Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I feel Tanks are no longer useful, but Russia's most advanced Tank

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I can't read 'Ruskie' but I farted around on that second Russian Website link and found a gallery of it.

www.wartechnic.ru...

This should be a good reason for the Pentagon to put more money into a replacement for the M1A2 Abrams.

W.E.S.B




posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wild_Eyed_Southern_Boy


This should be a good reason for the Pentagon to put more money into a replacement for the M1A2 Abrams.

W.E.S.B


Showing pictures of the Russian Black Eagle is not enough to send shivers down America's military spine. The M1a2 Abrams is more than enough to handle itself dealing with any present or even future tanks for the next two decades.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
WESB

>>
I can't read 'Ruskie' but I farted around on that second Russian Website link and found a gallery of it.
>>

Let's take a look at a couple of those pictures, shall we?

You fight HERE-

www.wartechnic.ru...

And your ability to /survive/ is going to basically come down to 'who gets the first shot off from ambush'. Because you're average LOS constraint is may 500-800m _tops_ and the tube technology between any given nation is simply too close for armor to really be more than ballast to a landship it's mounted on.

Similarly, your ability to move at 40+mph to turn an enemy flank is limited by the size of the dirt track you're playing Aberdeen Proving Ground on. As well as the number of buried or improvised ORMs giving passage denial to each. Every 100 meters.

OTOH, you start playing /here/-

www.wartechnic.ru...

And the question is less which tank do you have than it is WHY do you have a tank at all? Because everybody can see it for miles and miles means minutes and enough minutes strung together means CAS.

RULE #1 of armored warfare. 'Tank Country' in a world dominated by intelligent artillery and air delivered area fires is the inverse of expectation: Not open but _closed_ terrain sets.

Ironically, these are the very places where investment in 4-6 million dollars worth of DU frontal slope and mile per second working pressures can be entirely offset by a simple infantryman firing a 1960's LAW up the rear exhaust grill.

>>
This should be a good reason for the Pentagon to put more money into a replacement for the M1A2 Abrams.
>>

Yeah, well. The problem is that the things the Abrams got right, it no longer needs. And the things that it got wrong, everybody else has already learned from.

THAT is the principal definition of 'need a new toy' in military technology development these days. Not that you must beat X with better incremental whatever. But that you must beat him with a system that forces him to redevelop his own doctrinal methodology base.

Or risk losing a sale 'of the new paradigm' to an export nation.

Myself, I think that they got it right with the Sherman and Stuart. Light tanks, acting as screen units, feel out the shape of the battlefield as a function of winkling up a hole through or around an enemy position.

In realtime.

Regardless of losses.

The problem here is that I also firmly believe in a system of combined arms and C3D assisted operations. Which means that when you find yourself facing a new threat position by virtue of watching your 3 lead tanks blow up, you immediately employ arty to lay down a dense I2R/MMW protective screen. Even as you relay a MAWS type (muzzle blast) transmission of firing sources between all the remaining network vehicles to bring in a CBU full of Skeet or even individually aimed Small Diameter Bombs.

At the same time, you turn your team and 'rush the sidelines', preferrably at 60-70mph.

To try and defilade the enemy by virtue of _shock and maneuver_ which is what differentiates a tank as a breakout/exploitation system from being 'just another gun truck' in support of infantry ops, in town.

Meanwhile, if you so choose or are in a position where airpower's notable absence makes it necessary, you fire a spread of CKEMS at twice the salvo rate and density of ANY maintube weapon. From an overwatch position 5-10km further back (this means inertial fires and probably a terminal seeker or at least /very/ smart topattack fuze, something they haven't yet quite gotten right given the source 'HVM' programs (1980s) obsession with LOS fires).

And then you do it again. 2-20nm further on.

The principle effectors of 'strategy change' then come out to be:

1. You cannot expect American youth to ride suicide chariots like they were WWII Japanese. What's more, you cannot /rapidly replace/ tanks if they have upwards of 50 cubic feet of personnel enclosure volume bulking up the exterior moldline.

2. To get 70mph, you have to up the horsepower:ton ratio and we've already seen that the easiest way to do this, with gas turbines, makes armor far to vulnerable to the requirement of basically 'organic' fuel bowsering /within/ the maneuver element. It can take upwards of 2,000 TONS of logistics to keep a division maneuver element in the field, per day.

3. If you are killing with powered hyper velocity weapons, you are looking at 6-8 feet of motor length. And so you don't /need/ a turreted enclosure to protect separate ammo storage. OTOH, if you are engaging at high rates of traverse (fire on the move, multiple targets in well sited, hull-down, conditions) mixed enemy mech team you DO need an ability to engage from either 'over the berm' or through very narrow holes in the protection (muzzle or rear). That means a light cannon, not a heavy.

4. The only reliable way to protect against LAW in MOUT conditions is to up-armor in 360`. The only reasonable way to protect against heavy ATGW and perhaps KE rounds in open field conditions is to jam them. Avoid them. Or shoot them down. The question then becomes less one of absolute protection than readily applied field kits that give you the equivalent of multiple 'shields' worth of alternate protective suite. ERA and Smoke close in. APS and Smoke/Laser farther out. 25-35mm frontal arc. 12.7-14.5mm surround sound.

ARGUMENT:
What you want is something robotic, like this-

MULE
www.missilesandfirecontrol.com...

Or this-

WIESEL
en.wikipedia.org...:Wiesel1MK.jpg

Platforms which can actually drive more than 100 miles without refueling. Platforms which can be airlifted _by helicopter_ in large numbers to replace engaged unit losses, almost as they happen. Platforms which can sustain 60-70mph rates of advance to get /behind/ enemy armor movements rather than frontally attacking them. Platforms which can use 25-40mm lightweight, low MV, 'lobbing' (grenade launcher) explosive fires in one turret to suppress FIBUA threats at close ranges while 'opening doors' in buildings and the like with Javelin or Spike-LR. Platforms which, in another turret, can use 35-45mm, high velocity, bores to kill through the sides and rear of armor at longer ranges. Or improved CKEM at potentially OTH ones. Platforms which, ultimately, are designed to FIND the enemy, by losing one or two vehicles, so that the rest may pin and destroy it through massively superior secondary, combined arms, engagement. Platforms which then /cost/ about 500,000 to 1.5 million dollars to replace. No more.

And to Armor Generals, so long used to LOMD measuring their nation's 'prowess' by caliber of the barrel and tonnage under track and cost on the budgetline. This is an utterly unbelievable concept. Because it takes every concept they've ever learned about elitist training and individual platform values. And turns them right on their heads.

CONCLUSION:
Yeah, I want a 'new MBT' too. Mine has a high efficiency 250-500hp hybrid drive. Weighs 2-5 tons, and effectively has the turret and masted sensor group that Bradley (_as a scout_) should have had, from the start.

I don't think that anyone will buy it. Because they think like you do: thundering steel, blocking out the sky, a man in the turret pretending he's doing some good.

When the screaming reality is something more like- "SHOOT ME! SHOOT ME! IT TOOK HALF THE BUDGET TO BUY TWO OF US AND SIXTY DAYS TO GET US HERE BY RORO BOAT AND TOMORROW THEY GIVE OUR GAS RATION TO THE MARINES TO USE!".

Rampant Bolo'ism.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Wild_Eyed_Southern_Boy


This should be a good reason for the Pentagon to put more money into a replacement for the M1A2 Abrams.

W.E.S.B


Showing pictures of the Russian Black Eagle is not enough to send shivers down America's military spine. The M1a2 Abrams is more than enough to handle itself dealing with any present or even future tanks for the next two decades.


You shouldn't say that, IED's and RPG-7 already took care of your so called futurestic tank.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Well the M1 is a 70's design so i really doubt it being capable of defeating future designs infact it isnt even clear if the M1 tank is the best tank in the world right now. In fact there is no clear best tank in the world. Rpg 7's or at least the basic ones are not a big threat. however when or if the insurgents get rpg's with modern warheads it will be more dangerous.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Ch1466, your concept for a smaller, faster, smarter tank is basically asking the army to give up heavy armor and completely adopt IFVs and APCs, or just robotic versions to do everything a tank can do. Question is, can it effectively kill enemy MBT's, survive enemy MBT fire (good luck with a small IFV surviving KE rounds), as well as speed, computer systems etc.

Though you note the two biggest problems with armored units, namely their logistic tail, which is the Achilles heel of tanks since WWI, and also their seemly high cost, you should also note their effectiveness against enemy armor, especially lighty armored IFVs. All the weapons you describe as "tank killers" virtually all guided missiles are subject to jamming, high cost, slow reload speed, and few rounds can be stored.

Also, though novel devices are being thought up to thwart HEAT rounds and relatively effective ERA exists for that purpose, KE weapons would remain the long ranged scourge of such units. They are cheap to produce, are not subject to interception, are VERY effective against anything but heavy composites, and are not possible to "jam" since even with all sensors dead, you can fire cannons with optical sights with good effectiveness.

You assume that an open field in the modern battlefield will spell doom to any vehicle, and only cheaper attrition units would be effective because they will all be subject to "aircraft and guided artillery" Therefore yes it would be cheaper to use IFVs, until they ran into heavy armor that survived the onslaught and engaged them at speed and were able to survive hits from IFV missiles, while destroying the low situational awareness robotic IFVs with a single KE round from a comparable distance that the IFv missiles reach. If in fact heavy armor's rounds cannot reach out that far, they can simply use ATGW gun launched missiles and duel with the IFVs on fair ground, except that the heavy armor stands an excellent chance of surviving a single frontal hit from a HEAT missile, wereas the IFV does not. If they both have advanced systems to defeat HEAT missiles, the tank closes to gun range and kills with a KE round.


I disagree that heavy armor isnt worth its cost and logistical tail on the battlefield.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Modern LAWs (light anti-tank weapons) are much more powerful than the infamous RPG-7. Weapons like the Panzerfraust-3 or the Chinese PF-89B can both deal more than 850mm of RHa after ERA. And they are easy to manufacture, cheap and are much more dangerous than the RPGs. Its just the problem that insurgents can't get a hold of modern LAWs.

BTW, China doesn't operate any T-80s, we don't operate any Russian tanks although many of our tanks have Russian blood either in a Russian influenced hull or a Soviet influenced autoloader.

And 140mm anti-tank guns are deemed to enter service in the next Type-98 tank upgrade. Type-98G currently operate a indigenous 125mm smoothbore however a redesign of the tank is in the works with a improved hull, 30mm external weapons station replacing the 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun and a redesigned turret to adapt to the much more powerful recoil and new autoloader. I believe Janes or some other magazine stated that a 140mm gun would offer 2x the impact energy than that 125mm 2A49 (the one used on practically all Russian tanks).



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bozorgh
You shouldn't say that, IED's and RPG-7 already took care of your so called futurestic tank.


O really, then we don't have anymore tanks in Iraq do we if the M1a2 Abrams are obsolete and all of them destroyed by IEDs and RPGs? Tanks are built by man can by destroy by man, however the many Abrams have been hit and survive. IEDs, depending on the size of its power and where it hits could destroy an Abram, RPGs however can only damage or partially destroy an Abrams, by mobility kill where the crew may have to abandon the tank and destroy it before it falls into enemy hands. However the RPG 7s are not as powerful as the Javelin.



posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
When you have a tiny IFv like the wiesel, you barely even need a RPG to kill it. Probably just a 20mm gun, which is highly mobile and easy to conceal.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur
When you have a tiny IFv like the wiesel, you barely even need a RPG to kill it. Probably just a 20mm gun, which is highly mobile and easy to conceal.


The side armour of the wiesel can be penetrated by 12.7mm ball, and there have been cases of 7.62AP punching a few holes in one. OK there wouldn't be much power left in the round after this, but it would be a bit disconcerting for the occupants! Front armour is documented to stop up to 20mm cannon. I'll believe it when I see it.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Wiesels are officially only armored against 7.62mm NATO penetration - all around. Additional armor however can be easily installed.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Raideur,

>>
Ch1466, your concept for a smaller, faster, smarter tank is basically asking the army to give up heavy armor and completely adopt IFVs and APCs, or just robotic versions to do everything a tank can do. Question is, can it effectively kill enemy MBT's, survive enemy MBT fire (good luck with a small IFV surviving KE rounds), as well as speed, computer systems etc.
>>

CKEM is a mile-per-second, just like LOSAT and HVM before it. Just like the MBT main tube. Except an APFSDS is down to less than half it's muzzle velocity by the time it hits a thousand meters. A rocket-all-the-way weapon is still moving at top speed.

>>
Though you note the two biggest problems with armored units, namely their logistic tail, which is the Achilles heel of tanks since WWI, and also their seemly high cost, you should also note their effectiveness against enemy armor, especially lighty armored IFVs.
>>

A Bradley can kill a BMP or vice versa and both weigh in the range 25-30 tons. There is NO definitive data which says that tank-vs.-tank at the 50-70 ton level will not end up a similar (quick) 'draw' based solely on who sees who first. Because THAT is the definitive thing to note about 73 Easting and the Oil Field fighting.

Close range, limited visibility, your CS/CSS units up in the main train WITH YOU. Slowing everybody down and potentially creating a logistical marooning disaster.

In which it all comes down to who sees who first.

Gets that shock-of-contact 'plus' on morale and training. And turns the fight while the rest of the platoon comes online.

Pull that kind of crap on a German Leo or Brit C2 team with more adequate OP early warning and disciplined counterfire and they will turn around and say "Hell no you don't!" as they fight back. And things descend into a chaotic struggle of human randomization effects and pure numbers.

Available to lose.

'The Problem' then being that we have whored to the world the basics of Abrams doctrine-as-engineering technology base and what we haven't sold on, the Germans or Brits (or Israelis) have.

Which means we are no longer facing 4,000 enemy vehicles of 1970's Russian dateline. But 750 _modern_ MBT. And we can't even get 'wherever there is' to fight them at equal or numerically inferior (Tsushima on land) odds in less than six months. Which means they also get the advantage of prepped fighting positions.

>>
All the weapons you describe as "tank killers" virtually all guided missiles are subject to jamming, high cost, slow reload speed, and few rounds can be stored.
>>

If ten Eagle Troop M1s can blow apart 8+25 odd T-55/72 in the 2nd Iraqi Armored Brigades security screen and assembly area. And further, the period from engagement decision to end phase cleanup is less than five minutes, _how many rounds_ do you expect the Abrams to have expended? They were largely firing from the quick halt on targets under 1,000m and they were 'well trained' in their gunnery skills despite having virtually rolled atop the enemy in a massive mistake of maneuver.

I would say less than 4 rounds per tank if you are averaging an 80% SSPH. Less than 6 if you are managing a 55% SSPK (which may be optimistic, just on the notion that 'everybody wanted to git sum' overtargeting).

Look at this vehicle-

www.missilesandfirecontrol.com...

What do you see? I see four missile tubes. Each of which packs the fate of an MBT. ALL of which (under my system) would have NLOS 'arcing' capability to destroy enemy vehicles. Using masted sights to look over terrain undulences and standoff drones to map the area with APY-8 'look at the shiny metal mass!' type high-slant sensors.

The difference? I would /rather/ put my costs into the bullets than the rifle.

Because that bullet can kill enemy MBT at 6-8km, something no M1 (or other) gunner can now do. While the vehicle itself costs 1/4 that of the M1 and so can be bought in like numbers (10 Abrams = 40 Mules 80 aimed fires per minute vs. 120 in less than ten seconds).

Now, again, going by the 'he who sees first' rule. WHO WINS? The robot which can salvo all its missiles in probably 10-15 seconds as it's attached unit 'runs over' a previously unknown threat. Or the robot which, with the aid of netcentric fires, can see that threat before it crests the last ridge and finds a prepared enemy, waiting for it with I2R/MMW smoke and smart cluster as well as direct fires?

Oh, /that's right/ the Robot wins BOTH times. If only because it is just a find-and-fix force which cues on followup fires from intermediate and longrange lofted fires.

>>
Also, though novel devices are being thought up to thwart HEAT rounds and relatively effective ERA exists for that purpose, KE weapons would remain the long ranged scourge of such units. They are cheap to produce, are not subject to interception, are VERY effective against anything but heavy composites, and are not possible to "jam" since even with all sensors dead, you can fire cannons with optical sights with good effectiveness.
>>

Bahhhh. CKEM _is_ KE. Defeating top attack with SFF warheads means defeating 600-800mm of RHA overpen and that's not gonna happen in a 50 ton vehicle class. Even with ERA (what, do you put it on the engine decks and the sights too? Modern SFW can pick and choose their aimpoints with exactly that kind of finesse).

Can a milepersecond tube hit a building 10km away without smacking the two in front of it? Can it blow a forced-entry hole in a wall from under 500m so that infantry don't /have to/ go through the front door? Can it carry 200 engagements worth of suppression fires?

NO.

What it can do is penetrate 3-4 more tract houses down the street, randomly slaughtering luckless family hiding behind their living room couch in #5.

i.e. The Tank is as worthless in FIBUA as it is in open field conditions. Only it's armor is marginally valuable and that is conditional upon it being better distributed.

The reality is that if you can see an AFV and get a geolocate (GPS coordinate slant), you can saturation defeat it's active protection systems, and as soon as it chooses to move, it looses most of it's initial expendables/obscurrent/dazzler benefits anyway.

I will say this, ERA remains the way forward for most MOUT combat vehicles, even if it is only to reinforce the effectiveness of the base RHA. But that is solely because you are fighting an enemy which doesn't have dominance of the sky with all the _platform intensive_ sensorization (CCM defeat of CM) and long-loft munitions (3 SFW in an Excalibur round, can you pop all three with your APS? I doubt it) that a REAL warfighter can afford to throw away in killing your armor.

Because he is not anachronistically trying to sustain his own.

>>
You assume that an open field in the modern battlefield will spell doom to any vehicle, and only cheaper attrition units would be effective because they will all be subject to "aircraft and guided artillery" Therefore, yes, it would be cheaper to use IFVs, until they ran into heavy armor that survived the onslaught and engaged them at speed and were able to survive hits from IFV missiles, while destroying the low situational awareness robotic IFVs with a single KE round from a comparable distance that the IFv missiles reach.
>>

Why would I want to engage enemy MBT at LOS ranges? Why would I maneuver without a screening force of robotic minitanks out ahead? Why would I maneuver without an overhead ERMP++ capability to provide global surround sound MTI tracks?

_I AM NOT THERE TO FIGHT HONORABLY_.

I am there to win. If that means assassinating them in garrison so be it. If that means letting them get strung out and butchered 'in the field' then so be it. MY question is, how do they know I'm there?

Because I don't have to be atop a maneuver choke to deny it. Not with Netfires. Because my own scenario was worst-case based on an enemy rolling atop an APOD more or less 'randomly'.

Infantry Fighting Vehicles would only be present in a fielded maneuver war because of the chassis mass needed to mount AMS (AMOS etc.) lofted rounds. CKEM would _out range_ an MBT with equivalent SSPK. And if, as you suggest, 'it's a pyrhhic battlefield' now that everybody has copied the Abrams motif, I'd damn well better be able to sustain attrition in my screen elements _until I can break contact_.

Which is relatively simple when the mini is moving at 60-70mph and the MBT is doing only 30. It's sole purpose in life being to fire up the enemy in front until it has scored it's four rounds worth of attrition and 'hold right here' discourgagement.

>>
If in fact heavy armor's rounds cannot reach out that far, they can simply use ATGW gun launched missiles and duel with the IFVs on fair ground, except that the heavy armor stands an excellent chance of surviving a single frontal hit from a HEAT missile, wereas the IFV does not.
>>

Why would I fight an MBT at LOS ranges? Why would it necessarily be 'easier' for an MBT to hit a 10ft long, 4ft tall, vehicle moving at 60mph _because it's weapons have post launch correction_. Than for said vehicles mile-per-second rockets to hit a 26ft long, 10ft tall MBT (M1) that is only moving at 30mph. If not in fact halted?

That is the principal vulnerability of the MBT at this time. It's sensorization, it's networking, it's crew vs. autoloader competencies in terms of rate of fire vs. accurate servicing are ALL compromised by the nature of fighting at LOS ranges. And so it doesn't have the ability to sort and track individual targets with the same deftness as say even an Arrowhead TADS, let alone Longbow MMR. Why should you when your gunner can't track and engage any faster than your loader can ram rounds home?

Now. If you put a masted sensor on the MBT. If you completely redesign the CLGP to fire at mile per second rather than 900-1,100fps velocities as with a mortar system. If you provide it, essentially, with all the capabilties of my 'IFV' combat vehicle, you will still be tooling around the countryside at 40 not 70 mph. Still be burning gasoline on a 2hr (GT) or 6hr (Diesel) cycle. And the best you can hope for is to attack my _inner ring_ of vehicles. After having transited a 60-80km PAM/LAM kill zone tryng to 'close the distance' with vehicles that have been killing you FOR HOURS.

This is like asking for a Highland Charge over a Marathon length against Brown Bess which can kill you as abley at the first mile as the 26th.

>>
If they both have advanced systems to defeat HEAT missiles, the tank closes to gun range and kills with a KE round.
>>

HEAT can be defeated only if the warhead diameter:depth cone ratio remains small enough and contact is required. i.e. a Maverick with a 125lb warhead will not be deterred by any ERA. And Maverick's body diameter is about 510mm. Which means two tandem charges on a 120mm mortar shell which cues their activation 10m above target should do _just fine_.

Of course at this point, you are dealing with an SFF/EFP not 'HEAT' which the numerous losses in Iraq have proven even side armor cannot protect against. You want a 200 ton MBT? Fine with me.

>>
I disagree that heavy armor isn't worth its cost and logistical tail on the battlefield.
>>

Your vision is that of fighting primitive fools sold junk by a second rate industrial power. Mine is of killing enemy equipped with Leo-2A6 and Type 96 and Leclerc and C2. Without ever coming withing LOS distances.

Provided you keep investing in the (cheaper overall, once they are base-stocked) _BULLETS_ over rifles, you can overwhelm any known defensive system which depends on warhead/seeker defeat. Just as we do with AAM and AGM today. At which point, the 'next paradigm shift' will be hardkill on the missile busses themselves with DEW weapons.

Even here, I would put robotic banzai over sit-there-and-take-it MBT. Because they can maneuver into flanks at twice the rate, under cover of the same obscurrants. And Bushmaster upgrades will kill an MBT, under 500m, from the sides or rear. While DEWS themselves may have a hard time destroying KE rounds that are pod-not-tube fired in 4 round 'burst' densities.

The day of the MBT is long over. We just enjoy continuing the pretense that man has a place on the modern battlefield riding a steel charger.

What a pathetic, pricey, fantasy.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I dont think tank or at least the class of vehiclle role is obsolete far from it, there wont be a replacement of the role of the tank the tank will evolve. Shealth, armour, weapons, and communication equipment will al evolve new drive and powerplants will and are being developed that will be hybrid or completely electic making them harder to detect.

visaul stealth and heat sheilding will be the next steps, but the need for heavy armour that is able to servive and return fire is still there.

heavy armour might be 50 tons vs 70 tons in the future due to break threws but it will still fit the heavy armour role.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
What do you guys think about the introduction of bigger guns by countries like China, Russia and Ukraine? Ukraine has recently put on the market, its newest 150mm anti tank gun, and China will soon induct the 140mm anti tank gun and its associated APFSDS rounds in Tungsten and Uranium.

The difference in weight between a Soviet influenced tank and a Western tank is mostly due to the problem that Western tanks need a loader, which needs to stand up and have a certain volume of moving space to load the 120mm shells in the tank where Soviet tanks have an autoloader which saves tons of space therefore Western tanks are taller, longer, wider and heavier than Soviet tanks in order to have the same amount of protection with the human loader inside.



posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Ch1466, probably the real reason we do not see vehicles like the ones you describe are probably because of teh technological hurtles that are in place. The Russians are said to have difficultly automating a turret in a tank that has crew right there. Having troops command a robot tank (Becuase if you even suggest AI, you've lost the battle) would be to open the playing field for massive communication disruption, rendering all units, not just one, useless.

I hate to use this fantasy example, but remember that droid army in Star Wars?
Same concept, except jamming can be done locally.

If your going for totally expendable, purely ATGW holders, why not simply use attack helicopters or UAVs? Your robotic unit has no other use. It has no use against infantry, and to think of it, is terribly vulerable to even lighty armed infantry.

Why not fight the war from the air as we figured we could do back in the good old days of the Cold War. Smart bombs will be the end of the army right?

Missiles malfunction. Sensors get dazzled. Communications get cut. Surprizes occur. To be honest, if I was combat effective, intelligent, reliable armor units, I want men in it. You might say its "honorable stupidity" but crews are far more flexible and smarter than any droid...




posted on Feb, 7 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Wild_Eyed_Southern_Boy


This should be a good reason for the Pentagon to put more money into a replacement for the M1A2 Abrams.

W.E.S.B


Showing pictures of the Russian Black Eagle is not enough to send shivers down America's military spine. The M1a2 Abrams is more than enough to handle itself dealing with any present or even future tanks for the next two decades.


This is kinda false because the Black Eagle is probably a better tank then the Abrams.

and tanks are not obsolete. What weapon was instrumental in the drive to baghdad in 2003? oh wait a tank



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Wild_Eyed_Southern_Boy


This should be a good reason for the Pentagon to put more money into a replacement for the M1A2 Abrams.

W.E.S.B


Showing pictures of the Russian Black Eagle is not enough to send shivers down America's military spine. The M1a2 Abrams is more than enough to handle itself dealing with any present or even future tanks for the next two decades.


This is kinda false because the Black Eagle is probably a better tank then the Abrams.

and tanks are not obsolete. What weapon was instrumental in the drive to baghdad in 2003? oh wait a tank



true tanks are useful but against a modern military i dont think so and the US wouldnt take on a t 8 0wit an abrams anyway ever heard of the apache attack helicopter the hellfire missile can beat the most heavy armor and it has a range of 5+ miles and besides iraq has a crappy military anwayz its not really that crappy but its still not considered modern the T 80 doesnt stand a chance against the apoache attack helicopter it can carry 16 hellfires=16 dead tanks www.lockheedmartin.com...


[edit on 14-2-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
besides not like the US is scared of a pathetic tank i mean c mon dey're dangerous but easy to take out

[edit on 14-2-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Its the best FSU tank and thus a considerable threat to western tanks. The Russians dont just spend their time drinking vodka and enjoying nights on the Volga. Their own brand of armor design is perfectly effective.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
CKEM is a mile-per-second, just like LOSAT and HVM before it. Just like the MBT main tube. Except an APFSDS is down to less than half it's muzzle velocity by the time it hits a thousand meters. A rocket-all-the-way weapon is still moving at top speed.

Who ever wrote this need to know that the velocity drop on APFSDS is about 50-70km second per km. So the M-829A3 which as an MV of 1555 m/s is down to about 1500m/s at km range. I doubt any Missile system can fire 3 rounds in 10-15 seconds each at different targets for less than $ 5 million dollar platform.

[edit on 14-2-2006 by psteel]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join