An M-48 most likely could have torn a T-80 up, an M-60 definitely, M-1 no contest.
I don’t believe any of it either.
Scuds, Katusha’s, Quassams....how about MLRS and ATACMS.
We just need the balls to use them!
LOL
With a terminal velocity in excess 4,000 MPH, I doubt the -400 will take anything out
For fun, this is what they would see just before the flashbulb goes off
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg
“An M-48 most likely could have torn a T-80 up”
Sure, and a F-4 would tear a Su-30 apart (pilots being equal) too, right? (sarc)
Only later varients of the M-60 had a stabilized gun allowing "shoot on the move", and it was only effective at fairly low speeds. I don't think true night vision sights came out until the M1 Abrams. The M48 would have been meat on the table for a T80 in most tactical situations.
If the M60 were still a viable system, the Marines would probably still be using them -- they aren't. The Marines use their tanks somewhat differently than the Army & the M1 design reflects that. Slowly the M1 is getting things, like a telephone that allows a dismount to converse with the tank commander, a diesel generator that allows the tanks systems to be powered without the gas turbine enging engaged, etc.
The Scuds(1950s) & Katyushas(1940s) can’t be compared with those much later American weapons you talk about.
About the T-80,well it’s not seen combat yet & given,favourable air support,which users like South Korea & Russia can afford,take on anything.
