I agree.
Posted on 09/27/2005 9:21:27 PM PDT by eks41
I agree.
You're at least half-right ;-)
Perhaps a photo of Maria Sharapova would have been more appropriate. She's beautiful and SHE WINS unlike Kornikova.
- - - and they are pointed at whom?
Taliban was defeated by the Russian (and Iranian) clients from Northern Alliance with American help. So it was a joint US/Russia/Iran venture :)
Soviet Union (with Russia being the largest part of it) was bogged down for several years in Afghanistan because the insurgents were getting help from USA. (Same way as Viet Cong was getting help from Soviets and China).
Usually guerrillas need help from outside, unless they have very strong support in large local population.
" Actually the biggest arms seller is... the USA. Russia is the second."
Thanks for the correction. Basic point stands, though.
The latest russian tank is the T-90. The Indians have bought it.
One of my frat bros told me that they defeated Russian tanks with 25mm rounds in DS1.
Youe English is better than our Russian.
And your shuttle, is um, stranded in some third world country?
Actually they did determine what punched through. It was in the Army Times. After most hits there is an investigation of what it was that was shot at us. It can actually be determined quite accurately through the tell tail signs.
Iraq used Russian doctrine, was trained largely by Russian advisors, the T72M1 tanks they had were the same year of production as the M1A1s they were facing. Weapons like the RPG22 and RPG7VR are on the battlefield there. As I stated, the NEED to minimize the impact of Iraq is necessary for most who hold onto your position. OK, lets look at Serbia, Buuuuuut wait, that don’t count either, right? OK, lets look at Israel with M60 tanks, TOW, and some other systems against their neighbors. Sure, this is no good example either. OK, lets look at the RUSSIANS themselves as they go into Chechnya in TWO separate wars. T80 tanks destroyed by burning mattresses thrown from buildings onto their rear deck, tanks blowing their turret by RPGs attached to broom handles.
Yes, the T72 and all it’s clones are “JUNK”. External mounted fuel tank on the right hull top, outside of armor. Internal open storage of ammunition in a carrousel………….. are DESIGN FLAWS inherent to this tank. The armor is poor at best. The thermals suck, the stab. is no good, when the tank burns the crew has to abandon the vehicle near immediately, the laser range finder half the time is pointing wrong and is not bore sighted with the gun, the 125mm is limited in penetrator length because of the autoloader design which has been known to fail. The tank has a side exhaust and spews soot, VERY visible with thermals. You can make a “terd” look good on paper. The T72 is just that. Junk which looks cool and if you try real hard you can make it look good on paper. You can drive it on some track and jump it a little, that’ll impress people. But in combat this tank is not something you want to be in.
M113. First Aluminum armored APC in the world. This allows for lighter weight by 20% of steel, less spall if penetrated and since Aluminum (5083) is stiffer you have less frame/structural members required to support the vehicle (Less bars and framing running through cabin-large open space). The M113 WILL stop 762x51, M80 ball. I personally know this since one of our 113s was accidentally lit up at about 50 meters with a M240. It will take 152mm air burst. In terms of protection the M113 offers MORE than a BTR50, 60 or 70; more than a BMP1 or 2. It’s an amphibian, highly capable in bad terrain (better than M1 even because of it’s low ground pressure). Where do you come up with this notion that the M113 is considered “junk”? This is a design from the FIFTIES, and it’s STILL a good taxi cab on the battle field.
MIG17? Ever since Korea our air superiority has NEVER been in question other than in some Vladimir’s “Magic Mig” homepage. And even in Korea we ended up gaining superiority. In Vietnam we had an OVER 10:1 kill ratio in our advantage. The F15 is 102:0. The F4 is still in service in Korea, Germany, Israel, Japan………. The MIG 21 didn’t even have real radar on board, and that was it’s worst rival! The MIG 21 was their main fighter until the mid-late 80s! That’s the Russians themselves I’m speaking of. You know, they can talk all the T80, T90, Blackeagle they want. Reality is that the numbers of tanks and type IS DECLARED and mutually INSPECTED by DTRA on our side. They know what we have and we know what they have. And it ain’t a bunch of T90s! Which by the way is STILL just a T72 on steroids.
While a 13 year old kid in Somalia with an AK is dangerous, it does not make him “well equipped”. You give any enemy respect. Every thing you may fight you take serious and don’t approach with a “I don’t care” attitude. However, the Warsaw Pact and even Russia today is largely “Junk” when it comes to their military equipment. Who can’t remember all the wonders of Soviet arms we were told years ago? Well, they themselves ruffled their feathers. They tried to show themselves as bigger than they were. With limited knowledge of some of these systems we grossly overestimated some of its capabilities; in fact the Soviet Unions capabilities as a whole were far over rater. In 1989 after the wall fell it became apparent what the “truth” was. Officers were peddling off Soviet military equipment to make a buck and reports of TB outbreaks in the Russian Army quickly became common knowledge. We saw them fail miserably in Chechnya and then try it again a few years later where they managed to win but at the cost of another 5000 soldiers against a ragtag enemy which of course was a lot bigger and more fierce than what we have in Iraq (sarcasm which is a “bad” example for the meddle of Russian style gear). Their track record in Afghanistan was one of miserable failure as well. Half their ships are rusting away, that is if they’re not cleaning them up for a sale to China or someone else.
Fact: The T55 was still being built in the DDR when the wall fell in 1989! That is the reality out there. The T72 didn’t get it’s first thermals until the mid 80s. We were using thermals on the M60A3 already, and these thermals were clearer than what they put in their tank TEN years later! Just look at their personal equipment. The Pro-mask, workmanship of radios that bleed into frequencies, dud rate of their ATGMs………….. Their stuff is simply not that exceptional even when the “idea” is really good..
Sometimes a simple answer is the best answer. Sometimes more expensive does not equate to better. However, in the Russian’s case it’s their limited technological capabilities, their manufacturing base and what they can afford to have built and fielded. Their stuff simply is “cheap”. It’s shoddily built (poor welds for example which you can see on their tanks), primitive in many aspects (i.e. electronics) and is designed for mass production at low costs. Look at the bayonet they have with a blade that’s stamped sheet metal. It’s all cheap! Cheap boots, cheap rifle, cheap tank. I suggest you look at a MIG 29 up close once. Look at the rivets sticking out from the skin. CHEEAAP. Look at the inside of the big Antanov transporter. The wood floors in this plane are no value adding extra! Special alloy flooring, nitrogen fire suppression for the fuel system, engines like on a C17… all are not to be found. Look at the cockpit of a NEW SU27! Steam gauges everywhere! Did you know they had vacuum tubes on some fighters into the late 80s! VACUUM TUBES! Their stuff is made to cost little, easy to mass produce and it’s manufactured so that they can build it using their industrial capacity. Hint: Russia is no major chip manufacturer, they are no major car manufacturer, they don’t have the IT sector cornered.
All things considered the Russians do amazing things with mechanical means because they lack the digitization. Some of the “ideas” they have are novel and revolutionary! They had the FIRST IFV the FIRST autoloader and so on. But even when new, these systems were limited by how they were built, the technology that went into them. Don’t confuse a good “concept” with a good “product” that is made to low tolerances, using special alloys etc. Like it or not- cheap “Junk”. Russian hardened aircraft shelter = mound of sand, poor concrete over top, dig out sand. No, it does not hold up with the shelters you saw all over Germany, Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe.
There are TWO reasons why people buy Russian equipment:
1. No one else will sell them that.
2. It’s cheap.
3. It’s also easy for these nations to maintain/sustain this equipment. Diesel engine T72 vs. turbine on M1. Digital fire control vs.
The AK is a perfect example of Russian military hardware. Cheap, stamped out of cheap metal it crudely gets the job done. Is it NOT on par with its Western counterparts. And why does every little banana republic have them? They can build them easily without needing to cast aluminum or the Russians / China will sell them, and did I mention they are CHEAP? Their body armor- cheap. Their web gear- cheap. If you doubt what I say, maybe you should physically look at it once instead of looking at it on the web or in a book. Take a look at their tank track, the road wheels etc on a tank. It’s all made to be “cheap”. Get the picture?
Red6
No nothing about this system, so I can't say much. Sorry
Red6
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.