@Fenrijin Look here @ 1:35 /watch?v=2X4j_2Kgi9o - they say that the Abrams has the same power-to-weight ratio as the Leopard II. And that one (actually an old version) you can see here: /watch?v=BcaEaFXZ2kc
@BadVoodoo100 o amigo estados unidos pior que os mulculmanos fanaticos,eles não mexe conosco BRASILEIROS ,agora EUA ja nos ameaçou varias veses na segunda guerra queriam ate nos invadir.Exploram quanto puderam agora situação mudou,BRASIL RUSSIA sim e aliados agora fora isto sangue sugas de fora.não prescisamos deles,andamos sozinhos,RUSSIA maior potencia do mundo 8 mil orgivas,BRASIL,rico em recursos naturais,juntpos indestrutiveis.
@elberfmmacedo não mexem com o Brasil porque eles não tem o numero suficiente para fazer algo. Mais quando os numeros deles almentarem, ai que o bicho vai pegar que nem tá pegando ná Europa. É tudo uma questão de tempo, tempo que eles tem de sóbra e agente não.
@BadVoodoo100 sim por isso digo a vc\ devemos nos preparar sim,defender nossa nação,ficar na cautela,fabricar bombas atomicas e ficar na nossa ,ai sim mexem conosco,enfiamos bombas atomicas neles pois materia prima temos muita,aquele que não quer guerra tem de se arma pra ela ok valeu amigo.
I've seen an M1A2 Abrams and a T-90 ran on mines, the M1A2 Abrams got immobilized and went into pieces, crew dead, while the T-90 stopped but there is no damage inside and the crew were still alive. T-90 is such a tough monster.
@Howie262 Do the german or russian tanks have a round equal to the silver bullet sabot rounds the M1 has? Because those rounds, the best they have for the abrams, cant penetrate another abrams from the front or the side. M1 is a really complete tank, only big weakness is logistics, they eat fuel.The USA also has over 7000 of these tanks in service. How many russian and german tanks in service actually capable of killing an abrams? Do the math, USA would rape both countrys in a pure tank battle.
@sexyitalian891 First of all bro... im in the Army..... Second You're name "sexyItallian " is Pure fail... Third, the M1 Abrams is was desighned in Germany and the main 120mm smooth bore cannon is a Rhinemetal (German) design....THe leopard 2a6 has the same cannon but with a bigger longer barrel/charge.... it also has a regular turbo diesel.... A leopard 2 tank litterally beats a Abrams in every category... Mobility, Armor, and Cannon... USA has better crew men of course though..
@sexyitalian891 Dont be mad, Historically Americans have never been good at using/Building tanks.... our advantage is a pure numeral advantage... Even Patton said this...
In WWII a Disabled Panzer 5 Tiger is = to 4 sherman tanks..
A fully capable Tiger is = around 10 shermans...
this is not my words either... ask any historian...
maybe you should learn about the M1 abrams and where its built and designed from before your dumbass makes Itallians look bad... uh... too late.
@Howie262 I find your comment funny, this isn't WW2, nor will any of these countrys ever likely fight each other. "Don't be mad." I think you believe yourself way smarter than you actually are. Numbers and logistics are everything. How many leopard 2s does germany have? Not 1/4 as many as the US has abrams. I also love how you brought up my youtube name, and my nationality. You really don't have have any intelligent stuff to say, which is why its funny to read.
@Howie262 So not only in 2 short comments have you proven yourself ignorant and semi racist, but also incapable of taking my information and relating it to something relevant. World war 2 was like 70 years ago dude. Its over with, done. That doesn't matter anymore. They are old tanks only 3rd world countrys use. All these tanks are so closely matched it would simply be a numbers battle, leopard may have an edge on some things, but 1 on 2, leopard loses. 1 on 5, its a massacre.
@Howie262 And also, US and US crewman have actual war experiance, its one thing to train, and its another to actually do it. Not to mention, what major battles have leopard 2 tanks actually been in? In the entire gulf war, not a single m1 abrams crewman died from anything. The leopard 2 is a better tank in some areas on paper sure. But it isn't hard proven like the abrams is. Leopard 2 hasnt done anything really, nothing of note. M1 has been in mass scale tank battles.
@Howie262 You once again did side stepped all my points because you feel like you need to defend yourself. I am saying, America has the most powerful tank brigade. The leopard has a what, 25% better gun at most? Minorly better in other things thats it. 400 leopard 2s, thats all germany has, against over 2000 M1 abrams. We are not comparing the tiger to the sherman here, we are comparing a sherman to a slightly better sherman. You really need to get over yourself.
@Howie262 In any major tank war with any country, I believe the USA would win, hands down. Even against very slightly superior tanks, they would still win because the superior tanks don't have the numbers to back up their advantages. And it is not a huge advantage, it has a decent advantage over only the gun in the abrams, thats it. Everything else is so similar its not worth talking about. USA would win, thats what im getting at. You can say this and that but my argument is sound.
@Howie262 Its logical and makes great sense, yours does not. Your even bringing up forums? I also doubt that the gun of the leopard 2 could achieve anything more than a mobility kill, since modern tanks havnt fought each other ever in the field theres not way of testing exactly how strong their armor really is. I know shots from other M1s with their best ammo, are completly ineffective against the side and front armor. Thats also fact, its not just speculation.
@Howie262 Next time you wanna have a debate with someone, try listening to what they are speaking about and don't bring up useless info. And don't use ad hominem in your "argument" strategy because it just makes you look like a pussy with nothing to say. Try showing a little respect and see how far that gets you, because until then your just a little man with a keyboard.
@sexyitalian891 You're right... how ever, that doesn't change the fact that the Leopard 2 is still the best tank in the world...
Numbers backed up, or not...
Shure America would beat Germany in an all out tank war, thats obvious....
(well for one, Germany spends prolly less than 10% of what we spend on our military)
My argument makes perfect sense.... any expert will tell you, any historian will tell you that the Leopard 2 based on Mobility, Amor and Cannon, is the best.
@Howie262, An M3 Stuart light tank knocked out a Tiger I in close fighting in Tunisia or Sicily in WWII, & a British tanker in a Sherman took on 3 Tiger II's in Normandy & rammed one I believe but the 3 Tiger II,s were actually running from the brave/mad tank crew of the Sherman. 5-10 Shermans would flank a Tiger & in close country (Hedgegrows/bocage, towns, forest, narrow roads & small narrow bridges) have an advantage over the larger & heavier Tigers. Tigers were open terrain AFV's.
@christof139 Thats a subjective argument... i could say the same thing about Michael Whitman and his successes with the Tiger...
Bottom line though... history shows on a Quality vs. Quantity Basis, the Germans are far superior with tanks. Not to mention for the most part the Allies didn't even have Radios in their tanks..
I already stated we have a better volunteer army of course.. apparently you skimmed through what i wrote...
Albert Pike. He was an attorney, Confederate officer, writer and Freemason AND Illuminati. He wrote "Morals and Dogma" by which today's Freemasons still follows and saw a vision in 1871 of 3 World Wars that are necessary to establish a "New World Order". Two wars happened PRECISELY by his words! What is interesting is that he did not predicted them, but he gave a plan for Illuminati and Freemasons. After WW3 population will be decreased to 500 million, Lucifer religion will be established.
There was a message that a WW3 will start in spring 2013, with attack on Iran by NATO, Russia and China will stand against this attack. This will be a normal war until 2016, when USA will move nuclear missiles to Georgia, this act will force russians to launch nukes on USA, China will launch it's nukes on USA too. Instantly USA will launch it's nukes on Russia and China, this will result in 3 billions dead and a lot of radiation everywhere. Anonymous message 5-19-13 Expect Us.
It was the USSR, not Russia in WW2. And, the Nazis were defeated on the Eastern Front, with help from the Western Powers, of course. But it was USA who basically defeated Japan.
If you think that Abrams and his thick armor can stand before the 125 mm gun of the T-90, which shoots guided antitank missiles, you are very mistaken. Abrams did not even have time to drive up to a distance attack.
You also grossly mistaken in the unreliability of the T-90 armor, talking about his small size. Please read about the "active and reactive protection"
Yankee still have not invented the machine of charging. In your american Abrams big sweaty negros fill up the cannon shells =)
@TheDrLester the 125 mm is theoretically capable of peircing the armor of a abrams. the 120 mm is more than capable of piercing the armor of the T90. american tank crews almost always achieve the first shot in an encounter. 5mm extra of size of the gun doesnt make up for um...satellite and uav recon, supply lines, ammo made this side of the year 2000, and proper tank training. also if you think active defense armor can stop a sabot, you are again sadly mistaken.
If you think active armor does not reduce the penetrating power of a sabot round by 30 to 45% (depending on the type/manufacturer) then you are sadly deluded. Go read some relevant information on the subject. The new Ukrainian "Nozh" active armor array can make a T-55 practically immune to M829A2 when hit on protected portions of the tank.
@52111centrumcz what the hell is an M82A2? and the T55 was an upgrade of the T54 which was the successor to the T34, which makes the T55 pitifully outdated by tanks of even the M60 era. even so, ussr member states have never been keen on crew survivability, and i refuse to believe a country which allocates 1.2 billion dollars a year to defense could develop active armor that the us didnt have 40 years ago
The T54 is completely different to a T-34. That's like saying an M-60A1 is an upgrade of an M4.
The US didn't develop active armor because they didn't think to invest in it - just being pure retarded at the Pentagon, like not developing tanks with christie suspension in the 1930s from a US engineer - its called "not invented here" syndrome, and its endemic to retards at the procurement arm of the pentagon.
The M829A2 (you can't even copy correctly) is a US saboted round.
@52111centrumcz succession means next in line dipshit not upgrade of. and id like you to provide a link to your sources. ok, we can argue ww3 who would own who all day long, the truth is look at the godamn operational history of both tanks. the t72 provides a cheap way for dictatorships to terrorize thier civilians, but look at the persian gulf war and try to ignore the fact that the obsolete and incompetently crewed T72s absolutely failed in holding off any sort of us advance
@23HAMSANDWICH We also got to look at some of dictators that were backed and put in by the American power like The Shah of Iran Gen Batista of Cuba and many many more.
@ST4leave they were put in on the assumptions that they would continue representing american interests in the middle east. they didnt. obviously the middle eastern honor code consists of being a complete dick to everyone but a bigger dick than you.
@23HAMSANDWICH What are you talking about they didn’t go with the Islamic regime they stayed true to our will. It was the people that revolted the Shah and put in place the Islamic Republic of Iran. Then Iran was going to unite all Muslim countries under the Islamic regime. That’s when we used Saddam as a Proxy to fight Iran. Now Saddam went against us and threaten to make the US $ useless for purchasing oil then he invaded Kuwait. You can’t force love
@ST4leave im talking about the people in general. arabs have very little redeeming qualities, and im not racist by nature its just that racial profiling does seem to have merit.
eh.. moneys money and the american taxpayer is probably the most powerful force on the planet.
@23HAMSANDWICH Depends. the T-72M and T-72M1 had very poor amounts of armor, used obsolete rounds, and had terrible training. Whereas a T-72B has substantially better armor. Not that it may have mattered against the M829 series.
However, I would say that most countries that operate the T-72 have training that is inferior to US OPFOR training.
But the T-72/80/90 have much better armor than one would think. Especially with Relikt.
The T-72 was built in 1972...M1s started being cranked out around 1983 1984 in numbers. The 120mm variant came out roughly 1989.
Considering the small number of destroyed T-72s which had no IR imaging sights, no air cover and was to all intents and purposes unarmed means ... what exactly? It certainly doesn't mean the M1 is good for anything other than shooting on hard, flat level ground at long range against old tanks with poor optics. Most Iraqi T-72s were from the 1970s.
@52111centrumcz tactics mean more than anything when it comes to tanks. the tiger failed where the panzer II and III succeeded. it means very little. the us isnt stupid. there was a reason the T72s had no air cover. the T72 is a design offering good firepower, but it is not designed to withstand or deflect shots of the rheinmetal smoothbore 120. the Refleks missile would absolutely level any tank it hit however. the us favors not developing a tank accessory until needed.
Almost all the customers who bought russian tank, strip away the russian targeting system and replace it with the western one. i agree, russian 125mm gun are formidable. But it's useless if you can't hit anything with it. T-90 are also sport a thinner armor then the Abrams or any latest western tank which make the T-90 remarkably light. But it make the T-90 less protected then the Abrams.
@lanunselat lol are you kidding me? russia could easily blow america off the world. im an american btw. you are just an ignorant idiot brainwashed by the media
@MrDenfat Abrams 1980s. T-90 early 90s, T-95 a next generation tanks cancelled in favor for T-99. T-90 itself is superior to the Abrams and the T-99 would be worlds best tanks
@AirsoftNewJersey me too. imagine a new russia with the infrastructure and GDP of the united states? then we could finally turn our attention to an new age of space travel. we gotta find faster than light travel, and forgoing our differences would help us at least get one step closer during the next 100 years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The T90 will lose to ANY NATO tank: Abrams, LeClerc, Challenger II, Leopard II, it doesn't matter. Russian equipment will ALWAYS be inferior to what we have in the civilized world.
@Mikushla why in the WW2 ,russian tank T-34 won against the mighty german panzer Tiger against all the odds? T-90 is not inferior today,i'm not russian and i don't love this country,but always western countries and USA underestimate Russia,don't awake a russian bear because is full of surprises.
@Danezu28 one on one the T34 was toast. soviet designers found the perfect balance between quality design, and ease of production. the tiger was hard to produce, but an all out badass when it came to fighting. the sherman sucked balls, but there were 50000 of them by the time the war ended. the T34 was in the middle. could handle itself well, but there was always another one to take its place if it couldnt.
You do realize that any time a russian tank with new APFSDS rounds shoots at anything but the turret frontal armor of ANY NATO tank it will shoot right through it right? Or that with the new Catherine thermal sights its thermals are as good as those of the M1A2, and it has superior range, superior soft ground performance, superior anti-infantry rounds, lower fuel consumption, greater durability (it can use a dozer blade without breaking its suspension unlike an Abrams).
@52111centrumcz yeah thats all great and all, but you must realize the abrams is by anyone standards, an ancient design. the allies proved it dont take superior armor design to win a war, and any heavy tank, still falls victim to air power. which...um...the americans have been specializing in since the start of the cold war.
Um...which they completely failed to utilize in Serbia, which proves air power is practically worthless when deployed in semi-vegeted terrain against an ancient (1970s) SAM equipped enemy where in almost half a year of bombing they destroyed only 17(!!!) tanks. That's pathetic. Not to mention the incidence of their pilots being so poorly trained that they did a CFT with an AH-64 right into a mountainside....
@52111centrumcz the united states had its hands tied with logistics at that point. its impressive that any american power was extended there at all. idk where you get off saying americans are "poorly trained" seeing how the military academies in the USA are the best in the world, end of story. in WW2 everybody was on one side or the other, and today, you cant set up bases in turkey (for example) if they dont want them there. which just proves that the USA respects borders.
"End of story" is usually utilized by political idiots like Al Gore when they have no arguments and want the other side to shut up - frankly when I said american pilots were poorly trained, I was only quoting the NATO after action report. It said "Pilots were insufficiently prepared for the local terrrain and weather conditions to operate effectively".
How much USA respects borders was precisely demonstrated on the raid into Lybia and into Yemen. Which is not at all.
@52111centrumcz ok whatever dude. you choose to ignore easily identifiable markers of just how superior the united states military is to russias pitiful shattered ghost of a military. do you know why russia has 2 main battle tank programs? because they dont want economic hardship in areas that produce both tanks. the united states has no need for a new tank design. all the russians are doing is giving the us a benchmark to beat if they ever went head to head.
You choose to ignore the fact you can't defeat a bunch of goatherders with AKs and RPGs for any significant amount of time, and your economy is shattered thanks in part due to the inflation caused by government spending on keeping your military operating.
The fact you think they have two tank designs shows you went to sleep somewhere at the turn of the century; they have one active tank program, and several developmental projects that will be built where the T-90 is.
@52111centrumcz damn dude the us military is built for a conventional war. America has 11 fucking aircraft carriers you dumb shit and you still claim that some bullshit dead nation can give us a thrashing. we arent even technically at war. congress never voted for war. we are on a mission to destroy religious extremists and you choose to take the side of the people who would execute you for any government comment. ppl like you always forget whose has true industrial might.
Your 11 aircraft carriers would last about a week in conventional warfare. You don't even have enough fuel for 3 months of operations outside of the persian gulf as you cannot support your forces with fuel otherwise.
And I don't take their side nitwit; I am saying a bunch of goatherders from half way around the world with AKs politically defeated you, and you are running with tail between your legs like you did from Viet Nam; you may have killed many, but have achieved 0.
@52111centrumcz nitwit? lol. and 11 aircraft carriers sunk would bring nuclear fire and devastation to anyone who was at fault. you cannot argue with me in the fact that the us has the highest tech stockpile of nuclear weapons in a ready to launch position, in addition we are the only nation that has even fucking explored missile defense options on a large scale. we accomplished nothing in iraq, but its better to make war and suffer than sit and fall apart like the ussr did!
You said the US was built for conventional war; against a similar industrial power like Russia, if the US would initiate agressive actions the carriers would be first to go. I don't think any US president would be insane to authorize nuclear launch against a country that has enough nukes on their second response launchers to make the north american continent uninhabitable for a millenium. You are SECOND in terms of balistic missile defense - first goes to Soviets in 1971.
Not to mention you are in the graveyard of Empires; afghanistan. The persians broke their teeth there. Alexander the great was defeated there. The english were torn to shreds and had to retreat. The Soviets were exhausted and ran in 1987 to 1988. You are just another failure in a long list, and it will speed up the decline of the US due to the financial burden it took from an economic crisis striken US.
@52111centrumcz eh. the us has many years before any power could rise against it. and the us will probably rebound and become even stronger. another thing remains unarguable: that the us is the most benevolent superpower the world has ever known. could you badmouth the persian king in public? could you curse alexander in the streets? could you speak against lenin in the ussr and not disapear during the night? here you are, speaking freely on the internet, an American invention.
You could mouth off against alexander as long as you didn't DO anything...and as to saying, there was public disagreement and badmouthing against the communist regimes in the WarPAct countries in the 1970s to 1989.
The internet is NOT an american invetion - you might want to look up the significant and non-trivial contributions by the English and the protocols derived for data transfer at CERN.
And as to "benevolent" - you might want to ask the Hondurans about that one.
@52111centrumcz well each of us arent gonna change the other's viewpoint. just because the american giant slumbers doesnt mean it wont wake up again. the us accounts for 42 percent of world defense spending. there were skeptics just like you back during the 40s. they were the japanese empire and look what happened!.the only thing impressive about your argument is your ability to write off each american technology advantage as a weakness waiting to be exposed.
You are hyping each advantage as if it is something revolutionary and unmatched in the world - I am only bringing you down a notch to reality > yes, these are advantages, but they are not as great as you percieve them to be. Much like the view americans had of themselves in the 1930s > old, outdated concepts and thousands of units of aging and rusting equipment.
You also claim a lot of technology as originating from the US, while it is patently not so.
@52111centrumcz yes and what happened in the 30s? evil came to power...japan. germany..they invaded pussies who counted on a doctrine of appeasement and after we were blindsided at pearl harbor we turned the tide on two freaking fronts and won the war. go to globalfirepower . com and compare land based weapons between us and russia. then tell me whose got rusting and aging equipment.
blindsided at pearl harbor? Are you that fucking imbecillic? Go use the FOI act in the US and study elementary documents about your own history, in the way FDR intentionally did NOT provide warning to PH navy commander of the impeding strike so that he may drag an involuntary US to war.
USSR had an 80 to 85% contribution to defeating the Nazis...the rest is divided between the UK, French, Polish and American forces. The war in the Pacific was decided by ships and few men.
blindsided at pearl harbor? Are you that fucking imbecillic? Go use the FOI act in the US and study elementary documents about your own history, in the way FDR intentionally did NOT provide warning to PH navy commander of the impeding strike so that he may drag an involuntary US to war.
USSR had an 80 to 85% contribution to defeating the Nazis...the rest is divided between the UK, French, Polish and American forces. The war in the Pacific was decided by ships and few men.
@52111centrumcz ships and a few men? the ussr did play a major part of the war, too bad they were some of the most ineffective soldiers in history and had the poorest KD ratio in the whole godamned war. you ignore and minimize any us involvement despite the fact that without the united states factories, youd prolly be kissing german ass right now.
The war in the pacific was fought with (comparatively) few men on ships. PACIFIC war. In the Atlantic war, the US contributed a minimum amount of combat power in the west, where the entire western campaing was the equivalent of two months of combat on the eastern front. Without the US factories, USSR would have taken a year more to level Germany. Therefore without US help, we'd probably...be where we are today.
@52111centrumcz The Pacific war had massive amounts of men and equipment involved.
The Battle of Okinawa had between 300,000-400,000 men involved in an incredibly small area. The Battle of Iwo Jima had about 100,000 men in all, in an area of 21 square km (8 square miles).
As for the effects of the US in WWII, think about this. The Soviets would of dealt with thousands of V-1/2 rockets, would of lost a lot of financial support, lost a lot of material support, while dealing with even more.
@52111centrumcz The Pacific war had massive amounts of men and equipment involved.
The Battle of Okinawa had between 300,000-400,000 men involved in an incredibly small area. The Battle of Iwo Jima had about 100,000 men in all, in an area of 21 square km (8 square miles).
As for the effects of the US in WWII, think about this. The Soviets would of dealt with thousands of V-1/2 rockets, would of lost a lot of financial support, lost a lot of material support, while dealing with even more.
Ehhh look at all the americans with there bullshit "But our" "But we" "But that" bullshit. Russia will smash you if it came too it. Your ignorant and suicidal to think america would have any hope against Russia they have lead in LaWS and HAARP and jets and use better weapons since mid 1900's america just has a expensive paint job and propaganda. If some sandels with AK's and RPG can defeat your military you would have no hope with the mother land.
@Mikushla Give it a break. If an IED and RPG and stop a M1A2 a T-90 can make swiss cheese of one. It depends on where it hits and who shoots first and what shell you use.
You can stop a tank with a fuckin wrench if you know what 2 bolts to undo.
Everyone is sick of you ignorant americans, go sit in the corner of your bankrupt country.
@11kungfu11 kungfu bitch, why don't you stop hating and start lovin bro? An IED can be composed of artillery shells which would demolish ANY tank in the world, especially if it's a direct hit.
guy at 1:00 was like....what the F......
DanChoiThon 17 minutes ago
did this in bf3 today. hahaha...
iProfessionaIRussian 1 day ago
ссыкотно?
kuchinalexandr 1 day ago
so this is where my tax dollars go
AKaudio 1 day ago
All modern battle tanks can do this.
derast 2 days ago
@derast AYFKM ? Show me how abrahams will jump ? :D
Fenrijin 2 days ago
@Fenrijin Look here @ 1:35 /watch?v=2X4j_2Kgi9o - they say that the Abrams has the same power-to-weight ratio as the Leopard II. And that one (actually an old version) you can see here: /watch?v=BcaEaFXZ2kc
I think that should work. Cheers!
derast 2 days ago
sick tank! Watch out Abrams.
BadVoodoo100 2 days ago
0:23 And here we have the luxury model equipped with: Heated seats, Multiple cup holders, And a Sunroof for the kids
Only In Russia
Stryker589 2 days ago
That flying shot at the beggining was fucking orgasmic. Favorited.
56KbModem 2 days ago
Seriously its like every ones shitting on America it's Europe u should shit on Im Dutch btw.
guitaristglenn 2 days ago
@guitaristglenn what are you talking about? Why Europe?
BadVoodoo100 2 days ago
Comment removed
Jpayne8921 2 days ago
RUSSIA melhor do mundo salvação da humanidade cotra império norte americano,salve RUSSIA salve salve BRASIL RUSSIA.
elberfmmacedo 3 days ago
@elberfmmacedo pra que isso? Que tal Brasil, Russia, e EUA aliados contra os muculmanos fanáticos que querem matar todos nós?
BadVoodoo100 2 days ago
@BadVoodoo100 o amigo estados unidos pior que os mulculmanos fanaticos,eles não mexe conosco BRASILEIROS ,agora EUA ja nos ameaçou varias veses na segunda guerra queriam ate nos invadir.Exploram quanto puderam agora situação mudou,BRASIL RUSSIA sim e aliados agora fora isto sangue sugas de fora.não prescisamos deles,andamos sozinhos,RUSSIA maior potencia do mundo 8 mil orgivas,BRASIL,rico em recursos naturais,juntpos indestrutiveis.
elberfmmacedo 2 days ago
@elberfmmacedo não mexem com o Brasil porque eles não tem o numero suficiente para fazer algo. Mais quando os numeros deles almentarem, ai que o bicho vai pegar que nem tá pegando ná Europa. É tudo uma questão de tempo, tempo que eles tem de sóbra e agente não.
BadVoodoo100 2 days ago
@BadVoodoo100 sim por isso digo a vc\ devemos nos preparar sim,defender nossa nação,ficar na cautela,fabricar bombas atomicas e ficar na nossa ,ai sim mexem conosco,enfiamos bombas atomicas neles pois materia prima temos muita,aquele que não quer guerra tem de se arma pra ela ok valeu amigo.
elberfmmacedo 1 day ago
Meanwhile in Russia...
Agentkip1 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've seen an M1A2 Abrams and a T-90 ran on mines, the M1A2 Abrams got immobilized and went into pieces, crew dead, while the T-90 stopped but there is no damage inside and the crew were still alive. T-90 is such a tough monster.
sergeikozin47 3 days ago
russia inspirition song i feel stronger alreaady :P
also that is the coolest job ever
unfalpulse 3 days ago
@garystrick85 No, idiot. People on the internet know how to spell.
Maxbtwshow 4 days ago
i've seen an m1a2 and a t90 which ran on mines, m1a2 got immobilized, crew alive, while t90 went to pieces...
MrOldCrow 4 days ago
Russian T-90 "0" USAF A-10 "1" Nuff said.
Froggy19510 4 days ago
reminds me of the MW2 - Black Ops - MW3 quickscoping
HotTop202 4 days ago
Make no mistake... Russia has ALWAYS been ahead of the allies in tanks.. Not to mention air power and radar..
source1zero 4 days ago
ww3 here we come.
SamuelJCir 4 days ago
German Tanks, Russian Tanks > American tanks
Howie262 5 days ago
@Howie262
so these will kill more people in Syria?
taledarkside 5 days ago
@taledarkside they will kill terrorists in syria
MrDavidDux 4 days ago
@MrDavidDux
they will just kill innocent people. Just like Russia today claims the US does.
taledarkside 4 days ago
@Howie262 Do the german or russian tanks have a round equal to the silver bullet sabot rounds the M1 has? Because those rounds, the best they have for the abrams, cant penetrate another abrams from the front or the side. M1 is a really complete tank, only big weakness is logistics, they eat fuel.The USA also has over 7000 of these tanks in service. How many russian and german tanks in service actually capable of killing an abrams? Do the math, USA would rape both countrys in a pure tank battle.
sexyitalian891 4 days ago
@sexyitalian891 First of all bro... im in the Army..... Second You're name "sexyItallian " is Pure fail... Third, the M1 Abrams is was desighned in Germany and the main 120mm smooth bore cannon is a Rhinemetal (German) design....THe leopard 2a6 has the same cannon but with a bigger longer barrel/charge.... it also has a regular turbo diesel.... A leopard 2 tank litterally beats a Abrams in every category... Mobility, Armor, and Cannon... USA has better crew men of course though..
Howie262 4 days ago
@sexyitalian891 Dont be mad, Historically Americans have never been good at using/Building tanks.... our advantage is a pure numeral advantage... Even Patton said this...
In WWII a Disabled Panzer 5 Tiger is = to 4 sherman tanks..
A fully capable Tiger is = around 10 shermans...
this is not my words either... ask any historian...
maybe you should learn about the M1 abrams and where its built and designed from before your dumbass makes Itallians look bad... uh... too late.
Howie262 4 days ago
@Howie262 I find your comment funny, this isn't WW2, nor will any of these countrys ever likely fight each other. "Don't be mad." I think you believe yourself way smarter than you actually are. Numbers and logistics are everything. How many leopard 2s does germany have? Not 1/4 as many as the US has abrams. I also love how you brought up my youtube name, and my nationality. You really don't have have any intelligent stuff to say, which is why its funny to read.
sexyitalian891 4 days ago
@Howie262 So not only in 2 short comments have you proven yourself ignorant and semi racist, but also incapable of taking my information and relating it to something relevant. World war 2 was like 70 years ago dude. Its over with, done. That doesn't matter anymore. They are old tanks only 3rd world countrys use. All these tanks are so closely matched it would simply be a numbers battle, leopard may have an edge on some things, but 1 on 2, leopard loses. 1 on 5, its a massacre.
sexyitalian891 4 days ago
@Howie262 And also, US and US crewman have actual war experiance, its one thing to train, and its another to actually do it. Not to mention, what major battles have leopard 2 tanks actually been in? In the entire gulf war, not a single m1 abrams crewman died from anything. The leopard 2 is a better tank in some areas on paper sure. But it isn't hard proven like the abrams is. Leopard 2 hasnt done anything really, nothing of note. M1 has been in mass scale tank battles.
sexyitalian891 4 days ago
@sexyitalian891 Clearly i already stated that We have a better Active duty volunteer army...
Are you trying to prove a German built tank is better then a German built tank?
ok go right a head lol.
Im in the army... Our Tankers and infantry train in close coordination with the Germans in Germany.
Bottom line, is on a physical mechanical basis, the leopard 2 is clearly the best tank in the world...
look at any forum.
US tankers in Leopard 2's would be the best of course..
Howie262 3 days ago
@Howie262 You once again did side stepped all my points because you feel like you need to defend yourself. I am saying, America has the most powerful tank brigade. The leopard has a what, 25% better gun at most? Minorly better in other things thats it. 400 leopard 2s, thats all germany has, against over 2000 M1 abrams. We are not comparing the tiger to the sherman here, we are comparing a sherman to a slightly better sherman. You really need to get over yourself.
sexyitalian891 2 days ago
@Howie262 In any major tank war with any country, I believe the USA would win, hands down. Even against very slightly superior tanks, they would still win because the superior tanks don't have the numbers to back up their advantages. And it is not a huge advantage, it has a decent advantage over only the gun in the abrams, thats it. Everything else is so similar its not worth talking about. USA would win, thats what im getting at. You can say this and that but my argument is sound.
sexyitalian891 2 days ago
@Howie262 Its logical and makes great sense, yours does not. Your even bringing up forums? I also doubt that the gun of the leopard 2 could achieve anything more than a mobility kill, since modern tanks havnt fought each other ever in the field theres not way of testing exactly how strong their armor really is. I know shots from other M1s with their best ammo, are completly ineffective against the side and front armor. Thats also fact, its not just speculation.
sexyitalian891 2 days ago
@Howie262 Next time you wanna have a debate with someone, try listening to what they are speaking about and don't bring up useless info. And don't use ad hominem in your "argument" strategy because it just makes you look like a pussy with nothing to say. Try showing a little respect and see how far that gets you, because until then your just a little man with a keyboard.
sexyitalian891 4 days ago
@sexyitalian891 You're right... how ever, that doesn't change the fact that the Leopard 2 is still the best tank in the world...
Numbers backed up, or not...
Shure America would beat Germany in an all out tank war, thats obvious....
(well for one, Germany spends prolly less than 10% of what we spend on our military)
My argument makes perfect sense.... any expert will tell you, any historian will tell you that the Leopard 2 based on Mobility, Amor and Cannon, is the best.
Howie262 1 day ago
@Howie262, An M3 Stuart light tank knocked out a Tiger I in close fighting in Tunisia or Sicily in WWII, & a British tanker in a Sherman took on 3 Tiger II's in Normandy & rammed one I believe but the 3 Tiger II,s were actually running from the brave/mad tank crew of the Sherman. 5-10 Shermans would flank a Tiger & in close country (Hedgegrows/bocage, towns, forest, narrow roads & small narrow bridges) have an advantage over the larger & heavier Tigers. Tigers were open terrain AFV's.
christof139 3 days ago
@christof139 Thats a subjective argument... i could say the same thing about Michael Whitman and his successes with the Tiger...
Bottom line though... history shows on a Quality vs. Quantity Basis, the Germans are far superior with tanks. Not to mention for the most part the Allies didn't even have Radios in their tanks..
I already stated we have a better volunteer army of course.. apparently you skimmed through what i wrote...
I would know, im in the Army...
Howie262 3 days ago
EXTERMINATE!!!
inkmagnet 5 days ago
Holy shit they work!!
CaptinAwesome15 5 days ago
Meanwhile at Greenpeace headquarter.
TheCameltotem 6 days ago
in soviet russia, tanks drives you!
torcidaSTobrec 6 days ago
stupid Americans and Europeans, Russia kick ass you are
Markscheider77 6 days ago
@Markscheider77 Russian are (for a part) europeans dumbass....
whitemen02 6 days ago
you have not seen the new Russian tanks T-99, they will be ready by 2013.
SuperMosara 1 week ago
in soviet russia tanks drove you
vonestoner 1 week ago
0:09 wow how smart!!! You just wasted one round dumbass
oporim 1 week ago
T-90s are the new style now for Russia? T-72s were the old ones?
DarkPrinceNH5570 1 week ago
@DarkPrinceNH5570but t-90s cost 4.2 million so its very expensive t-72
TATARSTAN59500 1 week ago
@DarkPrinceNH5570 and t-90ms its just revolution
with new turret new engine new relikt armor transmission pilot post and sateelit comunication system
TATARSTAN59500 1 week ago
No way... T-90s are almost the same as the Leopard IIs in something.
Russia made this tank? Russia and Germany might as well come together as a whole.
DarkPrinceNH5570 1 week ago
then they break down
xxuncexx 1 week ago
The guy at 1:00, holy fuck, ok ill pay my taxes..
bluebanana8ify 1 week ago 2
Who needs Monster Trucks?
IVANGROZNEY 1 week ago
ok so where is this flying tank?
chezzylee 1 week ago
I need one of these for school
SenhorPatriota 1 week ago
1:09 that guy with that whit t-shirt tthinks OMG i am scruwed
NeuroticCube94 1 week ago
God bless RUSSIA
knightwar3 1 week ago
cheap
01101111omg 1 week ago
SERBIA MUST HAVE THOSE !!!
HybodusStudios 1 week ago
Background Music 00:55 : Queen - We Are The Champions (Russian Version) LOL!?
TheSuperComments 1 week ago
@TheSuperComments No, generally it is a hymn in rock processing
Mithreech 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheSuperComments 1 week ago
:56 was a glorious moment.
AuRevoirTune 1 week ago
Cheap
01101111omg 1 week ago
Albert Pike. He was an attorney, Confederate officer, writer and Freemason AND Illuminati. He wrote "Morals and Dogma" by which today's Freemasons still follows and saw a vision in 1871 of 3 World Wars that are necessary to establish a "New World Order". Two wars happened PRECISELY by his words! What is interesting is that he did not predicted them, but he gave a plan for Illuminati and Freemasons. After WW3 population will be decreased to 500 million, Lucifer religion will be established.
sedjetra 1 week ago
There was a message that a WW3 will start in spring 2013, with attack on Iran by NATO, Russia and China will stand against this attack. This will be a normal war until 2016, when USA will move nuclear missiles to Georgia, this act will force russians to launch nukes on USA, China will launch it's nukes on USA too. Instantly USA will launch it's nukes on Russia and China, this will result in 3 billions dead and a lot of radiation everywhere. Anonymous message 5-19-13 Expect Us.
sedjetra 1 week ago
@sedjetra What a retarded load of crap.
mryellow123 6 days ago
@mryellow123 just wait and see.
sedjetra 5 days ago
دبابة جيدة ولكن الابرامز افضل m1 a1 تتعدى امكانياتها بكثير
elruby52 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@radostsguy Learn history!!! Compare scales of battles, Americans only played war.
GluhoiStarik 1 week ago
why do they output all that fog? lol. aren't they powered by jet engines?
frizstyler 1 week ago
It was the USSR, not Russia in WW2. And, the Nazis were defeated on the Eastern Front, with help from the Western Powers, of course. But it was USA who basically defeated Japan.
radostsguy1 1 week ago
@radostsguy1 Learn history!!! Compare scales of battles, Americans only played war.
GluhoiStarik 1 week ago
Well.... it would shoot the shit out of my Corolla!!!
mrbishi1000 1 week ago
what a happy family T-90S & T-80U & T-90A very nice
MetalGearArmA 1 week ago
that projectile from 0:10 just hit the village...
mikenmbr1 1 week ago
If you think that Abrams and his thick armor can stand before the 125 mm gun of the T-90, which shoots guided antitank missiles, you are very mistaken. Abrams did not even have time to drive up to a distance attack.
You also grossly mistaken in the unreliability of the T-90 armor, talking about his small size. Please read about the "active and reactive protection"
Yankee still have not invented the machine of charging. In your american Abrams big sweaty negros fill up the cannon shells =)
TheDrLester 1 week ago
@TheDrLester the 125 mm is theoretically capable of peircing the armor of a abrams. the 120 mm is more than capable of piercing the armor of the T90. american tank crews almost always achieve the first shot in an encounter. 5mm extra of size of the gun doesnt make up for um...satellite and uav recon, supply lines, ammo made this side of the year 2000, and proper tank training. also if you think active defense armor can stop a sabot, you are again sadly mistaken.
23HAMSANDWICH 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
If you think active armor does not reduce the penetrating power of a sabot round by 30 to 45% (depending on the type/manufacturer) then you are sadly deluded. Go read some relevant information on the subject. The new Ukrainian "Nozh" active armor array can make a T-55 practically immune to M829A2 when hit on protected portions of the tank.
52111centrumcz 1 week ago
@52111centrumcz what the hell is an M82A2? and the T55 was an upgrade of the T54 which was the successor to the T34, which makes the T55 pitifully outdated by tanks of even the M60 era. even so, ussr member states have never been keen on crew survivability, and i refuse to believe a country which allocates 1.2 billion dollars a year to defense could develop active armor that the us didnt have 40 years ago
23HAMSANDWICH 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
The T54 is completely different to a T-34. That's like saying an M-60A1 is an upgrade of an M4.
The US didn't develop active armor because they didn't think to invest in it - just being pure retarded at the Pentagon, like not developing tanks with christie suspension in the 1930s from a US engineer - its called "not invented here" syndrome, and its endemic to retards at the procurement arm of the pentagon.
The M829A2 (you can't even copy correctly) is a US saboted round.
52111centrumcz 1 week ago
@52111centrumcz succession means next in line dipshit not upgrade of. and id like you to provide a link to your sources. ok, we can argue ww3 who would own who all day long, the truth is look at the godamn operational history of both tanks. the t72 provides a cheap way for dictatorships to terrorize thier civilians, but look at the persian gulf war and try to ignore the fact that the obsolete and incompetently crewed T72s absolutely failed in holding off any sort of us advance
23HAMSANDWICH 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH We also got to look at some of dictators that were backed and put in by the American power like The Shah of Iran Gen Batista of Cuba and many many more.
ST4leave 1 week ago
@ST4leave they were put in on the assumptions that they would continue representing american interests in the middle east. they didnt. obviously the middle eastern honor code consists of being a complete dick to everyone but a bigger dick than you.
23HAMSANDWICH 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH What are you talking about they didn’t go with the Islamic regime they stayed true to our will. It was the people that revolted the Shah and put in place the Islamic Republic of Iran. Then Iran was going to unite all Muslim countries under the Islamic regime. That’s when we used Saddam as a Proxy to fight Iran. Now Saddam went against us and threaten to make the US $ useless for purchasing oil then he invaded Kuwait. You can’t force love
ST4leave 1 week ago
@ST4leave im talking about the people in general. arabs have very little redeeming qualities, and im not racist by nature its just that racial profiling does seem to have merit.
eh.. moneys money and the american taxpayer is probably the most powerful force on the planet.
23HAMSANDWICH 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH Depends. the T-72M and T-72M1 had very poor amounts of armor, used obsolete rounds, and had terrible training. Whereas a T-72B has substantially better armor. Not that it may have mattered against the M829 series.
However, I would say that most countries that operate the T-72 have training that is inferior to US OPFOR training.
But the T-72/80/90 have much better armor than one would think. Especially with Relikt.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
The T-72 was built in 1972...M1s started being cranked out around 1983 1984 in numbers. The 120mm variant came out roughly 1989.
Considering the small number of destroyed T-72s which had no IR imaging sights, no air cover and was to all intents and purposes unarmed means ... what exactly? It certainly doesn't mean the M1 is good for anything other than shooting on hard, flat level ground at long range against old tanks with poor optics. Most Iraqi T-72s were from the 1970s.
52111centrumcz 1 week ago
@52111centrumcz tactics mean more than anything when it comes to tanks. the tiger failed where the panzer II and III succeeded. it means very little. the us isnt stupid. there was a reason the T72s had no air cover. the T72 is a design offering good firepower, but it is not designed to withstand or deflect shots of the rheinmetal smoothbore 120. the Refleks missile would absolutely level any tank it hit however. the us favors not developing a tank accessory until needed.
23HAMSANDWICH 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheDrLester 1 week ago
Comment removed
TheDrLester 1 week ago
tank 1 everything else 0
BlackGoldEstates 2 weeks ago
tankcross
cgDominion 2 weeks ago
take a look at this hude gun!
realomon 2 weeks ago
Tanks for uploading.
loumberjack1982 2 weeks ago
THIS IS THE GREATEST THING EVER.
WilliamBrown93 2 weeks ago
Almost all the customers who bought russian tank, strip away the russian targeting system and replace it with the western one. i agree, russian 125mm gun are formidable. But it's useless if you can't hit anything with it. T-90 are also sport a thinner armor then the Abrams or any latest western tank which make the T-90 remarkably light. But it make the T-90 less protected then the Abrams.
lanunselat 2 weeks ago
@lanunselat
Look up what volumetric armor efficiency means, and then compare the two tank sizes. From the frontal aspect both tanks have comparable armor.
52111centrumcz 2 weeks ago
AMERICAN FUCK!!!!!!RUSSIAN FOREVER!!!!!РУССКИЕ ВПЕРЁД!!!!!!
Chelovegin 2 weeks ago
@Chelovegin You don't have to say it out loud. we already know that AMERICAN FUCK RUSSIA FOREVER.
lanunselat 2 weeks ago
@lanunselat lol are you kidding me? russia could easily blow america off the world. im an american btw. you are just an ignorant idiot brainwashed by the media
michiman57 2 weeks ago
1:10
Spectator: What happens now?
Soldier: Firepower demonstration.
Spectator: But those guns are pointing right at us.
Soldier: Da.
Spectator: Oh, chyort.
bamarine247 2 weeks ago
0:37 The driver must be wet to the bone XD
smoothMousePad 2 weeks ago
Pause at 1:14. Can you imagine how fucking loud the gun must be for that guy in the front right under the turret.
Tomatoesaretasty 2 weeks ago
Model T-100 will enter the vertical wall ;3
GisPoru 2 weeks ago
The tank obviously has great amortization to perform that jump. That's the pressure of 60 tons that needs to be amplified!
LightningHexagon 3 weeks ago
This is the kind of shit I do on battlefield this shit is legit!!
MrSilverfish12 3 weeks ago
-60c Soviet Russia people lick frozen vodka.
xxlzaka 3 weeks ago
i think the crewmen of this T90 have been playing the PS2 GTAs
VenatorAcclamator 3 weeks ago
M1 Abrams is the beast
the T 90 is a kids toy
almaajood 3 weeks ago
@almaajood Have you seen the T-95? If not, do not say anything about the Abrams
MrDenfat 2 weeks ago
@MrDenfat Abrams 1980s. T-90 early 90s, T-95 a next generation tanks cancelled in favor for T-99. T-90 itself is superior to the Abrams and the T-99 would be worlds best tanks
SMGJohn 2 weeks ago
@MrDenfat Common are you serious. The russian dumb generals refused it, they want to keep this shit as the major tanks for the Russian army
almaajood 2 weeks ago
Carbon box.
89UncleSam 3 weeks ago 2
0:09 Quickscope ^^
GFCDelta 3 weeks ago
You could get them all at 1:06 with Squad Explosives.
HomocidicalBear 3 weeks ago
Do a rocket jump!
BornAgainEngineer 3 weeks ago
i love the way it bounces lol
nuk3p0w3rd 3 weeks ago
In U.S., the tanks can be seen only in Hollywood movies.
KNOWSCORE 3 weeks ago
Why don't the Russians and Americans team up against China and Korea. That'd be awesome.
Marks1157 3 weeks ago
@Marks1157
what a pointless comment.
war is not "awesome"....
drzdeano 3 weeks ago
@drzdeano I didn't say war is awesome. I said the alliance of these two nations would be epic.
Marks1157 3 weeks ago
I hope one day the US and Russia will be strong allies.
AirsoftNewJersey 3 weeks ago
@AirsoftNewJersey me too. imagine a new russia with the infrastructure and GDP of the united states? then we could finally turn our attention to an new age of space travel. we gotta find faster than light travel, and forgoing our differences would help us at least get one step closer during the next 100 years.
23HAMSANDWICH 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The T90 will lose to ANY NATO tank: Abrams, LeClerc, Challenger II, Leopard II, it doesn't matter. Russian equipment will ALWAYS be inferior to what we have in the civilized world.
Mikushla 3 weeks ago
@Mikushla why in the WW2 ,russian tank T-34 won against the mighty german panzer Tiger against all the odds? T-90 is not inferior today,i'm not russian and i don't love this country,but always western countries and USA underestimate Russia,don't awake a russian bear because is full of surprises.
Danezu28 3 weeks ago
@Danezu28 one on one the T34 was toast. soviet designers found the perfect balance between quality design, and ease of production. the tiger was hard to produce, but an all out badass when it came to fighting. the sherman sucked balls, but there were 50000 of them by the time the war ended. the T34 was in the middle. could handle itself well, but there was always another one to take its place if it couldnt.
23HAMSANDWICH 3 weeks ago
@Mikushla
Yeah, a bit like when Panzer III ran against T-34s which they were clearly superior to...oh wait....
52111centrumcz 3 weeks ago
@Mikushla
You do realize that any time a russian tank with new APFSDS rounds shoots at anything but the turret frontal armor of ANY NATO tank it will shoot right through it right? Or that with the new Catherine thermal sights its thermals are as good as those of the M1A2, and it has superior range, superior soft ground performance, superior anti-infantry rounds, lower fuel consumption, greater durability (it can use a dozer blade without breaking its suspension unlike an Abrams).
52111centrumcz 3 weeks ago
@52111centrumcz yeah thats all great and all, but you must realize the abrams is by anyone standards, an ancient design. the allies proved it dont take superior armor design to win a war, and any heavy tank, still falls victim to air power. which...um...the americans have been specializing in since the start of the cold war.
23HAMSANDWICH 3 weeks ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
Um...which they completely failed to utilize in Serbia, which proves air power is practically worthless when deployed in semi-vegeted terrain against an ancient (1970s) SAM equipped enemy where in almost half a year of bombing they destroyed only 17(!!!) tanks. That's pathetic. Not to mention the incidence of their pilots being so poorly trained that they did a CFT with an AH-64 right into a mountainside....
52111centrumcz 3 weeks ago
@52111centrumcz the united states had its hands tied with logistics at that point. its impressive that any american power was extended there at all. idk where you get off saying americans are "poorly trained" seeing how the military academies in the USA are the best in the world, end of story. in WW2 everybody was on one side or the other, and today, you cant set up bases in turkey (for example) if they dont want them there. which just proves that the USA respects borders.
23HAMSANDWICH 3 weeks ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
"End of story" is usually utilized by political idiots like Al Gore when they have no arguments and want the other side to shut up - frankly when I said american pilots were poorly trained, I was only quoting the NATO after action report. It said "Pilots were insufficiently prepared for the local terrrain and weather conditions to operate effectively".
How much USA respects borders was precisely demonstrated on the raid into Lybia and into Yemen. Which is not at all.
52111centrumcz 3 weeks ago
@52111centrumcz ok whatever dude. you choose to ignore easily identifiable markers of just how superior the united states military is to russias pitiful shattered ghost of a military. do you know why russia has 2 main battle tank programs? because they dont want economic hardship in areas that produce both tanks. the united states has no need for a new tank design. all the russians are doing is giving the us a benchmark to beat if they ever went head to head.
23HAMSANDWICH 2 weeks ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
You choose to ignore the fact you can't defeat a bunch of goatherders with AKs and RPGs for any significant amount of time, and your economy is shattered thanks in part due to the inflation caused by government spending on keeping your military operating.
The fact you think they have two tank designs shows you went to sleep somewhere at the turn of the century; they have one active tank program, and several developmental projects that will be built where the T-90 is.
52111centrumcz 2 weeks ago
@52111centrumcz damn dude the us military is built for a conventional war. America has 11 fucking aircraft carriers you dumb shit and you still claim that some bullshit dead nation can give us a thrashing. we arent even technically at war. congress never voted for war. we are on a mission to destroy religious extremists and you choose to take the side of the people who would execute you for any government comment. ppl like you always forget whose has true industrial might.
23HAMSANDWICH 2 weeks ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
Your 11 aircraft carriers would last about a week in conventional warfare. You don't even have enough fuel for 3 months of operations outside of the persian gulf as you cannot support your forces with fuel otherwise.
And I don't take their side nitwit; I am saying a bunch of goatherders from half way around the world with AKs politically defeated you, and you are running with tail between your legs like you did from Viet Nam; you may have killed many, but have achieved 0.
52111centrumcz 2 weeks ago
@52111centrumcz nitwit? lol. and 11 aircraft carriers sunk would bring nuclear fire and devastation to anyone who was at fault. you cannot argue with me in the fact that the us has the highest tech stockpile of nuclear weapons in a ready to launch position, in addition we are the only nation that has even fucking explored missile defense options on a large scale. we accomplished nothing in iraq, but its better to make war and suffer than sit and fall apart like the ussr did!
23HAMSANDWICH 2 weeks ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
You said the US was built for conventional war; against a similar industrial power like Russia, if the US would initiate agressive actions the carriers would be first to go. I don't think any US president would be insane to authorize nuclear launch against a country that has enough nukes on their second response launchers to make the north american continent uninhabitable for a millenium. You are SECOND in terms of balistic missile defense - first goes to Soviets in 1971.
52111centrumcz 2 weeks ago
@52111centrumcz It's Funny Cause Russia has enough nukes to decimate the world 3 times xD
Anonymous4245 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
Not to mention you are in the graveyard of Empires; afghanistan. The persians broke their teeth there. Alexander the great was defeated there. The english were torn to shreds and had to retreat. The Soviets were exhausted and ran in 1987 to 1988. You are just another failure in a long list, and it will speed up the decline of the US due to the financial burden it took from an economic crisis striken US.
52111centrumcz 2 weeks ago
@52111centrumcz eh. the us has many years before any power could rise against it. and the us will probably rebound and become even stronger. another thing remains unarguable: that the us is the most benevolent superpower the world has ever known. could you badmouth the persian king in public? could you curse alexander in the streets? could you speak against lenin in the ussr and not disapear during the night? here you are, speaking freely on the internet, an American invention.
23HAMSANDWICH 2 weeks ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
You could mouth off against alexander as long as you didn't DO anything...and as to saying, there was public disagreement and badmouthing against the communist regimes in the WarPAct countries in the 1970s to 1989.
The internet is NOT an american invetion - you might want to look up the significant and non-trivial contributions by the English and the protocols derived for data transfer at CERN.
And as to "benevolent" - you might want to ask the Hondurans about that one.
52111centrumcz 2 weeks ago
@52111centrumcz well each of us arent gonna change the other's viewpoint. just because the american giant slumbers doesnt mean it wont wake up again. the us accounts for 42 percent of world defense spending. there were skeptics just like you back during the 40s. they were the japanese empire and look what happened!.the only thing impressive about your argument is your ability to write off each american technology advantage as a weakness waiting to be exposed.
23HAMSANDWICH 2 weeks ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
You are hyping each advantage as if it is something revolutionary and unmatched in the world - I am only bringing you down a notch to reality > yes, these are advantages, but they are not as great as you percieve them to be. Much like the view americans had of themselves in the 1930s > old, outdated concepts and thousands of units of aging and rusting equipment.
You also claim a lot of technology as originating from the US, while it is patently not so.
52111centrumcz 1 week ago
@52111centrumcz yes and what happened in the 30s? evil came to power...japan. germany..they invaded pussies who counted on a doctrine of appeasement and after we were blindsided at pearl harbor we turned the tide on two freaking fronts and won the war. go to globalfirepower . com and compare land based weapons between us and russia. then tell me whose got rusting and aging equipment.
23HAMSANDWICH 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
"evil came to power...japan. germany..they invaded pussies"
"after we were blindsided at pearl harbor"
Lol. Bit ironic for you too say such things haha you can tell your a gung ho patriot.
You won't understand this, but educated people of the world will:P
No offence, you know no better.
11kungfu11 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
blindsided at pearl harbor? Are you that fucking imbecillic? Go use the FOI act in the US and study elementary documents about your own history, in the way FDR intentionally did NOT provide warning to PH navy commander of the impeding strike so that he may drag an involuntary US to war.
USSR had an 80 to 85% contribution to defeating the Nazis...the rest is divided between the UK, French, Polish and American forces. The war in the Pacific was decided by ships and few men.
52111centrumcz 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
blindsided at pearl harbor? Are you that fucking imbecillic? Go use the FOI act in the US and study elementary documents about your own history, in the way FDR intentionally did NOT provide warning to PH navy commander of the impeding strike so that he may drag an involuntary US to war.
USSR had an 80 to 85% contribution to defeating the Nazis...the rest is divided between the UK, French, Polish and American forces. The war in the Pacific was decided by ships and few men.
52111centrumcz 1 week ago
@52111centrumcz ships and a few men? the ussr did play a major part of the war, too bad they were some of the most ineffective soldiers in history and had the poorest KD ratio in the whole godamned war. you ignore and minimize any us involvement despite the fact that without the united states factories, youd prolly be kissing german ass right now.
23HAMSANDWICH 1 week ago
@23HAMSANDWICH
The war in the pacific was fought with (comparatively) few men on ships. PACIFIC war. In the Atlantic war, the US contributed a minimum amount of combat power in the west, where the entire western campaing was the equivalent of two months of combat on the eastern front. Without the US factories, USSR would have taken a year more to level Germany. Therefore without US help, we'd probably...be where we are today.
52111centrumcz 1 week ago
@52111centrumcz The Pacific war had massive amounts of men and equipment involved.
The Battle of Okinawa had between 300,000-400,000 men involved in an incredibly small area. The Battle of Iwo Jima had about 100,000 men in all, in an area of 21 square km (8 square miles).
As for the effects of the US in WWII, think about this. The Soviets would of dealt with thousands of V-1/2 rockets, would of lost a lot of financial support, lost a lot of material support, while dealing with even more.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@52111centrumcz The Pacific war had massive amounts of men and equipment involved.
The Battle of Okinawa had between 300,000-400,000 men involved in an incredibly small area. The Battle of Iwo Jima had about 100,000 men in all, in an area of 21 square km (8 square miles).
As for the effects of the US in WWII, think about this. The Soviets would of dealt with thousands of V-1/2 rockets, would of lost a lot of financial support, lost a lot of material support, while dealing with even more.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
я бы вдул
brookersfanggg 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ehhh look at all the americans with there bullshit "But our" "But we" "But that" bullshit. Russia will smash you if it came too it. Your ignorant and suicidal to think america would have any hope against Russia they have lead in LaWS and HAARP and jets and use better weapons since mid 1900's america just has a expensive paint job and propaganda. If some sandels with AK's and RPG can defeat your military you would have no hope with the mother land.
11kungfu11 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
11kungfu11 3 weeks ago
No match for the M1A2 Abrams.
Mikushla 4 weeks ago
@Mikushla Give it a break. If an IED and RPG and stop a M1A2 a T-90 can make swiss cheese of one. It depends on where it hits and who shoots first and what shell you use.
You can stop a tank with a fuckin wrench if you know what 2 bolts to undo.
Everyone is sick of you ignorant americans, go sit in the corner of your bankrupt country.
11kungfu11 3 weeks ago 15
@11kungfu11 kungfu bitch, why don't you stop hating and start lovin bro? An IED can be composed of artillery shells which would demolish ANY tank in the world, especially if it's a direct hit.
Juantonomobay 3 weeks ago