VladimirTarasov
-
Posts
817 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by VladimirTarasov
-
-
Nothing is "bullet proof". There was an M1 in Iraq a few years ago that got penetrated in the side of the hull by a .50 cal SLAP round and the round went into the crew compartment and struck the back of the gunner's seat.
Although I agree with just about everything you said about the classification, I do not believe the story about the .50 cal SLAP going through, that sounds a bit fake were speaking about a tank here.
-
Get a better source.
It was hit in the lower glacis which I understand being penetrated but even with ERA on there? I do not know if the challenger 2 is better armored then the M1A2 but even on western forums it is said that the Chally is better armored.
-
There are genuine russian produced thermal matrices with resolutions well into what current NATO standart demands, however they are not retrofitted to current T-72B3/90A fleet due to costs of production. MoD's dissatisfaction with B3 upgrade is a little like complaining that cheap detergent doesn't compare to expensive detergent in it's washing capabilities. T-72B3M demonstrates what could have been done, but wasn't paid for.
I don't get this whole T-90A vs M1A2 SEP v2 debate. One for one, it's finest mid-late 90's tech vs finest late 00's tech money can buy. What does feel underperforming though is the armoring on the T-90's, which I think some of the videos of lateral .50 cal penetrations demonstrated on this board.
The T-72B3M will be bought this year from what I have read and in big numbers.
-
These trials were not real. The website author (Fofanov) has admitted they are probably made up and that the name it was provided to him under appears to have been a fictional person, but he does not update his site for many years now.
Also, the Challenger was penetrated in the lower front hull (or bottom hull even; it was a fluke shot). T-90 would be penetrated in lower front hull also.
Catherine FC is a Gen II thermal sight. Most western tanks are now using Gen II+ / Gen III thermal sights. That is simple objective fact. That doesn't mean it is crap, just behind in technology. Russian military is well aware of this, and Catherine FC for their tanks is a stop-gap measure.
There is a lot more crossover between Russian and English language specialist sites on armor than you think. Anything interesting on Otvaga and other sites makes its way almost immediately to tank-net and other English-language forums. In fact, the information that Russian ground forces were dissatisfied with the bare-bones "modernization" of the T-72B3 comes straight from Otvaga, if I recall correctly. It is not some secret lair of knowledge that only you can interpret for us.
Im not saying that western thermals suck I know they are at a higher level then what is on Russian tanks BUT that does not make the Russian tanks obsolete. Because the thermals on Russian tanks are not bad they are good and they are enough for European geography,
-
Your link doesn't exist.
Re: Challenger 2
It was a magic bullet sort of strike (the round struck the ground and skipped into the almost bottom of the hull from my understanding, so no ERA, and not in an area well armored on any tank), and not typical of RPG capabilities. If it'd come head on vs effectively up from the ground, it would not have been effective, and even at that, the strike damaged the tank, but it was still more or less functional.
Re: FCS
T-64 was good for its time because everyone was using transistors. T-80 started to slip because it was still using technology based on the finest the 70's could offer vs then modern electronics. Russia has never managed to catch up in terms of computing and electronics, which is why they're content using the CATHERINE based systems vs having an original home grown design.
You can look at the sales brochure posted earlier. CATHERINE only claims vehicle identification out to a little over 2 KM without upgrade, which is well short of recorded identification/kill distances accomplished by Abrams and Challenger type tanks.
No it was a direct hit onto the glacis, from what I read just now. Also lets not forget france didnt sell some export model catherine it sold catherines that the Russian MOD ordered it to, And I doubt it can see 2KM to identify on Russian tanks I mean that makes no sense you're acting as if Russian MOD is stupid... The Russian BURAN-MATIS thermal can Detect at 7KM where as the Buran-Catherine can detect at 12KM Recognition is 4KM for Buran matis and Buran catherine is 5KM It can identify fully at 2.5 KM both of them, And under adverse weather it is 2KM. Now in European geography you don't need more then 4KM at most. And this is for Ukrainian upgrades, The Russian one has even more capabilities.
-
Chally 2 was penetrated from the front by an RPG-29 here is a test showing the T-90 (base model from 1992) and the T-80U(1985) surviving these shots http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html
Even the ERA stripped targets survived for the T-90. But if you remember the ERA equipped Challenger 2 was penetrated from the front by a RPG-29
Also I still don't understand why you keep saying the T-90s FCS is bad, It gets its FCS from experiences of T-64-T-80UM, Would you mind getting sources that show the Catherine being bad? If there is even a recorded source like that.
-
Don't feel sorry if your country has been left behind with something like this. Most countries have been left behind more...
Be proud of that Russia have always produced brave and capable soldiers, and that's a feature to truly respect.
The thing is all this things they are saying have no evidence backed behind it im not saying M1 abrams is bad at all, Just Russian tanks arent getting what they deserve in fact most things these guys are saying are western sources and not Russian while I get my information on western tank from western sources and get my information on Russian tanks from Russian sources.
-
Sosna-U is a Belarusian sight (made by Peleng in Minsk) that utilizes license-produced Catherine thermal imager. AFAIK, the FCS on the B3 was not fully modernized and has been criticized in the Russian military. It is very much a stop-gap, bare bones upgrade pending introduction of Armata.
T-90SM/AM, however, does have a fully modernized FCS. Don't remember, but possibly the AM in game has been given the Catherine XP thermal camera as these are supposed to be produced under license in Russia soon, but this still falls short of the optics in Abrams. But T-90SM/AM does have one fire control advantage over Abrams: the commander has his own laser rangefinder in his panoramic sight.
Designed from Belarus but also built in Russia, More information on the FCS can be found on Russian sites, The T-90AM has new stuff but its not being bought the Armata which will enter service by 2016 is being bought which has newer generation armor, New sophisticated FCS and ect. But sadly this tank cannot be put in the game because it will be revealed in may 9 parade this year.
Also I want to see where you think the FCS is bad I want to see some proof for the Catherine thermal site being bad also on the SOSNA-U being bad too, Saying is easy I can say that the Abrams has a german smoothbore cannon based fail gun but obviously thats not true it fires the world's most powerful sabot. And I don't deny it. Same thing for people saying the T-72 sucks because the Abrams whiped the floor with it in Iraq, This is not true either as these were models made in Iraq and the best T-72 they had was T-72M(export model). But back on I would like it if you showed me about these claims.
-
sure
http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewforum.php?id=8
Otvaga is the best Russian forum on armor they have real armor experts and people who have worked on tanks check it out although you do not probably understand it because you dont know Russia so sorry, but maybe you can google translate?
-
Well, worth noting basically their charts (which are part of an advertisement mind you) are telling you that you'll have the ability to tell a T-90 from a M1 at 2 KM using the narrow field of view. This is well short of the Abrams by a significant margin.
This is a reasonable assumption. Russian optics in general have never been well regarded, and if you look at after market upgrades for Russian systems, you'll find some of the most common upgrades are for the optics package. To clarify, the CATHERINE-FC provided to the Russians is an upgrade for Russians, but it's a poorer version of a commercially available French optic.
Re: FCS
Russia has a long time of developing FCSes, but historically they've lagged with the widening gap in both computing power, and historically poor integration (as an example I believe it's only recently that the FCS automatically accepted LRF returns, and until the mid-90's still required operator input of range).
The T-80UM's sight was not very bad, In the 1990s when the USSR collapsed money was very hard to find and corruption was a lot so they didn't even look into designing it, It wasn't very bad but due to the design being expensive and that development was ceased plus Russia wanted better relations with the west they took in the Catherine thermal. Now the T-72B3 has the SOSNA-U which has multi channel views for the gunner including a new thermal (Russian made) the old sight still remains but that is as a secondary just in case. Saying that Russia didn't develope these things and falls behind America may be true but not by a very large margine in fact Russia has catched up. Also saying that Russia has not made FCS really makes me cringe as the T-64A and so on started getting FCS in the 70s, US started mainly installing thermals in the 80s and now a lot of their gear has thermals but so does Russia and if it doesnt have thermals it has advanced night vision sights. Russia has been developing FCS from early 70s to present I do not understand why you are saying we lack on something. Saying the U.S. budget helps the design is okay but it will only help to a certain area your not gonna put millions into it simply because you dont have to. The T-72 did not have a FCS but sight correction which was decent by standards but the new T-72s being modernized such as the B3 have full Russian equipment and Russian FCS. I do not deny the Abrams is good im just against when people underestimate Russian armor capabilities.
-
As Steve once put it the U.S. has spent more money developing that fire control system than some almost decent countries have ever made, period, full stop.
And the French can still just barely stand not to sell the Russians a couple of first line warships with full scale shooting war going on, and an airliner for collateral damage. In fact I predict they eventually do deliver them. Though I wonder what sort electronic goodness the CIA has included? If they will take the Russians money, they can certainly stand the smell of Uncle Sams.
Im not understanding what that has to do with T-90 but I would appreciate it if you left politics out. And about the FCS, Russia has been developing FCS for a long time too just because thermals are put on in the past 20 years (in mass numbers) on Russian tanks doesnt have anything to do with the FCS's calculation.
-
It's a Thales designed CATHERINE-FC thermal camera, basically a downgrade from the standard western stocks, it has the sensitivity but from my understanding it lacks the processing power/something along those lines to maintain resolution when moving the camera.
The Abrams has an excellent hit/kill ratio at range, something like in the 80% rate under tactical circumstances with targets that are trying not to die. That's pretty good by most measures. The ability to shoot very far in and of itself is not exceptional, it is the ability to shoot/hit, and acquire new targets that is more relevant. In that regard the T-90 is significantly worse in the target acquisition, and merely not as good in the shoot/hit rates. It's not really a bad tank, but it stacks up well below the various NATO MBTs of similar vintage.
The thermals sold are not bad at all and it is not a downgrade or they would not be fitted onto the T-90s because thermals were already developed for the T-80UM but were deemed not good enough so why would they risk buying thermals from France if it is not at high standards? And the T-90A is up there with the best you cant just call it bad without stating what is bad.
-
From the french knockoff stuff I've seen, it's still very 1999 type optics. It doesn't have the resolution that western optics have, and it struggles when you're moving the turret/the tank to maintain a cohesive image.
Could be something fancier coming along the way, but because something claims an ability to "see" you really need to qualify what that means. Abrams optics can acquire a man sized target at 30 KM (this number is fictional and provided only to sound outragous), but the thermal target is a little blobby thing that looks similar to other heat sources (to include rocks, bright spots on the ground, and badgers). I have no doubts the T-90 can see things out to 5 KM. I don't believe it has the resolution or discrimination to figure out the difference between blobs at 5 KM.
What's it layered with? Simply layers are not really indicative of performance, and as discussed, most of the US weapons have if resistance, if not general purpose immunity in the case of the Javelin to the ERA package.
I dare someone to find common engagement ranges at 5 KM. Additionally especially in frontal engagements it'll be a dicey shot with an ATGM against an Abrams, and with the state of Russian optics, you're aiming for "somewhere on the tank like blob" vs picking your targets at long range.
Ok I would love to see your source on it being french knock offs, Since you don't read Russian sources on Russian tanks you probably read American sources on Russian tanks. But me I read both. And about the 5KM range im saying this because the M1 abrams is usually highly remarked for its range nothing special about it.
-
Those are some pretty solid sources
I can give you sources if you don't mind Russian language.
-
I'm surprised too. Maybe Lanchester’s law?
1) Relikt cannot stop A4 sabot, it could degrades its power, but impossible to stop at all. It should give partial (sometimes total) penetration at the first shot, or at least damage or spalling. If it were A3 sabot, I would agree with that result, but it is A4. It is something wrong.
2) T90's optics are not that good for +2km range battle, even with thermals. It has only x2.7 and x16 sight. If that was within 2km, then I would say there was a small room for Russians. However, it was out of 2km. Abrams SEP x50 magnifying MUST have long range advantage in accuracy.
3) Russian 2 piece KE shell cannot penetrate M1A2 SEP. M1A2 SEP have 960mm turret front (I used Steel Beast pro data) 600-700mm lower hull front. For lower hull front, there is DU(Yeah, depleted uranium) fuel tank inside that part, which works as an additional armor itself for lower hull front. M1A2 SEP's armor is greatly underestimated, or Russian 2 pieced KE is overestimated.
Not sure what happened there. I will do the test by myself soon from 4.5km range, like 10vs10 or 12vs12 and 1:1
wow, the T-90s thermals have ability to see up to 5 km and more, Its proven in trials the T-90 can hit tank sized targets with its ATGM with atleast 90% accuracy to 5 KM which is its MAX range. The T-90AM should have the ESSA thermals and newer optics which would allow it to see even further then the T-90As. The T-72B3s and the T-90As have almost similar capabilities only which the T-72B3 falls behind in armor when compared to T-90A. The T-90As armor is layered many times ontop of that new versions of K5 are installed on it, The T-90A has a very armored turret in the front but it has thin armor on the back sides which the Abrams also has. And also the A4 may be very powerful but at real engagement ranges 2100-3000 meters it has a chance of bouncing or loosing its full power where as the T-90's Refleks ATGM missile can hit up to 5 KM without bouncing and is guided. I dare the Abrams to have any penetrating power to the T-90 at 5KM. Im not saying the Abrams is bad but its not a god weapon either.
-
Optics are being deployed but not all units will have them possibly in 2017 they will though, In a war against NATO and Ukraine the best troops would be deployed which would have the scopes and weapon sights.
-
If only the Armata was shown and could be modeled in the game
-
My wishlist: VDV especially with BTR-MD and BMD-4M please
-
But they had grenade launchers and a few scoped rifles of their own. So it was a interesting start to all the toys we have to play with.
(I have been waiting a long time for a game like this.)
If they had grenade launchers I wonder why they didnt use them. Suppresing fire is key to advancing did they not even attempt to do that?
-
Agreed. I'm pretty shocked at how little people here in the USA know the Soviet war in Afghanistan even happened. With the amount of people it affected, and the amount of lives pointlessly lost during it, it should be in every Cold War history lesson, especially considering it's involvement with the downfall of the Soviet Union.
Hey Vladimir, do you have any other stories from Ossetia? It is very interesting to hear from a Russian perspective, since we obviously don't get to hear your guys' side very much here.
That was the only shoot out I had there, Ossetia was a very beautiful place. Out of everything I've been through in army service training was the hardest, Its pretty tough. I have many stories about my service and about my father and uncle even my gramps who was in world war 2. You ask I have no problem writing about it here.
-
Its possible for 2 snipers to down a whole platoon as long as you have luck, patience, and skill, and most important of all smarts. How was the terrain? And how were the snipers positioned?
-
Why be ashamed? I would rather feel lucky that i dont have do that. If you think that what he did was right, thank him for it and that you, today, live in a world where you dont have to fight insurgents in Chechnya. But i dont see what you should be ashamed of.
I wish I could have been in his place instead of him having to go through that now he has PTSD, He told me thoroughly about everything as if he was going through it like he was there. I dont think ashamed is the right word for it though.
I think the real point is nobody should have to go through that. Ever. I don't care what nationality, what time period, civil wars and intensive counter insurgency are not good for the Human soul.
Steve
Yeah of course, All soldiers are innocent unless he commits crimes during his duty...
-
My father was in Afghanistan, 1981-85' volunteer. Fought in a few battles, Lost his middle toe from shrapnel and shot in the leg. He also participated in Chechnya so did my uncle I heard horrible stories from them about their service. Makes me feel ashamed that I couldn't go through what they did...
-
It was a terrorist group not because I think they were but because you don't randomly attack a blockpost that is there to regulate and defend, We didn't provoke no one and we never did anything to anyone there, So of course the people I most likely killed were terrorists that had some sort of motive. I personally think they were Georgians. About the term terrorist, I think the main problem of how the word terrorism is used is that it is used with discrimination. For example on the news you never see a "American terrorist has killed a cop." What you do see is "Russian terrorists (insert crime here)" Or "Muslim terrorists" but it is usually used against muslims from what I see. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.
4 T-90AMs against 2 M1A2.. open terrain, 2900-3000 meters, frontal slugfest
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Its not 2KM at night its 2.5 and just because it identifies targets at that range doesnt mean it cannot engage, It has a recognition of 5KM