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       3/2/2011 10:04:21 PM
- No, that's exactly why the Russians needed an auto loader. The shell is 5mm larger in diameter. It's heavier, meaning a human loader gets tired quicker. Sorry you are too stupid to understand that.

Santa, As it was explained to me many years ago the soviets main goal was quantity over quality. Smaller size tank means you can build more tanks with the same resources. Smaller tank also means zero extra space in the turret. Thats also why the typical russian/soviet tanker is rather on the small side. There just isnt room in the turret to have a loader or to manually load rounds into the main gun. When I was active army I weighed 190 lbs at almost 6 feet tall and well less than 10% body fat and I had trouble getting in and out of T-72's. The T-72M's with its extra electronics was so crowded inside my body was against the breach of the gun.
 
I just remembered something else about the T-72 and that it is close to impossible to drive the thing buttoned up. Fisibility sucks when the hatch is down and that greatly reduces the tanks cross country ability in combat and greatly decreases its combat effectiveness.
 
I have been to ukraine many times and all of the clowns think they have the best tank in the world and every other ex soviet country believes their tank is the best.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    stupidity   3/2/2011 10:06:18 PM
Actually its all you who look as impotent fanboys of US army, cuz you are very agressive ignorant and heavily biased.
 
This guy told me 1000 times that human is faster than machine, and i did not even argue with that, what i basically told is in combat situation thats not gona be always the case, but loader which was designed and tested already proved itself so many times and it is a robust piece of hardware which will work well most of the time in nearly any condition, with some small trade off in recharging speed. Now is this clear? oh no...its probably not, you stil gona throw out some sh!t.
 
 
 again message to stupids saying "West spent enough time on tanks etc"... i pointed out thats not the case, look into history damnit, look at number of serious tank battles Russia has been involved into, and US has involved into... but dont put Iraq war here... poor Iraq, stop fighting with kids at last lol... it was not much of a tank vs tank battle in Iraq, you just used nearly everything you had except nukes...and then moved tanks... real tank battles there were minimal...and they dont reflect the quality and ability of ur tank forces.
 
so: earlm if you were history student you are stupid then... i count facts, i dont count what some retarded individuals on west biased forum think it is.
 
 
and again...in Georgia its completely different story, Russia did not want to deploy full power, and did not even used any modern warfare technics there, as in case with Chechnya... and you stupid western morons immediately start thinking that its because they cant do it as good as US can... wtf.. what is there what your people can do and we Soviet people cant? You are more smart? brave? agile? what? why on earth is that self confident feeling!? why? some fatass stupid people go online and write shit... actually i dont care much cuz its not gona change anything but still you always confuse people! you always try to put in your stupid propaganda!
 
 
 Russians used to fight in Chechnya without any major air support, and in Georgia too (to be honest it was not much of fight in Georgia... unfortunately Georgian army run away pretty quick, they are not much of a warriors, compared to Chechens who showed the good skills of street and contacts warfare). But even given such tough conditions and constraints they did well, and in Chechnya there were "green" unskilled people fighting, just 18 years old with NO air support communications satellite intelligence etc...
 
 
 Your soldiers would not even live a day without all those nice toys, so dont talk too much with such a high attitude, people still know the truth.
 
 You clowns who brag here about tanks probably will not be able to change a clutch in a simple car, but you know damnit the important technical details of tanks! sure!

 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    stupidity   3/2/2011 10:10:22 PM
Buzz, so it turns out you are a Georgian who once served in Soviet military? You probably was a shitty soldier, abused alot by other soviets, and now probably sitting somewhere in western country showing urself as hero and blaming Russians. And who knows maybe there was something else what affected your mental mood LOL
 
disappear, you dont deserve even a penny of attention.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    stupidity   3/2/2011 10:14:08 PM
LOL this idiot even could not get in/out of tank fast. And maybe that was another reason why you many times got beaten by the officers there. Such people like you were failures in Soviet army, during 30s you'd be killed pretty much im sure!
 
Tank is not supposed to be limousine for you, fatass moron, its a war machine, you understand that? WAR MACHINE, for WAR, not for convenience and fun.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/2/2011 10:16:50 PM

In Georgia Russians did not even deploy fully... they did not used any advanced or state of the art technics, and they also sent young guys there, just to be trained and feel smell of war, thats always how they did to keep it up... For example in Chechnya they could end it up for two days if they wanted to...but didnt do that, same thing could apply to Georgia, they could capture the whole Georgia and change their government, but just didnt do that. The main point of all that conflict was testing the export version of TOR-M1 air defence...which was used against them themselves! Its not USA for you...which uses its latest technologies to beat weak countries and then brag alot. And even with newbie crew and soldiers they still kicked the sh1t out of Georgian army...which by the way escaped...and thats how it ended...and the result is Georgian army does not control the territory it wanted to.. so...nothing much impressive. And dont skip topics plz, initially we were talking about T90 abrams comparison, not about how old T72 get shot... thats obvios...nothing much special in it.

Coldstart now you are just fabricating anything you can to defend your point of view. That division that invaded has been on the georgian border since I believe 1993 and could more correctly be called merc's and most of the soldiers had been there for several years. They are the most highly paid soldiers in the russian army. They are Ruassias best and it was a full deployment as well as a total fiasco for the russian military. None of their radios worked and they couldnt even coordinate attacks. They barely were able to win against a 4th rate army. Please try not to lie so badly in future posts.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       3/2/2011 10:17:20 PM

And by the way, I do like US hardware, but to be honest American tank forces never were so bright over history.

You need to read some history of the US armor campaigns in France of 1944, I think. It is my experience that the Russians in general know as little about the American campaigns as Americans know about the Russian campaigns. For example, did you know we had our own version of Grigory Kulik? The American incompetent was Leslie McNair. He may be responsible for as many as 50,000 unnecessary Allied deaths because of the mistakes he made with the up-gunning of the Sherman tank, when we needed better anti-tank performance for that tank. Remember how Kulik delayed the long 76 for the T-34 and then caused major production confusion? I think one of your historians said that his obstinance over that, and a few other ordnance decisions like it, cost a half million Russian lives.

Soviet/Russian tank forces seen much more tank battles than you did

In WW II yes. Today? Not at all. And if we are going to talk modern clown campaigns let's not bring up Chechnya where your armor forces performed miserably. And we can also not bring up Afghanistan as well. Those actions were debacles. The Russians learned from those mistakes and did much better in Georgia.

(clown wars in Iraq doesnt count).

Sorry, 73 Easting DOES count. The Republican Guard Tawalkana Divisiom had weather, terrain, position, and sheer numbers in a well planned defense. A troop of the 2nd Cavalry Brigade still ripped them into pieces in a meeting engagement. It was something that you must count. .

Analysis.

http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html


article on 73 Easting

During WWII they faced the most modern at that time German tanks in the main most difficult battles,

In 1941 through 1943, the Russians fielded, on paper, the better tanks. There were no Panthers or Tigers in large numbers before Kursk. The main German tanks in the east when they were tearing the Russian armies apart were the PZKW III and IV. Neither tank was really that well gunned in those years. German infantry and anti-tank artillery were the T-34 stoppers not German tanks. After Kursk you might have an argument, but losing five million infantrymen prior to Kursk to learn how to finally use tanks at Kursk shows me that it was a costly two years as your armor troops tried to learn their trade.

It wasn't just the Russians Army that went through it though. Kasserine Pass and the defensive debacle in the Sicily landings and Salerno were the American learning curves. The hedge wars in Normandy, the Goodwood defeat in front of Caen where we trusted the British to meet their announced goals, and our related Cobra/Falaise encirclement debacle where we failed to close the bag, showed that there still was still a lot for the US Army to learn in 1944.

Tank industry during all those days and during cold war was on one of the top priority things there. During some time before 50s there was even separated ministry for tank industry.

The tank army with offensive infantry supporting tanks saved Russia in the end. The Red Army leadership took that lesson to heart. Tactical air power and tanks that were armed with tank killing guns (Battle of the Bulge) saved the United States Army. The US Army took that lesson to heart. Different tanks resulted from those different lessons

The point is that the different tanks are good tanks for their users. The tanks may look like 'tanks', but they are not used the same way, or should not be. I don't have to break a track or fuel the beast to analyze HOW a tank is designed to be used. Its part of what I do, though as I said my thing is rockets and missiles and how those are specifically are used.

You are trying to comp

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/2/2011 10:19:06 PM
No, there is an actual study out there where the US tested auto loaders. They came to the conclusion that human loaders were faster for 120mm shells while 125mm shells were much heavier and it was better to have an auto loading system. It was tested after the wall fell and the US got their hands on T72s from East Germany.

Santa, As it was explained to me many years ago the soviets main goal was quantity over quality. Smaller size tank means you can build more tanks with the same resources. Smaller tank also means zero extra space in the turret. Thats also why the typical russian/soviet tanker is rather on the small side. There just isnt room in the turret to have a loader or to manually load rounds into the main gun. When I was active army I weighed 190 lbs at almost 6 feet tall and well less than 10% body fat and I had trouble getting in and out of T-72's. The T-72M's with its extra electronics was so crowded inside my body was against the breach of the gun.

 
Quote    Reply

Dmitri514     SantaClaws: Its the pictures of GEORGIAN T-72   3/2/2011 10:21:37 PM
Its the pictures of GEORGIAN T-72 you clown! Here is a few more links for you:

/> />
Notice any similarities?
 
You didnt even notice kp.ru logo on the photo, meaning its the russian news agency!
What an idiot!

 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/2/2011 10:27:10 PM
Not to point out the obvious but there is no difference between the quality of a Russian T72 or a Georgian T72, or how pretty they look when their turrets catch on fire and explode, IDIOT!
Its the pictures of GEORGIAN T-72 you clown! Here is a few more links for you:



/>
/>


Notice any similarities?

 

You didnt even notice kp.ru logo on the photo, meaning its the russian news agency!


What an idiot!



 



 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/2/2011 10:30:10 PM

USA Lost more than 2000 aircrafts in Vietnam when they faced Russian air defence systems, and as a result got asses kicked completely. So here is what it happens when you see real challenge... more precisely, people like you turn out to be ineffective stupid and slow. You have no any balls challenging someone who is strong. At least Russia did not use any of its high tech toys to settle up conflicts in Georgia and Chechnya, and still did ok...result tells by itself, Georgia was down and begging for help from France and UN... now what else you want to bring on? What other talks? You even started swearing now, which tells you even have weak nerve system.
Coldstart get you hands off the vodka bottle. First we didnt get our asses kicked in Vietnam, we simple quit playing. Congress wouldnt let us fight to end the war. The South Viets did quite a good job kicking the crap out of the N Viet forces for two years and then the democrat congress cut off funding to the S Viet govt to pay for the war.  True we lost a lost of planes for a variety of reasons including high op tempo, low altitude ground support missions attract a lot of gunfire and make it very difficult to evade missiles. We lost several aircraft to dogfights in the first year of the war but that was due to training deficiencys which was corrected and then we swept the skies of all russian made aircraft until we left. NV pilots would not even take off if an american fighter was anywhere near their airbase. The B-52 losses were from treachery from our so called french allies feeding the NV's information on our bombing scheduals and heading allowing the NV's to mass AA Misssiles in the direction they would be flying from and our AF generals mandating the stupidity of having every plane fly the same course at the same altitude making them sitting ducks. It wasnt that the russian stuff was all that good its just with so many targets and so many oppertunities someone was going to get lucky.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics