It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Honestly, what a bunch of useless comments out there.
First: when comparing tanks, their capabilities vs other tanks are always secondary. That's the painful lesson Germans learnt in WW2, and what any qualified armo designer knows, yet forgotten by many 'forum tank experts'.
Second, don't rely on ANY official armor penetration data.
I don't want to write a long article on that, just google some facts
-Challenger 2 penetrated by RPG-29
-Kornet ATGM (9M133) stable penetrating (45 confirmed penetrations) Merkava's during 2006 Lebanon War (Israelis even went angry at Russians, accusing of supplying Hezbollah with those).
That's the modern, state-of-art tanks getting penetrating by man-portable weapons.
Also look at how brutally combat helicopters demolish tanks.
In fact, when facing a competent enemy, tank will be more often subject to AT-teams attacks (using newer versions of RPG/Javelin/Konkurs/... weapons) or attack helicopters (Apache/Ka-50/...) than to fire of other tank.
Tanks were never that good AT(anti-tank) assets, sure they can engage other tanks, but there are military units better suited to this role.
So when comparing tanks in hands of competent crew and in even battle (not like US vs. Iraq), scrap the stupid tank-vs-tank scenario, and better look onto protection from relevant threats, as well as tank's capability to fullfill designated tasks (assaults, holding ground, etc.)
Also remember there's cost/efficiency consideration. If tank A is 10% 'worse' than tank B, but 50% cheaper, tank B may be a better choice.
As for T90 vs Abrams, well that's a very long and unfortunately useless discussion going on US (hyping Abrams), Russian (hyping T90) and international forums (mixed, or hyping Leo).
Both tanks endured extensive trials in various countries. Both are being built and sold on market (India, for example, has a definite love for T-90).
As for combat tests, unfortunately there's little to no tests of those vs. worthy enemy. Iraq doesn't count; even Hezzbollah in abovementioned 2006's conflict have 'battle-tested' Merkava (and shown it's quite vulnerable) than Iraqis during all the years of Iraq war.
Some few more things:
T-90 has active ('hard' countermeasures system (ARENA) while Abrams didn't (since US rejected Israel-made TROPHY; btw, Israelis decided to go for the system exactly when they saw how vulnerable tanks can be to modern AT-weaponry, not the Iraqi junk). Also, Russian ERA Kontakt-5 has been proven to be better.
Abrams has a far better chassis (by nearly all prameters save for weight). T-90 is, in fact, T-72BU renamed; and T-72s chassis was always meant to be mass assault cheap tank to be deployed in large numbers (Soviet military doctrine). nterestingly, many bridges in Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe were build so lighter T-72 can pass while M1 can't.
So, to put it short, when USSR collapsed and military doctrine changed, Russians started to slowly re-make their newer tanks into 'Western-like' type with increased cost and survivability. Having no cash in 90s to develop worthy chassis, they kept looking for better ERA, active countermeasures, improved autoloader etc.
Historically, before "steamroller" ideas went in, Soviet tanks were better than American (that means period during and about 10 years after WW2). Even T-62 was a formiddable tank for its time; it's T-72 that was designed with faulty assumption of 'quantity has a quality on its own', being (w/o upgrade) inferior even to the T-62.
What will happen next? Russians seem to get cash to finally fund developing a worthy chassis. With all the 'gadgets' already developed, and finally understanding buying some-tech aren't bad (French thermal sights anyone?), their new T-95, or whatever it will be called, has a great chance to be the best tank overall; though ofc some European tanks development (Leo) seems to have such chance too. As for M1'a future, honestly it's hard to tell where it is heading with TROPHY rejection. We'll see.
WOW do you have a link to that claim
Originally posted by RussiaUSA
reply to post by Daedalus3
actually the bars radar...on the su-30 is said to have stealth tracking capabilties if yoy get my drift. no plane is invisible....remember that..it depends alot on the type of radar being used and how modern it is.
Actually Russia has the best Fighters/ SAMS in the world not U.S.A.
Originally posted by rufusdrak
Poster Kozzy is knowledgeable but he uses alot of wrong or unknown specifications. I just watched a show on tanks today and they clearly said alot of Abrams specs are classified such as armor thickness and someone else said penetration here. Someone exposed his posts on the last page and showed that T90 can penetrate the Abrams and vice versa. The truth is no one can tell for certain because alot of the numbers are classified or intentionally fudged. From the videos I've seen of T90's they seem too agile for the Abrams but I know that the Abrams has the best optics and sights in the world.
In the end I feel that they are of comparable quality that it would come down to the crew and to the actual commanders and battlefield oversight. I don't know in particular enough about how well trained each respective side is in TANK combat though I know U.S. is well trained and probably the best in the world in that department but I can't say for certain.
My guess is that it would depend on the particular circumstance.
For example there's no such thing as just a pure tank vs tank battle in an open vaccuum anyway, you can't compare to the joke that was Gulf War 1 where there was no challenge to u.s.'s air superiority. Obviously any tank battle between 2 super powers like Russia and US will have enormous use of air assets and whoever in the end wins air superiority will win the tank battle as well as they will have free reign for their air assets to ground and pound the other sides tanks. U.S. has a slight edge in the air for now as their latest generation planes are the best (this can be argued) but on the other hand Russia has the best anti-air assets in the world which would equalize this so it's hard to say but personally I would go with the T90 just because it's a little beast. At almost half the damn tonnage of a Abrams it is agile and quick yet has good armor and firepower while the Abrams is a big bulky beast that is limited in how it can engage and breaks down like hell in treacherous environments.
What does it lack, it has:
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The Russian T-90 is often comperable to the M1A1 although it lacks certain techs.