Quote:
Originally Posted by Plett25
AFAIK Leopard 2's are very much in the same class as M1A1's so if as you say, M1A1's are "the clear superior main battle tank" then German Leopard 2's are at least as good as T-90's. And Poland is replacing T-72's with Leopard 2's... to me this says that an upgraded T-72 is inferior to a Leopard 2.
|
Poland is also a NATO nation and probably received some pretty favorable terms. I like the Leopard 2, I'm not fond of a lot of features of the T-90 including the Russian reliance on their auto loader system, and their fuel system placements on their tanks which is just silly. But the T-90 might share the same basic frame as the T72, but it is not really a T-72 at all anymore. Especially with its optics improvements and some other things. I also have to admit that I'm a fan of the main gun on the T-90 and the idea of firing a guided anti tank rocket through it to me is a pretty brilliant idea. The guided antitank rocket is a pretty deadly counter to the advanced reactive armor on most main battle tanks.
The T-90 also took a generational step forward in terms of their defensive technology.
One of the biggest problems with the T72's and the big advantage of the Leopard 2 and M1A1 is that the Russian tanks had a lot of trouble accurately firing on the move. But it sounds like they've solved that issue and its been successfully tested in battle conditions as they've adopted a gas stabilization system for their main gun to give it the same kind of floating stabilization as the NATO tanks
The battle between the Leopard and the T90 tank comes down to the battle of range against Maneuvering capability, right now the T90 has a longer effective range
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plett25
But then it goes back to adequately trained tank crews... and to numbers. How many T-90's and upgraded T-72's are there? With a GDP less than 1/6th that of the EU, does Russia really have a technological and numerically superior armed forces? I doubt it.
|
Maybe, in terms of the sides currently in Europe, the Russians would probably have more battle hardened armor operators as they were used in Georgia, I would also argue that just based on shear manpower that the Russians would just plain have more tank troopers available. I really don't doubt that the Russians have a numerical advantage. What the composition is I'm not even sure, but they have far more tubed artillery and I would argue more tanks (I have my doubts on the BBC story as it doesn't make sense), on the balance I would argue that Nato has a sharp advantage in terms of helicopter gun ships and in terms of air to ground attack aircraft. Russia has a distinct advantage in stand off heavy bombers.
the problem for Nato right now is that they don't have the correlation of forces to be successful in an offensive manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plett25
Yes, he believes he'll get what he wants, but how is that different than a three year old throwing a temper tantrum? IMO you're giving Putin far too much credit for being a chess-master when he's more like a simple thug.
|
Maybe, but right now he is holding the upper hand on this situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plett25
But nobody wins a war either. I think you're overstating the effect of a trade war on the global economy, and at the same time understating the effect of a real war on the global economy.
|
Yes it would be foolish to say otherwise, but either which way whether its a trade or real world neither side would come through unscathed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plett25
The US economy is slowly recovering, Europe may finally be on the right track, but the Russian economy is trending into recession and they essentially have one export and one customer. Putin can hurt the west economically, but only by destroying his own economy. |
America always seems to have more to lose economically in a recession because their economy is far more complex and multifaceted. I think its overly optimistic to say that any harm to the American or European economy won't send either over the cliffs edge.
But admittedly I am certainly not an economist.