"M1A1/A2" is a piece of ****.

[ComradeDTAII]

May I open with this post is not only the views of myself, but the views of thousands of Russian military speculators, other foreign nationals, and Iraqi freedom troops that are continously send more and more of these wastes of expensive metal and their imperialist drivers to hell. Heil Russian military tech!

I mean, I hardly call the M1 a tank at all, it's gun is primitive junk-tech 1960's. It's crew is 4 (yes four, IV) people and it is a large, clumsy gas-guzzling piece of ****. Am I biased? Hell no! Not even supreme M1A2 can contest with best upgrades of 1970's tech Soviet T-72, and that is fact.

If I were to ever see this moronic crap-pile in public I would seriously consider pissing on it, unless it was too far away (I have a tendancy not to do stupid things like walk to giant logs of **** if they are too far away.)

Let's see....America's POS-mobile is supposed "best in the world" and it's gun is superior to Russian tanks-namely the T-72M cause any tnak of higher Soviet prestige would render this jalopy to the junk-pile in seconds. It would be futile to contest such majestic tanks like T-80 and T-90 to such primitive stone-age trash.

M1A1/A2 (by Interrupt)

Crew - 4 men, loader included (man, are we living in 1950ies???).

Mass - 69,54 tons (that's pretty bad if you want to cross swampy terrain or little bridges - or if you want to transport tanks via jets).

Size - 7,92 meters X 3,65 meters (large one, perfect target for missiles).

Height - 2,43 meters (wow, even larger!).

Main cannon - 120-mm (can use depleted uranium shells).

Additional armament - two light machine guns and one heavy machine gun.

Drive - gas turbine "AGT-1500", around 1500 horsepower.

Speed - 67 kilometers per hour (slower than Russian counterpart).

Range - 450 kilometers (50 kilometers less, than Russian counterpart).

T-72 mod "Black Eagle" (Chiormy Oriole)

Crew - 3 men (just like on any good tank).

Mass - 48 tons (easy to transport, can cross almost any bridge or terrain with broad tracks).

Size - 7 meters X 3,6 meters (small, hard to hit).

Height - 2 meters (low profile means high survivability).

Main cannon - 152-mm (AP, or tandem-HEAT, etc, or even firing HEAVY MISSILES from main gun).

Machine gun - 7,62-mm.

Heavy automatic cannon - remote-controlled, can attack air targets.

Additional weaponry - "Igla-2" SAMs, fuel-air artillery rockets, anti-tank rockets.

Drive - gas turbine, over 1500 horsepower.

Speed - 70 kilometers per hour.

Range - over 500 kilometers.

Interesting, hmmm....

BURN IN HELL YANKEE DOG'S AND TAKE YOUR IMPERIALIST CRAP-MACHINES WITH YOU, IT'S RUSSIA'S TURN!

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by ComradeDTAII
May I open with this post is not only the views of myself, but the views of thousands of Russian military speculators, other foreign nationals, and Iraqi freedom troops that are continously send more and more of these wastes of expensive metal and their imperialist drivers to hell. Heil Russian military tech!

I mean, I hardly call the M1 a tank at all, it's gun is primitive junk-tech 1960's. It's crew is 4 (yes four, IV) people and it is a large, clumsy gas-guzzling piece of ****. Am I biased? Hell no! Not even supreme M1A2 can contest with best upgrades of 1970's tech Soviet T-72, and that is fact.

If I were to ever see this moronic crap-pile in public I would seriously consider pissing on it, unless it was too far away (I have a tendancy not to do stupid things like walk to giant logs of **** if they are too far away.)

Let's see....America's POS-mobile is supposed "best in the world" and it's gun is superior to Russian tanks-namely the T-72M cause any tnak of higher Soviet prestige would render this jalopy to the junk-pile in seconds. It would be futile to contest such majestic tanks like T-80 and T-90 to such primitive stone-age trash.

M1A1/A2 (by Interrupt)

Crew - 4 men, loader included (man, are we living in 1950ies???).

Mass - 69,54 tons (that's pretty bad if you want to cross swampy terrain or little bridges - or if you want to transport tanks via jets).

Size - 7,92 meters X 3,65 meters (large one, perfect target for missiles).

Height - 2,43 meters (wow, even larger!).

Main cannon - 120-mm (can use depleted uranium shells).

Additional armament - two light machine guns and one heavy machine gun.

Drive - gas turbine "AGT-1500", around 1500 horsepower.

Speed - 67 kilometers per hour (slower than Russian counterpart).

Range - 450 kilometers (50 kilometers less, than Russian counterpart).

T-72 mod "Black Eagle" (Chiormy Oriole)

Crew - 3 men (just like on any good tank).

Mass - 48 tons (easy to transport, can cross almost any bridge or terrain with broad tracks).

Size - 7 meters X 3,6 meters (small, hard to hit).

Height - 2 meters (low profile means high survivability).

Main cannon - 152-mm (AP, or tandem-HEAT, etc, or even firing HEAVY MISSILES from main gun).

Machine gun - 7,62-mm.

Heavy automatic cannon - remote-controlled, can attack air targets.

Additional weaponry - "Igla-2" SAMs, fuel-air artillery rockets, anti-tank rockets.

Drive - gas turbine, over 1500 horsepower.

Speed - 70 kilometers per hour.

Range - over 500 kilometers.

Interesting, hmmm....

BURN IN HELL YANKEE DOG'S AND TAKE YOUR IMPERIALIST CRAP-MACHINES WITH YOU, IT'S RUSSIA'S TURN!

Interesting analysis of the M1, but the only moronic crap pile I can identify from your post is you. Why do I entertain the notion that you don't even live in Russia, and that your poor spelling and grammar is more indicitive of a mental flaw, rather than the reasonable burden of having learned English as a second language?

I love reading the rantings of armchair Generals who pass judgement on the relative value of tanks based upon side by side comparison of specs posted by one side or another. Have you ever seen a tank??? Have you ever touched one, driven one, or had a live conversation with someone who has? No, of course not. You're a freaking idiot, and it's well past your bedtime.

Voyager

Never mind about if you live in Russia or not. As I suspected, you are spouting your bile while enjoying the good life in North America. Imagine that....

[Edited by Voyager13b on 7th July 2005 at 17:18]

[Voyager13b]

By the way, what does this topic have to do with science?

Voyager

[ComradeDTAII]

Thankyou for such an acute analysis of me, let me guess, you happen to have touched a tank, driven one, seen one before right? So I guess that makes you an expert in the field correct?

Look pal, I've done the research on this tank, from credible sources both east and west. From Jane's World Military all the way to narod.ru sites. So for sake of argument here, take a site I base much of my information on.

http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/Otvaga/wars0/wars_14.htm

Read through it, it is very good.

Now, I don't know what your view on personal attacks are, Mr. Voyager, but I have a gut feeling that they are against forum rules, if not, this will be quite the forum.

[Alex_Ivanov]

I usually read articles from the middle to the end and then from the begining to the middle. And what did I see right in the middle?

T-72 mod "Black Eagle" (Chiormy Oriole)

Sorry, I stopped reading right where I started it...

[ComradeDTAII]

Congratulations.

I know I was a little harsh comparing primitive junk-tanks like M1A1/A2 with such modern majestics like the Black Eagle, but any tank with more than 3 crewman are obsolete.

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by ComradeDTAII
Congratulations.

I know I was a little harsh comparing primitive junk-tanks like M1A1/A2 with such modern majestics like the Black Eagle, but any tank with more than 3 crewman are obsolete.

Nope, considering the tone of your comments, I can't see a thing that might be against the rules in my reply to your silly post.

You wrote the initial post, not me. You should scold yourself, rather than cry about my reply to your blabber. After all, you wrote it .

Anyway, allow me to restate my insulting reply. You might well be an idiot, but I think you better fall into the category of a nitwit. Yes, you seem to be an ignorant nitwit who happens to live in Canada, has no engineering background, has never seen a tank in person, has never been involved in warfare of any kind, and who passes judgement on the most winning and battle tested tank of recent history based upon political trash you read on the net.

I'm sure that your Mother is very proud that you can regurgitate nitwit facts about things that you are totaly ignorant of. How old are you anyway?

By the way, if you did proper research, you would find that I am a big fan of Russian military tech. The latest Russian tank designs are pretty formidable according to their known specs, but there are so few of them in existance that it really doesn't matter, does it? China has a new tank design that has published specs that even make the latest Russian tank seem weak, but neither one really matters, as there are are many divisions worth of M1 Abrams tanks in service today, while the competition outside of NATO is still pretty much on paper.

Even then, it is most likely that China will field their new tank design in large numbers long before Russia can afford to do the same. Meanwhile, the American M1 is the most potent tank on the planet that has been produced in serious numbers. Get over it, nitwit.

Being Russo-centric, as opposed to a leftist nitwit like you, I really want to see Russia prosper over time, and compete straight up with the best western arms providers. I think that will happen, and I think that Russia will be secure as it's economy grows. Meanwhile, as Russian tanks progress, so will the M1 until it is time to replace it with something newer. No other tank on Earth that is deployed at the volume of the M1 has such a solid battle record.

You need to look beyond your sophomoric political fantasies, and take a peek at reality now and then before you open your mouth to repeat BS stories you have heard on the net from various anti American sources. Better yet, when you are old enough to travel on your own, take a trip to Moscow and see how your world view compares to reality there.

Voyager