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     Newest to Oldest
boris the romanian    RE:T800m101   8/29/2004 2:03:38 PM
Go to Fofanov's website, that's got a pretty cool description. Apparantly, it is titanium+rubber+air-gap (I dno't know how this can apply to the turret) sandwiched between cast steel.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeffrey    RE:T800m101   8/29/2004 2:59:39 PM
''Go to Fofanov's website, that's got a pretty cool description''' Uhmm, what is Fofanov's website? ???
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams   8/29/2004 3:04:24 PM
www.armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/
 
Quote    Reply

Kozzy    RE:Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams   8/29/2004 3:30:33 PM
I just heard that the Abrams has 6 stowed rounds in the hull, is this true?
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams   8/29/2004 5:11:17 PM
Kozzy wrote: "I just heard that the Abrams has 6 stowed rounds in the hull, is this true" Yes, the M1 and M1IP had stowage for 6 rounds, 3 on each side, in the hull. The M1A1 and A2 do not have that stowage. The hull stowage on the M1 and M1IP was armored as well to prevent damage from spalling, but did not have blow-off panels of any sort.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:T800m101   8/29/2004 5:21:01 PM
Boris wrote: "Simplicity usually translates to ruggedness, ease of maintenance (don't you just LOVE that autoloader on Russian tanks), low price, and general reliability in the worst of conditions." Well, the autoloader is not a good example of that, it is much more difficult to maintain than a human. Also, the US 7th Army M1's (I don't know the stats for Leo and Chally) had a better rate of availability in the mid-1980's than the Soviet GSFG had for their T-64's and 72's. That is kind of hard to argue with. As is the better than 90% availability rate maintained in Iraq in both 1991 and 2003. The M1, in my opinion, is a demonstration of how you can use sophisticated technology and combine it with rugged simplicity and maintainability. All electronics on the M1 are solid state, for example, and air-cooled, so there is no need for fans with bearings that burn up. The vast majority of the maintenance, up to and including replacing the power pack, gun tube, and fire control systems, can be done in a field environment by tactical assets. This is because all of these items are modular and easily removed. 80% of the work to remove them can be done by the tank crew and doesn't require mechanics with specialized knowledge, freeing up the mechanics to do the other 20% on more vehicles. In other words, I agree with you on simplicity, ruggedness and maintainability. But I disagree with you that it means you can't put sophisticated capabilities in place. That said, i don't like the FCS either, but not for the same reasons.
 
Quote    Reply

T800m101    RE:T800m101   8/29/2004 6:26:26 PM
"US fighters win hands down, no contest" I don't remember saying that, but if you say so, and US fighters won't win all their fights but i expect them to win over half and maybe 2/3.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:T800m101   8/29/2004 8:24:16 PM
T800m101 wrote: "I don't remember saying that, but if you say so, and US fighters won't win all their fights but i expect them to win over half and maybe 2/3" Why?
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:T800m101   8/29/2004 11:27:18 PM
>> "Simplicity usually translates to ruggedness, ease of maintenance (don't you just LOVE that autoloader on Russian tanks), low price, and general reliability in the worst of conditions." Well, the autoloader is not a good example of that, it is much more difficult to maintain than a human.<< I realised that when I mentioned Russian tanks, thought you'd like it :) As for the higher readniess, much of the Abrams maintenance can be performed in the field, IIRC, stuff like changing engine, gun barrel, replacing some onboard systems (I've heard that the ballistics computer and laser range finder can be changed in field, is that true?), etc. When talking reliability, I had stuff like M-16 vs. AKM, PKM vs. M-60 (MG), T-54/5 vs. M-46/47/48, F-101 vs. MiG-21PFM, F-4 vs MiG-27, etc. in mind.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Quality control issues etc - Boris   8/30/2004 1:11:06 AM
[ When talking reliability, I had stuff like M-16 vs. AKM, PKM vs. M-60 (MG), T-54/5 vs. M-46/47/48, F-101 vs. MiG-21PFM, F-4 vs MiG-27, etc. in mind. ] You're leaving yourself open here matey. ;) Most of these items are 1-2 generations behind in sophistication or currency of current deployed kit. One would assume that in the intervening generational bridging, that the quality of the more sophisticated gear has gone up. I'd argue that it has. On the Russian side, whatever gains thay may have made in performance and production techniques has been knobbled by lack of funds to finesse and develop. One could argue that on the issue of a "developmental meeting engagement" that the gap is growing - and not necessarily entirely due to competencies.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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