Page 9 of 53 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 786

Thread: M1A2 vs T-80U

  1. #121
    Regular
    Join Date
    22 Aug 03
    Posts
    43
    bigross86

    YOU ARE THE LLAMA!!! :D :D :D

    Just look what you've said ...

    American equipmeant has ALWAYS triumphed against Soviet equipment. Israeli-Arab wars, Afdirtistan, OIF. American MBT's are always at least at a 3:1 kill ratio. 3 Soviet for 1 American, that is.
    ...eeee....that's in what planet??? :D :D :D

    Homer & Stinher

    ... you are the global relations dweebs ... eee...one shot -- two kills .....aaahahahahahshs :D :D

    Was there even such a thing as the M1P1? Amazingly enough, FAS has nothing on the M1P1. There's another hole in your response.
    ... oh yeah ... and I see, that you even don't know anything about US armor .... or maybe you want to rewrite the history? :twisted: :D

    Yes, what we're doing is focusing on the armor and the tank, not the people inside. One of the (many) cases where American armor went up against Russian armor and won was PGW 1. Doesn't make a difference if the T-80U was moving or sitting still, point is it was destroyed by M1's sometimes, not M1A1's.
    ..... WUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHASSAHSHSHSAHS..... :D :D :D

    You're right. The round went through two T-72's, not a T-80U. My bad.
    ... and than it goes and hit another planet.... muahahahahahhahshshaha :D :D

    Mayhem, you moron....the M-1A2 and A1HA have the same friggin armor package.
    .... no it's YOU ARE THE DAMMIT IMBECILE!!! ... What a hell you were doing around armor? .... Masturbating? :twisted:

    The M829A3 sabot will penetrate the frontal plate of any known MBT to a range of 1500 meters.
    .... well ... that's possibly could be true, but indeed, you even don't know why! :roll: ... as it true, that untill the 3BM26 all Ts could pierce any M1s from the frontal area .... guys ... that's enough for curses ... I think you are the too old to be such idiots ... maybe we should begin the constructive conversation? usin' sientific data and values? .. or you just a couple of flooders?

    If there is one thing i am confident in in life, it is that you do NOT know the internal compostition of either the M-1, IM-1, M-1A1, M-1A1HA, M-1A2, M-1A2 or M-1A2SEP.
    .... emmm .... you'd forgotten the M1P1 modification! :D :twisted:

    horrido

    .... nice words from moderator! I was thinking, that you must more polite to other people .... :roll:

  2. #122
    Regular
    Join Date
    22 Aug 03
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Horrido
    So, how wide is the turret on a T-80? There can't be much space inside if the frontal armor and/or sides of the turret is 2.4 meters (eight feet) thick, combined. Or is this "equivalent" of conventional steal armor units, factoring in the reactive armor?
    .... you were near the T-80's turret? ... stop givin' a f*ck .... just listen what is the real Russian armor! :-x

    ... read this:

    http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-80.html

    ... and this:

    http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html

  3. #123
    Regular
    Join Date
    22 Aug 03
    Posts
    43
    Watch the pottymouth Ivan.

    Now go settle down for a steamy bowl of Doroga Ayish, Mayhem.

  4. #124
    Staff Emeritus
    Chief Subversive
    Horrido's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Secure, and undisclosed.
    Posts
    969
    Svegda, tuy nichevo nyesnayesh...

    Actually, I was next to a T-80 turret, in 1995, in Vladivostok. I just hope I can find the photo to post it...
    The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

    I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

  5. #125
    Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Aug 03
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayh3M
    bigross86

    Homer & Stinher

    ... you are the global relations dweebs ... eee...one shot -- two kills .....aaahahahahahshs :D :D
    Who the hell is Stinher? Oh you meant me right.....forgot that preschool education... I suppose I should be horribly wounded by being called a dweeb, however since my mom has rountinely called me a Shitass my for the last 15 years or so I guess I'm desensitized to such scathing remarks.


    I suppose I fed him Breakfast Sniper, but I ain't cleaning up his messes unless you guys give me the power to edit his posts :D
    Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

  6. #126
    Regular
    Join Date
    22 Aug 03
    Posts
    43
    "-Her" --- in Russian it's "cock" :twisted:

    Ok, Stinger, I should stop first --- that's as for the curses ...

    Maybe you should stop the flooding too and bring here some more usefull and substantial information? :roll:

  7. #127
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    13,109
    In tank-to-tank duels, M1s often beat T-72 tank crews to the first shot and that shot often scored a fatal hit. Moreover, the 120-mm gun's much greater effective range kept the M1 well out of the 125-mm gun's killing range. First-shot kills were registered at ranges from 2,000 to 3,650 meters. The T-72s, lacking thermal sights and firing less effective ammunition, were at a fatal disadvantage. The Army report also noted the T-72s high vulnerability to the M829A1 depleted uranium APFSDS rounds fired by the Abrams, the Iraqi tanks succumbing even when sheltered by 5-foot (1.5-m) thick berms.

    According to the Army report, eight Abrams crews reported being hit by fire from the Iraqi T-72 , but there was no damage. Later reports claimed that 100-mm rounds fired by T-55 tanks simply glanced off. The 125-mm rounds from the T-72 dented the M1A1's armor, but did not penetrate. Of more than 1,950 M1s and M1A1 tanks in the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations (KTO), only four suffered catastrophic damage and four were damaged but repairable, the Army report stated. Later analysis revealed that of the four that caught fire, three were hit erroneously by U.S. AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. No crewmen were injured because the bustle doors and blow-off panels worked as designed to vent the explosions upward.

    Much of the credit should go to the well-trained M1 crews as well as a highly competent maintenance cadre that had the tanks in prime condition at the start of the offensive. Readiness remained at above 90 percent during the offensive. By comparison, the poorly trained T-72 tank crews were often slow to react and missed first-shot opportunities. Many T-72s were simply abandoned by their crews and later destroyed.
    How very interesting...
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  8. #128
    Regular
    Join Date
    22 Aug 03
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86
    ...the Iraqi tanks succumbing even when sheltered by 5-foot (1.5-m) thick berms...
    How very interesting...
    As I've already told --- that swearing is against the rules!

    ANd don't bring me such fairy tales again ... no scientific data ... no any true numbers ... and finally THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HIT TARGET THROUGH THE SHELT !!! Because you should shoot from under the ground!!!! :-x

    .... I told you bigross86....I've heard that many times .... there is no truth in such texts! Only advertising of "best tanks in the galaxie" ... :-(

  9. #129
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    13,109
    That's from an official US Army brief. Declassified, obviously...

    Stinger-I'm not cleaning up after this creature, I'm loading the BB gun...
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  10. #130
    Regular
    Join Date
    22 Aug 03
    Posts
    43
    That's from an official US Army brief.
    .... I never believe that briefs....cuz' it's for the stupid laymans and press ... :-|

  11. #131
    Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Aug 03
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayh3M
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86
    ...the Iraqi tanks succumbing even when sheltered by 5-foot (1.5-m) thick berms...
    How very interesting...
    As I've already told --- that's bullsh*t! ANd don't bring me such fairy tales again ... no scientific data ... no any true numbers ... and finally THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HIT TARGET THROUGH THE SHELT !!! Because you should shoot from under the ground!!!! :-x

    .... I told you bigross86....I've heard that many times .... there is no truth in such texts! Only advertising of "best tanks in the galaxie" ... :-(
    In the land of the blind the man with one eye is king.... unfortunatly for you Mayhem you don't one eye.
    Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

  12. #132
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Mostly Harmless
    bigross86's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 03
    Location
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    Posts
    13,109
    unfortunatly for you Mayhem you don't one eye.
    Stinger, you're off feeding detail, you're being grmatically incorrect jult like him. Spelling is gonna go next...
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

  13. #133
    Senior Contributor lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Aug 03
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    If there is one thing i am confident in in life, it is that you do NOT know the internal compostition of either the M-1, IM-1, M-1A1, M-1A1HA, M-1A2, M-1A2 or M-1A2SEP.

    Care to post a link to a site that has published this 'data' so they can be immediately reported to the FBI for breaching sensitive military information?
    There is many people who know this, really.
    I think I saw you posting on warships1 landforces forum - ask Paul Lakowsky. This is partially his data.

  14. #134
    Senior Contributor lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Aug 03
    Posts
    773
    An interesting article about the "Abrams" performance:
    Posting as it is, just some comments and underlines.

    "Posted 3/25/2003 7:56 PM Updated 3/27/2003 5:50 PM
    7th Cavalry inflicts heavy casualties in running battle
    By Sean D. Naylor, Army Times
    EAST BANK OF THE EUPHRATES RIVER, Iraq — Capt. Clay Lyle's voice on the radio gave no hint of the violence that was about to erupt.

    Pfc. Joseph Dwyer, 26, of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, carries an Iraqi boy who was injured Tuesday in the fight at Al Faysaliyah.
    By Warren Zinn, Army Times

    "We're in contact," Lyle said calmly.

    His words marked the first moments of a 24-hour running battle that pitted the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division against Iraqi troops as the squadron pushed north toward Baghdad along the Euphrates River. (Related item: Photo gallery: Al Faysaliyah: A 24-hour battle)

    By the time the fighting ended, Lyle's regiment had lost three Abrams tanks, a Bradley fighting vehicle and several trucks — but no U.S. soldiers were seriously injured. Two of the tanks were knocked out by Iraqi shelling, the first Abrams ever lost to enemy fire. (yeah, sure)

    The fighting began at 8:30 p.m. Monday local time (12:30 p.m. ET Monday) when about 200 Iraqi troops ambushed the 500-vehicle convoy at night along the western bank of the Euphrates.

    Red tracers arched back and forth as the Iraqis, dug in 100 yards back on each side of the road, traded fire with the U.S. troops. The U.S. forces poured high-explosive shells into the Iraqi positions, and the Iraqis responded with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, hitting two U.S. trucks and a Humvee.

    Crucial battles

    The battles described in this firsthand account could prove crucial as coalition forces advance on the Iraqi capital. The 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division helped open one of several river crossings that the coalition needs to support an attack on Baghdad. That's because U.S. forces must have clear and safe routes for supplies and troops coming from southern Iraq and Kuwait.

    The encounter ended soon after squadron commander Lt. Col. Terry Ferrell ordered his soldiers to fire howitzers (6 "Paladins") at the Iraqis. The radio crackled with taut voices barking grid references, then six orange fireballs blossomed over the Iraqi positions. A pair of A-10 Warthog jets delivered the final blow, dropping bombs, then strafing the enemy position.

    That was just the start.

    Just before midnight local time (about 4 p.m. ET) in the streets on the edge of Al Faysaliyah, just west of the Euphrates, the Iraqis attacked again.

    Dozens of Iraqi militiamen hit the convoy with rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. The convoy dispersed up side streets, but the leading elements headed for a bridge that seemed to offer an avenue of escape.

    The bridge held up under the first five vehicles but buckled under the 70-ton weight of an Abrams tank, plunging the tank into a gulch. (2 tanks actually, but who counts) The crew escaped uninjured (one sunk with all the crew), but Ferrell had no choice but to turn all 500 vehicles in the convoy around to find another route.

    In the darkness and confusion, with Iraqis continuing to fire on the convoy, two more tanks and a fuel truck rolled into ditches. Of the three tanks that had fallen into ditches, Ferrell managed to put two back on the road, but he had to abandon the other tank and the fuel truck. The squadron then retraced its way through the town, knocking out Iraqis, some firing rocket-propelled grenades.

    Once out of town, the convoy continued pushing north toward Baghdad. A few hours later, as dawn approached, U.S. soldiers spotted Iraqis armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades about 1,000 yards from the road on each side.

    The fight was on again.

    With his convoy strung out for many miles behind him and his troops weary from almost 10 continuous hours of combat, Ferrell called in airstrikes. Within minutes, two more A-10s dropped eight 500-pound bombs and raked the Iraqi positions with cannon fire, setting two tree lines ablaze.

    "It looks like 'Apocalypse Now,'" Air Force Tech. Sgt. Michael Keehan, Ferrell's senior enlisted tactical air controller, said with a look of pride.

    The troops watching the burning tree lines could now see buildings among the trees. A man came running from one house, waving a white cloth and screaming that his family had been hurt.

    He was told to bring his family to the road, where a medical team patched up a 4-year-old boy, a pregnant woman and two men, one in his late teens, the other in his 30s. All had shrapnel in their legs.

    Maj. Todd Albright, a doctor, predicted a full recovery for all the victims except one man who would probably lose a foot. The family was driven away in an Iraqi ambulance.

    Ferrell gave his troops two hours to catch their breath. He estimated his squadron had killed 150 Iraqi militia troops — not including those killed by the A-10s — with no casualties among his own soldiers.

    The three Bradleys and two tanks that had made it across the bridge before it collapsed rejoined the squadron and the convoy continued its drive north, crossing the Euphrates and working its way up the eastern bank. A sickly yellow-gray fog filled with fine grit settled over a landscape of marshes and bogs and empty factories.

    Iraqi forces appeared from around almost every corner, turning the morning and afternoon into a running firefight. At one point, the squadron commander's driver, Pfc. Randall Duke Newcomb, had to steer his Humvee with one hand and his knees while firing out the window.

    The squadron captured three enemy soldiers before the Iraqis, perhaps using an anti-tank gun (100mm AT gun MT-12/2A29) mounted on a truck, blasted the rear of two Abrams tanks, setting them ablaze. (With one shell??) One driver was trapped inside his tank for several minutes before crawling to safety.

    In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, nine Abrams tanks were damaged by mines but were repaired. No U.S. soldier has ever died in an Abrams.

    As they settled in for the night, squadron members knew they had been lucky. But Baghdad was still 80 miles ahead, and the best of Saddam Hussein's troops were in the way."

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-25-war-zone_x.htm

  15. #135
    Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Aug 03
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by bigross86
    unfortunatly for you Mayhem you don't one eye.
    Stinger, you're off feeding detail, you're being grmatically incorrect jult like him. Spelling is gonna go next...
    Hey I'm just trying to see if maybe its our correct spelling thats throwing him off... kindof like another language.
    Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. M1A2 vs Challenger 2 (intelligent debate)
    By Shadowsided in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 320
    Last Post: 18 Sep 10,, 20:23
  2. T-95 vs M1A2
    By Lunatock in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 181
    Last Post: 11 Feb 08,, 13:11
  3. M1A2 In Iraq against RPG-7
    By ofp85 in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 12 Jul 07,, 01:56
  4. M1A2 vs Challenger2
    By Shadowsided in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19 Mar 06,, 14:45
  5. M1A2 vs. Leopard 2
    By Ironduke in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 17 Oct 04,, 18:29

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •