Thread: Russian Photos (updated on regular basis)

  1. #21811
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Serious TR1 is serious.
    Posts
    9,875

    Default

    T-72B has better armor than any T-80B and prior model.

  2. #21812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MZKT View Post
    Indeed. They may be already above T-90s level.
    May be you should see this http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/728.html before saying that

    Depends on T-72 version. T-72M1M for example is more advanced then T-90 (which itseld is a renamed T-72BU).
    But you forgot that T-90's hull and turret are more heavily protected than T-72M1M. For example - weight of T-72M1M is 45 t; T-72B - 44,5 t; T-90 - 46,5 t

  3. #21813
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Minsk
    Posts
    8

    Default T-50


  4. #21814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reflect View Post
    T-50
    Are you sure?

  5. #21815
    Senior Member JohnnyWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fo shizzle
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    LOL good PS and BS.

  6. #21816
    Senior Member JohnnyWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fo shizzle
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    T-72B has better armor than any T-80B and prior model.
    how come the T-72B has better armor than the later model T-80B? I thought the T-80 B was supposed to be an improvement

  7. #21817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnywalker View Post
    how come the t-72b has better armor than the later model t-80b? I thought the t-80 b was supposed to be an improvement
    t-80 - 1976
    t-80b - 1978
    t-80bv - 1985
    t-72b - 1985

  8. #21818
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Minsk
    Posts
    8

    Default flood

    Quote Originally Posted by Yars View Post
    Are you sure?
    Yep
    btw, are you really need an answer? (риторич.)

  9. #21819
    Senior Member JohnnyWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fo shizzle
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yars View Post
    t-80 - 1976
    t-80b - 1978
    t-80bv - 1985
    t-72b - 1985
    ohh sorry my bad. Thanks for the correction



    VITALY or someone else. I saw a pic here once of OMON with a PKM standing and holding the PKM in one hand. Can you post that photo? I cannot find it. I need it
    Last edited by JohnnyWalker; 10-02-2009 at 10:59 PM.

  10. #21820
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    casus belli
    Age
    35
    Posts
    681

  11. #21821
    Federov Avtomat, FTW!
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    5,981

    Default

    Haha, blagodarju for intersting info however, someone here posted once that Russian soldiers have mixed feelings about AKSU and that is why it is so rare on photos. From my side, maybe I was exaggerating a bit when i said that it is being despised.
    I have heard it was not popular for its lack of accuracy at assault rifle ranges, and you bring up the point that it probably suffers from serious muzzle blast.
    Timmy, the comments of how desirable it is reminds me that when we see Osama or any Afghan warlord there is often an AKS-74U nearby.
    They look like compact handy weapons as long as your primary mission is not to reach out and touch... in which case an AKS-74U plus an SV-98 might be the solution. Not far back in this thread was an exercise with an RPG-7 armed soldier using an AKS-74U.

    China is a major customer for RD93 engines (originally designed for the MiG-29), and has bought over a thousand of them. The RD93 engines currently cost about $2.5 million each.
    The RD93 is basically an RD-33 with the gearbox on the top or bottom (ie changed to suit the Chinese fighters).

    PAK DA (image 2009)
    sorry for quality - I'm not painter))
    Nice, but the report I heard stated the PAK-DA would be a fundamentally different aircraft from what is currently in operation in Russia. I would take that to mean it is some sort of flying wing.

    It is better to send Russian boys to fight in T-62s and 72s, like it
    happened in South Ossetian war, where the opponent had same
    antique armoured forces as Russia, only many times smaller in size.
    Won't work in a war with a modern military though...
    No, it was an empty shell. It was not a developed tank, it was a concept.

    Pictures posted on this thread however show the turret bustle concept that could be adapted to the T-90. I remember reading that the company that developed the Black Eagle, that made T-80s transfered all its future designs and concepts to the company that makes the T-90s. Hopefully they might incorporate the ideas. In addition to seperation of ammo from crew areas it also simplifies the loading process... no rotating, just load like rounds into a rifle. Also the ammo can be longer which improves performance.
    The main problem I see is capacity. With only about 21 rounds in the turret bustle keeping the underfloor autoloader would add another 22 or so rounds. They could have two piece HE rounds underfloor and one piece extra long rounds in the turret bustle loader.

    If i recall correctly the PAKDA will be based on a conventional (well, not so) supersonic transport that resembles a small Tu-144/Concord.

    Who knows, in the age of the cruiser missiles something with better endurance would be better than something fast , there was any Tu-95s project with turbofans? any picture is always welcome.
    I got the impression it was going to be radically different. A small Tu-144 would not be as good as a Tu-160. The Tu-144 would lack the weapon capacity of the Tu-160 and they would both have similar speed with the Tu-160 carrying much more fuel for longer range.
    I would expect a large subsonic flying wing that was stealthy to an extent but able to fly high and either fly a very long range or a medium range with a heavy payload. It will likely replace the Bears first but eventually it will likely replace the Blackjack and Backfire as well.

    I don't know if that 144 was meant to be a bomber, i doubt it, although i understand Tupolev was studying a similar configuration for the new bomber program..and the old one (Tu-160)
    Actually the bomber that looked most like the Tu-144 was the Sukhoi T-4 mach 3 bomber. The tupolev competition to that was the Tu-22M0 bomber.

    What I am really saying is that in their design philosophy T-80BMU
    (The "Black Eagle") and Type-99 are similar:

    1) Both are based on an elongated T-80 hull, though Type-99
    has 6 road wheels and T-80BMU was supposed to have 7

    2) Both incorporate a larger, more spacious turret

    3) Both sport a blow-out ammo compartment

    4) Both are oriented to carry larger guns, 140 mm for
    Type-99 and supposedly 152-mm for T-80 BMU

    Thus both tanks draw on T-80 advantages (compact
    low-profile well-designed hull, high power-to-weight ratio),
    while eliminating the main disadvantages (cramped turret,
    dangerous ammo storage).
    The main purpose of the lengthened hull was so the frontal hull armour could be more steeply sloped to provide better protection.
    The turret on the Black Eagle was 40cm lower than the T-80 but that was only because the underfloor autoloader had been removed. The turret bustle was seperated from the crew compartment and didn't add any crew space. It did however seperate the crew from the ammo, which was good.

    BTW there is no can on the planet that this can opener wont open:

    http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/513/514/

    A 320kg penetrating HE warhead...

  12. #21822
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Russia has some really nice equipment.

  13. #21823
    Member balalaika-san's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Luna-II
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mousepad View Post
    Keep telling this to yourself

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S-tARDgbt0
    That's Type 96 in the video, and it only showed that Chinese crew don't know how to use stabilizer.

  14. #21824
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Universal_Soldier View Post
    So what makes T-80 better than T-72?

    where does T-90 fit in your argument ( that's if you really have one at all)?

    and how do you know that T-95 isn't near production?
    Russians do not always show their hand. I'm willing to bet they have some produced and hidden away.

  15. #21825
    Federov Avtomat, FTW!
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    5,981

    Default

    I found this quite interesting:

    Meanwhile, the Soviet-era MiG-31 Foxhound supersonic interceptor aircraft will most likely be used as part of the new air-space defense network, as was intended when it was designed.
    "We are upgrading this system to be able to accomplish the same [air-space defense] tasks," Zelin said.
    According to some sources, Russia has over 280 MiG-31 aircraft in active service and about 100 aircraft in reserve.
    Perhaps Mig-31s with anti satellite weapons might appear in the near future...


    Source: http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090811/155782307.html


    Also about the Black Eagle:


    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090913/156108570.html


    But here is the article I was looking for on the PAK-DA:


    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090819/155857912.html



    iIn particular:


    "We signed a contract this year on research and development of a future strategic bomber for the Russian strategic aviation. It will be a conceptually new plane based on the most advanced technologies," Igor Shevchuk said at the MAKS-2009 air show near Moscow.
    (My bold for emphasis).


    This suggests to me stealth or hypersonic... or both.
    Last edited by GazB; 10-03-2009 at 03:49 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •