• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russian tanks are a real threat

Just look at their mighty t-34 tank, with it's white fur and mighty jaws!!!!!!

View attachment 67269399

Video of spray-painted polar bear sparks concern, but experts say not to worry


Now we really know how they inflate their tank numbers to combat nato, and private ivan was always wondering why some of the t-34 tanks in reserve kept pooping everywhere.

They may last longer on the battlefield than their top line T-90! Apparently the Obama administration gave T.O.W. 2 anti-tank rockets to the Syrian "rebels"(aka ISIS and others, but refused ANY lethal weapons to the Ukrainians as they were being invaded by Russia). There's videos of them easily taking out Syrian T-90 tanks, while videotaping it! Granted, the tank crewmen seem utterly clueless, and just park their tanks in vulnerable positions, and then just sit there, apparently without the necessary infantry to help watch their flanks.
 
They may last longer on the battlefield than their top line T-90! Apparently the Obama administration gave T.O.W. 2 anti-tank rockets to the Syrian "rebels"(aka ISIS and others, but refused ANY lethal weapons to the Ukrainians as they were being invaded by Russia). There's videos of them easily taking out Syrian T-90 tanks, while videotaping it! Granted, the tank crewmen seem utterly clueless, and just park their tanks in vulnerable positions, and then just sit there, apparently without the necessary infantry to help watch their flanks.

There is actually only a single video of the tow 2 taking out a t-90 as well as only one recorded instance, and even after it fared better than most tanks on earth.russian tanks going back to the 70's were able withstand tow missile variants even before reactive armor, to get them you need javelin missiles, and even that is in question with their new polar bear upgrade of their t-34, they can simply hibernate to avoid missiles.
 
There is actually only a single video of the tow 2 taking out a t-90 as well as only one recorded instance, and even after it fared better than most tanks on earth.russian tanks going back to the 70's were able withstand tow missile variants even before reactive armor, to get them you need javelin missiles, and even that is in question with their new polar bear upgrade of their t-34, they can simply hibernate to avoid missiles.



A few days ago I watched a video discussing a new, reasonably cheap, Russian T-72 upgrade package that costs about $1,000,000 for each tank to be upgraded. You hear people talk about how we and other western countries made mincemeat out of T-72's in various wars over time, but almost all of them were of the "export" variety, which means they were a weaker, downgraded version than the one used by the Russians.

The top-o-the-line Russian army T-72 has had thicker armor, better targeting systems and better ammo than what's available to their export clients', and that's BEFORE the upgrade package is added. That's true of "export" model M1 Abrams tanks, which have been taken out by Russian "export" anti-tank weapons... Supposedly the newer models of our TOW and other weapons can probably take out more modern Russian tanks. At least I'd hope so!

I don't understand why we don't SIMPLY upgrade to the longer barreled version of the 120mm Rheinmetall cannon, as the Germans have long used on their Leopard II. We use a shorter barreled version, which has reduced muzzle velocity. We have continually improved our anti-tank ammo for that gun though, and although the Operation Desert Storm era ammo was considered a game changer in 1991, the newer variants are significantly better. But I don't know if that's enough, because the way Russian tanks are designed, with crazy slope angles to their armor, makes that armor ridiculously thick at standard horizontal angles of attack. The add on protection packages make it even harder to penetrate, and HEAT rounds are basically useless against them(unless it's a multi-charge device).

They talked about improved variants of Javelin portable antitank rockets, with an improved top attack function, where you fire towards the enemy tank, the rocket flies over, takes a sharp upward path to a few hundred feet above the enemy tank, then flies straight back down through the tank's roof, which is the thinnest, least well protected area. I don't know how well their improved explosive reactive armor packages work against that. Strangely, although I see add-on explosive reactive armor kits on tanks from MANY countries, I have seen only a few examples of US armored vehicles equipped with them.

One last thing. US intelligence services have a long and storied tradition of grossly exaggerating the effectiveness and toughness of Russian military gear! After the end of the cold war, we figured that out! Turns out most of their stuff was nowhere near as good as we were told! The reason for the incredibly inaccurate assessments might be "motivated" by a desire to justify an ever-increasing expenditure on more and more weaponry, greatly enriching the military industrial complex! After their govt careers ended, those Intel officers were no doubt given WELL paying jobs at those same weapons manufacturers who benefited from the exaggerated assessments of Russian military capabilities!
 
Last edited:
A few days ago I watched a video discussing a new, reasonably cheap, Russian T-72 upgrade package that costs about $1,000,000 for each tank to be upgraded. You hear people talk about how we and other western countries made mincemeat out of T-72's in various wars over time, but almost all of them were of the "export" variety, which means they were a weaker, downgraded version than the one used by the Russians.

The top-o-the-line Russian army T-72 has had thicker armor, better targeting systems and better ammo than what's available to their export clients', and that's BEFORE the upgrade package is added. That's true of "export" model M1 Abrams tanks, which have been taken out by Russian "export" anti-tank weapons... Supposedly the newer models of our TOW and other weapons can probably take out more modern Russian tanks. At least I'd hope so!

I don't understand why we don't SIMPLY upgrade to the longer barreled version of the 120mm Rheinmetall cannon, as the Germans have long used on their Leopard II. We use a shorter barreled version, which has reduced muzzle velocity. We have continually improved our anti-tank ammo for that gun though, and although the Operation Desert Storm era ammo was considered a game changer in 1991, the newer variants are significantly better. But I don't know if that's enough, because the way Russian tanks are designed, with crazy slope angles to their armor, makes that armor ridiculously thick at standard horizontal angles of attack. The add on protection packages make it even harder to penetrate, and HEAT rounds are basically useless against them(unless it's a multi-charge device).

They talked about improved variants of Javelin portable antitank rockets, with an improved top attack function, where you fire towards the enemy tank, the rocket flies over, takes a sharp upward path to a few hundred feet above the enemy tank, then flies straight back down through the tank's roof, which is the thinnest, least well protected area. I don't know how well their improved explosive reactive armor packages work against that. Strangely, although I see add-on explosive reactive armor kits on tanks from MANY countries, I have seen only a few examples of US armored vehicles equipped with them.

One last thing. US intelligence services have a long and storied tradition of grossly exaggerating the effectiveness and toughness of Russian military gear! After the end of the cold war, we figured that out! Turns out most of their stuff was nowhere near as good as we were told! The reason for the incredibly inaccurate assessments might be "motivated" by a desire to justify an ever-increasing expenditure on more and more weaponry, greatly enriching the military industrial complex! After their govt careers ended, those Intel officers were no doubt given WELL paying jobs at those same weapons manufacturers who benefited from the exaggerated assessments of Russian military capabilities!

This thread is not to discuss russian tanks but rather just their polar bear upgrades, on the theme of the thread texas militias released new unmanned areal drones in nevada, they are so secret no one suspects they are texan.

 
Back
Top Bottom