DESTROYED is a very different thing from what are largely DISABLED tanks shown in this video. Of course they CAN be destroyed but It's not an easy thing to accomplish, not easy at all. In 10 years of war in Iraq only ~80 have been damaged badly enough to have to leave service and only a third of those were destroyed. Additionally, of those destroyed many were tanks that the crew destroyed so they wouldn't fall into enemy hands when they were disabled in combat.
Hahaha we were over there for 10 years. Do you think that nothing bad would happen? The funny thing is most of those tanks that got destroyed were from road bombs because those pussy's can't kill them any other way. Wish you would show pictures of all the shit the American's killed.
Hey Americans...you silly numbnuts are supposed to be the best in hi tech stuff. how can your overly hyped up Abrams be so easily destroyed by low tech civilian insurgents using low tech stuff????? hahahaaa.....classic stupid Americans.
3500 iraqi tanks destryoed in 1st iraq war who knows how many in the second. Over 1 millions iraqis killed in 2nd war. God bless america, Destroyers of iraqis.
Вашему танку только в фильмах сниматся и то в комедиях про американскую армию, он для военных действий, особенно в городских условиях... не преднозначен!
Единственный плюс - лобовая броня по сравнению с т-90. Но рекламируют его качественно. Но я бы хорел написать пару важных строк: в тихом омуте черти водятся, а рекламу можно сделать всему, но никакая реклама не сделает из г*вна конфетку.
To your tank only in films to act in film and that in comedies about the American army, it for military operations, especially in city conditions... It is not intended!
Unique plus - the front reservation in comparison with t-90. But advertize it qualitatively. But I would like to write pair of important lines: still waters run deep, and advertizing can be made to everything, but no advertizing will make from г*вна a candy.
o and just a quick thought, the tanks that are sold to other countrys are sold with out the depleted uranium, so ever thing that could effect what u are seeing.
the same goes for the t-90 ever see one of these tanks destroyed it might be a choped up model.
u will never see to fully upgraded tanks going at it.
@gaars1990 yeah they dont have armor, its because material used in this tanks suppose to have ceramic and metal properties, hence not needing armor. but its design is flawed, like engine is open from back, where it can get hit, plus space between chasi and turret have gap where chock wave generated by RPG will rip it open. well thats why we have wars to try and improve weapons :D
@NdzDJ No i'm talking about the Iraq armed forces only at least 20 were destroyed by taliban ied's most were destroyed by T-72s and T-80s a fraction were destroyed by rpg's i mean no disrespect i support the U.S Army the U.S marines the U.S Air force the U.S navy and the U.S Coast Guard and any other country helping with the Iraq and Afghanistan war i'm just trying to hand out fact's not the shit fact's that you hear on the news.
when an M1 is disabled, instead of wasting time. The crew will abandon the tank, and send its coordinates to the airforce for termination so the enemy cant take or salvage the parts... So basically. This video is taking credit for the US airforce's jobs. The only thing here that would Really fuck up a tank is an IED, As seen at 2:46 in the video, and even that wouldn't kill the crew some of the time. But it most DIFFIDENTLY WILL destroy the tank, But then again, the IED must be atleast 400Lbs
fantastica destrucion de los tanques ABRAMS ni siquiera estos formidables tanques pueden contra una poblacion desidida en mantener su libertad, si bien este es el 3er mejor tanque del mundo toda construcion hecha por el mismo hombre se puede destruir por el mismo hombre, es por eso que el destino de los famosos LEOPARD2 debe de ser el mismo.........
its still the most advance tank in the world. nothing is indestructible, anything can be destroyed. and i bet you over half of those tanks, the crews from them still survived...
so many motion videos of US troops and tanks blowing up Iraqis and Afgans , but none of blowing the ass up of US Abramses and other US armor vehicles , so much of being objective
The M1 has become very iconic for the enemies of America because of how well it performs in battle and also for crew survivability...... now Iraq is getting the M1,M1's more than likely knocked out in Iraq,sent home for a rebuild and returned to the very country it saw service in.....they know first hand how well it is
yes, 90% of these tanks were scuttled. some were stuck or there was something burning behind it. FYI to habibs the tank has never been destroyed by a dirext hit. its by us scuttling clasified instruments. and the reason there are only strykers and not any track on the roads in iraq is to save your sorry ass pavement
those pics are little pic about how much tank damaged ,,, U.S FORCES never want any tv show to Photography those damaged tanks in iraq,,, for much thing that i dont know why,in the last year I did not see the tanks and bradly in iraqi street,there is a stryker only
0:33... that is not "Destroyed" that is called getting stuck...? And @GREATBRITISHGAMER I will find u a link.... Also, most of these were destroyed by the Tank Operators... it's called they don't want their designs stolen....
@usafpilot29 you idiot its still a leopard 2 weither its a new model or what
ok lets compare leopard 2a7 to abrams m1a2 tusk sep.
leo2a7
improved climate control(which abrams has)
urban warfare kit which is adopted from the abrams
better coms and satnav(which abrams has)
better at protection aka slat armor or ribbed armor hollowed armor what ever will disrupt the jet of metal right o thats right the abrams has that to.
@usafpilot29 now for the abrams abrams m1a2sep tusk coms and satnav climate control slat armor ceramic reactivearmor urban warfare package inproved roof armor better thermal and urban sights a hard line in the rear of the tank for crew and troops improved target dectetion and recongnition underarmor auxailiry power unit i might be missing a few but basicaly you are getting our sep and tusk package. ever think that the germans and americans share technology?
@firebirdbill89gta You fucking retard, the different models of the Leopard 2's have different improvements. You must be the dumbest shit I've ever seen for not knowing that. If they are "ALL THE SAME" then why the fuck are they given model identification numbers? Wow? What the fuck do you work as? A fucking plumber? Or are you some fat 12 year old kid sitting on the computer 24/7 awaiting embolizim.
@usafpilot29 hahah u must be some type of twat, usaf pilot either ur a fuckin fake or u just a cocky flyboy typical of your type i type when i have time because stupid cunts like u assume u know everything
i gave u fact where the fuck are ur facts mister pilot.
leo2a7 is the top of the chain u retarted MEANING it has everything the previous models have and more what kind of a dolt are you? would u like to argue it bec i can quote you.
@usafpilot29 i never said every model was the same but i did mention it was still a leopard 2 which even someone as limited as u can see weither its a leopard 2 a7 or leopard 2 a7+5x24 super deathstar german wartank ship maching vehicle its still a fuckin leo2.
im a war enthusist learn about tanks guns tatics, im young but not dumb, and im getting ready to join the military, i can be anyone i want on the internet but ill be me
im 18 my name is bill and i still have enough sense to use facts
what the fuck do u even know about tanks? what do u know about aircraft, guns, troops, wars, tatics?
where the fuck is ur facts ur a fuckin internet ganster u talk big shit but when confronted with facts that you cant deny you turn to insults yes i did to but i did not start it, its funny to do it but not when ur losing an argument ill remain civilized from this point it, bec i know im right and i bring facts to the table.
@r4f4st4n1 im supporting facts, i like both abrams and leo 2 u can keep the challenger i like the t-90 and t-80 but if people refuse to look at fact over fiction then ill argue, no disrecpect to any of u i just enjoy the arguement and i get a good laugh at the things some people say, im not trying to be a tough guy believe me i just cant stand a internent gangster same with a phone gangster, my bag grammer and profuse language does not mean i dont know tanks
@firebirdbill89gta So am I, you don't know how much i've been laughing at an idiot who says a F15 killed a T50, Thing is, you sounded more like a baddass than anything else to me.
@r4f4st4n1 lol well i dont see the incapability of the f-15 being able to kill it, but seeing as its in pretest and preproduction phase and only 3? mabye 4 where ever flown. the pak fa is essentially a interceptor for the f-22
wether it will be able to fill such big shoes is doubtful, but no impossible seeing as it is kinda being built after the f-22 and u can argue but they look the same, the russians are only missing the thrust vectoring engines.
@firebirdbill89gta Yeah, a Mig 21 can kill a F22 or a pakfa if those two have awful pilots. PAKFA is the first russian stealth fighter since they had none, F22 being the pride of the USAF, people think the PAKFA is meant to counter it, it's better yes, but it ain't a fighter, F22 is, however the PAKFA has better dogfighting capabilities than the F22, it should be named as a multyrole.
Err.. The PAKFAs engine is 3d vectoring thrust.. F22 only 2d, what are they missing again? :3
@r4f4st4n1 to my knowledge the pakfa the pak is powered by the al-41f engines, but they do plan to put upgraded 117s in with the possibility of 3d vectoring engines.
main problem i see is the plane being extremely hard to fly, and multiple risks.
we can really say the pak will be better as it is not being built on a large scale, and if we want to get into better planes the yf-23 should have gotten the contract.
The pakfa's current engines are the same as the SU35 with 3d vectoring thrust. ALL Sukhois are "hard" to fly and take more time to master due to their low stability and high maneuverability, but that's the idea of a jetfighter is it not?
Raptors engines are good but not 3 dimensional. Dogfighting is not dead the moment jets don't have cruise missiles lol. So far T50s design has proven to be better.
@r4f4st4n1 got alot to say not enough room to say it, its the same every where i type. we are not on a form so this page is gona get flooded.
su-37 has thrust vectoring engines su-35 does not.
no the objective of any vehicle is to make it simple to use, keeps costs down and training short and cheap.
if it was better it would be in production and no jets do not have cruise missles but they have aim-120s which do mach 3-4+ so id say its gona catch u pretty fast.
@firebirdbill89gta SU35 HAS thrust vectoring I'm sure. The SU27 does not. Also, they do mach 3-4 but good luck hitting a jet that has a 90º angle with a missile, they're easily evadable and when you shoot them at 8km your opponent even has time to drink a coffee. SU35/37/47 and the T50 have far more maneuverability than the F22, that's a fact, you can do all the magic you want in the world, ain't gona convince me otherwise about the maneuverability.
@r4f4st4n1 no i assure the su-27 was it and it was only made for show, su35 was operational.
if it has su-35 engines it doesnot have 3d thrust engines. it would not be the first time a jet was hit at a high angle, they do not have more maneuverability then f-22, im not trying to convince u, i dont need to we wont ever know whos jet is better.
one thing i do know is the pak fa was built to be more manuverable at the cost of being much less stealthy then the f-22
@firebirdbill89gt The PAKFA has better radar and maneuverability than the F22, it's LESS stealth, NOT "Much less". tripleW(.) blokeish (.) com(space)/2010/04/russia-developes-fifth-generation-fighter-pak-fa-t-50-to-counter-us-f22-and-jsf-f-35/
The PAKFA is the best fighter in the world at the moment, sorry.
The world better without the US? Lets see.. no Iraqi civvie deaths, no bilderberg group, no capitalism, no war.. Yes, without US's political presence, the world would be paradise C:
@r4f4st4n1 so explain to me how u can best an enemy u can see, or lock on to.
now while i do agree the other kid was dumb, he was not incorrect, the f-15 is beating the t-50 because it has been operational, and was in production other then that it would be a good fight.
they are all great jets, im not pro f-22 because if u ask me the f-22 and t50 are over priced and over rated, they are un needed in this worlds economy,
@firebirdbill89gta Stealth reflects electromagnetic waves, does NOT absorb them, plasma stealth which was originally planned for the PAKFA does absorb electromagnetic waves and therefore you can't see the target. What I'm trying to say is: GOOD stealth works at 8-5km+, closer than that, a pakfa/f22/B2 is easily detected by a normal jet's sensors. The pakfa can detect the Raptor from 10km+ I'm sure.
But then again, firing missiles at 8km? Good luck hitting your target.
@r4f4st4n1 the stealth material on the f22 obsorbs radar waves as well as deflects it, plasma is very intresting but i believe it has yet to be implemented, and the f-22 will not be detected untill it is within seeing distance and by that time a missle is within killing range and due to the helmet system they can be next to u and still fire a missle at u.
the f22 is actually considered a 4th gen fighter by the usaf so if we are being technical the f22 is not a match for the pak fa
@r4f4st4n1 because it is not in the same class so to make it even more....i dont know a word for it so ill just say sad, is that it is having a hard time against the f22. and the russians will deam it a 4th gen fighter due to the fact we do not deam it a 5th gen, how ever the f35 joint strike fighter is then deemed the contender for the pak fa. and i will agree that the f35 is not the best contender
@firebirdbill89gta The F35 was a F22 made for AC's, therefore a multirole since it has to have ATS capabilities. Of course in a dogfight theF22 would kill the F35, so another no match for the T50. A duel between those two WILL have missiles, at distances such as 5km they WILL be detected by eachother. Too bad I have no news on the t50's gun. But it will have one obviously. The Sukhois sacrifice alot of stability for maneuverability which is the correct thing to do.
@r4f4st4n1 how ever i dissagree with ur statement of the f35.
even though it is a joint strike fighter it is extremely manuverable, and these 2 planes rely on experienced pilots which are abundent in the u.s
the t50 does not have hmds to my knowledge. and the f22 will not be detected i dont know how to explain it to u. but the fact is we wont know, we will never know unless the russians start building t50s and the americans and russians decide to have a air bout
@firebirdbill89gta Our Portuguese pilots easily take your US pilots place for piloting your own aircraft, US hasn't got many experienced pilots, you want the best pilots? Go to Israel.
T50 has no HMD? Sorry but that's fake: it would be useless then for a 21st century aircraft, it's still classified. duh.
We already know something about R(us)AF vs USAF: watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M&feature=channel_video_title
Also, who invented stealth?Russians, American's couldn't master it..
@r4f4st4n1 so finally ur true colors show, the dude ur talking to is retarted, but u urself have a huge bias.
i like the su-47 thought it was cool, but i realized it never had any combat capability. the t-50 is still in devlopment so to say its anyless expensive then the f22 project is rediculous, and the unit cost is unreal.
the yf-23 was less manuverable (like i said) but stealthier how ever with that said a fighter does not need to be as stealthy as a f117.
@firebirdbill89gta My true colours? What? Am I supposed to support the US's campaign for profit on Iraq/Afghan/etc? Sorry but no :c.
The F117 is as stealthy as a mig21 LOL, shot down by a 50s AA in Bosnia if I'm not mistaken, I know it was on one of those countries, sorry but I don't remember it.
YF23 is canceled, also, in a dogfight it would be ravaged by a Mig29.
@r4f4st4n1 the f117 ur mentioning was the only one ever shot down, it was hit by a SA-3 Goa if u read the combat report it was only by chance that it was shot down.
no mig 29 is shooting down any yf-23 ever stop being unrealistic, one if he can find it he can kill it, how are u gona kill something u can see.
its time to wake up bro, im trying to stay civil with u but u r getting out of hand here.
every time we saw a mig29 it was hitting the ground
@r4f4st4n1 im ingnoring ur vids because i dont care
9M119 Svir
operational range:4000-5000m
Rheinmetall 120 mm gun
operational range:4000m with DM63
8000m with LAHAT
r u that dense russians did not invent stealth lockheed did with the f117.
we perfected stealth with the b-2 bomber. we have other aircraft that where perfect examples of our advancment in stealth. we had stealth attack aircraft since 81.
we where the first to use radar obsorbing materials, and to implement the shape of
@firebirdbill89gta Your both wrong. And firebird your stupid as always. Horten Ho 229 made by Nazi Germany was the first ever practically Stealth airplane. Which was invinceble on radars of WWII the Americans captured the prototype and engineers. Making the F117 which is complete rippoff.
@firebirdbill89gta You know what? Soviet Union really did invent the first practically Stealth airplane. How? Well you see, you still haven't figured out what kind of plane it is. HAHAHA! Get it? While your fapping about your stealth plane, Soviet kept it secret from the world. well it's probably destroyed by now or rusting in a bunker some where in siberia.
@firebirdbill89gta You're ignoring my vids with valid and strong FACTS? Ok, am I supposed to believe your imaginary numbers? Grow up, open your eyes and stop being a government sheep. It's funny how you americans thought you invented everything, tv, jets, etc. But Sorry, no.
Stealth was first created by russians as stated in the vids with the truth you dont want to see.
Your B2 is easily detected by a satellite, and when those Migs/SU's get close to it, it's instanly dead.
@r4f4st4n1 and im ingnoring ur vids because video is not solid fact, what can be passed on from word of mouth (combat veterans) and if im spending my time reading why watch a video which will show the same out come.
u cry about propaganda? all my websites show that like and i hate to say it smgjohn said the ho229 was built to reduce all drag and to reduce the radar sig.
this was the first plane to use shapes to reduce radar signature.
@firebirdbill89gta "Your" Websites? you sent nothing to me. Tv along with bills of other inventions you americans think you created. You're not the kinds/cops of the world neither you have to right to invade others for profit, but thats another story. My vids are not valid facts? That's why you counter them so easily :o (not.)
@r4f4st4n1 im ingnoring ur vids for he sole reason that i dont care about what a video shows, unless it shows a t-90 engaging a abrams in direct combat i dont care.
untill these 2 beasts fight ur wasting ur time, start using facts and statics. because i can make a video of an abrams reinforce it and hit it with a hellfire and go look our tanks the greatest even a hellfire cant kill it.
its ever time i give u written facts u come back with watch this watch that
@firebirdbill89gta Your ignoring my vids cos you can't counter them, the other kid that said a F15 can down a T50 managed to stfu and be educated by me and my vids, and therefore, get a higher IQ, you just keep denying the truth, So, do this: Show me a vid of a Mig21 being shot down by a F22 else the Mig 21 is better than the F22.
This is your american retarded way of thinking. You already ran outta arguments. The vid clearly shows the T90 is superior and you CANNOT deny it.
@r4f4st4n1 i dont need to watch vids they are pointless, if i was gona counter then id start postig videos and im not going there. ill post specs meet specs with specs, or dont reply.
there is a possibility that a f-15 can take down a t-50, it is not impossible, u show ur lack of realism by stating this, even if there is a 1 in a million chance there is still a chance.
are u dense f86 sabres shot down mig21s how the fuck is a f22 not gona get real dude.
@firebirdbill89gta "even if there is a 1 in a million chance there is still a chance." Yet you told me the Mig21 downing a F22 is unrealistic? Lul, I was being sarcastic at your stupidity, go look on your american dictionaries the word "sarcasm". As far as I know the Sabres were inferior to the MIGs, even your american documentaries stated that, it's as simple as 2+2.
@firebirdbill89gta How ever its not unrealistic for a f15 to shoot down a f22 ?
It's thanks to being the MAN not the machine the russians had the upper hand, they both had the machine and the men. Better mileage? Lul, how much times are these repaired? Do you sell tanks according to their miliage as well? LOL. range (not weapon) matters and T90 can do much more than the M1.
@firebirdbill89gta No tank is weight 64 tons, thats why it's the best of its class LOL, lol at you americans claiming your the best in the topic only you play (abrams, rugby) seriously.
So, a vehicle with a bigger engine is faster? OK: Put a yamaha R1 next to a bus, see who wins. Typical american mentality c: Reactive armour doesnt need much space, yet it's proven to be the future armour for tanks, better than your M1 uranium armor
@firebirdbill89gta "With a weight of close to 68 short tons (almost 62 metric tons), it is one of the heaviest main battle tanks currently in service. The M1 Abrams" I'm sure no tanks weigh 64 tons.
Russian tanks have reactive armour, light and better than depleted uranium, it's physics. The busa has basically the same weight as the R1, the bus has a bigger engine and is heavier, same relation as the M1/t90, the T90's lighter and faster.
@r4f4st4n1 ok and the leo-2 is 1 full short ton heavyer? does weight counter act protection? i think not, both tanks have a high power to weight ratio.
m1a2 weighs 67.6 short tons
leopard 2 weighs 68.7 short tons
challenger 2 weighs 68.9 short tons
its time to do ur reaserch. iv played nice its time for a wake up call dude, out of the 3 leading mbts it is the lightest.
@r4f4st4n1 umm a regular septa bus will have about 200bhp and its only a 4cyl it also weighs 40,000.
so in my oppinion the power to weight wins hence the busa
are u tlking ass backwards?
reactive armor is good against explosive(explosive reactive armor) shape charges and such.
sabots are conetic penetraters, they will push a hole through era because it is not dense, if u use hesh rounds u will smash the era right off the tank.
@firebirdbill89gta There are buses with about 400hp, but fine, take a truck for example: my point is, bigger engine doesn't necessarily means more acceleration/power, for example, I'm faster on my NSR125 which only has about 28hp, vs a 100hp car, but that's until ~110km/h or so, from 110-120 forward the car will win. Reactive armour will always be lighter and more effective than depleted uranium no matter how you brag about it, physics win.
@firebirdbill89gta A 400hp truck is certainly NOT faster than a 200hp motorcycle rofl. Reactive armour will counter ANYTHING with its' explosions, it's FAR more effective than Uranium which as we can see up here, gets downed by china made RPGs. In georgia no t90s were destroyed by the weapons the americans supplied to the georgians.
@r4f4st4n1 never said a 400hp truck i said iv seen trucks that will beat bikes.
uranium is far more dense then reactive armor, it is one of the best armors fielded on a tank, also no one really knows the exact makeup of the abrams armor.
du will stop sabots better then era, it will stop hesh rounds better, the t-90 took 7 rpgs and contiuned to operate. the abrams has taken 7+ rpgs in a combat inviornment and continued to operate.
@firebirdbill89gta I'm sure you saw 50cc bikes getting beaten by trucks.
Uranium is heavier and not as good as reactive armor. Also no one really knows the exact makeup of the T90.
So your M1's manage to take 7RPGs up their ass against non trained insurgents? Hmm. We can see that it can take 7 rpgs here in this vid, the one up here see? In the tests I sent you, you can't prove me the M1 has better mobility so lets move on.
@r4f4st4n1 umm if u think a s10 that has a twin turbo 454 lsx, tubbed rear, and power glide trans wont beat the hell out of a busa ur sorely mistaken, it runs 6-7 secs in a quarter mile depending on when he gets on the throttle.
uranium is denser, it will stop sabots 100% better then a era plate, era is useful at stoping shapecharges and explosives.
no one knows the exact make up of any modern tank who broadcasts what they have, all we have are empty facts, and spectulations
@r4f4st4n1 i can prove the m1 has better mobility,
the t-90 only sports a 18.6 hp to ton ratio while the abrams has a 21.6 hp/ton ratio
the t-80 has a better power to weight ratio then the t-90
Allison DDA X-1100-3B should be a more power robbing trans due to its heavy gearing, and just think the abrams tank is governed and it still has a better power to weight ratio.
@r4f4st4n1 reactive armor will only take so much, it is not dense and while effective against shape charges it is not very effective against sabot penetrators.
dont make ur self look stupid trying to compare a bus to a bike, the motor on a bus is built to move large ammounts of weight and be fuel efficency, a r1 is built on the premise of moving quickly.
a motor built for speed is not thte same as a motor built for towing.
@r4f4st4n1 t-90 is more compact its a smaller tank how ever smaller is not always better, a smaller tank means less armor, it also means small crew space, and it means that the interior does not supress shockwaves, many other things are draw backs of being small.
reactive armor is added to the abrams in the tusk kit.
abrams is not penetrated easily by anymeans.
even when hit by shaped charge ieds.
this type of ied can and will kill any other type of vehicle.
@firebirdbill89gta "abrams is not penetrated easily by anymeans." Look up, to the vid.
Americans choose armour? Name a vehicle with reactive armour then, M1 can't have it.
Smaller and more compact>bigger and less compact. Never seen a M1 jumping or going offroad at high speeds like the T90, T90 wins in mobility/offroad speed
Defense? Reactive armour, SHTORA, enough said. Abrams is penetrated by chinese weapons as we can see in the vid.
@r4f4st4n1 the fastest busa was the turbo busa, and it did 200mph+ now the busa does 186mph but can and will go 195mph. if u can remove the governer u can still do 200+.
so does a bigger motor mean its better, no however it does mean more displacement, the turbine engine is not accounted by this, as a large motor can be more inefficent, the smaller motor can be better.
while this is not always the case, it is possible.
@firebirdbill89gta The pics we see above show how good the M1 armor is, it is easily penetrated by 70s RPGs. The tank doesn't need to jump, the tank needs to surpass obstacles, you misunderstood my point. Idc if it jumps, I care if it's mroe maneuverable, faster offroad and in the worse terrains, the T90 has the upper hand here, end of story.
@r4f4st4n1 i see plenty of disabled tanks, but none that would kill the crew, i see alot of tanks with minimal damage, and its funny the abrams only has one combat death on its platform, so even if the tank looks like hell, it did its job in protecting the crew.
surpass obstacles? why not just run it over? the abrams weighs a TON it can and will go through a house if need be, why jump when u can go through.
the abrams is faster off road? i dont see what ur getting at?
@firebirdbill89gta Seals use M4 because it's USA made, else they'd use something such as an AK or HK: watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I
Yeah, try running through houses, see what extra armor you'll have on top of your RPG fragile M1. In a battle, when the tank's disabled the crew's pretty much fucked up if it was to exit the tank rofl.
Abrams is less agile than the T90, therefore slower off road.
@r4f4st4n1 and i am also talking about dense terrain, loose gravel, sand, heavy foiled terrain.
failure happens, one of the pics in this vid is from a video, where the tank ran over a large at mine, and all it did was knock the track off(and dislodged a side plate).
abrams is less agile(cant jump ramps) but can still do 30mph off road, while the t-90 is doing 28.
is 2mph really a big diffrence? well when the t-90 weighs about 10-20 tons less yes it is.
@firebirdbill 89gta The Abrams has a better top speed, however the T90 being lighter, more agile, having more maneuverability it will be able to reach its' top speed easier than the abrams offroad, That's why the T90 did 3km in the Malai jungle while abrams lost one of its track on a sloped portion of a testing track.
@r4f4st4n1 abrams can turn on a dime, this is what u dont understand, u have never served or seen the platform perform, so u would not know how it works.
the abrams has every thing u think it doesnot, got an uncle who has served on it, got friends who have served on it.
u have no clue how fast the abrams is it is much faster then u think.
aks will jam when not maintained, just as any gun will, aks are ruggend but not invincible, seals choose what they use
@firebirdbill89gta Abrams is slow when turning, I mean, compare the tests they are put through: watch?v=Ltqh-DYIx4o&feature=related
watch?v=Hjl-CDpDP9g
a 10 YO can choose which one's faster, maneuverable through these two basic vids.
I mean, how would the M1 surpass the first obstacle in the t90's vid? it would either do it in 1/10 of the speed or break something jumping at that speed LOL.
@r4f4st4n1 abrams is slow while turning??? are u joking, compare the tests they are put through.
abrams is tested extensivly, so is the t-90, but the m1a2 doesent have to do pretty little jumps, and prance around, they are both good tanks in their own aspect, t-90 is one of the first tanks to really field active protection and era.
add era to the abrams and aps and u have an unstopable tank.
@firebirdbill89gta Thefuck you brought up the attackers? There basically the same exept the A10 sacrifices speed for payload. Try the SU39, not the cold war SU25 duh. Lol, the M1 plow the jump? It'd either jump and disable one system or two or wouldn't make it at all, the T90 just jumped over it, a tank needs agility as well, we're in the 21st century AMERICANS.
@r4f4st4n1 actually no the a-10 sacrificed speed for survivability(full titanium cockpit) which alone makes up for 6% of the total aircrafts weight.
the a-10 as built to sustain direct hits form 57mm rounds, sry boss no aircraft is doing that other then the a-10.
and while the a-10 is a much more efficent cas and ground attack aircraft, the su-35 is not a bad plane at all, they where built with diffrent purposes.
@r4f4st4n1 the abrams would make the jump no prob, but if it hits a patch of dirt like if seen the t-90 jump it might just plow it.
think about it, what good is a tank if it loses systems due to a jump? the abrams can take large ieds and still have all systems, so how would a jump knock anything out, u might b right it would prob knock the infantry phone off the hook but that about it dude and that is not catastrophic
@r4f4st4n1 america hit the 21st century pretty quick while russia was still dealing with the fall of the ussr.
i think people never realized we where sending aid to the russians! from 1992-1997
a tank is not a rednecks toy it doesent need to pull fancy jumps, but it does need to perform. and just about every mbt can and will perform in combat.
umm if we can take a step back ur dads a portuguese green beret what battalion? is he light infantry or african rifle?
@firebirdbill89gta "aks will jam when not maintained" watch?v=RgrJElGOMMg *cough*
Well, my father is a Green Beret (Para trooper, Boinas Verdes (PT)) and he has to take a Galil into combat, however he doesn't like it that much because of the weight, Got some magazines over my room which show he got the first place in 200m shooting with the Galil in the IMTC EU challenges. (...)
@r4f4st4n1 iv seen aks jam so what are u even tlking about, iv also seen aks pulled out of the mud wiped off and fired. iv seen m4s beat to hell and they continue to fire
OOOO now ur dads a green beret. anythings possible, but doubtful.
the galil arm weighs 9.6 lbs they have a rough weight of 8.5-9.5 lbs depending on the version.
they are derived from the ak which weighs 11.5 lbs.
he dident like the weight of galil but let me guess he loved the heavyer ak
@firebirdbill89gta "iv seen m4s beat to hell and they continue to fire"<--LOL
He's a PORTUGUESE Green Beret, don't insult him by comparing him to the US SF please. After all, they called our forces "Ramboes" the moment the so called SEALs took 10L+ of water per men, and the portuguese did a better survival with just one bottle of water. Do I even need to mention the ´67 barracuda that completely destroyed a US AC in a military sim? Nope, he prefers the galil to the AK.
@r4f4st4n1 i wont insult him lol because it would be an insult to compare him to us spec ops, but no really if and i mean IF its true he is well trained, but he would stand no chance against a navy seal or delta officer.
10l per man? bro u got ur facts fucked up, during buds they get more they get the ocean! regular was is not givin unless rationed, and it is strictly rationed.
the seals deal with dehydration as a constant, and they deal with hypothermia almost the whole training
@r4f4st4n1 phase, u by comparing him to men who train on the brink of death is an insult and u are deaming his efforts by trying to compare them to a much more extreme type of traing.
he is closer trained to the united states airborne, he is a para troop right? so compare him to para troops.
if he wore the grass green beret he would be part of the spec ops, and he would then be comparable to the u.s rangers.
Do you fucking have a life? You keep ignoring my vids, ah well, I'll just send them, there's no way i'm reading 12 replies LOL, here: have fun countering them which is something you didn't do all this time:
@r4f4st4n1 LOL that was pretty funny, u know what i knoticed in that vid, all of the jumps the t-90 does are graduated, the only thing that impressed me was how propagandic it was, and how dumb the guy was trying to show an abrams but showing some chally2s, a leopard 2, and one that looked like a leclarc.
that was nice some major russian propaganda.
to shattered to post facts so u resort to showing clip vids, i feel like i wasted my time watching that it was pitiful
@firebirdbill89gta Sure they're graduated, atleast it jumps ;) Propagand you can't counter since it's supported by real facts.I love how you ignore what he says and only look at the images, LOL.
Typical moms basement american joke, shows how right I am, also: nice ignoring other vids and what the guy actually said ;)
@firebirdbill89gta The abrams wouldn't jump it, prove me wrong then, it can't take RPG's so what makes you think it can jump? Funny how it's propaganda and YOU CAN'T counter it, not gona bother since your comments are all about "its propaganda bla bla bla" and not countering shit.
@r4f4st4n1 the abrams wouldent jump the graduated jump lol so now the abrams defys physics? if it goes flying off that jump it would what? just teleport to the bottem? no it would go off and land making it a jump.
i cant counter it? it counters it self what are u even tlking about, play the vid look at the first few seconds and u will see a russian built tank getting hit and having a catastrophic explosion.
its funny how u keep on about being un counterable, if this is ur temper
@firebirdbi Strange how I spot no vids of an abrams jumping, all I hear is LET THE BUDDIES HIT THE FLOOR and the M1 popping smoke in front of a civvie car and "rocking the baby" on a cement test track LOL. On the other hand I see the T90 jumping, being much faster, surpassing many offroad obstacles, etc. Vid made by some kid? watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs <-- the kid must be a genious. Since no1 ever countered what's in that vid c:
Also, that vid is supported by what we see up there ;)
@r4f4st4n1 i like how u can state alot of shit about vids, and u waste time insulting me, and the abrams.
fact is u havent stated shit about the t-90, the go on and on and on about a JUMP who cares about a jump. jump what u want, jump a car, jump a school, jump ur self. bec when ur getting shot at ur not jumping shit.
that vid is supported by nothing, it is built on a empty prowess to show its might, every tank can do this.
@firebirdbill89gta I like how you state alot of shit PERIOD, you don't even back it up and you waste time insulting the vids supported by facts. So the vid talks about a jump the whole 3mins? See? You finally admitted I was right about it, so, you want me to spend 10 comments per topic of the vid? See why I don't copy paste what's in the vid anymore? Seriously.
Now you spoke to US troops all of a sudden.. sigh..
u la la la kebab alah, alalalala kebab mohamed, alalalala
TheBorizen 13 hours ago
ISLAMIC JIHAD WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ALLAHU AKBAR!!!ALLAH IS THE ONLY GOD!
nunvikingsofthesea 1 day ago
DESTROYED is a very different thing from what are largely DISABLED tanks shown in this video. Of course they CAN be destroyed but It's not an easy thing to accomplish, not easy at all. In 10 years of war in Iraq only ~80 have been damaged badly enough to have to leave service and only a third of those were destroyed. Additionally, of those destroyed many were tanks that the crew destroyed so they wouldn't fall into enemy hands when they were disabled in combat.
Snipe4261 1 week ago
@Snipe4261 yes and disables its out of service its exactly same
41 abram was totally destruct and burn like toilet paper
TATARSTAN59500 1 day ago
fake not 1 abrams tank has been ever taken out in combat
xRoyalPlayer 2 weeks ago
@xRoyalPlayer eso es lo que crees
TopoMan1114 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xRoyalPlayer fake not 1 abrams tank has been ever taken out in combat" LOL watch The real Abrams series here on youtube
BGSlopy 2 days ago
Гриль томми
leyt7 2 weeks ago
Америка говно вы не выиграли ниодной войны. Вы подстилка Аллаха вы умрете... убирайтесь вон псы вшивые...
Firod1314 3 weeks ago
@Firod1314 We won the cold war.
shakey0311 2 weeks ago
@shakey0311
u are still there, unforunatlly
rutrem09 2 weeks ago
machallah!!!!
MrSun74 3 weeks ago
Hahaha we were over there for 10 years. Do you think that nothing bad would happen? The funny thing is most of those tanks that got destroyed were from road bombs because those pussy's can't kill them any other way. Wish you would show pictures of all the shit the American's killed.
SoCxXerXceS 3 weeks ago
Hey Americans...you silly numbnuts are supposed to be the best in hi tech stuff. how can your overly hyped up Abrams be so easily destroyed by low tech civilian insurgents using low tech stuff????? hahahaaa.....classic stupid Americans.
menzerna1234 4 weeks ago
cowards nato countrys against one country very heroic hahaha
aldin276 4 weeks ago
янки позорные
MyDemon73 1 month ago
3500 iraqi tanks destryoed in 1st iraq war who knows how many in the second. Over 1 millions iraqis killed in 2nd war. God bless america, Destroyers of iraqis.
meronmotors 1 month ago
I love the USA and this music! I need this album!
trinimark123abc 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, yes and yes and yes cool hhhhh .fuck USA UK :UN:FN: fuck dem + USA+ Hittlerrrrrrrrrr.+Diktatur USA UK :UN:FN
Malang214 1 month ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från Sooda87
Allah Akbar!!!!
Ebtnah 1 month ago
Вашему танку только в фильмах сниматся и то в комедиях про американскую армию, он для военных действий, особенно в городских условиях... не преднозначен!
Единственный плюс - лобовая броня по сравнению с т-90. Но рекламируют его качественно. Но я бы хорел написать пару важных строк: в тихом омуте черти водятся, а рекламу можно сделать всему, но никакая реклама не сделает из г*вна конфетку.
xXxBRIKxXx 1 month ago
In the given message there can be errors.
To your tank only in films to act in film and that in comedies about the American army, it for military operations, especially in city conditions... It is not intended!
Unique plus - the front reservation in comparison with t-90. But advertize it qualitatively. But I would like to write pair of important lines: still waters run deep, and advertizing can be made to everything, but no advertizing will make from г*вна a candy.
xXxBRIKxXx 1 month ago
Yankee butthurt detected.
MrDrFaustt 1 month ago 2
SUPERCOOL!!!!!!!!.....
miguelexim 1 month ago
yeah..we lost some m1's...but we also crush u like little insects(stinky ones)
TheAlexx33 2 months ago
@TheAlexx33 you always walked on a foreign land and kill them, fuck you american terorrists...
sergeikozin47 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheAlexx33 2 months ago
o and just a quick thought, the tanks that are sold to other countrys are sold with out the depleted uranium, so ever thing that could effect what u are seeing.
the same goes for the t-90 ever see one of these tanks destroyed it might be a choped up model.
u will never see to fully upgraded tanks going at it.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
so its provit shut up yakee and stop wkith your m1 shit
indestructible
hehe terrorist have only rpg-7 so
TATARSTAN59500 2 months ago
ibeleve there is no god exebt alah he make this word
yazn1408 2 months ago
no one figh muslim won fuek for amareca
yazn1408 2 months ago
арабы молодцы !!!!!!!!
oleg79gg 2 months ago
I have some friends at school who "want" to join the army,they think being in the army is cool because you get to shoot guns and kill people.
I wish i could do something to stop them...
XTGNecro 3 months ago
Yankees - settling the nation. They power the U.S. - comes to an end. And they always have tanks were bad ....
SuperVarain 3 months ago
Pictures of the same tanks from different positions. Clever propaganda.
Can't wait to get all our troops out and let you infidels fight it out.
purpleblood93 3 months ago
Abrams has no armor like T-90, so that from an RPG Abrams will not be saved
gaars1990 3 months ago
@gaars1990 yeah they dont have armor, its because material used in this tanks suppose to have ceramic and metal properties, hence not needing armor. but its design is flawed, like engine is open from back, where it can get hit, plus space between chasi and turret have gap where chock wave generated by RPG will rip it open. well thats why we have wars to try and improve weapons :D
cooldj1980 3 months ago
"fuck sady" on a tank in 1:42
ner901 3 months ago
The Anti-tank weapon made the infantry equal to the tank.
warnation101 3 months ago
@NdzDJ No i'm talking about the Iraq armed forces only at least 20 were destroyed by taliban ied's most were destroyed by T-72s and T-80s a fraction were destroyed by rpg's i mean no disrespect i support the U.S Army the U.S marines the U.S Air force the U.S navy and the U.S Coast Guard and any other country helping with the Iraq and Afghanistan war i'm just trying to hand out fact's not the shit fact's that you hear on the news.
deathmot666 3 months ago
when an M1 is disabled, instead of wasting time. The crew will abandon the tank, and send its coordinates to the airforce for termination so the enemy cant take or salvage the parts... So basically. This video is taking credit for the US airforce's jobs. The only thing here that would Really fuck up a tank is an IED, As seen at 2:46 in the video, and even that wouldn't kill the crew some of the time. But it most DIFFIDENTLY WILL destroy the tank, But then again, the IED must be atleast 400Lbs
thebarcon 3 months ago
@thebarcon
you think the iraqis care about the stupid crew ?
they just want to destroy the tank and make you lose a lot of money
hwazn511 3 months ago
lovely pictures
MrLighter04 3 months ago
fantastica destrucion de los tanques ABRAMS ni siquiera estos formidables tanques pueden contra una poblacion desidida en mantener su libertad, si bien este es el 3er mejor tanque del mundo toda construcion hecha por el mismo hombre se puede destruir por el mismo hombre, es por eso que el destino de los famosos LEOPARD2 debe de ser el mismo.........
demoledor35 3 months ago
suck my dick haters i was there you werent dumb ass
ocbountyhunter 3 months ago
its still the most advance tank in the world. nothing is indestructible, anything can be destroyed. and i bet you over half of those tanks, the crews from them still survived...
ckkabramz 3 months ago
OH YEAH! NOW THIS IS WHAT I CALL ENTERTAINMENT!
SMGJohn 3 months ago
CooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL !!! =)
SuperGamoLa 3 months ago
approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks
killercivic 3 months ago
so many motion videos of US troops and tanks blowing up Iraqis and Afgans , but none of blowing the ass up of US Abramses and other US armor vehicles , so much of being objective
specnaz157 3 months ago
Comment removed
kutymacs 3 months ago
Comment removed
kutymacs 3 months ago
Comment removed
kutymacs 3 months ago
Comment removed
kutymacs 3 months ago
Great!!!!!!America must be destroyed!America it`s country of the antihrist!
nacionalistaism 3 months ago
its just a tank & it is destructible.
0515524847 3 months ago
i hope the most of them didnt died in the tank
force788 3 months ago
штук 30 танков потеряли пендосы, но страну захватили.
ladwoor 3 months ago
abrams are never destroyed the army brings them back to the us for rebuilding and retro fitting
TheWakenut 3 months ago
The M1 has become very iconic for the enemies of America because of how well it performs in battle and also for crew survivability...... now Iraq is getting the M1,M1's more than likely knocked out in Iraq,sent home for a rebuild and returned to the very country it saw service in.....they know first hand how well it is
Hardwoods91 3 months ago
yes, 90% of these tanks were scuttled. some were stuck or there was something burning behind it. FYI to habibs the tank has never been destroyed by a dirext hit. its by us scuttling clasified instruments. and the reason there are only strykers and not any track on the roads in iraq is to save your sorry ass pavement
desniper69 3 months ago
those pics are little pic about how much tank damaged ,,, U.S FORCES never want any tv show to Photography those damaged tanks in iraq,,, for much thing that i dont know why,in the last year I did not see the tanks and bradly in iraqi street,there is a stryker only
MrTalbtaha 3 months ago
0:33... that is not "Destroyed" that is called getting stuck...? And @GREATBRITISHGAMER I will find u a link.... Also, most of these were destroyed by the Tank Operators... it's called they don't want their designs stolen....
TheCallOfHaloGamer1 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheCallOfHaloGamer1 3 months ago
i can't find one video of a destroyed Challenger 2 lol
GREATBRITISHGAMER 3 months ago
Wow i love this :)
weshy38 3 months ago
@polygamous1 all i can say is somethings gota change
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta i think u r right i hope u r right it can only change for the better
polygamous1 3 months ago
Sound like Micronesian singing
djxcmb808 3 months ago
And they say the M1 Abrams are the best... That is bullshit.
L2A6 > M1A2
usafpilot29 3 months ago
@usafpilot29 umm
abrams combat history vs leo2 combat history: advantage abrams
combat hours abrams vs leo 2: advantage abrams
number of ied hits:abrams
only tank in history to have a almost perfect crew survival record? its an abrams
the leopard has nothing on the abrams other then them being the same design types based off of the mbt-70
they are the same tank with a difffrent look, only the abrams has an emaculant combat history and alot more combat hours.
just sayin
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Don't compare the Abrams with the Leopard 2. Compare it with the Leopard 2A7, Germany and the world's best.
Tell me, why did such a rich country, Singapore, order the Leopard 2A4SG instead of Abrams?
usafpilot29 3 months ago
@usafpilot29 you idiot its still a leopard 2 weither its a new model or what
ok lets compare leopard 2a7 to abrams m1a2 tusk sep.
leo2a7
improved climate control(which abrams has)
urban warfare kit which is adopted from the abrams
better coms and satnav(which abrams has)
better at protection aka slat armor or ribbed armor hollowed armor what ever will disrupt the jet of metal right o thats right the abrams has that to.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@usafpilot29 well lets see leo-2 is cheaper for one, and i dont think we export the m1a2sep tusk.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta You fucking retard, the different models of the Leopard 2's have different improvements. You must be the dumbest shit I've ever seen for not knowing that. If they are "ALL THE SAME" then why the fuck are they given model identification numbers? Wow? What the fuck do you work as? A fucking plumber? Or are you some fat 12 year old kid sitting on the computer 24/7 awaiting embolizim.
usafpilot29 3 months ago
@usafpilot29 hahah u must be some type of twat, usaf pilot either ur a fuckin fake or u just a cocky flyboy typical of your type i type when i have time because stupid cunts like u assume u know everything
i gave u fact where the fuck are ur facts mister pilot.
leo2a7 is the top of the chain u retarted MEANING it has everything the previous models have and more what kind of a dolt are you? would u like to argue it bec i can quote you.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@usafpilot29 i never said every model was the same but i did mention it was still a leopard 2 which even someone as limited as u can see weither its a leopard 2 a7 or leopard 2 a7+5x24 super deathstar german wartank ship maching vehicle its still a fuckin leo2.
im a war enthusist learn about tanks guns tatics, im young but not dumb, and im getting ready to join the military, i can be anyone i want on the internet but ill be me
im 18 my name is bill and i still have enough sense to use facts
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@usafpilot29 to back up my clames now im sure you are some kind of tank designer mabye the ceo of Krauss Maffei?
mabye your steven hawking?
mabye your just a fat old bastard who doesent have anything?
now u seem more like the guy with a wife and kids who hates his life and gets on line which is the only place he can be cool
u could even be the guy who still lives in mommeys basement and has never attempted to do anything with him self
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
what the fuck do u even know about tanks? what do u know about aircraft, guns, troops, wars, tatics?
where the fuck is ur facts ur a fuckin internet ganster u talk big shit but when confronted with facts that you cant deny you turn to insults yes i did to but i did not start it, its funny to do it but not when ur losing an argument ill remain civilized from this point it, bec i know im right and i bring facts to the table.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Brace yourselves, we have a baddass here, are you supporting the abrams?
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 im supporting facts, i like both abrams and leo 2 u can keep the challenger i like the t-90 and t-80 but if people refuse to look at fact over fiction then ill argue, no disrecpect to any of u i just enjoy the arguement and i get a good laugh at the things some people say, im not trying to be a tough guy believe me i just cant stand a internent gangster same with a phone gangster, my bag grammer and profuse language does not mean i dont know tanks
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta So am I, you don't know how much i've been laughing at an idiot who says a F15 killed a T50, Thing is, you sounded more like a baddass than anything else to me.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 lol well i dont see the incapability of the f-15 being able to kill it, but seeing as its in pretest and preproduction phase and only 3? mabye 4 where ever flown. the pak fa is essentially a interceptor for the f-22
wether it will be able to fill such big shoes is doubtful, but no impossible seeing as it is kinda being built after the f-22 and u can argue but they look the same, the russians are only missing the thrust vectoring engines.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Yeah, a Mig 21 can kill a F22 or a pakfa if those two have awful pilots. PAKFA is the first russian stealth fighter since they had none, F22 being the pride of the USAF, people think the PAKFA is meant to counter it, it's better yes, but it ain't a fighter, F22 is, however the PAKFA has better dogfighting capabilities than the F22, it should be named as a multyrole.
Err.. The PAKFAs engine is 3d vectoring thrust.. F22 only 2d, what are they missing again? :3
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 to my knowledge the pakfa the pak is powered by the al-41f engines, but they do plan to put upgraded 117s in with the possibility of 3d vectoring engines.
main problem i see is the plane being extremely hard to fly, and multiple risks.
we can really say the pak will be better as it is not being built on a large scale, and if we want to get into better planes the yf-23 should have gotten the contract.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Jesus christ calm down with the replies jeez.
The pakfa's current engines are the same as the SU35 with 3d vectoring thrust. ALL Sukhois are "hard" to fly and take more time to master due to their low stability and high maneuverability, but that's the idea of a jetfighter is it not?
Raptors engines are good but not 3 dimensional. Dogfighting is not dead the moment jets don't have cruise missiles lol. So far T50s design has proven to be better.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 got alot to say not enough room to say it, its the same every where i type. we are not on a form so this page is gona get flooded.
su-37 has thrust vectoring engines su-35 does not.
no the objective of any vehicle is to make it simple to use, keeps costs down and training short and cheap.
if it was better it would be in production and no jets do not have cruise missles but they have aim-120s which do mach 3-4+ so id say its gona catch u pretty fast.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta SU35 HAS thrust vectoring I'm sure. The SU27 does not. Also, they do mach 3-4 but good luck hitting a jet that has a 90º angle with a missile, they're easily evadable and when you shoot them at 8km your opponent even has time to drink a coffee. SU35/37/47 and the T50 have far more maneuverability than the F22, that's a fact, you can do all the magic you want in the world, ain't gona convince me otherwise about the maneuverability.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 no i assure the su-27 was it and it was only made for show, su35 was operational.
if it has su-35 engines it doesnot have 3d thrust engines. it would not be the first time a jet was hit at a high angle, they do not have more maneuverability then f-22, im not trying to convince u, i dont need to we wont ever know whos jet is better.
one thing i do know is the pak fa was built to be more manuverable at the cost of being much less stealthy then the f-22
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@firebirdbill89gt The PAKFA has better radar and maneuverability than the F22, it's LESS stealth, NOT "Much less". tripleW(.) blokeish (.) com(space)/2010/04/russia-developes-fifth-generation-fighter-pak-fa-t-50-to-counter-us-f22-and-jsf-f-35/
The PAKFA is the best fighter in the world at the moment, sorry.
The world better without the US? Lets see.. no Iraqi civvie deaths, no bilderberg group, no capitalism, no war.. Yes, without US's political presence, the world would be paradise C:
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 so explain to me how u can best an enemy u can see, or lock on to.
now while i do agree the other kid was dumb, he was not incorrect, the f-15 is beating the t-50 because it has been operational, and was in production other then that it would be a good fight.
they are all great jets, im not pro f-22 because if u ask me the f-22 and t50 are over priced and over rated, they are un needed in this worlds economy,
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Stealth reflects electromagnetic waves, does NOT absorb them, plasma stealth which was originally planned for the PAKFA does absorb electromagnetic waves and therefore you can't see the target. What I'm trying to say is: GOOD stealth works at 8-5km+, closer than that, a pakfa/f22/B2 is easily detected by a normal jet's sensors. The pakfa can detect the Raptor from 10km+ I'm sure.
But then again, firing missiles at 8km? Good luck hitting your target.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 the stealth material on the f22 obsorbs radar waves as well as deflects it, plasma is very intresting but i believe it has yet to be implemented, and the f-22 will not be detected untill it is within seeing distance and by that time a missle is within killing range and due to the helmet system they can be next to u and still fire a missle at u.
the f22 is actually considered a 4th gen fighter by the usaf so if we are being technical the f22 is not a match for the pak fa
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 because it is not in the same class so to make it even more....i dont know a word for it so ill just say sad, is that it is having a hard time against the f22. and the russians will deam it a 4th gen fighter due to the fact we do not deam it a 5th gen, how ever the f35 joint strike fighter is then deemed the contender for the pak fa. and i will agree that the f35 is not the best contender
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta The F35 was a F22 made for AC's, therefore a multirole since it has to have ATS capabilities. Of course in a dogfight theF22 would kill the F35, so another no match for the T50. A duel between those two WILL have missiles, at distances such as 5km they WILL be detected by eachother. Too bad I have no news on the t50's gun. But it will have one obviously. The Sukhois sacrifice alot of stability for maneuverability which is the correct thing to do.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 how ever i dissagree with ur statement of the f35.
even though it is a joint strike fighter it is extremely manuverable, and these 2 planes rely on experienced pilots which are abundent in the u.s
the t50 does not have hmds to my knowledge. and the f22 will not be detected i dont know how to explain it to u. but the fact is we wont know, we will never know unless the russians start building t50s and the americans and russians decide to have a air bout
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Our Portuguese pilots easily take your US pilots place for piloting your own aircraft, US hasn't got many experienced pilots, you want the best pilots? Go to Israel.
T50 has no HMD? Sorry but that's fake: it would be useless then for a 21st century aircraft, it's still classified. duh.
We already know something about R(us)AF vs USAF: watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M&feature=channel_video_title
Also, who invented stealth?Russians, American's couldn't master it..
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 so finally ur true colors show, the dude ur talking to is retarted, but u urself have a huge bias.
i like the su-47 thought it was cool, but i realized it never had any combat capability. the t-50 is still in devlopment so to say its anyless expensive then the f22 project is rediculous, and the unit cost is unreal.
the yf-23 was less manuverable (like i said) but stealthier how ever with that said a fighter does not need to be as stealthy as a f117.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta My true colours? What? Am I supposed to support the US's campaign for profit on Iraq/Afghan/etc? Sorry but no :c.
The F117 is as stealthy as a mig21 LOL, shot down by a 50s AA in Bosnia if I'm not mistaken, I know it was on one of those countries, sorry but I don't remember it.
YF23 is canceled, also, in a dogfight it would be ravaged by a Mig29.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 the f117 ur mentioning was the only one ever shot down, it was hit by a SA-3 Goa if u read the combat report it was only by chance that it was shot down.
no mig 29 is shooting down any yf-23 ever stop being unrealistic, one if he can find it he can kill it, how are u gona kill something u can see.
its time to wake up bro, im trying to stay civil with u but u r getting out of hand here.
every time we saw a mig29 it was hitting the ground
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 no russian pilots where not flying them, but veteran pilots where.
some of the mig29s we engaged where not well maintained but hey like u russians say pull it out of the dirt it will still shoot(ehh mabye)
iraq had them, yougoslavia had them, and we bought 21 from moldovia
what models where engaged couldent tell ya but they where engaged by f-15s and a f16 in yugo and in iraq they where engaged by f-14s, f-4s, and f-5s.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 im ingnoring ur vids because i dont care
9M119 Svir
operational range:4000-5000m
Rheinmetall 120 mm gun
operational range:4000m with DM63
8000m with LAHAT
r u that dense russians did not invent stealth lockheed did with the f117.
we perfected stealth with the b-2 bomber. we have other aircraft that where perfect examples of our advancment in stealth. we had stealth attack aircraft since 81.
we where the first to use radar obsorbing materials, and to implement the shape of
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Your both wrong. And firebird your stupid as always. Horten Ho 229 made by Nazi Germany was the first ever practically Stealth airplane. Which was invinceble on radars of WWII the Americans captured the prototype and engineers. Making the F117 which is complete rippoff.
SMGJohn 3 months ago
@SMGJohn the ho 229 was built to reduce drag not be stealth.
the first plane to implement stealth as a feature and not a bi product was the f117.
the ho229 had a reduced radar signature but was still was seeable.
northrop did use the desing as they where perplexed with it.
we took the design and ran hence the birth of the b-2 the greatest stealth aircraft in the sky.
the tu-160 kinda reminds me of an american aircraft the b-1 strange huh?
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta You know what? Soviet Union really did invent the first practically Stealth airplane. How? Well you see, you still haven't figured out what kind of plane it is. HAHAHA! Get it? While your fapping about your stealth plane, Soviet kept it secret from the world. well it's probably destroyed by now or rusting in a bunker some where in siberia.
SMGJohn 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta You're ignoring my vids with valid and strong FACTS? Ok, am I supposed to believe your imaginary numbers? Grow up, open your eyes and stop being a government sheep. It's funny how you americans thought you invented everything, tv, jets, etc. But Sorry, no.
Stealth was first created by russians as stated in the vids with the truth you dont want to see.
Your B2 is easily detected by a satellite, and when those Migs/SU's get close to it, it's instanly dead.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 and im ingnoring ur vids because video is not solid fact, what can be passed on from word of mouth (combat veterans) and if im spending my time reading why watch a video which will show the same out come.
u cry about propaganda? all my websites show that like and i hate to say it smgjohn said the ho229 was built to reduce all drag and to reduce the radar sig.
this was the first plane to use shapes to reduce radar signature.
tv was first invented by a german.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta "Your" Websites? you sent nothing to me. Tv along with bills of other inventions you americans think you created. You're not the kinds/cops of the world neither you have to right to invade others for profit, but thats another story. My vids are not valid facts? That's why you counter them so easily :o (not.)
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 im ingnoring ur vids for he sole reason that i dont care about what a video shows, unless it shows a t-90 engaging a abrams in direct combat i dont care.
untill these 2 beasts fight ur wasting ur time, start using facts and statics. because i can make a video of an abrams reinforce it and hit it with a hellfire and go look our tanks the greatest even a hellfire cant kill it.
its ever time i give u written facts u come back with watch this watch that
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Your ignoring my vids cos you can't counter them, the other kid that said a F15 can down a T50 managed to stfu and be educated by me and my vids, and therefore, get a higher IQ, you just keep denying the truth, So, do this: Show me a vid of a Mig21 being shot down by a F22 else the Mig 21 is better than the F22.
This is your american retarded way of thinking. You already ran outta arguments. The vid clearly shows the T90 is superior and you CANNOT deny it.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 i dont need to watch vids they are pointless, if i was gona counter then id start postig videos and im not going there. ill post specs meet specs with specs, or dont reply.
there is a possibility that a f-15 can take down a t-50, it is not impossible, u show ur lack of realism by stating this, even if there is a 1 in a million chance there is still a chance.
are u dense f86 sabres shot down mig21s how the fuck is a f22 not gona get real dude.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta "even if there is a 1 in a million chance there is still a chance." Yet you told me the Mig21 downing a F22 is unrealistic? Lul, I was being sarcastic at your stupidity, go look on your american dictionaries the word "sarcasm". As far as I know the Sabres were inferior to the MIGs, even your american documentaries stated that, it's as simple as 2+2.
r4f4st4n1 3 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 how ever it is not unrealistic for a f-15 to shoot down a plane that isent even produced.
sabres where less manuverable then most of their advasaries however they managed to come out on top every time.
in some cases its the man not the machine.
u state the obvious u think the lighter tank wont be more agile, and u think the desiel motor wont get better mileage?
these things u speak of are obvious.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta How ever its not unrealistic for a f15 to shoot down a f22 ?
It's thanks to being the MAN not the machine the russians had the upper hand, they both had the machine and the men. Better mileage? Lul, how much times are these repaired? Do you sell tanks according to their miliage as well? LOL. range (not weapon) matters and T90 can do much more than the M1.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 for anyother country the abrams would be a logistical nightmare.
however we have no problem running it.
the abrams is the most agile and the fastest tank of its class(heavy weight)
the abrams like most of our equipment is focoused on safty and the abrams is the most crew save tank of its kind, this includes leo2 and challenger2.
the abrams has a more powerful engine then the t-90 if the abrams was to shave off half its weight in armor it would beat a t-90 hands down
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta No tank is weight 64 tons, thats why it's the best of its class LOL, lol at you americans claiming your the best in the topic only you play (abrams, rugby) seriously.
So, a vehicle with a bigger engine is faster? OK: Put a yamaha R1 next to a bus, see who wins. Typical american mentality c: Reactive armour doesnt need much space, yet it's proven to be the future armour for tanks, better than your M1 uranium armor
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 umm no tanks weigh 64 tons.
other then the leopard 2, the challenger 2.
alot of tanks have been heavy, russian tanks are light they have less armor then most other tanks.
u r really gona contest me on motor knowledge.
ok so a r1 vs a bus, a real comparison, a r1 vs busa.
the r1 has a 998cc engine it has 146rwhp, and 72fttq, the busa has 172rwhp, and 102tq.
the busa has a 1340 cc motor, and it is GOVERNED. this is due to the insurence and bad rep
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta "With a weight of close to 68 short tons (almost 62 metric tons), it is one of the heaviest main battle tanks currently in service. The M1 Abrams" I'm sure no tanks weigh 64 tons.
Russian tanks have reactive armour, light and better than depleted uranium, it's physics. The busa has basically the same weight as the R1, the bus has a bigger engine and is heavier, same relation as the M1/t90, the T90's lighter and faster.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 ok and the leo-2 is 1 full short ton heavyer? does weight counter act protection? i think not, both tanks have a high power to weight ratio.
m1a2 weighs 67.6 short tons
leopard 2 weighs 68.7 short tons
challenger 2 weighs 68.9 short tons
its time to do ur reaserch. iv played nice its time for a wake up call dude, out of the 3 leading mbts it is the lightest.
the r1 weighs 477lbs(wet)
the busa weighs between 583-592(wet)
guess what they are govenerd to the same speed
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta a Bus has a 400-500hp engine, busa: about 200hp, so in your oppinion the bus wins? Ok.
Reactive armour is light and resists to pretty much everything, unlike the RPG fragile Abrams as we can see in the vid.
I'm talking about dense terrain, shall I remind you about the vid I sent you where abrams lost a track at a demonstration? LOL.
Also, it's obvious the Busa wins to a R1, idiot.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 umm a regular septa bus will have about 200bhp and its only a 4cyl it also weighs 40,000.
so in my oppinion the power to weight wins hence the busa
are u tlking ass backwards?
reactive armor is good against explosive(explosive reactive armor) shape charges and such.
sabots are conetic penetraters, they will push a hole through era because it is not dense, if u use hesh rounds u will smash the era right off the tank.
another way to counter act era is tandem warheads
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta There are buses with about 400hp, but fine, take a truck for example: my point is, bigger engine doesn't necessarily means more acceleration/power, for example, I'm faster on my NSR125 which only has about 28hp, vs a 100hp car, but that's until ~110km/h or so, from 110-120 forward the car will win. Reactive armour will always be lighter and more effective than depleted uranium no matter how you brag about it, physics win.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 any bus that has 400hp is a double decker bus, and it has a restrictive transmission.
enough about that, a truck makes more sense, iv seen trucks do 6 secs in a quarter mile, but they are purpose built.
umm physics wins? density wins every time, while era will be effective against explosives, it is not dense enough to slow down the kenitic warhead.
if u really wana talk about physics how about u use ur head, before u speak.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta A 400hp truck is certainly NOT faster than a 200hp motorcycle rofl. Reactive armour will counter ANYTHING with its' explosions, it's FAR more effective than Uranium which as we can see up here, gets downed by china made RPGs. In georgia no t90s were destroyed by the weapons the americans supplied to the georgians.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 never said a 400hp truck i said iv seen trucks that will beat bikes.
uranium is far more dense then reactive armor, it is one of the best armors fielded on a tank, also no one really knows the exact makeup of the abrams armor.
du will stop sabots better then era, it will stop hesh rounds better, the t-90 took 7 rpgs and contiuned to operate. the abrams has taken 7+ rpgs in a combat inviornment and continued to operate.
training ground vs combat ground what do u think
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta I'm sure you saw 50cc bikes getting beaten by trucks.
Uranium is heavier and not as good as reactive armor. Also no one really knows the exact makeup of the T90.
So your M1's manage to take 7RPGs up their ass against non trained insurgents? Hmm. We can see that it can take 7 rpgs here in this vid, the one up here see? In the tests I sent you, you can't prove me the M1 has better mobility so lets move on.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 umm if u think a s10 that has a twin turbo 454 lsx, tubbed rear, and power glide trans wont beat the hell out of a busa ur sorely mistaken, it runs 6-7 secs in a quarter mile depending on when he gets on the throttle.
uranium is denser, it will stop sabots 100% better then a era plate, era is useful at stoping shapecharges and explosives.
no one knows the exact make up of any modern tank who broadcasts what they have, all we have are empty facts, and spectulations
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 i can prove the m1 has better mobility,
the t-90 only sports a 18.6 hp to ton ratio while the abrams has a 21.6 hp/ton ratio
the t-80 has a better power to weight ratio then the t-90
Allison DDA X-1100-3B should be a more power robbing trans due to its heavy gearing, and just think the abrams tank is governed and it still has a better power to weight ratio.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 reactive armor will only take so much, it is not dense and while effective against shape charges it is not very effective against sabot penetrators.
dont make ur self look stupid trying to compare a bus to a bike, the motor on a bus is built to move large ammounts of weight and be fuel efficency, a r1 is built on the premise of moving quickly.
a motor built for speed is not thte same as a motor built for towing.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 t-90 is more compact its a smaller tank how ever smaller is not always better, a smaller tank means less armor, it also means small crew space, and it means that the interior does not supress shockwaves, many other things are draw backs of being small.
reactive armor is added to the abrams in the tusk kit.
abrams is not penetrated easily by anymeans.
even when hit by shaped charge ieds.
this type of ied can and will kill any other type of vehicle.
firebirdbill89gta 3 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta "abrams is not penetrated easily by anymeans." Look up, to the vid.
Americans choose armour? Name a vehicle with reactive armour then, M1 can't have it.
Smaller and more compact>bigger and less compact. Never seen a M1 jumping or going offroad at high speeds like the T90, T90 wins in mobility/offroad speed
Defense? Reactive armour, SHTORA, enough said. Abrams is penetrated by chinese weapons as we can see in the vid.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 the fastest busa was the turbo busa, and it did 200mph+ now the busa does 186mph but can and will go 195mph. if u can remove the governer u can still do 200+.
so does a bigger motor mean its better, no however it does mean more displacement, the turbine engine is not accounted by this, as a large motor can be more inefficent, the smaller motor can be better.
while this is not always the case, it is possible.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta The pics we see above show how good the M1 armor is, it is easily penetrated by 70s RPGs. The tank doesn't need to jump, the tank needs to surpass obstacles, you misunderstood my point. Idc if it jumps, I care if it's mroe maneuverable, faster offroad and in the worse terrains, the T90 has the upper hand here, end of story.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 i see plenty of disabled tanks, but none that would kill the crew, i see alot of tanks with minimal damage, and its funny the abrams only has one combat death on its platform, so even if the tank looks like hell, it did its job in protecting the crew.
surpass obstacles? why not just run it over? the abrams weighs a TON it can and will go through a house if need be, why jump when u can go through.
the abrams is faster off road? i dont see what ur getting at?
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Seals use M4 because it's USA made, else they'd use something such as an AK or HK: watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I
Yeah, try running through houses, see what extra armor you'll have on top of your RPG fragile M1. In a battle, when the tank's disabled the crew's pretty much fucked up if it was to exit the tank rofl.
Abrams is less agile than the T90, therefore slower off road.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 and i am also talking about dense terrain, loose gravel, sand, heavy foiled terrain.
failure happens, one of the pics in this vid is from a video, where the tank ran over a large at mine, and all it did was knock the track off(and dislodged a side plate).
abrams is less agile(cant jump ramps) but can still do 30mph off road, while the t-90 is doing 28.
is 2mph really a big diffrence? well when the t-90 weighs about 10-20 tons less yes it is.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill 89gta The Abrams has a better top speed, however the T90 being lighter, more agile, having more maneuverability it will be able to reach its' top speed easier than the abrams offroad, That's why the T90 did 3km in the Malai jungle while abrams lost one of its track on a sloped portion of a testing track.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 abrams can turn on a dime, this is what u dont understand, u have never served or seen the platform perform, so u would not know how it works.
the abrams has every thing u think it doesnot, got an uncle who has served on it, got friends who have served on it.
u have no clue how fast the abrams is it is much faster then u think.
aks will jam when not maintained, just as any gun will, aks are ruggend but not invincible, seals choose what they use
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Abrams is slow when turning, I mean, compare the tests they are put through: watch?v=Ltqh-DYIx4o&feature=related
watch?v=Hjl-CDpDP9g
a 10 YO can choose which one's faster, maneuverable through these two basic vids.
I mean, how would the M1 surpass the first obstacle in the t90's vid? it would either do it in 1/10 of the speed or break something jumping at that speed LOL.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 abrams is slow while turning??? are u joking, compare the tests they are put through.
abrams is tested extensivly, so is the t-90, but the m1a2 doesent have to do pretty little jumps, and prance around, they are both good tanks in their own aspect, t-90 is one of the first tanks to really field active protection and era.
add era to the abrams and aps and u have an unstopable tank.
su-25 20,500(max take off weight)
a-10 50,000(max take off weight)
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 the su-25 is a faster aircraft, it carrys less armaments.
a10 has a higher service ceiling. a-10 has a larger combat radius.
the a-10 is built stronger, ask kim campbell how stong the platform is.
not sure if thats what u where saying which is faster ect, but hey there it is anyway.
1/10 r u fuckin joking what dont u understand about m1a2=faster it would prob just plow the jump at that speed.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Thefuck you brought up the attackers? There basically the same exept the A10 sacrifices speed for payload. Try the SU39, not the cold war SU25 duh. Lol, the M1 plow the jump? It'd either jump and disable one system or two or wouldn't make it at all, the T90 just jumped over it, a tank needs agility as well, we're in the 21st century AMERICANS.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 actually no the a-10 sacrificed speed for survivability(full titanium cockpit) which alone makes up for 6% of the total aircrafts weight.
the a-10 as built to sustain direct hits form 57mm rounds, sry boss no aircraft is doing that other then the a-10.
and while the a-10 is a much more efficent cas and ground attack aircraft, the su-35 is not a bad plane at all, they where built with diffrent purposes.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 the abrams would make the jump no prob, but if it hits a patch of dirt like if seen the t-90 jump it might just plow it.
think about it, what good is a tank if it loses systems due to a jump? the abrams can take large ieds and still have all systems, so how would a jump knock anything out, u might b right it would prob knock the infantry phone off the hook but that about it dude and that is not catastrophic
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 america hit the 21st century pretty quick while russia was still dealing with the fall of the ussr.
i think people never realized we where sending aid to the russians! from 1992-1997
a tank is not a rednecks toy it doesent need to pull fancy jumps, but it does need to perform. and just about every mbt can and will perform in combat.
umm if we can take a step back ur dads a portuguese green beret what battalion? is he light infantry or african rifle?
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 whops disregard the light infantry or african rifle, got my portugual mixed with rodisia.
is he wearing an emerald green or a grass green beret?
also their regulations are diffrent from the americans so how can u compare the personal weapons approval for port vs u.s?
british sas are the same, in a combat zone where conventional regs are usless they will carry aks, fn fals g36s what ever they can requisition.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta "aks will jam when not maintained" watch?v=RgrJElGOMMg *cough*
Well, my father is a Green Beret (Para trooper, Boinas Verdes (PT)) and he has to take a Galil into combat, however he doesn't like it that much because of the weight, Got some magazines over my room which show he got the first place in 200m shooting with the Galil in the IMTC EU challenges. (...)
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 iv seen aks jam so what are u even tlking about, iv also seen aks pulled out of the mud wiped off and fired. iv seen m4s beat to hell and they continue to fire
OOOO now ur dads a green beret. anythings possible, but doubtful.
the galil arm weighs 9.6 lbs they have a rough weight of 8.5-9.5 lbs depending on the version.
they are derived from the ak which weighs 11.5 lbs.
he dident like the weight of galil but let me guess he loved the heavyer ak
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta "iv seen m4s beat to hell and they continue to fire"<--LOL
He's a PORTUGUESE Green Beret, don't insult him by comparing him to the US SF please. After all, they called our forces "Ramboes" the moment the so called SEALs took 10L+ of water per men, and the portuguese did a better survival with just one bottle of water. Do I even need to mention the ´67 barracuda that completely destroyed a US AC in a military sim? Nope, he prefers the galil to the AK.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 i wont insult him lol because it would be an insult to compare him to us spec ops, but no really if and i mean IF its true he is well trained, but he would stand no chance against a navy seal or delta officer.
10l per man? bro u got ur facts fucked up, during buds they get more they get the ocean! regular was is not givin unless rationed, and it is strictly rationed.
the seals deal with dehydration as a constant, and they deal with hypothermia almost the whole training
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 phase, u by comparing him to men who train on the brink of death is an insult and u are deaming his efforts by trying to compare them to a much more extreme type of traing.
he is closer trained to the united states airborne, he is a para troop right? so compare him to para troops.
if he wore the grass green beret he would be part of the spec ops, and he would then be comparable to the u.s rangers.
however he is not is he
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you fucking have a life? You keep ignoring my vids, ah well, I'll just send them, there's no way i'm reading 12 replies LOL, here: have fun countering them which is something you didn't do all this time:
/watch?v=bL5jAxk94Ws
/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M
watch?v=kLfWyjb-pDQ&feature=related
tripleW(.) blokeish (.) com(space)/2010/04/russia-developes-fifth-generation-fighter-pak-fa-t-50-to-counter-us-f22-and-jsf-f-35/
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta
watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs supported by watch?v=CUvoaD6Vnkg&feature=email&email=comment_reply_received
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 LOL that was pretty funny, u know what i knoticed in that vid, all of the jumps the t-90 does are graduated, the only thing that impressed me was how propagandic it was, and how dumb the guy was trying to show an abrams but showing some chally2s, a leopard 2, and one that looked like a leclarc.
that was nice some major russian propaganda.
to shattered to post facts so u resort to showing clip vids, i feel like i wasted my time watching that it was pitiful
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta Sure they're graduated, atleast it jumps ;) Propagand you can't counter since it's supported by real facts.I love how you ignore what he says and only look at the images, LOL.
Typical moms basement american joke, shows how right I am, also: nice ignoring other vids and what the guy actually said ;)
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 the abrams would jump it to, that is not a jump the tank simply drops off a man made cliff.
a graduated jump is not a jump at all.
propaganda i cant counter, where the fuck r the facts ur dense u really are, u subdued to spuing bullshit, come back with facts not some video.
u know what i saw a tank doing things tanks do, i dident see anything special, and ur jaded if u did, ur outlook on tank vs tank warfare is skewed.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta The abrams wouldn't jump it, prove me wrong then, it can't take RPG's so what makes you think it can jump? Funny how it's propaganda and YOU CAN'T counter it, not gona bother since your comments are all about "its propaganda bla bla bla" and not countering shit.
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 the abrams wouldent jump the graduated jump lol so now the abrams defys physics? if it goes flying off that jump it would what? just teleport to the bottem? no it would go off and land making it a jump.
i cant counter it? it counters it self what are u even tlking about, play the vid look at the first few seconds and u will see a russian built tank getting hit and having a catastrophic explosion.
its funny how u keep on about being un counterable, if this is ur temper
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbi Strange how I spot no vids of an abrams jumping, all I hear is LET THE BUDDIES HIT THE FLOOR and the M1 popping smoke in front of a civvie car and "rocking the baby" on a cement test track LOL. On the other hand I see the T90 jumping, being much faster, surpassing many offroad obstacles, etc. Vid made by some kid? watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs <-- the kid must be a genious. Since no1 ever countered what's in that vid c:
Also, that vid is supported by what we see up there ;)
r4f4st4n1 2 months ago
@r4f4st4n1 i like how u can state alot of shit about vids, and u waste time insulting me, and the abrams.
fact is u havent stated shit about the t-90, the go on and on and on about a JUMP who cares about a jump. jump what u want, jump a car, jump a school, jump ur self. bec when ur getting shot at ur not jumping shit.
that vid is supported by nothing, it is built on a empty prowess to show its might, every tank can do this.
firebirdbill89gta 2 months ago
@firebirdbill89gta I like how you state alot of shit PERIOD, you don't even back it up and you waste time insulting the vids supported by facts. So the vid talks about a jump the whole 3mins? See? You finally admitted I was right about it, so, you want me to spend 10 comments per topic of the vid? See why I don't copy paste what's in the vid anymore? Seriously.
Now you spoke to US troops all of a sudden.. sigh..