Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Share

    T-44

    Posts : 9
    Points : 11
    Join date : 2015-09-26

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  T-44 on Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:11 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    It is not, GLATGM are nothing else but ATGM, they are constantly used within 2km range and at any distances ATGM retain their lethality.

    In agree in part, but GLATGMs are in fact 'limited' ATGMs. Kornet is 152mm in diameter so can easily get to about 1200mm+ RHA performance - whereas Reflex with its 125mm is limited to about 900mm RHA - which is probably struggling against M1A2 frontally. Thing is, late model T-90s and late model M1s probably will have difficulties killing each other from frontal 40° above 1km or so (neglecting lucky shots or damage to sensors etc.), and due to seperate loading ammunition and limits on APFSDS-penetrator lenght T-90 might even be at a slight disadvantage in a direct duel (also, current RA loadouts still seem dominated by relatively old BM-xx rounds, even if better prototypes and models exist, whereas the M829A3 is fielded in numbers)

    So, GLATGMs are nice to have, but in a direct confrontation with M1s they probably don't bring that much to the table (besides, such comparisons are mostly pointless, there are no "neutral" environments one can pit tank X vs tank Y)

    EDIT toa add: you're right of course that KE won't do much good against non-tank targets, and indeed there the US has long lagged behind in that terrain (with 120mm HE rounds only recently and due to experience IN the ME being developped and fielded). But that has little to do with a T-90 / M1 confrontation.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 7:51 pm

    T-44 wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    It is not, GLATGM are nothing else but ATGM, they are constantly used within 2km range and at any distances ATGM retain their lethality.

    In agree in part, but GLATGMs are in fact 'limited' ATGMs. Kornet is 152mm in diameter so can easily get to about 1200mm+ RHA performance - whereas Reflex with its 125mm is limited to about 900mm RHA - which is probably struggling against M1A2 frontally. Thing is, late model T-90s and late model M1s probably will have difficulties killing each other from frontal 40° above 1km or so (neglecting lucky shots or damage to sensors etc.),

    Lets take the maximum engagement range of 5 km for the sake of argument, both tanks would indeed struggle to penetrate the actual armor frontally as you said, however the objective is not to penetrate the armor and kill all occupants, it is to neutralize the threat of enemies tank forces. This objective to neutralize enemies tank forces can be provided by mobility,firepower kill or comprimizing their capability and certainly T-90 has still higher advantage due GLATGM to achieve those things, before it gets even remotley into effective range of M1A2 tank, not to mention it lacks adequate firepower to deal the same damage in return. It lacks proper ammunition to fullfil this gap of maximum range engagements.

    T-44 wrote:
    and due to seperate loading ammunition and limits on APFSDS-penetrator lenght T-90 might even be at a slight disadvantage in a direct duel (also, current RA loadouts still seem dominated by relatively old BM-xx rounds, even if better prototypes and models exist, whereas the M829A3 is fielded in numbers)

    It is limited however the T-90A was upgraded to accomodate longer APFSDS, not equal in size of M829A3 but still it has increased its capability, but that is besides the point unlike Abrams the Vladimir posses very potent Tandem HEAT rounds and it makes no difference how underrated such rounds are in the West due the lack of interest the Americans show, reality provides far better solutions by other countries and the US always lacked there.

    The M829A3 exists in very rare numbers according to Fofanov and others. The standard round is still M829A2.

    T-44 wrote:
    So, GLATGMs are nice to have, but in a direct confrontation with M1s they probably don't bring that much to the table (besides, such comparisons are mostly pointless, there are no "neutral" environments one can pit tank X vs tank Y)

    A good commander chooses his battlefields whenever he can, giving the fact that Russia will always be the defender not the attacker it gives them the upper hand for such scenarios and self dug up tank defences will certainly help for lower visibility, protection and therefore maybe even a surprise attack, but that all is merely a speculation without having actual circumstances of events to evaluade such "duels". That won't matter much since Duels are unfavored and biggest threat are ATGM teams and they through time have shown more firepower than tanks provide in protection along with the longer arm of warfare.


    T-44 wrote:
    EDIT toa add: you're right of course that KE won't do much good against non-tank targets, and indeed there the US has long lagged behind in that terrain (with 120mm HE rounds only recently and due to experience IN the ME being developped and fielded). But that has little to do with a T-90 / M1 confrontation.

    Well and that is often the most wrong approach of evaluading technologies and their capabilities. See that often when people try to compare Attack Helicopters with each other, lot of people seem to want compare them in a "dog fight" rather their capabilities for intended role and for circumstances of providing CAS under enemy prescents of AD systems. Same i compare for tanks, they will engage 20 ATGM, RPG, Mortar equipped infantry before they will engage in a Tank duel, so their capabilities to deal with such high occuring threats is important.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:10 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    HEAT rounds also retain their lethality at any range; and as long as the target is within their range - their use would be more optimal than launching a GLATGM as they get to the target quicker.

    GLATGMs are best reserved for very long distance engagements, or against fast-moving targets.
    As such they are nice to have, but they only in specific cases will they offer an advantage.

    Yes, HEAT rounds for engagements of open duel with both contrahents already in full engagement and aware of the presence of their enemy, but what i was getting at is that i would prefer using GLATGM at even ranges such as 2-3km against unaware targets, not to take any chances of missing the target with HEAT round and alerting the crew and any other forces in the area.

    In this region where i currently live you wont get over 2km tank to tank engagement range, if even unless you go to mountains plateau but noone will go there with tanks thats almost for sure coz its deadend. In Serbia for an example places with enough flat regions to develop good use of GLATGM at their above 60% range are basically only northen part called Vojvodina and i guess occasionally some places in central Serbia, and most of the Balcan countries are like that, mountains, rivers, canyons, hills. I am just saying that there are plenty of areas where they wouldnt show their full potential at least not their "longer hand".

    Yes, Serbia is a very unfriendly place for armored vehicles and that is the reason why NATO couldn't and therefore haven't deployed ground forces in Serbia.
    That is the case for some countries and parts of countries, however that is not the case for every country and rarely for the whole country. Places exist with above 3km, some places exist with more than 5km that provide LOS for engagements. There is no one homogen country that either provides only 2km range or 5km range. Ukraine, Poland, Russia like Rostov region and Northern germany provide from partially flat to very flat environments that provide greater than 5km LOS, however it plays all little role, because tanks are an military asset to cover ground and take objectives to attack or defend against enemy tanks and such operational and tactical valueable objects do not concentrate in any favor, most of such objects are Cities and tanks are all bad for such environments, Artillery wins again for many years it will sustain as the King of all Battlefields.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:12 pm

    Werewolf wrote:It is limited however the T-90A was upgraded to accomodate longer APFSDS, not equal in size of M829A3 but still it has increased its capability, but that is besides the point unlike Abrams the Vladimir posses very potent Tandem HEAT rounds and it makes no difference how underrated such rounds are in the West due the lack of interest the Americans show, reality provides far better solutions by other countries and the US always lacked there.

    The M829A3 exists in very rare numbers according to Fofanov and others. The standard round is still M829A2.
    3BK29 certainly isn't powerful enough to penetrate the front of an Abrams, outside of the obvious weakspots (mantlet & turret ring). The ring basically can't be hit with a wide round, like HEAT, so there's that as well. 

    That being said, the Russian HEAT rounds are generally more capable than the US equivalents; especially against heavy armor. 

    The US has at least 30,000 M829A3's (mind you, orders topped 35,000), which is ~15 rounds per Active Abrams, or more. M829A2's are getting recycled, to prove my point. - And the A4 has already entered production.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Militarov on Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:21 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    HEAT rounds also retain their lethality at any range; and as long as the target is within their range - their use would be more optimal than launching a GLATGM as they get to the target quicker.

    GLATGMs are best reserved for very long distance engagements, or against fast-moving targets.
    As such they are nice to have, but they only in specific cases will they offer an advantage.

    Yes, HEAT rounds for engagements of open duel with both contrahents already in full engagement and aware of the presence of their enemy, but what i was getting at is that i would prefer using GLATGM at even ranges such as 2-3km against unaware targets, not to take any chances of missing the target with HEAT round and alerting the crew and any other forces in the area.

    In this region where i currently live you wont get over 2km tank to tank engagement range, if even unless you go to mountains plateau but noone will go there with tanks thats almost for sure coz its deadend. In Serbia for an example places with enough flat regions to develop good use of GLATGM at their above 60% range are basically only northen part called Vojvodina and i guess occasionally some places in central Serbia, and most of the Balcan countries are like that, mountains, rivers, canyons, hills. I am just saying that there are plenty of areas where they wouldnt show their full potential at least not their "longer hand".

    Yes, Serbia is a very unfriendly place for armored vehicles and that is the reason why NATO couldn't and therefore haven't deployed ground forces in Serbia.
    That is the case for some countries and parts of countries, however that is not the case for every country and rarely for the whole country. Places exist with above 3km, some places exist with more than 5km that provide LOS for engagements. There is no one homogen country that either provides only 2km range or 5km range. Ukraine, Poland, Russia like Rostov region and Northern germany provide from partially flat to very flat environments that provide greater than 5km LOS, however it plays all little role, because tanks are an military asset to cover ground and take objectives to attack or defend against enemy tanks and such operational and tactical valueable objects do not concentrate in any favor, most of such objects are Cities and tanks are all bad for such environments, Artillery wins again for many years it will sustain as the King of all Battlefields.

    I totally understand your point and your arguments, they are valid and true. And again yes, there are parts of Serbia and every other country where you can get over 5km engagement ranges noone argues that. I just like to point out that GLATGM are not ultimate answer like many like to claim, they are good asset and provide an exceptional advantage in some situations. People that havent seen how war looks irl, like to look at combat in "plastic" way, and blindly obey numbers, range in this case.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Militarov on Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:It is limited however the T-90A was upgraded to accomodate longer APFSDS, not equal in size of M829A3 but still it has increased its capability, but that is besides the point unlike Abrams the Vladimir posses very potent Tandem HEAT rounds and it makes no difference how underrated such rounds are in the West due the lack of interest the Americans show, reality provides far better solutions by other countries and the US always lacked there.

    The M829A3 exists in very rare numbers according to Fofanov and others. The standard round is still M829A2.
    3BK29 certainly isn't powerful enough to penetrate the front of an Abrams, outside of the obvious weakspots (mantlet & turret ring). The ring basically can't be hit with a wide round, like HEAT, so there's that as well. 

    That being said, the Russian HEAT rounds are generally more capable than the US equivalents; especially against heavy armor. 

    The US has at least 30,000 M829A3's (mind you, orders topped 35,000), which is ~15 rounds per Active Abrams, or more. M829A2's are getting recycled, to prove my point. - And the A4 has already entered production.

    I belive M829A1 and M829A2 production combined passed 100.000 examples and that in 2014. they signed contract to remove from service 78.000 (seems they will recycle alloys from them to rebuild E4s) of them coz they were partially replaced with A3s and fact that first contract for 2,501 M829E4 was signed. I do not know how many per tank are kept these days, or whats the standard ammunition load atm for M1A2s but in 1991. the standard combat load for Abrams was 37 M829/M829A1s (seems mainly M829A1s), and 3 HEATs.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:48 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:It is limited however the T-90A was upgraded to accomodate longer APFSDS, not equal in size of M829A3 but still it has increased its capability, but that is besides the point unlike Abrams the Vladimir posses very potent Tandem HEAT rounds and it makes no difference how underrated such rounds are in the West due the lack of interest the Americans show, reality provides far better solutions by other countries and the US always lacked there.

    The M829A3 exists in very rare numbers according to Fofanov and others. The standard round is still M829A2.
    3BK29 certainly isn't powerful enough to penetrate the front of an Abrams, outside of the obvious weakspots (mantlet & turret ring). The ring basically can't be hit with a wide round, like HEAT, so there's that as well. 

    That being said, the Russian HEAT rounds are generally more capable than the US equivalents; especially against heavy armor. 

    The US has at least 30,000 M829A3's (mind you, orders topped 35,000), which is ~15 rounds per Active Abrams, or more. M829A2's are getting recycled, to prove my point. - And the A4 has already entered production.

    It provides far better chances of a firepower kill or mobility kill than any M829A3 at similiar ranges and the Multi Purpose HEAT rounds the US fields they are fast but contain relative low firepower against armor.

    I doubt those numbers and fofanov mentioned that barely any Abrams has seen M829A3 rounds and only a few have them.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Mike E on Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:18 pm

    Yes, and the A3 has an infinitely better chance at actually destroying the vehicle...your point?

    Those are official numbers released by ATK. They are most certainly correct.

    Fofanov is a knowledgeable guy, that doesn't mean he is always right. In fact, I'd bet serious money he made that claim over a decade ago.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Zivo on Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:44 pm

    If GLATGM's are so terrible and ineffective, why does the US army want one with 12km of range for the M1A3? The T-14 is also getting a new GLATGM.

    Russian GLATGM fly in a lofted trajectory, glacis hits are not off-limits. Hits to the turret's sides are lethal against tanks with bustle magazines, hits to the turret's face can damage the gun, and depending on the MBT, the gunner's optics. A neutralized tank is as good as a dead tank, if it can't pull its weight, all the other tanks in the unit need to pick up the slack.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Militarov on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:06 pm

    Zivo wrote:If GLATGM's are so terrible and ineffective, why does the US army want one with 12km of range for the M1A3? The T-14 is also getting a new GLATGM.

    Russian GLATGM fly in a lofted trajectory, glacis hits are not off-limits. Hits to the turret's sides are lethal against tanks with bustle magazines, hits to the turret's face can damage the gun, and depending on the MBT, the gunner's optics. A neutralized tank is as good as a dead tank, if it can't pull its weight, all the other tanks in the unit need to pick up the slack.

    If you are talking about now few years already canceled XM1111 MRM (Mid-Range Munition) that is abit different approach to this problem. In LOSt, it was supposed to use millimeter wave seeker and unlike Reflex/Kobra it could be fired in BLOS, the shell would be fired in a ballistic trajectory, and would seek for targets on its own via IIR seeker. And my guess is that it would mostly end up being used in BLOS with its IIR. Also they kinda wanted to make two types of such warload, both KE and HEAT which is not the case with existing solutions that are being used by Russians and Israelis.

    Also i havent heard or read myself that they are planning to revive this project for M1A3, do you have some article regarding it? I thougth they would at the best obtain LAHAT licence.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:24 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Zivo wrote:If GLATGM's are so terrible and ineffective, why does the US army want one with 12km of range for the M1A3? The T-14 is also getting a new GLATGM.

    Russian GLATGM fly in a lofted trajectory, glacis hits are not off-limits. Hits to the turret's sides are lethal against tanks with bustle magazines, hits to the turret's face can damage the gun, and depending on the MBT, the gunner's optics. A neutralized tank is as good as a dead tank, if it can't pull its weight, all the other tanks in the unit need to pick up the slack.

    If you are talking about now few years already canceled  XM1111 MRM (Mid-Range Munition) that is abit different approach to this problem. In LOSt, it was supposed to use millimeter wave seeker and unlike Reflex/Kobra it could be fired in BLOS, the shell would be fired in a ballistic trajectory, and would seek for targets on its own via IIR seeker. And my guess is that it would mostly end up being used in BLOS with its IIR. Also they kinda wanted to make two types of such warload, both KE and HEAT which is not the case with existing solutions that are being used by Russians and Israelis.

    Also i havent heard or read myself that they are planning to revive this project for M1A3, do you have some article regarding it? I thougth they would at the best obtain LAHAT licence.

    IIRC they had a few GLATGM projects competing against each other and MRM was just the most known, but the US is terribly behind in missile technology.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:28 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    I totally understand your point and your arguments, they are valid and true. And again yes, there are parts of Serbia and every other country where you can get over 5km engagement ranges noone argues that. I just like to point out that GLATGM are not ultimate answer like many like to claim, they are good asset and provide an exceptional advantage in some situations. People that havent seen how war looks irl, like to look at combat in "plastic" way, and blindly obey numbers, range in this case.

    I do not portray GLATGM as some magical answer to everything, i just do not like this common for western fanboys to portray it like there are no locations of 5km ranges and therefore the Reflex is all just gimmick without real use, just like the Indian Arjun trails that tried to discredit T-90 for scoring higher than Arjun just because of the GLATGM capability, like this is just a gimmick. By such standards we should discredit everything we do not posses as a mere gimmick without any real appliance in reality. Some portray GLATGM as equal in its usefulness to Challanger 2 tea making pot.

    GLATGM can be used from all ranges and very useful from 3-5 km and still sustain higher penetration than AFPSDS at ranges lower than 3km.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5557
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Militarov on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:36 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    I totally understand your point and your arguments, they are valid and true. And again yes, there are parts of Serbia and every other country where you can get over 5km engagement ranges noone argues that. I just like to point out that GLATGM are not ultimate answer like many like to claim, they are good asset and provide an exceptional advantage in some situations. People that havent seen how war looks irl, like to look at combat in "plastic" way, and blindly obey numbers, range in this case.

    I do not portray GLATGM as some magical answer to everything, i just do not like this common for western fanboys to portray it like there are no locations of 5km ranges and therefore the Reflex is all just gimmick without real use, just like the Indian Arjun trails that tried to discredit T-90 for scoring higher than Arjun just because of the GLATGM capability, like this is just a gimmick. By such standards we should discredit everything we do not posses as a mere gimmick without any real appliance in reality. Some portray GLATGM as equal in its usefulness to Challanger 2 tea making pot.

    GLATGM can be used from all ranges and very useful from 3-5 km and still sustain higher penetration than AFPSDS at ranges lower than 3km.

    Yeah i am aware that many wannabe experts and forum warriors give very little value and credit to GLATGMs simply coz they are not in widespread use and service on the West (*cough* US *cough*), and yes i know that you do not consider them as "magical answer" as you said yourself.

    On other side when you mentioned tea pot in Challenger, that Israeli Merkava tank line feature with 60l cooled water tank for crew IS exceptionally useful and i know some that trolled about it.

    T-44

    Posts : 9
    Points : 11
    Join date : 2015-09-26

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  T-44 on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:54 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    I do not portray GLATGM as some magical answer to everything, i just do not like this common for western fanboys to portray it like there are no locations of 5km ranges and therefore the Reflex is all just gimmick without real use, just like the Indian Arjun trails that tried to discredit T-90 for scoring higher than Arjun just because of the GLATGM capability, like this is just a gimmick. By such standards we should discredit everything we do not posses as a mere gimmick without any real appliance in reality. Some portray GLATGM as equal in its usefulness to Challanger 2 tea making pot.

    GLATGM can be used from all ranges and very useful from 3-5 km and still sustain higher penetration than AFPSDS at ranges lower than 3km.

    Neither do I dismiss any use for GLATGMs (hovering helicopters etc. for example), but I just challenged its use as an argument that T-90 is, ipso facto, better then a M1A2. If an M1 would go charging against a dug-in T-90 on a plain with +4km LOS visibility (like indeed there are many in central / eastern Europe), it WOULD indeed have an advantage. But, for example, in a scenario set in a more wooded and rolling landscape, with ca. 2000m visibility max., a defending M1 fighting from prepared positions probably has the edge over T-90 (reverse slope, gun depression, speed in reverse etc. - in that way Soviet GLATGMs could be seen as a way to compensate for certain design compromises of the T-XX series).
    That was what my comment about their being no "neutral" setting for any tank Y vs tank Z duel implied.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:50 am

    Werewolf wrote:western fanboys to portray it like there are no locations of 5km ranges 
    Heck, in Europe the estimated engagement distance is only 1500 meters. GLATGM's would be less-than-ideal at such ranges, because APFSDS would be very effective.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5359
    Points : 5590
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:08 am

    Mike E wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:western fanboys to portray it like there are no locations of 5km ranges 
    Heck, in Europe the estimated engagement distance is only 1500 meters. GLATGM's would be less-than-ideal at such ranges, because APFSDS would be very effective.

    Estimated by who? You haven't been to europe it seems? I live near the Alpen and i still see here planty of locations with ranges double the 1500m, not to mention the relative high concentration of AFB and other military targets, valueable enough for groundforces to take and hold.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Mike E on Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:14 am

    It was some old military figure, I'll try finding it.

    Don't forget, it is the average figure, of course there will be areas with greater engagement ranges, and others with lower.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Zivo on Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:42 am

    My issue with the one-to-one supposed superiority over russian tanks is that really, how mechanically superior is a an M1 at 2000m vs a T-90? Because beyond that range, the T-90 has the complete advantage with regard to raw performance. Just to maintain parity with the T-90 in these matchups, the M1's have to make up for all the theoretical losses it incurs at 3+km. Casualties also have exponential decay, as the side the suffered the loss is now down one gun, and the opposing side retains the same strength. Mathematically, the T-90's stand a far better chance at winning in all battles were engagements happen at 3+km. I don't think the M1 has enough advantage at the lesser ranges to make up for the definite defeats at these longer ranges.

    BTW, I think the M1 is an excellent design, the ammo selection is just poor.
    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 191
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  x_54_u43 on Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:04 am

    The inclusion of GLATGMs into Soviet tank arsenals has always for the compensation of the unavoidable fact, even the most wonderful FCS cannot read the future. It never was about making kills at 5km range(more for aerial targets like a helicopter)

    I don't believe the GLATGMs are absolute trump cards that some on this site think they are. I also don't think they are completely useless in a European theater of war(Looking at you Mike E).

    I think that the GLATGMs coupled with the very small visible cross section of Soviet armored vehicles, their very advanced armor(Manfred Held(RIP) and Ness anyone?) and enormous production yield is the closest thing to a trump card one could possibly have.

    Lets not go all black and white, west and east everyone, there is a middle path, and most usually the most rational and sensible path to take.
    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 Sep 27, 2015 10:08 am

    The beauty of the GLATGM for the Russians was that they treated it like just another round of ammo.

    With the French and US military they were going to be super missile tanks (the Soviets also experimented with such things in the IT-1 and IT-2 vehicles with flat turrets and AT-3 missiles), with special 142mm and 152mm guns respectively, whereas the Soviets went for using existing calibre guns and developing missiles for those calibres.

    the result for the french was nothing, their 142mm missile failed to enter service, while the 152mm gun and missile entered service in the US on the Sheridan light tank and a modification of the M60 tank... both of which were ultimately awful and total failures... they saw combat but did not get a single recorded kill.

    On paper it should have been amazing but in reality you get much better actual performance from an M113 carrying TOW missiles... much cheaper too.

    For the Soviets the guided large calibre missile included artillery calibres and tank and large IFV calibres... they eventually became cheap enough to be used widely, became very effective in terms of speed and penetration, and added to their entire tank force... a new capability of long range tank engagement and the whole new long range anti aircraft capability too.

    Potential future growth would include new sensors and attack profiles that allow fire and forget performance... for ground and air targets....


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:29 am

    Zivo wrote:BTW, I think the M1 is an excellent design, the ammo selection is just poor.

    I disagree.

    A naked tank with virtually no ERA, no spaced armour (TUSK is just for show). Gas turbin engine. No autoloader. No ability to fire ATGM until very recently. Ammunition storage is exposed. The size is big and the shape is rectangular with means increasing of surface area. And the weight is damn high...

    I am sincerely sorry and I mean no offence, but I have to say that Abrams is a degenerated version of Leopard 2.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Zivo on Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:50 am

    GLATGM's were developed to increase an MBT's reach, there's not much else to it. Anti-tank missiles became too potent in the 70's, MBT's needed their own.

    Honestly, I think the US and to a lesser extent European/NATO designers have been put off by armor mobile ATGM's. The shillelagh failure, the MBT-70 cancellation, and the poor performance of the early TOW and Dragon, all left a bad taste in the US MIC's mouth. The success of the "silver bullet" in Desert storm further cemented the idea.  Overlooking the effectiveness of ATGM's was a huge mistake, given that anti-armor missiles have come to dominate the battlefield so much so that the "main battle tank is now obsolete". The accuracy and range of these missiles has become almost stupid powerful against MBT's. Yet people seem to forget that the inferior russian tanks are effectively the only MBT's in the world that actually have ATGM's at their disposal, although that is slowly changing.

    higurashihougi wrote:
    Zivo wrote:BTW, I think the M1 is an excellent design, the ammo selection is just poor.

    I disagree.

    A naked tank with virtually no ERA, no spaced armour (TUSK is just for show). Gas turbin engine. No autoloader. No ability to fire ATGM until very recently. Ammunition storage is exposed. The size is big and the shape is rectangular with means increasing of surface area. And the weight is damn high...

    I am sincerely sorry and I mean no offence, but I have to say that Abrams is a degenerated version of Leopard 2.

    The Leopard II has its technological advantages, but the M1's crew isolation is only surpassed by the T-14. IMO that makes up for a lot of the M1A2's drawbacks. The Leopard II has all the bells and whistles, but at the end of the day that hull ammo rack is still sitting next to you waiting to explode.

    T-44

    Posts : 9
    Points : 11
    Join date : 2015-09-26

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  T-44 on Sun Sep 27, 2015 11:03 am

    Mike E wrote:It was some old military figure, I'll try finding it.

    Don't forget, it is the average figure, of course there will be areas with greater engagement ranges, and others with lower.

    And while that probably is an average number, even at places where you have 3000m or so LOS, you won't have that LOS for 360°, nor will you have a "God's eye" that sees each and every depression etc. in the terrain.
    I think it are german tank drivers who are tought explicitely that tanks should "drive were the water goes" (and a similar practice learned in other armies) - IOW always use depressions etc.
    avatar
    Neoprime

    Posts : 16
    Points : 22
    Join date : 2013-07-20
    Location : USA

    T-90AM/MS vs M1A2

    Post  Neoprime on Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:22 pm

    I want to know if the current ammo round from a T-90AM/MS 125mm 2a46M-5 were to hit a M1A2 Abrams from the front would it knock it out and visa versa.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3926
    Points : 3953
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:47 pm

    Neoprime wrote:I want to know if the current ammo round from a T-90AM/MS 125mm 2a46M-5 were to hit a M1A2 Abrams from the front would it knock it out and visa versa.

    Short answer NO. Both tanks are theoretically immune on frontal arc from current issue APFSDS.

    Theoretically. On sides, both Tanks can penetrate each other. On the back same thing.

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-90 vs M1A1/2 comparison

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:29 pm