T-90 Vs Abrams, a confrontation, hoping it doesn’t happen on the battlefield

In the world of modern armored warfare, two behemoths stand out: Russia's T-90 and America's M1 Abrams . Each tank represents the pinnacle of its nation's military engineering, at least at the moment. But in a head-to-head comparison, which one emerges as the winner? Let's take a comprehensive analysis of these steel giants, examining their strengths, weaknesses, and battlefield performance. For this reason we will compare the most advanced versions of the T-90 and the Abrams, which, fortunately, did not clash on the battlefield: in fact the Ukrainians received the M1A1 version of the American tank, not the more advanced M1A2 which is now in under Sepr 3 variant. Soon this variant will also be overtaken by the M1A3 about which not much is known and to which we will dedicate a few words.

Technical specifications

Features T-90 M1A2 Abrams
Main armament 125 mm smoothbore gun 2A46M 120 mm smoothbore gun M256
Engine power 1,250 HP (V-92S2 diesel) 1,500 HP (AGT1500 multifuel turbine)
Maximum speed 60 km/h (37 mph) 72 km/h (45 mph)
Range 550 km (340 miles) 426 km (265 miles)
Crew 3 (Commander, Gunner, Driver) 4 (Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver)
Armor Composite Armor , Kontakt-5 ERA Advanced Composite Armor with Depleted Uranium
Weight 46.5 tons 61.3 tons
1A45T Irtysh FCS integrated fire control system Advanced digital FCS with thermal imaging

-90

Cheap , lower profile , longer range

M1 Abrams

Superior protection , Advanced technology , Greater mobility

Unique feature of the T-90

Shtora-1 countermeasures system

Unique feature of the M1 Abrams

AGT1500 gas turbine engine

How do these tanks perform in battle?

As for actual performance, both tanks have their strengths:

• The Protection: The M1 Abrams takes the lead thanks to its advanced composite armor , which includes layers of depleted uranium, offering superior crew survivability. Its armor is considered one of the best in the world, as it offers excellent protection against kinetic and chemical energy projectiles. The T-90's Kontakt-5 ERA is highly effective against HEAT warheads, but less so against kinetic penetrators. The T-90's lower profile (2.22 m versus the Abrams' 2.44 m) makes it a smaller target, potentially increasing survivability in some scenarios.
• Firepower: Both tanks have significant firepower. The T-90's 125 mm cannon can fire a wider variety of munitions, including the 9M119 Refleks guided anti-tank missile with a range of up to 5 km. This gives the T-90 the ability to engage targets beyond line of sight. The Abrams' 120mm gun , although slightly smaller in caliber, is renowned for its accuracy and penetrating power, especially with modern ammunition such as the M829A4 APFSDS projectile. The Abrams' advanced fire control system gives it an advantage in target acquisition and engagement, particularly in low visibility conditions.
• Mobility: The M1 Abrams' more powerful engine provides better acceleration and top speed , critical for tactical maneuvers. Its advanced suspension system allows for a smoother ride, improving precision in motion. However, the T-90's lighter weight (46.5 tons versus the Abrams' 61.3 tons) and lower ground pressure give it advantages in some terrains, particularly soft terrain or bridges with lower weight limits.
• Technology: The M1 Abrams is generally equipped with more advanced optical and fire control systems , potentially improving combat effectiveness. Its digital battle management system allows for better coordination with other units. The T-90, while not as advanced in some areas, features unique systems such as the Shtora-1 , which can jam enemy laser guidance systems and provide a measure of protection against some anti-tank guided missiles.

What are the operational considerations for each tank?

Beyond raw specifications, several factors influence the performance of tanks in the field:

Maintenance

The M1 Abrams was designed for ease of maintenance, potentially reducing downtime. Modular components allow for quick repairs in the field. However, gas turbine technology has a shorter lifespan.

Fuel efficiency

The T-90 is more fuel efficient and offers greater operational autonomy. Critical in prolonged operations or areas with limited supply lines.

Crew training

The M1 Abrams may require more extensive training due to advanced systems. The T-90's autoloader reduces crew requirements, but can limit reload speed in some situations. Furthermore, the fact that the projectiles are stored under the tower, in the tank, makes it more delicate.

Tactical deployment

The T-90's lower profile is advantageous in some combat scenarios, such as hull-down positions. The M1 Abrams' superior sensors and fire control enable better performance in network-centric warfare.

How do costs and accessibility impact it?

An often overlooked but crucial factor in tank warfare is the cost and accessibility of vehicles:

• The T-90 is generally less expensive to produce and maintain , with a unit cost of approximately $4.5 million compared to the M1 Abrams' $9.61 million . This allows a greater number of aircraft to be fielded, a significant advantage in prolonged conflicts or for countries with more limited defense budgets.
• The M1 Abrams, while more expensive, offers potential long-term savings thanks to its modular design, which allows for easier upgrades and repairs.
• The T-90's wider global distribution and its compatibility with Soviet-era infrastructure make it more accessible to many countries, particularly those with historical ties to Russian military equipment. This can simplify logistics and training for these nations.
• The widespread use of the M1 Abrams among NATO countries offers advantages in terms of shared logistics, training, and availability of spare parts for allied nations. This interoperability can be critical in coalition operations.

What real-world combat experience do these tanks have?

Both tanks saw action in various conflicts, providing valuable insights into their performance:

• T-90 variants have been used in conflicts in Syria and, more recently, in the Russia-Ukraine War . In Syria, T-90s have proven to be resistant to some modern anti-tank weapons, such as TOW missiles. However, they have also shown vulnerabilities, particularly in urban combat scenarios, where top-attack weapons can exploit their weaker roof armor. The Javelin missile has proven to be very effective, as have the drones.
• M1 Abrams tanks were used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan . They have proven very effective in conventional combat scenarios, with very few losses to enemy fire. However, they have faced challenges in urban environments and against IEDs, leading to various upgrades and modifications.
• Both tanks underwent continuous upgrades based on these combat experiences. For example, the latest variant of the T-90M includes improved armor, a new cannon and updated fire control systems. The M1A2 SEPv3 (System Enhanced Package) incorporates lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, with improved protection against IEDs and increased urban warfare capabilities. These means have never met

Abrams Evolutions.

The Russian tank is, in a certain sense, the end of a glorious family of tanks, also because the T-14, which should replace it, is very different from the model in use. The high modularity of the Abrams, however, is about to generate the next version, after the US military discarded a further upgrade of the 1A2 model and announced that the next model will be very different, called 1A3 .

As far as capabilities go, the Army hasn't revealed what exactly the M1A3 will bring. However, the new combat vehicle is likely to include features outlined in a 2019 Army Science Board study and included in General Dynamics Land Systems' Abrams

. Some of these features include a hybrid electric drive, an autoloader and a new main gun , advanced munitions , such as hypersonic missiles and gun-launched guided anti-tank missiles , integrated armor protection, improved command, control and networking capabilities, intelligence applications artificial intelligence (AI), ability to pair with robotic vehicles, masking ability to reduce the thermal and electromagnetic signature of the vehicle, reduced weight, hybrid electric diesel engine 50% more efficient than the current Abrams, unmanned turret that would reduce the crew of four to three soldiers and improved anti-drone technology.

---

---

The article T-90 Vs Abrams, a confrontation, hoping it doesn't happen on the battlefield comes from Economic Scenarios .

---

This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/t-90-vs-abrams-un-confronto-sperando-che-non-avvenga-sul-campo-di-battaglia/ on Sat, 14 Sep 2024 15:44:18 +0000.