Not trying to sound like a biased american, but think about it US tech was always ahead of soviets but then in 1991 they went bankrupt and couldn't invest in military tech US didn't and kept going building awesome tech
I believe that the Leopard C2 Main battle tank is better then the "All powerful Abrams" for one simple reason, sloped armour. They have exactly the same gun, same engine, and same technology. but the Leopard armour is more sloped.
@DJSbros Wrong ! The Leopard C2 tank uses the same engine as the Leopard 1. It is powered by the MTU multi-fuel diesel, developing 830 hp. The M1 Abrams uses the Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine1,500 shp (1,120 kW) which gives a operational range of 426 km. The Leopard C2 has a range of 600 km.
@HateCrewMurder I know !!! but if you took you head out of your ass you would see that DJSbros wrote Leopard C2 which is a canadian version. He wrote that Leopard c2 and M1 abrams have the same engine. A Leopard c2 is not the same as the Leopard 2 wich uses the "new" engines. If you doubt me google it. I drive a Leo 2a5DK with auxillary Dieselgenerator.
The recoiless rifle set up reminds me of the USMC ontos from the 1960s 6 106s were nice but you had to back out of line of sight to reload. The russians love there country just as much as Americans love ours. the russian equipment is rugged and generaly easer to maintain than the american counterpart is. and price wise you could probly get 2 bmp for one bradly
Russian garbage. Always the same problem. Great constructors (like in space industry) and real tragedy in production. Have you seen what happened to Russian tanks during war against Georgia? Dozens and dozens of tanks out of order at roadsides. That really means what they do and how they are able to do it. They just used to say “My by pobyedhili tol’ko silushki nyetu” (Sure, we would win but we do not have power enough”). What a tragic and pathetic nation.
mrkukara4 gehe ich in der Anfänge das du dein wissen nur von denn Daten blättern hast? denn anders Jan ich mir dein engstirniges denken nicht erklähren. ich kenne die Unterschiede aus der Praxis und Weiss worauf es ankommt und glaube mir, der m1a1 ist nicht das absolute denn er ist z.b. im Gebirge oder im Morast absolut unbrauchbar, aber der pirania3 ist top im Gebirge wie auch bei aphischer taktik, aber bei Mozart ist halt der Leo. der beste. ob wohl das Datenblatt was anderes behaubtet.
mrkukara4, sage mir doch mal, warum du mich beleidigst. 1. du kennst mich nicht und weist auch nicht wer ich bin. 2. du sagst ich habe jähe Ahnung von militärischermaschinerie, weist aber nicht das amphibische Taktik bedeutet. 3. wenn ich doch so dumm bin und keine Ahnung vom Militär habe, sage mir doch mal, Was ich dann beim weltrüstungskonzern in Uniform zu suchen hatte
Everybody is saying things like t-72 can own an abrams, an a-10 would own this thing, and an f-22 raptor would own this thing. T-72 is no longer in production and most have been upgraded to t-90 standard. A-10 warthog 2 has been pulled from action and replaced by a version of the f-16 because of ridiculously low speed and vulnerability. And f-22 was cancelled 2 years ago, with only 186 made.
@Romagatyr Russians have something that would make F-22 a flying tin can in 2 seconds. T-72M could take out a Abrams yes it's just that in Iraq war it was easy target because it was an old 1970s model and had it's own fire control ripped out. It neither had night vision or infrared like the Soviet version does. so in fact if they where equipped with that it could take out Abrams easily
@SMGJohn a T-72 M couldnt go toe to toe with an Abrams tank, the T-72 is just too obsolete, although it is a fine tank when going against other less advanced armies with older tanks. During the Iraq war, the Abrams sustained multiple hits from T-72's, and its been shown through tests that a 120mm sabot round would go right through the frontal armor of a T72 with ERA. the T-90, and some of the T-80 upgrades would be more of a match for the Abrams, however, money is on the Abrams
@controlusplease1 Might I tell you that. What you where facing in Iraq was the Monkey model of a T-72 and extremely poorly trained Iraqi tank crews. Look up on Wikipedia "Monkey Model" T-72B would toast the Abrams. Abrams is very patrionized trough the war in Iraq in which monkey models of Soviet tanks where facing modern armor. I suggest you read more and then come back as T-90 is a superior tanks to any American tanks. And that's the truth it's hard to believe yes
@SMGJohn Have you ever been a tanker? My dad was in the tank corps, and they tell you the honest to god, no bs, abilities & limitations of your & your adversaries tanks. The T-72 is a good platform, dont get me wrong, but it just doesn't match up to the Abrams. I understand that the Iraqi T-72s had no fire control, & their turret fire control was completely manual, but still, some Iraqi's did manage to engage Abrams, and the rounds bounced off. Its old technology. Ive done my research
@controlusplease1 No I once get to drive a Panther tanks. Does that count? Surely it was slow but it's a beast. As I stated before regarding the T-72's main gun the 125mm standard which also is on T-90 but the Iraqi tank armies had poor ammo. Which only has half of the penetration the Russian rounds have. So in fact a T-72B with proper Russian ammo would penetrate the Abrams even at the front armor. They are both good tanks build almost at same time
@SMGJohn Also, I'll point out the advantages of the Abrams, as per M1A2 SEP:
First off, it has a world renowned computerized fire control system and 120mm gun, able to engage targets up to 5k
Its Armor, Composite Chobham with DU Mesh, which allows it to be specifically resistant to ATGMs as well as the principle threat of 125mm DU Sabot Rounds
@controlusplease1 And please don't lie. Currently only the T-72B, T-80 and T-90 are capable to fire up to a range of 5000m thanks to it's missile. The Abrams with a 120mm gun can only fire up to 2500m and 3000m. And Russia doesn't produce Depleted Uranium rounds anymore. USSR stopped the production because it was hazardous to the crew and the enviroment. Older ATGM might not work but never models does. The rest I wont even comment on....
@SMGJohn Russia stopped PRODUCING DU rounds, that doesnt mean that they stopped using DU rounds. the real reason they stopped producing DU is because they have the largest stockpile of depleted uranium munitions behind the US, which means they dont have to produce anymore because in a future war they could just rely on their massive stockpile of over 200,000 tons
@controlusplease1 No Russia never produced DU rounds in first place. USSR disposed tons of DU rounds in the late 80s and Russia continued this in the 90s. Soviet tanks and Russian tanks now uses Tungsten rounds and anti tank rockets.
@SMGJohn they put the DU rounds in storage, they didnt dispose of them. the only reason they use tungsten rounds now is because they are cheaper and have a flatter trajectory because they weigh less, but have lower levels of penetrative ability. if a large war ever breaks out, guess what theyll be doing? breaking open those government owned warehouses and putting them back in service. theres also a controversy over the fact that T80s may have been issued DU ammo in the Georgian war
@controlusplease1 T-80 wasn't supplied DU rounds in Georgian war. However USSR destroyed 40% of all the DU rounds they ever produced. Russia in the 90s Nuclear policy has been going up and down. They produced some DU rounds but that was about it they never produced anything after 2000. Yes all is in storage. Lately Russia have been just dumping everything and putting it in storage not bothering to destroy it or break it down.
@SMGJohn officially, they didnt use DU rounds in the Georgian war. However, some T80 crews, who were at the front of the armored advance, were issued unmarked ammunition, and told to use the "special" ammunition if they came up against Georgian T 72s equipped with ERA. Some of the gunners got sick after the war, reporting symptoms of common with light radiation poisoning. Also, some of the Georgian tanks destroyed showed signs consistent with DU penetration, ie small pen holes and fire
@SMGJohn wrong again. they started RELYING on DU rounds in the 80's. 3VBM10/3BM29/30 was a DU-nickel-iron alloy penetrator entering service in 1982 and produced in MASSIVE quantities until about '86.
3VBM13/3BM32/33, DU-nickel-zinc alloy penetrator entering service in 85 and produced until 87, also made in massive quantities
3BM48 "Svinets", a DU alloy penetrator entering service in 1991, this time entering service with Russia and not Soviets. made until 94 in MASS quantities
@neitilinvandring thats not true either, as some soviet units were issued DU rounds during the war in afghanistan to test their effectiveness in combat, plus tank crews were issued DU rounds during the first Chechen war.
ill say this though, no, it was not right for the American units to use DU in the Iraq wars, as tungsten would have done the job against the severely inferior iraqi T 72s, however, we, just like the russians, wanted to prove our DU rounds in combat
@controlusplease1 No, just a very cheap way of getting rid of DU, and destroying the land and civilians of you enemy. The A10 was the best(For the US.) nuclear waste disposal the Americans ever used.
@neitilinvandring well, thats kind of a by product of war, isnt it? "destroying the land and civilians of your enemy" every war in history has featured this, whether intentional or not, it is an unavoidable part of war that civilians and property will be destroyed. look at how disastrous the Chechen wars were and the impact they had on civilians.
and well, if you have it, might as well use it, right?
@controlusplease1 So collecting a couple of 1000's US spent DU rounds, and spreading it over a large US city by using conventional explosives by one of your enemy's would be fine. "Return to sender".
@neitilinvandring well, finding the spent DU rounds would be hard, seeing as how they disintegrate into an aerosol gas once they pierce the inside of an AFV.
oh, and if you're going to be that way about it, why dont we just bombard Moscow until we kill 1 Russian for every one of 140,000 Chechens that were killed during the Chechen wars, because whats fair is fair right? even after i got done explaining how civilian casualties are unavoidable in war.
@controlusplease1 Most used DU projectile(30mm) are intact after impact. look like fat short building nails. Kids pick them up and play with them not knowing what they are.
@controlusplease1 I'm not Russia, but islamic Chechen separatists are my mortal enemy, and using mekka as a nuclear waste dump is a better idea than spreading them from Balkan to Libya to Afghanistan, etc. etc.
@neitilinvandring well, thats fine and everything, but you have to consider most of the Chechens civilians killed in that war wernt even Muslims but ethnic Russians.
War is a futile thing at any rate, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
@controlusplease1 True! War is hell! But I will fight any foreign invaders to keep the land of my forefathers, and it will not be futile. Look at Finland during the Winter war, if they had not fought the Russians they would have been ethnically cleansed.
@controlusplease1 As I said they stopped producing and using the DU rounds in the late 1980's, mostly because of Chernobyl accident. Russia today uses tungsten rounds
its hard to believe that Russia would stop making and using DU rounds just because of the Chernobyl accident. They have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, and also the most unguarded assets of nuclear material and wastes in the world. using DU would actually be beneficial if they wanted to get rid of the massive amounts of waste they just have laying around unguarded. I think its more of a political reason, to make them look good. Russians dont give a shit about who they bomb.
@SMGJohn there are a number of reasons why the T-90 is inferior to the Abrams
Its base armor is relatively weak without ERA. To counter ERA, tankers have been trained to double tap a T-90, the first hit knocking out the ERA in a broad area, the second round penetrating the base armor
it is a slower, because it relies on a diesel engine
its autoloader is less reliable than a manual dedicated gunner, also slower
@controlusplease1 Now your just dragging in massive facts about older T-55... May I remind you T-90's armor is bigger then the Abrams armor even without ERA. With the latest ERA tech the sabot rounds fired by any NATO tanks can't penetrate the ERA on T-90 sorry but maybe the first or second generation but not latest. The fact all this facts seems to come out of a American document something. Autoloaders are faster then manual loaders...
@SMGJohn T-55? i never talked about the T55 which isnt even similar to the T 90. that would be like comparing a M48 Patton to an Abrams, it makes no sense. And no, the T90's armor is not bigger. i assume you are referring to the T-90MS, and comparing it to a M1 base model abrams, which is not a fair comparison. im talking about the M1A2 SEP, which has better armor protection than an T90MS. the only reason the T90 has 'thicker' armor is because of the ERA. without it armor is only 545RHA
@controlusplease1 I was comparing T-90 versus M1A1 Model, surely the T-90 has ticker armor then Abrams I dunno what your trying to prove. Sure if you watch history Channel and stuff like that they always say Russian/Soviet tanks are worst and lie about their armor, gun and all that shit.
@SMGJohn no, i dont always agree with the American version of things, which i know are usually bullshit, just like any country that you may live in, they try to sell you bullshit that makes your country look better. trust me, ive served in the military, ive seen all the false truths they tell you. russia actually has very decent weapons systems, like the Kornet ATGM, ak-74, PKP, RPG 29, MIG 29, Su 25, and so on, but i have always found their AFVs lacking considerably
@controlusplease1 I know that Soviet weaponry are superior to what Americans ever had. AFV are also considerable superior, however their early AFV has been upgraded. Not mass produced at the time but you can still look them up
@SMGJohn ill say this, its stupid to have too much faith in your equipment. both the T 90 and the M1 have their respective advantages over each other. but ill also say this, but ill also say this, look at the Chechen wars, and how poorly T72Bs and T80s the "Abrams killers" performed. knocked out en masse by rebels with RPGs, complete losses. now look at the Iraq wars, we lost many tanks, but most were returned to action within days.
@controlusplease1 The difference between Chechen war and Iraq war is the equipment. The chechen having Soviet made RPG-29 and anti tank rockets. It wouldn't surprise me a few T-72B and T-80s would be taken out as these weapons are made to kill any tanks on earth. In Iraq they only had a few RPG-29 and mostly RPG-7 yet RPG-7 are able to disabled M1A1 Abrams and RPG-29 has proven devistating against Abrams.
Heavy tank losses in the First Chechen War were a direct result of poor planning and flawed tactics, lets look at the second Chechen War for comparison, many dozens of tanks were damaged, but only a few destroyed, a clear result of good planning and revised tactics.
@SMGJohn and one more thing, if Russians were so confident in their weapons, why didnt they use T90s in the Georgian war? were they scared that Georgian T72s would destroy a T90 and embarrass them? whereas they used new state of the art SU25Ts and SU27-SM2s, new weapons like PKP Pechenneg and AK 103, 2S3M2, 2S19M1, BM30, MI24P, SS26, OC144A, PP19, all new and recent, mostly combat untested weapons, yet no T90s? why is this? you would think theyd be eager to use this new weapon...but no?
@controlusplease1 T-90 was actually used in Invasion of Dagestan (1999) the second Chechen war. It proved excellent being hit by 7 RPG anti tank rockets. Most likely RPG-29 as it's most commonly used by Chechen based Islamic extremists to destroy Russian tanks. So you see, Russia do test their weapon when they get the chance.
@controlusplease1 I don't know in what point you get to T-90 can't fire from a hill down position? All tanks can except tank destroyers...
It's just a mather of 'how' much they can, the ammunition problem is common in T-54 and T-55 please do not depict this as T-90s...
The problem was already solved in T-64 and all models after that. That includes T-90 but if your just going to relay on American documentaries I think this debate is over.
@SMGJohn it cant fire from a hull down position because its turret depression is low, making a hull down position useless, as the hull of the tank would be exposed, especially the underside armor which is significantly weaker than the top side hull armor. also, an M1 abrams loader is trained to reload the tank in under 5 seconds, for the autoloader on the t90 it takes 5-8 seconds to reload, on top of that the system requires maintenance and is easily disabled if not cared for correctly
@controlusplease1 You do realize that the most modern auto loaders uses 3 to 4 seconds to load the maingun of the T-90 right? 5 to 8 seconds? You must be speaking of the early autoloaders used in T-64 and Soviet autoloading design are the most reliable auto loaders around. They wont be disabled that easily unless hit by a big ass bullet. And they only require a few maintenance every second or third month. Surely if you seen T-90 you realize it's tiny compared to Abrams
@SMGJohn its 5-8, ive seen it. the older autoloaders took 7-9 seconds
second or third month? youve obviously never served in the military, as you are supposed to service ALL arms immediately after use, and regularly when not in use. when you are in combat, ALL weapons will fail, its one of Murphys laws. lets say that a autoloader breaks down in combat. now you have a gunner, who on top of his other tasks, has to fumble around a broken autoloader to load the main gun, reloading 1 min
@ComboSlicer the name of this thing is BMPT (boyevaya mashina podderzhki tanka) Fighting Vehicle for Tank Support. It's main role is to support tanks versus infantry and especially versus anti-tank teams.
@heeavymetaI what foolishness are you saying? you at least know how much of Iraqi tanks destroyed with TANKS, rather than attack aircraft, or anti-tank grenade launchers?
re-read my comment to understand what I aimed to say.do you think USA buy the same F-16 wich equip its army to other country ? NO , of course! as well as Russian never buy the exact copy of tanks wich equip its army.Russia modified the name of T-72 to T90 , cause as We Know the fail of "Iraqi T-72" in desert storm 1991(cause nobody will be interested by T-72 as exported by Russia).
@369NICK963 those where iraqi shit t72 with ammo from 60's long time abandoned by SOVIETS idiot go learn facts gay,the rela russian t-72 can fuck 10 your abramses shit and still have time to rape american girls with machiengun!!!fuckin american GAYASS LOL!!!
@ollonsvin This has 8 AT-14. It can blow any kind of armored vehicle with oneshot. No other tank comes close to weaponary or armor. Its armored with T-90 chassis all other western kind of APC/IVF have only aluminium alloy armor.
@srheadshot1 My friend a BMP is a IFV not an APC ;) IFV's are more heavily armed then APC while APC's usually is armed with machine guns. Occasionally with recoilless rifles, mortars and ATGM's :)
@srheadshot1 yea, but to be an IFV it must have a heavier weapon ;) Like a 25, 30, 35 mm etc. Some APC's do have 30mm guns like the BTR-90 but they are still an APC, IFV are supposed to stand with the infantry and provide support whilst an APC is designed to transport soldiers from and to battle safely. So an IFV usually have better armaments and armor. IFV's are designed to help with direct fire support.
@NiamOfAsuras May I ask you where you found information that Europeans classify it as a MBT? I haven't found any proof or any articles that suggest that the BMP-1 is classified as an MBT by Europe. Just because it has a relatively big gun doesn't mean it's a tank. It is not well armored and it carries infantry, the same as an APC. The designation of an IFV is that it needs to carry Infantry into combat and support them, and to serve along side MBT's.
@Khristophoros1001 As far as I remember, the designation MBT was given to any tracked vehicle with a certain calibered gun, a fully traversing turret, and a tracked hull. While I understand your arguments, check out the Israeli Merkava IV tank. It is classified a tank (no doubt about that) and it has a crew compartment in the back for carrying up to 6 passengers.
@NiamOfAsuras But the Merkava is armored... The BMP-1 is designed not to engage tanks but to support infantry in combat situations. Some IFV's have ATGM's so they can engage tanks, but they are still not armored enough to protect itself from a tank shell. APC and IFV's are basically the same thing.
@Khristophoros1001 Doesnt matter. The designation for a main battle tank is as i stated in my previous comment. Yes, it is sort of short sighted, but I didn't create the designation in the first place, so theres no point in people like you whining to me about how its a narrow sighted definition.
@Khristophoros1001 The term battle tank was defined in Treaty of Converntional Armed Forces in Europe as follows - "Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75mm Calibre."
Bmp 3 weighs 18.7 tonnes, has a 360 degree turret and a 100mm rifled semi-automatic gun/launcher 2A70. It also runs on tracks. Yippee....
@NiamOfAsuras Did you read Article II section (D)? The term "armoured combat vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle with armoured protection and cross-country capability. Armoured combat vehicles include armoured personnel carriers, armoured INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLES and heavy armament combat vehicles". infantry fighting vehicle"means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad. Which is what the BMP was designed for...
Maybe Russia should go easy on the weapons budget and help their country climb out of the 3rd world status. God damn, they beat Germany in ww2 and are still living in slums when Germany is now a 1st world super power...again.
@237whpH2Bhatch Yes we still drink vodka, bears on streets go, and is always very cold.-)))))) (you naive, and the silly fool which trusts in that that the Hollywood films-)) show)))
@237whpH2Bhatch Really? 3rd world country? Do you know what does it mean 1st WC? 2nd WC? etc?
It is term which is created by Americans in Cold war time, dividing world in 3 groups (1st world is NATO, 2nd is Socialist countries, 3rd are neutral).
And I dont fucking understand, why the fuck many on internet think that it is ranking by economics.
I live in nice big house, most of my neiborghs too, have family, good salary, already planned good future.
@realIBeliX That's not entirely too. The ranking system is based on things like social systems, government strength (the ability of the government to effectively govern it's people), economic status, wealth, infrastructure, literacy, education. It isn't just based on politics, or just on the economy. There are many things to consider. I don't understand why many on the internet think otherwise...its not hard to research and read.
Any "super power" is a 1st WC for example USA, Russia, UK, China
Your future is watch comments.. Actually here u can read about three worlds theory. and suprise yourself, it is about economics... Man i know that in states you learn how to make big house or big mac in schools, but in europe and everywhere across the WORLD, (not states) we are learning some serious stuff and serious facts.
One fact is that your country is rich and people are poor. same way as russia, but you guys keep it low and only show your nice hollywood and justin bieber.
Not trying to sound like a biased american, but think about it US tech was always ahead of soviets but then in 1991 they went bankrupt and couldn't invest in military tech US didn't and kept going building awesome tech
DaMossBergBoss 6 days ago
This is a BMPT, basically a BMP type hull installed on a T-72 chassis, it's role is to support tanks by takign out AT teams.
Armed with two 30 mm guns
four l130 mm 9M120-1 Ataka-T ATGM launchers
one PKTM (i think coaxial)
and two smoke dischargers.
If i remember corectly these are also equiped with both active and passive defensive systems,
so blowing them up with the 'conventional' RPG will be a pain in the ass.
Vorobye 1 week ago
nothing new, at least sense 72'
BuBzIeNYNY 3 weeks ago
at the end I coudlnt saw the "new tank" in the midle of T90, BTR and Pantsir XD
mauricioalfredo83 1 month ago
Comment removed
zipmantube 4 weeks ago
russia and U.S. should be freinds so they can team up and blow up taliban with their awesome equipment
driveby14000 1 month ago
its an IFV..not a tank
SuperVladeG 1 month ago
@SuperVladeG
No its not. It can not transport any infantry. The role of the BMP-T is to replace the role of the infantry.
natsplit 1 month ago
@natsplitv never mind i fought it was bmp 2 or sumthin
SuperVladeG 1 month ago
@SuperVladeG no it's not. It can not carry any "passangers". It's design role is to support tanks in urban warfare and to eliminate anti tank teams.
Cnupoc 1 week ago
the new bmp looks like the german "tpz marder"
HateCrewMurder 1 month ago
I believe that the Leopard C2 Main battle tank is better then the "All powerful Abrams" for one simple reason, sloped armour. They have exactly the same gun, same engine, and same technology. but the Leopard armour is more sloped.
DJSbros 1 month ago
@DJSbros Wrong ! The Leopard C2 tank uses the same engine as the Leopard 1. It is powered by the MTU multi-fuel diesel, developing 830 hp. The M1 Abrams uses the Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine1,500 shp (1,120 kW) which gives a operational range of 426 km. The Leopard C2 has a range of 600 km.
merstrand 1 month ago
@merstrand bullshit. the leopard2 uses mtu multi fuel v12 engine with 1500hp! and for the leopard 2 pso we use the powepack2 engine with 2200 hp.
HateCrewMurder 1 month ago
@HateCrewMurder I know !!! but if you took you head out of your ass you would see that DJSbros wrote Leopard C2 which is a canadian version. He wrote that Leopard c2 and M1 abrams have the same engine. A Leopard c2 is not the same as the Leopard 2 wich uses the "new" engines. If you doubt me google it. I drive a Leo 2a5DK with auxillary Dieselgenerator.
merstrand 1 month ago
@merstrand i dont´understand your aggression. oh, you better stay by your horses, dude.
HateCrewMurder 1 month ago
@HateCrewMurder Well lets say bullshit isnt very polite is it..
merstrand 1 month ago
@HateCrewMurder Und du solltes am besten bei deine rollenspiele bleiben.. JUNGE..
merstrand 1 month ago
Comment removed
merstrand 1 month ago
@HateCrewMurder pp2 has 2200hp but it has no chance to solve the whole power it must be chocked to 1500hp to have function in tank.
Talshet 1 month ago
bmp is not tank,:)..its desant transport
karapuzs1981 1 month ago
The recoiless rifle set up reminds me of the USMC ontos from the 1960s 6 106s were nice but you had to back out of line of sight to reload. The russians love there country just as much as Americans love ours. the russian equipment is rugged and generaly easer to maintain than the american counterpart is. and price wise you could probly get 2 bmp for one bradly
sass225 1 month ago
Sexy ass tank.
mrsoftnessful 1 month ago
in the clip are all old models of bmp's and tanks
TheAeroth 1 month ago
@TheAeroth
Primarily BMP-3, BMPT and T-90A, these are not old.
vtkrey 1 month ago
@vtkrey t-90a is the same t-90 with new thermal view and bmpt is from '95..
TheAeroth 1 month ago
can we give you justin bieber so you can use him as target practise ?
11mrjarjar 2 months ago
mfw russians think their country could actually take on a country like the US anymore
w4rr0ckm4st3r 2 months ago
Let us hope that we never will have to find out which tanks are better.
We don't need any more wars.
purpleblood93 2 months ago 28
@purpleblood93 I agree, its not in anyone's best interest...
FreeTh1nk3r 2 weeks ago
fuck you. America... #1.
QSallin 2 months ago
good, the US niggers can't still comprehend it
issarevs 2 months ago
Russian garbage. Always the same problem. Great constructors (like in space industry) and real tragedy in production. Have you seen what happened to Russian tanks during war against Georgia? Dozens and dozens of tanks out of order at roadsides. That really means what they do and how they are able to do it. They just used to say “My by pobyedhili tol’ko silushki nyetu” (Sure, we would win but we do not have power enough”). What a tragic and pathetic nation.
joannawie 2 months ago
mrkukara4 gehe ich in der Anfänge das du dein wissen nur von denn Daten blättern hast? denn anders Jan ich mir dein engstirniges denken nicht erklähren. ich kenne die Unterschiede aus der Praxis und Weiss worauf es ankommt und glaube mir, der m1a1 ist nicht das absolute denn er ist z.b. im Gebirge oder im Morast absolut unbrauchbar, aber der pirania3 ist top im Gebirge wie auch bei aphischer taktik, aber bei Mozart ist halt der Leo. der beste. ob wohl das Datenblatt was anderes behaubtet.
HyeneCH 2 months ago
This will look really cool on fire in a desert somewhere.
Thespeakerofmanytru8 2 months ago
mrkukara4, sage mir doch mal, warum du mich beleidigst. 1. du kennst mich nicht und weist auch nicht wer ich bin. 2. du sagst ich habe jähe Ahnung von militärischermaschinerie, weist aber nicht das amphibische Taktik bedeutet. 3. wenn ich doch so dumm bin und keine Ahnung vom Militär habe, sage mir doch mal, Was ich dann beim weltrüstungskonzern in Uniform zu suchen hatte
HyeneCH 2 months ago
das nenn ich mal ein panzer der sonder klasse aber wenn er jetz noch amphibisch ist, dann kann der pirania3 einpacken
HyeneCH 2 months ago
@HyeneCH Du bist dumm und kennst Dich kaum mit Militärtechnik aus.Schwimmende Panzer braucht keine Sau.Russen sind arm dran mit ihre Technik.
mrkukara4 2 months ago
that's a new tank support platform not BMP. It was designed to provide protection for main battle tanks
MiniVimpel 2 months ago
this is not a tank
SuperVladeG 2 months ago
1:10 miss miss miss miss miss!!!
superman6327 2 months ago
Everybody is saying things like t-72 can own an abrams, an a-10 would own this thing, and an f-22 raptor would own this thing. T-72 is no longer in production and most have been upgraded to t-90 standard. A-10 warthog 2 has been pulled from action and replaced by a version of the f-16 because of ridiculously low speed and vulnerability. And f-22 was cancelled 2 years ago, with only 186 made.
Romagatyr 2 months ago
@Romagatyr Russians have something that would make F-22 a flying tin can in 2 seconds. T-72M could take out a Abrams yes it's just that in Iraq war it was easy target because it was an old 1970s model and had it's own fire control ripped out. It neither had night vision or infrared like the Soviet version does. so in fact if they where equipped with that it could take out Abrams easily
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn a T-72 M couldnt go toe to toe with an Abrams tank, the T-72 is just too obsolete, although it is a fine tank when going against other less advanced armies with older tanks. During the Iraq war, the Abrams sustained multiple hits from T-72's, and its been shown through tests that a 120mm sabot round would go right through the frontal armor of a T72 with ERA. the T-90, and some of the T-80 upgrades would be more of a match for the Abrams, however, money is on the Abrams
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 Might I tell you that. What you where facing in Iraq was the Monkey model of a T-72 and extremely poorly trained Iraqi tank crews. Look up on Wikipedia "Monkey Model" T-72B would toast the Abrams. Abrams is very patrionized trough the war in Iraq in which monkey models of Soviet tanks where facing modern armor. I suggest you read more and then come back as T-90 is a superior tanks to any American tanks. And that's the truth it's hard to believe yes
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn Have you ever been a tanker? My dad was in the tank corps, and they tell you the honest to god, no bs, abilities & limitations of your & your adversaries tanks. The T-72 is a good platform, dont get me wrong, but it just doesn't match up to the Abrams. I understand that the Iraqi T-72s had no fire control, & their turret fire control was completely manual, but still, some Iraqi's did manage to engage Abrams, and the rounds bounced off. Its old technology. Ive done my research
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 No I once get to drive a Panther tanks. Does that count? Surely it was slow but it's a beast. As I stated before regarding the T-72's main gun the 125mm standard which also is on T-90 but the Iraqi tank armies had poor ammo. Which only has half of the penetration the Russian rounds have. So in fact a T-72B with proper Russian ammo would penetrate the Abrams even at the front armor. They are both good tanks build almost at same time
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn Also, I'll point out the advantages of the Abrams, as per M1A2 SEP:
First off, it has a world renowned computerized fire control system and 120mm gun, able to engage targets up to 5k
Its Armor, Composite Chobham with DU Mesh, which allows it to be specifically resistant to ATGMs as well as the principle threat of 125mm DU Sabot Rounds
Its Mobility
Crew Survivability
Modularity makes it easy to repair
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 And please don't lie. Currently only the T-72B, T-80 and T-90 are capable to fire up to a range of 5000m thanks to it's missile. The Abrams with a 120mm gun can only fire up to 2500m and 3000m. And Russia doesn't produce Depleted Uranium rounds anymore. USSR stopped the production because it was hazardous to the crew and the enviroment. Older ATGM might not work but never models does. The rest I wont even comment on....
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn Russia stopped PRODUCING DU rounds, that doesnt mean that they stopped using DU rounds. the real reason they stopped producing DU is because they have the largest stockpile of depleted uranium munitions behind the US, which means they dont have to produce anymore because in a future war they could just rely on their massive stockpile of over 200,000 tons
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 No Russia never produced DU rounds in first place. USSR disposed tons of DU rounds in the late 80s and Russia continued this in the 90s. Soviet tanks and Russian tanks now uses Tungsten rounds and anti tank rockets.
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn they put the DU rounds in storage, they didnt dispose of them. the only reason they use tungsten rounds now is because they are cheaper and have a flatter trajectory because they weigh less, but have lower levels of penetrative ability. if a large war ever breaks out, guess what theyll be doing? breaking open those government owned warehouses and putting them back in service. theres also a controversy over the fact that T80s may have been issued DU ammo in the Georgian war
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 T-80 wasn't supplied DU rounds in Georgian war. However USSR destroyed 40% of all the DU rounds they ever produced. Russia in the 90s Nuclear policy has been going up and down. They produced some DU rounds but that was about it they never produced anything after 2000. Yes all is in storage. Lately Russia have been just dumping everything and putting it in storage not bothering to destroy it or break it down.
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn officially, they didnt use DU rounds in the Georgian war. However, some T80 crews, who were at the front of the armored advance, were issued unmarked ammunition, and told to use the "special" ammunition if they came up against Georgian T 72s equipped with ERA. Some of the gunners got sick after the war, reporting symptoms of common with light radiation poisoning. Also, some of the Georgian tanks destroyed showed signs consistent with DU penetration, ie small pen holes and fire
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 Only America use DU sabot, all other army's use tungsten/wolfram sabot. Only Americans dump nuclear waste like that.
neitilinvandring 2 months ago
@neitilinvandring that is a lie, Russians have been using DU in their 115mm and 125mm guns since the late 70's
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 Soviet Union stopped production of Depleted Uranium rounds in the 80s fool. They use Tungsten rounds now
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn wrong again. they started RELYING on DU rounds in the 80's. 3VBM10/3BM29/30 was a DU-nickel-iron alloy penetrator entering service in 1982 and produced in MASSIVE quantities until about '86.
3VBM13/3BM32/33, DU-nickel-zinc alloy penetrator entering service in 85 and produced until 87, also made in massive quantities
3BM48 "Svinets", a DU alloy penetrator entering service in 1991, this time entering service with Russia and not Soviets. made until 94 in MASS quantities
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 Again never used DU in wars, only in a WW3 scenario do they have plans to use DU like the Americans do right now.
neitilinvandring 2 months ago
@neitilinvandring thats not true either, as some soviet units were issued DU rounds during the war in afghanistan to test their effectiveness in combat, plus tank crews were issued DU rounds during the first Chechen war.
ill say this though, no, it was not right for the American units to use DU in the Iraq wars, as tungsten would have done the job against the severely inferior iraqi T 72s, however, we, just like the russians, wanted to prove our DU rounds in combat
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 No, just a very cheap way of getting rid of DU, and destroying the land and civilians of you enemy. The A10 was the best(For the US.) nuclear waste disposal the Americans ever used.
neitilinvandring 2 months ago
@neitilinvandring well, thats kind of a by product of war, isnt it? "destroying the land and civilians of your enemy" every war in history has featured this, whether intentional or not, it is an unavoidable part of war that civilians and property will be destroyed. look at how disastrous the Chechen wars were and the impact they had on civilians.
and well, if you have it, might as well use it, right?
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 So collecting a couple of 1000's US spent DU rounds, and spreading it over a large US city by using conventional explosives by one of your enemy's would be fine. "Return to sender".
neitilinvandring 2 months ago
@neitilinvandring well, finding the spent DU rounds would be hard, seeing as how they disintegrate into an aerosol gas once they pierce the inside of an AFV.
oh, and if you're going to be that way about it, why dont we just bombard Moscow until we kill 1 Russian for every one of 140,000 Chechens that were killed during the Chechen wars, because whats fair is fair right? even after i got done explaining how civilian casualties are unavoidable in war.
"Return to sender".
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 Most used DU projectile(30mm) are intact after impact. look like fat short building nails. Kids pick them up and play with them not knowing what they are.
neitilinvandring 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 I'm not Russia, but islamic Chechen separatists are my mortal enemy, and using mekka as a nuclear waste dump is a better idea than spreading them from Balkan to Libya to Afghanistan, etc. etc.
neitilinvandring 2 months ago
@neitilinvandring well, thats fine and everything, but you have to consider most of the Chechens civilians killed in that war wernt even Muslims but ethnic Russians.
War is a futile thing at any rate, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 True! War is hell! But I will fight any foreign invaders to keep the land of my forefathers, and it will not be futile. Look at Finland during the Winter war, if they had not fought the Russians they would have been ethnically cleansed.
neitilinvandring 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 As I said they stopped producing and using the DU rounds in the late 1980's, mostly because of Chernobyl accident. Russia today uses tungsten rounds
SMGJohn 2 months ago
its hard to believe that Russia would stop making and using DU rounds just because of the Chernobyl accident. They have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, and also the most unguarded assets of nuclear material and wastes in the world. using DU would actually be beneficial if they wanted to get rid of the massive amounts of waste they just have laying around unguarded. I think its more of a political reason, to make them look good. Russians dont give a shit about who they bomb.
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 Wrong, only in a ww3 situation do the Russians have plans for deploying DU sabot.
neitilinvandring 2 months ago
@SMGJohn there are a number of reasons why the T-90 is inferior to the Abrams
Its base armor is relatively weak without ERA. To counter ERA, tankers have been trained to double tap a T-90, the first hit knocking out the ERA in a broad area, the second round penetrating the base armor
it is a slower, because it relies on a diesel engine
its autoloader is less reliable than a manual dedicated gunner, also slower
cant fire from a hull down position
ammunition inside hull, very dangerous
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 Now your just dragging in massive facts about older T-55... May I remind you T-90's armor is bigger then the Abrams armor even without ERA. With the latest ERA tech the sabot rounds fired by any NATO tanks can't penetrate the ERA on T-90 sorry but maybe the first or second generation but not latest. The fact all this facts seems to come out of a American document something. Autoloaders are faster then manual loaders...
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn T-55? i never talked about the T55 which isnt even similar to the T 90. that would be like comparing a M48 Patton to an Abrams, it makes no sense. And no, the T90's armor is not bigger. i assume you are referring to the T-90MS, and comparing it to a M1 base model abrams, which is not a fair comparison. im talking about the M1A2 SEP, which has better armor protection than an T90MS. the only reason the T90 has 'thicker' armor is because of the ERA. without it armor is only 545RHA
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 I was comparing T-90 versus M1A1 Model, surely the T-90 has ticker armor then Abrams I dunno what your trying to prove. Sure if you watch history Channel and stuff like that they always say Russian/Soviet tanks are worst and lie about their armor, gun and all that shit.
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn no, i dont always agree with the American version of things, which i know are usually bullshit, just like any country that you may live in, they try to sell you bullshit that makes your country look better. trust me, ive served in the military, ive seen all the false truths they tell you. russia actually has very decent weapons systems, like the Kornet ATGM, ak-74, PKP, RPG 29, MIG 29, Su 25, and so on, but i have always found their AFVs lacking considerably
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 I know that Soviet weaponry are superior to what Americans ever had. AFV are also considerable superior, however their early AFV has been upgraded. Not mass produced at the time but you can still look them up
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn ill say this, its stupid to have too much faith in your equipment. both the T 90 and the M1 have their respective advantages over each other. but ill also say this, but ill also say this, look at the Chechen wars, and how poorly T72Bs and T80s the "Abrams killers" performed. knocked out en masse by rebels with RPGs, complete losses. now look at the Iraq wars, we lost many tanks, but most were returned to action within days.
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 The difference between Chechen war and Iraq war is the equipment. The chechen having Soviet made RPG-29 and anti tank rockets. It wouldn't surprise me a few T-72B and T-80s would be taken out as these weapons are made to kill any tanks on earth. In Iraq they only had a few RPG-29 and mostly RPG-7 yet RPG-7 are able to disabled M1A1 Abrams and RPG-29 has proven devistating against Abrams.
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@controlusplease1
Heavy tank losses in the First Chechen War were a direct result of poor planning and flawed tactics, lets look at the second Chechen War for comparison, many dozens of tanks were damaged, but only a few destroyed, a clear result of good planning and revised tactics.
vtkrey 2 months ago
@SMGJohn and one more thing, if Russians were so confident in their weapons, why didnt they use T90s in the Georgian war? were they scared that Georgian T72s would destroy a T90 and embarrass them? whereas they used new state of the art SU25Ts and SU27-SM2s, new weapons like PKP Pechenneg and AK 103, 2S3M2, 2S19M1, BM30, MI24P, SS26, OC144A, PP19, all new and recent, mostly combat untested weapons, yet no T90s? why is this? you would think theyd be eager to use this new weapon...but no?
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 T-90 was actually used in Invasion of Dagestan (1999) the second Chechen war. It proved excellent being hit by 7 RPG anti tank rockets. Most likely RPG-29 as it's most commonly used by Chechen based Islamic extremists to destroy Russian tanks. So you see, Russia do test their weapon when they get the chance.
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 I don't know in what point you get to T-90 can't fire from a hill down position? All tanks can except tank destroyers...
It's just a mather of 'how' much they can, the ammunition problem is common in T-54 and T-55 please do not depict this as T-90s...
The problem was already solved in T-64 and all models after that. That includes T-90 but if your just going to relay on American documentaries I think this debate is over.
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn it cant fire from a hull down position because its turret depression is low, making a hull down position useless, as the hull of the tank would be exposed, especially the underside armor which is significantly weaker than the top side hull armor. also, an M1 abrams loader is trained to reload the tank in under 5 seconds, for the autoloader on the t90 it takes 5-8 seconds to reload, on top of that the system requires maintenance and is easily disabled if not cared for correctly
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 You do realize that the most modern auto loaders uses 3 to 4 seconds to load the maingun of the T-90 right? 5 to 8 seconds? You must be speaking of the early autoloaders used in T-64 and Soviet autoloading design are the most reliable auto loaders around. They wont be disabled that easily unless hit by a big ass bullet. And they only require a few maintenance every second or third month. Surely if you seen T-90 you realize it's tiny compared to Abrams
SMGJohn 2 months ago
@SMGJohn its 5-8, ive seen it. the older autoloaders took 7-9 seconds
second or third month? youve obviously never served in the military, as you are supposed to service ALL arms immediately after use, and regularly when not in use. when you are in combat, ALL weapons will fail, its one of Murphys laws. lets say that a autoloader breaks down in combat. now you have a gunner, who on top of his other tasks, has to fumble around a broken autoloader to load the main gun, reloading 1 min
controlusplease1 2 months ago
это ващет не бмп а бмпт тоисть не боевая ашина пехоты а боевая машина огневой поддержки танков!
13737vlad 2 months ago in playlist военная техника
I really want to drive one of those tanks
CaptainAmericaWI 2 months ago
BMP is a name of a Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV). It is not a tank.
ComboSlicer 2 months ago
@ComboSlicer the name of this thing is BMPT (boyevaya mashina podderzhki tanka) Fighting Vehicle for Tank Support. It's main role is to support tanks versus infantry and especially versus anti-tank teams.
Cnupoc 1 week ago
вот это вещь!
MrDenLion 3 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Look for Russian T-90.
It can swim and fly
youtube.com/watch?v=nleg0UoGqIk
zekadobrbii 3 months ago
10 t-90 tanks=1 M1a2 abrams tank...lol... n that's a fact..lol
castillo18888 3 months ago
@castillo18888 .. COD player ? .
DragonlordXV 3 months ago
@castillo18888 hahaha, you kidding??? :D even a single t-72 can smash 8 abrams.... xDD
sergeikozin47 3 months ago 2
@sergeikozin47 we saw that at desert storm
369NICK963 3 months ago
@369NICK963
those are not the same t72 wich equip russian army.it's known that no country buy the same materials it use for others.
in fact , after desert storm(1991) russian modified the name of the T72 to T90 with some upgrades.
heeavymetaI 3 months ago
@heeavymetaI what foolishness are you saying? you at least know how much of Iraqi tanks destroyed with TANKS, rather than attack aircraft, or anti-tank grenade launchers?
yoshitoranaga1111 3 months ago
@yoshitoranaga1111
re-read my comment to understand what I aimed to say.do you think USA buy the same F-16 wich equip its army to other country ? NO , of course! as well as Russian never buy the exact copy of tanks wich equip its army.Russia modified the name of T-72 to T90 , cause as We Know the fail of "Iraqi T-72" in desert storm 1991(cause nobody will be interested by T-72 as exported by Russia).
heeavymetaI 3 months ago
@369NICK963 those where iraqi shit t72 with ammo from 60's long time abandoned by SOVIETS idiot go learn facts gay,the rela russian t-72 can fuck 10 your abramses shit and still have time to rape american girls with machiengun!!!fuckin american GAYASS LOL!!!
luka2298 2 months ago
@sergeikozin47 Explain why not?
yoshitoranaga1111 3 months ago
@yoshitoranaga1111 why will i explain it to you??
sergeikozin47 3 months ago
@sergeikozin47
Yes, everything is clear! cannot continue:)
This is a series of - Abrams is better than t-72! than? Than the T-72!
yoshitoranaga1111 3 months ago
@yoshitoranaga1111 what???
sergeikozin47 3 months ago
@castillo18888 stop playing call of duty bro.... even a single t-72 can destroy 6 abrams in action...
sergeikozin47 3 months ago 7
@sergeikozin47 naa abrams can kick t72s butt
donebloneUP 2 months ago
@donebloneUP it's all about the first one who fires and hits...
AtomicFreerun 2 months ago
@donebloneUP in long rage combat yes, but close range abrams are in trouble.
plus abrams side armor are weak, just like a tiger tank. plus the real match of abrams are t-90 and t-90ms..
sergeikozin47 2 months ago
@sergeikozin47
1 single t-72 versus 6 m1a1 abrams tanks? at the same time or one after another?
Ryloth123321 2 months ago
@Ryloth123321 in short range, at the same time..
sergeikozin47 2 months ago
@sergeikozin47 73 easting... look it up
vdub2002 2 months ago
@sergeikozin47 lol
Matleieusz 2 months ago
@Matleieusz ????
sergeikozin47 2 months ago
@sergeikozin47 in iraq abrams did feal the rpg7 ....lots of tanks damaged ....hahaha
pakifucker999999999 2 months ago
@pakifucker999999999 american idiots think that their abrams are invincible. fuck them... :DDD
sergeikozin47 2 months ago 27
@castillo18888 lol what's a fact ? and where's the fact ? ROFL
Cnupoc 1 week ago
whats the diffrence between a BMP and a BTR?
MrSpacehopper123 3 months ago
@MrSpacehopper123 BTR it's Infantry Carrier Vehicle,BMP it's infantry Fighting Vehicle
andreyRUS17 3 months ago
тополь- м's - would hardly be no match for the "PEACE- KEEPER" LGM-118's
tmixjr68 3 months ago
Nice target for a A-10 !!
tmixjr68 3 months ago
@tmixjr68 lol, тополь- м, еще на вооружении))))
mrCOMANCHEERO 3 months ago
@tmixjr68 Youre stupid. A10 would not get close to russian IFVs because of the air cover.
Vamutus 3 months ago 2
@Kristophoros1001 still doesnt state that its not a battle tank... i dont see what your problem is really
NiamOfAsuras 3 months ago
@Kristophoros1001 that actually makes it a tank by some absurd definition
NiamOfAsuras 3 months ago
NATO suck !!!!!!!!
disly777 4 months ago
Anyone spot the problem with this tank,..clue- the problem makes this tank a real sitting duck!
starview1 4 months ago
@starview1 WHAT?
dacotw 4 months ago
@starview1 Yes and what that that it was made too kill troops?
starknight97 3 months ago
@starview1 What is it? I have no idea...
imiritu 3 months ago
LOOKS LIKE A FUCKING TANK.
jujitsuman68 4 months ago
Dear Santa...
B4ndoGor4 4 months ago
The CV90 is far more superior then this, with is 40mm 3P
ollonsvin 4 months ago
@ollonsvin I so totally agree with you ;)
Khristophoros1001 4 months ago
@ollonsvin This has 8 AT-14. It can blow any kind of armored vehicle with oneshot. No other tank comes close to weaponary or armor. Its armored with T-90 chassis all other western kind of APC/IVF have only aluminium alloy armor.
Talshet 4 months ago
my friend BMP it is a tatical APC
srheadshot1 4 months ago
@srheadshot1 My friend a BMP is a IFV not an APC ;) IFV's are more heavily armed then APC while APC's usually is armed with machine guns. Occasionally with recoilless rifles, mortars and ATGM's :)
Khristophoros1001 4 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 you forgot that some APCs have 13MM weapons at them, like btr-80 btr-82 and btr-90
srheadshot1 4 months ago
@srheadshot1 yea, but to be an IFV it must have a heavier weapon ;) Like a 25, 30, 35 mm etc. Some APC's do have 30mm guns like the BTR-90 but they are still an APC, IFV are supposed to stand with the infantry and provide support whilst an APC is designed to transport soldiers from and to battle safely. So an IFV usually have better armaments and armor. IFV's are designed to help with direct fire support.
Khristophoros1001 4 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 As far as i remember, the BMP is also armed with a 76 mm gun.
NiamOfAsuras 3 months ago
@NiamOfAsuras yes the BMP-1 has a 73mm main gun and therefore an IFV.
Khristophoros1001 3 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 The 73 mm main gun makes it, as per the definition, a main battle tank by european designation. Silly, I know.
NiamOfAsuras 3 months ago
@NiamOfAsuras May I ask you where you found information that Europeans classify it as a MBT? I haven't found any proof or any articles that suggest that the BMP-1 is classified as an MBT by Europe. Just because it has a relatively big gun doesn't mean it's a tank. It is not well armored and it carries infantry, the same as an APC. The designation of an IFV is that it needs to carry Infantry into combat and support them, and to serve along side MBT's.
Khristophoros1001 3 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 As far as I remember, the designation MBT was given to any tracked vehicle with a certain calibered gun, a fully traversing turret, and a tracked hull. While I understand your arguments, check out the Israeli Merkava IV tank. It is classified a tank (no doubt about that) and it has a crew compartment in the back for carrying up to 6 passengers.
NiamOfAsuras 3 months ago
@NiamOfAsuras But the Merkava is armored... The BMP-1 is designed not to engage tanks but to support infantry in combat situations. Some IFV's have ATGM's so they can engage tanks, but they are still not armored enough to protect itself from a tank shell. APC and IFV's are basically the same thing.
Khristophoros1001 3 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 Doesnt matter. The designation for a main battle tank is as i stated in my previous comment. Yes, it is sort of short sighted, but I didn't create the designation in the first place, so theres no point in people like you whining to me about how its a narrow sighted definition.
NiamOfAsuras 3 months ago
@NiamOfAsuras Right has to be right. A BMP-1 is still not an MBT, it's still an IFV and it was the worlds first mas produced IFV.
Khristophoros1001 3 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 The term battle tank was defined in Treaty of Converntional Armed Forces in Europe as follows - "Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75mm Calibre."
Bmp 3 weighs 18.7 tonnes, has a 360 degree turret and a 100mm rifled semi-automatic gun/launcher 2A70. It also runs on tracks. Yippee....
NiamOfAsuras 3 months ago
@NiamOfAsuras Did you read Article II section (D)? The term "armoured combat vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle with armoured protection and cross-country capability. Armoured combat vehicles include armoured personnel carriers, armoured INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLES and heavy armament combat vehicles". infantry fighting vehicle"means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad. Which is what the BMP was designed for...
Khristophoros1001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NiamOfAsuras "The 73 mm main gun makes it, as per the definition, a main battle tank"
You mean... as per a wrong definition.
There are no mythical "European standards" that would make this iFV into a tank. It's an IFV. Give it a reast already,
witchtelus 3 months ago
looks inmy channel t-90ms he have more computer than abrams yankee
TATARSTAN59500 5 months ago
Maybe Russia should go easy on the weapons budget and help their country climb out of the 3rd world status. God damn, they beat Germany in ww2 and are still living in slums when Germany is now a 1st world super power...again.
237whpH2Bhatch 5 months ago
@237whpH2Bhatch no matter what their status, they still strong...
sergeikozin47 5 months ago
@237whpH2Bhatch Yes we still drink vodka, bears on streets go, and is always very cold.-)))))) (you naive, and the silly fool which trusts in that that the Hollywood films-)) show)))
AlexUSSRussa 4 months ago
@237whpH2Bhatch Really? 3rd world country? Do you know what does it mean 1st WC? 2nd WC? etc?
It is term which is created by Americans in Cold war time, dividing world in 3 groups (1st world is NATO, 2nd is Socialist countries, 3rd are neutral).
And I dont fucking understand, why the fuck many on internet think that it is ranking by economics.
I live in nice big house, most of my neiborghs too, have family, good salary, already planned good future.
realIBeliX 4 months ago 27
@realIBeliX That's not entirely too. The ranking system is based on things like social systems, government strength (the ability of the government to effectively govern it's people), economic status, wealth, infrastructure, literacy, education. It isn't just based on politics, or just on the economy. There are many things to consider. I don't understand why many on the internet think otherwise...its not hard to research and read.
Any "super power" is a 1st WC for example USA, Russia, UK, China
FearDivinity 3 months ago
@realIBeliX
Your future is watch comments.. Actually here u can read about three worlds theory. and suprise yourself, it is about economics... Man i know that in states you learn how to make big house or big mac in schools, but in europe and everywhere across the WORLD, (not states) we are learning some serious stuff and serious facts.
One fact is that your country is rich and people are poor. same way as russia, but you guys keep it low and only show your nice hollywood and justin bieber.
TheDoctorMozart 3 months ago
@realIBeliX
go to wikipedia to read about three worlds theory and maybe you stop wanking?
TheDoctorMozart 3 months ago
@TheDoctorMozart Oh yeah, wikipedia. I guess you also at McDonalds because it is more popular and spoiled.
realIBeliX 3 months ago
Not purchased by the Russian MOD - in fact they cancelled this and future T-90 purchases. Was purchased in small numbers by Kazkshstan.
calripson 5 months ago
bmp is a infantry fighting vehicle :O
TheAnak74 5 months ago
@TheAnak74 het men look in google new t-90ms is fucking nice :)
TATARSTAN59500 5 months ago
@bullstriker1992 also BMP is not APC :) APC is BTR not BMP.
BMP is infantry fighting vehicle and not tank :))
v1a1n1o1 5 months ago
GOD BLESS RUSSIA. FROM LATIN AMERICA....
ligv68 5 months ago
БМПТ, а не бмп.
RmnKim 6 months ago
Comment removed
7KENTEK 6 months ago
Rusia el mejor.
Odiseo2106 6 months ago
uraaaaaaaa.... Brother :) greets from germany ...
SelbstDenker100 6 months ago