Correction: Not all Russian missiles are superior.
And who said or even implied that?
Chobham armor offers decent protection against ATGM.
Notice the improvement in the protection levels in latest versions?
As if T 90 is staying all the same without any upgrades.
Are you sure that T90 is more heavily armored then latest versions of M1 Abrams in all aspects of design?
What is the current protection level of T90 at Lower Front Turret? What about fuel Tanks?
According to a source, protection level of T90 at LFT is 240 - 380.
And you should also consider M1A2 SEP Abrams Tanks for comparison purposes as well. We cannot ignore the best Tank in US arsenal.
Let us compare both models (T90 and M1A1). AND the way each models were tested by their producers.
- T 90 is much lighter than M1 A1. Weights 47 tonnes as opposed to 64 tonnes. However, it would be prepostous to assume that more weight = better armour. For that, rigorous testing will have to take place.
- M1A1 is assumed to be "proven" its reliability in 1991 and 2003 when it sustained hits by 125mm Soviet anti tank ammunitions. However, it is conveniently forgotten that these ammunitions were out of production since 1973.
- M1A1's frontal armour was not tested with modern projectiles as far as I can recall. On the other hand, while testing T 90, the most advanced anti tank missiles were used which are equally efficient as the 120 mm gun of Abrams. 6 hits in the range of 200 m. Plus tests against the most modern grenade launchers. Result: Armor not pierced
- During 2003 campaign, the sides of Abrams would be pierced even with RPG7's first versions. A crucial weak spot was discovered - The SPU, which can be destroyed by machine gun alone.
- T90s have Shotra (optical electronic suppresion "blinds") installed for all versions. This guides enemy missiles away. System which is absent in Abrams
- T90's working range has been put to 5-6 km. T90 and Abram's ammo power is very similar.
- Abram's projectile uses depleted uranium as core. While T90's uses Tungsten, However, T90s ammo contains fragmentation-sharpnel projectile with remote detonator. Can be detonated for "hiding" targets. Abrams has no such facility.
- Initial versions were inferior to Abrams in terms of mobility. But after 1000 HP engines, T90 is even with (if not superior) to Abrams.
- T90 is suited to any off road environment. As far as i remember, during weapons exhibition in 1993 at UAE, Abrams "lost its shoe" (one of its track) during testing.
- T90s were tested in Malaysia with others. It travelled 3000 KM in the terrain of malaysian jungle, where all of its competitors stopped.
- Capability tested in Indian Thar deserts where temperatures can reach 50 degrees.
Today, the T90 is superior to Abrams in most respects. We are waiting for our new generation of tanks to be produced. T95 and beyond
Bad argument. M1 Abrams are of 'different class' in comparison to Russian Medium Tanks.
Or rather they are incapable of producing Abrams efficiently and at low cost.
