The Russians desperately needed to mount a response after the 1991 Gulf War, when the Americans stormed through the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. The Russian economy’s defense sector was reeling, after the American military’s Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles left the battlefield littered with literally hundreds of burnt-out and charred carcasses of once mighty Russian T-72 and T-80 tanks. As if the Russians weren’t already in bad enough shape after the collapse of the Soviet Union, now the international image of their largest defense export, the T-72 tank, and their newest model, the T-80, as no more than a flaming hulk of metal on the battlefield. Not good PR for the second largest weapons exporter in the world. Something had to be done. The Russian’s solution: rename the tanks. By combining elements of the T-72 and T-80 together, the Russians were able to create the T-90, and have successfully duped the market ever since.
Despite the fact that the T-90s design aspects are nothing new, the newest production models do include some major upgrades to the existing designs. A new gun being one of the biggest improvements, the newest T-90s coming off the lines can be fitted with Explosive Reactive Armor, laser rangefinders, an electromagnetic pulse generator to combat magnetic mines, and laser warning recievers. There is also a new type of radar jamming system to scramble the guidance of incoming radar-guided anti-tank missiles. Basically, you get early 70’s mechanics with 90’s electronics.
Don’t get me wrong though, Russia’s output capacity for producing these tanks can skyrocket if they wish it to. Never forget the inferior US Sherman tanks swarming the superior German Tigers. Technical sophistacation found with the likes of Western MBTs such as the German Leopard, French Leclerc, British Challenger 2, and the American Abrams M1, are expensive and time-consuming to produce and repair, while the Russians have never shown a sensitivity to losses in great numbers of mass-produced war machinery.
79 Responses
Hi, I found your blog on this new directory of WordPress Blogs at blackhatbootcamp.com/listofwordpressblogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, i duno. Anyways, I just clicked it and here I am. Your blog looks good. Have a nice day. James.
Posted on September 19th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Russia is still a major threat to the western world, look at Georgia, russia fielded 2ooo tanks in under 2 hours. i still believe that the U.S could win a war against russia, but we would have to work for it.
Posted on October 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
maybe of maybe not
USA may win or may not win
russia we could is the only nation with the least weapon superiority which could atleast stand against USA so we could talk about this when a 3rd world war starts
Posted on November 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 am
Even if i usually not prefer USA versa Russia, i still believe Cj that USA would win, USA is still to big, and Russia is still to cheap today, perhaps after more economical crises in the capitalistic world this would change though
Posted on December 2nd, 2008 at 7:56 am
Rosssiyu to win not possible-it is not conjecture, but the real fact, history of wars it confirms with Russia.
Posted on December 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am
Russia is a facade of bluster and ludicrous rhetoric as it was for the enirety of the cold war. Us military leaders were probably more responsible for this fiction than the russians. They wanted better and more weapons so would continually over estimate the capabilities of the Warsaw Pact to funnel more money their way. After the wall came down anybody with eyes and a brain saw the story state of this vaunted “Bear”. Yes the Russians has alot of harware in Georgia quickly but di you take a close look at what it was? 70’s and 80’s crap !!! BRDMS? T-80’s? Please.
Posted on December 9th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
russia is recovering from their economic crisis. I hope we dont go to war with them. instead of being rivals we should work together against serious threats like al qaeda.
Posted on December 9th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Russia is to big to lose war. In war US against Russia, US is goig down. You dont know what Russia have in Siberia. There are towns who are not on the map, And one more thing, Americans are gangsters they will always attac smoler contries, they will never attac strog country. You can see that with attac on Serbija. Veri small country but US never seng groud attac. Why? Bicouse the afraid that they will lose that kind of a war. You can imagin what will hepen with Russija.
Posted on February 12th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
First of all, Iraq did not field T-80s in the 1991 Gulf War. They did have the T-72M models, which are the inferior export models of the T-72s (compared to the Russian T-72B). Add to that inferior Iraqi crews and Allied air-superiority and the results are obvious.
These are conditions that you would probably not have in an all out war with Russian forces.
Posted on March 3rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
My side is with America first. But, we must live in reality and not in sentiments. Russia at the moment is rich. Actually one of the richest on earth. Due to the ongoing sell of resources. They even provide steam to Europe. And like we did once, they are acquiring technology. Soon, they will have the tech and man power to be a serious military threat to anything on earth. And, at the moment, they can live hundreds of years with interests collections alone. I agree that the world will be well better off, if we unite against terror and other threats. Instead of thinking about a war, that will destroy both nations in short time. The winner will be a loser too, as the two countries can sustain and survive a 90 days war. And by then, both countries will be happy to call it off and name it “A terrible mistake”.
Posted on March 7th, 2009 at 5:01 am
To be even more accurate – in ‘91 Gulf War, the Iraq was equiped with T-55s and T-72s. There were no T-80s…
Also, in case of war between USA and Russia, we should not expect the tank-against-tank battles – it would be a nuclear conflict.
Posted on March 17th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
1stly. Russians do not need t90 to defeat Abrams – read info about Kornet anti-tanks system, Tochka U. Lot s of Israeli tanks were destroyed with these simple weapon and that made Israeli government to send delegation to Moscow.
2ndly – the Russians have 13000 neuclear warheads similar to US + thermal H – bombs. Only crazy men can dream of defeating Russia – it is mutual destruction by no means. According to the history no one on earth never defeated them.
3dly Us and Europe should think more of Chinese threat.
I am from Brazil.
Posted on March 18th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Ok so apparently the only people that have commented on this are Russian Mafiosos that are still the worldwide stereotype for brainwashed. First I have to comment on someone saying that Russia may win “after more economical problems for capitalists” or w/e, Ok buddy, economics 101 for you here, the USA’s economy holds the whole freaking world up whether you people in the boonies of Russia like it or not and what hurts the US these days hurts everyone. Second I have to address someone else’s comment on how Russia has stuff we don’t know about and “cities not on maps, comrade.” Just a little info here, Russia isn’t the only country in the world with black ops and I’ll tell you it damn sure doesn’t have the most advanced or deadly. I assure you if there came a time when a 3rd World War threatened, the West (meaning Britain, America, etc.) would have some things to show the world(Russia, Mid-East, Far East) that would make you think twice about continuing.
