New Russian MBT.. [Archive] - Bohemia Interactive Forums

WKK Gimbal

Jan 20 2002, 23:12

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kasatka @<hidden> Jan. 20 2002,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">MBT Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle)
The newest Russian main battle tank. A mobility test-bed of a 21th century tank and is a result of radical upgrading of the T-80U MBT. The selection of the T-80U as a base for development of the 5th generation MBT derives from the fact that it is rightfully considered as the best MBT in the world which suc-cessfully combines all the basic per-formance characteristics: speed, maneuverability, fire power and protec-tion system. The Chiorny Oriol has the same overall dimensions as the T-80U does, nevertheless it has a lower silhouette which makes it less distinctive on the terrain. The experts believe that in terms of combination of the basic charac-teristics such as maneuverability, fire power, armour piercing capability and protection this MBT will surpass the Western MBTs such as M1A2 Abrams, Leclerk and Leopard-2 by a factor of 1.5-1.7.

http://www.warsecrets.hpg.ig.com.br/internacional/38/warsecrets-4-fl_album3.jpeg[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Cool tank ....

... so .. Kasatka .... when are you gonna stop using my avatar and find your own? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

FetishFool

Jan 21 2002, 00:02

Who ever wrote that article sure does like dashes(-).

And why'd they make reference to the T80U?? The T90S is the exact same as the T80U except for the reactive armor, and new weapons systems.

And that Oriol tank has been in testing for over 3 years.

And about the best tanks in the world: It's all up to what you want.

All 21st century the tanks meet all standards. But exceed in their own way. No 21st century tank is less good than the other just by generalization.

M1A2 - Best communications devices.
Challenger2 - Best armor. That long gun doesn't shoot farther, though.
Leopard2 - It exceeds every standard test, but not the best at anything. But is only tank that can fully submerge.
Leclerc - Fastest tank. But not smallest.
T90 - Lowest silhouette(shortest). Highest maneuvarability.

Wobble

Jan 21 2002, 00:09

a2 and challenger also tie for the most accurate main armorment too..

and i dont see how anyone could say nthe challe has better armor than the a2.. since noone knows anything about either.. both are still classified as to their abilities in that area..

Benze

Jan 21 2002, 01:01

"whats you're guys problem......
you guys seems to brag all the time that american tanks all allways better and allways will be better than anyone.You guys will ever laught even the tanks have build-in nucleur warheads "

Challenger II is British numbnuts.

But the M1A2 is a damn fine tank, it wouldn't be overstating it to say it certainly may be the world's best, certainly better than anything Russia has to offer.

Silencer

Jan 21 2002, 05:49

ya ya ya....

I still like to ride around on the shilka and t80 because there fast http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

the abrams is soo damn slow.

Mister Frag

Jan 21 2002, 05:59

It is interesting to note that the US Army has started to phase out the Abrams and rotate it out to National Guard units.

It finally dawned on the brass that the C-5 Galaxy could only move one tank at a time due to the weight and size of the Abrams, and the military wants a force that they can deploy on short notice without the benefit of rail lines, deep-water harbors, or a shoreline suitable for landing craft. The goal is to be able to deploy a fully combat-ready brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours.

What will the Abrams be replaced with? For the next 10 to 15 years, it will be the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV), which is derived from the eight-wheeled LAV III platform. Rather than sporting a Bushmaster rapid-fire cannon, it will have a 105mm direct-fire canon. It will also fit onto a C-130 transport plane.

While the IAV is in use, the Army and several military contractors will develop a replacement for the Abrams. This most likely will be another tracked vehicle, highly automated, and with an emphasis on stealth and survivability. Rather than relying on brute firepower and thick armor, the idea is to never get detected in the first place, and avoid getting into a firefight with a 60+ ton MBT behemoth.

So, while Russia is continuing to advance MBT technology, the US has already given up on that concept. Only the future will tell which side holds a winning hand.

FetishFool

Jan 21 2002, 06:09

Most of the new US tanks in development are made from tree products.

The "armor" will be forms of paper.

The Abrams tank is going to be obsolete in the US in less than 3 years.
The US just doesn't have enough soldiers to man the tanks.

The US always got 10% of the population to join the army every year. Now only 80,000 or so are expected each year.
That means that 4-man crews are unrealistic.

And the US doesn't always make the best stuff.
The AK74 is better than the M16A2 in every way except one.
The M16A2 is a lot easier to hold. The AK74 is awkwardly shaped, and has a clip that extends to the soldier's waste-line.

The T80U was the best tank in the world until 1990. Then Russia went bankrupt.

The M1A2 Abrams was only the best tank in the world for 2 years. Then the Challenger2 was considered the best.
Then the Leopard2 took over recently, but only because it was perfectly balanced.

Silencer

Jan 21 2002, 06:13

yeah it sad russia has bankrupt....don't worry the economy is slowly growing up again.

Putin said that the economy has grown, better than 10 years ago.The economy will probably good enough in the next 10-15 years.

FetishFool

Jan 21 2002, 06:24

Canada is going into depression right now.

And the US is going through recession, almost at depression.

The american economy is extremely weak right now.
It's still stronger than the UK's, but a lot weaker than what it normally is.

Silencer

Jan 21 2002, 06:34

yeah but US will probably recover they have bags of money for back-up.Ouch canada is going bankrupt too?http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?

is this a joke?http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gifhttp://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gifhttp://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?

FetishFool

Jan 21 2002, 07:57

The national unemployment rate is like 33% right now.
Well, most of us live in igloos and tents, but that's still pretty bad.
In Toronto, the largest city, the unemployment rate is like 10%.

But most Canadians have lots of money stashed away. Everything is extremely cheap here, and we get paid more than enough.

The US doesn't have enough gold to support itself for any more than one week. So people are on their own, again, through deep recession.

Antichrist

Jan 21 2002, 10:18

Hey people u forgot to mention Merkava 4
which is DA best tank in the world

KingBeast

Jan 21 2002, 14:29

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @<hidden> Jan. 21 2002,01:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a2 and challenger also tie for the most accurate main armorment too..

and i dont see how anyone could say nthe challe has better armor than the a2.. since noone knows anything about either.. both are still classified as to their abilities in that area..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wobble im not quite sure, but i believe people generally think the Challengers armour is the best because it uses the most advanced Chobham. And what with chobham being a british design (??) then obviously our tanks get the nice stuff.

Silencer

Jan 21 2002, 15:40

Russia is not that bad as you said in canada where you live in tents ;(

most of russia lives in apartments.We hvae everything in the store,the problem is they cost little more.2,000$ computers
7-10$ loaf of bread.soo you have jut have to work extra hours to get what you want.

Aaron Kane

Jan 21 2002, 17:42

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @<hidden> Jan. 21 2002,16:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a2 and challenger also tie for the most accurate main armorment too..

and i dont see how anyone could say nthe challe has better armor than the a2.. since noone knows anything about either.. both are still classified as to their abilities in that area..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wobble im not quite sure, but i believe people generally think the Challengers armour is the best because it uses the most advanced Chobham. And what with chobham being a british design (??) then obviously our tanks get the nice stuff.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeah, thats what I thought too, but I'm probably wrong. I thought that the Challenger had some newer armor called "Durham" or something, but I'm most likely mistaken http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

PFC_Mike

Jan 21 2002, 18:39

What's the difference between a civil engineer and a weapons designer? One builds weapons and the other builds targets.

Considering the advancements in guided weapons systems, I think tanks are on the way to becoming targets. How many iraqi tnaks were lost to US action in desert storm? Western tech can kick the ass of anyone, anythuing, anywhere.

Assault (CAN)

Jan 21 2002, 19:37

Canada and the U.S. have now adopted the L.A.V. III for use. In Canada it is replacing the Grizzly and Cougar L.A.V.s. The Canadian versions will keep the stock turret, which uses the 25mm Bushmaster Chain Gun. However, the L.A.V. III will not replace the 100 or so upgraded Leopard 1's that Canada has.

IMHO The only reason that the U.S. brought the LAV III to Afghanistan instead of the Abrams is probably because they don't consider the old Taliban T-55s and BMPs to be much of a threat. If they ever did encounter them on a large number, they would have just called in air support. That didn't happen because the U.S. destroyed as much tanks as possible before they put a large contingent of troops on the ground.

I don't think that Abrams will be replaced anytime soon, they might just scale down the numbers in service. I am willing to bet that the U.S. will develop some kind of 2 man computerized tank with a low profile and stealth-like abilities in the next 20 years or so. I have seen various concepts of this and it seems the U.S. military is going this way.

Tyler

Sandman

Jan 21 2002, 20:48

From what I´ve read the currently best "ranked" MBT is the Swedish STRV122 (Leopard 2A5 modified) and the Leopard 2A6. This is an overall verdict, taking everything into count.

here´s a ´lil promo...
http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-42039/strv_122_.htm

madmike

Jan 21 2002, 21:11

There wont be many more traditional tanks being made in the next ten years.
Britian and US are doning joint trials on a new type of plastic tank armed with a bushmaster cannon and 30 cannon
The tanks wieght will be under 10 tonnes which is good because that will make it more reliable and cheaper to run

Wobble

Jan 21 2002, 21:14

Wobble im not quite sure, but i believe people generally think the Challengers armour is the best because it uses the most advanced Chobham. And what with chobham being a british design (??) then obviously our tanks get the nice stuff.

the A1 used chobham.. the A2 uses a little bit of it and something totally different everywhere else.. its classified.. I think on some lists they A2's armro is listes as chobham.. but thats just because thats its 'offical' armor.. and as you know in military 'offical' doesent really meant thats what it is..

for example the A2's top speed is listed at 45mph OFICIALLY.. yet everyone knows its much faster.

the latest US aircraft cairriers are listed as having a top 'OFFICAL' speed of 30 knots.. but then they say you could barefoot ski behind one...

the bottom line is you cant make any comparison about things of which NOBODY aside from top brass and designers know ANYTHING about..

its like saying which alien race has the best UFO http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

P.S. according to what I saw on the history channel the A2 weighs about 1/4 less than the A1. .. but its offical weight is listed as almost the same...

as for the whole 'MBTs are obsolete'

thats been said since WW1.

madmike

Jan 21 2002, 21:35

Chobham armour is so clasified that if a warrior breaks down in bosnia it has to be gaurded.
A worrior took a hit from a challenger that had a dodgy fault making the gun fire.
The armour saved the crew and they had no damage on them http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Also the people that up-armour the warriors and challengers have to sign a more detailed offical secrets act paper that if about them being imprisoned if they tell anyone about the armour or something like that
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Mister Frag

Jan 21 2002, 22:20

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,06:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Chobham armour is so clasified that if a warrior breaks down in bosnia it has to be gaurded.
A worrior took a hit from a challenger that had a dodgy fault making the gun fire.
The armour saved the crew and they had no damage on them http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Also the people that up-armour the warriors and challengers have to sign a more detailed offical secrets act paper that if about them being imprisoned if they tell anyone about the armour or something like that
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wow, now the Challenger can't even take out an APC anymore? They should make the MBTs out of the same stuff! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Aaron Kane

Jan 22 2002, 02:16

Naah... those Brits have absolutely NO friendly fire skills whatsoever! We have to teach them everything, its not even funny...

Sambo_69

Jan 22 2002, 06:01

oddly enough, in my copy of the guiness book of records for 2002, the tank with the best armour is the russian T80-T90 class tanks, the abrams and the challenger wern't even mentioned at all...

Wobble

Jan 22 2002, 06:48

oddly enough, in my copy of the guiness book of records for 2002, the tank with the best armour is the russian T80-T90 class tanks, the abrams and the challenger wern't even mentioned at all...

like I said.. nobody knows anything about them.. so they cant really be listed as anything because their true performance is unknown.. to any of us and I doubt Guiness could pry it loose either..

RING RING RING!!

Hello.. Colin Powell's office

Hi this is marty from Guiness book of world records.. I was wandering if you could give me a detailed analysis of the M1A2's armor capabilities?

Umm thats classified information..

PLEEEEEASE!!

Umm.. wll ok sure

LOL!! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Sandman

Jan 22 2002, 13:59

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sambo_69 @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,08:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oddly enough, in my copy of the guiness book of records for 2002, the tank with the best armour is the russian T80-T90 class tanks, the abrams and the challenger wern't even mentioned at all...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well...thats not exactly the source I would refer to if the discussion were of any serious kind...if U dont mind me saying that...

Just the fact that they mention T80 in the same sentence as T90 makes one suspicious...they are not the same at all.

Dr Bibber

Jan 22 2002, 15:25

So sick of these stereotypic people who still think that their country has the best equipent (even tough they use the most crappiest assault rifles en crap equipment compared to Russian stuff)

More then 75% of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by allied planes and comparing a T-55(wich were only left) with a M1A1 is nuts.

Russian ERA(explosive reactive armor) is a lot more effective against HEAT and LAW's
In Cheyna the mujhadeen needed more then 13 RPG's to destroy a T-80U, try that with chobbam armor.

APFSDU rounds(wich they used in gulf-war, banned in warfare now) pierces the tanks armor and releases a radioactive dust wich kills the crew inside

Diablo_NL

Jan 22 2002, 16:05

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While the IAV is in use, the Army and several military contractors will develop a replacement for the Abrams. This most likely will be another tracked vehicle, highly automated, and with an emphasis on stealth and survivability. Rather than relying on brute firepower and thick armor, the idea is to never get detected in the first place, and avoid getting into a firefight with a 60+ ton MBT behemoth.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Well there you have it usa are cowards when it comes to fighting.

back to discussion the IAV might be a good tank untill detected in a fight with a tank or rpg it will certainly be destroyed cuz they put light armor and not such a powerfull gun on it.

remember world war 2 when germans met the T34 for the first time they couldnt even destroy them only when the panzer 5 (tiger tank) appeared they had a tank that could fight with a T34.

I still think a lot of ppl in western countrys especially usa think their country has better weapons then russia.

Maybe russian stuff is cheap to make that makes it even better.
If a T80 can destroy a M1A2 and costs only half as much they realy hve the adventage not the guys wih more expensive tanks

madmike

Jan 22 2002, 17:42

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow, now the Challenger can't even take out an APC anymore? They should make the MBTs out of the same stuff! [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The challenger has the same gun as the Abrams and the leapord(I think???).

Its not the challenger that is bad it is the amount of armour on the warrior that is good.
In Bosnia a warior went over a AT mine and all the crew were fine. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Armpit

Jan 22 2002, 19:27

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">APFSDU rounds(wich they used in gulf-war, banned in warfare now) pierces the tanks armor and releases a radioactive dust wich kills the crew inside[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Depleted uranium rounds don´t cause damage with radioactivity. Depleted uranium is a very dense matter and therefore ideal for punching through armor with sheer kinetic energy.

I had no idea that the use of depleted uranium ammo has been banned, in fact I was under the impression that the US used missiles with DU warheads against taleban tanks just a few months ago. I do remember Gulf War veterans and later UN/NATO soldiers who served in the Balkan complaining of symptoms and deseases which may have been caused by dust from DU rounds, but AFAIK there´s no firm evidence.

sgtdwetzel

Jan 22 2002, 20:37

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @<hidden> Jan. 21 2002,08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most of the new US tanks in development are made from tree products.

The "armor" will be forms of paper.

The Abrams tank is going to be obsolete in the US in less than 3 years.
The US just doesn't have enough soldiers to man the tanks.

The US always got 10% of the population to join the army every year. Now only 80,000 or so are expected each year.
That means that 4-man crews are unrealistic.

And the US doesn't always make the best stuff.
The AK74 is better than the M16A2 in every way except one.
The M16A2 is a lot easier to hold. The AK74 is awkwardly shaped, and has a clip that extends to the soldier's waste-line.

The T80U was the best tank in the world until 1990. Then Russia went bankrupt.

The M1A2 Abrams was only the best tank in the world for 2 years. Then the Challenger2 was considered the best.
Then the Leopard2 took over recently, but only because it was perfectly balanced.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Obsolete in less than 3 years?http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Considering that the M1A1 Digital is extending main gun range to 7500 meters, and it is still the fastest, most stable gun platform on the battlefield...I think the M1 series will be around a while. That LAV based vehicle is going to be used mainly in the Interim Brigade Combat Team concept....which is a STOPGAP measure until heavier forces arrive. They tried to say the same thing when the Bradley came out - "The MBT is dead...long live the Bradley" but the fact of the matter is neither the Bradley or the up-armored LAV can take any kind of direct fire and survive. The M1 series can.

You should check your numbers again....if 10% of the US population joined the Army, we would have 25 million people joining every year.

And 4 man crews unrealistic??? I hate to tell you...armor crewmen in the US Army right now are OVERSTRENGTH...we don't have enough tanks for the personnel we have right now.

About the M16A2....I can't comment on that - I carry my M9 Beretta on the tank, but I would like to see your reasoning - I have fired both weapons, and except for the AK's ability to be covered in mud and still be able to fire, they are fairly evenly matched.

The T-80U "best tank in the world"http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?? What are you smoking?http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Can I have some?http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Flame me all you want - I have been a "tanker" for over 11 years as a loader, driver, gunner, and tank commander, and have been in Soviet, British, and German equipment, and have seen how they work - and how they don't. T80U the best.....know what you are talking about before you "inform" us of your un-enlightened opinions

Assault (CAN)

Jan 22 2002, 20:40

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dr Bibber @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So sick of these stereotypic people who still think that their country has the best equipent (even tough they use the most crappiest assault rifles en crap equipment compared to Russian stuff)

More then 75% of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by allied planes and comparing a T-55(wich were only left) with a M1A1 is nuts.

Russian ERA(explosive reactive armor) is a lot more effective against HEAT and LAW's
In Cheyna the mujhadeen needed more then 13 RPG's to destroy a T-80U, try that with chobbam armor.

APFSDU rounds(wich they used in gulf-war, banned in warfare now) pierces the tanks armor and releases a radioactive dust wich kills the crew inside[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, there were plenty of T-72's left on the ground for the Yanks to take care of. They could destroy them because the gun on the Abrams is alot more powerfull and has a longer range than anything the Iraqis had. The gun on the Abrams has nearly twice the range as anything the Iraqis had to offer.

No wonder it took those Mujahideen folks so long to destroy a T-80 with RPGs. In case you havent heard RPG (7)s are total sh*t they have been obsolete for a number of years against any kind of modern armour.

About ERA. Its useless against APFSDS DU rounds. As armpit said, DU has not been banned and is still in use. It does not kill with radioactive dust, as you said. It kills with white hot shards of molten steel from the tanks armour that is melted on contact with a kinetic energy round.

I would rather be in an Abrams or Challenger or Leopard than any Soviet tank. True, the sword can only be as strong as the arm weilding it. But the cash strapped Russian Forces can't afford to train their guys like they used to. My money (and life) in any war is on Western crews + Western armour.

Tyler

Dr Bibber

Jan 22 2002, 21:29

"In case you havent heard RPG (7)s are total sh*t they have been obsolete for a number of years against any kind of modern armour. "

The RPG-7V can fire 88mm HE rounds wich can easily destroy an M1A1's cannon(wich is also one of the most popular rocket launchers because of its sights and range).

"DU has not been banned and is still in use."
DU rounds are banned by the geneva connection, so are napalm and landmines.
Childeren who have played in burned out Iraqi tanks all have cancer right now, not to mention how many loaders have a brain tumor.

I wouldn't call the 125mm gun used on Iraqi T-72's crap, wich can also fire APFSDS-T rounds wich is also capable M1 Abrams armor at a range of 1000m and can engage targets at 4000m.
The T-72 is a far more reliable tank than the M1A1, did i already mention how much oil the M1's engine slurps?

"Actually, there were plenty of T-72's left on the ground for the Yanks to take care of."

Wrong again, most T-72 tanks were all destroyed by airstrikes etc.
They did have T-64 tanks wich are pretty much the same as the T-72.

These first M1/IPM1 series have no chance against a T-72 untill they upgraded the 105 MM gun to a West -German made Reinmetall 125mm gun, those first series didn't had any chobbam armor either.

It's all about the crew and training

A MIG-29 can own any fighter jet's ass while it was one of the world's most maneuverable and toughest fighter jets in the 80's, but still none of them had a chance against US F16's as i mentioned before, it's all about training

FetishFool

Jan 22 2002, 21:46

@<hidden>:

I heard all that on a TLC program one day. It was an Extreme Machines episode, where they did a 15 minute segment on tanks, and their futures.

They were saying how it was difficult to man the Abrams for 4 people.
That's why most new vehicles being developed need 1 or 2 people to man them.
The new stealth tanks in development will take a crew of 2.

I heard that up until a few years ago 10% of the US joined military services every year. Maybe it was 1%. I'll go look for some reports now.

The AK74 is known to be more accurate than the M16A2. Someone on these threads was also saying how the 5.56-mm NATO round broke into two pieces after impact. While the 5.54-mm russian round only wobbled.

I said the T80U was considered the best tank in the world until 1990.
It had armor just as tough as the M1A1 Abrams, but was a lot smaller.
The armament was pretty much the same between the two. Both were just as lethal.

When the T90S was made, it was too late. - The M1A2 was already in service.
But both lost to the Challenger and the Swiss Leopard2.

Dr Bibber

Jan 22 2002, 22:06

"I said the T80U was considered the best tank in the world until 1990.
It had armor just as tough as the M1A1 Abrams"

Correction: the T-80UK was invented in 1992/1993

You are right about that armor part, T80UK is alot more advanced then the M1A1(better engine, snorkels, all equipped AT-3 missles)

And T90S are mainly produced for export(in fact it is just a modified T-72)

"While the 5.54-mm russian round only wobbled."
5.54×39 FMJ 7H6 bullets are also more effective then the regular 5.56mm x 54 M193 (203.).
Russia used 5.54 bullets wich release some kind of posion and kills the victim slowly, 5.54 also have a better stopping power.

Assault (CAN)

Jan 23 2002, 02:01

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obsolete in less than 3 years?http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Considering that the M1A1 Digital is extending main gun range to 7500 meters, and it is still the fastest, most stable gun platform on the battlefield...I think the M1 series will be around a while. That LAV based vehicle is going to be used mainly in the Interim Brigade Combat Team concept....which is a STOPGAP measure until heavier forces arrive. They tried to say the same thing when the Bradley came out - "The MBT is dead...long live the Bradley" but the fact of the matter is neither the Bradley or the up-armored LAV can take any kind of direct fire and survive. The M1 series can.

You should check your numbers again....if 10% of the US population joined the Army, we would have 25 million people joining every year.

And 4 man crews unrealistic??? I hate to tell you...armor crewmen in the US Army right now are OVERSTRENGTH...we don't have enough tanks for the personnel we have right now.

About the M16A2....I can't comment on that - I carry my M9 Beretta on the tank, but I would like to see your reasoning - I have fired both weapons, and except for the AK's ability to be covered in mud and still be able to fire, they are fairly evenly matched.

The T-80U "best tank in the world"http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?? What are you smoking?http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Can I have some?http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Flame me all you want - I have been a "tanker" for over 11 years as a loader, driver, gunner, and tank commander, and have been in Soviet, British, and German equipment, and have seen how they work - and how they don't. T80U the best.....know what you are talking about before you "inform" us of your un-enlightened opinions[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Dr Bibber, I figured that you needed to read this post again before you go making claims about Russian superiority in every feild.

Since this guy has been a tanker, I would take his word over yours.

Do you represent the Russian arms industry? What are you trying to sell? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Tyler

Vir

Jan 23 2002, 03:02

Crispy129

Jan 23 2002, 03:13

Swatch that Russian made POS break down half of the time in battle. The Russians have claimed bette tanks for almost as long as I can remember by going by stats i.e. bigger gun, bigger engine, heavier armor, ect. , but the American, German, and British tanks always seem to out perform them by far. The one Russian advantage is they out number all of hte other coutries as far as man power goes. The reason that NATO tanks(with the exception of probably French ones http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ) are proven better in the battle field is coordination, night vision capabilities, accurate and now unjammable GPS, and many other things. Of course Russian stuff is better or at least "considered better by the Russian fanboys" if you just go by the bigger is better Tim Allen approach. Truly even today, the Russian tanks are either cheap copies of ours, low maintanence low performance weapons, or low reliability mid-high performance. Also if you are callig it he best tank in the world, you should see the new stealth tank the U.S. is developing/has developed.

Crispy

Wobble

Jan 23 2002, 04:57

why dont all of you be quite about it... none of you know one tenth of what you would need to know to make anything even resembeling an accurate judgement of ANY modern battle tank... most of the stuff in them and on them is classified..

all our so called 'knowledge' of these tanks is based on what we see on TV.. and the propaganda of each of their makers.. all of the data in the world released to the public about these weapons is nowhere close enough to make any sort of accurate judgment about which is better..

so unless one of us manages to get in, drive, gun, and command all of these tanks in battle.. well there just isnt a goddamn thing we really have to say about which is best..

We can speculate and talk out yer ass all day but none of us here have one shred of creditable evidence about anything.. just PR and what the govs ALLOW us to see..

T-80 and T-90.. none of us know SHIT about it..

M1A1 and A2.. none of us know SHIT about it..

Challenger series.. none of us know SHIT about it..

as for the AK74 being more accurate than the M16A2.. thats laughable.

and the DU sabot doesnt kill with radioactive dust.. that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard.. what kills the crew is an explosion and hot shit flying everywhere... when the round hits the tank its kinetic energy is almost instantley converted to heat energy through friction.. BOOM.

Sandman

Jan 23 2002, 05:28

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dr Bibber @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">APFSDU rounds(wich they used in gulf-war, banned in warfare now) pierces the tanks armor and releases a radioactive dust wich kills the crew inside[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That was just hilarious!!! Do your homework again son.... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Sandman

Jan 23 2002, 05:39

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dr Bibber @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,23:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DU rounds are banned by the geneva connection, so are napalm and landmines.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The Geneva convention (not connection!!!) doesnt regulate weapons, its mainly about prisoners and fugitives.

Nor is landmines (in general) or napalm banned...

Dr Bibber

Jan 23 2002, 06:54

A MIG-29 can own any fighter jet's ass while it was one of the world's most maneuverable and toughest fighter jets in the 80's

I just had to comment on this. Dogfighting, which seems to be what you based this opinion on, is a very small part of modern air battles. Id put my money on the F-14 with its pheonix missles, which have a range of something like 60 miles.

R-72 missles have a better range and are one of the finest air-to-air missles ever made

"and the DU sabot doesnt kill with radioactive dust.. that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard.. what kills the crew is an explosion and hot shit flying everywhere... when the round hits the tank its kinetic energy is almost instantley converted to heat energy through friction.. BOOM."

Ever heard of the "silver bullet"?

"as for the AK74 being more accurate than the M16A2.. thats laughable."

The M16 variants are only popular because of it's sights and mobility.
The AK-74 is not more accurate then the M16A2, it's almoust just as accurate.

Dr Bibber

Jan 23 2002, 06:56

"Nor is landmines (in general) or napalm banned... "

Before asking me to do a little bit more research, napalm and landmines are banned in NATO countries.

Napalm was banned by an United Nations convention in 1980

Wobble

Jan 23 2002, 07:00

as far as I know all that has been done about the DU is some enviromental agencies pissing and moaning... in tests that NATO they concluded that contamination from a DU round hitting is only preasent in the immediat area of contamination.. so as long as you dont go play in a bunred out tank ya should be ok..

also the estimate as to how many DU sabots that would have to impact to cause an enviromental concern was something like 10,000 per square kilometer...

in conclusin they said that lead from small arms fire poses a much higher threat to the enviroment than DU in the areas of ground water and soil contamination..

they said that in order to get the amount of DU radiation or harmful dust needed to be harmful you would have to spend no less than 2 hours in a confined space where a DU round had struck no more than 5 hours prior...

Wobble

Jan 23 2002, 07:02

Napalm was banned by an United Nations convention in 1980

the US is using a form of napalmish weapon right now on those caves.. its a deep penetrating air-fuel bomb that when it explodes in a cave or underground complex it depetes all the oxygen and suppocates any and all within... nobody has complained about that.

Sandman

Jan 23 2002, 07:50

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dr Bibber @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,08:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Nor is landmines (in general) or napalm banned... "

Before asking me to do a little bit more research, napalm and landmines are banned in NATO countries.

Napalm was banned by an United Nations convention in 1980[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thats just BS...u havent had any military training at all, have you?!?

Do U even know what napalm is? And define "landmine", would U please...

Sorry, I shouldnt get worked up about this, but I´m having a bad day... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Dr Bibber

Jan 23 2002, 14:05

"Thats just BS...u havent had any military training at all, have you?!?"

Yes i had.
Well, do you.......plus your how old, 15?

Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium are all unwanted in warfare by the UN, somehow the US uses it.

" And define "landmine", would U please..."
Ever heard of claymores?

"Do U even know what napalm is?"

Do you know how dumb that sounds?
BTW did i asked for your reply wich made no sense at all, you make a real fool out of yourself right now.

Napalm was invented at Harvard University in 1942.
Napalm is a flammable substance used in warfare. It is based on gasoline, wich can be made from benzene and polystyrene.

Wobble: DU impacts with a melting point of uranium at 1132şC and pierces the heavy armor.

BTW M900 and M829A1 DU rounds made by DUCRETE are no more used anymore in warfare.
These are being replaced with M829A2 rounds wich work with tungsten instead of uranium.

Armpit

Jan 23 2002, 14:11

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dr Bibber @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,09:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Napalm was banned by an United Nations convention in 1980[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The 1980 UN CCW (Certain Conventional Weapons) convention does include restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons. These restrictions, however, only concern their use against civilian populations and targets. It doesn´t forbid the use of napalm and other incendiaries against military targets, unless the military target is located amongst civilian targets.

christophercles

Jan 23 2002, 15:10

The geneva convention was also supposed to ban the use of .50 against non-armoured targets. lol, that worked well.

sgtdwetzel

Jan 23 2002, 15:57

I hate to tell you....the Geneva Convention does not ban .50 cal machine gun fire against unarmored targets. On our table VIII (our crew gunnery qualification table), one of the engagements is for the tank commander to engage a dismounted RPG team with the 50 cal.

Did you also know that the only ban against firing at parachuting personnel is that you cannot fire on someone bailing out of a disabled aircraft - that is why their parachutes are a different color from paratroopers.

BUT - exception to that rule - if that airman pulls his weapon and fires at you while he is still dropping...OPEN SEASON ON HIM http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

also...3 reasons why we used DU rounds...

1 - CHEAP...it's spent nuclear fuel, which we have a lot of

2 - MASS...more mass flying at the same speed = more energy to hit the target with

3 - Frangibility - this is a little long. When the penetrator hits the target, the pointed end doesn't "mushroom" like most metals...what actually happens is that it fractures at acute angles to the target. In other words...the pencil sharpens itself...it ensures that a smaller surface area is attempting to penetrate the target

Assault (CAN)

Jan 23 2002, 18:44

landmines are banned in NATO countries.

No they are not. The U.S. is a NATO member and they still use land mines.

AP landmines are covered by the Ottawa Landmine Ban (1997) Many countries have signed it but China, Russia, and the U.S.A. have yet to do so.

AP mines are still legal for the countries that have signed the ban, but they must be command detonated.

I'm not sure about AT mines, since the weight of a person does not set them off, they might not be covered in the ban.

they said that in order to get the amount of DU radiation or harmful dust needed to be harmful you would have to spend no less than 2 hours in a confined space where a DU round had struck no more than 5 hours prior...

This is controversial. Even though DU rounds have low radiation they are still harmful. Take for example the Gulf War. Many thousands of DU rounds (from tanks and aircraft) were deposited throughout the deserts of Iraq and Kuwait. The contamination usually stays in one place, but this depends on the environment that it is in. In a windy desert environment the DU does not just stay in the tanks, it gets in the sand and the sand blows all over the area, even into buildings and houses. This is whats causing the problems. The rate of cancerous diseises and birth defects are rising in Iraq, one of the logical reasons is because of DU.

Though i'm sure DU was far more harmful to Iraqi tank crews than it is to civillians. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Tyler

FetishFool

Jan 23 2002, 19:32

sgtdwetzel, he said that they were supposed to ban .50 on non-armored targets.
And it's true. They were talking about it. I don't think it was taken seriously by anyone, though.

They actually said that parachuters are not allowed to shoot while they're in the air. And people can't shoot parachuters in the air.
But this never works, people still shoot at parachuters. No one really takes the ban seriously.

I still own some dum-dum rounds. My father used to have a lot of them, and some of them are still around.
I don't know if it's illegal to possess them, but I don't shoot them.
I keep them because someone might buy them off me for a high price http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

They shoud have never banned dum-dum rounds. These would be the future of "Land Warrior" warfare.
We'd be able to make nailguns shoot ammunition as lethal as the russian 7.62 rounds, but with 10 times the effective distance.

Mister Frag

Jan 24 2002, 01:24

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dr Bibber @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,07:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>
"While the 5.54-mm russian round only wobbled."
5.54×39 FMJ 7H6 bullets are also more effective then the regular 5.56mm x 54 M193 (203.).
Russia used 5.54 bullets wich release some kind of posion and kills the victim slowly, 5.54 also have a better stopping power.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You just lost all credibility...

Pete

Jan 24 2002, 03:20

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @<hidden> Jan. 24 2002,03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>
"While the 5.54-mm russian round only wobbled."
5.54×39 FMJ 7H6 bullets are also more effective then the regular 5.56mm x 54 M193 (203.).
Russia used 5.54 bullets wich release some kind of posion and kills the victim slowly, 5.54 also have a better stopping power.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You just lost all credibility...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
rofl

poisonous bullets heheheh

Sandman

Jan 24 2002, 05:32

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>
"While the 5.54-mm russian round only wobbled."
5.54×39 FMJ 7H6 bullets are also more effective then the regular 5.56mm x 54 M193 (203.).
Russia used 5.54 bullets wich release some kind of posion and kills the victim slowly, 5.54 also have a better stopping power.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You just lost all credibility...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
LOL!!!

I tell U...this guy, "Dr. Babbler"...he´s a piece of work...

FetishFool

Jan 24 2002, 07:41

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dr Bibber @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,07:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"I said the T80U was considered the best tank in the world until 1990.
It had armor just as tough as the M1A1 Abrams"

Correction: the T-80UK was invented in 1992/1993

You are right about that armor part, T80UK is alot more advanced then the M1A1(better engine, snorkels, all equipped AT-3 missles)

And T90S are mainly produced for export(in fact it is just a modified T-72)

"While the 5.54-mm russian round only wobbled."
5.54×39 FMJ 7H6 bullets are also more effective then the regular 5.56mm x 54 M193 (203.).
Russia used 5.54 bullets wich release some kind of posion and kills the victim slowly, 5.54 also have a better stopping power.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
His entire post was pretty bad.
But I hate to... Hate to... Make people look bad. (I think?)

Let's analyse:

I said the T80U. The T80UK is a "commander's" tank. Which is a different model.

Even a person that doesn't know much about tanks knows that the T80U was used during the cold war. Because the T80 in OPF is based on the T80U.
BIS lost it's sense of time only when they released the AUG and G36.

The T90S is not a modified T72. I have no idea where you read that it was.

Sandman

Jan 24 2002, 08:19

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @<hidden> Jan. 24 2002,09:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The T90S is not a modified T72. I have no idea where you read that it was.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, I hate to say this, but he´s right in a way...

Its roughly based on the T72BM (variant with ERA-armour).

Dr Bibber

Jan 24 2002, 13:05

These posion bullets i'm talking about were used by Russian troops in Afghanistan the 7H6, replaced by 5.45×39 M74's.
Because some people find it inhumane

I ment T-80UM2 instead of the T-80UK, my fault

"BIS lost it's sense of time only when they released the AUG and G36."

BTW, the Puch-Steyr AUG(Armee Universal Gewehr) was designed for the Austrian Army in 1977

And yes....a g36 doesn't fits in the timeline since it was devloped in 1990 under the name "Project 50"
I would be alot happier with a G3A3/A4 wich is better IMHO

Wobble

Jan 24 2002, 22:20

the g36 in OFP is done wrong too.. for some majical reason it doesent shak as much as the rest of the weapons when you hold it and is more accurate than either of the sniper rifles..

it shouldent be in the game;.

Mister Frag

Jan 24 2002, 23:18

Dr Bibber, the 5.56mm NATO round has more mass, a higher velocity, and a larger diameter than the Russian 5.45mm ammunition -- how you can claim that the later is superior is beyond me.

And the 7H6 is a standard (for Eastern Block countries) steel core bullet. If you can provide a URL for a credible source of information regarding the use of poison in these bullets, I would be pleasantly surprised.

Dr Bibber

Jan 24 2002, 23:40

"And the 7H6 is a standard (for Eastern Block countries) steel core bullet. If you can provide a URL for a credible source of information regarding the use of poison in these bullets, I would be pleasantly surprised."

I got my information from Duncan Long's AK books

While the Chinese military tested their new 5.8mm with
the 5.45 & 5.56 on "livestock" and claimed that the 5.45
caused more serious wounds out to 300m
While they also have high velocity 5.45 rounds made by Wolf ammo(forgot its name)

The 5.56 is heavily velocity dependent for its
effectiveness so using a barrel shorter than the 20" the
round was designed for will get you reduced
velocity/effectiveness and increased muzzle blast/flash

The 5.56 round has a muzzle velocity of 920 ms

And the 5.45 of 890 ms

The 5.45×39 bullet mass is 3.4 g (hard core)

And the 5.56×45(SS109 cartridges im talking about)
bullet mass is 4.0 g

FetishFool

Jan 24 2002, 23:48

Hehe. Stale-mate discussion.

Let's just sit back, and wait for the Russians to decide to conquer some NATO countries.
Then they'll arm their AK74s with dum-dum rounds.

Dr Bibber

Jan 24 2002, 23:58

Russia's economy shrinks, Gorbatschov(the so called "western hero", some other ignorant piece of scum) and Yeltsin screwed up the country.

Guess the US is the only superpower left

Assault (CAN)

Jan 25 2002, 04:20

Dr Bibber, are you a Russian or a communist or both? Do you represent the Russian arms industry?

Why do you feel that every single peice of Russian kit is better than its western counterparts?

Look at the Russian grenade launcher. (the equivalent of the MM1) In the early models, the grenade would arm itself when the trigger was pulled. If there was a misfire the fuse would still arm and you would have to take off before it blew up on you. And I bet that you would still try and convince me that the Russian version is better than the MM1. FFS, give it up.

I don't believe that the Russians used "poison" bullets in Afghanistan. I think you might be confused with the infections that happend to the Mujahideen when they were shot because of poor sanitary conditions. The Afghanis might have thought that the Soviets were using some kind of poison bullet.

One more thing. I don't care what anyone tells me,
THE RUSSIAN ARMY IS SH*T Look at what happend in Afghanistan, something like 500 000 troops fell ill from poor sanitary conditions because the Russians couldn't even train their troops to wash properly. How pathetic. Thats what you get with an army of conscripts. Look at Checniya (sp) the Russians suffered heavy casualties from a bunch of untrained rebels, some armed with bolt-action rifles.

Enough with the pro-Russian propaganda already! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Tyler

FetishFool

Jan 25 2002, 04:32

Chechnaya was just a tragedy.

Russian Officer - "Please, I need reinforcements now!! My boys are going to die!!"
Russian HQ - "Yes, yes. We'll send reinforcements as soon as we can."
*Two hours later*
Russian Officer - "Where are our reinforcements?? My boys!! My beautiful boys are dying!!!"
Russian HQ - "Just hold off."
Russian General - "Let them die. They haven't even gotten to their objective."

This is a true story. This isn't the first time that an entire Russian unit dissappeared, either.

Mister Frag

Jan 25 2002, 06:23

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"And the 7H6 is a standard (for Eastern Block countries) steel core bullet. If you can provide a URL for a credible source of information regarding the use of poison in these bullets, I would be pleasantly surprised."

I got my information from Duncan Long's AK books

While the Chinese military tested their new 5.8mm with
the 5.45 & 5.56 on "livestock" and claimed that the 5.45
caused more serious wounds out to 300m
While they also have high velocity 5.45 rounds made by Wolf ammo(forgot its name)

The 5.56 is heavily velocity dependent for its
effectiveness so using a barrel shorter than the 20" the
round was designed for will get you reduced
velocity/effectiveness and increased muzzle blast/flash

The 5.56 round has a muzzle velocity of 920 ms

And the 5.45 of 890 ms

The 5.45×39 bullet mass is 3.4 g (hard core)

And the 5.56×45(SS109 cartridges im talking about)
bullet mass is 4.0 g[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's all fine and dandy, but none of this supports the points you made earlier, nor is it even closely related.

FetishFool

Jan 25 2002, 07:39

Why you guys being so hard on Bibbler. (not really a question)
He seems like a nice guy. (not really a statement)

Only KingKong has ever been hard on me when I was wrong.
And he spread it to every single thread I replied on. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I said that the 5.54 round was NATO used. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Anyways. I kinda miss KingKong.. That screw-dog. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Sandman

Jan 25 2002, 08:00

Well, his first posts was BS..backed up by more BS...

Now he tries to make sense in his posts, so maybe the ripping on him done some good....?

Placebo

Jan 25 2002, 18:29

IMO "ripping" never does any good, the more you beat someone whether verbally or physically the more likely they are to bite back.

If someone is not responding to valid reasoning then just ignore them and move on http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Wobble

Jan 25 2002, 23:47

If someone is not responding to valid reasoning then just ignore them and move on

AS much as I would LOVE to do that.. I just couldent allow myself to make your job obsolete... sorry Placebo.. but rest assured your old buddy wobble will keep you employed with his rampant tard bashing http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Placebo

Jan 25 2002, 23:49

Unfortunately my job will never be obsolete, even if people learned to have discussions like gentlemen (and ladies of course) there would still be the abundance of posts in the wrong forums etc http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Kasatka

Jan 26 2002, 01:32

The T-80U that take 13 RPG's 29 (105mm) shoots before explode was in Chechenia not in Afeganistan...
The T-80 in the OFP is the first version.. the B version, he isn't better than the M1A1 but the U version is...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-80b-line.gif
T-80B
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-80u-line.gif
T-80U
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-80-DAST8906604_JPG.jpg
B version with ERA

Silencer

Jan 26 2002, 01:45

why are you guys being soo mean to russia.....

look at flashpoint game the reason they made is to fight a great war in computer game...

if russia was a piece of crap,they never made this game which has nice soviet military http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Wobble

Jan 26 2002, 01:57

The T-80U that take 13 RPG's 29 (105mm) shoots before explode was in Chechenia not in Afeganistan...
The T-80 in the OFP is the first version.. the B version, he isn't better than the M1A1 but the U version is...

seeing as how almost everything that makes the abrams what it is is classified.. and I would think the case is the same with the T-80U... your statment is about as valid as that of a fortune cooky.

Silencer

Jan 26 2002, 02:00

everytime someone post crap about russia ,it relaly makes me depressed... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

FetishFool

Jan 26 2002, 03:33

Things aren't as secret as you think, Wobble.

We know what tanks are capable of. But we just don't know how they do it.

It's like the Japanese Katana sword. It's made of 3 different kinds of metal. But they melted the 3 metals so well that no one could tell the difference from a regular sword.
We know the Katana's capabilities like the back of our hands, but we could never find out how they did it until the Japanese revealed their secrets.
Point is that we don't need to know how things are done, just what they can do matters.

That's all that the governments are keeping secret. Radio equipment will be secret, too. But that's irrelevant when we're judging the individual tank.

Rogue

Jan 26 2002, 03:43

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">everytime someone post crap about russia ,it relaly makes me depressed... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You cant really do something about it, there are always people popping up in weapon related threads with their national inferiority complexes.
Unimportant Blah blah about nothing they have a clue of, its just plain hillarious. Once you get used to it, you laugh your ass off reading their postings http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

Wobble

Jan 26 2002, 03:47

We know what tanks are capable of. But we just don't know how they do it.

No.. we dont.. we know whatever the respective goverments of the tanks ALLOW us to know.. and one of the biggest advantages a weapon can have is for would-be foes to NOT KNOW its TRUE capabilities..

so we dont fully know HOW they do things and we dont fully know WHAT they can do..

Im just flat getting sick of these stupid arguments... neither side really knows shit.. just a bunch of hot air.. just a bunch of
" well in XXX it took XXX shots to kill XXX so its better than XXX because in XXX it only took XXX shot to kill it!! ha, see its better!!"

none of us know shit about either of these tanks.. nothing that REALLY matters..

Ohh its has this.. this doesent have that.. so its no good.. ohh bla bla bla,...

its almost funny to watch the same argument take place ever week with the same idiots spouting the same LACK of info to back up ther baseless stances...

christophercles

Jan 26 2002, 08:00

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmike @<hidden> Jan. 22 2002,07:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Chobham armour is so clasified that if a warrior breaks down in bosnia it has to be gaurded.
A worrior took a hit from a challenger that had a dodgy fault making the gun fire.
The armour saved the crew and they had no damage on them http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Also the people that up-armour the warriors and challengers have to sign a more detailed offical secrets act paper that if about them being imprisoned if they tell anyone about the armour or something like that
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is a little tale from an m1 in desert storm- (taken from the tom clancy book "armoured cav").
"Another more amazing story happened during General Barry McCaffery's 24 mechanized infantry Division's run to the Eupharates River. It was raining heavily, and one M1 mananaged to get stuck in a mud whole and could not be extracted. With the rest of thier unit moving on, the crew of the stuck tank waited for a recovery vehicle to pull them out.
Suddenly, as they were waiting, three iraqi T-72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud-bogged tank. One T=72 fired a high explosive anti-tank round that hit the frontal turret armour of the M1, but did no damage. At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck, fired a 120mm armour-piercing round at the attacking tank. The round penetrated the T-72's turret, blowing it into the air. By this time, the second T-72 also fired a HEAT round at the M1, that also hit the front of the turret, and did no damage. The M1 immediatly dispatched with another 120mm round. After that, the third and now last T-72 fired a 125mm armour piercing round at M1 from a range of 400 meters. This only grooved the front of the armour plate. Seeing that continued action did not have any future, the crew of the last T-72 decided to run for cover. Spying a nearby sand berm, the iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe there. Back in the M1, the crew saw through through thier Thermal Imaging Sight the hot plume of the T-72's engine exhaust spewing out from behind the berm. Aiming carefully throught the TIS , the M1's crew fired a 3rd 120mm round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it.
By this time the crew of the M1 were extremly agitated and making this fact known to anyone who could listen through the radio net. Help in the form of another M1-equipped unit arrived shortly afterwards, and they began trying to extract the stuck M1 from the mud hole. Unfortanatly, the abrams was really and truy stuck. And despite the efforts of the two M88 tank recovery vehicles, the tank would not come loose. Oredered to abandon the stuck abrams, the other M1's began to fire thier own 120mm guns in an attempt to destroy it. The first two rounds failed to penetrate the armour of the mud bound tank. When a third round was fired from a favourable angle, it finally penetrated the outer skin of the turret, causing the stored ammo to detonate. But rather than Destroying the M1, the fire-suppression system snuffed out the fire before it could do any real damage to the electronic systems in the crew compartment.
By this time, further M88 recovery vehicles arrived, And along with the 2 earlier M88's they finally managed to pull the tank out of the mud. The M1 was found to be operational, with only the sights out of alignment due to the ammunition cooking off. The M1 was taken back to the divisional repair yard, where the damaged turret was removed and taken back to the united states and replaced, and the tank returned to the action."

This proves that the M1 might be Heavy (at 70+ tons!), and hard to transport, but they are definatly worth it.
The M1 series also has the same Chobbam armour as the warrior, except it has more of it, and then is back up by a futher layer of depleted urainium armour.

Sandman

Jan 26 2002, 08:03

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @<hidden> Jan. 25 2002,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IMO "ripping" never does any good, the more you beat someone whether verbally or physically the more likely they are to bite back.

If someone is not responding to valid reasoning then just ignore them and move on http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Ok, in a perfect world maybe....

Besides, this is a forum. Half of the fun (IMO) is to speculate and debate about things we dont have the slightest idea about http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Theres no real harm in that, is there?

When "X" makes a "taken-out-of-blue-shit-post" a challenging post is valid...otherwise theres no need for a forum at all. But I agree that there are simple rules to follow - the same rules that applies to a real life discussion. Havent U told anybody to "go xxxx him- or herself" sometime IRL?

And sometimes its fun to "fight fire with fire"...

Flamemode ON http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Placebo

Jan 26 2002, 16:55

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sandman @<hidden> Jan. 26 2002,09:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Havent U told anybody to "go xxxx him- or herself" sometime IRL?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not since I was a teenager no, and that was quite a while ago http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

The issue isn't about debating things we know nothing about, it's about being incapable of debating things without resorting to "STFU I've read more books than you and watch CNN, so there you stupid commie/imperialist (delete as applicable)".... or whatever http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

teargas

Jan 28 2002, 14:05

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Crispy129 @<hidden> Jan. 23 2002,07:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Swatch that Russian made POS break down half of the time in battle. The Russians have claimed bette tanks for almost as long as I can remember by going by stats i.e. bigger gun, bigger engine, heavier armor, ect. , but the American, German, and British tanks always seem to out perform them by far. The one Russian advantage is they out number all of hte other coutries as far as man power goes. The reason that NATO tanks(with the exception of probably French ones http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ) are proven better in the battle field is coordination, night vision capabilities, accurate and now unjammable GPS, and many other things. Of course Russian stuff is better or at least "considered better by the Russian fanboys" if you just go by the bigger is better Tim Allen approach. Truly even today, the Russian tanks are either cheap copies of ours, low maintanence low performance weapons, or low reliability mid-high performance. Also if you are callig it he best tank in the world, you should see the new stealth tank the U.S. is developing/has developed.

Crispy[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's what we call American Patriotism.
Every rookie has a honour to shout "their stuff are poor copies of ours and ours are better than best".
Yeah, right. Go ahead. One day life will give you a lesson to learn and study statements spreading off your mouth.

Yes, that's Americans who invented The Circle.
Yes, that's Americans who discovered periodical table of elements.
And what about Mr. God? No doubt, Mr. J. Christos Jr. also should be American.

So, try to know more before making bare statements and just try to live in peace with yourself by knowing that not every biggest boat made in America and not every achievement of human kind is made there.

teargas

Jan 28 2002, 14:20

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @<hidden> Jan. 25 2002,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at what happend in Afghanistan, something like 500 000 troops fell ill from poor sanitary conditions because the Russians couldn't even train their troops to wash properly. How pathetic.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It is more pathetic. In Vietnam, we all know, American Soldiers were all in sterile white wear and all in perfect conditions. They probably were using Advanced Health Treatment And Hygyene System, thus human history has not known cases of any sickness of American Troops during Vietnam campaign.

Right?

And, of course, none of then were killed.
"Against highly trained and deadly dangerous NVA troops."

Look.
There are two poles.
By trying to set a planket onto other pole you getting to tension with an other. Just try to follow bare truth. Be more objective and less sunjective. Don't be a slave of current context.

Soviet Army lost 15 000 troops in Afghanistan and caused >450 000 hostiles lost. That's maybe because not of all Russian soldiers have been brushing teeth at the mornings but may be not. Anyway it does not make sense. That's war.

Placebo

Jan 28 2002, 15:40

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @<hidden> Jan. 26 2002,04:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">" well in XXX it took XXX shots to kill XXX so its better than XXX because in XXX it only took XXX shot to kill it!! ha, see its better!!"[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think you've been watching too much porn http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

DodgeME

Feb 11 2002, 13:59

Hmmm l don't belive the story with the mud and the 3 t-72 tanks. Were those T-72 crew members drunk?

Benze

Jun 1 2002, 04:30

Well, it's documented. T72s sucked and so did their crewmembers in Iraq. One sabot from a Abrams flamed one and several shots from T72s only resulted in a small dent in the armour.

advocatexxx

Jun 1 2002, 05:42

LOL! After spending a good 20 minutes reading this thread (and all of its pages) it seems like a kindergarten class full of kids of diverse backgrounds who argue aimlessly about topics of which they know little about. You either watch too much "TLC" or other networks who air shows that are nothing but propaganda. You know just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's true : ) (regardless of just how convincing the narrator seems)

First let's clear some issues which were previously mentioned.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mister Frag

It is interesting to note that the US Army has started to phase out the Abrams and rotate it out to National Guard units. What will the Abrams be replaced with? For the next 10 to 15 years, it will be the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV), which is derived from the eight-wheeled LAV III platform.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Abrams will NOT be replaced by a LAV III in the next 10 years. Whatever your source on that data is, it's flawed. If anything, the U.S. Army will upgrade their configurations into M1A2. Abrams' replacement (12-15 years from now) will hardly be a crew-operated tank as it's come to be known. A likely candidate will be the FCS (Future Combat System) shown below:

http://www.materialized.com/misc/FCS.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sgtdwetzel

I have been a "tanker" for over 11 years as a loader, driver, gunner, and tank commander, and have been in Soviet, British, and German equipment, and have seen how they work - and how they don't. T80U the best.....know what you are talking about before you "inform" us of your un-enlightened opinions [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Awww. Well isn't that special. You operated a variety of tanks, good for you. Not to sound like a dick pal, but arguments about "Ohhh this tank is the best and that one is shit" are all but mature. Just because you've driven them and fired their cannons doesn't make your statement true. Different tanks are designed for different purposes. Many factors are taken into consideration when taking into account the battle scenarios, terrain, and so on.

Since most of the modern battle tanks (Leopards 2s, Challenger 2s, T-90s, Merkavas etc) have NOT been in direct combat with one another on a mass scale, one cannot conclude whether they're best or not. Please try to keep that in mind. Merkavas have led a few assaults in Palestine, Challengers have supported missions in Kosovo, but neither one of these qualifies as a mass armed conflict where tanks came head to head with other tanks, AT missiles and attack helicopters. None exept for the M1A1 which proved extremely successful in Desert Storm.

All your "best" braggings are based upon field tests, statistics, etc etc. Hate to break this to you guys, but that hardly concludes whether a tank is worthy of the "BEST IN THE WORLD" title.

Let's just leave it at that and not argue anymore, because if my memory serves me well, this topic was already discussed and in the end, nobody could agree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DU rounds are banned by the geneva connection, so are napalm and landmines.
Before asking me to do a little bit more research, napalm and landmines are banned in NATO countries. Napalm was banned by an United Nations convention in 1980 [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Another bunch of geniuses resorting to the Geneva convention and the rules it includes. What I love more is when these misled individuals make fools out of themselves.

First the DU rounds are not banned, and they are widely in use. The M829A2 which will soon be replaced by M829E3 both use depleted uranium as penetrators.

Neither banned are Napalm and Landmines. BTW Air Force used Napalm in Desert Storm quite often too.

In conclusion, I hope my post will NOT give birth to more "Screw the T-90, M1 is the best" replies, as any individual giving a tank the title of "BEST IN THE WORLD" is merely expressing his patriotism for his country or the country he adores. If and when WWIII breaks out and all the modern tanks are pitted against each other perhaps this debate will finally be concluded, though I doubt it's worth finding out.

Oh and to reply to the original topic "New russian MBT"... A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a vareity of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998.Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lowerr silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higherr cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard.

PS: Just for the record, no M1s were used in Desert Storm. They were either M1A1s or M1A1-HAs.

Satchel

Jun 1 2002, 06:05

Posted on Feb. 11 2002,16:59....
a shame the thread didn´t end there or got locked, talking about digging the dead out of their graves.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BTW, who is interested in the U.S. Army´s future plans regarding FCS and transformation, should watch this video:
: Around the Army in 3000 Seconds: Technology and Innovation for Transformation
http://www.amchistory.army.mil/video/video.html

Tex [USMC]

Jun 1 2002, 07:44

Great, Russia has a new MBT perfectly designed to fight the Abrams and the Leo in Europe, just in time for... for Russia to become a limited strategic partner of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization! Talk about timing.

Miles

Jun 1 2002, 11:01

In reality one sabot shot will destroy a tank, so most of the time is a matter of who shhots first

advocatexxx

Jun 1 2002, 14:38

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles @<hidden> June 01 2002,07:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In reality one sabot shot will destroy a tank, so most of the time is a matter of who shhots first[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Depends on where the round hits and at what angle. M1A2 has thicker armor supported with depleted uranium plates to further limit round penetration. It depends on the kinetic energy the round has whether or not it will penetrate the armor. Even if it does it won't necessarily destroy the tank. It may disable certain components of it (i.e. turret motor, etc).

If I remember correctly the front armor on the M1A2 is so thick that no KE round in the world can penetrate it. Of course that could just be some blabber, though I see it as a possibility.

SKULLS_Viper

Jun 1 2002, 16:22

[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>for example the A2's top speed is listed at 45MPH..we all now it can go faster then that.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Yea it can go faster, or at least the M1 could.My dad told me that the M1 could reach 60MPH with out the Governed on it.All though, my dad said, the crew got pretty uneasy at that speed, cause if you lose you tread, its history for the tank and its crew.
About the M1A2 vs. T80, the so called "best tanks in the world" are not the best in the world, until they are actually 'tryied' out in combat, lets say 100 vs 100 would make it fair for each side to have a chance of winning, then we will know which is the "Best in the World". http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

SKULLS_Viper

Jun 1 2002, 16:24

wow, that was wierd, my post turned out blue. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Warin

Jun 2 2002, 04:54

Is there a way to lock threads more than 3 months old automatically so people dont keep dredging them up? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Jun 2 2002, 06:12

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @<hidden> June 01 2002,07:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.materialized.com/misc/FCS.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
LOL! Nice schematics. Very informative. Perhaps I should call DoD and present my own futuristic tank:
http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~e98_tcr/dfut.jpg

Denwad

Jun 2 2002, 06:34

To my limited knowledge, there is a type of napalm that at the university that it was invented at, it is used as an ashtray http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

AKM74

Jun 2 2002, 07:11

To Assault (CAN)

“””THE RUSSIAN ARMY IS SH*T Look at what happened in Afghanistan, something like 500 000 troops”””

Actually there was 97.000 not 500.000

“”” fell ill from poor sanitary conditions because the Russians couldn't even train their troops to wash properly. How pathetic.”””

If we will follow your logic 15 UK troops recently evacuated from Afghanistan was also didn’t wash their hand? Or UK couldn't even train their troops to wash properly. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Are you n00ts ?

Russian loose 15.000 man in this war (more then half of them “soldiers who didn’t wash their hands”) and kill almost 2 millions Afghanis.

1-300 rates? Can you repeat it? According to recent US performance in Afghanistan I don’t think so. You don’t even control ground you stand on.
I know you say “how fast Taliban fall…” but just say it “How fast it fall to northern alliance. You have nothing to do with it…

“””That’s what you get with an army of conscripts”””

this is fanny.

18 years old conscripts who push “old, train mercenary hide somewhere in the cave? Dam I want all this conscripts in my army. I know many guys on this forum were in army. Just ask them. 10 minutes of actual fighting = 10 mounts of any (and I mean any) training. How many Russian “conscripts” go thru this brutal fighting in Chechnya? 100.000, 300,000? Every one of them equal to 20 highly trained marines without actual fighting experience.
How many marines you have? Don’t count, you never have that much.

“””Look at Chechnya (sp) the Russians suffered heavy casualties from a bunch of untrained rebels, some armed with bolt-action rifles.”””

Bold -action rifles? You n00ts again? They have the same equipment as Russian.
Untrained rebels? All Chechen (except Arabic mercenary) was in Russian army before, they have the same training as federal troops. The only difference is …the don’t have to play by the rules. 10.000 US troops can’t find one “untrained rebels osama”
What you expect from Russians? They have 30.000 osamas running around.

Tex [USMC]

Jun 2 2002, 07:17

dude, cease and desist. This thread is like 4 months old.

Red Oct

Jun 3 2002, 00:20

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @<hidden> June 01 2002,07:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL! After spending a good 20 minutes reading this thread (and all of its pages) it seems like a kindergarten class full of kids of diverse backgrounds who argue aimlessly about topics of which they know little about. You either watch too much "TLC" or other networks who air shows that are nothing but propaganda. You know just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's true : ) (regardless of just how convincing the narrator seems)

First let's clear some issues which were previously mentioned.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mister Frag

It is interesting to note that the US Army has started to phase out the Abrams and rotate it out to National Guard units. What will the Abrams be replaced with? For the next 10 to 15 years, it will be the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV), which is derived from the eight-wheeled LAV III platform.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Abrams will NOT be replaced by a LAV III in the next 10 years. Whatever your source on that data is, it's flawed. If anything, the U.S. Army will upgrade their configurations into M1A2. Abrams' replacement (12-15 years from now) will hardly be a crew-operated tank as it's come to be known. A likely candidate will be the FCS (Future Combat System) shown below:

http://www.materialized.com/misc/FCS.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sgtdwetzel

I have been a "tanker" for over 11 years as a loader, driver, gunner, and tank commander, and have been in Soviet, British, and German equipment, and have seen how they work - and how they don't. T80U the best.....know what you are talking about before you "inform" us of your un-enlightened opinions [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Awww. Well isn't that special. You operated a variety of tanks, good for you. Not to sound like a dick pal, but arguments about "Ohhh this tank is the best and that one is shit" are all but mature. Just because you've driven them and fired their cannons doesn't make your statement true. Different tanks are designed for different purposes. Many factors are taken into consideration when taking into account the battle scenarios, terrain, and so on.

Since most of the modern battle tanks (Leopards 2s, Challenger 2s, T-90s, Merkavas etc) have NOT been in direct combat with one another on a mass scale, one cannot conclude whether they're best or not. Please try to keep that in mind. Merkavas have led a few assaults in Palestine, Challengers have supported missions in Kosovo, but neither one of these qualifies as a mass armed conflict where tanks came head to head with other tanks, AT missiles and attack helicopters. None exept for the M1A1 which proved extremely successful in Desert Storm.

All your "best" braggings are based upon field tests, statistics, etc etc. Hate to break this to you guys, but that hardly concludes whether a tank is worthy of the "BEST IN THE WORLD" title.

Let's just leave it at that and not argue anymore, because if my memory serves me well, this topic was already discussed and in the end, nobody could agree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DU rounds are banned by the geneva connection, so are napalm and landmines.
Before asking me to do a little bit more research, napalm and landmines are banned in NATO countries. Napalm was banned by an United Nations convention in 1980 [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Another bunch of geniuses resorting to the Geneva convention and the rules it includes. What I love more is when these misled individuals make fools out of themselves.

First the DU rounds are not banned, and they are widely in use. The M829A2 which will soon be replaced by M829E3 both use depleted uranium as penetrators.

Neither banned are Napalm and Landmines. BTW Air Force used Napalm in Desert Storm quite often too.

In conclusion, I hope my post will NOT give birth to more "Screw the T-90, M1 is the best" replies, as any individual giving a tank the title of "BEST IN THE WORLD" is merely expressing his patriotism for his country or the country he adores. If and when WWIII breaks out and all the modern tanks are pitted against each other perhaps this debate will finally be concluded, though I doubt it's worth finding out.

Oh and to reply to the original topic "New russian MBT"... A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a vareity of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998.Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lowerr silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higherr cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard.

PS: Just for the record, no M1s were used in Desert Storm. They were either M1A1s or M1A1-HAs.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
i remember this stupid thread from over a year ago and have to say that this is the only smart post ive seen. do people join this forum simply to dig through +year old threads?