Modern wars

[Gfted1]

Russia finally made a Bradley? Oby's videos never have sound but I would like to know the model number so I can read up on it.

[Malcador]

Did learn that the Abrams can do a 360 degree turret traverse in 9 seconds or so, neat. But yeah, in urban areas an IFV or the like would be better.

 

And Gifted, they've had BMPs for years which fills the same role.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Malcador

[obyknven]

Pretty cool, I've always thought that tanks with quick machine cannons are way more efficient in urban warfare than full sized battle tanks with heir huge and slow main cannon. Whats the caliber? 35, 30mm or 20mm?

2X30mm, Fagot's,  automatic grenade launcher, machinegun.

 

Did learn that the Abrams can do a 360 degree turret traverse in 9 seconds or so, neat. But yeah, in urban areas an IFV or the like would be better.

Tanks can't shot at top floor's in city fight, too smal angle.

http://youtu.be/mbUJ4x5s4qI

 

Russia finally made a Bradley?

Wrong, this is heavely protected tank with  unmanned turret , not APC as  Bradley.

 

[Walsingham]

It's a BMPT-72. Apparently.

 

http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130925/183720985/Russia-Unveils-Terminator-2-Tank-Support-Vehicle.html

 

Not sure why this is an example of great Russian military genius. The concept of using an MBT hull for providing heavier fighting protection to other AFV roles dates back to the kangaroo APC. The Israelis already have the Achzarit MBT conversion for built up areas. And even us Brits have begun bolting a new turret on Warrior. 

 

Sources online disagree what missile variant it's packing. Will probably vary by country.

 

Difficulties with the limited elevation and depression of Russian AFV guns was noted in the Soviet Afghan war, by at least 1985-1986. So good work on the speedy development of the solution. 

[kgambit]

Reminds me of a scaled down ground-to-ground version of the German Gepard tank:

 

 

Ground-to-ground with radar?  I think that's the standard SPAA version.

[Agiel]

Said vehicle is known as the BMPT

 

Difficulties with the limited elevation and depression of Russian AFV guns was noted in the Soviet Afghan war, by at least 1985-1986. So good work on the speedy development of the solution. 

 

Also when the Russians lost T-72s and T-80s in droves in the First Chechen War. Turns out sending them into urban areas without infantry support was a real bad idea. Though eventually someone had a brainwave and figured out that in lieu of supporting infantry, the ZSU-23-4 SPAAG was quite effective at taking out AT infantry on the upper floors of buildings. This probably informed the decision to include twin-linked autocannons onto the BMPT's design.

[obyknven]

Difficulties with the limited elevation and depression of Russian AFV guns was noted in the Soviet Afghan war, by at least 1985-1986. So good work on the speedy development of the solution. 

NATO main battle tanks have some problem.

 

 

Achzarit MBT... Warrior

Do you try compare APC with main battle tank? You are serious?

[Agiel]

Are you so sure?

 

[Monte Carlo]

Why Russians need tankski? Their warriors tough. Tankski for girlymen.

 

[Walsingham]

 

 

Achzarit MBT... Warrior

Do you try compare APC with main battle tank? You are serious?

 

 

A couple of 30mm cannon does not a main battle tank make, old boy.

[Zoraptor]

Not sure why this is an example of great Russian military genius. The concept of using an MBT hull for providing heavier fighting protection to other AFV roles dates back to the kangaroo APC. The Israelis already have the Achzarit MBT conversion for built up areas. And even us Brits have begun bolting a new turret on Warrior.

I'd say it goes back to WW2, at least the theory of it though the application was generally somewhat different. Something like a flamethrower tank or an AVRE/ Stuh42 (and arguably even a Stug) are the same sort of idea, though for the last two rather at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of weaponry delivered.

[Walsingham]

Indeed. To go further, I'm not at all clear why this is a significant improvement on BMP-3. There are some advantages to having the body of an MBT, but personally I'd prefer the ability to shift quickly out of trouble, and carry troops. Because even if you are an 'MBT' a T72 can stil get schwacked.

[josan motierre]

Russian have big ****. Russian need no weak NATO tin can. Need only put **** in forefront and charge into battle. Many angles, no problem. **** can launch payload at any angle.

[kgambit]

Russian have big ****. Russian need no weak NATO tin can. Need only put **** in forefront and charge into battle. Many angles, no problem. **** can launch payload at any angle.

 

Sadly Russians usually go off half-****ed which explains a lot actually.   

[Walsingham]

A real russian wouldn't shoot the top floor. A real russian would shoot out the whole bottom floor, and let nature do the rest.

[Walsingham]

I was just trying to work out the rough operating costs of an aircraft carrier, and I found this interesting paper.

 

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS%20Carrier_Hendrix_FINAL.pdf

 

Their figures they reckon that manned aircraft operating off carriers is just bloody stupid, when calculated at a cost per strike.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Walsingham

[Gfted1]

The price per sortie is high but youre paying for the ability to project that force almost anywhere on Earth. But I for one welcome our coming drone overlords.

[obyknven]

[Walsingham]

I suspect the real advantage is being able to reassure the fire planners that a man closer than ten thousand miles away has eyeballed the target and it isn't a school which just happens to look like Ayman al-Zawahiri from a certain angle.

[Agiel]

Actually in ways unmanned aerial vehicles (should be noted that the Air Forces of the world bristle at the term "drones" which implies that UAVs are completely autonomous, which they largely are not) is probably better than the targeting pod mounted on an F/A-18 Superhornet in targeting specific groups and individuals. As a result of overlapping surveillance and integrated algorithms and networks built into the UAV's command centers it's extremely likely there is continuous footage of a specific individual for a 24 hours period even if he wasn't being actively monitored, and the system can even cross-reference that footage of that individual taken from separate crafts to assemble a complete picture of his or her movements over a long stretch of time, the people he or she has met, and the deliveries made to his house. In addition there is the need to collect signals intelligence, something in the realm of manned aircraft requires the services of separate craft such as the EA-18G Growler. And so, many UAVs combine a strike and intelligence gather capacity into one low-cost aircraft.

 

But as always, the flaw in the system lies in the human factor. In spite of such unparalleled intelligence-gathering capabilities the realities of the situation on the ground conflict with the ideal situation built by planners. UAV pilots do their best to keep collateral to a minimum: They watch a guy and hope his daily walk takes him at least a couple dozen more yards away from the house. They opt for a 500 lb. bomb instead of a 1000 lb. But unfortunately many incidents are a result of "acceptable casualties," perhaps justified that if the strike wasn't carried out right then and the target would cause even greater grief later.

 

That said, I've read of reports in Yemen in some villages where if someone is found to have connections to militants he is run out of town by the other villagers out of fear that if he stays the neighbouring houses will get caught up in the blaze when a piping hot Paveway drops down his pants.

[Walsingham]

I suspect Agiel knows much better than me what the capability of the bots are. but I didn't mean to imply that a mk1 eyeball was actually better. I simply implied that a human planner trusts a human pilot more. Maybe with some justification, since a pilot may appreciate the significance of a piping hot paveway [great phrase] better than an operator in a warehouse somewhere.

 

I would observe that while it may please our sense of dramatic justice that the villagers run a militant out of town, it would be far more helpful to our interests if they informed on him. I suspect that the use of high explosive as a reaction is one reason that they don't.

[obyknven]

Psychological aspects of war.
 
Tskhinvali, Russian peacekeepers base with smal garrison without heavy weapons. They are outnumbered and surrounded by Georgian troops with extremely bigger firepower (lots of tanks and artillery), half of Russians are die in combat, but they not surrender and continue fight

 

http://youtu.be/FMk_HPD0EtY

 

http://youtu.be/kCfZOf9N2tY

 

Somalia. Best of the best American warriors encounter some resistance and flee.

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ru/2013/10/seals-get-pushed-back-into-sea-by.html

No racial or ethnic biased is intended in the title.  I simply state the obvious in terms of military power.

The SEALs were facing a primitive force and were repelled. 

 They lost.

 

 

 

[Walsingham]

Trololol

[obyknven]

I am seriously. It's talk about cultural differencies.

 

Western world - safety, safety everywhere. Because this all this drones, non-contact wars and fights only against weak enemies. In unsafe situations Western military forces lost their combat ability and everything become ruined.

http://youtu.be/v8RvWIhTls4

 

Meanwhile in Russia:

"you never die twice, but not escape from die once",

"Company make death beautyfull"

"Russians don't surrender"

etc

http://www.russiancambridge.org/2007/05/russian-graduate-seminar-aesthetics-of-death-in-the-russian-culture-of-the-silver-age-15-may/

 

In other words in Russian culture death don't considered as bad thing. As result Russians can stay operational in such situations when any other army has been broken and flee. Actually is nothing unusual here, Russians participaite in wars abowe 900 times over 1000 years, add to this hardest climate in the world and constant internal figth for power, such result of natural selection just cant be another.

http://youtu.be/NJj7jlc_59U

 

If people have no fear of death they are completely free and powerful, meanwhile people who fear death are weak and enchained.  If you don't trust me you can read same thing in of Saint-Exupery's "Wisdom of the Sands" or in "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by T. E. Lawrence.

 

 

 

 

[Tagaziel]

Because clearly the public knows about every single successful deployment by special forces of NATO pact countries and a single failure is indicative of the overall condition of the NATO military. I hope I don't have to explain how ridiculous this statement sounds?