Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
The F-15 OverGs at 9. They can pull up to about 8.8 without an official OverG being recorded. I've watched one come back after pulling over 8, refuel, and launch again after two hours with a different pilot in it. If it had recorded an OverG, they would have grounded it and not launched it again until after the inspection was completed.




posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
this is pathetic, now you put that imaginary 8.8gs only to be close to the 9gs
, the f15 original limit was 7gs with 80% or less of the internal fuel, just accept that


anyway if you want to discuss that, there is the aviation forum


the main and original goal of the f15 was to reduce the corner velocity, not to increase the g limit

btw right now all the f15Cs are limited to 7gs due with the aged airframes

[edit on 7-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Oh, sorry, I forgot that the pilots I know all lie.
And last time I checked 8.8 was pretty close to 9.

sorry massa. i forgot that i'm only an imbecile that has to have someone edumocate me in the reality of the military world.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   


sorry massa. i forgot that i'm only an imbecile that has to have someone edumocate me in the reality of the military world


cry, baby, cry



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
this is pathetic, now you put that imaginary 8.8gs only to be close to the 9gs
, the f15 original limit was 7gs with 80% or less of the internal fuel, just accept that


Yawn try again, this is from the USAF Flight Surgeons Guide Chapter 4
EFFECTS OF ACCELERATION

Please note the use of the 7 to 9+ and sustained in the highlighted areas.



Aeromedical concern about the effects of acceleration has a long history. Concern was first stimulated during World War I when pilots complained of a loss of vision and consciousness during pullouts from dives in aerial combat. Interest in this area has continued until the present day, where the effects of sustained acceleration have become a major limiting factor in the operation of the newer generation fighter aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-18). Because of their high thrust-to-weight ratios and structural strength these aircraft are able to routinely fly in the 7 to 9 +Gz range for sustained periods. Future aircraft designs such as the advanced tactical fighter (ATF) will make it possible to fly in the 10 to 12 +Gz range if the human limitations to such operations can be overcome.
wwwsam.brooks.af.mil...



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   
yes,

f15a 7gs, f18 7.5gs, f15c 9gs, and f16 9gs... soo????


ahh this topic just turned very absurd, antway im out, forgrt about me, i just dont reach the disscusion level that i wanted....

[edit on 7-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Dash speeds of more than Mach 2.5 are permitted, as are indicated airspeeds of 936 mph (1506 km/h), and load factors of +9g and -3g.

Funny, it doesn't say F-15A 7Gs, C +9Gs.

g-Limits +9 / -3

Neither does this one. There is NOTHING ANYWHERE supporting your statement that the A could only pull 7Gs. Oh wait, I forgot you don't have to provide evidence, because you talked to engineers and they told you so it MUST be true.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Poorly trained Iraqis


Don't make me laugh, the Iraqis were trained in Soviet tactics.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by NWguy83]


M6D

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
.....or as we say, rushing and over powering the target hmm?!
ah..good old days of..soviet 'supremacy'



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
The M1 Abrams is an incredible tank, as its records shows. After the "lessons learned" "TUSK" upgrade is implemented, the M1 will easily be the best tank on the planet.




M6D

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I think thats rather sweeping of you to make such a statement as it well easily be the best on the planet, a bit of add on armour doesnt make it a almighty god, just a bit less vulnerable, the armour still dosent protect the side of the turret, and slat armour doesnt protect 100 percent, i mean, it is a great improvement, but its a add on kit, it isnt the baseline tank.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by M6D]



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
I think thats rather sweeping of you to make such a statement as it well easily be the best on the planet, a bit of add on armour doesnt make it a almighty god, just a bit less vulnerable, the armour still dosent protect the side of the turret, and slat armour doesnt protect 100 percent, i mean, it is a great improvement, but its a add on kit, it isnt the baseline tank.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by M6D]


As I posted to one of your replies on another thread, let’s compare actual combat records.

In desert storm the M1 had LESS THAN a 1% loss record, and not one single crew member was killed. And that’s out of 1900 tanks. Find me one other tank in the history of mankind that can post such a record. You can’t, because there aren’t any others. Not one.

Now in Iraq, about 70 Abrams have been destroyed or disabled and some crew has been killed. But that’s still LESS THAN a 4% loss rate, and again, that’s fighting a style of combat it wasn’t designed to fight. AGAIN: No other tank in the history of mankind can post such an impressive record. NONE!!

You guys can SPECULATE all you want, but the actual real life data of the M1 in combat action cannot be refuted. Until one of your precious tanks actually starts to fight in the scale that the M1 is fighting (or fight at all), you really need to keep quiet, because all you are doing is guessing.

The all time, undisputable king of tanks: M1 Abrams



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
yo gooseuk wat do u think of the Merkava thats design to fight both conventional and unconventional warfare where it had fought in cities? i think maybe the U.S. should be thinking making a new tank which combines both to fight conventional and urban warfare.


Israelis Merkavas fight against the people with rocks.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Israelis Merkavas fight against the people with rocks.


actually it was the people who chose to fight the Merkava with rocks.
if they use rocket propelled grenades then it be the people chose to fight Merkavas with rpgs. remember the reason for the tank is to protection from dangerous objects. im sure u agree if u had the option between a golf cart and a tank.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
the LECLERC seems to incredibly advanced



image from army-technology.com


M6D

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
yes yes...but you know, its only 4 percent because you have so many damn tanks in theatre, percentages arent the best thing to measure with, because each force has diffrent amounts of tanks in theatre, for example, if britain was to just just 3 tanks, it would look a lot worse, because we have less tanks, and if you did it your way, that loss would be measured in percentages or statistics, so perhaps it is a less biased idea to keep it down to numbers.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2

4)"depleted uranium is the best".....yeah sure, until the tank must operate in a nuclear enviorement, with the neutronic radiation, the U238 turn in....................................PU239!!!!!!!!!!



[edit on 6-7-2005 by asala]

It takes 4.5 million years for one half-life of Uranium 239 to occur, pretty fast eh?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
64.26.50.215...

heres video of quicktime of the Abrams.



this fire control system is advance but in the video inside the turret of the m1a2 the video screen is on top of each other instead of next to each other. the one thats on top of each other similar to the DS Nintendo is the most recent and advance of the Abrams version. cool vid.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Fighter Master FIN, I would have expected better from you, but hey, we all learn something everyday, don't we?



Well... i guess i have to defend myself... what i meant by... that the Abrams is overrated is that it loses against talibans in iraq... The tank is maybe the strongest in "one vs. one" bu the talibans win it... how can that be if the tank is unwinsible... And, i never said that a russian tankm is better thatn the Abrams so you jumped into fast conclusions there... I just said that I think that it's a bit to overrated...

And BTW... when you said... ""I wouldn't ahve believed it from you"... When ahve you ever commented on my posts or threads before... so how can you "know me"

PICS OF ABRAMS DESTROYED BY TALIBANS...





posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
PICS OF ABRAMS DESTROYED BY TALIBANS...




actually that Abrams in the first pic we had to blow it up to prevent it from falling enemy hands as u can see that hole in the turret, no doubt from a sabot round. the tank was damage and could not continue to move and it was in one of the thundering runs into Baghdad so there were no recovery vehicles with them so they decided to destroy it.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by deltaboy]






top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join