M1 Abrams Tank

CorkedMagician Says:

Apr 13, 2008 - Not being anti-american. Just saying. the Abrams a nice tank and it has the benifet of being prodcued there making it cheap and easy to get ahold of. Unfortunately you don't get the benifet of German Tank engineering. Theres benifets to both.

hkusp45compact Says:

Apr 13, 2008 - we dont need the german engineering its fine as is its already having a replacement tank designed

rusak24 Says:

Apr 14, 2008 - I don't give shit, I will give Abrams one thing, the night vision, but with the gun T-90 has advantage seeing as it can shoot missiles out to upwards of 5km, so it can engage Abrams before Abrams sees T-90. Also gas turbine engine has higher heat signature than diesel.

redfan45x Says:

Apr 14, 2008 - yes German engineering is very smart and good

hkusp45compact Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - ya but in the terrain that it will prolly fight in it wont be able to see that far and thats why you have the apache longbow to shoot missles at tanks i would rather carry more rounds for my main gun than missles that i cant use you can mask the heat signature and diesel engines are louder and diesel gels up

rusak24 Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - Arena and Shtora will take care of Hellfires from Ah-64's. T-90 can mix rounds with missiles, can have all missiles if it wants and vise versa. Mask heat? with what thermals will see through smoke. T-90 has multi fuel engine, can run on anything from diesel to jet fuel to vodka, plus it has heaters in fuel compartment.

hkusp45compact Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - so can the abrams it runs of any flammable liquid BS nothing will take out the longbow i know it can mix rounds but missles out of tanks arent very practical when tank rounds shoot the same distance

rusak24 Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - Funny, i haven't seen anyplace where it says the gas turbine of Abrams can run on diesel. The Refleks 9M119 AT-11 SNIPER laser-guided missile with a hollow-charge warhead is effective against both armored targets and low-flying helicopters. The missile, which can penetrate 700-mm of RHAe out to 4000+ meters, gives the T-90 the ability to engage other vehicles and helicopters before they can engage the T-90, missile has further range than round itself.

wtfdoihavetodohere Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - gumushtr - I'm wondering where you get your information about the American people. Do you live in America?

seriousmtb Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - This missile is very effective, but to use it as superiority, crew must find a flat place, where they will have at least 5 km of visual contact on enemy. Also this missile is laser-guided, but western tanks have SHTORA smoke screen analogs. Also if there is less than 5 km of open ground, hostile tank will be able to engage russian armor too. M1's smoothbore is capable to hit enemy tank on ranges up to 4 km. And if M1 with DU armor can survive missile hit, russian tank is no match for DU SABOT.

rusak24 Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - Russian K-5 ERA CAN survive a hit from the DU round of the abrams, because 60% of the energy from the DU round gets used up trying to burn through the armour, so the ERA disperses the 60% right there leaving 40% to do the actual penetration.

seriousmtb Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - Hellfire is fast rocket, ARENA can't intercept it, but SHTORA can block laser beam. Unfortunately, new Hellfire 2 can acquire target using radar (AH-64D Longbow). T-90 has few (about 6 ones) rockets, which require some conditions when using them. M1 has plenty of APFSDS-T, each one can hit it's target on ~4 km range. Anyway, in case of Russia vs. USA conflict(I hope it will never happen), americans will be facing T-72, T-80 and their modifications, and no any T-90's.

gumushtr Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - why r u so interested in how i got the information about American people and history?

seriousmtb Says:

Apr 15, 2008 - Looks like you don't get the idea, this ERA is probably most advertised armor in world. DU (depleted uranium) sabot has kinetic (not cumulative) hit effect, it's sends ~12MegaJoules of energy to target. Reactive armor won't even see it coming. ERA is very effective against cumulative warheads, and it's NOTHING against an uranium rod.

wtfdoihavetodohere Says:

Apr 16, 2008 - Well, because you seem so certain in your views. And seeing that you have so many negative things to say about Americans, I'm curious to know where you get these ideas and how accurate they are. TV perhaps?

hkusp45compact Says:

Apr 17, 2008 - maybe a better range than the round the T-90 shoots bottom line is its not proven in battle and the abrams is so that makes the abrams the best whatever is on paper doesnt meant shit

rusak24 Says:

Apr 17, 2008 - Proven against what? Old, inferior, under equipped armys? You think Sadam had new, highly trained tanks? hahaha Abrams is not proven, they are fighting against a guy wearing a burlap sack and armed with an RPG, and still lossing. If thats what you call proven, then so is the T-90. It is fighting in Chechnya right now, against similar burlap sacks, so that makes it proven too right?

hkusp45compact Says:

Apr 17, 2008 - still has been proven the t-90 isnt fighting other tanks in chechyna so fuckin can it man and show me proof that an rpg took out an abrams and i will take you to the worlds most expensive strip club and pay for it all

rusak24 Says:

Apr 17, 2008 - From Wiki- Bumper B-23 TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division - Large caliber shaped charge, then hit by an unknown round, likely a KE (non-DU)- Two hits, one on the rear grills, another penetrated both sides of the hull. Catastrophic damage by fire. Check it out theres more.

Keffy3000 Says:

Apr 17, 2008 - Yeah, this argument is stupid, all tanks are generally ineffective in modern wars, they are only supposed to be efective against big targets. They're fighting under-equiped, un-trained, hidden enemies. Both tanks are good (Abrams and T90) but they're not in conflicts where they're practical

seriousmtb Says:

Apr 17, 2008 - Ineffective? What do do you mean? In modern local conflicts it much harder without tanks, than with them. Imagine Americans in Iraq and Russians in Chechnya without tanks, they would be still assaulting capital cities. And all normal countries prepare they tanks and tank crews BEFORE war, only banana countries put badly-trained people and degraded technic into battle. And no one cares, what are fighting with tanks, they are fighting the enemy, no difference, is is it trained/equipped, or not.

g36c1 Says:

Apr 17, 2008 - The LEOA6 IS THE BEST TANK IN THE WORLD HAS THE BEST MAIN CANON IN THE WORLD THE RHEIMMENTAL L55. can destroy abrams t 90 s everything

hkusp45compact Says:

Apr 17, 2008 - same cannon as the abrams fucktard

ruggs1515 Says:

Apr 18, 2008 - i dont care what anybody say about the damn t-90 it aint shit compared to an abrams. and i will let the facts out- the abrams is better protected and better electronics. the t-90s missle aint gonna do nothin to an abrams. Plus with the u.s. army deciding to use TUSK almost as primary armor considering that the added ERA adds the abrams survivability. the t90 has an era that the old DU round could not penetrait so the army came out with the new DU round and i have the say La La Later! to the T-90

cheeseburger04 Says:

Apr 18, 2008 - i'm sorry has the t-90 been proven against anything sorry but i am not going to take an opinion of a country that supports a communist president