Wish i were a evil genius…:mad:

Given the loation of the spare ammoes in the turrent ring, that is what usually happens with T-64/72/80/90 series of tanks when they get knocked out. If the muntion which hits the tank ignates the powder of the spare ammoes, the turret pops up like a corq.

Do you have an idea as to what knocked it out ?

Can it have been a classic armour vs armour battle ?

And the normally articulate British, has suddenly gone shy.:D:D:D:D

Back to the AM39 the myth, as reinforced by PhantomII, is that Exocet was responsible for the loss of RN ships. It wasnt – on its own merit.

This is the same kind of pride that has the Argies claiming they sunk carriers – still, after all these years.

You talke pride in your navy, and your service, but pride cannot change the facts.

You really are full of nonsense Jonesey. Sheffield was sunk by Etendard/AM39. The fact that she may have been able to avoid this, does nothing to alter this premise.

Mistakes are made in any war, but in the end, Sheffield was sunk by a missile – not a mistake.

No, not really. Most published limits are related to peace time operations to conserve service live. 😉

Thats what i tought, compared to the french, the US navy go trough planes like T-shirts. This obviously has an effect on what loads they can use.

This must be John James. Except now he is pissed about being banned:D:D:D

I do have the habbit of thinking the worst case scenario, i admit. That’s what you get by reading too many greek fora. :p

True, US has a particular sense of fighting for freedom when it comes to oil. But it won’t be easy politically for USA to attack a “restored” Russia over some “disputed” oil fields. The Russians want to sell the oil too, so it’s not like the oil will disappear from the market. Here’s one of my catastrophic scenarios . Taking as excuse a new oil field in Barents or simply a misunderstanding or border episode, where the Russians will claim that you provoked them and you will claim that you did not such a thing, the Russians declare your cooperation null and void and send air-naval assets to occupy the areas of let’s say 80% of the oil fields in international waters, destroying any Norwegian attempt to stopping them, claiming that you fired on them first.

So the Russians deploy a “wall” above a good part of the pie, after which, they declare they are ready for a definitive negotiation of exclusive exlpoitation of some areas for Russia and some for Norway, “in the sake of peace”. Of course in such negotiation, you will start as the loser, so you will have to step back from what you have now. The question is, will the Americans attack Russia or will they advice you to go to the negotiation table?

I do wish for you all the best in any case.

P.S. : That’s why i am in favour of non petrol energy sources as soon as possible and my next car will be a hybrid. :p

A bit dark, yes. Like reading a Tom Clancy novel. 🙂

But lets look at what you are saying. You have 3 parties involved in your scenario:

USA/EU: Needs the oil and gas from the disputed fields, therefore needs them to be developed.

Russia: Needs the money from selling the oil and gas to build their economy.

Norway: Really doesnt need the money from the fields at the moment, as no more oil money can be invested in the national economy. (hyperinflation and all that)

USA/EU are of course supporting the Norwegian claims, as they can allways depend on Norway beeing friendly to their needs

Russia needs money, not having their ships sunk, and airplanes shot down. Besides this border with Norway is one of the safest they have. No need to change that, there will allways be a conflict where more urgent attention is needed.

Hence we have the situation as it is today. We play the waiting game.