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
Commander_Jr       4/14/2010 9:54:13 PM

The Abrams pretty much kicks the ass of the T-90 in everything except being lighter, so it might be able to get to the battlefield faster and more. Plus, the missile defense systems give the T-90 maybe an advantage against modern ATGMs, but the Marine M1A1 has one too, so it's probably not much time before the M1A2 gets one.


 
Quote    Reply

mustafa123       4/16/2010 8:53:52 AM
1) There have been so few cases where the autoloaders have broken down. You are probably referring to the autoloaders in French tanks, then I would agree. Russian/Soviet autoloaders are extremely reliable, and there as so few times when they fail, it is basically negligable (kant speel et).

2) Russian ammunition is better than NATO rounds because they have a larger caliber, and also because they are GUIDED WEAPONS. This makes a huge difference in both cost and accuracy. This is why the t-72M (budget version of t-72) did poorly against US tanks in both Iraq wars. They were fielded with ammunition that went obselete in 1970, therefore they were way worse than typical Russian/Soviet tanks.

3) M1A2 Abrams has a hp/w of 24, whereas a T-90S with the newest model engine is 26, so yeah, you're wrong.

4) Just because it is capable of storing tanks on the back does not mean that it has to. Regardless of whether it carries the tanks or not, it still has about 50-100km advantage over the M1A2.

5) Like I mentioned earlier. Russia avoided the huge costs of an expensive and unreliable computer targeting system through the use of guided weaponry (although they still do use computer targeting, but to a lesser extent). The tanks in Iraq did not have guided weapons, therefore they had poor accuracy. 
Another thing to consider to is that the T-72M was a budget version for the Iraqi army and had a worse turret, and on top of that the T-72 is a 3rd generation tank. It is by far the best third gen tank, but up against a fourth gen tank, it would face some problems (understandably).

6) You do not get what you pay for in the abrams. No ERA, no active defense systems, weaker turret, no autoloader, logistically retarded, no guided weaponry, larger target, heavier target. The only advantage it has over the T-90 is that it uses the GPS system which has total global coverage while the T-90 uses the GLONASS system, which does not as of now, but this will change by the end of 2010. The armor for the M1A2 is dangerous, and has caused 30,000 soldiers from the Gulf war return home with radiation poisoning. 

On a side note, only 15 T-72s were destroyed in the Gulf War, and they were all destroyed by indirect fire (air strikes, artillery etc.). Despite the fact they were older, they still managed to destroy around 60 Bradley APCs and  M60 Pattons. The Abrams is a horrible tank, and this reflects in its international sales. Egypt bought a considerable amount of M1A1s but that is about it. Basically no NATO countries use them.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Well?   4/16/2010 9:11:12 AM
I'm not a tank "expert" like you, but you'd better read this:
 
 
There was this little outfit called the US 2nd Cavalry....
 
Next time, don't come in here with the fairy tale. Remember what the Chechen rebels did to that type Russian tank model and other JUNK like it.  
 
H.
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

vijayallenraj    m1a1 abrams armor   5/28/2010 3:31:06 PM
There has been a lot of anti russian propaganda all the time. The americans do know that T90S is one of the best tanks in the world. The M1A1 abrams does have  better armor than the T90 with depleted uranium mesh, RH and the chobham armor.
 
Recently India developed a composite armor much like the Chobham called the Kanchan armor. Its one of the best in the world, with a rolled homogenous armor, and ceramic materials being used. The indian army is fitting its latest Arjun MBT with this, and if the T90 gets outfitted with one, then I guess the T90 will be comparable to the M1 abrams with regards to armor.
 

Lastly russian systems arent bad or anything. They are as good as american ones!!...Its just that america has always gone about  with this propaganda that no other equipment is better than its own, which is BS.
 
Quote    Reply

vijayallenraj       5/28/2010 3:39:26 PM
Mustafa

I like the t90 tanks myself. But that said it doesnt mean that the m1 abrams is a horrible tank. In 1991 9 abrams tanks, destroyed 87 or more t72s. The statistic speaks for itself.

But then again, this doesnt mean that the t90 is bad. Nor does it mean that the m1 is indestructible. With composite armor like Kanchan fitted on a T90, it will be as good as the m1 or probably even better.
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       5/28/2010 10:37:59 PM

Re: offense vs defense, I believe the Russian tanks are smaller in part so they can defend European bridges side by side, forcing 2v1 matchups vs Western tanks.

 
Quote    Reply

Nocturne       5/30/2010 5:01:12 AM
bull. soviet tanks were all offensive not defensive in nature and T-90 is direct descendant of those designs it has nothing to do with defense or bridges. kill or be killed. Kanchan? Arjun? i would still run for Abrams in the situation of war. as most of the T-90 fan club 
 
Quote    Reply

Guynumber7       6/7/2010 4:54:13 PM
Should be vs T80. A better tank IMO.
 
Quote    Reply

Pecanpig    numbers are everything.   6/22/2010 6:29:00 AM
just one thing for you people to consider, the Abrams costs nearly 8 million US dollars when the T-90 costs under 2 million euros, plus the T-90 is several time more efficient and easier/faster to build. overall a better comparison would be 5 M1A2 Abrams vs 15-20 T-90's. plus while the abrams may have great performance it does need shit tons on maintenance and most of them run on jet fuel, while the T-90 is easy to maintain and has a massive but simple and efficient desiel engine.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Not the whole picture   6/22/2010 3:25:07 PM
This has always been a problematic argument and for a highly paid professional army it's actually misleading.  The highest cost in the US Army is personnel cost.  Thus the US Army could not afford to field even twice as many tank battalions with cheaper kit much less 3 to 4 times as many.  Indeed even Russia can't make this choice any longer and is moving toward a professional army.
 
In most western nations the emphasis is on limiting casualties as more of these quickly evaporate the political will to continue military operations.  Having the best protected and most lethal tank is not only more cost effective it's also at times going to be priceless if your goal is for a democratic society to engage in long term operations.
 
All of this leaves aside the notion that if you're operating three times as many tank units it's extremely unlikely you can afford to maintain the training levels of your potential smaller opponent.  Smaller better trained and equipped armies have been defeating larger less well trained foes since the dawn of warfare.
 
The choice for most nations is really how can we best afford to equip and maintain our four armored brigades (or whatever force structure the nation can support).  It's certainly not do we field 4 brigades or 12 with cheaper tanks.  Some nations couldn't find the basing and training areas for three times as many units even if they could afford the other higher  costs and the population base to support them.
 
just one thing for you people to consider, the Abrams costs nearly 8 million US dollars when the T-90 costs under 2 million euros, plus the T-90 is several time more efficient and easier/faster to build. overall a better comparison would be 5 M1A2 Abrams vs 15-20 T-90's. plus while the abrams may have great performance it does need shit tons on maintenance and most of them run on jet fuel, while the T-90 is easy to maintain and has a massive but simple and efficient desiel engine.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics