This member has provided no bio about themself...
Do you have a source for that? I've heard basically what you said from multiple people but I don't buy that the US would not release any info on the helicopter at all yet give a detailed explanation like that.
Why do so many people here not understand that depleted uranium is not radioactive...
I would assume it would destroy the engine, since that's what petrol bombs were usually used for in WW2. However, flamethrowers have limited range and are extremely conspicuous, so I can't imagine one being useful against a tank that had any proper support.
Not to mention the only way to create an EMP of any size is with a nuke, and once nukes start flying around it's pretty much over anyways.
Flan is a custard, it's kind of like a creme brulee without the hard sugary crust.
Well, UAV controllers wouldn't need anywhere near the amount of training a pilot needs. I've worked with civilian UAVs, which are no doubt much less advanced than what the military uses, and you don't really need to do much other than watching for anything going wrong and imputing new orders when necessary. Plus, since military UAVs have a large signal delay, as they're often controlled from very far from the war zone, any air superiority UAV would need to be able to pretty much fight completely on its own.
UAVs certainly have advantages, primarily in cost, but I wouldn't expect to see manned aircraft completely disappear. Besides the technological hurdles facing a UAV that needs to be able to make split second decisions without the aid of a human controller, I simply cannot imagine a military willing to completely go over to a system that requires a GPS hookup to function. Most militarys are already very reliant on GPS or similar systems, but mostly in secondary functions. Having your entire air force grounded because satellite communications were impeded would very different.
Also, there is a very real advantage to having even a relatively small number of highly advanced fighters. For example, the US has basically not had to endure any significant air combat in the last few decades, mostly because the F-15 showed itself to be pretty much invulnerable to anything they were fighting. There's little doubt that Iraq would have fielded its air force in 2003, rather than scuttling most of it, if they thought they could do damage to the US forces even if they still knew they couldn't obtain air superiority.
Different things for different people, I personally like FH2 a lot better than FH.7. It has less total content and tank combat is a little off, but infantry plays so much better than in .7 it completely makes up for it.
B1's are intended to be used in the way you mentioned, not B2s. B2s are far too valuable for the US to risk in any sort of air-to-air engagement, and the only reason to include B1's is to compensate for the F-35's and F-22's relatively low payload of missiles while stealthed.
Furthermore, the US armed forces have expressed no concern over the ability of the F-22 to handle other air superiority fighters. While Russia and China may be working on their own programs, almost all specific information regarding the F-22 and other modern fighters is classified, the PAK-FA/T-50 is still in the prototyping phase, and almost nothing at all is known about the J-20. There is no way anyone outside of the intelligence community can make any reasonable comparison between these fighters.
It's the Forgotten Hope mod for 1942. It's an amazing mod that adds a ton of new content if you still play 1942(and it still has players online I hear), but there's also a version for BF2.
Certainly if you can have only one branch, you want a land army. However,I'm referring to the fact that most well funded militarys value the three branches roughly equally. For instance, the distribution(percentages) in the US budget is as follows:
Army : 31.8
Navy : 27.4
This is of course not a perfect comparison though because all three branches have their own aircraft, infantry, and ships(except the airforce).
It's much more complex than the manpower disrupted to each front and there are more complex factors involved. For instance, most of the major eastern "collaborators" (Ukraine, Finland, Romania ect.) didn't like the Germans either, but they hated the Soviets. These nations would not have fought against any of the other allies, it was the Soviets own bad foreign policy that made these nations align with Germany.
Plus, by modern standards naval and air power are equally important as a land army and the western allies certainly did more than the soviets in terms of destroying the Axis's airforces and navys.
I'm assuming he means for export variants, the US obviously has modern equipment for its own tanks.
I was confused by that boss. Was there even a point to destroying the towers?
It took me and my friend about half an hour to kill him in the Eldar campaign.
Pure DU is barely radioactive at all, and externally it's not much more harmful than common, naturally occurring elements like radon. This isn't to say there aren't health concerns with it, but its small degree of radioactivity really isn't the main problem.
Also, while it is highly reactive, in bulk it isn't any more flammable than many other metals used in armor like aluminum. Under the right conditions it can "burn" even at room temperature, but a solid plate or mesh of the substance won't ignite from an HE round any more than a M113 would.
Take off the text, it's redundant since moddb already puts text on top of the banner.
Otherwise it looks good, and not stretched like the other ones were.
It used the same round and had very similar performance to the M3 75mm that was used with the Sherman. However, as late war Shermans mostly used the 76mm M1 they had an edge in AP performance.
The screen shot is from a freeware game called Battleships Forever. It's unrelated to WH40K but you can build your own ships to look like whatever you want.
It is just a presentation to THQ/Relic from when they were looking at the studio for the original Dawn of War game.
It's purely conjecture, but it seems to me at least part of that could come from people looking at different levels of the command structure.
There wouldn't be much reason for a Soviet general to like the Sherman, as to him its a tank that fulfills the exact same role as the T-34 but presents an added logistics burden due to using unique ammunition, spare parts, ect. However, the crews actually driving the tanks would no doubt have a very different perspective of them.
Well, all auto-loaders are pretty big, and circular, revolving magazines are actually pretty common on them, albeit they generally aren't oriented directly behind the gun like a revolver.
The problem with the said design is that the tank would need both a human loader and a auto-loader, since it could fire 6 shells at a very fast rate of fire but then would need to be reloaded manually.
Also, 13 rounds/minute is pretty average for a modern gun. Manually loaded Leopards and M1A2s both average around 15 r/m.
About 200 will be built, but they're not attached to their own squadrons. The plan was never to completely replace F-15s, rather it was to integrate F-22s into the existing structure. The production halt means now there will be about a 1:3 ratio of F-22s to F-15s in a squadron, rather than the originally planned 1:1 ratio.
The source of the photo said it was taken in the Austrian Alps.
"Tommy Cooker" was coined as a result of early/mid war Shermans having a slightly higher than average chance of catching fire when hit, Shermans had a superb reliability history with the Western nations that used it. I've never heard of the Soviets having a problem with it, but if they did I would guess it was caused by the weaker training of Soviet drivers(T34s were famously easy to drive, Shermans not so much).
And Soviets crews loved the Sherman, in addition to excellent visibility and a 3-man turret it was practically like riding in a Cadillac when compared to most Soviet tanks. Hell, it even had leather seats.
The L24 armed Pz.IVs were for infantry support only, they usually didn't even bother carry more than a couple rounds of AP or HEAT ammunition, so I don't think you can count its poor AT performance against it. However, it would make sense to change the Pz.IV Ausf E to one of the later model Panzer IIIs, like J or L, because those are mostly what fought T-34/76s.
Also, putting the Pz.III and Crusader with the light tanks isn't that absurd, they just need to change them to the proper models. The Crusader Mk.I or any of the 37mm armed Pz.IIIs would fit in okay as a light tank.
Basically I can see two advantages of a walker design - the tank could move side to side without turning and it could move better over rock or uneven ground. These things might make a design viable in the future for a very specific use, like mountainous or jungle warfare, but as it is there are just way too many drawbacks to the design.
Pz.IIs saw service throughout the entire war, although they were pretty rare late in it.
This is a Pz.I, not a Pz.II, however. Pz.Is were certainly not a regular site on the battlefield in '44, but they did see sporadic service including about a dozen that saw combat during Normandy. The Germans kept around a lot of these early/pre-war tanks for anti-partisan duties, some of which inevitable saw regular combat.
I'm pretty sure the suspension is from a Pz.I
It's armed with a pair of low caliber MGs, it was obviously never intended to fight other tanks.
It must have really sucked for the crews that were still stuck driving these relics in '44 though.
Actually it's a gigantic girl. Or a very small version of the tank.