To spite America, Iraq buys T-90MS Tagil from Russia.

a reply to: Arnie123

Fact is that RPGs beat tank armour, pretty much been that way since the end of WW2.

a reply to: andy06shake

No one disputes that, a wasted observation.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: intrptr

I disagree, The ammo compartments blast doors are redirecting that fire upwards, its doing its job. Vulnerable rear armor, nothing to see here that isn't already known.

"Ammo storage doors" are open during loading of the main gun. Sometimes they are just left open during engagements. Maybe foreign tank crews aren't trained or motivated as well as in the west. Edit: Besides, the 'cook off' jet of flame emerges from the turret hatch, proving the ammo storage compartment was penetrated.

Regardless, it doesn't have to be a penetrating hit to incapacitate a tank of any flavor. Burying a ton of lo explosive (fertilizer) beneath a road in a culvert will kill or injure the crew from rapid, vertical G force acceleration. Thats why so many veterans return with spinal injuries and head trauma.Much easier to find videos of Abrahms destruction than T90, wonder why?

a reply to: intrptr

The Abrams has been proven to be one of the best main battle tanks in the world.
No, not indestructible but nothing is.

a reply to: Arnie123

Ok? what does that have to do with the discussion

Everything.

Why the T90 is favored over the Abrahams, The topic of discussion.

a reply to: Arnie123

No whats wasted is monies on multi-million $$$$ tanks that can be destroyed by a relatively cheap RPG round.

If it was a wasted observation then why are we still building Tanks?

And the answer is arms sales and profit!

All observations are relevant to those with an eye to see.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Arnie123

Ok? what does that have to do with the discussion

Everything.

Why the T90 is favored over the Abrahams, The topic of discussion.

Money, pretty much that simple.
Cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Arnie123

Ok? what does that have to do with the discussion

Everything.

Why the T90 is favored over the Abrahams, The topic of discussion.

You know what? I'll concede from this conversation, its early and to be fair I'm on the crapper with numb legs. Enjoy.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: intrptr

The Abrams has been proven to be one of the best main battle tanks in the world.
No, not indestructible but nothing is.

The Abrahams was developed for open field "Main Battles" during the Cold Wars to defeat Russian armor on the plains of central and western Europe. At that time it was superior in every way to Soviet Warsaw Pact armored units.

That time is passed, the "Russians " have followed suit, improved on the design, learning from the mistakes, past and present.

Not only but over the decades armor penetrators are significantly improved in man portable guided missile technology.

It is a different field of battle nowadays, not 'main battle' but endless little conflicts against small unit tactics. Guerrilla warfare lessons lost that we learned from Vietnam.

a reply to: intrptr

Tanks cant really fight effectively in an urban environment hence the reason somewhat stealthy man portable missile systems and RPG make them obsolete.

Granted in open terrain or in the correct theatre of war the are a marvellous piece of equipment but like you point out times change and so does the battlescape.

a reply to: intrptr

Tactics definitely limit the use of tanks.

Where exactly did they say it was to spite America?

Or is it just you throwing the toys they didn't want to buy out of your pram?

originally posted by: intrptr
...like TOW, Us manufactured Anti Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) that appear in abundance inside Syria and Iraq. You think those came from Russia?

Well, you did just post a vid of a Kornet ATGM. Like I said, all these conflicts seem to be awash with Russian equipment. The weapons that do most of the killing are AKs and RPGs. If your argument that anything "made in America" must be supplied by the US, then surely that argument can be applied to anything "made in Russia" being supplied by the Russians. After all, Russia is the second largest arms exporter.

a reply to: paraphi

Don't they make aks in the U.S. also?

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Yes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the most expensive version of the T-90 is slightly more than half the cost of an M1A2. Or with the fact that the T-90 will be easier to maintain and train on. This decision is only to spite the US.

Iraqis really suck at the whole war thing and using advance technology. They need to stick to the most simple equipment available to do the job.

a reply to: BretePete

???

Never mind i pass.

Anyway in this case its the military industrial complex we should be worried about.

Yep...

a reply to: allsee4eye

So we bought Russian crap with our tax dollars....for a possible future enemy.

Well, I guess I am too dumb to see the benefit to all this.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: intrptr

Tanks cant really fight effectively in an urban environment hence the reason somewhat stealthy man portable missile systems and RPG make them obsolete.

Granted in open terrain or in the correct theatre of war the are a marvellous piece of equipment but like you point out times change and so does the battlescape.

Iraq has a sh!Tload of desert.