105 replies to this topic

[Eddy01741]

Pvt. Carrow, on 3 Nov 2007, 12:56, said:

AL_Hassan, on 3 Oct 2007, 18:46, said:

M1A2 is maybe not a bad in tank vs. tank combat but is total bullshit when it comes to tank vs. RPG.

Umm...? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's bullshit against RPG's...how? In that the RPG can't hurt the bitch? I've had drill instructors and combat instructors who say that they've seen M1s take multiple RPG hits with nothing more than scratched paint jobs. It takes a daisy-chained-3-155mm-artillery-shell-with-added-depleted-uranium-penetrator-IED just to blow a track off!

I haven't the time to stop and debate, I'm only on liberty for a little bit and I still have a lot to do, this is just my two cents. AFAIK the M1 has the best combat record of any current tank (except maybe the Merkava, but I don't think so), and is still capable of being upgraded beyond it's already phenomenal abilities. It takes a shitload to kill, a shitload more than most hajjis have, and to US Marines like me, that's all that really matters. Let the Brits love their Challenger and the Krauts love their Leopard, but we love our Abrams.

And alltogether the most sensible post that I've read in this thread - which admittidely I haven't had time to read many - was the post by whoever it was that it all depends on who shoots first.

There have been freak occurences where RPGs may hit some weak spot of the abrams really luckily, but that doesn't happen much. So yeah, RPGs are terrible vs. the abrams, even the RPG-7V (double warhead), but if htey get really lucky (like 1 in a thousand or even smaller chance than that perhaps) they may knock out an abrams. But the same goes for the challanger and leopard.

Yes, the M1 has the best combat record of any tank since in the first GUlf war they knocked out a bunch of T-72s, 62s, and 55s which are respectively 10, 20, and almost 30 years older each (Abrams was built in the early 80s) with no losses, same goes for teh challenger since they were in the coalition, except there were less of them in the force than the abrams, so ... pretty obvious conclusion. You can't trust kill ratios unless your dealing with tanks that are of the same time period or of a time period more in the future.

"And alltogether the most sensible post that I've read in this thread - which admittidely I haven't had time to read many - was the post by whoever it was that it all depends on who shoots first."

Sweet, that means i won the most sensible post in my long comparison.

[Waris]

How about RPG-29? Has it been used against the Coalition tanks in any of the Gulf conflicts?

[Eddy01741]

Not sure really, suppposedly it's supposed to be a lot better than the RPG-7. It has a double warhead but the russians say it penetrates armor better, also, it's supposed to be more accurate since the rocket motor is a lot more powerful, wierd thing is the rocket burns out basically before the RPG-29 round even exits the tube.... :???:

[Foxhound]

Waris, on 5 Nov 2007, 3:29, said:

How about RPG-29? Has it been used against the Coalition tanks in any of the Gulf conflicts?

Supposedly a few have been used against Coalition humvee convoys, but I don't know if they've been used against the tanks.

Also, in response to the idea that 2 RPGs in the same spot can kill an Abrams, what's the chance of having 2 rockets hit the exact same spot on the tank?

[Whitey]

It approaches zero.

[Rot Front]

During the gulf war, some Abramses was destroyed by 30 mm cannons of BMP-2 and even 12,7 mm machineguns (in the back poection) Abrams is no more than shit of drunk and ill cock...
If MBT-70 was put in production, it have more armor&firepower, but it is too expensive.
It is all about american military technology - or vehicle is rubbish (Abrams, Blackhawk, Bradley...), or it costs like a little town (MBT-70, Raptor)...

[narboza22]

You really have no idea what you are talking about. If you are going to spew mindless rhetoric at least post some sort of credible mindless rhetoric.

[Eddy01741]

Okay, how would 30mm cannon shots penetrate abrams armor if a dozen RPGs (usually) can't? Seriously, the Abrams is impervious to auto-cannon fire from IFVs/APCs basically. By the way, in case you didn't know, the number of Abrams severely damaged in battle in the gulf war: 18 total, all by land mines, half were permanently damaged, no abrams crewman were killed.

[Rot Front]

I don't know about casualties in second war, but during Desert Storm near 80 abramses were lost (compare it to 17 destroyed Iraqi T-72, most of them exploded by iraqians,when fuel is ended).

Quote

dozen RPGs (usually) can't?

It is a lie, Abrams haven't ERA, so RPG penetrate it like a piece of paper. Similar about HEAT shells.
Abrams is one of the worst modern tanks in the world. This piece of shit can't be compared with Leopard-2, T-80, even Leclerc (actually, Leclerc have weaker armor, but more powerfull cannon (lengh = shell velocity) with autoloader)... This is not my opinion, this is opinion of independent internartional (not pindos) experts.

[narboza22]

lol, do you know how ridiculous your posts are?

In Desert Storm, 18 M1 Abrams were damaged to the point of needing repairs. 9 were permanent losses and 8 were repaired, with the final 1 having mixed reports of what happened to it. Several T-72's scored hits, but none penetrated. 6 of the 9 M1's destroyed were hit from friendly tank fire and the other 3 were killed in order to prevent them being captured by the Iraqis. Of the 9 damaged, 5 hit mines and 3 were hit by rockets, presumably RPG's. No M1's were lost to enemy tank fire.

I can't find the exact numbers of T-72 losses against solely the M1, but "3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks " were destroyed by the coalition, and most sources say that the air campaign only took out half of the Iraqi tank force, so that left 1850 tanks for the ground forces to deal with, and the M1 was the main weapon used by the ground forces...

Sources for the M1:
http://www.arthurhu....3/03/dstank.txt
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...nd/m1-intro.htm
http://www.fas.org/m...sys/land/m1.htm
http://www.fprado.co...site/abrams.htm

Sources for Iraqi losses:
http://www.gulflink..../fast_facts.htm
http://www.cnn.com/S.../facts/gulfwar/

[Rot Front]

Quote

but "3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks " were destroyed by the coalition

Not by coalition, but by Iraqi soldiers, when vehicles was out of ammunition and fuel. Of course, some of them didn't destroyed, but just abandoned by Iraqians. Next, these abandoned vehicles were exploded by coalition soldiers.
Just because western soldiers (not only soldiers, but most of people) are cowadrdly and stupid...

Quote

Sources for the M1:
http://www.arthurhu....3/03/dstank.txt
http://www.globalsec...nd/m1-intro.htm
http://www.fas.org/m...sys/land/m1.htm
http://www.fprado.co...site/abrams.htm

Sources for Iraqi losses:
http://www.gulflink..../fast_facts.htm
http://www.cnn.com/S.../facts/gulfwar/

Well, another sources:
http://www.btvt.naro.../2/m1in_war.htm
http://www.btvt.naro.../2/m1in_war.htm
http://www.btvt.narod.ru/2/iraq3.html
http://www.btvt.naro...2003_demage.htm

I think you don't speak Russian, so i will translate some (most interesting, in my veiw) facts from these articles.

Quote

К исходу 26 февраля танковая дивизия Тавакална Республиканской гвардии была разгромлена. По словам очевидцев, это был 42-часовой тяжелый танковый бой под дождем и в песчаную бурю.
После этих событий американская пропоганда раструбила на весь мир миф о неуязвимости танка «Абрамс». Однако, как мы можем видеть по событиям, которые происходят в наши дни это не больше чем пустые слова. Заявления о том. Что в ходе операции «Буря в Пустыне» в результате огня врага не потерян ни один танк «Абрамс» смехотворны.

...In the end of 26th of February Tavalkan tank division of Iraqi Reublician Guards was defeated. According to eyewitnesses, it was hard 42 hours tank fight, under rain and sand storm.
After these events, american propaganda had trumpeted this myth about 'invincibility' of Abrams tank. Hovewer, as we can see by events, which takes place in this days, this is no more than mere words. Statements about about that during operation Desert Storm no one Abrams tank lost are just ridiculous...
[here is photos of Abramses destroyed in Iraq: http://www.btvt.naro...aq/usa_1991.htm including destroyed by fire from Iraqi tanks]

Quote

Порой случалось, что иракским танкистам в борьбе с сильным противником, коим являлся, в частности, «Абраме», приходилось применять самые настоящие чудеса выдумки и отваги Например, примечательно боевое столкновение, прошедшее 26 02, около 6 часов утра на окраинах Эль-Кувейта в районе столичного аэропорта Танковое подразделение 16-й иракской мотопехотной дивизии, оснащенное 9 танками Т-62 и пытавшееся выйти из окружения, применило против роты М 1А1 1-го батальона морской пехоты США, стоявшей в боевом дозоре, необычный тактический маневр Чтобы усыпить бдительность противника, иракцы, развернув башни назад и выкинув белые флаги выдвинулись в направлении прорыва Американские танкисты, поверив, ослабили контроль над приближающимся противником, за что и поплатились Когда дистанция между машинами противоборствующих сторон сократилась до 300 метров, иракские танки, неожиданно развернув стволы своих орудий, нанесли мощное огневое поражение противнику В этом скоротечном бою было уничтожено 5 М 1А1 и почти столько же получило различные повреждения

...Sometimes, to fight with more stron enemy, Iraqi tankers made real miracles of ingenuity and courage. For example, fight which taken place in 26.02, near 6:00 AM in surburbs of El-Kuweit near capital airport. Tank squad of 16th Iraqi mechinfantry division, equipped with 9 T-62 tanks tried to break through surround of M1A1 company of 1st US Marines batallion. For this, they used surprising distracting maneuver. They turned their turrets back and rised white flags and then put forward to breakthrough direction. When distance between american and iraqi vehicles were about 300 m reduced, Iraqi tanks unexpectedly turned their turrets and opened fire. In this transient combat 5 M1A1 were destroyed and almost as much had some damage...

Quote

Так что утверждение о том, что в М1 хороши только немецкая пушка и английская броня, заслуживает самого серьезного одобрения.

Statement about that only things that are good in M1 are German cannon and British armor deserves full approval.

Quote

-Ракет «Корнет» в Ираке не обнаружено
-Верх, бока, и тыловая броня восприимчивы к поражению.
-Зарегистрированные случаи, где 30 мм бронебойные снаряды пробивали танк с тыла.
-Левая и правая сторона бортовых экранов, пробивается РПГ.
-Косметические повреждения при поражении противопехотными выстрелами к РПГ.
-Для полного поражения танка достаточно 1 термитной гранаты (внутрь), 2 ракет «Майверик» или выстрела БПС (в область боеуклдки)
-Для вывода танка из строя достаточно от одного выстрела РПГ по боковым частям корпуса.
-Двигатель продемонстрировал низкую надежность и крайне высокую пажароопасность.

-It was no Kornet missiles revealed in Iraq
-Top, sides and back armor is very vulnerable
-Were registered events, when Abrams back armor was penetrated by 30 mm armor piercing shell
-Board screens are easily penetrated with RPG
-Some damage with high-explosive RPG shells
-To full destruction of tank 1 thermit grenado (inside) or 2 Maverick missiles or 1 SABOT shell hit is enough
-To shoot down tank 1 RPG hit in sides of chassis is enough
-Engine is demonstrated very low reliability and high fire danger

Quote

На многих уничтоженных «Абрамсах», пораженных огнем ручных противотанковых гранатометов типа РПГ-7 в борт, противокумулятивные экраны пробивались даже гранатами ПГ-7В (это один из наиболее старых типов гранат для РПГ-7), и ее кумулятивной струи было достаточно, чтобы после экрана пробить и бортовую броню.

Most of destoyed by portable anti-tank grenade launchers (like RPG-7) Abramses, their anticumulative screens vere pentrated even PG-7V (this is one of the most old grenade types for RPG-7). Its cumulative jet was enoght to penetrate both screen and side chassis armor.

Quote

Так сгорел один «Абрамс» («из-за вторичного эффекта»), который был обстрелян из 12,7-мм пулемета ДШК. Пуля попала в левую заднюю часть башни, где как раз и расположена ВСУ, пробила ящик, вывела из строя установку, а горящее топливо и масло из нее устремились вниз, в МТО. Произошло возгорание силовой установки, которая полностью выгорела, танк восстановлению не подлежит

One abrans was burned then it was shooted by 12,7 mm DShK machinegun. Bullet was hit to left-back part of turret, to auxiliary power-plant, was penetrated the box, destroyed the power-plant and burning oil from it has spilled into engine segment. Engine was fully burned, tank isn't capable to restoration.

P.S. I tried to translate literraly, not literary to save the most part of sense. Excuse me for my bad English :(

[Reaper94]

abhrams > all > all > everything

[Rayburn]

Rot Front, I don't give a toss about how you vehemently insist on your opinion regarding the M1, but comments like

Quote

Just because western soldiers (not only soldiers, but most of people) are cowadrdly and stupid...

are highly unwanted.

They aren't only propaganda-infested statements full of hatred and bias, they are political and politics = no-go. Please cut this crap.

Edited by Rayburn, 07 November 2007 - 17:04.

[Areze]

Rot Front:
Can you get any more bias? Please use a brain instead of spewing unholy amounts of bullshit all over the place. The M1 is one of the top 5 modern tanks out there with the Merkava, Challenger (Not sure which one), Leopard and another I can't think of. Perhaps the Leclerc.

[Eddy01741]

Rot Front, on 7 Nov 2007, 0:56, said:

I don't know about casualties in second war, but during Desert Storm near 80 abramses were lost (compare it to 17 destroyed Iraqi T-72, most of them exploded by iraqians,when fuel is ended).

Quote

dozen RPGs (usually) can't?

It is a lie, Abrams haven't ERA, so RPG penetrate it like a piece of paper. Similar about HEAT shells.
Abrams is one of the worst modern tanks in the world. This piece of shit can't be compared with Leopard-2, T-80, even Leclerc (actually, Leclerc have weaker armor, but more powerfull cannon (lengh = shell velocity) with autoloader)... This is not my opinion, this is opinion of independent internartional (not pindos) experts.

LMAO at your logic and LMAO at your biased ness.

Lets see, go google "Abrams lost in Gulf War", all sources say 18 abrams, none of which were destroyed by RPGS or other tanks.

OMG, IT"S A LIE, just cuz Abrams doesn't have ERA. Ever heard of Composite armor? It's called fusing together RHA (rolled homogenous armor, aka, steel armor) with ceramic plates. In case you didn't know, ceramics are able to withstand extremely high temperature, so the Heat round penetrates the steel, but then shatters the ceramic block, this absorbs all the heat from the HEAT round or hollow charge, which is what is used to penetrate armor.

Leclerc just sucks, the only great thing is it's mobility, it's gun is on par with others, FCS sucks, they just brag about the leclerc going as fast backwards as most tanks go forwards.

Seriously, i'm not even going to argue any more, just go google "Abrams losses in GUlf war", all the results will say 18 abrams lost, then "RPG vs. Abrams". It's really obvious, your biased and hate the Abrams, if some WW1 era tanks and all WW2 Era tanks were impervious to 12.7mm machine gun rounds, an Abrams is obviously more than impervious, and 30mm cannon shots are useless against tanks even in the WWII unless you can get them to be spit out at a FAST rate (I'm obviously hinting at the effectiveness of the Avenger cannon on the A-10, which spits out 30mm DU AP rounds at 4200 per minute, the fact that right after another alll these rounds are hitting virtually the same place overwhelms the resistance of steel easily).


Personally, i'm not a big fan of the abrams at all, but do i recognize it is one of the best in the world, heck yes. It's firepower, mobility, and protection are more or less on par with that of the challenger and the Leopard 2, but it's networking between tanks is superior. I myself am a Leopard 2A6 fan, but I still recognize the Abrams as one of the best in the world.

P.S. How would the MBT-70, a 37 year old project, using all steel armor, beat out the abrams. the tank was hhugely expensive and huge physically. The only innovation was the suspension, which could lower each end of the tank as well as make the whole tank Squat about half a foot, not that amazing. It's like a M-60 that has a special suspension.

[narboza22]

Well said

[Areze]

narboza22, on 7 Nov 2007, 18:52, said:

Well said

I agree. Even if the Abrams may not be the favorite; denying it's power is all kinds of wrong.

[Rot Front]

Quote

Ever heard of Composite armor?

It protects against sabot shells, not agaist cumulative jet.

Quote

none of which were destroyed by RPGS or other tanks.

|
|
V

Quote

...Sometimes, to fight with more stron enemy, Iraqi tankers made real miracles of ingenuity and courage. For example, fight which taken place in 26.02, near 6:00 AM in surburbs of El-Kuweit near capital airport. Tank squad of 16th Iraqi mechinfantry division, equipped with 9 T-62 tanks tried to break through surround of M1A1 company of 1st US Marines batallion. For this, they used surprising distracting maneuver. They turned their turrets back and rised white flags and then put forward to breakthrough direction. When distance between american and iraqi vehicles were about 300 m reduced, Iraqi tanks unexpectedly turned their turrets and opened fire. In this transient combat 5 M1A1 were destroyed and almost as much had some damage...

It is info from independent source (Russian. Because Russian expets are not interested in 'glorification' of Iraqi or Coalition forces. Unlike american, which tears their own assholes in attempts of propaganda).
As for heroic act of Iraqi tank crews... Are americans capabale to similar heroism? I doubt...
"American army is strong only in hollywood movies"

Quote

I'm obviously hinting at the effectiveness of the Avenger cannon on the A-10, which spits out 30mm DU AP rounds at 4200 per minute, the fact that right after another alll these rounds are hitting virtually the same place overwhelms the resistance of steel easily

Russian 2A72 cannon fires armor-piercing shells with a tungsten core... It is enough to penetrate armor of any tank, if it hits in side or back.

Quote

Personally, i'm not a big fan of the abrams at all, but do i recognize it is one of the best in the world, heck yes. It's firepower, mobility, and protection are more or less on par with that of the challenger and the Leopard 2, but it's networking between tanks is superior. I myself am a Leopard 2A6 fan, but I still recognize the Abrams as one of the best in the world.

Abrams is not a very bad tank... But "only things that are good in M1 are German cannon and British armor".

But this topic isn't about american loose in Iraq, but about tank vs. tank combat between listed tanks.
Of course, T-80U kills any western tank out of their fire range, because of 9M119M Refleks laser-guided missile.
+Autoloader
+ERA
+Shtora
+Arena
No any anologs on enemy tanks! (exluding autoloader on Leclerc)

Quote

P.S. How would the MBT-70, a 37 year old project, using all steel armor, beat out the abrams. the tank was hhugely expensive and huge physically. The only innovation was the suspension, which could lower each end of the tank as well as make the whole tank Squat about half a foot, not that amazing. It's like a M-60 that has a special suspension.

Well, MBT-70 have superior firepower over M1 because in have 152 mm cannon with autoloader, and anti-tank missiles.

Edited by Rot Front, 08 November 2007 - 07:05.

[narboza22]

Quote

It protects against sabot shells, not agaist cumulative jet.

No, it is effective against both HEAT and KE rounds.

Quote

Quote

...Sometimes, to fight with more stron enemy, Iraqi tankers made real miracles of ingenuity and courage. For example, fight which taken place in 26.02, near 6:00 AM in surburbs of El-Kuweit near capital airport. Tank squad of 16th Iraqi mechinfantry division, equipped with 9 T-62 tanks tried to break through surround of M1A1 company of 1st US Marines batallion. For this, they used surprising distracting maneuver. They turned their turrets back and rised white flags and then put forward to breakthrough direction. When distance between american and iraqi vehicles were about 300 m reduced, Iraqi tanks unexpectedly turned their turrets and opened fire. In this transient combat 5 M1A1 were destroyed and almost as much had some damage...

It is info from independent source (Russian. Because Russian expets are not interested in 'glorification' of Iraqi or Coalition forces. Unlike american, which tears their own assholes in attempts of propaganda).
As for heroic act of Iraqi tank crews... Are americans capabale to similar heroism? I doubt...
"American army is strong only in hollywood movies"

A) A Russian source is not a neutral source because Iraq was using Russian equipment against US equipment at a time when the US was still Russia's enemy.
B) You need serious help if you think that pretending to surrender and then firing once the other guy approaches is an act of heroism. That might even qualify as a war crime if it actually happened, which it didn't.
C) You're biased opinion is starting to get offensive. Why are you incapable of posting without flaming like 99% of the other members of this forum?

Quote

Russian 2A72 cannon fires armor-piercing shells with a tungsten core... It is enough to penetrate armor of any tank, if it hits in side or back.

What does that have to do with anything?

Quote

Abrams is not a very bad tank... But "only things that are good in M1 are German cannon and British armor".

But this topic isn't about american loose in Iraq, but about tank vs. tank combat between listed tanks.
Of course, T-80U kills any western tank out of their fire range, because of 9M119M Refleks laser-guided missile.
+Autoloader
+ERA
+Shtora
+Arena
No any anologs on enemy tanks! (exluding autoloader on Leclerc)

Autoloaders are not better than manual loaders, that has been explained several times already, I guess you missed those posts.

ERA does not stop top attack ATGMs or KE rounds.

I have seen no proof that Shtora works, on the other hand, proof that the M1's thermal camo works can be seen here: http://www.defensere...article725.html

As for ARENA, again, I have seen no proof that it works, and Russian armor certainly took a lot of casualties in Chechnya which would seem to point to some short comings in ARENA.

Quote

Well, MBT-70 have superior firepower over M1 because in have 152 mm cannon with autoloader, and anti-tank missiles.

Bigger guns do not mean better guns. The 120mm cannons on the Challenger and Abrams proved far more accurate over a longer range, and with greater penetration than the 125mm cannons that the Iraqis had.

[Whitey]

Which, if you don't want to get technical, can be explained by wind resistence and shock distribution. Larger cannons mean nothing when other aspects aren't accounted for.

[Rot Front]

Quote

No, it is effective against both HEAT and KE rounds.

Ok... So, why abrams with its chobham 'super-puper armor' is so easily killed by RPGs?

Quote

A) A Russian source is not a neutral source because Iraq was using Russian equipment against US equipment at a time when the US was still Russia's enemy.

Iraq used old 60-70s Soviet weapons (T-55, T-62, downgraded export version of T-72...). It can't be compared with modern (or even upgraded) Russian tanks (T-72BM-1M, T-90 (A/B), T-80UM, T-80AT...).

Quote

B) You need serious help if you think that pretending to surrender and then firing once the other guy approaches is an act of heroism. That might even qualify as a war crime if it actually happened, which it didn't.

They defended their Homeland. There can't be any 'rules' on war... But, if you are talking abut 'war crime', aren't attack of Iraq, Vietnam and Yugoslavia war crimes? American occupants bombed cities, killed civilians, used chemical weapons... On a war against such mean, cowardly and ruthless enemy as USA, any rules of honour are inapplicable.

Quote

Autoloaders are not better than manual loaders, that has been explained several times already, I guess you missed those posts.

Autoloaders is better because man, who loading shells, can be injured, killed, or he just tired and can't load shells very quickly, Autoloader of 2A46M-1 is always have rate of fire near 8 shots per minute, and upgraded version 2A46M-5 with new autoloader fires 12 shots per minute.

Quote

I have seen no proof that Shtora works, on the other hand, proof that the M1's thermal camo works can be seen here:

Shtora is optical anti-missile system. It shots very bright laser flash, which 'blinds' laser-guided missiles, and when launch smoke grenades to cloak the tank.
http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/shtora1/t80u.jpg
As for 'thermal camo', Russia use more effective 'Nakidka' IR-shelter. Unlike western analogs, it is really works.
http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/nakidka_.files/image001.jpg
http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/nakidka_.files/image006.jpg

Quote

As for ARENA, again, I have seen no proof that it works, and Russian armor certainly took a lot of casualties in Chechnya which would seem to point to some short comings in ARENA.

Arena can shot down any subsonic missile, but in Chechnya... was no one tank equipped with Arena. Most of tanks even was without ERA, because it is stolen! After collapse of USSR was no order in Army. Many weapons and vehicles was stolen and sold to 'third world' countries and terrorists.

Quote

Bigger guns do not mean better guns. The 120mm cannons on the Challenger and Abrams proved far more accurate over a longer range, and with greater penetration than the 125mm cannons that the Iraqis had.

Challendger and Abrams cannon are not better than 125 mm 2A46M. They just used better shells than Iraq. Iraqi tanks used outdated sabot rounds, which were out of service in USSR.

Edited by Rot Front, 08 November 2007 - 11:22.

[AZZKIKR]

some of what ROT Front said was true. soviet export models were of inferior quality; either having decreased armour protection. and one can't compare the M1 with the T-72. they are a few years different. if i'm not mistaken a whole 10 year difference.

and auto=loaders can be great but not in T-64. many tank personnel were injured by the autoloader.

(ZOMG-just realised most russians are incredibly patriotic)

to rot front: there is no need to be very patriotic. each tank has it's pros & cons. no tank is perfect.

Edited by AZZKIKR. the kicker of ass, 08 November 2007 - 14:14.

[Eddy01741]

Okay, i'm officially never arguing with you again, your simply TOO GOOD!







NOT!

(i'm serious about not arguing though). Reasons why(these are quotes from you):
Abramses was destroyed by 30 mm cannons of BMP-2 and even 12,7 mm machineguns (in the back poection) biggrin.gif Abrams is no more than shit of drunk and ill cock...
but during Desert Storm near 80 abramses were lost (compare it to 17 destroyed Iraqi T-72, most of them exploded by iraqians,when fuel is ended).
It is a lie, Abrams haven't ERA, so RPG penetrate it like a piece of paper. Similar about HEAT shells.
It is info from independent source (Russian. Because Russian expets are not interested in 'glorification' of Iraqi or Coalition forces. Unlike american, which tears their own assholes in attempts of propaganda).
As for heroic act of Iraqi tank crews... Are americans capabale to similar heroism(pretending to surrender is heroic?, it's against the geneva convention idiot)? I doubt...
-To full destruction of tank 1 thermit grenado (inside) or 2 Maverick missiles or 1 SABOT shell hit is enough, PERSONAL COMMENT: Well, if you throw a grenade in a tank, obviously the crew will die, pretty obvious, eh? One maverick missile could do the job, i mean, have you seen how fucking huge a maverick missile is (it's a medium range anti ground missile launched from attack planes). Any tank will die with one APFSDS shot, so your point is useless. /PERSONAL COMMENT
Most of destoyed by portable anti-tank grenade launchers (like RPG-7) Abramses, their anticumulative screens vere pentrated even PG-7V (this is one of the most old grenade types for RPG-7). Its cumulative jet was enoght to penetrate both screen and side chassis armor. PERSONAL COMMENT: Really, the PG-7V is the dual warhead projectile made just to counter ERA armor, not very old, eh? /PERSONAL COMMENT
Well, MBT-70 have superior firepower over M1 because in have 152 mm cannon with autoloader, and anti-tank missiles. PERSONAL COMMENT: THis is like saying hte M552 Sheridan was superior to the M1 in firepower since it has that gun, it has a super short barrel in case you noticed. There are several things that matter in penetration of a shell (not including tank armor), velocity, angle of impact, projectile mass, and penetrator shape. A 120mm APFSDS shot fired from the M256 gun is superior in all ways except for projectile mass to anything that the 152mm gun could fire, that was 40 year old tech. / PERSONAL COMMENT

Ok... So, why abrams with its chobham 'super-puper armor' is so easily killed by RPGs?
Iraq used old 60-70s Soviet weapons (T-55, T-62, downgraded export version of T-72...). It can't be compared with modern (or even upgraded) Russian tanks (T-72BM-1M, T-90 (A/B), T-80UM, T-80AT...).
They defended their Homeland. There can't be any 'rules' on war... But, if you are talking abut 'war crime', aren't attack of Iraq, Vietnam and Yugoslavia war crimes? American occupants bombed cities, killed civilians, used chemical weapons... On a war against such mean, cowardly and ruthless enemy as USA, any rules of honour are inapplicable. PERSONAL COMMENT: In the state of war, if one country declares war on another, all the rules of war are valid and in affect, it doesn't matter if they wree the offenders or defenders. /PERSONAL COMMENT

Autoloaders is better because man, who loading shells, can be injured, killed, or he just tired and can't load shells very quickly, Autoloader of 2A46M-1 is always have rate of fire near 8 shots per minute, and upgraded version 2A46M-5 with new autoloader fires 12 shots per minute. PERSONAL COMMENT: Auto loaders are slower than manual loading. Also, when will you need to load enough shells consecutively to "tire out" the loader. THere are only 40 projectiles in a tank, and when do you ever have to fire consecutively for a minute straight. /PERSONAL COMMENT


Challendger and Abrams cannon are not better than 125 mm 2A46M. They just used better shells than Iraq. Iraqi tanks used outdated sabot rounds, which were out of service in USSR. PERSONAL COMMENT: Once again, inability to see past the caliber of guns. I guess that means 300mm civil war era mortars can do a better job penetrating tanks than any modern tank gun by your logic. /PERSONAL COMMENT




Yeah, i think my point it pretty self explanatory for logical human beings.

[Whitey]

Now if only he'd read all that.

[AZZKIKR]

russian tanks have very limited depression angle of gun compareed to western tanks