If it comes down to a one vs. one in a tank fight, who would win?
Meaning, would the NATO or the warsaw pact tank win?
Like a t-90 against an m1 abrams
Or, a t-72 with reactive armor against a challenger 2
2007-01-25 12:52:43 · 7 answers · asked by Billy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The Abrams is hot stuff, its a shame we sold the technology to a bunch of nations. Our tanks in modern warfare are also undergoing evolution. I have seen hundreds of Abrams loosing their tank guns in favor of a much bigger bombardment cannon. It seems that the nature of our war is dictating for anti personnel weapons and fire missions.
2007-01-25 13:14:17 · answer #1 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the Challenger would destroy the T-72 hands down its all a diffrence in design philosphy. one on one there are very few tanks that compair to the NATO tanks. lets say a german Leporard II V a T-80 the T-80 would be enhilated. Traditonally our tanks have better fire control/communications/NVGs.
today the T-90 would be compariable to any of the other MBTs on the market for example the M1A2 Abrams or the Leclerc. Ive seen tanks up close and personal and in a 1 on 1 fight its to hard to call, i know the NATO alliance tanks are all kick *** and ive heard rumors about the T-90, but it comes down to who sees who first who gets the first shot, that will be who wins the day
FYI the T-72 was made in the 70's not in the 60 it began production in 1970 and was compairable to the M60 MBT as well as the Leporard I and the Cheiftan. in the 60s they used the T-62 and before that the T-54... do we see a pattern devolping?
2007-01-25 13:16:48 · answer #2 · answered by trionspectre666 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The same? No. In purpose and general function, yes. During the Cold War, alliances were made, including in Western Europe and the US to stand against the threat of the Soviet Union. The Soviets responded with the Warsaw Pact, to make more firm alliances in the Soviet Union and among their friends. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists and NATO is struggling for a sense of purpose. Some former Soviet satellites have joined NATO which has caused stress between NATO, the US and Russia.
2016-03-29 02:48:12 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Take a look at the footage from Gulf War 1. Most of Saddam's tanks were t-54's and 72's. They sucked. The only way the "Warsaw Pact" would have won during the Cold War would have been by sheer numbers. The Soviets had hundreds of tank divisions ready to pounce if the balloon had went up.
2007-01-25 14:59:42 · answer #4 · answered by Combatcop 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The T-72 back in the late 60s would have crushed any US/NATO tank which is why the US build the Abrams A1 which is the best US tank in US history and probably the best tank in the world today.
2007-01-25 13:03:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
USA tanks with European tanks make NATO are
the best in technology ,and the best in world.
2007-01-25 13:11:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The better crew would win, all the tech in the world means nothing if you suck at using it.
2007-01-25 13:23:21 · answer #7 · answered by asclepeus1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