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
Buzz       4/4/2011 9:15:53 PM






I never said they were, whereas you said, that the missiles did not exist at all with their special twin missile launcher pod and the bus interface adapter for said wing pod mounr for target capture and aim cuing through an optical sight. Stinger on an Apache was not doctrinal as that was not the Apache'as mission. The Apacje is flying rocket artillery. The OH-58 as a helo scout was supposed to not only scout targets for us, but also was to kill enemy scouts trying to do the same-including those on the GROUND and in the AIR.

 

Out of 70 mm rockets, no Hellfires or TOWS? Now  MG versus MG? Don't be silly. You see a technical or a GAZ snooping around? Mister STINGER can reach farther and tap him harder than Mister enemy Machine Gun can reach you.

 

In fact shot from the top of the old gravity well and the Stinger should easily out-range whatever version of Strela, Gopher or Gaskin that fool on the ground had launched at you before you killed him.     

 

OH-58s made good mobile adhoc SAM units as well as scouts.

 

I would not be surprised if an OH-58 used a  STINGER, or two and plinked a P/U truck. Against a BMP? Not sure that would work. The thing hits with the wallop of a small howitzer shell, but that's kind of iffy.  


 

Improvise. A guided missile is a guided missile.As long as it can steer to meet the signal, it doesn't care what it hits.


 

Herald



Herold the Stinger would be totally ineffective against a BMP. If I remember correctly the stinger has a 7 lb fragmentation warhead. Its designed to get close to an aircraft and explode. The schapnle is supposed to tear into the engine/wing/fuselage weakening it structurally. The armor of a BMP would suffer only mild damage.
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton    Cold   4/4/2011 9:42:04 PM
  Yes George, Russian airspace is covered by all these ADS'es. And the amount of money you put in does not guarantee victory. A lot of money could be given to you, to do/design/built something, but with your kiddish mind and zero skills you gona likely fail it :)
 
You do realize that 400 S-300 sites for the entirety of Russia does not constitute a significant number right?  Especially against nation wielding the world's largest navy and most powerful air force with bases ringing you.  I never said that I was building it, did I?  If I was, then we'd all be in trouble, because I am not capable of doing something like that, any more than you are capable of building the S-300.  But do I tell you: "Since you can't build the S-300, it sucks and the B-2 can kill it easy" ? No.  Because that is a stupid way to conduct a debate.  There are, however, people who are very well-trained in what they do who did design the B-2 for one purpose using the very best technology they could get, which is why there are only 21 of them.  For you to say that after all the time, effort, and money put into that project by experts it will still be helpless against a SAM system designed in the 70s is pure arrogance.  Perhaps if you could somehow prove that the Russians specifically designed the S-300 with the B-2 in mind you would have something, but they didn't, and you don't.  Like you said: take the reality as it is.  
 
Herald, you are out already. Copying/paraphrasing and picking up something to brag against me doesnt work. 
 
Oh...and you were counting so much on his support earlier, too...

of course, i do not say that all B2s F22s etc are worthless etc... those are good piece of hardware, especially against your current enemies. but...is it gona work out well against Russia?... doubt it. thats the whole point. dont be insult. take the reality as it is.
 
Once again, both of those projects were designed specifically with Russia in mind.  The Russian military of today has not advanced appreciably technology-wise since the end of the Cold War, and it certainly hasn't gotten any bigger.  Would you argue that Russian air defenses are more or less formidable today than they were in 1989?  Like you said:  take the reality as it is.
Stop trying to make the Russian military into something it is not.  Instead worry about what it can become after a little time, effort, and a few changes of doctrine.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/4/2011 10:27:02 PM
Because they are placed on the wingtips. You "installed" them there. You should know.


Yah, but they're not put on Apaches.



Dumbass I ment to ask you why a rack of Hellfires and another of 2.75 in rockets have no effect on an apaches areodynamics but a very small Stinger would thow it completly off?

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/4/2011 10:29:40 PM


Spoken like a true never in the army dumbass. Guess you are one of those little snowflakes that has never figured out that people die in war. Hopefully its the other side that is doing most of the dieing part.




Go back a few pages. I already proved what I do. Your stories though, are still so full of shit that anyone who's been in for more than 3 months knows you're pulling lies from your ass.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/4/2011 10:39:54 PM
To say that Stealth isn't going to work against the Russians is absolutely ridiculous. To say that using older tech to shoot down an F117 so new tech will work better is equally ridiculous. The F117 flew 100,000+ combat sorties and lost 1 plane. If older tech shot it down why was another shoot down ever reproduced, especially since older radar would be easier to procure and field in large amounts? Probably because it had more to do with luck than anything.
 
Furthermore, if Russian could so easily negate stealth, why are they investing so much into building a 2nd rate 5th gen fighter? Obviously, if they have the means to consistently shoot down stealth planes they wouldn't be investing into their own stealth fighter and exporting S400/300 systems. Why are other countries (15+) investing into the F35 but not buying the S300/400? You think you know something that these military personnel don't, Coldstart? I'm willing to bet it's the other way around.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/4/2011 10:49:50 PM


Spoken like a true never in the army dumbass. Guess you are one of those little snowflakes that has never figured out that people die in war. Hopefully its the other side that is doing most of the dieing part.



Oh, and I guess that's why I'm always told, "We can get a new helicopter, but we can't replace the people inside." Seriously, just need to shut the hell up because when you say shit like you do, people who have no clue about the military actually believe it when nothing could be further from the truth.
 
That is why you think the equipment is important and the troops are expendable, because you have never served. Thus you will never understand what Duty, Honor, or Integrity mean. The words, "I will never leave a fallen comrade" have no meaning to you when they should be a part of how you live your life.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Summation   4/5/2011 12:21:32 AM
We have here...
1. Someone who doesn't know how countermeasures work or artillery or MISSILES, beyond what he reads in a book. Argument there runs into either pilot hubris, or clerk mentality. Haven't decided which one he is.
2 A Russian fanboi who uses cliche,thinking and is mentally deranged. He got electromagnetism wrong when he tried to criticize me and when challenged on photon spin (POLARIZATION-look it up.) ran for the hills. If he knows how a radar works or how to spoof it, then I am an anteater, 
3. We have someone who does not know why an M-113 with its slab sides and a low to ground bottom flat plate is a rolling coffin on tracks when it rolls over mines or is hit by anything worse than machine gun fire whereas the STRYKER APC just because it is wheeled and is HIGHER off the ground and presents angled plate  to the most likely direction of mine blast stands a better chance of survival against mines(Here's a hint: a wheel axle that snaps off and carries away a lot of the explsuve delivered work energy, as it flies off or deforms, sends less total shock directly into the hull than a whole track-laying mechanism that cannot be modularly sacrificed to the blast as a snap-off, .to prevent that shock. You'd at least think someone here would be a NASCAR fan and would know or understand about how they build to protect the pa/driver in the race-car 'egg' when you have major impact physics at work.) Mine explosions are not exactly collisions, but the principle about shock is the same; you sacrifice the vehicle perimeter to absorb shock over time and protect the crew compartment with snap offs and yield structures that reduce the transmitted shock to the vehicle by directing it around the 'egg' or into 'empty air'. The M-113 was never designed for that fail mechanism. It was a simple battle taxi BOX (the worst possible shape for mines)-made out of aluminum (the worst possible common metal to use when you make armor plate because it will not stretch and fail under shock like steel)  that stopped large caliber bullets and shell fragments from a near miss. The STRYKER does the same thing but is better against mines (see previous explanation).
 
The application of slat armor is all about premature detonation of shaped-charge explosive-compression effect munitions. The explosive compression wave that forces a soft metal liner (copper for example) into a molten metal slug that travels at almost Mach 8 or more. That slug before it cools down and cannot ,melt its way through plate, has only so many centimeters before it splatters and breaks cohesion. Armor plate actually helps the slug stay together long enough to transmit hit by forming a trapping medium for all that heat as the slug burrows through it. Air however us a GAS. If the slug spends enough time traveling through air, it cools, spreads, and splashes on even thin plate. The result is a scorch, some pitting, a piece of slat destroyed, and a badly frightened  crew in the vehicle. You can even determine the expected pre-detonation stand-off distance that will work by shooting an RPG or Munroe effect mine at test plate. You measure burn through and that gives you (after you calculate slug life-time) the stand off distance for the slat armor.
 
In the case of this argument, (and it is an argument) the only one with credibility is George Patton.
 
Too many mistakes made by the other participants. (That includes me, I've made a few here, just not the ones others claimed I made; which is why I know where each of us is exactly in this argument. The mistakes you made in not catching some of my actual mistakes (some deliberately seeded as tests)  tell me exactly what you don't know.)  
 
Read carefully what I just wrote.   
   
Herald .
 
    .           . 
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/5/2011 12:57:26 AM




 

And if the not-that-stupid-as-you-think-he-is enemy ever Mogadisha's you (assuming that you are not a clerk with access to tech pubs), well.... That BAE piece of crap can warn you all it wants as you go straight DOWN..   


 

Herald 


 

 

Herald lets not forget that it was these under rated guess in Mogadisha that figured out how to knock out helicopters with RPGs

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/5/2011 1:11:22 AM
Honestly Herald, I'm pretty sure your purposely "seeded mistakes" are really you talking about things you have no clue about and when people catch you on them you claim "Oh I meant to do that!".
 
Just to drive in the point. You call me a clerk even though I mentioned the flight helmet. How does a clerk get a hold of a flight helmet or a sealed document? You honestly expect me to believe that an intelligent person is unable to recognize the obvious when it is brought out in front of them? Intelligent enough to lay traps but too stupid to see the obvious? Please Herald, from someone who actually validated what they do, you have no proof of what you do other than wiki things. Which you like to change for your own benefit. I didn't want you to think I forgot that.
We have here...


1. Someone who doesn't know how countermeasures work or artillery or MISSILES, beyond what he reads in a book. Argument there runs into either pilot hubris, or clerk mentality. Haven't decided which one he is.


2 A Russian fanboi who uses cliche,thinking and is mentally deranged. He got electromagnetism wrong when he tried to criticize me and when challenged on photon spin (POLARIZATION-look it up.) ran for the hills. If he knows how a radar works or how to spoof it, then I am an anteater, 


3. We have someone who does not know why an M-113 with its slab sides and a low to ground bottom flat plate is a rolling coffin on tracks when it rolls over mines or is hit by anything worse than machine gun fire whereas the STRYKER APC just because it is wheeled and is HIGHER off the ground and presents angled plate  to the most likely direction of mine blast stands a better chance of survival against mines(Here's a hint: a wheel axle that snaps off and carries away a lot of the explsuve delivered work energy, as it flies off or deforms, sends less total shock directly into the hull than a whole track-laying mechanism that cannot be modularly sacrificed to the blast as a snap-off, .to prevent that shock. You'd at least think someone here would be a NASCAR fan and would know or understand about how they build to protect the pa/driver in the race-car 'egg' when you have major impact physics at work.) Mine explosions are not exactly collisions, but the principle about shock is the same; you sacrifice the vehicle perimeter to absorb shock over time and protect the crew compartment with snap offs and yield structures that reduce the transmitted shock to the vehicle by directing it around the 'egg' or into 'empty air'. The M-113 was never designed for that fail mechanism. It was a simple battle taxi BOX (the worst possible shape for mines)-made out of aluminum (the worst possible common metal to use when you make armor plate because it will not stretch and fail under shock like steel)  that stopped large caliber bullets and shell fragments from a near miss. The STRYKER does the same thing but is better against mines (see previous explanation).

 

The application of slat armor is all about premature detonation of shaped-charge explosive-compression effect munitions. The explosive compression wave that forces a soft metal liner (copper for example) into a molten metal slug that travels at almost Mach 8 or more. That slug before it cools down and cannot ,melt its way through plate, has only so many centimeters before it splatters and breaks cohesion. Armor plate actually helps the slug stay together long enough to transmit hit by forming a trapping medium for all that heat as the slug burrows through it. Air however us a GAS. If the slug spends enough time traveling through air, it cools, spreads, and splashes on even thin plate. The result is a scorch, some pitting, a piece of slat destroyed, and a badly frightened  crew in the vehicle. You can even determine the expected pre-detonation stand-off distance that will work by shooting an RPG or Munroe effect mine at test plate. You measure burn through and that gives you (after you calculate slug life-time) the stand off distance for the slat armor.

 

In the case of this argument, (and it is an argument) the only one with credibility is George Patton.

 

Too many mistakes made by the other participants. (That includes me, I've made a few here, just not the ones others claimed I made; which is why I know where each of us is exactly in this argument. The mistakes you made in not catching some of my actual mistakes (some deliberately seeded as tests)  te
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/5/2011 1:12:24 AM

I don't know much about the topic, but I do remember reading something about how the Mig-25 had an extraordinarily powerful radar due to use of vacuum tubes.

Even in to the early 90's the intel folks were still spouting the BS that the soviets used vacuum tubes in radars and commo because they were impervious to EMP. The reality was they were so heavily invested in tube technology (it was an old cheap technology) coupled with their limited ability to produce high tech circuitry they just put it in many things.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics