Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on April 01, 2003, 04:26:45 am
-
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html
They really changed the looks of the turret, it looks bloated and sharpened... I don't know whether I like it or not. Hmmm... ;7 ;7 ;7
I want one!!!
-
That's a really good tank.
It's always interesting to see what a little democracy and free enterprise gets you in comparison to a little oppression and poverty.
-
sounds like a sweet piece of military hardware... just the thing for rush hour traffic and finding a decent parking spot :D
-
And from the page devoted to its predecessor, the Merkava Mk. 3, we have.... Super-Merkava!
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/merkava_u.jpg)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/merkava3_j.jpg)
-
:eek2: Holy....! How fast was that thing moving?
-
I'd like that mesh on my HD :D ( see bottom of the page ;) )
Killmenow talked to me about a new US tank that looks nothing like current ones, I'd like to get a look at it, but seeing he couldn't tell me anything other than what I just said ( no name, nothing ), I couldn't find anything :(.
For the turret, I prefer the one of the mk3 to be honest.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
I'd like that mesh on my HD :D ( see bottom of the page ;) )
...
For the turret, I prefer the one of the mk3 to be honest.
Get on ICQ then. I made a mesh of the Mk. 3 for Renegade, but I don't know how to import it. :)
-
:cool:
Sweet tank, but the turret looks wierd slanted like that..meh :D
-
Most tanks are actually suprisingly fast, recent models do about 60mph.
-
Some are even faster, Pete. You can push some US tanks up to about 90mph (faster if you gut them).
Sandwich, that's a sweet tank.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Some are even faster, Pete. We can push some US tanks up to about 90mph (faster if we gut them).
Sandwich, that's a sweet tank.
oh, Mike, you're back?
(I know, silly question, obviously you are :p )
well, Sandwich, I can't do much with a gmax file :(
-
Originally posted by mikhael
We can push some US tanks up to about 90mph
:eek2:
Is that MBTs or lighter vehicles like the Sheridan or Stingray?
See I have the Abrams down at 41.6Miles an hour.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
oh, Mike, you're back?
(I know, silly question, obviously we are :p )
well, Sandwich, I can't do much with a gmax file :(
gMax? Really! You doubt me, Nick? :doubt: Get on ICQ. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
gMax? Really! You doubt me, Nick? :doubt: Get on ICQ. :D
Nick?
-
Originally posted by venom2506
oh, Mike, you're back?
(I know, silly question, obviously we are :p )
[kosh]
We have always been here.
[/kosh]
Sort of. Whilst working as a cable guy, I've been avoiding the computer. But now that I work for Cisco, I'll probably be around a lot more. ;)
Miss me? (if so, buy a better scope. ;))
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Nick?
Nicolas = Nick. Get it? ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Nicolas = Nick. Get it? ;)
Nicolas = Nico ;)
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Nicolas = Nico ;)
Meh - fine. Nico. :D
-
I still prefer this tank, even though it would be massacred by any of the Merkavas:
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/mvc030.jpg)
Interestingly enought, this exact tank was apparently used against Israel by Syria, and captured at the Golan Heights.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I still prefer this tank, even though it would be massacred by any of the Merkavas:
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/mvc030.jpg)
Interestingly enought, this exact tank was apparently used against Israel by Syria, and captured at the Golan Heights.
Was gonna ask what tank that was, but when I quoted your post, I saw the address.... a Panzer, eh? Looks eerily similar to the Sherman.
-
How would the Merkava 4 stand against a Challanger II?
-
Originally posted by Hades
How would the Merkava 4 stand against a Challanger II?
I dunno - you mean comparing specifications? Find some Challenger II specs... ;7
Excerpt from the first link:
[q]The tank is capable of carrying eight infantry soldiers, a Command Group or three litter patients (stretcher casualties) in addition to the tank crew of commander, loader, gunner and driver. The tank is capable of firing on the move at moving targets and has demonstrated high hit probability in firing against attack helicopters using conventional anti-tank munitions.[/q]
-
I'm looking for some....
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Was gonna ask what tank that was, but when I quoted your post, I saw the address.... a Panzer, eh? Looks eerily similar to the Sherman.
The angle looks odd for some reason, but I think that's a Tiger I.
As for your favorite tank, lookswise, the Black Eagle.
(http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BlackEagle/?img=b_e_9.jpg)
Site's in russian, sorry.
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BlackEagle/
-
That merkava can shoot down choppers with tank guns :eek2:
Nifty.
As for the jumping pics, if I had a tank, that's what I would do with it.
-
sherman tank
(http://search.eb.com/normandy/week3/images/onormay231a4.gif)
-
Originally posted by Shrike
The angle looks odd for some reason, but I think that's a Tiger I.
As for your favorite tank, lookswise, the Black Eagle.
(http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BlackEagle/?img=b_e_9.jpg)
Site's in russian, sorry.
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/BlackEagle/
Geez - that first pic is at such an angle that the turret now looks weird when flat - it's supposed to be vertically oriented! :lol:
Different, but I wouldn't call it your favorite.
Originally posted by Analazon
That merkava can shoot down choppers with tank guns :eek2:
:D :nod: ;7
Originally posted by Analazon
As for the jumping pics, if I had a tank, that's what I would do with it.
Which is precisely why you don't have a tank! :lol:
Originally posted by Turnsky
sherman tank
(http://search.eb.com/normandy/week3/images/onormay231a4.gif)
And the Israeli Shermans (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/Sherman.html), each picture links to that version's page:
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/m4a3_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-4.html)
-
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/m51_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-51.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/engineer_vehicles/m-32/m32_vss_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/engineer_vehicles/m-32/M-32.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/engineer_vehicles/trailblazer/trailblazer_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/engineer_vehicles/trailblazer/Trailblazer.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/l-33/l-33_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/l-33/L-33.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/m-50_155mm/m50_155_g.jpg) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/m-50_155mm/M-50_155mm.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/makmat/makmat_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/makmat/Makmat.html)
-
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/kilshon/kilshon_2.jpg) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/kilshon/Kilshon.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/240mm/240mm_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/240mm/240mm.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/290mm/290mm.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/290mm/290mm.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/ambutank/ambutank_vss_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/ambutank/Ambutank.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/eyal/eyal_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/eyal/Eyal.html)
(http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/monster/monster_latrun.gif) (http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/monster/Monster.html)
CRAP! I never knew Israel MODded the Sherman so much!! :lol:
-
I guess it is just a national tradition for you to carry on then, right sandwich?
-
Ah, Shermans. Very cheap, and even easier to blow up.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Different, but I wouldn't call it your favorite.
Whoa..... typo. I meant to say my fav tank. :wtf:
-
ahh what the heck i know it doesnt fit in (it aint a tank ;) )
but ph33r our draken!!! :lol:
(http://www.bmlv.gv.at/fldiv/images/drak-03.jpg)
and ph33r whatever the **** that is lol
(http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/images/kurassier.jpg)
oh and we do have leopards 2a4's (for what i dont know)
and ph33r that thing too :rolleyes:
(http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/images/m88.jpg)
-
NOTHING beats a PT-76 amphibious tank. NOTHING.
(http://legion.wplus.net/guide/army/ta/pt76m-1.jpg)
Talk about all-terrain.:D
-
The Leclerc can go submarine, stryke9, beat that :p
-
Originally posted by Fetty
ahh what the heck i know it doesnt fit in (it aint a tank ;) )
but ph33r our draken!!! :lol:
well, I like the draken :) but the viggen is so much more impressive :)
-
Hey, that Draken looks nice. :yes: I'm a plane man, sorry guys. :D
-
hey lookie, a flying tank.. :D
(http://www.miself.ang.af.mil/airshows/as98/images/ah1.jpg)
(http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/pictures/a_10.jpg)
(http://www.a-10.org/images/peace_pins.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Fetty
ahh what the heck i know it doesnt fit in (it aint a tank ;) )
but ph33r our draken!!! :lol:
aren't they decommissioned or something?
and yah... I like Viggen better. and Gripen.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
hey lookie, a flying tank.. :D
(http://www.miself.ang.af.mil/airshows/as98/images/ah1.jpg)
(http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/pictures/a_10.jpg)
(http://www.a-10.org/images/peace_pins.jpg)
Two broken links, but I assume the first is the Apache and the 2nd a Warthog?
And where can I get those pins in the 3rd pic??!?!?!? ;7
-
ist pic cobra gunship...
you're right about the rest
i don't know where i gould get those pins i want one too..
-
ph33r the..... erm
Erm, does the British amry have anyhting good?
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
ph33r the..... erm
Erm, does the British amry have anyhting good?
The Harrier Rules The Planet™. :D
-
'Spose. But what about those crappy Lynx helicopters?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
The Harrier Rules The Planet™. :D
ah? which planet tho?
petrarch: as far as I know the Lynx is a very good heli.
-
Originally posted by kode
aren't they decommissioned or something?
and yah... I like Viggen better. and Gripen.
not in our lil country i think we bought them 30 years ago from sweden when they already where old :D
p.s. thats our only/up to date fighter but it can land on austrian highways the f14 cant :blah:
-
The Harrier can brake in midair much faster than any other plane...
Anything chasing it just overshoots it...
-
Originally posted by Fetty
not in our lil country i think we bought them 30 years ago from sweden when they already where old :D
p.s. thats our only/up to date fighter but it can land on austrian highways the f14 cant :blah:
yeah... that's what swedish fighters are designed for... landing on highways.
maybe not just highways, either...
http://aviashow.avia.ru/images/gripen.jpg
hah... this pic is funny... a JAS-39 Gripen and a SAAB 29 Tunnan (the barrel :D) in the same pic...
http://w1.132.telia.com/~u13203423/images/saab_gripen_tunnan.jpg
-
Originally posted by venom2506
petrarch: as far as I know the Lynx is a very good heli.
It was deisgned as a utility chopper AFAIK, like the Huey, and had to be pressed into the role of gunship, for which it wasn't suited.
A gunship with a side-by-side cockpit?
Heresy.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
It was deisgned as a utility chopper AFAIK, like the Huey, and had to be pressed into the role of gunship, for which it wasn't suited.
A gunship with a side-by-side cockpit?
Heresy.
why not? the best one ( the aligator ) is a side by side one.
the Lynx is the first helo able to make a looping, btw :p
-
Venom: If you want a tank that can go under the water, you can settle for a M1A1, a Sherman, or even one of those little WWI boxes. This baby can move on the water, and it can come back out.:p
-
BTW, the pic I posted on the first page is a Panzer IV Ausf H/J, not a Tiger.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
It was deisgned as a utility chopper AFAIK, like the Huey, and had to be pressed into the role of gunship, for which it wasn't suited.
A gunship with a side-by-side cockpit?
Heresy.
*ahem*
(http://www.aircav.com/img/cav/bm21.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
BTW, the pic I posted on the first page is a Panzer IV Ausf H/J, not a Tiger.
Damn, that's a big muzzle brake then...
-
I am more into long-range rocket launchers; currently working on an M270A1 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m270.htm) out of lego technic stuff. :D
-
Originally posted by Thorn
The Harrier can brake in midair much faster than any other plane...
Anything chasing it just overshoots it...
Oh that's good. Most air warfare is not in dogfights now. One plane that would rape the harrier: F-22.
-
Originally posted by Fetty
not in our lil country i think we bought them 30 years ago from sweden when they already where old :D
p.s. thats our only/up to date fighter but it can land on austrian highways the f14 cant :blah:
Yes it can. Most of our planes can if needed. Ever see here landing gear struts? Navy planes can take a pounding.
Anyway we don't need highways when we have 2 Acres that can go anywhere in the world.
-
Austrian highways may be too narrow, but as for actual roads, that's one of the functions of the USA's interstate highways. One mile in every 5 must, by law, be made straight and free of obstruction for the landing of aircraft in time of war. So yes, US planes can land on highways. And it'd probably be the F16 that Austria can't use; that thing is massive.
-
you know i prefer the hind over the apache
(http://airpower.callihan.cc/images/Helicoptr/hind-2.jpg)
well of cource you would need erm weps and a propellor and
well you get the general idea :D
oh and i think
that
(http://www.bmlv.gv.at/fldiv/images/oh58-02.jpg)
is our only choper with wepons attached
but we got a couple of black hawks
edit : nah when we got the draken that was the main reason (drakens are fekin old :D )
we had the choice betwn f14's or drakens
-
Lynx is still the worlds fastest combat chopper by a LONG way and the upgraded one is more capable then most other gunships other then the longbow and the eurocopter (tiger).
Also the f22 wont be out for donkeys by which time well have the generation 2 typhoons with all the bugs worked out and you still wont have your new short or long range AA missiles. (which we will and they will pween your f22 from over the horizon bwhahahahahahahaah).
-
f-22 is stealth...ish,
or something like that,
I haven't looked into the ole f-22 for a few years,
I seem to remember that it will be the first stealth fighter that is actualy able to fight
I love the Apache, the thing is just so freck'n overkill, I mean do you realy need 16 hellfire missles
hey sandwich, I've always wondered, how the hell are you guys able to hide such massive military into such a small contry?
-
Originally posted by StratComm
And it'd probably be the F16 that Austria can't use; that thing is massive.
? The F16 is tiny as hell.
and for the harrier, as a strike plane, most air superiority planes owns it, heh :doubt:
and yeah, the Hind used to be my favourite helo, but now I'm for the werewolf ( russians helos all the way :p )
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
(http://www.a-10.org/images/peace_pins.jpg)
Peace through superior firepower? :eek2:
-
yeah i know i want one too
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I am more into long-range rocket launchers; currently working on an M270A1 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m270.htm) out of lego technic stuff. :D
Cool - make sure to post pics when it's done. Heck, make a dev thread out of it! :)
Oh, and:
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mlrs3-176.jpg)
Since when are there beam weapons??!?!? :eek2:
Originally posted by Bobboau
hey sandwich, I've always wondered, how the hell are you guys able to hide such massive military into such a small contry?
Well, over 50% of Israel is ddesert - that's where the majority of the live-fire excercises goes on. Besides, who's hiding a military? We actually use ours - constantly. :doubt:
Originally posted by venom2506
? The F16 is tiny as hell.
and for the harrier, as a strike plane, most air superiority planes owns it, heh :doubt:
He probably meant the F14 or F15 - those are the big suckas.
And we were talking about copters when I brought up the Harrier - using it as a modern-day fighter is dumb. However, with it's unique capabilities, special utilizations should be made just for it, I think. Urban warfare in tight situations, where choppers can't go due to their wide rotor span is one example.
Go Harrier!
-
by hide I meant, more like store it when you're not useing it, but as you said you do seem to be useing it constantly, all the pictures of Israel I see are of the super dense uban environments, so it just looks like one of the biggest military machines in the world is crammed into and unbeleveably small space,
like super-nova in a can.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Oh, and:
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mlrs3-176.jpg)
Since when are there beam weapons??!?!? :eek2:
Looks like someone made a treaty with the Shivans... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Venom: If you want a tank that can go under the water, you can settle for a M1A1, a Sherman, or even one of those little WWI boxes. This baby can move on the water, and it can come back out.:p
yes, and the Leclerc can move under water. you do that with a M1A1, you're drown. If it couldn't survive to it, I wouldn't mention it, don't you think :rolleyes:?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
And we were talking about copters when I brought up the Harrier - using it as a modern-day fighter is dumb. However, with it's unique capabilities, special utilizations should be made just for it, I think. Urban warfare in tight situations, where choppers can't go due to their wide rotor span is one example.
Go Harrier!
Indeed, it's a wonder that they didn't take the VTOL system even further..
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
...all the pictures of Israel I see are of the super dense uban environments...
Yeeeaaahhh.... (http://brainzipper.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=idf_nov_2001) ;)
Originally posted by Turnsky
Indeed, it's a wonder that they didn't take the VTOL system even further..
I guess/hope they're leaving that for the future. :D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
And we were talking about copters when I brought up the Harrier - using it as a modern-day fighter is dumb. However, with it's unique capabilities, special utilizations should be made just for it, I think. Urban warfare in tight situations, where choppers can't go due to their wide rotor span is one example.
oh, I was answering to I don't remember who who was telling the F22 was owning it ( which is kindda obvious, and, should I dare to add, I would hope it's the case or the F22 would be the most expensive worthless PoS ever ).
Anyway, stop watching true lie, you don't use harriers I tight urban situations, where it can be downed by a lone MG :p.
VTOL is for Take Off and Landing, not for Attack and Destruction ;)
-
*looks up, sees all that military hardware -:eek2: :) :eek2: - and continues photoshopping foxfire bios*
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Anyway, stop watching true lie, you don't use harriers I tight urban situations, where it can be downed by a lone MG :p.
VTOL is for Take Off and Landing, not for Attack and Destruction ;)
Agh! I've come to detest that movie, simply on account of having seen it and forgotten, watching it again, remembering, forgetting, watching again, etc....
And I have a book all about Harriers - had it way before True Lies came out.
*looks up publication date*
Heh - 1984. :D
-
wasn't that around the time of the harrier's debut?
when was the falklands war anyway?
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
wasn't that around the time of the harrier's debut?
when was the falklands war anyway?
[q]Intro text to the book
The story of the Harrier is without parallel. It began with a rather unwieldy scheme conceived by a Frenchman for vectoring thrust not only backwards, to achieve high forward speed, but also downwards, to make the aircraft rise vertically off the ground. Engine designers at Bristol translated the concept into a more elegant solution: a new type of aircraft engine able in one neat package to provide lift, thrust and even inflight braking. But the British, into whose lap the concept fell in 1957, had just been shortsighted enough to predict that the RAF was never going to need any more fighters or bombers. Future wars were going to be fought exclusively with missiles, which seemed a more attractive option because they were cheaper.
Despite these extraordinary circumstances, the completely new idea of a single-engined "jump-jet" managed to survive. This was because American money paid for three-quarters of the engine, and one man - Sir Reginald Verdon Smith - said his company would pay for the remainder. A little later Sir Sydney Camm at Hawker Aircraft managed to persuade his board to pay for two prototypes of the novel P.1127 aircraft his team had designed. And in June 1960, four years from the start, British officials actually thawed enough to sponsor the P.1127 itself, provided that it was understood it was purely for research, and had nothing to do with such a taboo subject as a future combat aircraft!
With the passage of a complete decade, reason returned. The P.1127 was permitted to be turned into the Harrier, which gave the RAF the only kind of airpower that can survive in a future war, by being dispersed away from known airfields. It was also obvious that similar aircraft could completely transform airpower at sea, but, true to form, Britain put its foot in it a second time. Having, without actually announcing the fact, come round to recognizing that fighters and bombers were going to continue to exist, the government then pronounced that fixed-wing airpower in the Royal Navy was henceforth terminated, and that no more carriers would be built.
So we went through the charade a second time, permitting the development of the Sea Harrier provided that the ship to carry it was known by the strange title of "through-deck cruiser" (because to call it by the forbidden name "carrier" would have caused frightful ructions). Thus, by a second lot of back-door methods the Sea Harrier entered service, and so by the merest chance Britain was able to recover the Falkland Islands. Without the little jump jets the only response in April 1982 would have been to fume and bluster, and for the first time in modern history naked aggression would have paid off.
Where do we go from the Harrier and Sea Harrier? Why, on to the next generation, the AV-8B. This time the British government excelled itself. By announcing in 1975 that there was "not enough common ground" for a joint programme with the USA, Britain handed its birthright over to McDonnel Douglas. Now, freed from Whitehall at last, it will really go places.[/q]
-
thanks, i forgot i had a complete encyclopedia of fighter aircraft.. :p
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
thanks, i forgot i had a complete encyclopedia of fighter aircraft.. :p
Who, me? :p
-
i'd scan the cover but i'd crack the glass ;)
-
damn english, they stole one of our ideas again :lol:
I remember the plane, it was a white mirage, don't remember the name tho. never went into production and actually wasn't even planed to, it was "just for fun" it seems, like the ramjet griffon or many other strange things we've made ( ever seen the Nord 500? looks like C&C orca, somehow ).
-
maby you stole it from c&c ? :D
absolute coolest fighter is thison
(http://www.military.cz/russia/air/suchoj/S_32/s37_1.jpg)
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/s37/s37_03.jpg)
and when i think we have been offered the latest mig29's alongside with eurofighter, f16 , and grippen :(
and what do we take ? eurofighter :sigh:
the most costly flying brick gnah
the mig 29s wouldnt even have cost much since they would have been more a trade you forget some of what russia ows yopu we give you the most sate of the art mig29
makes me cry
the main reason why we didnt get em ?
cuz that fekin politician wants to get us into the NATO
(wich we arnt allowed anyway or america france gb and russia bomb us back to some age or another :D )
-
Nah, the Nord500 has been made back in the 70/80s I think:
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/VTOL/nord500.jpg ( copy/paste )
yeah, the Berkut is my favourite plane too :)
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/images/img1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I am more into long-range rocket launchers; currently working on an M270A1 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m270.htm) out of lego technic stuff. :D
Are you out of your mind?
Make a fully functional one
BTW, what became of that US FSW plane, the XF-29, was it?
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
Are you out of your mind?
Make a fully functional one
BTW, what became of that US FSW plane, the XF-29, was it?
what do you want it to become? Lats time I heard, it was used for vector thrust tests. but that was a while ago already...
-
Aren't they replacing the Harrier with the JSF?
-
thats the boeing one right ?cant remember but i got the model of it on my monitor :)
-
Actually not Boeing, Lockheed Martin won the contract. Boeings plane just looked... ugly.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
[q]
Now, freed from Whitehall at last, it will really go places.[/q]
Yes right into the ground. Marine Harriers are ****e deathtraps.
-
Redirecting the discussion to tanks..
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/image001.jpg)
King Tiger rocks. Bear in mind that British policy was to engage this tank with at least five Shermans, and of the five only two would survive. And that was if they were lucky..
-
how about oddities
wtf is that ?
(http://members.cox.net/johnahamill/armorsky.jpg)
p.s. lmao got this page open for 2 hours now never pressed submit :lol:
-
Originally posted by Fetty
wtf is that ?
IT'S MY BOOMSTICK!!
*KA-BLOOEY*
-
Look's like some wort of foldaway portable AA gun.
-
*opens up guinness encyclopedia of weaponry*
:D
-
(http://www.one35th.com/model/k5/K5_SS23.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
(http://www.one35th.com/model/k5/K5_SS23.jpg)
*misses playing TA with its Big Bertha*
-
it has a 80cm calibre barrel
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
it has a 80cm calibre barrel
:eek2: Thats big.
-
im more interested in the recoil ;7
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
(http://www.one35th.com/model/k5/K5_SS23.jpg)
That's the Gustav isn't it? The largest cannon ever built. The size of it is really stupid though, it took over 1000 men a couple of weeks to move, disassemble and assemble that thing on site.
How about this sucker:
(http://www.worldwar1.com/foto/fww2703.jpg)
The Kaiser Wilhelm Geschutz, a.k.a. The Paris Gun.
Could shoot shells over 75 miles (120km) and the altitude of the shell reached over 25 miles (40km). :eek2:
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
(http://www.one35th.com/model/k5/K5_SS23.jpg)
OMG RAIL GUN!!!
-
Originally posted by Fetty
im more interested in the recoil ;7
It's on rails for a reason ;)
-
What about Little David? AFAIK this was a US mortar developed to test fire bombs. I believe it had a calibre of 914mm!
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
OMG RAIL GUN!!!
ROFL!!
-
ye but how many km does the recoil drive it ? :D
-
I still like my Panzer IV Ausf H/J :p
-
it is a rail gun of sorts... it was moved by a train...
120km? a modified 'leopold' railway gun w/smoothbore barrel could launch a projectile 151km
-
i like that pather (panzer V)
but erm
(http://members.cox.net/johnahamill/armorrail.jpg)
thats a leopold
your thing is slighly bigger :doubt:
-
i know.
look i have the 'guiness enclyopedia of weaponry' i KNOW what i'm talking about..
-
i got the end of a BAK shell as an ash tray :D
-
Originally posted by Fetty
how about oddities
wtf is that ?
(http://members.cox.net/johnahamill/armorsky.jpg)
Looks like it shoots oil:devil:
-
If the turning carriage and shell crane were unpacked it would look far more normal. Owing to the strange sight i would say it was a towed AA canon.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
If the turning carriage and shell crane were unpacked it would look far more normal. Owing to the strange sight i would say it was a towed AA canon.
I don't get you guys - does evert strange-looking weapon have to be an AAA gun? AAA guns need to be relatively light and nimble, remember, not something that takes at least 10 seconds to do a 360°.
-
Looks like something extremely anti-armor to me. That is one thick barrel, and the bore is HUGE considering that that thing obviously has practically no firing arc. Some kinda bunker-buster type thing?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Looks like something extremely anti-armor to me. That is one thick barrel, and the bore is HUGE considering that that thing obviously has practically no firing arc. Some kinda bunker-buster type thing?
Erm, no. Tanks are anti-armor. That is artillery.
Lack of armor + tires = not a front-lines..... thing.
-
Eh. In my book, artillery points up. It doesn't, it doesn't counteract gravity effectively, its range is insufficient. I mean, yeah, you could make an artillery piece that's horizontal and fires a long distance, but considering the amount of propellant (and thus force) you'd need to get it to go a decent artillery range... really, why would you? Anything you hit with an artillery shell is gonna explode the same no matter what angle you get it from...
Humvees aren't armored either. Doesn't mean they aren't mounted with those hugeass antipersonnel guns and used in combat.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Eh. In my book, artillery points up. It doesn't, it doesn't counteract gravity effectively, its range is insufficient. I mean, yeah, you could make an artillery piece that's horizontal and fires a long distance, but considering the amount of propellant (and thus force) you'd need to get it to go a decent artillery range... really, why would you? Anything you hit with an artillery shell is gonna explode the same no matter what angle you get it from...
Humvees aren't armored either. Doesn't mean they aren't mounted with those hugeass antipersonnel guns and used in combat.
Hmm.... I hadn't looked too closely at the picture, but it doesn't look like there's much room for barrel elevation. But there's a complete and obvious lack of cabin space, which still says to me "not a front-lines vehicle".
And what are you talking about? Hummers aren't neccesarily (I hate spelling that word) armored, but they most certainly can be. Only Hummers I've been in have been armored, matter of fact.
-
For that matter, there's probably a casing that goes over that. Hell, as is a bad rainstorm could kill that thing, never mind a dust storm or a mud splatter from something else. I think they took the armor plating off it for show or something.
I'd trace back the image address to find out, but I can't be arsed.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I'd trace back the image address to find out, but I can't be arsed.
Hmmm.... (http://members.cox.net/johnahamill/)
-
Hmmmm indeed. (http://members.cox.net/johnahamill/armorodd.html)
Am I good or am I God?:D
Incidentially, the prize goes to the guy who said an AA gun.
-
I'm sure all of us prefer the former, we aren't so magnanimous as to grant you divinity ;)
-
Being all-powerful, I can grant it to myself, thank you very much.
Though sadly, my powers are limited to electronics. Last time I tried to make it rain was a miserable failure and... well, the less said about the smiting incident, the better.
-
have you tryd dancing ?
-
could be a flak gun...
-
REAL boomstick ;7
(http://www.gla55pak.com/lameduckie/june/grable/img_grable_small.jpg)
Operation: Upshot-knothole
Test: Grable
Only test of an artillery fired nuclear weapon in history (though a measly 15kt)
-
Originally posted by Cannikin
REAL boomstick ;7
(http://www.gla55pak.com/lameduckie/june/grable/img_grable_small.jpg)
Operation: Upshot-knothole
Test: Grable
Only test of an artillery fired nuclear weapon in history (though a measly 15kt)
oh, there's a video of this one on kazaa.
-
AA artillery (AAA just shot huge flak shells up, pomp opms etc, were very speedy in contrast) wasnt so light an nimble in WW2 (theres nothing to suggest that the thing cant be aimed and fired quickly though) where that weapon looks like it has originated, again if you look at the sight it just screams AAA.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Hmmmm indeed. (http://members.cox.net/johnahamill/armorodd.html)
Am I good or am I God?:D
Incidentially, the prize goes to the guy who said an AA gun.
You are not God, but you are efficient. :D
And I still disagree - to a point. That's not an "anti-aircraft gun" per-se. Those are usually considered to be what Cuba Gooding Jr. manned in Pearl Harbor (that cook). Small and agile, with a high rate of fire. This one's more like a flak cannon.
-
*ahem*
Originally posted by Turnsky
could be a flak gun...
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
*ahem*
Yeah, I replied before I read the reast of the thread. :p
-
/me does a funky victory dance
:thepimp:
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
:eek2: Holy....! How fast was that thing moving?
Sorry for the bump, but I found out an answer to this question. I went to the Tank Museum on Saturday, and they had a 20 video, during which you see the Merkava doing this exact jump. It wasn't moving that fast, not for car speeds. Maybe about 35-40Mph? :D
-
Originally posted by Fetty
im more interested in the recoil ;7
enought to go trans-continental.
the SU-47 Berkut looks indeed great.
black eagle tank rules too :)
and petrarch, never heard aboot the KA-52 blackshark?
i think it's qualified as a gunship, and it DOES have side-by-side cockpit :ha:
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka50/images/ka50_11.jpg)
also the best looking gunship ever :p
i want one :(
-
black shark?
alligator, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Havock
and petrarch, never heard aboot the KA-52 blackshark?
i think it's qualified as a gunship, and it DOES have side-by-side cockpit :ha:
Yes, but it just looks wrong. They don't look menacing enough with the pilots sitting side by side.
-
Originally posted by Venom
black shark?
alligator, I guess.
nope, says black shark.
the KA-50 is a gator though :p
it may not look menacing, but imagine it with the face of George W. bush painted on the nose.
wouldn't that look vicious?
-
Originally posted by Havock
nope, says black shark.
the KA-50 is a gator though :p
no, the Ka-50 is either werewolf, hokum or havoc depending on who talks about it ( OTAN, manufacturer and Russia ). I go for werewolf usually coz hokum and havoc have been given to two other russian helos already, I think it's stupid.
maybe that gator/blackshark is the same deal actually. blackshark is cooler than alligator anyway :p
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
They don't look menacing enough with the pilots sitting side by side.
the werewolf, on the other hand:
(http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/hka50_p_04_l.jpg)
to my knowledge, the only one-seat attack helo.
-
Apparently the Russians are building a new helicopter to compete with the Comanche, though I expect it to be better than its American coumterpart. Its called the Black Ghost, look it up on Google, cool stuff
The only pic I can find (in a short time) is this, from a model kit
(http://www.buyrussia.net/images/military/toys/toy94big.jpg)
-
lol, that's a fake ( true model, fake helos ).
I have a model of the Mig37 ferret A, a stealth interceptor :lol: ( no, really, search on google, you'll see ), it's just made up stuff to sell cool looking models ( altho if that ferret thing does look good, the "thing" above is fugly as hell )
-
Well a Russian game developer (G5 I think) is making a helicopter game, called Fair Strike. It also includes the Black Ghost as a ship, so, you know, they probably know their stuff
If it is a fake then they're probably cooking up something even cooler, cause the Russians always have top of the line military hardware
-
Anyone seen the new model Flanker? With the side-by-side cockpit? It even has a galley onboard!
-
the new? the Su34 you mean? the one that has a kind of duck head? it's about 6 years old at least, since it was at the Bourget last time I went there, which was in 1997 ;)
surprising how fast time goes by :p