US army vs. Russian army

[lwarmonger]

Since it was introduced in 1980.

Really? I was always under the impression that a lack of a firing stabilization system was one of it's biggest flaws. Perhaps I am thinking of the T-72?

[lwarmonger]

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?

Tanks fight each other quite a bit, regardless of what they are created for. A big part of what they do is try to kill other tanks, although I agree that it is preferable to use other means to do so.

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.

[Bill]

"tanks are not supposed to fight other tanks at all"

Now there's an interesting bit of fiction.

Care to explain why all tanks use sabot rounds then?

HEAT?

HESH?

By your reasoning they'd all use blast/frag and beehive rounds.

What were MBTs created to fight? Infantry?

Seriously dude, get a grip, this is not 1917...

[sniperdude411]

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?

The m829a1 APFSDS cartridge weighs 41.1 lbs. The m830a1 weighs 53.4 lbs. A physically fit person can easily lift 50 lbs.

[troung]

"Now there's an interesting bit of fiction. Care to explain why all tanks use sabot rounds then?"

Well in a way he has a small point, tanks were made at first to support infantry advances and not kill other tanks, yet of course times have changed... ;)

What a tank does depends on the mission it has to do in each different conflict.

[troung]

"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"

SA-2, MiG-21PF/PFM/MF, IL-28, AK-47/AKM, SS-N-2, Komar, M-46, D-20, T-54/T-55, ZSU-23-4, ZU-23-2, SA-7, D-74, AT-3, RPG-7, R-13 and other modern (for the times) Soviet built weapons faced the "free world forces" during the 2nd Indochina War. All of these were standard issue USSR/WP equipment.

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

[dalem]

Tanks fight each other quite a bit, regardless of what they are created for. A big part of what they do is try to kill other tanks, although I agree that it is preferable to use other means to do so.

Yup. And actually I could make a case that MBTs have evolved into tank destroyers, and that the WWII U.S.Tank/Tank Destroyer doctrine was flawed only in timing, not in concept.

-dale

[Bill]

An MBT is an infantry support tank and tank destroyer rolled all into one.

Which was kind of the point.

MBTs are designed to kill everything arrayed against them on the ground.

[Agent VE]

Хорошо, мой хороший друг - эксКГБ. Не волнуйтесь о сведениях России, являющихся большим тогда Америка, U.S.A.s намного лучше. Плюс наши вооруженные силы и экономика - лучшее на Земле. И наш Флот является наибольшим, рядом с непобедимым! Америка победит, очень легко.

Translation:

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.


No offense.

[Dima]

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

[Shuriff]

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

Man, YOU were saying something about reality? We never even had that much planes in Korea at all. I wonder if we had so many fighters in SU. Just an example of American propaganda.

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.

Well, I've asked to correct me, you did it, thank you. But these systems showed themselves poorly? They were easily beaten? Just a pleace of cake, isn't it?

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

Anyone ever found just one of these 'state of the art' jammers? They have shown that on TV? And you have seen "Made in Russia" logo on it?

And another thing - man, you have forgotten about Kornets and WMD. Oh, wait, WMD doesn't counts - it was supplied by the West

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

Now to the Desert Storm.

41 Mig-29, 33 Mig-25. Both export versions, but that's not the point - they had these, but never used them - they've all been evacuated to Iran.

Iraqy SAM systems:
SA-2 Guideline - no comments
SA-3 Goa - developed in 1961
SA-6 Gainful - developed in 1967
SA-9 Gaskin - developed in 1968
SA-13 Gopher - developed in 1976

Plus some
SA-7 Grail - developed 1968
SA-14 Gremlin - developed 1973

All of these are simplified export versions.
Modern they are.

[Shuriff]

An MBT is an infantry support tank and tank destroyer rolled all into one.

Which was kind of the point.

MBTs are designed to kill everything arrayed against them on the ground.

Exactly! NOT for 1:1 Tank vs Tank dueling.

What are Abrams MBTs doing right now in Iraq? Are they fighting other tanks?

[Prosto ILya]

Хорошо, мой хороший друг - эксКГБ. Не волнуйтесь о сведениях России, являющихся большим тогда Америка, U.S.A.s намного лучше. Плюс наши вооруженные силы и экономика - лучшее на Земле. И наш Флот является наибольшим, рядом с непобедимым! Америка победит, очень легко.

Елки…
Who translate this from English to Russian? I hope, not this KGB friend.
И наш Флот является наибольшим, рядом с непобедимым! – Our Fleet is biggest near the invincible!
Ehh?

Не волнуйтесь о сведениях России, являющихся большим тогда Америка, U.S.A.s намного лучше – Do not worry about Russia’s knowledge, which is big then America, USA much better.

[highsea]

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...

Well Dima, I looked at that Russian forum. Interesting, but when they told you about the 2E42-4 Fire Control System, they were talking about the T-90, not the T-80. You should try to pay attention to details like this. The T-80 uses the 1A42 Fire Control System. FAS describes it as able to fire if the tank is moving slowly, I don't think full speed (or jumping through the air) is the quite same thing. Then again, I am not a tanker, so my opinion doesn't mean much.

BTW, this is really lame:

good, thanks guys, upload it, my internet is good enough to handle that

i'll need the video and the link for an argument elsewhere, you can help Seva, here's the link to the argument,

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...3&page=4&pp=20

my mistka,e i thought that they couldn't, sorry

what about the T-80U? or UM1? thanks, Seva, you mind helping me out, i mean it's pretty much in the bag, but i'd like an overwhelming victory, so?

http://warfare.ru/forum/viewtopic.ph...r=asc&start=30

[Shuriff]

Well Dima, I looked at that Russian forum. Interesting, but when they told you about the 2E42-4 Fire Control System, they were talking about the T-90, not the T-80. You should try to pay attention to details like this. The T-80 uses the 1A42 Fire Control System. FAS describes it as able to fire if the tank is moving slowly, I don't think full speed (or jumping through the air) is the quite same thing. Then again, I am not a tanker, so my opinion doesn't mean much.

AFAIK me means T-80U which has 2E42. And its not a FCS, its a Gun Stabilyzer.