Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite
More Like This: (Beta Temporary Feature)
User Comments:
Anonymous commented at 2012-03-18 01:08:27 » #1026784
What you all don't realize is that her Cellphone is an advanced piece of military technology...and it's camera...isn't really a camera at all but a Laser. Hence the 'unrealistically narrow holes' in the armor!!
Yay for bullshitting. >.>
0 Points
Flag
What you all don't realize is that her Cellphone is an advanced piece of military technology...and it's camera...isn't really a camera at all but a Laser. Hence the 'unrealistically narrow holes' in the armor!!
Yay for bullshitting. >.>
0 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2013-06-20 20:31:01 » #1345044
Well, I wouldn't say NOTHING of that caliber, p = mv, so to get the requisite energy on a projectile of that caliber you just need to get it going fast enough. Though that is quite impractical and nothing currently in mass production is capable of it. (there may be a prototype somewhere)
2 Points
Flag
Well, I wouldn't say NOTHING of that caliber, p = mv, so to get the requisite energy on a projectile of that caliber you just need to get it going fast enough. Though that is quite impractical and nothing currently in mass production is capable of it. (there may be a prototype somewhere)
2 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2013-09-08 01:20:22 » #1395110
I find it funny how the Abrams is often sited as still being the best battle tank in the world, and honestly it isn't really, not anymore.
Its armor plating is impressive, of that there has never been any doubt, but no armor scheme is perfect, Abrams tanks have been wrecked in combat on several occasions, that no crew members have died is generally either because of timely rescue, or the attackers not bothering to breach the crew compartment, as their often content to have wrecked the tank so bad it has to be shipped back to the states to be rebuilt.
The 120 mm main gun is pretty much par for the course nowadays on virtually all modern battle tanks, and the tradeoff to the incredibly complicated electronics that are constantly being added, is that many of them are potentially vulnerable to electronic warfare and ECM, to say nothing of the prospect of far more frequent equipment malfunctions that are inevitable when you start adding stuff to an already complicated system.
And while the Abrams does have very good speed and maneuverability for its size and weight, it comes at the cost of a ridiculously high fuel consumption rate, which causes the Abrams' most glaring vulnerability, they have to be supported in the field by a vast and vulnerable network of fuel trucks.
1 Points
Flag
I find it funny how the Abrams is often sited as still being the best battle tank in the world, and honestly it isn't really, not anymore.
Its armor plating is impressive, of that there has never been any doubt, but no armor scheme is perfect, Abrams tanks have been wrecked in combat on several occasions, that no crew members have died is generally either because of timely rescue, or the attackers not bothering to breach the crew compartment, as their often content to have wrecked the tank so bad it has to be shipped back to the states to be rebuilt.
The 120 mm main gun is pretty much par for the course nowadays on virtually all modern battle tanks, and the tradeoff to the incredibly complicated electronics that are constantly being added, is that many of them are potentially vulnerable to electronic warfare and ECM, to say nothing of the prospect of far more frequent equipment malfunctions that are inevitable when you start adding stuff to an already complicated system.
And while the Abrams does have very good speed and maneuverability for its size and weight, it comes at the cost of a ridiculously high fuel consumption rate, which causes the Abrams' most glaring vulnerability, they have to be supported in the field by a vast and vulnerable network of fuel trucks.
1 Points
Flag
1