Family update ?

[JUAN DEAG]

1 hour ago, antaress73 said:

Here's the confirmation .

https://sputniknews.com/military/201701211049856690-t-90m-armata-cannon-russia/

The Russian English-speaking propaganda mouth piece is not conformation. If it's Al-Jazeera, RT, or whatever other foreign government "news" it's likely 99% bull****.

1 hour ago, antaress73 said:

Afghanit has sucessfully intercepted sabot rounds on tests.

This has yet to be proven. I wouldn't use the words "successfully" and confirmation".

[antaress73]

26 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

The Russian English-speaking propaganda mouth piece is not conformation. If it's Al-Jazeera, RT, or whatever other foreign government "news" it's likely 99% bull****.

This has yet to be proven. I wouldn't use the words "successfully" and confirmation".

They wont lie about new equipment and procurement plans. Capabilities sure. The russians announced it on the MOD site but in russian. Do you believe the department of defense in the US when they announce new stuff and procurement plans ? Same thing here. 

As for sabot .. they did not say which kind. Read the article (Us source, no propaganda *wink wink*) .Proven would mean combat. They wont model anything for the game if everything needs to be "proven". Even if its only effective 30% of the time, it can still have an effect on survivability. Relikt is moderately effective against the M829A4 in the game. Its still modeled with no proofs, albeit conservatively.

Edited January 26, 2017 by antaress73

[antaress73]

32 minutes ago, akd said:

Yet the T-90M shown by UVZ has none of this...

No new gun ? No Malackit ERA ? No afghanit ? Did you read something on russian or are you just deducting from the picture ? Maybe the tank shown in the picture is a stripped version ?

[akd]

Honestly, Russian press and industry have repeatedly made exaggerated claims about what the government would procure before any order was actually placed or production begun.  Until an actual order is placed, you can read these reports / press releases (arguably they are really the same thing) as "we really hope the government wants to pay for X, Y, Z."  Just go back and read the reports on what the modernized T-72B would be and compare it to what actually resulted.  And Juan is right, Sputnik is horrible.  Probably 1 out of 10 of their stories is actually accurate.

Edited January 26, 2017 by akd

[antaress73]

13 minutes ago, akd said:

Honestly, Russian press and industry have repeatedly made exaggerated claims.  Until an actual order is placed, you can read these reports / press releases (arguably they are really the same thing) as "we really hope the government wants to pay for X, Y, Z.)  TuJust go back and read the reports on what the modernized T-72B would be and compare it to what actually resulted.

At least they added the panoramic sight for the commander with thermals on the M version LOL less disastrous. They have a few in service .

The malachit ERA and the new gun are a must for that tank. Afghanit less so. It will probably be dropped to reduce cost.

The Armata program is delayed. So they need toi upgrade existing tanks for the interim.

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by antaress73

[akd]

Yup, and commander's thermal, fully modern FCS, new engine and new ERA were all a must on the modernized T-72.

[antaress73]

8 minutes ago, akd said:

Yup, and commander's thermal, fully modern FCS, new engine and new ERA were all a must on the modernized T-72.

T-72B3M has relikt, new engine, fully modern FCS  and panoramic sight for the commander no ? They already received around 25-50 in service. The first upgrade was badly received and they are trying to correct.

Here's the tank and confirmation that 150 are going to be upgraded

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-72b3m_t-72b4_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_12003163.html

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by antaress73

[antaress73]

as for the Sputnik report about the T-90M... it quotes a military expert with close ties to the MOD  Alexei Leonkov  who was interviewed for Zvezda TV, which is the military channel run by the Russian ministry of defense. 

[akd]

8 hours ago, antaress73 said:

T-72B3M has relikt, new engine, fully modern FCS  and panoramic sight for the commander no ? They already received around 25-50 in service. The first upgrade was badly received and they are trying to correct.

Here's the tank and confirmation that 150 are going to be upgraded

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/t-72b3m_t-72b4_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_12003163.html

 

So if this is all a must, and outlets like Sputnik all reported that MoD would modernize T-72s to this standard before any were produced, how did hundreds of T-72B3s happen?

Also note that if the produced T-72B3Ms have Relikt, it is just a switch of the reactive elements in the Kontact-5 modules (not even sure that is possible), not a complete new ERA package as seen on the T-72B2 "Rogatka," so it seems the pattern continues.

[Rinaldi]

12 hours ago, antaress73 said:

 Do you believe the department of defense in the US when they announce new stuff and procurement plans ? Same thing here. 

 

Yes, especially if we are speaking strictly in a relative sense. The history of claimed to actual viz. a viz. the Russians is practically no contest. Stunningly poor argument there. Even if your point had merit, its all Tu quoque to me; we weren't discussing what the US claimed, we're dicussing what the Russian MOD claims.

The majority of these types of posts ultimately boil down to a quest to find a 'peer' to US AFVs so they can then find their way into a video game. A game which has already taken liberities, especially with regards to the Ukranian Army, with the equipment and technology available to all the participants. To paraphrase a certain apostle; "I'll believe it when I see it." This isn't even grasping at straws, its grasping of husks of grain floating in the air.

I can set my watch to these types of threads.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Rinaldi
wew lad

[antaress73]

6 hours ago, akd said:

So if this is all a must, and outlets like Sputnik all reported that MoD would modernize T-72s to this standard before any were produced, how did hundreds of T-72B3s happen?

Also note that if the produced T-72B3Ms have Relikt, it is just a switch of the reactive elements in the Kontact-5 modules (not even sure that is possible), not a complete new ERA package as seen on the T-72B2 "Rogatka," so it seems the pattern continues.

Because they changed their minds..  Relations with the west deteriorated since and now the T-72B3, which was planned in the late 2000s and was considered adequate at the time  to fight near abroad enemies is now considered inadequate in the context of the possibility of a shooting war with NATO assets now stationed on Russia's western borders (whatever their intentions... militaries dont deal with intentions but with capabilities) . Thus the additional modernization to a much higher standard because the threat has changed. 

The PERCEIVED threat has changed, there is now more impetus to upgrade more thoroughly and the Armata is still à long way off. They need fairly capable tanks and they need them now, not in ten years .The same reasoning goes for the T-90M.

Edited January 26, 2017 by antaress73

[antaress73]

3 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Yes, especially if we are speaking strictly in a relative sense. The history of claimed to actual viz. a viz. the Russians is practically no contest. Stunningly poor argument there. Even if your point had merit, its all Tu quoque to me; we weren't discussing what the US claimed, we're dicussing what the Russian MOD claims.

The majority of these types of posts ultimately boil down to a quest to find a 'peer' to US AFVs so they can then find their way into a video game. A game which has already taken liberities, especially with regards to the Ukranian Army, with the equipment and technology available to all the participants. To paraphrase a certain apostle; "I'll believe it when I see it." This isn't even grasping at straws, its grasping of husks of grain floating in the air.

I can set my watch to these types of threads.

The Russian MOD is often divided over what to do and always has been. In fact, it is not monolitic in his thinking and there is power struggles on the inside about what to do. Even Putin is not the all powerful supervillain you think he is. He must deal with bureaucratic opposition, friction and yes, corruption. So plans change, are being modified to placate a certain faction, compromises are made. It's not : you do as I say or else... He may wish it so, but there were many instances where he was blocked and frustrated on the inside for good reasons or less noble ones (like corruption). 

The track record of the US department of defense is better because we live here and speak and read the same language. We read on what happens inside Russia through western media and Russian english news agencies. I've read some stuff in russian (translated, a bitch to read believe me..) and the picture you get is way different. 

About finding a near peer threat for the US: Yes.. I admit it. Althought I play the russkies and trounce the US regularly with the actual capabilities present in the game for the russian army. It will Make for a more challenging and fun game for the American player in single player mode (ask Battlefront, its the preferred mode for the majority of players ).

But i'm not pulling that tank out of my ass. There is enough credible evidence to say that the tank will become a reality. Especially considering the "about face" that the Russians are making now that NATO troops are stationed on a permanent basis on their western border (I'm not going to discuss how this is their fault or not). They need top notch equipement in the short term and Armata is a long way off. There wasnt this need before. And they must and will adapt to the PERCEIVED threat. They already are reacting by creating new formations for the western districts.The T-90M thus stand a good chance of existing more or less as described (I dont think they will install Afghanit APS, too expensive, I'm betting they will put the money on the new gun and ammo.)

Also, The T-90MS was never going to be accepted in Russian service. IT was for export. The MOD was waiting for the technologies that were going to come out of the Armata program to upgrade and now with the geopolitical situation it is even more urgent and they were right to Wait. They can now upgrade the T-90A to something that can kill a western tank frontally reliably and have an acceptable chance of surviving a first hit. 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by antaress73

[akd]

Your hands are waving so fast I can barely keep up.  You still have not explained how it is that Sputnik and other Russian media reported that the Russian MoD was buying the latest and greatest upgrades for the T-72, and then not until after the T-72B3 physically appeared did it become apparent that these reports were wrong.  This pattern is repeated for almost every single Russian system acquired in recent years.  Actual statements from MoD or MoD officials tend to be far more conservative and less declaratory.

This is not true as to US DoD at all due to the radically different procurement process.  We know pretty much exactly what an M1A2SEPv3 will be several years before they will actually be fielded.

Edited January 26, 2017 by akd

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I go into semi-retirement and this happens.  Sweet lawrd Jebus.

As far as "updating" the scenerio/family:

Not much is needed for the Russians outside of maybe some T-80s or weaker historical armor.  The Armata is still a long time out, the T-90AM/BMP-2M are still semi-real.

Ukrainians need a decent overhaul simply because what they look like now organizationally is pretty different, and there's some equipment that could use a little love.  

For the US as discussed having the M1A2 SEP v2 as it is in reality would be nice, although it having the M829A4 as the sabot is a shoe-in simply because it does exist and can be fired from even a 1989 vintage M1A1 with some minor tweaking (you can alter the FCS values to match a variety of things).  Maybe M2A2 ODSes for the National Guard crew, or M2A3s without ERA.  

M1A1SA is on its way out across the fleet though, so not sure about its inclusion any more.

Re: Russian hardware

Until it's in some Battalion somewhere I will 100% doubt any AFV the Russians show off will ever reach serial production.  It's been decades of "HERE IS NEW SUPER ULTRA BETTER THAN AMBRAM!" or reveals of a sweeping fleet wide update that literally never happens.  Armata, still happening somehow.  T-90M ALSO TOTALLY REAL.  New model T-72B3+ YES OCCUR.

Until there's more to go on, really seeing it as silly to keep chasing whatever the Russia Today's flavor of the moment is only to be discarded for the Armata MBK2000 Mastertunk that'll come out to replace the ten Armatas in service in 2045. 

[IICptMillerII]

We're also forgetting the laughably tiny amount of "modern" tanks the Russians can field. 400 T-90? Seriously? That number is operationally irrelevant, and in a conventional war they could lose all 400 of those tanks in a single day of combat, especially considering all Western armor that would be arrayed against them is superior in every way. 

"But muh armata, but muh 4000km range cruise missiles... etc muh etc"

There's no contest here, and no amount of proposed upgrades in the next few years are going to change that. I'm all for the inclusion of new vehicles into the game, but expecting one of these new vehicles to finally "even the odds against the evil amerikanski" is just as laughable now as it was when the game first came out. 

But hey at least these threads are entertaining. 

[grunt_GI]

What about the Carl Gustav for US infantry 

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/18/us-army-approves-m3-carl-gustav-recoilless-rifle-general-use/

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, grunt_GI said:

What about the Carl Gustav for US infantry 

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/18/us-army-approves-m3-carl-gustav-recoilless-rifle-general-use/

Seems legit for IBCT squads.  

[antaress73]

On 25/01/2017 at 10:26 PM, akd said:

 

 

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

We're also forgetting the laughably tiny amount of "modern" tanks the Russians can field. 400 T-90? Seriously? That number is operationally irrelevant, and in a conventional war they could lose all 400 of those tanks in a single day of combat, especially considering all Western armor that would be arrayed against them is superior in every way. 

"But muh armata, but muh 4000km range cruise missiles... etc muh etc"

There's no contest here, and no amount of proposed upgrades in the next few years are going to change that. I'm all for the inclusion of new vehicles into the game, but expecting one of these new vehicles to finally "even the odds against the evil amerikanski" is just as laughable now as it was when the game first came out. 

But hey at least these threads are entertaining. 

A T-90M as described here would be a very serious threat to an Abrams in the GAME and in a tactical setting. Gee, well employed the actual russian tanks are useful. You guys seem to think i'm talking on strategic level here. That new gun with the new ammo would ensure frontal kills against the Abrams in the game under (let be conservative here) 1500 meters and the Malackit ERA would help the tank survive the first hit more often than relikt. I dont care about Operational numbers or what would happen on a strategic level. I care about  the tactical level which is the focus of this game. I'm well aware you guys are so entrenched in your superiority complex that there is no use in arguing what would actually happen in a shooting war. 

Gee, looks like nobody reads what I write. Was There a NATO Ground presence on the western border 10 years ago ? No. So no serious impetus to upgrade or introduce new tanks. Things have changed . NATO is now identified as a threat in their doctrine. It wasnt even 2 years ago. So they will upgrade. You actually expect them to do nothing and roll over ?

They wont invade the baltics unless NATO invades Kaliningrad first and that would only be to relieve the enclave. NATO wont invade Kaliningrad so its a moot point. Yes, some people in Russia actually fear that scenario.

My point being that despite a lot of hot air in the last 20 years concerning upgrades and new equipment  now the geopolitical situation is completely different and they cannot sit and do nothing like before. Those tanks have a really good chance of seeing service. I'm not convinced the Armata Will be available in interesting numbers in 5-10 years. 

Unless you guys just want some russian targets to blow up in single player games so you can reinforce your feeling of national superiority. In that case, boring.

Edited January 27, 2017 by antaress73

[antaress73]

1 hour ago, grunt_GI said:

What about the Carl Gustav for US infantry 

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/18/us-army-approves-m3-carl-gustav-recoilless-rifle-general-use/

Yes to Carl Gustav, yes to Avenger Stingers vehicules and also the 30 mm cannon striker. 

[sburke]

46 minutes ago, antaress73 said:

Unless you guys just want some russian targets to blow up in single player games so you can reinforce your feeling of national superiority. In that case, boring.

If Russia's GDP were higher than South Korea and the military actually met the lofty goals it keeps announcing and never meets, maybe we would take the Russian military seriously.  But considering Russia barely takes it's own military seriously - per your own statement

" The Russian MOD is often divided over what to do and always has been. In fact, it is not monolitic in his thinking and there is power struggles on the inside about what to do. Even Putin is not the all powerful supervillain you think he is. He must deal with bureaucratic opposition, friction and yes, corruption. So plans change, are being modified to placate a certain faction, compromises are made. It's not : you do as I say or else... He may wish it so, but there were many instances where he was blocked and frustrated on the inside for good reasons or less noble ones (like corruption)."

One example of why we don't take your statements seriously is you don't recognize that Putin is part of the corruption- it doesn't happen despite him, but is part and parcel.  If the military organization is corrupted from the top, how can you ever hope to achieve the reforms needed to make the military a truly efficient fighting force? It isn't that folks are denigrating the Russian soldier.  The soldier can only be as good as the organization he is a part of.  The production of war materials can only be as good as the state and industrial organization that builds them.  In Russia's case even by your own statement, those have serious flaws.  Every country faces issue of conflicting priorities, commercial relationships and inter-service rivalries, but those are exacerbated in a phenomenally corrupt state organization.

http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016#table

So yeah we get skeptical of promises and statements about the capabilities projected.  For example " A T-90M as described here would be a very serious threat to an Abrams in the GAME and in a tactical setting. Gee, well employed the actual russian tanks are useful. You guys seem to think i'm talking on strategic level here. That new gun with the new ammo would ensure frontal kills against the Abrams in the game under (let be conservative here) 1500 meters and the Malackit ERA would help the tank survive the first hit more often than relikt. I dont care about Operational numbers or what would happen on a strategic level" 

Excuse us if we are skeptical, but that is based on a track record of failed projections.  Yes you can always create a scenario if you like that tries to level the playing field, but operational events influence the tactical battles that will occur.  Most players from what I have seen like to understand what might happen on an actual battlefield and enjoy campaigns as they can sort of feel the operational tempo in the tactical level.  You want scenarios that weight things to support Russian success, fine.  IMHO that makes you at about the same level as folks who always want to play the Germans with the uber kitties.  There is nothing wrong with it and it can be fun, but don't pretend there is any realism there.

Edited January 27, 2017 by sburke

[akd]

And more importantly, it is not even an official statement from the Russian MoD.

Anyways, let us know when you get good pictures of the completely redesigned T-90 with 2A82M-whatever, Malachit, and Afghanit.

Edited January 27, 2017 by akd

[Vanir Ausf B]

3 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

We're also forgetting the laughably tiny amount of "modern" tanks the Russians can field. 400 T-90? Seriously? That number is operationally irrelevant, and in a conventional war they could lose all 400 of those tanks in a single day of combat, especially considering all Western armor that would be arrayed against them is superior in every way.

Not that this has much to do with the question of T-90M in Black Sea, but it does bring to mind a couple of thoughts. The first is that 400 is roughly the number of modern NATO tanks in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland combined. The second is that if WW2 taught us anything it's that the technical characteristics of tanks are largely irrelevant to the outcome of wars. In fact, it's probably better to have a larger number of technically mediocre tanks than a small number of really good tanks.

[JUAN DEAG]

1 hour ago, antaress73 said:

Gee, looks like nobody reads what I write. Was There a NATO Ground presence on the western border 10 years ago ? No. So no serious impetus to upgrade or introduce new tanks. Things have changed . NATO is now identified as a threat in their doctrine. It wasnt even 2 years ago. So they will upgrade. You actually expect them to do nothing and roll over ?

They wont invade the baltics unless NATO invades Kaliningrad first and that would only be to relieve the enclave. NATO wont invade Kaliningrad so its a moot point. Yes, some people in Russia actually fear that scenario.

Putin knows that he has nothing to fear at all from NATO unless he is planning aggression against a NATO member state. This inane "NATO invades Kaliningrad" scenario doesn't weigh in for a second in the minds of Russian military planners. If Russia finds itself in a shooting war with NATO something went horribly wrong along the way, 100% Armata/Kurganets force is not going to save Russia from epic defeat. Conversely, there are three scenarios that Putin actually cares about: potential public declaration of war with Ukraine, potential renewed war with Georgia, and potential renewed (full-on) conflict in Chechneya, Ingushetia, and Dagestan.

"some people in Russia actually fear that scenario" because Russian state-owned media told them to fear that scenario. It is a concept from the revolutionary period in the early 1800s known as nationalism. Us vs. them has a way of taking peoples' minds off of social ills. C'mon man these are basic mechanics of state-craft.

[sburke]

50 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Not that this has much to do with the question of T-90M in Black Sea, but it does bring to mind a couple of thoughts. The first is that 400 is roughly the number of modern NATO tanks in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland combined. The second is that if WW2 taught us anything it's that the technical characteristics of tanks are largely irrelevant to the outcome of wars. In fact, it's probably better to have a larger number of technically mediocre tanks than a small number of really good tanks.

Unless that large number of mediocre tanks is up against a large number of really good tanks with a better logistical train, training and experience... and you are on the attack... at least initially.  At that point it probably doesn't matter if you have a small amount of good tanks, or a lot of mediocre ones. You picked the wrong fight.   Anyone watch Vikings?  See Aelle's face when he realized what army he was now facing when Ragner's sons arrived?

[Vanir Ausf B]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

Unless that large number of mediocre tanks is up against a large number of really good tanks with a better logistical train, training and experience... and you are on the attack... at least initially.  At that point it probably doesn't matter if you have a small amount of good tanks, or a lot of mediocre ones. You picked the wrong fight.  

Yep. But the vast majority of those large number of really good tanks are weeks or month away. Geography gives Russia a huge logistical advantage initially but that advantage is time limited to an extent, which is why the outcome from a military standpoint depends in large part on the particular scenario rather than an inventory comparison.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Vanir Ausf B