Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+36
Kiko
ALAMO
galicije83
lyle6
Isos
limb
nomadski
Arrow
ludovicense
The-thing-next-door
kvs
Big_Gazza
Tyranus
magnumcromagnon
George1
KoTeMoRe
Neoprime
higurashihougi
x_54_u43
Mike E
flamming_python
Werewolf
T-44
Zivo
max steel
gloriousfatherland
TR1
ali.a.r
victor7
IronsightSniper
Admin
GarryB
Stalingradcommando
Austin
sepheronx
solo.13mmfmj
40 posters

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5767
    Points : 5964
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  Werewolf Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:31 pm

    The only thing you would pray for is if they can achieve some mission kill by killing its firepower, optical capabilities or mobility, but i haven't seen figures so far about the mission kill probability of current rounds.
    Mike E
    Mike E


    Posts : 2640
    Points : 2676
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  Mike E Fri Feb 26, 2016 6:39 am

    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.
    Well, you'd need to provide more details for one to give you a conclusive answer.

    Assuming the MS is firing the most modern round for the 2A46M-5, that being the Svinets-1, there are a few areas where it is certainly capable of penetrating any Abrams variant; ie the the gun mantlet (which is only around 400 mm) and the turret ring, assuming the shot is in the general location of the drivers' hatch. Even the Mango would be capable of penetrating such locations.

    The turret cheeks are undeniably impenetrable from such a round, same with (at least most of) the lower frontal plate. Technically, the lowest section of it does begin the thin, so there is that.

    Generally though, tanks will aim for center mass and not such weakspots.

    I'll upload some images in a bit.
    Zivo
    Zivo


    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  Zivo Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:15 am

    I never liked the giant "shoot here" sign on the side of western MBT turrets.

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 M1_abrams_08_of_20

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 T-90A_MBT_photo014

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 T-90s

    GarryB and Broski like this post

    Mike E
    Mike E


    Posts : 2640
    Points : 2676
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  Mike E Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:24 am

    Red line - standard Soviet (ie worse case scenario) APFSDS accuracy whilst stationary; 0.25 mil (this is at 2 km, so 0.5).
    Blue line - the above plus inaccuracy by the stabilizer, I used 0.3 mil as a fire because it may represent bumpy (but not horrible) terrains' effects on a typical Russian system (and that seems about right), so 0.85 meters (at 2km once again) inaccuracy in total.
    Green line - completely horrible (and even unrealistic) levels of stabilizer error; .6 mil alone, for 1.45 meter inaccuracy.
    Orange line - takes into consideration  green & red plus bad barrel flex (assuming this vehicle does not have a MRS), of an additional 1 full mil. For all intensive purposes, this is the absolute worse accuracy you could ever achieve with a modern MBT, if not impossibly bad.

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 M1-for10

    An average figure would be in between Red and Blue, most likely.

    Also note that the circles are slightly above center mass, this was done for a reason; the bottom section of the tank (including the lower section LFP) is the least likely area to be in LOS and/or hit.

    Area of blue circle is .57 meters squared, just to let you all know.
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 17889
    Points : 18394
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  George1 Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:40 pm

    M1 Abrams vs. T-90: Top US General Admits Russia Has Achieved Tank Parity

    US Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Mike Murray has told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee that the US faces falling behind other countries in the area of tank technology, saying that other nations, including Israel, the UK and particularly Russia are close to catching up. Russian observers ponder the significance of the general's remarks.

    In a speech before Senate defense subcommittee members last week that went largely unreported, Lt. Gen. Murray warned that the US no longer has the edge in tank technology it used to, saying that he could "not say that we have the world class tank that we had for many, many years."

    "I'll be the optimist and say that we're at parity with a lot of different nations," Murray noted. Still, the officer stressed that "our most capable enemies are closing quickly."

    "I think the Abrams is still towards the top of its class in terms of combat systems, in terms of tanks," Murray said. "I think we have parity, I think there is parity out there." Still, he warned that Russia has closed the gap it had with the US since the end of the Cold War. "I think the T-90 is probably pretty close," he told one senator.

    As for Russia's newest generation tank, the Armata, the officer said that he couldn't comment on that, since the tank has not yet been widely fielded.

    Murray emphasized that the M1 Abrams platform, introduced in the 1980s, is reaching the end of its upgrade potential, and suggested that it's time for the US to start development of a new generation tank. "We're just about reaching the limits of what we can do with the Abrams," he said.

    At the same time, the officer said that he was concerned that designers have not offered any fundamental breakthroughs in technology which can be used to build this next generation tank: "What I worry about is, there is nothing on the near-horizon that indicates a fundamental breakthrough in technology where we can come up with a lighter tank. I think we would be mistaken to build another 75-ton tank as long as protection requirements are where they are," Murray stressed.

    Commenting on the unusual frankness of the top US Army official's remarks, RT Russian contributor Nadezhda Alekseeva suggested that "the recognition of its own technological lag in the area of tank building is something new for the US military. For decades, the US had presented the M1 as the best piece of equipment in its class, one no rival could match."

    Today, the journalist writes, "the technological gap has become so obvious that it is impossible to keep silent about it."

    After all, the journalist recalled, in Russia, the idea that the US and its allies are lagging behind Russia's tank industry is nothing new. Two years ago, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin reacted to news that Germany and France were planning to build a new generation of tanks to match the T-14 Armata by pointing out that he estimates other countries to have fallen behind Russia by 15-20 years in this area. Rogozin stressed that playing catchup would be difficult, too, since obviously Russia's tank designers wouldn't just sit idle over the next two decades.

    For his part, independent military analyst Vladimir Tuchkov suggested that frank or not, the purpose of Murray's speech was pretty obvious: to squeeze more money out of the government to develop new heavy armor.

    The problem, he wrote, was that the general did not provide a very convincing argument to Congress about the need to allocate new billions for a new tank, when he himself admitted that US engineers do not have any fresh ideas. "A further increase in the size and weight of the tank would only turn an already unwieldy tank into a slow-moving dinosaur," the journalist noted, driving Murray's point home.

    Looking back on the Abrams' proud history, Alekseeva suggested that in its own time, the M1 truly was a crowning achievement in technical terms, having been released over a decade before the appearance of its Soviet/Russian competitor, the T-90, which entered service only in 1993.

    Chrysler developed the Abrams in 1979, and the formidable machine began to enter service in the US Army in 1980, replacing the aging M60. The tank was considered to have had a successful 'baptism by fire' in the first Gulf War in 1991, easily defeating the tank forces of the Iraqi army, equipped with Soviet monkey model T-55s, T-62s and T-72s, cutting into them like Swiss cheese and suffering almost no casualties from enemy tank fire.

    However, since then, beginning with the second Iraq war and continuing with the Iraqi army's war against Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) terrorists in 2014, the tank began showing a growing number of weak points.

    With this in mind, Tuchkov suggested that the "powerful advertising by General Dynamics Land Systems [the Abrams' current builder] notwithstanding, the number of lost Abrams tanks completely negates the assertion that it is one of the best tanks in the world." In fact, the military writer boldly suggested that the Abrams is no longer even in the top 5, with Israel, Germany, the UK, South Korea and Russia all producing tanks with far superior technical and combat characteristics.

    He recalled, for instance, that the US lost 80 Abrams in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, out of a total of 1,135 machines deployed. "As for tanks disabled by enemy fire and due to serious damage suffered by major components and systems, the picture is just depressing," Tuchkov wrote. In 2006, "the army had to ship 530 tanks –i.e. almost half of those deployed, off for repair in the US."

    "Taking account of the negative experience, designers upgraded the Abrams – strengthening its armor protection, fitting the tanks' rear and sides with dynamic armored plating."

    "But that too didn't help much," the journalist wrote. "According to various sources, between 30 and 47 Abrams have been lost from last autumn to the present in northern Iraq" in the ongoing campaign against Daesh.

    As for Russia and its T-90, it has a lower profile, a higher top speed, a longer operational range, and at 46.5 tons, weighs a full 16.5 tons less than the 63 ton US behemoth. It has partial dynamic protection by default, with no additional skirt installations required, and according to Tuchkov, has demonstrated its prowess in the Syrian conflict.

    The Syrian Army, Tuchkov recalled, has an undisclosed number of T-90As, the first version of the tank which saw mass production. "Since 2014, the Syrian Army has lost only one T-90 to an American TOW missile."

    Just as significant, the observer suggested, was the fact that the loss occurred "not due to the tank's weakness, but due to poor crew training, and their failure to follow safety instructions." Specifically, the onboard Shtora-1 infrared ATGM jamming system was switched off at the time of the militants' attack; the tank's hatches were also open. Abandoned by the Syrian Army, the T-90A has since been captured and used by the militants.

    The one lost tank excepted, Syrian T-90s have been successfully used by the Syrian Army's 4th Mechanized Division, usually on the front lines of the Army's key offensives, including the recent offensive to liberate Aleppo.

    Ultimately, Alekseeva stressed that while military publications in the US and Russia have made comparisons of the T-90 and the M1 ad nauseam, the truth is that "it's probably impossible to speak of either tank's unquestionable superiority over the other: both tanks belong to roughly the same generation, and both have implemented the best technologies available in their time…Rather, the real cause for concern for the US military is the T-14 Armata, Russia's latest main battle tank."

    That tank, developed in the late 2000s by Uralvagonzavod, and starting mass production beginning in 2015, is the real concern for Lt. Gen. Murray and the US Army, the journalist noted.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201703261051984261-us-general-t90-vs-abrams/
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8158
    Points : 8303
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  magnumcromagnon Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:57 am

    George1 wrote:M1 Abrams vs. T-90: Top US General Admits Russia Has Achieved Tank Parity

    US Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Mike Murray has told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee that the US faces falling behind other countries in the area of tank technology, saying that other nations, including Israel, the UK and particularly Russia are close to catching up. Russian observers ponder the significance of the general's remarks.

    In a speech before Senate defense subcommittee members last week that went largely unreported, Lt. Gen. Murray warned that the US no longer has the edge in tank technology it used to, saying that he could "not say that we have the world class tank that we had for many, many years."

    "I'll be the optimist and say that we're at parity with a lot of different nations," Murray noted. Still, the officer stressed that "our most capable enemies are closing quickly."

    "I think the Abrams is still towards the top of its class in terms of combat systems, in terms of tanks," Murray said. "I think we have parity, I think there is parity out there." Still, he warned that Russia has closed the gap it had with the US since the end of the Cold War. "I think the T-90 is probably pretty close," he told one senator.

    As for Russia's newest generation tank, the Armata, the officer said that he couldn't comment on that, since the tank has not yet been widely fielded.

    Murray emphasized that the M1 Abrams platform, introduced in the 1980s, is reaching the end of its upgrade potential, and suggested that it's time for the US to start development of a new generation tank. "We're just about reaching the limits of what we can do with the Abrams," he said.

    At the same time, the officer said that he was concerned that designers have not offered any fundamental breakthroughs in technology which can be used to build this next generation tank: "What I worry about is, there is nothing on the near-horizon that indicates a fundamental breakthrough in technology where we can come up with a lighter tank. I think we would be mistaken to build another 75-ton tank as long as  protection requirements are where they are," Murray stressed.

    Commenting on the unusual frankness of the top US Army official's remarks, RT Russian contributor Nadezhda Alekseeva suggested that "the recognition of its own technological lag in the area of tank building is something new for the US military. For decades, the US had presented the M1 as the best piece of equipment in its class, one no rival could match."

    Today, the journalist writes, "the technological gap has become so obvious that it is impossible to keep silent about it."

    After all, the journalist recalled, in Russia, the idea that the US and its allies are lagging behind Russia's tank industry is nothing new. Two years ago, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin reacted to news that Germany and France were planning to build a new generation of tanks to match the T-14 Armata by pointing out that he estimates other countries to have fallen behind Russia by 15-20 years in this area. Rogozin stressed that playing catchup would be difficult, too, since obviously Russia's tank designers wouldn't just sit idle over the next two decades.

    For his part, independent military analyst Vladimir Tuchkov suggested that frank or not, the purpose of Murray's speech was pretty obvious: to squeeze more money out of the government to develop new heavy armor.

    The problem, he wrote, was that the general did not provide a very convincing argument to Congress about the need to allocate new billions for a new tank, when he himself admitted that US engineers do not have any fresh ideas. "A further increase in the size and weight of the tank would only turn an already unwieldy tank into a slow-moving dinosaur," the journalist noted, driving Murray's point home.

    Looking back on the Abrams' proud history, Alekseeva suggested that in its own time, the M1 truly was a crowning achievement in technical terms, having been released over a decade before the appearance of its Soviet/Russian competitor, the T-90, which entered service only in 1993.

    Chrysler developed the Abrams in 1979, and the formidable machine began to enter service in the US Army in 1980, replacing the aging M60. The tank was considered to have had a successful 'baptism by fire' in the first Gulf War in 1991, easily defeating the tank forces of the Iraqi army, equipped with Soviet monkey model T-55s, T-62s and T-72s, cutting into them like Swiss cheese and suffering almost no casualties from enemy tank fire.

    However, since then, beginning with the second Iraq war and continuing with the Iraqi army's war against Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) terrorists in 2014, the tank began showing a growing number of weak points.

