Gepard

This will become a little bit OT and has few to do with the movie "Fury". But okay. There was a lot of training i had, starting with molotow cocktail, anti tank handgranade, RPG-7 (only a short introduction), RPG-18 (a lot of time), anti tank mines, making of geballte Ladung (dont know the english term), detecting weak and strong points of panzers, creep into the "dead zones" of a panzer and so on and so on and so on. What a waste of time. I made some mobilephonephotos of my old military handbook which covers a little bit basic knowledge of Panzernahbekämpfung. The more important handbook "Panzernahbekämpfung moderner Panzer und Schützenpanzer der NATO" i have at home too. But i will not release pages here, because I dont know, who will read it and i dont want to give the know how to kill an Abrams in wrong hands.

Really nice work.

Die Antwort ist bisher eingegangen:

Ich habe gerade im FF die Frage nach dem Alphajet HUD gestellt. Mal sehen ob und welche Antworten kommen. Ich habe aber im Netz folgende Seite zum Alphajetcockpit gefunden. http://home.comcast.net/~bimmer4011/The-Cockpit.htm Da ist folgende Dartstellung zu sehen.

I have learned to knock out tanks from close distance from the scratch. Panzernahbekämpfung was the german term. Believe me, the movieend is LOL.

One Sherman vs hundrets of german soldiers which are armed with Panzerfaust and the Sherman survived. LOL. This tank was known as "Tommy-Kocher" or "Ami-Kocher". One shot with Panzerfaust and the tankcrew will sit on the cloud and sing with the angles. This picture shows a Sherman after hit by Panzerfaust. Its cooked, thatswhy "Ami-Kocher". And this would have been the end of the movie from tactical and technical standpoint. But this would not have been heroic enough for Hollywood.

Its a correct ban. If a player countiniously attacks referees and other players then he should banned for ever.

Cool

Its astonishing how similar are american and soviet WW2 movies. All american/soviet soldiers are great heros, smart, brave invincible. The Krauts/Fritzuji are dumb cowards. "Fury" has some good points. The effects are nice, but seen from tactical and technical poit of view it is ridiculus. Its like George Lucas "Red Tails" nonsense.

The north vietnamese too? They used it against China in 1979 and their pilots loved the Tiger more than the MiG-21.

I agree with you. To much testosteron and to less brain on both sides. The real danger is seen over a long term the growing China and the african emigration. On short term the arabic turmoil.

Bad news. Its the second disaster for private financed US space projects.

"Dolsschloss" thats nice. "Dollschloss", its a funny "denglish" term (or should i say "germlish"?) what would mean "puppetpalace" or so. I think you mean "Dolchstoß" what could be translated with "dagger stab".

The russians are flying over international waters, did not enter the airspace of a NATO or EU state. So what!!! Its pure routine since years. Its a funny kind of panicmongering. Someone is interessted to increase the military spending, but without a threat the national parliaments will not rise the budgets. So a normal routine thing is billow out to a new danger for the free world and fearsome members of the parliament will be ready to vote for higher military budget. I have a new idea for anti russian panicmongering. We must defend the free world of Europe against the annual invading of russian crows (rooks). Every autumns millions of this ugly birds are invading Central and Western Europe and poison the soil with their p... and harm our ears with rasping. I vote for a drastical increasing the numbers of Eurofighter to shoot down this red black russian aggressors.

I would at a 12th point. No german mobilization in 1914. If Wilhelm II would not have signed the order of mobilization and the declaration of war the whole mess would not have happen.

In the ARTE mediathek the TV report was not longer available. But i found this skrip of an interview which the former US minister of defence C. Weinberger gave the swedish TV. https://web.archive.org/web/20040320162148/http://www.svt.se/nyheter/2000/000308/intervju.htm it is translated with Google translater tool Here is the full interview with US former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the SVT program Striptease. Striptease: Which NATO countries would have been most interested in infringing Swedish waters? Weinberger: It would obviously have been a part of NATO's activity as a defense alliance that there were defenses in all parts of the field against the Soviet submarine attacks, and it was undoubtedly events when NATO was trying to ensure that there was adequate coastal defense throughout the Alliance. Striptease: According to my information, NATO tested the Swedish defense? Weinberger: I think they tested all defense occasionally to see if there were gaps that could become clogged, especially after the Soviet submarine violation. In all probability, tested them, yes. Striptease: But the American, British and German submarines involved in these operations? Weinberger: US contributed many submarines to NATO, I do not think that Germany did, but it did, it definitely, and England did that and a number of other countries. Germany was indeed a member of NATO, but Germany did not contribute any significant naval force to NATO. Striptease: During the Cold War? Weinberger: During the Cold War, yes. Striptease: But it is not a political risk sending in NATO submarines in Swedish waters? Weinberger: I think there were consultations with the Swedish government. I know of no time when it was an intrusion by the Swedish government did not know. Striptease: So there was an agreement? Weinberger: I do not know if it was a contract. But there were consultations. It was generally understood by NATO countries and non-NATO countries, that a part of NATO's mission was a capable defense against all types of attacks, mainly from the Soviet Union. To meet that mission, we made sure that we had adequate defense. Therefore it was necessary to tesa them occasionally. If you want to know if the weapons are effective. So you have to test the weapon. Striptease: But when NATO submarines did intrusion into Swedish waters, you accept that the Swedish Navy dropped depth charges? Weinberger: As far as I understand there was consultation and mutual understanding that there would be different types of tests and trials to ensure that the defense in the Swedish area was effective and it was not as far as I know there is no type of confrontation between Sweden and NATO strengths at any one time. Striptease: But the Swedes were chasing submarines all the time? Weinberger: It is normal for a country to ensure its sovereignty and that the waters will not be violated and invaded. And NATO's job was to defend all these waters against an attack, to attack up there had threatened NATO's European sectors directly. But as far as I know, there were no intrusions and tests of Swedish water without consultation. You are talking about a deal .... I do not think there was. But I think there were consultations that led to a mutual understanding on a specific case, for a particular situation, a special maneuver. That it would be agreed that it would be done. And it's very much in Sweden's interest to have their water defended and it was of course widely known that NATO would not invade Sweden. So it would be in the Swedish government's interest that they had all the help they needed - they needed someone - to protect its sovereignty in the water. Striptease: But at what level were these consultations? Weinberger: General of the Marine to Marine. The US Navy and the Swedish navy, I would think. The Swedish Navy is part of the Swedish government. And the US Navy is part of the US government. There would be responsible on both sides that would have discussions and consultations and agreements would float after it. If Sweden said we do not want any intrusion into that area in the month, it would certainly have been respected by NATO. Striptease: But other areas would have been OK? Weinberger: It depends on the response from the Swedish government and the officials who were responsible for the negotiations. What I'm saying is that no time, as far as I know, NATO sent a submarine directly into Swedish waters without consultation and prior discussions and agreements that it could be done. And during those circumstances, it was no problem. It was part of a routine and regularly seriously test that NATO did and had to do. It would have been irresponsible not to do so. Striptease: Where minubåtar involved in these tests? Weinberger: I do not know the level or type of instruments used. But all that was consulted and discussed ... we had all kinds of submarines and we also had to know where Soviet submarines were at all times. And we had the capacity to do so. It required that our submarines were mobile and could be moved around and they did. But we did not infringe on the sovereignty of any NATO member country or another. What was done was done as part of defense preparations that had to be done and had to be checked and updated. And it was very much in Sweden's interest and it was very much in favor of NATO that it was done. What I understand is what these consultations was about and I know of no time when Sweden protested and when there was no infringement that had not been previously discussed. And when it is discussed and agreed upon, it is not an intrusion. Striptease: Have you discussed this with the Swedish defense minister or the prime minister? Weinberger: Did I? No but I'm sure there were standing instructions and the Navy would not go into the fields ... The general instructions for the Navy was that they first of all was under NATO command - the units that were assigned NATO - we had other devices. But the units were assigned to NATO was under .... NATO's procedure was that NATO did arrangements and permits necessary to conduct the kind of testing that NATO had to do so that they could carry out their mission. As was to defend against a Soviet attack. It (U137) were clearly violating that submarines can go where they are not wanted. That's why we made ​​the defense tests and försvarsmanövrarna to insure that they could not do it without being detected. Just the submarine was in Swedish waters and ran aground in an area where they could not deny that they were in Swedish waters. It was plainly visible to all. It was exactly the sort of thing that NATO was trying to test for not allowing it to happen. There was much in Sweden's interest that it did not happen. Striptease: But the Swedish people believed that it was only Soviet submarines that infringed in Swedish waters? Weinberger: I think it is obvious that the submarines that came in and that was not Soviet submarines - as far as I understand - came after consultation and with knowledge that they would do certain tasks in the Swedish government agreed that they would do. I do not call it intrusion. Striptease: What cooperation was between Sweden and NATO during these years? Weinberger: Satisfactory. Striptease: In what way? Weinberger: NATO's mission was not to allow Soviet invasions or attacks. The consultations and discussions we had with all countries - not just Sweden - was to ensure that NATO was capable of carrying out this mission, and the opportunity to test the operation and activities of the defenses were adequate. If the Soviet Union had any new capacity that required CHANGES defenses or something. So the result of all this was, as I see it very satisfying. Apart from the intrusion of a Whiskey Submarine - there were no violations, no capability of Soviet make an attack that it was impossible to defend against. It was NATO missions. It was requested cooperation with many countries that we had. It was entirely satisfactory. Striptease: So what you are saying is that you do not deny that even NATO's mini submarines came in deep in the Swedish archipelago? Weinberger: There is no question of recognizing or denying. There is the question of discussing the preparations we make to be sure that the defenses are adequate against Soviet attack. I have no idea of ​​the mini submarines or large submarines and attack submarines or nuclear submarines or whatever it was. The point was that it was necessary to test FREQUENCY test the capacity of all countries - not only in the Baltic Sea - which was very strategically important - but also in the Mediterranean, in Asian waters and everywhere - defense against Soviet capabilities and intentions. We had to know what their intentions were - we had to gather intelligence information and we had to try every now and then to be sure that our defense plans were updated and sufficient ... that we would be able to Resisting all scenarios very Soviet power and Soviet capabilities. It was done regularly. It was not only at sea, it was done against air forces, land defenses, it was done to prevent possible landing area. And when I say that it was satisfactory. I mean - it was not a Soviet invasion. It was the test. Striptease: But how regularly it was in Sweden? Weinberger: I do not know. Enough that it would work together with the military's requirement to ensure that there was updated information and tests. We would know when the Soviets had new submarines. We were then forced to see if the defenses were adequate against them and if we had intelligence capacity to know where these submarines were at every opportunity. All this was done on a regular basis and in a manner agreed. It was about every single occasion. The program broadcasts of Wednesday, 03/08 at 14:30 to BBC1, and Sunday, 12/03 at 10:50 SVT2.

My info came from a TV report of the TV station ARTE. This is a german french public law TV station which usually broadcast good and correct background informations. The TV report was about espionage in cold war and old spooks of both sides (KGB,CIA, HVA, BND, MI6, MOSSAD) told their stories. So, for instance, the air spionage against the GDR by american planes from the 3 air corridors to Berlin was explained and the story of the HVA agent "Topas" who sat in the NATO HQ and sent infos to Berlin so fast, that in the most cases the HVA had it earlier on the table than the NATO sectretary general. And there an old CIA spooks told the story about the actions of US submarines inside the swedish waters. The Whiskey on the rocks story he explained so, that Navy Seals were able to place a "box" on the skin of the boat which caused a certain deflection (deviation?) in the soviet navsys which cumulated by the time and caused a fatal missleading from intended course. I will try to find this report in the ARTE mediathek.

Ich stelle mal zwei Bilder ein. Beide zeigen die MiG-17PF in Gatow. Das eine ist von 2010, das andere hat ein Typ mit dem Nick "Wolzow" vor ein paar Tagen im Flugzeugforum gepostet und dieses Bild ist nur wenige Tage alt. Ich glaube der Unterschied ist deutlich. Aus einer vergammelten Rostlaube haben die Jungs aus Gatow einen hübschen Vogel gezaubert.

Yep, so it was said in the 80th. 20 years later the cover was lifted and the truth came out, that US submarines had playing hide and seek with the swedish Navy. And the smörebod Navy was always thinking, that they were hunting the russian bear. The best thing what happend was, when the US Navy was able to manipulate the nav system of a soviet submarine of the Whiskey class and it stranded on the swedish coast. Whiskey on the rocks. That was great!

The pilot with the open visor is wearing an old MiG-21 style helmet and a non soviet oxygen mask. While the pilot with the red star is wearing the original soviet MiG-29 helmet and oxygen mask. The german MiG-29 pilots used only for a short time the soviet helmet and changed later to the NATO style helmet. Interesstingly the most pilots said, that the soviet helmet was the better one.

Its a display team! Tornado and Jaguar are not well known for agility. They should stay with the Hawks. Cost efficient solution.

The Nobel Peace Price is worth nothing. The intention was to award this price to the one who had done the most important effort for peace in the last year. But since decades it is awarded to people who pissed some unloved other peoples leg. For instance Walesa. He had done nothing for peace, but pissed the commies leg. For instance Obama, he had done nothing for peace but pissed Bushs leg. For instance the EU ..... Eh "Fuck EU"

Select the target by pressing the E Button and then press the fire button. Thats it. But make sure that your plane has a laser designator. Either pod or inbuilt system.

http://combatace.com/topic/83150-german-eurofighter-had-midair-collision-with-learjet/

Russia isn't a communist state. Its a nationalist state.