T-90 vs M1A2

[shocktroop]

While most people would vote for the M1A2 without thinking twice, there are alot of facts that are over looked.
which one do you think is better in terms of mobility, protection and firepower?

 

[CanadianCombat]

we have done this to many times. there are plenty of other threads on this shocktroop.

 

[Fox]

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".

 

[shocktroop]

we have done this to many times. there are plenty of other threads on this shocktroop.

Sorry, I looked through the 8 most recent pages of the Military, Hardware, Gear and Technology forum and I did see comparisons between the M1A1, Leo2, Challenger 2 and Merkava but not the T-90.

Its difficult to choose which one is better, but here is a short comparison:
Mobility:
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.
Protection:
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.
Fire Power:
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.

 

[major liability]

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.

 

[jedi078]

Whoever gets off the first shot will win.

They are designed to kill other tanks afterall.

 

[shocktroop]

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.

 

[Kozzy Mozzy]

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.

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.

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

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

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

 

[Damien435]

Don't forget that the M1A2 has a far better supporting cast than any other tank in the world.

 

[shocktroop]

That said I would much rather crew an M1A2. I don't like exploding in a magnificant fireball when my tank is penetrated.

True the T-90s ammunition is much more vurnable than the M1A2s.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

M1A2 is slightly better during the day and much better during the night.

I agree. At night the M1A2 is way better thanks to its superior systems.

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.

 

[Armyjaeger]

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.

 

[jedi078]

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

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/erm.htm

 

[shocktroop]

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? :-D 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.

 

[Kozzy Mozzy]

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+

 

[shocktroop]

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.

 

[behemoth79]

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.

 

[Damien435]

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.

 

[The Russian]

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.

 

[Stealthy!]

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"?

 

[DarkRain]

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.