Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Karma
I realized that you put things in bold, but I have no idea what your are disputing. I was being facetious that the Iraqi army did well in the war, I thougt the following sentences cleared that up. Are you saying that the Iraqis actually did well or did you not understand my sarcasm?
I said the Russian Kornet is the only threat against an Abrams. Are you one of those tankies that was put under the myth that the Abrams is invincible and the Kornet is not a threat? If that's the case we have no more to talk about, because the only idiot is you.
Are you saying there are other weapons in the Russian arsenyl that can easily destroy take an Abrams? If that's the case I should elaborate, I often jot things down in my haste, and for that I'm sorry and I realize that a 500 pound bomb from a MIG would take out an Abrams. Current US strategy however is that ground/tank forces are not sent into the battlefield until we obtain air supremacy. The Russian T-38 is no match for an Abrams, as evidenced in the War in Iraq, hence my statement; the only thing that would take out an Abrams is the Russian Kornet. Again I don't know what your dispute is, maybe you're disputing that Russian Kornets were being sold to the Iraqis, and if that's the case I will cite the link, it has been released to the media.
A little advice, if you are going to dispute something cite argument so people can understand you and it can become a discussion instead of name calling. Because when don't; you make it clear who the idiot is, and I will clue you in, it's not me. In fact I think I'll write you off as someone I will ignore.
|
If my highlights were not obvious enough, your idiocy is clear.
I was giving you a chance to redeem yourself, to realize where you went wrong. Apparently, my confindence in you was misplaced.
1. The Gulf War showed nothing about the capabilities of the Soviets because the Iraqis were trained way worse. It showed nothing about the real fighting capabilities of Soviet weapon systems, because so much of that equipment was dumbed down. The biggest development in the mid-80s was Soviet heavy-ERA to counter sabots. The Iraqis did not have it. They didn't have good ordnance, they didn't have thermal imaging and night fighting capabilities. There is absolutely nothing here that is surprising in terms of the Abrams being in every way superior. That is the first reason you are an idiot.
2. The Kornet can overcome every tank currently fielded. That is not a big surprise. One of those tankies who thinks the Abrams is invincible? No single tanker I've ever talked to thinks that, not one, and there like 20 of them on this board alone. The Kornet is not its only threat. And I'm not talking about MIGs smart ass, I'm talking about EFPs, roadside bombs, Metis, TOW, RPG-29, landmines, crappy bridges, side shots from weaker cannons, mobility kills. There is a host of things out there that can kill a tank, Abrams included. There is nothing particularly special about the Kornet besides its range, otherwise, there are plernty of weapons that can kill an Abrams, and that number expands exponentially as we begin talking about side and rear shots during ambushes. That, is the second reason you are a dipsh!t.
You come on this board with a lot of knowledgeble people, and you realize that they are. But instead of sitting there and learning and listening, you try to prove yourself as being really smart, when the fact of it is you're just some 15 year old puke who watched the history channel a couple of times and thinks he's a class A tactician. THAT, is the main reason why you are a dipsh1t. Welcome to my ignore list, though I suppose you probably won't last long on this board, most fools like you don't.