In a head to head battle who would come out victorious?

I dunno much about modern main battle tanks and got curious after watching this Russian video clip:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3ae2so7Yak&mode=related&search=




VS




According to what i've read about the T-90, it's supposed to be the most advanced modern main battle tank

ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER!

Weren't the Russians working on a T-95/T-100 and in conjunction with the Chinese and their Type-99?

I guess it depends on experience, training, and exploiting weakness.

M1 for sure

T-90 warmed over T-72.

Still not as good as an Abrams with regards to:
-Protection
-Fire Control/Optronics
-Firepower


Probably has better mobility due to being 20 tons lighter, but thats about it.

Abrams for the win.  Double so when fighting unit on unit.

Have they learned to not put the ammo in a carousel loader around the turret?

RPG hits turret, penetrates

KABOOM!

Turret flies off

50 pages.

Concur with Paveway.  T-90 is a souped up T-72.  Different window dressing on same package.

Anyone else notice he says "come fuck me" at about the 47 second mark?

The Leopard II is the best tank in the world.

Well, according to these guys:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxdEtyxa7Ao&mode=related&search=

I'm betting that the Abrams has superior fire control, and can do it at a better speed.

Quoted: ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER!

DO YOU SPEAK IT?

I'll say neither, Leopard 2 A6.

but of the 2, I'll pick the M1a2 any day of the week.

Abrahams all the way.

Check out South Korea's submarine/low-rider tank:
XK2 tank

Quoted: Abrahams all the way.

I wonder what Lincoln would have done with his tanks during the Civil War?

Quoted: Quoted: ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?

LoL - he's making reference to the video that i posted because it is narrated in Russian

What's the latest greatest tank from Great Britain? Challenger?

M1 Abrams =vs= Russian T-90  = dead T-90

M1A1 hands down.  Not just theory.  Battle tested.

Quoted: M1A1 hands down.  Not just theory.  Battle tested.

M1A2

"You just can't expect a bunch of ignorant peons to be able to understand a machine like some of our boys can"



All joking aside, I am sure the russian build a capable tank. But... As has been pointed out above, the Abrams is one tuff mo-fo. Did you know that every hull made was still in service? We have never written one off yet. Even with heavy damage, they just get sent back to Depot and get re-built. That should tell you something. Plus you have to factor in our crews. Our doctrine, and training were/are superior to Soviet doctrine/training. Sandbox ver 1.0 proved that. In Germany in the 1980's we trained to fight the Soviets who had a 5-1 superiority over us. To us, 5-1 was even odds.
The Abrams with a good US crew will take any Main Battle Tank in the world today.

Just an old tankers opinion.

I've heard British tankers refer to Russian tanks as 'pop top tanks'… when you hit them the top usually pops off.

Quoted: In a head to head battle who would come out victorious? I dunno much about modern main battle tanks and got curious after watching this Russian video clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3ae2so7Yak&mode=related&search= img50.imageshack.us/img50/9958/m1tank10kr1.jpg VS img236.imageshack.us/img236/2899/t903rr6.jpg According to what i've read about the T-90, it's supposed to be the most advanced modern main battle tank

M1...

The Russian vehicle is fast and light (see vids of it 'ski jumping' and such, but not quite as well protected...

Further, their dependency on explosive-reactive armor does not serve well against APFDS uranium penetrators (works fine against HE)...

Don't know if they did anything to enhance the gun, but as of the last generation, the M1 had a pretty decent range advantage over the T-80.... Also, I *highly* doubt the Russians have caught up to us on fire-control and related electronics...

Cladding your tank head to toe in ERA is natures way of telling you the other guys shells are better than your armor.

Any information about fire control systems, particularly whose is better, is going to be classified.

The T90 does have two things, of debatable value, that the Abrams does not (yet) have.

One is explosive reactive armor tiles.  This is a bolt-on mod, of course, but the Russians love ERA and want it on just about every AFV, even things like BMPs.  We could put it on the M1A2s this afternoon if we wanted to.  The Russians would sell the ERA tiles to us just as happily as they do to Iran, China, Libya, and North Korea.

The other is a through-the-gun-tube laser-guided ATGM (think of the old Shillelagh, but smaller to fit 100mm up to 125mm calibers).  The Russians have been doing this since around 1980 and appear to be really sold on the utility of the feature, particularly for mobile defense and static defense.  They have even retrofitted the old T55s and T62s their reserve units have with this capability.  Supposedly just about all of their front-line armor units carry them, except for the regimental tank companies of motorized rifle units, which carry an ammo load of mostly plain HE, because their task is close-in direct-fire support of the advancing infantry (these units are also just about the only ones without ERA, because the shrapnel it creates is bad for the health of the friendly infantrymen crouching just in front of the glacis plate).

I don' t know of any instance where they've ever been used in combat in large-scale tank-vs-tank battles, though.

But it's worth noting that the Israelis are experimenting with the concept too, and have come up with the LAHAT laser-guided 120mm HEAT round.  The Indians are reportedly VERY interested in this technology and seeking licensing from Israel to manufacture the Lahat and associated fire-control systems and laser illuminators in India for their Arjun and Karna MBTs.  Supposedly they're playing with the idea at General Dynamics too, but without large-scale battlefield use it's entirely possible that it's a solution in search of a problem.

The fire control system of a truly modern MBT not only allows excellent accuracy while shooting on the move, it also permits truly impressive accuracy, even on moving AFV-sized targets, even way out past Fort Mudge, when the vehicle is stable in a nice hull-down position.  Given that with the Russian systems the gunner must illuminate the target with a laser continuously until the missile hits it, there's negligible shoot-on-the-move capability with those things.

And plain vanilla 1950s style HEAT rounds are much cheaper than laser-guided missiles, which are also expensive, bulky, fragile and very flammable and cut into the basic ammo load pretty substantially.

So it remains to be seen whether this is worthwhile at all.

The Russians have been talking up the T80 and T90 for many years now, trying to find foreign buyers.  I believe the Indians have bought a few of each, and the Pakistanis have bought some late-model T80s.  But the T90 has never as far as I know been used in combat, unless the Russians have sent some to Chechnya.

Quoted: "You just can't expect a bunch of ignorant peons to be able to understand a machine like some of our boys can" www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/07/strangelove_wideweb__430x284.jpg All joking aside, I am sure the russian build a capable tank. But... As has been pointed out above, the Abrams is one tuff mo-fo. Did you know that every hull made was still in service? We have never written one off yet. Even with heavy damage, they just get sent back to Depot and get re-built. That should tell you something. Plus you have to factor in our crews. Our doctrine, and training were/are superior to Soviet doctrine/training. Sandbox ver 1.0 proved that. In Germany in the 1980's we trained to fight the Soviets who had a 5-1 superiority over us. To us, 5-1 was even odds. The Abrams with a good US crew with take any Main Battle Tank in the world today. Just an old tankers opinion.

There is at least ONE M1 hull that was destroyed by the Air Force to prevent capture in the early days of OIF...

Started out as an APU fire mobility kill... Ended up eating 1 or 2 AGM-65s...

Quoted: What's the latest greatest tank from Great Britain? Challenger?

Challenger 2...
Almost on par with the abrams barring the powerplant from what I understand, Armor, Weapons, targeting and the like is right beside it...once again the motor side of things screws up the plan...much like most Brit cars

Is the T80 the one with the slow reloading system in place of the crewman?

Quoted: Any information about fire control systems, particularly whose is better, is going to be classified. The T90 does have two things, of debatable value, that the Abrams does not (yet) have. One is explosive reactive armor tiles.  This is a bolt-on mod, of course, but the Russians love ERA and want it on just about every AFV, even things like BMPs.  We could put it on the M1A2s this afternoon if we wanted to.  The Russians would sell the ERA tiles to us just as happily as they do to Iran, China, Libya, and North Korea. The other is a through-the-gun-tube laser-guided ATGM (think of the old Shillelagh, but smaller to fit 100mm up to 125mm calibers).  The Russians have been doing this since around 1980 and appear to be really sold on the utility of the feature, particularly for mobile defense and static defense.  They have even retrofitted the old T55s and T62s their reserve units have with this capability.  Supposedly just about all of their front-line armor units carry them, except for the regimental tank companies of motorized rifle units, which carry an ammo load of mostly plain HE, because their task is close-in direct-fire support of the advancing infantry (these units are also just about the only ones without ERA, because the shrapnel it creates is bad for the health of the friendly infantrymen crouching just in front of the glacis plate). I don' t know of any instance where they've ever been used in combat in large-scale tank-vs-tank battles, though. But it's worth noting that the Israelis are experimenting with the concept too, and have come up with the LAHAT laser-guided 120mm HEAT round.  The Indians are reportedly VERY interested in this technology and seeking licensing from Israel to manufacture the Lahat and associated fire-control systems and laser illuminators in India for their Arjun and Karna MBTs.  Supposedly they're playing with the idea at General Dynamics too, but without large-scale battlefield use it's entirely possible that it's a solution in search of a problem. The fire control system of a truly modern MBT not only allows excellent accuracy while shooting on the move, it also permits truly impressive accuracy, even on moving AFV-sized targets, even way out past Fort Mudge, when the vehicle is stable in a nice hull-down position.  Given that with the Russian systems the gunner must illuminate the target with a laser continuously until the missile hits it, there's negligible shoot-on-the-move capability with those things. And plain vanilla 1950s style HEAT rounds are much cheaper than laser-guided missiles, which are also expensive, bulky, fragile and very flammable and cut into the basic ammo load pretty substantially. So it remains to be seen whether this is worthwhile at all. The Russians have been talking up the T80 and T90 for many years now, trying to find foreign buyers.  I believe the Indians have bought a few of each, and the Pakistanis have bought some late-model T80s.  But the T90 has never as far as I know been used in combat, unless the Russians have sent some to Chechnya.

IIRC the missile was designed to compensate for their lack of gun range... The problem being that the Abrams can hit a T-80 or earlier from outside it's max range.... So you use the thru-the-bore ATGM to 'even' the score...

Inside gun range it's not an asset anymore, because if you kill the launching tank, you kill the missile...

As for ERA.... IIRC the US used it on some M60 variant, but the M1 doesn't have it because we chose to rely on the 'unique' ceramic/steel/DU armor formulation presently used.... Given that M1s can survive hits from other M1s... Seems to work...

Quoted: Is the T80 the one with the slow reloading system in place of the crewman?

Yeah, the T-64, and T-72 also. The auto loader is slow, a human can load twice as fast. Plus there are a few thing the Russians could never figure out how to make a auto loader do.

They are,

Maning a OP/LP
Busting track
Cleaning Weapons
Another set of eye's
Handling the Radio
Loading the tanks magazine
Fueling
The list is endless.

Auto loader=dumb idea

I like the video, where the IR spotlights are visibile....................

That's no good for stealth.

M1-M1A1-M1A2, would tear that thing up.

There's no way the 125mm gun, first used on the T64, has suddenly become that much better.

The AT-11 Sniper missile might be interesting, but conventional ammo, won't kill an M1. M1 ammo will kill a T90, at range.

Automotively, or technology wise, that may be a solid design. But armor and armament, it comes up short.

Quoted: "You just can't expect a bunch of ignorant peons to be able to understand a machine like some of our boys can" www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/07/strangelove_wideweb__430x284.jpg All joking aside, I am sure the russian build a capable tank. But... As has been pointed out above, the Abrams is one tuff mo-fo. Did you know that every hull made was still in service? We have never written one off yet. Even with heavy damage, they just get sent back to Depot and get re-built. That should tell you something. Plus you have to factor in our crews. Our doctrine, and training were/are superior to Soviet doctrine/training. Sandbox ver 1.0 proved that. In Germany in the 1980's we trained to fight the Soviets who had a 5-1 superiority over us. To us, 5-1 was even odds. The Abrams with a good US crew will take any Main Battle Tank in the world today. Just an old tankers opinion.

I've seen some burned out Abrams that aint never gonna get rebuilt.

M1A2 Abrams hands down

besides the best crew training, mechanically its got faster speed (they say 45mph, i'd say it can go at least 60mph), better, more adv firecontrol system and gun and ammo, better armor (esp w/ the TUSK package), and more adv sighting/comm/survival packages...sorry, the M1A2 will smoke the T90

Quoted: Quoted: "You just can't expect a bunch of ignorant peons to be able to understand a machine like some of our boys can" www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/07/strangelove_wideweb__430x284.jpg All joking aside, I am sure the russian build a capable tank. But... As has been pointed out above, the Abrams is one tuff mo-fo. Did you know that every hull made was still in service? We have never written one off yet. Even with heavy damage, they just get sent back to Depot and get re-built. That should tell you something. Plus you have to factor in our crews. Our doctrine, and training were/are superior to Soviet doctrine/training. Sandbox ver 1.0 proved that. In Germany in the 1980's we trained to fight the Soviets who had a 5-1 superiority over us. To us, 5-1 was even odds. The Abrams with a good US crew will take any Main Battle Tank in the world today. Just an old tankers opinion. I've seen some burned out Abrams that aint never gonna get rebuilt.

Every hull ever built is still ether in service or in Depot being rebuilt. I stand by that.
http://www.marinecorps.com/tools/land/m1

Quoted: Quoted: What's the latest greatest tank from Great Britain? Challenger? Challenger 2... Almost on par with the abrams barring the powerplant from what I understand, Armor, Weapons, targeting and the like is right beside it...once again the motor side of things screws up the plan...much like most Brit cars

There are no problems with the Perkins CV-12 Diesel, the only issue was during Exercise Saif Saria with sand ingestion into the engine. This was solved with better sand filters and fabric side skirts.

The updated Challenger II will get an L55 120mm smoothbore gun and the 1,500bhp MTU diesel out of the Leopard II



Prototype Challenger II with L55 120mm smoothbore gun

Quoted: Quoted: Is the T80 the one with the slow reloading system in place of the crewman? Yeah, the T-64, and T-72 also. The auto loader is slow, a human can load twice as fast. Plus there are a few thing the Russians could never figure out how to make a auto loader do. They are, Maning a OP/LP Busting track Cleaning Weapons Another set of eye's Handling the Radio Loading the tanks magazine Fueling The list is endless. Auto loader=dumb idea

I think the speed/round-type selection is the biggest stumbling block though...  If the USA had an autoloading system that could load a specifically selected round in under 6 seconds and not move the gun off target while doing it, they'd adopt it and find work arounds for the lack of a fourth crew member.

Russian feel good video is all that is.

Forget the M1 vs T-90

It's more like AH-64 & A-10 vs T-90


The M1 might have to live off of left overs.

To be honest, even if it was a Sherman VS a T-90, the Sherman would probably win.

Our troops > Russian troops

Quoted: To be honest, even if it was a Sherman VS a T-90, the Sherman would probably win. Our troops > Russian troops

Kool-aid, kool-aid...TASTES GREAT!

Quoted: Quoted: To be honest, even if it was a Sherman VS a T-90, the Sherman would probably win. Our troops > Russian troops Kool-aid, kool-aid...TASTES GREAT!

STFU COMMIE.

God, how I love Russian propaganda.

You guys should have seen how the Russian News media reported the Dragonskin armor debacle.  I think every arfcom troll post and conspiracy theory is "mainstream" thought over there.

Quoted: STFU COMMIE.

<insert witty comment HERE>

Quoted: Quoted: STFU COMMIE. <insert witty comment HERE>

A-10

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What's the latest greatest tank from Great Britain? Challenger? Challenger 2... Almost on par with the abrams barring the powerplant from what I understand, Armor, Weapons, targeting and the like is right beside it...once again the motor side of things screws up the plan...much like most Brit cars There are no problems with the Perkins CV-12 Diesel, the only issue was during Exercise Saif Saria with sand ingestion into the engine. This was solved with better sand filters and fabric side skirts. The updated Challenger II will get an L55 120mm smoothbore gun and the 1,500bhp MTU diesel out of the Leopard II i9.tinypic.com/61tz13b.jpg Prototype Challenger II with L55 120mm smoothbore gun

I was awaiting your expected response
Thanks for the update on the challenger....should make it quite a formidable platform.

Marcus

What about that new British tank armor, chabam or something?

Quoted: God, how I love Russian propaganda. You guys should have seen how the Russian News media reported the Dragonskin armor debacle.  I think every arfcom troll post and conspiracy theory is "mainstream" thought over there.

Please elaborate.

Quoted: What about that new British tank armor, chabam or something?

Chobam II

Is on the Challenger II

Chobam is the armor system on M1-M1A1, Challenger.........

M1A2 also has depleted uranium armor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobam_armour

Quoted: Quoted: What about that new British tank armor, chabam or something? Chobam II Is on the Challenger II Chobam is the armor system on M1-M1A1, Challenger......... M1A2 also has depleted uranium armor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobam_armour

Future Weapons? I cannot remember where i first heard of it, but it was recent, and they were talking about it as if it were something new

ps - thanks for the link