|
Centurion Tanks in Korea - Report by Lt J Brown RNZAC March 1952 This was posted by rossmum in the World of Tanks thread. It's a very informative and funny read especially if you're familiar with tanks and their crew.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
onezero posted:http://theaviationist.com/2013/12/16/tu-22-cruise-missiles/ I find it interesting that the Russian Air Force still uses red stars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
It is a very stylish roundel, you have to admit 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Here's some Drakens taxiing by some guy's backyard and other stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiwLxnUaeY8
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Finnish spitz at 2:44 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Arishtat posted:Centurion Tanks in Korea - Report by Lt J Brown RNZAC March 1952 It might be the whisky but I laughed until I near as dammit threw up at "By this means my crew once had 5 shells in the air at once and fired 50 rounds in 8 mins. (Then the loader fainted from the fumes)."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I find it interesting that the Russian Air Force still uses red stars. I find it bizarre that in 2013 they're flying a supersonic strike bomber with a tail turret
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
quote:During the Apr battle the need for a second MG was felt, as angry little men climbed on the top of the tks and beat on the hatches with fists and rifle butts. One answer was to charge through a mud house, but this was NOT thought to be the real answer, as it increased the shortage of houses already made obvious by zealous gunners. It was thought further that it was better to stop people getting on in the first place. This is beautiful. Military publications have lost something in the past few decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:So there's a chance I'll end up in Moscow for work at some point. I'll probably hit the Kubinka tank museum, are there any other spots along those lines I should check out? I seemed to recall that foreigners were not allowed into the tank museum, but I guess things have changed recently. Wikipedia posted:The Kubinka Tank Museum is located on a historically "secret" Russian Army armour testing reservation, staffed entirely by Russian army personnel. Despite the end of the Cold War, and even though all the vehicles are antiques with none still being used by the Russian military, access for Westerners was strictly restricted and controlled due to fears that they would engage in espionage. US citizens were considered particularly suspicious and some websites note "the museum administration cannot guarantee access to foreign visitors".[1]
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Randomly saw this on another forum, I think it's relevant: You know Spirit and Spectre and Lancer and Falcon Cobra and Corsair and Tomcat and Talon But do you recall The most famous airplane of all? Warthog the ugly airplane, Had a very shiny nose, And if you ever saw it, You would even say it glows All of the other airplanes Used to laugh and call him names They never let poor Warthog Join in Any Air Force games Then one sandy Desert Storm George Bush came to say, "Warthog with your nose so bright, Won't you kill some Tanks tonight?" Then how the public loved him, As they shouted out "You're Great!" Warthog, the ugly airplane, You'll be here till '28!
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25497013 Mikhail Kalashnikov died today, at the tender age of 94.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Fearless posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25497013 He probably just needs a good cleaning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
If he's not buried in a steel case packed with cosmoline, there's no hope for humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If he's not buried in a steel case packed with cosmoline, there's no hope for humanity. He should be gold plated from head to toe, except for his, uh, furniture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 09:01
|
|
|
CMS posted:He probably just needs a good cleaning. Nonsense, he's a Kalashnikov, you could leave him in a whole full of dirt for a couple years and he'd still work fine when you pull him out...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I find it bizarre that in 2013 they're flying a supersonic strike bomber with a tail turret Autocannon on everything, tovarisch! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz#Defense_measures Also, Kh-22 or Kh-32, it's kind of academic, since the last I heard, the Russian Naval Air Arm was interested in trading in the Backfire-Ms for Su-34s packing Sunburns. There's also the PAK-DA, but that'll be a toy for the Strategic boys. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Dec 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Pima Air Museum is cool, I should have gone there earlier. There's kind of an absurd amount of cold war planes hanging out. I didn't realize that the airborne laser testbed was at the bone yard, but it makes sense. Odd seeing it being parted out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Pima Air Museum is cool, I should have gone there earlier. There's kind of an absurd amount of cold war planes hanging out. I didn't realize that the airborne laser testbed was at the bone yard, but it makes sense. Odd seeing it being parted out. It's a pretty recent build, but I read that they had to modify it so heavily for the laser job that it isn't really feasible to convert it back to the 747-400 freighter that it was based on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
According to the tour guide it's a hazmat nightmare. The engines have been reclaimed at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If he's not buried in a steel case packed with cosmoline, there's no hope for humanity. They're going to bury him in the mud and dig him up again after a month and he'll be in perfect working order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They're going to bury him in the mud and dig him up again after a month and he'll be in perfect working order. Just like this damned joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
So I've spent almost the last 4 weeks reading this thread from page 1 to this post here. I'm not military, but I had a significantly more than passing interest in it as I grew up surrounded by military (grew up with RAAF/AusArmy all around me due to the Defence Housing scheme), wanted to be a pilot but grew too tall to qualify and never ended up joining (instead, I went into IT and still ended up at Robertson Barracks for a little while), so this thread was enlightening on so many levels. Which in turn means that you may have to forgive me for asking some really loving dumb questions. Back to the reading, I spent around 2-3 hours a day (on average) reading the posts by everyone here and I noted a few things: 1) Almost every major topic (ICBMs, SLBMs, A-10s, C-5s, F-22s, F-35s etc) have a tendency to repeat themselves quite regularly. 2) Its not actually a bad thing that they repeat themselves. As an example, the first reference of the C-5 dropping an ICBM was just that. On the next cycle, it got fleshed out further. Every repetition yielded more information, which is really cool. 3) Some of you guys are flat out hilarious - the whole "USS Grand Tetons" bit made me laugh so hard - I thank you all for that. 4) A-10s, A-1s, any Helicopter (generally speaking) are drat near useless in any theatre where MANPADs exist in any number (assuming low altitude operations). 5) Cyrano4747 is straight up scary for historical knowledge. This next bit I say with all due respect, but arguing with Cyrano4747 (as more than a few posters have) reminds me of the scene in Good Will Hunting in the bar, where Will verbally bitchslaps that 1st year student by using his knowledge (from seemingly reading every book possible) to nullify said student's recital of a passage from a book. Every time someone argues with Cyrano4747, its like that scene but instead of stopping and offering to take it outside Cyrano4747 restarts and basically overwhelms them by flooding them with information. Not an insult, just an observation. 6) Grover has an irrational love for the F-35. 7) Gavin Now a query. There was a bit about the F-35B, Marines and forward basing. Basically the issue was that the F-35 cant fly and be viable from the LHDs, due to range, VTOL/STOL etc. which would result in effectively a forward base for the F-35Bs to operate from. The problem with said base is that fuel/munitions would need to be brought in (trucks, helicopters etc.) to keep these things in the air (assuming no maintenance issues). If slow moving aircraft like helicopters are susceptible to MANPADs, what's to stop some random force to periodically come in and attack the logistics tail that feeds these aircraft? Surely if there's round the clock ferrying operations to bring fuel and munitions in (because its an improvised runway which cant allow anything too large to land and offload supplies), it becomes a giant fuckoff target? Leading on from that, if low and slow equals easy targets for MANPADs, would I be correct in assuming that the logistical tail for the F-35s forward deployed as being highly vulnerable (I figure that the slant range for MANPADs is what, 4-5km? Surely an enemy team can sneak that far in if they learn approximate delivery schedules - assuming air delivery of consumables)? If they're vulnerable, wouldn't that mean the F-35Bs are vulnerable? And if the F-35B's are targeted, doesn't that then unnecessarily risk resources for CAS missions that could possibly be better fulfilled by Navy or Air Force assets? In writing this out, I kinda wonder if there's actually any value in Marines having fixed wing assets. But then, I also wonder if my "math" is correct, since I've clearly made a large number of assumptions around how things would operate. I also wonder if I'm completely off base here and are barking up the wrong tree. I'm trying to wrap my head around the need for a STOVL F-35, it doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever since the only operator would be the Marines who seemingly don't even need their own air assets. Perhaps an academic exercise, but right now its more interesting to think about than real life 
KingPave fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
If the one thing you got out of this thread is that the STOVL F-35 is completely pointless and that giving the Navy's army an air force is probably an exercise in redundancy, I'm going to go ahead and declare mission accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
If you don't want the thread to repeat itself, you shouldn't have brought up the F-35B... I'll type up an effortpost when I get back from work, but basically there are a lot of advantages to moving your airfields as close to the FLOT as possible (if you assume you won't ever be pushed back.) That part is actually fairly sane. It helps to remember that the Marines aviation needs are based on their own internal doctrine rather than a concept of joint operations, because their whole thing is that they want the MAGTF to be a self-contained fighting unit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:If the one thing you got out of this thread is that the STOVL F-35 is completely pointless and that giving the Navy's army an air force is probably an exercise in redundancy, I'm going to go ahead and declare mission accomplished. That pic has multiple levels to it, man!! Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you don't want the thread to repeat itself, you shouldn't have brought up the F-35B... Well, it's not just the Marines saying the MAGTF gets air and ground power. They've managed to get it put into joint pubs that in the JOE, they give up air defense, long range recce, and deep air strike to the JFACC as well as excess sorties, but they keep all other sorties for their own apportionment and allocation. This is a jointly recognized principle, though any JFC can tell doctrine to gently caress off. Additionally, DOD Directive 5100.01, 21 DEC 2010, directs the Marine Corps to have air power and provide CAS for its forces as well as have ground and air forces essential to amphibious ops. It does not explicitly say fixed-wing aircraft, but it's prety damned easy to argue that FW assets are essential to amphibious ops. 5100.1 goes into more detail and makes it even more clear that FW assets fall into the category of things Marines are dictated to have. Title 10 code also codifies their possession of aviation wings in law. Now, nothing says they have to have an F-35B of course, but Marineis aren't just making up the air wing part or the legal, jointly recognized directive they have to maintain and train organic air assets to support amphibious operations. I would just argue that F/A-18 E/F/Gs could have filled that role or F-35Cs if they must have F-35s. edit: MAGTF.avi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYrBSTBHCS4 Violently inserting itself to bring AID to the world... edit2: Of all the poo poo Marine aviation does, MEDEVAC is not among them. Marines are weird. How do you want a stealthy jump jet, but if you want MEDEVAC, you have to ask the Navy, Army, or Air Force? mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Isn't it time we just roll the Marines into the US Army? Call it the First Amphibious Division or something? The days of needing a special branch to board French/British/Barbary corsairs has long since passed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
priznat posted:That pic has multiple levels to it, man!! Amazing. Sadly it is a photoshop, although an F-18 has been refueled from an Osprey.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Of all the poo poo Marine aviation does, MEDEVAC is not among them. Marines are weird. How do you want a stealthy jump jet, but if you want MEDEVAC, you have to ask the Navy, Army, or Air Force? It's in the name Marine Corps, as in Corps of the Navy. The Navy has always provided the Marines' medical personnel, however this idea that Marine Air doesn't do dust-off work must be a new one, when I served, nearly all of the helos I ever saw doing evac had "United States Marine Corps" on the tail boom, the ones that didn't had "US Navy".
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Marines do plenty of casevac, just not Medevac.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Isn't it time we just roll the Marines into the US Army? Call it the First Amphibious Division or something? The days of needing a special branch to board French/British/Barbary corsairs has long since passed. Don't forget the
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Not trying to defend the F-35 per se, but forward basing aircraft, even jet aircraft, is hardly a new concept, and if you're close enough to threaten the logistics train with MANPADS you're close enough to just mortar the poo poo out of the base, F-35s, ground support etc (in)directly and do way more damage for less cost/effort. Your forward base doesn't literally have to be that close to the front lines. Also any near-peer is going to have far longer-legged air-air and air-ground assets than MANPADS or mortars. E: Since we're trying to sell the F-35 around the world, neither the conflict nor the near-peer have to be against the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
I don't think anyone outside the US Marines adheres (at least on paper) to the land forward basing concept though. Of course the RAF tried to make it work in Germany with Harrier, but hey, it was the Cold War, so why not do something silly now and again. The number of 35B operators is going to be a relatively very small amount anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Not trying to defend the F-35 per se, but forward basing aircraft, even jet aircraft, is hardly a new concept, and if you're close enough to threaten the logistics train with MANPADS you're close enough to just mortar the poo poo out of the base, F-35s, ground support etc (in)directly and do way more damage for less cost/effort. Your forward base doesn't literally have to be that close to the front lines. Also any near-peer is going to have far longer-legged air-air and air-ground assets than MANPADS or mortars. Yeah, well. Personally I think it's a niche aircraft with a premium pricetag. Every argument against every bloated acquisitions program of the past 30 years can fairly be leveled at the F-35B, but  dragonslayers with mandarin collars
Godholio fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yeah, well. And that was at a full blown air base with a runway capable of operating 747s (granted, there was a lot of stupidity surrounding that whole attack...which is why two generals got Honestly the discussion about a FARP type scenario regarding V/STOL fighters is missing the only real justification for the USMC to have them, which is to operate fighters off the gator freighters. The idea of operating a $200M stealth fighter from some dusty airpatch within range of any rear end in a top hat with a couple of RPGs (much less mortars or rockets) is so ludicrous only the USMC could honestly think it is a good idea. In any case, the only way you are going to be able to sustain operations from a forward/dispersed airfield (say, in a SCS scenario where we're shifting fixed wing assets around to various strips to avoid having them get pinned down) is if the runway is at least capable of handling a C-17. Anything that can handle a C-17 can handle a standard CTOL fighter. For an alternate way to do dispersed operations, look at what the 3d Wing up at Elmo has come up with regarding a 4 ship of Raptors and a C-17. That idea has its own challenges, but it's a hell of a lot more realistic than any scenario that involves operating a $200M stealth fighter from a parking lot. Of course whether or not you think the Marines need stealthy supersonic V/STOL fighters to operate from the amphibs hinges on whether or not you think the US would deploy the couple thousand Marines and multiple naval vessels that comprise a MEU/ESG into a scenario where they are at risk from a high end threat without also deploying a CSG to ride shotgun. So really all this comes down to is that the Marines need new toys to fight lava monsters with. e: Forward basing aircraft with a CAS mission to be as close to the FLOT as possible absolutely makes sense, but you a) realistically don't need V/STOL to do it and b) probably shouldn't be doing it with a $200M stealth fighter. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
You'll change your tune when the US gets invaded by lava monsters and our only hope is marine aviators flying out of dirt airstrips 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:You'll change your tune when the US gets invaded by lava monsters and our only hope is marine aviators flying out of dirt airstrips Or when all those Dragons they fought in the old commercials decide they want payback.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
If you want to forward base CAS as close to the frontlines as possible why not just use helicopters?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Because manpads and HMG. E: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:38 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:If you want to forward base CAS as close to the frontlines as possible why not just use helicopters? Helos can't do everything...they lack persistence, speed, and payload when compared to most fixed wing CAS platforms, in addition to survivability issues. They compliment each other, it shouldn't really be looked at as an either/or issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 01:49
|
|