Turbine wrote:Supose someone drives a car up to it. Click. BLAM!!!! They are all dead.
Or imagine them driving, down a road, singing songs, they drive beside, note beside not below a IED. Then some guy hiding behind a rock far, far way presses a button. Click. BLAM!! they are all dead.
Now we really know why they dont rule the world anymore, once we grew past cannons they got lost lol.
The article isn't accurate it seems. The 240rpm grenade launcher should have been a clue, really.
For starters, the Supacat 'Weapon Mount Installation Kit' is just that, a kit for their light vehicle range. So if the article can't even get the name of the vehicle right (the one pictured appears to be a Supacat All-Terrain Mobility Platform or a custom 4x4 derivative thereof) then I wouldn't trust that picture either. Supacat make a number of different models for the military, some of which are as pictured and others which are fully enclosed (albeit still 'light').
Gonna have to downgrade this one from 'awesome firepower' to 'poorly researched hype article', sadly.
also lol @ iccy making it a usa vs uk issue, with no provovation whatsoever. What a dunce.
what foo said - and regardless of the weapon range they're reporting for the news story, i'd guess it's supposed to be a flash version of a technical, rather than a heavy armour gizmo.
they have another new motor for troop transport. it looks like a wendy house made out of pig iron.
Speaking of aussies and dutchos in afghanistan, i found this blog the other day, it has some interesting stuff. I dont know how they report things in australia, but the main stream media here reports nothing along the lines of what this guy posts, or in a few cases days or weeks later.
Nightshade wrote:Well mommy said my e-penis was huge, so it must be true ... right guys ?
Wrong.
Yes, name calling and not giving any reason for being right, one of the many bastions of the fool. Ahh the smell of a mask of self righteous, pompous, ignorance is almost intoxicating, like the smell of fresh steak. Let your ego suck someone elses blood.
Shut me down if you got something to say. Im calling your bluff.
You're a fucking idiot. Plain and simple. Let's set my six years in the Corps aside for the moment and focus on common sense things. Stuff like the huge, really unmissable flap over the completely fucking un-armored HMMWVs that we sent our boys tooling around Iraq in, only to be *gasp* fucking blown to bits. Then there's the SEALs' dune buggies that have NOTHING EVEN CLOSE to armor on them. Then there's the trucks and jeeps that have rolled around in combat zones since early WWII, guarded by a mighty shield of...canvas flaps.
Bluff this you fucking dolt. That Brit jalopy is NO DIFFERENT than countless US designs. But, at least you shot your retard mouth off behind your mask of self righteous, pompous, ignorance about it.
no, say someone just drives up to it, in a secured zone , then click BANG GAME OVER MAN.
you fucking idiots don't get it do you? it's not designed for front line fighting. it's a tool for patrolling secured zones and distance fighting an enemy with weapons decade older than yours
Doombrain wrote:no, say someone just drives up to it, in a secured zone , then click BANG GAME OVER MAN.
you fucking idiots don't get it do you? it's not designed for front line fighting. it's a tool for patrolling secured zones and distance fighting an enemy with weapons decade older than yours
Lol, sorry, i think you're the one not getting it. It's an occupation not a static war. There's no front lines, there's no 'secured zones'. Hence people saying 'wow that thing looks really fucking insecure'. They're thinking roadbombs and ambushes, you're thinking... hell, i don't really know what you're thinking to be honest, it's not making any kind of sense to me.
Doombrain wrote:no, say someone just drives up to it, in a secured zone , then click BANG GAME OVER MAN.
you fucking idiots don't get it do you? it's not designed for front line fighting. it's a tool for patrolling secured zones and distance fighting an enemy with weapons decade older than yours
Lol, sorry, i think you're the one not getting it. It's an occupation not a static war. There's no front lines, there's no 'secured zones'. Hence people saying 'wow that thing looks really fucking insecure'. They're thinking roadbombs and ambushes, you're thinking... hell, i don't really know what you're thinking to be honest, it's not making any kind of sense to me.
If you're so sure a heavily armed and lightly armored buggy is a good bet in Afghanistan, why not provide reasons instead of trolling like some sort of uninformed idiot? Let´s have an adult conversation about this, shall we?
maybe i should tell you, again. it's not a front line weapon. it's strength comes from it's massive wide area long range fire and speed.
they have other weapons for what you're thinking of and they call those tanks.
Doombrain wrote:maybe i should tell you, again. it's not a front line weapon. it's strength comes from it's massive wide area long range fire and speed.
they have other weapons for what you're thinking of and they call those tanks.
And again, i think that's mostly irrelevant in a situation where the enemy fights you by getting up close to try and reduce your tech advantage. Where there are no clear frontlines, just unfriendly and very unfriendly areas. Where every time you fire your weapon and accidentally kill a civilian or shoot up his mudhut, you effectively recruit for the enemy.
I think this this buggy´s weakness (being lightly armored) is very very dangerous and does not weigh up to it's strength (massive firepower).
Doombrain wrote:maybe i should tell you, again. it's not a front line weapon. it's strength comes from it's massive wide area long range fire and speed.
they have other weapons for what you're thinking of and they call those tanks.
And again, i think that's mostly irrelevant in a situation where the enemy fights you by getting up close to try and reduce your tech advantage. Where there are no clear frontlines, just unfriendly and very unfriendly areas. Where every time you fire your weapon and accidentally kill a civilian or shoot up his mudhut, you effectively recruit for the enemy.
I think this this buggy´s weakness (being lightly armored) is very very dangerous and does not weigh up to it's strength (massive firepower).
you've been watching too many films, you cock. a friend of mine just spent six months out there and from what he's told us it's not like playing doom.
anyway, it's a fucking support vehicle that's a direct result of the designers asking the TROOPS what they wanted! lol, stop losing now please.
Doombrain wrote:no, say someone just drives up to it, in a secured zone , then click BANG GAME OVER MAN.
you fucking idiots don't get it do you? it's not designed for front line fighting. it's a tool for patrolling secured zones and distance fighting an enemy with weapons decade older than yours
Lol, sorry, i think you're the one not getting it. It's an occupation not a static war. There's no front lines, there's no 'secured zones'. Hence people saying 'wow that thing looks really fucking insecure'. They're thinking roadbombs and ambushes, you're thinking... hell, i don't really know what you're thinking to be honest, it's not making any kind of sense to me.
Did you read the article?
One senior Army officer described the new super-truck as a "serious bit of kit", adding it would be a "huge boost to our long-range patrolling capability".
Senior defence sources say the Supacats will particularly come into their own against the Taliban in Afghanistan's Helmand Province, which has no roads.
Defence Minister Lord Drayson said last night: "These vehicles are well armed, swift and agile and will boost our capability with some serious firepower.
