You do know America guarantees the export composite is just as good as DU right? They only use DU because it’s cheap for the amount of protection it gives
If i may ask for the proof of your claims, because now you’re just coping.
watch out they are exactly the same missile in wt so we just say aim120 1991
2 Likes
Agreed, It’s just so stupid because Russia gets more of their modern vehicles such as the 2S38 when it’s not even in service.
2 Likes
I mean considering he claims that T-90M is just upgraded T-90 the amount of coping is quite big.
2 Likes
… what is it if not an upgraded T-90?
If you’re asking thing question then surely you also got not idea.
So explain??
None of them prove anything nor they mention composite armor being as good as DU.
Ofc, because aussies claim their is actually better
But idk how you missed GDLS rep themself claiming the export package from 2000 mind you offers similar levels of protection to DU.
Also proves my statement that DU was only used because it’s cheap
Let me use your logic to explain how wrong your claim is.
If T-90M is upgraded T-90 then all Abrams model are just upgraded base M1 which was entered service in 1980.
3 Likes
T-90 is quite new though? Relatively speaking. Also, yes all of the abrams models are upgrades from the original M1… that is literally true just as it’s true the T-90M is an upgrade of the T-90.
No its not.
Those Abrams models recieved significant upgrades that they became entirely new tank, the only thing they share with base M1 is general design and same engine, nothing more.
Same method also applies to T-90M, both tanks only share same hull design while T-90M offers superior:
-protection
-reaction time
-awareness
-mobility
-survivability
-new turret design
3 Likes
nah
2 Likes
This is the most circular thread ever
“Top tier US is pre 1995”
“Well actually this variant is from 200x”
“It’s only an upgrade to a 90s vehicle”
“Then this 2000s Russian vehicle is from 199x cause it’s also an upgrade”
“No these upgrades basically make it new vehicle”
“So do the upgrades in the 200x variant”
“No, they’re only X changes while that’s Y changes”
Blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah
Repeat ad infinitum
Also why are you guys arguing with Russian vehicles when there’s every other nation which have completely new vehicles from like 2015.
10 Likes
wasn’t it just the ERA that was placed differently and the part for the ammo that was also added?
basically the same turret except for the extra external parts that make it bigger.
the “base” looks pretty much just a normal t90 turret
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
2 Likes
T-90M < Abrams. There you go. Introduction dates don’t matter, the older M1A2 SEP is better than the new T-90M.
Making an argument that the US needs to be buffed because of the age of their vehicles is “older” compared to other nations is not the way to go.
You gotta compare it’s capabilities. I believe ARB is pretty balanced (maybe Sweden is a bit underwhelming?). GRB is what I have an issue with. Even then, it’s not that bad
The SepV3(still uses the A2), should’ve been added when the 2A7 and T-90M was introduced. Instead we got a copy paste SepV1 with roof tiles.
The AGM-84 should’ve been added along with the Hammer. The Mavericks is like a relic compared to other agms at top tier.
2 Likes