Stag

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Black Op @ Feb. 28 2002,17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well i never even heard of him till he died, i saw some clips on "open house" on channel 5 *looks embarrased and hides in corner* were he was talking about the millenium dome and that statue of half a woman, and it was pretty funny <span id='postcolor'> Good God almighty! You are English, and you've never heard of Spike Milligan? Spike Milligan was the comedian that Monty Python copied. The "Goon Show" was a milestone in radio broadcasting. He was an incredibly funny author as well. Fortuneatly for you, now he's dead, the media maggots will probably put his books back on the shelves to cash in. Watch out for "Puckoon," and his war memoirs; the first book being "Adolf Hitler; My part in his downfall," followed by "Rommel? Gunner Who?" and ending with "Montgomery; My Part in His Victory." Read them. they are amongst the funniest words ever written

You see a US flag waving over a cemetary at the beginning, and you condemn the whole movie for being US propaganda? Bull. If the American's were the good guys, how do you equate that with the scene on the beach where the bunker has just been flamed. Burning figures are leaping from the slits and one GI screams "Let them burn?" or the shooting of the surrendering Germans soon after? It was written from an American viewpoint, for sure. but one of the most memorable scenes for me was the fight in the room, when the German got the upper hand, and was driving the knife into the American's chest. If what you claim had any truth, he would have been saying something like "Die, Yankee Jew." Now to me, who granted doesn't understand German, he sounded almost apologetic, saying Something like "It's ok, I'll make it quick." Can any German speakers help me on that? You read into it what you will; I suspect you expected to see US flag waving, so that's what stood out for you. You din't want to see the whole picture.

Avon Lady, Personally I'd say more like 98%.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 24 2002,14:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. They're smilies and they're alive! Â <span id='postcolor'> Not only smilies, but mutant smilies...

And closer...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nordin dk @ Feb. 24 2002,02:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look inside the yellow circle, isn't that a mans face? Has a beard...<span id='postcolor'> you want really wierd, check the rectangle :

Jeez, Satchel, are you brewing that beer?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hilandor @ Feb. 21 2002,21:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> ur all a good bunch of folks, what more can i say  <span id='postcolor'> How about "Here's my wallet stuffed with Å50.00 notes, do with it what you will?"

Very well done!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Feb. 19 2002,18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Damage Inc @ Feb. 20 2002,14:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â A CHESTERFIELD IS A COUCH, Â Â Â <span id='postcolor'> No it's not, it's a sofa.

Impossible for Godzilla to do; a chicken is too small.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (teargas @ Feb. 13 2002,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Keep a low silhouette? get the typical fold up one.. it lies parallel with the turret and the flips un when ready to fire.. Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire? if they are that cheap they will never get anywhere Cost? what costs more? mounting a simple already designed effective missle system to the tank.. or having to reasearch and develop a new weapon? [skipped]<span id='postcolor'> Hey, tank expert. Didn't you ever think about why tanks have just one gun barrel although there are usually place enough to settle couple more? Didn't you ever think to remove turret entirely and just put AT soldier under hatch so that he would stand up when needed? Didn't you ever think why subbarel grenade launcher for M16 requiers partial rifle reassemby and weight much while GP could be attached to AK in a seconds and does not require shell removal after grenade shot? Listen, those things are beyond yours and mine understanding. Those things designed in that way 'cos designers had guts and reasons to design them as they are. I would lower my temperament and not reply in way I've done, but you ignorant enough to not just ask why but argue about something beyound your understanding. Learn if you want to know *why* but don't put an empty words just because you can't grasp *why*<span id='postcolor'> Up to now, we've been enjoying a decent discussion. By all means, field an opinion on what you think; I would be interested. Or don't you have an opinion, just a sucking attitude?

True. There are cases of "Winning sides" prosecuting their own people for war crimes, but since this turd actually ran the country, its unlikely he would indict himself, or any of his underlings.

That info is about 20-30 years old. If I remember correctly, it was in a book called "The Threat." In those days there was a belief that Russian kit was immeasureably superior to western gear. When that book appeared, it stuck a few pins on the over-inflated picture. Given the age of the info, I'm not surprised steps would have been taken to prevent it from happening.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 12 2002,14:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Would that apply only to the loser of a conflict or a winner aswell if they had comitted warcrimes? The only mistake Slobo made was losing...<span id='postcolor'> Wrong. The mistake he made was committing these atrocities. And then losing. Whatever you may like to blame certain countries for, what was done under this bastards control was just pure evil, with no mitigating circumstances at all.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Keep a low silhouette? get the typical fold up one.. it lies parallel with the turret and the flips un when ready to fire..<span id='postcolor'> Wherever and however you bung those boxes, it is going to add bulk. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire? if they are that cheap they will never get anywhere <span id='postcolor'> Conservstive guess, Å40,000 a missile (quite cheap) in a lightly armoured box which could be easily damaged by fragments? Cost? what costs more? mounting a simple already designed effective missle system to the tank.. or having to reasearch and develop a new weapon? The Russkis have been using their 125mm gun since the early 70's at least. Once it's there, it's there. it costs X per unit after development. A basic gun tube costs slightly less than X, but then to put the missiles abourd you pay X plus Y. To give those weapons any degree of protection, you are going to at least do some research into the best place and method of storage. Then when the next generation AFV comes along, you may well have to do it again. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can reload the gun internally, but have to sick your head up in a shooting gallery to reload external boxes?[/b well there are usually about 4 rounds per box.. so if you need to fire 4 missles so fast that you have no chance to reload and haven managed to get away or win with yer main gun.. your in a world of trouble. ]<span id='postcolor'> Think the best, prepare for the worst. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what about: missle ammo that takes up valuable space INSIDE the tank.. box ammo can be mounted on the exterior strapped on in its cases,.<span id='postcolor'> A good point, but: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">total lack of use of main gun when firing.. when using a box you could enguage 2 targets.. one with gun, one with missle..<span id='postcolor'> Meaning the fitting of two seperate fire control systems. granted, one could be allocated to the commander, but then there's the matter of added cost to the MBT in general. Also, when ANY large calibre weapon kicks off, there is a hell of a recoil. What would that do to missile lock? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">POWER.. most box launcher's missle are much larger than the slimmed down ones that have to fit the relativley samll tank barrel.<span id='postcolor'> Which brings you back to the silhoutte thing, which is quite important, when the new buzzword is stealth.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Keep a low silhouette? get the typical fold up one.. it lies parallel with the turret and the flips un when ready to fire..<span id='postcolor'> Wherever and however you bung those boxes, it is going to add bulk. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire? if they are that cheap they will never get anywhere <span id='postcolor'> Conservstive guess, Å40,000 a missile (quite cheap) in a lightly armoured box which could be easily damaged by fragments? Cost? what costs more? mounting a simple already designed effective missle system to the tank.. or having to reasearch and develop a new weapon? The Russkis have been using their 125mm gun since the early 70's at least. Once it's there, it's there. it costs X per unit after development. A basic gun tube costs slightly less than X, but then to put the missiles abourd you pay X plus Y. To give those weapons any degree of protection, you are going to at least do some research into the best place and method of storage. Then when the next generation AFV comes along, you may well have to do it again. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can reload the gun internally, but have to sick your head up in a shooting gallery to reload external boxes?[/b well there are usually about 4 rounds per box.. so if you need to fire 4 missles so fast that you have no chance to reload and haven managed to get away or win with yer main gun.. your in a world of trouble. ]<span id='postcolor'> Think the best, prepare for the worst. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what about: missle ammo that takes up valuable space INSIDE the tank.. box ammo can be mounted on the exterior strapped on in its cases,.<span id='postcolor'> A good point, but: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">total lack of use of main gun when firing.. when using a box you could enguage 2 targets.. one with gun, one with missle..<span id='postcolor'> Meaning the fitting of two seperate fire control systems. granted, one could be allocated to the commander, but then there's the matter of added cost to the MBT in general. Also, when ANY large calibre weapon kicks off, there is a hell of a recoil. What would that do to missile lock? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">POWER.. most box launcher's missle are much larger than the slimmed down ones that have to fit the relativley samll tank barrel.<span id='postcolor'> Which brings you back to the silhoutte thing, which is quite important, when the new buzzword is stealth.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ Feb. 12 2002,08:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M1A2 doesnt have an autoloader.They did when they tested it but it got deleted from the tank cause it was just to costly,more work, alittle more slower then a human loader (takes bout 3 sec to load)plus a human loaders arm is more reliable then some mechanical devices which could brake down in combat.A human loader has more advantages then a autoloader.But the M1A2 is ranked as the worlds best MBT(main battle tank).With Challenger or some european tank ranked 2nd.<span id='postcolor'> Oooo! Now you've done it! http://www.vickers.co.uk/ http://www.vickers.co.uk/rt001.htm http://www.vickers.co.uk/ftalks/98_summer/rt-k.htm http://www.cthesis.com/politics/0700/p_605_37.html http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/ http://company.monster.co.uk/vickeruk/products.html But since Challenger 2 has not fought its rivals, all is merely academic.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ Feb. 12 2002,08:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M1A2 doesnt have an autoloader.They did when they tested it but it got deleted from the tank cause it was just to costly,more work, alittle more slower then a human loader (takes bout 3 sec to load)plus a human loaders arm is more reliable then some mechanical devices which could brake down in combat.A human loader has more advantages then a autoloader.But the M1A2 is ranked as the worlds best MBT(main battle tank).With Challenger or some european tank ranked 2nd.<span id='postcolor'> Oooo! Now you've done it! http://www.vickers.co.uk/ http://www.vickers.co.uk/rt001.htm http://www.vickers.co.uk/ftalks/98_summer/rt-k.htm http://www.cthesis.com/politics/0700/p_605_37.html http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/ http://company.monster.co.uk/vickeruk/products.html But since Challenger 2 has not fought its rivals, all is merely academic.

Keep a low silhouette? Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire? Cost? You can reload the gun internally, but have to sick your head up in a shooting gallery to reload external boxes? Take your pick

Keep a low silhouette? Protect expensive weaponry from enemy fire? Cost? You can reload the gun internally, but have to sick your head up in a shooting gallery to reload external boxes? Take your pick

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,02:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it might be a good tank in concept *maby) but given the russian economy I doubt they woul be willing to drop the cash needed to do the extensive R&D needed to really maximize its potental.... much less produce a sufficent number of them to make any sort of real paradigm shift of sorts.. as for that massive gun.. whats the point..  the bigger the gun gets the more its range decreases, the fewre rounds it holds, and the longer it takes to load..  if its like most russian tanks its not designed for a long range enguagment.. I.E. firing at shit from great distances.. but insted for the 1000m or less knife fights that take place in dens or hilly areas... it would probably be 100% at home in a jungle or in a hilly area.. but on a plane or desert.. it would be a fat juicy target for the long range super accurate guns of the sort the Abrams and Challenger use.. Im suprised they even bother with tanks.. tanks are useless if you dont have total air supremacy... they are just targets.. no tank will ever have the armor to take a direct hit from todays standoff highly accurate missles and bombs.. tank survival under hostile airspace is a fantasy.. but seeing as how this design will probably never see the light of day aside from perhaps a few dozen prototypes.. no sense in arguing it.. and why are the russians so facinated with being able to shoot a missle from the main gun? you can pretty much fit any vehicle with a box launcher that has better capabilities, range and power than anything you can squirt out of that main gun.. its like doing it for the sake of doing it  ?<span id='postcolor'> The advantage of a missile is that you can correct aiming errors in mid flight, and hence is more accurate. If it makes you feel any better, the US got there first in the 1960's with their 152mm Shellelagh weapons system, fitted to the M551 Sheridan and M60A2. Problem was it didn't work very well for the US. I wonder how well the Russians have managed to debug the concept?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,02:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it might be a good tank in concept *maby) but given the russian economy I doubt they woul be willing to drop the cash needed to do the extensive R&D needed to really maximize its potental.... much less produce a sufficent number of them to make any sort of real paradigm shift of sorts.. as for that massive gun.. whats the point..  the bigger the gun gets the more its range decreases, the fewre rounds it holds, and the longer it takes to load..  if its like most russian tanks its not designed for a long range enguagment.. I.E. firing at shit from great distances.. but insted for the 1000m or less knife fights that take place in dens or hilly areas... it would probably be 100% at home in a jungle or in a hilly area.. but on a plane or desert.. it would be a fat juicy target for the long range super accurate guns of the sort the Abrams and Challenger use.. Im suprised they even bother with tanks.. tanks are useless if you dont have total air supremacy... they are just targets.. no tank will ever have the armor to take a direct hit from todays standoff highly accurate missles and bombs.. tank survival under hostile airspace is a fantasy.. but seeing as how this design will probably never see the light of day aside from perhaps a few dozen prototypes.. no sense in arguing it.. and why are the russians so facinated with being able to shoot a missle from the main gun? you can pretty much fit any vehicle with a box launcher that has better capabilities, range and power than anything you can squirt out of that main gun.. its like doing it for the sake of doing it  ?<span id='postcolor'> The advantage of a missile is that you can correct aiming errors in mid flight, and hence is more accurate. If it makes you feel any better, the US got there first in the 1960's with their 152mm Shellelagh weapons system, fitted to the M551 Sheridan and M60A2. Problem was it didn't work very well for the US. I wonder how well the Russians have managed to debug the concept?

I think, therefore I spam?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @ Feb. 12 2002,03:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The best tank of WW2 was the Maus. it never entered production but it had armour that was twice as thick as the tigers armour and it was twice as large. it was powered by something like 4 massive engines. If this has been produced a year earlier Im sure it would have changed the war. 1 thing ppl seem to forget on this is that to design a good tank it needs the perfect balance of mobility firepower reliability protection if 1 of them is rubbish then the tank is crap. if the tank cant move its useless if it cant fire it is useless if it breaks down all the time it is useless etc............<span id='postcolor'> I doubt it very much. It was too big and too slow; easy to outflank, more like a mobile fort than a real tank. I can't imagine a quick offensive being spearheaded by them. Again, by the time they rolled off the lines they wouldn't be facing shermans, they'd be facing thunderbolts, typhoons and tempests If you want to put prototypes into the argument, Then I'd say the centurion was the best tank never to see action in WW2. Wonder what ever happened to that one?