Abrams would be better, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to use T90's in ways that can cause many nasty suprises.

"The M-1 is an offensive
tank, but it isn't a swarm tank. The T-90 is a swarm tank. Use it with
the correct swarm tactics and even an M-1 equipped force couldn't stop
it.  Its called combined arms."

There are some things about the M1 that makes me think of it as a defensive tank. So I'm curious about the reasons for considering the M1 an offensive tank?

There are some things about the M1 that makes me think of it as a defensive tank.
- The M1 is heavily armored and for that reason weighs a lot.
- The M1 has a turbine engine which uses a lot of fuel.
- The oprational range of the M1 is less than that of the T90 (465km vs 650km)
- It was originally designed to counter the USSR in Europe a defensive mission.

In WW2 when the German army went from the offensive to defensive, their tanks got heavier armor and weight and bigger guns.
IF I remember correctly the "invasion of Iraq" was mostly done by quick lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles only leaving the really tough spots for the heavy tanks, which were moved by trucks for most of the way. After Iraq was succesfully invaded demand for more armor increased and all the vehicles became heavier and heavier.

So from my observations you want a light and fast tank with a long range and low fuel economy to exploit oppertunities when invading a country. And you want a heavy well armored if possible fast tank to hold ground when defending.

So while our Challengers just really sat there sniping at the on coming horde, the M1s and probably the Leopard 2s would counter attack and engage the enemy in a running battle?

When looking at the M1 and T-72/90 in the context of a Central Front conflict, the M1 seems to me as being more defensively orientated than the T-72. I say this for several reasons:

 

I. Weight Class. It's been mentioned a million times before that Soviet vehicles are lighter and hence optimised for attack, but I haven't really seen anybody mentioning why this is the case. A primary concern for the Soviet Army was the drainage pattern of Central and Northern Europe, and the ability to cross water obstacles is obviously very much more important for an attacking force than it is for a defending force.

 

Soviet Army vehicles (IFVs and APCs in particular) place amphibious capability at a premium, unlike their NATO counterparts. Heavier vehicles (i.e. MBTs) are obviously unsuited to amphibous crossings, but the lighter vehicle is able to take advantage of a greater number of bridges than the heavier one, and is less demanding for engineers when it comes to creating crossings, thus creating a greater number of potential aveneues of advance.

 

II. Firepower Configuration. The NATO tanks are wholly optimised for the antitank mission whereas the Soviet vehicles are primarily HE throwers. The strong numerical superiority of the Red Army explains the emphasis on antitank capabilities found in NATO tanks, but the fact remains that T-72/90 tanks are much better at tackling the soft targets likely to be encountered in the breakthrough and exploitation phase of an operation (espeically with airburst ammunition) whereas the M1 is much better at engaging advancing enemy armour.

 

III Mobility Configuration. Soviet tanks are very much faster going forwards than they are reversing. This primarily due to only one reverse gear being fitted. The rationale for this is that they are intended, for the most part, to be advancing. All NATO tanks, on the other hand, are much faster than Soviet vehicles in reverse, and the M1 is no exception. The superb acceleration of the M1 is very beneficial in a fluid defence where the tank would be alternating between several firing positions (preferably hull down), reversing out of one pit until out of line of sight and sprinting to the next.. The T-90 could mount a similar defence as well (the ability to self-entrench being particularly useful), but it would take considerably longer than a NATO tank during the transit phase, and the limited depression of the main gun would make siting a major headache.

 

The M1 has proved to be a supreme offensive tank in Desert Storm and OIF which says a great deal about the quality of the machine and of the men crewing it, but when looking at the Abrams through Central Front eyes I still see a defensive vehicle.

Boris is back!

I've actually been posting under the name Beryoza for awhile but I had to use this alias because my other email isn't working ATM (perhaps all those damned school leavers are swamping the Sydney Uni network..?). Anyways, my internet access has been very irregular of late, curbing my SP contributions

I knew you were using the name Beryoza, but even that was hit and miss, well I hope your connection will stay stable.

Herald wrote "The Russian tank gun fired missiles show appallingly poor accuracy. Range advantage oif 800 meters means nothing if you can't hit anything. Plus most of those rockets just splash across the armor failing to explode and form their molten  penetrators properly.'

 

Just wondering if you could show some figures, as all reviews of Refleks I've encountered were generally positive. The South Koreans, in particular, seemed to be quite happy with Bastion and Refleks.

May be you could help me here Boris, why did the Russians integrate missile firing technology into their tanks?  I know of the advantages of range it provides when compared to standard ammunition, but would not a specialised heavy ATGM system be better suited?