re: Russia Unveils New Main Battle Tank, Among Other Things

quote:

---

how much money is one of these bad boys?

---

2% of Russia's GDP

quote:

---

One weakness I see for the tank besides it's complexity is the multiple mission tasks set for it. Ground to Air, Ground to Ground, Anti Armour are a lot of missions to hold down.

---

Tanks do not have a ground to air mission. In extreme circumstances we trained to use the TC's .50 cal or even the main gun against enemy helicopters but that's about it. But as far as being responsible for anti-air, that's what air defense artillery and the air force are for. Tanks have two main missions:

1. Breakthrough enemy fortifications
2. Engage and destroy enemy armored/mobile formations

quote:

---

That with the maintenance involved in keeping a tank serviced are a whole lot for a crew of two to keep up with.

---

You have a good point here, especially when it comes to things like repairing a thrown or damaged track. Even with a crew of 4 that's a real bitch. If you've only got 2 crew members, I'm guessing they have to wait on battalion maintenance whenever they have track/undercarriage issues. Then, on top of that, there's also things like maintaining the breech block and main gun tube to consider.

Another disadvantage, one that the Russians have had really since the 60's, is their use of an auto-loader system. This system has two major disadvantages.

1. It's slower than a human loader. The load time of the carousel style auto-loader on the T-64, T-72, T-80, and T-90's takes about 7 or 8 seconds to retrieve a round and load the main gun. This means they can get off no more than about 7 shots per minute. On the other hand, the standard for a human loader on the Abrams is 4 seconds to do the same thing. And really, a good loader can do it in under 3 seconds. Thus the Abrams can get off as many as 15 shots per minute. That's a HUGE advantage.

2. The auto-loader systems prevents quickly switching from one type of ammo to another. This system uses a carousel located at the bottom of the turret. Rounds are pre-loaded into the carousel before going into action. The only option the commander has is the next round, whatever type it is, in the carousel. This means that if he is trying to engage another main battle tank but the next round in the carousel is a HEAT round (High Explosive, Anti-Tank), which is ineffective against main battle tanks for the most part, he's got to load that round and fire it and keep doing this until a Sabot round comes around. This means that when a main battle tank target is identified it could be several seconds before he Russian tank can engage it with an effective round. The Abrams on the other hand can fire whatever is in the gun and in about 4 seconds have a Sabot round loaded and ready to fire. This is another HUGE advantage.

I used the American Abrams in these examples, but they also apply to the British Challenger and German Leopard as well. All three tanks use the same main gun and basically the same method of using a human loader.

Guess what, so do planes and combat vehicles.

Men die even easier.

What is your point?

It's a shame the Air Force seems to think other aircraft can handle the Lord's Work as well as or better than the A-10.

so they built an M1/A1, a striker, a Bradley and a paladin.

that's wonderful news

get your own ideas russia

quote:

---

Ships sink...Easily...

---

Indeed they do. But as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the role of the Navy in a war against Russia in eastern Europe would not be what some people think. For starters, the Aircraft carriers would probably stay in the Atlantic or central Med. There are two reasons for this.

1. They would be needed in the Atlantic to protect American convoys crossing over to Europe bringing supplies and reinforcements.

2. They would be highly vulnerable to land based Russian air assets (both aircraft and missiles) if they were to move in close enough to try to provide air support for the ground forces. This fact, coupled with the fact that there would be plenty of land bases in places like Germany, UK, & Italy to use means that you would probably not see American Carrier groups close to the front lines.

quote:

---

quote: Darth_Vader I agree with your thoughts.. I was just putting it out there again for the "you can't mess with a carrier" crowd... Russia would smash a carrier before we knew where it came from

---

If I had to guess, the Russians would probably try to deal with our carrier groups by deploying either sub launch or air launched cruise missiles, maybe even nuke armed ones.

quote:

---

Yes, we have an amazing military presence, but if it came down to determination, Russia and China would smash us... We would still be waiting on the OK to engage as we were being pummeled

---

That's just silly IMO. All the qualities and attributes available to describe a warrior are embodied in an American soldier. No military is better trained and prepared for combat. I'll take not only our soldiers, but our military leadership like Lieutenant General Frederick “Ben” Hodges-USAREUR.

quote:

---

That's just silly IMO. All the qualities and attributes available to describe a warrior are embodied in an American soldier.

---

Will you still say this as 6000 of them sink onboard ONE Carrier as Russian/Chinese subs dominate our Navy..?

quote:

---

No military is better trained and prepared for combat.

---

ASW/USW is a completely different battle...I know..You can talk planes, troops and tanks all day, but if a sub sinks your only ways of getting them there...