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    SantaClown   3/1/2011 11:18:15 PM
1. Your first statement is one of the other stupid statements. "USA has best logistics PERIOD. " Ok then US and Russia have nuclear weapons... no need for tanks at all... makes sense? im just following your (stupid) logic. And dont tell plz here Iraq hero stories, Iraq military is not a reference point for comparison, especially with their outdated tanks with old equipment, no active defence, and crew without skills.
 
2.  Are you stubborn ignorant person? Didnt you see i already posted that human is faster than autoloader in ideal conditions, which is in most cases not true. And dont try to tell now that all your soldiers are non emotional terminators with cold blood who can operate as machine in any environment. LOL tell it to your kids as a story before bedtime.
 
3. " you do realize the Russians wanted that capability because they knew their air support could no gain air superiority to strike armor at a distance" - are you on drugs? whats that? where did you get that info from? Seriously? Did you see it in your dreams?
 
and about exposure yourself...well, following your (again stupid) logic i can say, do you realise that when you move in your tank in battle you expose yourself to enemy? How does that sound? and the smoke from missile is not as bad actually at all! Similarly there is always fire and smoke out of the bore even when you fire regular shells.
 
4. yes 5mm bigger, i cant give and dont have access to exact velocities and measurements. i discuss things within what we all know. and about your comment: "That's actually why the Russians need an auto loader, because the shell is heavier." - now it really sounds like you have a mind of abused ignorant silly and jealous kid... pay attention at all my posts, i never wrote anything like that about Abrams, rather than just pointing out its minuses in a calm way... but people here like you try to put things in a funny way, and as a result themselves look funny. 
 
5. about exhaust, T90 also has IR jammer against IR guided missiles. thats not an issue, and IR profile of Abrams is obviously not zero, so just this fact does not bring much difference into play, if brings at all.. But the T90 engine is a way better choice and more reliable and robust... Russians also have engine similar to Abrams in T80, but even they prefer much T90.
 
 6. You can see anything through thermals and other optic devices, but because of your poor logic and skills in analyzing problems that does not bring any difference. try to compete with Iraq or Uganda or other 3rd world countries, you might do some well there.
 
p.s. Abrams in Iraq did not see any challenge except outdated RPG7 and old T72 with ancient equipment, no active defence, and outdated shells. so stop bragging already.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    2Buzz   3/1/2011 11:22:46 PM
Oh! It seems now you are from Georgia? Well i personally know people who were there, and what you told now that Georgians used T-34 to fight Russians is kind of a funniest thing! LOL I dont want to hurt you, but Georgians have left more than 65 modernized T72 bought from Ukraine after they were notified that Russians are moving in. Russians came and just took away those tanks, as well as some US HUmvees. ....hmm.... it doesnt look like fight, does it? That was nice try tho... LOL so sorry dude, its not me its you who are out of league after such a BS statement ... but it made me smile at least ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/1/2011 11:35:40 PM

1. Your first statement is one of the other stupid statements. "USA has best logistics PERIOD. " Ok then US and Russia have nuclear weapons... no need for tanks at all... makes sense? im just following your (stupid) logic. And dont tell plz here Iraq hero stories, Iraq military is not a reference point for comparison, especially with their outdated tanks with old equipment, no active defence, and crew without skills.


 

2.  Are you stubborn ignorant person? Didnt you see i already posted that human is faster than autoloader in ideal conditions, which is in most cases not true. And dont try to tell now that all your soldiers are non emotional terminators with cold blood who can operate as machine in any environment. LOL tell it to your kids as a story before bedtime.


 

3. " you do realize the Russians wanted that capability because they knew their air support could no gain air superiority to strike armor at a distance" - are you on drugs? whats that? where did you get that info from? Seriously? Did you see it in your dreams?


 

and about exposure yourself...well, following your (again stupid) logic i can say, do you realise that when you move in your tank in battle you expose yourself to enemy? How does that sound? and the smoke from missile is not as bad actually at all! Similarly there is always fire and smoke out of the bore even when you fire regular shells.


 


4. yes 5mm bigger, i cant give and dont have access to exact velocities and measurements. i discuss things within what we all know. and about your comment: "That's actually why the Russians need an auto loader, because the shell is heavier." - now it really sounds like you have a mind of abused ignorant silly and jealous kid... pay attention at all my posts, i never wrote anything like that about Abrams, rather than just pointing out its minuses in a calm way... but people here like you try to put things in a funny way, and as a result themselves look funny. 

 

5. about exhaust, T90 also has IR jammer against IR guided missiles. thats not an issue, and IR profile of Abrams is obviously not zero, so just this fact does not bring much difference into play, if brings at all.. But the T90 engine is a way better choice and more reliable and robust... Russians also have engine similar to Abrams in T80, but even they prefer much T90.

 

 6. You can see anything through thermals and other optic devices, but because of your poor logic and skills in analyzing problems that does not bring any difference. try to compete with Iraq or Uganda or other 3rd world countries, you might do some well there.


 

p.s. Abrams in Iraq did not see any challenge except outdated RPG7 and old T72 with ancient equipment, no active defence, and outdated shells. so stop bragging already.






 

 

1. Obviously since you're an idiot let me spell it out for you. The Abrams is 30 tonnes heavier than the T90. That's 30 tonnes of armor. That means we put a bigger engine that eats more fuel. The trade off is less range, but since we have such a good logistics lines, all it means is the tanks needs to get gas more often. Big deal, we set up refuel points all the time. We did it in Iraq and we crossed the country in less than 2 weeks. We didn't even stop until we got to Baghdad. Make sense????
 
2. That's why you train. So people perform to a certain standard. Guess what? They'll end up performing that way in combat, too. You think our loaders roll in the M1 loading while it rides in a flat cement parking lot? Are you that stupid? They go to live firing ranges with rolling terrain, and again, AVERAGE 3 seconds loading time per shot.
 
3. Seeing as I work in the Army and we trained to kill Russians for the better part of 40 years, that's where I get my info from. First hand knowledge. Where do you get yours from? And not that much fire and smoke from a missile plume? LOL, pull that one from your ass?
 
4. No, that's exactly why the Russians needed an auto loader. The shell is 5mm larger in diameter. It's heavier, meaning a human loader gets tired quicker. Sorry you are too stupid to understand that.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/1/2011 11:42:42 PM
h**p://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/georgian-war/p40119-destroyed-t-72.html
 
h**p://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/georgian-war/p40121-destroyed-t-72.html
 
There's many other photos of destroyed Russian T72s in Georgia if you look for them. Those are your "fully trained" Russian crews with "complete defenses" and reactive armor still getting killed by Georgians, a minor military power that was a former satellite state. Oh, and they were using Russian weapons, that the Russians knew the full capabilities of and could have prevented those losses. That's pretty pathetic.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    Santa   3/2/2011 12:11:24 AM
In Georgia Russians did not even deploy fully... they did not used any advanced or state of the art technics, and they also sent young guys there, just to be trained and feel smell of war, thats always how they did to keep it up... For example in Chechnya they could end it up for two days if they wanted to...but didnt do that, same thing could apply to Georgia, they could capture the whole Georgia and change their government, but just didnt do that. The main point of all that conflict was testing the export version of TOR-M1 air defence...which was used against them themselves! Its not USA for you...which uses its latest technologies to beat weak countries and then brag alot. And even with newbie crew and soldiers they still kicked the sh1t out of Georgian army...which by the way escaped...and thats how it ended...and the result is Georgian army does not control the territory it wanted to.. so...nothing much impressive. And dont skip topics plz, initially we were talking about T90 abrams comparison, not about how old T72 get shot... thats obvios...nothing much special in it.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/2/2011 12:32:14 AM

In Georgia Russians did not even deploy fully... they did not used any advanced or state of the art technics, and they also sent young guys there, just to be trained and feel smell of war, thats always how they did to keep it up... For example in Chechnya they could end it up for two days if they wanted to...but didnt do that, same thing could apply to Georgia, they could capture the whole Georgia and change their government, but just didnt do that. The main point of all that conflict was testing the export version of TOR-M1 air defence...which was used against them themselves! Its not USA for you...which uses its latest technologies to beat weak countries and then brag alot. And even with newbie crew and soldiers they still kicked the sh1t out of Georgian army...which by the way escaped...and thats how it ended...and the result is Georgian army does not control the territory it wanted to.. so...nothing much impressive. And dont skip topics plz, initially we were talking about T90 abrams comparison, not about how old T72 get shot... thats obvios...nothing much special in it.
Let me paraphrase your first half. You're making an excuse why the Russian military performed so badly and you genuinely believe that they did so and purposely got people killed when it wasn't necessary. I don't know what's dumber, that idea or you for believing it.
 
And Georgia was a former satellite state, don't be so proud. Russia lost more aircraft in 2 weeks than the US lost in a decade while fighting 2 wars.
 
Yes, we are talking about the T90, which is the same piece of shit tank as the T72 with a different name.
 
Btw, you can actually start addressing any of my points when you get some basic knowledge beyond what you can find on wikipedia, idiot.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/2/2011 12:44:24 AM
Luckily, of course, the number one killer of Russian men is, and will remain, depression and alcoholism.
 
The truth is that Russia fights a war that is a whole generation behind that of the US, technically and tactically.
 
There are a few areas of real excellence remaining, but not many.
 
R
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    Santa   3/2/2011 1:07:14 AM
USA Lost more than 2000 aircrafts in Vietnam when they faced Russian air defence systems, and as a result got asses kicked completely. So here is what it happens when you see real challenge... more precisely, people like you turn out to be ineffective stupid and slow. You have no any balls challenging someone who is strong. At least Russia did not use any of its high tech toys to settle up conflicts in Georgia and Chechnya, and still did ok...result tells by itself, Georgia was down and begging for help from France and UN... now what else you want to bring on? What other talks? You even started swearing now, which tells you even have weak nerve system.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    Santa   3/2/2011 1:19:28 AM
And also, i was talking not about IR jammer on exhaust. IR jammers are located to the sides of main gun. I brought that when we talked about IR, and about exhaust, IR profile of any tank is not zero anyway, so that does not bring much difference.
 
About you being in army... you know, real warriors and men actually respect opponents, but you sound as a retarted abused stupid fatass person with high ego. In your comments i see nothing but overflowing hate....however tho, me personally - dont have any hate to USA... i am just judging technical things and calling them by their names. But in each your message i see lots of negative emotion and attitudes.... You are like woman on period.  Im sorry for US army to have people like you :)
 
Now, im not going to exchange with you with comments, its not gona change anything. But the main point is, i started talking about arguments, but you started giving out your comments full of hate and racism. And then you call me stupid? You cannot even conduct a conversation. 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       3/2/2011 2:16:00 AM




Look Buzz is off the reservation, but I think you need to look at a few things too.


The US has a better log chain in that we can moce fuel with the tanks . We don;t need the extra range to road march across a huge country like Russia, so we can actually refuel more often.  






Oh, well then why US needs tanks? Jets, Navy...thats enough isnt it? Rifle can fire further and better than gun, why we need guns then? Dont you find this statement stupid? Well..thats directly applies to what you said about range capability of tanks... Range is one of the most important factors, 200km is !HUGE! difference. Pretty sad you did not realise this fact.














The M-1 was designed by tankers who had seen the 1973 war results. The Man can still load faster than the Machine. The extra man is alos an extra wrench turner. Tanks need as many mechanics as possible. That is American experience fighting everyone from WW II on. Not better, just an antitank solution that works better than an auto-loader, which works in its case as better for a mass produced anti-infantry tank.    



another stupid statement...tanks need as many mechanicas as possible! !LOL! ok then why dont you attach maybe few bunch of other mechanics and make tank bigger? LOL anything else to say? The man loads faster in IDEAL conditions! what if the surface not smooth, what if there are million other human factors? But autoloader works robust.









Not entirely correct. The Israelis have developed missiles that can be fired from that type 120 mm gun. The US chooses not to use them.because in a tank battle the fly-out tome leaves you a sitting diuck for sabot darts.  . .




The missile fired by T90 does not leave such a big smoke at all! Also given the fact that T90 is so mobile, this is not an issue at all! But having additional guided missile is really must have thing. The more capabilities the better is performance and flexibility. And we were talking about M1A2 here not israeli tank, and by the way Israeli tank is absolutely for different purposes.
















The T-90 has a complex diesel that will freeze and tear itself apart unless pre-warmed at start up and is fuel restricted. The M-1's turbine is universal fuel and is SIMPLE. It just is a fuel hog. 



Yes it is so simple that it caused thousands of problems during Iraq war, and cant take it well when environment is very dusty. IDont tell me that its simple...or if you mean simple to fail?






No complaints, just explanation. For example a larger bore lower velocity gun is better for high explosive shell.  Note what I just said. The 125 is a dual purpose gun for infantry support as well as some antitank work. The 120 was designed as an antitank gun first. The T-90 is a RUSSIAN tank and that 125 was a RUSSIAN choice. Different is not better or worse, It is just different. 





Its not just SOME antitank work, it DOES really well antitank work which has already been demonstrated on the international exhibitions during test fire.















OK, so afterall you tried to seem fancy and took significant amount of effort to try to prove things "professionally" but unfortunately i
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics