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
SantaClaws       3/14/2011 8:59:43 PM
The AK 47 is like the T34, overrated.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/14/2011 9:08:59 PM
-You know, thinking about it, in some ways you can draw a comparison from the M1A2 and the T-90 to the Pz. V vs the Sherman.  The Abrams, like the Panther, is geared more towards the AT role, while for the T-90, like the Sherman, there is a greater emphasis on engaging soft targets like AT Teams and rear-echelon elements following a breakthrough.
 
George, Something you may not be aware of is in 1973 the army made the decision that that our tanks would no longer serve the duel purpose mission of infantry support and anti tank. They removed all of the HE rounds for the tanks and loaded them with AT rounds because of the huge numarical advantage of tanks the warsaw pact countries had. The M-1's design was based on being able to engage soviet tanks at long ranges and then survive mutiple hits and still be combat capable. They only upgraded the main gun to 120mm when the armor folks finally convinced the people in the pentegon that the 105 was inadequate to reliably penetrate the newer soviet armor. HE rounds were only restored to the ammo racks of tanks about 6 years ago because the tanks were next to useless in Iraq with no armor to fight.
 
A major contriversy in changing over to 120mm was that the tank could only carry half as much ammo. The M-60 carried 2 rounds per expected engagement as the first round almost always missed due to the rearward movement of the tank with the first shot. That first shot compacted the gound and seated the tank much the same way the SP howetzers used the spad on the rear of the vehicle to make a stable spot to shot from. The M-1's fire control system takes that backward slide into account helping to insure a one shot one kill performance.
 
As far as the old ammo vs the new ammo I truely see no difference because of the russians habit of storing ammo out in the open on bare ground. If you doubt me find a picture of that huge ammo storage site in Ukraine that the Ukrainian gov't has tried to get the russans to clean up for years.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/14/2011 9:21:12 PM



That would be a decent strategy except for the fact we have more Abrams than the Russians have T72s.
 

True, but then you start getting into sheer meachnics of planning, logistics.

its an event based issue then, ie where, when, how?

 

eg 80+% of the fleet are probably CONUS or in storage.  depending where the fight is, you have to get them there.

initial advantage is to the "home team" as their force is already emplaced etc....

 

thats where these "a" vs "b" threads start to come a cropper as real constraints need to come into play... 



You are correct here. Doesnt matter how good a tank you have if you dont have it there ready to fight it worthless. A C-5 with a special waiver can carry 2 M-1's and it needs a long improved runway to land. Takes a lot of trips with a secure landing strip to get a meaningful number of tanks in place and then you have to have the logistical tail to feed the beast. During the cold war we had 2 weeks worth of ammo. I asked why only two weeks worth and the answer was by then the war would be over. Only a fool would allow someone in todays world the time to bring in all of their toys. And massed armor attacks are a thing of the 3rd world now. The russian division that invaded georgia could have been wiped out by a single MLRS battery firing Brilliant munitions. The vehicles were not only massed but they were channeled onto roads flanked by mountains with no were to run.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/14/2011 9:32:51 PM



Unfortunately or fortunately tanks, like people, fail when used inappropriately.  The Sherman when used for tank on tank warfare was slaughtered. As you pointed out the main gun was to weak and it was underarmored. The soviets found out in afghanistan that the armored troop carriers known as BTR's were not suited for combat after losing approx 1300 of them the first year. Those high losses stoped after they were replaced with BMP's. Sadly the american army has put in the same kind of vehicle with almost the same result.





I hope you're not talking about the Stryker.
I'm talking about all systems but the styker is a piece of shit. It gets its rep from being compared to an uparmored hummer. In Iraq the first year in theater they stayed in one of saddams old palace sompounds guarded by soft side hummers until insurgets started getting the mortor range down. Then it had to drive 60 mph everywhere to keep from getting killed. It still sufferes so much daamage that they had to build a repair facility in Baharaine to fix them before sending them to Annistone for a total rebuild. That birdcage protectes them from exactly nothing and was decided on because the most effective anti RPG fix was chain link fencing but that looked to cheap. The afghanis used to take out BTR's with a cup of gas or diesel on a tire. Set it on fire and the whole vehical is toast.  The vehical is a bastardization of the belgian design which, like the BTR was never meant to be a combat vehicle.

 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/14/2011 9:45:02 PM

An issue that hasn't been emphasized is unreliability of Russian kit.  People look at the AK-47 and extrapolate to other systems.  The reality is the engines, transmissions, and running gear of Russian tanks is not that reliable.

That is both a true and untrue statement. The russian made stuff is really sloppily made with cheap parts so it sucks oil and fuel and yes it does break down. The russian's combat stratagy has always been run the tanks until it breaks down and move the crew to another tank. The tank would be recovered and fixed when the battle was over. Saying that I have seen t-55s that hadnt been started in at least 15 years start and run fine with just a little work. The old stuff is definitly more reliable than the newer stuff.  The track is another matter. The BMPs at NTC ran on the same track for almost 20 years without being changed while the track on US vehicles had to be completely changed after each rotation.
BTW there is no such thing, except in a museum, as an AK-47. They are AKM's and if you get hit by one you are either really close or one unlucky bastard. They are made with a really poor quality steel and the barrels are not chromed so because soviet doctrine has always been full auto fire the high heat from the autofire allows the rounds to strip out the lands making it a modern musket. However put enough rounds in the air and sooner or later someones going to get hit.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/14/2011 9:48:35 PM

I'm talking about all systems but the styker is a piece of shit. It gets its rep from being compared to an uparmored hummer. In Iraq the first year in theater they stayed in one of saddams old palace sompounds guarded by soft side hummers until insurgets started getting the mortor range down. Then it had to drive 60 mph everywhere to keep from getting killed. It still sufferes so much daamage that they had to build a repair facility in Baharaine to fix them before sending them to Annistone for a total rebuild. That birdcage protectes them from exactly nothing and was decided on because the most effective anti RPG fix was chain link fencing but that looked to cheap. The afghanis used to take out BTR's with a cup of gas or diesel on a tire. Set it on fire and the whole vehical is toast.  The vehical is a bastardization of the belgian design which, like the BTR was never meant to be a combat vehicle.



Have you actually ridden in a Stryker? Is this what you have heard about it or your personal experience? I am being serious. Because when an E7 tells me his Stryker absorbed 2 155mm IEDs and suffered no more than a bent fender and a flat tire, I find your words a little hard to swallow. IF, you were in the infantry serving on a Stryker, then you are the first infantryman I have ever heard complain about it. I actually work on Ft Lewis where Indian Head is and there is nothing but praise for the vehicle. And Hummers guarding Stykers? I hope that's a joke.
 
And the Stryker is not meant to be a IFV. It's an armored taxi. There is so much tech and gear on that thing, which really doesn't need to be said on an open forum, that gives those infantry guys so many advantages its ridiculous.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/14/2011 10:21:45 PM



I'm talking about all systems but the styker is a piece of shit. It gets its rep from being compared to an uparmored hummer. In Iraq the first year in theater they stayed in one of saddams old palace compounds guarded by soft side hummers until insurgents started getting the mortar range down. Then it had to drive 60 mph everywhere to keep from getting killed. It still suffers so much damage that they had to build a repair facility in Baharaine to fix them before sending them to Annistone for a total rebuild. That birdcage protects them from exactly nothing and was decided on because the most effective anti RPG fix was chain link fencing but that looked to cheap. The afghanis used to take out BTR's with a cup of gas or diesel on a tire. Set it on fire and the whole vehicle is toast.  The vehicle is a bastardization of the Belgian design which, like the BTR was never meant to be a combat vehicle.








Have you actually ridden in a Stryker? Is this what you have heard about it or your personal experience? I am being serious. Because when an E7 tells me his Stryker absorbed 2 155mm IEDs and suffered no more than a bent fender and a flat tire, I find your words a little hard to swallow. IF, you were in the infantry serving on a Stryker, then you are the first infantryman I have ever heard complain about it. I actually work on Ft Lewis where Indian Head is and there is nothing but praise for the vehicle. And Hummers guarding Stykers? I hope that's a joke.

 

And the Stryker is not meant to be a IFV. It's an armored taxi. There is so much tech and gear on that thing, which really doesn't need to be said on an open forum, that gives those infantry guys so many advantages its ridiculous.



Santa, I have much more experience with BTRs and LAVs than with actual stykers but the fact is the strykers are better than hummers but not by much in my opinion. If they are so damned great why do they try to hide the the extent of the damage being inflicted inflicted on them from congress. The E-7 is probably being truethful in what he is telling you but not being accurate. A freind of mine in theater sent me apicture of a styker taken out by an anti personnel mine. It disabled the front tire and had to have a tank retreiver come get it. That bird cage has actually saved lives because it makes the vehicle so top heavy that when it gets hit at high rates of speed it rolls and disapates the blast energy. And there are plenty of pictures out ther in cyberspace showing the strykers being keep under lock and key because the army didnt want any of them getting damaged until the last two bdes were paid for. Ask him if they are still forcing soldiers to reenlist for styker or get out.
BTW- even the russians know how to protect their vehicles from RPGs
 
As the Russians regrouped, they brought in more infantry and began a systematic advance through the city, house by house and block by block. Russian armored vehicle losses dropped off with their change in tactics. Russian infantry moved in front with armored combat vehicles in support or in reserve. Some Russian vehicles were outfitted with a cage of wire mesh mounted some 25-30 centimeters away from the hull armor to defeat the shaped charges of an antitank grenade launcher as well as to protect the vehicle from a Molotov cocktail or bundle of explosives. The Russians began establishing ambushes on approach routes into a selected area and then running vehicles into the area as bait to destroy Chechen hunter-killer teams.(7)
 
.
Should point out here that an M-1 that broke down and left by its crew on our advance on Bagdad was hit by 120 RPGs before one hit a vulnerable spot.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/14/2011 10:23:50 PM
BTW, I have no idea where you got a "chain link fence" was the best RPG protection, but slat armor has been used since WWII and has proven itself effective against RPGs numerous times in Iraq.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/14/2011 10:30:13 PM



I'm talking about all systems but the styker is a piece of shit. It gets its rep from being compared to an uparmored hummer. In Iraq the first year in theater they stayed in one of saddams old palace sompounds guarded by soft side hummers until insurgets started getting the mortor range down. Then it had to drive 60 mph everywhere to keep from getting killed. It still sufferes so much daamage that they had to build a repair facility in Baharaine to fix them before sending them to Annistone for a total rebuild. That birdcage protectes them from exactly nothing and was decided on because the most effective anti RPG fix was chain link fencing but that looked to cheap. The afghanis used to take out BTR's with a cup of gas or diesel on a tire. Set it on fire and the whole vehical is toast.  The vehical is a bastardization of the belgian design which, like the BTR was never meant to be a combat vehicle.








Have you actually ridden in a Stryker? Is this what you have heard about it or your personal experience? I am being serious. Because when an E7 tells me his Stryker absorbed 2 155mm IEDs and suffered no more than a bent fender and a flat tire, I find your words a little hard to swallow. IF, you were in the infantry serving on a Stryker, then you are the first infantryman I have ever heard complain about it. I actually work on Ft Lewis where Indian Head is and there is nothing but praise for the vehicle. And Hummers guarding Stykers? I hope that's a joke.

 

And the Stryker is not meant to be a IFV. It's an armored taxi. There is so much tech and gear on that thing, which really doesn't need to be said on an open forum, that gives those infantry guys so many advantages its ridiculous.



Santa I neglected to point out a very good comment you made that the Styker is not meant to be an IFV. That is a very true statement unfortunately, our leaders decided to use it in the role of an IFV because it is cheaper to operate than a Bradly. I have asked many styker soldiers what vehicle they were comparing the styker to that made them like it so much and all of them said the same thing. They were comparing it to a hummer. See the privious posts as to the inappropriet use of equipment. The russian failed to learn their lesson on that in afghanistan and as a result they lost a lot of people and equipment.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/14/2011 10:31:19 PM



Santa, I have much more experience with BTRs and LAVs than with actual stykers but the fact is the strykers are better than hummers but not by much in my opinion. If they are so damned great why do they try to hide the the extent of the damage being inflicted inflicted on them from congress. The E-7 is probably being truethful in what he is telling you but not being accurate. A freind of mine in theater sent me apicture of a styker taken out by an anti personnel mine. It disabled the front tire and had to have a tank retreiver come get it. That bird cage has actually saved lives because it makes the vehicle so top heavy that when it gets hit at high rates of speed it rolls and disapates the blast energy. And there are plenty of pictures out ther in cyberspace showing the strykers being keep under lock and key because the army didnt want any of them getting damaged until the last two bdes were paid for. Ask him if they are still forcing soldiers to reenlist for styker or get out.

Well an LAV is not a Stryker and has absolutely nothing to do with the Stryker other than sharing the same family line. Haha, and if you think  a Styker is a minor improvement over an uparmored HUMVEE then you are free to ride those death traps, I'll stick with the Stryker.
 
 
I highly doubt a Stryker was disabled by an anti personnel mine. They will run with 4 flat tires while the other 4 are on fire. I'm also going to call BS that the army is keeping them under lock and key. I know for a fact they deploy and are constantly being used, especially as QRFs.
 
And "renlist for Stykers" or get out? LOL, where do you hear this garbage? Since when was there a "Stryker indentifier" for 11B that would guarantee you get Strykers? LOL, who is feeding you this crap?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics