Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams
achtpanz    6/14/2004 3:59:14 AM
Russian T90 vs American M1A2 Abrams - Which is better? If these tanks fought in battle, which would suffer more casualties, which one is superior? What are their advantages? Any information would be helpful.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
heraldabc    Let's just say    4/5/2011 2:35:02 AM
Here.
BTW how does a clerk get a fully equipped flight helmet since he works admin, and that flight helmet would come from supply? Just curious. And as we all know it's not at all accounted for in the supply chain, because there's an infinite amount of helmets lying around.

 

To be frank. I doubt you actually work in rockets. There no possibility that anyone as stupid and lack as much common sense  as you could possibly work in such an intelligent field.


As for the helmet, the same way I would.   
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws    Let's just say   4/5/2011 4:12:38 AM
You're a dumb ass. Look at what date my manual supercedes the previous version. I hope you can find something a lot more recent than your 2003 example since mine supercedes the 2006 one. I don't even think the 2006 is available online.
 
Yah, I'm sure I ebayed a $700 flight helmet just to give myself some credence on some random internet forum...Like I said, your logic and deduction skills do not coincide with someone who should be intelligent enough to work on rockets.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/5/2011 4:18:12 AM
Oh, and mine is the 2009 version. Good luck finding it online. Maybe if you're lucky you can find a desk clerk who is willing to break all security clearances and risk landing himself on Leavenworth to give you one. Really Herald, you're a fucking moron. I suggest you go to whatever institution you got your education from and demand your money back.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/5/2011 4:26:15 AM
y last post on this for a bit. Your "trap" Herald is that no desk clerk actually has access to it. It has to be specially ordered through the S4 or someone who has access to LOGSA. Even then, you have to specifically order it for the aviator who is going to use it. Of course I'm sure you already knew that with your wealth of knowledge *cough*bullshit*cough*. Was that one of your cleverly placed traps? Or was that you just talking out of your ass again about things you don't have the slightest clue about?
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       4/5/2011 9:52:22 AM
The point about a secured secret document (as claimed) was lost on you. $700 helmet also lost on you.
 
 
Nothing is impossible to fake. 
 
NOTHING.
 
Oh as a side note, the CMWS AN/ALQ-212 had an array of electro-optical sensors designed  to pattern match missile launch plume  (heat flash) from below). Depending on detected direction  (helicopters are slow hot  often low hovering objects) and matched to helo direction, height and speed, there is a decoy.and flare dispenser as one belly defense,that directionally tries to cue the missile to veer and miss with a false signal for the missile sensor to chase, this obviating an impossible dodge or jerk maneuver (its hoped).
 
The LASER half of the defense is an IR laser emitter that steers to the quadrant of sky from which  the heat flash was detected and pulses at it, so as to degrade  an IR senor's ability to track a signal across its array. Called DAZZLE effecy the effect for the missile is like that of a fly eye trying to look at a fast strobe. The missile photo-optic sensor segmented as it is into discrete sections (IIR) has all of those sections signal loaded simultaneoisly so that the sensor's signal processor unit cannot discriminate strong from weak in its array and steer to the strong signal and in turn steer the missile to point to the hot spot un the sky, It goes blind (you hope).  This is falsely called jamming the missile sensor, when the correct term is 'overloading the sensor'. 
 
That is what you think is secret?
 
As I said, Herald Traps aplenty.
 
Herald     
 
       

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/5/2011 12:20:51 PM
Is the trap the part where you got it wrong in this post?
The point about a secured secret document (as claimed) was lost on you. $700 helmet also lost on you.

 


 

Nothing is impossible to fake. 

 

NOTHING.


 

Oh as a side note, the CMWS AN/ALQ-212 had an array of electro-optical sensors designed  to pattern match missile launch plume  (heat flash) from below). Depending on detected direction  (helicopters are slow hot  often low hovering objects) and matched to helo direction, height and speed, there is a decoy.and flare dispenser as one belly defense,that directionally tries to cue the missile to veer and miss with a false signal for the missile sensor to chase, this obviating an impossible dodge or jerk maneuver (its hoped).


 

The LASER half of the defense is an IR laser emitter that steers to the quadrant of sky from which  the heat flash was detected and pulses at it, so as to degrade  an IR senor's ability to track a signal across its array. Called DAZZLE effecy the effect for the missile is like that of a fly eye trying to look at a fast strobe. The missile photo-optic sensor segmented as it is into discrete sections (IIR) has all of those sections signal loaded simultaneoisly so that the sensor's signal processor unit cannot discriminate strong from weak in its array and steer to the strong signal and in turn steer the missile to point to the hot spot un the sky, It goes blind (you hope).  This is falsely called jamming the missile sensor, when the correct term is 'overloading the sensor'. 

 

That is what you think is secret?

 

As I said, Herald Traps aplenty.

 

Herald     


 

       







 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/5/2011 12:26:11 PM
This is a really good trap. Because you've said wrong tings in both posts. You, sir, are wily indeed!
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/5/2011 12:28:20 PM
No, I think the point on the secret document was lost you on. Try and find the 2009 online. You can't. That's because it's secret. No one cares about the other versions floating around because anyone who uses them is liable to be killed if they fly using the knowledge in that book. Hence, why it was superseded.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz    BOxy Combat Vehicle   4/5/2011 3:27:48 PM

Features of Future Army Combat Vehicle Revealed

by Greg Grant on February 5, 2010 ·

GCV notionalhttp://kitup.military.com/.a/6a00d8341ceee153ef0120a8658c08970b-800wi.jpg" border="0" />
 

While we won't focus on vehicles per se here at Kit Up, there has been a vigorous discussion in the comments thread on the various merits and shortcomings of the Stryker wheeled vehicle and what might be needed in any future combat vehicles. So, I wanted to provide readers with a bit of information on the new Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), the replacement program for the cancelled FCS manned ground vehicles (above is an artist's rendering of what the FCS infantry carrier might have looked like).

 

The Army plans to spend at least $7 billion over the next
five years developing the GCV, with $934 million slotted for work in 2011 and nearly $2
billion the next year. The Army wants
builders to begin work on the GCV?s subsystems and modular components, such as
the engine, drive train, suspension, armor, turret, weapons, active protection
system and what it calls a ?Mission Module Structure? to carry an infantry
squad. Prototypes of the various subsystems are to be ready for testing in
early 2012.

To get the process moving, the Army plans to award two
competitive contracts in the fourth quarter FY2010. The Army expects builders
to use mostly mature technologies in an ?evolutionary acquisition approach,? that
allows for the ?maximum affordable competition? documents say. A subsystem
preliminary design review is scheduled for fourth quarter FY2011.

The Army believes a modular assembly approach will facilitate
adding technological upgrades, weapons, armor, automotive components and
communications networks, over time to the original GCV design. How far along
the various modular components are in development, their technological
?maturity,? will be key to determining which company gets the GCV contract.

Building a vehicle that can plug into the Army?s existing
and future digital communications, surveillance and sensor architecture to
provide soldiers ?superior? situational awareness is a Key Performance
Parameter (KPP), the documents say. The vehicle itself will carry a variety of
sensors to provide video feeds to crew and the infantry squad. The Army is also
looking for a fuel efficient engine to power the GCV.

The GCV is to be equipped with a suite of non-lethal weapons
in addition to a turret mounted cannon (the documents don't specify what size cannon), documents say. Survivability against
IEDs and mines will factor huge in the vehicle?s design and the hull must
survive ?Level 1 underbelly threats? and it must mitigate against ?harmful
accelerations? to crew and passengers.

Nothing in the budget material about vehicle weight,
although there is a reference to ?tracks? as a component part, so apparently it
will be a tracked infantry fighting vehicle. 



Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2010/02/features-of-future-army-combat-vehicle-revealed.html#ixzz1Ig8Eu1vN
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton    Re: Features of Future Army Combat Vehicle Revealed   4/5/2011 4:23:50 PM
Does anyone else get the feeling that the military today is spending too much time trying to develop a "jack-of-all-trades" solution and forgetting about the fact that sometimes specialization is a good thing?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics