Jump to content

IMHO

Members
  • Content Count

    633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by IMHO

  1. M919 has tungsten penetrator with DU core. M919 penetration is 31mm/60degrees at 2000m. BMP-3 frontal aspect is protected by 66-82mm of spaced armor so the general opinion is M919 has insufficient penetration against it. Mostly put in storage. First line troops use BMP-3 and BMP-2 with the latter being gradually phased out by the former. UAE is very happy with BMP-3 firepower for the use of BMP-3 combat module became a standard requirement for all potential contenders for future UAE IFV contracts - Patria, Nexter etc. The locally produced Rabdan that was finally selected is also using it. In terms of mobility BMP-3 proved to be a very reliable though UAE predictably prefers a wheeled platform - tracked base is obviously an overkill for the kind of terrain UAE is facing. As per the armor BMP-3 is deployed in armored spearheads mixed with Leclercs so we may assume UAE considers BMP-3 protection level as high enough. UAE uses BMP-3 with these armored task forces but does not allow even uparmored M-ATV near them. So far there was only one confirmed kill - BMP-3 blown up by a heavy IED.
  2. The current plan is to use fewer MGS but enhance firepower with more Dragoons. 2CR is meant to have 50% of its ICVs replaced with Dragoon version.
  3. BMP-3 has spaced steel-aluminum armor with a total thickness of 66-70mm. Similar protection schemes used on Western IFVs do protect against 25mm APFSDS. BMP-3 is actively phasing out BMP-2s from Russian service. LAV-25 was designed as recce vehicle with an emphasis on mobility. Plain vanilla armor is effective only against 7.62mm rounds. Whatever upgrade packages one may try to slap on it you still have a suspension and engine meant for a much lighter vehicle. Different engine, transmission, suspension, targeting etc.
  4. The general opinion is 25mm Bushmaster is less than effective against the front of BMP-3. Plain vanilla LAV-25 is outdated. LAV-25 and Strykers are different platforms. Why have the pain of supporting two platforms within one unit anyway?
  5. Well the war is actually unpopular in Ukraine (not that Russia is popular in any respect ) The prevailing opinion is "let's build a Trump-like wall around ORDLO and forget about them forever". The likes of Haiduk - Ukraine uber alles, let's fight till the end - are very vocal but in palpable minority.
  6. And tell this to Mr. Bolton who's regular business of everyday is to go on TV and threaten an imminent invasion of yet another country the followers of US exceptionalism believe are not sufficiently in line.
  7. Seems like Ukrainians are kind of tired of this stupid mantras. The guy who used to tell them all the time won just two Westernmost regions despite being the current president of Ukraine.
  8. Just to give you a scale to measure... It seems to be just a tiny bit shy of a heavy fighter.
  9. 1. Indians wanted a two-seat option for FFGA but the deal fell through as the original plans hadn't provided for one. 2. The claim is Hunter-B was designed to operate together with Su-57 but I don't have any specifics. They can produce many more it's just the aircraft is yet unfinished, there's no rush to produce more than one needs for testing and system integration.
  10. It is designed for current and upcoming Sukhoy Su-57 engines
  11. Read this. NYT shamelessly lifts an article from two Russian texts and even gets a Pulitzer for it. But the editorial standards were not compromised as NYT put the link onto the Russian originals and NYT reporter took a pain to contact all the sources discovered by Russian correspondents https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stevenperlberg/how-a-pulitzer-winning-new-york-times-story-pulled-from-a#.pae8RQa4E PS By the way this was also Andrew Kramer who wrote the article you referenced. Seems like that's regular trade of his
  12. Yepp. Syria part is a shameless rewrite of two Russian publications referenced in NYT article - RBC and Fontanka.ru. And while engaged in copy-pasting Andrey Kramer of NYT was rather creative with what is accentuated in the texts. If you pay attention to the careful wording of his: "two Russian companies are known to have received contracts..." - here we have the hard facts from the Russian publications "The agreements, made with the Syrian government, are seen as incentives..." - here we have his "value added" as there are no statements in the Russian originals these incentives did actually exist He boldly omitted the fact that phosphates mining operation was originally promised to Iranians and was given to the Russian company in the very last minute. Should it be mentioned in NYT article it would have put under question Andrew Kramer's claim of "monies for square miles" deal.
  13. Do you have any information to prove your point or it's just a random speculation?
  14. As a side note, RUS squad has just one Pecheneg but it uses more 7.62 than the rest of the squad burns through 5.45. So the ratio should be reversed and even more so if the squad has UGLs or expects longer engagement ranges. I'm talking CMBS not RL here.
  15. There is no need for defense. There's a procedure for passing the Strait, it existed many years before the current conflict and long before the Crimean bridge. The procedure was approved by both sides - I gave you the document of Ukrainian origin. The procedure is absolutely logical, the reason is ship traffic safety and this very reason is given in the Ukrainian document as well. The boats broke their own Ukrainian procedure, they got stopped and impounded. This is it! But sure you can tell us a story how say some East Timor parliament rep brags about blowing up Golden Gate bridge, East Timor sends few armed artillery boats to California Coast, the boats ignore marine traffic controllers orders and the boats are allowed to pass unhindered under the Golden Gate Bridge. The US Navy and Coast Guard just... emmm... "File complaint with international body". "This [US] is a unique, exceptional country. Russia is unique, but not exceptional" One can substitute "Russia" for "any other country the US dislikes for some reason". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
  16. Really? Igor Mosiychuk, a rep in Ukrainian Parliament, gave a fiery speach about how Ukraine needs to blow up the Crimean bridge (it's goggle'able). So first Ukrainian statesmen threaten a terrorist act, second they wonder about stiff response from security services. Very logical.
  17. We use the name Kerch Strait but to be precise Kerch Strait is not navigable due to shallow waters. Ships go through an artificial channel called Kerch-Enikal-Channel (KEC). Since it's quite narrow ships have to follow certain rules on how to pass to prevent disasters. Ships do not go alone but rather assembled in controlled convoys before entering KEC from either side. There are speed limits, weather limits, no overtaking rule, one way sailing at any given time and many other rules on how ships should sail in KEC.These are not some "special Russian" rules - they are given in Ukrainian Ministry of Transportaion order of 2002 I gave above. And first and foremost since the end of 19th century the traffic in KEC was under control of Kerch Marine Administration that acts akin to air traffic controller for KEC. So given all this background: Say Ukrainian airliner heading for La Guardia would stop following air traffic controller orders and starts randomly roaming around NY city skies? What would be the procedure? Can ships go through Panama Channel as they please and not follow marine traffic controller orders? You suggest Russian ships should file a compaint. Why you consider Ukrainian ships behavior acceptable when they put in risk all the traffic over KEC? Why Russian not Ukrainian ships should bother about complaints if they believe they were unfairly treated by Marine Administration? Do you suggest if say a passenger plane is not happy with its position in the landing queue it has every right to disobey air traffic controller orders and just short-cut to landing at the time of its choosing?
  18. 1. "As part of the settlement, even though the U.S. government did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, it still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis..." 2. I'm not saying any of them is right the point is Michael's statement is generalising separate human mistakes into national traits.
  19. Iran Air 655? US as a role model? Ukrainian Air Defence vs Siberia Flight 1812? Or is it selective amnesia?
  20. You have the right to do that providing you follow the orders of the Marine Administration resposible for that water zone. It's just like for the planes - plane may have the right ro fly somewhere yet they have to follow the orders of air traffic control to the letter. Haiduk, you know that - again it's written right in your own decree of Ukrainian Transportation Ministry on how to cross Kerch Strait. It's a pity other countries are not so willing to come and solve Ukrainian problems at their own expense. It's traditional Ukrainian approach in this crysis. Its best application is weapons sales. On the one hand Ukraine begs Europe and the US for free-of-charge weapons claiming it does not have enough, yet on the other it's selling its own weaponry it's supposed to use in the conflict to other countries. Because when Ukraine gets someone else's weapons - its free of charge, and when it sells - someone in Ukraine (Petro Poroshenko) makes money. Very profitable!
  21. Steal all you can steal? Very post-Soviet approach 😥
  22. Why? One takes Ukrainian version of events and read it against the Ukrainian Ministry of Transportation decree of 2002. One sees the breach of it. If you take my honest opinion - I'd rather have Ukraine come back to pre-2014 times, peacefully vote Yanukovich out of office (and he would have been duly voted out) and build a Western-oriented economy and democracy as it's due. If you take me for one of those Rusvesna or "Russian world" lunatics - I'm far from it.
×
×
  • Create New...