This vehicle is not heavy enough - most probably the sabot flies in one end and leaves the other - and if it doesn't hit the engine/transmission/driver it will keep going.
@52111centrumcz It's 35 tons, unarmed. Sabots can take out a variety of vehicles by means of mechanics, ammunition, crew, and/or instruments. Another issue would be, there is not an abundance of cavities significant enough for a sabot to fly through without touching something critical if you examine the Tunguska.
I did not say it wouldn't be incapacitated - but if it misses the driver/engine/gearbox, then most probably it will keep moving. And by "not heavy enough" I mean the armor is so thin that there wouldn't be significant after-armor effects from spalling.
@52111centrumcz In my original comment, I described the lead vehicle getting taken out by a sabot round from 2 miles away. I did not mention any "most likely" scenarios; I portrayed one becoming severely damaged by a sabot. Which, as we established, is plausible.
What good would this do as a tank? Its not a tank!! Its a mobile anti aircraft gun with two VADS (Vulcan Air Defence System) and surface to air missiles... Thats what i know... And possibly surface to surface missiles for taking out certain ground units
Free energy can change the world!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
los hey indians get some knowledge buddy... its not tank its air defence system...secondly Pakistan does not need to buy tanks or air defence system...Pakstan is producing their own world's best tanks and air defence system, and exporting it to many countries. not convinced??? search it and watch the videos on your own indian media about pakistani air defence system... you loosers..we dont need russia or anyone else..just google how many indian tanks were destroyes in chawinda war..
This junk of bolt is outdated prototype manufactured in mainland china with a tag on its back written "MADE IN CHINA".But the worst thing is itwill backfire or shoot down a pakistani plane which they claim to be an indian mig which is a madrassa agenda to fool there people.
now u assholes will be eager 2 abuse me and my god so SAME 2 U BACK 2 U FOR ALL YOUR BAD WORDS would apply 2 your FAMILY & allah
It is not a tank as it does not fit the ground combat dedicated part of the criteria. This would only be used to engage infantry in a pinch. It is a self propelled AA gun. Just having armor and mobility proves nothing. That is like calling a M109 Paladin a tank.
I do mean that. They are often called tanks as that is easier then getting technical. But the correct term would be Bridgelaying Vehicles, or Engineering Vehicles.Tracks alone doesn't = tank. By your definition any bulldozer used by a military is a tank.
"technically" by the Geneva convention you can not shoot a soldier (joe bob ground unit) with anything larger then your common issue rifle, "but" you can aim at his flack vest with w/e the fuck you want.. just like you can not use incindiery grenades on joe snuffy either, but you can throw them at his canteens all day long.
This is a 2K22M Tunguska-M1, a Russian combined surface-to-air gun/missile system. It is designed to provide day and night protection for infantry and tank regiments against low-flying aircraft.
aah, so microlights could be used as stealth attack vehicles... why hasnt our government discovered this?
maybe i should venture into microlight production, and procure myself a very lucrative defence contract, selling them to the airforce. yes, then i could make millions of pounds, to spend on radar development, so one could be built to track microlights. then i could attach it to one of these things to shoot said microlights down on a sunday morning.... then the circle would be complete.
Don't know much about communist makings in terms of military weapons and upgrades, but I saw a TLC program called "weapons of the future". One of the weapons was a tank mounted with an artillery gun (like the ones you see being dragged with 3-5 men loading it [present day]) and it was automated and unmanned, 100% accuracy acquired after 1st shot (5 second reload time). As far as i'm concerned, America still has it's military basis covered.
there is a crappy field near me where mcrolights take off, and one of these in the back garden would definitely stop those little fuckers buzzing my house on a sunday morning whem im hungover...
No it would not this is a very deadly modbile AA probley one of the best in the world. But Its all computer/radar done microlights would not send a big enough heat or radar signature for it to get a clear lock.
At the risk of sounding like "Higgins" from Magnum; This is a different animal but it reminds me of the Soviet ZSU 23-4 which,along with the MI 24 Hind,were my biggest concerns durring the 100-or-so hours of Operation "Desert Storm".
Useless against any force equipped with Anti-radiation missles. Here's the math. Tunguska has a max missle range of around 10km, a standard Anti-radiation missle runs around 45km or so.
If you keep the system switched off and only run it sporadically, you're minimizing your risk but you lower the effectiveness of the system, if you run the system for an extended period of time... well, the nasties in the sky will see you and that's all she wrote.
No the guns are the primary weapon, the Tunguska is what's known as a "Point Defense" system (vs "Area Defense") which means it's normally sited at a specific spot (Airfield for example) to protect that asset. This works well against helicopters, cruise missles and some low-flying aircraft. This system is horribly vulnerable to anti-radiation missles, which are purpose built to kill anti-aircraft defenses like this.
yea its a AAA gattling andAA missles with some radar thingy must me an AAA just wondering what happens if an artilery shell hits it the gadget looks frigel
this is a self propelled AAA and it's experimental. if anyone is such a dumbass as to think this thing would go into open combat then i feel sorry for you.
This Mobile AAA is retarded. Air to Ground Missles,such as the AGM-65 aka Maverick, out range AAA IE. this transexual AAA "tank." Mavs have a +17 mile range. I give Russia respect for the SAM-2 but this is just pornography...and an expensive target for F-22s and Cobras.
TUNGUSKA WOOOHOO.... lol went obsolete in 1999....technology used in those are ancient, all of the current Aerospace Defense Conglomerate's integrate ISR/ID/FR/EOT Jamming since 2003, helloooo Cyber Warfare integration network vs 1999 technology is like an PARTICLE CANNON vs a SLING SHOT!!
Israel is a zionist terrorist state which bombs innocent unarmed civilians and claims they killeda militant. A Baby is being murderd everyday in Occupied Palestine by the murdering Jews
lets face it though sweeden if they ever felt like taking over we would have no hope as some of the most high-tec ship have been built there and most hav had some form of stealth
its also true that an american C-17 was shot down by accident by a chinese tunguska AA, and the whole thing was covered over, you wont even find it on the news. Diplomatic relations persuaded China not to go public, and to leave it at that. sick.
like general38 said, this is an old soviet tunguska Anti Air vehicle, not a tank at all ... if ur looking for latest russian armor, its the T-90 or the black eagle tak under development.
These are anti-air tanks and they do not replace the traditional main battle tank. An abrahams would destroy these babies in 2 seconds. Each type of tank has its own specific job and these are most suited for taking down aircraft.
China has more than 1 Billion people.. with cheap labor and a large territory.. mass production is easy for them.. of course its inevitable that they will rise into power.. its simple mathematics..
just adding to this supposedly in the next 5-10 year the chinese will begoing through an industrial revolution sort of like the one the UK had only it should be better as the is better teconlogy avalibe to them now.
ok so you have been there but where the hell did you get the idea i was chinese, that is like me saying yanky to everyone who says something nice about america the only reason i know that is cause i took geography.
It is also a fact that Isarel was caught shipping a complete F-16 to China in an illegal arms deal and they were just given a slap on the wrist. It is also a fact that most of China's sudden sdvancement in millitary power is derived from illegal trade of US techonology with Isarel, and yet they (Isarel) protects the Nuclear arsonal of the USA??? Wow can they be trusted??
and How can you be trusted by the way??? What are you an isreali rocket scientist? We need FACTS.. the internet is a HUGE BOOK FOR FACTS.. do you have your own PRIVATE internet? I don't have any grudges against isreal in fact i really admire that country.. its just that i don't give them that much credit.
and I just researched this a while ago on nano technology.. The leading countries today are USA, Japan, China, Germany.. try typing this on your search engine.. the leading country in nano technology today.. i don't see isreal there..
no, no, Don't get me wrong I don't like Isarel at all and as a matter of fact I don't trust them as far as I can throw them it's just that I dont know why the US depends on them so much. It is a fact that an Isarili security firm protects all the Nuclear (missles inc) assets on american soil, dont the US have anyone that can do this?
The superior US equipment dint help them in Vietnam and the US does not posess the most advanced equipment, Isarel does and the US was also beaten at the last Top Gun competition by a non USA aircraft and Pakistani woman with an Su. So put that in ur pipe and smoke it.
Vietnam was a different story my friend.. It wasn't the equipment but the environment that became a big challenge.. the US strategy wasn't made for jungle warfare.. and the only reason why the US stopped the vietnam campaign was because of homeland intervention.. by the way israel depends on the US for most of its equipment.. constantly purchasing them from the US.. patriot missiles,m16s,etc....
This is true, however Isarel takes the US technology and makes it better than what the US currently have, they modify it to perfection. Isarel together with China are also way ahead of the US in terms of Nano technology and Computer advancement, which guaranties the US losing their Leading Super Power roll in as close as the next 8 yrs. What gives USA?
I don't have any idea on the Nano technology thing but with computer advancement? the USA has always been ahead compared to these guyz.. how would we know by the way? they're TOP SECRET.. with regards to isreal making US equipment better, patriot missiles are still patriot missiles aren't they? m16s are still m16s aren't they? and i don't really understand why give Israel such credit.. is because they defeated the arabs during the arab-isreali war? that was sheer stroke of luck my friend..
Vietnam's problem was politics, not technology. It was a defensive war, US soldiers were not technically allowed to cross to the north. If B52's carpet bombed the north's capital and production cities things might have played out differently. Also there was the draft. So we have a bunch of people forced into the military with as little training as there could be. Back in the US people like good ole Hanoi Jane who gave morale to the NVA, and don't forget the F.T.A.
ok, so if all of the US's enemies clone that Pakistani woman the US is in trouble otherwise what is your point? I could sit in the most advanced jet in the world and a good polot could probably whoop my ass in a Bi-plane. During its time in service no US F-15 has been shot down by enemy aircraft (just ground AA). Just like M16 vs AK 47 a good marksman with an M1-garand could outdo a lesser trained squad with modern arms.
Mechanically speaking The M1A2 and a T-90 are pretty much one shoots the other 1 shot is going to do a hell of a lot of damage. It all depends on the battleground . Open fields its where MBTs like the abrams show strength where a 120mm helps for long distance shots. Although in city streets, the small light armour LAV-25 can outmanuver its Heavy armour brothers. But in the city RPG's and javelins make armour very vulernable to infantry.
Russian army lack discipline and training.. they might still be thinking that sheer numbers will still be effective in today's modern warfare such as it was during wwII.. i don't think so comrades.. t-90's are good, so are the m1's.. effectivity of these awesome weapons will still depend on strategy and their cooperation with other weapons.. btw how many aircraft carriers does russia have?
I was saying that things would have been better without communism.I gotta agree with futuremilitech about iranians and chinese and the M16.But that was solved by improving the rifle and eventually making the M16A4.I think the OICW will replace most of the assault rifles in the US Army.
Yeah,and I said that he ran away thanks to Lenin and his merry socialists.He fled!!!Maybe if the communists didn't take over Russia,(Ukraine,I've got Ukrainian origins too,don't worry)maybe russians had better helicopters.
I think that any US or NATO ship had attacked or even scratched a russian submarine,we would have witnessed a naval battle up there.Why did the russians try to deny everything?And this is no bullshit,everyone knows.
if you want to know, that a3 abrams will have what we call the IEDDS or the Improvised Explosive Devices Defence System. what is it? its a small compact thing inside the tank that sends out cellphone signal scrabelers to protect against cell phone bombs, minivibrations through the ground to blow mines up, and emp bursts around it to protect against electronic explosives. the a3 will also have a laser turrent to fire at AT missles and many more defences.
no, telling everyone u do does... esp on a place such as this, no ones gonna believe you, maybe you really do test tanks, but don't use yourself as an authority on a place like this to further your point, trying to do that makes you an idiot!
I meant the russian intervention(invasion)in Afghanistan.I thought you knew.Please do remember that Sikorski left that country in 1917 because of Lenin and his merry comrades who started the revolution.And please don't tell me what's a T-72 or a T-80,I live in Eastern europe.
OK Dimitriy,first of all,I'm not a disrespectful little bully as you think.Ak-47s will be slowly replaced by Ak-101s(no doubt a very versatile weapon).I prefer the M4 SOPMOD.The Kursk incident:yeah blame it on NATO.Why didn't the russians cover it?Luckily those ships were nearby.It has been proven that none of those ships scratched Kursk.From what I know the Apaches are being developed by Boeing and not Sikorski.Russian tanks are good but T-80s got blown away in Afghanistan,Iraq,bla bla...
not exactly.. unless you train troops to carry artillery, armour and other equipment across the seas by their own.. :) that could be very exhilerating don't you think?
nah.. im just kidding with you.. yes ground force is a vital key for the success of any war but don't forget that you can't win wars with landforces alone.. its all about strategy.. ^_^
The tank keeps reinventing itself like cannons.Most of the chinese army is armed with copied weapons.They copied the Dauphin and renamed it as a Z-9.The same for the Mangusta.And the Mig-21.
Wow M1A3,I didn't know about it.When the commies saw the Harrier,they were terrified that NATO can set up traps with VTOL planes.They tried to develop VTOL planes too,the Yak-141 Freestyler and the Yak-38 Forger but they were unstable and rejected.
The Mi-24(not 25)sux.Yes it may be a flying APC but a Stinger puts it down,the mujahedins destroyed dozens of russian aircraft in Afghanistan.You made me repeat myself,I hate that.The Abrams and the Leopard 2A5 are the most advanced tanks in the world.Just imagine a battalion of M1A2s supported from the air by A-10 and Apache Longbows.Uhm I don't think that T-95 of yours has depleted uranium and many more secret compositions within the armor.
Face to Face with Tunguska when it want to be called tank,unicorn or pony i better will call it like what it want.
Talshet 3 months ago
The lead vehicle gets taken out by a sabot round from 2 miles away. Then the music stops :'(
WHY??? DX
BritaniaRuleAgain 9 months ago 3
@BritaniaRuleAgain
This vehicle is not heavy enough - most probably the sabot flies in one end and leaves the other - and if it doesn't hit the engine/transmission/driver it will keep going.
52111centrumcz 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
BritaniaRuleAgain 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@52111centrumcz It's 35 tons, unarmed. Sabots can take out a variety of vehicles by means of mechanics, ammunition, crew, and/or instruments. Another issue would be, there is not an abundance of cavities significant enough for a sabot to fly through without touching something critical if you examine the Tunguska.
BritaniaRuleAgain 3 weeks ago
@BritaniaRuleAgain
I did not say it wouldn't be incapacitated - but if it misses the driver/engine/gearbox, then most probably it will keep moving. And by "not heavy enough" I mean the armor is so thin that there wouldn't be significant after-armor effects from spalling.
52111centrumcz 2 weeks ago
@52111centrumcz In my original comment, I described the lead vehicle getting taken out by a sabot round from 2 miles away. I did not mention any "most likely" scenarios; I portrayed one becoming severely damaged by a sabot. Which, as we established, is plausible.
BritaniaRuleAgain 2 weeks ago
@BritaniaRuleAgain
Oh that I do not dispute; but by saying "taken out" I understood a total catastrophic near instaneous loss.
52111centrumcz 2 weeks ago
Mission Impossible? How old are you? 7?
ExcuseMyKarizma23 10 months ago
What good would this do as a tank? Its not a tank!! Its a mobile anti aircraft gun with two VADS (Vulcan Air Defence System) and surface to air missiles... Thats what i know... And possibly surface to surface missiles for taking out certain ground units
oIIJOSHIIoNe 11 months ago
A metal mobile with weapons= TANK!
krammy11 1 year ago
Looks like death to me, just plain awful death
babidji 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy can change the world!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a motor that needs no gas or electric input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Big change is comming soon!
slanderousndgs 1 year ago
It shows us what people go through to kill other people.
yellowmetalcyborg 1 year ago
los hey indians get some knowledge buddy... its not tank its air defence system...secondly Pakistan does not need to buy tanks or air defence system...Pakstan is producing their own world's best tanks and air defence system, and exporting it to many countries. not convinced??? search it and watch the videos on your own indian media about pakistani air defence system... you loosers..we dont need russia or anyone else..just google how many indian tanks were destroyes in chawinda war..
mour66 1 year ago
@mour66 hahahhahaha shut up Chinese shit...
producing world best tanks...lol first get sm food for yourself , i will lend my shit no probz
shitonpak 1 year ago
lol....made by russia and used by indian army with a strength of 198 tankzz in service...more orders pending....
pakistan doest have money to buy this stuff.......search 4 it....lossers
shitonpak 1 year ago
@shitonpak Damn...Flying Pigs are gonna be roasted !!
mohits24889 1 year ago
tel::+44 07903232866.
kamasutrair 2 years ago
wow its a monster
fdgh5 2 years ago
wat the fuck....
its made in Pakistan with the tag "Made as Russia"
LOVE U PAK
5840092 2 years ago
Its Tunguska M1 Anti Aircraft defence system, not Tank :D
LukeeH0 2 years ago 10
This junk of bolt is outdated prototype manufactured in mainland china with a tag on its back written "MADE IN CHINA".But the worst thing is itwill backfire or shoot down a pakistani plane which they claim to be an indian mig which is a madrassa agenda to fool there people.
now u assholes will be eager 2 abuse me and my god so SAME 2 U BACK 2 U FOR ALL YOUR BAD WORDS would apply 2 your FAMILY & allah
fatimaonmybed 2 years ago
its made in Russia you deuchcanoe
THEDUDESONSROCKs 2 years ago
@fatimaonmybed shut the fuck up you piss drinker
14729640358 2 years ago
Does anyone know how many rounds per second that thing spits out? That could shread a helecopter to bits
Ultramanfan14 2 years ago
Wow... its NOT a tank. its an antiaircraft gun.
thenoobfactor 2 years ago 17
it is NOT a antiaircraft gun, its a mobile anti aircraft TANK
robvanmol 2 years ago
It is not a tank as it does not fit the ground combat dedicated part of the criteria. This would only be used to engage infantry in a pinch. It is a self propelled AA gun. Just having armor and mobility proves nothing. That is like calling a M109 Paladin a tank.
thenoobfactor 2 years ago
LOL then u mean bridgelayers and engeneering tanks arnt tanks neigher, no way dude...
robvanmol 2 years ago
I do mean that. They are often called tanks as that is easier then getting technical. But the correct term would be Bridgelaying Vehicles, or Engineering Vehicles.Tracks alone doesn't = tank. By your definition any bulldozer used by a military is a tank.
thenoobfactor 2 years ago
My BIMMER has that
fladave99 2 years ago
That is a Tunguska M1... russian toy.
kakakaka108 2 years ago
i'd laugh if you zoomed out and they turned out to be a 10 year olds toy..
KaiSenKu 2 years ago
0:37 to 0:40 is just beautiful!
jamnar1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nokia is evil. The world must boycott Nokia!
x4hup90215 2 years ago
ummmmmmm yea u could see the rocket on side
if another tanks shoots it and hits near the rockets ur tec tank is gone.
Musakhann 2 years ago
they are russian tanks
abdirahmanhussein321 2 years ago
looks like the beginning of Armored Core.
Ivan951 2 years ago
HOLLLLLLLEYYYYY SHYTTTTT
zagahaga 2 years ago
"technically" by the Geneva convention you can not shoot a soldier (joe bob ground unit) with anything larger then your common issue rifle, "but" you can aim at his flack vest with w/e the fuck you want.. just like you can not use incindiery grenades on joe snuffy either, but you can throw them at his canteens all day long.
grimwolfe 3 years ago
Thats fucken stupid how can you not shoot whatever you want (ok incindiary is bad) at soldiers?
Ivan951 2 years ago
could those guns be used on ground units ie the 30 mm on enemy soldiers
jjono1991 3 years ago
omg its a AA
AlexBaumSkate 3 years ago
Is that thing sittin hull down??
white95sl2 3 years ago
Gepard sucks, ADATS are way better, M113 mounted or LAV 3 mounted, ADATS are a much better system.
shadowblock07 4 years ago
gepard sucks next to centurion mwahaha
pidrpede 4 years ago
I agree with you
Nasty9873 3 years ago
german antiaircaft-tank 'Gepard' is better and moderner and nicer and.... =P
gunmetalxXx 4 years ago
i dont give a shit about this video!
KtGxXSLIPKNOTXx 4 years ago
This is a 2K22M Tunguska-M1, a Russian combined surface-to-air gun/missile system. It is designed to provide day and night protection for infantry and tank regiments against low-flying aircraft.
00BigEddie00 5 years ago
I bet you found that info on wikipedia xD
fiskfisk33 5 years ago
estos son tanques chilenos
gualalas 5 years ago
De aonde wn!
maurocountach 3 years ago
thats a tank ass tank
minitize 5 years ago
aah, so microlights could be used as stealth attack vehicles... why hasnt our government discovered this?
maybe i should venture into microlight production, and procure myself a very lucrative defence contract, selling them to the airforce. yes, then i could make millions of pounds, to spend on radar development, so one could be built to track microlights. then i could attach it to one of these things to shoot said microlights down on a sunday morning.... then the circle would be complete.
lukeybaby45 5 years ago
Thats an anti aircraft gun.Also the tank you saw was a German tank.
Fan119 5 years ago
Don't know much about communist makings in terms of military weapons and upgrades, but I saw a TLC program called "weapons of the future". One of the weapons was a tank mounted with an artillery gun (like the ones you see being dragged with 3-5 men loading it [present day]) and it was automated and unmanned, 100% accuracy acquired after 1st shot (5 second reload time). As far as i'm concerned, America still has it's military basis covered.
theaznfishy 5 years ago
there is a crappy field near me where mcrolights take off, and one of these in the back garden would definitely stop those little fuckers buzzing my house on a sunday morning whem im hungover...
lukeybaby45 5 years ago
No it would not this is a very deadly modbile AA probley one of the best in the world. But Its all computer/radar done microlights would not send a big enough heat or radar signature for it to get a clear lock.
HeeroYuy911 5 years ago
AWSOME! dats hot
46oyk0r 5 years ago
hgmvk,gvgnh
koifishproduction 5 years ago
At the risk of sounding like "Higgins" from Magnum; This is a different animal but it reminds me of the Soviet ZSU 23-4 which,along with the MI 24 Hind,were my biggest concerns durring the 100-or-so hours of Operation "Desert Storm".
dinkwinkerson 5 years ago
that is bigger than a bazzuka right
grizzly660dude 5 years ago
SHOULD USE THOSE FOR CONVOY SECURITY
david00army 5 years ago
It's an Anti-Aircraft system.
trasogus 5 years ago
yes is a moverble aa gun and it's not a tank the tank is hevy harderd and there just light armor!
warpenguin6 5 years ago
holy sh--!
craeaustin 5 years ago
Technically that isn't a tank, just an armoured fighting vehicle....but damn I want one
TheOriginalBlue62 5 years ago
this is not a tank you morons.
JokiBroki 5 years ago
If you like this tank, buy Battlefield 2, you can actually drive it and shoot the guns. Its a really fun game.
scoolyd 5 years ago
Yeh just don't expect to take any aircraft out
knud123 5 years ago
You'll be surprised then!
emowookiee 5 years ago
were those gattlin guns on the tank.
grimnavyseal 5 years ago
love how the machine guns push it back
192728 5 years ago
rip Kursk
zomgFletch 5 years ago
Russian makes the coolest weapons ever.
Batment 5 years ago
ı have 1 dolar can ı take 1 pıeces tank hehe
serkankarabag 5 years ago
that would have to be thebest thing russia ever made ever
haakon69wylie 5 years ago
yes, correct, israel uses either their own or american supplied military units, so in their case it would prolly be the SLAMRAM humvee
geometro916 5 years ago
why the heck would that thing need missile the gun fire like 100 round per sec
dfb999999999 5 years ago
Useless against any force equipped with Anti-radiation missles. Here's the math. Tunguska has a max missle range of around 10km, a standard Anti-radiation missle runs around 45km or so.
If you keep the system switched off and only run it sporadically, you're minimizing your risk but you lower the effectiveness of the system, if you run the system for an extended period of time... well, the nasties in the sky will see you and that's all she wrote.
Krait99 5 years ago
isnt that why it has the high fire rate machine guns? to shoot down incomming missles?
elastoplastscavenger 5 years ago
No the guns are the primary weapon, the Tunguska is what's known as a "Point Defense" system (vs "Area Defense") which means it's normally sited at a specific spot (Airfield for example) to protect that asset. This works well against helicopters, cruise missles and some low-flying aircraft. This system is horribly vulnerable to anti-radiation missles, which are purpose built to kill anti-aircraft defenses like this.
Krait99 5 years ago
Russians=Cool Bastards
numberstation 5 years ago
very good piece of military equipment, until the radars get shot out....hmmmm?
marrison13 5 years ago
You can drive this tank in Battlefield 2
It's a great weapon for helicopters.
Ruupie1982 5 years ago
nice, but it is not tank , it is SAM system
arm3nsoad 5 years ago
is thta robotic
braeden186 5 years ago
hmmm...i think 50 cent could beat it.
bmwmanbmw 5 years ago
It is not a tank, it's a mobile AAA platform made by Russia.
And it is NOT used by Isreal! As far as I know anyway.
Wooboo 5 years ago
yea its a AAA gattling andAA missles with some radar thingy must me an AAA just wondering what happens if an artilery shell hits it the gadget looks frigel
doel89 5 years ago
This is not a tank!!! Is a self propled AAA!!!
HSMW 5 years ago
This is not a tank its a sitting duck.
morbidfrost 5 years ago
A gundam can take this thin down anyday.
nagasako7 5 years ago
this is a self propelled AAA and it's experimental. if anyone is such a dumbass as to think this thing would go into open combat then i feel sorry for you.
and by the way. this AAA+open field= pilots hell.
volleyR 5 years ago
This Mobile AAA is retarded. Air to Ground Missles,such as the AGM-65 aka Maverick, out range AAA IE. this transexual AAA "tank." Mavs have a +17 mile range. I give Russia respect for the SAM-2 but this is just pornography...and an expensive target for F-22s and Cobras.
nagasako7 5 years ago
the abrms will take this thing down any day
madv8mods 5 years ago
yes indeed you retard, Tunguska is NOT a MBT, open your eyes!
wser09 5 years ago
abrms sucks iraqi bollocks with rpg
KYPBA 5 years ago
look for panzerbattalion
rhvanzy 5 years ago
chido
xandrexx 5 years ago
Any tank + open field = Any Pilots Dream.
TheBlitz1 5 years ago
TUNGUSKA WOOOHOO.... lol went obsolete in 1999....technology used in those are ancient, all of the current Aerospace Defense Conglomerate's integrate ISR/ID/FR/EOT Jamming since 2003, helloooo Cyber Warfare integration network vs 1999 technology is like an PARTICLE CANNON vs a SLING SHOT!!
TheBlitz1 5 years ago
your so full of shit i can smell you from across the net!
sharoz 5 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Israel is a zionist terrorist state which bombs innocent unarmed civilians and claims they killeda militant. A Baby is being murderd everyday in Occupied Palestine by the murdering Jews
insightdubai 5 years ago
a baby being murdered everyday? that means a baby is born everyday. even my cats dont breed that fast.
cetaepsilon 5 years ago
lets face it though sweeden if they ever felt like taking over we would have no hope as some of the most high-tec ship have been built there and most hav had some form of stealth
howlettjs03 5 years ago
bullshit.
hallep9 5 years ago
stupid, rpg to that would render it toally useless
kdude230 5 years ago
its also true that an american C-17 was shot down by accident by a chinese tunguska AA, and the whole thing was covered over, you wont even find it on the news. Diplomatic relations persuaded China not to go public, and to leave it at that. sick.
djgawjuzz 5 years ago
No C-17 has ever crashed or been shot down, look it up.
morbidfrost 5 years ago
like general38 said, this is an old soviet tunguska Anti Air vehicle, not a tank at all ... if ur looking for latest russian armor, its the T-90 or the black eagle tak under development.
apocno10 5 years ago
These are anti-air tanks and they do not replace the traditional main battle tank. An abrahams would destroy these babies in 2 seconds. Each type of tank has its own specific job and these are most suited for taking down aircraft.
general38 5 years ago
amazing!! where do you get you're tank footage from?
dagggdaggg 5 years ago
China has more than 1 Billion people.. with cheap labor and a large territory.. mass production is easy for them.. of course its inevitable that they will rise into power.. its simple mathematics..
vstaffer 5 years ago
the info is always available for anyone that wants to find it, knowing where too look is the problem
httpcolon//strategypagedotcom/militaryforums/36-18054.aspx
5029 5 years ago
just adding to this supposedly in the next 5-10 year the chinese will begoing through an industrial revolution sort of like the one the UK had only it should be better as the is better teconlogy avalibe to them now.
howlettjs03 5 years ago
china sux i have been there you cities smell like crap from pollution there so many cars on the rosd you better of walking loo miles then driving. \
srbija08 5 years ago
ok so you have been there but where the hell did you get the idea i was chinese, that is like me saying yanky to everyone who says something nice about america the only reason i know that is cause i took geography.
howlettjs03 5 years ago
Lets just say that I know some things that you cant find on google.
5029 5 years ago
It is also a fact that Isarel was caught shipping a complete F-16 to China in an illegal arms deal and they were just given a slap on the wrist. It is also a fact that most of China's sudden sdvancement in millitary power is derived from illegal trade of US techonology with Isarel, and yet they (Isarel) protects the Nuclear arsonal of the USA??? Wow can they be trusted??
5029 5 years ago
and How can you be trusted by the way??? What are you an isreali rocket scientist? We need FACTS.. the internet is a HUGE BOOK FOR FACTS.. do you have your own PRIVATE internet? I don't have any grudges against isreal in fact i really admire that country.. its just that i don't give them that much credit.
vstaffer 5 years ago
and I just researched this a while ago on nano technology.. The leading countries today are USA, Japan, China, Germany.. try typing this on your search engine.. the leading country in nano technology today.. i don't see isreal there..
vstaffer 5 years ago
no, no, Don't get me wrong I don't like Isarel at all and as a matter of fact I don't trust them as far as I can throw them it's just that I dont know why the US depends on them so much. It is a fact that an Isarili security firm protects all the Nuclear (missles inc) assets on american soil, dont the US have anyone that can do this?
5029 5 years ago
chinese army suck they dont even have propper equipment they try to steal technology of australia.
srbija08 5 years ago
most powerful countries are ingland, France, Germany, russia and usa china are just good for there army numbers.
srbija08 5 years ago
The superior US equipment dint help them in Vietnam and the US does not posess the most advanced equipment, Isarel does and the US was also beaten at the last Top Gun competition by a non USA aircraft and Pakistani woman with an Su. So put that in ur pipe and smoke it.
5029 5 years ago
Vietnam was a different story my friend.. It wasn't the equipment but the environment that became a big challenge.. the US strategy wasn't made for jungle warfare.. and the only reason why the US stopped the vietnam campaign was because of homeland intervention.. by the way israel depends on the US for most of its equipment.. constantly purchasing them from the US.. patriot missiles,m16s,etc....
vstaffer 5 years ago
This is true, however Isarel takes the US technology and makes it better than what the US currently have, they modify it to perfection. Isarel together with China are also way ahead of the US in terms of Nano technology and Computer advancement, which guaranties the US losing their Leading Super Power roll in as close as the next 8 yrs. What gives USA?
5029 5 years ago
I don't have any idea on the Nano technology thing but with computer advancement? the USA has always been ahead compared to these guyz.. how would we know by the way? they're TOP SECRET.. with regards to isreal making US equipment better, patriot missiles are still patriot missiles aren't they? m16s are still m16s aren't they? and i don't really understand why give Israel such credit.. is because they defeated the arabs during the arab-isreali war? that was sheer stroke of luck my friend..
vstaffer 5 years ago
Vietnam's problem was politics, not technology. It was a defensive war, US soldiers were not technically allowed to cross to the north. If B52's carpet bombed the north's capital and production cities things might have played out differently. Also there was the draft. So we have a bunch of people forced into the military with as little training as there could be. Back in the US people like good ole Hanoi Jane who gave morale to the NVA, and don't forget the F.T.A.
RageMachineXRT 5 years ago
ok, so if all of the US's enemies clone that Pakistani woman the US is in trouble otherwise what is your point? I could sit in the most advanced jet in the world and a good polot could probably whoop my ass in a Bi-plane. During its time in service no US F-15 has been shot down by enemy aircraft (just ground AA). Just like M16 vs AK 47 a good marksman with an M1-garand could outdo a lesser trained squad with modern arms.
RageMachineXRT 5 years ago
Mechanically speaking The M1A2 and a T-90 are pretty much one shoots the other 1 shot is going to do a hell of a lot of damage. It all depends on the battleground . Open fields its where MBTs like the abrams show strength where a 120mm helps for long distance shots. Although in city streets, the small light armour LAV-25 can outmanuver its Heavy armour brothers. But in the city RPG's and javelins make armour very vulernable to infantry.
RageMachineXRT 5 years ago
anybody got a daisy cutter vid??
redneckj007 5 years ago
Russian army lack discipline and training.. they might still be thinking that sheer numbers will still be effective in today's modern warfare such as it was during wwII.. i don't think so comrades.. t-90's are good, so are the m1's.. effectivity of these awesome weapons will still depend on strategy and their cooperation with other weapons.. btw how many aircraft carriers does russia have?
vstaffer 5 years ago
u know whats funnt about superior forces... a rag tag bunch of Guerillas can effectively halt their progress .. case and point Iraq
pubuman 5 years ago
u retards, that is not a tank. its an AA. u people really need to learn.
ttggg2003 5 years ago
that not a tank that a killing machine
3itachi3 5 years ago
uhm, that's not a tank. It's AA.
russcarljohnson 5 years ago
Well I'm olso Ukrainian from origin(was born in Kiev).
And the big thing about communism is that in reality you can't let it work very well on big communities.
DmitriyUA 5 years ago
long live the motherland!!!1
volleyR 5 years ago
M1A3 rulz!!!Aren't we going a bit off-topic here?
We should discuss about that Tunguska AA(BF2 FTW).
Although it's got a chaingun,I'd still stick with the ADATS.
Triggerhappy91 5 years ago
I was saying that things would have been better without communism.I gotta agree with futuremilitech about iranians and chinese and the M16.But that was solved by improving the rifle and eventually making the M16A4.I think the OICW will replace most of the assault rifles in the US Army.
Triggerhappy91 5 years ago
lol "trigerhappy". im the same way in paintball.
Empires91 5 years ago
He was one of those guys who had a clear vision and an open mind.plus,things in the world would have been better without communism.Trust me!
Triggerhappy91 5 years ago
Yeah,and I said that he ran away thanks to Lenin and his merry socialists.He fled!!!Maybe if the communists didn't take over Russia,(Ukraine,I've got Ukrainian origins too,don't worry)maybe russians had better helicopters.
Triggerhappy91 5 years ago
I think that any US or NATO ship had attacked or even scratched a russian submarine,we would have witnessed a naval battle up there.Why did the russians try to deny everything?And this is no bullshit,everyone knows.
Triggerhappy91 5 years ago
Yes Sikorsky left. But my question to you was WHO was Sikorsky.
Originally it was not an American but A Ukrainian
The "thing" that I meant was :" who was the "brain" behind the heli's".And that would be (maybe not totaly) but for a big piece Sikorsky.
DmitriyUA 5 years ago
if you want to know, that a3 abrams will have what we call the IEDDS or the Improvised Explosive Devices Defence System. what is it? its a small compact thing inside the tank that sends out cellphone signal scrabelers to protect against cell phone bombs, minivibrations through the ground to blow mines up, and emp bursts around it to protect against electronic explosives. the a3 will also have a laser turrent to fire at AT missles and many more defences.
futuremilitech1 5 years ago
lol .. ur an idiot ... :-)
pubuman 5 years ago
How so my firend?
futuremilitech1 5 years ago
in the best possible way lol ... :-)
pubuman 5 years ago
so im testing in new tanks. this makes me an idiot?
futuremilitech1 5 years ago
no, telling everyone u do does... esp on a place such as this, no ones gonna believe you, maybe you really do test tanks, but don't use yourself as an authority on a place like this to further your point, trying to do that makes you an idiot!
pubuman 5 years ago
ok. but i dont care at all.
futuremilitech1 5 years ago
well just explaining why you are an idiot...
pubuman 5 years ago
You guys really don't know what happened to the Kursk?
lt1caprice 5 years ago
I meant the russian intervention(invasion)in Afghanistan.I thought you knew.Please do remember that Sikorski left that country in 1917 because of Lenin and his merry comrades who started the revolution.And please don't tell me what's a T-72 or a T-80,I live in Eastern europe.
Triggerhappy91 5 years ago
WOW!That vehicle is good!
XnOoBsLaYeRx 5 years ago
OK Dimitriy,first of all,I'm not a disrespectful little bully as you think.Ak-47s will be slowly replaced by Ak-101s(no doubt a very versatile weapon).I prefer the M4 SOPMOD.The Kursk incident:yeah blame it on NATO.Why didn't the russians cover it?Luckily those ships were nearby.It has been proven that none of those ships scratched Kursk.From what I know the Apaches are being developed by Boeing and not Sikorski.Russian tanks are good but T-80s got blown away in Afghanistan,Iraq,bla bla...
Triggerhappy91 5 years ago
Do a little research (plausibel) about the kursk and then come back and tell you story.
Indeed apaches are not from Sikorsky,BUT if Sikorsky wasn't there, there wouldn't be an apache.
And since when did Afganistan have T-80.
T-72 is not a T-80.
DmitriyUA 5 years ago
This isn't a tank its a mobile AAA unit
morbidfrost 5 years ago
the key of success in any war is landforces..
xnizarx 5 years ago
not exactly.. unless you train troops to carry artillery, armour and other equipment across the seas by their own.. :) that could be very exhilerating don't you think?
vstaffer 5 years ago
well..maybe...but history is all about
xnizarx 5 years ago
nah.. im just kidding with you.. yes ground force is a vital key for the success of any war but don't forget that you can't win wars with landforces alone.. its all about strategy.. ^_^
vstaffer 5 years ago
awesome. i want one!
adwam1 5 years ago
The tank keeps reinventing itself like cannons.Most of the chinese army is armed with copied weapons.They copied the Dauphin and renamed it as a Z-9.The same for the Mangusta.And the Mig-21.
Wow M1A3,I didn't know about it.When the commies saw the Harrier,they were terrified that NATO can set up traps with VTOL planes.They tried to develop VTOL planes too,the Yak-141 Freestyler and the Yak-38 Forger but they were unstable and rejected.
Triggerhappy91 5 years ago
Actually Yak-38 is in service since 1975, Yak-141 is well proven and waiting founds to be deployed.
C0mr4d3 5 years ago
If i could post a link i would but it aint letting me post a link to the sik stuff we have in development..
futuremilitech1 5 years ago
The Mi-24(not 25)sux.Yes it may be a flying APC but a Stinger puts it down,the mujahedins destroyed dozens of russian aircraft in Afghanistan.You made me repeat myself,I hate that.The Abrams and the Leopard 2A5 are the most advanced tanks in the world.Just imagine a battalion of M1A2s supported from the air by A-10 and Apache Longbows.Uhm I don't think that T-95 of yours has depleted uranium and many more secret compositions within the armor.
Triggerhappy91 5 years ago
Exacly, and the A3 abrams in development has even better. Sadly, the age of the tank is ending, and this may be our last.
futuremilitech1 5 years ago
what are going to do with a good airfoce but carappie landforce