» »

Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 3  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 »
[Print view]
Author Message
Thiel
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 15th, 2011, 7:37 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
klagldsf wrote:
And he's honestly the only person who believes it at this point (at least, God hope so).
You still see a few of his followers on DefenceTalk, but they're getting rare.

_________________
“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.
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 15th, 2011, 8:33 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
klagldsf wrote:
Sparky had some good ideas, and then rapidly fell into madness by believing his own hype in extremes not seen since L. Ron Hubbard. The M113 is an example of this - yes, it's a little more air-portable than similar AFVs, but then he started to really dive off into the hype he himself created for it. And he's honestly the only person who believes it at this point (at least, God hope so).
One of the problems is that IIRC one or two of Sparky's ideas have been good, but because they get mixed in with the rest of the junk they get ignored (can't remember what they even were).

One thing a friend of mine proposed is that someone share an idea with him that on the outside looks good, but has some flaw that makes the whole thing really really dumb, and watch the sparks (pun intended) fly. As far as I know this was never actually attempted.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 15th, 2011, 8:43 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
TimothyC wrote:
As far as I know this was never actually attempted.
...until now, you mean :D
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Scifibug
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 16th, 2011, 7:14 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 250
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 6:35 pm
Location: Titusville, Florida
I'd still love to try to sim some of his ideas in a game just to see what happens.*)
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 16th, 2011, 7:23 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
The M113 starts out by sinking. :D

_________________
“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.
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 17th, 2011, 5:31 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
M113s can swim, but I think it requires flotation gear. And the whole point of a truly amphibious AFV is to not require flotation gear (the M551 Sheridan, for example, required less flotation gear which can be rolled up onto the hull when not in use).

About the only thing the M113 can claim over the M2/3 Bradley is that it actually can float better, but that's not the result of foresight on the M113's designers' part, but rather the Bradley's failure to be as amphibious as advertised because its manufacturer outright lied to the military and government.
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 17th, 2011, 6:27 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
The upgraded versions of the M113 can't float, and I'm unaware of any floatation gear being made for them.
The older versions had them, but they had this annoying to go "Look, an enemy!" *Boom*

_________________
“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.
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
HMS Sophia
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 18th, 2011, 9:37 pm
Offline
Posts: 863
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 10:34 am
Thiel wrote:
To truly understand the madness, look up his opinion of the M113.
For some reason he think it's the epitome of AFV development, despite the fact that pretty much everyone is getting rid of it has soon as they can afford a replacement.
You mean the M113 Gavin of course :roll:
I cant believe he got that listed on wikipedia as a nickname of the machine :lol:
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 18th, 2011, 9:44 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Actually, that's been edited.
Right now it says this instead
Quote:
While some claim the M113 has been nicknamed "Gavin" (after General James M. Gavin), this is not an official designation. One observer said "I have never, never heard anybody use the name “Gavin” for the M-113. Not in the US nor in any of the many countries that use the vehicle. Not in the military forces, not in the companies that build and equip it, not in the groups that retrofit and repair it."[25]

_________________
“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.
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
HMS Sophia
Post subject: Re: To much candy!Posted: May 19th, 2011, 11:38 am
Offline
Posts: 863
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 10:34 am
Well at least it has a disclaimer now :P I'm glad for that much.
Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 3  [ 21 posts ]  Return to “Sources and Reference Drawings” | Go to page « 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]