0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How many liters in a 55 gallon drum?
55 Imperial gallons = 250 L55 US gallons = 208.2 L
How did the britannia sink?
King George V's dying wish was for his beloved yacht to follow him to the grave. On 10 July 1936, after the Britanniahad been stripped of her sparsand fittings, her hull was towed out to St Catherines Deep near the Isle of Wight, and she was sunk by HMS Winchester (L55), commanded by Captain W.N.T. Beckett RN.
Did the britannia sink?
King George V's dying wish was for his beloved yacht to follow him to the grave. On 10 July 1936, after the Britanniahad been stripped of her sparsand fittings, her hull was towed out to St Catherines Deep near the Isle of Wight, and she was sunk by HMS Winchester (L55), commanded by Captain W.N.T. Beckett RN.
Worlds top 10 tanks in 2009?
This is just my think.. 10 Russia t-90 (it is good to but worse than t-80u- fire is 125mm) 9 japan type 10 (fire and armor is bad but machines are good. 8 Russia t-80u- (fire and armor is better than 10 and 9. fire is 125mm) 7 China type 99 (China's lastest tank. I think fire is 125mm??) 6 Korea k1A1 (Upgrade of K1 120mm ) 5 Israel merkava V ( Many experiment) 4 British Challenger II (Upgrade of Challenger. 120mm) 3 USA M1A2 Abrams SEP ( Maybe it can go to 2 when m1a3 come) 2 Korea K2 black panther (the fire is same [K2 is 120mm L55, Abrams is 120mm L52??]... but armor is more better) 1 Germany Leopard 2A7 (Lastest leopard. 120mm L55)
What Christmas song comes on with a recorded artillery barrage?
Spector Battery I- Commence firing! The song in question is Snoopy"s Christmas, and it is followed up with O Tannenbaum sung in German- then spins into the martial narrative. Up to a point the idea is borrowed from Walking in the Rain. I often wonder if there were any l55 Long Toms in Vietnam or Berlin code-named on the Barrel- Walking in the Rain, or, better Yet, Wall Of Sound!
How much to install l55 linear ft of six inch crown sprayed with a semi gloss?
if it is for a weekend side job -- you are talking about maybe 4 rooms-- with myself and an experienced helper...I could have it done in just one day-- I would charge about $300 and take half of that home. If I decided to have one man do only cutting while me and one man installed the crown-- I would split $300-- 3 ways
How many joints in vertebrae?
Assuming your question relates to the human spine -From the top -8 Cervical vertibrae - C1-C812 Thoracic vertibrae - T1-T125 Lumbar vertibrae - L1-L55 Sacral vertibrae - S1-S5 some of which are fused together.Hope this helps.
Did German bombers destroy Warsaw?
Warsaw- also Krakow ( aptly named- sounds like a l55 letting go with long recoil) were savagely attacked by both Luftwaffe ( air force- including bombers and fighter-bombers such as the Stukas) and conventional ground troops using artillery and tanks, etc. Warsaw was the first main target of the Polish invasion in l939- really the first Blitzkrieg ( lightning war) target of World War II.now one can argue that both cities had appropriate names- War Saw ( pun intended) and Krakow!
What attacks do the starters of Pokemon silver learn?
Chikorita/Bayleaf/MeganiumTackle (start)Growl (start)Razor Leaf (L8 Chikorita)Reflect (L12 Chikorita)Poison Powder (L15 Chikorita)Synthesis (L22 Chikorita, L23 Bayleef)Body Slam (L29 Chikorita, L31 Bayleef)Light Screen (L36 Chikorita, L39 Bayleef, L41 Meganium)Safeguard (L43 Chikorita, L47 Bayleef, L51 Meganium)Solarbeam (L50 Chikorita, L55 Bayleef, L61 Meganium)Cyndaquil/Quilava/Typholsion
What is a good Pokemon team in emerald?
Swampert Lv 50-earthquake, surf, ice beam, diveSwellow lv 50-fly, aerial ace, steel wing, endeavorAggron lv 50-iron tail, slash, rock slide, thunderboltMighthyena lv 50-crunch, roar, toxic, revengeFlygon lv 50-earthjquake, drsagon xclaw, dragon rage, outrageexploud lv 50-shadow ball, flamethrower, facade, toxicIT OWNS!Depends what your starter is.Here is my teamsceptile.....My future 5metagrossflygonsalamancewailorddusclops for a stallerMy 7th Pokemon would be arrogon
Can you get a comparison of the Challenger 2 and M1A2 Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks?
(This answer has been updated and corrected with the intention to improve the answer by providing unbiased corrections to inaccuracies. I urge the original answerer to please do more extensive research in the future however.) Most comparisons about the best tank are between Abrams and Leopard 2. Which conclude that the Leopard 2 A6/A7 is the best tank for the price. So you get the best tank for each Dollar or Euro your spend (The Leopard 2 is cheaper to buy and operate). However when looking purely at combat performance the Abrams is the best tank. The Challenger 2 is never number 1 in such comparisons. The Abrams is the best protected tank. Like the Challenger 2 it has a variant of Chobham/Burlington armor. But in the case of the Abrams it is improved with a layer of steel encased depleted uranium (DU). The radioactivity of DU is harmless. (Correction: This is contested by Australian evaluations, though the extent of harm is believed to be limited.) It is a very dense material which gives a lot of extra protection against kinetic energy (sabot) projectiles. The older M1A1 Abrams in Desert Storm could survive hits at the front and side turret. Not just of obsolete T-72's but also pointblank 120mm 'Silver bullet' rounds from other Abrams which pass straight trough a T-72 or T-80. (Correction: Proper T-72s did not engage Abram tanks in Desert storm Iraq did not use them. They used local models 'Sadda' 'Assad Babil' and diminished export T-72s.) When Abrams tanks had to be abandoned and destroyed when stuck in mud or were disabled (blown track, engine failure) other Abrams were often unable to do so. With the versions after that (M1A1 HA, M1A1 HC, M1A2, M1A2 SEP, M1A2 SEP TUSK) protection has become even better. During Thunder Run (armored assaults into Baghdad) Abramses were hit to up to 15 anti-tank weapons and kept going. The only one knocked out was a lucky shot which hit a drum of fuel at the rear turret. The fuel got into the engine and caused fire. The (uninjured) crew was unable to get it out and had to leave it behind.(Correction: These anti-tank weapons consisted primarily of SPG-9 recoilless rifles and RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade launchers. Later RPG-29s were found more effective against the Abrams even the front armor and accounted for many the losses the Abrams suffered during the war.) As other tanks can't penetrate Abrams the abandoned tank it was taken out with an air strike to prevent it falling into enemy hands. This required 2 Mavericks and a Hellfire (which are very heavy anti-tank missiles). So the Abrams performed very well in an urban environment (which is usually a bad place for tanks) before it even had an urban warfare kit. The Abrams also has ammunition blow-out panels. When the ammunition is hit (which is at the rear turret) these panels blow out forcing the blast upwards instead of towards the crew compartment. Neither Challenger or Leopard 2 have ammunition blow-out panels so an ammunition hit will mean more damage and more injuries. (Correction: Challenger uses separately loaded ammunition, therefore Blowout panels are not needed. Furthermore Abram's blowout panels are rated for 105mm ammunition and should not be considered protection from 120mm cook offs) The Challenger is also very well protected but not as much as the Abrams. Both have a chobham variant but the Chal has no DU in its armor. (Correction: Chobham armor is just another term for composite armor. The Dorchester Mk2 of the Challenger and the RHA + DU armor of the Abrams are not comparable. Dorchester Mk2 contains Tungsten Carbide and a variety of other materials in a different (though also classified) sandwich. However combat experience has shown that DU armor provides no greater protection.) There have been instances where they have been penetrated by other Challengers (freindly fire). The ammo is seperated but there are no blow-out panels. The Challenger 2 can be regarded as the second best protected tank behind the Abrams. (Correction: In light of the original authors misunderstandings about blowout protection, and armor types their conclusion can be disregarded as well. PS Armor was not penetrated HESH creates spalling of the armor but does not penetrate. Furthermore the tank that suffered from the strike was equipped with older armor thus should be considered in the category of the Abrams A1 which suffered many penetrations during the Iraq wars.) The Leopard 2 has advanced composite armor but no chobham variant or DU. It has been deployed to Afghanistan by Denmark and Canada. In a test with a Leopard 2 A5 which was shot by another it required 7 hits. One could argue that more Abrams has been disabled then Challenger 2. This is not a fair comparison as much more Abrams have been deployed then Challengers. When there are more around there is a bigger chance one is hit. (Correction: As per percentage of tanks hit, Abrams have suffered greater causalities. Thus the mention of their losses is still relevant.) The only Abrams destroyed were hit by 500kg IED underneath which would have destroyed everything. In freindly fire between Abrams there were no casualties (even point blank no penetrations at front and sides). In friendly fire between Challengers 2's there was. (Correction: Not a penetration, and the L/44 M256 is not comparable to other MBT weapons and should not be considered proof positive.) It most however be noted that there is a diffirence between the American Abrams and the export Abrams. The export Abrams does not have the DU armor package. So while the US Abrams has better armor for sure, it could very well be that in armor protection the export Abrams is equal or maybe even less then the Challenger 2. Protection: 1. Challenger 2 2. M1A2 SEP Abrams (Correction: I moved the Abrams down a slot to correct the original authors bias and misunderstandings in order to better reflect the actual protection.) 3. Leopard 2 A6 The Challenger is underpowered. It only has a 1200hp engine compared to 1500hp on Abrams and Leopard 2. The Abrams has better mobility and the Leopard 2 more mobility then Abrams. Winner on mobility. Dutch Leopard 2 reached 110km/h on German training area. Abrams reaches 120km/h with speed limiter removed (but fuel consumption is drasticly increased). (Correction: The Challenger is not underpowered, underpowered implies that it struggles in mobility. It does not. However it does have a less powerful engine. It should be noted that the 1500hp Gas-Turbine is prone to fan sheering and is highly inefficient, future US army tanks will use diesel engines. Finally turning off the engine governor requires work at the motor pool and operating beyond the governed speed will cause damage to the tank. It is highly recommended against by the tanks manual.) Mobility: 1. Leopard 2 A6 2. M1A2 SEP Abrams 3. Challenger 2 Both Abrams and Leopard 2 A6 can destroy a T-90 or T-80U at 4km with a single shot. The Leopard 2 A6 has a better gun but the Abrams has comparable firepower because of DU ammo (just a bit less). (Correction: The difference between tungsten and depleted uranium penetrators is negligible. The difference in force behind the round however from the shorter barrel is not. The challenger 2 is capable of doing the same at 4-5km.) I have no information regarding the Challenger 2 but they want to replace the rifled gun with the German L55 of the Leopard 2 A6 which indicates the firepower is less then the Leo 2 A6. So the Leopard 2 wins with the Abrams following very very close behind. (Correction: The British army evaluated the L55 for a short time, not due to performance requirements but due to ammunition considerations. Ammunition for the L30 was no longer produced and they evaluated adopting a gun with widely available ammunition. Due to the size of the cased 120mm for the L55 however the tank fit less than 10 rounds, instead of the normal 40. The L55 evaluation has since been cancelled and ammunition for the L30 is being produced again. It was never an adoption only an evaluation on a single tank. Information on the L30 is widely available.) Firepower: 1. Leopard 2 A6 2. Challenger 2 (Correction: For the purposes of accuracy, the Challenger and Leopard A6 onward can be consisidered tied. The L30 has much greater range, but the L55 has a greater variety of ammunition. Older leopards however can be considered inferior because they use an L/44.) 3. M1A2 SEP Abrams (Correction: I moved the Abrams down because the abrams uses a 44 caliber gun, with less power Challenger does not win in any of these catagories. Overal I would rank protection as most important as it determines the survival of tank and crew. Abrams is clearly winner here. Second is firepower. Leopard 2 wins here but with a very small margin. In practice its compable. Leopard 2 wins on mobility. I would take any of these tanks to combat. But if I had to pick I would want to be in the Abrams rather then the other 2. So the Abrams is the best tank when judging combat performance. (Correction: See previous corrections. Best mobility focused tank: Leopard 2A4 & A5 [A6, A7 & E are much heavier and less mobile] Best protection focused tank: Challenger 2 Best firepower focused tank: Tie between Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 A6-E
What is the best tank Leopard 2 or Abrams M1A2?
'Leopard 2' is not sufficient. The original Leopard 2 entered service in 1979. The M1A2 came online in the middle 90s. The SEP which is the main modernization upgrade, around 2000. At the time of Leopard introduction, the M1P was the standard U.S. Abrams and was equipped with a 105mm M68 weapon which was not capable of penetrating the T-72 with BDD armor at over about 800-1,000m. Which is okay in a way because there were few places in our chunk of Germany where that would have mattered. The initial Leo2 production lot was little more than a preseries development tank rushed into production for which most of the intended sighting package was not yet available. This effected the capability of the 120mm cannon which -could- penetrate, out to about 2,000m but did not always hit, especially at night or in weather (we had TI they had I2). The Leo2A2/A3 quickly remedied this and, together with the commanders sight, proved to be an all round superior tank for extended range gunnery. However; then the M1A1 came along and by adopting the same Rheinmetall weapon, became the basis of a fair comparison with the Leopard 2A4. Where the Leo falls down a bit is in the lack of the Abrams composite armor or dual-angle sloping (though the turret front was narrower and so the basic RHA steel was thicker) and it's chosen sight location which holed the turret front which was generally seen as a very bad move. It's frontal arc was also seen as poorly protected until thicker sideskirts were developed and the glacis reshaped. Where the mid-series Leopard really wins out is in the automotive end where it is more reliable and less thirsty. The U.S. then fielded the 'M1A1HA' or Heavy Armor with the DU lattice facing and this again tipped the scales towards the Abrams as now both tanks could kill at range but the Abrams had a noteable front sector overmatch advantage at the shorter LOS ranges of Fulda and the Hopf. The Germans who are past masters of the moving ambush, tend to take a lot of flank shots so this may not have mattered as much to them. On the North German Plain facing Hamburg and the like, they can and do kill from the horizon. The 1A2 added more armor and some automotive improvements as well as the CITV which finally provided the Abrams with equal hunter-killer capabilities to the Leopard in a better protected tank which weighed almost 15 tons more than the Leopard 2A4. If you want to compare the M1A2 and Leopard 2, evenly, you need to chose the SEP model Abrams and Leopard 2A5 or A6 as your baseline and there the game is about evenly matched. The chisel-nose turret of the 2A6 with the raised GPS box fixes the armor issues, though it brings the Leopard fully into the 60 ton class and so it is not a agile as it once was. While the (2A6 mounted) long-barreled L55 gun provides a 1,750m/sec muzzle velocity (roughly 5,800fps) which gives the LM53 LRP round as much as 1,100mm of penetration in comparison with the M829A3 which offers perhaps 900-950mm. The latter is a superior round, being denser (DU vs. tungsten) but only comes out of the barrel at about 1,500m/sec (or 5,000fps). This is because the Abrams retains the shorter barrel L44 version of the Rheinmetall main tube and so could theoretically (it's a very long barrel and subject to heat droop as well as certain issues in close terrain) upgun for a match, ballistically, to the Leopard 2a6. But where the M1A2 was intended to go was towards over the horizon guided shots for which the XM1111 MRM and digital communications links were vital in providing shared targeting and a smart top attack capability to go -beyond- the frontal arc protection of a threat. Both the 1A2SEP and the 2A6 are better protected for the urban fight, though the TUSK II package has better layering. Neither vehicle has an active APS intercept capability at the moment, though the AMAP-ADS and Quick Kill options are available. These could theoretically 'remission' 20 tons of dead weight in armor by themselves. The 2A6 also has air conditioning and an APU which makes fighting in hot climates easier. If it comes to the open field tank fight, the Leo2A6 is probably the better ranged killer with less dependence on fuel and air filter cleanings (the Abrams gas turbine leaves it a roughly 2hr fighter in movement based actions). If it comes to a MOUT fight where the threat is at close range and/or you have multiple friendlies intermixed, you have to give the nod to the Abrams which has the better passive protection suite, better close in weapons (RWS or turreted protection for gunner and TC) and superior networking to sort the sheep from the goats. The Abrams really suffers in the tank vs. tank fight for want of an over-hill capability as guided rounds (MRM was cancelled) to exploit it's network shooter package however and if you look at the 'next gen' Leo2A7, not yet fielded, with massive add on side-armor packages, the decision probably flips back to the Leopard, even in urban fights.
