Noyhauser
-
Posts
1581 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Noyhauser
-
-
to be honest, I find gamecube as being one of the most underated systems out there. PS-2 really is a single player or 2 player system in my mind. Its a bit antisocial, most of the games tend to engross you in the game, in exclusion of anything else. Personally, after playing games for 20 years, I'm starting to realize what a waste of time it is essentially living in someone else's fantasy world.
Gamecube (64 before it) was stellar because they weren't great single player platforms, but because they enhanced social situations through good simple fun. The best time I've ever had playing a console is with 4 good friends a flat of beer and goldeneye. I spent this last new years with 8 friends playing super mario strikers, having a great time of it. I can't recall a single spectacular time playing a single player game on ps2, computer ect, but I can remember some of the best times I recall are with playing some multiplayer nintendo game. You can even get girls who would normally never touch a ps2 into a gamecube game no problem, and thats what Nintendo is amazing at, accessable fun gameplay. I think thats been somewhat lacking in other consoles, and competely un-appreciated.
You might disaree with that, but I've got completely different priorities now with how I enjoy games. Nintendo has for quite some time now pushed towards making games more fun without all the complexity and geekdom found in other systems. And I think that should be acknoweldged.
-
Beverly Hills Cop 2
Die Hard 3
I normally hate sequals too.
-
Yes this movie is entertainment, yes it is meant to just get a dialogue going... but all that depends on intelligent people seeing the movie and taking the right steps afterwards. There are a lot of people out there who will exit that theater and file the movie away as fact in their brains subconsiously, doing to followup at all and it will affect how they feel and react to things in the future. I find that just scary.
Thats why I'm so harsh on this movie. It simply isn't a good drama or anything the reviews said it was. Brutal, suspensful nor thrilling.
A good example of a good drama would be Finding Neverland. I read up on the real story behind it and frankly it was really screwed up. J.M Barrie sounds like a loon in real life but they managed to get a good screenplay from the source material. If this movie (Munich) wasn't based on a historic event I think people would truly see how boring it is. IMO. I'm suprised IA liked it, we usually agree on movies.
Actually I'd agree with that, I thought Finding Neverland was a good movie adaptation, even if It was completely untrue. I liked it, as did my GF at the time.
-
Well might as well get this in before it gets locked.
All you people that try to sneak in this political bullshit are idiots. When are you gonna learn that religion and politics is not allowed here. I started this thread to ask about the movie's entertainment value. But instead you try to sound smart and vomit all this crap. But seriously... it just proves how idiotic you all are.
dumbasses.
Sorry! I can't help myself, especially when its part of my living. You're right though, discussing politics on an anime message board = pointless, and thats why I didn't post on it earlier.
-
To get this back on track... hopefully... I've been talked into going to see it today. I'm taking some of my worker bees to a movie this afternoon rather than work (hey, nobody else seems to be at work today). I still do not really want to see this movie but everyone else wants to see it. I'll have to see what their thoughts are on it on the car ride back to the office.
One night in september is on tonight, so I'm going to watch it. I think I'll try to go see Munich on New Years Day.
-
Can't say I like some of the opinions made. It sounds like typical moral equivilancy. 'One man's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter'. Or Bin Laden is just the Muslim's George Washington. Or; we did bad stuff in our past so anything we get now serves us right. So let's all just hold hands and leap off the nearest tall building to atone.
 Sometimes, a terrorist is just a terrorist. No justification makes their acts justifiable. No grievance makes it right.
 The slaughter of Israeli athletes was pure cowardice and coldblooded muder. Let's not forget to give Germany it's credit too, they cut deals with every Islamic terrorist group they encounter. They let them go then and they're letting more go today.
 Every kind of people on Earth have grievances with other peoples. But the countless muslim terror groups are quite unique in having grievances with absoultely everyone who isn't one of them. Everywhere Islam rubs against another culture, terrorism or war break out. Anywhere there are Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and 'Godless Nonbelievers'. North Africa, Central Africa, Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, South Asia, South East Asia. Having recently targeted Australia, only Antactica has yet to offend Islam. Antartica better watch it's self.
Let's not forget the lowliest of them all, Shia.. Or wait, are the Sunni the lowest?
 In other words, even fellow Muslims who don't believe the 'right way' are worthy of merciless Jihad.  I know it's politically incorrect to call a spade a spade, but there it is. I long ago quit wondering or worrying why Muslim terror groups do what they do. I only care that they die. Any sympathy I could ever muster for the cause of Palestine vanished on 9/11 when they chose to spontaneously celebrate in the streets. The feelings quite mutual now.
 What's next, a movie about the misunderstood freedom fighters who slaughtered hundreds of schoolchildren in Beslan? Yes, they were a noble lot, I really sympathize with the plight of Chenya now.
 Imagine if in the middle of WWII we had famous directors making movies about how we needed to see the Nazi's point of view or how the Imperial Japanese had good reason to be as brutal as they were.
Well I might as well get my two cents in before this gets locked.
The problem with your "assessment" is that you completely ignore the link between terrorism and societies. People who are terrorists, they're essentially too far gone to be reasoned with. Military means are all we have to deal with them. I'm by no means a dove, or ignorant about the need for military force to deal with these people. However they in some part are radical reflection of the sentiments held by a society (or a part of it). Without a base, radicalism will not survive. People don't go out to become terrorists because they are mentally insane. Almost universally, credible psychological studies of terrorists show that they are all rational human beings devoid of neurosis or psychological disorders. They don't carry out violence because of a love of it, or moral collapse, its because they feel that they have no other way to achieve the situation they believe they are entitled to.
If a society feels that they are persecuted or under attack, more people will be willing to carry out terrorism because they feel that traditional means political participation (peaceful political movements ect), are insufficient to meet their needs. Many of the policies of the west although effective in attacking terrorists themselves, only inflame sentiments in muslim world.
And it doesn't matter if in the nuances that we didn't intend to do something. Accidentally killing civillians using a precision guided munition, or isolated torture are only viewed through blood red tint by people who already have a skeptical view of the west... and thats a lot of people in the middle east. You can't just "destroy everybody," without addressing the grievances that underlie the terrorist groups. That doesn't mean we have to give them what they want, but we must keep in mind why they are doing what they are doing, and try to do something about it. Most of the time, its something we would consider as absolutely basic in our society, freedom, economic propserity, ect. But in some cases, we can't deal with them, as in Al Qaeda, however we may be able to remove the base for these groups support.
The Israeli has killed thousands of Hamas fighters, eliminated its leadership many times over, and yet the group is now stronger than ever. If we don't understand link between societies and terrorist groups, we're doomed to lose in the end.
(edited with some minor tweaks)
-
Hmm, I've been thinking, maybe this isn't that bad. Yes he has taken some liberties, and its not the most accurate portrayal, but from what I've heard its not at all bad, and in many ways captures the theme in a way that hasn't been done before.
Funny enough, if you think about it, its far easier to write, film and produce a documentary than it is to make a film on it. Reality is easier to handle than reality based movies. There are countless hundreds of documentaries done on Northern Ireland. But none of them engendered the controversy that the 2002 movie Bloody Sunday did. And if you see bloody sunday (or have seen it) its quite a good movie actually. It too suffers from historical inaccuracies, but its pretty faithful and even handed in its treatment. It allows people to engage with a subject that confronts their stereotypes. I get the feeling that this is what Munich attempts to do.
I think in a lot of cases people are reluctant to let go of their stereotypes of their enemies, or situations they don't understand, and and the greatest reaction is illicited from these people when those views are challenged. I think thats whats needed here. If people can come to understand each other better, maybe thats a good thing, rather than looking at each other as absolute evils and operating under that assumptions.
Downfall portayed Hitler, as a real, delusional man, not some ten headed mythical evil monster. Thats something that is very hard to grasp reading a book or watching him speak. I still don't know if it made him even more scary to me ( conversely when many people thought that humanizing him was a bad thing.) I think giving the film makers a bit of artistic leeway enabled them to do this, which was an excellent thing.
-
No that's exactly what he had in mind, its supposed to be a movie with an agenda, and that is to promote peace.
And to be honest, I have never seen a war/historical movie that really did justice to an event, where I couldn't pick out the holes where history took a back seat to storytelling. I think the best that many can do is to maybe illuminate perspectives on issues. The Battle Of Algeris is a great film, not because its a perfect portrail of the history of The Algerian Civil War, but because its got some pretty deep scenes that offer clues about terrorism and peoples attitudes in trying times. The Cafe Bombing Scene is maybe one of the most startling cinematic pieces ever filmed. It made people look behind the veneer of the dehuminization of terrorists. Who did it, why did they do it? How could rational people carry out such violence. Thats what I think its good for at times. Some of the best war films aren't even based on real events. Bridge Over the River Quai was only loosely based on events, but it opened up a pandora's box worth of questions.
In the end, I should say that I don't really go to movies to "get educated." I work in this field, and I have a very hard time watching any movie without immediately pulling it apart. Even documentaries piss me off. Furthermore movies (as a personal choice) are a bit of escapism for me. I tend not to go to movies in a search for my conscience, I'm there usually because I want to I want to see a guy getting hit in the nards with a football. I don't want to sound like an Ivory tower academic, but I think in a lot of cases Directors should focus more on basic storytelling, rather than delve into matters they may have a limited conception about, but hold strong personal convictions in any case.
-
Question for those who have seen the movie, or to those who go and see the movie:
The actual killing of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics is reported to not be shown in the movie, and that the movie only deals with the Moussad operation after the event. For those who see the movie, do you feel any more sympathy for the Israelis or for the Palestinians when the focus of the entire movie seems to be about the Israeli revenge and not the incident that spawned the revenge?
It seems to me in order to properly balance this movie Spielburg needed to cover both events, the Munich terrorist attack and the Moussad retribution strikes in equal ground in order to show "both sides of the coin". Just hinting at the terrorism or showing snippets of it then putting all the focus on the followup actions is like only covering the fielding of a baseball hit by a bat and not showing the actual pitch and hit.
Then again what is the intent of this movie? Is the intent to showcase the brutality of the follup "revenge" strikes? Is it to show how terrorists and the agents pursuing them are "alike"? I have heard every reason under the rainbow for Spielburg's choices that supposedly exsist in this movie... but my question is how is the viewer supposed to react? What are you supposed to feel and for whom?
I don't think its possible to ever put something like this into context. If you ask about what happened at munich then to contexualize, don't you need to bring up the six days war? and then before that 1948, or the Balfour Declaration, and it goes on. I think there is a point where you cut it off from, that strikes a balance between storytelling and realism. I've heard pretty even handed criticisms of it from both sides, which in my experience usually means its probably either horribly off, or somewhere in the comfortable middle. If he really wanted to disgrace the Israelis he would have included Lillehammer, thats for sure. So I assume its got an even bent to it. I think they introduce what happened at Munich as the central concept. Its pretty hard not to know what happened, and what some people did. So I don't think its skewed at all (from what I've heard and read).
-
Oh, and I didn't mean good as in good terrorists. I should have said accurate portrail. Which its decently accurate from what my friends say, and alot better than what has been offered before.
-
I had a long reply ready to go, but I asked myself the question, what would it accomplish? I've got a LOT of points of disagreements with your post, Hiro though, and I'll leave it at that.
I haven't seen the movie, (I'm going to) but I'm intersted, since I did my masters in group psychology and how it relates to terrorist groups (specifically Islamic ones). Interestingly enough some of my collegues said it was pretty good, and its portrail of terrorists was pretty good. Maybe one of the best since the Battle of Algeris. Although they noted that it had the glaring ommission of the Lillehammer assassination, where mossad got the wrong man. But oh well... I'm interested to see it.
-
I can see it now...
Harmony Gold, in conjunction with ADV is Proud to announce the Latest Installment of the Robotech Saga, Space Gandam V!
HOUSTON, September 19, 2005
Harmony Gold is pleased to announce a definitive new addition to one of the all-time greatest anime sagas, Space Gandam V! Utilizing never before seen, cutting edge Korean animation acquired through an intermediary company associated with providing janitorial services for the parent animation corporation.
Tommy Yune believes it to be the greatest installment yet. "I was working on shadow chronicles, and I just felt something was off. Then I by chance saw Space Gandam V and I was blown away. The travails of the Space Gandam, its realistic portrayal of war and deep story line was that fresh new direction that I was looking to take the saga. What was even more encouraging was that Reba West was eager to work with us again....
You're forgetting the international merchandise rights
No no no, its much too early for that. They'll only assert those when Space Gandam VI comes out, and they figure they can get a piece of all the royalities and intellectual property associated with it.
-
I can see it now...
Harmony Gold, in conjunction with ADV is Proud to announce the Latest Installment of the Robotech Saga, Space Gandam V!
HOUSTON, September 19, 2005
Harmony Gold is pleased to announce a definitive new addition to one of the all-time greatest anime sagas, Space Gandam V! Utilizing never before seen, cutting edge Korean animation acquired through an intermediary company associated with providing janitorial services for the parent animation corporation.
Tommy Yune believes it to be the greatest installment yet. "I was working on shadow chronicles, and I just felt something was off. Then I by chance saw Space Gandam V and I was blown away. The travails of the Space Gandam, its realistic portrayal of war and deep story line was that fresh new direction that I was looking to take the saga. What was even more encouraging was that Reba West was eager to work with us again....
-
Was it even in mosepeda? I thought it was just a robotech creation.
-
LOGH - In my opinion, probably the best Anime ever made, bar none. You watch it not for its graphics, but for the story and the world. It makes Macross look like it was written by a 4 year old with a crayon... and I love macross.
-
You have to understand the different times.
Kirk's era was like... 18th-19th century earth.
Exploration, constant warfare, danger, imperialism, new frontiers, etc. The Federation happens to be in the middle of a war with the Klingons and surrounded by many more hosilte species. Space was largely unexplored and it really is the final frontier with much more primative technology and experience. Uou can't solve everything by re-routing more technobabble to it, or hoping for a crappy/cheap Star Trek "reset button" script.
Picard's era is the 1990s. As we see in Star Trek VI, the human/Klingon war symbolizes the end of the Cold War. The 90s were full of optimism that the era of state-state warfare was over. Picard's Enterprise and Federation is like the floating United Nations, with the firepower and of the United States backing it up. Everything is cheery and pastel colors, even the walls are beige and the carpets are purple.
The endemic problem with Next Gen and all the 24th century stories is that they are all formulaic, trying to adhere to a strict vision of the future, which is probably Berman's fault. TOS was much better because as a rare Sci-Fi show in the 60s, it really was more of a showcase for revolutionary science fiction story-telling and space opera with wide and varied fantasy stories every episode.
Leave it to Next Gen to kill the invincible Kirk in the most meaningless way possible. Damn you TNG.
Agreed, especially with this and whom ever said the comment before about DS9 making the federation look weak. I'm going to majorly geek out on this one.
In Enterprise, Earth is a virtual nobody... none of the major races have any reason to be worried about humans because they are so primitive. So Earth tends to get ignored, and are only threatened by the other bottom feeders. But by the Original series, Starfleet becomes a major threat... so the races start reacting more violently towards it. Thats why Kirk is still exploring, but its a bit like the wild wild west as Kaze said.
In the time between TNG and the Original series, the UPF becomes THE major player in the alpha quadrant. The weakening of the Klingon empire in the Undiscovered Country and the withdrawal of the romulan empire ensure that the UPF becomes the largest superpower. Remember in Star Trek VI, they are even thinking of scrapping starfleet... presumably thats how big the klingon threat was, and how little they were worried about anybody else. By the first season, there isn't any major threats to the security of the UPF, with the exception of border wars like with the Cardassians. So they could build ships that had families inside. Remember that in the Alternate universe episode where the Enterprise C comes back, the Enterprise D is a pure battleship, without families, because there is a major threat.
Even the re-emergence of the Romulan threat isn't that spectacular, because the UPF is all powerful, and the romulans aren't really much of a threat either. Its really only until the Borg arrive on the scene that Starfleet realizes it needs pure warships... especially after watching a cube wax half of its fleet in a couple of minutes at Wolf 359. (which leads to the development of the Defiant Class, the purest warship in the fleet.)
But even the borg isn't a major threat like others, I guess it was seen as a one off, and it could be somewhat ignored... the start of DS9, there still isn't any major threats. The most major one comes from some the Maquis... that stems from a peace agreement with the Cardassians... that is shaky. I think its pretty indicative about how much Starfleet cared about the Cardassians, that they thought an adequate response to them was an antique space station and three long range shuttle craft.
Its only at the end of Season 2 or 3 in DS9 when the Dominion demolish the Oddessy, then go on to crush a combined Cardassian/Romulan fleet with ease, that starfleet realize a major threat to their security exists. Thats when you see massive fleets of warships being built, and DS9 being fortified... Thats when you know someone is a threat. Hell, they are so dangerous that the UPF will ally themselves with anybody who can win them the war... as you see in insurrection.
So in the end, I think each captain suited the age they lived in. For me though I'd go with Picard and Sisko, with Picard taking the edge. He could be as bad assed as Kirk, but he was always logical. If I wanted to pick someone for a fight, I'd go with Sisko over Kirk. It seemed like every episode he was fighting a horde of Kingons or Jem'Hadar on his bridge. The best battle episode in all the series has to belong to DS9 and the Klingon Station invasion, only matched by the Best of Both worlds as the best episode ever made.
-
Questions for any pilots/plane buffs here,
- Do the number of planes in a Combat Air Patrol for a fleet depend on the size of the fleet or is there usually a fixed number of craft up at any given time no matter what the size of the fleet is? Are antisub planes or AWACs part of a CAP?
It changes, depending on the situation. During the Operation Enduring freedom in Afghanistan, the Kitty Hawk was deployed with none of its fighters, and it was primarily used as a base for special operations forces (there were like 4 carriers in the area at the time). However I think other than for exceptional situations, ship's airwings are basically set with little variation on types of roles available.
-
Skull leader,
Doug Masters is shot down in Iron Eagle II, they say something about a body never being found, and it is assumed that he is dead. However in Iron eagl IV or V, I think IV, he returns and it turns out he was in a gulag the whole time after being shot down, and pissed at Chappy for not getting him out, apparently Chappy tried to but the govt insisted he was dead. Something like that. Either way IV or V whichever, sucked.
Dragon does have a limited edition cyber hobby VX-4 playboy bunny F-14A coming out. Yes an A! Well at least by its engines.
Also I remember eons back someone brought up the Canadian Avro Arrow.
Great plane, as it turns out, its cancellation brought up many conspiracy theories since it was all of a sudden.
Last night on the superpower aircraft documentary on the history channel, they went over the introduction of the arrow, and its cancellation and simultaneous layoff of the 15,000 arrow employees who were working on the project and its manufacturing and production lines.
They later brought up the MIG-25. Now it SEEMED like the reasons to cancel were political....talking about how the minister at the time wanted money to pay off the canadian farmers so he canceled the project to use the money.
BUT
The real reason was revealed in this documentary...apparently this has been kept secret for quite a number of years.
It turns out the real reason the Arrow was canceled, was because a KGB agent had infilitrated one of the Avro plants, and had direct access to all of the technical details and all else related to the Arrow. Coincidentally some of the technology later appeared on the MIG-25(the US released this when Belenko defected his foxbat to japan and inspected it). Remember at the time, the Arrow was a very powerful plane, and the US had expressed interest into buying it.
Interesting no? Anyone else hear of it? I was shocked when I heard it last night. Mighty fine fighter! I wonder had the KGB not been stopped early on, what kind of MIG would emerge from the stolen details of the arrow.
And I also wonder how awesome it would have been if the arrow entered service.
I'm sorry shin, but that is wrong. I wrote this last year on a thread, but I'll reproduce this here.
Most people Aren't going to like to hear this, but the decision to build the Arrow was about the biggest error ever in Canadian Procurement, and deserved the end it got. It's current reputation has been the result of mythologizing by the Canadian press and honestly it doesn't deserve any of the hype it gets.
#1 The Avro Arrow was not the most advanced fighter of its day, sure it was fast, and had a lot of gadgets, but in the end it was a useless useless program. When the project was concieved in the early 1950s, it was during the height of the Red bomber scare, where there fear was that Russia would send thousands of bombers over the north pole to nuke north america. Well by the late 1950s the Americans through the CIA, U2 flights and the first Corona satellites, figured out that the soviets had a mere pittance of bombers that was first imagined, and none had the range to reach north america's cities. Also the rise of the MRBM and the ICBM loomed a lot larger. So really the need for the Arrow had evaporated
#2 The Arrow was not exceptional fighter. In actuallity it fell victim to the same interceptor blinders that US fighters had in the pre-vietnam era, only the Arrow was just that much worse off. Since the Arrow was to take on soviet bombers, it had to be fast, carry a lot of missiles and a radar large enough to guide them - ie be interceptors. As a result it suffered the same flaws that the F-4 would experience over vietnam. It was big, fast, and very unmanuverable. It had absolutely no cockpit vision, and relied upon radar and untested missiles as weapons. It had no cannons or machinegun. It was to carry a missile called the Sparrow II which was a new version of the Sparrow that was a radar guided fire and forget missile. However it was canceled by the USAF because it was deemed unfeasable. So it would have to carry the notoriously bad Sparrow I missile. The Arrow's radar was untested as well.
In a theoretical situation, had the Arrow ever got into a dog fight over vietnam, it would have been eaten alive by nimble Mig-17s and 21s. They would have a field day against the ungainy fighter that relied on poor missiles.
The thing was fast as hell, and may have been even faster than anything in the world at the time in 1960 with the Orienda Iroqois engine, however it had abysmal range, less than 600KM... it was a poor fighter.
#3 The worst part of the project.- Cost. The thing was a money pit, and was about to get a lot worse. the cancelation of the Sparrow II would require a complete redesign of the radar and missile system. The Radar system showed constant faults. The development costs for the Iroqois engine were pilling up. In many cases Canada did not have the industrial base to build its systems required and had to design them from scratch. Nobody was willing to buy it outside of canada, because it was so expensive and had little utility. Essentially, the arrow project would have cost around 1 to 3% of the entire Canadian Gross domestic product, more than what we spend on the military today. Sure the fighter may have been the most advanced of its time, but pour enough money into something and you can have the best of anything. Had the arrow been continued people would be crying about its expenses, possibly one of the greatest boondoggles of canadian history, not its cancellation. Prime Minister Diefenbaker rightly culled the project, and bought cheaper less capable fighters instead.
It is kinda sad about what happened to the Canadian Aircraft industry afterwards, however in all honesty, the Arrow was an incredible disaster. Had it gone through, the Government would have been in such debt, and have an incredibly useless fighter for its troubles. So much the better.
-
Not like he needs any more props, but I had nothing but good things to say about my transaction with Kevin, (Valkyrie exchange)
-
Great....you've been sniffing too much of that flower haven't you?
Sigh... yes. I admit it... I... have... a... problem. I need help
-
And a few times they were done up shooting bullets instead of lasers, again due to errors.
So how many more times were they written in as used but weren't drawn in use because someone flubbed the scene?
...
Maybe Kawamori should've written in eye lasers insetad It'd be goofy, but the animators wouldn't have been confused.
Well...the Compendium implies that the head laser can fire in pulses as well as single continuous beams...
Fixed Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon (One in VF-1A, two in VF-1D and VF-1J, and four in VF-1S), firing 6000 pulses per minute,Although, when you think about it...it's firing so fast (and it is a laser) that it probably looks like a single beam...
Strictly speaking, it shouldn't have been visible at all. The whole point of a laser is it's focused. You can't see it if the photons are all travelling towards the target.
While in an atmosphere you could get something out of the air dispersing light or reacting to it, space should provide you with a nice invisible beam.
I cut them some slack on that because no one likes to see stuff blow up without a visible reason.
As for making it a white beam... BAD CARTOON! BAD!
If we get very picky, there's an awful lot of problems with the animation of the laser weapons in MOST animation. I was just sticking to the most basic issues.
But like if the laser was powered by protoculture, then, therefore there should be a colours because of the power of the invid seed of life...
Another reason why Robotech continuity is better than Macross!!!
-
NATO was worried about the quality of Russian tanks for a while; they were smaller, relatively high performance, and had things like auto-loaders. Until the M1 came along, American tank designers had a little bit of an inferiority complex. But, yes, numbers was the big worry.
However, the Gulf War showed up quite a few flaws in Russian tanks. The T-72 has a fuel line that goes across the front of the turret; this caused some interesting examples of unpowered turret flight after hits by 120mm rounds; also, there are some horror stories about gunners getting limbs loaded into the gun by the auto-loaders!
I understand that after the Gulf War, the Russians reviewed why so much of their equipment failed so badly; a lot of interesting equipment started turning up on Russian tanks afterwards, such as improved reactive armour, anti-missile systems and even on one modified prototype, a couple of 20mm AA guns...!
You're right on a lot of these points, although the T-72 autoloader problem was largely solved after the first flight, and again, most of the Iraqi equipment was not even clost to par to what the USSR or the Warsaw Pact could field during the late 1980s. T-72s and T-55swithout reactive armour manned by basic conscripts, sitting out in a open desert was paired off against the creme American armored divisions... if it was a more equal pairing, people would be complaining about dust problems with the Challenger Tank, the M1's voracious fuel intake ect.
Quantity was most certainly a worry during the late cold war, but you have to remember that Soviet kit was all designed to be very sturdy... and mechanically reliable. In a nuclear environment, they would be completely resistant to EMP, while the M-1's tracking systems would be quickly fried.
I'm not saying that the M1 isn't a superb tank.... its only bested by the New Leopards (thats another argument) but I was just pointing out that soviet tanks often get a really bum rap, when they are fairly good in their own right.
-
Russian T-80
main gun 125 mm 2A46M-1 smoothbore
In Saudi an M1A2 main battle tank got hit with 2 full, head on shots from a T-80. In which the crew survived both direct hits. They had a documenty on the Military channel with that tank crew and all of the said that the tank saved thier lives.
I'd be careful to make any assumptions about the Iraqi army however. I don't think the T-80 was ever sent to Iraq, they certainly had T-72s though ( a complementary and some say better design than the T-80). It is also questionable if the USSR made available the best warheads to the Iraqis, such advanced penetrators for their tank guns, ect.
And I caution you about making any assumptions about the quality of Western Tanks vs Eastern ones. In the early 1980s, NATO was worried sick that the Soviet Tank armies would just walk over them and take over Western Europe with impunity. Soviet tanks were considered to be technologically up to snuff, if overly mechanically simple, as to be able to operate in a nuclear battlefield. If M1s are getting destroyed in Iraq by RPG hits, they certainly can be destroyed by Tank shells from a certain angles.
The Iraqi army on the otherhand was poorly trained, saw its ranks significantly thinned by the Iran Iraq war, and operated with a completely different doctrine to their soviet and US counterparts. In 1991 they were woefully inequipped to handle the massive Coallition effort, because they didn't even know how to fight such a war.
-
Psst, maybe you haven't noticed, but our dollar has caught up in the past year and is now almost equal to yours.
Might want to reassess your stereotypes.
Broken Landing Gear On Yf-21
in Model kits
Posted
I'm suprised you didn't break the rear thrust vectorers... those things are REALLY fragile.