Russia new wonder weapon?

[Puke]

yep. i would imagine that the super torpedo would only be good against surface ships, would have trouble targeting subs that they cant here.

on the other hand, they only have inferior PASSIVE sonar. in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar. the problem is you give yourself away. if you have superior range and effectiveness with your supercavitating torpedo, you dont need to care about your own stealth.

start actively pinging, find your targets, kill them. it could indeed revolutionize sub warfare.

oh, and to the rest of you: go start your own thread to ***** in, were talking about high tech ways to kill people here.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Now if we put a Tard on a Torp (wired to the Internet)ahh never mind!

I think something that fast would practically be a direct fire weapon. Most underwater combat is like at 7000 yards, is that like a mile or something? Anyway 200 miles per hour torp in 7000 yards would practially be like and underwater artillery shell. Quite an impressive weapon. Maybe to counter it we could use the HAARP array to make 'em all distracted and happy.

[Yef]

Originally posted by Timstone:
Don't forget that this is only a top 10. There are far more people in the world with internet access combined that there are Americans. Just don't feel so bitten. The Americans are just a rollmodel for all the other part of the world hates. And not undeserved I might add, but that is just my vision.

Come on, give me a single nationality with a higher number of people with internet access.

Anyway you put it, you are more likely to find Americans Online that any other nationality, and thus a higher number of morons.

This is simple math. If we say that there are 3 countries, A, B, and C, and A have 100 cars, and B and C have 10 cars each, and 1 out of 10 of these cars are broken, how many broken cars from each country are you going to find?

[ April 08, 2004, 21:16: Message edited by: Yef ]

[Yef]

Originally posted by Puke:


on the other hand, they only have inferior PASSIVE sonar. in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar. the problem is you give yourself away. if you have superior range and effectiveness with your supercavitating torpedo, you dont need to care about your own stealth.

start actively pinging, find your targets, kill them. it could indeed revolutionize sub warfare.

Let me tell you, you have a good point here. I know nothing of naval warfare, but what you say definitively makes sense.

With a long range, fast speed torpedo you could indeed go active sonar, find your target, fire away, and then turn off your active sonar and go back into the darkness.

[dogscoff]

Don't forget that this is only a top 10.

Not even a top ten. Just ten of the higher ones picked at random.

[Parasite]

Originally posted by Puke:
in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar.

There are things that make Active Sonar not work all the time. Temperature layers in the water cause the sound to bounce off the layer and not show anything below. Water will bend sound and for active sonar it is bent once for the trip out and again for the trip back. Some of this is predictable, some not. It works Great when you are close, but get a ways away and neyt.

This does not mean that a fast torpedo is not a great weapon. It is, and it is even more menacing when one side has it and the other doesn't (Much like some weapons in SEIV) IF only one side had it it could be a war winner (again much like SEIV).

( Please forgive me for unhijacking a (mostly) hijacked thread. We now return you to the normal us vs them thread. )

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Parasite:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puke:
in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar.

There are things that make Active Sonar not work all the time. Temperature layers in the water cause the sound to bounce off the layer and not show anything below. Water will bend sound and for active sonar it is bent once for the trip out and again for the trip back. Some of this is predictable, some not. It works Great when you are close, but get a ways away and neyt.

This does not mean that a fast torpedo is not a great weapon. It is, and it is even more menacing when one side has it and the other doesn't (Much like some weapons in SEIV) IF only one side had it it could be a war winner (again much like SEIV).

( Please forgive me for unhijacking a (mostly) hijacked thread. We now return you to the normal us vs them thread. )

---

Sonar is not the big thing it once was. Take a look here, http://www.stormingmedia.us/cat/cat38.html
You'll have to pay to see to details.

Also look at hafnium (sp) for the next wonder weapon. The Washington Post ran a story a few weeks ago. Kiloton power from golfball sized warheads and at non-atomic energy output.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

[newbie123]

Agreed. The seeds for WW2 were definetly sown from the armistice in WW1. I wasn't argueing that at all. I was going more for the territory given to Germany by chamberlain. If y memory serves me correctly, Germany acquired most of its advanced tank designs from Checkoslavakia. Granted thats only one half of the blitzkrieg, but you get what I am going for. If they put their foot down right at the beginning, who knows the conflict may never even have taken place. It also could have been 20 times worse. I for one think it would have worked out better.

Now for Bush. First let me say I support him given the options of current leaders. (I HATE Kerry, and despise Clinton.) Now, the thing that gets me about the war in Iraq is that when Bush went to the UN, There was so much behind the scenes BS by everyone that it just seemed like a worldwide power struggle, not a campaign to take out a despicable dictator. France and russia were selling oil and arms to Iraq, and saying they just did not believe that there were WMD's in Iraq. Now from the looks of things they were right, but whose to say they were not moved or destroyed during that period, the whole 5 months or so spent in diplomatic negotiations, which led nowhere. And if Saddam didn't have anything than why dodn't he just let the UN go where they please? He had political support from France and Russia, so if anything went wrond he could go right to them. It just seems fishy too me

In the end, I think Saddam needed to be taken out. If we were dealing with anyone else I would be against any conflict, but he was a horrible person.

Also I'm sick of America taking the blame for everything. I'm not saying we aren't to blame, but we definetly are not the only ones.

I hope you weren't being sarcastic with your remark, I am trying to keep this polite and debated with a clear head like it should be. Nothing comes from name-calling or slandering, as my countries election process proves time and time again

[ April 09, 2004, 05:52: Message edited by: newbie123 ]

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Yef:
Anyway you put it, you are more likely to find Americans Online that any other nationality, and thus a higher number of morons.

Hahaha... this still makes me laugh. Hehehe...

Anyway back to the math question. There might me more Americans (numerical, not percentage), there are still more than enough other people Online. And not all Americans are morons... I hope...
But in the end your statement is questionable. If there were more Dutch people Online they would have been the ones the world dislikes (according to you that is). But the Dutch don't have such a huge influence in the world. So not only the number of people Online is importnat, but also the size of the country and how aggressive their politics are. It just boils down to a classical battle of good vs evil. The badguy's are always hatted. And in the eyes of most of the world America is the badguy.

[Timstone]

Originally posted by newbie123:
Now for Bush. First let me say I support him given the options of current leaders. (I HATE Kerry, and despise Clinton.)

Why do you HATE Kerry? And why do you despise Clinton?
I thought Clinton was a pretty good president. I've seen a documentary once and it said that Americans thought that Clinton was one the best presidents America ever had. Well, shame of his little affaire with that ugly *****, but hey a man should have some fun. And someone with a wife like Hilary just HAS to.

Edit: Oh and for the current monkey in power. I don't like him, but he sure has few options. So I support most of his decisions, but I don't like the guy.

[ April 09, 2004, 08:18: Message edited by: Timstone ]