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Typical ignorant Russian’s think there unstoppable and cannot be defeated. To address some of these totally ignorant cocky comments about Russia, well first off to whoever said Russia has never been defeated and never will its too large. Wow well during WW2 if you don’t remember the Germans swept across Russia all the way to Moscow and Stalingrad. Oh and didn’t you guys get pounded by the Mujaheddin invading Afghanistan which led to a humiliating withdraw and now its Chechnya and Georgia. Mctexan couldn’t have put it better “Russia is a facade of bluster and ludicrous rhetoric as it was for the entirety of the cold war”. Russia’s military is extremely low strength right now due to their economy crisis. That’s why Russia is obviously trying to provoke proxy wars between Iran and Israel so we will get involved while they profit off their natural gas. Half the weapons they say they have are extremely exaggerated just for PR. Russia wouldn’t have a chance in a non-nuclear war with the US simple as that, so they would have to resort to nuclear weapons in which ill just say we have an ACE card up our sleeve for ICBMs.
Posted on March 28th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
This is the 21st century, in a modern / conventional war, the country with the superior air power and missile systems will crush the other, and the US and western powers dominate in these areas. Not to mention the US is the true economic terrorist. Look at what happens when the US has a recession, the whole world sinks into economic depression. No shots would even be fired to bring Moscow to it’s knees. But just to humor you, the fact that the western powers field the f-22 and f-35 fighters means complete air domination, nearly negating the strategy of mass producing troops and tanks through out-dated soviet methods. Moscow has large oil reserves and that is an advantage, but not enough to win against the US (over even a country like China, Japan, or Germany) who has just enough resources to crush soviet infrastructure and dominate air space within days.
Posted on April 14th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
People who think that the US will fight Russia IN RUSSIA are stupid.
We’d fight your proxies/clients or you’d fight former clients or our proxies would fight each other.
But any sort of battle from the western Ukrainian border to China’s Pacific border would be won by the defender, and US military leaders know that.
Posted on April 23rd, 2009 at 5:11 am
THis are all bull shit……………………….one thing i knw is that USA will burn into asssss one day….. they have done lots of harm to all … though u cant see it now with peoples anger.. we will see when the actual time comes…………… so lets wait for the time
Posted on April 28th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
zyma chill out dude you’re anger consumes you , Wars are won by tactics,logistics and men willing and counting on the other guy dying for his country !!
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 1:08 am
First research BlackWater, Triple Canopy, Halliburton, and Clayton Consultants. Then you’ll know the people.
Then research electric submarines, rail-gun technology, Metal Storm, TROPHY, and “unmanned war”. Then you’ll know the technology.
Then realize that the middle-eastern wars are about positioning bases around Russia and China etc, not terrorism or oil.
Now read Sun Tzu’s “Art Of War” about100 times.
Do all that and come back and read on…
Now you know the USA Military, and hopefully more if you did your research.
Any questions?
Posted on April 30th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Russia is the second biggest arms exporter: USD 8 billion in 2008 vs. about USD 32 billion for the USA.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5846
http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm#USArmsExports
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Russia/idUSTRE5194AW20090210
Posted on May 10th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Huh, look man, russki propaganda is stretching worldwide, isnt it? I’m Georgian which lived in U.S. for years and my feelings are positive towards this country. But, russian guy wants to live in the states, while hating it and dreaming of big red russia invading U.S. paradox? nah, russian nature. Let’s get down to business now, russia is country big enough to pay attention to its history: it was being f#$%ed by mongols for 300 years in a row, it has lost many other wars, was dominated by polish, lithuanian and sweden, was literally crushed in world war 1, by Germany, was “saved by the bell” in WW2 by americans, for U.S. was feeding russia, otherwise they would lose forsure. Not to mention Afghanistan, Chechnya and Georgia. By the way, we, Georgians have army of 32000 man, while russian army counts million and a half. Russians, can you count? russia is a pathetic giant.
Posted on May 10th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
i don’t like war
Posted on May 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I think China will be the problem in the future, not Russia.
Posted on May 25th, 2009 at 7:09 am
China won’t be a problem. You have to realize China is swayed heavily by the US. Taiwan was booted out to bring in China do you really think NATO nations specifically the US would do this if it didn’t have some sway or control? China saw the writing on the wall via South Korea and Japan and even Taiwan. Made in CHina is seen now more than Taiwan which was big in the 80’s and even 90’s. China witnessed South Korea prosper and Taiwan while it had trouble urbanizing and feeding it’s people.
Back to the original topic which is a conventional war between Russia and the US. I find it largely illogical that it would happen as any western regime installed even if conquered would incite discontent on a large scale. Everyone here is comparing the US military to Russia or other nations even hardware and fail to show that the US is a volunteer army where as almost every other nation with a large standing army are conscripts or forced service. You cannot compare any country to the US as it’s unique that it’s arguably the strongest superpower with a volunteer military. The other glossed over fact is that almost any other nation with the same power as the US would be expansionist and conquer territory. The US has done little if any of this and you can bet the French and even Britain would still have colonies or territories conquered to further their own personal coffers. The US isn’t innocent and does have interests and has companies as well as political ones it exerts but keep in mind the overall theme here even after WWII.
This is why to this date I think the US is the best example or at least a model to be based or loosely based on a world order as a country they have the moral high ground even if sometimes there are questionable acts.
Posted on June 8th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
One last thing I wanted to point out. The US if suffering significant casualties which wouldn’t be much as many find any number under a hundred thousand disturbing losses would sour the public in any war. This is the only way to bargain for a cease fire or cease to hostilities. If the Russians did something the likes of Pearl Harbor or even 9-11 without the US declaring war or any acts of war in the public eye first there would be nothing anyone could do to save the Russian people. I guaruntee you that the Americans would do whatever in their power to obliterate Russia as a country.
I have never seen such teamwork and single minded purpose as I have with my Grandparents both sets in WWII (one in pacific and one in germany) and after 9-11 when some of my friends got called up. The US still has factories and if needed the transition to WWII era production could be achieved easily I wager.
Anyways let’s hope it doesn’t happen as the Russians need to sort out their own internal problems and are a good people overall in my opinion.
Posted on June 8th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Nukes, so these tanks don’t really matter. If US and Russia went to war we’d all be dead.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 am
Russian kit in the dessert war and iraq was only encountered after decades of neglect and disrepair due to sanctions againt Saddam that starved them of spare parts, high grade fuels and lubricants and simultaneously destroyed the morale of the largely “press ganged” reservist army. This army cut off from supply was starved and bombed for weeks before the well fed and supplied Allied Proffessional Armies actually attacked. Not a fair test of russian kit! P.S. The well supplied and fed “Republican Guard” units were only able to interfere in Dessert Storm at on point in the battle, to deal with them Bitish armoured units were deployed opposite and tasked with thier destruction. Mission was accomplished with first round kills against frontal armour on T72’s at 7km+ beyond M1 range (especially that 105mm peashooter version). Ohh! by the way availablity omn M1’s due to repair break down rated at 67.5% Challengers and Warrior ICV’s 95 and 93% respectivly (read Nato service reports via “Nato military review”) This means a force of 1000 M1’s is on any given day reduced to 675 tanks before they even start thier engines, against a force of say 1000 Challengers able actually field 950 tanks. Brits would have the battle half won before it began!
Posted on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 am
you nave to understand all this talk of wars and rumers of wars will always be here untill the end… we must all get along but nature tells us different… when you have mad men running countrys that brain wash there people and in turn the people do not have an open mind to think for themselves, you have a disfuntional country…as for war, dont ever think that the united states would loose a war…. only a hard mad man nation would always loose, or you might say just fade away….with all the tec. we have now, smart booms smart bullets, a hitec navy, we can saw we would not have to use nucs… even if russia fires a nuc, we have the capasaity to shoot it down….. russia cant keep up with the u. s. just for ons reason. they donot have the the funds to produce….by this means we build a jet they build one bigger, but you have to understand that they build weapons on a cheaper scale and thats not good….lets take russian tanks for example…..they may be new or look like new, but they are the the same tank they have been useing sience ww 2….why it looks different and a new modle, is because it my have anew turrent new tracks, but its an old engine and is the same componits sience ww 2……..they only update the outside…..they still have the same teachings of military tactics, and never will they change or dont know how to win….. when the oil fields were buring in irac, the russins told sadom to set them afire…..stupid…..the only reason why they are in money or so called money is response to one man, an oil beron who is giving russia money to stay alive……as for war they will fail….you may think that just because they have the men to that out number us douse not mean they would win and and take over the u. s…..it will never happen…. for one thing, king david one man of a boys age killed a giant, and won a nation…..we are as david was, and we will win….so you see, just because a nation may bost all that they have, all that they can do will not win a war, it takes brains to win a war, not what you have……..dont worry of a war now, it will never happen not in this life time……ww 3 will come and man will distroy man but before this will happen god will distroy to stop it all………………………..
Posted on July 31st, 2009 at 6:18 am
3 Things: The odds of world war three are astronumical(sorry for spelling) because of every major power country being so wrapped up in another and invested in each other. The fact of a nuclear war would never happen because every one knows it would be end day and the only countries with a fighting chance would be those with strong air forces and anti missle defences. On the matter of russia vr usa we would loose and i am strongly american and patrotic but china and most of the world would side with them. but it wouldnt happen for the fact that china needs the us for the time bien. but wont for ever. we support each other atm but india will take over for us and china will come colleting in the future. as for weapons every contry has an idea of what the other one has and every country has its secerts. but a guns a gun and a tanks a tank it all comes down to who has the most experince in the long run. But to say russia and the us would fight is a joke and if we did it most likely would be with words and doucuments. as far as war is concerned it would be plan stupid for us to fight. on the question of russia has unmarked citys so do we all. and i will say this if americans knew the weapons they had or we had they would be shitting there pants. the fact remains they dont they only know a small portion of the weapons we have. and im sure russia has it the same way to a exstint. and black op groups arnt speacial forces they are missions. the usa has ove 25000 special forces just in the army. BUT the one that are succesful know one knows about and thats scary.
Posted on August 1st, 2009 at 5:20 am
I don’t believe that Iraq ever bought or used the T-80……
Posted on August 11th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
For the people talking about Afganistan…
The 22nd royal regement, I’m serving in it…
We are by no means here to take over, or opress
Its heart breaking to hear this, we’re feeding children, rebuilding houses, schools…
Anywho, a US vs Russia war would never happen, and no, it would not be a nuclear war, that would be saved as a last ditch effort, if that…
If a war were to break out, (land sea and airborn, not nuclear)
Russia has no reliable allies, all allies are third world countries, much like themselves
A Russia Vs US war is really a Russia Vs Nato war
In which case you’d have T90’s Vs Challenger II, Leapord II, M1’s, etc
It would be the Su-35, 37 etc, Vs. Eurofighter Typhoons, Super Hornet(F-22) F35’s etc
And you would have french, german, Submarines, along with the famed Us Virgina Class, and the best air craft carries vs. the russian Out dated crap…
Hands done, conventional war, Nato …
Nuclear war… I’d still have to say nato
Theres a new system that can has a tested 97% effectiveness against outdated Russian IBM’s … Nato would have at least 15 different countries possibly launching Nukes, with thier own defence, I don’t think russians would be able to deal with it…
For the Russians, Get a new leader, adopt dipolamcy, and make English your main language, or at least second language, it’ll do you good, (Look at the other countries that have done so?
Proud canadian serving,
Are army’s out dated, our airforce is in triple digits, and we don’t have enough men to fill our tanks, but we’re trained hard, and fight for innocence, I love being a peacekeeper!
All of you other countries Can laugh and make fun, but we’re the only army with integrody…(For the dirty Russians who think the us is evil, your the evil bastards, we’re the Us’s cousin) I would like new gear though, some interceptor Bullet proof armour, some bradly fighting Vehicles, some Challengers… AND A NEW WEAPON SYSTEM, C7-8’s are useless, and the new magpul massada
Posted on August 17th, 2009 at 2:10 am
Guys, all this is funny.
97% offectiveness against russian IBMs? Don’t make me laugh! If you are right, tell the US government to stop investing billions and billions in anti-IBM programmes, sattelites etc. “I am american, we are the strongest!”. Well guys, ask the germans. Russian tanks weak? Well ask the alive older german men what do they think about the russians. They talk with respect for them and their weapons. Ask the israelis! Their “Patriot”s couldn’t catch a single missile of the arabians (models much outdated to the “Patriot”). Their winnings were only won when fighting against the inferior export models of russian weaponary. Korean war? Americans remember how easy was for them shooting down the Soviet-made fighters, but what happened when russian pilotes started piloting in the war? American Fs started having troubles.
Iraqi war? against a country without any real weapon imports or parts for years?
Serbia? Did I hear “the invulnerable F-117?”? No? Thank you for not mentioning!
F-15? A copy of the MiG-25, which escaped from the USSR to Japan and americans examined it.
Anyways, respect to the americans!
F-22? Great plane! (russian catapult seat, by the way! : ) )
Abrams M1A2? Hey, guys! It proved itself!
Military electronics? Any lighter and better in the world? Few to compare!
Nuclear war? Don’t be stupid, guys, both countries will be wiped out, no matter if NATO is with the US or not. Only Russia has more territory where there is nothing to hit… Or I may be wrong : )
I even don’t know why russians continue studying new rockets, while Topol-M can go through any defence and hit with extremely high certainty. But you know the russians… Never enough! : )
After the ratification of the agreements for disarmament, the US told Moskow: “Please, don’t hide your weapons behind the Urals, you have satellites, we have also…” : )
So, forget about a war between US and Russia. They are equal. Just imagine what happens to Europe if Russia says: “No more gas or petrol, guys”. What are they gonna put in the engines of their tanks? Water? By the way – Russia has the biggest fresh whater reserves in the world…
Focus on China… 1,4B people with a growing economy and growing nationalism is something dangerous.
BTW – nothing against chinese, just saying that they would be a problem for the West, not Russia. Russia is somewhat a part of the so called “West”.
Thank you for reading!
Posted on September 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
fellows try to think three dimensionally. sure , no doubt the united snakes has better technology, has better weapon system AT THE MOMENT.but what is the underlying thing that makes it all work.MONEY. for the last 200 years they have been the richest nation and that money (part of it)went into funding high tech weapon systems.the russians even during the cold war just could not keep up with the expenditure.they failed as a nation not because of social unrest( that was the secondary reason) but because their government ran out of money. PERENNIAL TECHNOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY which most of you are automatically banking on is certainly not guaranteed. if a nation has enough resources sooner or later it will match up to you.you see technology percolates very fast and you can’t really seal it.look at india , china , and hell even russia. they are managing to pull out some really impressive stuff despite shoe string budgets.all that stuff about russia following the wrong strategy and that you have all the brains , keep forgetting that under the situation that possibly was the only viable strategy. they produce cheap stuff ,coz that’s all they could afford.
so the question to be asked is this .will US always maintain this financial edge?
you know the answer to that question.
WORLD BANK- your own world bank has pointed out that the bRic will the group to watch out for. all the countries are rapidly going the capitalistic path and in turn are enjoying it’s
dividends.russia has been rapidly upgrading it’s armed forces and NATO has even warned that by 2020, 80% of it’s weapons systems will be modernised.
you see where i am getting at.your days are numbered.
you see you may think that us is a nation with foreign policy based on morals and all that , but records prove something else. it is a cruel country. people , nations resent you and are scared of you.
i don’t think that is good.
Posted on October 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Russian forces are broken , they were barely able to beat up Georgia , they shot their own planes down, had terrible lines of communication, no modern intel gathering and a bunch of broken down tanks .
We should have given the Georgians a bunch of Javelin anti tank launchers and the Russian mouse would have had his drunken ass kicked back over the boarder .
Thanks Vladimir for destroying the Russian military !!
Posted on November 2nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
IMHO article is dumb and so not accurate. Arguments:
1. T-72 and T-80 are not even in same tank series. T-80 – premier Soviet MBT. T-72 – cheaper solution.
2. Iraq NEVER HAD T-80! It’s simple reason – T-80 never was exported outside USSR.
3. Saddam’s best tanks were downgraded (“monkey model”) T-72s. These weak models are not even comparable to real upgraded T-72 by Russian 1980-1990s standarts. Also Iraq had many T-55, some T-62 (chinese clones) and other mostly oudated machnines. Not so fair fight – OLD soviet armor against LATEST NATO armor.
>Despite the fact that the T-90s design aspects are nothing new
Bullshit! T-90 got new armor, new equipment, active protection systems, new ATGMs long range missiles, new engine, new fast autoloader, new fire control system…
>the newest production models do include some major upgrades to the existing designs.
So what? M1 abrams was developed in 1970s and all its recent upgrades (such as SEP model) are still based on existing design.
>A new gun being one of the biggest improvements, the newest T-90s coming off the lines can be fitted with Explosive Reactive Armor, laser rangefinders, an electromagnetic pulse generator to combat magnetic mines, and laser warning recievers. There is also a new type of radar jamming system to scramble the guidance of incoming radar-guided anti-tank missiles. Basically, you get early 70’s mechanics with 90’s electronics.
Well, but most of western tanks ARE NOT EQUIPED with similar systems. For example, western MBTs are not equiped with active protection systems, autoloader, ATGM missiles.
>while the Russians have never shown a sensitivity to losses in great numbers of mass-produced war machinery.
Your opinion is simply biased, based on not accurate information.
Posted on November 9th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
three letters that render everything above this post useless…EMP… technology is an advantage but also the biggest disadvantage when tanks dont move and planes dont fly satellights are disabled.. that leaves one thing infantry! any engagement between two major powers will be fought with ww2 tactics and technology due to the two nations wiping out each others electronics… o and also wanted to point out that yes the us economy and dollar are huge but that is a weekness aswell since foreign investers control a very large portion of the us econom ( china ve one of the largest) they can dump their shares flooding the economy and plumiting the value of the dollar creating a recession or even depression.. most major powers of the world usa being the worst are forgetting that a single fingure on the hands of individual soldiers are what win wars not a f***ing computer that attempts to do the same thing just overly complicated and expensive.
o now my opinion, no nation today nows how to win a war. its not just the milatary u are fighting in an invasion…its the people and their ideas and beliefs! to win a war you have to be focused on controlling the population and either trying to win their hearts…(that usually works great/sarcasim) or inciting the fear that you will use any means necessary to get them in line.( the nazi germany way) if russia were to invade the us it would fell miserably due to the fact that most american citizens themseves are well armed!! myse;f included
Posted on December 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am
This is most beautifull thing I ever seen and dangerous also but this are not good becouse that
real meaning of wars exactly.
Posted on December 26th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Considering the standoff long range strike ability that the US has, i doubt that these T-90s would get close enough to engage our own Abrams 2 tanks. the air force would just steal all the army’s thunder and just lauch a rain of missiles them before they got within tank gun range. typical of avoiding a head on confrontation if u ask me.
Posted on January 1st, 2010 at 7:42 am
As some one that spent there whole life on the study of military and miltary tatics for years there’s alot of doubt that y’all have towards the US and that’s the wrong to do we are a Country that wholes many secrets and we only put out the one’s we don’t care about other nations knowing about, before you comment on whole wins a war or lose do your study on thing like other then war like the Free masons and history and stuff like that. And see how it all tides together trust no one has it close like the UsA the only treat to US is are Self’s and once we go all HEck will break loose
Posted on January 1st, 2010 at 8:47 pm
>Considering the standoff long range strike ability that the US has, i doubt that these T-90s would get close enough to engage our own Abrams 2 tanks.
Reason why? T-90 is advanced tank (especially new T-90ME variant).
it’s not iraqi “monkey model” T-72 with lack of simple equipment.
>the air force would just steal all the army’s thunder and just lauch a rain of missiles them before they got within tank gun range. typical of avoiding a head on confrontation if u ask me.
Russian tank formations are protected with mobile air defence systems (medium range / close range). So it’s very hard work for air defence – you must include their aircraft losses too.
Posted on January 11th, 2010 at 9:02 am
You guys are hilarious discussing who would win,
russia or the u.s
but the truth is they will never fight each other because if one country attacks, the other will reply and has the capability to reply with some 1000’s of nuclear warheads within minutes attacking strategic locations like capital cities, air defences, military bases etc.
And it will escalate into a full nuclear war and the projected casualties is 600,000,000 people dead.
Both sides will not risk that happening and therefore there will not be a war between the us and russia.
but there will always be a war between smaller countries,
after all, as long as ther are people, there are wars.
Posted on February 4th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
War between Russia and the US? And Russia will loose that war? No way. Russia will win. The American army hasn’t won a war since 1945.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
It is like driving an Honda Accord vs a Ford Taurus. Technology is so close. However, it’s the heart, passion, and courage of the Americans that the Russian will never possess, like the rest of the world. Humans are evil, but Americans do more goods in the world than anyone else.
Posted on February 12th, 2010 at 4:10 am
What about the Russo-Finnish War ( 1939-40 ). Russia sent 400,000 men, tanks and air force to invade Finland. Russia had the advantage to take the country in a month. What happened? Russia lost 200,000 men in that war to Finland’s loss of 25,000 men. In the northern part Russia lost almost all their equipment. The Finns used a new type of warfare: guerrilla warfare on a massive scale. The war ended with a peace treaty. Finland lost some land but not their country.
Posted on February 20th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Russia may have very impressive equipment but what about the people handling the equipment? In the movie ( Battle of the Bulge ) , Colonel Hesseler said I got the tanks and everything but his driver said what about the men driving the tanks? That part of the movie was fiction but it did drive a point. In Russia, the life expectancy of men is 45 compared with women is 72. Alcoholism and cigarette smoking has taken its toll. 60% of Russian men smoke cigarettes with 40% don’t. In their schools and elsewhere, they don’t teach anything about the dangers of smoking and alcoholism.
Posted on February 20th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
What about the Russo-Finnish War ( 1939-40 ). Russia sent 400,000 men, tanks and air force to invade Finland. Russia had the advantage to take the country in a month. What happened? Russia lost 200,000 men in that war to Finland’s loss of 25,000 men. In the northern part Russia lost almost all their equipment. The Finns used a new type of warfare: guerrilla warfare on a massive scale. The war ended with a peace treaty. Finland lost some land but not their country.
Posted on February 20th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Posted on February 28th, 2010 at 6:17 am
I think Russia will win war against the U.S. For simple reason, I like it more.
Posted on March 1st, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Can you reconcile each other and not despise each other
Posted on March 11th, 2010 at 6:07 am
The Geaorgian army,equiped with modern american weaponry,trained by americans was sent on its knees in a couple of days after they had planned for the war for a year. what does that tell u? Moreover Russia was caught unawaress
Posted on March 12th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
I think that the United States and Europe’s tank are too expensive. In fact, our Chinese tank technology is not inferior to you, and inexpensive.
I think that the Russians have been sold to India’s T90 tanks are vulnerable to destroy.
I only believe our Chinese T99 tank
Posted on March 13th, 2010 at 5:54 am
WHY WOULD YOU GUYS EVEN WANT TO SEE RUSSIA AND USA GO TO WAR? Fuck you all. Pig-headed, myopic assholes trying to see who could pee farther. War is never “romantic” or “hardcore kick-ass, yeah!” It is not just about “warriors” dying in the “field of honor”. It is about people dying. It is about kids and grandmas dying, their brains on the floor. it is your wife dying. it is about your own child dying. try imagining your love ones twitching on the floor, or screaming in pain while burning. wow..just imagine how “hardcore” and how “honorable” war is. wooohooo!!!! go america! go russia!
just go fuck yourselves.
Posted on March 20th, 2010 at 6:58 am
As you say that the U.S. should become extinct. more and more people have died in the Afghanistan and the Iraq war. i fuck the America and the NATO.
Posted on March 20th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Wow, i love it when the wholw US and russia thinkg comes up.
s not have to be hi-tech to work.
look at how US tanks and Israili tanks are constanly taken down by IED and rocket grenades…of which russian design is eminent and tried and tested. Who knows what advances are done as know one pays attention to russia because of our sterio typical view of it.
America had a dedicated confidnet well equiped army… Great for modern short sharp shock warfare, the modern way. It can very much act like a glass hammer. Americans really do care about casualties. Thats a major problem. I think the russians do not. Not in a calous way though. They just beleive in dying for their country against aggressors. They are massive compared to the states. So what if a little behind in tech, the sheer production balances that out, quote the guy earlier about Shermans. They were so poor compared to german and russian tanks, but when it came to the crunch they won out against the panzer through sheer volume.
Russia has that…not many others do. Certainly not the states.
Its natural every US beleive they would win and that the russians beleive they will win.
But, unless the States manged to nock out the mother land straight away….i think it is pretty obvoius, they would have to stop and sue for peace or be battered to submission. Although i beleive USA could do it possibly, if they did not then no contest. ALso, a heavy relaince on modern tech is a very double edge sword. Do yo uthink Russia and any other nation in that fact do not have pretty hefty EMP tech to knock it all out and when that happens, who is more determined on the ground, more determined to do it “old skool” who has the more reliable old tech that wont fail or easily be scrambled and so on and so…
who knows eh? one thing for sure US is quiye loud about its capabilities…russia is not…
Its always the quiet ones….=)
Russia has a history of being out matched but bloody minded and just waring the enemy out and winning the atrition. Stubbourness is a great thing.
I hope the day never comes. But one way or the other some one will want a fight.
But being english i will sit on my little island and duck for cover then pop out to rule whats left lmao!
Posted on March 23rd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
DarkAdvocate
bloody hell relax…its a debate, and people should be able to postulate and talk it through its a what if…
not just you though, people take it to seriously.
Its just a talk….
Posted on March 23rd, 2010 at 4:21 pm
india n pakistan war,
yom kippur war,
battle of france,
battle of bulge
my point u need good tactics/intelligence/air superiority/etc
Posted on April 1st, 2010 at 1:04 pm
If it came to conventional warfare between the two I think America would loose.
Russians are tough in mind and spirit like most eastern europian nations and don’t care about loosing significant number on people to achieve their objective.(history showed!)
Americans always hide behind their technology and again history showed that on the ground they r paper tigers!(Vietnam,Former Yugoslavia where they didnt have guts to go on ground,Irak where they cannot cope,Afganistan where they used Northern Alliance to fight Talliban) .Shortly usually conducting wars by proxy!
Posted on April 3rd, 2010 at 4:30 am
that nonsense to compare US with Russia or China, if US really can forced Russia and China about they want why didn’t attack them both now like they did to Yugoslavia,Iraq,and even they dare think about Iran.US think they mighty because beating weak and desperate country,try to judge whose wrong or right basically from US and their allies interest policy.Pick your own size and strength!
Can American really have a guts to fighting Taliban in ground without assistance from Northern Allies and Russian intelligence information in Afghanistan.I also wonder why US so insist and spent a lot of taxpayer money to make Belgrade like 4th July fireworks party.Stopping mass killing? Liar! I already saw some documentary about mass killing in Balkan made by France investigator he show some video that shown UN troop and Serbian troop organize Bosnian civilian take in to the bus to their way to mass killing ground, one of UN officer say know what happen and they even let it happen! (from they looking that UN troop are coming from NATO countries).Think! this world is not belong to American unilateral way,wake up America! Where r u now?
still in Afghan and Iraq! I don’t hate America but they policies toward other countries.
Posted on April 17th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
This why America’s talk about human rights is a shallow joke, especially when you have Henry Kissinger saying: “I see no reason why we should standby and let a country become Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people, these issues are too important for the Chileans to decide for themselves.” Sure, America supports democracy in the Third World, but only as long they elect who we want them to elect. And the US considered themselves morally superior to the Soviets?
Posted on April 18th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
And don’t forget when the US ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry said: “Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty”. And also, the Soviet were sympathetic to Allende but refused to help him because he was “weak” in that he refused to use force against the opposition.
Posted on April 18th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Russians have no peers in land fighting. Afganistan was the most effective war campaign Soviet troops ever performed after the WW II. Firstly, the presidendt’s castle wat taken for an hour. Secondly Soviets controlled almost ALL territories of Afganistan contrary to US troops which prefer to stay closed inside their bases. US army has it’s point. Should they try to poke out their nose the have it sliced off.
Soviets kept at short leash local guerilla 9 years going around the country in whatever place they wanted, while US army has been kept at this short leash more o less the entire war campaign. Soviet troops built 142 different facilities for civil life in Afganistan including schools, kindergartens, bridges, plants, dams and many other things. Soviets would have fought as far as it was necessary had it not been ordered to go out.
What wlii remain in Afganistan after american army will run out Afganistan screaming like
childrens?
Syringes, coca cola bottles, condoms….usual personal effects of this bunch of us perverts, moral retards and drug and alcohol addicts!
.
Posted on April 18th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
T90 obsolete, biased article, i like western tanks, but you cant take the t90 as crap, like this article does, the T90 has good protection systems like shtora and arena, its gun is powerfull and can fire ATGM increasing the range and firepower of the gun surpasing western tanks, the kontakt 5 is so strong that called for modernization of the M829 anti tank shells, but im sure it can be defeated by NATO guns, even though we must consider that western armor isnt that good, many abrams had been disabled by IED’s made of obsolete soviet artillery shells, rpg’s and soviet atgm, what can we expect if you face them agains state of the art russian munitions. im not saying the t90 is perfect and the western tanks are shit, on the contrary i think we have a pretty fair fight, a fight that is most likely to be decided by other factors rather than the machine itself, if you underestimate russian forces you will have some 9m119 SVIR stuck in you ass
Posted on May 1st, 2010 at 6:45 am
i think we have a pretty fair fight, a fight that is most likely to be decided by other factors rather than the machine itself
Agreed
Posted on May 2nd, 2010 at 8:38 am
The russians will never, or very unlikely, to sell you the most advanced model of a tank. They keep these for themselves. Also, the strategic philosophy is also very different to the west. The Russian thinking is that it will use planes, like it uses its tanks and men. That is, it would send great masses of them in set piece attacks, using mass artillery bombardment to smash anything in its way. Another thing the Russian system assumes is air superiority. Yes, in a lot of respects, Russian technology is inferior to the west. However, in overall effectiveness, where the west relies on quality of equipment, which makes such equipment costly but great, The russians would use masses of tanks which are not as superior, to defeat its enemies irrespective of losses. Such massive attacks are usually supported by attack helicopters, ground attack aircraft, and massive artillery barrages.
Such russian tactics have never been disproven in battle. I would never assume that the Russians would lose just because their philosophy is different from the west. Where the west cares for the body count, The russians have no such sensitivity. An old German lament was that, whenever they destroyed a russian division, the russians simply replaced it with another division. The russians also have a good penchant for maximizing the effectiveness of simplicity. Just look at the t-34. just a marriage of a 76mm gun, sloped armor, and an old airship engine. and the zsu-23-4. Just a marriage of 4 23mm guns and a doppler radar. And the MiG-29 Fulcrum. All hydraulics – not fly by wire.
All in all, let us hope that a war between east and west never eventuate. War doesn’t decide who is right – only who is left.
Posted on May 30th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
if india and russia work together than there is no power on earth that can defeat or stop them i m from india
Posted on May 30th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
well, i m indian
i think when the tri nations like India-russia-usa have an ally treaty then there is no threat in the world ,
Posted on May 30th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
well
its time to have peace not wars
we already know what WW1 and WW2 has given us only dead bodies.
Posted on May 30th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Russia would win in conventional war, simply because most of usa troops are pure panic stricken as seen on cnn, russians cook and smoke in the middle of the melea, fear not the ruskis would win, chess masters russia
Posted on June 13th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
I can’t remember who said it but some one commented on the Russians don’t care for huge losses and that the Americans would sour against any war when the body bags start coming home. I think this is so incorrect in that you just have to look at recent history to disprove it.
In Afghanistan the Russians suffered only 9,000 KIA in ten years of fighting but it was pressure from the home front that caused them to pull out of a losing war, it just was not winnable in the way they fought it. Now the Americans have suffered 5500 KIA in seven years of war on terror but their is still no timetable to bring everyone home. What I do think is that both countries have grown weary of war as a tool to try to get other countries to do what we want them to.
However, Americans on the whole are the meanest MF’ers on the planet when you mess with our country. If we are attacked like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 we are pretty much united to strike back. US troops are not panic stricken and as a whole are now more battle hardened than Russian troops who through neglect and economic chaos are lead by corrupt leaders.
One only has to look at the history of the US to understand any time they invade a country it is to remove a corrupt and dangerous government. We have no ill will towards the people and in most cases we have helped countries to rebuild better than they were before the war. Hell it would benefit a country like Russian to attack American just to get rebuilt by US.
Posted on June 14th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
i h8 the usa yor ignorant an unaware that most of europe an asia h8s u
Posted on June 22nd, 2010 at 12:47 am
Very bad article I must say. Innacurate and biased…
Service lifetime of tanks, ships, planes and other expencive technology is up to 40-50years. With rapid evolution of electronics all these weapon systems are under continious upgrading. Latest version of F-16 have multiplied combat and tactical abilities, compared to model of first flight in 1968. And noone says about it “Basically, you get early 70’s mechanics with 90’s electronics” and that they dupe the market.
F-4 Phantom got so much upgrades (engines, weapons, radar, electronics) that it got new index F-4 2000 and jumped from 2nd generation to 4th generation fighters and is still in service with IAF. Only fuselage remained the same (see: design). Same story with MiG-21. Upgraded in every part (except fuselage of course) it became 4th gen fighter with BVR abilities of any modern 4th gen fighter. So… yes design of T-90 is the same with T-72. Don’t forget that Leo-1 and Abrams M1 were also designed in early 70s. Now compare Leo-2 and M1A2 with them… Aren’t they “70’s mechanics with 90’s electronics”?
T-90 has different engines from T-72. Has different main armour. Has ERA as standart equipment in all models and variations and not like it was stated here as “can be fitted with Explosive Reactive Armor”. T-90 has new gun, new ammunition, ATGM launching capability, new auto-loader, new tracks and upgraded suspensions. Except design, probably transmission is the only thing which remained the same with T-72… and even this is unlikely. Increased number of horsepower from 700 to 1250 requires if not new, then sure upgraded transmission.
And all the first paragraph about triumph of Abrams over T-72 is pure battle of generations. I am 100% positive that T-90s would perform with absolutely same result against western 2nd generation tanks like M-60, Chieftains, Leo-1, Merkava I/II etc etc etc.
Now let’s see what Abrams lacks…
a) ATGM launching: It has the ability (all smooth-bore cannons have it), but no ammo and FCS for this system yet. Israeli “Lahat” was tested with Abrams, but not received for mass production.
b) Hard-kill system like “Arena” or “Iron Fist”. Again, Israeli “Trophy” was tested, but not yet introduced into mass production.
c) ERA. ERA was successfully tested and applied on Bradley APC… but again, no ERA for Abrams in standart equipment.
All the above doesn’t mean that Americans are stupid and that they can’t integrate those systems in Abrams. Not at all. But all those systems will dramatically increase weight and cost of already oversized, overweighted and overpriced tank, while they don’t meet dangerous enough opponents in todays conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now tell me, who doesn’t “show a sensitivity to losses” when a tank with 1/3 of price of Abrams is equipped by every protection system available?
Posted on July 5th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
These comments only serve to reinforce the fact that humanity is a flaming pile or ignorant, hateful retards, regardless of nation or creed.
Thanks for the laughs. Comments from blithering idiots who are not soldiers but like to think they know what they’re talking about are always amusing.
Posted on July 19th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Ok well war btween use and russia will probably never happen… I’d hope usa wuld win(I’m no expert on military and all dat shit) but yes if russia attcks usa and hits hard usa will go insane in rage and fight till last breath to destroy russia. And yes it would be russia vs. NATO and pretty much I believe NATO would wipe out russia. They have the tech to do it and the numbers from the combined forces of NATO there would be france, UK, germany and those r just the bigger countries of nato. Helping. I dnt realy know all of russias allies maybe india would come to help and russia and india combines is a very strong force and would b a hard long war (tht will never happen) and I’d say if war brwaks lotsa nukes goin off and then lots and lots of death killing hundreds of millions of people… And russia and us aren’t enemies and the two don’t realy haver anything to gain from war…and most likely us would militarily aid russia if it was needed to defend itself… And I’d say that china is more of an enemy to usa then russia but usa and china depend on eachother in a way. Usa buys chinas junky shit without china usa economy gets worse. Without usa chinas economy gets worse. So the real enemy these days r mainly the terrorists
Posted on July 28th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
You guys sound like you want a war to happen that would leave so many parents childless so many childeren motherless and fatherless so many brothers sisterless and vise-versa…
Posted on July 28th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
From russian TV compare, translation : Today assess security machines simply comparing the thickness of armor – do not need to know from what it is. In the armor Abrams’a depleted uranium, and the T-90 armor. According to the Americans – a frontal armor Abrams’a proved its reliability during the wars in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 – she sustained a hit Soviet armor-piercing rounds of 125mm, while not stating that it was a munitions decommissioned back in 1973 . Moreover – modern shells while on Abrams’u not shoot.
Frontal armor of the T-90 during the latest test firing subcaliber HEAT projectile, equal to the efficiency of most modern shells 120mm cannon Abrams. From a distance of 200m on the tank had fired six rounds, then the machine under its own power arrived at the observation deck. Then, without repair, aboard T-90 put under the impact of improved rocket-propelled grenades, the result is the same – the armor is not penetrated, damaged only side protective screens. However, during the fighting in Iraq in 2003, the board Abrams’a sprouting from RPG-7 grenade even the earliest specimens. In Iraq, revealed weaknesses Abrams’ov – auxiliary power unit tank (APU) that provides all the electronics work at a time when the main engine drowned out. It’s easy to hit a large caliber machine gun. At the T-90 – APU is under the main armor. In addition, T-90 even in the standard version is equipped with a complex optical-electronic suppression – “blind”, this system leads a missile in the side. In Abrams’a such equipment is not in duel situations an American tank hardly able to resist guided missile T-90, run via smoothbore gun. Working distance of T-90 = 5km, shooting accuracy in this case is close to zero. Missiles can be fired from their seats and moving to the same for its use does not require any special skills gunner. Power guns T-90 and approximately equivalent to Abrams’a, armor-piercing projectile with domestic core of tungsten is not inferior to its competitor – the American shells with depleted uranium. Such projectiles have been developed and we have, but they are extremely harmful to crew, and their serial production was delayed for a rainy day.
Posted on August 2nd, 2010 at 7:49 am
I would give the m1a2 a slight edge agent the T-90 because of better optics. The Germans proved that tanks with ground attack acft (stuca) work best. The Israel found out the hard way that tanks by themselves does not work. And if you do not have a relable suply system you louse.
Posted on August 6th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
What for t-90 is so light and small.
Posted on August 6th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
What for M1 is so tall weight great and comfortable ?
Posted on August 6th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Using an ERA/APS-lacking downgraded (thinner armor) export version of a main battle tank designed in the 60s as a fixed gun emplacement against a high mobility foe with total air superiority probably didn’t help Iraqis that much either.
I seem to remember a case where five Kuwaiti M-84 (Serb equivalent to a T-72) went up against a column of thirty Assad Babils (claptrap Iraqi MBT idiots like Andrew like to call a “T-72″) and destroyed them all with no casualties.
And when did the Iraqis field T-80s? So many things are plain bullshit in this article, I advise people to go look this information up before thinking it’s true.
Posted on August 14th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
This website is rather terrible for information. Export of T-80s only just started in 1993 and since it’s deployment has only seen (limited) action in the First Chechen war. Of course, all you guys saying the T-90 is equal to or only slightly deficient to the M1-series are wholly wrong. Russian tube developing is currently lagging way behind that of the western world, and the T-90’s 2A46M is the same as the T-72’s 2A46M, user “noone” is making shit up. For those saying that the T-90’s ERA makes it more advanced- wrong again. The Abrams, in it’s current deployments, has no need of it, especially since ERA is quite heavy and the M1A2 is already tipping the scales at 60 tonnes. In the category of armor protection they aren’t even comparable. The glacis plate and front bit of the turret on the Abrams are DU mesh and it’s protected by Chobham armour. The T-90 is steel-composite. An Abrams can’t even penetrate itself. Optics and electronics are far superior in the Abrams, and it shows, as it’s three times more expensive than a T-90. The T-90 would utterly and totally fail in one-on-one combat with an Abrams, but that’s not the point. The T-90 was developed for different purposes and in a different environment than the Abrams.
Anyway, ITT: Russia fanboys.
Posted on August 27th, 2010 at 2:23 am
Add A Comment