Soviets Field Laser Tank Before US

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Here you go Dimitri

There was scuttlebutt back in the day -80s- about US-NATO pilots experiencing blinding flashes coming from Soviet locations while being in near proximity. The Soviets DID have a larger program than the West all the way back to the 60s. However as they focused on such programs as this the West focused more on the Microchip and all IT could provide the Modern Battlefield.

NATO/US vs WARSAW/SOVIET both sides had their strengths and weaknesses

The USSR's high-energy laser program

reply to post by SLAYER69


haha, so you do have the ability to make concessions

What are your thoughts on the Soviet Polyus satellite laser system?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Concessions?
I've never said or implied the Soviets didn't make some good equipment. But unlike you my friend I don't pretend everything that is made is gold. Ignoring the junk. They also made a lot of junk

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Concessions?
I've never said or implied the Soviets didn't make some good equipment. But unlike you my friend I don't pretend everything that is made is gold. Ignoring the junk. They also made a lot of junk

I don't think Soviet equipment is made of gold. I think Soviet equipment is designed to be produced quickly, and to work in an efficient tactical manner. This is unlike American toys, which seem to be loaded with so much complex technology that the simplest and underestimated things can bring them down.

I simply prefer innovative weapons developed for practicality on the battlefield, over expensive and flashy weapons designed by corporations.

Did the Soviets make junk? Sometimes, yeah. But that junk could still rip apart the battlefield and kill the enemy.

Originally posted by Crutchley29

Originally posted by randomname
i doubt that, an f-22 can knock it out without it firing a single shot. so can a cruise missile and any precision guided bomb.

when they come with a stealth tank, then the pentagon will be worried.

Which the British are currently working on.

Indeed.. In fact, i am ware of a project from way back in the 1990's where they hada tank with some sort of plastic composite armour that was super light and strong, powered by a hydrogen engine which sucked fuel from the air and armed with a railgun type weapon...

Dunno what happened to that project, but the UK is currently gearing up for a new IFV programme and little is known about what tech will be employed in that as of yet. I'm sure the Yanks and others have similar projects.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I simply prefer innovative weapons developed for practicality on the battlefield, over expensive and flashy weapons designed by corporations.

Flash has nothing to do with it. It's competition between companies which drives innovations. Each one of those military contractors wants to win the BIG contract. Each trying to not only out do the Soviets but each-other and who gets the "Flashier" weapons platform? They US military did.

That's exactly why the Soviet were plagued with lack of quality in productions.. Too much Big brother in the mix trying to squeeze their ideas into production through an antiquated bloated Communist bureaucracy. Stalin once said that quantity has a quality all of it's own. He knew that after WWII they were producing just average hardware. But in massive numbers. HELLO!

The 3 best things IMO the Soviets ever did were the AK-47, The Mig and the Soyuz with all the variances of each.

Did the Soviets make junk? Sometimes, yeah. But that junk could still rip apart the battlefield and kill the enemy.

And exactly how many battlefields did they "Rip Apart" after WWII?

Dimitri, you seem to either forget or ignore that the US/West faced Soviet/Russian equipment on the battlefield numerous times.

Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War One and Two. Their equipment wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I'll admit and to be fair it wasn't piloted or driven by Russians. I honestly do believe when in the hands of the Russians their equipment becomes deadlier than say North Koreans or Saddam Husseins half ass trained Iraqis using it. etc.

It is hard to determine from this one sided view image but it appears that this laser lacks an effective elevation system. If there is one present it in not clearly indicated. It might be that the laser apparatus had a non flexible core or perhaps it was simply adjusted by using hydraulics on the chassis to adjust the pitch of the vehicle up and down. I am not certain but it seems like to me that the elevation control is not optimal in this design. It looks more like a mock up to me than a serviceable weapon system.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by centurion1211

 

How did the Russians pack all that laser tech onto a tank chasis? Because they are years ahead of the US in laser tech. The Soviets had satellites using lasers to paint primitive American satellites in orbit in the early 60s, much to the amusement of Soviet generals.

.

Then where is all this great russian military technology?

History recalls that iraq - using much of the best russian military equipment and tactics - was soundly defeated twice by U.S. forces.

And the first iraqi defeat helped cause the downfall of the old soviet union when the world and the soviets realized that their military machine (and military doctrine) was junk and nothing to be feared any longer.

Suggestion: Wipe away the misty tears you have in your eyes for lost russian military "greatness", and instead pay attention to the present and future.

Gentlemen, look closely at these lenses.

Those aren't lasers.

They're battlefield, high output IR lamps for illuminating a large swath of territory at night to enhance IR night vision devices.

When I was in college about 25 years ago, I had a friend that lived just down from me in the dorm. We were good friends at the time and I met his brother.His brother was in Naval Intelligence... not high level, but in developement and we started talking, and I asked about any cool and new weapons.

He tried to explain to me in a very Socratic method....he would ask the questions and I would give the answers... about a laser waepon system the US was developing at the time.

At a demo on a weapons test range, we had accidentally found a way to concentrate or focus the laser on a field of battle. Basically, the armored chassis mounted energy weapons shoots or blasts a flash of light... to concentrate the light into a beam...

it uses the cornea of the eye... basically blowing out the back of the head of those that see it without proper eye protection.

Needless to say, the whole incident/accident was hush hush and immediately deemed Top Secret.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Flash has nothing to do with it. It's competition between companies which drives innovations. Each one of those military contractors wants to win the BIG contract. Each trying to not only out do the Soviets but each-other and who gets the "Flashier" weapons platform? They US military did.

That's exactly why the Soviet were plagued with lack of quality in productions.. Too much Big brother in the mix trying to squeeze their ideas into production through an antiquated bloated Communist bureaucracy. Stalin once said that quantity has a quality all of it's own. He knew that after WWII they were producing just average hardware. But in massive numbers. HELLO!

The 3 best things IMO the Soviets ever did were the AK-47, The Mig and the Soyuz with all the variances of each.

It is obvious that you probably haven't studied much into Soviet/Russian weaponry. All the time here in the West, I see American weapons plastered all over the place because that's just how the propaganda works. Then I actually started looking at Russian systems and I realized that Russia has built superior weapons many years before the Americans. In fact, a lot of American systems are built in response to Russian technology, and not the other way around like some diehard American fans like to believe.

The simple facts are that Russia and the US are the top powers in military technological superiority. They have been competing in this field since 1918. The US isn't building weapons to fight terrorists, they are building weapons to top anything that Russia has.

Look at fighter superiority for example. Russia has so many advanced SAM systems that no other countries even compare. The US designed the F-22 to counter 4.5gen Soviet/Russian fighters like the SU-33 or MiG-35, but the Russians already have the S-400 SAM system deployed that can take out the F-22 and B-2, hence why the US already has contracts out for a new generation fighter.

And exactly how many battlefields did they "Rip Apart" after WWII?

Dimitri, you seem to either forget or ignore that the US/West faced Soviet/Russian equipment on the battlefield numerous times.

Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War One and Two. Their equipment wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I'll admit and to be fair it wasn't piloted or driven by Russians. I honestly do believe when in the hands of the Russians their equipment becomes deadlier than say North Koreans or Saddam Husseins half ass trained Iraqis using it. etc.

I don't ignore anything, and in fact that is the point. Soviet/Russian hardware has been used all over the world, and it is indeed effective regardless of what filtered "reports" say that eventually make it to us on here.

There's also been a few proxy wars fought involving Soviet equipment but not Soviet or American forces (like Angola for instance).

wayouttheredude-
It is hard to determine from this one sided view image but it appears that this laser lacks an effective elevation system. If there is one present it in not clearly indicated. It might be that the laser apparatus had a non flexible core or perhaps it was simply adjusted by using hydraulics on the chassis to adjust the pitch of the vehicle up and down. I am not certain but it seems like to me that the elevation control is not optimal in this design. It looks more like a mock up to me than a serviceable weapon system.

Image is of a TOS-1 Buratino MLRS (thermobaric warheads). Like this laser system, it is on a T-72 chasis and was also first deployed for testing in 1980s Afghanistan. Obviously the turret isn't designed to move quickly to chase a moving target, at least not fast moving aircraft/missiles or anything too close in range.

Looking at the optics on the laser module, it appears to me to not be used as a weapon but perhaps as a laser targeting device or some type of disruption system. I've heard a few stories about a "laser tank" being tested in Afghanistan by the Soviets and this vehicle clearly fits the description, so it's not a mock up.

Then where is all this great russian military technology?

Try looking for it, it's not exactly secret

Centurion1211-
History recalls that iraq - using much of the best russian military equipment and tactics - was soundly defeated twice by U.S. forces.

And the first iraqi defeat helped cause the downfall of the old soviet union when the world and the soviets realized that their military machine (and military doctrine) was junk and nothing to be feared any longer.

Great examples (not). Let's look at Iraq.

Most of Iraq's main tank forces were T-72s and other Soviet hardware. However, the hardware shipped to Iraq was sent in pieces and Iraqi technicians poorly put them back together (especially without much help from Soviet advisors). Most of their main line equipment bought from the USSR barely even resembled Soviet equipment, in fact the Iraqis had to give them their own modifications so they were far from the Soviet standard.

Second of all, the Iraqi Air Force barely even flew. If I recall correctly of the first Gulf War, their aircraft were heavily bombed while sitting at the airports and they had limited aircraft in the air. Then there's cases like when an F-18C encountered two MiG-21s and shot them down, which is an obvious outcome between a situation involving 3rd gen vs 4th gen fighters.

The second Iraq war was a given situation to American forces, considering Iraq did very little to rebuild their armed forces over the previous decade. Any serious Iraqi armament like cruise missiles were dismantled because of the aggressive and outright hostile American threat of dismantle "Iraqi capacity to drop WMD on US soil in under 45 minutes" (lies straight from Rumsfeld's mouth) or be invaded. The Iraqi airforce was ordered to not even fly because the Americans already assumed aerial supremacy (probably because of all the carrier task force groups and AWACS units flying around, apparently all to fight terrorists in Afghanistan ). Instead they were ordered to preserve their aircraft by burying them in the sand.

And let's look at American tactics. The Americans knew that, except for some elite Iraqi armored brigades, that most Iraq forces lacked the capability to fight at night. So American strategy focused on night assaults using night vision and thermal equipment by land forces, cruise missiles by the navy, and constant bombings by the air force. Despite American propaganda footage mostly showing daytime combat, most of their major combat operations (especially by marines in Fallujah) were conducted strictly at night.

If you actually look at a real tactical situation then just look at the account of when a Revolutionary Guard tank put up a fight against top line American MBTs. They were using Russian-made T-72s with ERA armor. I am not an expert on the story, but I know that they held pretty strong considering the Americans had aircraft, attack choppers, MBTs and IFVs scrapping it out against them while trying to take an airfield.

Suggestion: Wipe away the misty tears you have in your eyes for lost russian military "greatness", and instead pay attention to the present and future.

Maybe you should actually study what you try to argue with, instead of telling me some boring blanket statement without any real examples or facts.

Russians have no lost military greatness either. If you think this, then you probably haven't seen any Russian military forces in action or even attempted to analyze their technology.

FarArcher-
Gentlemen, look closely at these lenses.

Those aren't lasers.

They're battlefield, high output IR lamps for illuminating a large swath of territory at night to enhance IR night vision devices.

Sounds plausible.

AlreadyGone-
it uses the cornea of the eye... basically blowing out the back of the head of those that see it without proper eye protection.

Needless to say, the whole incident/accident was hush hush and immediately deemed Top Secret.

Story sounds plausible. I've seen a view independent videos documenting US actions in Iraq. Several cases were reported by Iraqi doctors and civilians of finding people in vehicles with their heads blown off but without damage to the rest of the body. They had no explanation but knew it was a new American weapon. Some even suggested a type of laser.