Jump to content


t90 vs m1a2 abrams


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
168 replies to this topic

Fr33Th1nk3r #1 Posted Jul 10 2011 - 17:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 26755 battles
  • 1,376
  • [-TB-] -TB-
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011
Which would win in a slug fest?

SAINTZFREAK #2 Posted Jul 10 2011 - 17:36

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4677 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    02-17-2011
Either one could win.

Lert #3 Posted Jul 10 2011 - 17:46

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 35639 battles
  • 23,399
  • [M00SE] M00SE
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010
Thread is worthless without a description of the field of battle. What situation are they in? Are they aware of eachother?

ColCain #4 Posted Jul 11 2011 - 06:00

    Private

  • Players
  • 1272 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011
Depends on the circumstance.  M1 Abrams is a tough tank.  Not even another M1 Abram has been able to take out a M1 Abram that I am aware of.  Everyone said the Abrams was in trouble if it was going to take on T80s and T72s head on in the first gulf war.  The M1 Abrams had a field day with those two tanks.  Now far as the T90 is concerned.  The funniest line I've heard about the T90 in comparison to the T72.  It is like a hooker that has only gotten older and added more make up.

Makes sense to a point considering the Russians were working on the T95 as a potential replacement at one point.

Gundamor #5 Posted Jul 11 2011 - 15:14

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2837 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011
So a Saudi M1A2 vs an Indian T-90. Would be close maybe. Saudi's didn't get the same M1A2 SEP the states drive around. Nor the crazy kinetic penetrators the U.S. spend millions on. I'd probably go with the Indian T-90 especially after they worked out that overheating problem due to climate.

Why such fascination for the T 90 anyways. The T-90 originally was an upgraded market tank for the Russians to sell and make money off of. But since the cancellation of the super T-95 I guess the stop gap tank is now their main tank. My favorite of theirs is still the T80u, even with the carousel of death. And overall I'd take a Leopard 2A6 over anything.

I have a feeling this post is nothing more then some sort of national pride jousting like all the T90 vs M1A2 turns into. Actually the latest craze is AH-64 vs Ka 50/52. Why not have a 2 T90s and 2 M1A2 vs 2 Challenger 2 and 2 Merkavas.

Will_of_Iron #6 Posted Jul 11 2011 - 16:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 21437 battles
  • 3,163
  • [TF-A] TF-A
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
I'd like to see a Japanese Type 90 vs a German Leopard 2.

Lert #7 Posted Jul 11 2011 - 22:10

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 35639 battles
  • 23,399
  • [M00SE] M00SE
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View PostGundamor, on Jul 11 2011 - 15:14, said:

Why not have a 2 T90s and 2 M1A2 vs 2 Challenger 2 and 2 Merkavas.
Or $30 million worth of Abrams's vs $30 million worth of Leo2's, $30 million of Chally2's, $30 million of Merkava's, $30 million of T90's and $30 million of LeClerc's.

I'm guessing the americans will show up with 5 tanks and the russians will zerg rush. The rest will be somewhere in between.

Will_of_Iron #8 Posted Jul 11 2011 - 22:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 21437 battles
  • 3,163
  • [TF-A] TF-A
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
^^+1 just for Starcraft reference^^ :)

Fr33Th1nk3r #9 Posted Jul 12 2011 - 02:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 26755 battles
  • 1,376
  • [-TB-] -TB-
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011

View PostWill_of_Iron, on Jul 11 2011 - 22:20, said:

^^+1 just for Starcraft reference^^ :)

I agree lol.

aznnoodle727 #10 Posted Jul 12 2011 - 15:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6647 battles
  • 1,474
  • Member since:
    01-30-2011
I want to say the M1A2 simply due to Chobham armor. There have been multiple stories about Abrams tanks getting lit up by IEDs, RPGs, and anything you can throw at a tank including other tanks, yet the only noticeable damage is that the paint job is ruined.

ColCain #11 Posted Jul 12 2011 - 21:12

    Private

  • Players
  • 1272 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View Postaznnoodle727, on Jul 12 2011 - 15:47, said:

I want to say the M1A2 simply due to Chobham armor. There have been multiple stories about Abrams tanks getting lit up by IEDs, RPGs, and anything you can throw at a tank including other tanks, yet the only noticeable damage is that the paint job is ruined.

I've seen some film of the Abrams taking a massive IED from underneath the tank.  The treads stripped off the tank by the force of the explosion.  The whole of the tank though survived.

Fr33Th1nk3r #12 Posted Jul 18 2011 - 15:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 26755 battles
  • 1,376
  • [-TB-] -TB-
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011
The T90 can go underwater and shoot missiles. I think The m1a2 is in trouble unless we have that Trophy system.

Ogopogo #13 Posted Jul 19 2011 - 00:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18839 battles
  • 5,900
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010
It is REALLY hard to say who would win, as both tanks are designed around different philosophies. The T90 is cheaper than the M1 Abrams also, so it brings into question should costs be included. Furthermore both tanks possess different technologies that have not seen real life use against each other. The T-90 did evolve from the T-72 which saw combat against the M1 Abrams, but the T-72 of Iraq is a long ways off to the T-90's that Russia uses.

Teddy_Bear #14 Posted Jul 21 2011 - 16:14

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 5576 battles
  • 1,714
  • [DOOMD] DOOMD
  • Member since:
    10-12-2010
Abrams..and easily.

View PostFr33Th1nk3r, on Jul 18 2011 - 15:09, said:

The T90 can go underwater and shoot missiles. I think The m1a2 is in trouble unless we have that Trophy system.

The Sniper 'missiles' Russian tanks fire are a novelty and just not practical in combat, especially outside of Southern Russia and the Ukraine where the terrine rarely gives you the visual range needed. You must meet too many conditions to fire it, and it's less effective than the DU shells especially against the Abram's armor. The Abrams can also submerge (I think all tanks can these days.) and fire 'missile shells' if it would be armed with them. However the program was dropped after the Sheridan because it was just not practical in combat, hence why it's not outfited with the shells.

Plod #15 Posted Aug 07 2011 - 00:53

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 9098 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostTeddy_Bear, on Jul 21 2011 - 16:14, said:

Abrams..and easily.



The Sniper 'missiles' Russian tanks fire are a novelty and just not practical in combat, especially outside of Southern Russia and the Ukraine where the terrine rarely gives you the visual range needed. You must meet too many conditions to fire it, and it's less effective than the DU shells especially against the Abram's armor. The Abrams can also submerge (I think all tanks can these days.) and fire 'missile shells' if it would be armed with them. However the program was dropped after the Sheridan because it was just not practical in combat, hence why it's not outfited with the shells.

Sounds like someone doesn't really know what they're talking about. "Sniper missiles"? You're referring to the main gun launched TOWs, and yes they're slightly less effective against MBTs (variable though, certain ATGMs/TOWs are more effective than others, so untrue in some places), but MBTs are not the only things tanks are required to destroy. However they are not simply a "novelty," they would not have been adopted if they were simply for show or proof of concept. They allow to greatly increase the distance at which the tank can engage any targets, and while KE rounds may be more effective against enemy MBTs at ranges of less than a kilometer or two, the accuracy with which you can guide a TOW may be preferred at longer ranges, given that a TOW missile can be accurately guided to even 5 kilometers. You don't seem to understand geography either, TOWs work regardless of the range. If you believe Southern Russian and parts of Eastern Europe are the only places with open 2-6 kilometer stretches I can tell you right now that is untrue, anyone in the world can

And no the M1A2 does not have an amphibious snorkel. Combat units aren't issued one at least, while I believe it may exist. Most MBTs probably have a snorkel kit designed for them, but the T-72, T-80, T-90, etc series tanks are the only I know of that are regularly issued snorkels.

The abrams cannot fire TOWs though. I'm sure it was considered, but the final verdict was no. The Sheridan was a completely different tank entirely, with a completely different gun too. The M1A2 has a 120mm smoothbore, the Sheridan had a 152mm rifled barrel. TOW missiles against either the M1A2 or T-90 is mostly pointless regardless. The soft kill active protection systems would jam a TOW incoming on either of the two tanks at any distance where a TOW would be used anyway. Something the M1A2 doesn't have (yet at least afaik) is a hard kill system, that the T-90 does have. Airbursts grenades towards incoming missiles and rockets, whether they're unguided or not, and it works pretty well as far as I know. So for the time being the T-90 has that over the Abrams.

But I feel I should contribute to the thread itself. The T-90 costs nearly half as much as the M1A2, which was intentional in the design of the tank (and all previous tanks), which is why I much more like the $30 million of this, $30 million of that, etc example. And anyone who wishes to compare the Iraqis' T-72s to the Russians' T-72s, T-80, T-90s, etc are completely ridiculous. Comparing untrained, unprepared crewmen of a lesser nation to that of real Russian crews? The only similarity in the comparison of Desert storm to a theoretical conflict with Russia itself is the tanks' names. The Iraqis didn't even use TOWs.

One thing hard to argue though is that T-72s, T-90s, all Russian MBTs are uncomfortably small, to the point where I believe it'd probably affect combat capability. Abrams tanks are large and roomy in comparison.

Spectre12078 #16 Posted Aug 08 2011 - 10:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 19978 battles
  • 2,485
  • [1ADE] 1ADE
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011
it all depends really. its a total toss up.

Ill run down some Pros and cons of each tank

Pros
Great crew confort and saftey
Excellent armor
Excellent electronics and optics
Very good weaponry(same gun as the Leo2 if Im not mistaken)
Very upgradeable


Cons
The long barrel inhibits close quarters urban warfare.
Heavy, and large,and if I remember,the engine it has sure pumps out the BTUs.
Aging design
Hell of a price tag

T90
Pros
Smaller,cheaper
Excellent gun
Decent optics
Diesel if I remember right
Excellent armor,Reactive armor,hard kill systems,and most likely,more to come


Cons
Crew comfort is a luxury in almost all Soviet tanks WW2 and post.If Im not mistaken,Ill have to dig it out again,but theirs a height limit for Soviet tankers.
Small size limits ammunition,and crew supplies
Again,an aging design.
An export tank,so its not as good as the T72/80/95.

In my opinion,it seems that Soviet tanks have been,and are designed for urban warfare. The Soviet T Series seems to be smaller than the US MBT lines that have been produced. However that small size you limit crew. But I am sure that Soviet trained crews vs American crews would yield vaslty different results. The M1AX seems to be more oriented to "I can touch you before you can touch me" deal. It seems that it would have problems in a tight quarters urban environment.Sure the M1 CAN do it,but after all the upgrades(is it TUSK 6 kits now?) it adds weight,and the M1 is already known as a nightmare to work on. The T series is probably no different however. But its smaller size,and profile assuradly makes it a much harder target to hit and kill with a competent crew.

Urban combat the T series would win but at a very very slim chance. But only due to the M1s large profile and long barrel. In the open fields,it would be a toss up. The M1 has the much better electronics and optics,but I think it would rely on killing the T series before its seen. Even with its excellent armor,Im sure that a T90 could penetrate and damage something. The 120mm gun is good,but just too long for a slug fest.

All in all,the M1 and T90 are aging tanks. Just like the HMVEE is being used as it wasnt designed,I think in a major conflict,these tanks will be used in that way. The T series may be less painful to adapt,but the M1 would surely be sore at the end of the day.


Tl:dr

Both are good tanks that fill a niche. Its a toss up between them.  Both are superb tanks that are being constantly upgraded to handle new threats. However, it all boils down to chance and luck on who goes home and who doesnt.

Gundamor #17 Posted Aug 08 2011 - 13:43

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2837 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011

View PostSpectre12078, on Aug 08 2011 - 10:34, said:









In my opinion,it seems that Soviet tanks have been,and are designed for urban warfare. The Soviet T Series seems to be smaller than the US MBT lines that have been produced. However that small size you limit crew.


Soviet doctrine would indicate their tanks were never designed for urban warfare. Not saying they can't perform it but it wasn't by design. Abrams is only a pig by weight. Length height and width are about the same with the Abrams edging the T90 by inches so it isn't that much smaller. Soviet tanks generally have lesser gun elevation and depression as well. Not sure that's a bonus in urban warfare but I know it effects their hull down capabilities a bit.

Frozty7 #18 Posted Aug 08 2011 - 20:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 5524 battles
  • 292
  • Member since:
    07-22-2011
I think to determine which tank is more favourable than the other we must look at the practicality. We all know the pros and cons by now, as pointed out by Spectre12078, so it would be a waste of time to go over that again.

The Abrams is certainly a tough tank with amazing potential in the field. The engine alone is one of the most advanced engines ever developed for a tank, heck it can run on three separate types of fuel. But this happens to be a mute feature, in times of war fuel is a valuable resource and you don't want to use it up liberally. It sure is nice to be able to load jet fuel into a battle tank when you need to, but why would you when that fuel is needed to power your strategic bombers, fighter jets, and transport craft? I suppose it is a nice crutch, but until your entire air force is gone you will never need this. Another issue with the Abrams is, like stated before, the price tag. An Abrams costs 6.21 million US dollars (according to wikipedia), now this may sound like an acceptable price tag for a tank of this power, but think of how much that stacks up. If, say, you lost 50 tanks in the initial conflict of a war you would need to replace those. That is a price of 310.5 million US dollars. That is a lot of money for fifty tanks, especially when this is half the cost of a single Trident SLBM. What would you rather spend all that money on, a nuclear missile to destroy an entire military installation, or 100 Abrams tanks which may or may not complete their objective?

On the other hand, you have the T-90 which is similar in technological levels, has more practical features built in standard (a snorkel for crossing rivers, those grenade thingies people mentioned, and even reactive armour on the turret to name a few), and costs much much less. According to wikipedia (my only reliable source for tank prices) the T-90 costs between 2.77-4.25 million US dollars. Lets go with the same scenario as above, you lose fifty tanks in a single battle. Assuming the T-90 costs 4.25 million, it would be a total price of 212.5 million US dollars. So even with the highest estimated price tag, you can get the same amount of a more practical and flexible tank at only two thirds of the cost. In a war time crisis, that is a huge advantage. Also the T-90 apparently has an anti-aircraft machine gun... probably nice for shooting down helicopters, so plus one to the T-90 again.

The T-90 is not only a more practical, flexible, and efficient tank... but it also comes with a better budget. It's not that the Abrams is bad, it's just an inferior model.

Wolfrum #19 Posted Aug 08 2011 - 22:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16124 battles
  • 1,074
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostFr33Th1nk3r, on Jul 10 2011 - 17:31, said:

Which would win in a slug fest?

Skipping through all the other posts and focusing on this.
It would depend who crewed which tank.
Give an untrained or unmotivated crew a M1A2 and they would be minced by tanks much lower class than themselves.

Too many people subscribe to the believe that the Armor is unrivled on the m1a2 because it survives RPG's and IED's...but in reality those are low kill probability on a Tank of this class. What I want to see is its ability to shrug off KE rounds. The T90 has a few of those for sure.

I think it really still is down to the men who pilot the tanks, and not the tanks themselves,

-Wolf

Kayos #20 Posted Aug 08 2011 - 22:12

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3208 battles
  • 823
  • [1BIAR] 1BIAR
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
Who ever lands the first shot would probably win.