(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mrbankies.livejournal.com
Yeah, that's problematic to say the least.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:04 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zdallin.livejournal.com
And all they needed was one of those tanks, fully assembled and up on the deck, and this wouldn't have been a problem...

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:43 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jsbowden.livejournal.com
I wouldn't trust a standard cargo vessel deck to fire a MBT primary cannon from. I have this nightmare vision of a T-72 going through the deck and out the bottom.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
I wouldn't trust a standard cargo vessel deck to hold an MBT, period.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 06:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
The vessel should be fine. Packaging and placement here are of utmost importance.

I've only hauled one load that threatened to capsize me, and none that threatened to go through the hull. As long as the loaders spread the weight, tanks are just as safe to haul as other bits of heavy equipment.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 10:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
Through the hull is one thing. I'm thinking, through the top deck while motoring back and forth in a 41 tonne vehicle and firing a 125mm cannon that, quote unquote, "is certified strong enough to ram the tank through forty centimetres of iron-reinforced brick wall, though doing so will negatively affect the gun's accuracy when subsequently fired" is another.

I don't know much about cargo ships compared to an actual sailor. But, really, if the recoil can put the tank through half a meter of iron-reinforced brick, I'm willing to believe it might be bad for a ship's top deck.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 08:01 pm (UTC)
ext_63755: '98 XJ8 (Default)
From: [identity profile] rgovrebo.livejournal.com
Nice story, but your explanation of horsepower is surreal.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 08:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
I'm not surprised. The mere concept sits in my brain like a lump of goo. Really, why use it? Torque is so much easier to understand.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 08:42 pm (UTC)
ext_63755: '98 XJ8 (Default)
From: [identity profile] rgovrebo.livejournal.com
Power (in hp or kw or whatever) = torque * RPM

And where did you get the bit about having to break the engine? It's brake horsepower.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-29 04:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
The gas engine breaking point comes from mechanics I know and others who work on engines. The peak power (automotive) vs. continuous power (electric) ratings are always pointed out by experienced electric car conversion nuts to newbies planning their own conversions.

I'm aware it's a brake horsepower rating. The difference between continuous and redline operation, though, is significant. Or so I've been told by those who know.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-29 05:35 pm (UTC)
ext_63755: '98 XJ8 (Default)
From: [identity profile] rgovrebo.livejournal.com
I'm aware it's a brake horsepower rating. The difference between continuous and redline operation, though, is significant. Or so I've been told by those who know.

That depends. In a racing engine it's significant because you'll be going flat out, in normal road use it's more or less irrelevant because you won't.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-30 01:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
I understand why this is done, but many don't, so when they see the horsepower ratings of electric motors being installed in cars they get this puzzled "why bother with so little power?" look on their faces. Then one has to explain the whole continuous/peak rating distinctions. Again.

I know people who push their electrics to three or four times the motor ratings in electric car drags. They mostly let them cool afterwards. If they don't, they let the smoke out. I've seen some pretty cool motor fireball videos.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-30 11:03 am (UTC)
ext_63755: '98 XJ8 (Default)
From: [identity profile] rgovrebo.livejournal.com
Yeah, on an electric motor it's ridiculous - torque is constant, but power will increase as you pile on the RPM.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 05:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] icedrake.livejournal.com
There are many things a T-72 is good at. Hunting down speedboats armed with assault rifles and grenade launchers from the pitching and rolling deck of a cargo ship isn't one of them.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladyfox7oaks.livejournal.com
This won't end well...

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lafinjack.livejournal.com
I'll get the popcorn!

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] affreca.livejournal.com
Not with both US and Russian warships chasing them.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 02:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] atlasimpure.livejournal.com
I'm looking forward to the video.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 03:17 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kadath.livejournal.com
Yes, they are so totally fucked when the Russians get their hands on 'em.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 04:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dreamshade.livejournal.com
I suddenly hear Yakity Sax playing in the background...

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 03:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ulitave.livejournal.com
yeah. yeah.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 06:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dolston.livejournal.com
Who cares? Seriously. They can't do anything with them. They don't know how to use them and can't get them off the ship. The AK47s and RPG7s that were in the box are far more of a concern than Soviet Era MBTs.

Besides, this maybe the single best thing that could have happened. The pirates who have been operating freely and terrorizing the Somali coast has now actually done something that will make the world deal with them instead of pretending they don't exist.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 07:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dgillmore.livejournal.com
See, this is what I was thinking. If I'm the pirate captain of the vessel capturing this ship, I'm like "Sorry guys, my bad" and leaving it for other prey that won't bring a major world power down on my ass.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jackoutofthebox.livejournal.com
roflmao, for the Win!

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 01:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
The governments of Kenya and the Ukraine care.

The holy shit moment is for the pirates, who took the ship, then looked at the manifest and said "bugger".

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 02:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aimisdirty.livejournal.com
Yup. Even if they did know how to use them, they would never get the spare parts necessary to maintain them. Tanks and other armoured vehicles are very, very maintenance intensive.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 02:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
The ship's got entire containers of spare everythings for those tanks, actually.

They were being sold to the Kenyan government, with the idea being that this ship was going to have absolutely everything they'd need for months of operation.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 08:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aimisdirty.livejournal.com
And how many people know how to perform proper maintenance with those spare parts? It isn't as easy as it sounds.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 10:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
But you said "no spare parts".

I was just saying "plenty of spare parts".

And if that means they need to hire some Russian Army types to teach them how to run that tanks, that's still entirely different from "they have no spares".

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 02:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ironphoenix.livejournal.com
I notice that nobody is saying anything about why a shitpload of Russian tanks was headed along the Somali coast.
Edited Date: 2008-09-28 02:02 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 02:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
It's in another article. The Ukraine sold them to Kenya.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 02:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ironphoenix.livejournal.com
Ah, I see. I suppose there are worse places they could go...

"Hey, kenya spare a few armored vehicles? Tanks a lot!"

(no subject)

Date: 2008-09-28 06:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com
Ever read Gibson's Spook Country?

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Feb. 5th, 2026 05:34 pm