"M1 Abrams vs. T-90: Top US General Admits Russia Has " Topic

…Achieved Tank Parity.

"In a speech before Senate defense subcommittee members last week that went largely unreported, Lt. Gen. Murray warned that the US no longer has the edge in tank technology it used to, saying that he could "not say that we have the world class tank that we had for many, many years."…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

It's not the first time we've been warned about some piece of Soviet/Russian kit that is "far superior to anything the West currently deploys" and then turned out to be a false alarm.

But there has been a long history where the strength of some Soviet/Russian models couldn't be properly appraised because they exist in different variants with downscaled versions intended for export and advanced models reserved for their own use.

According to among others Jane's, had the balloon gone up during the Cold War, the T72 may have been a tough foe for Western tanks, especially those still equipped with the 105mm gun and the effectiveness of the 120mm at that time was also called into question.

On the other hand we know that Soviet readiness was variable at best. With less than 2/3rds to less than a half of all Soviet tanks operational at any time (depending on the source) and the fact that they planned to drop all advanced features in favour of faster "wartime production" and spam as many tanks and planes as possible to stay ahead of the West.

We know that modern Russian ATGM's are nothing to laugh at. Their use in the Middle East against Western tanks like the Merkava and M1 has shown what they are capable of. The Russians have also worked hard to increase protection against such weapons with a range of active and passive protection systems.

I would take the article with a grain of salt because it's a Russian news outlet, and many have not exactly been unbiased. As for Murray's case the M1 has recently been upgraded and while further upgrades are being discussed, plans for a new tank are a little vague. I get the feeling is that the ghost of an invincible new tank is being used as an excuse to push for the M1's replacement.

Interesting read.
Due to development / entry into service timelines and subsequent upgrades, there might not be that much in it between them.

I'd have thought that Russia's T-14 Armata would have been of greater interest (concern?), as that (apparently) really is a whole new generation.

But the Russians can't afford T14s, while they do have a crapton of T90s.

Whether they can presently afford it or not I don't know.

Not really an issue "just yet" as it's still undergoing field trials.

Manufacture is now (or soon will be) handled by a Russian state-owned group, instead of the original company (taken over).

I know reliable details are a bit scarce, but it does have some very novel features.

We always have a "need" for the 10 foot tall Russian.

Or, in other words: it is time to invest a gazillion dollars in improving US armored units. Please, approve the appropriations needed.

The T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 & now the Armata have all been hailed upon their service introduction as the Soviet/Russian tank that will end western armored dominance – funny how none of them have proven to be the supertank decreed by the carnival barkers – certain that the Armata will be no different – relax, we do tanks pretty well here (& Germany & France & Britan)

The M1A2 really has nothing new to it and the armed forces have indicated the gap is closing. If Russia has improved their optics and main gun rounds with better penetration power then yes the gap has closed.

For the US, our troops are trained to a high degree and that will be the edge. For the other NATO countries I cannot say they are as highly trained.

It's not the first time we've been warned about some piece of Soviet/Russian kit that is "far superior to anything the West currently deploys" and then turned out to be a false alarm.

The difference this time is we have pretty solid battlefield evidence of at least T-90 protection/survivability. Apparently very few if any have been outright DESTROYED in Syria, with some of them changing hands repeatedly between the Syrian Army and the jihadis because their crew panics and bails out after a hit.

If Russia actually introduces the T-90MS ( youtu.be/pfGP-dGjjnY ) with the rear turret ammo bustle….I'd definitely consider the armor gap "closed enough", considering other advantages in terms of operational maneuverability/logistics that the T-90 has compared to an M1.

If this isn't handled quickly we're looking at a significant tank gap.

Is it time to reread, "The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine", by Andrew Cockburn? It is hard to know what is the correct level of danger and what is hype generated for reasons other than concern for survivability. The Abrams is a proven platform and can be up-gunned and updated to meet the threat of the T-90, the T-90MS and even the T-14 Armata. There are other weapons systems in greater need of modernisation and redesign such as a robust replacement for the A-10 Warthog.

Cheerscand good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

Ironically, the US has produced far more M1s than the Russians T-90s.

Anybody notice WHERE this "news" is posted? sputnik.com doesn't strike me as an unbiased source.