OutOnTheOP

Who said anything about complaining that the Su25 was too fast or maneuverable? Way to put words in my mouth. What I said was: in many cases the ability to ignore switchology is a bigger advantage than having a more maneuverable plane Ethereal, I'm calling BS. You're making the assumption that more capability automatically comes with more switchology. Other than the ability to program target coordinates, give an example. I'd say that the ability to hit the a single key to accomplish a task that in the detailed birds (and reality) requires a series of actions is more significant. Unless this theoretical DCS-quality F-15C has a longer radar detection range or better jammers or something (neither of which are logical conclusions of having more switch options), there's no reason it would "do fun stuff the simple version can't". That aside, your DCS:A-10 vs FC: Su25 comparison regarding preplot targets is a strawman; "simplified" controls can be made to do anything up to and including automatically entering co-ordinates for you. After all, the simplified versions automatically perform switch flips for you: taking it to it's logical (but extreme) extent, what's to stop the simplification from going back to the old EA "press t to cycle through available targets" days? You mean to tell me that the pilot that has to manually select radar search sectors, slew the cuing bug on the target, etc etc has a qualititative advantage over the one that hits a single keystroke and has the simulation do the work for him? Not buying it. Agreed that the primary culprit in this case is poor scenario design, but that does NOT mean the FC and DCS birds play the same or compare favorably.

And that's exactly WHY you can do that: the Su25T in game has near-instant, one-button start-up. It's practically a cheat; you can get in the air so much faster than the A-10C drivers that have to go through a realistic startup, therefore you can bomb them still on the runway. This is why I am against FC3-level fidelity and DCS-level fidelity in the same environment: the lower-fidelity players have less pilot workload and an easier time completing tasks. To be honest, THAT is a bigger difference in most cases than having unfair maneuverability or thrust-to-weight advantages!

Depending on what wavelength the DAS operates in, the city lights wouldn't even show up. I suspect it's mid- or far-IR spectrum (IE, thermals), and therefore is looking for heat, not light (because, really, how good is visible light detection for military operations?). The city wouldn't look much brighter than the background under thermals.

Speaking of RHA equivalents, I've never understood how the pro-T80/T90 crowd have convinced themselves that the T90 has a superior armor package to the Abrams. The M1A1 clearly had a better armor package to the T72 (as shown through real combat experience), and the T90 is nothing more than an upgrade of the T72. In fact, the only reason it's known as the "T90" at all is because Russian export interests wanted to divorce it from the T72 in the minds of their potential buyers, because the T72 had performed so badly that it was a bad name! Anyhow, somehow the T90 fans have convinced themselves that the armor upgrades have made it better than the Abrams, but totally ignore that the Abrams has ALSO been receiving upgrades for it's entire lifetime. Besides that, the Abrams armor package, as a flat panel hollow armor envelope, is much easier to upgrade. When it comes to RHA equivalencies, every estimate I've ever seen lists the T90 and Abrams as roughly equivalent against chemical energy (HEAT) rounds from the frontal aspect, but lists the Abrams as significantly (20-30% greater) better against kinetic energy rounds. It also lists the Abrams (and, of course, T90) as virtually impervious to the warhead on the Reflecks and other 125mm tube-launched missiles (at least from the frontal aspect).

Ok, two things: 1) First, I totally called it on the shooter: when the first headline came up on the TV news, I turned to my coworker and said "what do you figure the odds are this was some stupid redneck who can't tell the difference between Sikhs and Muslims?" ...now, I thought about mentioning that here, but I *hate* positing that Americans are stupid; there's plenty of non-Americans online already going overboard with that. As far as I'm concerned, there's TONS of stupid, ignorant Americans- but not really any more than any other country, and it grates on me when everyone starts playing up stupid stereotypes about dumb Americans. Shut up, your countries have plenty of idiots, too. Physician, heal thyself. 2) Really? We're going to play up the ex-military angle? The guy was in the Army TWENTY YEARS AGO, for a SINGLE enlistment term, and he got FIRED (well, he got fast-tracked out), but the news immediately jumped on the "ZOMG, he was a military veteran! All military veterans are unstable psychos LULZ!" angle. Idiots. How about all the millions of perfectly sane, law-abiding veterans out there? It's just like how CURRENT soldiers' crimes get so heavily reported. You'd never guess it, but the crime rate among US Soldiers (and I assume other nations' as well) is WAY below the crime rate among civilians in the US. The news would have you believe otherwise. Maybe the idiot media should be looking into all his violent extremist friends instead of pointing to a passing stint in the Army 20 years ago. Ok, make that three things: 3) What a shitbag. Kind of glad that the cops shot him dead on the spot; this way he can't weasel out of it on legal technicalities. That's just insulting. How can it possibly be justice when 6 innocents are dead, and the scumbag that did it lives comfortably for decades after? Also, all my (Army) coworkers agree, dirtbags like this are the worst kind of (technically) human. Also, Kuky- yes, this guy was a terrorist, in every sense of the word. I never understood how it became an ethnic term.

Wow. Really? Do you actually understand how the politics on the Korean peninsula actually work? Yes, at the moment the US and most western powers are seeking sanctions against them, because in the past, providing goods to the DPRK has been counterproductive. The DPRK's main export is threats, and it has a long history of using it's missile and nuclear programs as bargaining chips: it conducts a test/ starts up a reactor/ etc, then demands billions in food and economic aid in return for stopping their actions. Then, a couple years later, when the rest of the world is sick of funding their regime, and the "aid" dries up, they go back to proliferation activities. Second, the DPRK is already a client state, firmly in the pocket of the PRC. Anything that grants them economic independence opens opportunities to get them in bed with the economies of the west, and starting open trade. Last I checked, that's good for everyone. As to giving things for free, ultimately, I suspect providing thorium reactors (note that I never said "for free") would be less expensive than NOT: if it backs them into a sociopolitical corner where they can no longer justify pursuing uranium reactors (and therefore, nuclear weapons), the DPRK geopolitical-hostage-for-ransom racket would be OVER, and the western nations would actually stand to SAVE a lot of money. Lastly, you're making the same ridiculous mistake all the other conspiracy theorists do about the US government: they don't really care about "control" of Iran or the DPRK. They just, like every other government in the world, want what is most beneficial to themselves. If Iran and the DPRK were to play nice, they'd be welcomed as peaceful trade partners, because it's in the US' best interests to do so. Just look at how US-Chinese and US-Vietnamese (or, going back even longer, US-German and US-Japanese) trade has flourished, even though they were once sworn enemies. The US stands to gain less from keeping those nations as threats than they do from opening trade. But both sides have to be willing to do so, first. Ok, that's just stupid. So, unless we're personally there, our logic, science, thought, and understanding mean nothing? So, basically, you're demanding that all discourse on the subject be limited to emotionally driven commentary. Ridiculous, and not the way to solve problems (though it's known to make them!). That aside, you're WAY out of line in making those assumptions. I currently live in South Korea, and have visited eastern-seaboard Japan TWICE in the past 3 months. Yeah, it's fear mongering. I don't buy into it, and it hasn't affected my willingness to travel through the area. Also, the reactor didn't go "ka-boom". And even if it HAD, if you had paid attention to what I said earlier, you would realize that I was speaking about ways to mitigate future risk through migrating to inherently safer and less radio-isotope-waste-intensive reactors. That's how we solve problems: we identify the issue, propose alternatives, compare the merits of each alternative, and select the most favorable course of action. And I personally know people that have lost their homes, land, and everything else to tornados, ice storms, earthquakes, fires, and the like. I also know people that have lost their LIVES to terrorism and crime. This does not stop me from making a dispassionate assessment of how to mitigate the risk of it happening again. I already did, in front of the Kyoto town hall/ municipal building. The protesters there kept harrassing me to sign a petition even after I had politely declined. They kept hounding me, so I explained to them that despite the current furor, nuclear power is STILL statistically safer, more efficient, and less polluting than the alternatives out there- and the move to thorium plants would make it safer still. This was rather difficult to explain, of course, as my Japanese is halting at best, and they didn't speak any English. Eventually I got the point across. I would also point out that people seem to forget that the rules of conservation of energy rules the the OUTPUT of a nuclear reactor is always going to be inherently less radioactive (IE, carries less potential energy in the form of future radioactive emission) than the fuel going in. Now, sometimes the decay products are shorter half-life (and therefore higher emission RATE- but for a much lesser time- granted, this can still be dozens of years) than the parent products, but you can't get energy from NOWHERE. Less radiation comes OUT of the plant than goes IN. Nuclear power plants actually make the planet, as a whole, LESS radioactive. Of course, the materials are concentrated at one site, rather than widely distributed in nature. BS. I can flip that right around at you: you shouldn't be voicing your opinions on the subject unless you truly have solutions to propose, except to say that you have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion. Sure, I sympathize with the victims, but I'm wise enough to understand condolences alone never solved a damned thing PS: We're supposed to be worried about 0.09 mSv? That documentary, while relatively well-filmed, was clearly meant to mortify people who don't understand the science behind it. What I got out of it was that the one person that seemed to understand- the head teacher- thought things were perfectly manageable. By the way, the quoted radiation rate- 0.09 mSv- is quite low. The US Capitol building- where our Senate and House work- has a radiation rate of 0.85 mSv, due to the PURELY NATURAL stone out of which it is built. This is, of course, assuming that when they refer to Sieverts in the video, they are refering to Sieverts per year... it doesn't make sense unless there's a time/ rate associated with it. But 1 Sv/yr is the regulatory rate in the US, so I assume that it's the same in Japan (or close to the same), and therefore that when she talks about 1 Sv being the regulatory limit, she is therefore speaking of Sv/yr. If you actually want to learn something about the thorium reactor (specifically, the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor, or LiFTeR), see , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor, and

Totally agreed regarding fear mongering. The US (and, I assume other NATO countries, and potentially Russia) has a standing legacy of terror at the prospect of radioactivity thanks to the Cold War and all the fallout shelter madness. Japan likewise seems to have a legacy of terror at radiation thanks to the atomic bombings (though if anything, I would think they should be the LEAST scared- after all, they were bombed twice, and survived... and now the bombing sites are quite habitable). However, I think the continued use of Uranium-decay-chain reactors is a bit silly, considering the very exciting new advances in Thorium-decay-chain reactor technology. Inherently safer, very plentiful fuel available, and most exciting, it "burns" nearly clean: the byproducts all go down the periodic chain, not up. Very little radioactive byproducts left, and what little there is is very short half-life. ...which ALSO means no byproducts useable in nuclear weaponry (which is why Uranium reactors were the ones originally developed). Personally, I think that if Iran and north Korea keep clamoring about their right to peaceful nuclear power production, the best reaction the rest of the world can give them is to say "y'know, you're RIGHT. You do have a right to PEACEFUL nuclear power. So we'll help you co-develop and build Thorium reactors!" Kind of hard to turn that offer down gracefully!

Err... no, danger close for any guided 500 pound GP bomb is (if I remember my JFIRE manual correctly, it's been a while) 175 meters. You can bring it in closer, but it's only advisable if the friendlies are in good cover. Also, you'd need some kind of apocalyptic hurricane to provide enough wind to significantly affect frag patterns. Your average wind just isn't going to change it much, so I very much doubt that's the culprit. As to killing trucks, they're not TERRIBLY blast-sensitive; like personnel, their primary kill mechanism is going to be fragmentation. Blast will dent panels, but not really hurt the drivetrain or frame (unless it's a LOT of blast). This means that if you land a bomb a couple feet away, but in a depression or ditch, the truck will be protected from the worst of the damage. However, I VERY much doubt the damage model in DCS takes this into account. Last I heard, it had a very simple method of accounting frag, and most certainly did not do raycasting to figure out if there's line-of-sight from detonation to target. As to a reasonable destruction distance for soft-skin trucks from a 500 pound GP bomb, I'd go with around 10 meters.

The Sigs ARE pretty nice. I'm looking at maybe getting one as a carry gun; the USP45 hasn't really worked out for me (not that it's not a nice gun, but the edges are too sharp and grip too aggressively checkered, so it's physically uncomfortable to carry. And it's recoil characteristics aren't great). Either that, or an FN45 Tactical. Haven't found any .45s that outperform my M9A1 yet, though. ...and that's the other thing that gets me about this USMC purchase. Not only is .45ACP a non-standard ammunition, and not only is it not necessarily the best choice of caliber, but even if they DO want that caliber, the M1911, as advanced as it was for it's time, is obsolete. There's newer and better .45s out there.

Yeah, calling BS on that one. For one, a 9mm will penetrate considerably more than 3 piles of kevlar

Yes, obviously both were fatal wounds shortly after; the point is that even after sustaining such massive injuries, they were able to get back up. One returned fire, the other attempted to flee and made it a good 30 meters. Obviously, had he opted to go for his weapon, he too could have returned fire. The point is that unless you hit the central nervous system, neither a 9mm, .45, or even a heavy machine gun round will put a person out of action immediately- and the speed with which a not immediately lethal hit puts someone out of action isn't going to matter that much. You won't bleed out from a .45 inch hole all that much faster than from a .36 inch hole. Personally, I blame Hollywood for convincing people that when hit by a firearm, the target is supposed to be vaulted through the air like they were slung from a trebuchet, and expire before hitting the ground. Bullets just don't work like that.

Yes, the .45 ACP is a bigger round. Yes, it kicks harder. Therefore, people assume it's naturally a better man-stopper. Does the extra diameter mean a higher chance of hitting a vital organ, sure. But statistically insignificant. So in ball ammunition, that extra size doesn't mean a whole lot. However, a follow-up shot IS significantly statistically more likely to hit something vital. Again, more ammunition= more better. Besides that, most of the extra muzzle energy (energy, not velocity) the .45 ACP is carrying is wasted downrange of the target due to overpenetration of ball rounds anyhow. There's really not a very good understanding of wound ballistics- the mechanics by which a bullet actually injures and kills- by most of the online gun wags. For that matter, there's not a very good understanding of it even by the scientists that study it extensively. Either way, statistics and ballistic testing has found that 9x19mm does just as well as .45 ACP when using ball ammunition, and that the probability difference in a single round stopping your target are pretty negligible. Either way, bigger bullets, stronger recoils, and/ or higher velocities do not in themselves ensure better terminal performance from a cartridge, and different bullet designs in the same cartridge class perform very differently. the 9mm vs .45 ACP debate is much like the 7.62x39mm vs 5.56x45mm debate. Lots of people assume bigger is always better. In the case of the pistol cartridges that's probably closer to true. Still, despite statistical and ballistics testing clearly indicating the 5.56x45mm M193 and M855 rounds are MORE lethal (in their effective envelope, out to 200 meters from a full-size rifle) than the 7.62x51mm M80 or Soviet-pattern M43 round many, MANY shooters, including a lot of servicemembers, are so convinced by their cognitive bias that the 7.62x51mm should be used because it's a "better man-stopper". Never mind the drawbacks of using the 7.62x51 (heavier rifles, half the ammo load, not nearly as flat-shooting, and less lethal against dismounts at normal combat distances. Afghanistan is an exception; engagement ranges there dictate a larger cartridge) You will NEVER get an instant, drop-on-the-spot kill unless you hit them clean in the brain stem. Period. Full stop. I don't care WHAT round you use. I've seen people get back up after getting hit in the abdomen with a .50 BMG, and in the temple with a 7.62x51mm M118 LR. In military operations, getting hits is much more important than having big bullets (in fact, even near misses count, because supressive fire matters a LOT). The most certain means of ensuring more hits is shooting more bullets (which also means you can maintain suppressive fire for longer). Now, in the civilian self-defense field, the applicability of the "one shot stop" is a bit more important: there's legal aspects to consider, and if you re-engage the target after hitting him the first time, you open yourself up for lawsuits, so I can see wanting a bigger bullet (besides, you're probably going to be engaging a single opponent, and most likely at bad-breath distances). *edit* some reading for better understanding of wound ballistics: http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html (good overview) http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/effects_of_small_arms.pdf (excellent comparison of military projectiles' wound tracks. Of note, we're most interested in the performance of the projectile between 10 and 25 cm penetration; this is the depth at which vital organs are found) http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf (see page 9 for an explanation of why the very idea of "knock down power" is ridiculous) http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45ACP%20230gr%20FMJ.jpg (.45 ACP ball ammunition wound track. Note the projectile, large diameter and low length, does not rotate or tumble at all) http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/9mm%20US%20M882.jpg (9mm ACP ball ammunition wound track. Projectile with higher length-to-diameter ratio tumbles on impact. Velocity insufficient to fragment or deform) http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M193.jpg (5.56x45mm, 55 grain M193 ball ammunition wound track. Severe fragmentation and permanent wound cavity in the vital 10-25 cm depth) http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg (5.56x45mm, 62 grain M855 ball ammunition wound track. As M193) http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg (7.62x39mm M43 ball ammunition wound track. This is the one that a lot of folk insist we should go to instead of the 5.56x45, because it's bullet is more bigger and therefore more better. Note the decidedly unspectacular performance. Projectile does not even begin a tumble until beyond 25cm penetration, at which point it would have already exited an average human target)

I guarantee the decision was a) political, and b) another attempt by the USMC to reinforce their "brand". I just hope the US Army sticks to their guns (in this case, the M9), and doesn't jump on the "me too!" bandwagon like with the digital camo debacle. The US military went with the M9 for a number of reasons, all of them good. 1) as part of the agreement to standardize NATO ammunition, the US chose the rifle round (7.62x51mm, then 5.56x45mm), and the European nations got to choose the pistol cartridge (9x19mm). The US was obligated to use the 9mm round 2) VERY thourough studies conducted during and after WW2 by the US military found that the lethality of the 9mm and .45 ACP ball rounds was statistically identical. Your body doesn't know the difference between the two: either one in a critical organ will drop you. Neither one in an extremity will severely hamper you. In specially designed defense rounds (the kind that are illegal to use in military operations), you can get better performance out of the .45 ACP. In ball ammo, it makes little difference. Statements otherwise are generally based on opinion, not demonstrable field results. All the "I shot a guy with a 9mm and he got back up, but if I'd had a .45 he would've stayed down" stories are worth the paper they're written on. Unless they shot two identical people in the identical location with a .45 and a 9mm, their opinion is just an opinion. 3) 9mm penetrates body armor much better than .45 ACP 4) You can carry a hell of a lot more 9mm for the same weight, and have twice the magazine size. Even assuming that the .45 ACP were more lethal than the 9mm (it's not), you're better of getting one hit with a bullet that wounds than getting no hits with a bullet that would have vaporized your enemy if you HAD hit. 5) 9mm has significantly less recoil, allowing much faster follow-up shots in case your first round missed, which, chances are, it will. This is important in handguns, and even more so in submachine guns, which were quite prolific when the decision to move to the 9mm was made. Personally, I think it's time to bring back the submachinegun/ PDW. The larger magazine and better recoil characteristics on the M9 are a big deal, and hard to overstate. I'm an excellent marksman, but even I don't expect first-round hits in a real firefight (and I've been in several), especially with a handgun. I should note here that I refer to firefights in the military context, not civilian self-defense. In the civil sector, I WOULD expect first-round hits; engagement ranges are much shorter, the target is much better defined, and the volume of fire (in both directions) is significantly less. Now, in my personal experience, having used an M9 in combat and owning both an M9 and several M1911s: there's a number of advantages to the M9 that I've never seen in the M1911. -The M1911 is very finicky about feeding and chambering rounds; among other things, it dislikes any ammunition that is not round-nosed (ball ammo) bullet profile. The M9 feeds ANYTHING I've ever run in it, flawlessly. -Both are exceedingly accurate, though I'd say the M9 edges out the M1911 slightly. -I can put rounds into a target with the M9 easily three times faster than with the M1911, due to the severe muzzle flip of the M1911- though the M1911 stays on target better than the USP45, S&W M&P45, and all other polymer frame automatics I've fired (polymer frames are a bad idea in high-caliber handguns; they put all the weight into the reciprocating parts, which means a lot of muzzle flip). -The M9 carries over twice the ammunition of the M1911 per volume, per weight, or per magazine -The M9 can be safely carried with a round chambered, safety off, ready-to-fire. While the M1911 can ALSO be safely carried with a round chambered, it can only do so by either a) chambering the round then lowering the hammer, or b) activating the safety. Either way, there's an extra step when putting the firearm into action. With the M9, you just draw, point, and squeeze the trigger. As to the Glocks, I don't trust any firearm that is carried at perpetual half-cock. It has all the disadvantages of a double action (heavy trigger pull) and none of the advantages (since you have to cycle the action to reset the trigger). Now, I'll admit that I have had my share of trouble with Army-issued M9s. It's no fault of the design- they're just old and worn out. Any old and worn gun will have issues. They need more regular refurbishment; you can't treat them so rough, shoot the barrel out, and then expect them to run perfect. ....that said, we should do away with semiauto handguns entirely, and instead pick up a good PDW. I would recommend the Steyr TMP/ Brugger-Thomet MP9. It's only slightly larger than a standard handgun, can be carried in a pistol-style holster (preferably drop-leg), weighs only 7 ounces more than an M1911, is full-auto capable, takes 30 round magazines, is STUPID accurate (I own the semi-auto TP9 version, and it blows away both the M1911 AND M9 in accuracy), and is outfitted with a folding stock, essentially doubling it's useful effective range. It'd make a hell of a room clearing gun. Why give your troops a handgun when you can provide a full-up submachinegun?

TOW (most versions) have an effective range of 3750 meters. Limited primarily by the length of guidance wire, I think. TOW2B Aero has over 4500 meter range. Reflecks has 5000 meter range... though I have my doubts about how often one would actually get to take a shot at that kind of range.

Yes, TOW2B is a target-overflight, top-attack missile. Did you not watch the video posted earlier?

You know, when I see "A-10 dogfight" and "appropriately corny music", my immediate assumption is that it's either: 1) highway to the danger zone, or 2) the Benny Hill theme. ...it's always nice to be right :thumbup:

First, your numbers are obviously wrong. The FBI homicide rates for 2010 were 14,748 homicides across the US, which equals to 40.4 deaths per day, not 82. (oops, didn't notice you were using 2007 data! Still wrong, though: 2007 was 14,831, which is a rate of 40.6 per day). I doubt ALL of those homicides were committed with firearms; in fact, last I checked, it's around 50% firearms related in the US. 2011 rates are not yet published, but initial counts have a reduction from 2010. (edit: also, 278 of the homicides in 2010 were self-defense homicide by private citizen, and 387 justifiable homicide by law enforcement. Interestingly, there was one justifiable homicide by law enforcement by knife or cutting instrument last year... I wonder how THAT happened?!) Either way, it's dangerously close to getting into political rhetoric; I'll just point out that the while the US has a higher gun violence rate than much of western Europe, the guns aren't the problem. Generally poverty and ghettoization lead to violence more than the presence of firearms; and the US, as the "land of opportunity", attracts an awful lot of poor immigrants, particularly from Mexico, Central and South America, and the Carribean- all of which have murder rates between 2 and 18 times as high as the US. Which isn't to say the South Americans are naturally violent, but the nations there have a higher poverty rate, and are the centers of drug producing gangs. When you have large socially isolated populations living in poverty, you're going to get crime. (just to clarify, I'm not saying the immigrants are the cause because they're immigrants, or because they're from South America, or because they're whatever ethnic group... I'm saying POVERTY is the cause, and immigrants just happen to arrive generally in a state of poverty. Linked, but not causal.) I have access to plenty of guns. Never thought to shoot anyone who wasn't shooting at me. ...well, at least, not that wasn't a declared combatant in time of war. In that case, if I see them before they see me, I'm not waiting until they start shooting!

What would be reactive armor? The explosions in the video shown? No, that's the ammo cassette inside the T72 cooking off (it's specified as "combat loaded" in the video). Or do you mean TOW2B is designed to combat reactive armor? (which it is... it doesn't even use HEAT warheads anymore, it uses a dual-array EFP which is more effective against reactive armor) TOW2B has been in production for almost 20 years now. Plenty to go around.

Like I said, it just flies a couple meters over the tracking unit's crosshairs line-of-sight. Fuze is, as I recall, a combination magnetic unit and laser altimeter/ terrain profiler. And Patti, I expected better of you! Get back to your professional reading list! :D *edit* btw, the TOW2B is simulated in Steel Beasts, too. And it DOES make a huge difference. Way more lethal. They even simulated how it'll detonate if it overflies a destroyed tank. ...I like playing the Brads in SB, could you tell? *edit 2* Oh, btw, for anyone that's been keeping up on what I've been saying about the T80U being vastly overpowered in DCS? The reason the T72 above popped so dramatically is because the ammo is stowed in an unprotected autoloader carosel lining the entire turret floor. Yeah, by the way, the ammo stowage layout is used on the T80U. Horrible ammo layout. Incidentally, ALSO the reason Shermans picked up the bad reputation for burning early in WW2. Had nothing to do with gasoline vs diesel; the ammo was just unprotected. Later on, they moved it into a glycol-filled honeycombed structure that prevented cook-offs, at which point Shermans became pretty survivable. Never did shake the bad reputation, though.

Strictly speaking, they function the same, as far as the operator is concerned. The TOW-2B (the top attack one) just flies a couple meters above the crosshairs. Of course, in target effects, the 2B is much, much more lethal.

THAT I'll agree with. Even South Korea is developing indigenous supersonic ASMs... how the hell the US has managed to pass up on replacing harpoon for so long just boggles the mind. The only explanation I can think is that they're relying on first blinding the opponent's radar with HARM or Standard, like I suggested above. And, of course, Standard warheads might not be as underpowered against shipping as an earlier poster suggested- you have to keep in mind that no one really armors ships anymore. We aren't fighting WW2 dreadnoughts with thick armor belts- everyone relies on avoiding hits rather than absorbing them these days

Ok, but the battle in question also involved 4x F/A-18 (presumably ANOTHER 16 harpoon) and 2x B-52 (another 24 harpoon). And again, you're forgetting the VLS systems. Standard can be operated in SSM mode- and HAS been, quite successfully; read up on Operation Praying Mantis- and Standard is a small, supersonic missile. Sure, the warhead isn't optimized for antiship work, but it'll do the same trick HARM will against surface vessels: poke out their eyes. I don't care HOW many SA10 the PV is carrying, if it can't guide them onto a target. And VLS can also carry Tomahawk... I agree that the current ones are stocked primarily with TLAM, but I'd hesitate to claim there is no longer TASM capability. Either way, that's a LOT of Standards. And a properly coordinated attack is going to hit with a wave of them, followed by 56 harpoon timed to hit as a wave. Yes, I think the PV is going to have serious issues with that. I think it's going straight to the bottom in that kind of situation. Now, do I think one Ticonderoga will overcome PV unsupported? No, but that wasn't the question, now was it?

As I understand it, Shtora IS still effective against TOW. You have to keep in mind that while the guidance commands are sent to the missile through a secure wire link, the guidance system has to track the missile through a tracking scope that watches a flare in the rear of the missile to figure out where the missile is in relation to the sight. I'm not sure what wavelengths the flare operates in, but yes, a proper dazzler could theoretically fool the tracking scope into sending invalid commands.

How do you intend that M1A2 to take 2 or 3 hits when that's the entire load of missiles carried by the T-72/T-80 series? You have to remember they just don't carry that many missiles. And there's a reason the US dropped tube-launched missiles. After all, the US developed the Shillelagh tube-launched missile (with a guidance layout almost identical to Svir/ Reflecks, by the way) and abandoned them because even the large Shillelagh (152mm) couldn't pack a big enough HEAT warhead to be effective against modern armor (and this was in the 1970s!). No, there are plenty of things going for the T72/T80 series (HE ammo stowage, high cross-country speed, and low, small profile, mostly), but the missile is an over-rated gimmick.

Methinks a bit of perhaps national pride at work? There's no way that engagement would play out that way. I don't care how slow harpoon is, the US CGs can easily ripple fire enough to overwhelm the AD on the Velikiy; VLS has a VERY rapid fire rate since there's no need for launch rails or tubes to be reloaded before the follow-on shot