buffnut453
Captain
Sorry....T4MF is already taken and it refers to Vladimir Putin.
It stands for That Tempestuous Tyrannical Totalitarian....I'll let you guess the rest.
Last edited:
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I propose a new acronym: T4MF (Tip Toeing Through The Mine Field) for when current discourse drifts into forbidden territory.
I flew a Be99 once that had a -27 PT6 (igniters) on one side and a -28 (glowplugs) on the other to an FAA checkride. The inspector busted me on the checkride because I failed to abort the start on #2 when there were no audible igniter snaps (a checklist item). I protested that #2 was a -28 with glowplugs and he pulled out his spec sheet which said the Be99 had -27s, so this plane was unairworthy and I was in violation for flying it. I said there was a commonly used Supplemental Type Certificate to use -28s in 99s, and we had a copy in the paperwork back at the office. "Rubbish! No such thing! I'm issuing a violation on you and calling your company to come get you. This plane is going out of here on a truck." At that point the FSDO Chief asked his chief airworthiness inspector, who said that yes, there was such an STC. So he reprimanded the ops inspector and sent us back out to fly the checkride. Needless to say, I didn't pass that checkride.I was going to mention something about changing the glow plugs.
If someone is shooting at you wouldn't he expect you to shoot back?
"Hell no! You're the guy that offended him! Take your punishment and turn the other cheek!"If someone is shooting at you wouldn't he expect you to shoot back?
And down here at the grassroots, most of us still give our neighbors the benefit of the doubt.
Buffnut nailed it. It's a clickbait-driven radicalization process with no checks or balances.The key though is fact that none of us are on the extreme of either side. It's those crackpots that are the loudest and ruin it for everyone.
Buffnut nailed it. It's a clickbait-driven radicalization process with no checks or balances.
Our only hope is that the outer reaches become so ludicrous as to be evident to all remaining sane people, even the Emporer's wardrobe ministry.
Of course, he's already breaking the "no disparagement" agreement with the Twitter board, almost like he wants out of what he's realizing is _not_ a good deal for him.Yabut now with Musk owning Twitter ...
Of course, he's already breaking the "no disparagement" agreement with the Twitter board, almost like he wants out of what he's realizing is _not_ a good deal for him.
They require different maintenance. IIIRC, from when I worked at AVCO-Stratford, the MTOH for the AGT-1500 was about twenty times that of the diesel alternative, and the MTBR was about equal to the tank's planned peacetime service life.It ain't the fuel that might be a problem. Turbines are a bit different from diesels and I've read they require more maintenance. You got set up a service network. Logistics!
Agreed. And once the vehicle is paid for it's likely cheaper to kill BMPs and BTRs with a gun than with an expensive and harder to replace MANPATS. If (a hard if) 105mm L7 equipped AFVs are available the Ukrainians can save their NLAWs and Javelins for hardened targets like MBTs. In the anti-IFV role even an L7 equipped TAM will do nicely.My point is that as a versatile support weapon the 105 equipped vehicles would offer mobility with more than just
AT capability. Support fire from a decent sized weapon which can cover terrain well under it's own steam is important
on the battlefield.
There are plenty of worthy targets besides tanks.
If I'm not wrong, the Oerlikon GDF has a muzzle velocity of 1440 m/s when firing APDS rounds.I can buy the ability of the Gepard to shred soft vehicles and AFVs but I still say taking out a tank would require a lucky hit in a poorly defended area (e.g engine compartment, attacking from the rear).
Your statement about the A-10 isn't actually correct. Trials of A-10s going against MBTs showed that the results really weren't that great. The one thing the A-10 has going for it is that it pumps a lot of rounds downrange very quickly (muzzle velocity is well over twice that of the Gepard), which means an initial round that creates some damage may be followed by a second or third round that can at least disable the tank. I wouldn't bet on the Gepard, shooting just 40 rounds at less than half the muzzle velocity of the A-10, shredding any T-72 that's coming towards your position...again, from the rear is a different story, but against the main armour I just don't buy it.
Blowing up stuff in other countries is an "illegal action?"
If you're operating your mobile air defence guns within sight of the enemy's MBTs you're doing it wrong. I believe the Gepard will be used close behind the front lines in concealed positions to destroy Russian helicopters and strike aircraft. Any MBT close enough to see the Gepard had better already be dead or fighting for its life against NLAW/Javelin equipped Ukrainian infantry. On the Gepard, can it reliably down cruise missiles and land attack missiles?If I'm not wrong, the Oerlikon GDF has a muzzle velocity of 1440 m/s when firing APDS rounds.
In contrast Gau-8 only manages about 1010 m/s for the API rounds (depleted uranium)
Regards
Nammo also produces 35 mm ammo compatible with the gepard oerlikons.Rheinmetall informed that they have stored only 23k rounds of 35mm ammunition. Single load of Gepard is 680 rounds... it is not even funny.... Rusted 40 years old Striela missiles and flak tanks without ammunition - could be better for Grmany just say "no"?
Probably not but they did have a lot of T55/62 tanks up gunned to the 105 L7It's not the L7, but I wonder if Israel has a warehouse filled with 105mm armed Sherman M-51s.
View attachment 666046