T-90 vs. M1 Abrams: Suggestion of which tank will win the battle

Developed back in the 1970s, the M1 Abrams remains the main arm of the US armored forces today. In turn, Russia has the formidable T-90 and, although today tanks are not the priority for most Western countries as they were before, there are still assumptions about which of these tanks will win the battle.

Over the past decades, "Abrams" has been modernized several times. Everything was improved, and almost nothing remained of the old M1. Instead of a weak 105mm gun, it received a first-class powerful 256mm M120 cannon. The tank is equipped with state-of-the-art fire detection and control equipment, improved depleted uranium alloy armor and powerful M829 armor-piercing feathered projectiles.

The M1A2 SEP v.2 variant is fully digital, but work is already underway on a more advanced M1A3. At the same time, American specialists want to reduce the weight of the tank, since it has grown incredibly during a continuous series of upgrades, and are also developing even more effective ammunition.

The USSR is long gone, just as there is no threat of a massive offensive by the Soviet army through the Fulda Corridor in Germany, but Russia continues to improve its tank forces. Another formidable combat vehicle was the T-90 tank - created on the basis of the Soviet T-72, which was chosen by the Russian government after the more advanced T-80 showed itself poorly during the two wars in Chechnya. The T-90 is essentially the T-72, but equipped with more advanced systems that were installed on the T-80U, with the exception of its gas turbine engine, which caused a lot of trouble for the tankers.

- wrote journalist Dave Majumdar in the American edition of the NI.

The author specifies that the T-90 is equipped with a good 125-mm cannon, but it has a diesel engine of only 1000 hp, which does not produce an ideal power-to-weight ratio. At the same time, the tank has new multi-layer armor, as well as active protection and electronic warfare systems.

In his opinion, the T-90 is a formidable combat vehicle, significantly superior to the development of the USSR, but in a tank duel the much more expensive M1A2 will have an advantage due to its better design. He stressed that the United States is not going to participate in a large conventional war in the foreseeable future, despite the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, so a real battle of the Abrams against the T-90 is unlikely to happen in reality. The author suggested that the American military might encounter Russian tanks in some kind of hybrid war, but in this case they will find effective and less costly ways to deal with them.
  • Photographs used: JSC Uralvagonzavod Scientific Industrial Corporation
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. gunnerminer Offline gunnerminer
    gunnerminer (gunner miner) 18 December 2021 14: 20
    The winner is the tank that has a chance to be the first to spot the enemy and make the first shots, and this is achieved by better reconnaissance, stable combat control, high combat training of the crew, and the presence of fire support helicopters with trained crews. horse on horseback. Even when conducting reconnaissance, they do not act alone.
    On the Syrian bridgehead, the lousy crew managed to lose a combat-ready T-90, fueled with fuel and lubricants, equipped with ammunition.
    1. beeper Offline beeper
      beeper 18 December 2021 18: 18
      Yes, all the same, Gunnerminer correctly outlined about tanks, troop control and organization of the battle, and about the fact that tanks usually do not fight with tanks (which the American indirectly mentioned in his "comparative" note)! good
      And how the Arabs (and not only them) are able to lose gratuitous Russian (and formerly Soviet) equipment, everything is also true (in the UAR, which fought with Israel, they just did it epic)!
      What are the disadvantages of his comment ?! what
    2. S WITH Offline S WITH
      S WITH (N S) 18 December 2021 18: 59
      Yes, not a single T90 militants were able to destroy with the help of amerskih ATGMs, but the militants destroyed 200 thousand, but dozens of Turkish Leopards were snapped up, the Turks would have brought in the Abrams SAR and they would have been destroyed
    3. zenion Offline zenion
      zenion (zinovy) 18 December 2021 19: 31
      gunnerminer. And even better if there is a cruiser within sight, or better a battleship with 450 mm guns. That he would cover the tank with his fire. Several squadrons of aircraft with anti-tank bombs and Molotov bottles would not hurt. It is also good that the enemy tank would be wrapped around with anti-tank mines, and sand was poured into the gun and filled with cement. It is even better that the scouts would drain the fuel from the tank and poured it over the tank and threw a specially incendiary match, and welded all the hatches so that no one could get there from there. In general, create all conditions for the winner. I remember watching a terrible movie, how one shot at the other, and he was standing. He approached him and said fu, that is, he blew on him and the dead man fell.
  2. beeper Offline beeper
    beeper 18 December 2021 16: 17
    That somehow frivolously approached this issue by an American journalist! smile
    And what is this "ideal power density" at "Abrams" ?! what
    After all, the specific power of the Russian and American tanks, due to the difference in their combat weight, are quite comparable (21 ÷ 23 hp / ton), and the specific power over 25 hp / t does not provide significant advantages in terms of adhesion of tank tracks with the ground, their banal slippage (as far as I remember from the theory of caterpillar propellers, 30 hp / t were indicated as the "ideal power density limit", that is, even under the condition of a "laboratory" 100% engagement of "ideal tracks" ideal load-bearing soil ", ie in the real nature of such" ideal "adhesion of a tank caterpillar to the underlying surface is not and cannot be. winked )
    And when designing any machine and mechanism, including a tank, they always compromise, trying to achieve balanced combat and operational characteristics!
    And the devil is not so terrible as the engaged Goebbelsuchs paint him, trying to morally suppress their potential adversary in advance! smile
    A lot of things are played in a tank duel, but one of the key factors of victory is the crew of the combat vehicle itself, its level of training, combat experience, motivation and coordination of actions!
  3. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 18 December 2021 17: 16
    T-90 vs. M1 Abrams: Suggestion of which tank will win the battle

    - Personally, I have already written many times that a tank equipped with a rifled gun will always "make" (destroy) an enemy tank at any distance - the one with a smooth-bore cannon) ... - will simply kill him from a long distance .. ...
    - A tank with a smooth-bore gun is generally nonsense ... - There are multifunctional howitzers for all sorts of purposes ...
    - And the tank should only have a rifled gun ... - But the shells should be "multifunctional" ...
    1. beeper Offline beeper
      beeper 18 December 2021 17: 41
      hi Pani Irina, you are so "all-understanding" and "all-foreseeing", sho "already scary" yes , even in artillery (in tank guns) Are you a "special" ?! fellow
      And you don’t know that even before your birth in the world tank armament the choice was made in favor of "smooth bore" (British rifled tank 120mm does not count - this is an "exception that confirms the general rule"!) ?!
      We got away from rifled tank guns due to the possibility of receiving much higher speeds of armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles (with an acceptable barrel resource and satisfactory hitting accuracy), as well as the best armor penetration characteristics of cumulative projectiles (since intensive rotation harms this, in ammunition of rifled guns even used special bearings in the parts leading along the cannon grooves to reduce the rotation of shaped-charge projectiles on approaching the target)! wink
      1. zenion Offline zenion
        zenion (zinovy) 18 December 2021 19: 35
        squeak. So the fact is that the shells of smoothbore guns do not ricochet. When the projectile is spinning, it can ricochet. It was for this ricochet that all sorts of tricks were done with the slopes of the tank's armor, so that it would ricochet.
        1. beeper Offline beeper
          beeper 18 December 2021 22: 02
          hi Zinovy, I am the son of an artillery officer (a talented engineer and a corrosive specialist in his field - his, with his comrades, design developments still serve our Russian Fatherland in mine launchers of the Strategic Missile Forces), since childhood Dad unobtrusively enlightened me in all matters related to artillery!
          Yes, and I myself was much interested in artillery, I read a lot of books and military magazines on this topic, I often asked my father, familiar gunners and tankmen, questions of interest to me, getting exhaustive answers from the professionals who fought (not only in the Great Patriotic War) in their field!
          Therefore, it so happened that I understand a little about the theory and practice of the "competition of armor and shell" on land and at sea, including I have an idea of ​​"ricochets" and "biting armor (with the subsequent rotation of the shell along the normal to the armor)", oh " the theory of Admiral Makarov "on crumpled ballistic tips of blunt-headed armor-piercing projectiles, on sub-caliber" coils "and" crowbars "(integral and composite, cermet and" uranium ")," frogs "with plastic explosives and" cumulatives "(what is the form of" funnels "and the material of its lining is more armor-piercing).
          In addition, I happened to shoot bullets from various "smooth bore" (starting with children's self-propelled guns) - in fact, even feathered "arrows", like cannon sub-caliber shells, "at an acute angle" ricocheted from the fragile bottom of ordinary half-liter glass jars, set with the neck down (the glass bottom itself, breaking off along the perimeter from such a blow, fell into the can).
          Without fear of inciting the righteous anger of professional artillery officers, who are deeply proficient in the basics of theory and practice, I will completely unauthorizedly say that shells of smooth-bore guns, like rifled guns, ricochet both from armor and even from the surface of the earth (especially in winter)! yes
          And this largely depends on the angle of incidence (hit) of the projectile, relative to this surface

          The dependence of ricochets on the intensity of the projectile's own rotation around the longitudinal axis is most likely insignificant, because "interaction with an obstacle" occurs within a very short period of time, calculated in milliseconds, and if we speculatively consider the frames of an imaginary "slow motion filming", then the tangential displacement of the interacting sections (projectile and armor) can be neglected! IMHO
          The best evidence of this "ricochet stimulation" (along with an increase in "reduced armor thickness") is the strongly inclined upper frontal parts of modern MBT, the hulls of which, before being put into service, must be fired with military shells from modern tank and anti-tank guns! yes
    2. alexey alexeyev_2 (Alexey Alekseev) 18 December 2021 21: 09
      Something you madam of that ... a duel of tanks has long gone out of fashion. Tank versus tank .. nonsense. All ... or almost all of the Iraqi tanks were burned by helicopters, and what has to do with this is the type of weapon. Smoothbore is cheaper. Whoever likes it
      1. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
        gorenina91 (Irina) 19 December 2021 01: 17
        The duel of tanks has long gone out of fashion. Tank versus tank .. nonsense. All ... or almost all Iraqi tanks were burned by helicopters. And what does this have to do with the type of gun. Smoothbore is cheaper. Whoever likes it.

        - Of course ... -and everything is "on the topic" ...
        -What is the topic about ??? - Oh, and the topic is just about what ... what ... what:
        - "Will a drunk person win" alexey alekseev_2 (alexey alekseev) "riding an" Iraqi tank "- a drunken hedgehog who controls a helicopter" ...
        - And as it turned out - a drunken hedgehog will still win - a drunken one "Aleksey Alekseev_2 (Aleksey Alekseev)" ...
        - A well-deserved victory of a drunken hedgehog ...
        1. Zenon Zenon Offline Zenon Zenon
          Zenon Zenon (Zeno Zeno) 20 December 2021 12: 09
          Quote: gorenina91
          Of course ... -and everything "on the topic

          This is how stupid a creature you have to be in order to scribble sheets of delirium about something you don't understand with a clever look ... Will you throw ATGMs out of the hatch? If only I google it for decency, the "expert" is poor-minded ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
  4. S WITH Offline S WITH
    S WITH (N S) 18 December 2021 18: 54
    Abrams is a tall large trough that does not even have an automatic loader, does not have an ATGM, plus the sides are thinner than those of the T72, even the T72 will destroy the Abrams with an ATGM at a distance of 4,5 km
    1. beeper Offline beeper
      beeper 18 December 2021 22: 41
      hi N S, I wholeheartedly greet your selfless patriotic naive (usually such fervent ardent young men, if they turn out to be brave enough in practice, die first in battle, which is a pity!)! good
      But the American М1А2 "Abrams", even though it looks like a "tall big trough" (words are not mine, but yours), with a skillful, experienced crew, is a very dangerous enemy, which must be approached very seriously in confrontation, with soldier's ingenuity and shameless cunning !
      You can't throw such "hats" (all the more, according to the "Iraqi experience", the direct attack of the American tank battalion was based precisely on fast, accurate firing from cannons from a long distance and the high speed of movement of combat vehicles, not to mention the continuous machine-gun fire "for suppression" on infantry positions, tanks with bulldozer dumps suspended from them raked-in trenches with live Iraqi infantrymen, more than 800 Iraqis were buried alive at one time, with all their hand grenade launchers ...)!
      About "tank ATGM" see "tank biathlon", how, not in battle, colorfully "smeared" on unanswered stationary targets the most "selected tank crews" T-72! request
      But with a serious approach, in case of a "need", it is quite possible to "score" the American "Abrams" (even in the vaunted "configuration" of M1A2SEP2 and M1A3, there would be a desire wink ) and it is necessary, because in battle "if not you, then you"!
  5. zenion Offline zenion
    zenion (zinovy) 18 December 2021 19: 22
    Of course you need a powerful motor, because they will kick around like rams. Moreover, if the American tank runs away, the Russian tank will not be able to catch up with it. And he may not be in a hurry, because the American fuel has enough, only it will reach the refueling station. If the tanker is killed, the American barrel will fall down. Will show exactly half of some time.
  6. alexey alexeyev_2 (Alexey Alekseev) 18 December 2021 20: 05
    Watching this Manjumdar laughing (I wouldn't break my tongue) a specialist in wood and bacon, bread and metal. And the fact that Abrams are burned with old (like mammoth shit) RPG somehow shyly kept silent