Rofl. Note to self. Dont post when low on sleep. Meant to say fictional.
>> ^Chaucer:

You do realize the show is fact right?
>> ^EMPIRE:
You know what I also "love" about CSI Miami?
the fact that the guys from the lab, who for all intents and purposes are public workers, have Humvee's as their official work cars. One of the least efficient motor vehicles ever made, and not exactly cheap. No wonder the US is about to default! lol

Of course... It's mostly factual, in particular those scenes when they manage to "enhance" a suspect's image to perfection from a blurry photograph or low resolution security cam

>> ^Chaucer:

You do realize the show is fact right?
>> ^EMPIRE:
You know what I also "love" about CSI Miami?
the fact that the guys from the lab, who for all intents and purposes are public workers, have Humvee's as their official work cars. One of the least efficient motor vehicles ever made, and not exactly cheap. No wonder the US is about to default! lol

You do realize the show is fact right?

>> ^EMPIRE:

You know what I also "love" about CSI Miami?
the fact that the guys from the lab, who for all intents and purposes are public workers, have Humvee's as their official work cars. One of the least efficient motor vehicles ever made, and not exactly cheap. No wonder the US is about to default! lol

You know what I also "love" about CSI Miami?

the fact that the guys from the lab, who for all intents and purposes are public workers, have Humvee's as their official work cars. One of the least efficient motor vehicles ever made, and not exactly cheap. No wonder the US is about to default! lol

That's amazing he landed in the space between cars. Would have been hilarious if he wound up right on top of a humvee

All the fps games are boring, same old stuff with different graphics, just another COD clone, bad voice acting, too many scripted elements, blah, blah, blah

The gameplay in Battlefield 3 is dynamic, squad based and pure awesome. With the addition on multiple vehicle types from quads, to Humvee, to tanks, to helicopters, to JETS(!) it allows the multiplayer game to be fluid with varying strategies to master so that you can deal with a huge array of possible situations and threats. If you want to be really successful in the game you have to communicate with your squad and learn to play as a squad. That alone puts it leagues beyond any COD game. Don't get me wrong I appreciate COD for the frantic action it delivers, but I prefer more of a thinking game than twitch response. Which is also why I dislike Halo games, plus having to hear a Mom yelling for her kid to go to bed or finish his homework.

This game is taking the whole multiplayer aspects of FPS games to a whole new level with massive maps, 64 player games and a focus on team mechanics. No lone gunner running off and getting 500+ kills like in other games.

@ghark - It says it takes place in 2014, so unless you've got a Tardis in your house I think your diatribe is either a little off target, an attempt at trolling, or you were pandering to the liberal sift community. Either way you get a "wag of the finger".

It's always awesome when a Sift expert in the video subject is able to clarify things. Thanks :]

>> ^smooman:

paratroopers do jump out the back, and no, there arent any entanglements or anything like that from doin a tailgate jump and you use the same cable to hook your static line to on a door jump as you do a tailgate jump. You still go one at a time, your static line is just 2 seconds longer. But typically door jumps are made, especially in the 82nd and especially with c17/130
oh this brings back memories =)


>> ^Gamble:

We do jump out of the tailgate at times, but usually not C17/130. The static line (the yellow cable attached to the cable in the plane that deploys the parachute) has a greater chance of getting wrapped around things it doesn't need to be. Like the jumpers.

We do jump out of the tailgate at times, but usually not C17/130. The static line (the yellow cable attached to the cable in the plane that deploys the parachute) has a greater chance of getting wrapped around things it doesn't need to be. Like the jumpers.>> ^Seric:

>> ^visionep:
Why don't the paratroopers jump off the back?

I'd imagine it'd be harder to mount the chute cable at the back. Also, if they all jumped at once they might fuck up each other during the decent. May as well use the side door with the cable and the one-at-a-time method.


Oh man. About 6 months ago one of the other units in my brigade had one catch a crazy thermal/gust before something went wrong and it came in too hot. Almost smashed into the road. Was pretty sweet.
>> ^NordlichReiter:

So how do I get them to drop one of those in my drive way?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'c17, galaxy, air drop, cargo plane, humvee, paratrooper, airborne' to 'c17, galaxy, air drop, cargo plane, humvee, paratrooper, airborne, HMMWV' - edited by MarineGunrock

>> ^ajkido:

I'd like to see the landing of those vehicles...


they land just fine. If one burns in, like i've seen on two occasions, it fucks shit up big time

Your video, C17 Air Drop: 4 Humvee's + 50 paratroopers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 17 Badge!

>> ^visionep:

Why don't the paratroopers jump off the back?


I'd imagine it'd be harder to mount the chute cable at the back. Also, if they all jumped at once they might fuck up each other during the decent. May as well use the side door with the cable and the one-at-a-time method.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'c17, air drop, cargo plane, humvee, paratrooper' to 'c17, galaxy, air drop, cargo plane, humvee, paratrooper, airborne' - edited by calvados

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

@radx @Entropy001

I think you're mostly right about the doctrine differences creating design differences. From what I remember from writing papers in college, early in the war US WWII armored doctrine was still mostly based on cavalry tactics. I think people forget the US only directly participated in the war for 4 years, and only a small chunk of that was facing German tanks. There really wasn't a lot of time for redesigns, and the heavier tank designs were often put on the back burner.

In fact, this wikipedia thing says pretty much exactly that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#The_tank_destroyer_doctrine

If you attribute the trade offs made for speed and maneuverability in lieu of armor and firepower to doctrine differences, the Sherman still had a huge design flaw. Narrow treads. Shermans often got stuck in the mud while trying to flank, which neutralized their speed and numbers. Despite the greater mass of most of the German tanks, their wide treads allowed them to operate in terrain that crippled Shermans. Any discussion of Sherman design that doesn't include this problem isn't necessarily propaganda as @Entropy001 suggested, but it's definitely missing something incredibly important.

I wrote a paper years ago that was about how soldiers in the field often modify their equipment. I don't know if any books exist on the subject, but I probably have enough source material to write one if I were so inclined. My paper was only 15 pages, so it focused mostly on the Sherman. There was a section that showed how logs were often strapped to the sides of the tanks to throw down into mud to limit sinking...too bad the narrow track problem was often made worse by crews adding sandbags and other things onto their hulls to protect against HEAT weapons.

Kinda reminds you of under-armored humvees in Iraq now, doesn't it?

You're right about the quality of the Panther design, though...if they never introduced that tank, I bet the Allies never would have had to introduce heavier tanks of their own (like the Pershing and IS-2).