>> ^mharvey42:
scmmawy - Ya, I agree. These guys had M1 Garands, not AK'S.
But the whole story is reminiscent of Africa: Negro's Gone WilD!

^that's even more messed up. You're proving to be pretty crass and shallow harvey.

Your other enlightened comment was:

>> ^mharvey42:
Hippy Scum (...) I hope they cracked some skulls too... Go Riot Police!!!!
Yaaayyyyy!

scmmawy - Ya, I agree. These guys had M1 Garands, not AK'S.

But the whole story is reminiscent of Africa: Negro's Gone WilD!

The Robot: The Life Story of a Technology
By Lisa Nocks

read the forward here
http://books.google.com/books?id=urEaBTl3v1QC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=Vichy+produced+robotics&source=web&ots=L8mogyVcc-&sig=KNls_Tpoo1yO5C_TzkmeHqGhtRs&hl
=en#PPA40,M1
trying to find out who Vichy was-this looks like a great addition to the shelf-

15,000 pounds, not 15,000 tonnes.

15,000 tones would be a 30 million pound tire, weigh 245 times as much as an M1 tank.

Neat sift though

Yes, those are M1s.

Reminds me more of ballet drills then army ones, still cool as shayte though. Is that M1:s they're playing with?

Ok, im not done yet. Here are the weights:

M2 BSFV 29.9 tons
M270 MLRS 53 tons
M1 Amrams MBT 60 tons
M60 Patton MBT 60 tons
M88 Hercules Recovery Vehicle 70 tons

Heres a nifty little chart you can all look at, so you can get an idea of how big some of these tanks out there are. Notice the Bradley, Abrams, and the aforementioned M113 on the left. All the rest are non-us.

6 guys to manage one stinking little mortar?? Only need 4 to run a freakin M1 tank...

Hey same thing happened in WW2. My gramps never turned in his M1 grand or his colt. Well glad I could put your mind at ease

Looks like a sabot round rather than a rocket, it's just an alternative to the HEAT round they also fire. The sabot a penetrator, the HEAT a high explosive shaped charge that detonates on impact.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank3.htm

From my "M1 Tank Platoon" days, I would think it'd be rather easy to throw a track doing something like that (i.e., track gets forced off the wheels, supposedly a major pain to put back on).

First one/third one looked a little too large to be an AR15 - more like an M16. Second seemed to be an M1 Garand.

Here's to you, Chaucer.

Wikipedia's summarization of "Theory"

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Dictionary.com's definition of "Theory"

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena —see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation —the·o·ret·i·cal

What a scientific theory is NOT:
Guessing
Conjecture
Speculation

Wikipedia's summarization is more than enough to get the point across, but there are those who do not accept the validity of Wikipedia as a source material. For that reason and that I don't like to just grab stuff off the internet and submit it as my own idea, I wrote this.

Intelligent Designers argue that Evolution is just a 'Theory', not a fact. This is true. The fact that beings evolve is not under debate; the process by which they evolve is the question. It has been scientifically proven that evolution occurs. As xxovercastxx rightly pointed out, new strains of influenza appear all the time. The thing is, There is no ladder from observing to fact. This is not a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. What you have is a failure to understand the terms that are used to describe evolution, as well as other theories. A fact is a data, some quantitative or qualitative expression of something that is true. A theory is a description of an idea that interprets and explains those facts.

I shall further explain via example.

In layman's terms, gravity is a physical interaction through which all masses attract each other. Gravity can be observed and tested. In fact, go ahead and test it right now. Stand up and jump. You should find that you return to the ground at a rate of acceleration roughly equal to 9.8 m/s/s. You have just proven a fact: You are attracted to the Earth upon which you rest by an attractive force we call gravity. How does that work, you might ask? Well, Issac Newton's description of gravity went something like this: “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve; and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.”

That means every single point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line combining the two. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses.

Thus,
F=G(m1m2/r2)
Where
F= the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses
G= the gravitational constant
m1= the mass of the first point mass
m2= the mass of the second point mass
r2= the distance between the two point masses
One could plug in the numbers and actually find the magnitude of gravitational force of your jump.

What I have just described is a Theory explaining the fact that when you jumped, you returned to the Earth (It might be wise to add at this point that newton's theory was later found to be inadequate to describe more than simple interactions between masses, such as the experiment you just performed, as well as interactions at great distances, such as more than 1 or so astronomical unit. More complex interactions require The Theory of General Relativity).

It is with this relatively brief comment that I hope to clear up any confusion for further viewers. Hah, and you though YOU were long-winded, xxovercastxx! If anyone wishes to argue with me, go ahead and shoot me an e-mail at RSRegisterPass@Gmail.com, and I'll be happy to shoot you back a compilation of reasons why you're wrong. Have a nice day!

@Farhad2000
Yeah the warhead has to travel 25m past the launcher before the warhead is armed but with a dud like that run like hell just in case. Thats just standard on any range. Then call in the Sappers/Pioneers and stay away from it. M203's have to spin a number of times before there armed like darksun said but wire guided rockets don't spin and there is a range finder built into the launcher. I never got to fire HEAT-WRAP rounds just TPT (pratice) rounds. There are 2 or 3 french units gearing up for the next tour in Afganistain.
@darksun
its a decision between range and punch.
ERYX 600m range can defeat reactive armor (the americans have so far refused to declassify there test M1 abrams vs ERYX)
MILAN 1/2 2200m range cant defeat reactive armor (Milan 3 can though but loses 200m)

But yeah the Javelin i have fired HEAT rounds and that thing is fun watching it slam into the target from above. They like to zig zag but before hitting they usualy fly up then just slam right into the target its fun to watch.

It's not a surplus advertisement, it's a military show in Russia that does all kinds of stuff on military related topics.

Such as is the M-16 better then the AK-47? Which is better the M1 Abrams or the T-90?

The RT-2UTTH «Topol-M» (Russian: РТ-2УТТХ «Тополь-М») is the most recent intercontinental ballistic missile to be deployed by Russia, and the first to be developed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In its Russian designation РТ stands for "ракета твердотопливная" ("solid fuel rocket"), while УТТХ - for "улучшенные тактико-технические характеристики" ("improved tactical and technical characteristics"). It has been assigned the NATO reporting name SS-27. "Topol" (тополь) in Russian means "poplar".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTH_Topol_M