Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

India to acquire 400 more T-90 tanks from Russia

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

In fact, if there's anything I try to avoid, it's a flame war. I'll show more restraint and ignore the ignorant ones from now on.


Oh my, that's big of you




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I apologize, I wasn't trying to spin off into a flame war. In fact, if there's anything I try to avoid, it's a flame war. I'll show more restraint and ignore the ignorant ones from now on.


Please, how transparent can you be - you're still trying to piss people off


Anyway, back to the thread. As ar as tank superority goes any modern tank can kill another, it all depends on the situation of the battle. An Indian sabot round would be able to penetrate the Abrams except from the front, it's turruet side armour may also stand up to a single direct hit - everywhere else is vulnerable though.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Please, how transparent can you be - you're still trying to piss people off


Anyway, back to the thread. As ar as tank superority goes any modern tank can kill another, it all depends on the situation of the battle. An Indian sabot round would be able to penetrate the Abrams except from the front, it's turruet side armour may also stand up to a single direct hit - everywhere else is vulnerable though.


Uh... I'm not trying to piss of anyone. It's only insulting if you take it that way.

Back to thread. I was reading something interesting today about why Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War fought so poorly against the U.S. tanks. Turns out it had nothing to do with the tanks themselves. Instead, the Iraqis were using poorly-made tank rounds against Coalition rounds. The rounds were made in Iraq, not the Soviet Union. Therefore, it's poor ammunition construction more than the tanks themselves. The rounds would just disintegrate on the heavy armor of the Abrams and Pattons. Soviet rounds would've caused far more damage.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Possibly, however the main problem with Iraqi armour was the way it was deployed. Many of their tanks were just used as pillboxes in the billiard table terrain of the Iraqi desert. Airpower is what really broke the back of the Iraqi armoured forces; that and the far superior US vision sytems and tactics, especially at night.
It is highly doubtful that even Soviet ammo would have been able to pierce the frontal armour of an Abrams. Don't forget that is what they were built for a frontal slugging match.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirza2003
it is not the post to discuss chines tank tec there is another post

be on your topic discusing anything other than the topic should be small

china white has habit to take any post to chines tech and start compring withit witout full knowlege he has some pic to compare unproven data.



this forum is about comparing different tanks to another. also ALL my facts are from reliable sources unlike yours. what unproven data????

[edit on 22-4-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
sweatmonic WTF is your problem? I don't give a... what you say. china white seems to think that the Type-98 can stand up to the M1A2 or M1A1 which I find very funny.


hey dickhead read some thing about the t-98. i dont want to read your bias post regarding americans as invincible. refer to iraq common mines disable your m1a2
and the chinese tank gun is claimed to be more powerful than the german gun you have



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
hehe...

sweatmonicaido don't like westpoint23..
mirza2003 don't like chinawhite..

This thread is going nowhere fast..


and chinawhite don't like mirza2003



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
rather than posting full details of type xx here you can post it in type xx thread and give link here that will server good purpose.

about t-72 in gulf war i think tank shell is mainstay of the tank duels and t-72 is badly eqiuped.

is any body had details of what kind of shell t-72 and m1a1 had in that war.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Possibly, however the main problem with Iraqi armour was the way it was deployed. Many of their tanks were just used as pillboxes in the billiard table terrain of the Iraqi desert. Airpower is what really broke the back of the Iraqi armoured forces; that and the far superior US vision sytems and tactics, especially at night.
It is highly doubtful that even Soviet ammo would have been able to pierce the frontal armour of an Abrams. Don't forget that is what they were built for a frontal slugging match.


arab armies have never had any luck in using modern warfare. the iraqi tank guns were downgraded versions of there russian counter-part. during the iran-iraq war iraq found out they could make there own ammo and it worked againest the iranian armour. if they imported russian ammo for there guns we would have seen more dead m1a2



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirza2003
rather than posting full details of type xx here you can post it in type xx thread and give link here that will server good purpose.

about t-72 in gulf war i think tank shell is mainstay of the tank duels and t-72 is badly eqiuped.

is any body had details of what kind of shell t-72 and m1a1 had in that war.


iraq use there own produced shells. a lot cheaper but no use againest modern tanks. they used there shells in iraqn-iraq war to good effect



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

arab armies have never had any luck in using modern warfare. the iraqi tank guns were downgraded versions of there russian counter-part. during the iran-iraq war iraq found out they could make there own ammo and it worked againest the iranian armour. if they imported russian ammo for there guns we would have seen more dead m1a2


The tank guns were no different, I believe you mean the ammo. There may have been a few more M!'a disabled maybe 5-10 but no more. The big tank engagements like 73 Easting were fought at night, where the Americans could run rings around the Iraqi tanks.
Not to mention of course that the tanks were tin cans, even a T-72 is lightly armoured compared to an Abrams.
Saddam also had some of that Chinese junk, Type 59's, I believe.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by chinawhite

arab armies have never had any luck in using modern warfare. the iraqi tank guns were downgraded versions of there russian counter-part. during the iran-iraq war iraq found out they could make there own ammo and it worked againest the iranian armour. if they imported russian ammo for there guns we would have seen more dead m1a2


The tank guns were no different, I believe you mean the ammo. There may have been a few more M!'a disabled maybe 5-10 but no more. The big tank engagements like 73 Easting were fought at night, where the Americans could run rings around the Iraqi tanks.
Not to mention of course that the tanks were tin cans, even a T-72 is lightly armoured compared to an Abrams.
Saddam also had some of that Chinese junk, Type 59's, I believe.


the export versions of the t-72 had under powered guns. also the soviets used more advanced tanks like the t-64.

hehehe true about chinese junk we got to dump heaps of our t-59s on iraq



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Possibly, however the main problem with Iraqi armour was the way it was deployed. Many of their tanks were just used as pillboxes in the billiard table terrain of the Iraqi desert. Airpower is what really broke the back of the Iraqi armoured forces; that and the far superior US vision sytems and tactics, especially at night.
It is highly doubtful that even Soviet ammo would have been able to pierce the frontal armour of an Abrams. Don't forget that is what they were built for a frontal slugging match.


Well, I was talking more in the realm of tank vs. tank warfare. The rounds would have been ineffective against air targets, obviously enough.


When it came to the Abrams/Patton vs. the Iraqi tanks, however, it was definitely the poorly-produced Iraqi ammo. The Soviet ammo used on it's 125mm gun is capable of penetrating the Abrams' armor up to 1,000 meters. So while they were built for a slugging match, the Abrams was highly vulnerable to a T-72 at it's peak, unlike the Iraqis, who basically half-assed their weaponry.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Not to mention of course that the tanks were tin cans, even a T-72 is lightly armoured compared to an Abrams.
Saddam also had some of that Chinese junk, Type 59's, I believe.


Nope, they weren't tin cans either. T-72s use a layered armor system and can sustain a direct hit from an M1 Abrams' 105mm (M1A1/2 have 125mm gun) gun up to 2,000 meters (keep in mind the T-72 was designed in the late '70s and early '80s).

Again, it's the poor fighting capability of the Iraqi T-72s, their awful shells, and conservative doctrine, not to mention the overwhelming numbers they had to face in the Coalition assault, that failed the Iraqis. Had they fought differently and used better munitions, things could have been different.

Oh yeah, if can kill you, it's not junk. It's terror.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
The Iraqi T-72's had fully manual operated turrets... not even a motor to operate them. Not forgetting their complete lack of computerised optics... The Iraqi T-72's were obsolete 20 years ago.

Anyhow... chanbging topic slightly but i'm not sure where to put this...

Apparently this is a Chinese test of the new 140mm tank cannon for their next type-98 upgrade





posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
HOLY MOTHER thats huge!



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
any details of the pic plz post it here


china white your like dislike did not matter here



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Details are scarce but this could be the chinese "super tank" that Janes Defence refered to back in 2003

If rumors are correct it will be the most powerfull armoured vehicle on the planet



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

ALso india has the worlds largest number of people under poverty line all 250+ million.

look on the bright side. that means 850+ million people live normal lives.

besides, china too has over 100+ million people living in poverty.

should i mention china's horrible human rights record too..? heck the chinese regime have killed 40+ million of their own people.

but the good news is that both countries are making huge strides in eradicating poverty. in india approximately 25 million people get lifted out of povetry anually!




also the LCA is under development not developed.


the LCA is alredy developed and is now in testing. it's alredy completed over 380 hours of flying in addition to all the ground based testing.100+ hours of supersonic testing too.

LCA to be inducted into the IAF in 2008



Anyone could work on hyperplanes its if you finish the project that matters


i agree. if you check out the avatar thread, u'll find out that the unmanned prototype is to fly in 2007.

i could debate on china's XXJ stealth fighter programme on the same lines too..



any source to 3rd largest GDP in 10 years


i read in a mag.nothing official about it, its just a prediction by a team of economists. the same article also says that china will replace USA as the world's largest economy by 2035. now that's heady stuff!


We could go on squabbling this forever, but the reality is that india and china are slowly but surely inching towards lasting friendship
.the border dispute will soon be a thing of the past


China have categorically accepted Sikkim as a part of india, and india have accepted Tibet as an autonomous part of China


The visits of the two premiers have put things in place to make the next century an "Asian one"



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Details are scarce but this could be the chinese "super tank" that Janes Defence refered to back in 2003

If rumors are correct it will be the most powerfull armoured vehicle on the planet


yo Lucretius can u post the link to the video of it or at least post pics of it still by still.

also it was the Germans who tested the 140 mm gun on the Leopards reasons for not putting it in unknown.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by deltaboy]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join