Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 19 of 33 FirstFirst ... 91011121314151617181920212223242526272829 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 482

Thread: Argentinian Military

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    Because we have a government leaded by ex-guerrillas soldiers, who are agaisnt the improvement of the military forces in order to get revenge of the military goverment from 1976 to 1983. That's why
    Not consistent but very true aniway, welcome to the club Eagle, I get kicked off the "Foro Saorbats" for saying exactly the same.

    The guys that made the moderation in there are goverment suck... you know what.

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    glad to see that you finally changed sides mate eagle,enjoy the right!

  3. #273
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Inside your head taking notes
    Posts
    426

    Default

    Putting national pride to one side, does Argentina need a carrier bourne strike capability. Carriers are fine if you have overseas commitments or military assets to support but as part of a coherent national defence force facing an aggressive neighbour it would be of very limited advantage.In the unlikely event of an invasion by a major power do you not think that a carrier group would be a primary target and would be taken out before boots hit the ground.
    At present Argentina's potential adversry's share a land border so it makes more sense to make conventional land and air forces the priority to meet the percieved threat, in simple terms let your neighbours waste their money on expensive show pieces like carriers as long as you have the capability to take them out if and when neccesary, a decent MBT with air support to meet any border incursions and top end intelligence gathering to maximise your time to target.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    Invincible class carriers
    Length: 209 m
    Beam: 36.1 m
    Draught: 8.4 m
    Displacement: 20,400
    Crew: around 1000 including aircrew, can carry an extra 500 soldiers
    Speed: 28 knots, 18 knots cruising
    Range: 7000 nm at 18 knots

    The Royal Navy currently has two.

    Clemencau class carriers
    Displacement: approx. 32,700 tons full load
    Dimensions: 780.8 x 104 x 28.2 feet/238 x 31.7 x 8.6 meters
    Extreme Dimensions: 869.5 x 168 x 28.2 feet/265 x 51.2 x 8.6 meters
    Crew: approx. 1200 + air group
    Aircraft: probably approx. 30

    Here is a good comparison of our current and our future carriers with the Charles de Gaule for comparison.

    If you post idiocy, don't get upset if you are seen as an idiot.... I don't.

    Here endth the lesson.




    Have you seen any combat?

    Seen a little on TV.

    You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?



  5. #275
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    I fully undestand that, but I dont understand the question like " why you need a carrier"....or the tremendous worry that some members have for our finances.
    In a discussion about any matter facts are brought into play.
    So far we have heard no coherent argument supporting a need for an aircraft carrier.
    What people mean by "why do you need a carrier" is what is the reason that you believe an aircraft carrier is required.
    I don't see a tremendous worry by expressed anybody with reference to the Argentine economy, perhaps some people should.
    I do know that some members support human rights and this may have caused them to think of better ways to use the available capital.


    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    I am not a Machist....I am macho...that is not the same.
    I don't believe I used the word 'Machist' - it is not covered in seventeen English dictionaries so is most unlikely to be found in my English vocabulary.
    Perhaps you meant 'machinist' ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    but the bottom line is that Argentina does not actually need a force projection capability
    That is a opinion not a fact.
    I think SS Tiger appeared concerned about selective quoting, and had you extended the same courtesy to my post it would be obvious that a question was offered afterwards.
    If you can show an actual military requirement for a carrier I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my statement, however until facts indicating the opposite may be the case then it remains a fact in itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    Lather I show you tha expensive things that Chile has bought, but off course nobody says nothing to the chileans.
    I was unaware that we had a thread about the modern Chilean forces, had there been one I'm sure that considered respones to any debates would be posted there too.

    Regards,
    Cuts.
    "Don't call me stupid !" - Otto 'Galtieri' West.
    __________________
    Stupidity should be a crime. Ignorance should be punished.
    Refusal to accept corroborated facts should result in a chainsaw enema.

    a luta continua, em adiante a vitória
    __________________

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    249

    Default

    No its not!
    In the true spirit of the panto season, "oh yes it is!"

    It's exactly like dealing with that buffoon precisely becuase Cuts and others provide a coherent proposition, backed by a series of facts, figures and references, and Erwin responds with abuse. I see that Dani has censored some of his wilder insults like a good moderator should, but where is the countervailing discussion of why Argentina would require an aircraft carrier, or anything bigger than a frigate?

    Over on the ARRSE site, we are having a discussion as to whether parachuting is still a valid method of troop delivery on the modern battlefield. As you might expect, it's engendering some heated feeling, but the discussion is kept going by fact and reasoned argument. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case here.

    Why does any country need a carrier. Only the US has real carriers, then the French with a baby carrier.

    I would say why does the UK need any, but that would be very off topic here.
    A fair point. Why does the UK need an aircraft carrier, especially when we don't have aircraft to use from it? With a history of expeditionary warfare and peacekeeping, there may be a requirement, but I doubt it myself. I think we are getting one for political reasons, and the justification for that is weak. Sadly, those who control the purse strings of UK Plc (defence div) are sometimes noted for their lack of forethought in such matters.



    Please discuss the Argentine military, and if you have no interest other than trying to wind up the Argentinians here, I will be polite and say, please dont....
    I made my post as I was become increasingly irritated by the pig headedness that Erwin displays whenever his opinion is challenged.

    I visit this site mainly for the WW2 content. Most of my posts are WW2 related, and not just a series of smileys or nons sequiter.

    However, I find my enjoyment of this somewhat tempered by the gibberish from some site members that they feel passes for reasoned debate.

    I have often said about my hobbies, that if I cease to enjoy them then I will find something else to do. I am very close to ceasing to enjoy this site and if you don't get a grip of the more foolish members, I shall toddle off and find some other use for my time.

    Kind regards

    Fluffy[/quote]

  7. #277
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    Fluffy

    My post was not specifically aimed at you, yours just happened to be the one I was reading at the time.

    Where you get annoyed at the 'Buffoons', which I fully understand, I also get annoyed at the posts deliberately designed to wind-up the Argentineans. Every time I visit here and see that the Argentine Military thread has been active I just know whats coming.

    If anyone here doesnt like the Argentine debates, then why not just ignore them?

    Anyway, I shall ponder on this subject with the Mods etc and get back to you.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1000ydstare
    Well, Charles de Gaulle is not precisely a Mini CRuiser


    Erwin responds with abuse
    fluffy,you are actually abusing at this topic.

    I don't believe I used the word 'Machist' - it is not covered in seventeen English dictionaries so is most unlikely to be found in my English vocabulary.
    Perhaps you meant 'machinist' ?
    ahh funny,a macho is a man,a machist is:

    Machismo is a noun of Spanish origin, and refers to a prominently exhibited or excessive masculinity. The word machismo—and its derivatives machista and macho, "he who espouses machismo"—comes from the Spanish word macho, meaning "male" or "manly". (The word macho literally translates as "male", but is applied primarily to animals in this sense.) In Spanish macho can sometimes mean "courageous" or "valorous", although machista rarely has such positive connotations.

    As an attitude, machismo ranges from a personal sense of virility to a more extreme masculism. Most machistas believe in conservative gender role ideas. Generally speaking, machistas oppose a woman's right to work, participate in sports, or pursue other traditionally male roles in society. Many machistas also believe it is their right as men to seek extramarital adventures, although women are to remain faithful. Machistas believe that women were created to stay home and be mothers and wives. Thus, most machistas believe firmly in the superiority of men over women.

    Some acts of domestic violence against women have been committed by men who consider themselves superior to women, whereby the doctrine of machista such violence may often be called appropriate or justified.

    The most common Spanish term for a woman with exaggerated feminine pride is feminista (as in "feminist"), although some Spanish speakers prefer the female equivalent of macho: hembra ("female" in Spanish), as in "Yo soy muy macho, pero tú eres muy hembra" (I am very macho, but you are very hembra). Today, both feminista and hembra are widely used in modern Spanish.
    thank you for the text,WikiGod.

    Again Firefly,thankyou very much for your work at here,i know i have been hostile to you but you are still trying to defend me and the guys of my team, muchas gracias .

  9. #279
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    No Sturmtruppen, I'm trying to Mod. You know, not take any sides! If this degenerates into yet another excuse for insults the thread will be locked.

  10. #280
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly
    No Sturmtruppen, I'm trying to Mod. You know, not take any sides! If this degenerates into yat another excuse for insults the thread will be locked.
    sorry,sorry,it's not usual for me to see equality.

  11. #281
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    Here is an article from a Dutch gun magazine, lovingly translated by me:

    SAM Weapons Magazine, issue 114. Translated from Dutch to English by Man of Stoat.

    ARGENTINE WEAPONS

    On the second of February 2002, Willem-Alexander and Maxima Zorreguieta married. Given that SAM is a weapon magazine, we will take the opportunity of this royal wedding to give attention to Argentine arms.

    Just like in many Latin American countries, 19th-century Argentine weapon history is shrouded in mist. As a former Spanish colony, Argentina declared independence in 1816. A large part of the rest of the century was spent with a never-ending series of border-dispute wars and skirmishes with the surrounding countries, such as Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia. These wars were fought out by militias who used everything that could be shot; a national army was only formed around 1870 and from that moment there also started to be more unity in the Argentine armoury.

    The adoption of the Mauser model 1891 rifle appears to have been more or less the start of their own arms industry. Even though these weapons were originally bought in Germany, they were also made under the supervision of the General Fabricatiónes Militares (DGFM -- a sort of Artillerie Inrichtingen) in the state arms factory, the Fabrica Militar de Armas Portatiles "Domingo Matheu" (FMAP) in Rosario. Matheu was a member of the first Argentine Junta of 1810 and played an important role in the development of a National arms industry. In the 20th century a number of adjacent individual arms factories sprung up, which operated with varying success.

    Pistols

    The first self loading pistol of the Argentine armed forces was the Mannlicher Pistola Modelo 1905, a somewhat modernised version of the model 1901, in 7.63 mm calibre. These weapons are marked "Md.1905" on the left side of the frame and with the Argentine Coat of Arms on the right hand side. The pistols appear not to have been uniquely numbered. The Mannlichers were consecutively numbered, from one to approximately 12, 000, and the Argentine pistols all fall within this series. Aside from that, Argentina was the only country in the world that officially brought this model of Mannlicher into service as a military arm.
    In 1916 the Mannlichers should have been replaced with the Colt M1911 which was brought into service as the Pistola Automatica Sistema Colt, Modelo 1916. Although Colt appears to have made a number of examples for Argentina, the deliveries were quickly stopped due to American involvement in the First World War. At the start of the 1920s they were resumed and when Colt followed the 1911 with the M1911A1, Argentina also took this weapon into use as the Modelo 1927. The pistol was produced under licence at the Argentine state Arsenal DGFM-FMAP in Rosario, but it is not known precisely when production began. Some authors say 1930; according to others the pistol was only made in Argentina from 1947. Just as with the Mannlicher, the model 1927 pistols were marked with the Argentine Coat of Arms, in this case on the right-hand side of the slide. The total number is estimated at 75,000; the pistol illustrated here has the serial number 63512.
    The model 1927 was produced in Argentina under an official licence, in contrast to the so-called Ballester-Molina, which was produced by the Hispano Argentina Fabrica de Automoviles S.A. (HAFDASA). The Ballister-Molina differs from the 1911 A1 on a number of points, mostly in the construction of the trigger, the safety, and the shape of the hammer spur. Little is known about the history and the use of these pistols. It is known that an unknown number were bought by the Brits during the Second World War, and for the most part were issued to SOE agents.
    In 1969 the Argentine Colts were replaced in their turn by the Browning High-Power, adopted as the Pistola Browning PD. These were also made directly under licence, again at FMAP in Rosario. Between 1969 and 1981, 184,533 were produced.

    Rifles

    In 1891 Argentina adopted a Mauser rifle, under the appellation Modelo 1891. This weapon bears a strong similarity to the Belgian Mauser M1889, with its characteristic magazine, but lacking the separate jacket around the barrel. Alongside the infantry rifle there were also various carbine models used, mostly for the cavalry, and all under the appellation Modelo 1891. Most of these weapons were produced by Ludwig Loewe & Co in Berlin.
    In 1909 the new model appeared, based on the German Gewehr 98, with the magazine completely in the stock. There were also a carbine version and a version with a telescopic sight in use.
    After the Second World War the Argentines received a colourful assortment of new rifles: American M1 Garands, Belgian SAFNs and Italian BM59s, all in modest numbers. In the intervening period the FAL made its appearance, in 7.62 x 51 NATO calibre. This weapon was adopted in 1955. An unknown number were ordered from F. N., whilst at the same time a contract was concluded for licensed production in Argentina. Due to the coup against General Juan Peron, it took until 1958 for the weapons from Belgium to be delivered. Ultimately three versions were produced in Argentina:the FAL II, the FAL Para, and the FAP, the latter a full-automatic with a bipod.
    At the start of the 1980s FMAP developed their own rifle model, the .223 NATO Fusil Automatico del Republica de Argentina, otherwise known as the FARA 83. Whether this weapon has been officially adopted in the meantime is not known.

    Submachine guns

    Most Argentine submachine guns are native designs. A number were made by the Fabrica de Armas Halcon SATYC in Buenos Aires. Halcon (Spanish for Hawk) was set up in 1941 and in the passage of time produced a large number of variants, from the first Model 1943, via the 1946, 1957, and 1960, to the model 1963, illustrated here. All of these weapons were in 45 ACP calibre, or in 9 mm Parabellum and were straight-blowback. The Halcon model 1963 has a telescopic stock and a plastic-shrouded magazine housing, which also serves as a forward grip. The two triggers serve for semiautomatic and automatic fire. The model 1963 fires from a closed bolt. Another important series of submachine guns were made by the state Arsenal FMAP. The first model was the PAM 1, which stands for Pistola Ametrelladora 1. This weapon was a faithful copy of the American M3 A1 grease gun, albeit in 9 mm Parabellum calibre, and was adopted by the Argentine army around 1952. The PAM 2, from the start of the 1960s, was a slightly improved version of the PAM 1, with a safety catch just behind the magazine housing. This catch must be pushed forward to un-safe the weapon.
    Around 1970 a completely new concept appeared, initially called the P.A. 3 DM, but later rechristened as the F.M.K.3. It is not clear what the letters stand for. This weapon fires from the open position and has a bolt which lies partly around the barrel. This construction was copied from the Uzi. Just as with the latter, the magazine is inserted in the pistol grip and the weapon has a plastic hand guard around the front part of the receiver. There is a version with a fixed stock (the F.M.K. 4) and the here-illustrated with a telescopic wire stock. As far as it is known, the F.M.K.'s are still in production.
    To close, there is still another series of submachine guns from the commercial firm,the Armas & Equipos S.R.L. from the city of Cordoba. Of these MEMS-models, named after the developer Miguel Enrique Manzo Sal, there are at least seven models, although none of these appear to have been purchased on a substantial scale.

    Machine guns

    The first machine-gun of the Argentine armed forces was the watercooled Maxim. In 1895 the Argentines bought 50 from the Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company. Three years later another hundred and 50 examples were bought from DWM in Berlin, and in 1907 there followed another order, for a hundred more. According to data discovered by machine-gun expert Dolf Goldsmith, 95 Maxims was sold as surplus material in 1957. One example, with the serial number 17, landed via H. L. Visser in the Army Museum collection. A charming idea for a wedding present, this Maxim for Maxima?
    Just like many other countries, Argentina also adopted a light machine gun before the Second World War, in this case the Danish Madsen in the Argentine rifle calibre of 7.65 mm. A small number of light Browning machine guns were also used, probably BAR's commercially produced by Colt. In 1954 the production of a native design began, the Alam, but this was stopped after a short time. During the 1960s and 70s, Argentina imported a number of French AAT-52 and Austrian MG3 machine guns, mounted on vehicles. The most important machine-gun of this moment is the Belgian MAG, which has been produced since 1980, also under licence at FMAP. As Squad Automatic Weapon, the Argentine Army uses the FALO which, under the appellation Fusil Automatico Pesad (FAP), is also produced in Argentina.
    1884 electric cartridge. Look similar to anything?

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    that is very good,thanks.

    we have also incoropored to our army M16s and Steyr Augs,and we are going with the time to modernize the entire army.

    We have apart from infantry weapons,the TAM,the argentine army old pride



    Light vehicle of General use Aerotransportable "Gaucho" (development shared between brazil and argentina)



    In modernization we are for example modernizing the old UH-1H in the argentina army to HueyII.

    also we modernized the SK-105 to SK-105A2

    .

    and the new argentine tank,the prototype that will be the argentine fabricated new tank, acomplishing the goal of the modernization of the argentine army,to make it more light, this is the little Tan Patagon:





    of course there are so much things that i must be missing,im not precisely an expert .

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuts
    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    I fully undestand that, but I dont understand the question like " why you need a carrier"....or the tremendous worry that some members have for our finances.
    In a discussion about any matter facts are brought into play.
    So far we have heard no coherent argument supporting a need for an aircraft carrier.
    What people mean by "why do you need a carrier" is what is the reason that you believe an aircraft carrier is required.
    I don't see a tremendous worry by expressed anybody with reference to the Argentine economy, perhaps some people should.
    I do know that some members support human rights and this may have caused them to think of better ways to use the available capital.


    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    I am not a Machist....I am macho...that is not the same.
    I don't believe I used the word 'Machist' - it is not covered in seventeen English dictionaries so is most unlikely to be found in my English vocabulary.
    Perhaps you meant 'machinist' ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    but the bottom line is that Argentina does not actually need a force projection capability
    That is a opinion not a fact.
    I think SS Tiger appeared concerned about selective quoting, and had you extended the same courtesy to my post it would be obvious that a question was offered afterwards.
    If you can show an actual military requirement for a carrier I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my statement, however until facts indicating the opposite may be the case then it remains a fact in itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    Lather I show you tha expensive things that Chile has bought, but off course nobody says nothing to the chileans.
    I was unaware that we had a thread about the modern Chilean forces, had there been one I'm sure that considered respones to any debates would be posted there too.

    Regards,
    Cuts.

    Sorry if a mixed up the quotes Cuts ,There is too many answer in this topic and sometimes I get confused.

    You say about the "machism" and I tough that the word "machist" actually exist to describe the guy that carry out the action of "machism"....the bilingual thing, you know.

    I the other things, I try hard to explain the reason for Argentina to have a carrier, if dont sound "coherent" for anybody...well is not my problem, I try again showing the powerful military equipment that some of our neighboors have as a comparison and somebody say "this topic is not about chilean forces"....If you dont want to listen I cant make you hear.


    And Firefly you still dont aswered me.

    M.o.S you information is out date, the Hp is still in production in the FLB factories.

    Also the firm Bersa made some very good military and police pistols like the Thunder 9 and .45.




    I have to get back to work right know but later I post some about the small arms industry.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    I dont quiet follow, Do you try to mean that the U.S and U.K are the only countries that really need a Carrier ?

    BTW, I will not consider the Charles de Gaulle a baby carrier, not even the lesser Clemenceaus.
    What I mean is that why go to all the expense to procure a carrier for you Navy when it will only be there as a symbol?

    What is the most likely threat for your country? A war with Brazil or Chile? Any other conflict with any of the greater powers would just not be winnable with 1 carrier.

    So, if you contemplate fighting against your neighbours what is the point of having Carriers as surely the war would be primarily land based. There is no point in taking your carrier all the way into the Pacific to attack Chile when it can be done from the air much more effectively by land based air.

    Carriers are inherently expensive, you just dont have the carrier, as has been explained before, you need the support group, which includes air and submarine defence. Then if you want to power project, you have to have a fleet of replenishment vessels for your battle group, and you then have to protect them as well, so that means more ships.

    In my opinion, your country would be much more of a threat to your neighbours Navies if you bought a fleet of Kilo subs from Russia.

    If all you want a carrier for is prestige and because other countries have them, then its just like 1910 again!


    Editted to add my text that somehow dissapeared.

  15. #285
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    It was a direct translation of an article written in 2002. And I don't remember it ever saying that the HP had ever gone out of production.
    1884 electric cartridge. Look similar to anything?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Feldgrau - German military
    By Dani in forum 2006 Archive Room
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-24-2006, 09:19 AM
  2. Your Military Experience
    By Orita in forum 2006 Archive Room
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 01-27-2006, 04:51 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •