Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I remember right, didn't it take five American tanks to knock out a German one in WWII?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.
10 years in the Royal Australian Armoured Corps
Merkava's 120mm smoothbore is comparable to the 120mm smoothbore the current Abrams generation packs.
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.
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. comparableagain, 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.
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.
given 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 respectfully disagree
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.
If we are gonna go with that, might as well go with the Soviet T-34. It was so uncomplicated that farmers out of the field could be trained to crew it in a matter of a couple of hours.When I said what I did I was speaking mostly in terms of WW2. Yes the Germans had a huge technological advantage when we look at what was actually deployed, but if we look at both sides available technology, I suspect the gap might have been lower. It's just that the US chose to deploy what we could actually build in large numbers.
When I said what I did I was speaking mostly in terms of WW2. Yes the Germans had a huge technological advantage when we look at what was actually deployed, but if we look at both sides available technology, I suspect the gap might have been lower. It's just that the US chose to deploy what we could actually build in large numbers.
Not to mention high altitude jet fighters, the battle rifle.I don't think so. The Germans had stuff we couldn't touch. The bad thing, for the Germans at least, is they made the wrong choices in terms of what weapons they should emphasize. They had elementary GPS in some of their bombers (worked on radio transmitters) and guided bombs.
Not to mention high altitude jet fighters, the battle rifle.
Except for some minor operations against the Japanese, the Russians pretty much fought the Axis, which included Hungary, Romania, Italy, Slovakia, and Bulgaria.
I disagree. The baby boomers aren't going to break the system, because they aren't going to be able to retire. A fair number of them have seen their retirement go away and if they haven't pulled out by now they will probably be wiped out by July. AIG is still failing. They will be reporting a 60 billion dollar loss next Monday. That alone should be worth a loss of another 250 in the Dow.
The main employment problem this decade is going to be that the baby boomers that were going to retire aren't because they will be putting their kids through college (because student loans, at least for levels below grad school will now be history) or because they will still be just trying to keep that roof of their head. It's a shame that it is the baby boomer middle class that will suffer, but the baby boomers will be getting just desserts for their errors. The problem is, by continuing to work they will keep the younger generations from being able to move up into their jobs, the jobs that are still there. I believe that this will end up driving young people into the military as I explain here
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=50739798#post50739798
So, US SS is included in general spending??! Not kept seperate?
I certainly hope that the younger generation doesnt lose all faith in the future and risking their lives for a job that entails becoming a professional killer.:o
Yes..it's included in general spending. The government spent the money when we had a surplus from SS revenues. If we had actually "saved" that money instead of spending it, SS would not be invsolvent.
Yikes! I have no idea how this can be solved. Our CPP is seperate from revenues and is invested as such. When did the SS revenues get included into general spending?
The simple solution is to simply print the money out and issue checks as needed. We let Banks get away with creating money, why not allow government to cover social security by creating the money required?
The simple solution is to simply print the money out and issue checks as needed. We let Banks get away with creating money, why not allow government to cover social security by creating the money required?
Tax more....borrow more...print more money....charge more use fees!
If when we come to the end of Paul Krugman's $5T of remaining world credit, and the economies are still on their rear-ends, and someone has to pony up those IOUs in the SS trust fund, I guess that leaves:
Tax more....charge more use fees.
Right after the "payroll tax holiday."
Sounds like a Plan.
No it doesn't. Actually, it sounds like a clueless end game.
Good luck.
Hey kids! Our 'investment' in SS paid off! You only have to be taxed and borrowed from to the tune of an extra $1,822 for every $1,000 that the gov't spent 20 years ago, buying votes!
That's pretty brilliant investing! Thanks Dad!
No problem, Son. It was painless.
So, currently, more of the same, the gov't is flailing around, artificially trying to keep that bubble inflated yet longer with yet more crazy borrowing from the future as pure insanity, but it is all our out of control political cronyfest gov't knows how to do.
It never made any sense, it was always crap, even at the peak of the credit funded consumption party, no matter how good times were.
I've had some very good times totally drunk, and there is always a day after. This is it.
We drunkenly paid for others retirement. We showed up at the party with an extra 30 million paying party-ers, but that wasn't enough, our elders wanted to throw an even larger party, so in addition to the demographic subsidy, they and we also ran up our credit cards, to pass the party bill to our kids, just as they continue to do as we speak. It was sure enough a great party, brilliant, and now we are having Census reassure us that it will be all those streaming illegals from Mexico who will be paying for our generation's retirement, no worries.
So, where is the 'better' argument? The better idea is based on the alchemy of how one actually defers present value and converts it into future value. That is done by investing in future economies. That is not done by the opposite, which is, borrowing from future economies, which is exactly and precisely what we all did do, what the gov't was forced to do with the SS Trust Fund subsidies, because before all this bail out nonsense, it had no way to convert an asset on its books into equity in future economies. After all, we were told, we couldn't have the gov't involved in Wall STreet. (Then...what were we as a nation doing handing over an extra 10% of earnings to the gov't based on its claim to do exactly that--defer present value into future value?) I know that isn't 'the function of SS taxes' -- and I also knew it then, when Congress used the argument to overtax an already surplus paying demographic. SS, as run, no matter how wonderful the party was when it was abused, was insane.
Because it did the opposite; it borrowed from the future economies(by immediately spending the current value and converting it into an IOU, a demand on future economies.)
This is a double whammy. Not only did it not invest in those future economies, but it did worse than doing nothing; it borrowed from them. And, pointing out how well the economies did in spite of the government's fat fingering with SS is not nearly the same as saying they did so because of.
Well, those future economies are here. These are them. Our busted ass, carcass carved, bones are showing economies are those economies. Our penniless federal treasury, facing a future of never going to be met obligations growing by the minute, is the treasury we should expect in those future economies.
We will try to keep this insanity floating, for as long as guns and printing presses and crap will allow. Obama will try, but in the end, the federal gov't is going to be a tiny fraction of what it is today. The nations economies will pick up the pieces, we'll pull in our belts, this generation's pain will be back end loaded, just like our parents generation's pain was front end loaded.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?