Russia can now shoot down all but 200 US warplanes

Musroom being still butthurt over being proven wrong...and incompetent. Classy. Apparently he doesn't know about existing START threaties, limitating the number of deployed warheads on ICBMs. And that is supposed to be our local AD expert. Hilarious.

Reading comprehension is still an issue for him. Saying that THAAD isn't capable of shooting down ICBMs transforms into me believing it can . And thinking that nuking legitimate military targets is an all out nuclear war... Just wow!
Speaking about historical parallels, massive use of chemical weapons against armies in WWI hadn't lead to using them against civilian population .

 

It is in a great deal of Soviet documents made available just after the end of the Cold War.

NATO today can change into a facsimile of NATO 1989 a lot faster than the Russians can do the same.

 

Such as? I would like to read them if you care to name a single one. Thanks in advance.

Good luck with that. We are talking about current situation, arn't we? So, currently NATO in general and USA in particular are only downgrading their military budgets and if these are relatively modest cuts in USA case, European NATO members' armies are in shambles. CW stronghold Germany has like 250 tanks and 50 fighters operational now. Ah, yes, mighty Bundeswer they say. Already trembling in fear.

 

Or maybe I am simply aware that Russia pulled out of the START II Treaty over 12 years ago!

Yes, I am more then aware that START II outlawed MIRV warheads. And that when it became effective in 2000 both nations started to work on removing the MIRV warheads and converting them to single warhead missiles.

Then on 14 April 2002 Russia pulled out of the treaty, thereby nullifying it entirely and MIRV warheads were no longer prohibited.

The existing START I Treaty only limits number of warheads in total and launch vehicles. It actually makes no mentions of the number of warheads per launch system, because that was decided to be handled in a later treaty.

Then you have New START, which once again is about number of warheads, not number of warheads per delivery system.

So nice fail there, trying to talk about a missile treaty to limit warheads per missile, even though your own country pulled out of that treaty over a decade ago.

And the laughable fail simply continues. Nice try though bro, nice try. Next time you try to attack me, you had better do so with some facts and not just insults and propaganda.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start2chron

Now, if you can provide some proof that START II is indeed still in effect and that MIRV warheads are indeed outlawed, then we can talk.

Although that then opens up another question, as for why bring up a MIRV weapon in the first place if they are outlawed? Wow, you sure have some seriously twisted logic in play here.

 

And I though I have surpassed the limit on listening for stupid things for this year...

START II was ratified but has never entered into force in the first place, Mr. Expert. So I don't know why you are even bragging about it.

Have I ever said anything about warheads per vehicle limitations? Feel free to quote me then. But you won't. You have failed your reading comprehension. Again.


Actually I was talking about maximum allowed number of warheads compared to maximum payload bein carried by ICBMs. So yeah. Nice fail over there.
You know that there is a difference between "warheads per ICBM" and "warheads on ICBMs", right?

Celebrating imaginary victory before an actual victory. Very American.
Come back when you clean up your face of the mud you've put yourself in.

So now you think I should provide proof for imaginary discussion about START II, which, apparently, exists only in your head?

So many emotions and empty butthurt. Chill. You won't be eaten alive if you admit that you are wrong. Apparently you have some problem with this. Overblown ego, perhaps?

 

LINK.....https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...sigb=1qnm9f7ta&hspart=avg&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw

This is a link to a video of OPERATION BURNT FROST.

It shows an SM-3 being launched from the USS. Lake Erie...a Ticonderoga Class Ageis Cruiser.

The SM-3 targeted JUST.....JUST....the Hydrazine Booster Tank on a failing Satellite traveling at between 14,500 and 16,000 mph AT ORBITAL DISTANCE.

The SM-3 directly strikes ONLY the targeted Hydrazine Booster Tank and you can see the tank explode in the Telescopic Video.

This was back in 2008 and the U.S. has dramatically increased the SM-3 ABM/ASAT's capabilities since then as well as we have increased all ABM/ASAT's capabilities.

The GAME CHANGER is the new FEL..or Free Electron Laser which is being installed upon all Ford Class and Nimitz Class Carriers and supplied power by two A1B Nuclear Reactors.

As well all Ticonderoga Class Aegis Cruisers are being equipped with FEL's.

AboveAlpha

 

You are superimposing the Iraq environment & results onto Russia with a completely different environment & the only way to know for sure the outcome of such a war is to fight it, not something I recommend.

 

Against an opponent who does end up attacking (and who you believed almost certainly would attack regardless) under your system would end up having a good surprise instead of a bad element of surprise.

The T90 is not the T72 though & very much up to date. Can hit targets on the run as well with a high probability of a hit with first shot.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

Iraq did not have DU rounds or in the tank armor, something of a disadvantage do you not think?

One M1A1 Abrams tank was disabled by a modern RPG during the Iraq war. I think the round was sent there to test it.
http://www.defensereview.com/mystery-projectile-kills-m1a1-abrams-tank-crew-survives/

I remembered reading that somewhere but it seems to be wrong & the main advantage of the auto-loader is one less crew member. Can the Abrams actually find, target, load, fire & hit fifteen separate targets per minute by an average crew?

 

And somehow you seem to completely miss that I was talking about at the time of it's introduction.

You then bring up a tank that came out over a decade later, so I fail to see your point there. T72 tanks can also hit tanks on the move with the most modern upgrades to their optics and fire control systems. But this is not applicable to the time frame I was talking about.

Iraq lacked the capability to make it's own rounds at that time, so it really does not matter.

During that time, a great many nations used DU in ordinance. The US, UK, France, USSR, China, Germany, and others. However, one thing that they all tended to have in common, none of them exported such ordinance except under very strict oversight. US only to NATO forces, the USSR only to Warsaw Pact forces, all with strict regulations to prohibit any exportation to other nations.

So this is largely irrelevant. But there was nothing stopping Iraq from making it's own rounds if they had ever wanted to. It is not like DU itself is particularly regulated. Just very-very hard to work with because it is so dense.

Please, "Mystery projectile"? To begin with, you are going to have to do a hell of a lot better then that. Give me some factual information, not some random blog post about a "mystery projectile" with no factual information other then a tank was damaged (and notice, not destroyed but damaged).

In reality, it is almost impossible for a tank in modern warfare to even find 15 targets in a minute, let alone engage them.

When you are talking about things like this, you are really discussing the maximum capability of the weapon system, against the actual number of targets it might have to factually engage.

To give an idea, the largest tank battle in the last 25 years was the engagement at 73 Easting in 1991. In this, a US Armored Regiment ran into an Iraqi Mechanized Brigade. To give it in even numbers, that is 27 US tanks against roughly 120 Iraqi tanks. And in a 1 day battle those 27 tanks took out 85 Iraqi tanks, 40 IFVs, and 30 trucks of various types.

So the answer to your question is no, simply because it is almost impossible for an Abrams crew to find 15 targets to engage in a minute. That does not mean that they crew does not train and certify with that as a minimum standard however.

As a member of a PATRIOT crew, I was trained to emplace or deplace a launcher in under an hour "by the book". I could also do a complete missile reload in 45 minutes "by the book". I also know that I could do each of them in under half that time if I was willing to take some shortcuts. But in reality it is unlikely that this would ever be needed for various reasons (mostly because we are essentially talking about the need to quickly replace a total of 36 missiles on 6 launchers, something that is almost unheard of since in over 20 years we have never had to replace in combat conditions more then 2-4 missiles from a firing battery ever).

The M16 series rifle can fire almost 1,000 rounds per minute. Can anybody realistically ever see the need to fire that fast?

 

Since I have many Russian Friends living in and around primarily Moscow....NO....I would never want such a war to happen.

But if we look at this in a Fantasy Scenario it is true that Russian Military Forces are more trained and better trained than the Iraqi's and obviously Russian's operating front line Russian Military Equipment would fare a great deal better than the Iraqi's.....but only to an extent.

As brave and willing to fight to their last such Russian Fighting Men might be....the existing level of disparity between the Russian Military and the U.S. Military is just simply too great a divide.

If it's any consolation...NO ONE....is capable of defeating a U.S. Conventional Attack using only conventional weapons.

AboveAlpha

 

The Abram's uses a Manual Loader for safety reasons as another member here detailed as well a T-72....which is the Russian Tank that the Russian Military has in numbers as Russia reports 2000 varients of T-72's being Battle Ready but the actual number is between 1450 and 1600.

Newer Russian tanks such as the T-80 and T-90 only exist in HANDFULS and thus cannot be considered anything of a threat.

By comparison it is estimated that the U.S. has about 6000 Modern Abrams Tank Varients Battle Ready and as the actual number of Battle Ready U.S. Abram's Tanks is Classified....for those of us who know what the U.S. Army and Marines need to maintain such Tanks Battle Ready and many are prepositioned in the Middle East and as an Abram's Tank is powered essentially by a JET ENGINE....there are very specific types and forms of fuel, material and parts that must be replaced in order to keep an Abram's Tank Battle Ready.

The most lethal aspect of an Abram's Tank besides it's blazing speed, almost impenatrable armor and existing turet and cannon STABILIZERS which allow an Abram's Tank traveling at 46 mph...governed....is the M1A1 Abram's Tank capability of making kills at ranges with it's M256 120 mm (4.7 in) smoothbore cannon in excess of 2,500 meters (8,200 ft) this range was crucial in combat against previous generation tanks of Soviet design having a range of up to 2,000 meters (6,600 ft).

The fire-control system uses these data to compute a firing solution for the gunner. The ballistic solution generated ensures a hit percentage greater than 95 percent at nominal ranges.

The Abrams is equipped with a ballistic fire-control computer that uses user and system-supplied data from a variety of sources, to compute, display, and incorporate the three components of a ballistic solution—lead angle, ammunition type, and range to the target—to accurately fire the tank. These three components are determined using a YAG rod laser rangefinder, crosswind sensor, a pendulum static cant sensor, data concerning performance and flight characteristics of each specific type of round, tank-specific boresight alignment data, ammunition temperature, air temperature, barometric pressure, a muzzle reference system (MRS) that determines and compensates for barrel drop at the muzzle due to gravitational pull and barrel heating due to firing or sunlight, and target speed determined by tracking rate tachometers in the Gunner's or Commander's Controls Handles. All of these factors are computed into a ballistic solution and updated 30 times per second. The updated solution is displayed in the Gunner's or Tank Commander's field of view in the form of a reticle in both day and Thermal modes. The ballistic computer manipulates the turret and a complex arrangement of mirrors so that all one has to do is keep the reticle on the target and fire to achieve a hit. Proper lead and gun tube elevation are applied to the turret by the computer, greatly simplifying the job of the gunner.

Simply put.....if a person is in a Group of 8 T-72's and sees a M1A2 Abram's Tank 8,200 Feet or 2,500 Meters away.....that person should GET THE HELL OUT OF THAT T-72!!!!

The SINGLE U.S. Abram's Tank can accurately and EASILY DESTROY all 8 Russian T-72's at a distance far beyond what a Russian T-72 Tank Round can even TRAVEL!!!

A Tactic that was used against Iraqi T-72's with great success is when small in number M1A2 Abram's Tanks attacked large in Number T-72 Mechanized Divisions....American Tank Commanders after destroying as many T-72's at a distance 500 Meters beyond what Iraqi T-72 Tanks were capable of firing a tank round from the main guns.......American Abram's Tank Commanders would point their Tanks right at large in number groups of T-72's and close at TOP SPEED!!!

Now an Abram's Tank has a GOVERNOR which holds the U.S. Tank down to a top speed of about 46 mph but if such a Governor was removed a U.S. Abram's is capable of velocities of up to 60 to 71 mph....but traveling at such a velocity eventually causes TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS as we are talking about an American Tank POWERED BY A JET ENGINE....that weighs 62 TONS!!!

Thus a Governor protects the Abram's Transmission and thus holds the Tank at a top speed of 46 mph.

But what American Tank Commanders KNOW and use as a Tactic is after destroying all enemy tanks that the Abram's can target and destroy 500 Meters before any enemy Tank can even get within shooting range of an Abram's.....is to.....POINT THE ABRAM'S AT THE CENTER OF A LARGER IN NUMBER GROUP OF ENEMY OR IN THIS EXAMPLE RUSSIAN T-72 TANKS AND TRAVEL AT THEM AT TOP SPEED WHILE SHOOTING AT THE ENEMY OR T-72 TANKS AT A CLOSING RATE THAT IS FASTER THAT THE ABILITY FOR A T-72 CREW TO ACCURATELY TARGET AND SHOOT AT A FAST CLOSING ABRAM'S TANK!!

What happens is that an American Abram's Tank like the M1A1 or M1A2 or the new M1A3....can travel at top speed...46 mph with Governor....and the Abram's Computer Controlled and Stabalized Main 120 mm Canon and Turret will..................

......WILL ALWAYS REMAIN POINTED AND TARGETTED AT THE TANK AND FOLLOWING TANK AND SO ON AND SO ON AFTER THE SELECTED PREVIOUS TARGETTED ENEMY TANK IS DESTROYED!!

I have seen this happen in REAL LIFE.....as an Abram's Tank Driver will fly towards an entire group of T-72's or other enemy tanks and no matter how rough or bad the terrain the Abram's is traveling over at top speed the Abram's 120 mm Canon ALWAYS remains locked in and pointed and aimed at it's next target.

The Abram's will be literally FLYING over giant pits and holes and doing 46 mph over hills and the WHOLE TIME...that Abram's 120 mm Main Canon keeps locked in on target and firing destroying Enemy Tank after Enemy Tank and the thing is a T-72 Crew EVEN IF IT IS A PART OF MANY T-72'S.....has a BIG PROBLEM.

Even when T-72's exist in groups...small numbers of U.S. Abram's Tanks will charge the T-72 Tank groups and the Abram's as it keeps firing while traveling at high velocity towards the group of T-72's will continue to close the distance and continue to destroy one after another of the T-72's.....well the T-72's CANNOT ACCURATELY TARGET AND TRACK AND AIM THE T-72'S MAIN CANNON at the Abram's Tank!!


The REASON why this is so is the T-72's Design as unlike the American Abram's which can recieve anything from Integrated Services Battle Plan Data which uses everything from Enemy Tank Tracking and Targeting Data provided to an Abram's by everything from a Satellite...a Predator or Global Hawk or other Drone....another Tank or Bradley or Self Propelled Howitzer or whatever.....the Abram's Tank Crew simply has to manually reload the Abram's 120 mm Main Canon and fire as the Abram's Targetting Computer System AUTOMATICALLY uses the incoming Data to provide a FIRING PLAN AND RESOLUTION that purposely CHOSES which T-72's will be targetted and destroyed AND BY WHICH AMERICAN ABRAM'S TANKS AND IN WHAT ORDER!!!

Thus the Abram's Fire Control System not only target's Enemy Tanks and other Vehicles and Targets but as well....it does it when a Battle Field has other American Weapon Systems working in tandum to defeat an enemy.

Thus the Integrated Services Targetting and Fire Control System might have not only U.S. Abram's Tanks, Bradley's, Self Propelled Howitzers but as well it also works and directs attacks against Enemy Targets with USAF A-10's, F-16's, F-15E's, F-22's, F-35's, B-52's, B-1B's, B-2's, Global Hawks, Predators, Other Drones...as well as USN. F-18 Superhornets, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, Destroyer Ship to Surface Missiles as well as Marine F-35's...Harrier II's...and U.S. Army Apache Longbows, Cobra's......etc.....well you get the point.

But when the Abram's charges a target such as multile T-72's....the T-72's cannot lower and adjust their Main Connon's at a rate fast enough and accurate enough to target and actually HIT an Abram's.

AboveAlpha

 

an army of drones vs any plane which would win, which would have more casualties?

fact is, russia could never go to war with us or us them... why, cause we both have nukes and we would both be bad losers

.

 

The reason besides the huge cost that the F-22 Raptor will not be built in huge numbers is that the U.S. Air Force will be building and is building Robotic Self Autonomous Fighter/Attack Aircraft.

These Robotic Aircraft have many times the speed, manuverability, range, ability to stay aloft that an Aircraft that has a great portion of it's weight and systems dedicated to the Life Support of a Human Pilot.

Fact is that currently existing experimental U.S. Robotic Fighter/Attack Aircraft not only could easily destroy multiple F-22's but as well such Robotic Aircraft are Stealthy upon a far greater level...can carry a great deal more weapons and bombs....can stay aloft over targets in a SEEKING TARGETS OF OPPERTUNITY METHODOLOGY for DAYS at a time as such aircraft being many times lighter and thus able to carry enough fuel to keep them in the air for days.....and as well they are cheaper in price thus many more can be built.

AboveAlpha

 

The reason the raptor program was canned is that with the end of the cold war there was just not a potential potential enemy the F-15, etc. could not handle then or for a very long time into the future.

Freddy.

 

And notice it was immobilized. Some M1A1 tanks in Iraq had to be abandoned & destroyed by their crews after being immobilized to prevent sensitive parts being stolen.

A more detailed report with some photos of the damage.
http://rense.com/general44/what.htm

 

Sure...that had a great deal to do with it as well.

But these Robotic Aircraft exist now and are really something.

Some can stay aloft and on station for up to 7 days.

AboveAlpha

 

Can in theory yes but I suspect not so much in real life, have heard about the decoys.

http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/Russias-Nuclear-Revival-And-Its-Challenges.html

 

The video below shows much improved crew safty & shell protection on the newer T90s.
[video=youtube;pfGP-dGjjnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfGP-dGjjnY[/video]

 

Movies frequently (*)(*)(*)(*) me off, and one of the big points is the few movies I have seen which show huge explosions when sabot rounds hit.

Sabot rounds actually make no "boom", there is no warhead in them. It is a solid slug of metal, there will be some "explosive" style effect from the pure friction of the round hitting the target, but nothing like is seen in movies. In the form of say a 40mm paint round hitting the tank, not it getting hit by a 155mm artillery shell like the movies always show.

[video=youtube;WqbyFHpAYCs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqbyFHpAYCs[/video]

When something like a sabot hits a tank, the "big kaboom" is generally the powder and everything else ruptured inside the tank blowing up.

 

I'm not an ordnance expert for sure but the M1 also uses a HEAT round and the majority of the T-72 and T-55 Iraqi tanks destroyed in the Gulf war were charred...meaning they burned. The turrets were still intact, but it was more than a hole in the side of it. These were burnt out shells you would see on the side of the road...something hit them and then exploded.

I know the Sabot is a kinetic round, but whatever they used back in '91 created a fireball. It was alot more than just a armour piercing projectile that caused the kind of damage left over.

 

Not trying to pass off as some sort of tank expert...however I have had eyeballs on damaged tanks; destroyed by M1, Challenger and AMX tanks...the M60 Patton was used in Desert Storm also. I don't know what is shot out of the pointy end of the gun to tell you the truth...
but the consequences were more often extensive beyond a round hole.

Example: Soviet exported T-72 used by Iraq.


I can understand the basic shape of the tank is intact. From a distance even from the air it might appear as a live tank using just the silhouette. At closer range, it's more obvious as a burnt out shell. I understand, the tank is not reduced to mere shrapnel, with a turret blown completely off,, but they did appear to have gone "boom" at some point in the process of destroying them given their state of condition in the aftermath.

 

Yes, but the latest model is still an improvement.