Why do you think it's called the T90? It was the T72S, but after the Gulf War, the T72 had such a bad rep as willing targets, they changed the name for export reasons. Besides, no such thing as Russian technology, it's takenology.

Quoted Text

---

If the Russian stuff was as fantastic as the Russians claim it to be I'm pretty sure Israel wouldn't exist right now.

---

You might want to read up on the `73 War. The Israelis came real close to losing that one. If it hadn't been for a massive influx of American aid, they may well have. The Egyptains trained real hard for that one, and almost got them. The tatical and technical proficinency of troops has a lot more to do with outcomes than the bells and whistles on a given weapons system.

While I will diasgree with Gary that ALL the russians have is takeknowledgy (I mean the initial B-1 bomber radar was a "stolen" copy of the Russian MiG-25 radar, for example) I do agree that they have tended to be in the catch up position for a while now and that they have had to become global marketers very quickly, with all the quirks.

I also agree that it is the level of training of your troops that provide any real advantage on the battlefield rather than tech. Tech is usefull, if you have the soldiers trained to take full advantage of it. MOST arab armies that went up against Isreal used very poorly trained troops and relied more on mass waves than on the use of the tech they had. But then, look at the Govt's that they represent and you can see why they do not want a well trained military anywhere near them! Egypt in particular is the exception and they really gave the Isreali's fits. It was close.

So looking down on Russian equipment may not be the wisest way to overcome the enemy. Had the Iraqi's had M1A2's with their minimally trained crews and the US been fielding T-72's with our extreemly well trained crews, the outcome would have been the same. When you train well, you know your weakness' and strengths, as well as the enemies, and then you can plan for victory in a rational way. Too much Hoorah will only put you in a body bag.

There ARE still rumors of Syrian T-72's facing Merkava's, but nothing confirmed. And no one form Isreal or Syria is talking about it either.

Gary, I would imagine you would know the difference between a export T-72 and a made-for-home-consumption Russian T-72. Not that THAT is the reason the Arabs lost, but if you get low end equipment as well, it certainly does not help. As you said, training and professionalism are the keys to a great military. But your tools can be the deciding factor when both sides are well trained. In which case M1A2's will kick the crap out of T-72M1's every time.

There are indeed unconfirmed reports of the Russians getting ahold of US Ammo...why is this hard to believe? Did the US Supply system black market suddenly dry up? Noone thinks that all of the misappropriated equipement in Iraq could end up in Moscow? VERY easy to imagine that they would get ahold of and use this ammo for proving ground work. And not for the Defense Minister to see, it would be very hush-hush. Remember, the Russians think EVERYTHING needs to be a secret.

I am not an M1 expert by any means, but I was under the impression that the M1A series is fitted with the same gun as the Leopards. The US has also been a leader in testing and improving ammunition. Why wouldn't they be testing their armor with our ammunition or an equivalent. We shot up a some M1 hulls in testing, the Russians would do the same.

Most countries are not happy with the turbine in the M1's.

All good points. however:

1. To the best of my knowledge there has NEVER been any confirmation of T-72's vs. Merkava's. It has been rumored, speculated, a handfull of photo's analyzed, but there are no official confirmations...just rumors.

2. Many of the engineers at United Defense would disagree with your assessment of the MiG-25 radar and its use in the B-1...This has been stated by at least 3 seperate sources from within the Defense Industry that we specifically used if for a NOE radar set as it was the best at the time. Also, the phase scanning radars used by the Russians are of a totally different tech type than used in the West...and very good for thier job.

3. In my time in the military I knew MANY M-1 Tankers, and my local Guard Unit is a M-1 unit as well. Camp Ripley, MN has on display one of the M-1 inital tanks, and I was trained for recovery on a M1-E1 variant (M-1 initial with a 120mm gun system retrofitted for training.) Not one of them has ever stated that they have capability of a garanteed one shot/ one kill beyond 2 Klicks. The 120mm (I cannot remember the M designator of the gun system) can definately reach out that far, and the optics are superior, but 2K is the range that is trained to. And the Initial M1 did NOT have superior optics...many of the tankers I know HATED the inital M1 because of all the problems they had with the sight and most wanted to go back to the M60's they had until they fixed all the bugs with the system. And yes, they are all happy with the M1A1's now.

4. The Naval 6 inch must have shot HE...it is nearly worthless for armor penetration. My primary MOS was as a Forward Observer for artillery, so I have seen it over and over...HE does not penetrate even on 8 inch. Makes a hell of a bang though! And I doubt the navy was using HEAT or SABOT. M1 side armor, turret or hull, is not good enough to survive 150mm (roughly) gunfire using Heat or Sabot.

5. The Russians were given a single M26 through Lend-Lease during WWII, including its two plane gyrostabilizer. They then started by building thier systems with a single plane stabilizer, then a 2 plane and with the introduction of either the T-64B or the T-80B introduced a three plane stabilizer. They had a superior Night Vision System as well, not in the Active Infrared but in Low light tech. They have not, however, come over to Thermal sights quickly or uniformly. They understand the advantages, but the cost seems to be limiting their implementation. The Russians seem more interested in finding ways to counter the TI than in trying to adopt it (my opinion anyhow).

I hope that helps.

most countrys went with the German tank because of cost alone. The drive train is inferior to the M-1, and there's little difference in penetrating power of the longer barreled gun verses the shorter one Your D.O.A. with a good hit from either one (the real term is "your turned into jello").
The gas turbine is the future, and will be adopted by everyone in the future. I've had to listen to that same old rumor for the last 27 years, and when the goods are put on the table it rapidly becomes a mute point. The Challanger and the M-1 are the two best tanks on the planet period.
gary

The quality of equipment is directly equivalent to the manufacturing capabilities of the home country. Would you drive a car made in Japan, or the USA, or Germany? How about one made in North Korea, China or Russia?

The quality of equipment is directly equivalent to the manufacturing capabilities of the home country. Would you drive a car made in Japan, or the USA, or Germany? How about one made in North Korea, China or Russia?

Quoted Text

---

most countrys went with the German tank because of cost alone. The drive train is inferior to the M-1, and there's little difference in penetrating power of the longer barreled gun verses the shorter one Your D.O.A. with a good hit from either one (the real term is "your turned into jello").
The gas turbine is the future, and will be adopted by everyone in the future. I've had to listen to that same old rumor for the last 27 years, and when the goods are put on the table it rapidly becomes a mute point. The Challanger and the M-1 are the two best tanks on the planet period.
gary

---

Most countries go for the German Leopard 2 series because it is a far superior tank to the Abrams series of tanks ie it does not suffer from the same design flaw as the Abrams tank ie .... it can easily be imobolised/destroyed if you hit it between the glaring gap between the 1st and 2nd road wheel where the armour is at it's weakest .... even dated Rpgs can immobolise the Abrams tank if the round hits between the 1st and 2nd road wheel ... .i wonder why in nato trials the Leopard ALWAYS comes out top of the pile .... because it is superior to the Abrams tank

(And again I'd like to redirect your attention to the apparent superiority of the russian interceptors over the f-15s...)

I'm glad you find fun in all aspect of life -it will help you live a long, happy life. However, it has been discussed in this forum already, but as flight-related, dropped. Just look up Cope India 2004. (They had similar exercises with other nations using F-16s, with similar results.) In all fairness this exercise mainly showed that superior training is a decisive factor in combat -and this lesson can be extended to armored engagements, too. (But still... mock fight of MiG-21Bison against F-16s from Singapore, and winning? That must be painful.)

Most countries go for the German Leopard 2 series because it is a far superior tank to the Abrams series of tanks ie it does not suffer from the same design flaw as the Abrams tank ie .... it can easily be imobolised/destroyed if you hit it between the glaring gap between the 1st and 2nd road wheel where the armour is at it's weakest .... even dated Rpgs can immobolise the Abrams tank if the round hits between the 1st and 2nd road wheel ... .i wonder why in nato trials the Leopard ALWAYS comes out top of the pile .... because it is superior to the Abrams tank

May I remind you, or tell you for the first, time that there has never been an F-15 lost in combat by any of its user nations. From Wiki: "As of 2007, the F-15 in all air forces has an air-to-air combined kill record of 103 kills to 0 losses in air combat." Now, how many "superior Russian interceptors" I.E.Mig and Sukoi aircraft, have fallen victim to the F-15