Well, hopefully, he will be going back to school soon so he won't have time for more of his juvenile posts.

Actually MikkoLn I can give you two good reasons why the western militaries prefer 4 man crews and neither of them is of the "cause they're better, so there" variety. 1. Western armies routinely do much more maintenance on their tanks in the field than the Russians do. There is a good side to this, which is that the tanks can normally be kept at a much higher level of readiness than Russian tanks can. Many of the tasks that a German, British or American crew takes for granted are not done by tank crews in Russia. This requires additional manpower. This is a very good reason to have a 4 man crew, higher readiness rates. 2. I have served on understrength tank crews and the work level in the field goes from merely very difficult to impossible.

Speaking of understrength crews. Say if the loader was injured, and couldn't load anymore. Would the commander take his place to continue fighting?

Hey Kozzy, no, the gunner would take the loader's place and the commander would both fight and gun the tank. The commander's position has the ability to gun the tank.

Can you move from one side of the tank to another easily, with that big gun in the way?

It only takes a few seconds, there's plenty of room behind the breech. Remember the gun has to have room to recoil and eject the base plate, there's about three feet between the breech and the ammo compartment doors.

Even though I like Russian gear and you may disagree with me, it does not mean that the claims you make are any more accurate, the comment you made about "US fighters win hands down, no contest" was especially memorable. I admit that I have no military experience (time will change that, though, after I finish my party (err...I mean University) years), and so cannot possibly match the knowledge of some of the vets on these sites, but I don't automatically swallow everything that's being said around here, and I will never hesitate to argue my point when I believe it is a good one. I'm glad many of the guys agree with me [mike_golf, bet that hurt to say, right :)]. Gf-0012-aust and I have a bit of history regarding Russian mechtormeters, and aerostatic jammers, and I'm glad I still have him on my side. I take no offence at your stance, but I would advise you to think a bit more before blindly typing up a post, for your own credability.

Boris wrote: "mike_golf, bet that hurt to say, right :)" Boris, in general your posts are well written, factual and fairly accurate. You have a tendency to like Russian kit, for reasons I cannot fathom, but you aren't normally wrong, technically speaking. When you are, you are willing to listen to what someone else has to say. I don't see you as anti-American just because you don't praise every bit of American kit to the skies. Boris wrote to T800m101: "I take no offence at your stance, but I would advise you to think a bit more before blindly typing up a post, for your own credability." I second this. T800, the biggest problem here is that you just spew opinions left, right and center with no basis for them, no technical facts of any sort and act as if your opinions are gospel. When someone challenges you on them you then call them anti-American. I served 20 years in the US Army, retired and now work for a company that provides services of various sorts to the US government. I'm about as red-blooded of an American as they come and I can't just accept your statements blindly. So, if you want to gain some credibility, start giving reasons for your opinions, listening to guys who have a lot of knowledge or experience (MikkoLn, gf0012-aust, RetiredCdnTanker are good examples), and be willing to change your opinions when the facts warrant it instead of just name calling.

"You have a tendency to like Russian kit, for reasons I cannot fathom" I really like simplicity when it comes to military hardware, and the Russians have a tendancy of applying it where it counts (my personal favourite is M-16 vs AKM). Simplicity usually translates to ruggedness, ease of maintenance (don't you just LOVE that autoloader on Russian tanks), low price, and general reliability in the worst of conditions. I am not very fond of cramming a combat vehicle with delicate, sensitive electronics, and I am appalled at the current US (and European) trend towards what I like to call the "nerd-warriors", the Stryker and junk like the FCS being great examples. Oh, sure, they look good on paper, but I really wonder about their endurance on Ostfront conditions. The FCS I find particularly offensive, and I really question how anyone in their right mind can substitute it for the Abrams/Bradley combo.

I love the ERA on those late-russian tanks, like the T-90, BUT it looks cool, but is it really working? And WHAT if the ERA is penetrated, what kind of armor is behind the ERA?