the best ways to use US Army against Russia

[Imp]

For what its worth my 2 cents take with a pinch of salt.
Some valid points but its still mainly speculation.
Yes a turret without a commander is at a big disadvantage but thats not the case now though if the electronics are up to the job now is the question. Do Russian MBTs have hunter/ killer tech (commander selects next target while gunner deals with first) Is there targeting TI as good or better? On the modern battlefield he who sees the other first wins aka Iraq. Where if I remember they were sub standard tanks & badly maintained. Though of course the Russian military went to pieces for a good while & maintanence suffered there.
Chechnya several reports the tanks did not have there reactive armour fitted which makes a huge diffrence. Other factors to but not going into & then you have to figure whos actually got it right.
I can remember reading the Rheinmetall tests that lead to designed the present gun, conducted against tanks fitted with Soviet ERA they found it was quite capable of defeating both HEAT & kinetic rounds. Its effectiveness against kinetic rounds surprised them hence we need a gun with a lot more grunt.
Simple things like estimates of armours effectivness need carefull analysis because people use diffrent criteria. Fired at obliqly or straight projectile passes through or marks a metal plate behind etc.
The upshot is Russian frontline tanks may not be as bad as you think though perhaps the majority could be worse as only get low level upgrades. With a bit of luck we will never find out.
Then you could throw in the situation you create in MBT war has broken out its Russia vs USA & its gone on for a few days. Russian tanks are now quite good as USA uses a dumbed down version of the Rheinmetall gun but makes the penetration up with depleted uranium rounds. Oh weve used all the rounds can we have a cease fire while we build some more nuclear powerstations & replenish our stocks please.
Like I said pure speculation & if you think its wrong you can adjust it.
On T-90S & dont know why I remember this but have seen ratings varying from about 550-1300. The 1300 applying to approx 50% of the surface as thats the part covered by second generation kontact 5 (forget the name) 550 was the area to ether side of the gun as mounts detection gear so no reactive armour. And yes I would say the relience on ERA means the tank has more vulnerable spots. It also means its a lot lighter & can use bridges possibly go places (I know ground pressure) Western tanks cant.

The simple way to look at in my view is with the advent of the T-72 & its derivatives Western tanks entered an era of rapid upgrades & refinments compared to the past. The Abrams for example got its upgrades because the experts thought it needed them to survive not just because there was some cash in the kity.