Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
senator       6/23/2010 11:26:11 AM
I'll go with T-90.
 
Here is a list of what M1A2 lacks
T-90 uses guided long-range AT missiles (up to 5000 meters)
T-90 has anti-missile interception defense.
T-90 has optoelectronic suppression system.
T-90 has ERA of latest generation.
T-90 has autoloader of latest generation.
T-90 is around 50 tons, while M1A2 is around 70 tons.
 
Quote    Reply

the uh man123?       7/14/2010 1:44:39 PM
the M1 is much more advanced than the T-90.the M1 has much thicker armor and and its reactive armor to. the armor its self is explosive. the 125mm gun on the T-90 might be bigger but its MUCH weaker than the M1's. the reason for that is that we use a shell that does not explode. it breaks apart and leaves a sharp round object flying though the sky. when it hits it penatrates into the tank, helicopter or what ever its attacking. our crews are way better trained than the russians. now i will say that the russian tank looks cool, but it sucks. if u ever played Call of Duty 4 then u know on the mission war pig at the end when the abrams shoots the T-72 though the wall. yeah. i know that was a T-72 and not a T-90 but there armor is or 20mm apart. the armor on the abrams is a foot thick in places like the front and top sides. but the abrams is a real gas drinker. but that does not really take away the mobility of it. and yes it cost over 5 million dollars to build one of them. but there so good that 50 or 60 of them could take out hundreds of T-72's and T-90's. so who wins? u choose. :)
 
Quote    Reply

the uh man123?       7/14/2010 1:50:51 PM
tru that man. M1 rocks. the T-90 does look cool but it sucks.
 
Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       7/14/2010 3:50:05 PM
Uh man, did you really use a video game to provide evidence for your argument?
 
Both the M1 and the T90 use both APFSDS (non-exploding) and HE (exploding) as well as other kinds of ammo.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/15/2010 12:39:14 AM
This be silly.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/15/2010 12:41:34 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.


I guess this isn't a silly OP post/question, the details are necessary, but the answer is obvious.
 
At any rate I know some details but aren't really qualified to express them, but as for the answer I can say that the T90 is based on a decades-old design whereas the Abrams is more recent, properly updated and built in a nation that was and is ahead of Russia in tech, further cementing its advantage... and that is has seen significant combat.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/15/2010 12:45:20 AM
by not qualified I mean 'not good enough' not any super-secret bs oc
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/15/2010 12:51:39 AM

There has been a lot of anti russian propaganda all the time. The americans do know that T90S is one of the best tanks in the world. The M1A1 abrams does have  better armor than the T90 with depleted uranium mesh, RH and the chobham armor.

 

Recently India developed a composite armor much like the Chobham called the Kanchan armor. Its one of the best in the world, with a rolled homogenous armor, and ceramic materials being used. The indian army is fitting its latest Arjun MBT with this, and if the T90 gets outfitted with one, then I guess the T90 will be comparable to the M1 abrams with regards to armor.

 




Lastly russian systems arent bad or anything. They are as good as american ones!!...Its just that america has always gone about  with this propaganda that no other equipment is better than its own, which is BS.
I know this is my fourth post, but damn...

It sounds like your argument is 'it can't be right that one nation is so much better', well I agree, in some fields it isn't, but you're wrong... in most fields it IS. That's what happens when you run nearly half the world's military budget for decades.
 
Also if you knew your stuff you'd know there's far more pro-Russian weaponry propaganda on this site than anti.
Your nick seems a bit Indian, so that might be it. Or not... regardless I must say that your argument that the Indians have made a superior form of weaponry is intriguing. I'm open to the fact it might have happened, but I've a feeling if I investigate your claim it will be hilarious. Indians are known for shitty weaponry, sure she's getting better, but at a slow pace. 
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/15/2010 12:54:21 AM

Mustafa



I like the t90 tanks myself. But that said it doesnt mean that the m1 abrams is a horrible tank. In 1991 9 abrams tanks, destroyed 87 or more t72s. The statistic speaks for itself.



But then again, this doesnt mean that the t90 is bad. Nor does it mean that the m1 is indestructible. With composite armor like Kanchan fitted on a T90, it will be as good as the m1 or probably even better.


Hmmm... well you seem a little less biased here... I'm confident you're totally wrong about it being better, but methinks maybe there's something to your armour since you can at least approach reality somewhat.
 
Well, that's my fifth post coz of no edit function. Better jig out before the tidy posters get too upset.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/15/2010 1:25:44 AM
Oh btw., kudos on indirectly admitting the Abrams is still better... at least till the T90 gets the Indian super armor :) (despite my mockery I'm sure its good... I just doubt its all that (best ever)). So I'm sorry, seems that while you're heavily biased you still have considerable sense left.
(I doubt you'll take kindly to my comments though).
 
----
next

6) You do not get what you pay for in the abrams. No ERA, no active defense systems, weaker turret, no autoloader, logistically retarded, no guided weaponry, larger target, heavier target. The only advantage it has over the T-90 is that it uses the GPS system which has total global coverage while the T-90 uses the GLONASS system, which does not as of now, but this will change by the end of 2010. The armor for the M1A2 is dangerous, and has caused 30,000 soldiers from the Gulf war return home with radiation poisoning. 

On a side note, only 15 T-72s were destroyed in the Gulf War, and they were all destroyed by indirect fire (air strikes, artillery etc.). Despite the fact they were older, they still managed to destroy around 60 Bradley APCs and  M60 Pattons. The Abrams is a horrible tank, and this reflects in its international sales. Egypt bought a considerable amount of M1A1s but that is about it. Basically no NATO countries use them.
Didn't bother with the preceding arguments.
Argument 6: You're completely insane.
Side note: Dozens of T-72s were destroyed by direct fire as well as hundreds of other armored vehicles.
The reason other western nations don't use the Abrams is because its expensive and because of long-standing armored traditions they have their own industries, such as Britain, Germany and France (though the LeClerc is a bit of a comparative lemon from what I've heard). Britain's and especially Germany's Leapoard are better priced, easier to maintain and well engineered though it has barely been tested in combat. Some people hold that it and the Challenger may be better than the Abrams, however there are very solidly dissenting opinions. As far as I can tell from combat records it seems the Challenger is about even, but as said the Leapord hasn't seen much combat so its hard to say, but combat records are a good thing so thats an advantage to the Challenger and especially Abrams.
Regardless of whether the extra cost means greater effectiveness for the Abrams it is not worth it for the larger European countries to abandon their tank industries and historically effective tank doctrines, and given that they're roughly as effective and cheaper and completely unlikely to meet the Americans in combat the smaller nations (like my Norway for example which got Leapords) are not going to reach over the Atlantic for a product that may or may not be better or worse (I'm leaning towards the Abrams being better in its current incarnation compared to the Leapord though I prefer German tank design doctrine), but if better would provide an unneeded edge and which is certainly more expensive.
 
Furthermore European tanks tend to be designed for European needs! The same goes for the Merkava, which is the ultimate urbanized tank with APC capabilities.
All in all, it is easier to compete in tank industries and the industry and doctrine is more entrenched than air power. The natural result is a more diverse family of tanks worldwide.
 
Lastly, you didn't even manage to get it right who uses it except the USA and Egypt:
There's also Australia, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
 
This is not much, but it is respectable and understandable.
 
The viable criticisms of the tank pertinent to a discussion on its viability as a weapon of war are its poor fuel efficiency and high cost... that is a typical American flaw.
 
  • http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Flag_of_Australia.svg/22px-Flag_of_Australia.svg.png" width="22" height="11" /> Australia - Australian Army: 59 M1A1SA (hybrids, mix equipment used by US Army tanks and USMC tanks, without DU layers in armor) tanks we
    		•
     
    Quote    Reply



     Latest
     News         		  Most
     Read         		  Most
     Commented    		  Hot
     Topics