Page 28 of 33 FirstFirst ... 192021222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 406 to 420 of 494

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #406
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    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.
    I was referring to the imperative need of giving tanks proper infantry cover. If pre-Panzerfaults/shrecks tanks might survive moving around alone (or close to it), after such weapons started to show up...

  2. #407
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    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?
    If it was an entire division in 1982 then that would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 4500 vehicles...from jeeps to M60s and fuel and ammo trucks.

    It terms of numbers in 1988 US Army Europe was almost as big as the US Army today. You won't see us return to those numbers.
    “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 day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  3. #408
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    the Donetskiy civil war
    No Buryats at Debaltsevo?

  4. #409
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    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?
    “We essentially made the invisible tank,” Vyacheslav Khalitov said claiming that the T-14 is coated with a special radar-absorbing paint and also has its “emitters” – heat signatures that make the tank vulnerable to modern anti-armor weapons – buried deep inside the hull of the vehicle in order to reduce emissions.

    “What you are trying to do in reducing a radar return for these scenarios is also very different. For airborne targets you are trying to reduce an RCS [radar cross-section] to make a lock-on more difficult. For ground targets you would be trying to make a tank indistinguishable from ground clutter. These two do not necessarily overlap in how you approach them,” one Russian specialist explained.

    http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/is-ru...-to-the-enemy/
    These came from an interview with the manufacturer of the T-14. Obviously they should be taken with a grain of salt since the manufacturer wants to show their product in a good light, it is unlikely a tank could truly be "invisible" from modern sensors.

    Still, it is clear that a lot of effort went into making them more difficult for aircraft to find and target. It's layered approach to missile defense (reduced radar/infrared signature>EM countermeasures>active anti-missile system>explosive reactive armor>composite armor) will undoubtedly degrade the effectiveness of guided missiles against Russian armor.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 23 Nov 16, at 16:42.

  5. #410
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    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.

    No argument. I was just addressing the issue over amount of armor/armour and boots on ground as well as level of training.

    Absolutely it is joined at the hip with political plans and wills and updated ideology. Which is why our recent elections could be problematic.
    “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 day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  6. #411
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,362
    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.


    This is at the very heart of standard doctrine at the brigade and below level in all Western armies. There may be times where the tanks lead but they are supported by mounted Infantry ready to dismount and fight the ATGMs.

    Or more importantly accompanied by fire support officers who will rain down steel from supporting fires on the ATGMs.
    “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 day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  7. #412
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    No Buryats at Debaltsevo?
    Ukrainians at both sides make it a civil war.... and intrusion of foreign nations on both sides does not change lack of unity in Ukrainian nation..... I am not happy to state this. I have many Ukrainian friends whose life is torn apart because if this.

    anyway.... back to the issue. There were very few tank to tank engagements in this war. Most tanks are lost to ATM, land mines, and artillery.

  8. #413
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,362
    Garry,

    I'd be interested to hear about any ISIS/IRAQ Forces battles since ISIS captured many M1s from the Iraqis last year.
    “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 day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  9. #414
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    http://www.stern.de/digital/technik/...n-7204014.html

    Putin lässt 3000 Panzer aus dem Depot modernisieren
    Wladimir Putin hat bereits 2500 T-14 Armata Kampfpanzer bestellt, nun lässt er noch einmal 3000 T-80 komplett modernisieren. Fragt sich nur: Was will Moskau mit so vielen Panzern?
    FacebookTwitterGoogle+E-MailDrucken
    Schon der T-801 BV ist mit zusätzlicher reaktiver Panzerung versehen.Fullscreen
    Schon der T-801 BV ist mit zusätzlicher reaktiver Panzerung versehen.
    © Vitaly V. Kuzmin Wki Commons
    kramper-gernot
    Gernot Kramper
    Zur Autorenseite
    Angeblich soll sich eine Bromance zwischen Trump und Putin anbahnen. Von dieser Entspannung ist aber bisher noch nichts zu spüren. Im Gegenteil: In den vergangenen Tagen wurde von der "Izvestiya" in Russland berichtet, dass Putin bis zu 3000 Panzer vom Typ T-80 auf einen modernen Stand bringen will. Der T-80 ist der Vorgänger des aktuellen russischen Kampfpanzers (MBT) T-90. In seiner jetzigen Variante soll der T-90 allen westlichen Modellen zumindest ebenbürtig sein. Dann gibt es noch das Zukunftsmodell T-14 Armata, das sich derzeit im Anlauf der Massenproduktion befindet. Der T-14 soll allen anderen bisher gebauten Kampfpanzern weit überlegen sein. Geplant ist der Bau von 2500 Exemplaren für die russische Armee. Der T-80 hingegen galt als Auslaufmodell – noch etwa 550 Panzer stehen im Dienst. Die T-80-Reserve von über 3000 Stück rostet hingegen in Magazinen der Armee vor sich hin.
    Rundum-Modernsierung


    RUSSEN-PANZER ARMATA
    Putins neue Wunderwaffe
    Teilen
    Gedacht ist nun an eine Rundumerneuerung. Der Spritverbrauch der Maschine soll deutlich gesenkt werden. Vermutlich soll aber an dem Antrieb durch eine Gasturbine festgehalten werden – T-90 und T-14 nutzen Dieselmotoren. Der Turbinen-Motor des T-80s soll besser unter extremen klimatischen Bedingungen arbeiten. Eine zusätzliche adaptive Panzerung soll den Panzer gegen moderne Lenkwaffen schützen. Zusätzlich soll er mit einem aktiven Abwehrsystem ausgerüstet werden. Die 125-mm-Glattrohrkanone wird wohl nicht ersetzt, aber vom modernen Sosna-U-Feuerleitsystem gelenkt.
    Das angesehene Fachmagazin "Janes.com" bestätigte inzwischen die Angaben der Izvestiya. Eine anonyme Quelle sagte dem Fachblatt: "In Übereinstimmung mit dem Programm wird die Überholung und Modernisierung der T-80BV im nächsten Jahr beginnen." Die Panzer werden dazu ins Werk des Herstellers Omsktransmash gebracht. Die Quelle sagte weiterhin, dass die Kampfkraft des Upgrades dem aktuellen T-90s sehr nahe kommen werde.

    Oldtimer gezielt zu modernisieren, ist typisch für die russische Rüstung und wird bei Flugzeugen und Schiffen im großen Stil betrieben. Der Grund sind die Kosten: Für den Bruchteil des Geldes einer Neukonstruktion werden die Oldies auf einen modernen Stand gebracht. So auch hier. Offensichtlich ist aber, dass ein überarbeiteter T-80 nicht den konstruktiven Quantensprung des T-14 Armata einholen kann.


    Unglaubliche Mengen an Kampfpanzern

    Offen bleibt die Frage, was Moskau mit diesen Mengen an modernen Panzern will, alle drei Typen summieren sich auf 6000 Exemplare auf. Neben dem Einsatz in extremen Klimazonen wie der Arktis, werden die runderneuerten T-80 die Wartezeit auf den T-14 überbrücken. Außerdem wären sie ein Reservoir, mit dem Moskau seinen Verbündeten rasch aushelfen könnte. Und mit ihnen würden die Truppen der Reserve moderne Ausrüstung erhalten. Auf jeden Fall sind das gewaltige Zahlen, zumal nicht zu erkennen ist, dass der Westen diesen Stückzahlen mit überlegener Technik begegnen kann.

  10. #415
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Garry,

    I'd be interested to hear about any ISIS/IRAQ Forces battles since ISIS captured many M1s from the Iraqis last year.
    that would be interesting too! for some strange reason, ISIS have very limited use of M1s they captured from Iraqis.... while there is a lot of facts of their use of T-55 - T-72.... I actually did not read about tank to tank engagement in Iraq and Syria....

  11. #416
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    that would be interesting too! for some strange reason, ISIS have very limited use of M1s they captured from Iraqis.... while there is a lot of facts of their use of T-55 - T-72.... I actually did not read about tank to tank engagement in Iraq and Syria....
    If you hear/read anything credible pop up a new thread and share please.
    “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 day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  12. #417
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    Ukrainians at both sides make it a civil war.... and intrusion of foreign nations on both sides does not change lack of unity in Ukrainian nation..... I am not happy to state this. I have many Ukrainian friends whose life is torn apart because if this.

    anyway.... back to the issue. There were very few tank to tank engagements in this war. Most tanks are lost to ATM, land mines, and artillery.
    The Muscovite army was there... we captured a T90 at Debaltsevo. Denial of facts doesn't stop the truth being truth:


  13. #418
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    that would be interesting too! for some strange reason, ISIS have very limited use of M1s they captured from Iraqis.... while there is a lot of facts of their use of T-55 - T-72.... I actually did not read about tank to tank engagement in Iraq and Syria....
    Logistics and lack of training no doubt. Even an export M1 is a totally different beast than a T-55.

    It's also relatively brand new to the region, whereas the Soviet models have been around for decades.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  14. #419
    Senior Contributor Toby's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Really?Have you counted?
    Your points 1,2 and 3 were very informative, thank you. I thought you were inferring I was taking a Pro-Russian stance.
    The British media for the last few years has been saturated with articles on Russia's military budget increases and its apparent reprising of its old ways. As I'm sure you are aware the Baltic states have a limited ability to respond to any Russian aggression. With their large Russian populations, I can fully understand their anxiety.

  15. #420
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    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.
    How has the balance between tanks and infantry antitank weapons changed since then, in your opinion?
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

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
  •