lyle6 wrote:There's nothing state of the art about the Type 10. Its a gucci piece of hardware sure, boasting rather high quality components especially its rather complex automotive systems but ultimately its just a much more expensive 3rd gen tank. It doesn't even stand out among its much older peers, being outgunned, and outarmoured by most upgraded third gen MBTs, with T-80B/V/Ms giving it a run for its money in forward mobility.
The Type 10 has got better power/weight, more range, CVT transmission, same speed forwards as backwards, hydropneumatic suspension, over the T-80. Most likely also better armor package. If the only requirement was to develop a 3rd generation Japan would not have needed to develop the Type 10 when they already had the Type 90. The Type 90 did not have the strategic mobility required by Japan so they developed the Type 10. It was developed with the best technology of the time.
A tank like the T-14 is too heavy given their strategic mobility requirements. It is heavier than the Type 90 and would not be able to cross a lot of bridges in central Japan. The T-80 is obsolete and the gas turbine engine is a dud. At least they installed an APU or it would guzzle fuel even when stationary with systems online. Even then it has both a larger fuel tank and less range. Roughly the same top horsepower.
lancelot wrote: The Type 10 has got better power/weight, more range, CVT transmission, same speed forwards as backwards, hydropneumatic suspension, over the T-80. Most likely also better armor package. If the only requirement was to develop a 3rd generation Japan would not have needed to develop the Type 10 when they already had the Type 90. The Type 90 did not have the strategic mobility required by Japan so they developed the Type 10. It was developed with the best technology of the time.
I should hope so, considering there's only 30 years between the two vehicles, and the fact is a Type 10 would've easily paid for a platoon of T-80s.
lancelot wrote: A tank like the T-14 is too heavy given their strategic mobility requirements. It is heavier than the Type 90 and would not be able to cross a lot of bridges in central Japan. The T-80 is obsolete and the gas turbine engine is a dud. At least they installed an APU or it would guzzle fuel even when stationary with systems online. Even then it has both a larger fuel tank and less range. Roughly the same top horsepower.
The T-14 is designed to be the bleeding edge of offensive armor thrust, and as such would enjoy lavish engineering and logistics support to keep it moving forward. Its weight is not that much of an issue within that context. OTOH the Type 10 is a compromise vehicle meant to fit within antiquated Japanese infrastructure requirements and making use of as much legacy transport assets as possible. It sacrifices protection to achieve that extra level of mobility.
It is why after 15 minutes of idling the brakes where cool enough so the T-14 could move again under own power.
No, that wasn't it. The driver (who was a conscript, i must add) mistakenly put the E-brake on, and thought he stalled the tank and panicked, forgetting his training. His colleagues assumed it was a legit stoppage and tried to recover the vehicle which wouldn't have been possible since the brakes were engaged. Once UVZ's specialist were on the scene they were able to remove the E-brake and the tank was able to continue on its power again.
E-brake and start-stop. Hate both, I feel that soldier. Made the same mistakes back in the day
As KVS said, skepticism from people with 0 engineering prowess and usually flawed logic is now a reflex, no matter what system it is. There are people right now still claiming that the T-14's fire control system is yet to be "proven" to be up to par with the one on abrams, that was designed like 10 years ago. This is delusion, it's more of a pre canned argument to whip out at anything russian, rather than something serious, therefore it is inherently wrong to ever give it any attention to begin with.
Regarding nonsense about Russian military hardware, when the first 115mm smoothbore guns were revealed to the west it was claimed they would be inaccurate and couldn't hit a target at any useful range... but ironically eventually the west adopted a smoothbore tank gun too.
On paper a smoothbore gun does not make sense for a tank gun, because rifling makes it accurate... except there is no value in being accurate if you can't penetrate the target and more importantly even in a rifled gun the standard western anti tank round is an APFSDS round which has a sabot that does not engage the rifling so the most powerful anti armour round western rifled tank guns were firing didn't need rifling anyway... comparing the accuracy of a 105mm British rifled tank gun against a 115mm Soviet Smoothbore gun when they are both firing APFSDS rounds... neither round is spinning in flight so the rifling in the British gun just slows the round down with internal friction and makes the gun harder to clean and heavier.
The other main anti tank tank gun fired round is useful is the HEAT rounds and spinning them in flight reduces their penetration performance, so the smoothbore wins again...
The HE frag round benefits from the rifling, but considering it is a direct fire round fin stabilisation is perfectly adequate.
All though the 1990s the west said Russian tanks had poor long range accuracy and that is why they developed tank gun launched missiles, but as the Combat Approved video on the T-90 upgrades showed it can hit targets 5km away while the tank is stationary and while moving slowly. The missile is not to extend engagement range, the missile is to hit moving targets which even the most accurate gun will miss if the movement between the shot fired and impact is not correctly anticipated. With a missile you can compensate for any movement and still get a good hit... and hit flying targets like helicopters and drones.
For nearly 3 decades 3rd gen NATO MBTs weren't issued with the programmable High explosive round - scratch that, they didn't have a proper HE round until well after the Cold war.
Imagine that, the round that's most effective against fortifications and infantry, and soft skinned vehicles - which are only like the vast majority of targets that a tank is expected to face on the battlefield - is entirely absent in the loadout!
Instead they make do with HEAT rounds, which owing to their construction and design are very poor at inflicting areal damage, and as such would have to land really really close to the target - good luck with that when the target is camouflaged or dispersed.
In practice NATO tanks are expected to use their machineguns to neutralize infantry. Kind of problematic, considering how easy it is find cover, or dig one to protect against MG fire.
They do have the canister round, but that's rubbish that's only useful at close ranges and has trouble against fortifications.
The British have the HESH, but its not very effective against dispersed targets like infantry in the open.
All, in all Soviet/Russian anti-tank teams would've had a field day against their NATO prey. Can't say the same for NATO anti-tank teams that would be showered with HE shells by Russian tanks.
Being ex-british army, I can confidently say, the British army saw their tanks being used against armour only. Warrior, 432's, Saxon was for use against infantry (in terms of vehicles) the Saxon everyone hated as it was designed for the streets of Northern Ireland and terrible in the field, death traps. 432's that the UK replaced were brilliant and surprising fast but only ever had GPMG or .50cal. Warriors are good at what they do but they are fairly large. As for anti tank we had LAW, Milan, and challenger 2, and swingfire which was actually a fairly good system with a good range at the time, but they decided to get rid of it with the expensive javelin. It had good mobility, fast, small, and packed a reasonable punch, I felt the system could have been kept in service, and I am sure they could have extended the range to 6km and made missile cheaper with today's technology and could have been used against buildings, softer armour, bunkers etc and this would be far cheaper than using javelin for such targets.
I always felt the Russians were far more mobile, and in comparison their APC were better, better in the field and better firepower, for example Saxon had 4x4 configuration and 7.62mm, versus BTR-60/70/80 which was better off road, amphibious, and had the extra 14.5mm gun. And can carry more troops. The Russians also had better fire support for ground troops, from battlefield rifles (SVD) British had nothing, to cheap RPG's, various ATGW, anti tank guns, mortars, and artillery. Another example below
The Russians had a piece of equipment for every eventuality. While he had very light mortars. The British basically need their aircraft to do everything, the rest are just additional add-ons, this is the same for air defence. A lot of felt without aircraft we would be largely screwed.
All though the 1990s the west said Russian tanks had poor long range accuracy and that is why they developed tank gun launched missiles
This is the same BS as the endless drivel about Soviet/Russian ICBMs having poor CEP. It is clearly not a scientific evaluation of the actual accuracy but nothing more than a delusional, insecure chauvinist projection.
And what would you expect from generations grown in overwhelming propaganda campaign? From cartoons to video games, cinematic movies, all novels, press articles - all were a subject of propaganda.
They are victims here either.
A friend of mine, starts a conversation about something unusual, by "even Americans don't/can't...". It is his benchmark. A very intelligent guy, great buddy, good father&husband. Only a victim of targeted propaganda for 50 years of his life, most of it - pro-US one. Try to convince him, that "even Americans" know shit about the discussed matter, as they are some 30 years behind ... A no-way scenario.
d_taddei2 wrote:Being ex-british army, I can confidently say, the British army saw their tanks being used against armour only.
Same for the Dutch army during the cold war. Of the 42 rounds of the Leopard 2A4, 32 were APFSDS-T (DM33A1/A2/A3) and just 10 HEAT-T. Infantry was indeed to be engaged with the coax MG.
ALAMO wrote:And what would you expect from generations grown in overwhelming propaganda campaign? From cartoons to video games, cinematic movies, all novels, press articles - all were a subject of propaganda.
They are victims here either.
A friend of mine, starts a conversation about something unusual, by "even Americans don't/can't...". It is his benchmark. A very intelligent guy, great buddy, good father&husband. Only a victim of targeted propaganda for 50 years of his life, most of it - pro-US one. Try to convince him, that "even Americans" know shit about the discussed matter, as they are some 30 years behind ... A no-way scenario.
I, growing up as a kid born in the 80's living in western europe can vouch for this statement about propaganda. it was freaking everywhere. Still, the cartoon Starcom was some high-quality shit. I went deep into the topic of space because of that. Anybody remembers that?. Ah,....sweet nostalgia
There is this false perception indeed that americans can do anything. Same for their weapon systems. But it truly is mediocre at best.
In Afghanistan we called for the first time in our experiences actual close air support an an American F-18 came in. The legendary americans with high tech bombs, this was going to be amazing.
Nope....the bomb landed 500 meters off target. We where stumped, surely this was an accident.
Also...no. Turns out, there are a lot of issues with american weaponry. As long the target does not fight back, you are good. for example,
American JDAM's got an GPS guidance system. However, when our ball of light in the middle of our solar system is feeling grumpy. It interferes with our sattelites and signals. Black spots particulary are notorious for screwing with NATO systems. They behave like tightly-wound springs, at a point they snap and release an massive ammount of energy. These interferences can last for hours or days.
You never really stop to think about it, as most of western technology is shielded by our atmosphere/magnetoshpere of our planet. like everyone knows, it is where the beautifull aurora borealis comes from.
NATO Opsrooms have next to the regular weather predictions also an "weather" update about the suns activity.
Americans already knew their weapons accuracy was questionable at times. lets just say we where not the first to encounter this, it has been documented as well. Check out this vid from the 26:00 minute mark about the airstrike that resulted in hitting their own side:
Also..mechanical failure. the only U.S bomb manufacturer i am sort of satisfied with is Raytheon's Paveway 3 series.
These bombs have an self-diagnostic software that informs the pilot if its systems are good to go for launch. During one event, the F-18 pilot had to fly trough bad weather. When he reached us, the bombs where iced over. The Paveway gave multiple diagnostic failures. It could not move its guidance fins and the optics had trouble acuiring the laser lock. The pilot had to over-ride the warning in order to go for bombing. commiting to an bombing run with an "dumb" bomb.
The weapon indeed missed its target. but the weapon's software was excellent. when they work, they follow the laser with pinpoint accuracy. i have seen them glide into caves.
In general tough, its just not up to the task to deal with an modern adversary that can fight back.
We took an official AK-47 to the firing range for a day, to fire it at various targets and compare it with our own M-16-like weapons. Accuracy at 300 meters is exactly the same to our western assault rifles. It just has a bit more kick. But it shows in the damage it leaves behind. the armor plates in our vest get very visibly dented inwards when it has to take an 7.62. you still might die because of internal bleeding if you get hit at close range.
An AK also leaves serious craters in the human body. Not unlike the 5.56MM we use where Taliban still keep fighting after we saw them go down at first, and then get back up and keep fighting. Do not get me wrong, 5.56MM has a habit of of bounching around in your body like its some damn arcade machine. also its armor-piercing characteristics. Killing you that way from the inside. But give me the raw stopping power of an AK any day.
I used to be pro-U.S. Then Afghanistan happened and i returned hating the U.S government's guts. So when people go on that pro-U.S ride i quickly shatter their dreams with some examples as to how i turned my worldview 180.
That the russians where critical in our logistical operations, and how the U.S goverment/millitary itself is an monster and does not care what it does to people. Not their own soldiers, not the local population, and certainly not allies.
They smile at you, call you an ally and shake your hand. Just do not turn your back towards them, they shoot you in the back when the time is right.
Another factor is that the Soviets and Russians prize simplicity when it is more practical than pure accuracy.
If you zero an AK like you zero an M16 and then try to use it like an M16 you will have accuracy issues.
When you look at the AK iron sight it has a battle setting... when you fire a bullet, as soon as it leaves the muzzle it starts to drop due to gravity, so rifles are designed with the iron sights indicating low so when you raise the barrel up to put the front iron sight on the target the barrel is actually pointing up in the air lofting the bullet so when it reaches the target it doesn't hit the targets feet or the ground in front of them.
All guns do that.
The point is that when you look through iron sights at a target, the human eye is not a magical device.... you change focus for distance, so you can focus on the rear sight or the front sight or the target but you can't focus on all three or even two at once.
What you have to do is look at the target... identify it as your target first and then look at it to work out how much is visible and its position... are they lying down or are they standing up.
Now for an M16 user we are told it is so accurate they can shoot them in the heart from 200m.
OK... now with iron sights the M16 has a peep sight so you look through a hole that is the rear sight, you position the post front sight in the centre of your view and then you move the entire rifle till that post is situated on the part of the target you want to shoot... and that is the problem... you can't focus on the target... you have to focus on the front sight post because that is where the bullet is going... you place that front post sight on the upper part of the blur that is the confirmed target and you fire a shot... if the blur does not appear to crumple to the ground you fire a couple more shots and then you focus on the target to try to work out what the problem is. If your iron sights are not set to 200m then you might be shooting over the top or shooting low.
The point is that when you fire you focus on the front iron post, not the target so the idea you might be aiming for his head or heart or right nipple is nonsense.
The Russian method of sighting means once zeroed a 7.62 x 39mm calibre AK rifle can be aimed at the targets belt buckle when the iron sights are set to 300m and you will hit your target from 0 metres out to about 390m... if they are more than 300m most of the time you can't see them anyway. When you shoot you don't need to worry about where their heart is or their head... aim centre of target and fire. The ballistic trajectory of that round from that length barrel means that when shooting at a standing man at no distance between 0m and 400m will your bullet rise above the height of a standing man, so at different ranges you will hit them at different heights of their body but you should get a hit. No need to worry about range, though most people can tell if the target is within 100m or beyond 300m or so just because they look so small or big.
Also the myth about the iron sights the Russian AKs use... claiming the notch rear and post front iron sights is less accurate because the sight base is shorter... the actual sight base on the M4 carbine is actually shorter than the AKM sight base, but again it is based in ignorance again...
The peep sight is easier to use... you look through the rear sight at the front sight and place the front sight on the target and fire so you are lining up the front sight with the target to shoot the peep layout means your eye is always properly aligned with the rear sight to shoot.
But this ignores training... when training to shoot with the AKs sights you train... you position your head on the rear stock in line with the rear sight and the front sight and you learn that head position on the stock and the arm angles holding the pistol grip and the front stock and you lock it all up and move your arms and rifle and head as one solid item, which you then turn and raise or lower and place the front sight on the target and fire.
The sight base is not shorter... it is actually much longer because it is your eye and the rear sight and the front sight, so claiming it is less accurate because it has a shorter sight base is just ignorant.
Peep sights are easier to use and it is easier to train someone to use... but it also gives you tunnel vision, and with more powerful weapons like an SLR if you are not holding it properly it can give you a black eye.
Optical sights are a massive improvement and are actually the best solution because it means you get a magnified view of the target making identification much easier, and when you shoot your aiming point and the target are all in focus... you still have to position your head correctly behind the optics, but it does make things much much easier.... of course it is another thing to break and is extra weight.
Just for clarity, bullet drop is actually surprisingly tiny.
A 7.62 HATO round... also known as 308 Winchester, has a bullet drop of 32 feet at 1,000m... which is less than 10m... now if you picture something that is 1km away and now think what sort of angle you would have to raise the muzzle of your rifle to shoot 10 metres above them... a human target would be a little dot at that distance, so four little dots above them is a tiny amount of "loft" to compensate for bullet drop at that range.
BTW lots of gun experts also complain about the excessive bullet drop of the AK round at more than 400m... the first comment I make is that it was designed for less than 300m range shooting so who cares. The second comment is that bullet drop is easy to calculate and a laser range finder means you should still be able to compensate for drop and still hit the target.
Ironically the best way to reduce bullet drop is a lighter faster bullet, but lighter bullets are more influenced by the wind and actually slow down faster than heavier bullets.
The iron sights on an AK are vertically adjustable by hand and allow you to set the range to compensate for bullet drop, in increments of 100m. All the way up to 1000m if you want. By default it's set to П or 300m.
Yes, the battle setting of 300m means you can aim at the centre of mass of the target... ie just above the belt buckle and fire at any range and get a hit because of the trajectory of the bullet.
A target 300m away is a fuzzy little dot... the idea that you can aim for the chest or any other part of the body is absurd with iron sights... even peep sights.
With all respect to Mercouris and the Duran in General. That opinion is untrue,
various sources, also from NATO said it was real. and an finished product no longer in development stage.
To be fair they have to claim the T-14 was not a finished product... how many military programmes in the west that dragged on for decades yet were never short of funding... the very idea that Russia, and remember under economic sanction and struggling because of low oil prices with a military budget less than that of the UK could possibly develop its own new heavy stealth fighter... which India was really funding until India withdrew from the programme... so how did they find that programme.... but they have also revealed a light stealth fighter using its components... and also they have funded the replacement of almost all of their cold war equipment and kit, and also not just designed a new tank but it is also part of one vehicle family of about 5 complete vehicle families that will be used to replace almost every armoured vehicle they use to division level...
Remember they are 20 years behind at everything and will never get ahead of the west because all they can do is copy.
So of course the claim now is that they copied the wests greatest skill... lying... all these new wonder weapons are not real, they are cardboard representatives developed from western future planned systems... stealing ideas the west hasn't even come up with yet... boy that is impressive...
Even more so because they did it all while largely in an economically bankrupt state and during economic and political attempts by the west to contain and limit their growth and development.
The Soviet Union destroyed itself trying to protect itself from western aggression, but Russia has been so successful it actually looks like it is the west that is going to be in economic trouble going forward.
The conundrum of the Soviet Union and Russia.... despite always being on the brink of collapse, they remain the most dangerous threat on the planet... it all depends on what is being discussed... if you have just spent 1.5 trillion on a new fighter programme... brink of collapse... they are now helpless... money well spent... should do that again. If money has been withheld or is not being thrown at them in fistfuls then they need new programmes and new weapons to cope with how powerful they are becoming... we need to spend this money or impose that sanction because one more will break them, or allow us to negotiate from a position of strength... or dictate terms in other words.
I haven't googled su 57 for awhile. But I just did. It looks like the seething levels of cope and butthurt are going strong. Even as there's not a lot of news about the aircraft, they are still writing downright childish articles every 2-3 months about it.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
