Shipbucket

Basically, whenever you run into an internet rant complaining about either the F-35 or the M1 those are the points they bring up. There'll be no sources for said ranting and the author will ignore any signs of progress for the F-35 and any sign of combat effectiveness for the M-1 while violently jerking off to whatever he (And it's inevitably going to be a he) thinks is a better alternative.
In case of the M1 the arguments have been going on since the late 1960ies.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Shipbucket would be so dull and boring if you did not have the odd idiot like Heuhen and I.

Crazy drawings, outlandish ideas, funny comments, we have them all covered. People around SB can be so serious, the mood needs to be lightened occasionally.

The thing that gets me is that some of those comments seem quite reasoned and accurate - the fuel consumption on the Abrams is quite high, as I understand it. OK, understood. Still doesn't mean that it was an invalid design choice or a bad tank, though? If it gets you more than it costs you (smaller silhouette, lightweight unit engine that can be switched out easily...), that's pretty much the definition of a good engineering decision, no?

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

you a Bloody Finn was presuming you was the mad one.

Individually and taken in a vacuum they are reasonable, but neither is terribly relevant in the real world.
Take the engine as an example. At the time they designed the M1 true multi-fuel high power diesel engines weren't really a thing yet despite claims to the contrary. At the time the M1 entered service the Leopard 1 could run on a variety of grades of diesel while the M1 could run on anything they could force through the fuel filters.
I could go on and on, but the end conclusion is that its a compromise that made sense at the time. Still does to some extend though a diesel upgrade is looking more and more tempting.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Yeah, the engine as an example shows part of the design environment as well ... the US probably has the biggest support infrastructure on the planet. A class of tanks that's a bit maintenance heavy (but has other virtues) would make more sense for the US than any other nation, I think, they'd be able to absorb that burden better than any other nation.

Edit: s/maintenance/Maintenance \ support - any ongoing cost to operating the thing...

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

On the F35 VS F16.... I saw a Video on YouTube, where one of the test pilots of the F35, said that when they did that test, they did it with a F35 where not all of it's computers was installed yet. All they wanted to test, was some moves, so they could use those data when programing the F35 computers, it was never a test to see what is best!

But comment section, is always retarded.... Just like me some times...

Safety is important:











But always film it, with you'r GoPro, so we can laugh:



While we have a nice dinner:

Moving an oil rig in Norway. (Troll A)




Norwegian Home guard, looks sometimes like modern Vikings:

Home Guard looks like Hells Angels with guns and camo.