The battlefield signature of any reckless system render it a single-shot suicide system against a well-trained armor unit. It certainly would not be the weapon of choice against a modern MBT.
That said it is still capable, with modern ammo, of penetrating any APC/IFV, but more importantly providing accurate direct fire support for light infantry ops.
This weapon system would be fantastic on a Stryker or Bradley to supplement the 25mm popgun , or better 4 of them clustered like an Ontos...
@HeildemKrieg No monkey T80, it was a secret tank, only for russian army, like T64. After collapse however, some T80 were sold to : cyprus, pakistan (via ukrain), greece plan to aquire, south korea use it too.
SPG-9 isn't a "modern RPG-7", it was made in less than a year from the RPG-7, and has nearly identical penetrative capacity, but it's a totally different weapon otherwise. The SPG-9 doesn't have the capacity to penetrate any modern MBT, T-80, Leopard 2, Abrams, Merkava, whatever. Not a good gauge of armor performance, it's like saying "look, this kevlar is great, it stops .22LR".
That wasn't armor, that was the active defense system stopping the round. And killing a relatively fast shell from a recoilless is pretty darn good in that respect as bigger and slower ATGMs are actually easier targets.
@SnakeTheFox Don't think so, SPG-9M is still capable, on flank and used in ambush, it can kill MBT. Improved charges can go through 400mm, the biggest advantage of weapon is that it's very accurate and rapid fire, aswell as low profile. A team of well ambushed SPG-9 can stop a MBT platoon.
@SnakeTheFox Wrong SPG9 like RPG7 are capable to destroy and penetrate any MBT,like RPG7 with the oldest warheads with only 330mm RHA penetration has destroyed M1 Abrams.You cannot built tanks to be invincible but you can build weapons easily and cheap to take anything out.It will never exist a tank that can stand against portable grenade launchers.nowdays and 20 years ago RPG7 had and have warheads with TandemHEAT with 850mm RHA penetration.
-6 +15 градусов. значит от каких-нибудь джавелинов или вертолётных ракет запущенных по высокой траектории это не спасает. А в последних сражениях большинство бронетехники как раз было уничтожено вертолётами
I dont think the spg-9 is a modern weapon...it was introduced in 1962, around the same time the rpg-7 was...so...it is pretty obvious that a heavily armoured MBT like the T-80, T-90, M1A2 and Challenger 2 can stand with ease a hit from a 50 year old weapon, especially when using active and passive defence systems.
the t80 and t90 are good tanks when you are on a budget ..but the cant compare to western tanks in armor protection or fire control..
I know first hand and seen with my own eyes M60 PATTON HIT A T72 with a sabot round and it passed right through the front armor (the thickest part and exit the top side turrent like it was soft butter ..also er armor is only good againts he and heat rounds not sabot penitrators ect (ke type rounds)
Dude T90 can compare to anything. Russian tanks are pretty damn fucking awesome. Lets remember the T 34.
Though yes the M1A2 and Challenger 2 are so well armored its hard to pierce them with anything. But they waste so much fuel that they are extremely impractical in a real war where logistics is the key to victory. A well organise guerilla force could target supply routes and render those tanks completely ineffective. For a WW2 comparison its like a tiger 2 tank.
That's a missconception since many russian things are "en masse" and poor quality. T-34 was revolutionary in the way it was small, fast, had a big cannon AND most importantly had sloped armor.
@omfg4000 and it had independent suspension so it could go alot faster over terrain. Although all tanks had this by late war, it was very handy after Barbarossa to gain large amounts of territory and to catch routing Germans and for flanking.
Exported T-72s were a joke compared to the T-72s in our army, besides, the exported T-72 tanks didnt have ERArmour and newer developments of ERA effectivelly protect against penetrators.
the t90 is a mass produced cheap good powerful and holly shit how precise tank, the t80 however is a "flying tank" whith gas turbine engine, it can go around 120 km/h. but its expensive to run while the t90 uses standart Diesel Gasoil.
this equipment calls "SHTORA" soft kill system and his work only on guided missiles you can put the SHTORA system on the T-80 and some models of him have it
P.S
the T-80 better then the T-90 the T-90 his a massive tank that need to be cheap for huge military but the T-80 like the T-64 need to bee the proud of the army.
No. T-90 is just upgraded T-72B. This modification was designated as T-72BU in the begining. But it had been renamed into T-90 later for advertisement purposes. T-90 is not a new tank. And T-80E1 (which is new modification of T-80) is better. But all of this is bullshit anyway. T-95 will enter service next year.
@Xunstar Javelin is shaped charge, and russians using ERA of 3rd generation wich are capable to stand against tandem heats.If Javelin miss this ERA it will penetrate if it hits the ERA it will be holded by ERA for sure.
T-90 125-mm 2A46-series main gun which is capable of firing APDS, HEAT and HE-FRAG projectiles as well as time-fuzed shrapnel projectiles. The Refleks 9M119 AT-11 SNIPER laser-guided missile with a hollow-charge warhead is effective against both armored targets and low-flying helicopters. The missile, which can penetrate 700-mm of RHAe out to 4000 meters,
Guided missles are a huge waste of man power time, while you are guiding your rounds, many other rounds are incoming with fire and forget technology. Guided weapons are archiac on todays major battlefield.
With the missile T-90 fires all you have to do is flash the target with the laser for one-two seconds and the missile will find its way all by itself after that.
WRONG, you need to steer the missile to the target, but this can be done by any unit equipped with a laser designator, so T-90 can fire missile and a soldier can guide the missile.
By the way, you can also tell that the M4 and M60 are not similar. Just look at the production code.
There was at least one tank before the M60. It was called the M551 Sheridan, much more similar to the M4, and it was a complete piece of crap because of it's insane 152mm cannon on a tinfoil chassis. My uncle used one in Vietnam, where ours were repeatedly doored by old-ass Vietnamese T-54s and T-55s.
By the way, America1st, I know you do not pay attention to detail.
The M4 Sherman and the M60 are absolutely nowhere near similar to each other, bar the 105mm howitzer package that was standard on American tanks until we changed it to 120mm on the M1A1. The original M1 had a 105mm gun.
If you even look at pictures of them both tanks are *completely* different.
First, and this should say alot about your diligence and attention to detail. The SPG-9 is a recoilless anti-tank gun(no not gun like your daddy has in his closet). It fires a 73mm round. It is essentially a mortar tube turned horizontal. Oh and by the way, they were both entered into service in the early 60's. How dear boy can one be the more modern of the other when they are two completely different weapon systems that entered into service at relatively the same time?
Quite possibly, but you do know tht historically Russian tanks are better? I hope you know that even the T-55 can launch the AT-11, which outranges the conventional 120mm by 1000-2000m.
The French designed their AMX-30 similarly to the T-62 and T-72 for a reason.
Here's the problem- the East possesses vast numerical superiority.
Why did us and NATO put nuclear weapons in strategic West Euro theatre positions?
Why- We have absolutely no way to conventionally deal with 30,000 Russian tanks.
you didn't have 30k tanks. Besides, look at battles in Iraq. Iraqi crews weren't that well trained BUT, abrams got hit multiple times and survived. t-72 got hit and were gone.
you can have 30k tanks but if none of the guys want to fight then it doesn't matter. Russian tanks might have been alright until leo and abrams came out, but not after.
No, Russia did actually does. Pick up "The Cold War" by Colonel John Hughes-Wilson (NATO/SIS) (Ret) and read it. BTW, I'm not Russian.
You may also want to check the actual numbers on our involvement in the first Gulf War. US troops numbered only about 35,000 active deployed and the Iraqis had less than 500 T72 MBTs, all of which were older export versions.
US tanks outnumbered Iraqi tanks, largely consisting of T34s and T55s.
abrams suck compared to the T-80's and T-90's the abrams can beat a type-98 and the chellenger and may even stand a good chance against a leopard... but the T-80 and T-90 would own the abrams!
yeah ok thats why u people are retarded the abrams is older but has way better sighting and a new armour packge not and the turet is the fastest in the world
umm... dude all tanks have add on packages idiot! XD stupid ass...
wow... turret is 1 milli-second faster than ours BIG FUCKING WOOP! out gun is bigger and our tanks have a longer effective range T-90 scored a 1 hit kill on the move from 6,000 meters! can you shitty abrams do that! NO!!! best your piece of shit can hit is 4,000 meters... by the time you assholes know we are there BOOM! your already dead!
Also it can hit a target goin full speed at 3000m. wich is faster then the t90. Also it has a lower silowet with a highr ground clearence. also does not have a autoloader wich jams easily. and last of all we have over 8500 of them you havelike 200 t90's im sorry but the m1 wins.
are you honestly that stupid XD... first of all you tard... the abrams is 3 1/2 ft. taller than the T-90 dumbass XD... and the T-90 has ground speed of 61MPH the abrams has ground speed of 54MPH... so yeah your stupid
and no you dont have 8000 you over hyping dumbshit USA only operates 2,000 abrams total (M1, and M2) while russia operates 3,600+ (T-80's and T-90's) and for your info. we have almost 600 T-90's dude XD
to bad if you do hit us(but you wont) the round will never penetrate. Our round couldnt penetrate either. there both good tanks. the abrams is better in the fact thatthe turret is alot faster. better sighting not jst in range but day nightelevation windige.
okay... our rounds were specifically developed to penitrate an abrams BTW our heat high explosive rounds can penitrate over 900MM of armor plus the abrams only has 800MM armor in the front og the turret! XD our sights are far better we have thermal sights, night sights, infared sights, and laser range finder, not to mention our guns are more powerful, have longer range, and we have more tanks than you do! XD
1st of all our tank has the same sighting yours does. were do you even get your facts from? If you live in russia that sucks for you. our tank is better and you know it. our armour may be that thick but is chobam. your tanks has the same shit. we also the only way to destory an abrams and kill its crew is to hit the ammo storage. wich if you do the hatches and everythine else blow out.
I own models of the T-80 and M1 and the M1 is clearly a LOT taller. You haven't seen the outstanding performance of Egyptian T-62s against Israeli M60s in 1973 Yom Kippur, have you?
See the "T-80 vs M1" video and you'll see the Russians at a testing range blow up an Abrams with an extremely outdated Russian ATGM missile launcher.
They have over 30000 T-80s and have over 20000000 troops.
Nobody has ever messed with Russia's ground troops and won.
yeah you asshole every male in that countey is considerderd reserve. Production cost of the abrams is Free you now why> cause were the best country and will never pay oour debts and everyonr no's that
Chinese air force is comprised mainly of modified old Sovietic copies but because of new relations they are now being equiped with Su-27's. China is powerful but is not undefeatable and it would be wise to also look at their history. For nearly 2,000 years they have been peaceful and only went to war in desperate times. Yes they make a great friend but can also be a nasty enemy. Same goes for Russia:)
yeah a missle can blow up any tank dumbass. its the survivalbitlity of an abrams wich is the best also the gun is the best canon in the world. the abrams is 13inches taller!!! the turret is faster too. there both great tanks but the tech in the new abrams is a lot better then what you think.
FAS's analytical information is much better than yours and I think that's why government institutions trust them probably more than you, where you're probably fourteen because of your rampant swearing.
Have you even ever fired a real, live firearm in your life? Did you actually serve any military time? The two answers to that are most likely "no", and definitely no.
Yes. And their training programs, from an ex-D1 athlete from Wisconsin at Madison, are not very stellar.
I think there's a reason why three of my ex team comrades that are in the service are in special force groups. One is a Green Beret, one is a SEAL, and the third is a Spetsnaz (he went back to Russia.)
Maybe you should brush up on your atrociously horrid English mannerisms, enunciation, and speech capabilities.
Due to the fact that we have lost over 100 M1 tanks and other billions of dollars in equipment in Iraq by conventional explosives, I'm not enfranchised to believe Western superiority.
The war would probably be over already if the troops actually took a page from the CIS's dealings with Chechnya and decided to flatten the earth 3 more inches every month.
Imagine the horror of the liberal left if we Brits fought like Russians. The difference is they have a leader who doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks. He just does what is necessary to win!
a kim Ty jestes??POlska dupe stanom podstawia a stany tylko wykorzystuja nas,POlscy Chlopaki gina w afganistanie i irakie a za co? za to ze tacy jak Ty dupe podstawiaja!!!
In Chechenya, the insurgents used multiple RPGs, they would hit the tank from various places from side rear rooftop etc... Hitting the T-64s and T-72s in their most vulnerable places. Even rear T-80 armor would be vulnerable.
Ah well... the SPG9 is not that modern really. The armour penetration is as low as 300-400mm RHA, the speed is also low. It is not the right weapon to defeat a T80. The tank could easily withstand the shit even without Arena.
I'd expect a T-80 to withstand it, considering it is armed with ERA defense. I wouldn't expect an M1A1 or an M1A2 to survive a hit though, their armour is designed purely against other tank projectiles.
No, Chobbam armor was developed with HEAT type projectiles in mind. An M1 is VERY resistant to HEAT rounds.... But not invulnerable as Iraq has proved (Both M1s and Challenger 2s taken out with RPG-29s)
Define taken out. If you mean penetrated then yes. If you mean tank or crew loss then sorry no. T-80s and T-90s even with K5 have been shown to be vulnerable across the front to that weapon.
The SPG9 is just 73mm. Im not saying that it all depents on the caliber, but the armour penetration is just around 300-400 mm RHA and a T80 can withstand it - maybe not in the rear, but everywhere else.
The battlefield signature of any reckless system render it a single-shot suicide system against a well-trained armor unit. It certainly would not be the weapon of choice against a modern MBT.
That said it is still capable, with modern ammo, of penetrating any APC/IFV, but more importantly providing accurate direct fire support for light infantry ops.
This weapon system would be fantastic on a Stryker or Bradley to supplement the 25mm popgun , or better 4 of them clustered like an Ontos...
iThinkThereforeiCan 4 months ago
@HeildemKrieg No monkey T80, it was a secret tank, only for russian army, like T64. After collapse however, some T80 were sold to : cyprus, pakistan (via ukrain), greece plan to aquire, south korea use it too.
PATRONSKiii 8 months ago
SPG-9 isn't a "modern RPG-7", it was made in less than a year from the RPG-7, and has nearly identical penetrative capacity, but it's a totally different weapon otherwise. The SPG-9 doesn't have the capacity to penetrate any modern MBT, T-80, Leopard 2, Abrams, Merkava, whatever. Not a good gauge of armor performance, it's like saying "look, this kevlar is great, it stops .22LR".
SnakeTheFox 9 months ago
@SnakeTheFox
That wasn't armor, that was the active defense system stopping the round. And killing a relatively fast shell from a recoilless is pretty darn good in that respect as bigger and slower ATGMs are actually easier targets.
Magni56 9 months ago
@SnakeTheFox Don't think so, SPG-9M is still capable, on flank and used in ambush, it can kill MBT. Improved charges can go through 400mm, the biggest advantage of weapon is that it's very accurate and rapid fire, aswell as low profile. A team of well ambushed SPG-9 can stop a MBT platoon.
PATRONSKiii 8 months ago
@SnakeTheFox Wrong SPG9 like RPG7 are capable to destroy and penetrate any MBT,like RPG7 with the oldest warheads with only 330mm RHA penetration has destroyed M1 Abrams.You cannot built tanks to be invincible but you can build weapons easily and cheap to take anything out.It will never exist a tank that can stand against portable grenade launchers.nowdays and 20 years ago RPG7 had and have warheads with TandemHEAT with 850mm RHA penetration.
Talshet 1 month ago
this show what the tank can ..yes i saw ran over the gear hidden in the grass-awsum
Qulopuaa 1 year ago
spg-9 and rpg-7 are two different things, and spg-9 is not modern - it's a very old system.
Russki08 1 year ago
@Russki08 and a recoilless rifle to boot. They are totally different classes of weapon.
colddrake80 1 year ago
WTF is this video for? some expslosion, then another place a tank passes by.
Thumbs down for waste of life-time.
The911538 1 year ago
Both T-80 and T-90 can be penetrated from an RPG-7
Watch my Video.
hundturken2 1 year ago
-6 +15 градусов. значит от каких-нибудь джавелинов или вертолётных ракет запущенных по высокой траектории это не спасает. А в последних сражениях большинство бронетехники как раз было уничтожено вертолётами
kr160 1 year ago
это защита танка, а не уничтожение! почитайте про "АРЕНА-С"
44449444 1 year ago
I dont think the spg-9 is a modern weapon...it was introduced in 1962, around the same time the rpg-7 was...so...it is pretty obvious that a heavily armoured MBT like the T-80, T-90, M1A2 and Challenger 2 can stand with ease a hit from a 50 year old weapon, especially when using active and passive defence systems.
SoulsStealerMalti 1 year ago
Correct me if I´m wrong but, isn´t the SPG-9 ammunition designed to handle light armored vehicles like the Bradley and BMP instead of MBT´s?
racinglad 2 years ago
the t80 and t90 are good tanks when you are on a budget ..but the cant compare to western tanks in armor protection or fire control..
I know first hand and seen with my own eyes M60 PATTON HIT A T72 with a sabot round and it passed right through the front armor (the thickest part and exit the top side turrent like it was soft butter ..also er armor is only good againts he and heat rounds not sabot penitrators ect (ke type rounds)
meangreenelf 2 years ago
Dude T90 can compare to anything. Russian tanks are pretty damn fucking awesome. Lets remember the T 34.
Though yes the M1A2 and Challenger 2 are so well armored its hard to pierce them with anything. But they waste so much fuel that they are extremely impractical in a real war where logistics is the key to victory. A well organise guerilla force could target supply routes and render those tanks completely ineffective. For a WW2 comparison its like a tiger 2 tank.
omfg4000 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
t34 was crap... their only good side was their number was bigger than germans had ammunition :D
TransAmDrifter 2 years ago
That's a missconception since many russian things are "en masse" and poor quality. T-34 was revolutionary in the way it was small, fast, had a big cannon AND most importantly had sloped armor.
It's sloped armor made it so much bette
omfg4000 2 years ago
@omfg4000 and it had independent suspension so it could go alot faster over terrain. Although all tanks had this by late war, it was very handy after Barbarossa to gain large amounts of territory and to catch routing Germans and for flanking.
blinky123abc 1 year ago
Exported T-72s were a joke compared to the T-72s in our army, besides, the exported T-72 tanks didnt have ERArmour and newer developments of ERA effectivelly protect against penetrators.
vtkrey 2 years ago
No, ERA is plenty good against APFSDS. T-72s do like to blow up though.
ppitm 2 years ago
by th way. the spg-9 is not a modern rpg-7. its a recoilless gun that fires heat rounds. im not surprised it cant penetrate the armor and the ERA.
ONLYHSV 2 years ago
the t90 is a mass produced cheap good powerful and holly shit how precise tank, the t80 however is a "flying tank" whith gas turbine engine, it can go around 120 km/h. but its expensive to run while the t90 uses standart Diesel Gasoil.
DkFr88 3 years ago
t-90 is better.Russian T-90 have special equipment on board that leads missiles away .
andreyRUS17 3 years ago 15
this equipment calls "SHTORA" soft kill system and his work only on guided missiles you can put the SHTORA system on the T-80 and some models of him have it
P.S
the T-80 better then the T-90 the T-90 his a massive tank that need to be cheap for huge military but the T-80 like the T-64 need to bee the proud of the army.
ggkiler 3 years ago 2
@ggkiler это не штора это арена, посмотри видео ответ
maks86861 1 year ago
No. T-90 is just upgraded T-72B. This modification was designated as T-72BU in the begining. But it had been renamed into T-90 later for advertisement purposes. T-90 is not a new tank. And T-80E1 (which is new modification of T-80) is better. But all of this is bullshit anyway. T-95 will enter service next year.
AndreyPestryakov 3 years ago 6
@andreyRUS17
even javellin which strike on target straight from air? i doubt that
Xunstar 11 months ago
@Xunstar Javelin is shaped charge, and russians using ERA of 3rd generation wich are capable to stand against tandem heats.If Javelin miss this ERA it will penetrate if it hits the ERA it will be holded by ERA for sure.
Talshet 1 month ago
where t-80?it's t-64
andreyRUS17 3 years ago
No,it's really t-80 Т64 не такой
Kalashnikovpower 3 years ago
well there is more technology that Russians dont show to us
21StCenturyWarfare 3 years ago 13
this is a T-80UM1 "bars" tank to be exact...
the T-80 and T-90 can survive an RPG hit already but ERA is the best!
bittemeinrammstein 3 years ago 4
if Shitty abrams will be hited by this rocket launcher it will explode
jurek1993 3 years ago 4
in your dreams
stg44rulz 3 years ago
The tank...is only equipment wat really matters is the CREW......think about it....no CREWS tank doesnt do anything......
idiotfan12 3 years ago
T-90 125-mm 2A46-series main gun which is capable of firing APDS, HEAT and HE-FRAG projectiles as well as time-fuzed shrapnel projectiles. The Refleks 9M119 AT-11 SNIPER laser-guided missile with a hollow-charge warhead is effective against both armored targets and low-flying helicopters. The missile, which can penetrate 700-mm of RHAe out to 4000 meters,
vaninec 4 years ago 4
Guided missles are a huge waste of man power time, while you are guiding your rounds, many other rounds are incoming with fire and forget technology. Guided weapons are archiac on todays major battlefield.
dalifar 4 years ago
Are you retarded? Cruise missiles are fire and forget.
ruskie18 3 years ago
With the missile T-90 fires all you have to do is flash the target with the laser for one-two seconds and the missile will find its way all by itself after that.
ruskie18 3 years ago
WRONG, you need to steer the missile to the target, but this can be done by any unit equipped with a laser designator, so T-90 can fire missile and a soldier can guide the missile.
rusak24 3 years ago 4
FAS has great info on every tank in the world.
By the way, you can also tell that the M4 and M60 are not similar. Just look at the production code.
There was at least one tank before the M60. It was called the M551 Sheridan, much more similar to the M4, and it was a complete piece of crap because of it's insane 152mm cannon on a tinfoil chassis. My uncle used one in Vietnam, where ours were repeatedly doored by old-ass Vietnamese T-54s and T-55s.
jregley 4 years ago
By the way, America1st, I know you do not pay attention to detail.
The M4 Sherman and the M60 are absolutely nowhere near similar to each other, bar the 105mm howitzer package that was standard on American tanks until we changed it to 120mm on the M1A1. The original M1 had a 105mm gun.
If you even look at pictures of them both tanks are *completely* different.
jregley 4 years ago
Evolutionarily speaking, the M60 can be considered very much a distant relative of the M4, just like the T-72 and the T-34
cwjian90 3 years ago
As a former tanker I'd say the M1A2 SEP is better than all other current tanks but then again I am biased.=)
Anyway, this video seems to be more about the ARENA system than just shooting an RPG at a tank.
ltankhsd 4 years ago
And as a Brit I will say the Chally 2, its got a rifled gun, world leading armour and whats more is it can be made invisible lol!
robkedar 4 years ago
invisible??....are u fuking around??
idiotfan12 3 years ago
First, and this should say alot about your diligence and attention to detail. The SPG-9 is a recoilless anti-tank gun(no not gun like your daddy has in his closet). It fires a 73mm round. It is essentially a mortar tube turned horizontal. Oh and by the way, they were both entered into service in the early 60's. How dear boy can one be the more modern of the other when they are two completely different weapon systems that entered into service at relatively the same time?
lhaitken1 4 years ago
The T-80 and T-90 and whatnot all weigh in at about 47 tons. That's a full 15 tons lighter than the M1.
That means less cost, gas use, quicker production time, easier mass production, and MORE FIGHTING in war.
This is a Russian tank-
Giant gun, extremely fast, very cheap.
It doesn't need heavy armor.
Last conventional war on equal means was 1973 Yom Kippur. It showed that Western tanks need to approach Russian equipment with extreme caution.
jregley 4 years ago 4
I would hate to be in a t-90 or t-80 vs abrams or leo, shudders, it would be a bad scenario.
gosciu555 4 years ago
Quite possibly, but you do know tht historically Russian tanks are better? I hope you know that even the T-55 can launch the AT-11, which outranges the conventional 120mm by 1000-2000m.
The French designed their AMX-30 similarly to the T-62 and T-72 for a reason.
Here's the problem- the East possesses vast numerical superiority.
Why did us and NATO put nuclear weapons in strategic West Euro theatre positions?
Why- We have absolutely no way to conventionally deal with 30,000 Russian tanks.
jregley 4 years ago
you didn't have 30k tanks. Besides, look at battles in Iraq. Iraqi crews weren't that well trained BUT, abrams got hit multiple times and survived. t-72 got hit and were gone.
you can have 30k tanks but if none of the guys want to fight then it doesn't matter. Russian tanks might have been alright until leo and abrams came out, but not after.
gosciu555 4 years ago
No, Russia did actually does. Pick up "The Cold War" by Colonel John Hughes-Wilson (NATO/SIS) (Ret) and read it. BTW, I'm not Russian.
You may also want to check the actual numbers on our involvement in the first Gulf War. US troops numbered only about 35,000 active deployed and the Iraqis had less than 500 T72 MBTs, all of which were older export versions.
US tanks outnumbered Iraqi tanks, largely consisting of T34s and T55s.
This was taken from "UN Forces- 1945-1992".
jregley 4 years ago
your an idiot look at the isp rating
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
The T-55 launches the AT-10 Stabber, to be precise. :)
cwjian90 3 years ago
yada yada yada ! the swe Strv122 is still the best tank.
Yes its basicly a leopard,Just improved.
h4tefury85 4 years ago
lol so shitty
asease1234 4 years ago
this tank would pawn your piece of shit abrams with ease! and this tank is old... the T-90 would fucking own your ass!
bittemeinrammstein 4 years ago
ammm... what you are talking about abrams?, but anyway arbrams are better
asease1234 4 years ago
abrams suck compared to the T-80's and T-90's the abrams can beat a type-98 and the chellenger and may even stand a good chance against a leopard... but the T-80 and T-90 would own the abrams!
bittemeinrammstein 4 years ago
Yeah!
I think his a tankist/tanker!
Listen to him, bittlemeinrammstein!
Su37rulez 4 years ago
:) i think that was for me... thanks :D i am a tanker!
bittemeinrammstein 4 years ago
yeah ok thats why u people are retarded the abrams is older but has way better sighting and a new armour packge not and the turet is the fastest in the world
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
umm... dude all tanks have add on packages idiot! XD stupid ass...
wow... turret is 1 milli-second faster than ours BIG FUCKING WOOP! out gun is bigger and our tanks have a longer effective range T-90 scored a 1 hit kill on the move from 6,000 meters! can you shitty abrams do that! NO!!! best your piece of shit can hit is 4,000 meters... by the time you assholes know we are there BOOM! your already dead!
bittemeinrammstein 4 years ago
mistake: *our*
bittemeinrammstein 4 years ago
Also it can hit a target goin full speed at 3000m. wich is faster then the t90. Also it has a lower silowet with a highr ground clearence. also does not have a autoloader wich jams easily. and last of all we have over 8500 of them you havelike 200 t90's im sorry but the m1 wins.
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
are you honestly that stupid XD... first of all you tard... the abrams is 3 1/2 ft. taller than the T-90 dumbass XD... and the T-90 has ground speed of 61MPH the abrams has ground speed of 54MPH... so yeah your stupid
and no you dont have 8000 you over hyping dumbshit USA only operates 2,000 abrams total (M1, and M2) while russia operates 3,600+ (T-80's and T-90's) and for your info. we have almost 600 T-90's dude XD
bittemeinrammstein 4 years ago 2
Bittemeinrammstein...both tanks do not exceed 50 MPH. They go in the mid 40's...this is not KMH
BugattiVeyron123 4 years ago
to bad if you do hit us(but you wont) the round will never penetrate. Our round couldnt penetrate either. there both good tanks. the abrams is better in the fact thatthe turret is alot faster. better sighting not jst in range but day nightelevation windige.
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
okay... our rounds were specifically developed to penitrate an abrams BTW our heat high explosive rounds can penitrate over 900MM of armor plus the abrams only has 800MM armor in the front og the turret! XD our sights are far better we have thermal sights, night sights, infared sights, and laser range finder, not to mention our guns are more powerful, have longer range, and we have more tanks than you do! XD
bittemeinrammstein 4 years ago
I want to penetrate a girl.. you guys know what a girl is?
Kenzofeis 4 years ago 2
no? whant to tell me?
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
1st of all our tank has the same sighting yours does. were do you even get your facts from? If you live in russia that sucks for you. our tank is better and you know it. our armour may be that thick but is chobam. your tanks has the same shit. we also the only way to destory an abrams and kill its crew is to hit the ammo storage. wich if you do the hatches and everythine else blow out.
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
God, you're American? Look, I am too.
I own models of the T-80 and M1 and the M1 is clearly a LOT taller. You haven't seen the outstanding performance of Egyptian T-62s against Israeli M60s in 1973 Yom Kippur, have you?
See the "T-80 vs M1" video and you'll see the Russians at a testing range blow up an Abrams with an extremely outdated Russian ATGM missile launcher.
They have over 30000 T-80s and have over 20000000 troops.
Nobody has ever messed with Russia's ground troops and won.
jregley 4 years ago
ooo yeah everheard of aganastan. fuck you they dont have 200000000
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
Are you fourteen?
No wonder people here call you stupid.
Go to " fas (dot) org" and check "Foreign Weapon Systems" and click on "Russia".
As of 2005-
Active Forces- 960,600
Reserves- 20,000,000
Try reading the numbers closer.
The T-80 is better because of its lower production cost. They also have an absolute LOAD more MBTs and SAMs than we do.
jregley 4 years ago
yeah you asshole every male in that countey is considerderd reserve. Production cost of the abrams is Free you now why> cause were the best country and will never pay oour debts and everyonr no's that
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
go get gay with your idiot president, dumbshit
maxhall69 4 years ago
i hate busch
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
May I kindly ask then what the other 100+ some million Russian men are doing if every single person is a reservist?
I got that out of any respectable world atlas. National Geographic is a pretty good source.
jregley 4 years ago
there not the biggest china is. ever hear of th airforce??? they will win the war not tanks
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
Chinese air force is comprised mainly of modified old Sovietic copies but because of new relations they are now being equiped with Su-27's. China is powerful but is not undefeatable and it would be wise to also look at their history. For nearly 2,000 years they have been peaceful and only went to war in desperate times. Yes they make a great friend but can also be a nasty enemy. Same goes for Russia:)
strizhi 4 years ago
Air power doesn't win ground battles...that's what GROUND FORCES are for...the air force just helps.
cwjian90 4 years ago
You will never win a ground battle if you do not control the air.
dalifar 4 years ago
like every US sattelite (even spy sattelite) lanch by Russian roket-it is fact too
vaninec 4 years ago
Check out the C-130 Laser Cannon, search that up, it will eventually make obsolete current missles of any type.
dalifar 3 years ago
Check out the S-400 system, search it up, it will eventually make air supremacy a thing of the past.
rusak24 3 years ago
Why are you posting comment about SAM in a tank vid?
seriousmtb 3 years ago
Yeah, but the point is, you need both. One cannot supplant the other.
cwjian90 3 years ago
yeah a missle can blow up any tank dumbass. its the survivalbitlity of an abrams wich is the best also the gun is the best canon in the world. the abrams is 13inches taller!!! the turret is faster too. there both great tanks but the tech in the new abrams is a lot better then what you think.
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
the U.S buys its tank cannon from a German company called Reinmetal. So does most of NATO, Idiot, your weapons are nothing special
maxhall69 4 years ago
no but our rounds are
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
all rounds are NATO standard, exept we use tungsten, insted of toxic DU
maxhall69 4 years ago
i use those same 1s when i hunt rabbit
uuuultra 4 years ago
Actually, being taller is not a good thing, my friend.
cwjian90 3 years ago
an m60 is just a sherman with a difrent gun get your facts right and stick to french you dumbass
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
FAS's analytical information is much better than yours and I think that's why government institutions trust them probably more than you, where you're probably fourteen because of your rampant swearing.
Have you even ever fired a real, live firearm in your life? Did you actually serve any military time? The two answers to that are most likely "no", and definitely no.
jregley 4 years ago
ever hear of rotc> well thats me!!!
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
Yes. And their training programs, from an ex-D1 athlete from Wisconsin at Madison, are not very stellar.
I think there's a reason why three of my ex team comrades that are in the service are in special force groups. One is a Green Beret, one is a SEAL, and the third is a Spetsnaz (he went back to Russia.)
jregley 4 years ago
Maybe you should brush up on your atrociously horrid English mannerisms, enunciation, and speech capabilities.
Due to the fact that we have lost over 100 M1 tanks and other billions of dollars in equipment in Iraq by conventional explosives, I'm not enfranchised to believe Western superiority.
The war would probably be over already if the troops actually took a page from the CIS's dealings with Chechnya and decided to flatten the earth 3 more inches every month.
jregley2 4 years ago
Imagine the horror of the liberal left if we Brits fought like Russians. The difference is they have a leader who doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks. He just does what is necessary to win!
rupert81 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
JEBAĆ ROSJĘ! Fuck Russia!
MetalMilitiaGda 4 years ago
spierdalaj HUJU Jebany!!!To Ciebei Trzeba Jebac a nie Rosje!!Dupek!!
axkorn 4 years ago
Prymitywny rusofil
MetalMilitiaGda 4 years ago
Spiepszaj Zdrajco!!
axkorn 4 years ago
chyba spieprzaj:| Ja zdrajca?? Zdrajcą jest ten kto wspiera Rosjan!!!
MetalMilitiaGda 4 years ago
To ciebie trzeba Jebac Kurwa dupek!!!Szlach jebany!
axkorn 4 years ago
Jesteś niebezpiecznym rusofilem.
MetalMilitiaGda 4 years ago
a kim Ty jestes??POlska dupe stanom podstawia a stany tylko wykorzystuja nas,POlscy Chlopaki gina w afganistanie i irakie a za co? za to ze tacy jak Ty dupe podstawiaja!!!
axkorn 4 years ago
fuck you! russia would fucking stomp your ass
bittemeinrammstein 4 years ago
In Chechenya, the insurgents used multiple RPGs, they would hit the tank from various places from side rear rooftop etc... Hitting the T-64s and T-72s in their most vulnerable places. Even rear T-80 armor would be vulnerable.
SolidSnake311 4 years ago
that was before we had shtora-1 and arena on our tanks bud!
bittemeinrammstein 4 years ago
but the point is so the rocket dont hit the tank and no wone rocket can hit the tank
ggkiler 4 years ago
Ah well... the SPG9 is not that modern really. The armour penetration is as low as 300-400mm RHA, the speed is also low. It is not the right weapon to defeat a T80. The tank could easily withstand the shit even without Arena.
sobr21azzaro 4 years ago
you seem have no idea what you're talking about if you say that a T80 or any tank can easily withstand a SPG9 hit :)
Suyamu 4 years ago
I'd expect a T-80 to withstand it, considering it is armed with ERA defense. I wouldn't expect an M1A1 or an M1A2 to survive a hit though, their armour is designed purely against other tank projectiles.
fasddd 4 years ago
No, Chobbam armor was developed with HEAT type projectiles in mind. An M1 is VERY resistant to HEAT rounds.... But not invulnerable as Iraq has proved (Both M1s and Challenger 2s taken out with RPG-29s)
Buxxby 4 years ago
Define taken out. If you mean penetrated then yes. If you mean tank or crew loss then sorry no. T-80s and T-90s even with K5 have been shown to be vulnerable across the front to that weapon.
EasyEs 4 years ago
The SPG9 is just 73mm. Im not saying that it all depents on the caliber, but the armour penetration is just around 300-400 mm RHA and a T80 can withstand it - maybe not in the rear, but everywhere else.
sobr21azzaro 4 years ago
when i was in the m80 hit by one of em im still not happy :D
commandoPR 4 years ago