T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[Chrom]

Hi Chrom:

Why would you rate a T-90 better than a M1A1.

1. Armor protection. T-90 is much, much better here.
2. ATGM's.
3. Shtora (and Arena if its installed)
4. Mobility - both tactical and strategical.
5. Fuel consumtion, AUX generators, reliability in Middle East conditions.
6. Remote controlled MG
7. Autoloader

These are main points.
Where M1A1 is better:
1. Ammo storage.
2..... N1 is all i can think of.

Simply put, T-90A and M1A1 are different generations of tanks. T-80B and U are much better paired with M1A1. T-90A are better matched with M1A2 and later generations of Abrams.

Now, many of these points was rectified in the latest generations of Abrams - M1A2(HEP) and TUSK.

And anyone who blame T-80 for Chechnya... Look at Merkava in Lebanon. Supposely the most protected of Western tanks, with best crew protection suffered heavy casualities both in tanks and they crews in conditions what was much, much more favorable than that in Chechnya (urban conditions, tanks itself not combat ready...)

 

[eckherl]

What do you think Al-Khalid is if not a T-90 with a T-84 engine?

Al-Khalid is a joint venture between China and Pakistan.
It started out with modifications to the type 69 tank.
Al-Khalid 2000 is a based on a T-72 chassis.

China has a similar vehicle called type 90-2 that they have tried to market.

 

[powerslavenegi]

The Ukrainians have put some powerful engines in theirs. Even the Pakistani Al-Khalid are using it in their T-90s. All of the T-90Ms have a cast turret which make them prone to "popping like a top". The composite layering of electrofluxed metal is 15% stronger than the T-90. Their are other defensive systems that the T-80 family of tanks have over the T-90 with better protection of vital areas. Given the choice of serving in the T-90 or T-84 I would choose the latter.

Correction when you compare T-80 series wth T-90 please compare the latest versions of the both ,i.e. take into consideration T-80UD or Al-Khalid of Pakistan then you should compare it with Indian T-90S(not to be confused with a cheaper export version of the same that has a cast turret)

1.T-90S has a ESSA (Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera supplied by Thales of France ) mated with 1A43 LRF with 1G46 day sight.

2.It has a 1,000 hp V-92S2 four-stroke V-12 diesel engine as against 840Hp as reported on many websites.

3.Protected by latest Russian Kontakt-5 ERA and Shtora-1 EOCMDAS (electro-optical counter-measures defensive aids suite).

T-90s v/s Al-Khalid

range:650 v/s 400 (on road) Cross country (500/350)
Engine hp: 1000 v/s 1200
Armour: Kontakt-5 ERA v/s ??
Ground Pressure: 0.87 Kg/cmsq v/s 0.93 kg/cmsq
ATGM: 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) 75 to 5000 metres v/s IMO some licensed version of the same made in China /Pakistan

 

[eckherl]

Correction when you compare T-80 series wth T-90 please compare the latest versions of the both ,i.e. take into consideration T-80UD or Al-Khalid of Pakistan then you should compare it with Indian T-90S(not to be confused with a cheaper export version of the same that has a cast turret)

1.T-90S has a ESSA (Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera supplied by Thales of France ) mated with 1A43 LRF with 1G46 day sight.

2.It has a 1,000 hp V-92S2 four-stroke V-12 diesel engine as against 840Hp as reported on many websites.

3.Protected by latest Russian Kontakt-5 ERA and Shtora-1 EOCMDAS (electro-optical counter-measures defensive aids suite).

And how do you think the T-90S will stack up to a T-90M or a Ukrainian T-84.

 

[powerslavenegi]

And how do you think the T-90S will stack up to a T-90M or a Ukrainian T-84.

T-90S is a heavily modified and uparmoured version of T-90M.(engine,armour and the entire FCS have been upgraded).While the Ukranian T-84 inherently uses the same FCS as that of T-90M (its only assest is the 1200Hp engine).I assume the French Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera supplied by Thales is superiror to the Russian Agava-2 on T-90M and T-84 (else IA would not have opted for such costly alternative).Now in this configuration I guess T-90S should have an edge due to its better FCS and protection by Kontakt-5 ERA.

 

[Chrom]

3.Protected by latest Russian Kontakt-5 ERA and Shtora-1 EOCMDAS (electro-optical counter-measures defensive aids suite).

T

BTW, latest operational russian ERA is Relict. Can be seen on T-72BM upgrade.

 

[powerslavenegi]

My bad Russians are very clever they know to hold back right technology at right time: .AFAIK when T-90 negotiations were going on Relcit was not in picture (at least was not offered).

 

[eckherl]

T-90S is a heavily modified and uparmoured version of T-90M.(engine,armour and the entire FCS have been upgraded).While the Ukranian T-84 inherently uses the same FCS as that of T-90M (its only assest is the 1200Hp engine).I assume the French Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera supplied by Thales is superiror to the Russian Agava-2 on T-90M and T-84 (else IA would not have opted for such costly alternative).Now in this configuration I guess T-90S should have an edge due to its better FCS and protection by Kontakt-5 ERA.

T - 84 also uses a French sight and has kontakt - 5 ERA
T - 84 stabilization system is better than what is found on T-90 S
I will have to give Russia`s version of the T-90 a edge over the Indian model, due to the fact that it is a export model.
India is still experiencing major overheating issues with the FCS and TI sight.

 

[Waylander]

The 5000m sniper ATGMs are not that great argument.
With a x12 optic it is not really easy to track a target especially when moving.
May be a little bonus but not really big.

Another thing is the autoloader. You may see it as an advantage but if it comes to maintenance issues, security duties, reserve functions a 4 man crew is better than a 3 man one.
Also a trained loader often enough reaches a better loading time than an autoloader.
And Ts tend to thrwo their turret away due to the autoloader and the round in the carussell.

What I miss on M1A1s are the hunter/killer capabilities.

 

[eckherl]

Correction when you compare T-80 series wth T-90 please compare the latest versions of the both ,i.e. take into consideration T-80UD or Al-Khalid of Pakistan then you should compare it with Indian T-90S(not to be confused with a cheaper export version of the same that has a cast turret)

1.T-90S has a ESSA (Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera supplied by Thales of France ) mated with 1A43 LRF with 1G46 day sight.

2.It has a 1,000 hp V-92S2 four-stroke V-12 diesel engine as against 840Hp as reported on many websites.

3.Protected by latest Russian Kontakt-5 ERA and Shtora-1 EOCMDAS (electro-optical counter-measures defensive aids suite).

T-90s v/s Al-Khalid

range:650 v/s 400 (on road) Cross country (500/350)
Engine hp: 1000 v/s 1200
Armour: Kontakt-5 ERA v/s ??
Ground Pressure: 0.87 Kg/cmsq v/s 0.93 kg/cmsq
ATGM: 9M119 Refleks-M (NATO: AT-11 Sniper-B) 75 to 5000 metres v/s IMO some licensed version of the same made in China /Pakistan

Al - Khalid also has Kontakt - 5 ERA, it also has a auto tracker for the maingun based on the design used by Leclerc mainbattle tank.

 

[eckherl]

The 5000m sniper ATGMs are not that great argument.
With a x12 optic it is not really easy to track a target especially when moving.
May be a little bonus but not really big.

Another thing is the autoloader. You may see it as an advantage but if it comes to maintenance issues, security duties, reserve functions a 4 man crew is better than a 3 man one.
Also a trained loader often enough reaches a better loading time than an autoloader.
And Ts tend to thrwo their turret away due to the autoloader and the round in the carussell.

What I miss on M1A1s are the hunter/killer capabilities.

Did you mean the M1A2?

 

[Waylander]

I meant the M1A1.
As long as I know the independent periscope optic for the commander was introduced first with the M1A2. Before this the Abrams had no real hunter/killer capabilities.
Or do I get something wrong?

Don't worry if I do not answer in the next time.
I'm in China for the next 10 days.
So long.

Cheers.

 

[eckherl]

I meant the M1A1.
As long as I know the independent periscope optic for the commander was introduced first with the M1A2. Before this the Abrams had no real hunter/killer capabilities.
Or do I get something wrong?

Don't worry if I do not answer in the next time.
I'm in China for the next 10 days.
So long.

Cheers.

This was set up on the M1A2 - How did you get to go to China, LUCKY!
Have fun, it is a journey that will live with you forever.

 

[Chrom]

The 5000m sniper ATGMs are not that great argument.
With a x12 optic it is not really easy to track a target especially when moving.
May be a little bonus but not really big.

Another thing is the autoloader. You may see it as an advantage but if it comes to maintenance issues, security duties, reserve functions a 4 man crew is better than a 3 man one.
Also a trained loader often enough reaches a better loading time than an autoloader.
And Ts tend to thrwo their turret away due to the autoloader and the round in the carussell.

What I miss on M1A1s are the hunter/killer capabilities.

About optic... If you can hit something from 4km away with MG (as most of this forum seems quite sure) then surery you will be able to hit the same target with with guided missile from 5km. And it will be much easer.
About autoloader... yes, in ideal conditions expirienced human loader in its best form can load slightly faster. But anything not ideal - move on rought terrain, tired loader, psychycal strain, etc - and loading times can GREATLY increase. At least with autoloader you can be 100% sure what no matter what in 6 sec you can press the botton again. And there is always an argument - why waste a human for such useless job? Btw. i didnt heard even once about more problems to maintain T-72 with 3 crews. Either way, ALL future tanks of EVERY nations are planned with autoloader.

 

[eckherl]

About optic... If you can hit something from 4km away with MG (as most of this forum seems quite sure) then surery you will be able to hit the same target with with guided missiled from 5km. And it will be much easer.
About autoloader... yes, in ideal conditions expirienced human loader in its best form can load slightly faster. But anything not ideal - move on rought terrain, tired loader, psychycal strain, etc - and loading times can GREATLY increase. At least with autoloader you can be 100% sure what no matter what in 6 sec you can press the botton again. And there is always an argument - why waster a human for such useless job? Btw. i didnt heard even once about more problems to maintain T-72 with 3 crews. Either way, ALL future tanks of EVERY nations are planned with autoloader.

You and I both know that isn`t wise for a engagement range, 2400 meters is really pushing it.

 

[eckherl]

1. Armor protection. T-90 is much, much better here.
2. ATGM's.
3. Shtora (and Arena if its installed)
4. Mobility - both tactical and strategical.
5. Fuel consumtion, AUX generators, reliability in Middle East conditions.
6. Remote controlled MG
7. Autoloader

These are main points.
Where M1A1 is better:
1. Ammo storage.
2..... N1 is all i can think of.

Simply put, T-90A and M1A1 are different generations of tanks. T-80B and U are much better paired with M1A1. T-90A are better matched with M1A2 and later generations of Abrams.

Now, many of these points was rectified in the latest generations of Abrams - M1A2(HEP) and TUSK.

And anyone who blame T-80 for Chechnya... Look at Merkava in Lebanon. Supposely the most protected of Western tanks, with best crew protection suffered heavy casualities both in tanks and they crews in conditions what was much, much more favorable than that in Chechnya (urban conditions, tanks itself not combat ready...)

I will give you the fuel issue for sure.
Shtora and arena hasn`t been really tested, I have my doubts.
ATGMs, a plus for helicopters, or pesky scouts. top attack good against tanks
Mobility is even.
Remote controlled mg, M1A1 TC can fire from inside of tank.
Armor protection - M1A1 beyond 1600 meters is better, anything closer could be toast. If a T-90 goes up against a M1A1 heavy or M1A2 the T-90 could be in for a rough go of it.
T-90 Auto loader is preventing Russia from enlarging KE penetrator needed to possibly take on M1A1 or M1A2 beyond 1600meters, if they go with the autoloader design that is on the Black Eagle then I will be concerned.
You can`t blame a T-72 or T-80 because of Chechnya, urban warfare sucks for any tank.

 

[powerslavenegi]

T - 84 also uses a French sight and has kontakt - 5 ERA

French sight is not the factory fitting it is what Pakistan has recieved.

T - 84 stabilization system is better than what is found on T-90 S
I will have to give Russia`s version of the T-90 a edge over the Indian model, due to the fact that it is a export model.

I beg to differ .However do substantiate your claims.

India is still experiencing major overheating issues with the FCS and TI sight.

Yes but then the same tanks were working fine for Russians ,get your Leo's and Abrams to Thar conditions and boy those would face the same issues.(They were never built for Indian conditions,hence the need for numerous upgrades and changes to the original T-90 model were done).

 

[Chrom]

I will give you the fuel issue for sure.
Shtora and arena hasn`t been really tested, I have my doubts.

Tested or not, they are advantage. If we concentrate on things what ARE tested then we cant even judge about armor protection, gun and APFDS figures.

ATGMs, a plus for helicopters, or pesky scouts. top attack good against tanks

ATGM's are good even against tanks. Firstly, M1A1 heat protection wasnt THAT good - if we speak about 80x timeframe. Second, now HEAT rounds are designed to deal with composite and ERA armor, so i wouldnt bet what a modern HEAT warhead with 900 RHA listed figure wouldnt penetrate 1200 composite armor HEAT equiualent. E.G. for example we can see frontal armor penetrations of Merkava 4 in Lebanon. And third, there are always weaker zones. plus missile can damage optics, tracks, etc.

Mobility is even.

Mobility is NOT even. Allthought ground pressure and PS/KG are even, still in many cases its overall weights what counts. For example, when riding throught sand, sumpf or ice - overall weight is sometimes more important than track pressure. As for strategical mobility - its obvious what 42t are much easer to relocate than 60t.

Remote controlled mg, M1A1 TC can fire from inside of tank.

As much as i know true remote controlled MG was introduced in later generations.

Armor protection - M1A1 beyond 1600 meters is better, anything closer could be toast. If a T-90 goes up against a M1A1 heavy or M1A2 the T-90 could be in for a rough go of it.

Huh? Why you bring range here? We speak about ARMOR protection. If its better at 100m than its better at 10000m also.

T-90 Auto loader is preventing Russia from enlarging KE penetrator needed to possibly take on M1A1 or M1A2 beyond 1600meters, if they go with the autoloader design that is on the Black Eagle then I will be concerned.
You can`t blame a T-72 or T-80 because of Chechnya, urban warfare sucks for any tank.

Autoloader started to limit the enlarging KE penetrator only recently - i.e. in the last 4-5 years. Prior to that it wasnt a problem. Dont you think what after 40 years it MIGHT BE need to upgrade autoloader??? And it can be done quite simply and rather cheap if needed. Such proposals were shown long ago - but were deemed unnessesary.

 

[eckherl]

French sight is not the factory fitting it is what Pakistan has recieved.
I beg to differ .However do substantiate your claims.

Yes but then the same tanks were working fine for Russians ,get your Leo's and Abrams to Thar conditions and boy those would face the same issues.(They were never built for Indian conditions,hence the need for numerous upgrades and changes to the original T-90 model were done).

T-84 has a gone to 3 gyros versus 2 found on T-90.
Our M1`s are doing satisfactory in Iraq, no over heating issue`s.

 

[powerslavenegi]

T-84 has a gone to 3 gyros versus 2 found on T-90.

Sources please,AFAIK the Warefare.ru ,globalsecurity,wiki and all say only 2 axis stabilisation using 2E42M armament stabilizer.and this from the manufacturer of T-80 series (Kharkiv Morozov) here while the T-90s uses the newer 2E42-4 Zhasmin stabilizer.Also Konkat-5 is not a part of T-80UD or T-84 (Russinas had stopped all the aid to Ukraine in wake of latter's deal with Pakistan).

Our M1`s are doing satisfactory in Iraq, no over heating issue`s.

T-90 overheating issues were only pertaing to the malfunctioning ESSA TI (Thales) (most probably due to absence of AC which is not the case for western tanks).The problem is said to have been sorted out.M1 being a GT is a sheer gas guzzler and does not suit IA tank doctrine (something which T-90M too had encountered when was brought to Thar for field trials).