| |
Main Forum Page | Start new Thread | Edit your AD | Search ForumT-95 and M1A2
Monday, January 3, 2005 (9:40 PM)Posted by
WenASe (68)
Edit | T-95 and M1A2 | | Russian's latest version T-95 Main Battle Tank is superior to U.S M1A2 Main Battle Tank in many aspects. What do you think of the technological difference between these two tanks? |
|
Posted by
Sukhoy (488)
Edit | RE: T-95 and M1A2
Posted: January 4, 2005 (6:09 AM) | | I don't know the diference but all I know is M1A2 in service and T-95 is not (only T-90). Am I wrong? |
|
Posted by
m1a2 (1)
Edit | RE: T-95 and M1A2
Posted: November 26, 2006 (9:13 PM) | | The m1a2 sep is the best tank in the world today. If the t-95 comes into service, it will probably be about the same rank as the m1a2 sep, but the m1a3( not yet in service) will kick its ass |
|
Posted by
Sukhoy (488)
Edit | RE: T-95 and M1A2
Posted: November 27, 2006 (11:23 AM) | | I think M1A2 is some equal to T-90 russian one. We cannot say exactly who is the best. T-95 will be the best. Saudi Arabia wanted to buy some. Think that Saudi Arabia is a fidel buyer from USA, why they switch like that? (that contract was never signed, right, but they wanted that) I want not to hear again M1A1 and A2 kicked ass iraqies - T-72 etc etc. Again is not a fair comparision, however, T-72 from Irak have lower specification than russian one (like all other military hardware)
However, we know russians have more experience in tanks battles. |
|
Posted by
RocknRoll (5)
Edit | RE: T-95 and M1A2
Posted: July 9, 2007 (6:42 PM) | | The T-95 could be in production but we just don't know about it. There's a lot of secrecy around Russian military projects and anything that we know is pretty much what THEY release. However, the T-95 will easily be the best tank ever created, and will throw the Leopards, Challengers, and M1A2's in the junkyard. It sounds like a monsterous tank to me, and will go into massive production, if not the Black Eagle, another globally superior tank. |
|
Posted by
RocknRoll (5)
Edit | RE: T-95 and M1A2
Posted: July 9, 2007 (7:00 PM) | | Even in the current Gulf War, there's a lot of ambiguity going around of who we (Americans) are fighting, even though by now IT IS REALLY CLEAR. Considering that the Iraqi Military made many attempts to overthrow Hussein, it goes for the 2 Gulf Wars. '91 was extremely unclear. The Coalition found secured ports and DESTROYED T-72's and a lot of fighting had gone on. Iraqi military had destroyed or secured a lot of weapons that could have caused huge damage to the coalition that the few loyalists could have used, such as TANKS and chemical weapons, and even the missiles that would have taken out the Coalition fleet. Then, the Royal Guard had no training whatsoever in flying planes, which is a reason why none were even used. The few tanks that opposed the Coalition were commandeered by Royal Guard who lacked any real training with tanks, and were either easily dealt with by the Coalition or by the anti-Saddam Iraqis. In fact, the Iraqi T-72's had great success against those commandeered by the Hussein loyalists, even more than our M1's did. Again, the Iraqi military, or at least a majority had rebelled. Those who stayed with Hussein were essentially Iraqi troops, so in a sense we were fighting the Iraqis. although more like aiding the good cause in a civil war. Anyways, in '03, Iraqi military disbanded again and was fighting Saddam with a number of the Royal Guard troops and Baath party loyalists defending the dictator. We come in and find a half-finished job in front of us. Being an external force not under Saddam's control, we delivered the final blow and destroyed the remaining opposition. We were with the majority of the disbanded Iraqi military all the way, although since we were fighting those few loyalists who remained, again, we were fighting Iraq. Then we get saddam and he is now executed. Now we are fighting Al Qaeda terrorists attacking the American troops in Iraq. Some people still think we are fighting the whole Iraqi military or something stupid like that, although every American news and media station has clearly said that we are closely allied with the Iraqi forces in this war on terror and are fighting with them much like the Americans and Brits in WW2 or the Europeans against the Saracens in the Crusades. Conclusively, the Russians have do not export the real versions of their tanks. They sell watered-down, specific EXPORT versions that lack many features and is trash compared to the real deal. Even then, exported tanks have proven to have their worth. Wait let me think, wasn't World War 2 the last war Russia had been in? Oh yeah, they had T-34's back then, and they really kicked Germany's ass, yeah all those Panzers and Tigers and King Tigers. In tests, the Russian tanks have proven to be very dominant, and in war, they would do the same. T-90 is an example, and the T-95 will secure armored dominance in the world. until the Russians make a new model. |
|
Main Forum Page | Start new Thread | Edit your AD | Search Forum Home | Book a Flight | Flight Prices | Special Offers! | Price Guarantee | Price a Flight | - Order Process | Calendar | Zero-G Flights | Gift Certificates | Hotels | Spb. HotelsWhy FlyMiG.Com? | Aircraft | In the Media | Contact Us | Questions | Flight Stories | About Us | MAKS 2003 | MAKS 2005 | Updates Avia X-change | Aviation Forum | Cool Stuff | Affiliates | Mail Lists | iPod | PostCards | Search | Links | Pilots
|
Honda CRX Si | Manuals | |  | Copyright © FlyMiG.Com™ 2002 - 2024 |
Home
