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...

[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?

[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.