Juicy details of US military power

https://youtu.be/Zya6PsljoFY

I suspect that many will surprise some juicy details and facts about the "modern" US military achievements.
Here, for example, self-propelled artillery unit (ACS) M109A6 Paladin. This self-propelled 155 mm howitzer is the basis of the US artillery. This is the most powerful and long-range system that have in armed brigades and divisions, or support Marine Corps.



However, outside all beautiful. Is not it?

And it is eerie technological disgrace, weapons, obsolete 150 years ago. In him is still used separately caps-loading. A kind greeting from the 19th century. That is, the US "high-tech" gunners actually pick into the trunk of a giant cleaning brush (swab), insert into barrel - bags (caps) with gunpowder, stuck the glow tube, (*)(*)(*)(*) the hammer mechanism and then attach the cord and pulled his for shot. If the elevation angle is large - they have to lower the first barrel in position for loading. All this in a smoke, because in barrel is sometimes burns down lumps of charge.

[video=youtube;Zya6PsljoFY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=69&v=Zya6PsljoFY[/video]

As a result, the most important, if not the most important characteristic of ACS - rapidity of fire - this antiquated system is obtained several times lower than those of competitors. And the video shooting process looks extremely hilarious.
Very modern American M109A6 Paladin self-propelled guns trained with the expectation just makes 1.6 shots per minute.

Compare, with Russian, we can say the ancient ICCA-C, making shots in 8-10 minute. About the "Coalition" I did not even stutter - there's just like the difference between a rocket and a dray.

Now watch the video, how it works in the Russian SAU "MSTA-C."

[video=youtube;i9ah-EZDTTc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=41&v=i9ah-EZDTTc[/video]

The process of loading it is completely different. Charging only puts the projectile into the tray, and then the sleeve. Everything else makes mechanization. The ignition cap is already integrated in the sleeve. Laces is not required. And shells feed conveyor and loader are not taken off the shelves, or even the floor.
Liner smoldering shells immediately thrown out, no one cleans the barrel, and in the fighting compartment no smoke. And the resulting rate of 8-10 rounds per minute.
Why rate - a key feature of the Self-propelled artillery unit? The fact that Self-propelled artillery unit is very important as soon as possible to release ammunition and to leave the position because for Self-propelled artillery unit often goes Gun hunting. Furthermore, even if the danger does not threaten - the intensity of the fire increases its effectiveness (the opponent does not have time to get out from under the fire), and the Cannons for the same density of the fire should be smaller. Just one "MSTA-C" produces shells as much as 5-6 US "Paladins".

In Russia, meanwhile, have adopted the latest ACS "Coalition CB", which has a rate of fire of 16 rounds per minute and a range of up to 40 km (active shell, of course). And as a prototype has already been tested, and that's. "BUREVESTNIK"



What do you think about it?

 

The US wins.

 

This convinces me we need to spend more on the military. The U.S. spends as much on defense as the next six countries combined. We need to spend as much as the next ten countries combined.

Thanks for pointing out our weakness under Obama.

 

"Defence" against who, exactly? Seems that history will show you that, for the past 60 or so years, America has been on the offensive; bombing, invading sovereign nations, overthrowing legitimate democracies, installing dictators in their place, arming and financing terrorists...nothing much defensive there.

 

But its selling great to other countries. Cant remember last time we used one. We are more into drones now.

 

And going bankrupt in the process.

Who is your tag line quote from?

 

Martin Kelly, quoted in William Blum's Rogue State here: http://williamblum.org/chapters/rogue-state/united-states-bombings-of-other-countries

A book every genuine patriot should read-as long as they aren't afraid of the truth.

 

Well, offensive action also requires military equipment.

 

Yes, and what a waste of money. Where has all that expenditure ($700 billion in the next round of spending) got you, and what has it actually achieved? All I see is hundreds of acres of defunct equipment, much of it never used and countless billions of tax dollars, wasted:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a...UICCgC&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=GI0t54yCtn0OlM:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a...UICCgC&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=SQ0qtTde5ACx5M:

 

The majority of Russian self-propelled artillery systems are the 2S1 and 2S6 howitzers that load and fire using the exact same mechanism as the Paladin. How is that any different?

 

American tank crews have failed to place in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge, a competition co-hosted and sponsored by US Army Europe. The three-day event gathered the best NATO crews to compete against each other in a set of armored warfare tests.
Read more

Cloudy with a chance of Humvees: Military vehicles plummet from sky in failed air drill (VIDEO)

The Strong Europe Tank Challenge was jointly hosted from May 10 to 12 by the US Army and the German Bundeswehr at the Grafenwoehr Training Area in Germany. The three-day event involved crews from Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland and Slovenia – which each sent platoons of four tanks – and the United States, which sent two platoons of four tanks.

The tank competition appears to be the first of its type to be held by NATO in Europe since 1991, the year the USSR dissolved. Designed to develop armored warfare skills, the tank challenge is also in line with the NATO trend of planning to counter what it calls an “assertive Russia.”

Crews taking part in the competition conducted either offensive or defensive operations, including an obstacle course with 13 different sections, a shooting competition, and tank-based navigation. The platoons were given points for each event in an effort to gain the highest score out of 1,000.

In one event, competing crews had to correctly identify 25 “friendly” and “threatening” vehicles while traveling around a course. Other events involved operating in the aftermath of a simulated chemical weapons attack, dealing with improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and managing medical emergencies, according to a US Army press release.

The German team took top honors, followed by the Danish tank crew in second. Third place went to Poland. The teams representing the US Army – which sponsored and advertised the event on social media – failed to make the top three.

Notably, all the teams were allowed to use tanks of slightly different types. The German platoon brought a Leopard 2A6, one of the best NATO-developed tanks that features a modified turret, enhanced mine resistance and a longer main gun barrel.

Denmark and Poland used Leopard 2A5s, an earlier version, while both Italy and Slovenia brought domestically-built Ariete and M84 tanks respectively. The American crews competed in M1A2 Abrams, according to the press release.

Clash of titans: Tank biathlon starts 2015 International Military Games nr Moscow

Earlier in May, General Mark A. Milley, the Army chief of staff, said there are serious gaps in the US military’s combat training. “Today, a major in the Army knows nothing but fighting terrorists and guerrillas, because he came into the Army after 9/11,” General Milley told journalists. “But as we get into the higher-end threats, our skills have atrophied over 15 years.”

A similar competition, the Tank Biathlon, takes place annually in Russia as part of the massive International Army Games. Last summer, some 2,000 servicemen from 17 countries, including Russia, China, India, Venezuela, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Mongolia, among others, competed in the games, which were held in Russia between August 1 and 15.

The tank contest follows rules of a classic biathlon, with each armored vehicle aiming to cover around 20km in the shortest time possible while shooting at various targets. Last year, almost all the teams used Russian-made T-72B3 tanks. The Chinese competed with one of their own tanks, the Type 96A.

 

What's a ship to a missile that can destroy it in a single hit? How much do ships cost? How much do missiles cost? How many missiles can you fire to equal the cost of a single ship?

What about an aircraft?

 

No. It has nothing to do with spending. It has to do with over abundance and not enough competition across companies that provide this equipment.

How does russia spend only 70 billion yet have better hardware?

Budget is obviously not the issue.

 

This trailer tank biathlon in Russia.

[video=youtube;TAwOOvQbB9A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAwOOvQbB9A[/video]

Incidentally, the Russian many times invited the US military (and other NATO countries) to compete in tank biathlon. But unfortunately they refuse.
Very sorry. I think this was interesting competition.

The results of the competition in the EU does not surprise me. Pentagon generals are not used to fair competition.
For example. General Paul Van Riper, a retired marine lieutenant-general, told the Army Times that the sprawling three-week millennium challenge exercises, were "almost entirely scripted to ensure a [US] win". http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborger

In the US, politicians distort reality at will. For example economy in stagnation - let's change the method of calculation of economic indicators. And there are no problems. Unemployment is rising - let's change the method of counting the unemployed. And there are no problems. And so on. The same thing happens in the US Army.
The most important thing to tell for sheep that they are "exceptional nation". And you can "tighten the screws on further"....The sheep will bleat for joy.

 

Are we playing the let's-pretend-russia-is-stronger-than-the-US game? Stupid game.

 

I think a direct war between the two would always end in a draw, even taking nukes out of the equation. Neither can invade successfully the other.

 

Only in this manner can win the United States. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborger

 

US People need to get rid of crazy from the White House and the Pentagon....Change Obama will not change anything. Remember - was Bush. So what? Was Clinton. So what? All of them - puppets. Only the oligarchs decide how to be America.

 

how does it win since they seem to spend money on new equipment that appears to be inferior to old one?

 

That is true. But the question of who would win is not the same as who is more powerful. In the first case, one has to take into account things like where, when, and under what circumstances. But if one just compares overall power, one looks at the quality and quantity of the militaries, and their capabilities. Two different things. For example, Russia is stronger than e.g. Brazil, but this doesn't mean that Russia is able to invade brazil.

 

Washington creates the enemies with its actions, and then says we need to defend ourselves from those enemies. It's like throwing rocks at your neighbors house, and then afterwards screaming you need protection from your neighbor.

Oh well it's good for the military industrial complex. Washington prints the money, the share holders pocket the money so I guess its a win, win situation ...that is unless there's a war.

 

No. We're playing the cost of missile per ship game. I agree that it's a silly game.


Cost of 1 carrier 4.5 billion

Cost of 1 missile that can sink a carrier - around 1-2 million


Let's play a game where we calculate how many missiles one can fire before the cost of the missiles equal to the cost of a single ship

What? 4,500?

And each missile can sink a carrier in 1 strike? Well, that's a fun game isn't it?

You want to play more?

 

Unless Russia can perfect its electronics so that every weapon the US has in its arsenal becomes null and void...At least that way Europe will survive. I'm being optimistic you know, but I think Russia's working towards that. Let's hope so!

 

You are wrong.

Self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon 2С6 "Tunguska"

[video=youtube;0UWnZDD9i0s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UWnZDD9i0s[/video]

Rate of fire - Five thousand rounds per minute.

[video=youtube;44IC6UrwVxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44IC6UrwVxo[/video]

Rate of fire - 2C1 "Carnation" 5 rounds per minute. (I agree it's not very much, but is 3-4 times higher than that of the paladin)

 

I think you don't have a clue what you're talking about the M109 is the oldest self propelled artillery in the US arsenal and was introduced in 1960 and is still in use which is actually a testament to its effectiveness. Our mobile gun artillery are being phased out with much more effective multiple rocket platforms; such as, the M270A1 multiple rocket launch system and the M142 high mobility rocket launch system which have higher pay loads, greater accuracy, and greater range, than conventional artillery and can hit several targets simultaneously out gunning anything in the antiquated Russian Forces.