yeah because The U.S. fucks with russia on a regular basis.Man With No Name wrote:
Countries with more combat experience than Russia
US, UK, Canada, El Salvador, Macedonia....dude, did russia sign the treaty of versaille or something?rammunition wrote:
Rearmament is the only way for Russia to preserve its freedom and independence. Only with a strong military they will be able to counter the aggressive policy of US.
friggin football bat
Technology for the most part.thraSK wrote:
Elaborate, do you mean in terms of spending or in terms of technology?xBlackPantherx wrote:
Is it just me or has Russia always been behind, military-wise?
for the longest time russias idea of night vision was a flashlight duct taped to the end of an ak
woohoo! i just love it when these "sarcastic" russia-bashers join in.
so we use flashlights for the night vision, lol, what else? horses for transportation? bears for tanks? vodka for medicine?
US army, btw, still have a dude sitting inside their every tank to manually re-load the cannon - those guys must be so fuckin "experienced in combat" now they'd pwn the entire russian army alone.
so we use flashlights for the night vision, lol, what else? horses for transportation? bears for tanks? vodka for medicine?
US army, btw, still have a dude sitting inside their every tank to manually re-load the cannon - those guys must be so fuckin "experienced in combat" now they'd pwn the entire russian army alone.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
We tried the Russian style auto-loaders.Shahter wrote:
US army, btw, still have a dude sitting inside their every tank to manually re-load the cannon
Not nearly as fast or flexible as a crewman loader.
Autoloader is much slower, requires the barrel to come off-target to a set position, and doesn't have the intelligence to do a final check of ammo/breech/barrel status.
Crewman loader is;
- much faster for any reasonable length of engagement, especially faster when changing ammo types.
- Able to load ammo while the barrel/turret is still tracking the target's general direction (no need to go to neutral loading position).
- and able to do a last-second common sense check for damaged ammo, barrel/breech condition (if needed).
Oh, and that extra crewman adds more flexibility in sleep/wake/watch cycles, during the other 99.9% of the time the tank is not in combat.. and is an extra pair of hands for when a tank throws a tread.
Don't start the naturalization paperwork just yet.Flecco wrote:
QFMFTrdx-fx wrote:
A little more John Wayne, and a little less Metrosexual, and we'd be back on track here.
You're my new hero. Stand for election and run on that campaign slogan. I'll become a US citizen just to vote for you.
If I were forced to spend my days surrounded by politicians, I'd likely go psychotically homicidal.
Straight-up fights I can handle.
Smiling and shaking the hands of people that'd just as soon see me dead - no thanks.
Soldier, Technician, Engineer - yes.
Policeman, Politician, or MP - no way.
/facepalm and i'm told russian military is outdated. i dunno what you are basing the above conclusions on, but most of it is simply not true. and that "added flexibility in sleep/wake/watch cycles"-argument is especially fun. the most fucking "combat proven" army my butt.rdx-fx wrote:
We tried the Russian style auto-loaders.Shahter wrote:
US army, btw, still have a dude sitting inside their every tank to manually re-load the cannon
Not nearly as fast or flexible as a crewman loader.
Autoloader is much slower, requires the barrel to come off-target to a set position, and doesn't have the intelligence to do a final check of ammo/breech/barrel status.
Crewman loader is;
- much faster for any reasonable length of engagement, especially faster when changing ammo types.
- Able to load ammo while the barrel/turret is still tracking the target's general direction (no need to go to neutral loading position).
- and able to do a last-second common sense check for damaged ammo, barrel/breech condition (if needed).
Oh, and that extra crewman adds more flexibility in sleep/wake/watch cycles, during the other 99.9% of the time the tank is not in combat.. and is an extra pair of hands for when a tank throws a tread.
Last edited by Shahter (2009-03-21 03:33:12)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
We tried the autoloaders - in the pre-Abrams joint German/American tank program. Neither side liked it.Shahter wrote:
/facepalm and i'm told russian military is outdated. i dunno what you are basing the above conclusions on, but most of it is simply not true. and that "added flexibility in sleep/wake/watch cycles"-argument is especially fun. the most fucking "combat proven" army my butt.rdx-fx wrote:
We tried the Russian style auto-loaders.Shahter wrote:
US army, btw, still have a dude sitting inside their every tank to manually re-load the cannon
Not nearly as fast or flexible as a crewman loader.
Autoloader is much slower, requires the barrel to come off-target to a set position, and doesn't have the intelligence to do a final check of ammo/breech/barrel status.
Crewman loader is;
- much faster for any reasonable length of engagement, especially faster when changing ammo types.
- Able to load ammo while the barrel/turret is still tracking the target's general direction (no need to go to neutral loading position).
- and able to do a last-second common sense check for damaged ammo, barrel/breech condition (if needed).
Oh, and that extra crewman adds more flexibility in sleep/wake/watch cycles, during the other 99.9% of the time the tank is not in combat.. and is an extra pair of hands for when a tank throws a tread.
The manual loader - 12-15 rounds per minute in the M1a1.
The T-72 autoloader, 8 rounds per minute not including time for putting the barrel into a preset position to line it up with the autoloader. The T-90 (really just an upgraded T-72 design refresh there), 12-15 rounds per minute, out of a pre-selected non-variable 22 round magazine and nearly the same must-return-to-neutral-position weakness as the T-72, which takes the load time back to around 8 rounds/minute max.
And.. an autoloader can't get out an help fix a track, nor stand watch on a 50% sleep/wake cycle, nor take over the position of gunner/TC/driver if someone is injured/incapacitated. Oh, and our tank crews can be over 5'4" tall too..
Now, tell me where your references are to disprove any of the above facts.
Mine come from personal experience, working in proximity to American Abrams crews, and verifiable through a cursory search of wikipedia or globalsecurity.org like this or that
..and, I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure I've personally seen more dead Iraqi T-72's wearing fresh orange spray-paint markings, than the entire world history of disabled M1a1 tanks(22 or so for Gulf War I, if Wiki is to be believed).
So, combat proven is also fairly well established.
If you could be bothered to pull the large stick from your ass, you might see that I've some degree of respect for the Russian military.
With qualifications and exceptions, but respect none the less. Russian engineers think up some really interesting hardware, but you perpetually lack the money or industrial base to produce those ideas in their fully developed form. Hence the typical deployed Russian military hardware is rugged, heavy-duty, peasant-proof, and reliable (AK-47) ... but lacking in the technological sophistication of German, English, or American military hardware/software/avionics.
Russians developed the original research paperwork on stealth, that the US F-117 was based on.
Su-27 series (and derivatives) are innovative aircraft limited only by the lack of western/oriental electronics and durable jet engines. Russians have the engineering knowledge to build good hardware, just not the money to spend on it, or the industrial capability to build it (mono-crystal high-temp metallurgy for turbine blades, etc..)
Last edited by rdx-fx (2009-03-21 04:49:18)
@rdx-fx:
oh, it's the allmighty wikipedia - again! the more i read these forums the stronger grows my inpression that wikipedia'd been adopted as somekinda new religion in usa. that would be kewl, btw - it's so much better that those "stone age" religions out there - i wouldn't mind that one bit.
anyway, remember what this "who loads teh cannon?"-argument started with? usa army is supposed to be the most fucking technologically advanced in the world, but still their abrams tanks:
- have 1.5 times higher silhouette compared to backwards russian counterparts.
- are several tonns heavier.
- are generally slower.
- are less maneuverable.
- have a gas turbine for engine, which is less reliable than diesels used in russian tanks.
- all that while their armor is basically the same as t-90's
... and all of the above partially because they have to accomodate an extra crew member.
12-15 shots per minute - a fact? don't make me laugh, dude. are all those guys PLSE members or something? 4 to 5 seconds to reload? pffft...
and as to poor ben fixing a truck - i work with a guy who served as a tank and apc driver in russian army. according to him, while those trucks are very heavy no doubt (and he DID actually fix the trucks unlike those who write that bloody wikipedia of yours), 4th dude wouldn't be of huge help. in any real battle situation when your tank has thrown a truck the best thing you can do is get the hell out and away from it - fixing it on the spot while there's fighting going on around would be plain idiocy (and i mean REAL fighting, not slaughter in iraq). and in non-battle situations a pair of spare hands is not a huge rarity, huh?
you know that horizontal targetting is done mostly by rotating the turret, and only vertican and (i think) prescision horisontal targetting by moving the barrel itself serevel grades at most, right? so, while being reloaded, the barrel in russian tanks is still "pointing in general direction on the last target", no?
if you read my other posts you may have guessed, that, decpite being russian, i'm not a huge fan of russian army. and i've read enough of wikipedia and many other souces - some of those are *gasp* russian, so i kind of seen both sides of the issue (the inevitable "your media sucks, my media rules" comment inc.). and, even though i've a "large stick in my ass" (how did you know, btw?), i try to base my opinions on common sence - while you base yours on wishfull thinking. remember again - "usa bloody army is the most technologically advanced", yet ben still uses his hands to reload a cannon, while backwards russians had this done by a mechanism ever since ww2.
oh, it's the allmighty wikipedia - again! the more i read these forums the stronger grows my inpression that wikipedia'd been adopted as somekinda new religion in usa. that would be kewl, btw - it's so much better that those "stone age" religions out there - i wouldn't mind that one bit.
anyway, remember what this "who loads teh cannon?"-argument started with? usa army is supposed to be the most fucking technologically advanced in the world, but still their abrams tanks:
- have 1.5 times higher silhouette compared to backwards russian counterparts.
- are several tonns heavier.
- are generally slower.
- are less maneuverable.
- have a gas turbine for engine, which is less reliable than diesels used in russian tanks.
- all that while their armor is basically the same as t-90's
... and all of the above partially because they have to accomodate an extra crew member.
12-15 shots per minute - a fact? don't make me laugh, dude. are all those guys PLSE members or something? 4 to 5 seconds to reload? pffft...
and as to poor ben fixing a truck - i work with a guy who served as a tank and apc driver in russian army. according to him, while those trucks are very heavy no doubt (and he DID actually fix the trucks unlike those who write that bloody wikipedia of yours), 4th dude wouldn't be of huge help. in any real battle situation when your tank has thrown a truck the best thing you can do is get the hell out and away from it - fixing it on the spot while there's fighting going on around would be plain idiocy (and i mean REAL fighting, not slaughter in iraq). and in non-battle situations a pair of spare hands is not a huge rarity, huh?
you know that horizontal targetting is done mostly by rotating the turret, and only vertican and (i think) prescision horisontal targetting by moving the barrel itself serevel grades at most, right? so, while being reloaded, the barrel in russian tanks is still "pointing in general direction on the last target", no?
if you read my other posts you may have guessed, that, decpite being russian, i'm not a huge fan of russian army. and i've read enough of wikipedia and many other souces - some of those are *gasp* russian, so i kind of seen both sides of the issue (the inevitable "your media sucks, my media rules" comment inc.). and, even though i've a "large stick in my ass" (how did you know, btw?), i try to base my opinions on common sence - while you base yours on wishfull thinking. remember again - "usa bloody army is the most technologically advanced", yet ben still uses his hands to reload a cannon, while backwards russians had this done by a mechanism ever since ww2.
Last edited by Shahter (2009-03-22 00:38:41)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Russia can't do shit and you know it. They did worst in Afghanistan than the US lulz.
US wasn't solo.Cybargs wrote:
Russia can't do shit and you know it. They did worst in Afghanistan than the US lulz.
Taliban hasn't got shit on the stunts the old Mujahideen pulled. Especially when you consider the amounts of munitions and cash that was hitting the Mujahideen via the Saudis/CIA.
I believe there was about 2000 stinger missiles sent to them, which is no small number. (Ghost Wars by Steve Coll)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
dude, you really know something about what russians did in afghanistan? how many people you've spoken to have actually fought in afghanistan? and, if you'd bother to read what's this discussion is about (we've gone horribly off-topic, btw) you'd see, that it's about "the most technologically advanced army" in the world, and, particularly, its tanks. do you know what a tank is good for in afghanistan with its mountains?Cybargs wrote:
Russia can't do shit and you know it. They did worst in Afghanistan than the US lulz.
so, "lulz"?
Last edited by Shahter (2009-03-22 00:59:34)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Qft.Flecco wrote:
US wasn't solo.Cybargs wrote:
Russia can't do shit and you know it. They did worst in Afghanistan than the US lulz.
Taliban hasn't got shit on the stunts the old Mujahideen pulled. Especially when you consider the amounts of munitions and cash that was hitting the Mujahideen via the Saudis/CIA.
I believe there was about 2000 stinger missiles sent to them, which is no small number. (Ghost Wars by Steve Coll)
Sorry cybargs.
Tanks are useless unless you have air superiority .
begin debate on russia vs US aircraft.................................................. now.
begin debate on russia vs US aircraft.................................................. now.
It was like millions and millions of dollars worth of support in Afghanistan. I'm just pulling shit outta my ass to piss off old ivan here. Id pretty much give the credit to the CIA for the Soviet pullout of Afghanistan though.Flecco wrote:
US wasn't solo.Cybargs wrote:
Russia can't do shit and you know it. They did worst in Afghanistan than the US lulz.
Taliban hasn't got shit on the stunts the old Mujahideen pulled. Especially when you consider the amounts of munitions and cash that was hitting the Mujahideen via the Saudis/CIA.
I believe there was about 2000 stinger missiles sent to them, which is no small number. (Ghost Wars by Steve Coll)
Russian ideas are great, but its definently the manufacturing capability in Russia that's halting their military.
US aircraft vs Russians, of course the US lulz. Captialism defeats Communism ftw.
Qft.Cybargs wrote:
It was like millions and millions of dollars worth of support in Afghanistan. I'm just pulling shit outta my ass to piss off old ivan here. Id pretty much give the credit to the CIA for the Soviet pullout of Afghanistan though.Flecco wrote:
US wasn't solo.Cybargs wrote:
Russia can't do shit and you know it. They did worst in Afghanistan than the US lulz.
Taliban hasn't got shit on the stunts the old Mujahideen pulled. Especially when you consider the amounts of munitions and cash that was hitting the Mujahideen via the Saudis/CIA.
I believe there was about 2000 stinger missiles sent to them, which is no small number. (Ghost Wars by Steve Coll)
Them and the Saudis. The Saudis pretty much matched the USA dollar for dollar. Kinda scary the amount of cash that went into it.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Cold war or wat?
No one can decide which side's equipment is better without an engagement. So please, stop comparing your e-penis.
That doesn't even decide better equipment though, as tactics, theatre strategy, politics, economics, weather and a lot of other stuff all plays a role in warfare.Ottomania wrote:
No one can decide which side's equipment is better without an engagement. So please, stop comparing your e-penis.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Well actually pretty much all engagements since after the Second World War have been between US/European and Russian aircraft with minor exceptions.Ottomania wrote:
No one can decide which side's equipment is better without an engagement. So please, stop comparing your e-penis.
Those engagements were hapened at least 20 years ago and untrained North Korean / Vietnamese/ Arab pilots were handling the russian planes. They shouldnt give you an idea about who is better.M.O.A.B wrote:
Well actually pretty much all engagements since after the Second World War have been between US/European and Russian aircraft with minor exceptions.Ottomania wrote:
No one can decide which side's equipment is better without an engagement. So please, stop comparing your e-penis.
Last edited by Ottomania (2009-03-22 08:45:03)
I could giva crap. . and I "can see Cuba from my front porch".blademaster wrote:
yeah they are also planning to establish basses in Cuba and Venezuela
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Now I know this is a bit of a stretch from the last request for pics... I mean a shuttle launch is pretty hard to miss but...Kmarion wrote:
I could giva crap. . and I "can see Cuba from my front porch".blademaster wrote:
yeah they are also planning to establish basses in Cuba and Venezuela
If Russia does set up some bases can you go grab some pics and share them? j/ks
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Aww the poor lil ruskie is getting flusteredShahter wrote:
dude, you really know something about what russians did in afghanistan? how many people you've spoken to have actually fought in afghanistan? and, if you'd bother to read what's this discussion is about (we've gone horribly off-topic, btw) you'd see, that it's about "the most technologically advanced army" in the world, and, particularly, its tanks. do you know what a tank is good for in afghanistan with its mountains?Cybargs wrote:
Russia can't do shit and you know it. They did worst in Afghanistan than the US lulz.
so, "lulz"?
Here's the short version;
We lost 22 M1 Abrams during Gulf War I.
The Iraqis, using Soviet equipment, lost 3847 of their 5500 tanks.
175:1 loss rate.
Export models, yes.
Iraqi crews, yes.
But.. don't you think, perhaps, there might be some flaws in Soviet tank design theory & tactics, if a Soviet trained & equipped army is taking losses at a ratio of 175:1 ?
T-72 and the derivative T-90 are based on Cold War & WW-2 design ideology. They are comparable to the American M-60 tank, which we started phasing out as our MBT in 1979
Russia needs to wake up, and get with the times on tank theory & design. They're back in 1979, while Europe & America are in 2009.
But, hey.. If you all are so confident in your equipment, keep selling it to nations hostile to the USA.
Fighting export model Soviet equipment has be absolutely great for the reputations of the US Armor, Air Force, and Infantry.
Send us more T-72's, Migs, and AK-47's to chew up... please.
If it's the right info, being on Wiki doesn't suddenly make it wrong.
..and random foreign strangers on the internet?
You get wiki, or google, or globalsecurity for fact checking.
Don't like it?
Do your own fact checking and spit back your sources to me.
I'll be damned if I'm going to quote you American military TM's or FM's, or anything I think I might have possibly, maybe, potentially learned while wearing a US uniform.
- our fire control systems (American), that allowed us to accurately shoot on the move
- our armor (UK, with USA/UK/Ger advances), ceramic/steel/DU, nearly impervious to any other tank from most angles.
- our weaponry (Ger), good old Rhinemetall 120mm. Same company that built the WW-2 German 8.8cm, and Panzer main guns.
We actually have allies that occasionally come up with mutually useful tech, unlike Russia.
The German or English tanks, I'd take as 'close enough in capabilities, that the crew, training, and tactics would win the match'
Funny how that happens, when the 3 allies share technology, but make slightly different design theory choices.
Larger moving target is harder to hit than a 66% sized target that's stationary. Especially with our fire control systems.
- heavier, because we have more armor, more crew, more ammo.
- slower? less maneuverable? now you've got your info completely wrong..
- Our gas turbine, less reliable than your diesels? doubt it. horribly less fuel efficient, yes. that is the one glaring tactical weakness of the M1 Abrams.
You also forgot about the noisy, cramped, uncomfortable, exhaust-saturated crew compartments in your tanks, and the extremely limited field of view for your crew stations.
Your tanks are meant to be parked at night, while the crews are out of them. Our tanks can be lived in for days at a time, if necessary.
We lost 22 M1 Abrams during Gulf War I.
The Iraqis, using Soviet equipment, lost 3847 of their 5500 tanks.
175:1 loss rate.
Export models, yes.
Iraqi crews, yes.
But.. don't you think, perhaps, there might be some flaws in Soviet tank design theory & tactics, if a Soviet trained & equipped army is taking losses at a ratio of 175:1 ?
T-72 and the derivative T-90 are based on Cold War & WW-2 design ideology. They are comparable to the American M-60 tank, which we started phasing out as our MBT in 1979
Russia needs to wake up, and get with the times on tank theory & design. They're back in 1979, while Europe & America are in 2009.
But, hey.. If you all are so confident in your equipment, keep selling it to nations hostile to the USA.
Fighting export model Soviet equipment has be absolutely great for the reputations of the US Armor, Air Force, and Infantry.
Send us more T-72's, Migs, and AK-47's to chew up... please.
At least I've given you references. Wikipedia and Globalsecurity.org, who's info matches what I know from other sources.Shahter wrote:
@rdx-fx:
oh, it's the allmighty wikipedia - again!
If it's the right info, being on Wiki doesn't suddenly make it wrong.
..and random foreign strangers on the internet?
You get wiki, or google, or globalsecurity for fact checking.
Don't like it?
Do your own fact checking and spit back your sources to me.
I'll be damned if I'm going to quote you American military TM's or FM's, or anything I think I might have possibly, maybe, potentially learned while wearing a US uniform.
Well, I was being nice and not mentioning;Shahter wrote:
anyway, remember what this "who loads teh cannon?"-argument started with? usa army is supposed to be the most fucking technologically advanced in the world, but still their abrams tanks:
- our fire control systems (American), that allowed us to accurately shoot on the move
- our armor (UK, with USA/UK/Ger advances), ceramic/steel/DU, nearly impervious to any other tank from most angles.
- our weaponry (Ger), good old Rhinemetall 120mm. Same company that built the WW-2 German 8.8cm, and Panzer main guns.
We actually have allies that occasionally come up with mutually useful tech, unlike Russia.
The German or English tanks, I'd take as 'close enough in capabilities, that the crew, training, and tactics would win the match'
Funny how that happens, when the 3 allies share technology, but make slightly different design theory choices.
- 1.5x higher.. so? we tend to shoot while moving, or find cover in available terrain, or just build a bunker 1.5x as tall as yours.Shahter wrote:
- have 1.5 times higher silhouette compared to backwards russian counterparts.
- are several tonns heavier.
- are generally slower.
- are less maneuverable.
- have a gas turbine for engine, which is less reliable than diesels used in russian tanks.
- all that while their armor is basically the same as t-90's
Larger moving target is harder to hit than a 66% sized target that's stationary. Especially with our fire control systems.
- heavier, because we have more armor, more crew, more ammo.
- slower? less maneuverable? now you've got your info completely wrong..
- Our gas turbine, less reliable than your diesels? doubt it. horribly less fuel efficient, yes. that is the one glaring tactical weakness of the M1 Abrams.
You also forgot about the noisy, cramped, uncomfortable, exhaust-saturated crew compartments in your tanks, and the extremely limited field of view for your crew stations.
Your tanks are meant to be parked at night, while the crews are out of them. Our tanks can be lived in for days at a time, if necessary.
Yep, we've been over that, but I guess your national pride is getting in the way of objective analysis.Shahter wrote:
... and all of the above partially because they have to accomodate an extra crew member.