The reasons for the start of both World Wars are well known and explained in detail in countless historical studies. They did not require any hidden external forces. And WW2 was not about the Jews (that was a side-issue for Hitler) it was about Germany revenging itself for WW1 plus going on a war of conquest in the East.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

WRONG!! this man was born in 1809 and died in 1891 LONG berfore WW1 and LONG LONG before WW2 he clearly talked about 2 WORLD WARS which happend so this IS the “EVIDENCE” that shows there IS a “NEW WORLD ORDER Conspirousy”

Combat Aircraft (not Combat Aviation) is not an American magazine, it’s a British publication. Nice try with the anti-American bit there, but you failed.

When it counted, F-16s had no problems actually shooting MiG-29s out of the sky, either.

Britsh/American your all the same, and F-16’s only shot down MiG-29’s in Iraq and Kosavo because they had to have help from thier good o’l “AWACS” friends, had they NOT have it or if Iraq and especialy Serbia had thier own AWACS, it would have been a verY different story, but like I said before more than 300 NATO crafts where shot down in 99, and Iraq shot dowm 38 U.S. back in 91, so all in all YOU FAILED. 😀

Recent operations (ie Kosovo or Gulf war II) has shown the importance of GPS guided missiles, and the US superiority in this domain. I was wondering whether the Europeans have missiles guided by GPS (i.e. is there a list) and, if yes, whether they are ensured to benefit from the GPS secure P (or M) code for their use at all time (is there for instance a NATO wide agreement for such a service?)?

The Galileo postioning system should be up (pun intended) and running by 2010, and the Europeans will then have a system competing with the US GPS. But, (owing to the Brits) such military use of Galileo has been ruled out, and European will remain dependend on US goodwill in the foreseeable future.

The U.S. was NOT “Superiour” in anyway in this catagorey in KOSAVO, the only hit 13 of Serbia’s 500+ Tanks, Serbian Military used modified Microwave Ovens to operate with thier door’s open to interfear with NATO’s GPS guides on their (NATOS’s) Bombs, which caused Doezens of them to not hit thier targets, so much for yoye “Supieriour Hardwar”. 😀

Well as a distant observer it probably comes down to who was using it. In Arab hands a T-55 or T-62 for that matter is a bit of a deathtrap. In Isreali hands it seems to be quite capable. In Soviet or Russian hands it is hard to say, as the wars they have used such vechiles in they tend to not face enemy armour and tend to be used as armoured direct fire artillery support.
Like anything an aircraft or tank or ship for that matter is a part of a system. Take it out of that system and it might not work so well. For example a Mig-29 in Yugoslavian service. Not maintained properly. Getting airborne without a functioning radar armed only with IR guided AAMs. Patchy radar coverage due to jamming and radio monitoring. Against the Airforce of NATO with all the latest bits and pieces each airforce member can afford, and the US brings all the other bits that none of the other NATO members can afford like all the JSTARs and Jammers and sneaky beaky satellite imagery. After practising flying against West German Mig-29s what surprises did the Yugoslavs have left? Does it make the Mig-29 a bad piece of equipment? Replace NATO F-16s with Mig-29s of the relevant SMT model (to allow for the fact that the Mig-29s the Yugoslavs had were point defence interceptors not multirole fighterbombers) and it probably would have performed as well. The general view of course is that the Mig-29 is crap… it failed to do its job in Kosovo and in Iraq as well. Of course there is the Flanker so that we can still wave that at congress when we want more F-22s or F-35s or if someone thinks Europe could get by with fewer Typhoons or Rafales or Gripens…

There were always the nay sayers and the hawks. The hawks… the T-80 is the most powerful tank in the world and pictures showing drawings of M1A2s are shown everywhere. The Naysayers jump up and say… no… the T-80 is just a T-72 with smoke grenade launchers and rubberised armour on the sides to defend against automatic cannon fire. The reality is that the T-80 is a very different tank to the T-72, with much more capable electronics and much more advanced armour.

It is a common result. Sometimes the Hawks aren’t Hawkish enough… Sunburn was a cracker or a weapon in the early 80s… sometimes the Naysayers have it right… the T-72 has some serious design flaws regarding ammo stowage… of course contemporary M60s blew up with a penetrating hit too… but everyone forgets that.

A self critical view may never arrive. When (If) it does the US would be respected and liked around the world rather more than it is now.

GET OUTA HERE with this CRAP: 1. Most of the Iraqi Tanks in Desert Storm were T-55/62/64’s and few T-72’s AND most of them were destroyed buy LBG’s dropped by F-16’s and Aphachie Helecopters, only like 4% of the Iraqi Tanks were destroyed buy M1a1 Bradlies in Tank vs. Tank battle, and each time Iraqi Tanks wheather they were T-55/62
64/72’s did NOT have 1. DU rounds, 2. ERA’s, 3. NightVission/Thearmal Vission Equipment AND 4. Iraq Tanks only had 1 Miles reach radius of it’s Main Gun, while M1 A1 had 2 mIles reach, and 95% of the Tank on Tank battle happened in the DARK were Iraqi’s didn’t have night vission,or thermal vission. So, all in all U.S. ain’t thougher than Russia, and U.S. NEVER addmitts the Iraqi tanks were weaker than M1A1’s because of “the equipment” it didn’t have so this lends credibility to what we Russian have been saying all these years “U.S.” Lies/Exagerats about it’s so called “Advanced” Military Equipment and tactics compared to “Post 1960” Russia. P.S. in “Desert Storm” The U.S. lost 38 Planes, 1999 Yugoslavia had more advanced SAM’s AAA, and MiG-29’s than 1991 Iraq, so are you gonna tell me you really believe that “NATO lie”, that only 1 F-117, and 1 F-16, and a UAV were lost, in 78 days of fighting, if Iraq brought down 38 aircraft in 1991 then, Serbia surely would do more, and by the way The Serbs have/still say they shot down more than 300 NATO planes and over 400 NATO Cruise missiles, but U.S. Government told them if they want NATO to compinsate for the re-buildment of Serbia then they should not disclose thier (NATO’s) losses.

LA is said to sacrifice depth for speed. I’m sure it can do better than 250m though, FAS (who are an adequate source for US weapons systems) says 300 safe/test and 450 max, which sounds about right IMHO. For Trafalgar, the RN says 400m oprational (probably the same as test) and 600m maximum, although that would imply a safety factor of 1,5 (like the US) instead of 1,75 like they supposedly use.

Hm, I can’t seem to see the difference between Kilo and Akula in this regard. Both are double hull designs with cylindrical mid-ship sections, right?

I realize that, I was not trying to compare them in general, just their diving depths.

You’d need to have seen one in a drydock to understand, unfortunately there seem to be no such images (no photographs of the real thing, that is) on the net. The only ones I’ve seen are in books. Looking at this CGI of Astute you will see what I’m talking about though:

Speaking of Astute, there is this image of the real thing under construction at BAe (but no Trafalgar!):

http://www.baesystems.com/gallery/sea/images/ASTUTE-CLASS-SUB-IN-DDH_hi.jpg

Actually there is a couple of pictures of it in the New “Janes Submairines” Book.

about few years ago,report from newspaper thatIsrael has successfully conducted test firing submarine launched cruise missile.
while some report that the cruise missile may be just another extended range version of harpoon.some may not be so sure,there is suspect that missile may be equivalent of tomahawk cruise missile,design for only one purpose in mind,to attack iranian nuclear facility

Yes your correct: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm