T90 vs M1A2

[SK]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Your 1st example is an "unofficial" website that CLAIMS a crewman was killed by an RPG

Well, the US Department of Defense "claims" the same.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20041112-1515.html

You 2nd example says the entire crew survived

Yeah, but as we can see even a single RPG can produce a totalled Abrams if the gunner gets lucky, that was my point.

THERE IS NO OFFICIAL RECORD OF A RPG EVER IN HISTORY CAUSING DEATH TO A US SERVICEMAN IN AN M1 ABRAMS TANK

You mean you don´t know of such an event, not more, not less.

RPG's have been known to penetrate into the ammunition compartment, & the engine compartment, but never into the crew compartment

And why should RPGs "never penetrate" into the crew compartment? There is actually very little armor at the hull side for defending against such a hit.
Only the first 2 of the side skirts on the left are composite armor, while it´s the first four on the the right side, extending till the hull ammo storage. The rest of the side skirts is plain steel, which gives approximately maybe 30mm RHA equivalent protection. Then comes a ~50cm gap and the hull, with maybe 50mm thickness. Let´s be charitable and say we have about 100mm RHA eq. of real material protection altogether on the non composite protected sides. Of course there is an airgap inbetween, but modern shaped charges (RPG-29) focus their "jet" much better, making spaced armor largely ineffective. Even a good RPG-7 hit with it´s 300mm penetration has chances to penetrate (not to speak about newer RPG-7 warheads).
The Army knows of these weaknesses, and they are exactly the reason why the TUSK upgrade ( http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...index.php#more ) is coming forward, adding protection exactly in the weak area I detailed above.

RPG's are simply to "light" to penentrate the crew compartment of an US M1 tank

Yeah, and you have simply no clue what you´re talking about. Googling 30 mins, having read some overhyping media reports and imagination don´t make you speak with any amount of authority about armor penetration mechanics.

The only weapons that I have found in my research to have penetrated the crew compartment of an US M1 tank is the T-72's 125MM tungstun core sabot round, our own 120MM Depleted Uranium dart (friendly fire), Hellfire missiles from a US APACHE attack helicoptor (friendly fire), & EID's

As well as some halfway modern shaped charges. See this thread http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php...6&#entry264866 for an example of a side turret penetration by "some kind of shaped charge", with the crew receiving bruises. The actual photos were removed for OPSEC reasons, but from the reaction of the people (most US Tankers btw) you can get a good explanation.
Also the alleged "mystery bullet" penetration of an Abrams in 2003 ( http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f...36-2336437.php ) is generally agreed to stem from a shaped charge. The crew was very lucky in this case, the charge´s "jet" missed the crewmembers only by centimeters and disabled the tank by penetrating the turret control box on the opposite side of the impact in the crew compartment ( ! ).
Also don´t miss http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...earned2003.ppt , a presentation by the Army reviewing Lessons Learned regarding the Abrams in OIF. I quote:

Left and right side non-ballistic skirts repeatedly penetrated by anti-armor RPG fire

If I am wrong provide a link to a news service like MSNBC that has reported a fatality to a US Serviceman being fatally wounded in an M1 tank

See first link above. There was also an incident where a RPG round killed the commander of an Abrams when it flew through the open hatch during the initial war phase of OIF IIRC. That´s of course not the "traditional" penetration way, but unfortunately still a US serviceman fatally wounded by an RPG inside his tank.

A US tank crewman is more in danger of casualty by being mistaken for the enemy, & falling victim to a friendly fire incident than any weapon our enemies field today

Without actual proof that of course is just some cool sounding statement without any factual support. I´d venture to say that friendly fire accidents have been very rare in the last 3 years, while there are more and more fatalities due to enemy action.

Edit: I read that 5 soldiers died when a RPG hit a tank that they were riding on the top off, it did not penentrate the crew compartment when Dennis J. Miller died

Source?

BOTTOM LINE: A US Serviceman in a tank, or not, is still safer in Iraq than if he were walking down the street @ night in New York City, or driving in traffic in any US city

Same as above, nice sounding statement, probably not true though.

I call that "UBER"

Well and I call that not having a clue.

Son learn the difference between "destroyed", & "disabled", you can blow a track off an MI w/ an RPG, or start a fire in the engine comartment, or ammo storage in the rear where it is designed to safely vent away from the crew compartment disabeling the tank, & causing it to need repair, but ti takes a lil' more than that to destroy an M1, or kill it's crew

As I´ve shown it takes exactly one well placed RPG round (and some luck) to completely destroy an Abrams. Likewise, killing members of the crew is very possible with light AT weapons, especially if the enemy has semi-modern weapons and a clue on how to use them (both of which the iraqi insurgents are largely lacking). How it can look if an enemy has these resources could be seen in the Israeli Lebanon campaign.

The have a "term" for what "light" damage weapons like the RPG are capapble of inflicting on an M1, it is called a "mobility kill", but the crew always survives

If in the way of a shaped charge´s "jet" making its way through the crew compartment, crewmembers unfortunately will not survive. That this doesn´t happen more often is largely luck (see the "mystery bullet" case).

Don´t get me wrong, the Abrams is a good design and has proven itself. Especially the crew survivability is very good due to the ammo storage concept. It is not invulnerable to RPGs though and it will not magically protect it´s crewmembers from getting killed by shaped charges, even if Tom Clancy or some Hype say so.
The tank was mostly designed in the 70s to fight against the Red Hordes(TM), not to fight an insurgency using handheld AT weapons. These design choices still echo today with the massive frontal armor, but the less than optimal side and rear protection. As mentioned, these weak points have been acknowledged with the TUSK upgrade.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Well, the US Department of Defense "claims" the same.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20041112-1515.html

Yeah, but as we can see even a single RPG can produce a totalled Abrams if the gunner gets lucky, that was my point.

You mean you don´t know of such an event, not more, not less.

And why should RPGs "never penetrate" into the crew compartment? There is actually very little armor at the hull side for defending against such a hit.
Only the first 2 of the side skirts on the left are composite armor, while it´s the first four on the the right side, extending till the hull ammo storage. The rest of the side skirts is plain steel, which gives approximately maybe 30mm RHA equivalent protection. Then comes a ~50cm gap and the hull, with maybe 50mm thickness. Let´s be charitable and say we have about 100mm RHA eq. of real material protection altogether on the non composite protected sides. Of course there is an airgap inbetween, but modern shaped charges (RPG-29) focus their "jet" much better, making spaced armor largely ineffective. Even a good RPG-7 hit with it´s 300mm penetration has chances to penetrate (not to speak about newer RPG-7 warheads).
The Army knows of these weaknesses, and they are exactly the reason why the TUSK upgrade ( http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...index.php#more ) is coming forward, adding protection exactly in the weak area I detailed above.

Yeah, and you have simply no clue what you´re talking about. Googling 30 mins, having read some overhyping media reports and imagination don´t make you speak with any amount of authority about armor penetration mechanics.

As well as some halfway modern shaped charges. See this thread http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php...6&#entry264866 for an example of a side turret penetration by "some kind of shaped charge", with the crew receiving bruises. The actual photos were removed for OPSEC reasons, but from the reaction of the people (most US Tankers btw) you can get a good explanation.
Also the alleged "mystery bullet" penetration of an Abrams in 2003 ( http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f...36-2336437.php ) is generally agreed to stem from a shaped charge. The crew was very lucky in this case, the charge´s "jet" missed the crewmembers only by centimeters and disabled the tank by penetrating the turret control box on the opposite side of the impact in the crew compartment ( ! ).
Also don´t miss http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...earned2003.ppt , a presentation by the Army reviewing Lessons Learned regarding the Abrams in OIF. I quote:



See first link above. There was also an incident where a RPG round killed the commander of an Abrams when it flew through the open hatch during the initial war phase of OIF IIRC. That´s of course not the "traditional" penetration way, but unfortunately still a US serviceman fatally wounded by an RPG inside his tank.

