Abrams vs T-90 (Russian; can anyone summarize?)

[John Kettler]

This looks like a terrific comparison of two modern MBTs and is directly relevant because T-90s will be in the next batch of Syrian goodies. Lots of great footage, to include the AT-8 Songster TLGM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coMdp5Skxms

Regards,

John Kettler

[dima]

Hi John, I'll summarize - the usual journalist propaganda. A lot of stupid stuff like T-90' Shtora can defeat incoming ATGM but T-90's launched ATGM will not be defeated by Abrams. Overall very one-sided.

[Roter Stern]

The more interesting part is how they claim that during tests a T-90 was able to withstand six 120mm Sabot Penetrator hits - apparent equivalents to those used by the Abrams - from 200m and then still drive away under its own power.

Although I would agree with the post above - the commentary didn't appear to be very objective and at times even condescending to the Abrams. Not to mention how it's rather convenient that they did not test tandem-HEAT rounds, which would've had a much better chance at defeating the T-90s ERA than those Sabot rounds.

[bodkin]

Will the CMSF T-90 have active defence systems modelled like Shtora?

When's the T-95 due?

[JasonC]

2 sabots hitting the same ERA plate would be quite sufficient.

[FAI]

Originally posted by bodkin:

Will the CMSF T-90 have active defence systems modelled like Shtora?

When's the T-95 due?

How do you model something that hadn't been tested in combat?

[Other Means]

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bodkin:

Will the CMSF T-90 have active defence systems modelled like Shtora?

When's the T-95 due?

How do you model something that hadn't been tested in combat? </font>

[kipanderson]

Hi,

T95 is real...will be out next year...

That is in the Real World.... ... not scheduled for CMSF as not operational in active units for a year or two yet.

All the best,

Kip.

[Bigduke6]

Haven't we discussed that vid somewhere before?

Some of the claims of T-90 superiority make some sense. The short version is:

1. M1 is invulnerable to 125mm sabot exported to Iraq in the 1970s, but IS vulnerable to 125mm sabot fielded by the Russian army 30 years later, and designed to defeat laminate armor. Further, a tungsten penetrator (Russian) is more effective than depleted uranium (US).

2. M1 is 15 tons heavier than T-90, and per unit about twice as expensive, and that's before you get into the additional crew necessary for M1.

3. T-90 "very soon" will get optics to M1 standard, i.e., thermals.

4. T-90 with its missile can reach out 5 km., M1 max effective range is maybe 3.5 km.

5. Elements of M1's computer power suite are mounted externally and vunerable to HE; T-90's computer power stuff is deep inside the vehicle.

6. M1 vison slots are large and vulnerable to .50 cal, T-90 vison slots are smaller and better protected.

7. T-90 reactive armor is a viable defense against 120mm sabot.

Now I'm not saying any of this is gospel true, especially point 7, that don't make sense to me. But some of the T-90 advantages - cost and gun performance particularly - seem to me to be fairly reasonable.

I know one thing: if I was wargaming I might not choose 2 x T-90 vs. 1 x M1A1, but I sure as heck would want 100 x T-90 vs. 50 x M1A1, and if I had 1000 vs. 500, I would go to town.

Almost like T-34s and Panthers, innaway...

[Thomm]

Re. 7:

What does ERA do to SABOT, anyway? Deflect the round?

Best regards,

Thomm

[slug88]

My understanding is that modern ERA defeats SABOT by shattering the round.

[JasonC]

Deflect and shatter both, really. It puts a differential torque on the rod. The rod is going fast enough and facing extreme enough pressures etc at the front it that it doesn't react too well to this. A short front piece will turn more perpendicular to the armor plate (also slowed but modestly so) but the rest will "try to keep going" and this will break up the rest of the rod.

The ERA alone won't defeat it, if the armor behind it were too thin even the front bit would be enough and get in. But with a thick enough composite armor behind the ERA, the ERA can halve the rod's penetrating power (roughly) and that can be enough.

A second hit on the same ERA plate, though, will get right in. The T-90s native underlying armor is not remotely as strong as the M-1s.

As for its sights reaching M-1 standards, I sincerely doubt it. Yes it will get thermal sights, but all thermal sights are not created equal. The same goes for ballistics computers for targeting.

The edge is the ERA and it is a real one. And that allows a lighter weight which can help with fuel, theater mobility (bridges), etc. In other respects it isn't in the same weight class, or in the electronics class of a M-1A2 SEP.

[John Kettler]

JasonC,

Not entirely true. The long rod penetrator is immensely strong in compression, but very weak in shear. When T-90 Kontakt 5 ERA goes off, a lot more happens than just an explosion. Said explosion actually moves metal plates laterally and sharply, creating the capability to defeat even the M829 120mm DU "Silver Bullet" of Gulf War 1 fame, among others. Per the Wiki, there's now something even nastier than Kontakt 5 called Relikt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5

Additional material from Vasily Fofanov's site

http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html

The T-90 Wiki indicates that Kontakt 5 is standard fit, even on export models. Note, too, that the thing's fitted with Thales thermal sights. Not exactly Third World crap, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

Would also like to point out that unless you're at very close range, the small size of the ERA blocks would make the odds of hitting the same panel twice low, given typical round to round dispersion.

Finally, Kontakt 5 isn't new. I first heard about it in terms of hardware but without a name in 1985. Curled my hair when I did, for I understood full well the implications of ERA good against both HEAT and long rod KE. The HEAT issue alone

cost us billions to address, and that was before we knew about Shtora, though we knew a bit about Drozhd, which was bad enough by itself.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 06, 2008, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[MikeyD]

On a more general note, T-90 would be considerably more effective than Abrams if you simply factor in local bridges with a 50 ton weight limit.

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

Da, mobilnost! Yes, mobility! The Germans had the same "fun" with the Tiger tanks.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Omenowl]

I think the ability to take out helicopters is a major bonus for the T-90. That said is what is the logistical support required for the T90. The problem with the old soviet forces was never equipment, but rather the woeful logistics.

[dima]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Further, a tungsten penetrator (Russian) is more effective than depleted uranium (US).

Not exactly - they said that Tungsten were not as dangerous as DU for the crew. And that DU they have but will save until they need really arises.

3. T-90 "very soon" will get optics to M1 standard, i.e., thermals.

Actually T-90SA already has those. From the wiki

"...later models (T-90S) were upgraded to use the ESSA thermal imaging sight, which allows for accurate firing to a range of 5000-8000 m using the CATHERINE-FC thermal camera produced by Thales Optronique"

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by FAI:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bodkin:

Will the CMSF T-90 have active defence systems modelled like Shtora?

When's the T-95 due?

How do you model something that hadn't been tested in combat? </font>

[Exel]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

5. Elements of M1's computer power suite are mounted externally and vunerable to HE; T-90's computer power stuff is deep inside the vehicle.

6. M1 vison slots are large and vulnerable to .50 cal, T-90 vison slots are smaller and better protected.

Beautiful spin doctoring this, turning cons into pros. I almost woke the neighbour by laughing.

M1s computer units are in the turret where they are better kept cool but more importantly can be quickly changed if damaged. T-series computers are God-knows-where inside the tank - try changing those in a hurry.

M1s vision slots are much larger, yes. They also give superb vision all-around, whereas the T-series vision slots are very small and narrow, severely limiting your field of view. Prone to damage? Yeah, sure. It takes about 15 seconds to replace one on the Abrams, without ever leaving the cover of armor.

And getting those thermals "very soon" only means that as it is, all Western tanks beat the T-series 10:1 in detection and targetting both day and night. Naturally you can upgrade the T-90, but then it's suddenly not so cheap anymore...

[ March 07, 2008, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[kevinkins]

I know you all are comparing hardware/weapon systems, but lets remember that even the best hardware has to be placed into the hands of well motivated and trained soldiers backed by excellent command/control and logistics. I don't see the T90 integrated anytime soon into a world class operational formation.

- Kevin

[Exel]

Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherff:

I know you all are comparing hardware/weapon systems, but lets remember that even the best hardware has to be placed into the hands of well motivated and trained soldiers backed by excellent command/control and logistics. I don't see the T90 integrated anytime soon into a world class operational formation.

- Kevin

That's hardly the tank's fault. Being crewed by Egyptians or Saudis doesn't make the Abrams any worse as a tank either.