Which tank is better, the T-90 or the M1 Abrams? This question appeared simultaneously with a newer car and still remains relevant. He has already managed to get a lot of answers, including diametrically opposite ones. The continuation of disputes, among other things, is facilitated by the gradual development of two armored vehicles, leading to the emergence of new modifications. The newest creations of Russian and American tank builders are the T-90M and M1A2 SEP v.3 projects, respectively. Let's try to compare them and find out which tank got the best update.
The newest American version of the Abrams tank is the M1A2 SEP v.3. This project was developed several years ago, and in 2015 the first public demonstration of a prototype took place. After all the necessary tests were completed, pre-production tanks were assembled, the first of which appeared in early autumn 2017. In 2018, it is planned to launch a full-scale modernization of equipment with a subsequent return to the unit. Over the next few years, according to the SEP v.3 project, 1,500 existing tanks will be modernized.
One of the first published images of the T-90M. Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com
The Russian project T-90M "Proryv-3" appeared much later. The first official demonstration of this type of vehicle took place only last fall. However, all the necessary checks have already been carried out and a contract has been signed for the serial modernization of equipment. The first vehicles from combat units, rebuilt according to the new project, will return to service this year. Several hundred tanks of the army will undergo modernization. It is also planned to build such machines from scratch.
Thus, despite the difference in the time of the appearance of the projects, the serial modernization of the tanks of the two countries starts almost simultaneously. Already this year, the US Army will begin operating the serial M1A2 SEP v.3, and Russia will receive the first T-90M. Tanks belong to the same class, and are also the most real peers, and therefore they can be compared with each other without any restrictions.
Breakthrough Breakthrough
The latest project for the modernization of the T-90 tank provides for the use of a set of new equipment and equipment that increases all the main characteristics of the equipment. For some products, the T-90M is unified with the Armata platform, which gives an increase in performance and turns out to be a serious reserve for the future. At the same time, most of the existing units are retained.
On the hull and turret of the T-90M, the "Relikt" ERA units are mounted. The project also provides for the installation of lattice screens. It was mentioned earlier that tanks can receive the Arena active protection complex. The existing hull has also been modified to improve protection and survivability. The location of the fuel tanks has been changed, and additional screens have been introduced to cover the crew, ammunition, etc.
The tank receives a power plant based on the V-92S2 engine, made in the form of a single unit. 1000 hp engine must compensate for the increase in mass associated with the installation of new devices, as well as increase the basic characteristics of mobility. The driver now controls the car using the steering wheel, and new automated devices are used in the transmission. The main engine is supplemented with an auxiliary power unit to supply power when it is shut down.
The basis of the armament complex is the 125 mm 2A46-4 launcher-gun. The standard automatic loader is being finalized for compatibility with promising ammunition. Earlier, the possibility of replacing the existing gun with a new 2A82, created for the T-14 tank, was mentioned. The fire control system as a whole and its individual components are undergoing modernization. In particular, the commander now has a multi-channel panoramic sight. A remotely controlled weapon station with a large-caliber machine gun should be installed on the roof of the tower.
Together with the new communication facilities, the T-90M gets the opportunity to work within the automated control system of the tactical level. The exchange of data with the command and other armored vehicles is provided.
First demonstration of the experienced M1A2 SEP v.3. Photo Armyrecognition.com
According to the results of the proposed upgrade of the T-90M "Breakthrough-3" tank, survivability is improved, as well as the accuracy and effectiveness of fire. Enhanced protection and updated weaponry make it easier to work in urban environments in the presence of characteristic factors. Some increase in mobility is provided. The vehicles of the new type are compatible with modern command and control facilities.
SEP v.3 Service Pack
The System Enhancement Package version 3 project provides for the use of the developments of the previous SEP v.2 upgrade with the use of some new systems and devices. In particular, it is planned to use this in serial production: the new M1A2 SEP v.3 will be produced by rebuilding and retrofitting the existing M1A2 SEP v.3. As expected, not the most significant upgrade of tanks will lead to a noticeable increase in their potential.
The American military and engineers were concerned with the issue of increasing the level of protection of tanks in the SEP modernization project. Since then, the booking and additional equipment of combat vehicles has not undergone significant changes. The hull and turret retain the combined armor with the refurbished filler a long time ago. The issue of equipping M1A2 SEP v.3 tanks with Israeli-made Trophy active protection complexes was repeatedly raised. If necessary, the tank can be equipped with a TUSK kit, which includes various hinged screens and reactive armor units.
The project does not provide for the replacement of the main smoothbore gun with a caliber of 120 mm. It is proposed to improve the fighting qualities of the tank with the help of new shots and additional equipment as part of the fire control system. An armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile M829A4 with increased characteristics and a multipurpose XM1147 was developed. To work with the latter, the tank must receive an ADL device, which provides data transfer to the fuse. At the same time, compatibility with existing tank shells is maintained. Additional armament remains the same, but the turret-mounted heavy machine gun is now mounted on the CROWS-LP remote-controlled weapon station. At the same time, the experienced M1A2 SEP v.3 tank retained an open machine-gun mount above the loader's hatch.
The electronic equipment of the M1A2 tank is now proposed to be built on a modular basis. At the same time, some of the devices remain in their places, however, new devices are also used. The crew continues to have high-definition workstations interacting with communications and controls. The SEP v.3 project provides for the use of new thermal imagers in the gunner's and commander's sights. The latter, as before, should work with a panoramic sight.
It is easy to see that the new project for the modernization of the M1A2 Abrams tank provides for a limited increase in selected characteristics and qualities. Protection is enhanced only with the help of a new KAZ, and firepower is increased due to two new shells. Simultaneously with this, there is a significant update of fire control facilities.
Hypothetical confrontation
Tank-building enterprises in Russia and the United States have already announced a number of tactical and technical characteristics of their latest modernized armored vehicles. At the same time, many data on the T-90M and M1A2 SEP v.3 tanks have not yet been disclosed. Using the available data, it is possible to compare the new technique, but the results of such a comparison may be far from the real state of affairs due to a number of known factors.
First of all, it is striking that Russian and American tank builders used a different approach to updating equipment. The Russian T-90M project provides for a significant upgrade in all major areas, from armor and weapons to communications systems and a power plant. American designers, having previously completed the modernization of the SEP v.2 project, were now able to limit themselves to the restructuring of electronics and the introduction of new ammunition. At the same time, in both cases, the revision affected some units and did not affect others.
The final appearance of the T-90M. Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com
According to reports from the recent past, the T-90M may eventually receive "multi-layer" protection. Own armor will be supplemented with dynamic protection "Relic", and together they will be covered by KAZ "Arena". The American project retains the existing armor, developed a long time ago, but proposes to supplement it with active protection. Obviously, in terms of overall protection, and therefore survivability in a combat situation, the Russian "Proryv-3" has certain advantages over its American competitor. In this case, we can talk about more powerful protection of both the frontal projection and the side ones.
The two leading tank-building powers use the latest optoelectronic equipment, but are in no hurry to reveal its real characteristics. As a result, at the moment it is impossible to assert with certainty which of the tanks under consideration is superior to the competitor in terms of observation and detection parameters. Different assessments on this score should not be taken into account, since many of them may look biased and indicate the patriotic mood of the authors.
Without knowing the real capabilities of the sights, it is impossible to predict which of the two tanks will be able to detect the enemy earlier and will be able to attack him first. As a result, the fighting qualities will have to be determined and compared only by the characteristics of the weapon. It should be remembered that the tanks under consideration have improved protection and can oppose it to more powerful enemy shells.
According to open sources, the new American M829A4 projectile is capable of penetrating at least 800 mm of homogeneous armor at a distance of 2 km. How the presence of dynamic protection will affect the characteristics of this product is not specified. Also, the question remains about the interaction of such an ammunition with the complex of active protection of the enemy. However, there is every reason to believe that the new American development will have advantages over older products and may pose a certain danger to Russian tanks.
Russian guns are compatible with a number of types of shells with different characteristics. For example, the last Soviet-developed ammunition 3BM-48 "Lead" from a distance of 2 km pierced up to 650 mm of homogeneous armor. He could also hit a combined protection similar to that used on US tanks. The exact characteristics of newer domestic shells have not been announced. At the same time, it is known about the existence of new projects, the purpose of which is to further increase the characteristics of penetration.
The T-90M tank, equipped with a 2A46-4 gun, has the advantage of a 9K119M Reflex-M guided weapon system with a 9M119M Invar missile. The rocket is launched through the gun barrel and is capable of flying up to 5 km. Guided missiles carry a tandem cumulative warhead, and its latest modifications are capable of penetrating up to 850 mm of homogeneous armor behind ERA. Thus, "Breakthrough-3" has the ability to open fire earlier and, at least, damage a potential enemy's tank at a safe distance.
It can be assumed that in terms of the ratio of protection and firepower - in comparison with similar parameters of the competitor - both tanks under consideration should hardly be considered equal. The T-90M project provides for more advanced protection, probably capable of withstanding the improved M1A2 SEP v.3 weapons. At the same time, if the Invar missile will take the enemy out of the battle in time, then the armor will not be needed. At relatively long distances, the Russian tank has an undoubted advantage.
One of the pre-production M1A2 SEP v.3. Photo Nationalinterest.org
Despite the development of weapons and protection, mobility remains an essential factor. According to known data, M1A2 SEP v.3 and T-90M have approximately the same power density with a small margin in favor of the American tank. Their driving characteristics are on the same level. There are also no serious differences in cross-country ability. However, differences in chassis design and associated capabilities can affect the outcome of a battle. The T-90 has long been nicknamed the "flying tank", and a reinforced propulsion device that can withstand increased loads, in certain circumstances, can contribute to the victory over the enemy.
In modern warfare, reconnaissance, communications and command facilities are of decisive importance. Both armored vehicles under consideration receive modern equipment and can work as part of tactical control systems. They are able to receive data from the outside or transfer the collected information to other consumers. In the context of communication and control systems, the T-90M and M1A2 SEP v.3 are unlikely to have decisive advantages over each other.
Who will win?
It seems that in a hypothetical battle between the Russian T-90M "Breakthrough-3" tank and the American M1A2 SEP v.3 Abrams, both vehicles can count on victory, and the outcome of such a battle depends on a number of various factors. The features of the battlefield, the organization of troops, reconnaissance, command and control of subunits, communications, etc. are of critical importance. In such conditions, the inherent characteristics and capabilities of technology remain important, but not in all situations are decisive.
Let's imagine a simpler battle in the form of a duel between two tanks. Probably, the T-90M and M1A2 SEP v.3 will be able to detect each other almost simultaneously, at a distance of several kilometers. However, for some time, the latter will only be able to observe. When approaching up to 5 km, the T-90M will be able to launch a Reflex-M missile. While the Abrams gets close to the Russian tank within the effective range of a shot, several missiles will have time to reach it - with an understandable result. In this situation, he has to rely on hull armor and additional protective equipment.
When approaching at a distance of about 2 km, the firing characteristics of tanks reach approximately the same level. At the same time, "Breakthrough-3" retains some advantage in defense and survivability. Perhaps, in a certain range of ranges, the M1A2 SEP v.3 with new shells will surpass the enemy in firepower, in which case the improved protection of the T-90M will be very useful.
If two tanks find themselves at a relatively small distance from each other - at distances of less than 1-1.5 km - then the outcome of the battle will depend not so much on the firing characteristics as on the mobility of the equipment and the skill of the crew. Whoever manages to use natural shelters and open fire on the enemy in time will emerge victorious from the battle. It is possible that such a duel will end after just a few shots. This outcome will be facilitated by the highest characteristics of modern weapons. A serious advantage for the T-90M in this situation may be smaller dimensions, which reduce the likelihood of hitting.
***
When comparing armored vehicles, one should not forget that tanks do not fight only with tanks, and they will definitely be supported by infantry, aviation, etc. Each of these factors can be decisive, and in addition, with the help of the correct organization of work, you can get rid of the characteristic shortcomings of a particular tank.
From the point of view of "pure" tactical and technical characteristics of the T-90M "Breakthrough-3" and M1A2 SEP v.3 differ markedly. In some respects, they are superior to each other, while in others they are inferior. However, there is reason to believe that the Russian modernization project differs from the American one in greater efficiency in terms of the operation and combat use of equipment. Apparently, Russian designers, working on a new project, have studied foreign experience and achievements. As a result, the updated T-90 received advantages over a foreign competitor.
Once again, it should be recalled that empirical comparisons of armored combat vehicles, as well as any other military equipment, can not always claim to be true. The only real way to test the real capabilities of technology is a full-fledged battle or, at least, exercises in conditions as close as possible to real ones. However, in this case, experts or technology lovers will find reasons for criticism and ways to protect their favorite samples. This means that the debate about the T-90 and M1 Abrams will continue, and our attempt at comparison will not be the last.
