Russian Threats!

[DogOnPorch]

I was looking at pics of a t-72 and the t-90.......and at least from the outside they look pretty much alike! Maybe the inside are different.

If you look at a T-34, you'll see certain basic similarities. Christie suspension...big road wheels.

The other hull the Russians used was the KV hull which had traditional return rollers. It doesn't seem to have a modern equivalent. But famous WW2 monsters used it like the SU-152, JS-3 and the T-10 (too late to see combat in WW2).

---------------------------------------------------------

A lot of top guys have dark moods. That Winston Churchill drank a quart of brandy before breakfast.

---Silvio Dante: The Sopranos

Edited September 3, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[AngusThermopyle]

First Gulf War? Are you kidding me? Those were T-72s operated by Iraqis...

Oops! My bad. You're right, I was thinking T-72.

If you check out the T-90 you'll see that it is a rebadged T-72, same hull and turret with some modifications applied (heavier armour, welded turret). One serious weakness modern Russian tanks suffer is the lack of Chobham armour, instead they rely on steel and reactive armour. The combination although good is simply not in the same league as Chobham, especially when you consider the fact that Western tanks can also be fitted with reactive armour to augment the Chobham.

Another area is the sensor suit, they've improved it in the T-90 (I believe they're using the French made Francis optical system), a very good system but far from being king of the hill. Laser designator, low light and IR systems still lag, although they are improved over the T-72.

All in all when studying the improvements made with the T-90 it looks like the russians set out to build a tank that can beat the T-72, in that they succeeded.

Now consider the Leopard II with its 120mm H-55 gun, a gun that is considered to be the most powerfull tank weapon availlable. The change from the 44 cal gun to the 55 cal gun added about 130 cm in length to the barrel. This translates to much higher muzzel velocity and greater range. they can reach out and touch someone sooner, a key element in tank warfare. The gun will also fire up to 12 different types of round, including anti helicopter rounds, no need to slap on external launchers and the like that would have a low survival probability due to the fact they are external. Then consider items like the Chobham armour, armoured hubs and full up to date sensor suits and you can see once again you have a tank that is more than a match for the T-90. We wont even get into the drive train on it, as was mentioned "Christie suspension", nuff said.

So...right there you have two Western tanks that are t-90 killers, thats not even getting into the A-10 and other tank killers the West has.

Almost forgot to add. The Challenger II is another one that will "scrapify" a T-90 in a hurry, once again Chobham armour is used and the II variant uses the 120 mm 55 gun.

Edited September 3, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[White Doors]

cool, lots of great info here guys. Thanks Dog and Angus.

Now, which is better the M1a1 or the newest leopard.

I always have a hard time betting against a german tank myself..

[AngusThermopyle]

Now, which is better the M1a1 or the newest leopard.

Actually the question should be "which is better, the M1A2 or the Leopard II".

Thats a hard call to make. The A2 utilizes DU armour as well as Chobham, however both Tanks have about the same armour value. The A2 also uses the 120mm Rhienmetal gun, just like the Leopard. The Leopard does incorporate the anti mine package which has already proven to be highly effective, I'm not sure if it has been incorporated into the Abrams design though.

Honestly, I think both Tanks are pretty evenly matched overall. The greatest difference would be in the sensor and command packages installed, I believe that the Abrams has a more sophisticated system for comms, command and fire control, but I could be wrong.

What is very telling is the fact that rounds fired from the Rhienmetal gun can not penetrate the armour of either tank even when fired at close range. Unfortunately the T-90 does not share this characteristic with its steel and reactive armour.

[DogOnPorch]

Well the Leopard II is powered by a regular engine while the M1A1 has a huge gas turbine. Standing behind it can be a hazard to your health, I understand (jet blast). This might be thought of as a weakness from the infantry's POV.

The one advantage of Christie suspension is that the road wheels are easier to remove than most other tanks. Field repairs are possible where other tanks might need to be recovered and hauled to the shop.

-----------------------------------------------------------

It is a fact that under equal conditions, large-scale battles and whole wars are won by troops which have a strong will for victory, clear goals before them, high moral standards, and devotion to the banner under which they go into battle.

---Marshal Georgi Zhukov

[moderateamericain]

I love military Hardware discussions. If were talking russian vs NATO (US) hardware. Its not even a close match up.

The Ak47 vs the Standard Issue Ar-15 is as close the Russians get to Small arms reliability. The AR15 is more accurate but the AK shines in durability.

The M1a2 would wipe the floor with the t90's better tracking and targeting systems software. Armor is comparable but if the other got can miss and hit you before you hit once does it really matter?

The F-22 Raptor will blow anything out of the sky. Stealth, Better pilots, better avionics, better targeting system. ARAAM missles, They can Fire a FNF missle and "STEER" it towards a target flying parallel just by looking at it. Not to mention it has the dive capability of an f16 and Manuevers just as good.

C130 gunship will annhilate anything on the ground. Those things are death with wings.

Russian soldier vs US soldier, US has better traing, better equipment, better Leadership.

[M.Dancer]

It should be noted and in all seriousness that russia is upgrading their soldiers kits. They are now issued socks instead of foot wrappings.

I am not joking.

Welcome Komrade to the 19th Century

Edited September 3, 2008 by M.Dancer

[DogOnPorch]

The AK-47's standard round (7.62mm) drops like a rock after 200m. The NATO round (5.56mm) is accurate out to 500m+. That's the big advantage there. Indeed, my old AK-47 went through a lot of abuse...before I 'destroyed' it, of course.

-------------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

[DogOnPorch]

It should be noted and in all seriousness that russia is upgrading their soldiers kits. They are now issued socks instead of foot wrappings.

I am not joking.

Welcome Komrade to the 19th Century

lol...didn't know that one. Good catch.

--------------------------------

Fishing is the sport of drowning worms.

[AngusThermopyle]

The gas turbine does have some advantages but also some draw backs. When you compare the powerplants in the Abrams and the Leopard you'll find that as far as performance is concerned they're both pretty equal. Fuel is one area where the Leopard has the advantage. Instead of requiring JP4 or JP5 it can run on mixed fuels which does give the advantage of flexibility. Both tanks engine packs can be changed out in about 30 minutes, so no advantage there.

Like I mentioned earlier, there isn't too much difference performance wise between the two. If anything the major performance differences are probably in the electronics packages.

(Edited to add)

I just checked and I was wrong regarding the time to change an engine pack in the field. For the Leopard its 15 min, not 30.

Edited September 3, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[AngusThermopyle]

The Ak47 vs the Standard Issue Ar-15 is as close the Russians get to Small arms reliability. The AR15 is more accurate but the AK shines in durability.

As I've mentioned before, the AK was a fine weapon and still shines in certain area's. However as with everything small arms technology has advanced as well and the AK is relegated to a poverty role for armed forces who can not afford any thing better.

Here is the new US rifle, the XM-8, this is quite the weapon and very vrsatile in its various configurations. The new features are too numerous to list here so its best if you just read up on it yourselves.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...l%3Den%26sa%3DG

Wow! It appears the XM-8 has been rejected, I wonder why. The last time I checked a few months ago it was a go for the rifle. Gonna have to do some reading and see if I can find out why it was rejected. Testing up until a few months ago indicated that it was outstanding. Very curious.

Edited September 3, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[moderateamericain]

The AK-47's standard round (7.62mm) drops like a rock after 200m. The NATO round (5.56mm) is accurate out to 500m+. That's the big advantage there. Indeed, my old AK-47 went through a lot of abuse...before I 'destroyed' it, of course.

-------------------------------------------

It's a Daisy.

Yeah but if your 500 Meters out and somebody can hit you with an unscopped ar15 either he is a world class shot or you are dumber than a bag of rocks.

[AngusThermopyle]

Yeah but if your 500 Meters out and somebody can hit you with an unscopped ar15 either he is a world class shot or you are dumber than a bag of rocks.

The real point is that the AK is far less accurate. I'll see if I can find the high speed video showing the barrel flex of the AK, its substantial. The larger round of the AK does pack significantly more "knock down" punch though. That is becoming less relevant today with the introduction of the newer high kinetic energy rounds entering service.

[DogOnPorch]

Yeah but if your 500 Meters out and somebody can hit you with an unscopped ar15 either he is a world class shot or you are dumber than a bag of rocks.

When the entire platoon unloads at 500m, it doesn't really matter. Remember the huge casualties during the US Civil War via the Springfield rifled musket...they could kill at 500m as well. The poor Rebs were stuck with Brown Besses and similar weapons that barely reached 100m with any power. At least for the first part of the war. The Union tended to lose a lot of battles before Gettysburg, so many Reb regiments eventually got the Springfield...the hard way.

---------------------------------------

It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

---General Robert E. Lee CSA

Edited September 3, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[M.Dancer]

I read an article this year..(i'll see if I can find it) about the coalition wishing it had a larger calibre rifle like the old FN-C1. The M-16 style was designed for up close and personal and the ranges they are engaging the taliban are much longer. The FN had killing power at far greater range than the M-16.

SNIP

Not the article but the gist is the same

Afghanistan: A 5-man team of Taliban rebels are spotted at 600 meters away standing by a village mud building. 82nd Airborne paratroopers open fire with their 16-inch-barreled M4/M4A1 carbines. Their 62-grain rounds fall short of the target, and simply create dust clouds as the now angry rebels spread out and hide under cover. The paras will now have to close in to regain line of sight (LOS) at a closer range, and some of them may get wounded or killed in the process. If they call for air support--an A-10 Thunderbolt II a.k.a. “Warthog” air strike, for instance--innocent civilians will get killed and their relatives will join the rebellion.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?n...cle&sid=924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-47

Edited September 3, 2008 by M.Dancer

[AngusThermopyle]

The FN had killing power at far greater range than the M-16.

This is true but like I said the newer high kinetic energy rounds are closing that gap. For instance, the most powerfull sniper rifle today does not use a .50 cal round, its something like a .46 or .47 cal round instead.

Also lets not forget the amazing advances that have been made in caseless ammo recently, another huge advance in the state of the art.

Edited September 3, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[Sulaco]

(PoliticalCitizen @ Aug 20 2008, 01:41 PM)

So was the shelving and stiffling of numerous inventions by Soviet scientists that would have been immediately exploited in the West...

Have you heard of "Elbrus" processor? It was developed in USSR to control ballistic missle flight. In one of its generations it was said it could outperform Intel's Itanium...

As the old Polish joke goes:

Who invented the telephone?

Famous Russian inventor Belkov.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Sulaco

[AngusThermopyle]

Yep, that was a good one. Now back to the subject.

I posted the link before but I'll do it again. The new Zumwalt Destroyers the States have commissioned. They're unusual looking in that they utilize the older style Tumblehome bow design, even though it would appear they wouldn't be as good in any kind of sea they apparently are a better weather design than the hulls we use now.

She's stealthy and has great endurance, her sensor suits are state of the art, and that advanced gun system is awesome. Check it out, the link is to a very good and reliable site, if you spend the time you'll find all the info you could want, including some great pictures.

Russia most certainly has nothing that can compare to these ships, hell, just using the gun they could sink any Russian skimmers before they even knew they were under fire.

Zumwalt Destroyers

[PoliticalCitizen]

No That implies losses. Decimation means 10 Soviet for Every 1 Abrams. I think the correct term might be centimated them...or even millimated them.

Or for those not latin inclined.....they completely 100% totally annihilated them....

....oh, that's latin too

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...ms-tank-a_x.htm

There were losses before:

"In the all-out battles of the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams tanks were lost and no soldiers in them killed."

FYI, the Iraqi army was using tank shells that USSR de-comissioned in 1973... and they still managed to take some Abrams out...

There's a lot more losses now:

But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States.

Uh-oh... not so invincible, are we?

I haven't found any reports of destroyed T-90s... let me know if you find any...

[PoliticalCitizen]

Oops! My bad. You're right, I was thinking T-72.

If you check out the T-90 you'll see that it is a rebadged T-72, same hull and turret with some modifications applied (heavier armour, welded turret). One serious weakness modern Russian tanks suffer is the lack of Chobham armour, instead they rely on steel and reactive armour. The combination although good is simply not in the same league as Chobham, especially when you consider the fact that Western tanks can also be fitted with reactive armour to augment the Chobham.

Another area is the sensor suit, they've improved it in the T-90 (I believe they're using the French made Francis optical system), a very good system but far from being king of the hill. Laser designator, low light and IR systems still lag, although they are improved over the T-72.

All in all when studying the improvements made with the T-90 it looks like the russians set out to build a tank that can beat the T-72, in that they succeeded.

Now consider the Leopard II with its 120mm H-55 gun, a gun that is considered to be the most powerfull tank weapon availlable. The change from the 44 cal gun to the 55 cal gun added about 130 cm in length to the barrel. This translates to much higher muzzel velocity and greater range. they can reach out and touch someone sooner, a key element in tank warfare. The gun will also fire up to 12 different types of round, including anti helicopter rounds, no need to slap on external launchers and the like that would have a low survival probability due to the fact they are external. Then consider items like the Chobham armour, armoured hubs and full up to date sensor suits and you can see once again you have a tank that is more than a match for the T-90. We wont even get into the drive train on it, as was mentioned "Christie suspension", nuff said.

So...right there you have two Western tanks that are t-90 killers, thats not even getting into the A-10 and other tank killers the West has.

Almost forgot to add. The Challenger II is another one that will "scrapify" a T-90 in a hurry, once again Chobham armour is used and the II variant uses the 120 mm 55 gun.

Interesting post, lots of information... I didn't know about the Chobham armour...

I'm sorry to do that to you but being no expert I have to rely on information found on the web, and here's a fragment of a similar discussion on www.defensetech.org (where military hardware geeks meet ):

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004021.html

"So let's take a close look then at some of your last post's completely disconnected "points" (were you just mud-slinging at Russia's military technology while simultaneously exulting at the U.S.A.'s, without any logical relationship to any previous contexts? Please, spare me in the future of witnessing such apoplexy attacks) :

"how about the Russia that has India complaining about T-90 missile and thermal imagery systems,"

Oh, I see. So Russian tanks (international best-sellers) are scarp iron. People are just too dumb to see it. And this coming from an U.S. American whose country had to include the latest armour types, matérials, ammunitions, sensors and performances etc. in its new "Abrams" tanks exactly to anticipate and to counter the threat of the latest Soviet / Russian generations of T-84 and T-90 tanks, after which it nevertheless didn't manage to export A SINGLE "Abrams" even to its direct neighbour countries (all the other N.A.T.O. countries including Canada made some tank evaluations of their own, after which they invariably chose the superior and cheaper "Leopard II" instead) ! The U.S. Military ITSELF was still pondering mass-producing the "Leopard II"s even as the first "Abrams" UNWANTED BY THEM already rolled off the assembly lines! The embarassing "Abrams" tank was O-N-L-Y invented to keep "Chrysler" finantially afloat, because it couldn't down-size its 2-ton car models and reduce their fuel consumptions, after the protectionist dam around the Japanese cars broke!

Then the U.S. Armed Forces committed the embarassing mistake of "comparing" their proud "Abrams" tank (whose first prototypes could only drive in reverse gear, no kidding!) to such an international sales hit like the "Leopard II", seeking this opportunity to impress the ignorant masses with their "technocratic" and "objective" selection criteria, thinking that the involved U.S. American companies had a good initial success chance. In the end they had to rig the whole comparison so scandalously as to

1) COMPLETELY strip the "Leopard II" tanks ("Austere Version"), but NOT the "Abrams" tanks

2) directly equal unequal criteria like for example the "conformity of transport waggons for the 'Abrams' tanks to U.S. American rail gauge standards" to the "Leopard II"'s superior on-the-move first-hit-capability - and even this with the aforementioned simplified fire control system

3) simply halve the real effectiveness of the "Leopard II"'s armour

4) decide the selection criteria only AFTER the test, etc.,

so that the "Abrams" tank even had a remote chance to "win" - at least inside the U.S.A.!

Small wonder that every other N.A.T.O. country WITHOUT EXCEPTION preferred the "Leopard II" over the "Abrams", after making only a few quick side-by-side tests! Another such example of unabashed U.S. corruption was the U.S. Airforces's international "Joint Service Small Arms Program" in 1979, which sought replacement for the 1908-vintage Browning's .45 calibre "M1911 A1" pistol. After we super-pacifistic Europeans taught you hill-billy cowboys for the first time in your lives what real pistols looked like it was cancelled too under heinously false pretenses!

Interiorize this: ONLY Russians + Germans (which are traditionally two continental powers, not naval powers nor air powers) know how to build tanks. ALL other countries' "tanks" (pah...) occupy the bottom of that food chain"

I used it because I think the guy who wrote it shares my sentiments and appears to be a European who knows a lot more about the subject than myself.

Edited September 4, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[PoliticalCitizen]

I love military Hardware discussions. If were talking russian vs NATO (US) hardware. Its not even a close match up.

After so much brainwashing of the media sponsored by the US military complex I wouldn't expect a different opinion.

The Ak47 vs the Standard Issue Ar-15 is as close the Russians get to Small arms reliability. The AR15 is more accurate but the AK shines in durability.

I'm not sure if you realize it but the AK47 was introduced in 1947. The starndard-issue rifle Russian (as well as many other) army uses is the AK 74 family. Again, as the name suggests, it was introduced in 1974... must be junk, right?

The M1a2 would wipe the floor with the t90's better tracking and targeting systems software. Armor is comparable but if the other got can miss and hit you before you hit once does it really matter?

Right... see the post above...

The F-22 Raptor will blow anything out of the sky. Stealth, Better pilots, better avionics, better targeting system. ARAAM missles, They can Fire a FNF missle and "STEER" it towards a target flying parallel just by looking at it. Not to mention it has the dive capability of an f16 and Manuevers just as good.

I'm sure Europeans would say Eurofighter 2000 is better, Russians would say SU-37.

C130 gunship will annhilate anything on the ground. Those things are death with wings.

Did it do anything memorable besides dumping Agent Orange on Vietnam?

Russian soldier vs US soldier, US has better traing, better equipment, better Leadership.

And Russian soldier is more ANGRY

[PoliticalCitizen]

The real point is that the AK is far less accurate. I'll see if I can find the high speed video showing the barrel flex of the AK, its substantial. The larger round of the AK does pack significantly more "knock down" punch though. That is becoming less relevant today with the introduction of the newer high kinetic energy rounds entering service.

See AK-103 being fired: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwnM_0RxETg...feature=related

And an AK-105: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xHODGRQq0

[PoliticalCitizen]

As the old Polish joke goes:

Who invented the telephone?

Famous Russian inventor Belkov.

Radio was invented by Popov.

Telephone was invented in Cuba by Antonio Meucci.

What was invented by Poles? hmmm... Oh, I know - they've re-invented Rusophobia

[DogOnPorch]

PC: Did it (the C-130) do anything memorable besides dumping Agent Orange on Vietnam?

See this post.

----------------------

Krusty the Klown: Ah...the script says I have to bonk you with this (holding a hammer).

Sideshow Raheem: I wouldn't.

Krusty the Klown: Right on!

---The Simpsons

[M.Dancer]

And Russian soldier is more ANGRY

Don't forget either drunk or hung over.