the best ways to use US Army against Russia

[Wdll]

Eh, aren't all MBTs sold by USSR/Russia of lesser equipment and armour than those for the country itself? Don't think that because the MBTs of the Iraqi's sucked that much means the ones used by Russia are exactly same in qualities.
Also, you seem to be forgetting a major factor, one that you keep mentioning as being very important. The quality of the crew. How can you possibly rate as comparable the crew of an Iraqi or Egyptian or perhaps even Syrian MBT and the one of the USA or Israel?

[c_of_red]

Originally Posted by Wdll

Eh, aren't all MBTs sold by USSR/Russia of lesser equipment and armour than those for the country itself? Don't think that because the MBTs of the Iraqi's sucked that much means the ones used by Russia are exactly same in qualities.
Also, you seem to be forgetting a major factor, one that you keep mentioning as being very important. The quality of the crew. How can you possibly rate as comparable the crew of an Iraqi or Egyptian or perhaps even Syrian MBT and the one of the USA or Israel?

You are fondling my point, but you won't reach out and grasp it.
Soviet MBT's have design flaws built into them. It doesn't matter which ones they export when they ALL are poorly designed.
And yes, crews are the most important part of any weapons systems. Anyone that thinks one man is better or worse then another man because of the location of his birth is wrong. Now the various social systems that raise, train and support that tanker ARE different. That difference is important.
At this point in history, we don't have many examples of 3rd worlders fighting it out with NATO vs Soviet equipment. Jordan and Syria springs to mind. A few others. Israel isn't quite a 3rd world nation. That will change in a few decades once the ****tes kill off all the Suni's and take over in Iraq. Of course, they won't have access to American weapons by then, but I'm sure the French, Germans and British will be more then happy to sell them weapons.
Og yeah, that reminds me, Iran Iraq war from 1980 to '89, IIRC. Iran started that war with NATO weapons and would have finished with NATO weapons if they could have gotten spare parts and/or new units.
The point I was trying to make is that the Soviets are designing the perfect WW2 tank. Only WW2 is over and has been for some time. The Russians need to step back and rethink the entire concept of armor use in the 21st century. Hanging new bits off the T-72 won't make it a better MBT. Raising the profile, throwing out the autoloader, finding somw place else to store ammo will make a better MBT.
The T-62 had the fuel tank in front!!!! Diesel at that. So every time an IDF 105 round hit the glacis of a T-62, the fuel would detonate, sending the fighting compartment back into the engine compartment. Rough on the crew. It would also detonate the ammo, which would send the blow out panel (AKA turret) flying skyward. That would have been rough on the crew also, only by then they were meat paste and didn't care anymore.

My question is, "How would having a Russian crew changed that?"
Followed by "How would having that T-62 assigned to a front line GSF formation instead of being sold to the Syrians have changed that?"