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
HERALD1357    Objective truth.   3/20/2009 7:57:17 AM
I try to stay away from my machine is best arguments unless I make it clear that the machine is a part of a whole system.
 
For example, the M-1 is ill suited to the Indian or the Israeli system. Challenger is ill suited to the French system. Merkava is ill suited to the American system (Well not really since it has some features that an American tank army might find useful), but you understand?
 
The turbine engine may have its blades replaced, but that is still a third echelon rebuild (depot)-not a battlefield repair. You could just as easily say the diesel has to go back to depot for replacement. So first echelon you still pull the engine and transmission. I'm not going to bag on the Russian tank for that. In fact I don't want to bag on the Russian tank at all, since it comes from the Russian system where the tank is not so much a defensive machine (as in the West) as a means to achieve breakthroughs and exploitations (Tukachevsky). Different does not mean inferior; it means different.  
 
Some might argue that Russian artillery is the Russian disruption arm of decision while the tanks are their exploitation arm-exactly backwards as to the current US Army, where the artillery is a support arm and wer use armor to disrupt the enemy defense. Shrug-different current style (cavalry shock and motorized infantry bmaneuver versus artillery and tank swarm supported infantry assault) yields different type of equipment.
 
What works is what works. Expect Russian tanks to be lighter and to cross soft ground better; expect Russian tanks to be armed to be better anti-infantry weapons. Expect Russian tanks to be designed well enough to handle enemy tanks en masse, but not to be "matched" one on one to enemy tanks. That isn't why the Russian tanks' designs exist. The Russians are still locked into their swarm tactics. They may not have the numbers now to make those tactics work, but that is what their legacy force equipment actually is. 
 
They are also stuck with the cruiser, infantry tank dichotomy from their past..That affects what we see. We discussed this in the T-80 versus T-90 thread.
 
Herald
 

 
     
 
Quote    Reply

afrikan_neekeri       3/21/2009 1:48:01 AM
The Soviet tactics are so 40's sometimes... A T-34 type tank brought them victories as did large artillery concentrations. The Soviets have made very innovative and efficient offensive doctrines with armour and mechanized infantry but the ghost of WW2 can be seen in everything they've done since. 

However, what worked with some 50000-60000 modern tanks and more than 30000 IFVs of the Soviet Union doesn't work with the handful of modern tanks Russia has now. They really need a new kind of tank if they want to use them in low-intensity urban conflicts like Groznyi that are most likely to take place in the future. Something a Merkava would feel so at home at is a nightmare for the Russian tanks. It's a different story if you tell those Merkavas to defend an area while 3 times more late T-series attack them firing refleks while some BM-30 shit is raining from the sky...
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       9/27/2009 3:27:03 AM
I know the Leopard and many Russian tanks have the option to use a snorkel to cross rivers while completely submerged. I'm not so sure the Abrams has this capability. If this is the case, was this an oversight on the part of the American designers. One can't always assume bridges will be available/still standing when a river has to be crossed. And it takes time to set up a temporary bridge.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Where's My Periscope   9/27/2009 6:00:52 AM
The ability to deep ford with a snorkel is a tad overrated.  Firstly the Leo 2 can ford 1 m with no preparation, and 2.25 m if prepared.  Furthermore if prepared for snorkel operations they can ford 4 m.  Not for nothing but if the river is secure enough to use a snorkel it's prepared enough to build a bridge which would probably take less time than prepping the tanks.  Please cite modern use of snorkel tanks in combat in rebuttal.  Also how many deep fording kits are bought per tank and who, if anyone, practices it?
 
It's worth noting that Germany in WWII did use deep fording tanks in combat, U Panzer or Schwimmpanzer, that were originally intended for Sealion.  These could ford up to 15 m and were originally intended to be launched from landing craft.  They were famously used to cross the Bug by 18th Panzer Div and they would have used them at Malta if the GROFAZ  had not lost his spine and allowed Rommel (great divisional but logistically challenged commander) to overrule his brilliant commanding general Kesselring.
 
In any case I personally would not want to be in the unit ordered to ford with snorkel even in peace time training.  Note in the case of the Leo 2 you don't need it up to 2.25 m and if you go past 4 m then you drown.  Exactly who and what recon's the fording site for depth and how much the 60 ton tank will sink into the bottom in addition to the water depth?  You probably have to call the engineers anyway to prepare the banks so they might as well build you a bridge while they are there.
I know the Leopard and many Russian tanks have the option to use a snorkel to cross rivers while completely submerged. I'm not so sure the Abrams has this capability. If this is the case, was this an oversight on the part of the American designers. One can't always assume bridges will be available/still standing when a river has to be crossed. And it takes time to set up a temporary bridge.

 
Quote    Reply

mabie       9/27/2009 6:33:27 AM
If things had turned out differently in Europe, maybe we'd have seen demonstrations by Russian tanks .. who knows? Its nice to have the capability, in not every instance will a bridge be available as I mentioned and there may be time constraints so I can't wait for the engineers to do their thing... so its something I'd rather have as it gives me more options and flexibility which is a good thing.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Preparation   9/28/2009 5:51:34 AM
I'm not a tanker so maybe someone else can comment how well trained the tank crew is in preparing the tank to deep ford with a snorkel, how much outside help is required, and how many hours of prep time are required? Then one can throw in how long is needed to prep the banks.  The need to prep the banks requires engineers.
 
It's also worth asking where are the snorkels and other equipment needed to waterproof and prep the tanks are kept?  Is there enough equipment for every tank unit lying around?
 
This is a very specific bit of kit that requires a certain amount of training and preparation.  The fording cite needs to be carefully scouted and prepared by engineers.  The snorkel is good down to only 4 m for Leo 2 and 5 m for the T-72.  How many 5 meter deep rivers are around that can not be more quickly bridged?
 
Do you imagine an assault crossing by snorkeling tanks?  If not then it's difficult to imagine building a bridge across a 2 to 5 m water depth river is not quicker.  One can put up a 100m bridge with M3's in 15 to 30 min.  To my knowledge snorkeling tanks have not been used in combat since WWII vs the building of bridges being a normal part of daily operations of large military units. 
If things had turned out differently in Europe, maybe we'd have seen demonstrations by Russian tanks .. who knows? Its nice to have the capability, in not every instance will a bridge be available as I mentioned and there may be time constraints so I can't wait for the engineers to do their thing... so its something I'd rather have as it gives me more options and flexibility which is a good thing.

 
Quote    Reply

Kevbo       12/29/2009 11:37:59 PM

"More recent T-90 developments are superior to that of the M1A2. Matter is Russia uses clsssiffied ERA "shtora" defence system, which is the most advanced in the world. These are highly explosive boxes, that line the exterior armour of the tank and provide a counter explosion upon being struck by a shell. So the armour isn't penetrated and the boxes are simply replaced. The T-90 is much lighter and thus is much faster and more maneuverable. The T-90 pocesses a very efficient anti-missle system, a defence which is absent on the A2. The A2 has very thick armour on the front and that is it. The back and sides are of much thinner sheeting, that can be peirced by old variants of RPG as was the case in desert storm. The T-90 has thick armour lining all over and during extensive testing was fired upon with the most powerful anti-tank missles 8 times. None penetrated the armour plating and the crew was then able to drive the tank back to base.


During the famous Middle Eastern Tank exercise. The Abrams developed mechanical failure and lost its tracks, while the T-90 was able to cover more than 3000 km of hideous terrain, that included mud, sludge, sand, water and steep hills in 50 degree (Centigrade) heat. The Russian 125 mm Gun, is equiped with the most advance armour peircing shells available on the market. One other advantage the T-90 has is its powered by a deisel engine. It may not be as sophisticated as the Abram's gas turbine, but it has a much lower heat signature on infrared/heat sensors. This means that the T-90 has a much higher survivability rate. The M1A2 was built during the cold war, where mass, abundance of electronics was the primary concern. However, the T-90 takes a modern, increased survivability approach.  The electronics on the modern variants of the T-90 are now of equal calibre to that of the M1A2."


You have made several inaccurate statements here. M-1 is actually faster them the T-90. The M-1 was hit repeatedly by RPGs during the golf war and never had its crew compartment penetrated. The 8 hits the T-90 took and survived were conducted by the Russian army who have a vest interest in international sales of the T-90, so let wait to see how they do in a real battle field. When M-1s had to be destroyed because of tactical situations in the gulf other M-1's had a great deal of trouble penetrating the armor from point blank range and it is safe to say that the 120 on the M-1 is at least as powerful as the T-90's 125.
 
The "famous Middle East Tank exercise" was with only one tank of each type from what I understand. A more accurate test would have used a few of each, any tank can have a mechanical failure. The Indian army has reported over heating problems with the T-90 while the M-1 has proven pretty reliable in the golf war.The US uses a depleted uranium shell which are generally consider the most advance and effective round in the world, the T-90 does not use this type of round. The T-90 has stores ammo with its crew with out blast shields making it far less survivable on the battle field. The Russians have a history of saying that "the newest generation of whatever they are talking about" is as good as the west. Real world testing in combat have traditionally shown this to be false.
 
Finally your comment "The M1A2 was built during the cold war, where mass, abundance of electronics was the primary concern. However, the T-90 takes a modern, increased survivability approach"....????  You do realise that the T-90 is a upgraded T-72 which was put into production in the early 70's making it very much a tank of the cold war. The M-1 has proven itself a very survivable tank in combat. The T-72 has proven a death trap and many of its limitations are still present in the T-90.
 
Now onto other issues that make the T-90 a questionable equal.  The T-90 enjoys a very small profile which helps its survivability, but their is a price to pay for this. The tank can only be manned by small soldier, 5'2" I believe, this means that you get the soldiers who best fits the tank rather then those best suite for the job. Also the 3 man crew puts a greater strain on the crew during field maintenance then Western tanks with a 4 man crew. This translate into a more fatigued crew in combat conditions.
 
As for using a turbine engine in the M-1 I think this is a poor choice for the simple reason of fuel consumption. The benefits you get from a turbine do not over come the negative. A diesel is a far better choice as the Russians had learned after coping the M-1 with the T-80s engine.
 
Over all both tanks are very impressive but the
 
Quote    Reply

Kevbo       12/31/2009 2:24:40 PM

"More recent T-90 developments are superior to that of the M1A2. Matter is Russia uses clsssiffied ERA "shtora" defence system, which is the most advanced in the world. These are highly explosive boxes, that line the exterior armour of the tank and provide a counter explosion upon being struck by a shell. So the armour isn't penetrated and the boxes are simply replaced. The T-90 is much lighter and thus is much faster and more maneuverable. The T-90 pocesses a very efficient anti-missle system, a defence which is absent on the A2. The A2 has very thick armour on the front and that is it. The back and sides are of much thinner sheeting, that can be peirced by old variants of RPG as was the case in desert storm. The T-90 has thick armour lining all over and during extensive testing was fired upon with the most powerful anti-tank missles 8 times. None penetrated the armour plating and the crew was then able to drive the tank back to base.


During the famous Middle Eastern Tank exercise. The Abrams developed mechanical failure and lost its tracks, while the T-90 was able to cover more than 3000 km of hideous terrain, that included mud, sludge, sand, water and steep hills in 50 degree (Centigrade) heat. The Russian 125 mm Gun, is equiped with the most advance armour peircing shells available on the market. One other advantage the T-90 has is its powered by a deisel engine. It may not be as sophisticated as the Abram's gas turbine, but it has a much lower heat signature on infrared/heat sensors. This means that the T-90 has a much higher survivability rate. The M1A2 was built during the cold war, where mass, abundance of electronics was the primary concern. However, the T-90 takes a modern, increased survivability approach.  The electronics on the modern variants of the T-90 are now of equal calibre to that of the M1A2."


You have made several inaccurate statements here. M-1 is actually faster them the T-90. The M-1 was hit repeatedly by RPGs during the golf war and never had its crew compartment penetrated. The 8 hits the T-90 took and survived were conducted by the Russian army who have a vest interest in international sales of the T-90, so let wait to see how they do in a real battle field. When M-1s had to be destroyed because of tactical situations in the gulf other M-1's had a great deal of trouble penetrating the armor from point blank range and it is safe to say that the 120 on the M-1 is at least as powerful as the T-90's 125.
 
The "famous Middle East Tank exercise" was with only one tank of each type from what I understand. A more accurate test would have used a few of each, any tank can have a mechanical failure. The Indian army has reported over heating problems with the T-90 while the M-1 has proven pretty reliable in the golf war.The US uses a depleted uranium shell which are generally consider the most advance and effective round in the world, the T-90 does not use this type of round. The T-90 has stores ammo with its crew with out blast shields making it far less survivable on the battle field. The Russians have a history of saying that "the newest generation of whatever they are talking about" is as good as the west. Real world testing in combat have traditionally shown this to be false.
 
Finally your comment "The M1A2 was built during the cold war, where mass, abundance of electronics was the primary concern. However, the T-90 takes a modern, increased survivability approach"....????  You do realise that the T-90 is a upgraded T-72 which was put into production in the early 70's making it very much a tank of the cold war. The M-1 has proven itself a very survivable tank in combat. The T-72 has proven a death trap and many of its limitations are still present in the T-90.
 
Now onto other issues that make the T-90 a questionable equal.  The T-90 enjoys a very small profile which helps its survivability, but their is a price to pay for this. The tank can only be manned by small soldier, 5'2" I believe, this means that you get the soldiers who best fits the tank rather then those best suite for the job. Also the 3 man crew puts a greater strain on the crew during field maintenance then Western tanks with a 4 man crew. This translate into a more fatigued crew in combat conditions.
 
As for using a turbine engine in the M-1 I think this is a poor choice for the simple reason of fuel consumption. The benefits you get from a turbine do not over come the negative. A diesel is a far better choice as the Russians had learned after coping the M-1 with the T-80s engine.
 
Over all both tanks are very impressive but the
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    LOL   1/3/2010 11:55:13 AM
People!!! Get a life! What are you comparing?
 
 1. T90 has a crew of 3, instead of 4 people for Abrams, because of the autoloader capability.

2. T90 can fire with Refleks missiles up to 6km, and penetrate if im correct minimum 900mm steel.

3. T90 has diesel engine which is better choice, especially in the dusty environment.

4. T90 is for more than 20 tons lighter, which is very good for maneurability.

5. T90 has for 100km more operational range than Abrams.

6. T90 has a little bigger caliber cannon 125mm (some ppl say it dont make huge difference...whatever)

7. Oh and of course, T90 costs at about 4 million USD less than Abrams..
 
You stil want to compare??? Compare what? 
 
huh!
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       1/11/2010 12:47:01 PM
Yeah all those crucial advantages you point out made a huge difference for the T-72's in the Gulf War...just ask their crews.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics