SpudFiles

Anyother Reason to respect the POLICE officers.

Im hoping it Embeds Below

[youtube][/youtube]

link:



This almost makes me sick to my stomach just thingking about this happening.

Scary stuff, I noticed a Barrett M82 50 cal in there too.

I can understand the concerns with using military hardware in inhabited areas but extreme situations call for extreme measures, surely the National Guard has enough portable anti-tank weapons to easily be able to deal with such a beast in very little time?

T'is an old story.

They didn't manage to do anything to it in the end, it broke down due to a radiator failure.

What exactly makes you sick about it Cannon?

oooooohhh i want a killdozer!That guy was crazy destroying a town with a bulldozer tank thing i feel kinda bad for the town.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:I can understand the concerns with using military hardware in inhabited areas but extreme situations call for extreme measures, surely the National Guard has enough portable anti-tank weapons to easily be able to deal with such a beast in very little time?

I'm not sure. An inch of plate steel and a foot of concrete armour aren't going to be messed with by much. It depends what they had, but I don't think much short of heavy military hardware would have been much use.

Having wondered about how he steered it, a search says he had three cameras on the surface. If those had been shot out, he wouldn't have been able to see, but I imagine he might just have gone blindly on, which isn't really any better.

I wonder what they would have done had it not failed when it did.

Perhaps an A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft could be "borrowed". With it's terrifying GAU-8 gatling cannon, it would be pretty effective.
Under fire from more than 50 rounds a second, at 150,000 ft lbs each, I imagine the "Killdozer" would have instantly been turned into a sieve.
Given that a trained A-10 pilot can put a very large majority of their rounds into a target about the same size as that bulldozer from a mile away in flight, it wouldn't be too much of a risk using it.

Or maybe they could have put it up against a huge 200 tonne earthmover instead.

joannaardway wrote:I'm not sure. An inch of plate steel and a foot of concrete armour aren't going to be messed with by much. It depends what they had, but I don't think much short of heavy military hardware would have been much use.

The BGM-71 TOW can penetrate 70-80cm of steel armour, and typically shaped charges will penetrate three times more through concrete. An inch of steel and a foot of concrete would have been child's play.

Even the unguided hand-held M136 AT4 with 40cm of penetration would have sufficed. When you consider the targets that these sort of weapons are designed to deal with, an A-Team style contraption shouldn't have posed so much of a challenge.

At the end of the day, it was probably collateral damage (and subsequent liability) concerns that prevented the use of such measures to deal with the problem.

Having wondered about how he steered it, a search says he had three cameras on the surface. If those had been shot out, he wouldn't have been able to see, but I imagine he might just have gone blindly on, which isn't really any better.

Ya I was wondering about that becuase, If you play the end of the video were they show the inside of the DOZER, You can see 1 or 2 of the TV moniters im sure he used for those 3 cameras you were talking about.

One thing I've always wondered, how would you go about blocking the blast from weapons such as TOW and AT4?
I've seen guys at nasa use layers of copper to stop a ballbearing traveling at ~10 km/sec. Would layered armor give any type of advantage against RPGs like this?

On the subject of stopping a tank/dozer, I would think damaging the treads would probably be the way to go. It would take less energy(/collateral damage) to knock off a tread than go through 12inches of armor.

did anyone watch the show future weapons on the discovery channel?

i wonder if that water briefcase would work in this situation?

I saw that episode, though I don't think the case was meant to go through heavy armor. It was meant to blow apart carbombs without setting them off.
By the way, does anyone else think the futureweapons host is the most annoying guy you've ever seen?

_Fnord wrote:does anyone else think the futureweapons host is the most annoying guy you've ever seen?

Here here, In spite of the fact that I LOVE the subject matter, he completely puts me off watching the show

One thing I've always wondered, how would you go about blocking the blast from weapons such as TOW and AT4?

Ceramic, apparently. It's layered along with steel and depleted uranium in the armour of modern tanks. Another way to mitigate the effects of shaped charges is Reactive Armour.

hey i said that quote not fnord, anyway lol, i love how you can tell how the host knows nothing bout anything he is showing, and i ment to take off a tread not slice through the tank with the case

jack that reminds my of ablative armor in star trek

You know that the HOST of future weapons used to be a sniper, right? :violent3:

Indeed, but I don;t believe its him who writes his own lines, he says what they tell him too.
So thats why he may seem like an idiot.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Ceramic, apparently. It's layered along with steel and depleted uranium in the armour of modern tanks.

Ah, yes - the old Chobham armour.

In response to your earlier post: In that case, my mistake. I was thinking along the lines of lighter tank weapons than that.