Comments on: Russian Tank Forces – T90 Technology

By: Clifford Cliff

Clifford Cliff — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:04:01 +0000

Good article! I’m also likely to create a blog post concerning this… thanks a lot

By: sourav

sourav — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 07:59:58 +0000

hei my frnzzz, don’t we call this over????? ‘cous theres nothing left in war and don’t we talk ’bout peac, humanity, development. why we all not trying to use mony for education, science or health. there are many country where has no devlopment no education no food nothing; but thers people are our brothers, aren’t they? two ww have teach us more but we don’t try to listion them. we all are brother and same our blood colour; so please don’t try 2 think such damn.
my english is not proper, so foregive me…

By: Tom Clement

Tom Clement — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:21:30 +0000

Hey Neutral.. It was the T34 tanks that did the major overwhelming in WWII.

By: Tom Clement

Tom Clement — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:16:24 +0000

Hey Neutral.. It was the Russian T34 tanks that did the major overwhelming in WWII.

By: Tom Clement

Tom Clement — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:13:09 +0000

just remember USA boys.. you never won a war and you never will.

Stop wasting your tax dollars on building weapons… STick to making sugar water and Mcikey Mouse cartoons.

By: Sergiy

Sergiy — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:45:16 +0000

You are all talking about USA vs Russia, USA with NATO vs Russia. Look at the map friends. You will see such countries as Ukraine, Belarussia and other post-soviet countries which are more biggest then other europenien countries. Don’t think that we are poor countries(I’m from Ukraine). We are all friends and will be in one side. Any country or united organization will not defeat us!
I’m against war. Peace!

By: Oweg

Oweg — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 01:52:04 +0000

Short summary no country stays for ever and wasn’t Germany like that superior weapons and everything in ww2 excluding nukes its the commander of the army who makes the difference

By: luoi

luoi — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:23:28 +0000

Hey, i think that weapon is just one of many aspect in the war, you can see Vietnam War, when the North have limited weapon while the South (US support) are well equipped, but as least, American have quit and the South was loose.

By: Neutral

Neutral — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 05:55:20 +0000

look at world war II
Althought the Germans had superior tanks, the US overwhelmed them with the larger amount of Shermans….
In a real life senario, western tanks would be more like the Tigers, and the evil communist tanks would be like the Shermans…

By: Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:04:29 +0000

OK, all you guys can whip yours out and claim the biggest, but there will be no war between the U.S. and Russia. Know why? Can you say China? Yep. There’s a third power that would be just tickled to watch its two biggest rivals beat each other to a pulp. (No matter who would “win” a war between the U.S. and Russia, the resultant losses and economic exhaustion would leave the “winner” in almost the same condition as the loser.) Should the two sides ever collide in a short, but serious conflict, because of the respective tactical differences, the outcome would be — unpredictable. Russia treats its infantry and armored units as almost the same service. Tanks are to kill tanks and infantry to kill infantry. The U.S. philosophy has usually been air (and artillery) to kill ground forces, tanks to take out stubborn defenses and infantry to hold ground. That might look like an American advantage, but the Russians have well-developed counter-battery and anti-aircraft forces, as well. So, whoever shoots first … ?
As for the slander about the U.S., attacking smaller and weaker nations, geez, I never realized that Chechnya and Georgia were such major players on the world stage.

By: Happy Cat

Happy Cat — Tue, 31 May 2011 16:23:01 +0000

Your info is a joke…Iraq had produced their own versions of t-72 – the Lion of Babylon. The only tank which featured in tank battles were the t-55. As for the t-80 – it was never exported to any country…

By: TapTwo

TapTwo — Tue, 31 May 2011 07:50:22 +0000

You all can go back and forth with T90 this and Abrams that. But I have 1 word for you Warthog

By: julien

julien — Tue, 17 May 2011 20:27:52 +0000

you guys have no idea what russia could to you we could literlly destroy with our bare hands

By: walmart free samples

walmart free samples — Tue, 03 May 2011 13:13:21 +0000

Yet another great post! Really can’t wait for more!

By: dirty talk examples

dirty talk examples — Sun, 01 May 2011 03:09:03 +0000

Hey for just about all of you battling to get that woman you have always desired, my best advice is learn to talk dirty to women. You should also have a measurable and confident frame of mind toward ladies to win them over. I even have picked up a ton of women and read lots of relationship guides. So take it from me, if you can learn those 3 factors, you can pick-up almost any woman you would like.

By: Zrvpvo8789

Zrvpvo8789 — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 08:46:34 +0000

Peace keeper,
I’m not sure in what Royal Regiment you serve but your comments put you in the mindset of 12 years old. What ‘allied’ strike against Russia are you babbling about?
No European leader in the right mind would even think to fight Russia even with all that NATO behind him. Even if your 97 % nonsense was true, can you guarantee that 3 % chance would not send half of UK back into the stone age? Have you checked the map lately?
And why exactly Russians needed new leader – because the current one would’t budge to Western agenda?

By: Zrvpvo8789

Zrvpvo8789 — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 08:15:14 +0000

‘America will beat Russia is a fact’.
Is that the reason why we not able to subdue loosely organized gangs of islamic radicals armed with primitive infantry weapons? That is when they have zero armor,artillery and air support!
If Russian weapons such a crap,why exactly we spending lot more then anyone on the military? Why exactly so many very important Americans spent their lifetime work to prevent conflict with Russia?

Gotta love Internet – every punk who haven’t seen life pussy yet is a military ‘expert’.
Grow the f…k. up idiots.

By: True to be truth

True to be truth — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:05:06 +0000

All I want to say this post is pure hatred and insulting. Some jerk from India even funny and amusing. All their talks link to insult China, demonized China or badmouthing China. Whatever your intentions were, I am not interested to know. I just want to say India is too depends on the US market and investment. Ironically, US gather their investment to India, but India govenment spend the money to purchase Russian toys. Weird! Sarcasm!

By: rasul

rasul — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:56:37 +0000

yes but wat a bout the tank him self , i saw in a documentarry that the t90 and abrams could not easy penetrate each others main panzer is this true or false ?
because if it is that way than the t90 has an majord advantage because it shoot hel lot faster than an abrams , i heard that the t90′s amiing skils are really good as well so it mayby could beat the american tank in just a shot if it hits his turret wit an He round the turret wil just colapse , same goes for the abrams (sry for ****** English )

By: MPankow

MPankow — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:23:57 +0000

Article is bad, i think the author has a pro-american view. I do not know how you guys can say who is going to win when you do not know what the weapons are like and in what quantity…T-72s in Iraq were export versions, thinner armour, older main gun, old electronics. The revised T-90 has far superior armor, new gun, can launch anti-tank missiles, Kaktus ERA which at least on the russian published tests was able to defeat kinetic penetrators, Arena and better radar. It may be better, it may be worse. Until a Russian spec non-export meets with an Abrams – we could only wonder. Keep in mind the T-90 is cheaper than the Abrams, so we could look at a numerical superiority. Abrams has no ERA nor Arena-type system, but it has the excellent Chobham armour, the excellent Rheinmetal gun and should be better reliable ( russian reliability sucks ). It has better trained crews as well.
Even if one is far superior to the other, it doesn`t mean one country will definitely win. This depends on command`s competency, communication and collaboration between air, ground, naval forces, inventory, skills of the pilots/tank crews/artilery crews, tactics and then if all this is done properly – you can have an edge if your equipment is better. I would not give a big edge to new weapons as a factor, because if you compare for example one of the first F-16s with an upgraded MiG-21 – older MiG will still be superior ( as proven in the Red Flag 2008 when an american pilot said that the Bison was able to jam their radars and performed as good as all other planes because of Israeli upgrades to the radar and weapons ( indeed the radar was the old Phazotron Kopyo…). And problem with new radical designs adds another problem – take the F-22 for example – I would simply say – the best jet in the world, but they are hard to construct, low in numbers and hard to maintain and repair on the battlefield. BVR is what they always point as a great advantage, indeed the kill probability was calculated to be less than 17%…So in a dogfight – is one F-22 going to defeat 4-5 upgraded MiG-21s? I do not believe so. It was proven during the WW2 that numbers are more important than technology ( german tanks vs Shermans or the Soviet T-34 )
Even if one is better than the othe

By: RussiaFails

RussiaFails — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 02:43:13 +0000

LOL Look at all these ruskies whining.

The sad fact is that they know that America would beat Russia in an all out war. It’s a fact.

By: Freya Jane

Freya Jane — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:00:39 +0000

Lovely website you have here, it’s rare to find stuff so well written and interesting these days. I found you over on google and will pop back soon. Thanks.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:49:38 +0000

ill agree that if it came to war usa would be hard put in straight out ground war but the us has the best navy in the world by a huge margin and us aircraft are still superior to russian and besides if we go to war with someone it will be china

By: Kyle

Kyle — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:52:57 +0000

Great information??? The writer’s facts are wrong about the type of tanks used in Iraq, etc. It is clearly a biased article, and the author of it should be FIRED!!!

By: Electric Burner

Electric Burner — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:25:47 +0000

~’; I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives great information :.-

By: Ivan

Ivan — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:32:09 +0000

А еще говорят что мы, русские, любим похвастатся!(я имею ввиду первые комменты)

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:06:20 +0000

All tanks are rubbish compared to the alien brain sucker. It has laser guided tentacles designed to suck the tank crews brains out thus neutralising any tank. Hang about did i say brains do tank crews have brains? lets see they climb into a metal box full of explosives and drive around being shot at by other metal boxes full of explosives in addition they get shot at by flying metal boxes.Hmmmm me thinks id prefer to sit on the beach with a drink and a good looking women or any women for that matter.LOL

By: Snowblade

Snowblade — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:20:05 +0000

Also Iraqies had like “third-hand” equipment from Russian because they knew that Iraq is some faraway and mostly fcked up country in middle east. Profit is profit baby!

By: Nikita

Nikita — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:46:34 +0000

Someone may have mentioned this already. Iraq did not have any T-80′s.

Also the T-72M they used had steel armor without ERA, whereas all Russia T-72 tanks have Relikt ERA and composite armor. Also the Iraqi tanks used the old 2nd generation turret, the svir which would have had a 4km range with 80′s Soviet ammo. The Iraqi tanks fired 60′s Chinese ammo through a 2nd generation turret at 3rd generation tanks. Hardly seems fair.

Also all Iraqi T-72′s were destroyed by indirect fire and airplanes, and even then Iraq lost very few T-72′s. This is all overblown American propaganda.

Also the mechanics are just as new as the electronics are. The V-92/96 is completely different from the engine that the T-72 had. The composite armor and the turret used are also completely different. There is not much left from the T-72. Also the design of the tank comes from the T-54, NOT the T-72.

By: Snowblade

Snowblade — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:49:13 +0000

And how much of what americans say is true? Look at depleted uran for christ’s sake! And the engine! M1′s use triple action turbine engines that can run on gasoline, diesel and jet fuel and they use friggin’ jet fuel all the time! You can normaly stand behind diesel engine tank or gasoline but not behind this turbine baby, it has super big jet flame coming out (’cause it has no exhaust) that can kill you instantly. Also the flat belly of the tank is really safe, every tank engineer knows that tank is supposted to have V shaped belly in order to survive hit from AT mine, and there is no escape hatch too… And when this tank lights up… wow! Safe distance from M1 is about 1000m, but! Because of the depleted uran in the armor, safe distance from being exposed to lethal levels of radiation is 2000m. Also M1 can’t bear any additional armor which forces it to use depleted uran. And what about the main gun? Its totaly useless because US army uses only AT rounds all the time and there are no HE round againts infantry which makes it really and I have to say REALLY vulnerable. M1 is only capable in tank-againts-tank action, not in tank-againts-anything on ground.