Jump to content

War Nerd


Vysotskij

Recommended Posts

Har efter EO4:s och Detsls reklam börjat spana in War Nerd i den engelskspråkiga Moskvatidningen Exile. (Den första kolumnen finns här.)

 

Tänkte att vi kunde ta och försöka lyfta upp lite sköna citat. Den militära sakkunskapen kan alltid diskuteras, i och för sig, men jag börjar med:

 

The Americans tried to copy the Russians and came up with the Bradley IFV, which is like a BMP only about a thousand times more expensive. And it still can't take a hit from an RPG. All it's good for is turning a squad of soldiers into beef stroganoff in about one millisecond.

 

[sharon] sent the IDF into Lebanon in '82. The Israelis were at the top of their game then. They were amazing! Their air force sliced and diced the Syrians without losing a single plane. They made it look so damn easy even the Americans tried to join in - and wham!, the US Navy lost two A-6s in a few hours. Of course, only the fucking Navy would be dumb enough to send A-6's into a SAM-rich environment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Lägger till (här får man ju inga inlägg räknade):

 

It may just be that the whole concept of the heavy attack helicopter has passed its use-by date. Take the primary Russian platform, the Mi-24. It had its moment of stardom in the early years of the Afghan war. Then Reagan decided to give our pals, the Mujahideen, the Stinger...and that was the end of the Mi-24. (Now if only we could persuade those nice Mujahideen to please give us all those unused Stingers before somebody gets hurt.)

 

Gillar sista parentesen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, även om killen inte verkar vara särskillt sympatisk måste jag erkänna hans känsla för sarkasmer.

 

Somebody in the Pentagon (hey, can they call it a pentagon now when it's only got four sides? Don't they have to find a new high school geometry name for that?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Min favorit, ur den tidiga kolumnen "Tom Clancy is not one of us":

 

My first fan letter from the eXile was an email from some guy in Michigan who wanted the latest news on Tom Clancy. Yeah sure, that's why I'm here - to help you kiss that rich fat coward's ass. For a while I couldn't believe anybody'd be stupid enough to think I'd be a fan of Clancy's. You may think that all war-nerds are equal, but they're not. There are three big differences between Clancy and me:

 

Clancy was born in 1947. So he was 20 years old in 1967. Good age to go to Vietnam. Did you ever hear about Clancy serving in Nam? No, you didn't. That's because he spent the war at a safe little Catholic college in Maryland, making sure he had a deferment. "Hail Mary full of grace/Keep me far from Charlie's place!"

 

I was born in 1965. Nam was over before I got my first pubes. I'd've gone. I'm not saying I'd've been a good soldier. I'd've sucked - but I'd've gone. And died. It probably sounds like bragging but it's not. I know how I'd've died, some dumb way like stepping on a mine. Entrails dragging in a rice paddy. All the cool dudes in the squad laughing at me, listening to Hendrix, passing around a joint while I bled out. But I wouldn't've spent the war hiding out at Loyola Maryland.

 

That's the worst part: Maryland! The stupid f*** didn't even have the sense to buy a van and head for SF and the hippie chicks like the smart draftdodgers all did. He spent the sixties studying accounting. So he's not just chickenshit, he's stupid."

 

 

:)

 

Och Clancy-disrespekteringen fortsätter ytterligare några tusen tecken här: http://www.exile.ru/141/war_nerd.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Så får väl jag göra ett inlägg här också då.

Fast den här gången när han faktiskt skriver något riktigt smart.

 

The trouble is, most of the sites talking about the RPG vs. M1 question are run by hardware fans who think everything depends on the quality of the tank design. I think it's a wrong argument. The fact is, the M1 is a pretty good tank, and it's running into trouble for the simple reason that we're using it in stupid ways.

 

(som om alla inte redan klickat in sig på exile och läst det)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tycker det verkar som om författaren har en hel del under pannbenet... Sen kan man ju diskutera om man gillar hans kåseristil eller inte. Jag tycker han verkar klart läsvärd.

 

Den här tyckte jag var bra (The DUH theory)

 

What we'll do is keep losing a man or two a day, running around blasting the wrong people, making the Iraqis feel tough for the first time in history, and wondering "Why, O why, don't they love us?"

 

Well, I hope I answered that question at least.

 

Q: Why don't they love us?

 

A: Cause we invaded them, DUH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eftersom jag är intresserad av Afrika, så är jag särskilt förtjust i de krönikor som handlar om afrikanska konflikter:

 

Chad has every possible birth defect you could give a country if you wanted to make sure it was going to be screwed up forever. It's in Africa, for starters. It's landlocked. It's mostly desert, with one small fertile zone down in the south to make all the desert nomads jealous. It's got the classic Sahel division between Muslim north and Christian south. It had the French in charge for most of the 20th century (I said the French were good soldiers, I never said they were good colonizers). And maybe worst of all, it was stuck due south of Libya just when Qadafi started turning his greedy little eyes in that direction.

 

eller

 

Eritrea is like Prussia: a tiny state of hard people who'll take on anybody. The Eritreans rebuilt an entire railroad with their bare hands. Imagine what that must've looked like: hundreds of thousands of ordinary people, whole families, digging rock and hammering track for no pay, out there in some of the hottest, driest, nastiest landscape in the world. And it wasn't because the authorities terrorized them into it: it was for the good of the nation. Think what kind of soldiers those people must be! If there were a few more Eritreans, they'd probably march across the whole continent: "Greater Eritrea (formerly known as 'Africa')."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*gråter av skratt*

 

Then you saw the ragheads having tailgate parties to celebrate the big WTC bbq, and it's like, Whoa! I get to cheer when Americans die but that doesn't mean you can, you hairy-ass goats. Bad soldiers too, you could see that because they kept shooting AKs in crowded streets. That's a 7.76mm round, you idiots, if you fire it into the air it comes to earth you know not where, like on some little kid's soft-skulled head, and that's the end of the kid. They're too stupid to even figure that much out

 

 

såååå sant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ny War Nerd i dag!!! Och han skriver om Aaafrika!!!

 

Whenever there's a competition for worst place in the world, Sudan always makes the top five.

 

Och en oväntad släng av medmänsklighet, eller nåt:

 

In the movies the underdog always wins. In Africa--never.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Måste ju säga att jag gillade det här:

 

[bush] couldn't even do a revenge speech right. Seriously, how hard can it be when all you have to say is, like, "We're coming for you, towelhead fuckers!" How hard is that? And he couldn't even do it right. If Coppola had been directing this he would've fired Dubya the first day of filming like he did Harvey Keitel the first day of Apocalypse Now. Bring Martin Sheen over, like from the West Wing, and let him do it, he'd have the Afghans converting to Presbyterianism in a couple of days.

 

Nej, han är ingen talare, lillbusken...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag gråter fortfarande av skratt, jag skulle oxå vilja ha en 150 megatons vätebomb i händelse av att jag snubblade över en planet jag inte gillar :baskerPa:

 

 

You'd think we already had enough bombs. Which we do. Trouble is, we can't use'em. It's all about the way the rules about using nukes changed. Back in the fifties, when nukes were just entering the inventory, the Army and Air Force tried to make a nuke for every contingency. Some were so huge they scared everybody. We and the Russians both came up with some 150-megaton H-bombs, the kind of weapon only Darth Vader could love, the kind you'd want on the Death Star if you came across a planet you didn't happen to like. They'd be handy if you wanted to crack the earth's crust or blast the moon into dust for making your bedroom too bright, but not the sort of ordnance you'd actually use, unless you wanted your own population inhaling fallout and popping out three-eyed babies for the next 50 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

""Shi'ite" is short for "Shiat Ali," which means "the Party of Ali." Ali was Muhammad's adopted son. He saved the Prophet's life and became his favorite. Muhammad even gave Ali his favorite daughter, Fatima. But the most important thing to remember about Ali is -- he lost. And Ali's son Husain, another loser, was killed in battle charging the Caliph's whole army with a few friends -- a couple dozen riders against a horde. To us, that's just stupid. To the Shi'ites, it's glorious. That's what's hardest for Americans to understand about the Shia: they don't think winning is everything. It'd be closer to the truth to say that they think losing is everything, that losing is a sign of being in the right."

 

"[The Shi'ites'] favorite disaster happened in 680 AD, at the battle of Karbala. Yup, THAT Karbala -- the same city where we've been fighting Shi'ites for the last few months. Karbala means "anguish." That should tell you something about the way Shi'ites see the world, that they named one of their holiest cities after something we'd call "clinical depression." They're not smiley-face optimists. If a Shi'ite coached your kid's soccer team, he'd start every practice with a video of the team's biggest defeat: "Yet again we see Jason missing the goal! Truly we AM/PM Minimart Big Gulps are out of the playoffs forever and a day!" For the Shi'ites, the battle of Karbala is like Christ's crucifixion and the Alamo, all rolled into one: a doomed last stand with God on the losers' side."

 

"The Shia are the Travis Bickles [Robert DeNiro i Taxi Driver] of Islam: "someday a real rain will come, to wash the scum off the streets," and if they can help it along with a car bomb or two, so much the better."

 

http://www.exile.ru/2004-September-13/war_nerd.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Från Von Rosen-artikeln:

 

The low speed made for better aim: almost half the 400 68mm rockets they fired hit their targets, which is an amazing score for unguided AS munitions. (There used to be a joke in the USAF that if it wasn"t for the law of gravity, unguided AS rockets couldn"t even hit the ground.)

 

/J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You remember how, on 9/ll, the Air Force couldn't manage to get a single fighter up in time to intercept the hijacked planes, right? Turns out there was a total of 12 - TWELVE - fighters assigned to defend the whole of the US. And those were - you guessed it - National Guard. So America was guarded by 12 planes piloted by dentists, claims adjusters or copier repairmen.

