Today, more and more often you can hear discussions about the military power of the two superpowers: Russia and the United States. Often we are talking about heavy equipment, such as tanks and self-propelled guns. For example, the vaunted Abrams is considered by many to be the best in the world. But they do not take into account the same German Leopard 2A7, as well as the Russian T-90. Let's make a small comparison of Russian and US tanks and see who succeeded in this regard, and who needs to revise their weapons.
A bit of general information
We can safely say that the T-90 and M1A1 tanks, aka Abrams, are typical representatives of Russian and Western tank building. At the same time, design and technological ideas are noticeably different. For example, "Abrams" and "Panther 2A7" is pointless to compare, since they practically do not differ. The situation with the T-90 is quite different.
T-72 can be called the predecessor of the T-90, while the latter is a deep modification of the former. The main armament is a 125 mm smoothbore gun. After the improvement, security increased by 300%. Here appeared powerful passive and semi-active armor, as well asdynamic protection. All this was placed on the tank without a significant increase in the weight of the latter.
We can say that the layout of the T-90 is quite dense. This, on the one hand, is good, on the other hand, it is not, which we will talk about a little later. After the welded turrets began to be produced, the possibilities for strengthening armor increased. As for the power plant, this is a B92C2 diesel engine.
If we talk about the layout, then its high density allows you to make a car with a low silhouette and good armor. At the same time, the area of the longitudinal and transverse sections is small. The disadvantage of this arrangement is that the non-automated part of the ammunition is placed in an unprotected area of the tank. This makes the ammo rack particularly vulnerable to enemy fire.
M1A1 in brief
It is impossible not to say a few words about the American Abrams. This machine participated in many military conflicts around the planet and has proven itself well. Thick armor, good dynamics, impressive firepower and modern means of guidance and communications. It is for this that American soldiers fell in love with the M1A1.
The Abrams, regardless of modification, is equipped with an improved German gun Rh-120 (M256). The US combat vehicle is famous for its excellent armor, which consists of composite plates. But is it really so good and whether it surpasses the protection of the T-90, we will figure it out a little later.
As for the layout, the Abrams is not much different from its Western relatives in this parameter. For example,the booked volume is almost 20 cubic meters. In the T-90, this figure is half that. A key feature of the M1A1, as well as an advantage, is the placement of the ammunition rack. The shells are placed in the turret and hull in isolation. In addition, there are knockout plates. The downside of this solution is that the entire ammunition load is in the turret, and it is the most vulnerable to shelling.
If we compare the tanks of Russia and the United States in terms of power plant, then the engine power is almost the same. However, the American car is equipped with a gas turbine engine, which has a higher fuel consumption than Russian diesel.
Comparison of firepower and fire control system
M1A1 and M1A2 are equipped with a 120 mm smoothbore gun. The initial speed of the projectile is 1625 m / s, and the rate of fire is about 8 rounds per minute. At the same time, the rate of fire during movement, especially over rough terrain, is significantly reduced. Ammunition consists of armor-piercing sub-caliber shells. Usually these are several types of ammunition, for example, M829A1, M829A2, M829A3. Over the past few years, the M1A1 and M1A2 have been armed with new-style M829A3 shells, which are the most dangerous for the Russian T-90. In general, this is a promising US tank with fairly powerful weapons. But let's see what Russian designers and engineers prepared in response.
T-90 is armed with a 125 mm smoothbore gun. The initial speed of the projectile is 1750 meters per second, which is slightly higher than that of the Abrams. Ammunition for the most part consists of armor-piercingsub-caliber shells of the 80s model. For this reason, we can say that in terms of armor penetration, Russian shells are somewhat behind, so they need to be replaced with new ones. However, it is rather difficult to change ammunition for new ones, for the reason that there are restrictions on the automatic loader along the length of the installed projectiles. The rate of fire of the gun is 8 rounds per minute. On the move - about 6 shots. Another feature of the T-90 is that it is armed with the Reflex-M KUV. This makes it possible to effectively conduct aimed fire at a distance of 3 km, which is 2 times greater than the radius of destruction of other modern tanks. "Reflex-M" allows you to win the battle of the T-90 even before entering the zone of effective fire.
T-90 fire control system
The T-90 is equipped with an SLA with a day and night sighting system. The day sight has independent stabilization on two planes. That allows the gunner to work more efficiently. The night sighting system has dependent stabilization in two planes. The disadvantage of such a fire control system is that it is difficult to track and fire at night on moving targets. The T-90S modification is equipped with an improved Essa thermal imaging sight, which allows you to more effectively track and fire at a target in the dark.
If we compare modern US and Russian tanks ("Abrams" and T-90), the latter differ in that they have adders and angle sensors. This equipment is associated with vertical andthe horizontal axis of the platform and the mirror reflector. This solution allows you to combine the work of two independent sights into a sighting system. The bottom line is to make full use of the technical capabilities of each of them. Mount two correctors. The first one is designed to eliminate errors in the tracking of the sighting system, which are due to the inaccuracy of the installation. The second eliminates the error in the installation of transmission mechanisms. Another key difference from the Abrams is that the T-90 commander has the ability to fire at ground and air targets from a stabilized machine gun mount.
Abrams fire control system
The newest US M1A1 tank has one significant drawback, which is the commander's limited ability to search for a target. This is especially noticeable while the car is moving. But the flaw was discovered and eliminated in the subsequent modification of M1A2. A panoramic thermal sight is already installed there. In this case, the commander can more effectively track and identify moving targets.
The FCS on the Abrams tank is more modern than on the T-90. The gunner works with the main sight, which has a thermal imager and a rangefinder. Multiplicity of the daily channel x3 and x10, with vertical stabilization. There is also an auxiliary eight-fold sight without stabilization. In general, the fire control system on the M1A2 modification is more modern. It provides for the presence of thermal imaging cameras for the commander and gunner. The crew is completely dependent on the automatic fire control system. The electronic control unit (ECU) allows you to stabilize the independent sight, the gun drive. In general, we can say that if we compare the tanks of Russia and NATO, then the latter succeeded in terms of the SLA. But the T-90 wins significantly at long distances.
On the protection of the Abrams and T-90 tanks
Agree, the effectiveness of armor plays a huge role in the survival of the tank on the battlefield. That is why security must be considered as a separate item. The latest US M1A2 tank has rather thick armor plates, but their effectiveness is much lower than that of the T-90. For example, the tower is equipped with steel armor plates with stiffeners, between which are stacked armor packages made of metal and composite. In general, the effectiveness of such protection is sufficient, but resistance when hit is significantly reduced. The sides of the M1A2 turret are also more vulnerable than those of the T-90. Experts say that although the turret of the American tank is armored, it is easily penetrated by armor-piercing shells.
T-90 boasts semi-active turret armor. It is a three layer system. In addition, the rational angle of inclination of the armor of the frontal part of the tower allows for more efficient use of it. Also, Russian military tanks, in particular the T-90, have dynamic protection of the Contact-5 type. It protects against the impact of cumulative and armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles. Due to the creation of a powerful lateral impulse, the core is destabilized, which leads to its destruction even before it comes into contact with the main armor of the tank.
What conclusions can we draw?
The safer the tank crew feels, the better they will perform their functional duties. That is why they always try to improve the frontal armor. Since the Abrams and T-90 were developed during the Cold War, the most attention was paid to the frontal part of the combat vehicle, which is important when fighting in open areas head-on. But at present, there is a high probability of a tank battle in the conditions of the city. Therefore, it makes no sense to hit frontal armor up to 800 mm thick, since it is much easier to break through the side or stern. Usually there the thickness of the armor is not more than 100 mm.
This is why Russian heavy tanks, like the US, have weak points. Nevertheless, among the advantages of the T-90, it is worth noting the possibility of hitting a target with guided missiles at a distance of up to 5 km, good maneuverability, high rate of fire, and reliable armor. As for the "Abrams", then he is not without strengths. The Americans value their crew, so they always isolate it from the ammo rack. In addition, the M1A1 and M1A2 have a high power density and good maneuverability, as well as an excellent fire control system. But this is not the end of the comparison of Russian and US tanks. Now we will consider a few more modern machines. These tanks are under development, but it is already known for sure that they will soon be rolled off the assembly line.
New Russian tanks: "Armata"
Heavy combat vehicle "Armata" is designed to replace the T-72, T-80, and partially T-90. Experts note that the military-technical level of "Armata" will be higher by 20-30% than all analogues existing in the world. The key features, or rather, the differences between this tank and the T-90, are that the crew, fuel tank and ammunition rack will be located in separate rooms. This will increase survivability on the battlefield even when armor is broken. The unit will be equipped with a 1200 horsepower engine, which will provide sufficient maneuverability with a tank weight of 50 tons.
One can say that the main weapons of Russia are tanks, as well as self-propelled guns. This is due to the fact that there are more of them than the Americans, by 20-35%. However, the survivability of technology as a whole is lower. That is why the developers paid special attention to the protection of "Armata". This is a multi-layer "pie" consisting of metal, ceramic and composite packages. The use of a new steel grade made it possible to increase the armor characteristics by 15% and at the same time reduce the weight of the vehicle by the same amount. "Armata" will be equipped with a 125-mm cannon, similar to the German weapon L-55, but exceeding its technical characteristics by 20%. Special ammunition with increased penetration has been developed for such a gun.
So we looked at the new Russian tanks. Armata and T-90 are the best of them. Well, now - about the most promising American development.
Modern US tanks: advanced developments
At present, the Americans are not producing new tanks. For the most part, they are engaged in the modernization of M1A1 and M1A2. Of course, developments are underway in some areas, but it is unlikely that the world will see new ones in the next few years. US tanks, although the information is classified and it is impossible to say anything with confidence on this topic. Maybe new cars will appear by the end of 2015, few people know anything about this.
But it is already known that developments will be carried out in the direction of improving the maneuverability and mobility of combat vehicles, therefore, modern US tanks will have thinner armor, a powerful undercarriage and a power plant. Rather, we are talking about reconnaissance, and not about tanks designed for head-on collision. In particular, developments are underway to create machines for a crew of 2 or 3 people with an uninhabited tower. For example, a combat vehicle with a crew of 2 people will have a 1500 horsepower engine, a low silhouette. At the same time, the weight, compared to M1A1, will be 20-30% less, which will increase the power density.
It is difficult to say whether such tanks will be in service with the United States, but their development is underway, but information about the technical characteristics and capabilities of vehicles in battle has not been disclosed. In general, the Americans have M1A2 and its modifications. These tanks meet modern requirements and have a fairly high efficiency, including survivability, on the battlefield. For this reason, they are not going to change them yet. The most modern and advanced are US military tanks TUSK. This is a modification of the M1A2, which consists in the presence of a remote-controlled machine gun and improved mine protection of the bottom of the vehicle.
Conclusion
So we made a small comparison of Russian and US tanks. As you can see, both countries havehigh military potential. Between the T-90 and the Abrams, company battles (10x10) were simulated, which showed that the T-90 is more effective in the steppe terrain. At the same time, the hilly terrain gives some advantage, albeit a small one, to American technology. This is due to the fact that in such conditions it is difficult to fire at long distances, and especially with guided missiles.
The main problem of the T-90 is that all improvements and developments are in the form of patents, as well as samples. No significant measures are taken to improve the protective, dynamic, and firing characteristics. In addition, there is an acute issue of insufficient training of the tank crew, which, in the conditions of an intense collision, must quickly and accurately respond. This requires some experience. Both the Abrams and the T-90 are among the best of their kind. Considering the Armada tank as a real candidate, as well as American developments, does not make sense. This is due to the fact that the tank is evaluated during testing at the site, and not in the hangar. It may seem that it is ideal, but during the practical part, significant shortcomings will be revealed. That, in principle, is all that can be briefly told about the tanks in service with the United States and Russia. They have almost identical performance with only minor differences.
