Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

mangoa    

Rank #16375 on Comments
mangoa Avatar Level 120 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Offline
Send mail to mangoa Block mangoa Invite mangoa to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:1/06/2013
Last Login:7/26/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#16375
Highest Comment Rank:#7755
Comment Thumbs: 215 total,  224 ,  9
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 60% (3/5)
Level 120 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 121 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:14
FJ Points:213

latest user's comments

#51 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 07/16/2014 on Igniting a gas leak 0
User avatar #54 - zeref (07/16/2014) [-]
I wouldent know, never go to parties.
#1049 - I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts in my ass. 07/05/2014 on in my ass 0
#31 - That should teach him to respect the cone, it's always there f…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/13/2014 on boop +2
#32 - anonymous (05/13/2014) [-]
And that is why Mr. Ed learned to speak
#31 - if I'm offended, it's by misinformation. as for the wiki artic…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/11/2014 on bitch I'm a tank 0
User avatar #37 - dingdongpancakes (05/11/2014) [-]
Both the APC and IFV are similar in the way they both have infantry and are armored. An APC would be something like the M113, only turret it has is a single 50cal. The BMP-2 in the gif has a 20 (or 30)mm cannon with AT missle tubes on the side.
#35 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
sure sure sure it wasn't. Well, I'm sorry that you've become enraged by information from a credible source. An IFV's main function is to carry people around. It just has bigger guns.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Similarly, all IFVs are APCs, but not all APCs are IFVs.
User avatar #62 - KEpToK (05/11/2014) [-]
how I like to see it is this:

An APC can engage infantry and some small vehicles ie trucks and jeeps. Up against another apc it would be a case of two dudes slapping their dicks against a tree.
IFV's however can handle all of the above as well as MBT's with the missiles on their turret. Wikipedia is a great source of information, but to accept it without questioning it defeats the purpose of it being there.
#29 - though would it stick around fighting? their distinguished r…  [+] (5 new replies) 05/11/2014 on bitch I'm a tank 0
#30 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
Well, I don't know why you're getting so offended about this, but okay. I mean, you even went so far as to edit the wikipedia page. 01:28, 11 May 2014(Corrected an inaccuracy regarding IFVs being a type of APC - they are not, they are distinguished by their armament, as stated in this article) (undo)"
User avatar #31 - mangoa (05/11/2014) [-]
if I'm offended, it's by misinformation. as for the wiki article, I didn't edit it, someone else must have. just a coincidence.
User avatar #37 - dingdongpancakes (05/11/2014) [-]
Both the APC and IFV are similar in the way they both have infantry and are armored. An APC would be something like the M113, only turret it has is a single 50cal. The BMP-2 in the gif has a 20 (or 30)mm cannon with AT missle tubes on the side.
#35 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
sure sure sure it wasn't. Well, I'm sorry that you've become enraged by information from a credible source. An IFV's main function is to carry people around. It just has bigger guns.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Similarly, all IFVs are APCs, but not all APCs are IFVs.
User avatar #62 - KEpToK (05/11/2014) [-]
how I like to see it is this:

An APC can engage infantry and some small vehicles ie trucks and jeeps. Up against another apc it would be a case of two dudes slapping their dicks against a tree.
IFV's however can handle all of the above as well as MBT's with the missiles on their turret. Wikipedia is a great source of information, but to accept it without questioning it defeats the purpose of it being there.
#17 - actually, its an IFV (BMP-2)  [+] (14 new replies) 05/11/2014 on bitch I'm a tank +30
User avatar #195 - asmodeu (05/11/2014) [-]
I would like to perform a simple test to see if it's an IFV.
If you put a terrorist in there, does it become the lesser equivalent of a demo truck ?
#22 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
an IFV is a type of APC though.
User avatar #194 - lolzordz (05/11/2014) [-]
and an APC is a type of tank.
User avatar #183 - marlton (05/11/2014) [-]
IFVs are distinct from armoured personnel carrier, which are purely transport vehicles armed only for self-defense and not intended to provide direct fire support. IFVs also often have improved armour and some have ports which allow the infantry to fire personal weapons while onboard.
User avatar #126 - niggastolemyname (05/11/2014) [-]
APCs are more commonly wheeled (as with BRDMs or BTRs) and carry no more than a 20mm autocannon, witch can be used effectively for infantry fighting and armored fighting up to 100m~, but typically carry 7.62 or 5.56 machine guns and carry more than 4.

IFVs are tracked and better equipped, more armor and bigger weapons (like TOW missiles and autocannons) , and carry usually only 4 or 5 passengers

With Russian vehicles it's pretty easy: Tracked: It's a BMP, for infantry fighting
4 wheels and no turret: BRDM-1
4 wheels and a turret: BRDM-2
6 Wheels, taller and a turret: BTR-80 / BRDM-3
User avatar #24 - spookyexplain (05/11/2014) [-]
Typically, an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) carries decent weaponry - a turreted automatic cannon of 20mm or better and it will stick around once it has dropped off its dismounts to support them.

APCs are armoured taxis, with pintel or remote machine guns for self-defence. After it has dropped off its infantry it will retreat to cover.

i stole that from the internet
User avatar #39 - trostell (05/11/2014) [-]
The BMP-2 still has one major flaw in it's design, though. Those thick hatches the infantry dismount from are actually fuel tanks for the BMP, are extremely flammable, thinly armored, and tend to jam once set on fire. An armor piercing incendiary round can actually kill all the infantry inside the vehicle by exposing them to lethal fumes and fire while trapping them inside the burning vehicle, but at least it's not a BMP-3 with it's faulty 100mm main gun.
#27 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
I stole from the wikipedia article about IFVs that they are a type of APC. Also, remember, armored personnel carrier. An IFV is armored, and carries personnel (infantry).
User avatar #29 - mangoa (05/11/2014) [-]
though would it stick around fighting? their distinguished roles varies enough for armed forces to differ between them. but if you'd prefer, we can just call everything with tracks and a turret, a tank.
#30 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
Well, I don't know why you're getting so offended about this, but okay. I mean, you even went so far as to edit the wikipedia page. 01:28, 11 May 2014(Corrected an inaccuracy regarding IFVs being a type of APC - they are not, they are distinguished by their armament, as stated in this article) (undo)"
User avatar #31 - mangoa (05/11/2014) [-]
if I'm offended, it's by misinformation. as for the wiki article, I didn't edit it, someone else must have. just a coincidence.
User avatar #37 - dingdongpancakes (05/11/2014) [-]
Both the APC and IFV are similar in the way they both have infantry and are armored. An APC would be something like the M113, only turret it has is a single 50cal. The BMP-2 in the gif has a 20 (or 30)mm cannon with AT missle tubes on the side.
#35 - malifauxdeux (05/11/2014) [-]
sure sure sure it wasn't. Well, I'm sorry that you've become enraged by information from a credible source. An IFV's main function is to carry people around. It just has bigger guns.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Similarly, all IFVs are APCs, but not all APCs are IFVs.
User avatar #62 - KEpToK (05/11/2014) [-]
how I like to see it is this:

An APC can engage infantry and some small vehicles ie trucks and jeeps. Up against another apc it would be a case of two dudes slapping their dicks against a tree.
IFV's however can handle all of the above as well as MBT's with the missiles on their turret. Wikipedia is a great source of information, but to accept it without questioning it defeats the purpose of it being there.
#88 - If you couldn't write any words for this, how could you type o… 12/13/2013 on Solidarity still exists 0
#17 - Pationantici- ? OK...  [+] (1 new reply) 09/14/2013 on #YOLOSWAG +15
#18 - sechsjunk (09/14/2013) [-]
I know..
#29 - See you at the next reunion, Comrade Ivan. Interval … 09/13/2013 on Say cheese komrades 0
#5 - For science!  [+] (15 new replies) 07/27/2013 on How much do you weigh on Mars? +24
User avatar #128 - glasssmasher (07/28/2013) [-]
I weigh to much to know

my dreams
#134 - abysmalshadow (07/28/2013) [-]
Divide a value for the planet you want to know by the value in the same column for Earth to get a ratio. Multiply that ratio by your weight on Earth to get your weight on that planet.

Multiply the pair, divide the spare, bro.
User avatar #133 - fuzzysixx (07/28/2013) [-]
We can figure it out! Math is the answer.
#95 - mymissiondaytwo (07/27/2013) [-]
Yo momma's so fat, Jupiter weighs 100 pounds on her.
#113 - pwnmissilereborn (07/27/2013) [-]
Fool, learn to science.

If Jupiter weighs 100 pounds on her it means she weighs 100 pounds on Jupiter. When it comes to gravity, the smaller body and the larger body exert the same force on each other, when it comes to planets however this is not noticeable as 100 pounds would barely move something so massive.

So Jupiter weighing 100 pounds on her means everything is completely normal, except for the fact that she has the weight of a small child
#117 - mymissiondaytwo (07/27/2013) [-]
Maybe it's a bit too late down here and I can't really understand your logic, so I'll just point out to my logic and train of thoughts.

Imagine Jupiter were a human being and yo momma's a planet. An intuitive guess of the chart shown up 2 thread leads me to believe that we weigh more or less depending on the mass + size of the planet we are on.

Jupiter's weight is 1.9 x 10^27. For it to weigh 100 pounds on something would mean that the other something should have a gravity field sufficiently strong to attract the before mentioned Jupiter, and for it to be able to be manipulated as you would a 100 pound object on Earth, on yo momma.

That would mean that yo momma is considerably larger than Jupiter.
#120 - pwnmissilereborn (07/27/2013) [-]
I'll try to explain it better then, try to follow me here.

Weight is the force applied on a body due to the action of gravity. So when you say that Jupiter weighs 100 pounds on her, it means that she is exerting 100 pounds of force on Jupiter.

Gravity's force depends on the mass of both bodies multiplied by each other, so the amount of force both objects apply on each other is equal. For example, if you weigh 100 pounds on Earth, it means that you are also attracting the Earth with 100 pounds of force, but this is not noticeable due to the Earth being too massive.

If the mass of my momma was considerably larger than Jupiter, Jupiter's weigh would be even larger than because the more massive both objects are, the larger the force of gravity becomes.

So if she is exerting 100 pounds of force on Jupiter, it means Jupiter is also exerting 100 pounds of force on her, which, as my point was, means she is still smaller than Jupiter.
User avatar #65 - youraccountsucks (07/27/2013) [-]
7.5 pounds on Pluto, cool.
#10 - anonymous (07/27/2013) [-]
THOSE ARE MASSES, WHICH ARE CONSTANT!
That means your mass in, say pounds or kg, is the same no matter where you are (ignoring relativistic effects).

It's your WEIGHT, measured in NEWTONS, that changes.
Your weight is equal to the product of your mass in kg and the planet's gravitational constant. For example, someone who has a mass of 75kg weighs 75*9.81=735.75N on Earth, but 75*3.61=270.75N on Mercury.

Physics rant over.
#74 - tabarzins (07/27/2013) [-]
we all know how mass works
you just don't know how pounds work
User avatar #40 - adu (07/27/2013) [-]
In the US Imperial system pounds can be used both as mass and weight/force. Why do you think we use pounds for PSI?
#28 - Broku (07/27/2013) [-]
Actually you just don't know the Imperial system, Pound (Force) is an actual thing, it is equal to 1 Pound (Mass) times 32.174049 Ft/Sec^2 or 1 Slug Ft/Sec^2
#11 - tedfoo (07/27/2013) [-]
Damn right. Started to rage a bit there.
User avatar #7 - rzrback (07/27/2013) [-]
I'd way slightly over 9 lbs on pluto... Sweeeet!
User avatar #6 - eddio (07/27/2013) [-]
And my smile's back
[ 14 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2400

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - espay **User deleted account** (08/31/2013) [-]
:c
 Friends (0)