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       3/22/2011 6:38:27 AM



Having a semi working gps is not even remotely similar to having a fully developed system like BFT.

that's true, but I wasn't talking about GLONASS in a BFT context.  ie it was about a comparative constellation issue.

 

at best GLONASS is global, in reality, it's uncompetitive to US GPS constellations due to redundancy of numbers, quality of persistence tied to those numbers etc...  eg they can only do large slices, they can't overlap and make those slices smaller.  small slices = greater confidence in the harvest.

 


I believe GLONASS was originall concieved to cove russian territory only probably because of budget constraints. They have since try to expand it but their last couple of satilites have gone into the ocean after launch and there oldest satilites in the constellation are going past their service life.
I think GARMin is coming out with a GPS system that uses all three systems
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/22/2011 6:43:20 AM

Also are you aware that the A4 upgrade adds 3 feet to the length of the 113 hull?


Buzz, the A4 upgrade is regarded as a savage waste of australian taxpayer money.  ADI (prior to their buyout by Thales) had trouble with cooling and horsepower.

I've seen the beast close up and even the diggers think that its a waste of money (this is despite the fact that any replacement/new kit is better than no kit)

Thales had the good sense not to continue investing in it when they purchased ADI (nicknamed "Another Defective Item")

I know that Sparks/Meyers et al see them as proof of life of the continuing merits of the M113, but the troops don't have the same fondness

They deliberately were not taken to Iraq because they were regarded as less survivable, less mobile and for convoy work (the majority of our work) too slow.  When the conops were revisited and changed (after watching how some US convoys were copping a pasting from urban runs) it was reinforced that the change in tactics meant that the M113's would be an impediment rather than a benefit.

this is obviously in an australian context, but IMO some of the tactical usage logic was transferable as a lessons learnt.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/22/2011 6:49:46 AM


I believe GLONASS was originall concieved to cove russian territory only probably because of budget constraints. They have since try to expand it but their last couple of satilites have gone into the ocean after launch and there oldest satilites in the constellation are going past their service life.

I think GARMin is coming out with a GPS system that uses all three systems

Glonass did start out as a continental/regional solution, but the russians always intended for it to be global - primarily to support Gorshkovs vision of reaching out and having independance of targeting and guidance.  The russian airforce also saw the advantages so followed close behind.....

bottom line is that the decay rate of the existing constellation is not being replaced by new birds - let alone expand the constellation to the min 23 and preferred 36 (to deal with overlap and decent racetracking)
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton       3/22/2011 2:11:13 PM
Yes Indian is the current largest purchasersof russian equipment however, because of russian production problems almost all of the T-90s being bought are being locally manufactured in india under licince the same way the M-1 is being made in Egypt. Sad thing is the indian modles of the T-90 will probably be of much better quality than the russian made. \\
 
Not suprising, look what the Chinese did with the SU-27.  Recently it's become pretty common for a native Russian industry to be surpassed in build quality by a foreign competitor.  Their military industry fell hard and fast after Reagan got through with them.
 
Russian tank doctrine appears to be the same as it was in the soviet days. Try to run everything over. Thats why they lost somany tanks initially in chechnia. Doesnt matter where the taanks come from using them like that without dismounted infantry in normal combat operations is a recipe for disaster.
The problem is that they no longer have the same military capabilities (or numbers) they did back in the Cold War, so their tactics are no longer viable.  The problem with the Old Soviet Doctrine was not so much that it relied on tanks and numbers, but that it was designed to fight a very specific kind of opponent.  When you change this opponent from a symmetrical one (like NATO) to an asymmetrical one (the Mujahideen), your tactics no longer work and you have to either adapt your old tactics or learn new ones.  The Sovs failed to do the first and didn't do the second quickly enough.  The US faced the same kind of situation in Vietnam, but with aircraft instead of tanks.  It appears from whats happened in Chechnya that the Russians have not learned much from their experiences in Afghanistan
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/22/2011 4:12:53 PM









First you just backed up one of my statements that Russian army commo didnt work at in the georgian invasion. Next appearently you havent been readying any newspapers as there have been stories of late on the US army going to cell phones too. Androids I believe.





















This comment is so far off base.



 



h**p://www.sofcoast.com/weblog/2010/11/signals-drumbeats-real-men-use-android.html



 



Try actually reading the article first. 1 They didn't switch because there was a failure in US radios or comms. 2 It's not a cell phone, they just want to use the OS. 3 They're building a new type of radio that uses the android OS, not using cell phones in combat.






 



The amount of ignorance and purposely warped information because people's pride is hurt for being wrong on the internet is just incredibly immature.









Dumbass I work with military commo. Military radios as you know them will be radiaclly different in 10 years and yes they will be cell phone based.

 

Also dumbass many people believe it or not have a lot more experience with russian shit. Most of their comms still rely on vacuum tubes. Because of lack of working radios and incompetent odfficers and NCO's the commanding general of the russian division went forward to personally do a recon and as a result was ambushed and was shot 3 times. He almost died. If thats hurtful to people so what. Thats war snowflake.

You said that the US army was using cellphones. They are not using cellphones. Want me to quote you? They are using the android OS to develop a new radio.
 
So why don't you know that? And I'll admit that I use FBCB2 and BFT interchangably. But please explain to me why you didn't know BFT was the name of the original system, and later upgraded to FBCB2, and now people just refer to the whole network as "BFT". Please explain to me why you don't know the difference and thought FBCB2 came first when it didn't. Why is it you work on military comms but I know more about you job than you?
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/22/2011 4:14:48 PM

-There are so many things wrong with the 113 it's not even worth mentioning. And it wasn't just 1 I rode in. When I first joined, that was my primary form of transportation. I'll just say this. There isn't anyone in the Army, including myself that wishes for the good old days of the track.
 

I guess this proves you are either to young to know there are better things out there than 4 wheel drive 8 wheeled vehicles or your just plain stupid.

ost of the 113snow are in bad shape because the army has not invested any money into them for a very long time. Your 4 WD vehicle is not very cross country mobile and cant carry enough armor on it to protect itself from anything. The bird cage overloads it before you add fuel,ammo and people. It had to drive 60 mph everywhere it went in Iraq to keep from being destroyed.


LOL, did you get this information the same place you got that you can pad lock the back of the Stryker (where there is no place to pad lock), or that there is a Stryker MOS? Have you even put a single day into serving in the Army?
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/22/2011 4:33:55 PM
h**p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-vB-bie_Oo 
 
OK, you can be the guy laughing on the rooftop and I'll be the one marking your GPS location on FBCB2 and forwarding it to the MLRS battery. Seriously, get a clue.
 




Oh one last thing about the 113s being upgraded. That is such an off base comment. Strykers are expensive because of all the electronics inside of them. That composes 2/3s of their costs. So you couldn't get upgraded 113s for a cheaper price, unless you opted out all the electronics and get incredibly less effective vehicles. And I will tell you right now that all those gadgets save lives.






 



And you could never get the same performance out of a 113. The Stryker can go 70-80 mphs fully loaded with slat armor. The 113 is lucky if it makes it to 40mph. Try putting slat armor on that 113 and see how fast it moves. And you will need it unless you're dumb enough to think a 113 will stop an rpg. And since Strykers are faster, they're much harder to hit with IEDs/EFPs. Plus, you can't fit all the electronics inside a 113 that the Stryker has because there is no room, plus you'd have to install a cooling system. Good luck trying to get a decent amount of dismounts into the vehicle after that.






 






Snowflake I remember when people like you were demonstrating how great strykers were by showing how you van take a computer mouse and click on an icon representing an enemy and the enemy would majically die. All of us old infantry typs got a good laugh at that one because something has to go down range to kill the enemy and at the time stryker had next to nothing to do that with.
 
Quote    Reply

LB       3/22/2011 4:50:01 PM
The M1 does very well supporting infantry and engaging various targets besides tanks with it's 3 machine guns operated by the 3 soldiers in the turret.  It also is very good at killing armor.  That's an MBT.
 
It's not really about the turret.  There have been tanks without them and tank destroyers with them.  It's about roles and missions.  With very limited main gun ammo and at best a single RWS operated by the tank commander that vehicle has issues in various roles besides anti armor.
 
A heavy tank primarily designed to engage other tanks is not a new concept- Soviet IS-2 through T-10, British Conqueror, US M103.  The question is whether it's viable today given  it had already faded away in favor of the MBT?  It's also worth asking whether the Russians really think they need a 152mm to defeat future armor threats?
 
 
It makes a lot of sense.  There was a turretless tank invented precisely to keep people out of the turret because it's weak. 

 

The Abrams is pretty much a tank killing tank already.  This thing doesn't have machine guns?
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/22/2011 4:57:24 PM
Seriously, you sound like that idiot who keeps preaching about the M113 being the best thing since sliced bread when all it is is a death trap. This Styrker at 5:08 in the video was hit by a 155mm or something similar IED. Knocked on its side but drove away with everyone alive.
 
h**p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTXZlCDgjVo&feature=related
 
This M113 was hit by an IED. 
 
h**p://www.charlesbeason.com/thumbnails.php?album=20
 
There is nothing left of it. I will be damned if idiots like you will risk my life or those under my command when you have NO experience in the field and your delusion/ignorance is of more value to you than those who volunteer to serve this country. It is idiots like you who set policies which get our people killed because you are so far out of touch with reality that you can't separate your ass from your head. I am just thankful people smarter than you are in charge because it is our soldiers who have to pay the price, not you. Either put on the uniform or get a f*cking clue.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/22/2011 7:07:12 PM




-There are so many things wrong with the 113 it's not even worth mentioning. And it wasn't just 1 I rode in. When I first joined, that was my primary form of transportation. I'll just say this. There isn't anyone in the Army, including myself that wishes for the good old days of the track.


 



I guess this proves you are either to young to know there are better things out there than 4 wheel drive 8 wheeled vehicles or your just plain stupid.



ost of the 113snow are in bad shape because the army has not invested any money into them for a very long time. Your 4 WD vehicle is not very cross country mobile and cant carry enough armor on it to protect itself from anything. The bird cage overloads it before you add fuel,ammo and people. It had to drive 60 mph everywhere it went in Iraq to keep from being destroyed.







LOL, did you get this information the same place you got that you can pad lock the back of the Stryker (where there is no place to pad lock), or that there is a Stryker MOS? Have you even put a single day into serving in the Army?

About 10 yrs Snowflake.  A staff sergeant and a specialist are killed when an embankment collapses and their $2 million Stryker combat vehicle flips up-side down into a canal. They can't escape because the rear hatch door was accidentally left padlocked.
[Steven H. Bridges, 33, Tracy CA; Joseph M. Blickenstaff, 23, Corvallis OR]
 
Just one example. Padlocks being accidentally left on the rear hatch is bullshit. The lock was put on after they got into the vehicle because they were afraid someone would open the hatch and throw in a grenade.
 
I have to ask Have you ever really been in a stryker?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics