Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[hest]

It is only your fantasy.

Tanks exported by US are not any downgrade but fully capable ones, in systems analogous to domestic models. There is no such monkey model as there was given by USSR in tanks, aircraft, etc when critical components were degraded or not even present.

About DU policy, it is not any purpose of downgrade. In rest of countries legislation may not allow for operation and storage of such material, for example in USSR DU rounds where developed and despite that they were cheaper and DU was easier to work with, because of this limitation during peace time main projectiles were of Wolframium, but DU rounds were to be the main rounds used in case of war, entering massive production. It is same in rest of countries which take same responsability.

So in case of Abrams and US rounds for export is offered an alternative, but "monkey model" is just imagination.

 

[Damian]

It is only your fantasy.

To the contrary, only fantasy boy here is You. I talked with people that were working with these tanks, there are also other non American sources proving this.

Tanks exported by US are not any downgrade but fully capable ones, in systems analogous to domestic models. There is no such monkey model as there was given by USSR in tanks, aircraft, etc when critical components were degraded or not even present.

And who cares about what USSR was doing, there are different methods of downgrading product.

About DU policy, it is not any purpose of downgrade. In rest of countries legislation may not allow for operation and storage of such material, for example in USSR DU rounds where developed and despite that they were cheaper and DU was easier to work with, because of this limitation during peace time main projectiles were of Wolframium, but DU rounds were to be the main rounds used in case of war, entering massive production. It is same in rest of countries which take same responsability.

Listen, nobody really cares about what was done in USSR or what is done in Russia. Neither nobody cares about Your insignificant opinion.

The fact is that Americans prohibits export of both DU armor and DU ammunition. Swedish documents says clearly that Americans offered them M1A2 with so called export armor package that was different than that in US Army M1A2's and offered approx 50% less protection.

So in case of Abrams and US rounds for export is offered an alternative, but "monkey model" is just imagination.

Downgraded export variants of the M1 are fact.

The only people with imagination here are You, and people who You are working for.

I find it even amusing that You are trying to fight with any known and respected fact in civilized world.

 

[hest]

And who cares about what USSR was doing, there are different methods of downgrading product.

Listen, nobody really cares about what was done in USSR or what is done in Russia. Neither nobody cares about Your insignificant opinion.

The fact is that Americans prohibits export of both DU armor and DU ammunition. Swedish documents says clearly that Americans offered them M1A2 with so called export armor package that was different than that in US Army M1A2's and offered approx 50% less protection.

Exported Abrams have fully capable electronic suite and are analogous to those operated by US, which is not any such downgrade,

Because another countries' policy does not allow for operation of DU under their responsability different option is offered, which is not any limitation, "monkey model" as you imagine. Apart from legislature and common export laws as with any other weapon in another countries there is no fantastical purpose.

 

[militarysta]

This thing about monkey models is not true.

Is very true. Even in offcial pdf swedish FMV there is conclusion about armour protection: offered by Germnas Leopard-2I (Strv.122) have armour 50% better then export monkey model M1A2 offered by USA, and 100% better then Leclerc prototype.
So yes -export M1A2 was very downgraded.

but talking properly, true capability to exploit it and make a difference appeared with FCS of Leopard 2A4.

No, it's not true - H-K capapbilities including PERI where introduced in 1979! The change between first bath (1979-1981 380 tanks) and second (since 1981 450 tanks) was WBG-X.
Leopard-2 since 1979 had full H-K capabilisties in day. Pleas read something about Leopard-2 and dont write sucht nonsense...

Requirement was dictated by tactics which were to be employed, and these sights were in accordance especially with manouver warfare, conventional conflicts for which tanks were intended based on frontal engagement, and tank never operated as sole unit. I will not discuss if panoramic sight was much better as I agree, but point is that it was not of critical necessity.

Sorry, You forget that in polish Army was more then 700 T-72 and PT-91, and tactis was the same for whole Warsaw Pact and we had compare between sovet tanks sight (and israeli icluded in Drawa FCS) and Leopard-2 FCS. And those T-xx tanks where blind, and talking about "rontal engagemen" haven't confirmation in reality. To close fight distance, to complicated terrain.
Do You ever know how close is typical fight distance in Poland and Germany?
Tank Crews trening fights using MILES- (another thing impossible to use in Soviet/Russian tanks, ad posible to use form 80s in NATO...*) had more then 80% fight on about ~700m distance.

In fact for a good time no other tank apart from Leopard 2, Eastern and Western regarded panoramic vision as a priority, Abrams neither Soviet tanks.

In Abrams it was only due to money reson -Damian can exlain that.
BTW: and since Leopard-2 all modern tank kad PERI analog. It's just nessesry to have H-K capabilities.


Kalina is whole FCS name.

Panoramic sight has a thermal camera of 3rd generation, Catherine-XP, FC is for gunner's sight. Thermal camera itself is comparable to what there is in latest Leopard 2, (which uses cameras of different companies for commander and gunner) while being better than the average, as most tanks as Abrams do not surpass 2nd generation.

Check images Catherine FC and XP and others are close to Ophelios-P from Leo2A5/A6. It's that level.

and there is also presence of guidance system for missile.

Which is complety ussles in western europe terrain GLATGM can be useful on Russian or Ukrainian "step" or centarl asia deserts, but not in Europe. To close distance.

They already offer thermal camera no worse or better in characteristics than Catherine-FC while newer generation is being developed for Armata.

Yes, it's true. It will be Attica III level cameras.

I don't know which ones do you refer specifically, but for Leopard 2A4 there are well reliable from institute (with actual access) and earlier proffesional estimations which are more or less uniform which also seem logical with armour dimensions.

WHAT?!
C'mon
Ok, can you show that estimatous?
btw: those estimatou included fact that Leopard-2A4 had 3 difrent type of special armour? (mod A3 to A4 (erly), A4 since 1986, A4 since 1988)


*this year Germnas make deal whit Russia and sold MILES technology for trening T-90A crews.


BTW:
Lidsky -export monkey model M1 are fact. Downgarded ammo, FCS and armour. And yes, FCS is downgraded. Damian can explain that if He want.

 

[Damian]

Exported Abrams have fully capable electronic suite and are analogous to those operated by US, which is not any downgrade, less monkey model as you say.

Because another countries' policy does not allow for operation of DU under their responsability different option is offered, which is not any limitation, "monkey model" as you imagine.

You think that to make downgraded export variant You need to downgrade electronics, then You are very naive.

DU armor and ammunition is not exported because US Congress do not allow it, not because some silly laws. DU is not more hazardous than WHA, both are heavy metals, also WHA in it's alloy use components that are toxic for people, just as DU is. And there is no nuclear hazard with DU, as it is becomes only dangerous if it somehow find its way inside human body... or any other living creature.

So the only fantasy here is Yours.

As for PERI/CITV issue in the M1.

The fact is that Americans had very advanced PERI/CIV systems codeveloped with Germans for the MBT-70 and XM803 programs. The XM803 had a CIV with inbuild passive night vision device and integrated heavy machine gun, it was a CIV/RWS hybrid, very advanced design in 1970's.

However after cancellation of both MBT-70 and XM803, US Congress demanded to US Army that there won't be any new "gold plated" designs, and forced costs reductions. US Army was desperate to have a new tank, so they agreed for some compromises.

In the end it was decided that for initial M1 batch (the Block I) there won't be any PERI/CIV but it will be integrated in to M1A1 (Block II), and indeed the M1A1 have a place to install such device just in front of loader hatch.

However there was a problem, such device because of it's placement was not possible to be conected with TC station via mechanical optical channel, they needed to conncect it digitaly via cable, and the US Army decided that it also want a CITV with thermal sight. In the 1980's it was definetly a difficult task to complete, so in the end they decided for increment improvements.

First was M1A1 with improved firepower, protection and other smaller improvements. Later M1A1HA with much more improved protection, the final upgrade known as M1A2 become avaiable in 1990's.

 

[militarysta]

BTW in Sowviet Union there was in fact 6 category of equipment:

1st class for Soviet Union only (ex: T-64, T-80 etc)
2th class for Soviet Union only but chepper and slighty simpler (ex: T-72A; T-72B)
3th class for Warsaw Pacts members but political sure (DDR, Blugaria, Czecholslovakia,) ex: better T-72M1 or other systems.
4th class Warsaw Pacts members but political risky (Poland, Hungary) ex downgraded T-72M/M1
5th class "fraternal socialist countries" but not WarPac (Yugosłavia, Wietnam, Cuba, etc)
6th class "Other countries" -not in WarPac, and not comunist/socjalists - Finland, India, Irak, etc.
And between 6th and 1/2st class tanks there was difrences in more then 40% for ammo, in more then 40% in armour etc.

 

[hest]

Is very true. Even in offcial pdf swedish FMV there is conclusion about armour protection: offered by Germnas Leopard-2I (Strv.122) have armour 50% better then export monkey model M1A2 offered by USA, and 100% better then Leclerc prototype.
So yes -export M1A2 was very downgraded.

So how is it, Swedes had access to original M1 and export, or how was this difference established ?

As explained, DU could not be purchased to to policy and maybe Americans could not offer better alternative as their main field was different, which is not any downgrade on purpose.

No, it's not true - H-K capapbilities including PERI where introduced in 1979! The change between first bath (1979-1981 380 tanks) and second (since 1981 450 tanks) was WBG-X.
Leopard-2 since 1979 had full H-K capabilisties in day. Pleas read something about Leopard-2 and dont write sucht nonsense...

If I am correct between Leopard 2A4 and first versions there is significant difference in FCS and rest, so it would be correct to say that it was that version which marked difference.

Also before Leopard 2 there were another tanks just with panoramic vision.

Sorry, You forget that in polish Army was more then 700 T-72 and PT-91, and tactis was the same for whole Warsaw Pact and we had compare between sovet tanks sight (and israeli icluded in Drawa FCS) and Leopard-2 FCS. And those T-xx tanks where blind, and talking about "rontal engagemen" haven't confirmation in reality. To close fight distance, to complicated terrain.
Do You ever know how close is typical fight distance in Poland and Germany?
Tank Crews trening fights using MILES- (another thing impossible to use in Soviet/Russian tanks, ad posible to use form 80s in NATO...*) had more then 80% fight on about ~700m distance.

Between socialist countries and USSR there was big difference not only in systems in use but training, therefore tactics sophystication, so you cannot establish direct analogy.

And for tactics which you talk about in fact only tank in West which had such FCS was Leopard 2.

In Abrams it was only due to money reson -Damian can exlain that.
BTW: and since Leopard-2 all modern tank kad PERI analog. It's just nessesry to have H-K capabilities.

Abrams shows that if money could be saved it means that it was not such a strong priority, as well as in USSR, and another countries focused on it later.

Kalina is whole FCS name.

Check images Catherine FC and XP and others are close to Ophelios-P from Leo2A5/A6. It's that level.

I do not see what images could tell about the system, but Catherine XP is in most advanced technical level as Leo 2A7 and better than the rest.

Also between FC and XP models there is notable difference, so I do not know how do you easily compare both with another one.

Which is complety ussles in western europe terrain GLATGM can be useful on Russian or Ukrainian "step" or centarl asia deserts, but not in Europe. To close distance.

And most common engagement range is dependent on tactics employed and it does not correspond with medium. With missiles there are just possibilities which in rest are not present.

Yes, it's true. It will be Attica III level cameras.

On same or better. Technical (knowledge, production) level after all developements is leading.

WHAT?!
C'mon
Ok, can you show that estimatous?
btw: those estimatou included fact that Leopard-2A4 had 3 difrent type of special armour? (mod A3 to A4 (erly), A4 since 1986, A4 since 1988)

There were several. Estimation is not given "officially" but is used by institute and as approximation as there are different models. For latest version it is under 500 mm of RHA against APFSDS and no more than 700 mm against CE.

*this year Germnas make deal whit Russia and sold MILES technology for trening T-90A crews.

Yes, they sold training equipement and there are many recent purchases from Western countries, but most are limited and serve for different purpose than their use.

BTW:
Lidsky -export monkey model M1 are fact. Downgarded ammo, FCS and armour. And yes, FCS is downgraded. Damian can explain that if He want.

I do not see where is downgrade in FCS and rest of systems, ammunition is different offer because of DU limitation but it is fully capable, KEW-2, 3 based on German, show show me where is "monkey model".

BTW in Sowviet Union there was in fact 6 category of equipment:

1st class for Soviet Union only (ex: T-64, T-80 etc)
2th class for Soviet Union only but chepper and slighty simpler (ex: T-72A; T-72B)
3th class for Warsaw Pacts members but political sure (DDR, Blugaria, Czecholslovakia,) ex: better T-72M1 or other systems.
4th class Warsaw Pacts members but political risky (Poland, Hungary) ex downgraded T-72M/M1
5th class "fraternal socialist countries" but not WarPac (Yugosłavia, Wietnam, Cuba, etc)
6th class "Other countries" -not in WarPac, and not comunist/socjalists - Finland, India, Irak, etc.
And between 6th and 1/2st class tanks there was difrences in more then 40% for ammo, in more then 40% in armour etc.

And this applied not only to armoured vehicles but most systems, and there is not any analogy with Abrams.

 

[Damian]

So how is it, Swedes had access to original M1 and export, or how was this difference established ?

As explained, DU could not be purchased to to policy and maybe Americans could not offer better alternative as their main field was different, which is not any downgrade on purpose.

Swedes asked Americans if they can purchase M1A2 with armor used by US Armed Forces, Americans said no. Same pattern for any other foreing customer, Americans percive theirselfs as a sole super power, they can sacrifice export success to maintain their place in the world and to protect technologies they see for theirselfs as critical.

Of course it does not mean that they didn't upgraded export armor package trough years.

If I am correct between Leopard 2A4 and first versions there is significant difference in FCS and rest, so it would be correct to say that it was that version which marked difference.

No, You are wrong, there are no significant differences, just minor changes, like the first versions of Leopard 2 had wind sensor, laters ones do not have it.

I do not see where is downgrade in FCS and rest of systems, ammunition is different offer because of DU limitation but it is fully capable, KEW-2, 3 based on German, show show me where is "monkey model".

FCS is downgraded, or rather was, currently because older systems are not manufactured any more, FCS is replaced in all tanks by the nwest one. However it does not mean it is still not somewhat donwgraded.

M1 FCS is based on memory cards for ammunition, it means that tanks for export can' fire other ammunition untill Americans won't provide memory cards with ammunition data, it can't be uploaded to FCS other way.

As for ammunition, there are only KEW, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2, I don't know where You found KEW-A3... another of Russian sources fantasy about western tanks?

Besides this KEW-A1 was the only type of american ammunition based on foreing designs, KEW-A1 is basically DM43, KEW-A2 is based on M829A2.

 

[hest]

You think that to make downgraded export variant You need to downgrade electronics, then You are very naive.

DU armor and ammunition is not exported because US Congress do not allow it, not because some silly laws. DU is not more hazardous than WHA, both are heavy metals, also WHA in it's alloy use components that are toxic for people, just as DU is. And there is no nuclear hazard with DU, as it is becomes only dangerous if it somehow find its way inside human body... or any other living creature.

So the only fantasy here is Yours.

Issue is serious, even more for export, that is why it is not allowed to purchase. In fact in latest Abrams upgrade there is "improved environmetal control of armour". For export there can be another option and there is no such law that requires downgrade as you say (apart from standart export proceedure as in all countries).

 

[hest]

Swedes asked Americans if they can purchase M1A2 with armor used by US Armed Forces, Americans said no. Same pattern for any other foreing customer, Americans percive theirselfs as a sole super power, they can sacrifice export success to maintain their place in the world and to protect technologies they see for theirselfs as critical.

Instead of funny story you could show me more about Swedish trials.

FCS is downgraded, or rather was, currently because older systems are not manufactured any more, FCS is replaced in all tanks by the nwest one. However it does not mean it is still not somewhat donwgraded.

M1 FCS is based on memory cards for ammunition, it means that tanks for export can' fire other ammunition untill Americans won't provide memory cards with ammunition data, it can't be uploaded to FCS other way.

As for ammunition, there are only KEW, KEW-A1 and KEW-A2, I don't know where You found KEW-A3... another of Russian sources fantasy about western tanks?

This is standart procedure, because client has not permission to mess with software and it is not unique to Americans, if you knew about export policy then you would know that this and another differences are normal, but apart from this and environmental control there is not anything which would justify your term of monkey model especially when there are alternative armour packages and good ammunition, and fully capable FCS.

 

[Damian]

Issue is serious, even more for export, that is why it is not allowed to purchase. In fact in latest Abrams upgrade there is "improved environmetal control of armour". For export there can be another option and there is no such law that requires downgrade as you say (apart from standart export proceedure as in all countries).

There is no such thing as "improved environmetal control of armour". PDF document from GDLS says:



This means that survivability improvement contains active protection system, enviromental control with means situational awareness and new upgraded armor package.

Once again I repeat, go back and learn how to read with understanding.

And USA is very strict to control it's technologies, they were not sold armor package that is their most superior development in this part of vehicle design, even to allies, because this is the rule of bein a super power, You will not let anyone to be as good as You are, or give anyone a chance to get their hands on Your own superior technology.

This is standart procedure, because client has not permission to mess with software and it is not unique to Americans, if you knew about export policy then you would know that this and another differences are normal, but apart from this and environmental control there is not anything which would justify your term of monkey model especially when there are alternative armour packages and good ammunition, and fully capable FCS.

Listen, I really do not care about your fantasies or fobias towards Americans or west in general. Either I do not care what obsolete knowledge about west you learned in Moscow.

I belive americans more, because they know better about their own equipment, than some bellarusian who tries to be more russian than russians are.

Instead of funny story you could show me more about Swedish trials.

Well it is a known fact in Sweden that Russians were outraged when they akcnowledged that Swedes with NATO was just testing T-80U for intelligence purposes, and it was never intended to win the competition. Same goes for trails in Greece, Turkey. And hey South Korea bought T-80U's that were tested by Americans also, and these T-80U's were not some downgraded tanks, but tanks that were originally manufactured for Russian Army and then sold from a storage facility to South Korea without any modifications.

It is actually funny to see how naive were Russians, that they thinked they could do a deal with countries that percived them, and still percive as a threat for peace in Europe.

 

[hest]

There is no such thing as "improved environmetal control of armour". PDF document from GDLS says:

This means that survivability improvement contains active protection system, enviromental control with means situational awareness and new upgraded armor package.

Once again I repeat, go back and learn how to read with understanding.

Ok that may have more sense.

And USA is very strict to control it's technologies, they were not sold armor package that is their most superior development in this part of vehicle design, even to allies, because this is the rule of bein a super power, You will not let anyone to be as good as You are, or give anyone a chance to get their hands on Your own superior technology.

It seems you want to believe in that funny illussion. If you do not understand export procedure then learn, because there is not monkey model policy as you say.

Besides that Abrams is not any advantage.

Well it is a known fact in Sweden that Russians were outraged when they akcnowledged that Swedes with NATO was just testing T-80U for intelligence purposes, and it was never intended to win the competition. Same goes for trails in Greece, Turkey. And hey South Korea bought T-80U's that were tested by Americans also, and these T-80U's were not some downgraded tanks, but tanks that were originally manufactured for Russian Army and then sold from a storage facility to South Korea without any modifications.

It is actually funny to see how naive were Russians, that they thinked they could do a deal with countries that percived them, and still percive as a threat for peace in Europe.

Exported T-80U were in fact modernised and not just from stocks, and it is same as for rest of countries especially Germany. Most of sold Leopard 2 are second hand.

 

[Damian]

Ok that may have more sense.

It have a sense, especially compared to Your fantasy.

It seems you want to believe in that funny illussion. If you do not understand export procedure then learn, because there is not monkey model policy as you say.

But I do not care about export procedures in Russia, are you capable to understand such subtle niuance? I care about exports from USA, Americans have a very strict control of what is exported outside. You think that they will just export for example stealth technology? It is obvious that even allies from NATO will get F-35's with less capable stealth than USAF, USMC and US Navy will get, this is simple.

In every document from DSCA to congress, there is sentence that deal was analized in terms of USA security and the deal will not be threat to it.

Besides that Abrams is not any advantage.

? And what is this babble talk? Do you use google translator to talk with us here? If yest then it perfectly explains why you understand everything so poorly here and everywhere actually.

Exported T-80U were in fact modernised and not just from stocks, and it is same as for rest of countries especially Germany. Most of sold Leopard 2 are second hand.

Oh great, so your brilliant leaders actually sold upgraed tanks to one of closest allies of USA so USA could have even easier opprotunity to test these vehicles?

Logic made in Russia.

 

[hest]

But I do not care about export procedures in Russia, are you capable to understand such subtle niuance? I care about exports from USA, Americans have a very strict control of what is exported outside. You think that they will just export for example stealth technology? It is obvious that even allies from NATO will get F-35's with less capable stealth than USAF, USMC and US Navy will get, this is simple.

In every document from DSCA to congress, there is sentence that deal was analized in terms of USA security and the deal will not be threat to it.

Who talks about Russia ? It is common for all major countries. For example radar systems are offered without some operating modes and client has no access to programming codes, etc, but this is common, with your logic all export product is "monkey model". You still did not explained me where is monkey model policy and how it is downgraded to be called as such.

Oh great, so your brilliant leaders actually sold upgraed tanks to one of closest allies of USA so USA could have even easier opprotunity to test these vehicles?

Logic made in Russia.

With your logic it is same for rest of the world...

 

[Damian]

Who talks about Russia ? It is common for all major countries. For example radar systems are offered without some operating modes and client has no access to programming codes, etc, but this is common, with your logic all export product is "monkey model". You still did not explained me where is monkey model policy and how it is downgraded to be called as such.

Export variant of M1 is downgraded "monkey model" because it does not have the same survivability in terms of armor protection due to use of inferior Export Armor Package that is closer in capabilities to older Burlington than newer Heavy Armor Package. As well as offensive capabilities are downgraded because instead of superior M829 series of APFSDS ammunition, downgraded KEW series of APFSDS ammo are offered for exports.

This is just as simple, and this is not my fault that You have constant problems with comprehending reality.

With your logic it is same for rest of the world...

No it is not. Do Germany sold tanks to any close allies of Russia? No, altough with so many sales, and also no downgraded export variants, it is obvious that access to Leopard 2's better variants with better design solutions is easier.

And this is not very good policy for a long term, because it makes easier for Russia, that is a threat, to access technology, same can be said about making any deals with Russia, this won't bring anything good for Europe.

KEW-A2 have estimated penetration capabilities of approx ~660-750mm RHA @2,000m (depending on sources).
M829A2 have estimated penetration capabilities of approx ~730-770mm RHA @2,000m (depending on sources).

So KEW-A2 being based on M829A2 is still inferior to the latter.

 

[hest]

Export variant of M1 is downgraded "monkey model" because it does not have the same survivability in terms of armor protection due to use of inferior Export Armor Package that is closer in capabilities to older Burlington than newer Heavy Armor Package. As well as offensive capabilities are downgraded because instead of superior M829 series of APFSDS ammunition, downgraded KEW series of APFSDS ammo are offered for exports.

This is just as simple, and this is not my fault that You have constant problems with comprehending reality.

Because policy does not allow for operation of DU and there is alternative it does not mean it is monkey model policy, do you know about different armour variant ? And ammunition is not any useless downgrade. For the rest tank is about the same as operated by US so to call it monkey model in the same sense as you call T-72M is just not correct, in fact it is same as another export Leopard 2 or T-90S.

No it is not. Do Germany sold tanks to any close allies of Russia? No, altough with so many sales, and also no downgraded export variants, it is obvious that access to Leopard 2's better variants with better design solutions is easier.

And this is not very good policy for a long term, because it makes easier for Russia, that is a threat, to access technology, same can be said about making any deals with Russia, this won't bring anything good for Europe.

To disacredit export as you do is not correct. And Russia is not any enemy to Europe, it is good that today such deals are possible.

KEW-A2 have estimated penetration capabilities of approx ~660-750mm RHA @2,000m (depending on sources).
M829A2 have estimated penetration capabilities of approx ~730-770mm RHA @2,000m (depending on sources).

So KEW-A2 being based on M829A2 is still inferior to the latter.

It is not any useless munition and it is in line with most widely operated, German, Israeli, etc.

 

[Damian]

Because policy does not allow for operation of DU and there is alternative it does not mean it is monkey model policy, do you know about different armour variant ? And ammunition is not any useless downgrade. For the rest tank is about the same as operated by US so to call it monkey model in the same sense as you call T-72M is just not correct, in fact it is same as another export Leopard 2 or T-90S.

There is no reason to not use DU ammunition because it is as same hazardous for living beings as WHA ammunition. Simple as that.

And yes ammunition is downgraded by American standards. Do You understand that we are not talking here about Russian or German standards but about American standards? By American standards it is downgraded export "monkey model". Simple as that.

To disacredit export as you do is not correct. And Russia is not any enemy to Europe, it is good that today such deals are possible.

Russia is not enemy to Europe? So why the hell when last time Poland wanted to improve it's security by aproving installation of American BMD system, Russia threatened Poland with nuclear weapons... only because we wanted to improve our security. So yes Russia is a threat, allways was, and allways be to all it's neighbours.

This is the best example of Russia hypocirsy, when we wanted to install purely defensive weapon system Russia threatened us by placing nuclear missiles near our borders.

By logic of Russias leadership threatening other countries with nuclear weapons seems to be ok, but when other countries are improving their security by installing defensive systems, then everything is wrong, and defensive systems are threat to Russia.

Any deal with such agressive and impredictible state is dangerous to security and peace in Europe.

It is not any useless munition and it is in line with most widely operated, German, Israeli, etc.

Are you unable to understand that I'am talking from American point of view? This is really so difficult to understand such simple thing?!

 

[hest]

There is no reason to not use DU ammunition because it is as same hazardous for living beings as WHA ammunition. Simple as that.

There are additional effects of DU as aknowledged by countries which operate it and it's usage is limited by legislation.

And yes ammunition is downgraded by American standards. Do You understand that we are not talking here about Russian or German standards but about American standards? By American standards it is downgraded export "monkey model". Simple as that.

Ammunition has still good performance and this is not justification to call it monkey model, in fact it is vast exageration.

Russia is not enemy to Europe? So why the hell when last time Poland wanted to improve it's security by aproving installation of American BMD system, Russia threatened Poland with nuclear weapons... only because we wanted to improve our security. So yes Russia is a threat, allways was, and allways be to all it's neighbours.

Main reason are not important European countries, France, Germany, etc which want to have good relations but small "Western wannabies" from former Socialist block which have stupid phobia and are against any approachement.

Whole issue was caused mainly not by US or Russia, but by Polish leadership and their ideology who wanted to satisfy their phobia and as supposed ally requested from US moves which they could not allow, of course Americans retired some of their plans as with such a conflict they wouldn't care about some small and silly individuals.

 

[Damian]

There are additional effects of DU as aknowledged by countries which operate it and it's usage is limited by legislation.

There are no additional effects, DU is like lead only toxic heavy metal. WHA alloys are also toxic.

Ammunition has still good performance and this is not justification to call it monkey model, in fact it is vast exageration.

I do not care about your insignificant opinion.

Main reason are not important European countries, France, Germany, etc which want to have good relations but small "Western wannabies" from former Socialist block which have stupid phobia and are against any approachement.

Whole issue was caused mainly not by US or Russia, but by Polish leadership and their ideology who wanted to satisfy their phobia and as supposed ally requested from US moves which they could not allow, of course Americans retired some of their plans as with such a conflict they wouldn't care about some small and silly individuals.

Who is more silly, smaller countries that feel threatened by Russian imperialism, and try to improve their security, or Russians who threatens smaller countries with nuclear weapons, you know what, by such actions Russia is not percived as a civilized country but as a country rulled by primitives?

The only country that have phobia is Russia. Russia is a threat to it's every neighbour who is not dancing as Kremlin orders it.

And this is not Russian buisseness what we are doing on our land, we are sovereing nation, and if we want missile defence, we will have it, and your goverment can kiss our ass.

Oh and BTW, for the many last years Soviet Union was always threatening us, Russia attacked us after WWI, Russia attacked us with Hitler, Russia occupied us after WWII, forced socialist goverment on us, murdered thousands of our elites, soldiers and even simple citizens.

 

[hest]

There are no additional effects, DU is like lead only toxic heavy metal. WHA alloys are also toxic.

One aspect of DU is that though radioactivity is low, in case of entering in your body it will have significantly worse consequences, there is no barrier and it directly damages internal tissue, also as heavy metal it will remain giving prolonged damage, thus it is more dangerous in smaller quantity than WHA.

For the matter there shouldn't be need to explain anything as you can see by legislation. In USSR DU projectiles were not used on peace time and only on need thought they are easier to work and much cheaper.

I do not care about your insignificant opinion.

You are the initiator of the term monkey model which at very least is an exageration.

Who is more silly, smaller countries that feel threatened by Russian imperialism, and try to improve their security, or Russians who threatens smaller countries with nuclear weapons, you know what, by such actions Russia is not percived as a civilized country but as a country rulled by primitives?

The only country that have phobia is Russia. Russia is a threat to it's every neighbour who is not dancing as Kremlin orders it.

And this is not Russian buisseness what we are doing on our land, we are sovereing nation, and if we want missile defence, we will have it, and your goverment can kiss our ass.

Silly are those who use term "Russian imperialism" and mess with relations of actually important European countries to avoid approachement, opinions of stupid leadership of such small countries, ex socialist, Baltics, etc shouldn't be given any weight, but all to improve buisness and integration with main European countries.