New T-90 for DCS

[WildBillKelsoe]

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..... BOOOM!!!! pheewwwww...

[EtherealN]

Going by weight alone, in the West the T-90 would be considered a medium tank, versus the Western designed Heavy tanks.

 

Touches on another topic that people often forget: you always have to consider materiel in the context of the doctrine it operates under. Take russian tanks and operate them under american doctrine, and they're crap. Take american tanks and operate them under Russian doctrine, and they're rediculously ineffective for their cost.

 

A classic example of this can be seen in the troubles SAAB has in selling the Gripen. It's design is so closely linked to swedish doctrine that even if it is absolutely fantastic in this context, it's "crap" in, for example, and american context. Who cares about it's ease of maintenance (conscripts until very recently when conscription was abolished in sweden just a few years ago), or ability to use any old country road as a base, if your doctrine is based on having well fortified airbases at distance and use aerial refueling to get to the target?

 

The full context of testing these vehicles against each other has never been tested, and we should all be extremely happy about that, since the test would pretty much require World War 3. :P

[Invader ZIM]

Well Said EtherealN,

 

The best part is that we can at least make educated guesses on the strengths and weaknesses of these weapons systems given public information and put them in our simulator.

 

The best part is that we can then simulate WW3 on our desktops, where I hope it always stays. :D

[martin.hedin]

Touches on another topic that people often forget: you always have to consider materiel in the context of the doctrine it operates under. Take russian tanks and operate them under american doctrine, and they're crap. Take american tanks and operate them under Russian doctrine, and they're rediculously ineffective for their cost.

 

A classic example of this can be seen in the troubles SAAB has in selling the Gripen. It's design is so closely linked to swedish doctrine that even if it is absolutely fantastic in this context, it's "crap" in, for example, and american context. Who cares about it's ease of maintenance (conscripts until very recently when conscription was abolished in sweden just a few years ago), or ability to use any old country road as a base, if your doctrine is based on having well fortified airbases at distance and use aerial refueling to get to the target?

 

The full context of testing these vehicles against each other has never been tested, and we should all be extremely happy about that, since the test would pretty much require World War 3. :P

 

One interesting example of that is how the Soviet union never implemented carriers the same way the US did.

 

Extract from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_class_aircraft_carrier

 

"Unlike American or British carriers, the Kiev class is a combination of a cruiser and a carrier. In the Soviet Navy this class of ships was specifically designated as a heavy aviation cruiser rather than just an aircraft carrier. Although the ships were designed with an island superstructure to starboard, with a 2/3 length angled flight deck, the foredeck was taken up with the heavy missile armament. The intended mission of the Kiev class was support for strategic missile submarines, other surface ships and naval aviation; it was capable of engaging in anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and surface warfare."

[diveplane]

they still need to sort out the speeds of the tanks i was doing 80 mph in the m1a2 other day lol

 

top speed for that is about 41mph off road its a little less.

Edited October 11, 2012 by diveplane

[ZMEY-HS-]

One interesting example of that is how the Soviet union never implemented carriers the same way the US did.

 

Extract from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_class_aircraft_carrier

 

There are also other interesting facts why rus carriers are called "aircraft carrying cruisers". One of them is location of Black Sea Shipyard. There is no other way to the oceans, except Bosphorus. And according to Montreux Convention, Turkey has control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits

Turkey was authorised to close the Straits to all foreign warships in wartime or when it was threatened by aggression; additionally, it was authorised to refuse transit from merchant ships belonging to countries at war with Turkey. A number of highly specific restrictions were imposed on what type of warships are allowed passage. Non-Black Sea state warships in the Straits must be under 15,000 tons. No more than nine non-Black Sea state warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of no more than 30,000 tons, may pass at any one time, and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than twenty-one days.

 

Although the treaty is often cited as prohibiting aircraft carriers in the straits[9], there is no explicit prohibition on aircraft carriers in the treaty. However, the tonnage limits in Article 14, which apply to all non-Black Sea powers, would preclude the transit of modern aircraft carrying ships. In the case of non-Black Sea powers, these terms make it impossible for transit any modern ships carrying aircraft through the straits without violating the terms of the convention.

 

By contrast, Black Sea powers such as the USSR were able to transit aircraft carrying cruisers through the straits under other terms of the convention. As with non-Black Seas powers, the Montreux convention does not explicitly forbid a Black Sea power from transiting aircraft carriers through the straits, and the tonnage limits in Article 14 also apply to Black Sea powers as well as non-Black Sea powers. However, under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits. Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ships, but limits the definition of carriers to ships that are designed primarily for carrying and operating aircraft at sea and specifically excludes other ships that merely are able to operate aircraft. [10]

 

The result of this is that by designing its aircraft carrying ships such as the Kiev and the Admiral Kuznetsov to have roles other than aircraft operation and by designating those ships as "aircraft carrying cruisers" rather than "aircraft carriers" the Soviet Union was able to transit its aircraft carrying ships through the straits in compliance with the convention, while at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which are not covered by the exemption in Article 11

[monotwix]

They lunched submarines and Cuba fleet from the north, they could launch a football field from there but it wasn’t in their plans to float in Mediterranean.