BTR
-
Posts
745 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by BTR
-
-
Very nice. These exercises were the first ones to deploy a BMD-4M from the air since they had some trouble servicing parachute systems.
-
That's a long way to swim. I heard (IRL) people pop smoke across narrower bodies of water to cross safely, but it probably wouldn't really work here until half way at the least.
-
How wide is the crossing point?
-
I got burned on this so many times I just gave up deploying ATGMs in any sort of sketchy positions. There is some truth to this systems unreliability in terms of how laser command information channels can get blocked by moving grass and whatnot, and this even may be the case if you lose visual queue to your receiver from the missile. Subjectively there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the visual representation in-game and the deeper mechanical logic which leads to unpredictable outcomes.
-
It could be a bush/foliage problem. In that screenshot I see that the launcher looks to be deployed in a bush and has weeds in front of it. Perhaps that is what is causing the ATGMs to not fire.
-
Yep, but it's not exclusive to UA's.
-
13 hours ago, DerKommissar said:
What's a Plissa?
The thermal sight system for T-80Us.
-
That still looks like an 80UK with a Plissa to me. The antenna position behind the commander's hatch is right behind like on a command variant instead of slightly centered like on regular 80Us.
-
I haven't seen them like that in combat conditions. It's usually the PK, very seldom an AG, in rare cases a 12.7 and in recently they started deploying the RCWS from Kovrov.
-
It certainly looks to be above the maximum entry angle, but just CM things.
-
Maybe they jumped.
-
That's what I call taking your time to submit a turn
.
-
10 hours ago, Artkin said:
The file starts with player 1. He assigns his move orders, saves file, passes it to player two.. and from two it is sent to player three. At this point player 3 clicks the start turn button and sends file to other team to player 4. Then they go to 6.. send it back to team one.. and so fourth.
I see. I wasn't aware you could save move orders then pass on the file. Interesting stuff.
-
Can someone explain to me how a 3v3 would work? Just successive turns taken by different people or something more intricate?
-
On 6/11/2018 at 4:02 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
That's what it looks like to me.....So APS is OK against opponents lacking airpower & sophisticated targeting electronics, but it's probably not something you'd want to deploy against a peer opponent, or so it seems.
This will put the cat amongst the pigeons for sure.
See the discussion here: http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/1511-active-protection-system-aps-for-tanks/?page=3
Ground deployment of radar imitators has been a thing for a while now both on their own or combined with visual/heat imitators. I'm sure the detecting side has ways of their own to work through false information, but it's never just as easy as that picture claims.
-
From what I know that picture was taken in a Ukrainian decommissioning facility, but it could also be a storage site in Azerbaijan for example. If you find a conclusive image from A-Stan, do share, I certainly haven't been that lucky.
-
From one of Murahovskiy's earlier works. Citation in Russian so you can google for pdf's if there are any - «Современные танки» Мураховский В.И., Павлов М.В., Сафонов Б.С., Солянкин А.Г.. Москва, «Арсенал-Пресс», 1995.
-
14 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
On that account, you are incorrect:
That's not actually a 62D. T-62D = stock T-62 with add-on armor package from T-62M. The "D" lettering here follows the same principle as in "BMP-1D" and "BMP-2D". APS never went forwards on the T-62 and therefore that vehicle above is just a testbed. There are several husks from the development process, one in Moscow proper, one in Kubinka backyard as I remember.
-
9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I'm beginning to believe that you may be right.
Well, thanks I guess :D. Veteran-info also told us about T-62Ds and their APS while that combination wasn't even an item so I'd be very careful reading into first hand accounts.
-
On 5/3/2018 at 10:05 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Interesting.....Do you have any more on this?
295th was a pure T-72 formation, and 9 T-55s were there as extra. That coincides with "У" makings meaning they were assigned to division training unit. However, all six produced T-55AD battalions were stationed in Transcaucasian Military District and most of them went to Ukraine for decommission post SU dissolution. Despite how often it is said that T-55ADs participated in Afghanistan, it is not true until proven otherwise and according to what I know these vehicles never left TMD.
-
Not at random at all. That's where they were last seen as part of a formation (295th MRD) back in 1990.
.thumb.jpg.665d46a405cb5fccf8b93a13e7eebebe.jpg)
-
Something about this little "firing line" just cracks me up. Not saying it wasn't warranted in the situation, it just looks rather comical.
-
Theoretically it was designed to replace 2A29s so I would say that the same doctrinal decisions apply.
-
.jpg.d6ab6c277580cf1b1821025f3d42b6da.jpg)
Russian army under equipped?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Most of the times vehicles are deployed separately for safety reasons. Same reason people only drop from the two side doors to avoid being tangled even if combat drops can be performed from four different points.