    With this in mind, Tuchkov suggested that the "powerful advertising by General Dynamics Land Systems [the Abrams' current builder] notwithstanding, the number of lost Abrams tanks completely negates the assertion that it is one of the best tanks in the world." In fact, the military writer boldly suggested that the Abrams is no longer even in the top 5, with Israel, Germany, the UK, South Korea and Russia all producing tanks with far superior technical and combat characteristics.

    He recalled, for instance, that the US lost 80 Abrams in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, out of a total of 1,135 machines deployed. "As for tanks disabled by enemy fire and due to serious damage suffered by major components and systems, the picture is just depressing," Tuchkov wrote. In 2006, "the army had to ship 530 tanks –i.e. almost half of those deployed, off for repair in the US."

    "Taking account of the negative experience, designers upgraded the Abrams – strengthening its armor protection, fitting the tanks' rear and sides with dynamic armored plating."

    "But that too didn't help much," the journalist wrote. "According to various sources, between 30 and 47 Abrams have been lost from last autumn to the present in northern Iraq" in the ongoing campaign against Daesh.

    As for Russia and its T-90, it has a lower profile, a higher top speed, a longer operational range, and at 46.5 tons, weighs a full 16.5 tons less than the 63 ton US behemoth. It has partial dynamic protection by default, with no additional skirt installations required, and according to Tuchkov, has demonstrated its prowess in the Syrian conflict.

    The Syrian Army, Tuchkov recalled, has an undisclosed number of T-90As, the first version of the tank which saw mass production. "Since 2014, the Syrian Army has lost only one T-90 to an American TOW missile."

    Just as significant, the observer suggested, was the fact that the loss occurred "not due to the tank's weakness, but due to poor crew training, and their failure to follow safety instructions." Specifically, the onboard Shtora-1 infrared ATGM jamming system was switched off at the time of the militants' attack; the tank's hatches were also open. Abandoned by the Syrian Army, the T-90A has since been captured and used by the militants.

    The one lost tank excepted, Syrian T-90s have been successfully used by the Syrian Army's 4th Mechanized Division, usually on the front lines of the Army's key offensives, including the recent offensive to liberate Aleppo.

    Ultimately, Alekseeva stressed that while military publications in the US and Russia have made comparisons of the T-90 and the M1 ad nauseam, the truth is that "it's probably impossible to speak of either tank's unquestionable superiority over the other: both tanks belong to roughly the same generation, and both have implemented the best technologies available in their time…Rather, the real cause for concern for the US military is the T-14 Armata, Russia's latest main battle tank."

    That tank, developed in the late 2000s by Uralvagonzavod, and starting mass production beginning in 2015, is the real concern for Lt. Gen. Murray and the US Army, the journalist noted.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201703261051984261-us-general-t90-vs-abrams/

    Please someone (kvs, GarryB, KoTeMoRe) respond to this laughable statement, I simply don't have the time to respond in kind.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35383
    Points : 35909
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  GarryB Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:36 am

    Well Russia achieving "parity" with a smaller, lighter, cheaper vehicle is very interesting... Smile

    More interesting is that the Abrams... much like the WWII Mustang, really didn't become world class till foreign countries got involved... in the case of the Mustang it needed a British Rolls Royce engine to get the range and performance needed to make it good enough.

    For the Abrams it was the British armour and at first a British gun in the form of the trusty 105mm rifled, but production tanks had the smoothbore 120mm German gun... a gun that copied the idea of a smoothbore main gun from the 115mm smoothbore gun of the Soviet T-62...

    I see now they even fit a Belgian 7.62mm coaxial MG too...
    avatar
    Tyranus


    Posts : 6
    Points : 8
    Join date : 2017-03-27

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  Tyranus Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:26 pm

    M1a2 need's a diesel engine, a simple auto loader and a rcws+laser and radar warning sensor to be world class.
    As the combat in Yemen/Saudi/Iraq has shown the m1a2 has no atgm defense for long term engagements, hell why not add trophy system too. music
    1 rpg to the bustle and it cook's good and yet still no cage armor is their.

    GarryB likes this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4106
    Points : 4104
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:30 am

    Tyranus wrote:M1a2 need's a diesel engine, a simple auto loader and a rcws+laser and radar warning sensor to be world class.
    As the combat in Yemen/Saudi/Iraq has shown the m1a2 has no atgm defense for long term engagements, hell why not add trophy system too. music
    1 rpg to the bustle and it cook's good and yet still no cage armor is their.

    The Exceptionalists will be loathe to do any of the above as it would be tantamount to admitting that they are WRONG and that Russia is right.  They have been crowing for decades about the alleged Abrams "invincibility" based on its slaughter of clapped-out monkey-model T-72s in Iraq, but eventually all bullshit gets sniffed out, and Iraqi experience against ISIS has greatly diminished their self-righteous halo....

    While I'm at it, add the Krauts to the list as well. The sight of so many dead and burning Turdkish Leopards killed by Russian ATGMs has brought a flood of tears to the eyes of Uh'Murikkkaz Germanic lackeys.... and about time to.

    GarryB likes this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13815
    Points : 13960
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  kvs Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:55 am

    Comparing the Abrams to the T-90 is comparing apples to oranges. That is not to say that the T-90 fails to outclass the Abrams
    pork barrel dinosaur. And this US general appears to be an utter idiot. No new ideas? Really now. The T-14 is the first Russian tank
    in the Abrams size category but is much lighter. I doubt the under 50 tons figure being bandied about, but it is under 60 tons for sure
    (so maybe around 55 tons and I know the turret saves a lot of weight). Russia has shown how to do the Abrams right and that is not
    to build a rolling disco hall turret to accommodate the crew in luxury like some 1970s US "boat" car. The T-14 can field a 152 mm
    canon, the Abrams could never hope to do so.

    I still don't understand the philosophy of no active protection on the Abrams. No amount of DU can compensate for good active
    protection. And by definition the amount of DU the Abrams can use is very limited unless they want to park it permanently on
    display like the Czar Canon.

    https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/28/army-give-m1-tank-new-ammo-active-protection-system/

    It seems someone in Exceptionalistan has smelled the coffee. Maybe.

    Sputnik is a renamed English RIAN and staffed by the same idiots who use NATO anti-Russian propaganda language in the articles
    as if they were some NATO sponsored NGO. For example, the Pavlovian phrase with no actual meaning: "pro-Kremlin parties" to
    describe the actual Russian political opposition while using "opposition movements" for lunatic fringe and 5th column elements.
    This piece is like cake and excrement put in a blender for the ultimate in taste.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8158
    Points : 8303
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:22 pm

    A recent training accident has further shed some light on M1A2 Abrams level of protection. So a training round (M1002 MPAT-TP-T) fired from 2.6km managed to harm M1A2 Abrams crew member, resulting in a chest injury and blown off fingers. This reminds me of the time when a Challenger-2 was penetrated from the front from the RPG-29 Vampire. Remember the claims of 'invincibility' of Chobham Armor from the 90's? Yeah you can flush that bullshit down the toilet lol!Embarassed Razz lol1  

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 EdlDm10UEAAkNi1?format=jpg&name=900x900
    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 EdlDoV7UEAI3GY0?format=jpg&name=small
    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 EdlDrIFUwAEvhyr?format=jpg&name=small
    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 EdlDsPcUEAAUOHQ?format=jpg&name=medium
    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 EdgW0wlVcAAcG3v

    A U.S. Army M1A2 Abrams main battle tank has been reportedly shooting another tank during a training exercise at Fort Bliss.

    On July 20, an incident with friendly fire occurred at the Fort Bliss training ground in Texas during firing at moving targets.

    Some sources reported that one of the “Abrams” tanks, from a distance of 2600m, has shot a tank from his own Cavalry Regiment.

    One soldier was injured in an accident when the M1002 multi-purpose training round hit his tank. His tank commander and crew responded quickly to render aid.

    https://defence-blog.com/news/army/u-s-army-abrams-shot-another-tank-during-training-exercise.html

    GarryB and Werewolf like this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13815
    Points : 13960
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  kvs Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:35 am

    I wonder whether the use of DU is actually universal in the Abrams. Using a dense metal has the price of weight. The Abrams is
    already oversized (at least for the gun it fields). So it would be consistent that such damage could occur if the DU was not "deployed".
    That may sound absurd but the injury from a training round 2.6 away is absurd. In a real conflict, the Abrams may be too heavy to
    be effective.

    This is where the T-14 with a weight of about 50 tons shines. It will be running circles around the slow moving Abrams and perhaps
    other NATzO tanks as well.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1119
    Points : 1173
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  The-thing-next-door Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:41 am

    Mike E wrote:

    Assuming the MS is firing the most modern round for the 2A46M-5, that being the Svinets-1, there are a few areas where it is certainly capable of penetrating any Abrams variant; ie the the gun mantlet (which is only around 400 mm) and the turret ring, assuming the shot is in the general location of the drivers' hatch. Even the Mango would be capable of penetrating such locations.

    The turret cheeks are undeniably impenetrable from such a round, same with (at least most of) the lower frontal plate. Technically, the lowest section of it does begin the thin, so there is that.

    The Svinets one can easily penetrate the lower plate and there is a rather large gap between the full thickness sections of the turret cheeks and the lower plate, in the gap there is no composite armor say for the edges of the lower plate and turret cheeks, but being edges they will not provide that much protection.

    So the Svinets 1 can penetrate the lower 2 thirds of the abrams.

    We really do not know what the effectiveness of the turret front's armor is, there are many morons who pull inflated "estimates" out of thier asses and every moron on the internet believes them. Perhaps the Sivnets 1 cannot penetrate it perhaps it can, seeing as westerners are the pathological lying vermin that they are, there is only one way to find out.
    ludovicense
    ludovicense


    Posts : 204
    Points : 206
    Join date : 2017-09-26
    Age : 55
    Location : Brasil

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty T-90 vs M1A2 Abrams

    Post  ludovicense Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:07 pm

    T-90 vs M1A2 Abrams

    Armor
    T-90 has a better armor than M1A2 Abrams. The M1A2 Abrams armor is 600 (780 mm) mm vs APFSDS, 800 mm (1,060 mm) vs HEAT, but the T-90 armor is steel-composite-reactive blend vs APFSDS: 700–800 (950mm) mm; vs HEAT: 780–1000  (1,600mm) mm.
    Engine
    The M1A2 Abrams uses an Honeywell AGT1500C multi fuel turbine engine with 1500 hp. The V-92S2 of the T-90A  engines made by Uralvagonzavod is much weaker, about 1000 hp.
    Range and speed
    The T-90A is main battle tank with longest operational range, about 650–700 km, much more than M1A2 Abrams which is only 426 km. M1A2 Abrams's on road speed is 56 km/h, off road - 40 km/h, while the T-90A's on road speed is 65 km/h and off road speed is 45 km/h.
    Armament
    The main armament of M1A2 is the M256A1 120 mm smoothbore gun, designed by Rheinmetall AG with 42 rounds. M256A1's rate of fire is depend on the loader. M256A1's effective range is 4000m. The secondary armement is one 12.7mm M2HB heavy machine gun and two 7.62mm M240.
    The main armament of the T-90 is the 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun with 43 rounds, which effective range is 5000m. 2A46 is autoloader gun, so it can shoot 8 rounds/minute, an advantage for T-90. The secondary armament is one 12.7mm NSV heavy machine gun and one 7.62mm PKT.
    Final Conclusion

    T-90 overpowers the M1A2 Abrams in speed, range and armor, but the M1A2 Abrams has a better engine. The armament can be draw, T-90 main gun is autoloader, has an longer effective range than M1A2 Abrams, but the M1A2 Abrams secondary weapon carry more than T-90A.
    Take into account that the newest T-90M Proryv-3 MBT is in many areas upgraded over the T-90 or T-90A versions.

    https://twitter.com/Trollstoy88/status/1618667542872211456

    GarryB, zardof, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35383
    Points : 35909
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  GarryB Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:22 am

    You can't talk about engine power on its own, the weight of the tank is important too... a 48 ton T-90MS tank compared with a 68 odd ton Abrams... an extra ten tons is one thing but an extra 20 tons has serious effects on performance no matter how powerful your engine is... things like sinking in soft ground and destroying bridges... not to mention needing recovery gear that can handle an extra 20 tons is very significant.

    Gas turbines can be fussy and require proper maintenance to keep running not to mention the enormous amount of fuel they burn to keep the systems running in the cold.

    But of course the biggest factor will always be what sort of support will it be getting and how well equipped is the enemy in terms of effective anti armour weapons, and there the Abrams really struggles.

    Ironically... what sort of protection does the Abrams have from Javelin missiles?

    Also as mentioned years ago by Zivo, the turret bustle is enormous on all western tanks and full of ammo and is an easy soft target to hit that even if it doesn't destroy the tank will take it out of action.

    That article above mentions one T-90 of the Syrian military being destroyed but in actual fact as they mentioned the crew abandoned it and the enemy captured it...

    Hole, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1881
    Points : 1875
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  Arrow Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:00 pm

    T-90 has a better armor than M1A2 Abrams. The M1A2 Abrams armor is 600 (780 mm) mm vs APFSDS, 800 mm (1,060 mm) vs HEAT, but the T-90 armor is steel-composite-reactive blend vs APFSDS: 700–800 (950mm) mm; vs HEAT: 780–1000 (1,600mm) mm. wrote:

    How much better armor is the T-90M compared to the T-90A? And how does it compare to the latest western tanks? scratch
    nomadski
    nomadski


    Posts : 2171
    Points : 2181
    Join date : 2017-01-02

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  nomadski Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:13 pm


    There is hardly going to be Tank on Tank battles . Few or none of these Tanks will get close to fire on another Tank or vehicle . Why the West thinks that now is the time for advance with armour against Russia , is a mystery . The idea is viral . They don't know what to do , so they do something , anything .....Tank war , was first to allow advance against troops armed with Rifles and machine guns . Armour can not keep up with missiles , fired from all sorts of vehicles . The instruments on Tank and the Tank tracks and design of turret are weakest points . No defence .


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zuHOLV1YBok

    JohninMK likes this post

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 1372
    Points : 1398
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  limb Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:15 pm

    Do most russian tanks have access to the 3BM59/3BM60 or 3BM44, or are 90%+ of APFSDS shells only 3BM42? Do russian tanks in the ukraine ever use gun launched ATGMs against AFVs or bunkers? Ive never seen a single video of any russian or ukrainian tank ever using GLATGMs even though theyre supposed to have them en masse since 1969. 0 kobras, 0 sheksnas, 0 bastions, 0 refleks, 0 invars, 0 svirs.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 10527
    Points : 10513
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  Isos Fri Jan 27, 2023 4:21 pm

    Most useful shell is HE. Then HEAT to deal with vehicles. Apfsds isn't the main shell.

    Tank vs tank is happening that much and from the sides a heat can still destroy any tank.

    Heat is also more dangerous since they go through and burn. Apfsds just go through.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1553
    Points : 1549
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  lyle6 Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:02 pm

    Arrow wrote:How much better armor is the T-90M compared to the T-90A? And how does it compare to the latest western tanks?

    Very. The US would hardly bring into service two improvements of subcaliber shot (A3,A4) between the T-90A and T-90M if the latter's armor is not much better than the former's. The ERA coverage on the T-90M is also lot more exhaustive leaving less room for weak spots. In a duel situation NATO MBTs would have to close-in or rely on flank and rear shots just to defeat a T-90M. Unfortunately the subcaliber round on the T-90M is let down by the limit of the autoloader cassette so the crew of the T-90M would have no choice but to be creative as well.

    Not that a duel scenario matters much, since the vast majority of armor kills never even saw what hit them. In terms of more relevant wholistic protection the T-90M comes up miles ahead of any modern NATO MBT. You have organic air defenses swatting down UAVs spotting for the most dangerous artillery arm; Nakidka shrouds to avoid surveillance and getting attacked by ATGMs; modular ERA packages with a focus on topside and flank protection, fire support escort vehicles like BMPT, etc. etc.

    GarryB and Arrow like this post

    galicije83
    galicije83


    Posts : 137
    Points : 139
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 43
    Location : Serbia

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  galicije83 Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:24 pm

    Do most russian tanks have access to the 3BM59/3BM60 or 3BM44, or are 90%+ of APFSDS shells only 3BM42?

    Only T-90M is can use 3BM48 or newer 3BM rounds because it has different auto loader then older version of T-90 or T-72/80 tanks...rest can use only 3BM46 and that is best round for them...

    Still This round as many older as 3BM42 is enough to kill any tank from side, and as we can see here in war many tanks are kill not from front but from rear or side shots...

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 1372
    Points : 1398
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  limb Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:29 pm

    Didnt both the T-90A and T-72B3 get autoloader upgrades? I thought the T-80 could use longer APFSDS than the vanilla T-72B.

    Are 3BM44 and higher common enoughamong in the loadouts of russian tanks or are they extremely rare?
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 4039
    Points : 4041
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  ALAMO Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:22 pm

    Only T-90M is can use 3BM48 or newer 3BM rounds because it has different auto loader then older version of T-90 or T-72/80 tanks...rest can use only 3BM46 and that is best round for them...
    Still This round as many older as 3BM42 is enough to kill any tank from side, and as we can see here in war many tanks are kill not from front but from rear or side shots...


    It is not true.
    First of all, we need to know that the cassete of the autoloader of T-72 is 680 mm in length.
    Both OF and BK rounds are almost the size - there are few mm shorter.
    The BM round was de facto the shortest in the whole line - 571 mm, which is why new types were developed and fit easily into the system.
    For 72Bs with 9M119 missiles, the round was longer than the cassette by 15 mm - 695 mm in total.
    The solution was a smaller diameter of the carousel mounting.
    The change allowed already longer rounds to be used there. Up to 695 mm length.

    T-72B3 mod 2016 was made to use both Svinets 1&2.
    It was a part of the official Rosgovzakaz and called S-1 and S-2 in the documentation.
    Can be found at zakupki.gov.ru.

    Construction of the ammo loader was progressing steadily for the entire period. There are at least four known carousel mountings&power steering types, each next being smaller.
    There are lots of speculations, as a lot of different mods exists.
    For example there are multiple calls that 90A and B3 loader is same, while it is not.
    B3 retains the construction of the old B type loader, YET there are differences as well. For example the ejecting system is same as 90A, the loader control panel is same ... just the loader is a bit different.

    It was a constant process, and still is.



    GarryB, kvs, lyle6 and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35383
    Points : 35909
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  GarryB Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:22 am

    There is hardly going to be Tank on Tank battles . Few or none of these Tanks will get close to fire on another Tank or vehicle .

    Normally I would agree with you but we have already seen multiple videos of tank on tank duels.

    The only use for tanks is to mount an offensive, Kiev was promising an offensive about now but it has all fizzled out and the troops they were going to use for it are being ground up as we speak...

    The problem of course is that 130 tanks... even if they all arrived at one time would not be enough to mount a successful offensive to move to within artillery range of the Crimea... by the time decent numbers of tanks arrive and trained crews are sorted out the current deadlock will be solved and Ukrainian forces pushed out of the new Russian territory and behind that territory is a lot of open fields that would be hard to defend even if they had the proper equipment... which they don't.

    These tanks are supposed to allow Kiev to get a victory or create a stalemate so negotiations wont be so one sided... the problem is that these tanks wont last a day and will be hunted down and destroyed and if Kiev keeps refusing to talk the Russian forces will move and take more and more Ukrainian territory.

    What is eventually likely to happen is that Kiev will refuse any negotiations and Russia will simply continue to take territory... Russia friendly territory first of course.

    If Kiev was smart it would surrender right now and withdraw troops from new Russian territory... that would be their best result because the longer this goes on the more territory Russia is going to free up and even if the new areas don't vote to join the Russian federation they will likely want nothing to do with Kiev and become independent new states that are neutral and demilitarised.

    The longer it goes the less territory Kiev will be left with... assuming they are left alive of course... the current regime have proven there is no working with them... but then Germany and France have the same history.

    Do most russian tanks have access to the 3BM59/3BM60 or 3BM44, or are 90%+ of APFSDS shells only 3BM42?

    I would expect they would issue what ever shell would be needed. With new western tanks entering the theatre they might start using newer shells but most of the time I would say HEAT rounds would be more commonly used against armour and fortified targets.

    Do russian tanks in the ukraine ever use gun launched ATGMs against AFVs or bunkers? Ive never seen a single video of any russian or ukrainian tank ever using GLATGMs even though theyre supposed to have them en masse since 1969. 0 kobras, 0 sheksnas, 0 bastions, 0 refleks, 0 invars, 0 svirs.

    The guns and the gun aiming systems and the ammo are accurate enough to hit stationary targets at 4-5km, so using missiles is really only for enemy helicopters or drones and for moving targets that are moving erratically so the 2-3 seconds the APFSDS shell takes to get to the target the target might have not moved to a position that is expected. A missile, even though it takes much longer to reach the target, can compensate for any moves the target makes after it is fired down range... unlike other ordinance the tank can fire... 2-3s for APFSDS and 6-10 seconds for HEAT rounds which leave the barrel at about 900m/s and slow down in flight.

    Didnt both the T-90A and T-72B3 get autoloader upgrades? I thought the T-80 could use longer APFSDS than the vanilla T-72B.

    The T-80s autoloader is a different design... for a start it holds 28 rounds instead of the 22 rounds the T-72/90 autoloader carries... but the autoloader in the T-80 has the propellent stubs sitting vertically presenting a much larger target from the side greatly increasing the chance of losing the turret when hit from the side.

    Are 3BM44 and higher common enoughamong in the loadouts of russian tanks or are they extremely rare?

    They would most likely analyse the expected threats in the theatre and issue ammo accordingly... no need to use their best rounds in Syria or Ukraine up until now, but as new enemy tanks enter the theatre they can change the ammo being issued.

    kvs and lyle6 like this post

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 1372
    Points : 1398
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  limb Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:54 pm

    Is dart length the only way to increase APFSDS penetration? What about metallurgy, alloys, dart velocity, etc? Why do rounds like the M829A3 with only 1600 m/s velocity massively outperform the 3BM44 or 3BM60 which have 1750m/s velocity, the M829A3 having around 700mm penetration@2km vs 500-600mm for russian rounds??

    Sponsored content


    T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison - Page 4 Empty Re: T-90 vs M1 Abrams comparison

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:18 am