Page 30 of 31 FirstFirst ... 2122232425262728293031 LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 458

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #436
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Nor, unsurprisingly, is this 28 panfilovtsev, anything but propaganda: It is certainly not an accurate depiction as you claim. For starters not all of them died; two (Kuzhebergenov and Dobrobabin) were later interviewed by the NKVD (KGB predecessor) for alleged contacts with the enemy. Later a commission found 4 others still alive... The military judge who lead the commission of inquiry, Lieutenant-General Nikolai Afanasyev, concluded the whole story "did not occur. It was a pure fantasy." These inconvenient facts you were presumably unaware of when describing the the film as accurate... but I somewhat doubt that.
    Snapper, dear. Please take your time. Lots of documents are available. Read them. Yes, the story of 28 man killing 18 tanks in Red Star written in December 1941 was misleading. Soviet millitary investigation of 1950es documented what was there. It was not a judge but a prosecutor making an inquiry of documents from Soviet and German archives + interviewing SOME (many were not interviewed) people who were there. They stated that story of 28 was wrong, however HE NEVER doubted that battle took place. (what you mean "did not occur" ?)

    Facts:

    1) battle at Dubosekovo, Petelino, Shyryaevo took place. Germand size 2nd Panzer Div, Soviet side regiment 1075 of 316th Panfilov div.
    2) regiment lost around 400 men that day, and 4th company at Dubosekovo lost 100 of them (also most of personnel was lost by 45mm AT battery at Dubosekovo).
    3) 1st Group of 2nd Panzer div lost between 12 and 18 tanks + around 250 soldiers of which over 150 dead.

    Losses on both sides are documented. If these losses don't make a battle for you then WHAT IS A BATTLE which OCCUR?

    So what do you want to argue about here?

    And 316th Div had a lot of Ukrainians!!!! lots of Ukrainians. They fought there and died in that battle. Like a real man. Whatever your nazi believes are today (Ms Azov lover). Please for god sake don't insult their honor....

    ps. I don't want to continue discussion with you on on this topic. Others topics are welcomed.
    ps. 2. Every tenth soldier of Panfilov's division was Ukrainian
    Last edited by Garry; 25 Nov 16, at 10:20.

  2. #437
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,122
    I simply do not believe statements such as "This movie comes closest to what actually happened then in November 1941..." without even mentioning some of the other 'inconvenient facts' gives a clear and unbiased approximation of whatever the truth may be. Much the same as carte blanche labelling the war in Donbass as a "civil war" without mentioning any of the other 'inconvenient facts' is nothing but a type of RT propaganda - it is not representing even half the facts and so has no relation to any objective truth.

  3. #438
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    if you are interested to read what happened there and how did 316th div could withstand against 2 infantry and 2 panzer divs on Volokolamsk highway. You can read good book by Alexander Bek about Gen Panfilov tactics.

    https://www.amazon.com/Volokolamsk-H.../dp/B0006CHYD8
    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...olamsk_Highway

  4. #439
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,122
    Also to call me an "Azov lover" is a bit like saying that Churchill was a 'Bolshevik lover'. He fundamentally was not because as he said they would have murdered him and his family and stood against all the history and liberties that to Churchill was important. I am not a Muslim either but have nothing against Chechen's fighting for Ukraine; as Churchill said "if Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." We are fortunate in Ukraine where - as opposed to say France - the far right on average receives the support of less than 5% of voters. Nor are Azov entirely 'nationalist' in the ordinary sense since they advocate - and organised a conference about - the intermarium idea which is a federalist or at least con-federalist idea by definition and should theoretically therefore be anathema to any normal 'nationalist' movement or whatever they want to call themselves. For myself I hope next year to join the Democratic Alliance which is led by people like Mustafa Nayeem and Svitlana Zalishchuk... the 'young reformers' as it were.

  5. #440
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,903
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I do not know who you think you are fooling any more.... A 'little green man' who is actually a soldier, payed, supplied and taking orders from Moscow in their national forces is still a Muscovite soldier whether he wears insignia or not. You may recall that Putin admitted that the 'little green men' in Crimea were Muscovite troops. The International Criminal Court last week classed Muscovite presence in Crimea as "occupation" further adding "The Russian federation employed members of its armed forces to gain control over parts of the territory of Ukraine without the consent of the government of Ukraine." We have identified 75 unite of the so called 'Russian' army that have been or are in Donbass now - the whole chain of command is controlled directly by the Muscovite army. Buryats, serving within the Muscovite army, do not up and off half a continent to take part in a battle without help or orders.... You are no longer fooling anyone so stop trying to fool yourself.
    Yeah, I'm as skeptical as they come...but to deny Moscow's full-fledged involvement in Donbas is fanciful, for the reasons Snapper listed.

    Eventually Putin will come clean, just as he did with Crimea. In the meantime, sure, it's all "Wink wink, nudge nudge"...but the Kremlin couldn't fool a small child.
    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

  6. #441
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    One guy has recorded IR signatures of Russian armored vehicles on the parade of 9th of May. This video and pictures were posted later on some Russian web sites. They confirm that IR signatures of the modern AV are much smaller than that of the previous generations of Soviet/Russia AV.

    here are some pics.... however.... the radars on Armata were off.... and hence radiated no heat.... while if previous leaks are correct, their high IR visibility is the main problem for Armata.

    the video was filmed most probably on Tverskaya street on approach of AV to the red square during pre-parade training.


    Name:  Armata1.jpg
Views: 312
Size:  20.0 KBName:  Armata2.jpg
Views: 313
Size:  9.9 KBName:  Coalition1.jpg
Views: 313
Size:  10.0 KB

  7. #442
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    IR emissions is a very small fraction if not a subset of what gets harvested on the battlefield

    taking kirlian happy snaps on parade really means diddly

  8. #443
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    One guy has recorded IR signatures of Russian armored vehicles on the parade of 9th of May. This video and pictures were posted later on some Russian web sites. They confirm that IR signatures of the modern AV are much smaller than that of the previous generations of Soviet/Russia AV.

    here are some pics.... however.... the radars on Armata were off.... and hence radiated no heat.... while if previous leaks are correct, their high IR visibility is the main problem for Armata.

    the video was filmed most probably on Tverskaya street on approach of AV to the red square during pre-parade training.


    Name:  Armata1.jpg
Views: 312
Size:  20.0 KBName:  Armata2.jpg
Views: 313
Size:  9.9 KBName:  Coalition1.jpg
Views: 313
Size:  10.0 KB
    Not real thermal images, just camera filters.

  9. #444
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    the friend of mine watsapped me interesting source where Russian generals were criticizing Armata and Uralvagonzavod. I heard those arguments before. Let me bullet point what was there

    - Armata is not the tank which is needed for Russian Army. It is a tank which is more suitable for Western Armies than for Russian/Soviet army.
    - Army would prefer to modernize/upgrade existing T-90 tanks rather than buy more of Armata
    - Uralvagozavod has designed Armata not on specifications required by the Army, but on their own, using their own views of what is needed and what specs are best for the new generation tank

    major disagreements of the army:
    - Armata is just like a Western tank, cannot be repaired on the battle field. Just like a western tank it is overcomplicated and its repair would mean replacement of the malfunctioning modules. It may lead to additional logistic pressure on the tank battle units, making them less autonomous. Indeed the western tank designs are focused on the speed of repair, assuming fast replacement of the whole modules. A number of malfunctions of T-72 and T-90 could be repaired by the crew or mechanics of the battle unit. While this may require much longer time it makes battle units more autonomous capable of operating further away from supply base.
    - Armata's cannon has higher energy than that of T-90 and T-72. Abrams/Leopard has also a higher energy cannot. However, there is also a trade off - higher energy cannons has much lower resource. In case of Abrams the resource of the tank gun is only few hundred shots vs 1500-2000 for T-72/T-90. The main reason for that is high energy, which leads to higher accuracy on a distance, but leads to higher wear of the cannon. It means that western tanking unit would need to have significant amount of spare cannons for replacement, T-72/T-90 much less - it has higher autonomy. Armata's cannon has energy 30% higher than that of Abrams/Leopard => wear of its cannons is high => autonomy of the battle unit is much smaller.
    - overall Western tanks are not designed for operations away from supply bases, their deployment is a logistical nightmare. Same will be for Armata, as it is designed with the same logic. Armata just like a western tanks is primarily an ANTI tank weapon, which is good for defense or offensive close to supply bases. Russian/Soviet army has different requirement for its machinery. It may agree for limitation of some capabilities, but AUTONOMY of battle units is major priority since WWII.
    - and the last but not least, the cost of Western banks is much much higher than that of Soviet/Russian designs. These machines are not fast in mass production and costly in manufacturing (and operation as well). Soviet designs were optimized for fast and massive production at affordable cost. Armata is NOT. Its cost is too high to follow soviet army logic, and Russian Army does not agree to that. It cannot be mass produced, it is costly in operation, it requires maintenance which cannot be done by mechanics of the battle unit.

    Bottom line, Army is thinking and working in is old paradigm, while Uralvagozavod made the tank to match western approach to tank use....

    Sorry for my armature summary of what I have read. To me it sounded interesting..........

  10. #445
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    the friend of mine watsapped me interesting source where Russian generals were criticizing Armata and Uralvagonzavod. I heard those arguments before. Let me bullet point what was there
    <SNIP>
    Thanks for that post. Some interesting points here.

    I guess the Armata, basically, represents a future that's a lot more complicated and expensive, and the russian army isn't too happy about that?...

  11. #446
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,325
    Garry, thanks for the run down. A lot of what you say makes sense and is confirmed in the military journals.
    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

  12. #447
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    Thanks for that post. Some interesting points here.

    I guess the Armata, basically, represents a future that's a lot more complicated and expensive, and the russian army isn't too happy about that?...
    yep. to the point.

    it basically contradicts the way the Russian army fights and operates. Armata is a more like a modern Tiger I/II, while Russian Army likes a modern type of T-34....
    Tiger is good for defense on limited theaters, T-34 is a fast advance tool not fitting for a defense. Soviet/Russian army has a built around the logic of a Blitzkrieg

    ps. one more comparison came to my mind - heavy armored knight vs light archer cavalry....
    Last edited by Garry; 24 Jul 17, at 14:34.

  13. #448
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,903
    Excellent summaries and info Garry, thanks!
    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. #449
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    nit. While this may require much longer time it makes battle units more autonomous capable of operating further away from supply base.
    - Armata's cannon has higher energy than that of T-90 and T-72. Abrams/Leopard has also a higher energy cannot. However, there is also a trade off - higher energy cannons has much lower resource. In case of Abrams the resource of the tank gun is only few hundred shots vs 1500-2000 for T-72/T-90. The main reason for that is high energy, which leads to higher accuracy on a distance, but leads to higher wear of the cannon. It means that western tanking unit would need to have significant amount of spare cannons for replacement, T-72/T-90 much less - it has higher autonomy. Armata's cannon has energy 30% higher than that of Abrams/Leopard => wear of its cannons is high => autonomy of the battle unit is much smaller. .
    is this actually true? I mean, is it true that Abrams/ Leo cannon has less limit for shots than T-72/T-90 due to higher energy/precision? I browsed internet and people write contradicting opinions on this issue on different forums... Tankers, do you know that?

  15. #450
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    is this actually true? I mean, is it true that Abrams/ Leo cannon has less limit for shots than T-72/T-90 due to higher energy/precision? I browsed internet and people write contradicting opinions on this issue on different forums... Tankers, do you know that?
    Its not impossible. I don't know the real specs for EFC barrel life either the 120mm or 125mm. It seems off though since muzzle energy from both using the latest rounds is very similar. You need a lot of pressure to propel a sabot to useful combat speeds. Both suffer less wear or handle pressures better than older rifled barrels. A quick internet search shows claims of 1500 EFC for the US/German gun and 1200 for the Russian gun. The few hundred rounds claim seems to be based on open source information about the 120mm rifled gun used in the Arjun/Chieftan (Challenger?) posted by DRDO which states a life of 500 EFC.

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
  •