What do you think is the baddest ass piece of military hardware?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Serb

Good point, but as a sailor can you answer a couple of questions for me:
1) Is it possible to modify lifesaving equipment originaly created for one diameter of hatch to make it operational with hatch of different diameter, within few days?

2) Does your regulations allow you to use untested/just modified equipment in rescue missions that already extremly dangerous?

Are we talking the Kursk? It was in shallow water. And there is rescue equipment which has some ability to mate with different hull types. If it involved saving lives, there would be round the clock work, even if it rquired welding a new piece on. I don't think it would be too arduous with an emergency attitude. You could even do some testing at the depths involved.

FYI: I served in CSDG ONE which has the US submersibles and rescue equipment. The biggest issue that i had with the Russians was that they did not even try very hard. We would have been flying equipment to the scen ASAP. Making up a plan and getting it approved (and improved) as we went. If it turned out that it was all for naught, too bad. But if it turned out that a few extra minutes could have saved someone...how could you live with yourself for not trying. So the biggest issue I had was not wether a rescue was possible or not...but that they didn't try.

This is my same heartache with the Columbia situation.

And Serb, I know a hell of a lot more about this. And its not just theory. It's practical human lessons of motivation when you are fighting a fire or flooding on a submarine. But the Russians never did have the quality of training and operations that we did/do.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar



Stalinism ain't that much better than Nazism, buddy.

Then your so-called advanced democratic society is no better then both of them. And here comes the proof:

Too bad we didn't let Patton do his thang and lead the new drive to Moscow.

You regret that you didn't murdered millions of Russians to destroy communism. I want to know why? Because Stalin was evil and murdered Russians? In case of your war vs. USSR it would have been a Patriotic War 3 and to won you would need to kill all of us. So who is more evil? Perhaps you guys, who regret that you didn't exterminate all of us, because you consider that Stalin was evil because he opressed his own people? In other words you regret you didn't kill all of us to save us from brutal dictator. What a minute...

Btw, you would lose, because no one can't win war vs. entire nation without complete extermination of this nation, esp. Russian, and esp. in 1945 when Russians had best, most powerfull, most advanced, most numbered and most experienced army in the world.

[Serb]

Originally posted by TCO
Are we talking the Kursk? It was in shallow water. And there is rescue equipment which has some ability to mate with different hull types. If it involved saving lives, there would be round the clock work, even if it rquired welding a new piece on. I don't think it would be too arduous with an emergency attitude. You could even do some testing at the depths involved.

And how much time it takes?

FYI: I served in CSDG ONE which has the US submersibles and rescue equipment. The biggest issue that i had with the Russians was that they did not even try very hard. We would have been flying equipment to the scen ASAP. Making up a plan and getting it approved (and improved) as we went. If it turned out that it was all for naught, too bad. But if it turned out that a few extra minutes could have saved someone...how could you live with yourself for not trying. So the biggest issue I had was not wether a rescue was possible or not...but that they didn't try.

Excuse me, but how could you know what they did to save them, what they tried, and how hard they tried?
They did refused your help, but I guess because they thought that rescue with your equipment was absolutely impossible.

And Serb, I know a hell of a lot more about this.

Of course, of course, you're professional, I'm not.

And its not just theory. It's practical human lessons of motivation when you are fighting a fire or flooding on a submarine. But the Russians never did have the quality of training and operations that we did/do.

Execuse me once again, but how could you know this? Did you inspect Russian training facilities, saw their training, saw their sailors at work, etc?
I'm just curious , I'm not questioning your professionalism. I just to know why you believe your sailors are better in comparision with Russian sailors. There must be some reasons for such conclusion.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278


I guess that is the way it appears from your point of view. We still see them as patriots who are trying to help Russia.

The patriot is the one who loves, supports, and defends one's country (in accordance with dictionary.com). So, how the one who is sharing secrets of this country with anyone thus betraying this country, can be a patriot?

A few come to my mind like the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss but I believe there were many more people working for us than against us.

You mean CIA had more agents than GRU?
If you really think so, then it's very good.
Recently you arrested an American patriot who worked for SU/Russia intelligence. Don't remember this guy name, unfortunately.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Wouldn't have had to be Patton being the new SACEUR, but with Lend-leased yanked away from Russia, Britain, The commomwealth, various "liberated" countries, and taking the remnants of wehrmacht added with the American forces...yes, yes I do believe we could crush communism then. Especially when we still held a signifigant strategic advantage over them.

You didn't have balls to attack us, because you knew that Red Army was the strongest army in the world in 1945. Otherwise you would attack us, no doubt.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Serb



You didn't have balls to attack us, because you knew that Red Army was the strongest army in the world in 1945. Otherwise you would attack us, no doubt.

Bah, we were busy fighting an army or warriors who followed the Bushido, a bunch of Russians who'll have one of there prime sources of war material yanked out would be nothing, NOTHING to American Might!


Plus, for the winter phase of the invasion, we would deploy the Dreaded Minnesota National Guard!

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We would have won.

In your dreams.

But to give the Russians credit, as much as you can give mass murderers credit, it would have been a very long and bloody war.

We kicked as$es of much more powerfull enemies, then USA was in 1945, while were in much worse situation then in 1945 when we strong as perhaps never were.
USA do not know what it means- long and bloody war. You never fought, do not fight and will not fight such wars. So, how the hell you can win such war against Russians who are real professionals in such wars?

And yeas alot of people have died from Ameica's "freedom wars." But The "15 times the Nazis" the Soviets accomplished, and that is a low figure, was acutually by their hands and not justified in any way by the collateral damage of war arguement (which is not entirely valid).

Out from whose as$ you've pulled this "15 times the Nazis"?

Ie Americans rarely lined people up and mowed them down with machineguns and then threw them in a mass grave. We don't have a system of health spas in Nothern Alaska where 10s of millions found it to be so nice they decided not to come back, ever.

WTF are you talking about?

And while the Nazis have the infamous reputation as bieng the most efficient killers, I give that to you. You actually let work or the cold kill them instead of wasting the labor though gas chambers. Enjoy the dubious honor.

Ok look at WW2:
Every 7th German POW took by Soviets in WW2 died.
Every 3 out of 5 Soviet POWs took by Germans died.
Do you see the difference or not?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Bah, we were busy fighting an army or warriors who followed the Bushido,

Bulk of their army was destroyed by Soviets. You were even unable to dealt with Japanese by themselves.

a bunch of Russians who'll have one of there prime sources of war material yanked out

LEND-LEASE=5% in Soviet war material. When the hell you will understand this?

would be nothing, NOTHING to American Might!

What might? The "might" you had in 1945 in Europe would be easily destroyed by Soviets.

Plus, for the winter phase of the invasion, we would deploy the Dreaded Minnesota National Guard!

HTF are those people? Did they ever tested on their skin what the hell is -45C?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278


Scary? Not really. He was more of an embarrassment (which ultimately led to his removal ).

BTW: I'm not feeling very "buried" right now. So much for his bluster.

[TCO]

We have time requirements (which are exercised) which are in the hours for moving a DSRV to a downed submarine. It is an extensive program with transport airplanes, airfields identified, etc. I can't really tell you exact numbers. understood.

But above that...even your question betrays the wrong attitude. What if we are supposed to take 12 hours and the guys would die in 10? We would try to move faster. Adapt, overcome. Capiche?

And even if we couldn't get there in time we would try anyway, just in case our calculations were off. That is the attitude you have from doing damage control on a submarine. And Serb, our damage control and operating records are far better than the Soviets. And to the extent that we know information about their and other nations practices, I have decent knoledge of that. We are the premier navy in terms of blue water operations and damage control.

If you want, just look at the numbers of Russian nukes on the bottom of the ocean and look at the numbers of ours. Also, look at the radiological programs Russians had lots of overexposure incidents. our nuclear navy runs the premier program in the world (civilian or nuclear).

[TCO]

The long leg in a sea rescue of the Kursk would have been moving a ship there to host the DSRV. But we would have started one on its way as soon as the ship was known down. And Then LATER try to figure out if the whole thing could be pulled off in time. If you are too late, all you lose is some time and expense. But the Russian attitude instead was to huddle and try to figure out what to do. They did NOT move assets immediately. This was well reported. Even within Russia.

The difference is that your system is much more bearocratic.

This failing with Kursk was very similar to the problem with Columbia. Assuming that you can't do something rather than trying to do it. With that attitude would have let Apollo 13 die.

I'm not saying that Kursk could have been saved. I don't care about that so much. I'm saying you didn't try. you'd be surprised what you can pull off in an emergency with committed people and with adapt and overcome attitude. If you have this attitude you will achieve some saves that you would have otherwise assumed impossible.

[Patroklos]

I gave you an entire book of numbers from a respected and acclaimed book. The numbers are against you no matter how much revisionist crap you spout.

You did fight against Nazism and that would be a great thing....except tthe only reason you did it was to save your own lot of mass murderers.

And your 40 million in Europe thing is ridiculous. If you are going to use war dead for one side then you have to use it for all. Didn't you learn anything in elementry science class, there is this thing intelligent people use called the Scientific Method.... I maintian through FACT (produce your own numbers with a source) that from 33-45 you killed more people. I bet the Nazi's would have caught up too you but they were stopped, you weren't. You actually liberated the concentration camps and still kept the gulags working after what you saw, though I guess such sights weren't new to your political leadership (just paint some red stars everywhere and you might as well be in Siberia).

And then, while it may not matter to you but it does to me, there are circumstances. While sensless mass murdering is always wrong I tend to despise the people who kill in times of peace like most of the history of the Soviet Union, Mao, and Cambodia more. It just seems more cold blooded to me. Nazi concentration camps fit in there too, because they were well removed from the war.

And btw as the book states through analysis of numbers (you have to do that) the Soviet Union did not kill 50% of its citizens. using the 60+ million they gave it is actually closer to 29% (all causes, including war deaths). Congratulations!

If you can't understand that German soldiers can and did fight for with bravery then your revisionist problems are serious indeed.

[Serb]

Originally posted by TCO
We have time requirements (which are exercised) which are in the hours for moving a DSRV to a downed submarine. It is an extensive program with transport airplanes, airfields identified, etc. I can't really tell you exact numbers. understood.

But, those exersises and training simulated a rescue mission on YOUR downed subs. I asked about something different- how much time it takes to modify your equipment (and perhaps to test it on depth) to make it possible to use it to save sailors from OUR subs. Is it possible to modify and test it within few days?

But above that...even your question betrays the wrong attitude. What if we are supposed to take 12 hours and the guys would die in 10? We would try to move faster. Adapt, overcome. Capiche?
And even if we couldn't get there in time we would try anyway, just in case our calculations were off. That is the attitude you have from doing damage control on a submarine.

I understand, but as I see, the problem wasn't only in time needed to deliver your equipment on scene, but more in time need to modify and test your equipment to make it possible to use it.

And Serb, our damage control and operating records are far better than the Soviets. And to the extent that we know information about their and other nations practices, I have decent knoledge of that. We are the premier navy in terms of blue water operations and damage control. If you want, just look at the numbers of Russian nukes on the bottom of the ocean and look at the numbers of ours.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought USSR had more subs than USA. I'm talking about SU, not modern Russia.

Also, look at the radiological programs Russians had lots of overexposure incidents. our nuclear navy runs the premier program in the world (civilian or nuclear).

I don't have such data, so I can't tell anything.

p.s. you bring some good points actually. I have to think about what you said.

[TCO]

Patty,

*GREEN FLARE*

p.s. Serb is a moron.

[Patroklos]

I hear you, and see the flare and am heading back to base.

Just out of curriosity, has the US ever used that stuff in a real submarine accident?

I'm in the Navy but not a submariner, know only ther cursory stuff about them.