Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Unstoppable - Russian next gen stealth hypersonic ramjet/scramjet cruise/anti-ship missiles.

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
^^^ lol, once again for the stupid. The SA-5 was never fielded and was a monsterous missile.


The Sa-5 WAS fielded ( That was the CIA&DIA name both for the orginal V-1000- DIA&CIA SA-5 Griffon- and the later S-200-DIA&CIA SA-5 Gammon ) and i have shown many times that the S-200 was in fact considered to be a highly refined version of the original V-1000


On March 4, 1961, in the area of the A testing ground the V-1000 ABM with a fragmentation-high-explosive warhead successfully intercepted and destroyed at an altitude of 25 kilometers the R-12 BM launched from the State Central Testing Ground with a dummy warhead weighing 500 kilograms. The Dunai-2 radar of the A system detected the BM at a distance of 1,500 kilometers when it appeared over the radio horizon, then the M-40 central computer found parameters of the R-12 trajectory, and prepared target designation for precision homing radars and the launchers. The ABM was launched and its warhead was actuated by the signal from the command post. The warhead of the ABM consisted of 16,000 balls with a carbide-tungsten core, TNT filling, and a steel hull. The warhead had a fragments field shaped as a disk perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the ABM. The warhead was actuated by the signal from the ground with a deflection necessary for formation of the fragments field. The warheads of this type were designed under the supervision of Chief Designer A. Voronov. The M-40 central computer was designed by the Precise Mechanics and Computer Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences under the supervision of Academician S. Lebedev. The computer could make 40,000 operations per second.

The V-1000 ABM, which had the maximum flight speed of 1,000 meters per second, was designed by the OKB-2 of the Ministry of Aircraft Industry (MKB Fakel) under the supervision of Chief Designer P. Grushin.

The V-1000 had two stages. The first stage was a solid-propellant booster, and the second stage was a sustainer stage with a warhead which was equipped with a liquid-propellant engine developed by the Design Bureau of Chief Designer A. Isaev. In addition to the fragmentation warhead a nuclear warhead was also designed for the missile. The flight tests of the missile, which could intercept targets at altitudes of up to 25 kilometers, started in 1958. The parallel approach to the target at a strictly counter course was chosen as the method of the ABM's homing. The V-1000 was delivered to the trajectory calculated according to the homing method along the regular curve, parameters of which were defined by the predicted target trajectory. P. Kirillov was the Chief Designer of the missile's automatic pilot. On March 26, 1961, the ABM destroyed the warhead of the R-5 BM with 500 kilograms of TNT. Overall, during the trial of the A system 11 launches of ABMs were performed which destroyed warheads of BMs, and experimental ABMs with heat seeking self-homing warhead, radio-controlled fuses, and optical fuses were also launched. The S2TA version of the V-1000 ABM with a heat seeking self-homing warhead was tested at the A testing ground between 1961 and 1963. The flight tests of the V-1000 with the nuclear warhead (without the fissible material) designed in Chelyabinsk-70 were conducted in 1961. For this warhead two types of proximity fuses were designed and tested: the optical fuse (designed by the GOI under the supervision of Chief Designer Emdin) a and radio-electronic fuse (Chief Designer Bondarenko) for the R2TA and G2TA versions of the missile.

www.fas.org...



The V-1000 ABM was first seen in the public in 1963 when it was paraded on the Red Square and was retired from active service in the following year from yet undefined reasons, but It should be noted that the 5V28 "Volga" missile from the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) SAM system, which was also developed by Grushin's OKB, is considered to be a highly modified version of it.

warfare.ru...



Former Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird claims that thousands of SA-5 interceptors have been deployed in hundreds of sites around some 110 Soviet urban areas, principally in the European U.S.S.R.37 Such a deployment could play havoc with the surviving 1440 SLBM RVs.

The SA-5 anti-SLBM defenses are unorthodox and even "sneaky" in that they exist in the context of an ABM treaty under which the United States officially assumes they do not exist and takes no actions or precautions to counteract the capability. And an SA-5 ABM capability only makes sense in an overall damage-denial scheme which negates ICBMs some other way and reduces the number of SLBM RVs by ASW efforts to levels which can be countered by active SA-5 defenses, civil defense, and hardening of key targets.38"

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...



Also teh US articles you site are from teh early 80's when Soviet power was diliberately over inflated to justify more defence spending,this is common knowledge.


This is a claim you started making when you could not find logical reasons to object to my source material and while you have every right to keep repeating it i have in the past shown that there is no apparent basis in fact for a massive inflation of Soviet power and that there are more than enough evidence to suggest that the CIA were in fact lowering their estimates far beyond reality while the DIA were closer to the truth. In general western defense agencies were severely underestimating Soviet power by the mid 70's and that trend continued to escalate with time. This can be proven by looking at the refueling capacity of the Backfire, the abm and tracking radars of the national ABM system, the complete misjudgement leading to the belief that 600 odd of the USSR's long range nuclear missiles could not reach the continental USA and the general misjudgement of the force levels of the Soviet ICBM forces.


I have already proven these FACTS bogus,


You have consistently allured that his is so but i have more than addressed the few even remotely factual bits and pieces you offered as 'evidence'.


many times but as usuual you try and browbeat me into submission by repeating the same things over and over.


Responding with facts that i do not believe have been contested or proven inaccurate is hardly 'browbeating' you and as long as you insist that all my claims and material is wrong based on the one or two you have attacked in any detail i can obviously not consider you credible anyways. Making blanket statements like ' your wrong' and consider it useful arguments is obviously not helping your case either!

Stellar




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruizer
Iskander- I simply explained where I was coming from in an inoffensive manner


There is nothing, NOTHING inoffensive in repeatedly saying what your opinion is , by loudly disagreeing with others, while not offering a shred of evidence as to sources you base it on. Both myself and others have posted well supported material ( in this thread and others) where our evidence shredding yours is never addressed while you just repeat what you said by changing some words around.


an you chose to be a swaggering know it all holding court with your minions so I'll defer to your superior intellect.


Actually i observed no swaggering ( anyone who stoops to such lows as to actually bother with posting the material he bases his claims on can't be called arrogant imo) but did observe arrogant rhetoric coming from your fingers at high speed.


And by the way von Braun was no war criminal or a member of the Nazi party.


Just basically simple unadulterated LIES. You either have no idea what your talking about or you are deliberately lying hoping that we are ignorant and can't do basic research.


I'm clicking the ignore button on you bud so I'll never have to read any of your wise guy tripe again, thankyou.


It's one way to avoid reality i guess and i am sure you must wish that real people had such buttons as well. I ( or Iskander) will still correct you when decide to do one of your rants so that people may at least get the other , not completely twisted, side of the story.


Smirk all you like pal.


? The joke is on you as you are refusing to learn about reality and thus basically admitting that your here only to propagandise the rest of us.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
StellarX, you know how this usually goes. The more common sense you and I will make, the more certain members will try to make it look like we're colluding to drive some agenda.

In order to remain objective, I'll point out a number of things that could be made a bit more clear, even though it is a tad of topic.


The T-72 was never designed to duel western main battle tanks with it's own main gun at 2 and 3 km ranges ( standard combat distances in western Europe is 500 or so meters at which range the T-72's main gun is perfectly good) as it would use it's anti tank main gun fired guided missiles for that task. I am unsure if the Iraq's had such equipment at all and read the following to get a idea of just how heavily the odds were stacked against the Iraqi's.


It is in fact correct that T-72 was not designed to duel with its main gun out to 3km, but I do have to disagree with your estimate of 500m average engagement range.

500m is literally point blank.

Russians learned their lessons in WWII when T-34s were taking heavy losses from German armor.

T-34s 76mm gun was out ranged by German 88mm guns.

Pzgr.39 APCBC penetrated 100mm out to 1000m (30 degrees).

The more expensive Pzgr.40 tungsten core hit 110mm at 2000m, and 171mm at shorter ranges.

Gr.39HL took 90mm at 2000m.

2km was the "welcoming" range for German 88s, while some lucky shots took out T-34s even as far as 4km out, but the range for solid strikes was between 800 and 1000 meters.

Given good weather, 1500 meters was pretty much the limit for effective fire. Fire at 2km and over was an anti-morale tactic when ammunition availability allowed it.

The introduction of the KwK 36 L/56 was literally forced by T-34 and KV-2 by the way.

Still, the most vital element was mobility and fire density, and that is exactly how T-34s outflanked and overwhelmed German armor.

All such lessons were well translated throughout the entire lineage of Russian T's. In order to assure high ROF fast auto-loaders were essential, thus the carousel ammo storage design.

After T-55, Russians adopted a dual approach. First was a cheap, reliable, massed produced T-72, and the second was the expensive and exotic T-64.

T-64 was designed as a thoroughbred high tech dualist, and it was to battle toe-to-toe with the best western tanks, and unlike T-72 it was never exported outside of Soviet Union.

As a natural progression, T-64 evolved into T80.

T-72 opens up comfortably at 2000 meters, and goes in solid at 1500 meters.

In European theater long range, one shot kills were a rarity as WWII clearly showed, so it all starts at 1500 meters, and it's fire density and maneuverability that wins the day.

Same rules apply to this day. At longer ranges, 4km reach of ATGMs is much more effective then reliance on kinetic rounds, which may or may not actually penetrate even if one does score a hit.

T-72 is literally the cheapest Russian tank, and given the sheer size of the territories it was mean to fill, it's exactly what it supposed to be.

T-64 and T-80 are the expensive, high tech pure breeds.

edit:exit bracket


[edit on 19-10-2006 by iskander]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
^^^ lol, once again for the stupid. The SA-5 was never fielded and was a monstrous missile.


The Sa-5 WAS fielded ( That was the CIA&DIA name both for the original V-1000- DIA&CIA SA-5 Griffon- and the later S-200-DIA&CIA SA-5 Gammon ) and i have shown many times that the S-200 was in fact considered to be a highly refined version of the original V-1000



AS I have already previously stated many times :@@ per your sources no less

On 29 November 1960 the first attempted intercept of an R-5 IRBM by the V-1000 was fully successful. The anti-ballistic missile passed within the kill radius of the high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the V-1000. But the warhead itself had not completed development and was not installed. The five following intercept attempts were unsuccessful - five R-5's and two V-1000's were expended (three times the system failed to launch the anti-ballistic missile in time):

  • On 8 December 1960 the system didn't function due to the failure of the 6N55 tube of the central computer
  • On 10 December there was a failure of the software to recognise the anti-ballistic missile in flight
  • On 17 December there was a failure of the receiving unit of the radar at the command point
  • On 23 December there was an error of the operator of the long-range radar
  • On 25? December the second stage of the V-1000 failed to ignite.
  • On 30 December a sixth attempt was planned, but the launches of both the R-5 and V-1000 were scrubbed when the long-range radar couldn't come on line.

1961 began with another string of failures (5 further launches were planned in the first test series). A variety of warheads were wasted in attempting to destroy the incoming missiles. Once, manually, and twice, automatically, the missile made a more-or-less successful intercept. But this was followed by three failures, indicating a great amount of time and effort were needed to develop the intercept method.
www.astronautix.com...


The V-100 was actually never deployed as I have proven several time sin your previous threads ( yest you prefer ignorance and repetition hoping no one will bother researching it ) Come on this is getting old. You accuse me of running away
But you know you are completely wrong, yet trumpet the same BS.


The designation SA-5 for the "Dal" system was dropped, after "Dal" had been cancelled.
www.designation-systems.net...


The SA-5 DAL was the NATO codename for the " Dal " missile, which as it states was cancelled
The new SA-5 ( S-200 ) is an entirely different missile, you idiot. I've told you this may times but yet you proclaim it to be the same, come on, we aren't idiots here.




[edit on 19-10-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Here is a Link that might help provide with some answers for those who are confused Russians SAMs and ABMs



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
^^^ lol, once again for the stupid. The SA-5 was never fielded and was a monstrous missile.


The Sa-5 ( V-1000) was not field but the Sa-5 Gammon ( as the designation was transferred to the S-200; STRANGELY) WAS fielded and was considered to be a highly refined version of the V-1000.


The V-1000 ABM was first seen in the public in 1963 when it was paraded on the Red Square and was retired from active service in the following year from yet undefined reasons, but It should be noted that the 5V28 "Volga" missile from the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) SAM system, which was also developed by Grushin's OKB, is considered to be a highly modified version of it.

warfare.ru...



AS I have already previously stated many times :@@ per your sources no less


You just keep trying to confuse the readers( or you have basic comprehension issues) by not including the details you know about.


The V-100 was actually never deployed as I have proven several time sin your previous threads ( yest you prefer ignorance and repetition hoping no one will bother researching it )


What on earth does that matter as i just showed that refined version of it was in fact field and the CIA chose to transfer the V-1000 designation to the S-200? COINCIDENCE?


Come on this is getting old. You accuse me of running away
But you know you are completely wrong, yet trumpet the same BS.


I am not running away and i keep trying to inform you but your not making it very easy..


The SA-5 DAL was the NATO codename for the " Dal " missile, which as it states was cancelled
The new SA-5 ( S-200 ) is an entirely different missile, you idiot. I've told you this may times but yet you proclaim it to be the same, come on, we aren't idiots here.


The S-200 ( SA-5 Gammon) is NOT a new missile as is obvious when you investigate the issue. For calling me a idiot i am reporting you as the level of abuse you try heap on me will probably just increase as it becomes more obvious to everyone how badly informed you really are.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
StellarX, it seems like Rouge is making it personal by calling you an "idiot". I suggest you take it up with ATS staff since from my own experience with Rouge, it is bound to only get worse.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
StellarX, you know how this usually goes. The more common sense you and I will make, the more certain members will try to make it look like we're colluding to drive some agenda.


Sadly true ...


In order to remain objective, I'll point out a number of things that could be made a bit more clear, even though it is a tad of topic.


Hey you are either objective or your not and i don't think you will gain any more fans ( than the one's you have ; like me) by trying to prove something that's already rather evident.



It is in fact correct that T-72 was not designed to duel with its main gun out to 3km, but I do have to disagree with your estimate of 500m average engagement range.

500m is literally point blank.


But on average tank duels on the western front took place at 500 meters or less according to the British after war reports. Sure there were longer range hits ( and far less penetrations) with the gun sights and general standards of the time but for that you would normally expose your firing position and on average only alert the enemy without a good chance to kill.


Russians learned their lessons in WWII when T-34s were taking heavy losses from German armor.

T-34s 76mm gun was out ranged by German 88mm guns.


There were no tanks with 88 mm weapons deployed by Germany during operation Barbarossa so i am not altogether sure why you bring this up. The T-34 had a better gun , more armor and was more mobile and it was a MEDIUM tank in the Soviet force structure with the KV types being the heavies. At the time Germany heavy tanks were inferior to Soviet medium tanks...


Pzgr.39 APCBC penetrated 100mm out to 1000m (30 degrees).

The more expensive Pzgr.40 tungsten core hit 110mm at 2000m, and 171mm at shorter ranges.

Gr.39HL took 90mm at 2000m.


These type of shots happens under ideal conditions and with expert gunners and even then it would take very many shots to hit and destroy A t-34 type target ( as you note in your next comment). That being said only 1350 odd Tigers I's (and 500 Tiger II's )were ever constructed with the first becoming operational during the Stalingrad episode..... Some would argue that the Tiger was introduced after Germany had already lost the Second world war ( not my view but there are some notable historians who would argue this).


2km was the "welcoming" range for German 88s, while some lucky shots took out T-34s even as far as 4km out, but the range for solid strikes was between 800 and 1000 meters.


No argument from me...


Given good weather, 1500 meters was pretty much the limit for effective fire. Fire at 2km and over was an anti-morale tactic when ammunition availability allowed it.


Having 88 mm shells falling on you when you can't see the other guy can't be good for morale.



The introduction of the KwK 36 L/56 was literally forced by T-34 and KV-2 by the way.


Once again the odds of a Russian tank running into a 88 was quite remote and most of them had to be destroyed by anti tank guns, aircraft,mines, good old stugs and other sp or hand held weapons. There were never more than a few hundred tigers deployed at any one time and while it would have 'sucked' to run into them; well it was a big front after all.
The Russians certainly liked producing their own super tanks ( IS series ) but they never lost perspective on the scale that the Germans did when it came to tank production imo.


Still, the most vital element was mobility and fire density, and that is exactly how T-34s outflanked and overwhelmed German armor.


When there are so few super tanks to hold the line that tends to happen yes.

Why do i say 'super tanks' ?


Wilbeck gives the statistic that each Tiger I tank cost 800,000 Reichmarks, which was equivalent to the weekly wages of 30,000 people, and required 300,000 man-hours to produce. [Note bene: at those rates, the Tigers were very much high end super-weapons, equivalent on a cost basis to something like the U.S. B-29, which cost about a million dollars apiece, or a Navy destroyer].

www.amazon.com...


I would rather take the B-29 or the destroyer honestly!


All such lessons were well translated throughout the entire lineage of Russian T's. In order to assure high ROF fast auto-loaders were essential, thus the carousel ammo storage design.


Strangely i recently discovered that Russian tanks normally carry far fewer shells on board than does their western counterparts..... Is this according to you due to the auto loader or just indicative of the offensive intent of the west even later on during the cold war?


After T-55, Russians adopted a dual approach. First was a cheap, reliable, massed produced T-72, and the second was the expensive and exotic T-64.


They still have T-64's in service and at least in theory these tanks can still take on anything in the west... The T-72 cost about a third of the T-64's price and i think this was their 'assault tanks' even if the T-55 were not inferior to their opposite numbers in any serious way anyways....


T-64 was designed as a thoroughbred high tech dualist, and it was to battle toe-to-toe with the best western tanks, and unlike T-72 it was never exported outside of Soviet Union.

As a natural progression, T-64 evolved into T80.


I just always had the impression that the second world war massed artillery as anti tank was still going to be the method to smash defenses or tank spearheads so that dueling was simply not a very high priority. As you say the T-64 and T-80 types were intended to replace heavy tank destroyers ( IS varieties) while the T-55 ( 90 k built with only 13 k T-64 )and T-72 would make up the bulk of the armored forces.


T-72 opens up comfortably at 2000 meters, and goes in solid at 1500 meters.

In European theater long range, one shot kills were a rarity as WWII clearly showed, so it all starts at 1500 meters, and it's fire density and maneuverability that wins the day.


I'm just not sure that the T-72 would not open the duel with a AT-11 or the like but as you say it is at least in theory capable of destroying any western tank in service at 1 km ranges which is well above the average engagement range anyways.


Same rules apply to this day. At longer ranges, 4km reach of ATGMs is much more effective then reliance on kinetic rounds, which may or may not actually penetrate even if one does score a hit.


Agreed


T-72 is literally the cheapest Russian tank, and given the sheer size of the territories it was mean to fill, it's exactly what it supposed to be.

T-64 and T-80 are the expensive, high tech pure breeds.


I read trough your post earlier but now that i am here , at the end, the second time i realise i probably did not add much to what you had to say.


Oh well!

Stellar



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
^^^ lol, once again for the stupid. The SA-5 was never fielded and was a monstrous missile.


The Sa-5 ( V-1000) was not field but the Sa-5 Gammon ( as the designation was transferred to the S-200; STRANGELY) WAS fielded and was considered to be a highly refined version of the V-1000.


The V-1000 ABM was first seen in the public in 1963 when it was paraded on the Red Square and was retired from active service in the following year from yet undefined reasons, but It should be noted that the 5V28 "Volga" missile from the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon) SAM system, which was also developed by Grushin's OKB, is considered to be a highly modified version of it.

warfare.ru...


is condered, that is hardly fact especially comin from a Russian website. You do realise that the 2 missiles bare no resemblance to each other in anyway. The S-200 is not a new version at all but a seperate missile.
You also fail to adress the dismal testing record of the V-1000 as well, only one successful test out of many - whose to say that test didn't usea homing beacon either




What on earth does that matter as i just showed that refined version of it was in fact field and the CIA chose to transfer the V-1000 designation to the S-200? COINCIDENCE?


As usual you provide no fact, you haven't proven anything. If this SAM was an ABM weapon why did they never test t against MRBM, ICBM targets ? Where are the actual tests of the S-200. If it was intended to be an ABm weapon they would hvae had to test it to make sure it works especially after the V-1000 only managed one ( possibly ) successful test out of its whol series




I am not running away and i keep trying to inform you but your not making it very easy..


I am not easily fooled and I do not live in a fantasy world. I a;lso ghet annoyed when people make leaps which are based on a little fact nd the rest is BS.



The S-200 ( SA-5 Gammon) is NOT a new missile as is obvious when you investigate the issue. For calling me a idiot i am reporting you as the level of abuse you try heap on me will probably just increase as it becomes more obvious to everyone how badly informed you really are.


Well as usual the you are completely wrong the S-200 bares absolutely no resembalnce to teh S-200, sample as that. As for calling you an isiot, you do the same to mnay people on this board ( kind f like the pot calling the kettle black ). You know if the shoe fits ........



[edit on 19-10-2006 by rogue1]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

There were no tanks with 88 mm weapons deployed by Germany during operation Barbarossa so i am not altogether sure why you bring this up. The T-34 had a better gun , more armor and was more mobile and it was a MEDIUM tank in the Soviet force structure with the KV types being the heavies. At the time Germany heavy tanks were inferior to Soviet medium tanks...


All true, but the reason I'm focusing on the end of WWII is because it pretty much shaped tank warfare of the 20th century.

These type of shots happens under ideal conditions and with expert gunners and even then it would take very many shots to hit and destroy A t-34 type target ( as you note in your next comment). That being said only 1350 odd Tigers I's (and 500 Tiger II's )were ever constructed with the first becoming operational during the Stalingrad episode..... Some would argue that the Tiger was introduced after Germany had already lost the Second world war ( not my view but there are some notable historians who would argue this).


Once again the odds of a Russian tank running into a 88 was quite remote and most of them had to be destroyed by anti tank guns, aircraft,mines, good old stugs and other sp or hand held weapons. There were never more than a few hundred tigers deployed at any one time and while it would have 'sucked' to run into them; well it was a big front after all. The Russians certainly liked producing their own super tanks ( IS series ) but they never lost perspective on the scale that the Germans did when it came to tank production imo.


Absolutely true. Still, remember that it's the 88 that formed the large bore high pressure modern tank gun concept.

The immediate successor to T-34, the T-54 has armed with a 100mm rifled gun. (D-1OTG L/56)

T-62 was already armed with a 115mm smoothbore main gun, and T-64 was armed with the modern 125mm smoothbore.

Do to its high velocity and flat trajectory, 115mm gun fired a HVAPFSDS with precision accuracy out to its effective range of 1600 meters.

125mm was the absolute king up until the 120mm L55, and from that point it was all about perpetrator quality/price.


Strangely i recently discovered that Russian tanks normally carry far fewer shells on board than does their western counterparts..... Is this according to you due to the auto loader or just indicative of the offensive intent of the west even later on during the cold war?


It goes both ways. In offensive posture, waive after waive hit the front lines and overwhelm the defenders with massive barrage of fire, and then retreat to refuel and rearm. In defensive posture, a similar "rotation" tactic is used to keep forces mobile.


They still have T-64's in service and at least in theory these tanks can still take on anything in the west... The T-72 cost about a third of the T-64's price and i think this was their 'assault tanks' even if the T-55 were not inferior to their opposite numbers in any serious way anyways....


Correct, T-64s are still in service, and regularly receive upgrades. They serve as a diesel T-80 of sorts.

T-55 is to T-62 is what T-64 is to T-80.

For 1947 T-54 was absolute state of the art.

T-55 is a 1958 upgrade of T-54.

T-62 is a 1961 modification of T-55.

T-64 is a COMPLETELY separate design which is manufactured in entirely separate plants, all while to this day most western analysts consider it only as a "slightly" more capable T-72.

For example the fundamental differences between modern T-90 "Vladimir" and T80UD is the armor type an its arrangement. T80UD is much better protected against kinetic rounds, while T-90 enjoys a considerably better protection against shaped charges.

Analysis is simple, T80UD is a long range high-tech dualist, which was designed specifically to take hits from high velocity kinetic rounds, while T-90 "Vladimir" is there to get up close and personal and absorb RPG and HEAT rounds in close quarter combat.

Perfect arrangement in my opinion. The best of both worlds. Still, in light of realities of modern combat, and the fact that most of it is fought in urban areas, in my opinion T-90 is better suited for such role then T-80, but one still can't beet having the combination of both.


I just always had the impression that the second world war massed artillery as anti tank was still going to be the method to smash defenses or tank spearheads so that dueling was simply not a very high priority.


I can't agree with that. Even long range artillery could not keep up with post WWII armor spearheads. Aviation proved to be much more effective and faster in zeroing in on enemy armor. Sustained mass artillery barrages of WWII were no longer possible do to fluidity of modern warfare.

Russians traditionally enjoyed the longest range artillery (pepper shaker), but still you just can't move artillery fast enough to keep up with front lines.

Modern MSTA self propelled howitzer is a good example of such evolution. Large caliber, long range, huge ammo load, and mobility to allow it to maneuver with front line armor. Conventional artillery just can't match such flexibility.


As you say the T-64 and T-80 types were intended to replace heavy tank destroyers ( IS varieties) while the T-55 ( 90 k built with only 13 k T-64 )and T-72 would make up the bulk of the armored forces.


I'm not sure if they were intended to replace heavy tank destroyers, I wouldn't put it that way. I think that it was a way to increase engagement buffer zone for the and to provide effective cover for advancing T-72s.

At range it's almost impossible to tell a T-72 from T-64, so target prioritization is difficult at best. If sent first, T-72s would be taking the majority of initial counter fire, and T-64s would be free to use their superior sights and FCS to deliver the most damage from stand of range.

It's a perfect arraignment. Cheap, plentiful T-72s swarm the front lines, while expensive and high tech T-64s stay on the side lines and work high priority targets.


I'm just not sure that the T-72 would not open the duel with a AT-11 or the like but as you say it is at least in theory capable of destroying any western tank in service at 1 km ranges which is well above the average engagement range anyways.


For T-72, given its weaker sights and FCS, main gun launched ATGM is more of a harassment and a defensive weapon. Still, Stellar, 1km is WELL with in the main gun engagement range. 2km allows for decent accuracy, 1500 meters is a range for SOLID strikes, 1000 meters is the kill box (complete penetrations), and 500 meters is literally point blank.

From 4km T-72s do engage with SACLOS AT-11 from stationary positions, in order to force the opposing side into assuming a defensive posture, while the rest of the formation charges ahead.

Forcing the opponent into a defensive position creates cover for attacking forces and buys them time to close in, but the effectiveness of AT-11 from 4km given basic sights of T-72 doubtful at best. There is just to much time for the target to evade the LOS missile by finding cover or laying down a smoke screen.

2km is a solid range for AT-11 from T-72 (on the move shot), but any closer and it's a job for the main gun.

Given numerical superiority, T-72s simply alternate attack weapons. Even when well with in the main gun range, one T-72 might still guide an AT-11 while two others are sending out shells. Three battle worthy T-72s to one Leo/Abrams/etc, is a BAD scenario.

I was thinking of paying $150 for Steel Beats Pro, but since both T-72s and T-80s are modeled with out any ATGMs, actual tactics simply can not be played out. You might as well take the main gun out of T-72 and just call it target practice.

But then again, who would want to pay $150 for a sim built around Western tanks, only to be repeatedly outgunned and outmaneuvered by Soviet armor?

I do have the original Steel Beasts from years ago, and back then it was fun to pop the turrets of T-72s like they were bottle caps, but I simply can not call such depiction as accurate simulation. It's more like a slightly more complicated arcade.

Taking away AT-11s from Russian tanks in ANY tank sim, it's like taking away the Longbow from the English and leaving them only with crossbows, thus reducing them to a horde of pawns that can only rush the front lines and suffer massive casualties.


I read trough your post earlier but now that i am here , at the end, the second time i realise i probably did not add much to what you had to say.


There's always room for discussion, but we are getting WAY of topic here
Let's continue our tank discussion in a proper setting.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Well since supersonic has that sonic boom then how could stealth ever work with a sonic boom? Its not stealthy if you can hear it plus everything is shaking so you do know theres a supersonic plane in the area. Its scientific fact, just go look it up.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Well since supersonic has that sonic boom then how could stealth ever work with a sonic boom? Its not stealthy if you can hear it plus everything is shaking so you do know theres a supersonic plane in the area. Its scientific fact, just go look it up.


wow.

wildcat, will a bullet be heard by its intended target if it's shot from 1km away?

Better yet, what IS the speed of sound?

What exactly IS supersonic TRANSITION?

Let me know please when you find all that out, thanks.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
That being said only 1350 odd Tigers I's (and 500 Tiger II's )were ever constructed with the first becoming operational during the Stalingrad episode.....


