BF2S Forums T-72 and T-80 tank is superior to the M1A2 in many things...

in the gulf M1A2 tank took uot over a 1000 iraqi russianbuilded (also t-72´s) whituot any loses. simple becuase they could shoot longer. just a fact:D

longbow hold old are you

the abrahms is superior but I gotta correct you about losses.  The task for I belonged to in Iraq lost two M1A2's to ied's and I remember going through our boneyards and seeing at least three abrahms detroyed by ied's from other units

auto reload jams we choose to have manual loading in our tanks

Sorry GunSlinger OIF II , i din't saw your question .  I'm eighteen .

US armed forces would dominate in every possible conflict will Russia.  Gotta love the optimistic outlook of the eastern europeans.  If the US thought they needed a more superior tank we would build it.  We know we will always dominate in the air and now with the F22 its game over!

Longbow wrote:

DarkObsidian
Compareing early vershion of T-72 and M1A1 is stupid . There is 15 years interval between development of this two tanks . Can you compare M4A3 and T-55 ? No you cannot .
By the way , one fact have to be menshioned : ALL russian tanks have automatic reload of main 125mm canon , while your tank constructors still cannot create such a sistem for M1A2 . So the tank crew is smaller , only 3 men , while you have 4 .

Longbow, you assume that the US WANTS an autoloader for the main gun.  The U.S. Army has found it more effecient to have a crewman instead of an autoloader for several reasons:

1. An extra man to pull guard or perform maitainance on the tank.
2. Less chance of your loader suffering a 'mechanial' failure.
3. Easier to replace the crewman in battle than the autoloader.
       If an autoloader breaks in combat, you just lost your main gun.  If the loader gets killed, army crews practice running "3 man" drills to become efficient in operating with fewer men.
4. The autoloader on the Russian/ former-Soviet tanks require the tube to be returned to a 'loading' elevation, requiring taking the tube off of your target.  Having a person-loader means the tube can stay on target, resulting in a faster and more accurate second shot.
5. Loading times are equivilant.
6. An autoloading system would require a compromise in ammunition compartmentalization.  That means making the tank less survivable in a hit.
7. The loader can also man his machinegun, allowing more fowerpower to be presented in some situations.

I hope this helps explain matters a bit more.  Oh, I am not guessing on these reasons.  Whan I went through 19K school (M1 tank crewman), I asked the question why we didn't use an autoloader.

Everyone is taking all of this REALLY REALLY seriously.  Most of you are also looking at it the wrong way, I believe.  You have to understand the reasons these tanks were designed as well as the philosophy behind their development.

The Soviets designed their systems out of theri experiences of WWII, and the communist philosophy of the time.  <I am NOT making any political statements, so don't go there right now!>  The soviets saw their roughly made T-34 (which was the best tank in WWII), beat the highly advanced German tanks, which did not do well in the winter weather, with simplicity and greater numbers.  The Soviets have usually had the advantage in manpower, and was willing to use it.  They also had a couple very Russian attitudes, such as "The best is the enemy of good enough," and "Quantity has a quality all its own."  They also had a conscript army with very low standards of training, from an american perspective.  Map Reading was not even taught to enlisted personnel for example.

What this means is that Soviet equipment was made to be easily maintained, very rugged and able to take abuse, and very simple to use.  This also allowed the cost of the equipment to be VERY low, compared to U.S. equipment.  The combination of the price and the ruggedness is what makes Soviet equipment so popular throughout the world, including with terrorists.

On the other side, the Americans took a VERY different experience back from WWII.  The German's Tiger 2 owned the battlefield whever they made an appearance.  The American's Sherman tanks were just targets to it.  Actually, the Sherman was a pretty crap tank.  The only thing that really saved the americans from feeling the full brunt was Germany's gasoline shortage, and limited numbers of the complex Tiger 2.

However, the Americans learned that a high-quality, well made tank can take a very favorable kill ration against lesser made tanks.  The U.S. also knew that the Soviets could field a LOT more tanks.  The American solution was to build the most advanced, best tank they possibly could.  The M1 series tank was designed from the ground up to fight Soviet tanks in case of a new European War. 

The M1 surpasses the T-64 and T-72 on amlmost every level for a simple reason.  THAT was what is was designed for!!!!!  The T-64B and the T-80 are another story.  The T-90, on the other hand, was designed to beat the M1, but I do not know what compromises were made due to the fall of the USSR and the lack of funding the Russians sufferred in the early years.  There is also the matter that the Americans have been constantly improving the M1.

To add a third view, The Isrealis designed the Merkava tank for a completely different reason.  They knew the effectiveness of HEAT systems from the Arab/Isreali war.  In their view, the tank was better served to provide fire support for infantry formations, instead of having a blazing tank battle like the one they demolished.  Aircraft and attack helicopters can take out a purely tank formation pretty easily.  This is why the Merkava tank was desined with an infantry compartment.  Infantry support is also why there is a 60mm mortar on the tank.

I trust you can see how the countries philosophy and military experiences can determine what they view as important in equipment design.  The Russians prefer simple, rugged, and reliable.  Americans prefer accurate and precise.   Of course, this means that the US equipment takes a lot more maitainence, and also a higher level of training.  However, the US does train their troops better than almost any other country.  They also have to make their equipment to make every possible advantage, because they have to make the most of every solider they can.

I am an Amercian.  I am an army veteran.  I am not here claiming that american equipment is better than everyone elses.  If you look at individual items, there is every chance that SOME country has a better peice of equipment.  However, NO military has better equipment (taken in general, and not on an item by item basis) than the Americans, for one really cute reason.  If the U.S. military finds something that works better, the U.S. will shamelessly steal the idea.  Case in point:  The U.S. issue mummy sleeping bags that have been keeping soldiers warm since Vietnam was taken from North Korea during the Korean War.  The M1 120mm cannon was taken from the German's Leopard II tank.

As an aside, Americans view the AK-47 as being abysmally inaccurate.  However, put an M-16 and Ak-47 through the same punishment, the M-16 will most likely be toast.  However, I have seen a man bury an AK-47, dig it up, knock the dirt out of the barrell, and fire a magazine through it.  As I said before, it is about what kind of equipment you want.

Spetz wrote:

shamr0x wrote:

This thread does not take into consideration one very important factor....

Air superiority!

In all major recent wars, the US has had it so there is very little head-to-head of just tanks.

There is nothing more awesome than the A-10 flanked by a couple of Apaches supporting the M1A2s.

russian migs out number american jets 6 to 1

America had air superioity in desert storm in 1-2 weeks from what i've read.

@Longbow.

You are right about the T90 not being a new tank.

The current version is the T90s which is comparable to the M1A2SEP, but has a bigger main gun (125mm 2A46M Smoothbore). The T-series are just like the German Panzer series from WW2. They take an already established design and heavily modify it.

What is so good about the T90s is that it can submerge 5mtrs under water and like all other soviet made tanks it can fire missiles. In the case of the T-90s: the 9M119 Refleks (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank guided missile system which has a 700mm armor penetration range and a hit chance of 0.8, where 1.0 is a kill. And it has auto-reload, thus having a crew of only 3 instead of the M1A2SEP's 4.

Also the M1A2 is 20t heavier than the T90.

I can see it already:

"Enemy boa... tank?? spotted!"

Last edited by Bernadictus (2006-03-07 05:26:07)

Bernadictus
Thx for support

m16 sux ass period. ak47 pwns all and it is cheap, powerful, reliable and can be used by any moron. the m4a1 is the shorter, more reliable version of the m16 and still packs the same firepower.

back on tanks:

its more about the crew than the tank most of the time