Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tinkertoys
Say what you want about the T-90, does not change the fact that the M-1 is far superior, if the T-90 was, we would have a version of it.
-Tink
|
if the T-90 was superior, America would have it, that's the most absurd comment i have ever heard, imagine buying a weapon made by a RIVAl nation, like, you're competing against this nation for sales in the world arms market, if you buy their weapons, what do you think othred countries will do? buy they're weapons now, screw the other nations, obviously they're going to choose their own
and i'd like to differ, the T-90 is an amazing tank regardless of what anyone says, it has chobham styled armour in addition with ERA, i mean, how much better does it get, also, extremely light, much faster, the Diesel engine sucks though badly, lower silhouette
also, the M1 can fire ATGM's, while on the move, with a 90-95% hit accuracy
" 7 or 8 rounds per minute, which is a significant advantage of this tank over the majority of its foreign competitors."
that's wrong, as much as i love the T-90, that's what brings it down, 7-8 rounds/minute is actual pretty low among more modern tanks, i mean the Leclerc can fire 11-12 rounds, and i believe that it's the same with Merkava etc.(Merkava Mk.4B is the best tank in the world)
well, TinkerToys, it didn't necessarily have it before, as the T-72 existed way before the M1 even first came out, and it's just a heavily upgraded T-72, was supposed to enter initial service in 1994 i believe, 2 years after the M1A2
just to comment, the T-90 costs around $2.1-2.5 million per tank, while the M1A2 costs $4.3-5.5 million per tank, basically 2v1
"and you are wrong because the M1 is a better tank."
and why is that philospher?
also, huh what, America spends about $399 billion on their military
while Russia spends about $55-60 billion(both figures are for GDP PPP)
"and has been proven on the battlefield."
lol, now this is absolute bull, lol, yes combat proven against T-72 tanks that were buried in the ground with only the turret appearing, yes, that totally denotes the combat prowess of a tank, its supposed to be a maeneuverable vehicle with tons of firepower, and since the T-72's range is only about a half(engagement range, 1.8km compared to 3km for the M1A2) they need to utilize their superior speed to move around the Abrams tank, which is exactly what the Iraqi idiots didn't do
also, the T-72 tanks employed sheels with steel penetrators instead of tungsten ones, and they only had half-charges of propellant
"Another pointless thread... American army is better for America, Russian is better for Russia"
very good point Shuriff, Russia requires a conscript army right now, because it has such a large land masse, it needs as many soldiers as ossible, contract soldiers are wrong for Russia, America doesn't need conscripts because they're only about half the size of Russia, but Russia needs numbers, not quality right now, they have a lot more threats than America
well, actually, 1998 was the worst eyar for the Russian army, in which government expenditures on the military practically reached $0, like, i'm serious, i think it was only $4-5 billion, ever since then, they've been increasing, and actually received more money than the budget expected