|
simplefish posted:I was watching some 80s comedy and everything they're saying about Reagan is what's being said about Trump. I saw a tweet about Trump being the first US president with worse English than the French one, but this is what I did for Dubya, only with more detail (I used to teach English to adult forriners, if there was ever a "fun" or goof-off lesson, students would love it when I gave them one of his speeches and asked them to correct the English. Yes, not every speech was applicable. No, there wasn't just one. I had a page with paragraphs out of like 3 different speeches) Ronald Reagan was mentally ill. That's an indisputable fact; he was a wreck within a few years of his last term. He deserves a lot more leeway in weird English than later presidents.
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Could we graft the yf-23 to an f-35b for lols?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
JcDent posted:So, ugh, T-55s. Are they less armored/protected than some APCs, IFVs and MRAPs these days? Because if I'm reading Force on Force rulebook right, it has worse armor values than a lot of lighter vehicles. Is that true, or are the authors just hatin' on Soviets? In modern terms, a T-55 has a pretty similar protection to the heavier IFVs out there, immune to 30mm APDS from the from and 14.5mm from the side. It's still a something versus KE threats, but modern armored vehicles have better HEAT protection in the heavier classes. That can seem pretty crappy but it means a T-55 with modern ERA like a T-55M5 enjoys good protection versus anything short of a MBT KE round. It's still a fairly significant capability, the main issue is that if you're going to spend money on tank it makes more sense to do it on a T-72 chassis at this point, the basic vehicle is pretty much free compared to the what the upgrades cost.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
Much like a gunfight, the first rule of a tank fight is to bring a tank. Even if it's a lovely tank.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Much like a gunfight, the first rule of a tank fight is to establish air superiority
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Much like a gunfight, the first rule of a tank fight is to bring a tank. Even if it's a lovely tank. And sometimes it doesn't work out well. Please note that this is severely  and  .
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Alternately, to swing it around to an earlier topic, bring some decent SHORAD.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:And sometimes it doesn't work out well. Heh. It's weird when you go 'I've seen worse', yet the same day you get your new war placement order, and also are an old tanker. Like, that could be me if things get weird  
ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 18:50 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Flying with KLM? Your copilot may be a king.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:In modern terms, a T-55 has a pretty similar protection to the heavier IFVs out there, immune to 30mm APDS from the from and 14.5mm from the side. It's still a something versus KE threats, but modern armored vehicles have better HEAT protection in the heavier classes. Well, even modern ERA only serves as an enhancement to the underlying armor's protection. You might be able to beat something like an RPG-7 or LAW with modern ERA like K5 and the frontal armor behind it, but you aren't going to mitigate nearly enough when it comes to 70's-present day ATGMs or even with the lighter modern man-portable stuff like the Panzerfaust 3 or AT4. There's a reason the T-72/90/64/80 series ERA profiles expose most of the side and the entire rear of the tank. You could easily cover those areas, it just wouldn't contribute meaningful protection for the vast majority of threats with only 20-80mm of steel plate underneath it. This is also one of the reasons the ERA plates meant for IFVs are so much bulkier - there's a need for a spaced armor component in addition to the ERA to offer meaningful protection even for the lower end threats like RPGs. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 03:43 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the FrankenHornet crashed just a few months later.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Unfortunately, the FrankenHornet crashed just a few months later. quote:The pilots sustained permanent injuries to arms and legs during the ejection. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Much like a gunfight, the first rule of a tank fight is to bring a tank. Even if it's a lovely tank. I'd probably rather have a foot mobile modern ATGM than a light or ancient tank against a modern tank.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:I'd probably rather have a foot mobile modern ATGM than a light or ancient tank against a modern tank. Treat yourself, mount a MILAN on a Land Rover.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:I'd probably rather have a foot mobile modern ATGM than a light or ancient tank against a modern tank. Yeah, but most of the places those truly ancient tanks are in use are thousands of miles from the nearest modern MBT. If you're some somali pirate lord a Kruschev-era T55 is a really loving useful thing to have on call.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, but most of the places those truly ancient tanks are in use are thousands of miles from the nearest modern MBT. This is more what I meant. Against infantry with no AT weapons, even a T-34 is a hell of a force multiplier.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me why Incirlik Air Base is so strategically critical? Maybe I'm dyslexic but Akrotiri and Dhekelia don't seem that far away from it, and have the benefit of being run by the British and not Erdogan.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Can someone explain to me why Incirlik Air Base is so strategically critical? Maybe I'm dyslexic but Akrotiri and Dhekelia don't seem that far away from it, and have the benefit of being run by the British and not Erdogan. It's a case of "it made sense at the time", but to be fair to everyone involved, it did actually make sense all those years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Can someone explain to me why Incirlik Air Base is so strategically critical? Maybe I'm dyslexic but Akrotiri and Dhekelia don't seem that far away from it, and have the benefit of being run by the British and not Erdogan. It's substantially closer, increasing loiter and response time. It also doesn't require flying over the areas of Syria held by Assad and pals, Israel, Lebanon, etc. to drop a bomb on ISIS territory.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
inkjet_lakes posted:Treat yourself, mount a MILAN on a Land Rover. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It's substantially closer, increasing loiter and response time. It also doesn't require flying over the areas of Syria held by Assad and pals, Israel, Lebanon, etc. to drop a bomb on ISIS territory. I feel like flying over Israel shouldn't be much of a big deal. Furthermore, if that's really an issue, why don't we just use an Israeli airbase?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:I feel like flying over Israel shouldn't be much of a big deal. Furthermore, if that's really an issue, why don't we just use an Israeli airbase? Because then every Muslim partner drops out of your coalition because they don't want to be seen as indirectly cooperating with the Israeli
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Do we have any indication if the Turkish military is near to Iran/Iraq war levels of dysfunction post coup attempt?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:
I saw a book in the bookshop about this called "Let's Rip off the Bolsheviks!" but it was 35 euros so I passed.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
The little tank that could.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Trump's comment to the Coast Guard about saving them money on the Ford class reminded me of something. We operate carriers so big that a c-130, a plane slightly bigger than the original 737, could take off and land from them. All without using a tail hook or a RATO. It also made me wish the Coast Guard had their own carriers.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:It also made me wish the Coast Guard had their own carriers.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
When I think of groups that require major power projection potential, my first thought is the US Coast Guard
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:When I think of groups that require major power projection potential, my first thought is the US Coast Guard JINA is building cutters for their Coast Guard that displace 12,000+ tons: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-china-is-building-the-worlds-largest-coast-guard-1677699141 We mustn't allow a Cutter Gap!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
Not even gonna lie, I'd DD a Wiesel.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:When I think of groups that require major power projection potential, my first thought is the US Coast Guard I agree, but I will point out that historically they've been used for it in the past. My maternal grandfather was in the CG during WW2 and spent his 17th birthday (lied about his age) off the coast of Leyte.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Coastguard were deployed to Vietnam too
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Not even gonna lie, I'd DD a Wiesel. Now are you talking about TOW-Wiesel? Mortar Wiesel? SAM-Wiesel? Scout Wiesel? 20mm Cannon Wiesel? Ambulance Wiesel? 30mm Recoilless Cannon Wiesel?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
To be fair to the Coast Guard, they were deployed to the Persian Gulf in both 1990 and 2003 doing boardings and port security. I don't think any of the units saw combat and they seemed to have gotten by without a carrier, but they were very much involved in dangerous stuff far from home.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Now are you talking about TOW-Wiesel? Ideally the 20mm cannon version, but I'm not picky.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:My maternal grandfather was in the CG during WW2 and spent his 17th birthday (lied about his age) off the coast of Leyte. Mine was a CG diver. Apparently the navy borrowed him and he spent the war recovering sensitive materials from sunken ships.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Blistex posted:Now are you talking about TOW-Wiesel? Wait, wait. I knew all about traditional recoiless rifles. But when did they figure out how to make good recoiless autocannons?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:51
|
|
golden bubble posted:Wait, wait. I knew all about traditional recoiless rifles. But when did they figure out how to make good recoiless autocannons? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_RMK30
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Buried right at the end of that wiki is the fact that some imaginative souls wanted to use it to bring back the concept of the Undersea Cruiser by putting it in a popup turret on a Type 212 . Sadly the idea dates back to 2004 and seems never to have gone anywhere. Another sad defeat for glorious *Pew-Pew*. More about the history of that famously successful design concept below. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-ultimate-weapon-the-battleship-submarine-14816
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Oh god those comments
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 16:26
|
|
