Firral

I did not see any statement, that РПГ-29 was used against Merkava (any type), and have cracked (have not cracked) its protection.
I only heard, that in insurgents in Lebanon have been found out РПГ-29. This everything, and is more than anything. About any conclusions it is impossible speaks, yet there will be no exact information. Not clearly reaction of Israel to presence РПГ-29 (the protest of Russia) if it does not represent danger to their tanks. And it is not clear than have been amazed Merkava in Lebanon?
I spoke you about Ми-28Н.
Only their own self-estimation, anything more.
I read American articles about problems of this system. It still not up to the end is adjusted.
Especially I and cannot explain " Friendly fire "
Tank a guided missile (ТУР) "Сокол-1" and "Сокол-2". The first that I have recollected this.

__________________

Firral

I hope you will understand my English language.
I would like to prove to you that any war against Russia, cannot be instant and occur on distance (for example by means of only aircraft).
I understand two opportunities of conducting war of the USA (without NATO) against Russia without application of the nuclear weapon (that some kind of a fantasy).
Let's reject the reasons of it, we shall consider opportunities.
1. Sudden impact in every way which are located on military bases near to Russia. To me sees that it is the most unpromising for the USA the plan.
I hope you saw Russia on a card of the world. The purposes of your aircraft should be air stations, ports, storehouses of military technics, the main manufactures, communications, objects of air defence. I am right?
Now present that all it is located in all territory of Russia. Your problem: imperceptibly to strike on all at once. Russia is a various relief, woods, mountains, set of cities and villages, set of military objects, and objects of air defence. How using not all the forces, but only their part (which are located on military bases near to Russia)? Your purposes will be is in an insignificant strip (about 500 km I believe) on border of Russia. Further on alarm aside your planes rockets (not out-of-date air defence of Iraq and Serbia) С-200, С-300 (your name SA-10), С-400 (your name SA-20), 2С6 "Тунгуска", 9К331 "Torahs" and many other things about which you probably do not know will depart... Losses of planes will be enormous. After that counter-impact by all means (except for the nuclear weapon as we spoke in the beginning) will follow: bombers, rockets of average range and cruise missiles. Their purpose: your military bases, the ships and other objects of the USA. I hope you understand that it is the unsuccessful plan.
2. The prepared impact. To borders of Russia shock means of the American army are pulled together all. Russia in the answer begins mobilization. Military formations leave the places, and leave on the disguised positions. All the ships and submarines leave the ports....

I shall write about it next time...

Anon

Well i'm sorry to disappoint you Comrade Firralovich.

Officer of Engineers

Gentlemen,

NATO's Parallel History Project is an eye openner for those of us studying the Cold War. From the Warsaw Pact's own evaluation, they started losing ground since 1978 and began switching over to a defensive doctrine. They were no longer prepared to swamp over to the Rhine but rather retreat to the Eastern German borders stretching NATO's LOC before counter-attacking with overwhelming fire. As far as I can tell, they were still going to use nukes in their offences/counter-offences.

If you can read in between the lines, the Warsaw Pact was expecting NATO to attack which means it would have been an extremely long war with both sides sitting back waiting for the other to attack.

__________________
Chimo

zraver

Firral, I cannot read Cryllic so what is the NATO designation of those missiles? If you are talking about the AT-11 Reflects they are not top down attack weapons. Also the RPG-29 protest to Russia is primia facia evidence. israel is not going to complain like that without proof. Also side penetrations are not the same as frontal penetrations. The Rusosans made two mutaly exlcusive claims 1- T80UD/T90 wer ehte bes tprotected tanks in the world and 2- the RPG-29 could penetrate both of them form the front after defeating the ERA. Since the RPG-29 failed to punch the front of the Mekava the Russian claims about the protection values of the T80/T90 are overstated, and this raises the issue tha tthe penetration vlaue of the RPG-29 is overstanted as well.

The newest russian ATGM is still a beam rider (AT-16M). it ha sa FF version but not pop up /top down attack.

gunnut

Uh...no. That's not the American military you're talking about. It's the American left. The "useful idiots" in our college campuses and government and media. They are the ones who want to throw in the towel and call it quits.

The American military has fought and won every single major battle over the last century. We crushed Iraq, twice. We can smash the country if we wanted to, without even touch our nuclear stockpile. The lethality of the US military is 2nd to none. We can crush Iran if we want to. But we won't, at least not yet. The US military is fighting a very restrained campaign in Iraq because we already know what we can do. What we don't know is whether we can build up Iraq as a free and democratic nation.

Smashing is easy for us. Helping people is a bit more difficult.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Falcon325

Ditto yeah sorry there Ivan or whatever can't really distinguish that post from the errant ramblings of my 6 yr old

Firral

These are rockets (ATGM) which are issued from a gun of tanks T-80U and Т-90. They are new enough (1997 approximately). Now not all tanks T-80 have an opportunity to start such rockets as modernization of their system of prompting (replacement the Reflex-M on the Сокол) is required. As always the problem consists in greater money.

As to protection of tanks T-80 and Т-90, I shall look some data and I shall answer you later.
AT-16, it is what is it? possible 9К121 "Вихрь", but I am not assured.
There are some difficulties in your names of our rockets...

omon

lets hope that after 2008 election our army will be the same as of 2007. with dems in power expect military spending go down. than.. i don't even wanna think about it. hopefully raptor wont be extinct as comanche is.
what US army lacks after cold war is intelegence, we don't have enough agents(if any) in the hot spots, fsb on the other hand still has just as many as before(i know this form reliable sourses). america too much relyes on spy equipment.wich is a good thing but it can't replace agents.
also tactics, not as good as weapons.remember mogadishu, call me anything you want but i'd never want anyone to come and pick up my dead body from the no mans land and get killed.after battle is over pick me up and send me home, if posible if not drop nepalm on me burn me to a crisp but keep soldgers alive. dead solgers can't fight.
american army has to answer to taxpayers for every expense, americans have attitude "i'm paying taxes i have a right to know what they are doing with my money, i have to know everything",i can't say its a benefit for us army.
russian army is not what it used to be, us army is the strongest one for now.i just hope that after the war is over and dems are in power(they getting more votes now) our soldgers wont get the same treatment as russians who went thru afgan.(they were treated like criminals, those who lost limbs were not helped, and anyone they turned to said "we didn't send you there, there is noting we can do for you".
from around 1935 german army was the best in the world, had the best weapons,traning, where are they now? russian crapy army is still here.
also no army fights alone(exept for russians in afgan) there always are allies,so if there is (lets imagine)war between us and russia, n korea ,china and half of arabic coutries, and who knows who else will be on russian side,america too will have allies.but us allies are not as strong as russian ones, and not as numerous, in that case it's not that clear who'll win.

zraver

AT-16 is na helo/fixed wing launc only ATGM beucase of it's size. The BTR-90AT could probalby fit it but the Kornet is fine. The 125mm sized tubelaunched is the At-11 or 12 Relflex M and it is out of date.

Anon

You should download the latest Mozilla Firefox fella, it has spell-checker built right in.

Your posts are informative(especially for a DAT) when one can actually make out what you're saying...

Firral

Now I shall answer you your question:
Here my data on Т-80:
With the removed explosive packages: 586mm RHAe vs KE and 865mm RHAe vs CE
With explosive packages: 836mm RHAe vs KE and 1465mm RHAe vs CE

If you have in view of test of 10/20/1999 of year the tank was without explosive packages (it is undressed from active protection). It explains your doubts?

Firral

I know about what you speak. Many at this forum speak: Huge Russia could not win small Afghanistan.
But actually, nobody wished to destroy and win. Nobody is necessary the won Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we supported friendly to us (for that time) the government. Nobody was necessary the destroyed country. On the contrary we spent construction. Probably you have other opinion, but I know people who were there, their ideas and their feeling. They wished to bring a peace life. I know it first-hand, instead of from books and newspapers (I am assured that not speak it to you in your historical books). It was easy to enter into Afghanistan, it was heavy to hold it in the hands, it was impossible to establish there calmness and a peace life.
It is simply impossible to bring the world to people by means of the weapon, especially other country. Especially in the east. Now you have started it to understand in Iraq.

Firral

You are right, that comparison America against Russia, without participation of allies it is a fantasy. It is impossible, any such fight in any case becomes nuclear world war.
Also I am assured, that it will be now difficult to your politicians to find a way to begin new war with someone. You have understood all to mountain of mothers when their dead sons come back back in coffins. Your soldiers did not see sense of this war, its purpose. I am assured that many are ready to give a life for their native land and their relatives, but not for those dim purposes which have put you in Iraq.

Ruskiy

USSR went into Afghanistan because they needed to, government of Afghan asked Russians for help. When Soviets entered Afghanistan, they brought doctors, building materials, madicine, technologies, education and teachers to country that desperently neded it. There were only some freaks supported by Americans, armed by US and paid by them, US were those who trained those "terrorists" to fight vs. Soviets (now those "terrorists" are attacking you), tehy made all the world think that USSR is attacking Afghanistan, they even made some afghans think so (those who fought vs. USSR), really USSR's purpose were to help those people (USSR claim is "man to man is a friend and comrade"). USSR were helping Afghans to get them up, make up a good economy and have a nice relationship and trade with their neightbors. US made it impossible. I don't know, tehy didn't wanted world to see USSR as a nice guys or they werre just jallous (or it was that stupid "unti-comi doctrine)? There were nothing bad about Soviets in afghan untill USA didn't made the peace in that country impossible.

__________________
Наша жизнь как пианино: белая клавиша, черная клавиша и крышка