Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Defense Secretary Hagel plans to shrink Army to Pre-WWII level. But wait, there's more. A-10, buh-bye. Hello F-35. U-2, buh-bye. Hello Global Hawks   (nytimes.com ) divider line 248
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8480 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2014 at 7:05 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



248 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-24 09:12:39 AM  

spamdog: Laobaojun: Dept of State gutted themselves by not wanting to get their soft, delicate, little, PhD holding hands dirty for those people in third world countries. The military has the man-power, the competence, and the tolerance for people not wearing three-piece suits that is required for the heavy lifting of all that warm and fuzzy stuff that State wants to see happen. but won't actually lift heavy things to make happen.

How much gay porn do you have, exactly?


None.  I'm not from State Department.
 
2014-02-24 09:16:33 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.


Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.
 
2014-02-24 09:16:55 AM  

clkeagle: The A-10 mission could definitely go to a heavy drone - as long as it can take the same level of punishment as the A-10.


I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost? Can't seem to find any info for it, but haven't there been drones shot down or lost (including the one over in Iran)? As much as we value human life and would like to remove the potential for that loss in our combat aircraft, in reality, we just do not have the ability to replace a flesh and blood pilot sitting in the cockpit right now.
 
2014-02-24 09:17:43 AM  

Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.

Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.


Herpa dee dum dee doodies, friend.
 
2014-02-24 09:17:53 AM  
I would think that the gun nuts would want reduced military. Just the outside chance of beind invaded should keep them hard nonstop. Then they could actually have someone to use their guns on.
 
2014-02-24 09:18:33 AM  

clkeagle: Laobaojun: Dept of State gutted themselves by not wanting to get their soft, delicate, little, PhD holding hands dirty for those people in third world countries.  The military has the man-power, the competence, and the tolerance for people not wearing three-piece suits that is required for the heavy lifting of all that warm and fuzzy stuff that State wants to see happen. but won't actually lift heavy things to make happen.

That goes back to a long term thought I've had - split off 33% or so of the military and give it to the state department. Let them have hundreds of horizontal and vertical construction units, dozens of water purification, civil affairs, and field medicine units, a few units of architectural/civil engineers, etc. The military is designed from top-to-bottom to fight wars - not to build nations. If that's a role that we need people fulfilling, it should be done by a State-department equivalent of the military instead of some international contracting firms.


Functionally, DoD has kind of done this, but the chain of command is military up to the Cabinet/JCS level.

Re:  "The military is designed from top-to-bottom to fight wars - not to build nations.", not as much as many people would like.  The Civil Affairs thing has little to to with war fighting, and much to do with assistance in peace and rebuilding post conflict.

I absolutely concur that contractors are a bad idea.  That guarantees that spending will go up in response to lobbying for pork-barrel projects.
 
2014-02-24 09:19:45 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.

Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.

Herpa dee dum dee doodies, friend


you really should get that looked at
 
2014-02-24 09:22:36 AM  

spiritplumber: YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!


 I hated that guy so much.
 
2014-02-24 09:24:03 AM  

RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.
 
2014-02-24 09:25:01 AM  

liam76: The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons

The global hawk can't carry weapons.


A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge.
 
2014-02-24 09:25:04 AM  

Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.

Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.

Herpa dee dum dee doodies, friend

you really should get that looked at


It appears I'm encouraging a dumbass.
 
2014-02-24 09:25:32 AM  

dittybopper: Per inter-service agreements, the only fixed-wing aircraft the Army is allowed to have are small utility aircraft. Combat and larger cargo aircraft aren't allowed.

/Army can have all the helicopters it wants, though.


What I've been reading is that the Army desperately wants to keep the A-10 around so if they can work that out, it would be better.
 
2014-02-24 09:26:17 AM  

Thunderpipes: liam76: The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons

The global hawk can't carry weapons.

A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge.


Is that what is keeping expansionist Canada at bay?
 
2014-02-24 09:28:10 AM  

Tannhauser: Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.


absolutely. the eurofighter typhoon costs way less and can do almost as much. so i'm sure we can build one that doesn't cost nearly what the F35 costs. plus that whole marines thing of VTOL is just insane for this plane. why not just bring back the harrier?
 
2014-02-24 09:28:38 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.

Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.

Herpa dee dum dee doodies, friend

you really should get that looked at

It appears I'm encouraging a dumbass.


Self encouragement  is normally a good thing
 
2014-02-24 09:29:48 AM  

Smokey the Bare: FTFA:  "In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk."

This is very shortsighted. It goes to show if you have you hands in the pants of those in the capitol (I'm looking at you Northrop Grumman), your less capable and unreliable aircraft will make it through downsizing.


what does the U2 do that can't be done by satellite or the Global Hawk? The job it was designed for is gone, all it is now is a bridge between on-the-ground intel and the time it takes for a satellite to move into position. A job that can capably be done by other aircraft.
 
2014-02-24 09:30:03 AM  

dittybopper: RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.


button's plane was not shot down, as he crashed somewhere in the mountains.  Until,they find the plane, no one knows what happened, but things point towards suicide.
 
2014-02-24 09:30:05 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: liam76: The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons

The global hawk can't carry weapons.

A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge.

Is that what is keeping expansionist Canada at bay?


Nope, we've got them hemmed in with the Tim Horton's donut ring.  Don't let Tim Horton's come south or we're all doomed.
 
2014-02-24 09:31:05 AM  

dittybopper: First two that came to mind.


Gracias. One suicide, one flew a bit too low during an exercise...  Still shame for the loss of the lives involved, but it looks good for the combat survivability of the aircraft.
 
2014-02-24 09:31:38 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: liam76: The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons

The global hawk can't carry weapons.

A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge.

Is that what is keeping expansionist Canada at bay?


Yup, A-10s and assault-murder rifles. Take those away, and we will all be drinking skunk beer and saying "eh".
 
2014-02-24 09:32:30 AM  
Hey, Ima let you finish but Digital Combat Simulators A-10C is the best A-10 simulator of all time. OF ALL TIME.
www.simhq.com
 
2014-02-24 09:33:36 AM  

dittybopper: RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.


My bad, they did find the wreckage.  Went from memory at first, I guess I should have read some of the wiki.
 
2014-02-24 09:33:43 AM  

Thunderpipes: A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge


That is why I called out it's 30 mm, when using missles it has the same standoff.

The reason peopel are saying to keep it CAS (not as good as helicopters) and anti-tank (plenty fo other platforms have the capabilities now) don't cut it.
 
2014-02-24 09:34:20 AM  

SeaMan Stainz: I would think that the gun nuts would want reduced military. Just the outside chance of beind invaded should keep them hard nonstop. Then they could actually have someone to use their guns on.


Except that you fail to realize that the US gun culture is heavily represented in the US Military.

Because if you like to shoot guns, and you want to get paid to do it (and paid to shoot the "good stuff" like machine guns), where do you go?   The military, obviously.

Now, you might look at the average civilian gun person and see an overweight middle-aged man, but you're not seeing the fit 20 year old he was several decades ago when he was carrying a rifle for Uncle Sam, and you're not seeing his son or nephew who is currently serving.

I went to the range yesterday to adjust the sights on my flintlock*, and I'm willing to bet, based upon demeanor and hair cut, etc., that at least half of the people I saw were ex-military (including myself).

*Which involved a lot of filing down of the front sight, because I'm trying to use less powder for target shooting and opening up the point-blank range for hunting with full-power loads.  Note to self:  Next time, bring a more aggressive file.
 
2014-02-24 09:35:19 AM  
F35:

lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-02-24 09:35:45 AM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: dittybopper: RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.

button's plane was not shot down, as he crashed somewhere in the mountains.  Until,they find the plane, no one knows what happened, but things point towards suicide.


"shot down or lost".

Button's plane was "lost", in both senses of the word.
 
2014-02-24 09:37:33 AM  

dittybopper: Dr Jack Badofsky: dittybopper: RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.

button's plane was not shot down, as he crashed somewhere in the mountains.  Until,they find the plane, no one knows what happened, but things point towards suicide.

"shot down or lost".

Button's plane was "lost", in both senses of the word.



Poor phrasing on my part. I should've specified "lost" as in the circumstances in which we lost the drone over Iran.
 
2014-02-24 09:37:37 AM  
who needs an army when we have all these militarized police departments
 
2014-02-24 09:37:57 AM  

RoxtarRyan: dittybopper: First two that came to mind.

Gracias. One suicide, one flew a bit too low during an exercise...  Still shame for the loss of the lives involved, but it looks good for the combat survivability of the aircraft.


Oh, they are notoriously survivable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)
 
2014-02-24 09:38:30 AM  
I'm ok with pretty much all of these cuts; the A10 troubles me somewhat, but we have measurewes that can do that job, and who knows what drone-tastic solution may effectively replace it. the F-35 is proof that the entire government procurement system needs to be tossed.  Its impossible to for legitimate buisnesses to navigate it easily, and darned hard to take action against poor performers.
 
2014-02-24 09:40:30 AM  

GameSprocket: I thought we quit making the A-10 at least a decade ago.


they stopped making them, but they still fly them.  Part of the issue is that they can't produce replacement parts for them anymore
 
2014-02-24 09:41:52 AM  
I suggest instead of cutting pay for the top brass, they effectively gut the top ranks of every service. An overall reduction by 33% to 50% in the number of generals and admirals, and their staffs.

I guarantee the military wouldn't suffer a bit from it.
 
2014-02-24 09:42:06 AM  
yes, let make more people unemployed while we legalize 20 million laRaza tards
 
2014-02-24 09:45:19 AM  
A rather unattractive design, but looks like it bristles with firepower.

www.fas.org
 
2014-02-24 09:45:57 AM  

GameSprocket: I thought we quit making the A-10 at least a decade ago.


We did. They are great aircraft that simply can't be killed. They're like my grandpa's old pickup truck. By all rights, it should have bit the dust ages ago, but he likes it and puts a little effort into patching it up and it just keeps running.

To be honest, there's no real way to improve upon the A-10 in its niche role. As long as we do iterative updates to it, like avionics, they will always be useful in any conflict. We don't need a fast, stealthy fighter with a few missiles in a role that demands a bullet-proof bomb truck with a big-ass gun in the nose.
 
2014-02-24 09:46:19 AM  

RoxtarRyan: Poor phrasing on my part. I should've specified "lost" as in the circumstances in which we lost the drone over Iran.


You know what would be cool?  Flying an A-10 in the Land of the Lost.  But not the Will Ferrell version, the 1970's TV version, because a Maverick would truly fark up a stop-animated foam rubber tyrannosaur.
 
2014-02-24 09:46:39 AM  
Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

graphics8.nytimes.com
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.
 
2014-02-24 09:47:25 AM  

cgraves67: We don't need a fast, stealthy fighter with a few missiles in a role that demands a bullet-proof bomb truck with a big-ass gun in the nose.


It would be even more intimidating with a big ass-gun in the nose.
 
2014-02-24 09:48:17 AM  

drxym: Technology that might have been great 10 years ago may be obsolete now for a variety of reasons.


10 years ago?  The thing has been out of production for 30 years now.
 
2014-02-24 09:48:47 AM  
Probability that this will happen: 0%
 
2014-02-24 09:48:50 AM  

dittybopper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)


I still get goosebumps reading about that. That plane was tore the fark up!

But, this backs up the statement I made about replacing local pilots with remote pilots in the A-10 series. With the condition her plane was in, it may have lost communications, camera feed, etc.
While remote pilots are good for drones, I believe we are a long ways off before we see remote pilots for our assault or fighter aircraft that can pilot them on par with pilots sitting in the cockpit.
 
2014-02-24 09:50:32 AM  
Also, this gem from the article:
The Guard's Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the active-duty Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the Guard. The rationale is that Guard units have less peacetime need for the bristling array of weapons on the Apache and would put the Black Hawk - a workhorse transport helicopter - to use in domestic disaster relief.

Seriously, why weren't we doing this to begin with?
 
2014-02-24 09:52:22 AM  

onyxruby: He wants to get rid of proven and respected technology that the military has used for decades and replace it with unproven tech that is much more expensive. Guy is an idiot.


Yeah, like the guys who kept ordering battleships instead of those newfangled carriers, and horse cavalry instead of breakdown prone tanks!

We may need to keep them mind you, but to call your "reasoning" as to why idiotic is to insult the intelligence of idiots the world over. And it shows clearly why we can't seem to ever cut our damn defense budget. We are letting emotions cloud reason.
 
2014-02-24 09:53:53 AM  

jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.


Are you counting all the civs on the ground in support these days?  Blackwater, Haliburton, etc?  A vast majority of what the military used to do is now outsourced.
 
2014-02-24 09:55:51 AM  

jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.


Honestly, I don't think pre-WWII military levels are sustainable for the US.

Back then, you could have a relatively small cadre of trained soldiers that could rapidly train a sudden influx of new recruits that could be matched up with equipment that was relatively easy to manufacture fairly quickly.

Today, however, there is a heck of a lot more to learn, and ramping up production like that probably isn't possible to a large degree because everything is more complex, and in fact we have less "per unit" manufacturing capability then we had back then.  So you have to maintain a certain amount of equipment, and a certain amount of manpower to maintain it.

The problem is, you've got to be looking towards the sort of war you're going to be fighting in 20 years, and even the best prognosticators often get it wrong.
 
2014-02-24 09:56:48 AM  

IamAwake: jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.

Are you counting all the civs on the ground in support these days?  Blackwater, Haliburton, etc?  A vast majority of what the military used to do is now outsourced.


That's not my chart. That's the DoD's actual data for active service members they are paying. I have no idea about the other data you're asking about.
 
2014-02-24 09:58:43 AM  

RoxtarRyan: I still get goosebumps reading about that. That plane was tore the fark up!


I get one big goosebump just looking at her.

www.americanvalor.net

I'd hit it like AA fire over Baghdad.
 
2014-02-24 09:58:49 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Smokey the Bare: FTFA:  "In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk."

This is very shortsighted. It goes to show if you have you hands in the pants of those in the capitol (I'm looking at you Northrop Grumman), your less capable and unreliable aircraft will make it through downsizing.

what does the U2 do that can't be done by satellite or the Global Hawk? The job it was designed for is gone, all it is now is a bridge between on-the-ground intel and the time it takes for a satellite to move into position. A job that can capably be done by other aircraft.


The cost of a GH after all the R&D is in the neighbourhood of $250,000,000. The AF has around 20-ish of thes compared to about 80 U2's.  The operating costs about the same ($35K an hour) however the GH will likely have the advantage here soon (Northrup Grumman think the operating cost will drop closer to $20K soon. This is also the same company that listed the original price-tag for the GH at 35M). Satellites are only overhead of certain areas at certain times and I would bet any capable adversary knows where each of our spy satellites will be months out. However, the GH has an OUTRAGEOUS time airborne of more than 30 hours under ideal conditions compared 10-12 for the U2. The SIGINT and sensor package the U2 is far superior to what the GH can carry.

As a weather troop in the AF, I will tell you that weather is a HUGE factor for the GH and a much smaller one for the U2. The operational ceiling for the GH is 60K-ish and the U2 is around 70K-ish. The GH also cannot take any icing. The ceiling of the GH prevents it from flying over certain areas of thunderstorms, thus limiting where it can fly.

If hope elected officials would realize the GH was a bad investment, cut their losses, and invest in a better replacement for the U2.

/a lot of info was found  here and  here
//DoD costs do have to be cut though
///please don't take away my retirement
 
2014-02-24 10:00:13 AM  

dittybopper: jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.

Honestly, I don't think pre-WWII military levels are sustainable for the US.

Back then, you could have a relatively small cadre of trained soldiers that could rapidly train a sudden influx of new recruits that could be matched up with equipment that was relatively easy to manufacture fairly quickly.

Today, however, there is a heck of a lot more to learn, and ramping up production like that probably isn't possible to a large degree because everything is more complex, and in fact we have less "per unit" manufacturing capability then we had back then.  So you have to maintain a certain amount of equipment, and a certain amount of manpower to maintain it.

The problem is, you've got to be looking towards the sort of war you're going to be fighting in 20 years, and even the best prognosticators often get it wrong.


If I could even add something on top of that idea, what is world population then compared with now? US population comparison? As a percentage, the military keeps getting smaller, however more efficient. But I agree with the training aspect.
 
2014-02-24 10:18:48 AM  

CheatCommando: Yeah, like the guys who kept ordering battleships instead of those newfangled carriers, and horse cavalry instead of breakdown prone tanks!


The joke about the Poles using horse cavalry instead of tanks early in WWII?

1. It wasn't really true. Poland also had tanks -- they were just outclassed by both the German and the Soviet tanks.
2. In the muddy battlefields of eastern Europe, especially in a 1939-1941 context, horses often worked better. Those mounted Polish divisions made for a really effective mechanized infantry/light armor force and often devastated lighter German armored divisions and played havoc in behind-the-front raiding. They only really suffered against heavy armor -- but everyone suffered against German heavy armor in those years.
 
Displayed 50 of 248 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report