nything british is a piece of shit. and i'm not just talking shit. look at the first medic rifle unlock. that 'thing' jammed like a motherfucker in the middle east because of a little dust...elite wrote:
read about it, i saw documentories on it and the others are NOT better
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_ch2.htm
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 | ||||||
Ok yall are all wrong... the M1 Abrams is the same tank as the brits Challenger 2, made out of same armor which is uranium depleted metal, and can take more then one shell from another tank, all in all the abrams and challenger are best tanks out there, and the k/d for the abrams i believe was around 500/1 and at the start of the first gulf war the iraqs had around 3k tanks, and after we left they counted around a estimated 175 tanks left, and during the gulf war we lost 4 tanks in battles with other tanks, not including mines and RPGs, so there u have it....
I am sad because it is true. Ah well we had our 15 seconds of fame.Spetz wrote:
lolCRUSHER wrote:
This thread went from tanks to jets... Nice...
Anyway, the F-22 Raptor pwns all..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22
that jet was superceeded by the JSF or f-35 last year
__________________________________________________________________________________________
america wins wars, because they fight people who are poorly equiped and have the biggest budget out of all military organizations in the world
but you have to face the fact that your country is on the verge of Bankruptcy
the americans had to get the joint investment of britain australia and germany soo they could fund the JointStrikeFighter
__________________________________________________________________________________________
china is quickly catching americas economy
your screwed in the next 15 years, sorry to be the one to tell you
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?
Does that mean we'll respawn with full heath and ammo?
*TS*tphai
I'm not from the US, though I got relatives there and was a former member from the american Embassy in Bonn, Germany. and it's not that I don't like the US.
Infact I admire your constitution, giving by paper incredible freedom and self responsibility. What disturbs me though is the Lack of understanding (or they don't want to understand) when talking to or with americans.
For a quite few americans the US is the center of the (their) universe.
During my College years in England a texanian exchange student really responded upon the question "where is Germany?" ---> "South of texas, Mate". either he was kidding me or meant it really (I didn't have the impression he was joking). 5 Minutes later I actuallly left the common-room because it became to stupid.
Also, when 9/11 happened we where taking Economics at that point and class included quite a number of americans (really nice decent people) and we were all taken by it. The most intresting point though is that at that point ALL american members of my Economics class agreed on the following : "oh gosh, the Chimp will want War for that"
Besides, got stupid germans aswell, see the former chancellor
I'm not from the US, though I got relatives there and was a former member from the american Embassy in Bonn, Germany. and it's not that I don't like the US.
Infact I admire your constitution, giving by paper incredible freedom and self responsibility. What disturbs me though is the Lack of understanding (or they don't want to understand) when talking to or with americans.
For a quite few americans the US is the center of the (their) universe.
During my College years in England a texanian exchange student really responded upon the question "where is Germany?" ---> "South of texas, Mate". either he was kidding me or meant it really (I didn't have the impression he was joking). 5 Minutes later I actuallly left the common-room because it became to stupid.
Also, when 9/11 happened we where taking Economics at that point and class included quite a number of americans (really nice decent people) and we were all taken by it. The most intresting point though is that at that point ALL american members of my Economics class agreed on the following : "oh gosh, the Chimp will want War for that"
Besides, got stupid germans aswell, see the former chancellor
Hahahha, the British are going to start/have started exporting the latest version of the Challenger (Challenger 2E) to other countries.
hm okay maybe the sa80 did jam but the british army still overcame, not the equipment that makes an army good its the soldiers and quite frankly the British army is the best at this present moment of time!!!!ilyandor wrote:
nything british is a piece of shit. and i'm not just talking shit. look at the first medic rifle unlock. that 'thing' jammed like a motherfucker in the middle east because of a little dust...elite wrote:
read about it, i saw documentories on it and the others are NOT better
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/av/av_ch2.htm
Last edited by NOxFEAR (2006-01-26 18:19:56)
u know...this Who pwns Who is kinda funny.
and btw who gives a shit what material is better....its the Guy who controlls is better
Strategy is more important then material.
*a litte oftopic here*
Americans has a dominating army? hell no they have to much Mass production crap army...but if we are talking about brains here...well, all low IQ ... and too emotional to be in a battle ...
and btw who do they think they are to fucking around in every country that seems to be a small threat? comon fokes...if some asian country has a Nuclear power center America is already shitting in their pants..STOP THAT NO PLUTONIUM ASIANS!! NO BAD ASIANS
ow btw....Have you found the Weapons of mass destruction yet in iraq. i think not. ..here is an advice...look in ur own country....if we are talking about WOMD's.
and btw who gives a shit what material is better....its the Guy who controlls is better
Strategy is more important then material.
*a litte oftopic here*
Americans has a dominating army? hell no they have to much Mass production crap army...but if we are talking about brains here...well, all low IQ ... and too emotional to be in a battle ...
and btw who do they think they are to fucking around in every country that seems to be a small threat? comon fokes...if some asian country has a Nuclear power center America is already shitting in their pants..STOP THAT NO PLUTONIUM ASIANS!! NO BAD ASIANS
ow btw....Have you found the Weapons of mass destruction yet in iraq. i think not. ..here is an advice...look in ur own country....if we are talking about WOMD's.
Last edited by *ToRRo*cT| (2006-01-26 18:28:43)
OK, So Lets get back to Tanks and Armor Shall we. This thread was about the Russian Tanks Versus the American Tank.
The Pilots the Gunner the Driver the commander of the Tank what makes it Rock. It is not who has more armor or a bigger GUN. It is who knows how to use them to his advantage and where to hit the other tank.
If you're looking for an example of the Abrams in action research the 1st Gulf war (23North Hastings or something like that)
M1s did take out a LARGE number of Iraqi tanks on their own.
Of course the Iraqis did not have 20,000tanks, they lost 20 per M1 that they took out (not sure of the exact ratio).
US and EU tanks are the best and, fortunately, will likely never face each other...so say what you want, there is not easy way to prove it.
(off topic)
To the person who said US tankers were unprofessional: I beg to differ. Everybody would want a little music while cruising through a desert. But look at how the US military is trained to react, stay cool, assess the situation, neutralize the threat. It is a little off topic, but most US military personnel are taught to remain calm and unemotional--it just works better. I saw a comparison between the US and British sub forces. The Brit was swearing and yelling at his crew for everything, while the US commander simply told the crew what to do...no yelling, just so and so, adjust this.
Oh, and SEALS usually train in groups of 4-8 as far a I know.
Training and unit effectiveness will win the day.
M1s did take out a LARGE number of Iraqi tanks on their own.
Of course the Iraqis did not have 20,000tanks, they lost 20 per M1 that they took out (not sure of the exact ratio).
US and EU tanks are the best and, fortunately, will likely never face each other...so say what you want, there is not easy way to prove it.
(off topic)
To the person who said US tankers were unprofessional: I beg to differ. Everybody would want a little music while cruising through a desert. But look at how the US military is trained to react, stay cool, assess the situation, neutralize the threat. It is a little off topic, but most US military personnel are taught to remain calm and unemotional--it just works better. I saw a comparison between the US and British sub forces. The Brit was swearing and yelling at his crew for everything, while the US commander simply told the crew what to do...no yelling, just so and so, adjust this.
Oh, and SEALS usually train in groups of 4-8 as far a I know.
Training and unit effectiveness will win the day.
You have no clue what you're talking about.Spetz wrote:
lolCRUSHER wrote:
This thread went from tanks to jets... Nice...
Anyway, the F-22 Raptor pwns all..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22
that jet was superceeded by the JSF or f-35 last year
__________________________________________________________________________________________
america wins wars, because they fight people who are poorly equiped and have the biggest budget out of all military organizations in the world
but you have to face the fact that your country is on the verge of Bankruptcy
the americans had to get the joint investment of britain australia and germany soo they could fund the JointStrikeFighter
__________________________________________________________________________________________
china is quickly catching americas economy
your screwed in the next 15 years, sorry to be the one to tell you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35
This thing isn't even in production yet dipshit.
"....The construction contract, System Development and Demonstration (SDD), was awarded on 26 October 2001 to the Lockheed Martin X-35, beating the Boeing X-32. The first planes are expected to enter service in 2008. Announcing the decision, DoD officials and the UK Minister of Defence Procurement said that while both aircraft met or exceeded requirements, the X-35 outperformed the Boeing aircraft consistently. This dominance can only have been achieved by Lockheed's method of STOVL flight, in fact the decision is said to have clinched the contract...."
We have a deficit but what country doesn't?
We're no where near bankrupt, we're the wealthiest country on the planet.
Money was not borrowed from other countries, numerous countries have a vested interest in the development of this jet. Hence the name, "_Joint_ Strike Fighter."
The only thing you said that wasn't complete bullshit was the comment about Chinas' growing economy.
That magic eight-ball thing you're apparently using isn't the best source for news. Where do you live?
..15 years. Pfft. Right.
The thing with your post is "they lost 20 per M1 they took out". Well That is the ratio 20:1. However that ratio is either made up by our dear government or even worse by some person who is a diehard US lover and thinks that we should take out anyone who gets in our way. I would believe a ratio of maybe 5:1 but not more.RAIMIUS wrote:
If you're looking for an example of the Abrams in action research the 1st Gulf war (23North Hastings or something like that)
M1s did take out a LARGE number of Iraqi tanks on their own.
Of course the Iraqis did not have 20,000tanks, they lost 20 per M1 that they took out (not sure of the exact ratio).
US and EU tanks are the best and, fortunately, will likely never face each other...so say what you want, there is not easy way to prove it.
(off topic)
To the person who said US tankers were unprofessional: I beg to differ. Everybody would want a little music while cruising through a desert. But look at how the US military is trained to react, stay cool, assess the situation, neutralize the threat. It is a little off topic, but most US military personnel are taught to remain calm and unemotional--it just works better. I saw a comparison between the US and British sub forces. The Brit was swearing and yelling at his crew for everything, while the US commander simply told the crew what to do...no yelling, just so and so, adjust this.
Oh, and SEALS usually train in groups of 4-8 as far a I know.
Training and unit effectiveness will win the day.
And you base this on what? Your beliefs? You're a fucking moron, go back and play in the sandbox.Sinyukov wrote:
The thing with your post is "they lost 20 per M1 they took out". Well That is the ratio 20:1. However that ratio is either made up by our dear government or even worse by some person who is a diehard US lover and thinks that we should take out anyone who gets in our way. I would believe a ratio of maybe 5:1 but not more.
For the rest of you who debate with facts, here are mine:
Full story at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htmwrote:
It is reliable, deadly accurate and has a "hit/kill ratio" that equals or surpasses any main battle tank armament in the world.
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.
OK,
I will try once again maybe all of you will understand.
DO NOT COMPARE MEDIUM TANKS TO HEAVY TANKS. T-72 is a MEDIUM TANK while M1A1/2 are HEAVY TANKS OR MBTs. Do you compare a Honda Civic to an Acura TL? No because they are in different classes, same is with tanks. Medium tanks are designed and build for a purpose of fighting medium armored units not heavy armor. T-72 will NOT stand a chance against M1A2 because of that reason. Also T-72 was rendered obsolete about the same time M1A2 started production (I posted an article about it in this thread), so those tanks were never upgraded to a proper level before being shipped to Iraq.
So if you want to compare tanks (which is pointless because they never saw face to face combat on a level plain field)(part my spelling I am typing this as I am playing) then compare T-80 vs. Abrams. or even better Black Eagle vs. Abrams. Leave the obsolete and smaller T-72 out of this.
I will try once again maybe all of you will understand.
DO NOT COMPARE MEDIUM TANKS TO HEAVY TANKS. T-72 is a MEDIUM TANK while M1A1/2 are HEAVY TANKS OR MBTs. Do you compare a Honda Civic to an Acura TL? No because they are in different classes, same is with tanks. Medium tanks are designed and build for a purpose of fighting medium armored units not heavy armor. T-72 will NOT stand a chance against M1A2 because of that reason. Also T-72 was rendered obsolete about the same time M1A2 started production (I posted an article about it in this thread), so those tanks were never upgraded to a proper level before being shipped to Iraq.
So if you want to compare tanks (which is pointless because they never saw face to face combat on a level plain field)(part my spelling I am typing this as I am playing) then compare T-80 vs. Abrams. or even better Black Eagle vs. Abrams. Leave the obsolete and smaller T-72 out of this.
I am a moron?Aegis wrote:
And you base this on what? Your beliefs? You're a fucking moron, go back and play in the sandbox.Sinyukov wrote:
The thing with your post is "they lost 20 per M1 they took out". Well That is the ratio 20:1. However that ratio is either made up by our dear government or even worse by some person who is a diehard US lover and thinks that we should take out anyone who gets in our way. I would believe a ratio of maybe 5:1 but not more.
For the rest of you who debate with facts, here are mine:Full story at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htmwrote:
It is reliable, deadly accurate and has a "hit/kill ratio" that equals or surpasses any main battle tank armament in the world.
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.
You're stupid ass is comparing obsolete tanks against at that point NEW American tank. Have you even read the damn article? Can you read at all? How the FUCK can you compare a T-62 or a T-54 from 1962 and 1954 respectively to a LATE 80s tank?
Well... I guess you can't count as well as read.
Your own article states that Iraq had and I quote "500 T-72s", 1600 T-64s, 700 T-54 compare to COALITIONS 1848 of just M1A2s. The ratio is already roughly 2:1 just like that of the total Iraqi tanks. Now 50% were destroyed by AIR POWER so devide 2800 by 2 =1400 total tanks left out of them most are OBSOLETE MODELS that most likely did not ever run. NOW READ AGAIN 500 T-72s and AGAIN 500 T-72s to American 1848 of ABRAMS. NOW DUMBSHIT YOU GO PLAY IN A FUCKING SANDBOX. American Abrams outnumbered Iraqi T-72s by the ratio of roughly 4 to 1. No wonder the ratio was 20:1.
My advice to you. Read the article before trying to act like a smartass next time. ALSO READ MY POST ABOVE REGARDING SIZES OF TANKS MORON.
Or I guess you just found yourself a paragraph that you could actually read and just stuck to it. LOL
Last edited by Sinyukov (2006-01-26 20:42:01)
I'll tell you what when you show me where it says that it takes 20 T-72s to 1 abrams when the number are even then we will talk. T-72s might be inferior then Abrams because they are smaller and have less firepower but you are making them out to be just plain non-effective with your comments and articles. So in all honesty in you want to post something that will back your point up then find it and read it. Not just the last paragraph.
Oh yeah and don't insult others just because you want to be a smart ass. It can comeback and hunt you.
P.S. sorry about the rude post I just got way to irritated.
Oh yeah and don't insult others just because you want to be a smart ass. It can comeback and hunt you.
P.S. sorry about the rude post I just got way to irritated.
Last edited by Sinyukov (2006-01-26 20:47:25)
Dude please read the article first, if you do not understand it don't bother then writing them "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). 7th paragraph last two lines. Don't act like a dumbass. Read it.Aegis wrote:
Yes! Why, you ask? Here's why:Sinyukov wrote:
I am a moron?The name of the thread is T-72 and T-80 tank is superior to the M1A2 in many things... Sorry for answering the post. What things, by the way? Make a bulleted list, please.Sinyukov wrote:
You're stupid ass is comparing obsolete tanks against at that point NEW American tank.What, the coalition's 1848 in total inventory? Well, the US Army had roughly 500,000 troops in the army at the time of the war. Were all of them in the middle east? No.Sinyukov wrote:
Your own article states that Iraq had and I quote "500 T-72s", 1600 T-64s, 700 T-54 compare to COALITIONS 1848 of just M1A2s.
I was actually wrong it was just ARMY AND USMC
Last edited by Sinyukov (2006-01-26 21:31:41)
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:
The M1 is battle tested and literally owned the battlefield. Say what you want, but it doesn't
change the fact that Use of M1 = Greatest Rout in a Tank Battle Ever
Once again, waiting for your list of things that makes the little T-80 superior.
Don't bother responding without facts.
Speculation, point of view, and lame 3rd-hand analysis aren't facts.
change the fact that Use of M1 = Greatest Rout in a Tank Battle Ever
Once again, waiting for your list of things that makes the little T-80 superior.
Don't bother responding without facts.
Speculation, point of view, and lame 3rd-hand analysis aren't facts.
Last edited by Aegis (2006-01-26 21:41:03)
kEEP WAITING! I never said it was superior. I posted stats on these three tanks for all to make their own opinions. I personally think and posted on numerous occations that you cannot compare them because they were never one on one on a level plain field (I.e. well trained crew in both and both modified to todays specs as T-80 is older then m1A2). You really should start reading before posting. WOW.Aegis wrote:
The M1 is battle tested and literally owned the battlefield. Say what you want, doesn't change the fact Use of M1 = Greatest Route in a Tank Battle Ever
Once again, waiting for your list of things that makes the little T-80 superior.
p.s Don't start going and telling me that Desert Storm was a Level plain Field as it wasn't. Iraqis were not well trained and had no experience with those "new" tanks to them.
Last edited by Sinyukov (2006-01-26 21:45:11)
Unfortunately, once again - the name of the post is:Sinyukov wrote:
kEEP WAITING I never said it was superior. I posted stats on these three tanks for all to make their own opinions. I personally think and posted on numerous occations that you cannot compare them because they were never one on one on a level plain field (I.e. well trained crew in both and both modified to todays specs as T-80 is older then m1A2). You really should start reading before posting. WOW.Aegis wrote:
The M1 is battle tested and literally owned the battlefield. Say what you want, doesn't change the fact Use of M1 = Greatest Route in a Tank Battle Ever
Once again, waiting for your list of things that makes the little T-80 superior.
T-72 and T-80 tank is superior to the M1A2 in many things...
If you don't want to talk about the topic (comparing these tanks), you're here because...?
Last edited by Aegis (2006-01-26 21:43:51)
I am talking about those tanks. I am making my opinions and sharing them while backing them up with facts. YOu should really try to do that. It works. Trust Me. So far you are the only person that I can't talk to because you have no regard to facts.Aegis wrote:
Unfortunately, once again - the name of the post is:Sinyukov wrote:
kEEP WAITING I never said it was superior. I posted stats on these three tanks for all to make their own opinions. I personally think and posted on numerous occations that you cannot compare them because they were never one on one on a level plain field (I.e. well trained crew in both and both modified to todays specs as T-80 is older then m1A2). You really should start reading before posting. WOW.Aegis wrote:
The M1 is battle tested and literally owned the battlefield. Say what you want, doesn't change the fact Use of M1 = Greatest Route in a Tank Battle Ever
Once again, waiting for your list of things that makes the little T-80 superior.
T-72 and T-80 tank is superior to the M1A2 in many things...
If you don't want to talk about the topic (comparing these tanks), you're here because...?
Here is a question for you
How many RUSSIAN/USSR soldiers drive the tank in DESERT STORM?
Give me the facts that clearly show RUSSIAN/SOVIET T-80 driven by Russian crew properly trained and one on one and without air support taking out 50% of it and then I will say that you were right the russians are inferior to americans. Until then I will not agree with anyone and will for my own opinions based on information given. Also as I recall T-80s were never in Iraq during that time. WHich means they never faced Abrams period. So basically you make assumptions which cannot be backed up and most likely will never be backed up. And for the 10th time just for you T-72 are MEDIUM Tanks which cannot be compared to HEAVY TANKS which is also on this forum. I know its alot to read but I suggest you do it.
Wow this thread is getting really repetitive.
RPG7s own M1A2s