162 replies to this topic

[CommanderJB]

DerKrieger, on 11 Jun 2008, 13:04, said:

CommanderJB, on 11 Jun 2008, 3:17, said:

How come the Americans have never once come up with an amphibious or air-deployable artillery unit?

The Stryker mortar carrier/light howitzer for two, as well as the planned N-LOS cannon. There's also aircraft of course...

Well, actually, the Stryker and as far as anyone knows the NLOS-C aren't amphibious (the Stryker can only ford water up to the tops of its wheels - otherwise it will sink) and they aren't air-droppable (they can be transported by a C-130, sure, but the C-130 has to land in order for them to actually get off. A problem if you haven't secured an airstrip in the general vicinity) - the US never developed a system to deploy vehicles from aircraft in mid-flight. On the other hand, almost all Russian vehicles are either amphibious or have the ability to be fitted with long fording snorkels, and there are whole series of IFVs (BMD for example), artillery pieces (Sprut-SD etc.) and light tanks (PT-76, and with sufficient landing systems even a T-80 can actually be dropped, although it was never adopted in practice) that are specifically designed for airborne deployment or have been fitted with rocket-assisted parachute systems allowing them to insert immediately into an area of operations and support the VDV, the best airborne forces in the world. Quite an advantage really. But as you say, the U.S. likes to even it out by using their uber air-force to establish air superiority and completely annihilate ground forces a la Gulf Wars I & II.

Edited by CommanderJB, 11 June 2008 - 09:51.

[Colonel of the Cones]

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the Stryker (to the best of my knowledge) stands are far better chance of surviving any fight than the Russian designs above.

[CommanderJB]

Truly? Never mind the fact that the standard ICV version only has armour that will protect it versus machine-gun rounds and a remote-controlled medium machine gun itself to defend it with? The artillery pieces above would frankly blow the thing away as soon as look at it, especially the 2S31 Vena, which with a 120mm gun can (theoretically) defeat main battle tanks (in practice I suspect an artillery gun would have difficulty tracking ground targets moving at high speed, though it does have dedicated direct-fire sights). And the BMP-3M, for example, has a 100mm gun, a 30mm chaingun, infantry firing ports, and the ability to be fitted with Arkan laser-guided ATGMs with a range of up to 5km, all while carrying more troops than the Stryker, equipping heavier armour including ERA kits, and retaining amphibiousness, air-deployability and being able to cross a wider variety of terrain. Sorry, but the Russians are unquestionably the masters of IFV design (the BMP-1 was the first ever IFV after all).

Edited by CommanderJB, 11 June 2008 - 10:55.

[Zaho]

Talking about amphibious units let us not forget the PT-76 (Seen on the battlefield during 1970s). The only tank ever to float on water, surely it wasn't able to stand its own against other kinds of armor, however, in the jungles of Vietnam it was able to provide medium tank support on otherwise impassable terrains. Russian engineering can always find a good use somewhere.

And speaking of cool stuff from the Russian/Soviet arsenal, I think that Ka-58 is a very nice invention

Edited by Zaho, 19 June 2008 - 08:08.

[CommanderJB]

I don't think the Ka-58 is actually real, and if it is it's certainly nothing more than a concept right now.
And the PT-76 is hardly the only or even the first fully-amphibious tank in the world - even Shermans in World War II were fitted with flotation screens allowing them to do fully amphibious landings on D-Day (though they didn't work too well - a few sunk, poor sods). More recently, a whole range of other designs have been made amphibious, as this picture and this video of a Chinese Type 63A Amphibious Tank well show:

But yes, the PT-76 was one of the best-ever scout tanks.

Edited by CommanderJB, 19 June 2008 - 09:43.

[Zaho]

Nice video. This is the first time I hear about floating Shermans, sinking Shermans was a very common thing. But everything is possible, I hate debates. As a light tank PT-76 was far superior than the AMX-13 by that time (a French piece of junk like all the rest, to be honest). I have seen a real PT-76 in the military museum in Sofia. It's a very small tank compared to T-54 and T-55 from its times, however, it could escort anywhere BTRs and BRDMs and could be air-dropped. The perfect fighting machine for making a bridge head until it's bigger brothers (MBTs) arrive. In the Bulgarian army some PT-76 were equipped with flamethrowers to serve as infantry support tanks. Today PT-76 is obsolete, it's role is done by the BMP-3 in the Russian Army.

I think there was even a floating mobile howitzer in Warsaw pact, SAU-122 I think.


And to include something I just remembered, in Serbia they have a few models of T-74 tanks. A modified version of T-72 for amphibious operations. These tanks are rare and are not used in the main armored forces of Serbia. They were designed for infantry support again.

Edited by Zaho, 19 June 2008 - 10:16.

[Rade]

Zaho, on 19 Jun 2008, 11:58, said:

And to include something I just remembered, in Serbia they have a few models of T-74 tanks. A modified version of T-72 for amphibious operations. These tanks are rare and are not used in the main armored forces of Serbia. They were designed for infantry support again.

T-74 what exactly are you talking about, because I never heard of something like that, it would be nice if you have any pictures of it, I know we have about 60 T-72 which are most likely going to be withdrawn from use together with about 500 older T-55 which are already being withdrawn and only tanks that will stay in use are about 230 of the M-84 and M-84A, which hopefully will be upgraded to the M-2001 version which is almost the same if not better than T-90 in some aspects.

[CommanderJB]

Google sure as heck doesn't turn up anything on the T-74 except a bunch of LEGO models. Ukraine came up with the BMT-72, which is the ultimate IFV in both firepower and passenger discomfort, but I've never heard of an amphibious T-72.

[Waris]

Sweet Stalin! The Ruskies sure are on top of things when it comes to IFVs aren't they.

Also I saw a BTMP-84 T-84-cum-IFV =O

[CommanderJB]

Nononono! This is a purely indigenous Ukranian design. Ukraine is of course most definitely not part of Russia, now more than ever... no matter how much Russia might want it to be.
I get your point, however - admittedly it's all as a result of Soviet research and know-how. (Oh, and I love the expression 'Sweet Stalin!' too.)

[Waris]

LOL, sorry 'bout that XD

[Zaho]

SMM B1.10 "Tundzha" - A Bulgarian modification of MT-LB that is amphibious artillery. A very nice APC that makes the backbone of the Bulgarian motorized infantry forces (and not only there). 6 Years Ago you could buy one of 800 Levas (nearly 400 euros). The MT-LB is known to be the tracked version of the BTR, designed for more adverse terrain. This has to be the example of the mobility of the Warsaw pact. As mentioned above this is light mobile artillery, other versions (not only Bulgarian) make it from armored transport to mobile AA and mobile AT missile launcher and reconnaissance vehicle. Some versions in the BG Army of MT-LB are known as BMP-23 with 23mm auto-cannon and BMP-30-76 with 76 mm AT cannon and light anti-tank missiles. Only 10 made of all BMP-30.

I think that only Humvee is used with some varieties of the arsenal MT-LB can provide as a Western Response, however, Humvees don't float and cannot mount heavy equipment.

T-74 is mentioned in a book of "The World's Best Tanks" and it is supposed to be a Yugoslavian Project. Never seen one and not sure of it to exist, but the writer said so.


By the way, is there an western response to the "Grumble"?

Edited by Zaho, 21 June 2008 - 09:09.

[mig31]

heyyy here is "post every russian/soviet military stuff" not "spam with all tangzzz, airplanezzz and other militariezzz you found"

Edited by mig31, 21 June 2008 - 15:58.

[Zaho]

Yeah, you're right. Still more or less I'm keeping to the subject;)

[Storm]

First:
Mythic Russian Ka-58 "Black Ghost" stealth helicopter.


Second:
Sukhoi T-4 "Sotka"

This can be Russian version of American Aurora

All info about T-4 you can find here: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Sukhoi_T-4



The T-4 experimental supersonic aircraft, also known as the "Su-100" or "Project 100", first flew in August of 1972. The test pilot was Vladimir Ilyushin, son of the famed aircraft designer, S.V. Ilyushin.

The T-4 is similar to the North American XB-70, which first flew in September, 1964.

The T-4 was made largely from titanium and stainless steel. It featured fly-by-wire control systems but also employed a mechanical system as a backup. The aircraft's nose lowered to provide visibility during takeoff and landing. A periscope was used for forward viewing when the nose was retracted. Braking parachutes were used in addition to conventional wheel brakes.


The T-4 is believed to have reached at least Mach 1.3 using four Kolesov RD36-41 engines. These engines each produced 16,000kg (35,274 lb) thrust with afterburners. The aircraft was designed to achieve speeds of up to Mach 3.0, but the program was cancelled before the full performance of the aircraft could be determined.

One T-4 survives today. Aircraft "101" is on display at the Monino Museum near Moscow. The serial numbers of the prototypes were "101" to "106". Only "101" and "102" were built, other additional prototypes "103" and "104" were under construction, "105" and "106" only existed on draft charts. Only the "101" completed all the test flights and flew the last test flight before the project was canceled on January 22, 1974. The rest of prototypes were scrapped


General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 44.0 m (145,2 ft)
Wingspan: 22.0 m (72 ft 2 in)
Height: 11.2 m (36 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 295.7 m² (3,183 ft²)
Empty weight: 55,600 kg (123,000 lb[2])
Loaded weight: 114000 kg (258000 lb[2])
Max takeoff weight: 135,000 kg (297,000 lb[2])
Powerplant: 4× Kolesov RD-36-41 turbofans, 4 х 16,000 kgs ()[3] each
Performance (estimated)

Maximum speed: Mach 3.0 (3,200 km/h 1,987 mph[2])
Cruise speed: Mach 2.8 (3,000 km/h 1,863 mph[2])
Ferry range: 7,000 km (4,347 mi[2])
Service ceiling 20,000-24,000 m (66,000 ft)

Edited by Storm, 29 June 2008 - 12:31.

[DerKrieger]

Storm, on 29 Jun 2008, 12:59, said:

This can be Russian version of American Aurora

I'd say that this would be a closer match:
http://www.testpilot.../t/60/t60_e.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/t60s01.htm

[Crazykenny]

Zaho, on 21 Jun 2008, 10:08, said:

By the way, is there an western response to the "Grumble"?

America isnt really good at long range AA IMO. But I'm sure they have some.

[DerKrieger]

The closest thing that the West has to the SA-21 Growler is the PAC-3 Patriot or the Israeli-made Arrow. The US doesn't really need long range SAMs as it is the only nation that really has many strategic bombers and stealth aircraft. The Russians developed the SA-21 in part to counter stealth aircraft and cruise missiles.

Edited by DerKrieger, 29 June 2008 - 22:16.

[AZZKIKR]

sorry for necro but look, it's like a swedish BV
Clicky

[Zaho]

DerKrieger, on 30 Jun 2008, 0:18, said:

The closest thing that the West has to the SA-21 Growler is the PAC-3 Patriot or the Israeli-made Arrow. The US doesn't really need long range SAMs as it is the only nation that really has many strategic bombers and stealth aircraft. The Russians developed the SA-21 in part to counter stealth aircraft and cruise missiles.

Thanks. I think that the US overestimate themselves a little with neglecting rival airpower possibilities, however, they know best what they are doing.
As I saw opinions of Soviet/Russian prototypes, I may offer the Code 279 tank (or object 279). This is a Russian behemoth with 4 tracks, a 152 mm cannon and floating abilities. Only 4 of these ever made, one if which is at the Moscow military Museum. It was designed along with the T-55 for combat in extreme radioactive environment. The reaoson it was canceled is due to the fact that Russian armored forces rely on good protection, firepower, speed and mobility from which the Code 279 could not show speed - 30 km/h.
You may browse trought wikipedia or google and you may find it

[Storm]

Pictures of Code-279

[DerKrieger]

Su-35BM, the most advanced Russian fighter jet out there:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...sia/su-35bm.htm

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/a...s/20080715.aspx

http://www.strategypage.com/military_video...8070902148.aspx

[chmsc girl maldita]

some russian related armor from the PLA even though its not russian, its design belongs to russian origin. :stickattack2:




the type-59 MBT known to us in cnc genreals and zh as the "battlemaster"


type 59d maybe an upgraded battlemaster


the type 62 light tank



type 69/79 MBT


type 85 MBT


type 88MBT

Edited by chmsc girl maldita, 25 July 2008 - 23:47.

[Pav:3d]

chmsc girl maldita, on 26 Jul 2008, 0:43, said:

some russian related armor from the PLA even though its not russian, its design belongs to russian origin. :stickattack2:




the type-59 MBT known to us in cnc genreals and zh as the "battlemaster"

Ive always wondered what the gd ol BM was based on...

[TheGrimKnight]

Russia makes me laugh... some of there stuff is like lawl budget cuts or can we get that done cheaper somewhere else???
These are models mostly concepts that the Ussr never built but there still cool
I like air power soo check out USSR Planes



My Fav USSR StarLift ^.^

Edited by TheGrimKnight, 26 July 2008 - 04:13.