It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"The mighty M1", a stupid media product ....

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
hmm i didnt see that, there is another

www.fprado.com...


the sites source is my site




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I think the both of you (CW and el-grunto) need to put the cap back on the bottle of glue you are huffing :shk:

Given the combat record of the M1 and its varients, I suspect that this thread is simply a sad attempt to generate a few points.






posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   


I think the both of you (CW and el-grunto) need to put the cap back on the bottle of glue you are huffing Given the combat record of the M1 and its varients, I suspect that this thread is simply a sad attempt to generate a few points.


ahh, its a objetive discussion, only that, where is the problem, the M1s "combat record" is artificial



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I think the both of you (CW and el-grunto) need to put the cap back on the bottle of glue you are huffing :shk:

Given the combat record of the M1 and its varients, I suspect that this thread is simply a sad attempt to generate a few points.


WTF are you on bout. i never said that russian tanks are better than american ones. all i asked is if anyone knew how much tanks the russians lost in chechnya and afganistan. because everyone is asking for something to compare to the abrams

thats sad FredT. your insecure. when you see me post something it always has to be anti-america and affect your ego


[edit on 6-7-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   


all i asked is if anyone knew how much tanks the russians lost in chechnya and afganistan


i dont know, but must been looooots,mountain , mines, and city ambushes arent very good for the tanks, supossely in the 2nd chechenian war the russians learned the lesson and use them in a more smart way



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2


all i asked is if anyone knew how much tanks the russians lost in chechnya and afganistan


i dont know, but must been looooots,mountain , mines, and city ambushes arent very good for the tanks, supossely in the 2nd chechenian war the russians learned the lesson and use them in a more smart way


there is practicly nothing left in the cities after the russians left


M6D

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I think we should perhaps round up our summings here to give us a better idea of whats going on, so far, grunts been proved wrong on the following things:

M1 abrams arent atomic bombs
M1 abrams ammunition storage, in numuro cases has protected the crew from ammunition explosion by venting the blast upwards, away from crew and saving the tank.
the T-72 does not have a 120mm, it has a 125mm

And the picture you used.....3 artillary shells were stacked undeneath that tank and blew up, the force flipped the damn tank, id love to see you take any tank and believe it would survive that.
good luck with that one, really, your gonna need it



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
no actually M1s with high neutronic radiation CAN be atomic bombs,i said MAYBE, thats the fact, but is more probable that at a nuclear enviorement they can turn in radiation sources.



M1 abrams ammunition storage, in numuro cases has protected the crew from ammunition explosion by venting the blast upwards, away from crew and saving the tank


no that isnt right, the case that i said was a bradley shooting the tank, after it was stoped by an impact of a mine, the brad just shot the turret-are security practices- and it gone in flames, the crew were in a secure place (out of the tank), the storage ammo is very vulnerable
"
", grunts been proved wrong on the following things"

ahhh that is what you want to believe


the turret in the pic was rocketed by the storage ammo


again the M1 is good, but not like some would love to believe


[edit on 7-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
First Chechen war (1994-1996): Losses (both army and other federal agencies) -- 4513 killed, 338 died of wounds, 191 died in accidents and from disease, 486 missing, 24 captured, 16098 wounded, concussed, hurt in accidents, etc, and 51387 sick. Strength -- on 30 Dec 1994 37972 men, 230 tanks, 454 APC and IFV, 388 guns and mortars. On 1 Feb 1995 -- 70509 men, 322 tanks, 1203 APC, 901 IFV, 627 guns and mortars.


Soviet equipment losses included 118 jets, 333 helicopters, 147 tanks, 1314 armored personnel carriers, 433 artillery pieces or mortars, 1138 communications or CP vehicles, 510 engineering vehicles and 11,369 trucks. Many of these losses were on the highways, and a key loss was the large amount of cargo-carrying trucks. The Soviets were still able to field large formations for operations in the Pandshir valley and other locales, and were still able to launch local offensives with overwhelming local superiority, but it required extraordinary efforts to do so.


M6D

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Thats incorrect, look at numerious sources, you have one source outspoken by dozens that have stated how the blow out hatches have saved the crew, fritz, a tanker here, if hes worked on a abrams (i wouldnt know) would be able to tell you the same, in fact, anyone would.

and here, www.globalsecurity.org... a official source stating blow out pannels, and what theyre intended to do, please show me yours, in this whole thread you repeatedly lack use of evidence for your claims.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by M6D]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
look im not a web page fan like you, first to discuss a tank deseign dont bring me a tanker, coaz all the tankers love their tanks...

do you know what is the tank part with more impact probability, do you know????....


any engiener that knows something about explosives and ballistica wont believe in that security crap, they just needed more space for the living conditions, so they moved the ammos out of the tank in a veeery vunlerable place, you wont design for security something that has more probability to explode


M6D

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
You are just avoiding the evidence now, and bending it to suit your own argument because you cannot win! that website clearly says that hte blow out pannels vent the blast away from the crew, therefore saving them! very unlike what putting ammo right underneath them would do! one penetration to there! boom! youve killed the whole crew! and you stil fail to use sources! evidence backs up everything, dont give me that engineer stuff, stop finding ways out.

'do you know what is the tank part with more impact probability, do you know????....'

and how is this relevant anyhow? its going to be the front glacis and turret armour by any rate.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by M6D]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   
in which web page you will find that the M1 U238 can turn in Pu239???
almost all M1 pages says that the armour is 950, but dont compare same year tanks..

more examples in the aviation topics

no pages say that the f15a had only 7gs limit
no pages say that the eagle actually is a 3th generation plane
no pages says that the mig25 g limit is 5g....... at supersonic speed
no pages say that the f14 radar has a very low angle search capacity
no pages says that the f22 dont have a truly stealth design, etc...

if you dont know anything about mechanic, electrodynamics, aerodynamics, etc...so how can you have a objetive opinion?????

but if you discuss with engieners, you will find a diferent opinion than in the popular stuff, because that pop-science sells and sells good...

so please like the phrase say, deny ignorance....

[edit on 7-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
btw, did you know that the lateral body armour is higher than the lateral turret armour -by the transmission systems-????, and also have the lower probalility impact on all the tank??? (well not against the mines
)

[edit on 7-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
in which web page you will find that the M1 U238 can turn in Pu239???
almost all M1 pages says that the armour is 950, but dont compare same year tanks..

more examples in the aviation topics

no pages say that the f15a had only 7gs limit
no pages say that the eagle actually is a 3th generation plane
no pages says that the mig25 g limit is 5g....... at supersonic speed
no pages say that the f14 radar has a very low angle search capacity
no pages says that the f22 dont have a truly stealth design, etc...

if you dont know anything about mechanic, electrodynamics, aerodynamics, etc...so how can you have a objetive opinion?????

but if you discuss with engieners, you will find a diferent opinion than in the popular stuff, because that pop-science sells and sells good...

so please like the phrase say, deny ignorance....

[edit on 7-7-2005 by grunt2]


So I suppose the F-15 pilots I used to know that pulled 9gs were lying too.
And the 8 F-22 pilots flying F-15s recently that got "shot down" in an exercise, by 2 F-22s and didn't even SEE them until they flew right over their heads after shooting them down are lying too?

Of course they are.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
the 9gs F15 is the f15CCCCCCCCC, but the half early production planes are 7gs AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
, but im sure that you didnt know that...

do you want to discuss about the raptor design??? i invite you in the aviation forum...lets go


[edit on 7-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Well, here's the problem with your statement. The F-15s out here ARE A models. I know one pilot that pulled 8.5Gs to drop in behind a B-1 during an exercise. And another one that pulled almost 9 trying to get away from and F/A-18 during ACM with the Marines.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
and now there is the problem for you.... did you know which plane was the first designed for 9gs manoevres????? THE F16!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, but over gs can be done, the mig25 can pull until 11gs

anyway i think that its a bit off topic, we can discuss that in the aviation forum, if you want


[edit on 7-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
The F-16 was the first that could do SUSTAINED 9G manuvers. It wasn't the first that could PULL 9Gs. I've heard of F-4s pulling 9 for gods sake. It required a three day airframe inspection because it created an OverG condition, but it could do it under extreme conditions. The F-16 was the first that could do 9 and NOT create an OverG, because it was light weight. Everything else until it required an airframe inspection after any 9G manuvers.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
yeahhh, thats the point!!!!



new topics




 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join