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
Reactive       4/14/2011 9:58:57 AM


 


 

Haven't gone anywhere, Nichy, just not going to participate in nonsense.

 

Questions on Dorchester previously answered by the way. 



Herald   

A full level 7 release - 10 percent of chernobyl according to the Japanese (who have a very good reason to understate things), with several hundred tonnes of Uranium/Mox spent + core rods still to be contained, thousands of gallons of heavily irradiated water to be pumped out to sea. The truth is that there's very little way they can actually quantify the radioactive release - what they can say is that it's mercifully not primarily airborne particles - but the impacts long term on Japan are surely being downplayed by officials.
 
I think they're severely underestimating the long term effects this will have on Japanese fisheries as the radiation will inevitably take several years to make its way up the food chain - we're only just over a month after the disaster, over the duration this is going to take to clear up the releases will continue at the present rate - especially given that they have to maintain cooling operations as well as finding some way to contain the material safely, that means moving it to storage which carries its own risks - it is an astronomical undertaking that could easily go on for several years, the cumulative fallout will certainly have a disastrous effect on japanese food exports in the long term.
 
R
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       4/14/2011 4:05:34 PM







 






 



Haven't gone anywhere, Nichy, just not going to participate in nonsense.



 



Questions on Dorchester previously answered by the way. 









Herald   





A full level 7 release - 10 percent of chernobyl according to the Japanese (who have a very good reason to understate things), with several hundred tonnes of Uranium/Mox spent + core rods still to be contained, thousands of gallons of heavily irradiated water to be pumped out to sea. The truth is that there's very little way they can actually quantify the radioactive release - what they can say is that it's mercifully not primarily airborne particles - but the impacts long term on Japan are surely being downplayed by officials.


 

I think they're severely underestimating the long term effects this will have on Japanese fisheries as the radiation will inevitably take several years to make its way up the food chain - we're only just over a month after the disaster, over the duration this is going to take to clear up the releases will continue at the present rate - especially given that they have to maintain cooling operations as well as finding some way to contain the material safely, that means moving it to storage which carries its own risks - it is an astronomical undertaking that could easily go on for several years, the cumulative fallout will certainly have a disastrous effect on japanese food exports in the long term.


 

R


Its a shame. (see thread Naw, it couldn't be. cited specifically about robots as dig and bury machinery in the post disaster discussion which justifies the inclusion of a nuclear power-plant failure ion the armor board)   I tried to be optimistic about Fukashima from the beginning and I've stayed positive as much as I can to date, but as soon as I found out about the MOX fuel in Fukashima Number Three, it was an instant OH MANURE moment. The seawater and lack of boron didn't help the Japanese.
 
Speaking of the robots needed the next tome thos happens (as lessons learned) which manufacturer or refitter do you think is qualified; the Israelis, or  Westinghouse or maybe FMC could rig up a T-72/T-90 as a cheap robot armored bulldozer to work such a hazard site? The tank has to be good for something and this looks like a useful market opportunity and niche for it. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />  
 
H.   
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       4/14/2011 8:15:50 PM
Its a shame. (see thread Naw, it couldn't be. cited specifically about robots as dig and bury machinery in the post disaster discussion which justifies the inclusion of a nuclear power-plant failure ion the armor board)   I tried to be optimistic about Fukashima from the beginning and I've stayed positive as much as I can to date, but as soon as I found out about the MOX fuel in Fukashima Number Three, it was an instant OH MANURE moment. The seawater and lack of boron didn't help the Japanese.

Yeah I think there's definitely room for a limited amount of optimism - I keep hear people claiming this is overblown, they keep citing the ~4000 death toll from Chernobyl as evidence, not just becuase the increase in cancer occurences across the entire zone of fallout is likely to be at least 20 times that, but because the WHO study was particularly conservative, and only looked at a small region - the UCS (union of concerned scientists) has an interesting post on their allthingsnuclear blog that highlights this discrepancy - bottom line is that there will, absolutely be a death toll associated with Fukushima - it will at the absolute very least have long term effects on the food chain, (ingestion being the most harmful type of exposure to radiation) and the economy for a long time to come.
 
Speaking of the robots needed the next tome thos happens (as lessons learned) which manufacturer or refitter do you think is qualified; the Israelis, or  Westinghouse or maybe FMC could rig up a T-72/T-90 as a cheap robot armored bulldozer to work such a hazard site? The tank has to be good for something and this looks like a useful market opportunity and niche for it. http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />  
 
You know the funny thing about this is that there very definitely is a need for this sort of machinery - I know I said this before but if you look at how crucial the ROV's were in the BP crisis I think there's something to be said for the same being available on land - a bulldozer type machine could easily be adapted from an MBT - and of course the cheapest to buy with working NBC protection would certainly be Russian models. Fit a dozer blade and an elevated camera pole to give good all round vision and you have a lot of the site cleanup taken care of.

That said I think the most difficult point is going to come when cranes etc are needed on site to lift and contain the high level waste (fuel rods) - a human won't be able to get near them, and the amount of movement and disturbance required is going to result in a lot of airborne particles, what I really think there is a need for is a land-based or crane suspended  ROV, with arms capable of lifting a few hundred KG - dextrous enough to move the delicate fuel rods into storage vessels without dropping or damaging them in the process - they could perform a lot of the clean up inside the ruined reactor buildings, and reduce the need for human monitoring.  Whilst I can see them entombing the reactors themselves in concrete to deal with another day I can't work out how they plan to deal with the spent fuel pools - a crane will be needed certainly to cut away the girders and debris in the way but I have a feeling that at some point a human being is going to be asked to go on a suicide mission to do some of that necessary close-up work.

There's been talk of robots being used for all sorts of useful missions, fire, rescue etc, what we see is that the level of development has essentially stalled (with the exception of underwater operations) at the unwieldy derivatives of EOD robots. In the tragic coal mine accident in NZ a few months back that was all that was available - and the slightest obstacle cuts its journey short.

Surely time for someone to do bette
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       4/14/2011 9:56:43 PM


Yeah I think there's definitely room for a limited amount of optimism - I hear people claim this is overblown, they keep citing the ~4000 death toll from Chernobyl as evidence, not just because the increase in cancer occurrences across the entire zone of fallout is likely to be at least 20 times that, but because the WHO study was particularly conservative, and only looked at a small region - the UCS (union of concerned scientists) has an interesting post on their allthingsnuclear blog that highlights this discrepancy - bottom line is that there will, absolutely be a death toll associated with Fukushima - it will at the absolute very least have long term effects on the food chain, (ingestion being the most harmful type of exposure to radiation) and the economy for a long time to come.

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/anchor.gif" alt="" />  

I agree with this.

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/anchor.gif" alt="" />  

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/anchor.gif" alt="" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/anchor.gif" alt="" /> You know the funny thing about this is that there very definitely is a need for this sort of machinery - I know I said this before but if you look at how crucial the ROV's were in the BP crisis I think there's something to be said for the same being available on land - a bulldozer type machine could easily be adapted from an MBT - and of course the cheapest to buy with working NBC protection would certainly be Russian models. Fit a dozer blade and an elevated camera pole to give good all round vision and you have a lot of the site cleanup taken care of.


The articulated arm would have to be a beam boom and claw articulated arm that can lift 500 kilograms. There has to be a camera at the grasper end of that arm The idea is that some kind of standard grasper might be better than detachable tools.

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/anchor.gif" alt="" />

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/anchor.gif" alt="" /> That said I think the most difficult point is going to come when cranes etc are needed on site to lift and contain the high level waste (fuel rods) - a human won't be able to get near them, and the amount of movement and disturbance required is going to result in a lot of airborne particles, what I really think there is a need for is a land-based or crane suspended  ROV, with arms capable of lifting a few hundred KG - dextrous enough to move the delicate fuel rods into storage vessels without dropping or damaging them in the process - they could perform a lot of the clean up inside the ruined reactor buildings, and reduce the need for human monitoring.  Whilst I can see them entombing the reactors themselves in concrete to deal with another day I can't work out how they plan to deal with the spent fuel pools - a crane will be needed certainly to cut away the girders and debris in the way but I have a feeling that at some point a human being is going to be asked to go on a suicide mission to do some of that necessary close-up work.


List of tools.

a. a grasper

b. a cutter

c. a scoop.

d. a drill

e. a .jaw spreader

    http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/anchor.gif" alt="" />

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/anchor.gif" alt="" /> There's been talk of robots being used for all sorts of useful missions, fire, rescue etc, what we see is that the level of development has essentially stalled (with the exception of underwater

 
Quote    Reply

Primorsky    How about T-90AM vs M1A2SEPv2 ???   11/5/2011 4:34:31 PM
How about new T-90AM vs M1A2SEPv2 ???


T-90AM (also known as T-90MS a.k.a. T-90M a.k.a. T-90S "modernized") - the 'deep modernization' of T-90S tank. Acording to Russian sources, this is a major step in Russian tank design to match (and outmatch) the best and updated foreign tanks.

The most significant differences between new T-90AM and previous T-90S tank are:

- Utterly redesigned turret;
- Improved armor on the turret and on the hull;
Frontal protection: 850mm(RHA equivalent) against KE; 1200mm against HEAT. Sides protection: 550mm against HEAT. (note: speculative numbers);
- New V-93 1130hp diesel engine (compared to the T-90A's V-92S2 1000hp diesel);
- New generaion of reactive armor "Relikt" ERA (ERA coverage was also susbstantially improved all over the tank);
- FCS of new generaion "Kalina" ("gunner-hunter" mode; automatically target tracking capability;
the latest generation of thermal-imaging cameras; integrated with Tactical Battle Managment System);
- Integration with the Tactical Battle Managment System "Sozvezdie";
- New 2A82 125mm main gun (finally abandoning the continuously upgraded 2A46 series);
- Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer linked with a 7.62mm machine gun;
- Satellite navigation system GLONASS+-GPS + inertial navigation system;
- New communications systems;
- Muzzle Reference System;
- Active Suspension Control;
- Anti-RPG grills;
- Various laser warners;
- Imrpoved "Shtora" (soft-kill active protection system);
- Safer ammunition stowage in a turret bustle;
- Weight - 48 tonnes (T-90S - 45 tonnes)

The comparison of frontal vulnerable zones (from left to the right: M1A2SEP / LEOPARD 2A7(A6?) / T-90S / T-90AM):

http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j398/dodo333/8-2.jpg" />br />



FCS "Kalina" features (brochure): Page 1...

Armor / protection (brochure):
Page 1...Page 2...
 
Quote    Reply

Primorsky    How about T-90AM vs M1A2SEPv2 ???   11/5/2011 4:52:22 PM
T-90AM video:
VIDEO LINK...
 
Quote    Reply

cajun858    T-90 vs. M1A2   6/26/2012 9:46:04 AM
The best weapons in the world are no good unless you have people willing and able to man them.
 
Mark
 
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       6/26/2012 9:09:36 PM
The best, most beast tank in the world is a sitting duck against air superiority.  
 
There has YET to be a major military campaign since the advent of the tank where the most tank KIAs were inflicted by other tanks.  
 
Let that soak in for a second:  If Desert Storm I and II were not opportunities for tanks to shine, nothing else in history will. 
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton    HeavyD   6/27/2012 3:19:02 PM
On the other hand, since the inception of the tank, has there yet been a major military campaign against a tank-equipped opponent where the tank has not played a major role. The tank's primary stated goal has always been to support the infantry. The fact that western tanks have been designed to kill other tanks is a result of the political and military climate at the time they were designed. I believe there will always be a need for tanks on the battlefield. I would rather have tanks in a modern combined arms force than not have them.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       6/28/2012 7:00:06 AM
This is because T-72 was so outmatched that the Bradleys, iirc, got most of those kills. With the 25mm. Proof less that tanks are inside, than that THEIR tanks are.

The best, most beast tank in the world is a sitting duck against air superiority.  

 

There has YET to be a major military campaign since the advent of the tank where the most tank KIAs were inflicted by other tanks.  

 

Let that soak in for a second:  If Desert Storm I and II were not opportunities for tanks to shine, nothing else in history will. 



 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics