[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by c_of_red

No Mark, the M-60 was an upgrade of the M-48, which was an upgrade of the M-47, which was an upgrade of the T-26 (M-26 Patton) which was a clean sheet design and the MBT the US should have gone to war in Europe with.

But the US marketed it as new. And T-26 was just an evolution of an M4 and M6 hybrid. After all the turret used on T-26 was based on work done on T-23 turret (that went to M4(76) series). So hardly a "Clean sheet" design, the same way say Challenger 2 is based on 1 which is based on export Chieftain which is based on Centurion which is based on British Cruiser tanks... Yet again both Centurion, Chieftain and Chally 1 and 2 were being announced as new tanks.

I'm just saying that the T-90 is over rated in game terms. Armor needs to be cut back to 80 87 frontal.
I understand it isn't for the same reason the US JDAM isn't accurately represented in the game. Playability.

Yep, most players would object if the JDAM and most other PGM could be relied to hit the target hex regardless of what's in it, if it meant it would blow up a truck shile the tanks next doors will suffer only minor headache.
As for T-90, agree and not. The figure used in the game is based on armor and ERA ratings combined, while the ERA coverage is pretty low. That is one way of putting it, as the game isn't that detailed in the area of effects of heavy ERA.
The second way, the way I chose for my OOBs (which I will hopefully release soon - as soon as I entangle the great T-54-55 variants headache) is to use "armor" only for actual "hard" armor and raise the ERA coverage, so my T-90 has front hull just a little better than T-72B (OTOH T-72B is significantly better vs. KE than in the original OOB) and I have front hull of 62 (both KE and CE) and front turret of 71 and 91 (KE, CE) - based on the approximation of its BDD-like structure. Either way can do justice to real values just in a limited way.

That is OK with me, since I like playing the game and if it reflected reality, the Russians would have no chance against the US Army, just like in the real world.

Where in the real world did the US and Soviet forces directly clash?

In the real world, the battle will end with burning Russian tanks everywhere, just like has happened for the last 50 plus years.
The Soviets had an erroneous design philosophy for tanks, which the Russians have inherited. As evidence to support my statement I point to generations of Soviet designed tanks that look good on paper and in parades but perform poorly on the battlefield.
You can make excuses until the cows come home, but when you are done, the picture of those tanks burning will counter your excuses.

I can supply you with pictures of burning Mag'achs in Sinai, or of burning M47s on Indo-Pakistani border. I can supply you with pics of burning Abrams, after being hit by a puny late 1948s SPG-82. What does it prove? And in 1991, when did the "burning T-72s" mostly occur, a large portion of Iraqi tanks was destroyed ahile being abandoned, either by gunfire or by traditional means, IE demolition charges, the same way as so many Georgian tanks got burned last summer. Few fell in actual combat, most were demolished either by Georgians themselves or by Russians when after the Georgian collapse Russian troops more or less freely roamed many Georgian bases.
Note the Israeli experience. After 1967 and 1973, they accepted captured tanks en masse to service. Given their aim of minimising crew casaulties, do you think that these tanks were really so much of a deathtrap?
Was Leopard 1 a deathtrap with its thin armor? Canucks using them in A-stan seem not to think so.

Frankly, your stance here reminds me very much the stance of Axis and Soviet fanboys re. Sherman tank. They use similar arguments: fields of burning tanks (Africa, Goodwood, usually in a situation where the tactics used would mean the Allies would lose the tanks even if they have had already M48s), "Tommy cooker" once and for all (though in fact as for example Dmitri Loza recollects, while Sherman caught fire more easily than T-34, if properly handled, it provided more time for evacuation and didn't blow up), "poor mobility" (though again Red Army vets with both M4 and T-34 combat experience - as opposed to just being told - do not say so and Germans in Italy complained that Sherman goes where their tanks cannot), "poor weaponry" (esp. ironic if it's being compared to T-34 where it was generally on par) etc. And what are those denigrations of M4 based on? On initial combat where green crews in early variants of poor quality (early M4A1 cast armor hardness was generally in the area of 50% - 75% of the planned value, and with numerous cracks and bubbles) faced experienced veterans of Panzerwaffe.

Just a final "tank" question for you: Do you think that had Iraq in 1991 M1's and M60's and the Coalition having T-72's, Iraq would win? I dare think the opposite. Same for Sinai, 1967, give IDF T-55's (hell, they would be glad enough to have them instead of having few M48 and Centurions and rest upgunned Shermans) and Egypt 105mm Centurions and M48s, Egypt would still get its backside handed to them.
Same for the Valley of Death on Golans in 1973'. Switch both side's equipment and watch as IDF tankers slaughter Centurions and Shermans while safely remaining in the dark thanks to T-55 night vision kit.
It's not as much the machine as the man inside. You may have M1A56 Superduperabrams but if you do not pay attention to such pesky details as setting up your sights properly, keeping the inside clean and uncluttered, setting up proper C3I structure or lubricating the engine, you are in deep trouble even if you encounter an IFV manned by at least semi-competent crew.

The USA WAS attacked. Igf you don'tthink so, I believe Youtube has the video. NATO requires that America's allies aid us when we are attacked.

Which attack do you mean? You mean Sptember 11? But Iraq had nothing to do with that (and despite attempts of persons with Bush Derangement Syndrome GWB never said so and did not justify action in Iraq as a response to Sept 11, just as a means to prevent possible future attacks), Afghan-based Osama's group did, that's also why A-stan is a NATO mission.
That is not to say Iraq did not deserve a good hard smacking for repeated violations of ceasefire agreement from 1991, but connecting Iraq with response to Sept 11th is a bit like connecting British invasion of Vichy Syria with Pearl Harbor.
Also if Iraq works as "draw the terrs out in the open", it was not intended so in the first place. You recall the apalling job of post-invasion planning made by the US, with blunders like immediately totally disbanding the army and the police? Needless to say that A-stan serves that purpose as well and moreover lets us watch closely a large unstable country with nukes. If the Talebs were nto killed in A-stan mountains, guess how many nmore will be available to try to topple the Paki govt, which, as corrupt and backstabbing as it is, is still better than an imam with nukes.
Needless to say, US gov knew all this well enough to not ask for NATO help in Iraq. It called for individual countrie's help (and you'll notice that my country, taxed enough as it was with A-stan and Kosovo, among others, also helped), but not for a NATO stamp because there simply was nothing to earn it.
But this is an off-topic sideshow so I recommend we drop the issue and you look up what is a NATO mission and what is not.