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.
Нужно создать новый боевои танк, а не трактара модернизировать. Танк который будет обеспечивать ПОЛНУЮ безопасность экипажа, а не продолжать модернизировать гробы на гусеницах.
@richetalor значит американский абрамс и немецкая пантера не могут соперничить с "гробом на гусеницах" да и фины почемуто вместо леопардов "модернизированный трактор" решили купить
T-90 and t-80 has autoloader. Slower then manual loader and reduses the lenght of each projectile. Ammo is also stored in the fighting compartment around turret.
Commander and gunner systems are extremly primitive compered to leopard 2 standard.
Leopard 2a6 L55 whit DM53 ammo is able to penetrate the frontal sheid of t-80 and t-90 at range beyod 2000 meters. Not even the missile on t-90 is able to do the same on leopard, t-72B is totaly overated
@RFXCGZZ but the gun is better on leo2.. better and more stabile and powerful engine... better armour... better track.. firecontrol , optic, speed, radio... space. and if you have problem with autoloader system what do you do?? its more complicated with auto loader system.. abd its more faster with manual loading...
@panzerkeiko gun? t 90 gun is uneversal can shoot rockets , range 5000 m ,can shoot down helicopters with that rockets , autoloader never brouk ;) beleve me , more space for other people in tank removing autoloader , armor? i dont think that in leopard better armor , can put on t 90 active armor too (Arena) and so so , nothing to copare only war can show whos the best ;)
@3dimon3 i agree. its on speculation until they go head to head an even then that is circumstantial. it also depends how a given army employs their tanks.
@RFXCGZZ the type 90 is considered by the russian army as a 45-ton medium tank while the american Abrams in a 70-ton heavy tank. the difference is the abrams is built to fight outnumbered but is harder to replace since construction is as you say more expensive and complex but on paper the abrams would appear to be better 1 on 1. in a war that isnt really known since neither tank has fought the other. it may be equal or in russia's favor since they will be able to make more tanks than the u.s.
@SLOdreamteam You are one brainwashed mother fucker.Abrams FTW!Did you know the US and irak had the worlds largest tank battle.The US destroyed all of the enemy tanks and only 4 US tanks lost.
US cheated to defeat Iraq. US lied to the world to impose sanction against Iraq..what a shame. it had no real war to claim any victory against Russian tech.
I crossed the Iraqi border in March 2003 with the 3rd Infantry Division. We ripped through the Iraqi's Russian-built T-64, T-72s, T-80s with little effort. The damage inflicted against the T-72s and T-80s was horrific. Our M1s and Apaches targeted the tanks with SABOT rounds aimed between the turrets and chassis. The tanks' ammunition exploded, blowing their turrets 50 meters in the air and over 100 meters from the tanks. I saw HUNDREDS of them. The T-90 looks like the same design death trap.
russains tanks are great tanks even the old models
and we fought well against the americans we destroyed alot of there abrams despite we had t 52s t62s bmp and little tanks t 72s plus the iraqi made tanks lion of babylon
but the americans beat us as always by their airforce
but to be honest m1 abrams great tanks too
the new iraqi army will get 140 abrams within 5 years
@SLOdreamteam fucking lies my friends tank unit rolloed into iraq and destroyed 11 tanks in a few minutes taking no casulaties. abrams are usualy taken out by thier crappy engines and malfunctions.
the T80 is bullshit, do you know how many of those were destroyed with RPG7s. ans Abrams is usually destroyed by IEDs, friendly fire, and engine fires.
tge germans don't use the same like america but the americans use the german technology the americans stoll the german idea's and military back in the ww2
the first stealth hypothesis was made in USSR but the soviet leadership thought it was a stupid idea and declasified the work.and america read the book,and put it to use.buying a book in a bookstore is not stealing.and u know what, i really dont care who stole what from who,cause in the end the winner is not the originator,the winner is who will use the latest technology and put it to use.todays western tech is 1-2 generations above russian,there is nothing left to steal from russia, u can relax
crew training matters, cause a well trained infantry soldier can destroy your 5 million tank.see lebanon, iraq, chechnya. its about training and the phylosophy of use, if u dont know when to use ur hardware, u lost already.if your crew cant use the hightech info and battle systems in a tank - its pointless.might as well give them T-55. plus, WW2 showed that german tank having a better trained crews did more damage than average russian tank crew. sometimes victory isnt worth the losses it caused.
5 million tanks? We don`t have even 5 million soldiers! Even the whole world has less than 5 million tanks. An average russian tank commander in WW2 was trained for about 12 hours, a german one nearly a year, and still they didn`t have a decisive advantage over us
this is because germans made only 9 thousand tanks during WW2...USSR made 100,000...see a difference? im not backing up germans, if u will notice, red army overwhelmed germans by sheer numbers. russia doesnt have a capacity to field such quantity of tank crews - USSR days are over comrade. stalin is dead. and i dont see anybody exerting his will over a whole nation in the same manner. todays russia is way different.
Its probably a good tank if you look at bang for your buck. I doubt it could take the punishment that an M1 can. Even in the cold war most soviet stuff looked a lot better on paper than it actually was when the west was face to face with it. The designs are usually more crude and not as well refined especially when considering soldiers and tank crews (if anyone has seen the inside of their personal carriers).
its kinda unfair to say that cause america is a conglomerate of all nations in the world. sikorsky left communist russia for a good reason. and its an american company for almost 100 years now. F22 - russians still have to massproduce thier T50 to say anything, witch is a rough copy of F22. common man. be real. sure, T90 is a better T72. but hardware dont matter - crew training matters more.
hardware dosen`t matter? That sounds more like WW2. Now much of the crew work is replaced by computers, starting from autoloaders to fire control systems. And the T50 is not a F22 copy at all.
yes it is a copy. but still u need about 10 more years before T50 will fly for Russian air force. so its ok. and it doesnt matter. by that time technology will get to 6th generation.
no man, i read russian papers too. stop it, ok. and i dont think u are a high ranking VPK chinovnik, nor are u a defence minister, nor VVS glavkom. sukhoi said that it will take about 7-8 years to develop a production model. if u have info to back up ur words - post it !!!! if not - stop mastrubating.
well why dont you tell me then when was Akatsiya was put into production. go ahead. disprove it. second - americans were not first in space. anyways - forget the past. today - all that russia has is borrowed western high-tech stuff. cause u dont have a technological base to invent anything new. as i said - soviet days are over. the smartest russians dont live in russia anymore - they live in the West. and it seems that only people with huge inferiority complexes are left to reside in russia
@tbilisicentral t50 pak-fa isn yet in serial production yes for someone looks like a copy.. like for some ppl wich figure it out all planes need wings to fly on one way always looks similar in that way i could say buran is a copy of teh spaceshuttle btw china got also some plane in work wich comes the F22/t50 close.. in design.. i dont think russia will copy the F22 even it was not a total faiulre and training got russia enough dont worry M109 copy of russian 2S3 ?
i got nothing to worry obout pal, but, you need to check your facts, M109 was introduced in early 1960s and was used in Vietnam from the very begining. in USSR, army got 2S3 in 1971. you are just saying things, at least do a little research, cause it looks silly. the whole world is saying that T50 is a copy of F22, but you apparntly think otherwise. I would believe that it was not a copy if they went in production at the same time.
Well it's not really meant to take punishment. The T90 along with most other Russian tanks are primarily designed to be offensive. They are meant to rush in en mass and overwhelm the opposition. Western tanks are designed to be on the defensive, to survive anything the opposition dishes out.
The hell it can. Thanks to the build-in Kontackt 5 dynamic protection and a combination of active/passive protection systems, wich make it much more harder to score a hit into his armor, while every shot you fire at a M1 hits directly into his armor
how do you know, have u shot at T90 from Abrams, and then shot at Abrams from T90? and then - the active protection of T90 doesnt include protection from APFSD made out of Uranium. only from ATGM. read your own russian military analysts that say T90 is a joke. and the ammunition for 125mm gun cant pierce the western tanks armor like Leopard2, Challenger2, M1A2 SEP... and thermal immaging is weak on T90, compared to western tanks.
The hell it includes. The K5 ERA can reduce the penetration effect of a APFSDS of over 30 percent. Thermal imaging is not weak and the tungsten core made T90 rounds have almost the same effect as its western analogues. The first T90 model might have had weaker thermal imaging, but not the T90A
Last I heard the Chatham Armor incorporated by the M1s and Challengers, is still the most advanced armor out there. Not to mention the M1 can be fitted with reactive, and slat armor. I have heard stories of M1s having T72 rounds poking out of them from hits. Even with IEDs it really takes a lot to dent a M1. Besides I don't know if you have seen an M1 but it doesn't have many 90 degree angles or perpendicular surfaces. Plus depleted uranium KE rounds are way more effective than tungsten
true. reason for the russian tungsten round production is because the DU rods that USSR made were disintegrating in flight prior to hitting a target due to high energy of a round. so they went back to proven tech. and russia is yet to produce a modern, post-soviet APFSD. plus given its autoloader size limitations, longer penetrator rods cant fit in a auto-loaders magazine.and T90 hase the basic T72 autoloader setup - horizontal storage. M1 has no such problem, thus the "silver bullet"
i will repeate the question: are u in a VPK or Russian MOD? if yes - what the hell are u doing posting comments on youtube. if no - be quite, child. you dont even read, u probably just watch TV. and on russian TV its always bright and shiny.
It takes quite a few RPG 7s to hurt an M1. If the M1 has slat armor then the rounds won't even hit. Now the newer generation RPG rounds are a different story, and are very effective from what I have heard.
Guys, stop swearing and comparing between U.S's and Russian's Main Battle Tank, Both are will be destroyed eventually, we have poorman's technology here to destroyed any advance MBT of the world, called IED and stolen ATGM that come from both countries...love to smell the burn flesh of U.S and Russian tank crews, especially if they are killed by their own weapons...pls come to my country with your MBT, and you guys can come home in your flag covered coffin
@adwasono...Russian and the U.S. would rock indonesia's world with their "MBT's", pretty cocky you stupid weak ass woman beating prick. Why don't you grow a pair and treat your fellow man (and woman) with some respect. Russia, U.S. and the rest of the CIVILIZED world > Indonesia. Your country isn't even smart enough to take food from a U.S. hospital ship, U.S. helicopter after a tsunami.
Most IEDs are not effective against hard armored vehicles like MBTs. Of IEDs a very very small percentage can actually kill a tank. IEDs are mostly effective against soft targets like supply trucks, and civilian traffic.
@TheRussianPatriot...so that's why everyone cares what America does, thinks, asks for help, etc. etc.? No one believes the Russian army "sucks", they just aren't as tough as the U.S. army. Size doesn't matter as much anymore.
hey voted4bush. U think the american army is better and i think the russian army is better. neither of us will change the other's opinion. fine but remember this... russia has been in many wars and almost all of them were the defensive ones. an army wins only if the truth is on their side. dont touch russia and nothing bad is going to happen to either of us
I am curiouse where you are getting your information of Russia mostly being in "Defensive Wars". They were an aggressor during the cold war to most of the countries they swallowed up in the USSR, not to mention Afghanistan.
TheRussianPatriot1, The T-90 has several advantages over most battle tanks, especially it's laser guided rounds (if it has a forward spotter the gunner doesn't even have to see the target). The U.S. is just in R&D with this technology. European tanks and the Chinese don't even have that technology. India is happy with the T-90 even when it is trying to build its own MBT (which is an expensive disaster). It maybe the best modern weapon Russia has made compared to the competition.
wrong man, Abrams is desert king, heavy and much more protected than T-90.
In Europe, abrams is almost useless, because bridges are not projected for such heavy load... T-90 is much better suited in that case, but is more vulnerable to hits. Modern AT systems probably can destroy both but for other threats abrams is much more protected. T-90 is better in my opinion, because its cheaper.
None of us have given up any freedoms. Obama is a much graver threat to freedom than Bush ever was. You need to get a clue and learn the facts instead of what the ridiculous "news" reports.
I respect your choice in voting but I don't think that Obama is all that bad. He is unlike me who life war. Personally I don't care of many citizen die but only to win a war but Obama way is new and might be able to gaint freedom with out losing any more blood. There for if Obama lead US toward the new path then I will still vote for him and give him a try until he is prove that he is not all for freedom.
Obama doesn't stand for anything that America stands for. He has no backbone and doesn't stand up for freedom. America voted in a poodle when we need a Shepherd or a doberman.
Maybe but since after he won the vote then that mean that he is now the new hope for America and what is coming next is what America going to stand for now. Like everybody said The world is changing.
American values aren't help by our current...."president". our constitution is what is the backbone for our valuies. He [Obama] doesn't follow the constituion or respect it. He will be a one term president (I can only hope).
hahaha Dude the russian tank force consists of 81% t-70s the rest are t-80s which are t-70s with a autoloader (WHICH is slow and jams) they only made 11 t-90s which are t-70 hulls with autoloaders and gps and other stuff in them and with the russian budget cut last year of 15% no more t-90s will ever be made
steamingpoopfart @ si imbesil Si Tu Crees ESO en ee uu tonses Su Fuerza Aérea de El hijo de 81% p El 52 yf 86 y el 81% de sus tanqs son sherman long live russia / long live T 90
really daubtful ! T's are designed for selling to 3rd world countries at a very low prices. Countries of CIS and some other poor countries would buy them. lol!
uuhhhh... the T-90 has actually been PROVEN better than the Abrams dumbfuck... now go sit in the corner and SHUT THE FUCK UP you stupid fucking american piece of shit
How has the T90 proven better than the Abrahms? The M1 has been in several engagements in a variety of settings. It has proven its superiority time and time again. What action has the T90 seen?
Beeing battle proven dosen`t mean much. Take the american F22 for example. It hasn`t proved itself in any conflict and America still says it is number 1. Choose your words carefully next time. What you say may turn against you
Well the Raptor is number one bc like the Abrams its American. Seriously when it comes to armored vehicles or aircraft we have the best stuff. I will give the Russians Ak47s and RPG, after that its all us. From APCs to MBTs, to fighter Aircraft. Besides this post isnt about the Raptor, its about the Abrams, and the Abrams decimates everything it comes into contact with, it has been battle proven time and time again. How many engagements as the T90 been in and with what? The T90 is no Abrams.
That bullshit. You don`t have better stuff at all. Take the Styker for example, it`s the latest american APC design and it sucks when compared to a BTR 90. Same for the abrams. No active/passive protection systems at all and the Raptor is not better than the PAK FA. And we also have better SAM and ICBMs
The stryker is not an APC its a IFV, and it is pretty effective in its roll. Face it Soviet stuff is all hype. During the cold war the NATO countries were intimidated by soviet made equipment until they got their hands on it. It usually looks good on paper but in reality its typically junk. Its poorly made and manufactured, typically copied from our stuff just not done as well. Russia lacks our ingenuity and depth of concept typically only mirroring us, just never quite making the grade
What a difference. the BTR is faster, has a 30mm autocannon and is amphibious. It also covers 300km more road distance and has an ATGM. Need more?
The T90`s and other tank`s K5 ERA greatly boosts those defences allowing the tank to take as damage, if not more than a Abrams. The Arena APS can protect T80/T90 tanks as well as BMPs, BMD and BTR`s from rocket propelled grenates, ATGM as well as Kinetic penetrators. The Topol M missile can not be shot down by any current/future ABM. Need more?
The stryker has a BFT, wide array of thermals and sighting devices. Some versions have a 105mm cannon. Its easier to work on, im guessing more reliable, offers the same in defense, if outfitted with the Raytheon system. I know it can do 80mph. It can be fitted with ATGMs like the Bradley. That K5 crap you keep talking about is just reactive armor and we have had it for a while. It wont do anything for KE rounds. Have you personally seen any of the vehicles you talk about? Need more?
1st: BTR, BMP and BMD can be outfitted with 100 as well as 125 mm guns too.
2nd:The Btr 90 goes at 62, not 80mp/h
3rd:K5 can defeat kinetic penetrators as well. The first K5 version tested by the german easily defeated the M289 fired from L44 guns. Newer versions of K5, kaktus and Relikt can defeat m829a2 as well as M829A3 penetrators with relative ease
4th: modernised BMPs, BTRs and BMDs have thermal/nightvision and other sighting devices as well
Ok so the BTR and Stryker are comparable. The BTR has a bigger gun and more range the Stryker has more speed and better command and control capability.I would really like to see the testing of this new reactive armor. I bet it looks better on paper then it really is, its not like a capability test has never been embelished to make something look better than it really is. Those KE rounds have muzzle velocities of over 1500 m/s, not to mention they are made from denser materials than the tank hull
Are you sure that the Germans used US rounds and not their own KE round? I would like links to where you are getting your info and where you have seen all these tests.
@jumpthepond11 i dont give them the ak-47s and rpgs a good armalite or m16 could outpace the aks anyday and rpgs have horrible and i mean terrible accuracy
Szívesen kipróbálnám.Látszik a dinamizmus,a jó vezethetősége és manőverező képessége.Sajnos nálunk csak álmodni lehet róla.
feszojogisz 1 month ago
what tank is this?
thecowslag 2 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
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 значит американский абрамс и немецкая пантера не могут соперничить с "гробом на гусеницах" да и фины почемуто вместо леопардов "модернизированный трактор" решили купить
maxxoz1 4 months ago
Lol the turret armor is just centimeters thick.
dan6666ification 9 months ago
I been inside on of those and i tell you its a death trap for its own crew.
dan6666ification 9 months ago
@dan6666ification The T-90?
Rimasta1 4 months ago
T-90 and T80 has less armor then leopard
T-90 and t-80 has autoloader. Slower then manual loader and reduses the lenght of each projectile. Ammo is also stored in the fighting compartment around turret.
Commander and gunner systems are extremly primitive compered to leopard 2 standard.
Leopard 2a6 L55 whit DM53 ammo is able to penetrate the frontal sheid of t-80 and t-90 at range beyod 2000 meters. Not even the missile on t-90 is able to do the same on leopard, t-72B is totaly overated
dan6666ification 9 months ago
3 countries that have this Tank , russia, India and Algeria
algeriana777 1 year ago
@algeriana777 Serbia has them to :))))
CriticalError1389 1 year ago
@SLOdreamteam and how many t80s in chechnya?
georgewashington92 1 year ago
ну да так всё и рассказали ))..
vfeonov 1 year ago
@SLOdreamteam
They fought against weak enemies. I generally consider the M1 series tanks inferior to the T-90/80 series of tanks. I say this because:
1)Armor is equal. Abrams has a stronger frontal armor but has more vulnerable points than the T-90, so I say theyre about equal.
2)T-90 has an autoloader
3)1G4 is equal to NATO targeting systems
4)T-90 is cheaper
5)T-90 has guided weaponry
so yeah.I don't have much room to type, but these are briefly some of the reasons why the T-90 is better.
RFXCGZZ 1 year ago 10
@RFXCGZZ but the gun is better on leo2.. better and more stabile and powerful engine... better armour... better track.. firecontrol , optic, speed, radio... space. and if you have problem with autoloader system what do you do?? its more complicated with auto loader system.. abd its more faster with manual loading...
panzerkeiko 7 months ago
@panzerkeiko gun? t 90 gun is uneversal can shoot rockets , range 5000 m ,can shoot down helicopters with that rockets , autoloader never brouk ;) beleve me , more space for other people in tank removing autoloader , armor? i dont think that in leopard better armor , can put on t 90 active armor too (Arena) and so so , nothing to copare only war can show whos the best ;)
3dimon3 7 months ago
@3dimon3 i agree. its on speculation until they go head to head an even then that is circumstantial. it also depends how a given army employs their tanks.
Rimasta1 4 months ago
@RFXCGZZ the type 90 is considered by the russian army as a 45-ton medium tank while the american Abrams in a 70-ton heavy tank. the difference is the abrams is built to fight outnumbered but is harder to replace since construction is as you say more expensive and complex but on paper the abrams would appear to be better 1 on 1. in a war that isnt really known since neither tank has fought the other. it may be equal or in russia's favor since they will be able to make more tanks than the u.s.
Rimasta1 4 months ago
i have a question:
The Shtora missile laser guided jamming system, can neutralize a Javelin too?
juniorbay 1 year ago
@juniorbay Yeah, its made to counter ATGM missiles and that include IC guided Javelin.
ITmage 1 year ago
@ITmage Bodass! o.O
Mother Russia >> ALL
juniorbay 1 year ago
fuck USA USA ARMY IS DEAD
YAROSLAVJIK 1 year ago
@YAROSLAVJIK ah dammit im confuesed i got people saying this is better compared to our tanks god damn theyre all good
TheArbiter138 1 year ago
Класс
PashaOrehov 1 year ago
@SLOdreamteam You are one brainwashed mother fucker.Abrams FTW!Did you know the US and irak had the worlds largest tank battle.The US destroyed all of the enemy tanks and only 4 US tanks lost.
Humberto4790 1 year ago
US cheated to defeat Iraq. US lied to the world to impose sanction against Iraq..what a shame. it had no real war to claim any victory against Russian tech.
javabeserk 1 year ago
I crossed the Iraqi border in March 2003 with the 3rd Infantry Division. We ripped through the Iraqi's Russian-built T-64, T-72s, T-80s with little effort. The damage inflicted against the T-72s and T-80s was horrific. Our M1s and Apaches targeted the tanks with SABOT rounds aimed between the turrets and chassis. The tanks' ammunition exploded, blowing their turrets 50 meters in the air and over 100 meters from the tanks. I saw HUNDREDS of them. The T-90 looks like the same design death trap.
AZTHX138 1 year ago
its like a modified T72
G4pcta 1 year ago
One word: Javelin
polla2256 1 year ago
@polla2256 one word: HE-FRAG!
BitnikGr 1 year ago
am an ex-officer in the iraqi army
russains tanks are great tanks even the old models
and we fought well against the americans we destroyed alot of there abrams despite we had t 52s t62s bmp and little tanks t 72s plus the iraqi made tanks lion of babylon
but the americans beat us as always by their airforce
but to be honest m1 abrams great tanks too
the new iraqi army will get 140 abrams within 5 years
taggedmomo 1 year ago
@taggedmomo Why are you lying? Allied armor suffered 0 losses at the hands of Iraqi tanks. Why claim to be someone you are not?
Catchaspoon 1 year ago
lets put a T-90 up against an A-10 and see what happens. He he he
lets put abrams and a-10 against su-25 or su-39 better
karpych11 1 year ago
T-90 may be better than the M1A1 but lets put a T-90 up against an A-10 and see what happens.
HonsRulz 1 year ago
@SLOdreamteam fucking lies my friends tank unit rolloed into iraq and destroyed 11 tanks in a few minutes taking no casulaties. abrams are usualy taken out by thier crappy engines and malfunctions.
driftingbosco 1 year ago
the T80 is bullshit, do you know how many of those were destroyed with RPG7s. ans Abrams is usually destroyed by IEDs, friendly fire, and engine fires.
asianiinvasion 1 year ago
tge germans don't use the same like america but the americans use the german technology the americans stoll the german idea's and military back in the ww2
chechenets1 1 year ago
@SLOdreamteam Last Chinese tank is better.
konvilin 2 years ago
Svaka cast braco rusi na ovom tenku.
TheLazar71 2 years ago
usa borrow take buy or copy more from russia
than russia from usa ^^
like the "first holy" stealh of usa made by russian
high tech..
only in fucking movies & games ^^
and sry not all left
im pretty sure a lot of smart russian live there or finaly grow up
SibirianHusky 2 years ago
the first stealth hypothesis was made in USSR but the soviet leadership thought it was a stupid idea and declasified the work.and america read the book,and put it to use.buying a book in a bookstore is not stealing.and u know what, i really dont care who stole what from who,cause in the end the winner is not the originator,the winner is who will use the latest technology and put it to use.todays western tech is 1-2 generations above russian,there is nothing left to steal from russia, u can relax
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
DEATH TO NATO !!!!
SibirianHusky 2 years ago
lol
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this tank is a piece of shit
borisempire 2 years ago
I'd love to see you make a bteer tank!
Dread3577 2 years ago
United States made one
9103211 2 years ago
U are peace of shti!!!!!!
meffer1111 2 years ago 4
Is there any specific reason why you think that?
stalingradComando 2 years ago
crew training matters, cause a well trained infantry soldier can destroy your 5 million tank.see lebanon, iraq, chechnya. its about training and the phylosophy of use, if u dont know when to use ur hardware, u lost already.if your crew cant use the hightech info and battle systems in a tank - its pointless.might as well give them T-55. plus, WW2 showed that german tank having a better trained crews did more damage than average russian tank crew. sometimes victory isnt worth the losses it caused.
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
5 million tanks? We don`t have even 5 million soldiers! Even the whole world has less than 5 million tanks. An average russian tank commander in WW2 was trained for about 12 hours, a german one nearly a year, and still they didn`t have a decisive advantage over us
stalingradComando 2 years ago
this is because germans made only 9 thousand tanks during WW2...USSR made 100,000...see a difference? im not backing up germans, if u will notice, red army overwhelmed germans by sheer numbers. russia doesnt have a capacity to field such quantity of tank crews - USSR days are over comrade. stalin is dead. and i dont see anybody exerting his will over a whole nation in the same manner. todays russia is way different.
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
subtitulos en castellano porfavor !
zagueee 2 years ago
Its probably a good tank if you look at bang for your buck. I doubt it could take the punishment that an M1 can. Even in the cold war most soviet stuff looked a lot better on paper than it actually was when the west was face to face with it. The designs are usually more crude and not as well refined especially when considering soldiers and tank crews (if anyone has seen the inside of their personal carriers).
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
@jumpthepond11
yes and the only ONE reason UFOS land on USA are is USA got best advannced technology to get repair theyrs spaceships right xD ???
f22 CRAPTOR = not 100 % usa tech what a shake your black hawks who makde them ?
SIKORSKY ??!!!
and who create sikorsky ???
100% not AMERICA
it dosnt sounds american ?? OR DIES IT ? xD
SibirianHusky 2 years ago
its kinda unfair to say that cause america is a conglomerate of all nations in the world. sikorsky left communist russia for a good reason. and its an american company for almost 100 years now. F22 - russians still have to massproduce thier T50 to say anything, witch is a rough copy of F22. common man. be real. sure, T90 is a better T72. but hardware dont matter - crew training matters more.
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
hardware dosen`t matter? That sounds more like WW2. Now much of the crew work is replaced by computers, starting from autoloaders to fire control systems. And the T50 is not a F22 copy at all.
stalingradComando 2 years ago
yes it is a copy. but still u need about 10 more years before T50 will fly for Russian air force. so its ok. and it doesnt matter. by that time technology will get to 6th generation.
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
It`s not a copy. It has similar capabilities but it is not a copy. Every single component of the T50 is made in russia.
VVS will revice its first T50 batallion on 2013, so it looks more like a 3 years, instead of a 10 years, like you said before
stalingradComando 2 years ago
no man, i read russian papers too. stop it, ok. and i dont think u are a high ranking VPK chinovnik, nor are u a defence minister, nor VVS glavkom. sukhoi said that it will take about 7-8 years to develop a production model. if u have info to back up ur words - post it !!!! if not - stop mastrubating.
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
and one more thing - VVS doesnt have battalions..its not an army and its not a VDV - its an air-force.
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
@tbilisicentral
have dont reseach how ever... dont know where u get your source.. maybe from the "holy" wikipedia... wich contains a lot of fail informations ^^
and yes american where the first in space and build teh first radio and the first satelit
im sorry and i belive that whole time
what a shame
SibirianHusky 2 years ago
well why dont you tell me then when was Akatsiya was put into production. go ahead. disprove it. second - americans were not first in space. anyways - forget the past. today - all that russia has is borrowed western high-tech stuff. cause u dont have a technological base to invent anything new. as i said - soviet days are over. the smartest russians dont live in russia anymore - they live in the West. and it seems that only people with huge inferiority complexes are left to reside in russia
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
@tbilisicentral
if you think so
SibirianHusky 2 years ago
@tbilisicentral but we made it to the moon first...
driftingbosco 1 year ago
@driftingbosco indeed.
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
SibirianHusky 2 years ago
i got nothing to worry obout pal, but, you need to check your facts, M109 was introduced in early 1960s and was used in Vietnam from the very begining. in USSR, army got 2S3 in 1971. you are just saying things, at least do a little research, cause it looks silly. the whole world is saying that T50 is a copy of F22, but you apparntly think otherwise. I would believe that it was not a copy if they went in production at the same time.
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
@jumpthepond11
Well it's not really meant to take punishment. The T90 along with most other Russian tanks are primarily designed to be offensive. They are meant to rush in en mass and overwhelm the opposition. Western tanks are designed to be on the defensive, to survive anything the opposition dishes out.
meatwad4900 2 years ago
The hell it can. Thanks to the build-in Kontackt 5 dynamic protection and a combination of active/passive protection systems, wich make it much more harder to score a hit into his armor, while every shot you fire at a M1 hits directly into his armor
stalingradComando 2 years ago
how do you know, have u shot at T90 from Abrams, and then shot at Abrams from T90? and then - the active protection of T90 doesnt include protection from APFSD made out of Uranium. only from ATGM. read your own russian military analysts that say T90 is a joke. and the ammunition for 125mm gun cant pierce the western tanks armor like Leopard2, Challenger2, M1A2 SEP... and thermal immaging is weak on T90, compared to western tanks.
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
The hell it includes. The K5 ERA can reduce the penetration effect of a APFSDS of over 30 percent. Thermal imaging is not weak and the tungsten core made T90 rounds have almost the same effect as its western analogues. The first T90 model might have had weaker thermal imaging, but not the T90A
stalingradComando 2 years ago
Last I heard the Chatham Armor incorporated by the M1s and Challengers, is still the most advanced armor out there. Not to mention the M1 can be fitted with reactive, and slat armor. I have heard stories of M1s having T72 rounds poking out of them from hits. Even with IEDs it really takes a lot to dent a M1. Besides I don't know if you have seen an M1 but it doesn't have many 90 degree angles or perpendicular surfaces. Plus depleted uranium KE rounds are way more effective than tungsten
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
true. reason for the russian tungsten round production is because the DU rods that USSR made were disintegrating in flight prior to hitting a target due to high energy of a round. so they went back to proven tech. and russia is yet to produce a modern, post-soviet APFSD. plus given its autoloader size limitations, longer penetrator rods cant fit in a auto-loaders magazine.and T90 hase the basic T72 autoloader setup - horizontal storage. M1 has no such problem, thus the "silver bullet"
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
@jumpthepond11
most advanced armor
lol serious...
even a simply old RPG-7 can take it out
most advanced armor... ofc....
if i read things like this i gueess tehre is not much sens talk about it and go deep into the subject
but yes u write u heard .. read whatever dosnt means that is so
SibirianHusky 2 years ago
i will repeate the question: are u in a VPK or Russian MOD? if yes - what the hell are u doing posting comments on youtube. if no - be quite, child. you dont even read, u probably just watch TV. and on russian TV its always bright and shiny.
tbilisicentral 2 years ago
It takes quite a few RPG 7s to hurt an M1. If the M1 has slat armor then the rounds won't even hit. Now the newer generation RPG rounds are a different story, and are very effective from what I have heard.
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
you T72 rounds were already out of production in Russia at the 60s
stalingradComando 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Probably is shit like most of our weapons.
TheRussianSupremacy 2 years ago
what you tolk mormon this is T 90 not obama
Alexei55555 2 years ago 7
Guys, stop swearing and comparing between U.S's and Russian's Main Battle Tank, Both are will be destroyed eventually, we have poorman's technology here to destroyed any advance MBT of the world, called IED and stolen ATGM that come from both countries...love to smell the burn flesh of U.S and Russian tank crews, especially if they are killed by their own weapons...pls come to my country with your MBT, and you guys can come home in your flag covered coffin
adwasono 2 years ago
@adwasono...Russian and the U.S. would rock indonesia's world with their "MBT's", pretty cocky you stupid weak ass woman beating prick. Why don't you grow a pair and treat your fellow man (and woman) with some respect. Russia, U.S. and the rest of the CIVILIZED world > Indonesia. Your country isn't even smart enough to take food from a U.S. hospital ship, U.S. helicopter after a tsunami.
voted4bush 2 years ago
Most IEDs are not effective against hard armored vehicles like MBTs. Of IEDs a very very small percentage can actually kill a tank. IEDs are mostly effective against soft targets like supply trucks, and civilian traffic.
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
To all those americans who say russian army sucks. STOP trying to prove a lie and accept the fact that Russia is more powerful!
TheRussianPatriot1 2 years ago
@TheRussianPatriot...so that's why everyone cares what America does, thinks, asks for help, etc. etc.? No one believes the Russian army "sucks", they just aren't as tough as the U.S. army. Size doesn't matter as much anymore.
voted4bush 2 years ago
hey voted4bush. U think the american army is better and i think the russian army is better. neither of us will change the other's opinion. fine but remember this... russia has been in many wars and almost all of them were the defensive ones. an army wins only if the truth is on their side. dont touch russia and nothing bad is going to happen to either of us
TheRussianPatriot1 2 years ago
I am curiouse where you are getting your information of Russia mostly being in "Defensive Wars". They were an aggressor during the cold war to most of the countries they swallowed up in the USSR, not to mention Afghanistan.
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
TheRussianPatriot1, The T-90 has several advantages over most battle tanks, especially it's laser guided rounds (if it has a forward spotter the gunner doesn't even have to see the target). The U.S. is just in R&D with this technology. European tanks and the Chinese don't even have that technology. India is happy with the T-90 even when it is trying to build its own MBT (which is an expensive disaster). It maybe the best modern weapon Russia has made compared to the competition.
orlock20 2 years ago 2
Grettings from Serbia! T-90 Is the best!
Mitkovich 2 years ago
abrams its a big shit for desert battle,this tank jet engine not works too long in the desert,t90 is the best ever tank in the world remember that.
alex121177 2 years ago 7
wrong man, Abrams is desert king, heavy and much more protected than T-90.
In Europe, abrams is almost useless, because bridges are not projected for such heavy load... T-90 is much better suited in that case, but is more vulnerable to hits. Modern AT systems probably can destroy both but for other threats abrams is much more protected. T-90 is better in my opinion, because its cheaper.
nicazeman 2 years ago
@alex121177 lol Uhhhh, right, shows how much you know.
Catchaspoon 1 year ago
@alex121177 yeah right leopard 2a6 is the best tank not that russian crapp
DEATHROW233 1 year ago
@alex121177 i upset that people liked his comment the t90 also has a gas turbine engine dumb asses
Drshockaloo413 1 year ago
Hey, I'm American and I will admit, the T-90 is the tightest tank available. It's cheap, powerful, fast, easy to produce, and tough. T-90>M1A1
Redhammer627 3 years ago 11
You've been watching too many Russian propagand videos if you think the T-90>M1.
voted4bush 2 years ago
Comment removed
Benz2533 2 years ago
Maybe you should rephrase because I have NO idea what you're talking about.
voted4bush 2 years ago
You believe that US is all the best of the world and that will be the down side of the us and it will be the weakness of the usa.
voted4bush = bush the ex president who wasted american live for more problem.
I just can't believe that you support an idiot to run USA!!! because of him the war on terrorist continue, you cannot wash blood by blood.
"They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" Benjamin Franklin
Benz2533 2 years ago
None of us have given up any freedoms. Obama is a much graver threat to freedom than Bush ever was. You need to get a clue and learn the facts instead of what the ridiculous "news" reports.
voted4bush 2 years ago
I respect your choice in voting but I don't think that Obama is all that bad. He is unlike me who life war. Personally I don't care of many citizen die but only to win a war but Obama way is new and might be able to gaint freedom with out losing any more blood. There for if Obama lead US toward the new path then I will still vote for him and give him a try until he is prove that he is not all for freedom.
Benz2533 2 years ago
Obama doesn't stand for anything that America stands for. He has no backbone and doesn't stand up for freedom. America voted in a poodle when we need a Shepherd or a doberman.
voted4bush 2 years ago
Maybe but since after he won the vote then that mean that he is now the new hope for America and what is coming next is what America going to stand for now. Like everybody said The world is changing.
Benz2533 2 years ago
American values aren't help by our current...."president". our constitution is what is the backbone for our valuies. He [Obama] doesn't follow the constituion or respect it. He will be a one term president (I can only hope).
voted4bush 2 years ago
hahaha Dude the russian tank force consists of 81% t-70s the rest are t-80s which are t-70s with a autoloader (WHICH is slow and jams) they only made 11 t-90s which are t-70 hulls with autoloaders and gps and other stuff in them and with the russian budget cut last year of 15% no more t-90s will ever be made
steamingpoopfart 1 year ago
steamingpoopfart @ si imbesil Si Tu Crees ESO en ee uu tonses Su Fuerza Aérea de El hijo de 81% p El 52 yf 86 y el 81% de sus tanqs son sherman long live russia / long live T 90
Andres9476 1 year ago
cheaper than the U.S.
as 4.5 million to buy 3
locazoxd 3 years ago
really daubtful ! T's are designed for selling to 3rd world countries at a very low prices. Countries of CIS and some other poor countries would buy them. lol!
so2murad 3 years ago
By your logic AK-47's are useless although everyone knows it's the best assault rifle ever created.
drewd1987 3 years ago 3
I can think of a good 10 assalut rifles better than the AK.
voted4bush 2 years ago
That's because your a toolbag that's never fired the weapons in your life. Life isn't a video game, asshole.
drewd1987 2 years ago 3
Oh contrare, I've fired over half in addition to the AK. NIce to make a retarded assumption and make a fool of yourself.
voted4bush 2 years ago
I'm not saying the AK is bad, but it is far from "the best assault rifle"
voted4bush 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
not tank but shit. 1 M1A1 will destroy 3 T-90 s with no problem.
so2murad 3 years ago
uuhhhh... the T-90 has actually been PROVEN better than the Abrams dumbfuck... now go sit in the corner and SHUT THE FUCK UP you stupid fucking american piece of shit
bittemeinrammstein 3 years ago 6
Comment removed
jmonahan78 2 years ago
How has the T90 proven better than the Abrahms? The M1 has been in several engagements in a variety of settings. It has proven its superiority time and time again. What action has the T90 seen?
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
Beeing battle proven dosen`t mean much. Take the american F22 for example. It hasn`t proved itself in any conflict and America still says it is number 1. Choose your words carefully next time. What you say may turn against you
stalingradComando 2 years ago
Well the Raptor is number one bc like the Abrams its American. Seriously when it comes to armored vehicles or aircraft we have the best stuff. I will give the Russians Ak47s and RPG, after that its all us. From APCs to MBTs, to fighter Aircraft. Besides this post isnt about the Raptor, its about the Abrams, and the Abrams decimates everything it comes into contact with, it has been battle proven time and time again. How many engagements as the T90 been in and with what? The T90 is no Abrams.
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
That bullshit. You don`t have better stuff at all. Take the Styker for example, it`s the latest american APC design and it sucks when compared to a BTR 90. Same for the abrams. No active/passive protection systems at all and the Raptor is not better than the PAK FA. And we also have better SAM and ICBMs
stalingradComando 2 years ago
The stryker is not an APC its a IFV, and it is pretty effective in its roll. Face it Soviet stuff is all hype. During the cold war the NATO countries were intimidated by soviet made equipment until they got their hands on it. It usually looks good on paper but in reality its typically junk. Its poorly made and manufactured, typically copied from our stuff just not done as well. Russia lacks our ingenuity and depth of concept typically only mirroring us, just never quite making the grade
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
What a difference. the BTR is faster, has a 30mm autocannon and is amphibious. It also covers 300km more road distance and has an ATGM. Need more?
The T90`s and other tank`s K5 ERA greatly boosts those defences allowing the tank to take as damage, if not more than a Abrams. The Arena APS can protect T80/T90 tanks as well as BMPs, BMD and BTR`s from rocket propelled grenates, ATGM as well as Kinetic penetrators. The Topol M missile can not be shot down by any current/future ABM. Need more?
stalingradComando 2 years ago
The stryker has a BFT, wide array of thermals and sighting devices. Some versions have a 105mm cannon. Its easier to work on, im guessing more reliable, offers the same in defense, if outfitted with the Raytheon system. I know it can do 80mph. It can be fitted with ATGMs like the Bradley. That K5 crap you keep talking about is just reactive armor and we have had it for a while. It wont do anything for KE rounds. Have you personally seen any of the vehicles you talk about? Need more?
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
1st: BTR, BMP and BMD can be outfitted with 100 as well as 125 mm guns too.
2nd:The Btr 90 goes at 62, not 80mp/h
3rd:K5 can defeat kinetic penetrators as well. The first K5 version tested by the german easily defeated the M289 fired from L44 guns. Newer versions of K5, kaktus and Relikt can defeat m829a2 as well as M829A3 penetrators with relative ease
4th: modernised BMPs, BTRs and BMDs have thermal/nightvision and other sighting devices as well
stalingradComando 2 years ago
Ok so the BTR and Stryker are comparable. The BTR has a bigger gun and more range the Stryker has more speed and better command and control capability.I would really like to see the testing of this new reactive armor. I bet it looks better on paper then it really is, its not like a capability test has never been embelished to make something look better than it really is. Those KE rounds have muzzle velocities of over 1500 m/s, not to mention they are made from denser materials than the tank hull
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
Are you sure that the Germans used US rounds and not their own KE round? I would like links to where you are getting your info and where you have seen all these tests.
jumpthepond11 2 years ago
It was a joint testing by the Bundeswehr and the US Army. I`ll send you a PM with the URL as soon as I find it
stalingradComando 2 years ago
he got it from wikipedia and youtube.. -.-
like 99% of the posters here
gazakind 1 year ago
@jumpthepond11
wheres teh difference?
abrams has chalangers armor
and the leopard 2 gun
germans use the same ammunition like the US
gazakind 1 year ago
Да, неблагодарное это занятие - пиписьками меряться...
GenaMatogen 2 years ago
@jumpthepond11 i dont give them the ak-47s and rpgs a good armalite or m16 could outpace the aks anyday and rpgs have horrible and i mean terrible accuracy
driftingbosco 1 year ago
thank you for the post
bobyluppo 3 years ago