AngusThermopyle

Just watched "Once Upon A Time In The West" this weekend, Charles Bronson was a good cowboy, the steely squinting eye's, sun weathered skin, all good stuff. It was one of the last if not the last Spaghetti Western from Sergio Leone, they may have been cliche but I loved those old spaghetti westerns.

Yep, that was a good one. Now back to the subject. I posted the link before but I'll do it again. The new Zumwalt Destroyers the States have commissioned. They're unusual looking in that they utilize the older style Tumblehome bow design, even though it would appear they wouldn't be as good in any kind of sea they apparently are a better weather design than the hulls we use now. She's stealthy and has great endurance, her sensor suits are state of the art, and that advanced gun system is awesome. Check it out, the link is to a very good and reliable site, if you spend the time you'll find all the info you could want, including some great pictures. Russia most certainly has nothing that can compare to these ships, hell, just using the gun they could sink any Russian skimmers before they even knew they were under fire. Zumwalt Destroyers

Not going to take what anymore? Law breakers being arrested? Poor muffins, how dare anyone arrest them for breaking the law and generally being a bunch of wankers in public. Have you ever heard of anything so outrageous! Oh the horror!

That was a great debate, fun to watch. To tell the truth I was not impressed at all by the law students. Watching them it appears they were basing all their arguments on an emotional basis. That shit just don't fly. It actually looked like they were going to cry more than once, that would have been great, no, really great. I wonder if that's how they'll approach the law when they're done school? "Your honour, please decide in my favour or I'll be tremendously upset" that should win cases for them, the hell with logic and facts, just introduce hurt feelings.

It almost sounds like the silly buggers are spoiling for a war. Not exactly the picture of Mother Russia that some would like to spin.

This is true but like I said the newer high kinetic energy rounds are closing that gap. For instance, the most powerfull sniper rifle today does not use a .50 cal round, its something like a .46 or .47 cal round instead. Also lets not forget the amazing advances that have been made in caseless ammo recently, another huge advance in the state of the art.

The real point is that the AK is far less accurate. I'll see if I can find the high speed video showing the barrel flex of the AK, its substantial. The larger round of the AK does pack significantly more "knock down" punch though. That is becoming less relevant today with the introduction of the newer high kinetic energy rounds entering service.

As I've mentioned before, the AK was a fine weapon and still shines in certain area's. However as with everything small arms technology has advanced as well and the AK is relegated to a poverty role for armed forces who can not afford any thing better. Here is the new US rifle, the XM-8, this is quite the weapon and very vrsatile in its various configurations. The new features are too numerous to list here so its best if you just read up on it yourselves. http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...l%3Den%26sa%3DG Wow! It appears the XM-8 has been rejected, I wonder why. The last time I checked a few months ago it was a go for the rifle. Gonna have to do some reading and see if I can find out why it was rejected. Testing up until a few months ago indicated that it was outstanding. Very curious.

The gas turbine does have some advantages but also some draw backs. When you compare the powerplants in the Abrams and the Leopard you'll find that as far as performance is concerned they're both pretty equal. Fuel is one area where the Leopard has the advantage. Instead of requiring JP4 or JP5 it can run on mixed fuels which does give the advantage of flexibility. Both tanks engine packs can be changed out in about 30 minutes, so no advantage there. Like I mentioned earlier, there isn't too much difference performance wise between the two. If anything the major performance differences are probably in the electronics packages. (Edited to add) I just checked and I was wrong regarding the time to change an engine pack in the field. For the Leopard its 15 min, not 30.

Actually the question should be "which is better, the M1A2 or the Leopard II". Thats a hard call to make. The A2 utilizes DU armour as well as Chobham, however both Tanks have about the same armour value. The A2 also uses the 120mm Rhienmetal gun, just like the Leopard. The Leopard does incorporate the anti mine package which has already proven to be highly effective, I'm not sure if it has been incorporated into the Abrams design though. Honestly, I think both Tanks are pretty evenly matched overall. The greatest difference would be in the sensor and command packages installed, I believe that the Abrams has a more sophisticated system for comms, command and fire control, but I could be wrong. What is very telling is the fact that rounds fired from the Rhienmetal gun can not penetrate the armour of either tank even when fired at close range. Unfortunately the T-90 does not share this characteristic with its steel and reactive armour.

Oops! My bad. You're right, I was thinking T-72. If you check out the T-90 you'll see that it is a rebadged T-72, same hull and turret with some modifications applied (heavier armour, welded turret). One serious weakness modern Russian tanks suffer is the lack of Chobham armour, instead they rely on steel and reactive armour. The combination although good is simply not in the same league as Chobham, especially when you consider the fact that Western tanks can also be fitted with reactive armour to augment the Chobham. Another area is the sensor suit, they've improved it in the T-90 (I believe they're using the French made Francis optical system), a very good system but far from being king of the hill. Laser designator, low light and IR systems still lag, although they are improved over the T-72. All in all when studying the improvements made with the T-90 it looks like the russians set out to build a tank that can beat the T-72, in that they succeeded. Now consider the Leopard II with its 120mm H-55 gun, a gun that is considered to be the most powerfull tank weapon availlable. The change from the 44 cal gun to the 55 cal gun added about 130 cm in length to the barrel. This translates to much higher muzzel velocity and greater range. they can reach out and touch someone sooner, a key element in tank warfare. The gun will also fire up to 12 different types of round, including anti helicopter rounds, no need to slap on external launchers and the like that would have a low survival probability due to the fact they are external. Then consider items like the Chobham armour, armoured hubs and full up to date sensor suits and you can see once again you have a tank that is more than a match for the T-90. We wont even get into the drive train on it, as was mentioned "Christie suspension", nuff said. So...right there you have two Western tanks that are t-90 killers, thats not even getting into the A-10 and other tank killers the West has. Almost forgot to add. The Challenger II is another one that will "scrapify" a T-90 in a hurry, once again Chobham armour is used and the II variant uses the 120 mm 55 gun.

Actually the Abrams has proven itself time and again in battle. Have you forgotten what the Abrams did to your t-90's back in the First Gulf War? They decimated them, the Abrams were taking them out before they even knew they were being fired on. Russia built a good tank back in WWII, since then the world hasn't just marched on past them, its raced on past. By the way, a Leopard II will also turn a T-90 into scrap without too much trouble.

Hey now! Maybe Eyeball is onto something with this. We can all start apologising to each other, it could be the basis for a whole new glode spanning industry. We could have a huge bunch of people who do nothing but historical research to see who can apologise to who. Then theres the international flow of money, billions zipping from bank account to bank account worldwide. Wow! In time we could refine it, countries apologizing to cities, cities to neighborhoods, neighbourhoods apologizing to individuals, shootin them a few bucks; "here ya go buddy, sorry about blocking your driveway. Since there is so much we don't know about the past we could just identify everyone individually and have everyone apologise to everyone, not forgetting to shoot some cash along with the apology. What a super dooper idea Eyeball!!!

You must be smoking some really really good shit. The reason I conclude that is because the above has just about zero relevance to the topic at hand. Sober up bud.

And in this particular case are only relevent because because they are in direct juxtaposition of our neighbours to the south. The whole rant is based upon the differences we have from our neighbours, this alone shows how it uses the US as a foil to its pointlessness.

Your post could have had some merit, in fact I'll say it did until... Hitler was trivial, yeah sure. Melting ice caps are genocide,yeah sure. McGuinty is planning genocide for half the GTA, yeah sure. European families all send their kids off to boarding school, yeah sure. And more eroneous statements than I have time to list. I won't bother taking your post apart point by point, it would take far too long. What I will say is that I think you managed to use the word genocide more times in one post than anyone I can remember so far. And it was all based upon your opinion with not a single link or cite to back up one single claim, well done!

Well...it actually does mean pretty much that.

Intereting. Here's one I guess you could call a cold war relic, but its still very effective and in use to this day. Sosus Apparently the data is still collected but is no longer constantly monitored. I believe other organizations are using it for scientific research purposes now.

I was wondering about that, its been years since I've seen it so I figured you must be right since you just watched it.

The AC-130 "Spooky" has always been one of my favourites, from the Viet Nam era versions to the newest ones. With the weapons and sensor upgrades she's a very potent aircraft, it's actually gained an almost legendary status. That guy Richard Machowicz the Future Weapons host has just about one of the coolest jobs I can imagine, he's paid to play with big toys.

One of my all time favourite stories and I've enjoyed the movies as well, just some more than others. I'm going to have to see if I can get it now,the Brando, Cain, Howard version. I just watched one recently that has attained an almost cult status, Maximum Overdrive, Stephen King. I' hadn't realized it was popular at all until I read an article about its popularity on a movie site. A big part of it is the soundtrack, 100% AC DC written specifically for the movie, since I like AC DC it really apeals to me, also the hocky (?) storie, B grade but fun. That reminds me, Queen also did a movie soundtrack, Flash Gordon. The movie left me with mixed feelings actually. I saw it when it first came out in theaters in 1980, just before I joined the CAF, perhaps if I watched it again I might feel differently about it. Now I think about it I don't remember much of it, I think it was pretty "campy" and not really all that great, can't remember for sure though. Can anyone remember any other movies that used a soundtrack performed exclusively by a big name band? Yes, I can! Answering my own question. Highlander, once again Queen did the soundtrack for that movie. That was one I enjoyed when it came out. Sean Connery and Christopher Lambert were great together.

I'm not sure if they do yet. I think it said that they expect this to become the standard artillery piece for NATO forces by 2012. The clip does state that only two have been built for trials purposes so I'd say they don't have it in production yet, its coming though. This one is very impressive, flexible, light and packs a ton of punch behind it, the XM-307 full auto grenade launcher. Not only is it a 25 mm grenade launcher that fires full auto smart grenades but it also has a really neat trick it can do, it's sort of a multiple personalty weapon. Watch the video and you'll see what I mean. XM-307 This one is the Kriss .45 cal sub machine gun. Huge knock down power with a high degree of control and accuracy. As the guy on the show says, compared to a standard 9 mil smg the Kriss is like the difference between throwing a baseball or a medecine ball at someone. There have been .45 Cal SMG's before, just nothing like this. Kriss .45 Cal SMG Anyway, these are a few of the reasons I believe that even though Russia can pose a serious threat, the Western Nations and their alliances pose a far greater threat to Russia.

As designed the Frigates are meant to work with the Destroyers as a team providing area and air defence with offensive and sub hunting capabilities. Thats why I said a nice wish list would double the amount of Frigates and match it with destroyers. A potent little task force when combined with an AOR. In the past we had four AOR's but went to three because of cost considerations. Two were based In Halifax and one in Victoria. That worked, Victoria was the training squadron and Halifax was the operational squadron. Therefore Halifax had two AOR's and Victoria one. Times have changed though, Victoria is no longer the training squadron port, they're more operational now than any time since the second world war. This is why it would be nice to have two AOR's on each coast. You reduce potential support problems by knowing that even if one is in refit the other will be operational. Just to finish, about four new French Barracuda subs would be nice. They're state of the art Nuclear subs with extended range and multiple role capabilities. Instead of buying the Trafalgers we should have just spent what we had to on something worthwhile. Barracuda

Yes, thats very cool. The feature I like is the simultaneous strike capability. One Archer can fire 5 shells and they all hit the same target area within one second. The two man crew and climate controlled features are also really neat. What the two videos don't show is the self defence feature. The fully armoured crew compartment also has a 7.62 mm remote controlled co-ax machine gun for close in defence. All in all a revolutionary system that simply outclasses any other large artillery piece produced anywhere. It certainly puts the latest light weight offerings on the market to shame.

This is interesting, I didn't know anything about it, the new Chinese H-8 Stealth Bomber slated to become operational in 2010. She sure is pretty, I wonder what her capabilities are. The new JH-7 Fighter Bomber looks pretty conventional though, I don't think there's anything new there. Don't get me wrong, its probably a very capable fighter bomber, just nothing special. New Chinese Aircraft