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
heraldabc       3/3/2011 11:52:44 AM
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       3/3/2011 11:53:42 AM
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/3/2011 12:06:54 PM
im also sorry that you are such an idiot just as some other members here. who have not demonstrated any serious arguments rather than plain talking. bestamerica type ppl.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/3/2011 12:09:47 PM
nothing can beat M1 cuz its a tank killer.... yeah what other dumbest comments gona come? Noone beats US cus ur the toughest? what else?
 
damn thats so primitive. primitive as dirt.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Coldstart   3/3/2011 12:37:55 PM
It IS a tank-killer, by both design and history...built to fight the WTO in the 1980's it's primary mission WAS tank-killing, hence the 120mm and the secondary round being the MPAT-HEAT....and it has killed a LOT of tanks, in the intervening time period, many of them RUSSIAN/SOVIET tanks...and the kill ratio is very lopsided, basically about 0 (M-1):several thousand/hundred T-54/62/72...now I realize that these were the export "Monkey Model" and poorly crewed, but the fact remains no M-1 has been killed by an opposing tank, yet....
 
IF history is any guide the T-90, even with RUSSIAN crews, is very likely to lose...the M-1 is a very good tank with very good crews...the T-72/90 is an OK tank with, most likely very mediocre crews....You may scream all you want to at that, but I'm betting that the amount of training Russian crews receive and its quality is far less than their US counter-parts.  All things being equal, crew quality is the determinant...Russian crews, in peacetime, will not equal US crews....again I know you will scream...screaming doesn't change Russian/Soviet/Russian history...which is that peacetime armies of the Tsar/Commissar/Prime Minister aren't particularly good.  My evidence is the Russo-Japanese War, Tannenberg, the Finnish Campaign, Barbarossa, Chechnya and Georgia.
 
Given time, and space to recuperate Russian/Soviet units can be quite dangerous, but out of the box, no...since the inception of NTC/Red Flag and the like, Western/US forces have been dangerous, right out of the box.
 
Again scream all you want, but I believe history and facts have a nasty habit of being persistent....
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    this guy makes me laugh, do you do stand up?   3/3/2011 12:46:22 PM

How on earth come you tell about poor quality, weak armor of T90? Are you an expert? What do you know about steel composition itself? About how the armor is made? I bet you barely got B in chemistry, but here you throw out a "professional" statements about how better its armor is... No seriously lots of people here are just crazy! In my previous post i already pointed out very badly to someone who was talking about control systems and CPUs of Abrams... Now more experts are coming to just shout out about superiority of Abrams... LoL Are you guys ignorant self confident egos? Or what? And who on earth decided that Abrams is a western standard to which everyone must obey? Abrams is just another tank! Im not gona say its bad or not good etc, but its obviously not better than T90 at all... why? go back ~messages, want to argue? - bring up facts and technical arguments... such stupidity as "more superior armor, better protection, better computers, better control systems" dont count! BRING UP FACTS! numbers! or technical facts available for observation and judgment of both machines! Dont bring up your stupid ghost ideas, thats not interesting at all!


Again, this guy?s comments are comical; it is almost quite amusing now to see how people can wind this guy up so easily. The more aggressive one gets in their language the less base they have to their argument.

 

i like the line "ghost ideas", a ghost idea is claiming that an upgraded semi glorified variant of a T 72 (a poor tank in its own rights compared to its western counterparts) is somehow equally as good as, or better than a western tank that has had decades of experience into it and the work and co-operation put into it by other western nations (my reference here is British Chobham), and what is more, if we are talking about a networked system of tanks, the Abrams is part of the United States military synergy, arguably the most networked force in existence, bar none.

 

You want facts lets present facts shall we. Let?s give this guy what he wants.

 

Ok firstly control systems (here are your facts):

The M1A2 Abrams tank has a two-axis primary sight - line of sight which increases the first hit probability by providing faster engagement times and improved aiming. The thermal imaging system has magnification ×10 narrow field of view and ×3 wide field of view. The Abrams also makes extensive use of its hunter killer capability

 The Laser Systems rangefinder has range accuracy to within 10m and target discrimination of 20m. The gunner also has a auxiliary sight with magnification ×8 and field of view 8°.

 

 the Abrams can successfully engaged and destroyed, as proven on countless occasions during the Iraq conflict a target while on the move out to 5000 metres (on low profile T 72s wouldn't you know)

 

Now moving on to its processing power and other such computer related facts of that nature:

The fire control computer automatically calculates the fire control solution based on: lead angle measurement; bend of the gun measured by the muzzle reference system; velocity measurement from a wind sensor on the roof of the turret; data from a pendulum static cant sensor located at the centre of the turret roof.

The operator manually inputs data on ammunition type, temperature and barometric pressure, thus being

 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    i have said before   3/3/2011 12:58:33 PM

nothing can beat M1 cuz its a tank killer.... yeah what other dumbest comments gona come? Noone beats US cus ur the toughest? what else?

 

damn thats so primitive. primitive as dirt.




Usually, I am not in defence of America much, as many would freely tell you on here. I have nothing against them, but I can by no means be considered as a pro US fan boy. So from a non pro US fan boy shall we say to someone who won't accept the facts (that?s you, this is where you come in). Yes of course the Abrams can be beaten, I personally feel that the Challenger 2 is a superior tank to the Abrams, and in one on one, there is nothing that can currently match let alone beat the Challenger in 90% of engagements. But the T 90 is far different. The Abrams would plainly and simply enjoy a far higher kill ratio of the T 90 than the T 90 could ever hope to achieve vice versa, those are your facts right there, no figures needed. The claim is substantiated by western tank design pedigree, plain and simple. There is very little or no way that an upgraded T 72 could hope to match the Abrams, unless A. you either redesigned the tank altogether, or B. you spent some very serious money on it upgrading it with the qualitatively superior western kit.

 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    hmmm   3/3/2011 1:12:11 PM



USA Lost more than 2000 aircrafts in Vietnam when they faced Russian air defence systems, and as a result got asses kicked completely. So here is what it happens when you see real challenge... more precisely, people like you turn out to be ineffective stupid and slow. You have no any balls challenging someone who is strong. At least Russia did not use any of its high tech toys to settle up conflicts in Georgia and Chechnya, and still did ok...result tells by itself, Georgia was down and begging for help from France and UN... now what else you want to bring on? What other talks? You even started swearing now, which tells you even have weak nerve system.

Coldstart get you hands off the vodka bottle. First we didnt get our asses kicked in Vietnam, we simple quit playing. Congress wouldnt let us fight to end the war. The South Viets did quite a good job kicking the crap out of the N Viet forces for two years and then the democrat congress cut off funding to the S Viet govt to pay for the war.  True we lost a lost of planes for a variety of reasons including high op tempo, low altitude ground support missions attract a lot of gunfire and make it very difficult to evade missiles. We lost several aircraft to dogfights in the first year of the war but that was due to training deficiencys which was corrected and then we swept the skies of all russian made aircraft until we left. NV pilots would not even take off if an american fighter was anywhere near their airbase. The B-52 losses were from treachery from our so called french allies feeding the NV's information on our bombing scheduals and heading allowing the NV's to mass AA Misssiles in the direction they would be flying from and our AF generals mandating the stupidity of having every plane fly the same course at the same altitude making them sitting ducks. It wasnt that the russian stuff was all that good its just with so many targets and so many oppertunities someone was going to get lucky.




Well I would agree that America did not get is "ass" kicked in Vietnam, but to be honest it wasn?t pretty for the US military either. Considering it was the might of the American military machine we are talking about here Vietnam was a bit of a shambles. Yes given more support back home the US may have continued to fight, and yes may have won the war in the end, but some very harsh, and shocking lesson were learnt as a result of Vietnam. but what cannot be detracted from however it?s the bravery with which many soldiers in the US forces fought with, and while in a number of cases were questionable at the very least, in some cases barbaric I?m sure you will agree, the US forces on the whole tried to do their best in otherwise hellish conditions, it just maybe this time it was just not enough, mostly in my opinion down to either a gross underestimation of the NVA/VC capabilities, or a complete overestimation of US military capability, or both.

 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    haha i have just realised   3/3/2011 1:27:27 PM

 

We have our own little cold war goes hot thing happening here. You have got the Brits (myself and any others that may have commented on here) in support of the yanks about the Abrams (and let?s face it how often does that happen, we rarely agree on anything http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" alt="" /> you have been treated to a rare privilege), it?s like NATO. it is even more ironic because we are having to sit here and think about how so many pages on this topic are being wastefully trolled by a couple of Warsaw pact cretins.

 

Us westerners as so far more civilised, ha.

 

The cold war is over, the Soviet government has collapsed, capitalism has prevailed through its endurance, IE cold war = major victory for the West (another to add to our already extensive collective list of accolades). Score 1 NATO and the west, Soviet Warsaw pact 0.

 vive la West

 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    Russian nuclear joke.. i mean weapons stocks   3/3/2011 1:35:50 PM

 

You dont have to have thousands of missiles these days you stupid moron, Russia has ICBMs with 10 separable warheads, where each warhead is much more powerfull than two a-bombs thrown in Japan. Only one missile is enough to send USA in stone age. But Russians have much more of them, plus SLBMs, TOPOL-M mobile, and cruise missiles on TU-160 with nuclear warheads.

 

So with all that its enough to destroy whole world not only USA. shut up already and dont start new topic, you gona be put down in a similar way.


Russia has ICBMs with 10 separable warheads, where each warhead is much more powerfull than two a-bombs thrown in Japan."

Well that?s no real achievement at all. by comparison to modern nuclear weapons the weapons used on Japan a primitive stone compared to a howitzer. by the way the west can do it too. Variable yield fool. 100kt warhead = no more vodka, no more Moscow.

"So with all that its enough to destroy whole world not only USA"

 

Yes but you fail to realise that the US has some very powerful friends called NATO. so to the extensive US stockpiles of nuclear weapons you can also add Britain's warheads, France's warheads and those of the joint NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement. To further add to my point. Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons are a joke. They are of poor build quality and see very little in the way of maintenance. Russia could launch a thousand missiles each with 10 warheads. But I bet you only 3 of those would ever get anywhere near the target. The other 900 odd would be littered around the Russian rural landscape, not to mention the cities as well.
 
oops

 

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics