T-90 Vs Abrams
Korean Seaboy
Active member
It all depends on the environment, as well as the crew. If the crew was the same, then I'd guess the Abrams on a 1:1, but the T-90 is cheap compared to the Abrams, so it would be hard to decide
what about egyptian abrams (Abrams without the Depleted Uranium Strike Plates)?
HindStrike
Active member
Like seaboy said, it still depends on the crew and terrain and many other factors. If the crew is equal then I give it to the abrams still because of the m829 series of du penetrators that it uses. They are far superior to any penetrators made in Russia. That and its superior sensors and battlefield management systems will allow the abrams to see the t-90 first. So overall the abrams still wins.
well,from my researchs,i believe that the T-90 have bigger fire power(125 mm smoothbore gun with ability to launch Anti-tank missiles too) and both of those ammos can penetrate inside the Abrams shields.
HindStrike
Active member
That big 125mm smooth-bore gun is a lower velocity and the rounds it shoots wont have the kinetic energy that the l44 on the abrams has. And with its better sensors and thermal imaging, the odds of a t-90 flanking the abrams without being detected are very small. Abrams still wins.
i'm not sure of it dude, i know that the t-90 has enough fire power to destroy the abrams , i mean you will only need one direct shot to destroy the enemy's tank in both war machines, but you said that the abrams have bigger chances to "lock on" the t-90 first,while the t-90 is smaller,lower and lighter.
i truly can't understand why the abrams is superior then the t-90...cuz of the havy armor?come on dude,the t-90's shields are havy too.
i truly can't understand why the abrams is superior then the t-90...cuz of the havy armor?come on dude,the t-90's shields are havy too.
lolwhassup
Active member
If you've been reading what all the people before you have written, then you would realize the Abrams is superior because of
1) The Abrams has a superior Fire Control System.
2) It has Depleted Uranium plates on the frontal armor, so it is better protected.
3) The Abrams has a higher top speed than the T-90 despite the Abrams being heavier.
4) As HindStrike has said, the Abrams uses the L44 120mm Smooth-bore that fires shells at a higher velocity than the T-90's 125mm, not to mention the M829A3 that was specifically designed to counter Russian reactive armor.
Oh and on your point about the T-90 being able to fire ATGMs, the T-90 can only fire it's ATGMs while it's stationary or moving at an extremely slow speed.:tank:
HindStrike
Active member
Smaller and lower doesn't mean invisible, the abrams will still see the t-90 first, and superior fcs means it will get the first shot off. And no, if the abrams doesn't have du armor plates, then the protection is about equal, just the m829a3 du penetrators used by the abrams can penetrate 960mm rha equivalent. While the 3bm46 tungsten long-rod penetrators used by the t-90 have 800mm rha equivalent penetration ability. So even with era, the t-90 will be destroyed by the abrams in 1v1 combat.
1*Abrams is better cuz its faster? 2-3 km/h faster...that does not make any difference...the t90's 100km+ of range does.
2*the heay size of the abrams make it much more visible in battle field , and of course limits its mobility...which is an advantage for the t-90.
3*the abrams gun is better and has longer range? come on, the t-90's gun is bigger,capable of firing ATGM rounds with a pin-point accuracy at high range (5km+) while standards abrams rounds lose effectiveness and fly off-course after a range of 2km+...so t-90's gun is the one with the longest range.
4*abrams has better protection? yeah,but the t-90's K-5 ERA is very effective against the abrams M829 penetrators bro.in the other hand,t-90 has a unique defense system,shrora,wich is able to jam ATGMs including tow,javelin,dragon..
5*t-90 is an upgraded t-72..and the abrams is better then the iraqi t-72 chinese model? even the t-90 is better then the t72m.
6*the t-90 can hit 7 targets between 1.5 km and 2.5 km while moving at 25 km/h speed and in 54 sec only...abrams did never do that,infact,with such accuracy,it just can't.
7*if a m829 penetrate inside the t-90,there is a small chance that the tank explodes,cuz the ammo stored inside the autoloader is pretty safe,the penetration of the turret will only disable the tank's fire power...don't forget that the t90 is lower.
**that doesn't mean that the abrams is weak ,that only means that the T-90 is superior in most of the times.
so sorry but 1 vs 1 ,90% of the time,the t-90 will win,at list its crew will survive.
2*the heay size of the abrams make it much more visible in battle field , and of course limits its mobility...which is an advantage for the t-90.
3*the abrams gun is better and has longer range? come on, the t-90's gun is bigger,capable of firing ATGM rounds with a pin-point accuracy at high range (5km+) while standards abrams rounds lose effectiveness and fly off-course after a range of 2km+...so t-90's gun is the one with the longest range.
