Aircraft

[Kermit 0]

[Edit: Would a moderator or an administrator please delete this residual post?  The board delayed my original post's appearance on the page.  After hitting Refresh several times with no result, I reconstructed my rather lengthy post, forgetting old points and adding new ones.  By the time I finished, the old one showed up.  I have now merged the two posts.]

[Kermit 0]

Amos, chill. This is now in the Off Topic forum.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All a hollow point is is just a hole in the tip of the bullet which allows it to mushroom out so the bullet is twice its [original] size.<span id='postcolor'>

Viper, you are correct, except that it mushrooms far more that twice its original size, providing that the substance causing it to mushroom is thick enough.  If I shot Advocate in the head with a .308 hollowpoint (just as an example, of course *grin*), there would be a small, 0.308 inch hole surrounded by a little bit of skull where I shot him, and his brain and the rest of his skull would be all over the opposite wall.

Advocate, I believe it is DPU and not DU.  Don't ask me why, but it is, unless every person I've ever heard mention depleted Uranium is wrong.  Whichever it is, you are going on a tangent in your desperate quest to distract people from your feebly twitching main argument.

I repeat, a single shot from the Avenger can destroy a tank.  I never said anything about shooting at the frontal armor.  Why would any sane pilot do that?  As several people here have already said, the chances of hitting the frontal armor during an aerial assault aren't too good.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sabot and DU rounds fired from a tank are very much the same thing.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not talking about the differences between Sabot and DPU rounds "fired from a tank."  I'm saying that Sabot and thirty-millimeter DPU Avenger cannon rounds are not at all alike.  Sorry, they aren't.  I'm no expert on Sabot, but I do know that the two have completely different sizes and velocities, which are pretty big differences.  I will refrain from further discussion of their physics and their properties until I know more about them.  You, however, turn to random statements that you can't back up as your made-up logic gets weaker and weaker.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides, that diagram [benze] posted only works in my advantage as it shows just how terribly, terribly wrong you both are.<span id='postcolor'>

How in God's unholy name is that proving him wrong in the least?

I neglected to say this, but when I said "ordinary rifle rounds," I was talking about .308 and not .223 (simply because I fire .308 much more than I fire .223.  In fact, I don't think I've ever fired .223).  I probably should have said "Teflon coated" instead of "ordinary."  But even without adding that, my statement isn't far-fetched.  You can drop your "you disagree with me so you are a fool" attitude anytime.

Now I'll address your name calling.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your quest to constantly bash my arguments by presenting these laughable opinions only goes to show how hard-headed you are by simply refusing to acknowledge that you are a fool.<span id='postcolor'>

Care to back that statement up without posting whatever happens to come out of your ass as you sit at your keyboard?  No?  I didn't think so.  Go ahead and remain with your head firmly pressed between your cheeks as you type.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First I'm not arguing, just proving you all wrong.  Second if you stick with Kermit you'll end up getting yourself embarassed.<span id='postcolor'>

You're not fooling anyone, and I'm not embarassed.  You should be, but I don't expect you to wake up anytime soon.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unless Kermin comes out with another bound-to-lose argument I rest happily ever after.<span id='postcolor'>

The name's Kermit, and neither my arguments nor anyone else's have been refuted by you.  Moreover, you have done nothing towards that end but make up facts then gloat about your non-existent victories, and call all who disagree with you "childish."  At least those of us who disagree with you (basically the rest of the forum) provide facts and not stale cattle turds, whereas your pathetic arguments are mostly made up out of your own head.  Moreover, you are incredibly stupid.  This is not because you disagree with me, it's because you simply are.  Like I said, learn to shoot (or at least stop talking about what you know nothing of), learn more about physics and chemisty (I am amazed that I know more about them than you, considering that I hated those classes), and grow up.  You support your pitiful logic with statements such as, "your quest to constantly bash my arguments by presenting these laughable opinions only goes to show how hard-headed you are by simply refusing to acknowledge that you are a fool," even though you have not beat me, and the majority of the forum disagrees with you.  I usually do not say this because it is rarely true, but that statment is applicable not to me, nor to anyone else here at present, but to you.  Get it straight.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So please don't call me stupid and degenerate<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, but you are.

Advocate, you have not won a single argument here in anyone's mind but your own.  Enjoy yourself gloating over having chased me away.  I will not reply to you again, as you cannot be convinced of your colossal wrongness no matter who tries or what logic is used.  Besides, I have finally realized, as has Benze and a great deal of other forumgoers, that arguing with you is indeed pointless.  So do not take my silence as acceptance of your sad, sad arguments.  Rest in peace, Advocate.

Spock says, "Your arguments are extremely illogical."

[Renagade 0]

HA well if the replaced the DU bullets with a radioactive material that had a critical mass slightly smaller than the 30 mm bullets then up hitting the tank it would automaticly start a fusion reaction thus causing a small nuclear blast on the front of the tank further multiplied by the immediate hitting of another barage of rounds right behind it.

I forgot to add................... I WIN

[advocatexxx 0]

Kermit give it a break will ya ?  This thread was settled until you came back, dug it out and posted another set of arguments.  I won't dignify most of them as they're childish and I've got to go and eat now, but when you said...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I neglected to say this, but when I said "ordinary rifle rounds," I was talking about .308 and not .223 (simply because I fire .308 much more than I fire .223.  In fact, I don't think I've ever fired .223).  I probably should have said "Teflon coated" instead of "ordinary."  But even without adding that, my statement isn't far-fetched.  You can drop your "you disagree with me so you are a fool" attitude anytime.<span id='postcolor'>

Yappidy yap yap yap.. You can fire a .50 caliber my friend, and it WILL NOT penetrate 2 inches (50.8mm) of steel as you claim it will.  I can't believe you're unwilling to get this through your head.  Anyone who's fired a .50 caliber will agree.  But then again .50 caliber is a big caliber, hardly an "ordinary rifle round" as you put it.

Even the M8 .50 caliber AP round used on M2 Machine Guns and M82A1 Special Application Snipers penetrate a mere 20mm.  Read here...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Caliber .50, Armor Piercing Incendiary, M8

General

This cartridge is intended for use against flammable, light-armored or unarmored targets, concrete shelters and similar bullet resisting targets. The cartridge is used  with .50 (12.7x99mm) weapons (Machine guns M2, M85 and other compatible systems).

Cartridge is identified by a black and red bullet tip.

Cartridge complies to MIL-C-3066.

Technical data

Cartridge:

Length 138.43 mm (5.450 in)

Weight 112 g (1730 gr)

Case:

Length 99.30 mm (3.909 in)

Weight 53.5 g (825 gr)

Material Brass

Bullet:

Length 58.67 mm (2.310 in)

Weight 42.12 g (650 gr)

Diameter 12.98 mm (.511 in)

Material

Jacket: Gilding metal

Core: Steel and  Incendiary composition

Primer Boxer, non-corrosive, non-mercuric

Propellant: Double-base extruded powder

Ballistic characteristics

Velocity 887 9.14 m/s at 23.77 m (2910 30 fps at 78 ft)

Chamber pressure max 3792 bar (55,000 psi)

Accuracy Mean radius max 25 cm at 549 m (9.84 in at 600 yd)

Penetration 20 mm armor plate at 100 m (0.79 in at 109 yd

<span id='postcolor'>

By the way, it's DU, not DPU.  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

Read it, it's referred to as Depleted Uranium (DU).

Now quiet and let this thread rest in peace.

[Frizbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ June 04 2002,02:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay first of all yes, the Avenger can fire at very high rates, but keep in mind that despite the fact it has 7 barrels, such high rates still cause massive heat buildup.  After a 2-second burst the gun needs about a minute to cool off.  Besides if you're shooting from 1 kilometer away it's not likely you will hit the target where you want despite Avenger's impressive accuracy.<span id='postcolor'>

Where did you get that information from? In a book I have about Modern Military Aircraft, it has a picture of the A-10 "Warthog" firing its cannon.

Gaseous vapour has almost completely obscured the aircraft.. with the caption reading "This is all that is visible of the A-10 after a continuous 5 second burst from its cannon under normal operating conditions"

Certainly the term "Normal Operating Conditions" means there is a difference from combat operations, but still a 5 second burst is longer than 2 seconds... and what's more, in the picture the gun is still firing.

[advocatexxx 0]

from an official source

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...The gun gives the A-10 the ability to attack multiple targets in one mission. It is designed to fire its full ammunition load in ten two-second bursts, with one minute to cool down between bursts; in normal use, the bursts and the cool-down time would be much shorter. A one second burst from 4,000ft (1,220m) will put 40 shells into a circle little bigger than the length of a tank, and half-a dozen hits are considered to be a lethal strike. With the theoretical ability to deliver 15-20 such bursts, the A-10 is unlikely to have to abort an attack for want of firepower.<span id='postcolor'>

I never said it couldn't fire bursts longer than 2 seconds either, stop making stuff up.