Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Newsflash: Reagan didn't start the fire (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Newsflash: Reagan didn't start the fire
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel:
Blayne,

I suspect that you are too young to understand why the last conflict in Iraq saw all of Saddam's T-72s utilized as stationary gun emplacements surrounded by sand berms (at the advice of Russian consultants). Since you only presented yourself as a sino expert, your daft ignorance could be excused on the topic of arms.

Eh Eh Eh. Blayne is right that the Lion of Babylon T-72 variants were not as good as the Soviet T-72B variants.

But they were still crap!!! LOL

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Trivia...
What did WWII American tankers call the Sherman?

A Ronson.

What did the Germans call the Sherman?

Zippos.

In the case of Ronson, the maker of fine table lighters popular in the 1930's-50's, one of their advertising slogans was "Lights on the First Strike" In the case of the Zippo name, the reference was in regard to a Zippo lighter's ability to generate a flame in almost any weather condition.

Anectdotal, completely. Statistically speaking the Sherman was one of the best allied tanks and its kill-loss ratio did fine overall in context: IE; it fought mostly upgraded and upgunned Panzer III's and Panzer IV's while Panthers, Tigers, etc were all in relatively small numbers and mostly concentrated on the Eastern front, while the western front got whatever the Germans decided to rotate out to rest from the Soviet meatgrinder.

The Sherman had a number of inferiorities that were becomming more and more wide as time went on but they continued to upgrade, up armor and upgun the Sherman it stayed a comparable tool of war. Earlier in the war in the North African campaigns when it was mostly P3's and some P4's it was much better and of course the Japanese could never field a decent medium tank outside of the prototype stage.

But the point is, as a contemptory design both the Sherman and the T-72 were decent tanks. And obviously the Soviets believed they were still decent enough that they were a net benefit in a potential war to outweigh the risk of clogging up the roads with blown up tank husks.

If have to look at it in its strategic context, it was a fine tank that was outclassed but not completely out of the fight.

quote:

Blayne,

I suspect that you are too young to understand why the last conflict in Iraq saw all of Saddam's T-72s utilized as stationary gun emplacements surrounded by sand berms (at the advice of Russian consultants). Since you only presented yourself as a sino expert, your daft ignorance could be excused on the topic of arms.

What does this even mean or is it even implying to.

"The sky is blue."
"It's cold in Alaska."

Its a non sequitur. That Russians may have consulted some Iraqi's and were like "sigh, well if your gonna use em anyways...." doesn't say anything at all.

Okay, so they set up sand emplacements, how does this refute that these were watered down export models driven by poorly trained crews, bad leaders, lacked spare parts and lacked adequate ammunition?

Wow. Putting a tank in a sand dune, that sure showed me.

quote:

When you reveal total unawareness of the looming consequences of China's "one child" policy, you show yourself as generally gifted in overestimating your knowledge base.

Care to cite these statistics, or how the demographics are gonna look and why they're somehow so catastrophic?

Thing is I *have* looked at them and there's nothing irreversible or catastrophic about them, womens rights have improved significantly in large part thanks to it as resources that would otherwise be focused on the sole male child is instead imparted on the female. The "policy" aka family planning as its known as there actually has a tonne of exceptions to it:

1) It does not apply if you are a visible minority.
2) It does not apply if you are a rural resident.
3) It does not apply if both of your parents are a product of the policy.
Etc etc, and enforcements and effects actually vary province to province.

The gender ratio last I checked was something reasonable for industrialized countries, 1.1 or 1.2 or something. CIA world factbook doesn't want to load so I can't double check it.

quote:

At birth: 1.18 male(s)/female (2010 census)
Under 15: 1.13 male(s)/female (2008 est.)
15-64 years: 1.06 male(s)/female (2008 est.)
65-over: 0.91 male(s)/female (2008 est.)

for the USA

quote:

at birth: 1.048 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.75 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2010 est.)

In short, nothing alarming that can't be somewhat solved through immigration or emmigration to some extant.

But whats galling is that this isn't even the right demographic problem! The one that's actually a worry is China's aging population, a problem that isn't as troubling for them as it is for Japan (who have 7 births per 1000, the lowest out of every industrialized country) or for the US or other nations as

a) China still has alot of economic ground it can cover through modernization, expanding services, and further development.
b) their cultural values on the family taking care of the elderly places less stress on the gov't to do it for them.
c) The One Child Policy is as best as I can tell, losing relevance and is slowly being phased out as natural incentives from industrialization will help to naturally lower the birthrate in urban centers.

In short, I don't see anything that is going to be suddenly catastrophic. They have years to work something out.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

But they were still crap!!! LOL

Once again I'll state I have much trouble believing this considering the time of their deployment. They might have been inferior and antiquited compared to the M1, but they were hardly tin cans and were hardly terrible. Otherwise why produce 25,000 of them?
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apologies; I should have known better than to call a Maoist an atheist ... given our discussion on the Long March I should have guessed that BB believed Mao was God. And Mao is indeed dead.

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
[qb] Nietzsche is dead.

You can kill a man but you can never kill an idea.
If you are an atheist, then surely you think that God is an idea, and therefore immortal. So how could God be dead? Think harder. [Razz]
Who said I was athiest? That's you projecting. I reject external sources of morality and instead formulate my own. I consider all external sources alien and incompatible, whether it be Hastur, Christ or Zeus.
quote:
Then why do they actually rewrite the very PREAMBLE to the PRC constitution every time a new dude takes the steering wheel? It does make Chinese National Socialism look a little bit like a cult of personality. Although I do concede that Chinese National Socialism does lean heavily on the old "mandate of heaven" idea.
I'm giving you one warning, you do not want to go down this road, you do not want to challenge me in a discussion of Chinese history.

RFLOL. I regularly challenge Israelis to arguments over Israeli history and policy, not for the sake of winning but for the sake of learning something. (Ever hear the story of Sinbad and the coconut-throwing monkeys?) In your neck of the Mao-forsaken woods, is the prospect of learning something supposed to be frightening? Or are you saying that I wouldn't learn anything about China from discussing matters with you, and that you're a waste of time?

As for my own background, I researched the history of the Chinese constitution as part of my work for US vs. Xu Chaofan et al., a RICO case that lasted 4 years and in which appeals are still ongoing. (In Xu, witnesses admitted on the stand to have testified after being tortured and/or having family members threatened by the Chinese government.) That and my family lived in Shanghai for 5 years.

quote:
Your post betrays, at best, a loose and skin deep understanding of Chinese politics gleaned from third party sources of information who themselves merely retrieved it from a second hand source.
Whereas you learned it how? If you are Mao reincarnated, can you say so without violating PRC Law? ?

quote:
None of it original research and is woefully incorrect and inadequate explanation for the deep and complex interactions of past Chinese politico-socio thoughts and history on their current political system.
Fortunately I never claimed to have deep and complex insights into China. I've made a couple simple factual statements about Chinese history which you call lies or false, and then fail to actually contradict.

In this thread, what I said is that every Premier of China, prior to retiring has revised the PREAMBLE to China's constitution, ie. the founding statement to what the rest of the constitution is all about. If Hu retires without revising the preamble, then he will be the first premier to have resisted the power of supreme revision.

quote:
3) There is no "National Socialism" in Chinese political theory
Giggle.

Blayne, Are you unfamiliar with the expression "Chinese Socialism" in PRC constitutional language?

Or do you not consider the People's Republic of China to be a nation?

quote:
they are nationalistic, they are socialist, they are statist but they are not "National Socialist" which is all about genetic purity and hatred "for the jew", National Socialist saw both Western Bourgosie liberalism and the Bolsheviks as two sides of the same coin, both controlled by that they perceived by Jewish interests.
I did not mean to suggest that China followed German Naziism, Blayne. I apologize for capitalizing "national socialism" which I should have left in generic small letters. But now that you bring it up, there are some similarities and parallels to Roehm's speeches ...


quote:
This line of reasoning isn't even remotely present in Chinese political thought.
I was not arguing that Chinese national socialism was founded on racial supremacy. But China is one of many countries that makes Trotsky flop over in his grave, by proclaiming to the world their unique ultranationalistic brand of socialism.

quote:
4) "Mandate of Heaven" isn't really a philosophy; it is and it isn't, its like an ancient fairy tail.
Which differs from Maoist political discourse ... how exactly?

quote:
While philosophies like Confucianism and Mohism function as ethical systems.

In short the Mandate of Heaven is a cultural-religious backdrop that is similar to philosophy like Moism and Confucianism but lacks anything beyond a vague outline of being a functional system of ethics.

Fair enough. But I don't recall accusing Maoism of being functional, Blayne.


quote:
To flip it around, to study Chinese politics with the Mandate of Heaven in mind when Mencius or Mo Tzu (Master Mo) is more appropriate is like trying to study European politics using the Iliad when Machiavelli and Cicero would be more appropriate.
That's a delightful and memorable simile, Blayne, but you are wrong.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
How about you come up with the information as you're the one who stated emphatically that the T-72 was crap?

random youtube link after 5 seconds of googling

I really hate using the internet for this kind of information. [Crying] I used to have all the good resources at my fingertips. And I can't access youtube vids on the company server.

Anyways, here is what I can glean....

T72B-

"Super Dolly Parton Armor" Frontal armor protection equivlent to 700mm RHS

125mm gun with 3VBM/3 ammunition- 500mm penetration of RHS at 0deg, 250mm penetration at 60deg

No thermal sights and unclear wether it had shoot and move capability.

M1-

Chobham armor with frontal protection equivelent to 900mm of RHA against KE penetrators.

105mm main gun with APFSDS round- 700m RHS penetration at 0deg at 3000m.

Thermal sights, shoot and move capability.

Sorry, too many sources, and they're embarassing anyways.


It all comes down to the fact that the Soviets had poor ammunition combined with inferior fire control systems. An M1 could kill a T-72B further out without risk of a penetrating kill unless the T-72B was able to get a side or rear hull shot. I call that crap. Soviet fire control was poor, and I'm not sure they even had shoot and move capability. That means they would have to stop and shoot to have any hope of hitting anything, while the M1 could continue to do both at the same time. Fuggit about a night engagement. An M1 could theoretically pop 3 or 4 T-72Bs without them even getting close enough for a chance at a side shot.

Now.... we can really have some fun if I can compare a M1A1 to a T-72. Add in that 120mm gun from the Leopard II and the T-72 doesn't stand a chance.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Otherwise why produce 25,000 of them?

Cause they're Russians! Their entire military philosphy against NATO was one of using quantity over quality, they couldn't just decide to build smaller numbers of higher quality tanks, they wouldn't have enough to support the amount of infantry they had. They couldn't change stroke in mid-stream.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Not ignoring East Germany, just focusing on the central strategic planning that the Soviets had in mind. On a defensive war, East Germany was intended to be a national shock group and damage sponge. The Nato forces would be able to eliminate East German forces by conventional means should there ever be a Nato attack. It was also expected that in such a circumstance, the bulk of the Soviet Army would not be able to surge to the German frontier in time to prevent East Germany from being over run. Poland and specifically the Vistula defined frontier was where the Soviets intended to halt a conventional force and then advance from that point. Much as France was central to Nato planning, Poland was central to both the offensive and defensive strategies of the Soviet Union.

Well said. I was thinking purely in a Warsaw Pact offensive role, but in terms of Soviet planning, defense would have been key and Poland would have been key to that. So yes good point.

quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
For example that is why the Warsaw uprising wasn't relieved. ..., was damaged by the intentional pace of the Soviet advance to not relive uprisings among Polish resistance and partisans.

You mean the Red Army halted in place for 3 days or so to give the Nazi's time to liquidate the Jews in the Ghetto. One of the more cold blooded acts of history.


quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
As to the Floppy size.. it gets hazy the older I get. I could have sworn I had a 3.5 drive by 1984. < Quick check.. yep I did acording to Wiki> and as far as CD players, we actually had a generation #1 Magnavox < aka Philips> in 1984.

You might have been an early adopter and had a 3.5" floppy in 1984, but most of the US didn't. My school was using Tandy's with cassette recorder drives at the time. 5.25" were probably dominant for most businesses. And I seriously doubt that there were many 3.5" in the Warsaw Pact at the time.

And as to the CD-ROM, it wasn't even specced till 1985. When I bought my first 'new' computer in 1993 it was considered multi-media because it had a CD-ROM and a Sound Card! [Wink] It was a 486SX. The SX was short for sucks. Ah, yes the good old days. It also cost $2,000 in 1993 dollars. [Big Grin]


quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
The Soviets however knew what the F-20 could do and therefore began developing combat aircraft to exceed the F-20. That the F-20 in its original iteration superseded the original F-16 variants wasn't the consideration.

I think you are over-selling the F-20 here and underselling the F-16. The F-20 was never actually produced in any numbers, so it doesn't really have any track record to go by.

quote:
We wanted hot, light airplanes that were just as stripped-down as possible... They took an austere, stripped-down F-5 and ruined it by loading crap on it. Adding Sparrow missiles required huge complexity on the airplane. Adding air-to-ground capability ruined the F-20A.
Pierre Sprey, DoD senior analyst.


Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blayne,

Perhaps you should stop basing your beliefs on the notion that the Russians could not possibly do anything stupid.

I really did not think this would require detailed explaination.

The reason that the Abrams has a turbine engine in it is so it can move, and move *fast*. It may come as a surprise to you, but tanks are supposed to do this. When they do not, they become easy targets for opponents that can. In the first Gulf War, we lost a single Abrams (as I recall it had a track shot off). The crew was fine. The problem was that we could not leave an essentially intact MBT on the field, and another M-1 was having a hell of a time in penetrating its armour with uranium flechetts traveling at nearly 5,000 fps.

By contrast, Russian sighting systems could not even locate the Abrams at ranges that we were routinely killing them at with a single round. It was the WWII equivalent of pitting a Sherman against the Tiger mounted 88mm.

China's baby boom will reach its most productive years between 2015-2020. There will be a smaller "echo" boom that will pass peak productivity by approximately 2035. After that, the decline will be set in stone for decades. There is some limited merit to your rural/urban emmigration scenario. However, it is the young adult demographic (25-29) that relocates to regions of opportunity for the most part, and they are under represented in the population that you are looking at. (Investors Business Daily, April 22, 2004 p. A16)

Your statistics are useless at detecting demographic trajectory.

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
How about you come up with the information as you're the one who stated emphatically that the T-72 was crap?

random youtube link after 5 seconds of googling

I really hate using the internet for this kind of information. [Crying] I used to have all the good resources at my fingertips. And I can't access youtube vids on the company server.

Anyways, here is what I can glean....

T72B-

"Super Dolly Parton Armor" Frontal armor protection equivlent to 700mm RHS

125mm gun with 3VBM/3 ammunition- 500mm penetration of RHS at 0deg, 250mm penetration at 60deg

No thermal sights and unclear wether it had shoot and move capability.

M1-

Chobham armor with frontal protection equivelent to 900mm of RHA against KE penetrators.

105mm main gun with APFSDS round- 700m RHS penetration at 0deg at 3000m.

Thermal sights, shoot and move capability.

Sorry, too many sources, and they're embarassing anyways.


It all comes down to the fact that the Soviets had poor ammunition combined with inferior fire control systems. An M1 could kill a T-72B further out without risk of a penetrating kill unless the T-72B was able to get a side or rear hull shot. I call that crap. Soviet fire control was poor, and I'm not sure they even had shoot and move capability. That means they would have to stop and shoot to have any hope of hitting anything, while the M1 could continue to do both at the same time. Fuggit about a night engagement. An M1 could theoretically pop 3 or 4 T-72Bs without them even getting close enough for a chance at a side shot.

Now.... we can really have some fun if I can compare a M1A1 to a T-72. Add in that 120mm gun from the Leopard II and the T-72 doesn't stand a chance.

But here's my point though, these numbers, even at face value do not suggest an overwhelming enough advantage as to suggest that the T-72 was "crap" or so behind the Abrams that the T-72 couldn't be some kind of threat.

quote:

Cause they're Russians! Their entire military philosphy against NATO was one of using quantity over quality, they couldn't just decide to build smaller numbers of higher quality tanks, they wouldn't have enough to support the amount of infantry they had. They couldn't change stroke in mid-stream.

Cute but not quite, literally speaking then it would be logical to produce 500,000 T-34's since they can produce "more of them", clearly they produced 25,000 T-72's because of economy of force reasons, they were satisfactory for their role at the time and were economical to produce in large numbers.

Pete, you post doesn't make much sense.

Your original post is this:

quote:

And look at the current situation in China. China remains communist, but has not liberalized politically. However, it has changed it's economic system to be far more capitalistic. Again, the evidence seems to indicate that communism can't really endure as an economic system, but that as an authoritarian political system it can survive, if not thrive.

Where you put the emphasis on Chinese politics as being related to their conceptualization of Communism as a political system for exercising control regardless of the economic system.

My response was that you appeared to respond to this:

quote:

Chinese political system is basically the modern rebirth of Mo(h)ism and Confucian principles applied to a modern state. The emphasis on "Chinese characteristics" bit.

My point, is that the Chinese political system is not communism per se, or marxism per se, and wasn't even that per se in the 1950's but was a system that evolved and assimilated Marxist-Leninism/Communism/etc into a compatible framework of already existing political and ethical philosophies.

Thus saying their current government is "communist" is incorrect/inaccurate because it blatantly ignores the roots of their political system in Chinese philosophical thought dating back to the Spring and Autumn.

Your response:

quote:

Then why do they actually rewrite the very PREAMBLE to the PRC constitution every time a new dude takes the steering wheel? It does make Chinese National Socialism look a little bit like a cult of personality. Although I do concede that Chinese National Socialism does lean heavily on the old "mandate of heaven" idea.

Which doesn't make any sense in context as a reply. Because simply changing the preamble to whatever, doesn't change the underlying facts of Chinese politics and their roots to their past philosophies.

My response, isn't so much that the mandate of heaven is a myth, is that it occupies the same spot in the collective unconscious of Chinese political discourse as say, certain european founding myths. There has never been a concrete formulation or development of the mandate of heaven to the same pursuasive extant as say, Confucanism.

As in aside from 3chan memes I don't think you'll be seeing many Chinese netizens defending their nations honor or the legitimacy of the CCP through "Mandate of heaven" nonesense except in an indirect fashion that has more to do with their ingrained conceptualization of Confucian and Taoist principles.

So as such that it may, revising the preamble doesn't imply or correlate to anything, and doesn't make sense in context of this discussion.

quote:

I did not mean to suggest that China followed German Naziism, Blayne. I apologize for capitalizing "national socialism" which I should have left in generic small letters. But now that you bring it up, there are some similarities and parallels to Roehm's speeches ...

[Roll Eyes]

quote:

I was not arguing that Chinese national socialism was founded on racial supremacy. But China is one of many countries that makes Trotsky flop over in his grave, by proclaiming to the world their unique ultranationalistic brand of socialism.

Dunno how this relates to what I said.

quote:

Which differs from Maoist political discourse ... how exactly?

Lack of good words on my part but still doesn't validate this sentence, since obviously Maoism is more concrete then the Mandate of Heaven as its at least allegedly based on 'scientific socialism' and is more complete as a functional ethical system.

As you have Marxist-Leninism + Mao's regional variation = Maoism.

quote:

Fair enough. But I don't recall accusing Maoism of being functional, Blayne.

Again I'm not seeing the relevence here, Maoism is functional, but you have to look at it in its historical context. Oh which the Mandate of Heaven is extremely remote and barely if at all related to modern Chinese political thought. The CCP isn't justifying its legitimacy on the Mandate of Heaven, its justifying it on the evolution of Chinese political thought steeming from Confucianism, Mohism and other schools of thought that have evolved and combined with compatible foreign systems (Marxist-Leninism) to make something palatteable to Chinese sensibilities.

quote:

That's a delightful and memorable simile, Blayne, but you are wrong.

I disagree, looking at Chinese politics using the Mandate of Heaven as the guiding rail is incorrect, you need to look at it from Confucianism.

Read "The Chinese Machiavelli" by Dennish Bloodsworth

http://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Machiavelli-000-Years-Statecraft/dp/0374122466

I found this book crucial for my essay on analysizing the Balance of Power geopolitics system of Warring States China. (The question was did China ever develop a proper balance of power system)

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Blayne,

Perhaps you should stop basing your beliefs on the notion that the Russians could not possibly do anything stupid.

I really did not think this would require detailed explaination.

The reason that the Abrams has a turbine engine in it is so it can move, and move *fast*.

The T-72 is widely regarded as having better mobility then the M1, also the M1's engine is a massive fuel hog and unsuitable for certain terrains. It's also vulnerable to thermal detection systems due to the emmissions.

It's also a logistical nightmare to supply on extended campaigns, in fact I believe they might even be thinking of replacing the engine.

quote:

It may come as a surprise to you, but tanks are supposed to do this.

Oh tanks Clearly I thought you meant the other kind, the kind that didn't move.

quote:

When they do not, they become easy targets for opponents that can.

Captain Obvious on the bridge!

quote:

In the first Gulf War, we lost a single Abrams (as I recall it had a track shot off). The crew was fine. The problem was that we could not leave an essentially intact MBT on the field, and another M-1 was having a hell of a time in penetrating its armour with uranium flechetts traveling at nearly 5,000 fps.

Hey look, [citation needed] a conservative's best friend!

quote:

By contrast, Russian sighting systems could not even locate the Abrams at ranges that we were routinely killing them at with a single round. It was the WWII equivalent of pitting a Sherman against the Tiger mounted 88mm.

You wouldn't of course be mean the sighting systems that were downgraded or obsolete export versions sold to the Iraqi's?

That would be pretposterous!

quote:

China's baby boom will reach its most productive years between 2015-2020. There will be a smaller "echo" boom that will pass peak productivity by approximately 2035. After that, the decline will be set in stone for decades. There is some limited merit to your rural/urban emmigration scenario. However, it is the young adult demographic (25-29) that relocates to regions of opportunity for the most part, and they are under represented in the population that you are looking at. (Investors Business Daily, April 22, 2004 p. A16)

Your statistics are useless at detecting demographic trajectory.

And your demographic trajectory is uselsss without my statistics!

What matters is this, if these problems are so obvious, are the Chinese or are they not doing something about it? That's the question, they have quite a bit of time to figure something out.

And even then, okay they'll have alot of old people; it doesn't say a whole lot considering that a) its not for sure that the state will actually maintain the burden of caring for them.

b) its also not certain that medical technology may or may not allow for significant numbers of these old folks to keep working and making a living even in relatively old age, my father who is around 68 is still working full time for example, short a catastrophic renal failure or cascade organ failure or something I could see 75 being feasible to keep working at.

c) China isn't laissez-faire, natural economic incentives do alot for them but if they have to they aren't going to be afraid of implementing a wide array of artificial incentives to get the demographics corrected.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

You are dead on about the F-20. It was a great fighter, but only four were built (of which two crashed due to pilot blackout).

As far as I know it had four advantages over the F-16:

- Price
- Serviceability
- Lower stall speed (77 mph ! )
- Ordinance compatibility (it could carry a newer missile)

A wing redesign was on the drafting table that would have given clear advantage back to the F-16, but it was seen as unnecessary. The economies of scale had already established its place in both the domestic, and foreign markets.


Blayne,

You are hopeless.

[ June 28, 2011, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: noel ]

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Claiming that the T-72 is "crap" is I find, fairly dubious that will be difficult for you to prove, essentially you would need to argue that it would require a huge disparity in numbers for T72 formation to defeat an equivilent Abrams formation. But seeing as how to the best of my ability to determine the best T72's variants of the 1989 vs the M1 of 1989 the disparity in performance isn't so large to support this.

The only evidence that CAN support this, is combat history and maybe expert testimony, but the combat history is woefully inadequate for this task. As the Iraqi models were stripped of their electronics and used trainer steel penetrator rounds.

Well the Iraqi's didn't strip the armor off of their T-72's and the M1A1's decimated them. Here is an account of the largest tank battle between T-72's and M1's:

quote:
Battle of 73 Easting:
The Battle of 73 Easting refers narrowly to the violent armored combat action that took place in the final hours of 2nd ACR’s covering force operation in the zone of Second Squadron and in the northern third of the Third Squadron zone.

At 4:10 p.m. Eagle Troop received fire from an Iraqi infantry position in a cluster of buildings at UTM PU 6801. The troop returned fire with its tanks and Bradleys, silenced the Iraqi guns, took prisoners, and continued east with the two tank platoons leading. The 12 M1A1 tanks of Eagle Troop destroyed 28 Iraqi tanks, 16 personnel carriers. and 30 trucks in 23 minutes with no American losses.

At about 4:20 Eagle crested a low rise and surprised an Iraqi tank company set up in a reverse slope defense on the 70 Easting. Captain McMaster, leading the attack, immediately engaged that position, destroying the first of the eight enemy tanks to his front. His two tank platoons finished the rest.

Three kilometers to the east McMaster could see T-72s in prepared positions. Continuing his attack past the 70 limit of advance, he fought his way through an infantry defensive position and on to high ground along the 74 Easting. There he encountered and destroyed another enemy tank unit of eighteen T72s. In that action the Iraqis stood their ground and attempted to maneuver against the troop. This was the first determined defense the Regiment had encountered in its three days of operations. Still, the Iraqi troops had been surprised because of the inclement weather and were quickly destroyed by the superbly trained American troopers.

After defeating that force, McMaster sent a scout platoon north to regain contact with Troop G. In doing that the scout platoon encountered another Iraqi tank position of thirteen T72s which they destroyed with TOW missiles.[12]

Other 2nd ACR Troops I (call sign “Iron”), K (“Killer”), and G (“Ghost”) joined the fight minutes later. Iron Troop of Third Squadron had halted around the 67 Easting to control the limit of advance with its tank cannons. As the troop moved north to secure its northern boundary around 4:45, it came under fire from the same group of buildings E Troop had fought through an hour earlier.

Captain Dan Miller, commanding I Troop, silenced the resistance with return fire then attacked to the 70 Easting. There, he confronted T72s in defensive positions south of those E Troop had just obliterated. With initial support from Captain Mac Haszard’s K Troop, Miller’s tanks destroyed sixteen enemy tanks on that position and then attacked through it. Just beyond the defenses I Troop observed another formation of enemy tanks moving in its direction and attacked it with tank and TOW fires. During that engagement, TOW missile fire from a K Troop Bradley struck and destroyed an I Troop Bradley wounding all three crewmen. Before returning to positions along the 70 Easting, I Troop located the defending battalion’s command post and destroyed its command bunker and security forces.

Massive amounts of T-72's destroyed, no M1's destroyed. Now granted Iraqi T-72's were not as good as Soviet one's either in crew quality and mechanics, but the results are completely lopsided.

quote:
Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.

Six other M1A1s were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.

Link

To summarize:

All the stats say M1's were better than T-72's. The only combat was decisive in favor of the M1's and you have yet to show any credible source which concurs with you. So I have to concur with the consensus that M1's were and are decisively better than T-72's.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just during the Normandy campaign...

Allied Tank loses due to all causes 3105 Tanks/SP Guns/ TD.

German tank loses due to all causes 1845 Tanks/SP Guns/TD.

Ratio 1.68 : 1.

When adjusting for Tank Vs Tank battles between the two sides the range then adjusts to between 5.54 : 1 on the high range to 4.44 :1 on the low range. Exact tally is questioned on the basis of known causality of combat loeses reported by both sides.

The Americans alone wrote off over 1500 M4 Sherman tanks during this time period. The Germans lost 197 PkW IV, 112 PkW V Panthers, and 15 Tiger I tanks.

You do the math, after adding in the British and Canadian M4 tanks. I think you will find, as most military historians have found and agreed that in terms of combat the Sherman was a deathtrap for its crews. For the Normandy campaign alone, even with total air superiority, logistical superiority, supply superiority, and a huge numerical advantage in just the numbers of M4 tanks and no other armored vehicles considered, the resulting ratio of tank vs tank combat was 5 to 1 in favor of the German tanks.

The Sherman was an inferior tank from the outset, and that reality was understood by even Field Marshals like Montgomery who nevertheless chose to deploy them because they offered a lower rate of mortality than otherwise would occur on infantry assaults alone. And despite your claim to the contrary, the Sherman really was nicknamed ROnson and Zippo- along with other nicknames that would likely be censored by Ornery's auto filter. Rules of thumb followed by experienced Sherman crews included such things as...

It takes 3 Shermans to take out a PkW IV
It takes 4 to take out a Panther
It takes 5 to take out a Tiger if you are lucky or can sneak five more Shermans behind the Tiger bringing the total # of Shermans to 10 vs 1.

I dont know about you but if my tank has an under gunned main armament, is prone to cooking off ammunition after even the most glancing blow, is known by nicknames such as Tommy Cooker, and routinely manages to be killed off at 5 to 1 ratios despite having full tactical mastery of the entire theater of operations.....


I dont think I'd be willing to make the claim that an M4 Sherman Tank is a decent design for a tank compared to its contemporaries.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As the thread started, I'd appreciate if you didn't bury our sub-thread which is at least marginally relevant, involving communism, beneath the battle of the transformers, or tanks, or whatever the hell you and Grant are talking about. [Wink]

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Pete, you post doesn't make much sense.

Your original post is this:

quote:

And look at the current situation in China. China remains communist, but has not liberalized politically. However, it has changed it's economic system to be far more capitalistic. Again, the evidence seems to indicate that communism can't really endure as an economic system, but that as an authoritarian political system it can survive, if not thrive.


[Confused]

No, Blayne, I never said that. You've confused me with someone else. I've not made such broad statements about China. My statements about China were specific, factual, and so far, completely unrefuted.

[snip Blayne's erroneous response to someone that he thought was me]


quote:
My response was that you appeared to respond to this:
Chinese political system is basically the modern rebirth of Mo(h)ism and Confucian principles applied to a modern state. The emphasis on "Chinese characteristics" bit.

Yes, I did respond to that, but I didn't say what you said I said. See page 1.


quote:
My point, is that the Chinese political system is not communism per se, or marxism per se,
I agree with that. Take issue with the rest of the paragraph, but that would require me to make more generalized statements that I don't have the time to prove, so I'll stick to facts.

quote:
Thus saying their current government is "communist"
I don't recall accusing the Chinese Communist Party of being communist, Blayne.

quote:
[Pete]
Then why do they actually rewrite the very PREAMBLE to the PRC constitution every time a new dude takes the steering wheel? It does make Chinese National Socialism look a little bit like a cult of personality. Although I do concede that Chinese [n]ational [s]ocialism does lean heavily on the old "mandate of heaven" idea.

[BB]Which doesn't make any sense in context as a reply. Because simply changing the preamble to whatever, doesn't change the underlying facts of Chinese politics and their roots to their past philosophies.

Agreed. If anything, the implied causality runs the other way entirely. But I suspect that Chinese national socialism is not really philosophicaly based on any philosophy, but rather on "say anything that justifies our total hold on power."

quote:
My response, isn't so much that the mandate of heaven is a myth, is that it occupies the same spot in the collective unconscious of Chinese political discourse as say, certain european founding myths. There has never been a concrete formulation or development of the mandate of heaven to the same pursuasive extant as say, Confucanism.
Agreed and well said. But do yourself a favor, read the preamble to the PRC constitution, and then ask yourself, as honestly as is possible to you, whether the PRC preamble evinces the concrete formulation of Confucianism, or that of, well, the Illiad. [Cool]

quote:
[snip blitheringly obscure reference] I don't think you'll be seeing many Chinese netizens defending their nations honor or the legitimacy of the CCP through "Mandate of heaven" nonesense except in an indirect fashion that has more to do with their ingrained conceptualization of Confucian and Taoist principles.
Agreed. Although in Shanghai I was pained and horrified at the number of people that had never heard of Lao Tzu. And how do you reckon that contradicts what I actually said?


quote:

I did not mean to suggest that China followed German Naziism, Blayne. I apologize for capitalizing "national socialism" which I should have left in generic small letters. But now that you bring it up, there are some similarities and parallels to Roehm's speeches ...
---
[Roll Eyes]

You're right; Roehm was far closer ideologically to marxist socialism than anything in the PRC today. [Big Grin]

quote:

I was not arguing that Chinese national socialism was founded on racial supremacy. But China is one of many countries that makes Trotsky flop over in his grave, by proclaiming to the world their unique ultranationalistic brand of socialism.
---
Dunno how this relates to what I said.

It's an explanation of what I said, which you, misunderstanding me, condemned as false. Remember?

quote:

Which differs from Maoist political discourse ... how exactly?
--
BB: Lack of good words on my part but still doesn't validate this sentence, since obviously Maoism is more concrete then the Mandate of Heaven as its at least allegedly based on 'scientific socialism' and is more complete as a functional ethical system.

"Scientific socialism" does sound a bit like a fairy tale, neh?


quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
(The question was did China ever develop a proper balance of power system)

That does sound like an interesting question. Thanks for the reference.

[ June 28, 2011, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

All the stats say M1's were better than T-72's. The only combat was decisive in favor of the M1's and you have yet to show any credible source which concurs with you. So I have to concur with the consensus that M1's were and are decisively better than T-72's.

May I ask you to repeat what my assertion was? Since it doesn't appear to be the case that we're arguing the same thing.

quote:

And despite your claim to the contrary

Bull****, I never said it wasn't.

quote:

I dont think I'd be willing to make the claim that an M4 Sherman Tank is a decent design for a tank compared to its contemporaries.

For a design produced in 1941 it dang well was a decent design. That it could maintain even 3-4 to 1 odds over about 60% of the German tank inventory can be seen as a credit to its design.

But I already explained that this analogy is bad, the differences between a M1 and a T-72 isn't the same as the gap between a Tiger and a Sherman, nor are the situations even remotely similar, your basically just grabbing tank designs out of context.

Actually its possible the Iraqi T-72's *did* lack armor, did they have their ERA-5 protection?

Next its undeniable from a strategic aspect that the Sherman still won the allies the Western campaign, and they in the end won the war, which kinda descredits your overall point as if numbers is all it takes to win anyways then what do the russians need to worry about? Absent all other considerations.

quote:

Massive amounts of T-72's destroyed, no M1's destroyed. Now granted Iraqi T-72's were not as good as Soviet one's either in crew quality and mechanics, but the results are completely lopsided.

Which would be completely consistent with the aforementioned lack of quality crews, ammunition, leadership, moral etc etc.
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh Pete I was actually on topic for your original start. I'm also watching you attempt to debate something Im not going to attempt since i'll likely get surly with Blayne. However i am noting that maintaining ideas such as a Sherman is a good tank, the T72 is an equal to the M1-A1, and the one child rule in China is not a ticking demographic nightmare to be enlightening compared to the issue you are trying to explain to Blayne.

I wish you luck in the endeavor.

But it seems that in order to effectively get your argument across by any measure, will require a lot of patience and the removal of cognitively confused preconceptions of beliefs.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your claim Blayne was that the design was a decent one compared to its contemporaries. I stated that I would not be in agreement with such a view. I.E Your claim is contrary to reality, and one that I would not make due to it being factually demonstrated that the M4 was a Purple Heart Box. Its kinda like you not seeing the forest for the trees in the T-72 example. Or the nature of the demographics and even the most conservative implications as it relates to China, or even your current conversation with Pete.

So you might want to edit out the expletive you posted, because you indeed did state what I said said you did. Only I dont think you understood the syntax or the point I was driving home. Namely you are arguing something demonstrably false with me. That you are doing the same with others at the same time is frankly entertaining because I dont think you even realize it.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:

All the stats say M1's were better than T-72's. The only combat was decisive in favor of the M1's and you have yet to show any credible source which concurs with you. So I have to concur with the consensus that M1's were and are decisively better than T-72's.

May I ask you to repeat what my assertion was? Since it doesn't appear to be the case that we're arguing the same thing.

How about these:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
the Soviets had a massive superiority in their numbers of older but still capable equipment such as the T-72 MBT that only required a few upgrades to keep pace with the M1 Abrams

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I'm absolutely certain that the numbers are hardly so one sided as to assure a M1 victory in all cases and situations. I would consider a 3-2 superiority in numbers sufficient.

quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The point here is that there appears to be enough evidence of the capability and relative advantages to the T-72 that would make it comparable enough to the M1 that assuming all things being equal except numbers the T-72 would be satisfactory with a modest numerical superiority in defeating a formation of its equivalent M1's.

In essence, you have just been making random statements and then hand waving away any actual evidence to the contrary.

I would like to see you actually substantiate the 3 T-72's = 2 M1's claim.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The War Nerd RPG vs M1

You all just reminded me of this article.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jeeeezu,

Man I am so sorry. I'm sorry Souless One. I never meant to hijack the the thread. I just accidentally gave my opinion on a piece of Soviet military hardware. Then I fooled myself into thinking that it would be easy to prove my opinion. My bad, next time we'll take it outside.

Blayne, this is the last post I'm gonna make on the damn T-72 vs M1. You can take it or leave it. It's my own OPINION that the T-72 is crap.

BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION....the T-72B (that's the suped up sov version) is INFERIOR to the M1, and would have to rely on SUPERIOR NUMBERS to win an engagement between the two. For the sake of simplicity, I will AGREE that 3 T-72Bs could defeat 1 M1 circa 1986.

Now in my opinion, needing 3 to 1 superiority to win an engagement means that your weapon system is CRAP! I'll tell you why I think that, and you can respectfully disagree. I used to be the moron that rode around in those things (M1A1s). I was a tanker. And if somebody told me that in order to defeat the enemy's tanks, I would need 3 to 1 superiority, I would think that my tank was a piece of crap. Knowing that even with 3 to 1 superiority, I had a 2 IN 3 CHANCE OF BEING BEING pulverized by a depleted uranium sabot round, and my liquified remains sucked out of the exit penetration from the negative pressure, then I'd be pretty bummed. Think about what that means to morale. If I outnumber the enemy 3 to 1, I have only a 1 in 3 chance of survival. If I do happen to survive, it's because my two wingtanks are gone! My buddies are dead. THAT's why I call the T-72 a piece of crap.

Now if YOU were riding in a T-72, and your platoon came into contact with a single M1, and you were told by your platoon leader to go and draw fire while he tries to get close enough for a kill, how would you feel about your tank then? I know what I'd feel about mine.


By the way, you are right about the T-72 having greater mobility then the M1. That's a function of being almost HALF the weight of your opponent. And you're right about the turbine engine being a gas guzzler. But JP8 doesn't go kerbloom like diesel or petrol.

Finis

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
The War Nerd RPG vs M1

You all just reminded me of this article.

Oh God! (cries) People think I'm one of THOSE!
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
The War Nerd RPG vs M1

You all just reminded me of this article.

Oh God! (cries) People think I'm one of THOSE!
A War Nerd?
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
Man I am so sorry. I'm sorry Souless One. I never meant to hijack the the thread. I just accidentally gave my opinion on a piece of Soviet military hardware. Then I fooled myself into thinking that it would be easy to prove my opinion. My bad, next time we'll take it outside.

You're fine, since your reply to me wasn't buried in Tank gears; you put me at the top of the thread where I belong. [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
VL,

Things are actually much worse that your linked article would indicate. Within the last few months a British Challenger's frontal armour was defeated by the RPG-29, the latest variant of a Russian shoulder-fired rocket.

This is significant because this armor is identical to that of the Abrams.

But for the fact that the U.S. has moved away from heavy armour to faster, lighter, wheeled vehicles... we would have a quandry on our hands... on the other hand, the game never ends in both hardware development, and countermeasures.

My point in bringing up the Iraqi static deployment of the T-72, is that it is no strategy at all against the M-1. We simply shot right through the berm (and reactive armour is only good for one hit).

The Russian advisors essentially set-up Iraqi tank crews for execution.

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
A War Nerd?

Yeah. An armchair theorist. Like the guys who talk about football all day long and are "experts" but never played a game.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm done Pete. [Wink]
Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When we first start deploying dudes in Heinlein-style power armor, I'll join the hardware wars discussion. Until then, I'll continue baiting Blayne with irrefutable facts about the PRC. Like that

1. The PRC is a nation. [gasp]
2. That Mao was carried on a big litter during what everyone else called The Great March.
3. That the philosophy propounded by the PRC was created to justify PRC actions, rather than the actions resulting from some coherent philosophy.
4. That I am not the same person as everyone else that BB disagrees with.

etc.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol

but seriously Pete what was your point in the initial artical comentary that started the thread?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
lol

but seriously Pete what was your point in the initial artical comentary that started the thread?

My point was that
quote:
if Americans really want to say "Never Again" to Stalinism, they need to stop giving themselves credit for the death of that evil empire.
That we serve better as shedding light on liberty, and cheering it on, rather than setting ourselves up as the authors and finishers of liberty.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
When we first start deploying dudes in Heinlein-style power armor, I'll join the hardware wars discussion. Until then, I'll continue baiting Blayne with irrefutable facts about the PRC. Like that

1. The PRC is a nation. [gasp]
2. That Mao was carried on a big litter during what everyone else called The Great March.
3. That the philosophy propounded by the PRC was created to justify PRC actions, rather than the actions resulting from some coherent philosophy.
4. That I am not the same person as everyone else that BB disagrees with.

etc.

Look the conversion turned a more reasonable turn with your last post and I apologize for being snippy but this post isn't amusing.

1) Yes, I know the PRC is a nation, when I ever say it wasn't?

2) Uh, for malaria? Kinda normal for that to happen. I suggest stop reading books written by psycopathic emo butt hurt refugees like Jung Chang.

3) An oversimplification, there's just as much evidence to show it was the natural continuation of the philosophies talked about in the book I linked you as it is them changing things to suit their new drive towards modernization.

4) No idea what you mean here.

quote:

How about these:

In essence, you have just been making random statements and then hand waving away any actual evidence to the contrary.

I would like to see you actually substantiate the 3 T-72's = 2 M1's claim.

So you admit then that I never said they were equal to the Abrams circa 1989?

I also point out that the key part of "keeping pace" requires "upgrades" as in more modern armor, powerplant, ammunition, optics and fire control and I think you'ld see the T-72 be able to effectively mission kill the Abrams with favorable odds.


quote:

Blayne, this is the last post I'm gonna make on the damn T-72 vs M1. You can take it or leave it. It's my own OPINION that the T-72 is crap.

Yes, that is what I was objecting to, I was never saying that 1 to 1 or head to head they were an even match. I was objecting to your blithe assertion that the tank, on its own merits was "crap". Which on its own merits you have NOT been able to refute, the best you could say is that it is inferior to the M1, which is a bad comparison as its contemporary is the Leopard 1 and similar.

quote:

But JP8 doesn't go kerbloom like diesel or petrol.

I'm fairly certain that the main advantage of diesel was that it didn't go kerbloom as easily as petrol.

quote:

Now in my opinion, needing 3 to 1 superiority to win an engagement means that your weapon system is CRAP!

When using an older obsolete weapon system? I think I like those odds. That it is 3-1 and not say 6-1 I think says alot.

Remember the facts:

1) On its own merits, recall that I objected to you saying it was crap, is it really crap? I do not believe this to be the case.
2) We used the comparison to the Abrams NOT because they are same class, but because the Abrams is the next gen afterwards, that 3-1 odds can still effectively mission kill an Abrams and not say 10-1, is evidence that the T-72, despite being from 1971 while the Abrams was in service a full decade afterwards should imply something.

quote:

My point in bringing up the Iraqi static deployment of the T-72, is that it is no strategy at all against the M-1. We simply shot right through the berm (and reactive armour is only good for one hit).

The Russian advisors essentially set-up Iraqi tank crews for execution.

Why are you still on your non-sequitur?
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why are you still on your non-sequitor?"...

I will remember this question for future reference.

The logic you were supposed to follow, is that even Russian specialists would laugh at you. The best thing a T-72 crew could do, when faced down by an Abrams, is to use their modest advantage in speed to turn around and run like hell.

... not that their chances of survival would be high notwithstanding.

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant,

Tell this knucklehead what the sighting system of an Abrams is capable of.

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel:
Grant,

Tell this knucklehead what the sighting system of an Abrams is capable of.

Whatever for? Man, I'm done with that thread tumor. I'm in war nerd rehab, stuck on step 4. I've said all I need to say about.... that thing. The thing in the thread that we talked about that time.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel:
"Why are you still on your non-sequitor?"...

I will remember this question for future reference.

The logic you were supposed to follow, is that even Russian specialists would laugh at you. The best thing a T-72 crew could do, when faced down by an Abrams, is to use their modest advantage in speed to turn around and run like hell.

... not that their chances of survival would be high notwithstanding.

That doesn't at all follow from my posts, never did I say Iraqi T-72's would be of an equal fight, never did I even say Russian T-72's could give an equal fight.

You are delusional. Fighting a fictional war inside your own fictional little world. Say hi to all the fictional little people for me, you and they have alot in common.

There is no trace of logic between your non sequitur and what I have been discussing.

quote:

Tell this knucklehead what the sighting system of an Abrams is capable of.

I'm certain your magically ability to travel through time to give the 1989 abrams the 2011 abrams sighting system will be of use.

I was never arguing that they were equal, in which case the sighting system of the Abrams or other individual facts about the Abrams are irrelevant, in fact the Abrams itself is fairly irrelevant because that was never the key argument.

The argument, is my disagreement that the T-72 is in of itself "crap" design. There is nothing to substantiate this, I think that you have to acquire an entire next gen tech design before you are properly capable of arguing against it is some evidence in fact in its favor as being a decent design all around.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I.....just.....can't......stop

Blayne,

You just said:

quote:
I was never arguing that they were equal (T-72 vs M1)
When in fact, yesterday afternoon you said:

quote:
the T-72 MBT that only required a few upgrades to keep pace with the M1 Abrams
I'm going to interpret "keeping pace" with "equality."

You also just said this:

quote:
The argument, is my disagreement that the T-72 is in of itself "crap" design.
Two can tango, Blayne. My initial assertion, you can go back and re-read it if you like, is this:

quote:
Ehhhhhhh. The T-72 was a piece of crap compared to the M1, Challenger, and Leopard II.
There ya go Blayne. Read it. And the T-72 WAS a generation behind because it was designed to fight Patton A3s, Chieftains, and Leopard Is.


God, I need help!

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blayne,

Redskull's original point was that western advantages in military hardware placed economic pressures upon the soviet system which, in concert with other factors, led to its collapse.

In that context, the T-72 was "junk".


"I'm certain your magically ability to travel through time to give the 1989 abrams the 2011 Abrams sighting system will be of use."...

The *original* Abrams distinguished itself from all European counterparts with its fire control system. I personally saw that system track an owl, in flight, at approximately 100 yards while the tank moved across uneven terrain.

The 4mph speed advantage of the T-72 does not do much to off-set capabilities like that.

Now why don't you go back to Pete's points before he gets upset with the continued derail. [Wink]

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah thats how the whole tank thing started.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Look the conversion turned a more reasonable turn with your last post and I apologize for being snippy but this post isn't amusing.

Damn, an apology and an indication you realized some of my statements were intended humorously? You're going to make me stop baiting you and start taking you seriously at this rate. I'm easy that way. [Frown]

quote:
1) Yes, I know the PRC is a nation, when I ever say it wasn't?
That was the jibe about Chinese socialism being a subset of nationalist socialisms, anathema to Marx and heresy to Trotsky.

quote:
2) Uh, for malaria? Kinda normal for that to happen. I suggest stop reading books written by psycopathic emo butt hurt refugees like Jung Chang.
Never heard of Jung Chang. But last we spoke, I thought you claimed it was dysentery. Has the official PRC line been revised since our discussion last fall? [Wink]


quote:
3) An oversimplification, there's just as much evidence to show it was the natural continuation of the philosophies talked about in the book I linked you as it is them changing things to suit their new drive towards modernization.
Fair enough. The PRC would not be the first regime to philosophize excuses for its methods, nor would it be the first regime whose methods adapted to its professed philosophy (who is it that said, "when the gods want to punish us, they make us believe our own lies"?)


quote:

[pn]4. That I am not the same person as everyone else that BB disagrees with.
[bb]4) No idea what you mean here.

Just that yesterday you misattributed both Red and JWatts' statements to me. Not that it's a capital crime; I've made similar mistakes, but I do expect to get teased for it when I so err. Name of the game.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Never heard of Jung Chang. But last we spoke, I thought you claimed it was dysentery. Has the official PRC line been revised since our discussion last fall?

I'm pretty sure I've only ever said malaria, but sickness is sickness and no army in the world when retreating leaves their top brass behind.
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel:
Now why don't you go back to Pete's points before he gets upset with the continued derail. [Wink]

No problem with this derail; I was just saying that if someone responds to me, put it at the top of the post, otherwise I might not notice a response to me that starts halfway through a post that's otherwise about hardware wars.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1