HMS Visby - Visbyclass corvette Videos

wartmcbeighn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Wow..the Iraqui's..there was truly a tough army...lol not. I think the only book the US forces are re-writing would be titled "military incompetence..how to fight a two front war and lose" or "Been years to find Bin Laden...find him yet?". Might have been a good idea to clean up after hurricanes rathr than go traipsing around in countries where US forces werenst asked to go, nor wanted

gtchrisb Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Pre invasion Iraqi army was actually a pretty tough crowd, mind the Republican Guard. However, the greatest army in the world will be the most useless if there is no will to fight. And I'm glad someone else notices the two front war we've opened. Tactically a stupid thing to do, and had it been run right from the start, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. I don't disagree with what we've done, but HOW it was done.

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - They come so they can train above the artic circle, not just to train with the Norwegian spec ops people. If you remember during the cold war we had the job of reinforcing Norway if war ever broke out. That's the main reason we started coming, aside from artic weather training.

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - You must be the only one thinking our military has fought incompetently..lol During the first gulf war the whole world watched in awe of our forces performance (along with our allies, most notably the British). We swept them aside the second time also. They may not count as much as beating the Russians, but they were an organized, battle hardened large army. The experience fighting them still counts. As for Bin Laden, he is almost certainly hidding in Pakistan where we can't go looking.

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - You have to remember civilian politicians control the army. The military is anything but incompetent. They have to operate with a bunch of bullshit restraints imposed on them. I'm sure he was advised to one degree or another about starting 2 fronts. Bush wanted this and ordered as much. The generals are simply doing what they are told however much they may have disagreed, just like in Viet Nam.

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Perhaps, but while just a handful of your special forces are seeing combat, our military across the board is getting combat experience....along with our special forces.

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Talk all the shit about the US military you want, but remember this. We saved the world (or at least Europe) 3 times. WW1, WW2, and prevented WW3. The American military has crushed all who have fought it on their own turfs. And b4 you mention Viet Nam, remember this. We never lost a battle there. The civilian leadership simply threw in the towel b4 the job was done. The world would be a VERY different place (and not for the better, either) if not for us.

Cta2006 Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - gibbsrgQuality over quantity my friend... :-)Relax, we are all friends here.We ( and especially our politicians ) shold all learn from our respective soldiers in the field. They rise abow these kind of discussions and cooperate in a proffesional way.As for Us forces training in Norway. There is no cold war any longer and the USA stopped having reinforcing batallion prepared for Norway many years ago. But your special forces still come to Norway.

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Quantity is a quality. No matter how good the individual is (man or machine) at some point numbers take over. German tanks were far superior to out shermans. Problem was, shermans outnumbered them 10-1. My harsh remarks were directed at wartmcbeighn.

wartmcbeighn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - LOL..ah WW1..showed up after it was halfway over and didnt do much. WW2..same thing though major contributions, but certainly cant lay claim to saving the world..pleease. Prevented WW3..where ..when?? And as for Viet Nam, should never have gotten involved..btw..when US invaded Canada during revolutionary war, canadians pushed you back and burnt the original white house.CTA has a point, US special forces still not on a par with countries such as England's , Germany's , Isreal's etc.

wartmcbeighn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - That's obvious, and in many ways the Us military machine has suffered because of that doctrine..original M-16 rifle, sherman tank, M-10, Sgt York, F-22, M-1 Abrams..in fact your armed forces make use of foreign equipment where the US cannot make something as good as

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - I'm not sure what doctrine you are speaking of nor why you sited the listed weapons as examples. As for using some foreign equipment, why not? We made all nato by American for years. It's only fair that we buy some of their stuff if it meets our requirements. Why waste money reinventing a wheel someone else already makes? Of course, we don't make the best of everything. But we do have more "bests" than any other single country. I admire a great deal of foreign hardware, some more than ours.

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - We may have showed up late, but we were the straw that broke the enemies back during WW1. However much, or little, we did it was enough to end the war. As for what "little" we did during ww2, I can only say you must have been drinking when you typed that..lol Continental Europe was conquered and Britain was about to starve. Churchill was BEGGING the US to enter the war. If not for the US, either the nazis or Stalin would have controlled Europe. Who do you like?..continued

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - As for the quality of our spec ops, they are comparble to anyone you care to mention. There may be some areas of specialization where others may better, but only because they don't need to be super proficient in others areas. The Norwegians, for example, don't have to worry about desert warfare, so they can concentrate on artic. How good the Israelis are in the artic? The Swedes in the african bush? We have to be good everywhere. The British SAS is probably all around best, and us #2.

wartmcbeighn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - I dont thing you have the most "bests" as you call them than any other country

wartmcbeighn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - I highly doubt that statement about WW1 could be said to be true

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Read your history books.

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Well you sure can't tell that from the number of countries that buy our weapons, Canada included.

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - And if nothing else, our industrial capacity alone would have been enough to win both wars. That's one thing neither Japan nor Germany could hope to match even if we weren't bombing their factories.

wartmcbeighn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Hmm F-18's and M-16's....thats about it..

wartmcbeighn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - LOL I highly doubt that, considering the size of US forces, and quality of those forces at the start of either war were somehwat laughable

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - That's not enough? Take away the f-18s and what will the air force have left? And oh, aren't the missiles on your ships American? Your transport planes, who made those? What weapons system has Canada designed?

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Nobody was laughing when it ended, least of all Germany. German forces were superior in almost every way at the begining of the war to ours, quantity and quality wise. But our far superior industrial capacity doomed them from the start. 50000 sherman tanks overwhelmed far superior tigers and panthers. Liberty cargo ships were built faster than u-boats could sink them. Planes and tanks were made as if rolling off a copying machines. Germany was doomed the day we joined the war. Continued...

gibbsrg Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - Plus, we had the only general issue semi-auto rifle of any army during ww2..the garand. We were superior to everyone in that regard. But if it makes you feel any better, John Garand (the designer) was a Canadian!!

wartmcbeighn Says:

Oct 11, 2008 - I know that one..lol..I have a Garand