protection and armor concept i mean. I do not see any reason to argue any more, since it just doesnt make sense. And topic flows to the different direction of APCs.

About the mortar. It's computer controlled and fully automated other than the loading. It is incredibly accurate and you can even program the computer to fire a present pattern. Plus, since the Stryker is linked to BFT, you can imagine the possibilities there.

I've been luck enough to see some of the BFT handheld gear trialled by the Manchus a few years back..  it was part of a DARPA exchange at an Aust land warfare conf.

is the stryker gear a legacy of what was trialed by the manchus?  the M,anchu gear was truly spectacular

I don't know what you saw years ago so I can't really comment. But if it was anything similar to a satellite map with a live feed of everyone's status and location on an MGRS system, then yes. BFT is actually on the next generation now and it's call ed FBCB2 but it's the same thing with a few improvements and much faster in updating now. But every vehicle in the Army is now equipped with it and they're trying to put one on each soldier.

 

As for the Styker mortar, the crew doesn't need to dismount when they fire it. I don't think there's much recoil, if any from the mortar.And that mortar is a beast. People have told me it's flattened targets that 155mm couldn't. But anyways, the thing about the Stryker isn't only that it's connected to the BFT, but it's systems are integrated with it. Like the mortar can pull grids from the BFT and shoot based on those. Those Strykers cost ~$7 million a pop, and most of it is the technology on it. It is without a doubt the most technologically advanced land warfare system in the world. And with everything it does, it can be a theater level asset.

But ADS does not protect you from APFSDS rounds.


 



The whole issue of RPGs killing Abrams tanks has been thrown around in these discussions a lot, but I have never seen any evidence of it.  Perhaps one of you could clear this up as to what exactly happened and when.  When these same Abrams tanks are also surviving multiple roadside bombs, getting killed by the RPG7 seems like a bit of a discontinuity.












Right now, I would say that all ADS gives you right now are more things that can go wrong.  Current Western armour is capable of taking an extreme amount of damage while still protecting the crew, while for the T-90, you have to constantly be upgrading your detection systems, and your electronics, and your countermeasures, etc. ad nauseum, in order to make sure that the latest generation of whatever-missile isn't able to use some newly designed trick to spoof past your defenses and hit your relatively (compared to Western tanks) weak armour and kill you.  Now, such a defense could still be an effective one, but the Russia of today simply cannot afford to invest money into such a project in order to make it viable given their current financial situation.

There are systems, which I'm am not sure can be discussed online, that make these incredible pieces of hardware.

It's just not the embed systems on it that make it so advanced. There are systems, which I'm am not sure can be discussed online, that make these incredible pieces of hardware.

and again you make assumptions (poor assumptions) and stil trying to think of it the way it was in 70s. your' fine with that. continue, no harm in this :) Yes financially we are not strong as you, but that doesnt mean we cant build neat things for affordable price, especially when it comes to national defense. If we need something, we'll do it. We proved it many times already.

 

About tank range again, yes they dont drive up to empty tank, thats why it means effective range of Abrams is even less. And RPG7 was best case example, and yes it was damaged. I dont think Abrams would have chance with RPG32.