"thermobaric/enhanced-blast" proliferation?

[akd]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Much as all of the above is usefull I always put a question mark over any report on the effectiveness of a system put out by the people trying to sell it.

Peter.

None of those are reports from manufacturers.

[Peter Cairns]

akd,

Russian information like old soviet information always tells you how great there stuff is, even in to the ninties they were claiming M1 style performance from the T-72.

I'd much prefer to see waht a us test shows about the performance of a soviet AT round than the Russians.

Steve.

all the info seems to be based around penetration and destroying the vehicle and or killing or injuring the crew, stripping the exterior of all those fancy electronics doesn't seem to be mentioned.

Peter.

[akd]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

akd,

Russian information like old soviet information always tells you how great there stuff is, even in to the ninties they were claiming M1 style performance from the T-72.

That report is a U.S. military study on Russian experience in Chechnya. As such, it is interested in and reflects what the Russians actually did with thermobaric munitions, not what the Russians say their thermobarics are capable. Dismissing information simply because it contains the word "Russian" seems a bit arrogant and unwise.

And furthermore, since you have so far decried the information as seller-produced marketing and Russian proganda, neither of which is the case, this brings in to question whether you even looked at the sources. Please withold your criticism of sources until you've actually examined them.

[ January 08, 2006, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Peter Cairns]

AKD.

I was making a general point about the discussion when I said I an sceptical about reports from a country about there own weapons, and you challenged that.

When I reponded to your post I wasn't talking about your post in particular. People tend to quote the things that support them.

Hell throughout the nineties i continually read that the M1's armour could withstand all fielded anti tank weapons, while the Hellfire could destroy all known armoured vehicles, well if someone wasn't telling Porkies they were certainly being less than objective.

Oh and an evaluation of performance in a war you weren't in is not the same as actually firing the things yourself. US experience with captured and or purchased soviet equipment has given us far better understanding of it's true performance than looking at second had results.

To be honest I tend to just put in general comments rather than wade through every line with a microscope , I like a discussion not an academic debate, I tend to deal in general principles rather than the sepcifics particularly when it's hard to know the providence basis for much of what appears here, and especially as the worst topics are the ones where people get in to circular arguements over minute deatils.

Peter.