Swedish Socialist Art: The Uglier Truth

[Az]

Jaakko, I think it's all that steam that's not channelled properly , to a nice ME thread.

an MBT can't get really violent, and that's what we need now.

[Bereta_Eder]

MBT?

[- Groucho -]

NOOOOO!!!! Not an MBT. Anything but that. The arcana of bore sizes versus mobility will be the death of us!




Because we know it is all about mobility. You see, that is why your Abrams ...

[Jaakko]

Actually, it's the trinity of Firepower, Armour and Mobility. A fascinating example was the Leopard 1 series. It was built in an era where HEAT ammunition was king, as it could penetrate ridiculous amounts of armour steel, but exotic armour wasn't developed yet.

That means they had a situation where firepower could lopsidedly defeat armour, and so the result was a tank with the ubiquitous 105mm rifled gun, little armour, but a lot of mobility. After all, on a battlefield where a hit always killed, speed would be the only cure.

Edit: Dammit Dal, I don't even recognise you anymore. Your name sounds like a cheesy sci-fi novel!

[Roland]

This is an insanely hilarious thread. Unfortunately there really is nothing to add.

So, what about the Leo II ?

[moomin]

Originally posted by Roland
This is an insanely hilarious thread. Unfortunately there really is nothing to add.

An Austrian, finding a thread about how socialists allow their envy and malevolence to turn a monument of a man who actually tried to undo some of the horrors of the holocaust into a dung pile insanely hilarious?

I guess we shouldn't be surprised. It's not like Austria ever went through the German nazi purges, is it?

[moomin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Moomin's a hater.

Well, if I am, at least I'm not the particularly despicable kind of maggot who tries to do away with the memory of the mountain of corpses his pet ideology racked up, in order for it too look better in the eyes of those who haven't yet understood the harsh necessities that dialectic materialism forces upon the progressive elements of the dictature of the proletariat.

Edit: deleted as per moderator request.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

What moomin likes to do is to turn history, that's something complex and gray and turn it around to fit his political views of the world of black and white. I argue that joining nato would be a risk and at the same side quite pointless. Joining a military alliance is and should be the best choice from a regional security perspective not because out of a desire to start a crusade to free the world from communism.

This is hogwash whoever thought it, and the proof is not the outcome of the Cold War but WWII itself. Almost every neutral country lined up between large enemies got overrun, and in the East this meant either a Nazi government followed by a Stalinist government unless you were unlucky enough to come under Soviet control twice. Neutral border states suffered horribly. It should have been crystal clear that neither NATO or the Soviets were going to launch a war over Sweden or Yugoslavia's international policy if it meant a war with the other bloc. The danger was minimal at worst.

As for the crusade to free the world of communism, remind me please how many NATO troops were used to fight communism around the globe?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by moomin


Well, if I am, at least I'm not the particularly despicable kind of maggot who tries to do away with the memory of the mountain of corpses his pet ideology racked up, in order for it too look better in the eyes of those who haven't yet understood the harsh necessities that dialectic materialism forces upon the progressive elements of the dictature of the proletariat.

And I don't really need hate. I'd settle for justice. Nothing would please me better than to hear that you, personally, got the join the ranks of those murdered by your favourite ideologly. It would add icing to the cake if some other commie was then to deny you ever existed.

Would I do it myself? Hell, no, I'm no commie. But I would love it if the joys of the your pet ideology were visited upon you. Let the punishment fit the crime.

moomin, please. You´re making enough of an ass of yourself as it is... Noone here is seriously defending Stalin and his followers genocide.

[Roland]

Moomin you're just an idiot. A pompous idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. And I'm not laughing about Wallenberg, I'm laughing about you and the outpourings of your someone-crapped-in-and forgot-to-flush-brain.

"It's not like Austria ever went through the German nazi purges, is it?"

You show again that you know abso****inlutely nothing but some lines you've snapped up somewhere.

[Jaakko]

Looks like Eurowiggy was an accurate characterisation on my part.

And the Leo 2, it's simply another one of the newer NATO standard tanks. With laminate or composite armour it is well protected even against modern rounds, while still retaining good mobility. The main gun is again the present standard, a 120mm smoothbore. Incidentally, the advantages present in this kind of tank have driven the development of so called top-attack anti tank missiles, in order to preserve their effectiveness against vehicles that routinely defeat any HEAT round hitting the front armour.

[Roland]

A5 or A6 ?

[Jaakko]

I think all the big changes came in A5.
And I should have mentioned the extensive computerisation of fire control systems, allowing for a much higher PK per shot compared to tanks of previous generations. It also dramatically increases mobility, because the tank doesn't have to stop to fire the main gun.

[Kropotkin]

Sikander: Like the world hogwash do we?

About the "crusade" et al., it's clear that there's no room for some simple retorics and overstatements. In diplomacy choosing sides and join a military alliance is a pretty outspoken message to the rest of the world imho.

If neither side would start a war about Sweden, Yugoslavia or any other minor country (a point of view easy to have today but even Cuba is a minor country) a membership in nato is pointless. If it would start a war it would be stupid.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Sikander: Like the world hogwash do we?

About the "crusade" et al., it's clear that there's no room for some simple retorics and overstatements. In diplomacy choosing sides and join a military alliance is a pretty outspoken message to the rest of the world imho.

If neither side would start a war about Sweden, Yugoslavia or any other minor country (a point of view easy to have today but even Cuba is a minor country) a membership in nato is pointless. If it would start a war it would be stupid.

No one was going to start a war because someone joined the other side. It was defending the bloc that was important. If for some reason the Soviets decided to take Sweden, I doubt that NATO would have done anything about it. The stakes were too high. Thus by remaining neutral you remained at risk, as there was no MAD calculus working in your favor. Obviously in the event there was no war for you, but the smarter bet (say playing the same situation out 100 times) was to pick a side, preferably the one that states joined voluntarily.

The Cuban Missle Crisis IMO was the low point of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War. It was not the lowest ebb of U.S. fortunes mind you, but the most reckless action taken by that maniac Kennedy. He made every other U.S. president of the era look like a model of restraint. Thank god someone shot him in the head, probably someone who knew what was going on.