Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Share
    avatar
    solo.13mmfmj

    Posts : 117
    Points : 140
    Join date : 2010-04-16

    T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:06 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs&feature=related
    Is the t90 close to the m1a2 abrams or not?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:46 am

    Some would say yes, but the T-90 achieves it in different ways.

    With the right ERA the level of armour protection on the T-90 is comparable.
    The Abrams with its gas turbine main engine has a serious heat signature and needs a robust and capable support network to keep it operational.

    The Abrams has a battlespace management system that allows the vehicles to operate as a team... it is like AWACS for ground vehicles... remember the AC of AWACS stands for ...and control.
    Only the latest model of the T-90 has a BMS. The T-90 Burlak. The Russian Army has reportedly bought some Burlak simulators for training crews so there is a good chance they will adopt the upgrade.

    Much has been made of Soviet and Russian tanks blowing up, but that is really an issue with storing tank gun ammo in the crew compartment. Most western tanks actually do that, but the Burlak upgrade includes a turret bustle in addition to the underfloor autoloader. This allows for long penetrators being stored in the rear turret bustle separate from the crew compartment and it means 40-50 rounds can be carried, all in armoured autoloaders.

    Every tank has good an bad features and you really cannot rate a tank as better than another unless you explain what you mean.

    If you are fighting in paddy fields where the ground is flooded most of the time then a 70 ton Abrams might not be much good. Equally in an open desert environment where visibility is good out to very long range then tanks that can fire guided anti tank missile through their main guns and have good optics have an advantage.

    Needless to say if the Iraqis had Abrams and the US had T-72s the US would still have won because most Iraqi tanks were destroy by airpower anyway.

    The Iraqis would probably have lost less crewmen and the US would have lost more, but then the Iraqi Abrams would have been base models with 105mm guns and the US models would have had all sorts of sophisticated equipment on them.

    The main reason the US did so well was because they fought as a team using their BMS's. Excellent communciation and working as a team make all the difference... it was one of the reasons the Germans did so well with their tanks in WWII even though their tanks were inferior to many Soviet and French tanks.
    avatar
    solo.13mmfmj

    Posts : 117
    Points : 140
    Join date : 2010-04-16

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:49 pm

    "Needless to say if the Iraqis had Abrams and the US had T-72s the US would still have won because most Iraqi tanks were destroy by airpower anyway."
    The iraq war is irrelevant in this discussion because iraq had no spare parts and modern ammunition.
    "but the Burlak upgrade".
    The t90 is going to get an upgrate?
    Interesting. Do you have any links?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:29 am

    The iraq war is irrelevant in this discussion because iraq had no spare parts and modern ammunition.

    Every war is relevant, but you need to be aware of other factors, like the ones you mentioned, plus all the others, like the quality of night vision, the T-72s had image intensification that was effective out to mayby 1,000m while the US forces had thermal sights able to see 3 times that far and also through smoke and dust which was common in Iraqi battlefields.
    The Iraqi tanks themselves were not top of the line T-72s with new armour or ammunition.
    No doubt the Americans listened in to Iraqi communications and knew their plans.
    Air superiority would mean that no tank battles would have been necessary at all if they wanted to avoid them.
    Armour could have simply been used to make the enemy form into a large enough force to repel the attack and then airpower could have been used to deal with that bunched up force.

    Both vehicles can be immobilised with a hit that destroys a track. Both vehicles are vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire or heavier from directly behind into the engine bay.

    An Iraqi Abram would have been a pill box because even with their abundance of oil they probably wouldn't have been able to keep the engines running.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2189
    Points : 3081
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:59 am

    solo.13mmfmj wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs&feature=related
    Is the t90 close to the m1a2 abrams or not?

    Chief of Staff for Russian armed forces says "T-90 is a highly modernised T-34, it doesn't even have automatic transmission." While I disagree with his generalisation, the T-90 is outdated compared to modern tanks. Compared to the superior Leclerc, the accuracy of the main gun is poor, the ballistic computer is outdated, there is no muzzle reference, no hydro-pneumatic suspension, no auto transmission, and no combat management system. The core of the tank is the same as a T-72/80 hybrid. It is all CCCP technology. The Sniper ATGM was added because the accuracy of fire is not in the realm of NATO opposition. This gives it the ability to outrage western tanks but they also have laser warning receivers so they will throw out a smoke screen and get away. Most tanks in the Russian Army do not even carry missiles, it is only a select few in each battalion that do. The tanks that do not incorporate the French thermals are practically blind compared to the Leclerc. A single Leclerc can engage an entire company of tanks in less than one minute at 95% accuracy. The computations are already loaded by the time its ready to fire. The tank is networked beyond anything we can hope to get. The M1A2 has its own strengths and weaknesses compared to the Leclerc, but against the T-90 the result is the same. It isn't close.

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:40 pm

    The T90`s accuracy is not so poor. The t90 even holds an unofficial record for accuracy and rate of fire:
    7 targets placed in 1.5 - 2.5km while moving at 25km/h in just 54 seconds. Leo 2 got only 6. The T90`s gun is both longer(6678 mm) and larger than the L44 and in the same time as long as the latest german L55 or the leclerc`s one and of course this makes it more accurate and the muzzle velocity it`s good too
    There is nothing wrong with the T80. The T90 isn`t older than it`s counterparts.
    Just look at some of the T90`s advantage over most western MBT:
    1-Excellent patency, reliable operation in a wide temperature range
    2-Low weight and size, contributing to the strategic mobility, overall patency, invisibility on the battlefield and reduce the likelihood of defeat
    3-High security - armor in conjunction with armor protects the tank from the confident modern western anti-tank shells (already tested against the most modern russian AT weapons which are better than NATO`s)
    4-Significantly lower price (approximately 2.35 million dollars).
    I would`n worry for the ammo compartiment issue. It`s ulikely for the T90 to get penetrated in the same place when the ammo is stored and even the Leclerc tank has ammo stored inside the autoloader
    What the T90 lacks are:
    1-Gunner sights and ballistic computer, indeed but those can be replaced. Most likely to get imported
    2-transmission, yes the t90 needs a automatic transmission. This can be replaced too. But we don`t need the help of anybody for that
    3-networking capability and GPS, yet the most decisive disadvantage, but I wouldn`t worry for that. They have already a prototype which was demostrated during "Zapad 2009" Russia-Belarus drills. This allows it to communicate with other armor, infantry, assault choppers, artillery and frontal aviation. So we do not need to import something like this at all

    Yes, it needs a few improvements whcih can be builed domestically or imported. If they get all of this parts the T90 might just become equal if not better than the Leclerc.

    Reagarding to Abrmas, it has it`s own probelems:
    1-very weak side and rear armor (as demonstrated in Iraq)
    2-the secondary tracking unit of the tank is not protected against MG fire. This could result on a power failure of the tank (as demonstated in Iraq) This also disables the switch that opens the door when ammo is stored
    3-The abrams much more heavier
    4-relativly short range
    5-turbine engine, just as the T80. This consumes a lot of fuel and is more likely to overheat. The Abrams has a huge IR signature
    6-not as reliable than T90
    and what`s worse it dosen`t hold any advantages over the T90, except for having better target aqquistion devices
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:14 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    solo.13mmfmj wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UzarbZXFVs&feature=related
    Is the t90 close to the m1a2 abrams or not?

    Chief of Staff for Russian armed forces says "T-90 is a highly modernised T-34, it doesn't even have automatic transmission." While I disagree with his generalisation, the T-90 is outdated compared to modern tanks. Compared to the superior Leclerc, the accuracy of the main gun is poor, the ballistic computer is outdated, there is no muzzle reference, no hydro-pneumatic suspension, no auto transmission, and no combat management system. The core of the tank is the same as a T-72/80 hybrid. It is all CCCP technology. The Sniper ATGM was added because the accuracy of fire is not in the realm of NATO opposition. This gives it the ability to outrage western tanks but they also have laser warning receivers so they will throw out a smoke screen and get away. Most tanks in the Russian Army do not even carry missiles, it is only a select few in each battalion that do. The tanks that do not incorporate the French thermals are practically blind compared to the Leclerc. A single Leclerc can engage an entire company of tanks in less than one minute at 95% accuracy. The computations are already loaded by the time its ready to fire. The tank is networked beyond anything we can hope to get. The M1A2 has its own strengths and weaknesses compared to the Leclerc, but against the T-90 the result is the same. It isn't close.

    A couple of things Vlad.

    First, please provide proof about accuracy, cause I have heard very different.

    Second, the ballistics computer is basis of multiple of things. Hardware wise, it may be outdated but that means diddly squat if the software works and works good. Also, with the Catherin FC sights, it is supposed to be quite effective. Something like Combat management systems can be put in place, just like new suspensions and muzzle references. T-90 isn't a new system, and is constantly being worked on (Burlak as example, T-90M). If you want, you can simply tell your government to stop work on it and buy the Leclerk, but do not be surprised if the models you end up with are not as good as the T-90M and are more expensive.

    Protection wise:
    During a reported test conducted by the Russian military in 1999 the T-90 was exposed to a variety of RPG, ATGM and APFSDS munitions. When equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA the T-90 could not be penetrated with any of the APFSDS or ATGM used during the trial and outperformed a T-80U which also took part
    Wiki

    Pretty good, as M1A1's have been destroyed by RPG-29's various of times during the current wars. So they are not much better (probably less so in armor by area squared).

    Stalingradcommando wrote:The T90`s accuracy is not so poor. The t90 even holds an unofficial record for accuracy and rate of fire:
    7 targets placed in 1.5 - 2.5km while moving at 25km/h in just 54 seconds. Leo 2 got only 6. The T90`s gun is both longer(6678 mm) and larger than the L44 and in the same time as long as the latest german L55 or the leclerc`s one and of course this makes it more accurate and the muzzle velocity it`s good too
    There is nothing wrong with the T80. The T90 isn`t older than it`s counterparts.
    Just look at some of the T90`s advantage over most western MBT:
    1-Excellent patency, reliable operation in a wide temperature range
    2-Low weight and size, contributing to the strategic mobility, overall patency, invisibility on the battlefield and reduce the likelihood of defeat
    3-High security - armor in conjunction with armor protects the tank from the confident modern western anti-tank shells (already tested against the most modern russian AT weapons which are better than NATO`s)
    4-Significantly lower price (approximately 2.35 million dollars).
    I would`n worry for the ammo compartiment issue. It`s ulikely for the T90 to get penetrated in the same place when the ammo is stored and even the Leclerc tank has ammo stored inside the autoloader
    What the T90 lacks are:
    1-Gunner sights and ballistic computer, indeed but those can be replaced. Most likely to get imported
    2-transmission, yes the t90 needs a automatic transmission. This can be replaced too. But we don`t need the help of anybody for that
    3-networking capability and GPS, yet the most decisive disadvantage, but I wouldn`t worry for that. They have already a prototype which was demostrated during "Zapad 2009" Russia-Belarus drills. This allows it to communicate with other armor, infantry, assault choppers, artillery and frontal aviation. So we do not need to import something like this at all

    Yes, it needs a few improvements whcih can be builed domestically or imported. If they get all of this parts the T90 might just become equal if not better than the Leclerc.

    Reagarding to Abrmas, it has it`s own probelems:
    1-very weak side and rear armor (as demonstrated in Iraq)
    2-the secondary tracking unit of the tank is not protected against MG fire. This could result on a power failure of the tank (as demonstated in Iraq) This also disables the switch that opens the door when ammo is stored
    3-The abrams much more heavier
    4-relativly short range
    5-turbine engine, just as the T80. This consumes a lot of fuel and is more likely to overheat. The Abrams has a huge IR signature
    6-not as reliable than T90
    and what`s worse it dosen`t hold any advantages over the T90, except for having better target aqquistion devices

    As for ballistic computers, you don't need to import that, as more like, you need to import the hardware/software from elsewhere, but can be made in Russia.

    And a question: Why is the 1V528 ballistic computer considered out of date or incapable like Vlad and you state? This is the first forums where I heard such blatant attacks on Russian military equipment, and yet, with no evidence of such.
    avatar
    solo.13mmfmj

    Posts : 117
    Points : 140
    Join date : 2010-04-16

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:21 am

    "Every war is relevant, but you need to be aware of other factors, like the ones you mentioned, plus all the others, like the quality of night vision, the T-72s had image intensification that was effective out to mayby 1,000m while the US forces had thermal sights able to see 3 times that far and also through smoke and dust which was common in Iraqi battlefields.
    The Iraqi tanks themselves were not top of the line T-72s with new armour or ammunition.
    No doubt the Americans listened in to Iraqi communications and knew their plans.
    Air superiority would mean that no tank battles would have been necessary at all if they wanted to avoid them.
    Armour could have simply been used to make the enemy form into a large enough force to repel the attack and then airpower could have been used to deal with that bunched up force.

    Both vehicles can be immobilised with a hit that destroys a track. Both vehicles are vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire or heavier from directly behind into the engine bay.

    An Iraqi Abram would have been a pill box because even with their abundance of oil they probably wouldn't have been able to keep the engines running."

    And how does this show the capabilities of the T90? Unless the T90 is a glorified T72 monkey model.

    "Chief of Staff for Russian armed forces says "T-90 is a highly modernised T-34, it doesn't even have automatic transmission." While I disagree with his generalisation, the T-90 is outdated compared to modern tanks. Compared to the superior Leclerc, the accuracy of the main gun is poor, the ballistic computer is outdated, there is no muzzle reference, no hydro-pneumatic suspension, no auto transmission, and no combat management system. The core of the tank is the same as a T-72/80 hybrid. It is all CCCP technology. The Sniper ATGM was added because the accuracy of fire is not in the realm of NATO opposition. This gives it the ability to outrage western tanks but they also have laser warning receivers so they will throw out a smoke screen and get away. Most tanks in the Russian Army do not even carry missiles, it is only a select few in each battalion that do. The tanks that do not incorporate the French thermals are practically blind compared to the Leclerc. A single Leclerc can engage an entire company of tanks in less than one minute at 95% accuracy. The computations are already loaded by the time its ready to fire. The tank is networked beyond anything we can hope to get. The M1A2 has its own strengths and weaknesses compared to the Leclerc, but against the T-90 the result is the same. It isn't close."

    So basically russian soldiers will be happier if they could get Leclerc,Abrams,Challenger 2 maybe Leopard 2.

    "The T90`s accuracy is not so poor. The t90 even holds an unofficial record for accuracy and rate of fire."

    The record is unofficial cannot be confirmed.

    "What the T90 lacks are:
    1-Gunner sights and ballistic computer, indeed but those can be replaced. Most likely to get imported
    2-transmission, yes the t90 needs a automatic transmission. This can be replaced too. But we don`t need the help of anybody for that
    3-networking capability and GPS, yet the most decisive disadvantage, but I wouldn`t worry for that. They have already a prototype which was demostrated during "Zapad 2009" Russia-Belarus drills. This allows it to communicate with other armor, infantry, assault choppers, artillery and frontal aviation. So we do not need to import something like this at all
    "

    But the T90 has not yet received this upgrades.

    "Pretty good, as M1A1's have been destroyed by RPG-29's various of times during the current wars. So they are not much better (probably less so in armor by area squared)."

    But the armour of T90 can resist a hit from RPG-29?

    "As for ballistic computers, you don't need to import that, as more like, you need to import the hardware/software from elsewhere, but can be made in Russia."

    Is the hardware/software capability equal to that of other tanks or not?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:32 pm

    The Burlak upgrade covers all the problems mentioned.

    It has reorganised the frontal armour and ERA so there are no gaps.
    It has a muzzle reference system and the new gun (2A82) is said to be 25% better than the previous one, which already improved accuracy because of new machine tools and materials it was made from.
    The turret is increased in size and a commanders panoramic sight has been added with a three channel IR sight and improved protection from small arms and splinters with a 30 cal mg on top with the 50 cal HMG removed so that the commanders sight has full 360 degree view and it includes the Catherine thermal sight.
    The gunner has his own Methis (spelling) thermal sight that operates in a different IR frequency.
    A battle management system is added so the commander can see targets other platforms have detected and other vehicles in his unit can see targets he can see.
    There is a turret bustle auto loader with about 31 rounds which allows long rod penetrator rounds to be used. The original underfloor autoloader remains with the ammo in an armoured compartment separate from the crew with a further 22 rounds, which means 53 rounds ready to fire with no need for the crew to handle ammo or store ammo in the crew compartment.


    Note this news report:

    Russia is modernizing its T-90 tank and will finish the project before the end of 2010, a deputy defense minister said.

    “There is comprehensive work under way to modernize the T-90 tank, increasing its combat potential, fitting it with a night vision system, placing the ammunition compartment outside the crew section, and the armor, including the active armor, is being improved,” Vladimir Popovkin told reporters.

    The organization that is modernizing the tank is promising to finish the work by the end of the year, he said.

    From Interfax AVN.

    The new upgrade includes the latest ERA called Relict that has been positioned on the tank to minimise gaps and will be fitted to the turret and the chassis.

    Additional roof armour to protect against top attack weapons.

    Panoramic 3-channel IR commander site with improved anti-split/rounds protection.
    A fire control system with a net centric module.
    New Radio.
    New Navigation system with GLONASS receiver.
    Anti neutron layer replaced with Kevlar anti splinter layer.
    New fire suppression system.

    Being worked on, steering wheel controls and monoblock 1,200hp V-99 engine.

    And how does this show the capabilities of the T90? Unless the T90 is a glorified T72 monkey model.

    It doesn't say anything about the T-90, it explains the easy ride the M1 Abrams had and why its performance seemed so good.

    "Chief of Staff for Russian armed forces says "T-90 is a highly modernised T-34, it doesn't even have automatic transmission." While I disagree with his generalisation, the T-90 is outdated compared to modern tanks. Compared to the superior Leclerc, the accuracy of the main gun is poor, the ballistic computer is outdated, there is no muzzle reference, no hydro-pneumatic suspension, no auto transmission, and no combat management system. The core of the tank is the same as a T-72/80 hybrid. It is all CCCP technology.

    The Burlak upgrade addresses all these things and more.
    And the Leclerc is not combat tested.
    Perhaps before claiming it is better than a T-90 perhaps you should have a guy from Bazalt have a few shots at it to see how it holds up against anti tank weapons designed in the last 20 years.

    The Sniper ATGM was added because the accuracy of fire is not in the realm of NATO opposition.

    Rubbish, it was a quick an easy way to upgrade all Soviet tanks from T-54 to T-80 with a round that could hit an enemy tank beyond 3,000m.
    If it was because of a total lack of accuracy each Soviet tank would only carry missiles. In practise between 6 and 8 missiles were carried simply because in most terrain types you are never going to see an enemy tank at that range let alone hit it.
    It was also adopted in the Early 1980s when only the T-80s and T-64s has laser rangefinders and fire control systems.
    The US and the French also developed gun tube launched missiles that were complete failures, but the fact that they developed them in the first place did not mean they were behind in FCS or accuracy.

    This gives it the ability to outrage western tanks but they also have laser warning receivers so they will throw out a smoke screen and get away.

    Then aim 50m above the tank you are trying to hit... when your missile gets close drop your aim onto the target. Most laser warning receivers are designed to detect target marking lasers. The laser for a beam riding missile is 5 orders of magnitude less powerful... the victim tank might never detect it. 5 orders of magnitude is 10,000 times less powerful because the laser seeker in the missile is looking directly into the beam that travels in one direction to the missile, not like a laser guided bomb where the laser reflects off the target back at the weapon which means that even with smoke fired the missile from the Russian tank will still be guided till it hits the smoke and has travelled through enough smoke so it can no longer see the laser beam. When it loses the beam it will more likely than not keep flying straight. The enemy tank might fire smoke 100m from itself and it might take 20m of smoke to hide the laser so for the last 80m the missile will fly straight. The gunner has a thermal sight that can see into smoke so his aim should still be good. So the missile that flys at an average of about 600m/s would probably still hit the target tank in most situations.

    The tank is networked beyond anything we can hope to get.

    This is really dumb. It is networked with the French armed forces. Unless you buy all the other French networked stuff like Helos, artillery etc etc then in Russian service they will just be networked with each other. The Burlak is networked too but likely networked with existing Russian stuff.

    But the T90 has not yet received this upgrades.

    And the Leclerc has not received these upgrades either... these are all planned features of a foreign tank... most of which are already planned for the T-90 upgrade.

    A bit like saying the F-35 has all the features of T-50... why not forget T-50 because the Su-27 is not low observable and buy F-35s.

    Mistral made sense because it is a finished product that is proven and ready to go and Russian ship designers don't have anything on paper that could compete.

    The T-90 upgrades have been worked on for some time and are the combined work of both the design bureaus in Russia that build tanks (the turret bustle autoloader is straight from Black Eagle).
    The T-90 is not perfect, there a lots of things that need correction.
    The T-90 Burlak upgrade seems to solve most of those problems very effectively in a way that existing T-90s can be upgraded to the new standard... in fact it can be applied to T-72s and T-80s as well so it is a very good idea.

    But the armour of T90 can resist a hit from RPG-29?

    More like can it resist a hit from an RPG-28.
    In reply from the front, a shot to the turret, probably.
    From the side, not tank on the planet could reliably survive such a hit.

    What the T90 lacks are:
    1-Gunner sights and ballistic computer, indeed but those can be replaced. Most likely to get imported

    Of course the T-90 has gunner sights and ballistic computers.
    All versions have them.

    2-transmission, yes the t90 needs a automatic transmission. This can be replaced too. But we don`t need the help of anybody for that

    Burlak upgrade.

    3-networking capability and GPS, yet the most decisive disadvantage, but I wouldn`t worry for that. They have already a prototype which was demostrated during "Zapad 2009" Russia-Belarus drills. This allows it to communicate with other armor, infantry, assault choppers, artillery and frontal aviation. So we do not need to import something like this at all

    The new Burlak upgrade will be ready by the end of 2010... and will likely be in production well before any Leclerc would be available for Russian service.

    There is no evidence that the Leclercs armour is any better than Western Chobham or Chobham II armour, or for that matter the armour fitted to the T-90.

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:26 pm

    Now, returning to topic, I have no doubts that the T90 is a better tank than the Abrams

    Basically comparing the T90`s to the L44 gun:
    -the 2A46M is 5 mm wider and over 1m longer
    -the 2A46M is ATGM capable

    Comparing protection:
    -T90 has updated k-5 (ERA) which offer complete protection against APFSDS such as the M829, as demonstrate during US army-bunderswehr joint exercies
    -T90 has Shtora and Arena offering it better protection against RPG`s and ATGM`s
    -T90 is much smaller making it harder to see

    comparing mobility;
    -T90 has a diesel engine which is less fuel hunger and this means longer operational range
    -The T90 has better off-road mobility
    -T90 has more hp/t (V92 and V96 engines only) thus having a higher speed
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:39 am

    Better?

    No.

    In most areas they are comparable, in some areas one or the other is better.

    To say which is better, you need to give a context.

    What terrain?

    What budget?

    What enemy and what enemy equipment?

    The Abrams has the huge advantage of a battle management information system.
    It is like having AWACS support for a fighter, it means in practical terms a much smaller force can take on a larger force without such a system and defeat them efficiently.
    The Burlak upgrade includes a battle management information system, but existing Russian tanks do not.

    Basically comparing the T90`s to the L44 gun:
    -the 2A46M is 5 mm wider and over 1m longer
    -the 2A46M is ATGM capable

    The Burlak upgrade is supposed to include the 2A83 gun that is 25% better than the 2A46M. Improved accuracy and velocity.
    In addition the rear turret bustle autoloader for the Burlak operates faster than the turret ring autoloader and can handle more efficient long rod penetrator rounds.

    Comparing protection:
    -T90 has updated k-5 (ERA) which offer complete protection against APFSDS such as the M829, as demonstrate during US army-bunderswehr joint exercies
    -T90 has Shtora and Arena offering it better protection against RPG`s and ATGM`s
    -T90 is much smaller making it harder to see

    The Abrams has very good crew protection, with no rounds in the crew compartment.

    The T-90 has 22 rounds in the turret ring autoloader so the remaining 20-22 rounds are stowed in the crew compartment. The Burlak upgrade adds a turret bustle autoloader with a further 31 rounds that don't need to be stored in the crew compartment so all ammo is in armoured autoloaders seperated from the crew compartment.

    comparing mobility;
    -T90 has a diesel engine which is less fuel hunger and this means longer operational range
    -The T90 has better off-road mobility
    -T90 has more hp/t (V92 and V96 engines only) thus having a higher speed

    Actually a gas turbine is more efficient as a power supply, which is why gas turbines are used in tanks to power systems when the main engine is off.
    The T-95 will probably use a gas turbine to supply electricity with electric motors moving the vehicle around. This means no transmission is needed which saves a lot of complexity and weight and space in the tank.
    In such a role the gas turbine is run at its most fuel efficient speed to generate electricity efficiently.
    On the Abrams, and the T-80 which was the first tank to have a gas turbine as its only means of propulsion the engine needs to be run at high revs to generate torque for acceleration which makes it very very inefficient and a real gas guzzler.
    If you can afford to run it however some might suggest it is worth the cost.

    At the end of the day a Javelin will probably kill both...

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:10 pm

    No, you`re wrong. Ammo is not stored inside the turret, but inside the hull. Carusel type of autoloader is placed on best place as possible, because according to doctrine of armor combat, that is safest place for storing ammo. Explosion and cook-off effect never happens instantly, but after some time when flame catch CCC, and explosion is never cause by ammo stored in autoloader, but by extra ammo who is on right side of autoloader on "wall" of hull, also, there is no ammo stored in turret. That famous weak spot is by protected by side skirt and road wheels, and armor of course, and chance of making instant explosion is very little
    Penetration of turret have nothing to do with cook-off effect, but PENETRATION OF LOVER HULL CAN CAUSE THAT.
    Here comes another disadvantage of the Abrams:
    It`s secondary tracking unit is not proteced, even against MG fire. This directly leaves the M1 without power and causes the doors, which open the ammo compartiment section to operate manuaually.

    M1 has very reliable fornt armor? Indeed, but what about it`s side armor? Pathetic. Thousands of Abrams tanks suffered mobility kills in Iraq when hit on sides or rear by RPG7`s. When you becomne a satationary target, the best thing you can do is leave the tank. Some of the Abrams were recovered, some destroyed by the American themselfs and some other were set on fire by the Iraqis
    Not only that, but several M1`s were completly destroyed short after being hit by RPG7 when they were set on fire and slowly consumed
    T90 does not have that issue, because it employes K-5 and Arena which can shot down RPG`s, ATGM`s and even top-attack weapons like Javelin, TOW and Hellfire

    Gas turbines are not better than diesel engines. Gas turbine engines spend much more fuel than diesel ones. The M1 carries 1900l of fuel, much more than T90 and has 100km+ shorter range. T95 was intended to use an diesel X-shaped engine, not a turbine one

    T90 does not need 2A83 gun to compete with the L44 (which isn`t american at all) The germans already upgraded to the L55 gun. L44 guns are the shortest guns today: see for yourself 5.28m (L44) against 6.6 (2A46M, L55, CN120-26) Longer guns are more accurate than shorter one, even when not using laser guided ATGM rounds. From the pictures below you could easily see the difference of their guns:


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:01 pm

    Ammo is not stored inside the turret, but inside the hull.

    There are three crew in a T-90.

    Commander, and gunner in the turret and driver in the front centre of the hull.

    After the 22 rounds in the carousel auto loader are used up the autoloader has to be reloaded by the crew.
    I rather suspect the gunner will be doing that job so the extra rounds will need to be handy to his position for him to be able to do that.
    Whether the extra rounds are in the turret or the hull doesn't matter, they are an extreme fire hazard and you really don't want them anywhere near your crew.

    [qutoe]Carusel type of autoloader is placed on best place as possible, because according to doctrine of armor combat, that is safest place for storing ammo.[/quote]

    I have been told that only storing ammo in the armoured carousel autoloader was what reduced casualties during the second Chechen campaign... in addition of course to better tactics in using tanks.

    ...but by extra ammo who is on right side of autoloader on "wall" of hull, also, there is no ammo stored in turret. That famous weak spot is by protected by side skirt and road wheels, and armor of course, and chance of making instant explosion is very little...

    It really doesn't matter if the tank gun ammo is in the turret or the hull, when fire reaches it it will explode and as long as it is inside the tank it will all detonate at once when it goes so hatches and turrets will suffer.

    The Burlak upgrade keeps the carousel autoloader and adds a turret bustle autoloader that keeps both lots of ammo separate from the crew compartment and is much safer and probably easier to load.

    Penetration of turret have nothing to do with cook-off effect, but PENETRATION OF LOVER HULL CAN CAUSE THAT.

    Any penetration of a tank can kill or injure crewmen and start fires. The inside of tanks is small and lots of flammeable stuff is stored in there, like fuel, ammo etc.

    M1 has very reliable fornt armor? Indeed, but what about it`s side armor? Pathetic. Thousands of Abrams tanks suffered mobility kills in Iraq when hit on sides or rear by RPG7`s. When you becomne a satationary target, the best thing you can do is leave the tank. Some of the Abrams were recovered, some destroyed by the American themselfs and some other were set on fire by the Iraqis

    There has only really been one tank in history that attempted to have strong armour all round and it was a German tank called the Maus. It weighed about 180 tons and had 250mm of armour all round. Pathetic by todays standard regarding armour thickness. Impossibly heavy too. Its top speed was 6mph and it broke windows as it drove past buildings...

    T90 does not have that issue, because it employes K-5 and Arena which can shot down RPG`s, ATGM`s and even top-attack weapons like Javelin, TOW and Hellfire

    AFAIK Russian T-90s are not fitted with ARENA.

    No tank is invincible... a simple land mine can cut a track and immobilise any tank ever made or on the drawing board.

    Gas turbines are not better than diesel engines. Gas turbine engines spend much more fuel than diesel ones. The M1 carries 1900l of fuel, much more than T90 and has 100km+ shorter range. T95 was intended to use an diesel X-shaped engine, not a turbine one

    You didn't read what I said. Gas turbines are an efficient way to generate electricity. They are not good for directly powering a tank because to generate high torque they need to operate and very high revs which burns enormous amounts of fuel. If they were generating electricity to store in batteries or power electric motors to drive the vehicle they could be run at a very efficient RPM while under no load. The gas turbines in the M1 Abrams on the other hand has to accelerate 70 tons of dead weight around the place.

    T90 does not need 2A83 gun to compete with the L44 (which isn`t american at all) The germans already upgraded to the L55 gun. L44 guns are the shortest guns today: see for yourself 5.28m (L44) against 6.6 (2A46M, L55, CN120-26) Longer guns are more accurate than shorter one, even when not using laser guided ATGM rounds. From the pictures below you could easily see the difference of their guns:

    I am sorry, you have lost me???

    When comparing tanks it is not a dick measuring competition.
    The tank with the biggest gun doesn't automatically win.
    The T-34s 76.2mm gun was never as good as the 75mm gun of the Panther, and the 85mm gun of the T-34/85 was only comparable in penetration and better in HE shell capacity.
    At the end of the day the gun of the T-90 is not for comparison with the gun on any other tank... it is for comparison with the armour of other tanks because its job is to defeat that armour so its performance would be rated in the distance it can kill opposing tanks from. ie the range it can penetrate the frontal armour of the other guys tanks.
    The Burlak getting a bigger better gun means it can kill enemy tanks from further away.

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:22 pm

    The fact that T90 can catch fire when hit by AT weapons dosen`t mean anything. Abrams can catch fire too. All MBT`s can catch fire. How many Abrams tank caught fire when hit by RPG-7 in Iraq?

    Bigger is better. Longer guns always have better accuracy at longer ranges. If an 44 calibres gun was really effective as an 51-52 or 55 calibres gun, the Leo2A6, Leclerc and Challeger2 would all be using 44 caliber guns today. It wouldn`t be any difference if the gun was 1-2 calibers bigger, but the T90`s gun is over 6 calibers longer

    T90 has some kind of EMP minesweeper by the way. It offers great protection against magnetic mines

    T80BV`s autoloader is not the same thing as the T90`s

    Austin

    Posts : 6380
    Points : 6781
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Austin on Sat May 08, 2010 2:52 pm

    Couple of question on T-90M

    1 )The new Long Rod APFSDS anti-tank dart on T-90M capable of penetrating Western Frontal armor specially M1A2 armor ?

    2 ) In terms of FirePower and Protection how does T-90M compare with US M1A2 tanks ?

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sat May 08, 2010 9:01 pm

    Austin wrote:Couple of question on T-90M

    1 )The new Long Rod APFSDS anti-tank dart on T-90M capable of penetrating Western Frontal armor specially M1A2 armor ?

    2 ) In terms of FirePower and Protection how does T-90M compare with US M1A2 tanks ?

    Don`t know much about new APFSDS but I think that the T90A can already compete with the M1A2 in terms of firepower and mobility.

    The T90`s gun is much bigger than the licenced L44 copy in both length (120mm vs 125mm width and 44 vs 51 calibres length)and it can fire ATGM`s making it much more effective at long ranges
    T90`s armor thickness may be lower, (although armor/volume ratio is higher) but not less capable. To compensate the T90 has an layer of advanced K-5 ERA under main armor which also protects against APFSDS (as proved in US Army-Bundeswehr joint exercises when an earlier K-5 version mounted in a T72 defeated the DU M829 penetrator every time) and the countermisures systems, like Shtora . At last, but not least the T90 has an EMP minesweeper AND AUTOMATIC FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM

    Can an M1A2, Leo2A6, Callenger-2 or Leclerc jam the guidance system of an ATGM? Obviously the answer is no, but T90 can
    Can an M1A2, Leo2A6, Challenger-2 or Leclerc fire a guided missile with a range up to 5km and pinpont accuracy? Obviously no, but T90 can

    Austin

    Posts : 6380
    Points : 6781
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Austin on Sun May 09, 2010 4:54 am

    Don`t know much about new APFSDS but I think that the T90A can already compete with the M1A2 in terms of firepower and mobility.

    From what I have read the current APFSDS round of T-90A is capable of penetrating the frontal armor of M1A1 and not the M1A2 the new long rod ammo of T-90M is designed to penetrate M1A2 armor.

    The M1A2 certainly has better armour and crew protection than T-90.

    The T90`s gun is much bigger than the licenced L44 copy in both length (120mm vs 125mm width and 44 vs 51 calibres length)and it can fire ATGM`s making it much more effective at long ranges

    From what I know the Russian APFSDS Ammo is inferior to Western rounds in penetration and L/D ratio. The ATGM is subsonic though it has range but needs the target to be lased which can be jammed.


    T90`s armor thickness may be lower, (although armor/volume ratio is higher) but not less capable. To compensate the T90 has an layer of advanced K-5 ERA under main armor which also protects against APFSDS (as proved in US Army-Bundeswehr joint exercises when an earlier K-5 version mounted in a T72 defeated the DU M829 penetrator every time) and the countermisures systems, like Shtora . At last, but not least the T90 has an EMP minesweeper AND AUTOMATIC FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM

    True I read the Kaktus ERA doubles the K-5 ability , but by and large the Western Tank are well protected and heavily armoured and do not need ERA , but the tandem shaped charge of 3rd Gen Fire and Forget Missile like European Trigart , Indian Nag and US system and Russian Kornet can penetrate most modern armour.

    Can an M1A2, Leo2A6, Callenger-2 or Leclerc jam the guidance system of an ATGM? Obviously the answer is no, but T90 can
    Can an M1A2, Leo2A6, Challenger-2 or Leclerc fire a guided missile with a range up to 5km and pinpont accuracy? Obviously no, but T90 can

    Chances are Western APFSDS can hit the T-90 much faster at longer range when alerted being lased by LWS then the subsonic missile reach the target.

    Austin

    Posts : 6380
    Points : 6781
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Austin on Sun May 09, 2010 4:56 am

    The new T-90 variant "T-90 Burlak" should offer new Turret with new characteristics as I have read , Does any one have any info on T-90 Burlak program ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 09, 2010 9:21 am

    From what I know the Russian APFSDS Ammo is inferior to Western rounds in penetration and L/D ratio. The ATGM is subsonic though it has range but needs the target to be lased which can be jammed.

    Accuracy and performance of the current 125mm guns is greatly improved over previous guns and I would expect current ammo is better too.
    There might still be a gap, but it wont be as big as most westerners would like to pretend it is.
    The ATGM fired through the 125mm gun gets to 4km in about 10 seconds so it is actually just supersonic, though when it hits a target at its max range of 5km it will probably be just subsonic.
    Would be impressed to find out how it could be jammed.
    The system directs a very low powered laser beam at the target and when the missile is fired a rear cap falls off and the laser sensor looks back at the tank that launched the missile to detect where the laser beam is and the missile manouvers itself into the centre of the beam and maintains that position to impact.
    With SALH or semi active laser homing where a laser beam is reflected off the target and the missile homes in on the reflection the colour of the target and its reflectivity effect the range of the system. With laser beam riding missiles the laser is 10,000 times less powerful because the sensor is looking directly at the beam source.
    Even with 10 seconds warning at 4km an M1A2 does not have a powerful enough main gun to reliably destroy a T-90 from the front.
    It can pop smoke, which for a SALH would work well because the laser beam would reflect from the smoke and not the surface of the tank.
    Assuming the smoke grenades land 100m in front of the tank and generate a thick wall of smoke the missile wont be effected till it hits the smoke wall.
    By that time the missile should be centred on the beam and will likely continue straight into the target anyway.

    Austin

    Posts : 6380
    Points : 6781
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Austin on Sun May 09, 2010 9:31 am

    GarryB i was indeed thinking of the IR smoke jammers , as soon as the tank knows its being lased it will try to release the IR smoke wall and maneuver away from laser giving it the split second needed to defeat the missile.

    The key is to develop Fire and Forget Missile the Tank Carries its own small MMW radar like you see on Mi-28N once the target is detected from the radar or received off-board from other sources it fires the ATGM (IIR/RF seeker ) from MG and manouver away while missile does the homing even if the target tank is manouvering.

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sun May 09, 2010 11:45 am

    Austin wrote:

    From what I know the Russian APFSDS Ammo is inferior to Western rounds in penetration and L/D ratio. The ATGM is subsonic though it has range but needs the target to be lased which can be jammed.[/quote]

    Unlike T90, no western tank actually uses jammers so they can not jam the ATGM guidance at all


    [/quote]True I read the Kaktus ERA doubles the K-5 ability , but by and large the Western Tank are well protected and heavily armoured and do not need ERA , but the tandem shaped charge of 3rd Gen Fire and Forget Missile like European Trigart , Indian Nag and US system and Russian Kornet can penetrate most modern armour.[/quote]

    Kornet can not penetrate the frontal armor of an ERA equuiped T90. 5 Kornets were fired to a T90 during a test and none of them could penetrate the target. Only one was able to penetrate the T90 without ERA

    [/quote]Chances are Western APFSDS can hit the T-90 much faster at longer range when alerted being lased by LWS then the subsonic missile reach the target.[/quote]

    T90 uses the most modern APFSDS currently in production in the Russian federation. APFSDS are much less effective at long ranges then ATGM rounds.

    ATGM advantage is REAL. The Israelis proved that when Merkava`s firstly meet "monkey models" T72M (which on the other hand did not have ATGM capability at all). LAHAT ATGM proved to be very effecive at long ranges.
    I know that M1A2`s armor is much better than the T72M`s but the 125 Refleks-M is also much better than the 105mm LAHAT (better warhead and more-resistent to jamming guidance system


    If we had 1 M1A2 vs T90, T90 would have an edge, but in a high-intensity battlefield a 10+ M1A2`s will have a slight advantage over 10+T90`s thanks to their networking capability

    Note that I was talking about the original T90 and T90A models, not T90M or whatever it`s called

    Austin

    Posts : 6380
    Points : 6781
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Austin on Sun May 09, 2010 12:14 pm

    Here is a nice website on T-90

    T-90 Tank
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 10, 2010 7:30 am

    GarryB i was indeed thinking of the IR smoke jammers , as soon as the tank knows its being lased it will try to release the IR smoke wall and maneuver away from laser giving it the split second needed to defeat the missile.

    I am not totally familiar with how Reflex works in actual practise but would suspect it can be aimed 20m above the target. At 4-5km the beam will be 5-10 metres across so the missile would fly a higher trajectory to the target. The speed of the missile is known and the range to the target can be determined by lasing something next to the target that is the same distance without alerting the target tank. When your missile gets to 1km away from the target you can drop your aim point onto the target and the missile will drop down into line with the target with only seconds.
    I would expect the target vehicle would pop smoke very quickly, but doubt it could move in time to evade the incoming missile.

    I know that some Russian laser beam riding missiles fly 7m above the beam to avoid ground clutter.

    Also you should be aware that because beam riding laser homing missiles look directly into the beam source the beam is dramatically weaker than SALH beams as used for old model Hellfire and Kh-25 and Kh-29 in their laser homing models.
    This means that the laser warning systems will constantly give false warnings on a modern battlefield because of all the laser reflections around the place. The reflections from a laser target designator will be as bright if not brighter than laser beam rider beams.
    The laser beam used for the Starstreak missile is described as so weak it will not trigger laser warning kit at more than 3km.

    Of course there is a good chance with Catherine and Metis Thermal sights that the T-90 might see through the smoke anyway.

    The key is to develop Fire and Forget Missile the Tank Carries its own small MMW radar like you see on Mi-28N once the target is detected from the radar or received off-board from other sources it fires the ATGM (IIR/RF seeker ) from MG and manouver away while missile does the homing even if the target tank is manouvering.

    Actually the better solution is to call up the SMERCH battery and request that 9N152 rockets be loaded up. They entered service in 1987 so there should be plenty in stocks. The 9N152 carries 5 sensor fused submunitions with IR and MMW radar seekers with top attack profiles with self forging fragmentation warheads. So 12 rockets from one vehicle should deliver 60 munitions on the target area... a battery could take on a large force.
    The advantage of laser beam riding technology is that it is cheap. Adding MMW radar and IIR seekers will make it rather more expensive.
    Of course the Hermes missile is entering service shortly so the terminal seeker options adopted for it could easily be applied to such a weapon, but I think money would be better spent making the electronics more durable to allow for a higher flight speed.

    If we had 1 M1A2 vs T90, T90 would have an edge, but in a high-intensity battlefield a 10+ M1A2`s will have a slight advantage over 10+T90`s thanks to their networking capability

    Actually I would say no as the thermal sights on the M1A2 are rather better than the early model T-90s.
    Also 10+ M1A2s increases its networking effectiveness, so a large force of M1A2s meeting a large force of pre Burlak T-90s I would expect the M1s to win, though certainly not as easily as against Iraqi T-72s of course.

    The fact is that a battle management system helps you see instantly where any detected threats are and where your own forces are.

    The Americans call it a force multiplier, but really it is the difference between operating as a team and operating as individual tanks working for the same goal but seperately.

    The Germans showed during WWII what good communications and good coordination of forces can do for an inferior force. Their tanks were initially crap yet they still did well. Against western and eastern forces. If US forces had been on the ground when the Germans rolled west into europe they would have found themselves on the beach at Dunkirk with the Brits.

    The new T-90 variant "T-90 Burlak" should offer new Turret with new characteristics as I have read , Does any one have any info on T-90 Burlak program ?

    I have a word document that I have put together based on various sources about what is involved in the Burlak upgrade.

    No guarantees, but here it is:

    Burlak features ‘Kaktus’ embedded explosive reactive armour (ERA) package on its frontal hull and Relict on and turret-top (the T-90S has ‘Kontakt-5’ ERA), is fitted with an advanced environmental control system made in Russia for providing cooled air to the fighting compartment, has additional internal volume for housing the cryogenic cooling systems for new-generation thermal imagers like the THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth and housed within the Peleng-built 1G-46 gunner’s sight) and the commander’s panoramic sight (which houses the Matis-STD thermal imager that operates in the 3-5 micron bandwidth), is fitted with an automatic gearbox, has an electro-hydraulic turret-drive-cum stabilisation system, and most importantly, has a new 2A82 smoothbore main gun barrel that also comes fitted with a muzzle reference system.
    The powerplant will initially be the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-built 1,000hp V-92S2 diesel engine but the 1,200hp V-99 is the expected final engine of choice, while a 1kW AB-1-P28 auxiliary power unit will provide back-up electric power when the engine is idling. The gunner’s sight-cum-laser rangefinder will be the 1A43 system, which will also house the Peleng-built 1G46 day sight and the ESSA module containing the Catherine-FC thermal imager and the 9S517 missile guidance module for the Refleks anti-armour/anti-helicopter round. The digital hunter-killer fire-control system will use the 1V528-1 ballistics computer and the DVE-BS meteorological sensor. Burlak will have a digitised battlespace management system and radio communications suite, with a fibre-optic gyro-based inertial land navigation system with GLONASS.
    RPZ-86M anti-radar paint coating will reduce the signature of the vehicle.
    New bigger turret without weakened frontal areas and with the all-aspect ERA covering.
    Additional roof protection against atop attacking munition.
    New additional autoloader, placed on the aft part of the turret and able using the new longer sub-caliber rods.
    All ammo storage in autoloaders separate from the crew area.
    Panoramic 3-channel IR commander site with improved anti-splinter/small arms rounds protection.
    7.62 mm automatic turret instead of 12.7mm.
    FCS with the net-centric module.
    New anti-splinter kevlar layer instead of the standard Russian anti-neutron layer.
    new fire suppression system.

    Being developed:

    - Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
    - Steering wheel control.

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Mon May 10, 2010 9:05 pm

    To be honest I do not belive the Abrams will be able to win over Burlak`s, be it the M1A2Sep version
    I don`t think earlier M1`s (including M1A1) will be able to win against T80U`s either.
    Networking (just like ATGM capability and IR jammers) surely helps, but it not enough to win battles

    Probable scenarios (10 M1A2 vs 10 T90As)
    I am assuming the T90`s to use 3VBM17 penetrators and Catherine-FC thermal images, as seeen in the T90A and the M1A2`s to use M829A3.

    1-At long ranges the M1A2`s would get forced to retreat, short after T90`s start firing at them using Reflex missiles. Networking won`t help them anyway. If M1A2`s do not retreat half of them will be slaughtered (at the worst case, I am assuming a minimal hit chance of 20 percent over a moving Abrams, of 4 shots per each T90 and 2 shots requied to kill an Abrams) before even entering firing range. The remaining 5 M1A2`s will be easy to defeat for the T90`s. M1A2`s are eliminated and T90`s have little or no casualties

    2-Let`s suppose that somehow the T90`s could not get a lock on M1`s and none of them even saw each other at ranges not higher than 2km
    Speed is almost matched. M1 is 3km/h faster but that does not give him ANY advnatage. The combination of K-5 and composite on the T90 should be just as capable as the 1st gen. of Chobrum with DU mesh inside. Gun`s are not as matched as protection and mobility, cause T90`s gun is significantly bigger but that`s not a decisive advantage either. The number of shots fired per tank should not exceed -1/+1, except for some rare occasions. Well, then it`s all up to the crew as the tanks will have almost the same performance

    3-Suppose a high intensity battlefield when each tank is supported by infantry, IFV`s, gunships, etc. Here the networking advantage becomes more significant although the ability to jam ATGM`s fired by infantry and gunships, the ability to take down a gunship/tank/IFV etc using an ATGM round, the ability to destroy IED`s using electro-magnetic minesweepers etc are not less significant. Tank training is important too


    M1 are Leo2 stay are the most overrated tanks on the world by the way.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 11, 2010 1:56 am

    To be honest I do not belive the Abrams will be able to win over Burlak`s, be it the M1A2Sep version
    I don`t think earlier M1`s (including M1A1) will be able to win against T80U`s either.

    I think in a comparison directly tank for tank they are each quite comparable to each other. Lets face it each tank designer has the others tanks in mind when they develop their tanks and they largely succeed in their aim.
    Personally though I think it will not be very clear cut as to which is superior and the winner would have more to do with the quality of training, who has control of the air,and the terrain on which the combat is taking place.


    Networking (just like ATGM capability and IR jammers) surely helps, but it not enough to win battles

    Actually I would say Networking is not just having fancy computers in your tank, it is the current evolution of command control and communications.
    To put it in gamer terms it is the difference between "Call of Duty" tank warfare and "M1 Abrams" warfare. In M1 Abrams warfare you have a little map to look at that shows the area around your tank in real time. It shows all the enemy forces discovered by your tanks and your recon assets as they are found and identified. When you find and identify enemy tanks or aircraft or whatever you add them to your map and they appear on all your allies maps as well. Most importantly the location of your own forces appears on your map, when implimented fully it goes right down to individual soldiers. This means that individual soldiers can see a map showing where they are, where their forces are and where most of the enemy is.
    It isn't perfect. Sometimes targets get misidentified. Or targets are not even seen.
    Or you are operating as part of a coalition of forces that don't have the same level of tech that you have like in Desert Storm where some of your arab allies operate the same equipment and vehicles as your current enemy.
    Can you see how that would be useful to a tank commander?



    I am assuming the T90`s to use 3VBM17 penetrators and Catherine-FC thermal images, as seeen in the T90A and the M1A2`s to use M829A3.

    1-At long ranges the M1A2`s would get forced to retreat, short after T90`s start firing at them using Reflex missiles. Networking won`t help them anyway. If M1A2`s do not retreat half of them will be slaughtered (at the worst case, I am assuming a minimal hit chance of 20 percent over a moving Abrams, of 4 shots per each T90 and 2 shots requied to kill an Abrams) before even entering firing range. The remaining 5 M1A2`s will be easy to defeat for the T90`s. M1A2`s are eliminated and T90`s have little or no casualties

    Sounds like very open terrain... the US forces would probably use their net centric system to call in airstrikes and helicopter gunships, or artillery.
    If not available they can simply go for a systems kill and fire HE shells (that travel at about 900m/s or 3 times faster than Reflex) out to the 5km range of Reflex and try to smash the optics of the tanks that have fired missiles at the same time firing smoke and moving for cover.

    The Russians/Soviets never expected to make missile firing super tanks... that was the US idea with the Sheridan. The purpose of the missiles in Russian tanks was just another option for tank commanders... if you want to base your attack on missiles then Kornet and Krisanthema both have longer ranges than Reflex and better armour penetration performance and higher flight speed as well and they are about half the price.

    2-Let`s suppose that somehow the T90`s could not get a lock on M1`s and none of them even saw each other at ranges not higher than 2km
    Speed is almost matched. M1 is 3km/h faster but that does not give him ANY advnatage. The combination of K-5 and composite on the T90 should be just as capable as the 1st gen. of Chobrum with DU mesh inside. Gun`s are not as matched as protection and mobility, cause T90`s gun is significantly bigger but that`s not a decisive advantage either. The number of shots fired per tank should not exceed -1/+1, except for some rare occasions. Well, then it`s all up to the crew as the tanks will have almost the same performance

    The M1A2s high weight could count against it in some environments.

    3-Suppose a high intensity battlefield when each tank is supported by infantry, IFV`s, gunships, etc. Here the networking advantage becomes more significant although the ability to jam ATGM`s fired by infantry and gunships, the ability to take down a gunship/tank/IFV etc using an ATGM round, the ability to destroy IED`s using electro-magnetic minesweepers etc are not less significant. Tank training is important too

    Even in a low intensity battlefield tanks don't operate alone.


    M1 are Leo2 stay are the most overrated tanks on the world by the way.

    I agree in the sense that for a while the M1 was considered invincible, yet it was tactics, air superiority and the quality of the enemy that made it appear more so.
    The Leo2 is untested... but then AFAIK so is the T-90.

    No tank is perfect and with the right training and tactics there are no perfect tanks. Remember in the Arab Israeli wars there was a serious difference in performance of T series tanks in Arab hands and in Israeli hands with captured examples. Adding hand rails didn't improve the performance of the T-62 that much, but in combat it fared much better under Israeli control.

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:58 am