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
LB    Is that really a tank?   3/22/2011 4:06:39 AM
Seems a bit similar to the ideas behind the IS-2 through T-10 of a heavy tank designed primarily to engage other tanks.  An MBT engages all sorts of targets and often relies on it's machine guns.  A three man crew is one less guy doing maintenance and one less set of hands and eyes manning a machine gun or RWS.
 
If they require a 152mm what does that say about their 125mm and it's ammo?  It's difficult to believe they couldn't get enough performance out of a new 125 or 130mm tank gun, or even a 140mm, but apparently they can't.  Or perhaps this is just a prototype testing a gun they happen to have?  
 
It's rather interesting given the urban combat emphasis the Russians have shown with the BTR-T and BMPT.  It might indicate they are comfortable with more purpose built designs and are moving away from the MBT.  Pure speculation of course.
 
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       3/22/2011 4:11:57 AM
It makes a lot of sense.  There was a turretless tank invented precisely to keep people out of the turret because it's weak. 
 
The Abrams is pretty much a tank killing tank already.  This thing doesn't have machine guns?
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/22/2011 6:00:57 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.

Santa I truely wonder where you get your information from. BFT started replacing FBCB2 10 years ago. I was in Kuwait helping to installs of BFT before the war started. Before BFT was made workable they were experimenting hooking up TACSAT radios to FBCB2 for range extension.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/22/2011 6:07:02 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.
 
I guess this proves you are either to young to know there are better things out there than 4 wheel drive 8 wheeled vehicles or your just plain stupid.
ost of the 113snow are in bad shape because the army has not invested any money into them for a very long time. Your 4 WD vehicle is not very cross country mobile and cant carry enough armor on it to protect itself from anything. The bird cage overloads it before you add fuel,ammo and people. It had to drive 60 mph everywhere it went in Iraq to keep from being destroyed.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/22/2011 6:10:30 AM

there's a risk that some people will see BFT as a the acronym for a specific solution (widget) when its not.

BFT now refers to a multitude of companion systems achieving a requirement


eg all the BFT solutions in afghanistan etc are a combination of solutions and technologies - there's no single 
"widget"
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/22/2011 6:13:51 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.



Dumbass I work with military commo. Military radios as you know them will be radiaclly different in 10 years and yes they will be cell phone based.
 
Also dumbass many people believe it or not have a lot more experience with russian shit. Most of their comms still rely on vacuum tubes. Because of lack of working radios and incompetent odfficers and NCO's the commanding general of the russian division went forward to personally do a recon and as a result was ambushed and was shot 3 times. He almost died. If thats hurtful to people so what. Thats war snowflake.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/22/2011 6:18:19 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.


 


Snowflake I remember when people like you were demonstrating how great strykers were by showing how you van take a computer mouse and click on an icon representing an enemy and the enemy would majically die. All of us old infantry typs got a good laugh at that one because something has to go down range to kill the enemy and at the time stryker had next to nothing to do that with.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/22/2011 6:24:12 AM

Military radios as you know them will be radiaclly different in 10 years and yes they will be cell phone based.


the shift is already here... ROIP is in service in some units (mainly black but some green), and there are quite a few operational units testing 3G and 4G systems.

add in JTRS (or its successors using ROIP) and you can see the shifts already.....

i'd argue that cell/handy/mobile phones won't be the majority devices in 10 years as we already see that there are more "in demand" systems that are superior to 3/4G comms
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/22/2011 6:25:28 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.


 


Snowflake I remember when people like you were demonstrating how great strykers were by showing how you van take a computer mouse and click on an icon representing an enemy and the enemy would majically die. All of us old infantry typs got a good laugh at that one because something has to go down range to kill the enemy and at the time stryker had next to nothing to do that with.
BTW stryker is only rated at 60 mph and is so samned top heavy from that slant armor its a safety hazard even on the battlefeild. The 113 can carry a much heavier load than a strykerand can be fitted with reactive armor over 90% of its exposed side surfaces. And once again cupcake not study has ever shown the stryker is more survivable than a 113. No a 113 without Reactive armor wont stop an RPG but neither will a stryker with slant armor. Also are you aware that the A4 upgrade adds 3 feet to the length of the 113 hull?
 
You think you know alot but the things you know are just not true. Bet the mechanics have fun with you having you do things like get left handed screw drivers.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/22/2011 6:33:39 AM

They would have to overhaul their current armoured tactics to utilize the Leopards to their fullest potential.  If they used a tank like the Leopard the way they currently use their T80s and T90s they would lose a lot.  Current Russian doctrine would not well suit most Western MBT designs, IMHO.

 

As far as foreign sales goes, was it really doing all that well anyways?  I thought the only country to buy any significant number was India.


Yes Indian is the current largest purchasersof russian equipment however, because of russian production problems almost all of the T-90s being bought are being locally manufactured in india under licince the same way the M-1 is being made in Egypt. Sad thing is the indian modles of the T-90 will probably be of much better quality than the russian made. \\
 
Russian tank doctrine appears to be the same as it was in the soviet days. Try to run everything over. Thats why they lost somany tanks initially in chechnia. Doesnt matter where the taanks come from using them like that without dismounted infantry in normal combat operations is a recipe for disaster.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics