Search results

  1. PsihoKekec

    WarPac vs. NATO Tank and Armored Vehicle Designs/Doctrine

    The stuff they export is not the same as the stuff they themselves use. As I recall USA knew full capabilities of Yugoslav AA defenses in 1999, yet they failed to destroy single SAM launcher despite 15000 AA suppression missions. Though, due to being terribly outdated, the SAMs only managed to...
  2. PsihoKekec

    WarPac vs. NATO Tank and Armored Vehicle Designs/Doctrine

    I have a slight feeling that the autoloader would have been as trouble free as Panther's gearbox and engine. It's also unlikely that this tank would see any serious production before 1944 and would have no effect on war. Not to mention that it needed special materials that were in short supply...
  3. PsihoKekec

    WarPac vs. NATO Tank and Armored Vehicle Designs/Doctrine

    Are we talking 80's here or the current day? And so did Soviets and Russians still do. There is a minor problem with this approach, it can be applied only to the vastly weaker opponents, but not against Soviets and today Russians, who have integrated AA network coordinated with Air Force, you...
  4. PsihoKekec

    WarPac vs. NATO Tank and Armored Vehicle Designs/Doctrine

    Considering that their own air force was no pushover and they had strong mobile SAM network, the idea was that by the time NATO could secure the air superiority their armies would have been trashed and negotiations would have started.
  5. PsihoKekec

    WarPac vs. NATO Tank and Armored Vehicle Designs/Doctrine

    The Russians are totally not copying the West, these are their own ideas REEEEEEEEE!!!! Jokes aside, like all designs, they must conform to the overall military doctrine of the nation that produces them and Russian military doctrine for the last 15 years has changed a lot compared to Soviet...
Top