DarkObsidian
Member
+6|6907|Arizona, USA
I understand it's a game. The coding nerfing things in real life bothers me, but I can tolerate it. What I don't like however, is when someone judges a real life counterpart, from a game.

So here's the information I'd like to share with you all =]

USMC M1A2 MBT(Main Battle Tank)'s features:

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1A2-SEP_Motoring_lg.jpg

Armament:

M256 120 mm smoothbore gun which mainly fires the following types of ammunition:
M829 APFSDS (Armor-Piercing, Fin-Stabilized, Discarding Sabot) made of depleted uranium.
Said to destroy T-90's without special armor, in as little as one shot at approx 4000m.
M830 HEAT-MP-T, a multi-use round for armor, infantry, and low flying aircraft.
M1028 anti-infantry round, basically a giant shotgun shell up to 500m.
.50 M2 MG front of commander's hatch, can be fired with a 3X scope.
.30 M240C MG on loader's hatch.
.30 M240C mounted next to M256.

Armor:

Composite armor consisting of several layers of ceramic and steel.
Sometimes may have depleted uranium armoring.
Kevlar lined, to protect soldiers inside from fragmentation of material, should the armor fail.
Blowout panels specifically made to reduce damage in case of ammunition exploding prematurely.
24 inches of rolled homogeneous armor.

Goodies:
USMC tanks have MCDs (Missile Countermeasure Device) for use against anti-tank weaponry.
Thermal and night vision viewers for target detection.
2 8-barrel smoke grenade launchers.
Engine also has a smoke generator.
Can be armed with chaff.
Automated fire control computer with 95% accuracy.
Laser rangefinder.
Crosswind sensor.
Pendulum static cant sensor.
Ammunition type and temperature sensors.

Wikipedia.org wrote:

1500 HP Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine, and a 6 speed (4 forward, 2 reverse) Allison X-1100-3B Hydro-Kinetic Automatic transmission, giving it a governed top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) on roads, 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country.
With the engine governor removed, speeds of around 60 mph (100 km/h) are possible on an improved surface; however, damage to the drive train (especially to the tracks) and an increased risk of injuries to the crew can occur at speeds above 45 mph. The tank can be fueled with diesel fuel, kerosene, any grade of MOGAS (motor gasoline), or JP-4 or JP-8 jet fuel; the U.S. Army uses JP-8 jet fuel in order to simplify logistics.
Chemical and biological warfare protection equipment.

T-90 Russian MBT features:

https://armyreco.ifrance.com/russe/vehicules_lourds/t-90/t-90_russe_1.jpg

Armament:

2A46M 125 mm smoothbore gun that fires:
APFSDS, HEAT-FS, HE-FRAG, Fragmentation-FS, and the 9M119M Reflex anti-tank guided missile.

Armor:

Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor.

Features:

Wikipedia.org wrote:

The T-90 is equipped with the Shtora-1 countermeasures suite, produced by Electronintorg of Russia. This system includes infrared jammer, laser warning system with four laser warning receivers, grenade discharging system which produces an aerosol screen and a computerised control system. The laser warning system warns the tank's crew when the tank has been 'painted' by a weapon-guidance laser. The T-90's electro-optical jammer, the Shtora-1 EOCMDAS, jams the enemy’s semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) antitank guided missiles, laser rangefinders, and target designators.

Wikipedia.org wrote:

While the T-90 continues the Soviet tradition of strong and weight-efficient protection as an evolutionary follow-on to the T-72, it lacks the survivability features that are built in Western MBTs that will keep its crew alive after suffering penetration by enemy projectiles. For example, spare ammunition is stored in the main compartment, rather than separate compartments with blow-out panels. This caused many Soviet-designed tanks' ammo to detonate in a "catastrophic" kill after being penetrated, with legends of turrets being thrown 50 feet into the air.

In the Gulf War, this lack of survivability exacerbated the obsolescent protection of the Iraqi armor, which can be easily penetrated by modern Western ammunition. Russian tanks proved so vulnerable to almost any kind of anti-tank fire that some battles witnessed American or British units allowing Iraqi crews to bail from their vehicles and clear out, allowing destruction of the highly-flammable vehicles without unnecessary loss of life; though the low morale of the Iraqi Army at the time may also have played a significant role.

With its improved armor, the T-90 is relatively safe from attacks on the front, where its protection should stop most attacks from penetrating and exposing its survivability weaknesses. However, a side (or top) attack will likely turn the tank into a deathtrap.
Now, you're probably thinking "OMG YOU GLORIFIED THE M1A2!!!! THERE'S LOTS MORE INFO ON IT THAN THE T-90!!".
Fact is, the M1A2 is a superior tank and the purpose of this article was to show just that.
Just remember guys, what you pwn with in game, it might not in real life.

If there's anything I missed, please tell me, and provide a source of information.
Thanks for your time, and enjoy =]


Source: http://www.Wikipedia.org/

EDIT: Added pretty pictures.

Last edited by DarkObsidian (2007-02-11 05:20:39)

cMD-RR
Member
+17|6558
t90 ftw
Fenris_GreyClaw
Real Хорошо
+826|6790|Adelaide, South Australia

Correctly placed TOW Rocket > Any BF2 Tank.
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|6836|Area 51
And your point is?
DarkObsidian
Member
+6|6907|Arizona, USA

RDMC(2) wrote:

And your point is?
Wow.
Either you didn't read the article or you're just a fucking idiot. READ IT OR DON'T POST.
Longbow
Member
+163|6917|Odessa, Ukraine
T90 hadn't met Abrams in combat . So all those comparations are stupid ...
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|6836|Area 51

DarkObsidian wrote:

RDMC(2) wrote:

And your point is?
Wow.
Either you didn't read the article or you're just a fucking idiot. READ IT OR DON'T POST.
You come to me and say, don't post? Go fuck yourself, as far I can see your just bitching about the fact that the M1A2 isn't represented as it should be in the game, well who cares..pff..fuck face..telling me not to post, I can post what ever the fuck I want to post..
DarkObsidian
Member
+6|6907|Arizona, USA

Longbow wrote:

T90 hadn't met Abrams in combat . So all those comparations are stupid ...
Not necessarily in combat, but in training exercises it has.
The M1A2 is a superior tank.
cMD-RR
Member
+17|6558
soviet shit is cooler anyway.
DarkObsidian
Member
+6|6907|Arizona, USA

RDMC(2) wrote:

DarkObsidian wrote:

RDMC(2) wrote:

And your point is?
Wow.
Either you didn't read the article or you're just a fucking idiot. READ IT OR DON'T POST.
You come to me and say, don't post? Go fuck yourself, as far I can see your just bitching about the fact that the M1A2 isn't represented as it should be in the game, well who cares..pff..fuck face..telling me not to post, I can post what ever the fuck I want to post..

DarkObsidian wrote:

I understand it's a game. The coding nerfing things in real life bothers me, but I can tolerate it. What I don't like however, is when someone judges a real life counterpart, from a game.

So here's the information I'd like to share with you all =]
Read.
Sure, you can post whatever you want, but it's better to let people think you to be stupid, than to post and remove all doubt.
Longbow
Member
+163|6917|Odessa, Ukraine

DarkObsidian wrote:

The M1A2 is a superior tank.
We'll see if arabs will recieve T90 or its modifications
DarkObsidian
Member
+6|6907|Arizona, USA

Longbow wrote:

DarkObsidian wrote:

The M1A2 is a superior tank.
We'll see if arabs will recieve T90 or its modifications
Kthxbai.
OakLeaves
Banned
+70|6586|Newcastle UK
Wow i learn't a lot thanks dude +1
venom6
Since day One.
+247|6829|Hungary
The following Tank pwns the M1A2 just you guys know its the #1 Tank in the world !

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/images/leopard2tank-14.jpg

See the following:



Yes its the Leopard II
Stealth_Bain
Member
+19|6768|England, United Kingdom
The challenger II is a close second to the M1A2, has better armour, and in my opinion looks and sounds sexier.
Is more modern and easier to get parts, the M1 needs much more maintenance and the Americans have issues with sourcing the engines (apparently the company who makes them went bust)

for example, replacing the engne in an M1 is 24hours, the challenger is more like 2 or 3!

For 60's technology the M1 is amazing, the best tank to ever exist and prob will never be beaten, they're now moving on to smaller faster vehicles that can be transported by air!

Luckily were all on the same side so its not really an issue which is better. Its th epoor soviet equipted chaps that need to worry!! I'd run from either.
Shopvac
If it doesn't say shop-vac keep shopping!
+25|6810|Grand Rapids, MI
Nice post Venom,

I didn't even know that Germany was still producing tanks post WWII. I'm glad they are. It seems that after WWI they've consistently been ahead of the engineering curve when it comes to tank development.

Us Yanks should also remember that we don't always get the whole story when it comes to our military. ie. Our tank armor was actually developed by the UK.

One last question though, am I right that Brittan uses a rifled main gun on the Challenger? If so, are the Brits the only country to use a rifled main gun on their tank?

+1 for the first person who can find me the answer.
Stealth_Bain
Member
+19|6768|England, United Kingdom

Shopvac wrote:

Nice post Venom,

I didn't even know that Germany was still producing tanks post WWII. I'm glad they are. It seems that after WWI they've consistently been ahead of the engineering curve when it comes to tank development.

Us Yanks should also remember that we don't always get the whole story when it comes to our military. ie. Our tank armor was actually developed by the UK.

One last question though, am I right that Brittan uses a rifled main gun on the Challenger? If so, are the Brits the only country to use a rifled main gun on their tank?

+1 for the first person who can find me the answer.
Is smoothbore! same barrel as the leopard II according to this. check this link, http://www.army-technology.com/projects … index.html

prob find its a NATO standard for the rounds, but I couldn't be arsed to read into it!!

Last edited by Stealth_Bain (2007-02-11 06:14:28)

coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6980|England. Stoke
Challenger II did use a rifled barrel, but has recently adopted the smoothbore gun as used in Leopard II and various other tanks.
Surgeons
U shud proabbly f off u fat prik
+3,097|6760|Gogledd Cymru

Shopvac wrote:

Nice post Venom,

I didn't even know that Germany was still producing tanks post WWII. I'm glad they are. It seems that after WWI they've consistently been ahead of the engineering curve when it comes to tank development.

Us Yanks should also remember that we don't always get the whole story when it comes to our military. ie. Our tank armor was actually developed by the UK.

One last question though, am I right that Brittan uses a rifled main gun on the Challenger? If so, are the Brits the only country to use a rifled main gun on their tank?

+1 for the first person who can find me the answer.
when top gear did that training exercise running away from a challenger II clarkson said it was a rifled main gun. Plus yes the brits did develop us armour and probably lead the field when it comes to tank development
CommandoRog
Member
+10|6955|USA
All that i can say is.

The weapon is only as good as the crew using it.
DarkObsidian
Member
+6|6907|Arizona, USA

Stealth_Bain wrote:

The challenger II is a close second to the M1A2, has better armour, and in my opinion looks and sounds sexier.
Is more modern and easier to get parts, the M1 needs much more maintenance and the Americans have issues with sourcing the engines (apparently the company who makes them went bust)

for example, replacing the engne in an M1 is 24hours, the challenger is more like 2 or 3!

For 60's technology the M1 is amazing, the best tank to ever exist and prob will never be beaten, they're now moving on to smaller faster vehicles that can be transported by air!

Luckily were all on the same side so its not really an issue which is better. Its th epoor soviet equipted chaps that need to worry!! I'd run from either.
Please post facts and their sources =]
You probably are right, I doubt the M1A2 is the most superior in terms complete equipment, but we have them on production rates and pricing.
The T-90 costs quite a bit more than the M1A2 and I'd imagine so would the Challenger II, though I know nothing about it.

Good point.

Shopvac wrote:

Nice post Venom,

I didn't even know that Germany was still producing tanks post WWII. I'm glad they are. It seems that after WWI they've consistently been ahead of the engineering curve when it comes to tank development.

Us Yanks should also remember that we don't always get the whole story when it comes to our military. ie. Our tank armor was actually developed by the UK.

One last question though, am I right that Brittan uses a rifled main gun on the Challenger? If so, are the Brits the only country to use a rifled main gun on their tank?

+1 for the first person who can find me the answer.
Just a tip, I don't, and probably others don't appreciate being called Yanks, it's somewhat offensive.
The original designs (for the most part) were designed by Leonardo Da Vinci. What's your point?
The original M1 used a rifled gun.

venom6 wrote:

The following Tank pwns the M1A2 just you guys know its the #1 Tank in the world !

http://www.army-technology.com/projects … ank-14.jpg

See the following:



Yes its the Leopard II
I didn't see any evidence saying it's a better tank. Please post it =]
Unless it was in the video, my sound is off =P

CommandoRog wrote:

All that i can say is.

The weapon is only as good as the crew using it.
True, and I forgot to mention, just for those who don't know. A tank is not controller by only the driver. There's a whole crew inside there

Last edited by DarkObsidian (2007-02-11 06:35:48)

Ottomania
Troll has returned.
+62|6792|Istanbul-Turkey
I think best one is merkava, but not sure about that.
Stealth_Bain
Member
+19|6768|England, United Kingdom
You'll find a link to the facts in the post straight after! have read quite a few books recently on the two different MBT's but nothing to hand! see the link tells you the lot. (could've cut and pasted the lot but seemed easier to do that so people can read it if they like) http://www.army-technology.com/projects … index.html

P.S. I read a comment that Americans don't like being called yanks, I don't like being called a brit!! we're British or Britons! (tit for tat, although I was very careful not be be offensive)
DarkObsidian
Member
+6|6907|Arizona, USA

Stealth_Bain wrote:

You'll find a link to the facts in the post straight after! have read quite a few books recently on the two different MBT's but nothing to hand! see the link tells you the lot. (could've cut and pasted the lot but seemed easier to do that so people can read it if they like) http://www.army-technology.com/projects … index.html

P.S. I read a comment that Americans don't like being called yanks, I don't like being called a brit!! we're British or Britons! (tit for tat, although I was very careful not be be offensive)
Thank you for adding to the whole picture =] Much appreciated.
JaggedPanther
Member
+61|6744
One thing the USMC M1A2 has too is logistics. Ahead, with and behind the M1A2 is jet power, attackchoppers, a logistics army that can spot targets, figure out paths etc, UAV's and a crew dedicated to the machine and trained constantly.

A T-90 crew outside of russia is probably made of someone who came out of a hut or was growing opium a few days before. With no logistical support, attack support or decent training. Wasn't that a T-72 firing on taliban positions in the news a few days after 9-11? Those looked like a crew of 2 sheep herders being commander, loader, driver and shooter with the wrong ammo too.

Last edited by JaggedPanther (2007-02-11 06:58:16)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard