BlacktailFA In reply to Konigstiger69 [2022-08-18 09:12:34 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA In reply to Konigstiger69 [2022-05-09 11:14:50 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA In reply to DreadnoughtK1916 [2022-05-09 11:17:01 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA In reply to Persona22 [2022-01-07 06:09:11 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Persona22 In reply to BlacktailFA [2022-01-07 12:43:22 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to Persona22 [2022-01-11 02:57:53 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Persona22 In reply to BlacktailFA [2022-01-11 12:20:05 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DreadnoughtK1916 In reply to Persona22 [2021-08-09 23:38:29 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

thormemeson In reply to Persona22 [2019-04-13 00:08:14 +0000 UTC]

If it's hard to replenish it's ammunition at sea there would be no point in such a high endurance system

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA In reply to TheObscureAuthor [2016-12-30 00:34:03 +0000 UTC]

It was already done 30 years ago --- by Brazil, a nation with very little prior experience in tank design. Look-up the EE-T1 Osorio.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

DreadnoughtK1916 In reply to BlacktailFA [2021-08-09 23:44:30 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to DreadnoughtK1916 [2021-08-10 12:55:05 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheObscureAuthor In reply to BlacktailFA [2016-12-30 01:49:52 +0000 UTC]

:/...To be honest, I wasn't expecting for you to even bother replying because of how much your information has been critically panned, and honestly, I'm with the rest of them in case you didn't notice from my comment. But moving on, that's not what I'm asking for. I've already done research on the EE-T1 Osorio, what I want to know is if you think the M1 and M1A2 are not reliable, then why not YOU come up with a tank design yourself?

Also...there is a saying we have in Indiana...you may have not heard of it, but that's because it's exclusive to us southern Indiana folk...here it is: "You just ain't doin' it right". That is my statement for every rebuttal against the M1 Abrams you've made, every "Failed Tanks" videos, and essentially the amount of misinformation that would make David Peters seem like he's telling the truth. Take this comment any way that you want, you can even outright yell at me and insult my very intelligence, but in the end it's not going to change my mindsent and in fact will probably only bolster my reasoning to why I very much disagree with your opinions.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to TheObscureAuthor [2016-12-31 08:18:08 +0000 UTC]

So, which of my claims exactly do you take exception to?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

TheObscureAuthor In reply to BlacktailFA [2017-04-04 18:11:09 +0000 UTC]

Been a long time. . .Are you still alive right now?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to TheObscureAuthor [2017-04-15 07:47:34 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I just have my hands full in a lot of other places.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheObscureAuthor In reply to BlacktailFA [2016-12-31 16:45:08 +0000 UTC]

There have been only five vehicles that in your failed tanks that I agree with you...and 5 out of 39 is only 13% (technically 12.8205128205%) of your failed tanks series. Of course the Bob Semple and A38 Valiant are among those two, because they are widely accepted as examples of how NOT to develop a tank, but when you go towards panning tanks that were successful in not only the field of combat, but also the export market (like the FT, which happens to have been used by a number of countries be it for research or to be used as the bulk of the force). As for aircraft and warships, they aren't of my interest, and as such I didn't bother to watch them because I'm no better of an aeronautics engineer than you would be or claim to be. Look at it this way, there is a reason why the US along with the rest of the world replaces equipment from time to time, its because technology continues to evolve, sometimes faster than we expect. If you keep living in the past, you'll end up being way behind and you'll be effectively outgunned, or outwitted, by others. We're living in a world where its getting closer to fitting railguns into tanks, stealth technology has allowed for the mimicking of heat signatures, and even weapons that we thought (in the 1980s) wouldn't be possible to achieve. Going back to equipment like the M48 Patton, while as successful as it was at its time, would be a bigger mistake than accepting a faulty hardware that can be sorted out easily. You can only extend the life of an old piece of technology for so long...and I don't think you expected me to write this all out on an Apple II or a Windows 95 or whatever computer system that nobody uses anymore.

Look...outside of all of this military stuff, I think you're not at all a bad person, but the thing is that you've gotten yourself in a situation where you are trying to resist a strong current...you can only hold out for so long before you become swept away or drowned out, and needless to say I think you should at least give the whole vitriol towards the Abrams a rest and try to at LEAST look at it from a different point of view. Yes, it has its flaws, but nobody said that it was perfect. In fact, I do not believe that the concept of "the perfect tank" in this day and age, as just when you think you have something that could win against anything, there's going to be something to counter that. ...Yes I know that my statement on telling you to at least look at a tank that you hate so much with a different perspective is hypocritical, but I've done it myself with tanks like the M13/40 and the Chi-Ha, and needless to say that I have a better understanding as to what the situation was for tanks like these and just simply calling them failures when they had actually done their intended roles (at least for the time they were deployed).

Again, take this comment any way you see it, you can get all offensive from if you want, but your wasting breath now and frankly I don't want to get this conversation to snowball into a full-on debacle between two opposing ideas. The next comment I get from you, I'm more than likely to ignore it, as you avoided my question on what would you put into a main battle tank if you were put in charge of a project.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to TheObscureAuthor [2017-01-01 04:08:44 +0000 UTC]

So, in short, weapon systems should not be judged based on their technical merits, because some of them won battles --- and that the whole point of making an argument is to keep pressing-forward the consensus, because going along to get along. And that the Golden Mean is not a fallacy.

Also that newer means better. After all, that's why the M85 fully-replaced the M2HB back in the 1960s, and no one was using M2HBs anymore by the 1980s. After all, the technical merits of the 1920s-era M2HB were most definitely not a factor in it's success or failure.

Most important of all, that you won't listen to anything I have to say, because you didn't like the answer.

Got it! You really showed me who's boss!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheObscureAuthor In reply to BlacktailFA [2017-01-01 05:52:18 +0000 UTC]

Nice to know we're finally on the same page . (Yes, I know what I said, but I just felt that your sarcasm was too good to pass up...still, nice to know we're now on the same page, same time tomorrow lol )

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to TheObscureAuthor [2017-01-01 12:37:55 +0000 UTC]

No problem... I think. XD

BTW: I *do* in fact have a concept for an optimal (for the US military) future MBT, but it's not fully-formed yet. It also had to go through a couple of iterations as well (e.g., I initially wanted a front engine without an aft turret, but there wouldn't have been enough space for it behind the glacis plate, and it would have been too front-heavy; it also would have had a Wankel rotary engine like one of my earlier tank concepts, but it's not worth the trouble of developing a Wankel engine to the point that it could feasibly power a tank).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheObscureAuthor In reply to BlacktailFA [2017-01-01 19:48:05 +0000 UTC]

Well, most tank concepts generally have that problem going for them, as sometimes new things get introduced (like ATGMs with longer operational range or...giant iron rods falling from space), and so the staff have to go back to the drawing board to figure out how to counter these. Such tanks like the M1 Abrams series (no offense) and the long line of Russian "T" series go through this. Another thing, I generally break the tank concept down into two types:
-Specialist Tanks, where the concept is specifically meant for a type of situation or strategy that may be too difficult for the MBT to perform due to circumstances.
-Platforms/Modules, a tank chassis that can be used for variations and upgrades. A tank can be successful if the base of the vehicle allows for modifications to improve or alter the role of a tank. An example would be the Panzer IV, as it initially started off with a short-barrelled gun because it was intended to support the Panzer IIIs against infantry while the Panzer IIIs took on enemy armor. Over the course of the war, the Panzer III just wasn't pulling its own weight anymore and so they were upgunning the Panzer IV with longer guns. By the end of the war, they were putting more armor on them and they even converted some of them into tank destroyers like the StuG IV or the Jagdpanzer IV...and the assault gun known as the StuPa or Brummbar. In shorter terms, if the chassis is able to accommodate different uses, then the vehicle itself has a better service life than that of a tank that doesn't have much room to accommodate upgrades or modifications...

I don't really have many tank concepts on my page (in fact just one...as most of my concepts are of alternate-universe WW2 firearms and weapons), but I normally just try to figure out what works and go from there, changing things that would most likely either defeat its purpose as a specialist vehicle or if the chassis is unable to provide enough different uses in combat...also I am sorry if I just ranted but I normally do that when I begin brainstorming on new things and it annoys the heck out of some of my peers...soo...sorry about that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA In reply to JasperTheShota [2016-11-18 11:50:51 +0000 UTC]

There are a number of ways in which the M113 stands-out.

First, it was one of the first AFVs with a fully-modular construction, which is why there are over 200 distinct variants.

Second, it's the only Western Bloc AFV of the Cold War to out-produce it's Eastern Bloc counterparts, with over 85,000 made. Moreover, the only AFVs ever produced in greater numbers before or since are the T-54/55 (100,000), and the Universal Carrier (113,000) --- the later is notable for being the spiritual predecessor of the M113, as well as the only AFV used by all belligerents during World War 2.

Third, it was used by more than 50 nations, most of whom still operate them to this day. That number continues to expand, as the M113 proliferates further and further.

Fourth, it was one of the first modern Airborne AFVs, with the vehicle's size and mass and the C-130's payload and cargo bay dimensions literally being designed around one another. Also being amphibious (though some models are too heavy for this), the M113 has the ability to rapidly deploy by land, air, or sea.

Fifth, the M113's Aluminum alloy armor is the secret to both it's protection and it's weight and space efficiency. It's WAY stronger than you would expect, with a one-square-foot plate two inches thick weighing as much as a steel plate of the same area and half the thickness, but offering a 15% greater tensile strength.

There's more than that, but those five facts make it pretty obvious that the M113 is one of the most important AFVs ever produced.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

DreadnoughtK1916 In reply to BlacktailFA [2021-08-09 23:48:22 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to DreadnoughtK1916 [2021-08-10 12:18:20 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JasperTheShota In reply to BlacktailFA [2016-11-18 23:16:32 +0000 UTC]

o_o

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to JasperTheShota [2016-12-08 09:36:15 +0000 UTC]

Don't let it be said that a succinct question always has a succinct answer.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JasperTheShota In reply to BlacktailFA [2016-12-08 21:38:15 +0000 UTC]

alrighty than, Whatcha' think about Steam vs Diesel railroading?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlacktailFA In reply to JasperTheShota [2016-12-14 10:33:46 +0000 UTC]

I don't really know, because I don't know a lot about rolling stock in general.

I know that in ships, steam propulsion offers the most power, while diesel propulsion offers greater economy (and power density, with a smaller propulsion system producing a given amount of power), but I don't know how marine steam propulsion compares to locomotive steam propulsion.

Gas turbines and electric motors are definite losers though, at least where hauling heavy loads is concerned. You don't get much low-end torque out of a gas turbine, and electric motors are sorely lacking in torque *and* power compared to diesel and steam alternatives. This is why the only electric trains you normally see are trams, street cars, subways, and specialty passenger trains with light loads. Every project to use a gas turbine in train has so far ended in broken promises, broken banks, and broken engines. XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JasperTheShota In reply to BlacktailFA [2016-12-14 11:31:13 +0000 UTC]

Hrm bud don't diss electric Engines like the GG1 or AEM7

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA In reply to Persona22 [2022-05-09 11:23:19 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0