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
JFKY    *WOW*   3/18/2011 12:47:50 PM
750mm RHA penetration on the RPG-32....that'll get about 60% of the way thru the frontal armour of the M-1....
 
Now from the side the M-1 or the T-90 or any tank is vulnerable, to the Panzerfasut....Modern tanks aren't invulnerable, they just have very thick armour-equivalents on likely strike zones...hit an MBT from side or rear and it's just as vulnerable as the M-4 Sherman or the T-34.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/18/2011 3:30:29 PM
I would explain it to you, but when US forces are digitally connected and Russian forces are so far backwards they were using personal cell phones to communicate with each other during the Georgian conflict...It'd be like me trying to explain to a caveman what a nuclear weapon is.


It's just not the embed systems on it that make it so advanced. There are systems, which I'm am not sure can be discussed online, that make these incredible pieces of hardware.



wow... like internal device to travel in space and time
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/18/2011 10:09:44 PM
i already did point out 1000 times that Russians did not use any high tech in Goergian conflict. And yes we did soldiers most of the time with very minimum. But come on... do you think you can connect digitally your forces and we cannot? We cant make radio? We cant make digital communication devices? Everything exists in our army and can be deployed when needed in serious conflict, there is no need to expose it now. Only USA does such kind of things - beats weak enemy and demonstrates to world how their High-Tech stuff cool is, and how great it works, and then after that bragging here - on internet forums, trying to prove that its gona be same way with Russia. Dream on. :)
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/18/2011 10:15:00 PM
* We did Send soldiers most of the time with very minimum.
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton       3/18/2011 10:16:09 PM

and again you make assumptions (poor assumptions) and stil trying to think of it the way it was in 70s. your' fine with that. continue, no harm in this :) Yes financially we are not strong as you, but that doesnt mean we cant build neat things for affordable price, especially when it comes to national defense.
 
If you think that it is unreasonable to assume that currently, (given that economically Russia currently is further behind than they were in the 70s-80s and most of the Western world is further ahead) the tech gap has not closed significantly in areas where the West has historically maintained a technological lead, then I'm not sure how we can continue this discussion reasonably.  I am using data that is readily available to a person of my clearence and simply using it to make reasonable judgement calls on the capability of Russian equiptment.  If you feel that this is some way in error, please post why and provide some evidence to back it up.
 If we need something, we'll do it. We proved it many times already.
 
I directly refered to this my remark a couple of posts back about the comparison of the F-16 and MiG 29.
 

About tank range again, yes they dont drive up to empty tank, thats why it means effective range of Abrams is even less. And RPG7 was best case example, and yes it was damaged.
 
Just because a tank can drive further doesn't mean it will.  There is a limit to how many miles a tank can drive in a day of combat, and that usually (unless I am mistaken) falls short of their total range.  Maybe the T-90 can drive further than Abrams on one tank of gas, but in normal combat with the same logistical tail both Abrams and T-90 will be refueled at the same time well before they run out of gas.  Someone else is going to have to help me out here but the furthest advance of armour on a modern battlefield with a good logistical tail has been far less than their maximum driving range.
 I dont think Abrams would have chance with RPG32.
 
 
Neither would the T-90, that is a moot point.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/18/2011 10:47:51 PM

i already did point out 1000 times that Russians did not use any high tech in Goergian conflict. And yes we did soldiers most of the time with very minimum. But come on... do you think you can connect digitally your forces and we cannot? We cant make radio? We cant make digital communication devices? Everything exists in our army and can be deployed when needed in serious conflict, there is no need to expose it now.
Maybe they should have instead of shooting down their own planes. "Let's not expose our tech! We'll kill our own people in friendly fire accidents instead!"
 
It's a toss up between your excuse or you being the dumber of the two.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/18/2011 10:51:16 PM

We cant make radio? We cant make digital communication devices?

Can Russia make a secure non jammable radio similar to the PRC90?
 
And, lol, no. You can't make a system similar to BFT. That statement alone shows how ignorant you are. The US controls all GPS satellites. Please tell me how Russia is going to develop a tracking system based on MGRS when the US holds the keys to making it possible.
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton       3/19/2011 1:58:11 AM

i already did point out 1000 times that Russians did not use any high tech in Goergian conflict. And yes we did soldiers most of the time with very minimum.
That does not make for very smart combat sense. War is not meant to be fair.  You send your troops in with the best equiptment you can in order to get the job done with the minimum amount of casualties possible.  Honestly, Russia did not need to stick its nose into Georgia.  If it wanted to keep its capabilities a secret so badly, they could have stayed on their own side of the border.  Instead, they cost themselves and the Georgian people hundreds of casualties and created an international incident which may very well drive many of their former satellite states into NATO membership and put themselves in the European Dog House for some time.
 But come on... do you think you can connect digitally your forces and we cannot? We cant make radio? We cant make digital communication devices? Everything exists in our army and can be deployed when needed in serious conflict, there is no need to expose it now.
What Santa pointed out earlier is quite true.  There is a fine line between not wanting to reveal your true capabilities to a possible opponent and needlessly getting your people killed.  As an example: do you think the Soviets made the full use of their capabilities in Afghanistan to win?  It would be insulting to their military to suggest otherwise.  Hidden capabilities has historically been a classic cover-up for saving face when your forces or equiptment performs poorly in combat.  And once again, I have never said that Russia does not possess many similar capabilities to their Western counterparts.  I was merely pointing out how in certain, limited areas pertaining to armoured warfare, that Western nations have a technological edge over their Russian counterparts.  You are trying to extrapolate that into me saying that Russian technology is always inferior to Western technology.  That is simply not the case.  Lets try and stay on topic here.
Only USA does such kind of things - beats weak enemy and demonstrates to world how their High-Tech stuff cool is, and how great it works, and then after that bragging here - on internet forums, trying to prove that its gona be same way with Russia. Dream on. :)
I highly doubt that the Gulf Wars were staged so that we could sit here today and gloat about how powerful the US military is :)  Would you say we used Vietnam to do the same thing?  Or could it possibly be that the military capabilities of the United States have increased significantly in the last 40 years?
One final thing, when we went into Iraq they had the world's fourth-largest military, many of them veterans of years of fighting the US-backed Iranian regieme, and well-equipped with military equiptment from both Eastern and Western nations.  I would most definitely not call them a weak enemy.  To say the US military (let alone NATO) would perform any less adequately against similarly equipped and led Russian troops in the same situation is naiive.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/19/2011 2:21:28 AM
I just can't get over  how stupid that explanation about not revealing technology is If Russians were using their personal cellphones in Georgia, what technology were they trying to hide? That Russia has radios? Congratulations! That's so break through! No other military has anything like that at all!

I mean seriously, do you think a military would fight you differently if they thought you didn't have a radio? Don't you think anyone would just assume you have some form of communication? I just see how you are trying to justify not "exposing technology" that's been around for almost 100 years. It's just so ridiculously stupid, or Russia is so technologically backwards that they think having a 2 way radio is so advanced they need to hide it.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    EW systems.   3/20/2011 8:10:44 AM
1. Russian ARMY systems are somewhat lacking. (that includes radios)
2. Russian offensive  AIR FORCE systems are very competitive.
3. In Grenada (1983 Operation Urgent Fury) US inter-service communications systems almost totally collapsed. Primitive cell phone technology featured in several prominent incidents as these US workarounds for failed military systems made the New York Times as a result. BFT and a new inter-service radio 'internet' development program trace their origins to that debacle.
 4. The Russians have a sputtering GPS called GLONASS that they now develop (see [2] above.).    

H.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics