What's new

M1 Abrams vs. T-90: Top US General Admits Russia Has Achieved Tank Parity

What about the Kalashnikov? The Kalashnikov is not a complex piece of equipment like a tank or artillerey piece or mobile SAM. And not necessarily the best rifle (depending on what you need i.e. which critiria):
AR-15 – versatility and speed
AK47 – durability and affordability



But not all 580, obviously. In general, if you put a bunch of monkeys in a tank, you don't expect the same results as when you put in a highly trained human crew, given that the tank is identical (which may not be the case when comparing US units with M1 and non-US units).

If you read the WP article, it is clear that the issue is OVERUSED and UNDERMAINTAINED equipment, not the design of equipment. It is what is happening in all militaries that I know that send troops on missions abroad while operating on a tight defence budget. Equipment is worn out, but because funding is low, spare parts stores get depleted and maintenance postponed, with the end result that at some point a good bit of units cease to be combat effective.

exactly arabs in general are not a good competitors in combat, so us mil showing off their record of desert storm or iraq freedom, is a very bad comparison. With ruskies in t-90 vs us mil m1a1 will be a totally different story.
US mil working on tight budget, its actually bad management rather than shortfall of funds. The equipment is also wearing out in conflicts there were never meant to be used in
 
exactly arabs in general are not a good competitors in combat, so us mil showing off their record of desert storm or iraq freedom, is a very bad comparison. With ruskies in t-90 vs us mil m1a1 will be a totally different story.
US mil working on tight budget, its actually bad management rather than shortfall of funds. The equipment is also wearing out in conflicts there were never meant to be used in
Why Desert Storm is a bad comparison? If anything, it was an eye-opener for the Russians and Chinese.

A large number of American veterans testify that Iraqi crew scored hits on M1A1 Abrams units across the battlefield but their shells failed to penetrate. M1A1 Abrams was way too good back then.

We don't know for sure how T-90SM (a very good MBT in its own right) would fare against the M1A1D or M1A2 SEP v2 Abrams MBT in the battlefield. Mostly, we have sheer hype of latest Russian MBTs to consider in discussions.

Well, we can take the example of the Kalashnikov, if you want!
That is not a good analogy.

A modern MBT is relatively a much more complex piece of machinary.

Extensive use will wear down any vehicle, specially in harsh conditions. A long-term war takes toll on the condition of sophisticated equipment in the long-run.
 
That is not a good analogy.

A modern MBT is relatively a much more complex piece of machinary.

Extensive use will wear down any vehicle, specially in harsh conditions. A long-term war takes toll on the condition of sophisticated equipment in the long-run.

A lot of people failed to understand this.

In war, you reuse your equipment. You do not ship out new tank just because your unit is rotated in/out of theatre, the easier solution is the unit rotating out will leave their tanks in theatre and the unit rotating in would simply move in without their equipment.

US Army rotate their troop every year, each BCT used to have 1 Tank Battalion, that's 3 company (15 tanks per) And an Armoured BCT would have 2 Armoured Battalion. Imagine rotating 100 tanks per BCT per year and you have 5 BCT in Iraq and another 4 BCT in Afghanistan, how much works would be involve just to ship old tanks out and new tanks in? The solution is that the outgoing unit would simply leave their armour behind and used by the incoming unit.

That way, a single tank rack up 400-600% more mileage than a regular tank stateside. That is the actual problem why we have serious breakdown normally won't. It would be easier to ship broken tank out individually and replace them with working one than rotate those equipment every single year.
 
They use this fear-mongering technique all the time to get the Government to further increase the defence budget.
Possibly but it's important to be dominant in tank warfare. Especially with equipment. Some good ideas like putting the newer L55 gun used on German Leo 2 to be used on Abrams, better ammo especially longer range, Active protection system, armor improvements, etc. but the other countries pretty much reach the parity of the Abrams tank. Problem is money and canceling programs for improvements.
 
That is not a good analogy.

A modern MBT is relatively a much more complex piece of machinary.

Extensive use will wear down any vehicle, specially in harsh conditions. A long-term war takes toll on the condition of sophisticated equipment in the long-run.
We were talking about reliability.. it is a Russian system and a good example.. it is not a tank but it gives an idea about Russian design philosophy..
Cheers
 
First, it's just a cry to raise more funds and invest in a new design. Having said that, funding is not the only concern. There is more to this realization.
Abrams was never the best tank in the world to begin with for several reasons. In fact, he whole debate of x being better than y is moot for me. Each weapon system was designed to fulfill a specific set of GSRs so comparing them is not fair.
Yes, the Yankees and west Did underestimate Russians and even Ukrainians for a while until the Ukrainians proved them wrong big time. Russians did the same some years later with the famous t-80u sold to British at 5million.
 
Americans recognized: T-90 is better than “Abrams”
March 30, 2017
4318
25132931.732892.76.jpeg

Share on Facebook

Tweet on Twitter

armored-vehicles-polygon-dirt-tank-t-90.jpg
Deputy Chief of US Army Lieutenant General Dzhon Myurrey , speaking at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Armed Services Committee, said that the American tanks “Abrams” are no longer the best in the world.
According to him, the world situation has recently changed. Significant progress in the area of tank reached several countries, including the need to highlight Israel, Great Britain and Russia.
Murray called “Abrams” is not the best, but, nevertheless, one of the best tanks in the world. About the position of Russia, he spoke as follows: “I think the T-90, probably very close to the” Abrams “. Many enthusiastic words expressed in the address of “Almaty was”, but he, as far as I know, has not yet been put into operation. ”

The most important task of this speech, of course, is clear: the necessary funds for the establishment of new armored vehicles. Since, as the general said, modernization potential “Abrams” has been exhausted, the tank has reached its limit.
But it is unclear why the need for major financial investment, as in the American tank building lacking fresh ideas. “My concern is that now in the near foreseeable future, I do not see any breakthrough technologies that would allow us to get more light tank, – said Murray. – Build new 75-ton tank, I think, would be a mistake as for its protection requirements remain the same. ”

read more: The Awesome WW2 Churchill – The British Heavy Infantry Tank

Indeed, the protection of “Abrams”, despite the constantly increasing its armor layers, remains one of the weakest of its qualities. It has repeatedly been proven in both clashes with approximately equal on enemy forces in the service in the regular army and the guerrillas and militants of terrorist organizations, armed, we can say just anything. But a further increase in the mass of body armor can turn the already unwieldy tank in slow-moving dinosaur.
Despite the powerful advertising company-developer – General Dynamics Land Systems, the number of lost “Abrams” completely negates the assertion even though it is one of the best tanks in the world. In the top five, he certainly is not included, giving the tanks Israel, Germany, the UK, South Korea and Russia.

80 “Abrams” was lost in 2003 in Iraq. It is used from 1135. As for the cars of disabled both by fire, and because of the serious damage the main components and systems, then the picture is just depressing. In late 2004, from Iraq to the US for repair of 530 tanks were sent to the factory. That is almost half.

Taking into account the negative experience, designers have modernized “Abrams” in order to enhance body armor, body kit their back and sides of the plates of the dynamic protection. But it’s not much help. According to various reports, since last fall to this day have been destroyed from 30 to 47 “Abrams” in northern Iraq.The Syrian army operates a significant number of Russian T-90A (this is not the latest and most powerful version). Since 2014 it has been lost only one tank, lined with American missile ATGM TOW. And it was not due to the weakness of the tank, and low preparation Syrian tank, do not follow instructions requirements.
The tank was disconnected system of optical-electronic suppression of attacking missiles “Blind-1.” In addition, the hatches were opened. And the shock wave from the missile gap stiff in the reserved space of the tank. Contused gunner and his panicked comrades jumped out of the tank. Quite efficient tank moved to the militants.Last modification of the Russian main battle tank – T-90AM – there was 10 years ago. The tank is much easier to “American”, which determines the best and maneuverability, – 48 tonnes against 63 tonnes. However, this is not achieved at the expense of the armor thickness and a smaller volume of Russian tank – volume smaller by as much as 30%. Smaller and front projection area, so than with T-90AM harder to get unmanageable projectile.

Amplification dynamic protection tank (DZ), the plate which is undermined by compensating for the kinetics of projectiles and missiles, – it is not a panacea. Introduction DZ equivalent thickening armor about 10-15 centimeters. (By the way, the Russian RS “Relic”, developed by the Research Institute of Steel, these figures are much higher – 25-30 cm). For modern weapons is not a big obstacle. But modernizers “Abrams” and only those involved. The American tanks there are no active protection, which is the destruction of enemy ordnance from a safe distance.

Active protection is at an Israeli tank “Merkava”. And it has proven effective. Part of it is present in the T-90-AM. Full-length active protection “Afgane” is provided for installation on the tank T-14 “Armata”. But also a reduced functional T-90AM is capable not only dazzling laser seeker guided munitions of the enemy, but also to undermine grenades to fire back approaching missiles. Also, the option “Afganita” T-90AM can remotely deal with mine, reflect the air strikes and exhibit anti-radar curtain.

Automation T-90AM higher than “Abrams”. Thanks to what the crew does not consist of 4 and 3 persons. Important role in increasing the combat capability of a charging machine guns. US Charges tank man can not be compared with the Russian machine as the speed and on the definition and error-free. And this affects the rate of fire weapons.When comparing the firepower of the two tanks should take into account not only the caliber of the gun. He is practically the same. The “Abrams” NATO standard 120 mm. At the T-90AM – traditional Soviet-era 125 mm. But the Russian cannon 2A46M-5 is more modern. In “Ambramse” set the gun of German company “Rheinmetall” not the first freshness. Now the Germans equip their “Leopard 2” last modification guns – L / 55.

Read more: CHALLENGER 2: LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAMME

Both tanks ammunition includes armor-piercing shells feathered (BOPS) with a core of depleted uranium. It is the most powerful artillery ammunition for duel tank having the highest kinetic energy and consequently having a high penetrating ability. Also, both tanks using cumulative, concrete-piercing and high-explosive shells. BOPS powerful Americans. Russian BOPS 3BM-48 “Lead” has armor equal to 600 mm, the best American – 700 mm.
However, from the Russian cannon can launch anti-tank guided missiles “Refreks-M”, which is much more effective piercing projectiles. The “Abrams” this is not possible, the Germans, who designed the gun, this did not foresee. Armor piercing rocket is 900 mm, and the firing range is 5000 meters. Maximum range “Abrams” gun – 3500 meters. This means that when two tanks T-90AM as much as 1.5 kilometers will be easy to conduct missile firing on the “Abrams” without encountering fire resistance.
Un-char-M1-abrams-Cwallpaper.jpg


The “Abrams” is vulnerable, even when the first contact antitank missiles, since the thickness of its frontal armor housing is 650 mm. Even the integrity of the tower, which is equal to the frontal armor of 940 mm, will be threatened.

Comparing the firepower of tanks, should also be considered that passive shells lose energy during the flight. BOPS indicated at a distance of 2 kilometers. At a distance of 3 kilometers in the American projectile will not penetrate the armor of 500 mm. However, the parameters of armor T-90AM are kept secret. Therefore, it is difficult to say with any distance, it can be broken. But, given the history of TOW missile from the above, which does not cause more damage to the T-90A, it can be said that Russian armor is strong. Also – our tanks are fast, because it is easier and more maneuverable than the exhausted resource of modernization “Abrams”.

Check Out These Top Stories for Today...
https://www.nolimitszone.com/americans-recognized-t-90-is-better-than-abrams
 
We were talking about reliability.. it is a Russian system and a good example.. it is not a tank but it gives an idea about Russian design philosophy..
Cheers
AK-47 has a simple design with very few moving parts. This is the reason for its reliability. However, you will find ample evidence of AK-47 suffering jams and such on the internet.

Situation is absolutely different with incredibly complex machines. And Russian hardware is far from being a benchmark of reliability in that.

When quality and reliability are considerations; USA, Japan, France, Turkey and England come to mind. Russia not so much.
 
AK-47 has a simple design with very few moving parts. This is the reason for its reliability. However, you will find ample evidence of AK-47 suffering jams and such on the internet.

Situation is absolutely different with incredibly complex machines. And Russian hardware is far from being a benchmark of reliability in that.

When quality and reliability are considerations; USA, Japan, France, Turkey and England come to mind. Russia not so much.
Ok, but read the article above where half of the US tanks in Iraq were out of service due to other factors not related to battle..I won't call it reliable..
 
AK-47 has a simple design with very few moving parts. This is the reason for its reliability. However, you will find ample evidence of AK-47 suffering jams and such on the internet.

Situation is absolutely different with incredibly complex machines. And Russian hardware is far from being a benchmark of reliability in that.

When quality and reliability are considerations; USA, Japan, France, Turkey and England come to mind. Russia not so much.


Turkey and reliable? Is this a joke? They can't even make a tank engine for the Atlay, everything from their tank is license produced or imported even down to the tracks. Armor, transmission, engine, gun, etc are foreign. so explain how they are reliable when Turkey can not even design and built those components. You might also want to research the Leclerk before calling it reliable.
 
We were talking about reliability.. it is a Russian system and a good example.. it is not a tank but it gives an idea about Russian design philosophy..
Cheers
An Armata MBT malfunctioned during a parade in Russia. Shall I use this incident as the basis to question the reliability of an incredibly complex vehicle like Armata?

I have nothing against Russian design philosophy; just pointing out the fact that it is really foolish to cite an incredibly simplistic device (AK-47 rifle) as a role-model of reliability for incredibly complex machines.

Incredibly complex machines? Huge number of onboard parts (ranging from extremely rugged to extremely sensitive in design) and considerable maintenance requirements accordingly.

AK-47 rifle? Small number of rugged parts; cheap on maintenance.

No comparison.
 
Last edited:
An Armata MBT malfunctioned during a parade in Russia. Shall I use this incident as the basis to question the reliability of an incredibly complex vehicle like Armata?

I have nothing against Russian design philosophy; just pointing out the fact that it is really foolish to cite an incredibly simplistic device (AK-47 rifle) as a role-model of reliability for incredibly complex machines.

Incredibly complex machines? Huge number of onboard parts (ranging from extremely rugged to extremely sensitive in design) and considerable maintenance requirements accordingly.

AK-47 rifle? Small number of rugged parts; cheap on maintenance.

No comparison.
Still, the Russian tanks are simpler built than western tanks, smaller in size and lighter in weight, less complex to maintain and operate.. this is in general concerning Russian military gear.. the new platforms are getting more complex though with the integration of many sophisticated technologies..
Hundreds of Abrams were recalled from Iraq war, not one.. because they have malfunctioned..
 
Last edited:
Still, the Russian tanks are simpler built than western tanks, smaller in size and lighter in weight, less complex to maintain and operate.. this is in general concerning Russian military gear,, the new platforms are getting more complex though with the integration of many sophisticated technologies..
Hundreds of Abrams were recalled from Iraq war, not one.. because they have malfunctioned..
My friend,

US army has set 90% operational requirement for all of its vehicles.

At any specified period of time, 90% of MBT fleet should be operational and ready for the battlefield. And compliance is strictly ensured in this matter.

During the Persian Gulf War (1991), about 90% of the fleet of M1 series MBT - deployed for combat - worked flawlessely in the battlefield. Some units malfunctioned due to technical reasons (punishing environment of the Arabian desert notwithstanding) but holistic operational situation was very good.

Now, it comes down to how problems are reported in the press. Reporters are likely to sensationalize their findings or even misreport them; ratings are more important to them than the holistic reality.

M1 series MBT might be maintenance-intensive vehicles but a declassified report unveils that US army is always willing to replace some parts with more reliable parts (owing to lessons from operational experiences) in M1 series MBT and maintenance costs are going down with each iteration of M1 series.

Anyhow, everything Russian is not a beacon of reliability. Here is an eye-opener: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-t-80-tank-total-disaster-13550

More importantly, technical reports about operational readiness of military vehicles are deemed too sensitive to disclose to the public by authorities in many states. We don't know much about operational status of the fleet of MBT of Pakistan Army either.

US is an exception when it comes to declassification of information.
 
Last edited:
Still, the Russian tanks are simpler built than western tanks, smaller in size and lighter in weight, less complex to maintain and operate.. this is in general concerning Russian military gear,, the new platforms are getting more complex though with the integration of many sophisticated technologies..
My friend,

US army has set 90% operational requirement for all of its vehicles.

At any specified period of time, 90% of MBT fleet should be operational and ready for the battlefield. And compliance is strictly ensured in this matter.

During the Persian Gulf War (1991), about 90% of the fleet of M1 series MBT - deployed for combat - worked flawlessely in the battlefield. Some units malfunctioned due to technical reasons (punishing environment of the Arabian desert notwithstanding) but holistic operational situation was very good.

Now, it comes down to how problems are reported in the press. Reporters are likely to sensationalize their findings or even misreport them; ratings are more important to them than the holistic reality.

M1 series MBT might be maintenance-intensive vehicles but a declassified report unveils that US army is always willing to replace some parts with more reliable parts (owing to lessons from operational experiences) in M1 series MBT and maintenance costs are going down with each iteration of M1 series.

Anyhow, everything Russian is not a beacon of reliability. Here is an eye-opener: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-t-80-tank-total-disaster-13550

More importantly, technical reports about operational readiness of military vehicles are deemed too sensitive to disclose to the public by authorities in many states. We don't know much about operational status of the fleet of MBT of Pakistan Army either.

US is an exception when it comes to declassification of information.
We do agree on most of it.. I am not saying that all Russian military gear is reliable, I am only saying that they have a doctrine that is different than the Western one where quantity for them has its own quality, like what Stalin said once..
I can take the case of the 1973 Ramadan war where the Egyptians fought with one generation back in almost every weapon of war (they fought with Russian made tanks, missiles, radars and airplanes) and they have succeeded like no other.. while the Syrians gave also a good fight but nothing close to the Egyptians, it is all about tactics and the use of the weapon..otherwise its the man behind the machine that counts most..

The US is transparent is more of an illusion than reality, they will say we are changing some parts with more reliable ones, do they give the specs or are they just disclosing general information to the public to justify increases in the Military budget or the budget itself?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom