Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659548 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-14 20:09 -0800 |
| Last post | 2025-01-19 00:55 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 197 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-14 20:09 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-12-15 10:14 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2024-12-15 03:06 -0800
Re: ww2 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-12-16 06:50 +0100
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-16 21:24 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-18 13:42 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-20 09:34 -0800
Re: ww3 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 17:16 -0600
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-20 09:48 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-20 10:08 -0800
Re: ww3 % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 11:32 -0700
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-24 00:38 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-27 11:08 -0800
Re: ww3 Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-30 00:14 -0700
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 04:58 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-01 04:56 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 07:21 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-02 06:43 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 22:52 -0500
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-01 15:05 +0000
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 07:21 -0500
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-03 09:12 +0000
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-04 07:38 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-03 23:40 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-05 09:05 +0100
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 14:38 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-05 12:26 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-07 06:45 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-07 00:05 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-08 08:33 +0100
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 15:09 -0500
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-09 07:55 +0100
Re: ww3 Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-09 08:02 +0100
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-09 10:01 +0000
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 01:20 -0500
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 19:05 -0500
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-14 08:35 +0000
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 08:57 -0500
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-15 10:57 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-15 21:35 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-16 17:17 -0800
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-15 16:28 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-10 08:15 +0100
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-14 08:53 +0000
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-16 08:56 +0100
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-16 08:25 +0000
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-18 08:27 +0100
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-19 10:35 +0000
Re: ww3 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 15:29 -0600
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-20 08:38 +0100
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-20 09:58 +0000
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-16 08:56 +0000
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-18 08:33 +0100
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-18 15:58 +0000
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-19 07:40 +0100
Re: ww3 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 15:35 -0600
Re: ww3 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-20 14:26 +0100
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-21 07:46 +0100
Re: ww3 Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-22 09:19 +0100
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-23 11:54 +0100
Re: ww3 Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-23 14:12 +0100
Re: ww3 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-23 22:15 +0100
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-23 14:15 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-24 09:01 +0100
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-24 10:35 -0800
Re: ww3 Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-24 20:49 +0100
Re: ww3 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-25 10:29 +0100
Re: ww3 Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-25 14:01 +0000
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-25 12:14 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-08 23:08 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 01:19 -0500
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-10 08:32 +0100
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 19:08 -0500
Re: ww3 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-09 22:51 -0600
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-10 08:25 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-09 23:40 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-11 09:29 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-11 11:26 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 14:32 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 19:25 -0500
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 19:21 -0500
Re: ww3 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 16:16 -0600
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 19:18 -0500
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 22:22 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-07 20:12 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 15:11 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-08 12:14 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 14:00 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-05 11:50 -0800
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-05 11:51 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 22:25 -0500
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-07 06:22 +0100
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 22:31 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-07 20:33 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-08 09:13 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-08 01:07 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 15:19 -0500
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-11 09:39 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-11 11:39 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 19:33 -0500
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 19:31 -0500
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 15:21 -0500
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-11 09:46 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-11 11:47 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 19:37 -0500
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 14:02 -0500
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-07 06:28 +0100
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 22:34 -0500
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-08 09:00 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-08 01:09 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-09 07:44 +0100
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 15:23 -0500
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-08 16:01 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-11 09:49 +0100
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 19:39 -0500
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-03 08:49 +0100
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 14:39 -0500
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-07 06:46 +0100
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-06 23:59 -0800
Re: ww3 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-08 08:30 +0100
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 15:23 -0500
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-08 16:04 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 16:07 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 01:17 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 01:18 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 01:20 -0800
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-11 11:54 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 18:41 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-11 20:32 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 21:00 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-16 17:52 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 17:23 -0800
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-19 19:55 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 22:39 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 22:45 -0800
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-19 23:02 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-20 00:03 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-20 00:08 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-22 21:11 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-22 23:13 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-22 23:41 -0800
Re: ww3 Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-01-20 07:04 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-20 22:51 -0500
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-21 13:33 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-22 21:05 -0500
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-22 20:56 -0800
Re: ww3 Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-01-19 20:49 -0800
Re: ww3 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-09 22:41 -0600
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-10 01:25 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-09 22:46 -0800
Re: ww3 Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-18 23:18 -0700
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 18:40 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-19 19:44 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-20 22:56 -0500
Re: ww3 Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-01-07 11:23 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 22:35 -0500
Re: ww3 Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-12 23:42 -0700
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-12 23:06 -0800
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-13 10:46 +0000
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 15:11 -0500
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-14 02:23 +0000
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 09:09 -0500
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-14 03:15 +0000
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-13 21:27 -0800
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-14 08:26 +0000
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 09:25 -0500
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-15 15:32 +0000
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 16:57 -0500
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-19 02:21 +0000
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-18 19:37 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 18:40 -0500
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-15 09:24 -0500
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-15 16:36 +0000
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-15 19:08 -0800
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-16 05:21 +0000
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-15 21:44 -0800
Re: ww3 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-17 02:28 -0600
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 17:40 -0500
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 17:36 -0500
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 14:50 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-19 00:49 -0800
Re: ww3 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 17:11 -0800
Re: ww3 Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-18 23:12 -0700
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-13 15:00 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-13 12:53 -0800
Re: ww3 Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-18 23:10 -0700
Re: ww3 Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-18 23:15 -0700
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 18:45 -0500
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-19 19:47 -0800
Re: ww3 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2025-01-20 22:58 -0500
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-21 05:48 +0000
Re: ww3 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-21 14:35 -0600
Re: ww3 bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-12-22 05:39 +0000
Re: ww3 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 02:50 -0600
Re: ww3 patdolan@comcast.net (patdolan) - 2025-01-19 03:01 +0000
Re: ww3 Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2025-01-18 19:37 -0800
Re: ww3 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-19 00:55 -0800
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-22 23:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vmsrri$1gukq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660724 |
On 1/22/2025 11:13 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > Think of a little small caliber weapons system on a drone. It was > parametric in nature. Say a octagon. Each face has a little metal storm > battery holding, say 22 caliber rounds. This drone would be able to fire > on 8 different targets at once if it could align its 8 faces on them. > The drone would always like to shoot at 8 targets at once, but if can > only align its faces on say, three of them, it will fire on them only. > Reserve ammo for the other faces. The drone might see something "behind > it" and can engage it without have to rotate much if at all. There is no > front. It's all around? I wonder if that is too crazy? What do you all > think? > > The drone would have say pi2/8 different faces to shoot from. So chances > are it might not even have to rotate that much if at all to engage a > target. Oh, shit: https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/missile-defense-news/exclusive-china-unveils-metal-storm-mobile-electromagnetic-gun-system-as-defense-solution-against-aerial-threats/#:~:text=According%20to%20information%20published%20in,Tank%20Guided%20Missiles%20(ATGMs).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-20 07:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <n9526l-gra51.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #660599 |
In sci.physics Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/19/2025 10:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 1/19/2025 7:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The damn tank can also be hit with drones and/or surface to surface >>>>>>> missile barrages. Each tank should have a couple of surface to air >>>>>>> missiles on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and who would supply >>>>>> drones and/or surface to surface missile barrages? >>>>> >>>>> I think it just might be "beneficial" if a tank was also a mobile >>>>> SAM site wrt short/medium range anti air weapons. Although, I think >>>>> tanks are just big slow targets anyway... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I can see it now, a tank with anit-air weapons, akin to a tank/sam >>>> hybrid. A group of state-of-the-art HARM missiles got interested... ;^) >>> >>> Ukrainian Bradleys have gotten tank kills which should be impossible. >>> They carry a couple of missiles. If they see the tank first, they fire >>> their guns. Those cannot damage the tank interior. But they blast away >>> all the periscope and cameras so that the tank crew is left blind. >>> Then the Bradleys can aim their missiles that can pierce the tank >>> armor and kill the crew. >>> >> >> If the tank acts like a SAM site, it might be vulnerable to HARM wrt >> fighter jets in the sky hunting for SAM sites. Unmanned drones on cap >> loaded for bear wrt HARM missiles, just looking for SAM sites. If that >> happens to be a tank, so be it. Then clever state of the art land mines >> would also help destroy tanks. > > I just thought of something for fun. lol. It's a crazy idea, but kind of > fun? Think of a cylinder packed with several (perhaps 10?) fully armed > drones (anti-tank bomblets, self destruct bombs, ect...) being planted > underground... A tank rolls by and triggers the device. Around a minute > later the top pops off, and the drones start flying out of the > underground cylinder targeted on that tank and/or any other local > threats. They are active and going to try to cause damage. > > Is that a stupid idea? ;^) M131 MOPMS mine system from about 45 years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-20 22:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0d6uojdmiqvf29c67j6cb9eade44vdul57@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #660599 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:45:34 -0800, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/19/2025 10:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 1/19/2025 7:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The damn tank can also be hit with drones and/or surface to surface >>>>>>> missile barrages. Each tank should have a couple of surface to air >>>>>>> missiles on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and who would supply >>>>>> drones and/or surface to surface missile barrages? >>>>> >>>>> I think it just might be "beneficial" if a tank was also a mobile >>>>> SAM site wrt short/medium range anti air weapons. Although, I think >>>>> tanks are just big slow targets anyway... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I can see it now, a tank with anit-air weapons, akin to a tank/sam >>>> hybrid. A group of state-of-the-art HARM missiles got interested... ;^) >>> >>> Ukrainian Bradleys have gotten tank kills which should be impossible. >>> They carry a couple of missiles. If they see the tank first, they fire >>> their guns. Those cannot damage the tank interior. But they blast away >>> all the periscope and cameras so that the tank crew is left blind. >>> Then the Bradleys can aim their missiles that can pierce the tank >>> armor and kill the crew. >>> >> >> If the tank acts like a SAM site, it might be vulnerable to HARM wrt >> fighter jets in the sky hunting for SAM sites. Unmanned drones on cap >> loaded for bear wrt HARM missiles, just looking for SAM sites. If that >> happens to be a tank, so be it. Then clever state of the art land mines >> would also help destroy tanks. > >I just thought of something for fun. lol. It's a crazy idea, but kind of >fun? Think of a cylinder packed with several (perhaps 10?) fully armed >drones (anti-tank bomblets, self destruct bombs, ect...) being planted >underground... A tank rolls by and triggers the device. Around a minute >later the top pops off, and the drones start flying out of the >underground cylinder targeted on that tank and/or any other local >threats. They are active and going to try to cause damage. > >Is that a stupid idea? ;^) A good idea, effectively, but sounds expensive. Drones aren't cheap enough to pack in dozens like eggs. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-21 13:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vmp3qr$csti$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660629 |
On 1/20/2025 7:51 PM, Governor Swill wrote: > On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:45:34 -0800, "Chris M. Thomasson" > <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1/19/2025 10:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 1/19/2025 7:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote: >>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The damn tank can also be hit with drones and/or surface to surface >>>>>>>> missile barrages. Each tank should have a couple of surface to air >>>>>>>> missiles on it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and who would supply >>>>>>> drones and/or surface to surface missile barrages? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it just might be "beneficial" if a tank was also a mobile >>>>>> SAM site wrt short/medium range anti air weapons. Although, I think >>>>>> tanks are just big slow targets anyway... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can see it now, a tank with anit-air weapons, akin to a tank/sam >>>>> hybrid. A group of state-of-the-art HARM missiles got interested... ;^) >>>> >>>> Ukrainian Bradleys have gotten tank kills which should be impossible. >>>> They carry a couple of missiles. If they see the tank first, they fire >>>> their guns. Those cannot damage the tank interior. But they blast away >>>> all the periscope and cameras so that the tank crew is left blind. >>>> Then the Bradleys can aim their missiles that can pierce the tank >>>> armor and kill the crew. >>>> >>> >>> If the tank acts like a SAM site, it might be vulnerable to HARM wrt >>> fighter jets in the sky hunting for SAM sites. Unmanned drones on cap >>> loaded for bear wrt HARM missiles, just looking for SAM sites. If that >>> happens to be a tank, so be it. Then clever state of the art land mines >>> would also help destroy tanks. >> >> I just thought of something for fun. lol. It's a crazy idea, but kind of >> fun? Think of a cylinder packed with several (perhaps 10?) fully armed >> drones (anti-tank bomblets, self destruct bombs, ect...) being planted >> underground... A tank rolls by and triggers the device. Around a minute >> later the top pops off, and the drones start flying out of the >> underground cylinder targeted on that tank and/or any other local >> threats. They are active and going to try to cause damage. >> >> Is that a stupid idea? ;^) > > A good idea, effectively, but sounds expensive. Drones aren't cheap enough to > pack in dozens like eggs. :) > I wonder if my idea might be good enough to actually test it, be it in a real time simulation first then a live test if things go well for said simulation, so to speak. A superpower might have the $$$ to give it a go... Fair enough? :^) If they spent actual $$$ on it, then, it might be a fairly decent idea?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-22 21:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7t83pj1uuteiaaln5o4n0o9on26hfa5cpm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #660666 |
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:33:14 -0800, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A good idea, effectively, but sounds expensive. Drones aren't cheap enough to >> pack in dozens like eggs. :) >> > >I wonder if my idea might be good enough to actually test it, be it in a >real time simulation first then a live test if things go well for said >simulation, so to speak. A superpower might have the $$$ to give it a >go... Fair enough? :^) > >If they spent actual $$$ on it, then, it might be a fairly decent idea? The Pentagon has spent money on all kinds of um, ideas, so why not? If the Navy can blow tens of billions developing a ship class it decided not to build ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-22 20:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vmsi5u$1fl8t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660719 |
On 1/22/2025 6:05 PM, Governor Swill wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 13:33:14 -0800, "Chris M. Thomasson" > <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> A good idea, effectively, but sounds expensive. Drones aren't cheap enough to >>> pack in dozens like eggs. :) >>> >> >> I wonder if my idea might be good enough to actually test it, be it in a >> real time simulation first then a live test if things go well for said >> simulation, so to speak. A superpower might have the $$$ to give it a >> go... Fair enough? :^) >> >> If they spent actual $$$ on it, then, it might be a fairly decent idea? > > The Pentagon has spent money on all kinds of um, ideas, so why not? If the Navy > can blow tens of billions developing a ship class it decided not to build ... > For some reason, your comment made me think of the following song: https://youtu.be/1RTp1nmA4Xw ;^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 20:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q6116l-j2v31.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #660590 |
In sci.physics Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/16/2025 5:52 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 1/11/2025 8:32 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1/11/2025 11:54 AM, Siri Cruise wrote: >>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> I can be as easy as a highly dedicated person in a hole in the ground >>>>>> waiting for tanks to pass by. It's been there for a couple of days.... >>>>>> All of a sudden a rumble... An enemy tank is near by. The person gets >>>>>> a notification on his device... He pops out of the hole and targets >>>>>> the tank with a wire guided anti tank missile and also holds a laser >>>>>> pointer on the tank for anti tank surface to surface missiles to home >>>>>> in on? Not to mention the anti tank mine fields galore. >>>>> >>>>> Everybody but Russia knows you send infantry alongside tanks to deal >>>>> with enemy infantry with anti-tank weapons. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The damn tank can also be hit with drones and/or surface to surface >>>> missile barrages. Each tank should have a couple of surface to air >>>> missiles on it. >>> >>> >>> and who would supply >>> drones and/or surface to surface missile barrages? >> >> I think it just might be "beneficial" if a tank was also a mobile SAM >> site wrt short/medium range anti air weapons. Although, I think tanks >> are just big slow targets anyway... >> > > I can see it now, a tank with anit-air weapons, akin to a tank/sam > hybrid. A group of state-of-the-art HARM missiles got interested... ;^) Armored vehicles that have anti-air and anti-tank weapons have been around since WWI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_anti-aircraft_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-09 22:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vlq8ee$2ebjo$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #660181 |
On 1/8/25 6:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Governor Swill wrote: >> >> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> >>> But tanks are very difficult to build. >> >> As Russia has learned to its cost. > > > A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest. > > > > > > Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but tanks, with infantry hiding behind them. But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more effective than German tanks! Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back, aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it does is throwing light artillery shells.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-10 01:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p6f1oj96lvmgrdead8ou9e0bp8vjo1bmof@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #660197 |
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:41:50 -0600, Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/8/25 6:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> Governor Swill wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> >>>> But tanks are very difficult to build. >>> >>> As Russia has learned to its cost. >> >> >> A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest. >Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a >new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but >tanks, with infantry hiding behind them. > >But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually >changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more >effective than German tanks! > >Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are >still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back, >aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it >does is throwing light artillery shells. An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks which took no casualties at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-09 22:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vlqfnv$3sipd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660201 |
Governor Swill wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:41:50 -0600, Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1/8/25 6:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Governor Swill wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But tanks are very difficult to build. >>>> >>>> As Russia has learned to its cost. >>> >>> >>> A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest. > >> Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a >> new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but >> tanks, with infantry hiding behind them. >> >> But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually >> changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more >> effective than German tanks! >> >> Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are >> still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back, >> aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it >> does is throwing light artillery shells. > > An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask > the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks > which took no casualties at all. > As seen in the S tank, Sweden can make weapons for its strategies and terrain. -- Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @ 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\ The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \ of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-18 23:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vmi5go$1i4b9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660201 |
Governor Swill wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:41:50 -0600, Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1/8/25 6:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Governor Swill wrote: >>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But tanks are very difficult to build. >>>> >>>> As Russia has learned to its cost. >>> >>> A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest. > >> Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a >> new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but >> tanks, with infantry hiding behind them. >> >> But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually >> changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more >> effective than German tanks! >> >> Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are >> still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back, >> aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it >> does is throwing light artillery shells. > > An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask > the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks > which took no casualties at all. Not to disparage our forces, but the Iraqis were poorly led and they followed Soviet doctrines. That's strike one and two. They also did not have air superiority - strike three. There's some more bits like that but those will do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 18:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t93rojt7bi3m10bm4bn35tp2qq49f9cte3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #660545 |
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:18:56 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Governor Swill wrote: >> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:41:50 -0600, Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 1/8/25 6:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> Governor Swill wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But tanks are very difficult to build. >>>>> >>>>> As Russia has learned to its cost. >>>> >>>> A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest. >> >>> Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a >>> new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but >>> tanks, with infantry hiding behind them. >>> >>> But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually >>> changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more >>> effective than German tanks! >>> >>> Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are >>> still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back, >>> aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it >>> does is throwing light artillery shells. >> >> An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask >> the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks >> which took no casualties at all. > >Not to disparage our forces, but the Iraqis were >poorly led and they followed Soviet doctrines. That's >strike one and two. They also did not have air >superiority - strike three. There's some more >bits like that but those will do. > Which also explains Russia's failures in Ukraine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-19 19:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vmkgr4$2rf9e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660577 |
Governor Swill wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:18:56 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Governor Swill wrote: >>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:41:50 -0600, Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/8/25 6:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> Governor Swill wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> But tanks are very difficult to build. >>>>>> >>>>>> As Russia has learned to its cost. >>>>> >>>>> A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest. >>> >>>> Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a >>>> new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but >>>> tanks, with infantry hiding behind them. >>>> >>>> But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually >>>> changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more >>>> effective than German tanks! >>>> >>>> Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are >>>> still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back, >>>> aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it >>>> does is throwing light artillery shells. >>> >>> An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask >>> the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks >>> which took no casualties at all. >> >> Not to disparage our forces, but the Iraqis were >> poorly led and they followed Soviet doctrines. That's >> strike one and two. They also did not have air >> superiority - strike three. There's some more >> bits like that but those will do. >> > > Which also explains Russia's failures in Ukraine. Russian/USSR leaders fear a military coup d'état more than invasion. Germany started Barbarossa so well because Stalin feared his generals more than he feared Hitler's. Putin wants a corrupt and pathetic army as long as his toadies tell him it is the best. -- Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @ 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\ The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \ of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-20 22:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tm6uojtq8n6ojarb073b2sa4mr2meu4i6q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #660592 |
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 19:44:31 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote: >Governor Swill wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:18:56 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Governor Swill wrote: <snip> >>>> An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask >>>> the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks >>>> which took no casualties at all. >>> >>> Not to disparage our forces, but the Iraqis were >>> poorly led and they followed Soviet doctrines. That's >>> strike one and two. They also did not have air >>> superiority - strike three. There's some more >>> bits like that but those will do. >>> >> >> Which also explains Russia's failures in Ukraine. > >Russian/USSR leaders fear a military coup d'état more than >invasion. Germany started Barbarossa so well because Stalin feared >his generals more than he feared Hitler's. > >Putin wants a corrupt and pathetic army as long as his toadies >tell him it is the best. Evil never sees its own limitations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-07 11:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nhb05l-erob1.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #660141 |
In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill: >> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> >>> The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old. >>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult >>> to defeat. >> >> Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade? >> > > I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks. I have heard Elvis is alive. Current estimates are about 1500 operational tanks and 3000 - 5000 old tanks of unknown status and ranging in age of 40 to 75 years in boneyards. A significant percentage of the old tanks require more resources to refurbish than to build a new tank.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-07 22:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bisrnj1a3vea1p37o810roebo48foh5eop@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #660141 |
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 06:46:51 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill: >> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> >>> The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old. >>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult >>> to defeat. >> >> Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade? >> > >I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks. They don't have 12,000 Armatas. In fact, they don't have 12,000 tanks. Anymore. Ukraine has taken out at least a third that number so far. >That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany. But German tanks are actually operational!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-12 23:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vm2clk$1ma04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660141 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill: >> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> >>> The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old. >>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult >>> to defeat. >> >> Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the >> parade? >> > > I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks. > > That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany. Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/07/07/russia-is-running-low-on-tanks-so-why-are-a-thousand-first-generation-t-72s-still-sitting-in-storage/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-12 23:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vm2e1a$1mfqj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660279 |
Gronk wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill: >>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger >>> <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> >>>> The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are >>>> mostly old. >>>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly >>>> difficult >>>> to defeat. >>> >>> Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at >>> the parade? >>> >> >> I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks. >> >> That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany. > > Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of > storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s. Russian tactics is to have more tanks than enemy antitank rockets and more soldiers than enemy bullets. That way after they make their enemy expend all ammo, Russians can march past them. To paraphrase Stalin, psychopathy is its own quality. -- Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @ 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\ The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \ of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-13 10:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82f970d04a52d7d6cab44b1eb432d213@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #660280 |
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 7:06:14 +0000, Siri Cruise wrote: > Gronk wrote: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill: >>>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger >>>> <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are >>>>> mostly old. >>>>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly >>>>> difficult >>>>> to defeat. >>>> >>>> Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at >>>> the parade? >>>> >>> >>> I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks. >>> >>> That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany. >> >> Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of >> storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s. > > Russian tactics is to have more tanks than enemy antitank rockets > and more soldiers than enemy bullets. That way after they make > their enemy expend all ammo, Russians can march past them. No, Putin tried to get it all on the cheap initially by not invading with at least 4 million. But that seeming failure made Ukraine withdraw troops from the East. Then Putin made a strategic retreat from the West and attacked from the East, gaining territory and slowly expanding using long range weapons. Not sure if this wasn't PlanB but PlanA_2. A_1 being prudent Ukraine surrender and replacing Zelensky. Master strategist, Putin. The West's strategy is to let the Orthodox chaps die and make Russia weak; that by using obsolete scrap weaponry for Ukraine continuing the war, while making money for the elites with orders for new weapons. If Ukraine won it would be hugely in debt and thus under absolute control of the murky powers that would buy it all up cheap, with no effort at all save gorging together at conferences. The universe still runs on a moral basis, evidently, so such bastardy has not been rewarded with success. > > To paraphrase Stalin, psychopathy is its own quality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-13 15:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f9saojhrfgo0u6o1kqqvurcrbrmt5i1mbj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #660282 |
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:46:43 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) wrote: >On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 7:06:14 +0000, Siri Cruise wrote: > >> Gronk wrote: >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill: >>>>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger >>>>> <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are >>>>>> mostly old. >>>>>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly >>>>>> difficult >>>>>> to defeat. >>>>> >>>>> Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at >>>>> the parade? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks. >>>> >>>> That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany. >>> >>> Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of >>> storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s. >> >> Russian tactics is to have more tanks than enemy antitank rockets >> and more soldiers than enemy bullets. That way after they make >> their enemy expend all ammo, Russians can march past them. > >No, Putin tried to get it all on the cheap initially by not invading >with at least 4 million. He needed 4 million to invade an agrarian nation he'd already stripped of most of four of it's richest and most populist provinces? Who do you think you're fooling? >But that seeming failure made Ukraine withdraw >troops from the East. Then Putin made a strategic retreat from the West >and attacked from the East, gaining territory and slowly expanding using >long range weapons. Not sure if this wasn't PlanB but PlanA_2. A_1 being >prudent Ukraine surrender and replacing Zelensky. > >Master strategist, Putin. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, his goal was to stop NATO expansion. Instead it increased to 31 members and they added 800 miles to his NATO border. LOL! His goal was to remove Zelensky and turn Ukraine into a puppet state. 750,000 dead and maimed Russians later, Zelensky is still in charge, admired across the planet and not only defending, but on the offensive. His nation, with no navy, has defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Putin has turned Russia into a vassal state of China and eliminated any chance of future greatness for his nation. >The West's strategy is to let the Orthodox >chaps die and make Russia weak; that by using obsolete scrap weaponry >for Ukraine continuing the war, while making money for the elites with >orders for new weapons. The west doesn't even think about religion. The 'strategy' has been to do as much damage as possible to Russia's military and international standing. >If Ukraine won it would be hugely in debt and thus under absolute >control of the murky powers that would buy it all up cheap, with no >effort at all save gorging together at conferences. Sure, in your dreams. Took the UK until the 21 century to pay off all their WWII debt. The Obama admin had to negotiate debt forgiveness for Russia because they couldn't pay. >The universe still runs on a moral basis, evidently, so such bastardy >has not been rewarded with success. If it ran on a moral basis, Putin would be dead already. NP: Rob Thomas - All That I Am
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web