Russian Military Technology
Alejandro Magno
Any time, any place (America chickens out):
http://tomcat.fnet.cz/su37_popis.htm
http://www.geocities.com/fighterplanelover/su37.html (a work of art)
See this piece of art:
http://www.checksix-topshots.de/html/zeltweg_2000_-_il-76_firebombe.html
http://www.waterbomber.com
America humiliated by superior russian technology, confirmed by the
Pentagon:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30173716da.htm
King of the air:
http://www.flymig.com/aircraft/Su-47/
Two beasts of the air, flying monsters:
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/an-225_cossack.pl
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/an-124_condor.pl
America comes in 3rd place:
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/c-5_galaxy.pl
Fastest fighter plane, Mig 25:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25.htm
Fastest propella driven plane:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm
Fastest bomber:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm
Heaviest and highest capacity bomber:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-160.htm
Fastest passanger plane:
http://airlines.afriqonline.com/images/h118.jpg
Mig 1.44
http://home.earthlink.net/~jebrooks1/aviation/full/mig142_gg.jpg
Caspian Mounster:
http://www.samolet.co.uk/km.html
http://foxxaero.homestead.com/nslink3.html
http://www.home-taylor.freeserve.co.uk/index%20ekranoplan%20man.html
The real Mother of all Bombs (1960s):
http://www.vce.com/tsar.html
Superior anthem technology:
http://www.skazka.no/anthems
Fastest submarine:
http://members.aol.com/ssycatalog/subs.html#SUB-30
Largest submarine:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/typhoon/
Largest missile cruser:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kirov/index.html
Largest landing ship:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivan/index.html
You have to think in Russian. Think in Russian. Think in Russian !!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jebrooks1/aviation/full/firefox.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~jebrooks1/aviation/full/firefox2.jpg
http://www.alyon.org/generale/theatre/cinema/affiches_cinema/f/f-fle/firefox.jpg
The largest Helicopter
http://www.helis.com/70s/h_mi26.php
http://www.bearcraft-online.com/museum/museum.htm?mid=47
AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS (the most advanced):
Tunguska system:
http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/syst_p_lotnicze/mieszane/2s6-tunguska/tunguska2.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/tunguska1.html
http://www.uralarms.ru/pict/obsch/tunguska-m.jpg
http://www.uralarms.ru/docs/
http://www.army.fr.pl/uzbr/tunguska.php
http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/syst_p_lotnicze/mieszane/2s6-tunguska/
S-300 System:
http://www.hellas.org/military/air_force/images/s300-2.jpg
http://www.army.fr.pl/uzbr/s300.php
http://www.aeronautics.ru/s300photos.htm
http://www.hri.org/news/europe/bbc/2001/_1357157_s300_ap300.jpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm
http://www.cdiss.org/mos_as1.htm
http://www.cdiss.org/moscow/1.jpg
http://www.ippnw.de/bilder/s300.jpg
S-400 System:
http://www.area51zone.com/abm/index4.shtml
http://www.army.fr.pl/uzbr/s300.php
http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1999/FTS19990505000617.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/1999/FTS19990505000617.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/s400triumph.htm
http://arms.host.sk/missiles/s400.htm
http://www.cdiss.org/col00may17.htm
S-500 system:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/s-500.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokrmd.htm
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Soviet/NS_TM-262_Missile_Tank.htm
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/pyne/qtr2/0528.htm
http://www.techcentralstation.com/123102C.html
http://www.cesd.org/mddf/mddf02.htm
http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2001/1737.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010719-depsecdef2.html
Russia closer to develop an ABM system
http://www.area51zone.com/abm/index4.shtml
Russian Military Technology is top notch !!!!!!
Compare to inferior American technology:
http://luke.megagis.lt/AirExtreme/F22/002.mpg
Alejandro Magno
noname
Schelkunchik
I hope you didn't tucker out your tender little fingies writing up all that
stuff.
It sounds to me you either believe in Santa Claus or LSD.
Either way, Russian hardware has never performed up to expectations in real
battle.
Russian tanks were wiped off the battlefield in Iraq (twice). Russian
aircraft were wiped out of the sky over Bekaa, Kosovo, Libya and Iraq.
Russian anti-aircraft defenses were pushed into the dustbin of history in
Syria, Viet Nam, Serbia and Iraq. Russian submarines sink by themselves.
The best the Russians can do is hope for a chance hit on a helicopter with
an RPG.
Schelkunchik
Mig-25 is pretty useless at high speed and it can only go Mach 3 if it is
totally clean.
Su-47 is a takeoff on a much earlier US X plane. The Russians have so far
been unsuccessful at selling any.
Is Mig still in business?
The Russians never got anywhere with the Ekranoplan. Wanna bet that the
Boeing Pelican or American Flarecraft will be more successful?
Largest doesn't really mean anything...although the Russians, as a result of
their inferiority complex with the west, likes to build "big".
Russian air defense systems are just speed bumps. They have been defeated
every time. You just have to plan to take them out up front.
"noname" <anon...@no.name> wrote in message
news:bt6boe$q9o$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
BUFDRVR
>an RPG.
>
But you have to give them credit for that one....although its surface-to-air
capability was not part of the design and not discovered by the
Russians....maybe they don't deserve any credit. Maybe this is the key to
Russian military hardware, find alternative uses for it. Maybe a T-72 makes an
outstanding toaster oven? A MiG-29 as stero system? The possibilities are
nearly endless ;)
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
famv...@webtv.net
suppose it really is a Western design to tell the truth anyway. A
British author created Firefox, then Clint Eastwood, 'brought her to
life'. (Still wish he would've done 'Firefox Down", too, tho.) Even the
full size mockup uses American F-4 Phantom parts! If you're going this
route, I bet Blue Thunder could really smoke a Hokum's ass & Airwolf
could smoke a MiG-29 or Su-37! After all, Airwolf took out MiG-23s/27s &
Mirages routinely, 'cause I saw it on TV & TV's been around a LOT longer
than the 'net, so I KNOW it's true! You've left out a few other
fictional Soviet stuff too, like the 'Hellhound' gunship helo, 'Red
October' sub that I know of.
robert arndt
> Privet Holy Russian brothers.
"Holy no common sense, Batman!"
<snip irrelevent nonsense>
Thanks for amusing us with that cleverly documented joke Alejandro.
Now the facts. No funding, no fuel, no pay for your troops, rotting
rusted navy, non-flying aircraft, electronic obsolescence, reduced to
third place arms exporters, no supersoldier program, no firearms
replacements, no new tanks, aircraft, etc... except a few new subs and
missiles that hopefully won't explode while undergoing sea trials. Add
to this the botched theater rescue, the inability to stop terorist
bombings in Moscow, and the inability to control Chechnya... wow!
Newest thing the Russian Army did for its troops was throw a "beauty
contest" to recruit women! Nice.
Rob
Krztalizer
Never mind - we already know.
Gordon
James Linn
"Schelkunchik" <gfd...@gduytr.com> wrote in message
news:E8zJb.5133$g77.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> The poor fella Alejandro is a pretty funny guy.
>
> Mig-25 is pretty useless at high speed and it can only go Mach 3 if it is
> totally clean.
Mig-25 is meant for high speed - heaven help them in a knife fight.
Don't be fooled by appearances. It is more of an interceptor than a knife
fighter. Compare it to, the Arrow, the Delta Dart, Starfighter etc. Was
meant to counter the Hustler, and spyplanes.
Seem to recall the recon model had the Israelis stymied for a while.
Horses for courses.
James Linn
Scott Ferrin
If you dropped a T-72 from a plane it would make a pretty good KE
weapon but with it's lack of aerodynamics it would be all over the
place so I guess it wouldn't even make a good bomb. I suppose you
could dump it in the ocean and use it for a corel reef or melt it down
and use it for something useful.
WaltBJ
when someone puts electrical power back on the ships of the Russian
navy or the Black Sea Fleet. There was one picture I saw that made me
feel sorry for the Russian Air Force - MiG29s with tarps tied around
them parked on pavement with weeds three feet high growing in the
cracks in the concrete. Getting those babies airworthy again will take
some hard work.
Walt BJ
The Black Monk
> < snip, snip, snip>
>
> I hope you didn't tucker out your tender little fingies writing up all that
> stuff.
>
> It sounds to me you either believe in Santa Claus or LSD.
>
> Either way, Russian hardware has never performed up to expectations in real
> battle.
>
> Russian tanks were wiped off the battlefield in Iraq (twice). Russian
> aircraft were wiped out of the sky over Bekaa, Kosovo, Libya and Iraq.
> Russian anti-aircraft defenses were pushed into the dustbin of history in
> Syria, Viet Nam, Serbia and Iraq. Russian submarines sink by themselves.
The one thing you seem to know well is hardware. Than why the
dishonesty? In Iraq and Yugoslavia you had new Western equipment up
against old Soviet equipment. It would be like the USSR invading a
country armed with 1970's American hardware, and some Russian claiming
that their stuff is so superior.
Incidentally, in Yugoslavia all of that Western equipment resulted in,
what, 8 or 9 tanks being destroyed? And they thought they had wiped
out the Yugo army. Sounds like a military failure.
> The best the Russians can do is hope for a chance hit on a helicopter with
> an RPG.
Speaking of which, from the Exile:
Special Lifetime Award: the RPG
This one goes to a classic modern weapon that's probably a lot older
than you are, and is still going strong. I'm talking, of course, about
the RPG, the Soviet-designed rocket-propelled grenade launcher. It was
kicking ass in the A Shau valley in 1970, and it's still kicking ass
on the streets of Baghdad today. Unfortunately, it's our asses that
got kicked by this magnificent weapon, but you can't blame the RPG for
that. Vato's just trying to do his pinchy job.
The RPG is plain and unbreakable, like the really good Soviet designs
always were. It's a simple firing tube that looks kind of like a
bassoon with a trigger. The grenades are just as simple: two cones
joined at the base. You just stick the grenade into the tube, aim and
fire. This is a classic line-of-sight weapon, which is one of the
reasons the US military gives for not trying to counter it or
reverse-engineer our own version of it. We've stuck to bigger, heavier
antitank weapons or disposable launchers like the LAW. But the rest of
the world has voted for the RPG. And it keeps finding new ways to hurt
the enemy. For example, nobody ever thought of it as an anti-aircraft
weapon…until they needed something to knock down Blackhawks, which are
pretty much invulnerable to small-arms fire. That's when the Somalis,
who were getting annoyed with the Blackhawks ferrying US troops across
Mog without having the simple politeness to come down and fight on the
ground, heard from some ex-Afghan Jihadis that if you hit the tail
rotor with an RPG, even a Blackhawk would come down. Since then,
everybody's been doing it.
The US military's line is to snub the RPG, just pretend it doesn't
exist. This never worked too well, and it's still not working. For
example, what's the record on RPG attacks on Bradleys in Iraq? I've
had some scary emails from guys serving there who say that they've
seen APCs blown wide open by a single RPG hit.
So this weapon has been holding its own 40 years, and if anything it's
getting more powerful, more effective.
------------------
BM
Krztalizer
Before you get all excited about this "Soviet wonderweapon", remember that it
is nothing more than a modernized Panzerfaust 60. Thank goodness the Russian
war machine can build really good copies of captured German stuff, eh?
>So this weapon has been holding its own 40 years, and if anything it's
>getting more powerful, more effective.
Try 60+ years for the basic design.
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR
Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.
Fred J. McCall
:The one thing you seem to know well is hardware. Than why the
:dishonesty? In Iraq and Yugoslavia you had new Western equipment up
:against old Soviet equipment. It would be like the USSR invading a
:country armed with 1970's American hardware, and some Russian claiming
:that their stuff is so superior.
Note that such fights HAVE happened with their client states. It
still didn't work out too well for the Arabs, when they were using
modern Soviet equipment and the Israelis were using older US stuff.
:Special Lifetime Award: the RPG
:
: This one goes to a classic modern weapon that's probably a lot older
:than you are, and is still going strong. I'm talking, of course, about
:the RPG, the Soviet-designed rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
Oh, you mean the panzerfaust? Hardly 'Soviet-designed', since it was
a fairly direct steal from the Germans.
You might want to look at what revision that puppy is on to try and
stay even marginally effective against anything remotely like real
armor.
Yes, we're all well impressed now ... that you're an idiot.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Victor Martinez
russian newsgroups. However, those of us in the mexican newsgroups
really couldn't care less. Please remove us from your responses. Thanks!
--
Victor Martinez
Send your spam here: u...@ftc.gov
Email me here: pistor...@BOXaustin.rr.com
Tony Williams
I don't disagree, but to be fair they do make some very good guns...
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
Alejandro Magno
> Now the facts. No funding, no fuel, no pay for your troops, rotting
> rusted navy, non-flying aircraft, electronic obsolescence, reduced to
> third place arms exporters, no supersoldier program, no firearms
> replacements, no new tanks, aircraft, etc... except a few new subs and
> missiles that hopefully won't explode while undergoing sea trials. Add
> to this the botched theater rescue, the inability to stop terorist
> bombings in Moscow, and the inability to control Chechnya... wow!
> Newest thing the Russian Army did for its troops was throw a "beauty
> contest" to recruit women! Nice
http://www.ifamericansknew.org
http://www.white-history.com/usafuture.htm
http://www.rense.com/general41/wew.htm
http://tomcat.fnet.cz/su37_popis.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30173716da.htm
http://www.vce.com/tsar.html
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wmd/ballistic/ballistic/ss25_001.jpg
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30173716da.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3116454bba.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=167
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj042001.html
http://members.cox.net/thomasahobbs/yea_36.htm
Are you still laughing ?
Alejandro Magno III
Tank Fixer
@mindspring.com says...
How long would it take to smelt them all down and build some real aircraft
from them ?
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.
Chad Irby
no_mail...@yahoo.com (Alejandro Magno) wrote:
> http://www.ifamericansknew.org
> http://www.white-history.com/usafuture.htm
> http://www.rense.com/general41/wew.htm
> http://tomcat.fnet.cz/su37_popis.htm
> http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30173716da.htm
> http://www.vce.com/tsar.html
> http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wmd/ballistic/ballistic/ss25_001.jpg
> http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30173716da.htm
> http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3116454bba.htm
> http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=167
> http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj042001.html
> http://members.cox.net/thomasahobbs/yea_36.htm
>
> Are you still laughing ?
Absolutely. Some of the funniest websites I've seen in a long time.
It's amazing how far the Russians went in trying to be a superpower, and
how far some folks will go in trying to make the US look bad.
--
cirby at cfl.rr.com
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
Schelkunchik
"The Black Monk" <cherni...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c21219d5.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "Schelkunchik" <gfd...@gduytr.com> wrote in message
news:<xxyJb.4333$g77.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > < snip, snip, snip>
> >
> > I hope you didn't tucker out your tender little fingies writing up all
that
> > stuff.
> >
> > It sounds to me you either believe in Santa Claus or LSD.
> >
> > Either way, Russian hardware has never performed up to expectations in
real
> > battle.
> >
> > Russian tanks were wiped off the battlefield in Iraq (twice). Russian
> > aircraft were wiped out of the sky over Bekaa, Kosovo, Libya and Iraq.
> > Russian anti-aircraft defenses were pushed into the dustbin of history
in
> > Syria, Viet Nam, Serbia and Iraq. Russian submarines sink by themselves.
>
> The one thing you seem to know well is hardware. Than why the
> dishonesty? In Iraq and Yugoslavia you had new Western equipment up
> against old Soviet equipment. It would be like the USSR invading a
> country armed with 1970's American hardware, and some Russian claiming
> that their stuff is so superior.
>
Except that the pattern is undeniably predictable. There are no historical
examples to prove Russian hardware efficacy beyond WWII. Mig pilots
routinely lost against US F-86 Sabers even when flown by Russian pilots.
> Incidentally, in Yugoslavia all of that Western equipment resulted in,
> what, 8 or 9 tanks being destroyed? And they thought they had wiped
> out the Yugo army. Sounds like a military failure.
>
Talking about dishonesty...the strategy in Serbia was to win without a
ground war. It was a historical milestone in fact. All the analysts have
always said a war could not be won with airpower alone. Then the US went
ahead and did it. I say "US" because the US flew 90% of the missions. You
are thinking about winning a war at a tactical level. The US focused on
winning the war at a strategic level and that was what mattered. You sound
like the guys who like to crow about German aircraft production remaining at
a high level even at late stages of the war. What they like to leave out is
the fact that the US had settled on German petroleum production as a
strategic target and set about destroying it quite effectively. While the
Germans continued to produce high numbers of aircraft, they had no petrol to
fly them.
>
> > The best the Russians can do is hope for a chance hit on a helicopter
with
> > an RPG.
>
> Speaking of which, from the Exile:
>
> Special Lifetime Award: the RPG
>
>
> This one goes to a classic modern weapon that's probably a lot older
> than you are, and is still going strong. I'm talking, of course, about
> the RPG, the Soviet-designed rocket-propelled grenade launcher. It was
> kicking ass in the A Shau valley in 1970, and it's still kicking ass
> on the streets of Baghdad today. Unfortunately, it's our asses that
> got kicked by this magnificent weapon, but you can't blame the RPG for
> that. Vato's just trying to do his pinchy job.
>
Don't forget about the Russian who tried to fire two RPGs at the US embassy
in Moscow. Both of them malfunctioned.
The RPG's success is Iraq is more about stupid US tactics than it is about
the RPG being some great weapon. The US drives predictably on the same ol'
roads making themselves vulnerable to roadside bombs...and they fly
helicopters at low altitude over city areas. The RPG is a kinda-sorta-maybe
weapon. Aim it roughly in the direction you want it to go, close your eyes,
pull the trigger and hope that it hits something. When the US changes
tactics, they'll stop being victims of roadside bombs and RPG's. Let's just
hope they wise up before too many more get killed.
> The RPG is plain and unbreakable, like the really good Soviet designs
> always were. It's a simple firing tube that looks kind of like a
> bassoon with a trigger. The grenades are just as simple: two cones
> joined at the base. You just stick the grenade into the tube, aim and
> fire. This is a classic line-of-sight weapon, which is one of the
> reasons the US military gives for not trying to counter it or
> reverse-engineer our own version of it. We've stuck to bigger, heavier
> antitank weapons or disposable launchers like the LAW. But the rest of
> the world has voted for the RPG. And it keeps finding new ways to hurt
> the enemy. For example, nobody ever thought of it as an anti-aircraft
> weapon.until they needed something to knock down Blackhawks, which are
Chad Irby
Tank Fixer <paul.cat...@us.army.mil> wrote:
> In article <66c861b7.04010...@posting.google.com>, waltbj01
> @mindspring.com says...
> > Every now and then I waste a little time wondering what will happen
> > when someone puts electrical power back on the ships of the Russian
> > navy or the Black Sea Fleet. There was one picture I saw that made me
> > feel sorry for the Russian Air Force - MiG29s with tarps tied around
> > them parked on pavement with weeds three feet high growing in the
> > cracks in the concrete. Getting those babies airworthy again will take
> > some hard work.
>
> How long would it take to smelt them all down and build some real aircraft
> from them ?
Well, since they seem to have been designed for use as target drones,
just slap a good R/C unit on them and get in some parctice.
Schelkunchik
"Alejandro Magno" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com...
I'm not wasting anymore of my time on your
links...Ekranoplan...bwahahahahahahahahah!
Besides it looks like you are trying the ol fake out...without admitting
that Russia sucks you try to divert attention away from your obvious screwup
by bad mouthing the US.
You could take the Argentinian military from the Falklands war and kick
Russia's butt.
Russia had to give up on its volunteer army I hear. They are trying to cover
up the failure by saying the paid troops will be mixed in with the
conscripts.
Felger Carbon
news:66c861b7.04010...@posting.google.com...
> MiG29s with tarps tied around
> them parked on pavement with weeds three feet high growing in the
> cracks in the concrete.
Walt, I've never been able to figure out why Su-27 Flankers are
considered such hot stuff, but AFAIK the Mig-29 is not well regarded
by anyone, even the Russkys. Wha? They are close to being the same
airframe!
Felger Carbon
news:10486-3F...@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net...
>Airwolf
> could smoke a MiG-29 or Su-37! After all, Airwolf took out
MiG-23s/27s &
> Mirages routinely, 'cause I saw it on TV & TV's been around a LOT
longer
> than the 'net, so I KNOW it's true!
Ah, yes, Airwolf. I wuz always impressed as hell by that supersonic
helicopter. I wonder what its RCS was at mach 2? ;-)
B2431
>Date: 1/3/2004 10:13 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <KpMJb.19219$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Don't forget it could hover at 80kilofeet, was bullet proof, carried an
unlimited supply of sidewinders, mavericks, hellfire, etc.
On the other hand Blue Thunder had whisper mode.
Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
ZZBunker
> "Schelkunchik" <gfd...@gduytr.com> wrote in message news:<xxyJb.4333$g77.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > < snip, snip, snip>
> >
> > I hope you didn't tucker out your tender little fingies writing up all that
> > stuff.
> >
> > It sounds to me you either believe in Santa Claus or LSD.
> >
> > Either way, Russian hardware has never performed up to expectations in real
> > battle.
> >
> > Russian tanks were wiped off the battlefield in Iraq (twice). Russian
> > aircraft were wiped out of the sky over Bekaa, Kosovo, Libya and Iraq.
> > Russian anti-aircraft defenses were pushed into the dustbin of history in
> > Syria, Viet Nam, Serbia and Iraq. Russian submarines sink by themselves.
>
> The one thing you seem to know well is hardware. Than why the
> dishonesty? In Iraq and Yugoslavia you had new Western equipment up
> against old Soviet equipment. It would be like the USSR invading a
> country armed with 1970's American hardware, and some Russian claiming
> that their stuff is so superior.
>
> Incidentally, in Yugoslavia all of that Western equipment resulted in,
> what, 8 or 9 tanks being destroyed? And they thought they had wiped
> out the Yugo army. Sounds like a military failure.
Yugoslavia was a Bill Clinton failure.
Iran was a George Bush failure.
Since neither of them are familiar with
anything military except for Jeruselum,
it's sort of irrelevent to both
modern warfare and ancient warfare.
> The RPG is plain and unbreakable, like the really good Soviet designs
> always were. It's a simple firing tube that looks kind of like a
> bassoon with a trigger. The grenades are just as simple: two cones
> joined at the base. You just stick the grenade into the tube, aim and
> fire. This is a classic line-of-sight weapon, which is one of the
> reasons the US military gives for not trying to counter it or
> reverse-engineer our own version of it. We've stuck to bigger, heavier
> antitank weapons or disposable launchers like the LAW. But the rest of
> the world has voted for the RPG. And it keeps finding new ways to hurt
> the enemy. For example, nobody ever thought of it as an anti-aircraft
> weapon?until they needed something to knock down Blackhawks, which are
> pretty much invulnerable to small-arms fire. That's when the Somalis,
> who were getting annoyed with the Blackhawks ferrying US troops across
> Mog without having the simple politeness to come down and fight on the
> ground, heard from some ex-Afghan Jihadis that if you hit the tail
> rotor with an RPG, even a Blackhawk would come down. Since then,
> everybody's been doing it.
Many people thought of that. But, what nobody thought of was
that the Army would classify the Blackhawk as an air vehicle.
Since only the Russian Army was ever stupid enough
to classify light infantry as air vehicles, most
other US citizens familiar with history have just
settled for the solution:
It's just a traditional variation on a Vietnam land-mine problem,
so they'll figure it out.
fudog50
All you guys got some very funny stuff! Thats why I keep coming back!
It's like comedy. Especially when the former eastern bloc guys keep
coming up with this "mine is better than yours" crap! LOL
Kevin Brooks
"Chad Irby" <ci...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m1LJb.109476$Dt6.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <MPG.1a6118374...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Tank Fixer <paul.cat...@us.army.mil> wrote:
>
> > In article <66c861b7.04010...@posting.google.com>, waltbj01
> > @mindspring.com says...
> > > Every now and then I waste a little time wondering what will happen
> > > when someone puts electrical power back on the ships of the Russian
> > > navy or the Black Sea Fleet. There was one picture I saw that made me
> > > feel sorry for the Russian Air Force - MiG29s with tarps tied around
> > > them parked on pavement with weeds three feet high growing in the
> > > cracks in the concrete. Getting those babies airworthy again will take
> > > some hard work.
> >
> > How long would it take to smelt them all down and build some real
aircraft
> > from them ?
>
> Well, since they seem to have been designed for use as target drones,
> just slap a good R/C unit on them and get in some parctice.
Even a target drone is not of much use if it only exhibits a 40 or 50% OR
rate--hard to shoot that puppy down if you can't get it up in the first
place. :)
Brooks
Captain!
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:n2oevv4v8nm98odbq...@4ax.com...
you'd better plonk him now fred just for good measure.
Alejandro Magno
> I'm not wasting anymore of my time on your
> links...Ekranoplan...bwahahahahahahahahah!
> Besides it looks like you are trying the ol fake out...without admitting
> that Russia sucks you try to divert attention away from your obvious screwup
> by bad mouthing the US.
>
> You could take the Argentinian military from the Falklands war and kick
> Russia's butt.
>
> Russia had to give up on its volunteer army I hear. They are trying to cover
> up the failure by saying the paid troops will be mixed in with the
> conscripts.
Nobody is putting a gun to your head to read this thread.
Magno
Alejandro Magno
> Before you get all excited about this "Soviet wonderweapon", remember that it
> is nothing more than a modernized Panzerfaust 60. Thank goodness the Russian
> war machine can build really good copies of captured German stuff, eh?
Remember that American rocket technology, American nuclear reactors
and American nuclear bombs were designed by Europeans.
Do you know who Von Braun was ?
Do you know who Fermi was ?
Do you know who Einsten was ?
Were they Americans ?
More information here: http://www.germancross.com
happy reading
Alejandro Magno
Alejandro Magno
America tried to steal Mig-15:
http://www.psywarrior.com/Moolah.html
America stole Mig-25:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/11227_pilot.html
America trying to buy Russian S-300 (the Patriot is only for
photograps, it does not work):
http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/05/28/6071.html
Do you know that B-2 and F-117 are based on Russian technology ? They
even said it in the History Channel.
