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    ok   4/3/2011 1:21:50 AM
Same thing you said to me. You can't make such statements, especially when it has no combat or even testing experience against Western systems. You have no idea what the EA-18G
 
 I doesnt matter western or not western... Physics is same for everyone. If TOR can shoot down easily missile 3 meters long, then missile with 4 meters long is not problem... even if its US 4 meters long... it is a physical object which is bigger, and has higher RCS than smaller object.
 
Jammers work just great against older or non sophisticated ground radars, which do not have strong digital signal processing capabilities. Power says alot. But even with lots of power you need high speed data converters on output of your antenna, to be able to sample the signal with good resolution and pass it to your digital system. Radars are complicated, everything together works in conjunction, it is not black and white thing. 
 
TOR's capability of shooting down R33M says alot. Plus, when the air defense systems work in network they can get designations from one another or multiple radars, that makes life of attacker 100 times harder. Jammer not gona solve all your problems. And taking out even one node of such a strong coupled system would require significant loss. Nothing comes for free, and nothing is as easy as its been shown on those Discovery channels. (Although, it can be easy if your enemy is Libya or Iraq)
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       4/3/2011 2:01:15 AM


its obvious that what you posted was nationalistic trash and disrespect to another nation.
 
And now you have nothing to do rather than post something about translation...letter issues...and other stuff, in other words to flood and somehow stabilize your position in this thread and take away everyones attention... You have failed in proving something and basically just do not know what to do now. 
Literally, what are you talking about?  I don't understand your words!  If anyone else does, please explain, but I think you will find that no one else here understands you either.  RedParadize, you are a Russian, right?  Can you tell me what he is talking about?  Anyone?  Bueller?

As for transliteration, I posted this because you insist on styling me Nichego when my handle is, in fact, Nichevo, for the reason given.  It's as if I called you ColdFish or StopStart.  Da ili nyet?

Sorry mate, cant help you. I am a french speaking Canadian... not even a real one. Cause for some obscure reason I seem to have understood you, was hard but yeah. Thats weird buy it could be almost be directly translated to french. Could be a pure coincidence...
 
Nichevo:
Can we all just get along now and concentrate our fire on red?
 
Why on me? just kidding. Some call me like that on skype. I know you are not talking about me. Same goes for Russia. should not be a problem for you too ColdStart, you are no more "red" anymore. lol  Note that its every enemy force are classified as red. Blue being the allied of any stripe. even us with our red and white flag are on the blue side. And yeah we have a public health care system!
 
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton    Cold   4/3/2011 4:26:57 AM
Wow, sorry for the late response, left the computer on with this still up...
The US and NATO have no reason to attack Russia, and they won't.

 

Then things will be just great! Peace and friendship. 

That would be nice, then hopefully the flamewars would end :)
 
You should be worrying about the Chicoms, flying aircraft you sold to them, instead.
 They tried once to do something, but then realized that was huge error. During Damanski conflict. The Su-35s sold to them and other stuff right now does not represent threat to Russia. Otherwise, it would not be sold. Also, note that anything what Russia sells out has reduced capabilities and technical characteristics.

Maybe that was the case 30-40 years ago, but things have changed in recent times, with the current Russian government willing to sell almost anything to anyone (For example, guess who the largest operator of the T-90 is.  Here's a hint: its not Russia).  The government right now is more concerned with staying financially afloat than keeping all their best toys.  Someone will have to help me out here but I believe that there was an article somewhere where members of the Russian military were expressing their anger over the government selling some of their new stuff to the ChiComs.
 
lets see it knock down an inbound HARM as a Growler blinds its radar with the best jamming system on the planet. I doubt the backup optical tracking system is even close to the same accuracy and PK that the radar provides.

 



Ok.. let me put it down in a technical way.


 

TOR-M2E system (even the export version...) on the open test firing range have downed the 9M33 missile of the OSA ADMS. (the old Soviet air defence missile). The length of 9M33 missile is 3 meters (!). Now.. The length of the HARM (and other modifications) missile is more than 4 meters.  So.. to be honest, shooting down the HARM would even be easier.

In your opinion.  Like you say below: Be careful with such statements, you have no idea of capabilities of another hardware produced in another countries.  The HARM is much, much more than a 4m long missile.  It has electronic capabilities that you simply cannot write off.  Herald may have to correct me on this but I believe that historically American missiles have been slower than their Russian counterparts, but more electronically active and utilizing more evasive manuvers making them more difficult to intercept.
 
About best jamming system on planet. Be careful with such statements, you have no idea of capabilities of another hardware produced in another countries, and you did not sit at the receiver with a Spectrum Analyzer figuring out the signal strength of each hardware. So you cannot commit such statements.

 
No, regrettably, we cannot go out and measure the effectiveness of the electronic systems of the of every country to satisfy all of the arguements of our little debate.  What we can do is make a safe judgment of the performance of certain weapons systems based upon their observed capabilities and the capabilities of the weapons and devices they will be pitted against, therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that since on average, Western electronics have been proven superior to their Soviet (or Russian) counterparts, then a Western jammer would be superior to a Russian one.

Now, about jamming...but on technical level again. In most of the cases, the power capabilities of ground systems are more than the aircraft systems. Because aircraft has many constraints, you cannot palce extremely powerfull transmitter on aircraft and jam everything around. There are always physical constraints and you not gona get away from them. That is why ground systems like TOR and S-300/400 have strong Signal-to-Noise and Signal-to-Jamming/Interference ratio. Thus, would be able to get a return from target and provide guidance to the missiles. And by the way, some of the missiles are fully automa
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   4/3/2011 5:23:40 AM
George - wrong.
 
First of all Iraq never had an air defense like Russia... All it had some isolated nodes, basically old unsupported equipment operated by their people. And its pretty lame to say that if B2 could go through that defense, then its not problem with modern Russian air defense. Be smarter please... Even chinese air defense cannot touch Russian one. They themselves rely mostly on Russian systems of older generation.
 
And if you think that if someone used to be better in electronics and now then makes better jammers... its wrong. Air defense systems is much more than electronics. You have no idea. 
 
And yes, interception of 3 meter long missile right above ground says A LOT to radar guy. Whereas you prefer just to ignore this fact, and trying to believe that there is some super magic inside HARM missile and it can make it through... if that makes your sleep better... you can do that :) but im a practical person, i prefer to believe in real things... and think logically.
 
Again... the hole point is, NATO/US would have hardest time penetrating air defense of Russia. Russian air defense was underestimated by your militaries before Vietnam... then remember what happened? Count please...look at numbers how many pilots dead and aircrafts destroyed... and that was not even direct war with Russia.. Easy to imagine whats gona happen with real war against Russia?... i dont think Discovery then would like to show any videos of it... 
 
Just be real...and accept things they are. Thinking that USAF can easily take out Russian air space...its silly. But if you dont piss off us, then no problems! Have a good long life, Americans. Good mood. And... dont fuck with Russia :)
 
If you do good - Russia will be kind and nice and not threatening at all. 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/3/2011 5:43:57 AM

FFS somebody needs to euthenase this thread.

It's making bluewings look like an expert.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    Sigh...   4/3/2011 1:00:09 PM

George - wrong.

 

First of all Iraq never had an air defense like Russia... All it had some isolated nodes, basically old unsupported equipment operated by their people. And its pretty lame to say that if B2 could go through that defense, then its not problem with modern Russian air defense. Be smarter please... Even chinese air defense cannot touch Russian one. They themselves rely mostly on Russian systems of older generation.

 The B2 was developed to do EXACTLY that. Penetrate a modern layered Soviet IADS. Maybe you should do some research before you ignorantly post stuff like you did above.

And if you think that if someone used to be better in electronics and now then makes better jammers... its wrong. Air defense systems is much more than electronics. You have no idea. 

 And apparently you have no idea of the capabilities of new systems and techniques developed to defeat modern IADS. Especially when such info is classified and not available for people like us. You think the US and other Western nations have not developed ways to counter Russian AA systems, especially when your government will sell them to almost any tinpot dictatorship. Thats a very foolish assumption Coldstart.

And yes, interception of 3 meter long missile right above ground says A LOT to radar guy. Whereas you prefer just to ignore this fact, and trying to believe that there is some super magic inside HARM missile and it can make it through... if that makes your sleep better... you can do that :) but im a practical person, i prefer to believe in real things... and think logically.

You still do not grasp the difference between optimized tests and real world conditions. You can claim tests show the superiority of your systems, but I refuse to agree until it has been combat tested. Oh and by the way, the track record of Russian AA systems in actual combat has proven to be VERY poor.
 

Again... the hole point is, NATO/US would have hardest time penetrating air defense of Russia. Russian air defense was underestimated by your militaries before Vietnam... then remember what happened? Count please...look at numbers how many pilots dead and aircrafts destroyed... and that was not even direct war with Russia.. Easy to imagine whats gona happen with real war against Russia?... i dont think Discovery then would like to show any videos of it... 

 That was BEFORE Vietnam, where US aircraft had not previously come up against modern (at the time) Russian AA. Once they did, and the losses were higher than previously anticipated, the US changed its tactics, introduced new defensive systems, and developed new strategies to deal with such systems (eg Wild Weasel missions). Same thing happened with Israel when fighting the Arabs in the 60's and 70's. Once they took initial losses from Russian AA systems, they quickly adapted and added new tech to their aircraft such as RWRs and JAMMERS.  Oh, and I don't get my information for the Discovery Channel, I sure hope you don't either.

Just be real...and accept things they are. Thinking that USAF can easily take out Russian air space...its silly. But if you dont piss off us, then no problems! Have a good long life, Americans. Good mood. And... dont fuck with Russia :)

I sure don't say they could easily penetrate a modern Russian IADS, but they could do it, if they had to. Again, such Russian systems have NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE, except for maybe when Georgia used your own AA systems against you to shoot down a Tu-22M that Russian commanders foolishly sent on a reconnaissance mission with no SEAD support whatsoever ;)
 

If you do good - Russia will be kind and nice and not threatening at all. 

If your country was actually respected by other nations, you wouldn't have to resort to bully tactics to get your way.

 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       4/3/2011 1:32:58 PM

Oh and I believe the Herald said, to paraphrase, if he had questions about the Stryker he would wait until a tanker was here. Yah, the only guys who are tankers that operate the Strykers are the ones using the MGS. Everyone else, for the most part (medical service/engineers), is infantry. Those guys are not tankers and have their regular MOS but are just qual'ed to operate the Stryker themselves.

Wrong and a lie. I said I would wait for someone who was an armor qualified and or a master gunner from whom to learn about armor-not a UH-60 helo pilot. (which I just learned you claimed.) 
 
As for Stinger, Hellfire, and Brimstone, you bleed over into MY area. Be careful. A missile does not care what target it sees if its sensor head can get a signal lock. You would be surprised how missiles can be used when the troops improvise.      
 
But enough with the nonsense.
 
==================================================================================
 
Generally feel free to expound upon or link to details re: Herald's,
Hint: the M1A1 originally did NOT use Chobham armor (1980) which is later than Burlington (1971). Just many of the principles and concepts of the British developed Burlington for the later American developed armor modules for the Abrams. We've since gone through at least TWO serious and different upgrades from the British armor module schemes on our little Abrams since 1990.
What's next (in passive)?
 
Who's excited about Israel's Trophy ADS?
 
Has not the Stinger in fact been adapted for air-to ground or for use on ground targets?  Since when or in time for which war/s?
 
And what WAS that with the padlock on the Stryker?  A tow hitch? Locking the field phone box?  What?  It sure looked like a padlock.  I am VERY reluctant to believe that it is a substitute for dogging the hatches to keep terrorists out.
==================================================================================
The answer about American armor schemes goes into restricted national research to defeat the effects of kinetic energy strikes in the 1980s that the British were very exorcised about at the time, themselves , especially after they saw the published late 1960s early 1970s Rheinmetal gun tests.
 
Tbe 1970s British research was originally oriented toward the 1960s HEAT threat that was the dominant thinking-especially after SAGGER and her sisters made a surprising good show in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war against Western armor.
 
The British Burlington schee was good at disrupting the linear path of the molten metal rod that formed the penetrating slug, jet, rod,  of a shaped charge effect warhead. How it did this is still restricted information, but density and thermal load zone differences are physics obvious.
 
Chobham was an attempt to improve Burlington to resist kinetic smash in general and sabot darts in particular.
 
Dorchester was a further effort to improve defense against kinetic strikes and HEAT mainly a rearrangement of the zonal schemes used in the original Chobham.
 
The chief difference between US and British systems is that the US system is more of a snapper and a diffractor than the British systems than a thermal load dissipator. In this the US has gone its own way. Whether that choice is wise depends on how you feel about uranium.         
 
Shrug. Both systems work. The US system has certain advantages (it may be cheaper and easier to make), but it has some drawbacks too. It may be denser overall and this may hinder depth of defense against molten metal penetrators.from the flanks.
 
As for the Israeli trophy system? Its worked TWICE in battle. No surprise there. RAFAEL engineering unlike certain US defense contractor generated solutions (LockMart), works.  
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton    like talking to a brick wall....   4/3/2011 2:29:06 PM
 
First of all Iraq never had an air defense like Russia... All it had some isolated nodes, basically old unsupported equipment operated by their people. And its pretty lame to say that if B2 could go through that defense, then its not problem with modern Russian air defense. Be smarter please... Even chinese air defense cannot touch Russian one. They themselves rely mostly on Russian systems of older generation.
 
Really?  What was that again about not knowing the capabilities of another country's hardware?  Just because you think that Russian air defenses could detect stealth aircraft doesn't make it so.  It makes you seem as you are grasping for straws to avoid addressing the facts.  Russian IADS are nothing special.  They have a few SAM systems, such as the TOR and the SA-12, which are very good.  The reason for these good systems is simple: it is easier and cheaper to build a good IADS than it is to build and support a large air force.  Russian air defenses have been good historically because their aircraft and pilots have been generally inferior to their Western counterparts.  That is simply a fact: we spend more money to train them, we train them longer, we give them better quality aircraft... and the list goes on.  But an IADS, Russian, American, French, whatever, is not a magical, invincible belt of ground where every aircraft dies instantly, stealth or not.  This isn't Command and Freaking Conquer.
 
And if you think that if someone used to be better in electronics and now then makes better jammers... its wrong. Air defense systems is much more than electronics. You have no idea. 
 
OK, then I will let you in all of your wisdom about jamming and radar systems tell me exactly what is needed (besides good electronics and power generation) to make a good jammer.  Because I'm pretty sure the strength of jamming and radar systems is dependent on the amount of energy you provide the jammer/radar.  I'm also pretty sure that better electronics=smaller power "cells" (whatever you want to call them) meaning you can provide more energy to a system within the same amount of space.  So yes, that would make having a better electronics industry just a little bit helpful in making better jammers/radar systems.  (Also, you should really hold off on telling someone "You have no idea" when you haven't exactly been a fountain of truthful information yourself so far).
 
And yes, interception of 3 meter long missile right above ground says A LOT to radar guy. Whereas you prefer just to ignore this fact, and trying to believe that there is some super magic inside HARM missile and it can make it through... if that makes your sleep better... you can do that :) but im a practical person, i prefer to believe in real things... and think logically.

Are you a radar guy?  I said that I believed that generally American missiles have more electronic support and programmed evasive manuvers than their Russian counterparts.  I never said that the HARM had any such things, but that you cannot write out the possibility that it might, and therefore make the HARM a little more difficult to shoot down than your SA-8 missile.
but im a practical person, i prefer to believe in real things... and think logically  ...If that was true bud you would have given up on this debate about 40 pages ago...
 
Again... the hole point is, NATO/US would have hardest time penetrating air defense of Russia. Russian air defense was underestimated by your militaries before Vietnam... then remember what happened? Count please...look at numbers how many pilots dead and aircrafts destroyed... and that was not even direct war with Russia.. Easy to imagine whats gona happen with real war against Russia?... i dont think Discovery then would like to show any videos of it... 
 
Who was it that said "This isn't the '60s anymore?   ...And you criticize us for citing examples from a sucessful war with another operator of near-current Soviet equiptment.  At least that was in the '90s.
By the same token of your arguement I could also say that the MiG-35 will shoot down the Raptor because in Vietnam the MiG-21 shot down the Phantom, and those weren't even, gasp...Russian MiG-21s!!!  Those could probably shoot down the Raptors all by themselves, because they're Russian!!!
 
Just
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/3/2011 6:06:44 PM





From what i know, and i am not a expert, the T80 is much more related in its philosophy to the T-64, not the T-72.

By the way, the T-64 was a more advanced tank than the T-72 (the early version, not the latest subvariant)



Dont just line them following their number. They dont have linear evolution.

Red,




Back in the day of the cold war the soviets deployed mostly T-80s in the areas facing the americans as they were supposed to be tougher and more heavily armoured than the T-64s. The T-64s were deployed further north in the flat lands areas because they were faster and were expected to be able to use the speed to outflank the US forces. The brits, french and german armies werent thought to be a big problem for the warsaw pact countries and they also didnt have much ammo.



Thank you, I didnt know that. Before the 80s, the german brits and french would surely have been crush by the the brute force of warsaw pact (given the nuke didnt decide the winner). But I think my original statement was correct right?


Red your statement was correct except after the fall of the soviet union when the russians left East Germany they took all of their equipment but left all of their records. We found out that fully 1/2 of all of their tanks AND APCs were completely non-operational. We also found that the Soviets had stockpiled 10 times more ammo than all of the NATO countries combined however less than 10% of it was usable. Most of the soviet equipment was in piss poor condition so their numarical superiority was meaningless.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/3/2011 6:14:51 PM






You've got to be the bigest dumbass posting here. Even the russians secur their vehicles from outside when they are parked. But a dumbass in stryker padlocled the door after the troops got in because they were scared of having a grenade thrown in. As far as the picture goes most countries dont put a worthless birdcage on their LAV IIIs.










Cool story bro. That's really funny since the door actually locks from the inside (just like every other armored vehicle including uparmored Humvees) so there is no need to pad lock it from the outside. Will your brain explode when you see this?

 

h**p://kwilson228th.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/m113.jpg


h**p://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M113A3_Modified_in_Iraq_lg.jpg

 

I have come to the conclusion you have never been in the military and are living vicariously through friends. Every armored vehicle in the military has a place to put a padlock on it to secure it at night or when the crew is not with the vehicle. There is a lever on the inside and outside of the hatch door so soldiers can exit the vehicle. Needless to say there is no reason to padlock the door when soldiers are in the vehicl and is a safety hazard. Someone in the company was so afraid an enemy would run up to the vehicle and open the hatch and toss in a grenade that he padlocked all of the stykers hatchec thinking the soldiers would be dropping ramp to get out. It was only when a vehicle slipped into the water and people drowned did they figure out this was a very very bad idea. You would know that if you were actually in the military.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics