Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer
Sorry, but I think you are stretching there..in Grozny, the russians faced dedicated hunter killer teams, were crowded in narrow alleys with piss poor tactical awareness, and were subject to repeated shots at vulnerable areas..turret tops, engine decks, vision blocks..
If the US were to be as tactically unsound as the russians were in grozny-1, face trained opponents, and finally be caught under overpasses, high rises from which RPGs rained down, I doubt the Abrams would do much better.
Lastly - Iraq saw obsolete russian tanks, and Bosnia..well were there any modern units even there?
Its but now that russian and ukrainian tanks are recieving thermal imagers ad the like which the west takes for granted. Though in terms of armour KE rounds, the west is still ahead.
|
in Iraq the US has faced dedicated hunter killer teams, to little avail. However in ODS Abrams were hit dozens if not hundreds of times by atgm's to no effect. Yet missiles of a similar technology base used by Israel vs Syrian tanks were very effective, as were IDF 105mm rounds. In Bosnia formerly federal Yugoslav tanks found thier way into the hands of various (mostly serb) militias and when used as tanks did not do very well and ended up being employed as direct fire artillery until taken out by NATO airstrikes or forced to withdrawl.
No where have Russian tanks lived up to claimed protection levels, nor can they hope to match MBT's. Penetrating shots lead to flying frying pans a problem not associated with bustle rack storage or the super massive armor of tanks like the Chally 2.
On another note, no matter how good or how poor the US 105mm rounds were, The bulk of Soviet 125mm rounds until the late 80's were nearly worthless vs the Abrams past 1500m due to the bore riding sabot design.