Page 26 of 33 FirstFirst ... 1718192021222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 376 to 390 of 494

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #376
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    705
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    Flying tanks...
    I doubt that Sparky has defected to Russia, but he has long been frustrated with Army's resistance to adopting the Gavin name for the M113, and this does appear to be an application of Sparky's research into JATO powered M113s.


    There is also that older picture of Sparky's cat in scaled testing:

    Name:  Cat_with_Jet_power.jpg
Views: 166
Size:  63.1 KB
    .
    .
    .

  2. #377
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,361
    Quote Originally Posted by JRT View Post
    I doubt that Sparky has defected to Russia, but he has long been frustrated with Army's resistance to adopting the Gavin name for the M113, and this does appear to be an application of Sparky's research into JATO powered M113s.


    There is also that older picture of Sparky's cat in scaled testing:

    Name:  Cat_with_Jet_power.jpg
Views: 166
Size:  63.1 KB

    Note To Self: Do not be drinking bottle water while looking at WAB. I just spewed water all over my monitors and keyboard.

    Sparky...geebus!
    We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a days heat, fell dusty.
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  3. #378
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Note To Self: Do not be drinking bottle water while looking at WAB. I just spewed water all over my monitors and keyboard.

    Sparky...geebus!
    At least it aint coffee. Lesson well learned (and paid for the keyboard)
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #379
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    To a point that has to be accurate. We can't base our opinions on 20-30 years ago though, because then we become our own problem. American tank crews didn't fare well in a recent Nato tank training exercise....not even coming in the top 3.
    Which would lead me to suspect that recent conflicts have caused a lack of funding in Tank warfare training for the US tank crews???

  5. #380
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    Apology's, above post was in reply to Tankie's post "Armata or ANY Tank is as good as the crew ,never forget that , 3k kills , 1st done by chally 1 1st gulf war 1991/2 , i believe firmly that the best tank trained crewmen are NATO trained , Brits being the cream of the crop of course ."

  6. #381
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    To a point that has to be accurate. We can't base our opinions on 20-30 years ago though, because then we become our own problem. American tank crews didn't fare well in a recent Nato tank training exercise....not even coming in the top 3.
    Which would lead me to suspect that recent conflicts have caused a lack of funding in Tank warfare training for the US tank crews???
    They were not training against Russians. Also, they are not sending their best teams. Look back, afaik, US never "won" these tourneys, yet whenever a need arise they do their job. Germans and Danes by their sheer numbers will be a breakfast for the RA sans NATO (US) AF.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  7. #382
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    They were not training against Russians. Also, they are not sending their best teams. Look back, afaik, US never "won" these tourneys, yet whenever a need arise they do their job. Germans and Danes by their sheer numbers will be a breakfast for the RA sans NATO (US) AF.
    Absolutely, I agree with you on the numbers issue. Europe doesn't stand a chance on its own. My question is more to do with resources due to recent conflicts that the US has been heavily involved in...Have they and UK etc allocated enough to training and maintaining a healthy deterrent to counter a very sizable Russian armored component?

  8. #383
    New Member
    Join Date
    21 Nov 16
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Absolutely, I agree with you on the numbers issue. Europe doesn't stand a chance on its own. My question is more to do with resources due to recent conflicts that the US has been heavily involved in...Have they and UK etc allocated enough to training and maintaining a healthy deterrent to counter a very sizable Russian armored component?
    Toby, I'm curious about that too. It seems that if they are trying to allocate adequate resources, that they're not doing a good enough job. Russia has massive military capabilities.

  9. #384
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Manuka View Post
    Toby, I'm curious about that too. It seems that if they are trying to allocate adequate resources, that they're not doing a good enough job. Russia has massive military capabilities.
    Certainly on land Russia has a massive armoured capability. One which is not being addressed By Germany or the UK or France...Poland sounds seriously worried as do the Baltic countries, who can blame them?

  10. #385
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    To a point that has to be accurate. We can't base our opinions on 20-30 years ago though, because then we become our own problem. American tank crews didn't fare well in a recent Nato tank training exercise....not even coming in the top 3.
    Which would lead me to suspect that recent conflicts have caused a lack of funding in Tank warfare training for the US tank crews???
    I assume you're referring to the Strong Europe Tank Challenge?

    The US tankers that participated came from the 7th Infantry Regiment, of the 3rd Infantry Division because they were already in Europe for Atlantic Resolve. It wasn't like we flew in a crack team from the the 1st Armored just to make the US look good.

    A handful of guys placing behind the Germans or other NATO members in a 3 day exercise isn't anything to be ashamed of, nor is it indicative of the performance of the myriad Armored divisions the US fields. Believe it or not, the other members of NATO make good equipment, train hard, and are quite competent in their own right. The US tank crews who participated undoubtedly learned a lot and are now better for the experience.

    This isn't the sort of thing you can use to generalize the state of US Armored divisions.

  11. #386
    New Member
    Join Date
    21 Nov 16
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Certainly on land Russia has a massive armoured capability. One which is not being addressed By Germany or the UK or France...Poland sounds seriously worried as do the Baltic countries, who can blame them?
    Are Germany, UK, France, etc. assuming that US will act as a strong enough deterrent for them? It seems that constructivist theory could adequately explain that if it's the case. But it seems not to make sense. What do you think?

  12. #387
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Manuka View Post
    Are Germany, UK, France, etc. assuming that US will act as a strong enough deterrent for them? It seems that constructivist theory could adequately explain that if it's the case. But it seems not to make sense. What do you think?
    I can only speak from a UK stand point. I think recent conflicts have distracted us from taking Russia seriously as a threat. Consequently resources have been diverted else where. I'm speaking purely in terms of Arms procurement

  13. #388
    New Member
    Join Date
    21 Nov 16
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I can only speak from a UK stand point. I think recent conflicts have distracted us from taking Russia seriously as a threat. Consequently resources have been diverted else where. I'm speaking purely in terms of Arms procurement
    I guess they can base their emphasis on arms procurement on Russia's strength and deterring them or they can base their emphasis on arms procurement on probability of conflict with Russia or others.

  14. #389
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I assume you're referring to the Strong Europe Tank Challenge?

    The US tankers that participated came from the 7th Infantry Regiment, of the 3rd Infantry Division because they were already in Europe for Atlantic Resolve. It wasn't like we flew in a crack team from the the 1st Armored just to make the US look good.

    A handful of guys placing behind the Germans or other NATO members in a 3 day exercise isn't anything to be ashamed of, nor is it indicative of the performance of the myriad Armored divisions the US fields. Believe it or not, the other members of NATO make good equipment, train hard, and are quite competent in their own right. The US tank crews who participated undoubtedly learned a lot and are now better for the experience.

    This isn't the sort of thing you can use to generalize the state of US Armored divisions.
    I think the Tank just got prioritized yet again in it 100 year history...UK Challenger 2 although limited in numbers is now getting a refit and there is only one reason for that "Russia"

  15. #390
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Manuka View Post
    I guess they can base their emphasis on arms procurement on Russia's strength and deterring them or they can base their emphasis on arms procurement on probability of conflict with Russia or others.
    To decrease the probability of conflict you have to demonstrate intent.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Russia Invites U.S. To A 'Tank Biathlon'
    By Doktor in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16 Aug 13,, 01:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 19:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 09:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 15:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 11:56

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •