[N_Fiddledog]

Hey, you guys most likely already knew this one below, but I just learned it, and I think it's cool.

$1:

The name "Molotov cocktail" was coined by the Finns during the Winter War.[1] The name is an insulting reference to Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who was responsible for the setting of "spheres of interest" in Eastern Europe under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939. The pact with the Nazis bearing Molotov's name was widely mocked by the Finns, as was much of the propaganda Molotov produced to accompany the pact, including his declaration on Soviet state radio that bombing missions over Finland were actually airborne humanitarian food deliveries for their starving neighbours. The Finns sarcastically dubbed the Soviet cluster bombs "Molotov bread baskets" in reference to Molotov's propaganda broadcasts.[2] When the hand-held bottle firebomb was developed to attack Soviet tanks, the Finns called it the "Molotov cocktail", as "a drink to go with the food".[3] Molotov himself despised the name, particularly as the term became ubiquitous and generalised as Soviets faced increasing numbers of cocktail-throwing protesters in the Eastern Bloc in the years after World War II.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Regina Regina:

Were your guys in tanks cringing when they saw mason jars? Bet it makes a great heat signature for the gunner though.

They're not impregnable and they're not immune to fire.

There are probably all sorts of special plastics shock absorbents of some shape or other behind the armour, meant to absorb kinetic energy. It would be dumb to use flammable substances but perhaps it can't be avoided completely.

[DrCaleb]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Regina Regina:

Were your guys in tanks cringing when they saw mason jars? Bet it makes a great heat signature for the gunner though.

They're not impregnable and they're not immune to fire.

There are probably all sorts of special plastics shock absorbents of some shape or other behind the armour, meant to absorb kinetic energy. It would be dumb to use flammable substances but perhaps it can't be avoided completely.

There aren't made of flammable substances. I've seen a few programs on the refit of the Abrams chassis, and they are solid. Made from a classified composite of metals and ceramics. They aren't flammable, but they also aren't immune to heat.

[N_Fiddledog]

I wonder if this is relevant.

http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-l ... aine/#7227

It concerns a recent tank battle between a Russian and Ukrainian tank, but doesn't it also show what could happen as a result of an internal tank explosion caused by any incendiary device?

$1:

The soldier sustained severe burns after ammunition went off inside his tank, causing a fire.

Also doesn't that kind of look like what's happening to the tank in the pic above?

[Regina]

They probably stuck a stick in the spokes first though.

[Thanos]

The newer armour packages for the Abrams, Bradley, and Strikers are much more efficient now than they were in 2003. Amazing that Rumsfeld and the other geniuses forgot so quickly after Vietnam what kind of havoc RPG's and such could play on vehicles. All that stand-off plate and slat armour that the Germans thought up in WW2 is as effective today as it was seventy years ago in absorbing/deflecting basic AP and HE rounds. The Russians are still in love with their ERA block supplementary armour but as they've never had their current AFV's, not like that surplus crap they pawned off on Saddam and Assad, ever face modern US/British/German-built guns (or faced any if the tricks the American helicopter fleet can do) we just don't know yet how effective modern Russian stuff will be in terms of crew or vehicle protection. Probably not very good because they don't care about their own guys any more today than they did when Stalin was in charge.

[N_Fiddledog]

[Jabberwalker]

Thanos Thanos:

The newer armour packages for the Abrams, Bradley, and Strikers are much more efficient now than they were in 2003. Amazing that Rumsfeld and the other geniuses forgot so quickly after Vietnam what kind of havoc RPG's and such could play on vehicles. All that stand-off plate and slat armour that the Germans thought up in WW2 is as effective today as it was seventy years ago in absorbing/deflecting basic AP and HE rounds. The Russians are still in love with their ERA block supplementary armour but as they've never had their current AFV's, not like that surplus crap they pawned off on Saddam and Assad, ever face modern US/British/German-built guns (or faced any if the tricks the American helicopter fleet can do) we just don't know yet how effective modern Russian stuff will be in terms of crew or vehicle protection. Probably not very good because they don't care about their own guys any more today than they did when Stalin was in charge.

You'd think that the Russians would have learned a lot from the scrapheap-in-the-desert that was the Iraqi army ... like what depleted uranium rounds do to armor.

[ShepherdsDog]

Thanos Thanos:

The newer armour packages for the Abrams, Bradley, and Strikers are much more efficient now than they were in 2003. Amazing that Rumsfeld and the other geniuses forgot so quickly after Vietnam what kind of havoc RPG's and such could play on vehicles. All that stand-off plate and slat armour that the Germans thought up in WW2 is as effective today as it was seventy years ago in absorbing/deflecting basic AP and HE rounds. The Russians are still in love with their ERA block supplementary armour but as they've never had their current AFV's, not like that surplus crap they pawned off on Saddam and Assad, ever face modern US/British/German-built guns (or faced any if the tricks the American helicopter fleet can do) we just don't know yet how effective modern Russian stuff will be in terms of crew or vehicle protection. Probably not very good because they don't care about their own guys any more today than they did when Stalin was in charge.

The sloped armour of the Russian tanks was a more efficient design over those uber Tigers.

[Jabberwalker]

The kinetic energy absorbing Red Army troops riding on top of them helped to protect the tank

[BRAH]

[stratos]

Individual's taking the initiative to learn how to protect themselves and or be an asset to their country in a time of need is never a bad thing. People always expecting others to protect them and ensure their safety is simply foolish.

[Regina]

I find it odd that a country who considers itself a world super power has very little faith in their own trained women and men to protect them.
Thank you for your service.........but I don't trust you to protect me??

[stratos]

Regina Regina:

I find it odd that a country who considers itself a world super power has very little faith in their own trained women and men to protect them.
Thank you for your service.........but I don't trust you to protect me??

Will they protect me from the man threatening me with the knife? Will they come to my aid when someone is breaking into my home? Will they protect me from the rogue cop shooting me in the back?

No they are not meant to do that and thus I as an individual must see to my own safety.

England is a country with a great navy and dedicated ground forces (I do not know much about their current air force). Yet they were unable to stop 2 guys from beheading a solider in the middle of their own country.

[andyt]

That's it. It's their fellow citizens they are so afraid of. Logical outcome when you divide the country between rich and poor, black and white.

The only thing I can think of that will protect you from getting shot in the back is a bullet proof vest. Help with getting stabbed too. Maybe they should pass mandatory vest laws instead of mandatory carry. That and put Ativan in the water supply.