Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)

G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Guys, a solid fuel pouring facility is similar to a place where you mix and pour concrete, it uses relatively simple equipment.
You need some tanks for the fuel, and you need a mixer of some sort, with a pump to pour it.
Thinking this is some sort of expensive high-tech specialized equipment is just ridiculous. You typically do it in a shed in the middle of nowhere, because if you do something wrong and the whole thing blows up, it won't cost much.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
Depends on your definition of win. Hezbollah has definitely suffered more human and material loses than IDF. Their leadership have been decimated.
Israel cannot conduct a total war because it would be a political suicide for them.
Also Vietnam is a very bad example. Not sure why people keep bringing up that as some sort of a gold standard for lost LOL. It's as much a political war as it is a military one.
The US withdrew. It didn't lose. It withdrew due to political and social pressure stateside. A lost would be like Nazi Germany or Japan in WWII or Gen Lee's army in the civil war. It would be signing of defeat or surrender and incapitation of the political and military structure.
Click to expand...

And if the US had stayed in Vietnam, would they have lost? I think the answer would have been yes.

Remember that Nazi Germany, WW2 Japan and the Confederacy were fighting for their homelands.
There was nowhere for them to retreat to - unlike the US in Vietnam
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
Guys, a solid fuel pouring facility is similar to a place where you mix and pour concrete, it uses relatively simple equipment.
You need some tanks for the fuel, and you need a mixer of some sort, with a pump to pour it.
Thinking this is some sort of expensive high-tech specialized equipment is just ridiculous. You typically do it in a shed in the middle of nowhere, because if you do something wrong and the whole thing blows up, it won't cost much.
Click to expand...

Ynetnews says 20 heavy fuel mixers @ $2Mn each and resuming operations in 2 years seems rather long. Source below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The US lost in Vietnam it is as simple as that. A war is conducted with objectives to bend the enemy's will to your own.
The US went into Vietnam with the objective of keeping the Communist Party out from Southern Vietnam. They failed, so they lost the war.
You could argue it wasn't a fatal loss for the US but it was still a total failure.

AndrewS said:
Ynetnews says 20 heavy fuel mixers @ $2Mn each and resuming operations in 2 years seems rather long. Source below
Click to expand...
Even if the mixers cost 2 million each (doubtful) and they hit 20 of them (doubtful) that is 40 million. A single F-35 costs over double that.

You believe that news story littered with obviously wrong and bogus statements like this?
Solid-fuel missiles, produced using these mixers, allow greater precision and defense advantages by avoiding the need for visible refueling seen with liquid-fuel systems. The solid-fuel propulsion improves both strike accuracy and durability, offering precision within a meter and increasing resilience against interception.
Click to expand...
Total bullshit written by someone who does not understand anything about missile technology.

The Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX manages to land on target and it is powered by a liquid rocket. The Soviets developed liquid-fueled missiles stored inside of capsules which do not need to be fueled before launch.

In fact the opposite of what they say is true, because it is much harder to throttle a solid rocket, it is much harder to control its trajectory to make it go exactly where you want to. Which is why the Iranian Fatah missile for example uses a liquid upper stage.

Accuracy is about navigation, guidance, and the missile's own maneuvering capabilities (or lack of them).
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
JJD1803 said:
Ayatollah Khamenei hinted there will be a retaliation in most recent statements after the Israeli strikes. It will likely be a big strike against Israeli military infrastructure that will hamper the war efforts in Gaza and south Lebanon. I doubt Iran would hit Israel’s critical infrastructure as that would be a major escalation unless Israel hit their own infrastructure. I also don’t think Iran this time will give warning. It will come out of the blue.
Another thing I want to highlight is that the invasion of South Lebanon is becoming a bigger debacle than 2006. Israel is taking serious losses. 12 killed on Friday and 7 more yesterday. The wounded in action number is horrific. They keep falling into these Hezbollah ambushes, come under rocket and atgm fire. Everyone knew this was going to happen but nothing beats Israeli arrogance and stupidity. They say they are going to end the land war in 2-3 weeks. I don’t know how they’ll explain to the people after they withdraw that they still can’t go to the north.
Click to expand...

Given that Iran's missile production has been hit, I would expect that Israel's missile facilities will also be on the Iranian retaliation list.
 
E100

E100

Junior Member
Registered Member
gullible said:
if iran retaliated that means its losses are pretty significant from the israeli airstrikes...
Click to expand...
Why would that be? We can see the satellite images and there really isn't much too see. To put it simply Isreal launched an attack on Iran and if Iran responds it would be because it was attacked not by how much "Damage" was done. Adding onto this, Iran makes use of large underground complexes to store missiles, drones, resources, basic manufacturing capabilities, etc. So even if more Israeli munitions did leak though the damage wouldn't all that much greater.
 
I

iewgnem

Junior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
The US lost in Vietnam it is as simple as that. A war is conducted with objectives to bend the enemy's will to your own.
The US went into Vietnam with the objective of keeping the Communist Party out from Southern Vietnam. They failed, so they lost the war.
You could argue it wasn't a fatal loss for the US but it was still a total failure.


Even if the mixers cost 2 million each (doubtful) and they hit 20 of them (doubtful) that is 40 million. A single F-35 costs over double that.

You believe that news story littered with obviously wrong and bogus statements like this?

Total bullshit written by someone who does not understand anything about missile technology.

The Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX manages to land on target and it is powered by a liquid rocket. The Soviets developed liquid-fueled missiles stored inside of capsules which do not need to be fueled before launch.

In fact the opposite of what they say is true, because it is much harder to throttle a solid rocket, it is much harder to control its trajectory to make it go exactly where you want to. Which is why the Iranian Fatah missile for example uses a liquid upper stage.

Accuracy is about navigation, guidance, and the missile's own maneuvering capabilities (or lack of them).
Click to expand...
Russia can literally deliver finished solid rocket boosters to Iran via the Caspian and there's nothing Israel can do, nevermind "mixers"
This is Russian running out of missiles in 3 days level of dumb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top