Is a complete collapse imminent?

[MerchantofMenace]

Drat. Foiled again!

Although as a side note, I did meet the author of Hell Hawks who wrote about the P-47 squadrons in the European theater. That was one heck of a plane.

Remember that last scene from Saving Private Ryan? That's what happens when you get some US dudes with a radio and complete air superiority.

 

[ScottBot]

Hey, I would love to participate in a WWII forum. Is there one here?

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=106

 

[oldbetang]

None of those are communist.

If you want to take that stance then you also have to acknowledge that capitalism has never been tried before either.

 

[canukian]

Great article:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schoon/2009/0213.html

It makes sense - constant economic expansion cannot be permanently sustained. And while the government spends billions trying to fix the problem, one wonders what will be the outcome? Will our economy have one last gasp before the big fall? Will the stimulus work at all? Or are these all just alarmist 'theories', and our economy will recover after a prolonged recession?

I say buckle your seatbelts and get ready, the coming years look like they're going to be a rough ride.

a capitalist does not say that constant economic expansion can be perminently sustained. there must be periods of corection.

 

[chaz345]

Drat. Foiled again!

Although as a side note, I did meet the author of Hell Hawks who wrote about the P-47 squadrons in the European theater. That was one heck of a plane.

Plane or flying tank? While certainly not the most manoverable beast in the air the thing was darn near impossible to take down becuase of it's armor. Probably the best close support plane we made until the A-10.

 

[chaz345]

The problem with the German stuff is the engineering. It's so complicated that it's difficult to produce and it's not qualitatively superior enough to overcome that advantage. Think of the 6000 US Abrams tanks versus the 25,000 T-72 types. The Abrams at four-to-one odds can probably come out on top. The German stuff wasn't that good.

That;s pretty much what I was thinking. I think one can find examples of the US having technology superior to what it actually put out in the field but we didn't because simple,reliable,easy to build and gets the job done well beats complex,marginally reliable,hard to build, and does the job a little better every time. I think the US military might be well served to go back to that way of thinking. Not to abandon all cutting edge technology, of course, but to dial it back a little and go with more proven and more reliable tech.

 

[MerchantofMenace]

That;s pretty much what I was thinking. I think one can find examples of the US having technology superior to what it actually put out in the field but we didn't because simple,reliable,easy to build and gets the job done well beats complex,marginally reliable,hard to build, and does the job a little better every time. I think the US military might be well served to go back to that way of thinking. Not to abandon all cutting edge technology, of course, but to dial it back a little and go with more proven and more reliable tech.

The M1 Garand is better than the K-98.

I think the Air Force is the wiz-bang branch of the military. The Army and Marines generally stick with what works. The navy is in the middle.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

If you want to take that stance then you also have to acknowledge that capitalism has never been tried before either.

Neither system can exist in its pure form because both are contrary to human nature when applied in pure form.

 

[MarkSB]

Marx had it right after all!

The article wasn't meant to condemn capitalism altogether, it is the way in which it is being applied i.e. with "green back" currency and keynsian economics being used to sustain abnormal economic growth. Personally I like captialism and couldn't stand living in a society with government instituted socialism.


Interesting conversation on WWII BTW.

 

[ScottBot]

That;s pretty much what I was thinking. I think one can find examples of the US having technology superior to what it actually put out in the field but we didn't because simple,reliable,easy to build and gets the job done well beats complex,marginally reliable,hard to build, and does the job a little better every time. I think the US military might be well served to go back to that way of thinking. Not to abandon all cutting edge technology, of course, but to dial it back a little and go with more proven and more reliable tech.

Umm, I'll take the M1 Abrams and FA22 Raptor over anything else that's out there every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[ScottBot]

The M1 Garand is better than the K-98.

I think the Air Force is the wiz-bang branch of the military. The Army and Marines generally stick with what works. The navy is in the middle.

Ummm, the Nimitz class aircraft carrier is pretty wiz bang dude. Not much middle of the road about that sucker.

 

[MarkSB]

a capitalist does not say that constant economic expansion can be perminently sustained. there must be periods of corection.

The general trend is toward constant expansion (in the long run). It's not neccesarily a capitalist philosophy, but it is the goal or ideal for many main stream economists.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Wiz-bang technology is nifty, but not without drawbacks. Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story called "Superiority" that was rather entertaining and insightful. Definitely a good read if you can find it.

 

[MarkSB]

Umm, I'll take the M1 Abrams and FA22 Raptor over anything else that's out there every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

That plane is awesome. Saw one at a local airshow last year.

 

[ScottBot]

The general trend is toward constant expansion (in the long run). It's not neccesarily a capitalist philosophy, but it is the goal or ideal for many main stream economists.

The point of the matter is that every economic system requires expansion to support an expanding population base. The only time communism in its truest for works is in a relatively small, stagnant population group that is exclusively unicultural. Anything beyond that is simply hypothetical.

 

[MerchantofMenace]

Ummm, the Nimitz class aircraft carrier is pretty wiz bang dude. Not much middle of the road about that sucker.

The George H.W. Bush was the last Nimitz class carrier built.

 

[CCGirl]

The article wasn't meant to condemn capitalism altogether, it is the way in which it is being applied i.e. with "green back" currency and keynsian economics being used to sustain abnormal economic growth. Personally I like captialism and couldn't stand living in a society with government instituted socialism.


Interesting conversation on WWII BTW.

You should set up a topic on USSR and world war II in the history forum, there is sooooo much people dont know.

 

[LightHorseman]

Originally Posted by ScottBot

Umm, I'll take the M1 Abrams and FA22 Raptor over anything else that's out there every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
​

Point of order, the Israeli Merkava tank is superior to the Abrams in most respects. The British Challenger would be my second pick. The Abrams comes in a lowly third, tied with the German Leopard 2.
​

 

[ACougar]

Point of order, the Israeli Merkava tank is superior to the Abrams in most respects. The British Challenger would be my second pick. The Abrams comes in a lowly third, tied with the German Leopard 2.
​

Based on what?

Greater long range accuracy? Better Armor? Superior battle command/communications network which allows for greater situational awareness? Faster, which allows then to be where thier needed when thier needed? Better penetrators? Superior night vision capability?

Then we should look at international demand, if the tank is the best, surely countries like Greece or Australia would be lining up to buy them? Now if you said the Merkava was the best tank for the IDF given thier current mission, I would agree.

I would put the Abrams, the Leopard 2 and the British Challenger tied for first place and the Merkava in fourth.

 

[LightHorseman]

[/quote]

Based on what?

10 years in the Royal Australian Armoured Corps

Greater long range accuracy?

Merkava's 120mm smoothbore is comparable to the 120mm smoothbore the current Abrams generation packs.

Better Armor?

Unquestionably, the Merkava has the best armour in the world. You should check its survivability stats under sustained fire. In situations like those the Israelis AND the Australian armies find themselves in, survivability is key.

Superior battle command/communications network which allows for greater situational awareness?

C3 is not a property of vehicle type, but rather comms harness in the vehicles. I'm happy for the VINCEN/RAVEN systems that the Australian army use in all its armoured vehicles.

Faster, which allows then to be where thier needed when thier needed?

Thats the trade off in Merkava... she's slow. but to a competant tank commander, making adequate use of ground, operating with appropriate mutual support from secondary callsigns, speed is not the be all and end all. However, operating in close country or in urban environments, (like modern conflicts tend to be in) armour IS vital, since no amount of speed, maneuver or support can stop a pop up rag with an RPG-7 on a rooftop from putting a HEAT round into the top of the fighting compartment. Merkava's armour WILL make this survivable though.

a Better penetrators?

comparable

Superior night vision capability?

again, comparable.

Merkava also does other interesting things, like mounting the engine in the front, rather than the rear like most AFVs. It also has an infantry carrying compartment, which means that a pure tank unit (as opposed to a cavalry/APC unit with tanks) never has to do without FOXHOUNDS.

Then we should look at international demand, if the tank is the best, surely countries like Greece or Australia would be lining up to buy them?

I can't speak for Greece. as to Australia, back when the Abrams purchase was going through, I made my feelings on the matter very clear to anyone in the CofC who would listen, but the short answer is, Abrams was cheaper, and sadly, the Australian Defence procurement agency at the time thought that price was a bigger concern. Of course, no major armoured deployments were clear on the horizon at that point. Speaking as someone who spent 6 months commanding AFVs in Al Muthanna province, I can tell you that I would have prefered to be in a Merkava than a mere ASLAV.

Now if you said the Merkava was the best tank for the IDF given thier current mission, I would agree.

iven the current deployments of both the US and Australian Armies, what we're doing in the various trouble spots around the world to which we are deployed, in what way do you see the IDF's mission being much different to ours, other than their mission is on their doorstep, whereas we have to go a ways away to get to ours?

I would put the Abrams, the Leopard 2 and the British Challenger tied for first place and the Merkava in fourth.

I respectfully disagree

Love to continue this conversation though