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

This so many times over I don't know what else to say

 

Abrams is a far superior Tank, but its most of that superiority can be taken away by taking out the satellites that feed them targeting and coordinating.
If this is a full scale war, I believe the Abrams would still outperform the Russian tank, but if the war is prolonged the Russian tanks would be able to have a longer life span, since they are built to withstand tougher conditions and lack of maintenance.Now if we bring in the Armata in large enough numbers, then we talking different story.

 

oh I get it... your response that has nothing to do with what I said... basically tells me you weren't interested in discussing the subject, you're just here to american bash... message received...

P.S. if you want to re-read my original reply and respond to the statements I made, feel free to enter into a discussion with me, otherwise, I guess I can't help you lol...

just in case you get confused, I talked about why they still use external fuel tanks that still have the same design flaw they did 60 years ago... thats all I commented on...

 

Abrams.

But this is no longer the correct matchup, the Russians' new tank is the Armata, which is considerably more advanced than the T-90.

 

ARMATA is technically not a tank. It could be a tank, but it's not a tank. It's a universal combat platform. T14 for regular armored vehicles and T15 for troop transport type vehicles.

And yes it way better than the A1

T14


T15


The "Armata" Universal Combat Platform 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. 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.

 

It's true. Even the Abrams doesn't have an automated turret. But the Abrams is more than 30 years old, while the Armata is brand new.

The US Army seems to believe the Abrams is still king of the battlefield, but until we know exactly how effective the T-14's weapons and armour are, we can't be sure of that. It's entirely possible the T-14 may be superior.

 

I'm not arguing with you. I agree with you. My comments do not refute your information. My comment complements it.

 

Thank you for your opinion. Soon we will see what will happen in reality.

 

We know it has a bigger gun and a more powerful engine. It is also over 10 tons lighter.

T14 with an urban package weighs 49 tons while the A1 weighs at little over 60 tons.

Having a more powerful engine and a bigger guns, I don't think I have to explain why this is significant.


Unit cost for T14 is 3.7 million

Unit cost for A1 is anywhere between 6.2 to 8.5 million.

 

You better hope it doesnt happen too soon.

Even if the Armata is better which I definitely don't agree with, at the moment you guys currently have 20 while the US has ove 10,000 units. I would have thought you learned better in World War 2? Heck you guys were the one given the lesson!

By the way, I think its just a funny argument as even the Chinese say their "VT4" tank is better then both the Abrams and the Armata. How can you possibly say that aircraft carriers are obsolete and then say tanks are not?

 

You can look at any sourse and learn that ARMATA is better. That is just fact based on specifications.

While it is better, I agree with you about the lack of numbers.

A1 has 10,000 built

T90 has 2,251+ built.


But like I always say.

Russia can't hope to succeed on attacking the US because of the sheer size of their NAVY. IF you combine all the navies in the world and measure it up against the US. The US still has the bigger navy.

But.

Just like Russia can't hope to succeed in attacking US, The US can't hope to succeed in attacking russia.

Their coastal defense systems with "carrier killer" missiles and SAMs are more superior than anything America has.

What costs more mone? Missiles or ships? Missiles or jets?

How many missiles can russia make for the price of just 1 of the ships or jets?

 

Whoooooey, put away your hard on for Russia for a second, I was not trying to attack your country. Just saying that different platforms are different.

I can find plenty of articles "based on speculation" that say the Armata is in fact not better and that since they are trying to make it "all purpose" like the F35 there are going to be boat loads of problems. Or it could be better, kinda impossible to say until we have a war.

I am howeverr confused by your second statement. So you agree that tanks and carries are basically useless in modern warfare because of smaller, smarter and more destructive weapons? Your little math equation works exactly the same way for tanks, as it does for carriers you know...

 

T-90 is just an upgrades T-72 which M1A1 thumped badly is Iraq. T-90 is WW2 junk

 

You mean all three...right?

The only reason these will even come into use, including the Abrams would be a ground offensive and aircraft would make both pretty much useless.

 

How can it be ww2 junk when t72 was made in the 70s?

 

Can you rewrite you question? I'm not sure what you are asking.

If you are suggesting that a ground offensive would wipe out russian heavy armored vehicles than I would have to agree. Although ARMATA is better, russia severely lacks the numbers to pose any real resistance. But the question is, how will the US get their equipment close to russia?

By ship? Whith thousands of carrier killer missiles on a highly accurate coastal defense systems? Even if only a fraction of missiles make it through, the volume of them can wipe out any fleet.

By air? S400 can shoot anything short of an ICBM, because ICBMS travel faster that 17000km per hour. Thats something that s500 will fix.

It would be impossible with USA's current capability to launch any meaningful attack against russia.

In today's day and age, a single person with a shoulder fired missile can destroy any tank.

 

I do not understand what you wrote.... But I think you continue to write the mantra - "we are an exceptional nation". Did I understand you correctly?

 

Why would anyone even think the U.S. would bother with Russia, this thread seems to be asking about the opposite. The United States really does not even care about Russia since it began the collapse, unless they mess with allies.

 

I think that US cares about Russia and very much so. Otherwise why the rocky relationship?

But like you said. No war is likely to happen because neither sides can beat one another.

Unless someone is hiding an Uber powerful EA weapon, the war won't go anywhere.


I don't know what to think of this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...itching-foreign-satellites-enemy-weapons.html

Russia has claimed to have built a revolutionary new weapon system that can render enemy satellites and weapons useless.

Its Russian makers say it is a 'fundamentally new electronic warfare system' which can be mounted on ground-based as well as air- and sea-borne carriers.

However, it has refused to reveal how the system works.

It is described as 'a fundamentally new electronic warfare system capable of suppressing cruise missile and other high-precision weaponry guidance systems and satellite radio-electronic equipment.'

'The system will target the enemy's deck-based, tactical, long-range and strategic aircraft, electronic means and suppress foreign military satellites' radio-electronic equipment,,' Russia's Radio-Electronic Technologies Group (KRET) Deputy CEO Yuri Mayevsky told Russian news agency TASS.

To comply with international weapons laws, the system will be mounted on ground-based, air-and seaborne carriers and not on satellites.

'It will fully suppress communications, navigation and target location and the use of high-precision weapons,' said adviser to the KRET first deputy CEO Vladimir Mikheyev.

'The system will be used against cruise missiles and will suppress satellite-based radio location systems.

http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-devel...sabling-cruise-missile-enemy-military-1983146

 

Russia claims a great many things...few are believed anymore.

 

Can someone here please tell me the definition of propaganda?

 

American News Media, Inc.

 

These days russia has more credibility than the US. And everything that they said that they will built by a certain time frame is built.

 

Okay...sounds good.

 

I doubt we would ever attack Russia. Russian fear of the US is more about their cultural paranoia then anything in reality. both understand a nuclear exchange would be disaster for both. Russia is just plain screwed given its geography. A brief look at history shows multiple invasions from asia and from europe with nothing but steppe for an enemies armor to roll over. there is just too much geography to defend, Russia cant do it. Russia really has 2 defenses. One is the winter. Two is the dumbass arrogance of the likes of hitler and napoleon. The number of tanks needed to defend Russia is ginormous.

- - - Updated - - -

which is why investors are running like bunnies from Russia.