About T-90 vs M1A2
|February 26th, 2006||#1|
| || |
T-90 vs M1A2 info
which one do you think is better in terms of mobility, protection and firepower?
|February 26th, 2006||#3|
| || |
I think that would be M1A2 Abrams. Abrams has more armor and firepower than T-90. That's my opition. Abrams are younger than T-90, I think. By the way, CanadianCombat is right. There are many about Abrams. Try the "search".
I shall return-
General Douglas MacArthur
Last edited by Fox; February 26th, 2006 at 01:50..
|February 26th, 2006||#4|
| || |
Its difficult to choose which one is better, but here is a short comparison:
The M1A2 is faster (top speed is about 72km/h while 60-70km/h for the T-90, depending on which engine the T-90 uses).
The T-90 has a longer range (650km compare to M1A2s 560km range).
The T-90 can jump, the M1A2 cannot.
The T-90 weights around 47 tons compare to the M1A2 which weights around 70 tons.
The M1A2 has a more powerful engine (1500hp compare to the T-90s 1000hp engine).
The M1A2 uses a gas turbine engine which proved to caus alot of trouble in Iraq, the T-90 uses a desiel engine which doesn't make problems in desert terraine.
The 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). I don't have info about the T-90s rear and side armour preformance since it never saw combat.
The T-90 is fitted with a Shtora-1 EOCMDAS and can also be fitted with the ARENA or Drozd 2 active protection system (both systems proved to be very succesful during testing), The M1A2 has nothing like this.
The M1A2 has very good crew protection (from the 70+ Abrams tanks that the US lost in Iraq only 1 crew died.
The M1A2 has better amunition protection.
The reason that the M1A1s front armour could not be penetrated by the rounds that were fired at it by T-72s was because the shells were cheap Iraqi made shells and the T-72s that they used were old models.
T-90 has kontakt-5 ERA.
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.
The M1A2s AP shells are more powerful than the T-90s AP shells.
The T-90 has the Refleks-M ATGM which has a range of 5000m and can also be used agains low slow flying aircraft such as helicopters.
The T-90s 12.7mm AA MG can be remote controlled from inside the tank by the commander.
The M1A2s fire control systems are superior.
Last edited by shocktroop; February 26th, 2006 at 02:29..
|February 26th, 2006||#5|
| || |
It seems as if they are both good for different strategic situations, though I'd have to say the M1A2 is a better piece of hardware for frontline fighting.
"Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government." - George Washington
|February 26th, 2006||#6|
| || |
Whoever gets off the first shot will win.
They are designed to kill other tanks afterall.
\"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don\'t have that problem\".
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States; 1985
|February 26th, 2006||#7|
| || |
I agree with what jedi078 said.
The one who gets the first shot off wins.
In this case, I think that the T-90 would win because:
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.
Here is a possible senario:
Threre are 10 T-90s on one side and 10 M1A2s on the other. They are 7km apart.
When they get to a range of about 5km apart, the T-90s fire their AT-11 Sniper ATGMs at the M1A2s. 50%-60% of the M1A2s get nocked out which leaves only about 5-6 M1A2s. When they get to arange of about 2-4km apart, the tank combat starts and since 50%-60% of the M1A2s are knocked out this means that there are 10 T-90s vs about 5 or 6 M1A2s. Which probably means that the T-90s would win.
|February 26th, 2006||#8|
| || |
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.
Last edited by Kozzy Mozzy; February 26th, 2006 at 05:56..
|February 26th, 2006||#9|
| || |
Don't forget that the M1A2 has a far better supporting cast than any other tank in the world.
Please note that 98% of what I say is my opinion and/or my "version" of the facts. Most of what I say is rumor with little to no evidence to back it up, just something I picked up somewhere.
|February 26th, 2006||#10|
| || |
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).
The AT-11 can also be used agains helicopters, the Abrams can only use its M2 12.7mm heavy MG.
It also depends on the crew, and I think that M1A2 crews are much better trained.
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.
Last edited by shocktroop; February 26th, 2006 at 06:16..