Chinese T-98 MBT vs American M1A1 - Page 3




 
--
 
July 4th, 2004  
Snauhi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Well T-72 was russian pride. We can compare it with T-90, or 95, but still Abrams's better. Of course there must be a destroyed tank in the war, that's normal............
No russian pride was T-80..
July 4th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Same with that also....
July 4th, 2004  
Snauhi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Same with that also....
OK can u PROVE me that M1 is better then T-90????

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-90.htm
--
July 4th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
If you have a platoon of M1A2s moving to contact with a platoon of T-90s, with well trained Russian crews. The M1A2s have a great advantage with their highly superior optics, gun, ammo, communications, armor. If you have a platoon of M1A2s vs. a platoon of T-90s doing stuff like we are in Iraq, the tanks are more equal


I would pretty much say so too. In tank vs. tank fights, even most radically refitted russian tanks are well behind western standards and can't cope with them on direct firefight with standardized crews. On all-around battlefield tasks the gap will be more narrow and due to the price and certain robustness difference (M1 just is a plain high tech tool too advanced to be used by all) T90 can be easily favourable however.

For the russian tank tree and development, mike said all necessary. It's strictly two pronged from the end of 60's, with T64/80 and T72/90 lines, of which T72 line takes more from basic T62 design (though I still woudn't say they belong to the same "batch". In that case the conclusion can be nearly made all the way through T54, T34 and BT and subtypes of all these right to the Christie, all being more or less direct successors and developments of each other).

I think the M1A2's Chobham/DU armor gives it a better edge, and the T90's protection only gets on-par with the additional armors (ERA and applique).
There are few MBT vs MBT combat examples of the capability of Russian KE rounds against western tanks (this shapes my decision favoring western armor protection ability), as there are western KE rounds performance against Russian armor (Abrams and Challenger vs T-72 in Gulf War).

Personally, I seriously doubt even an M1A2, Challenger 2, or T-90 would stand a chance against against the Leo2A6's 120mm L/55 firing latest German KE rounds.

The US has been slower in the field of tube-launched guided weapons (like TERM), especially compared to Russian 125 mm developments (current Russian research has brought the technology down to prototype 85mm rounds)
Aside from the Israeli LAHAT, it seems the US is finally developing a (promising) capable 120mm system, currently named MRM-KE
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-04l.html
with a proposed range of 7 miles or more....

If you have a platoon of M1A2s moving to contact with a platoon of T-90s, with well trained Russian crews. The M1A2s have a great advantage with their highly superior optics, gun, ammo, communications, armor. If you have a platoon of M1A2s vs. a platoon of T-90s doing stuff like we are in Iraq, the tanks are more equal.

Ok for starters unless Pakistan some how gets an M1A2 these two tanks wont face each other, by the time US tanks face Russian tanks the US will be using something totaly different and Russia will have the T-95. Ok The US currently uses one of the most powerful guns in the world, the 52cal 120mm, second it uses DU and Chobham armor, thrid (but probaly first) the US has highly trained crews and some of the est elecronics to assist them. forth the M1 is faster then the T-90. Ok the T-90 has the most advanced ERA in the world, an anti missle system and electronics equivilent to the origonal M1(remeber the US uses for more advanced stuff) The problam which kills the T-90s is the poor quality of the gun(Russian manufacturing is inifior to the US) that means less propelent and thus a lower velocity, and second is the Autoloader, well how t is arragned in the tank with live ammo in the crew area(I think the autoloader itself is fine the US considered using on in the A2). Ok well now we can say the M1 will win hands dow? No. you can't it depends on the crew and the battle conditions(though the M1 can function any where) and the M1A2 is not invincable. It depends on the crews, take an Iraqi crew and put them in an M1 and put a US crew in a T-72, the end result the T-72 wins, why? well the training of the US crews, as well as been tought about their own equipment they also learn about the enemy tanks(the need to know their strengths and weaknesses in order to take advantage. ok thats combatwise, tech wise M1A2, not even the T-95 will beat the M1A@ in electronics, so that sais it for the T-90.

The Abrams pretty much kicks the ass of the T-90 in everything except being lighter, so it might be able to get to the battlefield faster and more. Plus, the missile defense systems give the T-90 maybe an advantage against modern ATGMs, but the Marine M1A1 has one too, so it's probably not much time before the M1A2 gets one
July 4th, 2004  
Snauhi
 
on long range T-90 would kick the shit out of M1 with the ATGM AT-11 reflex and it have the range up to 4000m. T-90 is lighter then M1 and more mobile that means it can easily outdrive M1, like T-34 vs german Panther tanks..
July 4th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
on long range T-90 would kick the shit out of M1 with the ATGM AT-11 reflex and it have the range up to 4000m. T-90 is lighter then M1 and more mobile that means it can easily outdrive M1, like T-34 vs german Panther tanks..
I think You are beaten, and you don't wanna except it
July 4th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
FI is not GOD, anyway their ranking of Global maintank TOP 5 (by FI):

1. M1A2 SEP Abrams (System Enhancement Package) / General Dynamics Land Systems Division / USA

2. Merkava Mark IV / The Israel Ordnance Corps / Israel

3. Type 90 / Mitsubishi Heavy Industries / Japan

4. Leopard 2A6 / Krauss-Maffei Wegmann / Germany

5. Challenger 2 / Vickers Defence Systems Division / United Kingdom

http://www.forecast1.com/press/press121.htm
July 4th, 2004  
Snauhi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
on long range T-90 would kick the shit out of M1 with the ATGM AT-11 reflex and it have the range up to 4000m. T-90 is lighter then M1 and more mobile that means it can easily outdrive M1, like T-34 vs german Panther tanks..
I think You are beaten, and you don't wanna except it
not really i ask for proof that aint no proof it just some things you want to belive..

Because i can make a story too.
July 4th, 2004  
Snauhi
 
The problem with the Abrams is the lack of upgrades for it. Basically all that's been done to the original model is adding a big gun and some more advanced sighting equipment. Whereas the Russians seem to put out a new upgrade every few weeks. 1985-1991 the Abrams was at least one of the top 2 tanks, now it might rank 5th. It is a pretty good tank, but it needs some changes to the armor to make it more suitable to current battlefield threats(especially increase the side and rear armor!). It at least has good crew survivability, but if the tank is damaged and unoperable what good is it?
July 4th, 2004  
Doc.S
 
Snauhi sir.....

Where did you find all those burned out Abrams? I have only read about some burned out tanks. Any links?


FlyingFrog sir.....

Are the ATGM system on the pictures the new HJ-8E Red Arrow system?

And one thing more - any news about the Chinese new generation IFV programme? Based on the Russian BMP-3 concept?

LINK:

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/ifv2g.asp

T-2000 that tank sent shivers up my spine
Any more pictures? (screen saver nerd)

Another cool tank is the Type 99 amphibian tank


Uncle_Sam sir....

Gulf War:
One more thing about the US tanks - Well the tanks are great no question about that one. But the ammunition that your military industrial complex government are using kills your own soldiers and other people even long after they have burned out an T-72. It might also be mentioned that the versions these armies fielded were, in either case, at least 30 years out of date at the time, had not been significantly upgraded, were firing inferior ammunition (often with steel penetrators and half-charges of propellant), and they were faced with well-equipped forces using the most up-to-date cutting-edge equipment. The crews and soldiers that have been killed long after Gulf War. One cannot help feeling sorry for those guys.

Cheers:
Doc.S