Stryker/C-130 Pics

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:35:11 -0400, Paul Austin wrote:

There are_lots_of problems with this and frankly, I doubt it will ever
be fielded. If it were perfected, it would confer immunity to shaped
charge attack,

I doubt it, but it would give improved protection. Modern
shaped-charge weapons have two warheads, one at the front to break
through the shaped-charge defences, and one at the back to break
through the main armour.

One must also bear in mind that many shaped-charge weapons (I'm not
including lightweight ones such as the RPG series or 66) are
primarily designed to disable MBTs; a much lighter vehicle such as
the Stryker is always going to be easier to destroy.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:35:06 +0100, Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:35:56 +0100, (phil hunt) wrote:


Oh, the rifles, have always worked... it's just they were prone to
not working if they got dirty. If I'd been the MoD, I'd have
specified burying them in sand overnight then firing them as part
of the acceptance tests.

Rather than taking them in sealed plastic to kuwait, unwrapping them on a
range with plastic sheeting on the ground, firing 3 magazines and then
ticking the box which said it passed desert tests.

Is that what they did?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:28:36 +0100, (phil hunt) wrote:


Rather than taking them in sealed plastic to kuwait, unwrapping them on a
range with plastic sheeting on the ground, firing 3 magazines and then
ticking the box which said it passed desert tests.

Is that what they did?

Yes.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

That's a great idea, and I suspect tthat you're right in the general
case. But a modern cryptosystem, badly implemented, will have all
manner of vulnerabilities -- most of which are not particularly
obvious.

Remember the competition for the successor to DES as the standard
crypto algorithm? That was *quite* interesting.

--
"Remember: every member of your 'target audience' also owns a broadcasting
station. These 'targets' can shoot back."
-- Michael Rathbun to advertisers, in nanae

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:51:14 +0000 (UTC), (Mike
Andrews) wrote:

In (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew), phil hunt wrote:

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

[stuff snipped]

I love it when people make blanket statements.

There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
that's not sitting there just generating heat.

John Hairell )

(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 24 Sep 2003 20:00:46 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:

I still can't see this being very useful against KE rounds, or for
that matter the lower caliber IFV killers like the 20, 25, and 30mm.

I think there are a lot of lightweight armour schemes that are more
effective against shaped charge warheads than KE rounds. Which
implies to me that the best anti-tank weapon is a KE round, in other
words the best anti-tank weapon is another tank.

Or is it? How about a tank-destoyer armed with a forward-facing
large caliber gun, in other words a modernised version of WW2
weapons like the Jagdpanther or ISU-122? For the same weight of
vehicle, it could carry a heavier gun than a tank, and probably have
a lower profile and be better armoured too. It would be cheaper (no
complex turret machinery) and more reliable (less to go wrong). Its
main disadvantage would be in the tactical limitations of a gun with
a limited traverse.

If you are going to develop a vehicle sthan can go head-to-head with a
tank, such as your TD, you are better off just developing a tank,
because that in the end is what it is going to be used as, and TD's
have a rather lousy record in that regard. A TD has usually been seen
as a defensive weapon, and most armies realize that offensive action
is usually required, even in the defense (i.e., the counterattack), to
secure victory. The Bundeswehr was the last western user of the TD,
and they even finally gave them up.

Brooks

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:32:39 +0100, Paul J. Adam news@jrwly
nch.demon.co.uk wrote:
*Still* waiting on Bowman, but PRR works really well at unit level.

I heared the army had radio problems in Kosovo -- don't know which
model of radio.

Clansman, which is okay at what it does (insecure VHF voice) but is
_old_ and unreliable and vulnerable to anyone with a Radio Shack
scanner. The much-delayed Bowman is to replace it Really Soon Sometime.

As for L85/L86, after such a shrill whine the silence is suddenly
deafening. Where _are_ all those stories about British soldiers doomed
to death by their flawed faulty useless rifles?

Did the rifles actually *work*?

Oh, the rifles, have always worked... it's just they were prone to
not working if they got dirty. If I'd been the MoD, I'd have
specified burying them in sand overnight then firing them as part
of the acceptance tests.

They eventually did. Do-or-die competitive testing: sand trials in the
Middle East (including bury it, dig it up amd firing)

The rifles worked. In fact, the L85A2 worked better than any of the
competition...

When the Press start bad-mouthing a weapon I'm minded of a quote from
"Arms and Explosives": "The rifle was always bad, its defects always
notorious... and the propagation of badness will doubtless continue"
This was 1908 and they were describing that famously poor design, the
Rifle, Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Greg Hennessy
writes
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:28:36 +0100, (phil hunt) wrote:
Rather than taking them in sealed plastic to kuwait, unwrapping them on a
range with plastic sheeting on the ground, firing 3 magazines and then
ticking the box which said it passed desert tests.

Is that what they did?

Yes.

More recently...
+++++
INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW
NOVEMBER 01, 2002
British forces do battle with rifle maintenance mythology

....Another recommendation was that a follow-up confidence-building field
firing demonstration should be conducted with a larger tri-service
group, involving comparative evaluations with other infantry weapons.

This was staged by the commander of the Infantry Trials and Development
Unit (ITDU), British Army Lieutenant Colonel Tony Thornburn, in Oman
using a 39-strong team from all three services. He noted "during the
demonstration, a total of 24,750 rounds were fired by the Individual
Weapons (the SA80 A2 Light Support Weapon variant was also involved),
which encountered only 51 stoppages. This represents a Mean Rounds
Between Failure Rate of one every 2,719 rounds. Out of 165 BFMs, SA80 A2
passed 156: of the nine failures the stoppages were easily cleared and
not mission critical. SA80 A2 Individual Weapon (IW) therefore achieved
a 95% success rate, compared with the operational requirement, which
stipulates 90%. These results compare very favorably to its nearest
rival."

Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial,
the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances.
However, IDR's own sources indicate that among those taken were the
Diemaco C7 version of the M16A2 (as used by the UK SAS and SBS), the
Heckler & Koch G36, and the Steyr AUG. It is understood whichever
alternative weapon they used, none of the participants was able to match
the SA80 A2 in either accuracy or reliability during this demonstration.

In his report Col Thornburn noted "We also dug SA80 A2 IW and other
weapons into the sand to demonstrate that even following this treatment,
the liberal use of oil will allow the weapons to function properly
thereafter, finally laying the myth about oil and sand."
+++++

Funnily enough, after all the "it's useless and it won't work" stories,
this one never made much headway in the news.

Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:12:21 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Greg Hennessy

Since this was a demonstration rather than a formal like-for-like trial,
the MoD refused to specify the other weapons or their performances.

One wonders why.

However, IDR's own sources indicate that among those taken were the
Diemaco C7 version of the M16A2 (as used by the UK SAS and SBS), the
Heckler & Koch G36, and the Steyr AUG.

Strange that, one must assume there was an 'improved' version of the SA80
available for spanish army trials last year, one wonders how if it faired
there if at all.

It is understood whichever
alternative weapon they used, none of the participants was able to match
the SA80 A2 in either accuracy or reliability during this demonstration.



Until there is independently verified proof of such assertions one is
inclined to take them with a large shovel of NaCL.


THe MOD has now wasted the price of 4 alternatives on each and every weapon
so far. It wouldn't be the 1st time one has heard the usual 'its working
now honest' honest from them.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

L'acrobat wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
L'acrobat wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

transmissions still very clear), and the use of FH combined with
crypto key makes it darned near impossible for the bad guy to
decypher
it in any realistic timely manner.

Modern crypto is good enough to withstand all cryptanalytic
attacks.

Thank you Admiral Doenitz...
------------
He's right. Major breaththrough of all possible barriers, the RSA
algorithm. Uncrackable in the lifetime of the serious user, and
crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power and
can be lengthened to compensate.

The fact that you and I think it is unbeatable, doesn't mean it is.

"lifetime of the serious user" what ********, you and I have absolutely no
idea what sort of tech/processing power will be available 10 years from now,
let alone 30.
-----------------
Nothing CAN magically guess extraordinarily long primes. That will
never just magically become possible. This intrinsic truth resides
in the very mathematics itself, a fact outside of time and progress,
and not in any technology of any kind.


"and crack is entirely predictable with improved computing power" of course
it is...

Ask the good Admiral how confident he was that his system was secure.
----------------------
Irrelevant. His system relied on technology, as any mathematician could
have told him. He merely held his nose and trusted the allies weren't
technically advanced enough to do it quick enough. He lost.

But the "bet" that RSA makes is totally different, in that it relies
statistically upon the ABSOLUTE RANDOM unlikelihood of any absolute
guessing of very large prime numbers by machines whose rate of guessing
is limited and well-known as their intrinsic limit. This number is a
VERY VERY VERY large prime number. In case you don't quite get it, the
most used high security prime number size is greater than the number
of atoms in the entire big-bang universe AND greater than even THAT
by an even GREATER multiplier! See the writings of James Bidzos, CEO of
RSA Tech. for these revelations.


Damn near as confident as you are and that worked out so well, didn't it?
------------------------
You have absolutely NO IDEA what the **** you're talking about.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public