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   4/2/2011 5:49:53 PM
Anyways, this idiot really is completely sick dumbass.
I stil didnt go ahead and attack with words a US nation, like he did with his words to mine.
 
Anyhow, topic leans away from Abrams's comparison.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/2/2011 6:52:36 PM
I stand corrected. Congratulations. You caught me on one wrong thing and you were wrong on everything else. *clap clap*
 
PS. I said there were no tankers. I said there were master gunners. Again, learn to read.
The Soldiers who receive this additional training will receive an ASI, or Additional Skill Identifier to their Military Occupation Specialty (MOS). For example, the Tanker?s MOS is 19K. Those Tankers trained on the Stryker will receive the ASI of R4, making their full MOS 19K R4. Those Tankers qualified to operate the M1A2 SEP will have the MOS of 19K K4. These ASI?s make you the a more well-rounded Soldier, capable of accomplishing more varied missions, as well as opening up more of a variety of options of where you can be stationed.
 

link
 

I don't know Santa but mayhap you should quit whilst ahead, here...and the question is not who DRIVES, the Stryker, but who operates the MAIN GUN of 105mm.

 

You see as a modified m-68 105mm it would require an armour MOS to operate, or rather someone who has completed the armour training, which would be someone with an Armour MOS.  And that leads us to the fact that, INDEED,  a Stryker Battalion or Brigade might well have a MASTER GUNNER.

 

Again, ASSUMING YOU DO SERVE,  please stick to Hawk Driving, because your general knowledge seems deficient.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/2/2011 6:56:14 PM
Oh and I believe the Herald said, to paraphrase, if he had questions about the Stryker he would wait until a tanker was here. Yah, the only guys who are tankers that operate the Strykers are the ones using the MGS. Everyone else, for the most part (medical service/engineers), is infantry. Those guys are not tankers and have their regular MOS but are just qual'ed to operate the Stryker themselves.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    Coldstart   4/2/2011 7:08:13 PM

Anyways, this idiot really is completely sick dumbass.


I stil didnt go ahead and attack with words a US nation, like he did with his words to mine.


 

Anyhow, topic leans away from Abrams's comparison.



He is NOT attacking your nation. If he was, he would be saying stuff like "All russians are stupid drunks" THAT is a personal attack on Russia, and you. That quote of course is an incorrect assumption, it's not what I actually think.
 
What he is trying to point out, and what you are conveniently avoiding, is that Russia is facing a future population crisis.
 
From h**p://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/russiapop.htm:

Russia's population peaked in the early 1990s (at the time of the end of the Soviet Union) with about 148 million people in the country. Today, Russia's population is approximately 143 million. The United States Census Bureau estimates that Russia's population will decline from the current 143 million to a mere 111 million by 2050, a loss of more than 30 million people and a decrease of more than 20%.

The primary causes of Russia's population decrease and loss of about 700,000 to 800,000 citizens each year are a high death rate, low birth rate, high rate of abortions, and a low level of immigration.

High Death Rate

Russia has a very high death rate of 15 deaths per 1000 people per year. This is far higher than the world's average death rate of just under 9. The death rate in the U.S. is 8 per 1000 and for the United Kingdom it's 10 per 1000. Alcohol-related deaths in Russia are very high and alcohol-related emergencies represent the bulk of emergency room visits in the country.

With this high death rate, Russian life expectancy is low - the World Health Organization estimates the life expectancy of Russian men at 59 years while women's life expectancy is considerably better at 72 years. This difference is primarily a result of high rates of alcoholism among males.

Low Birth Rate

Understandably, due these high rates of alcoholism and economic hardship, women feel less than encouraged to have children in Russia.

Russia's total fertility rate is low at 1.3 births per woman. This number represents the number of children each Russian woman has during her lifetime. A replacement total fertility rate to maintain a stable population is 2.1 births per woman. Obviously, with such a low total fertility rate Russian women are contributing to a declining population.

The birth rate in the country is also quite low; the crude birth rate is 10 births per 1000 people. The world average is just over 20 per 1000 and in the U.S. the rate is 14 per 1000.

Abortion

During the Soviet era, abortion was quite common and was utilized as a method of birth control. That technique remains common and quite popular today, keeping the country's birth rate exceptionally low. According to a Russian news source, there are more abortions than births in Russia.

The online news source mosnews.com reported that in 2004 1.6 million women had abortions in Russia while 1.5 million gave birth. In 2003, the BBC reported that Russia had, "13 terminations for every 10 live births."

Immigration

Additionally, immigration into Russia is low - immigrants are primarily a trickle of ethnic Russians moving out of former republics (but now independent countries) of the Soviet Union. Brain drain and emigration from Russia to Western Europe and other parts of the world is high as native Russians seek to better their economic situation.
 
So, in summary, the population of Russia is crashing due to a high death rate (due to alcoholism and AIDS), a low birth rate (women don't want to have kids), and a low immigration rate (other countries have better employment).
 
The Russian government is trying to correct these problems, but they are a long way off still from solving the problem.
 
Please accept these facts, because they are exactly that, FACTS. Nobody is making this stuff up to insult Russia, it's what really is happening. Nobody is going to attack Russia over this however, as long as your country has nukes. Not even China, who envies the massive amount of natural resources of the Russian Far East, is willing to sacrifice that much of it's population to capture
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   4/2/2011 8:56:23 PM
Yeah another species of Russia critics is here (or maybe a clone of the existing one, with new registered nickname).
 
Yeah Russia used to have hard times, to be honest it used to have even much more harder times than now!... but its not as bad as being pointed out by some jerks-Russia-haters. 
 
Yes, life is not as good as in west, people are not as rich. But, things are going on, people working, research on many different areas going, Russia will be ok.
 
 
So do not stink again. wimp.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   4/2/2011 8:59:28 PM
T90, S-300/400, SLBMs,ICBMs, Smerch, Iskander-M are designed and made to protect Russia. And those stuff will never be exchanged for better life.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       4/2/2011 9:03:12 PM
No, ColdStart, I'm still me.  I congratulate the other fellow for his patience.  And he is exactly right; or at least, we agree (and yes, I know the proverb) on the problem.  I do not agree that nukes will save you forever; the continuing problem will lead to further societal breakdown including that of your military apparatus and even the validity of your nuke deterrent...not completely but even a hint of deficiency will embolden the wolves who surround you.  And I also think that many of your enemies (or their leadership) may be less casualty-averse (whether because they have too many people, because Allah wills it, or because they have some sort of plan with dispersal, civil defense, first strike or disabling EMP, whatever, that makes them more safe or makes them feel more safe).
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    Do you not READ???   4/2/2011 9:26:59 PM
I told you straight up that I was not criticizing Russia! I have no issues with your country at all. In fact I've always wanted to travel there. What don't you understand about that? And the name-calling gets you nowhere bud, it just makes you look immature and incapable of intellectual discussion. Grow up. Seriously.
T90, S-300/400, SLBMs,ICBMs, Smerch, Iskander-M are designed and made to protect Russia. And those stuff will never be exchanged for better life.

That's all you need to protect your country. Nukes. No one will fuck with Russia as long as you have those. If Chinese troops ever cross the border to snatch Siberia, you nuke Beijing. It's that simple. The threat alone will keep the Dragon away and Russia safe.
 
But that's all you'll hear from me. Like Nichevo said, you aren't worth wasting time on. I tried to be civil, but all I receive in return is insults and blind denial. Russians like you will be the death of your country. You just accept the status quo, because you don't care enough to strive to make things better. Don't worry though, you'll probably be dead before the demise of your country. The average life expectancy for Russian males is only 59 years...
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    So to recap   4/2/2011 9:43:09 PM
1) Wrong about NO TANKERS
2) Wrong about the Length of the US M256 barrel, 44 CALIBERRS rather than 55 CALIBERS
3) And unable to grasp that calibers can be a measure of barrel length.
 
You CAN fly a UH-60 better than you can cover this stuff, right?
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    Nichevo   4/2/2011 9:50:51 PM

No, ColdStart, I'm still me.  I congratulate the other fellow for his patience.  And he is exactly right; or at least, we agree (and yes, I know the proverb) on the problem.  I do not agree that nukes will save you forever; the continuing problem will lead to further societal breakdown including that of your military apparatus and even the validity of your nuke deterrent...not completely but even a hint of deficiency will embolden the wolves who surround you.  And I also think that many of your enemies (or their leadership) may be less casualty-averse (whether because they have too many people, because Allah wills it, or because they have some sort of plan with dispersal, civil defense, first strike or disabling EMP, whatever, that makes them more safe or makes them feel more safe).

I disagree with you about the nukes. If there has been one service Russia has been preserving since the fall of the Soviet Union, it's the Strategic Rocket Forces. Yes I concur that there is also a need for a conventional force to complement the nuclear component, but it's not critical, especially when you have the internal problems that Russia has right now. Their most pressing need is to get the economy off the rocks, and to start makin' babies. The nuclear forces will suffice until they start to reverse the current trends, then they can work on bettering the military. Small numbers of new tech should continue to be developed and procured, to preserve the defense industrial base, and to replace badly outdated equipment and handle internal conflict should it arise.
 
As for a first strike attempt or EMP disruption, it would not negate Russia's nuclear forces. SSBNs and road mobile Topol-Ms will ensure a second-strike capability against any potential aggressors. And even the Chicoms respect that, since close to half of China's 1.3 billion people now resides in urban areas, and would be extremely vulnerable during any nuclear exchange.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics