gunnergoz

BTW, here's some solid info on the great tank purge - er, I mean scrapping: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20090712.aspx

Very interesting - I'd seen the Tiger one before but not the Panther manual. I wonder if they were the inspiration for the US Army's "PM" series of cartoon maintenance comics that were published in the 50's, 60's and 70's - and may still be, for all I know. I remember being a leering 13-year old boy just lusting after the busty blonde in the PM comics. Gosh did that bring back some memories!

You were involved in that production? I loved that show!

F-4's and T-33's are, AFAIK, still being converted for use as target drones, so keeping them around kind of makes sense in that they represent a sort of mix of hi-lo performance airframes.

Bigduke6- Hi buddy, good to hear from you. And yes, they are doubtless from the vast war reserve stock (at one time, what - 50,000 plus?) of tanks from the FSU. And you are correct about even tanks rusting away...people think tanks last forever, but they don't. They corrode and everything not made of stainless steel will eventually degrade and decompose. I found that out when I went to Aberdeen Proving Ground years ago and walked around the scrap pile of tanks that they left out in the open...Tigers, Panthers, you name it - all out there and rusting away. So in the Russians' case, they are doubtless going to capitalize on this stuff now that they need hard currency and sell off the scrap value. Using draftees who they don't pay anything to speak of anyway. Makes sense, Russian style. Well said.

Shouldn't you get back to work?

Well, it's better than giving them to the North Koreans, I suppose... http://englishrussia.com/?p=3050#more-3050 I'm seldom surprised by anything the Russians do, since their logic is their own, but even I was perplexed by this comment about "expiration dates." I'm not sure if the Russian blogger got it wrong or if his source was misinformed...but tanks with expiration dates? I could see things like consumables (filters, gaskets, hoses) wearing out, but the armor and electronics? So what is behind this massive scrap campaign? Anybody?

Based upon all that I've heard over the years, I too would have to say it was more likely a "dirty" bomb, if anything, and not a fission weapon. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Nazi's had been thinking about dropping biologicals, chemical toxics or radioactives on the US East coast. That seems like something the little fiends would give a try to...

Also means a center of gravity closer to the shooter, which may assist in keeping the piece under control during auto fire. Might assist accuracy during intuitive pointing - just a guess. Compact design should help in tight quarters battle, such as fighting from vehicles, in dense brush and in building clearing. But most of bullpup designs seem fairly bulky to me, just looking at them. Mind you, I've never fired one, so I'm just guessing about these qualities - but I'd like to try one out some day.

I think that's a really nasty slur to make, and using a really broad brush. At last count, about 4,300 of these "prison types" have earned their professional credentials the really hard way, doing the nation's bidding. I won't say they were all Audie Murphy material, but I'd expect there are a lot of grieving families who would have a really strong objection to your description of their sons and daughters.

Like many problems pertaining to the military, I think the ultimate cause lies in poor quality supervision of the offending link. But seldom, if ever, are supervisors above the rank of O-3 ever pursued for these things, no matter how poor may have been the supervision they provided. On the other hand, some things are career-stoppers and the persons guilty of providing poor supervision may be punished in more subtle ways that the public seldom hears about. It's just not good for PR when the military "takes care of its own" and no one knows about it.

I got a ground tour of that B-24 when it first came over from India, about 30 years ago. It was all-silver then. A real time machine - all the AAF and Consolidated manuals were still in it. Very few flight hours on it, either; it had been barely used as a maritime patrol aircraft by the Indian Air Force when it was replaced (probably by a Shackleton) and mothballed. It still had the belly turret replacement radar dome in it, which would have made it a wartime pathfinder bomber, IIRC. If I had the bucks, I'd not hesitate to go for a flight in it - a memory to cherish. Hell, just walking & crawling around in it was a treat!

Way too gay for me.

Good news, it is. The Farce be with you all...

"Here son, enjoy your first dose of the clap." Gee, thanks Dad...

Good point, Michael. I sure enjoy watching BOB repeats much more than I do SPR.

Not all of the audience are grogs and tactical wizards like "us'n." Most people assume war is about rushing m.g. positions, pulling grenade pins with your teeth and lobbing them at an enemy 10 feet in front of you. If the film had been absolutely realistic, it might have pleased us but been too boring or incomprehensible to the general public that had to make the film justify its production costs...so give 'em pretty much what they expect, like glorious charges and bitter deaths in battle.

No, where did you get that idea? Did you not read my earlier post in this thread where I said that I had no problem with what I understood the SDIF game to be, or to war games or shooters, so long as they don't go around depicting war crimes or torture. And where do you get off throwing that sort of "evil bloodthirsty Americans" and "helpless defenseless poor Iraqis" language at me?. Trying to bait me with claptrap? Please carefully re-read what I wrote earlier in this thread before casting insulting insinuations like that at me. Like I said, I object to games that allow or encourage players to engage in criminal acts or to engage in conduct that is essentially a war crime. And I've explained why I feel that way. I have not played GTA but what I have read about it justifies my objections to it based upon my value system. And no, I'm not about to waste money buying it and rewarding the producer for coming up with the damn thing.

Yeah, that works. It makes the player play by civilized rules and I have no quarrel with a game like that.

I don't think you're the only ones...IIRC, the rebuild of the US carrier Coral Sea apparently added blisters that actually made her less seaworthy and impaired her stability, greatly lessening her future service life, wasting funds and leading to an early retirement - oops!

In real life? It depends upon if he was seen doing it and upon the frame of mind of the witnesses...if a soldier was within a squad or section where that was condoned, encouraged or even simply silently tolerated, he might get by with doing it for a long time. But we are talking about a game, not real life - correct? I'm saying that, if its a game that permits the player to shoot non-combatants, there should be some negative effects that severely penalize the player so as to prevent the game from becoming a My Lai simulator.

Is it not about criminals running around killing people and committing crimes? Or does the protagonist go around capturing criminals and helping others? If it is so correct, why is the term "grand theft" in it? It might help you to understand that I spent most of the past 30 years dealing directly with criminals and the aftereffects of their behavior; I have no tolerance for making criminals entertaining or examples for others to idolize or emulate.

If it was just a historical simulation of the ground combat, I would have no problem with it. Hopefully, non-combatants were not depicted. On the other hand, if the game depicted non-combatants and allowed a player to shoot them without having a really severe penalty for it, that wouldn't be right...lest the game become an Iraq version of GTA.

The Lockheed factory photos bring to mind a related anecdote from the era; it seems that the Corps of Engineers used Hollywood backstage set-making and film prop talent and ideas in making the Lockheed plant camouflage system. After the Lockheed plant was done, the movie studios in Hollywood clamored for their own camo system to be set up, arguing that movies were essential to war morale and that they would thus be high on any Japanese bombing target list. The Corps of Engineers then duplicated the job they'd done on Lockheed, covering the studios with painted netting, etc. Months later, after a studio head flew over them on the way back from a business trip, the movie moguls were very distressed to find out that the studios had been camouflaged to look like the Lockheed plant from the air - the perfect diversion to further insure the real aircraft factory's safety from Japanese bombers.

Actually, the countershading, especially that on surfaces closer to the ground, was intended to reflect more light into the shadowed areas on the ground or in the wheel wells, thus minimizing the actual shadows themselves. Obviously, the effect would be minimal except with fresh coat of paint, but that's how textbook solutions are. But it is correct that shadows are a dead giveaway most of the time, no matter what the paint job. I have those old manuals in storage - some day I'll get them out and scan the color examples for the forum to enjoy.