mikeCK

Lol...I've been a cop for 14 years and neither me or anyone I worked with got rich. Yeah, some made $90,000 a year...by working about 60 hours a week every week on details and overtime. That's hardly rich. I am comfortable and have a good pension, all I ask for

@Vladimir, I'm sure the Russian army has some quality computer training equipment. From what I understand, they are trying to build a more highly trained army in general and I certainly wasn't trying to be disparaging....but as I stated and was reinforced by another poster, M1 tank crewman have extensive time in service...usually around 4 years each. During this time they are constantly training with other branches and units against OPFOR which is trained in Russian or Chinese tactics. You simply cannot get the same quality crew from conscripts who only spend 1-2 years in service. The E-6 staff Sergeant who commands the tank probably has 8-9 years in service...all driving and fighting tanks. Volunteer armies are far more expensive than conscript but the quality you get due to the length of service is immeasurable. My point is that no one can say t-90 vs M1 as a scenario. I don't think any russian general would plan for a situation where the enemy had as many tanks as he did. The idea is to produce cheaper tanks and greater numbers. The T-90 is a great tank, it just isn't meant to be of the same quality as western tanks nor is it crewed by the same experienced soldiers The U.S. did for logistics what the Germans did for armored warfare. The US can operate the M1 in large numbers because the U.S. can carry a long logistical tail and trains a lot in doing so. The T-90 is a much better choice for any army that simply does not have or chooses not to have that logistical capability. Both tanks were created with different abilities in mind. The T-72, 80 and 90 were not designed to fight 1v1 The Russiana are certainly capable of innovation. The Mig-15 tore the hell out of American fighters in Korea and the F-86 saber was designed using the Russian innovation in swept wing design. The S-400 SAM system is an amazing weapon system and far surpasses anything the west has. So I'm not saying the Russians can't build a tank as good as the western tanks...just that it chooses not to for a number of factors

Much more eloquent than mine. I would also add crew training. Russian soldiers are conscripted for 1 year. U.S. army troops voluntarily enlist for a minimum of 4 years and often re-enlist for bonuses. Generally, this provides a service that has an opportunity to spend far more time training it's members who operate in complex environments, like armored warfare. NATO nations have spent a lot of time developing realistic and extensive training for it's units and can do so due to the length of time the average private serves. As a t-90 platoon commander I wouldn't be "excited" about engaging a western tank platoon tank for tanks. As stated above though. One advantage of the t-90 is that it doesn't HAVE to be 1 for 1...it is easier to produce and maintain

Links to what? If you don't believe that an M1a2 SEP 2 isnt an overall superior tank to a t-90, then nothing I post will change your mind. If I was a T-90 crewman. I wouldnt be excited about attacking an M1a2 or Challenger. It's an opinion and since they haven't foughy, anything anyone links to is the same. BElieve what you want The M1/challenger/leapard 2 tanks were very innovative. Do you think a russian tank crew receives the same training via simulator and operations against "professional OPFOR trained to mimic US tactics? That is unbelievably expensive. U.S. NCOs attend various schools from leadership academies to staff NCO academies. Nothing I have read would indicate that Russia is economicly capable of trainimg its tank crews to that level...not just the tank but operation with other arms. I can't prove a negative or something that hasn't happened. My response was directed to the comment that the poster wished the T-90 could go up against the Leopard 2 to show its superior...I think that would get a lot of T-90 crews killed

I sincerely hope for all T-90 tank crewmen that you are wrong. It's a good tank but very outclassed by challenger/leopard 2/ m1a2 as well as crew training. Russians are very tough and very competent soldiers but they simply don't have the equivalent training and tanks to match up. They have relied on numbers which is fine for the overall strategy...not for the individual crewman. Sorry, it's not being a fanboi, Russia has been innovative and superior in a number of weapons systems throughout history current modern battle tanks is not one of them

Knowing the general bearing and putting accurate fire on target are different. In addition, I'm not the only guy on the battlefield. While your trying to spot my tow launcher, your NOT looking for other tanks and targets on the field. Your thinking in terms of a two man battle....1 tank v 1 tow. Hell, Even in training its too confusing and fast paced to try and target the last believed bearing of an ATGM. Pop smoke, move and acquire a target

Having a sensor detect a launched a missile and then finding it and putting weapons on to that target is a lot more difficult than it sounds especially in that hectic confusing battlefield It's not so easy as new weapon shot at 2 o'clock, identify, put weapon on target, fire and kill shooter before missile hits. It's just far too quick for that which is why the tow was a very effective missile system. Not to mention the only sensors I know that detect ATGmissile launches are the close in defense systems which are designed to take out the missile they don't necessarily detect a missile launch 800 m away when it launched

edit

I wouldn't think it would be suicide. First the guys have to see the missile fired and in a combat zone inside a buttoned up in the tank that's not the easiest thing to do. You also have to identify that the missile has been fired with enough time left for you to bring weapons to bear on the operator. secondly I believe some of the newer generation tow missiles are no longer wire-guided

Anyone who has played command and conquer knows that tanks with 2 barrels are far superior

I would like to be able to target buildings with the javelin though. Too bad there is no direct attack mode in the game. I had a squad armed with a javeline come under fire from a full squad in the 2nd floor of a nearby building. Would have been nice to pop smoke, split off an armored team, move it over and out a missile into the window

Lol. Yeah. I'm sure US weapons designers are trembling at the new "Robotech/voltron robot tank which will inevitably reek havoc on the battlefield along with its uncanny ability to defeat any anti tank missle and I'm sure deflect DU sabot rounds.

I know the Tunguska is designed for anti-air, but can its weapon system fire armor piercing rounds?...like the 25mm cannon on the BRADLEY

I agree 100%. Panic should mean the troops run away from the battle disregarding the mission or safety. That said...panicking troops should run AWAY from the threat. I have had troops pinned down in the woods start to panic. Instead of running away, they stand up and run forward. I've seen soldiers get shaken in Iraq in some bad situations but never panic so they just start running around the streets

I wonder if it's built by the same guys who made the Iranian stealth fighter a few years ago

Wow...all our weapons will be liquidated! Like a going out of business sale. Who knew the Russians had decised a way to overcome the laws of physics and drain batteries 20km away...yet somehow their own electronics are fine.

You guys figure out how to drain my battery with X-rays and DEW...meanwhile, I will be over hear watching my javeline terminal dive on your tank. My point is that even if the tech exists, it's a different thing to apply it in the field and altogether more difficult in combat. Not likely any time soon

So I guess after APS systems become more successful and reliable, the next generation of ATGMs will be stealthy or have jamming capability, and on it goes On another note I saw this video of a top down directed TOW2b hit. Ouch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E1VWPOpYbQI

So I guess after APS systems become more successful and reliable, the next generation of ATGMs will be stealthy or have jamming capability, and on it goes

Emp can disable electronics but much of the Western equipment is protected against Emp pulses. Not sure if it is physically possible to drain a battery without making contact with it but I'm no physicist

Built by the same engineers as the Iranian stealth fighter a few years ago

I don't see how a .50 cal machinegun is going to hit a sabot round moving twice as fast as an M1a2 round (5000 FPS and the Russians claim it can hit projectiles at 3,000 mps which is about 10,000fps) I call BS

I know you can shoot the Javelin inside

so would the Air Force

Yeah, attacking the United States with an intent of the inflicting any sort of significant damage requires a major operation regardless of who's doing it: logistics fuel etc. not just a question of deciding tomorrow you're going to bomb the US. so I don't why think continental defense is an issue besides that's handled by the National Guard