KoTeMoRe wrote:Militarov wrote:KoTeMoRe wrote:Cyrus the great wrote:sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.
Apologies. I should have looked.Militarov wrote:
Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.
I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov.
Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?
It's not lies per se. It's just the way they see it.
If you want, for instance I had a very troublesome discussion regarding the viability or American style repeaters in European theatre. I got hit with the battle of Varna during the last Russo-Turkish war. According to an US/English legend, repeaters and volley fire would have been decisive in stalling the Russian attacks on Plevna/Pleven.
While when you read the actual movement. There are instances where the repeaters did exactly the contrary. They created gaps in the rhythm of fire that allowed both Russians and Romanians to actually sap the Turkish defences and get closer. The fact that the battle ended by a three months old siege doesn't mean that the Turks were "winning", because basically they lost the battle and the war, because of Pleven. And the repeaters were NEVER seen again by any modern European force and even the Turks and later the Russians who tested them, went the good old bolt action route.
Now for the US weapons aficionados, the truth is that repeaters were king of the hill. But from a military stand point, they were utterly expensive and ammo consuming, especially if you didn't hit. And everyone with a brain went for bolt actions. Including the US.
Still repeaters were great for cavalary. However due to logistics most cavalary units in the world had to stick with shortened carabine bolt action rifles.
Yeah until you had to reload...any repeater. And with the Enfield action, the large capacity Henry Martinis were a moot point. They were out ranged, out punched and out reloaded. And then there's the Lebel...
Cyrus: Once again, it's not a lie if you believe in it. Honest to God, there's the hard belief in American Exceptionalism that goes really deep into how the US was made. And that's how the Americans see it. Then there's the trolls who know better.
I used to be bothered by that, but thanks to guys like ArtjomH, I've settled down on the technical side of the deal. However the political side is something else.
Anyway, I'm way off topic.
I'm oddly amused by American attitudes. You can't even talk to them about the reasons for the 'revolutionary war'; you can't tell them that Britain's treaty with the indigenous people (a treaty that forbade westward expansion) was a conveniently omitted factor for the 'revolutionary' war -- a war that the Americans present as entirely righteous.