Viking

fast rate like marines but a bit stronger... goliath style!!

 

the way I see it the viking's strength comes from it's ability to change from air to ground, and I think it would be imba if the ground attack were to be stronger

voted: fine as it is

 

I wasn't wrong. I was not talking about the original Gatling gun, I was talking about Gatling-type guns such as the GAU-8. Other Gatling-type guns include The M61 Vulcan and the M134 Minigun.

Concentrated fire from miniguns on AC-119 Stinger and AC-130 Spectre Gunships creates what is known as the red tornado cone of fire seen here:
[img width=311 height=410]http://www.ac-119gunships.com/images/stinger/stgrphl000.jpg[/img]

 

looks like a giant harp

 

i think it looks like a red tornado cone.

 

And people still think they can beat the united states. it baffles me.

 

errrm... Vietnam anybody? That was not really a success for America..

 

Do you know why it wasn't a success for America? Because I do. I could give you a detailed response as to why exactly the Vietnam war was lost. But first I'd like to know how much you know about it.

 

Neither is Iraq.

 

Yeah, Iraq too. And I dont care WHY they lost. If you gave me a detailed explanation about it it would not do any differens. USA still lost both those wars.

 

and North Korea, don't forget them.

 

Yeah, i mean, people that think that they can beat USA don´t baffle ME for sure. America aint no bulletproof shield exactly.

 

Especially on the inside. I think America's biggest threat is itself, not others.

 

Well, depends on what you mean by lost.

The Korean war never ended (still going on, cease fire), and while MacArthur was in charge, North Korea got screwed up bad.

In Vietnam, the US killed 3 to 5 million NVA and Vietcong. We lost 50,000 soldiers...
The only loss of the war was due to dying support in politics. As soon as it became unpopular, it was doomed, because politicians needed votes, and the war wouldn't get them.

 

korean war was never actually a war, as only congress can declare war



dont say that vietnam only won because of dying support. everybody in the US thought the war was going great until the tet offensive, were north vietnam staged multiple attacks on massive cities. it was a helluva publicity stunt, and it damn well worked.



anyways, the chaingun the vikings have now can deal with anything moderatly well, unless it's heavy artilery, like siege tanks. that's exactly how it should be.

 

Sigh...
The United States won every large unit battle of the Vietnam War. A common saying about the Vietnam War is "we won every battle until we lost the war."

The Tet Offensive was a major turning point in the war. It showed that the Viet Cong could strike anywhere. However, the Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. They thought that it would encite popular riots all over South Vietnam and lead to the downfall of the South Vietnamese government. This did not happen. Instead, the Viet Cong who, up until then had been largely unknown guerrillas, were cast into the light. Fighting out in the open many of them were killed. With their identities known, those that were not killed during the initial fighting were rounded up and imprisoned or killed in the following months.

There were also special forces leading mercenaries in the South Vietnamese countryside who went around to villages to find Viet Cong guerrillas. This was extremely effective in significantly reducing the Viet Cong threat. By the time the American forces withdrew from Vietnam, the Viet Cong were barely a threat.

Another factor that was finally helping the United States turn the tide was that the Chinese were no longer interested in engaging the US forces due to talks that occurred between them and Nixon. With this known, US forces conducted heavy bombing of targets in Haiphong and Hanoi. Before this time those were restricted areas and the US was not allowed to bomb there.

Unfortunately, US public opinion for the war was gone. Much of this came from the Tet Offensive, which, while not a military victory for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese was a political victory for them, as well as the length of time of the war. Another reason was the fact that there was a string of bad governments in place in South Vietnam during the war. Anyone qualified to do the job did not want to do it and those who did do it were more often than not very corrupt. Also, the first leader, Diem, created many enemies by attacking various groups in South Vietnam and not listening to the United States in general.

The American forces withdrew in 1974 with a promise to the South Vietnamese that they would provide air support if the North Vietnamese broke the treaty.

For a year the North Vietnamese positioned their troops for a final push on the South Vietnamese. Their initial attacks were designed to be tests to see if the United States would retaliate against them. No retaliation came because Congress denied the use of any more US forces to help the US. Had Nixon still been in office it is likely that he would have kept the promise of providing air support. However, Congress was strengthened by the Watergate case and Nixon's resignation. So, the promised air support never came and the South Vietnamese were quickly defeated in 1975 due to poor South Vietnamese leadership as well as the broken US promise. Had the US provided the promised air support, it is likely that the North Vietnamese main force would not have swept through South Vietnam.

Also, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, and the Philippines sent troops to help South Vietnam. It was not an entirely American task. And the war only began to turn back to the North Vietnamese's favor when the United States shifted the responsibility of fighting back to the South Vietnamese.
And for another misconception about Vietnam, most of those who fought there were not draftees. About 20% were draftees the rest were enlisted. Also, the reserve and national guard was not sent there.

So, could the US military have won? Without a doubt. But our military is controlled by our politicians and our politicians supposedly listen to the public. So with the public rioting about the war, they had to pull out. Also, the military was kept on a leash for most of the war unable to strike at the targets that really would have made a difference.


And the UN 'won' the Korean War. Note that there is a South Korea. That was the UN objective, defend South Korea. North Korea was the aggressor. And while we're on the topic of the UN, the Vietnam War was going to be a UN endevour but the USSR voted against it for obvious reasons (they're Communist they didn't want to vote in favor of fighting Communists). So, with one veto, no UN action was allowed to be taken. And if you're wondering "Why didn't the USSR veto involvement in the Korean War?" The UN representative from the USSR was boycotting the UN because they would not let China in.

 

i'm well aware that the tet offensive caused major losses, i never called it a military success, i called it a publicity stunt. it was successful in that it got rid of the americans.

 

I typed that before you typed what you said. It said there were 3 new posts since I started writing but I didn't read them before posting. It was not meant to be contrary to what you said.

 

oh, nevermind then, carry on.

 

Iraq also isn't a conventional loss. You cant really even call it a loss yet. To me theres different ways of losing if we lose in Iraq its that we didn't achieve all of our objectives not that whoever the hell we fighting over there kicked our asses. While someone might have the capability to stop us from doing something no organization or country has the power to bring America to its kness