maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:18 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:15 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7071
Reputation points: 14215
abradley wrote:
Kameolontti wrote:
@abradley, I guess democrats had a heart towards the opinions and interests of Russians and Chinese. You know, because you guys must take their hopes and desires into count.
No, to the left wing Americans.

They love lefties.


Well, we have actual Soviet funded institutes such as Alexander Institute that get to act as "experts" on whatever Russia does.

For instance an interview after Russia had invaded Ukraine and conquered Crimea, the institute's "lead researcher" (rezident) said "there is nothing pointing towards Russia being in any way involved, besides, such an act would not be in the best interests of Russia".

YLE, the Finnish BBC broadcast this interview on the topic.

The feeling when some of your country's primary news sources are directly infiltrated by Russians, as their legacy from Cold War.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 12840
Reputation points: 2776
Kameolontti wrote:
...
Well, we have actual Soviet funded institutes such as Alexander Institute that get to act as "experts" on whatever Russia does.

For instance an interview after Russia had invaded Ukraine and conquered Crimea, the institute's "lead researcher" (rezident) said "there is nothing pointing towards Russia being in any way involved, besides, such an act would not be in the best interests of Russia".

YLE, the Finnish BBC broadcast this interview on the topic.

The feeling when some of your country's primary news sources are directly infiltrated by Russians, as their legacy from Cold War.

There is no institutes in the world founded by soviets. The USSR ended with the year 1991. ;)

But there are indeed some moles left behind (we know them). But that Alexander Institute would be full of real Russian agents like Johan Bäckman and Ilja Janitskin is just BS. And suggesting that YLE is spreading out russian propaganda is just silly. Only that Moscow correspondent Tsärstin Kruunwall seems to be more old style than the old timers ever were.

So it goes.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:42 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7071
Reputation points: 14215
nero wrote:
Kameolontti wrote:
...
Well, we have actual Soviet funded institutes such as Alexander Institute that get to act as "experts" on whatever Russia does.

For instance an interview after Russia had invaded Ukraine and conquered Crimea, the institute's "lead researcher" (rezident) said "there is nothing pointing towards Russia being in any way involved, besides, such an act would not be in the best interests of Russia".

YLE, the Finnish BBC broadcast this interview on the topic.

The feeling when some of your country's primary news sources are directly infiltrated by Russians, as their legacy from Cold War.

There is no institutes in the world founded by soviets. The USSR ended with the year 1991. ;)

But there are indeed some moles left behind (we know them). But that Alexander Institute would be full of real Russian agents like Johan Bäckman and Ilja Janitskin is just BS. And suggesting that YLE is spreading out russian propaganda is just silly. Only that Moscow correspondent Tsärstin Kruunwall seems to be more old style than the old timers ever were.

So it goes.


To be honest, YLE is an odd mix. They take out all patriotic broadcasting from TV, but from time to time they manage to still air some content that is patriotic - but it weighs a lot in my view that their mission itself is described as being multicultural and that they are so strongly axing patriotic content from their airing. It certainly wouldn't do any harm for them to keep up a decent percentage of patriotic programming, in fact that would be good use of the tax money.

It is an exaggeration that they don't show any patriotic content but the amount of it has been reduced significantly.

As for spreading propaganda, they do give a wide platform for leftists, pro-Russian "experts" etc. but then again they have also featured a few articles where they've tried to soften up the opposition to immigration criticism too.

For instance today's article is a good example:
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-9859467

To me YLE is a battleground, it's staff does have a sizable representation of leftists and commies but not wholly. On top of that it's under political guidance and it's mission was stated as being the opposite of patriotic one for some time. Now True Finns have been demanding more patriotism on the programming and I agree with them right there on that matter.


The problem is not some big lefty conspiracy. The problem is that we have a lot of lefties who are controlling the public discussion and trying to punish those that don't follow their rules for public discussion. This leads to right wingers too playing by their rules and falling for their rhetoric. We need to break the left's control of discussion.

That I exaggerate the impact of some things is that I'm worried of the direction of changes and that they just keep pushing and pushing without backing down or compromising. We need to fight the left and support patriotism, be proud of being patriots and not let the left shame us for caring about our country.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:37 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7071
Reputation points: 14215
Back on historic stuff, here are some 'plays' based on Meyer's manuscripts, I thought some of you might appreciate.


For instance check the 2:50, she initiates pflug, then does a cross step to pflug on the left and then switches through zornhau position on right to ochs on the right while her opponent constantly tries to counter.

At 3:15 she is countering Björn's attacks with pflug switches.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:47 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7071
Reputation points: 14215
Nice two part document explaining sword manufacturing and so, comparing Katana to Longsword.





If you're in a rush, just check 5:55 of the Part II, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_3W1zg683A&feature=youtu.be&t=356


Which one would you pick?

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:38 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14041
Reputation points: 8782

_________________
Even so, never go to a gunfight without a gun and, if you intend to win, never go to a religious war without religion. You'll lose.
tomkratman.com


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:10 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 17225
Reputation points: 13550
Sneaky cold war sub undertakings; always an interesting read! 8-)

HMS Conqueror’s biggest secret: a raid on Russia

It was dark, in the early hours, and the sea was freezing as Her Majesty’s Submarine Conqueror came to periscope depth. Her captain, Christopher Wreford-Brown, had been stalking his target methodically, a hunter in pursuit of wary prey. There she was, 1,000 yards ahead, slow-moving, seemingly unaware of the submarine coming up on her tail. Gathered around Commander Wreford-Brown in the darkened operations room, officers and men waited in silence, inner tension masked by outward calm. It was 1982 and this was the real thing.

HMS Conqueror is famous, some would say notorious, for sinking the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano. The nuclear-powered attack submarine, a type also known menacingly as a hunter-killer, that year became the first of her kind to fire in anger. The Belgrano was sent to bottom in short order, her ancient hull rent by two torpedoes: 323 men, many of them young conscripts, died. The Falklands war began in earnest that day, May 2 1982.

But the ship now in the crosswires was not the Belgrano. This was August, almost two months after the liberation of the Falklands, and on the other side of the world, in the Barents Sea, backyard of the mighty Soviet Northern Fleet. Conqueror was sailing as close to Russian territorial waters as was legally allowed – or maybe closer. Submariners, a tight-knit community, politely disdainful of their surface counterparts, joke that there are two types of naval vessel: submarines and targets. Wreford-Brown’s target was a spy trawler – an AGI in Nato parlance, meaning Auxiliary General Intelligence. Crammed with interception and detection equipment, they were a ubiquitous presence during the Cold War, shadowing Nato exercises or loitering off naval bases.

This one was special: Polish-flagged, she was pulling a device long coveted by the British and Americans, a two-mile string of hydrophones known as a towed-array sonar. It was the latest thing in Soviet submarine-detection technology and Conqueror’s job was to steal it. To do so, the bow was equipped with electronically controlled pincers, provided by the Americans, to gnaw through the three-inch-thick steel cable connecting it to the trawler. The name of this audacious exercise in piracy? Operation Barmaid.

Thirty years on, and the story of this mission, classified Top Secret to this day, is being told. It may be that the Russian government is learning for the first time the fate of what was one of its most closely guarded devices.


“This was a quite remarkable feat, a daring exploit that carried with it immense risk,” says the documentary maker Stuart Prebble, whose new book, Secrets of the Conqueror, discloses the existence of Barmaid. “When we think of the Cold War we think of Cuba and Berlin and missiles and tanks, but it was at sea, and under the sea in particular, where the East-West struggle was often at its most dangerous.

“I have known about Barmaid for nearly 30 years and two years ago I approached the Ministry of Defence and asked that its details be released under the 30-year rule. They spent eight months thinking about it and eventually came back and said no. Their final position was that, although they wouldn’t help, they wouldn’t try to stop me writing about it.”

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s the Anglo-Americans rested on their laurels, confident of their superiority in naval technology over the fledgling Soviet fleet. But as the 1970s wore on that confidence was eroded. Soviet submarines were not just becoming quieter and faster, they were able to turn the tables on their supposedly more advanced Western opponents. Submariners call it “bouncing”, the practice of creeping up on a hostile submarine before switching on active, wave-emitting sonar. The deafening ping in the earphones of the target crew tells them: “I’m here. If this was a war, you’d be dead.”

Towed-array sonar is different. It is passive and does not emit a signal. It floats at a prescribed depth, trailing behind a ship or submarine, simply listening for enemy submarines. Because the hydrophones are spaced out, they can achieve a multi-dimensional fix on a target, and are less vulnerable to noise from the host vessel. The American and British navies imagined themselves to be far ahead in this technology and were disturbed to discover that the Russians were matching them.

Had they caught up through ingenuity, or by spying?

The issue was sensitive for the British, who had been plagued by spy scandals in the post-war period. The “Portland Spy Ring” had betrayed naval secrets, as had the Admiralty clerk John Vassall. The Americans took the lead, conceiving a project to capture a towed array and discover its origins. General Dynamics, supplier of kit to the CIA, built the pincer equipment, which was installed in British submarines. But why not use the bigger US Navy?

“There are two schools of thought about that,” says Prebble, a former editor of World in Action. “The British believed they were selected because they had more skilled submariners, and exercises do seem to bear this out. British submariners tend not to play by the book to the extent that the Americans do.

“The more cynical view has it that if a British sub was caught the diplomatic fall-out would be less severe than if an American one was involved. No one wanted to provoke a superpower confrontation.”

Cutting a towed-array cable and making it look like an accidental loss was no easy task. Before Conqueror was fitted with the television-guided pincers, her sister ship HMS Churchill had tried to steam through an array to sever it from the towing ship. She was damaged and depth-charged for her pains. Conqueror made two attempts to use the pincers, in the Barents Sea and the Mediterranean, before her final attempt in August.

“When crews heard about these pincers, everybody thought it was absolutely crazy,” says Prebble. “Their use demanded the most brilliant seamanship, coming up from below into the array’s blind spot and edging towards the cutting point only a few yards from the tow ship. The pincers were designed to gnaw rather than slice cleanly to give the impression that the array had snagged on an underwater obstacle and been torn off.”

There, then, was Wreford-Brown, staring though his periscope that August night. The TV cameras were useless until a few inches from the target, so black was the Arctic water. Wreford-Brown and his officers had to fall back on mental arithmetic to calculate their distance from the target.

“That was the genius of the exercise,” says Prebble. “There is a way of approaching the blind spot that involves going deep and then coming up at an angle, literally below the vessel.”

The trawler’s propeller was feet away from Conqueror’s hull. A momentary miscalculation and a collision was inevitable. But nerves held and a connection was made. The pincer blades gnawed, and in seconds that seemed like hours the array was freed. Clamps held on to the cable as Conqueror dropped away to a safe depth, trailing the array by her side. :shock:

“Everyone in the control room was tense,” says one of those present. “We were expecting at any time that we would be discovered and were ready to run, if necessary.”

None of the crewmen who spoke to Prebble was prepared to confirm Conqueror’s position but the suspicion is that the operation took place inside Soviet territorial waters, just three miles from the coast. If discovered, the sub would have faced attack from Russian air and naval units. Once Conqueror reached a safe distance, divers were sent out to secure the array. The submarine later surfaced so that they could swim out again to haul the device aboard and bundle it in the hull.

Did the crew of the AGI know what had happened? Even if they suspected foul play it would not have been in their interests to admit it to their superiors. A sojourn in the gulag might have followed.

Immediately after Conqueror reached her base on the Clyde, the array was put on to an aircraft and sent for analysis in the United States. It is said that the name Conqueror was whispered with a certain reverence in the Pentagon for some time afterwards.

Following the sinking of the Belgrano, much speculation surrounded the disappearance of the Conqueror’s logs. The assumption in some quarters was that they had been destroyed to conceal embarrassing details about the submarine’s movements before and after the attack on the cruiser. Prebble thinks otherwise. “I believe the logs were shredded or incinerated to hide the Barents Sea operation,” he says. “This was a top-secret mission.”

The submarine arm is known as the Silent Service, partly because of its stealthy approach to warfare but also because of the secrecy attending its activities. Rarely does it receive public praise. Now, at least, we know of Operation Barmaid. The Conqueror’s crew had to celebrate their triumph in secret. Let’s hope they enjoyed a pint or two.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ussia.html

_________________
..
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:33 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 26293
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 15259
NefariousKoel wrote:
Sneaky cold war sub undertakings; always an interesting read! 8-)

HMS Conqueror’s biggest secret: a raid on Russia

It was dark, in the early hours, and the sea was freezing as Her Majesty’s Submarine Conqueror came to periscope depth. Her captain, Christopher Wreford-Brown, had been stalking his target methodically, a hunter in pursuit of wary prey. There she was, 1,000 yards ahead, slow-moving, seemingly unaware of the submarine coming up on her tail. Gathered around Commander Wreford-Brown in the darkened operations room, officers and men waited in silence, inner tension masked by outward calm. It was 1982 and this was the real thing.

HMS Conqueror is famous, some would say notorious, for sinking the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano. The nuclear-powered attack submarine, a type also known menacingly as a hunter-killer, that year became the first of her kind to fire in anger. The Belgrano was sent to bottom in short order, her ancient hull rent by two torpedoes: 323 men, many of them young conscripts, died. The Falklands war began in earnest that day, May 2 1982.

But the ship now in the crosswires was not the Belgrano. This was August, almost two months after the liberation of the Falklands, and on the other side of the world, in the Barents Sea, backyard of the mighty Soviet Northern Fleet. Conqueror was sailing as close to Russian territorial waters as was legally allowed – or maybe closer. Submariners, a tight-knit community, politely disdainful of their surface counterparts, joke that there are two types of naval vessel: submarines and targets. Wreford-Brown’s target was a spy trawler – an AGI in Nato parlance, meaning Auxiliary General Intelligence. Crammed with interception and detection equipment, they were a ubiquitous presence during the Cold War, shadowing Nato exercises or loitering off naval bases.

This one was special: Polish-flagged, she was pulling a device long coveted by the British and Americans, a two-mile string of hydrophones known as a towed-array sonar. It was the latest thing in Soviet submarine-detection technology and Conqueror’s job was to steal it. To do so, the bow was equipped with electronically controlled pincers, provided by the Americans, to gnaw through the three-inch-thick steel cable connecting it to the trawler. The name of this audacious exercise in piracy? Operation Barmaid.

Thirty years on, and the story of this mission, classified Top Secret to this day, is being told. It may be that the Russian government is learning for the first time the fate of what was one of its most closely guarded devices.


“This was a quite remarkable feat, a daring exploit that carried with it immense risk,” says the documentary maker Stuart Prebble, whose new book, Secrets of the Conqueror, discloses the existence of Barmaid. “When we think of the Cold War we think of Cuba and Berlin and missiles and tanks, but it was at sea, and under the sea in particular, where the East-West struggle was often at its most dangerous.

“I have known about Barmaid for nearly 30 years and two years ago I approached the Ministry of Defence and asked that its details be released under the 30-year rule. They spent eight months thinking about it and eventually came back and said no. Their final position was that, although they wouldn’t help, they wouldn’t try to stop me writing about it.”

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s the Anglo-Americans rested on their laurels, confident of their superiority in naval technology over the fledgling Soviet fleet. But as the 1970s wore on that confidence was eroded. Soviet submarines were not just becoming quieter and faster, they were able to turn the tables on their supposedly more advanced Western opponents. Submariners call it “bouncing”, the practice of creeping up on a hostile submarine before switching on active, wave-emitting sonar. The deafening ping in the earphones of the target crew tells them: “I’m here. If this was a war, you’d be dead.”

Towed-array sonar is different. It is passive and does not emit a signal. It floats at a prescribed depth, trailing behind a ship or submarine, simply listening for enemy submarines. Because the hydrophones are spaced out, they can achieve a multi-dimensional fix on a target, and are less vulnerable to noise from the host vessel. The American and British navies imagined themselves to be far ahead in this technology and were disturbed to discover that the Russians were matching them.

Had they caught up through ingenuity, or by spying?

The issue was sensitive for the British, who had been plagued by spy scandals in the post-war period. The “Portland Spy Ring” had betrayed naval secrets, as had the Admiralty clerk John Vassall. The Americans took the lead, conceiving a project to capture a towed array and discover its origins. General Dynamics, supplier of kit to the CIA, built the pincer equipment, which was installed in British submarines. But why not use the bigger US Navy?

“There are two schools of thought about that,” says Prebble, a former editor of World in Action. “The British believed they were selected because they had more skilled submariners, and exercises do seem to bear this out. British submariners tend not to play by the book to the extent that the Americans do.

“The more cynical view has it that if a British sub was caught the diplomatic fall-out would be less severe than if an American one was involved. No one wanted to provoke a superpower confrontation.”

Cutting a towed-array cable and making it look like an accidental loss was no easy task. Before Conqueror was fitted with the television-guided pincers, her sister ship HMS Churchill had tried to steam through an array to sever it from the towing ship. She was damaged and depth-charged for her pains. Conqueror made two attempts to use the pincers, in the Barents Sea and the Mediterranean, before her final attempt in August.

“When crews heard about these pincers, everybody thought it was absolutely crazy,” says Prebble. “Their use demanded the most brilliant seamanship, coming up from below into the array’s blind spot and edging towards the cutting point only a few yards from the tow ship. The pincers were designed to gnaw rather than slice cleanly to give the impression that the array had snagged on an underwater obstacle and been torn off.”

There, then, was Wreford-Brown, staring though his periscope that August night. The TV cameras were useless until a few inches from the target, so black was the Arctic water. Wreford-Brown and his officers had to fall back on mental arithmetic to calculate their distance from the target.

“That was the genius of the exercise,” says Prebble. “There is a way of approaching the blind spot that involves going deep and then coming up at an angle, literally below the vessel.”

The trawler’s propeller was feet away from Conqueror’s hull. A momentary miscalculation and a collision was inevitable. But nerves held and a connection was made. The pincer blades gnawed, and in seconds that seemed like hours the array was freed. Clamps held on to the cable as Conqueror dropped away to a safe depth, trailing the array by her side. :shock:

“Everyone in the control room was tense,” says one of those present. “We were expecting at any time that we would be discovered and were ready to run, if necessary.”

None of the crewmen who spoke to Prebble was prepared to confirm Conqueror’s position but the suspicion is that the operation took place inside Soviet territorial waters, just three miles from the coast. If discovered, the sub would have faced attack from Russian air and naval units. Once Conqueror reached a safe distance, divers were sent out to secure the array. The submarine later surfaced so that they could swim out again to haul the device aboard and bundle it in the hull.

Did the crew of the AGI know what had happened? Even if they suspected foul play it would not have been in their interests to admit it to their superiors. A sojourn in the gulag might have followed.

Immediately after Conqueror reached her base on the Clyde, the array was put on to an aircraft and sent for analysis in the United States. It is said that the name Conqueror was whispered with a certain reverence in the Pentagon for some time afterwards.

Following the sinking of the Belgrano, much speculation surrounded the disappearance of the Conqueror’s logs. The assumption in some quarters was that they had been destroyed to conceal embarrassing details about the submarine’s movements before and after the attack on the cruiser. Prebble thinks otherwise. “I believe the logs were shredded or incinerated to hide the Barents Sea operation,” he says. “This was a top-secret mission.”

The submarine arm is known as the Silent Service, partly because of its stealthy approach to warfare but also because of the secrecy attending its activities. Rarely does it receive public praise. Now, at least, we know of Operation Barmaid. The Conqueror’s crew had to celebrate their triumph in secret. Let’s hope they enjoyed a pint or two.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ussia.html



Cool story.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:13 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7071
Reputation points: 14215
abradley wrote:


That stuff is calling for injuries. You have to be really, really careful with blunts not to cause injuries. Even light hits with swords and spears will bruise you heavily.

I know because I got a bruise the size of half a fist from a thrust to my gorget by a longsword, it took almost two weeks for the bruise to disappear. It didn't hurt, mind you, but considering that the thrust nearly toppled me and caused such a bruise through a thick padded fencing jacket and the gorget beneath it, you get the point.

And now, with no protective gear if you're trying to avoid injury it means that you have to move really slowly. So slow in fact that it doesn't really feel like a melee at all. Those long shafts have a tremendous amount of leverage and you can't really swing them at the opponents feet, which is a great tactic with spears as it prevents the enemy from grabbing your spear and is also kind of sneaky but all the more effective.

And no facial protection? That's asking for eye damage in the long run. The reason why we have reinforced purpose made fencing masks is because when we fight the masks themselves that can cost more than 300$ will break apart in the long run. In fact all our protective gear as well as our training swords (strong steel feders) do break down with use even though they're built to last and take a beating.

Even one on one eyes and face are always in danger but with a melee with a bunch of people swinging stuff in close proximity, you're bound to get hit from unexpected direction especially if you went for historically tight formations.


The reason I'm saying all this is, even with the top of the line modern protective gear which costs easily 1500$ a set you still need to hold back a little and cannot use anything longer than longsword, it just looks reckless to go at it without any protection at all without losing all sense of actual sparring or melee, without it ending up being slow paced super friendly game of tag.

No offense to these guys. I'm just worried for their safety and personally I prefer being able to go at it with intent, trusting that the protective gear will mostly keep the other guy safe from serious injury while I can focus on making fast attacks to any openings I see.


------------
@
NefariousKoel, cool story!

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military stuff ... past and present.
PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:21 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14041
Reputation points: 8782
Quote:
Soviet-era screw-propelled truck returns
By Dan Elsom, The Sun
http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/10/05/ ... turns.html

In the comments there are some questions as to by who and when the screw vehicle were first used.


_________________
Even so, never go to a gunfight without a gun and, if you intend to win, never go to a religious war without religion. You'll lose.
tomkratman.com


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 201 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group