Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Massey 3 Feb 2010, 16:07

This is a thread for ANY and ALL military news or just general...s military talk. So start talking about... The new, the old, the weird and the cool.

Here are some starting points.

Australia

- Unifroms: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/australian-soldiers-to-wear-uniforms-made-from-material-made-in-china/story-e6frf7jo-1225828503575, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/10/2815392.htm?section=business
- Collins Class Submarines: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/navy-has-only-one-working-submarine-left/story-fn3dxity-1225823479313, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/engine-problems-cripple-collins-class-submarines/story-e6frg6nf-1225789068076

China

- New UAV: http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/?p=5773

EU

- A400m: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8491206.stm

Russia

- Russian new doctine: http://rt.com/Politics/2010-02-05/russia-military-doctrine-approved.html, http://rt.com/Politics/2010-02-05/russia-military-doctrine-approved.html?fullstory
- PAK-FA
#1: First flight: http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-01-31/russian-stealth-fighter-leaves.html, http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-01-29/fifth-generation-russian-fighter.html #2: RAINOVOSTI spec pic's http://i541.photobucket.com/albums/gg393/Massey_C_A/157939941.jpg, http://i541.photobucket.com/albums/gg393/Massey_C_A/157939937.jpg

USA

- F-35
#1: Set backs: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2809583.htm

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 3 Feb 2010, 16:50

well, maybe Gripen wasn't such bad choice in the end... (at least it can land even on meadow)

Posted by: Wi-Ta 3 Feb 2010, 17:13

QUOTE (Massey @ 3 Feb 2010, 13:07)

Posted by: D' WRTHBRNGR 3 Feb 2010, 17:33

Sounds good!
And the Gripen, IIRC can land even on a clear highway.

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 3 Feb 2010, 18:28

well, every small plane and every modern supersonic fighter can land on clear highway

Especially when I consider that Warsaw Pact used Highway in the 1968 in the invasion to Czechoslovakia (which itself failed, but neostalinists has betrayed the rest),
there shouldn't be no problem in that (unless concrete panels are damaged).

Only VTOL and few other fighters like Gripen can land on slightly flat meadow.

Posted by: Massey 10 Feb 2010, 16:30

On the aussie uniforms. i dont see its as a threat. i think if any thing. it brings the two nations military closer. the only threat i see. is if we went to war with China (what i HIGHLY dout will ever happen.) and our soldiers become nude soldiers! 0.o rofl

Posted by: Venom(BR) 24 Feb 2010, 2:25

Posted by: D' WRTHBRNGR 24 Feb 2010, 10:52

PAK-FA's cost makes it more accessible to foreign customers -- it would be the plane's quality that would matter.

Posted by: Massey 24 Feb 2010, 15:23

well going off the flanker for quality i would think the Pak fa would be as good f-22. but its still early days.

if u look at first post. u can see Austrilia only has one sub in action! and yet i stilll fell safe. odd

Posted by: ultimentra 7 Mar 2010, 21:23

Why the hell would anyone attack ausfailia anyway? Most likely no strategic value or resources there (except water and animals that can kill you).

Posted by: Massey 7 Mar 2010, 22:49

QUOTE (ultimentra @ 8 Mar 2010, 3:23)

Why the hell would anyone attack ausfailia anyway? Most likely no strategic value or resources there (except water and animals that can kill you).

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 7 Mar 2010, 23:15

Some Pak-Fa photos

I found some new interesting pictures on one Czech portal, one of these pictures shows radar for Pak-Fa, another compares Pak-Fa and Su-35(?):
http://77rus.smugmug.com/Other/Other/IMG4580-copy/733404062_Ntr4f-O.jpg
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/displayimage.php?pos=-17380
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/displayimage.php?pos=-17379
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/displayimage.php?pos=-17381
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/displayimage.php?pos=-17382
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/displayimage.php?pos=-17261

and there is whole article written in English about this plane (with some mostly smaller pictures):
http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=255&linkid=2280&linkname=PAK-FA-Sukhoi-T-50

(there are currently 3 planes, at least one of them has camo)

Posted by: Massey 7 Mar 2010, 23:44

nice find. but apart from the PC pic's i think they are fake pic's. EG: http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/displayimage.php?pid=17379&fullsize=1
look at the shadows... some shadows are long (late day or early morning) and others are short.
look at the wind on the flag and these no snow blowing that hard or the ppl that are not reacting to the wind that is blowing that hard
Look at the tree. if the wind is blowing that hard i would think that tree (lack of a better word) "stems" arent all streching that way. plus look at the power/phone line. its just hanging there. again if the wind is blowing hard it would not be the case.

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 8 Mar 2010, 2:26

Well, there's also second image from that airport:
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/displayimage.php?pid=17380&fullsize=1

and I don't think these two pictures are fake:
1. There is just light breeze, at least that Russian flag seems to be made from usual light material.
2. I don't see any short shadows there either from that red ladder
3. That picture isn't small either - copy-pasting branches is pain in the a..

Even though there are also many good fake photos around the net (like two T-50s taking off one after another),
they usually aren't really complicated in the matter of details.

I know there were famous Potyomkin's villages in Russia and they still use this strategy, but... this reminds me once I thought beginning of the As Far As My Feet Will Carry Me was mostly done in 3D...

EDIT: maybe the 5th picture isn't photo of real Pak-Fa and the last one might be photoshopped a bit (colours, number)

Posted by: Overdose 8 Mar 2010, 2:36

Sorry but its likely a shoop. Especially the second one. Good attempt though.

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 8 Mar 2010, 9:56

... I read it's from Sukhoi's factory airport
and I don't think they needed photoshop for that (also those branches above Pak-Fa don't look photoshopped).
IMHO these two planes were in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCUQxnYbLl0

Also there is page with more photos and info in Russian about Pak-Fa:
http://www.paralay.com/pakfasu.html

Posted by: IPS 7 Apr 2010, 14:40

cool thing there^^



Hm those pics aren't photoshoped.
If at all they are very very well done 3d models but since I can't see any hint of poligons I doubt that as well.
In addition the lighting is absolutly perfect, the materials are authentic and as it was said before the flags are 100% real, nobody can animate a thing like that (if you look at both pictures from that scene you can see that they are moving)

and then again why should someone put so much effort in such a picture? 0o
even the most skilled modelers would need about a month for such a scene.

Posted by: Raven 8 Apr 2010, 5:02

The pic with the blue plane is rendered. I think its from the Ace Combat games. Others seem to be authentic. It was also posted on mil photos.

Posted by: Waris 19 Apr 2010, 1:01

Also be prepared to shit brix at 5:47

Posted by: Overdose 19 Apr 2010, 5:26

I want one too.

Posted by: Ultimate Weapon X 8 May 2010, 23:05

Nice picture in your signature overdose, where is that picture from?

Posted by: MARS 9 May 2010, 11:02

Way to go off-topic, dude. How about you ask him via PM?

Posted by: Waris 15 May 2010, 14:56

The next iteration of the Type 99, Type 99A2.

http://img179.imageshack.us/i/1273923566169.jpg/
http://img255.imageshack.us/i/1273924029754.jpg/

CG:
http://img41.imageshack.us/i/1273925161126.jpg/

Not much information from the Internet atm, but amongst the visually obvious upgrades are some form of milimeter-wave radar ADS and much thicker frontal turret armor. Look at the size of it...

Posted by: Overdose 15 May 2010, 16:44

Funny China makes a Humvee copy and now an Abrahams copy?

Wtf?

Posted by: Waris 15 May 2010, 17:16

Copying good stuff is okay in my book.

That doesn't make the Humvee any good though.

Posted by: ΓΛPΤΘΓ 15 May 2010, 18:59

Doesn't looks like a Abrams to me.

125mm gun (155mm rumoured), autoloader, modular amour, active lazer defence.

Posted by: Raven 15 May 2010, 22:05

does not look like an abrams to me tooo

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 16 May 2010, 18:50

Abrams rip-off? meh...
it looks more like T-72 rip-off, like this Croatian M-95 Degman which comes from licenced T-72like line...


T-72M4CZ - recent Czech modernization with hi-tech equipment


PT-91M Pendekar - successor of PT-91 Twardy (Tough), Polish version of T-72M from early 1990's
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/PT-91M_%28_MyLifeStory%29.jpg
author: MyLifeStory @ Flickr and Wikipedia.org

T-90 - notoriously known old Russian tank, there is also mysterious "T-95", light tank destroyer Sprut-SD and plenty of modernizations of other Russian tanks
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/T-90_armyrecognition_russia_011.jpg

Serbian modernization of the T-72
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/SER_mod_T72.jpg
photo by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marko_M

T-72MP, designated by 3 companies from UA and CZ, UA forces use several hundred of these, T-80s and T-60s, both older lines modernized on T-72MP standards


Also don't forget these medium (and heavy) tanks have autoloaders, they can fire armor-piercing missiles capable of destruction of any modern tank including Challenger 2, however they haven't been created for this purpose. This was task for Mi-28, Mi-24 or Ka-50 which would have been covering relativelly fast tanks (Warszav Pact forces were more like RA Allieds in conventional forces).

Posted by: Waris 18 May 2010, 9:57

http://img22.imageshack.us/i/1274160929616.jpg/
http://img707.imageshack.us/i/1274160979187.jpg/
http://img12.imageshack.us/i/1274161012567.jpg/

Bonus:
http://img59.imageshack.us/i/1274154577546.jpg/

Posted by: Destiny 18 May 2010, 10:37

What's with the F-35 Lightning II-lookalike?

Posted by: Waris 18 May 2010, 11:07

QUOTE (Destiny @ 18 May 2010, 15:37)

Posted by: Destiny 18 May 2010, 12:54

QUOTE (Waris @ 18 May 2010, 15:07)

Posted by: MARS 18 May 2010, 21:19

The reddish hue of the cockpit glass and the dark grey paint do look unusual; kind of like an evil twin of the F-35 we're used to.
Disregarding the US markings, it looks like something Nod would use in Tiberian Dawn (http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/F-22_Raptor_%28Tiberium%29)

Posted by: ΓΛPΤΘΓ 19 May 2010, 0:05

QUOTE (MARS @ 18 May 2010, 18:19)

Posted by: Destiny 19 May 2010, 2:21

QUOTE (ΓΛPΤΘΓ @ 19 May 2010, 4:05)

Posted by: Raven 19 May 2010, 5:29

F-35 color scheme somehow reminds me about the B-1B color scheme of Shockwave :S. The last T-50 photos is frikin awesome

Posted by: GrizzAFWX 19 May 2010, 11:51

Posted by: D' WRTHBRNGR 19 May 2010, 13:33

Awesome PAK-FA shots.

QUOTE (GrizzAFWX @ 19 May 2010, 15:51)

Posted by: Overdose 19 May 2010, 19:00

I'm pretty sure someone will come up with anti-uav technology and the human element will be forced in eventually.

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 19 May 2010, 20:40

Radar Jammer anyone?

Anyways, PakFa can deal with several targets at once (due to recoil limits) while one UAV swarm (100 UAVs for example) piloted by one operator can deal with...
Another thing is that modern manned fighter/bombardier can be hundred miles away from target when fire, but UAVs are used mostly on close operations like support of ground forces (like UAV launched from a truck, personal VTOL UAVs are also common). Air version of military RC robots like American "Little Knight" (small size, tracks, M60, Google has parkinsonism again).

Also, would you like to arm Global Hawk with nuclear missiles and expect real SkyNet worm/supercomputer or terrorist cracker on move ?

Posted by: GrizzAFWX 19 May 2010, 21:40

That pictures was just a joke. Generally I'm all for aircraft of the manned variety.

Posted by: GrizzAFWX 19 May 2010, 21:44

And they called it...

A flying snow shovel... or a loaf of french bread with wings...



10 points to anyone who can name this unwieldy aircraft.

Posted by: Destiny 20 May 2010, 3:23

QUOTE (GrizzAFWX @ 20 May 2010, 1:44)

And they called it...

A flying snow shovel... or a loaf of french bread with wings...



10 points to anyone who can name this unwieldy aircraft.

Posted by: Overdose 20 May 2010, 4:03

Looks like an airplane model for a SEGA Saturn game.

Posted by: Raven 20 May 2010, 5:45

A new PAK-FA video on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx1Z4KJCpOU&fmt=18

Posted by: GrizzAFWX 20 May 2010, 6:05

QUOTE (Destiny @ 19 May 2010, 18:23)

Posted by: Destiny 20 May 2010, 9:25

QUOTE (GrizzAFWX @ 20 May 2010, 10:05)

Posted by: GrizzAFWX 21 May 2010, 7:19

QUOTE (Destiny @ 20 May 2010, 1:25)

You could at least find a way to randomize the filename

Posted by: Waris 26 May 2010, 4:11

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/
Discuss. I am most perplexed at how the commission report is unsigned and the denial of access of evidence to the convicted party (NK).

Posted by: Overdose 26 May 2010, 5:42

That's not the whole thing either.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100524/cm_csm/303502_1

The US has been trying to isolate and squeeze Iran until it bites and the US can use a pretext to go to war again. Although it is more likely to make a convenient excuse to make Israel do the dirty work for them while they stay on the side lines.

Let's face it, North Korea and Iran are no saints. However we should not allow more Afghanistans and Iraqs to be made again. More people have suffered and have been killed by american interference than the overthrown regimes. The same strategy was made there, except Korea is actually a reasonable nation leaving much room for conspiracy theories. Are they playing along or are they being fooled like the rest of the world? Why is NK keeping their mouths shut? Do they want to take credit for something they did not do?

Anyways in the end the point is that we must tolerate lesser evils to prevent greater ones. Besides more wars would just cause the world economy to get worse and make more people suffer. Enough do in this world already.

Posted by: Waris 26 May 2010, 14:08

QUOTE (Overdose @ 26 May 2010, 10:42)

Posted by: Overdose 26 May 2010, 14:24

I wasn't even aware that happened. Well, it hasn't been the first time that the press has conveniently forgotten to report something.

Posted by: Raven 26 May 2010, 22:01

QUOTE (Overdose @ 26 May 2010, 8:42)

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 27 May 2010, 16:28

This ^
+ The US Army is in Afghanistan and Iraq, so there is no need for new war, yet.

Another reasons why Americans don't start war with the NK is Stalinistic fanatism of the huge army, China and Russia.
China neither Russia would like to have American base behind their backs.

Some conflicts were (are) totally pointless, but most of them have some sense (territory(Kosovo), oil (Iraq), ore (Kongo), water (Palestina)).
One of such pointless conflicts was border conflict on the Ussuri River, exactly one small island. Cold conflict started in 1960's and totally ended in 2008 (2009?),
but hot phase wasn't nice. In 1969 Soviets lost several hundred soldiers (including crews of tanks and armoured vehicles), chinese lost at least 10 000 soldiers (official Soviet sources: 50 000), I don't know how many Soviet (Russian and Kazakh) civilians died there, it could be hundreds, it could be thousands. Anyways Chinese were doing atrocities there and response from Brezhnev to Mao were BM-21, some of them using air-fuel (there was situation when Chinese soldiers were using living shields, so few rockets evaporated these soldiers and (some) civilians survived).

Posted by: Waris 29 May 2010, 17:27

http://img408.imageshack.us/i/1275139666569.jpg/
http://img189.imageshack.us/i/1275141618425.jpg/
http://img686.imageshack.us/i/1275141715557.jpg/
http://img692.imageshack.us/i/1275141746413.jpg/
http://img64.imageshack.us/i/1275141778372.jpg/
http://img576.imageshack.us/i/1275141943527.jpg/

in b4
>Panzer Fast

Posted by: ΓΛPΤΘΓ 29 May 2010, 19:34

Interesting "read", thanks.

Posted by: MARS 29 May 2010, 19:38

in b4
>Panzer Fast



That's almost as bad as the omnipresent miss-spelling of 'Panzerschreck' in CoD WaW.

Posted by: ΓΛPΤΘΓ 29 May 2010, 19:49

QUOTE (MARS @ 29 May 2010, 16:38)

in b4
>Panzer Fast



That's almost as bad as the omnipresent miss-spelling of 'Panzerschreck' in CoD WaW.

Posted by: Destiny 30 May 2010, 1:18

We call them tanks, not panzers

Posted by: Raven 30 May 2010, 6:55

interesting.....any pages on the jets used?

@partyzanPaulZy one more reason is that, NK had until recently the world's largest special forces contingent. May its the case even now.

Posted by: Overdose 31 May 2010, 14:39

Type 64 pistol looks sexy.

Posted by: Massey 4 Oct 2010, 8:38

This is something that makes me sad but i may not know the full story. So... lets talk...
I just saw on the news that 3 aussie troops are be charge with killing a few kids. (sad days) troops killing kids is not something you want your army to do. BUT!!! I also did a little reading here and where and found out it was a accented.

what I can tell some troops where fired on and returned fire and tost a nade in a house and tost a second nade to make sure who ever was shooting at them was dead. but when they enter the house they found out they was kids inside. (sad days)

To the best of my know how. It was a accented. bought on by a man that starting shooting from inside a house with kids in it. but I was not there, so it could be something more... lets say dark.

Discuss:

Edit:
ref: http://australianetworknews.com/stories/201009/3022893.htm?desktop

Posted by: Massey 4 Nov 2010, 4:40

First off sry for the doulbe post but given the time gap, I hope the SWR team forgive it.

BIG...ish news. I hear this morning that UK and France have signed a mility allaince for 50 years. not only that also they also sign a other 50 year agreement to shared Nuke tech.

I dont know the full story and only just hear the tail end of the news report... maybe someone esle can explain some more.

P.S one step closer to the ECA

Posted by: MARS 4 Nov 2010, 10:16

In b4 Entente Cordiale.

Posted by: Overdose 7 Nov 2010, 8:33

In other news Cruzex was hosted for the 5th time.

Brazil, France, China, US and Chile undertook coalition air force exercises.

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 9 Nov 2010, 2:39

I wonder what will happen if Russia really returns to Afghanistan... China joins them and gets attack (again) by G... Al Qaida, the Holy World War against moslims (because no moslims invaded Afghanistan) fitting in Baba Vanga prophecies?

Maybe Chinese will just stay aside, building railways, highways, possition on the market while destroying old companies via "the invisible hand of the market" across whole Eurafrasia... (the last one applies for whole world anyways)

Posted by: Waris 9 Nov 2010, 20:51

Russian involvement in Afghanistan... Russia in general is still a sensitive topic in Afghanistan. It's not like they occupied the Afghans for a decade and gave rise to the Taliban...

Posted by: Waris 10 Nov 2010, 6:55

ok wut
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20113

Posted by: NergiZed 10 Nov 2010, 7:10

Ja, saw that today. I hope it's a US ICBM 'black launch' because if it's not, than all arrows pretty much point towards China, and maybe a single arrow towards Russia. China certainly has the nads and the reason to do it (US fiscal policy with QE2 and pressure on China to let the Yuan rise), but even then it's still improbable and really rather odd.

If it's not the US I actually hope they don't figure it out, as a global shitstorm would ensue if they ever found out it was another country.

Posted by: Massey 22 Nov 2010, 0:37

A few notes here today.

Afgan!
Just heard that the pull out date (combat role) for all involed is 2014. So these a bit of military news for a few contries

Nato - Russia
I am not sure what the real story is here but i heard that Russia and Nato and about to enter talk about joining forces.
(side note) I think this is funny because Nato was a anti-Russian allaince, But never the less a good forward step in world politic's

Missle Defence/ USA-Russia
Again I only just hear the iceberg of this news but my understanding is Russia will be a equil part of this Eurpoen Missle Defence network.

thats all for now...

Posted by: MARS 22 Nov 2010, 9:33

``Russia will be a equil part of this Eurpoen Missle Defence network.´´

As it should have been in the first place. Their anger towards the original concept which was basically 'let's set up this missile defence in central/eastern Europe to piss off the Russians and pretend it's actually all about Iran' was more than justified so it's good to see that someone has finally realised that the Warsaw Pact has kicked the bucket 20 years ago and that Russia should not be treated as the default enemy of western civilisation for all eternity until the reptilian space aliens show up or some shit.

Posted by: Overdose 23 Nov 2010, 17:28

North Korea carpet bombed a South Korean island. Property damage and minor civilian casualties.

It will be interesting if the United States will take a bite out of this hook. I don't think they can afford financially another war and we are not sure how China is reacting to this.

Posted by: MARS 23 Nov 2010, 21:02

Eventually, North Korea, in its constant endeavour to blackmail the UN into giving them food supplies so they can spend all of their own money on the military, will take things too far, causing this whole thing to boil over into a major conflict. At least common sense would say so, but then I look at all the previous incidents, like when NK bombed half of SK's government on a trip to Rangoon, the commando incursions into SK's territory with the goal of kicking off some kind of insurrection, the tunnels they dug all the way through the DMZ or the sinking of that frigate and I come to the conclusion that this conflict should have escalated into an actual war several times already. Seriously, any other two nations with historical grievances would have gone to war with each other over any ONE of the incidents, except North and South Korea. It's kind of strange when you think about it.

Posted by: Raven 24 Nov 2010, 3:44

SK is a booming economy. An all out war or any kind of a conflict is not in her interests. It would surely bog down the economy and would be a disaster. NK knows this and pushes the South's patience to the very edge. On the other hand US or the west also has nothing to gain by invading NK since it has no known natural resources. Their only interest is the political stability in the region and also the possible involvement of China.

It is highly unlikely that a war would erupt between the 2 nations, but you never know. If some serious incidents happen, then the SK gov would be pressured into action by her own citizens to maintain their pride. Its a delicate act for SK, to select whether to go to all out war and take back all her development or to swallow a bit of pride and be patient.

Posted by: Overdose 27 Nov 2010, 18:49

Hell yes! The Favela Pacification Campaign is underway!

Posted by: Raven 28 Nov 2010, 5:57

lol thats one killer chick in the pic before the last . Is this going to be permanent solution or just a containment operation before the WC?

Posted by: Overdose 28 Nov 2010, 6:32

I think its permanent. The Militia is very sneaky though. They have like 1000 hectars of mountain and forest to disappear into.

Posted by: Raven 28 Nov 2010, 14:01

Unless you go out in full force it won't be easy to route them out. From what I have seen and heard, they have lot of support from the people inside the favela's as well. So it'll make the job even more harder.

Posted by: Overdose 28 Nov 2010, 19:21

Not really except those that want it to remain a lawless place.

In other news:

Posted by: Raven 29 Nov 2010, 5:03

I managed to access the site this morning. Its very interesting and at the same time very embarrassing for most governments.

Posted by: Серг 29 Nov 2010, 18:06

Yeah, heard it on the news. I am absolutely interested in docs about Croatia in 91', to see their "dirty little underwear".
Also I heard on news that Brasilian PM signed with my country (Serbia) agreement on military-technical colaboration. I think it's very useful for both of our nations...

Posted by: Massey 30 Nov 2010, 0:25

In spirect of the US-SK games in the yellow sea.

I am hoping with our wise man and woman that are all on this site. We can make a list of all military games and what not. Make a list to see that yearly events and happens each year and where and with who.
Later on when we may have the list of games, we can see what the roles are for each games or what purpose. but thats getting ahead of myself.


Now on a other note:
If the NK does start a war (even that it never really stopped) what do you people think what will happen?
IMO: i dont think the USA has the ablility to do much in the early stages of the war. maybe just play a surportive role. (untill afgan is wrapped up. But I am also thinking China wont play apart unless these a huge push in to the North. But you have to think there has to be a push in to the north at same point, so is China doom to play a role in a Korra war? and on a other side note. what side will China back these days? because if the south take the north, china will have to be friends with its semi-new border neighour. On top of that, what if China did play a role for the south, will the SovietChinese aircraft carrier play apart? and what if China goes the other way and play a role for the north like they did in the past? This war (if it happens) brings up so many questions!

On WikiLeaks
I think it is funny that USA gov is always talking about open gov to other gov's but when it push back on to them.... they are like SHUTUP! I could say more on this but I will leave it there.

On The Favela Pacification Campaign
Woot! I now it sounds bad to some people to use the ARMY to deal with such isuess but IMO i think its a great idea. What stronger message can you say to drug dealers/surplyers and other memebers of such dealings then SEND IN THE TROOPS!

Massey semi-logging but hopping to look forward to making a list of yealy games
BYE!

Posted by: Raven 30 Nov 2010, 3:57

If ever there in attack on NK I hardly believe it would be a full scale invasion. It would be a the typical US shock and awe strategy targeting military installations using the full US, SK air power and cruise missiles. The idea would be to force the NK gov to surrender or come to a negotiation. Once this starts, China will not play any other role I suppose. She does not have any interest in NK AFAIK apart from the fact that, China uses NK as bargaining tool.

China will not enter a war which they can't win outright , and moreover on something that consumes their resources for no plausible benefit.

Posted by: MARS 30 Nov 2010, 9:31

QUOTE (Massey @ 29 Nov 2010, 21:25)

Posted by: Waris 30 Nov 2010, 16:16

According to one of the cables, the general opinion in the CPC is that they wouldn't actually mind a unified Korea, as long as they don't have US troops right next to their border. A South Korean politician is quoted in there that it is possible that the North will collapse politically, since their economy has been utterly down the shitter for years now. There are also murmurs about the Kim dynasty succession "has not progressed as planned", thus the complete implosion of the Northern regime may happen sooner rather than later (according to the politician, 1-3 years after Kim Jong-Un takes over).

If the war really breaks over again, I can't imagine anything else happening to the North other than total destruction, as it is widely expected that if SK and US do not take preemptive steps at neutralizing the thousands of artillery guns pointing at Seoul, the North's best achievement (however morose that can sound) is to flatten Seoul and its surroundings... and for this you can expect a retribution of gargantuan proportion from the other side. I also read in a news that the South's PM, thru his aide, has asked for the US to station their tactical nukes in their country, either for deterrence or something far worse.

MARS also made a good point by comparing the Koreas unification with with that of Germany, and since a war will make rebuilding efforts much harder, it's easy to see why a complete implosion of the North is the best bet for all the parties concerned, except for the North of course. And now for the waiting game...

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 30 Nov 2010, 21:28

I wouldn't be surprised even if China went to North Korea, claiming them being their protectorate... to prevent establishment of new American military base and to protect their investments. All despite their support of the Stalinistic monarchy.

Nevertheless the Northkorean Army is pretty screwed like whole their country, they don't have even something so basic like enough fuel or food!

They can however destroy big portion of the Southkorean economy utilizing their artilleries and missiles against Seoul (which gives one reason for the South to attack first).

Posted by: dangerman1337 30 Nov 2010, 23:21

IIRC isn't there plans for a NK invasion for SK/US to use tactial nuclear weapons as not a last resort? Also i think China tried to stage coups within the NK government before.
Though in another confrintation (well saying another war is technically incorrect ) NK infantry isn't the problem (well a Rich Target environment as they all call it these days ), its the Artillery that is and most of it is likely shells which can't be countered by any defences except for hopes and a hard bunker...

Posted by: Raven 1 Dec 2010, 3:37

NK biggest asset is its large Special Forces reserve. As part of their training, they have to infiltrate the South and bring back a trophy, so a large no of them wreaking havoc in SK is a big concern for the SK. I'm talking about this NK Spec Ops from what I learned from an article way back, about 5 or 6 yrs ago, things maybe different now though.

Posted by: MARS 1 Dec 2010, 7:37

Like I said earlier, they did a lot of things in the past that would usually result in massive retaliation: Killing half the SK government in Burma, coastal incursions and attempts to kick off a guerilla war within SK and, somewhat related, the DMZ tunnels. With that in mind, North Korea becomes a lot more threatening, especially if you factor in the possibility of them having actual nukes. Knowing their brutality and outright craziness, I wouldn't be too worried about their Nodong missiles. I'd worry about the bombs that might have been smuggled into the harbours of Seoul, Tokyo or even San Francisco by regular civilian boats long ago. Naturally, this would result in the nuclear annihilation of North Korea but Kim's last note in the history books will be a massive, traumatising display of power on par with Hiroshima/Nagasaki AND 911 rolled into one.

Posted by: Raven 1 Dec 2010, 8:35

QUOTE (MARS @ 1 Dec 2010, 9:37)

Posted by: MARS 1 Dec 2010, 8:42

I never said it was 'likely', but knowing their track record when it comes to using dirty tricks, it's certainly possible. And like you said yourself: If they can't use a nuke, they may still try causing some
major havoc with a dirty bomb. Not as much an iconic image for the history book as a mushroom cloud rising above the the charred ruins of downtown Seoul but a disturbing possibility nonetheless.
They may even avoid getting counter-attacked with actual nukes this way.

Posted by: Raven 1 Dec 2010, 11:02

I just wanted to know the possibility of something like that happening.

Also this whole scenario reminds me of a novel called World War 3 by Humphrey Hawksley, who was a BBC journalist. It has a very believable story, where all the events start with the assassination of the Pakistan's president and an attack on Indian Parliament, followed by a regime change in NK.

Posted by: sheppe 1 Dec 2010, 19:56

Eric L. Harry wrote several books (Protect and Defend, Invasion, and Arc Light) that are quite believable and (scarily) possible, and Invasion is almost identical to the NK/SK issue going on now.

Back on Topic, the Wiki-leaks website was apparently attacked by Chinese hackers on the orders of the Politburo, who condemned the releases (that China would probably not support NK if war occurred) and informed the American Government to pretty much get it's act together and stop letting stuff be leaked.
Also about Wiki-leaks, Sarah Palin ("we have to stand by our NORTH Korean allies") declared that the head of Wiki-leaks should be hunted down like Bin Laden (so... not very well!?], and Assage has today been declared Wanted by Interpol for the Rape of 2 women.

Posted by: MARS 1 Dec 2010, 20:07

As much as I dislike Assange - he just comes off as a sleazy weasel to me - this is obviously a smear campaign coupled with what may very well be a made-up excuse to arrest him. It creates the illusion that this man isn't
being hunted for being a political enemy of the state but an actual criminal accused of a terrible crime. Plus, it comes with the added bonus of tainting his reputation thus undermining people's trust and willingness to believe him.

Posted by: Raven 2 Dec 2010, 3:52

But the damage has already been done. The new documents released shows UK has allowed US to store cluster munitions on UK territory. These cables basically depict the bad side of most governments. US think that they have arrested the guy who leaked those info. It may not happen easily again the future, but the damage has been done. Some of these things are just confirmations of what has already been suspected before.

What's you personal opinion about those leaks? Is it justified, or is it plain to dangerous as US claim?

Posted by: MARS 2 Dec 2010, 8:56

Some of both actually. On the one hand, I can sort of understand the US government saying that this may compromise and even endanger some of their informants, but on the other hand, it does cast a bad light on their own internal security protocols if these supposedly confidential cables are so badly secured that a mere PFC can steal hundreds of thousands of documents and smuggle them out on a Lady Gaga CD. Could anyone do the same with all the secret files regarding aliens and UFOs please? Now that'd be interesting. Most of the actual information revealed through those cables aren't too surprising for anyone who walks through life and the world with their eyes open and the US most definately ISN'T the only country witholding secret information from the public. It's just embarrassing that it just HAD to be the US who got all their foreign policy secrets exposed by some shady, self-righteous transparency movement. The only thing that strikes me as a bit uncomfortable is the bit about the 'near environmental disaster over a rogue shipment of enriched uranium'. I would like to know more on this.

Posted by: Waris 2 Dec 2010, 8:58

QUOTE (Raven @ 2 Dec 2010, 8:52)

Posted by: Raven 3 Dec 2010, 3:40

QUOTE (MARS @ 2 Dec 2010, 10:56)

Posted by: Overdose 3 Dec 2010, 4:56

Spread of misinformation is common tactic by intelligences around the world.

Posted by: Raven 3 Dec 2010, 9:45

I found this very interesting article on http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/26/secret-agent-crippled-irans-nuclear-ambitions/.

Posted by: Waris 3 Dec 2010, 10:25

I aint touching Fox with no 10-foot long frozen bull semen sorry

Posted by: MARS 3 Dec 2010, 11:13

I love that bit where he compares the worm to having an F-35 jet on a World War I battlefield. Like, what is that one F-35 gonna do? Drop a few precision bombs over the Verdun-sector which has been turned into a complete wasteland by months of ceaseless artillery bombardement to
begin with, shoot down the Red Baron and then resort to being the most spectacular, yet impractical recon plane of the entire war because the time travellers forgot to bring in more than one loadout of bombs, additional jet fuel and all that modern network-centric warfare mumbo-jumbo?

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 8 Dec 2010, 13:17

Just a while ago I've read Japanese and Americans interrupted their common Naval drill in the Japanese Sea, saying Russian planes (consisting of Il-38 and anti-submarine airforce) invaded their air space.

There are two things I wonder:
1. does it mean Japanese are preparing the Korean War breaks anew? Didn't they mean S. Koreans instead?
2. so what? It's not like Japan or the USA can do anything about it except verbal protests. It's the right of Russia (and China) to see when their neighbours start the war.

It's obvious Russia doesn't like American military exercises near their border, because one of such drills preceded Georgian invasion to South Osetia and Abkhazia...

Posted by: Overdose 9 Dec 2010, 3:35

I applaud Russia's response. I'd be very pissed off if I saw foreign fleets near my waters.

Posted by: Waris 25 Dec 2010, 18:41

Rumored Chengdu J-20, China's 5G fighter project sneak peek during a runway test:
http://img43.imageshack.us/i/1293289498019.jpg/
http://img340.imageshack.us/i/1293289685136.jpg/

Posted by: Waris 27 Dec 2010, 14:09

Some J-14/20 fanarts:
http://img833.imageshack.us/i/1293447005722.jpg/
http://img718.imageshack.us/i/1293447054484.jpg/

Posted by: Raven 27 Dec 2010, 14:20

The authenticity of these pics is still questionable to me. However, if true, I can't wait to see some official pics, photos and specs.

Posted by: Waris 27 Dec 2010, 14:43

QUOTE (Raven @ 27 Dec 2010, 22:20)

Posted by: Raven 27 Dec 2010, 17:28

I did a quick check on the mp .net forums and did not bother to look any further. Looks awfully lot like a stretched F-22. If the leak is authentic, then we might see an announcement from the Chinese. What makes me doubtful is why would they test this in an airfield close to civilians?

Posted by: Waris 27 Dec 2010, 17:36

The existence of the project has been predicted for a while so it's not like it was something top-secret. From the rumours I read, the authorities are cool on letting the onlookers watch on but they do ban cameras.

Posted by: MARS 28 Dec 2010, 8:26

It does bear more than a passing resemblance to the F-22. Whatever happened to the days when jet planes from different countries used to look distinct? It'd be interesting to see
if China and Russia end up exporting their pseudo-Raptors, considering how the US government effectively outlawed selling the original to ANY organisation except for the USAF.

Posted by: Raven 28 Dec 2010, 10:31

The reason IMO is that, once the soviet union fell. there weren't any development in this sector from the Russians and the Chinese were always behind the Russians. When Russia wanted to create a new 5th Gen Fighter, it would have taken them a long time and possibly made it obsolete by the time they put it into service if they built something new from scratch. So they got somethings from the Raptor. But the PAK-FA is pretty different from the F-22 IMO. As for this one..it looks a very much like the Raptor.

China and Russia would export these models, but with lesser capabilities to other countries. Up until now, the Raptors were the only fighters with stealth capability and any of the US allies did not need a stealth fighter since they did not have any potentially hostile countries that required a raptor to handle. At best they had the Su-27s and Mig-29s. If these new fighters are sold overseas, I think the US would also start selling them to other AFs. They are already selling the JSF. UK would be one of the first buyers for the F-22 if they ever sell it IMO. Australia, SK and perhaps Japan might also be interested, and of course Israel.

Posted by: Waris 28 Dec 2010, 10:37

Don't be surprised if American allies and partners are pressured to buy the JSF.

I don't think diversification in aesthetics matter when designing a critical piece of military technology. The similarity isn't even as close as you suggested; the J-XX has a canard, it uses a V-shaped pelikan tail similar to those on an F-117, the chassis is longer than that of the F-22, and the shape of the wings are different as well.

They tried to design (by hook or by crook) the fighter to their specs, at the end IMO it matters more to them, how it performs than how it looks. They are 20 years behind the US in designing and fielding a 5th-gen fighter so whatever they can do to reduce that time gap is only good for them, don't you think?

Posted by: Waris 29 Dec 2010, 11:56

http://img64.imageshack.us/i/1293575688362.jpg/
http://img716.imageshack.us/i/1293588302967.jpg/
http://img195.imageshack.us/i/1293596583447.jpg/
http://img716.imageshack.us/i/1293596640450.jpg/
http://img413.imageshack.us/i/1293604034159.jpg/

Posted by: MARS 29 Dec 2010, 13:03

Cheers for the clear images. So it's not that much of an obvious Raptor copy after all.

Posted by: dangerman1337 29 Dec 2010, 14:26

QUOTE (Waris @ 28 Dec 2010, 9:37)

Posted by: Rade 29 Dec 2010, 16:09

QUOTE (MARS @ 29 Dec 2010, 13:03)

Posted by: Waris 29 Dec 2010, 16:54

Can't wait to see it making appearances in mods

Posted by: Raven 29 Dec 2010, 17:53

lol...we gotta say this looks the best compared to f-22 and T-50 .

Posted by: Waris 30 Dec 2010, 10:22

Moar
http://img18.imageshack.us/i/1293665400569.jpg/

Posted by: Overdose 30 Dec 2010, 17:43

Diversity is always nice.

Its like the Raptor and the Berkut combined their awesome powers and became Captain Planet.

Posted by: Waris 30 Dec 2010, 19:52

Renders:
http://img26.imageshack.us/i/1293725957859.jpg/
http://img543.imageshack.us/i/1293726001275.jpg/
http://img232.imageshack.us/i/1293726074044.jpg/
http://img3.imageshack.us/i/1293726173642.jpg/
http://img401.imageshack.us/i/1293726802884.jpg/

http://img27.imageshack.us/i/1293730673286.png/

Maintenance hatch:
http://img535.imageshack.us/i/1293729977687.jpg/

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 30 Dec 2010, 20:09

Still I think PakFa (if finished) might be better in manouverability, ROF and number of targets fired on simultaneusly, maybe even stealth (shape isn't everything)

It also depends on materials used in this jet and it's "intestines"...

...and is it just me or J22 looks rather fragile, compared to other 5th gen. Stealth-jets ?

Posted by: Raven 31 Dec 2010, 3:50

Apparently the focus of J-20 is to have longer endurance times with a larger payload. It seems to have a better focus on ground attacks as well. I think it's not built for dog fights, but more for long range interception and stealthy first strikes.

Well we'll have to wait some more to learn all the details. Anyone know of the PAK-FA's progress?

Posted by: Waris 11 Jan 2011, 16:25

It flies! http://video.sina.com.cn/v/b/44929492-1622669611.html#44667541

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 11 Jan 2011, 20:34

↑ I have to warn you there's some malware rubbish (script) on that site. ↑

Posted by: Waris 11 Jan 2011, 20:44

NoScript much?

Well then, here's one from YT:


or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXEdmJsl8Ik&feature=watch_response

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 23 Jan 2011, 15:59

Although I don't know if there were these videos of the PakFa before, I'm putting them here:

Frontal flight control elements of the wing (closest is probably the LEVCON on the HAL Tejas yet it's not the same thing):


PAK-FA T-50 2nd Test Flight Russian 5th Gen

http://www.youtube.com/v/8n-as2sooJU?version=3

Putin meets 'Stealth': PAK FA T-50 fighter jet presentation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5t6R9faLf8&NR=1&feature=fvwp

"It looked sleek, mean, fast and deadly. I wouldn't mess with it." said the PAK FA afterwards.

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 25 Jan 2011, 11:47

...and another story, about nuclear tests (and 2 infamous attacks) from the test in New Mexico up to 1998:

Show it to those arguing that Chernobyl disaster was worse than nuclear tests...

It's pretty long, however it's worth to see at least the first few minutes and the recapitulation.
--------------------------------------
7th February 2011:

Gepard GM6 Lynx, Modern Anti-material rifle from Hungary



A weapon created with the only purpose - to destroy.
This Anti-material rifle can be used to eliminate enemy positions in buildings, mobile units in the open space or even low flying helicopters (600-800m/15000-20000ft).
With it's low weight of 11.5kg it's an ideal high caliber rifle for paratroopers with accurancy of 1 meter square on 1500km (hits barrel on 0.7 mile).
This beast also fires 5 rounds per 3 seconds.

Posted by: Massey 24 Feb 2011, 1:44

I did a little research on matter, anti-matter and the anti-matter can only be effective if it is use on the right element. So unless you have mass spy network. (LooKing back at soviet times...) you could be shooting the wrong type of Anti-matter for the matter target.

So IMO this is a limited useful tech for wartime.

Posted by: MARS 24 Feb 2011, 6:29

Anti-matter cannot serve any practical purpose for the foreseeable future, let alone be weaponised. All the anti-matter that's ever been produced at CERN -combined- would merely be enough to power a light-bulb for a moment. At the current rate, it'd take billions of years to assemble enough anti-matter to produce anything comparable to a powerful explosion. And once you've got your anti-matter, you need to build a bomb with a powerful electromagnetic containment field so it doesn't just annihilate itself with regular matter before your bomb even left the assembly line. This shit is way too intricate and impractical.

Posted by: partyzanPaulZy 26 Feb 2011, 14:36

I have added third video showing effects of the .50 round.
Massey: Anti-material rifle doesn't use anti-matter, otherwise there would be little more craters visible from the orbit.

BTW, there is at least one planned use of the AM, in ion engines of the late 21st century spaceships.

Posted by: Massey 8 Mar 2011, 23:29

Looking for a google master here....

There are 3 (to the best of my now how) gen-5 planes in proto-stage.
The f-35, T-50 (FAK-PA) and <insert chineese one>.

What, if any thing, can ppl tell us about the the progess of all three planes. (maybe even have a small breif to compair the three [like early post but more infomation])

And does any other country have a 5th-gen plane on the works? (maybe Bazil or EU).

Posted by: Massey 21 Mar 2011, 23:19

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/russias-secret-weapon-inflatable-tanks/story-fn5fsgyc-1226024555662

ROFL and cool at the same time

Posted by: Overdose 6 May 2011, 1:07

An artist's impression of what the downed helicopter could've look like.

Posted by: MARS 6 May 2011, 5:37

I've seen this one a few days a go. It's a cool concept - might be useful for a mod - but most of it is probably speculation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could imagine the fueling probe having a bit of an ill-effect on its stealth capabilities.

Posted by: Dutchygamer 6 May 2011, 17:04

The 'upgraded' version reminds me of the Comanche. That one was supposed to be 'stealth' as well right?

Posted by: MARS 6 May 2011, 17:13

Yeah, it was supposed to be an armed reconnaissance helicopter with stealth capabilities to replace some of the aging light helicopter models used by the army. If this really turned
out to be a stealth transport helicopter, I wouldn't be too surprised if it borrowed a thing or two from the stuff they learned while developing the Comanche before its cancellation.

Posted by: Raven 9 May 2011, 8:44

Pakistan had said that they picked up for choppers entering their borders and then lost them. Perhaps they may have jammed the RADARS as well.

Posted by: Overdose 10 May 2011, 0:55

I'm pretty sure that was just an American AWACS in the vicinity.

Posted by: Massey 4 Jan 2012, 11:04

http://youtu.be/LDk5cA8JUIQ
Is this ^ real? or just another Utube joke? If so, Cool stuff for the Britz

P.S why doesnt youtube vidoes seem to work any more on the forums?

Posted by: SorataZ 4 Jan 2012, 11:48

QUOTE (Massey @ 4 Jan 2012, 11:04)

Posted by: Massey 4 Jan 2012, 13:54

QUOTE (SorataZ @ 4 Jan 2012, 20:48)

Posted by: SorataZ 4 Jan 2012, 14:10

*facepalm* Of course, I'm sorry about that. I'll show you how it works.

The know the Youtube tags.
[ youtube ] -content- [ /youtube ]

You click the Youtube video. Then copy the highlighted stuff from the URL, as seen on the picture:


Then you set this and only this part between the Youtube brackets.

[ youtube ] LDk5cA8JUIQ [ /youtube ]

This then results in:

This

Posted by: Massey 4 Jan 2012, 14:52

Thanks man... much better now!(I just fix up my last too RotR threads )

On another note... any one got any new military tech to show and tell?

Massey

Posted by: MARS 4 Jan 2012, 15:29

Very interesting technology, assuming that it's real and all. Remember though, it's only IR camouflage; it still looks very much like an armoured vehicle to the naked eye.

Posted by: Massey 18 Jan 2013, 2:27

Just did a little reading but i dont have the time to do more indepth research... so maybe someone can anwser the following for me:

Is the T-90MS turret and the Universal Combat Platform T-99 going to be the next Main russian tank? T-100MS maybe?

And on that note is there any real be benefits to the MS vision or is it more or less just for show?

Posted by: CoLT 18 Jan 2013, 3:47

QUOTE (Massey @ 18 Jan 2013, 9:27)

Posted by: MARS 18 Jan 2013, 7:28

It's also worth noting that Russia and China seem to have a different doctrine in regards to main battle tanks than most other countries. They have MBTs that are cheaper/less up-to-date such as the T-72/T-80 or the Type-95 which are available in large numbers and then there are newer, more expensive tanks such as the T-90 (as well as its recent variants) or the ZTZ99 which are only given out to the more elite/strategically important units and not available in large numbers. Western countries on the other hand tend to have smaller militaries that only run -one- model as their MBT, i.e. the US only use Abrams tanks instead of, say for example, a few Abrams tanks and many old Pattons nowadays. Chances are that whatever comes out of the Armata project will be treated in a similar way as the T-90.

Posted by: CoLT 18 Jan 2013, 9:37

Although, in this case, I believe he is referring to the T-99 project not the ZTZ-99.

Posted by: dangerman1337 19 Jan 2013, 10:23

QUOTE (MARS @ 18 Jan 2013, 7:28)

Posted by: Col._Sandfurz 21 Jan 2013, 21:03

As far as I know, T-99 is planed for "mass" production.
The T-95 was kinda testbed for the new unmanned turret.
But I have no idea if the russians will shift away from their current doctrine of "mass MBT" like T-72 etc. and "elite MBT" like the T-90/T80UM1.
At Wikipedia, you can read that T-99 Armata should replace all current tank models, but no one could tanke a look into the future.

@MARS: Afaik the NATO forces do not have huge diffrences in training, but the US "mass MBT" may be the M1A1. Afaik there is quite a gap between this one and the M1A2 or M1A2 SEP (TUSK)
I got this from Wiki:
1,547 M1A2 and M1A2SEP variants
4,393 M1A1 variants
2,000 M1 variants
So you can see that there are far more M1A1..
Thats just an idea that popped in my mind as I read this article.

@dangerman1337:
You are right, but its really unrealistic..
If a T-72 tank crew is trained and equipped well, the chance that the modern day NATO MBT is trained and equipped as good as the T-72 is extremely high.
Chances are aslo good that NATO crews are trained even better (considereing that lot of the T-72's all arround the world are operated by "poor"(in therms of money, not cultural etc.!!!) countries)
But your post shows that NO MBT is invulnerable.. a circumstate that fanboys often forget when talking about their beloved toys

Posted by: dangerman1337 22 Jan 2013, 12:28

The thing is that the T-72 gets a lot of bad rep due to Iraqis who locally manufactured a very crappy version (if the video is true) and were hilarously incompetent in terms of tactics and strategy (then again this applies to most if not all Arabi militaries), heck look at this thread at SB.com and look at IXJac's posts to how bad they were: http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/iraq-circa-1991-versus-germany-circa-1941.114534/). Even though NATO MBTs have highly trained crews with them I meant that a T-72 with a good crew, officers and ammunition (AKA not the Iraqis) is a threat to even a modern MBT, however it would require the T-72 to flank said MBT which is unlikely.

Though still if there's anything I detest more than the "Soviet tanks were/are crap" stuff is the "tanks are useless in modern warfare and light vehicles like Stryker and lighter is all we need", the only reason why that movement has gained traction is because the conception is that Airpower is inherently good against ground forces which is not true since the Serbians were able to heavily negate NATO airpower though decoys and tactics (they did not shot down aircraft much but NATO had to dedicate a signifigant amount of sorties to surpress and take out Serbian AA). A second reason is that Rumsfeld and co wanted to ditch the Powell Doctrine and bum-rush Afghanistan (though to be fair, Afghanistan was fucked up by the Mongols and others way back and the ISAF is doing far better than the Soviets were doing, also some Taliban members are pretty hardcore) and Iraq so he would not deal with the politics of having to amass signifigant ground troops and vehicles to properly secure them (and look what happened during the aftermath). Another is thow media/fiction potray Special Forces to the point were the general public think they're ub3r wanked killing machines.

Posted by: (USA)Bruce 25 Feb 2013, 22:36

Are millatary questions allowed here?

Cause I wanted to know how stealth works in dog fights....

Lets say a squad of F-16s chased down a Nighthawk (Thats quite outdated) or a Raptor

Will they see it on screen?

or what will happen really?

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 25 Feb 2013, 22:50

It depends on several factors, what is right and that the Nighthawk is not detected by enemy radar because it flies at low altitude which prevents electromagnetic waves 'find' the aircraft beyond its fuselage is made of materials that prevent their detection.

In a dogfight is much more difficult to 'escape' of electromagnetic waves from radar coupled considering the angle at which the waves are issued, if the fuselage is in fact 'bilndada' against waves probably will not be detected.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 26 Feb 2013, 4:07

there multiple factors.

1: Which way is the stealth plane facing? It's more stealthy from the face and sides and less so from the top and bottom.
2: What radar is being used on the non-stealthy aircraft? (Some Radar is more effective at stealthy target detection)
3: Is the Stealth plane (which it usually is) using only passive radar? (Passive being that it waits for others to make radar waves, it doesn't make any itself)
4: What tech is either side using. (Technology is a massive advantage)
5: Has the stealth jet compromised it's stealth by opening it's doors and dropping some firepower? (At which point everything just goes to the shitter since no plan lives past enemy contact)
6: Is there a AWACS or EW plane on either side? (EW or AWACS can simply brute force the entire fight with much better electronics blinding the other side or giving their side a perfect target.
7: As always. Pilot skill.

Posted by: Maxner12 31 Mar 2013, 16:43

Dropping by to show the world's possibly largest "sniper rifle" (if you can handle that kickback, you can yourself a man), the Denel NTW 20:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXLRYf9EV2Y
Also, note the music, it somehow makes the video ten times better

Posted by: Karpet 2 Apr 2013, 22:46

Russia had a whole bunch of T-80, T-72, that kind of stuff, they had a bunch of variants like the awesome T-80UK (yes I have been playing the C&C Cold War Crisis, shut up) and the T-80BV. It's extremely logical to assume that elite crews only had clearance to drive those things (better armor, Shtora or Arena(?) system, ATGM capability).
They did have pretty good AT weapons too (AT-5 fast BRDM, im not entirely sure but it might've been able to penetrate 600m of armor, again, not sure what type. Also BMP-2.)

Oh yeah, there is a current Russian RPG that can penetrate ERA armor and that is the RPG-29.

Also, I noticed that in GTA Ballad of Gay Tony, the police striker really resembles the BRDM. Just look at them picture by picture and you'll see.

Posted by: Gecko squid 11 Sep 2013, 22:38

Hello I'm new to the forums

Posted by: Knjaz. 29 Oct 2013, 20:59

QUOTE (Col._Sandfurz @ 21 Jan 2013, 22:03)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 29 Oct 2013, 23:13

In fact Russia and the USA dominates extraordinary technologies in defense industry; the 21 century has put in evidence the financial capacities of potencies to maintain costly armies, nowadays the major challenge is how to produce something modern, durable, efficient and inexpensive at the same time.

Posted by: InsurgentCell 25 Mar 2014, 3:04

Changing up the topic here...

What do you guys percieve as being the future for NAVAL combat?

Up until World War II, the Battleship was percieved as the dominant naval vessel, but it was superbly outperformed by the Aircraft Carrier.

Now, new missile cruisers seem to be appearing on the battlefield. They launch long range cruise missiles to destroy land and sea targets, and have advanced AA missiles to kill off planes.
Do you think long range missile vessels will replace the aircraft carrier as the mainstay of the fleet?

Posted by: Kalga 25 Mar 2014, 3:08

Well, somehow I feel that point defense lasers and lots of ECMs will ruin the day of the missile, possibly forcing a new era of battleships (railgun/coilgun equipped of course, with combat distances in the hundreds of kms).

Posted by: BliTTzZ 25 Mar 2014, 5:26

Point defense lasers are very expensive and ineffective protection against missile attacks. Right now it's not the problem to construct something big and hard hitting thing, it's all about energy source. Developing of weapons based on new physics principles will take a hell of the time, more than a few decades I think.

And what do you mean about modern naval warfare? Right now it's aircraft carriers and naval based cruise and anti-ship missiles. But it only works against countries which are much weaker than their opponent, who have such a strike force. Everything changes when you're facing equivalent opponent. There a few easy ways to engage carrier battle groups - and it's also effective and cheap, like: massive long range anti-ship missile attacks, torpedo attacks, even tactical nuclear weapons.

Posted by: MARS 25 Mar 2014, 6:57

QUOTE (InsurgentCell @ 25 Mar 2014, 3:04)

Posted by: Svea Rike Soldier 25 Mar 2014, 9:53

I'm just hoping someone will build the Helicarrier.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 25 Mar 2014, 11:33

QUOTE (Svea Rike Soldier @ 25 Mar 2014, 5:53)

Posted by: Svea Rike Soldier 25 Mar 2014, 11:40

QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 25 Mar 2014, 11:33)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 25 Mar 2014, 11:53

QUOTE (Svea Rike Soldier @ 25 Mar 2014, 7:40)

No, no, no, this Helicarrier:

Posted by: The_Hunter 25 Mar 2014, 12:49

Also that ship would likely never fly in that current shape.

The turbines would probably have to be twice (likely more) the size than the ones shown there to get that thing airborne.
Not to mention how they would be a major vulnerbility point.

You litterly only need to fire one missile up one of the turbines and the whole thing will crash and burn.

Posted by: The General 25 Mar 2014, 12:52

I think that in navy it will remain on submarines. Ships and carriers at this point can easily be sunk even by those without a navy, by a long-range anti-ship missile that can be launched from land.

As far as lasers are concerned, they are expensive and ineffective. Lasers can be used to mark the target, but i don't see them being able to destroy it any time soon. They'll need a whole lot of energy just to be able to point in the distance, and it's a huge question if they will ever be able to save enough to actualy destroy it instantly.

About naval drones, they are easily destroyed too. Just destroy the mothership, and the rest is taken care of.

Navy defense is also fairly weak, which is why i think the future of it is under water.

Posted by: Svea Rike Soldier 25 Mar 2014, 12:54

QUOTE (The_Hunter @ 25 Mar 2014, 12:49)

Posted by: The General 25 Mar 2014, 13:01

QUOTE (Svea Rike Soldier @ 25 Mar 2014, 13:40)

No, no, no, this Helicarrier:

Posted by: The General 25 Mar 2014, 13:03

QUOTE (Svea Rike Soldier @ 25 Mar 2014, 14:54)

Posted by: Svea Rike Soldier 25 Mar 2014, 13:06

QUOTE (The General @ 25 Mar 2014, 13:01)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 25 Mar 2014, 16:23

Changing a little the focus of discussion: below you will see a compilation of almost an hour where T-72 tanks of the Syrian army go into action against the rebels - the tanks are really fascinating vehicles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Mv9DJRvuHyI

NOTE: are "only" T-72 tanks, imagine if they were T-90...

Posted by: Karpet 27 Mar 2014, 2:06

QUOTE (Svea Rike Soldier @ 25 Mar 2014, 7:54)

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 4 Apr 2014, 20:39

Zeppelins are quite cost efficient for large sizes, yes. Parasite aircraft is not a new concept, it's just not necessary or a good idea. Easier to protect a supercarrier and it is more cost efficient with how many planes it can serve at the same time.

However, I'd say that lighter landing crafts that can perform a variety of missions using modular loadouts is what we'll get in the future, like the so called LCS.

Posted by: Massey 7 Apr 2014, 17:07

http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/did-military-intervention-libya-succeed

Very interesting...
my point of view: not so much.

Posted by: The General 8 Apr 2014, 17:21

QUOTE (Massey @ 7 Apr 2014, 18:07)

Posted by: Svea Rike Soldier 5 May 2014, 12:25

QUOTE (MARS @ 25 Mar 2014, 7:57)

Posted by: FloppyDisk99 15 Jul 2014, 4:03

Off topic; no one can match the Armour Superiority of the Germans, just had to put that out there.....

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 15 Jul 2014, 6:08

CoughWWIICough.

Way to build a tank that's too heavy for bridges and broke down from driving forwards.

Posted by: MARS 15 Jul 2014, 6:46

The last decent tanks that the Germans introduced during WW2 were the Panther and the Tiger - and even they had some serious problems. Anything that came out after those had exponentially bigger problems that were out of proportion to the increase in combat power.

Although playing that new CoH2 expansion at the moment, it kinda makes me wonder what modern tanks would be like if all those distinctions that were rendered obsolete by the MBT still existed. Imagine a Jagdleopard, Sturmleopard or Königsleopard^^

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 15 Jul 2014, 7:20

Heck, the P-1000 and P-1500 might be plausible nowadays (As in they can move and shoot, actually using the damn things is bonafide retardation and asking for a bombing).

Posted by: Pepo 15 Jul 2014, 8:18

Also even if your tanks are better, it doesn't matter if your enemy outnumber you by a big difference. The panther tank, after they fix the problems in kursk was a superb tank and not as expensive as the tiger , however it couldn't defeat the allies because it was completly outnumber by allied tanks among other things. Also if the crew training sucks , the tank become less usefull. The Jadtiger , which btw was a complete overkill, fare really bad because the crews didn't knew how to use it properly. Personally i think that the "german armor superiority" in the ww2 end up diverting a lot of resources in unnecesary tanks( tiger 2 , maus) instead of focusing the already badly damage industry in just building one tank in greater quantities

Posted by: MARS 15 Jul 2014, 8:32

WW2 tank combat was the classic quality vs. quantity conflict. German tanks weren't actually all that superior during the early years of the war, but the difficulties they faced against the T-34 and the KV series prompted them to develop bigger, more powerful tanks to counter them, thus producing among other things the Panther, the Tiger and the Elefant. Those might have been able to defeat larger numbers of allied tanks due to superior quality and crew, but in the end, the kill ratios couldn't match the rate at which America and the USSR could churn out their Shermans and T-34s respectively, not to mention that Germany no longer had any ability to strike at the industrial basis that made this extreme war production a possibility, all while its own industrial base got smashed by extensive bombing campaigns. In the end, the war in Europe was decided by superior resources, production and logistics. On its own, the entry of the US or the point where the Soviets took the initiative would have made an Axis victory highly improbable; combined, the two made it flat-out impossible.

Posted by: Die Hindenburg 15 Jul 2014, 15:54

Its always so:

IF you have good things and much more of them as your enemy and keep it longer going and use them more efficiently, you defeat any enemy who is only superior either in numbers or quality.
The Tanks and other things were always upgraded with newer upgrades like in a RTS
What use is an shitty Tiger if the soviet or allied tank gets an cannon that punches through it? Later shermans and T34 were finally superior in any way to the tiger, the germans should have produced much more lovely Panther and Fockewulf "butcher" instead of the piece of shit Tiger and experimental rocket planes.

Dont mention the japs and itakas, their equipment was downright useless, the only axis nations beside germany with some usefull things were Hungary (first practical flak-tank) and... who?

Posted by: Pepo 15 Jul 2014, 20:02

considering that germany in 1939 have double the industry than the ussr, it makes you wonder why they start preparing it for war so late . and when the bombing campain was cripling their industry, they were creaying over complicated tanks that overkill any allied tanks except other heavy tanks, that appear to counter german ones. the more effective german tank, the panther, wasn't numerous enougth to turn the tide althougth it was much cost effective than the panzer 4. should the germans focused only on the panther and is variants , and convert their economy much earlier, the war would have last longer

Posted by: Thelord444 21 Aug 2014, 15:14

First Chinese hypersonic missile successfully tested

Wu-14, can carry nuclear and speed of mach 10 and stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WU-14

Thoughts?

Posted by: Kalga 21 Aug 2014, 20:11

Bet that the West (mostly the US) media will spin this as a provocative act of aggression by the evil PRC.

Just look at the previous examples in recent history...

India has 2 aircraft carriers (2 in service, 2 more under constructing): India can now better resist against foreign aggression, PRC has one (1 experimenting, maybe a few planned... in a decade or so): OMG them commies are threatening peace in East Asia!

America has 18+ B2s & 185+ F-22s & yet undetermined # of F-35s: the world is safer for peace & freedom, PRC has a few J-20s and J-31 in the testing stage and suddenly world peace is in danger!

Also that reminds me of that one article on Time magazine about 6 or 7 years back about the threat of the PLA... in which they used photos of PLAAF J-7 (i.e. MiG-21) fighters to show how "threatening" the PRC's military is.

------

Sorry for the vent, just that I'm bombard with this kind of stuff every time I see the news these years...

Posted by: Thelord444 22 Aug 2014, 0:35

QUOTE (Kalga @ 21 Aug 2014, 22:11)

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 22 Aug 2014, 3:41

It IS a provocation.

There's no way to spin it as anything else, but chest-thumping and another overt threat to Japan, Taiwan, and every other nation in the South China Sea.

Posted by: Thelord444 22 Aug 2014, 3:53

QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 22 Aug 2014, 5:41)

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 22 Aug 2014, 4:18

Other countries don't claim an entire sea, including territorial waters of their neighbors, as their territory.

Posted by: Kalga 22 Aug 2014, 12:12

Any nation that has the capability (i.e. military power backed by industrial might) to expand their own interests will do* so. The concept of "right" or "wrong" only applies when they are at the mercy of others or that there is an absolute superiorentity .

It is not in the interest of China (or Russia, for that matter) to place their national interest at the tender mercies** of the West.

I'm not saying China is "right" (given that the concept is here is extremely relative), I'm not saying that there is no reason for China to be the West's lapdog. I was simply pointed about the West's tendency to feel that they are entitled to a perpetual technological supremacy, and overreacted when nations outside their spheres of influence does anything notable.

------
*A tradition dating back to the dawn of humanity, of course, most of the time historians retroactively make it look like it was right that make might rather than vice versa.

**Just look at Russia during the 90s, unable to help their Slavic breathes in the Balkans... though of course the situation was much more complicated than that, and it wasn't like the Russian chose to put themselves at the mercy of the West...

Posted by: Pepo 22 Aug 2014, 12:47

QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 22 Aug 2014, 4:41)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 22 Aug 2014, 13:41

China is showing clearly to the United States and its allies its expansionist policy; one refit and modernization of the armed forces is part of the game already that China is today the largest consumer market in the world and the second largest economy; was expected that China would go on a maritime dispute with its neighbors in search of resources to boost its growing economy. All this explains why the displeasure of Washington with regards to Beijing: a dispute over the global hegemony already that today only China has technological autonomy, an expansionist policy and capital to counter North American interests (expansionism and colonialism) on a global scale.

Is this correct? Is this fair? In fact are questions that have subjective responses; however were the Americans and Europeans who financed China over the years, investing in large conglomerates and working for the Chinese market opened up to capitalism practiced in the West, so why now are pressing China to cease the their advance? That's is not why defending western capitalism: conquer, dominate and exploit? So what's the problem in that? China has been growing and expanding its global influence far more responsible than the USA way, then the Chinese capitalist system works better than the American system, the financial crisis was proof of that - China saved the world from total collapse - then I think the West is only trying to blame the wrong side; why not criticize your own system? Their own self-degradable consumer society? China tried to play his own game for centuries, but when he realized that if he played the game of the West was the winner, so do not think twice... since then China has not lost any more war against the West.

"Know thy enemy and know-thyself; if you have a hundred battles waging a hundred times you will be victorious. If you ignore your enemy and know yourself, your chances of winning and losing are identical. If ignorant of both your enemy and yourself, only shalt thy fighting for your losses." - Sun Tzu; the West must learn to Eastern philosophy.

Posted by: Anubis 22 Aug 2014, 14:13

Oh my China has a new toy that can rival with something murica has. Beware world - soon China will be declared a terrorist nation.
Serialkillerwhale ... seriously - if your pro-murican bullshit was any bigger you would grow a murican flag out of your ass. Murica doesn't claim a territory? Really - have you ever read anything in your life except fox news information? You don't have to put your frekin flag in a country to claim it. The simple fact that you send your economical weapons - aka IMF, WB, Trilateral Commission and every other so called international institution that pretty much puts murican corporation interest over the life of any other human being on the planet means they claim a country. Do you think Panama just all of a sudden decided that they wanna give that canal to USA. Do you think most of South America sudently decided that their population should starve just so the average american can throw tons of food imported from their countries? Do you think half this world does w/e murica commands out of their deepest and most sincere respect for the so called murican democracy?
Just because they call it - bringing freedom and democracy when invading a country that's not even a neighbor, or economically bankrupt another country with the help of a corrupt legal system and corporations (Argentina's case being the latest) doesn't mean that literally.
Get this through your murican indoctrinated thick head already - muricah has no superior moral ground to any other country/nation and i would also say culture if murica even had such a thing. In their 300 years of history they have known only 2 things - wars and murder. They occupy a land that was not theirs, they invade any country they want - be it military or economically and they try everything in their power to stop the rest of the world from getting close to their power so they can still be the so called no1 nation. They are just as power hungry, corrupt and full of shit as russians, chinese, and any other global or regional super power. They just made sure a huge percent of the world media is on their side, so that weak minded ignorant people can be easily set on their side.

Posted by: Kalga 22 Aug 2014, 15:35

... ah shucks, I derailed the conversation. My apologies (for the derailing, not for my cynical nationalism).

Maybe we should move on to something else, I'm currently making battleships on Gmax and I was wondering what are everyone's thoughts on the "Queen Anne's Mansions" design of superstructure in British 3rd generation dreadnoughts (as well as their refitted Queen Elizabeths and the Renown class battlecruisers).

Posted by: Kalga 23 Aug 2014, 2:08

Oh look at the news here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/20/north-korea-sends-some-of-its-best-tanks-to-chinese-border-amid-fears-beijing-will-betray-kim-jong-un-report/

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 23 Aug 2014, 12:41

^Interesting article, brings a good idea of what is the NK's army.

Posted by: Oldschool22 7 Sep 2014, 1:22

Just thought to put this out there, but who has a superior fighter?
United States: F-22 Raptor
United States: F-35 Lightning II
Russia: SU-47 Berkut
Russia: T-50 PAK-FA
China: J-31 Shenyang
China: J-20 Black Eagle
Japan: ATD-X Shinshin
India: HAL AMCA

Posted by: MARS 7 Sep 2014, 6:27

Whichever one of these is 'superior' can only be proven once they actually go up against each other. Thing is, modern air warfare doesn't revolve so much around planes engaging other planes as it boils down to one side launching a decapitation strike against the opposing air force and trying to wipe it out while it is still in the ground. So - whoever gets the first/most shots in on the opposing airfields will end up superior, but probably not by pure virtue of having the better planes but using them to their fullest in conjunction with other arms.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 7 Sep 2014, 7:57

In a "Nearly today" fight the Raptor is the only one truly in major production, as opposed to the near-finished stages of the other planes. This gives it time to iron out it's kinks and of course makes production easier.

In the end, logistics trumps nearly everything else in war.

Posted by: Oldschool22 7 Sep 2014, 9:39

true, all true, the raptor is the only one in production while the others are still being tested, but the raptor and its pilots are meant to fight against extreme overwhelming odds, like 1 flight of raptors ( 4 planes ) vs, say, a squadron of su-47 flankers ( 16+ planes), eventually, the raptors will run out of BVR missiles ( like the sparrow or the ammram) and have to get in close with heat seekers ( Aim-9's) and cannon, at VR combat, radar stealth no longer hides it, boiling it down to old fashion dog fighting where the best pilot in the best plane wins, that's my scenario for gen 5 vs gen 4 fighters

here's my scenario for gen 5 vs gen 5, fighters will eventually be fitted with low frequency radar which can detect stealth aircraft, they pick each other off at long range, then survivors go home, this is shorter because gen 5 aircraft are meticulous and expensive to build, which means there will be less of them, and because there will be less of them, if you lose one or two, you've lost a huge part of your air-dominance

we will have to wait and see which will be superior when they fight each other, either in training or in war

Posted by: DarkyPwnz 7 Sep 2014, 10:53

QUOTE (Oldschool22 @ 7 Sep 2014, 10:39)

Posted by: Oldschool22 7 Sep 2014, 11:38

oops, i meant su-27's, they both look almost exactly the same

Posted by: The General 7 Sep 2014, 12:33

QUOTE (Oldschool22 @ 7 Sep 2014, 12:38)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 7 Sep 2014, 12:53

Nowadays the biggest advantage of a fighter against another is software integration, for example the advanced link of a fighter with an AWACS. If a country does not have such mechanisms can have the best fighter in the market that will be neutralized before even detect anything on radar.

Posted by: Oldschool22 7 Sep 2014, 18:43

i must be bad with names, SU-27




SU-37

Posted by: Maxwell Sinclair 31 Oct 2014, 12:25

I wanted to add something interesting to the military talks. Then I remembered I live in New Zealand, so instead I will add this.



The New Zealand airforce at its finest. Clearly we have the most superior planes. *sigh* Idk whats up with the pic...

Posted by: Spetsnaz666 31 Oct 2014, 23:55

QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 7 Sep 2014, 13:53)

Posted by: Spetsnaz666 31 Oct 2014, 23:58

QUOTE (Raven @ 3 Dec 2010, 10:45)

Posted by: Spetsnaz666 1 Nov 2014, 0:05

QUOTE (MARS @ 7 Sep 2014, 7:27)

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 1 Nov 2014, 0:54

QUOTE (Maxwell Sinclair @ 31 Oct 2014, 4:25)

I wanted to add something interesting to the military talks. Then I remembered I live in New Zealand, so instead I will add this.



The New Zealand airforce at its finest. Clearly we have the most superior planes. *sigh* Idk whats up with the pic...

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 1 Nov 2014, 20:24

QUOTE (Spetsnaz666 @ 31 Oct 2014, 20:55)

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 1 Nov 2014, 23:45

The reason dedicated AWACS planes are better is literally because they're bigger, and have more room for AWACSy things and people in and on it than a regular plane.
While computers are getting smaller, it's still true that a bigger computer using the same tech is gonna have more power than a smaller one.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 4 Dec 2014, 13:34

An impressive video of close combat in Grozny-Checênia where apparently Chechen elite troops using AK-101 or AK-105 (or both) face terrorist insurgents in a building: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIC2lI2Exys

Anyone know tell me what is the rifle that appears to 1:50 of the video?

Posted by: zourv 2 Jan 2015, 11:54

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Vintorez

Posted by: Mcbob 27 Aug 2015, 0:44

Official Humvee replacement announced today: http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a26491/this-is-the-us-armys-official-humvee-replacement/

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 27 Aug 2015, 0:49

^ Was reading about it right now, apparently will be able to withstand the blasts from IEDs, something that Hummvee currently can not; probably Oshkosh L-ATV increase the mobility of American troops.

Posted by: Mcbob 27 Aug 2015, 1:27

Would be cool if we saw this modeled for generals, I'd say.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 27 Aug 2015, 13:25

For those who like the Russian aviation in action: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150827/1026256993/maks-2015-airshow-third-day-deals.html

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Sep 2015, 14:15

An incredible evolution for the USA UCAVs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztP9ZEMwZuI

Posted by: Svea Rike 8 Sep 2015, 14:47

Theoretically, this thing can be airborne indefinately if they find a way to rearm it mid-air. Or it could be a permanent reconnaisance UAV. Amazing how technology has evolved.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Sep 2015, 14:58

QUOTE (Svea Rike @ 8 Sep 2015, 10:47)

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 8 Sep 2015, 18:37

Now, that producing robots/drones is becoming more cost-effective, we'll see a large-scale automation of military. Reducing the number of personnel and increasing tech will lead us to new age of warfare. Both Russia and China have similar projects and it would be really interesting to see a battle on a drone-filled sky, ground or water. And finally, loosing an expendable and easily replaceable drone, rather than a human will make wars less bloody and they won't last too long.

Posted by: MARS 9 Sep 2015, 6:40

That's the common assumption, but there was also the assumption just prior to WW1 that future wars would become less bloody and not last as long anymore due to the massive proportions of destructive power produced by then-modern explosives. The truth is that not all countries will be able to have a massive drone fleet, so it will instead be a one-sided battle between those that have their highly lethal but easily replaceable drones (who, as a result, do not have to take the burden of casualties into account when contemplating the war option) and those who still have to send living people to fight and die. We may already have armed UAVs and see the earliest forms of unmanned ground vehicles, but it will still be a long time until a machine can replace the common infantryman who will be required to not only defeat your opponent, but to occupy and control the spoils of war afterwards. Plus, even those countries that can afford massive drone fleets will not replace the bulk of their human personnel with them anytime soon. Putting thousands of trained soldiers out of work, people who based their entire future on the assumption that their reliable, crisis-proof military job would feed their family through, is never a good idea and may produce unforeseen social disturbances. The human element of warfare can never be entirely removed. The means and methods may change, but in the end, the violence goes out from and goes back to humans and for the foreseeable future, it will remain more economical to train young working-class people how to shoot other young working-class people in the name of 'country' and 'honour', than to replace them with multi-million dollar machines. In the social precariat of today's economic system, where millions of people are driven by fear of present or future poverty because they're struggling to get by despite all the work they do and can't plan with any security due to short-term employment, it is a stabilising mechanism for such a system if it offers some of these fear-driven people a reliable job as soldiers in order to protect this very system.

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 9 Sep 2015, 10:41

Well, I was refering more to superpower/great power militaries. Yes, I agree with what you said. It won't happen that soon. I wasn't saying that they'll just lay off the entire military at once, but they'll reduce the numbers gradually. Even todays rate of reducing numbers in militaries of US, Russia or China is pretty fast. And yes, a lot of other countries with regional/subregional reach won't have enough money/resources/human capital to have a large drone fleet and that will be a problem for them, but I think that many of them will be in some of the superpower brokered alliance. And incase of war, the civilians will still be in great danger, but considering that logistics is becoming better, it will still be far safer, if war can ever be called safe. It's simply because it will be easier to evacuate more people in less time and than the drones/robots move in to settle old scores between a bunch of hawkish trigger-happy bureaucrats. There would still be casualties, but they would be numbered in dozens/hundreds, rather than thousands/tens of thousands. It will be some time, before it happens, but it will eventually.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 9 Sep 2015, 15:44

A recent videos showing the furious fighting between the troops of the government coalition against terrorists/rebels being caught in Syria; the videos is interesting because it closely resembles the scenarios of WWII and shows closely the intensity of the conflict in Syria.

A good opportunity to observe the high level of training of the SAA and Hezbollah for urban warfare; progressions in urban hostile environment are done to perfection worthy of a professional army.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMUFXX1wNQM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HmnxVvDN6E

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 18 Oct 2015, 12:45

Interesting video recently revealed of the Iran undenground bunker (500 meters below the surface): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpIN1fdW-bw

Maybe the West has underestimated the military capabilities of Iran.

Posted by: Svea Rike 18 Oct 2015, 13:47

Iran has secret Area 51 base confirmed - holding UFOs.

It could probably be more of these bases - or Iran could just be lying in an attempt to scare the US. The base ain't so secret no more, is it, so I don't really see no other reason for Iran revealing this other than scaring their enemies.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 18 Oct 2015, 14:00

QUOTE (Svea Rike @ 18 Oct 2015, 10:47)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Nov 2015, 16:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e0ofYoVBBs

More and more muscles...

Posted by: Svea Rike 8 Nov 2015, 17:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc0BtEBO86I

What's the point of linking to videos of military excersizes? Cause it's cool. Hell yeah!

Posted by: Eternity 6 10 Nov 2015, 12:36

Looks kind of like a Golem tank form ROTR .

https://www.rt.com/news/234363-armata-tracked-armored-platform/

Posted by: re_simeone 10 Nov 2015, 13:01

QUOTE (Eternity 6 @ 10 Nov 2015, 12:36)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 22 Nov 2015, 17:11

The Russia continues implementing its 'Doctrine Gerasimov' and for these purposes has recently inaugurated the new National Defense Control Center (NDCC) in Moscow.

See the link below of this newest prodigy of the Putin's era:

https://www.rt.com/news/210307-russia-natio...defence-center/





P.s: After seeing this I have a great desire to see this structure in some of future ROTR's missions.

Posted by: re_simeone 24 Nov 2015, 11:33

Skip to 1:20.
Haven't seen such a cool thing in a while.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 24 Nov 2015, 11:57

This may seem stupid, but are those touch screens that fold down? That seems...........self-defeating.

Posted by: Damfoos 24 Nov 2015, 12:20

These afterburners from 0:20.. So beautiful

Posted by: re_simeone 24 Nov 2015, 13:17

Seems no one realize that is footage of Tu-95 on its first combat deployment
since its introduction more than 50 years ago,being escorted by two F-14s !

Posted by: Svea Rike 24 Nov 2015, 16:16

^I do believe those are MiGs. No reason for a Russian bomber to be escorted by American fighters.

Posted by: re_simeone 24 Nov 2015, 17:56

QUOTE (Svea Rike @ 24 Nov 2015, 16:16)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 26 Nov 2015, 14:26

QUOTE (re_simeone @ 24 Nov 2015, 14:56)

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 23 Dec 2015, 22:51

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDW81UrKV1M
Apparently THIS is a thing.

Posted by: Svea Rike 24 Dec 2015, 0:27

Multiple Multiple Rocket Launch System?

Posted by: Pepo 24 Dec 2015, 1:30

QUOTE (Svea Rike @ 24 Dec 2015, 0:27)

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 24 Dec 2015, 2:13

"Manpower" apparently.

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 24 Dec 2015, 5:22

Pepo's right, guys. Besides, there's a big fuckin' sign "Snipe me with a precision weapon" written all over it. Multiple trucks are more mobile, independent, can scatter, camouflage way easier etc.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 24 Dec 2015, 11:16

not to mention the fact that the thing would be absolutely worthless in any realistic off-road situations

Posted by: Svea Rike 24 Dec 2015, 13:48

I thought putting all the launchers on a single truck saves money? The less trucks, the more money saved, right?

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 24 Dec 2015, 19:39

That would be in a perfect world where your army would be a ceremonial show-off festival. In the real world, the money you'd save in this manner would be negligible compared to all the things you'd lose (mentioned above).

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 3 Jan 2016, 16:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHojpEgqN2A

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 3 Jan 2016, 23:36

I truly hope this new year will go much better for those unfortunate people. They've been going through a living Hell for 5 consecutive years now and for their sake I hope they'll finally get their lives back.

Posted by: (USA)Bruce 4 Jan 2016, 3:52

Hopefully 2016 will be the end of war,

East,west,north,south (Yes Im onto you penguins....)
I dont care who wins....Just stop the bloodshed, It got boring three years ago...Its too late for the refugees to return but that doesnt mean they cant rebuild

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 4 Jan 2016, 11:11

Those penguins are up to something.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 7 Jan 2016, 18:59

This year Russia promises to incorporate the first robots for ground combat (UGCV) of the country in the RA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTlMNpyAzg

The Uran-9 is designed to provide remote reconnaissance and fire support to combined arms, recon and counter-terror units. It consists of two recon and fire support robots, a tractor for their transportation and a mobile control post. The robots are fitted with a laser warning system and target detection, identification and tracking equipment.

The armament of the recon and fire support robots includes the 30mm 2A72 automatic cannon, a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun and Ataka ATGMs and may vary depending on customer requirements.

The Uran-9 will be particularly useful during local military and counter-terror operations, including those in cities. Its use will significantly reduce personnel casualties.


P.S: This initiative of Russia confirms the expectations of an advanced terrestrial automation program underway in the country. Apparently the Armata program should be following the same steps of the Uran towards a vehicle 100% autonomous.

Posted by: Svea Rike 7 Jan 2016, 20:33

^Cool. That means we're only a few years away from Call of Duty Black Ops II becoming a reality.

/joke

However, as "unethical" as robotic warfare sounds, if it can minimize casualties then I'm all for it. We just need super-tight security so no hackers/the NSA can take control of the robots and turn them against their masters. People have hacked autonomous cars, which Google claimed wer more secure than Fort Knox.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 7 Jan 2016, 21:12

QUOTE (Svea Rike @ 7 Jan 2016, 17:33)

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 8 Jan 2016, 4:55

That's why all big modern militaries have EW departments. That won't stop the implementation of drones, but it may slow down the process. The real problem will emerge if some radical/terrorist groups get their hands on advanced military-grade EW devices. I'm not saying that they'll be able to produce it (very likely some foreign power with an interest could provide them, which was the case during the Cold War and it will happen again). It'd be really fucked up if we ever get to see a turncoat drone/robot during an anti-terrorist operation. Human factor isn't going anywhere any time soon. Singularity is still far away. Further than most future-crazy people think.

Posted by: Pepo 9 Jan 2016, 11:01

In the past military drones had been hacked ( the most interesting case was when a US predator drone was hacked with a 25$ Russian program and forced to land in Iran). However , is not something you would do during combat, especially if there are a lot of ground drones

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 9 Jan 2016, 16:47

Yeah. There was also one hacked in the Crimea. The Russians just landed it on their base. This proves just how hard will it be for those countries with an over-reliance for drones in their reconnaissance and espionage missions.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 15 Jan 2016, 0:42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1SO1tl_1Bg

The Russia was currently working on new nuclear torpedoes (in 1955 already mastered nuclear torpedoes).

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 15 Jan 2016, 1:08

They have self-captivating torpedos for half a century now. When it comes to subs and their weapons, Russians are way ahead of their potential adversaries. Only Americans and maybe Germans can come close to what Russia has now, but Russians were decades ahead of them in some areas (I've mentioned self-captivating torpedos). It's basically a rocket under water. It's not even a torpedo in it's strict sense, because it basically doesn't touch the water. It's speed is unrivaled by anything else moving both on and in the water. A true nightmare for any enemy vessel.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 16 Jan 2016, 5:20

Nuclear torpedoes?

Why woul

Oh, 1955.

Yeah those years they were pretty stupid about nukes

"LETS NUKE THE SKY"

"LETS SET OFF A NUKE UNDERGROUND"

"LETS DO MINING WITH NUKES"

"LETS MAKE A NUKE-PROPELLED NUCLEAR BOMBER"

"LETS MAKE A NUKE TOO BIG TO EVER USE"

"LETS NUKE THE OCEAN"

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 16 Jan 2016, 20:12

Everyone were crazy about nukes back then. You don't have to constantly puke around your Russophobic OCD. This tread is about an objective view on military tech. Do you really expect that anyone will take your "opinion" seriously, if you're being our designated forum dickhead all the time?
Take a break and involve in an intelligent conversation for once.

Posted by: Pepo 17 Jan 2016, 0:11

QUOTE (Serialkillerwhale @ 16 Jan 2016, 5:20)

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 17 Jan 2016, 5:26

True, but the kind of stupid shit they did with said nukes such as Project Pluto, Tsar Bomba, etc etc, were all clearly more made for the sake of "YAY NUKES" than any logical thought process.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 7 Feb 2016, 17:42

PAK TA – A transport aircraft, PAK TA, will fly at supersonic speeds (up to 2,000 km/h) and will boast a remarkably high payload of up to 200 tons. It will also have a range of at least 7,000 kilometers.

The PAK TA program envisions 80 new cargo aircraft to be built by 2024. This means in a decade Russia’s Central Command will be able to place a battle-ready armored army anywhere, Expert Online reports, citing a source in the military who attended the closed meeting.

In April 2016, work will begin on aircraft “Ermakov”. The production of a series of aircraft will be developed in Ulyanovsk (factory “Aviastar-SP”) after 2024.

https://youtu.be/_Q9IF6A7ZK0

Posted by: Die Hindenburg 7 Feb 2016, 21:38

Why the russians even need that? It seems too toyish to be even considered.
Also russia just gone the same direction as any country goes, founding a cybernetic slavery with drones. Or it will hopefully turn out too expensive and no one can afford it.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 7 Feb 2016, 21:53

QUOTE (Die Hindenburg @ 7 Feb 2016, 18:38)

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 7 Feb 2016, 23:43

Crusher's right. It reflects the new doctrine of the Russian Armed Forces. That's just a trend that will continue to expand. The closer we move towards multipolar world, more countries will adopt such strategies.
It's a pretty ambitious project and Russia is more than capable to achieve such a feat technologically. The financial aspects are the real problem. How many of those you need? More than 20 of such aircraft are a complete waste of money. Russia already proved it's air-lift and logistical capabilities when they established Khmeimim airbase in matter of days. This thing is supposed to get a large armoured group to a place 7000 klicks away. It's a fricken flying military base.

Posted by: Pepo 7 Feb 2016, 23:53

Honestly Russia should stop spending so much money on not so useful projects. I can't see why Russia need this plane; their global military influence is vastly inferior to the one of the US. This money should be invested on the economy, not on very-limited projects

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 7 Feb 2016, 23:54

Honestly, what I find amusing is that the video calls it a rival to the B-2 bomber.
Yeah, how exactly is a blended wing body transport aircraft a rival to a flying wing stealth bomber? Just seems like whoever made the video said that on the basis they looked somewhat alike.

Still, it's an impressive design, all things considered, the biggest hurdle would be the batteries to power the damn thing.

QUOTE (Pepo @ 7 Feb 2016, 14:53)

Posted by: MARS 8 Feb 2016, 7:06

Something that's good to keep in mind is that fancy CGI videos are easy to make and spread nowadays, which makes them useful for disinformation. I've had an interesting discussion with Knjaz a while ago in which we talked about Russian military doctrine. Unlike the US, Russia has not and does not aspire to build up fast-acting worldwide force projection capabilities. The lynchpin of America's military primacy is their massive navy with several carrier battle groups and amphibious assault forces, supported by military bases in pretty much every region of interest. This was a unique advantage that they managed to gradually expand since the Second World War. Russia on the other hand does not have these and would bankrupt itself trying to reach parity, which they're more than aware of. Instead, Russian doctrine is not about reaching parity but about ensuring that their own military remains effective for what it always was and remains meant to do: Secure Russia's own territory and be able to respond to threats in the 'near abroad', i.e. the former Soviet Union, as well as regional partners in the Middle East like Syria and Iran. In that context, a new strategic airlifter might indeed be a reasonable aqcuisition, but as I said, this might as well just be a wonderful looking CGI ruse. It is impossible to tell from a fancy video on YouTube as long as it doesn't show an actual, physical plane being revealed.

Incidentally, we also talked about drones and it appears that Russia has less of an interest in them. Drones are very useful in low-intensity settings where you're up against an enemy with little technological means of countering them. In such a setting which, as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, requires long-term commitment, unmanned systems with smaller logistical footprints can keep the costs down and have the endurance to loiter over areas for longer than a human pilot. Russia however just isn't interested in decade-long 'nationbuilding' campaigns and calling its military doctrine 'outdated' as a result of that is, as I've often seen, a typical knee-jerk statement by Western politicians who fail to understand that military doctrine is a product of political will and if the political will is not to fight rebels in far-away failed states for years, but brace for a worst case scenario with NATO, then so be it. For Russia, said doctrine entails the use of tactical nuclear weapons from an early stage (use them or lose them, plus the fact that it'd stupid to wear out your own forces in costly engagements if you could as well just drop a nuke on their opposition) so the top-priority thing they're trying to be prepared for would be a combined arms battle of biblical proportions somewhere in Eastern Europe marked by nuclear blasts, EMP, electronic warfare and both sides going at each other's satellite systems - a setting where flimsy drones would be very unreliable. So for all the fancy videos of their new Uran UGV or talk Armata possibly being made into the first remote-controlled MBT, these are mainly features that are advertised to export customers and disinformation to create the idea that Russia wants to get big into the drone game, which it actually won't. China on the other hand does seem legitimately interested in both drones and expeditionary capabilities, because again, political will shapes military doctrine: What they want in the future is to exert control over the South China Sea and be able to provide effective military protection for their economic investments in Africa.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Feb 2016, 13:01

I finally got a chance to talk with you again MARS.

QUOTE (MARS @ 8 Feb 2016, 4:06)

QUOTE (MARS @ 8 Feb 2016, 4:06)

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 8 Feb 2016, 15:44

Also, we should bare in mind that Russia doesn't really need excessive power projection capabilities, because they have an enormous territory and they have all the things they'll ever need right there, in Russia and the near abroad (most of which is in CSTO). A dozen of these aircraft would definitely make it way easier to defend that enormous space. Covering the entire Russian territory is a logistic nightmare, even for a military massive as Russias'.

Posted by: Svea Rike 11 Feb 2016, 22:04

Well, it certainly looks badass, that's for sure.

Posted by: Die Hindenburg 13 Feb 2016, 16:49

My words exactly.
Or just upgrade existing ones with a bit better software and hardware or so.
Russia's military was always more quantity (their tanks, unlike in CNC, always were more smaller and faster).
I think the russians and other nations watch too much anime or play to much ace combat...

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 14 Feb 2016, 6:11

Honeslty, whoever first called it a rival of the B2 just proved he's basically incapable of seeing beyond shape.

I mean, FFS, using that logic, the Airbus is a Rival of the B-52

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 18 Feb 2016, 11:43

Very interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCRgWIhxJw

Two BGM-71 TOW missiles fired at a Syrian Army tank, and both missed due to active protection systems on the tank.




This really works.

Posted by: (USA)Bruce 18 Feb 2016, 13:27

Can you really take anything from that video that was recored with what Im assuming is the first phones with a video recording capability.

Just because Im sceptic of anything that has low quality in the video, say UFO's etc I cant really take this video seriously.

But Its a weapon made to counteract another weapon, you cant really go on full production if the weapons not ment to do its role.Maybe the millatary specialists here can tell me that one system is newer then then the other one so its amazing that one beat the other.Thou Im pretty sure thoose werent TOW's, like one commentator on the video said and I quote:
"1) That's no Tow missile. More likely a Kornet with it's squirrely flight pattern. 2) TOW missiles are WIRE-GUIDED, thus anything short of cutting the wire in flight won't make the missile go stupid and fly off. 3) That was a stationary target. Even IF the missiles wire were to be cut, it will follow a ballistic path based on where the crosshairs of the reticle were last. Meaning it would have hit the target anyway."

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 18 Feb 2016, 13:42

^ This is a fact, and it is possible that not really a TOW but a Kornet (anyway demonstrates the efficiency of the system - a rare video).

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 18 Feb 2016, 15:19

Bruce might be right about the TOW. Serbia has wire-guided missiles (it's called the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumbar) and they're extremely hard to counter. The limitation is the range. When it comes to that, weapons like the Javelin rock, but active protection systems counter them good.

Posted by: Pepo 18 Feb 2016, 22:17

The video is too blurry to have any conclusion. It might have been the wind, it might have been a human error, it may have been thant allah have deviated the missile. Also the tank is probably a T-72 without active protection , being the most common Syrian tank. And the rock is probably a kornet or a similar soviet make wire rocket. Finally statistics of the war proved how bad could tanks bring if used badly. The Syrian army has lost thousands of tanks due to poor tactics and training, and I doubt it would be able to effectively manage active countermeasure systems

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 18 Feb 2016, 22:38

QUOTE (Pepo @ 18 Feb 2016, 19:17)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 20 Feb 2016, 2:54

Many videos are emerging reporting anti-missile systems of the Syrian army, the latest i found is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W9xEWyarEw (In this case the missile launcher is indeed a TOW - supposedly).

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 20 Feb 2016, 8:20

I'm a bit suspicious of anything named "Truetube".

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 14 Mar 2016, 15:52

@ComradeCrimson
This is a reply to our discussion on the pics tread.
Paramilitary is a rather vague term for armed groups in Yugoslavia. The thing is that every republic had it's Territorial Defense (more or less an equivalent of the National Guard). Those Territorial Defenses formed the basics of various separatist armies (while the Yugoslav Army was the only legal one, much like in Syria today). Yes, you are right about the types of weapons used. But, I wouldn't say that we had any new Russian weapons imported after 1991. We had more than enough of our own. The same can be said about Ukraine, Although Turkey, Iran and various Western countries supplied weapons (namely Vietnam era M16 by the Yanks) to Muslims in Bosnia, AKs and various AK offshoots were in great abundance. Not even modern armies in the region don't have such advanced weapons like AN-94. Hell, not even Russians field it in serious numbers. I might be wrong, but I think there are thousands of ANs, maybe tens of thousands at best, but there's no reason for it, because Russians have tens of millions of AK74/AK74Ms stocked. Ukraine, for example, has the greatest amounts of all kinds of munitions in Europe (if you don't count Russia). There's more than enough for the conflict to last decades, unfortunately. They've got some weapons from the US, but that's negligible compared to what they already have (they did inherit almost 30 % of Soviet Army). Although much of it is old, I wouldn't discard most of it, because it was stocked in places designed to survive a nuclear war.

Posted by: ComradeCrimson 21 Mar 2016, 20:20

QUOTE (3rdShockArmy @ 14 Mar 2016, 15:52)

QUOTE (ComradeCrimson @ 8 Mar 2016, 20:59)

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 22 Mar 2016, 0:41

1. Yeah, you're right. It wasn't my intention to nitpick. It's just that when you say "paramilitary", it almost always has negative connotations. And not all of them were bad. Yes, there was a lot of different groups, but their numbers were dwarfed by the number of regular troops many times over.
As for the quality of the weaponry and other equipment, it wasn't all that bad. The helmet in your possession is not very representative of the situation. The Yugoslav Army was just finishing a major overhaul when the war started. We had a lot of very good equipment, but it was still in the process of distribution to the troops. And when the things started heating up, the Army slowed down the rearming, especially in the separatist republics and conscripted a lot of people, giving them the until then-recently used equipment, which was to be in the war stocks, had the war not erupted. So we had a lot of good equipment which was in the hands of the most loyal parts of the Army (which, like the State started to disintegrate). Contrary to the popular Western media image, the Yugoslav Army was of multiethnic composition, with the Serbs being the majority (as they were in the country), especially because we were generally still the most loyal to the Yugoslav idea. That however should not serve as a basis for the misconception that it was an all-Serb force. We still had more than one third of others in the ranks (Montenegrins, Macedonians, still-secular Bosnian Muslims, even pro-Yugoslav Croats, Hungarians etc).
Anyway, not to descend further into politics, I'll just say that the Army was modern enough by the mid-90s, but it was confined to a third of the area it was initially planned for (Serbia and Montenegro were by than the only republics left in Yugoslavia), so it was able to send the older surplus weapons to the regular troops still fighting in Bosnia and Croatia.
As for how we would fair a potential attack by any of the Cold War powers, I think that wasn't planned in regular meaning of the word at all. We knew we would get crushed, so we employed... lets say a form of a GLA-esque doctrine, where we would let the possible invader take the cities and main roads, while most of the people would join the Army, increasingly limited to a form of an advanced guerilla war. That's why our war lasted so long. We always knew we'd fight an opponent with an overwhelming technological and numerical superiority. So we found ways around it. For example, during the NATO bombing, microwave owens and heaters where put inside mocks of tanks or jets, which fooled the pilots into firing expensive guided munitions onto the false targets. Or using different radar-signal wave lengths on very old radars to partially detect stealth aircraft (and shoot them down sometimes ).

2. Like I said, the Army distributed surplus weaponry to various regular and loyal irregular troops. Yes, it's safe to say that people had their own weapons, but it wasn't in the same sense like the American civil weapons market. People had hunting rifles, but mostly pistols for their own safety or just enjoyment. So, we can say that those civil weapons weren't irrelevant, especially at the beginning, but as the war dragged on, their importance began to fade away. It's likely that whoever had that helmet started off in a group of 5 to 10 hunters-turned-soldiers and finished it as a relatively well-equipped foot soldier armed with an AK/AK offshoot (or more soldiers in whose hands the helmet ended up).

3. Well, the AN was and still is too expensive and complicated, even today and it's performance is better than the best variant of an AK-74, but it's much less rugged/robust. That's why it never got off the ground. In a real war, your weapon not jamming when thrown in the mud or water is way more important than performing better. And most of soldiers wouldn't be experienced enough to dismantle the rifle, clean it and put it all back together, like they would be with an incredibly simple AK design.

4. Yes. Images of "high-tech" Ukrainian soldiers with NATO standard armor and equipment are mostly propaganda stunts by the Kiev hunta. Most of the soldiers still have low-quality armor which is more likely to kill you than save your life (when the bullet penetrates the low-qual plates, it sends more metal in your body, resulting in a more gruesome wound). Basically, it's what you said about desertion. And many soldiers did flee, especially when the fighting was harder than it is now. And who could blame them?

Posted by: ComradeCrimson 22 Mar 2016, 2:36

QUOTE (3rdShockArmy @ 22 Mar 2016, 0:41)

1. Yeah, you're right. It wasn't my intention to nitpick. It's just that when you say "paramilitary", it almost always has negative connotations. And not all of them were bad. Yes, there was a lot of different groups, but their numbers were dwarfed by the number of regular troops many times over.
As for the quality of the weaponry and other equipment, it wasn't all that bad. The helmet in your possession is not very representative of the situation. The Yugoslav Army was just finishing a major overhaul when the war started. We had a lot of very good equipment, but it was still in the process of distribution to the troops. And when the things started heating up, the Army slowed down the rearming, especially in the separatist republics and conscripted a lot of people, giving them the until then-recently used equipment, which was to be in the war stocks, had the war not erupted. So we had a lot of good equipment which was in the hands of the most loyal parts of the Army (which, like the State started to disintegrate). Contrary to the popular Western media image, the Yugoslav Army was of multiethnic composition, with the Serbs being the majority (as they were in the country), especially because we were generally still the most loyal to the Yugoslav idea. That however should not serve as a basis for the misconception that it was an all-Serb force. We still had more than one third of others in the ranks (Montenegrins, Macedonians, still-secular Bosnian Muslims, even pro-Yugoslav Croats, Hungarians etc).
Anyway, not to descend further into politics, I'll just say that the Army was modern enough by the mid-90s, but it was confined to a third of the area it was initially planned for (Serbia and Montenegro were by than the only republics left in Yugoslavia), so it was able to send the older surplus weapons to the regular troops still fighting in Bosnia and Croatia.
As for how we would fair a potential attack by any of the Cold War powers, I think that wasn't planned in regular meaning of the word at all. We knew we would get crushed, so we employed... lets say a form of a GLA-esque doctrine, where we would let the possible invader take the cities and main roads, while most of the people would join the Army, increasingly limited to a form of an advanced guerilla war. That's why our war lasted so long. We always knew we'd fight an opponent with an overwhelming technological and numerical superiority. So we found ways around it. For example, during the NATO bombing, microwave owens and heaters where put inside mocks of tanks or jets, which fooled the pilots into firing expensive guided munitions onto the false targets. Or using different radar-signal wave lengths on very old radars to partially detect stealth aircraft (and shoot them down sometimes ).

2. Like I said, the Army distributed surplus weaponry to various regular and loyal irregular troops. Yes, it's safe to say that people had their own weapons, but it wasn't in the same sense like the American civil weapons market. People had hunting rifles, but mostly pistols for their own safety or just enjoyment. So, we can say that those civil weapons weren't irrelevant, especially at the beginning, but as the war dragged on, their importance began to fade away. It's likely that whoever had that helmet started off in a group of 5 to 10 hunters-turned-soldiers and finished it as a relatively well-equipped foot soldier armed with an AK/AK offshoot (or more soldiers in whose hands the helmet ended up).

3. Well, the AN was and still is too expensive and complicated, even today and it's performance is better than the best variant of an AK-74, but it's much less rugged/robust. That's why it never got off the ground. In a real war, your weapon not jamming when thrown in the mud or water is way more important than performing better. And most of soldiers wouldn't be experienced enough to dismantle the rifle, clean it and put it all back together, like they would be with an incredibly simple AK design.

4. Yes. Images of "high-tech" Ukrainian soldiers with NATO standard armor and equipment are mostly propaganda stunts by the Kiev hunta. Most of the soldiers still have low-quality armor which is more likely to kill you than save your life (when the bullet penetrates the low-qual plates, it sends more metal in your body, resulting in a more gruesome wound). Basically, it's what you said about desertion. And many soldiers did flee, especially when the fighting was harder than it is now. And who could blame them?

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 22 Mar 2016, 6:03

I'd agree with you on those points. Civil war is the worst kind of war. Families, neighbours, co-workers, colleagues, friends etc... it all gets disrupted, broken, destroyed, it becomes chaotic. Like when you brake a mirror. You can't ever put it back together and anyone looking in it can only see an ugly, broken image. Before my tenth birthday, I've experienced quite a bit of it. I wouldn't go any further about it, thou, because it's all walking on rules edge and besides, I'm a Serb, so I don't want my points getting completely discarded as too biased.
We can continue on the weapons discussion and other equipment technicalities, if you don't mind.

So, you said '93. It could be that the helmet never saw crimes happen, but only live combat. I guess we'll never know.

As for Ukraine, I know I've read about loads of WW2 weapons being used a lot, like PTRS -41 or even SVT. You've mentioned the tanks as well, which wouldn't be that much of a surprise. USSR stocked massive amounts of weapons. I don't think any other entity in human history ever came near to them in that regard. If they had tens of thousands of tanks, SP artillery, APCs/IFVs, multiple rocket launcher vehicles etc, even if 10 % of it is still usable, and even if 10 % of those usable 10 % gets used in a war, we're still talking about an absolutely insane amount of weapons. If we're going into specifics, I'd say most of it is late 60s/70s/early 80s vintage. It's not high-tech, but it definitely does the trick and it's not even that less efficient than most of the latest gear.

Posted by: ComradeCrimson 22 Mar 2016, 6:31

QUOTE (3rdShockArmy @ 22 Mar 2016, 7:03)

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 23 Mar 2016, 4:12

My home city is the center of Serbian (and former Yugoslav) arms industry. We have institutions and factories which are exporting a lot of weapons, especially military grade to Middle Eastern countries and for civilian use (mostly to the US).

Here are some weapons, some of which are completely original designs and some are license built or derived from the original:

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M93_Black_Arrow

2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M21

3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_Master_FLG

4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M07

5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M12_Black_Spear

6. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_PAP_series

7. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-84

8. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_BVT and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_2 (both APCs)

As for Ukraine, I'd say that the only reason why the whole thing never completely escalated is due to diplomatic efforts. Fighting never ceased, but it's under control as much as such kind of conflict can be. Thank God, most of the weapons are still stocked. At least for the time being. I hope it stays that way.

Posted by: re_simeone 23 Mar 2016, 6:01

Those weapons are rather modern developments,and Serbian derivatives of Yugoslavian made weapons.
Some of them are just parade pieces,or/and used only by Special forces,FLG is pretty much thing never used by anyone.

Yugoslavia mostly licence built copies of proven designs,but there were some hybrid original designs here and there.
As WW2 ended,Yugoslavia convinced of reliability of German weaponry,since Partisans used lot of German weaponry,
adopted Zastava M48,a derivative of K98k as a standard issue rifle,but since lot of armies around world started using
fully or semi automatic,assault rifles or battle rifles,Yugoslavia opted for getting licence for SKS,which was adopted in 60s.
In the 70s Yugoslavia started producing M70,copy of AKM with ability to launch rifle grenades.It is still used across former Yu.
AB2 variant is most widespread.

As for GP machine guns,Yugoslavia started producing M53 in the 50s,which was copy of MG42,all along with 7.92 Mauser ammo,
same caliber as one M48 used.M84,licence built copy of PKM was adopted quite late,in the 80s.
Yugoslavia didn't cared that much about squad automatic weapons,but there were copies of RPK,called M72.

As for sniper rifles,there was one weird one,still used by Serbian army,called Zastava M76,it is actually a DMR,
And no,it doesn't have anything to do with SVD.It is similar,but similar in a way that it is DMR developed from AK,
M76 is using old 7.92 Mauser ammo.

As for SMGs and Machine pistols,there were M49,PPSh-41 derivative with lot of stuff picked from Beretta M38,
then there was M56,further development of M49 that resembles MP40.There is also a straight copy of Vz.61 Scorpion,called M84.

As for rocket launchers,Yugoslavia produced,and are still in use in most of ex Yu countries,
M80 Zolja,rocket launcher that resembles M72LAW and RPG-18,but it isn't copy of neither.
To my knowledge M80 was and still is most widespread.Also there was M79 Osa.

All of these mentioned above were used in wars in 90s.Yugoslavia,being neutral never cared about standardization,
so it never started using 5.45mm ammo,matter of fact Yugoslavia had intention to replace M70 with its derivative in 5.56 NATO
rounds but war started out,so that never happened.
There were also interesting weapons produced in Yugoslavia that were intended for export,to me most interesting one was M77,
basically M70 in 7.62 NATO,and its SAW variant,I am yet to see AK in 7.62 NATO that is not M77,Galatz doesn't count.

There were lot of vehicles produced in Yu too,even jets and helicopter,but writing just about small weapons took me prolly one hour.
So,some other day.

Posted by: Planardweller 23 Mar 2016, 15:29

QUOTE (ComradeCrimson @ 22 Mar 2016, 7:31)

Posted by: 3rdShockArmy 23 Mar 2016, 17:34

But Ukraine still has the second largest military-industrial complex in former Soviet Union. It did suffer serious decline since 1991, but it was so advanced in some areas (Yuzhnoye created the Satan, arguably the most powerful weapon a human entity could create to date and beyond), that it is still very relevant. I'm not trying to undermine what you're saying (it's your country after all, you know it better than most of us), it's just that by massive amounts of weapons, I mean hundreds (even thousands) of tanks, IFVs, APCs, etc. It's not the best equipment there is, but the sheer amount of it makes a huge difference. At least until Russia (which has many times over more of that same equipment only better), gets really involved. I'll just repeat what I said. I hope that doesn't happen and that two brotherly nations (or one nation) with more than a millennium of mutual history finally come to peace with each other.