Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams
achtpanz    6/14/2004 3:59:14 AM
Russian T90 vs American M1A2 Abrams - Which is better? If these tanks fought in battle, which would suffer more casualties, which one is superior? What are their advantages? Any information would be helpful.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Kevbo       1/19/2010 11:41:40 PM
" 1. T90 has a crew of 3, instead of 4 people for Abrams, because of the auto loader capability."
 Auto loader break down and have injured their crew plus you have one less crew man to maintain the tank in the field, increasing crew fatigue.

"2. T90 can fire with Refleks missiles up to 6km, and penetrate if im correct minimum 900mm steel."
 Which is still incapable of penetrating the M-1's front armor.

"3. T90 has diesel engine which is better choice, especially in the dusty environment."
I have to agree with this one.

"4. T90 is for more than 20 tons lighter, which is very good for maneurability."
and to achieve this you have to be 5" tall or less to man the tank and still work in a cramp environment that stores ammo with the crew...AKA...a death trap. By the way the M-1 has a better power to weight ratio which is very good for maneuverability.
"5. T90 has for 100km more operational range than Abrams."
When it stores gas on drums attached to the exterior of the tank, can anyone say barbecue?

"6. T90 has a little bigger caliber cannon 125mm (some ppl say it dont make huge difference...whatever)"
and yet the M-1's 120mm has been proven to be more effective with better accuracy.

"7. Oh and of course, T90 costs at about 4 million USD less than Abrams.."
We have a saying in the US you get what you pay for. The T-90 is a upgraded T-72 that was renamed after the T-72 were so badly mauled in Iraq at the hands of the M-1's. The T-72 had such bad name that Russia had to change the name in hopes of selling it to other countries. The T-90 is a good low rent tank that uses some  interesting low cost technology to boosts it's basic technical limitations. It is a class below tanks like the M-1 but for the cost it is a good tank so long as it doesn't have to face tanks like the M-1.
 
Quote    Reply

enomosiki       1/20/2010 11:26:05 AM
 1. T90 has a crew of 3, instead of 4 people for Abrams, because of the autoloader capability.

If there is anything that I would want to trust less than a Russian equipment, it's the crap that are holding it together. Russian autoloader designs aren't known for quality at all, and four-men crew does provide advantages when it comes to situational awareness and crew morale.


2. T90 can fire with Refleks missiles up to 6km, and penetrate if im correct minimum 900mm steel.
 
That's a very liberal estimate. Most sources put it from anywhere between 700 to 900mm.
 
Oh, and there's the fact that high-velocity kinetic rounds travel faster than missiles can. According to sources, the Refleks takes around 15 seconds to reach a target at 5km. Something that comes screaming out of the barrel of a L44 will do that in about 4 seconds. And there is fact that the launch vehicle has to have a clear line of sight to the target and, most importantly, stay intact to guide the missile in.

The reason why I consider this missile to be so full of fail is the fact that it just doesn't work with the way the Ruskies use their tanks. It's just way too contradictory.
 
3. T90 has diesel engine which is better choice, especially in the dusty environment.

You don't realize the fact that a turbine can burn pretty much every types of fuel out there, (avgas, diesel, etc.) have less parts to tinker with as well as being smaller and lighter than a diesel. Something like dust can be easily overcome with filters.

4. T90 is for more than 20 tons lighter, which is very good for maneurability.

Look up the basis of Soviet tank doctrine, which still prevails in modern-day Russia, and you will know why they have to be lighter and faster.


5. T90 has for 100km more operational range than Abrams.

Same explanation as above.


6. T90 has a little bigger caliber cannon 125mm (some ppl say it dont make huge difference...whatever)

Inferior quality of ammunitions and guns, resulting in less velocity and kinetic energy. This is why Soviets, and now Russians, have continuously developed gun-launched missiles to compensate for the inadequacy, unlike the West which doesn't need them as much thus less priority for them.

7. Oh and of course, T90 costs at about 4 million USD less than Abrams..

The Abrams, like most other Western tanks, have been designed during Cold War and have been continuously upgraded. Back then was when they were required to take out at least three Soviet tanks before being inoperable, and with upgrades the 3-to-1 kill/death ratio is still retained. The additional expenses are very much justified.
 
Personally, I'd rather have a one intact tank and crews rather than three dead ones and equally dead crews.
 
Quote    Reply

bellator       1/28/2010 10:43:58 PM
"If there is anything that I would want to trust less than a Russian equipment, it's the crap that are holding it together. Russian autoloader designs aren't known for quality at all, and four-men crew does provide advantages when it comes to situational awareness and crew morale."

Russian autoloaders aren't know for their quality for the same reason their contraptions generally aren't -- Gulf War myths, largely, and anti-soviet propaganda in general, has etched such a picture in western perceptions. The truth of the matter is of course that an autoloader is easier to maintain than a human, and more affordable. Autoloaders don't need post-deployment pensions and they don't complain. They're quite quick and they also make the tank less heavier. As for reliability, Russian armor is generally rather simple to maintain.

The reason why I consider this missile to be so full of fail is the fact that it just doesn't work with the way the Ruskies use their tanks. It's just way too contradictory.
 
Russian tanks are shaped by Russian needs and requirements. But having tanks that are too specialized into narrow purposes, is of course not a good plan. I don't see the contradiction with having a weapon that can increase the firing range of the tank in case long range engagements are unavoidable.

You don't realize the fact that a turbine can burn pretty much every types of fuel out there, (avgas, diesel, etc.) have less parts to tinker with as well as being smaller and lighter than a diesel. Something like dust can be easily overcome with filters.

Diesel engines are generally preferred, so the military consensus is against the application of turbine engines. They're hot, they expend too much fuel, they are inconvenient in urban situations and very expensive. And, well, Russian tanks are simple enough for a "dumb" reservist army, that I know. As for the turbine engine being able to consume different kinds of fuels. A turbine engine might able to negotiate a scarcity of a specific kind of fuel, but that comes with increased overall consumption. A diesel engine consumes less, which usually matters the most in Ostfront like conditions.

Inferior quality of ammunitions and guns, resulting in less velocity and kinetic energy. This is why Soviets, and now Russians, have continuously developed gun-launched missiles to compensate for the inadequacy, unlike the West which doesn't need them as much thus less priority for them.

Do you have any actual sources to back up the statement that the western 120mm is superior to the Russian 125mm in any discernible or significant way? It seems like a pretty technical subject and if you're going to state something so confidently, do provide a source. There is an incentive for "both sides" to develop gun launched missiles, but I think that western developers had some bad experiences with them and preferred not to prioritize their development. But either way, I seriously doubt that any such small advantage conferred by a slightly superior cannon would be a game changer in any battle where so many more significant variables exist.

Anyway. I think that the t-90 and even modernized t-72 is a reasonable choice for any budget-concerned middle-income country.

 
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       1/29/2010 11:10:53 PM

Russian T90 vs American M1A2 Abrams - Which is better? If these tanks fought in battle, which would suffer more casualties, which one is superior? What are their advantages? Any information would be helpful.


The T-90 would be massacred but take a reasonable number of Abrams with it.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       1/29/2010 11:12:14 PM
Anyway T-90s are ok if you don't want a first-rate product. If you do go with American, British, German or Israeli depending on your circumstances, budget and logistics.
 
Quote    Reply

urdead       3/29/2010 8:00:20 AM

 your gonna choose a T90 over a M1A1 abrams tank(which has the best armor, firepower, range and technology put in it) How many M1A1 tanks have you seen blown up compared to the T90's. I read this story about some U.S. soldiers coming across iraq soldiers in there tanks just cooked alive after firing a round that backfired into the tank. Another point is with the range of an abrams tank compared to the T90, the abrams tank will be sitting miles away from the T90 them off 1 by 1 while the T90 crew wont even see whats hitting them
 
Quote    Reply

urdead       3/29/2010 8:05:31 AM

 your gonna choose a T90 over a M1A1 abrams tank(which has the best armor, firepower, range and technology put in it) How many M1A1 tanks have you seen blown up compared to the T90's. I read this story about some U.S. soldiers coming across iraq soldiers in there tanks just cooked alive after firing a round that backfired into the tank. Another point is with the range of an abrams tank compared to the T90, the abrams tank will be sitting miles away from the T90 them off 1 by 1 while the T90 crew wont even see whats hitting them
 
Quote    Reply

Daywatch_74A       4/3/2010 12:07:20 PM
 
Quote    Reply

tgreedy       4/13/2010 2:38:07 PM
yea autoloaders can not pic which ammo it loads and crew loaders can pick ammo to fire and theres kinda alot to pic from with a m2. A 4th crew also gives more machinegun fire when encountering enemy troops. i for get but who fires the remote 50 cal not the aimer ( fires the machine gun next to the cannon) or the driver witch leaves the cap or the loader it would take to long for the gunner to move up and control it unless the controls is right dar i really dont think the loader just sits dar n loads all day i think the loader pre loads a round before going in to comabt    
 
Quote    Reply

Commander_Jr       4/14/2010 9:34:04 PM
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy