T-90 vs M1Α1/Α2 Abrams comparison

That was not supposed to be symmetrical warfare, when both sides can call in airstrikes and artillery on each other`s position. If the M1`s could call in artillery at the T90`s position, then the T90`s can call in artillery in the M1`s position too.

The chance of an HE round to hit is smaller than the one a Reflex missile has. Those HE rounds are likely to fly off-course, but Reflex is not. It will hit exactly when the laser designates
T90`s have HE rounds too, which are better than those of the Abrams because of their remote-detonation (which is huge advantage in urban warfare)

The computers inside an Abrams are much more likely to fail than those inside a T90.

Bigger weight is not an advatage, but smaller silhouette is.

As for the networking part, we all saw how all those "advanced" networking and targeting systems in which the americans rely so much were foolished with the highest ease in Serbia by old jammers (or obsolete if you prefer) and decoys

If the M1`s could call in artillery at the T90`s position, then the T90`s can call in artillery in the M1`s position too.

True, but one will currently be a voice communication, leading to much more voice communication. The other will all be computers talking to computers with encrypted data that can be intercepted but probably not read.

In fact I would suggest that the Russian forces are more likely to call in artillery than the US forces.

And dare I say it... the Russian artillery would probably be more effective.

The chance of an HE round to hit is smaller than the one a Reflex missile has. Those HE rounds are likely to fly off-course, but Reflex is not. It will hit exactly when the laser designates

I agree, though Reflex is not a laser beam homing missile, it is a laser beam riding missile so it will fly along the beam till it impacts the target which is in the way of the beam.

T90`s have HE rounds too, which are better than those of the Abrams because of their remote-detonation (which is huge advantage in urban warfare)

Again I agree, the remote detonation system ANIET is very impressive and gives the tank commander the capability to engage targets behind frontal cover but with little or no overhead cover. With their new Catherine Thermal sights they will see the distinctive rotating blades of a helo hovering behind a tree and the hot gas cloud that surrounds those powerful gas turbine engines and they can decide... lase the tree, add 10m and fire a ANIET round to detonate directly above that hovering helo, or simply fire an APFSDS round right through the tree and hope for a hit. The HE shot will more likely kill the helo... even if the fragments don't penetrate the blast will blow it into the ground anyway.

The computers inside an Abrams are much more likely to fail than those inside a T90.

I don't know how you can say that, the components are probably made by the same makers.

Bigger weight is not an advatage, but smaller silhouette is.

There is no question that the weight of the Abrams is because of its armour.
At the end of the day you can't deny it is a well protected tank.
Sure it has its weak spots, but EVERY TANK EVER MADE HAD WEAK SPOTS.

The worlds heaviest tank I have ever heard of was the German Maus. It had 240mm sloping armour front. It weighed 192 tonnes and had a top speed of 6km/h. If you drove it through a village all the windows in the houses would break, the road cracked to its foundations.

The point is that the sides, rear, belly, and roof of the vehicle were not 250mm armoured so even this vehicle was not invincible. An enormous slow moving target for aircraft.
BTW it had two main guns from memory and the smaller gun was actually an enlarged 75mm gun from a Panther, while the main gun was something like a 128mm weapon or something.

Basic tank design principals for heavily armoured tanks is that the frontal armour should be resistant to the enemies main tanks main guns ammunition. The side armour should resist the cannon of the main enemys MICV. The rear should stop small arms up to HMG fire.
Now we know that the Abrams is vulnerable to HMG fire from the rear, and RPG fire from the side, now I would suggest that this is quite normal for all tanks.
Frontal armour is probably comparable through different means... with the T-90 using ERA to increase frontal protection to something approaching Abrams levels.

As for the networking part, we all saw how all those "advanced" networking and targeting systems in which the americans rely so much were foolished with the highest ease in Serbia by old jammers (or obsolete if you prefer) and decoys

Of course they can still be fooled, but for fighting a battle it is better to have a battle management system and occasionally be fooled (BTW the Kosovo war is not a good example because there were no ground forces involved... it is much easier to fool a plane at 20,000ft than a tank with modern optics from 2,000 ft.), than to have no management system and fight blind, or worse fight with the enemy listening in and hearing your commands as you give them.

The importance of BMS and Integrated Netcentric Warfare is that it gives you the crucial first look first kill advantage and gives you a good picture of tactical situational awareness.

I think any one who fires the first shot accurately will either kill the target or disable it , so in a typical T-90 versus Abrams duel any one who gets the first shot will get the big kill advantage.

A BMS on Abrams would do a lot good in giving here the first shot against T-90 plus the tank is likely better armoured and crew protection better even when hit.

I hope the Burlak not only employs a new turret with Long Rod round so important against M1A2 but also employs BMS and better crew protection.

Hopefully we would see a mini Hermes with supersonic and F&F capability in future tanks which will have its own MMW plus BMS eliminating the need for lasing and alerting the target.

GarryB wrote: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.

Interesting Thanks ,this should be a good match for M1A2 and perhaps even M1A3

Nope, it`s because of it`s bigger size and human loader. A Leclerc and Abrams have almost the same size but Abrams is over 10 tonnes heavier. T90`s have much smaller internal volume than Abrams and Leclerc too

See pictures below
Those are T72`s by the way, but it should give an idea about how much smaller than M1, the T90 really is

Austin wrote:

Interesting Thanks ,this should be a good match for M1A2 and perhaps even M1A3

You can forget what you read about battle management and net-centricity. MIC doesn't have the bandwidth.

You can forget what you read about battle management and net-centricity. MIC doesn't have the bandwidth.

And before electricity no country had a power grid to distribute power either.
The introduction of even a basic system will create the need for more bandwidth... it is computer games that is pushing consumer computer hardware to get better... you don't get good hardware and then applications that push the hardware requiring an improvement in hardware... it happens the other way around.

Interesting Thanks ,this should be a good match for M1A2 and perhaps even M1A3

Hope we never find out.

BTW in 1941 the T-34 was way better than any in service German tank... for quite some time it didn't help. The Sherman was inferior to the Panther and the Tiger. Didn't matter either.
There are so many aspects that are more important than how big the gun is and how heavy the tank is. C4I is not an aspect that can be ignored. Tactics are important too. Air control is another important aspect... Armies do better when their air forces control the skies above the battlefield.

In the terms of Frontal Aspect protection against Armour/Infantry/Airborn targets, I'd say the T-90 has it better off against the M1A2 Abrams.

Comparing the 2 in Protection:

T-90
----
Composite Armor
Kontakt-5 or Relikt Heavy ERA
Shtora Electro/Optical jammer
Nakidka signature reduction suite
ARENA Active Protection System possible

M1A2 Abrams
----
Chobham Armor
Depleted Uranium Mesh
ERA possible
Electro/Optical jammer possible


In perspective, Chobham v.s. modernized Combination-K, the M1A2 Abrams has the best baseline armor. However, because the T-90 is supplemented by advanced ERA and the Abrams is supplemented by a DU mesh, they are both comparable on the hard armor aspect of it. But, because Shtora comes standard on Russian T-90 tanks and the Missile Countermeasure Device isn't standard on the Abrams, against SACLOS guided ATGMs, the T-90 has it best.

But, the U.S. doesn't use SACLOS guided Hellfires as much nowadays and have been making the move towards the Longbow Hellfires, that puts the challenge on the T-90. However, the T-90 has 2 things that can stop the Longbow Hellfires. The first of course, could be ARENA. Although ARENA isn't standard, it would knock out the Hellfire before impact. The second, is Nakidka. Nakidka would basically reduce the RCS of the T-90 by about 6 times according to their designer.

A Longbow Hellfire v.s. an M1A2 Abrams is a different story. The Abrams does not have a signature reduction suite like the T-90 has. It also does not have an APS system ready. If a Longbow hellfire was used against the Abrams, there would be a high probability of impact, medium-high probability of penetration, and fair probability of lethal impact. Really, until Quickill is introduced in a few years, air attacks will remain the highest lethality threat to an Abrams.

That was the airborn threat assessment, against Armored and Infantry, we should put something into perspective. The M1A2 Abrams can fire the M829A3 for Tank on Tank engagement schemes. The newest APFSDS round used by Russian tanks is the 3BM46, however, information on ti is limited. So for this comparison, I'll be comparing the 3BM42M against the M829A3.

The 3BM42M is a long rod penetrator composed of WHA(Tungsten Carbide). It's Length to diameter ratio is 22 and thanks to the longer gun of the T-90, has a high muzzle velocity of about 1750 meters per second, with a muzzle drop of about 50-100 meters per kilometer. The projectile after the sabot is released weighs about 4.8 kilograms. Penetration estimates using the Odermatt formula comes out to about 600 meters RHA equivalent penetration at 2,000 meters with target slope of 0 degrees.

Against the Frontal Armor of the M1A2 Abrams, I am not confident of a lethal penetration at 2,000 meters or more. However, WHA projectiles will almost always be more lethal than a DU projectile at ranges over 2 km. But, the heavy protection provided by the Abram's mix of Chobham and DU might eliminate that advantage. However, Chobham is notorious for having a bad multi-shot capability, so my guess would be that several 3BM42Ms fired accurately at an Abrams might produce a lethal penetration.

The M829A3 is also a long rod penetrator. It is composed of a "super DU" alloy that is less prone to shattering. The L/d ratio of the A3 is estimated to be about 27, which means that it is longer, skinnier, and thus, more potent for penetration than the 3BM42M. Muzzle velocity is about 1555 meters per second and probably has a similar muzzle loss compared to the 3BM42M at 50-100 meters per kilometer. The projectile most likely has a similar mass compared to the 3BM42M, and tank nerds have estimated it to about the higher ends of 4 kilogram. Penetration estimates come out to about 790 mm of RHA, and I'm going to take a guess that the range was 2 km and the target slope was 0 degrees.

The M829A3 is a good weapon, but I would have to say that if fired at the Glacis of a T-90 at 2 km out, there would be a small-medium probability of penetration and a small probability of lethal penetration. This is due mostly to the effects of Heavy ERA, which is only enhanced by even heavier ERA like Relikt. Robb McLeod(sp) estimates that Kontakt-5 would reduce the penetrative capabilities of APFSDS rounds by around 30%. However, that is not taking into question the super DU alloy used by the A3. But like the 3BM42M, if the Abrams crew does manage to land a few hits on almost the same places, that there would result in a penetration and possibly a lethal one.

Against Infantry, assuming the Infantry are firing RPG-7s - RPG-29s - Kornet ATGM - Javelin ATGMs, I'd also have to say that the T-90 has a better chance of preventing a penetration compared to the Abrams. For this comparison, I will not take into account ARENA APS. The RPG-7 is a proven weapon that has been used in many places so this is the most common scenario. When fired on the Frontal aspect of either Tanks, expect no penetration. When fired at the Top/Side/Rear of either tanks, expect penetration. Although, the Abrams has been proven to withstand a hit or so on those aspects, it in general is not guaranteed protection against it.

RPG-29 wise, expect penetrations on both tanks, all aspect, save Frontal aspect of T-90. The RPG-29 has penetrated the Glacis of 3 of the most advanced MBTs in the world, so it's quite battle proven. The T-90 would be saved by it's ERA, which(as stated by Nii Stali) provides 600 mm of RHA equivalence protection against HEATs and Relikt would provide double that or 1.2 meters of RHA equivalence of protection against HEATs. In case you're wondering why the Tandem warhead might not penetrate Kontakt-5, it's because Kontakt-5 has a thicker front metal plate, which means you'd need a bigger precursor charge.

ATGM wise, the Kornet has penetrated(but not lethaly) the Armor of the Abrams during the Iraq war. It has also been used against the Merkava IV tanks but I cannot remember how successful it was. Now assuming that the Abrams does have the Missile Counter Measure device, I highly doubt that it would be able to jam the Kornet's guidance system as it is a beam rider. However, if the Abram knew it was being fired upon, it could simply shoot a smoke grenade which would most likely throw off the Kornet Gunner's Thermal sights leaving the Kornet to flabber around aimlessly.

Against the T-90, Shtora also wouldn't be able to jam the Kornet, and a hit to anywhere other than the Frontal aspect might lead to a lethal penetration. However, Shtora would be able to realize it has been painted by the Kornet's gunner and would therefore automatically fire it's smoke grenades which has the same properties as the Abram's smoke grenades. One more thing to note is that Nakidka also reduces the thermal signature of the T-90 so there would be a smaller probability of engagement between the Kornet v.s. T-90 compared to Kornet v.s. Abrams.

The Javelin would be a different story as it is a heat-seeking, top attack ATGM. In performance wise, it is similar to the Kornet in penetration but has a bit shorter range. However, it is considered more lethal due to the weakness of the roofs of tanks. This is where the advantages of the T-90's multi-layer protection system comes to play. Both Shtora and MCD would be inactive as both would not be able to sense that they have been targeted. The best defense would be to launch a smoke screen, as that would throw off the seeker warhead of the Javelin. But due to the tank's inability to sense that it has been targeted, that would be very difficult.

When fired in it's Top Attack mode against the Abrams, I would have to say that it would result in a penetration, and most likely a lethal one. Against the T-90, it's very, very different story. The first thing would be that T-90's can be fitted with Nakidka, which does reduce the Thermal signature of the T-90, making it harder for the Javelin to effectively seek out and destroy it. The next thing is that the Russians also put Kontakt-5/Relikt ERA on the roof of the tank, which would severely dampen the penetrative attributes of the Javelin. Finally, if ARENA is installed, there's a high probability of intercept of the Javelin before contact with the T-90.

So, here's the score card(in my opinion) of protection compared to both tanks.

AIR-SURFACE
-----------

M1A2 Abrams v.s. Longbow Hellfire(fired at 8 km, open field, high visibility environment) - Fair-High probability of penetration/lethal penetration.

T-90 Vladimir v.s. Longbow Hellfire(fired at 8 km, open field, high visibility environment) - Fair probability of penetration/lethal penetration.

RESULT - T-90 has a better chance of escaping from an engagement with the Longbow Hellfire. T-90


ARMOR v.s. ARMOR
----------------

M1A2 Abrams v.s. T-90 Vladimir(2 km open field, frontal aspect engagement, high visibility weather, APFSDS rounds) - Fair probability of surviving 1st hits to Glacis armor for both Tanks - [bTIE[/b]


ARMOR v.s. INFANTRY
-------------------
M1A2 Abrams v.s. RPG-7/RPG-29/Kornet/Javelin(Urban environment, AT weapons fired at maximum range, single shots, variable aspects) - Low probability of all aspect penetration/lethal penetration by RPG-7. Fair probability of Frontal aspect penetration/lethal penetration by RPG-29, High probability of Side, Top, Rear aspects penetration/lethal penetration by RPG-29. Similar probabilities of Kornet v.s. Abrams. High probability of penetration by Javelin, all aspect.

T-90 Vladimir v.s. RPG-7/RPG-29/Kornet/Javelin(Urban environment, AT weapons fired at maximum range, single shots, variable aspects) - Low probability of all aspect penetration/lethal penetration by RPG-7. Low probability of Frontal aspect penetration by RPG-29, High probability of Side, Top, Rear aspect penetrations by RPG-29. Low-Fair probability of penetration, all aspect for Kornet(low probability on at Frontal aspect). Fair-High probability of penetration of Javelin, all aspect(High probability penetration, rear aspect).

RESULT - T-90 has a better chance of surviving from an engagement with the Infantry AT weapons. T-90


Of course, that wasn't a professional analysis and I'm probably missing somethings or wrong on others. Remember, this was analyzing each Tank's levels of protection. That is not to say that if a round does penetrate, both will survive. The T-90 has some risk of a catastrophic explosion if the round penetrates(although this is disputed). So, remember, that was only about protection, not survivability.

Not a bad assessment, though I would rate the current T-90 as below the level you give it credit for.
The Burlak upgrade I keep harping on about is a very necessary upgrade that will fix some fundamental problems to improve survivability, including a few weak spots in the frontal armour and also allow a better coverage of ERA to be applied.
Improvements in communications, navigation and battle management will also make a huge difference.

Regarding Kornet however:

Now assuming that the Abrams does have the Missile Counter Measure device, I highly doubt that it would be able to jam the Kornet's guidance system as it is a beam rider. However, if the Abram knew it was being fired upon, it could simply shoot a smoke grenade which would most likely throw off the Kornet Gunner's Thermal sights leaving the Kornet to flabber around aimlessly.

The Kornet uses an extremely low power laser beam for guidance, in comparison the level of power needed for a laser homing Hellfire is something like 10,000 times more powerful because at a range of 8km the beam is travelling 16km and the surface the beam is shining on greatly effects how well it is reflected.
With the Kornet the sensor looks back at the launcher to detect the beam and to position itself within the beam centre.
At 5.5km the width of the beam will be about 6m across so a gunner could simply aim 10m above the target for the first portion of missile flight. This should allow the missile to avoid trees and shrubs and fences between the launcher and the target too.
As the missile approaches the target the gunner can drop the crosshairs down onto the target.
Assuming the target is alerted immediately and fires smoke the smoke cloud will form in front of the tank but the smoke does not effect the guidance of the missile till the missile enters the cloud to a depth where it can't see the launcher any more.
Now the missile might just plunge into the ground or it might lock up the flight controls and fly straight, but for the half second it is in the smoke it will not have much room to manoeuvre so if it does fly straight or starts to wander off the aim point then there is a very good chance it will still strike the target.

And of course there is the Krisantema.

Ah well, I can't get everything right

As for the Khrisantema, no Infantryman wants to haul around a radar!

The tank features a new fire control and protection system, an improved suspension and drive train and advanced combat capabilities.

the question is will it be a confident M1-A1 killer i.e. defeating it in range, fire power, armor penetration, speed etc.

one place i read that after M1-A1, Isreal's Merkava is the second best tank.

T72s lost their name in the hands of arab armies, where tankers would rather run away than put up a fight vrs the US forces as it happened in GW-I.

the question is will it be a confident M1-A1 killer i.e. defeating it in range, fire power, armor penetration, speed etc

The primary users of the T-90, Russia and India (who are also the most likely ones to get the new upgrade), will probably never have to face the US or any other major Abrams customer. Besides, the T-90 doesn't have to be better than the Abrams (even if it was, it would only be on paper, a real conflict would likely be completely different), it just has to be good enough. And it is. A near-perfect blend of mobility, firepower and protection, IMO.

one place i read that after M1-A1, Isreal's Merkava is the second best tank

It all depends on how you look at things. Most western tanks, focus on protection, and usually, this means compromising on mobility. In terms of firepower, I think that Russian and Western tanks are largely equal. Also, try the M1-A2, the improved version of the M1-A1

T72s lost their name in the hands of arab armies, where tankers would rather run away than put up a fight vrs the US forces as it happened in GW-I.

I don't think the T-72's reputation suffered much, just the reputation of the Iraqi forces. Otherwise, thousands of T-72s wouldn't have been successfully exported. Besides, the Iraqis were using export model T-72's, with ancient ammunition (I heard that the Soviets themselves had stopped their production a long time ago). And it didn't help that the Iraqis were using their tanks as static defenses, something that tanks are not ideally suited for.

The performance of export-model T-72s in the hands of Iraqis suggest nothing about the performance of T-72s in Russian service.

This is a further upgrade of a good tank, that will probably be the best export Russian tank for some time.

The domestic production might include some of these to make up numbers, but their primary new tank will be Armata.

When you talk about a match for an Abrams you are mistaken if you think the only match would be the same but more.

The best match for an Abrams is a 500kg laser guided bomb, or Hermes missile from 15km range.

The Russians don't need to make a bigger heavier Abrams with a more powerful engine and heavier armour and a bigger gun, what they need is something that offers similar protection where it matters and similar or better fire power where it matters and at a lighter weight so it can be transported across Russias vast territory easily and quickly.

The T-90 is good enough and the T-90AM is even better and it sounds like the T-90AM2 is going to be revealed this month in India and by the time Armata is ready there will likely be a T-90AM3 or 4.

Russian tank development is constant and fluid when there is funding... and there appears to be funding now...

The Russians don't need to make a bigger heavier Abrams with a more powerful engine and heavier armour and a bigger gun,

Unit cost of M1-A2 is roughly $6.2M vrs Cost of T-90 to be around $4M tops. There is the difference i.e. if Russians want they can also add up armor weight and power for extra cost etc. More to do with difference of doctrine than that of capability.

However, would a shell fired from T-90 within the range, kill the M1-A1 tank. I have heard its armor size is classified. But then Kornets have seriously disabled M1s in GW-II, so T90 shell might also be able to do its job.

victor7 wrote:

The Russians don't need to make a bigger heavier Abrams with a more powerful engine and heavier armour and a bigger gun,

Unit cost of M1-A2 is roughly $6.2M vrs Cost of T-90 to be around $4M tops. There is the difference i.e. if Russians want they can also add up armor weight and power for extra cost etc. More to do with difference of doctrine than that of capability.

However, would a shell fired from T-90 within the range, kill the M1-A1 tank. I have heard its armor size is classified. But then Kornets have seriously disabled M1s in GW-II, so T90 shell might also be able to do its job.

Neither can penetrate each other in the strongest protected zones.
Both can penetrate each other in "weak" spots, or from off angles.

Is there any bomb or shell that need not penetrate the tank but it explodes on it and spills a highly incendiary material that gets on fire and a spreads as it burns. No need to kill the tank, just make it disabled to perform.

Will say it again... the Russians don't need Abrams.

Why add armour to the T-90 to make it heavier and more expensive?

It would make more sense to develop a gun launched diving top attack guided missile that to make the tank heavier and harder to transport and less mobile.

With the addition of battle management systems the Russians will suddenly realise how powerful their artillery has become, with GLONASS guided 152mm artillery shells on call, with UAVs finding and marking targets it is only going to get harder and harder to fight the Russian forces.

Armata will likely come with the option for a 152mm main gun, but I think they will use new ammo and new 125mm guns able to fire higher pressure ammo with longer penetrators and guided missiles...

Is there any bomb or shell that need not penetrate the tank but it explodes on it and spills a highly incendiary material that gets on fire and a spreads as it burns. No need to kill the tank, just make it disabled to perform.

Any standard aerial bomb of 100kgs or more would pretty much guarantee that a direct hit will kill the crew with the shockwave... whether it penetrates the armour or not.

The obvious problem is that flying around above a modern battlefield is more dangerous than being on the ground against the Russians.

The 240mm calibre Tulip on the other hand with GLONASS guided shells weighing 130kg would be a very powerful, if not very mobile weapon. Of course I am biased because I like the thing, but it is a bit like the WWII siege guns... against fixed fortified structures it is ideal, and with the potential for new guided shells that are relatively cheap it could be a very efficient weapon for special tasks like hitting mountain bases where the shape of the valleys make air attack difficult.

victor7 wrote:

The Russians don't need to make a bigger heavier Abrams with a more powerful engine and heavier armour and a bigger gun,

Unit cost of M1-A2 is roughly $6.2M vrs Cost of T-90 to be around $4M tops. There is the difference i.e. if Russians want they can also add up armor weight and power for extra cost etc. More to do with difference of doctrine than that of capability.

However, would a shell fired from T-90 within the range, kill the M1-A1 tank. I have heard its armor size is classified. But then Kornets have seriously disabled M1s in GW-II, so T90 shell might also be able to do its job.

At a straight up faceoff both will likely disable each other. Assuming its only a tank battle:
1. T-90 will have first stike due to ATGM from smoothbore 125mm. from about 45oom. It should be disabled but not Killed as components would be damage
2.At about 2000m if it do occur, T's have the ability to dig in which would only make the turret visible. However i have heard Western Gunners are trained to hit a 1 meter square area @ 2000m
3. In A straight out assualt on each other even...I think the T90MS have external ammostorage like Abs so expect no catastrophic kill if hit. It is also lined with antifragmentation material.
4. Both have protection against AT rockets on the sides and behinds. But would likely be penetrated by a shell.
Here is a comparison:
T-90MS:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OerbXmzQO6Y/TnTHdmeTyYI/AAAAAAAAAh0/DAjETI5biEY/s1600/T-90MS_eng-13.jpg
M1A2:
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_M1A2_TUSK_lg.jpg

America's Mighty M-1 Abrams Tank vs. Russia's Lethal T-90: Who Wins?

max steel wrote: America's Mighty M-1 Abrams Tank vs. Russia's Lethal T-90: Who Wins?

"On a one-for-one basis, the M1A2 is still a superior design"

Wut? On a one to one basis, given that both tanks have similar sensors, the T-90 will practically always have the first hit advantage since it has GLATGM's and the M1 does not.

If red team has 5 tanks, and blue team has 5 tanks. They approach each other starting at 5km, and red scores the first hit at a not-so-generous 3km with a GLATGM, blue team will now be 4-5, and each blue tank will have to be 1.25x as effective vs red tanks just to break even. The m1's lack of atgm's will always put it at a disadvantage against the T-90 in these theoretical one to one matchups. Anyone who says ATGM's are not a deciding factor, do a google search for ATGM + Syria or Yemen, and get back to me.

The T-90SM further expands the gap. What's the GLATGM accuracy with its stabilizer? 98% @ 5km?

The M1A2 has its' advantages, but if we're talking about a one to one matchup, the T-90's holding better cards.

Considering the side armor is practically parallel to incoming shots across the frontal arc, a lot of the turret core's volume is actually inert @ 0 degrees from the center line.

Zivo wrote:

max steel wrote:America's Mighty M-1 Abrams Tank vs. Russia's Lethal T-90: Who Wins? [/url]

"On a one-for-one basis, the M1A2 is still a superior design"

Wut? On a one to one basis, given that both tanks have similar sensors, the T-90 will practically always have the first hit advantage since it has GLATGM's and the M1 does not.

If red team has 5 tanks, and blue team has 5 tanks. They approach each other starting at 5km, and red scores the first hit at a not-so-generous 3km with a GLATGM, blue team will now be 4-5, and each blue tank will have to be 1.25x as effective vs red tanks just to break even. The m1's lack of atgm's will always put it at a disadvantage against the T-90 in these theoretical one to one matchups. Anyone who says ATGM's are not a deciding factor, do a google search for ATGM + Syria or Yemen, and get back to me.

The T-90SM further expands the gap. What's the GLATGM accuracy with its stabilizer? 98% @ 5km?

The M1A2 has its' advantages, but if we're talking about a one to one matchup, the T-90's holding better cards.

You'll be hard pressed to find many environments where you've got 4-5km unobstructed view though, so I guess that "not-so-generous" 3km range might be quite realistic - at which point the M1A2 is also well able to return fire with APFSDS (and the T-90 might also choose that ammunition, considering flight times). GLATGMs are nice to have, but it's just that their real life potential is often limited by terrain...

T-44 wrote:

Zivo wrote:

max steel wrote:America's Mighty M-1 Abrams Tank vs. Russia's Lethal T-90: Who Wins? [/url]

"On a one-for-one basis, the M1A2 is still a superior design"

Wut? On a one to one basis, given that both tanks have similar sensors, the T-90 will practically always have the first hit advantage since it has GLATGM's and the M1 does not.

If red team has 5 tanks, and blue team has 5 tanks. They approach each other starting at 5km, and red scores the first hit at a not-so-generous 3km with a GLATGM, blue team will now be 4-5, and each blue tank will have to be 1.25x as effective vs red tanks just to break even. The m1's lack of atgm's will always put it at a disadvantage against the T-90 in these theoretical one to one matchups. Anyone who says ATGM's are not a deciding factor, do a google search for ATGM + Syria or Yemen, and get back to me.

The T-90SM further expands the gap. What's the GLATGM accuracy with its stabilizer? 98% @ 5km?

The M1A2 has its' advantages, but if we're talking about a one to one matchup, the T-90's holding better cards.

You'll be hard pressed to find many environments where you've got 4-5km unobstructed view though, so I guess that "not-so-generous" 3km range might be quite realistic - at which point the M1A2 is also well able to return fire with APFSDS (and the T-90 might also choose that ammunition, considering flight times). GLATGMs are nice to have, but it's just that their real life potential is often limited by terrain...

It is not, GLATGM are nothing else but ATGM, they are constantly used within 2km range and at any distances ATGM retain their lethality. There are enough locations through the entire european theatre with ranges above 3 km. The entire northern german parts have all wide and flat environments, enough flat environments in Rostov to Kazyan, enough flat locations around Poland aswell. Trying to discredit GLATGM by bad perception of warfare is certainly not the way to go. Try to use KE against anything but a tank and your Abrams will fail every single engagement.

Werewolf wrote:

T-44 wrote:

Zivo wrote:

max steel wrote:America's Mighty M-1 Abrams Tank vs. Russia's Lethal T-90: Who Wins? [/url]

"On a one-for-one basis, the M1A2 is still a superior design"

Wut? On a one to one basis, given that both tanks have similar sensors, the T-90 will practically always have the first hit advantage since it has GLATGM's and the M1 does not.

If red team has 5 tanks, and blue team has 5 tanks. They approach each other starting at 5km, and red scores the first hit at a not-so-generous 3km with a GLATGM, blue team will now be 4-5, and each blue tank will have to be 1.25x as effective vs red tanks just to break even. The m1's lack of atgm's will always put it at a disadvantage against the T-90 in these theoretical one to one matchups. Anyone who says ATGM's are not a deciding factor, do a google search for ATGM + Syria or Yemen, and get back to me.

The T-90SM further expands the gap. What's the GLATGM accuracy with its stabilizer? 98% @ 5km?

The M1A2 has its' advantages, but if we're talking about a one to one matchup, the T-90's holding better cards.

You'll be hard pressed to find many environments where you've got 4-5km unobstructed view though, so I guess that "not-so-generous" 3km range might be quite realistic - at which point the M1A2 is also well able to return fire with APFSDS (and the T-90 might also choose that ammunition, considering flight times). GLATGMs are nice to have, but it's just that their real life potential is often limited by terrain...

It is not, GLATGM are nothing else but ATGM, they are constantly used within 2km range and at any distances ATGM retain their lethality. There are enough locations through the entire european theatre with ranges above 3 km. The entire northern german parts have all wide and flat environments, enough flat environments in Rostov to Kazyan, enough flat locations around Poland aswell. Trying to discredit GLATGM by bad perception of warfare is certainly not the way to go. Try to use KE against anything but a tank and your Abrams will fail every single engagement.

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.

Werewolf wrote:

T-44 wrote:

Zivo wrote:

max steel wrote:America's Mighty M-1 Abrams Tank vs. Russia's Lethal T-90: Who Wins? [/url]

"On a one-for-one basis, the M1A2 is still a superior design"

Wut? On a one to one basis, given that both tanks have similar sensors, the T-90 will practically always have the first hit advantage since it has GLATGM's and the M1 does not.

If red team has 5 tanks, and blue team has 5 tanks. They approach each other starting at 5km, and red scores the first hit at a not-so-generous 3km with a GLATGM, blue team will now be 4-5, and each blue tank will have to be 1.25x as effective vs red tanks just to break even. The m1's lack of atgm's will always put it at a disadvantage against the T-90 in these theoretical one to one matchups. Anyone who says ATGM's are not a deciding factor, do a google search for ATGM + Syria or Yemen, and get back to me.

The T-90SM further expands the gap. What's the GLATGM accuracy with its stabilizer? 98% @ 5km?

The M1A2 has its' advantages, but if we're talking about a one to one matchup, the T-90's holding better cards.

You'll be hard pressed to find many environments where you've got 4-5km unobstructed view though, so I guess that "not-so-generous" 3km range might be quite realistic - at which point the M1A2 is also well able to return fire with APFSDS (and the T-90 might also choose that ammunition, considering flight times). GLATGMs are nice to have, but it's just that their real life potential is often limited by terrain...

It is not, GLATGM are nothing else but ATGM, they are constantly used within 2km range and at any distances ATGM retain their lethality. There are enough locations through the entire european theatre with ranges above 3 km. The entire northern german parts have all wide and flat environments, enough flat environments in Rostov to Kazyan, enough flat locations around Poland aswell. Trying to discredit GLATGM by bad perception of warfare is certainly not the way to go. Try to use KE against anything but a tank and your Abrams will fail every single engagement.

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".