US military question

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by webber f1 racer, Sep 25, 2013.

  1. What are some slang names used for US troops?

    E.g. like how WWI british troops were called 'Tommys', Germans 'Jerrys' or the vietcong 'Charlie'.
  2. Jarheads for Marines.
  3. Cannon fodder?

  4. Jarheads, doughboys, grunts, etc.
  5. Infidels

    Srsly though, I'm not aware of any "affectionate" nicknames such as Charlie given to the US troops by the enemy.
  6. Ohk. Thanks for the help. I was trying to see if I could use a decent slang term in the title of my upcoming honours thesis... but in the end I went down a different line of naming.
  7. What sort of thesis is that?
  8. I'm doing it on drone warfare and how they're replacing boots on the ground.
  9. What's the subject you are studying?

    My impression was that UAVs are primarily replacing manned aircraft as bomb trucks.
  10. That's my personal impression as well.. I'd more interested in 'if' they replace than 'how'. But that's not what the paper's about anyway.
  11. It's a definite yes on certain missions. Recce, taking out radars, SAMs and AAA, low-intensity precision bombing like this and long-range missions or missions that require extended loitering periods. Even Wheelman needs to poop and sleep. Which made me wonder, has he ever taken a crap in his flight suit?
  12. oh I do agree on tasks, but I think (other than for mapping areas which can be done with conventional planes as well) everyone can go home with their drones as soon as warfare is done guerilla style, which I suspect would be the case if there's a world war going on next time.

    Old-fashioned territorial warfare would be a stalemate from the start in my humble speculating opinion.
  13. Devil Dogs is one for marines, iirc.
  14. Satellites are used for area mapping and detecting stationary objects. The problem with spy satellites is that even if geosynchronous, they return to the same spot after 24 hrs which is a long time in modern warfare. Hence, UAVs are used to detect real-time troop movements to coordinate artillery- and air strikes, for example. Manned aircraft like the U-2, SR-71 and MiG-25/31 were used to do that in the past, relying on speed. That's not a very wise tactic these days because certain SAMs can exceed mach 10 and their flight ceiling is higher than that of the aircraft.

    Slower, cheaper and less observable UAVs can be used instead. There are several benefits to this: they can loiter around an area for extended periods of time taking accurate pictures or video monitor the area without being detected due to the low thermal and acoustic signatures (low radar signature can be achieved easier than with manned aircraft because of small size), they use a fraction of the fuel used by high-speed recce aircraft, they can be launched from short airstrips or roads and they don't risk the pilot's life or the enemy gaining sensitive information by interrogating the pilot.

    Pakistani/Afghanistani Pashtu and whatever niggerheads are using guerrilla tactics and the drones are bombing them anyway. Conventional militaries don't really rely on guerrilla tactics (as in blending into the civilian population) but special forces and AT squads for example like to remain stealthy until contact.

    Territorial warfare is considered obsolete (for the time being) among developed nations. It still happens in Africa and many Asian nations have territorial claims on each other. As far as a world war comes (which would involve at least one major power), who would win always depends on the scenario in question. What sort of situation were you thinking of?
  15. well, there's been a couple of generations of a continuously becoming angrier population in many european countries for a while, I think that's what the big clash is going to be about in Europe. In Russia this has been an issue for a while already as well. Which would imply as well that what it'll be about is not a conventional military.

    Maybe I'm just distracted by my tin foil hat.
  16. I think the British Army calls them Spams.
  17. Kankerhoeren
  18. Even the European states that are in particularly bad shape (Greece & co.) are still a long way from what's considered a "failed state" (Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe). If a state collapses, there's usually some form of civil unrest/war involved. Guerrilla militias that are active now in Syria, for example have almost zero offensive capability. They don't usually cross state borders or attack neighboring countries.

    Reason? Guerrilla tactics are purely defensive. You can blend into the civilian population and plant explosives or ambush AFVs. If a militia group like this crossed into a neighboring country and started shooting people, they'd quickly be overwhelmed by any conventional force. There are a gazillion examples of this from Africa. SWAPO, for example, has been owned several times by South Africa and Namibia.
  19. I'm talking about Muslims, not a state collapsing, which is a threat from inside out.
    Besides that guerillas are defensive, they're also a great fear tactic (ie what we get fed about terrorists, even though the odds you get hit by lightning are probably bigger)
  20. I'd like to be a drone pilot
    Are they paid ok

    Then me and wheelsman could be wingmen
    Hang out and swap flight stories and wear aviators
  21. You can sip on your mountain dew big gulp while flying your drone
  22. Combat with UAVs, although a large part of the news, is a niche (although growing) role as far as I know. The largest role is still intelligence gathering, and border protection. Based on the intentions of a few large militaries, maritime and border patrol may take over as the primary UAV role in the next few decades - typically a rather dull, long-shifted role.

    In terms of taking over from manned aircraft, I have a hard time naming a specific type that would be replaced. So far UCAVs seem to be specialized counter-insurgency aircraft, which weren't in the inventory of any major air force since Vietnam. Manned rotary wings still do the best job of supporting ground units, and high-altitude high-speed manned fixed-wings are still the choice against sophisticated air defense, entrenched targets, and strategic targets.
  23. Yes.

    I don't 100% agree with this part: "high-altitude high-speed manned fixed-wings are still the choice against sophisticated air defense". When it comes to air-to-air combat missions, the answer is an obvious yes but when it comes to eliminating enemy ground-to-air, air defense C&C and radar sites, low altitude penetrations are a very common tactic. AH-64s took out a significant portion of Iraqi radar network in the initial stages of the conflict both in '91 and '03.

    Given the choice, I'd send an UCAV to destroy radars instead of a B-2 or an Apache. A downed UAV hurts a lot less than a downed helo, let alone a gazillion dollar stealth bomber packed with still classified tech (although that's unlikely but could happen in the brief period the bomb doors are open).

    When I said "replacing manned aircraft" I didn't mean completely replacing a type of manned military aircraft but complementing existing forces and taking over a growing portion of the types of missions I listed.

    What something like an F-22 does air-to-air, what an A-10 does air-to-ground and what a strategic bomber does are things UCAVs can't obviously do. Pretty much the only factor preventing them from engaging strategic targets is their size.
  24. Geosynchronous satellites never move away from being over one spot on the ground. That's what makes them earth-synchronized. Other satellites can have radically different periods, even down to less than half an hour, though whether this track will take it over the same point or not depends heavily on the orbital mechanics. I don't know off the top of my head what orbits most spy satellites are in, but I'm sure they're optimized for the purpose. All that said, what you said is still correct. They're only over their target at fixed times, with long intervals in between.

Share This Page