http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field

Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I wonder?

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field

Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I wonder?

Because that fool Putin hasn’t even noticed that that type of
tank is WAY past its useby date. They are utterly vulnerable to
aircraft and choppers and have no useful purpose at all now.

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field

Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I wonder?

On 05/05/2015 07:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field


Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I wonder?

Because that fool Putin hasn’t even noticed that that type of
tank is WAY past its useby date. They are utterly vulnerable to
aircraft and choppers and have no useful purpose at all now.
Anyway it is not a tank!

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 07:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field


Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?

Because that fool Putin hasn’t even noticed that that type of
tank is WAY past its useby date. They are utterly vulnerable to
aircraft and choppers and have no useful purpose at all now.

Anyway it is not a tank!

Corse it is.

Brian Gaff wrote

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?

Unlikely anyone will actually be stupid enough to buy them.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field

Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I wonder?

On 05/05/2015 07:01, harryagain wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field

Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I wonder?



As it says in the article, this is part of a ten year programme. The
T-80, which is the main tank used by the Russian Army, was first shown
in 1976, although it is really only a development of the much earlier
T-64. It is outclassed by the MBTs of other major nations. The later
T-90, which came out in 1993, was a low-cost development of the T-72 and
was mainly intended to equip allies.

The T-14 Armata is a completely new design with some interesting
features, not least the fact that it would not be a large step from a
digitally controlled tank, operated from an armoured crew capsule, to a
remotely operated tank.

--
Colin Bignell

On 05/05/2015 08:47, Brian Gaff wrote:
Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?
Brian

It would be a first if they exported the best tank they have in their
arsenal. They usually only offer a lower specced or older tank.


--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 07:01, harryagain wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field

Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I wonder?



As it says in the article, this is part of a ten year programme. The T-80,
which is the main tank used by the Russian Army, was first shown in 1976,
although it is really only a development of the much earlier T-64. It is
outclassed by the MBTs of other major nations. The later T-90, which came
out in 1993, was a low-cost development of the T-72 and was mainly
intended to equip allies.

The T-14 Armata is a completely new design with some interesting features,
not least the fact that it would not be a large step from a digitally
controlled tank, operated from an armoured crew capsule, to a remotely
operated tank.

None of which is any use when they are so vulnerable from the air.

On 05/05/2015 10:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 07:01, harryagain wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field


Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



As it says in the article, this is part of a ten year programme. The
T-80, which is the main tank used by the Russian Army, was first shown
in 1976, although it is really only a development of the much earlier
T-64. It is outclassed by the MBTs of other major nations. The later
T-90, which came out in 1993, was a low-cost development of the T-72
and was mainly intended to equip allies.

The T-14 Armata is a completely new design with some interesting
features, not least the fact that it would not be a large step from a
digitally controlled tank, operated from an armoured crew capsule, to
a remotely operated tank.

None of which is any use when they are so vulnerable from the air.

The tank has a multi-barrel 30mm AA cannon, to engage drones or
helicopters, and it is claimed to be able to intercept and shoot down
any incoming missile that is travelling at up to 3,000 mps. Whether it
can live up to the claims remains to be seen.

In any case, the Russians are not noted for worrying too much about a
few losses. The T-34 was a good tank, but what made it a war winner was
that the Soviet Union could produce three medium tanks for every one
that Germany could build.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 10:25, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 07:01, harryagain wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field


Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



As it says in the article, this is part of a ten year programme. The
T-80, which is the main tank used by the Russian Army, was first shown
in 1976, although it is really only a development of the much earlier
T-64. It is outclassed by the MBTs of other major nations. The later
T-90, which came out in 1993, was a low-cost development of the T-72
and was mainly intended to equip allies.

The T-14 Armata is a completely new design with some interesting
features, not least the fact that it would not be a large step from a
digitally controlled tank, operated from an armoured crew capsule, to
a remotely operated tank.

None of which is any use when they are so vulnerable from the air.

The tank has a multi-barrel 30mm AA cannon, to engage drones or
helicopters, and it is claimed to be able to intercept and shoot down any
incoming missile that is travelling at up to 3,000 mps.

Easy to claim.

Whether it can live up to the claims remains to be seen.

Indeed.

And even if that works, an MBT is completely useless now.

In any case, the Russians are not noted for worrying too much about a few
losses.

There is still the problem with what you are going to do with it.

The T-34 was a good tank, but what made it a war winner was that the
Soviet Union could produce three medium tanks for every one that Germany
could build.

And then the world moved on, just like it always
does and MBTs became completely irrelevant.

That ****wit Putin hasn’t even noticed.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field

Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?

They've been reading your posts and are coming to get you.

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 05/05/2015 09:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?

Unlikely anyone will actually be stupid enough to buy them.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field


Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



In that case why is it described as an armoured troop carrier?

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 09:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?

Unlikely anyone will actually be stupid enough to buy them.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field


Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



In that case why is it described as an armoured troop carrier?

It isn't. You don’t have a gun like that on an armoured troop carrier.

That is something completely different to the T-14

On 05/05/2015 11:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 09:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?

Unlikely anyone will actually be stupid enough to buy them.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field



Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



In that case why is it described as an armoured troop carrier?

It isn't. You don’t have a gun like that on an armoured troop carrier.

That is something completely different to the T-14
The why is the picture titled:-
Showing off: Kurganets-25 Armored Personnel Carrier will go on display
at Saturday's parade
What exactly am I missing?

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 11:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 09:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?

Unlikely anyone will actually be stupid enough to buy them.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field



Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



In that case why is it described as an armoured troop carrier?

It isn't. You don’t have a gun like that on an armoured troop carrier.

That is something completely different to the T-14

The why is the picture titled:-
Showing off: Kurganets-25 Armored Personnel Carrier will go on display at
Saturday's parade

Pity about all the other pictures before it labelled T-14 tank.

What exactly am I missing?

Everything, as always.

In message , Rod Speed
writes

And then the world moved on, just like it always
does and MBTs became completely irrelevant.

That ****wit Putin hasnt even noticed.

Our friend Putin may be many things, but I don't think ****wit is one of
them. Perhaps he plans to continue moving west. Next stop T-14s
cruising up the M2 with Dover in the (remote controlled) rear view
mirror?
--
Graeme

On 05/05/2015 11:21, Rod Speed wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
....
And even if that works, an MBT is completely useless now.

That rather depends upon what weapons your enemy has.

....
The T-34 was a good tank, but what made it a war winner was that the
Soviet Union could produce three medium tanks for every one that
Germany could build.

And then the world moved on, just like it always
does and MBTs became completely irrelevant.

The Russians don't seem to agree with you. They have ordered 2,300 MBTs
and a number of other variants, based upon the same chassis; a heavy
APC, a 152mm SPG, rocket artillery and AA weapons systems.


--
Colin Bignell

On 05/05/2015 11:34, Broadback wrote:
On 05/05/2015 09:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?

Unlikely anyone will actually be stupid enough to buy them.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field



Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



In that case why is it described as an armoured troop carrier?

There is a family of combat vehicles on the same chassis. The first
picture is of the T-14 main battle tank. Under that is a picture of the
T-15 heavy infantry combat vehicle. The next one is a wheeled ICV.
Further down is the 152mm self-propelled gun on the T-14 chassis.

--
Colin Bignell

On 05/05/2015 12:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 11:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 09:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?

Unlikely anyone will actually be stupid enough to buy them.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field




Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



In that case why is it described as an armoured troop carrier?

It isn't. You don’t have a gun like that on an armoured troop carrier.

That is something completely different to the T-14

The why is the picture titled:-
Showing off: Kurganets-25 Armored Personnel Carrier will go on display
at Saturday's parade

Pity about all the other pictures before it labelled T-14 tank.

What exactly am I missing?

Everything, as always.
How do *you* differentiate between a tank and a armoured personnel carrier?

On 05/05/2015 14:45, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 11:34, Broadback wrote:
On 05/05/2015 09:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?

Unlikely anyone will actually be stupid enough to buy them.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field




Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



In that case why is it described as an armoured troop carrier?

There is a family of combat vehicles on the same chassis. The first
picture is of the T-14 main battle tank. Under that is a picture of the
T-15 heavy infantry combat vehicle. The next one is a wheeled ICV.
Further down is the 152mm self-propelled gun on the T-14 chassis.

Thanks Nightjar.That explains why Rod Speed and myself are getting our
knickers in a twist.

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 11:21, Rod Speed wrote:
"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
...
And even if that works, an MBT is completely useless now.

That rather depends upon what weapons your enemy has.

There are no enemys that have weapons that an MBT is any
use against anywhere that Russia will be involved anymore.

...
The T-34 was a good tank, but what made it a war winner was that the
Soviet Union could produce three medium tanks for every one that
Germany could build.

And then the world moved on, just like it always
does and MBTs became completely irrelevant.

The Russians don't seem to agree with you.

Yes, but that's no different to what Poland had in the runup to
WW2, **** all that was of any use when it came to the crunch.

They have ordered 2,300 MBTs

And they have just ****ed all that money against the wall
to no useful purpose what so ever, just like they did with
what they had for an MBT before that. They passed their
useby date when WW2 had ended and were never used in
full tank battles ever again. And wont be again, you watch.

Nukes have eliminated any possibility of another world war.

We didn’t even see any full tank battles in Gulf War 1 either.

Putin is too stupid to have noticed.

and a number of other variants, based upon the same chassis; a heavy APC,
a 152mm SPG, rocket artillery and AA weapons systems.

Those may have some value, but the T-14 doesn’t.
It is completely useless for anything now. There is
nothing that gun is any use for anymore.

Just another example of the military doing what it
is absolutely notorious for, fighting the last war all
over again, with weapons that have LONG passed
their useby date.

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 12:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 11:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"Broadback" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 09:30, Rod Speed wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote

Cos they want to flog them to make some much needed dosh?

Unlikely anyone will actually be stupid enough to buy them.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-message-field




Now why are the Russians coming up with a new tank at this time I
wonder?



In that case why is it described as an armoured troop carrier?

It isn't. You don’t have a gun like that on an armoured troop carrier.

That is something completely different to the T-14

The why is the picture titled:-
Showing off: Kurganets-25 Armored Personnel Carrier will go on display
at Saturday's parade

Pity about all the other pictures before it labelled T-14 tank.

What exactly am I missing?

Everything, as always.

How do *you* differentiate between a tank and a armoured personnel
carrier?

A main battle tank has a ****ing great gun that sticks out quite a bit in
front of it.

A self propelled howitzer has a quite different gun and is still nothing
like an APC gun wise.

On 05/05/2015 20:46, Rod Speed wrote:
....
There are no enemys that have weapons that an MBT is any
use against anywhere that Russia will be involved anymore...

The Ukraine was where the Soviet Union made its tanks and they still
make improved versions of the original Soviet designs. Russia might not
actually invade the Ukraine, but they would look a lot less threatening
if they didn't have tanks to assemble along the border.

....
We didn’t even see any full tank battles in Gulf War 1 either...

The battle of Medina Ridge is claimed to have been the largest tank
battle in US history.


--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 20:46, Rod Speed wrote:
...
There are no enemys that have weapons that an MBT is any
use against anywhere that Russia will be involved anymore...

The Ukraine was where the Soviet Union made its tanks and they still make
improved versions of the original Soviet designs.

And even you should have noticed that there hasn’t been any
full tank battles anywhere near there for quite some time now.

Even if the Ukraine did start producing MBTs now,
Russia doesn’t need the T-14 to deal with those.

Russia might not actually invade the Ukraine, but they would look a lot
less threatening if they didn't have tanks to assemble along the border.

They don’t need the T-14 for that.
...
We didn’t even see any full tank battles in Gulf War 1 either...

The battle of Medina Ridge is claimed to have been the largest tank battle
in US history.

Only because the US didn’t get involved in
any full tank battles that MBTs are any use for.

And if there had been no MBTs at all on the US side,
the Iraqis would have been disposed of very smartly
from the air anyway. There never has been any point
in the M1 Abrams and that is why the US doesn’t even
bother to make them anymore.

"Nightjar .me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 20:46, Rod Speed wrote:
...
There are no enemys that have weapons that an MBT is any
use against anywhere that Russia will be involved anymore...

The Ukraine was where the Soviet Union made its tanks and they still make
improved versions of the original Soviet designs. Russia might not
actually invade the Ukraine, but they would look a lot less threatening if
they didn't have tanks to assemble along the border.

...
We didn’t even see any full tank battles in Gulf War 1 either...

The battle of Medina Ridge is claimed to have been the largest tank battle
in US history.

C'mon Colin, Wodney knows best.
LMFAO.

On 05/05/2015 23:23, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
....
Even if the Ukraine did start producing MBTs now,

They export more MBTs than the Russians.

Russia doesn’t need the T-14 to deal with those....

The Ukrainian T-84 is easily a match for the Russian T-80, from which it
was developed.

....
The battle of Medina Ridge is claimed to have been the largest tank
battle in US history.

Only because the US didn’t get involved in
any full tank battles that MBTs are any use for.

That might come as something of a surprise to General Patton, were he
alive today.

And if there had been no MBTs at all on the US side,
the Iraqis would have been disposed of very smartly
from the air anyway. There never has been any point
in the M1 Abrams and that is why the US doesn’t even
bother to make them anymore.

Aircraft are only useful if the weather allows them to fly.

--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote

Even if the Ukraine did start producing MBTs now,

They export more MBTs than the Russians.

Its far from clear that they are producing many for their
own use now. What they export is completely irrelevant.

Russia doesn’t need the T-14 to deal with those....

The Ukrainian T-84 is easily a match for the Russian T-80, from which it
was developed.

Irrelevant to whether there will ever be a full
tank battle between the Ukraine and Russia
that the T-14 would be any use in.

Even if the Ukraine did churn out a lot of T-84s
now, Russia could easily deal with them without
the T-14 essentially because the T84 is very
vulnerable from the air and Russia has what it
needs to deal with them that way without the T-14.

The Ukraine has enough trouble paying for the gas it gets
from Russia, let alone producing lots of T-84s that would
last long if they tried to use them against Russia.

The battle of Medina Ridge is claimed to have been the largest tank
battle in US history.

Only because the US didn’t get involved in
any full tank battles that MBTs are any use for.

That might come as something of a surprise to General Patton, were he
alive today.

Nope, no surprise at all given how small
the battle of Medina Ridge actually was.

And if there had been no MBTs at all on the US side,
the Iraqis would have been disposed of very smartly
from the air anyway. There never has been any point
in the M1 Abrams and that is why the US doesn’t even
bother to make them anymore.

Aircraft are only useful if the weather allows them to fly.

BULL****.

On 06/05/2015 02:39, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
....
That might come as something of a surprise to General Patton, were he
alive today.

Nope, no surprise at all given how small
the battle of Medina Ridge actually was.

He would be particularly surprised to have been involved in that, given
that he had been dead for the best part of half a century when it happened.

....
Aircraft are only useful if the weather allows them to fly.

BULL****.

It was one of the problems that Patton faced.

--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
...
That might come as something of a surprise to General Patton, were he
alive today.

Nope, no surprise at all given how small
the battle of Medina Ridge actually was.

He would be particularly surprised to have been involved in that, given
that he had been dead for the best part of half a century when it
happened.

Never said anything about him being involved in that.

...
Aircraft are only useful if the weather allows them to fly.

BULL****.

It was one of the problems that Patton faced.

And hasn’t been for a LONG time now.