Yeah but you also have to take into consideration that just US tanks outnumbered Iraqi tanks roughly 4 to 1 according to your post. This means that That ratio is a bunch of bull. That ratio is good for overall coverage of armor destroyed but not tank vs. tank scenario like was posted before. That was my argument all along.blisteringsilence wrote:
I sure hope you all are talking about the game. In real life, the RPG7 has a tough time defeating a *properly* armored HMMWV, let alone a MBT.Sinyukov wrote:
I agree with you on that one. NOthing beats that if you need to take out a tank.Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
RPG7s own M1A2s
So, on to the talking. This is from globalsecurity.org:
"Although fielded in 1980, the Abrams remained untested for over 10 years. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, there were concerns that the Abrams would fall victim to the sand and long months of continuous operation without the luxury of peacetime maintenance facilities. There were also doubts about the combat survivability of the extensive turret electronics. Immediately following President Bush's decision to commit US forces to the Gulf region in defense of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, American armored units began the difficult process of relocating to the threatened area. Due to the shear size and weight of the Abrams, the C-5 Galaxy, the largest cargo aircraft in the US Air Force inventory, was only able to handle one tank at a time. This meant that nearly all of the Abrams tanks deployed in the Gulf War were shipped by cargo ship. Although slow in coming, the arrival of the Abrams was much welcomed by Allied forces, as it is capable of defeating any tank in the Iraqi inventory.
The Iraqi Army had a considerable array of tanks, mostly purchased from the former Soviet Union. Chief among these were about 500 T-72's. These modern Soviet tanks were armed with an excellent 125mm smoothbore weapon and had many of the same advanced features found on the Abrams. Despite it's advanced design, the T-72 proved to be inferior to the M1A1's deployed during the Gulf War, and compared more closely with the older M60A3 tanks used there by the US Marine Corps. In addition, Iraq had a number of earlier Soviet models: perhaps as many as 1,600 T-62 and about 700 T-54, both of which were developed in the 1960's. These tanks were widely regarded as clearly inferior to the Abrams, but were expected to be highly reliable mechanically. The Gulf War provided military tacticians with an opportunity to evaluate developments in tank design that had not been available since World War II.
In his book "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait", author Norman Friedman writes that "The U.S. Army in Saudi Arabia probably had about 1,900 M1A1 tanks. Its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground (because of the stabilized gun mount) gave it a capability that proved valuable in the Gulf. The Abrams tank also has… vision devices that proved effective not only at night, but also in the dust and smoke of Kuwaiti daytime. On average, an Abrams outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1,000 meters." The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).
As the Gulf War shifted pace from Operation Desert Shield to Operation Desert Storm, and the preparatory bombardment lifted, U.S. Abrams tanks spearheaded the attack on Iraqi fortifications and engaged enemy tanks whenever and wherever possible. Just as they had done in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Army used it's tanks as fixed anti-tank and artillery pieces, digging them into the ground to reduce target signature. However, this also prevented their quick movement and Allied air power smashed nearly 50% of Iraq's tank threat before Allied armor had moved across the border. After that the Abrams tanks quickly destroyed a number of Iraqi tanks that did manage to go mobile.
The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see. Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.
During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks."
Now, onto the multiple discussions of whether or not a 20:1 ratio is possible or impossible. I would like everyone to go back to their 6th grade math class. A ratio is just that, a ratio. So, if we are to assume that there were 18 American tanks disabled, that means that 320 (18 x 20) enemy (Iraqi) tanks were disabled by American forces. Now boys and girls, is that really that hard to imagine? I realize of course that many, MANY more tanks were destroyed by the American air forces, but 320 is a totally believable number.
So, onto a comparison between the T-80 and M1A2. First of all, no one here has discussed the greatest weakness with ALL the Russian designed tanks since the sixties. In the interest of faster reloading and decreased crew size, the Russians opted for an automated reloading system. In practice, a well trained tank crew of ANY nationality can load just as quickly as the automated system.
Regardless, the problem with an automated system is that it leaves both a live shell and a live powder charge sitting IN THE CREW COMPARTMENT at all times. In the M1A2, shells are stored in a rackmounted container in the back of the tank, sealed behind blast doors. All it takes to cause a catastrophic explosion in a T-72 or T-80 tank is penetration of the armor in the SMALLEST way.
So, now for this vaunted "reactive" armor. Explosive Reactive Armor, or ERA, is only effective against weapons that utilize a chemical (i.e. explosive) manor of destroying an enemy vehicle. Therefore, while ERA might be useful in defeating a HEAT round, it is all but useless against the DU discarding sabot rounds that are fired by the M1A2. These rounds travel at 5,500 fps, meaning that if the ERA is triggered at all (remember, they are designed to be triggered by the explosion of a HEAT round), by the time its triggered, the round has already penetrated the entirety of the armor, and the damage is done.
Additionally, the vaunted "extended range" of the T-80 series of tanks is due to a pair of what are essentially 55 gallon drums that are mounted to the back of the tank by explosive bolts, similar to the external fuel drop tanks carried by figher aircraft on missions that require extended range where midair refueling is impossble. Admittedly, these drums can be jettisoned by the TC with the flip of a pair of switches, but if a simple tracer round from a machine gun hits one, it will ignite the fuel, spilling burning diesel over the air intake of the turbine engine, choking it to death. This is just poor design.
So who has the superior tank, you ask? I'd go with the Abrams. But that's just me. I'm an American, so its all propaganda, right?
edited to correct the velocity of the APFSDS-T round. I initially stated it was 4,250 fps, which is correct for the 25mm version of the round. The 120mm tank round, however, travels at roughly 5,500 fps.
Poll
In RealLife The Better Tank is ?
| T72 | 2% | 2% - 9 | ||||
| T80 | 10% | 10% - 35 | ||||
| M1A Abrams | 62% | 62% - 220 | ||||
| others | 24% | 24% - 86 | ||||
| Total: 350 | ||||||
I have to agree with Sinyukov at this time.. My grandfather was mobilized to German Waffen SS infantry legion called "Legion Estland" by force and fought against communists on Russian front.. he shared his warstories with me and by him T34-s were sometimes nearly invulnerable to antitank cannons..weird thing but most effective cannons against T34-s were Flak-cannons..
Without USSR none of the allies wouldnt won ww2.. Germany was way too powerful.
And btw., D-day in Normandy came when Germany was already weakened. USSR was already able to defeat it alone.. So the most important part of US in ww2 was mostly technological aid to soviets.. cars, tanks, supplys..
without it soveit would be defeated..probably.. there are just too many "maybe´s"
but clear is that US wouldnt be able to defeat Germany alone.. or even with the help of UK
Without USSR none of the allies wouldnt won ww2.. Germany was way too powerful.
And btw., D-day in Normandy came when Germany was already weakened. USSR was already able to defeat it alone.. So the most important part of US in ww2 was mostly technological aid to soviets.. cars, tanks, supplys..
without it soveit would be defeated..probably.. there are just too many "maybe´s"
but clear is that US wouldnt be able to defeat Germany alone.. or even with the help of UK
Last edited by [ESF]Shaqan (2006-01-27 16:30:25)
Hello folks. I actually registered here just to put in my views on this subject. You are not going to see stats quoted by me. You are not going to see articles pulled off of various websites. Why? I don't need them. What I am going to be giving you are my experiences and personal observations.
I am, if not an old fart, then well on my way. I was in the United States Army for 14 years, all of it in Armor and Field Artillery. I have loaded, driven, and gunned on the M1A1. I have taken a nice tour through the M1A2, as well (even though I was arty at the time), and I have poked my head around captured T-72s. I like to think I know what I am talking about.
First, the T-72 was not made to be used by the Soviet Union. IT was a tank built primarally for export to other nations. Very few, if any, T-72s were actually used by the Soviet Union. They mostly relied on the vastly better T-64B and T-80.
First, just to get it out of the way. Someone has been claiming the virture of the RPG-7 for taking out M1s. This is laughable. I assume this was coming from someone who was remembering the fevered reporting during Gulf War 2 about the "super-RPG" that took out 4 or five tanks. What didn't make the news is that under investigation, in EVERY SINGLE instance, the kill shot was from the rear, was a 25mm hole, and the tank was in the proximity of at least one Bradley IFV firing 25mm DU penetrator shells.
Some stats have been quoted saying that the T-72 was faster and more manueverable than the M1A1. Usually stating the max road speeds of 73kph for the T-72 vs 62 kph for the M1. What this stat does not show is that while this is the maximum speed for the T-72, it is the speed for the M1 set by its GOVERNOR. That is rigght; the M1 series tank has a governor on it to limit its speed. Why? WIth the governor removed, the M1A1 can eaisily reach speeds in excess of 120kph. That is 75 miles per hour. The problem is that turning at that speed would destroy the tracks. Off-road, the M1A1 can maintain its 62kph (it isn't using its maximum power), while the T-72 is bogged down to about 20kph. And turning a tracked vehicle is based on braking one trak or the other, or both. I don't know about the T-72 in this, but an M1A1 (all 63 metric tons of it) can brake from 30mph to zero in NINE FEET. 50 kph to stop in less than 3 meters. Most of our cars cannot do that.
The gun on the M1A1 and M1A2 is not the best in the world. If the determining factor of that ias the longest range kill, that honor goes the the Challenger's 120mm rifledd cannon (4200+ meter kill). The M1A1's 120mm smoothbore has made kills in excess of 3000 meters. The Max effective range of the T-72's 125mm gun is less than 1000 meters.
The U.S. Army has established that the 'effective' range of the cannon on the M1A1 and M1A2 as 1200 meters. This is not due to any limits in the gun or fire control system, but limitations in Target Identifcation. At ranges above 1200 meters, gunners cannot positively identify the type of target they are shooting at. They can see it is a tank, but cannot make out features to determine a T-72 from an M-60A3, or a Leopard from an Abrahms. They can hit it and kill it 49 times out of 50, but they can't tell you exactly what they just killed. From a soldiers standpoint, we prefer our gunners to know who they are killing. This 1200 meter trigger line (as tankers call it) still allowed American tankers to kill Iraqi tankers from beyond the range of thier own guns. Hardly sporting, but "all is fair in love and war."
Next, the M1A1 is just as accurate firing on the move, while the T-72 has to stop to fire. Enough on that one, I think.
Ammunition Storage. This may seema strange area of comparison, but there is ample reason. The M1 series tank has a loader, who is responsible for loading the cannon. He hits a knee switch, which slides the 250 pouind stainless steel door out of the way to present his ammunition. The main tank rounds of the M1 are in a blast proof magazine on the rear of the turret, with blow-out panels on top of the turret to direct an ammunition explosion up and away from the crew. So, if a round actually manages to penetrate the ammo area, the crew survives.
On the Soviet tanks, the 125mm gun is fed by an autoloader. The rounds are seperate (shell from powder) and are loaded seperately. Teh carosel that holds the powder is located around the turret ring (where the turret meets the hull of the tank). By sheer coincidence, American tank gunners are trained to aim at the turret ring, since this is an easy line to ID on any tank, providing an aiming reference. Kinetic penetrator (aka sabot round) drives through the turret ring, sprays molten steel on the bags of powder, powder detonates, frys the crew (who bake and char rather quickly), and creates an enormous overpressure, which launches the turret a hundred feet in the air. Call me selfish, but I tend the prefer the M1's method of ammo storage.
Well, I have typed enough for one post. I can go on, and will if anyone remains unconvinced or wants more observations. I barely scratched the surface so far. Have fun and carry on.
I am, if not an old fart, then well on my way. I was in the United States Army for 14 years, all of it in Armor and Field Artillery. I have loaded, driven, and gunned on the M1A1. I have taken a nice tour through the M1A2, as well (even though I was arty at the time), and I have poked my head around captured T-72s. I like to think I know what I am talking about.
First, the T-72 was not made to be used by the Soviet Union. IT was a tank built primarally for export to other nations. Very few, if any, T-72s were actually used by the Soviet Union. They mostly relied on the vastly better T-64B and T-80.
First, just to get it out of the way. Someone has been claiming the virture of the RPG-7 for taking out M1s. This is laughable. I assume this was coming from someone who was remembering the fevered reporting during Gulf War 2 about the "super-RPG" that took out 4 or five tanks. What didn't make the news is that under investigation, in EVERY SINGLE instance, the kill shot was from the rear, was a 25mm hole, and the tank was in the proximity of at least one Bradley IFV firing 25mm DU penetrator shells.
Some stats have been quoted saying that the T-72 was faster and more manueverable than the M1A1. Usually stating the max road speeds of 73kph for the T-72 vs 62 kph for the M1. What this stat does not show is that while this is the maximum speed for the T-72, it is the speed for the M1 set by its GOVERNOR. That is rigght; the M1 series tank has a governor on it to limit its speed. Why? WIth the governor removed, the M1A1 can eaisily reach speeds in excess of 120kph. That is 75 miles per hour. The problem is that turning at that speed would destroy the tracks. Off-road, the M1A1 can maintain its 62kph (it isn't using its maximum power), while the T-72 is bogged down to about 20kph. And turning a tracked vehicle is based on braking one trak or the other, or both. I don't know about the T-72 in this, but an M1A1 (all 63 metric tons of it) can brake from 30mph to zero in NINE FEET. 50 kph to stop in less than 3 meters. Most of our cars cannot do that.
The gun on the M1A1 and M1A2 is not the best in the world. If the determining factor of that ias the longest range kill, that honor goes the the Challenger's 120mm rifledd cannon (4200+ meter kill). The M1A1's 120mm smoothbore has made kills in excess of 3000 meters. The Max effective range of the T-72's 125mm gun is less than 1000 meters.
The U.S. Army has established that the 'effective' range of the cannon on the M1A1 and M1A2 as 1200 meters. This is not due to any limits in the gun or fire control system, but limitations in Target Identifcation. At ranges above 1200 meters, gunners cannot positively identify the type of target they are shooting at. They can see it is a tank, but cannot make out features to determine a T-72 from an M-60A3, or a Leopard from an Abrahms. They can hit it and kill it 49 times out of 50, but they can't tell you exactly what they just killed. From a soldiers standpoint, we prefer our gunners to know who they are killing. This 1200 meter trigger line (as tankers call it) still allowed American tankers to kill Iraqi tankers from beyond the range of thier own guns. Hardly sporting, but "all is fair in love and war."
Next, the M1A1 is just as accurate firing on the move, while the T-72 has to stop to fire. Enough on that one, I think.
Ammunition Storage. This may seema strange area of comparison, but there is ample reason. The M1 series tank has a loader, who is responsible for loading the cannon. He hits a knee switch, which slides the 250 pouind stainless steel door out of the way to present his ammunition. The main tank rounds of the M1 are in a blast proof magazine on the rear of the turret, with blow-out panels on top of the turret to direct an ammunition explosion up and away from the crew. So, if a round actually manages to penetrate the ammo area, the crew survives.
On the Soviet tanks, the 125mm gun is fed by an autoloader. The rounds are seperate (shell from powder) and are loaded seperately. Teh carosel that holds the powder is located around the turret ring (where the turret meets the hull of the tank). By sheer coincidence, American tank gunners are trained to aim at the turret ring, since this is an easy line to ID on any tank, providing an aiming reference. Kinetic penetrator (aka sabot round) drives through the turret ring, sprays molten steel on the bags of powder, powder detonates, frys the crew (who bake and char rather quickly), and creates an enormous overpressure, which launches the turret a hundred feet in the air. Call me selfish, but I tend the prefer the M1's method of ammo storage.
Well, I have typed enough for one post. I can go on, and will if anyone remains unconvinced or wants more observations. I barely scratched the surface so far. Have fun and carry on.
bullshit
Not to anyone else but to the first post.
Not to anyone else but to the first post.
Last edited by n1nj41c l337ne55 (2006-01-27 17:12:23)
How can you say a tank that has never been in battle is the best tank? It makes no sense.elite wrote:
challenger 2 is the best, the chart shows how succesful the tanks where in battle, challenger 2 has never been in battle, u r just a stupid noob how knows jack shit
Fine. Consider this. What would have happened if the U.S. never did anything for the war at all. No lend-lease,no troops, no tanks,arty,fighters,bombers,ammunition,gas, etc.etc. Like you said it was a combo of everyone. So if one nation wasnt there it wouldnt have worked out. INCLUDING THE US. God, i mean comon, good for you russians, but yeah, without us, no england, no england, no two fronts. May be anSinyukov wrote:
How can you say some stupid shit like that.Medic875 wrote:
What a load of crap!!!Spetz wrote:
2ndLt.Tucker you said the iraqies had the worlds largest air defence system in the world, how does that have bearing the soldiers entered iraq through saudi arabia, and a second note it may have been the largest air defence system but it wasn't operational
only truly operational air defence system in the world is the one in the URAL mountains, and its mainly used for anti balistic missile purposes
america has never fought a well equiped or well trained oponent since WW2, and still you had to resort to the H bomb to win it for you
If not for the US All of mainland Europe would be jacksteping to the Nazi Leaders orders. And as for using the Atomic Bombs, well it save milions of Japanese lifes (ala: Kamikaze).
The US is not perfect by any standard, no one else is either; however, I don't seem to remember anyone calling for help (last hundred years or so) from the Brazilians or French or South Afrikaans etc. A lot of US blood has been spilled to help keep FREEDOM for a lot of the world.
20,000,000+ lives have been lost from Soviet Union in WWII so what they don't matter or anything? How can you claim that it was just US that came and destroyed the nazis. As far as I remember reading in books and hearing from people who lived through those times (i.e. my grandmother, grandfather, and my late great grandmothers), by the time US landed for the D-day USSR had already turned the tide and was marching toward Berlin. I personally think that you're comments are offensive to me as a Russian and a great grandson of a Person who went through the entire WWII, Nazi concentration camps and post war imprisonment for allegendly being a traitor. It was not US that won the war, it was not USSR that won the war, It was the world that won that war together. US fought Japan while Europe fought Germany. Later they combined after Japan posed no real threat. Just an FYI.
P.S. By the time US started bombing Germans for the first time, Russians had already turned the tide and were freeing captured cities.
here's a link of the timeline: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t … w2time.htm
One more little edit. Just a thought, but for all of you who actually think US won WWII. The only reason why D-Day or any other onland operation was a success was because Germany was fighting TWO fronts. They were fighting Russia or USSR at that time which was advancing massively with arguably the BEST Medium tanks in that war period T-34/76 and T-34/86s and they were fighting US and Britain on the Western front. Now imagine if USSR fell victim then you guys would have to face Germany in its full might which would not be so easy to Defeat US had three biggest disadvantages in that war. It is a different continent which did not allow imediate resupplies was the first and the second was their armor power (not air power but armor) was weak German SuperTigers would have owned almost anything dished out at them and by the time reinforcements arrived they would have had new tanks waiting. Also Remember the Luftwafe (don't know about the spelling) airpower of Germans? It was the best airforce of WWII and is still considered the defining force of the 20th century. You put this together and Germany was way to powerful for US and Britain to take by themselves which automatically means that US DIDN'T win this war. Plus US was divided fighting to Countries at once. This war was won by All COUTRIES EQUALLY.
overexageration but seriously, your argument works both ways.
Retards saying the rpg will "own teh abrams"
Seriously get your facts straight.Wikipedia wrote:
During the 2003 U.S invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation, the RPG has become a favorite weapon of the Iraqi guerillas fighting U.S. troops. Since most readily-available RPG-7 rounds cannot penetrate M1 Abrams tank armor, it is primarily used to attack soft-skinned Humvees in supply convoys and unarmored trucks, and also as an anti-personnel weapon against infantry foot patrols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propelled_grenade
The site if you're even interested.
And to all of you who keep saying "oh the challengers the best, oh youve always been up against poorly equipped troops, oh oh oh."
Ever heard of the cold war? How about the atomic and fusion bombs? If we went up against anyone who is well equipped it would probably be in WW3 or something and guess what? The majority of the well equipped are nuclear powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Think about it.
And now for something irrational and completely different-
M1 ROXORS YOUR BOXORS!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!111!!oneoneoneone
translation=M1 pwns all. My own personal opinion, even though challenger, leopard everything probly is equal if not better
Last edited by n1nj41c l337ne55 (2006-01-27 19:21:20)
Hoperfully. It means that while were a superpower now, hundred, 2 hundred years from now we wont be.Flavius Aetius wrote:
I am sad because it is true. Ah well we had our 15 seconds of fame.
Does that mean we'll respawn with full heath and ammo?
S4INT05 wrote:
OK BITCHES! you got it all wrong. this puts the M1A1's existence in question. i mean, how the hell is it supposed to out gun THIS:
http://myspace-897.vo.llnwd.net/00318/7 … 6897_l.jpg
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by n1nj41c l337ne55 (2006-01-27 19:12:47)
LMAO!n1nj41c l337ne55 wrote:
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES THE MEXICANS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!S4INT05 wrote:
OK BITCHES! you got it all wrong. this puts the M1A1's existence in question. i mean, how the hell is it supposed to out gun THIS:
http://myspace-897.vo.llnwd.net/00318/7 … 6897_l.jpg
Too late. They're already here in Southern California.
Ok, why would you want to go ahead and insult someone and the agree with him in the post. All I said that I took offence to the comment and explained what I know.n1nj41c l337ne55 wrote:
Fine jackass. Consider this. What would have happened if the U.S. never did anything for the war at all. No lend-lease,no troops, no tanks,arty,fighters,bombers,ammunition,gas, etc.etc. Like you said it was a combo of everyone. So if one nation wasnt there it wouldnt have worked out. INCLUDING THE US. God, i mean comon, good for you russians, but yeah, without us, no england, no england, no two fronts. May be anSinyukov wrote:
How can you say some stupid shit like that.Medic875 wrote:
What a load of crap!!!
If not for the US All of mainland Europe would be jacksteping to the Nazi Leaders orders. And as for using the Atomic Bombs, well it save milions of Japanese lifes (ala: Kamikaze).
The US is not perfect by any standard, no one else is either; however, I don't seem to remember anyone calling for help (last hundred years or so) from the Brazilians or French or South Afrikaans etc. A lot of US blood has been spilled to help keep FREEDOM for a lot of the world.
20,000,000+ lives have been lost from Soviet Union in WWII so what they don't matter or anything? How can you claim that it was just US that came and destroyed the nazis. As far as I remember reading in books and hearing from people who lived through those times (i.e. my grandmother, grandfather, and my late great grandmothers), by the time US landed for the D-day USSR had already turned the tide and was marching toward Berlin. I personally think that you're comments are offensive to me as a Russian and a great grandson of a Person who went through the entire WWII, Nazi concentration camps and post war imprisonment for allegendly being a traitor. It was not US that won the war, it was not USSR that won the war, It was the world that won that war together. US fought Japan while Europe fought Germany. Later they combined after Japan posed no real threat. Just an FYI.
P.S. By the time US started bombing Germans for the first time, Russians had already turned the tide and were freeing captured cities.
here's a link of the timeline: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t … w2time.htm
One more little edit. Just a thought, but for all of you who actually think US won WWII. The only reason why D-Day or any other onland operation was a success was because Germany was fighting TWO fronts. They were fighting Russia or USSR at that time which was advancing massively with arguably the BEST Medium tanks in that war period T-34/76 and T-34/86s and they were fighting US and Britain on the Western front. Now imagine if USSR fell victim then you guys would have to face Germany in its full might which would not be so easy to Defeat US had three biggest disadvantages in that war. It is a different continent which did not allow imediate resupplies was the first and the second was their armor power (not air power but armor) was weak German SuperTigers would have owned almost anything dished out at them and by the time reinforcements arrived they would have had new tanks waiting. Also Remember the Luftwafe (don't know about the spelling) airpower of Germans? It was the best airforce of WWII and is still considered the defining force of the 20th century. You put this together and Germany was way to powerful for US and Britain to take by themselves which automatically means that US DIDN'T win this war. Plus US was divided fighting to Countries at once. This war was won by All COUTRIES EQUALLY.
overexageration but seriously, your argument works both ways.
And to all of you who keep saying "oh the challengers the best, oh youve always been up against poorly equipped troops, oh oh oh."
Ever heard of the cold war? How about the atomic and fusion bombs? If we went up against anyone who is well equipped it would probably be in WW3 or something and guess what? The majority of the well equipped are nuclear powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
Think about it.
And now for something irrational and completely different-
M1 ROXORS YOUR BOXORS!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!111!!oneoneoneone
translation=M1 pwns all. My own personal opinion, even though challenger, leopard everything probly is equal if not better
You're right. I'm sorry, I'll edit the post right now. I just get riled up over people who use arguments that can be turned around easily. And I'm tired of all the people saying that the U.S. didn't win the war. I know we didn't, but I also know we helped a whole damn lot. Seriously though, I'm sorry, it was mostly built up anger towards idiots who didnt even know what the lendlease program was, although you seem very well-informed and most likely do.Sinyukov wrote:
Ok, why would you want to go ahead and insult someone and the agree with him in the post. All I said that I took offence to the comment and explained what I know.
Last edited by n1nj41c l337ne55 (2006-01-27 19:24:49)
One of two New Zealand designed tanks, I present the latest WW2 technology, the BOB SEMPLE tank! It walks all over the M1A2, Challenger, T80!
Does it have the latest in corrogated tin armor technology?Pubic wrote:
One of two New Zealand designed tanks, I present the latest WW2 technology, the BOB SEMPLE tank! It walks all over the M1A2, Challenger, T80!
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/newz … Semple.jpg
Yeah I know what it is and thanks for apologizing. I know that US was a major player in the war and I also hate it when either side claims sole victory. My point was simple that All countries won it period not a single one.n1nj41c l337ne55 wrote:
You're right. I'm sorry, I'll edit the post right now. I just get riled up over people who use arguments that can be turned around easily. And I'm tired of all the people saying that the U.S. didn't win the war. I know we didn't, but I also know we helped a whole damn lot. Seriously though, I'm sorry, it was mostly built up anger towards idiots who didnt even know what the lendlease program was, although you seem very well-informed and most likely do.Sinyukov wrote:
Ok, why would you want to go ahead and insult someone and the agree with him in the post. All I said that I took offence to the comment and explained what I know.
US tanks outnumbered the Iraqis? What kind of math are you using? Lemmie guess, you got some of that commie "new math." Just kidding. But seriously, 500 T-72's, 1600 T-62's, and 700 T-54's equals 2800 tanks in my dimension of addition. We had roughly 1850 tanks, which would give an American to Iraqi ratio of 37:56.Sinyukov wrote:
Yeah but you also have to take into consideration that just US tanks outnumbered Iraqi tanks roughly 4 to 1 according to your post. This means that That ratio is a bunch of bull. That ratio is good for overall coverage of armor destroyed but not tank vs. tank scenario like was posted before. That was my argument all along.
Now, there is no hard number that I can point to and say, "see here, we killed X number of enemy tanks in the first Gulf War." Now, what I can tell you is that according to the AAR, by the beginning of the ground war, 1,685 Iraqi tanks, 925 armored vehicles and 1,450 artillery pieces had been verified destroyed by BDA. Most estimates agree that ground forces destroyed an additional 1000 to 1500 enemy tanks, with a similar number of APC's. Many of the tanks that are noted as incapacitated were not, in fact, destroyed in anger, but after the crew had surrendered. So, its not unreasonable to assume that American MBT's could have accounted for
320 tank kills, like is stated and assumed with the 20:1 ratio.
Now, for those who keep talking about how the American military doesn't stand a chance agains a "first world" military (and I'll use this opportunity to point out that in 1991, Saddam had the 4th largest army on the planet). The problem with looking at numbers is that you forget that a military assualt is a combination of planning, coordination, and luck. The first is acheived through long-term training, the second through technology, and the third is a fickle beast.
The thing that makes the American military so powerful is the fact that it is organized as a whole, a group, from top to bottom. Marines can call for Air Force ground support. The army can ask the navy for bombardment of an enemy arty site. Everyone fights out of the same playbook, and for the most part, everyone knows what the other is thinking. American fighting forces routinely train with the other branches of service, and as a result, we have the most cohesive fighting force the world has ever seen.
And before you get you panties in a bunch about how many tanks russia has, let me say this. An F-18 Superhornet can carry 4 AGM-154B's. Each of these weapons, known as the JSOW or Smart Pig, contains 24 independently guided DU/HEAT bomblets, each of which can take out any vehicle in existance, including our Abrams tanks. Therefore, a single airplane, with proper guidance, can wipe out an entire armored company with a single sortie. A flight of 4 can destroy an entire regiment. That makes quick work of those militaries that depend on numbers instead of technology and superior training.
Last edited by blisteringsilence (2006-01-27 20:39:01)
Your welcome, and exactly. I wish everyone at least partially knew what theyre talking about. Like seriously. RPG's killing an abrams? Yeah right. RPG standing for rocket propelled grenade? Right. Sure. Only name it that because the acronym is already handy.Sinyukov wrote:
Yeah I know what it is and thanks for apologizing. I know that US was a major player in the war and I also hate it when either side claims sole victory. My point was simple that All countries won it period not a single one.n1nj41c l337ne55 wrote:
You're right. I'm sorry, I'll edit the post right now. I just get riled up over people who use arguments that can be turned around easily. And I'm tired of all the people saying that the U.S. didn't win the war. I know we didn't, but I also know we helped a whole damn lot. Seriously though, I'm sorry, it was mostly built up anger towards idiots who didnt even know what the lendlease program was, although you seem very well-informed and most likely do.Sinyukov wrote:
Ok, why would you want to go ahead and insult someone and the agree with him in the post. All I said that I took offence to the comment and explained what I know.
Dude, don't worry about Sinyukov... he isn't dissuaded by the facts, only by "what he believes," which is something along the lines of "it's American, so it can't be superior!"
That and he's in love with the T64 knockoff that is the T80.
He'd probably also argue that every other country's jets are superior, too.
That and he's in love with the T64 knockoff that is the T80.
He'd probably also argue that every other country's jets are superior, too.
Last edited by Aegis (2006-01-27 19:57:02)
Wait, I am not talking about tanks together. The point was that someone said T-72 was a piece of shit. Abrams owned them in Gulf War. I belive the ratio was 20:1. My argument is about T-72s vs. Abrams nothing else. If you start counting the entire Coalition then there were alot more Abrams tanks then 1848.blisteringsilence wrote:
US tanks outnumbered the Iraqis? What kind of math are you using? Lemmie guess, you got some of that commie "new math." Just kidding. But seriously, 500 T-72's, 1600 T-62's, and 700 T-54's equals 2800 tanks in my dimension of addition. We had roughly 1850 tanks, which would give an American to Iraqi ratio of 37:56.Sinyukov wrote:
Yeah but you also have to take into consideration that just US tanks outnumbered Iraqi tanks roughly 4 to 1 according to your post. This means that That ratio is a bunch of bull. That ratio is good for overall coverage of armor destroyed but not tank vs. tank scenario like was posted before. That was my argument all along.
Now, there is no hard number that I can point to and say, "see here, we killed X number of enemy tanks in the first Gulf War." Now, what I can tell you is that according to the AAR, by the beginning of the ground war, 1,685 Iraqi tanks, 925 armored vehicles and 1,450 artillery pieces had been verified destroyed by BDA. Most estimates agree that ground forces destroyed an additional 1000 to 1500 enemy tanks, with a similar number of APC's. Many of the tanks that are noted as incapacitated were not, in fact, destroyed in anger, but after the crew had surrendered. So, its not unreasonable to assume that American MBT's could have accounted for
320 tank kills, like is stated and assumed with the 20:1 ratio.
Now, for those who keep talking about how the American military doesn't stand a chance agains a "first world" military (and I'll use this opportunity to point out that in 1991, Saddam had the 4th largest army on the planet). The problem with looking at numbers is that you forget that a military assualt is a combination of planning, coordination, and luck. The first is acheived through long-term training, the second through technology, and the third is a fickle beast.
The thing that makes the American military so powerful is the fact that it is organized as a whole, a group, from top to bottom. Marines can call for Air Force ground support. The army can ask the navy for bombardment of an enemy arty site. Everyone fights out of the same playbook, and for the most part, everyone knows what the other is thinking. American fighting forces routinely train with the other branches of service, and as a result, we have the most cohesive fighting force the world has ever seen.
And before you get you panties in a bunch about how many tanks russia has, let me say this. An F-18 Superhornet can carry 4 AGM-158D's. Each of these weapons, known as the JSOW or Smart Pig, contains 24 independently guided DU/HEAT bomblets, each of which can take out any vehicle in existance, including our Abrams tanks. Therefore, a single airplane, with proper guidance, can wipe out an entire armored company with a single sortie. A flight of 4 can destroy an entire regiment. That makes quick work of those militaries that depend on numbers instead of technology and superior training.
how many rounds on average does a russian tank crew fire in one year for training? What are there target ranges like? And the same for the US. If we (the US) currently have the most active HIND force (they play OPFOR on some base), what does that say about the ammount of training russians get? (outside of fighting a war, no "on the job" training)
Exactly. Its all about training. The 11th ACR, the Blackhorse, is the dedicated OPFOR regiment for the US Army. These men and women are stationed at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, CA. They are internationally recognized as the single most effective combat unit in the world. They have kicked the shit out of every armored company in the States, and have donkey-punched the premier fighting units of Great Britan, Germany, France, Australia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. And they do it with M60 Sherman tanks that are modified to look like T-72's and T-80's.Flavius Aetius wrote:
how many rounds on average does a russian tank crew fire in one year for training? What are there target ranges like? And the same for the US. If we (the US) currently have the most active HIND force (they play OPFOR on some base), what does that say about the ammount of training russians get? (outside of fighting a war, no "on the job" training)
I guess you still haven't learned to read. WOW I am amazed by your ingnorance and stupidity. Last time we had this discussion I clearly stated that YOU CANNOT DETERMINE WHICH IS BETTER UNTIL THE GO HEAD TO HEAD IN WARGAMES OR A WAR. Having Iraqis fight a machine that they did not design does not mean that you can make facts. If Abrams is better thats fine by me. If T-80 is better is also fine by me. I am not against America and everything made by it. I stated a point that was COMPLETELY NEUTRAL SO BACK THE FUCK OFF AND GO LEARN TO READ.Aegis wrote:
Dude, don't worry about Sinyukov... he isn't dissuaded by the facts, only by "what he believes," which is something along the lines of "it's American, so it can't be superior!"
That and he's in love with the T64 knockoff that is the T80.
He'd probably also argue that every other country's jets are superior, too.
Last edited by Sinyukov (2006-01-27 21:24:09)
I can't stand that people think the Iraq war is a Vietnam, we lose a few soldiers here a few soldiers there but the media has blown it way out of porportion. But the insurgents do kill many civilians but not too many soldiers...Sinyukov wrote:
Not to be a buzzkill or anything, with whats going on in Iraq, we are looking at the second Vietnam.oberst_enzian wrote:
the most interesting and relevent point in this thread so far. superior technology alone will never win the day. you have to believe in what you're fighting for. all the recent american military successes will never erase the memory of vietnam.BEE_Grim_Reaper wrote:
You might say, that Iraq used T-72 tanks agains US M1A2, but consider this: those tanks where mostly not the modernized variant, they where not properly maintained, the crews where not properly trained and the morale was below the freezing point, metaphorically speaking.
Poorly trained crews on Iraqi side helped a lot, plus the coalition forces had total air superiority and last but not least the tanks they used where bought from Russia but them stupid itiots (And lucky for the coalition tank crews) Saddam was too cheap to buy the main tank rounds from Russia as well so they produced them themselves.silentsin wrote:
from what i hear, the M1A2 Abrams owns any other tank. in the gulf war M1A2s kicked the shit out of those T-72s. i believe the ratio was about 20 T-72s per one M1A2 Abrams. thats a fucking ratio for you.
And those main rounds where of very poor quality.
Besides it wasn't just the tank that did all the work.
The majority of Iraqi tank kills where by air and you cannot fight a decent tank battle when there are planes and attack helicopters on the prowl all the time.
From the moment Saddam decided to invade and got the majority of the Western worlds forces facing his poorly trained army it was over, especially when his entire airforce decided to take a vacation in Iran with the company plane as transportation.
Fighting in an open desert area with armor without any air support what so ever while the opposing side has all the bells and whissles and then some is a lost cause.
And on top of that the M1A2 was not the only tank opperating in Desert Storm.
As for the M1A2 owning every tank is a pretty arrogant statement since there are plenty of other tanks that match up quite well like the Lepard 2, Challenger 2, T-90 and the LeClerc to name a few.
I think the point was more that we *weren't* shooting for an even battle. We were looking to kick ass as quicky and violently as possible. Anyway, we still would have won.Nubarus wrote:
Poorly trained crews on Iraqi side helped a lot, plus the coalition forces had total air superiority and last but not least the tanks they used where bought from Russia but them stupid itiots (And lucky for the coalition tank crews) Saddam was too cheap to buy the main tank rounds from Russia as well so they produced them themselves. And those main rounds where of very poor quality.silentsin wrote:
from what i hear, the M1A2 Abrams owns any other tank. in the gulf war M1A2s kicked the shit out of those T-72s. i believe the ratio was about 20 T-72s per one M1A2 Abrams. thats a fucking ratio for you.
Besides it wasn't just the tank that did all the work.
The majority of Iraqi tank kills where by air and you cannot fight a decent tank battle when there are planes and attack helicopters on the prowl all the time.
Also true. As far as armor goes, the US provided the aforementioned 1850 M1A1's. Egypt provided 2 armored divisions, one with a Russian TO&E (using T-72's), and one with an American (using the M1A1). France sent 40 LeClerc's, Saudi Arabia provided 550 tanks (entirely american supplied, M1A1's also), Syria sent 300 T-62 tanks, the UAE sent 200 MORE M1A1's, and finally the UK sent 168 tanks, a mixed batch of Challenger I and II's. The difference is that the only tanks that were involved in ACTIVE operations against the Iraqi's belonged to the US and the UK. Everyone else was either dug in defensive positions, or providing support and cleanup behind the US led advance.Nubarus wrote:
And on top of that the M1A2 was not the only tank opperating in Desert Storm.
Dude, when it comes to battle tested, you have to admit that the M1A2 is the premier MBT on the planet. And the T-90 is just a rebadged T-72 with some new features. It still has ALL the shortcomings of the T-72. The only time I've seen either the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 in action has been at Ft. Irwin, and let me tell you, they're solid vehicles. However, each has shortcomings that, In My Opinion, make them less desirable than the M1A1. Not to mention, both regiments that I watched from the UK, and the one I watched from Germany, got their asses handed to them.Nubarus wrote:
As for the M1A2 owning every tank is a pretty arrogant statement since there are plenty of other tanks that match up quite well like the Lepard 2, Challenger 2, T-90 and the LeClerc to name a few.