British Challenger 2

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Air superiority would go to the Americans. There's plenty of topics to debate that, so I won't go further.

America has an enormous amounts of tanks and artillery of its own, and it was higher during the Cold War. Russia wouldn't have a numbers advantage.

Yeah but you have to agree they have larger , poorly equiped and undertrained forces.
I mean they went crazy on numbers...but this is for another topic.

The T-72 is older, made in the 70's, hence 72, the M1 is comparable to the T-80 in it's timeline...the T-80 was made in the 80s like the Abrams

The T-80's were developed in the 70's, and entered service in the late 70's. The T-72 went in service in the early 70's. The T-80 went into service in the late 80's. The Abram is still a better tank then the T-90.

The Russian tanks aren't much good for anything but mass production capability. It's the same that was seen during WW2.

Yeah but you have to agree they have larger , poorly equiped and undertrained forces.
I mean they went crazy on numbers...but this is for another topic.

The Russian forces weren't as well trained as people try and make them out to be. How exactly could Russia have a larger army, with less funding, and conscripts compare to an all volunteer army with the funding multiple times what the Russians had and in smaller numbers?

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I meant to say german, why would I say brittish and english? it makes no sense, it was just my mind being confused...

It uses a similar gun to the Leopard A6...don't redicule me...please...

People make mistakes...


[edit on 16/1/2005 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

No problem it happens to the best of us. That company must make some really good tank guns alot of Europe and the US use them.

I wonder way the UK went with the Rifled and the US with the smooth bore. What would be advantages to both designs?

[edit on 16-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]

I wonder way the UK went with the Rifled and the US with the smooth bore. What would be advantages to both designs?

I am looking into this, but the main advantage of a rifled gun is greater accuracy at range.

Not sure of advantages of a smoothbore, but I think they are more powerful on the whole, just not as accurate.

Having said that, the fire control systems on both tanks would make up for any disadvantages either would have. (Incidently, they both use the same Canadian General Dynamics FCS)

the rifled gun allows the challenger 2 a greater accurate range of 5 km compared to the M1A2's 4km

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The Russian forces weren't as well trained as people try and make them out to be. How exactly could Russia have a larger army, with less funding, and conscripts compare to an all volunteer army with the funding multiple times what the Russians had and in smaller numbers?

I knew that what i am saying is they had a larger , less trained and underequipped force.
They would have probably won because of sheer swarm tactics.

Most of the Russian tanks were rather useless. I mean, Russia only has 4,500 T-80's, with a 150 T-90's. A huge number of T-72's, and even worse models aren't going to be more effective then what Iraq had. A third of Iraq's tank forces were just T-55's. America's superior air power, superior tanks, and better training would be enough to overcome those.

The swarm technique has been overcome many times throughout history. Pretty much every great military force has used smaller forces.

The Russians based too much of their strategy on WW2 style thinking. They did little adjusting. They fail to realize that they only managed to beat the Nazis not because of huge numbers, but because of tactical mistakes made by the opponent. The Nazis could have crushed the Russians at many points.

Russian tanks like T-72 or T-80 are indeed not so powerfull in fair fight against Abrams or Challenger, but remember that they don't need so much logistic support. Not only are they more fuel effective, they are also lighter so they could move better in rough terrain. But that's what they were designed for.
Russian tanks were designed for huge attack into the west europe, while tanks like Abrams were designed to stop such attack.

America's superior air power, superior tanks, and better training would be enough to overcome those.

Its all very well stating superior Airpower will help, but in the First Gulf war, and Iraqi Armoured brigade commander said afterwards, that he after 4 months of air bombardment, he still had about 80% of his tanks.

Within hours, mind you, of his forces encountering the Allied tank brigades (American M1A1's mostly, on his part of the line), he lost all his tanks within the space of a few hours.

Air power is good, but cannot be relied upon. But what the above proves, is that current Western tank technology is far superior to any others, with or without air power.

I will try and find a link to explain the above.

www.globalsecurity.org...

America Did not have as many armored divisions as the Soviet Union. If the war was over Russia, American planes would be at a disadvantage due to large SAM networks.

Its all very well stating superior Airpower will help, but in the First Gulf war, and Iraqi Armoured brigade commander said afterwards, that he after 4 months of air bombardment, he still had about 80% of his tanks.

Within hours, mind you, of his forces encountering the Allied tank brigades (American M1A1's mostly, on his part of the line), he lost all his tanks within the space of a few hours.

Air power is good, but cannot be relied upon. But what the above proves, is that current Western tank technology is far superior to any others, with or without air power.

I will try and find a link to explain the above.

I don't need it. I think everyone has seen this at some point.

Iraq is a poor example. The Iraqis had dug themselves in, and their military wasn't the main target of bombing.

I can give examples from WW2 where entire German offenses were crushed by Ally bombing. Patton in one situation was attacked by 3 Panzer divisions. He was completely cut off. Allied bombing was ordered in, and those three divisions were almost completely destroyed.

Plus, I wasn't just talking about bombing. A-10's and helicopters are two things America does extremely well. America has probably the best anti-tank capability in the world.

America Did not have as many armored divisions as the Soviet Union. If the war was over Russia, American planes would be at a disadvantage due to large SAM networks.

Russian SAM's are overrated. They won't stand up to a bombardment by stealth bombers and cruise missiles.

Hey, one big problem for Russia is that they'd probably end up facing all of Western Europe and their tank forces. You'd get to see M1A2's, Challenger 2's, and Leopard 2's whipe the floor with Russia.

It's not worth arguing about. Believe what you want to. As I have done, and as you have done also.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Kenshin]

I believe what the facts lead to, not what I wish were true.

The T-90 is mainly an export tank, an upgraded T-72, the T-80 is based on the T-64 design but improved...

It is not as well armored as a western tank, but is equipted with both a 125mm gun (which isn't as effective however) and a Missile system, A-11 Sniper...

In big groups, T-80s can be very deadly...

But the Abrams and Challenger have the obvious armor and weapons advantage...but the T-80U's Missile capability is something to considder...

The T-80 also has a speed advantage if I remember correctly...

The T-80 was fielded in 1984...The M1 was fielded in 1980...

Personally I believe both Armies have advantages, Russia will have numbers, NATO will have fire power and armor...

The T-90 is mainly an export tank because the Russians can't afford many, just like with their SU-30's.

The Russians don't have many T-80's, either. There are almost as many M1A2's as Russian T-80's, and the T-80's couldn't take on normal M1's.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I believe what the facts lead to.

Don't we all ?

If you did, you wouldn't have so much faith in Russian equipment.

I could say the same about you, except America replaces Russia.

I can back it up with a few things, like logic, and facts. You and other Russians have been unable to.

In your ' arguement ' with me, your never provided any sources, unlike myself. Even if I did come up with some information you would disregard it as ' lies ' or ' misinformation and inturn would provide information, if I found this information unreliable you like others would claim denial or something alike.