• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

IS 2 Versus M1 Abrams

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
PermenentMarker said:
As much as I would love to say I like the Merkeva better... I know the abrams is a better, faster tank...

But I would love to see a Merkeva run over one of those **** sherman :D

Correct me if I am wrong but... a buddy of mine told me that no sherman ever destroyed a german tank in WW2... the germans simply ran out of ammo and fuel at some point :rolleyes:

I think the BIG BIG strongpoint for americans were the Air.
Flying forteresses and Mustang fighters
Click to expand...

Dunno about THAT.

I do know I've heard of American Sherman crews using phosphorous shells on German tanks. Aim it high and let the ventilation system **** that stuff inside. Machine gun the crew as they evac. :eek:

RO doesn't simulate the "bell" effect you'd get sitting inside a tank when a round bounces off. Now imagine they keep bouncing off. Eventually, your tank's gonna be done for, when you get circled in. Bit hard to aim with all that going on.

Where there's a will, there's a way.
 
Upvote 0
#43
Cosmoline said:
In theory, maybe. But in practice it would be toasted and baked long before the crew even saw the M-1. Look how the more advanced Soviet tanks did in Desert Storm.
Click to expand...
Yeah well they were export quality and so didn't have the advanced features that Soviet owned tanks had and also the fact a lot of them were cheap copies.

No. if there was a battle between an Soviet army and the Americans, I would think the Americans will suffer casulties.
 
Upvote 0
#46
Elysium said:
Yeah well they were export quality and so didn't have the advanced features that Soviet owned tanks had and also the fact a lot of them were cheap copies.

No. if there was a battle between an Soviet army and the Americans, I would think the Americans will suffer casulties.
Click to expand...

They dig some of T72's to ground. Unfortunately, Abrams has nightvision cababilities - boom, headshot.

In correct use, those exported T72's would have had a chance but the crew and their operational commanders were inexperienced.
 
Upvote 0
#47
Drude said:
They dig some of T72's to ground. Unfortunately, Abrams has nightvision cababilities - boom, headshot.

In correct use, those exported T72's would have had a chance but the crew and their operational commanders were inexperienced.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true. I know some cases where iraqi T-72s (Asid Babil, actually) have severly damaged M1s. With substandard ammunition which was dropped like it's hot by Soviets in 1970s. IIRC, Asid Babil's were also lacking sand rods used in most export T-72s.

But back to topic, I think IS-2 can easily kill M1 if it is glued on the roof and it gets a shot at M1s top armor. :eek:
 
Upvote 0
#48
Elysium said:
Yeah well they were export quality and so didn't have the advanced features that Soviet owned tanks had and also the fact a lot of them were cheap copies.

No. if there was a battle between an Soviet army and the Americans, I would think the Americans will suffer casulties.
Click to expand...
So many ways to kill a Russian Tank, let me count the ways,

Tank vs. Tank
censor fused bomb = dead tank battalion
HIMARS
At-missile fired from shoulder, top of Humvee, Bradly...etc.
pinpoint Artillery
Attack Chopper
A-10
F16,15,18,22, JSF...
Mortars
AT-mines
WP
shambeh bambeh

too bad no Soviet Tank has a battle record that can compare to the M1-Abrams, cheap export T-72's are a cop-out excuse... we export tanks too.:p :D
 
Upvote 0
#51
PermenentMarker said:
As much as I would love to say I like the Merkeva better... I know the abrams is a better, faster tank...
different tanks for different roles

But I would love to see a Merkeva run over one of those **** sherman :D
por que?

Correct me if I am wrong but... a buddy of mine told me that no sherman ever destroyed a german tank in WW2... the germans simply ran out of ammo and fuel at some point :rolleyes:
total bull****

I think the BIG BIG strongpoint for americans were the Air.
Flying forteresses and Mustang fighters
air power is overrated, there are studies that prove that not very many tanks were destroyed as a result of air power, artillery and tank vs tank action did more.
Click to expand...

lots of misinformation in this thread
 
Upvote 0
#52
JudgeMental said:
LOL, Buddy I think you and I and a few others got into this discussion before in a thread about MBT's.
Funny how these arguments tend to be circular.
For the record though, the longest proven tank to tank kill is STILL by a Challenger tank. :D :D

http://www.army-technology.com/contr...ion/apfsds.htm
Click to expand...
Yeah well compare that to experienced German tank aces I still think that aint great cincidering the German tank crews had not auto-range finders, night vision, laser sights etc.. so they only used good old eye and math.

Though I still like to see more fortage of Challengers taking on T-72s as you seem to only here about Abrams Vs T-72s on the telly.
 
Upvote 0
#54
Elysium said:
Yeah well compare that to experienced German tank aces I still think that aint great cincidering the German tank crews had not auto-range finders, night vision, laser sights etc.. so they only used good old eye and math.

Though I still like to see more fortage of Challengers taking on T-72s as you seem to only here about Abrams Vs T-72s on the telly.
Click to expand...

Longest Proven Tank Kill and TBH mate I'm not overly bothered whether you think its impressive or not :D
For the record, an engagement at that distance with thermal interference, dust etc, IS impressive. Also for the record Chally 2 has a full range of rev modes and backups so if primary means fails they can still engage and destry enemy vehicles. As I mentioned Buddy Lee and myself amongst others have had 'vigorous' arguments in the history forum about the pros and cons of various MBT's. My interest in it is more than passing having spent 22 years in the British Army dealing with MBT's and having supported them in Iraq (twice) As for footage of T72's taking on Chally 2's hmm there plenty of footage of blown up T72's and very few of Chally 2's. ;) Go figure :)
 
Upvote 0
#55
BuddyLee said:
too bad no Soviet Tank has a battle record that can compare to the M1-Abrams, cheap export T-72's are a cop-out excuse... we export tanks too.:p :D
Click to expand...

Once again, fighting against 3rd rate army proves nothing. Biggest casualty of Gulf War was IDF's credibility. I'll repeat this once again, slowly: Fighting and prevailing against 3rd rate opponent with no will to fight and 15-30 year old equipment proves nothing.
 
Upvote 0
#57
Rss said:
Once again, fighting against 3rd rate army proves nothing. Biggest casualty of Gulf War was IDF's credibility. I'll repeat this once again, slowly: Fighting and prevailing against 3rd rate opponent with no will to fight and 15-30 year old equipment proves nothing.
Click to expand...
Um, Iraq had the 4th largest Army in the World, and they had just seasoned their troops against the Iranians. Most US Troops had never fired a shot in anger, before Gulf-1.

A lot of the US equipment was 10+ years old at the time too, including T-60 tanks manned by Marines. Iraq lost the war with Russian advisers, and observers on the ground. And the air defence around Baghdad was one of the most sophisticated ever encountered by US Forces. In the end Russian built junk was wasted in short order.

And FYI a third-rate Army would be one such as Mexico's, Columbia's, Venezuela's', Afghanistan's... not the 4th largest standing Army in the World. (Iraq). Russia on the other hand was beaten by rag-tag rebels with divine inspiration, and a few Stingers, and RPG's.
Go figure.
 
Upvote 0
#58
BuddyLee said:
Um, Iraq had the 4th largest Army in the World, and they had just seasoned their troops against the Iranians. Most US Troops had never fired a shot in anger, before Gulf-1.

A lot of the US equipment was 10+ years old at the time too, including T-60 tanks manned by Marines. Iraq lost the war with Russian advisers, and observers on the ground. And the air defence around Baghdad was one of the most sophisticated ever encountered by US Forces. In the end Russian built junk was wasted in short order.

And FYI a third-rate Army would be one such as Mexico's, Columbia's, Venezuela's', Afghanistan's... not the 4th largest standing Army in the World. (Iraq). Russia on the other hand was beaten by rag-tag rebels with divine inspiration, and a few Stingers, and RPG's.
Go figure.
Click to expand...

Iran-Iraq War was a war of attrition. Many officers died on their first day on battlefield. Besides, big army doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Coalition had clear advantage in training and technology.
Iraq had monkey'd down soviet equipment (What part of it you dont understand?). Asid Babil (T-72 copy) didn't have sand rods (not to mention composite armor), ERA, up-to-date fire control, missiles nor competent crew. I remember reading that Iraqis didn't know how to boresight their T-72s. Their BMPs even had plastic top hatches.

But even the strongest tank forces can be beaten with air superiority, and that's what coalition did. Sophisticated air defence? Give me a break, how do you define sophisticated? Iraqis only had old long to medium-range missiles, ZSU-23(-4)s and some Strela-2 MANPADS. Their long range early warning radars were old P-15 "Flat Face" and P-12 "Spoon Rest" models, which were compromised much earlier. Soviets and WP nations used P-40 and some later models. They even kept their radars off and shot AAA and missiles blindly.

FYI, Iraq Army was 3rd rate opponent on any scale. Equipment was decent, but training and mentality of the army were substandard.
US Army on the other hand has gotten some serious beating by Iraqi Resistance with IEDs, barely functioning RPGs and AKs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#60
Rss said:
"Superior" US Army on the other hand has gotten some serious beating by Iraqi Resistance with IEDs, barely functioning RPGs and AKs. Cheers for them. :D
Click to expand...

Just a tip: don't ****ing piss people off.

You can disagree with the idea all you want. Don't come on these forums blasting the soldiers. Of any side. ESPECIALLY when the conflict is still on going.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu