Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
ColdStart    ok   3/16/2011 3:03:03 PM
was too busy these days.
 
Someone, i think GeorgeSPatton mentioned that T90 relies strongly on ADS. But to be honest, ADS is exactly one of the most important features in tank defense these days! Yes it is!   Because if your ADS fails, it does not matter too much how big your armor is (unless its too big what would make your tank much less maneurable and ineffective) if the enemy shoots modern antitank projectiles to it.
 
Someone else mentioned here before, that those extra 30 tons of weight in Abrams is an armor. But again... imagine what would happen if lets say installed ADS on Abrams fails, tell me please how come that even extra 30 tons of armor protect against RPG32? I hope you not gona try to convince me that it will do good job? (especially given the fact that even RPG7's in Iraq did significant damage to some of the Abrams tanks during war)
 
Now, the whole point of being heavily armored looses its strength. Why 30 tons of extra armor? Why not 35? 36? 38.5? or even 40?
 
So yes, ADS is the most important feature in defence, and T90 does heavily rely on that! its rective armor + shtora + arena would protect it very good. If the tank is without ADS, for powerfull projectiles, especially tandem ones[can take part of reactive armor by the way] it doesnt matter how much extra armor you have (again this is arbitrary saying, it does matter, but if you put TOO much armor your vehicle simple will be too slow and it wont make sense at all)
 

That is why, this solution seems optimum in T90... of course it doesnt mean you can have armor with thickness of your car hood... no.. T90's armor is just OK + its ADS and it gives really good protection, AT THE SAME TIME vehicle is not as physically big as Abrams, and also does not need such powerfull gasoline sucking engine, you get away with diesel, which is even by the way more fire safe. And also range is increased...
 
What is not clear in the above logic? 
 
And about electronics, yes i know US electronics was more advanced, and more low scale, but as i said Russian military facilities now produce Application specific integrated circuits and they already below 30nm chip manufacturing process.
 
So yes, that was the case with the lag, but now Russia just does fine. Of course the manufacturing process for Russia is still more expencive because they do not have similar technology turnaround in civil area. That is why each chip produced in Russia would be much more expencive than analogous in USA, but for specific important, especially strategic applications Russia does it all. 
 
So... it just does not make sense if you continue thinking of Russian technology as of it was in 70s etc... just does not make sense :) its something like talking these days that... Volvo is the safest car in world! which was really true long time ago because of its specific body alignment, but turns into old story now. These days modern cars, German, Japanese, US cars have integrated so many innovations, that it would not be correct to keep thinking  that even today Volvo is still safest :)
 
So something similar, i.e. underestimations of Russian technological capabilities was going on through all this thread... 
 
Of course, if you prefer to think that way even now, its up to you, its just wont change any facts :)
 
And i also brought example even maybe 30 messages ago, how in 1961 USSR intercepted the true ballistic missile R12 with the two-stage antimissile. Nothing even close to that was performed by US before, even many years after. 
 
 
Some stuff is good in US, some stuff in Russia... about armor and comparison of tanks...read again this message above... i think things are pretty logical and make sense.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Niggling point....   3/16/2011 3:22:53 PM
Someone tried to say that tanks needed to bed themselves in like SP artillery...I've never seen that, anywhere...and if the M-60 carried two rounds for a hit, it was because the crew was not that good, or they were using the older M60a1 FCS.  Bottom-line: tanks don't bed in. 
 
And I believe the same commenter has a case of the @rse with the Stryker...all I can say is that the US has NOT had the same experience that the USSR had with the BTR, series...no where near 1,300 Strykers have been lost.
 
And chicken wire and the like DO work against early RPG's because they "short" the fusing on the RPG, later models have a better fuse.  Chicken wire OR Slat Armour work,  because, also, they disturb the RPG jet....the front cone may be for aerodynamics AND stand-off, but when detonated further from the target by armour, they dissipate the armour-piercing jet, as I understand it.
 
Seems to be some misunderstanding about the Stryker, which is NOT the LAV...the Stryker isn't the M-2/3, but it is worlds and away better than a HMMWV. 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    SSDD   3/16/2011 4:00:58 PM

was too busy these days.

 

Someone, i think GeorgeSPatton mentioned that T90 relies strongly on ADS. But to be honest, ADS is exactly one of the most important features in tank defense these days! Yes it is!   Because if your ADS fails, it does not matter too much how big your armor is (unless its too big what would make your tank much less maneurable and ineffective) if the enemy shoots modern antitank projectiles to it.


 

Someone else mentioned here before, that those extra 30 tons of weight in Abrams is an armor. But again... imagine what would happen if lets say installed ADS on Abrams fails, tell me please how come that even extra 30 tons of armor protect against RPG32? I hope you not gona try to convince me that it will do good job? (especially given the fact that even RPG7's in Iraq did significant damage to some of the Abrams tanks during war)

 

Now, the whole point of being heavily armored looses its strength. Why 30 tons of extra armor? Why not 35? 36? 38.5? or even 40?


 

So yes, ADS is the most important feature in defence, and T90 does heavily rely on that! its rective armor + shtora + arena would protect it very good. If the tank is without ADS, for powerfull projectiles, especially tandem ones[can take part of reactive armor by the way] it doesnt matter how much extra armor you have (again this is arbitrary saying, it does matter, but if you put TOO much armor your vehicle simple will be too slow and it wont make sense at all)

 




That is why, this solution seems optimum in T90... of course it doesnt mean you can have armor with thickness of your car hood... no.. T90's armor is just OK + its ADS and it gives really good protection, AT THE SAME TIME vehicle is not as physically big as Abrams, and also does not need such powerfull gasoline sucking engine, you get away with diesel, which is even by the way more fire safe. And also range is increased...


 

What is not clear in the above logic? 

 

And about electronics, yes i know US electronics was more advanced, and more low scale, but as i said Russian military facilities now produce Application specific integrated circuits and they already below 30nm chip manufacturing process.


 

So yes, that was the case with the lag, but now Russia just does fine. Of course the manufacturing process for Russia is still more expencive because they do not have similar technology turnaround in civil area. That is why each chip produced in Russia would be much more expencive than analogous in USA, but for specific important, especially strategic applications Russia does it all. 

 

So... it just does not make sense if you continue thinking of Russian technology as of it was in 70s etc... just does not make sense :) its something like talking these days that... Volvo is the safest car in world! which was really true long time ago because of its specific body alignment, but turns into old story now. These days modern cars, German, Japanese, US cars have integrated so many innovations, that it would not be correct to keep thinking  that even today Volvo is still safest :)


 

So something similar, i.e. underestimations of Russian technological capabilities was going on through all this thread... 

 

Of course, if you prefer to think that way even now, its up to you, its just wont change any facts :)


 

And i also brought example even maybe 30 messages ago, how in 1961 USSR intercepted the true ballistic missile R12 with the two-stage antimissile. Nothing even close to that was performed by US before, even many years after. 

 

 

Some stuff is good in US, some stuff in Russia... about armor and comparison of tanks...read again this message above... i think things are pretty logical and make sense.


Recycled lies.


H.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/16/2011 8:57:05 PM








Santa, I have much more experience with BTRs and LAVs than with actual stykers but the fact is the strykers are better than hummers but not by much in my opinion. If they are so damned great why do they try to hide the the extent of the damage being inflicted inflicted on them from congress. The E-7 is probably being truethful in what he is telling you but not being accurate. A freind of mine in theater sent me apicture of a styker taken out by an anti personnel mine. It disabled the front tire and had to have a tank retreiver come get it. That bird cage has actually saved lives because it makes the vehicle so top heavy that when it gets hit at high rates of speed it rolls and disapates the blast energy. And there are plenty of pictures out ther in cyberspace showing the strykers being keep under lock and key because the army didnt want any of them getting damaged until the last two bdes were paid for. Ask him if they are still forcing soldiers to reenlist for styker or get out.





Well an LAV is not a Stryker and has absolutely nothing to do with the Stryker other than sharing the same family line. Haha, and if you think  a Styker is a minor improvement over an uparmored HUMVEE then you are free to ride those death traps, I'll stick with the Stryker.

 

 

I highly doubt a Stryker was disabled by an anti personnel mine. They will run with 4 flat tires while the other 4 are on fire. I'm also going to call BS that the army is keeping them under lock and key. I know for a fact they deploy and are constantly being used, especially as QRFs.


 

And "renlist for Stykers" or get out? LOL, where do you hear this garbage? Since when was there a "Stryker indentifier" for 11B that would guarantee you get Strykers? LOL, who is feeding you this crap?



Weere did I hear that crap. Why I believe it was right there where you call home. Ft Lewis WA. I sometimes forget your to young to have a knowledge base before Obama. We only got the styker because clark ,who was well known for being incapable of making his mind on anything, took 3 days to decide if that airport in Kosovo was important and that gave the russians all the time they needed to get there first. Clark and Shinseki  were so impressed by how hast the BTR's were they just had to have something just like them. Then they faked the test results at Knox to say the stryker was better than the 113. The first 3 days of the test was spent changing tires! The russians military have been laughing ever since we started buy the damned things.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/16/2011 8:59:56 PM

BTW, I have no idea where you got a "chain link fence" was the best RPG protection, but slat armor has been used since WWII and has proven itself effective against RPGs numerous times in Iraq.

You need to stay away from wiki. I lost count of how many differnt versions of slant armor the marines have tried. It may have worked in WW2 but not on todays battlefield
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/16/2011 9:21:33 PM



Santa I neglected to point out a very good comment you made that the Styker is not meant to be an IFV. That is a very true statement unfortunately, our leaders decided to use it in the role of an IFV because it is cheaper to operate than a Bradly. I have asked many styker soldiers what vehicle they were comparing the styker to that made them like it so much and all of them said the same thing. They were comparing it to a hummer. See the privious posts as to the inappropriet use of equipment. The russian failed to learn their lesson on that in afghanistan and as a result they lost a lot of people and equipment.






I'm going to call BS on this statement too. Soldiers who were in Iraq when humvees were used there said Strykers were miles ahead of humvees is so many ways. They are faster, had more protections, way better systems, and "brought more ass to the fight". 12 guys use 3 humvees. A driver has to stay with each vehicle and someone has to watch the radios, and the gunners if you want to leave them there. That gives you 4-5 dismounts. A whole squad fits into 1 stryker and you can just leave the driver, gunner and radio so you have 9 dismounts. So whoever said they were similar to uparmored humvees is full of crap.

 

And comparing our losses in Iraq to Russian's in Afghanistan has to be the biggest joke of all. We have lost less than half the people they did while fighting 2 wars at the same time. If anyone has died in a Stryker unit, I will bet they weren't in the vehicle when they sustained their injuries.


 
I remember the lines of crap they tried to feed us in IOBC. Sounds like the same stuff you are being feed. Learn the limitations of your equipment and why others failed. Since you werent born when Russian was in country you might find it interestin that a big reason they lost so many people was their troops would not dismount. That would allow the afhgans to get really close to them. The russian soldiers would try to fire at them from the rifle ports on the side s of the vehicles but thats like spraying bullets into the dark. The Afghans would run up to the BTRs and at 1 meter or less fire a full mag into the upper part of the drivers side vehicle. This is a weak point in the armor and it would kill or seriously wound the driver effectively killing the vehicle. If you have paid attention in class you would know that armor should never be deployed without supporting infantry.
BTW tell evryone here how much space it takes and how many times you have to back up and pull foreward to turn a stryker around? Tell you what. I'll take a 113 over a stryker any day.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/16/2011 9:24:49 PM





Son, you should look up the test reports and read them yourself. A couple of years ago the army actually admitted that the slant armor only protected the stryker from anti-personnel RPGs and I can guaranty that you have never even seen one of those puppies. It looks like an ond Pinapple Grenade. Which leads me to ask why does the stryker need to be protected from a simple grenade? And yes the army did test chain link fencing and it did work better than slant armor.






The big reason the slant armor is ineffective is that for shape charges like heat rounds to acheive optimal penetration they must detonate 2.5 x the diameter of the warhead. The front 1/2 of the RPG warhead is hollow and is meant to set off the charge at that optimal distance. Although the RPG has no problems penetrating the hull of the stryker, the cage actually assists the warhead in exploding at the optimal distance to acheive max penetration. Those are facts. I'll try to find some of my old pictures of the strykers in hiding.









Yes, it won't stop RPGs that are designed to detonate early. But we don't have any type of add on armor that can do that. So if you can put on more armor without having to build a whole new vehicle I'm sure the Army is all ears. They did good with the stryker because even though the RPG may penetrate the hull, it's has spall liner so the crew will survive, and that's what's important. It's a taxi, not a tank.
At last you are talking intelligently. It is a taxi thats being used as a IFV. Hummers are trucks that are being used as IFV because its to expensive to use anything else. 
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/16/2011 9:26:11 PM



Please feel free to believe the BS about the run flats. The tire throws off at about the 2 mile mark and that nice little steel rim spins. And please learn to read. I said they were kept under lock and key the first year they were in Iraq.  I also remember the dumbasses that padlocked the back doors because they were so afraid someone would open it and throw a grenade in. It took an entire crew drowning in one that slid into a ditch to get them to stop that.










Going to call BS on that too. There is no where to pad lock the door on the back. It's just a flat handle bar.
Used to be. Lots of things had to be changed on the vehicle.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/16/2011 9:28:36 PM

There's also top hatches. I just assumed that when he said rolled into a river or whatever, it flipped upside down and the electrical system for the ramp shorted. But yes, the whole pad locking the door in the back is way too ridiculous.

Tell you what. Google it. Trouble with talking about this kind of stuff is you were still in grade school when it happened.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/16/2011 9:31:27 PM




so the rhetorical question  is, can the rear door be secured from inside....




Unfortunately the door was padlocked on the outside. Guys they figured if the guys needed to get out they drop ramp
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics