Quote:
Imp, I'm just chatting. I am to old to be serious about any of this, so if it bothers you, I'll leave it alone.
|
Me to & it might bother me if I thought you were making comments with a You Tube mentality of my army is the best.
Just pointing out where people could disagree so presenting both sides of the coin on which.
You had a go T-80 T-90 are just renamed upgraded T-72s. Now you say M60 is what exactly. Renamed following a similar convention to the Russian upgrade.
Little changes we stick a number or letter on the end big ones we rebadge it.
Also I would like to say the Russians pulled off the biggest propaganda coo of all time at the end of the cold war. If I remember the tanks that are only good in parades caused an US General to remark "Glad they were on our side"
So a large part of the USAs paranoia over the cold war was caused by a bunch of rubbish tanks parading through Berlin.
Thats value for money.
Anyway will stop now as getting boring but will say as the game models ERA the combination of armour rating & ERA might be slightly high, not really looked.
Certainly the armour ratings are possibly slightly high but without testing the game model of ERA its hard to say. Of course Soviet composite armour could be rubbish to but it might also be quite good.
But as said I have seen figures as high as 1300 across approx 50% of front & the link you gave was some guy who puts out his estimate for game use not from a military source that studies & makes estimates on enemy equipment. On that point some countries do not seem very good at it best to trust what the Europeans say