Reply With QuoteCould somebody translate plz what is written on the wall?
Thanks
Originally Posted by TheArmenian
Strong!!!!1 indeed, lookwise my favorite tank for some reason.
I love zvezdanews vids, its like watching a red alert 2 movie
Could somebody translate plz what is written on the wall?
Thanks
well, it's quite usefull part of the training, i remember my instructors always told me to traing some time without the ammo before the shooting.
Ok, I just dont get the point of this device. How can you train to shoot a pistol without actually shooting live ammo? Since there is no recoil, such training is useless. You'll never be able to shoot live ammo properly. Cant learn to aim and not jerk before the shot. Cant learn proper trigger work. Cant even learn to position your hand properly... Might as well train with LazerTag or Nerf gun.
Ok rant over. Carry on.
This simulator helps to "feel the weight", to aim correctly, to hold correctly, to pull the trigger correctly, not to shake the hands and etc.
Don't see anything wrong in such simulators
@ Sturmpioner : We will rebuild you our beloved Stalingrad! ( Thats what it means)
thank you
oops nevermind
Actually not. So far russian army has not a single operational Pantsir-S1, nor Sosna. Tor-M2 shown at Victory day parade are the only of this type in the army, and this single unit is still on trials.
There are only two operational units of S-400 (in Elektrostal) and very low numbers of Buk-M2. As long russian army can't afford serious number of those systems, their contribution to country defense is purely theoretical.
Hmmm... I tried a similar device, the FATS at Defendory. It could take small CO2 bottles (unfortunately they had expended them all) to give the feel of recoil through the discharge of a preset quantity of gas. But then again, as said, this may be a training aid for basic handling.
Maybe its all the snow or the fur hats?
This is true but the existing systems, the BUKs when most other countries have at best KUBs, S-300s when at best other countries have S-200s, as well as a truely enormous number of shoulder fired MANPADs of different makes and models, plus OSA, and TORs, and Shilkas and Tunguskas and Strela-10s. Even modernised Pechoras and Volgas.Actually not. So far russian army has not a single operational Pantsir-S1, nor Sosna. Tor-M2 shown at Victory day parade are the only of this type in the army, and this single unit is still on trials.
There are only two operational units of S-400 (in Elektrostal) and very low numbers of Buk-M2. As long russian army can't afford serious number of those systems, their contribution to country defense is purely theoretical.
Regarding the SV-98 here are two more "opinions". They seem positive to me:
http://www.snipersparadise.com/equip...ActionSV98.htm
http://club.guns.ru/eng/sv-98.html
you musta been smokin something...Ok, maybe I exaggerated. Sorry to everybody...
...but I hope we make a better rifle in the future.
anyways...
has anyone ever heard of this bad boy? How does it perform???
http://russian-weapons.com/2008/09/asvk/
And how about this?? KSVK 12,7
And then what rifle is in this video? I think it's mislabeled
Sure. AA-development was something SU always had an edge over the west, so even after 20 years of horrible deterioration, the remnants of soviet PVO are still more then most other countries have. Nevertheless, todays capabilities of russian air defense are not enough to ensure a reliable protection against a modern air force with precision weapons, as long the mainstay of the army are over 20 years old pre-perestrojka systems, while modern systems are only in possession of some few "show units" around Moscow. Thousands kilometers wide gaps after retiring the S-200 are not helpful either.
Yes the Serbs demonstrated that even a 40 years old SAM can destroy a stealth jet, but they also demonstrated that a modern air power can overwhelm an air defense with relative low losses as long it is some generations ahead. With emerging of 5th generation jets and one-digit equipment aquisitions of russian army, the discrepance will soon reach the one in Serbia or Iraq. Sovietunion left Russia a rich economic, military and political heritage but it will not last forever. Much is already lost, and it will getting even worse when the last soviet mass-produced systems will be retired.
MZKT do you at least agree that the situation with the Russian Armed Forces and all matters in relation to them, is better than 5 years ago? And do you agree, that the state of the forces 5 years ago, was better than the state it was in 10 years ago. Finally, would you agree that in the last 5 years, the situation has improved more than it did in the 5 years before that?
If so, then what is to stop a further improvement, 5 years from now? No reason to be so pessimistic. The way I see it, there are huge problems remaining, but in the last couple of years, for the first time since the collapse of the USSR, a large amount of these problems have been identified, and in many cases solutions have at least been initiated or are in the pipeline. That is the first step after all.
After every NATO/US buildup we hear the target is the most heavily defended target since X. Whether it is Baghdad or some place else. The point is that a determined modern attack can't be applied on the fly and that the buildup would be noticed. The reality is that if NATO tried it on they would get a very bloody nose. Such a large system with such a large area the Russians might not manage to be as efficient with the management of their AD network as the Serbs, but the Russians have weapons that allow retaliation against NATO bases/cities, which is something Serbia and Iraq and Afghanistan etc etc have never had.Nevertheless, todays capabilities of russian air defense are not enough to ensure a reliable protection against a modern air force with precision weapons, as long the mainstay of the army are over 20 years old pre-perestrojka systems, while modern systems are only in possession of some few "show units" around Moscow.
Of course the geography issue works both ways... in Desert Storm the West had all of its best stuff at the time present. It really didn't have any credible enemy airforce as it lacked awareness and was largely swatted out of the sky or it ran to Iran. With complete air supremacy, including no interference with satellite coverage, or recon platforms or attempts to attack US assets outside of the war zone they couldn't destroy a single Scud system before it launched its missile. Things have obviously improved since then but considering almost all of Russias air defence network is designed to operate with redundant systems and has parts that are extremely mobile I really wouldn't think NATO would have the real capability to take it apart very easily if at all.
Of course the reason the Soviet Air Defence was so good was because NATO airpower was also very good.
You are focusing on the wrong thing. The Serbs lacked a modern missile to reach up and touch. The AD network consists of lots and lots of parts of which missiles are just one. Add a few dozen Pantsirs with a 20km range and 15km operational ceiling and NATO forces probably would have had to leave the area.Yes the Serbs demonstrated that even a 40 years old SAM can destroy a stealth jet, but they also demonstrated that a modern air power can overwhelm an air defense with relative low losses as long it is some generations ahead.
The latest Pantsir model uses command guided missiles that are very cheap and can be bought in huge numbers without breaking the bank.
Otherwise the Serbian AD network remained intact despite pretty much complete NATO air control for 70 days. On the last day you could have updated their missiles and they could have started shooting down aircraft.
http://pvo.guns.ru/tor/tor.htm
TOR is the same as Pantsir in the sense that the missiles are command guided so there is no expensive seeker like an Imaging IR sensor or expensive Active Radar seeker in the missile... which of course is destroyed everytime the missile is fired.
Cheap to use. Cheap to deploy widely.
Note the launch platforms are not exactly cheap, but for example with the new Phased array radars and advanced optical and thermal sensors on the launch platforms then the possibility to launch multiple missiles at once presents the opportunity to increase dramatically the performance of the systems by adding trailers with extra weapons. A TOR could tow a powered trailer and be fitted with a dozen of the missile packs the main vehicle carries. The main turret holds two x 4 round missile magazines for a total of 8 ready to launch missiles. With a trailer you could carry a lot more ready to fire missiles without the expense of a whole new vehicle.
Personally I think the first step is to add a range of weapons to the operational arsenal.
We see lots of weapons at airshows but then in combat it is the old dumb weapons mostly being used. Purchase of the existing new weapons that are not widely deployed improves performance of the armed forces and also helps the weapons makers fund new weapons. Cheap weapons or weapons designed to save money in the long term like Satellite guided bombs and command guided SAMs and Ugroza guidance kits for dumb weapons are good examples of moving forward without spending too much.
Upgrades of existing aircraft types as well as other items in service also make sense especially if one goal of the upgrade is to reduce operational costs by integrating self testing systems and introducing new on demand maintainence procedures.
Posting Permissions
