Give it a rest people...Caliber is both:

1) Barrel Diameter;

and

2) Barrel length.

 

Is it hard to understand?

 

The M-256 has 120 mm barrel DIAMETRE, and the barrel is 44 CALIBERS long (5.28 metres)..not 55 as Santa (??) Claimed!  OK, people let it go, barrel length can and IS measured in "Calibers"...

 

the Germans had a 3.7 Cm PAK L/45 and 7.5 Cm L/48 IIRC and the 8.8 Cm L/56...L being the length in CALIBERS, the barrels were of variable length, 3.7 X 45 had a 1.66 metre barrel, the Pzkw IV had a 3.6 metre barrel, and the Tiger a 4.92 metre barrel....

 

So YES Caliber is both a measure of diameter AND barrel length...and Santa you got your information wrong on barrel length and it's a significant error and No Herald is not lying/wrong etc. etc. in his responses....

 

Neither of you is exactly shining as an example of discussion, though.

 

BTW, the L/55 is a SIGNIFICANT error because the LeoII A6 is a major weapons upgrade to L/55...the debate is whether or no the US might upgrade...so claiming the M-1a1-on had a 55 caliber barrel was actually IGNORING a significant upgrade/weapons debate!

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.

"BTW this is not a US army stryker but take a look at the antirocket protection. Amazing isnt it. "

 

And this has what to do with the price of rice in China?

Alright. now i see some non-military veterans acting like they know everything. well let me give all you know it alls a little hint. YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL!!! i was in the military for 8 years. i was a tank commander. i studied Russian, English, and American vehicles.  And let me tell all you people something else. M1A2 Abrams MBT is the best in the world. it has the best technology in the world. and yes. the T90 IS an upgraded (T80). the T80 is an upgraded T72. all three are trash. The M1A2 has armor that only one type of anti tank weapon can penatrate. and thats a russian rocket launcher. not any russian tank. the T90 can be taken out by almost any kind of anti tank weapon. now i will admit, if it has the indian armor on... what ever its called. it has ALMOST as much armor protection as the M1A2. but still not as much. now lets talk about the T90's and M1A2 abrams's guns. The L55-120mm-smoothbore cannon that the M1A2 abrams uses has a 75% higher velocity and 33.5% more accuracy than the russian made L44-125mm-Smoothbore cannon. yes, the T90's gun is bigger. but size isnt everything. now lets talk about weight. the russian T90 is 20 tons lighter. that is true. but it is actually slower than the M1A2 Abrams. G, i wonder why. oh thats right. the russian made engines are suckish. the M1's engine had *1500* HP. thats alot to anyone. now good bye, uve heard it from a military veteran. go get a life and stop arguing about something you know nothing about and go bang some chick or something. cya

-The T-90 is most definitely not an upgraded T-80.  The T-80 was derived from the T-64, which was designed as the Soviet quality tank, while the T-72 was designed as their quantity tank.  The T-90 is actually an updated T-72 design, and was actually re-named from T-72BU to T-90 after the T-72 recieved such a pasting in Iraq to avoid its bad publicity.

 

-The armour of the Abrams is strong, but it is not necessarily the strongest armour around (the Chally 2 with Dorchester arguably has more protection).  It is definitely not invulnerable to all but one Russian weapon.  If the Russian 2A46M is using the correct ammunition, it stands an excellant chance of penetrating the Abrams even from the frontal aspect at a reasonable distance.  These are both things you should have been briefed on while still in training.

 

Being in the military does not automatically make you an expert on armoured warfare, sir.  Sometimes it can cause a person to think they have answers that they do not.  The error about the Russian tank lineage is something an Armour MOS would not make, if I am not mistaken you are trained to know your enemy, and not underestimate him.

Yeah right, i wonder why didnt we rename AK47/74 (used by Iraqi army and not only) and give it a new name after that.

 

 

 

Yeah right, i wonder why didnt we rename AK47/74 (used by Iraqi army and not only) and give it a new name after that.

Because the AK is already a proven weapon and did not cause the deaths of hundreds of operators because it was outdated like the T-72 did.  Straw man arguement once again.

 

If you had ever been in the military, especially recently, you'd know that half the stories that come out of training is from personal experiences of the trainers and how easily we wiped out the enemy.

 

I will admit that I gave not yet served in my country's military, but I would imagine that those stories of wiping out the enemy are balanced with the lessons not to underestimate your opponent.  If they are not, then I would question whether or not those individuals should be instructors.

 

Hell, today we had an apache guy come in and do training and he talked about how he would flash lights in the the cockpit to attract gunfire so he'd have someone to kill in theater. How's that for underestimating the enemy?

 

You're right, They were the fourth largest at the time.

 

h**p://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/army.htm

 

"Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world."

Instead of trash stories it's more like your ignorance and Russian fanboyism clouding your vision.