VladimirTarasov

Its not 2KM at night its 2.5 and just because it identifies targets at that range doesnt mean it cannot engage, It has a recognition of 5KM

Although I agree with just about everything you said about the classification, I do not believe the story about the .50 cal SLAP going through, that sounds a bit fake were speaking about a tank here.

It was hit in the lower glacis which I understand being penetrated but even with ERA on there? I do not know if the challenger 2 is better armored then the M1A2 but even on western forums it is said that the Chally is better armored.

The T-72B3M will be bought this year from what I have read and in big numbers.

Im not saying that western thermals suck I know they are at a higher level then what is on Russian tanks BUT that does not make the Russian tanks obsolete. Because the thermals on Russian tanks are not bad they are good and they are enough for European geography,

No it was a direct hit onto the glacis, from what I read just now. Also lets not forget france didnt sell some export model catherine it sold catherines that the Russian MOD ordered it to, And I doubt it can see 2KM to identify on Russian tanks I mean that makes no sense you're acting as if Russian MOD is stupid... The Russian BURAN-MATIS thermal can Detect at 7KM where as the Buran-Catherine can detect at 12KM Recognition is 4KM for Buran matis and Buran catherine is 5KM It can identify fully at 2.5 KM both of them, And under adverse weather it is 2KM. Now in European geography you don't need more then 4KM at most. And this is for Ukrainian upgrades, The Russian one has even more capabilities.

Chally 2 was penetrated from the front by an RPG-29 here is a test showing the T-90 (base model from 1992) and the T-80U(1985) surviving these shots http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html Even the ERA stripped targets survived for the T-90. But if you remember the ERA equipped Challenger 2 was penetrated from the front by a RPG-29 Also I still don't understand why you keep saying the T-90s FCS is bad, It gets its FCS from experiences of T-64-T-80UM, Would you mind getting sources that show the Catherine being bad? If there is even a recorded source like that.

The thing is all this things they are saying have no evidence backed behind it im not saying M1 abrams is bad at all, Just Russian tanks arent getting what they deserve in fact most things these guys are saying are western sources and not Russian while I get my information on western tank from western sources and get my information on Russian tanks from Russian sources.

Designed from Belarus but also built in Russia, More information on the FCS can be found on Russian sites, The T-90AM has new stuff but its not being bought the Armata which will enter service by 2016 is being bought which has newer generation armor, New sophisticated FCS and ect. But sadly this tank cannot be put in the game because it will be revealed in may 9 parade this year. Also I want to see where you think the FCS is bad I want to see some proof for the Catherine thermal site being bad also on the SOSNA-U being bad too, Saying is easy I can say that the Abrams has a german smoothbore cannon based fail gun but obviously thats not true it fires the world's most powerful sabot. And I don't deny it. Same thing for people saying the T-72 sucks because the Abrams whiped the floor with it in Iraq, This is not true either as these were models made in Iraq and the best T-72 they had was T-72M(export model). But back on I would like it if you showed me about these claims.

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewforum.php?id=8 Otvaga is the best Russian forum on armor they have real armor experts and people who have worked on tanks check it out although you do not probably understand it because you dont know Russia so sorry, but maybe you can google translate?

The T-80UM's sight was not very bad, In the 1990s when the USSR collapsed money was very hard to find and corruption was a lot so they didn't even look into designing it, It wasn't very bad but due to the design being expensive and that development was ceased plus Russia wanted better relations with the west they took in the Catherine thermal. Now the T-72B3 has the SOSNA-U which has multi channel views for the gunner including a new thermal (Russian made) the old sight still remains but that is as a secondary just in case. Saying that Russia didn't develope these things and falls behind America may be true but not by a very large margine in fact Russia has catched up. Also saying that Russia has not made FCS really makes me cringe as the T-64A and so on started getting FCS in the 70s, US started mainly installing thermals in the 80s and now a lot of their gear has thermals but so does Russia and if it doesnt have thermals it has advanced night vision sights. Russia has been developing FCS from early 70s to present I do not understand why you are saying we lack on something. Saying the U.S. budget helps the design is okay but it will only help to a certain area your not gonna put millions into it simply because you dont have to. The T-72 did not have a FCS but sight correction which was decent by standards but the new T-72s being modernized such as the B3 have full Russian equipment and Russian FCS. I do not deny the Abrams is good im just against when people underestimate Russian armor capabilities.

Im not understanding what that has to do with T-90 but I would appreciate it if you left politics out. And about the FCS, Russia has been developing FCS for a long time too just because thermals are put on in the past 20 years (in mass numbers) on Russian tanks doesnt have anything to do with the FCS's calculation.

The thermals sold are not bad at all and it is not a downgrade or they would not be fitted onto the T-90s because thermals were already developed for the T-80UM but were deemed not good enough so why would they risk buying thermals from France if it is not at high standards? And the T-90A is up there with the best you cant just call it bad without stating what is bad.

Ok I would love to see your source on it being french knock offs, Since you don't read Russian sources on Russian tanks you probably read American sources on Russian tanks. But me I read both. And about the 5KM range im saying this because the M1 abrams is usually highly remarked for its range nothing special about it.

I can give you sources if you don't mind Russian language.

wow, the T-90s thermals have ability to see up to 5 km and more, Its proven in trials the T-90 can hit tank sized targets with its ATGM with atleast 90% accuracy to 5 KM which is its MAX range. The T-90AM should have the ESSA thermals and newer optics which would allow it to see even further then the T-90As. The T-72B3s and the T-90As have almost similar capabilities only which the T-72B3 falls behind in armor when compared to T-90A. The T-90As armor is layered many times ontop of that new versions of K5 are installed on it, The T-90A has a very armored turret in the front but it has thin armor on the back sides which the Abrams also has. And also the A4 may be very powerful but at real engagement ranges 2100-3000 meters it has a chance of bouncing or loosing its full power where as the T-90's Refleks ATGM missile can hit up to 5 KM without bouncing and is guided. I dare the Abrams to have any penetrating power to the T-90 at 5KM. Im not saying the Abrams is bad but its not a god weapon either.

Optics are being deployed but not all units will have them possibly in 2017 they will though, In a war against NATO and Ukraine the best troops would be deployed which would have the scopes and weapon sights.

If only the Armata was shown and could be modeled in the game

My wishlist: VDV especially with BTR-MD and BMD-4M please

If they had grenade launchers I wonder why they didnt use them. Suppresing fire is key to advancing did they not even attempt to do that?

That was the only shoot out I had there, Ossetia was a very beautiful place. Out of everything I've been through in army service training was the hardest, Its pretty tough. I have many stories about my service and about my father and uncle even my gramps who was in world war 2. You ask I have no problem writing about it here.

Its possible for 2 snipers to down a whole platoon as long as you have luck, patience, and skill, and most important of all smarts. How was the terrain? And how were the snipers positioned?

I wish I could have been in his place instead of him having to go through that now he has PTSD, He told me thoroughly about everything as if he was going through it like he was there. I dont think ashamed is the right word for it though. Yeah of course, All soldiers are innocent unless he commits crimes during his duty...

My father was in Afghanistan, 1981-85' volunteer. Fought in a few battles, Lost his middle toe from shrapnel and shot in the leg. He also participated in Chechnya so did my uncle I heard horrible stories from them about their service. Makes me feel ashamed that I couldn't go through what they did...

It was a terrorist group not because I think they were but because you don't randomly attack a blockpost that is there to regulate and defend, We didn't provoke no one and we never did anything to anyone there, So of course the people I most likely killed were terrorists that had some sort of motive. I personally think they were Georgians. About the term terrorist, I think the main problem of how the word terrorism is used is that it is used with discrimination. For example on the news you never see a "American terrorist has killed a cop." What you do see is "Russian terrorists (insert crime here)" Or "Muslim terrorists" but it is usually used against muslims from what I see. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.