This has been done so many times on so many forums it makes me want to kill myself
M1A2 is slightly better during the day and much better during the night.
That said I would much rather crew an M1A2. I don't like exploding in a magnificant fireball when my tank is penetrated.
Quote:
|
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.
|
being as most battlefields dont exceed 2km this is highly unlikely. in the missile's flight time from 5km the M1A2 can get off 3 aimed shots, move to cover, and pop smoke. the the Refleks ATGM also has a limited chance of penetrating the M1A2's frontal arc.
Quote:
|
The M1A2 does not have an auto-loader (allowing a max rate of fire of only 6rds/m, while the T-90s auto loader allows 6-8rds/m.
|
A human loader can load a round every 5 seconds on the move, some even faster. this much faster then the T-90's autoloader
Quote:
|
The T-90 can jump, the M1A2 cannot.
|
this is false, there are several pictures of the Abrams jumping. not like it matters, they aren't competing in tank jumping competeitions
Quote:
he M1A2s and the T-90s forntal armour protection is almost the same. (T-90: 1,150-1,350mm vs HEAT and 800-830mm vs APFSDS and the M1A2s: 1,350mm vs HEAT and 870mm vs APFSDS).
The M1A2s side and rear armour is very weak (during operation Iraqi Freedom, the M1A2s rear armour was penetrated by 25/30mm light auto cannons. The Iraqi's managed to stop an M1A2 withan old DshK heavy MG).
|
25mm DU APFSDS penetrated the engine blocks, this would happen with most modern tanks. The rear and side armor of *every* modern tank is susceptible to penetration. The T-90s frontal armor is
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/index.html while the M1A2's frontal armor is like 900mm KE and 1500mm CE