Russia sends a planeload of humanitarian aid to Mali, blames the West for the spread of terrorism in - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Apache249;39685459]What is so dumb about this post? I ask this because I know that the Abrams is limited to 42 MPH to reduce track wear and chance injury in the case of a collision, but I know very little about the T-90's automotive performance.[/QUOTE] Isn't the ungoverned speed classified, though?

[QUOTE=Apache249;39685459]What is so dumb about this post? I ask this because I know that the Abrams is limited to 42 MPH to reduce track wear and chance injury in the case of a collision, but I know very little about the T-90's automotive performance.[/QUOTE] Well, if anything the T-90's ability to fly should give a good indication of what it can do.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39685489]Well, if anything the T-90's ability to fly should give a good indication of what it can do.[/QUOTE] "Fast."

This sounds like some shit the AI in Civ 5 would pull.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39685489]Well, if anything the T-90's ability to fly should give a good indication of what it can do.[/QUOTE] Which is kinda useless. I'm familiar with how Russian tank crews are trained and how they are expected to operate on the field, as I was covering at least two major combined arms exercises for the specialised media. I couldn't for the life of me witness T-90 of any modifications, but T-80УМ is also known for it's ability to fly and reliably track targets. The thing is, even though maximum design speed with ГТД-1250 (diesel/kerosene/petrol engine, I listed fuel in specific order from main to backup) on board is up to 60 km/h offroad, the crew is instructed to never actually go much more then 40 km/h. Why? Because engine is prone to malfunction under intense stress, and fuel consumption jumps to some crazy unacceptable values (I never got any hard numbers, though). Overall strategy for using tanks relies on their surviveability even under heavy fire (SHTORA systems, dynamic reactive armour all over the place, extra armour plating over vulnerable sites and motor units) a lot more heavily than on their maneuverability. So speed advantage is kind of not actually there. I don't know much about T-90 though, because it still has a big mistery around how in fact it's going to be used in military operations, most exercises involving them are classified, or at the very least free of media coverage. My guess is even though T-90A and T-90C use more modern engine, it's tactical usage is not going to be too different, considering that the design speed known to public is just 35-45 km/h offroad. Hard to tell actually, if it's really design speed or just effective speed (same as with T-80УК). T-90 also realies on it's passive defense measures, [i]there're recording on T-90 first series being effectively immune against RPGs and light AT mines during the first Chechen war[/i] Disregard the last sentence, it's total and utter bullshit, Russian T-90 [b]never[/b] saw combat. And remember kinds, active infra-red defensive systems are not effective against RPGs, because RPGs are not guided. Remember this, and you will be even smarter than at least one certain general of the Russian army who made idiotic statement.

There were reports of T-72's taking hits from both mines and multiple RPG's and surviving, and the T-90 is a improvement over this. People cannot compare 'monkey model' T-72 to actual Soviet hardware.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39685241]as much as I hate mike sparks this is pretty accurate [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7NVRTlAkx0[/media][/QUOTE] Actually that guy is a horrible source of information, do not watch it.

[QUOTE=O'Neil;39687964]Actually that guy is a horrible source of information, do not watch it.[/QUOTE] normally yes, but that video is pretty accurate in describing why iraqi tank performance was crap. [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Apache249;39685459] I ask this because I know that the Abrams is limited to 42 MPH to reduce track wear and chance injury in the case of a collision, but I know very little about the T-90's automotive performance.[/QUOTE] speed and maneuverability are usually linked in the power to weight ratio of a tank.

ITT: we discuss tanks and don't give a fuck about the actual news of Russia sendind help to Mali,

[QUOTE=maxumym;39688196]ITT: we discuss tanks and don't give a fuck about the actual news of Russia sendind help to Mali,[/QUOTE] Well the only reason it came to tanks was because sexualshark and IPK were being retards.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679571]The T-90 series of battle tank is still an OKAY tank, US and British forces encountered T-90 and T-72 tanks and sustained very minimal losses. But like most of Russia's arsenal is showing its age. The BMP and Stryker series are both APC's and both IFV's to be honest. The big difference is that the BMP is designed around the Soviet tactical doctrine of fighting in a giant group with helicopters, artillery, etc while BMP's brought them to their destination, dropped them off and supported the infantry as best it could. [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] *M1A1's my bad. M1A1's have fought a few T-90's the Iraqi military had during both Golf Wars. [video=youtube;yrWZlD4Tcd4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrWZlD4Tcd4&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active[/video][/QUOTE] My God what sort of imaginary fantasy news do you pick this shit from?

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39679571]The T-90 series of battle tank is still an OKAY tank, US and British forces encountered T-90 and T-72 tanks and sustained very minimal losses. But like most of Russia's arsenal is showing its age. The BMP and Stryker series are both APC's and both IFV's to be honest. The big difference is that the BMP is designed around the Soviet tactical doctrine of fighting in a giant group with helicopters, artillery, etc while BMP's brought them to their destination, dropped them off and supported the infantry as best it could. [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] *M1A1's my bad. M1A1's have fought a few T-90's the Iraqi military had during both Golf Wars. [video=youtube;yrWZlD4Tcd4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrWZlD4Tcd4&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active[/video][/QUOTE] [quote]The T-90 series of battle tank is still an OKAY tank, US and British forces encountered T-90 and T-72 tanks and sustained very minimal losses. [/quote] There has never been a sentence that has been as wrong as this one, ever.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39688275]There has never been a sentence that has been as wrong as this one, ever.[/QUOTE] Nope, it's not the most wrong sentence ever. This one is. [quote]The BMP and Stryker series are both APC's and both IFV's to be honest. The big difference is that the BMP is designed around the Soviet tactical doctrine of fighting in a giant group with helicopters, artillery, etc while BMP's brought them to their destination, dropped them off and supported the infantry as best it could.[/quote] Present a statement, and then prove it wrong by himself, in the next god damn sentance. That's the entire diffirence between APCs and IFVs, really. The reason why Stryker is an APC, while BMP (unlike BTR) is an IFV.