|
You see, Kelodlock only calls them niggers ironically
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:You see, Kelodlock only calls them niggers ironically  I actually do this, to the face of various puerto ricans, africans, african-americans, and also people who are obviously not black, because it's funny in the right context. But what the gently caress does this have to do with military history?E: Yeah, ok, I won't even mind if you red text me. If you could hook me up with a hitler avatar so that other posters can tell each other to not take advice from literally hitler, that'd be pretty sweet too. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:
lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:You see, Kelodlock only calls them niggers ironically Keldoclock posted:
Red text candidate of the year
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:
Nope, he's a troll, please lets end this now and go back to posting about cold war tanks and poo poo. This is my favourite thread on the forums even though I don't post much and this poo poo is just ruining it, stop encouraging him. TIA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
"Octoroon" comes from some kind of dedicated, spergy racism that would sneer at people who claim to be 1/32th Irish on St. Patric's day. Since we're on cold war and tanks: Centurion is my last waifu. Tell me how it's poo poo. You can also tell me how totally rad it is, but my waifu track record doesn't bode well for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Keldoclock, do you realize that people just don't like you? Your posts are not as enlightening or funny as you think they are. Your worst quality is probably how you think insults like "your a moron" are invitations to debate rather than the dismissal of your pointless hairsplitting. Chitoryu, I have a blog you may be interested in, if you haven't been through it already. http://joyoffieldrations.blogspot.ca/ It's 20th century stuff, but with a focus on the non-American ration system where everybody gets a bag of whatever and has to cook it in the field. The guy also includes recipes for some foodstuffs that were factory-produced, including a tushonka recipe that maybe is a little more palatable than the one you got.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
gormet
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Keldoclock, do you realize that people just don't like you? When I call someone a moron, it's because I think they suggested something retarded and the next thing I do is correct them. Everybody in a conversation brings new ideas and beliefs with them and there's always a period where they're competing against each other, but eventually the most useful beliefs win out and everyone leaves better suited to do whatever it is they are doing. I don't really think there's a big enough gap in raw processing potential between people, so I figure that most of what we call "intelligence" is really just technical knowledge paired together with communication skills. I think geniuses are just ordinary humans who were fortunate enough to self-actualize. Thus- if someone says I am a moron, I assume they must want to correct my thinking, so I explain my thinking to make it quicker and easier for them to do so, and then accept or dismiss their alternative. I would never earnestly verbally attack another person (because I won't ever have a reason to want to) nor expect it from another (because, again, it's pointless and futile if you expect to actually do some harm by insulting someone)- just sparring, as it were, which is great fun. Amusingly, I am having a basically equivalent conversation in another, sillier forum at the moment. tl;dr: I do realize, I just don't care. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Are there any books or internet archives that compile air, land, and sea tactics of the various countries that participated in World War 2? At least the major nations? Just curious, as I have a few (dated) books that talk about some stuff at length. Keldoclock  Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarp!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
It was mentioned doing visual identification for sonar stuff and being able to tell yada yada about what you hear. Is it all done with the mk.1 eyeball or is the obvious idea of a database of comparison sounds used? Maybe only for something you cant ID and want to run through the database? I can't imagine it's crazy space-science stuff like selecting a range off your scuba-phones visualization and getting various best guesses in a pretty little pop-up chart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Since we're on cold war and tanks: Centurion is my last waifu. Tell me how it's poo poo. Alas, I know little about the Centurion. I guess I could page Rossmum to the thread as he should know a bit about it. Also the T-80 post is going well and should be ready by today or tomorrow. It will also have some ~controversial opinions~ on my part which will hopefully spark some discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
Synnr posted:I can't imagine it's crazy space-science stuff like selecting a range off your scuba-phones visualization and getting various best guesses in a pretty little pop-up chart. Just like in a sperg video game that costs $70 and looks like Windows 95 interface hosed Google Earth. Xerxes17 posted:Alas, I know little about the Centurion. I guess I could page Rossmum to the thread as he should know a bit about it. Aw yeah, more tank posting. It's hilarious how un-complicated the T-72 development looked in comparison to T-64. EDIT: Then again, T-72 wasn't designed by a vampire: 
JcDent fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
All this talk of the T-64 vs T-72 reminds me of British Rail trying to design the APT and loving it up so badly that they have to get someone to make a simple stopgap train out of tried-and-tested components, and end up with one of the best diesel trains ever built.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The obvious downside (apart from, you know, all the extra work by each individual soldier) is that everyone ends up having to carry their own cooking tools. More likely they pooled their rations and one guy in the squad or platoon equivalent ended up being 'the guy who cooks', I suspect. Or even at a higher level given that ancient armies tended to stick together in one camp rather than being deployed all over the landscape. (Also, and I don't routinely dogpile on the guy, but seriously, shut up Keldoclock).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:1.You're right, I figured everyone's already been well exposed to MREs or MRE-like rations and has a good idea of what they're like. Be it from Boy Scouts, prior military service, paramilitary work, emergency response, being involved in a natural disaster, I just kind of assumed most worldly people have at some point been in the middle of loving nowhere, living out of their backpack for a few days. I know I'm responding to Keldoclock, but  Did you grow up in a survivalist compound or something? It'd explain a lot. How big a percentage of let's say the US population do you think the categories you mentioned above covers, anyways?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The thread I made here on military food actually covers this in my long post on the history of military nutrition. It wasn't until very recently that most soldiers weren't expected to cook their own meals. Americans got into it first by having the industrial and logistics capability to mass produce standardized ready-to-eat canned rations and make field kitchens extremely common, but even that only happened in the early 20th century. Beforehand, everyone was just assigned specific amounts of certain foodstuffs (with substitutes to account for shortages) and had to assemble their meals themselves. It was even more haphazard before the mid-19th century; doing research on Ancient Roman soldier meals, they were guaranteed about 1.8 pounds of raw grain per soldier per day...and that's it. They got plenty of other food, but it was essentially a random hodgepodge of meat, cheese, bread, fruit, and vegetables. The soldiers had to even grind their own grain to make into bread or porridge and did all of their cooking themselves. Who paid for the other food?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Who paid for the other food? As in, how did soldiers get stuff other than grain? The other food items were nominally included as part of their daily ration provided by the army, which were all accounted for as a pay deduction. The forts even had ovens to let them bake bread or hardtack (the Romans called it bucellatum). In general, Roman soldiers ate more and better food than the average civilian. However, they were also encouraged to pillage the countryside farms, forage, hunt, and fish to supplement their rations. They were also allowed to use their pay (in the post-Nero) to purchase supplementary supplies, food included. Their pay got raised under Domitian (81 to 96 AD) to 300 denarii per year; using the post-Nero average silver content of a denarius at $3.62 in 2011 value, this was roughly $1086 per year in 2011 money. Supplementary food purchased in the provinces was easy to get for cheap. feedmegin posted:More likely they pooled their rations and one guy in the squad or platoon equivalent ended up being 'the guy who cooks', I suspect. Or even at a higher level given that ancient armies tended to stick together in one camp rather than being deployed all over the landscape. It would have been beneficial for soldiers to carry at least one item on their own: the patera. This is just one example of many different paterae, as they varied in appearance, material, and quality as much as modern cooking implements. It was a general purpose pan used as a frying pan, drinking cup, and food serving bowl. In the absence of any other tools or containers, it was the most basic "mess kit" you'd ever want to carry. The load could also be lightened with pack mules; the legionnaires preferred to carry their handheld stone querns on mules instead of adding them to their load, for instance. Their grain ration was given in the form of unmilled grain (as it kept better) and soldiers were expected to grind it themselves...or just boil and eat the wheat berries if they were lazy or busy. Slim Jim Pickens posted:Chitoryu, I have a blog you may be interested in, if you haven't been through it already. Yeah, I'm familiar with them! I actually used them as a reference for how to properly cook kasha when I bought it for the first time. JcDent posted:Just like in a sperg video game that costs $70 and looks like Windows 95 interface hosed Google Earth. This whole post reminds me of how I wanted to pay $10 to try out Steel Beasts: Personal Pro Edition. It's apparently like Microsoft Flight Simulator but for tanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
100 Years Ago This is the Battle of the Isonzo. It has always been the Battle of the Isonzo. It always will be the Battle of the Isonzo. That's right, due to pressing political reasons, we're getting a Fourth Isonzo, and we're going to be getting it within seven days. Nis and Kraljevo fall to the invaders of Serbia, Louis Barthas survives his run-in with the captain, and Lord Kitchener's increasingly-bizarre handling of the Gallipoli/Salonika situation continues apace, as he wires General Birdwood once more to countermand his earlier cancellation of the previous modification of the first corollary to his original orders. Or something along those lines. The poor old sod seems like he just needs a nice cup of tea and a good long sit down with his warm blanket and a moustache care kit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 14:02
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:This whole post reminds me of how I wanted to pay $10 to try out Steel Beasts: Personal Pro Edition. It's apparently like Microsoft Flight Simulator but for tanks. I got to play the free 64bit beta program they had going last year. It was kinda fun but I wouldn't have the time to throw into it to develop my own missions. Unsurprisingly, a majority of community effort is put into making "Desert Storm 2: compstomp edition" with their Western tank of choice. JcDent posted:Aw yeah, more tank posting. It's hilarious how un-complicated the T-72 development looked in comparison to T-64.  "And so now we will measure the weight of the tank. 38 tons! ah, ha, ha, haaa."________________________________________________________________________________ T-80 Program The T-80 MBT was another offshoot of the T-64 program. It entered service around the same time as the new generation of NATO tanks such as the Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Challenger. While it was a capable and effective tank, it also carried a horrifically high price to deliver these qualities. Which considering the economic conditions of the USSR at the time of its introduction, could charitably be considered "negligent". To borrow a phrase, it was an example of "The best being the enemy of the good".  Despite its problems, The T-80U was certainly aesthetic. Video "Made in the USSR: T-80 main battle tank". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dt82qkr5uc Origins The T-80 was a child of two lineages, primarily, the T-64 design from Kharkov, and secondly the various tank turbine engine projects that had existed in the USSR for decades. In 1971, the soviet tank industry began work on new designs that would replace the T-64 and T-72 after 1981. These new designs were nicknamed "Perspektivy" or "NST" from "New Standard Tank". There was a number of submissions, such as the unorthodox T-74 offered by Kharkov. Leningrad's Kirov KB offered the turbine powered Object 225 and the diesel Object 226, while Chelyabinsk offered the Object 780. Over time these projects were refined and replaced with the Leningrad Object 258, Chelyabinsk Object 785 and Kharkov adding the Object 480. Out of the three, only Kharkov remained enthusiastic about their project. Chelyabinsk had been moving away from the tank business after a change in management, and Leningrad had shifted their efforts onto a new T-64 remix, the Object 219T. After the problems with the T-64, along with Morozov's upcoming retirement, the army rejected the T-74. Turbines, a Primer. Interest in turbine engines for tanks had existed since the 1950's. Turbine technology offered engines that would be significantly smaller, lighter and more powerful than equivalent diesel engines. However they also had much higher requirements in terms of air filtering, maintenance and foremost, fuel. The appetites of a Turbine averaged at 240kg/hour of fuel to the 83kg/hour of a comparable diesel, a significant increase! These engines would also cost more than 10x equivalent diesels, an example figure is R9,600 for the V-46 to the R104,000 demanded of the GTD-1000. Object 219 Development The first experimental GTD-1000T turbine engine was mounted on a modified T-64 tank chassis. During early trials, it was found that the T-64 running gear would limit the top speed of the vehicle due to the extreme vibrations of the metal road wheels and the track at high speed. As a result, a new suspension was designed for the Obj.219 but with no attempted made to standardize this with the rival T-72's suspension. During trials from 1968 to 1971, various suspension and subcomponent options were explored. Dust ingestion was a significant problem for the new tank, leading to a redesign of the air filters and the fitting of rubber side skirts to reduce the amount of dust kicked up during movement. The Curse of the 5TDF lived on however and the engines had woefully low average times before failure, falling far below the targeted life of 500hrs. Trials also showed that the voracious fuel appetite of the engine forced the use of external fuel drums to meet the basic range requirement of 450km. Fuel consumption of the engine was an astounding 1.6 to 1.8 times higher than the T-64A. Wisely, Minister of Defense Andrei Grechko rejected plans to put the new Object 219 into production, citing that it offered no improvements to firepower or armor and consumed twice as much fuel as the T-64A. Unfortunately for the soviets, Grechko died in 1976 and replaced by Dmitry Ustinov, who immediately set about getting his pet project approved. Production was to start at LKZ and Omsk. Furthermore, any major tank system upgrades would be earmarked for priority use on the T-80 platform, such as new fire controls, stabilizers and etc. In the original production configuration, the much delayed T-80 was essentially a T-64A with a turbine engine and new suspension. In all other respects the vehicle was equivalent, armor, armament, fire control and etc. But not the price! The T-80 was hideously expensive at R480,000 to the R143,000 of the T-64A. Not to mention, the tank had already fallen behind the T-64's newest version; the T-64B (which cost R318,000 I might add). As a result, the T-80 did not last long in production, with about less than 200 tanks made between 1976 and 1978. T-80B Ustinov used his position to ensure that the T-80 would be the new standard tank of the Soviet Army, and it was imperative that the quality of its systems be brought up to the level of the T-64B. To achieve this, the systems of the T-64B turret such as the LRF, ballistic computer, autoloader, Kobra complex, and etc were adapted to a new T-80B turret. This turret used the same protective technology as well (combination-K) and offered the same protection. The hull was unchanged. This upgrade was designated the Object 219R. The T-80B would be the primary production variant of this tank. The T-80B was put into production in 1978 at LKZ and at Omsk in 1979. The T-80B would also later be fitted with Kontakt-1 ERA, creating the T-80BV. Unfortunately there is not much to be said about the T-80B really as it was essentially a T-64B with a turbine engine that in cost more in total. T-80U The evolutionary links between the T-80B and what would become known as the T-80U were the Object 219A and 219V. The Object 219A would be a combination of a T-80B hull and a new T-64 turret that had been developed in Kharkov as another upgrade for their tank line, the Object 476. This time, rather than waste time and resources on another pissing match where a perfectly fine T-64 turret would be remade for the T-80, the turret was dropped in directly. This new combined effort would leave the LKZ responsible for the overall program, while Kharkov would continue to work on the turret and armament. The Object 476 turret included a new generation of technology, such as the 1A45 fire control system, a new 1G46 sight and new laminate armor in the turret. This new generation of Laminate armor had been developed at NII Stali, with two versions. A simpler “reflecting-plate” system that would be used in the T-72B. The Object 476 turret however used the more expensive “semi-active filled-cell” armor design. In this design, plates of steel were suspended in polymer filled cells backed by a plate of resin and another layer of resin. When penetrated by HEAT, the shockwaves from the detonation would cause the reverberation of the semi-liquid filler, degrading the penetrating jet. While the Object 219A was ready for production in 1982, only a handful were made for use in technology trials. The new tank would have to wait for new technology initiatives to bear fruit, such as the Refleks missile complex and Kontakt-5 ERA. The Refleks laser beam riding missile was a brother of the Svir mounted on the T-72B, and both had been based of the Bastion/Sheksna missiles developed for the T-55 and T-62 respectively. The Refleks and Svir offered the most penetration of all, at 700mm RHA equivalent, compared to the 600mm offered by Kobra. The range was also extended from 4km to 5km. Kontakt-5 ERA also provided an impressive degree of protection against HEAT, and in a first for ERA, against APFSDS rounds as well. Against KE rounds, it is claimed that it will degrade their performance by 20% to 35%. While integration of the object 476 turret with the 219A hull, the object 219V was fitted with a new GTD-1000F engine with a supercharger and the refleks missile complex. Both of these designs have been sometimes dubbed the T-80A, even though they were never accepted for service under this name. A new object 219AS merged the features of both the 219A and the 219V. Twenty were produced in late 1983 with eight sent for troop trials and the remainder used in factory and state trials. The Object 219AS was accepted for Soviet Army service in 1985 as the T-80U. Series production of this type began in 1987 at Omsk, which would be the primary producer of this type as production at LKZ had been winding down and Kharkov was busy retooling for the job. The T-80U would be the definitive version of this tank, and offered impressive protection against APFSDS (780mm), HEAT (1,320mm) on the turret front, a very high degree of cross country capability and high speed. However this astronomical performance also came with astronomical cost: a VNII Transmash study found that the T-80U offered only 10% improvement over the T-72B but cost 824,000Ru compared to only 280,000Ru; nearly three times more. After Ustinov popped his clogs in December 1984, his turbine fetish was finally pried from his cold, dead hands. The following death of Leningrad party-boss Romanov 7 months later in July 1985 removed the second major benefactor of the T-80 program. This cleared the way for a return to more conventional engines for the T-80. The pushback concerning turbine engines was focused primarily on cost. A GTD-1000 cost R104,000 which is ten times more than the R9,600 cost of the V-46 used in the T-72. Additionally, turbines had shorter running life, consumed an atrocious amount of fuel and were complicated and expensive to repair. Kharkov had been working on a diesel powered T-80 since 1976 (object 478), which used the new 6TD 1,000hp diesel that had been destined for the Object 476. This would be used in the new diesel powered T-80 Kharkov’s production of the T-80U had been limited, only reaching 45 until the government approved the creation of a new diesel powered T-80U. Kharkov had wanted to follow the tradition of the T-34, T-44, T-54 and T-64 and name the new tank the T-84. Their hopes were dashed and it was called the T-80UD (UD= Improved diesel), to avoid the embarrassment of acknowledging having not three, but actually four similar tanks in production. This slap fight over names had to actually go all the way up to Gorby’s desk in order to be resolved. The T-80UD was approved for trials in September 2nd, 1985 and for production in 1986. About 500 T-80UD were produced before the fall of the Soviet Union and eventually found life beyond death of revolution in one country, morphing into the Ukrainian T-84 program. ~Controversial Opinions Zone~ While I feel like I am about to trigger Lost Cosmonaut or T___A here. I feel that having now read about the tank I got say that I am flabbergasted and have no idea what the gently caress the Soviets were thinking. The T-80 was a tank design that seemed to offer only the dubious benefit over its competition of a high speed and considerable power to weight ratio. While these two qualities may be very important on the tank show circuit, the famous “flying tank” demonstration, it is questionable just how much benefit this would confer over its older brothers the T-64 and T-72 on a real battlefield. Not to mention, this impressive performance came as a significant cost to fuel range. The engine would always be drawing the same quantity of fuel, be the tank rolling at maximum speed down a road or idling at a position. In short, and more technical terms, they were increasing their tactical mobility while severely compromising the operational mobility of the tank. When one considers that the armor and armament of the T-80U were effectively stolen from the T-64 program, and that the T-72 had managed to produce a roughly equivalent vehicle at a fraction of the cost, you have to ask, what was the point? The money and effort that had gone into the T-80 program would have been better spent on the T-64 and T-72 lines. Consider the benefits; T-64 could have been upgraded in line with the object 476 program which would have given a spiritual T-80UD much sooner. The T-72B could have received the upgraded fire controls, stabilizers and etc reserved for the T-80U that were eventually fitted anyway in the form of the T-72BU (aka T-90). Along this line of thought, the main thing that had been holding back the T-72 program was its designation as the “cheaper” line that was not deserving of the extra funding to turn a solid vehicle into a superior one (as what happened with the T-90). At the very least, you could justifiably assume that these options would be cheaper due to the lack of the expensive gas turbine. The only thing that I can really give separate praise for in my current impression was that the suspension. To what I gather, it is quite effective and offered a very smooth ride compared to the T-64 or T-72 suspension. But this system could have been adapted for either of these two tanks anyway which brings us back to the original question: what was the point, really? While the new generation of NATO tanks in the form of the Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Challenger were a major step up, the soviets should have waited for a much more substantially improved design to appear, rather than making their bets with a fattened T-64 with a turbine stuck in it. While overall the tank was not a failure that we in the thread mock the Tiger2 for being (the T-80 at least didn’t set itself on fire, ho ho), it however does share the same fundamental problem in that it just wasn’t appropriate for the strategic needs of the state at the time of its production. It cost too much, consumed too much fuel and offered only mild performance increases over more workhorse designs Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Don't worry I'm not a Kharkovite and my loyalty to the Kirov Plant ends with Joseph Kotin. Your conclusions seems to mirror that of Karcev who had a low opinion of turbine engines after he tried to put one in the Object 167.
T___A fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Paging the Fluff with the swedish experiences of duo-engine setup in the 103
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Almost every culture, isolated or not, has developed the bow. Why are bows so ubiquitous? Despite their usefulness, They don't seem particularly intuitive to someone starting from a point of ignorance on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Since we're on cold war and tanks: Centurion is my last waifu. Tell me how it's poo poo. (Seriously though that makes it a pretty good tank) ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Paging the Fluff with the swedish experiences of duo-engine setup in the 103 TheFluff fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:Almost every culture, isolated or not, has developed the bow. Why are bows so ubiquitous? Despite their usefulness, They don't seem particularly intuitive to someone starting from a point of ignorance on the subject. You'd probably inevitably invent them sooner or later by accident, as all cultures use sticks and string to construct huts etc?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:Almost every culture, isolated or not, has developed the bow. Why are bows so ubiquitous? Despite their usefulness, They don't seem particularly intuitive to someone starting from a point of ignorance on the subject. The human brain is a fairly ingenious machine. Take the Atlatl as an example. That's basically a stick with a little jag on the end that you rest a spear against in order to put more leverage into your throw. There's also the sling. All three (according to present historical records) came around prior to the neolithic, though the sling and the bow only became prolific during the neolithic. It's possible someone wanted to combine the strengths of the atlatl and the sling and after a bunch of guesses, came up with the idea of using a springy piece of wood with a sling hooked to it to fling rocks, then after beating the poo poo out of their knuckles, came up with using a pointy stick as a projectile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I'm just saying dude I would absolutely take some of the good MREs on a backpacking trip rather than subsist on jerky, trail mix and canned ravioli, if for no other reason than variety. MRE's are fine. I've had far worse food in cafeterias and some actual restaurants (if White Castle counts as a restaurant), and they're way better than a lot of the dehydrated stuff you'd take with you on camping trips. Believe me, when you're stuck at in Indian air force base in the middle of summer, the chicken tetrazzini ones are a lot better than the alternatives, even if they're technically "expired."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:MRE's are fine. I've had far worse food in cafeterias and some actual restaurants (if White Castle counts as a restaurant), and they're way better than a lot of the dehydrated stuff you'd take with you on camping trips. Believe me, when you're stuck at in Indian air force base in the middle of summer, the chicken tetrazzini ones are a lot better than the alternatives, even if they're technically "expired." I've discovered that the expiration date given for MREs is actually quite flexible and depends on the climate in which they were stored. Certain components also last longer than others. I've safely eaten 2008 MREs this year with no ill effects, but had to throw out the Tabasco and M&Ms because they're just commercially packaged to a different degree than the MRE-specific components like the entree. That said, the "omelette" from 5 years ago was terrifying to behold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Xerxes17 posted:I feel that having now read about the tank I got say that I am flabbergasted and have no idea what the gently caress the Soviets were thinking. Hahaha, holy poo poo. I'm with you on this one. My question is: would it ever be worthwhile to have two different MBTs in service? I get the T-64 and the T-72 were different approaches - but was the T-64 so much better than western tanks at the time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Hahaha, holy poo poo. I'm with you on this one. Not to speak to the specifics of the Soviet situation, but what could happen is that you are slowly phasing in some new model of tank but you can't afford to outfit everyone with it. That's the current situation with the Chinese, for example. You could also make the argument that the diversity of tanks and other armaments in use by NATO also represented a similar sort of inefficiency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Not to speak to the specifics of the Soviet situation, but what could happen is that you are slowly phasing in some new model of tank but you can't afford to outfit everyone with it. That's the current situation with the Chinese, for example. This is also happening with the Abrams. One of the major suppliers of the M1A2 model has been using refurbished M1s to build them on, so for every M1A2 they make an M1 goes away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Hahaha, holy poo poo. I'm with you on this one. The US had the M1 and M60 in service together for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Hahaha, holy poo poo. I'm with you on this one. The T-64 had severe reliability problems but everything else on it was ten years ahead of what anyone in the West had. It's absolutely bizarre to compare it to a Leopard 1, which entered service at roughly the same time. The designers of the Leopard figured that you couldn't give a tank effective protection against the weapons of the day (particularly HEAT rounds), so they sacrificed protection in favor of mobility - the front armor of the Leopard only protects against 20 and 30 mm autocannons of the time, everything else from ancient WW2 76 mm light field guns and up would penetrate it. The Leopard did go fast, though (65 km/h) - on roads. In terrain it was not significantly faster than anything else of the time. Now, look at the T-64. It weighs two tons less and has only slightly lower power-to-weight ratio, so mobility wise it's not really that much worse. On the other hand, it has a significantly more powerful gun and was almost completely immune frontally to the Leopard's gun at any range above point blank, at least until the later half of the 1970's when the ammunition development started to catch up. It's a completely different generation of tank and completely outclassed everything in the west until the late 70's, at least on paper (the reliability problems were an issue, especially early on - the Leopard was very reliable and easy to maintain). TheFluff fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:My question is: would it ever be worthwhile to have two different MBTs in service? I get the T-64 and the T-72 were different approaches - but was the T-64 so much better than western tanks at the time? My personal reading of the situation is that once the T-72 came around, they should have really thrown thier full weight behind the development of that model. It had much greater potential for modernization than the T-64 and the only thing holding it back was the fact that the T-64 and T-80 were earmarked as the "premium" tanks and thus got all the good toys. Later upgrades of the T-72 shows that there is nothing inherent to the design that made it inferior to either of them beyond purposeful cost cutting measures. That said, it might have been worthwhile to keep the T-64 around as a technology development platform and to function as a thing that Kartsev would be contrasting himself against. E: oh right, bleh phoneposting at 4am.... The T-64 was as the fluff says a good decade ahead of the western competition. Even when NATO brought in thier new designs in the later part of the cold war, the upgrades of the T-64 would have allowed to to remain a powerful foe to them. Xerxes17 fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:That said, the "omelette" from 5 years ago was terrifying to behold.  They aren't much more edible when fresh
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Nine of Eight posted:
When I get home I'll post the picture of mine. If you told me it was an omelette from the picture, I'd have never believed you. It's basically an off-white rectangle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:Despite their usefulness, They don't seem particularly intuitive to someone starting from a point of ignorance on the subject. Equally true for the bow drill or the ceramic pot. Don't look down on thousands of years of cultural enginuity and evolution just because the final result looks primitive and there are no written records of these people. Even though there's very little left for us to understand them with, our ancestors were just like us. Tomn posted:
I was born in Kharkov and spent my adolescence in Brooklyn, NY. boy scouts- 3 million Armed forces- 2 million, plus veterans all the way back to 'Nam FEMA- 10K FEMA auxillaries- No idea, but probably something like half a million. Wildland firefighters- 20K Literally innumerable smaller organizations- ??? million Plus there's mountaineers like me, people who do other adventure sports... I wouldn't be surprised if once you add them all up it's something like at least 15 million. Add campers in and you might be looking at 40 or 50 million. Being away from civilization is a pretty common human experience, in my reckoning. Of course, I could be biased - I say this because I have met so many people with such a varying background while out in various nowheres, but perhaps it is merely a very universal human experience re: the need for this activity is the same among all groups of people, while the actual rate of incidence is smaller and I just think it's higher because I myself have participated in it often. For reference, at its peak there were something like 12.5 million WoW players. How often do you meet a WoW player? It's not that uncommon, right? I myself was one, so if you haven't met one already, there you go. Now what if you used a rough selection criteria, like, "How many of the people who own twenty-sided dice were once world of warcraft players?" and it becomes much more common. Or new yorkers, a city of 12 million people, despite having left long ago I still find myself bumping into old friends often. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
I haven't posted in this thread in ages, but on the topic of "US Fleet boats had it so much better than U-boats": 1. The ice cream maker was so that sailors could still get the dairy part of their diet, since at the time you couldn't really "store" milk easily any other way 2. The showers were mostly for the cooks, since they prepared the food, not for the whole boat 3. The air conditioning was to prevent the electronics and mechanical devices from getting fouled by the humidity while operating in the Pacific
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:boy scouts- 3 million There are ~320 million people in the US today. Assuming that your figure of ~20 million is accurate that would be a touch over 6% of the population. Is 6% "fairly common?" Depends on what you're talking about. There is still a significant rural component to the US and plenty of people do poo poo outdoors, but there is a loving gigantic urban population, many of whom have never so much as seen a cow in person much less needed to prepare food in the field.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:There are ~320 million people in the US today. Assuming that your figure of ~20 million is accurate that would be a touch over 6% of the population. Is 6% "fairly common?" Depends on what you're talking about. And then there's the fact that America Is Not The World. America has alot more open spaces to be apart from civilization in that most of europe for one, so that means something common in America is not going to be in the rest of the western world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 18:54
|
|
