T-90 vs M1A2

Kozzy Mozzy said:
Believe me, a loader on a western tank(not just the Abrams) can load a shell every 3 seconds stationary and 5 seconds while moving. This is from more then 1 soldier who has crewed the tank. However, loading shells does not affect ROF as much as gunner and TC training/interaction.
Click to expand...
Agree here. Fired a 90 second stationary table one time. Shot a total of 25 rounds in 90 seconds. That's an average of 3.6 seconds. I was the loader and I was whipped at the end of it. A good crew can do much better. BTW we had a 92% hit rate. Firing fast is good, but firing accurately is better.
 
Hello Guys,

I am new here on this forum. Nice to meet you all.

These x vs x discussions have a problem. Another person wrote, tanks are not operate alone. Moreover, the design of tank is reflection of the military doctrine from each country. If we compare with TV shows about cars ie Top Gear, funny show though. Most of the time they discuss one car at the time. If they discuss several cars they leave the comparing part to the viewer, similar as they do in car magazines.

The Russian made tanks are for their doctrine and their theory of warfare. During the cold war the Soviets viewed the quantity is quality, these theory has its roots from the WWII. The Russians´could not build tanks for the same price tag as the West, when they needed so many of them. I like the Russian IFVs and APCs (BMP, BMD, and BTR)

I would say and its my opinion only. Its much better to discuss pro and cons for each tank and not compare them so much.

My favorite tank is the Merkava, I really like the concept of it, when they can have an infantry squad with them inside the tank.

take care,

Ghostrider
 
shocktroop said:
I agree with what jedi078 said.
The one who gets the first shot off wins.
In this case, I think that the T-90 would win because:
Most modern tank combats take place between 2-4km, but since the T-90 has the Refleks-M ATGM, it can start conducting combat from 5km.
Here is a possible senario:
Threre are 10 T-90s on one side and 10 M1A2s on the other. They are 7km apart.
When they get to a range of about 5km apart, the T-90s fire their AT-11 Sniper ATGMs at the M1A2s. 50%-60% of the M1A2s get nocked out which leaves only about 5-6 M1A2s. When they get to arange of about 2-4km apart, the tank combat starts and since 50%-60% of the M1A2s are knocked out this means that there are 10 T-90s vs about 5 or 6 M1A2s. Which probably means that the T-90s would win.
Click to expand...

The Abrams is not very vulnerable to shaped charge type weapons...which so far includes most anti tank missles. The US tested a missle called the HVM (at one point) which was a kinetic weapon, got up to better than Mach 5 and penetrated without an explosive warhead...it however...was too big to attach to a conventional tank.

I know on no "conventional" combat cases where an Abrams was destroyed.
What happened in Iraq -2 was a guerilla might get a close in shot from the rear and do enough damage to disable the engine. I think there were a couple cases where a disabled Abrams was abandoned on a road and then torched by the Iraqi's before it could be recovered.

A major factor is the depleted Uranium slug vs the Tungsten slug,and the Russians had not developed and deployed a DU,last i heard. Another factor is how well you shoot on the move and how fast you can acquire a target and hit it. 20% faster reloads may not do much good if you are dead by the time you get the 3rd rd away.

It's a bit hypothetical. The Russians,I don't think,are exporting fully equipped T-90's. I don't think they even exported T-80's typically. There's no realistic scenario where the USA and Russia would have tank vs tank battle anytime soon. More likely whatever is the next war will be somewhat asymetrical with equipment like Strykers that are more air mobile as the main armor.
 
At once I want to ask pardons for the English.

Concerning tanks:
Minuses Т-90:
1) the Diesel engine in our regions at-15°C to get it it is not possible. And speed of dispersal of such tank very low. Here at our tank T-80 costs газотурбинный, here it showed good results that I can not tell about Т-90, on Т-90 have refused from газотурбинного the engine for the reason "It more cheaply".
2) Kulachkovaja transmission is An awful device doesn't allow to the tank to maneuver on speed more 40km\ch. If a little to turn, the tank instantly develops on 180 ° can be and that more than 360 °.
3) From for "the automatic mechanism of gymnastics" - on Т-90 shells lie round crew that instantly them kills at a detonation and a fire.
4) In t-90 it has not been developed not one new unit, all was is taken from old tanks T-72, Т-80.
5) Tightness of the tank: at us tanks rather conditionally tight and so in a pool you will drive and at me a foot wet up to knees.
6) the Reservation usual multilayered, also makes the way even in a forehead from the tool in 120мм without efforts.
Minuses M1A2:
1) Big in the sizes, turns to a target, there I want to attribute and weight on 10т more Т-90.
2) the Weak gun in comparison with Т-90.
Further I can't tell simply on it didn't go, was based on supervision of our reporters in Iraq.

I live in a military part of test tank range. And on it I have touched, went, shot, from all tanks of a class "Т".
Well all убъют me "Federal Agency of Safety of the Russian Federation" Well I think me already and so search :)
 
Ghostrider said:
Hello Guys,

I am new here on this forum. Nice to meet you all.

These x vs x discussions have a problem. Another person wrote, tanks are not operate alone. Moreover, the design of tank is reflection of the military doctrine from each country. If we compare with TV shows about cars ie Top Gear, funny show though. Most of the time they discuss one car at the time. If they discuss several cars they leave the comparing part to the viewer, similar as they do in car magazines.

The Russian made tanks are for their doctrine and their theory of warfare. During the cold war the Soviets viewed the quantity is quality, these theory has its roots from the WWII. The Russians´could not build tanks for the same price tag as the West, when they needed so many of them. I like the Russian IFVs and APCs (BMP, BMD, and BTR)

I would say and its my opinion only. Its much better to discuss pro and cons for each tank and not compare them so much.

My favorite tank is the Merkava, I really like the concept of it, when they can have an infantry squad with them inside the tank.

take care,

Ghostrider
Click to expand...


You are right. Both tanks have their advantages and disadvantages, different objectives for their creation, and their own distinct style. These factors should be considered. It would be safe to say that it would be like comparing fighters and bombers and deciding which is better.
 
Quote "This is the biggest advantage the T-90 has, and is why they are developing similar systems for the Abrams. However, this does not excuse the T-90s poor inherent survivability."

This isn't tank on tank combat but some T-90s were deployed in Dagestan where one was hit by 7 RPGs and still continued fighting.
 
i think this question is not at much between the tanks, as it is between the design, and tactical assumptions. the largest tank battle between post wwii tanks, (that is tanks on both sides that incorporated the lessons of wwII) was the "yom kippor" war, after which, the Israeli military surveyed what killed tanks and their crews. my thought is, western tank crews have been the main beneficiary of this information, soviet tank crews have not. if the only metric one uses is crew survivability. than i cant name one soviet tank in service that beats a western tank. in most cases, the armor systems can be made identical, but that’s same old armored knight against bullet race, and a way "WILL" be found to penetrate any tank, armor system developed. so its what happens after a tank is penetrated that matters.

the reason i think crew survivability is the most important metric?

it takes a matter of weeks for war-time manufacturing to replace a tank.
it takes 18 years, to replace a tank crewman, and at least a year to give him the minimum skills it takes to operate his tank. and 10, or so minutes under fire to make him a vetran.

so, if crew survivability is the metric, "imho", the challenger II, and Mercava IV win. Abrams, and leopard, and other third gen. westpac tanks. come a close second. and the t-90 and other t-XX series of tanks. a distant third.
 
All these variables are a little much to put into a definent answer, gear is gear without a skilled crew.

I suppose looking at this comparison from that aspect, it really comes down to which tank looks cooler with flames painted on it.
 
Yossarian said:
All these variables are a little much to put into a definent answer, gear is gear without a skilled crew.

I suppose looking at this comparison from that aspect, it really comes down to which tank looks cooler with flames painted on it.
Click to expand...


most tanks are just cool as they are. big, loud, have inches thick plates of metel on them, and they, crush cars, and small houses with ease. whats not to like! :tank:
personaly, i think if we go on looks alone. the Tiger I wins, the tiger looks huge, heavy, indestructable, and scary.
 
I'm thinking you guys are NOT thinking, about a lot of options Russia has when fielding there actual modern warfare version of the tank. Russia has clearly stated that if another war with an actual modern country, such packages as the EMT-7 electromagnetic pulse creator, which uses Shtora to pick up any incoming guided munitions in the vicinity, and puts out a blast of EMP that literally bricks the munition in mid flight. Also, Nakidka could be applied by the simple stroke of a paint brush, which offers an advanced version of Radar Absorbing Material, which is even better than the F-117 Nighthawk's RAM. Nakidka can almost eliminate IR, Thermal, TV/Optical, and Radar signatures of any armored vehicle it is painted on. Currently the T-72BM "Rogatka" obr.2006g (Ob'yekt 184M) has been used to demonstrate the RAM. Also, we are not even considering that Russia would almost certainly upgrade the armor suite to Relikt which was specifically designed to defeat the only round that could penetrate Kontakt-5 with effectiveness, the US M829A3. Or even by then, equip them with the new Kaktus, that has been on the drawing table for the cancelled T-95, and is now being developed for the T-90.

The main thing you have to understand is that the M1A2 Abrams has been in wars since it came out, so it is wearing it's full combat dress. The T-90 however, without seeing any major conflicts, has not seen the need to upgrade the tanks yet, but, and I mean BUT, by no means does this mean that they could not, in an extremely short time. And considering that's with what they will dress their tanks in for a modern combat scenario, we have to compare both optimum war version of each tank respectively. I also noticed someone said M1A2 had a bigger gun? how is 120mm bigger than 125mm???:biggun:
 
HindStrike said:
The Abrams gun is smaller but has a higher velocity.
Click to expand...

So it is not a question about size, it is a question about speed. To be serious, I think it is much better to discuss pro and cons about the two MBT here. If the M1A2 has higher velocity than the T-90, that would be a con for the American tank
 
Not exactly. The difference in size between the two guns is 5mm, so 120 vs 125, which isn't a big difference so to speak. Higher velocity is an advantage to the abrams because it gives its ammo more penetration and higher accuracy vs the larger diameter but lower velocity t-90 gun.
 
HindStrike said:
Not exactly. The difference in size between the two guns is 5mm, so 120 vs 125, which isn't a big difference so to speak. Higher velocity is an advantage to the abrams because it gives its ammo more penetration and higher accuracy vs the larger diameter but lower velocity t-90 gun.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know the difference in caliber. I was joking a bit there.
I served in an anti-tank company, so I know things about tanks. However, the better ammo for the M1A2 will give an advantage to the American Tank. However, I dislike the engine inside the M1, it has been much better with a diesel engine than the turbine engine. This problem create a logistical nightmare, so this would be a con for the M1 tank
 
Yes i do agree with you on that. A con for the t-90 would be its ammo stowage. It is stored in the autoloader which is right below the turret ring, this causes the ammo to cook off and completely destroy it where an abrams could be repaired after being hit.
 
HindStrike said:
Yes i do agree with you on that. A con for the t-90 would be its ammo stowage. It is stored in the autoloader which is right below the turret ring, this causes the ammo to cook off and completely destroy it where an abrams could be repaired after being hit.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, a pro for the Russian may be the light weight of it. Perhaps they have it right. Now when many armed forces are developing light, highly mobile forces that can be deployed all over the world in short notices. To bring the heavy Western MBTs require a lot of time and work
 
Yes that is a pro for those tanks but then again, they lack the excellent armored protection that western mbts provide. Another plus to western mbts is their logistics chain which is a lot better than russian or chinese logistic chains.
 
HindStrike said:
Yes that is a pro for those tanks but then again, they lack the excellent armored protection that western mbts provide. Another plus to western mbts is their logistics chain which is a lot better than russian or chinese logistic chains.
Click to expand...


I agree the lesser weight of the Russian made MBTs mean lesser protection and space for the crew. I remember when I got down into a T-72, when I tried to get out from the darn thing, I almost went into a feeling of panic (I am 191 cm (6.4 I think) tooo tall for things like that. I suppose the T-90 is a bit better when it comes to the space for the crew. I have been inside a Leo II, which is a bit better, when it comes to the space for the crew.
 
HindStrike said:
The t-90 is based off of the t-72b so it has the same dimensions , but yes the leo 2 is much larger.
Click to expand...


The Russians have multi-fuel engines in their MBTs, I would say that is pro. They can use everything as fuel, gasoline, diesel, ethanol.....ethanol? Would A Russian put ethanol in a MBT??? Just joking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top