4*abrams has better protection? yeah,but the t-90's K-5 ERA is very effective against the abrams M829 penetrators bro.in the other hand,t-90 has a unique defense system,shrora,wich is able to jam ATGMs including tow,javelin,dragon..
5*t-90 is an upgraded t-72..and the abrams is better then the iraqi t-72 chinese model? even the t-90 is better then the t72m.
6*the t-90 can hit 7 targets between 1.5 km and 2.5 km while moving at 25 km/h speed and in 54 sec only...abrams did never do that,infact,with such accuracy,it just can't.
7*if a m829 penetrate inside the t-90,there is a small chance that the tank explodes,cuz the ammo stored inside the autoloader is pretty safe,the penetration of the turret will only disable the tank's fire power...don't forget that the t90 is lower.
**that doesn't mean that the abrams is weak ,that only means that the T-90 is superior in most of the times.
so sorry but 1 vs 1 ,90% of the time,the t-90 will win,at list its crew will survive.
Last edited:
lolwhassup
Active member
So you downplay the extra speed an Abrams has because its only slightly faster, yet you try to say that the larger profile of Abrams makes it less maneuverable? Sorry to burst your bubble but just because it has larger profile doesn't make it less maneuverable. (Oh and the only reason that the Abrams is only a few mph faster than the T-90 is because they installed an engine governor on the Abrams engine. It's been proven to be able to go up to 60 MPH without the engine governor. However they also realized that moving a 70-ton tank at 60 MPH severely damages the tracks.)
On your #2 point, the T-90 can have an operational range of 340-400mi depending on the engine, while the Abrams has an operational range of 300-355mi, which since you like to downplay slight differences, isn't all that much.
Your #3 point isn't valid considering the fact that you're not even comparing the ballistics of firing tank ammunition, you're talking about an ATGM. Also as I already pointed out the T-90 can only fire ATGMs when stationary or moving at a low speed. Oh and none of us said that the L44 120mm had a longer range, we simply stated that it fires ammunition at a higher velocity.
Your #6 point is just plain assumption and biased opinion and you don't even take crew training into account. With such accuracy? An M1A2 Abrams can hit targets on the move accurately, depend on the crew seeing as it also has a top of the line FCS that is superior to the T-90 and a gyro-stabilized gun.
The M829A3 is very effective against Kontakt - 5 ERA, So effective in fact that Russia developed Relikt as a response to the M829A3. (also Relikt has not been equipped on any Russian tank yet.)
in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "when fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the depleted uranium penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which were among the most formidable tank gun projectiles at the time."
the new T-90M (Prototype version featuring new explosive reactive armour (ERA) Relikt, new 1,250 PS (920 kW) engine, new improved turret and composite armor, new gun, new thermal imaging Catherine-FC from THALES, an enhanced environmental control system supplied by Israel’s Kinetics Ltd for providing cooled air to the fighting compartment, integrated tactical system, satellite navigation and others) will give no chance of winnig to the M1 ABRAMS.:salute2:
HindStrike
Active member
At the time of that test, they were using the m829a1, the original penetrator used during the gulf war. The m829a2 was developed to break through kontakt-5 like the m829a3 was developed to defeat kaktus and relikt. So the abrams can still defeat a t-90m because I highly doubt it will have 960mm+ rha equivalent armor protection. Abrams still wins. :tank:
As a response to the M829A3, the Russian army have designed Relikt, the most modern Russian ERA, which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-. It detonates on command before the round hits based on information from radar. It can be installed on T-72B and T-90 tanks .
dude,relikt armors are made to disable the M829A3 effectivness.so t-90m will easely defeat any M1 abrams in the world.
this video is made by pros..so just believe it!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAofuApy5sc"]Russian T-90 vs Abrams M1 tank . or PR vs Reality (English sub). - YouTube[/ame]
:tank::tank::tank:
lolwhassup
Active member
My God I've had enough of debating with someone who leaves out facts to make their argument look credible.
As I've already mentioned RELIKT HAS NOT BEEN IN SERVICE ON ANY
RUSSIAN TANK TO DATE.
Last edited:
HindStrike
Active member
So this proves nothing that hasn't already been stated. As I said in a previous post, THE LASTEST RUSSIAN PENETRATOR, THE 3BM46 CAN ONLY PENETRATE 800MM OF ARMOR NOT ENOUGH TO PENETRATE AN ABRAMS!!!!
And the 9M119 Svir missile talked about in the video can only penetrate 950mm of armor, and the abrams has the equivalent of 1,300mm rha equivalency protection against HEAT warheads. THE T-90 CAN'T PENETRATE AN ABRAMS!!! Furthermore after a T-90 is hit and it doesn't penetrate, that leaves an exposed area of weaker base armor with 540mm of protection, so if it is hit at that same spot, boom goes your little T-90 because we all know that the ammo is right by the crew and will explode, killing the crew and completely destroying the tank. I don't know how many times I can make this point.
I WIN, GOOD DAY SIR.
:tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank:
And the 9M119 Svir missile talked about in the video can only penetrate 950mm of armor, and the abrams has the equivalent of 1,300mm rha equivalency protection against HEAT warheads. THE T-90 CAN'T PENETRATE AN ABRAMS!!! Furthermore after a T-90 is hit and it doesn't penetrate, that leaves an exposed area of weaker base armor with 540mm of protection, so if it is hit at that same spot, boom goes your little T-90 because we all know that the ammo is right by the crew and will explode, killing the crew and completely destroying the tank. I don't know how many times I can make this point.
I WIN, GOOD DAY SIR.
:tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank::tank:
what i've just quote from your post truly means that blowing up a T-90 WILL NEED MORE THEN ONE SINGLE SHOT,MORE THEN LUCK TOO.
do you know that the 9M119 Svir can easly penetrate thru 750–950 mm of RHA,in the meantime,did you noticed that The Abrams armors of the Hull & turret - 600 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT? that means that one single shot with the ATGM from 5km of distance will destroy the Abrams.without mentioning that the t-90's APDS gun fire can destroy even the hull or the turret,and like you said,2 shots in the same spot from the side if it didn't penetrate will do the job.
i win ,end of the line peace out m8 :visor::sniper::rock:
HindStrike
Active member
I don't know where you get your facts from, but I can assure you that an m1a2 abrams w/depleted uranium armor has the following levels of protection:
960mm vs apfds
1300mm vs heat
I said IF it doesn't penetrate, implying that most of the time, the t-90 will be penetrated on the first shot, cooking off the ammo, killing the crew and destroying the tank.I won't state the figures again, the t-90 can't penetrate an abrams and you know it. You're just being ignorant. And one more thing, one abrams is part of an integrated battlefield w/awacs, gps, c4i, and other abrams. They can communicate info to eachother and get coordinates on the t-90s position.A better tank with better crews and better support wins every time, so if you want to continue, get back to me when the t-95 is in service and has seen combat.SO I WILL SAY IT ONCE MORE, I WIN, GOOD DAY SIR.
960mm vs apfds
1300mm vs heat
I said IF it doesn't penetrate, implying that most of the time, the t-90 will be penetrated on the first shot, cooking off the ammo, killing the crew and destroying the tank.I won't state the figures again, the t-90 can't penetrate an abrams and you know it. You're just being ignorant. And one more thing, one abrams is part of an integrated battlefield w/awacs, gps, c4i, and other abrams. They can communicate info to eachother and get coordinates on the t-90s position.A better tank with better crews and better support wins every time, so if you want to continue, get back to me when the t-95 is in service and has seen combat.SO I WILL SAY IT ONCE MORE, I WIN, GOOD DAY SIR.
wayword son
Active member
nice, but if were talking about an atgm battle, i believe the hellfire missile outranges the gun launched missiles the t-90 fires, and the hellfire is fire and forget as well, true, the abrams doesn't carry the hellfire, but the bradly/abrams/apache, is a combined armes system, your assumtion is that a t-90 would be allowed to just sit back out of range and snipe at an abrams with missiles. true you do have missile countermeasures on the t-90, but, i dont think the t-90 can both countermeasure a hellfire, and guide a missile at the same time.
now, about the abrams ability to defeat all forms of reactive armore, well, the normal crew of the abrams has a proven ability to get of a 2 round double tap on the same target, in under 4 seconds, and the gun can consistently put two sabots rounds within a few inches of each other, don't leave much time to cover your open spot, if in fact, the penetrator doesn't get a kill the first time, and with most of your ammo situated in a circle around the bace of the turret, if the first shot doesn't kill everyone, the double tap will. with the abrams, even if she is penetrated, the energy after penetration is much reduced due to the composit armore. and because of the isolated ammo stors, spall lining, and internal fire control systems it does not meen the crew is nessesarily dead, or the tank is tacken out of action.
its not that i think that the abrams is the greatest tank ever made, several new designs are making her seem a bit long in the tooth. and i'm not saying the t-90 is a horrible tank, as an upgrade of the t-70 seiries, she is quite good. i just think the russian design philosopy that resulted in the t-60 to t-90 series of tanks, is a bit out of date.
Last edited:
newbauer
New Member
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.
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.