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
Ispose    Uhhh!! Coldstart   3/28/2011 4:13:25 PM
Coldstart...get your timeline straight
The SU-100 was used in the last year of the war when the Soviets were advancing...so it wasn't used defensively. The 100mm Gun that it used was derived from a Naval Gun. It was a very effective tank Destroyer as it was mobile, lot of punch, and easy to make having no turret. It was nothing more than an upgunned SU-85.
The Soviets had a hard time making Armor Piercing Ammo that was worth a damm....that's why they settled on 85 / 100 / 122 mm tank guns. Bigger shell...lesser velocity = Smaller Shell...higher velocity in killing power. The added bonus for the bigger shell was that the HE rounds were much more effective with the bigger guns.
The Soviet Tanks also had cruddy fire control but when you are advancing under an immense artillery barrage and engaging at point blank range it worked for them.
In Korea the T34/85's outclassed the M-24's they initially faced (Duh..M-24 was probably the best WW2 Light tank but it's still a LIGHT tank) but once the M4A3(76) were in theatre along with the M-26's they were outclassed...mainly in crew quality by the Shermans and both in quality and technology by the M-26's.
 
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   3/28/2011 11:20:21 PM
If you think that if Soviets were conducting offensive war in last year - then means they never used to defend sometimes in tactical situation its pretty primitive. T34 was really the great tank, good thing of Sherman was however better comfort for crew.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/29/2011 4:40:04 PM

Congratulations, you didn't fall for the trick question. But that makes me wonder since you know that no military vehicles have no keys, then WHEN has ANY military vehicle, especially an armored vehicle been secured from the OUTSIDE?





























Buzz, it doesn't take a lot for people who actually serve to see through your bullshit. When you say things like soldiers were forced to sign for Strykers (there is no Stryker MOS so the only way to get Strykers is to based at Ft Lewis), or that you work on military comms but say FBCB2 is line of sight, you say you worked on tanks but don't know the MLC of the Abrams and constantly talk about the same roll over accident(ironic),you can't answer simple promotion board questions but "served 10 years", then it's pretty obvious you've never served a single day in the Army. So cut the bullshit. At least the Afghans have honor. You're just a piece of shit liar trying to be something you're not.































Plez end the childishness. You've proven yourself to be a total dumbass who hasn't added not one wit to the conversation except to show you you are truly clueless. You sound like my exwife. Your real name wouldnt be Sherry would it?






























I spent 10 years in the army unf@cking everything guys like you screwed up and I'm still doing it. You break expensive things on purpose so you will get a new one with fresh paint.















 















You're to young to know anything older than 2-3 years and because of that you extrapolate your extremely limited knowledge base into things you are not familiar with so as to try to sound more intelligent than you actually are. Although Coldstart and I have allowed our conversations to degrade at times, I value what he has been saying much more that of anything you have said. Please go down to the local bar and try to impress your buddies with your vast storehouse of worldly knowledge.





































You say I have 2-3 years of experience AFTER I told you I rode in M113s when they were still around. Again, WHERE do you get your information from or does your math just suck that bad?







 







Another thing that just jumps out to me that you've never served is that you mention the pad locks. When has t
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/29/2011 4:53:18 PM

BTW, my point for asking you these questions is because it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. But you still haven't brought up any valid reasons why the M113 is better and simply default to, the Stryker was padlocked, thus it is a bad vehicle. Which logically, doesn't make any sense on it's own and just makes you look like a dumb ass.

The A4 has 30% more volume under armor than the M113A3, (51% more internal volume than the LAV III)
30% more payload capacity,
50% greater cross country mobility. (equal to M1/M2)

The M113A4 is powered by a 400hp 6V53TIA electronically controlled engine driving through the latest X200-4B cross drive transmission giving it a hp/ton ratio better than the Bradley.

The new band technology tracks are said to be as noise free and ride comfort as the wheeled tired LAVs, but without tire vulnerabilities. The expected band replacement mileage is 12,000 miles on this approximate 20 ton vehicle with Type III armour protection.

The MTLV top ungoverned speed on the road is near 60 MPH, which is close to the top speed of the Stryker, but the LAV III does not even come close in cross country mobility.

One of the Sources for info:... M113A3+/M113A4 Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light (MTVL). The M113A4 [also known ... M113A3+ Engineering Squad Vehicle (ESV). The M113A3+ ESV is ...
/ systems/ground/m113.htm - 48k
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/29/2011 6:08:50 PM
You're an idiot. No military vehicle is secured from the outside for the same exact reason why there are no keys to any vehicles. So anyone can operate them if they need it.

You really are a dumbass. Its to keep unauthorized  people like out of them so you cant steal from them or take them for a joyride.


BTW this is not a US army stryker but take a look at the antirocket protection. Amazing isnt it.

 


 

 



 

"BTW this is not a US army stryker but take a look at the antirocket protection. Amazing isnt it. "
 
And this has what to do with the price of rice in China?
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/29/2011 6:09:39 PM
Please keep showing your stupidity by comparing a M113 to a LAVIII. I will continue to laugh at you.


BTW, my point for asking you these questions is because it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. But you still haven't brought up any valid reasons why the M113 is better and simply default to, the Stryker was padlocked, thus it is a bad vehicle. Which logically, doesn't make any sense on it's own and just makes you look like a dumb ass.



The A4 has 30% more volume under armor than the M113A3, (51% more internal volume than the LAV III)

30% more payload capacity,

50% greater cross country mobility. (equal to M1/M2)



The M113A4 is powered by a 400hp 6V53TIA electronically controlled engine driving through the latest X200-4B cross drive transmission giving it a hp/ton ratio better than the Bradley.



The new band technology tracks are said to be as noise free and ride comfort as the wheeled tired LAVs, but without tire vulnerabilities. The expected band replacement mileage is 12,000 miles on this approximate 20 ton vehicle with Type III armour protection.



The MTLV top ungoverned speed on the road is near 60 MPH, which is close to the top speed of the Stryker, but the LAV III does not even come close in cross country mobility.



One of the Sources for info:... M113A3+/M113A4 Mobile Tactical Vehicle Light (MTVL). The M113A4 [also known ... M113A3+ Engineering Squad Vehicle (ESV). The M113A3+ ESV is ...

/ systems/ground/m113.htm - 48k


 
Quote    Reply

the uh man123?       3/29/2011 6:47:10 PM
Alright. now i see some non-military veterans acting like they know everything. well let me give all you know it alls a little hint. YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL!!! i was in the military for 8 years. i was a tank commander. i studied Russian, English, and American vehicles.  And let me tell all you people something else. M1A2 Abrams MBT is the best in the world. it has the best technology in the world. and yes. the T90 IS an upgraded (T80). the T80 is an upgraded T72. all three are trash. The M1A2 has armor that only one type of anti tank weapon can penatrate. and thats a russian rocket launcher. not any russian tank. the T90 can be taken out by almost any kind of anti tank weapon. now i will admit, if it has the indian armor on... what ever its called. it has ALMOST as much armor protection as the M1A2. but still not as much. now lets talk about the T90's and M1A2 abrams's guns. The L55-120mm-smoothbore cannon that the M1A2 abrams uses has a 75% higher velocity and 33.5% more accuracy than the russian made L44-125mm-Smoothbore cannon. yes, the T90's gun is bigger. but size isnt everything. now lets talk about weight. the russian T90 is 20 tons lighter. that is true. but it is actually slower than the M1A2 Abrams. G, i wonder why. oh thats right. the russian made engines are suckish. the M1's engine had *1500* HP. thats alot to anyone. now good bye, uve heard it from a military veteran. go get a life and stop arguing about something you know nothing about and go bang some chick or something. cya
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton    @ the uh man   3/29/2011 8:00:43 PM

Alright. now i see some non-military veterans acting like they know everything. well let me give all you know it alls a little hint. YOU DONT KNOW IT ALL!!! i was in the military for 8 years. i was a tank commander. i studied Russian, English, and American vehicles.  And let me tell all you people something else. M1A2 Abrams MBT is the best in the world. it has the best technology in the world. and yes. the T90 IS an upgraded (T80). the T80 is an upgraded T72. all three are trash. The M1A2 has armor that only one type of anti tank weapon can penatrate. and thats a russian rocket launcher. not any russian tank. the T90 can be taken out by almost any kind of anti tank weapon. now i will admit, if it has the indian armor on... what ever its called. it has ALMOST as much armor protection as the M1A2. but still not as much. now lets talk about the T90's and M1A2 abrams's guns. The L55-120mm-smoothbore cannon that the M1A2 abrams uses has a 75% higher velocity and 33.5% more accuracy than the russian made L44-125mm-Smoothbore cannon. yes, the T90's gun is bigger. but size isnt everything. now lets talk about weight. the russian T90 is 20 tons lighter. that is true. but it is actually slower than the M1A2 Abrams. G, i wonder why. oh thats right. the russian made engines are suckish. the M1's engine had *1500* HP. thats alot to anyone. now good bye, uve heard it from a military veteran. go get a life and stop arguing about something you know nothing about and go bang some chick or something. cya

-The T-90 is most definitely not an upgraded T-80.  The T-80 was derived from the T-64, which was designed as the Soviet quality tank, while the T-72 was designed as their quantity tank.  The T-90 is actually an updated T-72 design, and was actually re-named from T-72BU to T-90 after the T-72 recieved such a pasting in Iraq to avoid its bad publicity.
 
-The armour of the Abrams is strong, but it is not necessarily the strongest armour around (the Chally 2 with Dorchester arguably has more protection).  It is definitely not invulnerable to all but one Russian weapon.  If the Russian 2A46M is using the correct ammunition, it stands an excellant chance of penetrating the Abrams even from the frontal aspect at a reasonable distance.  These are both things you should have been briefed on while still in training.
 
Being in the military does not automatically make you an expert on armoured warfare, sir.  Sometimes it can cause a person to think they have answers that they do not.  The error about the Russian tank lineage is something an Armour MOS would not make, if I am not mistaken you are trained to know your enemy, and not underestimate him.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart       3/29/2011 9:17:53 PM

And let me tell all you people something else. M1A2 Abrams MBT is the best in the world. it has the best technology in the world. and yes. the T90 IS an upgraded (T80). the T80 is an upgraded T72. all three are trash.

No need to continue. Take some deep breath and have a nice mood.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/29/2011 9:30:35 PM


if I am not mistaken you are trained to know your enemy, and not underestimate him.


If you had ever been in the military, especially recently, you'd know that half the stories that come out of training is from personal experiences of the trainers and how easily we wiped out the enemy.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics