T-90 vs M1Α1/Α2 Abrams comparison

The only thing you would pray for is if they can achieve some mission kill by killing its firepower, optical capabilities or mobility, but i haven't seen figures so far about the mission kill probability of current rounds.

Neoprime wrote:I want to know if the current ammo round from a T-90AM/MS 125mm 2a46M-5 were to hit a M1A2 Abrams from the front would it knock it out and visa versa.

Well, you'd need to provide more details for one to give you a conclusive answer.

Assuming the MS is firing the most modern round for the 2A46M-5, that being the Svinets-1, there are a few areas where it is certainly capable of penetrating any Abrams variant; ie the the gun mantlet (which is only around 400 mm) and the turret ring, assuming the shot is in the general location of the drivers' hatch. Even the Mango would be capable of penetrating such locations.

The turret cheeks are undeniably impenetrable from such a round, same with (at least most of) the lower frontal plate. Technically, the lowest section of it does begin the thin, so there is that.

Generally though, tanks will aim for center mass and not such weakspots.

I'll upload some images in a bit.

I never liked the giant "shoot here" sign on the side of western MBT turrets.

Red line - standard Soviet (ie worse case scenario) APFSDS accuracy whilst stationary; 0.25 mil (this is at 2 km, so 0.5).
Blue line - the above plus inaccuracy by the stabilizer, I used 0.3 mil as a fire because it may represent bumpy (but not horrible) terrains' effects on a typical Russian system (and that seems about right), so 0.85 meters (at 2km once again) inaccuracy in total.
Green line - completely horrible (and even unrealistic) levels of stabilizer error; .6 mil alone, for 1.45 meter inaccuracy.
Orange line - takes into consideration  green & red plus bad barrel flex (assuming this vehicle does not have a MRS), of an additional 1 full mil. For all intensive purposes, this is the absolute worse accuracy you could ever achieve with a modern MBT, if not impossibly bad.



An average figure would be in between Red and Blue, most likely.

Also note that the circles are slightly above center mass, this was done for a reason; the bottom section of the tank (including the lower section LFP) is the least likely area to be in LOS and/or hit.

Area of blue circle is .57 meters squared, just to let you all know.

M1 Abrams vs. T-90: Top US General Admits Russia Has Achieved Tank Parity

US Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Mike Murray has told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee that the US faces falling behind other countries in the area of tank technology, saying that other nations, including Israel, the UK and particularly Russia are close to catching up. Russian observers ponder the significance of the general's remarks.

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."

"I'll be the optimist and say that we're at parity with a lot of different nations," Murray noted. Still, the officer stressed that "our most capable enemies are closing quickly."

"I think the Abrams is still towards the top of its class in terms of combat systems, in terms of tanks," Murray said. "I think we have parity, I think there is parity out there." Still, he warned that Russia has closed the gap it had with the US since the end of the Cold War. "I think the T-90 is probably pretty close," he told one senator.

As for Russia's newest generation tank, the Armata, the officer said that he couldn't comment on that, since the tank has not yet been widely fielded.

Murray emphasized that the M1 Abrams platform, introduced in the 1980s, is reaching the end of its upgrade potential, and suggested that it's time for the US to start development of a new generation tank. "We're just about reaching the limits of what we can do with the Abrams," he said.

At the same time, the officer said that he was concerned that designers have not offered any fundamental breakthroughs in technology which can be used to build this next generation tank: "What I worry about is, there is nothing on the near-horizon that indicates a fundamental breakthrough in technology where we can come up with a lighter tank. I think we would be mistaken to build another 75-ton tank as long as protection requirements are where they are," Murray stressed.

Commenting on the unusual frankness of the top US Army official's remarks, RT Russian contributor Nadezhda Alekseeva suggested that "the recognition of its own technological lag in the area of tank building is something new for the US military. For decades, the US had presented the M1 as the best piece of equipment in its class, one no rival could match."

Today, the journalist writes, "the technological gap has become so obvious that it is impossible to keep silent about it."

After all, the journalist recalled, in Russia, the idea that the US and its allies are lagging behind Russia's tank industry is nothing new. Two years ago, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin reacted to news that Germany and France were planning to build a new generation of tanks to match the T-14 Armata by pointing out that he estimates other countries to have fallen behind Russia by 15-20 years in this area. Rogozin stressed that playing catchup would be difficult, too, since obviously Russia's tank designers wouldn't just sit idle over the next two decades.

For his part, independent military analyst Vladimir Tuchkov suggested that frank or not, the purpose of Murray's speech was pretty obvious: to squeeze more money out of the government to develop new heavy armor.

The problem, he wrote, was that the general did not provide a very convincing argument to Congress about the need to allocate new billions for a new tank, when he himself admitted that US engineers do not have any fresh ideas. "A further increase in the size and weight of the tank would only turn an already unwieldy tank into a slow-moving dinosaur," the journalist noted, driving Murray's point home.

Looking back on the Abrams' proud history, Alekseeva suggested that in its own time, the M1 truly was a crowning achievement in technical terms, having been released over a decade before the appearance of its Soviet/Russian competitor, the T-90, which entered service only in 1993.

Chrysler developed the Abrams in 1979, and the formidable machine began to enter service in the US Army in 1980, replacing the aging M60. The tank was considered to have had a successful 'baptism by fire' in the first Gulf War in 1991, easily defeating the tank forces of the Iraqi army, equipped with Soviet monkey model T-55s, T-62s and T-72s, cutting into them like Swiss cheese and suffering almost no casualties from enemy tank fire.

However, since then, beginning with the second Iraq war and continuing with the Iraqi army's war against Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) terrorists in 2014, the tank began showing a growing number of weak points.

With this in mind, Tuchkov suggested that the "powerful advertising by General Dynamics Land Systems [the Abrams' current builder] notwithstanding, the number of lost Abrams tanks completely negates the assertion that it is one of the best tanks in the world." In fact, the military writer boldly suggested that the Abrams is no longer even in the top 5, with Israel, Germany, the UK, South Korea and Russia all producing tanks with far superior technical and combat characteristics.

He recalled, for instance, that the US lost 80 Abrams in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, out of a total of 1,135 machines deployed. "As for tanks disabled by enemy fire and due to serious damage suffered by major components and systems, the picture is just depressing," Tuchkov wrote. In 2006, "the army had to ship 530 tanks –i.e. almost half of those deployed, off for repair in the US."

"Taking account of the negative experience, designers upgraded the Abrams – strengthening its armor protection, fitting the tanks' rear and sides with dynamic armored plating."

"But that too didn't help much," the journalist wrote. "According to various sources, between 30 and 47 Abrams have been lost from last autumn to the present in northern Iraq" in the ongoing campaign against Daesh.

As for Russia and its T-90, it has a lower profile, a higher top speed, a longer operational range, and at 46.5 tons, weighs a full 16.5 tons less than the 63 ton US behemoth. It has partial dynamic protection by default, with no additional skirt installations required, and according to Tuchkov, has demonstrated its prowess in the Syrian conflict.

The Syrian Army, Tuchkov recalled, has an undisclosed number of T-90As, the first version of the tank which saw mass production. "Since 2014, the Syrian Army has lost only one T-90 to an American TOW missile."

Just as significant, the observer suggested, was the fact that the loss occurred "not due to the tank's weakness, but due to poor crew training, and their failure to follow safety instructions." Specifically, the onboard Shtora-1 infrared ATGM jamming system was switched off at the time of the militants' attack; the tank's hatches were also open. Abandoned by the Syrian Army, the T-90A has since been captured and used by the militants.

The one lost tank excepted, Syrian T-90s have been successfully used by the Syrian Army's 4th Mechanized Division, usually on the front lines of the Army's key offensives, including the recent offensive to liberate Aleppo.

Ultimately, Alekseeva stressed that while military publications in the US and Russia have made comparisons of the T-90 and the M1 ad nauseam, the truth is that "it's probably impossible to speak of either tank's unquestionable superiority over the other: both tanks belong to roughly the same generation, and both have implemented the best technologies available in their time…Rather, the real cause for concern for the US military is the T-14 Armata, Russia's latest main battle tank."

That tank, developed in the late 2000s by Uralvagonzavod, and starting mass production beginning in 2015, is the real concern for Lt. Gen. Murray and the US Army, the journalist noted.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201703261051984261-us-general-t90-vs-abrams/

George1 wrote:M1 Abrams vs. T-90: Top US General Admits Russia Has Achieved Tank Parity

US Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Mike Murray has told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee that the US faces falling behind other countries in the area of tank technology, saying that other nations, including Israel, the UK and particularly Russia are close to catching up. Russian observers ponder the significance of the general's remarks.

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."

"I'll be the optimist and say that we're at parity with a lot of different nations," Murray noted. Still, the officer stressed that "our most capable enemies are closing quickly."

"I think the Abrams is still towards the top of its class in terms of combat systems, in terms of tanks," Murray said. "I think we have parity, I think there is parity out there." Still, he warned that Russia has closed the gap it had with the US since the end of the Cold War. "I think the T-90 is probably pretty close," he told one senator.

As for Russia's newest generation tank, the Armata, the officer said that he couldn't comment on that, since the tank has not yet been widely fielded.

Murray emphasized that the M1 Abrams platform, introduced in the 1980s, is reaching the end of its upgrade potential, and suggested that it's time for the US to start development of a new generation tank. "We're just about reaching the limits of what we can do with the Abrams," he said.

At the same time, the officer said that he was concerned that designers have not offered any fundamental breakthroughs in technology which can be used to build this next generation tank: "What I worry about is, there is nothing on the near-horizon that indicates a fundamental breakthrough in technology where we can come up with a lighter tank. I think we would be mistaken to build another 75-ton tank as long as  protection requirements are where they are," Murray stressed.

Commenting on the unusual frankness of the top US Army official's remarks, RT Russian contributor Nadezhda Alekseeva suggested that "the recognition of its own technological lag in the area of tank building is something new for the US military. For decades, the US had presented the M1 as the best piece of equipment in its class, one no rival could match."

Today, the journalist writes, "the technological gap has become so obvious that it is impossible to keep silent about it."

After all, the journalist recalled, in Russia, the idea that the US and its allies are lagging behind Russia's tank industry is nothing new. Two years ago, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin reacted to news that Germany and France were planning to build a new generation of tanks to match the T-14 Armata by pointing out that he estimates other countries to have fallen behind Russia by 15-20 years in this area. Rogozin stressed that playing catchup would be difficult, too, since obviously Russia's tank designers wouldn't just sit idle over the next two decades.

For his part, independent military analyst Vladimir Tuchkov suggested that frank or not, the purpose of Murray's speech was pretty obvious: to squeeze more money out of the government to develop new heavy armor.

The problem, he wrote, was that the general did not provide a very convincing argument to Congress about the need to allocate new billions for a new tank, when he himself admitted that US engineers do not have any fresh ideas. "A further increase in the size and weight of the tank would only turn an already unwieldy tank into a slow-moving dinosaur," the journalist noted, driving Murray's point home.

Looking back on the Abrams' proud history, Alekseeva suggested that in its own time, the M1 truly was a crowning achievement in technical terms, having been released over a decade before the appearance of its Soviet/Russian competitor, the T-90, which entered service only in 1993.

Chrysler developed the Abrams in 1979, and the formidable machine began to enter service in the US Army in 1980, replacing the aging M60. The tank was considered to have had a successful 'baptism by fire' in the first Gulf War in 1991, easily defeating the tank forces of the Iraqi army, equipped with Soviet monkey model T-55s, T-62s and T-72s, cutting into them like Swiss cheese and suffering almost no casualties from enemy tank fire.

However, since then, beginning with the second Iraq war and continuing with the Iraqi army's war against Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) terrorists in 2014, the tank began showing a growing number of weak points.

With this in mind, Tuchkov suggested that the "powerful advertising by General Dynamics Land Systems [the Abrams' current builder] notwithstanding, the number of lost Abrams tanks completely negates the assertion that it is one of the best tanks in the world." In fact, the military writer boldly suggested that the Abrams is no longer even in the top 5, with Israel, Germany, the UK, South Korea and Russia all producing tanks with far superior technical and combat characteristics.

He recalled, for instance, that the US lost 80 Abrams in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, out of a total of 1,135 machines deployed. "As for tanks disabled by enemy fire and due to serious damage suffered by major components and systems, the picture is just depressing," Tuchkov wrote. In 2006, "the army had to ship 530 tanks –i.e. almost half of those deployed, off for repair in the US."

"Taking account of the negative experience, designers upgraded the Abrams – strengthening its armor protection, fitting the tanks' rear and sides with dynamic armored plating."

"But that too didn't help much," the journalist wrote. "According to various sources, between 30 and 47 Abrams have been lost from last autumn to the present in northern Iraq" in the ongoing campaign against Daesh.

As for Russia and its T-90, it has a lower profile, a higher top speed, a longer operational range, and at 46.5 tons, weighs a full 16.5 tons less than the 63 ton US behemoth. It has partial dynamic protection by default, with no additional skirt installations required, and according to Tuchkov, has demonstrated its prowess in the Syrian conflict.

The Syrian Army, Tuchkov recalled, has an undisclosed number of T-90As, the first version of the tank which saw mass production. "Since 2014, the Syrian Army has lost only one T-90 to an American TOW missile."

Just as significant, the observer suggested, was the fact that the loss occurred "not due to the tank's weakness, but due to poor crew training, and their failure to follow safety instructions." Specifically, the onboard Shtora-1 infrared ATGM jamming system was switched off at the time of the militants' attack; the tank's hatches were also open. Abandoned by the Syrian Army, the T-90A has since been captured and used by the militants.

The one lost tank excepted, Syrian T-90s have been successfully used by the Syrian Army's 4th Mechanized Division, usually on the front lines of the Army's key offensives, including the recent offensive to liberate Aleppo.

Ultimately, Alekseeva stressed that while military publications in the US and Russia have made comparisons of the T-90 and the M1 ad nauseam, the truth is that "it's probably impossible to speak of either tank's unquestionable superiority over the other: both tanks belong to roughly the same generation, and both have implemented the best technologies available in their time…Rather, the real cause for concern for the US military is the T-14 Armata, Russia's latest main battle tank."

That tank, developed in the late 2000s by Uralvagonzavod, and starting mass production beginning in 2015, is the real concern for Lt. Gen. Murray and the US Army, the journalist noted.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201703261051984261-us-general-t90-vs-abrams/

Please someone (kvs, GarryB, KoTeMoRe) respond to this laughable statement, I simply don't have the time to respond in kind.

M1a2 need's a diesel engine, a simple auto loader and a rcws+laser and radar warning sensor to be world class.
As the combat in Yemen/Saudi/Iraq has shown the m1a2 has no atgm defense for long term engagements, hell why not add trophy system too.
1 rpg to the bustle and it cook's good and yet still no cage armor is their.

Tyranus wrote:M1a2 need's a diesel engine, a simple auto loader and a rcws+laser and radar warning sensor to be world class.
As the combat in Yemen/Saudi/Iraq has shown the m1a2 has no atgm defense for long term engagements, hell why not add trophy system too.
1 rpg to the bustle and it cook's good and yet still no cage armor is their.

The Exceptionalists will be loathe to do any of the above as it would be tantamount to admitting that they are WRONG and that Russia is right.  They have been crowing for decades about the alleged Abrams "invincibility" based on its slaughter of clapped-out monkey-model T-72s in Iraq, but eventually all bullshit gets sniffed out, and Iraqi experience against ISIS has greatly diminished their self-righteous halo....

While I'm at it, add the Krauts to the list as well. The sight of so many dead and burning Turdkish Leopards killed by Russian ATGMs has brought a flood of tears to the eyes of Uh'Murikkkaz Germanic lackeys.... and about time to.

Comparing the Abrams to the T-90 is comparing apples to oranges. That is not to say that the T-90 fails to outclass the Abrams
pork barrel dinosaur. And this US general appears to be an utter idiot. No new ideas? Really now. The T-14 is the first Russian tank
in the Abrams size category but is much lighter. I doubt the under 50 tons figure being bandied about, but it is under 60 tons for sure
(so maybe around 55 tons and I know the turret saves a lot of weight). Russia has shown how to do the Abrams right and that is not
to build a rolling disco hall turret to accommodate the crew in luxury like some 1970s US "boat" car. The T-14 can field a 152 mm
canon, the Abrams could never hope to do so.

I still don't understand the philosophy of no active protection on the Abrams. No amount of DU can compensate for good active
protection. And by definition the amount of DU the Abrams can use is very limited unless they want to park it permanently on
display like the Czar Canon.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/28/army-give-m1-tank-new-ammo-active-protection-system/

It seems someone in Exceptionalistan has smelled the coffee. Maybe.

Sputnik is a renamed English RIAN and staffed by the same idiots who use NATO anti-Russian propaganda language in the articles
as if they were some NATO sponsored NGO. For example, the Pavlovian phrase with no actual meaning: "pro-Kremlin parties" to
describe the actual Russian political opposition while using "opposition movements" for lunatic fringe and 5th column elements.
This piece is like cake and excrement put in a blender for the ultimate in taste.

T-90 vs M1A2 Abrams

Armor
T-90 has a better armor than M1A2 Abrams. The M1A2 Abrams armor is 600 (780 mm) mm vs APFSDS, 800 mm (1,060 mm) vs HEAT, but the T-90 armor is steel-composite-reactive blend vs APFSDS: 700–800 (950mm) mm; vs HEAT: 780–1000  (1,600mm) mm.
Engine
The M1A2 Abrams uses an Honeywell AGT1500C multi fuel turbine engine with 1500 hp. The V-92S2 of the T-90A  engines made by Uralvagonzavod is much weaker, about 1000 hp.
Range and speed
The T-90A is main battle tank with longest operational range, about 650–700 km, much more than M1A2 Abrams which is only 426 km. M1A2 Abrams's on road speed is 56 km/h, off road - 40 km/h, while the T-90A's on road speed is 65 km/h and off road speed is 45 km/h.
Armament
The main armament of M1A2 is the M256A1 120 mm smoothbore gun, designed by Rheinmetall AG with 42 rounds. M256A1's rate of fire is depend on the loader. M256A1's effective range is 4000m. The secondary armement is one 12.7mm M2HB heavy machine gun and two 7.62mm M240.
The main armament of the T-90 is the 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun with 43 rounds, which effective range is 5000m. 2A46 is autoloader gun, so it can shoot 8 rounds/minute, an advantage for T-90. The secondary armament is one 12.7mm NSV heavy machine gun and one 7.62mm PKT.
Final Conclusion

T-90 overpowers the M1A2 Abrams in speed, range and armor, but the M1A2 Abrams has a better engine. The armament can be draw, T-90 main gun is autoloader, has an longer effective range than M1A2 Abrams, but the M1A2 Abrams secondary weapon carry more than T-90A.
Take into account that the newest T-90M Proryv-3 MBT is in many areas upgraded over the T-90 or T-90A versions.

https://twitter.com/Trollstoy88/status/1618667542872211456

T-90 has a better armor than M1A2 Abrams. The M1A2 Abrams armor is 600 (780 mm) mm vs APFSDS, 800 mm (1,060 mm) vs HEAT, but the T-90 armor is steel-composite-reactive blend vs APFSDS: 700–800 (950mm) mm; vs HEAT: 780–1000 (1,600mm) mm. wrote:

How much better armor is the T-90M compared to the T-90A? And how does it compare to the latest western tanks?

There is hardly going to be Tank on Tank battles . Few or none of these Tanks will get close to fire on another Tank or vehicle . Why the West thinks that now is the time for advance with armour against Russia , is a mystery . The idea is viral . They don't know what to do , so they do something , anything .....Tank war , was first to allow advance against troops armed with Rifles and machine guns . Armour can not keep up with missiles , fired from all sorts of vehicles . The instruments on Tank and the Tank tracks and design of turret are weakest points . No defence .


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zuHOLV1YBok

Do most russian tanks have access to the 3BM59/3BM60 or 3BM44, or are 90%+ of APFSDS shells only 3BM42? Do russian tanks in the ukraine ever use gun launched ATGMs against AFVs or bunkers? Ive never seen a single video of any russian or ukrainian tank ever using GLATGMs even though theyre supposed to have them en masse since 1969. 0 kobras, 0 sheksnas, 0 bastions, 0 refleks, 0 invars, 0 svirs.

Most useful shell is HE. Then HEAT to deal with vehicles. Apfsds isn't the main shell.

Tank vs tank is happening that much and from the sides a heat can still destroy any tank.

Heat is also more dangerous since they go through and burn. Apfsds just go through.

Arrow wrote:How much better armor is the T-90M compared to the T-90A? And how does it compare to the latest western tanks?

Very. The US would hardly bring into service two improvements of subcaliber shot (A3,A4) between the T-90A and T-90M if the latter's armor is not much better than the former's. The ERA coverage on the T-90M is also lot more exhaustive leaving less room for weak spots. In a duel situation NATO MBTs would have to close-in or rely on flank and rear shots just to defeat a T-90M. Unfortunately the subcaliber round on the T-90M is let down by the limit of the autoloader cassette so the crew of the T-90M would have no choice but to be creative as well.

Not that a duel scenario matters much, since the vast majority of armor kills never even saw what hit them. In terms of more relevant wholistic protection the T-90M comes up miles ahead of any modern NATO MBT. You have organic air defenses swatting down UAVs spotting for the most dangerous artillery arm; Nakidka shrouds to avoid surveillance and getting attacked by ATGMs; modular ERA packages with a focus on topside and flank protection, fire support escort vehicles like BMPT, etc. etc.

Do most russian tanks have access to the 3BM59/3BM60 or 3BM44, or are 90%+ of APFSDS shells only 3BM42?

Only T-90M is can use 3BM48 or newer 3BM rounds because it has different auto loader then older version of T-90 or T-72/80 tanks...rest can use only 3BM46 and that is best round for them...

Still This round as many older as 3BM42 is enough to kill any tank from side, and as we can see here in war many tanks are kill not from front but from rear or side shots...

Didnt both the T-90A and T-72B3 get autoloader upgrades? I thought the T-80 could use longer APFSDS than the vanilla T-72B.

Are 3BM44 and higher common enoughamong in the loadouts of russian tanks or are they extremely rare?

Only T-90M is can use 3BM48 or newer 3BM rounds because it has different auto loader then older version of T-90 or T-72/80 tanks...rest can use only 3BM46 and that is best round for them...
Still This round as many older as 3BM42 is enough to kill any tank from side, and as we can see here in war many tanks are kill not from front but from rear or side shots...

It is not true.
First of all, we need to know that the cassete of the autoloader of T-72 is 680 mm in length.
Both OF and BK rounds are almost the size - there are few mm shorter.
The BM round was de facto the shortest in the whole line - 571 mm, which is why new types were developed and fit easily into the system.
For 72Bs with 9M119 missiles, the round was longer than the cassette by 15 mm - 695 mm in total.
The solution was a smaller diameter of the carousel mounting.
The change allowed already longer rounds to be used there. Up to 695 mm length.

T-72B3 mod 2016 was made to use both Svinets 1&2.
It was a part of the official Rosgovzakaz and called S-1 and S-2 in the documentation.
Can be found at zakupki.gov.ru.

Construction of the ammo loader was progressing steadily for the entire period. There are at least four known carousel mountings&power steering types, each next being smaller.
There are lots of speculations, as a lot of different mods exists.
For example there are multiple calls that 90A and B3 loader is same, while it is not.
B3 retains the construction of the old B type loader, YET there are differences as well. For example the ejecting system is same as 90A, the loader control panel is same ... just the loader is a bit different.

It was a constant process, and still is.

Is dart length the only way to increase APFSDS penetration? What about metallurgy, alloys, dart velocity, etc? Why do rounds like the M829A3 with only 1600 m/s velocity massively outperform the 3BM44 or 3BM60 which have 1750m/s velocity, the M829A3 having around 700mm penetration@2km vs 500-600mm for russian rounds??

Here we go again with the bullshit numbers.

They would most likely analyse the expected threats in the theatre and issue ammo accordingly... no need to use their best rounds in Syria or Ukraine up until now, but as new enemy tanks enter the theatre they can change the ammo being issued.

There is no need for that.
3BM42, which is Mango and can be used by every single tank in Russian hands, is already enough to penetrate all the tanks that are being provided. That applies to L2A4, L2A5, L2A6, M1A1 in all mods, M1A2, and Ch2.
On the other hand, DM53 (fired from L44) and M829A2 is incapable of efficient penetration of the frontal armor of relatively "new" Russian tanks, that is 80U and up. Will they provide some more modern ones?
Hardly. Germans don't have anything better to share, they seriously lack the DM63 due to budget cuts.
And still, the round was called ineffective by the Bundestag commission against the newly fielded Russkie tanks, and that does not apply the T-14 but rather 90A and 72B3/M
Will the Muricans provide M829A3? Perhaps, but who cares? These tanks will hardly get in contact range in another way than sodomized by incoming ATGMs anyway.

I always find it funny how people consider that the mighty west invented a wheel, while the magic&powerfull armor of M1, L2 or Ch2 are nothing else than a variation of BDD armor package Russkie invented and implemented already more than a decade earlier. Ignorance is always the most powerful fuel.