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
ArtyEngineer       10/30/2008 10:21:44 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 




I do remember reading that there were thermal issues with the French gear installed in the Indian Arjun.  I seem to remeber that was specifically the Thermal Sight though.
Regards
 
Arty

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       10/31/2008 2:16:12 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.










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.

That was a lesson forgotten relearned., along with the infantry field pohone attached to the outside of the tank.

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.

Yep. Now can you figure out why the diverters point that way? The turbine blows it heat out. The diesel radiates on the T-90 which is a functional thermal brick radiating in all directions tend to heat up the whole aft of the T-90 as a "shoot me hear" infrared glow.  
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. 

Nope. Jet engines are SIMPLE with few moving parts that reciprocate. Rotation does not cause that much wear. Don't confuse a transmission with the engine. The Russian diesel lasts about 500 hours if that. The Honeywell if the sand filters are kept up will last 1500-3000.

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 goo
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/31/2008 2:49:11 AM


I do remember reading that there were thermal issues with the French gear installed in the Indian Arjun.  I seem to remeber that was specifically the Thermal Sight though.



IIRC they were failing due to inapprop temps inside the tank - and that was due to a poor procurement process (no aircon) and design failing. 
 
It was more than the thermals that went catastrophic....
 
Quote    Reply

Beryoza       10/31/2008 3:14:40 AM
Herald wrote "The M-1 suirvives to run and run between refuelings.. The improved T-72 paperweight, the T-90 (Chechyna among other experiences) apparently does not.  Range is just not fuel bunkerage, though 450 kilometers between gulps, didn't seem to be an M-1 problem in battle, did it? Get it? Good."
 
The T-90 saw combat in Chechnya? I never knew anything about that.... Could you elaborate?
 
Quote    Reply

Atomic1       11/2/2008 1:11:40 AM
Both Tanks are considered by Russia and the west to be of about equal power.
 
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.
 
Quote    Reply

Beryoza       11/2/2008 1:35:20 AM
http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply

Beryoza       11/2/2008 1:46:07 AM
T-90 only has three technical (as opposed to political) advantages over the Abrams, namely
 
I. It is a much cheaper/smaller/lighter vehicle. Definitely important for countries with smaller defence budgets and/or a less developed road/rail network.
 
II.It has a smaller logistical footprint. It isn't anywhere near as thirsty. This translates to increased tactical and strategic mobility...all things being equal (generally, though, all things are NOT equal).
 
III. It is much better against soft targets, especially entrenched infantry, due to its cheap and very effective airburst ammunition.
 
In all other respects, the T-90 is wanting when compared to Leo II/Abrams/Chally. This is not to say that the T-90 is a bad tank, it's deadly if used correctly, but the Western tanks are BETTER!
 
Quote    Reply

afrikan_neekeri       11/2/2008 6:45:39 PM
Herald, the T-72 engines in the FDF lasted for more than 30000 km. The tranny was a complete bitch that failed every two hours or so but the engine was very reliable. The main problem with it was the complicated engine swap that could take a full day when modern NATO tanks can do that in less than 30 mins.
 
You seem to dismiss the disadvantages of the gas turbine engine in MBT use. Like I said, it has several advantages over diesels but it's not perfect. It's widely known and admitted that those engines are expensive to maintain, they have a larger IR signature and that they are fuel hogs. Tank range might not be an issue on a US playground like Iraq with all the logistics available but it's considered an important factor when determining an MBT's overall mobility.
 
It doesn't make any sense that all the other new tanks go for the diesel instead of a gas turbine. Are you suggesting that all the other MBTs except the M1 are built by incompetent idiots who choose the inferior engine type just for fun?
 
And I'm still waiting the explanation why you think that the Leclerc's engine is a joke.
 

 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       11/2/2008 11:26:43 PM

Herald, the T-72 engines in the FDF lasted for more than 30000 km. The tranny was a complete bitch that failed every two hours or so but the engine was very reliable. The main problem with it was the complicated engine swap that could take a full day when modern NATO tanks can do that in less than 30 mins.

 Don't believe the Russion BS. FDF, I believe is the Finnish Defense forces? The transmission is a pierce of junk in any weather. The Middle East is also not Finland. Neither ios it Aberdeen.

You seem to dismiss the disadvantages of the gas turbine engine in MBT use. Like I said, it has several advantages over diesels but it's not perfect. It's widely known and admitted that those engines are expensive to maintain, they have a larger IR signature and that they are fuel hogs. Tank range might not be an issue on a US playground like Iraq with all the logistics available but it's considered an important factor when determining an MBT's overall mobility.
 
The turbine can eat any garbage fuel that will combust. Can a diesel? No. Which tanks moved through a sandstorm in Iraq again?

It doesn't make any sense that all the other new tanks go for the diesel instead of a gas turbine. Are you suggesting that all the other MBTs except the M1 are built by incompetent idiots who choose the inferior engine type just for fun?


No. Most of those tanks were not designed to fight from pole to pole. Russia and Finland is not the Middle East or Panama. or the Balkans.. Turbines have their advantages.

And I'm still waiting the explanation why you think that the Leclerc's engine is a joke.
 
Because sand grinds it to death and the French never considered that when they designed it?? Or they never asnticipated it would overheat or freeze solid in normal operating conditions of -50-> 50 Centigrade?
 




Herald
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       11/2/2008 11:30:59 PM

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/images/emdgust.gif" alt="" align="absmiddle" border="0" />

Bery the T-90 was fielded as the T-72B series improved prototype. That piece of junk T-90 is still a T-72 hull with flash and  a  new turret dropped on it. Same easy kill. Just aim at the bal;l race or to the left of the main gun.
 
Hat tip to the M-1.
 
To Atomic:? Are you kidding?  ROTFLMAO.
 
Herald 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics