Go ahead...what comes next..

Really? "His actions have potential to cause harm to him and his crew?" At what altitude was he flying at? At what airspeed? What was the visibility? What weapons are the enemy employing against him? I'll give you a hint, the 64 flies a lot higher than an RPG or AK74 can shoot. There is a reason why he flies without fear, and anyone stupid enough to shoot at him would regret that decision for a short time. He's an Apache pilot. His job is to hunt and kill. If someone is dumb enough to reveal themselves then they made his job a lot easier.

 

Did I say an AK47 or RPG?  I don't recall suggesting that the Apache would be brought down by either of those.  But who's to say whether the bad guys down there have a Strela or 23mm?  Because those would bring down the Apach in short order.  If they can be certain that they don't have those then yes, it's a viable tactic.  But there is a reason the Apache carries thousands of dollar of low-light gear: to avoid exposing themselves to that kind of firepower.  Maybe against porrly-armed insurgents that tactic will work just fine, but against a more heavily armed opponent that is not the tactic you want to use.  And that is why I don't believe they should be teaching new pilots those kinds of tactics when not every opponent you face will be limited to AKs and RPGs.

 

Russia, China, whoever. The US is the only country to employ stealth fighters and a large amount of cruise missiles to incapacitate both radar and comms. The same scenario would play out in any war. The US will gain air superiority within the first weeks. They would then use that to annihilate any ground forces. You can try to argue how different it would be against X country but it won't. The technology gap is so far in the US' favor coupled with our ability to deliver a massive initial attack it's going to play out exactly the same.

I think you highly over-estimate the technology gap between the US and its potential enemies.  I don't disagree with you about the final conclusion, I just think it will be more of a fight than you make it out to be.  If the US and NATO had fought the USSR in 1990 would they have wiped the floor with them as badly as Iraq?  Yes today they are in a much weaker state, but I'm curious to see your answer.

And here you are lecturing....

In some examples, (warship artillery, main tank guns), "caliber" is used to describe the barrel length as multiples of the bore diameter. A "5-inch 50 caliber" gun has a bore diameter of 5 inches (127 mm) and a barrel length of 50 times 5 inches = 250 inches (6.35 m).

Unless Congress funded the change-out, the M1A2 still has the US made copy of the Rheinmetal  120/44 NOT the Rheinmetal 120/55 as was back-fitted to the Leopard II to increase the the final strike velocity of German tungsten darts. Did you miss the part where I wrote about the Leclerc armor module tests where the Germans used their tank gun to fail the armor?

 

The Germans decided that a little more SMASH might be a good thing so they extended the barrel length to use mote propellant work time on the projectile. That equals a faster dart and a flatter trajectory. Means new trunion arrangement, a new ballistics firing table, etc. That gets messy and expensive. Uncle just changed his projectile family (more uranium in dart=denser longer dart.) to pace the Germans. That is how they solved KE-1/2 MV^2         

So....  "Why did you miss Uh-oh's caliber error on the M-1's main gun?"

 

H.

 

Key word used in the definition of caliber is diameter, not barrel length. If you're going to try and catch me on something then use the right terminology. And I could care less if he used L44 or 55. I'm not a tank expert and I knew what he was talking about so misnaming it is irrelevant to me. If you want to sift through people's posts with a fine tooth comb then enjoy how you spend your free time. I don't like wasting my time responding to posts that are so far off base they are outright ridiculous.

To be more precise in my reply. Whether someone calls it a 44 or 55 is irrelevant to me and people do forget things over time. I know I do. It in no way destroys his credibility or makes anything else he said untrue.

 

Now when someone says the Stryker only goes 60mph, when (if you've been in one or been to Iraq) you know that it goes 80mph because you don't rely on wiki, then yes I'm going to jump on you because you're talking out of your ass with no experience.

 

So yes Herald, I could care less if someone mismatches the numbers. If you want to be popular on a forum and be Mr. Right, then more power to you. I have better things to do than pick apart posts for minor nuances just so I can feel better about myself.