Trump orders 400 million dollars worth of Tesla's

If the vehicle were powered by liquid-aire energy storage, this would be a good idea. It would still be an EV, just based on a different storage technology.


As it is, based on Lithium batteries, it will be a disaster. It will kill many people, if ever used in combat.


If struck by anything that penetrates the battery, will will start burning, and NOTHING can put that fire out. The smoke will be extremely toxic, and slowly kill all exposed to it.


Lets say we deploy these vehicles to an American Base in the middle east. All a terrorist needs to do is hit the vehicle with ONE AP anti-material bullet, and hundreds of servicemen will be take out, slowly, at very high cost of attempting to save their lives.


Fairly low tech nations or Terrorists, can home-brew rifles able to penetrate the armor and battery:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxhwHgemeBs




A liquid-aire system has a metal-hydride crystals, (looks like kitty liter) inside the storage tanks, which releases the energy from the cyro-fluid at just the rate needed for the engine, plus around 10%. It is far safer than Gasoline or Diesel.



This is a very bad idea. But then, all Lithium Battery vehicles are a very bad idea.

-
 
AProudLefty said:
No doubt Trump would try it, despite history.
Click to expand...
No, it's the Left that wants EV's with no alternatives. It's the Left that wants "green" energy (aka solar and wind) with no alternatives. The Left gloms onto what they think is a solution to a problem, then makes it essentially a religious dogma that everyone MUST follow OR ELSE!
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it's the Left that wants EV's with no alternatives. It's the Left that wants "green" energy (aka solar and wind) with no alternatives. The Left gloms onto what they think is a solution to a problem, then makes it essentially a religious dogma that everyone MUST follow OR ELSE!
Click to expand...
You have provided no proof of that.

I'm sure you will post sources you think will prove it.
 
Kurmugeon said:
If the vehicle were powered by liquid-aire energy storage, this would be a good idea. It would still be an EV, just based on a different storage technology.


As it is, based on Lithium batteries, it will be a disaster. It will kill many people, if ever used in combat.


If struck by anything that penetrates the battery, will will start burning, and NOTHING can put that fire out. The smoke will be extremely toxic, and slowly kill all exposed to it.


Lets say we deploy these vehicles to an American Base in the middle east. All a terrorist needs to do is hit the vehicle with ONE AP anti-material bullet, and hundreds of servicemen will be take out, slowly, at very high cost of attempting to save their lives.


Fairly low tech nations or Terrorists, can home-brew rifles able to penetrate the armor and battery:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxhwHgemeBs




A liquid-aire system has a metal-hydride crystals, (looks like kitty liter) inside the storage tanks, which releases the energy from the cyro-fluid at just the rate needed for the engine, plus around 10%. It is far safer than Gasoline or Diesel.



This is a very bad idea. But then, all Lithium Battery vehicles are a very bad idea.

-
Click to expand...
Let's see one survive an IED going off under it, even a small IED.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Let's see one survive an IED going off under it, even a small IED.
Click to expand...


In the Vietnam war, there was an argument made, by the Vietcong, that they didn't want their attacks to KILL at the beginning of an ambush. They wanted their attacks to wound only. So, if you are a sniper, shoot to injure, not to kill.


Why?


Because when you just wound, you take out three combatants. The person hit, and the two people assigned to carry them. So, shoot to wound, until the whole unit is at 30% combat effectiveness, then shoot to kill.


We lost that war.

-
 
Kurmugeon said:
In the Vietnam war, there was an argument made, by the Vietcong, that they didn't want their attacks to KILL at the beginning of an ambush. They wanted their attacks to wound only. So, if you are a sniper, shoot to injure, not to kill.


Why?


Because when you just wound, you take out three combatants. The person hit, and the two people assigned to carry them. So, shoot to wound, until the whole unit is at 30% combat effectiveness, then shoot to kill.


We lost that war.

-
Click to expand...
The Imperial Empire under the Ukrainian flag has very often hit Russian or Russian speaking civilians, and then when aid comes they hit the first responders.

Also the Zionist Bastards have done it many times in Gaza.....they especially like shooting kids to get the responders to show.
 
Kurmugeon said:
In the Vietnam war, there was an argument made, by the Vietcong, that they didn't want their attacks to KILL at the beginning of an ambush. They wanted their attacks to wound only. So, if you are a sniper, shoot to injure, not to kill.


Why?


Because when you just wound, you take out three combatants. The person hit, and the two people assigned to carry them. So, shoot to wound, until the whole unit is at 30% combat effectiveness, then shoot to kill.


We lost that war.

-
Click to expand...
We gave up on that war. As for the anecdote, there are lots of variants of that story going back at least several wars.

Given that the typical Viet Cong, or NVA soldier got an SKS or later an AK 47, they weren't going to be sniping much of anything with those.
 
AProudLefty said:
Are they?
Click to expand...
The dems or the repubs?

The GOP are scared to death of getting primaried and the Dems have zero power to do anything other than whine and cry.

Isn't it fucking grand! I knew after the election that it was going to be marvelous but I have to admit Trump has far exceeded my expectations. Just vanquishing the filthy fake black whore would have been fine but he was locked and loaded come Jan 20. Trump isn't fucking around and it's just getting started.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
We gave up on that war. As for the anecdote, there are lots of variants of that story going back at least several wars.

Given that the typical Viet Cong, or NVA soldier got an SKS or later an AK 47, they weren't going to be sniping much of anything with those.
Click to expand...

I believe most Vietcong snipers used the Dragunov Sniper Rifle, as produced by China. It wasn't great, but it was enough.



en.wikipedia.org

SVD (rifle) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
ULTRA MAGA said:
The dems or the repubs?

The GOP are scared to death of getting primaried and the Dems have zero power to do anything other than whine and cry.

Isn't it fucking grand! I knew after the election that it was going to be marvelous but I have to admit Trump has far exceeded my expectations. Just vanquishing the filthy fake black whore would have been fine but he was locked and loaded come Jan 20. Trump isn't fucking around and it's just getting started.
Click to expand...
"Filthy fake black whore"?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
A rarity.
Click to expand...

Snipers generally are, particularly in a jungle patrol ambush. One person in 30 might be a sniper.


The SKS can be a very effective sniper rifle, if used correctly.


Back when big cities first started to field SWAT teams, back in the 1970s, the most common form of Sniper rifle used was a carefully honed and tuned SKS, with the gas tube removed, making it effectively a bolt action rifle.


I own a number of SKSs, two of which are setup that way, and I can get a 6" shot group at 300 yards. I use them for deer hunting.


Unlike the AK-47, the SKS has forged and machined parts, rather than stamped parts, so it CAN be a much more precise firearm. If you know something about gunsmithing.



-
 
AProudLefty said:
I know who you are talking about. I also know you are a racist and a misogynist.
Click to expand...
That means shit. That phony whore had no business running for POTUS. I know it, you know it and I know that you know it.

So cut the crap and just relax it is what it is.
 
Kurmugeon said:
In the Vietnam war, there was an argument made, by the Vietcong, that they didn't want their attacks to KILL at the beginning of an ambush. They wanted their attacks to wound only. So, if you are a sniper, shoot to injure, not to kill.


Why?


Because when you just wound, you take out three combatants. The person hit, and the two people assigned to carry them. So, shoot to wound, until the whole unit is at 30% combat effectiveness, then shoot to kill.


We lost that war.

-
Click to expand...
A sniper always shoots to kill. A wounded soldier can still fight. And generally, he is pissed.
 
RB 60 said:
A sniper always shoots to kill. A wounded soldier can still fight. And generally, he is pissed.
Click to expand...

You were a Vietcong sniper trainer?


I wasn't there, but I've spent hours talking to those who were, and were Vietnamese born translators, working for the U.S. Army, and he told me about how their training manuals for snipers told them to shoot to wound, because of the multiplier factor.


I believe him. We had that particular discussion, while waiting for a drop of a new piece of ordinance developed for the Gulf-war. He was one of the program administrators. He was trying to explain to me, how American military thinks differently than others, and we are not always correct, in the most effective approach.


His main point was that the weapons we were developing were disregarding the Muslim concept of being a martyr was a way to gain God's rewards. We were thinking in terms of killing the combatants, instead of thinking in terms of Defeating the radical Islamic movement.


We ended up needing to re-fight that war, a few years later.


He was murdered a few years ago, during a BLM riot.

-
 
Kurmugeon said:
You were a Vietcong sniper trainer?


I wasn't there, but I've spent hours talking to those who were, and were Vietnamese born translators, working for the U.S. Army, and he told me about how their training manuals for snipers told them to shoot to wound, because of the multiplier factor.


I believe him. We had that particular discussion, while waiting for a drop of a new piece of ordinance developed for the Gulf-war. He was one of the program administrators. He was trying to explain to me, how American military thinks differently than others, and we are not always correct, in the most effective approach.


His main point was that the weapons we were developing were disregarding the Muslim concept of being a martyr was a way to gain God's rewards. We were thinking in terms of killing the combatants, instead of thinking in terms of Defeating the radical Islamic movement.


We ended up needing to re-fight that war, a few years later.


He was murdered a few years ago, during a BLM riot.

-
Click to expand...
No, I was speaking of American snipers.
I did read somewhere wounding is supposed to overflow the treatments.
I read a few books on snipers (The Art of the Rifle is a good one). Lots of information on techniques.
The sniper rifles used in Nam by the more "accomplished" shooters were rather accurate.
 
RB 60 said:
No, I was speaking of American snipers.
I did read somewhere wounding is supposed to overflow the treatments.
I read a few books on snipers (The Art of the Rifle is a good one). Lots of information on techniques.
The sniper rifles used in Nam by the more "accomplished" shooters were rather accurate.
Click to expand...


Yes, American Snipers were trained "One Shot, One Kill". That phrase is still used today.



But Killing is not always winning. We lost the Vietnam war. We were great at killing. And we had a policy of not even leaving corpses behind. We thought that made our forces stronger. The Vietcong would shoot their own wounded, and melt away, to strike again in the next ambush.



Understanding your enemy's mind is winning, usually.



My Vietnamese friend was probably the best American I've ever known.


-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top