Protecting Armored Vehicles
John Schutkeker
What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of molten
copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
Sam Wormley
Learn to get along with others in the world.
Alie...@gmail.com
wrote:
> What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
> explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of molten
> copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
No, they don't "melt their way through", they _push_ their way
through. They typically move in the low tens of kps at which
velocities both the projectile and the hardest, toughest, densest
armor are effectively incompressible fluids.
The usual methods involve "faux armor" comprising metal slats or
chain-type materials spaced away from the actual armor that isn't
intended to stop the round that forges the projectile, but rather to
set off its contact fuze prematurely or deform the explosive charges
that shape the projectile. If it succeeds in setting it off
prematurely the projectile has to expend nearly as much of its
momentum pushing the extra intervening air out of its way as the armor
it's designed to penetrate, meaning it's going too slow to penetrate
the armor by the time it makes contact and just splashes more or less
harmlessly on the armor's surface. If it succeeds in deforming the
explosives, the projectile core does not achieve the velocity
necessary to penetrate and again just splashes.
This is proving ineffective against static devices hidden in
structures armored vehicles have to pass close to; the device that
forms the EFP is placed so that that the projectile will strike an
inadequately protected part of the vehicle.
I'm given to understand the US DOD is looking into layered, spaced
armor made of something derived from Kevlar (think the "big brother"
of what's used on spacecraft to protect against micrometeoroids which
move in similar velocity ranges) to defeat this sort of threat.
Mark L. Fergerson
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
The "molten" is irrelevant here. At the speed these things are going,
there is no real distinction between liquid and solid, as the
pressures on contact vastly exceed yield strengths of pretty much
anything. And their speeds exceed the speed of sound in solids as
well (so the strength of anything not directly impacted doesn't come
into play).
In principle a good approach would've been layered armor,
hard-soft-hard, but the thing may end up quite bulky.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
What armored vehicle has a problem with this?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
nonsense
> In article <Xns9928CDABCEBB4lk...@207.115.33.102>, John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>
>>What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
>>explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of molten
>>copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
>
>
> The "molten" is irrelevant here. At the speed these things are going,
> there is no real distinction between liquid and solid, as the
> pressures on contact vastly exceed yield strengths of pretty much
> anything. And their speeds exceed the speed of sound in solids as
> well (so the strength of anything not directly impacted doesn't come
> into play).
>
> In principle a good approach would've been layered armor,
> hard-soft-hard, but the thing may end up quite bulky.
In addition, perhaps deflection by angling surfaces might
help if they're flat enough at the point of impact.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
problem, currently, is with vehicles which are being used for a
purpose quite different from this originally intended.
Androcles
"John Schutkeker" <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message news:Xns9928CDABCEBB4lk...@207.115.33.102...
>
> What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
> explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of molten
> copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
Uncle Al
A big solid slug of winged dense metal traveling at a couple of
miles/second doesn't care what it hits: chicken wire, Chobham armor,
reactive armor. Contact flashes to plasma and penetration proceeds.
This is unlike shaped charges in which the thin liquid jet can be
diverted for its small mass/length.
The foreward-facing surface of the explosively reformed slug is a
third degree polynomial, its backside is a second degree polynomial.
The thick middle pushes forward as the thin flange inverts and folds
to form fins. Then,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledge_Hammer!
It's Hammer time! re "State of Sledge"
Eight inches of standard farm irrigation pipe, a couple of pounds of
HE, a punched copper disk, a blasting cap, det cord or wire... is a
cheap tank killer to 100 meters radius. The US has sunk $billions
into a multiple-megajoule rail gun that does the same thing, albeit
accompanied by a huge electrical generator powering the jeep-sized
rail gun assembly. One presumes there is an expensively clever way to
disperse the hot exhaust plume (and that it runs on biodiesel).
When your superweapon barely fits into an 18-wheeler, the guy with a
wooden club will win.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Uncle Al
Idiot. Eight inches of Chobham armor is holed at 100 meters distance
by an EFP the size of a lunchbox thermos. US proto-sacrificial lambs
are mounting a foot thickness of of sandbags over glacis plates. What
could be funnier than US hi-tech supertanks weighed down by a few
tonnes of low-tech sand and still being brewed up by fungible ragheads
barely smart enough to aim the working end?
Q: How long does it take to train, arm, and deploy a Muslim
terrorist?
A: Ten months, including womb maintenance. Low-tech!
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:463F48CC...@hate.spam.net...
> Androcles wrote:
>>
>> "John Schutkeker" <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message news:Xns9928CDABCEBB4lk...@207.115.33.102...
>> >
>> > What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
>> > explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of molten
>> > copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_armour
>
> Idiot.
John Schutkeker
news:PWv%h.62$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
> In article <Xns9928CDABCEBB4lk...@207.115.33.102>, John
> Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>
>>What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
>>explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of molten
>>copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
>
> The "molten" is irrelevant here. At the speed these things are going,
> there is no real distinction between liquid and solid, as the
> pressures on contact vastly exceed yield strengths of pretty much
> anything. And their speeds exceed the speed of sound in solids as
> well (so the strength of anything not directly impacted doesn't come
> into play).
The point is that molten copper is hot, carrying more thermal energy
than any other possibility. Copper has the highest melting point of any
ordinary metal except the armor materials themselves (nickel,
iron,carbon,steel). Copper has a boiling point of 2550 F, which, even
if it's below the melting point of steel, is hot enough to soften it
beyond usefulness as armor.
That raises another question of exactly which steel is used for armor,
and what is it's melting point. We can all imagine someting like
stainless steel or tungsten armor, but they would probably be
prohibitively expensive. I'm thinking of something like two ceramic
layers with a coolant jacket between them, maybe even as cold as liquid
nitrogen, although I expect that something at maybe -60 C would suffice.
Excluding methane or ammonia, what common substances are liquid in that
temperature range?
John Schutkeker
@attbi_s22:
You're a naive Nellie, aren't you?
Sam Wormley
>
> You're a naive Nellie, aren't you?
I don't think so, John.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>news:PWv%h.62$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>
>> In article <Xns9928CDABCEBB4lk...@207.115.33.102>, John
>> Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>>
>>>What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
>>>explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of molten
>>>copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
>>
>> The "molten" is irrelevant here. At the speed these things are going,
>> there is no real distinction between liquid and solid, as the
>> pressures on contact vastly exceed yield strengths of pretty much
>> anything. And their speeds exceed the speed of sound in solids as
>> well (so the strength of anything not directly impacted doesn't come
>> into play).
>
>The point is that molten copper is hot, carrying more thermal energy
>than any other possibility.
This really doesn't play a role here.
> Copper has the highest melting point of any
>ordinary metal except the armor materials themselves (nickel,
>iron,carbon,steel). Copper has a boiling point of 2550 F, which, even
>if it's below the melting point of steel, is hot enough to soften it
>beyond usefulness as armor.
>
In extended contact, yes. during few microseconds, no. You can try
to calculate, based on the known heat capacities and conductivities of
copper and steel, to estimate the amount of heat conducted from the
copper to the steel during the few microseconds the contact lasts. It
is miniscule. And, again, it hardly matters once the impact
velocities are faster then the speed of sound in steel. At this point
"solid" becomes a meaningless term.
>That raises another question of exactly which steel is used for armor,
>and what is it's melting point. We can all imagine someting like
>stainless steel or tungsten armor, but they would probably be
>prohibitively expensive. I'm thinking of something like two ceramic
>layers with a coolant jacket between them, maybe even as cold as liquid
>nitrogen, although I expect that something at maybe -60 C would suffice.
>
Again, it won't matter in this case. This is an impact issue, not
heat issue.
>Excluding methane or ammonia, what common substances are liquid in that
>temperature range?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
That's to put it very, very mildly.
John Schutkeker
news:dkT%h.81$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
If that's the case, why is the EFP method of delivering impact to the
target any better than traditional methods?
John Schutkeker
news:ztT%h.82$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
> In article <Xns9929F221D4678lk...@207.115.17.102>, John
> Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in news:pdu%h.99523$_c5.12612
>>@attbi_s22:
>>
>>> John Schutkeker wrote:
>>>> What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
>>>> explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of
>>>> molten copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
>>>
>>> Learn to get along with others in the world.
>>
>>You're a naive Nellie, aren't you?
>
> That's to put it very, very mildly.
What's your take on his attitude?
John Schutkeker
@attbi_s22:
Poeple have been fighting since long before the beginning of recorded
history, and they'll be fighting centuries after our great*10 grandchildren
are ashes and dust. You don't truly think that a nine word platitude on a
BBS nobody reads is going to change that, do you? Have you got an
Adler/Christ Complex or something?
Alie...@gmail.com
wrote:
> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote innews:dkT%h.81$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>
>
>
> > In article <Xns9929F180A8744alsfaskldfjakls...@207.115.17.102>, John
> > Schutkeker <jschutke...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
> >>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
> >>news:PWv%h.62$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>
Because of the extreme velocity of the formed projectile, not its
temperature. The hardness and heat resistance of the target material
are equally irrelevant. The fact that the projectile is hot is a mere
side-effect of the explosive forming process which is carefully
designed to amplify its velocity.
The armor flows like an incompressible fluid when such a high-
velocity projectile strikes it regardless of its temperature. I posted
that before and you ignored it. Did you simply not like that answer?
If so, too bad, because that's the physics of the situation.
Mark L. Fergerson
Sam Wormley
>
> Poeple have been fighting since long before the beginning of recorded
> history, and they'll be fighting centuries after our great*10 grandchildren
> are ashes and dust. You don't truly think that a nine word platitude on a
> BBS nobody reads is going to change that, do you? Have you got an
> Adler/Christ Complex or something?
I'm just saying if we didn't piss people off so much we would be
fighting less.
John Schutkeker
news:1178678952....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
Why do velocities from this delivery method exceed velocities from more
typical delivery methods?
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
First of all, it is by now pretty traditional. Has been around for a
generation and it is really just a variation on the standard shaped
charge which has been around for another generation before. Second,
the "better" needs to be qualified. It is not as good a tank killer
as a decent sabot shell, the range is limited and so is the accuracy.
But, the sabot shell requires a big gun to fire it and a big platform
to move the gun around. An EFP can be used without anything to fire it,
can be simply produced, easily concealed and operated by untrained
troops. Not the weapon of choice to take on an armored division, but
as harassment weapon, against softer skinned vehicles, quite handy.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
His is the typical naive stupidity (or stupid naivette, if one
prefers) instilled in the products of modern Western education. At
its core you'll find a bunch of platitudes and sincerely held beliefs,
not the less sincere for not being well supported by historical
evidence. Such as:
"By and large people just want to be left alone and won't fight unless
attacked by somebody". Contradicted by most of human history.
or (when events not quite in line with the statement above occur):
"They only attacked us to avenge something we did to them". This is
perhaps the silliest, those uttering it don't even comprehend how
stupidly egocentric it is. It assumes that we're the only free agents
in the world, with all other people having no plans, desires and
ambitions of their own, only reacting to our actions.
or
"The worst peace is better than the best war". Sure, that's what
Chamberlain believed, in 1938. We know the outcome.
That was to name but a few. The list can easily go for few pages.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
the future. Others have plans of their own, they're not just reacting
to your actions.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
It is because the driver here is the detonation wave of the explosive
backing the charge and the speeds of detonation waves are typically
6-7 km/s (a tad higher in specialty explosives). The pressures at the
detonation front far exceed those achievable using propellants in gun
barrels, and no gun barrel would survive such pressures. You can only
use them with a device that is not supposed to survive. BTW, the
speeds you've seen queted here, in the tens of km/s are an
exaggeration. EFPs are typically in the 2-3 km/s range. The metal
jets from shaped charges are much faster but they disperse rapidly,
thus you need something to deliver the shell right next to the
vehicle, before exploding. EFPs, being slower but more stable, can be
detonated from some distance away.
John Schutkeker
news:CJc0i.94$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
What do you think is America's best course of action in Iraq?
John Schutkeker
news:zHb0i.93$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
Do you consider Bradleys to be "softer skinned"?
John Schutkeker
news:RWc0i.96$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
So, theoretically, their projectile velocities could be matched or
exceeded by, say, a rail gun, yes?
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
It is a war which *must* be won. One has to realize what's at stake
here. The Islamists are not stupid. We may consider them 'crazy",
but this is a meaningless designation. All it means is that their
priorities are different enough from ours to have virtually no common
denominator. But, I repeat, they're not stupid. They do recognize
the fact that the West does have better military technology. They do
doubt, however (and they may be right in this, the jury is still out)
the West's guts and readiness to make sacrifices and they're banking
on it. Now, they're not, by any means, a majority in the Arab
countries. But majorities are overrated. A small but highly coherent
minority can subdue an incoherent majority and even gets its support,
if it appears to be winning.
So, what happens if the US folds in Iraq. Well, to the large and
undecided Muslim masses it'll be a clear signal that the Islamists are
right in their assessment, and they'll be joining in droves. Within
few years you can expect a collapse of most current Arab governments,
especially those in the Arab countries, and an Islamist takeover. The
next step, you'll have Europe begging for mercy and offering the
Islamists anything they want, just to keep the oil flowing. And then,
the US will have a choice, either fold or refight same war under much
worse conditions.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In the context of what's discussed here, anything other than a main
battle tank is soft skinned. Including Bradleys. Those are armored
enough to be protected against light weapons (rifles and machine
guns) and shrapnel, but not against dedicated armor piercing ammo.
Alie...@gmail.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <Xns992AE9D1A6C1Ba...@207.115.17.102>, John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
> >"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:1178678952....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> On May 8, 7:19 pm, John Schutkeker <jschutke...@sbcglobal.net.nospam>
> >> wrote:
> >>> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote
> >>> innews:dkT%h.81$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
(OMG, Google Groups has updated again; I have no idea how, or even if
this post will appear. Any weirdness is Not My Fault!)
Exactly. Why didn't I think to say that? Oh, well.
Also, copper is favored for its ductility; there is very little time
to form the projectile.
> BTW, the
> speeds you've seen queted here, in the tens of km/s are an
> exaggeration. EFPs are typically in the 2-3 km/s range. The metal
> jets from shaped charges are much faster but they disperse rapidly,
> thus you need something to deliver the shell right next to the
> vehicle, before exploding. EFPs, being slower but more stable, can be
> detonated from some distance away.
There is a range of devices that unfortunately are ambiguously named
by various combinations of "self/explosively formed/forged/forging
projectiles/penetrators". The devices manufactured for and used by
uniformed armed forces of various nations can indeed have the
velocities I cited (though the fastest are not "portable" in the sense
that they're fired from tank guns or delivered by missile), and note
that specific data sources are becoming scarce (I wonder why?). The
"homemade" pipe section full of C-4 or Semtex with a hand-hammered
copper disc tend to run much slower (though generally still adequate
to the task, unfortunately).
The "formal" devices are not only considerably faster but are
tailored to forge stabilizing fins on the "skirt" of the projectile
for much greater effective range once formed/forged.
I'd advise anyone who really wants to know about these things to go
sign up for the Infantry; extensive Web searching might attract
unwanted attention. OTOH such attention might be deserved, so Google
at your own risk. ;>)
Mark L. Fergerson
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>news:RWc0i.96$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>
>exceeded by, say, a rail gun, yes?
Sure. With the difference that a rail gun requires a big mamma of a
power supply (truck sized, at least), fancy manufacturing capabilities
and highly trained crew. An EFP can be made with a piece of
irrigation pipe and some sheet metal, and operated by amateurs. So,
who wins.
When firearms (muskets) appeared on the European scene around the
beginning of the 15th century AD, they were less accurate and had a
lower rate of fire than longbows. but it took few years to train a
decent archer while a passable musketeer could be trained within
couple months. So, who won?
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> In article <Xns992AE9D1A6C1Ba...@207.115.17.102>, John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>> >"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >news:1178678952....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>> >
>> >> On May 8, 7:19 pm, John Schutkeker <jschutke...@sbcglobal.net.nospam>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote
>> >>> innews:dkT%h.81$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>
>this post will appear. Any weirdness is Not My Fault!)
>
>
> Also, copper is favored for its ductility; there is very little time
>to form the projectile.
>
initial shape required using nothing more than hand tools.
>> BTW, the
>> speeds you've seen queted here, in the tens of km/s are an
>> exaggeration. EFPs are typically in the 2-3 km/s range. The metal
>> jets from shaped charges are much faster but they disperse rapidly,
>> thus you need something to deliver the shell right next to the
>> vehicle, before exploding. EFPs, being slower but more stable, can be
>> detonated from some distance away.
>
> There is a range of devices that unfortunately are ambiguously named
>by various combinations of "self/explosively formed/forged/forging
>projectiles/penetrators". The devices manufactured for and used by
>uniformed armed forces of various nations can indeed have the
>velocities I cited
Yes.
> (though the fastest are not "portable" in the sense
>that they're fired from tank guns or delivered by missile), and note
>that specific data sources are becoming scarce (I wonder why?).
Hmm, good question.
> The "homemade" pipe section full of C-4 or Semtex with a hand-hammered
>copper disc tend to run much slower (though generally still adequate
>to the task, unfortunately).
And here is the problem. Yes, it doesn't perform quite at the level
of devices built with great expense at high tech plants but, as you
say, it is still adequate to the task, and it can be manufactured by
anybody with quarter the know-how of a car mechanic. meaning, the
sources cannot be controlled.
>
> The "formal" devices are not only considerably faster but are
>tailored to forge stabilizing fins on the "skirt" of the projectile
>for much greater effective range once formed/forged.
>
Yes, definitely. But the fact reamins that the primitive home made
devices are still quite adequate. And, they can be produced cheaply
using unqualified labor.
> I'd advise anyone who really wants to know about these things to go
>sign up for the Infantry; extensive Web searching might attract
>unwanted attention. OTOH such attention might be deserved, so Google
>at your own risk. ;>)
>
Yep:-)
John Schutkeker
news:B3g0i.100$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
> Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>>> Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>>>"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> On May 8, 7:19 pm, John Schutkeker
>>>>>> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote
>>>>>> > John Schutkeker <jschutke...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>>>>> >>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>>>>>>
How small could you shrink the power supply, if you wanted to go with a
really, really small rail gun, like the ones in "Eraser"? Maybe
something .22 caliber, or conceivably even smaller.
Given all that, I'm surprised that the Army or the Navy *still* hasn't
got something mobile onto a test range, even if it required a flatbed
truck. IMO, it's imperative to get one of those things onto wheels,
asap.
Depending on the firing rate (ha ha), even an extremely small one could
still reduce a brick house to dust in minutes. That makes Puff the
Magic Dragon look like a toddler's baby sitter.
I'm wondering if it might not be good enough to attack planes flying at
U2 and SR-51 altitudes, and it would be a helluva lot cheaper than what
Raytheon charges for one stupid missile. Those guys are friggin'
crooks.
> An EFP can be made with a piece of irrigation pipe and some sheet
> metal, and operated by amateurs. So, who wins.
I was just speaking theoretically. Of course, the poor man always wins,
if his weapons are equal to the enemy.
> When firearms (muskets) appeared on the European scene around the
> beginning of the 15th century AD, they were less accurate and had a
> lower rate of fire than longbows. but it took few years to train a
> decent archer while a passable musketeer could be trained within
> couple months. So, who won?
What do you do for a living?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
would absorb the impact. It was used to protect trenches in WWW 1 Its
cheap and can be thrown away when not needed. Tires should be solid
rubber. Vehicle should have a 20 foot probe in front to check for in
ground explosives. Going by buildings no one is allowed to open top
hatch. In the future I would build an armor vehicle not out of
steel,but like a steel belted tire. Hard is not as good as flexible.
Bert
Bruce Scott TOK
>In article <Xns9929F221D4678lk...@207.115.17.102>, John
>Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in news:pdu%h.99523$_c5.12612
>>@attbi_s22:
>>
>>> John Schutkeker wrote:
>>>> What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
>>>> explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of molten
>>>> copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
>>>
>>> Learn to get along with others in the world.
>>
>>You're a naive Nellie, aren't you?
>
>That's to put it very, very mildly.
Do you really think Sam stepped so far out of line you two had to come
along and slap him down?
Sam is right BTW. Too bad we didn't listen when some of our founders
warned us about the mess we've got ourselves into.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Bruce Scott TOK
[...]
> This is proving ineffective against static devices hidden in
>structures armored vehicles have to pass close to; the device that
>forms the EFP is placed so that that the projectile will strike an
>inadequately protected part of the vehicle.
I must say I don't really get just how powerful these IED's seem to be.
They seem to function as if someone ran up and slapped a shaped charge
onto the vehicle, but in fact they are exploding from at least a couple
of meters away. Not from below, but from the side.
> I'm given to understand the US DOD is looking into layered, spaced
>armor made of something derived from Kevlar (think the "big brother"
>of what's used on spacecraft to protect against micrometeoroids which
>move in similar velocity ranges) to defeat this sort of threat.
One thing they don't seem to have an answer for: the IED is far cheaper
than anything effective as a countermeasure.
Bruce Scott TOK
>It will help, and tanks are utilizing this for a long time. The
>problem, currently, is with vehicles which are being used for a
>purpose quite different from this originally intended.
Does this include the APCs?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Mati Meron wrote:
> >It will help, and tanks are utilizing this for a long time. The
> >problem, currently, is with vehicles which are being used for a
> >purpose quite different from this originally intended.
> Does this include the APCs?
What APC's?
All the action is in the urban areas and the M113 is too big to
navigate the streets.
Seen any M113's on the news in an urban area, or anywhere at all?
It's the hummers that are being blown up, which are utility vehicles,
not armored vehicles in spite of any after market, bolt on crap.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
<snip a lot>
> Do you consider Bradleys to be "softer skinned"?
The Bradley will withstand small arms fire but not stuff made to take
out armor.
It is moot anyway since the Bradley is too big to make it through an
urban street where all the current action is.
Bruce Scott TOK
>The Bradley will withstand small arms fire but not stuff made to take
>out armor.
>
>It is moot anyway since the Bradley is too big to make it through an
>urban street where all the current action is.
OK... I was referring to the highway incidents and meant Bradleys when
mentioning APCs. The M113 is long history (though I saw a few in Turkey
in 1989).
If it is just light trucks then yes, it makes a lot more sense.
Edward Green
Terminator style autonomous fighting vehicles.
Uncle Al
1) What is the real problem? The Muslim world is massively
overpopulated with young males for whom no societal niche could
possible exist.
2) What are the real solutions? Massive near-term removal of males
ages 15-30 and massive long-term restock inhibition. The second
solution is contraception plus abortion plus homosexuality. The first
solution is mass migration (externally intolerable) or mass slaughter.
> Terminator style autonomous fighting vehicles.
A minimum of 50 million young males must be removed from the Middle
East. Bullets ain't gonna do it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> >The Bradley will withstand small arms fire but not stuff made to take
> >out armor.
> >
> >It is moot anyway since the Bradley is too big to make it through an
> >urban street where all the current action is.
> OK... I was referring to the highway incidents and meant Bradleys when
> mentioning APCs. The M113 is long history (though I saw a few in Turkey
> in 1989).
Last I checked, the M113 was still in the Army inventory, but AFAIK,
few if any are in the Great Sandy.
The M113 is a troop transport vehicle, not a fighting vehicle (ignoring
the versions like the one with TOW launchers).
> If it is just light trucks then yes, it makes a lot more sense.
Basically what is happening is a utility vehicle, the Hummer, is
being used to do what amounts to combat patrols in tight places.
Neither tanks nor Bradelys can get into those places.
The US doesn't have anything like an armored car, which is what one
would really want to use.
Bruce Scott TOK
>The M113 is a troop transport vehicle, not a fighting vehicle (ignoring
>the versions like the one with TOW launchers).
As mentioned I meant Bradleys and highway incidents with APCs...
>> If it is just light trucks then yes, it makes a lot more sense.
>
>Basically what is happening is a utility vehicle, the Hummer, is
>being used to do what amounts to combat patrols in tight places.
>
>Neither tanks nor Bradelys can get into those places.
>
>The US doesn't have anything like an armored car, which is what one
>would really want to use.
Seems a crass oversight. We've been fighting there for 4 years. The
USA produces, or at least there's a market for, armored cars (banks,
etc). They should have procured a few.
Alie...@gmail.com
wrote:
> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote innews:B3g0i.100$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
(Brevity snip)
> >>So, theoretically, their projectile velocities could be matched or
> >>exceeded by, say, a rail gun, yes?
>
> > Sure. With the difference that a rail gun requires a big mamma of a
> > power supply (truck sized, at least), fancy manufacturing capabilities
> > and highly trained crew.
>
> How small could you shrink the power supply, if you wanted to go with a
> really, really small rail gun, like the ones in "Eraser"? Maybe
> something .22 caliber, or conceivably even smaller.
Power out the muzzle + losses = what you have to carry. Current
power supplies are pretty damn lossy. That's one reason such weapons
exist only in movies.
> Given all that, I'm surprised that the Army or the Navy *still* hasn't
> got something mobile onto a test range, even if it required a flatbed
> truck. IMO, it's imperative to get one of those things onto wheels,
> asap.
Weapons are designed for use against specific classes of targets.
What's your target class?
> Depending on the firing rate (ha ha), even an extremely small one could
> still reduce a brick house to dust in minutes. That makes Puff the
> Magic Dragon look like a toddler's baby sitter.
And consume more power than you could carry not to mention burn the
thing out after maybe five shots. That's another reason they only
exist in movies.
> I'm wondering if it might not be good enough to attack planes flying at
> U2 and SR-51 altitudes, and it would be a helluva lot cheaper than what
> Raytheon charges for one stupid missile. Those guys are friggin'
> crooks.
No. Even depleted uranium, or if you want the maximum density I know
of, osmium/iridium alloy .22's won't fly that far. The air it has to
push out of the way is just too damn dense at the velocities you have
in mind. Missiles are used because they boost while in flight which a
bullet cannot do. Look up the term "drag".
> > An EFP can be made with a piece of irrigation pipe and some sheet
> > metal, and operated by amateurs. So, who wins.
>
> I was just speaking theoretically. Of course, the poor man always wins,
> if his weapons are equal to the enemy.
Also he has to be able to out-tactic them, which is what they're
doing.
> > When firearms (muskets) appeared on the European scene around the
> > beginning of the 15th century AD, they were less accurate and had a
> > lower rate of fire than longbows. but it took few years to train a
> > decent archer while a passable musketeer could be trained within
> > couple months. So, who won?
>
> What do you do for a living?
What's that got to do with it?
Mark L. Fergerson
Alie...@gmail.com
You know about DARPA's robot truck competitions? They're only to be
used for "carrying cargo" or as "ambulances" of course.
Last competition ran on an open terrain course. Next one includes
"simulated urban areas".
Now, go find one or more of Keith Laumer's BOLO books. Make
connections as you will. I have, and I like it.
Mark L. Fergerson
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> >The M113 is a troop transport vehicle, not a fighting vehicle (ignoring
> >the versions like the one with TOW launchers).
> As mentioned I meant Bradleys and highway incidents with APCs...
What highway incidents?
> >> If it is just light trucks then yes, it makes a lot more sense.
> >
> >Basically what is happening is a utility vehicle, the Hummer, is
> >being used to do what amounts to combat patrols in tight places.
> >
> >Neither tanks nor Bradelys can get into those places.
> >
> >The US doesn't have anything like an armored car, which is what one
> >would really want to use.
> Seems a crass oversight. We've been fighting there for 4 years. The
> USA produces, or at least there's a market for, armored cars (banks,
> etc). They should have procured a few.
A military armored car != a bank armored car.
Timo Nieminen
We already have these in use: infantry.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>>>>>"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> > John Schutkeker <jschutke...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>>>>>> >>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>>>>>>>
>really, really small rail gun, like the ones in "Eraser"? Maybe
>something .22 caliber, or conceivably even smaller.
>
magnitude lower then same with chemical energy. For fast release
devices the ratio is even worse, about 3 orders of magnitude. So, the
equivalent of a handgun cartridge would be the size of a large coke
bottle and the equivalent of a tank shell will take few tonnes, Not
great.
>Given all that, I'm surprised that the Army or the Navy *still* hasn't
>got something mobile onto a test range, even if it required a flatbed
>truck. IMO, it's imperative to get one of those things onto wheels,
>asap.
Only, if they can be of any use. Which, in my opinion (I wrote about
it few months ago) they really cannot.
>
>Depending on the firing rate (ha ha),
Yes, that's one problem, the firing rate is atrocious.
> even an extremely small one could
>still reduce a brick house to dust in minutes. That makes Puff the
>Magic Dragon look like a toddler's baby sitter.
Well, consider. Fire a low velocity handgun slug into a window and
the window shatters. Fire a high velocity rifle bullet into a window
and more often than not it'll leave a small round hole in its wake
with the rest of the glass pane intact. It is *not* always the case
that more speed = more damage. Your ideal projectile, for a given
type of target, has enough kinetic energy to get in but not enough to
get out again, through the back. This way, all the energy not
dissipated penetratig into the target is dissipated within the target.
The only good reasons for hyper velocity (in the few km/s range)
projectiles are hard armor penetration or long range. And in the
second case the destruction will be done by the payload, not the
speed, since you cannot assure perfect accuracy at really long range
and with a purely kinetic energy projectiles even a near miss is still
a complete miss.
>
>I'm wondering if it might not be good enough to attack planes flying at
>U2 and SR-51 altitudes, and it would be a helluva lot cheaper than what
>Raytheon charges for one stupid missile. Those guys are friggin'
>crooks.
Well, I won't judge whether they're or aren't but what you pay for, in
case of a missile, is the guidance system and without it an
antiaircraft projectile, no matter how fast, isn't worth much. Now,
sure, a fast enough projectile fired from a rail gun will make it to
the altitude of a U@, but hitting is another matter.
>
>> An EFP can be made with a piece of irrigation pipe and some sheet
>> metal, and operated by amateurs. So, who wins.
>
>I was just speaking theoretically. Of course, the poor man always wins,
>if his weapons are equal to the enemy.
Sometimes even when not quite equal, as long as they're adequate.
>
>> When firearms (muskets) appeared on the European scene around the
>> beginning of the 15th century AD, they were less accurate and had a
>> lower rate of fire than longbows. but it took few years to train a
>> decent archer while a passable musketeer could be trained within
>> couple months. So, who won?
>
>What do you do for a living?
Oh, I'm a physicist.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Mati Meron wrote:
>
>>In article <Xns9929F221D4678lk...@207.115.17.102>, John
>>Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>>Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in news:pdu%h.99523$_c5.12612
>>>@attbi_s22:
>>>
>>>> John Schutkeker wrote:
>>>>> What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against EFP's,
>>>>> explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying slugs of molten
>>>>> copper that melt their way through a vehicle's armor?
>>>>
>>>> Learn to get along with others in the world.
>>>
>>>You're a naive Nellie, aren't you?
>>
>>That's to put it very, very mildly.
>
>Do you really think Sam stepped so far out of line you two had to come
>along and slap him down?
>
>Sam is right BTW. Too bad we didn't listen when some of our founders
>warned us about the mess we've got ourselves into.
>
My opinion differs.
John Schutkeker
news:200705091457....@ipp.mpg.de:
In the Macchiavellian world of international relations, "right" and
"wrong" are meaningless concepts. Much more sensible are "works" and
"doesn't work."
John Schutkeker
> Mati Meron wrote:
>
>>It will help, and tanks are utilizing this for a long time. The
>>problem, currently, is with vehicles which are being used for a
>>purpose quite different from this originally intended.
>
> Does this include the APCs?
That's what a Bradley is.
John Schutkeker
news:1178742931....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> On May 9, 3:59 am, John Schutkeker <jschutke...@sbcglobal.net.nospam>
> wrote:
>> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote
>> innews:B3g0i.100$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>
>> How small could you shrink the power supply, if you wanted to go with
>> a really, really small rail gun, like the ones in "Eraser"? Maybe
>> something .22 caliber, or conceivably even smaller.
>
> Power out the muzzle + losses = what you have to carry. Current
> power supplies are pretty damn lossy. That's one reason such weapons
> exist only in movies.
Thanks to Nimitz's Nuclear Navy, one can assume that a ship borne weapon
has an unlimited power supply.
>> Given all that, I'm surprised that the Army or the Navy *still*
>> hasn't got something mobile onto a test range, even if it required a
>> flatbed truck. IMO, it's imperative to get one of those things onto
>> wheels, asap.
>
> Weapons are designed for use against specific classes of targets.
> What's your target class?
TBD. I'm a member of the "If you build it, they will come" school of
invention.
>> Depending on the firing rate (ha ha), even an extremely small one
>> could still reduce a brick house to dust in minutes. That makes Puff
>> the Magic Dragon look like a toddler's baby sitter.
>
> And consume more power than you could carry not to mention burn the
> thing out after maybe five shots. That's another reason they only
> exist in movies.
Burn it out, how?
>> I'm wondering if it might not be good enough to attack planes flying
>> at U2 and SR-51 altitudes, and it would be a helluva lot cheaper than
>> what Raytheon charges for one stupid missile. Those guys are
>> friggin' crooks.
>
> No. Even depleted uranium, or if you want the maximum density I know
> of, osmium/iridium alloy .22's won't fly that far. The air it has to
> push out of the way is just too damn dense at the velocities you have
> in mind. Missiles are used because they boost while in flight which a
> bullet cannot do. Look up the term "drag".
So what's the best distance that can be achieved, by a range optimized rail
gun?
>> I was just speaking theoretically. Of course, the poor man always
>> wins, if his weapons are equal to the enemy.
>
> Also he has to be able to out-tactic them, which is what they're
> doing.
Home turf is an extremely powerful advantage.
>> What do you do for a living?
>
> What's that got to do with it?
That question wasn't directed at you.
John Schutkeker
Are you sure about this? What would prevent the enemy from just adding
a multiplier to the explosive charges in the EFP's, and killing the
armored cars anyhow?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Not quite and the Army doesn't call it that.
The M3A3 has 3 crew and can take an additional 2 along for the ride.
The M113 APC can take 12 along for the ride.
The Bradley is, however, a good example of what you get when you
have people with no concept of a problem design a solution.
It can't carry enough troops to be a useful troop transport.
It is too big to manuever in urban areas.
It is too heavy to go over anything other than a reinforced bridge
which means it can't go anywhere in most places.
It is too lightly armored to be of much use in an open battle in
spite being armed with TOW missiles.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Nothing, and there is also nothing to prevent the enemy from coming
up with something that would take out an Abrams M1A2 Main Battle
Tank.
However, it would seem to me to be a prudent move to provide as much
protection as possible to the friendlies.
In an urban setting, an armored car is the best that can be done.
Right now, it is make-shift armor on a vehicle best used to make
a PX run.
John Schutkeker
news:dTf0i.98$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
> In article <Xns992B2BFAD8191lk...@207.115.33.102>, John
> Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>>news:CJc0i.94$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>>
>>> In article <Xns992AE3DAE8DC8lk...@207.115.17.102>,
>>> John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>>>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>>>>news:ztT%h.82$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <Xns9929F221D4678lk...@207.115.17.102>,
>>>>> John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>>>>>Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:pdu%h.99523$_c5.12612 @attbi_s22:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Schutkeker wrote:
>>>>>>>> What would be a good way to protect armored vehicles against
>>>>>>>> EFP's, explosively formed projectiles, which are just flying
>>>>>>>> slugs of molten copper that melt their way through a vehicle's
>>>>>>>> armor?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Learn to get along with others in the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're a naive Nellie, aren't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's to put it very, very mildly.
>>>>
>>>>What's your take on his attitude?
>>>
>>> His is the typical naive stupidity (or stupid naivette, if one
>>> prefers) instilled in the products of modern Western education. At
>>> its core you'll find a bunch of platitudes and sincerely held
>>> beliefs, not the less sincere for not being well supported by
>>> historical evidence. Such as:
>>>
>>> "By and large people just want to be left alone and won't fight
>>> unless attacked by somebody". Contradicted by most of human
>>> history.
>>>
>>> or (when events not quite in line with the statement above occur):
>>>
>>> "They only attacked us to avenge something we did to them". This is
>>> perhaps the silliest, those uttering it don't even comprehend how
>>> stupidly egocentric it is. It assumes that we're the only free
>>> agents in the world, with all other people having no plans, desires
>>> and ambitions of their own, only reacting to our actions.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> "The worst peace is better than the best war". Sure, that's what
>>> Chamberlain believed, in 1938. We know the outcome.
>>>
>>> That was to name but a few. The list can easily go for few pages.
>>
>>What do you think is America's best course of action in Iraq?
>
> It is a war which *must* be won. One has to realize what's at stake
> here. The Islamists are not stupid. We may consider them 'crazy",
> but this is a meaningless designation. All it means is that their
> priorities are different enough from ours to have virtually no common
> denominator. But, I repeat, they're not stupid. They do recognize
> the fact that the West does have better military technology. They do
> doubt, however (and they may be right in this, the jury is still out)
> the West's guts and readiness to make sacrifices and they're banking
> on it. Now, they're not, by any means, a majority in the Arab
> countries. But majorities are overrated. A small but highly coherent
> minority can subdue an incoherent majority and even gets its support,
> if it appears to be winning.
>
> So, what happens if the US folds in Iraq. Well, to the large and
> undecided Muslim masses it'll be a clear signal that the Islamists are
> right in their assessment, and they'll be joining in droves. Within
> few years you can expect a collapse of most current Arab governments,
> especially those in the Arab countries, and an Islamist takeover.
That sounds a little like The Domino Theory, whose verisimilitude is
still in great dispute. I see no reason to think that we won't be able
to pull back into Saudi and still keep our friendly countries protected.
Likewise for Kuwait, which we never left.
> The
> next step, you'll have Europe begging for mercy and offering the
> Islamists anything they want, just to keep the oil flowing.
Again, you are being quite naive. If friendly Arab governments start
falling, the Europeans will come to our side so fast that it will make
your head spin. Remember, the new French president is a pro-American
conservative.
> And then, the US will have a choice, either fold or refight same war
> under much worse conditions.
Refighting the same war is a definite possibility here, but I'm not so
sure that pulling back to let the enemy regroup, is such a bad idea. It
will give us a coherent target to shoot at, which will strongly level
the playing field in our favor.
Furthermore, you're forgetting how intensely the Moslems are fighting
among themselves. When we leave, an ugly Sunni/Shiite Civil War will
break out that should last for years. Al Quaeda themselves should
become caught up in it, with dreams of glory in their eyes, and the
Chimeric allure of conquering an entire country for their irrational
cause. Of course, they won't be able to do it, but it will take some
time for them to realize that, if they ever do. They'll become so
caught up in day to day battles that we'll be much too far out of their
reach.
By the time the war burns itself out, everybody will be so sick of the
killing that they'll do anything to make the misery stop. That's how I
see it playing out.
groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/msg/ed74cb59b5a2ad27
is a report, clearly written by a military man, titled "The Four Rules
of American Warfare." I believe it to be a superlative assessment of
America's entire military history, and it has some incisive insights
about how this Arab war is similar to another we were once involved in.
A better educated military analyst than me might be able to find counter
examples to the ones that guy gives, but he's clearly military educated,
probably an officer, and definitely a creative thinker with a good sense
of humor. IMO, it's required reading for anybody trying to figure out
what's happening over there.
John Schutkeker
That was the purpose of my original post, back when I thought that the
EFP's were melting through the armor. Under the Code of Bushido, it is
our responsibility as physicists to find a trait of material behavior
that defeats those things. There is no such thing as a perfect weapon,
and what one man can invent, another man can defeat.
> However, it would seem to me to be a prudent move to provide as much
> protection as possible to the friendlies.
How about an aerogel? What would be the material parameters of that,
under an impact at three to five times the speed of sound? What can
reliably be carried by a hummer, but still cheaply dissipate all that
momentum? How about just a reactive blast from a fire hose or a sand
blaster?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Code of Bushido??
You've got it exactly backwards, there is no such thing as a perfect
defense.
> > However, it would seem to me to be a prudent move to provide as much
> > protection as possible to the friendlies.
> How about an aerogel? What would be the material parameters of that,
> under an impact at three to five times the speed of sound? What can
> reliably be carried by a hummer, but still cheaply dissipate all that
> momentum? How about just a reactive blast from a fire hose or a sand
> blaster?
You want to know the properties of an aerogel, put some aerogel shaving
cream on your face and slap yourself.
As for the second question, nothing.
And for the third, how do you detect, aim, and fire some active system
in a matter of milliseconds when it has to cover slghtly better
than a hemisphere to be effective?
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Mati Meron wrote:
>
>>It will help, and tanks are utilizing this for a long time. The
>>problem, currently, is with vehicles which are being used for a
>>purpose quite different from this originally intended.
>
>Does this include the APCs?
>
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Thu, 9 May 2007, Edward Green wrote:
>
>
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
friendly as Iran was, under the Shah. You've somewhat friendly upper
classes on one end, very unfriendly extremists on the other, and big
mass in the middle which'll follow whoever appears to be winning.
This is not a situation of protecting an ally from an outside
invasion. The enemy is within.
>> The
>> next step, you'll have Europe begging for mercy and offering the
>> Islamists anything they want, just to keep the oil flowing.
>
>Again, you are being quite naive. If friendly Arab governments start
>falling, the Europeans will come to our side so fast that it will make
>your head spin.
I'm sure you're familiar with William Shirer, the one who wrote "The
rise and fall of the Third Reich". He has another great book, called
"The collapse of the 3rd Republic". Worth reading.
> Remember, the new French president is a pro-American
>conservative.
>
Yes, I know. A positive development. But he's just a president, not
an absolute monarch and his ability to lead the French in a direction
in which they won't be willing to go will be quite limited.
>> And then, the US will have a choice, either fold or refight same war
>> under much worse conditions.
>
>Refighting the same war is a definite possibility here, but I'm not so
>sure that pulling back to let the enemy regroup, is such a bad idea. It
>will give us a coherent target to shoot at, which will strongly level
>the playing field in our favor.
The problem is, this won't give us a coherent target to shoot at
(would I expect this to be the case, I would suggest leaving
tomorrow). As I said above, it is not an external invasion you're
protecting against, the enemy is within, nearly everywhere in the
Middle East.
>
>Furthermore, you're forgetting how intensely the Moslems are fighting
>among themselves. When we leave, an ugly Sunni/Shiite Civil War will
>break out that should last for years. Al Quaeda themselves should
>become caught up in it, with dreams of glory in their eyes, and the
>Chimeric allure of conquering an entire country for their irrational
>cause. Of course, they won't be able to do it, but it will take some
>time for them to realize that, if they ever do. They'll become so
>caught up in day to day battles that we'll be much too far out of their
>reach.
Myabe, maybe not. That's a very optimistic scenario. Mideastern
politics is Machaivelian beyond the imagination of most Westerners and
you'll find various nations, gropus and factions being perfectly
capable of fighting one another in one place while at the same time
cooperating in another. And (to get back to Shirer and WWII
analogies), remember the reliance of the West on "whatever happens,
the Germans and Russians won't cooperate, they hate each other too
much" and remember what came out of it.
>
>By the time the war burns itself out, everybody will be so sick of the
>killing that they'll do anything to make the misery stop. That's how I
>see it playing out.
That's true of many wars, the question is how long it takes till you
get to this point and how much damage is caused in the meantime. The
30 Years War in Europe lasted till it basically burned itself out.
But by that time half of Europe was in ruins.
>
>groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/msg/ed74cb59b5a2ad27
>is a report, clearly written by a military man, titled "The Four Rules
>of American Warfare." I believe it to be a superlative assessment of
>America's entire military history, and it has some incisive insights
>about how this Arab war is similar to another we were once involved in.
>
>A better educated military analyst than me might be able to find counter
>examples to the ones that guy gives, but he's clearly military educated,
>probably an officer, and definitely a creative thinker with a good sense
>of humor. IMO, it's required reading for anybody trying to figure out
>what's happening over there.
The issue is with the word "there". Looking at this as something that
is just "happening there" is a mistake, IMO. We're dealing with
conflict which is potentially global. Given some missteps, the
potentiality may become actualized.
Don Stockbauer
Protecting Armored Vehicles
*************************************************
Just let 'em get destroyed. The Forever War [TM] might just be
shortened a bit.
Agent Smith
It's what the deep thinkers are talking about, lately.
>> > However, it would seem to me to be a prudent move to provide as
>> > much protection as possible to the friendlies.
>
>> How about an aerogel? What would be the material parameters of that,
>> under an impact at three to five times the speed of sound? What can
>> reliably be carried by a hummer, but still cheaply dissipate all that
>> momentum? How about just a reactive blast from a fire hose or a sand
>> blaster?
>
> You want to know the properties of an aerogel, put some aerogel
> shaving cream on your face and slap yourself.
>
> As for the second question, nothing.
>
> And for the third, how do you detect, aim, and fire some active system
> in a matter of milliseconds when it has to cover slghtly better
> than a hemisphere to be effective?
Detection based on the flash of light, with no aiming, but a wide spray
for broad coverage. As always, firing is the key, because it has to be
faster than the shock carrying the projectiles. Firing itself is
another sequence of events that must be listed and then shoehorned into
a required time envelope.
I'm more worried about the design of high velocity, high capacity
nozzles, and the delivery system to back them up. But our projectiles
only need to cover a few inches, while theirs are covering several
meters. That's a useful point in our favor.
> You've got it exactly backwards, there is no such thing as a perfect
> defense.
It's not about forward vs. backward. An arms race is an evolving,
dynamic system, where opponents alternately try to "one up" each other.
For a while they pound on us, until we get our act together, and then we
pound on them, and force them to play catch up. It's a game of
leapfrog.
This is why the physicist is the most powerful man in the universe,
because we are the only ones with the abilities to advance the leapfrog
by one step, and tip the scales from their advantage to ours. "Build a
better mousetrap, and all the world will beat a path to your door."
If it hadn't been for the Lunar Module, the Apollo program would never
have worked. That idea did not come from within NASA, but from an
outsider, a maverick.
What we need is lateral thinking, to bring in wild ideas from way out in
left field. We brainstorm long enough to get fifty or a hundred
outlandish suggestions, and then we start to winnow the list, until a
single breakthrough stands out.
Conventional thinking, like what the Russians did twenty years ago, on
the T-1 tank, may be insufficiently innovative.
For the reason I listed above, I'm still only offering the sand blaster
as a straw man. But right now it's the best straw man we've got, and
it's better than standing around with our dicks flappin' in the breeze,
while the Sand Spiders pick us off in ones and twos.
John Schutkeker
news:GNy0i.110$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
9-11 was a one shot deal, a sucker punch based on our laxity about
allowing box cutters onto airplanes, and nothing else. It's not going
to happen again. Have you seen the pathetic ideas that those guys have
been dreaming up lately. They're about as far beneath the extreme of
knocking down the Trade Centers as an amoeba is beneath a monkey.
You got sucker punched and it's made you paranoid. There's lot of
paranoia in the Republican Party, as evinced by Nixon and his enemies
list. Nixon's ghost is alive and well and still running the Republican
Dirty Tricks Committee.
Your schizotypal delusions that another 9-11 being around the corner,
and that withdrawal is surrender are just old and tired lies that can't
stand up to the facts. As somebody smarter than me once said, "That old
dog won't hunt no more."
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>allowing box cutters onto airplanes, and nothing else. It's not going
>to happen again. Have you seen the pathetic ideas that those guys have
>been dreaming up lately. They're about as far beneath the extreme of
>knocking down the Trade Centers as an amoeba is beneath a monkey.
>
>You got sucker punched and it's made you paranoid. There's lot of
>paranoia in the Republican Party, as evinced by Nixon and his enemies
>list. Nixon's ghost is alive and well and still running the Republican
>Dirty Tricks Committee.
>
>Your schizotypal delusions that another 9-11 being around the corner,
>and that withdrawal is surrender are just old and tired lies that can't
>stand up to the facts. As somebody smarter than me once said, "That old
>dog won't hunt no more."
Hmm, fooled me, I thought for a moment that you're interested in an
actual discussion. Unfortunately, I see nothing in the three
paragraphs above that calls for a rational response and I value my
time too much to use it for a name calling contest. Have a nice day.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
What do the "deep thinkers" think about the seppuku part?
> >> > However, it would seem to me to be a prudent move to provide as
> >> > much protection as possible to the friendlies.
> >
> >> How about an aerogel? What would be the material parameters of that,
> >> under an impact at three to five times the speed of sound? What can
> >> reliably be carried by a hummer, but still cheaply dissipate all that
> >> momentum? How about just a reactive blast from a fire hose or a sand
> >> blaster?
> >
> > You want to know the properties of an aerogel, put some aerogel
> > shaving cream on your face and slap yourself.
> >
> > As for the second question, nothing.
> >
> > And for the third, how do you detect, aim, and fire some active system
> > in a matter of milliseconds when it has to cover slghtly better
> > than a hemisphere to be effective?
> Detection based on the flash of light, with no aiming, but a wide spray
> for broad coverage. As always, firing is the key, because it has to be
> faster than the shock carrying the projectiles. Firing itself is
> another sequence of events that must be listed and then shoehorned into
> a required time envelope.
You've never been in a gunfight, have you?
Good luck on all that.
> I'm more worried about the design of high velocity, high capacity
> nozzles, and the delivery system to back them up. But our projectiles
> only need to cover a few inches, while theirs are covering several
> meters. That's a useful point in our favor.
The defense system has to cover 360 degrees in azimuth and from
straight down to a bit below straight up to be effective.
Again, good luck on that.
> > You've got it exactly backwards, there is no such thing as a perfect
> > defense.
> It's not about forward vs. backward. An arms race is an evolving,
> dynamic system, where opponents alternately try to "one up" each other.
> For a while they pound on us, until we get our act together, and then we
> pound on them, and force them to play catch up. It's a game of
> leapfrog.
Point totally missed.
> This is why the physicist is the most powerful man in the universe,
> because we are the only ones with the abilities to advance the leapfrog
> by one step, and tip the scales from their advantage to ours. "Build a
> better mousetrap, and all the world will beat a path to your door."
Arrogant nonsense.
Physicist are mostly theoretical generalists.
Building things takes practical specialists.
You want to know if it is theoretically possible to build a bridge,
ask a physicist.
You want to actually build a bridge, get a civil engineer.
> If it hadn't been for the Lunar Module, the Apollo program would never
> have worked. That idea did not come from within NASA, but from an
> outsider, a maverick.
> What we need is lateral thinking, to bring in wild ideas from way out in
> left field. We brainstorm long enough to get fifty or a hundred
> outlandish suggestions, and then we start to winnow the list, until a
> single breakthrough stands out.
People have been "brainstorming" armored vehicles for about a hundred
years now.
The "breakthroughs" came mostly from materials engineers.
> Conventional thinking, like what the Russians did twenty years ago, on
> the T-1 tank, may be insufficiently innovative.
The Soviets designed their T-1 tank about 80 years ago.
> For the reason I listed above, I'm still only offering the sand blaster
> as a straw man. But right now it's the best straw man we've got, and
> it's better than standing around with our dicks flappin' in the breeze,
> while the Sand Spiders pick us off in ones and twos.
Or, we could use existing technology that is proven to work better than
the tecnology currently being used.
Once again, the majority of the problem is political, not techical.
We are not deploying the best "stuff" we could deploy simply because
the leadership wants to fight a war on the cheap.
This attitude is why there is a lack of body armor, a lack of bolt on
armor for Hummvees, and Hummvees being used for combat patrol in the
first place.
Meanwhile, the "lateral thinkers" screw around with huge, heavy,
battery powered rifles that anyone that every put boots on dirt
could immediately tell you is a worthless piece of crap in a
combat situation. Google "Objective Individual Combat Weapon program".
Bruce Scott TOK
>What highway incidents?
All those ones where the IED takes out the second or third vehicle to go
by, and everybody becomes paranoid. Lots of examples within the past
year which made the news, even here.
>A military armored car != a bank armored car.
Specs, please.
You are remarkable un-communicative in these discussions, I must say.
So is a bank armored car underarmored by a factor of 2, 10, 50? Same
type of armor or different? If it gets really sophisticated, what's the
dividing line between an armored car and an APC (considering purely
defensive equipment, not firepower)?
I am aware the Bradley is tracked. The BMP or its predecessor was not.
(I forget which... all my wargaming was during student days when I had time)
nonsense
You seem to have exhausted the breadth and depth of his abilities.
It appears that he doesn't understand that the dog example *really*
was about a dog. Really good concepts have no age related terminus.
Summarizing today's jihad into a single phrase, the important
feature of the Sword of Damocles isn't that it might fall, but
that it hangs. Some people still seem to think that denial will
actually make it all go away.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/08/fortdix.plot/index.html
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal government has charged five
alleged Islamic radicals with plotting to kill U.S. soldiers
at Fort Dix in New Jersey.
"A sixth was charged with aiding and abetting the illegal
possession of firearms by three of the others."
etc.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> >What highway incidents?
> All those ones where the IED takes out the second or third vehicle to go
> by, and everybody becomes paranoid. Lots of examples within the past
> year which made the news, even here.
So, did these "highway incidents" require the convoy to go through
urban areas with contricted roads?
> >A military armored car != a bank armored car.
> Specs, please.
Are you kidding?
A bank armored car runs on paved roads and provides a defensive
position against small arms fire with limited response capablities
until the police arrive.
A miltiary armored car has to be able to run off-road and provide
offensive capabilities as well as protection against weapons such
as heavy machine guns, RPG's, and land mines.
> You are remarkable un-communicative in these discussions, I must say.
You are remarkably naive in these discussions, I must say.
> So is a bank armored car underarmored by a factor of 2, 10, 50? Same
> type of armor or different? If it gets really sophisticated, what's the
> dividing line between an armored car and an APC (considering purely
> defensive equipment, not firepower)?
Two different vehicles with two different missions:
An APC such as the M113 is designed to carry infantry along with the
mechanized forces. The infantry dismounts to fight.
An armored car is designed to do combat patrol with offensive capabilities
and the fighting is done from the inside.
> I am aware the Bradley is tracked. The BMP or its predecessor was not.
> (I forget which... all my wargaming was during student days when I had time)
The BMP is a Soviet design and not in the US Army inventory.
Tracks versus wheels is a current pissing contest within the US Army
and one of the reasons the Army doesn't have any armored cars.
All my "wargaming" wasn't a game; it was real.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns992C455A0662Elk...@207.115.17.102>, John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>
>>>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>>>news:GNy0i.110$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <Xns992BE64AD5947lk...@207.115.17.102>, John
>>>>Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in
>>>>>news:dTf0i.98$25....@news.uchicago.edu:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <Xns992B2BFAD8191lk...@207.115.33.102>,
>>>>>>John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes:
>>>>>>
>It appears that he doesn't understand that the dog example *really*
>was about a dog. Really good concepts have no age related terminus.
>
>Summarizing today's jihad into a single phrase, the important
>feature of the Sword of Damocles isn't that it might fall, but
>that it hangs.
Yes.
> Some people still seem to think that denial will
>actually make it all go away.
>
Yes, lots of people are in this mode. That's one reason I recommended
this book by Shirer, "The collapse of the 3rd Republic". One of the
things clearly illustrated there is the power of denial carried to
absurd lengths, beyond the point where one would think any denial is
still possible.
>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/08/fortdix.plot/index.html
>
>"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal government has charged five
>alleged Islamic radicals with plotting to kill U.S. soldiers
>at Fort Dix in New Jersey.
>
>"A sixth was charged with aiding and abetting the illegal
>possession of firearms by three of the others."
>
>etc.
>
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
nonsense
heavy handed snippage
> Yes, lots of people are in this mode. That's one reason I recommended
> this book by Shirer, "The collapse of the 3rd Republic". One of the
> things clearly illustrated there is the power of denial carried to
> absurd lengths, beyond the point where one would think any denial is
> still possible.
I've just read the reviews and you've convinced me to add
this book to my reading list. The reviews leave me with a
sense that in context, nothing seems to have changed very
much for the French.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, lots of people are in this mode. That's one reason I recommended
>> this book by Shirer, "The collapse of the 3rd Republic". One of the
>> things clearly illustrated there is the power of denial carried to
>> absurd lengths, beyond the point where one would think any denial is
>> still possible.
>
>this book to my reading list. The reviews leave me with a
>sense that in context, nothing seems to have changed very
>much for the French.
>
generations. And (I speculate here, so if somebody knows otherwise I
would welcome a correction) I'll venture the guess that French
students don't learn much about this period, in history classes. Bad
experiences can be useful as lessons, but only when not swept under a
rug.
nonsense
Throughout my academic years I was told that the most recent
50 years was not a reasonable period to study because it
takes time to achieve a reasonable perspective about events.
Germany has certainly done well, and did so much sooner after
the fact than we in the US determined to be an appropriate
delay. Germans understand the period we're discussing here
very well.
I think any attempt to have a general discussion with Claude
Mass é is demonstrative of the French mindset.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <5017c$4643e742$49e5d5f$58...@DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense <nons...@unsettled.com> writes:
>>
>>>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>heavy handed snippage
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, lots of people are in this mode. That's one reason I recommended
>>>>this book by Shirer, "The collapse of the 3rd Republic". One of the
>>>>things clearly illustrated there is the power of denial carried to
>>>>absurd lengths, beyond the point where one would think any denial is
>>>>still possible.
>>>
>>>I've just read the reviews and you've convinced me to add
>>>this book to my reading list. The reviews leave me with a
>>>sense that in context, nothing seems to have changed very
>>>much for the French.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, quite so. Nations have large inertia, changes may take
>> generations. And (I speculate here, so if somebody knows otherwise I
>> would welcome a correction) I'll venture the guess that French
>> students don't learn much about this period, in history classes. Bad
>> experiences can be useful as lessons, but only when not swept under a
>> rug.
>
>50 years was not a reasonable period to study because it
>takes time to achieve a reasonable perspective about events.
In general true, I guess. It is hard to be objective when the
generation which was involved in the events is still around.
However...
>
>Germany has certainly done well, and did so much sooner after
>the fact than we in the US determined to be an appropriate
>delay. Germans understand the period we're discussing here
>very well.
...yes. The magnitude of the defeat and the severity of the shock
suffered must've been enough to force a reevaluation of everything.
The French were spared widespread death and destruction and ended the
war feeling themselves (however unjustifiably) to be among the
victors. So, no reevaluation, just blaming whatever went wrong on few
individuals.
>
>I think any attempt to have a general discussion with Claude
>Mass� is demonstrative of the French mindset.
>
Claude Mass?
Bruce Scott TOK
>Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> Jim Pennino wrote:
>
>> >What highway incidents?
>
>> All those ones where the IED takes out the second or third vehicle to go
>> by, and everybody becomes paranoid. Lots of examples within the past
>> year which made the news, even here.
>
>So, did these "highway incidents" require the convoy to go through
>urban areas with contricted roads?
Of course not. When I said highway incidents, don't you think that's
what I meant?
>> >A military armored car != a bank armored car.
>
>> Specs, please.
>
>Are you kidding?
Not at all.
>A bank armored car runs on paved roads and provides a defensive
>position against small arms fire with limited response capablities
>until the police arrive.
>
>A miltiary armored car has to be able to run off-road and provide
>offensive capabilities as well as protection against weapons such
>as heavy machine guns, RPG's, and land mines.
That's an AFV, not an armored car.
>> You are remarkable un-communicative in these discussions, I must say.
>
>You are remarkably naive in these discussions, I must say.
Of course I am naive, that is why I am asking questions.
>> So is a bank armored car underarmored by a factor of 2, 10, 50? Same
>> type of armor or different? If it gets really sophisticated, what's the
>> dividing line between an armored car and an APC (considering purely
>> defensive equipment, not firepower)?
>
>Two different vehicles with two different missions:
>
>An APC such as the M113 is designed to carry infantry along with the
>mechanized forces. The infantry dismounts to fight.
That's the old style... changed by both the Soviet and NATO APC models
during the 1980s.
>An armored car is designed to do combat patrol with offensive capabilities
>and the fighting is done from the inside.
OK... I did mean armored cars as road, not tracked, vehicles. The
specifications of the armor is a matter of degree.
>> I am aware the Bradley is tracked. The BMP or its predecessor was not.
>> (I forget which... all my wargaming was during student days when I had time)
>
>The BMP is a Soviet design and not in the US Army inventory.
Of course I knew that.
>Tracks versus wheels is a current pissing contest within the US Army
>and one of the reasons the Army doesn't have any armored cars.
>
>All my "wargaming" wasn't a game; it was real.
That's fair enough. Unfortunately, you seem to have some further issues.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Jim Pennino wrote:
> >Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >> Jim Pennino wrote:
> >
> >> >What highway incidents?
> >
> >> All those ones where the IED takes out the second or third vehicle to go
> >> by, and everybody becomes paranoid. Lots of examples within the past
> >> year which made the news, even here.
> >
> >So, did these "highway incidents" require the convoy to go through
> >urban areas with contricted roads?
> Of course not. When I said highway incidents, don't you think that's
> what I meant?
Hard to tell, but a moot point anyway as the first bridge you come
to probably won't support a Bradely.
> >> >A military armored car != a bank armored car.
> >
> >> Specs, please.
> >
> >Are you kidding?
> Not at all.
> >A bank armored car runs on paved roads and provides a defensive
> >position against small arms fire with limited response capablities
> >until the police arrive.
> >
> >A miltiary armored car has to be able to run off-road and provide
> >offensive capabilities as well as protection against weapons such
> >as heavy machine guns, RPG's, and land mines.
> That's an AFV, not an armored car.
An VFV could be an armored car, a Bradley, or an Abrams.
To handle all missions, you really need all three classes of vehicles.
> >> You are remarkable un-communicative in these discussions, I must say.
> >
> >You are remarkably naive in these discussions, I must say.
> Of course I am naive, that is why I am asking questions.
> >> So is a bank armored car underarmored by a factor of 2, 10, 50? Same
> >> type of armor or different? If it gets really sophisticated, what's the
> >> dividing line between an armored car and an APC (considering purely
> >> defensive equipment, not firepower)?
> >
> >Two different vehicles with two different missions:
> >
> >An APC such as the M113 is designed to carry infantry along with the
> >mechanized forces. The infantry dismounts to fight.
> That's the old style... changed by both the Soviet and NATO APC models
> during the 1980s.
Umm, no, the troop carrying version of the US APC is still around.
There also several other specialty versions such as the mobile
command post outfitted with comm equiment, the tank killer which
has a periscoping, two tube TOW launcher and sight, the mortar
carrier, etc.
> >An armored car is designed to do combat patrol with offensive capabilities
> >and the fighting is done from the inside.
> OK... I did mean armored cars as road, not tracked, vehicles. The
> specifications of the armor is a matter of degree.
The distinction is wheels versus tracks. Tracked vehicles can run on
roads and wheeled vehicles can run off-road.
As a general rule, wheels tend to work better on small vehicles and
tracks on big vehicles.
Since an armored car makes most sense in urban areas with narrow
roads and sharp turns, wheels would probably the most practical.
Hell, I don't care if it is a half-track, as long as it works.
> >> I am aware the Bradley is tracked. The BMP or its predecessor was not.
> >> (I forget which... all my wargaming was during student days when I had time)
> >
> >The BMP is a Soviet design and not in the US Army inventory.
> Of course I knew that.
> >Tracks versus wheels is a current pissing contest within the US Army
> >and one of the reasons the Army doesn't have any armored cars.
> >
> >All my "wargaming" wasn't a game; it was real.
> That's fair enough. Unfortunately, you seem to have some further issues.
You mean like I'm really pissed off that there are needless
casualties because one group of ass holes want's to run a war on the
cheap and another group of ass holes spends all their time on
pissing contests over wheels versus tracks and produces wonder
machines ill suited for the task at hand?
You mean things like civilian MBA planners who send out the trucks
to exchange all our M-14's for M-16's but don't send the trucks
with the M-16 ammo until two weeks later?
It's been my experience that battles and wars are not won by the
side with the best technology or the smartest tacticians, but by
the side that fucks up the least.
But I digress...
Alie...@gmail.com
Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> Mark Ferguson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > This is proving ineffective against static devices hidden in
> >structures armored vehicles have to pass close to; the device that
> >forms the EFP is placed so that that the projectile will strike an
> >inadequately protected part of the vehicle.
>
> I must say I don't really get just how powerful these IED's seem to be.
> They seem to function as if someone ran up and slapped a shaped charge
> onto the vehicle, but in fact they are exploding from at least a couple
> of meters away. Not from below, but from the side.
A shaped charge works because it deforms whatever it's placed
against, which is how the EFPs work; they're just deforming a metal
plate into a penetrator that does the heavy lifting.
The plate takes a little time to form into the penetrating shape,
and a small but nonzero distance it has to travel while it's forming.
The process isn't quite instantaneous. ;>)
> > I'm given to understand the US DOD is looking into layered, spaced
> >armor made of something derived from Kevlar (think the "big brother"
> >of what's used on spacecraft to protect against micrometeoroids which
> >move in similar velocity ranges) to defeat this sort of threat.
>
> One thing they don't seem to have an answer for: the IED is far cheaper
> than anything effective as a countermeasure.
So far anyway. We do have more people doing research then they do.
Mark L. Fergerson
nonsense
> In article <2cea9$46446bdb$49e5d5d$98...@DIALUPUSA.NET>, nonsense <nons...@unsettled.com> writes:
>>I think any attempt to have a general discussion with Claude
>>Mass é is demonstrative of the French mindset.
> Claude Mass?
He's no longer very active, so far as I am aware, outside of
sci.physics.research. But here's a post typical of him
from the now defunct mensa.talk.misc:
<http://groups.google.com/group/mensa.talk.misc/msg/00745256b2e97ce9?dmode=source&hl=en>
John Schutkeker
> Arrogant nonsense.
I see that you're working on your skills for "How to make friends and
influence people."
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > Arrogant nonsense.
I just call 'em as I see 'em.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>sci.physics.research. But here's a post typical of him
>from the now defunct mensa.talk.misc:
>
><http://groups.google.com/group/mensa.talk.misc/msg/00745256b2e97ce9?dmode=source&hl=en>
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, I do recognize the type.
John Schutkeker
> John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote:
>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in news:47sbh4-...@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Arrogant nonsense.
>
>> I see that you're working on your skills for "How to make friends and
>> influence people."
>
> I just call 'em as I see 'em.
Oh, well...
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in news:j8cfh4-...@mail.specsol.com:
> > John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote:
> >> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote in news:47sbh4-...@mail.specsol.com:
> >
> >> > Arrogant nonsense.
> >
> >> I see that you're working on your skills for "How to make friends and
> >> influence people."
> >
> > I just call 'em as I see 'em.
> Oh, well...
So you too believe "the physicist is the most powerful man in the
universe"?
Bruce Scott TOK
|> Umm, no, the troop carrying version of the US APC is still around.
|>
|> There also several other specialty versions such as the mobile
[...]
|> The distinction is wheels versus tracks. Tracked vehicles can run on
|> roads and wheeled vehicles can run off-road.
[...]
OK thanks for those points.
|> You mean like I'm really pissed off that there are needless
|> You mean things like civilian MBA planners who send out the trucks
|> It's been my experience that battles and wars are not won by the
(1) I didn't cause those things
(2) I agree with those three points
(3) It isn't tree hugging peaceniks who happen to be interested in
military hardware that are responsible for the problems of either
the US military or the general US outreach, so I don't deserve to
receive all that anger...
Bruce Scott TOK
|> A shaped charge works because it deforms whatever it's placed
|> against, which is how the EFPs work; they're just deforming a metal
|> plate into a penetrator that does the heavy lifting.
|>
|> The plate takes a little time to form into the penetrating shape,
|> and a small but nonzero distance it has to travel while it's forming.
|> The process isn't quite instantaneous. ;>)
OK that's interesting... sort of analogous to the compression wave
inside a nuclear bomb... it is launched and then forms properly in
flight.
|> > One thing they don't seem to have an answer for: the IED is far cheaper
|> > than anything effective as a countermeasure.
|>
|> So far anyway. We do have more people doing research then they do.
But they've been very creative... I am reminded of that Clarke story
where the alien investigator has to explain to his superior that they
lost the war because they had superior technology.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
You said I seemed to have issues, I responded.
If you can't handle the answer, don't ask the question.
John Schutkeker
Me too? As opposed to that other guy, with the same name as me?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Could swear the response was to someone calling themselves Agent
Smith.
Do you have multiple personalities?
John Schutkeker
> John Schutkeker <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what I say. Physicists discovered F=ma, E=mc^2,
Maxwell's equations, the Second Law and deterministic chaos. These
feats are unrivaled throughout history, certainly by mere historical
figures, like George Washington or Winston Churchill. Physicists have
*far* more profoundly changed the future than any other people who ever
lived.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Penicillin, the steam engine, refrigerators, immunization and antibiotics,
gunpowder, concrete, the wheel, dynamite, the flush toilet, the mechanical
clock, the printing press, the plow, insulin, television, paper, eyeglasses,
the compass, the cotton gin, the safety pin, barbed wire, toilet paper,
matches didn't take no stinkin' physicist.
Theory is wonderful; a cold beer, a comfortable living space, and
no raging epidemics trumps.
Edward Green
> John Schutkeker wrote:
>
> > Poeple have been fighting since long before the beginning of recorded
> > history, and they'll be fighting centuries after our great*10 grandchildren
> > are ashes and dust. You don't truly think that a nine word platitude on a
> > BBS nobody reads is going to change that, do you? Have you got an
> > Adler/Christ Complex or something?
>
> I'm just saying if we didn't piss people off so much we would be
> fighting less.
Sounds like good old Blame America First syndrome to me.
Militants have done quite a few things that might piss off a
reasonable person -- we're not exactly with Ghandi here.
Of course, in Blame America First syndrome, none of this counts --
only we are moral agents, whereas the apparent misdeeds of others can
only be in reaction to our own fall from grace, for which we must
accept blame. Is that about right?
There are strong parallels between Iraq and Yugoslavia, I will grant
you: in both cases ethnic reagents long held in check by strong if not
totally benign governments, reacted furiously and exponentially once
the strong hand was gone. Authoritarian governments (in hindsight)
cannot be changed overnight into peaceful representative democracies:
relaxing the reins abruptly brings about The Lord of the Flies on a
national scale.
Edward Green
> "By and large people just want to be left alone and won't fight unless
> attacked by somebody". Contradicted by most of human history.
>
> or (when events not quite in line with the statement above occur):
>
> "They only attacked us to avenge something we did to them". This is
> perhaps the silliest, those uttering it don't even comprehend how
> stupidly egocentric it is. It assumes that we're the only free agents
> in the world, with all other people having no plans, desires and
> ambitions of their own, only reacting to our actions.
Can't be improved on.
Edward Green
wrote:
> Furthermore, you're forgetting how intensely the Moslems are fighting
> among themselves. When we leave, an ugly Sunni/Shiite Civil War will
> break out that should last for years. Al Quaeda themselves should
> become caught up in it, with dreams of glory in their eyes, and the
> Chimeric allure of conquering an entire country for their irrational
> cause. Of course, they won't be able to do it, but it will take some
> time for them to realize that, if they ever do. They'll become so
> caught up in day to day battles that we'll be much too far out of their
> reach.
Maybe accurate, and bad for the militants.
Unfortunately, also bad for innocent millions of Iraquis slaughtered
by militant factions. I share Mati's views on the naivete of
supposing "we" are the only free moral agents in the world, but I
still think history will may cast a dim view on the willingness of the
first world to allow vast ethnic slaughters to go on -- even in Europe
--because it didn't have the cohesive moral vision, guts, call it what
you want, to take a strong stand. When you allow your neighbor to
beat his wife to death, hearing the screams, because it's none of your
business, you share the moral blame.
If America "failed to learn the lesson of Vietnam", if not in Kuwait,
then in the very next conflict, the free world "failed to learn the
lesson of Germany": the genocide which Hitler was allowed to carry out
inside his borders, until his military actions against neighbors
compelled a military response, was not a great awakening, a "never
again": it merely set the pattern for the late 20th century, going
into the 21st. The stance of the Western world to slaughter carried
out within a country is similar to the stance on wife beating in 1920:
there are some voices raised, but on the whole we're really not sure
if we should get involved -- the "peace" advocates, paradoxically,
often find themselves on the side of just allowing the strong inside a
country to slaughter the weak.
Tom Potter
"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in message news:
1179055755.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Ed Green and Meron make a good point!
As can be seen,
the same gang the instigated and profited from
the Class Wars of the 1900's,
initiated a phony "Free Jews" program
and migrated to Israel and America
at the expense of the American Taxpayers,
after their Class Wars failed,
and the Native Russians regained control of their government.
(An ongoing process, as can be seen by the efforts of the
Oligarchs, and the gangs supporters in Israel and America,
to instigate another Russian Revolution.)
and the gang is using Israel and America from where
to instigate the Religious Wars of the 2000's,
to get back in the chips,
as the loot from their Class Wars is almost gone.
(German Reparations, numerous holocaust scams,
numerous attacks on lightly defended assets using
friendly and bought courts, etc.)
And as can be seen,
the War-for-Profit Gang and their Fellow Travelers,
are working hard in the media, in the movies,
and on the *** Internet *** trying to con American
Blacks, Latinos and Rednecks to sacrificing their
lives, limbs, liberties and fortunes,
so they can make another trillion dollar haul.
As Ed Green and Meron point out,
"people have plans, desires and ambitions",
and the desire of the War-fort-Profit Gang
is power and riches,
and their plan is the same one they have used for centuries,
to instigate conflict and war,
get two groups killing one another,
and profiting from the conflict by various means,
selling arms, insurance claims, law suits in friendly courts,
loaning money to the Blacks, Latinos, and Rednecks,
who have to go off to war, foreclosing on the properties
of the Blacks, Latinos, and Rednecks,
who have to go off to war, etc.
As can be seen, during the American Civil War,
General Grant banned the War-for-Profit Gang
from his region, because they were stirring the pot,
and profiteering from the war.
Ed Green and Meron sure got that right,
"people have plans, desires and ambitions".
Of course, whereas the "plans, desires and ambitions",
of most folks is to lead a good, simple, tranquil, family life,
and get along with their neighbors,
the "plans, desires and ambitions" of the War-for-Profit Gang
is money and power,
and getting the other folks to kill one another.
If anyone wants to know who the members are
in the War-for-Profit Gang,
they can do as General Grant did,
just look around and see who is stirring the pot.
--
Tom Potter
*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
jmfb...@aol.com
I agree. But there can be additional commentary. It took me a week
to decide to try again.
Last Sunday (May 6), the talking head shows had one of the Democrat
leadership on. He was still promoting the vetoed bill that required
all US troops to leave next fall. I will not comment on the stupidity
of this attempt; it would fill volumes.
However he did say something that was very interesting. He is
justifying his position by saying that there won't be a peace treay
because there isn't a "leader" to sign it. These people will not
defend the country if the rules are not proper European rules of
engagement.
Mati was right; these people are completely insane. And they will
be in the White House come 2009.
/BAH
Don Stockbauer
Yup.
John Schutkeker
OK then, the *scientist* is the most powerful man in the universe.