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
heraldabc       3/1/2011 8:50:35 AM
Look Buzz is off the reservation, but I think you need to look at a few things too.


1. A tank does not work alone. It's part of a land-air systems combo, maybe a major part, but just a part. it has to fit the whole systems of systems mix to be effective> If it does not, then it does not matter if it is a 'super tank', it will be a design and use failure in a national war machine context.
 
2. The M-1 is an American tank designed for the American war machine. The T-90 is designed for the Russian war machine. When the products of the two tech bases clashed in the past it was operator skill and understanding of the tech that was the difference and not the product that determined outcomes. Usually the users of Russian gear did not know how to use it~American product prevailed. Why? Easier to use? No. Our battle drill that we stole from the Russians was better thought out to match match our tech and we taught it better.        .         
look, i already pointed out the main arguments even before that. And then whole bunch of people came and started talking about "superior optics, guidance, communications, armor, gun"... and thats what i call BS'ing! when someone has nothing to say rather than its just better! so, your comment was pointless.

* T90 has 200km more operational range than m1a2

The US has a better log chain in that we can moce fuel with the tanks . We don;t need the extra range to road march across a huge country like Russia, so we can actually refuel more often.  
* T90 has creq of 3, and stable autoloader, m1a2 has 4

The M-1 was designed by tankers who had seen the 1973 war results. The Man can still load faster than the Machine. The extra man is alos an extra wrench turner. Tanks need as many mechanics as possible. That is American experience fighting everyone from WW II on. Not better, just an antitank solution that works better than an auto-loader, which works in its case as better for a mass produced anti-infantry tank.    
* T90 can fire a guided missile, m1a2 cant

Not entirely correct. The Israelis have developed missiles that can be fired from that type 120 mm gun. The US chooses not to use them.because in a tank battle the fly-out tome leaves you a sitting diuck for sabot darts.  . .
* T90 has bigger caliber gun

* very important, T90 has robust diesel engine compared to turbine engine of m1a2


The T-90 has a complex diesel that will freeze and tear itself apart unless pre-warmed at start up and is fuel restricted. The M-1's turbine is universal fuel and is SIMPLE. It just is a fuel hog. 

* T90 has lower physical profile, makes difficult to hit and detect on battlefield

Irrelevant when its a thermal sight that is the aiming device and the engine that provides the actual aim reference
 

What other arguments do you want? What else you all complaining people have left to say? That m1a2 is still BETTER? That its "systems" are better? That its mechanical bolts connecting pieces are better? Or its just better because it is Abrams? What else? 

No complaints, just explanation. For example a larger bore lower velocity gun is better for high explosive shell.  Note what I just said. The 125 is a dual purpose gun for infantry support as well as some antitank work. The 120 was designed as an antitank gun first. The T-90 is a RUSSIAN tank and that 125 was a RUSSIAN choice. Different is not better or worse, It is just different. 


Your personal ego overflows. Such a people like you would look at white sheet and say that it is black. You can do that, it wont change the reality tho.

No comment other than attack the messenger fallacy indicated.<
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart       3/1/2011 10:41:58 AM

Look Buzz is off the reservation, but I think you need to look at a few things too.




The US has a better log chain in that we can moce fuel with the tanks . We don;t need the extra range to road march across a huge country like Russia, so we can actually refuel more often.  

Oh, well then why US needs tanks? Jets, Navy...thats enough isnt it? Rifle can fire further and better than gun, why we need guns then? Dont you find this statement stupid? Well..thats directly applies to what you said about range capability of tanks... Range is one of the most important factors, 200km is !HUGE! difference. Pretty sad you did not realise this fact.




The M-1 was designed by tankers who had seen the 1973 war results. The Man can still load faster than the Machine. The extra man is alos an extra wrench turner. Tanks need as many mechanics as possible. That is American experience fighting everyone from WW II on. Not better, just an antitank solution that works better than an auto-loader, which works in its case as better for a mass produced anti-infantry tank.    

another stupid statement...tanks need as many mechanicas as possible! !LOL! ok then why dont you attach maybe few bunch of other mechanics and make tank bigger? LOL anything else to say? The man loads faster in IDEAL conditions! what if the surface not smooth, what if there are million other human factors? But autoloader works robust.




Not entirely correct. The Israelis have developed missiles that can be fired from that type 120 mm gun. The US chooses not to use them.because in a tank battle the fly-out tome leaves you a sitting diuck for sabot darts.  . .

The missile fired by T90 does not leave such a big smoke at all! Also given the fact that T90 is so mobile, this is not an issue at all! But having additional guided missile is really must have thing. The more capabilities the better is performance and flexibility. And we were talking about M1A2 here not israeli tank, and by the way Israeli tank is absolutely for different purposes.






The T-90 has a complex diesel that will freeze and tear itself apart unless pre-warmed at start up and is fuel restricted. The M-1's turbine is universal fuel and is SIMPLE. It just is a fuel hog. 


Yes it is so simple that it caused thousands of problems during Iraq war, and cant take it well when environment is very dusty. IDont tell me that its simple...or if you mean simple to fail?


No complaints, just explanation. For example a larger bore lower velocity gun is better for high explosive shell.  Note what I just said. The 125 is a dual purpose gun for infantry support as well as some antitank work. The 120 was designed as an antitank gun first. The T-90 is a RUSSIAN tank and that 125 was a RUSSIAN choice. Different is not better or worse, It is just different. 


Its not just SOME antitank work, it DOES really well antitank work which has already been demonstrated on the international exhibitions during test fire.






OK, so afterall you tried to seem fancy and took significant amount of effort to try to prove things "professionally" but unfortunately it didnt work out, arguments should be reasonable, not made up just to catch up.



 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    this made me laugh   3/1/2011 12:13:42 PM

look, i already pointed out the main arguments even before that. And then whole bunch of people came and started talking about "superior optics, guidance, communications, armor, gun"... and thats what i call BS'ing! when someone has nothing to say rather than its just better! so, your comment was pointless.

 

* T90 has 200km more operational range than m1a2


* T90 has creq of 3, and stable autoloader, m1a2 has 4


* T90 can fire a guided missile, m1a2 cant


* T90 has bigger caliber gun

* very important, T90 has robust diesel engine compared to turbine engine of m1a2


* T90 has lower physical profile, makes difficult to hit and detect on battlefield


 

What other arguments do you want? What else you all complaining people have left to say? That m1a2 is still BETTER? That its "systems" are better? That its mechanical bolts connecting pieces are better? Or its just better because it is Abrams? What else? 




Your personal ego overflows. Such a people like you would look at white sheet and say that it is black. You can do that, it wont change the reality tho.






i have to agree with cwDeici here.

The T 90 is vastly inferior to the Abrams. This is coming from a Brit. so i can assure you I?m not just saying that because i am some pro US fan. In fact you will find in many of my posts in other topics i regularly criticise aspects of the Pro US bias fan club that seems to be so prevalent on the internet.

 

However I justify my point through several things.

 

firstly while granted the T 90 does have the advantage of a low profile as part of its design its actual armour is inferior to the Chobham (British designed and built) armour that is fielded on the Abrams (which in turn is inferior to the second generation Chobham armour named "Dorchester" that is fielded on the Challenger 2). Furthermore this Chobham armour is reinforced by adding layers of DU to the frontal areas, especially on the turret face.

 

You point out that the T 90 has a three man crew. Arguably this is a major disadvantage as it increases level of crew fatigue and adds pressure, plus the inconveniences of the possibilities of having to carry out in field repairs with 3 men instead of 4. you can also in the extreme task a fourth man in a crew to do the job of another crew member if there was some desperate need (it should be noted this would happen in the most adverse of conditions) you can?t task an autoloader to drive a tank.  the concept of an autoloader itself is also somewhat controversial. The autoloader means more things to go wrong, and in terms of rate of fire offer little or no clear advantages over the manual load techniques operated by western tanks such as the M1A2. if fact once more referring to the Challenger here, it was found that a loaders in the Chally 2s using 3 piece ammunition could sustain the same if not slightly higher rate of fire than the autoloader system.

 

The guided missile. What?s the range of that thing? No more than 5000 metres maximum i would guess. Well i hate to break it to you; the T 90 would not really have much of a chance to get off its missile because due to the vastly superior optics, fire control management systems and CPUs in the Abrams, i would think that the Abrams would enjoy quite a significant first look first shot, first kill capability. Further addressing the issue of firepower, the Chobam armour has been proven to offer excellent protection against the soviet 125mm gun mounted in the T 90.

 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    one more "fancy" opinion...ok   3/1/2011 12:38:37 PM
Ok i still see some guys just dont want to admit the reality and try to figure out more and more unexistent arguments.
 
What on earth are you talking about the fatique of crew of 3? You mean that when there are 4 people in tank they can take turn massage each other? Or play cards? LOL Why dont you add a place for a moms, and grannies in a tank, they would entertain the crew, how does that sound? LOL In other words, all these comments about "advantage" of having 4 people rather than 3+autoloader are just primitive attempts to repel/deny the real facts! Nothing else! This comment is pointless! I already told you that human can act better than autoloader ONLY in ideal conditions! because it is..HUMAN! On battlefield, there are tons of factors which would degrade his performance! Especially when it will come to load the gun during active movement and maneuring! OMG dont you understand such a basic thing? Guys its totally weird, you really just try turn black into white. And also, you mentioned something like autoloader means more things to go wrong... well what can i say, then dont use technics in warfare at all...all devices made by human have possibility of going wrong, use stones and sticks then...they are very simple, unlikely to go wrong. See, again what you said is pointless! Just does not make sense!
 
 
Now here goes another popular statement which have been stressed SO much in this forum by the bestamerica type people, im quoting your words: " due to the vastly superior optics, fire control management systems and CPUs in the Abrams"...
 
OMG!!! now lets take some small amount of time and expand more on this:
 
1. whats wrong to fire control management system of T90? lets go down a lil bit.. you say that Russian weapon engineers couldnt design as good control system as American engineers did? Russian Engineers dont know what is Laplace transform? They cant use well theory to make it into real practice? And, very important question, have you already performed careful analysis of both control systems of abrams and t90? Have you? You know block diagram at least of both of them? No? Yes? How come you even open your mouth saying that system A is better than system B without analysis of both of them?
 
Here is when the truth of all this long discussion comes...i dont talk and compare control systems of both tanks and other internal devices, i compare features which are visible and evident and been proven in international exhibitions during heavy tests, i talk about results, but all you do is escaping from results, and going level down WITHOUT any details to be able to verify! 
 
 
CPUs in Abrams... that sounded pretty childish you know that? Do you even know how many CPUs does it use? The architecture of the system? You know arrangment of Russian T90 of its CPUs? Have you already analyzed their performance of both? Have you? No? Yes? Again why you open your mouth then about something you have NO IDEA about? For example, i was not even talking about CPus of both machines, cuz i dont know the exact arrangment and schematics, and the software running there! i dont know! Russians have special closed facilities in country producing high speed specialized ASICs (application specific integrated circuit) specifically for military needs, they already got below 30nm technology, and i know people within that industry in Russia. So, what you said right now is pure stupidity, im really sorry it might be rude, but what you said is so silly that does not deserve another comment.
 
 What else now? Im open to see more comments, capacitors on PCBs in Abrams are more superior and have more hours of operation? LOL See i also try to be innovative just like you, but your better in it for sure...
 
 
Quote    Reply

Kevbo       3/1/2011 9:04:30 PM

1. T-90 is bought and is planned to buy by number of countries which can easily buy Abrams or already have them. link For example, India bought 620 and plans to get 1000 more, Saudi Arabia plans to buy 150. Why these countries prefer t-90 to Abrams?

India has always bought Russian tanks so this is no surprise, they are a poor country and the T-90 is a cheap tank. They are also having problems with the T-90 over heating and engine power not meeting its rated output. There has also be troubles with the targeting electronics.  As for Saudi Arabia this was announced that they might buy in 2008 buy as of today no sale. 
 
2. About T-90 being modernized version of T-72. Abrams was first produced in 1978. What Abrams is now is a modification of this very old model. But most importantly, T-90 got completely new electronics optics computers, including night vision sights, stabilized gun, basically similar to what the latest models of Abrams have, armor protection got 3 times more resistant than that of T-72 and new depleted uranium APFSDS rounds though still a bit inferior to the best USA rounds. link
 
The M-1 is based on a old design which was much better than the T-72 that the T-90 is based on. The T-72 was designed under Soviet doctrine of the cold war which calculates a tanks live span in weeks. Crew survivability was an unissue as were many other design feature that top tanks today incorporate. The M-1 was designed for crew survivability. The M-1 was a revolutionary design while the T-72 was a evolution of the T-55 and 62 and inherited their many weaknesses which have been documented from combat experience (Cook off of ammo killing crew, limited gun depression, cramped crew space, poor quality, weak armor, ect...) You also assume that the latest version of the T-90's fire control and electronics are on pair with the M-1yet historically and combat experience has shown the Soviets to always be trailing. Now Russia is broke and has very little funding for even basics in the military but they some how have become equal in electronics....hmmm this would seem extremely unlikely.

3. TV shows that you guys are watching is US propaganda presenting Abrams as superior to Russian tanks and best in the world. These shows are lying for 2 reasons: first there is a fierce competition between two biggest weapon exporters Russia and USA. These shows designed to convince foreign politicians not to buy Russian tanks. Second, tank crews perform best when they don?t fear being killed by enemy tanks and believe in they own tank protection.

Well if this is the case please don't show them any footage from Iraq or those poor T-90 tankers are are going to be performing very poorly. The M-1s mauled the T-72 destroying dozens of them with out taking a single lose. Facts speak louder then any show and based on Soviet tanks performance with Middle East counties (Iraq, Egypt, Syria, etc...) and Soviet performance in Chechnya T-90s are only moving on price. We have a saying in America "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys"

 

4. Abrams like any other tank can easily be destroyed if shot from modern RPG or any other antitank weapon hits lightly protected sides, back or top. Some tanks in Iraq were damaged by well placed 0.5 inches machine gun rounds. ?Further combat was seen during 2003 when US forces invaded Iraq and deposed the Iraqi leader Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/1/2011 10:18:48 PM

look, i already pointed out the main arguments even before that. And then whole bunch of people came and started talking about "superior optics, guidance, communications, armor, gun"... and thats what i call BS'ing! when someone has nothing to say rather than its just better! so, your comment was pointless.

 

* T90 has 200km more operational range than m1a2


* T90 has creq of 3, and stable autoloader, m1a2 has 4


* T90 can fire a guided missile, m1a2 cant


* T90 has bigger caliber gun

* very important, T90 has robust diesel engine compared to turbine engine of m1a2


* T90 has lower physical profile, makes difficult to hit and detect on battlefield


 

What other arguments do you want? What else you all complaining people have left to say? That m1a2 is still BETTER? That its "systems" are better? That its mechanical bolts connecting pieces are better? Or its just better because it is Abrams? What else? 




Your personal ego overflows. Such a people like you would look at white sheet and say that it is black. You can do that, it wont change the reality tho.






1. US has THE BEST logistics chain in the world. Period. Refuel is not a problem. We crossed Iraq without stopping.
 
2. Human loaders are faster than auto loaders. On average, humans load a round in 3 seconds. The auto loader takes 4-5. That's straight from a MSG Tank Commander, who I worked with, who killed Iraqi T72s. Also, auto loaders have the problem of not having a self contained ammo storage.  It's located right in the turret.
 
h**p://panzerfaust.ca/AFV%20interiors/t72a_files/t72-84.jpg
 
There's no armor, no protection from anything like our DU shells. In the Army, we score points for HOW we kill Russian tanks, not IF. You get 1 if you detonate the ammo and flip the turret. You get 2 if you make it lollipop.
 
Yes, I know you're going to blabber about T72s are not T90s, but the tank is almost exactly the same minus the FCS and engine.
 
3. LOL at the missile comment. you do realize the Russians wanted that capability because they knew their air support could no gain air superiority to strike armor at a distance, right (says a lot about their other capabilities)? You do realize that the tank firing the missile must expose itself and guide the missile in, right? You do realize exposing yourself at that great of a distance, plus the heat bloom from the missile firing is going to get that tank killed, right? And they are called MISSiles, not HITtiles.
 
4. 5mm bigger. Wow, I'm not impressed. That's actually why the Russians need an auto loader, because the shell is heavier. Also, larger caliber =/ more muzzle velocity or armor penetration. You can try to argue that all you want, but you're not going to find the penetration values for any of the ammo or barrels online, so don't bother.
 
5.  And your point about the diesel engine is??? Here's something for you to chew on. The exhaust for the T72/T90 comes out of the side, visible to anyone looking at a front profile of the tank. The exhaust on the M1 has a suppressor and comes out the back, so if you are looking head on you can't see it. That exhaust is really helpful when you're looking for them with FLIR or thermals (which our tanks and aircraft are all equipped with). They are also really great for guiding weapons in.
 
6. I hope you are not serious. You've obviously never seen T72/90s through thermals.
 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/1/2011 10:36:02 PM
Oh one more thing about auto loaders.
 
If a human loader is killed in the M1, the gunner can load and the tank commander can shoot. If the auto loader in the T72 is damaged/destroyed, well, good luck. A loader also is a 4th set of eyes for finding and designating targets, which is pretty helpful considering all you have are a set of periscopes to look out of. They also help to perform any maint on the tank etc, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/1/2011 10:50:50 PM
Kevbo - Thank you for your well written post. Your comment about the T-90's HEAT round is correct. The HEAT rounds carried by M-1s are not for use against tanks because of their questionable effectiveness against other tanks especially on frontal shots. Thats why DU rounds are used. Heat is supposed to be used against APC's and bunkers. D if the russian tank rounds are so hot and deadly then why have they been working on their next generation tank for about 20 years that will sport a 152mm main gun? Hint its not to be a faster SP Howitzer.
 
Its only been a few year ago when the army started fielding HE rounds to US tanks again. Back in 73 the decision was made to take HE out of the tanks because of the soviets massive tank advantage. They felt every available ammo rack position had to be for SABOT rounds. That basically changed US warfighting doctrine from an offensive army to a defensive one and influence military procurment. The Army primarily bought the Bradley because of the BMP but also because the tanks were no longer Infantry support vehicals.
 
BTW D have you ever actually been in a Tank of any kind or a BMP? Quick - What was the wooden stick used for that was issued to BMP-1 crews? Also what is that little oval Key Hole used for on the right rear of the T-72/90 just over the back of the tread? Do you know the difference between dead track  and live track?  Why do we call the T-72M "Dolly Pardon" ? Without gooling the name do you know who Dolly Pardon is?  How about some easy ones. What is that little hole in the center front of the chassis of the T-54 and some T-55's? Why not all T-55's?  Where does the driver set?
 
D and some of the other posters appearently get all of their information from the internet and have no basis of actual hands on experience to write from. I'd love for them to go out and break track on a tank so they could at least say they had done that. BTW he has a bad habit of cally people names but doesnt once give any facts except the ones he makes up in his head as you pointed out.
 
 Lots of things about the russians tanks are reflective of the soviet armys doctine of massed forces constaintly moving forward. If a tank broke down on the battlefield it was to be abandoned and the crew was to go back to the rear for another. The broken tank would be recovered and fixed after the battle was over. Its a been a long time since I wourked with a lot of this equipment so I do forget some of the details like the main gun having to be returned to position for the auto loader to work. The russian tanks are good for poor countries
 
Quote    Reply

ColdStart    kevbo   3/1/2011 10:53:52 PM
How on earth come you tell about poor quality, weak armor of T90? Are you an expert? What do you know about steel composition itself? About how the armor is made? I bet you barely got B in chemistry, but here you throw out a "professional" statements about how better its armor is... No seriously lots of people here are just crazy! In my previous post i already pointed out very badly to someone who was talking about control systems and CPUs of Abrams... Now more experts are coming to just shout out about superiority of Abrams... LoL Are you guys ignorant self confident egos? Or what? And who on earth decided that Abrams is a western standard to which everyone must obey? Abrams is just another tank! Im not gona say its bad or not good etc, but its obviously not better than T90 at all... why? go back ~messages, want to argue? - bring up facts and technical arguments... such stupidity as "more superior armor, better protection, better computers, better control systems" dont count! BRING UP FACTS! numbers! or technical facts available for observation and judgment of both machines! Dont bring up your stupid ghost ideas, thats not interesting at all!
 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/1/2011 11:13:40 PM
Coldstart you are out of your league. You dont even know what you are asking about. Comparing a T-90  to an M-1 is litteraly comparing apples and oranges. Are you even old enough to remember the fall of the soviet union and Georgias war to seperate from it? Are you aware that the Georgians used T-34 tanks to fight the Russians? So knowing that are you going to start comparing T-34s to Shermans? 
 
The T-90 is a good tank for 3rd world countries  and as long as its used in the way russian doctrine says its to be used it will do the job against someone who is using the same vehicles or a lightly armed enemy. I a head to head matchup with an M-1 the T-90s would be toast. A more realistic scenario would have been to compare a T-90 with an M-1 basic with a 105mm cannon.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics