Thread: US army vs. Russian army

"Remind we again when was the last time western military equpment met contemporary soviet/russian one on the battlefield? Not obsolete, not some downgraded export version? I'm afraid that would be WWII. Maybe I'm wrong, PLEASE correct me."

Vietnam and Korea. In some respects, Desert Storm.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

With a proposed ~380,000 man force, Russia has more than ample forces to deal with any foriegn incursion. Chechnya, like Iraq, is only a military issue because the police are insufficent to deal with the insurrection. However, during the USSR days, you will not find the Soviet Army dealing with these issues but the KGB. Thus, it goes counter to your arguement that they need an army to do the job of the police.

But the KGB (and interior ministry as well) had troops in the way that a regular (say, American) police force does not (as well as far greater powers for liquidating dissent). The KGB was not a police force, but a secret police. Very different.

Originally Posted by Dima

"That even a T-80 can beat? Perhaps if the M-1A1 is caught from behind at close range, but other than that... The T-80 is a tank with a lot of flaws, and in a 1 on 1 match with an original M-1 it would die in all but the most extreme circumstances."

can an Abrams fire while moving at full speed, no, but a T-80 can, also, it depends which version of the T-80 you're referring to, the T-80 itself wasn't that impressive, only a 1,000 hp gas-turbine engine, the T-80U was amazing, and the T-80UM1 is an awesome tank, the UM alone is great as well

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.

"Desert Storm, no, they weren't properly trained and the equipment was not prperly maintained"

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.

"Since when could the T-80 fire accurately while on the move?"

Since it was introduced in 1980.

KGB had only Border Guards units as their military force. The main idea was that KGB was to catch all possible spies not only by counterintelligece means, but also by border control.

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.

Uh, sorry to disappoint you, but tanks are not created for dueling other tanks.
1:1 Abrams vs T80 duel has been discussed countless times before (all inconclusive, of cource), but I still can't understand why - tanks are not supposed to fight other tanks at all. Sometimes they have to, but its not their main job.

PS. Man, have you EVER lifted any tank cannon shell by yourself? Or even seen it?

"1. In NKoreans have fought on t34/85s and IS-2s, which are of course great tanks, but were already obsolete by then - in SU they've been massively brought out of service by that time. The only modern thing there was MiG-15 which showed themselved quite nicely AFAIK."

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

"Anyway, overall war ended with a stalemate, isn't it?"

That's irrelevant to the question at hand.

"2. Vietnam - again only SAMs and MiGs where anyway modern. Even without mentioning the difference in the overall number of aircraft on both sides, can't say it was an easy ride for you."

You said, "When has the US ever faced modern soviet systems?" The Mig-21 and SA-2 were both very modern systems during the vietnam war. Therefore Vietnam qualifies.

"3. Iraq - don't make laugh. What iraqy piece of equipment was modern in 1991, not even mentioning 2003? Name just one for a start. It's all been obsolete."

Well in 2003 the Iraqis used the 'state of the art' GPS jammers supplied by Russia.

During ODS the Iraqis had all manner of modern Soviet equipment, from the Mig-29, to various air defense radars and SAM systems.

Originally Posted by Dima

Desert Storm, no, they weren't properly trained and the equipment was not prperly maintained

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

Please. This is reality.

-dale