Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20171
Yeah but, look at the forum replies!Sea Skimmer wrote:The Black Eagle exists only as a single example prototype with no buyers. Far to little is known to make any worthwhile comparison. Hell decent photos are lacking.
It's a bunch of idiots wanking off to their favorite equipment with absolutely no grasp on reality or the capabilities of anything. Nothing I haven't seen a billion times before nor anything worth reading even for amusement.Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Yeah but, look at the forum replies!
The Abrams is nothing now... so say the crowd.
You know that, I know that, but reading their fantasies is great!Sea Skimmer wrote:It's a bunch of idiots wanking off to their favorite equipment with absolutely no grasp on reality or the capabilities of anything. Nothing I haven't seen a billion times before nor anything worth reading even for amusement.Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Yeah but, look at the forum replies!
The Abrams is nothing now... so say the crowd.
Not to mention thats still not enough to defeat the M1A1HA over its frontal arc. But such things are lost on morons of this level.Crayz9000 wrote:Ooh. Great. So it can punch through 800mm of armor... so what? That's if the armor is perfectly perpendicular to the warhead... in other words, optimum conditions that you'll never find on a battlefield.
trends
автор history guest в 14.05.2003 [00:30]
The trend for antitank measures is mobility. Mobility meant shoulder fired missiles in non US countries. The US uses expensive helicopters for launching shoulder fired missiles. At millions of dollars per copy the helicopters are too expensive a platform for launching relatively inexpensive missiles. Future launch platforms could include ultralight or light aircraft as launch platforms. The disadvantage of ultralight or light aircraft is that they have low survivability. The advantage is that they cost just a few thousand dollars compared to millions for advanced aircraft platforms. For the same money needed to produce a high performance platform a hundred ultralights can be made . With a hundred radar signatures in the sky and on the radar screen, issues becomes very complicated for all those monitoring events. The future belongs to the efficient. Efficiency includes the calculation for cost in any endeavor.
Wait till it gets shredded by AA cannons. Anyways, for us to implement that would be politically unacceptable, due to high casualties- more in line with human wave "strategy". Besides it costs money to train people to fly the damn things, just to get killed very quickly.
He must have gotten sick of the tech-wanking too...Some Guy wrote:The tank is only as good as it's crew and frankly, the crew is third world. I am very sure they stole most of the technollogy to build this tank from the West. Mainly from computer games sold here in the US. Also, they are probably using a Windows 95 based pentium computer for fire and control. First rate JUNK!
Been reading Defcon one by chance?Uraniun235 wrote:OMG! The Soviet death laser must have destroyed the Columbia!!!
War with Russia!!!!!
The Thai Army tested out powered Para gliders and a couple ultra light types to see if they'd have any use for military applications. They concluded that they would be venerable to handgun fire and everything above before promptly dropping the whole idea.Pu-239 wrote:
That cuts both ways.Ooh. Great. So it can punch through 800mm of armor... so what? That's if the armor is perfectly perpendicular to the warhead... in other words, optimum conditions that you'll never find on a battlefield.
This guy's an idiot. Even the Russians aren't doing that. Coz it's a dumb idea.The trend for antitank measures is mobility. Mobility meant shoulder fired missiles in non US countries. The US uses expensive helicopters for launching shoulder fired missiles. At millions of dollars per copy the helicopters are too expensive a platform for launching relatively inexpensive missiles. Future launch platforms could include ultralight or light aircraft as launch platforms. The disadvantage of ultralight or light aircraft is that they have low survivability. The advantage is that they cost just a few thousand dollars compared to millions for advanced aircraft platforms. For the same money needed to produce a high performance platform a hundred ultralights can be made . With a hundred radar signatures in the sky and on the radar screen, issues becomes very complicated for all those monitoring events. The future belongs to the efficient. Efficiency includes the calculation for cost in any endeavor.
And this guy is a grade-A dumbass from the other side of the wall. Russian tank technology owes little, if anything to the West.The tank is only as good as it's crew and frankly, the crew is third world. I am very sure they stole most of the technollogy to build this tank from the West. Mainly from computer games sold here in the US. Also, they are probably using a Windows 95 based pentium computer for fire and control. First rate JUNK!
*falls over with laughter*Those vaunted Abrams tanks look like they're made of mechano. How come so many got destroyed by rpgs if they're so fuckin hot.
at iraqwar.ru col. crackpot wrote:gee, that fancy tank sure is pretty. sadly that's all it will ever be...a pretty picture of a prototype that Russia can't afford to build. The Russian army would be better off if it used it's limited resources to actually pay and feed it's soldiers. soldiers cant fight if they are starving and won't fight if they aren't paid.
Even if this tank were to be built, it would never be made in sufficient numbers to remotelty threaten the thousands of Abrams tanks in the US. Nor even threaten the hundreds of Challengers in the UK or even the limited number of Merkava'a in Israel. Here's a nickel's worth of free advice: spend your tank money on borscht and spare parts for T-80's and don't go chasing dreams of the glory of yesteryear
Exactly what they are doing, Colonel.Col. Crackpot wrote:gee, that fancy tank sure is pretty. sadly that's all it will ever be...a pretty picture of a prototype that Russia can't afford to build. The Russian army would be better off if it used it's limited resources to actually pay and feed it's soldiers. soldiers cant fight if they are starving and won't fight if they aren't paid.
War isn't lining up two sides tanks and smashing them into each other. As for the 8,000 M1s, it's actually much more than the US Army could ever hope to deploy in a theatre in one time. There are persistent calls to scrap thousands of them- they do eat up quite a lot of the maintenance budget. Regardless, Russia has little to fear from a ground invasion. The sheer preponderance of material, war stock reserves, and of course, the nuclear deterrent, means Russia is unassailable.Even if this tank were to be built, it would never be made in sufficient numbers to remotelty threaten the thousands of Abrams tanks in the US.
Nor even threaten the hundreds of Challengers in the UK or even the limited number of Merkava'a in Israel.
Major arms purchases of new equipment are not going to happen until 2010. It's in the official defense plan for this decade. All the money is going into upgrades of existing equipment.Here's a nickel's worth of free advice: spend your tank money on borscht and spare parts for T-80's and don't go chasing dreams of the glory of yesteryear
The T-95 isthe new tank.Admiral Valdemar wrote:What exactly is the T-95 for then? Just a technology demonstrator?
Yeah, T-95. The T-95 will have an unmanned turret housing just the main gun, will be fed by an autoloader (new design, of course, the old carousel autoloader is only for the T-64/T-72/T-80 designs), while the 3-man crew will be in the hull, with no access to the turret- which will make the crew better protected than any other main battle tank crew, without question. The engine will be a diesel, probably 1,200-1,500hp, the weight will be in the 50-ton class, there'll be a new drivetrain/suspension system (to eliminate hull vibrations and make firing on the move easier). The main gun is supposed to be 152mm smoothbore. Which I really doubt, but the Russians had a 152mm tank main gun since the 1960s (the M-69 prototype- which was rifled). Personally, I suspect they'll arm it with an advanced 125mm cannon- the latest models are quite good, and then upgrade to an advanced design with ETC (Electrothermal chemical) tech. Next generation passive and explosive reactive armor, as well as active protection system of some kind is a definite.I heard of another tank with a smaller turret, higher speed, more hi-tech construction and active defences and missile ability, but I forget the name of the project.
::snicker::Vympel wrote:And this guy is a grade-A dumbass from the other side of the wall. Russian tank technology owes little, if anything to the West.The tank is only as good as it's crew and frankly, the crew is third world. I am very sure they stole most of the technollogy to build this tank from the West. Mainly from computer games sold here in the US. Also, they are probably using a Windows 95 based pentium computer for fire and control. First rate JUNK!
Unsure. Probably- the increased calibre would allow for a much more powerful missile. But, when you're throwing around 152mm APFSDS and HEAT, it might not be an issue. Also, the missile capability dramatically increases cost (so much so that the T-64B1 and T-72B1 were manufactured as dedicated variants without the missile- Kobra and Svir respectively). They're still cranking out the missiles for older designs- a T-55/T-62 upgrade offered by KBP gives those two museum pieces the capability of launching a laser-guided Arcan ATGM out to 6,000m- almost double the range of TOW-2 (3,750m).Axis Kast wrote:Will the new Russian tank be able to fire a missile via autoloader?
Yeah, they seem to forget that these computers are meant to be simple and only run a machine of death, not the latest 3DFX copy of Counterstrike.phongn wrote:::snicker::Vympel wrote:And this guy is a grade-A dumbass from the other side of the wall. Russian tank technology owes little, if anything to the West.The tank is only as good as it's crew and frankly, the crew is third world. I am very sure they stole most of the technollogy to build this tank from the West. Mainly from computer games sold here in the US. Also, they are probably using a Windows 95 based pentium computer for fire and control. First rate JUNK!
I wonder what he thinks the M1A2's fire control computer uses. I doubt it even has anything better than an i80386-class processor.