M48/60s ?

#1
Interesting article at (google)defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com..(.sorry, can't get the link to work)

....The gist of it is that a return to the designs as embodied in the US M48 and 60 series vehicles may be the answer in places like Afghanistan instead of compromise wheeled designs that can't hack it off road and too light tracked vehicles that are vulnerable to ied's.
 
#4
What a tosspot Richard North is, the tit has used one of my pictures further down the blog.

No linkback or even an email to ask if he could use it.
 
#5
Older_by_the_day said:
What a tosspot Richard North is, the tit has used one of my pictures further down the blog.

No linkback or even an email to ask if he could use it.
No need to be abusive - most of the pictures come from a Google search to websites where the origin of the pics is not always clear. If you can identify the picture and object to me using it, I will remove it. If you want acknowledgement and a link, I will be happy to do that. Generally, though, once you put pics up on the internet, you lose control - there are more important things to get worked up about.
 
#6
I've already sent you an email. I do object to you using it.

And I have every right to be abusive, especially as it's my livelihood - as such it's quite an important thing for me to get worked up about.

Generally, you don't always lose control, it's only when people poach images that the problem occurs. Most people ask before using if they don't intend to pay.

Edited for more sense.
 
#9
Bloody hell I didn't mean to open this can of worms - apologies to all concerned....
btw, returning to the post, I think more helicopters are the way to go - rising above the ied threat - but the point made in the article about the design of the M48/60 series seems to be a good one.
 
#11
Very long artical with many subjects to comment on.
Is it not just a fact of life that an Army is equipped to fight its last war, on the day it's New War surfaces.
The Brit Army was still basically set up to Fight on The North German Plain, hence all the Heavy Armour, and Tracked AFVs and Large Self Propelled Guns.
If at Start of 1990, You had told me that by years end a Brit Armour Division would be deployed in Mid East, I would have said well you had a Happy Festive Season. The suggestion that they could have been back 10 ish years later would have been time to visit the Happy House.
An Army can only afford one set of Basic Equipment. The Generals decided to equip for what they know.
Only the Politician can be expect to know just where they will use their Troops.
Failure to know is a Political problem and it is with them that the responsibility for unsuitable equipment must lie.
john
john
 
#12
It seems to fall foul of the very logic it brings up earlier in the text: You're going to have a vehicle good at job #1 or job #2, or one which is more or less adequate at both. It points out that the 48/60 are very tall tanks meaning they're not optimal at the combat job. So what's the point in the concept of bringing that sort of thing back?

NTM
 
#13
A little knowledge is a bad thing.

The Cent was a direct child of experience in war and was able to take mine hit and be back in use very quickly. As for bogging in any one who has had any involvement with tracked veh and winter will know that they are not the be all and end all in cross country. As for the irrigation ditch, why do you think Saxon and Warrior carry fascines in BAOR and early Iraq.

He would have been better looking at FV601 again built following experience from WW2.

As for IED, build a bigger tank, build a bigger bomb. Any one seen the vid of the M1 flying. What are the Mastiffs like over the same ground.

The question should be why are the Canadians travelling by road.
 
#15
Richard_North said:
Older_by_the_day said:
What a tosspot Richard North is, the tit has used one of my pictures further down the blog.

No linkback or even an email to ask if he could use it.
No need to be abusive - most of the pictures come from a Google search to websites where the origin of the pics is not always clear. If you can identify the picture and object to me using it, I will remove it. If you want acknowledgement and a link, I will be happy to do that. Generally, though, once you put pics up on the internet, you lose control - there are more important things to get worked up about.
Hi mate, I've got a photograph, but the only thing that's missing is some good commentary to accompany it - I'm just gonna nick some stuff out of one of your books. 'Course you don't mind, after all, it's only your intellectual property and there are more important things to worry about.


Arrogant twat.


Journos - all the same.
 
#16
amazing__lobster said:
Richard_North said:
Older_by_the_day said:
What a tosspot Richard North is, the tit has used one of my pictures further down the blog.

No linkback or even an email to ask if he could use it.
No need to be abusive - most of the pictures come from a Google search to websites where the origin of the pics is not always clear. If you can identify the picture and object to me using it, I will remove it. If you want acknowledgement and a link, I will be happy to do that. Generally, though, once you put pics up on the internet, you lose control - there are more important things to get worked up about.
Hi mate, I've got a photograph, but the only thing that's missing is some good commentary to accompany it - I'm just gonna nick some stuff out of one of your books. 'Course you don't mind, after all, it's only your intellectual property and there are more important things to worry about.


Arrogant twat.


Journos - all the same.
People are doing it all the time - stuff I write is lifted wholesale and circulated round the net, and lifted occasionally by journos, only to appear unattributed in the media - as indeed are posts on this forum. That is a fact of life - get used to it.

If you want to protect copyright, don't post it on the net, or mark the stuff clearly (photographs with watermarks) that it is copyright. You can also embed markers and track them down using dedicated search software.

For me, life is too short. Had that particular photgraph been marked - or had I been aware of its origin, I would have asked permission. I have now removed it and apologised for the error. Nothing, however, warrants the abuse.
 
#17
Richard_North said:
If you want to protect copyright, don't post it on the net, or mark the stuff clearly (photographs with watermarks) that it is copyright. You can also embed markers and track them down using dedicated search software.
If you wanted to respect copyright, you wouldn't nick photos off the 'net.
 
#18
Richard_North said:
amazing__lobster said:
Richard_North said:
Older_by_the_day said:
What a tosspot Richard North is, the tit has used one of my pictures further down the blog.

No linkback or even an email to ask if he could use it.
No need to be abusive - most of the pictures come from a Google search to websites where the origin of the pics is not always clear. If you can identify the picture and object to me using it, I will remove it. If you want acknowledgement and a link, I will be happy to do that. Generally, though, once you put pics up on the internet, you lose control - there are more important things to get worked up about.
Hi mate, I've got a photograph, but the only thing that's missing is some good commentary to accompany it - I'm just gonna nick some stuff out of one of your books. 'Course you don't mind, after all, it's only your intellectual property and there are more important things to worry about.


Arrogant twat.


Journos - all the same.
People are doing it all the time - stuff I write is lifted wholesale and circulated round the net, and lifted occasionally by journos, only to appear unattributed in the media - as indeed are posts on this forum. That is a fact of life - get used to it.

If you want to protect copyright, don't post it on the net, or mark the stuff clearly (photographs with watermarks) that it is copyright. You can also embed markers and track them down using dedicated search software.

For me, life is too short. Had that particular photgraph been marked - or had I been aware of its origin, I would have asked permission. I have now removed it and apologised for the error. Nothing, however, warrants the abuse.
Yes Richard, people are doing it all the time. Does that make it right though?
People also steal cars all the time. If I stole yours as well would that make it right?

You don't take an image save it, not record where it came from and then use it. I know where you found the image, but you don't seem to know! Which means you had no intention of doing anything other than stealing it (unless you have a Landrover fetish that is).

The onus is not just on the photographer to find his images on the net.

As someone who would like to be taken seriously I would have thought that you would know how it works.

Should you be taken to court, the excuse "well, everyone's doing it" just doesn't wash.
 
#19
Richard_North said:
amazing__lobster said:
Richard_North said:
Older_by_the_day said:
What a tosspot Richard North is, the tit has used one of my pictures further down the blog.

No linkback or even an email to ask if he could use it.
No need to be abusive - most of the pictures come from a Google search to websites where the origin of the pics is not always clear. If you can identify the picture and object to me using it, I will remove it. If you want acknowledgement and a link, I will be happy to do that. Generally, though, once you put pics up on the internet, you lose control - there are more important things to get worked up about.
Hi mate, I've got a photograph, but the only thing that's missing is some good commentary to accompany it - I'm just gonna nick some stuff out of one of your books. 'Course you don't mind, after all, it's only your intellectual property and there are more important things to worry about.


Arrogant twat.


Journos - all the same.
People are doing it all the time - stuff I write is lifted wholesale and circulated round the net, and lifted occasionally by journos, only to appear unattributed in the media - as indeed are posts on this forum. That is a fact of life - get used to it.

If you want to protect copyright, don't post it on the net, or mark the stuff clearly (photographs with watermarks) that it is copyright. You can also embed markers and track them down using dedicated search software.

For me, life is too short. Had that particular photgraph been marked - or had I been aware of its origin, I would have asked permission. I have now removed it and apologised for the error. Nothing, however, warrants the abuse.
Indeed Richard, but as others have said, theft is theft. Most people speed in their cars, but that still wouldn't wash as an excuse to a magistrate.

Maybe what you did doesn't warrant abuse, but your condescending and dismissive attitude towards the owner, who is rightly miffed at having their work stolen, was also not warranted.
 

New Posts

Top