@TheCrazyJungleMan exactly, but you might think that i hate american people.I dont, i dont hate anyone.I feel sorry for them, because, like you said they are blind.I hate their leaders and politics.Wars are not led by a nation or its people, but by greedy politicans.
@TheCrazyJungleMan i dont know much about china, so i will stay neutral about them.What you say about russia attacking smaller countries it is true(chechen wars, georgia), but not as much as the USA.USA on the other hand, Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf war, Bosnian war, Kosovo war, Iraqi freedom(oh the irony) and currently lybia.USA is always getting into conflicts that are none of their bussiness and the only reason they are is for their own personal gain, not some freedom and democracy bullshit
@Talshet i am not dumb, im just not good in english.I know its not a country, i meant to say that there were millitary conflicts there.I was trying to point out that Russia has been through very little millitary conflicts after ww2, unlike the USA.
@TovarishMarko Russia was in Georgia, because georgian aggrosored russian people in ossetia and russia prevent this after long political debate with georgia.In chechnya are many terrorists they come to russia to terrorfy the country.
@Talshet i know that, and i support Russia for that.I am saying how USA attacks many countries because of their greedy leaders, unlike Russia.Russia never attacked, only if provoked, like in Georgia.
@TovarishMarko I dont know why you say Russia is like Usa. Usa attack only 3rd world countries for their oil spreading lies like they have weapons of massdestruction.Russia only defent his country or smaller countries who ask for help.
@Talshet I didnt say that.I said that Russia did attack a small country like Georgia, but not for the same greedy reasons as the USA (i dont know why i said chechnya, i should have said Russia had millitary conflicts there, i tried to say something like that but it sounds wrong when you read it, i type fast so i didnt notice).Like i said, Russia only attacks when provoked(defend themselves and attack back, like in WW2 for instance, and Georgia too).
@patsmoneymakinblog What you mean with Afghanistan? Russia in Afghanistan? Afghanistan goverment asked Russians for help to defeat the Mujaheddin, Mujaheddin and Taliban dont want that Afghanistan will raze they just want to rule Afghanistan no western technologies are allowed for civillians. Taliban and Mujaheddin want to control the whole country and this is why Afghan goverment asked for help, but the Afghan people fight about 2000 years long they know how to fight.Technology will never win.
The government of Afghanistan requested help from the Soviet Union, the Soviets did not agree to launch large scale military operations at first and only provided equipment, miltiary instructors, eventually agreed to deploy small number of forces and only when the situation was getting out of control did the Soviet Union agree to launch a full intervention.
Russia will never attack USA but USA will. Its in bad economical situation, and is capable to make agressive attacks on countries like libya, afganistan, korea, and probably soontime russia. Usa also has much larger army and more modern. Then only thing USA is fearing is the nuclear armament of russia. If they will attack us, they will fail because we still have the battle spirit and we never surrender. We also have some good fighters which are better than west's. War starts only if USA attacks.
@zzerDrezz i doubt USA would attack.USA only attacks smaller countries.It is not in their nature to attack someone of equal millitary strength.Altough, perhaps you are right, they are getting more desperate so who knows??
If America was to draft in a emergency wartime situation, how many soldiers could they prepare? A large percentage of the american population is over weight, it would take them months if not years to loose that weight at maximum effort. More importantly, when overweight recruits are rushed into basic training, how much of a toll will that strain take on their learning progress twords becoming an efficient modern soldier?
@Southern661 Americans would fight in their hometowns, large amounts of poorly shaped infantrymen would atleast stall the enemy untill better units would arrive for help. Russians are generally in better shape, although Russias military arsenall is getting outdated fast.
@SuperFinnish My hometown no fight in the woods kill patrols and weaken their supplies and the US Armed Forces would do the rest America has been invaded and all the times it was citizens ready themselves fought back and won,also not all Americans are overweight,and if stalling all i could do then we would do it.
is the tank in the modular built stlye like the German Leo2? if not, it sucks major balls.. u have all this great weapons but a simply ATM can screw it :) the leo can send 2 tank ahead to clean up other tanks give cover...
The Lopard 2 can eat this shit with ease.... the russian tanks always appear burned in vast quantities on all wars, WW2, korea, irak, afghanistan, etc etc etc. They have the only avantatdge of great production numbers, thats all
@konkvistador75 Read more you! hahahaa the Tigers in the battle of kursk destroyed an average of 23 T-34 for one Tiger lost. After the war the American logistic staff made a study with the conclusion that for the lost of a Panther tank in western europe the americans payed with the lost of 5 Shermans and in the east the russians lost an average of 7 T-34 for a Panther.... so the Russians smashed the germans only at a cost of brutal losses and thanks to mass production!!! of bad finishided tanks
@konkvistador75 Read more you! hahahaa the Tigers in the battle of kursk destroyed an average of 23 T-34 for one Tiger lost. After the war the American logistic staff made a study with the conclusion that for the lost of a Panther tank in western europe the americans payed with the lost of 5 Shermans and in the east the russians lost an average of 7 T-34 for a Panther.... so the Russians smashed the germans only at a cost of brutal losses and thanks to mass production!!!
@tonidmc I know mon....I was just trying to...what ever.
Yeah, Russia smashed Germany thanks to mass production and at the very end of war, Russian troopers became very strong. After Germany fell, Russia was the boss.
Is it me, or is there an arms race for boutique tanks? Ive noticed that South Korea, Germany and Russia (to name a few) are fielding some unbelievably sophisticated tanks. The US doesn't care because we focus on anti-tank weapons. Whoever owns the air owns the entire battlefield. These tanks aren't for fighting Americans, but are built to fight along the Russian borders (Georgia war, etc.)
Look at the description: 2000 T-90 in Service in 2011? It's nearly 2012, and the russian Army operates 578 T-90, 60 of them are T-90A ( Vladimir ) The others are upgraded T-72B's called T-90. Oh, and the T-95 will enter Service in 2009? Really? It's canceled, the russian Army will get the T-90AM instead, cause it's cheaper to upgrade the other T-90, then to buy a new Tank.
According to 2010 production close to 700, with around 400 T-90 and close to 300 T90A tanks, 60 is ridiculious figure, considering in last 3 years 200 T-90A tanks were produced.
Switch of priorities towards T-90M/AM was justified in my opinion, it is a modern design with modern features, this upgrade also fixes most if not all flaws of the T-90 and costs a fraction of the projected cost of the so called "T-95", which was rumoured to cost over 10 million USD.
@zzerDrezz Sometimes, being fat is not that bad... :-))) Jumping from the ramp isn't that big of advantage... Moreover, T-90 is doing it lousy. Unlike, T-80! Suspension and MTU are the problems of T-90 series. That makes it a good tank, but not superior to other.
@bittemeinrammstein Unfortunately, your information isn't correct: T-90 has T-72 chasis, suspension, engine family. Problem is that chasis can't stand any more weight increases, diezel is underpowered, has tendency of overheating. Please check on Internet.
@Alexander1068 - I am formerly tank service man. I think that I know better than you... Both T-80 and T-90 uses torsion bar suspensions. Check internet. ;)
Where is your basis for chassis? It is simply not true. In all of my years of service with tanks, and study of them, I never seen any evidence of overheating diesel engines. xD
@bittemeinrammstein I respect your experience and knowledge. Yes, both of them use torsion bar suspensions. However, they are different. Could you please read this armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/from64to80.php or t80leningrad.narod.ru/tank_t80_8.htm or tank-t-90.ru/index/tr_hod/0-68 They are different. And T-80's is obviously better. Thank you.
@Alexander1068 - Okay, let me say again, Torsion bar is torsion bar... Ride is more smooth from T-80 because Popov modified Morozov design. T-80 also have one major flaw that is turbine engine.
@bittemeinrammstein Popov is the great tank designer, unfortunately, underestimated. GTE is a big issue. However, there is 6TD diezel engines that could power this tank!
@zzerDrezz yeah a lot of people are fat, our obesity rate is 30%...but they don't let fat people into the army, that's a liability. MEPs is a bitch about that.
@zzerDrezz How did you reach to the conclusion that the Abrams can't jump from ramps?It's faster,so it probably can.Also,I don't see how jumping off ramps would be useful in actual combat,against you want to smash the tank onto infantry.As for the Bradley:It can't for the same reason the BMP-2 and the BMP-3 can't:They are NOT airborne.Vehicles such as the BMD-3 can,but the US is not interested in such vehicles.
As for the Apache:its agility and technology ensure its survivability
@gtamodman122 Abrams is very heavy, and i haven't seen it jumping. Russia makes maybe i'd say the worlds lightest tanks. About the bradley, I see it as the closest comparable to BMD. Sad for americans, but they don't have anything else to compare with. That is a huge advantage for russian military to have paradropable BMDs to cover infantry. KA-50 and KA-52 are slightly faster and more agile than apache.
@zzerDrezz the Abrams may be heavy.However,it has a much pore powerful engine.That's also why its overall top speed is higher.Russia makes light tanks with weak engines.These tanks could be reaching much greater speeds with let's say the Honeywell AGT-1500.
Regarding the M2,its actual counterpart is the BMP-2.The BMP-2 isn't airborne.But for a country like the US,paradroppable vehicles are practically useless.They didn't need them in Iraq or Afghanistan.
@gtamodman122 Heavy tank with POWERFULL gasoline engine. This is actually one of Abrams main weaknesses. Yes it gives it a perfect speed, at the same time increasing thermal signature and making easy target for ATGM. Though this is not the real problem, the real problem is HUGE gas consumtion. Abrams is so fuel thisrty it makes it a logistical nightmare in the event of large scale conflict.
@arcpeter The M1's engine is its only,if not one of its few, weakness(es).Its thermal signature is at the level it should be.But it's not the only easy target for ATGMs.Anything is in danger by ATGMs.However,considering that 1 Abrams is never sent alone,it shouldn't have any serious trouble.Its advanced electronics ensure its survivability at almost any environment.If you want protection,get the T-90.But if you seek efficiency,M1A2 or Leo 2A7 are the best choices.
@zzerDrezz as for the Apache,its agility is impressive for a conventional rotor helicopter.Even if it couldn't rely on its maneuverability to survive,its advanced electronics make it a big threat to the enemy.Flexible cannon with more than 1000 big fat 30mm destroyers,FFARs,8 Hellfires,4 Stingers,nothing comes close.It's nos surprise that the Ka-50/52 hasn't been yet exported.It's not a bad helicopter,but the Apache defeats it.
@zzerDrezz My ass fuck you Russian's still poor as hell what makes you hate us because you leader's said to,god damn get a life and quit posting shit that makes no sense when I think of an American I think me home cooked meals and skinny as hell without a diet,that's me,what are you wimpy and can't do shit but type shit on youtube AN AMERICAN OWNED WEDSITE!
@jacobwolf124 amerixca is the worst country of the world, and its one of the gretest one too, but zzerDrezz say it well , america will start the 3rd ww
T-90 HAS TO BE HEAVILY UPGRADED to counter western (especially those damn yanks) threats. Major armor upgrades (not just ERA) and design changes should be done, ammo reposition to the back of the turret with blast doors (ammo below the turret is extremely damgerous), new powerful engine with at least power to weight ratio of 27 bhp/t (~20 KW/t), new LONGER main gun (with at least 7,0 m barrel length), drastic improvement of autoloader to accept longer 125 mm rounds + faster rate of fire...
@brox114 Yes, T-90M will be the first step towards a powerful tank.But basically it already can counter any western tank in existence, the only tank that could take on the T-90A right now is the Merkava Mk 4.....And basically, the Germans made the Leopard 2 to counter the T-80 only O.o
Merkava Mk4 is a good tank, maybe a little superior to T-90. But, German Leo 2A6M (and now 2A7) is no doubt, the best mbt in the world. Unmatched armor protection, state-of-the-art tank digital management, astonishing accuracy on move...
You like it or not, but the best tank producers in the world are Germans and Russians (but Russians still rely on "quantity has it's quality")
@brox114 Leo 2 is the best all around tank, its pretty much good at everything. Though the T-90 and the Merk, being able to use ATGM's pretty much dominates over any other tank. Even if you have the best equipment you can never defeat a tank that fires at you from a very long range, as much armor as you got you cant survive many hits from them. They probably left the "quantity over quality" thing that USSR kept on doing,their concentrating on quality now,they cant even keep up numbers....
Corruption is the biggest problem in Russia. As I said, Russia has some of the best scientists and experts in all fields of military technology, but corruption and wrong strategy are countering that.
"Quality and reasonable quantity" is the best strategy for army "upgrade".
@brox114 Yeah,but even though their is corruption and wrong "strategies" divisions like Spetsnaz ALFA and GRU are pretty much wealthy in terms of equipment,im really wondering what happens to Russias money in the military O.o
Russia has too many generals that don't know sh*t about warfare and are only interested in filling their own pockets.
First Russian economy should expand, you should work on MARKETING, than military budget should increase TO MINIMUM 150 bln $ with further increasing.
I would start with changing weaponry, new intermediate cartridge developement (6,5-7,0 mm), new snipers, new assault rifles, and I would put out of service for ever all underpowered 5,45x39 weapons.
@brox114 Oh? And you have met these generals to exact your claim? If your so good,why arent you a general yourself? A little change on changing assault rifles can cost you millions of dollars. And why replace things that ARENT BROKEN? 5.45x39 is not under powered, shoot yourself with one and lets see if you can stand up again(are you just underestimating weapons?). As they always say, its easier to say it then put it into action.
I have read reports from expert views about condition in Russian army. Russian army should be "upgraded" to be world's most powerful military, not lacking behing usa.
5,45 is very accurate round (actually more accurate than 5,56), but it doesen't have enough kinetic energy stop enemy combatant like 7,62x39. 5,45 has small diameter and is too light.
@brox114 Remember, they call the 5.56 the "poisoned bullet" for a reason, and they abandoned the 7.62 for obvious reasons too. Upgraded to be the worlds most powerful military?Russia lacks many funds to actually defeat the USA, and USA is just an expensive military,it doesnt equate to being powerful(seriously it has 2x military budget than the whole EU combined) If Russia finishes drilling oil in Siberia we might be looking at a bright future for their military...
5,56 is weak bullet, with inadequate stoping power and inadequate penetration. 5,56 (US M193) is known to fragment at ranges up to 100m, but not more. Yes fragmentation causes big problems, but doesn't neccesarily "drop the enemy dead on sight". M855 has a only marginally better stoping power and less chance to fragment when hitting target; but little bit better penetration and accuracy.
7,62x39 is superior bullet (even Russian Spetsnaz prefer it over 5,45), but it lacks accuracy
@brox114 Talk to Spetsnaz and they would also say that 7.62 rounds pass through enemies pretty well. Just like a Sabot round against a motorized vehicle, it will pass through without doing damage(unless it stabs a person or part)=its useless. Basically, big rounds are overhyped, most of them now are being used for special purposes only(Russian sonic 9mm SP6 rounds and 12.7x108). 5.54 is enough to kill a person,drop in more and you would get a kill.The Spetsnaz w/ AK-74's won the Afghan war
7,62x39 M67 is better solution than M43. 5,45 and 5,56 are weak underpowered rounds with unadequate stopping power. 5,45 will also overpenetrate target (and 5,56 as well in some cases). Penetration of target with tumbling bullet is the best solution (it's better for enemies to have 2 holes than 1).
Also, level 3 body armor will stop 5,45 7N6 and 7N10 and 5,56 M193 and M855 at point blank, but 7,62x39 will go through even if fired from 100m.
@brox114 Yeah.It also depends on what the other side is using. The basic/standard round today is 5.56. Though as you say "underpowered" I dont really think so. It was obviously improved through time with its imperfections. Mosern 5.56 are lined with Tungsten Carbide, very strong in terms of penetration. I would trade the 7.62 for:
Can carry more ammo
Little recoil
Rifle weighs less
controllable at auto
ammo and gun cost less
flat trajectory
I would put more bullets than miss using strong ones
5,45 7N24 has also tungsten carbide core, both of those small caliber have too many flaws. No matter how much improvements 5,56 had (even 5,0 g Mk211 is underpowered and doesen't offer adequate stopping power), it couldn't offer kill on the first shot probability (well, if you shoot oponent in the head or heart than yes).
That's why I said about 6,5 mm Grendel being an outstanding round. Russians should develope smth similar ASAP.
@brox114 You dont actually need to kill someone instantly,its a very weird goal for a military to have.If you shoot a person with a 5.56 sometimes it will give you a kill,most of the time, if he survives he will NOT be able to remain at 100% strength. 5.56 rounds offer high internal damage,and slow and small enough to tumble and destroy tissue. If your still alive the chances are that your numb and bleeding/cant aim well/arm/leg disabled and pretty much screaming in your head
Significant internal damage (fragmentation) from 5,56 M855 occures at max 80-90m; and in only 60% of the cases at that range 5,56 fragments reliably. If shot from 200m with 5,56 - you have big chance to heal relatively quickly and continue fighting few weeks after. 7,62x39 and especially 6,5 Grendel have more than 80% chance to KILL on 200m distance.
So, 5,56 is already outdated round, even yanks are planing to replace it with much more powerful 6,8 Remington.
@brox114 Depends on how you define "outdated". Though I stand with the use of 5.56,though it has less killing power than those rounds youve mentioned,majority of its other features makes it very useful in the battlefield. The 7.62x39 round was NOT also good, it was already tested. It had relatively weak killing power where the 5.56 rounds are able to reach. It passed through tissue like a dart before it could cause much tissue damage. The 5.56 was the same and in longer ranges sucked..
7,62x39 round has superior killing power at any range when compered to 5,56x45, but it's inaccurate and has too low speed. Yes, it's true about big penetration because M43 7,62 rounds have mild steel core; but M67 was improvement.
5,56 does not penetrate so good like older 7,62 at any range.
So, to conclude - 5,45x39, 5,56x45 and 7,62x39 should be replaced by newer and more powerful rounds.
@brox114 advanced rounds are pretty expensive, and were talking about alot of soldiers here. Some weapons that wield the Russian 9mm SP subsonic rounds are extremely deadly but expensive and not even mass produced..Russia is able to give better ammo but they need time to come up with an effective round.
9x39 is very good round; but only at closer ranges to max 200-250 m.
Developing new round isn't so hard; even I have my own drawings for new assault rifle round and new assault rifle as well; and not only for AR round but for pistol round also. I might contact Russian goverment to see what they would say about that.
The reason they are expensive is because it is not mass produced. If that ammo was not made in a series run of lets say 200 000 rounds, but several dozen million rounds, the price would drop as a result of mass production.
The only reasons why Soviet army early 70's passed to 5,45 mm assault rifles is in fact that 7,62x39 lacked accuracy, speed, and was more difficult to control (kickback) especially on full auto.
I didn't said that 5,45 and 5,56 couldn't kill a person, but in most cases when being hit by those rounds, enemy combatant could still offer resistance for a while; larger rounds are known to create hydrostatic shock and faster disabling of target. Optimal stopping power is crutial.
Also, the worst idea would be if Russian army "passes" to 5,56 bullet.
Thats why Russian army needs bullet for assault rifles like 6,5 mm Grendel. It is an outstanding bullet. Trust me, 5,45 and 5,56 are not good. Why?
I already explained why; plus, those days enemy combatants are not stopped by being wounded or put out of condition (ask any of Russian spetsnaz using 5,45 weaponry about that, and they'll answer you the same - that also goes for 5,56). 7,62x39 only lacks accuracy and speed
@TheVanezi Any proof that it actually lost against them? What will M1A2,Leopard 2A7 and Challenger 2 do if their being hit by an ATGM 8km away? almost 4x the range of what they can reach. They may be better, but a simple type of ammo can still change the tide of war. Not to mention all of those tanks NEVER faced a real T-72,only against shit Chinese Type 69's, T-54/55 and T-72 downgraded "Asad Babils"
@999cheetos999 8km is a rare distance, i dont know any places in europe where there would be 8km of ground without any hills, or other obstacles, T-90 has weaker armour than the western tanks, no matter if those tanks have ever faced "real" tanks in combat, T-90 would lose, and russia has only 300 T-90's USA has over 4,000 M1A2 tanks, Germany has about 400 Leopard 2a6/7 tanks, and Britain has 400 Challenger 2 tanks, they would win in quantity & quality. and T-90 has never faced a tank in combat.
@TheVanezi Number doesnt equate to being better, get that straight, and the Leopard 2A6 was built to counter the T-80BV. I am aware of theatre terrain. T-90 doesnt have any "weaker" armor,they basically have the same base armor with the Leopard 2A6 "Wolframium Carbide",second toughest material on earth. But the main protection of the T-90 comes from its ERA armor ,Shtora,and Nadika=disabling target/range finders. And its not only a "tank war" I would take a single SU-25 and 4000 M1's are useless
@999cheetos999 Yes and it would take a single Stinger manpad and the SU-25 is useless... US A-10's, AH-64's and other aircraft would destroy their russian counterparts & russian tanks
@TheVanezi Yes, also remember to not underestimate a manpad. A Russian outdated Strela-2 took down an AC-130 after all. Not sure, the A-10 carries alot of stuff,but the SU-25 has moderate payload,heavier armor, and known to have better aerodynamics and handling(Its Sukhoi anyway). We already know that the AH-64 is outdated,computers are the ONLY thing that keeps US hardware alive. T-90's can also take helicopters down(ATGM)and disables any homing missile/laser/targetting system that goes near it
@999cheetos999 Yeah, lets just agree, if there ever will be a traditional war between NATO and Russia, we will just have to see who does better, and not argue on the internet :)
Look at the memoirs of CIA operatives in Afghanistan...they will tell you most of the stingers missed, and it mainly had a psychological effect on keeping SU-25s high (decreased bombing accuracy).
The problem you have is your approach is simmilar to the Germans (we are betterz than them, slav untermench!) and you would get your ass handed to you on a platter the same way the germans did in 1944.
The USA has less then 3300 M1s TOTAL. The rest was sold abroad (australia, Egypt, Saudi...) Of those a great many are in depots awaiting repair from wear and tear of operations in Iraq. Look it up. Also "not faced a tank in combat" well M1s, challies or L2s have never faced a tank that was not 35+ years old. If you took a pershing and put it up against a T-72, the Ts would wipe the floor with you too.
@999cheetos999 also the 9M119 Svir that the T-90 uses, has a range of 4-6km, not 8km, Challenger 2 can shoot HESH rounds up to 8km, which is longer than that.
@TheVanezi Nope, HESH Rounds are weak in those ranges. Sure they could launch it, but compared to APFSDS rounds, they CAN NEVER PENETRATE heavy armor. HESH are mainly used for destroying buildings and light armor targets. They were good against very old T-54's but today they are basically support rounds. Not to mention ATGM's have mentained m/v and doesnt lose penetrating power over distances until they run out of propellant
You seriously are deluded. A HESH round fired by a Challenger 2 at a range of 2km against another Challanger 2 (FF incident in Iraq) resulted in the Chally that was hit burning for several hours. It was repaired and returned to service, but ti was knocked out/destroyed for all practical purposes.
@52111centrumcz Yeah sure, especially if the HESH round hit the BACK of the tank. Because all Challengers were facing one direction. idiot. Also, I could burn a Challenger 2 by throwing a molotov cocktail on the engines(Afghans easily knock-out Abrams with molotovs you know). If a sabot round hit that Challenger from behind it would INSTANTLY explode...unless it has ERA to give it a second chance. See, even an RPG-29 penetrated the frontal arch armor of the Challenger 2
The Chally as far as I know what hit on the right top side of the turret, not the rear. Also, unless it hit ammunition (which in the chally is NOT in the turret, but under it in the body) then it would not explode...because there would be no explosives there.
@52111centrumcz A penetrator has almost unpredictable pathway(also,many factors that can set rounds off),but yeah, it is mostly aimed on ammunition. Also I said "IF the sabot round hit the rear" and am comparing it to a HESH round which takes time to work.
My understaing is that the HESH works by making a "Pat"of plastic explosive on tank and detonating it, which is supposed to cause spalling on the inside of the vehicle armor. As such anti-spalling liners might help somewhat, but I am not sure how much they help and how much composites affect the way HESH works. Against soviet composite/steel mix on the T-62 the HESH the L7 armed centurions in Isreali service got pretty decent kill ratio in the Yom Kippur war.
@52111centrumcz Im not saying that HESH rounds are ineffective/shitty, im just saying that there are more effective rounds that dominate tank warfare today, mainly HEAT and APFSDS rounds. The T-55's and 62's dominated that war until Pattons came and that the Israelis concentrated on aerial>tanks. The HESH rounds are good that time, but today,with the advancement of armor..they cant do much
Ah found it! "A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident on 25 March 2003 in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment.
The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret that caused an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank and killing two crew members."
Why longer rounds? modern russian tungsten and DU rounds can blast through the frontal armor of M1 at 1500m+ range, so there is no need for new longer rods. Also longer rods doesn't mean necessarily better penetration, as US is also fielding shorter sabots that have superior penetration to older longer rounds.
Not only longer rods, but longer case to accept more powder should be introduced to replace older rounds (especially old "Vant" apfsds from 1985 which is the most common). Even the new 3BM-48 with penetration of ~790 mm cannot defeat most modern tanks (except in case of side hit or hit at weak spot).
Longer rod (assuming same material and same diameter) will penetrate deeper; and in combination with longer case even more.
3BM-46 are reported to have a penetration of 600mm RHA at 2000 meters. If they find out the new self-sharpening shape that the Germans are using on their tungsten sabots, it may improve. Btw, the german DM-63 has only 580mm RHA at straight face hit at 2000 meters, lower than the Russian round. The only one that is much superior is the American M829A3 with 680mm RHA at 2000 meters.
Nowhere to hide....................it's like death. Sure(not probably) is the most deadly tank what ever seen the mankind. "Vladimir" is best nickname for this machine.
Message: Don't fuck with this!
Great nation Russia,deserve what is the best.LIVE RUSSIA, ura,ura,ura!
@CE3EHbKA Ну конечно модификация. Абрамс-то с 1980 года тоже модернизировался и ни один раз, но они-то модернизировали вкладывая огромные деньги, а у нас что? Вот тут и возникает вопрос, а куда вваливают деньги на гособоронзаказ??? Вот откуда этот "пиздец" идёт. Кому выгодно опустить военную промышленность ниже табуретки??? Да и не только военпром!!!
@CE3EHbKA Полностью с Вами согласен - танков маловато, но так просто тоже не следует охаивать Т90, недостатки несомненно есть, но и достоинств не мало. То что российские олухи закупают на стороне вертолетоносцы за 1,1 миллиард евро вместо того, чтобы вложить эти деньги в развитие того же авианесущего флота, тут уж ничего не поделаешь, но российские разработки не отстают от американских, вот я о чем хотел сказать. Проблема в финансировании. Индия же закупила Т90, там-то тоже не идиоты сидят.
@CE3EHbKA Да! И ещё: все натовские образцы от нашего "Корнета" горят как свечки, а Т90 имеет возможность "прищучить" такой заряд на подлете, ну и самое веское: ракетное вооружение Т72, Т80 и Т90 имеет прицельную дальность а поражением 98% в 5 км. Прицельная дальность "Абрамса" при нормальных погодных и боевых условиях - 3,9 км. А если в бою, при движении, в дождь, снег. Заведется ли "Абрамс" при 40 ниже нуля???
@mrkukara4 Я не танкист, но здесь же на Ю-Тубе есть мнения людей, которые поучаствовали на танках и говорят, что на 72-ойках и 80-ах воевать можно и даже прямое попадание РПГ - 29 выдерживают. Кому верить?! Хотя я склонен к тому, что всё что произведено человеком, может человеком быть и уничтожено.
@CE3EHbKA Ну для начала: Т 90 почти на 20 тонн легче любого натовского образца и на 60 см ниже. Может он и уступает в электронной начинке, но это поправляемо, а вот то что их маловато для такой страны как Россия в этом я с Вами полностью согласен. Поменьше бы генералы себе дач строили может и на танки бы хватило!!!
@carbon0HUN: Today, you can't hide Military Arnament, believe me. About 70% of US Soldiers have Facebook or other things, if the Russian's have a new Tank, or something else, about hundredthousand Soldiers would know it, also the T-90 is build by Uralwagonsawod, they need to know it. Actually the russian Army have 516 T-90 in Service.
@TankNutJohn89 actually you think that..., what about those tons of guns, ammo, and military hardware what s the us,russia,uk.china trading with, in africa and other places.in russia. and eastern europe the old soviet military bases is full with those kind of stuffs..and nobody knows what kind of things in those..i know it, in hungary i been in an old soviet air base i saw about 15 mi-24s and they are in good shape..but the hungarian army dont use it..maybe 516 in sercvice,but thats not all.
@carbon0HUN: Sony said they have sold 50 Million of the PlayStation 3. And you'll tell me that USA & Europe have about 70 Million PS3's.... do you notice something?
Look we have cops scurrying like rats here, because when the Soviet army left in 1989 from Czech republic they left some burried arms caches. Now, the cops found some of them and are extremely worried...they asked the Russian army how many weapons they left behind. The Russkies said about 150 thousand AKs. The cops have only found 35 thousand AKs so far, and many caches were empty. Makes you wonder where they went.
@Jochald Leopard 2a5 is better too, Challenger 2 is better, M1A2 is better.... T-90 is a good tank too, it has good firing systems & optics, and shtora-1 is a good system.
Six Feet Under - "Seed of Filth"
kosdity 1 week ago
0:48 woppa xD
Miketheboywonder 2 months ago 13
Rusia svjetska sila broj 1.
tobutskisoko1 2 months ago
Awsome tank...
What is the music called ?
konkvistador75 2 months ago
The two frnt lights creep the shit out of me
Fernando39986 3 months ago
thumbs up if you muted it
USApowerMAN16 3 months ago
@USApowerMAN16 no dude, although I can't hear what exactly the vocalist say, still great music behind him
sanadanosa 1 month ago
Damn, the T-90 has such style and class to it.
Fuck the american tanks, this is THE SHIT right here, man.
No contest.
sharkfrenzy213 3 months ago in playlist More videos from bittemeinrammstein
This has been flagged as spam show
whats the name of the song?
jpoliva1993 4 months ago
@TheCrazyJungleMan exactly, but you might think that i hate american people.I dont, i dont hate anyone.I feel sorry for them, because, like you said they are blind.I hate their leaders and politics.Wars are not led by a nation or its people, but by greedy politicans.
TovarishMarko 4 months ago
@TheCrazyJungleMan i dont know much about china, so i will stay neutral about them.What you say about russia attacking smaller countries it is true(chechen wars, georgia), but not as much as the USA.USA on the other hand, Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf war, Bosnian war, Kosovo war, Iraqi freedom(oh the irony) and currently lybia.USA is always getting into conflicts that are none of their bussiness and the only reason they are is for their own personal gain, not some freedom and democracy bullshit
TovarishMarko 4 months ago
@TovarishMarko Are you dumb or something? chechen region belong to russia.
Talshet 4 months ago
@Talshet i am not dumb, im just not good in english.I know its not a country, i meant to say that there were millitary conflicts there.I was trying to point out that Russia has been through very little millitary conflicts after ww2, unlike the USA.
TovarishMarko 4 months ago
@TovarishMarko Russia was in Georgia, because georgian aggrosored russian people in ossetia and russia prevent this after long political debate with georgia.In chechnya are many terrorists they come to russia to terrorfy the country.
Talshet 4 months ago
@Talshet i know that, and i support Russia for that.I am saying how USA attacks many countries because of their greedy leaders, unlike Russia.Russia never attacked, only if provoked, like in Georgia.
TovarishMarko 4 months ago
@TovarishMarko I dont know why you say Russia is like Usa. Usa attack only 3rd world countries for their oil spreading lies like they have weapons of massdestruction.Russia only defent his country or smaller countries who ask for help.
Talshet 4 months ago
@Talshet I didnt say that.I said that Russia did attack a small country like Georgia, but not for the same greedy reasons as the USA (i dont know why i said chechnya, i should have said Russia had millitary conflicts there, i tried to say something like that but it sounds wrong when you read it, i type fast so i didnt notice).Like i said, Russia only attacks when provoked(defend themselves and attack back, like in WW2 for instance, and Georgia too).
TovarishMarko 4 months ago
@Talshet
What about afghanastan?
patsmoneymakinblog 3 months ago
@patsmoneymakinblog What you mean with Afghanistan? Russia in Afghanistan? Afghanistan goverment asked Russians for help to defeat the Mujaheddin, Mujaheddin and Taliban dont want that Afghanistan will raze they just want to rule Afghanistan no western technologies are allowed for civillians. Taliban and Mujaheddin want to control the whole country and this is why Afghan goverment asked for help, but the Afghan people fight about 2000 years long they know how to fight.Technology will never win.
Talshet 3 months ago
@Talshet
Soviet Union, not Russia, big difference.
vtkrey 3 months ago
The government of Afghanistan requested help from the Soviet Union, the Soviets did not agree to launch large scale military operations at first and only provided equipment, miltiary instructors, eventually agreed to deploy small number of forces and only when the situation was getting out of control did the Soviet Union agree to launch a full intervention.
vtkrey 3 months ago
Russia will never attack USA but USA will. Its in bad economical situation, and is capable to make agressive attacks on countries like libya, afganistan, korea, and probably soontime russia. Usa also has much larger army and more modern. Then only thing USA is fearing is the nuclear armament of russia. If they will attack us, they will fail because we still have the battle spirit and we never surrender. We also have some good fighters which are better than west's. War starts only if USA attacks.
zzerDrezz 5 months ago
@zzerDrezz i doubt USA would attack.USA only attacks smaller countries.It is not in their nature to attack someone of equal millitary strength.Altough, perhaps you are right, they are getting more desperate so who knows??
TovarishMarko 4 months ago
If America was to draft in a emergency wartime situation, how many soldiers could they prepare? A large percentage of the american population is over weight, it would take them months if not years to loose that weight at maximum effort. More importantly, when overweight recruits are rushed into basic training, how much of a toll will that strain take on their learning progress twords becoming an efficient modern soldier?
Southern661 5 months ago
@Southern661 Americans would fight in their hometowns, large amounts of poorly shaped infantrymen would atleast stall the enemy untill better units would arrive for help. Russians are generally in better shape, although Russias military arsenall is getting outdated fast.
