If the Super-Dooper model of the Russian S.400 is so good, then why did the "2nd rate" US cruise missiles not get shot out of the sky?

Did they need a weeks notice to get ready, did they not have all the terrific radars to tell them the sky was full of Tomahawks?

Is the Russian stuff full of b******t? Just like saddam's?

Will the next Super Dooper be invincible?

OC

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cts-Assad.html

Herr Goebells would be proud of all that BS propaganda!

My bet is that the 'Brahmos', and the PRC hypersonic 'Carrier Killer" are in the same category.

OC

I assume you realise that (and this applies to all countries) along with new weaponry comes new propaganda to tell you how great it is.

For example, stealth is only stealth from certain angles, impregnable armour is never impregnable and shooting down missiles is not an easy thing to do, no one has a foolproof system of doing it.

The reality is that most missile defence systems barely get a 50% pass mark and even that involves fudging the numbers, my personal belief is that until someone comes up with a UAV that can shadow the launcher and get the missile while it is slow and on a fixed trajectory then it I all just a 50/50 lottery.

Monty,

Have to agree with that, and I do wonder at the western media slant of "Russian and Chinese stuff is great and the American stuff is crap".

We had an 'expert' called Major Peter Young here in the days prior to the invasion of Iraq, and he stated on national TV that an invasion of Iraq would cost the US "50,000 dead". It was all over in 100 hours, and very few Yanks were killed, far less than the 'Invincible Guard' I think they called themselves.

Never seen him on TV since.

OC

Originally Posted by oz codger

Monty,

Have to agree with that, and I do wonder at the western media slant of "Russian and Chinese stuff is great and the American stuff is crap".

We had an 'expert' called Major Peter Young here in the days prior to the invasion of Iraq, and he stated on national TV that an invasion of Iraq would cost the US "50,000 dead". It was all over in 100 hours, and very few Yanks were killed, far less than the 'Invincible Guard' I think they called themselves.

Never seen him on TV since.

OC

Clearly that was someone who swallowed the WMD story hook, line and sinker.

Conversely I recall talking to a guy in the reception at work and it turns out he had been part of the UN weapons inspection team, he said there was nothing to find, seems he was right.

Then again your guy wasnt entirely wrong as the number of dead and wounded US personnel up to 2016 is about 36,000.

"Then again your guy wasnt entirely wrong as the number of dead and wounded US personnel up to 2016 is about 36,000."



Major Young was referring to 50,000 DEAD as a cost of the invasion.

And i doubt that the WMD question was what he had in mind, it was the supposed cost of KIAs in conventional battle. He mentioned the T72 as a major factor and threat to the 'Abrams'. I read a claim thet the battle made a VERY big impression on Russia and China.

OC

Originally Posted by oz codger

"Then again your guy wasnt entirely wrong as the number of dead and wounded US personnel up to 2016 is about 36,000."



Major Young was referring to 50,000 DEAD as a cost of the invasion.

And i doubt that the WMD question was what he had in mind, it was the supposed cost of KIAs in conventional battle. He mentioned the T72 as a major factor and threat to the 'Abrams'. I read a claim thet the battle made a VERY big impression on Russia and China.

OC

I am not sure what people saw in the T-72 by 2003, I am sure the Russian non-export version was a reasonable MBT in the 1970s but by the 2000s the export version was always going to be outclassed by modern MBTs.

Everyone I have ever spoken to about Russian armour says they make probably the worlds best gun but everything else about them hasn't really progressed since 1970.

What the latest Russian MBT is like I have no idea, there is no doubt that they have put in the effort to modernise but everything about the Russian military needed to change from the mindset up and I am not sure they are capable of that in the short term.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am not sure what people saw in the T-72 by 2003, I am sure the Russian non-export version was a reasonable MBT in the 1970s but by the 2000s the export version was always going to be outclassed by modern MBTs.

Everyone I have ever spoken to about Russian armour says they make probably the worlds best gun but everything else about them hasn't really progressed since 1970.

What the latest Russian MBT is like I have no idea, there is no doubt that they have put in the effort to modernise but everything about the Russian military needed to change from the mindset up and I am not sure they are capable of that in the short term.

Russian tanks have been based on the same design since the JS tank appeared, it followed with the T54/55, the T62, the T64, the T72, the T80, and the T90. They were all based on the Soviet/Russian doctrine. A doctrine that worked against the Germans during the Second World War and the Cold War. The Russians focused more on quantitative than on quality. With saying that, Russian equipment is that bad, it's robust. It works when you want it to work. However, Russian tanks have much lesser of protection than their Western counterparts. The Russian tanks are smaller and weigh lesser than NATO tanks. I have read things about Russian tank losses during the Georgian conflict, and the Russians suffered a lot of tank losses during the conflict. It is hard to verify the exact amount of losses, so the empirical evidence is shaky. But the Russians began to realize their tank design was obsolete. I think they began to develop the Armata tank and the Armata IFV shorty after the Georgian war. If the Russians get the Armata to work and produce it large numbers is too early to say. The Russians have a tendency to make prototypes, but then lacking the funds to mass produce their weaponry. We will see if the Armata is to be taken seriously

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Russian tanks have been based on the same design since the JS tank appeared, it followed with the T54/55, the T62, the T64, the T72, the T80, and the T90. They were all based on the Soviet/Russian doctrine. A doctrine that worked against the Germans during the Second World War and the Cold War. The Russians focused more on quantitative than on quality. With saying that, Russian equipment is that bad, it's robust. It works when you want it to work. However, Russian tanks have much lesser of protection than their Western counterparts. The Russian tanks are smaller and weigh lesser than NATO tanks. I have read things about Russian tank losses during the Georgian conflict, and the Russians suffered a lot of tank losses during the conflict. It is hard to verify the exact amount of losses, so the empirical evidence is shaky. But the Russians began to realize their tank design was obsolete. I think they began to develop the Armata tank and the Armata IFV shorty after the Georgian war. If the Russians get the Armata to work and produce it large numbers is too early to say. The Russians have a tendency to make prototypes, but then lacking the funds to mass produce their weaponry. We will see if the Armata is to be taken seriously

I think the biggest problem is that the Russians believe their own BS, just look at the data available for the much-vaunted T-90, if word of mouth is to be believed they would only need one to take over the world, yet it is vapourware, nothing more than a prototype.

The last time Russian armour could legitimately go toe to toe with a Western force was probably about 1950 but once the west perfected combined arms use and built the weapons needed to make it work the Russian military became a drunk dinosaur.

Russia is in many ways still fighting Napoleonic type wars, where brute force and numbers won the result is an archaic and obsolete force.

The Israeli wars in 1967 and 1973 confirms what you are saying. The Syrians and the Egyptians were issued Russian tanks, maybe not their latest version, but what they had was the best Russian tanks in the 1950s. I have only watched one doc about the Korean war and I don't really want to draw any conclusions from the doc (battle tanks, or something like that) But both sides used what I know mostly tanks from the Second World War. They might have been updated since then, but still