Just a little something on the M1A2 and the T-90

2007-02-11 06:59:21

#26

redhawk454: Member; +50|6554|Divided States of America

I was on the M1A1 when I was in the army and I got to say the Leopard is pretty cool. I like the snorkel kit.
It didnt take us 24 hours to change a power pack. I cant tell you how fast because I am not sure if I am supposed to but it is longer than 2 hours.
The one thing I didnt like about the leopard was that after it shoots the main gun points into the air. I suppose since it has such a low profile it needs to so it can be reloaded. That would seem to make follow up shots take a lot longer. My loader could load a round in 3 seconds, and in one live fire exercise we shot 3 rounds in 10 seconds. The people in the tower thought another tank had fired a round.
Like CommandoRog said "The weapon is only as good as the crew using it."

Last edited by redhawk454 (2007-02-11 07:03:08)

2007-02-13 23:35:42

#27

Nikola Bathory: Karkand T-90 0wnage; +163|6792|Bulgaria

look, in the game both tanks have to be equal in strenght, I hope you understand that.

>>>BF3 Central<<<

2007-02-14 11:16:47

#28

kingcoyote: Member; +5|6636|Montana

No uranium depleted armor = you lose

I work with a former tanker in the army. All of the m1a2's in his unit had uranium depleted armor, not 'sometimes'. In testing, they can withstand a direct hit from a cruise missle.

Also, M1A2 targeting system allows it to kill all other tanks before they get into effective firing range. Targeting information can be shared between tanks and can also come from scout choppers.

All of this is really mute. The power of ones airforce determines whether or not any large scale tank battles will occur with an opponent with equal weaponry. In the Iraq war, their tanks were not feared (mainly due to vastly superior firing range and crew training). As such, tank on tank was more efficient than bombs. If equal weaponry was assumed, helis and planes would be used first.

Airpower determines who wins a 'conventional' war in the present day. Ground power determines how long the victory takes (ie mop up and civilian suppression).

2007-02-14 11:20:40

#29

l41e: Member; +677|6654

The best tank in the world depends on who conducts the test.

End of story.

2007-02-14 11:22:54

#30

YXAndyYX: tank/plane/helo wh0ring since 2005; +8|6735|good old europe

Leopard II > M1A2 Abrams > Challenger II > T-90 in RL

T-90 > Leopard II > M1A2 Abrams > Challenger II in game ...

My opinion

2007-02-14 11:35:11

#31

The_Jester: Member; +52|6497|Italy

DarkObsidian wrote:
The original designs (for the most part) were designed by Leonardo Da Vinci. What's your point?

So everyone stop arguing and bow to teh italian technological superiority.

Joking...I think our army uses some Leopard 1 and some m60something.
But we are good at making pistols and shotguns, lol.

2007-02-14 11:40:24

#32

ShadowFoX: I Hate Claymores; +109|6537

lol. Lets trust your indisputable wiki source written by people like you. M1A1 is superior in every way? I highly doubt it. The T90 might not be even the creme of the russian armored battalions anymore. The Russians are very efficiant in keeping all their technology under wraps. No one knew about the class of subs that Kursk was. If you compare its speed,size etc you will find that it is a superior sub apart from the unmaintained torpedos that it was carrying.

For all we know the russians could have a tank right now which no one knows about. You might think that the Russian technology is old and outdated but I can guarrante you that the Russians have planes that are invisible to radar as well its just that they know how to keep it under wraps.

2007-02-14 11:41:08

#33

FoShizzle: Howdah Lysozyme; +21|6633|Pittsburgh, PA

Longbow wrote:
T90 hadn't met Abrams in combat . So all those comparations are stupid ...

No Longbow..."comparations" are stupid.

2007-02-14 11:47:19

#34

CoronadoSEAL: pics or it didn't happen; +207|6524|USA

cMD-RR wrote:
soviet shit is cooler anyway.

COMMUNIST!!!

