Added: 1 year ago
From: RussiaToday
Views: 1,827,090
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (4,624)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • guy at 1:00 was like....what the F......

  • did this in bf3 today. hahaha...

  • ссыкотно?

  • so this is where my tax dollars go

  • All modern battle tanks can do this.

  • @derast AYFKM ? Show me how abrahams will jump ? :D

  • @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!

  • sick tank! Watch out Abrams.

  • 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

  • That flying shot at the beggining was fucking orgasmic. Favorited.

  • Seriously its like every ones shitting on America it's Europe u should shit on Im Dutch btw.

  • @guitaristglenn what are you talking about? Why Europe?

  • Comment removed

  • RUSSIA melhor do mundo salvação da humanidade cotra império norte americano,salve RUSSIA salve salve BRASIL RUSSIA.

  • @elberfmmacedo pra que isso? Que tal Brasil, Russia, e EUA aliados contra os muculmanos fanáticos que querem matar todos nós?

  • @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.

  • Meanwhile in Russia...

  • russia inspirition song i feel stronger alreaady :P

    also that is the coolest job ever

  • @garystrick85 No, idiot. People on the internet know how to spell.

  • i've seen an m1a2 and a t90 which ran on mines, m1a2 got immobilized, crew alive, while t90 went to pieces...

  • Russian T-90 "0" USAF A-10 "1" Nuff said.

  • reminds me of the MW2 - Black Ops - MW3 quickscoping

  • Make no mistake... Russia has ALWAYS been ahead of the allies in tanks.. Not to mention air power and radar..

  • ww3 here we come.

  • German Tanks, Russian Tanks > American tanks

  • @Howie262

    so these will kill more people in Syria?

  • @taledarkside they will kill terrorists in syria

  • @MrDavidDux

    they will just kill innocent people. Just like Russia today claims the US does.

  • @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.

  • @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 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...

    I would know, im in the Army...

  • EXTERMINATE!!!

  • Holy shit they work!!

  • Meanwhile at Greenpeace headquarter.

  • in soviet russia, tanks drives you!

  • stupid Americans and Europeans, Russia kick ass you are

  • @Markscheider77 Russian are (for a part) europeans dumbass....

  • you have not seen the new Russian tanks T-99, they will be ready by 2013.

  • in soviet russia tanks drove you

  • 0:09 wow how smart!!! You just wasted one round dumbass

  • T-90s are the new style now for Russia? T-72s were the old ones?

  • @DarkPrinceNH5570but t-90s cost 4.2 million so its very expensive t-72

  • @DarkPrinceNH5570 and t-90ms its just revolution

    with new turret new engine new relikt armor transmission pilot post and sateelit comunication system

  • 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.

  • then they break down

  • The guy at 1:00, holy fuck, ok ill pay my taxes..

  • Who needs Monster Trucks?

  • ok so where is this flying tank?

  • I need one of these for school

  • 1:09 that guy with that whit t-shirt tthinks OMG i am scruwed

  • God bless RUSSIA

  • cheap

  • SERBIA MUST HAVE THOSE !!!

  • Background Music 00:55 : Queen - We Are The Champions (Russian Version) LOL!?

  • @TheSuperComments No, generally it is a hymn in rock processing

  • Comment removed

  • :56 was a glorious moment.

  • Cheap

  • 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.

  • @sedjetra What a retarded load of crap.

  • @mryellow123 just wait and see.

  • دبابة جيدة ولكن الابرامز افضل m1 a1 تتعدى امكانياتها بكثير

  • why do they output all that fog? lol. aren't they powered by jet engines?

  • 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 Learn history!!! Compare scales of battles, Americans only played war.

  • Well.... it would shoot the shit out of my Corolla!!!

  • what a happy family T-90S & T-80U & T-90A very nice

  • that projectile from 0:10 just hit the village...

  • 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.

  • @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 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

    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.

  • @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 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.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • tank 1 everything else 0

  • tankcross

  • take a look at this hude gun!

  • Tanks for uploading.

  • THIS IS THE GREATEST THING EVER.

  • 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

    Look up what volumetric armor efficiency means, and then compare the two tank sizes. From the frontal aspect both tanks have comparable armor.

  • AMERICAN FUCK!!!!!!RUSSIAN FOREVER!!!!!РУССКИЕ ВПЕРЁД!!!!!!

  • @Chelovegin You don't have to say it out loud. we already know that AMERICAN FUCK RUSSIA FOREVER.

  • @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

  • 1:10

    Spectator: What happens now?

    Soldier: Firepower demonstration.

    Spectator: But those guns are pointing right at us.

    Soldier: Da.

    Spectator: Oh, chyort.

  • 0:37 The driver must be wet to the bone XD

  • Pause at 1:14. Can you imagine how fucking loud the gun must be for that guy in the front right under the turret.

  • Model T-100 will enter the vertical wall ;3

  • The tank obviously has great amortization to perform that jump. That's the pressure of 60 tons that needs to be amplified!

  • This is the kind of shit I do on battlefield this shit is legit!!

  • -60c Soviet Russia people lick frozen vodka.

  • i think the crewmen of this T90 have been playing the PS2 GTAs

  • M1 Abrams is the beast

    the T 90 is a kids toy

  • @almaajood Have you seen the T-95? If not, do not say anything about the Abrams

  • @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

  • @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

  • Carbon box.

  • 0:09 Quickscope ^^

  • You could get them all at 1:06 with Squad Explosives.

  • Do a rocket jump!

  • i love the way it bounces lol

  • In U.S., the tanks can be seen only in Hollywood movies.

  • Why don't the Russians and Americans team up against China and Korea. That'd be awesome.

  • @Marks1157

    what a pointless comment.

    war is not "awesome"....

  • @drzdeano I didn't say war is awesome. I said the alliance of these two nations would be epic.

  • I hope one day the US and Russia will be strong allies.

  • @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.

  • @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.

  • @Mikushla

    Yeah, a bit like when Panzer III ran against T-34s which they were clearly superior to...oh wait....

  • @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 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

    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.

  • @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 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

    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.

  • @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 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

    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 It's Funny Cause Russia has enough nukes to decimate the world 3 times xD

  • @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 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

    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.

  • @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 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

    "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.

  • @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.

  • @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 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

    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.

  • я бы вдул

  • Comment removed

  • No match for the M1A2 Abrams.

  • @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.