BF2S Forums Better War Machines than America's - Post here!

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Sinyukov wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Russians were stat padding in Afghanistan, and got banned from the country because of it.

Well, same can be said about America in Vietnam.

But it was funny though

Yeah, but did Russia get the Indonesian warmwater port it wanted so bad?

But did America succeed in making Vietnam Democratic and stoping Communism? We can play these games all night long but it will be a stale mate because our respective countries suffered same fates in these two wars

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I love how you stepped back in quotes a bit, Sinyukov. We did accomplish our primary objective of keeping the Russians out of that area...although we lose a good amount of people in the process, mostly due to Washington's lame-brained method of remotely micromanaging combat. As for the North eventually overtaking the South, the southern government was little better. Sometime afterward, a Chinese "patrol" lost a goodly amount of men to NVA mortars while they were poking about the area...so no, NV didn't exactly remain a Chinese ally, either.

Well, I don't know what exactly you have accomplished, because USSR was in South Vietnam and it was backing it up. The objective of Vietnam War was not to stop USSR but to stop the spread of Communism around the world that I am sorry to say America could not do. USSR did not intend by no means to take over the country, they were there as teachers/advisors as they were in favor of creating a new ally, while giving North Vietnam a shit load of weaponry.

Same fate happened to USSR in Afghan when US was helping and supplying weapons to Afghans.

Sinyukov wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

The name of the Russian copy of the B-29 is the TU-4 (http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html)
If you think about it, the AK-47 and its derivatives can be traced back to the end of WWII. (although, I think, that was not Horseman's intent.)

Alright great post and read. Will agree with you on that one. However the rest of Horsmen's pile of crap is bull and I am still waiting on those facts.

Also what did you mean about an AK-47? Please elaborate.

Good job man, way to put a decent comment into this obviously pointless thread. TTYL

It became pointless when you got here dude

Ya everything is a pile of crap that has not yet been substatiated by 36 other posts

The only thing I have to look back on was that

" The USSR Scuba Eqiupment was extremly dated by todays standerds "

Thats so hard to believe when the Country was bankrupt at the time?
The USSR's pride and joy " The  Submarine Fleet " is rusting away in port and contaminating the area with Radiation. or sinking ( Covertly Too ) And what happend to The Russian Blue Water Aviation attemp? Their  First Aircraft carrier ?

Is that Covert Too ? roflmao and farting

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-03-21 06:55:06)

in ww2:

me109
tiger tank
german 88's

Horseman 77 wrote:

Angy russian boy longing for the glory days of communisim says

"  Only what you heard or read in simulation (which is bullshit for both of them). I stand by my decision that you cannot judge a these tanks until you them in combat against eath other with properly trained crew. Only then the decision can be made. "

The Abrams and Challanger were tested in combat, In fact even or old M60 tanks did really well againts your T72 in Isralia hands ( I realize they have some Very Elite fighting forces who could fuck you up with just a paper clip But still ) To my knowledge Not 1 Abrams has been lost to Enemy fire. There are cases of Russian armor being knocked out by The Abrams gunner seeing the Ariel antenna of the T72 hiding behind a sand dune and shooting through the sand dune to kill it.

There have been cases where an Abrams shot at a T72 and killed the one behind it also with the sams SABOT round penatrating both. Both had catastophic turret faliur ( popped off ala BF42 DC )

An Abrams that was egnited and burned for 12 hours found the Crew alive and well and a little bored. Tank was ready to go.

Let me ask you Honestly Which tank would you want?
Russias best or Americas best.. Be honest, There is a poll on this also, Check the results... bring tissue..

if they havent made it yet Can you get a Beta Version ? you can get that on the black market right ?

Wow you flaming fucktard,
You go on the threads, talk shit about the world and provide no facts to back it up. There is no point to talk to people like you, because they live in their own beliefs and attack those who they think superior to them/affraid of. You apperantly have no idea about the comments that you have made so I will tell you what:
IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE THE FACTS TO BACKING UP YOUR CLAIMS REGADING RUSSIAN TRAINING EQUIPMENT, SUBMARINE FLEETS OR WHERE AK CAME FROM THEN THERE IS NO POINT OF TALKING OR HAVING ANY KIND OF DISCUSSION WITH YOU YOU NAZI WANNABE PRICK. YOU WANT TO TALK SHIT ABOUT JEWS GO TO YOUR KKK BUDDIES AND TALK TO THEM ASSWIPE. NOW IF YOU WANT TO STOP TALKING SHIT AND START NORMALLY DISCUSSING THE TOPIC THEN READ FURTHER IF NOT THEN STFU.

P.S. Honestly I do not care which tank is better or which arsenal is better I was having a discussion with the other guy who actually knows what he is talking about. Also America did not succeed in making that a Democracy as South Vietnam fell and at least for a short period of time Communism still ruled. Maybe you want to say that America played a big part in getting rid of Communism in Russia? If so you are an idiot. Communism fell apart because of the people living in those countries not America taking it out of the world. That is the kind of government that does not last because of the limits it has for those people. I never agreed with Communism in the first place, I never agreed with all the pointless wars that USSR was in its days, but I will agree with one thing and that is USSR was one of two WORLD POWERS before its fall in 1991. (Second being America). If you think otherwise then why exactly was there a COLD WAR between the two countries? HINT: It had nothing to do with what kind of government they had.
SPOILER: BECAUSE BOTH COUNTRIES WERE AFRAID OF EACH OTHER ATTACKING THAT IS WHY THERE WAS A CONSTANT STAND OFF (etc. Cuban Missile Crisis, constant spying on USSR BY AMERICA).

Now going to the tank claims T-72 was made in 1972 which made abrams 14 younger and technology better. Iraq also had an early export version of T-80 which was released in 1980 which was 4 years older then Iraqi tanks and was completely outdated. Iraq never had a T-90 as it was never made for export so you cannot claim that Abrams destroyed it as it was never in combat against it. Personally I do not care whether T-90 is better or ABRAMS is better because they have their own purposes and in some cases one will be better then the other.

Concerning small arms. If you say that AK was ripped off M1GARAND then I can also say that all American/european weaponry is ripped off from early Germany assault arsenal. Including smgs, mgs, and assault rifles as they were the first country to produce a fully automatic weapon. That includes RPGs which came from PANZERSHRECK and PANZERFAUST versions. My point in this is that just because weapons are made looking like something doesn't mean they were ripped off.

OH yeah and I am glad that communism is gone and don't miss it a little bit just like any other Russian person on here who is old enough to remember those days so you do not need to go around flaming every russian poster on here to prove them wrong. All you need to do is post your facts (like I said if it is common knoweledge then they should not be hard to find on google) and back up your point of view. This is what these forums are made for. People stating their view on the world and not flaming people who are from a different countries. We both have different educations. You have one I have another. We have different points of view on things. I am sure that if you show me some facts then I will see something I don't know and I am positive that you have learned something out of those posts.

to all of you who are defending Russian technology, i have only on quastion WHY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we all know that russian tecnology SUCKS BIG TIME it always has and always will.

Conversations with a Submariner in the late '80 informed me that the Russian sub fleet used to litterally 'clank around the oceans.'  That was until the Japanese made the mistake of selling them 9 axis lathe technology (used to cut the propellers).  After that they became very quiet indeed.

Several Abrams have been knocked out in combat...getting a mobility kill on one isn't that much harder than any other tank.  As several people have said, however, usually the crew survives.  In one incident during the gulf war, an abrams took a direct artillery hit, and the crew survived.  There were, however, a couple of incidents in Iraq in which insurgents were able to kill the crews. 

One of them involved creating an improvised mine out of an obscene amount of explosives, and putting it in a place regularly traversed by tanks.  The blast blew right through the weak armor underneath the tank.  The other...I'm not sure if it is public information, so I won't say.  If it is public, you can find it online.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Russian designs were meant to be simple...very simple.  That is why the AK series is so popular.

Correct,  it is a weapon a caveman can master, currently the US is abandoning the concept of a "skilled rifleman " who would need a Rifleman's weapon. Perhaps as a response to the MTV and Rap culture?

RAIMIUS wrote:

The AK-47 was not ripped off from the STG44.  The AK was a response to the STG44.  The russians saw the German ammunition (i.e. shortened cartridges.) and made their own version (of ammunition that is).

Correct again But, .. it is merely semantics, ( Response/Copy )

Look at the STG cartridge and then compare the Soviet "Response "

Look at the shape of the STG and then compare the Soviet "Response "

RAIMIUS wrote:

The AK uses much looser tolerances than the STG44 to ensure reliability.  It also uses a different operating system than the STG44.  (This information from the "Tales of the Gun" tv series)

Yes The operating system is the Garand System, ( which is not dependent on tight tolerances ) Albeit with the gas tube and operating rod on top,
Hence ( upside down ) but tell sminokavich that lol

RAIMIUS wrote:

I would not demean the soviet submarine fleet.  It was HUGE.

correct yet again but, I never discussed Quantity with the Rabid caveboy from moscow, the topic was " Better "

RAIMIUS wrote:

The submarines were often very quiet and dove VERY deep.

Only their Diesel boats were Quiet But a Diesel must surface to Breath and then it Dies End of story, Technology from W.W.I had no place in the cold war except as cannon fodder.

RAIMIUS wrote:

The US got some lucky breaks and our crews were able to record the sound of many types of soviet submarines..

Lucky ?? thin ice at best. As a professional Hunter/Jumper Instructor my observation is " Luck is directly linked to hard work, practice and attention to detail " make your own decisions, however.

RAIMIUS wrote:

The SOSUS network really gave NATO the advantage in tracking.  The Soviet navy (sub branch) was the main concern for the US in the event of WWIII.  (from Blind Man's Bluff)

USSR didn't have the Technology for sosus nets, That was the point of my banter with Caveboy, alas in a battle of wits he was unarmed.

RAIMIUS wrote:

I would rather serve on a US submarine, given our current technological superiority and safety record.

No Reply Needed !

Do we really need to bring up the scramble at the end of WWII for german technology?  Both sides did the same things.

Not quite ( THE SAME ) all Germans came to us willingly.  No one ever went to the USSR except clinton and Lee Harvey Oswald. Americans with similar intrests perhaps ?

RAIMIUS wrote:

One Abrams tank was knocked out by a T-72, but the crew escaped without serious injury. (I think that was the only one, but I am not sure)

Never heard of it, I know 3 M1As couldn't destroy another that was stuck and needed to be left behind. After point blank fire for several minutes an "Armor Recovery Vehicle " appeared on the Sceene, Freed it from the Mud and in 24 hrs it was in action again.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-03-22 07:57:53)

Souls wrote:

The R-73/AA-11 Archer is better the then current generation of AIM-9 Sidewinder. (But not the soon to be deployed AIM-9X)

I dont agree with the posts about the Euro-Fighter and Rafale being equal or better then the F-22.  F-22 is much stealther then the Euro/Raf.  The F-22 has thrust vetoring the Raf and Euro don't.  The F-22 also has supercruise which the others don't. The F-22 has what they call First Look/First Shot/First Kill.  Which is a data link capabilty with other F-22s Which gives the F-22 the capablilty to leave his radar off and use another F-22s radar to track and kill targets.  So if one F-22 is using his radar to track an air target at 50 miles away his wingman can leave his radar off and remain undetected and close within missile range to get the shot using his wingman radar.

excellent point just  what i was going to say

herrr_smity wrote:

if a tank takes a hit from the big 125mm gun on the T-72, it doesnt matter whatever tank you are in the tank is going down.

To my knowledge hovertanks are still science fiction so technically any tank is down whether there's a big T-72 125mm around or not. Unless it is involved in a heat shielding test and is released in space to see how well it will stand up against atmospheric re-entry.

Horseman 77 wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

if a tank takes a hit from the big 125mm gun on the T-72, it doesnt matter whatever tank you are in the tank is going down.

not so.

well yea. if its fitted withe proper ammo and is within range then its capable to take on any other tank in the world.
now getting within range that's the trouble it can shoot effectively at a 1000 meter now an abrams can take a shot from 3000+ that's a big obstacle to over come.

Horseman 77 wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

not so.

well yea. if its fitted withe proper ammo and is within range then its capable to take on any other tank in the world.
now getting within range that's the trouble it can shoot effectively at a 1000 meter now an abrams can take a shot from 3000+ that's a big obstacle to over come.

OK how about if I dug a big hole in the street. Covered it with. news papers, old porn magazines and hay.
And lured an Abrams tank over it by leaving a trail of marshmallows?

(an Abrams tank will do anything for a marshmallow ! )

When the Abrams fell in the hole I could keep it as a pet and feed it Co Co puffs and Fruit Loops !

Please Mom please can I keep it please please ?

Seriously though?

I remember reading about a T72 that got so close to an Abrams it didn't show up on the RADAR.  The Abrams crew could hear a load slamming sound, and they were like " wtf was that ? " they spotted is Visually and it was lights out for 1 more Russian piece of shit. The crew was laughing about it but you could see they were happy to be alive.

Anybody else remember that story from desert storm?

yea but the tank is just a platform for the gun and its a big gun, withe proper KE round or HEAT round, I'm pretty that it can pierce the armor of an Abrams

And im not saying that the T-72 is a good tank, it sucks but the gun is big and power full

This annoying thread is still going?

European > American.