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       4/5/2011 1:20:22 AM

Because they are placed on the wingtips. You "installed" them there. You should know.





Yah, but they're not put on Apaches.







Dumbass I ment to ask you why a rack of Hellfires and another of 2.75 in rockets have no effect on an apaches areodynamics but a very small Stinger would thow it completly off?






Never said I installed them did I.  I think instead of calling you snowflake I'm going to  call you Brokeback because you argue like a woman. You say things no one said and bring up just plain stupid stuff like the telling someone that the padlock on the back of the styker was to secure someones gear to the vehicle. Hint dumbass 1. Only Helocopters sling load equipment and 2. No one except you is stupid enoungh to secure their gear to the rear hatch for it to be crushed when the ramp is dropped.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/5/2011 1:23:12 AM






Spoken like a true never in the army dumbass. Guess you are one of those little snowflakes that has never figured out that people die in war. Hopefully its the other side that is doing most of the dieing part.










Go back a few pages. I already proved what I do. Your stories though, are still so full of shit that anyone who's been in for more than 3 months knows you're pulling lies from your ass.
Brokeback, There are guys posting here that admit to being 20 year old college students and they are smarter than you who claims to be a pilot. If you really are they sure have dropped the standards. BTW do you still have the red dot?

 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/5/2011 1:26:37 AM






Spoken like a true never in the army dumbass. Guess you are one of those little snowflakes that has never figured out that people die in war. Hopefully its the other side that is doing most of the dieing part.








Oh, and I guess that's why I'm always told, "We can get a new helicopter, but we can't replace the people inside." Seriously, just need to shut the hell up because when you say shit like you do, people who have no clue about the military actually believe it when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

That is why you think the equipment is important and the troops are expendable, because you have never served. Thus you will never understand what Duty, Honor, or Integrity mean. The words, "I will never leave a fallen comrade" have no meaning to you when they should be a part of how you live your life.


I know brokeback that you have never left your buddie beehind long enough to actually serve. People die in combat. If you can accept it get out. 
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       4/5/2011 1:42:09 AM

We have here...


3. We have someone who does not know why an M-113 with its slab sides and a low to ground bottom flat plate is a rolling coffin on tracks when it rolls over mines or is hit by anything worse than machine gun fire whereas the STRYKER APC just because it is wheeled and is HIGHER off the ground and presents angled plate  to the most likely direction of mine blast stands a better chance of survival against mines(Here's a hint: a wheel axle that snaps off and carries away a lot of the explsuve delivered work energy, as it flies off or deforms, sends less total shock directly into the hull than a whole track-laying mechanism that cannot be modularly sacrificed to the blast as a snap-off, .to prevent that shock. You'd at least think someone here would be a NASCAR fan and would know or understand about how they build to protect the pa/driver in the race-car 'egg' when you have major impact physics at work.) Mine explosions are not exactly collisions, but the principle about shock is the same; you sacrifice the vehicle perimeter to absorb shock over time and protect the crew compartment with snap offs and yield structures that reduce the transmitted shock to the vehicle by directing it around the 'egg' or into 'empty air'. The M-113 was never designed for that fail mechanism. It was a simple battle taxi BOX (the worst possible shape for mines)-made out of aluminum (the worst possible common metal to use when you make armor plate because it will not stretch and fail under shock like steel)  that stopped large caliber bullets and shell fragments from a near miss. The STRYKER does the same thing but is better against mines (see previous explanation).

 

The application of slat armor is all about premature detonation of shaped-charge explosive-compression effect munitions. The explosive compression wave that forces a soft metal liner (copper for example) into a molten metal slug that travels at almost Mach 8 or more. That slug before it cools down and cannot ,melt its way through plate, has only so many centimeters before it splatters and breaks cohesion. Armor plate actually helps the slug stay together long enough to transmit hit by forming a trapping medium for all that heat as the slug burrows through it. Air however us a GAS. If the slug spends enough time traveling through air, it cools, spreads, and splashes on even thin plate. The result is a scorch, some pitting, a piece of slat destroyed, and a badly frightened  crew in the vehicle. You can even determine the expected pre-detonation stand-off distance that will work by shooting an RPG or Munroe effect mine at test plate. You measure burn through and that gives you (after you calculate slug life-time) the stand off distance for the slat armor.

 
Herald, First off the predetenation statment. Nothing beats actual physical testing. However for HEAT rounds ther is a very simple formula 2.5 x warhead diameter = optimal detonation distance. Has to do with distance needed to form the energy cone. Thats also the reason the slant armor is only effective in protecting the styker from anti-personnel RPGs and not AT or dual purpose. Tends to detenate them at closer to optimal distance.
 
Your points on the 113 are valid however there is much more to vehicle survivability than just being able to run away from your enemy. There is maneuverability and cross country mobility as well as the ability to easily change weapons. Its by no means perfect but then niether the stryker nor the 113 were designed to be anything but battlefield taxis.  Also think about this. Why is it that the Israelis dont want the stryker and still use 113's? They get whatever they want from the US Congress and they have all of the advanced electronics they would ever want to put in them.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Let's just say    4/5/2011 1:50:36 AM
based on what you said and showed me, I am not going to take your evidence as you  gave it. Your validation can be Occamed as I just did above. And as for "Herald traps", ask around the site. 
Honestly Herald, I'm pretty sure your purposely "seeded mistakes" are really you talking about things you have no clue about and when people catch you on them you claim "Oh I meant to do that!".

 

Just to drive in the point. You call me a clerk even though I mentioned the flight helmet. How does a clerk get a hold of a flight helmet or a sealed document? You honestly expect me to believe that an intelligent person is unable to recognize the obvious when it is brought out in front of them? Intelligent enough to lay traps but too stupid to see the obvious? Please Herald, from someone who actually validated what they do, you have no proof of what you do other than wiki things. Which you like to change for your own benefit. I didn't want you to think I forgot that.



We have here...






1. Someone who doesn't know how countermeasures work or artillery or MISSILES, beyond what he reads in a book. Argument there runs into either pilot hubris, or clerk mentality. Haven't decided which one he is.






2 A Russian fanboi who uses cliche,thinking and is mentally deranged. He got electromagnetism wrong when he tried to criticize me and when challenged on photon spin (POLARIZATION-look it up.) ran for the hills. If he knows how a radar works or how to spoof it, then I am an anteater, 






3. We have someone who does not know why an M-113 with its slab sides and a low to ground bottom flat plate is a rolling coffin on tracks when it rolls over mines or is hit by anything worse than machine gun fire whereas the STRYKER APC just because it is wheeled and is HIGHER off the ground and presents angled plate  to the most likely direction of mine blast stands a better chance of survival against mines(Here's a hint: a wheel axle that snaps off and carries away a lot of the explsuve delivered work energy, as it flies off or deforms, sends less total shock directly into the hull than a whole track-laying mechanism that cannot be modularly sacrificed to the blast as a snap-off, .to prevent that shock. You'd at least think someone here would be a NASCAR fan and would know or understand about how they build to protect the pa/driver in the race-car 'egg' when you have major impact physics at work.) Mine explosions are not exactly collisions, but the principle about shock is the same; you sacrifice the vehicle perimeter to absorb shock over time and protect the crew compartment with snap offs and yield structures that reduce the transmitted shock to the vehicle by directing it around the 'egg' or into 'empty air'. The M-113 was never designed for that fail mechanism. It was a simple battle taxi BOX (the worst possible shape for mines)-made out of aluminum (the worst possible common metal to use when you make armor plate because it will not stretch and fail under shock like steel)  that stopped large caliber bullets and shell fragments from a near miss. The STRYKER does the same thing but is better against mines (see previous explanation).



 



The application of slat armor is all about premature detonation of shaped-charge explosive-compression effect munitions. The explosive compression wave that forces a soft metal liner (copper for example) into a molten metal slug that travels at almost Mach 8 or more. That slug before it cools down and cannot ,melt its way through plate, has only so many centimeters before it splatters and breaks cohesion. Armor plate actually helps the slug stay together long enough to transmit hit by forming a trapping medium for all that heat as the slug burrows through it. Air however us a GAS. If the slug spends enough time traveling through air, it cools, spreads, and splashes on even thin plate. The result is a scorch, some pitting, a piece of slat destroyed, and a badly frightened  crew in the vehicle. You can even determine the expected pre-detonation stand-off distance that will work by shooting an RPG or Munroe effect mine at test plate. You measure burn through and that gives you (after you calculate slug life-time) the stand off distance for the slat armor.



 



In the case of this argument, (and it is an argument) the only o
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/5/2011 2:01:21 AM
I'm sure your caliber gaff was a "trap" too.
based on what you said and showed me, I am not going to take your evidence as you  gave it. Your validation can be Occamed as I just did above. And as for "Herald traps", ask around the site. 




 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/5/2011 2:04:28 AM
BTW how does a clerk get a fully equipped flight helmet since he works admin, and that flight helmet would come from supply? Just curious. And as we all know it's not at all accounted for in the supply chain, because there's an infinite amount of helmets lying around.
 
To be frank. I doubt you actually work in rockets. There no possibility that anyone as stupid and lack as much common sense  as you could possibly work in such an intelligent field.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/5/2011 2:06:29 AM


Never said I installed them did I.  I think instead of calling you snowflake I'm going to  call you Brokeback because you argue like a woman. You say things no one said and bring up just plain stupid stuff like the telling someone that the padlock on the back of the styker was to secure someones gear to the vehicle. Hint dumbass 1. Only Helocopters sling load equipment and 2. No one except you is stupid enoungh to secure their gear to the rear hatch for it to be crushed when the ramp is dropped.


Only a dumb ass like you would even think of securing it to the ramp or would think that's where gear is stowed.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws    To Buzz and Herald   4/5/2011 2:16:55 AM
This is sort of stating the obvious, but I'll spell it out for you. When slim questioned if I really was a pilot and then those photos showed up, he just stopped posting because he knew he lost. He actually has enough common sense to know, "Hey maybe this isn't the fight I want."
 
So when both of you start blabbering and questioning the obvious, it doesn't make me look like a liar. It makes both of you look like idiots and liars. One, because you're too stupid to see the obvious. Two, by discrediting me, which at this point is quite difficult to do, it makes it look like you're trying to hide your own inadequacies. Just thought I'd throw that out.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Let's just say    4/5/2011 2:18:11 AM

Herald, First off the predetenation statment. Nothing beats actual physical testing. However for HEAT rounds ther is a very simple formula 2.5 x warhead diameter = optimal detonation distance. Has to do with distance needed to form the energy cone. Thats also the reason the slant armor is only effective in protecting the styker from anti-personnel RPGs and not AT or dual purpose. Tends to detenate them at closer to optimal distance.

That is for copper. What if the slug is formed from a liner made of TIN?.  

Your points on the 113 are valid however there is much more to vehicle survivability than just being able to run away from your enemy. There is maneuverability and cross country mobility as well as the ability to easily change weapons. Its by no means perfect but then niether the stryker nor the 113 were designed to be anything but battlefield taxis.  Also think about this. Why is it that the Israelis dont want the stryker and still use 113's? They get whatever they want from the US Congress and they have all of the advanced electronics they would ever want to put in them.

1. The Israelis being practical, when given their druthers, prefer to kangaroo their old Merkava tanks as their primary infantry carriers. 
2. The Israelis use M-113s for the same reason we still do. They're CHEAP, and better than nothing, as motor carriers and ambulances and CP carriers etc., under armor. STRYKERS are expnsive to buy and operate en masse. Israel is not a rich country.
 
As for cross-country....most of the ME fighting has been city fighting where wheels and V hulls work better against roadside bombs, or its been in flat terrain where the fighting requires dismounted infantry and tanks, or in terrain where the grade or the flotation .makes even an M-113 impossible to drive across.           
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics