Russian tanks make great paper weights. Also, great sources of depleted uranium.
More like water boilers.Man With No Name wrote:
Russian tanks make great paper weights. Also, great sources of depleted uranium.
quantity has a quality of its own right
Worked well in Stalingrad lulz.Man With No Name wrote:
quantity has a quality of its own right
Can't the Abrams also use diesel and a few other types of fuel?rdx-fx wrote:
- Our gas turbine, less reliable than your diesels? doubt it. horribly less fuel efficient, yes. that is the one glaring tactical weakness of the M1 Abrams.
Diesel, JP-4, JP-8, piss from a sufficiently hung over GI, whiskey, gasoline.. pretty much anything that burns (supposedly).Pubic wrote:
Can't the Abrams also use diesel and a few other types of fuel?rdx-fx wrote:
- Our gas turbine, less reliable than your diesels? doubt it. horribly less fuel efficient, yes. that is the one glaring tactical weakness of the M1 Abrams.
Old piston engine deuce-and-a-half cargo truck does the same.
Anything too different than fuel-oil, kerosene, jet fuel .. and the burn rates are problematic, but will work in an emergency.
Orange paint, "NO RAD" marked on the remains of random T-72 tanks.Man With No Name wrote:
Russian tanks make great paper weights. Also, great sources of depleted uranium.
Happen to see any of those laying about yet?
True, true. But there comes a point where "Keep throwing tanks at them! They have to run out of 120mm DU Sabot ammo soon!" becomes tactically unsound.Man With No Name wrote:
quantity has a quality of its own right
as i said, iraq "war", while it was a hell of an exercise no doubt, was hardly a war, more like can shooting. the fact of the matter is usa troops just slaughtered those who had no means to fight back. and that hardly has anything to do with our current discussion - what i'm debating here is autoloader vs manual, why you went about bragging how kewl you were i've no idea whatsoever.rdx-fx wrote:
Here's the short version;
We lost 22 M1 Abrams during Gulf War I.
The Iraqis, using Soviet equipment, lost 3847 of their 5500 tanks.
175:1 loss rate.
lol, by your logic i could say that all modern tanks are derivatives of, say, Renault FT-17 (wikipedia, yay!) because they all have trucks, and turrets, cannons, and guys sitting inside 'em. if you'd bother to really research the matter you'd easily find out that of t-72 there's only one part that's left relatively unchanged in t-90 - chassis. everything else was completely re-worked.rdx-fx wrote:
T-72 and the derivative T-90
t-90 IS faster and more maneuverable, especially so on a rough terrain, and it's diesel IS much more reliable than abrams' gas turbine. and all that's because it's lighter, which is possible partly because there's one dude less inside it.
what for? for you to go "me don't speak russki" or "russian media sux" at me (to be completely honest, it kind of does, but so does any other)? as i said, i base my conclusions on the bigger picture and i don't try to refute any of your points re where usa tanks are really supperior to their russian counterparts - that's not my point to begin with because none of those superriorities come with 4th crew member.rdx-fx wrote:
*yadda yadda*
we roxxorz, you zuxxorz...
Do your own fact checking and spit back your sources to me.
lol, okay, you got me there - i admint i'd prolly chose an abrams over t-90 if i'd wanted to throw a party inside a tank. pffft, that was some argument, dude.rdx-fx wrote:
You also forgot about the noisy, cramped, uncomfortable, exhaust-saturated crew compartments in your tanks, and the extremely limited field of view for your crew stations.
Your tanks are meant to be parked at night, while the crews are out of them. Our tanks can be lived in for days at a time, if necessary.
now, there's pot calling kettle black. if you'd be bothered to read some of my posts on these forums, you'd have probably guessed that if there's anything i feel about being russian it's not "pride" in the least. if anybody here is blinded by "national pride" it's you.rdx-fx wrote:
Yep, we've been over that, but I guess your national pride is getting in the way of objective analysis.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
1. What? The cost just to maintain something like a MiG-29 or Su-27 (or derivative) is several times more than to maintain its US/Western equivalent (F-16 or F-15). "better at at lateral thinking"...puhleeze. You clearly have no clue how their military (much less their AF) works.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Russians can do things a lot cheaper and quicker than you think, if they choose to, plus they're better at lateral thinking.And considering they'd have to spend far more than that just to develop the damn things (as well as the precursor technologies), it won't even come close.
Not that their airforce is really a big issue with MAD.
I reckon 20 Sukhois would give an F22 a run for its money.
2. 20 v 1? Of course. But they can't get those kind of numbers into the air in any one place at one time...not without leaving significant areas undefended.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You are missing a key distinction here:Shahter wrote:
/facepalm and i'm told russian military is outdated. i dunno what you are basing the above conclusions on, but most of it is simply not true. and that "added flexibility in sleep/wake/watch cycles"-argument is especially fun. the most fucking "combat proven" army my butt.rdx-fx wrote:
We tried the Russian style auto-loaders.Shahter wrote:
US army, btw, still have a dude sitting inside their every tank to manually re-load the cannon
Not nearly as fast or flexible as a crewman loader.
Autoloader is much slower, requires the barrel to come off-target to a set position, and doesn't have the intelligence to do a final check of ammo/breech/barrel status.
Crewman loader is;
- much faster for any reasonable length of engagement, especially faster when changing ammo types.
- Able to load ammo while the barrel/turret is still tracking the target's general direction (no need to go to neutral loading position).
- and able to do a last-second common sense check for damaged ammo, barrel/breech condition (if needed).
Oh, and that extra crewman adds more flexibility in sleep/wake/watch cycles, during the other 99.9% of the time the tank is not in combat.. and is an extra pair of hands for when a tank throws a tread.
The auto-loader may be technically more efficient.
The man-in-the-loop loader has been PROVEN to be more effective in war.
Effectiveness > Efficiency
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
war? what war are you talking about? a war where one side completely outranges the other? where ona side can shoot on the move and the other can't? one side has uav's and what not spotting for their tanks and the other hasn't? and fighting a "war" with these overwhelming odds on your side also somekinda proves that humans are more effective than auto-loaders, huh?FEOS wrote:
You are missing a key distinction here:
The auto-loader may be technically more efficient.
The man-in-the-loop loader has been PROVEN to be more effective in war.
Effectiveness > Efficiency
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
You (again) miss the point.Shahter wrote:
war? what war are you talking about? a war where one side completely outranges the other? where ona side can shoot on the move and the other can't? one side has uav's and what not spotting for their tanks and the other hasn't? and fighting a "war" with these overwhelming odds on your side also somekinda proves that humans are more effective than auto-loaders, huh?FEOS wrote:
You are missing a key distinction here:
The auto-loader may be technically more efficient.
The man-in-the-loop loader has been PROVEN to be more effective in war.
Effectiveness > Efficiency
Saddam didn't have to park his tanks behind berms. He chose to do that. And they got fucked up by air power, primarily.
When he had his tanks out maneuvering, he got his ass handed to him...while following Soviet tactics. That's not necessarily a knock against Soviet tactics, per se. Arab countries don't do very well with the whole "following training" thing, regardless.
The odds are irrelevant. It is the performance of individual crews that is important. And the manual loader provides a more effective rate of fire than the autoloader, for all the reasons previously mentioned by others.
Perhaps before you start trying to characterize what happened in Gulf War I (or II), you should read a bit more history about what actually occurred.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
you (again) go with "we whopped their ass so our military must be better in every aspect" instead of doing any analyzis. what do you compare that rate of fire to? to the rate of fire of... those, who had almost no chance to actually fire? at the rate of fire of those, who had to stop every time to take aim? you call that a comparison? if some of those abrams tanks had guys reloading and some had auto-loaders - then you could compare the two. when usa tanks are seen in a battle where rate of fire was of a consequence for both sides and was actually decided to any noticeable degree by how re-loading was done - than i'll take your "proven in war" for an argument (that is, if said rate of fire is actually better and compensates for the shortcomings associated with it).FEOS wrote:
You (again) miss the point.
Saddam didn't have to park his tanks behind berms. He chose to do that. And they got fucked up by air power, primarily.
When he had his tanks out maneuvering, he got his ass handed to him...while following Soviet tactics. That's not necessarily a knock against Soviet tactics, per se. Arab countries don't do very well with the whole "following training" thing, regardless.
The odds are irrelevant. It is the performance of individual crews that is important. And the manual loader provides a more effective rate of fire than the autoloader, for all the reasons previously mentioned by others.
Perhaps before you start trying to characterize what happened in Gulf War I (or II), you should read a bit more history about what actually occurred.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
<armchairgeneral>
Using machines to augment or replace human labour isn't always the most effective solution.
Regarding autoloaders on tanks:
Abrams: 4 crew.
T90: 3 crew.
T90 wins on pure crew requirement. Handy if manpower is the sole issue.
Abrams: 100 crew total = 25 tanks crewed.
T90: 100 crew total = 33 tanks crewed, plus one guy left over.
T90 wins on the number of tanks/100 crew. Handy if you're shitting tanks.
Abrams: 15 shots/minute. One shot every 4 seconds.
T90: 8 shots/minute (most net sources state 6-8). One shot every 7.5 seconds.
Abrams wins on rate of fire. Handy if you want to get more rounds downrange.
Abrams: 3.75 shots per crew member per minute. (15 shots/4 crew)
T90: 2.6667 shots per crew member per minute. (8 shots/3 crew)
Abrams wins on rate of fire per crew member. This is where we can measure efficiency. T90 would need to sustain 11.25 shots/minute in order to be as efficient as an Abrams using this metric.
T90/autoloader is better if your primary concern is a manpower shortage and a surplus of tanks. Abrams/manual loader is better if you want to lob more stuff at the enemy. As far as deciding whether an autoloader system is better or not, the answer is: it depends...really you'd have to compare a T90 with an autoloader to one without, an Abrams with one and one without...and even then theres the face that one was designed to take an autoloader and one wasn't.
100 Abrams vs. 100 T90s, assuming 50% accuracy per shot, 1 shot = dead, 1500m/sec muzzle velocity, 3km range, even distribution of shots amongst available targets, using the stated rates of fire :
0 seconds: Both groups fire. (100 shots each)
2 seconds: Rounds from 0sec hit. Result: 50 tanks left each. M1 - 50, T90 - 50
4 seconds: Abrams fire. (50 shots)
6 seconds: Rounds from 4sec hit. Result: 25 T90s destroyed before they have a chance to complete reloading. M1 - 50, T90 - 25.
7.5 seconds: T90s fire. (25 shots - at 6sec, 25 T90s destroyed before they can finish reloading)
8 seconds: Abrams fire (50 shots)
9.5 seconds: Rounds from 7.5sec hit. Result: 13 Abrams destroyed (rounding up). M1 - 37, T-90 - 25.
10 seconds: Rounds from 8sec hit. Result: 25 T90s destroyed (50 shots fired, 50% accuracy). Game over, Abrams wins 37 - 0
Of course, all of this is assuming armament, armour etc are equal - the Abrams is superior in this regard, so if you sent 100 Abrams up against 100 T90s in some massive tank battle, the Abrams would at a guess be winning 95-5 after 2 seconds, but this wouldn't solely be due to the efficiency of its loading system.
</armchairgeneral>
Yes I am very, very bored tonight.
edit: Dammit, now I want to see DICE convert El Alamein to BF2..
Using machines to augment or replace human labour isn't always the most effective solution.
Regarding autoloaders on tanks:
Abrams: 4 crew.
T90: 3 crew.
T90 wins on pure crew requirement. Handy if manpower is the sole issue.
Abrams: 100 crew total = 25 tanks crewed.
T90: 100 crew total = 33 tanks crewed, plus one guy left over.
T90 wins on the number of tanks/100 crew. Handy if you're shitting tanks.
Abrams: 15 shots/minute. One shot every 4 seconds.
T90: 8 shots/minute (most net sources state 6-8). One shot every 7.5 seconds.
Abrams wins on rate of fire. Handy if you want to get more rounds downrange.
Abrams: 3.75 shots per crew member per minute. (15 shots/4 crew)
T90: 2.6667 shots per crew member per minute. (8 shots/3 crew)
Abrams wins on rate of fire per crew member. This is where we can measure efficiency. T90 would need to sustain 11.25 shots/minute in order to be as efficient as an Abrams using this metric.
T90/autoloader is better if your primary concern is a manpower shortage and a surplus of tanks. Abrams/manual loader is better if you want to lob more stuff at the enemy. As far as deciding whether an autoloader system is better or not, the answer is: it depends...really you'd have to compare a T90 with an autoloader to one without, an Abrams with one and one without...and even then theres the face that one was designed to take an autoloader and one wasn't.
100 Abrams vs. 100 T90s, assuming 50% accuracy per shot, 1 shot = dead, 1500m/sec muzzle velocity, 3km range, even distribution of shots amongst available targets, using the stated rates of fire :
0 seconds: Both groups fire. (100 shots each)
2 seconds: Rounds from 0sec hit. Result: 50 tanks left each. M1 - 50, T90 - 50
4 seconds: Abrams fire. (50 shots)
6 seconds: Rounds from 4sec hit. Result: 25 T90s destroyed before they have a chance to complete reloading. M1 - 50, T90 - 25.
7.5 seconds: T90s fire. (25 shots - at 6sec, 25 T90s destroyed before they can finish reloading)
8 seconds: Abrams fire (50 shots)
9.5 seconds: Rounds from 7.5sec hit. Result: 13 Abrams destroyed (rounding up). M1 - 37, T-90 - 25.
10 seconds: Rounds from 8sec hit. Result: 25 T90s destroyed (50 shots fired, 50% accuracy). Game over, Abrams wins 37 - 0
Of course, all of this is assuming armament, armour etc are equal - the Abrams is superior in this regard, so if you sent 100 Abrams up against 100 T90s in some massive tank battle, the Abrams would at a guess be winning 95-5 after 2 seconds, but this wouldn't solely be due to the efficiency of its loading system.
</armchairgeneral>
Yes I am very, very bored tonight.
edit: Dammit, now I want to see DICE convert El Alamein to BF2..
Last edited by Pubic (2009-03-23 06:06:35)
we showed how sufficient russian technology was in 1991. Russia even admits how outdated their technology is after georgia.Shahter wrote:
war? what war are you talking about? a war where one side completely outranges the other? where ona side can shoot on the move and the other can't? one side has uav's and what not spotting for their tanks and the other hasn't? and fighting a "war" with these overwhelming odds on your side also somekinda proves that humans are more effective than auto-loaders, huh?FEOS wrote:
You are missing a key distinction here:
The auto-loader may be technically more efficient.
The man-in-the-loop loader has been PROVEN to be more effective in war.
Effectiveness > Efficiency
your country sucks and we whooped your ass in the cold war.
Last edited by Man With No Name (2009-03-23 07:43:46)
and this is relevant to this discussion how?Man With No Name wrote:
we showed how sufficient russian technology was in 1991. Russia even admits how outdated their technology is after georgia.
unlike yours, sonny, my ass was already in this world fat and hairy when so called cold war was happening. "you" kicked it? don't make me laugh - better go do your homework or something.Man With No Name wrote:
your country sucks and we whooped your ass in the cold war.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
yes...because range closes quickly.Shahter wrote:
war? what war are you talking about? a war where one side completely outranges the other? where ona side can shoot on the move and the other can't? one side has uav's and what not spotting for their tanks and the other hasn't? and fighting a "war" with these overwhelming odds on your side also somekinda proves that humans are more effective than auto-loaders, huh?FEOS wrote:
You are missing a key distinction here:
The auto-loader may be technically more efficient.
The man-in-the-loop loader has been PROVEN to be more effective in war.
Effectiveness > Efficiency
Youre talking to someone who has more experience seeing russian equipment in action than you do, cupcake.Shahter wrote:
and this is relevant to this discussion how?Man With No Name wrote:
we showed how sufficient russian technology was in 1991. Russia even admits how outdated their technology is after georgia.unlike yours, sonny, my ass was already in this world fat and hairy when so called cold war was happening. "you" kicked it? don't make me laugh - better go do your homework or something.Man With No Name wrote:
your country sucks and we whooped your ass in the cold war.
So you were responsible for losing, bl.Shahter wrote:
and this is relevant to this discussion how?Man With No Name wrote:
we showed how sufficient russian technology was in 1991. Russia even admits how outdated their technology is after georgia.unlike yours, sonny, my ass was already in this world fat and hairy when so called cold war was happening. "you" kicked it? don't make me laugh - better go do your homework or something.Man With No Name wrote:
your country sucks and we whooped your ass in the cold war.
Equipment?Man With No Name wrote:
Youre talking to someone who has more experience seeing russian equipment in action than you do, cupcake.
Coldwar?
"A cold war (or bipolar superpower confrontation) is a state of battle between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, acts of espionage or conflict through surrogates (proxy wars)"
The "equipment" side of the argument fails to prove anything as to who was "kicking" who's ass in the cold war.
Gulf War one and two. He did not mention anything about being in the Cold War.Tehremos wrote:
Equipment?Man With No Name wrote:
Youre talking to someone who has more experience seeing russian equipment in action than you do, cupcake.
Coldwar?
"A cold war (or bipolar superpower confrontation) is a state of battle between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, acts of espionage or conflict through surrogates (proxy wars)"
The "equipment" side of the argument fails to prove anything as to who was "kicking" who's ass in the cold war.
Btw Ivan, WiC does not constitute how much win Russia is. If it's IRL, USAF will kick ass.
Actually he didCybargs wrote:
Gulf War one and two. He did not mention anything about being in the Cold War.
Btw Ivan, WiC does not constitute how much win Russia is. If it's IRL, USAF will kick ass.
Man With No Name wrote:
your country sucks and we whooped your ass in the cold war.
dont be such an idiotTehremos wrote:
Equipment?Man With No Name wrote:
Youre talking to someone who has more experience seeing russian equipment in action than you do, cupcake.
Coldwar?
"A cold war (or bipolar superpower confrontation) is a state of battle between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, acts of espionage or conflict through surrogates (proxy wars)"
The "equipment" side of the argument fails to prove anything as to who was "kicking" who's ass in the cold war.
lol i can buy that...Cybargs wrote:
So you were responsible for losing, bl.Shahter wrote:
and this is relevant to this discussion how?Man With No Name wrote:
we showed how sufficient russian technology was in 1991. Russia even admits how outdated their technology is after georgia.unlike yours, sonny, my ass was already in this world fat and hairy when so called cold war was happening. "you" kicked it? don't make me laugh - better go do your homework or something.Man With No Name wrote:
your country sucks and we whooped your ass in the cold war.
I mean about fighting in the Cold War. He's just saying USA kicked ass.Tehremos wrote:
Actually he didCybargs wrote:
Gulf War one and two. He did not mention anything about being in the Cold War.
Btw Ivan, WiC does not constitute how much win Russia is. If it's IRL, USAF will kick ass.Man With No Name wrote:
your country sucks and we whooped your ass in the cold war.
what part of "Russia sucks" is so hard to understand?