Yes, the the autoloader on early model T-64s had a habit of loading the tank-commander's arms into the gun breach, but that was solved on later tanks. The US never got the M-551 Sheridan's gun-launched anti-tank missile system to work properly either. Modern Russian equipment should be judged on its own merits.
Russian designs have generally improved since the fall of the Soviet Union, even if the ability of the Russian military to purchase new equipment hasn't. Comparing modern T-90 models with other Western tanks, it isn't so much a case of "Russian equipment is scrap metal" as "Russian equipment is inferior in certain ways, superior in others". I would hardly use the performance of Soviet equipment in the hands of Arab armies as a good example of their potential capability. For starters, most of the militaries that fought with such weapons were extremely incompetent, poorly led, poorly trained, and suffered from significant morale problems. I remember reading a quote by an officer who fought in the Gulf War that went something along the lines of how it wouldn't have mattered much if the Iraqi Army had the M-1s and the US military were the ones in the T-72s. Heck, often the Israelis and Egyptians were using the exact same vehicles. Aab armies employed imported Western tanks, such as modernized Shermans, Pattons, and Centurions, and the Israelis used captured Soviet-made tanks. The outcomes didn't differ all that much - it wasn't so much a matter of equipment in those early wars, as it was how inept the Arab armies tended to be. And furthermore, the tanks used by the various Arab armies were downgraded export versions, also known as "Monkey-Models", or poorly constructed indigenous knockoffs like the Iraqi Lion of Babylon tank, and their performance would have been significantly below that of the original designs. And like cunning_fish pointed out, by the time that many of these vehicles saw combat, such as during Desert Storm, they were obsolete. Saying that because the T-55 performed poorly in Desert Storm as proof that all Soviet or later Russian designed vehicles are garbage is a bit like saying that because the Sherman had a poor showing in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 when going up against more modern Vickers-Vijayanta MBTs, all American tanks must automatically belong on the scrapheap.
Now, for your specific example, both tanks are immune in the frontal arc to conventional anti-tank rounds from the other. They'll also be immune to each other's fire from sabot rounds, the M1A2 due to its DU armor layers and the lower quality Russian ammunition, the T-90MS due to its advanced ERA systems designed to disrupt incoming kinetic sabot projectiles (well, at least for the initial hit on an individual panel). Both tanks have roughly the same speed, though the M1A2 will have better acceleration. Both have modern fire-control systems, with fire on the move capability and are broadly comparable. The US system might, might be superior, but likely the differences are fairly small. The M1A2's fire control systems are 20 years old at this point, and unlike some newer Leopard 2 or Merkeva models, haven't seen any upgrades over the intervening years. Both main guns have comparable ranges with conventional munitions, though the T-90MSs gun-launched missiles do have a significant advantage here. The US Army never developed comparable weapons, though the Israelis did. And the M1A2 has no active defensive systems against incoming anti-tank missiles like the T-90MS does. Basically put, both tanks are fairly comparable, with different advantages. The T-90MS is lighter, cheaper, easier to maintain, and probably better suited to survive attacks by guided anti-tank missiles. The M1A2 has tougher armor all-round (though simply by dint of being almost ten ton heavier, one would expect it to be better protected), has better quality ammunition, faster acceleration (not that it comes without a price - the Abrams's turbine engine tends to have a much larger IR signature than a diesel powered tank), and better crew survivability, due to its automatic fire suppression system and superior ammunition storage system.
Overall, yes, I would say that the M1A2 is the superior tank. But there certainly is a significant difference between moderately worse in some areas, and being worthless.
I’ve only ever seen the Egyptians use Russian made tanks as they were a client state of the former U.S.S.R. What similar tanks are you talking about? In addition to buying Russian made crap you got the tactics and strategy that went with it and again when it came to that the Russkies stunk. In the old days Soviet soldiers weren’t taught how to read maps. The Russkies relied on a rigid central command system that eschewed individual initiative. Aside from some instances toward the end of the war the Germans would dig some of their tanks in the ‘’hull-down’’ position. In the old days this was standard Soviet tank doctrine. The Iraqis found out how stupid this was in 1991. The point about Russian tanks being crap appears to be lost on you and ‘’cunning fish’’ and forgive me for not stating it earlier is because up until 1991 Russian tanks were built by workers working in the ‘’workers paradise’’ i.e the unrewarding, soul-deadening , initiative-destroying oppressive police state that was the Soviet Union. Believe me I’ve read histories ad nauseum about drunken Russians and their ‘’the State pretends to pay us so we pretend to work’’. An atmosphere like that doesn’t produce good weapons.The Russians Army has not engaged in tank battles since WW2 so it remains to see how well they and their tanks would perform today. Of course one should never under estimate ones enemy but I stand by what I say and again I’ll tell no American soldier is going to want to go to war in a T-72 or T-90, count on it. Would you?