Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
So they're looking at something like 5-6 tankers per carrier?  Which would come, one would expect, on top of 48 or so combat planes (not counting the Growlers) ?

No problem at all as the 10 S-3 Vikings and 10 Intruders are long gone with no replacement.
So they're looking at something like 5-6 tankers per carrier?  Which would come, one would expect, on top of 48 or so combat planes (not counting the Growlers) ?
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Net for fighter
« Last post by airman on Today at 06:48:20 am »
Aerospace / Re: Northrop B-2A
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 06:46:17 am »
29 years ago today. Magnificent airplane but where's my hypersonic strike bomber?
Army Projects / Re: M-1 Replacement
« Last post by Foo Fighter on Today at 05:11:08 am »
Attacking an armoured vehicle from above has been known since at least ww2.  There was at least one weapon that utilised copper slugs from mini muitions that had detectors for large armoured vehicles and fired the slug through the top armour.  I cannot find my research on it and it may have been lost when my external hard drive went beep and died.  These threats were known, that later weapons utilising the same tactic were not is immaterial.  Attack from the air has also been known and has been an accepted part of the trilogy of armour, where do you see the 'greatest' threat coming from and where do you put the greatest protection in the form of thicker armour?

Blaming people involved for not being better prepared from historical knowledge/experience for the process itself which always follows the delays and extra cost cycle.  Usually multiple times in each project.  I think they can not only be held accountable but there are times when tacit involvement in these delays is highly likely considering what comes out later, here and other sites/sources.  many times it is called mitigating losses in one project by increasing costs in another.

"For example, with hindsight today, we know that both the Warsaw Pact and NATO were inherently defensive alliances, with the Warsaw Pact's large tank armies being misinterpreted by NATO planners as a Nazi-esque prelude to aggressive imperialism. On the contrary, the Soviet Union was perfectly patient enough to wait for the internal contradictions of capitalism to cause its inevitable collapse, followed by rioting in the streets al a the October Revolution, and then the Red Army is welcomed as liberators and heroes of the proletariat with nary a shot fired". 

Soviet soldiers were under the impression they were allies with the NAZI soldiers and had already cooperated with the seizure of Poland. 

Militarily the Warsaw pact tactical doctrine could be taken as an extension of Blitzkreig, using massed armour, artillery and aviation assets to smash through weaker parts of the NATO lines and bypassing resistance centres.  They would give reserve and extra assets to thos points that achieved success in the shortest time.  The goal as we knew it was to reasure the French that they would left alone if they stayed out of the conflict.  The goal being the French border.  Read the Third World War by General, Sir John Hackett and others, this showcases the Warsaw Pact tactics.  So, far from being a defensive pact, their doctrine was one of defence by strong offence and intimidation.

"in 1991, the Soviets anticipated a return of Hitlerism and imperialism on par with the 19th century European empires of France and Britain: the Western Allies were no doubt preparing to invade, exterminate, and colonize Soviet territory".

And your point is?  The Russians of whatever flavour you/we brand them with have a lot of in their terms, recent history of attacks from the west.  This paranoia is demonstrated by the weapons they deploy on their western and eastern and eastern borders.  The T-44 serving on the eastern front for a considerable time and they share modern technology with the PRC despite the big threat to the PRC being their lack of what the NAZI's called "Living space" and a chronic and long term shortage of resources of which there are a lot of in Siberia/eastern Russia.  Logically speaking they have more to lose from an attack from the east.  Where are the best fo the current regime formations oriented?  Why were they so sensitive to EU membership by the Ukraine?
Nice find my dear Mark.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10