Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams
achtpanz    6/14/2004 3:59:14 AM
Russian T90 vs American M1A2 Abrams - Which is better? If these tanks fought in battle, which would suffer more casualties, which one is superior? What are their advantages? Any information would be helpful.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
SantaClaws       3/31/2011 12:29:58 PM


As you can see, even the US Army knows I am correct and that you are the one who is trying to save himself.
And then you write a bunch of nonsensical crap that has ZERO to do with caliber or the it's relation to barrel length. Again with the Red herring.
 

I have no use for the stubborn or the willful who are wrong. As for you, Uh-oh, don't try to set yourself as a judge of others either. You are not qualified. At least Santa knows something about this topic, just not as much as he thinks he does. 

 

Herald     


 

TM 9-3305

CHAPTER 3

CLASSIFICATION OF CURRENT

FIELD ARTILLERY WEAPONS


Section I. GENERAL


3-1.General. Current field artillery weapons include both


cannon-type weapons and guided missiles. Each type of weapon is designed for a particular use and therefore has a different range and trajectory (path of flight).


3-2. Cannon-Type Weapons. Cannon-type weapons


are classified as guns or howitzers. Some artillery


weapons have both gun and howitzer characteristics.


a. Gun.As a type of artillery, a gun is a cannon with


a long barrel which fires limited types of projectiles at a


low angle of fire and at a high muzzle velocity.


b. Howitzer. A howitzer is a cannon with a medium


length barrel which fires various types of projectiles ata


high angle of fire and at a medium muzzle velocity.


3-3. Rockets and Guided Missiles.


a.


Rocket.


A rocket is a free-flight missile. Although the rocket is classified asa field artillery weapon, it is currently not in military use.


b. Guided Missile. A guided missile is a rocket type device with a trajectory that can be altered in flight by a mechanism within the missile. It is held, aimed, and fired by a rail- or platform-type missile launcher.


Really? What does ANY of this have to do with your claim that caliber is a measurement of barrel length? It doesn't.


You claimed it was a quote. Santa. that was your seventh mistake. I never quoted. I said start point and knowledge source. NOT the same. When i quote I use quotation marks or some describer punctuation. 
 
You really expect me to believe that you wrote the exact thing as wiki and it's pure coincidence? You must think I'm very naive. I went to college. I know what plagiarism is.

 

That is why I told you TOO READ. There is a quote about the difference between gun and howitzer above. from the old TM. Other data is from between my ears and from what I LEARNED

 

I would suggest you ask for help to clean up your mistakes.

 

By the way I have a question for you. When was Burlington introduced? Its a genuine question.
 
I really don't care. It's probably irrelevant and another one of your red herrings.

 

H.     

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/31/2011 2:12:25 PM

In some examples, (warship artillery, main tank guns), "caliber" is used to describe the barrel length as multiples of the bore diameter. A "5-inch 50 caliber" gun has a bore diameter of 5 inches (127 mm) and a barrel length of 50 times 5 inches = 250 inches (6.35 m).



You wrote that on page 50.
 
Here is the the nearly same text from wiki.
 
h**p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber
 
"In some contexts, e.g. guns aboard a warship, "caliber" is used to describe the barrel length as multiples of the bore diameter. A "5-inch 50 caliber" gun has a bore diameter of 5 inches (127 mm) and a barrel length of 50 times 5 inches = 250 inches (6.35 m)."
 
This quote isn't anywhere in your "start source". Are you really that deluded that you think me or anyone else believes you when you say you didn't copy from wiki and edit it to fit your own purposes? Do you honestly think people are that stupid? You're a shit bag liar and have no integrity, Herald.
 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Not gonna happen.   3/31/2011 3:00:37 PM
I CAN, RP. So far, with the exception of Nichevo and GP, these guys can't.

Herald

'As for you, Uh-oh, don't try to set yourself as a judge of others either.'

 

May I suggest you to do the same Herald? Judge the argument, not the person. Its true in science and even more here o  internet.  In fact you offen name the other 'Truck driver' 'Fanboy' or else. If you want to discredit other base on their backgroud, I would like to know who i am talking with... I recon that you know more than me on most of the topic here, but as far as I know you could also be a fanboy. The way you talk without reserve or respect doesnt suggest any profesionnal background.


 

Coldstart, dont think I am defending you or your argument cause I am not.

Its about the argument. These guys are invested in "I'm right, instead of I'm accurate."
 
Me? The question is always errors, theirs', mine, or common errors in general.
 
For example, the Fukushima power plant debacle. I made errors in the initial presentation I made that I've since corrected as I obtained better information.
 
So far here? Note that the errors have not been mine?
 
Nothing personal in it at all. 
 
Herald 
 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Not gonna happen.   3/31/2011 3:14:34 PM
Meaning you have no idea of what the hell you are talking about, Santa.  Shrug. Keep nitpicking and running away from your errors

Hint: the M1A1 originally did NOT use Chobham armor (1980) which is later than Burlington (1971). Just many of the principles and concepts of the British developed Burlington for the later American developed armor modules for the Abrams. We've since gone through at least TWO serious and different upgrades from the British armor module schemes on our little Abrams since 1990.
 
I thought you would know that.  

So we do know that you have another serious gap in your knowledge.
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       3/31/2011 3:27:26 PM

plus 90% of the people who post in this crap either are just bored as shit or dont have ANYTHING else to do. im participating in the invasion of uzbekistan in 1 week. i am going to be fighting against *russian* tanks. as in T80's T72's, AND T90's. proly not very many T90's... but still some T90's. ill still have my laptop though lol i cant go anywhere without it

Who's invading Uzbekistan?!
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/31/2011 4:25:35 PM
Like I said, another red herring that has nothing to do with caliber. Since that has so magnificently blown up in your face, stop wasting my time.
Meaning you have no idea of what the hell you are talking about, Santa.  Shrug. Keep nitpicking and running away from your errors





Hint: the M1A1 originally did NOT use Chobham armor (1980) which is later than Burlington (1971). Just many of the principles and concepts of the British developed Burlington for the later American developed armor modules for the Abrams. We've since gone through at least TWO serious and different upgrades from the British armor module schemes on our little Abrams since 1990.


 

I thought you would know that.  




So we do know that you have another serious gap in your knowledge.

 

Herald 


 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/31/2011 4:32:45 PM
Here's a few questions for you, Herald.
 
How long did you research that topic before you had the courage to bring it up without the fear of needing to edit other quotes to back yourself up?
 
Is it normal for you to throwout random unrelated information when someone proves that you don't know something?
 
Did you know that's a defense mechanism? "Oh, I didn't know that. But I know this about french artillery...Rockets are a form of artillery...Burlington armor..."
 
Don't waste my time with your childish games.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/31/2011 4:36:49 PM
And since you conveniently keep ignoring that post, I'll just reiterate my main point.
 
You're a shit bag liar and have no integrity, Herald.
 
Quote    Reply

the uh man123?       3/31/2011 6:06:48 PM
yes uzbekistan. 4/6/11 400 hours. not really much of an invasion as much of a search and destroy. but we are sending some serious hardware into uzbekistan. something like 50k infantry and something like 500+ MBT's and 1k+ Light tanks. im not sure the actual number. we think they have nuclear weapons. but honestly i believe them this time. we have had some bad stuff going on in asia.
 
Quote    Reply

the uh man123?       3/31/2011 6:11:21 PM

oh and i seen that one guys message, and NO... i do NOT smoke anything at all. i dont even smoke cigarettes. i dont drink, i dont smoke. i am in shape. and i think you are the one who is on some serious crap.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics