Thread: US army vs. Russian army

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Since when could the T-80 fire accurately while on the move? Also, the T-80 cannot survive a hit from a 120 mm cannon. An M-1 (original) can, and has, survived multiple hits from the 125 mm cannon standard on Soviet tanks. Firing stabilization (for shooting on the move) and greater range are among the M-1's other advantages. And don't forget the auto loader. Slower than a human loader, by far. So an M-1 can shoot farther, faster, and get more kills with the hits it does make. I'd say that is a superior tank.

since they got the 2E42-4 stabiliser and since they got the Refleks ATGM, it can fire while jumping(in mid-air) and while going full speed

the T-80 can survive a 120mm round, what are you talking about, a T-80 can survive 6 RPG-7 shots in the REAR on average in and a T-72 can survive 3 on average in the REAR

yes, of course it survived, when the tanks were buried in the sand, used steel penetrators, and only half-charges of propellant, also, they didn't face any T-80's, which uses a differnt main gun more accurate

not by far, it saves the space of one person, i'd say otherwise, it will never be able to hit the T-80, because the T-80 is among the worlds fastest and most maneuverable tanks, and since it can fire on the move, extremely accurately, especially with ATGM's, right in the rear, boom, buh-bye Abrams, also, because of its lighter weight, it can go places that the Abrams can't, and in range, you're talking about the T-72 which only has a range of 1,800 meters, while the M1 has an effective range of 3000m, the T-80U has an effective range of 5,000 meters because of its ATGM

"So you can say the same thing about the Russians themselves.

That's just an excuse for poor performance, it does not change the fact that the Iraqis did have many modern Russian systems."

not entirely, Russia kept and are keeping their arms in better shape, it would be a reluctant opportunity for an Iraqi tank commander to get 3-4 excercises a year, excuse for poor performance, that's exactly what it is because this dictated the poor performance, what modern military systems did Iraqi have, huh? T-72's, please, the T-72 wasn't even an MBT, it was supposed to be a MPT(mass produced tank) to accomodate the more advanced T-64 and later the T-80

MiG-29, yea, i guess you could say it was advanced, but how well did they maintan it, how many flight hours?

"That about sums up your entire post."

what is that supposed to mean, my posts are full of idiocy and stupidity?

"The Mig-15s were piloted by top WWII aces, and got smacked down by F-86s at the rate of 10:1."

BS, sorry, hope that wasn't rude, but widely accepted as BS, the more realistic figure is 4:1 in the favour of the F-86's, not 10:1, i don't know if you've heard why, but they didn't ention many downed aircraft, so they reduced it, many people still believe 10:1

"The Mig-21 and SA-2"

but the MiG-21 performeed very well, did it not, until Top Gun came into play, then because of superior American training, the ratio started failing, wasn't it like 1:! in the beginning of VietCong?

i don't know much about the SA-2

"And primary Soviet personnel and equipment are known for their proper training and maintenance?"

umm, that's why they made their equipment so rugged, for example, MiG-29, Su-27, AK-47/74/100 series, their entire doctrine was based on outnumbereing the oppoennet, although, they realized that they needed military hardware of quality work such as the Flanker for example, but they wouldn't be able to maintain so many pieces of hardware very well, so they created the hardware to be very rugged, and dependable, under any situation, which in most cases, was the case

"I have seen them yes, but I have never lifted them. I'm in the infantry myself. And I'm just going on what everything I have read has said... the autoloaders load slower than a human gunner. It was said earlier how the 7-8 rounds an autoloader can load a minute is fairly slow by modern standards."

you are correct though, an autoloader is worse than having a human load, but it does save one man, which gives you an overall outnumbering of 1/4 of the enemy if you calculate it

but the reasons why an autoloader is inferior, it cannot reload while moving the turret, and a human reloads faster, and can move the turret when reloading, thus, reducing the more realistic amount of shells released in one minute to 4-6

"The USSR still had T-34-85s around well past the Korean War... nice try.."

oh definitely, they still have one in active service, lol, but those T-34's after Korea were used for different purposes, or they started using them for different purposes, and by Korea, they were nothing near modern, and defefinitely not after, for obvious reasons

"Well, my good friend is ex-KGB. Do not worry about Russia's intelligence being greater then America's, U.S.A.s is much better. Plus our military and economy are the best on Earth. And our Navy is the largest, next to unbeatable! America will win, very easily."

well, i hope you were aware that Russia has doubled the amount of spies it has, i am not sure if i will find the article again, i think i posted it on this topic

http://warfare.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57&start=0

somewhere in there, i encourage everyone to take a look at this site every so often, especially this topic if you're nterested in how Russia is doing economically and demographically, add it to your favourites if you want, great topic, run by ME!, lol