Page 27 of 31 FirstFirst ... 1819202122232425262728293031 LastLast
Results 391 to 405 of 458

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #391
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,325
    Toby & Manuka,

    The bottomline is tankers in the US Army haven't been doing too much "tanking" the last 15 years. What they have been doing is performing security missions in HMMWVs/MRAPs. If they have been in contact with their tanks its been at close range and in support of Infantry (see M1A2 TUSK).

    Recently the US Army has had to deal with mandated reductions in the size of our Army based on numbers based on resources and funding. Happens every time we came off of a ramp up for a war. But the Army has pivoted the training to a more realistic multilevel direct action combat at our combat training centers. This includes our Army National Guard as well.

    As for Europe specifically...we now rotate a heavy brigade4 combat team on 9 month rotations into Europe. We also stage additional forces. Keep in mind it may not be our ground maneuver comabt forces which are the most important. We have built up and further building up large number of preposition stocks of other forces with are tremendous combat multipliers.

    But you will not see US forces in theater on the scale of 1988...or 1998.
    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

  2. #392
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Seen the system many times before.New guys on internet pushing a few ideas.Which tend to favor Russia...

    1.Russian capabilities are anything but massive these days.Regardless of force ratios,they lack the force/space ratio to occupy anything of importance.
    2.Regardless of the availability of tanks,the European AT capabilities are truly massive,both in absolute numbers,as well as compared to operational Russian AFV's.
    3.European armored forces compared to operational Russian forces are by no means lacking in relative combat power.The Russians have at most 1500 tanks available for ops in Eastern Europe.The Germans and the Poles alone come close to match those in capabilities.Given the terrain and the likely nature of combat,the advantage actually goes to NATO side.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  3. #393
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Toby & Manuka,

    The bottomline is tankers in the US Army haven't been doing too much "tanking" the last 15 years. What they have been doing is performing security missions in HMMWVs/MRAPs. If they have been in contact with their tanks its been at close range and in support of Infantry (see M1A2 TUSK).

    Recently the US Army has had to deal with mandated reductions in the size of our Army based on numbers based on resources and funding. Happens every time we came off of a ramp up for a war. But the Army has pivoted the training to a more realistic multilevel direct action combat at our combat training centers. This includes our Army National Guard as well.

    As for Europe specifically...we now rotate a heavy brigade4 combat team on 9 month rotations into Europe. We also stage additional forces. Keep in mind it may not be our ground maneuver comabt forces which are the most important. We have built up and further building up large number of preposition stocks of other forces with are tremendous combat multipliers.

    But you will not see US forces in theater on the scale of 1988...or 1998.
    That's very informative, Thanks...I once saw an entire US Tank Div on maneuvers in Germany around 1982, the equipment on the autobahn was staggering.....I guess what you are driving at is that numbers are not the only factor these days?

  4. #394
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Seen the system many times before.New guys on internet pushing a few ideas.Which tend to favor Russia...

    1.Russian capabilities are anything but massive these days.Regardless of force ratios,they lack the force/space ratio to occupy anything of importance.
    2.Regardless of the availability of tanks,the European AT capabilities are truly massive,both in absolute numbers,as well as compared to operational Russian AFV's.
    3.European armored forces compared to operational Russian forces are by no means lacking in relative combat power.The Russians have at most 1500 tanks available for ops in Eastern Europe.The Germans and the Poles alone come close to match those in capabilities.Given the terrain and the likely nature of combat,the advantage actually goes to NATO side.
    Thats incorrect, I'm simply concerned that our eye was kept off the ball with regards to Russian investment in updating it's armed forces.

  5. #395
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Thats incorrect, I'm simply concerned that our eye was kept off the ball with regards to Russian investment in updating it's armed forces.
    NATO armor isn't facing the threat of Western airpower.

    In a conflict, Russian armored forces will have a narrow window of time where they possess freedom of action bought by the element of surprise, and however much time their air force can buy with their deaths. Once the Russian air force is gone or sufficiently pruned back, their armor will be eaten alive from above. Russia's inability to produce a meaningful number of 5th gen aircraft means that the amount of time their air force can buy is about to get a lot shorter with the widespread proliferation of the F-35.

    It's no surprise that their new tank design focuses on looking like ground clutter on radar and IR from the air, as well as incorporating an active kill system for incoming missiles.

  6. #396
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    NATO armor isn't facing the threat of Western airpower.

    In a conflict, Russian armored forces will have a narrow window of time where they possess freedom of action bought by the element of surprise, and however much time their air force can buy with their deaths. Once the Russian air force is gone or sufficiently pruned back, their armor will be eaten alive from above. Russia's inability to produce a meaningful number of 5th gen aircraft means that the amount of time their air force can buy is about to get a lot shorter with the widespread proliferation of the F-35.

    It's no surprise that their new tank design focuses on looking like ground clutter on radar and IR from the air, as well as incorporating an active kill system for incoming missiles.
    Wow! How does the Russian tank achieve the appearance of ground clutter, is it simply shape or materials used? I hear you on the F35, hope its as good the time its taken to field it..what is it now 10-15 years in the making?

  7. #397
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Toby & Manuka,

    The bottomline is tankers in the US Army haven't been doing too much "tanking" the last 15 years. What they have been doing is performing security missions in HMMWVs/MRAPs. If they have been in contact with their tanks its been at close range and in support of Infantry (see M1A2 TUSK).

    Recently the US Army has had to deal with mandated reductions in the size of our Army based on numbers based on resources and funding. Happens every time we came off of a ramp up for a war. But the Army has pivoted the training to a more realistic multilevel direct action combat at our combat training centers. This includes our Army National Guard as well.

    As for Europe specifically...we now rotate a heavy brigade4 combat team on 9 month rotations into Europe. We also stage additional forces. Keep in mind it may not be our ground maneuver comabt forces which are the most important. We have built up and further building up large number of preposition stocks of other forces with are tremendous combat multipliers.

    But you will not see US forces in theater on the scale of 1988...or 1998.
    As long as USA, France and UK have nuclear weapons Russia will not go on military intervention into NATO countries, even if traditional military forces in Europe were 10 times less than today. There is a big difference between USSR and Russia. The USSR was an ideology state, people were raised with an ideology of a "communist mission" to free the world from "imperialists". So, USSR could afford limited nuclear war with enormous losses. Today Russia is a regional empire with strong military forces, no "missionary" ideology. What will Russia do with Europe if it occupies it? Even if Western Europe gives up like France in 1940?!?!?! USSR had a plan, it had a mission, and purpose. And reality is that such an invasion may trigger if not a global nuclear war, then a limited nuclear conflict..... Do you think Russian electorate will support that?!?!? Putin is not Stalin nor Hitler whater western media is calling him,..... he is closer to Mussalini, who had power as long as he was popular. Putin CANNOT AFFORD defeat in a battle.... Stalin would not even blink if a massive battle is lost....

    So, military comparisons without linking it to political reality are completely irrelevant. Russia simply not capable of threatening Europe seriously.

    Russia can threaten Baltics and Ukraine.... if it wanted.... however, I see no reasons why Russia would want to invade Baltic states. There is no military, or economic benefit which is worth triggering conflict with all the Europe.

    Ukraine is absolutely different story. Russia will fight for it.... lets see.

  8. #398
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    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:

    Attachment 42602
    ))) nice cat. However I see no problem with placing a scout copter drone on any of existing tanks.... ANY TANK. The article says it will be connected with a wire to the tank. Is it something challenging in terms of technology?

    However, it may be useful and if Russian T14 will get it , other tankers will have it in few years as well.

  9. #399
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Toby & Manuka,

    The bottomline is tankers in the US Army haven't been doing too much "tanking" the last 15 years. What they have been doing is performing security missions in HMMWVs/MRAPs. If they have been in contact with their tanks its been at close range and in support of Infantry (see M1A2 TUSK).
    Has anyone, at least in the west? I can't remember any tank v tank engagements since Iraq 2003, and even any that happened there were "old junk" vs "western top of the line". And before that, since 91, anything else?

  10. #400
    Contributor NUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Aug 08
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    Has anyone, at least in the west? I can't remember any tank v tank engagements since Iraq 2003, and even any that happened there were "old junk" vs "western top of the line". And before that, since 91, anything else?
    Ukraine in 2014. Old Soviet junk vs upgraded T-72's.
    Winter is coming.

  11. #401
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Thats incorrect, I'm simply concerned that our eye was kept off the ball with regards to Russian investment in updating it's armed forces.
    Really?Have you counted?
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  12. #402
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by NUS View Post
    Ukraine in 2014. Old Soviet junk vs upgraded T-72's.
    Hmm,I'd thought there were only captured old Soviet junk and no upgraded T72's.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  13. #403
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by NUS View Post
    Ukraine in 2014. Old Soviet junk vs upgraded T-72's.
    I followed that conflict and its battles. Most of the tanks lost there were not due to Tank to Tank engagements..... but rather AT missiles, artillery and land mines.

    Tank to tank engagements were at Debaltsevo battle during failed attack of LNR tank company of Sanzharovka hill #307,5. However, LNR tanks were not supported with infantry, while Ukrainian Army tanks were not functioning properly (some had malfunction of loader) and outnumbered (3 vs 5 or 7). Result - LNR tanks killed all the Ukrainian tanks + 2 or 3 BMP and were burned by infantry..... 4 or more were lost of which 4 burned, some more DNR tanks were left broken, captured, but later recaptured (in 2 weeks). All Ukrainian armor was lost to LNR tanks, all LNR tanks were lost to ATMs of infantry.
    http://alternathistory.com/podrobnos...za-vysotu-3079

    another tank to tank were breakthrough of Ukrainian army tank at the road bridge (Putilovskiy) at near Donetsky Airport. 4 Ukrainian tanks (or 5) with support of 6 BTR and around 80 soldiers met 3 DNR tanks while DNR tanks were reloading ammunition with no infantry support..... all 3 burned by tanks (and 1 cargo trucks with ammunition). However, DNR send infantry without armor - a company of Motorolla commander (now dead) and a company from "Somaila" battalion and squad of reconnaissance unit (GRU) engaged Ukrainian army group => 3 tanks, 2 BTR+ 30 soldiers of Ukrainian army were burned, 11 captured, rest soldiers retreated along with 2 (or 1) tanks and 4 BTR. All Ukrainian armor was burned by ATMs, all DNR tanks were burned by tanks (while having no ammunitin). Ukrainian tankers were blaming their infantry for retreating and leaving them alone against enemy infantry....

    http://antikor.com.ua/articles/88418...lovskomu_mostu
    http://summer56.livejournal.com/290263.html
    http://forum.terraanalytica.ru/?app=..._post&p=182864
    http://svobodaslova.info/history/567...-video-18.html

    in both cases a motivated and skilled infantry bravely engaged tanks with ATM in close combat => tanks were burned.

    Final, a breakthrough of Ukrainian army tanks through DNR/LNR forces from Debaltsevo. Numbers lost are unclear, many tanks were lost on both sides, but Ukrainian column was attacked with artillery (lightly to their luck!) => some tanks were lost to artillery. ATMs were used by both sides in that breakthrough.

    I don't remember other tank to tank engagements there....

    ps. overall lesson from the Donetskiy civil war

    1) Tanks to must be supported with infantry
    2) Tanks must have infantry units LOYAL to the tanks (do not abandon them alone)
    3) Infantry goes ahead first.... tanks are merely a sniper/assault gun which covers infantry from behind, a close support gun with armor.... whenever tanks go ahead => tanks are burned by multiple ATMs.

    a motivated and brave infantry can engage tanks not supported with infantry with ATMs and win
    Last edited by Garry; 23 Nov 16, at 12:34.

  14. #404
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    a motivated and brave infantry can engage tanks not supported with infantry with ATMs and win
    I'd have thought the germans in late 44/45 had taught everyone this lesson, with their Panzerfaults/shrecks...

  15. #405
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    I'd have thought the germans in late 44/45 had taught everyone this lesson, with their Panzerfaults/shrecks...
    I am not sure that Soviet tanks were not supported with infantry in 44/45. I may imagine Red Army with such mistakes in 41-42.... even 43.... but not in 44, nor 45. Each tank was assigned a platoon of infantry in late 1944 and in 1945.

    ps. Soviet statistics also disclose that 80% of tanks lost were due to German AT artillery, some to German tanks and only 7% to Panzerfausts.

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,, 00:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 18:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 08:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 14:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 10:56

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
  •