L0ckAndL0ad

What part of "I've never said anything like that" you do not understand? Never happened. Just as I've never said anything about "certainty of Russia producing the Armata in numbers" on "previous 10 pages", as Thewood1 here says. In fact, some time ago, I let you people know that numbers that circulating in media were misinterpreted and wrong. Didn't stop some from repeating those numbers, but hey, I've tried!

Are you certain? Maan! That's sick! They'll have to hurry up with new eng-evac vehicles on the new chassis, if they wanna start field testing T-14. Seriously? Have you ever been on a wedding with a wedding attendant running the show or something? The guy made the crowd laugh:

If you were to read carefully, he quoted something I've never said. If you're okay with that, please continue with facepalms.

I might be wrong, but in my understanding, big cylinders on both T-14/T-15 and other vehicles are APS kill munitions, that work similarly to Quick Kill. The difference between T-14/T-15 and other vehicles are smoke launchers and APS radars. On Kurganets, new smoke launchers can be seen, mounted on the turret itself (both IFV and APC). I'm talking about long rectangular boxes with two circles ("exit holes") on each, here: 1, 2. On T-14 and T-15, there are 4 boxes with 3x4=12 small cylinders, that look similarly to the usual Rissian 81mm smoke grenades Tucha and Shtora. But not identicall. But even the boxes appear to be different a little bit. Out of four on each vehicle, two are static, and two can rotate. Can be seen on photos in this post: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1605769 And I talked about radars in this post: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1605765

I've never said anything like that. That's not an argument. Uhm, nope, sorry. My position is mainly based on the knowledge of existing Russian tech, facts and logic. If you want to counter it, please start by quoting the exact words, followed by a proper counterargument.

I'm not sure "counterproof" is a proper word. Counterargument, yes. If one wants to counter someone's argument regarding anything, he has to come up with his own. Let me again assure you that I was not trying to forward a case of a solid fortunetelling

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1605687

Why not? Directional EMI shot Haven't watched it live. From what I read, it didn't completely broke. The official word is that the driver panicked and called for eng-evac. UVZ IT guy came, turned it off and on again, and drove it on it's own. https://youtu.be/kKWF6lVQk5Y I think it's good that it happened. Will think twice before putting experimental vehicles on parades again.

Conk out during today's rehearsal.

Oh, "hype" again. So who exactly is creating a hype here? I said that the new IFVs designs look great, especially for Russia. Especially after BMP-3. So where's the hype? On the pages of crazy media or patriotic sites/forums? There's a lot of it there, for obvious reasons. Why bring it up here, again?

True. Even 99% confidence != 100% objective certainty. Therefore you're right, what I'm saying is my personal speculation. And everyone should treat it as such. However, Steve was expressing his own speculations and skepticism, based on his own logic and knowledge. Which turned into a discussion. And in this discussion, so far he wasn't able to counter my arguments. Seeing that he can't do that, he then said "lets just wait and see", and stopped. Nothing wrong about that too, it's just that my arguments still stand. ADDED: I should've used a word "confident". In Russian, "certain" and "confident" can be translated by the same word "уверен".

I brought up Khriz into the discussion because it can do salvo and has only 2 missiles ready, then has to reload (and does that the quickest way possible than manual reloading, cuz there's autoloader). Which is worse than having 4 missiles ready to be fired without reloading, as my personal practice shows (if first salvo misses, or even one of the missiles from that salvo misses, you're toast). There are two "guiding" channels on Khriz. Radio and laser. For radio and laser guided missiles respectively. From what I know, salvo shooting of two missiles of one type can be done, by using single channel. You can also do that by firing two different types of missiles, guiding them by different channels. Firing at two different targets, however, on Khriz, is only possible with two different types of missiles (= two different guidance channels used at the same time). In CMBS, there's only one type of missile used, therefore it's only possible to fire salvos, and not at two targets at once. On Kornet-D, there are two identical launchers, with two identical optics packages. My point was that newgen IFVs have very similarly looking optics for gunner and commander, therefore might have similar capabilities, therefore can be used for the same purpose. But that's just my speculation. ADDED: And don't forget that Kornet can be fired on the move, even in salvo mode. Further thinking made me realize that alternatively, you can make gunner fire 30mm, while commander fires ATGM, separately.

Even that feature of separate control of launchers is already done in existing vehicle, Kornet-D. Meaning you can cut corners at least software-wise. Controls? Slew, lock, fire? I don't imagine commander station without such controls. Of course, you can still say that I DO NOT KNOW if commander's station will have such input devices at the end. And the fact that Bradley has 10x TOW missiles inside obviously makes it more infantry friendly That's the problem of many of your recent arguments. Like your suggestions as to what Russians should make. First, you said that Russians should do something better than upgraded T-72, but cheaper than T-90. Then changed tune to "better than T-90, but cheaper than Armata". Then, you're "not an engineer" to make any suggestions at all. Then, you're done debating and want to wait till 2019 to see the results. Look, this is how the current experimental vehicles look like. 28 of them are in IFV configuration (tho Boomerangs are clearly underequipped yet, cuz they're running late). I've explained why they do look like this, and why I think they won't change these particular features in the future. I might be wrong, I might be right, yes, nobody knows for 100%, but I am certain of my predictions. APS and other completely new things? There I am not certain at all. And yes, if you wanna counter my arguments, you have to put more thought in yours.

Steve, weren't you the one who said that you're done debating and that we just have to come back here few years down the road? Anyway. I'm sorry to ask, but have you played CMBS? Salvo fired ATGMs give much better chances defeating modern tanks, or just any vehicle equipped with APS. This particular setup is existing and proven technology (BMP-2M, currently produced for export). Until there's a better ATGM (with qualities similar to RPG-30), they have to stick with 2x2 setup. Compare BMP-2M (2x2) vs Khrizantema (2x1) in CMBS. Sometimes you just have to have more bullets than the other guy. The same way, I don't see them removing other mentioned parts, because they are needed, and they are existing tech already. As for the term "certain", yeah, my knowledge makes me certain. And I back up my certainty with facts and arguments. So far, you were not really good at giving counter arguments. Therefore I understand why you suddenly want to take a stance "I'm done debating, lets just wait and see". Yes, we have to wait and see. Doesn't mean there's nothing to discuss. Even then, it's not like I'm taking a huge loan to make a risky bet at a betting house. ADDED: Oh, and lets not forget that Russian platoons have 3 vehicles each. Western have 4 per platoon. 3 Russian IFVs equipped with such ATGM setup have just 6 salvo shots against 4 enemy vehicles. And why keeping spare ATGMs for reloading, if you can just carry them around already prepared for combat? Keeping them inside is a way back to having explosives inside infantry compartment. And if I'm thinking the way their engineers thinking, I'll make it possible for the gunner and commander to be able to operate left and right launchers separately at the same time, from their respective optics packages. Meaning a single vehicle is capable at firing ATGMs at two different targets at the same time (in one sector).

Yeah, they are still in compliance. It was in the last interview with Bochkarev. Vitaly Kuzmin's photos from the rehearsal: http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/603 The optics package on IFVs is strange. Old pictures showed that there's something in the middle that's covered. Why sides don't have cover too? Or the outer lenses are actually cover? Hmm.

There's a simple reason why I am certain. ALL of these components have already been proven in tests AND actual vehicles. Thermal jackets for 30mm AC come back from Afghan war ages, 4x Kornet with salvo come from BMP-2M Berezhok upgrade (which are exported to Algeria). Airburst is there since BMP-3 and BTR-82A. LWS come back to Shtora. OLS comes back to Soviet era aircraft and modern ground vehicle's FCS. Even the new steel have already been used in the new MRAPs (Typhoons). New optics package is a mystery, but it obviously contains thermals. Regardless of their quality, the simple fact that there are thermals already makes them better than any other optics package out there on Russian vehicles, because there are no thermals on them (IFVs/APCs, obviously). That's where my certainty comes from. All of these are existing and proven tech. I don't believe words. I see what they do. And yes, we have to keep watching, obviously. I am just saying that so far they are showing good stuff.

Uhm. Yes, I can, and I am saying that. Here's what is already known for certain. Newgen infantry vehicles: don't have explodable ammo inside, have better optics than any other vehicle in Russian fleet (none of which even have thermals, except for BMD-4Ms), have thermal jackets on 30mm autocannons for better stability and sustained accuracy, can fire 30mm airburst rounds, use new, stronger steel, have OLS (optical locator system) capable FCS, have 4x Kornets ATGM each (with salvo capability), Laser Warning System, Yeah, and there are rear exits. That's freaking great, I'd say. For a Russian design, at least. Notice how I didn't even mention new smoke grenade launchers and APS, becuase little is known about them. But one can guess that new smoke launchers deploy screens much faster. APS? So far, it's a default part for certain vehicles, which is a thing in itself. But that can certainly change. Things I've mentioned above? No way. Well, even bad track record can give better results, because it's experience upon which one can improve. True. But some things (like I've stated above) are already certain.

I think I've got a much better way of explaining the situation with BMP-3 vs newgen vehicles. BMP-3 has/had two major separate problems. First one is overall design. It's a very good vehicle in terms of firepower and mobility, and plays a role of a Fighting Vehicle very well. However, it sucks as an infantry carrier. You can successfully use it if you don't put it under AT danger. At the same time, it's better protected than the previous BMP-2. So it's not a complete failure. However, it still sucks as an IFV. And some dumb ass general lobbied it into the service. Second, it had problems with individual, faulty parts. Major problems. But that was a teething problem, that was inevitable, and they were able to overcome it. Both these problems influenced production numbers in some ways. So did Russia's economic state at that time. The thing is, newgen IFVs/APCs are obviously good designs for their role. Even classical, by modern world standard. So the first problem is fixed by a better designed vehicles, and the second one is fixed by a better thought-out experimental process (= making ~100 vehicles per model, and test them over few years before mass production). So, all in all, newgen IFVs/APCs have much better chances of being mass produced in great numbers than previous models. T-14 is kind of another story that should be discussed separately of IFVs.

T-14? Definitely. IFVs/APCs are good tho. There's a reason why Merkava MBT has an engine in the front. It's a hybrid of an MBT and IFV: can haul up to 6 passengers: http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag182/antro1167/merkava%20infantry%20leaving_zpszjirp4la.jpg~original Russians? They've just reversed the chassis 180 degrees

They kinda are, now. Not sure if that's a counterintelligence at work, or a mean to help the manufacturer, or an interest with some kinda of agenda in mind (like future upgrades). Exports are still there too. Hey, from what I understand, the whole idea of making such vehicle was a result of some general's lobbying. The guy had bad ideas in mind, but had power to lobby them. From there on, they had to either keep buying it, or make a new vehicle. US did Stryker MGS which it later didn't like, did it? Then don't bring the "sum of all parts" argument again, because the precedence with BMP-3 nullifies it. I don't have to be engineer to know that the easiest way to keep the crew safe is to put them together in the most secure place. The bigger the area they are spread over, the more it's going to cost. Pure logic. I see what the problem is. Here is my answer. Just because the turret "might" cost "too much", doesn't mean it has to. As the guy said, CITV on Bradley is connected to the older, cheaper system. And it still works. Russians don't want golden vehicles. They are obviously won't go for "cost too much" solutions. Also, the price of a single vehicle is VERY dependent on the size of the batch. VERY VERY. Might actually be one of the reasons why we're seeing 52 newgen test vehicles, and not 10. Uhm, no. It can't be roughly the same by definition, because they produce new vehicles and upgrades each year. T-72B -> T-72B3 upgrade, as bad as it is, is still significant, because it adds thermals and new comms. You know the value of such devices on battlefield. And these are just cheap tank upgrades. They have to do a lot of things. Allocating enough money to do both (newgen vehs and training) is important. The problem is, you cannot say what kind of new gen vehicles they should do instead (that are cheaper). My understanding, they are going for as cheap as possible already. In a way your two previous posts were discussing it, yeah, it is.

So those are not LWS sensors. Oh well. And no, the outer shell is not armor. Just a cover.

They are what?! In what reality? It helps my argument because they were able to do that under much much less capable economy. And because there's no way they're gonna stop doing what they're doing. They will continue working on those vehicles, regardless of "sum of all parts" (again, your previous argument). I don't value his posts much at all, no, thanks. You've said that you're not an engineer, but still made an argument that turret might "cost too much". When confronted with the reason behind such statement, you tell me to read what somebody else is saying. I wanted to hear it from you, because it is your argument and your understanding of the problem. That's their choice. And you still haven't said why it should "cost too much". I'm not that good into WW2 stuff. Whatever. They do have thousands of T-72s and T-80s, if they need them. Enough for a zerg rush. Won't work without crews tho. Therefore they're going for better crew protection. And they're spending it on new training centers, simulation equipment, frequent large scale maneuvers, etc. http://dyn.function.mil.ru/news_page/country.htm?objInBlock=25&fid=1&blk=10322350 http://мультимедиа.минобороны.рф/multimedia/photo.htm That's also a whole different topic.

Underequipped, obviously. Not even smoke launchers equipped yet.

No, that's not what I'm saying. First, I did not say that Russian MoD thinks BMP-3 is a bad vehicle. No. It has it uses, its pros and cons. But those countries did not use them for actual fighting yet, did they? Russia did. Also, there are other things involved, like lobbying, availability, kickbacks, etc. And none of it counters my initial argument about the fact that Russia did produce 500+ BMP-3s, even that it was faulty at the beginning. Did not stop you from having this conversation. So is it "probably" now? And how the turret would cost "too much"? I don't see any arguments to base such idea on, after I gave my argument why it should actually be cheaper. And if they think that crew's safety means more than tanks operational capabilities after being hit, then that's their choice. Doesn't mean the design isn't cheaper. The thing is, they already have thousands of "Shermans". They already do that. Pfff. I'm not even gonna answer that.

OMG, guys, really? IFV version has infantry in the back. Of course engine is in the front. Gee...