The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - September 7, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: FRENCH TECH VS UK
usajoe    8/10/2007 11:25:19 PM
LECLERC VS CHALLENGER 2 IN OPEN DESERT, WITH BTITISH AND FRENCH CREWS AND NO AIR SUPORT WHO WILL WIN, I THINK THE CHALLENGER
WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
boris the romanian       8/11/2007 6:39:03 AM
T-90 will give 'em both a run for their money!
 
 
Quote    Reply

5thGuards       8/11/2007 9:02:35 AM
Is this a joke? Leclerc can not remotely compare to Challenger 2 in any way , it was quite a disapointment from the frech , they could of made a much better Tank.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe       8/11/2007 9:08:37 AM
T-90 will give 'em both a run for their money!
 
 
thats funny are you talking about the updated T-72, the same tank that out numberd the abrams and challengers and got
completly wiped out with  no losses to  the west. T-90 is a good tank but lacks the fire control, range, armor protection,
of the M1A2,Challenger 2, or even the Leclerc or the Leopard 2. hell  the isreali Merkeva mark 4 is a all around better tank.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       8/11/2007 10:13:14 AM
 
"thats funny are you talking about the updated T-72, the same tank that out numberd the abrams and challengers and got completly wiped out with  no losses to  the west"

Which, in turn, is funny because the T72s faced in Iraq were the very definition of an unupgraded export model, lacking much of the equipment and technology of even the contemporary Russian vehicle when it was first procured. When they bumped into the latest Western armour over a decade later, they were badly led and had poorly trained crews, so it's not surprising that they were wiped out. If they had been in the latest M1 models the Iraqi army would still have been routed.
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian       8/11/2007 10:26:24 AM












T-90 will give 'em both a run for their money!

 
 


thats funny are you talking about the updated T-72, the same tank that out numberd the abrams and challengers and got

completly wiped out with  no losses to  the west. T-90 is a good tank but lacks the fire control, range, armor protection,

of the M1A2,Challenger 2, or even the Leclerc or the Leopard 2. hell  the isreali Merkeva mark 4 is a all around better tank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



What's funny? This whole thread or the T-90 giving both Challenger and Leclerc a hard time in the scenario you specified...(i.e.5000m+LOS) ???
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe       8/11/2007 11:00:07 AM
Which, in turn, is funny because the T72s faced in Iraq were the very definition of an unupgraded export model, lacking much of the equipment and technology of even the contemporary Russian vehicle when it was first procured. When they bumped into the latest Western armour over a decade later, they were badly led and had poorly trained crews, so it's not surprising that they were wiped out. If they had been in the latest M1 models the Iraqi army would still have been routed.
 
Yes the iraq tank crews were poorly trained and led, thats not what i said, i said that the T-90 oops i mean the upgraded
T-72 same russian usles junk did not have the range, fire controls, or armor of the tanks that i was talking about. Oh yah
and us or uk were not using the same abrams or challengers i was talking about, still all that dosent mater about the iraqi
training because the us tanks were picking off the iraqis at ranges where there tanks could not see the abrams, and the same wold hapen now with the T-90 and the M1A2 IN iraq and any where in the world. oh yah two more things the
rare times in the gulf when the iraqis did fire on the  M1A1 they took there rounds with almost no damage, there was
not one time when a sabot round hit a T-72 that it did not light up like a christimas tree. And back to the question about
traing you think that the russian crews in the T-90 have that much beter training than the iraqis in 91, come on man be
realestic.
 
Quote    Reply

5thGuards       8/11/2007 11:05:18 AM












T-90 will give 'em both a run for their money!

 
 


thats funny are you talking about the updated T-72, the same tank that out numberd the abrams and challengers and got

completly wiped out with  no losses to  the west. T-90 is a good tank but lacks the fire control, range, armor protection,

of the M1A2,Challenger 2, or even the Leclerc or the Leopard 2. hell  the isreali Merkeva mark 4 is a all around better tank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What the hell are you talking about T-90 is the most protected Tank in the world.
And there is no way you can say Abrams can beat it , they can simply not compare since they don't have comparable doctrines.

The best overall tank given the capability would be Leo 2A6 for me.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe       8/11/2007 11:38:55 AM
The best overall tank given the capability would be Leo 2A6 for me.

what the hell are you talking about, M1A2 is a combat proven beast no tank
in this world is  in its league. and the challenger 2 is better than the leo 2A6.
And thats a fact.
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian       8/11/2007 11:41:16 AM













Which, in turn, is funny because the T72s faced in Iraq were the very definition of an unupgraded export model, lacking much of the equipment and technology of even the contemporary Russian vehicle when it was first procured. When they bumped into the latest Western armour over a decade later, they were badly led and had poorly trained crews, so it's not surprising that they were wiped out. If they had been in the latest M1 models the Iraqi army would still have been routed.
 


Yes the iraq tank crews were poorly trained and led, thats not what i said, i said that the T-90 oops i mean the upgraded

T-72 same russian usles junk did not have the range, fire controls, or armor of the tanks that i was talking about. Oh yah

and us or uk were not using the same abrams or challengers i was talking about, still all that dosent mater about the iraqi

training because the us tanks were picking off the iraqis at ranges where there tanks could not see the abrams, and the same wold hapen now with the T-90 and the M1A2 IN iraq and any where in the world. oh yah two more things the

rare times in the gulf when the iraqis did fire on the  M1A1 they took there rounds with almost no damage, there was

not one time when a sabot round hit a T-72 that it did not light up like a christimas tree. And back to the question about

traing you think that the russian crews in the T-90 have that much beter training than the iraqis in 91, come on man be

realestic.



Ok, I'm not sure whether to take this thread seriously or not, but supposing I am for argument's sake...
 
 
At 5000m T-90 would get 1st shot via Refleks, any subquent shot would determine the engagement, but, I wonder, would the folks in this thread know the difference between GPS and boresight engagements..............?
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe       8/11/2007 11:57:41 AM
At 5000m T-90 would get 1st shot via Refleks, any subquent shot would determine the engagement, but, I wonder, would the folks in this thread know the difference between GPS and boresight engagements..............?
 
 
Ok the T-90 Uses the reflex missile which has a range of 5000m , the M1A2 IS about to get MRM-KE munition
which have a range of 12km my friend do your homework.oh yah isnt 5000m 5km.
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian       8/11/2007 12:17:59 PM
OK, sorry to do ur thread unpleasantness.............it's ALL yours!
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

5thGuards       8/11/2007 12:25:13 PM

The best overall tank given the capability would be Leo 2A6 for me.

what the hell are you talking about, M1A2 is a combat proven beast no tank

in this world is  in its league. and the challenger 2 is better than the leo 2A6.

And thats a fact.


LOL ok , patriotic US citizen.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe       8/11/2007 12:31:35 PM

LOL ok , patriotic US citizen
 
 
Its not about being a patriot its a fact
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    I hate these threads.   8/11/2007 12:36:48 PM
Different doctrines, different technologies, different tanks. The Russian T-90 is competitive. Its not intended to fight like an M-1. Its intended to fight like a 2001 version of the T-34.

The M-1 is supposed to fight like Americans learned how to use their Shermans, Its difference was that our generals for once insisted that the tanks protect the crew with an adequate armor package.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       8/11/2007 12:38:48 PM
Well, I suppose that it's something, usajoe, that you can tell that 12 > 5. Well done.

You've still got to work on the fundamental difference between a monkey-model export tank and an uprated, upgunned, uparmoured and upengined T72 before we let you loose on the tricky concept of the T90 improvements.
For example, you talk of the FCS on the T72 being rubbish. This is certainly true of the Iraqi T72s - they were behind the curve when they were bought, let alone ten years later. To claim that this example means that all T72s are similarly deficient is utterly moronic. I would expect better reasoning from someone who was functionally brain-dead.

After that, you might need to grasp the problems inherent with assessing technical merit of a tank (or anything else, for that matter) based on instances when it is horribly misused. Had the Iraqis been equipped with M1s and Challengers and the Coalition forces had T72Ms the coalition would still have prevailed, albeit possibly with greater losses. The Iraqis were that bad.

Challenger 2 is better than Leo 2A6? At what? Under what circumstances? What facts determine this? I know which one I'd choose, and why, but let's have some reasoning here?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy