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!
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.