Jump to content


M1 Abrams vs T-90


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
344 replies to this topic

lMattq #1 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 02:35

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2114 battles
  • 137
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012
A sort of friend of mine by the name of 'VickersIndependant'  (www.youtube.com/VickersIndependent) gave me this data! thanks to him.


M1A1 (left)---T-90(right)

Mobility
Top Speed: 42mph --- 40mph
Combat Weight: 72 tons --- 49.6 tons
Range: 298 miles --- 340~400 miles
Power/weight: 21.4hp/ton --- 22hp/ton
Min. Turn Radius: Pivot --- Pivot
Suspension: Torsion Bars --- Torsion Bars
Ground Pressure: 14.4psi --- 12.9psi
Clearance: 19in --- 19.37in
Gradient: 60% --- 60%
Side Slope: 40% --- 40%
Vertical Obstacle: 48.96in --- 33.46in
Trench: 9ft --- 9.18ft
Fording: 4ft --- 3.39ft (16.4ft w/ snorkel)
Transmission: Automatic, 4 forward, 2 reverse --- Automatic, 7 forward, 1 reverse
Engine: 1500hp Gas Turbine --- 1000hp Diesel V12
External Fuel: No --- Yes
T-90 Advan. 9
M1A1 Advan. 3
Winner T-90

Firepower
Main Gun: Smoothbore 120mm/44, 12rpm --- Smoothbore 125mm/48, 10rpm
Main Gun Ammo: 40 --- 43
Main Gun Rounds: APFSFS, HEAT, MP-AT, HE-OR, Canister --- APFSDS, HEAT, HE-FRAG
Indirect Fire Ability: No --- No
Coaxial Gun: 7.62mm, 700rpm --- 7.62mm, 600rpm
Secondary Gun Ammo: 10000rds, loaded --- 2000rds, loaded
Roof Gun: 12.7mm, 500rpm --- 12.7mm, 500rpm
Roof Gun Ammo: 200rds, loaded --- 150rds, loaded
Missile(s): None --- AT-11 Sniper
Missile Capacity: N/A --- (Substitute for main gun rounds)
Gun Elevation: +20 --- +14
Gun Depression: -10 --- -6
T-90 Advan. 5
M1A1 Advan. 5
Winner: Draw

Protection
Armor Type: Laminated RHA Steel + DU --- Laminated RHA Steel + Quartz Gravel + Applique
Spall Liners: Yes --- Yes
Flammable Fuel: Yes --- No
Fire Extinguisher: Halon --- Carbon Dioxide
Blow-off Panels: Yes --- Yes
Ammo Compartment: Yes --- Yes
V-Hull: No --- No
APS: No* --- Yes
ERA: No --- Yes
Escape Hatch: No --- Yes
T-90 Advan.6
M1A1 Advan. 0
Winner T-90
(*Note the M1A1 was at one time fitted with an MCD that was supposed to serve as an active protection system. However, crew testimonials coupled to the fact that the TUSK kit and M1A2 don't mount MCDs leaves the MCD as a red herring)

Crew Features
Crew Capacity: 4 --- 3
Passenger Capacity: None --- None
Air Conditioning: No --- No
NBC System: Overpressure --- Overpressure
T-90 Advan. 0
M1A1 Advan. 1
Winner M1A1

Surprise
Length: 32.25ft --- 31.26ft
Height: 9.47ft --- 7.3ft
Width: 12ft --- 12.4ft
Driver Optics: Night Vision --- Night Vision
TC Optics: N/A --- TIS
Gunner Optics: TIS --- TIS
Landline Cable Jack: No --- Yes
Tank-Infanry Telephone: No --- Yes
APU: Yes --- Yes
Top Speed: 42mph --- 40mph
Combat Weight: 72 tons --- 49.6 tons
Range: 298 miles --- 340~400 miles
T-90 Advan. 7
M1A1 Advan. 2
Winner T-90

Endurance
Fuel consumption: 8gpm --- .93gpm
Track Endurance: 1800 miles --- 1500 miles?
Average Main Tube Life: 400rds --- 1200rds
Battle Main Tube Life: 50rds --- 600rds
Multi-Fuel: Yes --- Yes
Fuel endurance while idling: 8 hours --- 63 hours
T-90 Advan. 4
M1A1 Advan. 1
Winner T-90

Engineering
Mine Plow: Compatible --- Compatible
Mine Roller: Compatible --- Compatible
Dozer Blade: Not compatible --- Built-in
T-90 Advan. 1
M1A1 Advan None
Winner T-90

Other Important Factors
Unit Cost: $5 Million --- $4 Million
Development Span: 10 years --- 8 years
Number Built: +9000 --- +1700
Number of users: 3 --- 4
T-90 Advan. 3
M1A1 Advan. 2
Winner T-90


Overall Winner T-90 by a landslide.



Not quite what I expected but the t-90 does seem to be a good tank, lets hope the abrams can redeem itself in the M1A3 upgrade.

ChickenMcFuggits #2 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 02:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 21517 battles
  • 2,763
  • Member since:
    02-12-2012
Which one has been proven to work well in combat ?

Oh, and the overpressure system works fairly well as an air conditioner but it won't cool your beer.

Edited by ChickenMcFuggits, Jun 17 2012 - 02:40.


VirusLegion #3 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 02:45

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5165 battles
  • 205
  • [MAUS] MAUS
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011
sigh, I hope you didnt do the results cuz it really makes you look stupid, the Abrams is far superior

JagdTiger_23 #4 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 02:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 340 battles
  • 322
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012
Posted Image

must see an combat with these 2 tanks.

EDIT:

M1A2 Abrams costs over 6m to produce while a T-90 only costs around 2.5-3m

jacione #5 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 02:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 12726 battles
  • 3,651
  • [-NA-] -NA-
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostVirusLegion, on Jun 17 2012 - 02:45, said:

sigh, I hope you didnt do the results cuz it really makes you look stupid, the Abrams is far superior
no offense, but this is a typical thing to say, someone has put cold, hard facts in front of you, but you still think its better, even though its not.

I will admit though the abrams has a nice advantage with how many have been produced compared to the T-90.

Gizlush #6 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11989 battles
  • 96
  • [RXR] RXR
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011
First off the Army M1A2's do not have an external phone however the Marine verison Does.

Grumpy_Turtle #7 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:08

    Suggestions Volunteer

  • Community Contributor
  • 12708 battles
  • 3,913
  • Member since:
    03-01-2011
Well this was a bit shocking to me. I though the Abrams would win by miles. You said "M1A1 Abrams". Whats different with the M1A2? Could possibly change some things.

Edited by Rorys6, Jun 17 2012 - 03:08.


lMattq #8 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:12

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2114 battles
  • 137
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

View PostRorys6, on Jun 17 2012 - 03:08, said:

Well this was a bit shocking to me. I though the Abrams would win by miles. You said "M1A1 Abrams". Whats different with the M1A2? Could possibly change some things.


the A2 version, not much has changed internal wise apart from some electronics, we are awaiting the A3 abrams, its getting a 1500hp diesel engine, an electronic combat system for modern warfare and some internal armour changes

Rdm1 #9 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 3831 battles
  • 338
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011

View PostlMattq, on Jun 17 2012 - 02:35, said:

Not quite what I expected but the t-90 does seem to be a good tank, lets hope the abrams can redeem itself in the M1A3 upgrade.

To bad the T-95 is already being tested while the M1A3 is expected in 2014.http://www.pennwellblogs.com/mae/uploaded_images/T-95-MBT-781597.jpg

JagdTiger_23 #10 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 340 battles
  • 322
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012
M1A1 :

vs KE :

Mantle & Turret: 450mm
Glacis: 350-490mm
Lower front hull:430-470mm

vs CE:

Mantle: 990mm
Turret: 800mm
Glacis:510-800mm

**Protection levels for US MBT's are larger than usually quoted because the US standard is for a 30 degrees oblique shot. To return to US Army style measurements divide all figures on chart by 1.15. NII Stali estimate M1A1HA turret at 700mm versus KE, 850mm versus CE for a 30 degrees oblique shot. GSPO/BTVT estimates M1A1 at 480-500 versus KE and 790-840 versus CE, M1A1HA at 530-550 versus KE and 750-780 versus CE, M1A2 at 770 versus KE and 1000-1200 versus CE.


T-90:

vs KE:

Turret: 420-750-920mm
Glacis: 670-710mm
Lower front hull: 240mm

vs CE:

Turret: 580-1050-1340mm
Glacis: 990-1070mm
Lower front hull: 380mm

**These figures include Kontakt-5 second-generation ERA. Russian estimates suggest T-72B Model 1988 with K-5 ERA turret protection is about 750mm vs KE.

Keoni12 #11 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:36

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3103 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    04-01-2011
I am M1 Abrmans all the way even though its not because i am American

A_UselessReptile #12 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 23755 battles
  • 6,626
  • [FOXEY] FOXEY
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011
those two tanks follow two very different docterines that being said each one fills out the docterines requirements remarkably well. and these stats are very importent no doubt but you must also figure in tactics, crew training, and enviromental conditions. overall the M1 has a more proven combat record while the T90 has only been used in smaller border conflicts in russia and india.                                                                  
In conclusion the M1 is more of a suitable tank for the large american military while a much smaller country like for say Argentina would more likely purchase the cheaper T90 . overall i believe this is like comparing apples and oranges and really isen't fair for either side.

Rdm1 #13 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 3831 battles
  • 338
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011
Well the one extremely big advantage the T-90 gets is that it can get to the frontlines faster the the M1A2 and it can go longer on a tank of gas then the abrams.

Edit: Also I find it funny no one is comparing or talking about the Type 99A2 tank at all or the interesting Type 99A2 Light tank version, which is really cool because it makes you think what would happen if germans made light tanks versions of there heavy/MBTs, as the Light tankdestroyer version of the JagdPz E-100 would be extremly interesting to me.

Edited by Rdm1, Jun 17 2012 - 03:56.


Rdm1 #14 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 03:52

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 3831 battles
  • 338
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011
Double post

Edited by Rdm1, Jun 17 2012 - 03:56.


Katariana #15 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 04:37

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4719 battles
  • 60
  • [PTATO] PTATO
  • Member since:
    08-03-2011

View PostVirusLegion, on Jun 17 2012 - 02:45, said:

sigh, I hope you didnt do the results cuz it really makes you look stupid, the Abrams is far superior

http://www.youtube.c...lacktailDefense

All you need to know about your beloved Abrams can be found here.

Wazzadakka94 #16 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 05:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 10587 battles
  • 481
  • Member since:
    02-25-2011
You forgot one major point. FIRE CONTROL. With an M1 Abrams you can fire ON the MOVE at 35 mph (max) and hit a target at 3,000 meters on the first round.  With a T90 you can't do that at all.  Another point a T 90 is based off of the T 72, so the same flaws are there.  Another point the 1500 hp diesel that COMPETED against the 1500 hp turbine LOST because the turbine actually has 1500 net hp unlike the diesel which has around 1300 net hp.  A T90 by the way really doesn't exist, the Russians don't have the money to replace the T72.


And the 120mm that the M1A1 and the M1A2 Abrams uses can penetrate the front of a T72 at 1500 meters while going through at least 10 meters of sand.

And here comes the negative rep votes things.

JagdTiger_23 #17 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 05:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 340 battles
  • 322
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012
What about the EET1 Osorio?? ;)

Russian_falcon #18 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 15:44

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 3227 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    10-14-2011
T-90M and BMPT Terminator
T-90M — the latest updating T-90, work over which was begun at the initiative of УКБТМ in 2004 on ROC subject "Break". For the first time the export version of this updating of the tank under the name T-90MC was presented to public on September 9, 2011 on the range "Gold prospector" in Nizhni Tagil within the VIII international exhibition of arms of REA-2011. Replacement of an old tower by the new fighting module which is equipped with advanced SUO "Guelder-rose" with the integrated fighting management-information system of the tactical link, the new machine gun of loading and the modernized gun 2A46M-5, and also remotely operated antiaircraft UDP T05BV-1 installation became the main features of modernization of the tank. DZ "Relict" instead of "Kontakt-V" is established. The special attention was given to improvement of possibilities of the commander on search of the purposes and arms fire control equally effectively day and night. For the first time in the Russian main tank management on the basis of a steering wheel and system of automatic gear shifting with possibility of transition to the manual is applied. The nonmechanized unit of fire is taken out out of limits of manned space that increased survivability of crew. For mobility and maneuverability improvement on the upgraded tank the new combined night device of vision of the driver and a television camera of the back review is established. The mass of the new version, in comparison with base model, increased by one and a half tons and makes 48 t that still it is much less, than, for example, mass of the American and German analogs. On the tank the monoblock V-93 power plant in capacity of 1130 hp, developed on the V-92S2F2 base is established. It is cleaned anti-neutron nadby and it is replaced with a fire-resistant antifragmental material of type кевлар, and also the fire extinguishing system is improved. Fire power, security and mobility of the tank considerably improved, dimensions of the tank didn't increase and on weight it continues to remain in a class to 50 t.
http://www.uvz.ru/i/...r57t14i5626.jpg
Fighting weight, t 48
Crew, person - 3
Length with a gun forward, mm 9530
Length of the case, mm 6860
Width the general, mm 3460
125-mm gun 2A46M-5
Unit of fire, shots 40
Operated arms 9К119М "Refleks-M"
The coupled machine gun of 7,62-mm 6П7К
Unit of fire, shots 2000
Antiaircraft machine gun of 7,62-mm 6П7К With UDP (T05BV-1)
Unit of fire, shots 800
Dynamic protection Relict
V-92S2F2 engine, 1130 hp.
Capacity of fuel tanks, l 1200+400
Specific capacity, l. page/t 24
The maximum speed on the highway, km/h 60
Course stock on the highway, km 500
Specific pressure upon soil, kg/cm 0,98

http://www.uvz.ru/i/...r39t14i1831.jpg
Fighting weight, t 48+2%
Crew, person - 5
Automatic gun, 2 coupled × of 30-mm
Technical rate of fire of shots / mines 600
Complex of operated arms, the Ataka-T brand
Automatic grenade launcher 2 × 30, AG-17D
Machine gun of 1 × of 7,62-mm, 6П7 or 6П7К (PKTM)

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=WszQUqEpTeU

:Smile-bajan2: :Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2:   :Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2: :Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2: :Smile-bajan2::Smile-bajan2:

Edited by Russian_falcon, Jun 17 2012 - 20:55.


Will_of_Iron #19 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 16:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 22575 battles
  • 3,180
  • [TF-A] TF-A
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
What I don't get is how the M1 series looks old school while tanks like the Challenger 2, the T-90 and the Leopard 2 look space age. They have more turret visibility, fancier weapons systems, and possibly lower profiles. The M1 looks like a parallelogram on top of another parallelogram with a pipe sticking out. I think the entire M1 series needs to be redone. At least the engine can use pretty much anything for fuel. I still think the US has the best fighter jets around at least.

What I'd like to see in a new American vehicle:

reactive armor everywhere
longer operating range
130mm+ barrel w/ improved accuracy
good nightvision + thermal imaging
smoother suspension
gun stabilizer for shooting on the move
better overall visibility
more powerful computer systems
medium range rocket launcher (either the ability to fire from the gun or an exterrior one)
more MG user protection

Some of these things it might already have, but improvements can always be made. What are your thoughts on an autoloader (if it didn't rip your fingers off)?

JagdTiger_23 #20 Posted Jun 17 2012 - 16:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 340 battles
  • 322
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012

View PostWill_of_Iron, on Jun 17 2012 - 16:13, said:

What I don't get is how the M1 series looks old school while tanks like the Challenger 2, the T-90 and the Leopard 2 look space age. They have more turret visibility, fancier weapons systems, and possibly lower profiles. The M1 looks like a parallelogram on top of another parallelogram with a pipe sticking out. I think the entire M1 series needs to be redone. At least the engine can use pretty much anything for fuel. I still think the US has the best fighter jets around at least.

What I'd like to see in a new American vehicle:

reactive armor everywhere
longer operating range
130mm+ barrel w/ improved accuracy
good nightvision + thermal imaging
smoother suspension
gun stabilizer for shooting on the move
better overall visibility
more powerful computer systems
medium range rocket launcher (either the ability to fire from the gun or an exterrior one)
more MG user protection

Some of these things it might already have, but improvements can always be made. What are your thoughts on an autoloader (if it didn't rip your fingers off)?

Yea , but the EE T1 Osorio was better than AMX 40 , M1 Abrams and the Challenger 1 during tests on saudi-arabia (the Arabs wanted to buy an new MBT)
, the Osorio was not sucessful because the American political pressure led to the tank's demise. (The tank was not tested against the Russian ones)

M1A1 vs EE-T1 Osorio


Mobility
Top Speed: 42mph --- 43mph
Combat Weight: 72 tons --- 43.9 tons
Range: 298 miles --- 341 miles
Power/weight: 21.4hp/ton --- 23.11hp/ton
Min. Turn Radius: Pivot --- Pivot
Suspension: Torsion Bars --- Torsion Bars
Ground Pressure: 14.4psi --- 12.1psi
Clearance: 19in --- 18.11in
Gradient: 60% --- 60%
Side Slope: 40% --- 40%
Vertical Obstacle: 48.96in --- 45.28in
Trench: 9ft --- 9.84ft
Fording: 4ft --- 3.94ft (without preparation) , (6.5ft with preparation)
Transmission: Automatic, 4 forward, 2 reverse --- Automatic, 4 forward, 2 reverse
Engine: 1500hp Gas Turbine --- 1040hp Diesel V12
External Fuel: No --- No

Firepower
Main Gun: Smoothbore 120mm/44, 12rpm --- 120mm smoothbore gun., 9-10rpm
Main Gun Ammo: 40 --- 40
Main Gun Rounds: APFSFS, HEAT, MP-AT, HE-OR, Canister --- APDSFS-T and HEAT-MP
Indirect Fire Ability: No --- No
Coaxial Gun: 7.62mm, 700rpm --- 7.62mm, ?rpm
Secondary Gun Ammo: 10000rds, loaded --- 5000, loaded
Roof Gun: 12.7mm, 500rpm --- 12.7mm, ?rpm
Roof Gun Ammo: 200rds, loaded --- 600, loaded
Missile(s): None --- None
Missile Capacity: N/A --- N/A
Gun Elevation: +20 --- +20
Gun Depression: -10 --- -10

Protection
Armor Type: Laminated RHA Steel + DU --- Double plates of composite materials, including aluminum / steel RHA, carbon fiber, and ceramic
Spall Liners: Yes --- Yes
Flammable Fuel: Yes --- No
Fire Extinguisher: Halon ---  Automatic fire-extinguishing system
Blow-off Panels: Yes --- Yes
Ammo Compartment: Yes --- Yes
V-Hull: No --- No
APS: No* --- No
ERA: No --- No
Escape Hatch: No --- Yes


Crew Features
Crew Capacity: 4 --- 4
Passenger Capacity: None --- None
Air Conditioning: No --- Yes
NBC System: Overpressure --- Overpressure


Surprise
Length: 32.25ft --- 33.13ft
Height: 9.47ft --- 9.48ft (With the AAMG)
Width: 12ft --- 10.5ft
Driver Optics: Night Vision --- Night Vision/Optical or TIS
TC Optics: N/A --- TIS
Gunner Optics: TIS --- TIS
Landline Cable Jack: No --- No
Tank-Infanry Telephone: No --- No
APU: Yes --- Yes
Top Speed: 42mph --- 43mph
Combat Weight: 72 tons --- 43.9 tons
Range: 298 miles --- 341 miles
  • 2350 km of carriageway, being 1750 km in the desert. The garrison that would operate the tank was Army Arabia , chosen by lot. In this test also examine the fuel consumption should be limited to 2.1 km / l in desert and 3.4 km / l on the road.
  • Ramps : Overcome trench 3m wide, pulled out, leaving home at 65% ramp slope , turn on the ramp side slope 30% , acceleration and braking on the plane and on ramps .
  • Resistance and maintenance: Removing and putting caterpillars in 40 minutes (10 for removal, 30 for placement ), 6 hours with engine running constantly and stopped vehicle , 6 km from the march - and - aft towing a tank 35 ton per 15 km Osorio The towed the Abrams, much heavier than 35 tons .
  • Shooting : 149 shots. 82 with the target vehicle and parked 4000m away , the other with vehicle stationary and moving target and moving target vehicle and the 1500m distance.
Posted Image
Rare photo showing the vehicle crews of all contestants in Saudi Arabia, 1987. Left to right, Osório, AMX-40, Challenger and M1A1 Abrams.


Either Osório and M-1 Abrams were approved in the tests carried out, surpassing it from far away AMX-40 and the Challenger. However, in tests of shot and autonomy, the Osório surpassed the M-1 Abrams by far. In the fulfilled tests of shooting, the Osório was the only one to reach a target parked at 4.000 m. Also a test was carried out with movable targets to distances of 1.500, 2.000 and 2.500 m, with a total of 12 shots, being 6 carried out by the tank contrie's crew and 6 for a crew of the Saudi Army. Of 12 proposed targets, the Osório put 8 right, the M-1 Abrams put 6 right and the AMX-40 and the Challenger only 1.


http://www.fprado.co...Nightfiring.jpg

Pressures realized by the US government American on Saudi Arabia, alleging that Brazil was a country that did not respect international agreements and that was marketing with countries considered enemies of the Saudi monarchy, like Iraq and Libya, made the Arabs to not make the deal making more difficult the financial situation of ENGESA.

The lack of requests for the Osório and the high investment to the evelopment of the project (18 Million Dollars) took ENGESA to ask liquidation agreement in March of 1990, though the negotiations with Saudi Arabia were still continuing. With the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and American political pressure, in June of 1990, the negotiations were interrupted definitely, provoking the close of the activities of ENGESA.




3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users