Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

This is totally innocent, you guys.

China submarines outnumber U.S. fleet: U.S. Admiral
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/ ... NE20150225?

No. There is no way to reassure anyone that a disaster is not a disaster.

We are truly in the Dark Ages of the United States. At least that's what the eight years of this regime will be called if the country turns around. If not, the Commies will probably refer to it as the New Dawn or some such Orwellian double-speak. And God help us all in that scenario.

They also have more people too but that doesn't mean anything. Even the admiral said they're inferior quality. The article briefly mentions the number of Chinese support ships available but gives no US comparable information (I'm assuming we have more ships overall) or the overall quality of those ships. This article is just a good piece to "justify" increased military spending.

People think our "small" military is a national security issue, but the real national security threat is our unsustainable debt. No one is going to invade the US until our currency is worthless and by then any sized military won't be able to keep anyone out.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

China's end goal is retaking Taiwan and Pacific domination.

ShotgunBlast wrote:They also have more people too but that doesn't mean anything. Even the admiral said they're inferior quality.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I hope that's grounds for optimism, but the Sherman tank of WWII was vastly inferior to the least capable of the Wermacht's panzers. We beat them by weight of numbers.

dorminWS wrote:I hope that's grounds for optimism, but the Sherman tank of WWII was vastly inferior to the least capable of the Wermacht's panzers. We beat them by weight of numbers.

Actually, the M4 Sherman was vastly superior mechanically than any other tank on the battlefield at that time. Unfortunately for the men that operated it, it had a short-barreled low velocity main gun and thinner armor.

OakRidgeStars wrote:

dorminWS wrote:I hope that's grounds for optimism, but the Sherman tank of WWII was vastly inferior to the least capable of the Wermacht's panzers. We beat them by weight of numbers.

Actually, the M4 Sherman was vastly superior mechanically than any other tank on the battlefield at that time. Unfortunately for the men that operated it, it had a short-barreled low velocity main gun and thinner armor.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And a gasoline engine; which made them so prone to explode in a ball of fire when hit that they were called "Ronsons" ( a brand of cigarette lighter) by their crews.

I'll stand by what I said. Those three small details made them vastly inferior to the panzers. Doesn't matter if the engine and drive train (made mostly by Cadillac, if I'm not mistaken) runs like a top if the dang thing is shot full of holes and on fire.

remember this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... faced.html

dorminWS wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:

dorminWS wrote:I hope that's grounds for optimism, but the Sherman tank of WWII was vastly inferior to the least capable of the Wermacht's panzers. We beat them by weight of numbers.

Actually, the M4 Sherman was vastly superior mechanically than any other tank on the battlefield at that time. Unfortunately for the men that operated it, it had a short-barreled low velocity main gun and thinner armor.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And a gasoline engine; which made them so prone to explode in a ball of fire when hit that they were called "Ronsons" ( a brand of cigarette lighter) by their crews.

I'll stand by what I said. Those three small details made them vastly inferior to the panzers. Doesn't matter if the engine and drive train (made mostly by Cadillac, if I'm not mistaken) runs like a top if the dang thing is shot full of holes and on fire.

dorminWS, It was not vastly inferior to most of the German armor. in fact it was very much on par or superior to most of what was in the field. The most numerous tank in in the German inventory was the Mark IV not the panther or tigers, which did in fact have better armor and firepower than the Sherman. The truth about the Sherman's engines is the taller relative height of the tank was required because of the use of a radial engines in the original design. The use of Cadillac engines were limited to the smaller Stuart family of tanks. All told some of the tanks had the Continental radial engine, an engine known as a Chrysler multibank which was actually multiple inline Chryslers joined together so it was more than a V shaped engine, a big Ford V8 (one lives in the tank in the tank museum in Danville) and the diesel versions which had either a pair of GM Detroit Diesel 6-71s or a Caterpillar/Wright radial diesel. The U.S. leadership made a conscious decision to give away most of the diesels in the lend/lease program.

Armored vehicles and individual Soldiers have always had to work with 3 elements which are traded off to offer an edge in one of the other categories and subcategories to each of the 3 elements. Those three elements are Mobility, Firepower and Protection. Mobility is both being able to traverse terrain and obstacles and being able to be deployed. Tigers and Panthers were much heavier (and later designs) than the M4. The M4s were able to go in terrain the German armor could not go and they had to use that to make up for their lower level of armor. Just the ability to drive lighter tanks across more bridges can offer an advantage. It could be said our M1A2s are the modern day equivalent of the tigers, while the Russian tanks are more like the Shermans. As for firepower it has 4 elements, the actual power or damage caused by the round, the number of rounds carried, the volume of fire and the accuracy with which it is applied. Older American tankers who fight with more modern ones are fun to watch. The older 105MM tanks carried a larger number of rounds that the 120MM tanks and they will argue over which is a better round, just like the Infantry 5.56 MM versus 7.62MM's, 210 versus 100 rounds argument. Against the Mark IVs the early Sherman was pretty much an even match power wise, similar velocity 75MMs. With it's superior cross country ability and it's early stabilization allowing it to fire on the move more accurately it definitely had the edge. The Leadership made decisions along the way to allow them to maximize the number of tanks on the battlefield versus developing the next generation. It could be argued that more recently, the Generals during the Iraq war were saying the same kind of thing about the HMMWV versus the development of the MRAP. Last in the discussion is the protection or armor. The M4 family put on a lot of weight going from about 26 tons to around 40 for the M4A3E8, which was equipped with a 76MM high velocity gun and enough armor to make it comparable to the panther. It was still in use during the Korean war and was a fairly even match for the T34/85s that the North Koreans used. The "Easy Eights" were not nearly as numerous as the other Shermans. The best option for a Sherman to deal with tigers was to call in artillery or close air support to solve the problem.

We arguing semantics...

As Yamamoto said "Behind every blade of grass, there is a rifle."

Even if the progressive/communists won't ADMIT it? That's what's kept us safe. But if we lose the dollar, and the country falls? We're going to be divided, and that's going to make us easier to conquer.