Anyway, ITT: Russia fanboys.

I seem to remember a case where five Kuwaiti M-84 (Serb equivalent to a T-72) went up against a column of thirty Assad Babils (claptrap Iraqi MBT idiots like Andrew like to call a “T-72″) and destroyed them all with no casualties.

And when did the Iraqis field T-80s? So many things are plain bullshit in this article, I advise people to go look this information up before thinking it’s true.

Frontal armor of the T-90 during the latest test firing subcaliber HEAT projectile, equal to the efficiency of most modern shells 120mm cannon Abrams. From a distance of 200m on the tank had fired six rounds, then the machine under its own power arrived at the observation deck. Then, without repair, aboard T-90 put under the impact of improved rocket-propelled grenades, the result is the same – the armor is not penetrated, damaged only side protective screens. However, during the fighting in Iraq in 2003, the board Abrams’a sprouting from RPG-7 grenade even the earliest specimens. In Iraq, revealed weaknesses Abrams’ov – auxiliary power unit tank (APU) that provides all the electronics work at a time when the main engine drowned out. It’s easy to hit a large caliber machine gun. At the T-90 – APU is under the main armor. In addition, T-90 even in the standard version is equipped with a complex optical-electronic suppression – “blind”, this system leads a missile in the side. In Abrams’a such equipment is not in duel situations an American tank hardly able to resist guided missile T-90, run via smoothbore gun. Working distance of T-90 = 5km, shooting accuracy in this case is close to zero. Missiles can be fired from their seats and moving to the same for its use does not require any special skills gunner. Power guns T-90 and approximately equivalent to Abrams’a, armor-piercing projectile with domestic core of tungsten is not inferior to its competitor – the American shells with depleted uranium. Such projectiles have been developed and we have, but they are extremely harmful to crew, and their serial production was delayed for a rainy day.

Thanks for the laughs. Comments from blithering idiots who are not soldiers but like to think they know what they’re talking about are always amusing.

Service lifetime of tanks, ships, planes and other expencive technology is up to 40-50years. With rapid evolution of electronics all these weapon systems are under continious upgrading. Latest version of F-16 have multiplied combat and tactical abilities, compared to model of first flight in 1968. And noone says about it “Basically, you get early 70’s mechanics with 90’s electronics” and that they dupe the market.
F-4 Phantom got so much upgrades (engines, weapons, radar, electronics) that it got new index F-4 2000 and jumped from 2nd generation to 4th generation fighters and is still in service with IAF. Only fuselage remained the same (see: design). Same story with MiG-21. Upgraded in every part (except fuselage of course) it became 4th gen fighter with BVR abilities of any modern 4th gen fighter. So… yes design of T-90 is the same with T-72. Don’t forget that Leo-1 and Abrams M1 were also designed in early 70s. Now compare Leo-2 and M1A2 with them… Aren’t they “70’s mechanics with 90’s electronics”?
T-90 has different engines from T-72. Has different main armour. Has ERA as standart equipment in all models and variations and not like it was stated here as “can be fitted with Explosive Reactive Armor”. T-90 has new gun, new ammunition, ATGM launching capability, new auto-loader, new tracks and upgraded suspensions. Except design, probably transmission is the only thing which remained the same with T-72… and even this is unlikely. Increased number of horsepower from 700 to 1250 requires if not new, then sure upgraded transmission.

And all the first paragraph about triumph of Abrams over T-72 is pure battle of generations. I am 100% positive that T-90s would perform with absolutely same result against western 2nd generation tanks like M-60, Chieftains, Leo-1, Merkava I/II etc etc etc.

Now let’s see what Abrams lacks…
a) ATGM launching: It has the ability (all smooth-bore cannons have it), but no ammo and FCS for this system yet. Israeli “Lahat” was tested with Abrams, but not received for mass production.
b) Hard-kill system like “Arena” or “Iron Fist”. Again, Israeli “Trophy” was tested, but not yet introduced into mass production.
c) ERA. ERA was successfully tested and applied on Bradley APC… but again, no ERA for Abrams in standart equipment.

All the above doesn’t mean that Americans are stupid and that they can’t integrate those systems in Abrams. Not at all. But all those systems will dramatically increase weight and cost of already oversized, overweighted and overpriced tank, while they don’t meet dangerous enough opponents in todays conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now tell me, who doesn’t “show a sensitivity to losses” when a tank with 1/3 of price of Abrams is equipped by every protection system available?

Such russian tactics have never been disproven in battle. I would never assume that the Russians would lose just because their philosophy is different from the west. Where the west cares for the body count, The russians have no such sensitivity. An old German lament was that, whenever they destroyed a russian division, the russians simply replaced it with another division. The russians also have a good penchant for maximizing the effectiveness of simplicity. Just look at the t-34. just a marriage of a 76mm gun, sloped armor, and an old airship engine. and the zsu-23-4. Just a marriage of 4 23mm guns and a doppler radar. And the MiG-29 Fulcrum. All hydraulics – not fly by wire.

All in all, let us hope that a war between east and west never eventuate. War doesn’t decide who is right – only who is left.

Agreed

Soviets kept at short leash local guerilla 9 years going around the country in whatever place they wanted, while US army has been kept at this short leash more o less the entire war campaign. Soviet troops built 142 different facilities for civil life in Afganistan including schools, kindergartens, bridges, plants, dams and many other things. Soviets would have fought as far as it was necessary had it not been ordered to go out.

What wlii remain in Afganistan after american army will run out Afganistan screaming like
childrens?

Syringes, coca cola bottles, condoms….usual personal effects of this bunch of us perverts, moral retards and drug and alcohol addicts!

.

bloody hell relax…its a debate, and people should be able to postulate and talk it through its a what if…

not just you though, people take it to seriously.

Its just a talk….

look at how US tanks and Israili tanks are constanly taken down by IED and rocket grenades…of which russian design is eminent and tried and tested. Who knows what advances are done as know one pays attention to russia because of our sterio typical view of it.

America had a dedicated confidnet well equiped army… Great for modern short sharp shock warfare, the modern way. It can very much act like a glass hammer. Americans really do care about casualties. Thats a major problem. I think the russians do not. Not in a calous way though. They just beleive in dying for their country against aggressors. They are massive compared to the states. So what if a little behind in tech, the sheer production balances that out, quote the guy earlier about Shermans. They were so poor compared to german and russian tanks, but when it came to the crunch they won out against the panzer through sheer volume.

Russia has that…not many others do. Certainly not the states.

Its natural every US beleive they would win and that the russians beleive they will win.
But, unless the States manged to nock out the mother land straight away….i think it is pretty obvoius, they would have to stop and sue for peace or be battered to submission. Although i beleive USA could do it possibly, if they did not then no contest. ALso, a heavy relaince on modern tech is a very double edge sword. Do yo uthink Russia and any other nation in that fact do not have pretty hefty EMP tech to knock it all out and when that happens, who is more determined on the ground, more determined to do it “old skool” who has the more reliable old tech that wont fail or easily be scrambled and so on and so…

who knows eh? one thing for sure US is quiye loud about its capabilities…russia is not…
Its always the quiet ones….=)

Russia has a history of being out matched but bloody minded and just waring the enemy out and winning the atrition. Stubbourness is a great thing.

I hope the day never comes. But one way or the other some one will want a fight.

But being english i will sit on my little island and duck for cover then pop out to rule whats left lmao!

just go fuck yourselves.