T-90 vs Abrams

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

The T-90 versus the M1 Abrams from the Russian perspective.

I think this probably warrants a thread all of it's own - I can see a LOT of discussion coming....

[pmulcahy11b]

The T-90 is NOT a better tank than the Abrams, or the Challenger, or even the Leclerc or M60-120 or possibly the Ariete. But is has one big advantage over those tanks -- it's still a good, modern tank and it's a lot cheaper than almost any of the other tanks in its class (or at least, the Russians will undercut just about anyone's price).

[Matt Wiser]

The T-90 is just an upgraded T-72, nothing more. The Russian claim is nothing but contractor hyperbole, methinks.

[Panther Al]

Its an interesting vid: They made a few valid points: Yes, it didn't throw a track on the same spot that the M1 did during that show, and yes, it does have a passive ATGM defense system that we don't. I'll also grant its rough terrain abilities are better as well. Lighter? Absolutely. But the rest of it?


*hehs*

[dragoon500ly]

Oh Dear! This video just goes to show that the Russians are the master of today's battlefield and all of us poor Abrams crewmen just might as well pull over and surrender to the superior vehicle.

B*****T!!!!!

Kinda reminds me of the "Invincible Heroic People's Red Army Going Up Against the Helpless Workers Oppressed By NATO Scum Sucking Villains" pieces that you would pick up on certain TV stations during the Cold War.

[Legbreaker]

So lets hear some good things about the T-90...

[Panther Al]

Its small, cheap, and doesn't suck gas like there is no tomorrow. Probably has the ruggedness of all soviet designs, as well as the simplicity of maintenance.

Other than that, nothing for ya.

Its basically a very well done upgrade of the T72 - which means in the end, all it is is a T72 with a few extra bells and whistles.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

So lets hear some good things about the T-90...

There are none anywhere near my house.

[Schone23666]

And hopefully it'll display the same "jack in the box" effect if it takes a shot in the turret ring like the T72?

[Webstral]

Until there’s a war involving the T-90, it’s going to be hard to say much about the reality of the T-90 versus expectations. The M1 has the advantage of having been put through its paces under certain circumstances. While I’m inclined to think that we Americans need to be very wary of hubris (instead of congratulating ourselves on having such wonderful equipment), the M1 has done pretty well so far. How well the M1 might perform against a numerous foe with up-to-date equipment and under conditions of enemy air superiority (thus exposing the Achilles heel of fuel consumption) is another matter entirely. We may never find out. Similarly, we may never find out what the real capabilities of the T-90 are.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Until there’s a war involving the T-90, it’s going to be hard to say much about the reality of the T-90 versus expectations. The M1 has the advantage of having been put through its paces under certain circumstances. While I’m inclined to think that we Americans need to be very wary of hubris (instead of congratulating ourselves on having such wonderful equipment), the M1 has done pretty well so far. How well the M1 might perform against a numerous foe with up-to-date equipment and under conditions of enemy air superiority (thus exposing the Achilles heel of fuel consumption) is another matter entirely. We may never find out. Similarly, we may never find out what the real capabilities of the T-90 are.

I think you summed it up pretty well Webstral.

With that said....I'd prefer to see one of these T-90's in the hand of someone other than the Russians (which I'm sure won't be long) and have some degree of trustworthiness (small detail, lol) who could evaluate it and give a more impartial report on it's pros and cons. Of course, preferably someone who also doesn't hold a grudge against the West...

[pmulcahy11b]

That is one thing -- the last time the US faced any decent air opposition against our ground forces was the Korean War.

[RN7]

Is it better than the Abrams? No, at least not the later model Abrams (M1A1/A2/A2 SEP) which are nearly 20 tons heavier.

The Russians built it as a compromise as they (back in the 1990's) couldn't afford to build two tanks at the same time; the inferior but cheap T-72B and the superior but expensive T-80U.

The T-90 is a modernised T-72 with some features of the T-80 such as its better fire control system. The T-90 used the same gun as the T-72 but has a new engine, much better layered composite and reactive armour and some new gadgets; new thermal sights, a laser warning reciever, an anti-tank missile jamming systems and some other minor features. The latest T-90MS model has the latest type of Russian composite and reactive armour, a redesigned turret and new gun, and improved targeting, navigation and communication gear.

The Russians think its their best protected tank and it performed better in Chechnya than the T-72 and earlier T-80's (without Arena). Some Indian models have been heavily customised. The T-90M Bhishima reportably has an advanced armour composition welded into the turrets of its T-90's which preformed very well in testing against different types of ammunition even without Russian built in reactive armour.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Kinda reminds me of the "Invincible Heroic People's Red Army Going Up Against the Helpless Workers Oppressed By NATO Scum Sucking Villains" pieces that you would pick up on certain TV stations during the Cold War.

You mean CBS?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

So lets hear some good things about the T-90...

I don't have to crew one?

[Webstral]

A well-trained crew is more important than the hardware they use, provided the competing machines are not two or more generations apart. Crew quality is only part of the equation, though. Leadership quality, maintenance support, logistical support, and supporting/combined arms all multiply the effects of crew quality, which again is more important than the machine. The experience of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front is a good example of this phenomenon. The Germans had a better training program for their tankers and leaders, resulting in a superior performance on a crew-for-crew basis. The Soviets had superior production and a philosophy geared towards maximizing their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses, once the Germans failed to win the war in 1942. [1] The German troops were superior, but the Soviet senior leadership was able to offset the German troops superiority by capitalizing on Soviet advantages. Comparisons between tanks have to be made within the context of their use.

Provided the tube-launched ATGM works approximately the way it’s supposed to, the T-90 does have a reach advantage on the battlefield vis-à-vis the M1. On the surface, the reactive armor offers an important protective advantage. However, reactive armor is unfriendly to supporting infantry. The Chechens exploited this fact in Grozny to decouple the combined arms. If one is engaged in a long-range gunnery duel, then the negative side effects of reactive armor become less pronounced. Lower fuel consumption means that there are fewer targets of opportunity for enemy aircraft in the form of tanker trucks. The T-90 can go longer without refueling, and this surely translates into an advantage of some sort. I don’t know enough about the passive ATGM countermeasures in use by the T-90 to comment on the efficacy of said countermeasures.

We’d have to imagine a scenario in which M1 and T-90 tanks would be opposing each other on the battlefield and assign some values to the myriad of variables that are factors. In some cases, the weaknesses of the M1 will be concealed. In other cases, the weaknesses will be glaring and costly. Ditto for the T-90.


1 I’m certainly not debating whether Operation Blau could have won the war for the Germans. However, the fact that the Soviets had the chance to use their manpower reserves and their industrial might, as well as receive important quantities of materiel from the West, turned the lightning war back into a war of attrition not so very different from the trenches of the First World War in its macroscale pattern.

[Legbreaker]

I agree that you have to look on the larger scale to see where the advantages and disadvantages of particular models lie. On a one to one, all other factors equal basis the T-90 is almost sure to be the loser, but if you've got 10,000 tonnes of T-90 facing off against 10,000 tonnes of M1, the additional gun barrels, longer potential range, lower fuel consumption and so forth tip the balance in the other direction.

The key to winning the battle is for the commanders to be very well aware of the capabilities of their troops and their equipment and plan, act, and react accordingly.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The key to winning the battle is for the commanders to be very well aware of the capabilities of their troops and their equipment and plan, act, and react accordingly.

Sun Tzu couldn't have said it better himself, although he would have added that awareness of the enemy's troops and equipment is an important a part of the equation.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Provided the tube-launched ATGM works approximately the way it’s supposed to, the T-90 does have a reach advantage on the battlefield vis-à-vis the M1.

Yes.... and no. The Israeli's have developed a tube launched laser guided missile for the 120mm cannon, and the FC system in the A2 is already set up for that sort of thing. Nothing stopping (except money) the US from picking it up.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Yes.... and no. The Israeli's have developed a tube launched laser guided missile for the 120mm cannon, and the FC system in the A2 is already set up for that sort of thing. Nothing stopping (except money) the US from picking it up.

NMH. See Roland and ADATS.

Frankly I'm amazed we ended up using the M256/L44 Rhinemetall.

[Legbreaker]

Now lets hear all the bad things about the M1 (since the T-90 seems to have had it's share of bashing).

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Now lets hear all the bad things about the M1 (since the T-90 seems to have had it's share of bashing).

They sneak up on us poor infantrymen too easily.

And they suck massively...fuel, that is.

[ArmySGT.]

Fuel Consumption- Four Gallons to the mile

Needs an APU to keep everything on and idle without consuming a lot of fuel.

Field phone for Infantry coordination had to be re-invented.

Thermal signature moving and at idle is huge. The heat bloom coming off can't be masked by nets with the turbine running.

67 tons is to much for a lot of bridges, ferries, and pontoons.

Amphibious like a brick.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Fuel Consumption- Four Gallons to the mile

Needs an APU to keep everything on and idle without consuming a lot of fuel.

Field phone for Infantry coordination had to be re-invented.

Thermal signature moving and at idle is huge. The heat bloom coming off can't be masked by nets with the turbine running.

67 tons is to much for a lot of bridges, ferries, and pontoons.

Amphibious like a brick.

Ahh, they give out NODs like candy these days. I've only seen an M1 through NODs a few times, and once through a Bradley's night vision gear -- but you're right.

Funny story -- one time in Korea, the tankers in our convoy were stopped (like the rest of us) in traffic when we were headed to a railhead. One little Korean commuter decided to tailgate an M1. when the M1 hit the gas to pull out, the car's windshield got immediately frosted from heat, and the hood was scorched. The driver went running yelling from his car, then started yelling, "Where is the commander!" The M1 crew weren't held responsible, and the driver was given a ticket for tailgating a military vehicle by the KNPs.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Fuel Consumption- Four Gallons to the mile

Needs an APU to keep everything on and idle without consuming a lot of fuel.

Field phone for Infantry coordination had to be re-invented.

Thermal signature moving and at idle is huge. The heat bloom coming off can't be masked by nets with the turbine running.

67 tons is to much for a lot of bridges, ferries, and pontoons.

Amphibious like a brick.

Rough Terrain Performance Sucks - A Merkava can outrun an M1 over rough terrain. This is an established fact - its one of the reasons the Israeli's decided *not* to get the M1, with the other being its a firebomb waiting to happen due to the use of Hydraulics in the Turret. True, the fluid is Fire Resistant, but it was the experiences they had with Hydraulic systems in earlier wars that proved using Hydraulics in the Fighting Compartment was a *very* bad idea.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

You mean CBS?

LOL! Not ABC?

Seriously, when I was stationed with 2ACR, we were close enough to the border to pick up East German and Czech TV and radio as well as the Russian TV channel. Got to see lots of bull***t..err...sources of information telling everyone how horrible and evil NATO was.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The M1 has soft spots on it like a newborn's head.

I remember back in 2003 one got schwacked early on in OIF and the press and the military were convinced it'd been taken out by a "Koronet" ATGM and there was this huge concern that the Syrians or Lebanese or Iranians were shipping high-end weapons in during the opening stages of the war.

Nope!

Turns out it was a plain-Jane RPG-7. Probably on the order of 30 years old. Punched through the hull, burned a hole in the main breaker box, mission kill.

WTF, guys?! As cool as I think the Abrams is, I really worry when I hear jazz like that.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

LOL! Not ABC?

Seriously, when I was stationed with 2ACR, we were close enough to the border to pick up East German and Czech TV and radio as well as the Russian TV channel. Got to see lots of bull***t..err...sources of information telling everyone how horrible and evil NATO was.

Did you see that attempted hatchet job back in '81 that Communist Broadcasting Service put out called "The Defense Of The United States of America"? One of Reagan's first steps in office was to rebuild our military, and oh my god CBS went insane. This five day muckraking mini-series "exposed" how awful the hardware Reagan was getting ready to invest in was, how it'd be missiles over the pole anyway and new carriers, fighter aircraft, bombers, tanks, APCs and so on were useless and a waste of taxpayer dollars and the ones that Reagan was purchasing were all bad anyway and they could prove it. I remember one smarmy comment from Morely Safer that "according to one USAF commander, the F15 Eagle is, in fact, a turkey."

BAHAHAHA. Yeah, wipe that turkey egg off your face, Safer, because the Israelis used that "turkey" to win 80-0 over the Bekaa Valley not a year later. A plane so "bad", it'll still be in service for the next fifteen years (that's fifteen plus thirty years after CBS' little hatchet job that nobody but military hardware geeks like me remember anyway).

In fact, most of the wonder weapons that Reagan invested in? Yeah, they were all nearly a decade old in design! F15 was started in 1973, under Ford! Carter is the one who signed off on procurement! Same for the '16, the B1, the F117; the Abrams was the product of 20 years of attempts to replace the M60...

All Reagan did was order more of it and throw out Hollow Farce...erm, Force.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

The M1 has soft spots on it like a newborn's head.

I remember back in 2003 one got schwacked early on in OIF and the press and the military were convinced it'd been taken out by a "Koronet" ATGM and there was this huge concern that the Syrians or Lebanese or Iranians were shipping high-end weapons in during the opening stages of the war.

Nope!

Turns out it was a plain-Jane RPG-7. Probably on the order of 30 years old. Punched through the hull, burned a hole in the main breaker box, mission kill.

WTF, guys?! As cool as I think the Abrams is, I really worry when I hear jazz like that.

Yes.... and No - much like a lot of things. Been in an M1 that got hit in the side by RPG's, including a money shot on the ring itself. No damage other than cosmetic. Hell, my mac even still worked and the bag it was in was blown off by said RPG.

What was determined in the field that while a few of the penetrating shots by an RPG was done with a tandem charge warhead. But the bulk of the kill shots was actually caused by 122mm rockets fired waist high from about 10 meters, tops. Usually hid behind a car, a dumpster, that sort of thing.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Yes.... and No - much like a lot of things. Been in an M1 that got hit in the side by RPG's, including a money shot on the ring itself. No damage other than cosmetic. Hell, my mac even still worked and the bag it was in was blown off by said RPG.

What was determined in the field that while a few of the penetrating shots by an RPG was done with a tandem charge warhead. But the bulk of the kill shots was actually caused by 122mm rockets fired waist high from about 10 meters, tops. Usually hid behind a car, a dumpster, that sort of thing.

wow

You know what? I'm just gonna STFU on the topic. I mean...I read Janes books, google things, pore over wikipedia pages, etc. etc. but...you have Been There and Done That, so I bow to your really seriously no messing around superior knowledge. Holy crap...been in one when it's been hit with an RPG. You, sir, are a steely-eyed missile-man...erm, tank-man.

I will ask though - were those hits you were discussing side/rear/upper-back deck hits or frontal?