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 20 of 33 FirstFirst ... 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 482

Thread: Argentinian Military

  1. #286
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,763

    Default

    If a prestige naval platform is required how about an Iowa Class with modern AD capability ?

    FOGB sixteen inchers, more style than 3 Para Mortars on a friday night and as sexy as the girls in the models thread.
    As far as I'm aware, they're as close as one can get to unsinkable with conventional wpns - what a bonus !
    "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
    __________________

  2. #287
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,930

    Default

    Panzerknacker wrote
    I was meaning that if you already have trained pilots for carriers operations and you buy carrier based aircraft you need to have a carrier to mantain this level of equipment in the navy.
    In Britain we have a saying "don't throw good money after bad".

    Basically if you have carrier trained pilots you can say that they are very good at what they do, as in flying. However just because you have them it doen't mean you need to buy a carrier or carrier based aircraft just so they can fly off of it!!!

    If you have a broken car, for example, there comes a point when it is not worth maintaining anymore.
    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?



  3. #288
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1000ydstare
    [

    Basically if you have carrier trained pilots you can say that they are very good at what they do, as in flying. However just because you have them it doen't mean you need to buy a carrier or carrier based aircraft just so they can fly off of it!!!

    If you have a broken car, for example, there comes a point when it is not worth maintaining anymore.
    Or it's like buying a rifle just because you have a couple of magazines for it...
    1884 electric cartridge. Look similar to anything?

  4. #289
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    buenos aires argentina
    Posts
    223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker
    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.
    hey, in the FLB it's still in production, even you don't believe, the FAL,
    the FAP, and other guns. for it, its hardly to replace the individual weapon.
    In the army (the most of the officers), they say that i'ts feel a real ,weapon, not a toy.

  5. #290
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    buenos aires argentina
    Posts
    223

    Default

    [quote="Man of Stoat"]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.[/quote
    ok, it's very complete, but missing any things. there go a site to complete it.http://www.fullaventura.com.ar/armas/nota101274.asp

  6. #291
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    Right you guys, if you stated that Argentina dont need a carrier a can see know the real meaning behind your words...but off course I cannot agree with you....


    Firefly wrote:
    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
    The conflict with Brazil in the actual conditions is not likely , with Chile there is very good relationship..but who knows. I think that hipotetic conflict should be elaborate in more global aspect no only with the neighbour countries.


    And about the subs, is reaaaaally hard that Argentina purchase a russian made armament, in the past were used some ground to air SA-7 missiles, but the army dont pay for it, those were gave away by Peru and some for Libia also. Not to mention the bad propaganda that this nation had with his subs in the past years.

    The only thing that Argentina actually bought to the Russian federation was 8 Sukhoi Su-29Ar for the Air force acrobatic team.



    And again the carrier is not for prestige is for a real need believe me. ....the carries are useful machines they really are .

  7. #292
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    The conflict with Brazil in the actual conditions is not likely , with Chile there is very good relationship
    I don't think we would have a war with brazil probably,but,where did you get that relations with chile are good?,we didn't even repair them since 1978, they still have claims in our southern territory, they believe thanks to an historical map product of the cartographic errors,that the patagonia is chilean,also there was a map where chile was part of the capitany of Buenos Aires,of course,that's ignored.
    im afraid you know very well that our country has good relations with Peru!,and pretty friendlay with Bolivia too,also the chileans seems to be buying the equipment of an invasion army,that gives us something to worry about,is it like a revenge to the supreme power of the argentine army during most of the 20 century over the rest of latin america? (ignoring brazilian numbers of course).

    indeed it was an hipotetical case of war,i was just saying a "for example",but it is not impossible at all,i hope nothing will happen with chile,because if we have a war with them,Peru and Bolivia,countries who hate chile because they've lost a lot of territory over them,would help us and we would attack them from 3 flanks,east,north,north east,so that would be mortal,we would really crush chile easily and defeat them.

    I think that hipotetic conflict should be elaborate in more global aspect no only with the neighbour countries.
    We have more or less good relations with the other world,also,we haven't claims of territory in the antartica with USA, but we will never declare the war to usa,that's like a suicide ,we have claims with the united kingdom of great britain on the malvinas or falklands islands but to beat them,or at least to present heavy resistance,we need the same army weight as during the dictatorships who made us a country to fear.

  8. #293
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    buenos aires argentina
    Posts
    223

    Default

    I second you in almost everything, but COUTRY OF FEAR??????
    No, a little percent of argentine people think that and it is useless.

  9. #294
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cpl condor
    I second you in almost everything, but COUTRY OF FEAR??????
    No, a little percent of argentine people think that and it is useless.
    Yes lad,you remember Chile in 1978?,during our dictatorship,weren't them fearing us?,that's why they helped britain during malvinas war,they thought that after recovering the malvinas we were going to conquer them,also if im not wrong our economy has been blocked by usa several times, thanks to our politics,we were a bit imperialists for the rest of south ameirca,of course!,im not saying that countries such as france or germany feared us, but in LA,we were a giant.

  10. #295
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    And again the carrier is not for prestige is for a real need believe me. ....the carries are useful machines they really are .
    True words lad,it's not only for prestige (btw we need better prestige), a Carrier can load last generation planes and is able to refuel them in any part of the world,it's not only big and faraonic,thing that would demoralize the enemy and also being like a "scaring machine",apart from morale it has an important efective range thanks to the high autonomy of the lastest planes,the carrier would be the pride of the argentine army and good for training planes,that could be used in a sea zone to give more realism in case of an air to sea combat.

    A carrier would make our naval force up to date,it would be the principal ship of the navy and show the superiority of the argentine navy over the rest of the latin american navies.

    also a carrier has multiple purposes,you can defend you with a carrier in chase that the land is occupied,just send the planes from the carrier and they wouldn't be so vulnerable to the ground forces at the hour of an invasion,the carrier is useful for refueling,it can also be used as a repairing mobile plaform,there is a lot of technology to incorporate to it,and modernizing it is like moderinizing an entire navy of light ships.

    of course we need good carrier based aircrafts but we have enough money,our government has i mean,the thing is that it would be difficult to make them to buy a carrier for the argentine navy.

    It's true,im afraid a submarine wouldn't be that offensive,specially putting them to combat against the common navy's destroyers .

    Regards

    Erwin

  11. #296
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Santa Fe Province, ARGENTINA
    Posts
    326

    Default

    "And again the carrier is not for prestige is for a real need believe me. ....the carries are useful machines they really are"


    Argentina was very near of having another aircraft carrier in the nineties. The first was a secondary conventional carrier of the US Navy, and the other, the Clamenceu (Recently that was dismantled), but in both oportunities, the government repelled the first, and opted for another ship that was more necessary with the second term (choosing the Logistic Ship Patagonia).

    If the Argentine Navy would have a carrier, and the government don't raise the funds to it, the carrier would only be a terrible monster "eating" all the resources of the Navy. Argentina need to raise the funds designed to the armed forces.
    Eagle_Giuli


  12. #297
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle
    "And again the carrier is not for prestige is for a real need believe me. ....the carries are useful machines they really are"


    Argentina was very near of having another aircraft carrier in the nineties. The first was a secondary conventional carrier of the US Navy, and the other, the Clamenceu (Recently that was dismantled), but in both oportunities, the government repelled the first, and opted for another ship that was more necessary with the second term (choosing the Logistic Ship Patagonia).

    If the Argentine Navy would have a carrier, and the government don't raise the funds to it, the carrier would only be a terrible monster "eating" all the resources of the Navy. Argentina need to raise the funds designed to the armed forces.
    Yes,yes Eagle,but we are not talking about money this time,the question is, Is a Carrier necesary for Argentina?,Panzerknacker and i think that it would be really useful and the brits lads think that it seems to be an unuseful waste of money.
    please ignore the money .

    No, a little percent of argentine people think that and it is useless.
    Condor,lad,what are you talking about?

  13. #298
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Santa Fe Province, ARGENTINA
    Posts
    326

    Default

    Argentina doesn't have any serious military conflict nowadays, I'm not sure if it's ok to talk about "necessities", but if we aren't talking about the money, I would love to have an Armed Forces with the power that they had in March 1982, and more instead... talking about these:

    250 fighters and attack aircraft
    100 cargos
    20 or 30 combat helicopters
    10 heavy helicopters
    60 or 70 utilitary helicopters

    300 modern tanks

    1 aircraft carrier
    1 helicopter carrier
    8 destroyers
    10 corvettes
    6 submarines


    Why not?... but, talking about necessities... I am not sure if is so necessary, I think there are another things in a critical state that need to be improved before than the carrier.
    Eagle_Giuli


  14. #299
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    3,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle
    Argentina doesn't have any serious military conflict nowadays, I'm not sure if it's ok to talk about "necessities", but if we aren't talking about the money, I would love to have an Armed Forces with the power that they had in March 1982, and more instead... talking about these:

    250 fighters and attack aircraft
    100 cargos
    20 or 30 combat helicopters
    10 heavy helicopters
    60 or 70 utilitary helicopters

    300 modern tanks

    1 aircraft carrier
    1 helicopter carrier
    8 destroyers
    10 corvettes
    6 submarines


    Why not?... but, talking about necessities... I am not sure if is so necessary, I think there are another things in a critical state that need to be improved before than the carrier.
    Yeah lad,we also need such things,but a Carrier wouldn't have more firepower than more or less the 300 modern tanks together!!!, i know it's expensive as shit,but with support and escorts,a carrier would be like an entire land force at the time of attack from the air to ground (i say air and not sea because the carrier uses the planes for attacking).

    of course what you have said is necesary,but comparing us to other latin american countries,it's obvious that we need a masterpiece,the chileans have an scorpene french sub,then,why we wouldn't have a fat,explosive,armed,stinky,bad and letal carrier? .

    Greetings

    ES

  15. #300
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Santa Fe Province, ARGENTINA
    Posts
    326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sturmtruppen
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle
    Argentina doesn't have any serious military conflict nowadays, I'm not sure if it's ok to talk about "necessities", but if we aren't talking about the money, I would love to have an Armed Forces with the power that they had in March 1982, and more instead... talking about these:

    250 fighters and attack aircraft
    100 cargos
    20 or 30 combat helicopters
    10 heavy helicopters
    60 or 70 utilitary helicopters

    300 modern tanks

    1 aircraft carrier
    1 helicopter carrier
    8 destroyers
    10 corvettes
    6 submarines


    Why not?... but, talking about necessities... I am not sure if is so necessary, I think there are another things in a critical state that need to be improved before than the carrier.
    Yeah lad,we also need such things,but a Carrier wouldn't have more firepower than more or less the 300 modern tanks together!!!, i know it's expensive as shit,but with support and escorts,a carrier would be like an entire land force at the time of attack from the air to ground (i say air and not sea because the carrier uses the planes for attacking).

    of course what you have said is necesary,but comparing us to other latin american countries,it's obvious that we need a masterpiece,the chileans have an scorpene french sub,then,why we wouldn't have a fat,explosive,armed,stinky,bad and letal carrier? .

    Greetings

    ES

    A carrier more power than 300 tanks??!?!

    A carrier is not a cruiser, a carrier is not well-knew by its weapons. A single attack of four aircraft, each with two missiles type AM-39 Exocet II or the latest versions of the AGM-84 Harpoon would be enough to the sinking of the carrier, but is really difficult to destroy 300 tanks, don't you think?
    Eagle_Giuli


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
  •