![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Believe me nothing could break my confidence. Yea we took the scientist what country wouldn't? America isn't the "white man" its everybody combined thats what makes us so powerful. All other countries are this or that but America is a bit of everyone thats where we gain our might. We thurst for knowledge and we welcome all the smartest people to join us. We refuse to be second place and we are willing to spend any amount of money to make sure we aren't.
|
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
![]() Sure I hope the best for USA, but I also hope the best for other countries ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
i just replaying to Sam's post
(There are few MBT vs MBT combat examples of the capability of Russian KE rounds against western tanks (this shapes my decision favoring western armor protection ability), as there are western KE rounds performance against Russian armor (Abrams and Challenger vs T-72 in Gulf War). I don't think that's a fair comparison since Iraqi T-72s had clone BM-15s at best. That's sabot from the early 70's. Abrams had 20 years newer ammunition. (If you have a platoon of M1A2s moving to contact with a platoon of T-90s, with well trained Russian crews. The M1A2s have a great advantage with their highly superior optics, gun, ammo, communications, armor.) Superior optics? I guess he means thermal imagers or.....? AFAIK the new french thermal on T-90 is actually better than the one on M1A2. Better gun? That's arguable, I think boils down more to the ammunition where it does have an advantage. Communications? I doubt latest Russian radios are far behind western ones, does anybody here have more information on latest Russian tank radios. (The problam which kills the T-90s is the poor quality of the gun(Russian manufacturing is inifior to the US) that means less propelent and thus a lower velocity) Do you have any proof to back that up? I seriously doubt that.. (Ok well now we can say the M1 will win hands dow? No. you can't it depends on the crew and the battle conditions(though the M1 can function any where) And T-90 cannot? Why not? (Plus, the missile defense systems give the T-90 maybe an advantage against modern ATGMs, but the Marine M1A1 has one too, so it's probably not much time before the M1A2 gets one) The marine ATGM defence system is light-years behind Sthora, which really isn't the latest technology either... |
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
Ceramic armor is good. But I know little about composite armour. T-98 uses multi-layered ceramic composite armor. |
![]() |
||
|
Quote:
The Type 98 features an JD-3 integrated laser rangefinder/warning/self-defence device. Unlike contemporary Russian active tank self-defense systems like Drozd, Drozd-2, and Arena, which launch projectiles to disable or "shoot-down" incoming anti-tank missiles and projectiles, the Chinese system apparently uses a high-powered laser to directly attack the enemy weapon's optics and gunner. The system includes what appears to be a laser warning receiver (LWR - the dome-shaped device on the turret roof behind the commander's position), that warns the crew that their tank is being illuminated by an enemy range-finding or weapon-guidance laser. The turret of the tank can then be traversed to face the direction of the enemy threat, and the laser self-defence weapon (LSDW - the box-shaped device on the turret roof behind the gunner's position), can be employed against the source of the enemy laser. The procedure of the laser weapon would first use a low-powered beam to locate the optics of the enemy weapon. Once the enemy weapon was located, the power level of the laser would be immediately and dramatically increased. Such an attack would disable the guidance optics of the enemy weapon and/or damage the eyesight of the enemy gunner. The available photos of the Type 98 have also confirmed that the laser weapon can be elevated to a higher angle than the tank's main gun, indicating that the engagement of attack helicopters is possible. In addition, the laser device could also be used for communications between friend tanks. |
![]() |
|
|
"Ok well now we can say the M1 will win hands dow? No. you can't it depends on the crew and the battle conditions (though the M1 can function any where)"
That is a big NO! ![]() You can also use laser to "defeat" optics, although it doesn't actually defeat it, it dazzle it(hence the name), thats right it confuses it ![]() And yes the American defence industry uses manufactures all over the world, for example the F/A 18 Super Hornet gets parts from Volvo. |
![]() |