United States Superpower Status - Page 5

DinoDoc · July 31, 2002, 00:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb
1)Agreed with Krayzeenbk.

I'm glad that you agree that Russian security is nowhere near where it should be. There's hope for you yet.

Quote:

3) A couple of comments:
First of all, I think this statement is insult to honor of sailors who died on Kursk.

I would have considered it an insult against Putin and the rest of the Russian leadership.

Serb · July 31, 2002, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

Sorry, i was thinking of the T-72

. But I just saw a History channel deal on main battle tanks, and it spoke of the US M1-A2 to be supperior the T-80, due to the better armor. And it did say T-80, not T-72.

It was a record of very old programm then.

because today T-90 is our MBT.

Quote:

It said how T-80 armor was still vulnerable to shaped charge explosives, like what TOW and Hellfire missiles have, while the Abrhams composite armor is all but impervious to this.

Check the links I gave you about Jaming complex "Shtora"
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html

and Active Protection System (APS) "Arena". I'm sure you have nothing equal.

http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/EQP/arena.html

Btw, you started to manufacture your Abrams with Integral ERA not so long ago.

It means you are going in the same direction as we are. (Perhaps you "took" some of our ideas, if you know what I mean

)

Serb · July 31, 2002, 00:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm glad that you agree that Russian security is nowhere near where it should be. There's hope for you yet.

I agreed with Krayzeenbk, not with your silly claims.

Quote:

I would have considered it an insult against Putin and the rest of the Russian leadership.

You can do whatever you want, but it's still an insult of spirit of a sailor's brotherhood.

DinoDoc · July 31, 2002, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb
I agreed with Krayzeenbk, not with your silly claims.

Quote:

Originally posted by Krayzeenbk
DinoDoc is right to a certain extent, Serb. Security is definetely lax.

You are perfectly free to agree with him.

Quote:

You can do whatever you want, but it's still an insult of spirit of a sailor's brotherhood.

If I had wished to insult a branch of the Russian Armed Services, I would have chosen the Russian Army.

Serb · July 31, 2002, 01:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Krayzeenbk

And if you did, then you'd be in the middle of Russia in a truck with a nuke on its back, with the Russian armed forces out to get you

Not a very pleasant scenario for a terrorists hehe

Actually, AFAIK only ONCE stolen radiactive material wasn't returned. In all other cases, stolen materials was
found and returned during investigation.

Quote:

As for the T-80 - you're probably right, but from what I gather, not much data is really available since it isn't very often that modern U.S. weapons get fired at modern Russian tanks and vice versa.

I bet that modern U.S. tanks never meet with modern Russian tanks on battlefeild. Sure your modern tanks meet with old Russian tanks in 1991 in Iraq, but it was old tanks and those tanks did not have an expirienced Russian crews.
As for M1A2 vs. T-80U or T-90, I think it's hard to say who will be a winner. Both tanks have they advantages and disadvantages toward each other and both are exceptional tanks. I guess more likely it will be 50%-50%. I think many would depend on situation and crew expirience. Could we stop this thread jack now?

Quote:

The Abrams' approach to armor looks like just brute force dense material (depleted uranium), for the most part, which is good, but does nothing to deflect or mitigate the attack.

Yes, I agreed. I think in near future active defense will dominate in tank's design. (but sure passive defence will evolute too)

Quote:

A serious advantage of the M1 would be, for example, the nuclear/biological/chemical protection it offers... this is something that the Russians never had time to go back and put into their tank forces (although the T-90, which might eventually see service, has this feature).

T-90 is already in service, it's our MBT now. And sure it have protection from NBC as well as previous models of our tanks.

Serb · July 31, 2002, 01:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

We signed a peace treaty with them and lost Ukraine, but after short period of time we took it back.

AFTER the war! In WW1, the Germans destroyed your armies. It was really the only decisive front.

Again, WW1 wasn't a defensive war for us. This war wasn't supported by population, the population was against this war and this is one of the reasons of Russian revolution.

Serb · July 31, 2002, 04:20

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You are perfectly free to agree with him.

So, you are playing by my own rules now? You put my words under different quotes. Or you just didn't understand? Look again then:

You: 1) So they finally decided to improve the security of thier arsenal? Good.

Krayzeenbk :1) It never was insecure (to be blatant - you have to be lame, idiotic, ignorant, and living in America to have fantasies about how renegade officers and terrorists have access to the Russian nuclear arsenal. It's just not serious to think something like that. I'm sure the Russians are very serious about it).

Me: 1)Agreed with Krayzeenbk.

You: 2) A nuclear arsenal isn't a guarentee of superpower status. One need only look at France to learn as much.

Krayzeenbk: 2) France doesn't have thousands of missiles with multiple warheads, Russia does.

Me: 2) Agreed with Krayzeenbk.

You: 3) Russia will only be a superpower again if it learns how to build subs that don't sink to the bottom of the sea.

Krayzeenbk: 3) I guess, but then again there are subs that haven't yet sunk circling around our country ready to nuke us to hell, so you might want to rethink that.

Me: 3) A couple of comments:
First of all, I think this statement is insult to honor of sailors who died on Kursk. Secondly, Russia is not a single country, which lost its submarines in peace times. As far as I know USA lost 3 of them in peace times.
Third few weeks ago we build another “Typhoon” class submarine. When your scientists will create something equal to our “Typhoon” class, please let me know.

Get it now?

Quote:

If I had wished to insult a branch of the Russian Armed Services, I would have chosen the Russian Army.

Oh great!

Me and two of your fellow countryman have an intellegent and respectfull spaming session until you arrived and turned it too insulting spaming session. Great job.

Silly insults it is all what you could do, because you feel safe knowing that I can't reach you and kick your capitalistic ass.

Sikander · July 31, 2002, 04:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Stefu

[America 150 Years Ago Mode]Immigration is going to ruin our precious land, I'm telling you! The threat of the Papist Irishmen coming in in every boat imaginable is too great to ignore! If we don't do something then in 150 years there'll be Pope-loving booze-swilling Micks everywhere, spawning children like the white man can't - why, I predict that in 150 years you'll have some Papist Irishman named Mick O'Toole or Patrick Buchanan or something running for President! The infamy![/America 150 Years Ago Mode]

God, I didn't realize that it was all so clear 150 years ago. If only we had listened!

Kramerman · July 31, 2002, 05:24

Quote:

I don't know, men. As far as I remember we've lost only FIVE subs.

No, I saw a history channel special on the k-19, and it specifically said 11 (or 13) subs have been lost. By lost, I believe it meant severly damaged or something, because it counted the k-19, which was ot actually lost, and it counted it twice because that ill fated sub met with disaster a second time later after it was repaired. I hope this clarifies. So by 11 (or 13) subs lost, it does not mean Kursk style, with all hands and the ship itself lost.

Kman

Serb · July 31, 2002, 05:37

In that case, I'm sure that USA have such non-fatal incedents with its submarines too. And it's not right ot compare your 3 subs wich were totaly lost with number of all our subs which have been severaly damaged, but weren't sink.

Kramerman · July 31, 2002, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb
In that case, I'm sure that USA have such non-fatal incedents with its submarines too. And it's not right ot compare your 3 subs wich were totaly lost with number of all our subs which have been severaly damaged, but weren't sink.

Nope. Im sure the comparison was fair. I am not familiar with an nuclear reactor failures or problems in American subs, like what has happened to the k-19 and other ussian subs.

July 31, 2002, 18:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb
In that case, I'm sure that USA have such non-fatal incedents with its submarines too. And it's not right ot compare your 3 subs wich were totaly lost with number of all our subs which have been severaly damaged, but weren't sink.

Go back and read my post, only two were lost. SSN 591 and 593.

Kramerman · August 1, 2002, 00:51

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944
Go back and read my post, only two were lost. SSN 591 and 593.

Im no expert on subs, but the History channel said we have lost 3. Perhaps there has been a nuclear sub accident but the sub wasnt actually lost?

August 2, 2002, 00:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

Im no expert on subs, but the History channel said we have lost 3. Perhaps there has been a nuclear sub accident but the sub wasnt actually lost?

The History channel is wrong. I work on them for 30 years.