Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rovai Hey, another flame topic..............
OK here is my opinions:
Rifles) AK is a great assault rifle, it is the most popular assault rifle in the world. M16-M4 are also good, but they arent as reliable as AK's(but ak lacks accuracy, but at ranges up to 200-300m it's pretty accurate). And new AN-94 kicks ass. So here Russians get the points.
Tanks) Hard one. Americans will proadly go for Abrams, British for Challenger, Israelis for Merkava, and Russians for T-80U or T-90(the most arguable question on the Russian forum is "What is the best tank in the world? T-80 or T-90?) I have a hard time choosing between Merkava and T-80U. All I can say is that Abrams is not the best, it's not maneuverable, has manual ammunition load, and has unreliable engine. Iraq cant be taken into account, because there were no tank vs tank battles in Iraq.
Also, different tanks are built for different tactics and different war theatres .
So here is pretty much a match.
P.S Who said that autoloaders are bad and why?
Ill continue with planes and other stuff tomorrow.
P.P.S Can anybody give a link for some western artillery? |
The Abrams is maneuverable, it hits a top speed of 45 mph...pretty fast
It has a manuel ammunition load...so? A good loader slams a shell every 4 seconds riding in rough terrain, the auto-loader on the T-90 takes about 8. The loader can help with maintenence and help watch for enemies and also fire another machine gun. Auto-loaders can break.
The engine is reliable, 90% operation rate in the Gulf War.
Saying that a conflict is not an accurate judge of a tank because there were no tank to tank battles is wrong. A tank's job is not necessarily to fight other tanks, tanks fill the role of heavy cavalry, to exploit a breakthrough in the enemy line.
Not to mention the M1A2SEP has the most advanced fire control and optics of any tank.
That said, the problem with most Russian equipment is not the design, it's how well made and the workmanship involved that's the problem.