[c_of_red]

'm not going to wade through all this dreck to figure out where this came from so just tell me who is suggesting that experience and morale "affects the ratings of the front hull armor"


Don

Anyone that thinks the Soviets made a 'Monkey model" and the Arabs were dumb enough to buy it or wouldn't know it was a monkey model even after the salesmen for the British, French or German MBT's explained it to them.
I argue that the monkey model thangie is propaganda.
The original tangent that we all wandered off on was that Soviet armor is vastly overrated. As evidence of that I pointed to kill ratios. Mark and others claim it was because of the Monkey Models being used by 3rd worlders, with the assumption being that the New Soviet Man would get more out of a Soviet MBT. I don't disagree entirely. I commented that one of the design flaws of Soviet MBT was crew protection and crew comfort.
Biometrics, if you will.
Anyway, Several people here think that Soviet MBT's are the greates thing since sliced bread. I ask them if they are so good, why are the kill ratios against Soviet tanks so lopsided?
The answers I got were the monkey model, which is pure propaganda, and crew training. On Marks' question about the US having T-72's in Desert Storm and the Iraqi's having M1's. I would guess that the M1's would have won. Despite the better training of the US crews. Hence the crack about national origins having no effect on frontal armor. Nothing to do with the game here.
I think there is quite a bit of communications breakdown taking place. Most of it seems to be my fault.
So I am no longer contributing to this thread. I have strong opinions and it doesn't upset me to argue with others that have equally strong opinions. I do have 248 slots available if anyone is interested. We can put it to the WinMBT test.