Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
Until there’s a war involving the T-90, it’s going to be hard to say much about the reality of the T-90 versus expectations. The M1 has the advantage of having been put through its paces under certain circumstances. While I’m inclined to think that we Americans need to be very wary of hubris (instead of congratulating ourselves on having such wonderful equipment), the M1 has done pretty well so far. How well the M1 might perform against a numerous foe with up-to-date equipment and under conditions of enemy air superiority (thus exposing the Achilles heel of fuel consumption) is another matter entirely. We may never find out. Similarly, we may never find out what the real capabilities of the T-90 are.
|
It's very hard for Americans to admit that they are losing their edge. Every conflict America has fought since WW2 was against an inferior enemy with export-grade technology. Both Iraq wars led American thinkers to hubris and to see Russian gear as obsolete and inferior.
However in today's world the realities are different, the gaps between east and west are not as clear cut as they once where.
Take the SU50, a modernised, stealth capable aircrat that is the equal to the F22 Raptor. For years Russian vehicles have modern, effective anti-missle systems while American desighners have no real progress in this direction. A deadly hubris considering that missles are the best offense against a modern AFV (top-attack systems mean that the front arour of a tank is a meaningles statistic as they blow their way through the top of the turret).
We assume our crews to have more experience, our tanks to be better because we have learned lessons from warzones. Yet we ignore the fact tat Russia has had the same experience in Checnya that our crews have had in iraq and they have learned the same lessons.