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
ColdStart    ok   4/2/2011 10:35:13 PM
S-300/400, Iskander-M, SLBMs, ICBMs, TOR-M2E & T90.
 
Russia is safe. 
 
TOR-M2E has demonstrated how he downed another ADMS's missile right above the ground. It automatically means that there is nothing from known aerial vehicles what could penetrate its defense (if not overrun it in terms of quantity, what is completely crude and not efficient... i do not believen NATO going to deploy kamikadze pilots ;-) )
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   4/2/2011 10:47:15 PM
And about China... once they tried to acquire Damanski island and some territories... And they even killed some of Soviet border troops and officers. But to suppress them and show that it was not a good idea, it was enough to use Grad systems and smash their main forces concentrated in critical areas. There was no any need for nuclear weapons at all. After that they do not try anything like that.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/2/2011 11:07:55 PM
You really can't read. I never said anything about the L44 or 55 in my quote. in fact, go back to the page and find where I mention it.I said he had the caliber right and quoted him at 120mm. Go back and look.
 
Two, it's already been settled that caliber does not include length. I really can't comprehend why this simple concept is so difficult for you to grasp as we're on the fourth page of this when it has been decided. Either you can't let go or you are really stupid.
1) Wrong about NO TANKERS

2) Wrong about the Length of the US M256 barrel, 44 CALIBERRS rather than 55 CALIBERS

3) And unable to grasp that calibers can be a measure of barrel length.

 

You CAN fly a UH-60 better than you can cover this stuff, right?


 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/2/2011 11:12:58 PM
There is the quote for you on page 49. So, exactly what did I get wrong? He asked for caliber and I had it right. If took the time to stop riding on Herald's cock and read what was actually wrote, you'd notice that.



Argument reduced to three, now.













By the way, Santa, I have a question for you, "Why did you miss Uh-oh's caliber error on the M-1's main gun?"



 



No pretense here.






 



Herald     







"120mm-smoothbore cannon that the M1A2 abrams uses "

 

What caliber error?



 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/2/2011 11:17:46 PM

3) And unable to grasp that calibers can be a measure of barrel length.

 

Here is what I wrote on page 56
 




To clear that up. Yes, the LENGTH is measured in CALIBERS (as in a unit of measurement). But the CALIBER itself is 155mm. The length is referred to as...LENGTH. Notice that L is placed so nicely in front of the 52? The only people who do not do that are Naval guns because that is where length is factored into the caliber.

 

Sounds like I understand that quite perfectly. Don't blame me because you're the product of the "No Child Left Behind" program. Maybe if you worked on your reading comprehension more than browsing this forum you'd might actually understand what people are writing.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       4/2/2011 11:43:42 PM

S-300/400, Iskander-M, SLBMs, ICBMs, TOR-M2E & T90.

 

Russia is safe. 

 

TOR-M2E has demonstrated how he downed another ADMS's missile right above the ground. It automatically means that there is nothing from known aerial vehicles what could penetrate its defense (if not overrun it in terms of quantity, what is completely crude and not efficient... i do not believen NATO going to deploy kamikadze pilots ;-) )



And why would NATO be sending aircraft against Russian anti-aircraft systems? Again that is Russian paranoia. The US and NATO have no reason to attack Russia, and they won't. You should be worrying about the Chicoms, flying aircraft you sold to them, instead. And yes, I have no doubt the TOR could knock down any Russian hardware you fire at it, but lets see it knock down an inbound HARM as a Growler blinds its radar with the best jamming system on the planet. I doubt the backup optical tracking system is even close to the same accuracy and PK that the radar provides.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    2 Nichevo (or new clone)   4/3/2011 12:22:29 AM


The US and NATO have no reason to attack Russia, and they won't.
 
Then things will be just great! Peace and friendship. 
 
You should be worrying about the Chicoms, flying aircraft you sold to them, instead.
 
 They tried once to do something, but then realized that was huge error. During Damanski conflict. The Su-35s sold to them and other stuff right now does not represent threat to Russia. Otherwise, it would not be sold. Also, note that anything what Russia sells out has reduced capabilities and technical characteristics.
 
lets see it knock down an inbound HARM as a Growler blinds its radar with the best jamming system on the planet. I doubt the backup optical tracking system is even close to the same accuracy and PK that the radar provides.
 
Ok.. let me put it down in a technical way.
 
TOR-M2E system (even the export version...) on the open test firing range have downed the 9M33 missile of the OSA ADMS. (the old Soviet air defence missile). The length of 9M33 missile is 3 meters (!). Now.. The length of the HARM (and other modifications) missile is more than 4 meters.  So.. to be honest, shooting down the HARM would even be easier.
 
About best jamming system on planet. Be careful with such statements, you have no idea of capabilities of another hardware produced in another countries, and you did not sit at the receiver with a Spectrum Analyzer figuring out the signal strength of each hardware. So you cannot commit such statements.
 
Now, about jamming...but on technical level again. In most of the cases, the power capabilities of ground systems are more than the aircraft systems. Because aircraft has many constraints, you cannot palce extremely powerfull transmitter on aircraft and jam everything around. There are always physical constraints and you not gona get away from them. That is why ground systems like TOR and S-300/400 have strong Signal-to-Noise and Signal-to-Jamming/Interference ratio. Thus, would be able to get a return from target and provide guidance to the missiles. And by the way, some of the missiles are fully automated, and even have a function to home on a source of jamming. So no... sorry but its not gona be as easy as you think. Actually there is no chance to penetrate such an air defence. Especially a Russian air defence, which is heavily echelonized with different systems (TOR protects S-300, IGLA shooters protect TOR,) plus... Pantsyr-S with its dual missile/cannon capabilities and modernized BUK-M1.... Its really hard to believe that anything can get through it all... Its not 60s anymore.
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    2 Nichevo (or new clone)   4/3/2011 12:24:05 AM
correction: signal strength *for* each hardware.
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton    Cold   4/3/2011 12:45:47 AM

S-300/400, Iskander-M, SLBMs, ICBMs, TOR-M2E & T90.
Russia is safe.
 
For now, those two are the only reasons why.  None of the others are deployed in enought numbers to make a difference.
TOR-M2E has demonstrated how he downed another ADMS's missile right above the ground. It automatically means that there is nothing from known aerial vehicles what could penetrate its defense (if not overrun it in terms of quantity, what is completely crude and not efficient... i do not believen NATO going to deploy kamikadze pilots ;-) )
 
As Nichevo has already pointed out, why would the US or NATO be attacking Russia?  What could we possibly gain from that?  No one wants to invade Russia.  Even during the Cold War, nobody wanted to invade Russia.  And even if we were to attck Russia, shooting down the weapons of your own country in a test is far less difficult than those of an enemy in combat.  I would be very impressed if the TOR could effectively defend against a Wild Weasel strike, and even if it could it would not defend against a B-2 dropping a JDAM down its throat.
 
And about China... once they tried to acquire Damanski island and some territories... And they even killed some of Soviet border troops and officers. But to suppress them and show that it was not a good idea, it was enough to use Grad systems and smash their main forces concentrated in critical areas. There was no any need for nuclear weapons at all. After that they do not try anything like that.       
I don't think it will be as easy for Russia to repel the ChiComs as it was in '69.  If China really wanted to invade Russia, as it stands right now, you would have to use nuclear weapons to stop them.  You just don't have the conventional forces to do it right now.
Nobody here is attacking your country.  A few people here are attacking you (I am not), mostly because of your attitude and the way that you are posting, but no one is attacking the Rodina.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       4/3/2011 1:03:17 AM





The US and NATO have no reason to attack Russia, and they won't.

 

Then things will be just great! Peace and friendship. 


 

You should be worrying about the Chicoms, flying aircraft you sold to them, instead.

 

 They tried once to do something, but then realized that was huge error. During Damanski conflict. The Su-35s sold to them and other stuff right now does not represent threat to Russia. Otherwise, it would not be sold. Also, note that anything what Russia sells out has reduced capabilities and technical characteristics.


 

lets see it knock down an inbound HARM as a Growler blinds its radar with the best jamming system on the planet. I doubt the backup optical tracking system is even close to the same accuracy and PK that the radar provides.

 



Ok.. let me put it down in a technical way.


 

TOR-M2E system (even the export version...) on the open test firing range have downed the 9M33 missile of the OSA ADMS. (the old Soviet air defence missile). The length of 9M33 missile is 3 meters (!). Now.. The length of the HARM (and other modifications) missile is more than 4 meters.  So.. to be honest, shooting down the HARM would even be easier.


 Test was most likely performed in optimal conditions, with no jamming. Try to do it in a heavy EW environment against non-Russian systems.

About best jamming system on planet. Be careful with such statements, you have no idea of capabilities of another hardware produced in another countries, and you did not sit at the receiver with a Spectrum Analyzer figuring out the signal strength of each hardware. So you cannot commit such statements.

 Agreed. I should have said "one of the best".


Now, about jamming...but on technical level again. In most of the cases, the power capabilities of ground systems are more than the aircraft systems. Because aircraft has many constraints, you cannot palce extremely powerfull transmitter on aircraft and jam everything around. There are always physical constraints and you not gona get away from them. That is why ground systems like TOR and S-300/400 have strong Signal-to-Noise and Signal-to-Jamming/Interference ratio. Thus, would be able to get a return from target and provide guidance to the missiles. And by the way, some of the missiles are fully automated, and even have a function to home on a source of jamming. So no... sorry but its not gona be as easy as you think. Actually there is no chance to penetrate such an air defence. Especially a Russian air defence, which is heavily echelonized with different systems (TOR protects S-300, IGLA shooters protect TOR,) plus... Pantsyr-S with its dual missile/cannon capabilities and modernized BUK-M1.... Its really hard to believe that anything can get through it all... Its not 60s anymore.

Same thing you said to me. You can't make such statements, especially when it has no combat or even testing experience against Western systems. You have no idea what the EA-18G can do, same as me and everyone else who isn't a Growler pilot. You don't know where or not it will get a good enough return from the inbound munitions to successfully engage them while under EW attack.
 
And if ground systems can outpower airborne jammers, then why do countries continue to build them? It's because they WORK. Jammers have been used successfully for decades to defeat early warning and air defense radars, and will continue to work.

"TOR-M2E system (even the export version...) on the open test firing range have downed the 9M33 missile of the OSA ADMS. (the old Soviet air defence missile). The length of 9M33 missile is 3 meters (!). Now.. The length of the HARM (and other modifications) missile is more than 4 meters.  So.. to be honest, shooting down the HARM would even be easier
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics