Comparing Tanks

Thanks GarryB for explaining, Is it true the abrams series have been taken out with rpg-7s to the side?

There are three main factors which make a tank a tank.

Firepower, Protection and Mobility and the Abrams is kind of mediocre to horrible in all three catagories.

The Firepower of M1 Abrams is only good when talking about AT weapons like KE penetrators which are only effective against tanks, not so much against anything that is soft as APC's or IFV's it just won't do much of damage. The Abrams lacks any significant HE-Frag rounds is relative shitty against infantry with only a co-axial gun with limited range and power and a Canister round which is nothing else but just a shotgun round with also limited range and power, it has no GLATGM meaning it has no capability for extend range and no capability to bring down low flying helicopters which few other tanks can.

Protection, the tank is well protected from the front and have one of the best crew protection but other than that it is awfull protected all around, weak side armor even with TUSK which is 1st gen ERA making it not really effective, the huge surface brings a lot of weight with it for almost no protection since they need to cover all the internal volume and thin out the armor on side,rear and top and if i am not wrong the side,rear and top armor of Abrams is the thinnest of MBT currently, with this huge internal volume this tank is really a sitting duck for Top attack weapons or in urban warfare it is just impossible to miss the turret from above where on other tanks such as T-90 the turret is rather small and for the CEP of top attack weapons it might not hit the turret but engine or front part of the hull. For protection there are also 2nd equipments and systems that are relevant like ERA and APS which Abrams has only weak ERA which is also fit in the old fashioned big ERA tiles, meaning it leaves a very large gap after one ERA tile was blown off, while K5 tiles are rather small giving little chance for opponents to hit the same spot again. APS is just not present not even existent in US except of the not succesful Iron Fist of israel that is not use within israel itself, well the T-90 has currently also no APS installed but at least it exists and is installed on some other vehicles BMD-4M if i am not wrong.

Mobility this is the true Nemesis of the Abrams which is almost exclusively bad to such a huge extent to the Abrams like to no other MBT.

The M1A2 SEP weights roughly 72t which is almost 33% more heavy than T-90A with its 48.5t combat loaded. This huge weight cripples the M1A2 SEP's mobility, since it is very important for Mobility to cross all kinds of surfaces and this tank has a history of collapsing smaller bridges where tanks with roughly 60 t could cross. The M1 Abrams also has no snorkel kits to cross rivers which is also a major draw back for the mobility factor since it has to weight for pioneer units to set up a supply chain and install a panton bridge leaving the Abrams depending to other vehicles for its own mobility. The last part is kind of the worst for the Abrams it has a gas turbine which eleminates alot of important and useful factors such as the huge IR spectrum they represent, meaning no Abrams can idle with engine running near any forest or foliage, it would and has caused to burn the surroundings. The IR spectrum is so huge a big portion of the remote area around the tank gets heated up when it idles with running engine, that tank is even visible without Line of Sight when it is dug up into a "tank hole" due the heat it radiates. The gas turbine is very hungry and unlike any other tank with Diesel engines it needs and is bound to a very specific supply chain which is and was ambushed in iraq because big supply chains have to move almost directly with the tanks to cover the ranges from battle to battle. The T-90 uses a capsuled autoloader which when left with it alone has greater crew survivability than most western tanks with exception to M1, the autoloader is very reliable and holds up its space what a human loader can not and that under any circumstances.

Well i am little bit biased but the facts when looking up even older tanks with their capabilities and limitations they still are more appealing than an Abrams is and not to mention it gets destroyed in comperision with a T-90A,Merkava 4, Leo2A5/6/7, Leclerc or ZTZ-99 for that matter. It does not shine in much actually only in KE and front protection but it does not shine in any category of Firepower,Protection or Mobility, while the T-90A shines actually in all three categories, with great firepower it has not that great KE penetrators but just as good HEAT penetrators like BK-31 with 800mm ERAe penetration, it has Airburst system for its HE-Frag rounds giving it greater capabilities against Mortar teams or infantry hiding behind cover and limited Anti-Helicopter capability, it has the Refleks a GLATGM with 5km range giving it better capabilities against Helicopters and any ground vehicle which is unjammable due LBR guidance. It has a RWS (remote weapon station) the commander does not need to get his head out to arm the 12.7mm MG. The tank has almost no internal fuel tanks, pumps or pipes to speak about, the majority of its fuel is stored outside the vehicle around the turret, leaving such incidents like fuel ignition which the Abrams is prone for due the octane rich fuels it uses and the gas turbine it has to fires inside the tank which is a concern for ammunition detonation and crew survivability. There is also very neat thing called Nakidka which is like blanket that reduces the IR and even Radar signature of the tank camoflauging it from ATGM weapons and other Tanks, the system is cheap and in service also not known how many are there.

The Protection of T-90A is the highest value of armor per cubic meter ton, giving it great all around protection and not just frontal arc protection, due the low internal volume the tank is small leaving only a very low target to enemies to engage which is also a point for its protection. The use of K5 and next Relict a highly capable ERA that can defeat and/or reduce KE penetrators and not just HEAT weapons, with the high coverage of the tank giving it very good protection from 180° from front and with limited protection even from above, but not really serious protected there, using soft kill systems like Shtora which gives it the capability to automatically turn towards the Laserdesignator which is targeting the tank and dazzle the guidance or engage the source. It has a metal plate on the lower glacis that can be lowered and it basically is a shovel so the tank can dig itself in a tank-hole, reducing its silouette even further and adding protection to it.

Mobility the T-90 shines the brightest among all MBT, it can equip two external fuel tanks for greater ranges (700km and 550 without external fuel tanks) to teach front lines by itself. The tank has the lowest weight giving it very good basis for its mobility with almost no limitations of any major bridges or unhomogen grounds to stuck in, a good ground presure ratio and hp/t ratio. The tank carries always its snorkel kit to cross rivers by its own and can be installed in a few minutes (15min if i remember right), giving it better mobility and even protection since it can cross river and secure the other side while friendly units and vehicles without such crossriver capabilities have to weight for panton bridges to be installed. The tank shined very bright in Malaysia tender where it travelled 3000 km of malaysian jungle without break downs which no western tank has participated in this mobility tests. There is one drawback for its mobility that would be no standard automatic gearbox but that is only some of a problem for less experienced drivers.



Such factors break down to one important thing the Combat efficiency which the T-90A is among the highest which the M1 Abrams can not even meet to such efficiency which price and costs of unit and maintenance also plays a roll for the combat efficiency.

Of course this is a rather surface touching comperision but for a true and fair comperision of every detail for technological evaluation some would need to right a book and would still have points left for speculations or at least one point the armor since it is the only part of tanks that is secret and kept that way for good reasons.

Their side armor is about the same, aside from the M1 having a larger profile. However, if the M1s hull is penetrated, it has a much smaller chance of brewing up since there is no carousel to hit.

Regarding turret T-90s is much smaller, and half of it (where the main array extends) would be essentially impenetrable...however due to turret geometry the rear half of the turret side is extremely weak and easy to penetrate without additional ERA and standoff protection. Abrams doesn't have as much of the turret side protected by the main array, but it doesn't have any parts of the turret as thin as the T-90 either.

You could argue from some angles it is easier to trigger the Abram's ammo bustle, and disable the tank, but the crew would probably be fine.

Overall, the Abrams is designed with greater crew safety in mind, that much is indisputable.

RPG-7 penetrating is simple physics, there is no magic here. M1 has done very well with most of the RPG hits it has been subject to. Also no magic there.

Take an RPG-7 and fire it from a strong angle down @ the M1 front hull, and guess what? It will penetrate easily, because the upper glaces relies on extreme slope. No magic here either.

Thank you both for your information, I really appreciate it. I would love to hear more because I am so fed up with NATO military "experts" on the net... And if you guys have any other information please write it.

I like T-90 more than T-80. I didn't like India but they will to buy T-90.

Merkava is one of best tanks in world. Only in Israel there are those.

Battalion0415 wrote:I like T-90 more than T-80. I didn't like India but they will to buy T-90.

Merkava is one of best tanks in world. Only in Israel there are those.

Merkava is grossly over-rated. The 2006 Lebanon fiasco demonstrated this quite well. I am not saying it is a bad tank,
but it has become mythologized beyond reason.

People love to use war equipment as a size of their dick proxy. But the cold, cruel world of physics rules everything.
All tanks have similar issues since they are all trying to do the same thing. None are immune from penetration with modern
shells. Even with depleted Uranium armour used by the Abrams.

The Abrams had issues with its tracks coming off due to its weight. I do not think this has really been solved. Mobility
really is an advantage for a tank since the days of bouncing shells off the hull are long gone. It's one hit, one kill and the
tank that shoots first, wins.

The Merkawa is a good tank but not much of use for any other country it is tailored on the needs and philosophies israelis wanted but zero of use for every other country this is also the reason why no other tank has crew compartment or front mounted engine which brings mostly negative effects than positive.

kvs wrote:
People love to use war equipment as a size of their dick proxy.   But the cold, cruel world of physics rules everything.
All tanks have similar issues since they are all trying to do the same thing.   None are immune from penetration with modern
shells.  Even with depleted Uranium armour used by the Abrams.  

actually modern tanks with modern armor like T-90A, M1A2, Leo2a5, Leclerc, Chally 2 and (maybe K-2) their latter versions are immune across their frontal arc to most contemporary tank-fired anti-armor weapons except maybe the latest and best round/ gun combo. You had to have something like the grifel apfsds paired with new 2a82 gun of the armata to provide a comfortable overmatch for these armors.

collegeboy16 wrote:

kvs wrote:
People love to use war equipment as a size of their dick proxy.   But the cold, cruel world of physics rules everything.
All tanks have similar issues since they are all trying to do the same thing.   None are immune from penetration with modern
shells.  Even with depleted Uranium armour used by the Abrams.  

actually modern tanks with modern armor like T-90A, M1A2, Leo2a5, Leclerc, Chally 2 and (maybe K-2) their latter versions are immune across their frontal arc to most contemporary tank-fired anti-armor weapons except maybe the latest and best round/ gun combo. You had to have something like the grifel apfsds paired with new 2a82 gun of the armata to provide a comfortable overmatch for these armors.

For actual war time conditions, there will be the usual measure-countermeasure race. So reactive armour will be triggered before the actual
penetrator arrives. Think of an APFSDS-HEAT hybrid where the kinetic penetrator is a scaled down dummy to take out the ERA.

We are no longer in the good old days of 1939 when just the thickness of the tank armour would be enough to stop a shell. We are now
in a very tenuously balanced equilibrium between armour and penetrator.

How would a T-72B3 fare against western tanks?

VladimirSahin wrote:How would a T-72B3 fare against western tanks?

That depends on the version.

Werewolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:How would a T-72B3 fare against western tanks?

That depends on the version.

By that you mean either T-72B3 or T-72B3M? If so, Can you tell me about both? I am not a expert when it comes to tanks this is why I would like to know. It is often stated that the western tanks highly overpower the Russian tanks. I'm sure our guys know how to build tanks but I would like to know the details, I search often on Russian websites but most of them highly exaggerate our tanks

VladimirSahin wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:How would a T-72B3 fare against western tanks?

That depends on the version.

By that you mean either T-72B3 or T-72B3M? If so, Can you tell me about both? I am not a expert when it comes to tanks this is why I would like to know. It is often stated that the western tanks highly overpower the Russian tanks. I'm sure our guys know how to build tanks but I would like to know the details, I search often on Russian websites but most of them highly exaggerate our tanks

No, i meant the version of western tanks you like them to compare with.

I would like to hear it against the M1A2

It would be whoever gets the first shot off wins the engagement. And it that case, the B3's mobility and smaller profile would come in handy, as would its updated fire control.

The point between those tanks in reality isn't big actually it favors for lot of situations the tank that is better allround good tank, but if you want a technological evaluation than it is little bit different in approach of how they fare, since this is only based on technology and not on actual duell.

I will go into detail when i have slept.

Obviously a cheap T-72 upgrade is not a good match for a more thorough upgrade of a fundamentally newer tank.

TR1 wrote:Obviously a cheap T-72 upgrade is not a good match for a more thorough upgrade of a fundamentally newer tank.

Both tanks are fundamentally from the same generation... And the A2 variant isn't much to be proud of, as it is with the Abrams concept to begin with. The B3 upgrade is "cheap" sure, but that doesn't mean it ain't effective. TBH the A2 was basically just a facelift kind of thing, with the still-in-development A3 being the "last hoorah" for the Abrams. A B3 firing actual Russian ammunition (not some cheap crap like the Iraqi's) would have no problem going through the hull of an A2, even at a decently long range. The Abrams would, as expected, have basically no trouble with the B3 at the same range unless he hits it's very well armored sections. So once again, the first tank to fire an effective shot wins.

I disagree. The M1A2 has clearly better armor over the frontal arc than the T-72B3. Less weak-spots and actually a fairly up to date array. The B3 has the same hull armor as T-72s from the mid 80s, and late 80s ERA.

As for ammunition, Abrams operate with M829A2 and A3 widely deployed. Even with K-5 the T-72 will have a hard time surviving here.

Russia hasn't proliferated modern ammo in such a scale. T-72B3 can carry at best Svinets....a round that was cutting-edge in the early 90s. Still a solid round, but not enough for newer armor. The only edge the T-72 has is its gun-missiles, otherwise it is disadvantaged across the board.

And of course aside from the (optimally placed) modern Sosna-U, T-72 has essentially an old electronics suit, very much so compared to the M1A2.

TR1 wrote:I disagree. The M1A2 has clearly better armor over the frontal arc than the T-72B3. Less weak-spots and actually a fairly up to date array. The B3 has the same hull armor as T-72s from the mid 80s, and late 80s ERA.

As for ammunition, Abrams operate with M829A2 and A3 widely deployed. Even with K-5 the T-72 will have a hard time surviving here.

Russia hasn't proliferated modern ammo in such a scale. T-72B3 can carry at best Svinets....a round that was cutting-edge in the early 90s. Still a solid round, but not enough for newer armor. The only edge the T-72 has is its gun-missiles, otherwise it is disadvantaged across the board.

And of course aside from the (optimally placed) modern Sosna-U, T-72 has essentially an old electronics suit, very much so compared to the M1A2.

Frontal arc armor is stronger on the Abrams, no doubt about that. But, at the very least the B3 has its extremely low hull profile (and smaller) to its advantage. An Abrams' shot at the turret of a B3 will almost always result in a non-penetration, as will the opposite situation. Now, if either tanks successfully strikes the others' hull, then they will penetrate it w/o much question. - Which leads me to once again say it will be the first one to... 

The A3 is a newly-developed round that (AFAIK) hasn't been wielded in large numbers, though the A2 has for sure. Either one will not be able to reliability pen the B3's turret. 

Most American rounds were cutting edge "in the 90's" so there isn't much more to say there... Anyone got info on Russian ammunition load ups for the T-90 or B3?

Doesn't it have a new FCS system?

For the sake of relevance to this thread; I'd like to add something. 

Russian and American armor deployment strategies are very different, as are there ways of countering them. My guess would be that Russian forces would primarily rely on artillery and infantry along with vehicles to destroy enemy armor, while the US does the same but with aircraft (based on their known tactics, air support is prioritized). Both sides have capable ATGM's as well, with 
Russia having the great number (AFAIK). 1 v. 1 the first tank.... But in a real engagement, it depends not as much on the tank as its crew and direct support.

One more thing... 

ETC tank guns will have a drastic result when it comes to reducing the effectiveness of armor. They'd increase velocity by a large % I'm order to do so. The US was actively funding and supporting a project on these guns but it seems like the whole thing went under. I have no clue of Russia has such a gun in the works or not.

M1 Abrams actually is a weakened version of Leopard 2. It does not have ERA and no spaced armour on the turret, it uses the old gun of Leopard 2, and it jerks off with gas turbine while Leopard already used fuel effeciency diesel with the same power.

You may say what about the TUSK kits... but the fact is M1 is already damn heavy and TUSK is probably for jerking off in advertisement picture.

Compared to Rus's T-90, M1 is 15-20 tons heavier and double the cost, while both tanks' capabilities are more or less on the same level. If you spend twice the money to make a tank 20 tons heavier but with the same capability... then that is a clear failure.

funny thing is there is something out there that the russians could use that is a) super mobile, like air droppable, b) decked with latest electronic gizmos like hunter-killer, etc. c) can cap tanks at reasonable ranges with use of modern ammo, and last but not least d) is hilariously survivable to apfsds due to being made up of thin armor. yup, the humble modernized sprut-sd can whoop all you western armor out there and its coming soon

Mike E wrote:

The A3 is a newly-developed round that (AFAIK) hasn't been wielded in large numbers, though the A2 has for sure. Either one will not be able to reliability pen the B3's turret. 

Most American rounds were cutting edge "in the 90's" so there isn't much more to say there... Anyone got info on Russian ammunition load ups for the T-90 or B3?

you can say a lot of bad things about the muricans, but they do provide their forces with up to date equipment asap. the a3 is standard issue round nowadays, and will soon be replaced by a4 in a few years. hell, i remember reading about tens of millions of dollars worth of contracts just to dispose of the a2- and those weren't half-bad rounds, just not the latest and bestest. we're probably gonna hear something similar in a decade time when they dispose of the a3s which are afaik 10k each in 2008?.

TR1 wrote:I disagree. The M1A2 has clearly better armor over the frontal arc than the T-72B3. Less weak-spots and actually a fairly up to date array. The B3 has the same hull armor as T-72s from the mid 80s, and late 80s ERA.

And i have to disagree here. Yes the frontal armor of A2 is better, but the B3 does not have any weak sposts that can be called weak sposts and not more and they curtainly do not cover bigger space than on other tanks. The weak Sposts are nothing else but the locations around the gun mantle and lower part of turret where the upper glacis starts which has every tank and it is bigger on bigger tanks. The focal array on both tanks is great and the Cathrine FC is among the best which again Thales usually produces among the best TIS.
The M1A2 has no difference in its hull either a difference of 50mm RHAe to earlier model is not really a difference.

TR1 wrote:As for ammunition, Abrams operate with M829A2 and A3 widely deployed. Even with K-5 the T-72 will have a hard time surviving here.

The M829A2 maybe widely deployed but i doubt that for A3 and we already know that the A2 is ineffective hence why the A3 was developed because the A1 and A2 were incapable to penetrate ERA equipped T-72A and this is a B model and B3. The K-5 is still superior to anything the west can produce and to anything the west can produce for AT weapons. The Abrams losses firepower against every other tank because it is basically a tank that can only shoot a single round APFSDS, which are useless against 99% of targets, long before the tank engages enemy tanks it will have met RPG/ATGM equipped infantry, Artillery (little to do except counter artillery or air strikes), ambushes, mines and Helicopters it is even unlikely that the Abrams will arrive at a tank battle and it will draw always the short in engagements against RPG/ATGM teams, Helicopters (like most would) and any other situation that does not involve highly armored targets, because APFSDS are useless against APC's and IFV's which have more than enough power to destroy Abrams tank with ATGM's.

On the other hand the T-72B3 has everything on ammunition and yes highly capable, too. Svinets maybe not the best APFSDS but russia is the best when it comes to HEAT weapons, today the BK-31M is not widely deployed like mostly any other latest tank rounds but it out does in penetration any other round with around 800mm RHAe, it has airburst ammunition capability to have even a chance agaisnt infantry targets on the battlefield with RPG/ATGM/Mortars and it has HEAT rounds which are usefull against a broad band of targets and not just tanks.

TR1 wrote:Russia hasn't proliferated modern ammo in such a scale. T-72B3 can carry at best Svinets....a round that was cutting-edge in the early 90s. Still a solid round, but not enough for newer armor. The only edge the T-72 has is its gun-missiles, otherwise it is disadvantaged across the board.

And of course aside from the (optimally placed) modern Sosna-U, T-72 has essentially an old electronics suit, very much so compared to the M1A2.

Actually russia has but they needed to much time to get them into service. The Svinets will not destroy any MBT today but that is also the case for KEWA2 or M829A3 they absolutley have no chance of penetrating any 3rd gen MBT today, the armor wins over ammunition currently.

As for the part that M1A2 wins across the board against B3 is nonsense since you haven't even elaborated more than the two few advantages of the M1A2 over the B3 and completley ignored important factors like Mobility, actual performance on the battlefield based on capabilities and overall a very thin explenation where non was really shining in light.

A big factor which we know from history is mobility, it does not matter how powerful your gun is and how protective your armor is when you can not reach the battlefield aka Tiger and King Tiger history or Abrams for that matter.

The Abrams uses a big glowing flaw, yes glowing hits the nail right on the head. Abrams uses a gas turbine which across hundreds of circumstances and situations is always a disadvantage and ruins even the most common tactics for tanks like camoflauging in forests or trenches. Even if the gas turbine equipped tank arrives at its designated location and than hides behind foliage, like tanks usually do, with shut off engine, it will take hours untill the tank actually reached the temperatures a Diesel engined tank would do in much shorter time and without igniting a forest or its cover. 800° C exhaust gasses will also ignite everyone that stands to close to the turbine. The tank also has a farely low time between breaks and lifespan for its tracks is also not even average.

This very same gas turbine brings most of the tanks problems, since gas turbines are everything but economical the tank has been and has to be accompanied by an entire fleet of refueling/supplying trucks which also have to be very careful when resuppling the tanks since handling high octane gas near 800° C engine caused already a few incidents with bad outcome. The refueling fleet of trucks is like usually unnormal among the closest to the first front of tanks since they need far more often resupply and are therefor bound to the average speed of the refueling and supply trucks and can only advance remotley close to them, this leaves the tanks very exposed and damages their mobility even further.

The decision for the gas turbine engine was initially met because they believed there is not diesel engine that can provide 1500 hp which germany uses since quite long time. The tank is also the haviest of all MBT's which again is a really bad factor on the mobility, due the unorthodox heavyness the tank is limited to very solid and large bridges and that is a major flaw for its mobility since an enemy knows this and can destroy any bridge that is large and powerful enough to hold them, meaning Abrams need to cross rivers or risk dying by driving over smaller and weaker bridges that may collapse and this already happened with fatalities. Since the Abrams is the only tank without river crossing capabilities without a snorkel kit, it is bound once again to friendly forces of the supporting units to lay down panton bridges which takes quite a long time compared with the 10 mins preperation a T-72 needs to install the snorkel kit so it can cross the river and secure the other side so remaining allied forces can lay down bridges for other vehicles without river crossing capabilities.

There is also one quite important factor the tactical and combat relevant factors that may seem not so weightful but indeed are. I mean the size and the profile of the tank since FCS are bound to LOS and need to aim at a tank, a smaller tank is the better choice not be hit. The smaller profile also reduces the chances to get spotted in environments that are poor of covers. In such situations the M1A2 like any other Abrams version is the losser against any other tank since it is always the tank that will be spotted first a big huge target that is literally glowing with 800° C it is dream for anyone with AT capabilities to engage such a target.

The T-72/90 are absolute champions in mobility without any concurence. Even the chinese that had some trouble with their Type-96A2 tanks on Tank biathlon can have several failures and will arrive on the battlefield still earlier than a fleet of Abrams would.

Of course the T-72B3 is not the latest model nor does it have all fancy stuff later models have but in comperision it fares far better even due its age and relative cheap mods than a so called new tank and that is constantly hyped by rampaging in banana republics that never had any capabilities. The T-72B3 would completley wipe the floor with M1 and M1A1 in Iraq if that would be the case of iraqis with M1 and A1 against B3's, higher range of engagement, absolutley immune against training tank rounds to even point blank ranges, they haver a proper TIS and FCS which iraqis never had not to mention they never had ERA nor composite armor, but that is again another story of hyping pathetic engagements.

you can say a lot of bad things about the muricans, but they do provide their forces with up to date equipment asap. the a3 is standard issue round nowadays, and will soon be replaced by a4 in a few years.

That is not the case, but US loves to call everything they have modern. Majority of equipment is cold war era status and they couldn't even provide enough HMMV's that are armored in Iraq, so they welded metal plates from destroyed bradleys and hummves on the tank graveyard and stuffed the hummves full with sandbags since they were not even holding 7.62mm not to mention 12.7mm DShK's. They also are not equipped with the Javelin which they portray often as the standard ATGM for infantry, not a big coverage of forces with such equipment and not a big amount actually properly used. Canibalism was and is the biggest factor of keeping some of their vehicles operative. Since the US buys M829A2 in large amounts in past several years, the M829A3 is clearly not the standard issue. They just started recently to demilitarize 105mm DU rounds.