Battle tanks and fighters

[lowzeewee]

Russia has MIG-series planes and T-series tanks while the USA uses F-series planes and M1A1 sort of tanks.What is the difference in them anyway ???

Correct me if I m wrong,but I think that MIG trades in speed and compactibility for armor and power?While their T-tanks trade in firepower for speed and armor ???

[Caid Ivik]

MiG is a short for Mikojan-Gurjevic, company made around Artem Mikojan and Michail Gurjevic in time of WW2 to design and construct fighters for the Red Army. First units were MiG-1 and MiG-3, nearly same, just some errors of 1 were repaired in 3. It was a fast fighter, with speed over 620 kph and vertical range higher than any german craft before Me 262 and He 162. It lacked some better weaponary, just two 7,7 mm and one 12,7 mm machine guns. In war Russians used mostly fighters from Polikarpov (I-16), Jakovlev (Jak-1 to 9) and Lavockin (La-5 and 7). MiG company became the primary producer with its MiG-15 in 1948, which has better performance than any western craft, only F-86 Sabre was faster. Then were well known MiG-19, first russian fighter with radar and guided missiles, MiG-21, light fighter used in many variants for nearly 40 years, some kind of lighter F-4 Phantom, MiG-23 (with assault MiG-27 version), smaller equivalent of US F-14, MiG-25, worlds fastest fighter with speed over 3 M (MiG-31 is an upgrade for better performance in lower heights), MiG-29, which you should know.

But MiG isn't only who makes fighters in Russia. There is also Suchoj (of fighters were Su-9, Su-15/21, Su-27, Su-35 and newest Su-37), Jakovlev (Jak-15, first russian jet-fighter, Jak-25/28, Jak-38 and Jak-41, these two are VTOLs), Tupolev (Tu-28) and Lavockin (La-15, now it's gone). About assault planes, there were mostly made by Suchoj (Su-11, Su-17/20/22, Su-25, Su-33), also by Jakovlev (Jak-27) and Iljusin (Il-28). For bombers, it is cause of Tupolev (many types; from todays Tu-16, Tu-22, Tu-26, Tu-95/142, Tu-160) and Mjasiscev (M-4, M-50).

Such generalisation isn't best, I can say russian fighters lack more compatibility, they are mostly one-purposed, altough newest versions of MiG-29 and Su-27/35 are able to attack ground as well as air. Anyway, these two are very maneuverable, over F-15 or F-16. These two US fighters are, however, multipurpose fighters, with good performance even against ground targets. Firepower of fighters depends more on missiles than in plane itself. Newest russian R-79 and R-83 missiles are better than last AIM-9 or AIM-120, because they have multivector jets. However, they are too dear, so most fighters carry still R-77 and R-72 missiles with great range, but lower accuracy than AMRAAM and Sparrow missiles.

Russian after-war tanks (T-10, T-34, T-55, T-72, T-80 and T-90) are very different. Last T-34s were used until late 70s, but then mostly as training targets. T-10, based on IS-3, was a heavy tank (64 t), which resisted much hits, but also was too obsolete to hit something. T-5 was much lighter (42 t) with 105 mm cannon, what was less than in T-10 (120 mm), but enough for 50s and 60s. T-72 has big 125 mm cannon, but also more thin armor. Anyway, its shells are laser guided. T-80 and T-90 were made in smaller series, their weight is over 50 tons, with cannon firing guided missiles like 9M114, usable also against slower helicopters. They are like Abrams, just with less sophisticated armor, so they aren't hard to hit.

[lowzeewee]

Isn't suchokj=sukhoi fighters :)

Isn't Tu-60 or something a carpet bomber

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, Cyxo

[lowzeewee]

LOL.....lack of fuel.....they might as well use tanks as stationery turrets then :(

[IxianMace]

Such generalisation isn't best, I can say russian fighters lack more compatibility, they are mostly one-purposed, altough newest versions of MiG-29 and Su-27/35 are able to attack ground as well as air. Anyway, these two are very maneuverable, over F-15 or F-16. These two US fighters are, however, multipurpose fighters, with good performance even against ground targets. Firepower of fighters depends more on missiles than in plane itself. Newest russian R-79 and R-83 missiles are better than last AIM-9 or AIM-120, because they have multivector jets. However, they are too dear, so most fighters carry still R-77 and R-72 missiles with great range, but lower accuracy than AMRAAM and Sparrow missiles.

About the Russian missiles you've mentioned. I think they're also called the AA-11 "Archer" AA-10 "Alamo" (C version, which is radar guided, and B version, which is IR guided). Correct me if I'm wrong.

Additionally, I think the MiG-29 was supposed to be the Russian answer to the F-16, since it matches it quite well in performance, and the Su-27 was designed to counter the F-15.

Russia has MIG-series planes and T-series tanks while the USA uses F-series planes and M1A1 sort of tanks.What is the difference in them anyway ???

As far as I know, here's how it works with US aircraft:

"F" stands for "Fighter", "A" stands for "Attack", "B" stands for "Bomber". Aircraft are usually designed with a letter at the start of their number in accordance with what role they are designed to play.

e.g.

A-10 Thunderbolt II:

Ground attack aircraft. Heavily armoured with powerful cannons, bombs, and missiles.

B-52 Stratofortress:

Heavy 8 engined bomber. Holds large amount of bombs in internal bomb bay. Rear radar controlled chaingun on tail fin.

F-15 Eagle:

Air superiority fighter. Carries AA missiles and 20mm cannon.

There are also hybrids:

F/A-18 Hornet:

Multi-purpose fighter. Can attack ground and air targets, but does the job less effectively than specialized fighters. Sacrifices agility for capability.

Furthermore, there are misleading designations:

F-117 Stealth Fighter

Not really a fighter at all IMHO. I'd call it an attack aircraft or deep strike bomber, although it probably wouldn't be large enough to be considered a bomber. It has no AA capability, it's only use is to attack specific enemy ground targets undetected.

Finally, there are different 'versions' of aircraft.

e.g.

F/A-18A

First model of this fighter. There's always a first time for everything. :)

F/A-18B

Twin seater version of A model.

F/A-18C

Upgrade of the A model. Usually carries superior radar and has a design upgrade in general. (Bugs tweaked, etc etc)

F/A-18D

Trainer version of F/A-18 in general. Twin seater.

F/A-18E

I think this one is nicknamed the 'Super Hornet'. Larger version of the F/A-18. Carries superior radar and weapons systems. Longer range due to more internal fuel capacity, and increased capability against ground targets.

If anyone sees any errors in this, feel free to mention them. I'm no expert on this, although I am interested in it. :) If anything is wrong here, then my bad. :P

[Caid Ivik]

Hard to say, all these planes were put into service in same times. F-15 was an answer for MiG-23 and 25, with assault abilities of Flogger and speed of Foxbat. MiG-29 is closer to F/A-18, altough versions after F-16C are also comparable.

[thomas]

yes, the f-15 is right now one of the best fighters ever, way the hell better than the mig-28 or 29, or so I've heard, oh has anyone seen the new US fighter? its sweet! better than the raptor too! I forgot whats it called but it sweet and it has an improved vtol system thats alot better and safer than the harriers, I just forgot the name :-[

[Anathema]

Er, I know of no new US fighter. Do you mean the Joint Strike Fighter? It's still in development.

Ix, you forgot to mention the B2 stealth bomber :)

And I believe the A-10 is called the Warthog, not Thunderbolt II.

Caid, you said that the T-90 was easier to hit then an Abrams? I thought that the T-80 and T-90 were better protected then the Abrams, though I could be wrong.

[IxianMace]

Ix, you forgot to mention the B2 stealth bomber :)

And I believe the A-10 is called the Warthog, not Thunderbolt II.

The B-2 Stealth bomber wasn't mentioned? Well, it does classify as a bomber IMO, and there is already an example given for that category.

The A-10 is known as the Warthog, which stuck due to it's ugly appearance. However I'm pretty sure that it's also called the Thunderbolt II. The F-117 Stealth 'Fighter' is also known as the 'Nighthawk' I think. The F-111 also has been nicknamed the 'Aardvark'. There may be multiple names for the same thing. :P I just use the ones that I've heard. If I know of multiple names that something has, then I'll just pick the one that I feel like picking. :P ;D I won't list them all. Now let's see, is the F-22 known as the 'Raptor' or the 'Lightning'? ;)

[Cyborg]

Ix, you forgot to mention the B2 stealth bomber :)

And I believe the A-10 is called the Warthog, not Thunderbolt II.

The B-2 Stealth bomber wasn't mentioned? Well, it does classify as a bomber IMO, and there is already an example given for that category.

The A-10 is known as the Warthog, which stuck due to it's ugly appearance. However I'm pretty sure that it's also called the Thunderbolt II. The F-117 Stealth 'Fighter' is also known as the 'Nighthawk' I think. The F-111 also has been nicknamed the 'Aardvark'. There may be multiple names for the same thing. :P I just use the ones that I've heard. If I know of multiple names that something has, then I'll just pick the one that I feel like picking. :P ;D I won't list them all. Now let's see, is the F-22 known as the 'Raptor' or the 'Lightning'? ;)

The A10's name is Thunderbolt. The Warthog name is just a nickname.

[Cyborg]

Caid, you said that the T-90 was easier to hit then an Abrams? I thought that the T-80 and T-90 were better protected then the Abrams, though I could be wrong.

I thought they had about the same protection.

[Gobalopper]

I think he meant they are easier to hit because they are slower.

[GhostHunter]

Newest American fighter (LITTLE info released to the public) is the F-26. I think theres also a few F-27's and F-28's.

[thomas]

thers an f-35 in development or is it x-35?

or and have you heard of hte USs new camoflage? it uses special sensors to change color....cooool 8)

[Cyborg]

If you put your hand in front of the sensor, would the suit turn into skincolor then?

[Anathema]

I think he meant they are easier to hit because they are slower.

Caid said something about more advanced armour, and the T series are lighter so I assume they're faster. They also have fairly low sillouetes so they're harder to aim at.

[lowzeewee]

But isn't speed better?If yr tank is too slow,its armor will keep getting weaken by enemy tanks from far away ???

[Cyborg]

I did some tests in a well-known game/combatsimulator called Operation Flashpoint(It's used by the military in some countr(ies):)).

I took some screenshots to show you the difference in the looks of the two tanks(check attachment). I did some tests in speed and armor too.

The outcome of the test:

T80:

Speed: Slightly better than M1A1

Armor: Much worse than the M1A1... It blew apart after 3 shots from a Sabot(anti-tank shell which was mounted at a T72 during the test)

M1A1:

Speed: Not bad. Slightly slower than T80, but almost unnoticeable. A bit harder to make turns with.

Armor: Better than T80. It took 5 shots with a Sabot to crush it.

All the shots against the two tanks were aimed at the "head" of the tank. The T80 might take more damage at some places and less at others.[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

[lowzeewee]

Is that a US or UK made game ???

[Cyborg]

It's made by BIS(Bohemia Interactive 'I don't know the last word'). The making of this game took place in Holland.

Btw, the second game is soon out ;D

[lowzeewee]

So its rather 'neutral' :P

Russia is no longer a world superpower thats why :)

But how about the skills of the tank pilot ???

[Cyborg]

The tank pilot was me.

I have spent so many hours playing that game and played so many clan matches that I think i should be able to hit a tank with big enough presicion. ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Russian tanks are just a models, which were made in dozens of factories, also each made its own modifications. For example T-72-model tank made in Martin in Slovakia with czech weapon devices is much more powerful and has better performance than T-72-model tank made in Charkov. Flashpoint is a nice game, anyway made by Czechs, from which many have to be tankists in their war duty. The armor design (curving, angles) is much better on Abrams than on any other tank. Also it depends on where you fire. Most vulnerable are wheels, Abrams has very tough turret to protect the crew. T-80, as well as other russian models, has armor usually placed equally on all places.

About those fighters, I read, IxianMace, that you talk about F/A-18 as unagile fighter. In fact it is, very like MiG-29 or Su-27, designed with "strakes", broaded wings, which make the whole fighter virtually as one wing. With full arsenal of weapons it can't stay MiG-29's agility, but in air-to-air weaponary (AMRAAMs on wings and AIM-9s on wing ends) it is very comparable. Anyway, when JSF F-35 will come, Hornet will become quickly obsolete, because such combination of strakes and VTOL engine as F-35 has is nearly miraculous. Russians knew, why their Su-37 was sacrificed to Su-47 Berkut project, designed to have negative wing like very succesful US project X-29... Compare for yourself:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-47.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

[lowzeewee]

So are russian or american fighters/main battle tanks better ???

I think russian though :(