both tanks are a same match, it all comes down to Numbers in battle, who fired first, where the sheel hits, the distance of combat, the training the crew has...so yeah
бред. только дурак будет обстреливать Т-90 кумулятивными ! если американцы и будут нападать на РФ, то будут модернизировать абрамс (бред что исчерпан предел модернизации). да как производить Т-90 если шпионы уже всё разрушили в РФ.
@RobotN001 Там и без модернизации все как надо. Нам еще до М1А2 SEP v2 как до Китая раком.
Хотя новый Т-90СМ уже можно назвать современным танком, пусть и с натягом. Но его завод только в сентябре представил, госзаказа пока нет. Да если и будет, то буковка "С" в назании говорит сама за себя - экспортный вариант.
@RobotN001 Странное заявление. И чем же кумулятивные плохи? Вы можете припомнить первый кумулятивный заряд и против чего он предназначался? Не против танков ли случаем?
@RobotN001 И по этому уже лет 30 существуют тандемные кумулятивные заряды. А вот противотандемная динамическая защита только только начинает появляться. Так что ваше заявление о бесполезности кумулятивных снарядов не состоятельно. 40летние нетандемные кумулятивные снаряды первых поколений? Так зачем на них равняться? Ведь 40летние БПС тоже не ахти какие. :)
@BitnikGr противотандемная динамическая защита не нужна. ещё раз - "активная защита". устанавливается простой модернизацией. так зачем рассчитывать на то, что враг будет отсталым ?
@RobotN001 1) Вы знаете много стран где Активная Защита стоит на вооружении? Я знаю только 1 на сегодняшний день. Была еще одна, но она уже не существует.
2) Активная Защита малополезна против снарядов, которые быстрее и меньше в размерах чем ракеты. Т.е. кумулятивный пушечный снаряд имеет больше шансов преодолеть Активную Защиту, чем РПГ или ПТУР.
3) А что мешает иметь и противотандемную ДЗ и Активную Защиту? Одно другому не мешает. :) Тоже кстати можно просто модернизировать.
@RobotN001 1) Назад в 41ый? Может имеет смысл принимать как раз до начала войны? СССР со своим Дроздом нигде не участвовала. Возню Израиля с Ливаном тоже крупномасштабной не назовешь, не смотря на это Трофи ставят с 2008.
2) Ну так ДЗ уже разработанна против БПС и новые АЗ против них учат, но пока с меньшими успехами, чем против других снарядов. Оно и понятно.
@RobotN001 3) 3) Ну здрасти. Пример некорректный изначально так как не указана граната для СПГ-9. Простая ДЗ остановит нетандемную гранату СПГ-9. Противотандемная ДЗ как раз должна остановить И тандемную гранату для СПГ-9.
При таком раскладе танк из боя можно вывести и простой ручной гранатой не задействуя ДЗ и АЗ вообще. Я к тому, что примеры должны обрисовываться детальнее и конкретнее.
4) И основная броня и ДЗ и АЗ имеют главной задачей не попадание внутрь. Думаете АЗ останавливает боеприпас без побочных последствий для навесного оборудования? А что же тогда все хают АЗ за остаточные осколки? И что кума все равно срабатывает. На дальнем расстоянии конечно. Основную броню не пробьет, но пакости снаружи все равно наделает. Те же осколки, тот же пожар.
Самое главное, что все три слоя защиты должны развиваться параллельно. Один не должен исключать другой.
@BitnikGr АЗ хают за вред пехоте. кума не срабатывает так как надо ибо конус и фокусировка повреждены. итак, вернёмся к кумулятивным. а именно м1 целится в т90. что лучше зарядить ? подкалиберный времён второй мировой но из обеднённого урана или кумулятивный? ответ очевиден.
@RobotN001 Вы ошибаетесь. Кума срабатывает, еще как срабатывает. Посмотрите видео с тестами Трофи. Она не пробивает броню, из-за дальности от нее, но кума поверхности достигнет, а значит навесное оборудование пострадает и что горит будет гореть.
Куда возвращаться? Кума это не кумулятивный?
Почему это ВМВ? Серия М829 разве того периода?
Ответ: стрелять в лоб бесполезно. Ни М829А3, ни М830 не берут лоб Т-90. (за исключением ослабленных зон. Которые на М1 обширнее, чем на Т-90.)
@BitnikGr Dunno what you peeps argue about but APS can work in 3 ways. 1 - it makes the projectile detonate prematurely and thus the AP jet is out of focus. 2 - it deforms the liner making the weapon produce an ineffective jet. 3 - it disables the trigger (more common with ATGMs).
M829A3 deals with T-90 frontally, but at less than 2000m and preferably shot from the L55.
The fact that its made from depleted uranium is of no importance. most countries prefer to make them from tungsten alloys. Is more expensive than shooting nuclear waste though.
subcaliber (sabot) munitions of WW2 were quite a bit different from current ones, the principles of APDS were introduced in 1944, but APFSDS didnt become a prime tank round until the 60s with the introduction of smoothbore tank guns.
A kinetic energy penetrator will always be more effective in dealing with composite armor designs than HEAT within the effective range. Pure physics. Thats why they exist in the first place and have become the munitions of choice when dealing with tanks for the least 50 years.
@Buuub08 I was saying that APS doesn't ensure safety to exterior equipment on tanks and even prematurely detonated HEAT round of missile can cause damage and fire on outside of the tank.
Basically I insist on opinion that main armor, ERA and APS can be developed in parallel ways and existing of one layer of protection doesn't make other layer(s) useless. Main armor + ERA + APS is always better than main armor + ERA or main armor + APS.
@Buuub08 Yeah. I know. Other guy said that because of round's explosion on ERA external equipment is damaged and fire can occur outside, while with APS it can't happen. My point was that external damage and fire can occur even with use of APS.
Operational ability can be compromised only if main sights and gun is damaged by shrapnel. 4-5 RPG-7 with HE-FRAG warheads are enough to make a tank blind. Iraqis used such tactics in Basra in 2003 against British Challengers.
@BitnikGr You cant just compare numbers my friend. The US calculations differ from Russian ones, and at best represent a mere estimate. For example the US calculations for armor are based upon a 30 degree oblique shot while the Russian ones are not.
While we cant say for sure what would happen, it would be extremely naive to assume it would withstand such a shot easily, especially since it got penetrated by RPG-29 during tests in Kubinka, did about as good as T-80U.
Also the L55 gives a significant boost in energy, at least 200m/s more in MV.
And dont include ERA numbers, they are inaccurate and the effects cannot be predicted constantly. Bundeswehr tested that, the ERA can be anywhere from doing basically nothing to completely vaporizing the projectile (test munition was the then-new M829).
@Buuub08 True. It depends on angle of contact. That's why ERA bricks are placed inclined. Because at contact of 0dgr their effect is very limited. That's in theory. In reality ERA designed against sabots plays important role. In Aberdeen Proving Ground M829A1 was penetrating frontal armor of T-72 and T-80 without ERA. But with Kontakt-V installed they were proven immune and that's why development of M829A2 and A3 started after all.
How can Rolled Homogenous Armor equivalent differ? :)
Yes, test can be conducted under different angles of contact (from 0 to 60), but then results are converted to equivalent at 0dgrs. So, they are comparable.
Penetration of 770mm RHA at 0dgr means 385mm thick plate at 60dgr or about 580mm at 30dgrs. Line of sight in all cases is equal to 770mm.
Sometimes armor is given in thickness and slope angle and then it is converted to RHA at 0dgrs.
@BitnikGr Well, firstly there is no concrete definition what Rolled Homogenous Armor is, its supposedly a steel equivalent but as we all know there is plenty of steel types and in the US alone there are several types of steel that have been given that definition and different periods of time.
In any case, modern armors consist of interlayered materials of different hardness and density, from tungsten to boron carbide to rubber and so forth.
So, since the armor actually consists of anything but RHA the actual RHAe has to be estimated by math, using formulas of impact depth and such. Due to the high number of variables the effects are relatively unpredictable and thus merely estimated. The way they are estimated vary from country to country (as varies the definition of RHA). In the US its ALL based on a 30 degree shot. That angle is taken as the baseline, this in turn gives a 1.15 increase in the number.
@Buuub08 An angle is irrelevant. Completely. Different plates at different angles present same LOS and this is counted as penetration, because it is an actual distance a round have to pass through armor.
Yes, there are different kinds of steel, but armor steel is basically the same all around the world.
Yes, modern armor is composite and that's why their actual thickness is always less than their RHA equivalent ;) Every material has its own ratio to RHA, so RHAe can be calculated.
@BitnikGr You would me mistaken to assume armor steel is the same around the world. The US itself has had 3 DIFFERENT types of steel used as RHA measure at different times.
RHAe can be estimated, using physics formulas, such as impact depth, however the effects are too unpredictable. Even an identical munition will not always do the same identical damage. RHAe is merely an estimate and should not be taken as a fixed value.
RHAe estimates are based on assumed munitions, like copper liners for HEAT. Many modern munitions dont use copper anymore, yet their performance is also assessed on a RHA basis. The RHAe of armor vs copper HEAT will not be the same against molybdenum or tungsten liners. As such the RHA/RHAe numbers are incompatible altogether.
So once again, RHAe is just a general guideline for a steel equivalent in a standardized set of circumstances based on vague assumed MATH not actual tests.
RHAe doesnt include possible penetrator deformations, efficiency of jet formation and so forth. Such things are simply unpredictable and thus not accounted for in RHAe estimates, instead they use formulas based primarily on density. They are on the level of middle school physics. You shouldnt rely on them or take them as some sort of solid fact. They have been busted on numerous occasions where munitions penetrated far more than they should have according to RHAe estimates.
@Buuub08 "The US itself has had 3 DIFFERENT types of steel used as RHA measure at different times."
What they have now is what counts. Its a medium-soft armor steel, just like in Russia. Before they had hardened steel.
RHAe estimations for KE rounds are more accurate than of CE rounds and they vary much less +/- 5%. So, yes... it is just an estimation, but it gives some objective picture.
@Buuub08 Don't mix different things. RPG-29 is a shaped charge... not a sabot. Same composite armor performs differently against shaped charge and sabot penetrator.
Regarding M829A3 fired from L55 it is understandable that it will receive more boost, however bigger speed is not always what manufacturer wants. M829A3 was made specifically slower... otherwise speed drops more rapidly over distance, because of increased drag. What is 100% sure that T-80 was impenetrable to M829A1 round.
@BitnikGr I perfectly understand that. But id bet anything i have on that the M829A3 will penetrate more of whatever you put against it than RPG-29. Also composite armor RHAe against KE is always far lower than that against CE.
The A3 wasnt made slower, it was made heavier. Weight comes at the cost of speed though. APFSDS lose about 50-100m/s per every 1000m they travel, at 2000m it will still go in excess of 1400m/s. Drag isnt really much of an issue.
KE defeating ERA is relatively new. And as Bundeswehr test indicated the effects are NOT constant and predictable.
The angle is not irrelevant. Basic geometry, the sharper the angle the more material it has to pass through. A 30 degree angle (US military standard for armor testing) gives 1.15 time increase in value. Simple really.
@Buuub08 "Also composite armor RHAe against KE is always far lower than that against CE." - Correct
"But id bet anything i have on that the M829A3 will penetrate more of whatever you put against it than RPG-29." - Wrong.
1) You forgot to consider distance. APFSDS penetration is depended on distance. Shaped charge doesn't.
2) You chose the strongest APFSDS today, but not the strongest shaped charge today... 900mm at point blank range of M829A3 is of course more than 700mm of RPG-9.
@Buuub08 "The A3 wasnt made slower, it was made heavier."
There is a term in Exterior Ballistics, which describes optimum max speed for a missile (as any throwing object). Each KE round has it's own optimized max speed and excess of this speed will lead to excessive drag and more rapid loss of speed. Resulting with worse results at max ranges.
And, finaly, we will never know what tank is better until they meet each other in real combat. And even then the result of combat will depend of circumstances.
@aksakal777 They did, Gulf war. T90s were used by the 'elite republican guard' and were destroyed at least 15 T90s dead to every 1 M1A1 tank dead. T72s and varients were also used. Remember, T90s are still just T72s that are shinier because they are newer.. there is not much difference however between a T72 'varient' and the renaming of an 'improved varient of a T72' to 'T90', which is what 'T90' is, still just a T72 at its base, so it will never be better.
This T90 managed to hit 6 target in 45 seconds which is awesome but I think it depends on the gunner, other gunners may not be able to do so again, on the other hand the Lopard2 which managed to hit 5 targets in the same time has better stabilizer system and it means other gunners of Leopard2, more or less, can achieve the same score.
@PERSIAisHISTORY No one has ever been able to find any proof of one or the other FCS, stabilization etc to be better or worse than the other, a gyro is a gyro and a computer is a computer. The ONLY thing Russian tanks dont have is BIMS. However didnt seem to help the US tankers much when they couldnt tell the difference between T-54 and M1A1 even with BIMS on.
@Buuub08 Well, actually original manuals and even blueprints come out online after several years. Of course it is not possible to find exact technical data on the newest stuff in service, but for example it is a known fact that M1A1 has better stabilization accuracy compared to stabilizer of T-80. Of course this factor isn't the only one which determines an overall accuracy. But I am just saying that there are proofs for specific performance of every subsystem.
@BitnikGr Oh nice, the rare occasion when someone actually knowing something. Kudos bro.
I agree with you, to an extent tho.
We would have to specify the T-80. The original T-80 is older than the base M1, being designed in late 60s/early70s. M1A1 appeared in late 80s/early 90s, by then T-80 was already in effect 15-20 years old, so it would only make sense that is would be technically inferior. Anyways, the only way to say for sure is to do a head-on comparison, has never happened tho.
@Buuub08 Yes. I was talking about T-80B with FCS 1A42 (1978-1985) and XM-21 FCS for M1A1.
In most of parameters XM-21 stabilization is better than 1A42. Some of them are almost equal, in some others difference is quite important and in couple of things 1A42 is better. For example, in vertical gun's speed it has 2.5dgr/sec vs 1.4dgr/sec of XM-21.
Overall, all these specs are translated in +500-600m better accuracy for M1A1 vs T-80B. 2800m vs 2200-2300m of effective range.
T-80U is of course a different story and it has 1A45 FCS, instead of old 1A42, it has new stabilizer, new day sight, new cannon. All these improved accuracy and effective range raised from 2200 to 2500-2600m for T-80U (1985-2001).
If 10 abrams will fight vs 10 t90 in an open area, t90 will win just with 1-2 tanks lost max. and abrams will be all kill, because the russians tanks can shoot about 5000 meters with the newest bullets - and abrams can just shoot max. 2500 - 3000 meters. And the russians have the better rockets, which the americans dont have.
@Lebschig M1A2 vs T90A? M1A2 would take the day. Being a fan of the T90A myself, the K5 ERA that is employed on the T90A would be easily penetrated by the Abrams newer ammunition. Maybe the T90A could take out 6-8, but the M1A2s would surely win. T90M vs M1A2? T90M all the way. Much better gun, better ERA, better protection, improved turret, etc. Look it up with Google search.
@EminidisMike The last battle Russia fought was with Georgia a small country with less resources.. One of the last wars Russia was Engaged with was Afghanistan the poor people of afghanistan kicked the hell out of the biggest country... Im pretty sure that the U.S. has been kicking the Afghans A** for ten years now... so when Russia decides to go hard not go home... Come talk About Americas weapons
@microscissors It is almost impossible to win a war against an enemy that uses hit and run tactics ,the Us lost the Vietnam war too.And no the US is actually withdrawing from Afg and car bombs are still going off in Iraq.
@EminidisMike Bullshit. M1A1s are slightly older now but you shouldn't make shit up like a child. M1A1s defeated hundreds of T90s and T72s during the gulf war. The 'elite republican guard' used T90s and were destroyed. The realistic thing to say if you wish to compare Americans and Russia is that (looking at russia's history), Russia they would swarm many more troops and tanks with low experience and millions would die to thousands, but they might succeed in overrunning a position.
Yeap... that's the definition of BS! T-90 never were in Iraq.
T-72 destroyed in Iraq were downgraded monkey-models. Comparing Iraqi T-72M with Soviet T-72A is like comparing original M1 with M1A3 30years later. That's the difference between those T-72s. T-72M is like M60A1 or even M48A5. Compare M1A1 to M60A1.
As i can see from ur nick, i can say u are some fucking american hating little kid who has no life. And i bet u are jelous to americans, becuse they have a better life, better job, better everything than you. So shut up stupid jelous no-lifer :)
@patrioticjumper Oh america gay lover detected lol. if you like crappy usa go fuck yourself and hang on your fat carcass. I shut up your pussy moyuth, stop bitching or ypu epic fail again loser.
I live in gay usa three years and fuck your girls.
Yes you do better job - blowjob better then everything but everything else in your stupid country sucks, worst then any other.
six Russia fuck and nuke gay usa next world make peace together
seventh T-90 based on object 188 tank, In war of '91 was attended by a very primitive export modification of the T-72M1 madein Poland. Without a laser rangefinder, thermal imager, battlefield control, fire control system, etc. M-1 is modified tank of 1980 years.
Eighth As was proved americunts are failing everywhere.
@patrioticjumper T-90 did not participate in the war in Iraq nor in '91 or in 2003. M-1 have epic fail in Iraq. abrams pwned by outdated bulgarian and chinese RPG-7 of 1963 year version.
americunts is a historical name of your crappy nation WTF wrong with you gay boy. Some stupid amerocunts like you trying to fuck with me and they all epic lose hahahahaha. Trying that shit with me boy.
@patrioticjumper Who fucking cares what cunt is you are ? americunt or other cunt this is no matter, fuck you loser. I'm french and proud anti-americunt. I support Russia, together we fuck and nuke usa.
Russians = good guys, anti-russian = bad gays. Fuck you nigger second time.
The Russian T-90 S and E is somewhat new but still has the 1,000 hp diesel vs the 1,500 hp turbine, it has reactive armor vs the depleted uranium of the Abrams. The fire control of the M1 is by far superior to any,we could improve on the night sights but that is my opinion due to by TTS experience in the M-60's series MBT (Main Battle Tank). Finally the 120mm smooth bore will fire a sabot round at a mile a second and usually has a first round kill.
@patrioticjumper Russians have a different engine, transmission, chassis, lugs, guns, etc. learn the history of Soviet tank creation.
T-90C is the export version of the tank is never use in the Russian army. Do russians have diesel engines to 860, 1,000, 1,200, 1,500, 1,800 and 3,200 horsepower. There are also several versions of the turbine engine in 2500, 4000 hp plus electro-engine for tanks.
@patrioticjumper In Iraq, the M-1 was easily fucked by crappy chinese and bulgarian RPG-7. Russian have different types of armor, they are mainly used NERA 3 or 4 generations that much better a wretched and dangerous outdated DU armor. ERA of russian tanks are only one layer of his armor, dumbfuck. Russian FCS system has multiple channels for simultaneous tracking of more than 180 goals in different modes
@patrioticjumper modes and band reception at a distance of 28 km, american debris can only dream about it for a large part of the M-1 are use unsafe to eye laser range finder lol. Russian FCS provides the possibility of firing and hitting in all conditions at a distance of 20 km but no smoothbore gun in the world can not shoot at the range sighting over 8 km because of the deviation and lower accuracy of the projectile. Shoot at a greater distance can only be rifled gun like the British L30.
@patrioticjumper I think you lie me but ok where you live bitch, I had been not only in the u.s. but also in many countries in Europe and Asia. Tell me the pussy where are you hiding and I'm ready to go kick your ass.
And let talk about french tanks. 1 gear forward and 5 gear's backward. Just same as in ww2. Nukes? They even't won't hit EU, becuse we have anti-rocket missles.
France was defeated in 1940 not because of the tanks, the French SOMUA S35 and Char B1 surpassed all German tanks. We could not resist the new kraut tactics.
Fuck you again. EU are not pro-americunt surprise fag. Even introduced a currency against the dollar - the Euro.
And u whanna hear why USA arms up in EU? Not becuse they are afraid from Russia(It's just a peace of garbage can, who cant do anything normal) but they know that China will take all Asia and Russia too, so they are arming up EU :)
@patrioticjumper China is very weak and totally dependent on pussy usa, stories about strong Chinese invented a degenerate like you. End of U.S. gay and this is the end of China because China would lose a market for what keeps their economy.
I lived in fat usa and saw what a piece of nigger shit crap usa is, I dream that Russia incinerated this bullshit to ashes. Leave your anal gay fantasies to yourself, usa and you sucks now, cry.
M1 Abrams, unique "from the ground up" Modern Tank Design, plus the Abrams is Older than the T90 and is still better, the fairer comparison is the M1A2 versus T90 which is a sure Abrams win. Although the Merkava 4 is the best tank.
T-64 was a better tank than the 72, it was a DOWNGRADE. And it was made by an ENTIRELY different company and they have no common parts at all. Similar with the T-80, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the T-72, if anything it was a competitor.
T-90 was developed from the T-72B, but has many new innovations, like APS and double-stage ERA defeating tandem HEAT.
@FrankDaTank1218 Funny how you tank about modifications but dont mention that the supposedly uber M1A2 itself is a modified M1A1, which is a modified M1, which is the XM1, which is a DOWNGRADED MBT-70 developed in 1970.
Comparing models of a certain time - the Russian ones were technically superior.
T-90 vs M1A2, unlikely scenario, and the outcome depends on far more than personal preference. Using pure technical/performance data - the T-90 is better in fact and proved it in Malaysia.
@Buuub08 All that intense fighting in malaysia :P Really? The "modification lineage" of an M1A1 only goes back to about the 80's, the original design is newer than the T-90's T64 Original model. The only thing the T90/95 tanks have over the Abrams is lighter weight and improved travel range/gas mileage. Look the Russians make the best combat shotgun (Saiga 12), the best MMG (PKM), and one of the Best assault rifles (AK series). I just don't agree with their tanks having superiority.
@Buuub08 All that intense fighting in malaysia :P Really? The "modification lineage" of an M1A1 only goes back to about the 80's, the original design is newer than the T-90's T64 Original model. The only thing the T90/95 tanks have over the Abrams is lighter weight and improved travel range/gas mileage. Look the Russians make the best combat shotgun (Saiga 12), the best MMG (PKM/PKP), and one of the Best assault rifles (AK series). I just don't agree with their tanks having superiority.
and the abrams has by far better armor than any russian tank ever made. sloped, chobham armor, made out of many materials that i am not allowed to say but the abrams is battle tested. I can show you a picture of a russian t-72 that was blown up in iraq and brought back stateside and refurbished. it aint shit compared to the abrams. and all the t-90 is is a built up t-72. I know what im talking about, not only is it my job to know the enemy, but its my job to live and breathe it.
The M1 has been produced in higher numbers than any Russian tank after the T-62.
Quality? Russian tanks are made to be completely autonomous in the most adverse environment, thus they are the most reliable tanks ever made - which has been proven by numerous competitions worldwide.
Abrams better armor? Wrong, from all MBTs around now the M1 has the worst armor and the weakest gun.
Yeah cause you dont know shit about armor. Its plastic reinforced carbide ceramics inter-layered with steel. In the A1 version it finally got high density plating in the form of nuclear waste called DU. At that time this type of plating was already used on Russian tanks for about a decade (using the WAY more costly but safer and effective Tungsten).
There has NEVER been a Russian T-72 on Iraqi soil. You know jackshit about tanks for a tanker TBH.
@Buuub08 yes it was the t72 was exported to iraq, and the iraqs made a few improvements and named it the lion of babylon, it was not a licenesed built version of the t72, it was a russian built t72, and finally the best armour in the world is chopham, only in use with the brits and yanks and besides countries that built the t72 under license built them the same way as the russians, russians are also shitty engineers, hell look at their nuclear submarine fleet, how may boats did you lose.
@packr72 Russia didnt export T-72 to Iraq. All Iraq ever had were Warsaw pact WRITE-OFF T-72M tanks, Iraq was buying tanks that were scheduled for the scrap yard and were downgraded to begin with, not to mention that the numbers of those tanks were ridiculously small, they were even unable to fire fully packed munitions and were using armament that was OFFICIALLY announced as obsolete in 1973 - that is BEFORE the M1 even existed.
The Iraqi LB tank was nothing but a locally made T-72M lookalike, best tank Iraq ever had, yet still it could be destroyed by an RPG-7 from ANY angle. Why? Because they were already OLD even before the M1 existed.
Shitty engineers? I wouldnt say so, especially when it comes to missile technology, to this day its RUSSIAN engines that are bringing American satellites into orbit. The Russian sub fleet was scrapped by the US during the 90s, as was everything else.
@Buuub08 chpham is a type of armor, its a type of ceramic composite armor developed by the brits, please they were new tanks built in 1989 some of the tanks were shit but the t72s that took part in the battle of 73 easting were iraqi built t72s with upgrades, the tanks were built using steel from a german company and belguim built their electronics
@packr72 Man you are an idiot, Chobham is a NAME, the type is composite armor. The type is no different from what every other proper MBT uses. I guess the F-15 is an EAGLE as well not a multirole fighter, and the M1A2 is an Abrams not a tank then.
Iraq doesnt build T-72s, they made T-72M based lookalikes with 300mm RHA steel armor, that kind of armor was already insufficient in the 70s. They still were the best tanks Iraq ever had, yet still completely outdated and outmatched.
BTW, the US military always talks about fighting T-72s, in reality however less than 50 have ever been noted to have taken part in combat. Ive seen it countless times how soldiers talk about facing T-72s and point at a Chinese T-62. Fact is - 90% cant tell the difference. Judging by the many FF incidents even telling the difference between a T-55 and an M1 is a problem, no surprise T-62 and T-72 look the same for them.
@Buuub08 its a name officailly given to composite armor developed by the brits, i can call it chopham to distinguish it from other types of composite armor out there, and it is different, its more expensive and offers better protection than any other armor on the planet, alright so the lion of babylon was a turd, guess what that still doesnt help the t72 case, you cant polish a turd, yes the russina t72 has thicker and better armor, but abrams has better armor, better mobility,better ammo
@packr72 It is just a NAME, everything has to have a name. There are only 2 types of passive armor - RHA and composite. More expensive and better protection? Have you done tests on that? No you havent, so how the hell can you tell? Dont pull random shit from you ass.
What helps the T-72 case is a simple fact of history - the base T-72 was already outdated BEFORE the M1 even came into existence. Remember that before you make an idiot of yourself again.
@packr72 Abrams better armor? Than what? base T-72? Yeah, definitely. Better than T-90? Nop. Why? Because T-90 has far more elements for protection, including 2 APS, full-body heavy ERA and then Tungsten reinforced composite armor of the last generation. All in all even landing a shot on it is extremely difficult due to APS.
Better mobility? Dead wrong, in every single competition the M1 totally failed there.
Ammo? Why would that be? Germans have the best APFSDS btw.
Due to the fact that the M1 uses a gun that was outdated more than 20 years ago its firepower is rather weak.
The US military doesnt even dare to give the actual performance numbers but gives would-be numbers if the M1 had the L55, which it doesnt. Thus, as far as APFSDS goes - Germans take the 1st place. As for HEAT - atm Russians win again. Why? Simply because their rounds are guided, they fire ATGMs basically, giving it a higher hit chance and greater range.
@Buuub08 abrams armor is made with a stronger and denser material than the t90, depleted uranium, and its armor is based off the briish developed chopham composite, where do you think all the weight for the abrams is, era is a one time only, it gets hit and explodes, yeah the abrams is faster than the t90, yeah it needs more gas, so what we can afford gas,, what competitions, the m829a3 ke round was designed to defeat kontakt 5 era armor and any other era developed in the future
Наши идут, весь мир в труху
DominoDesigner 1 week ago
Уделали америкосов!
MIHANA007 2 weeks ago
At least the T-90 is a tank, Abrams is just an armoured computer.
Moerdarvalen 3 weeks ago
NO no no no no that just says its armor to the bone but smarter then the t-90
Blueatchley12 3 weeks ago
@Moerdarvalen it is a tank
tylercolby11 2 weeks ago
@tylercolby11 armoured computer
Moerdarvalen 2 weeks ago
@Moerdarvalen it is but it is a tank and why do you have a girl as your picture on youtube
tylercolby11 2 weeks ago
autoloader on video from T-80, not from T-90
RobotN001 1 month ago
Speak english Communist fuck!
guyholikestuf 1 month ago
@guyholikestuf
Учи русский. Долбанный еврей. Если так охота смотреть наши передачи.
DenRus85 4 weeks ago
@DenRus85Не действовать, как вы единственный на трубе и кто может говорить русский коммунистический ебать и им католическая
guyholikestuf 4 weeks ago
@DenRus85Что я имею против коммунизма является то, что антиамериканские и неправильно вот что
guyholikestuf 1 week ago
@guyholikestuf гы, что то имеете против коммунизма? Долги отдай сначала и целуй жопу банкирам. Мокрощелка.
DominoDesigner 1 week ago
what?
guyholikestuf 1 month ago
both tanks are a same match, it all comes down to Numbers in battle, who fired first, where the sheel hits, the distance of combat, the training the crew has...so yeah
FieldMarshallRommel 2 months ago
@FieldMarshallRommel I think the T-90 is better, it's cheaper.
1JesseW 1 month ago
Sooooo... Which one is better?
tosun97 2 months ago
Can someone who speaks russian translate some important parts of what they are saying?
Archangel292 3 months ago
@Archangel292
They say that the t90 sucks and abrams is best ;)
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper No they say abrams sux and patrioticjumper are gay like all fat subhumans in shitty usa
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@Archangel292 yes they say usa pussy tech be easy destroyed by t-90 rounds
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@Archangel292 /watch?v=8paDwGHAy-s
Here it is with English subtitles.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
t90 = Fugly.
Abrams= Damn sexy!
Just look at all of those futuristic looking angles.
tehatemachine 3 months ago
@tehatemachine T-90 = power
M-1 = fake and gay
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
абрамс телега,на нем только иракские легковые машины мирных жителей давить,больше он ни на что не способен!
11Russia1 4 months ago
бред. только дурак будет обстреливать Т-90 кумулятивными ! если американцы и будут нападать на РФ, то будут модернизировать абрамс (бред что исчерпан предел модернизации). да как производить Т-90 если шпионы уже всё разрушили в РФ.
RobotN001 4 months ago
@RobotN001 Там и без модернизации все как надо. Нам еще до М1А2 SEP v2 как до Китая раком.
Хотя новый Т-90СМ уже можно назвать современным танком, пусть и с натягом. Но его завод только в сентябре представил, госзаказа пока нет. Да если и будет, то буковка "С" в назании говорит сама за себя - экспортный вариант.
brezant 3 months ago
@RobotN001 Странное заявление. И чем же кумулятивные плохи? Вы можете припомнить первый кумулятивный заряд и против чего он предназначался? Не против танков ли случаем?
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr кумулятивные легко уничтожаются активной защитой, и реактивной тоже.
RobotN001 2 months ago
@RobotN001 И по этому уже лет 30 существуют тандемные кумулятивные заряды. А вот противотандемная динамическая защита только только начинает появляться. Так что ваше заявление о бесполезности кумулятивных снарядов не состоятельно. 40летние нетандемные кумулятивные снаряды первых поколений? Так зачем на них равняться? Ведь 40летние БПС тоже не ахти какие. :)
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr противотандемная динамическая защита не нужна. ещё раз - "активная защита". устанавливается простой модернизацией. так зачем рассчитывать на то, что враг будет отсталым ?
RobotN001 2 months ago
@RobotN001 1) Вы знаете много стран где Активная Защита стоит на вооружении? Я знаю только 1 на сегодняшний день. Была еще одна, но она уже не существует.
2) Активная Защита малополезна против снарядов, которые быстрее и меньше в размерах чем ракеты. Т.е. кумулятивный пушечный снаряд имеет больше шансов преодолеть Активную Защиту, чем РПГ или ПТУР.
3) А что мешает иметь и противотандемную ДЗ и Активную Защиту? Одно другому не мешает. :) Тоже кстати можно просто модернизировать.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr 1) Активная Защита - постоянно разрабатываемое устройство. Нет смысла его утверждать до начала крупномасштабной войны.
2) Активная Защита + броня. всё что не подкалиберное не пробьёт броню, а лишь подпортит внешний вид :)
3) даже противотандемная не отставит танк в бою после одного попадания СПГ-9. см. видео как в чечне подбили (вывели из боя). есть на ютубе.
4) динамическая лишь помогает выжить тем кто внутри . а снаружи - шрапнель, снаружи - пожар от разлитого топлива.
RobotN001 2 months ago
@RobotN001 1) Назад в 41ый? Может имеет смысл принимать как раз до начала войны? СССР со своим Дроздом нигде не участвовала. Возню Израиля с Ливаном тоже крупномасштабной не назовешь, не смотря на это Трофи ставят с 2008.
2) Ну так ДЗ уже разработанна против БПС и новые АЗ против них учат, но пока с меньшими успехами, чем против других снарядов. Оно и понятно.
...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@RobotN001 3) 3) Ну здрасти. Пример некорректный изначально так как не указана граната для СПГ-9. Простая ДЗ остановит нетандемную гранату СПГ-9. Противотандемная ДЗ как раз должна остановить И тандемную гранату для СПГ-9.
При таком раскладе танк из боя можно вывести и простой ручной гранатой не задействуя ДЗ и АЗ вообще. Я к тому, что примеры должны обрисовываться детальнее и конкретнее.
...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@RobotN001 ...
4) И основная броня и ДЗ и АЗ имеют главной задачей не попадание внутрь. Думаете АЗ останавливает боеприпас без побочных последствий для навесного оборудования? А что же тогда все хают АЗ за остаточные осколки? И что кума все равно срабатывает. На дальнем расстоянии конечно. Основную броню не пробьет, но пакости снаружи все равно наделает. Те же осколки, тот же пожар.
Самое главное, что все три слоя защиты должны развиваться параллельно. Один не должен исключать другой.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr АЗ хают за вред пехоте. кума не срабатывает так как надо ибо конус и фокусировка повреждены. итак, вернёмся к кумулятивным. а именно м1 целится в т90. что лучше зарядить ? подкалиберный времён второй мировой но из обеднённого урана или кумулятивный? ответ очевиден.
RobotN001 2 months ago
@RobotN001 Вы ошибаетесь. Кума срабатывает, еще как срабатывает. Посмотрите видео с тестами Трофи. Она не пробивает броню, из-за дальности от нее, но кума поверхности достигнет, а значит навесное оборудование пострадает и что горит будет гореть.
Куда возвращаться? Кума это не кумулятивный?
Почему это ВМВ? Серия М829 разве того периода?
Ответ: стрелять в лоб бесполезно. Ни М829А3, ни М830 не берут лоб Т-90. (за исключением ослабленных зон. Которые на М1 обширнее, чем на Т-90.)
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Dunno what you peeps argue about but APS can work in 3 ways. 1 - it makes the projectile detonate prematurely and thus the AP jet is out of focus. 2 - it deforms the liner making the weapon produce an ineffective jet. 3 - it disables the trigger (more common with ATGMs).
M829A3 deals with T-90 frontally, but at less than 2000m and preferably shot from the L55.
Buuub08 2 months ago
The fact that its made from depleted uranium is of no importance. most countries prefer to make them from tungsten alloys. Is more expensive than shooting nuclear waste though.
subcaliber (sabot) munitions of WW2 were quite a bit different from current ones, the principles of APDS were introduced in 1944, but APFSDS didnt become a prime tank round until the 60s with the introduction of smoothbore tank guns.
Buuub08 2 months ago
A kinetic energy penetrator will always be more effective in dealing with composite armor designs than HEAT within the effective range. Pure physics. Thats why they exist in the first place and have become the munitions of choice when dealing with tanks for the least 50 years.
Buuub08 2 months ago
@Buuub08 I was saying that APS doesn't ensure safety to exterior equipment on tanks and even prematurely detonated HEAT round of missile can cause damage and fire on outside of the tank.
Basically I insist on opinion that main armor, ERA and APS can be developed in parallel ways and existing of one layer of protection doesn't make other layer(s) useless. Main armor + ERA + APS is always better than main armor + ERA or main armor + APS.
...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Oh sure it can cause some external damage, but it will not compromise the operational ability of the vehicle.
I totally agree with your point, the layers exist in addition to one another all complementing to the tanks ability to survive an encounter.
Buuub08 2 months ago
@Buuub08 Yeah. I know. Other guy said that because of round's explosion on ERA external equipment is damaged and fire can occur outside, while with APS it can't happen. My point was that external damage and fire can occur even with use of APS.
Operational ability can be compromised only if main sights and gun is damaged by shrapnel. 4-5 RPG-7 with HE-FRAG warheads are enough to make a tank blind. Iraqis used such tactics in Basra in 2003 against British Challengers.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@Buuub08 ...
"M829A3 deals with T-90 frontally, but at less than 2000m and preferably shot from the L55."
Do we know what will be its penetration fired from L55?
Right now we have estimations that being fired from M256 at 2000m it has penetration of 770mm RHA.
s013.radikal.ru/i323/1104/e2/3462100b531f.jpg
T-90 has 800-830mm vs APFSDS frontally. T-90A has 950mm. That's with Kontakt-5. With Relikt it is even higher.
Without ERA T-90 has 550-700mm.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr You cant just compare numbers my friend. The US calculations differ from Russian ones, and at best represent a mere estimate. For example the US calculations for armor are based upon a 30 degree oblique shot while the Russian ones are not.
While we cant say for sure what would happen, it would be extremely naive to assume it would withstand such a shot easily, especially since it got penetrated by RPG-29 during tests in Kubinka, did about as good as T-80U.
Buuub08 2 months ago
Also the L55 gives a significant boost in energy, at least 200m/s more in MV.
And dont include ERA numbers, they are inaccurate and the effects cannot be predicted constantly. Bundeswehr tested that, the ERA can be anywhere from doing basically nothing to completely vaporizing the projectile (test munition was the then-new M829).
Buuub08 2 months ago
@Buuub08 True. It depends on angle of contact. That's why ERA bricks are placed inclined. Because at contact of 0dgr their effect is very limited. That's in theory. In reality ERA designed against sabots plays important role. In Aberdeen Proving Ground M829A1 was penetrating frontal armor of T-72 and T-80 without ERA. But with Kontakt-V installed they were proven immune and that's why development of M829A2 and A3 started after all.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@Buuub08 Really? :)
How can Rolled Homogenous Armor equivalent differ? :)
Yes, test can be conducted under different angles of contact (from 0 to 60), but then results are converted to equivalent at 0dgrs. So, they are comparable.
Penetration of 770mm RHA at 0dgr means 385mm thick plate at 60dgr or about 580mm at 30dgrs. Line of sight in all cases is equal to 770mm.
Sometimes armor is given in thickness and slope angle and then it is converted to RHA at 0dgrs.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Well, firstly there is no concrete definition what Rolled Homogenous Armor is, its supposedly a steel equivalent but as we all know there is plenty of steel types and in the US alone there are several types of steel that have been given that definition and different periods of time.
In any case, modern armors consist of interlayered materials of different hardness and density, from tungsten to boron carbide to rubber and so forth.
Buuub08 2 months ago
So, since the armor actually consists of anything but RHA the actual RHAe has to be estimated by math, using formulas of impact depth and such. Due to the high number of variables the effects are relatively unpredictable and thus merely estimated. The way they are estimated vary from country to country (as varies the definition of RHA). In the US its ALL based on a 30 degree shot. That angle is taken as the baseline, this in turn gives a 1.15 increase in the number.
Buuub08 2 months ago
@Buuub08 An angle is irrelevant. Completely. Different plates at different angles present same LOS and this is counted as penetration, because it is an actual distance a round have to pass through armor.
Yes, there are different kinds of steel, but armor steel is basically the same all around the world.
Yes, modern armor is composite and that's why their actual thickness is always less than their RHA equivalent ;) Every material has its own ratio to RHA, so RHAe can be calculated.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr You would me mistaken to assume armor steel is the same around the world. The US itself has had 3 DIFFERENT types of steel used as RHA measure at different times.
RHAe can be estimated, using physics formulas, such as impact depth, however the effects are too unpredictable. Even an identical munition will not always do the same identical damage. RHAe is merely an estimate and should not be taken as a fixed value.
Buuub08 2 months ago
RHAe estimates are based on assumed munitions, like copper liners for HEAT. Many modern munitions dont use copper anymore, yet their performance is also assessed on a RHA basis. The RHAe of armor vs copper HEAT will not be the same against molybdenum or tungsten liners. As such the RHA/RHAe numbers are incompatible altogether.
So once again, RHAe is just a general guideline for a steel equivalent in a standardized set of circumstances based on vague assumed MATH not actual tests.
Buuub08 2 months ago
RHAe doesnt include possible penetrator deformations, efficiency of jet formation and so forth. Such things are simply unpredictable and thus not accounted for in RHAe estimates, instead they use formulas based primarily on density. They are on the level of middle school physics. You shouldnt rely on them or take them as some sort of solid fact. They have been busted on numerous occasions where munitions penetrated far more than they should have according to RHAe estimates.
Buuub08 2 months ago
@Buuub08 "The US itself has had 3 DIFFERENT types of steel used as RHA measure at different times."
What they have now is what counts. Its a medium-soft armor steel, just like in Russia. Before they had hardened steel.
RHAe estimations for KE rounds are more accurate than of CE rounds and they vary much less +/- 5%. So, yes... it is just an estimation, but it gives some objective picture.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@Buuub08 Don't mix different things. RPG-29 is a shaped charge... not a sabot. Same composite armor performs differently against shaped charge and sabot penetrator.
Regarding M829A3 fired from L55 it is understandable that it will receive more boost, however bigger speed is not always what manufacturer wants. M829A3 was made specifically slower... otherwise speed drops more rapidly over distance, because of increased drag. What is 100% sure that T-80 was impenetrable to M829A1 round.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr I perfectly understand that. But id bet anything i have on that the M829A3 will penetrate more of whatever you put against it than RPG-29. Also composite armor RHAe against KE is always far lower than that against CE.
The A3 wasnt made slower, it was made heavier. Weight comes at the cost of speed though. APFSDS lose about 50-100m/s per every 1000m they travel, at 2000m it will still go in excess of 1400m/s. Drag isnt really much of an issue.
Buuub08 2 months ago
KE defeating ERA is relatively new. And as Bundeswehr test indicated the effects are NOT constant and predictable.
The angle is not irrelevant. Basic geometry, the sharper the angle the more material it has to pass through. A 30 degree angle (US military standard for armor testing) gives 1.15 time increase in value. Simple really.
Buuub08 2 months ago
@Buuub08 I'll try to explain with other words...
Case 1: US tests their new APFSDS and it passes 500mm plate at 30dgrs. Convert it to RHAe and you'll have 575mm RHA.
Case 2: Germans test their new APFSDS and it passes 290mm plate at 60dgrs. Convert it to RHAe and you'll have 580mm RHA.
Case 3: Russia test its new APFSDS and it passes 575mm plate at 0dgrs. Convert it... Actually it is 575mm RHA.
RHA equivalent takes angle into consideration so, at what angles test are done is irlvnt.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@Buuub08 By the way, are you sure that 30dgrs increases LOS only by 1.15 times? Maybe by 1.5times?
BitnikGr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Buuub08 "Also composite armor RHAe against KE is always far lower than that against CE." - Correct
"But id bet anything i have on that the M829A3 will penetrate more of whatever you put against it than RPG-29." - Wrong.
1) You forgot to consider distance. APFSDS penetration is depended on distance. Shaped charge doesn't.
2) You chose the strongest APFSDS today, but not the strongest shaped charge today... 900mm at point blank range of M829A3 is of course more than 700mm of RPG-9.
...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@Buuub08 "The A3 wasnt made slower, it was made heavier."
There is a term in Exterior Ballistics, which describes optimum max speed for a missile (as any throwing object). Each KE round has it's own optimized max speed and excess of this speed will lead to excessive drag and more rapid loss of speed. Resulting with worse results at max ranges.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
And, finaly, we will never know what tank is better until they meet each other in real combat. And even then the result of combat will depend of circumstances.
aksakal777 4 months ago
@aksakal777 They did, Gulf war. T90s were used by the 'elite republican guard' and were destroyed at least 15 T90s dead to every 1 M1A1 tank dead. T72s and varients were also used. Remember, T90s are still just T72s that are shinier because they are newer.. there is not much difference however between a T72 'varient' and the renaming of an 'improved varient of a T72' to 'T90', which is what 'T90' is, still just a T72 at its base, so it will never be better.
BlackOps78321 3 months ago
@BlackOps78321 You're fag and gay T-90 will never be used in Iraq war, cocksucker deep shit
M-1 fucked in Iraq 2003
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
На Луркоморье про сабж статья есть. Пиндосы соснули хуйцов.
racdenis 5 months ago
Comment removed
racdenis 5 months ago
Comment removed
racdenis 5 months ago
Comment removed
racdenis 5 months ago
This T90 managed to hit 6 target in 45 seconds which is awesome but I think it depends on the gunner, other gunners may not be able to do so again, on the other hand the Lopard2 which managed to hit 5 targets in the same time has better stabilizer system and it means other gunners of Leopard2, more or less, can achieve the same score.
PERSIAisHISTORY 6 months ago
@PERSIAisHISTORY No one has ever been able to find any proof of one or the other FCS, stabilization etc to be better or worse than the other, a gyro is a gyro and a computer is a computer. The ONLY thing Russian tanks dont have is BIMS. However didnt seem to help the US tankers much when they couldnt tell the difference between T-54 and M1A1 even with BIMS on.
Buuub08 4 months ago
@Buuub08 Well, actually original manuals and even blueprints come out online after several years. Of course it is not possible to find exact technical data on the newest stuff in service, but for example it is a known fact that M1A1 has better stabilization accuracy compared to stabilizer of T-80. Of course this factor isn't the only one which determines an overall accuracy. But I am just saying that there are proofs for specific performance of every subsystem.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Oh nice, the rare occasion when someone actually knowing something. Kudos bro.
I agree with you, to an extent tho.
We would have to specify the T-80. The original T-80 is older than the base M1, being designed in late 60s/early70s. M1A1 appeared in late 80s/early 90s, by then T-80 was already in effect 15-20 years old, so it would only make sense that is would be technically inferior. Anyways, the only way to say for sure is to do a head-on comparison, has never happened tho.
Buuub08 2 months ago
@Buuub08 Yes. I was talking about T-80B with FCS 1A42 (1978-1985) and XM-21 FCS for M1A1.
In most of parameters XM-21 stabilization is better than 1A42. Some of them are almost equal, in some others difference is quite important and in couple of things 1A42 is better. For example, in vertical gun's speed it has 2.5dgr/sec vs 1.4dgr/sec of XM-21.
Overall, all these specs are translated in +500-600m better accuracy for M1A1 vs T-80B. 2800m vs 2200-2300m of effective range.
...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@Buuub08 ...
T-80U is of course a different story and it has 1A45 FCS, instead of old 1A42, it has new stabilizer, new day sight, new cannon. All these improved accuracy and effective range raised from 2200 to 2500-2600m for T-80U (1985-2001).
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Yep, agreed 100%.
Buuub08 2 months ago
@TheRussian460 Thanks for the info. I suppose now that the T90 and the M1A2 would be a pretty fair match up.
KSGAxAirsoft 6 months ago
Не понял.
Динамическая зашита - встроенная, значит получается, что под браней встроена динамическая защита? Или она сверху?
Получается, если в точку попал снаряд, то второй раз эта же точка пробьется к чертям.(динамическая защита, она одноразовая).
Rustafa13 7 months ago
@Rustafa13 vidis eti koubiki?ena i iest dinamichiskaia zashita.
sergioswow 6 months ago
If 10 abrams will fight vs 10 t90 in an open area, t90 will win just with 1-2 tanks lost max. and abrams will be all kill, because the russians tanks can shoot about 5000 meters with the newest bullets - and abrams can just shoot max. 2500 - 3000 meters. And the russians have the better rockets, which the americans dont have.
Lebschig 7 months ago
@Lebschig M1A2 vs T90A? M1A2 would take the day. Being a fan of the T90A myself, the K5 ERA that is employed on the T90A would be easily penetrated by the Abrams newer ammunition. Maybe the T90A could take out 6-8, but the M1A2s would surely win. T90M vs M1A2? T90M all the way. Much better gun, better ERA, better protection, improved turret, etc. Look it up with Google search.
KSGAxAirsoft 7 months ago
@KSGAxAirsoft learn history t-90 vs abrams... abrams here lose!
JJusty1 7 months ago
@KSGAxAirsoft "K5 ERA that is employed on the T90A would be easily penetrated by the Abrams newer ammunition."
What ammo? At which distance? At which point of contact?
Such claims are ridiculous without providing these variables.
10 T-90A vs 10 M1A2 at distances till 3200m - Abrams wins.
10 T-90A vs 10 M1A2 at distances 3500-5000m - T-90 wins.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@Lebschig ye ofc win!
JJusty1 7 months ago
В россии танки единственная техника которую научились делать на совесть, это мы умеем, чего не скажеш про отечественный автопром=(
Nafanya889 7 months ago 3
Подкалиберными кумулятивными снарядами обстреливали?!!А почему не активно-реактивными подкалиберными кумулятивными?)
gr1zv0ld 7 months ago
AAAAAH! I WISH I KNEW WHAT HE WAS SAYING!!
SabreWolferos 7 months ago
I love that huge air the T-90 gets on that first jump.
BufordJustice 7 months ago
Americans make weapons for entertainment-Russians make for battlefields.
EminidisMike 8 months ago 45
@EminidisMike The last battle Russia fought was with Georgia a small country with less resources.. One of the last wars Russia was Engaged with was Afghanistan the poor people of afghanistan kicked the hell out of the biggest country... Im pretty sure that the U.S. has been kicking the Afghans A** for ten years now... so when Russia decides to go hard not go home... Come talk About Americas weapons
microscissors 7 months ago
@microscissors It is almost impossible to win a war against an enemy that uses hit and run tactics ,the Us lost the Vietnam war too.And no the US is actually withdrawing from Afg and car bombs are still going off in Iraq.
alexton650 7 months ago
@EminidisMike So what if Americans make weapons for entertainment, we still make better weapons.
93214919321491 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@93214919321491 The funny thing is that you believe what you say.
EminidisMike 7 months ago
@EminidisMike americunt idiot again
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@EminidisMike Bullshit. M1A1s are slightly older now but you shouldn't make shit up like a child. M1A1s defeated hundreds of T90s and T72s during the gulf war. The 'elite republican guard' used T90s and were destroyed. The realistic thing to say if you wish to compare Americans and Russia is that (looking at russia's history), Russia they would swarm many more troops and tanks with low experience and millions would die to thousands, but they might succeed in overrunning a position.
BlackOps78321 3 months ago
@BlackOps78321 "elite republican guard' used T90s"
Yeap... that's the definition of BS! T-90 never were in Iraq.
T-72 destroyed in Iraq were downgraded monkey-models. Comparing Iraqi T-72M with Soviet T-72A is like comparing original M1 with M1A3 30years later. That's the difference between those T-72s. T-72M is like M60A1 or even M48A5. Compare M1A1 to M60A1.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@EminidisMike retard.
eric669cp3 3 months ago
@eric669cp3 trying again americunt
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@EminidisMike Idiot
XxxSakura101 3 months ago
@XxxSakura101 you are
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@EminidisMike
Russians are making guns?
I thought they were just making vodka and drinking it...
BTW American weapons are much better than Russian one's.
patrioticjumper 3 months ago
@patrioticjumper americunt wepons sucks so much like fat nigger whores in usa
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
As i can see from ur nick, i can say u are some fucking american hating little kid who has no life. And i bet u are jelous to americans, becuse they have a better life, better job, better everything than you. So shut up stupid jelous no-lifer :)
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper Oh america gay lover detected lol. if you like crappy usa go fuck yourself and hang on your fat carcass. I shut up your pussy moyuth, stop bitching or ypu epic fail again loser.
I live in gay usa three years and fuck your girls.
Yes you do better job - blowjob better then everything but everything else in your stupid country sucks, worst then any other.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
First of all plz go to school and learn normal english
Second I am not American
Third I am not fat, i weight about 65KG
fourth shut up stupid russian
fifth U are just jelous to americans becuse they have better life/
sixth Just make a suicade and persude russians to do that, then world will be in peace
seventh T-90 is same t-72s, just little bit newer. And in war(Iraq,Iran) average 1 abram could destroy about 5 t-72s.
Eighth As it have been proved russians fail in military.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper No eglish sux
Second I'm not Russian
65KG weight of women
fourth i shut up your gay mouth. Stupid it's typical for americunts not for Rissians you wrong again.
fifth U gay and you have nothing to be jelous your country is shit
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper
six Russia fuck and nuke gay usa next world make peace together
seventh T-90 based on object 188 tank, In war of '91 was attended by a very primitive export modification of the T-72M1 madein Poland. Without a laser rangefinder, thermal imager, battlefield control, fire control system, etc. M-1 is modified tank of 1980 years.
Eighth As was proved americunts are failing everywhere.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper "T-90 is same t-72s, just little bit newer."
Wrong. I bet you can't name even 3 things same on T-72 and T-90.
"And in war(Iraq,Iran) average 1 abram could destroy about 5 t-72s."
Since when Abrams fought in Iran? :)
In Iraq in 1991, there were more Abrams (1850) than T-72 (1000). And in 2003 there were only 370 T-72.
"As it have been proved russians fail in military."
It just proves that you are not familiar with military history... at all.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
Sry wrong war :D
I ment the gulf war. And there was the t-90's too. Abrams pwned them all :)
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper T-90 did not participate in the war in Iraq nor in '91 or in 2003. M-1 have epic fail in Iraq. abrams pwned by outdated bulgarian and chinese RPG-7 of 1963 year version.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
I am stoping this discusion. So please don't even brother to answer this.
And i thinked that people in internet are smart. I was wrong :(
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper Yes americunt you was wrong cuz every of you are wrong and you every time wrong, you are wrong americunt. So fuck you idiot.
M-1 sux and fail in Iraq 2003. Learn it gay shit.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
So much hate against americans u have.
LoL
USA is the best place ever. Las Vegas, California, Miami. mmmm
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper lol I live three years in usa seattle, detroit, new york, dallas you guys (maybe gays) suck and worst place in the world ever.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
Are u the same ''disgorgenukeusa''?
Cuz some americans sayed to you that if u will say word americunt, he will burn down ur village and hit ur teeth's out. I could join him to help.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper I don know what you are gay talking about
americunts is a historical name of your crappy nation WTF wrong with you gay boy. Some stupid amerocunts like you trying to fuck with me and they all epic lose hahahahaha. Trying that shit with me boy.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
HOW MUCH TIME"S I HAVE TO SAY THAT I AM NOT AN AMERICAN?
But, as i know u have some sort of retardnes. So please u need see a doctor.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper Who fucking cares what cunt is you are ? americunt or other cunt this is no matter, fuck you loser. I'm french and proud anti-americunt. I support Russia, together we fuck and nuke usa.
Russians = good guys, anti-russian = bad gays. Fuck you nigger second time.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
The Russian T-90 S and E is somewhat new but still has the 1,000 hp diesel vs the 1,500 hp turbine, it has reactive armor vs the depleted uranium of the Abrams. The fire control of the M1 is by far superior to any,we could improve on the night sights but that is my opinion due to by TTS experience in the M-60's series MBT (Main Battle Tank). Finally the 120mm smooth bore will fire a sabot round at a mile a second and usually has a first round kill.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper Russians have a different engine, transmission, chassis, lugs, guns, etc. learn the history of Soviet tank creation.
T-90C is the export version of the tank is never use in the Russian army. Do russians have diesel engines to 860, 1,000, 1,200, 1,500, 1,800 and 3,200 horsepower. There are also several versions of the turbine engine in 2500, 4000 hp plus electro-engine for tanks.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper In Iraq, the M-1 was easily fucked by crappy chinese and bulgarian RPG-7. Russian have different types of armor, they are mainly used NERA 3 or 4 generations that much better a wretched and dangerous outdated DU armor. ERA of russian tanks are only one layer of his armor, dumbfuck. Russian FCS system has multiple channels for simultaneous tracking of more than 180 goals in different modes
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper modes and band reception at a distance of 28 km, american debris can only dream about it for a large part of the M-1 are use unsafe to eye laser range finder lol. Russian FCS provides the possibility of firing and hitting in all conditions at a distance of 20 km but no smoothbore gun in the world can not shoot at the range sighting over 8 km because of the deviation and lower accuracy of the projectile. Shoot at a greater distance can only be rifled gun like the British L30.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
FUCKING IDIOTS JUST DIE!!!
I am not from USA idiot. I live in EU. If i will meet u someday i will smash ur dumb head versus wall
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper I think you lie me but ok where you live bitch, I had been not only in the u.s. but also in many countries in Europe and Asia. Tell me the pussy where are you hiding and I'm ready to go kick your ass.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
Wow, u have been in another country's.
Didn't know that retarded people drive anywhere.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper Wow you scared pussy is afraid to tell me who is she and where she live
Yeah retarded fags like you sometimes fall out of cunts
Stop trolling buddy get a life and fuck off
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
U are that dude, who hasn't any life.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper get a life ?
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
Please delete your self from youtube.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper No thanks nigger i'd better to banned your account
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper Ok, get a fucking die
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
Please, go to school and learn english.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@patrioticjumper
SHUT THE FUCK UP AND NUKE USA
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper There is no T-90E version :)))
1000HP vs 1500HP is an invalid argument. Power/mass ratio counts and not Power itself.
1500HP/63t is practically the same as 1200/45t or 1130/48t.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
And let talk about french tanks. 1 gear forward and 5 gear's backward. Just same as in ww2. Nukes? They even't won't hit EU, becuse we have anti-rocket missles.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper Leclerc are better than m-1 too of course.
France was defeated in 1940 not because of the tanks, the French SOMUA S35 and Char B1 surpassed all German tanks. We could not resist the new kraut tactics.
Fuck you again. EU are not pro-americunt surprise fag. Even introduced a currency against the dollar - the Euro.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
Don't make me go to france and burn that shitty place.
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper Trying gay boy, we go to nigger usa and destroy all your loser shithole hahahha
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3
And u whanna hear why USA arms up in EU? Not becuse they are afraid from Russia(It's just a peace of garbage can, who cant do anything normal) but they know that China will take all Asia and Russia too, so they are arming up EU :)
patrioticjumper 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper China is very weak and totally dependent on pussy usa, stories about strong Chinese invented a degenerate like you. End of U.S. gay and this is the end of China because China would lose a market for what keeps their economy.
I lived in fat usa and saw what a piece of nigger shit crap usa is, I dream that Russia incinerated this bullshit to ashes. Leave your anal gay fantasies to yourself, usa and you sucks now, cry.
Pro-americunt cunt lol's me
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@patrioticjumper "I ment the gulf war. And there was the t-90's too."
You prove again that military history is not your trump :) The first T-90 came out of factory in 1994. How exactly it could be in Gulf War? :)
Iraq hadn't received any new weapons from USSR since 1980 because of embargo after they started war with Iran.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@patrioticjumper yes I swear they are easy fuck you, you're too fat to fight + too stupid to create somethin and aal whole day gaymericans are gay
DisgorgeKILLusa3 2 months ago
T72=Modified T64, T80=Modified T72, T90=Modified T72.
M1 Abrams, unique "from the ground up" Modern Tank Design, plus the Abrams is Older than the T90 and is still better, the fairer comparison is the M1A2 versus T90 which is a sure Abrams win. Although the Merkava 4 is the best tank.
FrankDaTank1218 9 months ago
@FrankDaTank1218
"T72=Modified T64, T80=Modified T72, T90=Modified T72."
Completely FALSE.
T-64 was a better tank than the 72, it was a DOWNGRADE. And it was made by an ENTIRELY different company and they have no common parts at all. Similar with the T-80, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the T-72, if anything it was a competitor.
T-90 was developed from the T-72B, but has many new innovations, like APS and double-stage ERA defeating tandem HEAT.
Buuub08 9 months ago
@FrankDaTank1218 Funny how you tank about modifications but dont mention that the supposedly uber M1A2 itself is a modified M1A1, which is a modified M1, which is the XM1, which is a DOWNGRADED MBT-70 developed in 1970.
Comparing models of a certain time - the Russian ones were technically superior.
T-90 vs M1A2, unlikely scenario, and the outcome depends on far more than personal preference. Using pure technical/performance data - the T-90 is better in fact and proved it in Malaysia.
Buuub08 9 months ago
@Buuub08 All that intense fighting in malaysia :P Really? The "modification lineage" of an M1A1 only goes back to about the 80's, the original design is newer than the T-90's T64 Original model. The only thing the T90/95 tanks have over the Abrams is lighter weight and improved travel range/gas mileage. Look the Russians make the best combat shotgun (Saiga 12), the best MMG (PKM), and one of the Best assault rifles (AK series). I just don't agree with their tanks having superiority.
FrankDaTank1218 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Buuub08 All that intense fighting in malaysia :P Really? The "modification lineage" of an M1A1 only goes back to about the 80's, the original design is newer than the T-90's T64 Original model. The only thing the T90/95 tanks have over the Abrams is lighter weight and improved travel range/gas mileage. Look the Russians make the best combat shotgun (Saiga 12), the best MMG (PKM/PKP), and one of the Best assault rifles (AK series). I just don't agree with their tanks having superiority.
FrankDaTank1218 9 months ago
and the abrams has by far better armor than any russian tank ever made. sloped, chobham armor, made out of many materials that i am not allowed to say but the abrams is battle tested. I can show you a picture of a russian t-72 that was blown up in iraq and brought back stateside and refurbished. it aint shit compared to the abrams. and all the t-90 is is a built up t-72. I know what im talking about, not only is it my job to know the enemy, but its my job to live and breathe it.
rebelleader123 9 months ago
The M1 has been produced in higher numbers than any Russian tank after the T-62.
Quality? Russian tanks are made to be completely autonomous in the most adverse environment, thus they are the most reliable tanks ever made - which has been proven by numerous competitions worldwide.
Abrams better armor? Wrong, from all MBTs around now the M1 has the worst armor and the weakest gun.
Chobham is a NAME not a type.
Buuub08 9 months ago
Many materials you cant say? Hahaha!
Yeah cause you dont know shit about armor. Its plastic reinforced carbide ceramics inter-layered with steel. In the A1 version it finally got high density plating in the form of nuclear waste called DU. At that time this type of plating was already used on Russian tanks for about a decade (using the WAY more costly but safer and effective Tungsten).
There has NEVER been a Russian T-72 on Iraqi soil. You know jackshit about tanks for a tanker TBH.
Buuub08 9 months ago
@Buuub08 yes it was the t72 was exported to iraq, and the iraqs made a few improvements and named it the lion of babylon, it was not a licenesed built version of the t72, it was a russian built t72, and finally the best armour in the world is chopham, only in use with the brits and yanks and besides countries that built the t72 under license built them the same way as the russians, russians are also shitty engineers, hell look at their nuclear submarine fleet, how may boats did you lose.
packr72 9 months ago
@packr72 Russia didnt export T-72 to Iraq. All Iraq ever had were Warsaw pact WRITE-OFF T-72M tanks, Iraq was buying tanks that were scheduled for the scrap yard and were downgraded to begin with, not to mention that the numbers of those tanks were ridiculously small, they were even unable to fire fully packed munitions and were using armament that was OFFICIALLY announced as obsolete in 1973 - that is BEFORE the M1 even existed.
Chobham is a NAME not a type of armor.
Buuub08 9 months ago
The Iraqi LB tank was nothing but a locally made T-72M lookalike, best tank Iraq ever had, yet still it could be destroyed by an RPG-7 from ANY angle. Why? Because they were already OLD even before the M1 existed.
Shitty engineers? I wouldnt say so, especially when it comes to missile technology, to this day its RUSSIAN engines that are bringing American satellites into orbit. The Russian sub fleet was scrapped by the US during the 90s, as was everything else.
Buuub08 9 months ago
@Buuub08 chpham is a type of armor, its a type of ceramic composite armor developed by the brits, please they were new tanks built in 1989 some of the tanks were shit but the t72s that took part in the battle of 73 easting were iraqi built t72s with upgrades, the tanks were built using steel from a german company and belguim built their electronics
packr72 9 months ago
@packr72 Man you are an idiot, Chobham is a NAME, the type is composite armor. The type is no different from what every other proper MBT uses. I guess the F-15 is an EAGLE as well not a multirole fighter, and the M1A2 is an Abrams not a tank then.
Iraq doesnt build T-72s, they made T-72M based lookalikes with 300mm RHA steel armor, that kind of armor was already insufficient in the 70s. They still were the best tanks Iraq ever had, yet still completely outdated and outmatched.
Buuub08 9 months ago
BTW, the US military always talks about fighting T-72s, in reality however less than 50 have ever been noted to have taken part in combat. Ive seen it countless times how soldiers talk about facing T-72s and point at a Chinese T-62. Fact is - 90% cant tell the difference. Judging by the many FF incidents even telling the difference between a T-55 and an M1 is a problem, no surprise T-62 and T-72 look the same for them.
Buuub08 9 months ago
@Buuub08 its a name officailly given to composite armor developed by the brits, i can call it chopham to distinguish it from other types of composite armor out there, and it is different, its more expensive and offers better protection than any other armor on the planet, alright so the lion of babylon was a turd, guess what that still doesnt help the t72 case, you cant polish a turd, yes the russina t72 has thicker and better armor, but abrams has better armor, better mobility,better ammo
packr72 9 months ago
@packr72 It is just a NAME, everything has to have a name. There are only 2 types of passive armor - RHA and composite. More expensive and better protection? Have you done tests on that? No you havent, so how the hell can you tell? Dont pull random shit from you ass.
What helps the T-72 case is a simple fact of history - the base T-72 was already outdated BEFORE the M1 even came into existence. Remember that before you make an idiot of yourself again.
Buuub08 9 months ago
@packr72 Abrams better armor? Than what? base T-72? Yeah, definitely. Better than T-90? Nop. Why? Because T-90 has far more elements for protection, including 2 APS, full-body heavy ERA and then Tungsten reinforced composite armor of the last generation. All in all even landing a shot on it is extremely difficult due to APS.
Better mobility? Dead wrong, in every single competition the M1 totally failed there.
Ammo? Why would that be? Germans have the best APFSDS btw.
Buuub08 9 months ago
Due to the fact that the M1 uses a gun that was outdated more than 20 years ago its firepower is rather weak.
The US military doesnt even dare to give the actual performance numbers but gives would-be numbers if the M1 had the L55, which it doesnt. Thus, as far as APFSDS goes - Germans take the 1st place. As for HEAT - atm Russians win again. Why? Simply because their rounds are guided, they fire ATGMs basically, giving it a higher hit chance and greater range.
Buuub08 9 months ago
@Buuub08 abrams armor is made with a stronger and denser material than the t90, depleted uranium, and its armor is based off the briish developed chopham composite, where do you think all the weight for the abrams is, era is a one time only, it gets hit and explodes, yeah the abrams is faster than the t90, yeah it needs more gas, so what we can afford gas,, what competitions, the m829a3 ke round was designed to defeat kontakt 5 era armor and any other era developed in the future
packr72 9 months ago