No Tigers ever served on or near Stalingrad. They were in fact deployed in North Africa first in 1942, not as you sggest near Stalingrad.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
No Tigers ever served on or near Stalingrad. They were in fact deployed in North Africa first in 1942, not as you sggest near Stalingrad.


Iskander said,

DURING the time of Stalingrad


He debuked all your points and this was all you could reply to
,and it was incorrect



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
To change the drift a bit, I can't quite recall, which Indian nuclear missile is hypersonic and uses both ballistic and horizontal low altitude approach?

There goes the ABM thing.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
[quoteIskander said,

DURING the time of Stalingrad

Actually I think Stellar said that and I forgot to plug the quote brackets.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
No Tigers ever served on or near Stalingrad. They were in fact deployed in North Africa first in 1942, not as you sggest near Stalingrad.


Actually i said that and your quite correct and either i or my mind changed "Leningrad' into "Stalingrad'.


The Tiger was first used in action in September 1942 near Leningrad. Under pressure from Hitler the tank was put into action months earlier than planned and many early models proved to be mechanically fragile. In its first action on 23 September 1942, many of the first Tigers broke down. Others were knocked out by dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns. One tank was captured largely intact, which gave the Soviets a chance to study the tank and prepare a response.

en.wikipedia.org...


My apologies.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
is condered, that is hardly fact especially comin from a Russian website.


So the list is growing, you don't like 'Afrikaners' or Russians. Who else should i add to the list of people you do not consider worthy of disagreeing with in a proper factual fashion?


You do realise that the 2 missiles bare no resemblance to each other in anyway. The S-200 is not a new version at all but a seperate missile.



On 04 March 1961 an R-12 ballistic missile fitted with a mockup in the form of a 500-kg steel plate, simulating a standard warhead, was launched from the State proving ground at station Sary-Shagan. The target was detected by proving ground radars at a range of 1,500 km and destroyed by a V-1000 antimissile missile, outfitted with a high-explosive-payload.

In 1963 the Griffon [NATO reporting name] interceptor was paraded in Red Square, and characterized as an ABM interceptor. The Griffon was a two-stage liquid fueled interceptor that was 16.5 meters long with a range of over 250 kilometers. Construction of the RZ-25 ABM system, which employed the V-1000 interceptor, was first detected in the early 1960's near the Estonian capital Tallinn. However this construction soon ceased. A highly modified version of the Griffon, the Gammon, was subsequently developed.

www.fas.org...


So what do you think of FAS as a source?


You also fail to adress the dismal testing record of the V-1000 as well, only one successful test out of many - whose to say that test didn't usea homing beacon either


I have repeatedly corrected you when you say this but you apparently just have no interest in reality.


First Soviet anti-ballistic missile system. Development began in 1956 and the system was tested at Sary Shagan 1960 to 1961. It was clear that enormous development work was needed to achieve an operational anti-ballistic missile system. Therefore work began on the successor A-35 system, although the Americans were led to believe that an operational system was deployed around Moscow. The System A anti-ballistic missile equipped with the V-1000 rocket made the first intercept and destruction in the world using a conventional warhead of an intermediate range ballistic missile warhead coming in at 3 km/s on 4 May 1961. The US did not demonstrate an equivalent capability until 1984 .

On 4 March 1961 the V-1000 achieved a world first - the destruction of the re-entry vehicle of an R-12 IRBM. This was followed by the destruction of an R-5 re-entry vehicle. In all, there were 11 launches with military warheads, plus launches of developmental warheads. The S2TA variant used an infrared-homing self-guiding high-explosive warhead and was designed by Storozhenko at the GOI State Optical Institute in Lengingrad. It was capable not only of determining the moment for warhead detonation, but also was capable of guiding the anti-ballistic missile independently using an on-board computer. The R2TA version used a radio-guided explosive warhead, with two types of proximity fuses used to determine the correct moment for warhead detonation. These were the G2TA, a radio ranging system, developed by Bondarenko and an optical system, developed by Emdin at GOI. Flight tests of the V-1000 with a nuclear warhead designed at Chelyabinsk-70 were also carried out.

As the anti-ballistic missile system reached maturity, a range of anti-ballistic missile countermeasures deployed by the incoming missiles challenged it. These included Verba (inflated decoy warheads); Kaktus (an anti-radar system that generated false targets on the anti-ballistic missile system radars); and Krot (an active jammer). Operation K (including live nuclear-armed target and interceptor missile exercises K1 through K5) tested the effects of nuclear explosions at altitudes of 80 to 300 km on the ability of the anti-ballistic missile system to function. System A demonstrated its ability to continue operation despite the nuclear detonations, although the tests were primarily conducted to obtain scientific data for the design of the next generation of anti-ballistic missiles. At the end of 1961 KB-1 and SKB-30 were transferred to OKB-301 and dedicated to full-time anti-ballistic missile work. In 1966 the developers of System A received the Lenin Prize for their work.

www.astronautix.com...


They really had no idea what they were doing... They basically did all the testing the required with this missile and then proceeded to scrap it to confuse whoever wanted to be so.


As usual you provide no fact, you haven't proven anything. If this SAM was an ABM weapon why did they never test t against MRBM, ICBM targets ?


Because that was 1961 and they were learning and practicing? Why do you assume that one goes from zero to hero in no time at all? Why disregard the words of Western defense establishment specialist without saying why?


Where are the actual tests of the S-200. If it was intended to be an ABm weapon they would hvae had to test it to make sure it works especially after the V-1000 only managed one ( possibly ) successful test out of its whol series


31

On 29 November 1960 the first attempted intercept of an R-5 IRBM by the V-1000 was fully successful. (1) The anti-ballistic missile passed within the kill radius of the high-explosive fragmentation warhead of the V-1000. But the warhead itself had not completed development and was not installed. The five following intercept attempts were unsuccessful - five R-5's and two V-1000's were expended (three times the system failed to launch the anti-ballistic missile in time):

1961 began with another string of failures (5 further launches were planned in the first test series). A variety of warheads were wasted in attempting to destroy the incoming missiles. (3)Once, manually, and twice, automatically, the missile made a more-or-less successful intercept. But this was followed by three failures, indicating a great amount of time and effort were needed to develop the intercept method.

(2)On 4 March 1961 the V-1000 achieved a world first - the destruction of the re-entry vehicle of an R-12 IRBM. This was followed by the destruction of an R-5 re-entry vehicle. In all, there were 11 launches with military warheads, plus launches of developmental warheads. The S2TA variant used an infrared-homing self-guiding high-explosive warhead and was designed by Storozhenko at the GOI State Optical Institute in Lengingrad. It was capable not only of determining the moment for warhead detonation, but also was capable of guiding the anti-ballistic missile independently using an on-board computer. The R2TA version used a radio-guided explosive warhead, with two types of proximity fuses used to determine the correct moment for warhead detonation. These were the G2TA, a radio ranging system, developed by Bondarenko and an optical system, developed by Emdin at GOI. Flight tests of the V-1000 with a nuclear warhead designed at Chelyabinsk-70 were also carried out.

www.astronautix.com...


Actually 3 intercepts was considered successful while ( I marked them with '* and then the number of intercepts) 3 were considered partial successes and two destroyed targets while one would have. Does not sound half bad to me consider this was nearly half a century ago! They really in your opinion did not get better in the last nearly 5 decades despite so many authoritative sources stating that they did?


I am not easily fooled and I do not live in a fantasy world. I a;lso ghet annoyed when people make leaps which are based on a little fact nd the rest is BS.


You offer nothing beside objections based on your own delusions. If you can not provide sources i will never take you seriously even thought i will keep on exposing your lies.


Well as usual the you are completely wrong the S-200 bares absolutely no resembalnce to teh S-200, sample as that.


Well i believe the S-200 does resemble the S-200 and while this is probably just a typing mistake i think it says something about your level of interest beside basic objection.


As for calling you an isiot, you do the same to mnay people on this board ( kind f like the pot calling the kettle black ). You know if the shoe fits ........


I have NEVER called anyone a idiot and i frankly i never will considering how fast i will get banned. The worse i will do is call you unimaginative, uninformed and or ignorant ( and state on what topics). Non of that makes you a idiot and as far as i know 'idiot' indicates a lack of capacity which i do not believe you have. I think your rather smart if badly informed, unimaginative and largely ignorant when it comes to most things related to this topic. It's either that or your getting paid for playing this game.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Well since supersonic has that sonic boom then how could stealth ever work with a sonic boom? Its not stealthy if you can hear it plus everything is shaking so you do know theres a supersonic plane in the area. Its scientific fact, just go look it up.


wow.

wildcat, will a bullet be heard by its intended target if it's shot from 1km away?

Better yet, what IS the speed of sound?

What exactly IS supersonic TRANSITION?

Let me know please when you find all that out, thanks.



No

761 mph

Do I need to know what supersonic transition is? Does that have to do with any part of my career path? Nope.

And tell me, how are they ever going to make a supersonic stealth craft without the sonic boom?



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Do I need to know what supersonic transition is? Does that have to do with any part of my career path? Nope.


Well it is kind of the point of this discussion here.

In fact it's actually about HYPERsonic craft, not supersonic.


And tell me, how are they ever going to make a supersonic stealth craft without the sonic boom?


Supersonic transition has nothing to do with RCS and radar deflection/absorption. As soon as craft transitions into supersonic flight, it travels FASTER then sound, and the boom occurs only at the point of transition.

Hypersonic craft travel at minimum of Mach 5, or five times faster then sound, so by the time the sonic boom actually reaches you ears even if the craft goes supersonic in you immediate vicinity, by the time you'll actually hear the boom the craft will be long gone.

Average rifle bullet travels 800 meters per second, do some math and figure out how many meters per second Mach 10 is, and then put it all together.






top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join