AssaultPlazma

35 minutes ago, Karamazov said:

What are you doing in the tank? Which position?

Was a gunner at the time. Was showing a soldier how to bang out the air filters. Guess you could say I got a little to hands on. 

That's me 

Would you say the T-72B is superior to the T-80U? 

Wait hold the phone........ I thought Russia was like "**** T-80s and **** Gas Turbines" after the whole Chechnya thing? So now they about that life again? Also do they still operate any T-80UDs since according them turbine use too much fuel?  

lol Elbow/Knee Pads 

Russia has female Tank crews? Or are they just there strictly for this event? 

Guess im out of the loop here. Why did the USMC buy the AAV SU again? Did't they literally just approve a replacement for it? 

Just as you said Utility tracked vehicles. 

I still feel they should keep the M113 around (obviously after some modernization of course) 

On 8/27/2018 at 5:28 PM, Collimatrix said:

 

Soviet tank development in the second half of the Cold War was... interesting.  NATO intelligence assumed that the T-64->T-72->T-80 represented a continuous development of better and better tanks.  In reality, they were three parallel developments.  This obviously didn't make any sense from a logistical standpoint.  It was driven by political considerations and different factions of engineers trying to grab as much glory as possible for their design bureau.  The article "Why Three Tanks" by Stephen "Cookie" Sewell in this edition of Armor magazine explains it in more detail.

 

The "Kharkovites" were the faction out of Kharkov, Ukraine, responsible for the T-64 tank.  This amazing thread by LoooSeR helps explain the differences between the three tanks.

Thanks for explaining that too me. Even today many of us still believe those 3 tanks were continuous development. I'd didn't realize otherwise until probably about a year ago reading damians post on AW forums. I guess the MOD didn't have much in the way of an accountability office back then. 

What are " Kharkovite's"? 

DId they change their logo thing again? 

3 hours ago, Conner Webb said:

It’s for the new DirectTV upgrade package.

M.I.L.E.S, specifically the thing that flashes when you die. Fuck M.I.L.E.S. no seriously FUCK M.I.L.E.S.

3 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

This RCWS is much better than previous.

Yeah It's ten time better than the old CROWS we use to have. Too bad they still always malfunction/break lol. 

5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Just to clarify @LoooSeR's point; the brick-looking things on Soviet/Russian tanks are the ERA containers.  They're little mild steel boxes with some mounting hardware. 

 

 

The actual explosive elements can be removed and stored elsewhere.  Usually, the explosive sandwiches are stored somewhere else so they don't catch on fire or accidentally detonate or (and this is really the most likely problem) get stolen by bored conscripts who want to make a quick buck.

There was a nasty rumor that a lot of government tanks in the Ukranian Civil War were going into combat with just the containers installed, but no actual ERA inside those containers.  The explosive inserts had long since been misplaced, and the boxes were just for show at that point.

 

Hey are you old "Collimatrix" from the Combat Arms forums many Eons ago? 

@Renegade334

Yeah I've seen that video (Thumbs up for a guy I went to basic with) Never personal had to install ERA on a tank though. 

24 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

All ERA containers mounting will be a very long procedure, much longer then just inserting explosives tiles in already mounted ERA containers/modules.

Thank you. 

16 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Depends on how you define "serious". Other than the hull being elevated (which is a very simple modification), all that is said on the matter is that the hull is a hybrid of a Merkava 3 and 4, using as many solutions as possible from the Merkava 4's hull, but with the engine bay and running gear the same as on the Merkava 3 (due to the 1,200hp engine instead of 1,500hp of the Mark 4). Oddly, even the tracks belong to the Mark 3.

 

There were some plans to use the Mark 4's 1,500hp engine, but due to cost it was abandoned. That engine costs 3 times as much as the Mark 3's 1,200hp.

Is there any serious difference between the Namer and Merkava Chassis? 

I've always wondered why the Soviet/Russian keep ERA mounted on their tanks despite not being actively deployed to combat zones? 

1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It didn't, hopefully it doesn't. And for some reason someone was stupid enough to think it was even a good idea in the first place.

Why some have actually purchased it is beyond me.

Looks cool, not gonna lie before I joined the US Army and became a Tanker myself I thought it was a interesting concept. Now that I know what I know I'd be a pretty terrible vehicle realistically. 

Just now, Ramlaen said:

 

This T-15 is what the BMPT should have been.

Ok thanks, but I thought Russia never actually purchased any BMPT's in the first place? 

5 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

BMPT is even more stupid because of this T-15.

I don't understand this statement...... 

3 hours ago, Renegade334 said:

 

Welcome to SH, AP. Nice seeing you here.

Thank you my friend. 

@LoooSeR

Why is the Russian Army is such a bad state these days? Werent they taking steps try to make the army more professional and begin developing a strong NCO corps like western nations?