The end of tanks as we know it?
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
laser designator-rangefinder 1D22.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
interior of T-14
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
^^^ exterior wiring/plumbing? Interesting.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
It's merely Soviet-style ugly, similar hardware (for example AN/PED-1) is of similar size.Vacuum tubes?
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
The Russian one is 45 kg, and the American is 35 pounds.
The difference, I suppose, at least partially, happens because the American one uses lithium batteries (available cheaply on aliexpress to boot) and the Russian lead–acid batteries.
I think there is no doubt that the 1D22 is an inferior weapon.
The difference, I suppose, at least partially, happens because the American one uses lithium batteries (available cheaply on aliexpress to boot) and the Russian lead–acid batteries.
I think there is no doubt that the 1D22 is an inferior weapon.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1275
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
It's a FGM-148 Javelin copy
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JdBSD9464uY[/youtube]
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
As usual,you give technology an importance it does not have at war .Technology is not an aim on itself, but only a mean how to have results .And, there is no proof that a technological superior weapon would have better results .wm wrote: ↑28 Feb 2023, 23:42The Russian one is 45 kg, and the American is 35 pounds.
The difference, I suppose, at least partially, happens because the American one uses lithium batteries (available cheaply on aliexpress to boot) and the Russian lead–acid batteries.
I think there is no doubt that the 1D22 is an inferior weapon.
The only proof for a weapon to be inferior is not how it is build,but its results .
The industrial-military complex emphasizes the importance of technology,because it helps them to gain money .
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
The ugly one is just a dumb laser.
The nice one can provide coordinates for GPS-guided munitions, so you don't have to illuminate the target for minutes as if it were the last century.
The nice one can provide coordinates for GPS-guided munitions, so you don't have to illuminate the target for minutes as if it were the last century.
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
Completely idiotic comment which makes no sense at all.ljadw wrote: ↑01 Mar 2023, 21:39As usual,you give technology an importance it does not have at war .Technology is not an aim on itself, but only a mean how to have results .And, there is no proof that a technological superior weapon would have better results .wm wrote: ↑28 Feb 2023, 23:42The Russian one is 45 kg, and the American is 35 pounds.
The difference, I suppose, at least partially, happens because the American one uses lithium batteries (available cheaply on aliexpress to boot) and the Russian lead–acid batteries.
I think there is no doubt that the 1D22 is an inferior weapon.
The only proof for a weapon to be inferior is not how it is build,but its results .
The industrial-military complex emphasizes the importance of technology,because it helps them to gain money .
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
You continue to ignore the human factor, the weather, the terrain , the presence of the opponent, etc ...
War is not a game where the side with the most expensive weapons will win .
Re: The end of tanks as we know it?
WSJ on Ukrainians training with the Challenger 2