Jump to content

Doug Kibbey

Members
  • Posts

    4,797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug Kibbey

  1. Doug, with all due respect, you don't have any idea what you're talking about with that statement. It all depends at what level you want your model to work at. For modelling Pks of warhead fragments a purely fragment kinetic energy Pk is generally deemed sufficent. Modelling abstraction is perfectly fine as long as you know the limitions of the abstraction. Pk should broadly scale with energy as the ability to defeat protection scales with it as well, as does the degree of wounding at a given spot (very roughly anyway) and impact location is also stoichastic so that can be corrected for seperately. Jason, with no respect intended you shouod know that modeling these effects depends on an agreed set of parameterd where are nowhere to be found in evidence.There is agreed basis of modeling abstraction as evidence by the sheer volume of alternate interpretaions bases on mass, velocity and effect in terms of terminal ballistics. Thew entire internet almost collapses under the force of it's own gravity trying to find amount of energy will yield a particular level of damage and to date, no such agreement has been reached. Istvan seems to be searching for an unreal number that realiably yields a predictable and reliable result while controlling as few variables as possible. This isn't "modeling"...and isn't even guesswork. It's pure speculation based on number taken out of context and applied randomely to yield a comclusion that escapes me. I'd recommend that both you and he start over and try to decide exactly what anwer it is that you are seeking, and then how to best go about finding the calculation that will satisfy it. Given the many attempts that I've seen over the years, I wish you the both the very best of luck in that endeavor. I doubt you have any idea of how complex a question you are asking, and are patently the least equipped persons to address it. But bet of luck to you both. The must be countless websites, militaries, industroes amd police forces out there breathless awaiting your conclusions. I admit that I'm looking forward to them myself.
  2. A lot Everything depends on where you are hit. Mike I've seen survivors of a .50 cal hit, and there are plenty of people who have succumbed to .22 rimfire hits. The OP question which (ostensibly) tries to put incapacitation into a pure energy equation w/o regard to the area hit, the size and robustness of the target and any mitigating factors (body armor, thick clothing, will to overcome) is effectively meaningless. It's exactly the sort of question one would expect from a tweenager, which wouldn't surprise me to find out is the case.
  3. I think the name she was struggling to recall was "White She Devil".
  4. http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t3 Dang! Another golden opportunity for a "proportional response" squandered.
  5. Power travers and elevation. Details of the FCS (M38 computing and M24C reflex sights) can be found here: http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/ada/M42.html Never radar controlled. There was a contingency program that envisioned development of one, but it was abandoned in favor of future advanced technologies.
  6. Well said. "counterfire — (*) Fire intended to destroy or neutralize enemy weapons. (DOD only) Includes counterbattery, counterbombardment, and countermortar fire. See also fire. Bold = NATO definition. Not bold = DoD only clarification. FM 101-5-5 and Joint Pub 1-02, DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.
  7. http://www.npr.org/2...lants-to-evolve The "not cuddly" rule applies. See "pescetarianism".
  8. Counterfire =/= reprisal. One is intended to silence a currently operating source of fire, the other is intended to discourage further incidences. I doubt that the interval between the two is codified in any meaningful way in law.
  9. Quite a few. It's the HE rounds that they don't generally have (but it's possible with appropriate NFA registration and a busload of money). More typically, they have training rounds and flares or subcaliber munitions. It's silly, but if you want to take the wannabe look to it's logical conclusion.... Michael, for a thoursand dollars less, you can have a Knight's Armaments SR-25 with more funtionality and less nonsense. If I didn't have an early M1A, I'd probably be in the market for one myself.
  10. Discovery Channel National Geographic The History Channel etc etc etc.... Frankly, it's been years IIRC that we've had a [frothing nerd]"GREATEST TANK IN THE WHOLE WIDE UNIVERSE!!!!1!1!111"[/frothing nerd] thread, which goes to show that we haven't had any new young ones (it's usually the young, newbie ones that post these from what I've seen) come here lately hehehehe Guess it's time to dust off the sacrificial table to offer a young one to the Tank Gods, yes? Also goes to show we're all getting old.... Chieftain Mk11 with Stillbrew purely for looks gets my vote! Well, you're assuming that they always stay on thread. More recently, predictable responses from "B"/"P"/"I" run something like thiis...I'll summarize: "Russian tanks are the bestest and most wicked cool ever! "German tanks are second best and also better than any "murican ever dreamed of." "Brit tanks are kinda' OK, 'cuz the Chieftain and Centurian looked real good" "French Tanks.....Meh." "U.S. Tanks suck and are light years behind the self-evident superiority of anything Russian, and even if they have a useful feature, they were stolen from the Russians or Germans." You can do your own thread search, but I just saved you a lot of time.
  11. OMG, I've tuned into The Military Channel.
  12. Doug Kibbey

    M-47/ M-48

    Odds are that just before the picture was taking those words were "kick it in the ass you can make it!" Exactly, It is highly unlikely that the driver attempted that maneuver without direct input from the TC (though I'm surprised he didn't close his hatch first). More than on ill-advised maneuver has been conducted on the instructions of a TC or inexperienced platoon leader over objections from crewmembers who have BTDT. I made one 2nd Lt. pay dearly for poor counsel on one occasion. Ten bucks says that's the driver of this H Trp., 17th Cav Sheridan up there on the bank, collecting himself and considering what form payback might take.
  13. Well, there goes Monty Python, Richard Lester, Catch-22, and a buttload of Warner Bros. and Looney Toons (the latter not seen on TV since racial stereotyping of the Axis powers became politically incorrect).
  14. I'm not really in the market, but wouldn't mind getting on the mailing list!
  15. Not butthurt at all Doug, no excess baggage and while I thank you for your concern I really don't need lessons in interpretation either. Now mebbe you could help me out with a couple of things. First, by pointing out where I said anything about political invective? I actually requested Simon to refrain from injecting the thread with tiresome US Rethuglican poli-speak that seems to be his argot of choice lately. I ask because I don't have a clue what he's on about when he does so, and I mean stuff like Post #3933, #3937, #3955 & #3959 in the Runup to 2012 thread in the FFZ; there are plenty of other examples of opaque one-liners out there across multiple threads, I merely homed in on the politics bit because that was the last thread I saw it in. Second, note the second half of the second paragraph in Post #8 above and tell me when it became acceptable for individuals to behave in the manner described therein. Finally, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion on the OP's topic or have you merely dropped in to bust my balls? Either is entirely your prerogative of course, just idle curiosity. BillB Sooooo..... The take-home message for members is that the appropriate course of action where a perceived ROE occurs is not to report it to MODERATOR, but to commit an unambiguous, unequivocal ROE in the thread where an ROE may have transpired (and invoking references to as many other unspecified threads such as may have offended one in the past, just for dramatic effect) rather than registering any complaints you might have in the threads where the post(s) of hurtfulness may have occurred. Thanks. Thanks for setting me straight on that. I confess that I may have nodded off during that part of the relevant briefing and may have missed some important details. I rely on your experience and example for guidance in these matters, as I'm sure does the membership at large.
  16. Is it really? Do enlighten us from your extensive knowledge Simon, but preferably without all the tiresome US Rethuglican poli-speak that seems to be your argot of choice lately. Help me out here, Bill. Where in this thread did Simon inject it with political invective? Or was that someone else who presumably knows better? If you're all butthurt because he made a reference (in regard to the topic) to you personally, you might note that it could well be interpreted as being deferential to your presumed familiarity with the subject at hand. If you have excess baggage to check, be aware that fees may apply.
  17. He was also instrumental in instituting Permissive Action Links and reducing or eliminating independent commands from being in a position to employ such weapons without authentication that would actually render them inoperable without approval. When he took over as SecDef, he found the whole distribution and command authority over nukes (particularly battlefield nukes) very loosy-goosy and chancy. One of his more valid insignts was that militaries and commanders invariably commit mistakes which are, in the future, amenable to corrective action. Not so with nuclear weapons. There is no fourth or third....or even second chance.
  18. If they had only looked like the girls in Highschool of the Dead.....if only..... Meh. I like the fireteam of little hotties turning the tables and laying a righteous beatdown upon the perverts. Ahem, I believe I had that group covered in post #63, "the residents of Lennox House for the Mentally Insane". Hmmmmm.
  19. If they had only looked like the girls in Highschool of the Dead.....if only..... I was thinking more like the residents of Lennox House for the Mentally Insane.
  20. Not being type classified yet, I suppose it's premature to propose that it be named for a pudgy, narcissisistic, verbally bellicose ex-parachute packer of limited vocabulary and notable lack of any armor experience apart from sophomoric blogging about flying tanks, space aliens and JFK conspiracy theorizing?
  21. If you look around, I believe you will find without much difficulty, films of the Saddam Hussein Iraqi military dispatching disruptive elements with small explosive charges. I decline to post any links.
  22. No M60A2 either, and that was a known babe magnet. Remember, they're girlz, and like New Beetles with flower vases and stuff on the dashboard.
  23. That answer doesn't even make sense. The pressure in the barrel will rise astronomically as soon as the bullet leaves the case, compressing the "inconpressable" water in the barrel beyond the rate that it can evacuate the barrel, producing a likely failure in the barrel or case. What makes more sense is that the barrel is filled with air, and the bullet only encounters the denser medium upon leaving the (presumably sealed) barrel. Then the pressure can increase with no implications to the barrel because the bullet has left the muzzle. The bullet is being acted upon by increasing gas pressure no matter how you try to equalize the pressure fore and aft of the round. I'll put my hand where my mouth is by saying I'd fire a submerged .45 if the barrel was sealed (that is to say, filled with air only), but would not fire a .45 with a water filled barrel. Equilibration is nice if you're talking about your eardrums, but the described system will be de-equilibrated as soon as the round discharges, filling the space behind the bullet with expanding gases and pushing it into an enclosed space filled with a minimally compressable gas. Something is going to fail, there. I was a military trained diver and have some idea of the dynamics of gases vs. liquids in a pressurized environment.
  24. What's Nihongo for "eat me"? This is the kind of glaring omission that gives modern journalism a bad name.
×
×
  • Create New...