BF2S Forums Russia doing a few upgrades...

rdx-fx wrote:

- 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.

Yes, the problem lies in the fact that the Abrams was initially concieved as a tank for the defensive role; the turbine was envisioned to be used to sprint from firing position to firing position.  Since it was designed for a defense in depth, the Abrams (according to the Cold War/ Fulda Gap scenario) would be collapsing on its own supply lines, and using established supply points.  This would have negated the fuel effenciency issue. 

Of course, seeing how the Abrams has been used in the offensive role, then yes, it's 1500hp turbine has proven to be one thirsty bitch.  I HEMMIT 2000 gallon fuel tanker can barely fill a single platoon of tanks (if they did not suck themselves completely dry). 

But slower?  Less manuerverable?  Someone has never seen an Abrams move in person.

Basically, y'all need some chally 2s.

imortal wrote:

Man With No Name wrote:

I hated having obnoxious tankers jet passed us on a patrol while we would me maxing our brads at 47 mph.

You kidding?  My 577 maxed out at 35 on road, and about 20 on a tank trail.    But you bulletstoppers loved seeing an Abrams start up on a cold winter morning.

Why?

and whats a 577?

lol... I am talking about this:

The M577 is a tactical Command Post Vehicle

..I did not mean this:

...which would have been cool as hell.

wtf is the 2nd tanky thing?

an 11 ton tin can, with .75" aluminum armor, using a diesel bus engine to try to pretend to be a tactical vehicle.  It is an M-113 with another 18" of headspace welded on, and all weapon mounts removed.  Shove 6 radios and 2 computers in it, throw a 4.2kW (later a 5kW) generator on the front, and a really bad tent attached to the back, and you have a M577 (later a M1068) vehicle.  It is so old, you manuver using a pair of levers.  Pull on the left lever, left track brakes, you move left.  Pull on the right lever, right lever brakes, you turn right.  Pull back on both levers, both tracks brake, track slows down, and eventually stops.  Your braking ability and turning radius are directly dependant on your upper body strength.


EDIT  Okay, the internet is scary.  I just found a picture of one of the M577s from my old unit in Germany:  I actually think it is from my Battery, although I was in 1st platoon, and this looks like 2nd platoons FDC vehicle.  That is slightly creepy.  second edit Okay, looking at it more, it looks like the backup TOC from HHB.  Still, that IS from my old battalion, and still creepy.

Last edited by imortal (2009-03-23 12:13:09)

Man With No Name wrote:

havent you ever seen aliens?

Particle Phalanx, WHAP!

Shahter wrote:

Man With No Name wrote:

Youre talking to someone who has more experience seeing russian equipment in action than you do, cupcake.

oh, so you squshed a coupla iraqi fleas and suddently you've "seen russian equipment in action"? well... cry some more, it's getting funny, son.

Tehremos wrote:

Equipment?
Coldwar?

don't waste your breath: these fine gentlemen are obviously here for a group masturbation session - let 'em have their way.

Oh, and I met a few Russian officers back in Bosnia back in 1996.  I stopped fearing Russian artillery the day I met those artillery officers.  I will not comment as to other branches of service or training.  However, in the area of Field Artillery, the russian officers I met were woefully ignorant of general issues common to artillery worldwide.  Things that I learned in artillery theory as a PRIVATE; these officers told us that the entire russian artillery corps had no concept for!  So, forgive me if my direct experiences tend to shade my attitude somewhat.

I never said the Russian military was not dangerous, or that all of their equipment was substandard.  In fact, the T-72 was produced soley for export; the T-64B and T-80 are superior to the T-72 in many ways.  However, they still have many things in common, too.  The size issue that was mentioned before.  Russian tanks have a very low sillouette.  However, this comes at the cost of crew comfort (which decreases effenciency and endurance), and using a gun autoloading system (common to all the Soviet-era tanks) which was demonstratively proven to be actively dangerous when taking fire (the ready store of powder is in a system circling the turret at the height of the turret ring.  The turret ring is where American tank gunners have been taught to aim for since the '80s.  A single piece of hot shrapnel sympathetically detonates the entire powder carosel, causing the infamous 'jumping tank turrets' noted during the first Gulf War).

There is a difference in viewpoint, philosophy, and even in idiology behind the designs of Soviet era and NATO era equipment.  The equipment can be compared directly.  Perhaps you need to establish by what guidelines they should be compared before we start saying "who is better?"  Also, there are a LOT of American veterans on here (a lot of us combat vets), which gives us a far batter basis for comparison than nearly every civilian here, at least when judging military equipment.

rdx-fx wrote:

imortal wrote:

(the ready store of powder is in a system circling the turret at the height of the turret ring.  The turret ring is where American tank gunners have been taught to aim for since the '80s.  A single piece of hot shrapnel sympathetically detonates the entire powder carosel, causing the infamous 'jumping tank turrets' noted during the first Gulf War).

That's something new I've not heard before.

I'd thought it was just the massive overpressure from being hit and a turret held on only by gravity, that caused all those popped turrets in the Gulf War.

Cool.. actually learned something in a hardware thread here.

Well, it IS a massive overpressure, mostly being caused by the burning powder.  I mean, when you put it at the same level as an obvious aiming point, and then add in something as accurate as the gun on the M1 (was mostly a 105mm rifled gun back then, but still with the rangefinding laser, crosswind sensor and ballistic computer)... the results were certainly spectacular.  Prior to the Gulf War, the US had no idea this was where the powder was stored.  At least  it was not common knowledge.  I did not find out until my butt went to tanker school, back in (crap, I am old) 1993.

I remember reading about an M1 (I think it was) putting a round straight through one Iraqi tank and hitting another on the other side.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

$140B won't make a dent in their military situation right now.

That would buy 1700 F35s or 1,000 F22s- if they could get them, or presumably develop their own equivalent.
$140B a year over 10 years = 17,000 F35s or 10,000 F22s

Pretty sure thats a bit ahead of 1980s US/NATO standards.

Well no seeing they need to develop THEIR equipment and they can't BUY FROM USA so obviously the 140B will just get their newest AR on the drawing board...

EDIT: Shahter your replies are so rediculous, obviously you got told. It's very funny seeing how you try and insult the other person instead of admiting you're wrong and shut up. Then properly study current and past military history.

I can't even explain how hilarious your come-backs are...

Last edited by Bradt3hleader (2009-03-24 12:48:56)

Bradt3hleader wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

$140B won't make a dent in their military situation right now.

That would buy 1700 F35s or 1,000 F22s- if they could get them, or presumably develop their own equivalent.
$140B a year over 10 years = 17,000 F35s or 10,000 F22s

Pretty sure thats a bit ahead of 1980s US/NATO standards.

Well no seeing they need to develop THEIR equipment and they can't BUY FROM USA so obviously the 140B will just get their newest AR on the drawing board...

EDIT: Shahter your replies are so rediculous, obviously you got told. It's very funny seeing how you try and insult the other person instead of admiting you're wrong and shut up. Then properly study current and past military history.

I can't even explain how hilarious your come-backs are...

It's funny how you are always going "marines>U LOLLOLOLOLOL"

On topic: Not too worried about Russia doing some upgrades, who really cares?

rdx-fx wrote:

Even worse for aluminum 'armored' vehicles once they start to burn.

sad but true