XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: nospam@buggeroff.com   
      
   "GOP_Decline_and_Fall" wrote in message   
   news:m7pcm8taps0al0ecid412gsro1ago2gn2g@4ax.com...   
   > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:41:05 +1000, "Spartan613"   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" wrote in message   
   >>news:qpkcm8942o7iataggs0v8jg70g3aour1c0@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:57:08 +1000, "Spartan613"   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" wrote in message   
   >>>>news:qdj7m81d9gfn8trgtpmpb114je2hh0a2hv@4ax.com...   
   >>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:10:35 +1000, "Spartan613"    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" wrote in message   
   >>>>>>news:v4e7m89122u7u38ujnsrorbme1ssn435gq@4ax.com...   
   >>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:10:20 +1000, "Spartan613"   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>"Dechucka" wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>news:Zs2dnYnnuZw1rP_MnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> "Spartan613" wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>> news:d1q8t.424$EY1.33@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...   
   >>>>>>>>>> "Dechucka" wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>>> news:JZKdnUQqB7XogP_MnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> "Scout" wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>> message   
   >>>>>>>>>>> news:kjt5u9$out$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> "bringyagrogalong" wrote in message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> news:b2538c35-7ef7-4d01-83ed-c6d86cf39c81@y12g2000y   
   b.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bringyagrogalong wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Who drives the tank?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The driver, doofus.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > A driver in an impregnable environment surrounded by an   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > armed   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > crew.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Impregnable?"   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep! Certainly as far as a .22 is concerned.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Really? A .22 won't go through an open hatch or hit a member of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> tank crew outside of the tank?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting the crew is going to spend their whole   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> enlistment   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> inside that tank?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Going to get pretty rip in there after about 3 days.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know but with armour vehicles in say Afghanistan the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> crews   
   >>>>>>>>>>> don't   
   >>>>>>>>>>> seem to be taken out by 22s that often. Maybe because they go   
   >>>>>>>>>>> back   
   >>>>>>>>>>> to   
   >>>>>>>>>>> a   
   >>>>>>>>>>> secure base or bivouac   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Feel free to contribute when you have a clue.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> the argument is to difficult for you to argue isn't it   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>To the contrary, I've been in this caper on and off since 1979.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>What have you ever done?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It wouldn't matter if you were General Patton, you do NOT take out   
   >>>>>>> Abrams tanks with .22 pistols.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Not the tanks you don't. No.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Where did anyone say they were going to destroy a tank with a .22?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Memory problems?   
   >>>>> ozarkheart boasted he could take out an Abrams tank with a .22 pistol.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>You can't destroy a tank that way. The crew, however.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> As modern Abraham tanks are totally sealed with remote weapons systems   
   >>>>> and video display I guess we are back to murdering off-duty tank   
   >>>>> drivers relaxing in a bar are we?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Tank crews unbutton the hatches most of the time, unless they're   
   >>>>actually   
   >>>>under attack. It's just easier to maintain situational awareness that   
   >>>>way.   
   >>>   
   >>> Bullshit.   
   >>   
   >>What's you experience in tanks? What unit?   
   >>   
   >>> All the situational awareness need is totally electronic   
   >>   
   >>And they work ALL the time and cover EVERY angle too.   
   >>   
   >>>>You've never been an AFV crewman, have you?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Have you ever even been in a tank?   
   >>>   
   >>> Clearly you know absolutely NOTHING about an Abrams tank.   
   >>   
   >>What unit were you in?   
   >   
   > Save your ad hominems and macho reminiscences, they have no bearing on   
   > the inventors and designers of the situational awareness and automated   
   > defense systems in place on a modern tank.   
      
   In other words, you're just a flogbag who knows fuck-all and likes to   
   impress yourself with your copy and paste skills.   
      
   That about sum it up?   
      
   --   
   "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not   
   want merely because you think it would be good for him".   
      
   Robert A. Heinlein.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|