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
Buzz       4/3/2011 6:19:31 PM






You've got to be the bigest dumbass posting here. Even the russians secur their vehicles from outside when they are parked. But a dumbass in stryker padlocled the door after the troops got in because they were scared of having a grenade thrown in. As far as the picture goes most countries dont put a worthless birdcage on their LAV IIIs.










Cool story bro. That's really funny since the door actually locks from the inside (just like every other armored vehicle including uparmored Humvees) so there is no need to pad lock it from the outside. Will your brain explode when you see this?

 

h**p://kwilson228th.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/m113.jpg


h**p://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M113A3_Modified_in_Iraq_lg.jpg

 
BTW Foorgot to say thank you for the photos. Dont know why anyone would put slant armor on a 113 when reactive armor is better.  Also if you really ever had been in the army you would be able to see that that damage appears to have been inflicted by a roadside bomb blast and not an RPG.

 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/3/2011 6:47:51 PM






Right before the first gulf war we integrated stinger missiles onto Apache Helicopters. Those guys go into contests to see how far they could kill an Iraqi pickup with a $50,000 missile. So yeah I believe some of them did  it






Let me get this straight. You put stingers on Apaches, which aren't even authorized because they mess up the aerodynamics, in the First Gulf war. Then, the Apache pilots used the stinger, an air to air missile, to hit Iraq pickup trucks. Cool story bro.
And true. The army aviators were scared shitless of the HIND helicopters and no they didnt do anything to the aerodynamics of the airframe.

 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/3/2011 6:53:05 PM

They also said that a Bradley M-2 (still very new at the time) could withstand a direct hit from a 125mm tank round. Everyone knew that was a load too.


Since the Army never planned in that and never billed it as such...I really doubt they told their IOBC students that....sorry I call Shennigans, on your memory at least.


Unfortunately they did say that when they started procuring the M-2. We laughed our asses off. The army does dumbshit stuff like that.  When the AT-4 first came out to replace the LAW it had an insert in the wooden shipping box that said "Not intended for use against tanks". This was after they went through  all of the propaganda that the AT-4 would at last give the infantry a shoulder fired weapon against tanks at close range.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/3/2011 6:55:56 PM

h**p://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_MOS_would_you_join_to_drive_the_Stryker_combat_vehicle

 

Both of you need to read that.

 

"Although a few different MOS's use the Stryker vehicle, the primary MOS to have the most chance of driving it would be 11B infantryman.


Read more: " target="_blank">link
 

There are no tankers in Stryker Brigades. They are INFANTRY UNITS. You guys are about as clueless as Buzz. Seriously just shut up. When real Army people tell you that you are an idiot and just need to shut up, they are doing you a favor. I am doing you a favor and have been for the past 10 pages.





Go find a real soldier to post loser
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/3/2011 7:02:45 PM






 Can you absolutely confirm that?  I had thought we were looking for smaller cheaper answers with lower collateral damage that could be carried in greater numbers.  Anyway I'm pretty sure there's an air-launched version, and some block upgrade or other is supposedly able to do without "superelevation" making it suitable for ground attack.  But I am just googlefishing.




Could be used to secure gear, trailer hitches etc. It's not for the door. The door is locked from the inside similar to the locking mechanisms on connexes.





I accept that it is NOT for securing the hatch; wondering what for it IS.  But thank you.





It was in the first gulf war. At the time Stingers and Hellfires were about $50K each. This waste of missiles was because the pilots were bored and in war no one holds you accountable for what goes down range.

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/3/2011 7:04:37 PM
LOL, where do you get this info from? One, helicopters rarely engage each other. I don't believe there is a single incident where one helicopter actually shot down another. And I am telling you it is a fact stingers are not authorized on the wingtips of 64s because they mess with the aerodynamics.
 
So now you're saying stingers are for air to air when your last post you said apaches were using them to hit pickup trucks. Want to make up your mind?












Right before the first gulf war we integrated stinger missiles onto Apache Helicopters. Those guys go into contests to see how far they could kill an Iraqi pickup with a $50,000 missile. So yeah I believe some of them did  it














Let me get this straight. You put stingers on Apaches, which aren't even authorized because they mess up the aerodynamics, in the First Gulf war. Then, the Apache pilots used the stinger, an air to air missile, to hit Iraq pickup trucks. Cool story bro.

And true. The army aviators were scared shitless of the HIND helicopters and no they didnt do anything to the aerodynamics of the airframe.




 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/3/2011 7:06:19 PM
Negative. There is no place to pad lock them from the outside. Can you imagine a unarmed kid walking up to a APC or tank and padlocking the crew inside? You're an idiot. You never answered any of my questions Mr. 10 year. Why is the flag on the ACU facing the way it is?












You've got to be the bigest dumbass posting here. Even the russians secur their vehicles from outside when they are parked. But a dumbass in stryker padlocled the door after the troops got in because they were scared of having a grenade thrown in. As far as the picture goes most countries dont put a worthless birdcage on their LAV IIIs.






















Cool story bro. That's really funny since the door actually locks from the inside (just like every other armored vehicle including uparmored Humvees) so there is no need to pad lock it from the outside. Will your brain explode when you see this?



 



h**p://kwilson228th.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/m113.jpg






h**p://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M113A3_Modified_in_Iraq_lg.jpg



 




I have come to the conclusion you have never been in the military and are living vicariously through friends. Every armored vehicle in the military has a place to put a padlock on it to secure it at night or when the crew is not with the vehicle. There is a lever on the inside and outside of the hatch door so soldiers can exit the vehicle. Needless to say there is no reason to padlock the door when soldiers are in the vehicl and is a safety hazard. Someone in the company was so afraid an enemy would run up to the vehicle and open the hatch and toss in a grenade that he padlocked all of the stykers hatchec thinking the soldiers would be dropping ramp to get out. It was only when a vehicle slipped into the water and people drowned did they figure out this was a very very bad idea. You would know that if you were actually in the military.


 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/3/2011 7:07:03 PM
If I post proof of myself, will your delete your account and never come back to this website?



h**p://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_MOS_would_you_join_to_drive_the_Stryker_combat_vehicle



 



Both of you need to read that.



 



"Although a few different MOS's use the Stryker vehicle, the primary MOS to have the most chance of driving it would be 11B infantryman.





Read more: <>" target="_blank">link

 



There are no tankers in Stryker Brigades. They are INFANTRY UNITS. You guys are about as clueless as Buzz. Seriously just shut up. When real Army people tell you that you are an idiot and just need to shut up, they are doing you a favor. I am doing you a favor and have been for the past 10 pages.
















Go find a real soldier to post loser

 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/3/2011 7:08:36 PM



And yes I can absolutely confirm that about the stinger. I'm a 60 pilot. It's my area of work.



What do you think of IGLA? Do you think Apache pilot would do that flashing knowing someone in an area might have it?

Thats why we lost so many helicopters to RPG fire. The helecopter pilots were told to fly low because its harder for the AA missiles to lock on and home in on them because of the limited time a gunner would have the target in visual sight. In Afghanistan the armywas afraid the taliban might have an old stinger from the russian war but that was stupid to the max. There is very little possibility that a stinger from that time fram would still be functional
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/3/2011 7:09:24 PM
My whole point is that slat armor is common on all light armor and effective. Even your precious 113 uses it.












You've got to be the bigest dumbass posting here. Even the russians secur their vehicles from outside when they are parked. But a dumbass in stryker padlocled the door after the troops got in because they were scared of having a grenade thrown in. As far as the picture goes most countries dont put a worthless birdcage on their LAV IIIs.






















Cool story bro. That's really funny since the door actually locks from the inside (just like every other armored vehicle including uparmored Humvees) so there is no need to pad lock it from the outside. Will your brain explode when you see this?



 



h**p://kwilson228th.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/m113.jpg






h**p://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M113A3_Modified_in_Iraq_lg.jpg



 


BTW Foorgot to say thank you for the photos. Dont know why anyone would put slant armor on a 113 when reactive armor is better.  Also if you really ever had been in the army you would be able to see that that damage appears to have been inflicted by a roadside bomb blast and not an RPG.




 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics