Inherent Retardation

that america is worth fighting for

I hear that the troops fight for freedom, while all of my freedoms are under threat from domestic law makers and law enforcement.

Did the krauts actually hear the ping over the gunshots?

surprise. america is a shithole. did the racism not show you that?

>lost Vietnam
except we reached a peace agreement with the North, left the country divided like Korea, and then TWO YEARS LATER the North surprise attacked the South and conquered it

Are you going to pretend we didn't know that was going to happen? When we left south Vietnam we knew they were doomed, we can't just excuse it with "Oooops we had no idea". We made a peace agreement to get us enough time to pull out before the north moved in.

what does racism have to do with this? racism exists everywhere. I've seen racist mexicans that discriminate against native mayans. Shit happens.

you sound like a dumb fat american

>except we reached a peace agreement with the North

A peace agreement that was engineered so the US could save face.

>and then TWO YEARS LATER the North surprise attacked the South and conquered it

The north was continuing attacks within weeks.

kys tripfag

It was ultimately public support in the U.S. that lost the war, combined with some retarded rules of engagement.

>kys tripfag

you don't even know what a trip is

>retarded rules of engagement

Maybe if the US didn't rape and burn villages support for the communists wouldn't have increased? who'd have thought.

sorry, namefag would've been more appropriate desu

>Certain pistol calibers cause stagger
according to fudd lore, yeah - but in real life people have tanked multiple shots of the "stoppahn powah" calibers
>the momentary stagger and knock back from stuff like 45
knock back doesn't exist

this is like a snek eating another snek

This is incorrect unless you have a source to back it up.

This is incorrect unless you have a source to back it up.

Why do people just say shit?

Well, it exists but it's exceedingly minimal.

IMPLESSIVE

It gets old and I just want to have a serious conversation about the only near-peer the USA has left.

Stopping power is a complete meme. That's why I carry a .22 Short.

Stopping power is more of a subjective term than a scientific one. It just gets lost somewhere between "wounding potential" and terminal ballistics.

>people against stopping power focus on physical damage and effects verified by science
>"durr because you don't believe in a mythical effect that can't be quantified it means you don't believe in differences between calibers hurr"

Attached: blacktalon.jpg (370x440, 30K)

>China
>Near peer
China dreams of one day being a near peer, and they're going to collapse their economy trying to make that dream real. Russia remains the only near peer in the world, even dilapidated and rusting apart they still present both a greater offensive threat and defensive challenge than china, because they have practical experience with all their weapons and have a long running and battle tested doctrine which they made up up on their own and work within. china is just a patchwork of idea and techs that everyone else was using 20 years ago, which they have never themselves employed in anything but wargames and sims. 99.9% of chinas military, from boots in basic training to their commanding generals have never even been shot at. How can you call an military composed entirely of green troops a "near peer". I would legit rather invade mainland china than russia, because we know for a fact that Russian's fight and we know for a fact that their command structure is full of battle hardened and experienced men who will not panic and dissolve into puddle of of piss when air strikes and operators neutralize half their command they'll just fight with half a command.

No we didn't and America didn't start the war the british did by blockading merchant ships to France and INVADING THE UNITED STATES!!!
The U.S. clearly won because we repelled the Invasion and opened trade to France.
Although I will concede about vietnam, if it weren't for communist sympathizers, and pussy politicians it would have been an absolute American victory.

>stopping power
Semantics for energy, aka joules. Surely you're not denying the laws of physics are a real thing?

A .50AE round will have significantly more energy than a .380acp for example. Guess which one is likely going to take fewer rounds to "stop" the target.

>krauts
No, not krauts. It was effective at killing japanese because every time they heard the *PING* they would pop out from cover because they thought somebody called their name

The F-35 is a lemon, but not for those reasons.

The US lost both of those conflicts.

If you don't achieve your objectives, and the other side wins, you have fucking lost.

How is that even up for debate?

I dont know, I try not to guess, do you have a valid source to back up your claim a .380 will take less shots to stop someone? I feel like it would be one for one if hit in the brain or another vital.

>run
the only thing russians are good at hehe xd

Attached: hurt.jpg (460x358, 46K)

good luck killing it

sure, vitals notwithstanding, you get the concept

The F-35 will be dominant against any other country's aircraft or air defenses
My only complaint is that I feel as though it had more potential

>5.56 is designed to wound

No better way to tell somebody is at the peak of the dunning-Kruger effect, and that they don't understand physics.

Attached: 1435509634123.png (415x357, 289K)

Yes, I get the concept that if you do not hit a vital neither will cause a magical stop based on tissue damage alone.

how?

>5.56 is designed to wound
Out of curiosity who the fuck have you heard say this? Is this 7.62 fag retardation?

Why, in your opinion, is the F-35 a lemon? Is it due to its low internal payload? Is it due to the controversial program cost?

I just don't see how that's the ABSOLUTE best the US defense contractors had to offer
It's known they have super seekwet tech that they don't put onto conventional weapons

I've heard it before, too. I cannot remember the source, however, but some people are genuinely that retarded.

Have you read any of the military logic behind using 5.56?

Its designed to maim opponents, make them bleed out over a long time. Forcing enemy medics to respond. Which in turn requires more overall logistics for the wounded.

It was literally designed to maim not to kill.

The AN/APG-81 and EODAS and EOTS sensors are pretty top notch, as is its sensor fusion and datalink technology. I understand what you mean, but all of that is incredibly impressive.

>literally so fucking retarded that you fall for a engineered "peace" meant to save US face when it became clear the situation was salvageable

There are decades of solid scholarship on this stuff user come on.

>>Garand ping deaths

>Franz is firing the MG42 right next to my ear
>My own rifle is loud as fuck
>There is a Tiger doing a burnout somewhere nearby
>Tinnitus from 3 years on the Eastern Front leaves a constant eeeeeeee in my ears
>Our position is being bracketed by heavy artillery
>Hans is yelling orders as loud as he fucking can
>But I can still hear a faint metallic ring from 200 yards away

Attached: 1533490938734.png (500x592, 535K)

I think I'd feel a lot more magic if I were to be shot with .44mag vs .22.

Source?

That's nice.

any boomer, any kid who's gone beyond CoD understanding of guns but hasn't gone far enough to actually shoot them.

Ah yes, because if it were any other caliber outside of 5.56 the medics would not have to respond. The soldier could either plug it with a band-aid, or would simply be torn asunder by the strong, virile force of 30.06 / 7.62 NATO / etc.

Do you have any cases of this logic that lasted beyond the "retarded theorycrafting" stage? I could be wrong on this, but you can also craft some whacky historical narratives with documents that never got beyond some low level official's desk.

Modern Air combat is a complex web of interaction from dozens of technological and tactical domains it is somthing that needs to be intuitively understood after a certain point a dont fully reach that point requires almost a college level course to cover it all. So much backround knowledge is required for someone to understand certain individual sentances worth of ideas means that air combat is almost an arcane science on top of modern military science already being an arcane endeavor.

Its much easier for someone to conceptualize the WW1-WW2 methodology of air combat than it is the modern methods so they more or less just assume air combat is more or less WW2 with f-16s and B-52s. Movies like top gun, while enjoyable for aviation afficiandos only reinforce incorrect ideas in the general public. For example most of my non-aviation inclined friends still believe that strategic bombing means hundred strong formations of bombers leveling cities and have no conception of bvr combat. Advances in weapons systems are just as significant as aircraft in the relm of air combat but these intracisies are largely ignored.

Dont forget the MG42 doing Tyrs mighty roar of war and tearing through anything.

Dont get me wrong, the MG-42 is a good gun, its a great suppression tool due to its high rate of fire and reliability, but its not a war winner. There is no such thing as a super weapon that wins battels or wars on its own.

bullshit, requirements for the replacement of .30 cal had to meet lethality at 300 yards
plus 5.56 was adopted because of how lethal it was in Vietnam when ARs were sent to special forces and South Vietnamese commandos

Look up some military history fuckwit.

5.56 dumps all of its energy upon impact. 7.62 will often penetrate through a soft target. The wound channels are entirely different. 5.56 is designed with bleeding in mind.

Attached: 1536590202682.jpg (799x754, 70K)

>read some military history fuckwit
>posts no military history

my readings of military history point me to the conclusion that 5.56 was adopted because it was lighter, easier to shoot, and offered lethality that was good enough that the gains in power from full-bore cartridges wasn't enough to offset the comparative disadvantages in weight. I've never seen this "designed to wound" shit in any source that would count as authoritative.

Of course we have inconvenient facts like pointing out that 5.56 had to remain lethal out to a significant distance, but keep on rattling off fuddlore, dipshit.

McNuke would like a word with you

Why are you talking about calibers but not talking about the specific projectile design used in each one? Projectile type matters far more than the bore diameter.

underrated post lol

>source?
>facebook
>twitter
>wikipedia
>youtube
>.blog
>/opinions
>zerohedge
>.jpg
>.png

You're retarded.

McNuke was useless without the McBomber which dropped it, the McFighters which escorted its flight path, the McSpies who rounded up the McKraut McScientists who worked on designing it, and so on.

We did lose Vietnam. We won most of our battlefield encounters, but failed to achieve our objectives and lost the will to fight.

Wow, it's like I'm really in a gun store

Attached: 1561951435584.jpg (716x724, 20K)

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/
archive.org/stream/M16IchordReport1/M16 Ichord Report 1_djvu.txt

>Nearly a century before American troops were ordered into Vietnam, weapons designers had made a discovery in the science of “wound ballistics.” The discovery was that a small, fast-traveling bullet often did a great deal more damage than a larger round when fired into human or (for the experiments) animal flesh. A large artillery round might pass straight through a human body, but a small bullet could act like a gouge. During the early stages of the congressional hearing, Ichord asked Eugene Stoner, the designer of the original version of the M-16, to explain the apparent paradox of a small bullet’s destructive power. The answer emerged in the following grisly exchange.
>Ichord: One army boy told me that he had shot a Vietcong near the eye with an M-14 [which uses a substantially heavier bullet] and the bullet did not make too large a hole on exit, but he shot a Vietcong under similar circumstances in the same place with an M-16 and his whole head was reduced to pulp. This would not appear to make sense. You have greater velocity but the bullet is lighter.
>Stoner: There is the advantage that a small or light bullet has over a heavy one when it comes to wound ballistics. … What it amounts to is the fact that bullets are stabilized to fly through the air, and not through water, or a body, which is approximately the same density as the water. And they are stable as long as they are in the air. When they hit something, they immediately go unstable. … If you are talking about .30-caliber [like a bullet used in the M-14], this might remain stable through a human body. … While a little bullet, being it has a low mass, it senses an instability situation faster and reacts much faster. … this is what makes a little bullet pay off so much in wound ballistics.

The farsighted Willard G. Wyman, the commanding general of the Continental Army Command, had asked Stoner to design a rifle precisely to take advantage of the “payoff” of smaller bullets. The AR-15, the precursor of the M-16, used .22-calliber bullets instead of the .30-caliber that had long been standard for the Army. As early as 1928, an Army “Caliber Board” had conducted firing experiments in Aberdeen, Maryland, and had then recommended a move toward smaller ammunition, perhaps of the .27-caliber range; but the Army, for reasons that were partly technical but largely traditional, refused then and for the next thirty-five years to change from the .30-caliber bullet, which it chose to describe as “full-sized.”

This is literally fuddlore

Because it didn't meet the performance objectives it was intended and designed for.

Because it has had even further and continuous scaling back of its performance.

Because it has had enormous cost overruns that are still fucking increasing and according ot the GAO it's going to be 80% more expensive to operate per hour than the existing aircraft it's designed to replace (and be cheaper than)...

... and for bonus points, it's still not fully operational and is ten years behind schedule at this point.

It might well be a capable platform, but anyone calling it anything other than a lemon needs their head examined, to be honest.

We had already largely pulled out by the Easter Invasion.

If you're looking to assign blame, look to leading Democrats like Ted Kennedy, who deliberately abrogated their responsibilities under the treaty, and then wondered where all those "boat people" were coming from as the communists started with the death camps and slavery.

The ABSOLUTE best tech is a part of what made it late and over (the admittedly low-balled) initial budget. DAS and sensor fusion were expensive and time-consuming, mostly because of the massive amount of software coding required to make them work.

>>... and for bonus points, it's still not fully operational and is ten years behind schedule at this point.
>Block 3E
>Not fully operational
Are you fucking retarded?

>Is it due to its low internal payload?
In what fucking universe is the internal payload low?
>I just don't see how that's the ABSOLUTE best the US defense contractors had to offer
EO-DAS and AN/APG-81 are absolutely the best we have to offer.
>Because it didn't meet the performance objectives it was intended and designed for.
It did.
>Because it has had even further and continuous scaling back of its performance.
This literally never happened.
>Because it has had enormous cost overruns that are still fucking increasing and according ot the GAO it's going to be 80% more expensive to operate per hour than the existing aircraft it's designed to replace (and be cheaper than)...
Wrong on both counts. They are as of today cheaper than a new Super Bug and cost less per hour to operate.
>... and for bonus points, it's still not fully operational and is ten years behind schedule at this point.
400 in service with Block 3F already in full production and with Block 4 and 5 on the way would like a fucking word with you.

Attached: 1540791072719.jpg (680x642, 110K)

>They are as of today cheaper than a new Super Bug and cost less per hour to operate.
I also forgot they go twice as far on internal fuel alone as a Bug does with every drop you can possibly pump into it with external stores.

> being a faggot kills team morale

never had an issue. we were too busy being shot at in '07 to care about who's dirty str8 asshole i wanted to plunge

I still keep in touch with a few guys from my battalion. band of brothers indeed

At the end of the day they could've made 100 new F22's and just plugged a fucking combat networking doohicky into them. Could've even made a carrier capable one with ruggedized landing gear and better paint. Instead they made all these meme planes and funneled half the money into the secret space program and the other half to Israel.

Attached: 1521632562441.png (551x550, 337K)

>Fuck you. Certain pistol calibers cause stagger
The bigest cause of stagger is entirely psychosomatic.
People who grew up on John Woo movies have it deep in their subconcious that getting shot will throw them back like a wire pully, so when they get shot they will unconciously jump back.

You're wrong. "Icepicking" is a phenomenon unique to 5.56 bullets, and problematic enough to cause special forces units in the ongoing war on terror to seek different style bullets or use different cartridges altogether. Icepicking is the exact opposite of "dumping all mass on impact;" the bullet drills a clean hole through someone's body and doesn't drop them.

Look up some extremely recent military history fuckwit.

Also, by your logic, 5.56 shouldn't ricochet either, right?

>"Icepicking" is a phenomenon unique to 5.56 bullets
BS. Same shit happens with 7.62x39 M43.
>pic related

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7ac6/4daff51d403192b84e0eb450bd878a90e6e3.pdf

Also, the icepicking in 5.56 is somewhat exclusive to M855. M193 didn't have it, and the new M855A1 was specifically designed to tumble independently of fleet yaw.

Attached: fackler.png (729x551, 173K)

>At the end of the day they could've made 100 new F22's and just plugged a fucking combat networking doohicky into them.
No. They still wouldn't have ANY FORM OF OPTICAL SOLUTION AT ALL.
And
>100 more F-22's
>filling even a 10th of the demand for new fighters
Stop being retarded.

is this really the mental level that people that criticize the f-35 operate at? you need jesus or a tard handler

This
Being a useless retard kills team morale. I dont care who you fuck as long as you do your job and carry your weight

>"Every test conducted by the defense contractor that makes billions selling this plane and the military that's desperate to not look like fools for having spent billions developing and buying it says it works great!"

Yeah, I'm sure they do.

>the US lost 1812
Neither Britain nor America achieved any of the political goals in the war and no land changed hands.
Stalemates are not losses.

2 AMRAAMs and 2 2,000lb bombs. Max of 4 AMRAAMs in A2A clean loadout. Muh F-22 can carry 6 AMRAAMs. I'll just ignore the intended role of the F-35 and F-22 :^)

>I feel like this
>want people to take it as fact
Libfag pls

God I wish that was me.

If you start an offensive war to conquer a territory, and you fail to do it, you've lost.

The defending nation won.

See: The War of 1812.

If you enter a war in a nation with the specific aim of defending it against a hostile force, and you fail to do it, you've lost.

The hostile force that you were fighting against and that now controls the country won.

See: Vietnam.

This. Isn't. Rocket. Science.

Just accept the fact that the US is capable of losing wars.

That .50 BMG will kill you just by passing within a foot of you.

Attached: 1545012581582.png (544x288, 135K)

>If you start an offensive war to conquer a territory, and you fail to do it, you've lost.
It wasn't to conquer territory you tard. America was reexporting shit to France and England didn't like that so American ships were captured and Americans were impressed all having to do with the Napoleonic wars. When the Napoleonic Wars ended there was no need for any of what the US and the UK were doing so it ended unconditionally for both sides.

>If you enter a war in a nation with the specific aim of defending it against a hostile force, and you fail to do it, you've lost.
The political aims of the war changed because the US couldn't finish North Vietnam without starting WWIII. The US trained the ARVN like the political goal was and then pulled out.

any time canada bursts through your door, beats your land armies on one side and then beat your militia on the other, before setting fire to your white house until its roof collapses your women cry you have to take that as a loss.

>direct impingement is better than piston systems
and in the same breath I've seen people say
>the ar15 is not direct impingement because it has a piston

>forward assists are useful
yet
>reciprocating charging handles are bad

>5.56 was designed to wound
>9mm is a better round than .45 acp (in any way aside from capacity)
>anytime anyone uses the term "human wave"

>muh YaNkEe FiSt

>combat networking doohicky
That's some technical term right there fella