lol IF Russia did fight us it would be stupid close. We have the tanks with a tennis court roof and they have notoriously inaccurate and slow tanks with much better armor… Capable of firing wire guided missiles.

Actually, the AT-8 Songster was Radio Command Guided, while the subsequent AT-10 Stabber and AT-11 Sniper are Laser-Guided --- there's no wires to hinder their speed, acceleration, range, or maneuverability...



Speaking of which, have a look at one of Major Warford's even earlier stories, in the January-February 1987 issue if Armor Magazine;
https://www.knox.army.mil/center/oc.....ryFebruary.pdf

"The Tank's Missile System Is Aimed
at NATO's ATGM Vehicles, Not Tanks"
- Warford

got red lighted by your site there. but if I remember Russia distrusted Both lasers and Radio only because they had the tech to jam it, relying on the shorter Wire guided instead or did they join the 21st century finally?

Besides in todays world a heavy "Super tank" would last what 20 minuets before turning into an instant Pill box?

a modern "urban environment" these slow bastards are just looking to get cornered, blocked, trapped and raped. What we need is a more light weight urban command vehicle strapped with "smaller" Semi-auto or burst 109mm anti-just about everything Swivel rifle.

much like THIS strapped with a duel anti-tanks rifle setup. It would be a little top heavy but popping out of nowhere putting 8 or 9 tank killers into it and zipping out the way before anyone can lock a target. Low hp, High Versatility and Medium attack. lol hell an M1A1/A2 would last not to long against say This on a mobile platform

Browsers like Firefox automatically distrust Dot-Mil sites by reflex because they're secure, so it's not unsafe to read back-issued of Armor Magazine online.
Go ahead and take the plunge --- you'll learn a LOT of very interesting stuff from Armor (and you'll get a few laughs from the "honesty" a few of it's "articles" as well, if you're familiar with some of the subjects!).

Also, the AT-8 is indeed radio-guided;
http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-We.....001008001.aspx

...a stupid thing to do, given the electronic noise and jamming prevalent on modern battlefields.

The AT-10 and AT-11, however, are laser-guided;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M117_Bastion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119_Svir


"Besides in todays world a heavy "Super tank" would last what 20 minuets before turning into an instant Pill box?"
That's why some countries have endeavored to build lighter MBTs, like Brazil's EE-T1 Osorio, and South Korea's K2 Black Panther.


"a modern "urban environment" these slow bastards are just looking to get cornered, blocked, trapped and raped. What we need is a more light weight urban command vehicle strapped with "smaller" Semi-auto or burst 109mm anti-just about everything Swivel rifle. "
It sounds formidable, but how would it work?


As for the vehicle you suggest in those links, that looks vaguely like Cadillac Gage's "Commando Scout";
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product973.html

It was a nifty Scout vehicle back in the day, but the US Army rejected it in favor of using Humvees as Scouts.

Regular Humvees. WITHOUT ANY ARMOR.

*facepalms*

Y.Y yeah at least my Designs use polymer armors, like sharp armor and Teflon. it woen't stop a tank round but most everything will hopefully bounce...

The Car I linked is a "Baja dune buggy" prototype probably using Carbon fiber chassis, plastic skin and an eletric / hybrid motor. Designed to take high, sharp impacts from good heights with minimum damage.

Strapping on a pair of Semi auto "AA" 20mm cannons would give it munching power with out the problem of kick, larger guns could use gas assisted stabilization with good old "Camera mounted" optics and "gun ball" styled Passenger firing platform. the whole setup would add a few hundred pounds to the car but that would easily be the same for a full 3rd and 4th person. (guns, ammo food water) just replacing them with a few hundred rounds and 1 or 2 high caliber guns would be the same.

Digital scopes would make 2 or 3 mile shots not to different from many of the video games we play today and ultra light low power computers are cheap now.


Again I'm not a engineer or have any training what so ever. I'm just a "why not" thinker.

XD

Oh, geeze.

Honestly, this guy --- claiming to be Warford himself --- couldn't disprove the factuality of ANYTHING I SAID, even after 3 posts.

It sort of rings true with John T. Reed's observation of the culture of the US Army's officers (a.k.a., "Olive Drab Politicians");
http://www.johntreed.com/Deadliestcatch.html

http://www.johntreed.com/McChrystal.html

http://www.johntreed.com/process.html

Oy.

gotta remember, the right to complain and bitch is well and true for western militaries, we do it all the time XD ... the guy just wants attention.

In the end a tanks a tank and it kills and destroys things, whether its a top of the line chally or a ye olde T-60 varient.

gotta remember, the right to complain and bitch is well and true for western militaries, we do it all the time XD ... the guy just wants attention.
I appreciate that, but seriously... this guy is 52 years old, a former Major long-retired from the Army, and wrote most of his articles in the Cold War.

When you think about it, a guy with this sort of background --- acting like a drama-struck teenager whose sonic art gets a negative review --- is kind of creepy.


In the end a tanks a tank and it kills and destroys things, whether its a top of the line chally or a ye olde T-60 varient.
A tank may be a tank, but to present a completely false history of an armored vehicle, then use it as a springboard to promote alarm towards a completely unsubstantiated "threat (the "FST-1/2/3"), is highly irresponsible --- not to mention unethical, bordering on negligent.

When you think about it, a guy with this sort of background --- acting like a drama-struck teenager whose sonic art gets a negative review --- is kind of creepy.

Maybe it was his application for "Comedy Idol"

Well, his behavior IS pretty comedic for a 52-year-old... but still a bit creepy.

His appearance is every bit as eerie and abrasive as his "feedback" --- get a load of his mug on Page 35 (shown in order as Page 37) of the January-February 1987 issue of Armor Magazine;
https://www.knox.army.mil/center/oc.....ryFebruary.pdf

He looks disgruntled even in his 'thirties!


More importantly, note in that story he wrote about how badly a military publication botched the appearance and date of introduction of the T-80 tank --- after learning from such a mistake well enough to write a professional news article on it, he then proceeded to make the very same mistake over and over again!
Where, exactly, are these "FST-2" tanks (with a turretless layout, Depleted Uranium armor, a 2-man crew, and a 135mm gun) that he claimed to have been in development in the 1980s? And what of the celebrated "Premium Tank 5"?

Ah yes, the T-80 and it's superior engine which was immediately copied by every other country in the world....



... NOT!
Not to mention the little issue they had with the armor ... ;3

...and the fuel. XD

Here's what happened to Warford's T-80 "Premium Tank", when it saw full-on combat for the first time in Chechnya;
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/...../row/rusav.htm

The highlight of the article;
"The results of the conference convinced the Russian Minister of Defense to stop procuring tanks with gas-turbine engines."


Also. LoL at Warford's attempt at dismissing the objective Anti-Tank role of Soviet gun-launched ATGMs --- e.g., "It's not *really* meant to be used against heavy armor; nope, it's for use against choppers and tank destroyers!" (sour grapes, much?).

Heh, it's kinda funny. The T-80 had some pretty good armor because of the combination of steel, aluminium alloys, glass fiber, and ceramic pellets embedded into a non-flammable polymer matrix. Even the earliest version was pretty well-protected against and HEAT and APFSDS rounds that came from the front or the side - unfortunately somebody forgot to tell'em that a tank also has a pretty big roof that MIGHT be attacked with stuff like - you know - mortar shells, Molotov cocktails, satchel charges, RPGs fired from the top of a house .....



And yea, right ... an ATGM against a chopper or tank destroyer ... does that idiot think the Russians can shit money or what?!A smack with a 40 mm is all it takes for an instant ticket back to the camp for a lot of repairs (if the crew actually manages to get back, of course).

I guess that's why we see ERA on the rooftops of all the latest Russian tanks.

And seriosusly, a Radio Command-Guided ATGM against an evasive attack helicopter? Or against a Tank Destroyer with Wire-Guised ATGMs on EW-intensive battlefield?!
That would be the day...


Also, I'm still waiting for a reply from him in response to my query of where all the photos, eyewitness accounts, and official Soviet/Russian documentation are of the FST-2 --- you know, the imaginary tank that Warford and friends made-up, in order to validate a ton of extraneous, ultra-expensive tank and/or anti-tank weapon projects. XD