Editor in Chief Bill | 03 Aug 2018 6:22 p.m. PST |
|
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 03 Aug 2018 6:51 p.m. PST |
This poll has an inherent western bias. The results would likely be different if the greater portion of TMP members hail from Russia and Eastern Europe rather than the US and Western Europe. For the record I voted for neither. |
lkmjbc3 | 03 Aug 2018 6:52 p.m. PST |
T90 would eat the M1 alive. The M1's gun wouldn't be able to penetrate it. The T90's gun would penetrate at any range. The T90 has a much better thermal sight, fire control system, and is much cheaper. In fact, I'm not sure one could afford to retrofit any existing US tank back to old M1 standards. Joe Collins |
Irish Marine | 03 Aug 2018 8:20 p.m. PST |
I'm not a tanker but where is your evidence to back up this claim. Is the gun on a T-90 a 125mm, if so it did not perform well against the M-1 in the first Gulf war. |
lkmjbc3 | 03 Aug 2018 9:10 p.m. PST |
The 125mm will wreck an M1 at any combat range with current ammo. The thermal sight is two generations better…the original M1 sight was crap compared to even to other first generation thermals… The M1's armor is complete crap compared to the T90 and can be penetrated by even now ancient anti- tank missiles. The Gulf war would have been very different if the US had fought Russians in T90's. Of course even old models of the T90 weren't developed to quite a time after the gulf war. Further, most M1 s were quickly trashed after the Gulf War in favor of the M1A1 heavy armor and later models. Joe Collins. |
Irish Marine | 04 Aug 2018 5:48 a.m. PST |
Ok I have noted your opinion, but where is the proof? I know M-1's have been taken out by anti-Tąnk missiles but from the side or rear shots while stationary, but not from the front where the armor is the thickest. I've been around them when they've looked like porcupines with all the RPG's sticking on them ( of course they don't stick) and they kept running. |
jfleisher | 04 Aug 2018 6:11 a.m. PST |
So we are comparing the M1, designed and built in the mid 1970s, to the T90, from around 1993? How about using the latest version, the M1A2 SEP2? The newer Abrams would destroy the T-90. |
lkmjbc3 | 04 Aug 2018 7:08 a.m. PST |
Yes, a rather silly comparison. Joe Collins |
Tgunner | 04 Aug 2018 12:30 p.m. PST |
I might be wrong but now a days most folks think about the M1A2 or more recent models when they think about the Abrams. I'm a former IP and A1 standard crewman and I assumed the poll was talking about the more modern variants. But I can see your point. I personally think there are too many question marks here to have a real opinion that's worth anything and I would be very biased anyway! |
aegiscg47 | 04 Aug 2018 12:39 p.m. PST |
The T-90, which is basically a heavily modified T-72B, is better than an M-1? Really? In what alternate universe would you need to live in where any Russian armor is better than the U.S. equivalent? |
repaint | 04 Aug 2018 3:53 p.m. PST |
what aegis says. If we are talking about the M1A1, then yes, the tank is showing its generation age. The modern version outclasses the T90 in armor, electronics, gun sights. Not by a whole lot but significantly enough to have an advantage. On top of that, add training which is by large and far the more important discriminator, all things more or less equal, the M1s prevail. As for a T90 in the gulf war, it would not have changed much of anything as they would have been destroyed the same from the air. Still the T90 is a better looking tank IMHO. |
GROSSMAN | 04 Aug 2018 6:27 p.m. PST |
I would however take the 2 T-90s you could buy for the same money over the M1. |
lkmjbc3 | 04 Aug 2018 7:52 p.m. PST |
"The T-90, which is basically a heavily modified T-72B, is better than an M-1? Really? In what alternate universe would you need to live in where any Russian armor is better than the U.S. equivalent?" The alternate reality you speak of is the real world. A tank developed in and fielded in 1978 is going to be beaten by a tank developed and fielded 12 years later (15 really)… especially as poor a tank as the initial M1. Yes, in reality it was poor. Poor armor. Poor gun. Poor sights. Poor fire control. It was fast and you did have a better chance of surviving a hit over an M60A3… I will give it that. Thank goodness we upgraded it quickly and then once again to the M1A1 standard… which was a good tank. The M1A1 Heavy Armor finally "filled the bill" with a superior tank. The Soviets of course also flopped with the initial roll out of the T80. It took until 86 for them to get it right. The T72b and the T64b were just stopgap measures… but not bad ones. The T90 was a decision not the follow the T80 path. Probably not a bad one for Russia as the cost was much, much less… and the effectiveness was not much less. Joe Collins |
aegiscg47 | 05 Aug 2018 8:56 a.m. PST |
"The alternate reality you speak of is the real world." After reading some of your posts here I'm not sure if you would know what the real world was if it slapped you upside the head. Before posting crap like this maybe you should wait until Russian designed weapons actually accomplish something on a battlefield against contemporary Western ones. The track record so far hasn't been too impressive. |
Katzbalger | 05 Aug 2018 1:27 p.m. PST |
Aegis definitely has a point or two--but, the question wasn't "Which is better--the M1A2 or the T90" nor "M1 or T72" but rather the "M1 or T90"--which is a different question. That said, in terms of shorthand usage, M1 refers to all the variants, not just the initial production version, so Joe is being somewhat obtuse (and on purpose, I assume). I'd still prefer the original M1, but that's because I should actually be able to fit in it. Rob |
Keith Talent | 05 Aug 2018 2:39 p.m. PST |
When has the M1 or its family successors ever accomplished anything on a battlefield against anything remotely like a state of the art opponent? The US has always fought with their best equipment, with their best crews, superbly supported against sub-optimal opposition. (Good tactics imho). However it renders the question somewhat meaningless. |
williamb | 05 Aug 2018 9:02 p.m. PST |
The poll should have been worded differently so that it was asking if the choice was between the current version of the M1 and the T90. Of course the poll should also have designated which version of the T90 was being offered. However, most (including me) would assume that the choice would be between what is currently available for both. After all, it is highly unlikely that a country would be choosing between a 35 year old tank and a present day one. Nor would the manufacturer be offering to sell anything other than the latest and greatest. Having said that Joe does have a point about the original M1 not bein able to stand up to the T90. The original M1 with a 105 gun did have less armor than the later versions of the T72 and current Russian aiming systems would be better than something from over 30 years ago.
|