So, if America technology is so superior why they have tried to buy or
steal Russian equipment.
What is going on with the Space Shuttle ? If it were not for the
Russians the astrounats in the International Space Station would have
died.
Are you one of these happy Americans
http://www.white-history.com/usafure.htm ?
Alejandro Magno
George
I hate to tell you this, but most of your links bashing the American
military are not due to any military situation but due to the
political reality imposed on the US military by it's government. For
example, do you really think the president is going to authorize the
Navy to do anything that might create an international incident, such
as shoot down Russian planes trying to overfly a carrier battle group.
It would take his authorization to approve those rules of engagement.
From time those planes were 50 miles from the carrier, they were
almost certainly being tracked by the SAMs on the carrier's escort,
even if your articles are correct and no interceptors were scrambled.
Most of the rest of your links about the US government come from not
very reputable conspiracy theorists. In regards to the Su-37, there
has been a lot of debate, but I would like to see a Su-37 get a shot
at an F-22 when it can't even tell where it is outside of visual
range. Finally, in regards to the Russian nuclear forces, it was not
technology but political reality again that prevented the US from
developing similar weapons. The Tsar bomba was well within the US
technical range and the US could easily have fielded road and
rail-mobile ICBMs in the same time frame as the SS-25. The Peacekeeper
was not made rail-mobile because no one wanted nuclear missiles
rolling through their towns. So, in reality, the only real advantage
the Soviet arms bureaus (which are now Russian arms companies) had was
an oppressive government that wouldn't allow any dissent from its
people about the types of weapons it developed.
Oh yeah, I am laughing quite heartily at your links.
George
Krztalizer
Are you self medicating? And why haven't you brought up the Kursk - its the
only conspiracy theory that you've left out of your tapestry of the ridiculous.
Gordon
Jarg
of immigrants and their descendants.
Jarg
"Alejandro Magno" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com...
Scott Ferrin
Magno) wrote:
>krzta...@aol.comint wrote:
>> and how much Western aid is required for Russia to accomplish all this...?
>> Never mind - we already know.
>> Gordon
>
>America tried to steal Mig-15:
>http://www.psywarrior.com/Moolah.html
Yeah and? They even got hold of an early Yak jet. So what?
>
>America stole Mig-25:
>http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/11227_pilot.html
Actually, why would they need to?
http://www.af.mil/search/media.asp?mediaID=6928&mediaType=1
>
>America trying to buy Russian S-300 (the Patriot is only for
>photograps, it does not work):
>http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/05/28/6071.html
If the Patriot didn't work they'd just scrap the thing. There have
been things in the past that were duds and got canned. As far as
trying to buy S-300s it's not to USE the things, it's to know better
how to defeat them. BTW did you know the S-300 uses TVM in the
guidance which they copied from Patriot?
>
>Do you know that B-2 and F-117 are based on Russian technology ? They
>even said it in the History Channel.
It sounds like they managed to mangle things (no surprise there).
What happened was that there was a Russian mathmatician or physicist
(I don't recall which) who came up with a way to calculate radar
cross-sections. He even took the idea to the Russian air force but
they said "what do we need with that?". Then the US got hold of the
paper and said essentially "this is what you do with it". So a
Russian came up with the original math but that's it. The US took it
and ran with it.
>
>So, if America technology is so superior why they have tried to buy or
>steal Russian equipment.
To better know the other side. Both sides did it. It had to do both
with seeing what the other guy had and using any gold nuggets they
happened to find in the process. Either side would be stupid NOT to
do it.
>
>What is going on with the Space Shuttle ? If it were not for the
>Russians the astrounats in the International Space Station would have
>died.
You mean the Russian shuttle? It's a restraunt.
Chad Irby
no_mail...@yahoo.com (Alejandro Magno) wrote:
> America stole Mig-25:
"Russian defects, brings MiG-25 with him."
"Americans not that impressed."
> http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/11227_pilot.html
Pete
> krzta...@aol.comint wrote:
> > and how much Western aid is required for Russia to accomplish all
this...?
> > Never mind - we already know.
> > Gordon
>
> America tried to steal Mig-15:
> http://www.psywarrior.com/Moolah.html
That was a UN proposal.
>
> America stole Mig-25:
> http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/11227_pilot.html
That was one of your own pilots.
Pete
robert arndt
>
> Tony Williams
> Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
> Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
As compared to whom? German guns beat them in all categories.
Pistols: HK P-8, HK MARK 23, HK P-11 (underwater), WALTHER P-99QA
SMGs: HK MP-5 (all variants), HK MP-7, HK UMP .45
Rifles: HK G-11 caseless, HK G-36 (all variants), HK SMARTRIFLE (joint
US)
Non-Lethal: Rheinmetall AG Plasma Taser Gun, Rheinmetall AG Plasma
Rifle (project)
LMG: HK MG-43
HMG: Rheinmetall MG-3
GL: HK AG 36
AGL: HK GMG
TURRET MOUNTED: MAUSER RMK-30
SHIP/AIRCRAFT MOUNTED: MAUSER BK-27 linkless
The only areas lacking are combat shotgun (former HK CAWS) and sniper
(adopted G-22/L96A1) for military. German Police use HK-Benelli
shotguns and MAUSER snipers.
Rob
famv...@webtv.net
Ragnar
> krzta...@aol.comint wrote
> > Before you get all excited about this "Soviet wonderweapon", remember
that it
> > is nothing more than a modernized Panzerfaust 60. Thank goodness the
Russian
> > war machine can build really good copies of captured German stuff, eh?
>
> Remember that American rocket technology, American nuclear reactors
> and American nuclear bombs were designed by Europeans.
And the Soviets captured German scientists and forced them to work for them.
Your point?
Ragnar
> krzta...@aol.comint wrote:
> America stole Mig-25:
> http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/11227_pilot.html
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Stole? Ha!!! After Belenko landed it in Japan, the
Japanese government gave it back to the Soviets 3 days later.
> America trying to buy Russian S-300 (the Patriot is only for
> photograps, it does not work):
Actually, the S-300 has NO combat record at all. Whereas the Patriot has
shot down at least 3 planes.
> So, if America technology is so superior why they have tried to buy or
> steal Russian equipment.
Always helps to know what the bad guys are up to. The Soviets also tried to
steal or buy US stuff. The difference is that we were better at it.
Alejandro Magno
Mother Russia was a total mess.
Mother Russia is 1,500 years old and she has never been defeated.
America is like 230 years old, America has a lot of learning to do.
America has never been invaded in the same scale Mother Russia has.
Enemies are numerous on Mother Russia's borders. Poland, Prussia,
France, Germany, Turkey, China, Japan, Islamic States, Mongols,
Scandinavia, all of them have tryed to conquer Mother Russia. The
bodies of foreign soldiers (mercenaries) are now fertilizing Mother
Russia's farms.
Stalingrad, Bodorino, Kursk: the same movie played several times.
Mother Russia has managed to defeat her enemies for 1,500 years. You
think that these happy people can defeat Mother Russia:
http://www.white-history.com/usafuture.htm ?
Mother Russia has thousand and thousand of miles to retreat, before
launching her killing counter-attack to destroy the invader. Mother
Russia always avenge her fallen warriors. Mother Russia never forgets,
she never forgives.
You should be grateful to Mother Russia, it was Mother Russia who
defeated the Nazis, otherwise there would be a swastika flying on the
top of the White House in Washington, DC, and on the Tower of London.
Europeans must be grateful that Mother Russia defeated Napoleon. If
Napoleoan had succesed, French would have been the spoken language in
whole Europe. After Napoleano victory, the entire European population
would have become a bunch of weasels.
Could you please tell me why there is an African team in the UEFA EURO
2004 in Portugal (soccer),
http://www.euro2004.com/Competitions/EURO/Teams/Team=43/index.html
(scroll down, to your right you will see a picture, click it to
enlarge it) ?.
Napoleon and Hitler thought they were able to defeat Mother Russia.
History proved them wrong.
If you are a White American, you must be grateful to Mother Russia.
She has been the protector of Europe against Mongol, Chinese and
Islamic Invaders. All the White Race must be grateful to Holy Imperial
Mother Russia.
Catherine the Great was a great woman. I wish we could have more like
her. She ordered Alexander Suvurov to clean Europe of Turkish
invaders. Alexander Suvorov received the order to exterminate all the
Turks in European soil.
I wonder if America could have resited all the invasions Russia has.
Enjoy: ****** http://www.skazka.no/anthems/ ******
God Save the new Tsar Vladimir Putin !!!!
God Bless Holy Imperial Mother Russia !!!!
God Bless all Christian Nations of the World !!!
Alejandro Magno
> And your point is? Perhaps you don't know that the US is largely a nation
> of immigrants and their descendants.
> Jarg
I know that very well. I have spent considerable time in America. My
point is that America is a European country in a different continent.
I do know how you can take this article, but seems interesting:
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1382
Magno
Chad Irby
no_mail...@yahoo.com (Alejandro Magno) wrote:
> Napoleon and Hitler tought they could defeat Mother Russia. They said
> Mother Russia was a total mess.
>
> Mother Russia is 1,500 years old and she has never been defeated.
Which Mother Russia? Tsarist Russia, the USSR, or the current one?
> America is like 230 years old, America has a lot of learning to do.
You *do* realize that the US currently has one of the oldest governments
on the planet, right? Hell, I've got T-shirts older than the current
Russian government...
B2431
>
>Napoleon and Hitler tought they could defeat Mother Russia. They said
>Mother Russia was a total mess.
>
>Mother Russia is 1,500 years old and she has never been defeated.
Check your history, Russia was occupied by the Poles, the Mongols and a few
others.
B2431
>Date: 1/4/2004 12:30 AM Central
>krzta...@aol.comint wrote:
>> and how much Western aid is required for Russia to accomplish all this...?
>> Never mind - we already know.
>> Gordon
>
>America tried to steal Mig-15:
>http://www.psywarrior.com/Moolah.html
You mean the the aircraft using a cloned Rolls Royce engine? Like the one
flown to South Korea by a North Korean pilot?
>America stole Mig-25:
>http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/11227_pilot.html
You mean the one a Soviet pilot flew to Japan?
>Do you know that B-2 and F-117 are based on Russian technology ? They
>even said it in the History Channel.
Next time you see that show please note they only used the Russian radiation
scatter data on the F-117.
And the Soviet space shuttle was a cheap knock off of the U.S. Space shuttle.
>So, if America technology is so superior why they have tried to buy or
>steal Russian equipment.
>
For the same reason the Soviets were, and the Russians are now, trying to
obtain U.S. weaponry: intelligence gathering.
Shall we talk about the Soviets copying solid state technology?
Shall we discuss the abyssmal safety records of the Soviet nuclear submarines?
How about Chernobyl?
How about stealing the plans for the atomic bomb?
Look, I won't deny the Soviets/Russians haven't come up with technology
superior to the U.S., but they really don't have an edge in anything anymore.
The Soviets were the first to put satellites into orbit, the first to put a man
into space, the first to put a woman into space etc, but their launchers and
capsule technology really hasn't changed since the 1960s.
Now look at the human costs of Soviet/Russian technology. A major lake that is
dying because they reversed the direction of the flow of a river. Rotting
submarines with leaking reactors. Parts of the country where children are still
being born with defects from nuclear and chemical testing. A long delay in
reconstruction after WW2 because Stalin HAD to have the atomic bomb. The list
goes on.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
B2431
>Date: 1/4/2004 12:16 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com>
>
>krzta...@aol.comint wrote
>> Before you get all excited about this "Soviet wonderweapon", remember that
>it
>> is nothing more than a modernized Panzerfaust 60. Thank goodness the
>Russian
>> war machine can build really good copies of captured German stuff, eh?
>
>Remember that American rocket technology, American nuclear reactors
>and American nuclear bombs were designed by Europeans.
>
>Do you know who Von Braun was ?
>Do you know who Fermi was ?
>Do you know who Einsten was ?
>
>Were they Americans ?
>
The laser, transistor, polio vaccine etc were all invented by Americans.
Look, this could go on forever, but what's the point?
B2431
>Date: 1/4/2004 3:59 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com>
>
>"Jarg" <scott_ha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:<UqPJb.5442$5T5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
>> And your point is? Perhaps you don't know that the US is largely a nation
>> of immigrants and their descendants.
>> Jarg
>
>I know that very well. I have spent considerable time in America. My
>point is that America is a European country in a different continent.
>
And the Russias were settled by Vikings, South Asians, Mongols, Poles...etc
What exactly is your point?
Schelkunchik
...but it's good for laughs!
Schelkunchik
"George" <Geod...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c28d4ba.0401...@posting.google.com...
Yeah...and ask the people of Sverdlovsk how much choice they had in putting
an anthrax manufacturing plant in their town. I kinda doubt it was put up
for a vote.
Thomas Schoene
> Walt, I've never been able to figure out why Su-27 Flankers are
> considered such hot stuff, but AFAIK the Mig-29 is not well regarded
> by anyone, even the Russkys. Wha? They are close to being the same
> airframe!
No, they're somewhat close to the same aerodynamic shape but the actual
airframes are quite different. The MiG-29 is significantly smaller. The
FULCRUM's major limitation is its very short range compared to the FLANKER.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
BUFDRVR
>Do you know who Fermi was ?
>Do you know who Einsten was ?
>
>Were they Americans ?
Not born, but naturalized. They weren't dragged off in the middle of the night
by a NKVD team.
BUFDRVR
"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
BUFDRVR
>point is that America is a European country in a different continent.
Now-a-days, that is a very insulting statement. If the issue of Iraq isn't
enough to show the vast differences between Europeans and Americans, nothing
is.
JasiekS
Użytkownik "B2431" <b2...@aol.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:20040104062831...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >no_mail...@yahoo.com (Alejandro Magno)
> >Date: 1/4/2004 12:16 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com>
> >
[snip...]
> >Remember that American rocket technology, American nuclear reactors
> >and American nuclear bombs were designed by Europeans.
> >
> >Do you know who Von Braun was ?
> >Do you know who Fermi was ?
> >Do you know who Einsten was ?
> >
> >Were they Americans ?
> >
> Yes they were. They became U.S. citizens.
>
> The laser, transistor, polio vaccine etc were all invented by Americans.
>
> Look, this could go on forever, but what's the point?
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
From http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1971/index.html
<cite>
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1971
"for his invention and development of the holographic method"
Dennis Gabor
United Kingdom
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
b. 1900 (in Budapest, Hungary)
d. 1979
</cite>
Regards
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland
BUFDRVR
>> what, 8 or 9 tanks being destroyed?
Wrong. I've *personally* seen pictures of a dozen destroyed tanks and armored
vehicles. The "8 or 9 tank" myth came from the Yugoslavs after the conflict
ended who were embarrased to admit they got waxed and could only manage to
shoot down 2 aircraft and cause zero casulties.
BUFDRVR
Boy, I hate the man, but how can you say Yugoslavia (Operation ALLIED FORCE)
was a failure? NATO said stop military action in Kosovo, Yugoslavia refused, we
bombed them for 72-days, they agreed not only to stop military action in
Kosovo, but to remove their armed forces entirely. Where's the failure part?
>Iran was a George Bush failure.
Hmm, if you refering to Operation Eagle Claw, that was Jimmy Carter. If you
meant Iraq, once again, you're going to have to explain to me how we failed. We
set out to remove Saddam Hussain from power, that was done.
BUFDRVR
>example, do you really think the president is going to authorize the
>Navy to do anything that might create an international incident, such
>as shoot down Russian planes trying to overfly a carrier battle group.
Additionally, while flying over a naval military formation may be provacative,
it is not illegal. The airspace above a CBG is international airspace and the
only restrictions on overflight is the ICAO requirement to maintain at least
500' altitude seperation from the surface vessels. So....the US had no legal
right to engage, or even interfere with the Russian aircraft as long as they
didn't drop any objects, open their bomb doors, fly across the bow or attempt
to jam any of the battle groups surviellence radars (legal acts of war as
defined by Geneva) and they maintained 500' above the tallest ship. Actually,
even if they flew lower than 500', this is not a reason to interfere with this
flight, all this would allow the US to do is file a complaint with the ICAO.
BUFDRVR
Not to copy, but to study. I hope you're intentionally being naive, otherwise
you're a very foolish person..
>America stole Mig-25:
Hardly, Belenko defected with one. Once again we wanted it to study, not copy.
>America trying to buy Russian S-300 (the Patriot is only for
>photograps, it does not work):
PAC III works fine, once again, our interest in Soviet military hardware is to
study how to defeat it, not copy it. When's the last time you saw the Soviets
or Russians produce something and then a very similar copy comes out in the
west? Never. I can't even count the western copied hardware in the Russian
military. Boy that Blackjack sure looks like a B-1B doesn't it?
>Do you know that B-2 and F-117 are based on Russian technology ?
I didn't think I could laugh that hard just by reading something. So where's
the Russian Air Force stealth platforms?
>So, if America technology is so superior why they have tried to buy or
>steal Russian equipment.
>
To exploit it....wow, you can't be this dense can you?
>What is going on with the Space Shuttle ? If it were not for the
>Russians the astrounats in the International Space Station would have
>died.
Hardly. If it had been life or death, NASA would have resumed shuttle flights
long enough to "rescue" those aboard the ISS. As it is, we don't have to
because of Russias capability to supply the ISS and swap out crews. But
remember the only reason the Russians are able to do this is because of
billions of US dollars and the simple fact that the Soviet Space Shuttle (plans
bought legally from US contractors) was considered dangerous and unreliable and
never flew with any living creatures on board. Doesn't speak much to your
vaunted Russian space industry huh? Oh, by the way, how many Soviets/Russians
have been killed in your space program? Hint, approximately twice what the US
has suffered.
BUFDRVR
>defeated the Nazis, otherwise there would be a swastika flying on the
>top of the White House in Washington, DC, and on the Tower of London.
I beg all the readers of this to *not* re-open that debate!! There is no
conclusive evidence either way and all we get are the resident kooks like our
friend here throwing around insults....
>If you are a White American, you must be grateful to Mother Russia.
>She has been the protector of Europe against Mongol, Chinese and
>Islamic Invaders.
Great, so not only are you a Russian/Soviet fanatic, but a racist to
boot.........
tadaa
with
> >>an RPG.
> >>
> >
> >But you have to give them credit for that one....although its
surface-to-air
> >capability was not part of the design and not discovered by the
> >Russians....maybe they don't deserve any credit. Maybe this is the key to
> >Russian military hardware, find alternative uses for it. Maybe a T-72
makes an
> >outstanding toaster oven? A MiG-29 as stero system? The possibilities are
> >nearly endless ;)
> If you dropped a T-72 from a plane it would make a pretty good KE
> weapon but with it's lack of aerodynamics it would be all over the
> place so I guess it wouldn't even make a good bomb. I suppose you
> could dump it in the ocean and use it for a corel reef or melt it down
> and use it for something useful.
T-72 was a good tank in it's time vs Leopard I's, M60's and early M1's.
After the Soviet Union fell there were slight cuts in military spending if
you didn't notice.
Mary Shafer
<jasieks...@please.poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> From http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1971/index.html
>
> <cite>
> The Nobel Prize in Physics 1971
> "for his invention and development of the holographic method"
> Dennis Gabor
> United Kingdom
> Imperial College London, United Kingdom
> b. 1900 (in Budapest, Hungary)
> d. 1979
>
> </cite>
Holographs aren't lasers. Charles Townes, et al, got the Nobel for
the maser in the '60s. They were American.
And Von Braun pointed out that he learned about rocketry from Robert
Goddard, the father of modern rocketry. Another American.
Quick question, which is nothing to do with lasers or Nobels really:
Is it common in Poland to hear about the achievements of Poles who
succeed after leaving Poland for another country? I know Gabor is
Hungarian, so I'm not asking about him, but what about Pulaski, for
example?
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> My point is that America is a European country in a different continent.
Yes, but without most of the sense of greatness lost
(and senseless violence) that had been experienced
by their grandfathers in "the old country"...
tadaa
> >> what, 8 or 9 tanks being destroyed?
>
> Wrong. I've *personally* seen pictures of a dozen destroyed tanks and
armored
> vehicles. The "8 or 9 tank" myth came from the Yugoslavs after the
conflict
> ended who were embarrased to admit they got waxed and could only manage to
> shoot down 2 aircraft and cause zero casulties.
8, 9 or 12 it really isn't that large difference.
How many vehicles did USA lose in Iraq? Were US forces waxed in Iraq?
BUFDRVR
No it's not, but I'm talking about pictures I've seen personally, not a
collection of pictures of every hulk in Kosovo. The pictures I saw were taken
by an Air Force Tactical Air Controller assigned to the first US Army unit to
move into Kosovo. Over his 4 month deployment he had access to about 1/4 of
Kosovo and took pictures of 12 tanks and armored vehicles. If we assume the
rest of Kosovo was equally littered, that's 48 tanks. I'm not contending we hit
48 tanks, just pointing out that 1 US Air Force ETAC took pictures of more
destroyed vehicles than the Serbs admitted were destroyed. Could they be lying?
BOB URZ
B2431 wrote:
> >From: "Felger Carbon" fms...@jfoops.net
> >Date: 1/3/2004 10:13 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <KpMJb.19219$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> >
> ><famv...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >news:10486-3F...@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net...
> >>Airwolf
> >> could smoke a MiG-29 or Su-37! After all, Airwolf took out
> >MiG-23s/27s &
> >> Mirages routinely, 'cause I saw it on TV & TV's been around a LOT
> >longer
> >> than the 'net, so I KNOW it's true!
> >
> >Ah, yes, Airwolf. I wuz always impressed as hell by that supersonic
> >helicopter. I wonder what its RCS was at mach 2? ;-)
> >
>
> Don't forget it could hover at 80kilofeet, was bullet proof, carried an
> unlimited supply of sidewinders, mavericks, hellfire, etc.
>
> On the other hand Blue Thunder had whisper mode.
>
Yes, but that infamous russian invention the freight train missile
took it out. Have the russians deployed it yet??
Bob
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
B2431
<snip>
Oh, by the way, how many Soviets/Russians
>have been killed in your space program? Hint, approximately twice what the US
>has suffered.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
A lot more than twice if you count that li'l rocket (N-1?) that blew up on the
pad. IIRC the death count was in the 60s.
nemo l'ancien
But I think it's too late for your brain.
Sorry, I was not knowing you were not having one
DA svidania
Pete
"BUFDRVR" <buf...@aol.com> wrote
> I'm not contending we hit
> 48 tanks, just pointing out that 1 US Air Force ETAC took pictures of more
> destroyed vehicles than the Serbs admitted were destroyed. Could they be
lying?
Of *course* someone is lying. It just depends on which side of the fence you
sit to determine *who*.
Pete
Pete
"Alejandro Magno" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Are you still laughing ?
>
> Alejandro Magno III
Yes. As this is all combat equipment, he real determination is to evaluate
the actual combat stats among US v USSR equipment.
A/C, tanks, ships, etc. from both sides have been used in various conflicts
around the world. By both native and 3rd party operators.
Which has come out on top the most?
Pete
Krztalizer
>Enemies are numerous on Mother Russia's borders.
That's what happens when you invade your neighbors.
>The
>bodies of foreign soldiers (mercenaries) are now fertilizing Mother
>Russia's farms.
...and serving in the Russian military, since Russia's sons no longer see fit
to do so.
>
>You should be grateful to Mother Russia, it was Mother Russia who
>defeated the Nazis, otherwise there would be a swastika flying on the
>top of the White House in Washington, DC, and on the Tower of London.
errrrrr, yah. Mind telling me the mechanism for the Nazi invasion of the USA?
Think quickly and make up something exciting, because you are losing your
audience, boyo.
Gordon
TJ
The Black Monk wrote
> Incidentally, in Yugoslavia all of that Western equipment resulted in,
> what, 8 or 9 tanks being destroyed? And they thought they had wiped
> out the Yugo army. Sounds like a military failure.
>
>
The Yugoslavs returned to the arms control treaty/inspections within months
of the end of the conflict. The last time that they exchanged information
was January 1999 when they pulled out due to the on-going Kosovo
crisis.Apart from the Dayton Accord they also rejoined the Vienna Document
and in late 1999 revealed that they had lost 18 MBT and 136 ACV. They also
revealed that they had lost 50 fixed wing combat aircraft and 11 combat
helicopters.
In January 1999 the Yugoslavs admitted to having 152 fixed wing combat
aircraft. In October 1999 they admitted to having 102 remaining - a loss of
50. This included the loss of 11 MiG-29s. Today at Batajnica the 127th
Fighter Squadron operates one Fulcrum B and 4 Fulcrum A's. To make up the
numbers in the squadron MiG-21s now make up the majority of the squadron
fleet. The 83rd Regiment based in Slatina, Kosovo suffered the highest
losses in it's MiG-21 fleet. Approx 24 Fishbed L/N of the fleet were lost on
the ground.The Vienna Document is ratified by some 20 nations and involves
on-site verification inspections. UAV footage during the Technical Agreement
withdrawal caught some of the damaged AFVs being pulled out on low-loaders.
It was highlighted at the time after the Serb withdrawal that they had
cleaned up where they could damaged vehicles. Inspection teams found areas
where heavy equipment had been used to drag out equipment (possibly
damaged/destroyed hulks) onto roadways. Probably as much an effort for
spares recovery as to deny NATO on-site BDA.
TJ
Kevin Brooks
"tadaa" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:bt9hb2$11b$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
You went a bit too far. It was generally inferior to the M60A3 TTS due to
the latter's better sight and fire control system. Likewise it was inferior
to the early M1's, which while they still had only the 105mm gun, had a much
better thermal imaging system. Add in the better vehicle protection and
greater speed, and even the early M1 was beyond the T-72's capabilities.
Brooks
>
>
Chad Irby
no_mail...@yahoo.com (Alejandro Magno) wrote:
> I know that very well. I have spent considerable time in America. My
> point is that America is a European country in a different continent.
Mr. Chang down at the deli was saying something very much like that the
other day, but Ms. Obiki was yelling too loud at her kids in Swahili for
me to follow his whole argument.
--
cirby at cfl.rr.com
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
Tony Williams
> > I don't disagree, but to be fair they do make some very good guns...
> >
> > Tony Williams
> > Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
> > Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
>
> As compared to whom? German guns beat them in all categories.
>
> Pistols: HK P-8, HK MARK 23, HK P-11 (underwater), WALTHER P-99QA
> SMGs: HK MP-5 (all variants), HK MP-7, HK UMP .45
> Rifles: HK G-11 caseless, HK G-36 (all variants), HK SMARTRIFLE (joint
> US)
> Non-Lethal: Rheinmetall AG Plasma Taser Gun, Rheinmetall AG Plasma
> Rifle (project)
> LMG: HK MG-43
> HMG: Rheinmetall MG-3
> GL: HK AG 36
> AGL: HK GMG
> TURRET MOUNTED: MAUSER RMK-30
> SHIP/AIRCRAFT MOUNTED: MAUSER BK-27 linkless
I was thinking of the bigger stuff. The GSh-301 30mm aircraft gun has
a performance equivalent to the Mauser BK 27, but weighs less than
half as much. The twin-barrel GSh-30 weighs just 5kg more than the BK
27, but fires at 3,000 rpm instead of 1,700 - with equally powerful
ammunition. The GSh-6-30 and GSh-6-23 are also excellent performers,
with power-to-weight ratios considerably superior to any Western
cannon.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
Mr. Hat
No one here cares.
"Alejandro Magno" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com...
> Privet Holy Russian brothers.
>
> Any time, any place (America chickens out):
> http://tomcat.fnet.cz/su37_popis.htm
> http://www.geocities.com/fighterplanelover/su37.html (a work of art)
>
> See this piece of art:
> http://www.checksix-topshots.de/html/zeltweg_2000_-_il-76_firebombe.html
> http://www.waterbomber.com
>
> America humiliated by superior russian technology, confirmed by the
> Pentagon:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30173716da.htm
>
> King of the air:
> http://www.flymig.com/aircraft/Su-47/
>
> Two beasts of the air, flying monsters:
> http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/an-225_cossack.pl
> http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/an-124_condor.pl
>
> America comes in 3rd place:
> http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/c-5_galaxy.pl
>
> Fastest fighter plane, Mig 25:
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25.htm
>
> Fastest propella driven plane:
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm
>
> Fastest bomber:
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm
>
> Heaviest and highest capacity bomber:
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-160.htm
>
> Fastest passanger plane:
> http://airlines.afriqonline.com/images/h118.jpg
>
> Mig 1.44
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jebrooks1/aviation/full/mig142_gg.jpg
>
> Caspian Mounster:
> http://www.samolet.co.uk/km.html
> http://foxxaero.homestead.com/nslink3.html
> http://www.home-taylor.freeserve.co.uk/index%20ekranoplan%20man.html
>
> The real Mother of all Bombs (1960s):
> http://www.vce.com/tsar.html
>
> Superior anthem technology:
> http://www.skazka.no/anthems
>
> Fastest submarine:
> http://members.aol.com/ssycatalog/subs.html#SUB-30
>
> Largest submarine:
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/typhoon/
>
> Largest missile cruser:
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kirov/index.html
>
> Largest landing ship:
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivan/index.html
>
> You have to think in Russian. Think in Russian. Think in Russian !!
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jebrooks1/aviation/full/firefox.jpg
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jebrooks1/aviation/full/firefox2.jpg
> http://www.alyon.org/generale/theatre/cinema/affiches_cinema/f/f-fle/firefox.jpg
>
> The largest Helicopter
> http://www.helis.com/70s/h_mi26.php
> http://www.bearcraft-online.com/museum/museum.htm?mid=47
>
>
> AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS (the most advanced):
>
> Tunguska system:
>
http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/syst_p_lotnicze/mieszane/2s6-tunguska/tunguska2.jpg
> http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/tunguska1.html
> http://www.uralarms.ru/pict/obsch/tunguska-m.jpg
> http://www.uralarms.ru/docs/
> http://www.army.fr.pl/uzbr/tunguska.php
> http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/syst_p_lotnicze/mieszane/2s6-tunguska/
>
> S-300 System:
> http://www.hellas.org/military/air_force/images/s300-2.jpg
> http://www.army.fr.pl/uzbr/s300.php
> http://www.aeronautics.ru/s300photos.htm
> http://www.hri.org/news/europe/bbc/2001/_1357157_s300_ap300.jpg
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm
> http://www.cdiss.org/mos_as1.htm
> http://www.cdiss.org/moscow/1.jpg
> http://www.ippnw.de/bilder/s300.jpg
>
> S-400 System:
> http://www.area51zone.com/abm/index4.shtml
> http://www.army.fr.pl/uzbr/s300.php
> http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1999/FTS19990505000617.htm
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/1999/FTS19990505000617.htm
> http://www.aeronautics.ru/s400triumph.htm
> http://arms.host.sk/missiles/s400.htm
> http://www.cdiss.org/col00may17.htm
>
> S-500 system:
> http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/s-500.htm
> http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokrmd.htm
> http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Soviet/NS_TM-262_Missile_Tank.htm
> http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/pyne/qtr2/0528.htm
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/123102C.html
> http://www.cesd.org/mddf/mddf02.htm
> http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/documents/sessions_ordinaires/rpt/2001/1737.html
> http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010719-depsecdef2.html
>
> Russia closer to develop an ABM system
> http://www.area51zone.com/abm/index4.shtml
>
> Russian Military Technology is top notch !!!!!!
>
> Compare to inferior American technology:
> http://luke.megagis.lt/AirExtreme/F22/002.mpg
>
>
>
> Alejandro Magno
Schelkunchik
something new. Maybe if Mexico wasn't such a shithole, you wouldn't all be
coming up here.
Pay some taxes ya bastards or get the hell out.
"Mr. Hat" <mr...@southpark.us> wrote in message
news:Yv2dnRhN9Os...@bravo.net...
Peter Stickney
no_mail...@yahoo.com (Alejandro Magno) writes:
> krzta...@aol.comint wrote
>> Before you get all excited about this "Soviet wonderweapon", remember that it
>> is nothing more than a modernized Panzerfaust 60. Thank goodness the Russian
>> war machine can build really good copies of captured German stuff, eh?
>
> Remember that American rocket technology, American nuclear reactors
> and American nuclear bombs were designed by Europeans.
>
> Do you know who Von Braun was ?
Yeah, the German guy who made bigger versions of Goddard's rockets.
> Do you know who Fermi was ?
Italian bloke, always hung about in the handball court at the
University in Chicago?
> Do you know who Einsten was ?
No, but I recall a guy name Einstein who hang around Princeton a lot.
>
> Were they Americans ?
An all cases, yes, in fact, they were. They came over, liked it here,
and applied for Citizenship.
It's worth noting that two of the three you mention above left their
"Native" nations due to their intense revulsion at the deirections
that those nations had taken.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Alejandro Magno
> > My
> >point is that America is a European country in a different continent.
>
> Now-a-days, that is a very insulting statement. If the issue of Iraq isn't
> enough to show the vast differences between Europeans and Americans, nothing
> is.
> BUFDRVR
Sorry.
America is not an European country by all means. America has lower
standards of living.
Now, even Chile (in South America if you do not know) has a higher
standard of living than America:
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1388
Alejandro Magno III
Alejandro Magno
> Absolutely. Some of the funniest websites I've seen in a long time.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a30173716da.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3116454bba.htm
Since when Free Republic is a funny and conspiracy forum ?
Envy ?
Magno
Alejandro Magno
> And the Russias were settled by Vikings, South Asians, Mongols, Poles...etc
> What exactly is your point?
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
You really know History very well, are you sure you went to school in America ?
http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr25.htm
http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr32.htm
http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr40.htm
Thanks for refreshing my memory.
Magno
Alejandro Magno
> > Nobody is putting a gun to your head to read this thread.
> >
> > Magno
>
> ...but it's good for laughs!
I know that you are a very happy people, as your Detroit countrymen
http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwrdet.htm
Still funny ?
Magno
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> no_mail...@yahoo.com (Alejandro Magno) wrote in message news:<58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Privet Holy Russian brothers.
>
>
> "Holy no common sense, Batman!"
>
>
> <snip irrelevent nonsense>
>
> Thanks for amusing us with that cleverly documented joke Alejandro.
