Jump to content
Damian90

History of US Tanks.

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Looks like an M60 hull with an M1 prototype turret to me.

 

Ha, but the turret is M60A1/A3 turret with mockup or real addon armor modules.

 

It really looks like M60AX, perhaps one of the prototypes? Because it's front hull also seems to be uparmored.

 

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/super_m60_l1.jpg

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/super_m60_l2.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Vs6K1bR.png

 

PS. Seems like forum have some problems and photos can't be embedded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TSe419E said:

Looks like a vismod to me.

Actually we know what it is, this is actual M60-2000. The thing with M1A1 turret was 120S not M60-2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, big black is thermal sight, then on the right side is day sight + LRF, below them unity sight. These two black things on the left seems to be screws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Damian90 said:

Actually we know what it is, this is actual M60-2000. The thing with M1A1 turret was 120S not M60-2000.

There are no slots in the armor for the rangefinder blisters to have a clear view and it is quite obvious that it is metal added to a turret for an M60A1/A3.  I still think it is a vismod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TSe419E said:

There are no slots in the armor for the rangefinder blisters to have a clear view and it is quite obvious that it is metal added to a turret for an M60A1/A3.  I still think it is a vismod.

No, it's a legit M60-2000, and there are no slots in armor because it was most likely meant to different FCS with different LRF mounted in primary sight doghouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also something interesting. My friend found a US patent from 1971 about titanium and ceramic armor array for tanks. He noted it is extremely similiar to a 1992 Polish CAWA-2 armor. So he started to dig in. As he is a student at Military Technology Academy (WAT - Wojskowa Akademia Techniczna) and he studies various armor technologies, he asked about it one of his proffesors. It appears that this proffesor was in US few years ago and become privy with basic M1A1 armor, and he said that besides NERA arrays in armor, ceramics were also added, and there was some cooperation between US and Poland in 1990's for development of metal/ceramic armor arrays, and this is why there is such similarity between a US titanium/ceramic armor and Polish CAWA-2.
A US 1971 patent.
46482363_199725304252345_142978987978443

 

A Polish CAWA-2 armor design.

46373897_199725507585658_331126793235228

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/09/2016 at 5:37 PM, Damian90 said:

 

I think I preffer the books. Truth to be told I never liked movies too much, especially ones trying to "speak" about such difficult issues like engineering.

And in the end, IFV is a result of conflicting requirements. As well as in the end M2 proved to be a good design.

 

The problem I see is that, movie makers are, and let's be honest here, when it comes to weapons, and how they work... they are morons more or less. And I think we can all agree on this.

 

Depends who you ask. xD

 

 

 

1Xgcuq5.png

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a question Is it true that theres only a SIngle BAttlation in the US Army left thats still using M1A1 i ( and its in the Reserve) , whilst the Rest are all M1A2's family?

 

Do any  those M1A1's in Army service have Crows?

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

Depends who you ask. xD

 

 

 

1Xgcuq5.png

It's not the problem with the design, but about how you use a specific design. And ATGM's on IFV are always usefull, it's further increase of firepower.
 

12 hours ago, Kev2go said:

as a question Is it true that theres only a SIngle BAttlation in the US Army left thats still using M1A1 i ( and its in the Reserve) , whilst the Rest are all M1A2's family?

 

Do any  those M1A1's in Army service have Crows?

Yeah, it's not reserve it's in NTC. And no, M1A1's do not need CROWS, US Army and ARNG uses M1A1SA with SCWS (Stabilized Commander Weapon Station), which is also a quiet good panoramic sight for TC. It have good day and thermal optics with 3x, 6x and 9x zoom for both + SCWS have capability to display view from gunner primary sight in to the SCWS display so TC does not need to use GPSE. And of course SCWS still have remotely controlled MG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still a lot of M1A1 SA in US Army. Generally speaking, US Army use a lot of M1A2 SEPv2 when ARNG use a lot of M1A1 SA but there is both tank version in both branch.

 

I know that USMC is introducing hunter-killer feature on their M1A1 FEP. Damian, do you know if US Army is trying to introduce it on SA versions or they think that it will be replaced by M1A2 SEPv3 more quickly ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kgb613 said:

There is still a lot of M1A1 SA in US Army. Generally speaking, US Army use a lot of M1A2 SEPv2 when ARNG use a lot of M1A1 SA but there is both tank version in both branch.

 

I know that USMC is introducing hunter-killer feature on their M1A1 FEP. Damian, do you know if US Army is trying to introduce it on SA versions or they think that it will be replaced by M1A2 SEPv3 more quickly ?

M1A1SA and M1A1FEP allready have hunter-killer capability. However AIDATS system for M1A1FEP is simply there to further improve SCWS cupola capabilities.. As for US Army, I think they decided they want to go pure active fleet of M1A2SEP series, and ARNG seems to want to ride the same horse.

 

It does not mean M1A1SA's disappear being upgraded, no they gonna go to reserve, while older M1A1's from long term storage are being upgraded first to the M1A2SEPv3 standard and later M1A2SEPv4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p7vsFru.jpg

 

M109A7 armed with M284 L39 155mm gun, compared to a future M109A8 turret armed with M907 L58 155mm gun mounted on a modified M109A6 chassis test bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damien i think you can update the section on M1 abrams.

 

have you seen the Swedish tank trials PDF?

 

 

sheds some light on the M1A2  Du-less export model  ( but also Leopard 2a5 and Leclerc)   protection levels . 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

VKiFHGC.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

image.png.daa3560fbd0ccd7b61c9a4d4efa83b

 

 

 

 

FV0hbeO.png

 

 

 

 

 

Rl2l8YR.png

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 6:41 AM, Damian90 said:

It's not the problem with the design, but about how you use a specific design. And ATGM's on IFV are always usefull, it's further increase of firepower.

 

 

 

he makes quite a bit of good points with regards to M3 variation of the M2  not ideally suited for scouting. 

 

M1 has a lower profile, and he noted better optics.  the Turbine engine is less noisy than a Diesel , and Of course as a MBT it has way more firepower and survivability, meaning that if a scouting mission goes wrong itl pack a bigger punch.

 

 

 

Bradley is a mediocre vehicle, if you look at its original specification , its production models have far deviated what it was supposed to have beem . The bradey should be made a staple example of what happens if you " feature creep" into a design, and how to avoid it,.  Its honestly at best  Jack of all trades master of none . IT holds less troops than the vehicle it replaced ( m113 had 11 vs 7 riding in  Bradley ) , and its too tall to be  ideally suited for Scout role, and later variants due to weight increases were no longer Amphibious, further removing one of the intended requirements which was a feature creep on its own. 

 

Ultimately for the greater firepower and  protection  against infantry based weapons)   offered the bravely sacrificed troop carry capacity, all whilst being more expensive and requiring more of them to be purchased for the smaller troop carrying capacity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Damien i think you can update the section on M1 abrams.

 

have you seen the Swedish tank trials PDF?

 

 

sheds some light on the M1A2  Du-less export model  ( but also Leopard 2a5 and Leclerc)   protection levels . 

I seen it and I disregard it. Sweden never tested M1A2 armor, even without DU, what is in this PDF is simply Swedish estimates based on some incomplete data they received from US. In general US was not very willing to share such data, and general consensus was that if Sweden would choose M1A2 these tanks would be builded with Swedish made composite armor.
 

10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

he makes quite a bit of good points with regards to M3 variation of the M2  not ideally suited for scouting. 

M3 is not your traditional scout vehicle. M3 was designed for combat recon, or force recon, or recon through fight.

 

10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

M1 has a lower profile, and he noted better optics.  the Turbine engine is less noisy than a Diesel , and Of course as a MBT it has way more firepower and survivability, meaning that if a scouting mission goes wrong itl pack a bigger punch.

Again, no. Current M1A1SA/FEP and M1A2SEP series of MBT's as well as M2A2ODS-SA and M2A3 (as well as M3A3ODS-SA and M3A3) have same quality 2nd gen. FLIR. However in the 80's it was M2A2 and M3A2 that had better thermal sight than M1's.
 

10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Bradley is a mediocre vehicle, if you look at its original specification , its production models have far deviated what it was supposed to have beem . The bradey should be made a staple example of what happens if you " feature creep" into a design, and how to avoid it,.  Its honestly at best  Jack of all trades master of none . IT holds less troops than the vehicle it replaced ( m113 had 11 vs 7 riding in  Bradley ) , and its too tall to be  ideally suited for Scout role, and later variants due to weight increases were no longer Amphibious, further removing one of the intended requirements which was a feature creep on its own. 

 

Ultimately for the greater firepower and  protection  against infantry based weapons)   offered the bravely sacrificed troop carry capacity, all whilst being more expensive and requiring more of them to be purchased for the smaller troop carrying capacity.

No, M2 is not mediocore. When M2 was first fielded it was the most advanced IFV in the world. Look at Warrior or Marder, both had unstabilized armament, no integrated ATGM's, no LRF or any FCS, same with BMP-1 and BMP-2. The M2A2 in late 80's was not only most advanced IFV but also best protected one.

Heck I dare to say that even these days M2A3/M2A4 with it's uparmor kits is better armored, more survivable than CV90's for example.

As for M113 vs M2, again I think you are one of these people that do not understand the concept of the APC vs the concept of IFV. IFV is not APC, it's not battle taxi designed only to transport troops, IFV is par of squad, it transport troops but also fight with the troops, providing them with increased firepower.

Besides this show me IFV that transports 11 dismounts? M2 have 6 or 7 depending on variant, CV90 have on avarage 7, Puma have 6, BMP-1 have 8, BMP-2 have 7. M2 is not worse in this regard than other IFV's.

As for amphibious capability, it's useless anyway, it's a Soviet and later Russian folly. IFV is designed to fight in the first line supporting MBT's and infantry. This means it needs increased survivability, if not against tank guns APFSDS, at least at minimum against 30mm APDS/APFSDS rounds.

And M2A2 and newer variants meets this criteria.

Honestly if I would have to choose an medium weight IFV, I would take M2A3 or new M2A4 over things like Warrior, Marder or CV90. M2A3/M2A4 have FCS with comparable capability to M1A2SEP FCS. Firepower still can be improved, standard TBAT-II turret can be upgraded with 30mm Mk44/Mk44S or M813 30mm chain guns replacing 25mm M242 chain gun. Mk44/Mk44S and M813 chain guns also can be quickly upgraded to 40mm calliber if needed.

Survivability can be also further improved. US is allready testing increased passive armor on the Bradley NG chassis increasing layers of high hardness steel plates. I would dare to say that Bradley NG chassis with additional modular passive armor and ERA modules provides protection similiar to new German Puma IFV.

LpLuVP2.jpg
Chassis and turret upgrades considered by the US Army.

UGCpXRl.jpg
Experimental Bradley NG chassis being tested with additional passive modular armor protection. Such protection can either consit of 3x layers of ~30mm high hardness steel plates, or for example the array can use steel/ceramic/steel configuration bolted to the base hull chassis.

behP6Zi.jpg
M2A2/M2A3/M2A4 have also efficent and effective ERA modules kit, providing increased protection vs medium calliber KE threats and RPG's, ATGM's and tank gun HEAT rounds.
 

M2A2/M2A3 was allready integrated and tested with Mk44/Mk44S 30/40mm chain gun as a quick and easy replacement for 25mm M242 chain gun, such swap demands minimal changes in turret subsystems.
 

Unmanned turret with 30/40mm M813 chain gun can also be mounted with relative easy, also freeing up additional space for more dismounts.
 

Cummins with Achates Power is developing new family of opposed piston two stroke diesel engines. First 1000HP variant will soon be tested as possible replacement for current Bradley engine. 1500HP variant is now developed for MBT's and considered as possible replacement for AGT1500 gas turbine for future M1A2 upgrades.

So as you can see there is a lot of life and upgradability left in M2 just like in M1. Even tough their replacements are being designed as well, altough... hmmm perhaps future might surprise people a bit with possible alternative routes choosen for NGCV program. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UM i very much know the difference between the two. IFV is supposed to fight alongside troops, but IT nonetheless replaced the M113. So taxing troops is part of an IFV's job. Its the backbone of modern mechanized infantry.  Just becuase other IFV's dont hold 11 troops doesn't mean the US should have made that compromise if aiming to create the "best" IFV , that Left a capability gap if there is only the antiquated M113 ( which US wished was replaced by the m2)  and IFV option. US neglected to have a proper Troops carrier replacement for the M113 all these years instead forcing the M2 Bradley to entirely fill that void.

 

Just look at the Isrealis. they had the right idea for  the M113 replacement . the Namer, and it could be turned into an IFV with some modifications.  

 

i respectfully disagree with you opinion that the M2 . ITs not the bEST IFV. The M2 has barely any export sales going for it. Israel had droppeda Custom modified bradley in its trials instead adopting Achzarit in the 80s.  an if there are people within the US military even to day that dislike it. AS provided with earlier example it is by no means a universal opinion speaks volumes.

 

High tech, sure, It was an ambitous project ( but you can still call it feature creep) but The M2 when it came out had plenty of problems, that would have made it less than ideal for service Only over time has it evolved into a decent vehicle.  All the quotes you proved and the images you show are of the Modern M2 Bradley  family.

 

IT was quite idiotic to store ammunition and Fuel directly inside the crew compartment. Based on COL Burton's suggestion to store them on the exterior the Bradley became a safer and more survivable vehicle by the time of the Gulf war. Given its  thin Aluminum armor it could not even expect to withstand shots from  Anti Infantry weapons like RPG's , It took up armoring and ERA of newer models to make it protectable to the threats it would have encounted even in its IFV role.

 

 

And if yo want to argue about the semantics about Scouting vs Force Recon, then in that case that makes his point even more valid. 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Damian90 said:

I seen it and I disregard it. Sweden never tested M1A2 armor, even without DU, what is in this PDF is simply Swedish estimates based on some incomplete data they received from US. In general US was not very willing to share such data, and general consensus was that if Sweden would choose M1A2 these tanks would be builded with Swedish made composite armor.
 

 

 

and  i assume you would at least you have  source(s) that provides more accurate estimates than that if you dismiss it?

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Given its  thin Aluminum armor it could not even expect to withstand shots from  Anti Infantry weapons like RPG's

At the time no IFV could, especially not in the weight class of the Bradley. Back then the Aluminum hull was a sensible (if expensive) choice that offered the best compromise between weight and protection level. Aluminum, after all, offers a much higher resistance in impact situations than the equivalent mass of steel could offer. If we're talking of "today", there's basically two schools of design - the ultra-heavy concepts like Achzarit and Namer that are basically MBT hulls redesigned for infantry transport, or the most modern designs that combine nano steels and composite armor to protect frontally up to 30mm caliber and RPGs.

The question is for which battlefield do we want to tailor the vehicles, and what's the strategic mobility option. The big losses of infantry riding in vehicles in the last two decades came from mine/IED threat. Battle buses like the MRAPs were the short-term response. But they are unwieldy, relatively weakly armed, and basically only offer protection against small arms and IEDs, nothing else. As long as that is the threat and you don't expect a lot of off-road tactical and operational maneuver, they're good enough. Change any of these parameters however, and they are out.

 

Armies need to prepare for a wide range of scenarios. For the US Army, strategic mobility is an important element. But I think it's time to acknowledge that Hercules transportability is a pipe dream that cannot be reconciliated with the desire for adequate protection. The next best concept would be a German Puma that actually works. If you abandon all desire for air lifting IFVs into theater you can of course go all out and come up with a Namer plus remotely operated 40mm turret or something. But then you're very quickly breaching the next important barrier, MLC50. Even if you forfeit airlift as a requirement, you still want to use roads and bridges. The Namer is an option specifically for Israel because none of these factors are of importance to them; to pretty much everybody else, they are.

Personally I think that the Puma is a pretty decent concept that doesn't go overboard with feature creep or demands for "absolute ballistic protection". It maintains the airlift option, at least under the assumption that the A400M actually is available, which however is right between the Hercules and the Galaxy in the US's airlift spectrum, so not exactly ideal for the US right now. But as good as the Herc is, it will never be able to transport modern IFVs that offer "good" (though not perfect) protection. As soon as you make IFVs as heavy as MBTs, your ability to get them into theater (and to move them, once there) is equally limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

UM i very much know the difference between the two. IFV is supposed to fight alongside troops, but IT nonetheless replaced the M113. So taxing troops is part of an IFV's job. Its the backbone of modern mechanized infantry.  Just becuase other IFV's dont hold 11 troops doesn't mean the US should have made that compromise if aiming to create the "best" IFV , that Left a capability gap if there is only the antiquated M113 ( which US wished was replaced by the m2)  and IFV option. US neglected to have a proper Troops carrier replacement for the M113 all these years instead forcing the M2 Bradley to entirely fill that void.

No, US didn't need to have an IFV carrying as much troops as M113. And there are reasons for this. To have a quiet well protected vehicle with turret that have heavy armament and capable to carry so many dismounts + crew, it means vehicle would have very large internal volume and would be insanely heavy. Jesis look at Namer or T-15! Namer carry only 3 man crew + 9 dismounts and weights above 60 metric tons, T-15 carry 3 man crew + 8 dismounts and also weights most likely way above 50 metric tons. Do you imagine how heavy an M2 would be if it would carry 3 man crew + 11 dismounts?!

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Just look at the Isrealis. they had the right idea for  the M113 replacement . the Namer, and it could be turned into an IFV with some modifications.  

Namer is larger and heavier vehicle than M2, and it carries only 2 dismounts more than M2A3, it's 9 vs 7 total, altough in practical terms, M2A3 carry 6, while Namer probably would carry 8 if we count soldiers equipment and other stuff that is needed to be stored inside.

 

And these vehicles were designed for different requirements and doctrine. It's like comparing apples with oranges.

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

i respectfully disagree with you opinion that the M2 . ITs not the bEST IFV. The M2 has barely any export sales going for it. Israel had droppeda Custom modified bradley in its trials instead adopting Achzarit in the 80s.  an if there are people within the US military even to day that dislike it. AS provided with earlier example it is by no means a universal opinion speaks volumes.

It is best IFV in it's weight category, which is around 30+ metric tons.

 

Of course amateurs will compare a 30+ tons vehicle with 60+ tons vehicle, because fuck logic right?

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

High tech, sure, It was an ambitous project ( but you can still call it feature creep) but The M2 when it came out had plenty of problems, that would have made it less than ideal for service Only over time has it evolved into a decent vehicle.  All the quotes you proved and the images you show are of the Modern M2 Bradley  family.

Oh wow, and other vehicle designs do not evolve eh? They are perfect from the start? Jesus Christ, come on.

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

IT was quite idiotic to store ammunition and Fuel directly inside the crew compartment. Based on COL Burton's suggestion to store them on the exterior the Bradley became a safer and more survivable vehicle by the time of the Gulf war. Given its  thin Aluminum armor it could not even expect to withstand shots from  Anti Infantry weapons like RPG's , It took up armoring and ERA of newer models to make it protectable to the threats it would have encounted even in its IFV role.

Oh I get it, you base your knowledge about M2 development on this idiotic film "Pentagon Wars" that is nothing more than a lie? ;)

The reality is that all IFV's designed in that era, BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3, Warrior, Marder, CV90 store ammunition and fuel inside. By the way US Army actually tested M2 variant with external isolated ammunition and fuel storage in the 80's, but there were other more important priorities, and budget is not from rubber. And the idea returned with Bradley NG chassis.

Oh and by the way, just like Ssnake said, at that time no IFV was well armored... well actually there was, I will remind you that M2A2 which was uparmored variant and yes ERA for it was developed in the 80's, so M2A2 was actually that Bradley protected vs 30mm APDS and perhaps also APFSDS and with ERA vs RPG's, ATGM's and tank HEAT rounds.

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

And if yo want to argue about the semantics about Scouting vs Force Recon, then in that case that makes his point even more valid. 

No, there are simply different recon tactics and different vehicles will fill the role. By the way you realize that Warsaw Pact also intended to use BMP's and their variants for force recon?

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

and  i assume you would at least you have  source(s) that provides more accurate estimates than that if you dismiss it?

No, for several reasons. First is that I ended any discussion with people in the internet about this subject. I might or might not know some things, and if I know something, I will definately not share this with you or anyone else. Especially considering that I know that NATO counterintelligence agencies started to be interested in such people that share such informations here and there. And I definately do not want a small talk with sad gentlemen from my countries counterintelligence agency, because I told too much to some random guy in the internet. Not matters if what I said was truth or not. I speak only about non OPSEC stuff.

Besides these discussions in the internet among armchair "experts" just make me laugh these days.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Damian90 said:

No, US didn't need to have an IFV carrying as much troops as M113. And there are reasons for this. To have a quiet well protected vehicle with turret that have heavy armament and capable to carry so many dismounts + crew, it means vehicle would have very large internal volume and would be insanely heavy. Jesis look at Namer or T-15! Namer carry only 3 man crew + 9 dismounts and weights above 60 metric tons, T-15 carry 3 man crew + 8 dismounts and also weights most likely way above 50 metric tons. Do you imagine how heavy an M2 would be if it would carry 3 man crew + 11 dismounts?!

 

because Namer is substantially more armored than the Bradley.  Its not just a matter of extension to accomdate more troops Its basically a MBT chasis turned into a Carrier.

 

T15 on the other hand is a quite impressive and it certainly would fall under IFV, but weight gain is  more than just extra room for troops.  its because of new armor arrays, and ERA compared to the BMP., but obviosuly not definitive due to lack of open source data to make it a fact.

 

Ive otherwise refused to compare BMP's of the cold war time period to the Bradley because Soviet design philosophy  was different, as well as their attitude/ mentality towards the life of human beings at the time. and Yes Bradely would have higher tech optics, and FCS, but BMP had the lower profile, so in that regard it would be better for Recon.

 

 

Quote

 

Namer is larger and heavier vehicle than M2, and it carries only 2 dismounts more than M2A3, it's 9 vs 7 total, altough in practical terms, M2A3 carry 6, while Namer probably would carry 8 if we count soldiers equipment and other stuff that is needed to be stored inside.

 

And these vehicles were designed for different requirements and doctrine. It's like comparing apples with oranges.

 

 

Yes and something we can agree, on but that doesnt remove the fact that the  M2 bradley isnt an M113 replacement but entirely different class of vehicle. The NAMER is a super armored Armored personnel carier but using MBT chasis. Either way  us still had a requirement for replacing the M113 , after realizing the M2 bradley couldn't despite working for what it was intended to be.

 

# See armored multi purpose Vehicle.

 

 

US_Army_AMPV_compared_to_the_M113.png

 

Quote

 

Oh wow, and other vehicle designs do not evolve eh? They are perfect from the start? Jesus Christ, come on.

 

 

And this is what i said... It took long road of evolution for the M2 to become that vehicle. By the time it did these other competing  IFV design were on the market.

Quote

Oh I get it, you base your knowledge about M2 development on this idiotic film "Pentagon Wars" that is nothing more than a lie? ;)

 

Again making assumptions here on what you think other people know. Far from the truth. Only a portion of my knowledge is based on the Pentagon wars , and i was referring to the book not the movie, which is taken from the horses mouth so to speak, far more in depth and not dumbed down like the film. 

 

 

 

Quote

 



lk with sad gentlemen from my countries counterintelligence agency, because I told too much to some random guy in the internet. Not matters if what I said was truth or not. I speak only about non OPSEC stuff.

Besides these discussions in the internet among armchair "experts" just make me laugh these days.

 

 

 

Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss everyone as an internet Expert for challenging what you know or expressing different opinions . Your not the only "expert" out there. (FyI not referring to myself but quotes from other people who are in the business) .

 

what your resorting to is called "AD Hominum" now


 

 Otherwise it comes off as being egotistical on your part.  AS i said if you don't agree with others opinion thats fine, but no reason to make it out like your opinion  is gospel, and insulting those who dare say anything otherwise or that try to offer a debate or discussion.

 

I of course meant sharing information that is "open source" not opsec, but i don't see why a Polish ex tanker would happen to know M1A2 armor composition anyways given that US weren't willing to share such information with Swedes who would have been a potential customer ;).

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×