The Advanced Weaponry That Dominated The Gulf War | Battlezone | War Stories 

Uluà

ZZz,

q. Vq

@@sergioparalejas4403 ⁷⁷78⁸

A’a.

Ditto. I'm 28

High guys! Me too 👍

Medicated. Not high. Stay medicated.

My getting high days are over.😇 I will let you all enjoy and have fun.🥳

Rad I've gotta wait for payday, was just thinking this would be so much better if I was high #720

What did they sacrifice themselves for? Britons no longer even have the right to freedom of speech in their own country.

I work with a guy that was on that ship, we talk about it sometimes. He's sitting beside me now

@@kj55b

USS Stark? Name the ship if you don't want it to be left out of the pages of history

Not to name something specific but that specific thing should not be forgotten. What?

He should be, they have a fine military. Highly trained and well equipped for the most part, even if it has been shrunk down significantly since those days - mostly due to politics and economics. Plus they have us as an ally.

@@marcoslaureano5562 I would expect nothing less.

This is biased tis not history

Lots of "documentaries" are full of lies.

@@skitariisoldier7367 I prefer to think of them as errors, not lies. Most of the time. Or as often as it is prudent.

@@herbsuperb6034 maybe they show the ship they have the best picture of.

@@pokiparkassistent Seems an odd point to take the time to post. Are there not numerous photographs of all four vessels throughout their respective careers?

@@herbsuperb6034 You people are just something else, and man, don't you all love to prove, and prove so openly how uneducated you all really are, it's quite astonishing to read. Herb Superb 1 month ago @Skitarii Soldier I prefer to think of them as errors, not lies. Most of the time. Or as often as it is prudent. Lies and propaganda are not errors, they're as it says they are, propaganda, who in their right mind would ever try to claim outright deliberate propaganda, as errors? Is there something wrong with you, maybe? . And therein lies your very own level of intelligence, you people live for propaganda, as it's all you actually have, we always read all of you, always trying to big up US (propaganda weapons) you've never seen do anything, and then you all attempt to run down others countries military technologies that you all know absolutely nothing about? What is it all about? You Americans only ever "talk like" you have a military history like the British, or something as hilariously stupid. I mean, that's just so wrong, It's actually incredible reading you people, you surely must go down in your very own "special place" in history, as simply, by far, the least educated and propaganda swallowing society ever seen before. The United States has one of the very worst, and easily the most cowardly military record of any country on earth. Yet, reading them all, you could be forgiven for thinking they're awesome at fighting wars! LOL. But that would only be 100% wrong. The United States was founded in 1776, and she's been at war for 227 of her 247 calendar years of existence. In other words, there are only 20 calendar years, in which the U.S. did not wage any wars. The Wars waged were never against a militarily capable country, but only countries considered the Third World. And any resistance from those countries, nearly always saw the USA lose! Pick any year since 1776, and there's a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year, and a 73% chance they lost it. No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.” The U.S. has never gone a decade without war. The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1937-42) was during the isolationist period (cowardly period) of the Great Depression. Since the 2nd World War, the USA has started 206 armed conflicts, resulting with around 40-50 million (mostly civilian casualties). And only ever based on false premises/lies. (And failed in most). This is more than 2 conflicts, started based on nothing more than lies and propaganda, per year. Ain't you just awesome?! LMFAO!

Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣 The Soviet Union made a cowardly retreat, but never participated in the aggression.

Not sure what threat Moscow offers - other than nuclear, but plenty o’ countries have nuclear weapons nowadays. So Russia’s a bit rubbish, really. Pip pip!

Brothers in arms til the end mate🇺🇸🇬🇧

Finally an American giving the British credit lol

@@connorbranley5407 stop with that

Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣

🇬🇧👍✌🇺🇸🇦🇺🇳🇿🇨🇦

Aside from the Abrams and the Soviet T-80, all tanks have diesel engines.

Tanks aren't meant to "sneak".

A turbine engine has many flaws, Its a absolute gas guzzler, plus I'd really wouldn't reccomend any soldier to take cover directly behind an M1!. Not to mention the heat signature given off by such a system. I believe the new AbramsX has gone back to a diesel/electric hybrid power plant. Unsurprisingly they claim will have 50% fuel economy savings. Plus the tank will be able to be moved (limited range) silently under battery power. Certainly one to look out for in the future.

The Challenger 1 had a rolled homogeneous armor which was made of single steel composition hot-rolled to improve its material characteristics - as opposed to layered or cemented armor. Our Abrams later adopted it. With that type of armor, it didn't really worry too much about the enemy knowing that it was coming.

Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣

@@internetcensure5849 No need. Russians are puny folk.

Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣

@@internetcensure5849 RUSSIA didnt attack NATO country nor it can do so.but ask you failed country to attack usa & i promise it will be flattened 🤣🤣

Did they? Not what you think

My favorite. Makes any enemy tank obsolete

its 2.25 euro for a liter now in the netherlands, where is my war?

And now it’s 3.50 in Florida lol thanks Biden

Wdym Iraq was the most pointless war aside from Vietnam. So many deaths based on a false promise that Iraq had wmd

@@hogsandstews the attacked Iraq twice. You’re talking about the wrong war pal

@@timstinies9519 still true. 🤦‍♂️

Good point but you know what happened on the Basrah highway for the retreating Iraqi forces, I presume.

True, there was a tactical purpose behind that ecological calamity they caused. But I do believe there was an element of spite, as well. Saddam went into Kuwait in the first place to take their oil wealth. Destroying it on his way out was done partly out of malice. Just my opinion, of course. I don't know that it could ever be decisively proven.

Falklands war was BEFORE the gulf war.

You genuinely believe they ignored the missile? Sea dart has a lot of trouble targeting incoming missiles at extremely short notice and with land in the way

@@JG-ib7xk they did , sailors monitoring the radar detected an incoming object but the ships command failed to act thinking it was a false alert or friendly aircraft, they were tunnel visioned on the enemies ww2 subs being the threat . and desert storm proved the sea dart can intercept incoming missiles

American oil obsession

It's a world wide energy economy pal go back to school !

Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣 Bl@ck South Asi@n should know, it was not "Saddam Hussein" who suffered from US aggression, but the Iraqi people!

Advanced weapons aside, how many nations ganked up on Saddam, again?

Israel without their nuclear bombs could never face the 1990 Iraq army 1v1. Iraq was much stronger back then regardless of the outcome of the gulf war.

​@@Adam-gf3jg You're hallucinating. Israel has won 3 major wars prior by that time, taking on 3-8 arab armies every time, including Iraqi expeditionary forces. Moreover, by 1990 Israel was stronger than ever, while Iraq hasn't even started to recover from its disastrous decade long military campaign against Iran. Any Iraqi force making its way to Israel in 1990 would be decimated hundreds of miles from the border, somewhere in Jordan.

​@@hipfirehippie3474 The reason why Israel won these wars was not only by them having the better technology thanks to its western allies but these wars were just few days long and in reality Israel had moblized the same and sometimes even more manpower and armament than all of the arab countries combined. I don't believe Israel can survive in long raging wars like how Iraq did with Iran 1980-1988 and the US 1991-2003. Anyway at that time Iraq had 1000s of scud missels and good air defense. In a unrealistic scenario Saddam didn't need to send an army to Israel or anything else he could just keep launching his scuds and in few years time Israel would've collapsed. Of course this could happen only if Israel don't seek help from her powerful allies or nuclear weapons.

​@@Adam-gf3jg Your first assertion about "better western technology" is extremely misinformed. The first time this superiority would be come into effect is in the Lebanon campaign of 1982, with the edition of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets.. This was long after the major wars I mentioned in my previous comment. Meanwhile, humongous nations like Egypt and Syria enjoyed the support of the mighty USSR, which not only provided them with superior weapons (Saggers, SA-2/3/6/7, Frog-7, BTR's, migs 15-21), but sent thousands of advisors, soldiers, and fighter pilots. Your statement that "these wars were just few days long" is also wrong. Israel's independence war in 1948 vs the 8 invading arab armies raged on for a year and half. Egypt's war of attrition against Israel lasted for 3 years, 67-70. So we established that your "belief" that Israel can't survive long lasting wars isn't rooted in reality. But even if that was the case, it would still be a moot point. If Israel manages to defeat its enemies within a few weeks, then it effectively avoided a long, drawn-out war by, well, winning it. Finally, your last paragraph.. oh boy. Your notion of Israel "collapsing" (lol), due to sporadic firing of scuds "for a few years" is so absurd it actually made me chuckle.

Not one single proven kill of "Scud" launchers. Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣

Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣

"4th largest army" in US propaganda to make the "enemy" look larger than real.

Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣

If you think about it, Putin is using the same exact excuse, that Husan did to invade Kuwait "It's historically ours anyway!"

Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣

@@internetcensure5849 It's not that black and white, it's incredibly complicated. And we only see the tip of the iceberg, we have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. The U.S. isn't scared of anything (except losing money) When you see baffling decisions, you can always bet on potential profits being the reason.

Actually, there are Lithium deposits in eastern Ukraine. That's what the war is all about.

In the 90s

It's Dead !!!!!!!!! No it's not it's Sleeping !!!!!

It's a British documentary...

It was all about the British

You missed it. They did have a mention.

Your Mom is a war hog…

No respect for the best tank killer of all time the A10 to a man on the ground that has to be his worst nightmare !

The F-16 didn't get the AIM-120 until 1992.

Fighting 3rd world countries is panty Pentagon's business, while terrified of confronting Russia in Ukraine.🤣🤣🤣

Diesel an gasoline are two different things

@@iamjustaviewer6416 not really what’s the purpose of both? Make vehicles go

The French prefer to sell arms to their enemies

@@georgebarnes8163 At the time the British did not appreciate the Iraqi rulers and decided to amputate Iraq from their petrol rich province much easier to control. It is just as simple as that! Personaly I profoundly dislike selling arms to anyone...

@@jeanhuberson3635 Since the end of WW I, Iraq was more or less under British rule, with a puppet king. Yes, by carving out an oil rich region from Iraq, the British created Kuwait as an Emirate, easier to control and exploit.