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
heraldabc       4/4/2011 1:30:25 AM
That is rather interesting and amusing, since even the IR detector elements need clear :LOS to see the missile heat bloom, Chuckles. THAT is no secret either. Been done that way for decades. The l.ASER adds a certain dazzle element. though. You still haven't proved anything to me except that you think common knowledge is a state secret. I'm teasing your actual limits out of you by the way. Brush up on your inverse square law and read some od the RAFALE threads where I discuss counter-measures   . 
 
Herald     
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton    Cold   4/4/2011 1:51:15 AM
Our Pilots were inferior? You do not make any sense here now... really... what can i say after that.
 
Nothing.  You don't need to say anything at all.  There is nothing you can or should say about that because it is something you are not willing to understand or realise.  Western pilots simply are more extensively trained than Russian pilots.  A monumental budget difference and three major wars say so.  To make up for this, Russian air defense systems have generally been highly competetive with Western systems.  Neither have been shown to be consistantly effective against stealth aircraft.  End of story. 
 
i posted in a simple technical way that if hardware detects 3m missile above ground it says ALOT to any radar expert.
 
Most, if not all radar systems can detect even birds flying and cars drifing down the freeway.  These are filtered out because they interfere with tracking other "real" targets.  You can filter this data to find smaller, harder to detect targets (like a 3m missile) through the background "noise", but this is a matter, as I said, of computing power and electronics.  Two areas in which Russia's performance has not been exactly stellar.
 
Sorry, but you probably do not understand the radar's very basics, but here you posted the 3 page drama in response trying to prove me something backwards.... no way... I would recommend you be educated in some area before trying to argue kicking off from national patriotic moods.
 
OK, bud.  First, your knowledge thus far has not put you into any position to be criticizing people's education on military matters.  As for your last statement, observe:
 
"...its only USA who can nuke bomb civil cities. Russians dont do that. "
 
"And to you moron, Russians were first to be space pioneers, and the first helicopter in the world made for USAF was done by Russian guy. so wtf you here talking how advanced you always were? fool! do you know how many Russians work even now in your military industry?"
 
"yes i know, high rank experts know the truth, with the same success they gona loose job if they UNDERESTIMATE Russian or whateva other military."
 
"Just be real...and accept things they are. Thinking that USAF can easily take out Russian air space...its silly. But if you dont piss off us, then no problems! Have a good long life, Americans. Good mood. And... dont fuck with Russia :) "
 
"If you do good - Russia will be kind and nice and not threatening at all. "
 
This is just the tip of the iceberg.  I am not allowing my patriotism to get in the way of the facts.  I will now kindly ask you to grant the rest of us the same courtesy.
 
" Prichina ne yavlyaet·sya avtomaticheskoi&s74;. Te, kto otritsaet eto ne mozhet byt&O97; zavoevana ona . Ne rasschityvai&s74;te na nih . Ostav&O97;te ih v pokoe . "
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/4/2011 2:02:15 AM
Like I said Herald, there's a big difference in what you think you know, what you can find on google/youtube, and reality.
That is rather interesting and amusing, since even the IR detector elements need clear :LOS to see the missile heat bloom, Chuckles. THAT is no secret either. Been done that way for decades. The l.ASER adds a certain dazzle element. though. You still haven't proved anything to me except that you think common knowledge is a state secret. I'm teasing your actual limits out of you by the way. Brush up on your inverse square law and read some od the RAFALE threads where I discuss counter-measures   . 


 

Herald     


 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/4/2011 2:54:44 AM
And I'll say it again. You have no idea who CWMS works and your description of what it does is so far off it's a joke. Whatever you google/youtube etc isn't always what it is in real life. You haven't teased any information out of me. All you've done is shown to me you really don't know what you're talking about other than what you read off the internet, and that's if it's even accurate.
That is rather interesting and amusing, since even the IR detector elements need clear :LOS to see the missile heat bloom, Chuckles. THAT is no secret either. Been done that way for decades. The l.ASER adds a certain dazzle element. though. You still haven't proved anything to me except that you think common knowledge is a state secret. I'm teasing your actual limits out of you by the way. Brush up on your inverse square law and read some od the RAFALE threads where I discuss counter-measures   . 


 

Herald     


 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart       4/4/2011 4:43:19 AM


Nothing.  You don't need to say anything at all.  There is nothing you can or should say about that because it is something you are not willing to understand or realise. 

No, it is something what you make yourself to believe, and this wrong beliefes mixed with oversized pride and internal ego prevents you from understanding how things work in a real way. Why would you say that we are inferior to you? Or our pilots are? Am i inferior to you? What can you do what i cant? brag? :) Are you smarter than me? :) sure? positive? :) lol... you make yourself look funny and silly.
 
 

Most, if not all radar systems can detect even birds flying and cars drifing down the freeway.  These are filtered out because they interfere with tracking other "real" targets.  You can filter this data to find smaller, harder to detect targets (like a 3m missile) through the background "noise", but this is a matter, as I said, of computing power and electronics.  Two areas in which Russia's performance has not been exactly stellar.

 
no no no... what? what are you talking about? do you know how radar works? (except that it emits waves gets return measures delay etc...) i mean... seriously... you know how it is designed? what are the main parts of receiver are? What are the issues in transmitting different kind of waveforms? Different frequencies? Do you know which processes are going on in different parts of receiver during detection? How does detection transfers into tracking? in other words... WTF are you talking about? you have NO idea how a radar works! No matter which! forget about Russian or US... you have no IDEA how a BASIC radar works! And you try to put a simple example with birds? You say we cant do electronics? Do you know that our imaging radars could do better than image quality pictures even long time ago? Do you know what it means? Do you understand how does the radar resolution is dictated? How to calculate it?
 
Oh... you sound like a 8 year old kid who talks about which sex position is better, even tho never saw a naked woman. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart       4/4/2011 4:51:47 AM

Neither have been shown to be consistantly effective against stealth aircraft. 
 
Well, air defence systems of USSR donated many years ago to Africa and some banana republics... oh no they wont be able to take out stealth :) Sleep well... 
 
End of story. 
 
Yeah lets end it, or you get insulted :D
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    ok   4/4/2011 4:52:41 AM


" Prichina ne yavlyaet·sya avtomaticheskoi&s74;. Te, kto otritsaet eto ne mozhet byt&O97; zavoevana ona . Ne rasschityvai&s74;te na nih . Ostav&O97;te ih v pokoe . "


i didnt get that.. what the point? to seem fancy? and to look like you proved me something and WON? lol... silly kid.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       4/4/2011 9:00:57 AM
And I will tell you flat out, that you don't know how EM detection works. Active, you send out a signal, and try to generate a return off the object you strike. Passive, you try to read a radiated signal from the object. Radio, UV, IR and VL are the passive segments of the spectrum that you have in the atmosphere. Radio is the most efficient active signal with UV and IR laser the next in descending order as active 
 
You don't want to be an active transmitter except to deceive a receiver. Don't try to bullmanure me.      
And I'll say it again. You have no idea who CWMS works and your description of what it does is so far off it's a joke. Whatever you google/youtube etc isn't always what it is in real life. You haven't teased any information out of me. All you've done is shown to me you really don't know what you're talking about other than what you read off the internet, and that's if it's even accurate.


That is rather interesting and amusing, since even the IR detector elements need clear :LOS to see the missile heat bloom, Chuckles. THAT is no secret either. Been done that way for decades. The l.ASER adds a certain dazzle element. though. You still haven't proved anything to me except that you think common knowledge is a state secret. I'm teasing your actual limits out of you by the way. Brush up on your inverse square law and read some od the RAFALE threads where I discuss counter-measures   . 






 



Herald     







There is no way to get around physics or the behavior of light in the atmosphere. There is no magic pixie dist that you know, Santa.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    2 Herald   4/4/2011 11:27:10 AM
How does EM wave propagates? What are its main components and how are they oriented during propagation? :-)
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       4/4/2011 11:52:27 AM

How does EM wave propagates? What are its main components and how are they oriented during propagation? :-)

Two components form the wave, those are the electric and magnetic fields around the force carrier particle-hence the term electromagnetic: They are perpendicular to the direction of their associated particle's, (the photon which is the force carrier particle or gauge boson to me) vector path and to each other. The fields oscillate-supposedly in classical physics in sympathy though string theory disputes this. That oscillation defines the frequency inversely and is the chief physical measurable characteristic in the EM wave.
 
You are an idiot.
 
Herald    
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics