New Russian MBT..

[Satchel 0]

Posted on Feb. 11 2002,16:59....

a shame the thread didn´t end there or got locked, talking about digging the dead out of their graves.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

BTW, who is interested in the U.S. Army´s future plans regarding FCS and transformation, should watch this video:

: Around the Army in 3000 Seconds: Technology and Innovation for Transformation

http://www.amchistory.army.mil/video/video.html

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Great, Russia has a new MBT perfectly designed to fight the Abrams and the Leo in Europe, just in time for... for Russia to become a limited strategic partner of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization! Talk about timing.

[Miles 0]

In reality one sabot shot will destroy a tank, so most of the time is a matter of who shhots first

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles @ June 01 2002,07:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In reality one sabot shot will destroy a tank, so most of the time is a matter of who shhots first<span id='postcolor'>

Depends on where the round hits and at what angle. M1A2 has thicker armor supported with depleted uranium plates to further limit round penetration. It depends on the kinetic energy the round has whether or not it will penetrate the armor. Even if it does it won't necessarily destroy the tank. It may disable certain components of it (i.e. turret motor, etc).

If I remember correctly the front armor on the M1A2 is so thick that no KE round in the world can penetrate it. Of course that could just be some blabber, though I see it as a possibility.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

<span id='postcolor'>for example the A2's top speed is listed at 45MPH..we all now it can go faster then that.</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Yea it can go faster, or at least the M1 could.My dad told me that the M1 could reach 60MPH with out the Governed on it.All though, my dad said, the crew got pretty uneasy at that speed, cause if you lose you tread, its history for the tank and its crew.

About the M1A2 vs. T80, the so called "best tanks in the world" are not the best in the world, until they are actually 'tryied' out in combat, lets say 100 vs 100 would make it fair for each side to have a chance of winning, then we will know which is the "Best in the World".

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

wow, that was wierd, my post turned out blue.

[Warin 0]

Is there a way to lock threads more than 3 months old automatically so people dont keep dredging them up?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ June 01 2002,07:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Nice schematics. Very informative. Perhaps I should call DoD and present my own futuristic tank:

[Denwad 0]

To my limited knowledge, there is a type of napalm that at the university that it was invented at, it is used as an ashtray

[akm74 1]

To Assault (CAN)

“â€â€THE RUSSIAN ARMY IS SH*T Look at what happened in Afghanistan, something like 500 000 troopsâ€â€â€

Actually there was 97.000 not 500.000

“â€â€ fell ill from poor sanitary conditions because the Russians couldn't even train their troops to wash properly. How pathetic.â€â€â€

If we will follow your logic 15 UK troops recently evacuated from Afghanistan was also didn’t wash their hand? Or UK couldn't even train their troops to wash properly. Are you n00ts ?

Russian loose 15.000 man in this war (more then half of them “soldiers who didn’t wash their handsâ€) and kill almost 2 millions Afghanis.

1-300 rates? Can you repeat it? According to recent US performance in Afghanistan I don’t think so. You don’t even control ground you stand on.

I know you say “how fast Taliban fall…†but just say it “How fast it fall to northern alliance. You have nothing to do with it…

“â€â€That’s what you get with an army of conscriptsâ€â€â€

this is fanny.

18 years old conscripts who push “old, train mercenary hide somewhere in the cave? Dam I want all this conscripts in my army. I know many guys on this forum were in army. Just ask them. 10 minutes of actual fighting = 10 mounts of any (and I mean any) training. How many Russian “conscripts†go thru this brutal fighting in Chechnya? 100.000, 300,000? Every one of them equal to 20 highly trained marines without actual fighting experience.

How many marines you have? Don’t count, you never have that much.

“â€â€Look at Chechnya (sp) the Russians suffered heavy casualties from a bunch of untrained rebels, some armed with bolt-action rifles.â€â€â€

Bold -action rifles? You n00ts again? They have the same equipment as Russian.

Untrained rebels? All Chechen (except Arabic mercenary) was in Russian army before, they have the same training as federal troops. The only difference is …the don’t have to play by the rules. 10.000 US troops can’t find one “untrained rebels osamaâ€

What you expect from Russians? They have 30.000 osamas running around.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

dude, cease and desist. This thread is like 4 months old.

[red oct 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ June 01 2002,07:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL!  After spending a good 20 minutes reading this thread (and all of its pages) it seems like a kindergarten class full of kids of diverse backgrounds who argue aimlessly about topics of which they know little about.  You either watch too much "TLC" or other networks who air shows that are nothing but propaganda.  You know just because it's on TV doesn't mean it's true : )  (regardless of just how convincing the narrator seems)

First let's clear some issues which were previously mentioned.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mister Frag

It is interesting to note that the US Army has started to phase out the Abrams and rotate it out to National Guard units.  What will the Abrams be replaced with? For the next 10 to 15 years, it will be the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV), which is derived from the eight-wheeled LAV III platform.<span id='postcolor'>

Abrams will NOT be replaced by a LAV III in the next 10 years.  Whatever your source on that data is, it's flawed.  If anything, the U.S. Army will upgrade their configurations into M1A2.  Abrams' replacement (12-15 years from now) will hardly be a crew-operated tank as it's come to be known.  A likely candidate will be the FCS (Future Combat System) shown below:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sgtdwetzel

I have been a "tanker" for over 11 years as a loader, driver, gunner, and tank commander, and have been in Soviet, British, and German equipment, and have seen how they work - and how they don't.  T80U the best.....know what you are talking about before you "inform" us of your un-enlightened opinions <span id='postcolor'>

Awww. Well isn't that special.  You operated a variety of tanks, good for you.  Not to sound like a dick pal, but arguments about "Ohhh this tank is the best and that one is shit" are all but mature.  Just because you've driven them and fired their cannons doesn't make your statement true.  Different tanks are designed for different purposes.  Many factors are taken into consideration when taking into account the battle scenarios, terrain, and so on.  

Since most of the modern battle tanks (Leopards 2s, Challenger 2s, T-90s, Merkavas etc) have NOT been in direct combat with one another on a mass scale, one cannot conclude whether they're best or not.  Please try to keep that in mind.  Merkavas have led a few assaults in Palestine, Challengers have supported missions in Kosovo, but neither one of these qualifies as a mass armed conflict where tanks came head to head with other tanks, AT missiles and attack helicopters.  None exept for the M1A1 which proved extremely successful in Desert Storm.

All your "best" braggings are based upon field tests, statistics, etc etc.  Hate to break this to you guys, but that hardly concludes whether a tank is worthy of the "BEST IN THE WORLD" title.

Let's just leave it at that and not argue anymore, because if my memory serves me well, this topic was already discussed and in the end, nobody could agree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DU rounds are banned by the geneva connection, so are napalm and landmines.

Before asking me to do a little bit more research, napalm and landmines are banned in NATO countries. Napalm was banned by an United Nations convention in 1980 <span id='postcolor'>

LOL!  Another bunch of geniuses resorting to the Geneva convention and the rules it includes.  What I love more is when these misled individuals make fools out of themselves.

First the DU rounds are not banned, and they are widely in use.  The M829A2 which will soon be replaced by M829E3 both use depleted uranium as penetrators.

Neither banned are Napalm and Landmines.  BTW Air Force used Napalm in Desert Storm quite often too.

In conclusion, I hope my post will NOT give birth to more "Screw the T-90, M1 is the best" replies, as any individual giving a tank the title of "BEST IN THE WORLD" is merely expressing his patriotism for his country or the country he adores.  If and when WWIII breaks out and all the modern tanks are pitted against each other perhaps this debate will finally be concluded, though I doubt it's worth finding out.

Oh and to reply to the original topic "New russian MBT"... A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a vareity of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998.Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lowerr silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higherr cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard.

PS:  Just for the record, no M1s were used in Desert Storm.  They were either M1A1s or M1A1-HAs.<span id='postcolor'>

i remember this stupid thread from over a year ago and have to say that this is the only smart post ive seen. do people join this forum simply to dig through +year old threads?