T-90 VS Leopard 2 - Page 12




 
--
 
October 20th, 2010  
The Russian
 
Since he is banned we cannot say anything bad about him. Korean Seaboy plz dont think all Russians are bad. He is jerk but very patriotic to his country. Not all Russians are like that. So plz dont count against us. Russian military is not corrupt and little outdated. We are still strong and powerful and are military is not weak. We are number 2 in the world military ranking and we getting stronger and stronger. Currently the Russian military going to through modernization. So plz dont say we corrupt, outdated and all that. Its an old and stupid comment. Have a good day
October 23rd, 2010  
The Russian
 
Try our new group about the might of the Russian military and tanks in Facebook. You are free to discuss anything about the might of Russia. Plz join Russian tanks and military.
October 24th, 2011  
Augustus34U
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
Wasn't the RPGs such as as they were done by the Metis-M. This I give credit for. It's been used, it has worked.
The next time Russian hardware does that, I'll give it due credit.

About the T-80.
"The explosive reactive armor does not provide any added protection against APDS or APFSDS attack."
"The Russian Defense Ministry made a selection of a single MBT in 1995. The fighting in Grozny had been shown around the world and the reputation of Russian tanks was sullied. Although many casualities were due to bad tactics and many T-72s were also lost, it was the knocked-out T-80s which made an impression. More had been expected of the "quality" M-80 MBT. This is alleged to have tipped the balance against the T-80 in the selection. The T-80 was already more expensive and its delicate, fuel-hungry turbine engine was still giving problems. "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ussia/t-80.htm
One shot one kill for the M1A1 Abrams. T-80 sucks.
Well one major fact about ERA, it is meant to Degrade KE Rounds and HEAT,it is designed to add additional armor to the tank protection. At most T-80U has around ~815mm of armor, which KE5 adds around ~150-250mm of extra armor to the tank. Keep in mind in 1996 US Test shot from a M1 Abrams to the T-72A fitted with early type of KE5, no round including M829A1 couldnt penetrate. Those losses in Chechen war was bad tactics, each T-80BV got hit by RPG 6 or 7 times on Turret Roof without infantry support. Imagine any tank in that situation would go down, no matter if it M1 Abrams, Leo 2, or T-90. I still believe KE 5 could still degraded M829A2/A3 (this is my speculation, as we all know we dont know the real figures of the round). T-80U does have a fuel hungry engine, so does Abrams but later got replaced by diesel on T-80UD. Nevertheless however since Omsk went down T-80 series are done. T-90A has great frontal and side armor, good mobility, reliability, and fantastic APS system. Leo 2A6 has Better armor then T-90A. T-90MS and T-90AM on the other hand...
--
October 24th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Hopefully none of us or our children will find out first hand which is better, T90, Leopard2, Abrams or Challenger2
October 24th, 2011  
Augustus34U
 
 
[QUOTE=BritinAfrica;609977]Hopefully none of us or our children will find out first hand which is better, T90, Leopard2, Abrams or Challenger2[/QUO

I agree.
October 25th, 2011  
Yossarian
 
 
Classifying gear like this on a broad spectrum leaves many open loopholes that will remain so in terms of speculations.

Stastitics only go so far, and the only close measure in a match up could be crew training and experiance, as well as the deployment of each oposing tank in terms of it's use.

Lastly, even if you were comparing relativly narrow attributes of each tank against each other, due to their highly classified nature, it's almost impossible to know what each machine can really do and make an educated guess at best about how it would perform against it's adversary.

And quite frankly that high degree of guess work and unkown factors is what any modern military force fielding either machine would strive for in terms of keeping ahead of the enemy.
December 4th, 2011  
CH3TN!K
 
 
I'm in love with the T-90, she is like a girl who takes your v-card. It is a beautiful tank that combines the bare bones of what you need on a battlefield with the modern technology of today, wrapped up in an awesome looking machine. I would get serious in this thread if it weren't already for the lengthy post I put up about the features of a T-90, and also about some future plans for the tank, in my post in the M-84AS/M-95 thread. And unlike most, I am biased towards Russian arms. To me they always fascinated me because they make the most rugged and battle ready equipment out of any nation. There are ZERO politics involved in producing and fielding Russian equipment. The only thing they care about is if it will make the soldier better. That's just my opinion though. The example I always use is England. They ALL hate the L-85/SA-80 rifle, but because some British guy invented it, and since he still isn't dead, out of respect they keep the gun. I have no idea how someone makes that call, when possibly it is costing soldiers' lives out in the field, it's just stupid. That's the difference between Russia and the West.
December 4th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH3TN!K
The example I always use is England. They ALL hate the L-85/SA-80 rifle, but because some British guy invented it, and since he still isn't dead, out of respect they keep the gun. I have no idea how someone makes that call, when possibly it is costing soldiers' lives out in the field, it's just stupid. That's the difference between Russia and the West.
A family friend worked on the SA80, he was part of the design team at Enfield Lock, before it was closed down by Thatcher. They had all manner of the problems with the gas system, he redesigned the system until it finally worked. One day he walked into his boss's officer, threw the SA 80 on his desck and said "This piece of crap will never work properly." His boss shrugged and basically said, "Its out of our hands, its now political, we have got to get it working." From what I heard, the SAS refused to use it and chose the M16 and M4 instead, and that during the first Gulf War British troops had so many problems with it they had to ship out the old SLR L1A1, which at least worked reliably.

Personally I don't like the layout, it can't be used left handed, so firing from around cover off the left shoulder is impossible. Personally I think it is a bad design, maybe troops today like the rifle, I've never spoken to anyone who has actually used it in a hot situation. Maybe 42RM can enlighten us.
March 25th, 2013  
newbauer
 
 
Maybe L2A6 has the best gun in the world, but the refleks can be deadly from 5km so, first shot is at T-90. I also heard the L2 has horrible filters
July 24th, 2013  
udaka
 
Oh, the Russian began cheat moneys by sell their arms of poor quality.

Believe me, an anti-tank mines only worth with $100 enough blow up the track of T90 tank. then the tank can't mobilize, stay at the ground and waiting to dead. Vary of anti-weapons had sufficient times aim it's target.(Anti-armor rocket,missile and artilery ,Antitank guns....ect) .

of course ,the most stupid thing is shoot down the soldiers around this tank. then the infantry rush to tank and end it use explosive.
 


Similar Topics
Leopard 2 vs. Abrams
Leopard 2 Main-Battle-Tank / Book
Apple Unleashes Leopard Operating System
China's "Snow Leopard Commando" to drill with Russian commandoes
Man Clad in Underwear Pins Leopard