T-90 Vs Abrams - Page 3




 
--
 
December 21st, 2013  
vemontz
 
The best is Challenger 2:
Can survive being hit by 70 RPG-29 Tandem HEAT Warheads that penetrates 750 mm armor, or it has more than 52,500 mm of armor against HEAT Warheads, it can also survive a FGM-148 Javelin Missile shot. Its armor can also be further upgraded, its on TankNutDave. The only destroyed Challenger 2 is because of friendly fire, means that its gun is very strong. It can accelerate up to 60 KM/H on road and 40 KM/H on off-road. It has a 550 KM operational range, which is very far. Its gun can also fire its munitions up to 5 KM away, and it has a tea brewer.

HindStrike, this is the armor of abrams:
600 mm vs APFSDS
800 mm vs HEAT

But after K2 is released, it beats challenger 2:
It has soft-kill and hard-kill APS, it has NERA and ERA, and a 4th generation composite armor. The gun, it targets the top armor of a tank, it is a fire-and-forget anti-tank munition capable f destroying most tanks in 1 shot. The K2 PIP, it will change the smoothbore gun to a electro-thermal-chemical gun which I think is very cool, and a new active suspension unit. It also has a auto-loader which can make it fire up to 20 rounds a minute. It also have a radar jammer, radar warning receiver, laser warning receiver, missile approach warning system, and battle management system.

I think K2 PIP is better than Challenger 2 CSP.
December 23rd, 2013  
Easy-8
 
 
The Abrams has:

1. better armor
2. better firepower
3, more advanced optics and GPS tracking system


However the T-90 has two advantages that while they may not sound very exciting to the general public - could prove a war winner

1. they are easier and cheaper to make
2. they are better on gas.
December 23rd, 2013  
Yossarian
 
 
At any junction, depending on the young men manning each tank, how well they work together and how well they can communicate with their fellow tanker's in other vehicles.


Any facts said on paper can only be taunted with used car salesman gimmicks.
--
March 14th, 2014  
tanker82
 

Topic: M1a2


The video that was posted earlier in this thread is not correct on the principles of operations of abrams. The FCS of the V2 is far more advanced than the T-90's. The M829E4/A4 is designed to defeat the new K-5 fitted on the T-90. The Abrams has a new armor upgrade gen.5 and is being fitted with ECP1 and 2.Thous bringing the version up to SEP V3. This will keep the abrams ahead of any other MBT's in the world. With its new MTU 883 diesel and FCS the abrams will be wanted by many other countries.
March 18th, 2014  
{ĪnnĪr
 
The M1 would be able to take on at least 3 T-90s and win, but the T-90 is better as it is a whole lot more affordable and easier to produce. You try finding tonnes of computers and depleted uranium and fitting it all into a killing machine at a low-ish price!
April 9th, 2014  
crockett007
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbauer
lol guys... you are funny.
First: Abrams have reactive armor only on it's side over the tracks.
Second: T-90 active defense system is automatic and used by computer, so the crew will have no problem firing a Refleks in the meantime.
Third: This is a comparision of 2 different tanks. As you have all said Abrams is a combined arms tank, while T-90 more do on it's own.
Fourth: Russian tank design philosopy was always ahead of west. Smoothbore guns, lower silhuette... Compare the Abrams to the M-60.
M1A2 Abrams is a good tank, i like it, but get your facts straight, it's a bit outdated. The T-90 or now the T-90MS Tagil is more universal.
To your point about "getting facts straight", in fact the Abrams M1A2 has no reactive armor. The armored skirts are in fact the No.1 and No.2 skirts adjacent to the drivers compartment. These are Chobham derivative armored skirts with DU laminate. They are designed to protect the driver, and the front fuel cells from being penetrated. The remainder of the armored skirts are thin steel, and only offer protection from HEAT projectiles in terms of pre-detonation.

As to Russian tank design philosophy...virtually every conflict since WWII suggests that smoothbore guns and low sillouhette usually come out on the losing end.
April 10th, 2014  
{ĪnnĪr
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett007
To your point about "getting facts straight", in fact the Abrams M1A2 has no reactive armor. The armored skirts are in fact the No.1 and No.2 skirts adjacent to the drivers compartment. These are Chobham derivative armored skirts with DU laminate. They are designed to protect the driver, and the front fuel cells from being penetrated. The remainder of the armored skirts are thin steel, and only offer protection from HEAT projectiles in terms of pre-detonation.

As to Russian tank design philosophy...virtually every conflict since WWII suggests that smoothbore guns and low sillouhette usually come out on the losing end.
I think that he meant the M1A2 TUSK II version.
November 12th, 2014  
Army0413
 
M1A1 crosscheck russians new tank T-90(not the best from Russia).
November 16th, 2014  
JOC
 
 
For modern tanks it's a hard choice between the battle proven Abrams M1A2 and Germany's Leopard 2A7 " I believe 7 is the last variant"

If we go to the WW2 era I believe it was the Panzer V AUSF G "Germany's last Panther variant". It was a superior tank the Germans could finally produce in numbers that was: fast, had strong sloping armor and a high velocity 75 mm gun. It was more than a match for the T-34's and most allied tanks.
Exceptions being the M-26 Pershing, Sherman Firefly and the somewhat slow loading Joseph Stalin IS-2.
March 11th, 2015  
The Think Tanker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vemontz
The best is Challenger 2:
Can survive being hit by 70 RPG-29 Tandem HEAT Warheads that penetrates 750 mm armor, or it has more than 52,500 mm of armor against HEAT Warheads, it can also survive a FGM-148 Javelin Missile shot. Its armor can also be further upgraded, its on TankNutDave. The only destroyed Challenger 2 is because of friendly fire, means that its gun is very strong. It can accelerate up to 60 KM/H on road and 40 KM/H on off-road. It has a 550 KM operational range, which is very far. Its gun can also fire its munitions up to 5 KM away, and it has a tea brewer.

HindStrike, this is the armor of abrams:
600 mm vs APFSDS
800 mm vs HEAT

But after K2 is released, it beats challenger 2:
It has soft-kill and hard-kill APS, it has NERA and ERA, and a 4th generation composite armor. The gun, it targets the top armor of a tank, it is a fire-and-forget anti-tank munition capable f destroying most tanks in 1 shot. The K2 PIP, it will change the smoothbore gun to a electro-thermal-chemical gun which I think is very cool, and a new active suspension unit. It also has a auto-loader which can make it fire up to 20 rounds a minute. It also have a radar jammer, radar warning receiver, laser warning receiver, missile approach warning system, and battle management system.

I think K2 PIP is better than Challenger 2 CSP.
You are nitpicking the best data of the Chally, and the worst of the Abrams, in addition to some plain wrong data (52,500mm against HEAT? Are you insane? Its closer to 1,500mm against HEAT and around 1,050 against CE, also, the Challenger was never hit by 70 RPG-29's, it was struck by 14 obsolete RPG-7's, and a single Milan F1. Also, the M1A2 SEP V2 which is the newest variant has very similar protection to the Challenger II, being inferior in most aspects, but superior in some.)
Also, you have grossly over-estimated the protection performance of the Challenger 2, can it survive a direct hit from a FGM-148 Javelin on the frontal glacis? Maybe, but the Javelin is a top-attack missile, and would certainly penetrate the top. On top of this, like the Challenger 2's predecessor, the Challenger 1, the Challenger is, relatively speaking, weak in the weapon department, with its smoothbore cannon lacking the punch of its Leopard 2A6 and M1A2 counterparts. With its newest ammunition only barely scraping the 700mm RHA penetration mark (for reference, the Abrams M829A3 has around 800mm RHA penetration, and the M829A2 from 1994 has around 700mm RHA penetration).
All modern tanks all have their own respective advantages and disadvantages, don't go full Blacktail please.
 


Similar Topics
Egyptian abrams : from m1a1 to m1a2
M1 Abrams
Leopard 2 vs. Abrams
Abrams Tank
M1 Abrams Tanker Uniform