Type 98 vs M1a2

[hellrider]

this is the compareson between the eastern tank(Russian/Chinese style) and Western World tank(US- NATO Style) the one is the Newest Tank in Eastern world and the other is the most deadly weapon in human knowlogy.

Well according to these source what would you think which is the best!?

Type 99

SOURCEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_98

M1a2

SOURCEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1a2

 

[MC]

Best as in, which one is superior?

 

[Almighty_Gir]

whichever hits first wins.

 

[hellrider]

Best as in, which one is superior?

type 98 has speed adventage and firepower

M1a2 has more protection and high-tech gunfire control

Hardly compare two of them..

whichever hits first wins.

please be serious in this discussion...

 

[MC]

type 98 has speed adventage and firepower

M1a2 has more protection and high-tech gunfire control

Hardly compare two of them..

The Type 99 seems to be superior to the M1A2 Abrams.

Mad_AxMan's reply is pretty true. If either tank took a direct hit from the other, then it will most likely be destroyed. Of course, that depends on where the shell impacted, but even if either tank wasn't destroyed, it would be heavily damaged.

 

[hellrider]

The Type 99 seems to be superior to the M1A2 Abrams.

Mad_AxMan's reply is pretty true. If either tank took a direct hit from the other, then it will most likely be destroyed. Of course, that depends on where the shell impacted, but even if either tank wasn't destroyed, it would be heavily damaged.

It seems reasonable but I hardly hear about any M1a2 been "DAMAGED" in the battle before...

even type 98 had the surperior speed and gunfire(125mm) but still hardly to give the deadly hit for M1a2. but also M1a2 can't able to catch type 98 either.

 

[DiebytheSword]

The Abrams has been shown to to be quite formidable. Unless there were serious improvements from the republican guard's Type 82, the Abrams would likely destroy their chinese counterparts. Reactive armor was shown to be all but innefective against the Abram's round, seeing as no Iraqi tank with it survived a direct hit.

In addition, the Type 99 also lacks features often found on Western MBTs, which minimise the damage caused by HEAT projectiles. For example, armour bulkheads separating the crew compartment from the fuel tanks and ammunition. Top panels designed to blow outwards in case of explosion are absent. This could lead to low damage survivability in combat, judging from to the experiences of the 1991 Gulf War.

Their addition of DU rounds might equal the playing field, but the Abrams has proven itself more than capable of rending it's equivelent eastern tank limb from limb.

I'll agree on speed though, the 98 is much faster and more manueverable. Still, it's really hard to outrun a shell

 

[Scruff]

The Abrams has been shown to to be quite formidable. Unless there were serious improvements from the republican guard's Type 82, the Abrams would likely destroy their chinese counterparts. Reactive armor was shown to be all but innefective against the Abram's round, seeing as no Iraqi tank with it survived a direct hit.



Their addition of DU rounds might equal the playing field, but the Abrams has proven itself more than capable of rending it's equivelent eastern tank limb from limb.

I'll agree on speed though, the 98 is much faster and more manueverable. Still, it's really hard to outrun a shell

Ten pounds says he just hopped on Wikipedia for all of that, . Cuc knows everything about everything. O_O

 

[DiebytheSword]

It seems reasonable but I hardly hear about any M1a2 been "DAMAGED" in the battle before...

even type 98 had the surperior speed and gunfire(125mm) but still hardly to give the deadly hit for M1a2. but also M1a2 can't able to catch type 98 either.

Another point here is that M1A2's have only been damaged by IED's made from 500lb JDAM bombs that failed to detonate from US airstrikes. Anything else is too small. I have quite a few freinds in the military that have told me that anti-tank RPG-7 rounds bounce off the Abrams armor. There are also numerous reports of Abrams surviving direct hits from the Type 82 main gun with little or no damage.

It's funny, the toast of the town has been the air force, but both Iraq wars have really demonstrated how useless soviet armor is against it's western counterpart.

 

[fatmanterror]

I have to agree with Cuc. When I graduate college I will be a 2nd Lt. in the Marines(can you tell I'm proud of myself?) And I'm going into armor just because our tanks are totally awsome. The M1A1 is not outgunned at all. The eastern counterpart has a larger bore size, but an AK also has a larger bore size than an M16. The reason the M1 has a smaller gun is to fire special high velocity rounds that can punch through just about anything on the planet. Also yes the armor on the tank itself is the selling point. When you are in a tank, you want defensive capabilities above all and the M1 is top of the line in that respect.

 

[DiebytheSword]

OMG, Fatmanterror returned?

*dies

 

[fatmanterror]

Haha I know man! The past few years have been quite a trial but it appears as though its over. Well, over for the final 2 years of college I should say, then I have a whole new enormous bag of worms to deal with.

 

[KarrdeKNR]

FATTEH!!!! Don't ever go away again ;P Wow, watch the staff take over the thread now ?.?

 

[fatmanterror]

Haha the few who remember me! I was here in like the '01-'03 period making retarded models then kinda lingered '04-'06(the WoW phase of life and I think we can all appreciate the life decimating power that game has).