Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

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.

Its nice to see you're giving credit to something Russian made, ofc Russian fighters also worked, so did Russian subs and tanks but there's progress i guess.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

About the T-80.
"The explosive reactive armor does not provide any added protection against APDS or APFSDS attack."

Which is ok since it was released western tanks used 100-105mm guns and could do squat frontally sabots or no sabots.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

"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

Of course, they sent their tanks without any infantry at all, zip support! No tank no mother how modern will survive something like that.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Although many casualities were due to bad tactics

No sh*t! Sending tanks into an urban enviroment without infantry!

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

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. "

Of course it could be because Russia had the T-90 on the roll which is a vastly superior tank so why would they invest in a T-80U if they can have something better?

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

One shot one kill for the M1A1 Abrams. T-80 sucks.

With 200mm heavily sloped composite armor i doubt it, current Abrams versions are better but T-80 is still a challenging opponent and at its time was vastly superior.

How can you prove that a 105mm APFSDS round couldn't destroy a T-80 frontally?
And you know how resilient M1 series tanks are to even the 155mm APFSDS.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

How can you prove that a 105mm APFSDS round couldn't destroy a T-80 frontally?

I dont need to prove it, US army proved it by replacing their 105mm with 125 exactly expressly because the basic 105 was inadequate.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

And you know how resilient M1 series tanks are to even the 155mm APFSDS.

Insanely which is completely irrelevant since i'm not claiming newer M1 tanks are inferior, they're not they're significantly superior, the basic M1 tank before being uparmored could and was penetrated by Russian guns which is why they uparmored and upganned it, basic M1 was inadequate.

Woops made a big boo boo. I meant the 120mm APFSDS round.
Surprised you didn't pick up on that.

Don't know if I fully buy that the 105mm was ineffective and therefore replaced, but otherwise, fair enough. The T-80 may have been a pretty good tank. But like I said, Russian hardware always comes with high claims and impressive stats on paper and always manage to do nothing but get blown up.

South Korea bought some T-80Us but the ones in South Korean service are heavily modified and upgraded far beyond those in Russian inventory. The basic package proved that the basic K1s had a far better FCS package. The heavily modified South Korean T-80Us however, were better than the basic K1s. The T-80U isn't good enough to even be considered a replacement for the K1A1 even though South Korea could acquire the Russian for a fraction of the K1A1's cost (in fact, the ones in service right now were acquired practically for free).

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Don't know if I fully buy that the 105mm was ineffective and therefore replaced, but otherwise, fair enough. The T-80 may have been a pretty good tank. But like I said, Russian hardware always comes with high claims and impressive stats on paper and always manage to do nothing but get blown up.

Yet US claims no M1 were lost in military actions (when they did, lots of them) and their claims are not overblown? Stop basing your opinion on Rambo movies.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

South Korea bought some T-80Us but the ones in South Korean service are heavily modified and upgraded far beyond those in Russian inventory.

South Korea didnt buy a single T-80U, it was given 30 something vehicles as part of debt repayment and they were neither heavily upgraded nor modified, whatever Koreans did with them later is another issue.

The modifications were done with the Russians. Probably in South Korea though. They had to upgrade it because the FCS was pure crap.
Yeah it was practically for free, but if the T-80U was simply that good, odds were they would/could have ordered more of them. Lots of M48s still need to be replaced, it's an expensive deal and they're doing it with K1s, K1A1s and soon, K2s. No plans for T-80U.
As for claims that the M1 hadn't been lost in combat, that was probably prior to 2003. If they made such a claim after 2003, it would simply not be true. If they meant to another tank other than another M1, it would still be true.

Other Russian gear that South Korea uses include Mil and Kamov transport helicopters, BMP-3 and the Metis-M (after seeing how good it was).
The BMP-3 got good reviews as well (but I've heard some bad things about the armor) and I'm actually quite a fan of the Mi-8/17 series and Ka-27. I don't think a transport helicopter needs to be very expensive or fancy. It just needs to be reliable with lots of room for cargo. Ka-27 is small, but still, it's a nice little utility helicopter for ships.

I don't think Russian stuff is all total junk.
Just with the tanks, I gotta see something better than them getting blown up left and right as hopelessly as they have so far. You'd think with all their hype they'd be able to take out something.

[QUOTE=the_13th_redneck;529025] The modifications were done with the Russians. Probably in South Korea though. They had to upgrade it because the FCS was pure crap.
All i know is it was shipped as used by Russian army.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Yeah it was practically for free, but if the T-80U was simply that good,

Its not, notice the past tense, T-80U was that good, today its a good tank able to give a run for its money against even the best Western tanks but inferior to them.

Since quoting specifications failed to give you a picture, compare German Panther to British Firefly, the Firefly could destroy the panther and thus was a serious threat it was ultimately inferior in every respect.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

odds were they would/could have ordered more of them. Lots of M48s still need to be replaced, it's an expensive deal and they're doing it with K1s, K1A1s and soon, K2s. No plans for T-80U.

See up, they can develop their own better ones, thats one reason, the other reason is Russia no longer produces T-80s which means any tank Korea would buy would be used, heavily.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

As for claims that the M1 hadn't been lost in combat, that was probably prior to 2003. If they made such a claim after 2003, it would simply not be true. If they meant to another tank other than another M1, it would still be true.

They've lost a number during "Desert Storm" there were pictures of M1s including shot up by T-72s but the official count said something else.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Other Russian gear that South Korea uses include Mil and Kamov transport helicopters, BMP-3 and the Metis-M (after seeing how good it was).
The BMP-3 got good reviews as well (but I've heard some bad things about the armor) and I'm actually quite a fan of the Mi-8/17 series and Ka-27. I don't think a transport helicopter needs to be very expensive or fancy. It just needs to be reliable with lots of room for cargo. Ka-27 is small, but still, it's a nice little utility helicopter for ships.

Russian helis are all the way up there with the best, BMP-3 is an economy class IFV, better than previous Russian designs but weaker than serious customers like CV, Puma or Bradley.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I don't think Russian stuff is all total junk.
Just with the tanks, I gotta see something better than them getting blown up left and right as hopelessly as they have so far. You'd think with all their hype they'd be able to take out something.

Problem is that Russian busted tanks have nothing to do with their technical inadequacies and everything with absolutely inept use of armor.

Americans typically bomb an area, shell an area, send a recon force and only then enter with tanks, Russians just happily drove their machines into Grozny, of course they got slaughtered no tank in the world is going to survive urban warfare on its merry own.

Originally Posted by Panzercracker

They've lost a number during "Desert Storm" there were pictures of M1s including shot up by T-72s but the official count said something else.

Could you provide me with a source on this one?
Because what I knew about losses were largely either hits in the engine compartment (which is inevitably vulnerable regardless of what tank you use). So it's not a complete writeoff but instead damage taken that can be repaired.
The vast majority of M1 write offs seem to be from extremely powerful IEDs.

t 90 is maby a good tank but honestly Leopard is the best tank in the world.

Both tanks are greate !!
and don't forget when you comparing that all the tank built for its own climatique and landscape conditions ..

it is like you cannot compare T90 with Merkava mk4 because T90 will stuck or will be immobile in israel landscape and climate ... and Merkava would stuck or be immobile in Russian wheather and landscape conditions most of all in russian mud 65t tank will get it as a first hit ...

lets retturn to T90 and Leopard in my oppinion leo i a bit better but I think T90 is more protected because of Stora/Arena ... but I read before that Leo2 can shoot Russian tanks at much longer range ... so in the battle field like was in WW2 they have aproximatelly equal chances to survive...

And I think there is Better Russian tanks then T90 .. (not really remmeber correct me if i wrong);