2007-02-14 12:02:17

#35

TrueArchon: Enemy Sniper..." *BOOM* "Nevermind... got him...; +61|6600|Las Vegas, NV USA

ShadowFoX wrote:
lol. Lets trust your indisputable wiki source written by people like you. M1A1 is superior in every way? I highly doubt it. The T90 might not be even the creme of the russian armored battalions anymore. The Russians are very efficiant in keeping all their technology under wraps. No one knew about the class of subs that Kursk was. If you compare its speed,size etc you will find that it is a superior sub apart from the unmaintained torpedos that it was carrying.

For all we know the russians could have a tank right now which no one knows about. You might think that the Russian technology is old and outdated but I can guarrante you that the Russians have planes that are invisible to radar as well its just that they know how to keep it under wraps.

:sigh:

I have a feeling that most of the information posted isn't going to be a complete picture to what is a reality...

Including the current information on the M1A2, and any recent modifications it has undergone.

The one true, cold, fact that can be said is this:

Every country is constantly trying to have the most current technology available to it's future and present military, and I can just about guarantee that the US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China are among those that are following that mentality.

2007-02-14 12:07:10

#36

ncc6206: =BIG= BAD AND UGLY; +36|6485

Stealth_Bain wrote:
You'll find a link to the facts in the post straight after! have read quite a few books recently on the two different MBT's but nothing to hand! see the link tells you the lot. (could've cut and pasted the lot but seemed easier to do that so people can read it if they like) http://www.army-technology.com/projects … index.html

P.S. I read a comment that Americans don't like being called yanks, I don't like being called a brit!! we're British or Britons! (tit for tat, although I was very careful not be be offensive)

Only Americans from the South do not like being called Yanks. Those are our Northern brothers. We got into it during the Civil War and calling a Southerner a Yank is still a no no.

2007-02-14 12:17:35

#37

yuckfou09: hide your terrorists ^,^; +94|6682|Ft. Drum, NY

YXAndyYX wrote:
Leopard II > M1A2 Abrams > Challenger II > T-90 in RL

T-90 > Leopard II > M1A2 Abrams > Challenger II in game ...

My opinion

you forgot the type 88

T-90 > Type 88 > Challeger 2 > M1A2 > Leopard 2

i just think the type 88 drives better

2007-02-14 14:13:51

#38

venom6: Since day One.; +247|6564|Hungary

Ottomania wrote:
I think best one is merkava, but not sure about that.

Yes the Israeli armor called Merkava is also pretty good.

To the M1A2 lovers:

Yes this tank above is using a lot of gas and its engine is some jet engine (not sure wich one)what is overheating the whole back from the tank and thx to that hot seeking missles can fuck up the abrams easily.
The Leopard dont has this negative thing.
And i just tell you the Leopard and the Abrams were 1 project what the germans did with the USA.Something happend where prolly the USA wanted some more money from the income if they finish the tank.Germany said bye and they continued working on the tank alone without USA.
Thx to german knowledge and precizion they built a best tank.And if there would be a 1v1 the Leopard would be the winner...thats for sure.

Last edited by venom6 (2007-02-14 14:22:13)

2007-02-14 16:15:25

#39

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6351|Twyford, UK

Auuugh, so much misinformation.

K, I used to know someone online who maintained M1s for a living, and he said you could yank the powerplant out with a crane and stick a new one in in an hour or two.

The T90 is NOT a counterpart to the M1. It is merely an upgrade of the T-72 so it gives up a decent fight. The MEC should be using the T-80 or a variant thereof, which is actually somewhat close to the M1. Not as durable due to Soviet tank design philosophy (lives and tanks are cheap), but has pretty much the same engine with half the weight. Thus, it could outperform most Russian cars of the time on the road. If they ever invaded Germany, they would be able to trigger speed cameras on certain stretches of the Autobahn.

The Leopard 2 isn't the world's best tank; merely the best all-round. The T-80 and the Abrams outperform it, the Challenger 2 and the Merkava are tougher, and the gun is the same as on most western tanks, which the one on the Chally 2 is more accurate than all-round due to actually having rifling.

The main weakness of the M1 is the supply train; it gets two gallons to the mile. Yes, gallons to the mile. You pretty much need to follow it with fuel trucks across the desert. If the Iraqis had been actually trying properly and competent in '03, the advance would have ground to a halt due to rapeage of the supply lines.

2007-02-15 05:00:39

#40

Shopvac: If it doesn't say shop-vac keep shopping!; +25|6545|Grand Rapids, MI

Thanks to everyone that responded. It was something I had passively wondered about for a while.

Dark Obsidian, having been an American my whole life, and having visited Ireland somewhat extensively I'll tell you that being called the "Y" word is often used as an endearing term these days. I'm sure we could start some worthless thread about the origin of the word or some BS like that but I'm sorry to tell you that you're the first person to ever object to me about that word.

I am wholeheartedly sorry to have offended you but maybe we could come to some agreement about when and where I can use that word and in what pretense. It is a word that I accept as a badge of membership not as a put down. Feel free to PM me and we can negotiate.

2007-02-15 05:11:28

#41

ELITE-UK: Scratching my back; +170|6480|SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND

challenger 2 = best tank ever!

2007-02-15 05:41:04

#42

venom6: Since day One.; +247|6564|Hungary

ELITE-UK wrote:
challenger 2 = best tank ever!

Yeah right just because you are from the UK.
If i were german i would say Leopard 2 = best tank ever
Im not even german and i say it why ? Because it is like that.German technology is allways 1 or 2 steps further like they were in both world wars.

2007-02-15 05:52:06

#43

AWSMFOX: Banned; +405|6469|A W S M F O X

Jet or Helicopter > Tank.

Real Life > Game

2007-02-15 06:37:42

#44

Delphy: Member; +45|6591|Bristol, UK

Ok now do a thing comparing all the jets in rl.

2007-02-15 08:18:26

#45

bingobones: Member; +6|6731|London, UK

RDMC(2) wrote:
And your point is?

noob comment

2007-02-15 08:47:39

#46

globefish23: sophisticated slacker; +334|6329|Graz, Austria

The_Jester wrote:
But we are good at making pistols and shotguns, lol.

That's probably because the mafia needs those weapons the most.
Hehe.

Edit:
Or Hollywood, to use as props for movie bad guys.

Last edited by globefish23 (2007-02-15 08:48:54)

2007-02-15 09:03:41

#47

The_Jester: Member; +52|6497|Italy

Lol so funny.
Not.
Really pathetic comment. Something like "all americans are fat hamburger-eaters", total bs.

Beretta and Benelli sound familiar? Are the Marines mafiosi?

2007-02-15 11:06:02

#48

tahadar: Sniper!!; +183|6744|Pakistan/England

i really wish there was space for a third person in all the tanks, just to have another head to snipe / give people more of an incentive to go AT and bag 3 kills

2007-02-15 12:16:45

#49

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6351|Twyford, UK

Another gun on the tanks WOULD be nice.

Or at the very least, grab handles so I can hitch a lift with the armour whores as engineer, and fix them during a fight.
That REALLY pisses people off.

2007-02-15 12:54:40

#50

R3v4n: We shall beat to quarters!; +433|6492|Melbourne

RDMC(2) wrote:
And your point is?

Rules wrote:
* Any post you make should directly contribute to the forum.

Please "Think" before you post at least....

~ Do you not know that in the service … one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?

BF2S Forums Just a little something on the M1A2 and the T-90

DarkObsidian wrote:

Longbow wrote:

cMD-RR wrote:

ShadowFoX wrote:

Stealth_Bain wrote:

YXAndyYX wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

ELITE-UK wrote:

RDMC(2) wrote:

The_Jester wrote:

RDMC(2) wrote:

Rules wrote:

Board footer