db_zero
-
Posts
1,554 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by db_zero
-
-
If you had a large portfolio in Russian stocks, you have my sympathy. The only solice I have for you is its not a real loss until you sell. If you're a gambling person Russian junk bonds is a high risk, high reward bet, same could be said for upside call bets on anything Russian related. If you have real big gonads of steel the FOREX is the place for you.
Other useless words of wisdom-or actionable intelligence.
We've had currency crisis before. The Asian currency crisis in 1998 comes to mind. One caveat is the Asian nations involved in the 1998 crisis weren't as aggresive as Russia and didn't have a large military and nukes, nor facing a hostile America about to impose sanctions. In fact the full weight and good faith of America was behind solving the Asian currency crisis. In the case of Russia the full weight of America is behind destroying Putin. All I have to say is be careful of a wounded animal. You can be right and still get a black eye or worse....
As Warren Buffet has said time and time again-be greedy when everyone is fearful and fearful when everyone is greedy.
Oil prices have collapsed. Russia holds large gold reserves and could easily begin to sell that to raise cash, thus further depressing the price of gold, silver, copper and other commodities.
Some have said the fall in oil, gold and commodity prices is the deflating of the Fed commodity assest bubble created by artificialy low interest rates policy. You learn in school there are 3 branches of govenment. I would argue that is incorrect. The 4th branch of govenment and the most powerful is the Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke was a avid scholor of the Great Depression. The new Fed head Yellen I'll withhold judgement on.
If you're in the Bernanke school of thought the collapse of the German economy lead to the rise in facism and Hittler. Could that also hold true in todays Putin lead Russia? On the other hand I can't see Obama not imposing sanctions on Russia given todays political climate and reality in American politics. The political impetus is for an iron hand not a velvet touch when it comes to Russia.
So the quiz for today is what assest(s) benefit from what has to be a rising interest policy environment in America?
-
No idea of what the future holds, but here are a couple of articles about something that could easily get converted to military use. BTW: google has gone on a buying spree snapping up robotic companies on the cheap.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Why-Japan-has-fallen-in-love-with-human-looking-5954450.php
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e98a5d08-4ae1-11e4-839a-00144feab7de.html#axzz3M7IXXKou
-
Pilots are notoriously bad at verifying kills (or rather, failing to kill things). Being charitable, they overclaimed ground kills by a minimum of a factor of 10; more realistically, they probably overclaimed by a factor of 50 or so.
An example: During the Mortain offensive in August, the Germans assembled a force of approximately 75 Pz IV, 70 Pz V and 32 Stugs for the attempt to cut of the American breakout. During the first three days the British and American pilots claimed 252 German tanks knocked out. The Germans had only deployed 177 full AFV's for the offensive. Furthermore, later OR analysis showed that allied aircraft only accounted for 9 German vechicles destroyed, the rest instead going to the usual causes (TD's, artillery, zooks, etc).
Later analysis by the Brits of lost Panthers in Normandy and the Ardennes showed that only approximately 6% of Panthers were lost to air weapons. Losses of Soviet armor during Kursk to German air is even lower than this figure, the Luftwaffe accounting for 2% to 5% of armored losses.
Quite simply, WWII aircraft did not have the weapons or accuracy to successfully attack armor. It was one of the worst targets to direct them against, as FLAK took a very heavy toll for practically no purpose. Air superiority was useful, but not in attacking armor.
BTW-In my reference above I neglected to say that Hartman's 352 kill claim was for aircraft shot down, not tanks or vehicles destroyed.
Now that that is out of the way, what about the Faliase Gap? That has always been touted as the great killing fields where Typhoons and other aircraft slaughtered the Germans.
Putting aside the actual kill tally. Getting strafed, bombed and rocketed by aircraft, regardless of whether they actually hit or kill anything cannot be pleasant.
I remember a quote from the 1991 Desert Storm campaign to the effect that the carpet bombing of positions by B-52s may not kill a lot of enemy combatants, but it sure will make them s*** in their pants and render them ineffective.
-
I recall some arguments that the process of kill verification for the Luftwaffe in WW2 was not as stringent as was the case in the American and British Air corps so you had highly inflated numbers not only for Rudel, but also pilots like Hartman who claimed something like 352 kills or so.
Perhaps someone knowledgeable could shed some light on this , if it hasn't already been done.
The Stuka would always suffer in the fact of determined air opposition. In 1940 during the opening days of the Battle of Britain they got butchered by the RAF and pulled back or given heavy escort. The Me-110 also proved to be less than stellar in air to air.
Some today say the A-10 is nothing more than a modern day version of the Stuka-in fact ex-Stuka pilots were used as consultants when it was being designed. Many believe that in the face of determined air resistance the A-10 would suffer the same fate as Stukas.
-
One other thing...20mm used for air to air combat usually has a fuse so it explodes when it penetrates an airframe.
20mm designed for use against tanks may have been solid core, used a hardened outer core so it penetrated armor then exploded, so it had different characteristics one might associate with 20mm. The velocity the 20mm cannons fired the shells also is a factor.
Size does not always mean more effectiveness. Germany produced an excellent AT gun that was something like 28mm iirc. It had great performance, but because it required ammo that needed metals they didn't have in abundance it was produced in small numbers.
The 75mm on the Panther had better armor penetrating capabilities than the famous 88mm due to higher velocities iirc.
Modern main battle tanks have guns in the 120mm range, but the actual dartlike projectile is far smaller than 120mm.
-
Im not the expert so Im speculating....
Im sure many of the upper facing areas of a T-34 have pretty thin armor. Im sure too captured samples were carefully analyzed and findings presented to troops and pilots.
Ill let the experts also chime in on the velocity of 20mm/37mm fired from a in a shallow dive. Perhaps the momentum of the plane as well as the fact the shells are falling to earth might provide a little more umph.
Rapid firing cannons like the 20mm may have shotgun like hit patterns so you may get multiple hit on the weakest armored areas of a tank.
A mobility kill is almost as good as a kill and a panicked crew that bails out is a kill in sense.
-
When the A-10 first came out it was expected to play a part rolling back the hordes of Soviet tank rolling through the Fulda Gap. I would hardly consider that a permissive threat environment. You saw images of A-10s with ALQ-131 ecm pods on the outer pylons and 2 or 4 AIM-9L for air to air threats. So the air force expected them to be operating in a high threat environment.
Budget considerations is probably a driving force behind the decisions, but we have a new congress who will be changing the powerful committee members so don't be surprised if the tell the AF otherwise and the A-10 sticks around.
-
First off you're going to have to ask yourself will the younger generation be using PCs in its current form when they are in the 30 and 40's+ and have disposable income.
Then you have to ask are those who currently play these sorts of games willing to accept change.
I just bought War in the West. Great game, probably going to become the best on the subject. For someone like me who was raised on AH and SPI games the way the game is presented is not a deal breaker, but if you suggest adding some graphics to depict the fighting, you often get a reason why it can't or shouldn't be done or some grumpy old traditionalist who doesn't want to see change.
The one thing CM has going for it is its graphical presentation. For a younger generation raised in a graphical interface world and used to seeing things presented graphically it has that going for it.
-
Sounds like the OP is just deploying single tanks with no support. You should never have armor alone without some kind of support. Even a pure Armor formation should have tanks supporting one another. Sounds like the OP has neither which will get you killed sooner than later.
I's always better to have a mixed force if possible, especially if you are unsure what you will be facing. There is a reason why a combined arms doctrine is so effective.
This is why I like CMx2 because it forces you to use realistic tactics.
Actually no I wasn't deploying tanks in closed terrain without infantry support, but oftentimes you will find tanks alone due to the circumstances. Artillery and small arms fire can kill off supporting infantry quickly and leave tanks alone.
I wasn't complaining about infantry killing tanks, just asking about it.
I've had tanks killed by infantry and once I learned more I tried it out in some h2h games against my opponent and discovered it works quite well so I'm going to change my tactics accordingly.
In the past when infantry was pretty impotent against tanks you used them differently. The one thing I do question is I'm seeing tanks immobilized by the first grenade that explodes near their tracks. I can't say that for sure, but I had 2 tanks immobilized this way and I've killed 4 opponents tanks-Tigers, Panthers and a Mark IV with infantry hurling grenades and it looked like they were immobilized quickly, then finished off with grenades.
1 of the Panthers killed by 2 sections with a total of 3 troops were Polish infantry.
This may also have implications for my h2h games in Italy too.
-
Fear and adrenaline is something that cannot be overstated. Training and repetition can help overcome some of that. You will fall back on your training when all else fails, but it is interesting to see how you can tell someone over and over how to do something simple and yet once you put them into a stressful situation how they fail to do what you've told them over again.
I would also suggest that distance also makes a huge difference. Facing an opponent at 1 to 10 feet or 100 to 300+ feet are completely different.
Also having support in the terms of having team mates on your side or being in a 1 on 1 or 1 vs many is also a factor.
Pistols, shotguns, rifles, long distance shooting are completely different types of shooting that require a different skill set, mindset and discipline.
-
Expanding the discussion a but what does the British Army who use the SA80 think? I see reports they don't trust it. I also see other horror stories about the whole affair behind it.
The Germans have the G36. They also have the MP7 for second line troops and officers. They seem to be going back to a model somewhat like WW2. Is there any merit in that?
-
The widespread use of body armor may factor in why they are sticking with the 5.56 if its better against opponents with body armor. I don't know if 5.56 is superior than the 7.62 against body armor. I'm sure the military has looked into this. Most of the discussion has been about use against opponents without body armor.
Looks like infantry is having its own armor vs projectile arms race like tanks.
-
There are stories of troops in Iraq stashing captured AKs in Humvees because they were better for shooting insurgents taking cover behind walls and the like.
Some contend that because its human nature and because troops are trained to seek cover immediately a round that penetrates and reduces cover is more desirable.
-
Gotta love it. Thread started out about tanks in the modern era and their future and has evolved into the Sherman vs Tigers, Panthers and death trap debate.
Won't be long before we're debating the merits of universal health care...
-
I believe this is related to the "Nylon-coated cop killer" .22 long rifle bullets that were banned because they were found to be able to penetrate police protective vests.
Was that the KXT?
I think some types of kevlar are still vulnerable to .22. I don't know all the exact details. I think hp, solid round nose is a factor. You also have those hyper velocity rounds like Stingers.
-
I wouldn't put too much credence in the 1986 Miami police/FBI shootout. It was valid at the time, but since that time bullet technology has advanced. Back then self defense rounds would not perform reliably. Today bonded ammo performs much more reliably.
I also read that back then in spite of its reputation the FBI was more of a white crime outfit and firearms skill and training had slipped. One of the agents really didn't engage.
The military by convention is forbidden from using expanding ammunition so that too is going to be a factor. That's a big reason why LE and the military are moving in opposite directions with regards to pistols. LE is moving towards 9mm while the military is moving back to the 45 ACP.
One thing I gathered from the linked defense journal article was the thinner combatants on a third world diet had body structures that sometimes prevents the 5.56 from performing as advertised. Sounds like if you're on a McDonalds diet and on your way to obesity the 5.56 will likely petform as advertised. Maybe thats why McDonalds and KFCs are sprouting up all over in places like China and the Middle East.
Interesting China has a 5.8 cal bullet they won't export. They also recently took 1st place in a tactical competition.
-
Coopers book was more of a personal memoir based on his perspective as an Ordnance officer. Still there were plenty of complaints about the Shermans flaws and hearings were held during the war if I'm not mistaken so its all not just myth.
Keep in mind too that unless I'm mistaken the big tank battles in Normandy were in the British and Canadian sector. They faced the best German divisions and the bulk of the German armor and those encounters were very bloody and probably highlighted the Shermans flaws to a greater degree. The American operated in a relatively weak sector. The British/Canadians pinned down the stronger German sector while the American forces task was to break through a weaker sector and move forward fast-something for which the Sherman was well suited for.
-
And I recall that several of the units involved in the so-called "Blackhawk Down" incident went black on ammo before the ground convoy forced their way through and rescued them. If they had been carrying a 7.62mm weapon rather than a 5.56mm, they probably would have run out of ammo much sooner.
So... which would you prefer, not being certain whether your last shot dropped some Ethiopian tribesman hopped up on khat, or running out of ammo entirely?
nah they would have just dropped them with 1 or 2 shots from 7.62 and had plenty left for the rest...
seriously I don't know if in that situation spray and pry is better with a 5.56 or semi auto aimed shots with a harder hitting 7.62 would have been better.
-
Aim for a persons hip and drugged out or not they are going to drop in a world of hurt and more than likely be out of the fight.
-
Wow. If true, those numbers are far better than I would have dreamt possible. They certainly put the lie to the "Deathtraps" myth.
Michael
I disagree this puts the "Death Trap" idea to mythical status. There is merit in it.
Some of the above mentioned narratives sounds like the may be from the histories of the 4th Armored Division which was a very crack Armored division. The CO had a very well deserved reputation for knowing how and when to use armor and other supporting arms in a coordinated combined manner and maneuvered his forces in such a way that when they were committed they often had an advantage. At the lower levels of command they were also quite competent and experienced in the business of war.
There may have also been other factors involved like artillery –which was a huge American advantage the German despised and airpower.
Units like the 4th Armored were probably at the exceptional end of the scale and not the normal part of the spectrum.
No question other armored units were like the 4th, while others were not so exceptional to far less competent.
Just like in the Battle of the Budge. Some divisions like the 106th crumbled, others like the 99th did well and the crack airborne units gained notoriety.
There much room for nuance when discussing these sorts of things.
Put 10 guys off the street and give them the latest and most advanced assault rifles, combat gear and pit them against a well trained, experience group of 5 men armed with bolt action 22s and gear from the Goodwill store and a smart betting man would put money on the later group.
Put 10 men vs 10 men with equal levels of experience, motivation and skill and I would venture to say differences in weapons and gear will make a large difference.
-
I really have a hard time seeing infantry assaulting a modern battle tank. Grenades? C4?
I've seen youtube vids of insurgents using old surplus Russian AT grenades. Other lighter stuff doesn't seem like it will be that much easier.
-
I've been trying this out in my games. Whether its overdone or not, I like it as is.
-
That's just one of a number of ways we might stumble upon a solution to the over-population problem that turns out to be more drastic than we bargained for. Frankly, I think that if matters continue on the present course, there is a better than even chance that the human race will no longer be around a century from now. Not saying it has to go that way, but given the way we cling obstinately to our various stupidities, we seem to be plunging headlong in that direction.
Michael
My aren't we in a grim mood today
I remember back in the 70's they we're predicting and making movies about 2K where people were being turned into green crackers to feed an overpopulated earth.
-
The PLA isn't particularly deployable outside of a handful of light units, since they don't have the sealift necessary to move very many ground forces to the hotspots and keep them supplied. The one scenario where they would have a manpower advantage -- an actual land invasion of China -- nukes would fly long before that advantage could tell. North Korea's army, as near as any can tell, is in even worse straits, along with South Korea being able to contribute nearly as many men once their reserves are activated, atop whatever the US military can feed in.
At any rate, I can't imagine a single conflict in the modern era that was decided by the choice of rifle.
Off the topic...but speaking of China...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-official-america-is-now-no-2-2014-12-04
ukraine military vs russia
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Like i said options is high risk high reward. If they were playing with money they couldn't afford to lose then they were in the wrong business.