 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
Why you people like SAM so much?? There are just a defensive weapon.
Some one in here said that Russians have SAMs that can shoot down a B-2. Well all I have to say is that I will believe it when I see it.
As far as SAMs shooting down a A-10. If you use radar to target, most modern fighter bombers, not to mention the A-10 can detect the radar and use that to destory the SAMs before they have a chance at hitting them. If you use heat seaking missles you have a good chance of shooting down your own planes. So I would not put so much faith in SAMs.
Cant you people pick things others them stupid old SAMs?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
S-300 shot-down cruise missiles with probability 0.98 or so.
Blame French then.
It was cheapest, export modifications. At 2003 Iraqis tanks were inferior in comparison with Soviet tanks of 80's. Worse gun, close to none optics and electronics, no dinamic defense or reactive armor.
It's impossible to translate. This is what Khrushev said when he was knocking tribune with his boot. He said we will show you a "Kuz'kina mat'" (Kuzma's mother). The most closer translation is- "we'll kick your asses". After a week or so Soviets detonated huge hydrogen bomb.
One of your spies- Pope, tried to steal blueprints of it recently.
But without stars.
Soviet flag is better, at least for me. Some Americans waving a CSA flag time after time. Why I can't wave a Soviet flag? |
The problem with the Iraq tanks is that they did not have the range of the Abrams M-1 tanks. They did not have night vision or thermal vision, thus could only enage targets at a much shorter range then the Abrams. Thus they were destroyed even before they could see the Abrams tanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Say it to Drake. He brings an article which says that F-22 will have this feature. Why bothering with thrust vectoring if it's so useless? |
Russians do have good tanks and planes. If a world war broke our between the old Soviet Union and United States, I would bet it would be a stalemate.
The only problem I see for Russian arms is the fact that the Russian government can really put a lot of money into it, and that Russia defense industry sell most of its stuff to other nations and not to Russia itself. This is a major problem since there is not a lot of money spent on R and D. ALso other nations will be able to copy our weapons you sell them and be able to build it themselves.
Also anther thing is that the Soviets did steal a lot of technology from the US. But they had a huge army, even if they arms were behind or troops had little training. Now Russia does not have such a huge army because of buget problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Why you people like SAM so much?? There are just a defensive weapon.
Some one in here said that Russians have SAMs that can shoot down a B-2. Well all I have to say is that I will believe it when I see it.
|
Let's hope we'll never see it.
If old S-75 destroyed F-117 in 1999, why modern S-400 can't destroy B-2?
quote:
As far as SAMs shooting down a A-10. If you use radar to target, most modern fighter bombers, not to mention the A-10 can detect the radar and use that to destory the SAMs before they have a chance at hitting them. If you use heat seaking missles you have a good chance of shooting down your own planes. So I would not put so much faith in SAMs. |
A-10 was created to destroy Soviet tanks. Tunguska was created to protect our tanks from A-10 attacks. It was build exactly for this purpose. It has radar but also optical-electronic target tracking system.
Fire control computer shows target on the screen, operator marks it and launch the missile. It's not heat seaking missile, but remote controlled missile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
my question is why do they put armor on SAM's and AA guns?
not like it's going to help against a missle. |
Often times artillery is used to open the way for attack aircraft by destroying or supressing the enemy's air defense net. The Israelis carried out the blueprint for such operations when they invaded Lebanon in 1982. They destroyed Syria's air defense net by using drones and ELINT planes to locate Syria's air defenses and artillery to destroy them, or in a few cases where they were out of range they paved a path with artillery and used helicopter fired missles to take them out. Armor is very handy for dealing with shrapnel from artillery. Also, the autocannon used as ADA in one case may be used as direct fire support for the infantry in another.
Last edited by Sikander on 02-01-2004 at 14:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Let's hope we'll never see it.
If old S-75 destroyed F-117 in 1999, why modern S-400 can't destroy B-2?
A-10 was created to destroy Soviet tanks. Tunguska was created to protect our tanks from A-10 attacks. It was build exactly for this purpose. It has radar but also optical-electronic target tracking system.
Fire control computer shows target on the screen, operator marks it and launch the missile. It's not heat seaking missile, but remote controlled missile. |
well stealth technology is not 100%. ALso it may have been a heat seaking missle that shoot it down.
But I think the best chance at shooting etheir a F-117 or a B-2 is by a fighter that spots it, not a SAM.
So this missle uses a laser to track the target then. How effective is it?
But in general I dont but much faith in any SAMs for protection. The best protection from Air attack is controlling the Skies. Defensive weapons help, but it is not the same as have controll of the skies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Abrams M-1, the best tank in the world:
|
Nah...This is the best flying tank in the world:
 Attachment: flying-t80u.jpg
This has been downloaded 104 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Just the way you said it was funny to me. Not the fact that is it flying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
The problem with the Iraq tanks is that they did not have the range of the Abrams M-1 tanks. They did not have night vision or thermal vision, thus could only enage targets at a much shorter range then the Abrams. Thus they were destroyed even before they could see the Abrams tanks. |
Exactly. Their best tanks T-72 was a cheapest modification of Soviet T-72 with inferior main gun (which can't launch anti-tank guided shells) and almost without electronics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Just the way you said it was funny to me. Not the fact that is it flying. |
The future belongs to flying tanks.
Attachment: t80u_2.jpg
This has been downloaded 102 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
And to stealth AFV:
Attachment: stealthtank.jpg
This has been downloaded 101 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
There are two problems I see with the Russian T-72 tank. One is make more noise then the Abrams M-1 tank. THe Abrams has a gas turbine engine that is much quiter then the diesel engine the T-72 has.
Second is the fact that the T-72 uses an automatic loader. This can cause problems because their are more parts to break. I have heard too that a human is much faster at doing it then the automatic loader on the tank.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
The future belongs to flying tanks. |
the Arbams can fly too, I just cant seem to find any pics of it doing it. I have seen it on tv, but have found no pics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
There are two problems I see with the Russian T-72 tank. One is make more noise then the Abrams M-1 tank. THe Abrams has a gas turbine engine that is much quiter then the diesel engine the T-72 has.
|
T-72 is an old tank now. T-80U was the first tank with gas turbine engine in the world. Disel and gas turbine engines both have advantages and disadvantages. One is better for one theater of war, another is better for another TOW. T-80U has gas turbine, T-90 has disel.
quote:
Second is the fact that the T-72 uses an automatic loader. This can cause problems because their are more parts to break. I have heard too that a human is much faster at doing it then the automatic loader on the tank. |
All Russian MBT have autoloaders. You like to load your guns manually, we like autoloading (yes, yes, I know Russians are lazy bastards). It's just a diferent concept.
In case if autoloader is not working, gun can be loaded manually. Perhaps trained loader can load the gun faster than 7-9 seconds, when tank isn't moving, but it doesn't nescesary mean it can load it all day long, especially when tank is moving (humans are not machines and get tired time after time).
Last edited by Serb on 02-01-2004 at 15:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
the Arbams can fly too, I just cant seem to find any pics of it doing it. I have seen it on tv, but have found no pics. |
I heard during last military exhibition in Abhu-Dabi, American crew of Abrams refused to make a jump, because they didn't have life insurances. (I'm not joking).
Last edited by Serb on 02-01-2004 at 15:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
Does anyone know what is it?
Attachment: stalker-05.jpg
This has been downloaded 96 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:32
|
|
Cool toy, isn't it?
Attachment: lc-2t-01.jpg
This has been downloaded 94 time(s).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-01-2004 12:23
Good one. Guess I fell for it too. Old habits die hardest. 
The deal was illegal of course, in accordance with both Russian and Ukranian law. S-300 was a classified hardware and this firm had no right to sell it to anybody.
It's flying! It's Flying!!!
|
