L0ckAndL0ad

Pause prevents unit from moving when it goes into panic mode and creates its own movement commands (like, after being scared by sudden appearance of enemy tanks or anything else scary enough).

I'm surprised that nobody have mentioned a "Pause" button yet. The one of the three quick action buttons. "Pause" + small arc + "Hide" = stationary and passive unit.

Re: CIWS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Centurion_C-RAM Re: defeating Jav Not entirely true, LOL. I had Javs hit roof ERA on Russian tanks with no damage to the tank. Many saw that actually, I imagine. Rare occurrence, but happens. You also need stuff to defend against incoming arty.

Do not mistake 82 with 82A. 82 is a 12.7mm MG version, while 82A is a 30mm version. AFAIK Russian MoD never bought 82. They've got quite a few 82As already by now, and keep buying them. Existing 80 are to be upgraded to 82AM (equals freshly new factory made 82A, except for some small details), for example, for Marines.

I think everyone would agree that there shouldn't be a modern tank without a smokescreen system. Therefore, the only thing that is present that resembles such launchers is the one. It was pretty obvious to me the first time I saw it, and there are simply no other alternatives. As for APS, I don't think there's any point to spend billions on making an evolutionary tank design that can't deal with modern anti-tank threats, that can't "tank" stuff. Otherwise it's not a tank, but a tank-destroyer. Just as classical, passive defense armor thickness increased over the decades, active hard-kill protection also evolves, and it's only a matter of time when APS is capable of intercepting tank rounds. Which in turn leads to attempts to increase their speed. Next thing you know, everyone goes for combat lasers and railguns, hehe, but we're not there yet. At least not on tanks.

Side mounted seats for better mine/IED protection?

Close, but not exactly. APS is not a panacea. Reducing hit probability doesn't mean solving the problem of crew safety. You still need to protect the crew in case something goes wrong (APS failure to intercept/mechanical/due to damage, running out of APS munitions, salvo attacks, etc). But yeah, I do agree that upgrading existing tech with such stuff is more cost effective.

It all depends on whether APS munitions are steerable or not. At least bigger ones, with more potential energy. There are also smoke launchers facing upwards. On Kurg, vertical angles, radar-wise, may be limited to something like 20 deg, as on Arena. Maybe more, like up to 45 deg, which is probably enough to deal with direct-attack overhead-exploding munitions.

Yeah, so short that they use ATGMs against infantry, LOL. Nah. That's not it, IMO. The more I think of it, the more I believe that they've put up much much more emphasis on APS defense-wise. The only logical explanation for such turret design is that they've managed to come up with APS that can deal with tank rounds. The difference in size between APS rounds on T-14 and Kurganets-25 suggests better performance for larger ones. Radars on T-14 and T-15 look upwards. There's a lot of smoke launchers, and all of them are new, on all vehicles (which is also a part of APS, but soft-kill), but again, on T-14 and T-15, even some smoke grenade launchers are facing upwards. Therefore I'd speculate that APS on T-14 and T-15 can work against top-attacks and tank rounds. APS on smaller vehicles has limited angles of coverage, and can only work against slower munitions. Latest Arena works up to 1000m/s munitions. Cylindrical shape of Afganit's munitions allows faster movement (much better aerodynamic qualities). They won't be going for a new system if it wasn't better.

Yeah, and as I've said on the previous page, if you're telling a person that there's a pile on his lawn, while riding a white horse that drops piles underneath as it goes, it doesn't smell good. Unless it's a Captain Obvious cosplay contest or something. And value of such discussion violently approaches zero. Especially after the point when you both just start throwing those piles at each other.

Probably, yeah. I didn't mean "one can't", I meant he shouldn't, because it's impractical. But if one can and wants to have fun, why the hell not. I'm just sharing experience, because I had to go through a lot of such discussions over the past 1.5 years (and not just the ones you saw me in).

Oh, it's actually very simple. Outsiders often have distorted perception of problems in question, which, in turn, often leads to all sorts of practically unresolvable conflicts in such discussions (especially when there's a white horse riding involved, which can be offensive). There's also saying "Start with yourself". But when it actually comes to practical side of things, spending serious amount of time trying to explain to an outsider things that are obvious to your own, you (I personally did many times) may feel like you're simply wasting time. And THEN, you may (as I did) realize that to make your own backyard a better place you have to concentrate on discussing it with your own, because people living tens thousands miles away don't change anything in your life. People who you live next to do affect your life.

VERY important thing I've learned over the past 1.5 years is: One should not tell people from other places about what's wrong with their counties. People have to discuss their internal problems with their own. That's the most productive and most useful activity politics discussion wise. No idea, I read the originals, obviously. When it comes to pure sci-fi, I most favor their "The Land of Crimson Clouds" and other stuff with characters from that book. Their social sci-fi is a bit different, some of it more fictional than other, and touch different topics. Roadside picnic is definitely awesome, but a bit overrated IMO. I liked the Ugly Swans more. And, from the stuff I've read recently, I'd name The Final Circle of Paradise, Escape Attempt, Hard to Be a God. All very good.

Re: Stalin From all the people I've seen in my life, most of them praised SU times for good quality of life and overall happiness. And the only times I heard someone mention Stalin was along the lines "they didn't allow to do that kind of sh when Stalin was in charge". But when you think about it, Stalin died in 1953. 62 years ago. So actually very small amount of people still alive who lived during his times, and everyone else don't even know much about it. So saying that he is "the most popular leader" would be not true. Many just attribute his work to what came after him. Not to mention the stuff that comes out of Kremlin, including "popularity polls". That's actually a part of social engineering. Saying, "85% supports Putin", so that everyone starts believing it, following herd instinct. This is why I don't like polls.

Re: all equally bad The only thing I'd ask people is to stop riding white horses. As Pablius have just said, talks about freedom and democracy sound hollow. Ideals and reality are two separate things. What I think is going on is a giant inequality of social evolution levels around the world. It doesn't go in sync everywhere. It doesn't take the same paths everywhere. The biggest problem to solving this inequality is the fact that you cannot forcefully "uplift" societies in a timely fashion. Evolution takes time. One of the main factors is the length of human life. Ideals often die with people that carry them. But the good news is that, as long as countries are not sealed up as North Korea, you can't stop natural social evolution from happening. I love sci-fi. There were these two great writers, Strugatsky brothers. I very much enjoyed their pure sci-fi stuff, but didn't really want to read their social-related stuff. But, when I was bored (well, this is why I never am, really), I started going through their social sci-fi. And you have no idea how cool it turned out to be. Actually, much relevant even today. Those who want something to read, keep an eye out. They go deep into social problems, and "uplifting" specifically.

Jane's isn't wrong. They say it's APS, and distinguish between soft-kill (Shotra is a combo of LWS, IR-dazzlers and smoke launchers) and hard-kill (Arena, Trophy, Drozd, etc). At the end of the day, the are all reactionary, "active protection systems".

Regarding size. I dunno, there's nothing yet. There were some fan made drawings with comparisons, but I don't really like those. This should do better IMO: Bradley vs Kurganets http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/photoessay/2014-06/hires_140617-A-SJ786-006a.jpg https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9743/156188502.60/0_22b3ac_5b7c2eba_orig.jpg Stryker vs Boomerang http://img.bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/Stryker%20Infantry%20Carrier%20Vehicle.jpg http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/stryker-mgs-3.jpg https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5600/156188502.64/0_22bb62_bf275687_orig.jpg APC turret on Kurganets. It's currently fitted with 12.7mm MG, but looks upgradable. Maybe can house 30mm in future if needed, I dunno. Kurg APC may be a base for many roles. Think MT-LB.

Knock-knock. Who's there?

Yeah, suddenly, people have to be prosecuted for the actual crimes. A lot of folks have to be reminded of that, regularly. Especially those who think that committing crime against "bad people" is okay. This is where you need to know the language to get what's going on. I feel the same about Facebook, but, in short, what they did was a right thing to do. What I wanted to point out to the crowd here is that, while Russian media (rightly) gets blame that it's crazy, biased state controlled bunch of lies and propaganda, a lot of info BS, including such whitewashing, happens on the other side of the barricade, and I'm not even sure how many people are actually able to notice that in all its careful subtlety. Sometimes not even careful. I see serious amount of social engineering in the works. Consistent.

Those were two separate messages. First one with me puzzled by your words about "doing time", and then saying that they can jail you, or kill you, in Russia, for political stuff. The second one is an example of yet another whitewashing of Ukraine in Western media, in this particular example, Porosh and his Army of Hatred, versus statements about removed postings from Mark himself. I wasn't expecting you personally to understand the situation, just throwing it out there (after seeing a joke about "taking sides" on one of the previous pages) for everyone to look at and take notes.

I think they meant sensor mount on each side. Two perpendicularly placed sensors on one mount, covering 180 each. That's what I said first time I saw it. Or there's a typo. Or they meant things that I meant as "smaller APS radars". They cover only frontal 180. Oh yeah, I remember some discussions with certain persons using phrase "it's worse, because it's Russian" as an argument. Don't even get me started. Previous page, photo with the driver. Left and right to his head, you can clearly see where roof ends and where these modules start, and what thickness they are. Same on other pictures. They don't look too thin at all. The guy on otvaga2004 forums says he talked to Boomerang's driver in person and he said that it can carry 8 passengers, can do 100 kph, has just over 500 hp engine, and weights... 25 tons. This is consistent with some stuff I read previously about their engines, but I find it very doubtful that it is actually 25 ton vehicle. Kurganets, with those floaty things on the side, yes (hence "-25"), but Boomerang? Hmm.. Added: Oh, it actually might be true. Rosomak is 22t. Boxer is 25, but not sure if it's actually amphibious.

MOUT is pretty much like any other terrain, when it comes to winning a fight. Finding enemy, fixing, (flanking - optional), finishing. The question is how to do it most efficiently. OCOKA battlefield terrain analysis still applies in MOUT. Start by thinking if you actually have to clear that particular area, or you can just suppress it and bypass. If that's an objective area you have to capture, yeah, you have to clear it. Then. Expose yourself as little as possible (when approaching), while, at the same time, be ready to give back as much firepower as possible at minimal amount of time (project max DPS, if you will), to be able to win firefight. Think "combat width", from Paradox games, if you're familiar with, say, HOI3. Yours vs enemy. But here, it is multidimensional space. THE best thing to do is to never allow enemy to fire at you in the first place. But that's not always possible. Total suppression is hard to achieve, and you can't suppress everything all the time. Examples: Enemy is in 2+ story building behind a wall. If his guys are sitting on the first floor, when you come in and breach in one point, your support assets (if positioned only behind breaching team) won't be able to fire at the enemy, that can fire at guys that breach. OR, if they are in the building(or even a room) behind the building you're assaulting. Your breaching team comes inside, and gets attacked from the opposite side, and your support assets can't reach there. Avoid such problematic spots. Use entry points that, upon reaching them, cannot be fired at from positions you cannot fire back at with your supporting assets, immediately.

Huh? Regarding taking sides. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32720965 vs https://youtu.be/QT65WUM_MKQ

Gunner's seat right next to the driver? Not behind.