Originally posted by grunt2
ahhh, really i dont see any good argument here...
Of course you do not. Its simply because you choose not to see nor read.
1)the U238 turns very fast in PU239, actually in that way it works the modern nuclear bombs, ahh i see it take years to detonate the U238 fase
from the neutrons bombardments , seriously the regenerators reactors actually must be more slower in the U238-Pu239 process, becouse the risk of
a nuclear reaction, also the U238 turns radiactive with alpha radiation, now just imagine a neutron bomb (obviously not a direct impact) over a M1
company.....maybe it could end in a .....BOOOOM!!, nice radioactive protection...
Talking out your rear, and has no bearing, at all, to MBTs. Why? How about you take an educated guess and tell us why your making a non-issue into an
3)the M1 armour storage has been blowed by 20mm gun, the bad fame of russian gulf war tanks is because.......that huge air advantage and numerical
superiority, if the M1s would be in the other side, im sure that we would seen many M1 turrets blowed
Does ludicrous or absurd come to mind?
Again, simply talking out your rear.
Try some toilet paper next time.
4) about the T80, we are talking about KINETIC armour an the value for the T80U is 810mm,the ERA (well, that ERA generation, supossely the K-5 has
also ballistic protection) has nothing to do with that
News flash, that vaunted and alledged "810mm" with or with out ERA will be defeated by the M1A1's and M1A2's DU penetrator E3 rounds. What the M1
or Challenger can see, they can destroy. The T-72s and T-80Us have nothing remotely comparable to the optics systems used by the M1s and
I also suppose you forgot that the M1s can be likewise equipped with ERA and have?
Try again, your counter-arguments are weak
5)105mm is better than a 120mm??????are you kidding????
Anyone with one grain of credibility and research skills would be able to verify this as accurate. Your problem appears to be what, exactly?
Let me give you another factoid that you will undoubtedly argue otherwise: The M1 and Challenger tanks can fire more accurately moving at 30mph with
their current guns than a T-72 or T-80U can sitting still.
The M1 is good designed, but isnt that fortress over wheels that some idiots would love to believe, also the T72-80 has some shortcomings,
Understatment. They have a load of shortcomings, namely the "frying pan" turret. Frying pan turret equates to no space and improper round/ammunition
protection. The Russians corrected this but it is still highly suspect and susceptible, and that is a factoid. The only thing that a T-72s or T-80Us
can surpass the M1s and Challenger tanks at is doing the vaunted "flying frying pan" manuever....you know, when the turret comes exploding off and
flys through the air.
but the ammunition place is very missunderstanded, the glacis armour in modern t72 and t80s is decent (from 400-750mm) and also is a very low
probability impact place,
And the "very low probability impact place" is simply someone who has no clue as to what they are indicating. But hey, when the T-80 gets anywhere
close to the M1s or Challenger 2s in realtime battelfield experience, let us know, k? The M1s and Challenger 2s are in a class nearly by themselves,
and those vaunted T-80Us will never come close to being on par with them.
the "Blacl Eagle" has the turret ammunition because they increase the cuantify of missiles carried -they are internally carried, because you dont
want those explosives in the turret-
Why do those who have no clue about tanks continue to bring up the vaunted "Black Eagle" tank? The tank is a test-bed prototype and will not see
serial production remotely any time soon. Your simply comparing what is real and and applied, as in active service, to that which simply is not.
Ironic, huh? Apples and oranges comes to mind here.
nice tale, sounds like the army crap of 50...50!!!!!!! rpgs shooted against a M1 until is destroyed........nice tales , the nationalists -and the
industry- will always defend that stupid "mighty M1" mith, in war times you will always see those tales
I suppose a real
tale deserves to counter a imaginary tale, such as you spew out, over and over, huh?
Bring something real
to the table next time instead of your continued rhetorical, ludicrous, unsubstantiated comments.
[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]