Posted on 08/27/2006 9:32:50 PM PDT by Flavius
That would be because you haven't downloaded the Microsoft-supported tool to view WMV on Mac - Flip4Mac:
(There used to be a Windows Media Player for Mac, but someone did it better, so Microsoft bought them.)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/wmcomponents.mspx
Some of the Windows codecs (some AVI encoding) doesn't work out of the box, but there's a DIVX codec available from DIVX, and VLC helps play others:
http://www.divx.com/divx/mac/
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-macosx.html
Of course, I've had to download similar things for my work PC to get it to play videos, so that's nothing new.
Could have been a 40mm automatic grenade launcher.
Good point about the old Soviet Union possibly having the sealift capacity, though I think they'd have thought twice with China sitting on their border.
As for being in charge of NATO, I'm surprised the Warsaw Pact didn't invade in 1977 with Carter in the White House. In fact, for his entire term, I'd have been sweating it out. Finally, after Vietnam, we were scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of morale, manpower, and materiel.
Flash forward 10 years, and the situation is reversed. Amazing what Ronald Reagan did in 8 short years, and how fast the Soviets fell apart.
Hey spin down man! I didn't call you any names and I know the M1-An is not invulnerable.
Just trying to make a point about what's manufactured in an Iranian armoury, and what's made in a hut in Iraq.
A tank might be disabled, taken out of action, and still be repairable, essentially not destroyed at all but just unavailable for that particular task at that time.
Hmmm...I thought the MSM said 30 tanks destroyed. Maybe they were being
a bit too optomistic (for their Hezbollah buddies).
I'll give the Merkava the "neatest turret" award. So sharp, it
looks like you could cut your hand on it.
Two words - shot traps.
Looks neat, but that's a bad vulnerability when going up against a larger MBT.
FYI, the Type 90 is designed to be deployed in a defensive, not offensive role (hence the lack of heavy side and top armor and their tradeoff for speed, mobility, and size, and the custom suspension optimized for use in the mountainous terrain of Japan).
IIRC, the operational philosophy behind the Type 90 is hit and run, ambush operations, and the like (sucker the enemy in, make him come to you, then blow him away and run like hell before his buddies come find you; repeat as needed) and it's perfectly suited for that sort of warfare
I did some quick online research about the Cajone Eh hull loss. Here's what I can surmise.
The tank was not a hull loss at first. It was disabled by a well-aimed RPG that hit the tank in the power plant. Cajone Eh took an RPG-7 in its exhaust grill and was not operable. The crew evacuated, afterwhich the tank was ordered to be destroyed by the attacking force's commander so that it would not fall into enemy hands. They chucked an incidiary grenade into the hatch, then hit the tank with 2 M830A1 MPAT rounds and later 1 Maverick missile.
also --
Assume for argument's sake that the RPG-7 can reliably pierce M1's hull side. By definition, we'd expect most hits on the flanks penetrate. Yet, that isn't the case according to THUNDER RUN by D. Zucchino, where numerous RPGs were fired, many tanks hit, but only 1 (Cajone Eh) disabled by a shot to the egine from the rear. Plenty of hits at turret and hull side were recorded, but none penetrated. For example:
"Every single vehcile in the column (M1's and Bradley's) had been blistered by RPGs or recoiless rifle rounds and thousands of rounds of small arms, but everybody was intact and still moving. SOme of the RPGs had detonated on the gear and rucksacks stored on the tracks' external bustle racks, and now the stuff was on fire. Most of the crew just let it burn." This is briefly before Cajone Eh was hit. (17)
At another instance, the tank commaded by Sgt. R. Gaines was hit five times, at least one in the turret side: "Each grenade had rocked the big tank before bouncing off and exploding in the dirt along Highway 8. . . Somewhere just west of the spaghetti junction, Gaines heard a tremendous whump on the right side of the tank. The crew in the tank behind him saw an oratgne fireball erupt, and then a sray of gray smoke. An RPG had bounced off the tank's external smoke grenade storage box, then ripped into the smoke grenade launcher. The whole sid eof the tank was on fire . . . He grabbed a handheld fire extinguisher from inside the turret, leaned out of the commander's hatch, and sprayed the flames with a burst of white foam. To his amazement, the fire sputtered and died. The smoke grenades and some of the gear in the bustle racks had burned, but there was no damage to the tank itself." (46-47)
On page 49, Sgt. Booker's tank was hit twice by RPG's on the right side.
That's just three instances out of many in the book. Either the laws of physics didn't apply to the Rogue Column, or the RPG-7's weren't very effective at killing Abrams.
take a look here -- (source) http://www.tank-net.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t16310.html
This source says the USAF put two Mavericks intot he hull and the turret still stayed on. Cajone Eh was a hull loss becasue the US Army ordered it so.
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?s=0853a96f085da08a688ffc4ba9ad9dda&showtopic=14679&st=20&p=284565&#entry284565
here is a pic of Cajone Eh AFTER the US tried to 'destroy' it ;-)
Compare this to pics we have all seen of t-72s with the turret blown off etc etc.
http://www.defense-update.com/images/M-1A1-destroyed.jpg
Enjoy
just needed a little guidance
It's questionable if even the very latest RPG-29 would be able to damage an M1A2.
The M1 (no A) was originally designed to be proof against the RPG-7, and the designers were largely successful in doing so. (Thus giving even more nightmares to Soviet weapons designers when they realized that not only did the M1 have a longer range, but even if Soviet infantry should be able to sneak into the dead zone of the tank, they didn't have any effective weapons against it.) The golden BB theory is alive and well, though...
I totally agree with you QQQQ, every tank is designed for specific, missions. The M1 series of tanks were specifically made to defeat Soviet Bloc tanks on open battle fields. The Merk I believe is well suited for urban and close in battle. To pit one against the other would be unfeasible due to their unique roles. I am also a former tanker. U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry.
Thank you.I was involved in the development of the Merkava 1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
