T-90 VS Leopard 2

I think the Leopard 2 would blow the T-90 up. Its been the fate of every Russian tank thats crossed a Western tank's sites- why would the T-90 be any different? The leopard 2 has better armor quality armor, more of it, a better gun ( in particularly the A6 model), better targeting acquisition, and it's faster.

The Leopard 2 is 20 years older ( or younger..)than the T-90 and it outclasses it still.

The Germans have always made superb tanks- even though ironically enough it's first the A7V was a horrible conception. Real first class tanks all around, the T-90 has less than a ghost of a chance.
 
Last edited:
You base that fact that the T-72's and such the west blew up were used by people who had no experience and barely any training.
 
But I never mentioned the T-72?

On the subject of that though, why do you think the Iraqi armored corps had no experience and barely any training? They had just gotten done fighting for a decade against Iran. The Republican guard in particular had exceptional training- both to advance their own political careers in the militaristic government, and to make a name for themselves by in my opinion fancying themselves the modern SS.

The Syrians and Egyptians had decently trained armor crews, not much less training then the typical russian crews. Russia has never trained its men particularly well ( one only needs to look at its airforce) What makes you think they would fair significantly better then the Iraqis, Syrians, or Egyptians?

The Germans are no one's fools and their training is just as complex as any other NATO members. Superior crew, superior tank, same result- burning Russian scrap heap after being slapped around by the Germans.


I think it would be a much better match fighting our Abrahams, the Leopard two is a more than worthy adversary to face in battle.
 
Last edited:
Very slightly, maybe. Lets not forget that the Soviet Union was the only country that had APS on their tanks at the time, that would have made a fair bit of a difference.
 
The russians, i thought they stopped using Shtora on many of its tanks because of the danger it posed to it's own men ? They tended to use tanks as cover but the missile would detonate and injure or kill those who did, so i thought they stopped using it?

I know that was the fear amongst the US army. Its trying to refine it in the form of quick kill from advances the Israeli's made on the system. The pressure from the missiles detonating would kill or render and infantry in the imminent area unfit for battle. Effectively making the tank supportless. It's good for blitzing witch is what the Soviets may have had in mind, but otherwise it makes the take more vulnerable.

Even so..Whats that have to do with a fight against a Leopard? A leopard uses it's main gun to do battle, not with laser guided ordinance? In a armor clash between NATO and Russia how would the Russians survive? They have thinner armor, a less powerful gun, and move slower. Not to mention they are fewer in number than the NATO tanks. Even on a solo duel, the German's Rheinmetall L55 out ranges the 2A46M and against inferior armor - that means a kill. If that wasn't the case, i am fully confident the Leopard 2's superior armor could withstand a blow from the T-90- as it's sister the Abrams has proven in the test bed against the same gun.
 
Last edited:
I think that they used Shtora and Drozd on the tanks that were going to charge across western europe without waiting or stopping for anything.

The type of armour on the T-90 is classified, so we dont know how thick or thin it is. Its obvious though that it uses ERA.

Im not saying that the T-90 is better, but it wouldnt be utterly decimated.
 
hey guys this threat has turn like these'' which is the best weapon the ak 47 or the m4?'' i think that the best weapon is that on the hand of the best warior!

now lets make a litlle retrospectiv: in ww2 the german armor was the best and combined with their tactics of blitzcrieg they progresed very well in the beganing of the war but like napoleon sayed a army march on its stomach!

at the other side the russian armor was very primitiv in the beganing of the war but i can say that became the master of the armor in the and of the war! and late the russian tanks became to dominate the battlefield! panzer 4 wasnt unbeateble after the t34 with greater armor ,firepower and mobility and greater number entered the senario!
after the german became to move too after seeing their tanks not as superior as have to be they strugled to get a tank to withstand to these threats and the tiger was the conclusions . even the rusians didnt stay and wait,and in the and of the war we have rusian models with greater fire power and maybe greater armor than even the tiger himself and what is important greater numbers!

dont forget that when great numbers of t34 became to atak the mighty tigers and after pasing the ranges of long distanc engadgements where tigers were supriors the remained t34 that get clouser to them got the job done !

in the iraqi war(2004) i think that the reson why the coalition forces won is simple! they had to fight with a brunch of guys that mostly where unmotivated(i have known numerouse iraqi soldiers that admit that had deserted in mass! because we didnt want to fight they said! nearly all of us wanted america and all of us hated sadam,we was thinking that our liberation from sadam these time was real,but non of us could say anything about that to each other because of the fear of the regime! there in the front our thoughts were obvios and we just puted the hands up when engadgement with coalition forces used to began! of corse that doesnt mean that a war didnt hapen but to go in the center of baghdad in top of the humve doesnt sems realistic to me ,because even un untrained man with his ak 47 from the balcony of his home would make that humve lok like a swiss chease, let alone see these humves in the center of baghdad without a scratch! so yes thay didnt have a motivated oponent, a trained one and the iraqi tanks were relics at that time dont forget these peoples!

so please do me and yourself a favor! dont even try to compare your state of the art tanks at that time with same relics that sadam had which wher drived from some porely people who mostly in the seats of those relics was hoping to see their freedom brought by you americans but in stad of that a tow missle or a silver bulet will sand them to the other world!
i have e question for you amercan people. how does you fight a war and dont have any dificulty with the iraqi army and lose nearly 100 soldiers but when the poulation of iraq became to hate you after you got there and didnt anything for them you became to lose sudenly 5000 troops against militia and untrained peolple? against a ''mighty army'' 100 but against militia 5000!
just please save yous self the coments like these: it is a urban warfare going one which is a diferent thing and b******ts like these!

if these people in uniforms see you like a liberation army and put up the white flag and you showed yourself like an ocupator army by doing the bos in their country of corse that you will get that kind of tratment! you just meast it up realy bad in iraq but none of you americans cant realize that, you made your friend an enemy!

just dont try these games with countrys that have patriots and peole that like their countrys,and doesnt matter if they have still t72 ,because they will mimetize them very well in the terain and when abrahams or even leo 2a6 will get closer want remanin anything of them
another question for you. why didnt nato enter kosovo when the serbian army was masacreating the population but used the bombardment campaign to force the serbs out? in these 3 months bombardment campaign the serbs didi all their jobs in cosovo, the serbian economy of the honestly serbian people that hadent anything to do with milosheviç was cripled at the other hand! and the bombarment cambpaign wasnt a suses at all in the meaning of neutralising the enemy because in tha end of the campaign only nearly 500 serbian soldiers where killed and not 10000 like nato used to say to justify tha campaign!
why instead you with you mighty abrahams didnt get in the kosovo from the beganing and kick out the serbs? because you knowed that they wouldnt run away but would fight, and a well organized ambush of t72 or a well pozitioned artillery will reap out every modern known army in the world!
so it is not the hardware that maters but the software right?
so i think tha a t80 or t90 is fair enof to do any kind of job that the tank is suposed to do is up to you what kind of software will you use i.n these hardwares.
tactics and training is all tha matters ! discusing if an enemy tank can or cant penetrate my tank is foolishnes and superego! but even super e go is a god think for a soldier because if he dont have tha wil turn bck and run in the fight!

ps: so dear crewman if your superiors tell you b******ts like:the enemy's tanks cant penetrate our tanks armor ,they do it to give you morale and to make you fill better and more comfortable in you tanks! but sems that some of the jurhades here takes these thinks really ! well good for you theen!

hapy new year to all !!!!!!!!!!
 
Britney said:
The russians, i thought they stopped using Shtora on many of its tanks because of the danger it posed to it's own men ? They tended to use tanks as cover but the missile would detonate and injure or kill those who did, so i thought they stopped using it?

I know that was the fear amongst the US army. Its trying to refine it in the form of quick kill from advances the Israeli's made on the system. The pressure from the missiles detonating would kill or render and infantry in the imminent area unfit for battle. Effectively making the tank supportless. It's good for blitzing witch is what the Soviets may have had in mind, but otherwise it makes the take more vulnerable.

Even so..Whats that have to do with a fight against a Leopard? A leopard uses it's main gun to do battle, not with laser guided ordinance? In a armor clash between NATO and Russia how would the Russians survive? They have thinner armor, a less powerful gun, and move slower. Not to mention they are fewer in number than the NATO tanks. Even on a solo duel, the German's Rheinmetall L55 out ranges the 2A46M and against inferior armor - that means a kill. If that wasn't the case, i am fully confident the Leopard 2's superior armor could withstand a blow from the T-90- as it's sister the Abrams has proven in the test bed against the same gun.
Click to expand...

actually yes they dont have the tanks now, but in the act of war they would begin to mass produce them, so russian tanks are lighter and more manuverable with better crosscountry performance, although they are slower in a flat sprint, they are cheap, with a good gun that can pentrate any western tank, and if they would have the money, and in a war they would have all the money, their fire control systems would vastly improve
 
Russian T-90 is the best in the world. It had proven itself in Georgia and Chechnya. It has Steel-composite-reactive blendvs APFSDS: 550 mm + 250-280mm with Kontakt-5 = 800-830mm; vs HEAT: 650 mm + 500-700mm with Kontakt-5 = 1,150-1,350mm with Primary
armament 125 mm smoothbore gun with ATGM capability; mainly 9M119 Svir
Secondary
armament 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun, 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun
That gun can destroy anything in its path. A T-72 and T-80 can defeat a leo2. Yes i know u going to say that dessert storm thing. First those T-72 was really downgraded and during the chenchen war those T-80s lost due to that it was bad generalship, lack of experiencee and training, and those t-80s where the most oldest forms.
 
First of all, Russia doesn't have 1250 T-90s. Also, T-90 was never used in combat, neither in Chechnya nor in Georgia. But anyway, you've done well copying this from Wikipedia.
 
Shmack said:
First of all, Russia doesn't have 1250 T-90s. Also, T-90 was never used in combat, neither in Chechnya nor in Georgia. But anyway, you've done well copying this from Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Maybe he means thats the amount that have been made? I know India has ~550 T-90's, Russia has about 400...still doesn't add up properly but I think the guy is just a troll.
 
First of all Russia does have 1290 t-90 tanks til 2011. you get information that was in 2007. Tell me any new information that denies that. That info was established like during the begining of the year. The T-90A tank was combat in the 1999 Chechen invasion of Dagestan. It was also in Goergia. :salute2: Do you think Russians will have that little amount of t-90s? You jealous Westerner
 
russia rules said:
First of all Russia does have 1290 t-90 tanks til 2011. you get information that was in 2007. Tell me any new information that denies that. That info was established like during the begining of the year. The T-90A tank was combat in the 1999 Chechen invasion of Dagestan. It was also in Goergia. :salute2: Do you think Russians will have that little amount of t-90s? You jealous Westerner
Click to expand...

Do you have any proof?
 
The GPO Uralvagonzavod Russian confirmed that the T-90 tank is one of the most advanced tanks in the world, with some 1,200 in active service.

The Russian military has confirmed the delivery of atleast 1 full battalion (94 tanks) each year. Some 2,000~ T-90 tanks are projected to enter service by 2011. Don't tell me the military reports I have to get to prove it. Its common sense to use newest tank in battle to see how it works. Do you have any proof of your statements? :tank::m16:

T-90 is the best tank in the world. nothing compares to it. Leo2 is wasted peice of steel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, Mr. Russia rules, I am a nationalistic Korean, and because you're a nationalistic Russian, I guess we'll brawl over whose country is the best. Anyway, the T-90 isn't the best tank in the world. The fact that you got your source from the Russian government adds to the fact that your set of facts are unreliable. Every country wants to claim that what it made is the best. We claim that the best tank is the K-2 (which is my avatar), the Americans will claim it's the Abrams, the French will claim that it's the Leclerc, etc... So, your source is unreliable, as much of the world's government sources are also unreliable.
Also, how can Russia produce about 850 T-90s in a year? Even your military says that only 94 tanks will be made in a year, and this year is 2010, so your total is 494, nowhere close to 1200. Go back to elementary school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top