T-90 vs Abrams

[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.

[95th Rifleman]

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.

It's very hard for Americans to admit that they are losing their edge. Every conflict America has fought since WW2 was against an inferior enemy with export-grade technology. Both Iraq wars led American thinkers to hubris and to see Russian gear as obsolete and inferior.

However in today's world the realities are different, the gaps between east and west are not as clear cut as they once where.

Take the SU50, a modernised, stealth capable aircrat that is the equal to the F22 Raptor. For years Russian vehicles have modern, effective anti-missle systems while American desighners have no real progress in this direction. A deadly hubris considering that missles are the best offense against a modern AFV (top-attack systems mean that the front arour of a tank is a meaningles statistic as they blow their way through the top of the turret).

We assume our crews to have more experience, our tanks to be better because we have learned lessons from warzones. Yet we ignore the fact tat Russia has had the same experience in Checnya that our crews have had in iraq and they have learned the same lessons.

[ArmySGT.]

Shenanigans

[Raellus]

As to the T-90 vs. M1 debate...

Obviously, not everything in the Russian infomercial should be taken at face value; I'm sure that they're overstating many of its capabilities. The range advantage of the tank-launched ATGMs, for example- engagement ranges that would give it an edge are few and far between in Central/Western Europe. Maybe on the steppes of the Ukraine, but in the Hochwald gap? Not really.

That said, I've been a big Red Army apologist here on this board and I think that some of the late Cold War Soviet-designed tanks (from the T-64 through the T-90, domestic use versions) are more than a little bit underrated by a lot of Westerners.

Someone once said that "quantity has a quality all of its own" and I think he had a point. The Soviet ability to put 5-10 MBTs on the line for every NATO one can't be sneezed at. To assume that every M1, Leopard, Challenger, etc. is going to take out 5-10 Soviet MBTs before being taken out themselves is pretty hopeful, if not downright naive. I really think that the lessons of GW 1 & 2 are misleading when one attempts to apply them to a WWIII scenario in Europe.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Take the SU50, a modernised, stealth capable aircrat that is the equal to the F22 Raptor.

That assertion begs for proof.

[Panther Al]

While the bit about the SU50 being the equal of the F22 (Saying F/A is nothing more than Air Farce sandbagging for budgetary reasons) is a little absurd, there is something to be said about a lot of the "Soviet Stuff is Crap" talk is perhaps a bit much. After all, how many of those uber-russian aircraft are there? None of the latest and greatest has been built in anything approaching noticeable quantities.

The last 25 years have been a total game changer for Aircraft. The MiG29/Su27 combo vs. the F16A/F15A match up is a *lot* closer than I think anyone would like to admit, especially with some of the tricks the MiG had in its hat. But with the latest high tech tricks that have come out - tricks that the russians just can not match - the gap between Western and Eastern Aircraft have been bigger than at any point in history. High Tech Pays when it comes to planes.


Now tanks on the other hand, not so much. A huge plus to be sure, but not as major of an issue. The only place it really comes to play is fire control - nothing to be sneezed at granted. But for tanks it always boils down to the triad: Firepower, Protection, and Mobility. The M1 beats the T90 in the first two - the last is more a toss up. The T90 only has 2/3's the HP that the M1 has, but then, its 2/3's the weight. And add in the fact that the suspension on the M1 leaves something to be desired when it comes to rough terrain, I'll give the T90 the edge here. To say that the T90's tungsten long rod AP round is equal to the M1's DU round, fired at a much higher velocity, is something of a laugh. The missile is a valid point, but as mentioned, only good on wide open areas. Not to mention the Autoloader in russian tanks are considered jokes for a reason....

But then again, you can afford a lot more T90's than M1's for the same amount of cash. Depends on if you can afford the bills for the addition training, pay, and so forth that you'll need for all those extra people.

Also recall, M1's are built to be maintained. Russian tank designs are designed to be used and discarded when wore out: so maintenance on russian designs are actually a lot more expensive when parts, and labour, is added up. There is a reason when people upgrade soviet era designs, the first things they do are replace the engine, the electronics, and then the gun.

Russian guns have historically suffered from the fact that the Russian munitions industry have never been able to equal western munitions: it boils down to powder. In WW2, the Russian 76mm was only the equal to the 50mm KwK, and it took the 85mm gun to equal the Germans 75mm KwK L/48. The L70 required the use of the 122mm gun. It improved post war, but even today the 125mm gun isn't *quite* the equal to the German 120 that about everyone else uses. Even the Chinese admit this as they copied the design and are using it instead of the 125 on a number of the newest designs that they are beginning to field.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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

I don't have to crew one?