L0ckAndL0ad

we're all gonna die !

Doesn't seem very insightful to me. The chance probably doubled or even trebled in the last year. From 0.1% to 0.3%.

This is front page, just below the top on Yahoo right now and shows how topical CMBS is.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/u-russia-war-over-ukraine-070000525.html
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
 

Nicely done good sir! You have managed to summarise every single streotype and "thinking point" that is fed to us about Russia. I am a little dissapointed not to see any mention of Polonium or homophobia; but otherwise - you got it down to the T! Bravo!!

This vid shows Armata and predecessors. It has the virtue of putting a lot of useful images and video (plus not so useful PS bull) in one location, but it lacks captions pointing out what's what and from when. To me, the extensive text is far more interesting than the imagery For one, it says there are two flavors of Armata, the 125 mm 2A82 version we've been discussing, and another with a putative 152 mm. The text is heavily footnoted, but the actual footnotes are missing. Text word count limit, maybe? In any event, a pity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMx9iWQ6w4s
 
Also, I know the tank shown for over three minutes here isn't Armata (obviously much earlier), but in the sea of pics posted to this thread, I don't recall this one. Would like to know, please, what this one is and whether the narration has anything useful in it. Despite the common keyframes, the one below is a different vid than the earlier one.
 


  Regards,
 
John Kettler

Moar.
 

 

For detailed info regarding licensing, you can download game manual and read what it says in detail:
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117390-black-sea-manual-get-it-here-while-its-hot/
 
Page 18+
 
Speaking of DRM. I can guarantee you that the only successful DRM out there is project's low popularity.

LOL, that's one of those songs yours truly used to love to sing drunk at home-based karaoke during parties. Fits the mood.
 
Где-то там в дали родной Техас,
Дома ждут меня отец и мать.
Мой Фантом взровался быстро,
В небе голубом и чистом.
Мне теперь вас больше не видать...

Let's say that right now, with what we know and see, it is not possible to model the new russian vehicles in the game.
 
At the same time, it's not wrong, in my opinion, to say that it's possible to see these new vehicles in game with a future module, that means in a matter of 1 to 2 years. If and only if more information will be available in the meantime.

Would it help if I make the photos from parade myself?
 
There are already open 3d modeling efforts going on using availiable open source data.
 
If we are talking about combat capabilities - the gun is fairly well known (information about the round length, muzle energy is fairly availiable), what else? Mobility (general mass category and geometrical size, as well as engine power are known)? Protection (a tricky part, though this would be fairly obvious by the time parade comes)?

Rehearsal Parade of May 9, 2015  

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-an-iran-nuclear-deal-may-mean-for-crude-oil-prices-2015-04-02
 Relevant breaking news.  Nobody thinks oil is going higher, some people are predicting $30 per barrel

Uh-oh.. We don't take kindly to this kind of tirades in here.
 
https://youtu.be/ITi7lG0x0IE
 
 
Should every country that does have nuclear weapons disband it's military now?
 
 
What tanks would you use to make it "armor heavy", Commander? And by "keeping it all under the same BDE/REG", do you mean like having BTR-based BDEs have tanks in them? 
 
"Good stuff", and forces overall, are dispersed along the most threatening axis. These are the exact words from Ru MoD.
 
 
That's a very constructive point. BTRs are not intended to move rapidly into enemy's territory. BTR-90 should have had ATGM, Boomerang will have ATGM, but those BTRs in actual service indeed do not have ATGMs. There's BRDM-based ATGM (and the one on Tigr-M chassis in the production as well), but AFAIK it's used in separate anti-tank formations that can be attached where it's needed.
 
Nona is a versatile mortar/light arty system, it is not intended to be used against tanks.
 
ps: To comrades https://youtu.be/yX_AvU7B1y4

Bad ergonomics is a bad design. Mines, RPGs and urban combat existed long before terms "IED" and "asymmetric warfare" came into existence. Soviet designs might be cost effective, but their cheapness comes at a price of lives. It's that simple. M1 Abrams is 1980s product, and for some reason, it does not explode violently with it's crew and turret flying away when hit. M2 Bradleys are also from 1980s. Here's what Wiki says about them:
 
 
Now compare this to both Chechnya wars. Ergonomics, huh?
 
2 John Kettler:
 
Metallurgy. You mean the usage of the new "44С-св-Ш" steel?
 
As for "a la Russe" training, I don't know what you're talking about. There's been a lot of mass scale maneuvers in both SU and Russia. With Russia in particular, there came the new kind of surprise readiness checks that lead to large scale training maneuvers starting from like 2011, few times a year.

Well nija'ed by Alexey with some of that data even - cool - shooda refreshed before hitting the post button. Left here to preserve the record in case various people are tearing me a new one even as I edit this

Actually, it might be more efficient to answer some of Steve's questions about your data and find some additional data sources. After all given two AFVs that have the same crew casualty rate but are being destroyed by varying amounts of force you can still make an assessment on which vehicle has better crew protection features.
 
For example (I am using a deliberately exaggerated scenario to illustrate my point not to asses any named, existing or fantasy tank's capabilities), if we have data for Tank Type A and Tank Type B from two separate hypothetical conflicts that show the same crew casualty rate but Tank A suffered, on average, a destruction of much larger force we could conclude that Tank type A does in fact offer better crew protection.  So lets say that Tank type A was equally likely to be destroyed by a modern RPG or a large calibre main tank round while the Tank type B (in the other conflict) was equally likely to be destroyed by an improvised gasoline based molatov cocktail or a small hand grenade the conclusion would be obvious. Then there would be no need to wax on philosophically about points #1 and #2.

I don't think Russia assumes that the only scenario in which it faces Western equipment is world war 3. NATO countries sell their stuff to non-NATO countries too. And speaking of which, competition in the export market may be as much a reason for Armata as competition on the battlefield.

Bad ergonomics is a bad design. Mines, RPGs and urban combat existed long before terms "IED" and "asymmetric warfare" came into existence. Soviet designs might be cost effective, but their cheapness comes at a price of lives. It's that simple. M1 Abrams is 1980s product, and for some reason, it does not explode violently with it's crew and turret flying away when hit. M2 Bradleys are also from 1980s. Here's what Wiki says about them:
 
 
Now compare this to both Chechnya wars. Ergonomics, huh?
 
2 John Kettler:
 
Metallurgy. You mean the usage of the new "44С-св-Ш" steel?
 
As for "a la Russe" training, I don't know what you're talking about. There's been a lot of mass scale maneuvers in both SU and Russia. With Russia in particular, there came the new kind of surprise readiness checks that lead to large scale training maneuvers starting from like 2011, few times a year.

Oh, come on! "Traditions" don't appear out of thin air. People started doing it because they don't want to die inside. Because in their infinite wisdom, Soviet designers went for mobility and amphibious capabilities, rather than crew/passenger protection and ease of disembarking. There's always too little space, and BMP-3s passenger exit in particular is a crying shame.
 
You know how they use BMP-3 in Venezuela? One might have thought that it's harder to ride on BMP-3..
 

 

Unfortunately I don't know of any way to answer that without delving too far into the political realm, which is both expressly forbidden in the forums and a line we've likely already crossed.  PM me if you want my opinion, but I'll try and summarize it below.

What I will clean it up to say is I frankly don't see the need in the 21st century for either NATO or the Russians to maintain huge forces arrayed against each other.  NATO has no desire to go East, and presumably Russia has no desire to go West.  And yet both sides waste billions of dollars pointing tanks at each other and justify it because "well they started it". 

What would I do if I was in charge of the Russian military?  I'd focus on my nuclear weapons for homeland defense.  Hordes and hordes of tanks is redundant at that point.  If you want an expeditionary force similar to the US there's a lot of restructuring that would need to be done which includes ditching all those tanks in storage.  The US has the economy to mix the two, Russia does not.

Out of curiosity, what is the general status and array of ground forces in the east (aimed at China).  If we're talking implausible but possible, I'd say China going north would have been just as likely as NATO going east.
 
 
 
Right with a nuclear weapon, and at that point it doesn't matter.

No? Because US and Canada are allies?
 
Uhm, what? Military Districts = distributed garrisons. They do not sit entrenched along the border. They are stationed at their bases. How is that a threat to NATO? And please, leave politics aside. Military assessment only.
 
Not sure what you mean by "centralized", and how is it done in the US, but I'd say that anything centralized is easier to destroy. And, while US only forces may be comparatively weak, combined NATO forces are not.
 
Most people I know think that a war between NATO and Russia is impossible. At the same time, Armed Forces job is to be prepared for anything. Current Russian Armed Forces personnel is under 0.8 million, and keeps decreasing. What do you propose? Make it 500 thousand? 300 thousand? 100 thousand? What armament should it use? Right today. There's a reason why I asked panzersaurkrautwerfer to play Commander in Chief. You can participate in this too.

The best way to look at it is from mission perspective. Everybody knows that, but I'll say it anyways. Heavy tank and/or IFV based forces (and BMDs = IFVs too) are intended for offense, while APC based forces are better as reinforcements, mop-ups, and to establish defense. Elastic defense on larger front is a perfect example. Tanks are just supplements, and not intended to always to keep up with BTRs.

I meant more operational freedom. At the same time, APC formations (BTR and MT-LB based) have additional organic assets like ATGMs and AGLs. But yeah, there are some pure BTR-based formations as well.
 
 
True. But my point is, if they wanted to go for high level 360 security, there might not even be a rear tunnel at all. Might have limited it to existing crew hatches on the top. But yeah, one can only guess. Kinda not fun sitting and waiting, while being teased like that.

Oh, T-62s incoming again. Did you read what I replied to you?
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1597225
 
You also still haven't answered my initial questions - who Russian military needs to be better than, and in what?
 
 
It is a very good point, if you can establish the idea of tanks always riding in the same column with BTRs as a solid fact. Which it is not.
 
 
Again, I'm having an impression that you did not read my previous answers to you, where I gave you the numbers of BMP-2 and BMP-3 available.
 
 
Aaaand again. That's a wrong statement. First, because, as I've said, Russia is the biggest country in the world, and it needs to cover all it's borders. Second, it's wrong because the size of Russian Armed Forces is shrinking every year, while trading numbers for more quality, in both personnel and equipment.
 
If you're referring to BMPT Terminator, it's a purely export product. And I don't think anything is done by state. All manufacturers are OJSCs, AFAIK, and work both for internal and external markets.
 
I do understand that you're busy IRL, but please, can you read my posts before replying?

Old 1 is still in use with Ukrop VDV so its highly likely.