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       3/23/2011 7:00:21 PM

BTW, I like how I completely trashed your comments about FBCB2 being removed and the only reply you have is, "BUT THE IDF USE THE 113 SO IT MUST BE GOOD!!!" And again, I'm going to ask you if you work on military comms why do I know your job better than you do?

 

And the only gripe you can bring about the Stryker is that one rolled over and some people died (which can happen ins ANY vehicle) but have no actual valid complaints. Instead you babble on like an idiot about how one rolled over and supposedly it was padlocked, which has nothing to do with the actual vehicle's performance.

 

How about you actually address my points instead of trying to strawman an irrelevant rollover accident. Oh right you can't because you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Still waiting for you to tell me what the Styker MOS is.


Santa, stay away from wiki and do a little research. Got to warn you but it will hurt your feelings when you se you are wrong on just about everything you believe to be true.

 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/23/2011 7:10:31 PM

just looking now..observing. How some loosers on this forum are getting some cheapo fake links written up by some internet yo-yo's as themselves which talk about how not advanced Russian weapons are. Especially its funny to see how they even manage to decline that USSR was not pioneer of space.

 

As i said before, thats not gona change the facts, you cant say that the sky is red, because everyone knows that its blue :)

 

So, go ahead, and continue...american dreams!


 

And of course all these bragging people, never probably had to do anything with technics or engineering, they hardly would be able to change a clutch in a simple car. 

 

lol what a narrow minded people are here mostly...



Cold, No one said that Russia wasnt a space pioneer. If it wasnt for the Soviets getting there first americans wouldnt have cared whether we went to space or not. Lots of good things came from the compitition. Including the computors we are using.  Humans tend to stagnate without compitition and strife. Thats what the cold war provided. Russia made advances which made the west try to do better. Both sides are still buying expensive toys which we will see the benefits of about 20 years from now that is the usual lag time between military research invention and its introduction to the civilin market. Flat panel TVs came from late 1970's USAF research to make flat panel displays for its jets. Microwave ovens came from radar research etc
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/23/2011 7:18:37 PM

and by the way, GLONASS does work. Its just not as much developed in commercial sector.

Cold, Dont recall anyone saying it didnt work. They are just having trouble getting sufficient satilites up there to make usible as it could be.
The US GPS system is still controled by the Gov't but the civilian sector has really advanced the recievers.  I remember the first GPS recievers the army had. They were huge and could track only one satillite at a time. It took about 10 minutes to get a position and cost about $250,000 a copy. Shortly before the Gulf war started they released the technology to private industry and started making 6 satillite recievers the size of cigar boxes. By 94 the actual GPS device was down to te level of a chip.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz    Lybian tank   3/23/2011 7:21:14 PM
Guys, Havent paid much attention to what tanks Lybia has now.  What is/was this Tank?
 
Destruction: A blackened wreck from Gaddafi's bombed-out armoured column outside Benghazihttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/22/article-1368633-0B43313300000578-242_964x407.jpg" width="964" height="407" />
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       3/23/2011 7:42:16 PM
Don't you talk rockets either, Coldmush.  
just looking now..observing. How some loosers on this forum are getting some cheapo fake links written up by some internet yo-yo's as themselves which talk about how not advanced Russian weapons are. Especially its funny to see how they even manage to decline that USSR was not pioneer of space.

 

As i said before, thats not gona change the facts, you cant say that the sky is red, because everyone knows that its blue :)

 

So, go ahead, and continue...american dreams!


 

And of course all these bragging people, never probably had to do anything with technics or engineering, they hardly would be able to change a clutch in a simple car. 

 

lol what a narrow minded people are here mostly...



 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/23/2011 8:14:49 PM
Herald really? wow.
 
 
Oh... Libya... one more bombed banana republic to show the superiority of US technological advancement in weapons :) Who's next? just wondering :)
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       3/23/2011 8:22:04 PM
Yes, you clueless CLOWN, don't talk rockets
Herald really? wow.

 

 

Oh... Libya... one more bombed banana republic to show the superiority of US technological advancement in weapons :) Who's next? just wondering :)



 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/23/2011 9:05:36 PM

and by the way, GLONASS does work. Its just not as much developed in commercial sector.
it would be nice if you could make the effort to read what was said about GLONASS than make an assumption first.
 
feel free to find anywhere in the thread history about GLONASS not working - the issue is about constellation effectiveness.  there is a specific number of satellites that are required to narrow down time slices, fields of view and overlap.
 
the GLONASS constellation does not meet the preferred numbers - something the russians themselves admit and which is why they are attempting to increase constellation footprint.
 
the replacement rate is lower than the attrition rate.
 
this effects the military utility as well, commercial coverage is irrelevant when its principle requirement is deficient - again, something that the russians have acknowledged and are attempting to address - hence their enthusiasm to get india to co-fund future launches to address the attrition and decay rate.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton       3/23/2011 9:15:06 PM
Oh... Libya... one more bombed banana republic to show the superiority of US technological advancement in weapons :) Who's next? just wondering :)

 

A "banana republic" whose certifiably insane leader has massacred hundreds of his own people and funded, supplied, and sheltered terrorists while at the same time threatening Western reporters along with anyone else who opposes his rule?  If NATO had not intervened he would right now be slaughtering his own citizens who oppose his rule and are trying to gain freedom from his oppressive, extremist government.  The US is not taking the lead this time, only providing support for those European nations who are involved in the NFZ.  If anything it is an opportunity to show the effectiveness of the Typhoon, Rafale, Storm Shadow, MICA, etc.  You would do well to do some research about the situation first before making comments about how others are handling it, especially seeing as Russia has quite a laundry list of its own when it comes to picking on smaller countries.
 
The Western world does not arbitrarily engage in military acts just to show off our military might to those who do not need to be told how formidable we are.  I can point to several examples during the Cold War when the Soviet leadership involved itself in places it did not belong in order to flex its political and military muscle in front of the West or to quell uprisings of countries doing much the same thing that the Libyan people are now doing (the word Budapest comes to mind).
 
"Who's next" is more along the line of what the Saudis and Iranians were asking in 1979.  At least the US and NATO are actually bettering the places they go to and leave peacefully afterwards when the mission is accomplished instead of being tossed out by the local thug govenment.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/23/2011 9:30:57 PM
Herald, stfu, you cant probably solve basic math equations, and here you talk high ass about rockets. just shut up.
 
GerorgeSPatton, oh really.. you means it becomes better after NATO bombs someone? Very interesting :) lets launch SS-18 to your town and see how better its gona be for you and your family :) 
 
And... what about CIA sponsoring Osama long time ago? There are no good guys or bad guys, and you are not the judge.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics