Russia's Armata tank falls victim to harsh economic reality

[Daryl Hunt]

Thank you frackers....

Mano, you might want to expand that, if you will.

Really....pretty simple.Russian econ is built on oil.....lower prices due to increase in supply = less money to Russain and terrorist states to buy weapons.....fortuttious since our armed forces are in disrepair

The terrorists temporarily switched to Poppy fields until lately. They are losing that income. They have lost the lucrative Oil, draining the villages dry. They may have to get a job.

Russia is stretched pretty thin with Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. If Russia makes it a point then they will probably lose the Ukrainian holdings and maybe even Georgia. So the last thing on Russias mind is going head to head against the US in Syria. While the US will be hurt, it would be suicidal for Russia.

Why would there be a war between us in Syria....we should leave......ISIS is crushed

Since the US doesn't recognize the Syrian Leadership, who is big enough and bad enough to force us to leave..

 

[Manonthestreet]

Thank you frackers....

Mano, you might want to expand that, if you will.

Really....pretty simple.Russian econ is built on oil.....lower prices due to increase in supply = less money to Russain and terrorist states to buy weapons.....fortuttious since our armed forces are in disrepair

The terrorists temporarily switched to Poppy fields until lately. They are losing that income. They have lost the lucrative Oil, draining the villages dry. They may have to get a job.

Russia is stretched pretty thin with Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. If Russia makes it a point then they will probably lose the Ukrainian holdings and maybe even Georgia. So the last thing on Russias mind is going head to head against the US in Syria. While the US will be hurt, it would be suicidal for Russia.

Why would there be a war between us in Syria....we should leave......ISIS is crushed

Since the US doesn't recognize the Syrian Leadership, who is big enough and bad enough to force us to leave..

Why should we be forced...we dont belong there......would rank right up there with stupidest war ever

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Mano, you might want to expand that, if you will.

Really....pretty simple.Russian econ is built on oil.....lower prices due to increase in supply = less money to Russain and terrorist states to buy weapons.....fortuttious since our armed forces are in disrepair

The terrorists temporarily switched to Poppy fields until lately. They are losing that income. They have lost the lucrative Oil, draining the villages dry. They may have to get a job.

Russia is stretched pretty thin with Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. If Russia makes it a point then they will probably lose the Ukrainian holdings and maybe even Georgia. So the last thing on Russias mind is going head to head against the US in Syria. While the US will be hurt, it would be suicidal for Russia.

Why would there be a war between us in Syria....we should leave......ISIS is crushed

Since the US doesn't recognize the Syrian Leadership, who is big enough and bad enough to force us to leave..

Why should we be forced...we dont belong there......would rank right up there with stupidest war ever

Not even close. There is DS2 and then the Spanish American war. Let's not forget the war of 1812. Or how about the invasion of Mexico over bandits. You have to be really stupid to make war that makes that list.

 

[DrainBamage]

Russian Armata tank 'is 20 years ahead of anything in the West' | Daily Mail Online

Well if you want the entire quote it is in the article you linked to:

"this is the new Russian tank that its makers claim is 20 years ahead of anything in the West."

Your source for the quality of this tank appears to be the makers of this tank, and you continue your never ending quest to be the most retarded person on this forum. The only action we've seen the Armata in is one they had in the Victory Day Parade, where it broke down and had to be towed:

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Russian Armata tank 'is 20 years ahead of anything in the West' | Daily Mail Online

Well if you want the entire quote it is in the article you linked to:

"this is the new Russian tank that its makers claim is 20 years ahead of anything in the West."

Your source for the quality of this tank appears to be the makers of this tank, and you continue your never ending quest to be the most retarded person on this forum. The only action we've seen the Armata in is one they had in the Victory Day Parade, where it broke down and had to be towed:

Now you did it. You called him a retard. You are hereby informed that you must publically apologize to all the real Retards of the world. They are insulted that you rated him so high.

 

[Bleipriester]

Russian Armata tank 'is 20 years ahead of anything in the West' | Daily Mail Online

Well if you want the entire quote it is in the article you linked to:

"this is the new Russian tank that its makers claim is 20 years ahead of anything in the West."

Your source for the quality of this tank appears to be the makers of this tank, and you continue your never ending quest to be the most retarded person on this forum. The only action we've seen the Armata in is one they had in the Victory Day Parade, where it broke down and had to be towed:

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Russian Armata tank 'is 20 years ahead of anything in the West' | Daily Mail Online

Well if you want the entire quote it is in the article you linked to:

"this is the new Russian tank that its makers claim is 20 years ahead of anything in the West."

Your source for the quality of this tank appears to be the makers of this tank, and you continue your never ending quest to be the most retarded person on this forum. The only action we've seen the Armata in is one they had in the Victory Day Parade, where it broke down and had to be towed:

Nice Toy. The Armata has one really bad flaw. It's more than suseptical to the Tow-2B that the US all units of the US Ground Forces carry in numbers. It's also vulnerable to the AH-1W/Z that also carries it. This means that it's in real trouble.

And there are currently only 14 in trials right now. Russia wants thousands but has stated that it will end up with 100 when the trials and mods are done. Let's face it, the T-72/90 is a sitting duck to an Abrams. Already proven in battle. With only 100 units of the T-14, it will be facing thousands of M-1s. The Russian tanks will be overwhelmed quickly. Now, add in the Tow-2B in large numbers (and there are thousands of those already fielded) you had better either show up with thousands of the T-14 or stay home.

There are a lot of "What Ifs and It's gonnas) used by Russia for the T-14. When it finally goes operational and actually gets used in combat, then and only then, can we have any meaningful discussions on it.

 

[Bleipriester]

Russian Armata tank 'is 20 years ahead of anything in the West' | Daily Mail Online

Well if you want the entire quote it is in the article you linked to:

"this is the new Russian tank that its makers claim is 20 years ahead of anything in the West."

Your source for the quality of this tank appears to be the makers of this tank, and you continue your never ending quest to be the most retarded person on this forum. The only action we've seen the Armata in is one they had in the Victory Day Parade, where it broke down and had to be towed:

Nice Toy. The Armata has one really bad flaw. It's more than suseptical to the Tow-2B that the US all units of the US Ground Forces carry in numbers. It's also vulnerable to the AH-1W/Z that also carries it. This means that it's in real trouble.

And there are currently only 14 in trials right now. Russia wants thousands but has stated that it will end up with 100 when the trials and mods are done. Let's face it, the T-72/90 is a sitting duck to an Abrams. Already proven in battle. With only 100 units of the T-14, it will be facing thousands of M-1s. The Russian tanks will be overwhelmed quickly. Now, add in the Tow-2B in large numbers (and there are thousands of those already fielded) you had better either show up with thousands of the T-14 or stay home.

There are a lot of "What Ifs and It's gonnas) used by Russia for the T-14. When it finally goes operational and actually gets used in combat, then and only then, can we have any meaningful discussions on it.

Defeating some old T-72 that used homemade ammunition and were probably still equipped with worn guns still from the other war is not enough for me to determine a model´s inferiority.
The M1 tank that you say is so much better than everything else is also vulnerable to enemy action. TUSK additional armor is being mounted. M1 and T-90 have similar soft kill systems that reduce the likelihood of a hit. The Russian seems to be more universal.
The higher maneuverability of the M1 brings some disadvantages too:
- The gas engine needs way more fuel
- The gas engine becomes very hot and thus makes the tank easy to spot.

The T-14 is very probably already in serial production and Russia plans to make 2500 by 2025.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Russian Armata tank 'is 20 years ahead of anything in the West' | Daily Mail Online

Well if you want the entire quote it is in the article you linked to:

"this is the new Russian tank that its makers claim is 20 years ahead of anything in the West."

Your source for the quality of this tank appears to be the makers of this tank, and you continue your never ending quest to be the most retarded person on this forum. The only action we've seen the Armata in is one they had in the Victory Day Parade, where it broke down and had to be towed:

Nice Toy. The Armata has one really bad flaw. It's more than suseptical to the Tow-2B that the US all units of the US Ground Forces carry in numbers. It's also vulnerable to the AH-1W/Z that also carries it. This means that it's in real trouble.

And there are currently only 14 in trials right now. Russia wants thousands but has stated that it will end up with 100 when the trials and mods are done. Let's face it, the T-72/90 is a sitting duck to an Abrams. Already proven in battle. With only 100 units of the T-14, it will be facing thousands of M-1s. The Russian tanks will be overwhelmed quickly. Now, add in the Tow-2B in large numbers (and there are thousands of those already fielded) you had better either show up with thousands of the T-14 or stay home.

There are a lot of "What Ifs and It's gonnas) used by Russia for the T-14. When it finally goes operational and actually gets used in combat, then and only then, can we have any meaningful discussions on it.

Defeating some old T-72 that used homemade ammunition and were probably still equipped with worn guns still from the other war is not enough for me to determine a model´s inferiority.
The M1 tank that you say is so much better than everything else is also vulnerable to enemy action. TUSK additional armor is being mounted. M1 and T-90 have similar soft kill systems that reduce the likelihood of a hit. The Russian seems to be more universal.
The higher maneuverability of the M1 brings some disadvantages too:
- The gas engine needs way more fuel
- The gas engine becomes very hot and thus makes the tank easy to spot.

The T-14 is very probably already in serial production and Russia plans to make 2500 by 2025.

First of all, the original M-1A would get eaten up by a handful of Tanks (none are Russian). Hence the M-1A1, 2 and the mods being done right now on the version 3 putting it back on top. The Leapord and Challenger are top quality and also just keep getting better. The T-90 owes most of it's origin to the T-72 and that is the Problem. Or it might be a strength, I don't know. The Armata owes it's origins to the T-80 which was a bust big time. Hence the Russians upgrading their most numerous tank, the T-72 to T-90 standards. It does sound like the Armata is a restart on the failed T-95E program. Many systems that are in the Armata or proposed can be linked back to the T-95E program.

Can the Abrams be knocked out? Sure it can. But it takes a large ground attack weapon. The Abrams was proven to completely nullify the Russian RPGs. It was later found that there were tiny pin holes in the armor from being constantly hit by the RPGs. As for the T-72, it wasn't even a close matchup. And the upgraded T-72 and the T-90 are the most prevalent tank in the Russian inventory.

You have old information on the numbers to be produced. The original number was over 2000. Today, Russia is projecting only 100 by 2025 due to the fact a fully operational Armata would costs more than a SU-35. So they do the upgrades on the most stable Tanks they have which are all based on the T-72. Just like the US has done with it's Abrams. Except, the T-72 starts out closer to the US M-60 which is also getting serious upgrades in various other countries.

40 years ago, the US was capable of building an electric/Diesel tank which gets rid of the height, most of the Hydraulics and would be lighter, faster, better armed and have superior army. The Abrams put the end to that short lived paper project. It still keeps coming up. Even with a popup antenna array and a popup main gun. But the US doesn't need to build it since the M-1A3 is starting to come into service. Look for the A-4 to get an offensive and defensive Laser System.

The reason the Armata needs the bigger gun over what it has now is that it becomes a Tank Killer at that point. But that bigger gun means fewer rounds, a more top heavy turrent and less maneuverability. If you think a tank can operate at the projected speeds of the Armata, you are wrong. The M-1 was able to do 90kmh and it beat the crew to almost death after awhile operating at that speed. It was slowed down to about 60 kph. Metrics isn't my first language so here it is in mph. Original was 60mph but it was lowered to 45mph.

When you go to war, you bring what you got not what you want. I want a new Rolls Royce but drive an 88 Ford F-250.

 

[Bleipriester]

Russian Armata tank 'is 20 years ahead of anything in the West' | Daily Mail Online

Well if you want the entire quote it is in the article you linked to:

"this is the new Russian tank that its makers claim is 20 years ahead of anything in the West."

Your source for the quality of this tank appears to be the makers of this tank, and you continue your never ending quest to be the most retarded person on this forum. The only action we've seen the Armata in is one they had in the Victory Day Parade, where it broke down and had to be towed:

Nice Toy. The Armata has one really bad flaw. It's more than suseptical to the Tow-2B that the US all units of the US Ground Forces carry in numbers. It's also vulnerable to the AH-1W/Z that also carries it. This means that it's in real trouble.

And there are currently only 14 in trials right now. Russia wants thousands but has stated that it will end up with 100 when the trials and mods are done. Let's face it, the T-72/90 is a sitting duck to an Abrams. Already proven in battle. With only 100 units of the T-14, it will be facing thousands of M-1s. The Russian tanks will be overwhelmed quickly. Now, add in the Tow-2B in large numbers (and there are thousands of those already fielded) you had better either show up with thousands of the T-14 or stay home.

There are a lot of "What Ifs and It's gonnas) used by Russia for the T-14. When it finally goes operational and actually gets used in combat, then and only then, can we have any meaningful discussions on it.

Defeating some old T-72 that used homemade ammunition and were probably still equipped with worn guns still from the other war is not enough for me to determine a model´s inferiority.
The M1 tank that you say is so much better than everything else is also vulnerable to enemy action. TUSK additional armor is being mounted. M1 and T-90 have similar soft kill systems that reduce the likelihood of a hit. The Russian seems to be more universal.
The higher maneuverability of the M1 brings some disadvantages too:
- The gas engine needs way more fuel
- The gas engine becomes very hot and thus makes the tank easy to spot.

The T-14 is very probably already in serial production and Russia plans to make 2500 by 2025.

First of all, the original M-1A would get eaten up by a handful of Tanks (none are Russian). Hence the M-1A1, 2 and the mods being done right now on the version 3 putting it back on top. The Leapord and Challenger are top quality and also just keep getting better. The T-90 owes most of it's origin to the T-72 and that is the Problem. Or it might be a strength, I don't know. The Armata owes it's origins to the T-80 which was a bust big time. Hence the Russians upgrading their most numerous tank, the T-72 to T-90 standards. It does sound like the Armata is a restart on the failed T-95E program. Many systems that are in the Armata or proposed can be linked back to the T-95E program.

Can the Abrams be knocked out? Sure it can. But it takes a large ground attack weapon. The Abrams was proven to completely nullify the Russian RPGs. It was later found that there were tiny pin holes in the armor from being constantly hit by the RPGs. As for the T-72, it wasn't even a close matchup. And the upgraded T-72 and the T-90 are the most prevalent tank in the Russian inventory.

You have old information on the numbers to be produced. The original number was over 2000. Today, Russia is projecting only 100 by 2025 due to the fact a fully operational Armata would costs more than a SU-35. So they do the upgrades on the most stable Tanks they have which are all based on the T-72. Just like the US has done with it's Abrams. Except, the T-72 starts out closer to the US M-60 which is also getting serious upgrades in various other countries.

40 years ago, the US was capable of building an electric/Diesel tank which gets rid of the height, most of the Hydraulics and would be lighter, faster, better armed and have superior army. The Abrams put the end to that short lived paper project. It still keeps coming up. Even with a popup antenna array and a popup main gun. But the US doesn't need to build it since the M-1A3 is starting to come into service. Look for the A-4 to get an offensive and defensive Laser System.

The reason the Armata needs the bigger gun over what it has now is that it becomes a Tank Killer at that point. But that bigger gun means fewer rounds, a more top heavy turrent and less maneuverability. If you think a tank can operate at the projected speeds of the Armata, you are wrong. The M-1 was able to do 90kmh and it beat the crew to almost death after awhile operating at that speed. It was slowed down to about 60 kph. Metrics isn't my first language so here it is in mph. Original was 60mph but it was lowered to 45mph.

When you go to war, you bring what you got not what you want. I want a new Rolls Royce but drive an 88 Ford F-250.

The Abrams was proven highly vulnerable to the RPGs. It is nowadays questioned if German tanks can destroy Russian tanks.

German tanks unable to defeat Russian tanks

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Well if you want the entire quote it is in the article you linked to:

"this is the new Russian tank that its makers claim is 20 years ahead of anything in the West."

Your source for the quality of this tank appears to be the makers of this tank, and you continue your never ending quest to be the most retarded person on this forum. The only action we've seen the Armata in is one they had in the Victory Day Parade, where it broke down and had to be towed:

Nice Toy. The Armata has one really bad flaw. It's more than suseptical to the Tow-2B that the US all units of the US Ground Forces carry in numbers. It's also vulnerable to the AH-1W/Z that also carries it. This means that it's in real trouble.

And there are currently only 14 in trials right now. Russia wants thousands but has stated that it will end up with 100 when the trials and mods are done. Let's face it, the T-72/90 is a sitting duck to an Abrams. Already proven in battle. With only 100 units of the T-14, it will be facing thousands of M-1s. The Russian tanks will be overwhelmed quickly. Now, add in the Tow-2B in large numbers (and there are thousands of those already fielded) you had better either show up with thousands of the T-14 or stay home.

There are a lot of "What Ifs and It's gonnas) used by Russia for the T-14. When it finally goes operational and actually gets used in combat, then and only then, can we have any meaningful discussions on it.

Defeating some old T-72 that used homemade ammunition and were probably still equipped with worn guns still from the other war is not enough for me to determine a model´s inferiority.
The M1 tank that you say is so much better than everything else is also vulnerable to enemy action. TUSK additional armor is being mounted. M1 and T-90 have similar soft kill systems that reduce the likelihood of a hit. The Russian seems to be more universal.
The higher maneuverability of the M1 brings some disadvantages too:
- The gas engine needs way more fuel
- The gas engine becomes very hot and thus makes the tank easy to spot.

The T-14 is very probably already in serial production and Russia plans to make 2500 by 2025.

First of all, the original M-1A would get eaten up by a handful of Tanks (none are Russian). Hence the M-1A1, 2 and the mods being done right now on the version 3 putting it back on top. The Leapord and Challenger are top quality and also just keep getting better. The T-90 owes most of it's origin to the T-72 and that is the Problem. Or it might be a strength, I don't know. The Armata owes it's origins to the T-80 which was a bust big time. Hence the Russians upgrading their most numerous tank, the T-72 to T-90 standards. It does sound like the Armata is a restart on the failed T-95E program. Many systems that are in the Armata or proposed can be linked back to the T-95E program.

Can the Abrams be knocked out? Sure it can. But it takes a large ground attack weapon. The Abrams was proven to completely nullify the Russian RPGs. It was later found that there were tiny pin holes in the armor from being constantly hit by the RPGs. As for the T-72, it wasn't even a close matchup. And the upgraded T-72 and the T-90 are the most prevalent tank in the Russian inventory.

You have old information on the numbers to be produced. The original number was over 2000. Today, Russia is projecting only 100 by 2025 due to the fact a fully operational Armata would costs more than a SU-35. So they do the upgrades on the most stable Tanks they have which are all based on the T-72. Just like the US has done with it's Abrams. Except, the T-72 starts out closer to the US M-60 which is also getting serious upgrades in various other countries.

40 years ago, the US was capable of building an electric/Diesel tank which gets rid of the height, most of the Hydraulics and would be lighter, faster, better armed and have superior army. The Abrams put the end to that short lived paper project. It still keeps coming up. Even with a popup antenna array and a popup main gun. But the US doesn't need to build it since the M-1A3 is starting to come into service. Look for the A-4 to get an offensive and defensive Laser System.

The reason the Armata needs the bigger gun over what it has now is that it becomes a Tank Killer at that point. But that bigger gun means fewer rounds, a more top heavy turrent and less maneuverability. If you think a tank can operate at the projected speeds of the Armata, you are wrong. The M-1 was able to do 90kmh and it beat the crew to almost death after awhile operating at that speed. It was slowed down to about 60 kph. Metrics isn't my first language so here it is in mph. Original was 60mph but it was lowered to 45mph.

When you go to war, you bring what you got not what you want. I want a new Rolls Royce but drive an 88 Ford F-250.

The Abrams was proven highly vulnerable to the RPGs. It is nowadays questioned if German tanks can destroy Russian tanks.

German tanks unable to defeat Russian tanks

First of all, the Abrams is suseptable to numerous hits in exactly the same spot by the RPG. Each time the RPG hits the armor, it leaves a pin hole. Hit that area enough times and the RPG can take out an abrams. You would probably be dead long before that happens. If you can shoot him, he can shoot you and his cannon is a lot bigger. You keep assuming the Abrams and it's supporting infantry are going to just sit there while you hammer away. Not going to happen. In the ME, it's already been proven that shooting a M-1 with a RPG is tantamount to suicide. Better bring a really good shoulder fired Anti Tank weapon similar to the Tow2B which the Russians don't have. Please deal in facts instead of your fantasies.

And if Germany were to get in a shooting war with Russia Germany would not be alone. Again, deal in facts instead of your fantasies.

 

[Bleipriester]

Nice Toy. The Armata has one really bad flaw. It's more than suseptical to the Tow-2B that the US all units of the US Ground Forces carry in numbers. It's also vulnerable to the AH-1W/Z that also carries it. This means that it's in real trouble.

And there are currently only 14 in trials right now. Russia wants thousands but has stated that it will end up with 100 when the trials and mods are done. Let's face it, the T-72/90 is a sitting duck to an Abrams. Already proven in battle. With only 100 units of the T-14, it will be facing thousands of M-1s. The Russian tanks will be overwhelmed quickly. Now, add in the Tow-2B in large numbers (and there are thousands of those already fielded) you had better either show up with thousands of the T-14 or stay home.

There are a lot of "What Ifs and It's gonnas) used by Russia for the T-14. When it finally goes operational and actually gets used in combat, then and only then, can we have any meaningful discussions on it.

Defeating some old T-72 that used homemade ammunition and were probably still equipped with worn guns still from the other war is not enough for me to determine a model´s inferiority.
The M1 tank that you say is so much better than everything else is also vulnerable to enemy action. TUSK additional armor is being mounted. M1 and T-90 have similar soft kill systems that reduce the likelihood of a hit. The Russian seems to be more universal.
The higher maneuverability of the M1 brings some disadvantages too:
- The gas engine needs way more fuel
- The gas engine becomes very hot and thus makes the tank easy to spot.

The T-14 is very probably already in serial production and Russia plans to make 2500 by 2025.

First of all, the original M-1A would get eaten up by a handful of Tanks (none are Russian). Hence the M-1A1, 2 and the mods being done right now on the version 3 putting it back on top. The Leapord and Challenger are top quality and also just keep getting better. The T-90 owes most of it's origin to the T-72 and that is the Problem. Or it might be a strength, I don't know. The Armata owes it's origins to the T-80 which was a bust big time. Hence the Russians upgrading their most numerous tank, the T-72 to T-90 standards. It does sound like the Armata is a restart on the failed T-95E program. Many systems that are in the Armata or proposed can be linked back to the T-95E program.

Can the Abrams be knocked out? Sure it can. But it takes a large ground attack weapon. The Abrams was proven to completely nullify the Russian RPGs. It was later found that there were tiny pin holes in the armor from being constantly hit by the RPGs. As for the T-72, it wasn't even a close matchup. And the upgraded T-72 and the T-90 are the most prevalent tank in the Russian inventory.

You have old information on the numbers to be produced. The original number was over 2000. Today, Russia is projecting only 100 by 2025 due to the fact a fully operational Armata would costs more than a SU-35. So they do the upgrades on the most stable Tanks they have which are all based on the T-72. Just like the US has done with it's Abrams. Except, the T-72 starts out closer to the US M-60 which is also getting serious upgrades in various other countries.

40 years ago, the US was capable of building an electric/Diesel tank which gets rid of the height, most of the Hydraulics and would be lighter, faster, better armed and have superior army. The Abrams put the end to that short lived paper project. It still keeps coming up. Even with a popup antenna array and a popup main gun. But the US doesn't need to build it since the M-1A3 is starting to come into service. Look for the A-4 to get an offensive and defensive Laser System.

The reason the Armata needs the bigger gun over what it has now is that it becomes a Tank Killer at that point. But that bigger gun means fewer rounds, a more top heavy turrent and less maneuverability. If you think a tank can operate at the projected speeds of the Armata, you are wrong. The M-1 was able to do 90kmh and it beat the crew to almost death after awhile operating at that speed. It was slowed down to about 60 kph. Metrics isn't my first language so here it is in mph. Original was 60mph but it was lowered to 45mph.

When you go to war, you bring what you got not what you want. I want a new Rolls Royce but drive an 88 Ford F-250.

The Abrams was proven highly vulnerable to the RPGs. It is nowadays questioned if German tanks can destroy Russian tanks.

German tanks unable to defeat Russian tanks

First of all, the Abrams is suseptable to numerous hits in exactly the same spot by the RPG. Each time the RPG hits the armor, it leaves a pin hole. Hit that area enough times and the RPG can take out an abrams. You would probably be dead long before that happens. If you can shoot him, he can shoot you and his cannon is a lot bigger. You keep assuming the Abrams and it's supporting infantry are going to just sit there while you hammer away. Not going to happen. In the ME, it's already been proven that shooting a M-1 with a RPG is tantamount to suicide. Better bring a really good shoulder fired Anti Tank weapon similar to the Tow2B which the Russians don't have. Please deal in facts instead of your fantasies.

And if Germany were to get in a shooting war with Russia Germany would not be alone. Again, deal in facts instead of your fantasies.

In fact you need get out of fantasies. You boast with the M1 defeating Iraqi Asad Babil tanks and claim stuff that has never been true.

"The invasion of Iraq in 2003 exposed vulnerability of the Abrams tanks to rocket propelled grenades and mines. These problems were partially resolved by fitting the tanks with the Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK)."
Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK) | Military-Today.com

You claim oh the M1 is not alone. But the rpg fighter is? Come on.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nice Toy. The Armata has one really bad flaw. It's more than suseptical to the Tow-2B that the US all units of the US Ground Forces carry in numbers. It's also vulnerable to the AH-1W/Z that also carries it. This means that it's in real trouble.

And there are currently only 14 in trials right now. Russia wants thousands but has stated that it will end up with 100 when the trials and mods are done. Let's face it, the T-72/90 is a sitting duck to an Abrams. Already proven in battle. With only 100 units of the T-14, it will be facing thousands of M-1s. The Russian tanks will be overwhelmed quickly. Now, add in the Tow-2B in large numbers (and there are thousands of those already fielded) you had better either show up with thousands of the T-14 or stay home.

There are a lot of "What Ifs and It's gonnas) used by Russia for the T-14. When it finally goes operational and actually gets used in combat, then and only then, can we have any meaningful discussions on it.

Defeating some old T-72 that used homemade ammunition and were probably still equipped with worn guns still from the other war is not enough for me to determine a model´s inferiority.
The M1 tank that you say is so much better than everything else is also vulnerable to enemy action. TUSK additional armor is being mounted. M1 and T-90 have similar soft kill systems that reduce the likelihood of a hit. The Russian seems to be more universal.
The higher maneuverability of the M1 brings some disadvantages too:
- The gas engine needs way more fuel
- The gas engine becomes very hot and thus makes the tank easy to spot.

The T-14 is very probably already in serial production and Russia plans to make 2500 by 2025.

First of all, the original M-1A would get eaten up by a handful of Tanks (none are Russian). Hence the M-1A1, 2 and the mods being done right now on the version 3 putting it back on top. The Leapord and Challenger are top quality and also just keep getting better. The T-90 owes most of it's origin to the T-72 and that is the Problem. Or it might be a strength, I don't know. The Armata owes it's origins to the T-80 which was a bust big time. Hence the Russians upgrading their most numerous tank, the T-72 to T-90 standards. It does sound like the Armata is a restart on the failed T-95E program. Many systems that are in the Armata or proposed can be linked back to the T-95E program.

Can the Abrams be knocked out? Sure it can. But it takes a large ground attack weapon. The Abrams was proven to completely nullify the Russian RPGs. It was later found that there were tiny pin holes in the armor from being constantly hit by the RPGs. As for the T-72, it wasn't even a close matchup. And the upgraded T-72 and the T-90 are the most prevalent tank in the Russian inventory.

You have old information on the numbers to be produced. The original number was over 2000. Today, Russia is projecting only 100 by 2025 due to the fact a fully operational Armata would costs more than a SU-35. So they do the upgrades on the most stable Tanks they have which are all based on the T-72. Just like the US has done with it's Abrams. Except, the T-72 starts out closer to the US M-60 which is also getting serious upgrades in various other countries.

40 years ago, the US was capable of building an electric/Diesel tank which gets rid of the height, most of the Hydraulics and would be lighter, faster, better armed and have superior army. The Abrams put the end to that short lived paper project. It still keeps coming up. Even with a popup antenna array and a popup main gun. But the US doesn't need to build it since the M-1A3 is starting to come into service. Look for the A-4 to get an offensive and defensive Laser System.

The reason the Armata needs the bigger gun over what it has now is that it becomes a Tank Killer at that point. But that bigger gun means fewer rounds, a more top heavy turrent and less maneuverability. If you think a tank can operate at the projected speeds of the Armata, you are wrong. The M-1 was able to do 90kmh and it beat the crew to almost death after awhile operating at that speed. It was slowed down to about 60 kph. Metrics isn't my first language so here it is in mph. Original was 60mph but it was lowered to 45mph.

When you go to war, you bring what you got not what you want. I want a new Rolls Royce but drive an 88 Ford F-250.

The Abrams was proven highly vulnerable to the RPGs. It is nowadays questioned if German tanks can destroy Russian tanks.

German tanks unable to defeat Russian tanks

First of all, the Abrams is suseptable to numerous hits in exactly the same spot by the RPG. Each time the RPG hits the armor, it leaves a pin hole. Hit that area enough times and the RPG can take out an abrams. You would probably be dead long before that happens. If you can shoot him, he can shoot you and his cannon is a lot bigger. You keep assuming the Abrams and it's supporting infantry are going to just sit there while you hammer away. Not going to happen. In the ME, it's already been proven that shooting a M-1 with a RPG is tantamount to suicide. Better bring a really good shoulder fired Anti Tank weapon similar to the Tow2B which the Russians don't have. Please deal in facts instead of your fantasies.

And if Germany were to get in a shooting war with Russia Germany would not be alone. Again, deal in facts instead of your fantasies.

In fact you need get out of fantasies. You boast with the M1 defeating Iraqi Asad Babil tanks and claim stuff that has never been true.

"The invasion of Iraq in 2003 exposed vulnerability of the Abrams tanks to rocket propelled grenades and mines. These problems were partially resolved by fitting the tanks with the Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK)."
Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK) | Military-Today.com

You claim oh the M1 is not alone. But the rpg fighter is? Come on.

I don't know about you but I wouldn't be anywhere near anyone firing a RPG at an Abrams. Suicide is not my cup of tea. If he isn't alone, he takes them with him to hell. BTW, the Koran has a mispelling in it. It's not 72 Virgins, it's 72 Virginians.

 

[Bleipriester]

"In the untamed West, pioneers came to test their fortunes -- and their wills. The Wyoming territory was a harsh, unforgiving land, with its own unwritten code of honor by which men lived and died. Into this rough landscape rides the Virginian, a solitary man whose unbending will is his only guide through life. The Virginian's unwavering beliefs in right and wrong are soon tested as he tries to prove his love for a woman who cannot accept his sense of justice; at the same time, a betrayal by his most trusted friend forces him to fight against the corruption that rules the land. Still as exciting and meaningful as it was when first published one hundred years ago, Owen Wister's epic tale of a man caught between his love for a woman and his quest for justice exemplifies one of the most significant and enduring themes in all of American literature. With remarkable character depth and vivid passages, The Virginian stands not only as the first great novel of American Western literature, but as a testament to the eternal struggle between good and evil in humanity."

 

[Viacheslav]

Provided the Russians can get the chips and software from the US; they are banned from it being sent at any cost

If we are talking about the military industry, then Russia produces chips and develops software.And may be it can be amazing but
In Russia, a very strong programming school, and Russia often wins in the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest - Wikipedia

Provided the Russians can get the engines from the Ukranians. Good luck on that one. It uses a Ukranian helicopter engine turbine.

Ukrainian could make the "best" engines for Russian's helicopters but it all in the past, after well known events Russia and Ukraine broke off the contracts, and now, as it was reported that Russia has deployed its own production of helicopter engines at the plant. Klimova,

The Russians military industry is a real "miracle", despite "old management", corruption and mess in general, Russia ranks second in the world arms market, and we also need to consider that Russia isn't in NATO, and therefore doesn't have the same influence as the United States

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Provided the Russians can get the chips and software from the US; they are banned from it being sent at any cost

If we are talking about the military industry, then Russia produces chips and develops software.And may be it can be amazing but
In Russia, a very strong programming school, and Russia often wins in the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest - Wikipedia

Provided the Russians can get the engines from the Ukranians. Good luck on that one. It uses a Ukranian helicopter engine turbine.

Ukrainian could make the "best" engines for Russian's helicopters but it all in the past, after well known events Russia and Ukraine broke off the contracts, and now, as it was reported that Russia has deployed its own production of helicopter engines at the plant. Klimova,

The Russians military industry is a real "miracle", despite "old management", corruption and mess in general, Russia ranks second in the world arms market, and we also need to consider that Russia isn't in NATO, and therefore doesn't have the same influence as the United States

Is this the reason that an old 1968 designed US Fighter still gets first look and first shot over any fighter in the Russian Inventory including the new SU-35? And even the SU-57. Is this why the dependability of the engines are so poor compared to the Western Engines? The Armata Tank falls into this category. Yes, on paper, it's superior. But in production it isn't and the new Abrams M-1A2 SEP just barely over the other 2 top Western Tanks. They buy from the same vendors that Russia is blocked from buying from. Embargoes are a *****, ain't they. I suggest you get your butts out of the Ukraine and Georgia. Then maybe you can have access to the good stuff and not have to roll yer own. You can't change the fact that you start from ground zero, it takes years and decades to catch up. Just reaching where you were before the embargo doesn't mean you caught up. The others that have pooled their resources just keep getting better. That goes for the 3 Western Tanks I mentioned. Just because you want it and put it on paper doesn't make it superior to the ones that already have it in service.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"In the untamed West, pioneers came to test their fortunes -- and their wills. The Wyoming territory was a harsh, unforgiving land, with its own unwritten code of honor by which men lived and died. Into this rough landscape rides the Virginian, a solitary man whose unbending will is his only guide through life. The Virginian's unwavering beliefs in right and wrong are soon tested as he tries to prove his love for a woman who cannot accept his sense of justice; at the same time, a betrayal by his most trusted friend forces him to fight against the corruption that rules the land. Still as exciting and meaningful as it was when first published one hundred years ago, Owen Wister's epic tale of a man caught between his love for a woman and his quest for justice exemplifies one of the most significant and enduring themes in all of American literature. With remarkable character depth and vivid passages, The Virginian stands not only as the first great novel of American Western literature, but as a testament to the eternal struggle between good and evil in humanity."

It's fiction. In reality, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the black hats and the white hats. Most would be considered grey hatted. And the West wasn't nearly as bad as you think it was. Most Cowboys owned a short gun of some kind or another. But they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it. The weapons of choice were Rifles and Shotguns. You have no idea that I am from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado which many penny dreadfuls also wrote about.

The book you are talking about was a novel of a penny dreadful. But it's still read even here as are many other "Western" novels that really don't get history correct. You try and put out a truthful book about the West and it's going to bore you to tears.

 

[Bleipriester]

"In the untamed West, pioneers came to test their fortunes -- and their wills. The Wyoming territory was a harsh, unforgiving land, with its own unwritten code of honor by which men lived and died. Into this rough landscape rides the Virginian, a solitary man whose unbending will is his only guide through life. The Virginian's unwavering beliefs in right and wrong are soon tested as he tries to prove his love for a woman who cannot accept his sense of justice; at the same time, a betrayal by his most trusted friend forces him to fight against the corruption that rules the land. Still as exciting and meaningful as it was when first published one hundred years ago, Owen Wister's epic tale of a man caught between his love for a woman and his quest for justice exemplifies one of the most significant and enduring themes in all of American literature. With remarkable character depth and vivid passages, The Virginian stands not only as the first great novel of American Western literature, but as a testament to the eternal struggle between good and evil in humanity."

It's fiction. In reality, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the black hats and the white hats. Most would be considered grey hatted. And the West wasn't nearly as bad as you think it was. Most Cowboys owned a short gun of some kind or another. But they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it. The weapons of choice were Rifles and Shotguns. You have no idea that I am from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado which many penny dreadfuls also wrote about.

The book you are talking about was a novel of a penny dreadful. But it's still read even here as are many other "Western" novels that really don't get history correct. You try and put out a truthful book about the West and it's going to bore you to tears.

You read between the lines but there was nothing to read. The reason why people had guns back then was that there was no government. But if you like to read some unusual story, I recommend The Fiery Cross, North Carolina in 1770.

"Claire, the heroine of Outlander, figures in The Fiery Cross as a reluctant oracle and wife to Jamie Fraser, her 18th century partner, and faces the politics and turmoil of the forthcoming American Revolution. As the preceding novel, Drums of Autumn, concluded with Jamie Fraser and his wife Claire helping their daughter and new son-in-law, from the 20th century, settle into life on Fraser's Ridge, The Fiery Cross picks up the storyline exactly where it was left - with Brianna Ellen Randall Fraser and Roger Mackenzie about to make their nuptials official and baptise their son Jeremiah. With the American Revolution only a few years away and unrest brewing, Jamie is called to form a militia to put down the beginnings of rebellion in North Carolina, and risk his life for a king he knows he must betray soon. Gabaldon delivers the endings to several strands of storyline she had woven through Drums of Autumn; mysterious plots and characters are revealed in the course of this intricate plot and at the end, the Frasers and their family are poised on the edge of war."

The Fiery Cross (novel) - Wikipedia

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"In the untamed West, pioneers came to test their fortunes -- and their wills. The Wyoming territory was a harsh, unforgiving land, with its own unwritten code of honor by which men lived and died. Into this rough landscape rides the Virginian, a solitary man whose unbending will is his only guide through life. The Virginian's unwavering beliefs in right and wrong are soon tested as he tries to prove his love for a woman who cannot accept his sense of justice; at the same time, a betrayal by his most trusted friend forces him to fight against the corruption that rules the land. Still as exciting and meaningful as it was when first published one hundred years ago, Owen Wister's epic tale of a man caught between his love for a woman and his quest for justice exemplifies one of the most significant and enduring themes in all of American literature. With remarkable character depth and vivid passages, The Virginian stands not only as the first great novel of American Western literature, but as a testament to the eternal struggle between good and evil in humanity."

It's fiction. In reality, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the black hats and the white hats. Most would be considered grey hatted. And the West wasn't nearly as bad as you think it was. Most Cowboys owned a short gun of some kind or another. But they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it. The weapons of choice were Rifles and Shotguns. You have no idea that I am from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado which many penny dreadfuls also wrote about.

The book you are talking about was a novel of a penny dreadful. But it's still read even here as are many other "Western" novels that really don't get history correct. You try and put out a truthful book about the West and it's going to bore you to tears.

You read between the lines but there was nothing to read. The reason why people had guns back then was that there was no government. But if you like to read some unusual story, I recommend The Fiery Cross, North Carolina in 1770.

Being the real deal and having the first 18 years of my life doing the cowboy trade, I can always tell a fake from a Western Metro City that tries to pass themselves off as a Cowboy. The Cowboy is dead. It's gone forever. And it didn't die off that long ago. The last phony I heard, he was riding around on his horse, roping (he didn't know the difference between a single rig and a double rig) and could fire his Colt 44 mag keeping the tin can in the air (he's about 5 foot 6 and slight wrists). Have you ever fired a 44 Mag? You might (doubtful) hit the can once on the ground but unless you are quite large (I am), the 44 mag has no second shot capability. You ride the recoil out. Even the 44-40 and Colt 45 Long Colt is a handful. In the older guns (44-40 and 45 long colt) you had better make your first shot count. I usually let it pass but his story was so "Dreadful" that I had no choice. He then complained asking why no one would believe him on that subject.

Guns were tools just like a shovel. Rifles and Shotguns put meat on the table and were used for protection. Pistols were used as much as a light hammer as it was a firearm. It made a very loud noise that nature would run from. If you shot a bear with one, all you did was piss the bear off. The best gun in the world for bear country is anything that is loud. Don't shoot the bear. I am sure you have heard where Cowboys shot the heads off Rattlers. Here is a bit of information on that. Using a subsonic bullet, you almost have to try and miss. The Rattler will actually strike your bullet even when you miss if you are close enough. You can do the same thing with any subsonic cartridge. Unless you spent a bunch of time on a firing range, the real affective range for a hand gun is only about 7 yds for someone that doesn't have a bunch of range time. Anything past that bring a shotgun or rifle. There were less than 10 top guns in the west and they never faced each other. There was a very high probability that both would have perished so they were courteous to each other when the met. And there was only ONE John Wesley Harding and he was a mean sadistic SOB that just didn't care. It got him hung.

I am the same way with War Movies. I watch them first for entertainment. Then I watch them again and really pay attention. Most are BS from way back. The Worst I can think of was on TV; Baa Baa Black Sheep. I talked to Robert Conrad and he is just full of crap. The wrong Aircraft used, the ranges were all wrong and most were shot in South America. He said that he couldn't locate enough P-38s for the Yamamato shoot down. Wrong, there were and still are a group of 7 P-38s that make the circuit. Or how about F-4Us being used for B-24 long ranged escort duty. The early F-4U in 1943 didn't have nearly the range. In the Yamomoto shootdown, he used 2 P-51D models that weren't available until 1944. The Shootdown happened in 1943 so the only bird that could have that type of range was the P-38G. I really enjoyed the show the first time around but the second time around, my BS meter pegged. Especially about halfway through our conversation. It was his show that I was allowed to speak but I was just dumbfounded. I wasn't much of a guest so I left as graceful as I could and let others keep their dreams.

I take fiction for a way to keep my mind entertained the first time around even if I know better deep down it's purely made up. I try not to analyze the first time around. But I will make it a point the second time around on the same book. Fiction is just Fiction and Entertainment only.

 

[Bleipriester]

"In the untamed West, pioneers came to test their fortunes -- and their wills. The Wyoming territory was a harsh, unforgiving land, with its own unwritten code of honor by which men lived and died. Into this rough landscape rides the Virginian, a solitary man whose unbending will is his only guide through life. The Virginian's unwavering beliefs in right and wrong are soon tested as he tries to prove his love for a woman who cannot accept his sense of justice; at the same time, a betrayal by his most trusted friend forces him to fight against the corruption that rules the land. Still as exciting and meaningful as it was when first published one hundred years ago, Owen Wister's epic tale of a man caught between his love for a woman and his quest for justice exemplifies one of the most significant and enduring themes in all of American literature. With remarkable character depth and vivid passages, The Virginian stands not only as the first great novel of American Western literature, but as a testament to the eternal struggle between good and evil in humanity."

It's fiction. In reality, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the black hats and the white hats. Most would be considered grey hatted. And the West wasn't nearly as bad as you think it was. Most Cowboys owned a short gun of some kind or another. But they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it. The weapons of choice were Rifles and Shotguns. You have no idea that I am from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado which many penny dreadfuls also wrote about.

The book you are talking about was a novel of a penny dreadful. But it's still read even here as are many other "Western" novels that really don't get history correct. You try and put out a truthful book about the West and it's going to bore you to tears.

You read between the lines but there was nothing to read. The reason why people had guns back then was that there was no government. But if you like to read some unusual story, I recommend The Fiery Cross, North Carolina in 1770.

Being the real deal and having the first 18 years of my life doing the cowboy trade, I can always tell a fake from a Western Metro City that tries to pass themselves off as a Cowboy. The Cowboy is dead. It's gone forever. And it didn't die off that long ago. The last phony I heard, he was riding around on his horse, roping (he didn't know the difference between a single rig and a double rig) and could fire his Colt 44 mag keeping the tin can in the air (he's about 5 foot 6 and slight wrists). Have you ever fired a 44 Mag? You might (doubtful) hit the can once on the ground but unless you are quite large (I am), the 44 mag has no second shot capability. You ride the recoil out. Even the 44-40 and Colt 45 Long Colt is a handful. In the older guns (44-40 and 45 long colt) you had better make your first shot count. I usually let it pass but his story was so "Dreadful" that I had no choice. He then complained asking why no one would believe him on that subject.

Guns were tools just like a shovel. Rifles and Shotguns put meat on the table and were used for protection. Pistols were used as much as a light hammer as it was a firearm. It made a very loud noise that nature would run from. If you shot a bear with one, all you did was piss the bear off. The best gun in the world for bear country is anything that is loud. Don't shoot the bear. I am sure you have heard where Cowboys shot the heads off Rattlers. Here is a bit of information on that. Using a subsonic bullet, you almost have to try and miss. The Rattler will actually strike your bullet even when you miss if you are close enough. You can do the same thing with any subsonic cartridge. Unless you spent a bunch of time on a firing range, the real affective range for a hand gun is only about 7 yds for someone that doesn't have a bunch of range time. Anything past that bring a shotgun or rifle. There were less than 10 top guns in the west and they never faced each other. There was a very high probability that both would have perished so they were courteous to each other when the met. And there was only ONE John Wesley Harding and he was a mean sadistic SOB that just didn't care. It got him hung.

I am the same way with War Movies. I watch them first for entertainment. Then I watch them again and really pay attention. Most are BS from way back. The Worst I can think of was on TV; Baa Baa Black Sheep. I talked to Robert Conrad and he is just full of crap. The wrong Aircraft used, the ranges were all wrong and most were shot in South America. He said that he couldn't locate enough P-38s for the Yamamato shoot down. Wrong, there were and still are a group of 7 P-38s that make the circuit. Or how about F-4Us being used for B-24 long ranged escort duty. The early F-4U in 1943 didn't have nearly the range. In the Yamomoto shootdown, he used 2 P-51D models that weren't available until 1944. The Shootdown happened in 1943 so the only bird that could have that type of range was the P-38G. I really enjoyed the show the first time around but the second time around, my BS meter pegged. Especially about halfway through our conversation. It was his show that I was allowed to speak but I was just dumbfounded. I wasn't much of a guest so I left as graceful as I could and let others keep their dreams.

I take fiction for a way to keep my mind entertained the first time around even if I know better deep down it's purely made up. I try not to analyze the first time around. But I will make it a point the second time around on the same book. Fiction is just Fiction and Entertainment only.

I doubt all the cowboys had pistols. A pistol cost about 12 Dollars when a whole ranch cost 5000.

As for WWII movies/books, most are nonsense. Take for example the Remagen bridge movie. The movie comes up with completely different units and virtually claims the bridge has not been destroyed in the end but has somehow been retired after the war or something.

Here´s what actually happened (German MOD report):

03.08.1945:
The Enemy reached the Remagen Bridge, that was seemingly full of escapees, crossed it and established a toehold. A counter attack in the early morning was not successful. The 11th Panzerdivison is coming from Bonn, but it has rare fuel.

03.09.1945:
10 aircrafts against the Remagen Bridge, 2 hits. The airforce and navy shall peruse, what is possible, because this bridgehead could have unforseeable consequences.
The 78th infantrydivison, parts of the 9th infantrydivision and parts of the 9th tankdivison crossed the Remagen Bridge. Against it the Gruppe General v. Kortzfleisch.

03.10.1945:
32 aircrafts against the Remagen Bridge, 2 hits.
The 7th infantrydivison crossed the Remagen Bridge into the bridghead. The 5th American Armycorps is free now.

03.11.1945:
20 aircrafts against the Remagen Bridge, 3 hits, 5 casualties.
The Remagen Bridge attracts the whole American army like magnetic.

03.12.1945:
Some aircrafts against the Remagen Bridge, no results yet.
The enemy could not enlarge his bridgehead. The Panzer-Lehr-Division assaulted it from the south-east successfully. Thruts of the enemy to the east have been repulsed. The enemy´s artillery is very vividly.

03.13.1945:
360 fighters, thereunder jet fighters, against the Remagen Bridge, 4 casualties, 4 shot downs. Numerous hits, but apparently no hits on the bridge. One aircraft subsided to 450 metres and pitched a 1000 kg bomb, that did not explode on the bridge and recoiled from the bridge pier into the water.
At Remagen the enemy pushed forwards.

03.14.1945:
100 aircrafts against the Remagen Bridge, 24 casualties, 3 shot downs. Because of the hard enemy defense, the effect could not be ascertained.
Now in the toehold: The 7th tankdivision, the 9th, the 99th, the 18th infantrydivision and the 9th tankdivision. On the western waterside: The 2nd infantrydivison. The 5th American Armycoprs is busy with clean up (i.e. elimination or capture of the last enemies there) backwards.

03.15.1945:
21 jet bombers against the Remagen Bridge, 6 casualties, no effect ascertained.
The press wrote about, that Remagen lies at the wrong place and there are troubles. This massage could have the intention, to dull the hopes for a fast advance into Germany, because the army lead wants to destroy the German forces before crossing the Rhine.

03.16.1945:
150 allied bombers against Remagen.
3 jet bombers against the Remagen Bridge and 1200 fighters for „free hunting” there.
At Remagen more fights in progress. To the north and the east broadening of the bridgehead. The Drachenfels (small mountain) got lost. Battles at Königswinter. The enemy is only 1000 metres off the motorway. In the east, he made 3 km headway (Redenscheidt in enemy tenure, just Vettelschoß in own). In the south slight battles. The 3rd Panzergrenadierdivison is coming.

03.17.1945:
At the Remagen Bridge, the enemy guided more forces to join. In the northeast loss of territory. Königswinter got lost. But the Ölberg could be repossessed. Another fights at Ägidienberg, where the enemy is pushing to the motorway and the 3rd Panzergrenadierdivison pushes against it. Nondistinctive situation in the south.

03.18.1945:
At Remagen, the 3rd Panzergrenadierdivison pushed forward but was delayed. One municipality got repossessed. In the east silence. In the south loss of territory. The remains of the 18th and 167th Volksgrenadierdivision get pulled up from the south.

03.19.1945:
At Remagen more loss of territories in the north and northeast. The 3rd Panzergrenadierdivison attacked again. The own casualties are grievous, the casualties of the enemy, too. In the east single burglaries. In the south weak attacks only. By English massages is the Remagen Bridge in cause of the German Attacks fully sagged.