Whether or not their tanks are better/equal to the Abrams is a matter of opinion. The fact that the Russian Army pales in comparison to the US Armed forces is the sole deciding factor in this argument. Don't believe me? The US hasn't lost a company sized engagement or higher since Korea, when the 2nd Infantry Division was overrun in 1950.
The Russians got the **** kicked out of them in every conflict since WW2. Don't believe me? In 1995, Chechen rebel fighters halted the Russian armored advance into their capital city of Grozny. after repeated artillery bombardments, the Chechens fell back to Fallujah-style Defensive positions and ended up sending the Russian Armored and Mobile Infantry Brigades packing, inflicting over 1700 deaths.
Later, in 2000, during the 2nd Chechen conflict, the Russians took over 2500 casualties, in re-taking Grozny.
In the Aftermath, Grozny was called "The most Destroyed City in the world", littered with thousands of innocent civilian corpses.
In 2004, the Russian Army, armed with T-90's and Putin's Latest and Greatest, were halted by a ad-hoc Georgian defense outside of Tblisi. The Georgians were using M-48 and M-60 tanks to combat the Russian's top-notch armored vehicles, as well as antiquated AA systems to combat their airpower.
In 2003, the 3rd Armored Division pushed into Baghdad, losing 3 soldiers and capturing the majority of the capital city in an armored thrust with minor damage to the infrastructure.
In 2004, the 1st Marine Divisions assaulted into Fallujah twice, which had been fortified by the Grozny veterans in the Summer months, losing 95 Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers and 1000 wounded. Unlike the Russians, the Marines had been pushed back the first time not by gunfire, but by Political bull**** via Al Jazeera and the British Prime Minister.
What does this have to do with a battle between T-90's and M1A2's? Well, the Russians seem to do a whole lot of losing for them to be the best..
__________________
|