Armchair generals arguing which tank could beat the other! LOL. Sorry but a few wikipedia articles and battlefield 3 doesn't make ANY of you knowledgeable at all, shut the fuck up you nerds.
To everyone saying an Abrams is better than one of these, tell me.. how do you think an Abrams would beat a T90? Its DU shells can't penetrate A T90 once it's fitted with kontakt 5 ERA. The T90 practically invincible..
BF3 is not realistic about tanks. If the game were realistic, than rpg7 and smaw would take at least 16 to 20 hits to destroy abrams or t90. Also, t90 heat rounds( with 1000mm penetration, google it if you dont believe me) would be able to disable an abrams with one shot to the turrent. Thirdly, you would never be able to see sabot rounds arc because of their range( 3 to 4km ). lastly, only t90 would have guided shells because abrams in real life has no guided ordanence available for its main g
American Abrams is better. It is the only tank in the WORLD that has stealth capability and smokescreen-producing ability. Also, remember Desert Storm? 1 Abrams destroyed like 37 T-90's EASILY in one go. The Abrams took over 40 direct hits from the T-90's main gun and was not even scratched. Abrams is more advanced with futuristic armor.
1. The vast majority of tanks since the 1970's had smoke grenade dischargers.
2. There were no "T-90" tanks at the time of Desert Storm, they didn't exist, never mind participating in a conflict.
3. The Abrams did not survive 40 direct hits from the T-90's main gun because there T-90's main gun never fired upon the Abrams, not in combat, not in testing.
4. The Abrams uses composite armour, much like all tanks since the 1970's.
@qyoper Wow an american that thinks anything american is better than anything else.. suprising. cant u watch a video without having to mention how you think you are better? no one really cares what you think. t-90 is awsome
@qyoper Actually, no it's not. it's the 21st century now, not the 70's. We British have something from BAE Systems you might have seen. Check out Disappearing Tank on YouTube and see how we have techology that owns your Abrams. And by the way, the Russians have the same technology too.
for all you US and Russia people the M1A1, the A1 was developed for warfare against T-72s in a conflict against Eastern Bloc nations who used the t-72 and below family of tanks. THe T-90 was developed in a response to the M1A2 being used in iraq against insurgents and they adapted the T-72 to a better role to fighting chechen insurgents, hence the armor and reactive armor plating. Both tanks are exceptional. Just chill people of the interwebs. russian-american and proud of it
@BarcelPL it is IR suppressor for antiarmor weapons that use active aiming systems. as u say it just blinds operator and you can't see where is the tank and where does the missile fly. actually this is effective only against the same russian weapons.
@BarcelPL well yes, as u saw in video when tank in scope starts to shine and disappears in the rays of light, that's what u see when u aim at tank with russian antitank weapons. so u have to fight with this tank in pares, one distracts another destroys. it's not an easy task, but can be accomplished.
Looks like Russia learned from how their sold tanks were destroyed in the Iraq wars. Nice mods.. to whomever said its faster than tha abrahms it isnt.. but you can go on believing that, thats just fine,. Its defensive capabilities are nice.. seems like it could take the few punches that would hit it first.. Im guessing the USA has to have a new generation tank on the way though.. the Abrahms is a 80s tank even upgraded.
@sscaero15 Uhh no the Abrahms has a governor to keep it at 55mph. (Thats mph not KM).. Without the governor... well .. Im not allowed to tell you the full speed of the tank but your high to think its slower.
@HecatianStar More like 40 Kmph(not Mph but Km)....Yes, i know it can go up to 70Kmph but it runs out of fuel and also damages the tank's tracks.So,they limited the speed to 40-45 kmph for combat.T-90 can go up 50-55 kmph with its combat speed.
The biggest advantage of the t-72 and T-90 is its low profile and maneuverability compared to western tanks it really is low profile = harder target to hit
@MrSnapy1 + guided munitions, + HE-FRAG rounds for dealing with infantry AT teams at distances up to 5km, + transportability by rail-road network, + autoloader. With 300 men you can man 100 T-90 vs 75 M1. Also, future M1A3 will come out with autoloader. So, it is an advantage after all. :)
The flaw with the t-72/90 design is in ammo storage and the turret ring google destroyed t72's and look at the pics over 80% will have the turret blew off This is a serious problem without compartmentalized ammo storage the crew may not be saved but,having the turret blew off makes tank recovery alot harder and much more expensive to fix.This is why im no fan of t72/t90 it looses its turret way too often and this is a battlefield fact.
@MrSnapy1 Yes, it is a battlefield fact. Another fact is that fire is not an instant event as many people like to believe. Battlefield statistics of last 2 decades prove that crew in T-72/90 has same survivability rate like any other 3rd gen tank (with exception of Abrams). 1.5-2 crew members die in case of penetration. In S. Ossetia Russia lost 3 tanks and 3 crew members died because of penetration. Turrets ripped off are result of fire deploying inside the tank.
Fire is not an instant detonation, but progressive procedure. Crews usually have from several seconds to 2-3 minutes to leave the tank, before built up pressure inside will blow off the turret. We have seen many pictures of "turretless" tank, but no actual video of such event in combat conditions.
Abrams blow-off panels also save the crew from fire and not from instant ammo detonation. In case of ammo storage detonation Abrams turret flies as good as T-72 one.
@MrSnapy1 This is why im no fan of t72/t90 it looses its turret way too often and this is a battlefield fact.....FACT , USA , NEVER destroyed T-90 made fot Russian Force !!!!!!, .
@rickhunter47 Your government decided to keep it cheap so you bought the monkey models of T-64M and T-72M and you even purchased it without firecontrol and infrared and night vision. You could buy modernized T-72 but that was too expensive
@SMGJohn actually many countries like libya and iraq were able to afford it but with the discoveries of petroleum sanction came along, as for example libya was under ban of arms sales for decades and when these modern models came in we were banned from buying such advanced weapons and mostly whenever deals for such technologies are made, the magical security council pressures russia out of the deal, therefore we use the "monkey" model since we can produce them locally
The t 90 is overrated its simply a upgraded T 72 after iraq the T 72 name was so tarnished and was pretty much renamed the T 90 its the exact same design only difference is a "few" technological upgrades.It still has all the flaws of the T-72 like very poor crew protection and limited fire control computers the list goes on.Not saying it isn't an effective tank but,it was designed for quantity not quality.One on one I would much rather be in a western main battle tank.
@MrSnapy1 I thought that you are smart, but no... as I see you are just another troll who runs over all T-90 videos saying trash!
"a "few" technological upgrades" you say?!
According to GRAU indexing policy if upgrades are "few" the vehicles receives justr another letter designating its version. In order to get new index upgrades must be extensive. T-90 has only same shame and dimentions. Every single part of is modernized. It's a modern 3rd generation tank. T-72 belongs to 2nd gen.
Not true I have bad things to say about the M1 as well .Im not just trolling its my opinion and everyone has the right to theirs that the T-90 is overrated Before desert storm the t90 was named t72ub.Now I am a fan of the T80u its its own design and again in my opinion better than the t90.Yes the t90 has some good upgrades but its still a t72 and is a coffin for the poor soldiers inside it.It has a serious flaw in ammo storage and the turret ringOther than that its just fine
@MrSnapy1 Yes... everyone has a right to have an opinion. Even a housewife regarding MBT. Main point is that I haven't hear anything correct from you... neither about T-tanks, neither about Challenger. Some things are not opinions, but pure facts. All your words are identical with what we hear in Discovery documentaries etc... We agreed only in one important factor, that tactics and crew training are more important than tank's specs themselves and I agree that US Armored Forces are...
@MrSnapy1 ... better trained, better equipped and US Army Generals are more competent than Russian ones. But then again you go from a video to a video bashing T-72 and T-90 with total wrong assumptions and allegations.
First of all, T-90 is nowhere near over-PR in comparison to M1. T-90 is 100% better than T-72 and T-80. M1A1 was on par with existing T-80B in 1985, but from the first day of it's existence we hear that M1 is the best tank in the world! That's a definition of...
@MrSnapy1 ... overrating. Also, overrating comes not only in form of public opinion, but in form of a pricetag also. M1A1 is sold to other countries at prices from 6 to 10mln per piece. T-90S only per 3.5-4mln per piece. Cost of production of M1 - 5mln. T-90 - 2.7mln.
M1A1 always was inferior to T-90, but still it is more expensive. M1A2 versions have solved many M1A1 flaws.
...
Next. There NEVER was a T-72UB version. Iraqi T-72M pre-Desert Storm can't be compared in any term with a...
@MrSnapy1 ... Soviet T-72A and of course to T-72B(BM) versions. T-72BM, with some extensive upgrades can reach a level of first initial T-90 (1994). Just like the latest M60A3TTS can be directly compared with early M1A1 in performance. No T-72 can reach level of T-90A and further models.
-
Now. You say that you are a fan of T-80 and that T-72/90 is a coffin for "poor soldiers". Fact is that you don't know that internal layout of T-80 is more dangerous for crew, than in T-72/90...
@MrSnapy1 T-80 has a vertical Autoloader Mechanism, which means that rounds inside it are more probable to get hit by incoming round in case of penetration. And what is more worse, vertical autoloader separates driver from the rest of the crew. And there were at least several lethal incidents when driver was trapped, because he couldn't open his hatch and he couldn't get into the turret. In T-72/90 autoloader is horizontal in tank's floor and it is covered by steel. Think about it.
@BitnikGr Modernization does help tho and it has had some good upgrades im not denying that.It still shares the t-72 design the t95 looks to have corrected the flaws in the t72 and should be a great tank.
When the M1a3 come out yes it will be just a upgraded m1a2 and will still share its flaws like being a gas hog and requiring jet fuel when the other vehicles in the us army require diesel making logistics a nightmare.Modernization doesn't fix design flaws only a redesign will .
@MrSnapy1 Depends on the flaw... Replace a gas-turbine with diesel engine is not a redesign, it is a modernization and it can solve that problem. Problem with Russian tanks is not 22 rounds inside autoloader, but 22 rounds outside of it stored all around the hull and turret. Remove this 22 rounds and problem is solved. T-90MS got additional ammo storage box for 10 rounds behind the turret. So, 22 + 10 and you don't have same problem with crew survivability anymore, neither you need...
Design of a totally new platform is needed only when a further modernization of existing platform will not allow to deal with challenges on modern battlefield. That's why US and Germany started new MBT project, because no modernization in the World would make M60 and Leopard 1 competitive to Soviet armada. From the other hand, extensive modernization of T-72 platform allows it to be a competitive MBT today.
Like I said im no longer arguing which is best the "Best" is a broad definition there is many way to be the best.My point is the M-1 is designed for crew protection as the number one concern over anything else.The t72/90 is not while yes the auto loader and the way it stores its ammo is a advantage in efficiency its at the cost of crew protection. If I was to be in either tank with a rear or top turret breach that hits the ammo I would much rather be in the m1.
@MrSnapy1 Firs of all, I want to apologize that I answer with so many comments. 500characters per comment is too short for me, for expressing my arguments. Sorry for that inconvenience.
It is a logical choice for a soldier to choose a tank with higher level of survivability. Generals and manufacturers however sometimes prefer an overall better tank survivability than crew survivability after penetration.
You can loose your Abrams more easily than T-90, but you will survive. True.
And yes the M1's greatest flaw could be a battle looser as long as the fuel trucks stay up with it its on of the better tanks in the world.In a total war scenario though logistics become a problem.Look at the mighty Tiger and Panther tanks in ww2 in Normandy more was lost to running out of gas than was lost to anti tank fire.All tanks have their flaws and strengths you just have to be open minded enough to see them all tanks have their flaws.
@MrSnapy1 Oh, yes, sir, I am pretty much aware of limitation of T-tanks series and if you would read comments in other video where we've meet, you would find that I have absolutely no problem with correcting inaccuracies and sometimes even blatant lies of some Russian "fanboyz" and "blind patriots" about Soviet/Russian armor.
I am pro-truth and pro-reality, and not pro-somecountry's tanks.
My country, by the way, has US and German tanks only and we'll receive 400 old M1A1 in 2012.
@MrTahoe32 well the T-90 is more similar to the T-72 as the T-80 was more similar to the M86 and T-55 as far as suspension and crew compartments, etc... the T-90 has a much upgraded suspension, autoloader, and firing system to the T-72 and the new 125mm smoothbore high velocity cannon cannot be matched by many western armies. the closest cannon to matching it is the Challenger II 120mm Rifled lower velocity heavier projectile cannon which proved to be a great choice.
tandem rocket is not effective against NERA (non-energetic reactive armor) and NxRA (non-explosive reactive armor). As you can see... Russia,china,EU,US are just some super powers spending ALL their resources in this endless arms race :)
Even If you managed to hit the tank with a RPG-7,anti-tank missle...etc. The reactive amour can easily pushes the rocket away before the molten metal could touch the exterior. russia deserves to be 1 of the nuclear power nation:)
@sergeikozin47 Dream on, lucky to even get the hunk of Russian shit started due to wore out parts and parts are in short supply ! Some old Russian made shit, rusted, clunky and prone to breaking down daily !
@Hincesti07 Really?! I would expect from such an expert like you are to present numbers of track lifespans, engine lifetime, time to overhaul for Abrams and T-90. I bet you have those numbers. Also, I am sure that you can present military spendings for service and maintenance of each tank during their lifetime.
@BitnikGr What are you so worked up about !, and what are you blabbering your fool head off for !
Look its just a Russian tank made rusty clunky squeaky prone to breakage and excellent helpless sitting duck for a target by U.S air force fighter pilots !
These Russian military videos are so funny because fucked up Russian is ham strung to do anything modern productive due to criminal mafia and Putin in control of Russia !
@Hincesti07 Your silly brain is "prone to breakage". Why don't you just leave air-bashing words and meaningless claims and start presenting numbers, which can back up your assumptions.
Role of USAF against mobile forces in Iraq is a nice fairy-tale written for internal consumption in US. It is proved long time ago that US Ground Forces destroyed vast majority of Iraqi tanks and not USAF.
What is track lifetime of Abrams and T-90? What is an engine lifetime of AGT-1500 and V-94?
@sergeikozin47 this motherfucker don't know about russian weaponry.. open your eyes u.s. fan boy!!! your country is afriad because of russia!!! i don't to say facts to make you realize the power of russia, just eat some burger in mcdonald's. american bitch...
i do give the russians credit were its due,they do make extreamly rough and tough and manouverable tanks that are very speedy :) but still the LEO 2 and M 1 and chieftain tanks are better in the all rounded aspect of tanking
@1xhatredx1 the M1 not an all rounded tank...it was built only to fight against other tanks, it has no effective means of fighting enemy infantry or supporting their own infantry, it's just an anti-tank tank...and not a very good one at that either, given all the hype around it...a truly all-rounded "universal" tank would be the Challenger II with better armor, a better gun and the ability to fight other stuff than just armor...
@AKAtheA i love the m84 tank. i was trained on it many years ago in the new model iZ Srbija. the T-90 is a much superior tank to M1A2 Abrams AND Engleski Challenger II. Leopard II is the only tank that is near the firepower of the mighty Russian and Serbian tanks. When manned by slavic soldiers, these tanks cannot be stopped. they support infantry much better as you said and can knock out american shit from over 5 km.
@mihaeltomasovic the Leopard II and the M1Ax basically have the same gun...The rifled gun of the Challenger II proved to be more accurate and has a greater range...
@AKAtheA yes, also the Challenger seems to have a much better fuel supply system and Composite Armor... It is the only tank that has not been destroyed in battle in the War ;) The M1AX can be destroyed very easily by the long 125mm Smoothbore Cannon, but I am looking forward to seeing an M94 production model... It supposedly has the best composite armor than the Leopard II and a very long barrelled rifled cannon I believe a 5.5 inch... Fires heavy depleted Uranium shells...
lol that active protective anti tank missile system is a lie if you guys notice the projectile that is fired towards the tank suddenly blows the gravel and dirt up from the ground this shows that they just planted explosives in the ground and blew it up at the correct time if it was real the explosion would have blowen up in air and gravel/ dirt and mud would have not bin flung upwards hahaha russian lies are funny
@1xhatredx1 It is the most stupid description of similar tests I've ever heard!
Why don't you watch footage from tests of Israeli Trophy, or American Quick Kill! "Planting explosives into the ground"! Damn! How you even think something like that :)))
Those are pieces of destroyed round and shrapnel from APS charge. You know that all APS destroy incoming round by cloud of shrapnel, right? If you don't know that, then you should know.
I want to imagine every Russian tank has this crate in the turret, plastered in warning labels and locked by one of those twin-key systems they used to use on the launch consoles for ICBMs, and stencilled onto the box in big red letters is "SPECIAL POMEGRANATES".
@TheSociety123 They create a huge IR field, where ATGM operator can't distinguish trail of his missile flying toward the tank. It was effective against ATGMs of 1st/2nd generation. Right now it becomes more and more obsolete, just like American MCD for Abrams, which operates in similar way. ATGMs of 3rd generation are not affected by such systems.
respect to mixtures that I mean more reliable a 120 mm cannon for its versatility from the point of view is better ammunition or higher caliber of 125 mm cannon ammunition, although some are not very effective.
I have another doubt, the Russian doctrine says that every time you create a new main battle tank made2, a cheaper option and one of the most complete, such as T-80 and T-72 or T-55 and T-62.
Now my question is whether the T-80 according to the users is greater than t-90, then this is the tank cheap now what is the tank top? t-95 maybe?
@advari001 T-80s will be gradually phased out of Russian arsenal. T-95 won't get into production. Right now things are like that: Top tank - T-90A, low tanks - T-80s and upgrades of T-72s.
Since 2015, they intend to retire all T-80s. Upgrade several hundreds of T-72 to level of T-90A and they will be a low cost tanks, while a "top tank" will be a new Armata MBT and Armata FOV.
im sorry but no one has pointed out the sheer psychological factor of this tank. if i was a leo 2 commander and I saw a wall of these things light up like demons i would turn tale and run like hell. No sane man would stare these things down.
@YB49887 You are wrong. It is exactly the opposite. Those "red eyes" are actually IR emitters. Which means that on modern battlefield they "betray" tank's position very easily from tens of kilometers away.
So, if you were commander of Leopard 2A1, A2, A3 then may be you are right. But since A4 version and to A6, commander wouldn't be scared much. :)
@BitnikGr im sorry but you are wrong. they do not betray the tanks position they completly block the position of the tank using an infered blast. but more from tht im not going to argue becasue you people seem to have a knack for posting falices.
@YB49887 Where is a wrong fact that an IR emitter working at high temperatures is perfectly visible in thermal sights? What is an "infered blast"?
They block position of a tank from passive guided ATGMs of first and second generation. What that has to do with detection of a tank by thermal sights?
@advari001 Power of a gun barrel doesn't depend on caliber, but mostly on barrel's length. 120mm L55 is more powerful than 125 L40. Of course it is oversimplified example. Other factors are technology, sustained max pressure and other factors.
For example the early 2A46 125mm gun had half of lifespan compared to 120mm Western cannons and it had less power.
The latest 2A46M-5 is much more powerful and more accurate.
When cannons are almost same, then power depends on ammunitions used.
@MCSparki1 i dont like your attitude. Yes on the surface this awesome sounds fun. However deeper it sounds like it could really be ANTI-KILLING in reality. Is that your GAME fella ? Until i see spaki killing a bunch of innocent people for no reason i refuse to take his comment seriously.
Нужно создать новый боевои танк, а не трактара модернизировать. Танк который будет обеспечивать ПОЛНУЮ безопасность экипажа, а не продолжать модернизировать гробы на гусеницах.
Я слышал разговоры, американских танкистов-ветеранов, буре в пустыне, они говорили что абрамсы своими обычными фугасными противо-пихотнами снарядами сбивали башни советских танков Т 72.
@richetalor Рад тебя огорчить, мой доверчивый друг, но у Абрамсов нет противо-"пихотных" снарядов (от слова "пихать" наверное). Так что пиздят твои ветеранЧеги. Кстати да... башни не сбиваются снарядами... даже противотанковыми.
@BitnikGr Воина начнеться, вспомнишь мои слова. Советскую пропаганду помнишь, начало 1920-1930хх Наши танки, быстрее, сильнея всех!!! Вот 1941 пришол, нашим танкистом пришлось платить ценой своей жизни.
3) История конечно не терпит сослагательного наклонения, но все же. если бы война началась не в 1941, а в 1942 и СССР закончил реорганизацию войск, имел бы достаточное количество Т-34, войска были бы подтянуты вовремя и самое главное война началась бы не вероломно, ты уверен, что исход был бы таким же?
4) Ну и последнее. Если речь идет о боеспособности армии и танковых подразделений в частности я ни на минуту не сомневаюсь, что Армия США намного превосходит РА в ее нынешнем состоянии. В истории не было ни одного танкового сражения исход которого решили бы ТТХ танков. Исход всегда предрешали тактика применения и выучка экипажей. В этом плане США намного впереди. А сам Абрамс довольно таки посредственный среди западных танков.
you can say the same about every tank in the world (and not even tank)... first Abrams entered the service in 1980... Leopard 1 - 1965.. Leopard 2 - 1979... as concerning the weight it's obvious the less weight with the same damage and protection characteristics the better... small and fast tank is much more harder to hit than huge and slow one... light tank has better cross-country ability.. it consumes less gas and as a result it has bigger operational range...
Alot of the comments to this are BS; The T-90 is in many ways an old design but it does bring to the table many elements of advanced features not yet implemented in contemporary western tanks, It has strengths and weaknesses compared to its competing designs around the world, and many of those reflect the roles in which it was designed as an offensive tank originating in the cold war.
@jasper5554 outdated, hardly. the outdated idea is putting as much armour as you can on one chasis. plus its more cost worthy if you use ideas such as those listed, rather than going with the most expensive idea on the board. but either way you go, there will be loses. there is no such thing as an invincible tank. WWII proved that.
@smilingmaskedturtle1 It all comes down to production, quanity has it's own quality, the Sherman proved that, t-34 had both, leapard 2 is superior to A1A and T-90. Huzzah!!!
@jasper5554 The new Abrams model is also based off of an old chasis, and why with the extra weight? why have a heavier tank? you dont need a heavy tank to overpower an opponent. and plus the T90 is way less expensive than the new M1A2 Abrams. Unit cost 2 - 4.5 million, Abrams, 6.75+ million. also the T90's defenses i would say are more effective and ingenious than just slapping on all that added weight of "depleted uranium", and just so you know, the abrams isnt just depleted uranium. look it up
On the tests, this tank got seven shots from modern RPG, then two cumulative shell shots. After that, it has returned to the base under its own power.
@jasper5554 The T-90 comes in many engine options.And what matters is power to weight Ratio not raw engine power.The Indian army uses 1000 HP engine and have 600 of them with order for 1000 more.They are good tanks with their own advantages and limits.Obviously you got to use them with right tactics,support and trained crew. The Indian army has used both Russian and western tanks to good effect in the wars with Pakistan. India also has 200 Arjun Indian tanks of the leopard 2 class.
@qupada t90 is crap even worse now since u guys started replacing the plastic explosives in the reactive armour with puty and play doe and sold the explosives to the chechens to blow up your own tanks lol but who needs tanks when u can buy shit loads of vodka with the cash
@supergodzillaman2 "the t-90 has to stop to fire" - Did your dad say that? And he is a tanker? :)))) Tell your daddy, that all tanks developed since 60s have bi-plane gun stabilizers and can fire on the move. Difference in accuracy while shooting on the move is a different subject of course.
Too bad there is no subtitles...
jesserjzz1 1 day ago
Armchair generals arguing which tank could beat the other! LOL. Sorry but a few wikipedia articles and battlefield 3 doesn't make ANY of you knowledgeable at all, shut the fuck up you nerds.
Cyniqe 3 days ago
@Cyniqe I dont know about you,but I want this thing so badly.I could put it to some good use against some people...
Its a damn beautiful tank.
Vosbraka 2 days ago
well the t90 does have extra armor platting which makes it more harder to penetrate/destroy,
but without the extra armor then it would a little bit better to penetrate/destroy.
WotGamer12386 1 week ago
polish PT91 HARD is better
xTYGRYSxSYBERYJSKIx 1 week ago
To everyone saying an Abrams is better than one of these, tell me.. how do you think an Abrams would beat a T90? Its DU shells can't penetrate A T90 once it's fitted with kontakt 5 ERA. The T90 practically invincible..
source1zero 1 week ago
only one way to find out.... ( fight ) thats a fight rus will lose. the us has to many powerful ally, compared to rus...
hotfyr90 2 weeks ago
BF3 is not realistic about tanks. If the game were realistic, than rpg7 and smaw would take at least 16 to 20 hits to destroy abrams or t90. Also, t90 heat rounds( with 1000mm penetration, google it if you dont believe me) would be able to disable an abrams with one shot to the turrent. Thirdly, you would never be able to see sabot rounds arc because of their range( 3 to 4km ). lastly, only t90 would have guided shells because abrams in real life has no guided ordanence available for its main g
thebaskill 2 weeks ago
The blinders and low height are class.
Carnuss 2 weeks ago
T-90 sucks M1 abrams is the best look at battlefield 3 bro
Gearswar3728 2 weeks ago
@Gearswar3728 hahahahah battlefeld ! you're a schoolboy!
l0v3R1k 1 week ago
@Gearswar3728 this aint a game, loser
CSSZombieVideos 1 week ago
@CSSZombieVideos I KNOW bro but awesome
Gearswar3728 6 days ago
Every t90 inside a Russian Happy Meal
tomjackson491 1 month ago
this tank appears in comanche gold game
whelljack 1 month ago
If the RPG-7 comes in every russian happy meal. I wonder were does this come.
Coverthavoc2 1 month ago
American Abrams is better. It is the only tank in the WORLD that has stealth capability and smokescreen-producing ability. Also, remember Desert Storm? 1 Abrams destroyed like 37 T-90's EASILY in one go. The Abrams took over 40 direct hits from the T-90's main gun and was not even scratched. Abrams is more advanced with futuristic armor.
qyoper 1 month ago
@qyoper
You shouldn't spread such laughable fabrications.
1. The vast majority of tanks since the 1970's had smoke grenade dischargers.
2. There were no "T-90" tanks at the time of Desert Storm, they didn't exist, never mind participating in a conflict.
3. The Abrams did not survive 40 direct hits from the T-90's main gun because there T-90's main gun never fired upon the Abrams, not in combat, not in testing.
4. The Abrams uses composite armour, much like all tanks since the 1970's.
vtkrey 1 month ago
@qyoper Wow an american that thinks anything american is better than anything else.. suprising. cant u watch a video without having to mention how you think you are better? no one really cares what you think. t-90 is awsome
fantana817 1 month ago
@qyoper Actually, no it's not. it's the 21st century now, not the 70's. We British have something from BAE Systems you might have seen. Check out Disappearing Tank on YouTube and see how we have techology that owns your Abrams. And by the way, the Russians have the same technology too.
DreadnoughtMetal2006 1 month ago
@qyoper Hahahahah! Thanks man! You made my day!
I don't know what do you smoke there, but it must be great stuff ;)
BitnikGr 2 weeks ago
вместо арабов посадите русских, абрамсы отсосут , даже талибов с АК не победили
litejniy 1 month ago 2
@litejniy ХАХА, ну тыблин отмочил!!! Я твои каментарии на Англискии переведу с твоего разрешения? Можно? Для Американцев?
richetalor 2 weeks ago
Soviet tanks always been the best of the best!
SMGJohn 1 month ago
Haben Sie info über der T-90ms Tagil?
lucasdeurantia 1 month ago
for all you US and Russia people the M1A1, the A1 was developed for warfare against T-72s in a conflict against Eastern Bloc nations who used the t-72 and below family of tanks. THe T-90 was developed in a response to the M1A2 being used in iraq against insurgents and they adapted the T-72 to a better role to fighting chechen insurgents, hence the armor and reactive armor plating. Both tanks are exceptional. Just chill people of the interwebs. russian-american and proud of it
chillaxer1993 1 month ago
melimetra
Gdsh22 1 month ago
What are those red lights on turret? Some kind of IR scope or what?
BarcelPL 1 month ago
@BarcelPL it is IR suppressor for antiarmor weapons that use active aiming systems. as u say it just blinds operator and you can't see where is the tank and where does the missile fly. actually this is effective only against the same russian weapons.
Gurjaaneli 1 month ago
@Gurjaaneli So, basicaly it's just huge IR reflector? Love the russian inventions :)
BarcelPL 1 month ago
@BarcelPL well yes, as u saw in video when tank in scope starts to shine and disappears in the rays of light, that's what u see when u aim at tank with russian antitank weapons. so u have to fight with this tank in pares, one distracts another destroys. it's not an easy task, but can be accomplished.
Gurjaaneli 1 month ago
Looks like Russia learned from how their sold tanks were destroyed in the Iraq wars. Nice mods.. to whomever said its faster than tha abrahms it isnt.. but you can go on believing that, thats just fine,. Its defensive capabilities are nice.. seems like it could take the few punches that would hit it first.. Im guessing the USA has to have a new generation tank on the way though.. the Abrahms is a 80s tank even upgraded.
HecatianStar 1 month ago
@HecatianStar It is faster than M1 Abrams and fully amphibious.You may also know that T-95 is also on its way,CHEERS!!
sscaero15 1 month ago
@sscaero15 Uhh no the Abrahms has a governor to keep it at 55mph. (Thats mph not KM).. Without the governor... well .. Im not allowed to tell you the full speed of the tank but your high to think its slower.
HecatianStar 1 month ago
@HecatianStar More like 40 Kmph(not Mph but Km)....Yes, i know it can go up to 70Kmph but it runs out of fuel and also damages the tank's tracks.So,they limited the speed to 40-45 kmph for combat.T-90 can go up 50-55 kmph with its combat speed.
sscaero15 1 month ago
браво от Болгария
ivanivan3736 1 month ago
0:58 holy crap :S
ScoopzyDaizy 1 month ago
IT HAS EYES!!!!
chamathmufc 1 month ago
abrams suck ! t90 the best!
l0v3R1k 2 months ago 56
@l0v3R1k Says the Battlefield 3 player with no military experience or expertise. lol
formber 1 month ago
@l0v3R1k haha that i dont laugh
1234typeman 1 week ago
Look in his eyes! this is the last that you see!
plukd 2 months ago
this owns m1 abrahams, this is much faster than abrahams
Armo949494 2 months ago
Infrared color is invisible to the naked eye.
The red color is only recorded on camera.
KNOWSCORE 2 months ago
im probably the only one here not because off battlefeild 3
shepboy8 2 months ago
The biggest advantage of the t-72 and T-90 is its low profile and maneuverability compared to western tanks it really is low profile = harder target to hit
MrSnapy1 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 + guided munitions, + HE-FRAG rounds for dealing with infantry AT teams at distances up to 5km, + transportability by rail-road network, + autoloader. With 300 men you can man 100 T-90 vs 75 M1. Also, future M1A3 will come out with autoloader. So, it is an advantage after all. :)
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr
The flaw with the t-72/90 design is in ammo storage and the turret ring google destroyed t72's and look at the pics over 80% will have the turret blew off This is a serious problem without compartmentalized ammo storage the crew may not be saved but,having the turret blew off makes tank recovery alot harder and much more expensive to fix.This is why im no fan of t72/t90 it looses its turret way too often and this is a battlefield fact.
MrSnapy1 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 Yes, it is a battlefield fact. Another fact is that fire is not an instant event as many people like to believe. Battlefield statistics of last 2 decades prove that crew in T-72/90 has same survivability rate like any other 3rd gen tank (with exception of Abrams). 1.5-2 crew members die in case of penetration. In S. Ossetia Russia lost 3 tanks and 3 crew members died because of penetration. Turrets ripped off are result of fire deploying inside the tank.
...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 ...
Fire is not an instant detonation, but progressive procedure. Crews usually have from several seconds to 2-3 minutes to leave the tank, before built up pressure inside will blow off the turret. We have seen many pictures of "turretless" tank, but no actual video of such event in combat conditions.
Abrams blow-off panels also save the crew from fire and not from instant ammo detonation. In case of ammo storage detonation Abrams turret flies as good as T-72 one.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 This is why im no fan of t72/t90 it looses its turret way too often and this is a battlefield fact.....FACT , USA , NEVER destroyed T-90 made fot Russian Force !!!!!!, .
Zbyszkoz 2 months ago
@Zbyszkoz it loses the turret too often because it only saw combat with us arabs
russia sells us inferior versions of their tanks
thats why
rickhunter47 1 month ago 13
@rickhunter47 Iraq 1991 end 2003 used Russian ammunition made before 1970 !!!!!!
Zbyszkoz 1 month ago
@rickhunter47
this is true! russian export tanks always have less armor than tanks destined for use with the russian military
warriorofsteel01 1 month ago
@rickhunter47 Your government decided to keep it cheap so you bought the monkey models of T-64M and T-72M and you even purchased it without firecontrol and infrared and night vision. You could buy modernized T-72 but that was too expensive
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn actually many countries like libya and iraq were able to afford it but with the discoveries of petroleum sanction came along, as for example libya was under ban of arms sales for decades and when these modern models came in we were banned from buying such advanced weapons and mostly whenever deals for such technologies are made, the magical security council pressures russia out of the deal, therefore we use the "monkey" model since we can produce them locally
rickhunter47 1 month ago
@rickhunter47 But you still bought them without the Firecontrol and infrared. Which was in the monkey models
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn what i was trying to say in the past comment is that we were only able to buy them WITHOUT the firecontrol and infrared
rickhunter47 1 month ago
good and mantap
amanbares1 2 months ago
The t 90 is overrated its simply a upgraded T 72 after iraq the T 72 name was so tarnished and was pretty much renamed the T 90 its the exact same design only difference is a "few" technological upgrades.It still has all the flaws of the T-72 like very poor crew protection and limited fire control computers the list goes on.Not saying it isn't an effective tank but,it was designed for quantity not quality.One on one I would much rather be in a western main battle tank.
MrSnapy1 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 I thought that you are smart, but no... as I see you are just another troll who runs over all T-90 videos saying trash!
"a "few" technological upgrades" you say?!
According to GRAU indexing policy if upgrades are "few" the vehicles receives justr another letter designating its version. In order to get new index upgrades must be extensive. T-90 has only same shame and dimentions. Every single part of is modernized. It's a modern 3rd generation tank. T-72 belongs to 2nd gen.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr
Not true I have bad things to say about the M1 as well .Im not just trolling its my opinion and everyone has the right to theirs that the T-90 is overrated Before desert storm the t90 was named t72ub.Now I am a fan of the T80u its its own design and again in my opinion better than the t90.Yes the t90 has some good upgrades but its still a t72 and is a coffin for the poor soldiers inside it.It has a serious flaw in ammo storage and the turret ringOther than that its just fine
MrSnapy1 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 Yes... everyone has a right to have an opinion. Even a housewife regarding MBT. Main point is that I haven't hear anything correct from you... neither about T-tanks, neither about Challenger. Some things are not opinions, but pure facts. All your words are identical with what we hear in Discovery documentaries etc... We agreed only in one important factor, that tactics and crew training are more important than tank's specs themselves and I agree that US Armored Forces are...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 ... better trained, better equipped and US Army Generals are more competent than Russian ones. But then again you go from a video to a video bashing T-72 and T-90 with total wrong assumptions and allegations.
First of all, T-90 is nowhere near over-PR in comparison to M1. T-90 is 100% better than T-72 and T-80. M1A1 was on par with existing T-80B in 1985, but from the first day of it's existence we hear that M1 is the best tank in the world! That's a definition of...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 ... overrating. Also, overrating comes not only in form of public opinion, but in form of a pricetag also. M1A1 is sold to other countries at prices from 6 to 10mln per piece. T-90S only per 3.5-4mln per piece. Cost of production of M1 - 5mln. T-90 - 2.7mln.
M1A1 always was inferior to T-90, but still it is more expensive. M1A2 versions have solved many M1A1 flaws.
...
Next. There NEVER was a T-72UB version. Iraqi T-72M pre-Desert Storm can't be compared in any term with a...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 ... Soviet T-72A and of course to T-72B(BM) versions. T-72BM, with some extensive upgrades can reach a level of first initial T-90 (1994). Just like the latest M60A3TTS can be directly compared with early M1A1 in performance. No T-72 can reach level of T-90A and further models.
-
Now. You say that you are a fan of T-80 and that T-72/90 is a coffin for "poor soldiers". Fact is that you don't know that internal layout of T-80 is more dangerous for crew, than in T-72/90...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 T-80 has a vertical Autoloader Mechanism, which means that rounds inside it are more probable to get hit by incoming round in case of penetration. And what is more worse, vertical autoloader separates driver from the rest of the crew. And there were at least several lethal incidents when driver was trapped, because he couldn't open his hatch and he couldn't get into the turret. In T-72/90 autoloader is horizontal in tank's floor and it is covered by steel. Think about it.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Modernization does help tho and it has had some good upgrades im not denying that.It still shares the t-72 design the t95 looks to have corrected the flaws in the t72 and should be a great tank.
When the M1a3 come out yes it will be just a upgraded m1a2 and will still share its flaws like being a gas hog and requiring jet fuel when the other vehicles in the us army require diesel making logistics a nightmare.Modernization doesn't fix design flaws only a redesign will .
MrSnapy1 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 Depends on the flaw... Replace a gas-turbine with diesel engine is not a redesign, it is a modernization and it can solve that problem. Problem with Russian tanks is not 22 rounds inside autoloader, but 22 rounds outside of it stored all around the hull and turret. Remove this 22 rounds and problem is solved. T-90MS got additional ammo storage box for 10 rounds behind the turret. So, 22 + 10 and you don't have same problem with crew survivability anymore, neither you need...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 ... redesign.
-
Design of a totally new platform is needed only when a further modernization of existing platform will not allow to deal with challenges on modern battlefield. That's why US and Germany started new MBT project, because no modernization in the World would make M60 and Leopard 1 competitive to Soviet armada. From the other hand, extensive modernization of T-72 platform allows it to be a competitive MBT today.
FCS and T-95 were canceled for same reasons.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr
Like I said im no longer arguing which is best the "Best" is a broad definition there is many way to be the best.My point is the M-1 is designed for crew protection as the number one concern over anything else.The t72/90 is not while yes the auto loader and the way it stores its ammo is a advantage in efficiency its at the cost of crew protection. If I was to be in either tank with a rear or top turret breach that hits the ammo I would much rather be in the m1.
MrSnapy1 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 Firs of all, I want to apologize that I answer with so many comments. 500characters per comment is too short for me, for expressing my arguments. Sorry for that inconvenience.
It is a logical choice for a soldier to choose a tank with higher level of survivability. Generals and manufacturers however sometimes prefer an overall better tank survivability than crew survivability after penetration.
You can loose your Abrams more easily than T-90, but you will survive. True.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr please abrams its jew,niggers machine,its just trash
SlavaSvarogu 2 months ago
Comment removed
BitnikGr 2 months ago
Comment removed
BitnikGr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SlavaSvarogu Tank is a tank. And racist is a racist.
Tank can be good. Tank can be bad.
Racism is always bad!
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr
And yes the M1's greatest flaw could be a battle looser as long as the fuel trucks stay up with it its on of the better tanks in the world.In a total war scenario though logistics become a problem.Look at the mighty Tiger and Panther tanks in ww2 in Normandy more was lost to running out of gas than was lost to anti tank fire.All tanks have their flaws and strengths you just have to be open minded enough to see them all tanks have their flaws.
MrSnapy1 2 months ago
@MrSnapy1 Oh, yes, sir, I am pretty much aware of limitation of T-tanks series and if you would read comments in other video where we've meet, you would find that I have absolutely no problem with correcting inaccuracies and sometimes even blatant lies of some Russian "fanboyz" and "blind patriots" about Soviet/Russian armor.
I am pro-truth and pro-reality, and not pro-somecountry's tanks.
My country, by the way, has US and German tanks only and we'll receive 400 old M1A1 in 2012.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
El mejor tanque
Krakeo07 2 months ago
Does anybody know if the T-90s suspension is the same as the T-72 or T-80.
MrTahoe32 3 months ago
@MrTahoe32 well the T-90 is more similar to the T-72 as the T-80 was more similar to the M86 and T-55 as far as suspension and crew compartments, etc... the T-90 has a much upgraded suspension, autoloader, and firing system to the T-72 and the new 125mm smoothbore high velocity cannon cannot be matched by many western armies. the closest cannon to matching it is the Challenger II 120mm Rifled lower velocity heavier projectile cannon which proved to be a great choice.
mihaeltomasovic 2 months ago
@MrTahoe32 T-90 has same suspension and gearbox with T-72. T-80 is different.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
sometimes i wish i was russion to own fully auto weapons, but then i relise i dont need an ar for hunting lol
theboarman 3 months ago
AqaQAaaA
s10084 3 months ago
tandem rocket is not effective against NERA (non-energetic reactive armor) and NxRA (non-explosive reactive armor). As you can see... Russia,china,EU,US are just some super powers spending ALL their resources in this endless arms race :)
1982vergil 3 months ago
Even If you managed to hit the tank with a RPG-7,anti-tank missle...etc. The reactive amour can easily pushes the rocket away before the molten metal could touch the exterior. russia deserves to be 1 of the nuclear power nation:)
1982vergil 3 months ago
@1982vergil What about tandem warheads?
BitnikGr 3 months ago
russia got the best tanks...
sergeikozin47 3 months ago 2
Yeh the up grade was two lada car engines on each track !
What a pile of Russian rusty junk !
Hincesti07 3 months ago
@Hincesti07 your abrams can no match to this beast..
sergeikozin47 3 months ago
@sergeikozin47 Thats funny because in all the middle east wars Russian weapons just bounce off American tanks like airsoft pellets .
Hincesti07 3 months ago
@sergeikozin47 Dream on, lucky to even get the hunk of Russian shit started due to wore out parts and parts are in short supply ! Some old Russian made shit, rusted, clunky and prone to breaking down daily !
Hincesti07 3 months ago
@Hincesti07 Really?! I would expect from such an expert like you are to present numbers of track lifespans, engine lifetime, time to overhaul for Abrams and T-90. I bet you have those numbers. Also, I am sure that you can present military spendings for service and maintenance of each tank during their lifetime.
I would like to see them...
BitnikGr 3 months ago
@BitnikGr What are you so worked up about !, and what are you blabbering your fool head off for !
Look its just a Russian tank made rusty clunky squeaky prone to breakage and excellent helpless sitting duck for a target by U.S air force fighter pilots !
These Russian military videos are so funny because fucked up Russian is ham strung to do anything modern productive due to criminal mafia and Putin in control of Russia !
Hincesti07 3 months ago
@Hincesti07 Your silly brain is "prone to breakage". Why don't you just leave air-bashing words and meaningless claims and start presenting numbers, which can back up your assumptions.
Role of USAF against mobile forces in Iraq is a nice fairy-tale written for internal consumption in US. It is proved long time ago that US Ground Forces destroyed vast majority of Iraqi tanks and not USAF.
What is track lifetime of Abrams and T-90? What is an engine lifetime of AGT-1500 and V-94?
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@sergeikozin47 this motherfucker don't know about russian weaponry.. open your eyes u.s. fan boy!!! your country is afriad because of russia!!! i don't to say facts to make you realize the power of russia, just eat some burger in mcdonald's. american bitch...
sergeikozin47 3 months ago
ZOMBIE BT-7S
rossmum 4 months ago
i do give the russians credit were its due,they do make extreamly rough and tough and manouverable tanks that are very speedy :) but still the LEO 2 and M 1 and chieftain tanks are better in the all rounded aspect of tanking
1xhatredx1 4 months ago
@1xhatredx1 the M1 not an all rounded tank...it was built only to fight against other tanks, it has no effective means of fighting enemy infantry or supporting their own infantry, it's just an anti-tank tank...and not a very good one at that either, given all the hype around it...a truly all-rounded "universal" tank would be the Challenger II with better armor, a better gun and the ability to fight other stuff than just armor...
AKAtheA 3 months ago
@AKAtheA i love the m84 tank. i was trained on it many years ago in the new model iZ Srbija. the T-90 is a much superior tank to M1A2 Abrams AND Engleski Challenger II. Leopard II is the only tank that is near the firepower of the mighty Russian and Serbian tanks. When manned by slavic soldiers, these tanks cannot be stopped. they support infantry much better as you said and can knock out american shit from over 5 km.
mihaeltomasovic 3 months ago
@mihaeltomasovic the Leopard II and the M1Ax basically have the same gun...The rifled gun of the Challenger II proved to be more accurate and has a greater range...
AKAtheA 3 months ago
@AKAtheA yes, also the Challenger seems to have a much better fuel supply system and Composite Armor... It is the only tank that has not been destroyed in battle in the War ;) The M1AX can be destroyed very easily by the long 125mm Smoothbore Cannon, but I am looking forward to seeing an M94 production model... It supposedly has the best composite armor than the Leopard II and a very long barrelled rifled cannon I believe a 5.5 inch... Fires heavy depleted Uranium shells...
mihaeltomasovic 3 months ago
@1xhatredx1 Chieftain? :)
BitnikGr 3 months ago
lol that active protective anti tank missile system is a lie if you guys notice the projectile that is fired towards the tank suddenly blows the gravel and dirt up from the ground this shows that they just planted explosives in the ground and blew it up at the correct time if it was real the explosion would have blowen up in air and gravel/ dirt and mud would have not bin flung upwards hahaha russian lies are funny
1xhatredx1 4 months ago
@1xhatredx1 It is the most stupid description of similar tests I've ever heard!
Why don't you watch footage from tests of Israeli Trophy, or American Quick Kill! "Planting explosives into the ground"! Damn! How you even think something like that :)))
Those are pieces of destroyed round and shrapnel from APS charge. You know that all APS destroy incoming round by cloud of shrapnel, right? If you don't know that, then you should know.
BitnikGr 3 months ago
I want to imagine every Russian tank has this crate in the turret, plastered in warning labels and locked by one of those twin-key systems they used to use on the launch consoles for ICBMs, and stencilled onto the box in big red letters is "SPECIAL POMEGRANATES".
rossmum 4 months ago
What os the function of the red eye ?
TheSociety123 4 months ago
@TheSociety123 They create a huge IR field, where ATGM operator can't distinguish trail of his missile flying toward the tank. It was effective against ATGMs of 1st/2nd generation. Right now it becomes more and more obsolete, just like American MCD for Abrams, which operates in similar way. ATGMs of 3rd generation are not affected by such systems.
BitnikGr 3 months ago
t-90 tank has got to be the most UNIQUE looking tank in the world
mosestheleader25 4 months ago
i want one, but just for cruising around the hood
CJBombaYe 4 months ago
@CJBombaYe Dont we all. lol
virus922 4 months ago
@thrashmetalfiend
respect to mixtures that I mean more reliable a 120 mm cannon for its versatility from the point of view is better ammunition or higher caliber of 125 mm cannon ammunition, although some are not very effective.
advari001 5 months ago
I have another doubt, the Russian doctrine says that every time you create a new main battle tank made2, a cheaper option and one of the most complete, such as T-80 and T-72 or T-55 and T-62.
Now my question is whether the T-80 according to the users is greater than t-90, then this is the tank cheap now what is the tank top? t-95 maybe?
advari001 5 months ago
@advari001 T-80s will be gradually phased out of Russian arsenal. T-95 won't get into production. Right now things are like that: Top tank - T-90A, low tanks - T-80s and upgrades of T-72s.
Since 2015, they intend to retire all T-80s. Upgrade several hundreds of T-72 to level of T-90A and they will be a low cost tanks, while a "top tank" will be a new Armata MBT and Armata FOV.
BitnikGr 3 months ago
yeah all the fancy stuff should be protected inside and not outside where it could all get blown off
xxuncexx 5 months ago
@xxuncexx It is not possible...
BitnikGr 3 months ago
im sorry but no one has pointed out the sheer psychological factor of this tank. if i was a leo 2 commander and I saw a wall of these things light up like demons i would turn tale and run like hell. No sane man would stare these things down.
YB49887 5 months ago
@YB49887 You are wrong. It is exactly the opposite. Those "red eyes" are actually IR emitters. Which means that on modern battlefield they "betray" tank's position very easily from tens of kilometers away.
So, if you were commander of Leopard 2A1, A2, A3 then may be you are right. But since A4 version and to A6, commander wouldn't be scared much. :)
BitnikGr 3 months ago
@BitnikGr im sorry but you are wrong. they do not betray the tanks position they completly block the position of the tank using an infered blast. but more from tht im not going to argue becasue you people seem to have a knack for posting falices.
YB49887 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YB49887 Where is a wrong fact that an IR emitter working at high temperatures is perfectly visible in thermal sights? What is an "infered blast"?
They block position of a tank from passive guided ATGMs of first and second generation. What that has to do with detection of a tank by thermal sights?
BitnikGr 2 months ago
Will it blend?
thrashmetalfiend 5 months ago
I have a question Why is it more powerful or reliable a 120mm cannon that a 125mm?
advari001 5 months ago
@advari001 Power of a gun barrel doesn't depend on caliber, but mostly on barrel's length. 120mm L55 is more powerful than 125 L40. Of course it is oversimplified example. Other factors are technology, sustained max pressure and other factors.
For example the early 2A46 125mm gun had half of lifespan compared to 120mm Western cannons and it had less power.
The latest 2A46M-5 is much more powerful and more accurate.
When cannons are almost same, then power depends on ammunitions used.
BitnikGr 3 months ago
even the Russian tank drivers, think the T-90 is less than T-80
advari001 5 months ago
Dont we find awsome ways of killing each other
MCSparki1 5 months ago 12
@MCSparki1 i dont like your attitude. Yes on the surface this awesome sounds fun. However deeper it sounds like it could really be ANTI-KILLING in reality. Is that your GAME fella ? Until i see spaki killing a bunch of innocent people for no reason i refuse to take his comment seriously.
derpotni3riots 4 months ago
good
Dmitry2011able 5 months ago
yeah, my dad will buy this monster for me on my birthday, so I can drive it to my school :D
easterndragon9x 5 months ago
rebember !, 1 Leopard2E can not fight counter 8 T-90's !
0puest0 5 months ago
@0puest0 T-90 is greater...
sergeikozin47 3 months ago
@0puest0 what?
sergeikozin47 3 months ago
да он новее абрамса! (абрамс приняли на призводство в 1980-м году)
MrAipot 6 months ago
Нужно создать новый боевои танк, а не трактара модернизировать. Танк который будет обеспечивать ПОЛНУЮ безопасность экипажа, а не продолжать модернизировать гробы на гусеницах.
richetalor 6 months ago
@richetalor Есть такой танк, который обеспечивает полную безопастность?
В чем в твоем тусклом понимании танк отличается от трактора? Поставь на трактор пушку или Корнет... не станет танком?
BitnikGr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Я слышал разговоры, американских танкистов-ветеранов, буре в пустыне, они говорили что абрамсы своими обычными фугасными противо-пихотнами снарядами сбивали башни советских танков Т 72.
richetalor 6 months ago
@richetalor Рад тебя огорчить, мой доверчивый друг, но у Абрамсов нет противо-"пихотных" снарядов (от слова "пихать" наверное). Так что пиздят твои ветеранЧеги. Кстати да... башни не сбиваются снарядами... даже противотанковыми.
BitnikGr 3 months ago
@BitnikGr Воина начнеться, вспомнишь мои слова. Советскую пропаганду помнишь, начало 1920-1930хх Наши танки, быстрее, сильнея всех!!! Вот 1941 пришол, нашим танкистом пришлось платить ценой своей жизни.
richetalor 2 weeks ago
@richetalor 1) При чем тут это и твои байки ветеранов и "противопихотные" снаряды? :)
2) Ладно... по факту. Чем Советские танки 20ых были хуже западных танков того же периода? Ты сомневаешься, что Т-34 в 1941 был лучшим танком в мире?
...
BitnikGr 2 weeks ago
@richetalor ...
3) История конечно не терпит сослагательного наклонения, но все же. если бы война началась не в 1941, а в 1942 и СССР закончил реорганизацию войск, имел бы достаточное количество Т-34, войска были бы подтянуты вовремя и самое главное война началась бы не вероломно, ты уверен, что исход был бы таким же?
...
BitnikGr 2 weeks ago
@richetalor ...
4) Ну и последнее. Если речь идет о боеспособности армии и танковых подразделений в частности я ни на минуту не сомневаюсь, что Армия США намного превосходит РА в ее нынешнем состоянии. В истории не было ни одного танкового сражения исход которого решили бы ТТХ танков. Исход всегда предрешали тактика применения и выучка экипажей. В этом плане США намного впереди. А сам Абрамс довольно таки посредственный среди западных танков.
Т-90 вполне себе нормальный танк.
BitnikGr 2 weeks ago
9:19 that reticle looks EXACTLY like world of tanks!
StaffSergeantPepper 7 months ago 14
يا شباب ما اقدر اخذها اجار منتهي بالتمليك؟؟؟؟
MrAnan999 7 months ago
@jasper5554
you can say the same about every tank in the world (and not even tank)... first Abrams entered the service in 1980... Leopard 1 - 1965.. Leopard 2 - 1979... as concerning the weight it's obvious the less weight with the same damage and protection characteristics the better... small and fast tank is much more harder to hit than huge and slow one... light tank has better cross-country ability.. it consumes less gas and as a result it has bigger operational range...
kaplich 7 months ago
Alot of the comments to this are BS; The T-90 is in many ways an old design but it does bring to the table many elements of advanced features not yet implemented in contemporary western tanks, It has strengths and weaknesses compared to its competing designs around the world, and many of those reflect the roles in which it was designed as an offensive tank originating in the cold war.
DasVivo 7 months ago
My favorite ride in BBC2 .
DonSilicone 8 months ago
@jasper5554 outdated, hardly. the outdated idea is putting as much armour as you can on one chasis. plus its more cost worthy if you use ideas such as those listed, rather than going with the most expensive idea on the board. but either way you go, there will be loses. there is no such thing as an invincible tank. WWII proved that.
smilingmaskedturtle1 8 months ago
@smilingmaskedturtle1 It all comes down to production, quanity has it's own quality, the Sherman proved that, t-34 had both, leapard 2 is superior to A1A and T-90. Huzzah!!!
MrFxstb00 6 months ago
@jasper5554 The new Abrams model is also based off of an old chasis, and why with the extra weight? why have a heavier tank? you dont need a heavy tank to overpower an opponent. and plus the T90 is way less expensive than the new M1A2 Abrams. Unit cost 2 - 4.5 million, Abrams, 6.75+ million. also the T90's defenses i would say are more effective and ingenious than just slapping on all that added weight of "depleted uranium", and just so you know, the abrams isnt just depleted uranium. look it up
smilingmaskedturtle1 8 months ago
On the tests, this tank got seven shots from modern RPG, then two cumulative shell shots. After that, it has returned to the base under its own power.
9Martel9 8 months ago
@jasper5554 The T-90 comes in many engine options.And what matters is power to weight Ratio not raw engine power.The Indian army uses 1000 HP engine and have 600 of them with order for 1000 more.They are good tanks with their own advantages and limits.Obviously you got to use them with right tactics,support and trained crew. The Indian army has used both Russian and western tanks to good effect in the wars with Pakistan. India also has 200 Arjun Indian tanks of the leopard 2 class.
insas223 8 months ago
@jasper5554 ,
One great advantage is......It can be flown easily in an IL76...just like T-72 ......I
anant14 8 months ago
Those are some dangerous pomegranates
Aoshimaro 8 months ago
@Aoshimaro lol was thinking that also
johnyjoe2 8 months ago
T-90 kickass
qupada 8 months ago
@qupada t90 is crap even worse now since u guys started replacing the plastic explosives in the reactive armour with puty and play doe and sold the explosives to the chechens to blow up your own tanks lol but who needs tanks when u can buy shit loads of vodka with the cash
johnyjoe2 8 months ago
@johnyjoe2 envy is bad thing kid
qupada 8 months ago
@qupada ye i would like shit loads of vodka too but id like our tankers lifes better
johnyjoe2 8 months ago
@johnyjoe2 whatever
qupada 8 months ago
OH MY GOOOD IT SHOOTS POMEGRANATES!!!!
om nom nom
Mirind0R 9 months ago
8:10-8:20, damn ground hogs...
kkadz 9 months ago
№1 In the world!
Albatrossik 9 months ago
noone abraham can reach a T -90
it s absolutely the Top chariot.
oropios 9 months ago
@SiPlusPLKV Buggati Veyron. At price of 1/3 T-90 :)
BitnikGr 9 months ago
@supergodzillaman2 "the t-90 has to stop to fire" - Did your dad say that? And he is a tanker? :)))) Tell your daddy, that all tanks developed since 60s have bi-plane gun stabilizers and can fire on the move. Difference in accuracy while shooting on the move is a different subject of course.
BitnikGr 9 months ago
Throw some D's on that bitch
TheAngryPirateSays 9 months ago
Looks like an elephant with the lights on
Wadser 9 months ago
1.02 WTF
subzero92MK 9 months ago