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
SantaClaws       3/5/2011 9:05:49 PM

look stupid creature, my point was that in an application specific systems you do not need very powerfull supercomputer, you need a specialized digital chip which just supports functions needed by your system, is your brain fried to understand that? wtf are you talking at all?

 

and the point of my explanation above (paraphrased 1000 times for idiots like you) was brought because someone mentioned that USA has 30 supercomputers, Russia less. 

 

and basically with that explanation i wanted to show that you do not need supercomputer in every device, that actually wont help much, all you need is robust good electronics which does some specific job, but does it good!


 

now if you stil didnt get the point it means your intelligentce level is of bugs or roaches. and i cant help you then.

 





You clearly have no idea the complexity of the situations that these systems calculate. You are a dumbass.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/5/2011 9:13:03 PM
Oh and the point about the super computers, which you are too stupid to understand, is that the US has done it 30 times. Russia has done it once. Who do you think is going to make a good one when the US has 30 times the experience over the Russia? What kind of technological gap does that tell you about the two countries?
 
Oh right, Russia, with little to no experience is going to do better than the US has is the pioneer. Do the world a favor and don't breed.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       3/5/2011 10:04:00 PM
275 known examples in the US.
Oh and the point about the super computers, which you are too stupid to understand, is that the US has done it 30 times. Russia has done it once. Who do you think is going to make a good one when the US has 30 times the experience over the Russia? What kind of technological gap does that tell you about the two countries?

 

Oh right, Russia, with little to no experience is going to do better than the US has is the pioneer. Do the world a favor and don't breed.



 
Quote    Reply

earlm       3/5/2011 10:11:48 PM
Khrushchev canceled the heavy tank line of development so they had to rely on the T-34 line.  Putting a quart in a pint pot looks good on paper but it doesn't seem to work in practice.
 
I have a question, how does a 50 ton tank have decent protection when the M1 is 70 tons and the Leopard 2 weighs 62 tons?
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    lol   3/5/2011 11:09:08 PM
idiot, i already pointed out maybe 30 messages ago that Russia has specialized facilities which produce ASICs exclusively for militaries, and they not gona put their stuff on international exhibition of supercomputers, they already passed through the 30nm technology process of chip layout and have already some optical chips with internal high speed transceivers.
 
you - stupid person, judge the way how much country is advanced relying on stuff available on civil market, but i judge it on specific details which immediately show how far someone already go. Russia always was on top of progress when it came to military electronics. For example, the first missiles with automatic guidance and internal radar were soviet missiles in S200 complex.
 
and answering question to another idiot about armor - theoretically the more you add steel the better it is, now add some 50 tons more make it even better, make sense? However, good composition and ADS already make up the overall cumulative effect of protection needed.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    lol   3/5/2011 11:12:56 PM
idiot who probably wont be able to solve basic electric circuit problem tells me that i dont understand supercomputers. lol. as i already said, you are mentally disabled person, who probably cant and never could do and complete anything challenging in life but just brags out here. you failed the constructive conversation and just have no idea what to do.
 
i really dont know how to help it much here... im sure people who just read this post (in case if they are not ignorant "patr(ID)IOTS" like you) would understand the situation.
 
Quote    Reply

Kevbo       3/6/2011 12:57:50 AM
To ColdStart
 
Ahh, vulgarity, the crutch of the weak minded. You are quit a disappointment to me, I present you with fact and all you can do is call me names. Is that the best you can do? Is your intelligence so limited and your knowledge so shallow that your incapable of presenting a intelligent counter argument? Now I am not use to debating at a child's level of intelligence but I will try to put this in term that you will be able to understand.
 
 Time to shed some light on more of your misconceptions.
 
"* T90 has 200km more operational range than m1a2"
This is an advantage the T-90 enjoys, the advantage of light weight.

"* T90 has crew of 3, and stable auto-loader, m1a2 has 4"
This is a disadvantage of the T-90 which you foolishly believes is a advantage.
- Auto loaders are less reliable then a human loaders.
- Auto loaders are slower then humans.
- The T-90s auto loader forces the gunner to have to reacquire the target after each reload.
- The Auto loader can main careless crew members.
- A 3 man crew is more fatigued in combat environments then a three man crew.

"* T90 can fire a guided missile, m1a2 cant"
The T-90 has to shoot a missile in order to try and compensate for its inferior gun/targeting systems. This missile is unproven and based on facts it is probably incapable of penetrating M-1s front armor. This is based on the fact that large HEAT missiles then the T090s gun that can't penetrate it.

"* T90 has bigger caliber gun"
This is very naive and childish thinking.
Gun diameter is not all there is to a guns effectiveness. The Russian 122mm of the JS3 was only marginally more effective then the German 88mm despite being almost 50% larger. The 88 was more effective then the US 90mm despite being larger.
 
The M-1's gun has proven more effect effective in combat then the 125mm of the T-90. The M-1s were taking out T-72
 at over 2500m while the T-72's effective range of the T-72 was under 2000m and could not penetrate the M-1 at 50ms.
 
"* very important, T90 has robust diesel engine compared to turbine engine of m1a2"
You are actually right but not for the reasons you think. The turbine engine has many advantages over the T-90 diesel: Lighter weight, faster acceleration, better reliability, quieter, easier and quicker to replace. But it drinks gas like a pig, almost twice as much as a diesel and in my humble opinion the advantages out way the benefits. I would go with the diesel.

"* T90 has lower physical profile, makes difficult to hit and detect on battlefield"
In Iraq the T-72 with the same physical profile as the T-90 proved an easy target for the M-1s and were targeted and destroyed at over 2500m. So on paper this might seem like an advantage but in the real world with the M-1's superior targeting system this was no advantage. Actually the size is a great disadvantage, the crew is forced to be 5'2" or less which means you are picking tank crews based on size rather then who is best for the job. The crew is also forced to fight in a cramped dangerous work space.
 
Now if you can respond to this e-mail with intelligent counter points then I can start to treat you like an adult. Lets see what you can do.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/6/2011 1:46:41 AM

idiot, i already pointed out maybe 30 messages ago that Russia has specialized facilities which produce ASICs exclusively for militaries, and they not gona put their stuff on international exhibition of supercomputers, they already passed through the 30nm technology process of chip layout and have already some optical chips with internal high speed transceivers.

 

you - stupid person, judge the way how much country is advanced relying on stuff available on civil market, but i judge it on specific details which immediately show how far someone already go. Russia always was on top of progress when it came to military electronics. For example, the first missiles with automatic guidance and internal radar were soviet missiles in S200 complex.

 

and answering question to another idiot about armor - theoretically the more you add steel the better it is, now add some 50 tons more make it even better, make sense? However, good composition and ADS already make up the overall cumulative effect of protection needed.


1.  And what did you say that proves they actually produce good equipment? Nothing. How did you prove it was better than US equipment? you didn't. Again you are too stupid to understand how to even form a basic argument. I highly doubt someone as dumb as you works with computer chips.
 
2. LOL, just like the Mig the US captured that was filled with vacuum tubes. Now I know you're going to say "Oh it was for EMP resistance blah blah". So before the stupidity is uttered from your mouth, if that were true then why do the Russians use computers in their fighters now?
 
3.
 
h**p://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-pictures-from-georgia-of-t-72-and.html

I'll take the extra 30 tonnes of armor.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/6/2011 1:51:11 AM
h**p://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/08/t-72-vulnerability-again-illustrated-in.html
 
This is another good read.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/6/2011 2:02:35 AM
well, we already talked about it many times, but since you this time didnt start with judging and saying how bad Russians are and asked for constructive talk, im ok with that.
 
1. 200km more range, well yes, it is advantage and light weight in armor is always an advantage. i think its obvious no need to expand much here.
 
2. loader... well i totally understand that human is faster, but... unfortunately i tried so many times highlight the fact that with human there is also a human factor, which noone tried to take seriusly! really... human makes more errors rather than machine, human might get confused, might drop the shell, and many other things... and also, during real combat effectiveness of human is less... just try to understand and admit that human are not machines right? sometimes they panic, sometimes they afraid... well of course the experienced tank crew with many fights etc are not like that... but im really talking about majority, about soldiers which had some training and now going to battle soon. and the fact that you said loaders are less reliable than human loaders...well thats not true, because: machines are really good at making routine work, and loading gun is a routine work, if we were to think that all those machines designed to make routine work not reliable then why would we use any complicated machines at all? after all they are on what we rely! And in tank, there are many other systems rather than loader in which for example, if they fail, you are screwed. Of course i understand that nothing is idea, any engineering achievment requires trade off. In case of autoloader its tradeoff is positioning, and speed... i guess those are the only tradeoffs you must pay. but thats something what actually most people i saw prefer to pay for, during tank battle you are positioning yourself front to enemy anyway, and speed... well few seconds is important, but afterall you know that after these few seconds gun is loaded.
 
 
3. now these statements about missile...to be honest are not good. First of all you say that its PROBABLY incapable of penetrating M1 front armor.. now... you say probably...and another big assumption is Front armor... there can be 100 different situations on battle, and M1 might not be the only target for this missile. Another assumption, which does not make sense at all is that t90 targeting systems not good and missile is designed to account for that... but please... you really think we cannot build good targeting systems? do you think its something super difficult? For Russia? Russia designed Buran (something like Shuttle) which performed its flight in 1988 and at that time it performed landing AUTOMATICALLY... im not sure if you are engineer or not, thats why i brought this example in order to give you...well rough estimate on how difficult it is to design such a system! even with todays technology! but it was designed in 1988 and proved itself! now... do you think Russians could not do good targeting system for T90? which is maybe 1000 times easier than autopilot for Buran? i really tried to do my best with this example... with no offense with no emotions...i already did that before, but again since you asked me normally i did it again, just to be nice. And i hope its pretty clear... so... please dont make assumptions that specific systems of Russian hardware are just not as good as US... 
 
 
4. about guns, now...see you say M1s gun proved itself better than T90... and immediately make a light transition to the situation when M1 penetrated T72s at over 2.5km and T72 couldnt do job at 50m. Now.... do you know that at that time Iraq's army had outdated shells not used in Russian army anymore? they were OBSOLETE! ....and the T72 of Iraq did not have any good ADS (if had ADS at all! it didnt!)... please be fair! please...really...be fair! you cannot compare brand new Toyota with 1995 Mercedes, and then say Toyota is better than Mercedes! be fair and compare similar (almost similar things, years)... well...i dont know i just tried to bring you the example... so...all those situations when the tests are performed over some crappy old T72...like what Discovery shows etc... and then its being said that US stuff is more advanced....you know...its just not fair! Of course its nothing what hurts us, because we know the truth... but by doing that you are confusing yourself, and your citizens who believe you.
 
 
5. engine. Yes, as i mentioned before, even in Russian army and armies of its former satellites officers still prefer T90 (T72 modernized for poor ppl) over T80. Because its more reliable, also for good efficiensy i guess M1s engine should use kerosine or other similar fuel, but if you know, diesel is much more fire safe engine, which is particularly im
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics