Russian Black Eagle Surpasses America's Abrams

About anti-radar camouflage...

Russian "Nakidka" for tanks greatly reduces probablity of locating the tank:

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/new3/nakidka_.htm

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by Alex_Ivanov
About anti-radar camouflage...

Russian "Nakidka" for tanks greatly reduces probablity of locating the tank:

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/new3/nakidka_.htm

Alex,

That site must be getting hammered tonight, as after one minute, the first page was still a skeleton. I'll try again later. I have no doubt that countermeasures to known weaknesses are being developed by all players. That still plays into my theory though, as tank killing technology is quickly evolving, and takes the form of high speed weapons fired from wiley platforms at great distances, as well as from beyond visual range weapons carried by infantry.

The tank appears to be involved in the same kind of cat and mouse game that the battleship lost to the aircraft carrier battle group and attack submarine a number of years ago. There is a certain amount of inertia in the world military system that cannot be stopped overnight, but as time goes on, drastic changes take place. There are some awesome tanks in the world today, and even better tanks in various stages of development, but I think their budget days are numbered.

Even a stealth tank is a large, slow, or fixed target that literally "makes tracks" that can be followed. It is only a matter of time before it's stealth is defeated, and in a mass tank attack, stealth will not play a role at all. Unlike similar aircraft schemes, a tank will neither have the speed, nor the numbers to evade destruction in such a situation. One Kamov Black Shark with minimal support can desroy 30 tanks in a good mission, and can be difficult to kill in numbers that can change the outcome of a battle.

One tank would be hard pressed to take out even one Kamov by itself. The tank would rely mostly on support from other units for defense, and those units would be vulnerable to destruction from units that back up the Kamov's. Do you see my point? I'm using the helicopter as just one example. It can defend itself in an active manner. Software upgrades can extend it's defense potential. It can kill many tanks in seconds, yet leave the area before the smoke clears. It can be fielded in large numbers, supported by other highly mobile forces, and still perform the job the tank was designed to perform when it arrives at the target area.


They can also be transported, fueled, re-armed, and maintained in far greater numbers than tanks, and in much less time than tanks.

I like tanks. I like battleships too. They just don't have the same battlefield potential today that they had a few years ago.


Voyager

Voyager, I'm just want to know, why are all major countries in the world (not just Russia which is often too inertial in changing doctrines) developping new tanks today? They don't understand the advantages of choppers/planes or what?

[Balamut]

Discovery Wings channel is pretty credible though, even if some details are not known at the time of production, or are just left out of the story.

Left out.. yes. That's their politics if something spoils a good picture.

The F-117 is still an incredible aircraft, even if a few were brought down during it's combat carreer to date.

I don't doubt it.

I can't recall any outright lies being told on a Discovery Wings program, and the commercial technology of RADAR imaging is certainly mature enough to be able to locate and accurately identify vehicles that would remain cloaked even from infrared sensors, so I have little reason to doubt it's value on the battlefield. I will search Discovery to see if I can give you the name of the program though.

OK

Predator doesn't have stealth technology (that I am aware of), but other RPV's do. Even some that we know about.

Enlighten me plz

Air defense or no air defense, I think massed tanks are far too vulnerable to be counted upon as the main strike weapon in a modern battlefield. In the middle east, there was a technology imbalance that allowed coalition forces to effectively use tanks, while destroying enemy armor in large quantities. If a country like Russia or the US were involved in a battle, the opposing forces would be making a grave mistake by sending lots of tanks at either one of them.

So you admit the imbalance, but who said that the same case would with other armies. More serious ones.

Even a stealth tank is a large, slow, or fixed target that literally "makes tracks" that can be followed. It is only a matter of time before it's stealth is defeated, and in a mass tank attack, stealth will not play a role at all. Unlike similar aircraft schemes, a tank will neither have the speed, nor the numbers to evade destruction in such a situation. One Kamov Black Shark with minimal support can desroy 30 tanks in a good mission, and can be difficult to kill in numbers that can change the outcome of a battle.

[quote]One tank would be hard pressed to take out even one Kamov by itself. The tank would rely mostly on support from other units for defense, and those units would be vulnerable to destruction from units that back up the Kamov's. Do you see my point?
[quote]
And one Shilka can easy take off Kamov. Yes, I see your point. What's wrong with a support. I don't know a type of weapon that can win a battle with well prepared opponent on their own. That's a war. One thing supports other. And that other supports third. And third supports first. And whole this machine moves forward towards other war machine.

Just for example:

Soviet/russian armoured division has:
1)one sam regiment - 20 SA-15 Gauntlet or SA-8 Gecko complexes.
2)one battalion of AA support -20 Shilkas or Tunguskas - for each tank regiment of the division.
3)120 portable anti aircraft missile systems - SA-14 Gremlin, SA-16 Gimlet, SA-18 Grouse.

in addition to that, 12,7 mm "Utes" machine guns on every tank with effective range up to 2000m.
+ means of the radio-electronic jamming(?)

It would be a real hell for flying units.
So opponent also must use tanks and artilery agaist this forse with every possible support agains air and earth threats.
This all about counteraction against counteractiona and countermeasure against other countermeasure which has a countermeasure against this countermeasure and so on till infinity or total world destruction .

It can defend itself in an active manner. Software upgrades can extend it's defense potential. It can kill many tanks in seconds, yet leave the area before the smoke clears. It can be fielded in large numbers, supported by other highly mobile forces, and still perform the job the tank was designed to perform when it arrives at the target area.

Particularly about tank - it's main role is infantry support. Big mean tank is always there, near; always supports grunts as* with it's big gun and armour(it's a psychological factor also), unlike chopper or plane, which comes and goes. And it takes time to fly and often you don't have it.

[Edited by Balamut on 4th May 2004 at 18:43]

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by Alex_Ivanov
Voyager, I'm just want to know, why are all major countries in the world (not just Russia which is often too inertial in changing doctrines) developping new tanks today? They don't understand the advantages of choppers/planes or what?

Alex,

All major countries are still developing tanks because tanks still have a role in battle. I'm suggesting that the role of the tank has changed from the days when it was king of the battlefield. Countries like Russia, the US, Britain, Germany, France, and others seem to be puting more budget emphasis on developing technologies other than tanks in recent years, and have been developing new strategy to go along with the hardware changes.

Don't worry, I'm not thinking that tanks will only be seen in a museum any time soon. I just don't think they would play the top role if WWIII started anytime soon. Of course, I am also counting on my firm beleif that Russia and the US will grow as economic and political allies in the future, despite growing pains that pop up along the way.

I know you disagree with my optimism, but I hope you will be as quick to point to our mutual successes in the future, as you are to point out our differences today.

Voyager

Originally posted by Voyager13b

I know you disagree with my optimism, but I hope you will be as quick to point to our mutual successes in the future, as you are to point out our differences today.

If there's any mutual success in the future, i will be first to point to them . But today there's nothing but differencies.

[justin1987]

Hey Alex, you only speak of differences, well, when Saddam was captured, Russia was one of the first countries to laud our success, and send us a congractulatory message.
Would you now say that that was a point of difference between the policies of these two countries?