Russia invites NATO to tank competition

Wish NATO accepts, so we can finally see whos tanks are better (Russian )

I sure hope NATO accepts too, even though they probably won't, I want to see these two beauties

German tanks

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 25.06.2017 at 13:47

I sure hope NATO accepts too, even though they probably won't, I want to see these two beauties

Americans bring Abrams, Germans bring Leopards, English bring Challengers, French bring Leclercs, Italians bring Arriete, Turks bring Altay and Estonians bring bycicles.

Poles banned for doping tanks.

Would've been more fun if they did it in 1944.

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 25.06.2017 at 17:57

लिखा द्वारा Viruslegion, 25.06.2017 at 13:47

I sure hope NATO accepts too, even though they probably won't, I want to see these two beauties

Americans bring Abrams, Germans bring Leopards, English bring Challengers, French bring Leclercs, Italians bring Arriete, Turks bring Altay and Estonians bring bycicles.

Poles banned for doping tanks.

doping?

लिखा द्वारा Cheerfultitanic, 25.06.2017 at 18:48

doping?

Inject drugs to enhace physical abilities, or in our case upgrade tank parts for better performances.

It's a joke, everyone are allowed to use tanks they want, horsepower, speed and gun. They are all aware that if they can fire big guns and move fast, they would do it. Unfortunately, physics doesn't work like that and you have to sacrifice speed or power, depends what you want for your tank, that's the whole point of this tank biathlon.

For example, English will use tanks from 90's, Americans from 80's and Russians from 70's (t-72ab (2015 upgrades on 1972 tank)), so difference between English and Russian tanks is 20 years.

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 25.06.2017 at 18:57

लिखा द्वारा Cheerfultitanic, 25.06.2017 at 18:48

doping?

Inject drugs to enhace physical abilities, or in our case upgrade tank parts for better performances.

It's a joke, everyone are allowed to use tanks they want, horsepower, speed and gun. They are all aware that if they can fire big guns and move fast, they would do it. Unfortunately, physics doesn't work like that and you have to sacrifice speed or power, depends what you want for your tank, that's the whole point of this tank biathlon.

For example, English will use tanks from 90's, Americans from 80's and Russians from 70's (t-72ab (2015 upgrades on 1972 tank)), so difference between English and Russian tanks is 20 years.

ik what it means but how are the polish doping their tanks???? like what tank

लिखा द्वारा Cheerfultitanic, 25.06.2017 at 19:12

ik what it means but how are the polish doping their tanks???? like what tank

They are 'upgrading' their tanks, trying to make them stealthy, faster and more accurate. They invented some new concept called 'PL-01' (picture above). It looks like something from C&C Generals Zero Hour mods.

It's still in testing phase in Poland, and there are no news when will it enter service. It is especially expensive to produce and develop new weapons for a medium and small countries, like Poland. Weapons became so expensive, only 3 countries can (really) afford it, America, Russia and China.

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 26.06.2017 at 05:40

लिखा द्वारा Cheerfultitanic, 25.06.2017 at 19:12

ik what it means but how are the polish doping their tanks???? like what tank

They are 'upgrading' their tanks, trying to make them stealthy, faster and more accurate. They invented some new concept called 'PL-01' (picture above). It looks like something from C&C Generals Zero Hour mods.

It's still in testing phase in Poland, and there are no news when will it enter service. It is especially expensive to produce and develop new weapons for a medium and small countries, like Poland. Weapons became so expensive, only 3 countries can (really) afford it, America, Russia and China.

Russia has the economy of Spain....
Plus I bet you oil monarchies of Gulf State can afford them (Saudi Arabia has the 3rd biggest military budget)

Tank Biathlon, my new fav sport
2042: First edition of Tank Olympics
xa
xa
I hope if not NATO, individual nations of it would accept the invitation, it would be fun and I want to see it on Eurosport.

लिखा द्वारा Guest, 26.06.2017 at 08:14

Tank Biathlon, my new fav sport
2042: First edition of Tank Olympics
xa
xa
I hope if not NATO, individual nations of it would accept the invitation, it would be fun and I want to see it on Eurosport.

agreed

लिखा द्वारा Free_Warrior, 26.06.2017 at 07:58

Russia has the economy of Spain....
Plus I bet you oil monarchies of Gulf State can afford them (Saudi Arabia has the 3rd biggest military budget)

Size of the economy do matter, but not for ex-communist countries - like Russia:

Because communist states needed only resources to build tanks, not money. Capitalism need both resources and money, communists simplified things by nationalizing and collectivizing industries and economy.
Now Russia as a capitalist country, still have military industrial complex leftover from USSR, so it can build weapons which otherwise would not be able with small economy.

Beside, even if that's not the case, oil money can cover military expenses, just like Saudi Arabia is doing(as you mentioned), while leaving tax money for civilian needs.

We're lucky God gifted Russia with so many valuable resources.

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 26.06.2017 at 12:43

लिखा द्वारा Free_Warrior, 26.06.2017 at 07:58

Russia has the economy of Spain....
Plus I bet you oil monarchies of Gulf State can afford them (Saudi Arabia has the 3rd biggest military budget)

Size of the economy do matter, but not for ex-communist countries - like Russia:

Because communist states needed only resources to build tanks, not money. Capitalism need both resources and money, communists simplified things by nationalizing and collectivizing industries and economy.
Now Russia as a capitalist country, still have military industrial complex leftover from USSR, so it can build weapons which otherwise would not be able with small economy.

Beside, even if that's not the case, oil money can cover military expenses, just like Saudi Arabia is doing(as you mentioned), while leaving tax money for civilian needs.

We're lucky God gifted Russia with so many valuable resources.

but the size of economy does matter to fund improvements and new technologies by supporting the scientists and military experts. Russia has some new great and improved tanks but most of the Russian tanks are from soviet era and they are simply a bit far from valuable in a battle.If Russia wants to really improve not only its tanks but all of its units Russia needs a big stable economic growth, investment in science and technology, and ofc if Russia mantains its defense budget (Russia spends 4-5% of its GDP on defense) and the economy grows too, they could spend more money buy more and better units and have a better equipment for its army.
Oil money can cover expenses but it also makes a country very dependent on its price....
All oil producers are in shit position today even Saudi Arabia, they have huge problems to face.

लिखा द्वारा Skanderbeg, 25.06.2017 at 13:37

Wish NATO accepts, so we can finally see whos tanks are better (Russian )

To be fair tank warfare is almost entirely obsolete due to advancements in missile technology. But russias missile defence systems destroy natos greatest weapon, air superiority.

लिखा द्वारा Free_Warrior, 26.06.2017 at 13:47

but the size of economy does matter to fund improvements and new technologies by supporting the scientists and military experts. Russia has some new great and improved tanks but most of the Russian tanks are from soviet era and they are simply a bit far from valuable in a battle.If Russia wants to really improve not only its tanks but all of its units Russia needs a big stable economic growth, investment in science and technology, and ofc if Russia mantains its defense budget (Russia spends 4-5% of its GDP on defense) and the economy grows too, they could spend more money buy more and better units and have a better equipment for its army.
Oil money can cover expenses but it also makes a country very dependent on its price....
All oil producers are in shit position today even Saudi Arabia, they have huge problems to face.

That's true. But Russia doesn't plan to enhance spending, just modernize Russian Army in the frame of military budget.



Only 50% of all Soviet weaponry was stationed in Russia during USSR, because it was away from borders, while other republics had most of the weaponry. Of that amount 80% is now in reserve (oiled and covered).

It is very important for Russia not to be dragged in the arms race again, and as you see, Russia mantain small army and equipment (size of south korea if you want to compare).

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.06.2017 at 17:37

To be fair tank warfare is almost entirely obsolete due to advancements in missile technology. But russias missile defence systems destroy natos greatest weapon, air superiority.

Well the Ruskies don't want you to know it but the 70s are over

लिखा द्वारा Rock Lee, 26.06.2017 at 17:45

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.06.2017 at 17:37

To be fair tank warfare is almost entirely obsolete due to advancements in missile technology. But russias missile defence systems destroy natos greatest weapon, air superiority.

Well the Ruskies don't want you to know it but the 70s are over

I don't get what that has to do with my statement? I'm talking about the S-400s, The S-400 Triumf (Russian: C-400 Триумф, Triumph; NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler), previously known as the S-300PMU-3, is an anti-aircraft weapon system developed in the 1990s by Russia's Almaz Central Design Bureau as an upgrade of the S-300 family. It has been in service with the Russian Armed Forces since 2007. The S-400 uses four missiles to fill its performance envelope: the very-long-range 40N6 (400 km), the long-range 48N6 (250 km), the medium-range 9M96E2 (120 km) and the short-range 9M96E (40 km). The S-400 has been described, as of 2017, as "one of the best air-defence systems currently made."[3]

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.06.2017 at 17:47

I don't get what that has to do with my statement?

That means that in ourdays western nations airplanes fly near russian anti aircrafts all the time without even being detected. they have already shot their missiles on them and it was'snt great success. I am not saying they can't take jets down but not enough to cancel NATO's air superioty.

The only efficient enough weapons to deside strategies (except nuclears ofcourse) that the east has is anti - tanks missiles. and some western nations already outplayed it in battlefield as the techlonogy keeps devolping.

लिखा द्वारा Rock Lee, 26.06.2017 at 17:52

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.06.2017 at 17:47

I don't get what that has to do with my statement?

That means that in ourdays western nations airplanes fly near russian anti aircrafts all the time without even being detected. they have already shot their missiles on them and it was'snt great success.

The only efficient enough weapons to deside strategies (except nuclears ofcourse) that the east has is anti - tanks missiles. and some western nations already outplayed it in battlefield as the techlonogy keeps devolping.

I disagree, missiles are far easier to mass produce then advanced aircraft and you don't lose any men if they are shot down. One destroyed aircraft means millions lost in the aircraft and most likely the expertise of the trained pilot.

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.06.2017 at 17:55

I disagree, missiles are far easier to mass produce then advanced aircraft and you don't lose any men if they are shot down. One destroyed aircraft means millions lost in the aircraft and most likely the expertise of the trained pilot.

Missiles are cheaper. but when you count on them to protect your soldiers and infrastructures and they don't do the job. you lose the war.

लिखा द्वारा Rock Lee, 26.06.2017 at 17:58

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.06.2017 at 17:55

I disagree, missiles are far easier to mass produce then advanced aircraft and you don't lose any men if they are shot down. One destroyed aircraft means millions lost in the aircraft and most likely the expertise of the trained pilot.

Missiles are cheaper. but when you count on them to protect your soldiers and infrastructures and they don't do the job. you lose the war.

For all you know russia intentionally botched it's missile capability to keep there true power as a secret card to play in an actual war. I for one saw these things in action and there at 90% accuracy in test simulations.

लिखा द्वारा Helly, 26.06.2017 at 18:00

For all you know russia intentionally botched it's missile capability to keep there true power as a secret card to play in an actual war. I for one saw these things in action and there at 90% accuracy in test simulations.

In that case time will say then. (hopefully it will remain a secret forever)