Best Tank!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Hey devil your hand held missile wont shoot down B-2 and high level bombing you cant shoot down every type of jet especially if they are flying very high and with GPS PGM's you don't need to be close to the ground so winning a war without air support is near impossible and even if you did it would have cost you more human lives more equipment more money so it is not practical.

i was not meaning for a stinger to shoot down a b2 thats impossible to do,i was meaning like the s-300v system used by the russians or the M48 Chaparral now have them mixed in with your troops and you have a solid anti air net not to mention if you used a highly advanced radar you could see targets from far away also the infatry with stingers and such would stop any low below radar attacks
not really a SAM cost less to run than a aircraft cause u gota trasin a pilot,aircrew,weapons,fuel (aircraft fuel is mega exspensive),plan missions and have a base close enough. where as SAM's just need to worry about ammo and fuel they only reguire a small crew and they dont need a million dollar amount of training

Russian tanks aren't any more well armored then western tanks, they are less... especially against air attack. Russian tanks have no feature that allow them to operate without as much air support.

And he didn't miss one of them, I'm not buying it.

About the whole Challenger debate, show me operating costs for the Challenger and Abrams. I know the Challenger's ammo is more expensive, and the gun tube has to be replaced a lot because rifled guns burn out faster then smoothbores. A replacement can cost in upwards of 50 grand, ammo can cost as much as 15. And which part for the Abrams costs over a mil?

The Challenger has better armor all around then the Abrams, but a lacking engine and C3 suite.

You cannot win wars with SAMs, they are defensive weapons, they have no strategic value.

Originally posted by Kozzy
Russian tanks aren't any more well armored then western tanks, they are less... especially against air attack. Russian tanks have no feature that allow them to operate without as much air support.

And he didn't miss one of them, I'm not buying it.

About the whole Challenger debate, show me operating costs for the Challenger and Abrams. I know the Challenger's ammo is more expensive, and the gun tube has to be replaced a lot because rifled guns burn out faster then smoothbores. A replacement can cost in upwards of 50 grand, ammo can cost as much as 15. And which part for the Abrams costs over a mil?

The Challenger has better armor all around then the Abrams, but a lacking engine and C3 suite.

You cannot win wars with SAMs, they are defensive weapons, they have no strategic value.

A. the new black eagle has armour equal to that of the abrham and challanger
B. i never said that they had a feature i just said that they mostly thought during design process that there would be a lack of air support.
C.i would buy it many a times have war games been held in secret so dont count it out mabye your friend just wasnt on a need to know basis
yeah but the spare parts on the abrahm are 1 million each i dont have a link cause it was on a documentary on discovery about the comparisin of the four western battle tanks.
sams are not just a devensive weapon they can be an offenseive weapon as well.
anti air weapons used to destroy enemy planes. every defensive weapon can be tunred into an offensive weapon.
what u mean by c3 suite on the challanger?

Wargames are hard to hold in secret. Plus why would he know about it then.

If you are shooting at aircraft with SAMs you are naturally on the defense. You are preventing the attack of your forces.

There isn't any solid info on the Black Eagle's armor. All I've seen is propaganda from Pravda.

C3 is command control and communications. The SEP has an advantage over every other tank in this area.

Originally posted by Kozzy
Wargames are hard to hold in secret. Plus why would he know about it then.

If you are shooting at aircraft with SAMs you are naturally on the defense. You are preventing the attack of your forces.

There isn't any solid info on the Black Eagle's armor. All I've seen is propaganda from Pravda.

C3 is command control and communications. The SEP has an advantage over every other tank in this area.

u ever tried to hide several abrahams lowing stuff up?
actually no see thats why many countries dont sell sams cause it aint a purely defensive weapon you see you could use it to destroy enemy aircraft bombing your city but hat uf you start shooting down enemy aircraft over an enemy city ? then it becomes an offesive weapon, i can see why you think it is but it can be like most things turned from defensive weapon.
ah there is actually several sites with the black eagle on it but you might want to its true name Chiorny Oriol (black eagle).
yeah u got a point on the C3 issue mate.

Devil do you think any country in the world stands a chance if they went to war with the US without air support no they don't I don't care how many sams they got they wont win. Also about you shooting down aircraft on enemy cities that does not apply to the US cuz as you know no other country can bring to war to us we go in their territory so you need air support or else you are done.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Devil do you think any country in the world stands a chance if they went to war with the US without air support no they don't I don't care how many sams they got they wont win. Also about you shooting down aircraft on enemy cities that does not apply to the US cuz as you know no other country can bring to war to us we go in their territory so you need air support or else you are done.

west point please stop thinking like everything we talk about here is about america, we are talking is it possible to win a war ,any war, with sam's.
also did i imply that they were going to go to war with the USA? no
frankly i think it would be almost impossible to win a war against USA with out air support. please get your head out of your ass and see that there is bigger world and not everything we talk about is about te USA . we were talking about how sams can be used for both defesne and offense, west point i really hope you dont get put in charge of anything remoltely to do with firearms cause that would make the USA military very very dangerous and not the good dangerous. it is possible to invade the US by land just land in alaska or go through mexico.

Of course if you are fighting third world countries you can win with just sams you don't even need sams cuz they have no jets. Also what country would be brave enough to try and invade the US even if they did we would pick up their navy trying to move troops to and we would stop it before they even got near Alaska and do you think Mexico would risk war with the US by letting another countries soldiers on their soil which is against their constitution by the way.

Also devil do you know who Curtis Lemay was he was more "dangerous" than I could ever be and he was in charge of the Air Force and Founder of SAC.



[edit on 18-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Of course if you are fighting third world countries you can win with just sams you don't even need sams cuz they have no jets. Also what country would be brave enough to try and invade the US even if they did we would pick up their navy trying to move troops to and we would stop it before they even got near Alaska and do you think Mexico would risk war with the US by letting another countries soldiers on their soil which is against their constitution by the way.

Also devil do you know who Curtis lemay was he was more dangerous than I could ever be and he was in charge of the Air Force and Founder of SAC.

oh really?no offence is meant by this to the american general military but frankly this shows how irresponsible your high comand is then.
yes you can do that with a third world counrty but you can do it with basically any country, if a country relies heavily on aircraft then you can sort that out by haveing a heavy ANTI air presence.
grrr westpoint i told you we are not talking about the US of A . any how if your so desperate to talk about it, the EU may be able to do it with good tech and a fairly large amount of troops we could at least give it a try also china may if she gets a better fleet and airforce manage it.
also how dificult would it be to ask russia to allow troops to pas through it? not very if you paid them enough. and from russia its a small hop from there to alaska.

EU is not a country also like I said even if china has a blue water navy do you know how vulnerable they are while traveling to Mexico or Alaska our subs would sink their fleet as soon as it leaves the harbor also would Russia risk war or nuclear war with the US by letting another country to try and go into Alaska plus devil while all this is going on you don't think the US would fortify and send troops equipment carriers subs and jets to Alaska. Oh and one more thing Alaska is not part of the Continental US.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
EU is not a country also like I said even if china has a blue water navy do you know how vulnerable they are while traveling to Mexico or Alaska our subs would sink their fleet as soon as it leaves the harbor also would Russia risk war or nuclear war with the US by letting another country to try and go into Alaska plus devil while all this is going on you don't think the US would fortify and send troops equipment carriers subs and jets to Alaska. Oh and one more thing Alaska is not part of the Continental US.

are you kidding west point sinking a fleet at harbour! ha ha the security wi be tight there so no sub captain would send his ship there. also so what it ait a cournty whoopty do. oh yeah your gona nuke russia cause she let troops pass through yeah thats real friendly
and? it aint part of the mainland. but it is where you have oil depots. and im willing you wouldnt give them up. also so what if you send troops theyd just cut you off.

When you're shooting SAMs at aircraft they're either attacking you or your forces. They are only an offensive when you're taking down cargo planes, which it's hard to do in any large numbers.

About the Black Eagle, I have no doubt it is an improvement on the T-80, with it's new auto-loader and ammo storage and it's new ERA. I wouldn't say it's superior or better armored then any other tank because they're hasn't been any proof to say so. That's why I say western tanks are superior to Russian tanks, western tanks all pretty much follow the same design basics (except for the Merkava) and this design was proven to be superior to the Russian one in the Gulf and Israeli wars. You'll say, those were just downgraded T-72s, which they were. But all the T-90 is is an upgraded T-72, the T-72BU.

Originally posted by Kozzy
When you're shooting SAMs at aircraft they're either attacking you or your forces. They are only an offensive when you're taking down cargo planes, which it's hard to do in any large numbers.

About the Black Eagle, I have no doubt it is an improvement on the T-80, with it's new auto-loader and ammo storage and it's new ERA. I wouldn't say it's superior or better armored then any other tank because they're hasn't been any proof to say so. That's why I say western tanks are superior to Russian tanks, western tanks all pretty much follow the same design basics (except for the Merkava) and this design was proven to be superior to the Russian one in the Gulf and Israeli wars. You'll say, those were just downgraded T-72s, which they were. But all the T-90 is is an upgraded T-72, the T-72BU.

actually no if thier on gaurd then you target them thats being aggressive.
and the t-90 is not just an upgraded t-80 its a superb machine.but it is not the black eagle they are infact two diffrent tanks.
source 1

source 2

source 3

source 4

I've seen all the info on the Black Eagle before, it's all propaganda. "Experts believe that the it will surpass western tanks by a factor of 1.5-1.7" Oh yeah, right, which experts? I have no doubt it will be good, but not to the point in which western tanks cannot match it.

And the T-90 is a renamed T-72BU, your articles proved that. The T-80 is different from the T-72 and T-90 in it's engine, auto-loader, and fire control
I would actually say the T-80UM1 is better then the T-90.

[edit on 18-7-2004 by Kozzy]

Originally posted by Kozzy
I've seen all the info on the Black Eagle before, it's all propaganda. "Experts believe that the it will surpass western tanks by a factor of 1.5-1.7" Oh yeah, right, which experts? I have no doubt it will be good, but not to the point in which western tanks cannot match it.

And the T-90 is a renamed T-72BU, your articles proved that. The T-80 is different from the T-72 and T-90 in it's engine, auto-loader, and fire control
I would actually say the T-80UM1 is better then the T-90.

[edit on 18-7-2004 by Kozzy]

i could say the same about anytank in the world but frankly from all these diffrent sources i seriosly doubt it.
also yes the T-90 was renamed but the black eagle is a deffrent tank and i like it.

I've not seen any proof that the Black Eagle is superior to western tanks. I like the design, with the bustle auto-loader and it looks to retain the high mobility of it's daddy. But does it's optics and fire control match the x50 FLIR channel of the SEP? Does it's armor match the Dorchester Chobham? Does it's C3 suite match the IVIS and FINDERS systems the SEP and Leclerc has? We don't know yet, I don't believe there is any hard info on these yet. All you got is this one quote saying it's 1.5x better. But I like it too.

i was looking at it last night but forgot the adresses of alot of sites damm
oh well

This thread should be kept on topic so I wont talk about a country trying to invade the US or what would happen but the T-90 will be a great tank when it is produced i�m not going to speculate what would happen if it went head to head with an Abrams cuz there are different factors to consider crew the type of terrain and may other things.

The T-90 is in production, some 200 have been produced I think.

Really they re already being produced kool maybe china will by some so we can see how they stand up to the Abrams if china ever decides to prepare an invading force for Taiwan tanks will surely be part of it