Without actual proof that of course is just some cool sounding statement without any factual support. I´d venture to say that friendly fire accidents have been very rare in the last 3 years, while there are more and more fatalities due to enemy action.

Source?

Same as above, nice sounding statement, probably not true though.

Well and I call that not having a clue.

As I´ve shown it takes exactly one well placed RPG round (and some luck) to completely destroy an Abrams. Likewise, killing members of the crew is very possible with light AT weapons, especially if the enemy has semi-modern weapons and a clue on how to use them (both of which the iraqi insurgents are largely lacking). How it can look if an enemy has these resources could be seen in the Israeli Lebanon campaign.

If in the way of a shaped charge´s "jet" making its way through the crew compartment, crewmembers unfortunately will not survive. That this doesn´t happen more often is largely luck (see the "mystery bullet" case).

Don´t get me wrong, the Abrams is a good design and has proven itself. Especially the crew survivability is very good due to the ammo storage concept. It is not invulnerable to RPGs though and it will not magically protect it´s crewmembers from getting killed by shaped charges, even if Tom Clancy or some Hype say so.
The tank was mostly designed in the 70s to fight against the Red Hordes(TM), not to fight an insurgency using handheld AT weapons. These design choices still echo today with the massive frontal armor, but the less than optimal side and rear protection. As mentioned, these weak points have been acknowledged with the TUSK upgrade.

You wrote a book

I don't need to

I did not see an Abrams "totalled" by an RPG

The link you provided does not say a RPG penetrated the crew compartment of an M1, you admit that the only guy confirmed killed by an RPG in a M1 tank was riding on top of the tank

I did mention EID's

You say that I just don't know of any case of the crew compartment of an M1 tank being penetrated by an RPG

You are making the claim that it has

PROVIDE PROOF

note: An intelligent man w/ a sound arguement does not have to resort to "name calling" to try to prove his case

Have good day

ps. The conflict between Iraqi armed forces, & US armed forces "was no more a war, than there is war between men, & maggots" (Tim Robbins "War of the Worlds")

About me having a clue, I am an automotive enginer w/ GM Engineering in Warren Mich., when I was offered a $140,000 (2yr. base pay) buy out for early retirement I applied to AM General (Producer of the HUMMER) Engineering in Livonia Mich., they thought I had enough of a "clue" to hire me, they just couldn't afford me

"Put that in your pipe, & smoke it" kid

Lieutenant General |SI|SERIALBUTCHER

peace:)

[SK]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

I´m sure that you have a whole lot of clues about many things, never said you don´t. It´s just that you obviously don´t know enough about armor penetration mechanics to make the bold statements you provided here.
Certain media outlets and authors tend to drastically exaggerate the armor protection of the Abrams and many people actually buy that and then post stuff on the net like you did.

I did not see an Abrams "totalled" by an RPG

Yes you did (at least if you bothered to click the link I provided).

you admit that the only guy confirmed killed by an RPG in a M1 tank was riding on top of the tank

Nope, I asked you to provide proof for your claim that this is the case. The press memo by the DoD sure doesn´t sound like it.

You say that I just don't know of any case of the crew compartment of an M1 tank being penetrated by an RPG

You are making the claim that it has

PROVIDE PROOF

Hello? How about reading the stuff I posted? There are documented instances of:
-RPG hitting and penetrating right turret of an Abrams
-RPG hitting side skirt, killing turret control box inside the tank on the opposite side ( http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/solved.aspx )
-Army AAR specifically mentioning repeated penetration of non-ballistic skirts, including a pic of severed hydraulics reservoir ( which is inside the crew comparment).

Sorry, but just completely ignoring proof and just reposting "PROVIDE PROOF" is very heavy on the cheap side.

note: An intelligent man w/ a sound arguement does not have to resort to "name calling" to try to prove his case

Sorry but stuff coming from you like

I will say it loudly for the ppl in the cheap seats

Son learn the difference between "destroyed", & "disabled"

combined with the extreme ignorance you´re displaying justifies saying that you don´t have a clue (about the matter at hand) IMHO.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

I´m sure that you have a whole lot of clues about many things, never said you don´t. It´s just that you obviously don´t know enough about armor penetration mechanics to make the bold statements you provided here.
Certain media outlets and authors tend to drastically exaggerate the armor protection of the Abrams and many people actually buy that and then post stuff on the net like you did.




Yes you did (at least if you bothered to click the link I provided).




Nope, I asked you to provide proof for your claim that this is the case. The press memo by the DoD sure doesn´t sound like it.




Hello? How about reading the stuff I posted? There are documented instances of:
-RPG hitting and penetrating right turret of an Abrams
-RPG hitting side skirt, killing turret control box inside the tank on the opposite side ( http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/solved.aspx )
-Army AAR specifically mentioning repeated penetration of non-ballistic skirts, including a pic of severed hydraulics reservoir ( which is inside the crew comparment).

Sorry, but just completely ignoring proof and just reposting "PROVIDE PROOF" is very heavy on the cheap side.




Sorry but stuff coming from you like


combined with the extreme ignorance you´re displaying justifies saying that you don´t have a clue (about the matter at hand) IMHO.

I probably know 10-100 times more than you about mechanics, but this difference of opinion is not about mechanics, it is about "history"

DUDE, WHO DIED, & WHAT DAY DID THEY DIE FROM AN RPG ATTACK WHILE INSIDE THE CREW COMPARTMENT OF AN M1?

SHOW A LINK TO AN "OFFICIAL", (CREDIBLE) SOURCE THAT SAYS THAT EVER IN HISTORY THAT AN RPG, OR ANY LIGHT "OVER THE SHOULDER FIRED" AT ROCKET HAS EVER PENETRATED THE ARMOR OF THE CREW COMPARTMENT OF, & KILLED A M1 TANK CREWMAN

OR SHUT YOUR "PIE HOLE"

IF THERE IS NOT A DOCUMENTED CASE, "TERMINAL BALLISTICS" IS AN "NON ISSUE"

Lieutenant General |SI|SERIALBUTCHER

peace:p

[SK]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Funny, and that from the guy who said

An intelligent man w/ a sound arguement does not have to resort to "name calling" to try to prove his case

As I´ve explained, RPG hits can lead to penetrations of the crew compartment, with modern shaped charges penetrating the hull sides rather easily. There are no detailed enough casuality report available on the net, which can conclusively show that RPG penetrations led to soldiers "that died inside the crew compartment of the M1". I´ve detailed 2 cases where such an event occured with high probability, but there isn´t enough data available.
That´s not the point I wanted to make though. The point is that the low number of casualities can be attributed to the good design of the tank, but also to a certain amount of luck so far. The Abrams is pretty vulnerable in some areas , and there´s always the chance that there comes a report of KIA by RPG-penetration tomorrow. It´s not the "impenetrable superarmor" that spared us of those so far, but luck and the medicore equipment and abilities of iraqi insurgents.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Funny, and that from the guy who said


As I´ve explained, RPG hits can lead to penetrations of the crew compartment, with modern shaped charges penetrating the hull sides rather easily. There are no detailed enough casuality report available on the net, which can conclusively show that RPG penetrations led to soldiers "that died inside the crew compartment of the M1". I´ve detailed 2 cases where such an event occured with high probability, but there isn´t enough data available.
That´s not the point I wanted to make though. The point is that the low number of casualities can be attributed to the good design of the tank, but also to a certain amount of luck so far. The Abrams is pretty vulnerable in some areas , and there´s always the chance that there comes a report of KIA by RPG-penetration tomorrow. It´s not the "impenetrable superarmor" that spared us of those so far, but luck and the medicore equipment and abilities of iraqi insurgents.

WRONG!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abra...l_Kit_for_M1A2

You showed 1 example where there were no casualties, & another example where the commander of the tank was hit in the open hatch

You are "late" to this discussion, I never said the M1 had "inpenetrable superarmor", I said there is no documented case of a RPG (or any other "light" handheld weapon) ever killing an US serviceman by penetrating the crew compartment of an M1

That is "good enough"

gg

Are you really asserting that the M1 crew have survived virtually unscathed thru 2 major conflicts by "luck"? rotflmao

If what you say "RPG hits can lead to penetrations of the crew compartment, with modern shaped charges penetrating the hull sides rather easily." were true, Iraqi's would "line up all day" to take a shot @ them LOL

Your a funny guy

ps. Your first comment seems to suggest that I resorted to your "low brow" style of debate, I don't get it, if you are referring to my knowing many times more than you about mechanics, that is not an insult, anybody w/ a degree in automotive technology, & has worked 1/2 their adult life in automotive engineering is gonna know 100 times what a "layman" knows

You did say you were a soldier right?

You went to school to drive vehicles, I went to school to engineer them, stick to driving them son, you might have a grasp on that

Lieutenant General |SI|SERIALBUTCHER

peace

[SK]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

WRONG!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abra...l_Kit_for_M1A2

Err I already mentioned TUSK as it proves that the Army acknowledges the protection problems. So I don´t get what´s supposed to be "wrong".

I said there is no documented case of a RPG (or any other "light" handheld weapon) ever killing an US serviceman by penetrating the crew compartment of an M1

Actually you also said

RPG's have been known to penetrate into the ammunition compartment, & the engine compartment, but never into the crew compartment

RPG's are simply to "light" to penentrate the crew compartment of an US M1 tank

and

The only weapons that I have found in my research to have penetrated the crew compartment of an US M1 tank is the T-72's 125MM tungstun core sabot round, our own 120MM Depleted Uranium dart (friendly fire), Hellfire missiles from a US APACHE attack helicoptor (friendly fire), & EID's

These statements are demonstratably false, as there have been multiple cases of RPGs penetrating the crew compartment, but luckily not killing crewmembers (Even if it was a matter of centimeters in at least one instance).

Your first comment seems to suggest that I resorted to your "low brow" style of debate, I don't get it

Well writing in all Caps and ordering me to shut my "pie hole" isn´t exactly the most polite conversation style, that´s what I meant.

[PurpleBarney]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

I couldn't be bothered reading all that^ but you can kill a tank with 1 shot whether it be a T90 shooting a M1A2 or vice versa.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Err I already mentioned TUSK as it proves that the Army acknowledges the protection problems. So I don´t get what´s supposed to be "wrong".



Actually you also said
and
These statements are demonstratably false, as there have been multiple cases of RPGs penetrating the crew compartment, but luckily not killing crewmembers (Even if it was a matter of centimeters in at least one instance).




Well writing in all Caps and ordering me to shut my "pie hole" isn´t exactly the most polite conversation style, that´s what I meant.

Improving something does not mean there is a "prove there is a problem", it just shows we have a lot of money to spend to stay "comfortably" ahead of the competition

WRONG! as in there are extremely detailed reports from DoD investigations into every loss of valuable equipment (as detailed in the link)

My only contention from the beginning was that there is no confirmed death of a US M1 tank crewman being killed by a light over the shoulder weapon penetrating the M1's crew compartment

Hell, if I am not mistaken there is only 1 verifable penetration causing death from a T-72 (125MM Tungstun Core Sabot w/ multiple hits)

That is in my opinion "Tom Clancy" level UBER

You have not presented a credible case to the contrary

You say the high survivability of the M1 tank crew is probably due to the "good design" of the tank. yeah, the good design of the armor

DUH!

If they made the M1 any heavier, & better protected than it already is it would become totally impractical like the WWII German Royal Tiger tank

YOU brought up the "topic" of our relative knowlege of mechanics, sorry that back fired on you, & I never called you out of your name son

ps. When I say that a US M1 crewman has never died by RPG penetration of the crew compartment, & you say this statement is "demonstrably false", then you procede in the same breath to say that there HAVE been penetrations but "luckily not killing crew members", quite honestly you make yourself sound like a "arguementative fool" rotflmao

Not very much of a penetration to brag about in those rare instances, in stark contrast when the M1 crews penetrate the Iraqi tanks w/ their 120MM Depleted Uranium SAbot) they totally incinerate the interior killing all on board gg

Have a nice day

Lieutenant General |SI|SERIALBUTCHER

peace:)

[SK]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Improving something does not mean there is a "prove there is a problem", it just shows we have a lot of money to spend to stay "comfortably" ahead of the competition

Well, let´s just read what the product manager says:

“You have to remember, the tank was a Cold War design, aimed at a threat that was always to its front. It’s still the most survivable weapon in the arsenal from the front,” Flanagan said. “Today it’s a 360-degree fight, and these systems are designed to improve survivability in that urban environment.”

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6985

WRONG! as in there are extremely detailed reports from DoD investigations into every loss of valuable equipment (as detailed in the link)

Of course these exist, but you won´t find them available to the public, because it would be pretty dumb to give hints about weaknesses to the enemy. Ever heard of OPSEC?

Hell, if I am not mistaken there is only 1 verifable penetration causing death from a T-72 (125MM Tungstun Core Sabot w/ multiple hits)

I´m not aware of this event, there is a very good report about the friendly fire incidents of GW2 here though: http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6985

You say the high survivability of the M1 tank crew is probably due to the "good design" of the tank. yeah, the good design of the armor

The side armor is pretty weak in comparison, the main reason for the high crew survivability is the armor storage concept, which prevents ammunition explosion in most cases (or vents the blast through blow-out panels).

If they made the M1 any heavier, & better protected than it already is it would become totally impractical like the WWII German Royal Tiger tank

The Abrams´ armor (apart from the DU front inserts) is 70s tech, nowadays you could use MEXAS or other composites/NERA or ERA (like with the TUSK upgrade) for improved side protection.

YOU brought up the "topic" of our relative knowlege of mechanics, sorry that back fired on you, & I never called you out of your name son

I don´t think anything "backfired on me", I´m still pretty certain that you don´t know enough about properties of armor&penetration as to provide valid arguments. I don´t care if you know 1000 times more than me about mechanics or if you´re the Queen of England. It is just irrelevant to the discussion.

When I say that a US M1 crewman has never died by RPG penetration of the crew compartment, & you say this statement is "demonstrably false", then you procede in the same breath to say that there HAVE been penetrations but "luckily not killing crew members", quite honestly you make yourself sound like a "arguementative fool" rotflmao

Well read again hotshot. I quoted this from you:

RPG's have been known to penetrate into the ammunition compartment, & the engine compartment, but never into the crew compartment

RPG's are simply to "light" to penentrate the crew compartment of an US M1 tank

You wrote that RPGs didn´t ever penetrate the crew compartment. This is demonstrably false, as shown by the examples I provided.
And to call me an argumentative fool, when I cite tons of sources for my statements, while you provide none (and conveniently ignore most those I provide) is a bit ironic.

Not very much of a penetration to brag about in those rare instances, in stark contrast when the M1 crews penetrate the Iraqi tanks w/ their 120MM Depleted Uranium SAbot) they totally incinerate the interior killing all on board gg

You know this is not only a internet pissing contest (well for you apparently it is, ok). This also is a matter of life & death for those tankers in danger of getting killed by inadequate protection. Even if Abrams have proven to be more than capable of dealing with the iraqi army, they still are vulnerable to RPGs. For a crewman of a penetrated tank it will be of little use to know that his Abrams is able to kill crappy iraqi T-72s easily.

[RomeBoarder]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

first of all the reason the armor is light in the back of an M1 is ebcause we dont plan on getting shot in the *** running away and second the kid wanted to know why he couldnt destory a t-90 and now u are bickering over a single death lol chill out. we all know my Sierra pickup could demolish a t-90 so just get over yourselves.....besides serialbutcher is from michigan like me so he automatically wins

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

I find your conversation interesting really, apart from Butcher ignoring the proof he is demanding. Butcher, youre also arguing about different things. Dont let your ignorance cloud the objective part of your mind.

Anyway, since you two know more than I do about the subject, in real life terms, which is the best tank? I know a few known names like

Abrams
Leclerc 2
Challenger 2
T90

Would be nice to read about how each of these is better compared to the other.

[Gun slinger]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

I like how this thread about an "in-game" topic has lead to a debat about IRL issues with the tanks:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[SK]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Would be nice to read about how each of these is better compared to the other.

That´s of course a highly artificial question, one would first have to define what constitutes "best" or "better". A tank which is good for a 1vs1 "fight" that basically only happens in the heads of people arguing on the internet? A tank that protects it´s crew the best? The tank that has the lowest logistics strain?
Of course you can talk about "duel" situations, but those very rarely, if ever, would happen in real combat, as tanks are meant for combined arms warfare.

That being said, the very same question "which tank is better" is asked all the time in messageboards around the world. Depending on the nationality of the responding posters you will hear something like (in 95% of the cases):
-US: "The Abrams has proven to be nearly invulnerable, there was not one crewman who died from an RPG hit."
-UK: "Only 1 Challenger 2 was lost so far, and that was due to friendly fire. Thus, the Chally2 has a far better track record than the M1."
-Germany: "The Abrams is just a bad copy of the Leopard 2, with the new L/55 gun the Leo2A6 is the unmatched king of the battlefield."
-Russia: "The T-90 is far smaller while equally armord to western tanks, it can fire missiles from its gun which will outreach enemy tanks."
That´s basically the most common reactions.

Of course, most people don´t have a clue and just repeat stuff they´ve read in some bad media outlet or seen on TV etc.
In reality, most western tanks (Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Type 90) are actually very similar to each other. They all feature the same basic layout with a ~ 1500 hp engine in the rear, a 120mm main gun, stabilization, Thermal Imager for gunner (and commander in most recent versions), thick composite armor at the front, welded turret and weight around 55-70t.
That´s actually no surprise, as all these tanks have their roots in the 70´s and were built for a common task-to fight the soviets in central europe. There are of course differences, like the Leclerc having an autoloader (and only 3 man crew) or the Chally2 having a rifled gun, but looking at the whole package the three main characteristics mobility, protection and firepower are so similar that in the end the training and tactical proficiency of the crew will be the determining factor who "wins".


I left out the T-90, cause this tank wasn´t built with the same design philosophy as the western ones. Russian tanks are generally smaller and lighter, having only a 3 man crew and autoloader since the T-64. Crew survivability wasn´t so high on the list as in the west in soviet times, which meant that ammo was distributed all over the tank. This is also the reason why T-72s are often seen with their turrets removed: Penetrations tend to set some ammo on fire which leads to a fatal ammunition explosion. Also, the standard T-90 didn´t feature Thermal Imaging sights. The soviets relied heavily on the use of Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA), unlike the west where composite armor ( "chobham" and other composites ) was deemed sufficient.
That being said, a modernized version (T-90M) uses a new welded turret that´s suspected to feature modern spaced armor and also has a Thermal Imaging sight. The capabilities of these new models are pretty similar to western tanks, but some of the bad design choices (ammo storage design) are retained.

Links:
Estimated protection levels: http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
Russian tanks: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: T90 vs M1A2

Thanks, much appreciated and very informative. Im a sucker for these kind of good "which ones the best" pieces of info.