cold war is over but it doesnt mean Abrams better than T90 lol

 

in cold war they did not meet head to head (and there was no T90 at that time)

 

and now some people just try to paraphrase and change things or show them in different way :) i wrote so much logical technical conclusions but ppl just denied it!

oh and about powerfull NATO countries and Britain... well it would take some few shots of ICBM to send Britain under water.

 

and about other countries...oh cmon..which? France? Germany? they lost their experience never been in any serious war since WWII... peacekeeping missions in IRaq dont count lol

 

their soldiers cant live without cake and coffee, or tea if your British :) how you gona fight Soviets/Russians who have been exposed to harsh environment and conditions during whole history of their existence lol

 

cmon... it all doesnt make sense.

Soviets/Russians you claim, have been exposed to the harshest of environments, and have mastered it, and therefore the European nations cannot compete. I only have one example for you. Crimean war. Britain and France invaded Russian territory and destroyed army after Russian army in their homeland. Victory after victory was claimed in the name of Britain and France. Russia was humiliated. They were beaten by a superior force which has remained superior to this day, both in terms of quality and equipment.

Your right this doesn't sense. Someone has started an argument concerning nuclear arsenals however this is a tank forum. but despite this being a little off topic my points still stand and i found myself having to take  the opportunity to correct some misguided facts/opinions that  had been thrown around here. That being, the combined nuclear arsenals of the NATO alliances would remove all trace of Russia from the face of the planet.

 

i would also edge my bets on Russia being destroyed by a salvo of British warheads long before any Russian ICBM leaves the silo. The British radar stations around the nation based at RAF bases would provide adequate warning of any attack. Mutually assured destruction, just as easily as Britain could be destroyed but Russia as you claim, can just as easily be said of the reverse.

 

now in case you did not see, i have also left an extensive reply for you as to why the Abrams is superior to the T 90, and just specially for you i included your long awaited facts, not that they were needed as the post will explain. i suggest you pay close attention to it, and realise that what everyone has been telling you is entirely correct, that being that the Abrams is a superior tank.

well Russians had failures too, as well as lost war to Japan, but that was during our stupid leader Nikolay, its good he has been executed with his whole family. They have been ruling Russia and living live for themselves, and did not pay much attention to anything going on outside. As a result serious failures... but later comrade Stalin has fixed things, and also took...dunno how to call those in english "Kurilsk" islands from Japan. (from time to time they ask Russia to return it back LoL)

 

not everything goes fluent of course... but, yea Russians had harsh environment and conditions during all the time, with non stopping wars, and even during Chechnya they exposed their army to difficulties without heavy support. thats nothing what any NATO country has balls for!

 

and about tank...each time there is comparison...some people arise here and say thngs like: "Abrams hasnt this, but we have other stuff so we dont need this,  Abrams hasnt something else, but other stuff we do in a different way, so it still works" Abrams doesnt have loader, but our soldiers are damn fast and strong, abrams has less range, but we are USA we have best logistics and can carry fuel tanks every now and then to the battlefield....

 

now whats the purpose of argument then? what? if you just put down everything and show in a different way.

 

 

whateva British, US, NATO ppl... and of course it does not matter what internet yo-yo's are talking facts are same, and fact is even today neither USA nor Britain/NATO messes with Russia, because high level experts in your country know better than you what the consequenses will be :)

 

 

yea now tell me something more interesting? what was else there in Abrams? I have an idea for you, what about taking out its engine? US has best logistics you can carry it anywhere... will save some money and steel? :) lol

 

Yeah that's why it took the USSR so long and so much treasure to beat down FINLAND...and lert me guess it was all part of a crafty Stavka Master Plan to let the Germens get within sight of Moscva.....

OK, jackass. What operation has ever required that a tank travel for its maximum range without being refueled and have to fight at the end of its destination?

 

That's how stupid your argument about range is.

 

I can only think of one. The Battle of the Buldge, and the Germans lost.

 

Yes, the rest of your argument is idiotic. The M1 doesn't have any air defenses either. I guess that makes it a bad tank too? Guess what idiot? It's supplemented by jet fighters who provide overhead security. The tank works in a COMBINED ARMS system. The M1 can't do everything and it's NOT supposed to do everything. You don't have the simplest concept of warfare and your lack of military experience shows because of the amount of stupidity and ignorance you keep writing.

HALF of the Russian landing troops DROWNED at the so called Kuriles invasion against NO OPPOSITION.

 

 

Lucky the Russians didn't really have anyone to fight, huh?   

Goes for Manchuria too where the Russian blitzkrieg killed more of their own men than they did Japanese. .

 

H.

Here, more information to make you look dumber than before.

 

h**p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c11wGFVIqzg&feature=related

He's loading a round every 4-5 seconds.

h**p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTzobtVjqPs&feature=related

The T72 autoloader takes 9-10 seconds just to get a round in the chamber, a whole 12 seconds to complete a full cycle. Yes, human loaders are significantly faster for smaller rounds. So please, STFU or actually get a clue before you start posting again.

SantaClaws, yesterday you told you have extensive tank experience, then talked something about your wish to attack Russia on your...aircraft? and...im not sure you are just full of shit,its really hard to believe any of you here know what they talk about.

 

And to someone who mentioned about Finland war, you know that during Finland war Soviet army attacked Mannerheim's defense line under frost of around 50 degree C. With lots of casualties, but the purpose was achieved, no army ever used to perform combat in such a conditions, so its you who STFU! and all other pussies who try to make Russia look as non capable power or country. Morons, what you know?

 

and about that goddamn tank range... yes i dont think its good idea to drive the tank until you out of fuel, thats why when your tank is lets say for 600km, and you make it 400km you have extra left and refule, and if you have 400km range capacity then your effective range is even lower...isnt it clear idiot? how many more times are you going to bring this stupid example up?

 

 

and about that video with guy loading shells! LOL!!!! you know what, you are super stupid!!!!! Damn, dont you see that its not a real combat video? That guy even has time to fix up the camera view, put on gloves without any rush.... its clear that this video is taken with purpose and im 1000% sure there are no enemies around, your granny might even load it faster under such conditions LOL You have idea how well will that guy do if tank is rushing with high speed on non smooth terrain, with other tanks in front of it? How much will he be affected by situation? You ever heard of such things as human factor? No you havent? You want me to believe that all your soldiers are like robots? They do just as same in battlefield as in training?

 

just because of that it puts your credibility much more down! 

 

 

you are a bunch of self confident stupid people. really...