one of those missile can cost up to $150 000 US Dollars
Costlier than an RPG-7 but when was the last time one of those killed ANYBODY? _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
But then again, the RPG-7 did really suck in regards to accuracy. The US Army manual description on the weapon had like an 8% CHANCE TO HIT (even if aimed properly) any target at 500m.
It really was a weapon where "the closer you were to the enemy the better". QUICK_EDIT
T80s don't cost too much more than that Well... Ok, maybe they do. But $150 000 for one shot? you better damned well home the T80's countermeasures don't stop it... _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
On second thought,yeah,those MATADORs are big and heavy.How 'bout an anti-tank rifle or a grenade launcher which are lighter,you know, so we can harass tanks by blasting them accurately while zooming about(and having the enemy tank crew pissed). _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
Erm, If you hit a tank with that you'll scratch the paintwork and annoy the crew, not much more. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Erm, If you hit a tank with that you'll scratch the paintwork and annoy the crew, not much more.
That would be a simple tactic we call 'distraction'. Get the attention of the tank crew by blasting them to get them really pissed off with you.The next thing you know they'll try to take you out,making themselves exposed to real anti-tank fire.Also disrupts their targeting as well,making themselves asking the question,"Who's shooting us?" They'll need up wasting their time trying to target the attacking fore and end up getting blown to bits by a gunship which they didn't look out for. _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
1 friendly tank. They trained these dogs using Soviet tanks, then released them on the field against the germans where they high tailed it for the nearest T34 (which they'd been trained there was food under...). _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Due to the 2nd or third law of thermodynamics, I think it will always be cheaper to destroy something than to make it.
The question is; what is the minimum force needed to destroy this tank? And then; do I want more than the minimum to be sure I kicked the shit out of the tank? And then; what other features do I want to ensure that I can destroy the tank from as far away as possible and exposing myself for the least amount of time.
Thus, the minimum it takes to destroy a tank would an explosive (hypothetically), and to use that explosive, you have to run up to the tank and place it yourself, most likely on the weakest spot on the tank. However, this isn't going to work very well when the tank shoots back at you, so you make the explosive stronger, so that it can pierce any part of the tanks armor. It might be a mine at this point, or you still have to run up to the tank to place the explosive, but that is still not going to be that effective. So now you make it so you can shoot the explosive at the tank from a distance. You have an RPG, or Bazooka, or something similair. You don't have to run up to the tank, rather you can stay at a distance. However, aiming becomes a problem, and you must still expose yourself long enough to fire. So the design improves until you get a missile launcher that can be fired from a long ways away, can practically aim itself, and does maximum damage while exposing you for the minimum amount of time.
And each step costs more and more money/resources. Is the advantage clear and precise? The vietcong were able to defeat the Americans, and there was a definite technological gap there, but have we gotten to a point where the technological advantage means the enemy can do nothing to hurt us? Not quite, there are still casualties (although I think the ratio is epicly lopsided). But then again, what happenes when two technologicall advanced armies clash? when was the last time this happened? If this did happen, I fear the battle would be over in minutes, and the casualties would be huge. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 3:31 pm Post subject:
Dutchygamer wrote:
How did I get the idea it was designed to be used as an anti-material rifle
Rifles cannot damage tanks. If you use an anti-material rifle on say, an APC like an M113 or a vehicle like a Humvee, it will punch straight through.
Lt Albrecht wrote:
1 friendly tank. They trained these dogs using Soviet tanks, then released them on the field against the germans where they high tailed it for the nearest T34 (which they'd been trained there was food under...).
Exactly.
And the Vietcong didn't defeat us, DaFool. It's been discussed on forums, in books, documentaries, debates, and its as simple as this: Militarily, the United States was not beaten by the Vietcong or the NVA. When the Vietcong attacked us, we generally annihilated them.
Rather, the American people lost the will to continue the war. The Vietcong and the NVA knew that the key to defeating the US military wasn't to defeat them on the battlefield, but at home.
The technological gap you speak of was the reason that casualties were so incredibly lop-sided.
And technology doesn't guarantee the victor. The skill and training of the soldier do.
(inb4 Vietnam debate that drags this topic miles off-course) _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
Hmm. I wonder if you could use an AT rifle to shoot through the sights of an Abrams...I doubt it. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
my point was that being at a technilogical disadvantage does not mean you will always lose, Vietnam being my example. You agree with here to an extent. (The loss I speak off is a lack of victory). There are probably numerous other examples through out history, but since I've work with some 'Nam vets, it's the one that comes to mind.
Although, I wonder if at a certain point, the technology gap would be insumountable,, probably stepping into the realm of sci-fi here, but I think the biggest step is being able to 'see' the enemy. Like right now, I think the army can coordinate their tanks with GPS, so they have a visual map with th location of all the tanks on the field. Before hand the tanks had to travel in a line so they wouldn't shoot each other, but now they can make more advanced moving formations. Now, if by some kind of radar, or a satelite sweep, they could see all the enemy tanks on that display, then imagine that. They would know exactly where to shoot right from the beginning, and they could wipe the enemy out in a matter of minutes (to contradict you Lt, I think the technology makes the killing faster, not bogged down). Even more advanced scanning, and you know where the enemy infantry are. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
You can see it all, but you'd develop a counter, like a weapon which blocks this view or which shoots down the missiles, leaving both sides back how they were, it's like tanks have advanced an advance in AT means tanks must advance to stay viable which means AT must advance to stay viable which...
It's like SAMs and countermeasures, one advances and so the other does, against 60s aircraft today's AA would exterminate them (a la iraq 1991/2003) however aircradt advance and an SA8 which can easily kill a super-sabre or Mig 21 can be avoided by an F16 or panavia tornado. Weapon and counter, weapon and counter. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 4:14 pm Post subject:
DaFool wrote:
(to contradict you Lt, I think the technology makes the killing faster, not bogged down). Even more advanced scanning, and you know where the enemy infantry are.
Defensive technology evolves with offensive technology. War involves a seemingly endless competition between those who make weapons to kill, and armors (this term collectively describing defensive technology) to protect.
Whereas there are incredibly advanced systems for killing, there are incredibly advanced systems for protection. (some of the concepts for the protection of tanks are quite radical)
However, there has been no modern conflict that can be used to adequately predict the flow of a war between two advanced nations. The ways that we conceive war will likely be obsolete in event of a major war that takes place in the near future.
And again, it is important to emphasize that along with technology, what happens on the battlefield is also shaped by numbers and training. A less advanced and smaller force could possibly defeat a large and more advanced force simply on the virtue of excellent training. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
The competetion between offense and defense cannot be denied, but is it not true that the offensive weapons almost always come first and take the lead, with the defensive measurements to follow? Or perhaps it's perspective, and a chicken adn the egg kind of deal.
I'm just trying to imagine (for sci-fi purposes I guess) what such a conflict fwould look like, _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
It would look remarkably high-tech and with large amounts of colatteral damage but with a strangely modern result. AA might be able to blasta plane out of the sky by just pointing at it, but planes will fly low and have countermeasures to make sure it doesn't like modern AA, Infantry will still use some form of automatic weapon but will probably have advanced ballistic armour to save them from being insta-pwned by shrapnel etc as soon as they arrive, they'll be vulnerable to artillery still but a closer hit will be required than the claimed 100m lethality radius etc. It's like anything, in the 50s a near-miss from a 105mm "Abbot" SPG would knock a track of a T55, 20 years later to acheive the same result you need a 155mm gun to take a track off a T72 from a similar near-miss. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
How did I get the idea it was designed to be used as an anti-material rifle
That's because it is an anti-materiel rifle. Just not anti-tank. There's more to materiel than tanks.
The .50 BMG round can effortlessly destroy a truck's engine block, or punch through the bullet shields on some vehicles' gunners (effectively killing him too), even destroy a cockpit's instruments/pilot. (Fire at an aircraft trying to take off)
Not to mention what the incendiary variant of .50 BMG can do to petroleum stocks, electrical equipment and ammunition stores.
Not to mention further the effect .50 BMG has on human flesh. (Take a wild guess...) QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 03 Nov 2007 Location: laptop? ... otherwise the Czech Republic -> south Moravia Posts: long int Posts;
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 9:54 pm Post subject:
BTW, I have heard about bullets into AK which can shot through 1 m of rail steel, these can be used against tank panzer... also every weapon has weak spots (even tank, like those molotovs in WW2 being thrown on engines).
M113A2 ADATS looks like inspiration to Phase Tank from APB although ADATS seems to be AA.
Leopard 2A6 is one of the best tanks in the world, the other one is probably Challenger 2 (maybe the best one).
Unknow status is around mysterious Russian tank T-95, also I can imagine SPRUT-SD (the best fully amphibious tank hunter with 120mm cannon) or modernized T-72/80/90 shooting through panzer of the Leopard 2A6. _________________
Don't blame the others if you haven't checked your own (in)ability in the first case. QUICK_EDIT
the other one is probably Challenger 2 (maybe the best one).
Woo-hoo, woo-hoo!
Quote:
I have heard about bullets into AK which can shot through 1 m of rail steel
There are AK bullets that can penetrate Class-3 Armoured cars (civ with armour plate in) and body armour, the .50 barret can penetrate 1m of concrete and in WWI the germans made standard mauser rifle bullets that could penetrate british tanks at the expense of damage to the rifle. Never heard of an AK that could shoot through 1m of rail steel though o.0, are you sure about that?
Doesn't the SPRUT-SD mount the same 125mm gun as the T72/90 series? If so it'll be of little use Versus western tanks, in 1991 in the gulf an M1A1 (A1 not A2) took 3 125mm sabots to the side and was still fully operable. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 03 Nov 2007 Location: laptop? ... otherwise the Czech Republic -> south Moravia Posts: long int Posts;
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 10:32 pm Post subject:
I heard about such special bullet for Kalashnikov (even similar bullets in Czech Army),
SPRUT-SD has been introduced in 2005 so it can have better system (I don't know much about this), also the result depends on used shell (or missile because modern tanks can use both of them).
Everything's evolving, even shells... some experts say newer shells won't be bigger, but they will use better explosives, also future shells can be homing (some artillery shells already are).
SPRUT-SD would have to hit and run away because it's just light tank with better gun(s)...
On the other hand I remember stories about T-72 being blowed by 1 shot into auto-loader (Iraqi or Georgian) and their scratching of Abrams painting...
Russian SPRUT-SD video (Russian with English titles, maybe propagandistic a bit):
It seems SPRUT-SD uses the same cannon as T-90, probably this vehicle can't shot through Abrams panzer with SABOT, but with proper AT missile it can (so they don't lie at all).
- 7 rounds per minute
- 40 shells including missiles carried for the main 125mm smoothbore gun
- an autoloader loads 25 missiles
- laser guided AT missiles,
- effective range 5 kms (3.1 miles)
- coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun
- crew: commander, driver, gunner
- fire and sailing in Sealevel=3
- air-droppable (it has just 18 tons and weak armour)
(If something around "posting your country... ", my mother is Russian...) _________________
Don't blame the others if you haven't checked your own (in)ability in the first case. Last edited by partyzanPaulZy on Sat May 30, 2009 10:49 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
125mm, SPRUT is the stationary/twoed version of the 2s(forgot) 125mm gun on the T72/80/90. So the SPRUT-SD is a BMP3 with a T72's gun. useful Vs ex-sov tanks and smaller countries? Yes. Vs NATO? Watch it's twisted wreck burn. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 03 Nov 2007 Location: laptop? ... otherwise the Czech Republic -> south Moravia Posts: long int Posts;
Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:06 pm Post subject:
Yes, it is... but there is chance with the best anti-tank missiles (which can be loaded in any modernized T-72/80/90 or getting used by trooper - like Merkavas getting shot by Palestinians).
[/EOF] _________________
Don't blame the others if you haven't checked your own (in)ability in the first case. QUICK_EDIT
the other one is probably Challenger 2 (maybe the best one).
Quote:
Woo-hoo, woo-hoo!
Challenger 2 is farby the worlds most powerful tank in my book, no arguments, hands down _________________ Please, I DON'T read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
We shouldn't really be leaving MATADORs on buggies like that
Why wouldn't we? Hit-n-run + anti-tank weapon
You do realise the vehicle already comes with its own ATGMs right?
That MATADOR is probably a personal weapon used by a vehicle occupant who disembarks after getting to a specific destination. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Correct me if I'm wrong but I am quite certain a weapon like that isn't supposed to be fired from a vehicle. What that LSV should have is reserve ammo. Specifically Spike ATGMs for its launcher.
It's like a US soldier trying to fire a bazooka out of the window of a HMMWV. No, contrary to what C&C Generals may show, it isn't really done in real life. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
You've got a point.Only a RPG can be fired on the move.No other rocket launcher can be fired that way.
Quote:
What that LSV should have is reserve ammo.
It only has two rockets? Crap! That means when it had shot both rockets it does not have any AT ability anymore!Thats shit! _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
Well look at the MATADOR, It's got 1 rocket and after you fire it, you essentially dump the launcher.
The Spider LSV isn't a MLRS. Nor is it a generals-esque Rocket Buggy packing 3 x Hydra-70 pods. The vehicle isn't intended for prolonged warfare, it's not supposed to pack a ton of firepower, the SRAMS variant is probably as high as you can get in firepower.
Anyway...
Now they're making these little chibi-assault weapons. Still, when I'm undergoing reservist duty I'd rather carry this featherweight around as opposed to say... the nearly-4kg SAR-21... (trust me it feels heavier the longer you hold it. Lactac acid's a biatch)
And the SAR-21 gets chibi-fied into a LWC
(although the carbine-SAR has been around for some time)
That top weapon is an H&K MP7, to be honest it's ight and small enough to be a good choice for vehicle crew but if you're in a proper firefight you'll be wishing you had the SAR/AK/M16/G36. Trust me on that. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Well you know what they say, small gun = small firepower. That gun looks like it fires 9x19mm which is laughable compared to rifle ammunition.
Judging by local intel, that gun is probably used by local police forces. The military just doesn't do chibi-assault weapons. they've already got carbines for compact weapons.
btw it's not a HK MP7. It is a very good ripoff though
MP7
ST Kinetics CPW (probably stands for "can't penetrate whatever" a reference to its usefulness in high intensity combat)
Ah well imitation is the best form of flattery... _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
...and I thought our police only used revolvers Been watching too much drama I guess. Custom Police Weapon? lmao. Oyar, I'd take a Raptor over the JSF any day, but I guess it's always a dream. Wonder why they never got us Hornets/Super Hornets. Hmm. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
4/5.8mm from what I remember, designed to penetrate body armour, but it's size means it won't do a guy on the receiving end much damage, you'd need a solid chest hit to the lungs/heart or a skull penetration to kill someone with any sort of speed.
Now the H&K Mp5 and G36C, those are some police armed response weapons... (BTW in case you haven't realised I love the G36,it takes M16 ammo and makes it useful ).
Destiny, nowadays police use semi-auto select-action pitols. Magazine-loaders. IIRC the US police use either the Glock 17 or the Beretta 92FS, french cops have been walking around with pistols since I was a toddler and the italians most definitely pack 9mms. _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 03 Nov 2007 Location: laptop? ... otherwise the Czech Republic -> south Moravia Posts: long int Posts;
Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 12:59 pm Post subject:
U.R.N.A. = Rapid Deployment Formation (Útvar Rychlého Nasazení)
POLICE, DOWN ON THE FLOOR MOTHERF*****S!!!
motto: With wisdom and courage!
typical SWAT-like elite police commando (around 100 members, they are in contact with English SAS, Belgium DIANA, Italian GIS and NOCS, Spanish GEO, French GIGN and RAID, German GSG9)
armament:
- black or dark blue overall
- Northirish bullet proof vest
- Switzerland helmet TIG or German helmet Schubert containing communication set
- Japanese walky-talky
- vests on amunition
- hand-operated pile driver
601. Group of Special Forces
motto: DUM SPIRO SPERO (While I breathe, I hope)
- pistol CZ 75 ( 9 mm)
- automaton vz. 61 „Scorpion“ ( 7,65 mm)
- automaton vz. 58 Pi ( 7,62 mm) (great Kalashnikov rip-off, better than AK-47 - longer range and more accurant, out-dated, sorry Gufu )
- automaton H&K MP5SD6 ( 9 mm)
- assault rifle M4 A3 Bushmaster (model XM 15 – E2S) ( 5,56 mm)
- machine gun M60E4 ( 7,65 mm)
- sniper rifle Dragunov (SVD) ( 7,62 mm)
- sniper rifle Accuracy International Arctic Warfare ( 7,62 mm)
- sniper rifle Barret M82 ( 12,7 mm)
- sniper rifle Falcon OP 96 ( 12,7 mm) (made in Czech ZVI weapons factory, range 2kms, anti-material gun, bull-pup)
- shotgun Benelli M3T ( 12 mm)
- grenade thrower CIS 40GL ( 40 mm)
- night snooper (PNV) MONOKLÁRA
- night snooper (PNV) KLÁRA
- night snooper (PNV) VV 2000
- night snooper M 952
- kevlar balistic helmet
- set NPP-06 for special forces (Panzer Plates Holder 06 = Nosič Panelů Pancéřových 06) = combination of holding system and balistic defence
- assault vehicle Land Rover Defender 110
- truck Tatra 815
Quote:
Lol in the video, 4:38-4:39 is a subliminal message of somebody Razz
and 6:18 - 6:23 , I think is a t-84 tank!
I don't thing that part was subliminal (because it takes 2 seconds and it's too long) and in the end there are t-84, some RPG, AAs, etc. I don't take this video too seriously (although Russian won with them Georgian blitzkrieg). _________________
Don't blame the others if you haven't checked your own (in)ability in the first case. Last edited by partyzanPaulZy on Sun May 31, 2009 1:11 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
I'd take a Raptor over the JSF any day, but I guess it's always a dream. Wonder why they never got us Hornets/Super Hornets. Hmm.
Raptor and Lightning II have different roles. One's an air superiority fighter, the other leans more towards close air support.
Singapore never got Hornets because they didn't get selected. In the selection for the next RSAF fighter, between the Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, Flanker and Strike Eagle, it was narrowed down to Strike Eagle and Rafale, and eventually Strike Eagle.
partyzanPaulZy wrote:
- assault vehicle Land Rover Defender 110
Also used in Singapore (albeit for utility role not assault), but now being phased out by Ford Everest OUV.
All I can say is...
Air conditioning + cushioned rear seats > No air conditioning or cushioned rear seats
...although speaking from a military analytical standpoint, the idea of replacing landrover defender with a friggin SUV is kinda weird... one immediate thing we are no longer able to do is CASEVAC a guy on a stretcher since the Everest doesn't have that kind of open space in its rear... _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Damn! We're not getting F35s for our navy( if I'm not wrong,the F35 is a carrier-borne stealth VTOL)? Yeah,we could dream about that... _________________ The future belongs to The Forgotten! QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
