Discussion in 'History' started by fedr808, Feb 24, 2009.
that was me i was only going on what my history teacher said
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Ignoring all the T-34s and IS-IIIs in reserve...
that's what i was getting at the had loads of them in storage because the tank factories had stopped production for about 30 years.
Yah ebcause a T-34 could really stand up to an m1a1, hell, that little rust bucket couldnt kill a tank if it tried.
76 mm main gun, the abrams is 120 mm
tell your teacher that he/she was off by a magnitude of around 3,994 tanks
Wow I posted this months ago and realized that it was a typo and it shouldve been *thank G-d that we did not see the cold war erupt.
the T-34 couldn't stand up to the m1a1 nor could most Russian tanks i think the T-80 could and the T-90. but that's it.
The T-34 was a WW2 tank, theres not a chance in hell it could stand up to an M46 Patton let alone and Abrams.
The T-80 and T-90 could but even then they were a lot weaker. They could only fire from a stand still, the abrams can fire while moving. The abrams could also out range them.
If anything, this thread has show that conventional war is incredibly obsolete. It is probably a massive waste of resources to have a large amount of any convention armed force. Better spent on spec ops and strategic weapons/defenses.
Well first off, as the OP I can tell you that strategic weapons arent to be considered in thise debate.
2.) Strategic weapons arent too handy in a battle, theyre great for blowing static crap up, but not much else.
Which reduces this debate to meaninglessness.
I chose it that way because if nukes were involved wed all be dead, so I chose conventional warfare only because thats where the competition lies.
Naturally. But in order to approach that question, you have to imagine a completely different configuration of forces and strategies than ever existed.
Which is fine, if that's what you want to do, but it's no longer "history."
I personally think that there's little sense in comparing specific conventional weapons (tanks, planes etc). It would be impossible to have a conventional war. Any war would turn sooner or later in a nuclear war, and that would be the end. We would all lose.
They were held as second and third-wave reserves - there wouldn't have been any M1s or Challengers left by then.
76.2 mm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
Right, the patton had a 90 mm high velocity gun and twice the armor thickness, an M46 could easily kill a T-34
The fact is and you know it is that if there were a massive tank battle, M1a1'a wouldnt be the only thing slaughtering T-90's and T-80s, there would be apaches and B-52's, and those two could easily wipe out an armoured division no sweat.
The fact is that if Russia were conducting the offense which is most likely, the M1A1's would have a number of advantages, first the fact that they are in defensive positions, but also the fact that a T-80 or T-90 has to stop moving in order to fire. Which means that the M1A1's have an advantage in that they can fire first. In the first gulf war, M1A1's slaughtered the T-72's which are Russias main battle tank, there are only 5000 T-80's.
And the T-72's had the numerical superiority. After the battle only half a dozen M1A1's were disabled and only I think 1 was outright destroyed
well technically he is right a T-80 or T-90 is capable of firing its gun on the move. now as for hitting what its aiming at is a whole different story
Well anyone can fire a gun on the move pj, Im saying firing a gun on the move and hitting something.
The armor on a T-90 is a special steel composite.
On an M1A1 abrams, the armor is a special type of steel, than a layer of Chobham armor which breaks up enemy munitions including shaped charges, and a layer of depleted uranium, and than another layer of steel and Chobham.
Read your own references:
On paper, sure.
Iraq != Russia. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Export Soviet/ Russian tanks are "monkey-models": downgraded capabilities for one thing.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A T-34-85 is not a plain old T-34, next time be a bit more specific.
Well for starters the fact is that the US would have air superiority, especially if you were to factor in the F-22 raptor and F-35.
The armor on a T-90 is significantly inferior to that of the M1A1
Separate names with a comma.