Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

International Debut for the Russian T-90MS Tank Upgrade at DefExpo 2012
Defense Update ^ | March 29, 2012 | Binny Winson

Posted on 03/29/2012 9:23:35 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

International Debut for the Russian T-90MS Tank Upgrade at DefExpo 2012

The centerpiece of the Russian display at Defexpo 2012 is undoubtedly the T-90MS upgrade program developed by the Russian Uralvagonzavod corporation. The T-90MS upgrade was unveiled August 2011 at Nizhny Tagil, Russia following the demise of the T-95 program. It is making its international debut here in New Delhi. India is likely to be the most interested in the the Russian upgrade, put forward by Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport as a possible upgrade path for the Indian ‘Brishna’ (T-90S) tanks.

India is the largest operator of the T-90S, along with Russia. The Indian Army has fielded about 450 of these tanks, with 300 more on order. Other T-90 operators are Azerbaijan, Cyprus (45) and Venezuela (92). Earlier in 2012 it was announced that Algeria has bought 120 of these tanks.Additional 30 were acquired by Turkmenistan. These small deliveries could be the result of the collapse of the Libyan order, which was never fulfilled.

The Indian Army had planned to equip its 59 armored regiments with 1,657 T-90S main battle tanks, 1,000 of which were to be Indian-made. However, production and import of T-90S tanks has been slow, hence, the opportunity to improve the T-90 through the manufacturing line, maintaining the T-90 effectiveness for upcoming years. The T-90MS offers improvements in every important element – protection, mobility and firepower, in addition to improving sustainability and reliability while reducing operating cost. Since the contract was signed back in 2001 the Indian Heavy Vehicle Factory (HVF) in Avadi, Chennai has assembled only 150 T-90S (of a thousand planned). Implementing the T-90MS package will enable future production series to deliver better, more capable main battle tanks instead of gradually obsoleting platforms.

The proposed tank upgrades include improved automotive components, enhanced protection by

(Excerpt) Read more at defense-update.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: india; mbt; russia; t90; tank
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-116 next last
To: jmacusa

I don’t know that that is a good indicator. Look at how the Iraqis WE train are. Nothing to write home about.

Ground support aircraft would have to survive in an intense ADA environment and under contested skies. It wouldn’t be like today where the worst that happens is some savage has an SA-14 to shoot at you that he doesn’t really know how to use.

Mind you, hovering around savages in RPG or AK-47 range is not a good idea either as they found out in Somalia.

I don’t just play this scenario - I lived and trained for it with 11 ACR in Fulda and Bad Kissingen back in the 80’s.


51 posted on 04/01/2012 3:53:56 PM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

I respect your service. How willing would any army be to fight for a system that oppresses them and views their lives as so much cannon fodder?


52 posted on 04/01/2012 7:02:30 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Same reason the Kims are still in charge in North Korea: They don’t know any better.

You need to read some Russian history. Its very depressing (just like Russian literature...).

Russians and other former subjects for the Russian Empire were not treated any differently by the Soviets than they were by any Russian government before them. Some of them might have actually been treated somewhat better.

Add to that, the natural paranoia of a country that has been repeatedly invaded (including by us) and taken millions (yes, MILLIONS) of casualties, and, well, it makes sense.


53 posted on 04/01/2012 9:20:25 PM PDT by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; JerseyanExile; PLMerite; Little Ray; PapaBear3625; cunning_fish
If you wanted to know how good the Russkies would have been look at the Iraqis, that’s who trained them.

Ridiculous. Basing performance on the US vs the Iraqis is like comparing an NBA team with the sisters of mercy girls highschool basketball team! Absolutely no comparatives.

However, if one wants to play that game one can use the India vs Pakistani scenario, where one Indian MiG-29 sent two Pakistani F-16s fleeing when it lit them up. I guess that makes F-16s crap, right? Or how the Indians, with Russian equipment, smote the hell out of the Pakistani military several times over a couple of decades, whether it is a naval attack with Russian ships and missiles (and the first use of a naval attack missile on land targets), to the splitting of Bangladesh from Pakistan, or the recent Kashmir episode. That means American equipment is crap, since every time Indians using Soviet/Russian weapons came up against Pakistanis using American weapons the Pakistanis lost. Right? Or maybe it is because the Indians were facing Pakistanis and not the US, which has far more sense because the US Vipers, compared to the Pakistani Vipers at the time, are BVR capable when all the Pakistani's had were short-range IR missiles compared to the Indians developed BVR capability. Kind of similar to Iraqis flying monkey-model MiG-29s that didn't even have radar-warning receivers.

Anyways, if the US (and the assembled Allies) beating Iraq/Somalia/Afghanistan makes something crap, does that also mean India beating Pakistan makes the equipment Pakistan was using crap?

The Russians wouldn’t have only been met by M-60’s or M-1s coming through the Fulda Gap but A-10 Thunderbolts and Apache helicopters.

Interesting because it is said there used to be a bet between Apache and Warthog pilots on who would survive longest if the stupid Soviets ever came through the Fulda. I know the Warthog is seen by some on FR as a magical weapon - after all it has a titanium bathtub - but it is not invincible. During the Gulf War the A-10 had a very good record until it was sent forward past the front-line units where it came up against the Republican Guard (who were generally better equipped than the normal Iraqi military). Result? One of the highest loss rates of GW1. I wonder how the A-10, an aircraft one FReeper once said is all the US needs as opposed to the Raptor, would do against a foe with real capability (e.g. say a China as opposed to an Afghanistan, Bosnia or Iraq). Even with its titanium bathtub (tm).

Ask any American tanker if they’d want to use Russian armor and they’d refuse. Quite frankly I’m a little surprised an American such as yourself would be so impressed with the crap the Russians make. Their hulks of their T-55s, T-62s and T-72s are still rusting away in the desert where our guys destroyed them. Notice and M-1s out there?

No, no American tanker in his right mind would want to fight in a T-72 if he had access to an Abrams. He would have to be mad since the Abrams is far better than the '72 (a tank that has been around for a long time), and is better for the American armored doctrine than the '90. In the same way a British tanker wouldn't trade the Chally-2 for an Abrams (you should hear what they say), or a German tanker wouldn't trade a Leo-2 upgrade for any Abrams, ever. Also, if an Abrams couldn't destroy a T-55 or 62 or 72 then something would have to have gone terribly wrong. Maybe a direct meteorite strike on the Abrams from outerspace.

However, again, there is the component of who you are facing. During GW there was an American tanker who said (as another FReeper had posted) that you could have switched tanks and the result would have been the same.

Anyways, I think a lot of your posts on the thread can be summed up by what you said here: Quite frankly I’m a little surprised an American such as yourself would be so impressed with the crap the Russians make. This was in response to a FReeper who only said he found it interesting that the tank has the extra fuel tank to increase range. That is not even impressive, and I doubt the FReeper was impressed. However, if someone is not calling foreign equipment 'crap' he is wrong, and you use engagements between the US and the likes of Iraq et al as a measuring stick to prove how it is crap.

There is no problem with that. After all this is a niche internet forum where the views seldom count (goodness, even it seems within the GOP the true conservatism found on FR is 'strange' and unacceptable, which is why someone like Romney is ahead of all sorts of people that are truly better than him). My hope is that the people who have real influence do not think that everything out there is crap, because a very real (and nasty) surprise could be waiting for them. The Abrams is better than any Eastern tank out there, and is one of the best Western tanks (in the top 3 by most rankings). It is indeed better than the latest Russian T-series on aggregate (even if you account for the Active Defense Systems). Also, it is clearly evident that any engagement between American forces and third-world countries using Soviet equipment has led to a lot of burning hulks of twisted metal, and charred flesh, that is not American due to the superiority and training of the American soldier and equipment. No arguments there. Interestingly however, to use the example of India again, engagements between the Indian airforce/navy/military using Soviet equipment versus the Pakistanis using American equipment has led to the opposite result (to the extent of Pakistan losing half their territory to create what is now known as Bangladesh). Does that mean American equipment is crap? No way, just that in the hands of Pakistanis against a force that has superior equipment and training it is crap.

But then again, who cares!

54 posted on 04/01/2012 10:03:27 PM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Ray I’ve read lots of Russian history, LOTS of it. More then most Americans, trust me.You want a good one, read Harrison Salisbury’s “The 900 Days’’ dealing with the siege of Leningrad .Human life in Russia is worthless and one thing becomes apparent, Russians take a perverse pride in not taking responsibility for themselves. And yes they are roundly hated by Poles, Germans Chechzs, hell they even treat each other like something on the bottom of their shoe. And I agree Russian literature IS depressing... and pretentious too.


55 posted on 04/02/2012 8:44:10 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

You misunderstood me pal. I said the tactics taught by Russians to the Iraqis, meaning Soviet-era style combat techniques. Other than that thanks for making my argument, sincerely.


56 posted on 04/02/2012 8:46:53 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Do not label them. Russians are different. There are scores of potent open minded people. Labeling them in common makes an upper hand for backward part of their population.


57 posted on 04/02/2012 8:50:23 AM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; cunning_fish
On a side note.... The Thar desert in Rajasthan, the site of India-Pakistan tank battle has the largest grave yard of American tanks (Patton tanks used by Pakistan) anywhere in the world.
58 posted on 04/02/2012 8:51:39 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; cunning_fish
On a side note.... The Thar desert in Rajasthan, the site of India-Pakistan tank battle has the largest grave yard of American tanks (Patton tanks used by Pakistan) anywhere in the world.
59 posted on 04/02/2012 8:51:54 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ravager

Yep, a place near Assal Uttar there the battle took place known as ‘Paton Negar’ among Pakis (Patton’s graveyard).


60 posted on 04/02/2012 9:03:29 AM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

If you mean “Russian’’, whom are you talking about? The roughly 65% of the population who are Caucasian, as I mean? I doubt very much the other 35% feel about “Rodina’’ as the typical “Ivan’’ does. Stalin saw to that.


61 posted on 04/02/2012 9:22:25 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

I think most of the population are still identify themself to Russians, no matter what ethnicity they are. It is in American interest to keep this way. Russia is a natural ally.
They are a sole superpower of the time who has supported US independence. They were the most valuable ally against nazism and they are the most valuable ally against islam and China.
We have to leave his stupid zero sum game, it is not in an interest of both nations.


62 posted on 04/02/2012 9:34:57 AM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish; jmacusa

When comparing American and Russian weaponry, Americans always love to talk about Iraq war which was totally one sided, but never talk about India-Pakistan war which was more or less evenly matched and American weaponry got absolutely wasted.


63 posted on 04/02/2012 10:38:15 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

The best Soviet military hardware has always yet to be proven in battle.


64 posted on 04/02/2012 10:47:35 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ravager
Pakistan is a recent creation, a country made up entirely of Saracens not particularly known for their fighting spirit. The Saracens believe in a rather haphazard training style believing that at the appropriate time in battle Allah will reveal himself and guide them to victory. The Indian Army is a different story. India is an ancient culture with a long history of fierce warriors combined with a modern history of learning modern combat techniques from the Brits.
65 posted on 04/02/2012 1:39:06 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

Natural ally!?! What freakin’ planet are you living on? Russia was an ally’’ in WW2 only by circumstance. Don’t forget that up until June of ‘41 they were allies of Nazi Germany.’ They were our ‘’natural ally’’ during fifty years of the Cold War? Ally’’ my foot. Putin and a long line of Russkie commies did all they could to put an end to us. ‘’Ally’’. What a joke. Didn’t you catch Obamas ‘’open mike’’ gaff? That little Marxist s.o.b. is getting ready to sell us out to our ‘’ally’’.


66 posted on 04/02/2012 1:46:46 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
Pakistanis and Indians are mostly of the same racial/ethnic stock. Saracens are Arabs. Pakistanis are not Arabs.... not even Persians or Turks. India and Pakistan shared the same civilization/culture and British influence. And in 1964 and 1971 Pakistanis were trained by US/UK had assistance from US military advisers...... they still lost. Disastrously!
67 posted on 04/02/2012 2:04:32 PM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I take it, you never read anything about India-Pakistan wars.


68 posted on 04/02/2012 2:06:31 PM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ravager

Look up the definition of a “Saracen’’. Having the will to fight is a motivating factor in winning a war. Whats the sub-text you’re trying to get across pal, you got a soft spot for the Russkies?


69 posted on 04/02/2012 2:11:11 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ravager

Look up the definition of a “Saracen’’. Having the will to fight is a motivating factor in winning a war. Whats the sub-text you’re trying to get across pal, you got a soft spot for the Russkies?


70 posted on 04/02/2012 2:12:19 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Sar·a·cen Show Spelled[sar-uh-suhn] Show IPA
noun
1. History/Historical . a member of any of the nomadic tribes on the Syrian borders of the Roman Empire.

2. (in later use) an Arab.

3. a Muslim, especially in the period of the Crusades.
adjective

4. Also, Sar·a·cen·ic Show Spelled[sar-uh-sen-ik] Show IPA, Sar·a·cen·i·cal. of or pertaining to the Saracens.


71 posted on 04/02/2012 2:31:50 PM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
I did look up the definition of Saracen. I didnt see any of the definition applying to Pakistan. Why dont you explain what's your definition of Saracen.

Dunno about “soft spot”. I just dont share your retarded world view that every Russian weaponry is piece of scrap metal. Indians using Russian “scrap metal” have kicked Pakistani butt along with their hi-tech American weaponry.

72 posted on 04/02/2012 2:36:42 PM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ravager

Number 3 ‘’Muslim’’. A hat-tip to my Crusader ancestors. I didn’t say “Saracen’’ ‘’ meant a Pakistani so twist the issue. Indians fighting Pakis with Russian made crap is a lot different from any other country fighting American made systems manned by Americans. Seems to me you’re the one with a ‘’retarded’’ world view.


73 posted on 04/02/2012 2:43:43 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
The number 3 definition doesn't just stop at “Muslim”. In fact most Pakistanis weren't even Muslims during the Crusades. Pakistanis are more recent converts.

The word “Saracen” in most common usage denotes an Arab from the time of the Crusades....regardless of whatever way you want to twist or stretch the definition.

The point is ......when Americans fight with American weaponry and with overwhelming military superiority against puny enemies it is not really a good example where you can judge the relative superiority of one equipment over the other.......hence your retarded world view.......which more then one poster on this thread tried to fix and failed.

Seems to me you’re the one with a ‘’retarded’’ world view.”

The key phrase being....”Seems to me”

74 posted on 04/02/2012 3:24:00 PM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

And lastly the Crusades was the one time when the “Saracens” actually kicked butts.


75 posted on 04/02/2012 3:25:54 PM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Natural ally!?! What freakin’ planet are you living on? Russia was an ally’’ in WW2 only by circumstance. Don’t forget that up until June of ‘41 they were allies of Nazi Germany.’ They were our ‘’natural ally’’ during fifty years of the Cold War? Ally’’ my foot. Putin and a long line of Russkie commies did all they could to put an end to us. ‘’Ally’’. What a joke. Didn’t you catch Obamas ‘’open mike’’ gaff? That little Marxist s.o.b. is getting ready to sell us out to our ‘’ally’’.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To bring things into perspective you have to note Russians has backed Spanish Republicans against nazy-socialist element backed by Germans during Spanish Civil War. It was one bloody war in ‘30s with Russians and Germans involved from both sides. And prior to ‘39 Russians were seeking French-British alliance to take on nazy. Neither British nor French agreed to take on Hitler and paid for thet later. Soviets and Hitler weren’t allies by definition. It was a non-agression pact. Initially Russians took over Poland, Baltic states and Moldova as a buffer zone against Germans.

And as for a Cold War it was a pretty little episode in terms of long human history.

The majority of Russians hates communism right now, they are white Christian nation with a lot of interests corelated to US interests. A few other major nations like that left.

It is pretty enough to be a good alliance to me instead of playing zero sum games from both sides.


76 posted on 04/02/2012 7:28:57 PM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ravager

They did until they were defeated. Check out Charles Martel and Vlad Tepes,aka “Vlad the Impaler’’. Got a soft spot for them too, eh? You may have noted but this is not a Saracen-friendly web-site. What ails you dude? You’re contrary to just about everything I say.


77 posted on 04/02/2012 7:40:37 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

Pal, you’ve sure got some screwy version of history. The “Cold War’’ was a ‘’pretty little episode in human history’’. You mean in duration of time? Yeah, sure, ok. Fifty freakin’ years. Right. Let me guess, you’re Russian?


78 posted on 04/02/2012 7:44:26 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ravager

A Saracen is a Muslim. Pakistan did not exist during the time of the Crusades.


79 posted on 04/02/2012 7:51:21 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ravager

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan weren’t ‘’puny enemies’’. You got some problem with America or what?


80 posted on 04/02/2012 7:54:06 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

I’m not Russian but lived and worked with them a lot.
As for a Cold War it took really few American lives, comparing to Independence War, WWI&II.
You don’t have that problem with Brits, Germans and Japanese who killed more Americans. Don’t you?


81 posted on 04/02/2012 10:10:19 PM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

Yeah I do actually. I don’t have a problem so much with most I just don’t like the history of what England did in Ireland where my ancestors came from. I don’t like unrepentant Nazis and I especially don’t like the attitude of Japanese veterans and the Japan of today which still refuse to own up to what Japan did in the last world war and it galls the piss out of me when the Japanese start weeping and moaning about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You call 54,000 thousand American dead in Korea and 58,000 thousand dead in Vietnam a ‘few American lives’’? These were client states of Russia, armed by the Russians and these wars were fought during the Cold War. You’ve got a really screwy sense of history.


82 posted on 04/02/2012 10:48:02 PM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Cold warriors has really earned much respect but you can’t be stuck in a past forever.
History is not that monochrome.
People were cannibals at the time and your neighbours are their offsprings. You don’t like Ivans, Krauts, Japs and Englishmen. What about your neighbours?:)


83 posted on 04/02/2012 11:19:57 PM PDT by cunning_fish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: cunning_fish

You shouldn’t make generalization ‘’fish’’. I don’t like the attitudes of their governments on the issues I mentioned. Nor did I use the word “Japs’’, you did. I called you on your ‘’few American deaths’’ and you jump to a virtual ad homiemn attack. People are cannibals at anytime in history. I don’t have a problem with my neighbors actually. I notice you spell ‘’neighbor’’ with a ‘’u’’. You’re not American born, are you? In any event you’ve become annoying and boring. have a nice life ace.


84 posted on 04/03/2012 12:00:46 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
“A Saracen is a Muslim. “

Lol. Ok, whatever.

“Pakistan did not exist during the time of the Crusades.”

I am glad at least you know that much.

Btw there are white American Muslims in the US, they Saracens too? Lol.

85 posted on 04/03/2012 6:30:49 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
“Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan weren’t ‘’puny enemies’’. You got some problem with America or what?”

In case you lost track of the logical flow of the argument on this thread, we are talking about Soviet/Russian equipments. US didn't really confront Soviet/Russian military hardware until cold war. And yes Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan aren't exactly giant superpowers. They ARE puny. And in a few of those places US actually lost the fight inspite of overwhelming military superiority and “crappy” Soviet weaponry used by the enemy.

A good match would be Americans using American equipments fighting Russians using Russian equipment. Anything less then that is not real contest IMO to judge which weapon is better.

I got problem with America? Please elaborate.

86 posted on 04/03/2012 6:50:06 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
Funny you mentioned Charles Martel, I was actually talking about him on another thread on FR.

Charles Martel won the battle of Tours (France) against Moors. Ever wondered how the Muslims got that far inside Europe? That's right! Over Spain! Muslims had taken over Spain and were knocking on France. If that's not kicking butts then I don't know what is.

Same story with Vlad. The Ottoman Turks had taken over a good portion of Eastern Europe. And Vlad was actually imprisoned by the Turks.

The thing to note here is Muslims were stomping on Christian lands. Christians were not on Muslim lands.

87 posted on 04/03/2012 7:32:35 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
“Got a soft spot for them too, eh? You may have noted but this is not a Saracen-friendly web-site. What ails you dude? You’re contrary to just about everything I say.”

You seem too worried about my “soft spot”. I am making arguments based on facts.... which aren't likely to change regardless of who or what you have a soft spot for.

FACT #1 Russian equipments are not all crap.... as many posters have correctly pointed out. Russian equipments make a lot of overall strategic sense.

FACT #2 Muslims did kick butt, which is why today they are spread over the vast expanse of North Africa, Europe, middle East and Asia. There is no disputing that.

Just because you don't have a convincing case to prove otherwise doesn't mean I have to mindlessly join your chorus of trashing everything you are biased against. Whether or not the Russian are enemies is not the debate here. Regardless, their weapons are excellent. If you don't think so, then try to make a stronger case against it rather then throwing out a lot of personal biases contrary to logic or facts.

88 posted on 04/03/2012 8:43:55 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ravager

You seem to be very dismissive of American equipment in favor of Russian crap. Thats right, crap. Like the Russian submarine the Kursk and the history of Russian nuke sub accidents like the K-19. The Russian supplied all the equipment to the countries you mentioned and the training. You want Americans fighting Russians, do some research into Korea where American pilots took on Russians flying Migs for the North Koreans.


89 posted on 04/03/2012 9:22:44 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ravager

Pal, you’ve got a chip on your shoulder a mile wide and deep. Why am I worried about your soft spot? because it’s obvious to me you’ve got one. Your entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. And the fact is for all your faith in Russian crap, no American soldier would want to use the stuff. Ask one.


90 posted on 04/03/2012 9:25:34 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ravager
Yup.Just as I'm considered an ‘’infidel’’ to them and my Jewish brethren are considered ‘’pigs’’ and ‘’monkeys’’. Are you a Saracen? I ask because it's obvious to me that's another one of your soft spots as you seem to extol their bloody conquests. I see you're a recent arrival here so again let me hip you to something. This is not a Saracen-friendly web-site. Check any thread dealing with Islam here and you'll find stronger prejudices expressed against it, more so then I've ever posted, much more extreme. There is also no tolerance shown to it's adherents or apologists either. trust me , I'm not asking you or anyone else here to join my ‘’mindless chorus ‘’. I'm just stating the facts. And the fact is the American military, the largest, best equipped and most lethal in the world can project that power anywhere in the world at anytime, anywhere, something no other country can do, not even the Russians. Have a nice life ace.
91 posted on 04/03/2012 10:14:49 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
The Russian supplied all the equipment to the countries you mentioned and the training. You want Americans fighting Russians, do some research into Korea where American pilots took on Russians flying Migs for the North Koreans.

I kinda new you were going to throw that pathetically strawman argument. Your responses are very much predictably stupid and unoriginal. For one, to assume that a few Russian pilots would have any effect on the overall outcome of a war is plain retarded. When I was talking about US vs Russia, I meant the entire Russian AF, military, their support, communication, network, command control and logistics to even out US advantages.

By the way Chuck Yeager and some US pilots trained the PAF and flew sorties against Indian Airforce in 1971. PAF still lost. And Korean air war wasn't even all one sided. USAF took some beating in that war. Might have something to do with the Russian pilots.

92 posted on 04/03/2012 10:20:15 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I haven’t followed the developent of the T-90 series for a long time. When did they stop using a cast steel turret for a more Abrams-like turret?


93 posted on 04/03/2012 10:29:51 AM PDT by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
“And the fact is for all your faith in Russian crap, no American soldier would want to use the stuff. Ask one.”

So far this is the only argument you have been able to conjure. Firstly I dont consider an average American soldier to be an expert in Russian military hardware.......let alone understand the overall strategic advantage (as opposed to simply evaluating the performance of the equipment), or understand the situations they are designed for or the doctrine to be applied to leverage their advantages.

Fact is a lot of Russian equipments have won foreign contracts beating comparable US contenders in the fray.

94 posted on 04/03/2012 10:33:08 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ravager

Because it’s cheap to make, cheap to sell and lousy to use. Do what I suggested to you pal and adios. You’re boring.


95 posted on 04/03/2012 10:39:48 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
You know you are a real blowhard....and a very stupid one at that. I dont think any one here is disputing the idea that US is the most powerful country in the world. If you want to keep blowing your horns about US might, go ahead. You are only wasting your breath.

The argument is about whether or not Russian weaponry is crap. Get some perspective and work on your debating skills before joining an adult conversation.

96 posted on 04/03/2012 10:48:04 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

And you are stupid. Get some rest.


97 posted on 04/03/2012 10:49:39 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ravager

As I’ve stated the history of Russian crap speaks for itself. You’re a child newbie, do some research yourself before YOU join an adult conversation ok? And go chill yourself.


98 posted on 04/03/2012 10:52:41 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

Lousy to use makes it such an attractive deal! Right?


99 posted on 04/03/2012 10:54:21 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
Americans never had accidents? Your debating skills are typical of a juvenile noob.
100 posted on 04/03/2012 11:33:42 AM PDT by ravager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson