Russian vs. USA Tech

OK but no more comparing the T-72 to the M-1. The T-72 was never ment to be a front line tanks. It was men to be cheap and a tank for behind the front lines.

Better comparison to the brand-new M1A2 would be the T-80M1/T-80UM2/Black Eagle, which is from 1999 and supposed to enter production in 2005.

Originally posted by jetsetter
OK but no more comparing the T-72 to the M-1. The T-72 was never ment to be a front line tanks. It was men to be cheap and a tank for behind the front lines.

The T-72 is 13 years older then the m-1 so it wouldnt be a very good compare.

It was never actually designed to take on the latest western tanks though. Usually T-80s and T-64s were deployed on the front lines.

Originally posted by jetsetter
It was never actually designed to take on the latest western tanks though. Usually T-80s and T-64s were deployed on the front lines.

where did you find this info

Originally posted by bisonn
T-80U in Chechnya just happened to survive 18(!) RPG hits.

Oh yeah it has 1100mm of frontal armor vs abrams 800mm!

Yes bisonn, impressive to say the least huh?
Imagine those M1A1's and a few M1A2's, that are roughly 20 years old, taking up to 14+ hits from those Iraqi Russian made T-72's and T-80's and still destroying them!
I bet those guys in the First Gulf War were laughing there butts off, eh?!
Btw....is that 1100 Russian armor the same as Chobham spaced armor? Think not!
Obviously not...thats why Russian tanks are equipped with Kornet and the other BS to help it absorb damage and not be destroyed. Imagine Chobham with plated reactive armor.......




regards
seekerof

Originally posted by jetsetter
It was never actually designed to take on the latest western tanks though. Usually T-80s and T-64s were deployed on the front lines.

The 20th Motorized Rifle Division from Volgograd (10,884 men, 93 T-72
tanks, 340 armored combat vehicles, and 99 artillery pieces) has been
added to the 136th Independent Motorized Rifle Brigade from Buynaksk
(3,762 soldiers and officers, 32 tanks and 237 armored combat vehicles,
and 24 artillery pieces) and to the internal troops units in Dagestan.

t-72 are used in chechnya war and are very effecet!

Them T-72's in Chechnya (sp) ought to be effective, their ememy has no armor nor an equivalent. Kind of reminds me of Afghanistan, don't you think?


regards
seekerof

RUSSIAN

I would like you to respond rationally to the below comments:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Russian

Gross Domestic Production (GDP)
USA-GDP $10.4 Trillion (2002 est.)
Rossiyskaya Federatsiya - $1.35 trillion (2002 est)
most of these money are used to build war products!

actually your quite right. In keeping with their former Soviet habits the Russian Federation spends 40% of their GDP on their military. May explain why their economy is in the loo. If you have enough cash you can buy a Kilo (the sub not the narcotic, oops you can get that too.) The US spends something to the neighborhood of 4-5% of their GDP on military spending.
Either way you paint it its bad for the Russian Federation.

Electrical production
USA- 3.719 trillion kWh (2001)
Russia- 846.5 billion kWh (2001)
doest look like it
look at the east coast black out!

You wanted facts. You contradict your own requests with banal comments like that. If you are the Master of All (or so you signature says) you're not a very disciplined one if you can't even obey yourself.

Electrical consumption
USA-3.479 trillion kWh (2001)
Russia-773.08 billion kWh (2001)
less people are in Russia

Again you're right. The population of the USA is about 290 million to Russia's 145 million. So what you're saying is that Russia with about half the population needs less than a fourth of the electricity. Mighty industrial complex there Russian...check your math, it looks bad tovarish...

Exports
USA - $687 billion (2002)
Russia-104.6 billion (2002)
most of these are war products

Again, you are correct. Military exports make up 20% of the Russian exports. where they make up about 3% of US exports. As you've demonstrated your math is as good as mine, so for illustrations sake we'll punch the numbers. USA 3% of 687 Billion is 20.61 Billion Russia 20% of 104.6 billion is 20.92 Billion. Yes, indeed you are correct.

Imports
USA - $1.165 trillion (2002)
Russia - $60.7 billion (2002)
who needs to import things when they could make them?!

You truly missed the point on this one, ...pass me another nesting doll Russian.

Communications:
telephones (mainlines)
USA - 194 million (1997)
Russia - 30 million (1998)
less people and people are not to lazy to go across the street and talk to their neighbors instead of calling

This is truly pathetic. Nest thing you're going to tell me is that Opie and Aunt Bea are making apple pie in the kitchen.

cellular phones
USA - 69.209 million (1998)
Russia - 19 million (2003)
does every kid need a cellphone?!

no but every scientist, business man does.

ISP's
USA- 7000 (2002)
Russia - 300 (2002)
what ever that means!

That statement speaks volumes unto itself. Russian my friend, without a Internet Service Provider this little discussion wouldn't be possible.

Internet Users
USA - 165.75 million (2002)
Russia - 18 million (2002)
to much male bovine shyte in the newspaper so they just read the paper!

sad. truly sad. Just the facts Russian, sound familiar?
Russian, if you're going to draw a line in the sand and then ignore it, it shows allot about your true intent.

hrxll
[/QUOTE]

I specifically want you to respond to the fact regarding Russia spending 40% of there GDP on there Military. What would be your response to that??

If you agree that this figure is way out of control, how to you justify your opinion that Russia should be a Military Power on the USA's scale?? I dont see how you can.

See, what your country should do is get out of the Military business and get in to the �Fixing your Country� business.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by bisonn
T-80U in Chechnya just happened to survive 18(!) RPG hits.

Oh yeah it has 1100mm of frontal armor vs abrams 800mm!

Yes bisonn, impressive to say the least huh?
Imagine those M1A1's and a few M1A2's, that are roughly 20 years old, taking up to 14+ hits from those Iraqi Russian made T-72's and T-80's and still destroying them!

I bet those guys in the First Gulf War were laughing there butts off, eh?!

Btw....is that 1100 Russian armor the same as Chobham spaced armor? Think not!
Obviously not...thats why Russian tanks are equipped with Kornet and the other BS to help it absorb damage and not be destroyed. Imagine Chobham with plated reactive armor.......

regards
seekerof

Iraqis didnt have t-80!


TANKS: 2200-2600 :


700 T-72 (also Polish production)
600 T-62

T-54 (also Polish production)

T-55 (also Polish production)

T-55 MOD(modified with new armor)

T-59 (Chinese Type-59)

T-69II (Chinese Type-69II)

T-34/85 (probably scrapped at 80.)

Chieftain (British- captured at Iranians)

M-47 (American built- captured at Iranians)

M-60 (American built- captured at Iranians)

PT-76

ASAD BABL

so stick it up!...

www.strategic-air-command.com...


LGM-118A Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile

Specifications
Primary function: Intercontinental ballistic missile
Contractor: Basing: Boeing Aerospace and Electronics; assembly and test: Martin Marietta and Denver Aerospace
Power Plant: First three stages, solid-propellant; fourth stage, storable liquid (by Thiokol, Aerojet, Hercules and Rocketdyne)
Length: 71 feet (21.8 meters)
Weight: 195,000 pounds (87,750 kilograms) including re-entry vehicles
Diameter: 7 feet, 8 inches (2.3 meters)
Range: Greater than 6,000 miles (5,217 nautical miles)
Speed: Approximately 15,000 miles per hour at burnout (Mach 20 at sea level)
Guidance system: Inertial; integration by Rockwell, IMU by Northrop and Rockwell
Warheads: 10 Avco MK 21 re-entry vehicles
Yield:
Circular Error Probable:
Date Deployed: December 1986
Unit Cost: $70 million
Inventory: Active force, 50; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0

The Peacekeeper missile is America's newest intercontinental ballistic missile. Its deployment fulfilled a key goal of the strategic modernization program and increased strength and credibility to the ground-based leg of the U.S. strategic triad. With the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has begun to revise its strategic policy and has agreed to eliminate the multiple re-entry vehicle Peacekeeper ICBMs by the year 2003 as part of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II. The Peacekeeper is capable of delivering 10 independently targeted warheads with greater accuracy than any other ballistic missile. It is a three-stage rocket ICBM system consisting of three major sections: the boost system, the post-boost vehicle system and the re-entry system.

I am speechless. Very good post Hoochiemama(no offense Russian)

that one in my opinion takes the cake

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by DipSchnit]

Whats that Russian?
Thats just some lame bullcrap information you got......like you tell everyone else when they provide their information.......

And you said what? "so stick it up!..."
You mean like them M1A1 amd M1A2's virtually do everytime to Russian made tanks?!

BTW.....those "Black Eagles" are still lacking funding and are not going to be produced. Russia has a GNP growth rate of a impressive 6%+, which is very formidable, but when compared to its neighboring European nations, it still ranks last.

Woowzers......you reckon' the Russians have anything comparable to this? CVN 21:


Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by hoochymama
RUSSIAN

I would like you to respond rationally to the below comments:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Russian

Gross Domestic Production (GDP)
USA-GDP $10.4 Trillion (2002 est.)
Rossiyskaya Federatsiya - $1.35 trillion (2002 est)
most of these money are used to build war products!

actually your quite right. In keeping with their former Soviet habits the Russian Federation spends 40% of their GDP on their military. May explain why their economy is in the loo. If you have enough cash you can buy a Kilo (the sub not the narcotic, oops you can get that too.) The US spends something to the neighborhood of 4-5% of their GDP on military spending.
Either way you paint it its bad for the Russian Federation.

Electrical production
USA- 3.719 trillion kWh (2001)
Russia- 846.5 billion kWh (2001)
doest look like it
look at the east coast black out!

You wanted facts. You contradict your own requests with banal comments like that. If you are the Master of All (or so you signature says) you're not a very disciplined one if you can't even obey yourself.

Electrical consumption
USA-3.479 trillion kWh (2001)
Russia-773.08 billion kWh (2001)
less people are in Russia

Again you're right. The population of the USA is about 290 million to Russia's 145 million. So what you're saying is that Russia with about half the population needs less than a fourth of the electricity. Mighty industrial complex there Russian...check your math, it looks bad tovarish...

Exports
USA - $687 billion (2002)
Russia-104.6 billion (2002)
most of these are war products

Again, you are correct. Military exports make up 20% of the Russian exports. where they make up about 3% of US exports. As you've demonstrated your math is as good as mine, so for illustrations sake we'll punch the numbers. USA 3% of 687 Billion is 20.61 Billion Russia 20% of 104.6 billion is 20.92 Billion. Yes, indeed you are correct.

Imports
USA - $1.165 trillion (2002)
Russia - $60.7 billion (2002)
who needs to import things when they could make them?!

You truly missed the point on this one, ...pass me another nesting doll Russian.

Communications:
telephones (mainlines)
USA - 194 million (1997)
Russia - 30 million (1998)
less people and people are not to lazy to go across the street and talk to their neighbors instead of calling

This is truly pathetic. Nest thing you're going to tell me is that Opie and Aunt Bea are making apple pie in the kitchen.

cellular phones
USA - 69.209 million (1998)
Russia - 19 million (2003)
does every kid need a cellphone?!

no but every scientist, business man does.

ISP's
USA- 7000 (2002)
Russia - 300 (2002)
what ever that means!

That statement speaks volumes unto itself. Russian my friend, without a Internet Service Provider this little discussion wouldn't be possible.

Internet Users
USA - 165.75 million (2002)
Russia - 18 million (2002)
to much male bovine shyte in the newspaper so they just read the paper!

sad. truly sad. Just the facts Russian, sound familiar?
Russian, if you're going to draw a line in the sand and then ignore it, it shows allot about your true intent.

hrxll
[/QUOTE]

I specifically want you to respond to the fact regarding Russia spending 40% of there GDP on there Military. What would be your response to that??

If you agree that this figure is way out of control, how to you justify your opinion that Russia should be a Military Power on the USA's scale?? I dont see how you can.

See, what your country should do is get out of the Military business and get in to the �Fixing your Country� business.

Russia deosn't use 40% on military! And I NEVER said Russia is at the SAME military power as US!!

I said Russia has GOOD TECH and I said Russia is BEHIND US militarly!

Having GOOD TECH and BIGGEST MILITARY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

Also my country is FIXING its self up! Thats way they AREN'T the BIGGEST military power!!!!

Now let me ask you a question!

How old are you?!

Can you READ my posts?!

Originally posted by Seekerof
Whats that Russian?
Thats just some lame bullcrap information you got......like you tell everyone else when they provide their information.......

And you said what? "so stick it up!..."

You mean like them M1A1 amd M1A2's virtually do everytime to Russian made tanks?!

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 1-12-2003 by Seekerof]

all I got to tell is you are much different WHEN YOU LOST YOUR MEDAL!

Also Iraqi arent # at weapons!

They are FORIGEN TO THESE WEAPONS!

PS damn i know who i am not voting for again.

Originally posted by jetsetter
OK but no more comparing the T-72 to the M-1. The T-72 was never ment to be a front line tanks. It was men to be cheap and a tank for behind the front lines.

T-72 was made to better US M-60s.. which it did..

M1s were made to better T-72s.. which it really didnt as these two are mostly equal..

And T-80s and T-90s were made to blast living shyte out of M1s.. task to which these are more than well suited.. and luckily for you, these tanks will not most likely never be H2H..

So gods blessed children of USA shut your traps already ok?



Cure for disease called M1, 2A46 Rapira!



Btw,

One thing that really stands out for the Russian equipment:

All have this:

Operating temperature range, Celsius from -40 to +40 or better yet: From -50 to +50!!!



There arent many if not any US systems that can manage to do this!

Originally posted by FULCRUM


One thing that really stands out for the Russian equipment:

All have this:

Operating temperature range, Celsius from -40 to +40 or better yet: From -50 to +50!!!

There arent many if not any US systems that can manage to do this!

US deosnt fight if it is not between 70-110 degrees F!

They LOVE confort!

Which is NOT what you supposed to look for in BATTLE!

No Russian.....I am not different because I "lost" the medal.
How many times do I have to tell folks this but I will again: The TWATS award is a great bestowment and one that I have greatfully been nominated for, but I have never changed, per se', to how I have always posted.

My "change" towards you and a few others is just because I am taking a different approach. Do you recall the u2u you sent me? Do you remember my response? If you do...there, in a nutshell, is the "change/difference." You create a thread to talk tech comparisons between Russian and US......and you didn't once think there would be differences of opinion? Threads of this type always, always end in debate instead of a critical structure, non-biased assessment.
Names are called, facts and non-facts asserted and then the crap hits the fan.
Welp, I figured, since many of you can play those games to avoid the "reality" of much of the stuff you guys present, hell, I'll join in the games, as well.

Ummm, now you want to assert that Iraqi tanks are "foreign" to these weapons discussions and yet Fulcrum can say that the US blackhawk was designed by a Russian....a "foreigner"...who also happens to be a US citizen...........THEN I can get my butt chomped for asserting such and then you want to argue that Iraqi tanks, that were made and bought in Russia, are "FOREIGN"! Good grief............You guys want to discuss "Tech" and yet set your own rules in discussing it!

Ps.....you need to vote your conscience Russian......voting for TWATS stands for more than "I like the guy or gal" or "I agree with everything he/she says"......
Your proclamation is noted.....


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

Ummm, now you want to assert that Iraqi tanks are "foreign" to these weapons discussions and yet Fulcrum can say that the US blackhawk was designed by a Russian....a "foreigner"...who also happens to be a US citizen...........THEN I can get my butt chomped for asserting such and then you want to argue that Iraqi tanks, that were made and bought in Russia, are "FOREIGN"! Good grief............You guys want to discuss "Tech" and yet set your own rules in discussing it!

regards
seekerof

The t-72 werent even build in Russia.

And Iraqis dont even know how to fight with tanks.

I know I said that we are talking on tech here but dont know #!

They are plain STUPID!

No Fulcrum....."And T-80s and T-90s were made to blast living shyte out of M1s.. task to which these are more than well suited.. and luckily for you, these tanks will not most likely never be H2H.. "

Lucky for you indeed!
Poorly trained crews in an impressive tank will only provide cannonfodder for well trained, combat experienced M1A1/A2 tank crews!


BTW...got anything built and produced in qualitive numbers to take this "beast" on:




regards
seekerof