Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams
achtpanz    6/14/2004 3:59:14 AM
Russian T90 vs American M1A2 Abrams - Which is better? If these tanks fought in battle, which would suffer more casualties, which one is superior? What are their advantages? Any information would be helpful.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Beryoza    A brief clarification of systems   10/30/2008 5:09:03 AM
Shtora: An IR jamming system meant to confuse wire-guided SACLOS weapons by imitating the missile's tracking flare. Composed of two IR emitters (one on each turret side) and a computing unit. Meant to be used with obscurant (smoke grenades) and the TC's turret slewing system automatically orientating the turret front to the threat, to present the thickest armour to the target and facilitate expedient return fire
 
Arena: Hard-kill active protection systems NOT fitted to any production Russian MBT (all configurations I've seen prevent the mounting of K-5 on the turret because of the ammunition cassettes). Composed of a 360 degree coverage MMW radar on the top of the AFV's turret, and twenty plus ammunition cassetes (depending on the size of the AFV) around the turret. When an incoming projectile is detected, an ammunition cassete is fired to destroy the threat with shrapnel.
 
Refleks: tube launched SACLOS laser beam riding ATGM, MER ~4500m, c.400 m/sec velocity. Herald, you're obvioulsy privy to more info than I am, could you explain why you counsider the Refleks to be junk? Everything I've read about it leads me to believe it is a capable system, certainly far more so than Kobra (it has a similairly high velocity but with a much better stand off for its warhead and a much reduced vulnerability to jamming), which itself was very reliable compared to the American 152mm weapons.
 
Quote    Reply

HEAT       10/30/2008 5:43:31 AM
what is CREF?
 
the SABOT-DU of M1A2 can destroy Kontakt armour to 3000 m ?
 
how much reflerks the T-90 can fire at 1 minute and how much reflerks are sufficient to damage abrams armour ?
 
the HEAT of T-90 can damage M1A2 armour ?
 
when is ready the ERGM ?
 
the "monkey" T-90 has Kontakt armour ans Shtora?
 
M1A3 can to be ready after T-95 ?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       10/30/2008 6:17:27 AM

what is CREF?

Check reference.

the SABOT-DU of M1A2 can destroy Kontakt armour to 3000 m ?

Most certainly 

how much reflerks the T-90 can fire at 1 minute and how much reflerks are sufficient to damage abrams armour ?

Call it by its correct name please. 9K119M Refleks-M, known to me as SNIPER-B,  is a laser beam rider that is easily foxed by US laser dazzlers and standard Israeli invented laser beam scatter fog. Besides that the small warhead is ineffective against Burlington. Not to put to fine a point on it, the missile is a subsonic BEAM rider. If the guide beam scatters, or is degraded, it is useless. Like throwing ping pong balls.at at plate steel in fact.   .

the HEAT of T-90 can damage M1A2 armour ?

Frontal arc? Scorch it. maybe crater the face plate.

when is ready the ERGM ?

Its ready. 

the "monkey" T-90 has Kontakt armour ans Shtora?

 Shtora is on some T-90s. The Russians have sopmething else in the works that is supposed to be similar to the latest Israeli active protection systems

M1A3 can to be ready after T-95 ?

Before I should think.  I've yet to see an actual T-95.

 

 

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

HEAT       10/30/2008 6:40:22 AM
M1A2 can use Laser Dazzler against ATGM missiles, good...
 
there are notes or sites online on ability to penetrate Kontakt armour with sabot-du to 3000 range m ?
 
what is the useful range to penetrate abrams armor with Refleks ? and t-90 can damage with APFSDS ?
 
when M1A2 will have ERGM ? 2010?2015?
 
there is advantage with autoloader on Abrams servant ?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       10/30/2008 6:47:39 AM

M1A2 can use Laser Dazzler against ATGM missiles, good...

 

there are notes or sites online on ability to penetrate Kontakt armour with sabot-du to 3000 range m ?

 

what is the useful range to penetrate abrams armor with Refleks ? and t-90 can damage with APFSDS ?

 

when M1A2 will have ERGM ? 2010?2015?

 

there is advantage with autoloader on Abrams servant ?

 

 

 

 

 

 


No more answers. You are getting into areas that you don't need and are too eager to know.


Endit.


Herald
 
Quote    Reply

afrikan_neekeri       10/30/2008 11:42:03 AM
Herald, please explain why would a T-90 emit a larger heat signature than any other diesel tank? Of course it's visible in the thermal sights; even humans at 37C are visible. Diesel engines normally run at 90 degrees centigrade.
 
But M1 is in a whole different league. The operating temperature of that gas turbine is well over 500C. And I'm sure you're aware that the percentage of thermal radiation compared to other mechanisms of heat dissipation increases with the temperature.

A gas turbine engine has some advantages over a diesel. It's lighter, more powerful than a diesel engine of similar size and gives a flat torque curve=>good acceleration. The disadvantages of such engines are high fuel consumption especially at idle, the large thermal signature and quicker wearing of engine parts => requires more maintenance and the overall life of the engine is shorter. People have recognized the problem with the fuel consumption and thermal signature: M1 was one of the first tanks to be fitted with an APU.
 
It tells us something that Russia favors the diesel-variant of the T-80 and that their newer concepts all feature diesel engines. Why is it so that the newest tanks (Leclerc, K2, Type 10) are all diesel-powered if the gas turbine is so superior?

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       10/30/2008 3:03:18 PM

Herald, please explain why would a T-90 emit a larger heat signature than any other diesel tank? Of course it's visible in the thermal sights; even humans at 37C are visible. Diesel engines normally run at 90 degrees centigrade.

A jet turbine you can control the direction of thermal bloom. A diesel you cannot. in the case of the Russians, they didn't even mitigate what little they could. PHYSICS..

But M1 is in a whole different league. The operating temperature of that gas turbine is well over 500C. And I'm sure you're aware that the percentage of thermal radiation compared to other mechanisms of heat dissipation increases with the temperature.

CREF above.


A gas turbine engine has some advantages over a diesel. It's lighter, more powerful than a diesel engine of similar size and gives a flat torque curve=>good acceleration. The disadvantages of such engines are high fuel consumption especially at idle, the large thermal signature and quicker wearing of engine parts => requires more maintenance and the overall life of the engine is shorter. People have recognized the problem with the fuel consumption and thermal signature: M1 was one of the first tanks to be fitted with an APU.

The Sherman had an APU. Better go back to tank school.
 
It tells us something that Russia favors the diesel-variant of the T-80 and that their newer concepts all feature diesel engines. Why is it so that the newest tanks (Leclerc, K2, Type 10) are all diesel-powered if the gas turbine is so superior?

Leclerc's diesel is a JOKE, further you assume Russian turbines are like American [American turbines aren't that fragile or maintenance intensive,, they are actually far more robust then the ICEs to which you compare them], and then there's fuel costs. Yeah, you definitely need to go back to tank school.


Herald

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       10/30/2008 5:51:43 PM
The LeClerc engine is a combination of diesel and gas turbine, although it can be fitted with a Euro Powerpack MTU 883 diesel.

Diesel exhausts can be directed down, although the exhaust velocity will be lower so it won't travel as far before rising. That said I'm surprised that the much hotter exhaust from a gas turbine doesn't make a larger plume.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       10/30/2008 6:08:17 PM
A turbine is a reaction jet engine, FK. Exhaust can be nozzled and directed where you won't see it, both the heat and expelled reaction mass: nothing is secret about that.
 
The Europack is better than that French junk engine. What surprised me last year was how poorly the Leclerc was doing maintenance wise. I thought that it was just France not keeping up with spares like they normally do, but the Leclerc electronics [fire control] and the Lebanon don't seem to like each other. Wonder if that showed up in the India trials?
 
Herald 

 
Quote    Reply

afrikan_neekeri       10/30/2008 9:56:43 PM




Herald, please explain why would a T-90 emit a larger heat signature than any other diesel tank? Of course it's visible in the thermal sights; even humans at 37C are visible. Diesel engines normally run at 90 degrees centigrade.




A jet turbine you can control the direction of thermal bloom. A diesel you cannot. in the case of the Russians, they didn't even mitigate what little they could. PHYSICS..




But M1 is in a whole different league. The operating temperature of that gas turbine is well over 500C. And I'm sure you're aware that the percentage of thermal radiation compared to other mechanisms of heat dissipation increases with the temperature.



CREF above.






A gas turbine engine has some advantages over a diesel. It's lighter, more powerful than a diesel engine of similar size and gives a flat torque curve=>good acceleration. The disadvantages of such engines are high fuel consumption especially at idle, the large thermal signature and quicker wearing of engine parts => requires more maintenance and the overall life of the engine is shorter. People have recognized the problem with the fuel consumption and thermal signature: M1 was one of the first tanks to be fitted with an APU.




The Sherman had an APU. Better go back to tank school.

 

It tells us something that Russia favors the diesel-variant of the T-80 and that their newer concepts all feature diesel engines. Why is it so that the newest tanks (Leclerc, K2, Type 10) are all diesel-powered if the gas turbine is so superior?




Leclerc's diesel is a JOKE, further you assume Russian turbines are like American [American turbines aren't that fragile or maintenance intensive,, they are actually far more robust then the ICEs to which you compare them], and then there's fuel costs. Yeah, you definitely need to go back to tank school.






Herald




Whoa. I had no idea that the M4 had an APU so M1 is definitely far from one the first tanks to be fitted with one. Live and learn. But I do know that M1 didn't originally have an APU, nor did M60, Leo1 and 2 and Challenger. 2A5 was the first leo variant to be fitted with one.
 
Even if you can control the direction of the exhaust better with an M1, the air is still very hot when it comes out from the sides of the tank. And not all the IR comes from exhaust gases alone.
 
I never said that those honeywell turbines were fragile. However, a diesel engine with proper maintenance will last longer in tank use. Gas turbine engines are simpler and lighter but do need maintenance/partial engine rebuilds more often. 
 
Fuel consumption is not only a cost issue but it also affects range. And I've never heard any jokes about the Leclerc engine. I don't have personal experience of those tanks so yes, it's theoretically possible that they break down every three seconds without me getting to know about it. All I've heard is that it has a good efficiency and gets a lot of power from a relatively small displacement=>a lighter and smaller engine. And it's not a French engine, btw.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics