M1A2 vs T-80U

**Stinger** · 29 Aug 03,, 22:25

Originally Posted by Praxus

[The Leklerk is a worstless overexpensive peice of sh*t.

More so if its manned by Frenchmen. :D

Well Thats my last French bash for the week see everyone Tuesday.

**Bill** · 29 Aug 03,, 23:49

TROLLS:

"The Abrams was made with the T72 in mind, the American tank needed to counter the new Soviet machine."

No it wasn't. It was made with the T SERIES in mind. It was designed to outpunch and outarmor the T series while at the same time providing tremendous mobility.

"After field tests its British 105mm L7 (M68) gun proved to be ineffective against frontal armour of the Soviet T72 tank."

Wrong.

USMC M-60A3TTS tanks using the 105mm gun had no problems destroying Iraqi T-72's in the Gulf. The 120mm gun was introduced to counter the T-80.

"That is how the M1A1 was born, the German Rheinmetal main gun which was used on the Leopard 2 tank. The M1A1 proved to be quite expensive especially with its new ballitic computer and other electronic appliances, probably too expensive to be produced in large numbers in a full scale war with the Soviet Union."

Since the United States Army and Marine Corps have over 3,000 M-1A1's and newer models, i guess your statement here is just plain stupid, eh?

"The M1A2 was developed after the Cold War was over and the need for a tank that could be easily mass produced in a large scale war was no longer needed."

The M-1A2 was always planned as a legacy improvement over the earlier models. It's design has nothing to do with the end of the cold war.

"The M1A2 got a new ballistic computer new armour etc.
But that made it too heavy, it is not only some 17 tonnes heavier than the T80 but it is also more cumbersome. It has a great difficulty of negotiating rivers on pontoon bridges."

The M-1A2 is still one of the most capable manuever warfare tanks ever devised. If you think otherwise, you are just deluding yourself. Tell me, how far and how fast did the US 3/7 Cavalry race against continuous opposition?

Oh....

3/7 blasted thier way right through the forward elements of the Medina RGFC division so effectively they got themselves surrounded.
So they proceeded to stave off numerous counter attacks while holding their objective until relieved. US 3/7 tankers PROVED the excellence of the M-1A1HA design.

"It cannot swim under water unlike the T80."

Niether can a T-80. LOL.....but you're welcome to try.

"The gas turbine engine of the M1A2 (which was copied from the T80's gas turbine engine) unlike its Soviet counterpart proved to be ineffective in desert enironments. "

Um, no it wasn't copied, and um, no it wasn't ineffective in the desert.

The M-1 prototype was introduced in 1976....the T-80 in well, 1980.

"The Chobham armour of the M1A2 is not undefeatable as many of you think, in this Gulf War many M1A2's were disabled by RPG's, and some were destroyed by RPG's."

Sorry, wrong.

"Consequently one might think what damage would a 125mm T 80 round do to the armour of the M1A2. It would do great damage."

Ummm, not in real combat it hasn't. It's been totally ineffective. Sorry cuz.

"When Germany was reunified, the Bundeswehr fired T72 rounds at their Leopard 2's which has Chobham armour and it proved to be ineffective in stopping 125mm Soviet rounds."

Errr, wrong again. It was the Leo II's shooting at the T-72's.

LOL, the US Army has had T-72's since the late 70's.

"So my opinion is that the T80U is a better tank than the M1A2 because of the following reasons:"

:-(

"1. It is more mobile and agile than the M1A2, it is also faster."

The M-1 will hit 70mph with the governer disabled.

"2. It will outrange the M1A2 with a "Kobra" ATGM at the range of 5000km, the M1A2 would not hit anything up to the range of atleast 3000m."

The T-80 can't see 5000m, it can't even see 2000m at night.

The M-1A2SEP can easily engage targets beyond 3500m at night.

"3. It's engine is much more reliable than the M1A2."

LOL! That's just funny! Russian engines BLOW!

"4. It can negotiate rivers up to 5 meters deep while the Abrams can't."

Yeah, in the press brochures.....don't try that yourself at home sonny.

"5. It has a higher rate of fire because of the automatic loader, unlike the Abrams which doesnt even have a Rate of Fire because that depends on the loader and his training."

The loader is a huge advantadge to the Abrams. This just shows how totally clueless you are. LOL.....troll.

"6. The T80 is cheaper and easier to mass produce."

Yeah, cause it's a piece of shit.

"7. The fire control systems of the T80 are more reliable in extreme cold and extreme hot environments."

LOL, based on um, what facts?

"8. The T80 has a further range."

Um, gun or driving? Gun, no. Driving, not farther than the A2SEP.

"9. The T80 has a sleeker profile making it a harder target to hit than the Abrams. "

Cause the T80 isn't a MBT. It's a MEDIUM tank.

"The T80 is an all round better tank than the M1, in a full scale conventional war the T80 would wipe the floor with the Abrams."

It is nearly impossible to contain the laughter at this point....

The reality is that in a conventional war with the US, the AH-64 and A-10 would ravage the (lol) 'mighty' T-80.

All the Abrams would be doing is smashing through to the objective against shattered opposition....

**Praxus** · 30 Aug 03,, 00:05

The T-80 can only fordge 1.5 meters of water, it requires a snorkal to fordge 5 meters. The max it can go is 12 meters of water and that is with BROD-M.

Russia also only has 3500 T80 tanks, most of the other tanks are older T-72.

**Bill** · 30 Aug 03,, 01:21

LOL, don't count on it snorkeling at all in real world conditions.

Ever seen what happens to a tank that tries to traverse loose, muddy terrain?

Gets stuck.

Now try it under water.

Gets stuck and the crew suffocates.

Good idea.

**kingfrogger** · 30 Aug 03,, 04:25

Stinger's on the floor laughing right now, and he can't get up.

Oh, BTW... does anyone have any VIDEO of that last part???

I'd LOOOOVE to see that. Laugh my ass off for days...

(Hell, I'll even settle for some pictures or stories...) :twisted: :Dbanana

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 Aug 03,, 04:35

I've had the pleasure to examine some of the Soviet bridging systems and they're amazing to see and fast to deploy. Also had a chance to talk to a Maj M Neimanis, a Russian/Red Army engr at the time.

We share the same thoughts concerning tankers and some of the stuff that should have made their lives easier. If tanks could go underwater, then the engrs wouldn't have to exposed themselves to OPFOR TACAIR trying to build bridges.

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 Aug 03,, 05:22

M21,

I wouldn't count too much on the Iraqis as the example of Russian armour practise. Their T-72s got shot up by a USMC recee bn using LAV-25s (now, why the Stryker bde would abandon the 25mm is a mystery to me).

This being said, the T-80 wasn't intended to take on the Abrams. That job belonged to their 155mm howies. Arty was to fix the Abrams and Challengers in place by direct bombardment and cratering. This would allow the T-80s to envelop the force.

Proko · 30 Aug 03,, 08:07

to engage t80u from 3400meters =)

Think of it m8 and dont forget about "SHTORA" system used on T80 and keep ARENA in mind =)

Manfred Held german specialyst in armor vehicles said in 1996 that
they had fired on T72m that they got from GDR, and that its active armor is eqvivalent of 2000mm Rolled Homogeneous Armor .
T80 has even better armor so T80 could stand against any KE rounds even against 140mm prototipe cannons that only in state of developing in USA... (Jane's International Defense Review, 1996, №7)

**Mayh3M** · 30 Aug 03,, 11:46

The M-1 prototype was introduced in 1976....the T-80 in well, 1980.

M21Sniper --- now I shall stop the personal attacks & trolling!!! wuahahahahahahs :twisted:

Indeed the first M1 (with 105 mm canon) came in arms in 1980, and T-80 came in 1976 --- this is official data as for US, as for Russian! :twisted:

Sorry, wrong.

.... nope !!! RIGHT !!! There was destroyed about 100 Abrams's of different modifications in first Gulf war! Most of them was destroyed by very old ATGM "Malytka" and RPG HEAT shells, but there was even the Sabot's destroying of M1's tanks! You just don't want to speak about it, as US official brief! Because you tank developers wants your money for the continuing of "development of the best tank in the galaxie" :D :D

LOL, the US Army has had T-72's since the late 70's.

... the first T-72, that was got by US CIA in 1989 was the Romanian T-72M1 (export less version of T-72A-modernized[1976])

The M-1 will hit 70mph with the governer disabled.

.... Russian tankers have a greate fun makin' on roads on their T-80Bs the light civil cars and fast civil Buses ... in my region, where is the 400 of T-80BVs and I've been near the place, when one of the T-80BV makes on road the light civil car ... the speed of tank was about 110-120km/h :twisted:

The T-80 can't see 5000m, it can't even see 2000m at night.

The T-80 can't see 5000m, it can't even see 2000m at night.

The M-1A2SEP can easily engage targets beyond 3500m at night.

.... he-he ... on that range M1A2SEP even wouldn't penetrate the Russian body-armor .... I'm even not tlking about the % of target hitin' with unguided shell! :roll:

LOL! That's just funny! Russian engines BLOW!

.... LOOOOOL ..... WHAT'S ABOUT SOME FACTS??? :twisted: .... I could bring you nice fact about M1's engine's life .... durin' the Gulf War there was the ride to the one of the Iran base to make the fire assistment ... so while this turn the 4 M1's of 16's of the 4 platoons was BLOWEN, because of engine (it was in not so dust weather, after the good rain had fallen!) ... the reason was because of dust in those "super engines" ... T-80 have no such disadvantage, because it takes the air from the 3-4 m altitude and have the 3-stage air clean system, and even with that there is the function to clean the dust right in the engine's mechanisms! :twisted: :D

The loader is a huge advantadge to the Abrams. This just shows how totally clueless you are. LOL.....troll.

.... THE LOADER --- IS THE DISADVANTAGE!!! .... your developers dream about the day, when they could make the autoloader, which would satisfy your tank-conception ammo keepin' in the rear of the turret! :twisted: The loader must be some kind of magic-master, which could load the 30 kg M829 shell into the stabilized gun (jumpin' up and down), while tank is ridin' the non-road surface .... aaaahhahahahaha.... :D :D :twisted:

LOL, based on um, what facts?

.... yes ... T-80U was tested at high-cold regions of Russia in the North and the deserts of Afganistan(not "Afdirtistan", bigross ... you are the real llama) and Kazakhstan!

Cause the T80 isn't a MBT. It's a MEDIUM tank.

.....aaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha......or holy shit ... :D :D :D ... that's the conclusion of REAL LLAMA!!!!

All the Abrams would be doing is smashing through to the objective against shattered opposition....

.... abrams would suck after the first hit of somekind of old Russian shell, like old RPG (Iraq experience), or old 3BM16....and almost have no chances against the "Kobra" or "Reflecks" guided missles!

:G

Proko · 30 Aug 03,, 13:04

T80 has 1 more power suply that can be used without turning engine on
and use all electronic defence and aiming systems so it makes T80 nearly invisible to infrared visors on long distance so we can make an ambush :Dbanana

**Praxus** · 30 Aug 03,, 15:53

ook at your statement and please learn one god damn thing about tanks.
3,000 IS NOTHING! in an all out war. During the Second World War there were over 40,000 T34's produced and over 30,000 M4 Sherman's. And those were only one variant of a tank. Now picture this, what could 3000 M1's do in a war with proportions as huge as WW2. NOTHING.
and how much would it cost toproduce atleast 20,000 Abrams tank?
sh*tLOADS. so please stop asking daddy for information and spewing half chewed crap out of your mouth, think before you post.

Just stop pretending Russia can wage all out war with us they can not.

Actually we have 8,000 Abrams(2,500 in storage). Russia has around 20,000 I believe, only 30% of which are new T-80 and T-90 tanks.

It is a absolute rediculus statement that the US would have to match tank for tank, soldier for soldier, in a war against Russia.

Oh and please try and make at least one coherant sentence.

Sniper has "spent more time with armor then you have spent on a toilet bowl"

yes right keep watching discovery channel.
ever heard of the Yum Kippur war?
probably not, but let me tell you, when the Israeli's tried to use their Air Force to destroy the Egyptian armoured brigades on the east bank of the channel. they were easily shot down by SA2 missiles. in 3 days 60% of the IAF was shot down. that is 60%!!!
now the IAF comprised of F4's and Mirage III"s with the speeds of over mach 2.
what could the 500km/h Warthog or the 250km/h Apache do against a SAM???
especially that now more advanced systems than SA2 have been developed.
and do not forget about the opposing air forces a well.
what can an A10 do against a Su 27 or a Mig 29? think about it, boy.

You are making another stupid presumption, first that the war would be on mainland Russia, and that we wouldn't have Jammers and the Wild Weasals all over(which we would).

Only an irrational iditiot that knows nothing about military doctrine would propose that an A-10 would go up against an Su-27 and Mig-29.

OMG! now you actually proved how stupid you are.
thank you very much for making it clear to us.

It is a Medium Tank, no how mutch you want to change that it is still true.

**~~s_qwert63~~** · 30 Aug 03,, 15:58

Originally Posted by Praxus

it depends on the loader...
You don't need to be highly trained to load that quickly you just need to be strong.

so you can put a random but strong cowboy into hte loaders position?
you need to take the round out, turn it around (in the tight quarters it's pretty hard) put it into the gun, close the breech....

They have been known to use their night scopes during the day because you can easily see trough camoflouge, dust, and smoke. The Night Scopes(IR) have an identification range of 4000 meters.

your point?

You claimed the T-80 is faster, this is clearly not true.

its speed might not be substantially faster. but it is a heck of a lot more mobile.

It only has a range of 4000 meter range.

with an Irtysh fire control system it will hit targets at the range of 6000m with the success percentage of 90%.
and it can be fired at night, you need to use the night sight (which as it is written in a book has a range of 3000m) and point the laser beam at the target. but in this regime it is fired semi automatically, which means you have to hold the beam on the target.

The Leklerk is a worstless overexpensive peice of sh*t.

is that why the americans want to use the "overepenisves piece of shits'' loader on their future tanks?

The T-84(Black Eagle) is not the best in the tank by far, if you looked at the stats you would relise this. It is also not being built so it is irrelivent.

if you want to argue with French and German tank specialists then go on.
the T84 is not the Black eagle, the T84 is a Ukrainian modification of the T80.
The Black eagle doesn't have a designation yet.
Its stats are:
135mm or 155mm main gun.
weight: 48 tonnes
engine: gas turbine GTD1400 horse powered engine.
speed: 75km/h
profile: 2 meters (!)
most is unknown, but from what i know it looks very good.

**Praxus** · 30 Aug 03,, 16:03

your point?

How about you read ALL of the posts instead of just quoting one.

with an Irtysh fire control system it will hit targets at the range of 6000m with the success percentage of 90%.
and it can be fired at night, you need to use the night sight (which as it is written in a book has a range of 3000m) and point the laser beam at the target. but in this regime it is fired semi automatically, which means you have to hold the beam on the target.

The tank has a 1A42 Fire Control System. The Acquisition range is 5,000m and with an ATGM it has a 70% chance of hitting and destroying the target. For night time it has a range of 2300m(1700 below Abrams) and it can not fire ATGM this way. It has to use regular sights and have the target lit up.

**~~s_qwert63~~** · 30 Aug 03,, 16:10

Originally Posted by Praxus

ook at your statement and please learn one god damn thing about tanks.
3,000 IS NOTHING! in an all out war. During the Second World War there were over 40,000 T34's produced and over 30,000 M4 Sherman's. And those were only one variant of a tank. Now picture this, what could 3000 M1's do in a war with proportions as huge as WW2. NOTHING.
and how much would it cost toproduce atleast 20,000 Abrams tank?
sh*tLOADS. so please stop asking daddy for information and spewing half chewed crap out of your mouth, think before you post.

Just stop pretending Russia can wage all out war with us they can not.

Actually we have 8,000 Abrams(2,500 in storage). Russia has around 20,000 I believe, only 30% of which are new T-80 and T-90 tanks.

It is a absolute rediculus statement that the US would have to match tank for tank, soldier for soldier, in a war against Russia.

Oh and please try and make at least one coherant sentence.

tell your buddy all of the above.

Sniper has "spent more time with armor then you have spent on a toilet bowl"

the closest he probably got to a tank was making a little plastic model out of it.
i dont htink a guy who says:
"omg you dumb troll out 1337 M1 Abrams tanks PWN your stupid shi77y T80's! I RUEL!!! I AM 1337!"

hes an idiot.

You are making another stupid presumption, first that the war would be on mainland Russia, and that we wouldn't have Jammers and the Wild Weasals all over(which we would).

you mean htose wild weasels that got shot down by their tens during "jamming" missions in vietnam?
remember something from this war, when all of the american high command started whining about Russian jammers in Iraq?
because with those jammers on they couldn't hit shit from the air, they even went to whine to the Kremlin. Now in mainland Russia there are way MORE jammers than that and jammers which are more advanced htan that.

Only an irrational iditiot that knows nothing about military doctrine would propose that an A-10 would go up against an Su-27 and Mig-29.

only an irrational idiot such as him would put out a statement saying that A10's and AH64's would neutralize the all of the Russian armored divisions. it is simply an idiotic assumption.

It is a Medium Tank, no how mutch you want to change that it is still true.

well no matter how mu(t)ch you say it. a T80 is an MBT.

**Praxus** · 30 Aug 03,, 16:13

only an irrational idiot such as him would put out a statement saying that A10's and AH64's would neutralize the all of the Russian armored divisions. it is simply an idiotic assumption.

He didn't say they would kill them all you dumbass, learn how to read. He said they would reck havok on them or something to that effect.

remember something from this war, when all of the american high command started whining about Russian jammers in Iraq?
because with those jammers on they couldn't hit sh*t from the air, they even went to whine to the Kremlin. Now in mainland Russia there are way MORE jammers than that and jammers which are more advanced htan that.

The only Russian Jammers in iraq were GPS jammers and we killed them with GPS guided bombs in some cases. They didn't do jack shit to our weapons.

So please just stop pretending.