Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/02/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    You know that saying about how Waterloo was won on the fields of Eton? Subtly implying that everyone making decisions during the battle had been rubbing elbows since around the time their balls dropped? US politics are like that too, at least at a national level. It's mega-incest. Barack Obama went to Harvard. George W. Bush went to Yale *and* Harvard. Bill Clinton went to Yale. George H. W. Bush went to Yale. Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania, which is still an Ivy, but it's a clue that Trump maybe doesn't see himself as quite the same tribe as the rest of these people. Then there is the way he talks. I think you Brits have entire four year degree programs devoted to the study of the relationship between social class and regional accent. In the US it's a little simpler. Any sort of regional accent is gauche. Anyone who is anyone will usually try to mask their regional accent, or at the very least speak in a certain *way* about certain *things.* This may seem stupid to seize upon, but it's very informative. People imitate the accents of their friends, that's how the things reproduce, after all. So if Trump still speaks with a low to middle class New York accent and with low to middle class New York mannerisms, that is a clue as to whom he considers his friends. Trump is not trying to fit in to Washington and make friends there. Trump is an outsider, and previously you had two sorts of outsiders in US Federal politics. You had the sellouts, who compromised in order to get traction, and ended up the same as anyone else. Joe Scarborough wrote a pretty good book on the massive bureaucracy that has perfected the art of breaking and taming politicians, but there are many other accounts. That's basically the plot of Yes Minister. Every once in a while there would be a politician who proved insoluble to this process. They would be the Ron Pauls and suchlike. They stuck to their principles, and thus never achieved anything. Admirable, perhaps, but totally harmless to the machine. Trump is anything but harmless. It was recently announced that the Federal government slashed 24,000 jobs under Trump. That is simultaneously tiny and huge. For the president to win *at all* against the bureaucracy is a reversal of one hundred and thirty years of legal and informal precedent. Even if the material effects are small, people will notice. It's like the Japanese smashing the tsarist fleet at Tsiushima. The actual immediate implications of Japan beating Russia in a war were modest, in a global sense. But all around the world people under the rule of European colonial administration suddenly realized that white men bleed too.
  2. 2 points
    Doesn't look like this has been posted here, yet. WHY I JOINED THE NRA AFTER WRITING GUN CONTROL ARTICLES
  3. 2 points
    I think one of the personality traits about Trump that is widely overlooked and not reported is that he is an unabashed patriot. And not in the way academics or bureaucrats feel they're the guardians of the keys of wisdom because they went to the right schools. I'm talking men standing around the 1967 mustang, tinkering with the carburetor, listening to the ballgame, while hotdogs are cooking on the barbecue kind of patriotism. It's the sort of patriotism where steelworkers and pipe-fitters put a sticker of an American flag on the hardhat they wear at work each day. I'm talking the kind of patriotism they used to teach in elementary schools where you stand up every morning to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's the type of patriotism Trump's grandfather must have felt when he saw the Statue of Liberty for the first time immigrating (legally) from the shithole that was - and is - Europe on his way to the land of opportunity. It's the type of patriotism where Trump was unironically singing along with Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be and American" on Inauguration Day. It's not intellectual. It's an emotional bond to his country. Hillary Clinton was not a patriot. Neither was Barack Obama. And I don't say that as a knuckle-scraping Republican. It's just that it's blatantly obvious that the previous Administration saw themselves as global citizens, ushering mankind away from the idea of nation states to a Utopian future with no borders. Trump is against all of that. As a patriot, he wants to put America first. It was part of his campaign you know. Now Trump is happy to work with other countries of the world, but it is under the auspices that we're the foreman of the construction crew. And this isn't some new phenomenon. For over two centuries, America's guiding principle was that we would be the leading player on the world stage, the "Shining City on the Hill". This was a bi-partisan idea. Harry Truman and Calvin Coolidge would both recognize the spirit that motivates the current Administration and support it. Hell, JFK and Eisenhower would and certainly Reagan. The issue is that we've had four Administrations since the end of the Cold War that have been aberrations to the notion of Americanism and unapologetic patriotism. Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama seemed more focused on creating a post-American society where this country was no better than Portugal or Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. Couple this with what @Collimatrix has described about how Trump portrays himself to the world, identifying with working class people. Throw in the fact that Trump has four decades of executive experience running a multi-billion dollar corporation with 22,500 employees spread across the US and the World. Add his natural charisma and showmanship and you have a US President who is a patriotic Chief Executive who is confident in his own skin when dealing with actors on the domestic and foreign stage but who has empathy for the little guy. Contrast this with the Obama Administration rich was run like a faculty lounge filled with Ivy League academics who view the world through a policy paper. Worse, foreign leaders regarded them the same way. Contrast this with either of the Bush Administrations who ran the White House like a CIA spook house/ think tank. Or the Clinton's who ran the White House like a Southern politician who was out to line his own pockets but who also felt your pain.
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
    I don't even know where to begin with this paragraph. Bush Jr. was most certainly a patriot in the traditional sense of the word. He was the last president we had who actually served in the US Military in a war. Your dividing line is awfully convenient for your own pro-trump stance. You claim that the last four presidents are un-patriotic or unamerican or something. I suspect that this has less to do with anything their administrations actually did, but rather because all of them have voiced their dislike for Trump. Then you claim, without a shred of evidence, that all the dead presidents are awesome patriots and would surely support Trump. Obviously, this is not a provable statement, since these men are all dead. It's a bit like Trump claiming all dead US servicemen would be happy he is president. Most people consider putting words into the mouths of dead people to be disrespectful.
  6. 1 point
    Looks like the KF41 Lynx is going to be at Eurosatory:
  7. 1 point
    Laviduce

    French flair

    Does anyone know where the gun elevation mechanism of the Leclerc is located and how it looks like? Using DarkLabors older CAD model i am getting the impression that the marked object is part of the gun elevation mechanism: The real thing:
  8. 1 point
    Xlucine

    The General Purpose Archaeology Thread

    You call that a hillfort? This is a hillfort: One hectare larger I grew up a couple of miles away from it
  9. 1 point
    image hosting 30 mb Solid green looks much better than camo, IMO.
  10. 1 point
    LoooSeR

    Syrian conflict.

    Idlib, map of territory control by different factions Deraa, FSA
  11. 1 point
    Video's gone. Found this: & this: Both seem to be partial remnants?
  12. 1 point
    Our local iron age hill-fort (British Camp, Malvern): I can see my house from here! Nice plan view: I'm trying to find some pictures looking straight up at the ramparts from the plain below, but no luck so far.....Trust me, it's fekkin steep!
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Ramlaen

    Documents for the Documents God

    SOUCY COMPOSITE RUBBER TRACK TECHNOLOGY
  15. 1 point
    SH_MM

    Fucking NERA everywhere

    NERA & ERA from South-Africa Ingwe ATGM being tested against armor
  16. 1 point
    Bronezhilet

    General AFV Thread

    Incidentally, if you leave, the amount of nonsense sprouted drops.
  17. 1 point
    Collimatrix

    General AFV Thread

    I didn't say anything about penetration either. See? That's what I said. I never claimed that HESH is impotent because it cannot penetrate. I am saying HESH is impotent because it's impotent. But do you know what's funny? We had this exact same argument two years ago, and you argued in the same cringing, cowardly manner you are now. Also, you said some hilariously insane shit, like claiming that gun-launched HESH rounds are "30+ kg." Bitch, an entire M830 MPAT round is under 30 kg! RDX has a density of under 2 gm/cm^3. A 120mm wide 30 kilogram cylinder of RDX would be 1.3 meters long, or about 30% longer than an entire round of M829. Do you know what I love though? That you can maintain this attitude of haughty superiority when you say things that are so easy to show are wrong. You must slay with chicks. I can just imagine you walking up to a woman at a bar and spitting a line of bullshit about being a space shuttle door gunner in the dinosaur wars while there's visibly diarrhea leaking down your leg. How do you manage it? What is your secret, great master?
  18. 1 point
    Mighty_Zuk

    General AFV Thread

    So that makes you pretty much entirely vulnerable to most modern ATGMs, especially the Russian Kornet which will get a serious overmatch. ATGMs are something you can swarm pretty easily, and is readily available to concealable infantry. Smoke will give a chance at evading them, for a while. But it's a very limited solution. And APS is not enough to replace passive armor modules. Want to add missiles? Give it to the IFVs, or have a gun-launched missile. Limiting yourself to using the gun only against medium-armored targets or soft targets, and only using ATGMs (HVMs) against tanks sounds a lot like what an IFV does. You know what's the good thing about NOT going your way? You actually have dual capabilities. You have the freedom to fire off missiles before you have a line of sight with an enemy, softening them up, and then reliably engaging them with a powerful main gun that you can know will pierce their armor. You don't limit yourself to just one capability that greatly limits you to a very certain range of engagement. If they get point blank, you're dead. First, that depends highly on the APS itself. Developing a tank to use HVMs as its main anti-tank weapon is a very expensive undertaking. It takes billions. Updating an APS to utilize different launchers to avoid the physical restriction in time delay is nothing in comparison. Second, this advantage in ambush situations is dwarfed by the fact that you never send a single tank to do anything alone. You send a platoon of 4 at the least, or you send a company, and even without HVMs they can deliver a LOT of firepower in a very short time. Short enough for a whole column to not realize what's hitting them. Hulls are already traditionally less armored than turrets. But it probably has nothing to do with sprinting from cover to cover. If you have still plenty of targets in LoS, that can also fire directly at you, you don't sprint anywhere. What you're essentially proposing is another Challenger 2. Not in its characteristics, but in its design philosophy. That's shit-tier. You leave no room for improvement. The UK MoD thought they could do with a tank gun that couldn't actually pierce modern armor properly. It was okay for a couple of years. But very shortly after, still when it was young, its gun became obsolete. And because of short-sightedness they need a crap-ton of money to put the firepower at a merely adequate level, for less than half their tanks. Same here. You want a tank whose firepower is easily countered but NOT easily replaced. You want a tank that is only lightly protected, but still go toe to toe with modern MBTs? Just a little side note; The T-14's turret can be replaced. They won't do it for now, but if they'll feel it's necessary, they can either bolt on armor or have the turret replaced with something more mechanically resilient to add armor on it, whereas changing a gun to deal with such a change would require a tremendous logistical effort.
  19. 1 point
    Collimatrix

    General AFV Thread

    This is GMTI imagery, which incidentally I found on your blog, so you should be familiar with the technology and its implications for ground vehicle detection: Look at the Spring 2017 Hama offensive in Syria vs the Autumn 2017 Hama offensive. Or look at the Ukrainian conflict. Modern surveillance is very good at picking up the movement of formations of armed vehicles even with basic day-only optics. With advanced radar technology like GMTI the situation will be more like that facing the panzers in France in 1944; whether to risk force concentration and attract attacks or to disperse and become ineffectual. Finally, and most importantly, I don't know if you've looked at a globe but not everywhere on Earth is Eastern Europe. Modern weapon systems are expensive, and offsetting those costs means foreign sales. Tanks that are designed to fight extremely well in one type of terrain at the expense of others don't exactly fly off the shelves. Look at the Merkava. Who would buy a tank that is intended only to penetrate enemy lines where they are overstretched, but cannot force an assault on a strongpoint? Isn't breaking fixed defenses what tanks were invented for in the first place a century ago? That's another problem with your idea; you assume that your tank will have HVMs and that the enemy will not ("slow ATGMs"). But ATGMs, while expensive relative to other infantry weapons, are much cheaper than tanks. Why are you assuming that your relatively expensive tank will maintain an asymmetrical technological advantage against ATGMs, a much cheaper threat technology? Yes, your hypothetical compromise tank is only marginally less protected in general than a T-90, and yet it is a few tonnes lighter. And it's much lighter than the Western MBTs, again, despite not having much lighter protection. How realistic is that? About 50% of the weight of an MBT is armor. If you want a lighter tank (which I agree makes sense in light of logistics and strategic mobility), protection level is probably the first thing you'll have to compromise on. But the idea of a tank that you sketch out compromises very little on armor thickness relative to extant MBTs. So, realistically, it isn't shaving much weight there. Another way to make a tank lighter is to reduce the protected volume while maintaining armor thickness. Soviet tanks took this approach. Your idea does not. You want ten degrees of gun depression, vice five for Soviet tank designs. Yes, the breech of the 105mm M102 howitzer is shorter than an L7, but by a mere 220 mm. Taking the sine of the gun depression times the round length, I get that an L7 that depresses five degrees requires less height than an M102 that depresses ten degrees. But if you have more precise diagrams showing the thickness of the breech block and the CoG of the gun the matter could be settled more firmly. Bottom line though, you aren't saving much weight by going to the howitzer, and you may in fact be making your tank heavier than it would be if you had a more traditional tank gun that sacrificed depression. This is suspiciously similar to the idea that Blacktail Defense had about tank design. He would often rail against needlessly large main guns on tanks and advocate that they be armed with howitzers instead. But it simply isn't a sensible tradeoff. The armament of a tank is 12% of its total weight, at the very most. Compromising on armament doesn't save much weight, but reduces offensive potential enormously. If you think this, you are not familiar with the extensive literature on the (in)effectiveness of HESH. HESH is for poking holes in walls. And nothing else. It's that simple. For some reason, the military reform movement (and the British military) had a sexual fetish for HESH ammunition, but you should listen to neither of these groups of people on matters of tank design.
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    Sovngard

    General AFV Thread

    So, it has been finally phased out of service. Do you have any official sources about this event ?
  22. 0 points
  23. 0 points
    LoooSeR

    General AFV Thread

    Otvaga members spotted a interesting button in VT-4
  24. 0 points
    ZloyKrolik

    General AFV Thread

    From Tank & AFV News I think the marijauna legalization is going a bit too far.
×