SuperFinnish 5 months ago
@SuperFinnish My hometown no fight in the woods kill patrols and weaken their supplies and the US Armed Forces would do the rest America has been invaded and all the times it was citizens ready themselves fought back and won,also not all Americans are overweight,and if stalling all i could do then we would do it.
jacobwolf124 5 months ago
Good to see human ingenuity and intellectual passion narrowed into constructs of its own demise.
freshbreaks1 5 months ago
@freshbreaks1 One of the few wise people in Youtube xD
MrNaffifire 4 months ago
Awsome tank. 64 ton giant is jumping like a Monster Truck. High-techs, modern fighter.
By the way, ...music name anyone ... ?
konkvistador75 5 months ago
is the tank in the modular built stlye like the German Leo2? if not, it sucks major balls.. u have all this great weapons but a simply ATM can screw it :) the leo can send 2 tank ahead to clean up other tanks give cover...
oXbOxr00X 5 months ago
The Lopard 2 can eat this shit with ease.... the russian tanks always appear burned in vast quantities on all wars, WW2, korea, irak, afghanistan, etc etc etc. They have the only avantatdge of great production numbers, thats all
tonidmc 6 months ago
@tonidmc Read more. T34 was the one who kicked Tiger's asses in WW2 and conquered europe. It was the stronges tank in the world.
konkvistador75 5 months ago
@konkvistador75 Read more you! hahahaa the Tigers in the battle of kursk destroyed an average of 23 T-34 for one Tiger lost. After the war the American logistic staff made a study with the conclusion that for the lost of a Panther tank in western europe the americans payed with the lost of 5 Shermans and in the east the russians lost an average of 7 T-34 for a Panther.... so the Russians smashed the germans only at a cost of brutal losses and thanks to mass production!!! of bad finishided tanks
tonidmc 5 months ago
@konkvistador75 Read more you! hahahaa the Tigers in the battle of kursk destroyed an average of 23 T-34 for one Tiger lost. After the war the American logistic staff made a study with the conclusion that for the lost of a Panther tank in western europe the americans payed with the lost of 5 Shermans and in the east the russians lost an average of 7 T-34 for a Panther.... so the Russians smashed the germans only at a cost of brutal losses and thanks to mass production!!!
tonidmc 5 months ago
@tonidmc I know mon....I was just trying to...what ever.
Yeah, Russia smashed Germany thanks to mass production and at the very end of war, Russian troopers became very strong. After Germany fell, Russia was the boss.
konkvistador75 5 months ago
The noise coming from the audio sounds like some guy having trouble taking a shit.
Rooster1Cogburn 6 months ago
greetings from the phil
juanpauloputin 6 months ago
WHAT'S the the BAND NAME ?
KPNLFC 6 months ago
Is it me, or is there an arms race for boutique tanks? Ive noticed that South Korea, Germany and Russia (to name a few) are fielding some unbelievably sophisticated tanks. The US doesn't care because we focus on anti-tank weapons. Whoever owns the air owns the entire battlefield. These tanks aren't for fighting Americans, but are built to fight along the Russian borders (Georgia war, etc.)
eric22rr 6 months ago
Target practice for western tanks......thats all u need to know about this tank .
ViciousCritique 6 months ago
one of the few things of Russia, that i don't just respect, but actually fear :p
GrenMoyo 6 months ago
Look at the description: 2000 T-90 in Service in 2011? It's nearly 2012, and the russian Army operates 578 T-90, 60 of them are T-90A ( Vladimir ) The others are upgraded T-72B's called T-90. Oh, and the T-95 will enter Service in 2009? Really? It's canceled, the russian Army will get the T-90AM instead, cause it's cheaper to upgrade the other T-90, then to buy a new Tank.
TankNutJohn89 6 months ago
@TankNutJohn89
According to 2010 production close to 700, with around 400 T-90 and close to 300 T90A tanks, 60 is ridiculious figure, considering in last 3 years 200 T-90A tanks were produced.
vtkrey 6 months ago
@TankNutJohn89
Switch of priorities towards T-90M/AM was justified in my opinion, it is a modern design with modern features, this upgrade also fixes most if not all flaws of the T-90 and costs a fraction of the projected cost of the so called "T-95", which was rumoured to cost over 10 million USD.
vtkrey 6 months ago
@TankNutJohn89
Author of video also made mistake about the 2 T-90 tanks being deployed to Georgia, no such thing happened.
vtkrey 6 months ago
@TankNutJohn89
T-90 tanks did however take part in the conflict in Dagestan, which was infact the tanks first and only combat operation.
vtkrey 6 months ago
Why the fuck comments here are on the Assault rifle rounds pissing contest while it's a video about a T90, A fucking TANK
PATRONSKiii 7 months ago
can abrams make a jump from a ramp?
-no, cuz its too fat.
can bradley paradrop from the sky?
-no, cuz its too fat.
can apache reach max speed of 350km/h?
-no, cuz its too fat.
AMERICANS ARE FAT, AND THAT'S A FACT!!!
zzerDrezz 7 months ago 65
@zzerDrezz Sometimes, being fat is not that bad... :-))) Jumping from the ramp isn't that big of advantage... Moreover, T-90 is doing it lousy. Unlike, T-80! Suspension and MTU are the problems of T-90 series. That makes it a good tank, but not superior to other.
Alexander1068 7 months ago
@Alexander1068 - Where is suspensions problem for T-90? He use same ones as T-80. MTU? You are talking the portable bridge vehicle?
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein Unfortunately, your information isn't correct: T-90 has T-72 chasis, suspension, engine family. Problem is that chasis can't stand any more weight increases, diezel is underpowered, has tendency of overheating. Please check on Internet.
Alexander1068 7 months ago
@Alexander1068 - I am formerly tank service man. I think that I know better than you... Both T-80 and T-90 uses torsion bar suspensions. Check internet. ;)
Where is your basis for chassis? It is simply not true. In all of my years of service with tanks, and study of them, I never seen any evidence of overheating diesel engines. xD
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein I respect your experience and knowledge. Yes, both of them use torsion bar suspensions. However, they are different. Could you please read this armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/from64to80.php or t80leningrad.narod.ru/tank_t80_8.htm or tank-t-90.ru/index/tr_hod/0-68 They are different. And T-80's is obviously better. Thank you.
Alexander1068 7 months ago
@Alexander1068 - Okay, let me say again, Torsion bar is torsion bar... Ride is more smooth from T-80 because Popov modified Morozov design. T-80 also have one major flaw that is turbine engine.
bittemeinrammstein 7 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein Popov is the great tank designer, unfortunately, underestimated. GTE is a big issue. However, there is 6TD diezel engines that could power this tank!
Alexander1068 7 months ago
@zzerDrezz: Im pretty sure im not fat. You Russians are Weak, meet me in Alsworth if you want a little War, kid.
TankNutJohn89 7 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 alsworth, what the fuck is that anyway?
zzerDrezz 7 months ago
@zzerDrezz: You don't know Port Alsworth? It's in Alaska, Google it up.
TankNutJohn89 7 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 okay, so you want me to fly half of the planet earth... just to have a fight? isn't that fuckin' dumb?
zzerDrezz 7 months ago
@zzerDrezz: Why not? If you d'nt you're dumb, if you came here, you are too. Your Decision.
TankNutJohn89 7 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 lol wtf?
zzerDrezz 7 months ago
@zzerDrezz I'm from Algeria and, "GOD BLESS RUSSIA"
mohkiller69 6 months ago 10
@zzerDrezz yeah a lot of people are fat, our obesity rate is 30%...but they don't let fat people into the army, that's a liability. MEPs is a bitch about that.
GrenMoyo 6 months ago
@zzerDrezz How did you reach to the conclusion that the Abrams can't jump from ramps?It's faster,so it probably can.Also,I don't see how jumping off ramps would be useful in actual combat,against you want to smash the tank onto infantry.As for the Bradley:It can't for the same reason the BMP-2 and the BMP-3 can't:They are NOT airborne.Vehicles such as the BMD-3 can,but the US is not interested in such vehicles.
As for the Apache:its agility and technology ensure its survivability
gtamodman122 6 months ago
@gtamodman122 Abrams is very heavy, and i haven't seen it jumping. Russia makes maybe i'd say the worlds lightest tanks. About the bradley, I see it as the closest comparable to BMD. Sad for americans, but they don't have anything else to compare with. That is a huge advantage for russian military to have paradropable BMDs to cover infantry. KA-50 and KA-52 are slightly faster and more agile than apache.
zzerDrezz 6 months ago
@zzerDrezz the Abrams may be heavy.However,it has a much pore powerful engine.That's also why its overall top speed is higher.Russia makes light tanks with weak engines.These tanks could be reaching much greater speeds with let's say the Honeywell AGT-1500.
Regarding the M2,its actual counterpart is the BMP-2.The BMP-2 isn't airborne.But for a country like the US,paradroppable vehicles are practically useless.They didn't need them in Iraq or Afghanistan.
gtamodman122 6 months ago
@gtamodman122 Heavy tank with POWERFULL gasoline engine. This is actually one of Abrams main weaknesses. Yes it gives it a perfect speed, at the same time increasing thermal signature and making easy target for ATGM. Though this is not the real problem, the real problem is HUGE gas consumtion. Abrams is so fuel thisrty it makes it a logistical nightmare in the event of large scale conflict.
Those russian tanks are economical and practical.
arcpeter 6 months ago
@arcpeter The M1's engine is its only,if not one of its few, weakness(es).Its thermal signature is at the level it should be.But it's not the only easy target for ATGMs.Anything is in danger by ATGMs.However,considering that 1 Abrams is never sent alone,it shouldn't have any serious trouble.Its advanced electronics ensure its survivability at almost any environment.If you want protection,get the T-90.But if you seek efficiency,M1A2 or Leo 2A7 are the best choices.
gtamodman122 6 months ago
@zzerDrezz as for the Apache,its agility is impressive for a conventional rotor helicopter.Even if it couldn't rely on its maneuverability to survive,its advanced electronics make it a big threat to the enemy.Flexible cannon with more than 1000 big fat 30mm destroyers,FFARs,8 Hellfires,4 Stingers,nothing comes close.It's nos surprise that the Ka-50/52 hasn't been yet exported.It's not a bad helicopter,but the Apache defeats it.
gtamodman122 6 months ago
@gtamodman122 well, I wouldn't say so :)
zzerDrezz 6 months ago
@zzerDrezz My ass fuck you Russian's still poor as hell what makes you hate us because you leader's said to,god damn get a life and quit posting shit that makes no sense when I think of an American I think me home cooked meals and skinny as hell without a diet,that's me,what are you wimpy and can't do shit but type shit on youtube AN AMERICAN OWNED WEDSITE!
jacobwolf124 5 months ago
@jacobwolf124 sorry too long, im lazy to read this shit.
zzerDrezz 5 months ago
@jacobwolf124
what did he hurt your feelings ???
boudiSVK 5 months ago in playlist Viac videí od používateľa bittemeinrammstein
@boudiSVK Nope,Just have to stand up for my nation and her people when it's called for.
jacobwolf124 5 months ago
@jacobwolf124 amerixca is the worst country of the world, and its one of the gretest one too, but zzerDrezz say it well , america will start the 3rd ww
at9670 5 months ago
This video made my balls drop O.O
HeadShot50xp 7 months ago 19
abrams suxx, ahahaaa XD
xschweinable 7 months ago
T-90 HAS TO BE HEAVILY UPGRADED to counter western (especially those damn yanks) threats. Major armor upgrades (not just ERA) and design changes should be done, ammo reposition to the back of the turret with blast doors (ammo below the turret is extremely damgerous), new powerful engine with at least power to weight ratio of 27 bhp/t (~20 KW/t), new LONGER main gun (with at least 7,0 m barrel length), drastic improvement of autoloader to accept longer 125 mm rounds + faster rate of fire...
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 Yes, T-90M will be the first step towards a powerful tank.But basically it already can counter any western tank in existence, the only tank that could take on the T-90A right now is the Merkava Mk 4.....And basically, the Germans made the Leopard 2 to counter the T-80 only O.o
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
Merkava Mk4 is a good tank, maybe a little superior to T-90. But, German Leo 2A6M (and now 2A7) is no doubt, the best mbt in the world. Unmatched armor protection, state-of-the-art tank digital management, astonishing accuracy on move...
You like it or not, but the best tank producers in the world are Germans and Russians (but Russians still rely on "quantity has it's quality")
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 Leo 2 is the best all around tank, its pretty much good at everything. Though the T-90 and the Merk, being able to use ATGM's pretty much dominates over any other tank. Even if you have the best equipment you can never defeat a tank that fires at you from a very long range, as much armor as you got you cant survive many hits from them. They probably left the "quantity over quality" thing that USSR kept on doing,their concentrating on quality now,they cant even keep up numbers....
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
Corruption is the biggest problem in Russia. As I said, Russia has some of the best scientists and experts in all fields of military technology, but corruption and wrong strategy are countering that.
"Quality and reasonable quantity" is the best strategy for army "upgrade".
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 Yeah,but even though their is corruption and wrong "strategies" divisions like Spetsnaz ALFA and GRU are pretty much wealthy in terms of equipment,im really wondering what happens to Russias money in the military O.o
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
Russia has too many generals that don't know sh*t about warfare and are only interested in filling their own pockets.
First Russian economy should expand, you should work on MARKETING, than military budget should increase TO MINIMUM 150 bln $ with further increasing.
I would start with changing weaponry, new intermediate cartridge developement (6,5-7,0 mm), new snipers, new assault rifles, and I would put out of service for ever all underpowered 5,45x39 weapons.
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 Oh? And you have met these generals to exact your claim? If your so good,why arent you a general yourself? A little change on changing assault rifles can cost you millions of dollars. And why replace things that ARENT BROKEN? 5.45x39 is not under powered, shoot yourself with one and lets see if you can stand up again(are you just underestimating weapons?). As they always say, its easier to say it then put it into action.
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
I have read reports from expert views about condition in Russian army. Russian army should be "upgraded" to be world's most powerful military, not lacking behing usa.
5,45 is very accurate round (actually more accurate than 5,56), but it doesen't have enough kinetic energy stop enemy combatant like 7,62x39. 5,45 has small diameter and is too light.
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 Remember, they call the 5.56 the "poisoned bullet" for a reason, and they abandoned the 7.62 for obvious reasons too. Upgraded to be the worlds most powerful military?Russia lacks many funds to actually defeat the USA, and USA is just an expensive military,it doesnt equate to being powerful(seriously it has 2x military budget than the whole EU combined) If Russia finishes drilling oil in Siberia we might be looking at a bright future for their military...
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
5,56 is weak bullet, with inadequate stoping power and inadequate penetration. 5,56 (US M193) is known to fragment at ranges up to 100m, but not more. Yes fragmentation causes big problems, but doesn't neccesarily "drop the enemy dead on sight". M855 has a only marginally better stoping power and less chance to fragment when hitting target; but little bit better penetration and accuracy.
7,62x39 is superior bullet (even Russian Spetsnaz prefer it over 5,45), but it lacks accuracy
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 Talk to Spetsnaz and they would also say that 7.62 rounds pass through enemies pretty well. Just like a Sabot round against a motorized vehicle, it will pass through without doing damage(unless it stabs a person or part)=its useless. Basically, big rounds are overhyped, most of them now are being used for special purposes only(Russian sonic 9mm SP6 rounds and 12.7x108). 5.54 is enough to kill a person,drop in more and you would get a kill.The Spetsnaz w/ AK-74's won the Afghan war
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
7,62x39 M67 is better solution than M43. 5,45 and 5,56 are weak underpowered rounds with unadequate stopping power. 5,45 will also overpenetrate target (and 5,56 as well in some cases). Penetration of target with tumbling bullet is the best solution (it's better for enemies to have 2 holes than 1).
Also, level 3 body armor will stop 5,45 7N6 and 7N10 and 5,56 M193 and M855 at point blank, but 7,62x39 will go through even if fired from 100m.
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 Yeah.It also depends on what the other side is using. The basic/standard round today is 5.56. Though as you say "underpowered" I dont really think so. It was obviously improved through time with its imperfections. Mosern 5.56 are lined with Tungsten Carbide, very strong in terms of penetration. I would trade the 7.62 for:
Can carry more ammo
Little recoil
Rifle weighs less
controllable at auto
ammo and gun cost less
flat trajectory
I would put more bullets than miss using strong ones
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
5,45 7N24 has also tungsten carbide core, both of those small caliber have too many flaws. No matter how much improvements 5,56 had (even 5,0 g Mk211 is underpowered and doesen't offer adequate stopping power), it couldn't offer kill on the first shot probability (well, if you shoot oponent in the head or heart than yes).
That's why I said about 6,5 mm Grendel being an outstanding round. Russians should develope smth similar ASAP.
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 You dont actually need to kill someone instantly,its a very weird goal for a military to have.If you shoot a person with a 5.56 sometimes it will give you a kill,most of the time, if he survives he will NOT be able to remain at 100% strength. 5.56 rounds offer high internal damage,and slow and small enough to tumble and destroy tissue. If your still alive the chances are that your numb and bleeding/cant aim well/arm/leg disabled and pretty much screaming in your head
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
Significant internal damage (fragmentation) from 5,56 M855 occures at max 80-90m; and in only 60% of the cases at that range 5,56 fragments reliably. If shot from 200m with 5,56 - you have big chance to heal relatively quickly and continue fighting few weeks after. 7,62x39 and especially 6,5 Grendel have more than 80% chance to KILL on 200m distance.
So, 5,56 is already outdated round, even yanks are planing to replace it with much more powerful 6,8 Remington.
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 Depends on how you define "outdated". Though I stand with the use of 5.56,though it has less killing power than those rounds youve mentioned,majority of its other features makes it very useful in the battlefield. The 7.62x39 round was NOT also good, it was already tested. It had relatively weak killing power where the 5.56 rounds are able to reach. It passed through tissue like a dart before it could cause much tissue damage. The 5.56 was the same and in longer ranges sucked..
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
7,62x39 round has superior killing power at any range when compered to 5,56x45, but it's inaccurate and has too low speed. Yes, it's true about big penetration because M43 7,62 rounds have mild steel core; but M67 was improvement.
5,56 does not penetrate so good like older 7,62 at any range.
So, to conclude - 5,45x39, 5,56x45 and 7,62x39 should be replaced by newer and more powerful rounds.
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 advanced rounds are pretty expensive, and were talking about alot of soldiers here. Some weapons that wield the Russian 9mm SP subsonic rounds are extremely deadly but expensive and not even mass produced..Russia is able to give better ammo but they need time to come up with an effective round.
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
9x39 is very good round; but only at closer ranges to max 200-250 m.
Developing new round isn't so hard; even I have my own drawings for new assault rifle round and new assault rifle as well; and not only for AR round but for pistol round also. I might contact Russian goverment to see what they would say about that.
brox114 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
The reason they are expensive is because it is not mass produced. If that ammo was not made in a series run of lets say 200 000 rounds, but several dozen million rounds, the price would drop as a result of mass production.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
The only reasons why Soviet army early 70's passed to 5,45 mm assault rifles is in fact that 7,62x39 lacked accuracy, speed, and was more difficult to control (kickback) especially on full auto.
I didn't said that 5,45 and 5,56 couldn't kill a person, but in most cases when being hit by those rounds, enemy combatant could still offer resistance for a while; larger rounds are known to create hydrostatic shock and faster disabling of target. Optimal stopping power is crutial.
brox114 7 months ago
Also, the worst idea would be if Russian army "passes" to 5,56 bullet.
Thats why Russian army needs bullet for assault rifles like 6,5 mm Grendel. It is an outstanding bullet. Trust me, 5,45 and 5,56 are not good. Why?
I already explained why; plus, those days enemy combatants are not stopped by being wounded or put out of condition (ask any of Russian spetsnaz using 5,45 weaponry about that, and they'll answer you the same - that also goes for 5,56). 7,62x39 only lacks accuracy and speed
brox114 7 months ago
@999cheetos999 T-90 is basically an upgraded T-72, its would lose to the M1A2, Leopard 2a7 or Challenger 2 in combat.
TheVanezi 7 months ago
@TheVanezi Any proof that it actually lost against them? What will M1A2,Leopard 2A7 and Challenger 2 do if their being hit by an ATGM 8km away? almost 4x the range of what they can reach. They may be better, but a simple type of ammo can still change the tide of war. Not to mention all of those tanks NEVER faced a real T-72,only against shit Chinese Type 69's, T-54/55 and T-72 downgraded "Asad Babils"
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999 8km is a rare distance, i dont know any places in europe where there would be 8km of ground without any hills, or other obstacles, T-90 has weaker armour than the western tanks, no matter if those tanks have ever faced "real" tanks in combat, T-90 would lose, and russia has only 300 T-90's USA has over 4,000 M1A2 tanks, Germany has about 400 Leopard 2a6/7 tanks, and Britain has 400 Challenger 2 tanks, they would win in quantity & quality. and T-90 has never faced a tank in combat.
TheVanezi 7 months ago
@TheVanezi Number doesnt equate to being better, get that straight, and the Leopard 2A6 was built to counter the T-80BV. I am aware of theatre terrain. T-90 doesnt have any "weaker" armor,they basically have the same base armor with the Leopard 2A6 "Wolframium Carbide",second toughest material on earth. But the main protection of the T-90 comes from its ERA armor ,Shtora,and Nadika=disabling target/range finders. And its not only a "tank war" I would take a single SU-25 and 4000 M1's are useless
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999 Yes and it would take a single Stinger manpad and the SU-25 is useless... US A-10's, AH-64's and other aircraft would destroy their russian counterparts & russian tanks
TheVanezi 7 months ago
@TheVanezi Yes, also remember to not underestimate a manpad. A Russian outdated Strela-2 took down an AC-130 after all. Not sure, the A-10 carries alot of stuff,but the SU-25 has moderate payload,heavier armor, and known to have better aerodynamics and handling(Its Sukhoi anyway). We already know that the AH-64 is outdated,computers are the ONLY thing that keeps US hardware alive. T-90's can also take helicopters down(ATGM)and disables any homing missile/laser/targetting system that goes near it
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999 Yeah, lets just agree, if there ever will be a traditional war between NATO and Russia, we will just have to see who does better, and not argue on the internet :)
TheVanezi 7 months ago
@TheVanezi
Look at the memoirs of CIA operatives in Afghanistan...they will tell you most of the stingers missed, and it mainly had a psychological effect on keeping SU-25s high (decreased bombing accuracy).
The problem you have is your approach is simmilar to the Germans (we are betterz than them, slav untermench!) and you would get your ass handed to you on a platter the same way the germans did in 1944.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@TheVanezi
The USA has less then 3300 M1s TOTAL. The rest was sold abroad (australia, Egypt, Saudi...) Of those a great many are in depots awaiting repair from wear and tear of operations in Iraq. Look it up. Also "not faced a tank in combat" well M1s, challies or L2s have never faced a tank that was not 35+ years old. If you took a pershing and put it up against a T-72, the Ts would wipe the floor with you too.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@999cheetos999 also the 9M119 Svir that the T-90 uses, has a range of 4-6km, not 8km, Challenger 2 can shoot HESH rounds up to 8km, which is longer than that.
TheVanezi 7 months ago
@TheVanezi Nope, HESH Rounds are weak in those ranges. Sure they could launch it, but compared to APFSDS rounds, they CAN NEVER PENETRATE heavy armor. HESH are mainly used for destroying buildings and light armor targets. They were good against very old T-54's but today they are basically support rounds. Not to mention ATGM's have mentained m/v and doesnt lose penetrating power over distances until they run out of propellant
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
You seriously are deluded. A HESH round fired by a Challenger 2 at a range of 2km against another Challanger 2 (FF incident in Iraq) resulted in the Chally that was hit burning for several hours. It was repaired and returned to service, but ti was knocked out/destroyed for all practical purposes.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@52111centrumcz Yeah sure, especially if the HESH round hit the BACK of the tank. Because all Challengers were facing one direction. idiot. Also, I could burn a Challenger 2 by throwing a molotov cocktail on the engines(Afghans easily knock-out Abrams with molotovs you know). If a sabot round hit that Challenger from behind it would INSTANTLY explode...unless it has ERA to give it a second chance. See, even an RPG-29 penetrated the frontal arch armor of the Challenger 2
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
The Chally as far as I know what hit on the right top side of the turret, not the rear. Also, unless it hit ammunition (which in the chally is NOT in the turret, but under it in the body) then it would not explode...because there would be no explosives there.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@52111centrumcz A penetrator has almost unpredictable pathway(also,many factors that can set rounds off),but yeah, it is mostly aimed on ammunition. Also I said "IF the sabot round hit the rear" and am comparing it to a HESH round which takes time to work.
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
My understaing is that the HESH works by making a "Pat"of plastic explosive on tank and detonating it, which is supposed to cause spalling on the inside of the vehicle armor. As such anti-spalling liners might help somewhat, but I am not sure how much they help and how much composites affect the way HESH works. Against soviet composite/steel mix on the T-62 the HESH the L7 armed centurions in Isreali service got pretty decent kill ratio in the Yom Kippur war.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@52111centrumcz Im not saying that HESH rounds are ineffective/shitty, im just saying that there are more effective rounds that dominate tank warfare today, mainly HEAT and APFSDS rounds. The T-55's and 62's dominated that war until Pattons came and that the Israelis concentrated on aerial>tanks. The HESH rounds are good that time, but today,with the advancement of armor..they cant do much
999cheetos999 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
Ah found it! "A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident on 25 March 2003 in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@999cheetos999
The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret that caused an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank and killing two crew members."
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@brox114
Why longer rounds? modern russian tungsten and DU rounds can blast through the frontal armor of M1 at 1500m+ range, so there is no need for new longer rods. Also longer rods doesn't mean necessarily better penetration, as US is also fielding shorter sabots that have superior penetration to older longer rounds.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@52111centrumcz
Not only longer rods, but longer case to accept more powder should be introduced to replace older rounds (especially old "Vant" apfsds from 1985 which is the most common). Even the new 3BM-48 with penetration of ~790 mm cannot defeat most modern tanks (except in case of side hit or hit at weak spot).
Longer rod (assuming same material and same diameter) will penetrate deeper; and in combination with longer case even more.
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114
3BM-46 are reported to have a penetration of 600mm RHA at 2000 meters. If they find out the new self-sharpening shape that the Germans are using on their tungsten sabots, it may improve. Btw, the german DM-63 has only 580mm RHA at straight face hit at 2000 meters, lower than the Russian round. The only one that is much superior is the American M829A3 with 680mm RHA at 2000 meters.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
@52111centrumcz
3BM-46 (Svinets) penetrates ~650 mm at 0°at 2 km (6,0m batrrel).
DM-63 from L55 (6,6m) penetrates ~720 mm at 0°at 2 km; from L44 (5,28m) ~680 mm at 0°at 2 km.
Older DM-53 from L55 ~770 mm at 0°at 2 km.
US M829A3 penetrates 760-770mm (Russian estimate is 795mm) at 0°at 2 km from L44; from L55 ~820-830 mm at 0°at 2 km.
So all of them penetrate significantly better than 3BM-46.
It's estimated that newest Russian 3BM-48 (Svinets 2) penetrates max. 790 mm at 0°at 2km
brox114 7 months ago
Nowhere to hide....................it's like death. Sure(not probably) is the most deadly tank what ever seen the mankind. "Vladimir" is best nickname for this machine.
Message: Don't fuck with this!
Great nation Russia,deserve what is the best.LIVE RUSSIA, ura,ura,ura!
fearssssss 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Конечно,америкосы обосрутся когда наши гробы на колёсах увидят.)))Почитай что умные люди пишут,танкисты с опытом!
Набери в ю-тубовском поисковике-Выживаемость танков часть1.wmv
mrkukara4 8 months ago
Is it possible to "hide" a T-90 in shallow water and fire ?
Sp4mk1ll3r 8 months ago
What's the song's name?It's very familiar but i couldn't recognized...
TheKurtkapan34 8 months ago
that is why they are cheaper . because are russian, and yes cheaper mean . you know.
drreik 8 months ago
@drreik ask the germans they can tell you if more expensive can defeat cheaper tanks or no.
octaviogu 8 months ago
@CE3EHbKA Да уж, в стране просто разгул демократии!!!)))))))))))))))))
remoleg 8 months ago
@CE3EHbKA Ну конечно модификация. Абрамс-то с 1980 года тоже модернизировался и ни один раз, но они-то модернизировали вкладывая огромные деньги, а у нас что? Вот тут и возникает вопрос, а куда вваливают деньги на гособоронзаказ??? Вот откуда этот "пиздец" идёт. Кому выгодно опустить военную промышленность ниже табуретки??? Да и не только военпром!!!
remoleg 8 months ago
@CE3EHbKA Полностью с Вами согласен - танков маловато, но так просто тоже не следует охаивать Т90, недостатки несомненно есть, но и достоинств не мало. То что российские олухи закупают на стороне вертолетоносцы за 1,1 миллиард евро вместо того, чтобы вложить эти деньги в развитие того же авианесущего флота, тут уж ничего не поделаешь, но российские разработки не отстают от американских, вот я о чем хотел сказать. Проблема в финансировании. Индия же закупила Т90, там-то тоже не идиоты сидят.
remoleg 8 months ago
@CE3EHbKA Да! И ещё: все натовские образцы от нашего "Корнета" горят как свечки, а Т90 имеет возможность "прищучить" такой заряд на подлете, ну и самое веское: ракетное вооружение Т72, Т80 и Т90 имеет прицельную дальность а поражением 98% в 5 км. Прицельная дальность "Абрамса" при нормальных погодных и боевых условиях - 3,9 км. А если в бою, при движении, в дождь, снег. Заведется ли "Абрамс" при 40 ниже нуля???
remoleg 8 months ago
@remoleg Конечно,америкосы обосрутся когда наши гробы на колёсах увидят.)))Почитай что умные люди пишут,танкисты с опытом!
Набери в ю-тубовском поисковике-Выживаемость танков часть1.wmv
mrkukara4 8 months ago
@mrkukara4 Я не танкист, но здесь же на Ю-Тубе есть мнения людей, которые поучаствовали на танках и говорят, что на 72-ойках и 80-ах воевать можно и даже прямое попадание РПГ - 29 выдерживают. Кому верить?! Хотя я склонен к тому, что всё что произведено человеком, может человеком быть и уничтожено.
remoleg 7 months ago
@CE3EHbKA Ну для начала: Т 90 почти на 20 тонн легче любого натовского образца и на 60 см ниже. Может он и уступает в электронной начинке, но это поправляемо, а вот то что их маловато для такой страны как Россия в этом я с Вами полностью согласен. Поменьше бы генералы себе дач строили может и на танки бы хватило!!!
remoleg 8 months ago
песня говно))) а видео пиздатое)))
2323Nicko 8 months ago
Музыку лучше бы поставил illDisposed -Still Sane
BratanMF 8 months ago
those red eyes are fucking scary looking
res8898 8 months ago
Six Feet Under "Seed Of Filth"
sigruna88 8 months ago
Look in the description, 2000 T-90 in 2011? The Russian Army operates 500 T-90 & 60 T-90A Vladimir, where are the other 1440 ?
TankNutJohn89 9 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 in the garages :Dy dont know how many military stuff they have, and nobody knows about it.
carbon0HUN 9 months ago
@carbon0HUN: Today, you can't hide Military Arnament, believe me. About 70% of US Soldiers have Facebook or other things, if the Russian's have a new Tank, or something else, about hundredthousand Soldiers would know it, also the T-90 is build by Uralwagonsawod, they need to know it. Actually the russian Army have 516 T-90 in Service.
TankNutJohn89 9 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 actually you think that..., what about those tons of guns, ammo, and military hardware what s the us,russia,uk.china trading with, in africa and other places.in russia. and eastern europe the old soviet military bases is full with those kind of stuffs..and nobody knows what kind of things in those..i know it, in hungary i been in an old soviet air base i saw about 15 mi-24s and they are in good shape..but the hungarian army dont use it..maybe 516 in sercvice,but thats not all.
carbon0HUN 9 months ago
@carbon0HUN: Any Company need to made those tons of Guns, and Ammo, everything is registred.
The russian Army have all T-90 in Service, unlike the T-80 & T-72's. Uralwagonsawod build 516 T-90 for the russian Army. End of disscussion.
TankNutJohn89 9 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 sad you believe everything but you know.
carbon0HUN 9 months ago
@carbon0HUN: Sony said they have sold 50 Million of the PlayStation 3. And you'll tell me that USA & Europe have about 70 Million PS3's.... do you notice something?
TankNutJohn89 9 months ago
@TankNutJohn89
Look we have cops scurrying like rats here, because when the Soviet army left in 1989 from Czech republic they left some burried arms caches. Now, the cops found some of them and are extremely worried...they asked the Russian army how many weapons they left behind. The Russkies said about 150 thousand AKs. The cops have only found 35 thousand AKs so far, and many caches were empty. Makes you wonder where they went.
52111centrumcz 7 months ago
HOLY **** IT LOOKS EXCACTLY LILE BAD COMPENY 2
kibilibob 9 months ago
Надеюсь, хоть один америкос обосрался после просмотра этого видео.
Alefano1 9 months ago 14
@Alefano1 Конечно,америкосы обосрутся когда наши гробы на колёсах увидят.)))Почитай что умные люди пишут,танкисты с опытом!
Набери в ю-тубовском поисковике-Выживаемость танков часть1.wmv
mrkukara4 8 months ago
what is the name of the song, and also the band name???
SorathPotestatem 9 months ago
thenk you a lot man death metal and russian tanks the best of the best
IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA 9 months ago 12
Russia made a hell itself run away.
virus922 9 months ago
Turret looks a bit like the Robot boss from Star fox 64 ^_^
qwerty474 9 months ago
what is the name of the song ??
welkom41 9 months ago
I seen a T-90 ...
This song was playing thorugh my head....
shawnshawn426 10 months ago
1:38 cute ^^
XOPb007 10 months ago
Vodka + T-90 = massacre
spajsboyz 10 months ago
@spajsboyz ПРЕДАТЕЛИ РОДИНЫ НЕ ДАЮТ СТАВИТЬ СИСТЕМУ АРЕНА НА ТАНКИ ....!!!!!!!!!!
1ZALMOKSIS 10 months ago
@spajsboyz Faggotry + Ignorance + Anglo-Saxon blood = Massacre
PeanutButterAndZorg 10 months ago
The Leopard 2 a7 is MUCH better
Jochald 10 months ago
@Jochald Leopard 2a5 is better too, Challenger 2 is better, M1A2 is better.... T-90 is a good tank too, it has good firing systems & optics, and shtora-1 is a good system.
TheVanezi 10 months ago