UkrainianSpetsnaz i need T-84 photos

[Marmot1]

UkrainianSpetsnaz i need T-84 photos or photos of equipment that you are going to send in january to IRAQ with new group of troops also some info about ukrainian contingent that will be in IRAQ... I hear that there will be also some Mi24?

[ShotOver]

What?

www.google.com :|

[ArmedPacifist]

http://ww2.isys.ca/drazen/t84pic.jpg

[Operation Ivy]

He's gpt a **** load of pics dont worry ;)

[UkrainianSpetsnaz]

Ahah. T-84 ehhh?
Okay For mister Marmot

http://www.ukraineonline.net/t-84.htm

[Roger Rabbit]

You planning on joining the army to become a tanker UkrainianSpetsnaz?

[Marmot1]

Ahah. T-84 ehhh?
Okay For mister Marmot

http://www.ukraineonline.net/t-84.htm

Operating temperature range °C -40 to +55 hmm in iraq that may be not enaugh... ;) any numbers about 2nd tour in iraq

[UkrainianSpetsnaz]

Ehhh... give me a couple hours. I needs to translate and find some stuff.

[UkrainianSpetsnaz]

http://www.ukraineonline.net/uairaq.htm

Ukrainian Soldiers in Iraq

[Dave the Dawg]

http://www.ukraineonline.net/uairaq.htm

Ukrainian Soldiers in Iraq
From that site: "You will notice there arent any patches or any sign that they are Ukrainian (on most pics) but I got them for a "source" and they are Ukrainian"

Igor needs to look around a little harder:

http://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/images/photo/060903_80.jpg

I'd say that's a pretty big sign that they are Ukrainian. :D And what's that on the side of the vehicle below? (and note that the soldier standing does have a unit patch; it is just subdued)

http://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/images/photo/060903_25.jpg

[Marmot1]

that cammo is cool... and on this pic with flag what kind of AK is that regular AK-74 or some modification??? ie NATO caliber etc.

[GazB]

"and on this pic with flag what kind of AK is that regular AK-74 or some modification??? ie NATO caliber etc."

It looks to me to be standard 5.45mm Soviet ammo. The 5.56mm NATO model has less curve in its magazine. It just appears to be a standard AKS-74 with the stock folded. (You can see the curve better on the next photo with the red mag... I doubt they would take two calibres for assault rifles...)

[Skullknight]

Good T-84 photo:

http://forum.china-defense.com/uploads/post-11-1069741209.jpg

[UkrainianSpetsnaz]

so basically as I said they have no patches on them. A flag hanging on a pole isnt a patch. A patch is something you wear on your chest or shoulder or whereever.

[mustamato]

so basically as I said they have no patches on them. A flag hanging on a pole isnt a patch. A patch is something you wear on your chest or shoulder or whereever.

I thought that it was the flag, the rank and the patches that made it a "soldiers uniform"? Atleast here in Sweden you can as a civilian wear a m/90 uniform without those things freely, because then it´s just clothes. But if you put the patches and the rank on then you act like someone you are not and that is illegal.

If a Ukrainian soldier approaches someone in Iraq, how do that person know that he is from Ukraina?

[Dave the Dawg]

so basically as I said they have no patches on them. A flag hanging on a pole isnt a patch. A patch is something you wear on your chest or shoulder or whereever.
Geez, aren't we touchy? Do you want some cheese with that whine. I was being facetious.

The exact quote was "You will notice there arent any patches or any sign that they are Ukrainian (on most pics) but I got them for a "source" and they are Ukrainian". First, "or any sign that they are Ukrainian" clearly includes flags and the vehicle logo. Second, as noted and as is clearly evident in the photos below, the Ukrainian contingent does have patches. The only thing unclear to the untrained eye is that the patches are Ukrainian; they are subdued and blend into the camouflage of the uniforms.

http://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/images/photo/060903_120.jpg
http://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/images/photo/40947d3994.jpg
http://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/images/photo/060903_18.jpg
http://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/images/photo/060903_29.jpg


And, as I noted in the other Ukrainian thread (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6294) I started, there are lots more photos here (and a wealth of information if you can read Ukrainian):

http://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/images/top_07.gifhttp://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/images/top_08.gifhttp://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/images/top_09.gif (http://www.mil.gov.ua/5ombr/index.php)

Cheers,
Dave

[Glock]

Nice Helmets. rofl

[UoUo]

BTW : i have to know somtihing...how come the T tank waghit "only" 48 tons....and in the otherhand the M1A1 is something about 70 tons....

[Russian Texan]

Because of the difference in military doctrine and engineering thought.

[UoUo]

Because of the difference in military doctrine and engineering thought.

It is not saying thay the armor of the "t" is lighter ?

[ExtraT]

Because of the difference in military doctrine and engineering thought.

It is not saying thay the armor of the "t" is lighter ?

No, actually, in some case, heavier. What make the difference with these tanks is the autoloader and the conciderably lower profile. Of course, driving in a tank like that is no picknick :(

[bison]

could you please explain what the differences in doctrine are and how they affect the engineering... thanks in advance p-)

[Russian Texan]

It all comes down to maneuverability. USSR's idea of conventional warfare in the Western Europe was demonstrated in the excercise "Dnepr" back in 1967. Not only it was the biggest military exercise ever, it also was the biggest tank gathering (four fronts totalled to 20000!!! tanks in one place...).
USSR military tactics were an updated combination of Tukchachevsky's ideas and German Blitzkreig.
Soviet tanks had to be easy to manufacture and repair, fast, able to ford water obstacles and relatively light. The problem with heavy western designs like Abrams is that while it does provide a better crew protection, it suffers from the same problem as heavy german tanks during WW2 - it can only cross certain "heavy duty" bridges which severely limits its use in the European countryside which has lots of small rivers.
If I recall correctly, life expectancy of a tank on a Cold War era battlefield was estimated, by the soviets, at something like 18 hours and crew survivability wasn't a big issue. The big issue was the ability to literally fill Fulda Gap with armor. Have to go, I'll post some more later

[Dave the Dawg]

When you evaluate a tank, you generally look at three things - mobility, survivability and firepower. But these are not independent of each other. Survivability, for example, is usually seen in terms of armor protection and various countermeasures such as Shtora and Arena. But mobility is also a factor of survivability - as the Mercedes ads used to say, the best way to survive an accident is to avoid it. Soviet tank design emphasized tanks that were light and low to the ground, the better to avoid detection. Soviet tank tactics didn't always keep up - with often poorly trained conscripts and with the level of top-down control in the Communist system, the capability of tanks to maneuver independently was undervalued, and there was a rigidity in tactical thinking. Junior officers were trained to go by the book.

Another factor, often missed, is that most Soviet tanks were capable of firing antitank missiles through the main gun. The 2A46M 125mm smoothbore on the T-80 series and the 2A46A1 125mm smoothbore on the T-90, for example, can fire the 9K119M Refleks-M (AT-11) missile, which has a range of up to 5 kilometers. With quality optics and in the right terrain, that means that theoretically the T-80 and T-90 could engage the M1A2 outside of the range of its M256 120mm smoothbore firing APFSDS-DU rounds. Whether a Refleks-M could take out an Abrams at that range remains to be seen, however. Also, training and optics are key. The 2A46 on Iraqi T-72s was capable of firing AT-8s to a range of 4000 meters, but the Iraqis had neither the training nor the optics to properly employ them.

[bison]

so are there any real advantages to having a beast like the abrams? and if anti tank missiles are so effective, why do army's not eliminate big guns all togeather? :oops: im kinda not the most knowlegeble on any military matters, but this topic really intersts me.

[Marmot1]

Because of the difference in military doctrine and engineering thought.

It is not saying thay the armor of the "t" is lighter ?

Well T is smaller and more compact i.e tower is smaller so it is lighter and becouse of that engine is smaller and engine room is smaller. Probably 48 is the weight of a pure tank but if you add aditional armour etc. it will be heavier. i.e. compare british chelenger 2 in iraq and in GBwhen it's with no aditional armour, no aditional barrels with fuel,no additional dust ;-), etc.

[UoUo]

:)

btw...the M1A1 can't fire missile from it's smoothgun ? i mean..so what if is smoothgun is 120mm...

[Dave the Dawg]

:)

btw...the M1A1 can't fire missile from it's smoothgun ? i mean..so what if is smoothgun is 120mm...AFIK, some missile-type rounds have been developed for the 120mm smoothbore, but aren't commonly used. The US preference for the smoothbore is based apparently on better performance for the APFSDS rounds. BTW, the Merkava III and IV also have a 120mm smoothbore, as do the Ariete C1, LeClerc and Leo 2 (the Leo 2, of course, has the same gun as the Abrams). The Challenger 2 is the only major modern tank that uses a rifled cannon, apparently because of a desire to maintain the performance characteristics of the HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) round (HE rounds work better from rifled barrels).

[UoUo]

But i do know that the Merkava can fire the "LAHAT" missile...
And i think that the "LAHAT" can be fire from every 105mm or 120mm gun....

[REMOV]

Soviet tanks had to be easy to manufacture and repair, fast, able to ford water obstacles and relatively light (...) . The problem with heavy western designs like Abrams is that while it does provide a better crew protection, it suffers from the same problem as heavy german tanks during WW2 - it can only cross certain "heavy duty" bridges which severely limits its use in the European countryside which has lots of small rivers.You know, Western tanks also can ford water obstacles ;)

http://www.altair.com.pl/files/r1103_leo04.jpg
The Leopard 2 has forded the Odra river.

[REMOV]

so are there any real advantages to having a beast like the abrams?Sure they are. There are fast, well armored and armed. Thats why MBT can overrun any other military vehicles.

and if anti tank missiles are so effective, why do army's not eliminate big guns all togeather? The tank is offensive and defensive weapon, provides more than any ATGM. Some experts said before OIF that heavy tanks wouldnot be longer needed, but the war modify such thoughts very fast. However when the Cold War is over, the principles of using heavy equipment also changes. The modern "war" or military actions resemble old colonial wars than anything else. The enemy has no heavy equipment or their vehicles can easily be destroyed by planes, so the heavy tanks are a little bit too powerful. And naturally to expensive to maintain. So, thats why programs like FCS appears. The only modern superpower (i.e. USA) needs light, fast and well armored vehicles which can be easy transportable by tactical cargo planes like C-130 (or equivalent). And thats why Western states don't developed new generation of MBTs but other vehicles (like Puma), but STILL hold and upgrade their tanks (Leopard 2A6, M1A2 SEP etc.).

...and if any opponent again make use of MBTs (like China, for instance) then the 60 tonnes beast will return.

[Russian Texan]

You know, Western tanks also can ford water obstacles

So?