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       2/27/2011 4:35:57 PM
Dmitri514 - Your logic is flawed. First although the russians do design first rate equipment they build absolute garbage. When the finest unit in the russian military roled into Georgia 20% of their tanks were being pulled in by other tanks because they were non-op.
 
Also the M-1's are capable of firing on the move as accurately as they do stationary. The T-90 crews would be dead before they got close enough to engage a single M-1.
 
Also at this point russia is incapable of building more than one or two tanks a year. Ditto BMPs. Thats why Russia is allowing people like the Indians build almost all of the T-90's they bought in india instead of the usual 50%
 
Almost forgot to ask if the russians ever got that little problem of traumatic amputation of the tankers arms and legs when they fired the main gun fixed . Took them forever to fix the bore evacuator problem. How many crews were poisoned by the gun sucking in its propellant gases back into the crew compartment.
 
Quote    Reply

Dmitri514    Buzz - do you have internet access?   2/28/2011 4:19:37 AM
Buzz - do you have internet access? Can you read? If the answer is yes, please go and read wikipedia. Then you will spare yourself the embarrassment of typing posts like this.
 
And please tell me what country you are from?  My guess Georgia - the proud winner over garbage these russians?
 
Quote    Reply

Dmitri514    Love Buzz   2/28/2011 4:39:10 AM
I love you Buzz!!!
 
"russians build absolute garbage...
the M-1's are capable of firing on the move as accurately as they do stationary....
 russia is incapable of building more than one or two tanks a year...
the T-54/54/62/2/90 engine is a copy of the detroit deisel engine we put in trucks for the lend lease program in the 30's...
The T-90 can still only engage targets out to about 1700 meters..."
 
I laughed so hard at that! Please, please, more jokes for me...
 
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    dont bother about that   2/28/2011 12:51:02 PM
Yes Buzz is just slow disabled one, dont bother much on him. The other thing what people told here which looks absolutely lame is: "Abrams has more superior optics, Abrams has better guns, Abrams has better communication systems" i dont understand one thing, on what basis these people determined that those systems in Abrams are better? Did they themselves performed careful analysis of internal schematics of T90 and Abrams? Why on earth people think that weapon designers in West are better without any reason? Thats pretty retard thing to say. In other words they are convincing that western engineers can think better than Russians? Or what? Whats the point of all those people? They all should just get a life! And stop talking stupid things. When we compare two things we must already assume that these systems on both tanks are almost equally same, and then compare the other facts which are definitely not same (i.e. range, weight, maneurability, caliber, features)... But these stubborn people know that these parameters are worse in Abrams, and then they try to skip it, and talk about other stuff which is not possible to figure out unless you take it apart...and they say that "communications, and optics etc is better"... Get a life people! And by the way, im not biased towards Russian stuff, i just give honest opinion. And im from Azerbaijan by the way.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       2/28/2011 1:16:23 PM

Yes Buzz is just slow disabled one, dont bother much on him. The other thing what people told here which looks absolutely lame is: "Abrams has more superior optics, Abrams has better guns, Abrams has better communication systems" i dont understand one thing, on what basis these people determined that those systems in Abrams are better? Did they themselves performed careful analysis of internal schematics of T90 and Abrams? Why on earth people think that weapon designers in West are better without any reason? Thats pretty retard thing to say. In other words they are convincing that western engineers can think better than Russians? Or what? Whats the point of all those people? They all should just get a life! And stop talking stupid things. When we compare two things we must already assume that these systems on both tanks are almost equally same, and then compare the other facts which are definitely not same (i.e. range, weight, maneurability, caliber, features)... But these stubborn people know that these parameters are worse in Abrams, and then they try to skip it, and talk about other stuff which is not possible to figure out unless you take it apart...and they say that "communications, and optics etc is better"... Get a life people! And by the way, im not biased towards Russian stuff, i just give honest opinion. And im from Azerbaijan by the way.

This would be more convincing if you'd mentioned as much as a single fact. As it is I'm more inclined to listen to people pointing out arguments rather than those who don't.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       2/28/2011 1:34:14 PM
You even go so far as to assume basic equivalents, when there's no basis for such a conclusion.
 
Check the start of page 16 for how to write comparison posts.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    answer   2/28/2011 2:23:55 PM
look, i already pointed out the main arguments even before that. And then whole bunch of people came and started talking about "superior optics, guidance, communications, armor, gun"... and thats what i call BS'ing! when someone has nothing to say rather than its just better! so, your comment was pointless.
 
* T90 has 200km more operational range than m1a2
* T90 has creq of 3, and stable autoloader, m1a2 has 4
* T90 can fire a guided missile, m1a2 cant
* T90 has bigger caliber gun
* very important, T90 has robust diesel engine compared to turbine engine of m1a2
* T90 has lower physical profile, makes difficult to hit and detect on battlefield
 
What other arguments do you want? What else you all complaining people have left to say? That m1a2 is still BETTER? That its "systems" are better? That its mechanical bolts connecting pieces are better? Or its just better because it is Abrams? What else? 

Your personal ego overflows. Such a people like you would look at white sheet and say that it is black. You can do that, it wont change the reality tho.

 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       2/28/2011 9:44:27 PM
Dmitri514,
Unfortunately for you I not only can read and I get my information form more than provda and cnn. I have worked on both vehicals. I noticed that you didnt use my whole statement in your quote. Russians do design first rate equipment but they build absolute garbage. After the russians left east germany they left all of their records. Their mainetenance and readiness records showed us that at best only 1/2 of all soviet tanks and APC's were even able to be started and had to be moved at night by tractors or other tanks so it appeared they were all operational.  And that was when the soviet union was at its peak of power.
 
The only things that the T-90 has as an advantage over the M-1's are that the simple diesael engine they use is much cheaper and easier for 3rd world countries to use and maintain. Thats pretty much a blanket statement for the whole vehical. And since it was designed to use Bunker for fuel it can use any diesel type fuel. It can also sit for long periods of time and still start. The dead track used by older russian tanks also lasts forever which I cannot say about the live track used by US tanks.   D - you are aware that russian tanks start with air pressure arent you? And that the 3rd time you try to start the engine with the electrical starter the starter shaft twists in half? True the T-90 can fire an anti tank missile out of the turret gun but missiles are slow and easily detected as compared to main gun rounds. Also missiles leave one hell of a blast signature pinpointing the firing tanks position. 
 
BTW besides using small guys as tankers and telling them to watch where their arms and legs are before firing the main gun have they done anything to make sure the crew doesnt lose their arms and legs?  What about that nasty area around the turret basket that has the bad habit of cutting people foot off if it slides down there and the turret is traversed?
 
And as far as building garbage D are you aware that russian built Helicopter engines are rebuilt twice and thrown away before a US built engine is sent in for rebuild once? Or that Russian made jet engines wear out roughly 20 times faster than US made jet engines? True the russians had look down shoot down capabilities since the early 80's but none of it was ever used to prove it worked as built by the soviets. The vectored thrust was a cool invention too. The russian military industrial complex cant build sufficient military equipment because of the bloated gov't agencies that value pay offs and bribs more than national security. They even refuse to upgrade factories to produce modern electronics instead of tubes.
 
As far as georgia goes once again stop listening to CNN and provda. The russian military is worthless. Check out wikkileaks if you want. Their best pilots couldnt bomb an undefended oil pipeline. They sent 5 different planes to blow it up and none could even drop a bom close enough to damage it.  I'm not a pilot and I probably could have hit it. They tried twice to bomb that aircraft factory in the georgian capital and the first time the managed to hit the end of one runway and the next day they actually managed to blow up an apartment complex two blocks away! AND they lost 7 aircraft to 30 year old soviet built AA missiles. The commander of the division was almost killed because his recon troops were totally incompetent and so he decided to do a recon himself and was shot several times for his effort. Did I mention none of their commo was operational?  Thats all open source stuff you can read from reputible sources.
 
I also noticed that some of you started name calling because you have no facts to back up your arguments. I'm always ready to learn new things so try to educate me. Name calling doesnt work.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       2/28/2011 10:10:36 PM

I love you Buzz!!!

 


"russians build absolute garbage...

the M-1's are capable of firing on the move as accurately as they do stationary....

 russia is incapable of building more than one or two tanks a year...

the T-54/54/62/2/90 engine is a copy of the detroit deisel engine we put in trucks for the lend lease program in the 30's...


The T-90 can still only engage targets out to about 1700 meters..."

 

I laughed so hard at that! Please, please, more jokes for me...

 


D. Prove me wrong onanything you quoted above. Russian tractors still use that engine too. AND even russian generals at arms conventions have stated they put the missile capability on the T-90 to give it engagement ranges out to 3000 meters because the gun cant shoot accurately beyond 1700 meters. Why would a russian general say that if it were not true?  The T-90 is for a 3rd world countrys use and thats were its best suited. Tanks like the M-1 are to complicate and expensive and generally dont hold up well in places like the middle east without constant maintenance.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    buss   2/28/2011 10:36:48 PM
You are totally full of...you know yea?
 
All your texts above are nothing but stupid artificially created facts by yourself. Read my post few comments before, and then read your crap, and compare what is fact and what is child talk. 3rd world countries are stil using old obsolete Soviet equipment which still works by the way!  Even tho their deadlines are passed far long time ago. What the hell were you talking about russian helicopter engines and jet engines not work well? Open your eyes, ignorand kid. You probably wont be able to change top gasket in a car engine, and here you are giving your "experDise" comments on Russian military equipment. Get a life, well or you might still go ahead and post more, it wont change facts, rather than make you look like clown.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics