T-90 VS Leopard 2 - Page 13




 
--
 
July 24th, 2013  
udaka
 
Don't believe the safety of the Russia tank, in fact, their tank very easy to be destory, I post a vedio, a Tow anti-tank missile blow up the T72 horrible.

the link: http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzI4ODEzMTUy.html
August 22nd, 2013  
Togeita
 

Topic: Russian tanks, "Better than M1?!" REALITY CHEEEECK!


To whoever said the T-64 was superior to the Abrams, please go read the Osprey series? Steven Zaloga and other world class historians would unanimously disagree with you! And here's why!

Ever since the arrival of the L-7 105mm rifled cannon, the Soviets have always been the ones with the inferior guns. The T-54/55 had the advantage early on, but once the L-7 arrived with newer tanks, it quickly lost the advantage. (The L-7 had a longer range, better penetration. The M48 and the Centurion both had superior crew layouts and optics.)

The T-62 was essentially an overly hyped-up T-54/55, whose sole reason to exist was because the USSR wanted the 115mm gun. (Russia was terrified of the 105mm L7 being - not because it was powerful - but because it was 5mms bigger than their 100mm D-10T! (OMG!!! THE HORROR.) Oh, and for the record? Once the D-10T received better AP? It outperform the 115mm...) It was neither "good" nor "equal" with its Western counterparts, (until it received APFDS rounds) and according to the Opsrey publishing on the T-62, the T-62 fared terribly in Israel against its Western rivals. (Was no match for the M60A1s or Centurions that it faced - Had inferior optics, FCS and and a vastly inferior crew layout)

The T-64 was essentially (which all Russians tend to make out as their greatest ever tank) an unreliable fiasco, whose autoloader had major reliability issues. It was also the first tank to place ammunition under the turret (oh, how effective an idea that turned out to be! *Jack in the Box!*), automatically making it an inferior machine to the early M1 Abrams in crew safety! Its fire control system was also pathetic by modern standards, being unable to compete with the Abrams or even the Chieftain Mk V for that matter.

The T-72 wasn't really a "threat" until 1974. (After the Russians spent 3 years fixing the damn URAL model.) The T-72A (Ural being too pathetic to even mention - URAL had its FCS, optics, etc. replaced and gutted with newer equipment, due to unsatisfactory.), despite having a 3 rear overhaul, still proved not the greatest thing on the block when compared to much earlier variants of the Chieftain and M60s. The T-72A's FCS (TPD-K1 FCS) was a fully manual fire control system, which DID NOT calculate cross wind or ballistic errors and suffered from accuracy issues. According to the Opsrey Publishing on the T-72 MBT, Russian crews rarely fired on the move (did it for propaganda showing, etc.) and had trouble hitting targets beyond 2,000 meters due to accuracy problems with the main gun. It (like the T-64 and T-80) kept its ammo both under the turret and in the crew compartments, making it a deathtrap. (22 rounds stored, along with propellant casings, inside the turret, with another 22 in a big, bulky, unreliable auto loading "cassette" underneath the turret.) As for crew comfort, the T-72 was anything but "comfortable" - the gunner sat almost squished against his day/night sights, with almost no room to maneuver. Both the tank commander and the gunner had 3 rounds of ammo stowed directly behind them, along with propellant casings.

I would also like to point out the fact that most Western MBTs by the 1980s had vastly superior thermal optics, giving them a major advantage in night engagements. Western tanks, historically, have always been superior to their Eastern counterparts in crew comfort, optics, guns and (not until the 1970s-80s) crew protection.
December 13th, 2014  
Army0413
 
Leopard 2A7 german.jpg

One Leopard 2A7 tank.
--
December 14th, 2014  
moxen
 
 
I like leopard's style but i think t90 is a small dragon with a 1K steamhorse power engine. Two are sharp swords and unfortunatley never a war will happen between this two.
December 18th, 2014  
brinktk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxen
I like leopard's style but i think t90 is a small dragon with a 1K steamhorse power engine. Two are sharp swords and unfortunatley never a war will happen between this two.
Unfortunately? So you want war?
December 23rd, 2014  
moxen
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brinktk
Unfortunately? So you want war?
Wars, Revolutions, etc
What do you think , they make history, what was us without ww2.
Without these history books will be born/die report.
December 23rd, 2014  
moxen
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxen
Wars, Revolutions, etc
What do you think , they make history, what was us without ww2.
Without these history books will be born/die report.
And then we all can go and play with our balls...
December 24th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxen
Wars, Revolutions, etc
What do you think , they make history, what was us without ww2.
Without these history books will be born/die report.
Moxen WW2 was the greatest catastrophe to ever hit the face of the earth and caused more death, pain and suffering than is imaginable. With input from more recent historians > 60 million people died in the European theater alone. ~ 25 million innocents were murdered-killed by the Nazi's, several million more were murdered by Stalin. > 22 million men at arms died during the course of the conflict in Europe. Millions more civilians died incidental to the fighting via bombing, shelling, etc. Whole cities were reduced to ashes.

This isn't even taking into account the conflict in the far east.

Your statement is the most callus and ridiculous insult possible.
December 24th, 2014  
moxen
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Moxen WW2 was the greatest catastrophe to ever hit the face of the earth and caused more death, pain and suffering than is imaginable. With input from more recent historians > 60 million people died in the European theater alone. ~ 25 million innocents were murdered-killed by the Nazi's, several million more were murdered by Stalin. > 22 million men at arms died during the course of the conflict in Europe. Millions more civilians died incidental to the fighting via bombing, shelling, etc. Whole cities were reduced to ashes.

This isn't even taking into account the conflict in the far east.

Your statement is the most callus and ridiculous insult possible.
I think you should study the CIA after ww2, I'm agreed with Hassan Abbasi[a strategist] that we passed 3rd ww and were in the 4th, the fire under ashes, and unfortunately no one can change the game, your soldiers are in our borders at least 49 mil. Bases and this cant mean peace the conflict isn't so far , and we dont want fight in our home when can fight in your home.
December 25th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by moxen
I think you should study the CIA after ww2, I'm agreed with Hassan Abbasi[a strategist] that we passed 3rd ww and were in the 4th, the fire under ashes, and unfortunately no one can change the game, your soldiers are in our borders at least 49 mil. Bases and this cant mean peace the conflict isn't so far , and we dont want fight in our home when can fight in your home.
There has been no conflict since or before WW2 to rival WW2, this is bunk. In fact you could tally up all the people killed in wars since WW2 and they wouldn't add up to the WW2 death toll.

The misdemeanors of the CIA do not even come close to the killing and suppression of human rights committed by Iran's revolutionary guard. In Iran the breaking of certain religious laws or making of antigovernment political statements results in imprisonment-torture-death. This is by no means the case in the US.

Most of these so called American crimes exist only in your mind.
 


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