From: rertman@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 09:24:32 PST
Aaron, I suspect there are still a lot of that stuff in the old archives.
Only problem with working there was that I couldn't get an employee
discount on an SR-71, U-2 or F-117. :)
Dick
"Horrocks, Aaron" wrote:
>
> Sweet! does/did lockheed kept old design plans around? like is there a cabinet somewhere with the plans to a P-38 (like my grandpa used to work on during WWII)?
>
> Aaron Horrocks
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rertman@ix.netcom.com [mailto:rertman@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:09 AM
> To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [MV] Abrams Tank Disabled by Mystery Round
>
> Hey, Steve, watch out with that "geek" stuff. I were one! LOL
>
> Dick
> Retired Lockheed Skunk Works Engineer
> Geek Department
> Division of Redundancy Division :)
>
> Steve Grammont wrote:
> >
> > >Funny, I had someone try to tell me that a picture of a T72 on a
> > >trailer in Texas was proof of a UN build up in the US. My response
> > >was, "no you dork, they're taking it to a range to blow it up with
> > >our newest weapons!"
> >
> > I was present for such a test so I can verify that they go "boom" quite
> > nicely :-) There was a yard full of 1950s-1970s Soviet stuff they use
> > for target practice. Oh, and several Sgt Yorks too. Now there is an
> > expensive target :-(
> >
> > >They probably knew they penetrated when the crew in the tank went all
> > >angry on them. A wounded TC getting hauled out probably didn't help
> > >for letting them know they got to the soft squshy inside of the tank.
> > >I'll bet the Halon going off didn't do much for keeping it a secret.
> >
> > Circumstantial evidence is of course useful, but for something this
> > technical it isn't all that important. Especially if the gunner didn't
> > stick around to observe the exact location hit and the type of damage it
> > caused.
> >
> > >A few flukes don't make a killer weapon.
> >
> > True. I don't think anybody is saying that exactly. It is more like
> > "was it expected that x weapon could do y damage". This is the question
> > we would like to know and not the bad guys.
> >
> > >The thing is, this isn't an example of a kill in my mind.
> >
> > I partially agree with you there. But in this type of warfare
> > definitions are more gray than B&W. As far as I know by tactical
> > definition if the crew is forced to abandon the vehicle during its
> > mission, it is a "kill". For that little firefight, the tank was
> > effectively put out of action. Recoverability and repairability is an
> > operational issue, so from that standpoint this was not a kill. Although
> > because of the novelty of the hit I assume this vehicle won't be back in
> > service any time soon if at all. Lots of geeks with pocket protectors
> > will want to have a looksie before they shove it back out into the streets :-)
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:26:25 PDT