USA vs RUSSIA / M-1 Abrams vs T-90

Dear friends. As we all know we will soon begin an active phase of World War III. To my great regret, I think that we can not stop the crazy maniacs and cannibals in the White House and Pentagon. Because maniacs earn on wars. That's their business. In fact - the war will be between Russia and the United States. And their allies, if such exist.
Before applying massive nuclear exchange is likely to take place fighting conventional weapons on the territory of a third country. For example, in Turkey or Syria. But may be in Europe.
Lets with you look at the military capabilities of each country. For starters compare for example tanks.

USA vs RUSSIA / M-1 Abrams vs T-90

[video=youtube;BTutmau94iI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTutmau94iI[/video]

A bit of history. Battle Stations: T-34 Russian Victory

[video=youtube;NkNCH5N6Cxw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkNCH5N6Cxw[/video]

What do you think about it?

 

I think you posted your thread in the wrong forum.

 

Why???

 

If there is an agreement on a Syrian transitional government that allows full democratic process in which all politicians are allowed to stand for election including Assad without predetermined outcomes then you could see both M-1 Abrams & T-90 fighting as allies.

 

Let it have it's time in the sun, it will get moved to the basement in due course.

 

If ww3 happens I wonder who the coalition of russia/America will decide to troll the hardest, currently its Syria but who is america/Russia really after?

 

What about T-14 Armata?

 

well no offense to their designers but it seems they still haven't learned from their own tests done after WWII on those rear fuel tanks... I can't believe they are still using them, especially with the way warfare has changed... sure bullets are really no harm to them, but once terrorists find out they can use incendiary rounds and actually cause the tanks to explode, just like the russians own testing demonstrated, they're going to immediately switch tactics... armed forces around the world already know because of the release of the russian tests done, as well as other countries constantly reviewing and detecting weakness in the weaponry of all nations...

I just don't get it... its such an obvious flaw thats been tested and proven... and if there was a new tank battle in history, this literally allows ground troops to quite easily take out tanks without anti-tank missiles... just the correct ammunition... cheap and easy... snipers can use those rounds a mile away and hit a barrel that size... sure conditions have to be "right"... but without diving into the mechanics under the hood, they haven't setup a fail safe yet that doesn't allow that fire to spread into those mechanics that are supposed to stop flow, but putting that heat into the engine area itself can be horrific to the future operation of the vehicle, assuming it survives a potential explosion if the right conditions are in fact met... why would they continue this design just to extend range by 50% for what reason when its such a liability?

I dunno, flaming hoses outside the back of the engine just never seemed like a good idea to me... times have changed, and so has the enemies weapons, and knowledge, so why give them giant targets that you could have someone a mile away fire a single bullet of the right type and take out an entire tank... I'm not saying they'll blow every single one up, but they don't have to, they just need to cause enough damage internally that it must be serviced, taking a huge weapon out of the game is a giant win...

 

In today's warfare tanks are just targets.

 

This place needs a conspiracy forum.

 

right? Why get a tank when you can spend way less money on few anti tank missiles fired from a shoulder mounted platform.

Imagine few hundred tanks rolling in a city and then being met with a thousand or so people with anti tank missiles hiding in buildings?

 

Tanks are lame. It's 2015.

 

Dont kid yourself. Admit it, you want to drive one and blow some $h!t up.

 

I would just be a big target for some nerd flying a drone with missles on it. The only reason we build tanks is because of the "Military/Industrial Complex". It's a money thing.

 

No i meant in general. Who would want to be in a tank during war? Unless they can automatically fire their shells like a machine gun and have AA mounted on it like the prototype T14 ARMATA, I would say no sir.

 

What about Russia's new Armada tank?

- - - Updated - - -

Russia's secret weapon.

 

its still technically a prototype. and its technically not a tank. Its a universal combat platform. It can be anything. Just change the top. Oh, and its capable of being completely autonomous. This what the killer AI software was designed for. It can be uploaded into any robotic platform. The ARMATA can be any robotic platform.

The "Armata" Universal Combat Platform (Russian: Армат&#1072 is a Russian prototype of an advanced next generation heavy military tracked vehicle platform. The Armata platform is the basis of the T-14, the T-15, a combat engineering vehicle, an armoured recovery vehicle, a heavy armoured personnel carrier, a tank support combat vehicle and several types of self-propelled artillery, including the 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV under the same codename based on the same chassis. It is also intended to serve as the basis for artillery, air defense, and NBC defense systems.[10] The new "Armata" tank platform is meant to replace the older Russian MBTs and APCs that are currently used by the Russian military.

Western news media believe the tank is designed to rival and even surpass comparable NATO technology

 

Or 1 for cheerleading Putin.

 

you dont see Obama with his own butt plug now do you?

 

I think it will not happen. Unfortunately. For example, Finland has refused to comply with the Treaty of Paris in 1947. Finns want to fight? Or who make them say so? What do you think? And this is Europe. I think war is inevitable.

 

In fact, an American tank Abrams - is tank M 60-120s «Patton-4."
Explain - "Patton-4" - is when the body of an old M60A3 "Patton-3" welded tower from the "Abrams". Cost the operation, by the way, $ 1.9 million - for the money is quite possible to buy the entire export version of the T-90 early versions (this is the question of the superiority of the US military budget)
Why the United States has some strange "Patton-4", if they have about 8000 "Abrams"? The fact that the turbine AGT-1500 for "Abrams" manufacturing company "Lycoming" also is not produced and can not be renewed in the production, while the diesel engine for 1,200 horsepower is still available. These diesel engines are rather weak for the body M1 and bad in his set, but for a little more compact and lightweight M60 with increasing height of the engine compartment they have enough. That is to say - the new "Abrams" will not be, as in the existing resource depletion engines they will just drop out of treatment. Therefore, forced to cheat with the creation of chimeric "Patton-4."

 

Haha. You are a true American military expert. With this knowledge you could be press Secretary in the white house. Instead, Jen Psaki.

 

One word pretty much makes this topic rather pointless:


WARTHOG

 

Potential allies of Russia - China, Iran, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Cuba (very good platform for the deployment of missiles and submarine base), Nicaragua (where Russia and China are building a new canal - an alternative to the Panama) ... etc. In fact the Allies, Russia can be a lot. In Europe - Serbia and as you may seem strange, even members of NATO can be allies of Russia. Such as Greece and the Czech Republic. Just Hungary every day looks more toward Russia.