thats all very nice 1Man about that kontakt-5 but it dosn’t change the fact your entering into a fantasy realm, the Iraqi armour was beaten to death and that is the end of story, non of this ‘but but kontakt’ stuff, what ever next, germany wouldn’t have lost ww2 if they had leopard 2’s?

1. You said “thats very nice” thats an admission you relised those where pretty much weak (downgraded) tanks, then you go on and act as if they did have Kontakt-5 and Nightvision/Thremal imaging, and DU rounds, and got beaten by better U.S. Nightvision/Thermal DU round equiped M1A1’s,

One alternative opinion is that of Colonel-General Viktor Yesin, the former chief of the Main Staff of the Strategic Rocket Forces. “If the flight trajectory [of a conventional-warhead strategic missile] will be near our territory or, God forbid, over our territory, a response strike by our nuclear forces would be unavoidable.”

While it might be possible to assign conventionally armed US ICBMs to specific, geographically distinct launch sites and to allow Russia to verify such deployments – measures that have been proposed by the USAF – such an approach would be completely unworkable for submarine-launched missiles.

There is also concern in Russia that the target set for US conventional-warhead strategic missiles might include Russian ICBM silos and command and control centres.

Around 10% of Russia’s silo ICBM’s have been scrapped, and only around 10% are still opperational, and from the early 90’s onward the mass majority of the silo ICBM’s have bbbeeeeennn put on “Mobile Launch Platforms”

oh come on 1Man, your not seriously trumpeting the capabilitys of the Russian conventional forces are you? Even the most rabid Russian military zealot would admit that there conventional forces are weaker compared to America by a huge margin. It will be many years yet, decades perhaps till you and Russia can bask in glory again, not that the people did but thats a different matter altogether.

Funny how you changed the subject, I’m talking about Kontakt-5 and why Iraq’s Tanks were REALLY defeated.
There are 2 “Official” statements the U.S. Military/Gov gives:

1. To the public threw the media.
2. What they discuss among themselves

It’s funny how thier second statements TOTALY contradict your beliefe that Russia is weaker than U.S.A.

Let’s see, the ERA is good for deflecting one shot. So what? The M-1 gunner could just as likely put two shots in the same hole for all it matters. The T-72’s of Iraq still couldn’t effectively engage U.S. M-1’s even when they were within their suspected lethal firing range. U.S. M-1’s couldn’t even effectively destroy their own tanks when they tried to do so. Regardless if their T-72s carried the Russian 125mm gun or monkey model, the Iraqis still would of lost the tank war.

1. you can’t put 2 shots in the same hole at the same time, you must be 16 of or something.

2. If the Iraqi T-72’s were “within their lethal firing range” the WILL “effectivly” engage the M1’s wwhy do you think it’s called “lethal firing range?”

3. Please thell me why it wouldn’t????????

Jon James:

In your other post you were saying something about the bad performance of Russian hardware in “DesertStorm” well if you did the research you’d know that outside of small arms (AK’s RPK’s) all other military hardware Russia sold to other countries were “downgraded” systems especially the Tanks

1. Monkey model was the unofficial designation given by the Soviet Military to versions military equipment (armored vehicles, airplanes, missiles) of significantly inferior capability to the original designs and intended only for export.

The monkey model was exported with the same or a similar designation as the original Soviet design but in fact it lacked many of the advanced or expensive features of the original.

” Performance and capabilities of monkey model equipment were so degraded from the original as not to be in any way representative of the original design capabilities” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_model

2. “Outside the USSR, licenced versions of T-72 were made in Poland and Czechoslovakia, for WARPAC consumers. These tanks had better and more consistent quality of make but with inferior armour, lacking the resin-embedded ceramics layer inside the turret front and glacis armour, replaced with all steel. The Polish-made T-72G tanks also had thinner armour compared to soviet standard (410mm for turret). Before 1990, Soviet-made T-72 export versions were similarly downgraded for non-WARPAC customers (mostly the arab countries). Many parts and tools are not interchangeable between the Russian, Polish and Czechoslovakian versions, which causes logistical problems.

The Yugoslavs called their copy the M-84, and sold hundreds of them around the world during the 1980s. The Iraqis called theirs the Assad Babyl, which means “Lion of Babylon,” though the Iraqis assembled theirs from “spare parts” sold to them by the Russians as a means of evading the UN-imposed weapons embargo. More modern derivatives include the Polish PT-91 Twardy and Russian T-90. Several countries, including Russia and Ukraine also offer modernization packages for older T-72s.

The T-72 is common around the world in the armies of many potential enemies of the U.S. and other Western nations. Many Western analysts regard this as worrisome because, at least theoretically, its 125 mm 2A46 main gun is capable of destroying any modern main battle tank in the world today, including the M1 Abrams. On the other hand, on those three occasions when Soviet clients using T-72s have met Western armies that possessed modern main battle tanks —Lebanon in 1982 (against the Israeli Merkava), Iraq in 1991 (against the U.S. M1 Abrams and the British Challenger 1), and again Iraq in 2003— the T-72 did not show its abilities. After clashes in Lebanon in 1982, both the Israelis and the Syrians claimed their main tank’s superiority, but there is no verifiable evidence of a T-72 destroying a Merkava or vice versa. In the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi tank units were heavily defeated, although this might have more to do with the poor training and full air supremacy than with any deficiencies of the T-72 itself. Furthermore, while facing the most modern Western tanks, the versions the Iraqi army fielded were out of date at the time. The Iraqi T-72s were downgraded export versions that had not been significantly upgraded over time and were firing inferior ammunition (often with steel penetrators and half-charges of propellant).” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

3. Had the Iraqi’s had “Kontakt-5” ERA’s without the help of L.G.B.’s being dropped fron F-16/18’s and Hellfire missiles from the “Apachies” the M1 would have been stopped right there in the desert.

” Jane’s International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

“IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

“Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

“Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR’s Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or ‘light’, type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the ‘heavy’ Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

“When fitted to T-72 tanks, the ‘heavy’ ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

“Richard M. Ogorkiewicz” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5

The S-300PT was ready in the late 70’s…

And I’m not telling you that there aren’t a whole crapload of S-300P batteries…just look around outside Moscow for a whole mess of them. There just aren’t that many in the interior of the nation. Most of them are positioned to defend cities and industrial areas, as well as strategic facilities along the periphery of the nation such as the SSBN bases.

Because thats where the attack will be focussed on.

:rolleyes:

Yeah thats what I thought, another “RANTER” ranting about U.S. supieriourity that doesn’t exist.:D 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

The Iraqi air defences were still considered a really formidable air defense by everyone at the time if you think back to that era, i remember all the hype before the war then about how the Iraqi MIGs were gonna cream the coalition and how amazing and tough the air defenses were. In the end it ended up getting creamed.

But scince the real info is readaly available on the net of what Iraq had then, it’s safe to say people like you are willingly to believe the lie, or in denial abot the facts, scince it would proove the FACT, that the U.S. has not fought real “Russian” Su-27/MiG-29 SAMS but downgraded ones.:D 😀 😀