T90 vs M1A2

[RomeBoarder]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

please lock this useless thread

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Well, let´s just read what the product manager says:

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6985

Of course these exist, but you won´t find them available to the public, because it would be pretty dumb to give hints about weaknesses to the enemy. Ever heard of OPSEC?



I´m not aware of this event, there is a very good report about the friendly fire incidents of GW2 here though: http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6985



The side armor is pretty weak in comparison, the main reason for the high crew survivability is the armor storage concept, which prevents ammunition explosion in most cases (or vents the blast through blow-out panels).





The Abrams´ armor (apart from the DU front inserts) is 70s tech, nowadays you could use MEXAS or other composites/NERA or ERA (like with the TUSK upgrade) for improved side protection.



I don´t think anything "backfired on me", I´m still pretty certain that you don´t know enough about properties of armor&penetration as to provide valid arguments. I don´t care if you know 1000 times more than me about mechanics or if you´re the Queen of England. It is just irrelevant to the discussion.



Well read again hotshot. I quoted this from you:
You wrote that RPGs didn´t ever penetrate the crew compartment. This is demonstrably false, as shown by the examples I provided.
And to call me an argumentative fool, when I cite tons of sources for my statements, while you provide none (and conveniently ignore most those I provide) is a bit ironic.



You know this is not only a internet pissing contest (well for you apparently it is, ok). This also is a matter of life & death for those tankers in danger of getting killed by inadequate protection. Even if Abrams have proven to be more than capable of dealing with the iraqi army, they still are vulnerable to RPGs. For a crewman of a penetrated tank it will be of little use to know that his Abrams is able to kill crappy iraqi T-72s easily.

Dude, what the devil have you been smoking?, in the Abrams entire 30-40 something history, the 8000 that have been produced have had less than what, 20-30 crew deaths

If you read the link I provided the DoD details EXACTLY what happened to about 20 tanks that were disabled in the first gulf war (1 death)

Several US military vehicles like the M1 are so over-engineered, they have had success UNPRECEDENTED in the history of warefare

WTF, are you a commie trying to re-write history?

Lieutenant General |SI|SERIALBUTCHER

peace:)

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Unprecedended because others havent had to taste real combat yet, and if they did, it wasnt as extensive as M1A2. And the "combat experience" was against obselete armor. That really doesnt impress anyone.

[SK]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Dude, what the devil have you been smoking?, in the Abrams entire 30-40 something history, the 8000 that have been produced have had less than what, 20-30 crew deaths

Yeah and that´s a very good track record so far, I never said anything to the contrary. It still remains though that the Abrams is vulnerable to RPG-type weapons from certain aspects.
Before OIF most people thought the Abrams is largely invulnerable, by now it has become "normal" to see Abrams burned out or mission killed in the media once in a while.
The iraqi insurgency isn´t the best equipped, most RPGs used are rather old, some are AP models and some won´t fuze at all. Also, when they have the choice to shoot their RPG at an Abrams or a Humvee, most insurgents choose the latter, for there is a higher chance of "success".
Now if iraqi insurgents would get a large shipment of RPG-29s and training in how to use them, this could change rather quickly. The israeli experience with Hezbollah a few months ago surely gives a hint just how effective light AT weapons and ATGMs can be against modern armor (and that includes the Abrams, because side and rear armor is nothing special).

If you read the link I provided the DoD details EXACTLY what happened to about 20 tanks that were disabled in the first gulf war (1 death)

I take you mean the Friendly Fire Incidents page from the gulflink site? ( http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm ).
Of course I can read about the 20 tanks disabled by friendly fire there ... but that was some 15 years ago, and went public in conjunction with the whole DU affair. The DoD will be very watchfull not to publish current damage investigations to the public, as even those islamist ***holes have people surfing the net.

[PurpleBarney]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Are we talking about real life or ingame anymore? lol

[SK]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

We´re definitely talking real life since about 2 pages, BF2´s tanks don´t have too much in common with their real counterparts, apart from looks.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Unprecedended because others havent had to taste real combat yet, and if they did, it wasnt as extensive as M1A2. And the "combat experience" was against obselete armor. That really doesnt impress anyone.

So I guess the US military is noobish for using unlocks huh?:p

LG SB

peace:)

[RomeBoarder]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

lol they are still going at it

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

So I guess the US military is noobish for using unlocks huh?:p

LG SB

peace:)

LOL, no.

Im saying that you cant say the M16 is the best rifle in the world after youve put a Marine against an archer from medieval times. You dig?:p

My buddies who have served in the army in missions with US troopers in various missions say that US soldiers are far from the best. Point is, a lot of myths are what they are, myths.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Yeah and that´s a very good track record so far, I never said anything to the contrary. It still remains though that the Abrams is vulnerable to RPG-type weapons from certain aspects.
Before OIF most people thought the Abrams is largely invulnerable, by now it has become "normal" to see Abrams burned out or mission killed in the media once in a while.
The iraqi insurgency isn´t the best equipped, most RPGs used are rather old, some are AP models and some won´t fuze at all. Also, when they have the choice to shoot their RPG at an Abrams or a Humvee, most insurgents choose the latter, for there is a higher chance of "success".
Now if iraqi insurgents would get a large shipment of RPG-29s and training in how to use them, this could change rather quickly. The israeli experience with Hezbollah a few months ago surely gives a hint just how effective light AT weapons and ATGMs can be against modern armor (and that includes the Abrams, because side and rear armor is nothing special).


I take you mean the Friendly Fire Incidents page from the gulflink site? ( http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm ).
Of course I can read about the 20 tanks disabled by friendly fire there ... but that was some 15 years ago, and went public in conjunction with the whole DU affair. The DoD will be very watchfull not to publish current damage investigations to the public, as even those islamist ***holes have people surfing the net.

If, if, if, shoulda, woulda, coulda

Whatever our enemies bring to the fight, we got something bigger

I never said large AT rockets weren't a threat to M1's, but the smaller over the shoulder "bazooka" type weapons certainly are not giving the M1 crews sleepless nights

Lieutenant General |SI|SERIALBUTCHER

peace

[eddyeddyd]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

T-90< Russian designed
M1A2< American designed
T-90 Ftw.
But the M1A2 is top 3 best in the world right now.
In the game it might suck, but in real life it owns.

Like that other guy said russians do know how to design stuff so do the germans but fortunately we are allies with the CIVILIZED world those grown men with the emotional stability of 3 year olds in that crappy sandbox they call home dont make much of a fight do they.

as for tank fights i like being anti tank, after my first round is fired ill get out and fire a rocket, then get back in and fire again then get out reload my rocket then get back in and fire then get out and fire a rocket, it gives you a pretty good advantage.

Also i would like to say that a dead animal could sense the hostility in this thread.

the bottom line is our stuff is GREAT AWSOME but not invulnerable the reason we have such great kill death ratios is because of not only great tech but great TRAINING and TACTICS.
we dont just charge max speed and fire we stop think plan and move together.
Also our tanks CAN be penetrated but its VERY difficult we have awsome armor on our vehicles but people seem to forget that people are smart good guy AND bad guys.
necessity is the mother of invention and people good or bad will find a way to dome something and if thats blowing up a tank then theyll do it it wont be easy and we arent pushovers but its possible which is why we dont just go to sleep and think weve got this covered.

[WhardieJones]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

US hasn't fought a non third-wirld army since WW2. Just a whole bunch of propaganda & chest thumping:
Korea 50's
Vietnam 60-70's
Grenada + South america 80's
iraq 90
iraq afghanistan today

Paper champion. I'm not impressed. And they ended up technically losing most of them anyway.

[YoDiddy]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

US hasn't fought a non third-wirld army since WW2. Just a whole bunch of propaganda & chest thumping:
Korea 50's
Vietnam 60-70's
Grenada + South america 80's
iraq 90
iraq afghanistan today

Paper champion. I'm not impressed. And they ended up technically losing most of them anyway.

Pretty much

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

LOL, no.

Im saying that you cant say the M16 is the best rifle in the world after youve put a Marine against an archer from medieval times. You dig?:p

My buddies who have served in the army in missions with US troopers in various missions say that US soldiers are far from the best. Point is, a lot of myths are what they are, myths.

I never said we were the best, I never said the M1 was invincible

I SAID, that there hasn't been a KIA of a M1 crewman because a POS light over the should rocket penetrated into the crew compartment, definitely not in the 1st war, & to the best of my knowlege not in the 2nd

LG SB

Have a nice day Chris:)

I find your conversation interesting really, apart from Butcher ignoring the proof he is demanding. Butcher, youre also arguing about different things. Dont let your ignorance cloud the objective part of your mind.

Anyway, since you two know more than I do about the subject, in real life terms, which is the best tank? I know a few known names like

Abrams
Leclerc 2
Challenger 2
T90

Would be nice to read about how each of these is better compared to the other.

Objective about what?, I am not arguing theory, only the record

Doesn't take much to qualify as proof in your book huh?

Only battle can tell us which is the best

LG SB

peace:)

first of all the reason the armor is light in the back of an M1 is ebcause we dont plan on getting shot in the *** running away and second the kid wanted to know why he couldnt destory a t-90 and now u are bickering over a single death lol chill out. we all know my Sierra pickup could demolish a t-90 so just get over yourselves.....besides serialbutcher is from michigan like me so he automatically wins

LOL....Go WINGS

LG SB

peace

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Im not stating that the track record of M1 isnt bad, or that US army track record is bad. Far from it.

But that track record comes from fighting mostly obselete or poorly trained (compared to US) opposition. You fight only when youve won, otherwise you defend, yes. But does it mean that US gear is worth the ammount of hype around it? No, not really.

Have a nice day too, Butcher.