T-90 Tank
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
That's wrong. The U.S. military is 1.5 million strong, not 2.5 million. And the U.S. has a 13 trillion economy to back it up with. Russia has a 1.3 trillion economy. One tenth of the USA. The size of the Russian Army is also more tied to population due to the draft. Finally the current planned reduction will bring the Russian army from 1.1 million to one million by 2011. Further reductions are possible, which would bring Russia under one million.
You are wrong about US. The numbers are rather different, and more that you imagine. See Wiki:That's wrong. The U.S. military is 1.5 million strong, not 2.5 million. And the U.S. has a 13 trillion economy to back it up with. Russia has a 1.3 trillion economy. One tenth of the USA. The size of the Russian Army is also more tied to population due to the draft. Finally the current planned reduction will bring the Russian army from 1.1 million to one million by 2011. Further reductions are possible, which would bring Russia under one million.
Reaching military 2,143,873 males (2005 est.),
Active personnel 1,426,713
Reserve personnel 1,458,500
Total GDP - is a bad instrument to estimate a military potential. In fact the effectiveness of military budget in Russia is tens time more than in US. With 10- times less budget (in market prices) Russia held Nuclear forces as US have, will you deny it? Also must we noted, that the purchase ability of Russian currency at home is higher than dollar in US (see 'Hamburger Index' and purchasing-power-parity issue), so if you want to buy something in US and Russia, you will spend as twice more money in US than in Russia. Thus you better use GDP in purchasing-power-parity (GDP PPP) value than GDP in current prices for such comparisons.
In GDP in purchase value Russia has 6th world economy after US, China, Japan, Germany and India. In terms of World GDP the Russian GDP part is as high or even higher than GB's (3,244% World GDP or 2,274 trill international dollars) and will grow even further in next 5 year (up to 3.435%). In next 5 years the development trend will put Russia on 4-5 place in the world economy after China, US, Japan and India, while US part is progressively reduced from 20.882% to 19.22% (see IMF prognosis here). Unlike US Russian budget 5 last years is closed with great annual surplus. So I cannot see any financial limitation for holding million-size military in Russia.
And also Russia still spend as 2.5% of its GDP on military, while US - as 4.5%. Now guess, whom is more easy to rise the military budget if needed for?
Really I know they want to cut some military vacancies and transfer them to civilian companies till 2011, so the total number of Russian military will be something reduced without damage for fighting capability, but not fall below 1 mln.
Nope, your wrong. You say Russia spends 2.5% and the U.S. 4.5% the U.S. is a bit less when you take out the wars. But for the most part you are right about those numbers. Problem is that the U.S. government's expenditures are 2.7 TRILLION dollars. Russian's government spent only 262 billion. They are not cutting military jobs to help the civil sector. Instead, they're doing it because they are only finnally realizing that after the Cold War, it's best to have a high-tech, mobile army, like the one we had to fight and win the first Gulf War. As I have said a thousand times before on this website in forums on Russia: Most of Russia's military equipment was reaserched, designed, built, and paid for during the Soviet Union. Whether its T-72s,T-80s,Su-27s, or a huge part of Russia's naval fleet, none of that is from modern day Russia. The point being when Russia rearms, as it's trying to do know, they are never going to be able to build a force as big as the one they have now.You are wrong about US. The numbers are rather different, and more that you imagine. See Wiki:
Reaching military 2,143,873 males (2005 est.),
Active personnel 1,426,713
Reserve personnel 1,458,500
Total GDP - is a bad instrument to estimate a military potential. In fact the effectiveness of military budget in Russia is tens time more than in US. With 10- times less budget (in market prices) Russia held Nuclear forces as US have, will you deny it? Also must we noted, that the purchase ability of Russian currency at home is higher than dollar in US (see 'Hamburger Index' and purchasing-power-parity issue), so if you want to buy something in US and Russia, you will spend as twice more money in US than in Russia. Thus you better use GDP in purchasing-power-parity (GDP PPP) value than GDP in current prices for such comparisons.
In GDP in purchase value Russia has 6th world economy after US, China, Japan, Germany and India. In terms of World GDP the Russian GDP part is as high or even higher than GB's (3,244% World GDP or 2,274 trill international dollars) and will grow even further in next 5 year (up to 3.435%). In next 5 years the development trend will put Russia on 4-5 place in the world economy after China, US, Japan and India, while US part is progressively reduced from 20.882% to 19.22% (see IMF prognosis here). Unlike US Russian budget 5 last years is closed with great annual surplus. So I cannot see any financial limitation for holding million-size military in Russia.
And also Russia still spend as 2.5% of its GDP on military, while US - as 4.5%. Now guess, whom is more easy to rise the military budget if needed for?
Really I know they want to cut some military vacancies and transfer them to civilian companies till 2011, so the total number of Russian military will be something reduced without damage for fighting capability, but not fall below 1 mln.
Total GDP is a good way to estimate the potential of a country's military, not their current capability. The larger one's economy is, the more they can build and the more the can spend. Russia's economy may be predicted to grow but what about their shrinking population. What about the fact that the U.S. economy is still much, much bigger.
Last edited:
Why do you include Reservists in the US active personal and doesn't do the same with Russias reserve (in the end most conscripts after their service time)?
I agree that the US reserves are called up more frequently right now.
Nevertheless they active forces consist of the said 1,4 million soldiers.
BTW, the CIA world factbook gives a russian budget of 3,9% of GDP (2005 data).
One cannot argue that Russia helds nuclear forces comparable to that of the US.
Alot of Russias ICBMs reach end of their servic life with not enough coming into service to replace the lost ones. That may change with the proposed acceleration of production.
And it lies not that far in the past that Russia started to do boomer patrols again. Especially the comparison of the US and Russian SSBN forces reveals the difference in capabilities right now.
All this may change (or may not) but right now and since the end of the sovjet union the nuclear forces are in a much faster decline than the ones of the US even in the light of american peace dividend.
BTW, what makes you think that Russias conventional forces are on par with US capabilities? Because that's what you make it look like with your statement of Russia spending it's budget 10x more effective.
And while it is right that Russia right now has the fortune to benefit from high prices for raw materials it is also the case that wages are also climbing in Russia.
So when somebody speaks of the good growing statistics of the Russian economy one should always include this problem into his thinking.
I agree that the US reserves are called up more frequently right now.
Nevertheless they active forces consist of the said 1,4 million soldiers.
BTW, the CIA world factbook gives a russian budget of 3,9% of GDP (2005 data).
One cannot argue that Russia helds nuclear forces comparable to that of the US.
Alot of Russias ICBMs reach end of their servic life with not enough coming into service to replace the lost ones. That may change with the proposed acceleration of production.
And it lies not that far in the past that Russia started to do boomer patrols again. Especially the comparison of the US and Russian SSBN forces reveals the difference in capabilities right now.
All this may change (or may not) but right now and since the end of the sovjet union the nuclear forces are in a much faster decline than the ones of the US even in the light of american peace dividend.
BTW, what makes you think that Russias conventional forces are on par with US capabilities? Because that's what you make it look like with your statement of Russia spending it's budget 10x more effective.
And while it is right that Russia right now has the fortune to benefit from high prices for raw materials it is also the case that wages are also climbing in Russia.
So when somebody speaks of the good growing statistics of the Russian economy one should always include this problem into his thinking.
Yes, US economy is times higher, but the nation efforts are nailed in Iraq and A-stan and the advanced technology programs are cut. Despite 90th years crisis Russia kept its R&D alaive and now it is starting to invent it for serial production (T-95, PAKFA programs, new nuclear subs, ships etc). Russian population is indeed srinking but not in such degree, as used to think. Russian demography is still better than in Western Europe, when the indigenous and educated European population is changed by North Africa migrants. And yeah, the technology advance will make the combatant number less important in near future.
I dont think, the conventional forces of Russia is even near equal to US. But if speak about nuke triad, it's so: the parity is kept. Do you know how US nuclear force are shrinked during Bush prezidency? Two folds. Unlike US concentrated on fighting 'terrorism' and dubious AMD, Russia is pushing to serial 3 totally new strategic system simultaneousely: Bulava for totaly new class of subs, Yarts (RS-24) for ground complex and unnamed still classified long range cruise missile with low RCS for strategic aircrafts. Isnt enough? What US or GB do in same aspect?
And no, I dont offer to believe blind to CIA reports regarding Russia. They allways were wrong about it. My number is from the Russian sources. The Mil budget is keeping rather low so it has a span for growing for sure.
And for your knowing Russia canceled to make patrol near US border in 2001 after the Tween attacked and Bush asked Putin to cancel it. It's no relation to economic status in Russia, at least last 8-10 years.
Last edited:
Very well said. I couldn't agree more with your way of thinking.
Once again, well said.
Something more related to tanks: the paintful lesson of Korea or how three poor destroyed countries with mediocre socialist economy defeated the coalition of 'all civilized mankind'.
English pdf-book
tank warfare in korea 1950-53.pdf - 40.51MB
English pdf-book
tank warfare in korea 1950-53.pdf - 40.51MB
The korean war is a whole different issue. An industrial super power that had ample experience in producing tanks, and ample experience in winning a tank-based war was supporting the DPRK. And the thousands of Chinese "volunteers". So again the USA has 1.4 million active forces, Russia has 1.1 million. The USA has 300+ million population and growing. Russia has 140 million and shrinking (though for those not paying close attention, this trend is on the verge of being reversed with the recent situation). Russian economy at 1.3 trillion, U.S. at 13 trillion. Where do you see room for Russia to retain the huge army in existence right now? The Russian Army might reach this size again in the future, after many years of steady economic growth, and possible territorial expansions (like URB finally becoming a reality etc.).
EDIT: Russia may be able to re-arm the current armed forces at their present size. It's not out of bounds. But the cost would be tremendous.
EDIT: Russia may be able to re-arm the current armed forces at their present size. It's not out of bounds. But the cost would be tremendous.
After WW2 the half of Russia industry was destroyed, the old center of tank-building - Ukraine, Kharkov was destroyed totally, the second - Leningrad was after blockade recovery, 1946-47 years was starvation. Where you see 'industrial superpower' then? Now Russia is much more advanced in all aspects, Russian science then in 40th - was a joke against what Russia has now including of course the access to foreign technologies for reducing R&D cost.
The same situation was repeated in 1983, when the Russian T-72's were the best tanks on the market. No round from Israeli 105 mm MG could penetrate their armor even from zero distance. Thus they started rearmed their forces with 120 mm. I could bring for you some sources about this, but they are in Russian. So I give you a book in English about Lebanon-1 War. Give your attention for heavy Israeli loses in tanks:
tank battles on the meadle east wars2.pdf - 15.65MB
Extern, dont run blind. It is wrong to say what current russian army have same capability as US army. Even man-by-man and tank-by-tank - obviously, US army is way superior. Basically, Russian army is greatly degraded USSR army, with only token improvements in some isolated areas.
Whereas US army already made 2 generations since 80x. This include everything - from military technic to strategy and training. The only semi-comparable to US force in russian army is nuclear strategic force. Everything else, as i said - degraded remains of USSR military.
I didnt say about 'same capability' in conventional forces. But Russia has no international obligations in many world areas as US have now. So US have to have more. However, how tanks etc has US in 1990 and how they have now? Isnt there is 10 time or so less?
BTW, in many aspects especially in armor area US during last 15 year only closed the gap with Soviet level of technology. After all now Russia is less behind US in tank-building than US were behind Russia in 1993. And seemingly the first tanks of the next generation will be manufactured in Russia
No, more like 2 times less. By that, ALL M1x tanks are still there, and most of them even 2 times upgraded since then. Compare it to ex-USSR Russia, which had 1/4 USSR active tank force, and almost all tanks are still mid-80x tech at best.
Is some isolated areas like ERA or ATGM - yes, but in almost any other area (especially FCS and BM) - 1-2 generations ahead. Remember, there are very few T-90 in russian army.BTW, in many aspects especially in armor area US during last 15 year only closed the gap with Soviet level of technology. After all now Russia is less behind US in tank-building than US were behind Russia in 1993. And seemingly the first tanks of the next generation will be manufactured in Russia
We can argue what in 70x - 80x USSR tanks were probably best in the world. But now - they are still mid 80x tanks. Whereas Abrams, Leo's or Challies - generally end 90x-early 2000x upgrades.
You are joking, they hardly have 5000-5500 Abrams of now. Only in the 5 years between 2001 and 2006 they dismissed as 1300 tanks, as 22% of whole their tanks fleet without a single new tank been manufactured. It's during two ground wars simultaneousely! So who is in decline?
: Someday I have allready brough here the officially US report to UN about heavy weapons. This is it: 8,971 (1997) 8,133 (1999), 8,087 (2001) 6,323 (2006). let's remember 14,000 Abrams's were produced since 1979. Only as 1174 between the manufactured are M1A2's that undisputely could be rated above T-90. Yes the most of M1's needed urgentely upgrade since with their 105 mm they could not take on even T-72 from zero distance, dont speek about T-90.
The US Navy was reduced twice or trice after Cold War despite growing in international obligations. Aviation was reduced many folds too. So both power reduced their forces drastically after Cold War resolved. The only difference: US is over their apogee and have no other direction in visible future but down (I mean weapons issue and US economy overstretch) .
Are you sure about the numbers inregards to M1A2s manufactured or upgraded, there are plans and funds approved for General Dynamics to upgrade additional M1s to not only A2 standards but to SEP also so that they can be augumented into the FSC program and technologies, this is not even including the possible build of a M1A3 model and the FSC tank platform that will be built for rapid deployment.You are joking, they hardly have 5000-5500 Abrams of now. Only in the 5 years between 2001 and 2006 they dismissed as 1300 tanks, as 22% of whole their tanks fleet without a single new tank been manufactured. It's during two ground wars simultaneousely! So who is in decline?
Someday I have allready brough here the officially US report to UN about heavy weapons. This is it: 8,971 (1997) 8,133 (1999), 8,087 (2001) 6,323 (2006). let's remember 14,000 Abrams's were produced since 1979. Only as 1174 between the manufactured are M1A2's that undisputely could be rated above T-90. Yes the most of M1's needed urgentely upgrade since with their 105 mm they could not take on even T-72 from zero distance, dont speek about T-90.
The US Navy was reduced twice or trice after Cold War despite growing in international obligations. Aviation was reduced many folds too. So both power reduced their forces drastically after Cold War resolved. The only difference: US is over their apogee and have no other direction in visible future but down (I mean weapons issue and US economy overstretch) .
Stop using the economy and the drain from Iraq war excuse, It will take Russia and China at a minimum, 20 years to get to a fighting level to even think about locking horns with us, botom line, Russia better start to worry about its newly energized neighbor that it shares a accasional hostile border with, surely you guys dont really believe in all that we are friends and all is forgotten BS do you.
Extern - you know very well that you can fight smarter and leaner wars with todays and tomorrows technologies.
Sure we are not enemies today of course, just competitorsRussia better start to worry about its newly energized neighbor that it shares a accasional hostile border with, surely you guys dont really believe in all that we are friends and all is forgotten BS do you.
Extern - you know very well that you can fight smarter and leaner wars with todays and tomorrows technologies.
And I agree about technology input with future reduce in number. So, I predict 5,000-7,500 tank in Russia as a target for current reformation. Anyway the tanks is allmost useless in deterrence against USA or China, but still needed for force projection in near border and abroad. Like US on the sea Russia as a continental power needs mightful ground 'navy'.
I repeat also (according to the Russian general) in 10 years as a half of the tanks in Russia will be T-90 with futher upgrades, and the remained will include the older versions of T-serials and the 'next generation tank' (after 2010). They are reducing the old stock very quickly: only in 2007 near 4000 tanks from the noted above 22,000 were utilized.
Russia. As i said, in much sharper decline than US forces. Besides, official figures for US tanks numbers - 16.000. This however includes tanks in storage.You are joking, they hardly have 5000-5500 Abrams of now. Only in the 5 years between 2001 and 2006 they dismissed as 1300 tanks, as 22% of whole their tanks fleet without a single new tank been manufactured. It's during two ground wars simultaneousely! So who is in decline?
This is number of tanks in active tanks units. Almost all of these 6000 tanks are upgraded to at least M1A1/A2 standard, with 120mm weapon.
Dont forget M1A1HE, M1A2SEP, etc. There are only few T-90 in russian army Also, dont forget real armament equipment in service - all US tanks have access to M829A2/A3 rounds and can penetrate all russian tanks at all ranges (except may be T-90), whereas russian tanks really have only BM-42 in service, which cant reliable penetrate even M1A1HE armor.
And again, these M1 upgrades installed much better FCS and BM systems than currently being installed on even T-90, not to speak ancient T-72.
Yes, but to much, much, much lesser degree than USSR/Russian army. Besides, this is natural thing reducing aircrafts / ships numbers while increasing they capabilities. An F-15 / F-18 of 2008 origin is not nearly the same as F-18 of 80x. Whereas russian Su-27 is still an 80x vintage Su-27. And i dont even speak about F-22 and (soon) F-35 here.
Undoubtedly, both powers reduced they forces. But Russia is only 1/4 of USSR forces at very best, whereas US army actually increased its capabilities if we count actual firepower and strengths, not pure numbers. And this is even not taking in account Warpac vs NATO relation, which is now NATO vs Russia relation and is changed like 10-fold (Russia now being 5-10 times weaker than NATO)
Wrong. During the 40's Russia was manufacturing the cutting edge in tank technology. The major tank producing center had moved to Stalingrad, and further east (remember Tankograd?). The Russian military, despite demobilization, was still capable of rolling through Europe, and the military consisted of battle hardened veterans. Modern day Russia is far behind in relative terms.
I read Russian fluently. Much better then English. So feel free to give me Russian sources.