Magpie_Oz
-
Posts
1,553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Magpie_Oz
-
-
the question is what is the gun mount if not the mantlet ?
Just a thought but perhaps the gun mount is what gets damaged sometimes if the mantlet is hit? So you'd then have the gun barrel, the mantlet (called the turret front along with the triangle bits) and the gun mount, directly behind the mantlet but much more delicate and subject to independent damage??????
-
I think they are the same rounds one just pierces armour better.
-
Yes now come on lads you know they get all confused with check and cheque , cue and queue and kerb and curb.
They just can't handle words that are spelt differently and mean different things but sound the same.
-
2. HQ units are a source of C2, FO's are not. FO's also get a delay bonus when ordering arty and might even be a bit more accurate with the strike (not sure on that one).
4. No but they are harder to spot.
-
That is a very interesting operation. I was lucky enough to have the guy who mounted and led the first tap for it as a lecturer a couple of years ago. He employed an extraordinarily maneauverist approach, to great success.
I have a number of friends who went on the operation and all of them look back on it as their greatest achievement.
-
Now now we are talking about the US don't foist it all of onto Mexico.
-
Thing is if other nations are put in like Italy and France we would get a lot more diverse equipment and that would be great, we could sim all sorts of things.
I'd also like to see the ability to mix and match individual items in the scenario builder and for QB's so potentially you can have a troop of an M1, Challenger, Leopard 2, Ariete and Leclerc for example. I have a cool idea for an "all NATO" scenario but getting the vehicles is quite a pain.
Australia to be honest would really only be US and UK gear with some cosmetic changes and taller more handsome pixeltruppen.
-
Does it have IVIS? I can only find references to that system in the M1A2 ?????
-
I think the focus on the that sentence should be "...saved at least 50 times more people..." rather than "occupied by the Russians"
-
Is the subject matter of this thread now making jokes about JG11Preusse's bad English? .......... But attacking someone's ideas by attacking the person does nothing to advance the debate.
I think it is more about the tone rather than the grammar and the last sentence of you post does apply to both sides.
-
And if the cargo being transported also contains metal? The amount of metal in a gun can vary greatly from model to model due to the proliferation of polymer frames.
yes but they are looking for suspect things not just "ooo there's a gun"
Canada's guns laws are more restrictive than the US's but they have nothing close to a total ban. Mexico's guns laws are very strict, but that doesn't seem to help them much.No because Mexico is overrun with guns from the US, ban your and they benefit too.
MEXICO CITY – The most fearsome weapons wielded by Mexico’s drug cartels enter the country from Central America, not the United States, according to U.S. diplomatic cables disseminated by WikiLeaks and published on Tuesday by La Jornada newspaper.Items such as grenades and rocket-launchers are stolen from Central American armies and smuggled into Mexico via neighboring Guatemala, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City reported to Washington.
OK so some of the cartels have a couple of heavy hitters, still doesn't off set the thousands of guns they get from the USA, and if they are getting them from Central America and the border is leaky, how come they aren't in the US? obviously something is working.
I'm happy for you, mate. Crime is way down here too. I don't know why you think we need your expertise.Because the OP asked for it. Besides we don't claim to have any particular expertise rather that we tried something and it worked. Twice in fact should have a look at Operation Bel Isi
-
Sure but the security is much tighter on Win7 even when you think you have everything generally authorised there are still some things that you need to specifically authorise.
I guess the program had to make some changes to your system in the first run and so you had to run admin to let it make them.
Good to see you have it up and running.
-
Just as a thought how many of the MegaJoules of energy of the round is used in penetration of the armour? That's going to have a big impact (pun intended) of the behind armour effects.
-
Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia
once more
Australia
-
If it was wrong however' date=' but legal, then its still wrong.[/quote']
Who would have though that the den of hedonism in the desert would provide the kernel that restores my faith in the ol' USA?
-
It is an absolutely mind-boggling mass of water vapour.
It certainly is that, can't even imagine how big it was. Of course it is probably all gone now because what the astronomers are looking at is something that happened 12 billion years ago and quasars are hungry buggers.
-
Vehicles are made of metal, as are many containers. Dogs can be used to help find drugs.
True but vehicles are of different densities of metal and a metal detector can be configured to detect changes in metallic density and hence find a gun quite easily even if buried some distance into the object.
Dogs can sniff out drugs for sure but they have trouble with deep concealments.
The amount of drugs you can transport by swallowing is very small.It's only really used by people traveling by plane that are certain to be searched. It any event, whether smuggling drugs is a better bang-for-the-buck is a separate question than if guns are prohibitively difficult to smuggle.Still a hell of of a lot bigger amount than guns, rememberer the unit for unit comparison.
I travel by plane all the time across the country and the world and it is very rare that I am searched for drugs, in fact outside of Australia I have never been searched, scanned or sniffed for drugs. I am searched, sniffed and scanned for guns and explosives every time. Coming back into Australia is about the only time I can be certain of a scan (AQIS Xray) for organic material.
Not prohibitively difficult just a lot more difficult than drugs.
The only flaw is the baseless assumption that they wouldn't.From where ? There is no were near the number of arms manufacturers in Canada or Mexico if any, so any weapons that are to be smuggled would have to avoid 4 different customs searches country of origin, on import to Canada or Mexico, on export from Canada and Mexico and on Import to the US. You'd be better off just trying to go direct to the US.
We are managing just fine there has been no sky rocket in crime since the gun by back with the streets full of armed desperadoes packin' imported heat, quite the opposite in fact.
-
Try run as administrator or in compatibility mode?
Is the User Account Control turned off?
-
The original post on the CMBN thread suggested that if you needed to retrieve a support weapon it is quicker if you declare area fire on where the casualty is to kill them, as then when you send other soldiers over to him they don't spend time on buddy aid they just take the weapon.
It is probably a dictionary definition of gamey
Sort of ties in with another discussion where people were saying how their game play has changed because they don't want to leave the wounded.
-
Certainly be opened up make a huge difference for AFV's I have cleaned up a number of times fighting closed down tanks.
But the Radio link seems to be a worry. Could the MGS's be under a different commander?
-
You have a compartment in a vehicle, or in a container being transported by vehicle. As long as the gun can fit in that compartment/container it is smuggleable. Putting guns in that container does not make it any easier to find than if you put drugs in it.
But guns as a rule are easier to detect because they are a dense lump of metal which a cheap easily deployed metal detector can find, can't do that with drugs.
You'd get more drugs in the same compartment you also have other options with drugs, you can swallow them for example which you can't do with a gun.
But you are of course forgetting the fundamental flaw in the baseline of the discussion in that the notion is that guns will flow across the Mexican border if you should happen to ban guns in the US but the guns go the other way.
-
There are different levels of assault. I don't know why the idiot who shot at something he couldn't identify wasn't charged. It doesn't matter. You are attempting to argue that the US is turning unto a free-fire zone where any one can shoot anybody for any reason, and you are using anecdotal evidence to try to prove it. This is so patently stupid I really don't think there is any point in even trying to refute it. All I really have to do is point to the dramatic decrease in violent deaths in the US over the past 2 decades.
No I am not saying the US is turning into a free fire zone at all I am however saying that the waters are very darkly muddied as to what constitutes legal or illegal shootings and give an example where a man shot his daughter and walked away free.
The decrease in crimes has been in some cases put down to the rising attrition of the perpetrators.
I think I may be done with this conversation. It's pretty clear you are not serious in anything you say. Guns are one of most commonly smuggled items the world over. They are easily transportable by person or vehicle. You know this. Everyone knows this. The fact that you are trying to argue against it tells me you are arguing for the sake of arguing.On what do you base the notion that guns are the most smuggled items?
The number of guns brought into Australia pales in comparison to the amount of drugs, particularly when most of the guns are intercepted as they are so hard to conceal (!)
In Turkey the most smuggled item is red meat, in Rwanda it is milk, Uganda cigarettes, the list goes on.
Everyone knows that saying everyone knows is a cover for saying something nobody knows.
-
Well I'm of to work out, gunna drive to the shops and pick up 3kg of Ice Cream, yes hard core gym junkie I know but I like to stay in shape.
-
1. I do not condone what Japanese did.
Didn't suggest you did
2. Well... Then one can apply this logic to 9/11.Can and do, the West sees it as a scurrilous act the perpetrators see it as a strategic attack on the enemy.
Well... I believe it's true that Allied leaders were very much similar to Hitler et al. Bombing Hamburg, Dresden, Pforzheim the way that was done is not very different from the Hitler's mass killings of Jews. It's just Hitler lost and Allies won. So German concentration camps are war crimes but the proposal to exterminate 100'000 Wehrmacht officers is not in every school textbook on history. Truly Allies probably did not care much about how many Japanese civilians they should kill to get an "unconditional surrender".Quite different there. Hitler's killing of the Jews and the Japanese killings of the Chinese, Nanking for example, were deliberate and stated as intentional, acts of Genocide. The heavy bomber campaign had no such intention but attacking the German people was part of it for sure.
I don't know what the proposal to exterminate the German officer corps is a reference to and would like to know more, but I do point out that a proposal and an actual act are two very different things.
True enough the Allies didn't really care who many Japanese died to end the war they were more concerned about their own casualties BUT it was a certainty that more Japanese civilians would have died in the event of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands that were killed by the atomic bombs.
panther turret hits to often ?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I guess that is what makes it a bit confusing because as you say the weapon is mounted behind the mantlet.