I knew I'm not the only one disappointed they didn't fire up the roof mounted Phalanx CIWSs. I'm pretty certain 20mm is big enough for unarmored infantry, and it puts nearly double the rounds down range per second, is far more accurate (not that accuracy matters with a Vulcan cannon) and has 1550 rounds per clip, reloaded in under 4 minutes by two people, compared to 1350 30mm total in a warthog.

A big part of the Zero's reputation came from racking up kills in China against a lot of second-rate planes with poorly-trained pilots. After all, there was a reason that the Republic of China hired the American Volunteer Group to help out during the Second Sino-Japanese War – Chinese pilots had a hard time cutting it.

The Wildcat was deficient in many ways versus the Zero, but it still had superior firepower via ammo loadout. The Zero carried very few 20mm rounds, most of it's ammo was 7.7mm. There are records of Japanese pilots unloading all their 7.7mm ammo on a Wildcat and it was still flyable. On the flip side, the Wildcat had an ample supply of .50 cal.

Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa was able to score seven kills against Japanese planes in one day with a Wildcat.

Yes, the discovery of the Akutan Zero helped the United States beat this plane. But MilitaryFactory.com notes that the Hellcat's first flight was on June 26, 1942 – three weeks after the raid on Dutch Harbor that lead to the fateful crash-landing of the Mitsubishi A6M flown by Tadayoshi Koga.

Marine Captain Kenneth Walsh described how he knew to roll to the right at high speed to lose a Zero on his tail. Walsh would end World War II with 17 kills. The Zero also had trouble in dives, thanks to a bad carburetor.

We were behind in technology for many reasons, but once the Hellcat started replacing the Wildcat, the Japanese Air Superiority was over. Even if they had maintained a lead in technology, as Russia showed in WW2, quantity has a quality all of it's own. We were always going to be able to field more pilots and planes than Japan would be able to.

As far as Soviet rockets, once we were stunned by the launch of Sputnik, we kicked into high gear. You can say what you will of reliability, consistency, and dependability, but exactly how many manned Soviet missions landed on the moon and returned? Other than Buran, which was almost a copy of our Space Shuttle, how many shuttles did the USSR field?

The Soviets did build some things that were very sophisticated and were, for a while, better than what we could field. The Mig-31 is a great example. We briefly lagged behind but have a much superior air capability now. The only advantages the Mig and Sukhoi have is speed, they can fire all their missiles and flee. If they are engaged however, they will lose if pilots are equally skilled.

As @newtboy has said, I am sure that Russia and China are working on military advancements, but the technology simply doesn't exist to make a Hypersonic missile possible at this point.

China is fielding a man portable rifle that can inflict pain, not kill, and there is no hard evidence that it works.

There is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. We also have created successful railguns, the problem is POWERING them repeatedly, especially onboard a ship. If they figured out a power source that will pull it off, then it is possible, but there is no concrete proof other than a photo of a weapon attached to a ship. Our experts are guessing they might have it functional by 2025, might...

China has shown that long range QEEC is possible. It has been around but they created the first one capable of doing it from space. The problem is, they had to jury rig it. Photons, or light, can only go through about 100 kilometers of optic fiber before getting too dim to reliably carry data. As a result, the signal needs to be relayed by a node, which decrypts and re-encrypts the data before passing it on. This process makes the nodes susceptible to hacking. There are 32 of these nodes for the Beijing-Shanghai quantum link alone.

The main issue with warfare today is that it really doesn't matter unless the battle is between one of the big 3. Which means that ANY action could provoke Nuclear conflict. Is Russia going to hypersonic missile one of our carriers without Nukes become an option on the table as a retaliation? Is China going to railgun a ship and risk nuclear war?

Hell no, no more than we would expect to blow up some major Russian or Chinese piece of military hardware without severe escalation! Which means we can create all the technological terrors we like, because we WON'T use them unless they somehow provide us a defense against nuclear annihilation.

So just like China and Russia steal stuff from us to build military hardware to counter ours, if they create something that is significantly better, we will began trying to duplicate it. The only thing which would screw this system to hell is if one of us actually did begin developing a successful counter measure to nukes. If that happens, both of the other nations are quite likely to threaten IMMEDIATE thermonuclear war to prevent that country from developing enough of the counter measures to break the tie.

When you have neither speed nor maneuverability, it's your own durability that is in question, not the opponents durability.

It took the capture of the Akutan zero, its repair, and U.S. flight testing, to work out countermeasures to the zero.

The countermeasures were basically :
- One surprise diving attack and run away with momentum, or just don't fight them.
- Else bait your pursuer into a head-on pass with an ally (Thatch weave) (which, is still a bad position, only it's bad for everyone.)

Zero had 20mm cannons. The F4F had .50's. The F4F did not out gun the zero. 20mms only need a couple rounds to down a plane.

Durability became a factor later in the war, after the U.S. brought in better planes, like the F4U, F6F, Mustang, etc... while the zero stagnated in near-original form, and Japan could not make planes like the N1K in meaningful quanitties, or even provide quality fuel for planes like the Ki84 to use full power.

History is history. We screwed up at the start of WW2. Hubris/pride/confidence made us dismiss technologies that came around to bite us in the ass hard, and cost a lot of lives.




Best rockets since the 1960's? Because it had the biggest rocket?
What about reliability, consistency, dependability.
If I had to put my own life on the line and go to space, and I had a choice, I would pick a Russian rocket.

-scheherazade

Yes, that's a larger diameter than an anti tank rifle, which usually was between 12.7mm and 20mm. But compared to, say, a 20mm Lahti L39, this most likely uses a lot less propellant in the cartridge. A lot. Thus less muzzle energy, less recoil, less injuries.

For comparison, Rock Island had a four gauge and a .950 JDJ (that's ~24mm) in one of their auctions, and they took them out for some shooting. Here's the clip: link. And yes, that's Ian from FW in the background.

Permanently or temporarily 'crime and burglaries went up'?...by a statistically relevant amount or by .1%? ...by exactly the amount of armed robberies that no longer occurred (not armed, now it's burglary)? Could it be that cops had more time to police without worrying about armed thugs all day long and needing 6 officers to write a ticket to feel safe, so there's wasn't more 'crime' only more arrests? I assume you have a non-partisan Australian URL with the national crime statistics (both # reported and # of arrests) by year to verify your assertions and that this isn't wishful thinking masquerading as data? How about VIOLENT crimes and/or murders (there's a much more direct relation to that data set)?
(sorry, I took statistics, so I know that you can miss-represent statistics to 'prove' whatever you want, 47% of all people know that!)
We've had plenty of 'gun control' in the US already. You can't buy a Vulcan cannon, a full auto without an FFL, a 20MM, a 9lb gun (battleship style), and thousands upon thousands of models have been 'banned' either federally, state wide, or by county/city. There are limits on clip size, silencers, selective fire modes, unregistered sales, etc....the list of 'gun control measures' already in existence goes on forever...but we'll "never get any"?!? What the hell could you mean? I think you may just be being contrary, no matter how silly it makes you seem.
"Illegal gun owners" are disarmed every single day in the US, any time they are caught with the illegal guns. Again, what could you possibly mean? That we won't get rid of 100% of illegal guns (as if that's someone's plan or a necessity to solve most gun related issues), so there's no reason to ever limit their availability to anyone? Huh?!?

If often being correct and usually getting what I'm after (because my methods, which you decry as useless, worked for me) makes me a "loser", se la vie. I suppose, even though every statement you made is in direct opposition to all fact, you're a "winner"? Enjoy that.

Just as a historical note, the World War 2 German Stuka dive-bomber used 20mm rounds to take out Soviet tanks.

That's a shitload of kinetic energy.

Yea there are both 9 and 20mm versions for target practice, the 20mm adds more realism in the form of a large bang,
I have used both, and i have to say that the 9mm is definitely one of the weirdest weapons to shoot.
First its basically a gun barrel in a drainpipe which effectively makes it a suppressed weapon, it doesn't go plonk as the wikipedia article states but more of a suppressed pong as the whole tube resonates with the bang.
Secondly it's surprisingly accurate (possibly due to the size of the weapon), but the barrel is designed to mimic the flightpath of the real ones which makes the bullet behave strangely once it hits something, it has a tendency to bounce, deflect or just move irraticly, multiple times at that.
On several occasions during training we saw those tracer rounds basically jump and skip up the cliff face behind the firing range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign

"In the United States, stop signs have a size of 75 cm across opposite flats of the red octagon, with a 20mm white border. The white uppercase letters forming the stop legend are 25 cm tall. Larger signs of 90 cm (36 in) with 30 cm (12 in) legend and 25 mm (⅞ in) border are used on multilane expressways. Regulatory provisions exist for extra-large 120 cm (48 in) signs with 40 cm (16 in) legend and 30 mm (1¼ in) border for use where sign visibility or reaction distance are limited, and the smallest permissible stop sign size for general usage is 60 cm (24 in) with a 20 cm (8 in) legend and 15 mm (⅝ in) border."

In other words, anything else is not a valid or legal stop sign. This is the airport's fault, plain and simple.

>> ^schmawy:
> Nah, I want to play a game where if I get my re-entry angle wrong my vessel burns up.

>> ^dannym3141:
> That sounds like some sort of kinky metaphor, schmawy.

yeah. i think he's saying he has herpes.


>> ^Abducted:
> What's up with the ringed planet tilting with the screen?

just the perspective changing, due to a 'fisheye' point of view.

in 35mm film cameras, anything shorter than 50mm is a wideangle lens.
but below 20mm, a lens begins to severely distort the center, and is called a fisheye lens.
at about 10mm focal length, the distortion looks like this.

bamdrew, my god man the first couple times I saw your comment I thought you said your penis was 20mm

In the front were 8 engines, each capable of 10 ton lifting capability, most of the power was mostly needed for the initial take off. 2 similar engines in the back were located in the keel, enough to keep the tail up.

The Caspian Sea Monster trails started in 1966, at Caspian Sea. The first flight lasted 55 minutes, with a height of 4 meters off the water and a speed of 400-450 km/h. While the flight looks smooth, there were problems, the body of the plane was built for flying and started to weaving like a snake under pressure. The solution was simplicity itself, to strengthen the body of the plane with metal sheets 20mm thick. But the Caspian Sea Monster did its assigned part convincing officials and earning Alexis a contract to develop more Ekranoplans called the A-90 Orlyonok.

The Orlyonok, launched in 1977, combined everything that has been learnt from the Caspian Sea Monster trails. The Orlyonok showed good results, with liftoff off the water at low speed, high lifting capability, and high speed in flight made this apparatus unique in its use and application.

"This is a marine transport Ekranoplan, capable of transferring 140 marines, or 2 APCs with troops. For load up, these locks are unlocked and the entire front side opens like a large gate."

Orlyonok could take up to a maximum up to 200 troops or 2 water based tanks, it could take off from 2 meter wave seas, and in several hours carry the troops a distance over 1500 KM. The speed of the Ekranoplan was 450 Km/H, no mines or bombs would pose it threat, it offered excellent maneuverability and control. Its low flying height of 2 m and high speed meant it was invisible to radar.

*The following part talks about how difficult it was to control for new pilots, once crashing it and tearing off the entire wings off. Once the engines failed catastrophically, but the pilots managed to make it glide to a stop into the coast*

5 Orlyonoks were built, one for static display, and 4 for flights. 2 were lost, in one of them a pilot died, leading the project to stop for a while.

One last derivative of the Caspian Sea Monster (KM ) was the armed Lun, work started on it in early 70s. The Lun-class was 8 M longer and 3 M higher then the KM. It was armed with 6 3M80 Mosquit rockets, capable of destroying any modern battleship. In 1971, the Lun passed firing exercises for it's weapons with flying colors.

"The Ekranoplan Lun-class was the killer of the seas, for this it has 6 rockets, in its time it performed marvelously. But it was not really accepted and 14 years later still awaits its fate in this dry dock"

The Lun was the best (most practical) of the Ekranoplan that Alexis had completed before his death; it could fly in Level 6 to 7 storms the original Caspian Sea Monster could only fly in Level 3 storms. The speed and armaments of the Lun transport, made it 3 times cheaper then the conventional battleship. However it was not built for the replacement of the battleship, but for support of sea based forces in enclosed seas such as the Baltic, Black or the Mediterranean seas.

"In 1993 they showed the flight of this plane, the one right behind me, to American delegates and after that the flights were basically stopped."

It was a strange occurrence, the Americans always wanted to see the Ekranoplan. They saw it, were marveled and left. And the Ekranoplan faded into obscurity. The USSR collapsed, and not one new version of the plane has been developed. The hard character of its developer, the difficulties in its constructions and the catastrophes of the trails while no military technology came without its difficulties, the Ekranoplan has had far worse fate. What is the fate of this Russian wonder? Seeing as NATO is experimenting with similar technologies, maybe it's not long before in Russia they will remember the work of Rastislav Evegniy Alexisy.

Scare, scare, scare, and a little more scare.
This is much bigger.
http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm

I hate these shows and there are so many holes in the story.