while the gun launched atgm on the t-90 may seem like a nice feature and outranges the main gun from abrams its still imo, quite useless on a battle tank for several reasons, you'd had to be stationary in order to fire the missile, you can't do anything else while the missile is being guided into its target, the missile is slow and taking it to its extreme ranges gives the enemy tank several chances to shoot back or take cover.
Having a range of some 5000 meters with the missile is nice but can you even see that far to start tracking targets or more importantly can you idenfity them. So what use is it really in a meeting engagement?
Oh T-90 can jump wow! lol what? you're gonna jump over minefields or something? and as said earlier in the thread the T-90 seriously lacks behind abrams in terms of armor and crew protection.

The US is devopling Extended Range Munitions......

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...itions/erm.htm

while the gun launched atgm on the t-90 may seem like a nice feature and outranges the main gun from abrams its still imo, quite useless on a battle tank for several reasons, you'd had to be stationary in order to fire the missile, you can't do anything else while the missile is being guided into its target, the missile is slow and taking it to its extreme ranges gives the enemy tank several chances to shoot back or take cover.
Having a range of some 5000 meters with the missile is nice but can you even see that far to start tracking targets or more importantly can you idenfity them. So what use is it really in a meeting engagement?
Oh T-90 can jump wow! lol what? you're gonna jump over minefields or something? and as said earlier in the thread the T-90 seriously lacks behind abrams in terms of armor and crew protection.

The missile can be fired while the tank is moving at slow speed.
The part about the T-90 seriously lacking behined the abrams in terms of crew protection is true and I mentioned it before aswell.

Originally Posted by shocktroop

The missile can be fired while the tank is moving at slow speed.
The part about the T-90 seriously lacking behined the abrams in terms of crew protection is true and I mentioned it before aswell.

While it is true the T-90 can fire the missile while moving, it must keep the sights on the target for the entire flight time, leaving it vulnerable to attack.

The AT-11 can hit the M1A2 from the top, and even if it doesn't penetrate the front, it can do enough damage to knock out the tank.

The AT-11 isn't a top attack missle, it hitting a tank's roof would have to be a weird combination of angles and good gunnery. Sure the AT-11 can knock out an Abrams, but it is not a super advantage considering an Abrams crew could spot the missile launch and fire 1-3 aimed shots in the time it takes to get to it.

First time I hear that (I am not saying its wrong), but all sources seem to claim differently.

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.

Also there is the case of facing ATGMs. The T-90 has the Shtora-1 EOCMDAS and can also be fitted with ARENA or Drozd 2 active protection systems, the M1A2 has nothing like this (most of the Abrams losses in Iraq were due to RPGs).

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.

I am not trying to say which one is good and which one is bad, I am just trying to get a balanced view point from both sides, since many people intend to say that the Abrams is best without thinking twice just because Abrams is American and they intend to say that the T-90 is bad just because its Russian.

This I understand, too many forums have people hating the other side because it's Russian or American. My conclusion is that if the M1A2 is a baseline A+, then the T-90 is an B+

This I understand, too many forums have people hating the other side because it's Russian or American. My conclusion is that if the M1A2 is a baseline A+, then the T-90 is an B+

I agree with that.

the one issue i have with autoloaders is that they contain extra parts. more parts mean more things that can go wrong. i would prefer a manual load than auto for only that reason. even if it is slower, one jam on an autoloader can mean you are a sitting duck.

Hundreds, if not thousands of moving parts on an auto loader, one part with a human loader. There are many stories out there about Abrams firing two shots in five seconds during the opening seconds of an engagement, that's huge in armored warfare, means they could make a huge dent in the enemy forces before they even had a chance to fire, and the auto-loader on the Iraqi tanks took 10 seconds to reload. That's an eternity when you have an enemy tank bearing down on you.

Try our new group about the might of the Russian military and tanks in Facebook. You are free to discuss anything about the might of Russia. Plz join Russian tanks and military.

Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy

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.

The T-90 has never seen Combat, how do you know of its "Poor inherent survivability"?

I cant stand these "Tank VS Tank" threads, there just silly; tanks dont work alone, they' re supported by Mechanised Infantry, AA guns etc. Theres just too many different factors to determine which would win in a realistic, modern battle. But, I suppose in a 1 v 1 the T-90 simply because of its innate ATGM capability.