Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

IMHO

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,054

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by IMHO

  1. IMHO
    @DreDay, some things he teaches are actually quite dangerous to operators IRL
  2. IMHO
    @Armorgunner You're not exactly correct. The commanding structure was like this: counterterror forces do just the combat part but the overall coordination of the emergency is up to the regional civilian authorities. That was changed after this structure failed miserably at Beslan and Nord Ost. Whether counterterror forces didn't provide the necessary training and information or the civilian authorities failed to grasp the importance of it - it's not clear. Certainly the information was not passed to medics in advance. When two girls escaped and ran away from the theater the terrorists starter to shoot at them. A officers ran to the building to help the girls and present themselves as targets to distract the terrorists. The terrorists started to shoot at A guys and the latter could not even return fire lest the hostages would be killed in retaliation as promised. One of the officers had just to "dance" under direct fire while the other two were saving the girls. The gas had never been used in real combat operation and the exact effects were unknown. The preliminary assessment was that there were too many terrorists with access to explosives so most probably not all of them would be knocked unconscious. So when A and V guys went inside the building they fully expected that a good deal of them would never return home. 45th is recon and if you mean MoD SOCOM - that's the only VDV unit. But MoD SOCOM is not the only one.
  3. IMHO
  4. IMHO
    @John Kettler, First video is kind of strange. Definitely neither top FSB nor top SF Command units. They use different techniques and equipment in many cases caught on tape and instructors are considerably younger and all are in very good physical shape. To me it looks like a regional law enforcement "SF" unit. Bottom one is an Army SF unit but not a top one as well. PS I'd even dare to say the first video instructor himself has never ever been to any top SF unit. They practice "cross-instructing" so most of the techniques are quite uniform except for the things closely related to the unit's specific role. And then one can tell the unit specialization from these little things done differently. @Armorgunner, Most of the units who handled Beslan were not from Alfa or any other top team. Actually some were - you wouldn't believe it - armed local irregulars. That was the core of the problem with Beslan. One of the main reasons for unusually high losses among Alfa was the fact that they were forced to try to save hostages while making up for others' mistakes. That's provable by detailed documents/accounts. In Nord Ost theater crisis most of the human loss was due to the total **** up with the medical assistance. Medics were not told what to expect. That's again provable. Lion's share of VDV is not SF And you should understand it's very fancy for every law enforcement or military commander in Russia to have a unit that goes by the name SF. Certainly it does not necessarily reflect the level of training.
  5. IMHO
    Game of the day investment requirements meet the economics of limited TAMs
  6. IMHO
    A bit more complex. US developed treaty breaching cruise missiles quite a time ago - development is not prohibited. Then rolled them out as - brace yourself - cruise missile targets for AA testing - formally, test mussiles are not prohibited either. What a fine difference between a working cruise missile and working cruise missile to be shot down DoS simply declined to discuss the topic during negotiations. What a wonder the other side carefully re-read the text Actually it's still official US position - cruise missile targets are not to be discussed... In principle it was inevitable since the moment the US quit ABM treaty. If ABM comes then ABM defying delivery vehicles are welcome
  7. IMHO
    @panzersaurkrautwerfer, ERA was basically unpenetrable by older APs used by potential Indian adversaries.
  8. IMHO
    @Sgt.Squarehead, you're quite right. Discussion starts to branch when arguments of real life become a part of game discussion
  9. IMHO
    I'm trying to guide you to penetration test results of that tender
  10. IMHO
    Yepp. Production capacity could be a limiting factor but the budgets...  Uralvagonzavod is a complex structure - overall revenues should go south but it has nothing to do with tank upgrades. Moreover RUS MoD is pretty limited in its decisions in this area - they will have to upgrade.
  11. IMHO
    @exsonic01, well in the original edition of your post it was 200 - not 400 - and it was related to Vanir's post of 200 T-72 upgraded to B3 level annually May we close this line of discussion so personal to both of us? Peace?
  12. IMHO
    @cool breeze, quick change barrel? Belt feeding?
  13. IMHO
    @Vanir Ausf B, well... "Pilon lifetime" and "show-must-go-on with actual missiles"... Just landing with armed missiles is very dangerous so no one does it unless really needed I mean in terms of cost structure it may be engine tear-and-wear and gassing-and-oiling budgets... But "pilon lifetime"...
  14. IMHO
    Well if you allow me to be blunt - you don't know what Uralvagonzavod is and what are the sources of their revenues. It's a complex structure and you try to generalize
  15. IMHO
    Except everyone remembers Thule... No one flies with, loads etc. ACTUAL missiles. People make mistakes, missiles fall, why risk all of this? There are inerts after all...
  16. IMHO
    @exsonic01, kind of need no search at all May we play "truth-or-lie" game? Would you please list the "Ural's works" business units structure, what these BUs produce, what their buyers are and the situation at the buyer's end of the budget? Say, five years behind from now - it'll explain "budget cuts"
  17. IMHO
    It was part of the offset/technology transfer part of the deal
  18. IMHO
    Yepp, I know. I took the most glaring example but you can have a look at Germany, France, Benilux etc... And count in unit distribution and unit availabilty, equipment availability within the unit etc. Abrams - deployment time for off-site equipment, heavy lift capacity (again don't forget availability rate) Sorry, bad hair day
  19. IMHO
    Would you spare me being a kind of impolite... What's F-35 mission profile? What IS Tunguska?
  20. IMHO
    @panzersaurkrautwerfer, could you please elaborate on how T-90 had ever had a chance of winning the Indian tender of old times? There were many cmpetitors and Indian MoD was pretty open. There's enough open-source information. Like if you believe crew experience means a lot in battlefield performance then how an insurance adjuster, beverage truck driver and a college student - all once-a-month or a once-a-quarter reservists - win against so many full-time Army tankers with everyday weapons practice
  21. IMHO
    Can you compare it to UK/France numbers in today's capable tanks?
  22. IMHO
    Nope, very much one of CM words - but another one, strictly speaking
  23. IMHO
    Really, any proof of that? Since you comment on that I guess it wouldn't hurt to learn the details. Just I know were the wind is blowing from
  24. IMHO
    @John Kettler, I very much appreciate your words. Specs as of now - 35. But the autoloader was a novel design in Soviet tank construction so I'd say ABOUT that number Though overall the autoloader a was copycat of post-war French tanks so I'd say it was not a risky part. Obj.477 was EXTREMELY well advanced at that time. With all the pros of a potentially groundbreaking design and all the cons of feasibility doubts at that level of technology. Kind of T-62 story. Design ideas certainly proved themselves after about 30 years. Implementabilty with Soviet technology of the time and overall force impact - one can decide for him/herself. It would certainly require a groundbreaking changes in tactics and the art of operations. Whether feasible or not
  25. IMHO
    @HerrTom, if CMBS algorithm is eyes, sectors, time-per-sector there's little point in looking at overall scatter - it will not reveal internal mechanics. The meaningful thing is a quality of clusterization achievable over the dataset. But for full-crewed tanks you'll need hundreds of tests at least, I bet The funny thing that I'd pay attention to - two outliers for the time between spot and contact for T-72
×
×
  • Create New...