Thank you for your opinion. Today such a view is a rarity. A bit more tanks of WW2 period: Soviet heavy KV and German light tank. T-34, upgraded with concrete armor. =) Battle of Kursk view.
German heavy AT-SPA "Ferdinand". Soviet heavy IS-2 tank near Reichstag. You can see Soviet flag up there German super-heavy "Maus" tank. This thing is huge.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LLKv38kOrI"]YouTube - The World At War - First segment - Episode 1 - A New Germany[/ame]
Considered one of the most important Soviet aircraft of World War 2 Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik ...a ground attack aircraft. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vE3FWOe0ls"]YouTube - Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik[/ame]
and there was me thinking that the Russians surrounded and took the whole of Berlin on their own and did not let the Americans in for two months..
best dog fighter of the war [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjr8ZtEcrtE&NR=1"]YouTube - 1945 Pacific - P-51 Gun Camera Raw Footage[/ame]
Read what I wrote...the Allies moved in from the West...I never stated the Allies took Berlin.. The Soviets flanked Berlin because a large portion of the remaining Wehrmacht were engaging the allies at the Siegfried line. Thank the allies for decimating what was left of the Wehrmacht during the Battle of the Bulge. Thank the allies for decimating what was left of the Luftwaffe's air superiority over Europe... Thank the allies for bombing Germany's industrial heart... The Soviets pushed back the German invasion into Russia... I've even acknowledged the courage of the Russians for that... the loss of the Third Reich on the Eastern Front was a contributor to the Allied advance...but the Soviets would never have advanced as far as they did without the Allies either. The Allies let the Soviets take Berlin only because Eisenhower didn't want to risk any more casualties after the Bulge. We allowed the Soviets to take it....
You claimed that they flanked east Berlin while the Americans came in from the west..no they surrounded the whole of Berlin and then took it..the yanks were miles away..I have to laugh at your claims that the Battle of the Bulge was some kind of great event that took out most of the wehrmacht..the Russians took out most of the wehrmacht on their own..just go have a look at German casualties fighting the Russians and then then look at the western front..there is no comparison..The Germans lost most of their army fighting the Russians..
I have to disagree. Sure, the Mustang was a great fighter, but the Fw-190D-9 was the best 'dogfighter'. Also ahead of the Mustang was the Spitfire Mk IX / XIV.
Her Majesty's finest -- British Royal Navy personnel in Iran -- 2004. And again, More Brittle Navy captured in Iran -- 2007.
the Fw-190D-9 max speed was around 390 mph. the 51 with the Packard (Rolls Royce) engine around 437 mph. Spitfire Mk IX / XIV around 390 to 408 mph. the 51 had the edge here. it also had drop tanks to extend it range. a requirement for bomber escort Ill stay with the 51. speed kills
The T-90 is a Russian third-generation main battle tank (MBT) derived from the T-72, and is currently the most modern tank in service with the Russian Ground Forces and Naval Infantry. The successor to the T-72BM, the T-90 uses the tank gun and 1G46 gunner sights from the T-80U, a new engine, and thermal sights. Protective measures include Kontakt-5 ERA, laser warning receivers, Nakidka camouflage, the EMT-7 electromagnetic pulse (EMP) creator for the destruction of magnetic mines and the Shtora infrared ATGM jamming system. It is designed and built by Uralvagonzavod, in Nizhny Tagil, Russia.
I don't get why the Russians rely so heavily on ERA when all of the possible conventional oppenents they could come up against (except those using Russian tanks) use DU-APFSDS rounds. They cut through ERA like its not even there.
Unless of course you are in a turning fight in the middle of a bomber group where your speed means dick. I agree that the P-51 was good, but I think the best dogfighter was the Corsair.
Because it provides extremely effective protection against usual shells, caliber armor-piercing and cumulative. Kontakt-5 have mass up to two tons and improves protection against HEAT projectiles in 1,9 - 2,0 times, and from the armor-piercing according to the manufacturer at 1.2 times , reducing the ability to be penetrated by 19%. So it's lie about DU-APFSDS cutting trough ERA
Even 1.2 times equivalent thickness against APFSDS is not enough. A 120mm NATO sabot round had a penetration of 1600mm of RHA. That would mean that the T-90 would need over a meter of armor in order for it's ERA to protect it.
First of all, armor piercing projectiles significantly decreases with increasing distance to the target. So T-90 must stand at distance of 1 or two meters, and then 120mm NATO round would have 1600 mm of RHA. Secondly, may be you don't know but T-90 is using AP shells too And rockets,which can breach up to 1 meter of armor also.
1 meter? Try 1000-1500 meters for that penetration. That is the preferred kill distance for NATO sabots. And yes, I know that T-90's also have AP rounds and ATGM's, but composite armor (which the West and China uses in addition to ERA packs) is more effective against both. I was just wondering why the Russians haven't developed composite tank armor and instead rely on RHA covered in ERA to protect their tanks.
But Western and Chinese tanks havn't such uniform booking as T-90 have. Usually they have a bit stronger armor at tower's front and vulnerable flank and back armor. Also Western and Chinese tanks is simply bigger and it's much easier to hit them, then to hit T-90. Usually Western and Chinese have no active armor and are much vulnerable for attack by rocket-propelled grenades and antitank guided missile. Is it enough for you?
It took almost 3 pages before Khan could get in to bash the US in a picture thread...LOL he must have been asleep at the hate wheel ... Usual Suspect
There isn't a rocket propelled grenade in existence that can penetrate the armor of an MBT from the West or China, and ATGM's are a threat to everyone. The only reason Russia needs active defense systems is because you can kill a Russian tank with an RPG. As for being harder to hit, that doesn't really matter with modern targetting computers and thermal imaging. Really, Russia is building enhanced 1970's tanks instead of trying to build anything modern.
Oh really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7#Ammunition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29 How do you think, what kind of weapon destroyed so many "Merkava" tanks in the second Israeli-Lebanon war? Oh yes, it was our grenade launchers =) Active armor provides defense against any "fire and forgot" system. I wonder, why did the West simply builds a bigger tanks, instead smth revolutionary, like a tank with active armor and ERA.
