I sincerely hope it's one of this clown's students.