About T-90 vs M1A2 Page 5
|January 8th, 2012||#41|
| || |
Last edited by HindStrike; January 8th, 2012 at 19:16..
|January 8th, 2012||#42|
| || |
|January 28th, 2012||#43|
| || |
T-90 vs M1A2 info
I too find it rather pointless to compare tanks that are clearly made for different purposes. M1A2 is made with full logistics support in mind. It is not designed to be a "plug for every hole". The cons of M1A1 are that it is big, heavy and thus it is impossible to haul by most railroads and has trouble crossing most bridges, only 2 planes in US military (as far as I know) are able to lift it (C-5 and C-17), it uses lots of fuel to operate, relatively expensive, weak (or at least inadequate to resist RPG-7 with modern ammuninion) side and rear protection, shell trap just above the upper hull plate that is absolutely huge, making it vulnerable from the front arc. Pros: fire control system is very accurate (not very fast though), supporting electronics (diagnostics, vision, communication), crew comfort (it is like a limo compared to t90c being merely "VW golf" class). It is fast on roads and level terrain (72 or 68, depending on the model, is the limit that is forced electronically. If the need arises, one could propel the thing to nearly 100 at the expence of engine and suspension. Don't try this at home ) Quality of assembly is also very high, and if one operates it "by the book" standards, very few things will go wrong, regular service provided.
as for T-90c... it is a different beast altogether. Most obvious cons are the assembly quality (this thing is designed to be MASS produced, not hand tailored). Cramped crew compartment is very tiring to the crew. Less accurate at extreme ranges (4km+) due to more crude electronics assistance. Communication equipment is not up to par compared to western counterparts. Weak rear protection vulnerable to hand held anti tank weapons (same problems as with all tanks probably). It has not been proper battle tested, so possible weaknesses may still emerge. Sure, they were hit by RPGs on many occasions (Dagestan comes to mind) as well as polygon tested, but that is not real combat test. It is slower on roads and level terrain. Different sources claim that it is capable of 70km/h but I suspect that this figure is in the red zone since it does not have a speed limiter. Diesel engines are also more difficult to operate at cold temperatures. Ammunition storage is a disaster waiting to happen. It is also very difficult for one crew member to substitute another in battle conditions if a need arises. As I said earlier - it is really cramped. These are just what spring to mind without going into technical details.
On the other hand, T-90c is much smaller and lighter. Small silhouette makes it a more difficult target, and easier concealed and camouflaged. Lighter also does not make it any less armored. Remember - the tank is 2/3rd of abrams in size, and therefore needs much less armor weight to achieve comparable armor values. The shell trap area is much smaller and therefore the tank is better protected from frontal long range fire. Different reports also say that it is very well armored from side attacks (although validity of these is another question since battle conditions are not described well). I seriously doubt that it can resist 120mm shell in its side, but at least it is claimed on numerous occasions to being hit by RPGs from sides and still remain operational. Rumors of T-72 and T-90 series being death trap, with ammo racks exploding after every sneeze, are also greatly exaggerated. I can not quote for T-90c performance, since as I said, it is not proper battle tested, but during siege of Grozny 20 T-72 were destroyed and only 8 casualties reported. Bear in mind that they were fired at with RPGs from tall buildings and from the top projection mostly. It is also unclear whether these casualties were suffered inside the tank, or after crew evacuated they were killed in the ensuing battle. T-72 also were not equiped with active armor during these events. Since T-90c is small and light (well... as far as MBTs go anyway) it can be transported more easily. Railroad, roads, air, sea... Take 2 and get 1 free Also less of a bridge problem.
As I said earlier, fire control is more crude on T-90c than in western vehicles and that results in relatively poor accuracy at extreme tanges for the main gun. But it is also much faster at target acquisition and firing at medium and close ranges. It is even faster than that on Leopard 2 which was holding an unofficial crown for speed shooting (8 targets in 60 secs for Leopard 2, 9 for T-90, all in the 1-2.5 km range). Althoug this record breaking performance may be adressed with a bit of suspicion since most sources claim that the rof with standard T-90 autoloaders is around 8 rpm and it is unknown to me whether they shot on the move or stationary. 9М119М missiles and its modifications that can be loaded are also a big plus and can somewhat compensate for theoretically lower accuracy and penetration values of the main gun at long range. They provide a near 100% hit probability on targets up to 5km moving up to 70km/h while the tank moves less than 30km/h. In theory. At least these figures are claimed by producers. Nevertheless t is well beyond m256 120mm gun effective range, and even if you hit T-90 at that distance, I seriously doubt that you will penetrate. Lower weight also means less stress on suspension. T-90 series are extremely maneuvrable on rough terrain. You have probably seen them jumping all over the place on youtube or some such. Whereas this is hardly "battle recommended" it shows the potential for the chassis.
Damn... I really can go on for ages talking about different tanks, advantages and disadvantages. Long story short - these are machines built for different conditions. T-90c is more of a close range fighter. It is more crude, cheaper, lighter. You can service it with a screwdriver and a hammer. In an all out, less than ideal battle situations where intel is limited, terrain is not a 15 km salt flat, your supply lines are being targeted not by a couple of extrimists, but by tank battalions, it may prove to be much more effective. M1A2 will be hard pressed to show its full potential in this situation. It is more designed for "by the book" engagements. It needs proper supply, intel, proper workshop, mechanic with a notebook and a degree in rocket science etc... Then and only then it will shine, being able to use its advantages in electronics, communication, targeting and so forth.
|January 28th, 2012||#44|
| || |
" weak (or at least inadequate to resist RPG-7 with modern ammuninion) "
Aparently even a modern RPG 7 is more deadly than another M1A1 Abrams firng an APFSDS round at another tank in a unfortunate friendly fire instance, thus still have the hit tank survive during the first Gulf War.
As for ammunition storage for the Abrams, as far as I know not one vehicle has been lost to a catastrophic ammunition detonation, in fact the ammunition itself goes through every thing from heat to drop testing at the manufacturer, to ensure it will only go off when fired, this does not make it fool proof, but improves the tanks suriviability.
Or the instances where operations in Iraq invovled one Abrams being hit 7 times with rocket propelled ordance, but the crew survived.
Abrams tanks can cross over floatation bridges, this was demonstrated via various models from the older A1 to today's A2s from Operations Like Able Archer,to Iraqi Freedom, even going as far enough as to be captured in the famous photographs crossing an structually unstable almost destroyed Iraqi bridge on one such event.
Now I am not saying the Abrams is the absolute best tank even created, surely there may be a tank that can best it on paper in every category of measure, but the Abrams is one of the most proven in the field and has an impressive track record as evidence.
Lastly there are a few members here who have armor experiance, even with the Abrams I believe, I am sure they can enlighten you much more clearly than I can on the subject, especially how comfortable it may or may not be to sleep in.
But lastly, in terms of fielding the Abrams compared to the T 90, you are right, the Abrams needs a massive support network to field it, but in terms of future development, do not forget that the Abrams is developted by the largest arms manufacturer and contractor on the planet.
And given the right amount of money and project allocation, the full weight of America's military industrial complex will be put behind keeping the Abrams on top of it's game, which is already again partially proven via the upgrades it has already recieved in is tour of duty to date.
Now I am sure the T 90A is a very fearsome machine in itself, but in any altercation (let's hope that never happens), I do believe the deciding factor will be in how the tanks on each side are used, and delpoyed, not by numbers on a spread sheet.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience"- Dwight D. Eisenhower , Jan 17,1961.
Last edited by Yossarian; January 28th, 2012 at 17:58..
|February 1st, 2012||#45|
| || |
I completely agree with you Yossarian on the subject that it all comes down to how they are deployed and in what conditions is what truly matters. My post was made to illustrate that things may not be as simple as some may assume and there is no absolute best. There just might be a slight misunderstanding. By "shell trap" I meant the area on the surface armor of a tank that may result in redirection of ricochet fire into the turret ring area and the ring itself, not the ammunition storage. Since turret ring is one of the weakest parts on any tank, you really do not want enemy to shoot there. Just want to be clear, since I did not explain that moment.
|February 1st, 2012||#46|
| || |
Oh absolutely, so no worries,
I apologize if my interpretation may have been a bit out of context.
Alot of the Abrams success on the battlefield seems to be through the U.S. war doctine of combined arms.
Russia has some interesting armor tactics that I am sure in any military action, would be used implementing the T 90A as well.
As we agree, throughout the history of armored warefare that deployment and use of any tank is quite literally half the battle.
But literally I hope that neither of these machines ever reach an impass requiring them to slug it out with one another.
So questions in that respect are best left unanswered.
Last edited by Yossarian; February 2nd, 2012 at 19:23..
|February 29th, 2012||#47|
| || |
when it comes to tanks you have to pay attention to each component, a tank that cant shoot can still protect and transport, a tank that cant move can still put extremely effective rounds down range, and a tank with weak armor, is just a shitty tank.
my heart rests with the Abrams tank, the reasoning is that it has been battle proven over dozens of encounters and to date has suffered much less than anyone could imagine.
that being said the iraqis fighting these machines are extremely poorly equipped, thus making a tank a juggernaut. until i get more on the T-90 in similar combat as the Abrams i'm going to have to give it an edge over the 90