Jump to content
tanknet.org

Scott Cunningham

Members
  • Content Count

    1,084
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Scott Cunningham

  • Rank
    Crew

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ft Leavenworth KS
  • Interests
    Member, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Recent Profile Visitors

342 profile views
  1. The stewardship on these assets by the US Army has been piss poor historically. Even when they “restore” a vehicle, its usually simply to remove HAZMAT or some environmental nonsense.
  2. I read a damage study of WWII cruisers in the Warship series, and their conclusion was that armor on treaty cruisers was largely ineffectual. The weight should have rather been used for other purposes. The Japanese actually created some decent 10K cruisers (yeah, I know, they cheated), which performed far better than the US equivalents of the era. Much can be attributed to superior IJN gunnery, night fighting, torpedo tactics, and fighting tactics, but the ships were also better.
  3. Ummmmmm WTF USN........ How and the hell can the Navy allow a national asset burn at pier side for days...... I’m not a sailor, but as a taxpayer this leaves me with HUGE questions regarding USN Damage Control. I’m hearing they abandoned the ship and were “fighting the fire remotely”. Apparently the days of “Don’t give up the ship” are long gone.And if the answer is “It wasn’t worth risking lives”, them I’m gonna call BS on that one. You don’t let a billion dollar asset burn just so nobody is put at risk to save it. Looks like risk-aversion has reached a full-panic level in the USN cu
  4. The 152 was never intended as a HV gun from what I remember. It was just too much gun for a HV option (which would have required 5x the propellant that the normal HEAT round took, and a gigantic breach that probably would not fit in that turret). Thats the main reason they incorporated the troublesome missile into the system, to create a long range tank killing capability, alongside the impressive HE/HEAT capability of a 6" gun.
  5. Damn you!! Yet another book to go on the wish list!!
  6. The way IADS is going, even western nations are adopting the Russian approach. The key term is "integrated". As newer and better components become available (radars, data links, missiles, etc...) they can be plugged in and enhance the system. The Patriot is a great missile as a stand alone item, but its all the other stuff (sentinel radars, AWACS and JSTARS feeds, other radars, etc..) that create the SA necessary for the IADS to function at a level approaching that which Russia achieves. Oh BTW, IADS is one of the Army's "Top-6" development priorities.
  7. First vehicle I was thinking was a down by the bow M-47 chassis (with engine and trans removed). The slots cut in the idler wheel were sometimes seen on those
  8. I think the key term is "modern". Perhaps the HS-30? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer_Lang_HS.30
  9. When the unit price of a platform hits this level, it becomes a "capital ship". It its capabilities are commensurate, then its OK. If not, then its a waste. Part of the normal design rationale for destroyers is the whole small-cheap concept. Its a ship thats able to be built in some numbers, and go into harms way. This ship is neither. It's too few, too expensive to risk... A failed concept...
  10. Wonder why the US never tried to get a Leo II pack intoi an M1 And new lightweight track....?? Ummmmm, didn't we learn our lesson with the crap T-156 track?
  11. "Red Eagles" by Steve Davies is a great book that covers the whole US program in Nevad that operated to Soviet jets. The MG-17 and MiG-21 were popular (if short ranged). The MiG -23 was a powerful beast that was thought a bit of a handful by the pilots.
  12. Great video Nick. Have never seen the inside of an IS-4. One additional observation was the poor shaping of the turret. There is a significant shot trap in the front.
×
×
  • Create New...