The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 22, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams
achtpanz    6/14/2004 3:59:14 AM
Russian T90 vs American M1A2 Abrams - Which is better? If these tanks fought in battle, which would suffer more casualties, which one is superior? What are their advantages? Any information would be helpful.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT
boris the romanian    RE:Boris   8/31/2004 11:55:25 PM
"As for the MG-3 vs. the M-240 (MAG 58?). That's a matter of personal preference, I don't think there is a clear winner between those two. Arguably the two finest LMG's in the world today. " I'm curious, why did the Americans screw around with the M-60 in the first place, instead of just simply adopting the MG-42? Pride?
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Boris - M-60 LMG   9/1/2004 12:20:53 AM
I don't know the details, although I believe it was a fairly capable LMG for its time when originally fielded. Ask one of the infantry types for the details and history.
 
Quote    Reply

RetiredCdnTanker    RE:Boris - M-60 LMG   9/1/2004 4:54:03 AM
Was that POS of a coax in the M60 (I can't remember the designation) a version of the M60? Or was that a different POS?.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Boris - M-60 LMG   9/1/2004 1:10:34 PM
The M60A3 had a M-240 coax, which is a fine weapon. I think the M60 and M60A1 had the M-60 LMG as a coax, but I don't remember now for sure. By the late 70's all M60's, whether the A1 or A3 variant, had been retrofitted with the M-240.
 
Quote    Reply

Luckyboy1    RE:Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams   2/20/2005 7:46:22 PM
What a bunch of nonsense! I've seen works of fiction in my time, but I couldn't even get passed the first read of this post. Here's what the Russians or any other offering has to overcome... The M-1 has the ability to fire point blank, first round kill at 15,000 yards while rolling across unprepared fields at 40 miles per hour. I'm not talking a hit shot, I'm talking a kill shot every time. The M-1 uses a combination of republic steel Corp. unranium depleted steel that is almost 50% more resistant to piercing than the competitive offerings. yes, the Russians use uranium depleted steel as well, but it is a matter of process and quality. Then the inside layer of the M-1 is lines with multi-layer Kevlar folds of fabric to reduce bounce around of anything that gets through. When you guys come up with something non-fictional, that doesn't need a long shot, then a short shot and then a math calculation for the hit shot, not a kill shot at 15,000 yards, then we can at least start talking about crew training and logistics and powerplant advantages and whatnot. The only thing a M-1 fears is Russian anti-tank aircraft and those won't get a chance so long as AWACS hangs around like a bad smell. you can make the armor thcker, but we'll just punch up the effectiveness of the rounds we throw. You gotta pay attention to the ability to hit while moving and moving fast at nuight, in smoke and under poor conditions. My friends in the 7th Cav. certainly are not going to sit there and smile while you talk their picture! Talking about engines and auto-loading systems and track life and field dependablilty of a given motor or weapons system in total will be fine if we don't walk right through you in the first 48 hours, which is exactly what will happen. When you get done addressing the firing point problem and the enourmous difference in armor quality and protection vs. weight vs. powerplant, then we can talk about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and all these other nonsensible points.
 
Quote    Reply

Luckyboy1    RE:Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams   2/20/2005 8:02:00 PM
And I forgot to add, get in any closer than 7,000 yards and a $4,000.00 disposable rocket that can be operated by any child and by booby trap or remote control will take out every piece of armor on all sides, so the, "We'll get in close argument won't work either.
 
Quote    Reply

Jungle-Man    RE:Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams   2/21/2005 6:28:54 PM
You guys are all forgeting that a 1 on 1 fight between a T-90 and an abrams is not the intent of the T-90 design. The T-90 was designed to be light, cheap and thus be able to overwhelm the enemy with numbers, so if we have a fight that plays to both designs it would have to be an abrams vs. 2 or even 3 T-90's. Another misconseption is that the T-90 is superior to the T-80, this is untrue. In fact the T-90 was designed to be a cheaper alternative to the T-80 that sacrificed some performance. If you take the latest Russian ERA (such as kaktus or kontact-5) and slap it on a T-80UM1 BARS you will have a tank that is superior to the T-90 in every way. Then again the T-80 was also designed to have numerical superiority over the enemy. And luckyboy you over estimate the effectiveness of missiles versus ERA protected tanks (the whole idea behind ERA is to counter those very missiles), and thats without even mentioning the new active protection systems such as "Drozd-2". All in all a one on one match between a T-90 and an Abrams is simply not fair and not how it would happen in real life.
 
Quote    Reply

skrip00    RE:Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams   2/22/2005 6:10:37 PM
just a quick note, i believe only "Elite" russian units get the AT-11 for their tanks... and only 3-4 per tank. The missle is very expensive (by russian standards) so expect its use to be limited in any battle versus US Tanks, fictional or not. Also, we can play a numbers game, there are only so many T-90s (not many in service with russia) compared to the M1 series (where there are about a 1000 in service), Russia's main tank is the T-80 which numbers in the many thousands.
 
Quote    Reply

specnaz       9/25/2006 9:34:36 PM
hi, you are forgeting something guys, the t-90 is lighter than the abrams, that means more speed that is equal than more chance to avoid an incoming projectile,plus the russian tanks systems are based in overwhelm the enemy by numbers. besides the armor abrams armor as any tank is weaker in the turret and in the wheels. and remenber that some abrams were blasted by iraks t-72. and dont forget tha the t-72 that the abrams face in irak were actually obsolete due to the optimiztions that russia makes to is most famous tank, it is able to engage indirect conbat and direct combat with the abrams with more chance of succes. talking about the t-90, it have an disruption system that when you lock it with a laser it is able to "disrrupt the signal making the projectile to loss the target, and the t-90 is more focused in the counter measures than in a bigger turttle shell armor as the abrams. because the t-90 can detect an incoming projectil over 2 km befor it arrives.  and dont mix the helos combat tactis with the tanks tactics, the helos use the "STAY LOW AND SLOW" the thanks use "MOVE FAST DONT GET THE ENEMY GET YOU IN HIS SIGHT AND FIRE AS  FAST AS YOU CAN". the battle depends in the most brave and quick crew not in the especifications off the tanks. because the two tanks are very capable of kick the other's ass BYE. sorry about the english jajaja. i was a mi-24 hind pilot and i get tired of blasting rebel tanks with my missiles see you
 
Quote    Reply

specnaz       9/25/2006 9:48:34 PM
hi, you are forgeting something guys, the t-90 is lighter than the abrams, that means more speed that is equal than more chance to avoid an incoming projectile,plus the russian tanks systems are based in overwhelm the enemy by numbers. besides the armor abrams armor as any tank is weaker in the turret and in the wheels. and remenber that some abrams were blasted by iraks t-72. and dont forget tha the t-72 that the abrams face in irak were actually obsolete due to the optimiztions that russia makes to is most famous tank, it is able to engage indirect conbat and direct combat with the abrams with more chance of succes. talking about the t-90, it have an disruption system that when you lock it with a laser it is able to "disrrupt the signal making the projectile to loss the target, and the t-90 is more focused in the counter measures than in a bigger turttle shell armor as the abrams. because the t-90 can detect an incoming projectil over 2 km befor it arrives.  and dont mix the helos combat tactis with the tanks tactics, the helos use the "STAY LOW AND SLOW" the thanks use "MOVE FAST DONT GET THE ENEMY GET YOU IN HIS SIGHT AND FIRE AS  FAST AS YOU CAN". the battle depends in the most brave and quick crew not in the especifications off the tanks. because the two tanks are very capable of kick the other's ass BYE. sorry about the english jajaja. i was a mi-24 hind pilot and i get tired of blasting rebel tanks with my missiles see you
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       9/25/2006 9:51:58 PM

What a bunch of nonsense! I've seen works of fiction in my time, but I couldn't even get passed the first read of this post.

Here's what the Russians or any other offering has to overcome...

The M-1 has the ability to fire point blank, first round kill at 15,000 yards while rolling across unprepared fields at 40 miles per hour. I'm not talking a hit shot, I'm talking a kill shot every time. <snip>

The M-1 can fire LOS at a ranges of  15,000 yards? 8.5 MILES?
link
The visual sight horizon for a standing man on flat terrain on this Earth is scarce 7 miles. 

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       9/25/2006 10:03:04 PM
You would have to have an expertly trained crew to hit a target at 5000m on the first round while both the target and Abrams are stationary. That and a little luck. Whoever wrote that post claiming 15000 yards has no idea what they are talking about.
 
Quote    Reply

BrittleSteel       9/25/2006 10:29:49 PM
I agree with your view. Regarding the Merkava, it is extremely accurate (one shot one kill) at about 4km standing.  Any father and accuracy drops in proportion to the extra distance. Though still quite good there is definitely not a one shot one kill garuantee beyond 4 km.

15000 yards = 8.5 miles = 13.7 km is nonsense. Especially if talking about high velocity (40 mph) over rough terrain. Simply not true.
 
Quote    Reply

mick19k       1/9/2007 6:41:46 PM
 
Quote    Reply

mick19k       1/9/2007 7:02:40 PM
The t-90 has no chance in a 1 on 1 fight with a m1a1 or m1a2 abrams. Also we have about 8000 abrams so 4 or 5 t-90s for every 1 abrams is not going to happen. And the abrams would probably take the t-90 in a 3 to 1 ratio.Also the smaller size and weight of the t-90 in no way equate to it being more mobile. The engine in the abrams is awesome and gives a much greater speed then the russian armour. Also no Iraq t-72 ever killed an abrams. The only abrams lost were due to friendly fire. ( and now a few to IEDs) The abrams has better armour a better more accurate gun and better mobility. The t-90 is not a bad tank and has some advantages over the abrams. It is cheaper to produce. It has less maintinance requirements. And I belive it has a better range. But the abrams is simply a better overall tank.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy