T-90 vs Abrams

[ShadoWarrior]

Look at history of superior defense tanks like the German King Tiger as an example of what superior weapons and defense, but inferior numbers can do in ensuring victory. The American tanks of the Sherman was laughable compared to German high-end tanks, but we still took them out because we had more of them.

This argument is deeply flawed. Most German tanks killed on the Western Front were destroyed by air attack, not by overwhelming numbers of Ronsons. And there's the factor of the Germans lacking fuel to move their armor. If the Germans had been free to move things would have been far different. Without Allied airpower the Normandy invasion and breakout would have failed.

[95th Rifleman]

"What each side brings to the fight" also applies to the offense. The ATGM won't be much of an issue, even in open terrain, because US doctrine calls for Apaches to lead the tanks. Those T-90s would be Hellfire'd long before the M1s would be in danger. The modern battlefield is three-dimensional, and includes close air support.

That worked fine in Iraq where they had 3rd rate AAA and most of their air defence had been destroyed prior to the invasion. iraq relied far too much on fixed air defence anyway.

In a theoretical scrap against Russia you are dealing the with the best air defence assets in the world at the moment. Also your shiny M1's will be facing Russian MIL-28's and KA-50's with the added problem that American air defence assets are very much behind the curve.

modern, Russian mobile air defence will murder western aviation.

[dragoon500ly]

This argument is deeply flawed. Most German tanks killed on the Western Front were destroyed by air attack, not by overwhelming numbers of Ronsons. And there's the factor of the Germans lacking fuel to move their armor. If the Germans had been free to move things would have been far different. Without Allied airpower the Normandy invasion and breakout would have failed.

The Strategic Bombing Survey conducted after the war mentioned that the Air Force had some success killing tanks with bombs (but required a direct hit to kill a tank), strafing with .50 caliber, while murder for trucks, simply scratched paint on a tank and the use of aerial rockets was more anti-personnel/anti-vehicle than it was anti-tank. It was generally agreed that the Air Force's greatest impact was in knocking out the logistical tail of the panzers.

[Panther Al]

That worked fine in Iraq where they had 3rd rate AAA and most of their air defence had been destroyed prior to the invasion. iraq relied far too much on fixed air defence anyway.

In a theoretical scrap against Russia you are dealing the with the best air defence assets in the world at the moment. Also your shiny M1's will be facing Russian MIL-28's and KA-50's with the added problem that American air defence assets are very much behind the curve.

modern, Russian mobile air defence will murder western aviation.

While I agree that russian mobile battlefield air defense is much better than US Air Defense, the idea that Mil's and Ka's will eat M1's is equally as flawed.

I know you feel that Russian equipment is UberFantasticShineySparklyCool, but, there is a reason why a lot of countries when given the option choose by and large Western Equipment over Russian Equipment save on issues of Cost.

The KA50 is a piss poor ground attack helo: But I will give it this, Ground Attack is *not* its mission. Where the KA50 would (Again, is a prototype ubermachine not in service in any reasonable numbers) give NATO fits is in its defined role: the Anti-Helo mission. In this, the russians was a step in front of the west, as its a mission that we haven't given any serious thought to. The 30mm cannon on the Apache is little more than a glorified 30mm High Velocity Grenade Launcher, and mounting Sidewinders on it, while possible, or Stingers for that matter, is a ad-hoc solution that may or may not work out.

The MiL28 is decent: It's actually better than the AH1G/S series, and probably the equal to early AH1W's of the Marines - and maybe, maybe, early first flight Apache's in the mechanical sense. Where it falls apart is in regards to fighting in anything other than daylight: While it has some night vision capability, better than the hinds, it is nowhere near as good as western night-vision. Getting closer, I'll agree, but if I can see you well before you can see me, guess who is going to win


One thing I will give the Russians is that the BMP3 is actually pretty darn interesting. While I think the IFV is, on the whole, a poor design path to follow, give the thing modern optics and firecontrol systems, which those that have purchased it have, and you got a pretty scary - if easily killed - IFV.

[95th Rifleman]

While I agree that russian mobile battlefield air defense is much better than US Air Defense, the idea that Mil's and Ka's will eat M1's is equally as flawed.

I know you feel that Russian equipment is UberFantasticShineySparklyCool, but, there is a reason why a lot of countries when given the option choose by and large Western Equipment over Russian Equipment save on issues of Cost.

The KA50 is a piss poor ground attack helo: But I will give it this, Ground Attack is *not* its mission. Where the KA50 would (Again, is a prototype ubermachine not in service in any reasonable numbers) give NATO fits is in its defined role: the Anti-Helo mission. In this, the russians was a step in front of the west, as its a mission that we haven't given any serious thought to. The 30mm cannon on the Apache is little more than a glorified 30mm High Velocity Grenade Launcher, and mounting Sidewinders on it, while possible, or Stingers for that matter, is a ad-hoc solution that may or may not work out.

The MiL28 is decent: It's actually better than the AH1G/S series, and probably the equal to early AH1W's of the Marines - and maybe, maybe, early first flight Apache's in the mechanical sense. Where it falls apart is in regards to fighting in anything other than daylight: While it has some night vision capability, better than the hinds, it is nowhere near as good as western night-vision. Getting closer, I'll agree, but if I can see you well before you can see me, guess who is going to win


One thing I will give the Russians is that the BMP3 is actually pretty darn interesting. While I think the IFV is, on the whole, a poor design path to follow, give the thing modern optics and firecontrol systems, which those that have purchased it have, and you got a pretty scary - if easily killed - IFV.

Actualy the Americans are considering the British Starstreak system on their Apaches as we have had some success with early conversion work on our own.

I don't actualy think the Russian kit is, how did you put it "UberFantasticShineySparklyCool". However the gap between Russian and American kit is nowhere near as big as Americans like to think and it's getting narrower every year.

[ShadoWarrior]

The Strategic Bombing Survey conducted after the war mentioned that the Air Force had some success killing tanks with bombs (but required a direct hit to kill a tank), strafing with .50 caliber, while murder for trucks, simply scratched paint on a tank and the use of aerial rockets was more anti-personnel/anti-vehicle than it was anti-tank. It was generally agreed that the Air Force's greatest impact was in knocking out the logistical tail of the panzers.

While I agree concerning the infrastructure destruction having the most impact on the front, it's not bombs vs. tanks I was alluding to. Tactical air (P-47s and Typhoons) using rockets were devastating to German tanks caught in the open.

I'll grant that using rockets against soft vehicles was much easier, as a near miss was still a kill due to blast and shrapnel. But if pilots could score a direct hit on turret top armor, or especially against the armor over the engine compartment, the tank was effectively out for the rest of the war.

[Adm.Lee]

Look at history of superior defense tanks like the German King Tiger as an example of what superior weapons and defense, but inferior numbers can do in ensuring victory. The American tanks of the Sherman was laughable compared to German high-end tanks, but we still took them out because we had more of them.

Interestingly, the Sherman-to-panzer kill ratios changed dramatically whenever the Americans were on defense (Battle of the Bulge, and the September German counterattacks).

Artillery and airpower contributed a lot, but one can read of lots of Shermans getting kills and living to tell the tale. I submit that any defender has an advantage in tank combat.

[Panther Al]

Actualy the Americans are considering the British Starstreak system on their Apaches as we have had some success with early conversion work on our own.

I don't actualy think the Russian kit is, how did you put it "UberFantasticShineySparklyCool". However the gap between Russian and American kit is nowhere near as big as Americans like to think and it's getting narrower every year.

I'll give it that to be sure: It is getting closer, but by no means is it as close as the Russians would have people think. Until a month ago, they relied on US GPS since GLONASS wasn't up and running, something that they just barely got going back in the bad old good days of the Cold War, we shut that down to other people, and there is some serious issues they have to deal with. Generally speaking, while they can get one off items that are only a few years behind ours, getting them into serial production is nearly impossible. After all, anyone can buy topnotch core hardware in Asia. Its getting them all to work together and the fiddly bits thats the problem. Systemology is the killer. How to get everything up and running, from top to bottom, all in order, all in line, and all working in a nice tight mesh with each other. 20 years from now, if they don't take a serious step back to the old soviet style industrial complex - something I won't bet against with Putin taking back over - that gap could be a lot closer than it is now, perhaps even effectively erased. But, right now, its still too far to make russian equipment viable against top flight western stuff under anything but the most perfect of conditions.

When it comes to high tech items, fighters, helo's, and even tanks due to design features they feel are needed for the needs they have, I won't bother.

Air Defense, on the other hand, is quite another thing. If I was looking for a great battlefield ADA system, I would't hesitate to ask them to come up with a gun/missile system (Though I would use stingers or star-streak (A great system by the way) instead of what they would use.) to be mounted on a chassis of my choice. The Soviets back in the day took a backseat to nobody when it came to layered Air Defense Systems - less because of hardware, though it was decent enough, but from tactics and doctrine.

Also, small arms. They have always designed these from the perspective of giving them to people who are barely educated, have no mechanical bent, and yet, still be up and running regardless. The AK and PK are a legend for a reason.

[dragoon500ly]

While I agree concerning the infrastructure destruction having the most impact on the front, it's not bombs vs. tanks I was alluding to. Tactical air (P-47s and Typhoons) using rockets were devastating to German tanks caught in the open.

I'll grant that using rockets against soft vehicles was much easier, as a near miss was still a kill due to blast and shrapnel. But if pilots could score a direct hit on turret top armor, or especially against the armor over the engine compartment, the tank was effectively out for the rest of the war.

The problem with WWII aerial rockets was with their warheads. None of them used hollow-charge it was all HE/Frag. It wasn't until the Allies developed the 4.5-inch/5-inch rockets in 1944/45 that they had an effective weapon, provided it hit. And they had to hit the top armor or the engine deck to score any kill.

One of the problems that the SBS referred to was the 9th Air Force's practice of attacking tanks at tree top level, and from the front, which was generally a waste of ammo. It wasn't until after the Normandy breakout (Cobra) that they started attacking from the rear and from 2,000/3,000 feet.

Strafing of panzers was generally considered to be a waste of time with .50-calibers (even with API, scoring penetrating hits on top/engine armor was slim), unless the pilot could get a burst into the tank while it had its hatches open. Typhoon/Tempest pilots had a better chance with their four 20mm cannon.

And to add insult to injury, the airdales abandoned the hard won lessons of CAS learned in North Africa for the free roaming, pilot engaging anything he sees. Again, it took a lot of painful lessons in Normandy before the air forces realized that effective CAS required a controller on the ground with the troops.

And has the Air Force really learned the lesson about CAS I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 came into service...and how hard the Air Force pushed for it to go straight to the Air National Guard/Air Reserve. The Warthog is an effective CAS, arguably one of the best designs...but it just is not as sexy as an F-15/F-16/F-22.

Anyone remember Desert Storm and the half-baked CAS version of the F-16 fitted with a 30mm gun pod...that didn't work due to a software screwup

[Panther Al]

The problem with WWII aerial rockets was with their warheads. None of them used hollow-charge it was all HE/Frag. It wasn't until the Allies developed the 4.5-inch/5-inch rockets in 1944/45 that they had an effective weapon, provided it hit. And they had to hit the top armor or the engine deck to score any kill.

One of the problems that the SBS referred to was the 9th Air Force's practice of attacking tanks at tree top level, and from the front, which was generally a waste of ammo. It wasn't until after the Normandy breakout (Cobra) that they started attacking from the rear and from 2,000/3,000 feet.

Strafing of panzers was generally considered to be a waste of time with .50-calibers (even with API, scoring penetrating hits on top/engine armor was slim), unless the pilot could get a burst into the tank while it had its hatches open. Typhoon/Tempest pilots had a better chance with their four 20mm cannon.

And to add insult to injury, the airdales abandoned the hard won lessons of CAS learned in North Africa for the free roaming, pilot engaging anything he sees. Again, it took a lot of painful lessons in Normandy before the air forces realized that effective CAS required a controller on the ground with the troops.

And has the Air Force really learned the lesson about CAS I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 came into service...and how hard the Air Force pushed for it to go straight to the Air National Guard/Air Reserve. The Warthog is an effective CAS, arguably one of the best designs...but it just is not as sexy as an F-15/F-16/F-22.

Anyone remember Desert Storm and the half-baked CAS version of the F-16 fitted with a 30mm gun pod...that didn't work due to a software screwup

And for even better laughs, remember, the Raptor is now known as the F/A-22. Yes, its what the Chair Farce has figured would make for a great attack plane to support the troops, allowing them once more to see if they can get rid of the A10.


What I want to know though, is where are the Army A-10's According to the Law, no sh*t, the law, under House Resolution 4739 the Air Force is required to give up one A10 to the Army for each OV1 that the Army retired.

[dragoon500ly]

And for even better laughs, remember, the Raptor is now known as the F/A-22. Yes, its what the Chair Farce has figured would make for a great attack plane to support the troops, allowing them once more to see if they can get rid of the A10.


What I want to know though, is where are the Army A-10's According to the Law, no sh*t, the law, the Air Force is required to give up one A10 to the Army for each OV1 and OV10 that the Army retired.

LOL, never happen.

Prior to the Vietnam War, the Air Farce stated that it had no need of light tactical transports, the C-130 was the bird of choice. The Army disputed this, due to a lack of airstrips large enough to take a C-130. So the Army started purchasing Canadian Buffalo and Caribou STOL transports to meet its needs (I believe the final totals were some 350 aircraft).

As the war heated up, the Air Farce realized that the Army was, once again, pushing for control of tactical airlift and close air support (in the form of Skyraiders and Tweety-birds)....realizing the danger in having the Army once again take to the skies in fixed wing aircraft, the Air Farce and its Congressional idiots transferred most of the fixed wing Army assets to safety under Air Farce control. The Army was left with its Mohawks (all to be dearmed) and a selection of utility aircraft.

The Air Farce stand by and see the Army pilot A-10s............they are liable to stage a JDAM strike on the Army portion of the Pentagon!

[Webstral]

However the gap between Russian and American kit is nowhere near as big as Americans like to think and it's getting narrower every year.

Im less worried about the gap in hardware than Im worried about the gap in thinking. The Brits and French disposed more tanks with better protection and firepower compared to the Germans on the eve of the Battle of France. We all know what happened. We could go on and on about the whys, but the fact remains that the Germans out-thought the Franco-British forces. The Japanese out-thought the Brits in Malaya. There were no miracle technologies applied"just clear-headed thinking about what to do with the tools available. The Vietnamese Communists beat us with a combination of clear-headed thinking and commitment. One of the main reasons we disemboweled the Iraqis in Operation Desert Storm is the bankruptcy of Iraqi thinking at the very highest level. The unnecessarily extended series of OIFs is a direct result of a thinking gap that started at the top and went all the way down. Were unable to win in Afghanistan partly because our leadership is as focused on managing the news cycle as it is on winning the war and partly because were too proud to learn from anyone elses experience and terrified that the slender support of the American public will evaporate in the wake of a single incident a la Mogadishu. Forget the hardware"its the thinking thats the problem.

The Russian development of a helicopter fighter is a perfect example of the problem. We develop an attack helicopter so capable that the enemy has to do something about it that departs from the solutions in place. He does. All our confident plans for use of rotary wing CAS might have been undone by the fear of the helicopter fighter once a few successful missions were executed by the enemy.

Asymetric warfare isnt just for al-Qaeda. Its for anyone who is interested in finding a solution that doesnt involve the development of a rival weapon system. More than ever, a single hard setback is likely to drive the US out of the war. We cant finance an eventual turnaround the way we did in WW2 and Korea. Cyberspace warfare, for instance, may prove a great equalizer. Cash flow is less important here than in mechanized warfare. The US takes cyber operations seriously, but they may prove to be another Battle of France in which clear-headed thinking carries the day for an enemy. [By the way, Im glad the leader of cyber operations is the USAF. Of the services, they are the least hide bound.] Any number of other options exist for the cash-poor but highly motivated.

The thinking gap is where were falling short. We did just fine taking over Iraq and Afghanistan, but we completely failed to capitalize on our success. Iraq appears to have acquired sufficient inertia to creak forward on its own. Afghanistan will revert to Taliban control within months of our departure. Had we committed enough troops to create the space in which police could perform effectively, and had we invested properly in training proper police forces for both countries, things might look differently now. The same thinking gap is likely to appear during our next conflict.

[Panther Al]

LOL, never happen.

Prior to the Vietnam War, the Air Farce stated that it had no need of light tactical transports, the C-130 was the bird of choice. The Army disputed this, due to a lack of airstrips large enough to take a C-130. So the Army started purchasing Canadian Buffalo and Caribou STOL transports to meet its needs (I believe the final totals were some 350 aircraft).

As the war heated up, the Air Farce realized that the Army was, once again, pushing for control of tactical airlift and close air support (in the form of Skyraiders and Tweety-birds)....realizing the danger in having the Army once again take to the skies in fixed wing aircraft, the Air Farce and its Congressional idiots transferred most of the fixed wing Army assets to safety under Air Farce control. The Army was left with its Mohawks (all to be dearmed) and a selection of utility aircraft.

The Air Farce stand by and see the Army pilot A-10s............they are liable to stage a JDAM strike on the Army portion of the Pentagon!

Thats the thing: Technically, the Air Force is breaking the law by not turning over the aircraft, and all ancillary equipment and personnel. The law was passed a long time ago, the Air Force is ignoring it, and the Army isn't pushing the issue for some reason. There was a pretty good study done on incorporating A-10's into Army Aviation - including Warrant Officer Pilots, something that was felt would have been very popular.

[Tegyrius]

Thats the thing: Technically, the Air Force is breaking the law by not turning over the aircraft, and all ancillary equipment and personnel. The law was passed a long time ago, the Air Force is ignoring it, and the Army isn't pushing the issue for some reason.

Not wanting to front the money and other resources required to maintain fixed-wing combat aviation assets and related skill base

- C.

[bobcat]

honestly T-90 vs Abrams my answer is...

their about equal one on one it would come down to the who's crew is better.

but since your all bringing other variables into this:
a good FO could turn either into slag in 125 seconds counting for TOF and an adjustment.