Romney campaign slams Biden for 'we don't need more M1 tanks' remark - Polidicks

As a tanker I can tell you we don't need any more fucking tanks. For 2 years we barely had enough people to fill 2 tank crews of a platoon with 4 tanks. A tank crew consists of 4 guys(Driver, Loader, Gunner, and Tank Commander) A tank company has 3 tank platoons(each with 4 tanks) and a HQ platoon(with 2 tanks, a Bradley, and an M113 APC)

[QUOTE=Fort83;38020675][quote] saying the Obama administration would weaken national security with the move.[/quote] oh shut the fuck up already. I am so sick of them using this bullshit card all the time.[/QUOTE] They're talking like Obama hasn't been president for the past four years, they're fucking idiots. All this shit they're saying Obama is going to do, why didn't he do it in his first four years? Why all of a sudden is Obama an evil man who's only running to destroy the country according to them?

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38030589]Pretty much EVERYTHING in the Army runs on JP-8 though.[/QUOTE] Aye, but if it was a diesel engine, like so many other tank engines, it would suffer fairly significant wear and tear as a result. Powerful diesel engines don't much care for JP-8. Instead it is a turbine engine, allowing it to run on whatever you want with virtually no appreciable wear and tear. It actually benefits from the additional energy stored in jet fuel, which wouldn't be possible in a conventional engine. That engine really doesn't get enough credit. It is more interesting than one might initially imagine.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38033591]Aye, but if it was a diesel engine, like so many other tank engines, it would suffer fairly significant wear and tear as a result. Powerful diesel engines don't much care for JP-8. Instead it is a turbine engine, allowing it to run on whatever you want with virtually no appreciable wear and tear. It actually benefits from the additional energy stored in jet fuel, which wouldn't be possible in a conventional engine. That engine really doesn't get enough credit. It is more interesting than one might initially imagine.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the turbine engine is notorious for not liking sandy places and needing a lot of maintenance.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38033591]Aye, but if it was a diesel engine, like so many other tank engines, it would suffer fairly significant wear and tear as a result. Powerful diesel engines don't much care for JP-8. Instead it is a turbine engine, allowing it to run on whatever you want with virtually no appreciable wear and tear. It actually benefits from the additional energy stored in jet fuel, which wouldn't be possible in a conventional engine. That engine really doesn't get enough credit. It is more interesting than one might initially imagine.[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly it also makes it a lot quieter and gives it pretty good acceleration compared to diesel-powered vehicles. [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;38021200]He means on the sense that American feel the need to manufacture so many machines dedicated to war.[/QUOTE] I'll give him one thing: Yeah, it would mean losing some jobs. A valid concern, just wish they didn't throw in the "B-B-B-B-BUT OUR FREEDOM! D:" argument into it, as if China's gonna swoop in and curb-stomp our asses as soon as we stop making ONE type of vehicle which, in current circumstances, isn't well suited for the role it's been forced into (urban warfare and patrols).

The Lima plant needs to stay online because MBTs haven't lost relevance yet, there will always be use for highly mobile, heavily armored vehicles with a massive amount of firepower. No, this doesn't mean cranking out new M1s like it's WW3, but slowly refurbishing all older tanks to the latest standard and refreshing heavily used ones back to like-new condition would keep the jobs and skilled workers in case there actually is a need for more vehicles. Also, working on new upgrades would probably help keep steady work. [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] Using the newer turbine that was was going to be put in the Abrams with FCS would be a good idea too... (LV 100-5 would save a significant amount of fuel compared to the AGT1500, much more reliable, less maintenance)

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;38039628]The Lima plant needs to stay online because MBTs haven't lost relevance yet, there will always be use for highly mobile, heavily armored vehicles with a massive amount of firepower. No, this doesn't mean cranking out new M1s like it's WW3, but slowly refurbishing all older tanks to the latest standard and refreshing heavily used ones back to like-new condition would keep the jobs and skilled workers in case there actually is a need for more vehicles. Also, working on new upgrades would probably help keep steady work. [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] Using the newer turbine that was was going to be put in the Abrams with FCS would be a good idea too... (LV 100-5 would save a significant amount of fuel compared to the AGT1500, much more reliable, less maintenance)[/QUOTE] This would work well but we don't have scientists, engineers and economists in important positions we have politicians.

[QUOTE=reedbo;38039855]This would work well but we don't have scientists, engineers and economists in important positions we have politicians.[/QUOTE] Well, the issue is that if we try to shut down the Lima plant, it's going to take a shitload of money to start it back up, probably more than the money saved. Britain is running into the same issue with ships for the Navy.

[QUOTE=-Rusty-;38030738]As a tanker I can tell you we don't need any more fucking tanks. For 2 years we barely had enough people to fill 2 tank crews of a platoon with 4 tanks. A tank crew consists of 4 guys(Driver, Loader, Gunner, and Tank Commander) A tank company has 3 tank platoons(each with 4 tanks) and a HQ platoon(with 2 tanks, a Bradley, and an M113 APC)[/QUOTE] Send some A2s over to the Marines. They have what, 600 A1s? [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;38033591]Aye, but if it was a diesel engine, like so many other tank engines, it would suffer fairly significant wear and tear as a result. Powerful diesel engines don't much care for JP-8. Instead it is a turbine engine, allowing it to run on whatever you want with virtually no appreciable wear and tear. It actually benefits from the additional energy stored in jet fuel, which wouldn't be possible in a conventional engine. That engine really doesn't get enough credit. It is more interesting than one might initially imagine.[/QUOTE] Not many people seem to realize the beauty of a gas turbine engine.

This is why I dislike enormously the private manufacturing of government armaments, machinery, and equipment in general. The potential for graft and corruption is enormous. [editline]15th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;38029052]Oh yeah definitely. We have way more than we could possibly use.[/QUOTE] Unless we were to, say, engage in a conflict with an enemy that possesses armoured assets, which is extremely unlikely. Besides, even if we were to get in a fight with someone that does have armour, there are so many air assets available to take care of anything on the ground (I.E. A-10 Warthogs, etc), there'd be no point to shipping in tanks.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38033591]Aye, but if it was a diesel engine, like so many other tank engines, it would suffer fairly significant wear and tear as a result. Powerful diesel engines don't much care for JP-8. Instead it is a turbine engine, allowing it to run on whatever you want with virtually no appreciable wear and tear. It actually benefits from the additional energy stored in jet fuel, which wouldn't be possible in a conventional engine. That engine really doesn't get enough credit. It is more interesting than one might initially imagine.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6ZklI4D5Ko[/media] but with tanks

It's funny because gasoline already costs so much lately And if I remember correctly the M1 has a turbine installed that eats fuel like a jet when it moves at full speed and needs a tanker truck to follow behind it :v: Producing even more of them would just create many, many more problems

[QUOTE=MendozaMan;38044098]It's funny because gasoline already costs so much lately And if I remember correctly the M1 has a turbine installed that eats fuel like a jet when it moves at full speed and needs a tanker truck to follow behind it :v: Producing even more of them would just create many, many more problems[/QUOTE] It isn't THAT bad. Also, JP-8 is very cheap.

A Mitt Romno Approved Message: Build more tanks, Kill more brown people! Fuck the deficit! America!

[QUOTE=booster;38025051][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg.png[/IMG] Great god that's a lot of money.[/QUOTE] It was $711 billion in 2011. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PdS6x.png[/IMG] Our spending was equal to that of the next 14 top spending nations combined.

[QUOTE=Canary;38019534][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTfF6wmqcU[/media][/QUOTE] Footage after they were taken off the train [video=youtube;voaK8wL3vz4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voaK8wL3vz4[/video]

[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;38047519]It was $711 billion in 2011. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PdS6x.png[/IMG] Our spending was equal to that of the next 14 top spending nations combined.[/QUOTE] Dollars to dollars is not a fair comparison. Comparing to % of GDP is the most appropriate.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38021324]If there is voter apathy, it is because the system itself causes people to become disillusioned with voting, not because some particular type of thinking simply causes it to pervade. By holding the GOP accountable, you are letting the Democrats get away with their crimes against humanity. Should we really choose between two murderers? Should we really say that Obama is better than Romney even though he also supports killing, detaining, and oppressing people around the world? Should we say that Obama is better because he supports superficial issues like gay marriage and abortion; issues constructed simply to divide people along lines other than class war or continued failed wars and policies around the world. Why shouldn't we say fuck it? Why should we, through our vote, support murder and enslavement?[/QUOTE] Stop living in planet idealism and start seeing things the way they are instead of what you think they should be. If by your logic, voting equals supporting murder and imperialist slavery then every person in the world who has ever voted supports murder and enslavement. Governments work like that, nations invade eachother, they go to war and people die. That's always been like that and it's never going to change because breaking news: it's human nature. Now, you can either let it get worse by sitting on your ass doing nothing about it and letting even more extremist idiots into power or you can actually help by voting for representatives who will actually work to benefit your country and by extension, you. The system won't change overnight and you're definitely not helping towards a better one by staying on the sidelines. It just doesn't work that way, no matter how much you want to believe it does.