 

Then yesterday the USAF admitted something even more sickening: if they had managed to get any fighters into the air in time (which they didn't), they were planning to order the pilots to crash their planes into the hijacked airliners, because there were no air-to-air weapons to arm them with.

 

Stämmer det? Låter helt sjukt i så fall...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limp, hur många plan har Sverige omedelbart startklara? Hur många borde USA haft vid den tidpunkten, vilka hot kunde förutses med grannar som Mexiko och Kanada?

 

Jag antar att man menar 12 st för incidentberedskap, naturligtvis kan man få tag i fler efter nån timme eller så. Hur är det i Sverige?

 

Jag försöker inte försvara USA, alt peka på brister i Sverige, utan bara förklara varför det var på det viset och samtidigt lära mig litet om läget i Sverige i dag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Svaret på dina frågor är inte en aning :lol:

 

Men nog borde hotbilden mot USA vara större än mot Sverige och med de resurser som USAF har till förfogande så borde de 12 planen som var i incidentberedskap ha A2A-missiler tillgängliga. Varför överhuvudtaget ha plan i beredskap om de inte är bestyckade och startklara?

 

Meningen med mitt inlägg var inte att hacka på USA utan helt enkelt fråga om det stämmer och om så är fallet tycker jag det låter väldigt underligt, speciellt det sista stycket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trams från egotrippad ordbajsare som nog aldrig varit inom flygvapnet eller air nat guard

 

California Nat Guard har två-fyra F 15 i beredskap, samtliga med AMRAAM, ovanpå detta finns F 16 knutna till storstäder ,tex står F 16 ofta beredskap vid March AFB® för att skydda LA. Dock gäller här att först få en visell id på målet, sedan genomföra lämpliga verksamhet. Det sker alltså ingen "fox one" för att sedan landa igen och fortsätt kortspelet, robotar är lite onödiga, men bärs oftast. Vet inte vad som krävs för att få göra robotskott, men vanliga arbetssättet är;

 

1) Etablera vis id

2) Radiokontakt ( självklart även före 1, men här mer påtagligt)

3) Visa vapenlast ( Show of force)

4) Varningskott framför flygplanet rörelsevektor

5) Last call for alcohol

om ingen reaktion

6) skjut ner/ skadeskjut

 

Robotar är ett alternativ, men ett oftast dåligt sådant, kanonen är klinisk och minimerar risk för andra flygetyg.

 

Jag har svårt att ta nån seriöst som klankar ner på deras kvalitet. Av de förare jag sett har inte många saknat sk "kilo patches" ( 1000h-2000h-3000h flygtid på typ). Detta är rävar som skulle förstöra många active service flygförares dag och har en grym rutin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USAF had another hit comedy last month, when a small plane crossed the no-fly zone over the White House. Bush and Cheney dived under their desks and called for a fighter intercept, but by the time the USAF got a single F-16 up, the Cessna was long gone. When Bush's handlers asked what the hell took them so long, the USAF said, and I quote, "We hadn't thought about protecting the White House."

:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Mästare Brecher har en del att säga om di Svenske i sitt senaste mästerverk:

 

"Actually you could say Russia destroyed three great powers in a row, if you count Sweden. Believe it or not, Sweden was a great power in the 1600s, one of the biggest players in the Thirty Years War. Then they decided to invade Russia, with the standard result: half their army was dead before they'd fought a real battle, and when the battle came, at Poltava down in Ukraine, the Swedes lost so badly their king had to run off to Turkey. And Sweden, to put it mildly, was never a player again. It's been peace, socialism and exporting blondes ever since. A battalion of armadillos could take Sweden these days."

 

:baskerHV:

 

http://www.exile.ru/2004-November-26/war_nerd.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Äre bara jag som får känslan av att det skulle vara underbart att sparka Brecher i ansiktet? Nu har ju jag inte läst på om karln men han såg knappast ut att ha hålt i ett vapen eller haft uniform. Jag reserverar mig för fansen av honom som kommer att anfalla mig nu.

 

Tycker bara han verkar vara en bitter man med en massa hat i kroppen, men vad vet jag? Jag måste dock medge att jag drog på smilbanden några gånger när jag lästa lite av hans texter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Even the USAF, which has a major hard-on for afterburners and chrome, was forced to adopt a slow, armored CAS plane, the A-10."

 

"Why they haven"t made a movie of it, I don"t know. Guess they think we"d rather see tennis pros fall in love or some shit like that."

 

 

:lol::angry:

Både intressant och rolig läsning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Har är lite små rolig kan jag ju medge.Men jag har någ den uppfattningen att om du inte har haft uniform på dig så ska man inte ifråggasätta soldaters skicklighet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Har är lite små rolig kan jag ju medge.Men jag har någ den uppfattningen att om du inte har haft uniform på dig så ska man inte ifråggasätta soldaters skicklighet.

Enligt den uppfattningen kan du aldrig någonsin anmäla en läkare för felbehandling... du kan aldrig anmäla en polis för tjänstefel... du kan aldrig klaga på ett butiksbiträde, en busschaufför, en banktjänsteman... och så vidare.

 

/J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...