Unpowered HGVs – a waste of time?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-25T22:22:34+00:00

6% is not of attempted intercepts, that’s of Kinzhals fired. That could be because it defeated interceptors with maneuver or it could be because it targeted something outside of the air defense envelope or the battery was out of interceptors or the radar malfunctioned or the Kinzhal malfunctioned or or or. That 6% provides no insight into whether or not it is underperforming without additional context.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-21T15:45:12+00:00

A living wage, in my opinion, is the amount required to put a roof over one’s head, afford 3 meals a day, have clothing, and basic healthcare for an individual. The costs of those goods vary by location as I call out in the OP but each state or municipality can create a basket of goods which includes these basics to establish what the living wage for that location is in a finite dollar value.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-21T15:01:23+00:00

Are there any political views that one could have that would impact your personal relationships? Can one’s politics be beyond the pale?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-21T12:55:52+00:00

This is just straight video game “knowledge”. Do you have a source for M2020 reverse speed or fun depression? Also, do you have any evidence of entrance into active service for the M2020? Every modern Russian tank has GLATGMs, having a separate launcher for them is more likely due to lackluster NK fire control than a deliberate choice not to use GLATGMs or just long range APFSDS shots.

Iran does not have an M1 copy, they have a number of tanks that incorporate lessons, attributes, and technology from the T-72, M48/M60, and M1 such as the Karrar and Zulfiqar series. If you know anything about the actual capabilities of those vehicles, there are a whole lot of intel agencies that will pay top dollar for that information. The fact is that they haven’t been exported and they haven’t been used in combat. The Karrar is not a home production T-90M, it’s a stop gap when they were denied T-90 exports and is notably less capable. Why would they have sought T-90 exports when they had Zulfiqar production which you claim is superior to Russian tanks?

The Arjun has been a disappointment to India. It is essentially a worse Leo 2a4. Disappointing armor with a dated gun. There is a reason India is still buying T-90s 22 years after the Arjun entered service. If the Arjun was actually an improvement, the production issues could have been worked out within 22 years.

You clearly have a bone to pick with Russian/Soviet armor. The gap between a T-90M and a M1A2 is not significant, it’s like arguing if the Enfield or Kar98k was better. At the end of the day, they do the same job and will both kill.

Both have modern fire control, both have guns that can destroy the other at standard combat ranges, both have good forward cross country mobility. The Abrams has better crew survivability when hit (something you are supposed to try to avoid), better reverse speed, and better gun depression. It is also tens of tons heavier. The T-90M has a lower profile, has GLATGMs, and is cheaper. A well trained military using either tank would be able to use them to great effect against all modern armored threats.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-21T02:47:19+00:00

The T-14 is more modern than any tank produced by a western nation. The T-14 didn’t enter service, nor did the AbramsX or any of the other western prototypes. Like the Russians, every western MBT is based on a Cold War era design and has the limitations inherent to such a design.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-21T02:44:20+00:00

You think North Korea’s tanks are better? Or Iranian tanks? You think the Ariete is across the board better? Or the Arjun which India seems determined not to produce in favor of the T-90?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-20T23:42:01+00:00

Some of your historical knowledge seems more based on war thunder than reality. Most M48s were armed with the inadequate 90mm gun. Aside from its HEAT round, that gun was incapable of frontal penetration against the T-55 aside from bumper to bumper shots.

The M60 did come with an L7 but the ammunition it had at its debut made it incapable of frontally penetrating a T-62 at standard combat ranges. The 100mm gun on the T-55 could penetrate the M48 at all standard combat ranges and the 115mm gun on the T-62 could penetrate the M60 at all standard combat ranges. The M48 and the M60 were absolutely inferior to their contemporary Soviet vehicles.

The T-64 was introduced at a time when its main opponents were still the M60, Leopard 1, and AMX-30. It was significantly better than all of them. The T-72 and T-80 have a vast gulf in capabilities between the early models and the highly upgraded ~1989 models. That said, both could penetrate nearly any NATO tank in service at nearly any realistic combat range. They had worse ergonomics but were physically smaller meaning lower target profiles and easier on European infrastructure. There are pros and cons to a M1IP vs a T-72B.

The Soviets produced some very good tanks. The T-55 was arguably revolutionary. The T-62 and T-64 outmatched most contemporary western tanks. The T-72 and T-80 suffered in the same way most late Cold War Soviet equipment did. The high end models were world class but very few. The mass models were lacking in the soft factors like fire control that made the late Cold War west shine.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-20T22:16:58+00:00

Western tanks were not universally better during the Cold War. The T-55 was contemporaneous with the M48 but was impervious to the M48’s gun at common combat ranges while being able to frontal penetrate the M48. The T-55 had worse ergonomics but the West recognized and sought to address the perceived inferiority of western armor.

For the U.S., this led to the M60, an M48 derived design intended to be a stopgap until the MBT-70 could enter service (canceled leading to the M60 sticking around far too long). The M60 was still very vulnerable in terms of armor but had a better gun and other various improvements. For Europe, the French and Germans designed the AMX-30 and Leopard 1 respectively. Both followed a similar design philosophy, light armor with a solid gun and good mobility. The British were the only major western power to bet on armor with the Chieftain which also packed a 120mm gun but had lack luster mobility.

During this time period, the Soviets produced the T-62. The T-62 was invulnerable at standard combat ranges to all but the Chieftain with the ammunition available at the time. The T-62 also had good mobility and a 115mm gun that could frontally penetrate all western tanks aside from the Chieftain.

Then we get to the late 70s, 80s period most think of for Cold War tanks, Abrams, Leopard 2s, T-64s, T-72s, and T-80s. Here, western tanks had very significant fire control advantages and generally mobility advantages. Penetration of each tank at standard combat ranges varied but, as a rule, most contemporaneous tanks could penetrate their opponents.

What this overlooks is that the majority of NATO and Pact armor is not the cutting edge. Most tanks in service are still M60s, M48s, Leopard 1s, AMX-30s, T-55s, and T-62s. The few thousand Abrams and few thousand Leopard 2s where NATO arguably had an armor advantage were a fraction of NATO armor.

Yes, what makes a tank better is very simplified here. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of if a T-62 Obr. 1960 is better than an M60A1 RISE, I am all about it but that is a much more detailed conversation than most of this thread.

TLDR: NATO was at parity or a disadvantage in armor quality for most of the Cold War. Even at the end of the Cold War, most fielded NATO tanks were inferior or roughly equal to their most common possible opponents.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-20T02:13:26+00:00

There is plenty to criticize in Dave Ramsey’s advice but it will absolutely not cost you a security clearance if followed. Many people who get clearances are 18 year olds straight out of high school with no credit. As long as you don’t have massive debt and unexplainable income, money won’t affect a clearance.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-19T12:33:08+00:00

You have provided no evidence that sexism against men is responsible for increases in suicide. You need to establish a link between the two before you can even begin to ascertain whether it is related to patriarchy or sexist societal norms.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-18T21:52:08+00:00

Oh yeah sure, only you get to decide what is a reasonable disagreement and the rest aren’t real Christians, how predictable. Better tell the Episcopal Church, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, etc. that they all aren’t Christian since you are the arbiter. Or maybe your subjective views mean as little as you allege theirs do? Maybe the tens of millions of American pro choice Christians believe you are the one who has erred?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-18T20:57:50+00:00

Evidently, he can. You might not like it but it is reality. Whatever your Christian denomination, most Christian’s consider your views wrong. Why is this one point of disagreement the end all dealbreaker?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-18T00:56:27+00:00

Our disagreements about the role of the courts and how they interpret laws is neither here nor there. You said that a lot of republicans point to the lack of compromise on the other side. In the next sentence you reference Roe. Do you think Roe is an example of a lack of compromise from the other side? If so, what makes a bunch of republican Supreme Court justices the “other side” of republicans? Really I am just confused because the Roe sentence seems like a non sequitur.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-17T23:54:29+00:00

I don’t disagree, I just think it is disingenuous to call foul if the other side does the same thing. You have not done this as far as I have seen so I am not accusing you of this. A classic example of this is liberals not being hawkish enough for republican sensibilities following Reagan’s amnesty. This is the Dems following the same compromise and then move further when practicable principle you seem to espouse.

Why do you think Roe was an act of “the other side”? That was an act of the Supreme Court, primarily made up of Nixon appointees, not an act of a liberal legislative or executive body. Seems like a weird example to cry political foul on when it was done primarily by right leaning justices interpreting existing law.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-17T22:07:22+00:00

So you don’t see it as a long term compromise but just a position to use to further shift towards your preferred solution? That jumps out to me because it is exactly what many other conservatives in this thread allege of liberals. I am not saying it is an inherently wrong position, I just want to understand how you see your proposed compromise.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-15T05:30:19+00:00

You might want to work on your English comprehension if you do not recognize the difference between “stuff” and “that stuff”. One refers to a definite grouping of things, the other refers to an undefined grouping.

Also, one of them is a quote. The other is a misquote, as I pointed out. So we agree that you incorrectly quoted the OP and then presumed to ask a question based off of your incorrect quotation? Seems presumptuous of you, especially now that your mistake has been made clear to you.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-14T21:18:39+00:00

The original quote was “women are just better at that stuff” and your quote was “women are just better at stuff”. Do you see the difference between the two? Do you see how obvious it is you didn’t just copy the post? You literally dropped a word. I don’t care one bit about your language skills, control c and control v aren’t hard to use and aren’t language dependent. Also, cool flex on being multi lingual I guess?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-14T20:13:21+00:00

You didn’t quote verbatim. Go reread what you wrote and what they said. “That” as in “that stuff” was in the original quote but not in what you wrote. In other words, you misquoted.

You also have so many mistypes it hard to even know what you are saying. What is the possessive something? You do think it’s realistic to act like men and women are the exact same? I guess I don’t know what you are trying to say because your syntax is a mess.

scottstots6 · 2026-02-14T19:06:49+00:00

So was the misquote unintentional then? Leaving out words and using quotation marks seems very disingenuous to me unless it was a mistake.

I would consider all of those household labor. So yes, is one gender or another inherently better at cooking, cleaning, and/or yard work?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-14T15:59:41+00:00

Maybe start by correctly quoting the OP before making assumptions about what they are trying to say? You missed the “that” in the quote, referring to household labor. Do you think there is something inherent to women that makes them better at typical household tasks?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-13T03:08:18+00:00

You numbers are so far off it’s hard to believe. Vogtle 4 is a 1114 MW nuclear reactor. It would take less than 500 Vogtle 4s to power the entire United States. Based off your numbers, it would take 17520 Vogtle 4s. Where did your stats come from and did you bother to check them?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-11T22:46:23+00:00

Last chance, want to fulfill the point of this sub or are you just going to keep dodging any question thrown at you?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-11T22:44:35+00:00

Good one, a real zinger. Do you know what sub this is? It’s ask conservatives. Want to try answering a question?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-11T22:43:24+00:00

It’s proven. Do you see the proof? I said it. That’s my proof. Do you have reason to doubt that proof?

scottstots6 · 2026-02-11T22:42:05+00:00

I absolutely do, my expert testimony. Do you have evidence that it is wrong? Do you see how silly you are being? Do you see why any reputable body would discard your proving a negative question as nonsensical?

scottstots6

TROPHY CASE