Tinkertoys

Say what you want about the T-90, does not change the fact that the M-1 is far superior, if the T-90 was, we would have a version of it.

-Tink

huh_what

What do you mean we would have it because the M1 is "far superior". Don't you know that that is politically impossible? Even so, was America even offered the T-90?

The T-90S tank's main armament is represented by a 125mm enhanced-accuracy smooth-bore gun mount featuring a built-in alignment system and an easily detachable barrel. The gun is stabilized in two planes and loaded by an autoloader, whose magazine stores 22 rounds to be fired first. The use of the autoloader has made it possible to bring the rate of fire to 7 or 8 rounds per minute, which is a significant advantage of this tank over the majority of its foreign competitors.

The T-90S tank features:
– automatic crew protection against weapons of mass destruction;
– antimine protection facilities;
– a quick-acting automatic fire-fighting system;
– new-generation communications facilities;

Tinkertoys

I said we would have a VERSION of it, meaning copy it. By the way, the M1 has all the above features and before the T-90 did, what on earth is the difference between automatic and non-auto WMD protection? Damn right it better be automatic. lol

-Tink

huh_what

Building a new "version" of the tank... Right... how much would that cost...
is this were all the $70 billion US Army Budget goes?

Buying the plans for the T-90 - $500,000
Buying Russian tank manufacturing eqiptment- $millions
Programming all the machines and traing workers ot buiild an identical tent- additional $$$$

Result- One "version" of the T-90
Look on the Americans face when they realize that they built one "version" tank that isn't good for anything, spending $$ millions... priceless

Why not just buy or smuggle the stats/specifications of the T-90...
Right... you need a version of it

PhilosopherJohn

I would have to look it up, I have a feeling no one is correct in this argument, because neither one of you is basing your arguments on rational backing. For example, Tinkertoys cannot be right because the US probably would not want to admit that the Russians produced a higher class product, and you are wrong because the M1 is a better tank. Though I may know nothing about the military, we philosophers have research skills like you would not believe.

huh_what

By the way, the US Army budget is $70 billion, if I remember correctly.
The budget for the Russian Army is $15 Billion USD.
Thats just a bit over 1/5 of the army budget.

M1A2 abrams cost about 4 million each.
T-90s cost about 2 million each.

What better capabilities does the M1 possess over the T-90?
Is it worth 2 million dollars?

The unrefuel range for a M1 is about 270 miles
The unrefueled range for a T-90 is about 650 km

PhilosopherJohn

http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...d/m1-specs.htm
http://globalsecurity.org/military/w...t-90-specs.htm

M1 has better weapons, better target identification, and has been proven on the battlefield.

Prosto ILya

After this “no NATO solder will sell even part of his uniform” it does not sound like crap.


QUOTE=TopHatter]Nice Latin. What's your point, that your fanciful posts will remain forever? Yeah, you got that right.[/quote]

I was more thinking about your posts.

[quote=lwarmonger]Difference between Russian Army and American Army. Did I argue about that? No.

During Yeltsin “road-to-glory” – yes.

So? In USSR students of universities were used to collect potatoes.

Shuriff

Another pointless thread... American army is better for America, Russian is better for Russia.

Training and equipment comparison - sadly for us, but this is where Americans are far ahead right now. Situation is improving in Russian army, but too slowly, is you ask me.

Again, if you ask me, our main problems with army come from the fact that now we are mostly trying to rebuild scaled-down version of SA. That's a huge mistake - RF is NOT SU, we've got quite different tasks and threats, so we don't need "Soviet army of Russian Federation" they are trying to build right now.

AFAIK overall situation in RA is better then it is portrayed on the west, but is worse then displayed in our own official media - its more or less in the middle.

huh_what

Half of the Russian army are serving by payment principle, if you didnt know, and more to come. Now the Russian gouverment tries to turn its all army into "Serv by payment principle". Stop with your old information, I know that the Russian army now have much more budget than before, like a year ago. The Russian duma only wants to raise the budget, because it is possible now, that the Russian market is growing, and its exports especially. That way the Russian budget raising. Didnt you hear about the new social reforms? Didnt you hear about the raise of the salary in the Russian army? I saw at the TV, that the generals asked if they want their salary will be increased, insteat they said no, they said that better raise the salary for the young non-officer soldiers. This is respect.
Where did you hear that most of the tanks are garbage? US army even dont have enough M1A2 for their own army. They are using the M1A1, that even a T-80 can beat. I am sure, that the incident that you saw will not repeat itself, these soldiers were probably punished and they learned.

After all, the western countries paid a critical role in the fall of the Berlin wall. It was disorder and chaos then. No one knew where he belongs. Again I say - DONT COME BACK TO 1992, WE ALL KNOW THAT THIS WAS THE WORST TIME FOR THE RUSSIAN ARMY.

Dima

if the T-90 was superior, America would have it, that's the most absurd comment i have ever heard, imagine buying a weapon made by a RIVAl nation, like, you're competing against this nation for sales in the world arms market, if you buy their weapons, what do you think othred countries will do? buy they're weapons now, screw the other nations, obviously they're going to choose their own

and i'd like to differ, the T-90 is an amazing tank regardless of what anyone says, it has chobham styled armour in addition with ERA, i mean, how much better does it get, also, extremely light, much faster, the Diesel engine sucks though badly, lower silhouette

also, the M1 can fire ATGM's, while on the move, with a 90-95% hit accuracy

" 7 or 8 rounds per minute, which is a significant advantage of this tank over the majority of its foreign competitors."

that's wrong, as much as i love the T-90, that's what brings it down, 7-8 rounds/minute is actual pretty low among more modern tanks, i mean the Leclerc can fire 11-12 rounds, and i believe that it's the same with Merkava etc.(Merkava Mk.4B is the best tank in the world)

well, TinkerToys, it didn't necessarily have it before, as the T-72 existed way before the M1 even first came out, and it's just a heavily upgraded T-72, was supposed to enter initial service in 1994 i believe, 2 years after the M1A2

just to comment, the T-90 costs around $2.1-2.5 million per tank, while the M1A2 costs $4.3-5.5 million per tank, basically 2v1

"and you are wrong because the M1 is a better tank."

and why is that philospher?

also, huh what, America spends about $399 billion on their military

while Russia spends about $55-60 billion(both figures are for GDP PPP)

"and has been proven on the battlefield."

lol, now this is absolute bull, lol, yes combat proven against T-72 tanks that were buried in the ground with only the turret appearing, yes, that totally denotes the combat prowess of a tank, its supposed to be a maeneuverable vehicle with tons of firepower, and since the T-72's range is only about a half(engagement range, 1.8km compared to 3km for the M1A2) they need to utilize their superior speed to move around the Abrams tank, which is exactly what the Iraqi idiots didn't do

also, the T-72 tanks employed sheels with steel penetrators instead of tungsten ones, and they only had half-charges of propellant

"Another pointless thread... American army is better for America, Russian is better for Russia"

very good point Shuriff, Russia requires a conscript army right now, because it has such a large land masse, it needs as many soldiers as ossible, contract soldiers are wrong for Russia, America doesn't need conscripts because they're only about half the size of Russia, but Russia needs numbers, not quality right now, they have a lot more threats than America

well, actually, 1998 was the worst eyar for the Russian army, in which government expenditures on the military practically reached $0, like, i'm serious, i think it was only $4-5 billion, ever since then, they've been increasing, and actually received more money than the budget expected

__________________
for MOTHER MOLDOVA

huh_what

I was talking about the army budgets.
PLease read more carefully

PhilosopherJohn

Although not addressed at me, what is wrong with being a philosopher? We once held kingdoms in our sway, now the only thing we control are websites and political parties.

Regards, John Higgins

Anon

Go eat a billy goat Troll.

sw55

Go easy on him. We need sombody to stand up to us every now and then or we will get out of practice in wiping them out! The quality difference in equipment is historically obvious. Every encounter between armor in the last fifty years has been very one sided favoring the western products. Don't misunderstand, the engineering can be amazing in the RUssian/Soviet weapons, but they seem more to impress in parades and statistics than they are to actually win. And no matter what may be said, conscripts are nothing but targets. Nothing can compare to the professional soldier, and that is the most expensive item in the modern army, if it is run properly.