ABRAMS vs T-90

....

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• tank
• war
• russia
• usa
• military

[nomad403]

Why does everybody think the Abrams looks better? I don't get it. It looks like a fat pancake with some butter on it. The T-90 in my opinion looks a lot cooler.

[pahen42]

пендосам сцука баяца........

[Talshet]

@controlusplease1 And the most tanks wich were used are T-64/T-72 in mujaheddin war.And Technicians on M1 are very limited what they can fix on brocken M1 in battlefield,because M1 is the biggest disaster tank of all MBTs nowdays,it has gas turbine that means it can only be maintenanced when turbine is stripped of tank.So technicans are very limited of their capability to fix problems.M1 maintenence needs about 4 hours where all other tanks T90/Chal2/Leo2/ needs only 15min obf.

[Talshet]

@controlusplease1 I completly disegree with that term that western (usa tank crew are much better)I read a few reports of Desert Storm and the most time M1 tank crews drove their tanks link on drugs,they overrated them to much and played very very often Battleship,and thats the reason why lot of M1 were lost, and most time through friendly fire,because other M1 groups thought that one tank must be Iraqi tanks,and the other reason was IFF was completly relaibility disaster atm.

[controlusplease1]

@controlusplease1 ...from the loss of the crew. Abrams with moderate damage can be completely rebuilt in hours in the field because of their modularity of their parts and components. However, it takes a year to train a truly effective Abrams crew. Specialized personnel like armored technicians are not easily replaced, the Soviets learned this in Afghanistan with the high rates of deaths for crews of T 55s and BMPs. I think thats why America uses the crew and tank kill definition.

[controlusplease1]

@Talshet Well, I think the discrepancy is over the crews. Even if you are a supporter of the T90 tanks, you have to admit that Western crews, such as Americans in the Abrams are much better trained than their Russian conscript counterparts, and that Western crews have much more combat experience. You can only train so much, and even that does not equate to actual combat. The reasoning behind the American definition is because of our crews. You can knock out a tank, but the main loss would be...

[Talshet]

@TheMedievalMan Sure the armor of Tiger was penetrable,Like today all modern tank or better to say 3 of them i know are not realy penetratable on ranges over 2km are T-90,M1 and Leopard2 like the Tiger all this tanks are penetrable but from closer ranges.Like the M829 wich is used by M1 are only KE-rounds and this rounds are very inferior in damage to HEATr. compared to its distance.Tiger was penetrable even by Shermans but under 400meters and T-34 could destroy 600m definetly.

[TheMedievalMan]

@Talshet Thats not what you said, you explained that Tiger tank armor was penetrable by the Russians. And now you are talking about its reliability issues. I agree that the Tigers had problems, most were probably lost to reliability and breakage. Including its drive shaft which was over stressed. But its armor was more than adequate to stop most attacks by other tanks. This is what the vets of that war on both sides witnessed.

[Talshet]

@controlusplease1 The problem is the international definition and the american definition.Americans define destroyed only when the whole crew dies and the tank too.But the whole world defines destroyed as is uncapable to serve through foreign engagment.Destroyed means it can't drive or engage enemy forces, thats destroyed.It doesn't mean if crew dies or not,if tank is destroyed its destroyed crew cant engage foreign forces without their tank.

[Talshet]

@TheMedievalMan Sure i have no idea...I serving in German Bundeswehr...even our Officieres know the truth about the useless of Tiger tanks.The only good thing on Tigers were the armor and the 88mm canon,but thats not enough.It wasn't relaible,it wasn't mobile,it was a completly logical desaster,the turret engine wasn't relaible the crew needed 760 rotate the turret turning wheel for 360° it took over 6 minutes.So if Tiger was undefeated by russian T-34,why russia was in berlin?

[TheMedievalMan]

@Talshet You have no idea what youre talking about. Ive seen actual WWII vets talk about engaging Tigers, and one guy even shot one at literally POINT BLANK range with his main gun 3 shots with no penetration. The Tiger turned its turret, and blew off the Allied turret clean off with one shot. Tell me Im lying, so I can prove you wrong.