Talking bollocks thread #2

PapaDragon wrote:
Isn't that shit Vann just posted completely off-topic? (in addition to being complete horseshit?)

He somehow bought Comicon, Blizzard and Star Trek into Syria civil war topic...

I think i know the institution that will pay great deal of money to take brain scans of this guy...

Guys, that individual (and that in itself is questionable) Vann is either a Langley troll or an automated robot of some kind from the same source, obviously meant to derail discussion and spread disinformation and lies on forums such as this by posting the half-coherent babble and indeed horseshit you've seen from him for years!

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Isn't that shit Vann just posted completely off-topic? (in addition to being complete horseshit?)

He somehow bought Comicon, Blizzard and Star Trek into Syria civil war topic...

I think i know the institution that will pay great deal of money to take brain scans of this guy...

He's comic relief. A harmless troll rather than pest like ultron and co.

yeah....seeing USA as "cultural role model" which every modern country should follow is kinda funny

Interesting reports..

Apparently the Rebels evacuated from Eastern Ghouta
have been received in Idlib with open arms by pro Turkey rebels ,with a
road side Car Bomb..  

Blast kills 11, injures dozens in Syria's Idlib city - monitor
An explosion killed 11 people and wounded more than 80 on Monday in the rebel-controlled Syrian city of Idlib, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Idlib?src=hash

and to all the haters.. keep hating..while your Putin Hero ,becomes slapped in the face again..
when US and Britain attack Syria and he will just nothing other than complain to UN....
hopefully he will respond..

yeah....seeing USA as "cultural role model" which every modern country should follow is kinda funny Laughing

I never said ,that Russia needs to imitate United States.. but BE BETTER than United States. with their civilian business.. To reinvent itself. compete and create an alternative system. Because building hypersonic weapons and updating their nukes is not enough.neither having a growing economy is enough. specially when NATO is advancing every year towards Russian Borders..Simply Russia needs to provide an alternative to the American system. .. With Gas discounts and hypersonic guns, Putin will never convince Europe to abandon the American System.. So Russia needs to Re-invent itself ,and develop a new nation ,fully Independent of the west, but at the same time with very influential business ,that will attract Europe into the Russian-CHinesse orbit.  Russia is on the brink of a world war 3.. and Putin could have avoided it... if only he understood how to counter the influence of Americans over Europe.. with better innovative business for civilians that leads the future. Nobody put a Gun on Europeans to join NATO.. US was simply the most influential nation and Putin's Russia was happy with being a follower ,following American banks ,following American internet , and allowing them to take control of the most influential nations and leaving Russia only
with the rejected ones. So is not surprising Russia is alone in Syria and in Ukraine and in every place.. and only nations nobody cares follows Russia.

GarryB wrote:Sorry Vann, stopped actually reading your posts quite some time ago... if you don't understand why look up the story of the boy who cried wolf...


Fires happen... there is nothing at all you can do to prevent that... there are plenty of things you can do to minimise the risk and reduce the cost of those fires but fires happen and calling it terrorism doesn't change anything... you sound like a western media outlet trying to drum up interest in a story where there is no actual story...

another Fire...



This is not normal.. this looks like an act of terrorism... possibly by Russia enemies..

It is the largest country on the planet with 140 million people, there will be dozens of fires every day.

BTW why aren't you posting threads about this:

https://www.rt.com/usa/423632-us-military-crashes-deaths-five-years/

The only remaining superpower is losing aircraft all the time... and the replacements are so damn expensive yet not likely to have a better safety record... except for the fact that they are so expensive to operate they will spend less time in the air which should naturally reduce attrition.

flamming_python wrote:FFS; will they stop bringing new systems out on the basis of legacy platforms such as the T-72 chassis?

Well atleast they have cancelled production of new T-90s thoese were a real waste of eaverything put into them the T-14 Armata could not have come sooner.

Actually I think the T-90 could probably be considered the most dissapointing tank ever.

are you drunk?

It's OK tank. It used to be probably best tank when it came to costs and efectiveness, but upgrade ceilings were reached and T-90 has to retire. Simple as that.

Its only fault is that its replacement is now ready... which is much better than can be said for some things...

It was a good solid tank that got a bad reputation in the west because they associated it with the T-72 which they don't think much of because its performance in Desert Storm.

The simple facts are that the rules of physics are known and pretty harsh... keep loose main gun ammo in the crew compartment and the whole crew is killed when the armour is penetrated.

Isolate ammo from crew and you have a not bad tank.

Regular wrote:It's OK tank. It used to be probably best tank when it came to costs and efectiveness, but upgrade ceilings were reached and T-90 has to retire. Simple as that.

Well, another thousand or so are ordered from countries around the world. He will be well for a few years (decades) to come.

Actually who aproved the T-90 for service? They should be court martialled for it!

The T-90 is an insult to Russian tank industry. The T-90 is a lazy and half harted modernization of the T-72 itself derived from the T-64.

Not to say that the T-64 and T-72 were bad tanks, qute the opposite infact in the 1970s these tanks were completely unrivalled.

The T-72 and T-80 should have been the rear line tanks of the 80s while newer more advanced MBTs designed around the most advanced technologies of the period and in turn upgraded versions of these tanks would now be serving as second wave tanks in the Russian army while the T-72s would be where they belong in museums and on monument pedistals

Although what can I expect Russia is only the most sensible country on this planet and even they let idiots retardichov the gullible and then as if the apocaliptic conditions he created were not bad enough his sucsessor had the "brilliant" idea of embracing capitalism in the full... crime corruption all of it not to mention all of that ДЕРМОКРАТ garbage they adopted....

But the I should really stop expecting humans to act logically and just agknowlage that earth is galactic capital of bullshit and stupidity.

T-72 was NOT derived from the T-64... It only has a similar outer appearance, and inside its a totally different animal.

Big_Gazza wrote:T-72 was NOT derived from the T-64...  It only has a similar outer appearance, and inside its a totally different animal.

What I meant is that its design was heavily based on the T-64.

The only real difforences are the engine and autoloader although the two tanks do have difforent armor composition aswell.

Actually who aproved the T-90 for service? They should be court martialled for it!

Perhaps if you knew anything about what you were talking about you might not say such things... the alternative to the T-90 would be the T-80... so what you are saying is that the Russian Army would be better off with the T-80 as its primary MBT design? Really? A Ukrainian tank? Really?

Not to say that the T-64 and T-72 were bad tanks, qute the opposite infact in the 1970s these tanks were completely unrivalled.

The T-64 had a lot of problems... most of which were sorted out in the T-80. But then they are having the same problems now in their navy... they could make lots of simple vehicles and mass produce them in enormous numbers but they wont be amazing, but better than the alternative... the T-72 had reasonable armour and a good gun and was much better than the T-54/55 and T-62s and T-34s that they replaced in service and reserve. The T-64 and then the T-80 were rather better, but also rather more expensive and harder to make.

The T-90 is an insult to Russian tank industry. The T-90 is a lazy and half harted modernization of the T-72 itself derived from the T-64.

Yeah... in the sense that the F-15C is a lazy upgrade of the MiG-25... the T-72 is not related to the T-64... all the components except the gun are different and not actually compatible. That is why the T-64 is out of service and the T-72 remains in reserve and is getting upgrades.

The differences between the T-72 and the T-90 are similar to the differences between an F-16A and an F-16C/D block 60... all the electronics are different all the sensors are different and the gun and ammo is different too.

But the I should really stop expecting humans to act logically and just agknowlage that earth is galactic capital of bullshit and stupidity.

Just go back to your home planet and brood... and keep away from Kryptonite..

What I meant is that its design was heavily based on the T-64.

The only real difforences are the engine and autoloader although the two tanks do have difforent armor composition aswell.

Russian companies have a tradition of dealing with different suppliers/contractors... so for instance the engine in a MiG-29 is made by Klimov, while a Sukhoi is often a Saturn product... of course sometimes there are exceptions, but generally each feeds the other with products.

The company that made the T-64 and T-80 was not the same as the company that made the T-72 and T-90... why do you think they would have anything in common except calibre of the gun?

From what is known, it was either the T-90 or the Black eagle concept, at the end of the day economic realities won the day.
Although i really wished they had adopted a Black Eagle like turret back then.

The main problem with the Black Eagle is that it was based on a T-80 tank chassis.

The Burlak upgrade of the T-72 was also considered and rejected.

The T-90 is better armed than the T-80 and is better armoured and is just a better tank.

During the 1980s and 1990s Russia did not need a better tank than the T-72 or T-90... and with new hypersonic weapons coming on line the need for a heavy tank is becoming less and less... right now they have a two stage missile called Hermes they are finalising the design for... imagine they replace the terminal phase part of the missile with a 2m long DU core that weighs about 15kgs and they wrap around that core a scramjet engine and some fuel and a nose mounted guidance system and some steering fins... total weight would not be that much more than the current model missile which has a 30kg HE warhead... HE warheads have low density so they take up a lot of space.. so a 2m long rod of DU can be very compact for its size so there is plenty of space for fuel and a scramjet motor and terminal guidance sensors..

The main solid rocket booster accelerates the current model to about 1.3km/s so starting at that speed the terminal stage could be rapidly accelerated to mach 10 or more... work it out... a 15kg DU penetrator 2m long moving at 3.2km/s... what sort of tank will NATO need to stop that from 50km range?

Without the scramjet terminal stage the Hermes has a range of 20km... 50-100km should be easy and covered in a few seconds too.

How heavy do you want your armour to be?

GarryB wrote:

Actually who aproved the T-90 for service? They should be court martialled for it!

Perhaps if you knew anything about what you were talking about you might not say such things... the alternative to the T-90 would be the T-80... so what you are saying is that the Russian Army would be better off with the T-80 as its primary MBT design?  Really? A Ukrainian tank? Really?

Oh yea I forgot that both the Omsk facility that built it and the Kirov plant where it was designed were in ukropia....

I always though that St Petersburg/Lenningrad was in Russia for some reason musty have been wrong.

No, you are an idiot... the T-80 hull was made in Leningrad, but the turret was made in the Ukraine.

Only the gas turbine powered versions were made in Russia, the more efficient diesel models were made in the ukraine...

GarryB wrote:No, you are an idiot... the T-80 hull was made in Leningrad, but the turret was made in the Ukraine.

Only the gas turbine powered versions were made in Russia, the more efficient diesel models were made in the ukraine...

The T-80 was not made in Leningrad it was designed there at the Kirov plant to be specific and it was made in Omsk.

Its lead designer was Nikolay Popov who was Russian

And while the T-64 was designed in Kharkov well would you care to name the ukies who were on the design team?

No? Well lets be realistic Kharkov was a Russian facility it was built by, run by and staffed by Russians and would still be to this day if someone did't get the stupid idea to treat a Russian province known for treachery and greed as if it was its own SSR.

Bofore all the bullshit of the 90s Kharkov was one of the best tank design facilities in the world but after the Russians moved out and stopped suplying parts it became a joke.

Just look at Kharkov bofore and after  retardichov... In the 80s they were working on the advanced Object 277 MBT now they just build one off "prototypes" in order to pretend that they don't rely on Russian components and designers.

Saying the T-64 is ukropian would be like saying that the T-90S is Indian and saying that the T-80 is ukropian is utter madness.

Hate to be Responsible Rhonda here but you guys went off topic long ago

Also now that BMPT is officially in service could mods rename this tread to just "BMPT"?

The T-80 and T-64 are Soviet tanks that could not be mass produced in Russia now if you wanted to... they are dead tanks that are of no interest to the Russian Army for the future.

The ones they have in service will be upgraded with T-90 parts where possible and discarded when they are no longer useful... the T-90 is a much better tank... it is much safer because its autoloader protects the ammo from hot fragments and sparks in case of a turret penetration... the T-80 and T-64 autoloader does not.

Hense the T-80 is not better than a T-90 in any way. It is not worse than nothing so it remains in service with T-90 components being added and engine improvements.

No? Well lets be realistic Kharkov was a Russian facility it was built by, run by and staffed by Russians and would still be to this day if someone did't get the stupid idea to treat a Russian province known for treachery and greed as if it was its own SSR.

It was Soviet. It is currently Ukrainian. Get over it.

Also now that BMPT is officially in service could mods rename this tread to just "BMPT"?

Not yet... they have not ordered thousands... there are still questions about its future in the Russian military.

Vann7 wrote:

GarryB wrote:Sorry Vann, stopped actually reading your posts quite some time ago... if you don't understand why look up the story of the boy who cried wolf...


Fires happen... there is nothing at all you can do to prevent that... there are plenty of things you can do to minimise the risk and reduce the cost of those fires but fires happen and calling it terrorism doesn't change anything... you sound like a western media outlet trying to drum up interest in a story where there is no actual story...

another Fire...



This is not normal.. this looks like an act of terrorism... possibly by Russia enemies..

I already wrote a month ago that it looks to me like this deadly mall fire was a cleverly disguised terrorist attack.

They might have resorted to such means in order to avoid retribution against their own populations, like the Chechens living outside of Chechnya.

You are one of the best posters on this forum.