> Now the facts. No funding, no fuel, no pay for your troops, rotting
> rusted navy, non-flying aircraft, electronic obsolescence, reduced to
> third place arms exporters, no supersoldier program, no firearms
> replacements, no new tanks, aircraft, etc... except a few new subs and
> missiles that hopefully won't explode while undergoing sea trials. Add
> to this the botched theater rescue, the inability to stop terorist
> bombings in Moscow, and the inability to control Chechnya... wow!
> Newest thing the Russian Army did for its troops was throw a "beauty
> contest" to recruit women! Nice.
>
> Rob
Did they really throw a "beauty contest" to recruit women
for the army?
How many applied?
How many were hired?
Alejandro Magno
> >You should be grateful to Mother Russia, it was Mother Russia who
> >defeated the Nazis, otherwise there would be a swastika flying on the
> >top of the White House in Washington, DC, and on the Tower of London.
>
> I beg all the readers of this to *not* re-open that debate!! There is no
> conclusive evidence either way and all we get are the resident kooks like our
> friend here throwing around insults....
There is no debate. Soviet Union won the war in Europe. Stalingrad the
largest battle in the history. Kurks the largest tank battle.
America entered the war in Europe in summer 1944 when Germany was in
constant retreat from the Eastern front since summer 1943. Hitler
started to execute Jews in 1942(after the Wannasse conference),
America did nothing for the Jews.
The only reason of D-Day was to stop uncle Joe Stalin from washing his
boots on the Portugal coast. "Clash of Titans" from Amazon.com
In other words, D-Day was the first confrontation of the Cold War.
> Great, so not only are you a Russian/Soviet fanatic, but a racist to
> boot.........
> BUFDRVR
I am proud of my relatives and ancestors, are you ?
Magno
James Hart
That would be the score for any ex-pat Brits. People like Michael Foale are
always tagged as 'British born...' whenever the UK media mentions them in a
story.
--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk
Alejandro Magno
> It sounds to me you either believe in Santa Claus or LSD.
I am not American.
> Either way, Russian hardware has never performed up to expectations in real
> battle.
Kursk ?
The best tanks of WW2 were Soviet and German. Even the French had
better tanks than America.
> Russian tanks were wiped off the battlefield in Iraq (twice). Russian
> aircraft were wiped out of the sky over Bekaa, Kosovo, Libya and Iraq.
> Russian anti-aircraft defenses were pushed into the dustbin of history in
> Syria, Viet Nam, Serbia and Iraq.
Really ?
In the attack over the independent and Christian nation of Serbia,
NATo only destroyed 13 tanks after 8 weeks of bombing. NATO planes
bombed hospitals, schools, bridges, houses and TV stations.
America bombed TV stations because America loves censorship. "Free
Speech" is a joke in America. Censorship in Spanish is "La Censura".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=la+censura+de+la+democracia
Funny ?
> Russian submarines sink by themselves.
Just like the USS Thresher and the USS Scorpion.
> The best the Russians can do is hope for a chance hit on a helicopter with
> an RPG.
Ask the Americans soldiers in Iraq.
http://www.iraqwar.ru funny ?
Magno III
Chad Irby
no_mail...@yahoo.com (Alejandro Magno) wrote:
Since you consider the Russian capability to fly near or over our ships
during *peace time* a major accomplishment. It's like that guy who
posted a story about how some Russian planes actually managed to fly
sorta near Diego Garcia as a huge strategic move.
> Envy ?
Pity, mixed with contempt.
Peter Skelton
(Alejandro Magno) wrote:
>"Schelkunchik" wrote
>> It sounds to me you either believe in Santa Claus or LSD.
>
>I am not American.
>
>> Either way, Russian hardware has never performed up to expectations in real
>> battle.
>
>Kursk ?
>
>The best tanks of WW2 were Soviet and German. Even the French had
>better tanks than America.
>
Nonesense. The predominant requirement was for something that
could be punched out like confetti. The US understood that better
than anyone else. That was true for several otehr weapon stystems
too.
Peter Skelton
Chad Irby
> Sorry.
>
> America is not an European country by all means. America has lower
> standards of living.
Says who?
Another of those European-based "we consider higher taxes and lower
income to be good" things again?
Chad Irby
> You really know History very well, are you sure you went to school in
> America ?
> http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr25.htm
> http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr32.htm
> http://www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr40.htm
>
> Thanks for refreshing my memory.
Man... quoting a Nazi site? You're just plain insane, dude.
Schelkunchik
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:6k7hvv43mvr40t0g6...@4ax.com...
Yep. The US actually cut back on Sherman production well before the war was
over. Tankers liked it because it was so reliable though. The Pershing was
just being introduced as the war ended but it did very well in the few
battles it fought.
The Panther hardly ever ran reliably. Both the Tigers and Panthers were too
few in number to make a real difference anyway. There was no gasoline to run
them as well.
WWII was Russian armor's sunset. Other than running over a few Hungarians,
Czechs and Lithuanians, Russian armor never fared very well. Check out the
big armor battles in the first Gulf War. Tank-on-tank, Russian armor was
obliterated.
Schelkunchik
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:tM0Kb.317$zr3...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Are you sniffing around for the rejects?
Schelkunchik
El Stupido "Alejandro Magno" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com...
Are you a Parmalat employee? Maybe a Fiat employee?
That would explain all your free time.
Paul Lakowski
>
> Absolutely. Some of the funniest websites I've seen in a long time.
>
> It's amazing how far the Russians went in trying to be a superpower, and
> how far some folks will go in trying to make the US look bad.
Oh I don't think the USA needs any help looking bad, they seem to be
doing a good enough job at it already.
Keith Willshaw
"Alejandro Magno" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com...
The national vanguard is about as reputable a source as
Der Sturmer
More reliable sources provide a quite different picture
although defining the basis for measurement is rather
a difficult task. None of the surveys I have seen place
Chile above the USA.
Reviewing a few key statistics this is unsurprising
Chile
Infant Moratlity Rate 8.88 deaths/1,000 live births
Life Expectancy total population: 76.35 years
Population Below Poverty line 21%
GDP per Capita $10,100
USA
Infant Mortality Rate total: 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births
Life Expectancy total population: 77.14 years
Populataion below poverty line 12.7%
GDP per Capita $36,300
Keith
Chad Irby
p...@interchange.ubc.ca (Paul Lakowski) wrote:
> Oh I don't think the USA needs any help looking bad, they seem to be
> doing a good enough job at it already.
Well, considering that the criteria for "bad" is apparently "kicking out
dictators," we can live with that.
Especially when you look at the people who are complaining about the US
the most. Not exactly a burden. It's like having a homeless guy mad at
you for not giving him a quarter.
Chad Irby
"Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Alejandro Magno" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > Now, even Chile (in South America if you do not know) has a higher
> > standard of living than America:
> > http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1388
>
> Reviewing a few key statistics this is unsurprising
>
> Chile
> Infant Moratlity Rate 8.88 deaths/1,000 live births
> Life Expectancy total population: 76.35 years
> Population Below Poverty line 21%
> GDP per Capita $10,100
>
> USA
> Infant Mortality Rate total: 6.75 deaths/1,000 live births
> Life Expectancy total population: 77.14 years
> Populataion below poverty line 12.7%
> GDP per Capita $36,300
...and since "poverty line" is relative, that means the *average* person
in Chile is well below the poverty line in the US...
Jarg
what it's worth, after living in both Europe and the United States I can
tell you I greatly prefer the US.
Jarg
"Alejandro Magno" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com...
Jarg
starting in 1941 which contributed greatly to stemming the German successes,
the assistance to Britain staring in 1939 which may well have saved them
from conquest, not to mention the actions in North Africa, Italy, in the
skies over Europe, etc which greatly reduced Germany's capacity to wage war.
It is possible Russia could have won alone, but highly unlikely. And while
is is debatable, it seems pretty apparent to me that the United States could
have defeated the Soviet Union at the conclusion of WW2 had it needed to,
albeit at a very high cost.
Jarg
"Alejandro Magno" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58b0dee4.04010...@posting.google.com...
tadaa
> > After the Soviet Union fell there were slight cuts in military spending
if
> > you didn't notice.
>
> You went a bit too far. It was generally inferior to the M60A3 TTS due to
> the latter's better sight and fire control system. Likewise it was
inferior
> to the early M1's, which while they still had only the 105mm gun, had a
much
> better thermal imaging system. Add in the better vehicle protection and
> greater speed, and even the early M1 was beyond the T-72's capabilities.
I wasn't trying to say it was the greatest tank of that era it wasn't even
the top notch Soviet tank. But it could have given Western tanks decent
fight.
M60 still had kinda thin armor and I'm not sure about early M1's armor
either against KE. A lot would on what kinda ammo T-72's would have. Can't
really remember what ammo they had at any given year. But a 125mm with DU
rod would have caused a few nasty moments. Its fire control and night
fighting cababilities were the ones most lagging behind, but they were still
usable.
A lot would depend on what versions the tanks would be, but I'd still
consider T-72 a decent tank for its time.