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       3/20/2011 10:07:31 AM

Someone tried to say that tanks needed to bed themselves in like SP artillery...I've never seen that, anywhere...and if the M-60 carried two rounds for a hit, it was because the crew was not that good, or they were using the older M60a1 FCS.  Bottom-line: tanks don't bed in. 

 

And I believe the same commenter has a case of the @rse with the Stryker...all I can say is that the US has NOT had the same experience that the USSR had with the BTR, series...no where near 1,300 Strykers have been lost.

 

And chicken wire and the like DO work against early RPG's because they "short" the fusing on the RPG, later models have a better fuse.  Chicken wire OR Slat Armour work,  because, also, they disturb the RPG jet....the front cone may be for aerodynamics AND stand-off, but when detonated further from the target by armour, they dissipate the armour-piercing jet, as I understand it.

 

Seems to be some misunderstanding about the Stryker, which is NOT the LAV...the Stryker isn't the M-2/3, but it is worlds and away better than a HMMWV. 

J you are either to young to remember the old M-48/60 tanks and the tank doctrine  at the timeor you didnt read what I was saying closely enough. I used the SP bedding as an analogy. Because of the recoil of the main gun the tank would shift greatly reducing the probablity of a first round hit. The longer range the shot the increased probability of a miss or a nonfatal hit. Had nothing to do with how good the crew was. When the army was changing the M-1 to 120mm from 105mm it reduced its ammo capacity by about half and that caused quit an uproar among people who did not understand that the targeting improvements of the M-1 gun system and the larger caliber gun system mad it unnecessary to have to carry so many rounds.

 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/20/2011 10:20:14 AM

is a Soldiers for the Truth sort...no the m-113 is NOT better than the Stryker...but keep on talking about rigged tests if you must.

Spoke from someone who know very little about armored vehicles. Strykers only advantage is that it has a ton of electronics in it. No test has ever been conducted that showed the stryker is more survivable against any threat than the 113. None. The tests at Ft Campbell were rigged to show the stryker was better. For the money it cost to buy a stryker bde the army could have upgraded every 113 to the A4 configuration with a hybrid drive engine with a whisper quiet battery only mode and band track. Even the older models of 113s are more cross country mobile than the stryker and much more maneuverable. And you dont have to keep airing up the tires. The old 113 is not a super vehicle and was also originaly meant to be a battlefield taxi.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/20/2011 10:34:53 AM

















About the mortar. It's computer controlled and fully automated other than the loading. It is incredibly accurate and you can even program the computer to fire a present pattern. Plus, since the Stryker is linked to BFT, you can imagine the possibilities there.














I've been luck enough to see some of the BFT handheld gear trialled by the Manchus a few years back..  it was part of a DARPA exchange at an Aust land warfare conf.






is the stryker gear a legacy of what was trialed by the manchus?  the M,anchu gear was truly spectacular





I don't know what you saw years ago so I can't really comment. But if it was anything similar to a satellite map with a live feed of everyone's status and location on an MGRS system, then yes. BFT is actually on the next generation now and it's call ed FBCB2 but it's the same thing with a few improvements and much faster in updating now. But every vehicle in the Army is now equipped with it and they're trying to put one on each soldier.

 

As for the Styker mortar, the crew doesn't need to dismount when they fire it. I don't think there's much recoil, if any from the mortar.And that mortar is a beast. People have told me it's flattened targets that 155mm couldn't. But anyways, the thing about the Stryker isn't only that it's connected to the BFT, but it's systems are integrated with it. Like the mortar can pull grids from the BFT and shoot based on those. Those Strykers cost ~$7 million a pop, and most of it is the technology on it. It is without a doubt the most technologically advanced land warfare system in the world. And with everything it does, it can be a theater level asset.



FBCB2 is an antiquated Line of site system that has almost been completely removed from the army.  Yes you are correct the electronic make it more expensive than any piece of equipment in the field. But remember all of that expensive stuff is only as good as the people behind it that are supposed to use it and maintain it. 
As far as the 113s go its quite possible the vehicle you rode in was a piece of crap. Thats what happens when you don't envest money in upkeep and upgrades of a vehicle. Imagine what it would be like to deploy with your stykers, return to the states and then deploy with them again. You would be well less than impressed with them too. Strykers need a tremendous amount of work on them after they return from deployments.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/20/2011 10:40:26 AM
The problem with the 152 mm gun is that it severely limits the amount of ammunition that your tanks can carry, and doesn't really significantly increase your ability to kill the enemy tank.  There is currently no deficiency in the 120mm gun's (or even the 125mm's) ability to kill current MBTs as long as they are using the proper ammunition.  In all likelihood the biggest size we will probably see made practical will be the 140 mm, and even then not for some time.

You are absolutely correct on all points. The end result of this russian program may just result in a more mobile SP Howetzer that can keep up with their tank maneuver elements. That BTW has been the dream of the arti folks in the US military since WW2
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/20/2011 10:45:20 AM

I would explain it to you, but when US forces are digitally connected and Russian forces are so far backwards they were using personal cell phones to communicate with each other during the Georgian conflict...It'd be like me trying to explain to a caveman what a nuclear weapon is.





It's just not the embed systems on it that make it so advanced. There are systems, which I'm am not sure can be discussed online, that make these incredible pieces of hardware.







wow... like internal device to travel in space and time
First you just backed up one of my statements that Russian army commo didnt work at in the georgian invasion. Next appearently you havent been readying any newspapers as there have been stories of late on the US army going to cell phones too. Androids I believe.




 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/20/2011 10:51:29 AM

i already did point out 1000 times that Russians did not use any high tech in Goergian conflict. And yes we did soldiers most of the time with very minimum. But come on... do you think you can connect digitally your forces and we cannot? We cant make radio? We cant make digital communication devices? Everything exists in our army and can be deployed when needed in serious conflict, there is no need to expose it now. Only USA does such kind of things - beats weak enemy and demonstrates to world how their High-Tech stuff cool is, and how great it works, and then after that bragging here - on internet forums, trying to prove that its gona be same way with Russia. Dream on. :)
Cold if believing that makes you happy then fine. American military doctrine used to be use the minimum force initially necessary at first to overwhelm the enemy. Conserve resources and hide true capabilities. However soviet/russian military doctrine has always been to use overwhelming force to insure victory. The fact is the russian gov't grossly neglected it military even in times of plenty. Russia is a big country that is as hard to defend as it would be to invade.

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/20/2011 11:04:47 AM
There are so many things wrong with the 113 it's not even worth mentioning. And it wasn't just 1 I rode in. When I first joined, that was my primary form of transportation. I'll just say this. There isn't anyone in the Army, including myself that wishes for the good old days of the track.


is a Soldiers for the Truth sort...no the m-113 is NOT better than the Stryker...but keep on talking about rigged tests if you must.




Spoke from someone who know very little about armored vehicles. Strykers only advantage is that it has a ton of electronics in it. No test has ever been conducted that showed the stryker is more survivable against any threat than the 113. None. The tests at Ft Campbell were rigged to show the stryker was better. For the money it cost to buy a stryker bde the army could have upgraded every 113 to the A4 configuration with a hybrid drive engine with a whisper quiet battery only mode and band track. Even the older models of 113s are more cross country mobile than the stryker and much more maneuverable. And you dont have to keep airing up the tires. The old 113 is not a super vehicle and was also originaly meant to be a battlefield taxi.

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/20/2011 11:07:29 AM
FBCB2 is not line of sight. It has not been almost completely removed from the Army so whoever told you that is full of crap. Every vehicle in the inventory is installed with it. The amount of wrong information you are throwing out is ridiculous.



































About the mortar. It's computer controlled and fully automated other than the loading. It is incredibly accurate and you can even program the computer to fire a present pattern. Plus, since the Stryker is linked to BFT, you can imagine the possibilities there.






























I've been luck enough to see some of the BFT handheld gear trialled by the Manchus a few years back..  it was part of a DARPA exchange at an Aust land warfare conf.














is the stryker gear a legacy of what was trialed by the manchus?  the M,anchu gear was truly spectacular











I don't know what you saw years ago so I can't really comment. But if it was anything similar to a satellite map with a live feed of everyone's status and location on an MGRS system, then yes. BFT is actually on the next generation now and it's call ed FBCB2 but it's the same thing with a few improvements and much faster in updating now. But every vehicle in the Army is now equipped with it and they're trying to put one on each soldier.



 



As for the Styker mortar, the crew doesn't need to dismount when they fire it. I don't think there's much recoil, if any from the mortar.And that mortar is a beast. People have told me it's flattened targets that 155mm couldn't. But anyways, the thing about the Stryker isn't only that it's connected to the BFT, but it's systems are integrated with it. Like the mortar can pull grids from the BFT and shoot based on those. Those Strykers cost ~$7 million a pop, and most of it is the technology on it. It is without a doubt the most technologically advanced land warfare system in the world. And with everything it does, it can be a theater level asset.









FBCB2 is an antiquated Line of site system that has almost been completely removed from the army.  Yes you are correct the electronic make it more expensive than any piece of equipment in the field. But remember all of that expensive stuff is only as good as the people behind it that are supposed to use it and maintain it. 


As far as the 113s go its quite possible the vehicle you rode in was a piece of crap. Thats what happens when you don't envest money in upkeep and upgrades of a vehicle. Imagine what it would be like to deploy with your stykers, return to the states and then deploy with them again. You would be well less than impressed with them too. Strykers need a tremendous amount of work on them after they return from deployments.


 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/20/2011 11:17:12 AM

First you just backed up one of my statements that Russian army commo didnt work at in the georgian invasion. Next appearently you havent been readying any newspapers as there have been stories of late on the US army going to cell phones too. Androids I believe.



This comment is so far off base.
 
h**p://www.sofcoast.com/weblog/2010/11/signals-drumbeats-real-men-use-android.html
 
Try actually reading the article first. 1 They didn't switch because there was a failure in US radios or comms. 2 It's not a cell phone, they just want to use the OS. 3 They're building a new type of radio that uses the android OS, not using cell phones in combat.
 
The amount of ignorance and purposely warped information because people's pride is hurt for being wrong on the internet is just incredibly immature.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/20/2011 11:33:27 AM
Oh one last thing about the 113s being upgraded. That is such an off base comment. Strykers are expensive because of all the electronics inside of them. That composes 2/3s of their costs. So you couldn't get upgraded 113s for a cheaper price, unless you opted out all the electronics and get incredibly less effective vehicles. And I will tell you right now that all those gadgets save lives.
 
And you could never get the same performance out of a 113. The Stryker can go 70-80 mphs fully loaded with slat armor. The 113 is lucky if it makes it to 40mph. Try putting slat armor on that 113 and see how fast it moves. And you will need it unless you're dumb enough to think a 113 will stop an rpg. And since Strykers are faster, they're much harder to hit with IEDs/EFPs. Plus, you can't fit all the electronics inside a 113 that the Stryker has because there is no room, plus you'd have to install a cooling system. Good luck trying to get a decent amount of dismounts into the vehicle after that.
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics