Nerdwing

M60 Starship turret, best -ship turret.

Would you say Russia needs a Merkava-ski, so to speak? A tank custom tailored not for WWIII, but for their geographic location etc?

Surprised it can detect BAT, since the current US weapons procurement budget sure as heck cant!

AM, hands down. Both are formidable, but the AM is a step ahead in this case. A fine tank versus a fine tank, but the AM is a bit finer

Sorry if this is an inopportune place, but my Russian buddy is visiting family atm so I cant ask him to verify the authenticity of an article: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0327/Grounded-Russia-s-answer-to-US-next-gen-fighter-hits-the-skids Is there any truth to this? 12 airframes? The only other references I found to it were on Indian forums and sites, and given their involvement in the project it seemed very suspect.

lights a solemn candle in memory of Ericdude, the true Chinese hero. It sits atop a model Type 99.

Yeah, worded it ****tily, my fault. Alot of the supposed "claims" regarding plans and capabilities of most things Russian come from sources that are inadvertently given too much credit, and their over-the-top boasts are often mistakenly claimed as what Russia is itself trying to do. Like the Armata having a ton of 30mm's etc. But in truth, the source given are just themselves utter trash. Some of its intentional by Russia strongk trolls, some is mistranslated but well-intended, but a not-insignificant bit of us are guilty of just intentionally reading into the over-the-top claims and ignoring the actual ones, and using the former as a basis for an opinion. It boils down to information sources and their credibility, and their nature and quality being inherently very very very different in regards to the intention of information presented. And then the fact that they're in a totally different language that Google translate loves to butcher into nearly-unreadable format that'd make ME jealous

Nobody's doubting their ability to do what they're doing. There's just misreading and misconception furthered by some whom misinterpret what they say as something they've no intention nor goal of doing. Following the Armata's story post-announcement in the West sort of illustrates that.

The hell is wrong with you?

Gonna have to settle for John Kettler, Im afraid!

Occam's razor cant cut steel beams!!!!!

It does. Especially if that trait is especially factored into the planned deployment of the design. Its a big difference for the exact reason you mentioned Sorry for the OT.

Thinking about it, shouldnt SDB's be being chucked from WAYYYY out there as well? Especially the glide/powered versions in the works?

The overall modernization claim makes much more sense. I think alot of us probably improperly misread it as 2300 Armata-based platforms, due to the manner in which manner the number was reported in some sources. 2300 total upgraded vehicles with an unknown number being the new Armata is much more sensible.

Korea 1980's instead, IMO. M60A3 as the best US tank in theatre. I-TOW Cobras trying to plug gaps in lines. Arty and MLRS raining down out the wazoo (since it isnt 30 years past its expiration date yet). Would be an interesting theatre.

Agreed. You never know, they may be shooting 36 rounds a year instead! I agree with Codename Duchess, but would like to make a persona view as well: What the Russian MoD is claiming as its goals arent feasible given the timeframe used. None of it would necessarily be some impossible task taken alone, but instead its a whole list of huge new equipment procurements in an economy that isnt doing so hot. Saying "We'll get a huge number of next-gen everything" just doesnt seem possible, but thats effectively what alot of the plans and claims boil down to.

I dont see Stagler as biased. He used a meme like... twice. No need to form a lynch mob for crying out loud I'm in no position to judge either the T-90AM or the M1A2 as to equipment modelling accuracy (thermals, spot times etc), but having first hand accounts and information much more readily available on the US side from former crew and such I imagine inevitably leads not to BIAS, but a fleshing-out in a system's modelling levels that you wouldnt see if your only reference is a sale's brochure. Not intentional number-fudging, but maybe alot more fine-tuning and less "rounding-to the nearest whole number" for statistics and performance data on systems because you've the sources and testimony available. As long as it isnt something blatantly at-odds with the claims of the manufacturer, I imagine it allows a bit more lee-way.

I've run the numbers Soviet-style, and I can tell you that the ratio to destroy an M1A1 "Medium Tank" is exactly 3:1 for AT Soldiers to tank. It also may be 2:1 due to corruption and lack of testing on my part, and operating under 10-year old memories and nostalgia/rose-tinted glasses. So yes, Soviet-style.

Damn Wish this was work-around-able some way. In one of the early EARLY CM titles, werent lines of sight actually drawn from the BASE of the unit? Or rather, hitboxes or some such were? It led to absolutely insane AT-gun emplacements that you simply couldnt hit. Was a huge issue at the time.

Believe it or not, its a pretty well known source They take their stuff seriously over there as well.

Those helo missiles from the North are pretty retarded. I'd have "LOL NOPE" and closed the mission probably after the losses.

You sure as hell could in CMSF. Are you no longer able?

Seems so. The worst damn game mechanic restriction since borg-spotting

I was hoping for the unmanned turret, personally

Pretty sure SB doesnt get the M60A3 or T64 as playable. At least not yet . Plus the Chally 2's FCS is radically different from the Chally 1's. In fact, isnt the Chieftain Mk10 or 11 the same FCS as the Chally 1? If I remember right they were similar. Or was it the 11 that got the TOGS upgrade, and 10 was just some other stuff? I'd enjoy an M60A3 in sim though. Contrasting it with the base M1 even would be very interesting Especially versus 125mm Soviet tanks!