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       3/22/2011 7:16:33 PM

The M1 does very well supporting infantry and engaging various targets besides tanks with it's 3 machine guns operated by the 3 soldiers in the turret.  It also is very good at killing armor.  That's an MBT.

 

It's not really about the turret.  There have been tanks without them and tank destroyers with them.  It's about roles and missions.  With very limited main gun ammo and at best a single RWS operated by the tank commander that vehicle has issues in various roles besides anti armor.

 

A heavy tank primarily designed to engage other tanks is not a new concept- Soviet IS-2 through T-10, British Conqueror, US M103.  The question is whether it's viable today given  it had already faded away in favor of the MBT?  It's also worth asking whether the Russians really think they need a 152mm to defeat future armor threats?


 

 


It makes a lot of sense.  There was a turretless tank invented precisely to keep people out of the turret because it's weak. 



 



The Abrams is pretty much a tank killing tank already.  This thing doesn't have machine guns?







With all of the it appears they are trying to build a land based battleship. With the current wars it seems like both the US and Russia would build something more in like with a M-60A2.  The short barrel would allow more flexibility in urban and mountainous situations and it could be armed with AT missiles like the old Sheridan Scout vehicle was with its Shillelagh missile. Both vehicles used a 155mm gun. The Sheridan used a case less ammo that dissolve in the humid weather of Vietnam thus making it worthless. Those problems have been overcome.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/22/2011 7:20:48 PM



















First you just backed up one of my statements that Russian army commo didnt work at in the georgian invasion. Next appearently you havent been readying any newspapers as there have been stories of late on the US army going to cell phones too. Androids I believe.













































This comment is so far off base.







 







h**p://www.sofcoast.com/weblog/2010/11/signals-drumbeats-real-men-use-android.html







 







Try actually reading the article first. 1 They didn't switch because there was a failure in US radios or comms. 2 It's not a cell phone, they just want to use the OS. 3 They're building a new type of radio that uses the android OS, not using cell phones in combat.














 







The amount of ignorance and purposely warped information because people's pride is hurt for being wrong on the internet is just incredibly immature.





















Dumbass I work with military commo. Military radios as you know them will be radiaclly different in 10 years and yes they will be cell phone based.



 



Also dumbass many people believe it or not have a lot more experience with russian shit. Most of their comms still rely on vacuum tubes. Because of lack of working radios and incompetent odfficers and NCO's the commanding general of the russian division went forward to personally do a recon and as a result was ambushed and was shot 3 times. He almost died. If thats hurtful to people so what. Thats war snowflake.




You said that the US army was using cellphones. They are not using cellphones. Want me to quote you? They are using the android OS to develop a new radio.

 

So why don't you know that? And I'll admit that I use FBCB2 and BFT interchangably. But please explain to me why you didn't know BFT was the name of the original system, and later upgraded to FBCB2, and now people just refer to the whole network as "BFT". Please explain to me why you don't know the difference and thought FBCB2 came first when it didn't. Why is it you work on military comms but I know more about you job than you?



Snowflake you need to stop talking about things you really are clueless about.  Meant to ask you why if the M-113 is so bad why does the IDF like them so much?
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/22/2011 7:28:13 PM

Seriously, you sound like that idiot who keeps preaching about the M113 being the best thing since sliced bread when all it is is a death trap. This Styrker at 5:08 in the video was hit by a 155mm or something similar IED. Knocked on its side but drove away with everyone alive.

 

h**p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTXZlCDgjVo&feature=related


 

This M113 was hit by an IED. 

 

h**p://www.charlesbeason.com/thumbnails.php?album=20

 

There is nothing left of it. I will be damned if idiots like you will risk my life or those under my command when you have NO experience in the field and your delusion/ignorance is of more value to you than those who volunteer to serve this country. It is idiots like you who set policies which get our people killed because you are so far out of touch with reality that you can't separate your ass from your head. I am just thankful people smarter than you are in charge because it is our soldiers who have to pay the price, not you. Either put on the uniform or get a f*cking clue.

Snowflake. The stryker has gotten a good rep ironically because its so overweight and top heavy that its not that unusual for then to be blown over especially when traveling at high rates of speed. This disipates the force of the blast instead of cracking the hull.   By the way a lot of your so called smarter people have gotten a lot of soldiers killed especially those balless wonders that are afraid to hurt your feelings and make you do your job as a soldier.  Go home and have mommy change your diaper. When you grow up maybe you can be a soldier.

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/22/2011 8:00:57 PM
There is not a single verified story I can find that says it was padlocked. Just a list of deaths. 10 years in the Army, you of all people should know that just because it's in the news doesn't mean it's the truth.
 
What does the IFDF have anything to do with M113s being good or even decent? It doesn't. 
 
Your reason for why people like the Stryker is ridiculous, and stupid. You really spent 10 years in the Army? Here's a gut check. What's the MLC of the Abrams? What is the FM for field sanitation? What's the acronym for and OPORD?

About 10 yrs Snowflake.  A staff sergeant and a specialist are killed when an embankment collapses and their $2 million Stryker combat vehicle flips up-side down into a canal. They can't escape because the rear hatch door was accidentally left padlocked.

[Steven H. Bridges, 33, Tracy CA; Joseph M. Blickenstaff, 23, Corvallis OR]
 

Just one example. Padlocks being accidentally left on the rear hatch is bullshit. The lock was put on after they got into the vehicle because they were afraid someone would open the hatch and throw in a grenade.

 

I have to ask Have you ever really been in a stryker?





 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/22/2011 9:07:38 PM
BTW, I like how I completely trashed your comments about FBCB2 being removed and the only reply you have is, "BUT THE IDF USE THE 113 SO IT MUST BE GOOD!!!" And again, I'm going to ask you if you work on military comms why do I know your job better than you do?
 
And the only gripe you can bring about the Stryker is that one rolled over and some people died (which can happen ins ANY vehicle) but have no actual valid complaints. Instead you babble on like an idiot about how one rolled over and supposedly it was padlocked, which has nothing to do with the actual vehicle's performance.
 
How about you actually address my points instead of trying to strawman an irrelevant rollover accident. Oh right you can't because you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Still waiting for you to tell me what the Styker MOS is.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       3/23/2011 8:19:26 AM
GLONASS is a mid-band orbital altitude satellite constellation system that uses two instead of three time match ordinates at the moments.. 






Having a semi working gps is not even remotely similar to having a fully developed system like BFT.



that's true, but I wasn't talking about GLONASS in a BFT context.  ie it was about a comparative constellation issue.



 



at best GLONASS is global, in reality, it's uncompetitive to US GPS constellations due to redundancy of numbers, quality of persistence tied to those numbers etc...  eg they can only do large slices, they can't overlap and make those slices smaller.  small slices = greater confidence in the harvest.



 






I believe GLONASS was originall concieved to cove russian territory only probably because of budget constraints. They have since try to expand it but their last couple of satilites have gone into the ocean after launch and there oldest satilites in the constellation are going past their service life.


I think GARMin is coming out with a GPS system that uses all three systems



GF got it right, you didn't.
 
Don't talk orbital mechanics, either.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

LB       3/23/2011 4:31:38 PM
There are reasons that concept failed.  There are lots of missile systems one can use and the compromise required for the 152mm in other areas is not worth the bother.
 
Frankly what should be considered is a modern replacement for the turret mounted 165mm in the CEV.  That was a very useful direct fire weapon. 
 
For urban combat, from WWII to today, experience indicates the need for heavily protected armored vehicles with significant direct fire capability.  Based on it's combat experience Russia has produced the BTR-T and BMP-T for urban combat as well as heavy infantry carriers based on tank chassis- just like Israel who also produce the worlds heaviest infantry carrier.
 
This does not mean the MBT concept is obsolete.  The MBT was derived from combat experience indicating that the tanks supporting the infantry do run into enemy tanks whether the doctrine says they should or not.


 


With all of the it appears they are trying to build a land based battleship. With the current wars it seems like both the US and Russia would build something more in like with a M-60A2.  The short barrel would allow more flexibility in urban and mountainous situations and it could be armed with AT missiles like the old Sheridan Scout vehicle was with its Shillelagh missile. Both vehicles used a 155mm gun. The Sheridan used a case less ammo that dissolve in the humid weather of Vietnam thus making it worthless. Those problems have been overcome.


 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/23/2011 6:52:24 PM
just looking now..observing. How some loosers on this forum are getting some cheapo fake links written up by some internet yo-yo's as themselves which talk about how not advanced Russian weapons are. Especially its funny to see how they even manage to decline that USSR was not pioneer of space.
 
As i said before, thats not gona change the facts, you cant say that the sky is red, because everyone knows that its blue :)
 
So, go ahead, and continue...american dreams!
 
And of course all these bragging people, never probably had to do anything with technics or engineering, they hardly would be able to change a clutch in a simple car. 
 
lol what a narrow minded people are here mostly...
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/23/2011 6:54:47 PM
and by the way, GLONASS does work. Its just not as much developed in commercial sector.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/23/2011 6:58:01 PM

There is not a single verified story I can find that says it was padlocked. Just a list of deaths. 10 years in the Army, you of all people should know that just because it's in the news doesn't mean it's the truth.

 

What does the IFDF have anything to do with M113s being good or even decent? It doesn't. 

 

Your reason for why people like the Stryker is ridiculous, and stupid. You really spent 10 years in the Army? Here's a gut check. What's the MLC of the Abrams? What is the FM for field sanitation? What's the acronym for and OPORD?





About 10 yrs Snowflake.  A staff sergeant and a specialist are killed when an embankment collapses and their $2 million Stryker combat vehicle flips up-side down into a canal. They can't escape because the rear hatch door was accidentally left padlocked.



[Steven H. Bridges, 33, Tracy CA; Joseph M. Blickenstaff, 23, Corvallis OR]


 



Just one example. Padlocks being accidentally left on the rear hatch is bullshit. The lock was put on after they got into the vehicle because they were afraid someone would open the hatch and throw in a grenade.



 



I have to ask Have you ever really been in a stryker?














Snowflake, Even coldstart has spent more time in the latrine than you have spent in the army. Just because you refuse to even try to find any info from any source other than wiki doesnt mean it didnt happen.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics