Abrams

[Sea Skimmer]

Dammit, the French are doing nothing to improve their military reputation.

It gets worse. After South Korea chose the F-15K over the Rafale and several other fighters, the French attempted to sue the South Korean government to force them to change their decision and buy Rafale. Among other things the French claimed the whole thing was rigged..

The ROK told them to go fuck them selves

[Sea Skimmer]

Well the French sure can be dodgy can't they!

"The problem is it costs several hundred thousand dollars per tank, and will kill any supporting infantry within about 100 feet. Plus the panels are very large, so it's possible to aim a second shot into the hole blasted by a first.

Actually short bursts of auto cannon fire against each tank so equipped would likely strip it all away. Still it is kick ass."

Yeah the ERA set costs more but considering that Russian tanks are already cheaper it doesn't really make much of a difference- I also thought that an autocannon would be able to strip it away but in an actual battlefield situation I doubt it would be much of a tactic- that Bradley firing its 25mm at the T-80 or T-90 a few thousand meters away will just be telling the tank "hey look at me!", instead of dealing with the vehicles on the battlefield it can actually kill.

I think its amazing that a tank that weighs more than 20 tons less than the M1A2 (T-90 only weighs 49 tons IIRC) can stand up to it on a battlefied- even though the Abrams is of course still the superior machine.

The T-90 and other Russian tanks have awful side and rear armor though, thats one of the biggest weigth saving mesures in the design. This was the direct cause of many tank losses in Chechnya, and is why the Russians now offer a modfied T-80 for urban combat thats 15 tons heavier.

ERA also has heavy lifetime costs and needs a lot of maintenance. If your already buying Russian, then another 200K per tank plus many more thousands down the road are going to add up rather quickly.


As for killing the ERA, it depends on if you IFV's has an ATGW or not. If they do, then firing a couple rounds and then launching a missile would be a perfectly workable target and introduce little extra risk. But if you only have the cannon, then you are likely better off sticking to nailing the swarms of BMP's and BTR's that so often accompany Soviet/Russian supplied armored hoards.


Fun fact of the day, at 800 meters range the M2 Bradley's 25mm cannon rounds can actually penetrate the lower bow armor of a T-55 and kill it..

[Vympel]

I'm not surprised- our own Aussie Army recently discovered that the armor on our Leopard 1s was so old that it too was pierced by the 25mm rounds from our LAVs!

High armor losses in the *first* Chechen War (94-96) were due to two factors

- sending them into urban terrain with inadequate/ incompetent infantry support
- actually ordering them to leave their ERA behind out of concern for the infantry- a concern which proved unfounded, actually.

Mind you Kontakts-V heavy ERA wasn't used by most tanks in Chechnya, the overwhelming majority of Army (not Interior Ministry- who use T-62s) tanks was the T-72B with Kontakts light ERA, which is perfectly adequate for stopping an RPG round. Though you can find some pics on the net of T-72BMs with Kontakts-V rolling around.

In the second Chechen War (99-now) losses in armor have been really low- strategypage.com reports that out of 400 tanks deployed, only 10 were lost (as in total writeoffs). Bah anyway the Chechens got their asses kicked, right now all they're managing to do is nuisance attacks and mines (although even the mines might start to be ineffective- the Russians have introduced a device to set off command detonated mines prematurely- several Chechens have been blown to pieces already).

Notable incidents: in one battle a T-72B was hit nine times by RPGs in a four-hour battle, and while immobilized was still able to fight, and no crew were injured.

[MKSheppard]

In the second Chechen War (99-now) losses in armor have been really low- strategypage.com reports that out of 400 tanks deployed, only 10 were lost (as in total writeoffs). Bah anyway the Chechens got their asses kicked, right now all they're managing to do is nuisance attacks and mines (although even the mines might start to be ineffective- the Russians have introduced a device to set off command detonated mines prematurely- several Chechens have been blown to pieces already).

<sarcasm>

Those poor chechen freedom fighters don't get any press at all,
while the Palestinian freedom fighters get all the press....

</sarcasm>

Can you imagine the outrage on the international scene if
the Israelis did what the Russians have been doing in Chechenya.....

Word of the wise to international terrorists....


Don't fucking blow up crowds in Russia....


The Russians will come down on you 100 times harder than the Israelis
ever will, and nobody will give a fuck about your valiant freedom fighters
and how the Russians are opressing you....

[Azeron]

The T90 fire control system is a piece of crap, and they line the inside of the cockpit with munitions. even if the t90 had the K5 armour, I wouldn't be surprised if a numition exploded anyways.

There is a reason why arabs are dumping russian equipment in dorves, and it isn't US subsidies. They require a great deal of mantainence and spare parts. In every conflict where American Equipment has gone against soviet equipment, american equipment won straight out in the last say 40 years.

The T90 can't even stand up to a light american tank let alone an M!1A2 SEP. T 90 series is relatviely moderate upgrade of the poorly designed T72, thats why in rankings it falls behind even the french tank by leaps and bounds.

The Only tank the russians seriously deploy against potential opponents is the T80 series tank. They don't sell those, and they are rather decent overall, even if some of them are blantant rippoffs of american tanks. But again the fire control system is wholely inadequate to fire a penetrator round.

[Vympel]

The T90 fire control system is a piece of crap, and they line the inside of the cockpit with munitions. even if the t90 had the K5 armour, I wouldn't be surprised if a numition exploded anyways.

There is a reason why arabs are dumping russian equipment in dorves, and it isn't US subsidies. They require a great deal of mantainence and spare parts. In every conflict where American Equipment has gone against soviet equipment, american equipment won straight out in the last say 40 years.

The T90 can't even stand up to a light american tank let alone an M!1A2 SEP. T 90 series is relatviely moderate upgrade of the poorly designed T72, thats why in rankings it falls behind even the french tank by leaps and bounds.

The Only tank the russians seriously deploy against potential opponents is the T80 series tank. They don't sell those, and they are rather decent overall, even if some of them are blantant rippoffs of american tanks. But again the fire control system is wholely inadequate to fire a penetrator round.

Assertion 1: The T-90 fire control system is a piece of crap

Prove it. It actually has better fire control than the T-80U, and the T-80UM borrows the FCS of the T-90. For your information the FCS of the T-90 is digital, fully integrated and includes a thermal imager.

Assertion 2: Arabs are dumping Russian equipment in droves

Which Arabs? The only ones I can think of are Egypt. Droves eh?

Assertion 3: Russian tanks require a great deal of maintenance and spare parts?

All military equipment as complicated as a modern tank requires maintenance and spare parts. Prove your assertion that they require more maintenance and spare parts than an M1A2 SEP (a ridiculous assertion considering the complexity/weight of an Abrams)

Assertion 4: Every conflict where American equipment has gone against Soviet equipment, American equipment has won

And who was using that Soviet equipment? Arabs, who even with numerical superiority couldn't beat the Israelis, because the IDF is a SUPERB MILITARY MACHINE. The key is TRAINING. Also, all the equipment that has fought has been export monkey-model. There's a big difference between that and Red Army spec. Heck the T-64 and T-80 (the high-tech mix in Red Army forces) were NEVER exported. Likewise, the T-72B has NEVER been exported.

Assertion 5: The T-90 can't even stand up to a light american tank let alone an M1A2 SEP.

Bullshit. I've shown evidence that the T-90 can indeed stand up to an M1A2 SEP, your baseless nationalist bullshit to the contrary aside. Not bad for a tank that weighs over 20 tons less.

Assertion 6: T-90 is a relatively moderate upgrade.

Bullshit.

- New main gun (2A46M2, with better accuracy and barrel life)
- New armor (Konakts-5, and an improved composite mix over the previous T-72B)
- New fire control system
- Shtora-1 'dazzler' system against wire-guided and laser-guided ATGMs (hint: TOW and Hellfire)
- New engine: V-92S2 1,000hp diesel
- New turret: on the T-90M 'Vladimir' variant.

Assertion 7: The T-80 is a blatant rip-off of American tanks

Where pray tell is the similarity, besides the gas-turbine engine that the Russians have now abandoned because you can achieve the same HP with less fuel consumption on a diesel? The Abrams is a fuel hog. The Leopard 2 is far superior in this regard.

Differences I see

- 20 tons lighter
- explosive reactive armor
- autoloader-fed main gun
- 3 man crew
- low silhouette

Assertion 8: the FCS is 'wholly inadequate' to fire a penetrator round

As I said above, prove it. You act as though APFSDS haven't been fired until the FCS of the M1 was developed.

[Vympel]

<sarcasm>

Those poor chechen freedom fighters don't get any press at all,
while the Palestinian freedom fighters get all the press....

</sarcasm>

Can you imagine the outrage on the international scene if
the Israelis did what the Russians have been doing in Chechenya.....

Word of the wise to international terrorists....


Don't fucking blow up crowds in Russia....


The Russians will come down on you 100 times harder than the Israelis
ever will, and nobody will give a fuck about your valiant freedom fighters
and how the Russians are opressing you....

LOL. Dirty wars, dirty wars ...

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm not surprised- our own Aussie Army recently discovered that the armor on our Leopard 1s was so old that it too was pierced by the 25mm rounds from our LAVs!

High armor losses in the *first* Chechen War (94-96) were due to two factors

- sending them into urban terrain with inadequate/ incompetent infantry support
- actually ordering them to leave their ERA behind out of concern for the infantry- a concern which proved unfounded, actually.

Mind you Kontakts-V heavy ERA wasn't used by most tanks in Chechnya, the overwhelming majority of Army (not Interior Ministry- who use T-62s) tanks was the T-72B with Kontakts light ERA, which is perfectly adequate for stopping an RPG round. Though you can find some pics on the net of T-72BMs with Kontakts-V rolling around.

In the second Chechen War (99-now) losses in armor have been really low- strategypage.com reports that out of 400 tanks deployed, only 10 were lost (as in total writeoffs). Bah anyway the Chechens got their asses kicked, right now all they're managing to do is nuisance attacks and mines (although even the mines might start to be ineffective- the Russians have introduced a device to set off command detonated mines prematurely- several Chechens have been blown to pieces already).

Notable incidents: in one battle a T-72B was hit nine times by RPGs in a four-hour battle, and while immobilized was still able to fight, and no crew were injured.

IIRC the chain gun on the M2 and LAV is the same weapon. Leo 1 is in the same generation as the T-54, and originally only had about 80mm of frontal armor.

One M60 without reactive armor took 18 RPG hits in 2 days fighting in Hue in 1968. Frontal strikes with RPG's are only lethal against some very old tanks.

What happened all to often in 1994 as that the shots where not fontal or flank, but rather from above onto the engine deck or turret top. Here many ERA fits offer no or only minimal protection, the flat impact angle greatly reduces its effectiveness the first place.

Few tanks where lost in the second invasion, but BTR's and BMP's suffered very heavily. The Chechens saw Russian infantry as a bigger threat in many cases, and attempted to take them out before they could get into buildings.

[Sea Skimmer]

Vympel, 320T-80UD's where exported to Pakistan several years ago by the Ukraine, though many parts came from Russia. China reportly got 200 in 1994-5. However this has never been confirmed. Though given the big leap in PLA tank's a few years later, I think its very possibul it went though.

The T-64 though, not only was it never exported but it also never appeared in a single Russian military parade. IIRC though it was used as the basis for a fake tank company built to screw with NATO Intel.

The Russians where quite found of such things, almost every parade had at least one fake artillery piece, missile or AFV. In one case they threw a giant section of oil pipe on a vis modded SS-12 TEL.

[MKSheppard]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t64tank.htm

T-64 Tank

The T-64, introduced in the late 1960s, was the first of a sophisticated new family of Soviet main battle tanks developed as successors to the T-54/55/62 family. Retaining the low silhouette of the T-54/55/62 series of tanks, the T-64 featured an innovative design incorporating both an autoloader and advanced armor. The T- 64 entered production in 1966, was fielded in 1967, and was first seen in public in 1970. Numerous variants were produced during a very long production run. While the T-64 is closely related to the T-72, the T-64 was produced solely for the Soviet Army and the slightly less capable T-72 was exported world-wide. Unlike the T-72, the T-64 has an infra-red searchlight on the left side of the 125mm gun, a different power pack, narrower track, a different suspension, and a slightly different turret.

[MKSheppard]

T-55 MBT




An extensively modernized Iraqi T-55 with ERA.



T-62 MBT






T-64 MBT



T-72 MBT



T-80 MBT



T-90 MBT

A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a vareity of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T- 34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998.Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lowerr silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higherr cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard.

[Sea Skimmer]

How could you forget the PT-76? Who doesn&#8217;t love a tank that 12.7mm machinegun fire can kill? I'm sure the Russians have some hidden away somewhere.

[Admiral Piett]

There is a reason why arabs are dumping russian equipment in dorves, and it isn't US subsidies. They require a great deal of mantainence and spare parts. In every conflict where American Equipment has gone against soviet equipment, american equipment won straight out in the last say 40 years.

The T90 can't even stand up to a light american tank let alone an M!1A2 SEP. T 90 series is relatviely moderate upgrade of the poorly designed T72, thats why in rankings it falls behind even the french tank by leaps and bounds.

Russian equipment much more maintenance intensive than american one?
Where does this come from?
"The T90 can't even stand up to a light american tank"
What american light tank?The only light tank currently in the inventory is the Sheridan.Frankly if you really believe that a Sheridan outclasses a T-90
you have a problem.

Correction,it is not even in the inventory anymore.No light tanks in the US armed forces.

[Sea Skimmer]

Now for some more obscure Russian and Russian spin off armor. You can do a lot with the chassis and turret mantel, which is about all that&#8217;s original on some of these.

T-72-120. An massively upgraded T-72 with a French 120mm gun, joint French/Ukraine project



T-80 Black Eagle. The ultimate Russian T-80U upgrade



T-84 Oplot, a massively upgraded T-84 built by Ukraine. Its tailors of Turkeys requirements for a new MBT to replace M48's and Leo 1's. No decision has yet been made on this deal. It mounts a 120mm gun as well.



http://www.morozov.com.ua/images/oplot_7l.jpg Link to cool but huge picture of the Oplot. Posting it fucks up formatting to much.

And of course my T-80U firing in mid air pic can't be left out.

[Azeron]

Here is one article (too long too post) on the state of russian weapons technology, tactics and the realy laughable mantainence problems.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/ ... able.shtml

As for the arabs, only Iran, Iraq, Syria, and maybe yenmen still use rusisan tanks, and thats simply beacuse they aren't allowed to purchase them.

Kuwait has alredy replaced its entire t-72 fleet with abrams, as well as the saudis,oman, bahrain and the egyptians. Jordan may stil have some, but I beleive they are veing replaced. All Russian made fighters are being sold for pennies on the dollars, and they are buying american fighters to replace them. (Kuwait couldn't even sell the french fighters) really they are a joke, noone expecting wo fight a war wants them. Kuwait just signed a 2 billion dollar deal to buy 16 apache 64d helicopters.

I have to find some info on soviet tanks I have read about. Its really laughable, the kind of quality engineering in these tanks. Well you buy poor, you get poor stuff in return.

[Oberleutnant]

I have to disagree with some of things said in this article. Some of this is based on what I've heared from those who have operated Finnish T-72s.

"The T-72 is a classic. The commander of a T-72 can't be taller than 5'4" (160 cm) and he has to be left handed. Otherwise he can't fit inside, or operate the controls with his favored hand."

This sounds a bit hard to believe. I've heard complaints that the interior of T-72 is certainly not an ergonomical masterpiece, but this is 160cm figure is exaggeration.


"They also break easily. The Soviets themselves did build huge numbers of tanks, but most of them were stored unused. If they were used heavily for training and such, they'd wear out, and the Soviets knew it. The Russians don't do a lot of maintenance on their T-72's because they don't use them. (They have to do a certain amount of work on the huge numbers of them they've got stored, but that's minor compared to what a real tank in real use needs.)"

T-72 is rugged and reliable <- that's what I've heard. If properly maintained, of course. Our one hundred T-55M1s from the fifties are still in service and working fine, though they (and T-72s) are being slowly removed from service as the Leo 2 comes.


"It's true that there are huge number of T-72's still in service, but the reason they're so popular in third world nations, then and now, is because they're cheap."

Agreed, but their small size was one of the factors as well. In a forest terrain it can be extremely important. The price tag of an unmodified export T-72 isn't very big, though. If I remember correctly, FDF paid less than half a million euros/dollars per tank in 1980s.

It seems that we always buy the cheapest when it comes to armour. For example, can anyone guess how much FDF paid for 124 almost new Leopard 2A4s, Leo 2 simulators, maintainance parts, ammunition, training?

120 million euros/dollars... It doesn't get any cheapter than that. They'll be modernised in the near-future.


"Soviet-era jets ran through engines at a rapid rate, too. American jet engines are good for hundreds of hours before they need to be rebuilt, but the Soviet jet engines had to be replaced completely far more often than that. They couldn't produce the alloys needed to make engines reliable, and the workmanship was substandard."

MiG-21s that were flown by the FAF for several decades are still considered superior to F-18C/D Hornets (current interceptor) in some ways by our pilots. I might be wrong, but not a single MiG was lost to a mechanical failure or accident. Maintaince perhaps?


"In reponse to your comments on the Soviet tank with the autoloader...it was the T-64, and some variants of the T-62. God-awful pieces of junk, that, as you correctly posit..loads the gunners arm into the main gun tube"

I concur. Few gunners have lost their arms thanks to this here as well, I've heard.


Anyway, that article is hardly equivalent to "Jane's", but it does have a few things I fully agree on.

[Oberleutnant]

About modernisation of T-72: It's 2 AM while I'm writing this and I don't have any source material nearby, so there might be some mistakes here. Czech Republic recently modernised its T-72s, but the results have been less than spectacular. Modernisation was also considered by the Finnish Defence Forces, but in the end the army said that it would be "useless". They said that a) it would be extremely expensive and b) an upgraded T-72 would still be no match for newer, western MBTs. Thanks to the Soviet design philosophy, T-72 was never made with later modification possibilities in mind, unlike Leopard 2 for example. Price of possible modernisation of those two hundred Finnish T-72s was never revealed, at least not in public, but "the price of buying a new tank would be almost the same".

[Vympel]

Note: both these extracts are my own words- feel free to use them though it's just collation from various sources.

Black Eagle (Not T-80UM2!)

"This new tank was shown for the first time at the second VTTV-Omsk-97 International Exhibition of Armaments, Military Equipment and Conversion Products held in September '97 in Omsk, Siberia region, Russia.
The tank is supposedly not to be fielded with the Russian Army and seems to be entirely on the initiative of Omsk plant (Russian manufacturer of the T-80 series).
It was thought to be based on the T-80U chassis, borrowing most components from the T-80U. Its most obvious external distinguishing feature is the completely new turret (a mockup was presented at Omsk 97) and a lengthened hull with 7 road wheels per side.
The new turret has a larger degree of protection than that of current Russian MBTs, the forward armor is placed at an extremely steep slope, the ballistic shape maximizing protection against APFSDS rounds.
Another innovation is the new automated ammo storage/loader, located in a turret bustle. It is separated from the crew compartment by an armored bulkhead. This design has several advantages. First, the Chechen war has shown that the carousel used in the T-72/T-80/T-90 is too prone to ammo detonation when penetrated, invariably killing the crew. Second, the adopted configuration also reduces Black Eagle's height. Finally, the horizontal ammunition arrangement in the turret bustle permits using longer (and therefore, more powerful) APFSDS rounds, unitary ammunition (rather than separate loading), simplified automatic loading process and an increased rate of fire (expected to reach 10-12 rds/min).
The Black Eagle will have an onboard information system that monitors all essential systems and permits automated data exchange between other tanks and head quarters.
It will be powered by a 1,200hp 16-cylinder turbo-diesel engine, and will weigh around 50 tons.
The complete vehicle, with an actual turret (not a mockup covered by camo netting as in 1997) was revealed at Omsk 99, and was referred to as Object 640. It was apparent that the hull had not been taken directly from the T-80U as originally believed, but was significantly redesigned, the most obvious change being the seventh road wheel.
It seems that most of the additional length has gone into the raised front hull protection and greater glacis obliquity. It also raises doubts if the tank indeed stays in the 50 ton class. The active protection system appears to be a Drozd (probably Drozd 2), not Arena, derivative.
The tank was armed with the longer caliber, improved 2A46M4 main gun, but it was stated that provision had been made for the installation of a new 152mm main gun, indicating that Omsk plant still hopes to win over the Russian Army with this new tank.
The more conventional design over the aforementioned ‘T-95’ design means less technical risk, while incorporating some of the features of Western tanks (primarily ammunition storage), improves export prospects."

T-95/ Nizhniy Tagil Next-Generation MBT

"Only vague details are known about the ‘T-95’, the replacement of all main battle tanks in the Russian Army. The very term T-95 is probably erroneous, and was used by the Russian Defense Minister when he was questioned by the press during a visit to Nizhniy Tagil, where he was shown a prototype of the tank. Possibly he deigned to use a term well-known in the West to avoid getting into detail. However, only in-service tanks are entitled to a ‘T’ designator, and the tank probably remains hidden behind an ‘Object’ designation.
The main gun will be a 152mm smoothbore (incorrect reports have stated 135mm). Such a large diameter will mean extremely powerful, long-range APFSDS, HEAT and HEF ammunition fired at extremely high velocities. Whether it will be able to fire an ATGM like the 125mm guns is unknown. It is not known how this large caliber increase will affect ammunition load and rate of fire. This gun shall be located in an unmanned pod on top of the hull with no crew access to it, and will be fed by an autoloader mounted beneath the turret. This will lower the silhouette/ profile of the tank considerably. The fire control system will be multi-channel; consisting of optical, thermal, and possibly a radar.
Crew protection on the tank will be emphasized to a far greater degree than ever before in any tank design. The level of crew protection should ensure their survival when any anti-tank munitions penetrate the tank from any aspect or angle, thanks to the crew (3 men) placement in a unitary armored pod inside the hull; separated from the main gun and ammunition by an armored bulkhead. A unique drive train suspension system is being tested on this tank that to a certain extent extinguishes hull vibrations and stabilizes its position. The tank will remain in the 50-ton class. The turret and gun placement means that the carousel autoloader that has always meant poor survivability for the crews of Russian tanks is eliminated. The T-95 will almost certainly be able to mount heavy ERA, either existing Kontakts-5 ERA or a new design, along with composite armor.
Fitting of the Shotra-1 OCMS and/or the Arena APS or Drozd-2 APS will also probably be possible.
It will most likely be equipped with a diesel engine, considering the Russian Army’s preference for diesels over gas turbines. Some sources put the T-95 as having cleared the testing stage in 1999, but it has not reached the Army because there is insufficient funding to fund production."


PT-76: I have a picture of one in action in Chechnya, Sea Skimmer

[MKSheppard]

PT-76: I have a picture of one in action in Chechnya, Sea Skimmer

POST! POST! POST!

[Vympel]

Looks like its next to an Orthodox church- tracks wrapped around the turret for ad hoc applique protection?

[Admiral Piett]

Here is one article (too long too post) on the state of russian weapons technology, tactics and the realy laughable mantainence problems.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/ ... able.shtml

As for the arabs, only Iran, Iraq, Syria, and maybe yenmen still use rusisan tanks, and thats simply beacuse they aren't allowed to purchase them.

Kuwait has alredy replaced its entire t-72 fleet with abrams, as well as the saudis,oman, bahrain and the egyptians. Jordan may stil have some, but I beleive they are veing replaced. All Russian made fighters are being sold for pennies on the dollars, and they are buying american fighters to replace them. (Kuwait couldn't even sell the french fighters) really they are a joke, noone expecting wo fight a war wants them. Kuwait just signed a 2 billion dollar deal to buy 16 apache 64d helicopters.

I have to find some info on soviet tanks I have read about. Its really laughable, the kind of quality engineering in these tanks. Well you buy poor, you get poor stuff in return.

Sorry but what you are posting are little more than bar talks,not a reliable source,as usual.The MIG 25 was not a particular good design but the reasons they give to trash them are trash themselves.Valves were used in the radar,not for the computers.In that role they have some advantages over solid state electronics(power handling and others).An old technology,like Mike Wong can certainly explain to you,does not mean automatically useless technology(after all you were campaigning for the reactivation of WW2 era battleships).The 16 hours figure is probably an exaggeration,with the tank put under heavy stress or poor mantained or both.Using the same logic I could say that the M1A1 was an useless tank because in the Gulf war some of them did not make more than 60 Km without refueling and the M1A2 is a piece of trash because its engine (developed in the 60's) is causing some reliability problems.And T34 with the spare engine was probably an urban legend.In anyway this did not prevent them to arrive in Germany.


PS
Can you explain me how a 30's era truck engine could propel a 45 ton tank.
Sorry this source is worth little.

[Azeron]

You protest with no facts to directly contrdict what he said. This guy is an engineer of some 25 years, and by no means is he off on this subject.

All you present is opinions -- nothing to undermine his credibility.

and the M1A2 SEP has been upgraded, and is now one of the most fuel effiecent tanks out there.

HTe M1A2 tank is also going to have a new engine in future production models working out all those problems. The Russians can't build shit realibly. There tanks are cheap for a reason, they are poorly built and deisgned.

[Admiral Piett]

The fact that the M1A1 was horribly fuel thirsty is a fact.During desert storm this was overcome thanks to a large amount of logistics.In others theathers this however would have been a serious drawback.
Your statement about the fuel effciency is laughable.They simply have added an auxiliary power source,so they do not have to keep the gas turbine running to power secondary systems.But the main engine is still fuel thirsty and causing problems as before.And this is an other fact.
Check fas.org (for tanks and this stuff they use offcial info,of course for other matters they may be not as much reliable) or anything else for that matter.
Note that I am not saying that the T-72 is better than the Abrams,which would be absurd,only that your senseless bashing of foreign equipment is stupid,since in some cases the US buy it.I would like to see how the egyptian Abrams willl perform in the next war,without american style logistics an maintenance teams.

[Vympel]

[quote="Azeron"]

and the M1A2 SEP has been upgraded, and is now one of the most fuel effiecent tanks out there.

quote]

Bullshit. While the US Army claims that the new LVT-100 engine is 50% more fuel efficient than the old AGT-1500, independent tests have put the savings at only 36%. While the Army insists that the LV-100 is ‘within a few percentage points’ of an advanced diesel, independent tests show it will burn about 20% more fuel at full speed than a comparable diesel. Worse, LV-100 fuel consumption at idle speeds (which tanks do often) is twice that of any comparable diesel.

source: strategypage.com, armor section, an article from last year. Search far back enough.

Furthermore, that article you posted as some sort of irrefutable proof is the opinionated ramblings of a moron.

"The engine of the T-72 is based on the one that the Russians have been using with only minimal changes since the T-34, which was originally based on an American truck engine designed in the early 1930's"

Bullshit. The T-72 has an 840hp diesel engine, much more powerful than that of the T-34. What other changes are required if the fucking thing works?!

"The T-72's gun is huge at 125 mm, but it's also smoothbore rather than being rifled. The M1's gun is smoothbore, but it uses extremely carefully designed munitions and is controlled by very sophisticated electronics. The T-72 doesn't have any of that, and it's damned hard to hit anything with it at any kind of range"

How does this support that they're NOT rugged and reliable? He compares it to the M1 which has 'very sophisticated electronics' (re: inherently hard to maintain) wheras the T-72 has 'none of that' (not entirely true- though the T-72B has much inferior fire control to the T-80U and T-90). As for damned hard to hit anything at any kind of range- who says? Him? German gunners in WW2 were hitting targets at ranges of 2km with only optics! The T-72 has a laser rangefinder and much higher quality fire control than a Tiger!

"They also break easily. The Soviets themselves did build huge numbers of tanks, but most of them were stored unused. If they were used heavily for training and such, they'd wear out, and the Soviets knew it. The Russians don't do a lot of maintenance on their T-72's because they don't use them. (They have to do a certain amount of work on the huge numbers of them they've got stored, but that's minor compared to what a real tank in real use needs.)"

Non sequitur. No proof that they break easily.

"It's true that there are huge number of T-72's still in service, but the reason they're so popular in third world nations, then and now, is because they're cheap. They look mean; they're impressive as all hell, and the majority of the world's armies are intended to intimidate the people of their own nations, and to try to scare off their neighbors. On the open market for used military equipment, I've heard that the American M-60 goes for five times what a T-72 does, because that's what the market will bear. The M-60 is worth five times a T-72, even with its smaller gun. But if you don't ever expect to really fight, then the T-72 is just the ticket because you can get more of them for your million dollars and produce a force which is all the more intimidating."

More assertions. Furthermore, the M60 is a POS compared to a Soviet T-72. The M60 is big, tall, slow, and undergunned (105mm couldn't penetrate the frontal armor of a T-64 or T-72A/B- though with the new generation 105mm rounds that's a different story.)

"And the reality is that every time the T-72 has ever actually faced Western equipment on a real battleground, it's gotten wiped. They're great weapons, as long as you don't ever expect to fight"

Yeah and this ignoramus as usual ignores the fact that they were fighting more competently TRAINED adversaries (the Israelis for cripes sake!!!). I'll take an expert tanker in a shit tank like the M60 over a poorly trained monkey in a T-80 ANY day.

"Most Soviet military equipment was built that way. They didn't build things to last because when a real shooting war started they didn't expect any of it to last anyhow, so there wasn't any point. The AK-47 is in many ways interesting because when you study the history of it you see just how unusual it was nearly every step along the way. It's seen by most people as the epitome of Soviet military engineering. The reality is that it's almost unique, one of the few things they ever did which actually was any good."

Soviet equipment is built with WAR in mind, not peace. It must be easy to maintain and reliable, - their entire doctrine of war was based on this. If Soviet tanks are not built to last, how pray tell did the USSR wheel out 20 year old T-62s to fight Afghanistan, or 30 year old T-62s to fight in Chechnya!!!

"I believe that the jet in question was the MiG-25, and what they discovered was that it was a complete piece of shit.

"The electronics in it used vacuum tubes. The skin of the jet was covered in rivet heads, which would disrupt air flow and produce huge amounts of drag. The engine was only able to generate as much power as it did because they were overdriving it, which also drastically shortened engine life. It just went on and on. There was nothing in it which was any good"

THIS JUST PROVES THIS GUY HAS NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT- ANOTHER ARM-CHAIR NO NOTHING FUCKWIT

ahem. The MiG-25 was THOUGHT to be an AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER, and the F-15 Eagle was designed as a response to it. On the contrary, the MiG-25 is actually an INTERCEPTOR, and a superb one at that. It is hailed universally in all aviation literature as a 'superb aviation achievement' . Why? Because with the technology on hand the Soviets produced the worlds best interceptor- many of its records are still unbroken and it is the fastest combat aircraft ever built at Mach 2.8+ with external stores, and over Mach 3 in clean recon configuration. It also was the genus of the incredible MiG-31 FOXHOUND, the most capable pure interceptor in the world, period.

I particularly liked this:

"the M-16 was and is a far better weapon" (than the AK)

ROFLMAO!!!! Nuff said really.

[Rubberanvil]

Pardon me for posting, but didn't India used Russian made equipment during their wars with Pakistan?[/list]