Despite what the video says the Russians seem to be continuing their policy "of nearly as good quality with quantity becoming a quality in itself" the T-90 is an interesting design with many new features, although not as war tested as western designs I expect to see T90s in the tank parks of Russia's proxies & dictators everywhere - Russia knows a direct tank to tank fight on Russian soil is unlikely (despite Georgian's conflict) given its momentary strength is in oil & intel.
Well the video is right...T-90 has got Nakidka, Shtora, ATGMs. Sounds boring, but it makes it 5 km sniper tank with minimal IR and radar signature and ability to cancel out the most important part of fire system - IR rangefinder.
Abrams should stay at their standard opponents, post-WW2 tanks in 3world countries :-)
and a missle strike and the crew were still inside, a recovery vehicle came a couple of hours after and the tank was fine, and the crew were unhurt, and the tank was back on the battlefield a month later.
this is stupid, this guy is obviously russian therefore of course he will do a video on their tank being better than someone eleses. how about you compare the challenger 2 mbt with the t90? see what happens! our tank is the best in the world and will be for a very long time. we have not had one destroyed. compared to the american abrams. for example their was an point in the second iraq war 2003-2009, where a challenger was stranded due to a slipped track and it suffered 14 rpg 7 hits..
1) Guy is russian so he says T-90 is best ... hmm and what exactly are you doing? Quoting you: "our tank (Challenger2) is the best in the world" Hypocrite.
2) "we have not had one destroyed" ... 2 damaged and 1 destroyed.
3) Ch.2 cannot match Abrams. The argument is Abrams or T-90? Not T-90 or Ch.2.
I saw these tank burning hulks after the muslims blew them up with ease. I wish they were better so your country could defeat the radical muslims that are taking over your country.
As ALWAYS, don't believe everything you see on Russian TV. Some things never change.
The m1a2 Abrams destroyed the t-72 in the gulf war without a single tank lose and 1 man killed while destroying thousands of enemy personal and tanks.
@lordnocts i thought you get all your facts from wiki because they sound like western propaganda. so you trust americans that say iraqi army was fucking strong and that iraqis had hight-tech soviet and russian weapons. why USSR should eport weapons to an US allie in the 1980`s and yes USSR exported "monkey models" that is a fact.
@SovietBear91 It still doesn't matter every military expert euro or american agree that when it come to every aspect of military technology america has a lead. You say western propaganda like lots of people who don't want to admit the truth but can you give me an example of this propaganda.
What makes this program in Russia better than a program in america. The same people who gave the m1a2 Abrams best modern tank in the world gave the ak47 best assault.
@lordnocts examples are monkey models USSR exported bad versions of weapons. what about the russian-georgian war in 2008 not a single russian tank was lost georgians had western ATGMs, RPGs and they had western(french) fire-control-systems in their tanks.
what kind of lead? USA bought and still buys soviet/russian weapons from (east)- germany and middle east countrys. you heard something about "Red Eagels" a USAF cold war secret squadon of MiGs?
@SovietBear91 Well they obviously have no problem giving soviets designs there credit by giving the soviet ak47 number 1 on the best assault rifle list over the m16. They gave the m1a2 Abrams number two and best tank and number 1 was the T-34 tank because for the time it was extreamly impressive.
@lordnocts i know what you mean but they only give credit to soviet weapons which are from WW2 or the early cold war. we are talking about the discovery channel top10 lists right? why is a tank like the Leo2 or pather G. not in the top 10 list. why are kirov-class battlecruisers or kresta-II-class cruisers not in the top 10 battleship list. why is the Mi-24 only no.6 on the top 10 helicopers list? i don`t blame d.-ch. for lists like that they make money with them, but i blame ignorant people.
@SovietBear91 Because those pretty god dam unknown weapons. Because those battle ships suck they weren't impressive for there time and there not close to the best now. Because the mi-24 isnt that good of a heli its better than 90 percent of helicopters out there but not high grade modern military super copters it deserved lower in my opinion.
Though i do believe they should have had the leopard 2 and the panther.
@SovietBear91 I think you have a misunderstanding of what propaganda is and you just say it to sound smart or more likely sound diffident. Every form of news is propaganda every single information that is giving out is propaganda. just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its propaganda and just because you do agree with it doesn't mean its pure 100% untainted news.
@lordnocts ok they are more intelligent then you, but this lists are just full of US propaganda. god knows i hate usa but i am not a blind and ignorent fanboy like you are.
just stop BS under this video. why the fuck you comment under this video if you know that M1A2 is better its your opinion but we don`t need pathetic comments.
@SovietBear91 The reality is modern US army can take on anything that any country can throw at it. Single weapon systems that can be produced are irrelevant when compared to entire military industrial complex. Anyway it's nothing to be proud of, modern US army is a nation grinding machine used to destroy only for the sake of destruction hence it became what it was designed to fight- Soviet army.
@Marine475 us army was designed for getting money trough wars, military industry and other aspects of a conflict. russia is leading in anti-air and anti-tank weapons and don`t overrate us army so much do they won a war in the last 100 years without allies?
@lordnocts Because in Iraq, there were no real T-72, it was T-72M (Monkey model) and Asad Babil. T-72M doesnt have ATGM, reactive armour, IR, it was complete shit made by Hungarian and Polish license built.
"The m1a2 Abrams destroyed the t-72 in the gulf war without a single tank lose"
Thats true. Lets not forget M1A2 is significantly newer and modern then basic T-72. All russian technology in 3rd world countries are at least 40 years old, with no upgrade, poorly maintained. It is not a mirracle to defeat those armies.
It is however stupid to compare T-72 to the T-90MS. M1 is quite old platform too.
O YES SO WERE SUPPOSE TO BELIEVE THE RUSSIAN OVER THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW MILITARY STUFF. there not biased because they gave the soviet ak-47 number 1 on there best assault rifle list.
@franknbeans4761 you know that the big part of the chechenian fighters were veterans of GRU speznas and other soviet army units. they also had modern russian rpg`s and ATGM`s, SAM`s and modern soviet T-72 tanks not monkey models that were used in iraq. russians also had to fight them in forests and urban environment. the iraqi paper tiger army on the other had fought in the desert were US army had air superiority and much more modern tanks than the iraqis
@SovietBear91 And the Iraqis had experience against US forces in 1991. They also numbered in 1,000,000 strong, not 30,000-50,000. Iraq also had SAM's and AT-14's, RPG-29's, foreign soldiers, etc.
And the US had to fight in major cities over and over again. Iraq was not a tough army but they were larger, had more artillery, had more AAA, had more SAM's, had more tanks, had more troops, had viable command and control, and viable logistics.
@franknbeans4761 rpg-29 was not used by iraqi forces in 1991 i think you americans have some problems to remember facts. in the 1980`s iraq was supported by usa and not ussr. first rpg-29 were used by the soviet atmy in 1989-90 why they should export modern weapons to US allies in the 1980`s. the difference is iraqi army fought a conventional war against usa. they are morons compared to chechenian fighters (wepaons, tactics, leaders) look how pathetic usa army failed is afghan.
@SovietBear91 just multiply the task US army faces in afghanistan by 20 and you will get the chechenian war szenario.
AT-14 Kornet is the newest russian ATGM maybe only used against Merkavas in 2006 libanon-war by HAMAS iraqis only had AT-5 and the majority of the iraqi SAM`s were SA-2 not a problem for modern jets. maybe i should write that chechenian fighters had nao-suites and tesla rifles, but I am not like you i will not ignore the facts.
@lordnocts soviet army was also 10 years in afghanistan and soviet intelligence services and special army units were about 20 years in afghanistan. i don`t think that they did something better. they established a pro soviet government but after the soviet withdrawal the pro soviet government was fucked really fast and now tell me how long hamid karzai will survive after the NATO withdrawal (maybe 2-3 weeks).
@franknbeans4761 And again, the Chechen fighters had terrible coordination and some units only followed direct orders form their leader and wouldn't follow other orders. They had terrible organization and couldn't even effectively take on an outnumbered and severely disadvantaged group of VDV soldiers on hill 776.
@franknbeans4761 can i get a source which proves that chechenian fighters had terrible coordination. it is a well known fact that the majority of chechenian fighters were veterans of soviet army and special forces from afgahnistan.
@SovietBear91 Let me search for you. Just because they were veterans doesn't mean the entire force had good command and control. They need to have good leadership to coordinate attacks and achieve viable goals.
In general terms, this talks about it:
h t t p : / / en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994-1995)#Tactics
Most soldiers only took orders from their area commander and Aslan Maskhadov had difficulties controlling them all. And most had limited heavy weapons.
@franknbeans4761 ok wiki without a source for the articel is very useful, but yes your point is right. i talked about mujahideen which were armored to the teeth and trained in the soviet army. yes irregulars fought like douche bags but they were irregulars and not mujahideen.
you have the same situation in iraq today some insurgents are trained soldiers some are fathers, brothers and sons which want to take revenge.
@SovietBear91 I know but it was a document that was clear about it.
But my main point was that 375,000 Iraqi's were in the active army and 650,000 in reserve and they had viable command and control contingencies and were able to put up a reasonable defense throughout the invasion. That is a force to be reckoned with.
True Chechens were reasonably trained and experienced, but there weren't enough of them to say they were better than a 1,000,000 man force on any level.
@franknbeans4761 ok just pure numbers 70 000+ russian troops in first chechenian war.
coalition forces in iraq 300 000+ vs. 370 000+ iraqi army troops. where you get 1 mio. troops. on papaer russia has also 1mio. men in reserve but i doubt that they can arm them and bring the into battle. iraq was a paper tiger third largest army in the world but fought like second to last largest army in the world.
@SovietBear91 In 2003, there were 148,000 US troops, 45,000 British troops, 3,000+ other foreign troops, and 70,000 Peshmerga.
The US and it's allies were outnumbered and those 650,000 Iraqi reservists were just that, reservists. Not available active men. They had weapons, units, and still had training.
The US went in & was massively outnumbered & fought against an enemy that had experience against them & completely won.
While in the 1st CW, Russia outnumbered it's enemy & had mixed results.
@franknbeans4761 dude it is fucking pathetic. chance to win in iraq or afghanistan you can only win there if you kill every male it this country. soviet goal was to stop the radical islamisation of central asian soviet staates and at some point they reached this goal because of the afghan-civil war. without american help ussr would have won because they put up schools, hospitals, streets...if us army will win i will send you a victory cake.
@franknbeans4761 yeah but russia never invaded afganistan they were asked to help,and better how, your still there and what changed nothing thats what,they just dont want to admit they failed the end !
@murf503 Well, Afghanistan is mixed results. Al Qaeda has been severely injured, possibly beyond repair. Osama Bin Laden has been killed, and so have many of those responsible for 9/11.
However, controlling Afghanistan is something that will probably not materialize, and most likely end in shambles.
There is not much you can do in that situation and it is hard to say just what exactly will happen. In the end, probably nothing too positive.
Lets face it guys Abrams hasnt battle a tank thats build later then 1970 soo far and its normal to win vs 30+ years old machines. And yet we see how he gets owned by verry old RPG's.
@Hinnvondi U.S. funding? what? are you kidding me? U.S. have no money to do such charity work. And why would they fund someone else's military machine? This makes no sense
@Dedmaroz69 You are so naive it is absolutely astounding! I can't believe the quality of minds on Youtube, just incredible! I will forever remember this place when i need a laugh
So how many can you afford? Is the ammo still stored in the open on the turret floor? one hit and off comes the turret like all the rest. Nice commercial but how much combat has it seen the M1 has been fighting since 1991. Its a 30 year old design still going strong. You use a missle because your gunnery system can't hit anything over 2500 meters. M1s kill at 3500.
@VickersIndependent Trololololol. And no, I stumbled across your comment. And the US Army never said they wanted a "leaner" tank, but a "leaner" force which means many things.
@franknbeans4761 "Trololololol. And no, I stumbled across your comment," you have some serious issues if you have to keep commenting on everything I say. Now I seriously suggest you stop following me or else I'll get Jukov.
@VickersIndependent Look at your page. As you can see, I stumbled across it. And if you want a biased, stubborn, ill informed lunatic to back you up; I will be waiting.
@VickersIndependent And since you always end up commenting on every video I do, but not specifically replying to me, and freaking out when I address you; I will keep responding to your BS comments.
@franknbeans4761 What are you trying to get out of this? Becuase the only thing you will gain by your lewd remarks is someone who no longer beleives in the U.S. military at all becuase I've found more redeeming traits of the Russain military then the U.S.
@VickersIndependent Really? I am surprised when considering how corruption is much more abundant in the Russian military than the US. And the quality standards are significantly less. And when looking at their poor overall performance in the First Chechen war, I am even more surprised.
Lcpl glass, my own crew had sustained full function and power rotation after our starboard was decimated with emplaced copper heads the tank killing ieds that are said to go through one side and out the other so I dont care what Russia has my life and trust are in my 1st marine tanks divisions and our 2nd battalion crew all sending steel on target in our m1a2 death bringers.
No nation rivals what the Soviets/Russians have achieved in tank development. Years, decades of testing, correcting,improving,overhauling, and repeating the process 2, 3, or more times, is what produces truly effective weapons. No other nation has tested and produced as many tank models and variants as the Russians have. The M1 is surely a great tank, but it´s not perfect, nor it is #1, and it´s the first truly modern American tank. Look at the M60 it replaced that looked like old junk.
abrams has better weaponry but maneruvarbility is to teh russian tank. armor can be added more easily on t90s, as well armor is better for abrams unless its a direct hit to its sides
anyway it just comes down to that one tank which every country can adopt and stop worrying about their military budget, end of story to all your comparisons.
The M1 and other western Tanks like Leopard or even Merkava working with Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 or 120mm L/55 gun HAVE! air burst ammuntion too. After loading, an electronic module programs the time-delay fuse to detonate at a specific point in the projectile's flight path: the round can be timed to explode for maximum effect either above, in front or inside of a target. Just google "120mm HE DM 11"
The T-90 was developed during some of the worst years Russia has experienced - right at the fall of the Soviet Union. It was made in response to not being able to afford producing 2 tank lines at once. Russia needed something cheap, the T-90 was what they developed. Knowing this alone, do you really think the T-90 is in the same class as the Abrams?
@OCofthe3 in view of installation of advanced FCS they are in the same class with M1A2, but the T-90s *not to mention the T-90MS* have a more effective firepower\protection, performance, air-transportability e t c in addition it's easier to service and repair than an Ambrams's ,,Russia needed something “cheap’’ - you dont understand.if the T-90 would be produced in the U.S. ultimately it would cost more than the M1s:))
@OCofthe3 Let's face it’, published figures for the 3-gen the M829A2 APFSDS is a 1,555 ~ 1600 m/s it’s max/ taking into attention length and the limits @strength of the barrel. While for the 125mm gun 2A46M1-2 with barrel length L/48 uses 3BM-48 DU and 3BM-42M WC-APFSDS m^ v = 1750m/s. But now the length of the the barrel at the T-90A L= 51,2/55 calibers, respectively, and the speed penetrators increases exponentially.
@ultrashkas This seems like a very good gun that's in the same league as the Abrams Rheinmetall gun, assuming the sub-cal sabot is around the same dimensions as the US sabot. In friendly fire incidents in the first Gulf war, the Abrams was able to survive hits from this gun. I'm sure its the same story for the Russian gun even though it has a 5% faster velocity which is pretty insignificant. But then again, the video says the DU rounds aren't really used.
@ultrashkas I wonder how well the full-power DU APFSDS round shakes up the T-90 when fired. The 120mm on the Abrams moves that tank pretty well when that thing goes off. I would assume that the T-90, being a lighter tank, would be a violent experience for the crew when this round is fired. But I guess your tank is better because I'm a "fuckwit", and somehow that settles everything. Nice debate skills bro.
@DrRicharddym phyrric victory... just find the ratio of death for mujahideen vs soviets and talibans vs ISAF. Tactically soviet and US totally overwhelmed the afgans
The T-90 Does come with cup holders, AC, 80 Inch LCD Screens, msging chairs, free sub to Hooters Free beer the list goes on and on!!!! The Abrams isnt safe well for health needs more crew members to operate each others dildos idk what crazy shit Our US Army is in they even rape 14yr old girl pee on dead bodys and remind us of our mothers once in a while. (if you know what im talking about)
One advance the Russians have is that we Americans have been bogged down with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of that, the Russians have made many innovations to tank designs. Complains of TUSK package being ineffective to AP rounds of enemy tanks; look for every advancement there's always going to be a countermeasure. No single design is ever perfect. Also, what wins battles is not just technology, but many factors: training, supply, favorable conditions, etc.
Concern with no blast panels for ammunition explosion. Also states that tanks was able move in jungle; I'm assuming in restrictive terrain and even so all tanks are not design to move in restrictive terrain. Don't get me wrong the T-90 is and excellent tank; especial its anti-ATGM capabilities which current Abrams are not equipped with.
Error with that Americans doesn't have a proximity projectile that can hit rotary aircraft; its called MPAT. MPAT can also be used for ground purposes for bunkers and other fortifications.
all i got to say is yes the T-90 is a good tank but he didn't really pin point the T-90's flaws but he seemed pretty content on bagging on the U.S. abrams. lol maybe you should talk about the pros and cons of your tank and the U.S.A's tank rather than giving the T-90 nonstop pros and giving the abrams nonstop cons....
@ModelbuildingTANKS Abrams never seen real combat.The Iraqi military AFVs were T72M/1,Saddam and Asad Babils. Saddam and Asad Babils was made of steel that had only civillian porpose.That means this give less protection than pure iron.And the T72M and M1 were the downgrades of downgrades.Less armor 30% thick as original T72 and had no IR,Balistic computer or something else.Its like to bring Klitschko into kindergarden to beat little children.Thats not real combat situation.
@PolishFactor You're really stupid Abram M1A2 SEP TUSK can't resist against a Krys. ATGM. End of the line. Keep smoking weed. 1800mm of penetration you're fucked and about U.S. ERA they don't have 3e gen. and 4e gen. ERA, they use 2e gen. ERA at max.
@DisgorgeKILLusa3 BTW, here in Canada a LEO 2A4 came out mangled, the tracks were stripped by prob. a mine, they were tranposting it in the military base in Montreal Hochelaga were I used to train as a combat engineer. I was able to look around, well at least there was no penetration but the bottom left side of the tank was upsetted inside, which means that the metals was badly bended inwards, if the IED was 5% more potent than penetration would have happen. O_o Skin of a tooth
@AccordCH1TypeR Das eine hat mit dem anderen gar nichts zu tun.Das MOD ist für Militär zuständig nicht Putin oder Medwedev.T90 existiert schon länger als einer der beiden in Politischen Positionen sind.
@PolishFactor georgians soldier ran for their lives, not saying they couldnt resist the russian for a while but chechens with much less military equipment put a hell of a fight with the russian and acutally force them to retreat from the capital so they can reorganize while the only russian soldiers georgians killed was the outnumbered russian peacekeepers
@meee2014 Грузины вместе с натовскими спецами воевали с русскими так здорово, что оставили свою новейшую технику на поле боя, драпали забыв о том какие кнопки в хамерах нажимать надо, по всему видно было что Российская Армия и Техника силно устарела и во всём уступает натовской......ДДДДД
@Nickael7 So you want to tell me of T90s fight superiority due to KRYSs danger using by support vehicles? Have you lost mind? 70% probability is shit man adding 5km long distances typical aiming problems with 3500m KRYS infrared sensors only, obstcles and all hiding tank tactics. I told You. For any new ATGM shit is good responce. This is Trophy and NATO Silver bullet any vehicle mounted system. Israel tested it on any Ru shit RPGs and ATGMs like Kornets with 100% accuracy too. Funny?
@PolishFactor Jeez ! You,re full of crap man ! Both the Kornet and Krys. has a factor of Accuracy <5m. The only difference is Krys. flies at different speed and has increased lethality over the Kornet. BTW, ever heard of RPG-30 with decoy rocket ??? Seems NO.
@PolishFactor Like I say your dreaming dude !, The fact is you prob. got rape when you where a child. LOL. The ARENA system was accepted by the South-Koreans for their 4e gen. K-2 Black Panther tank. Why ?, Simply, because it is tested and work also against Sabot as well. If NATO was so superior like you say, then why they didn't stick their noses in the Georgian conflict ? Scare of something...
@Nickael7 Arena is old to Trophy big turret design destroying all T90 and any tank low profile characteriostics to hide. Using is contorversive due to too big blast dangering own forces. Second is slower and less react chance for simulatanously attack from many directions.Trophy can be mounted on every vehickle too. I gen difference! NATO react in Georgia very well sing simply threat in negotiations. Ru will fucked up if US will sent here only 400 Javelins like in Aphgan war Stingers.
@Nickael7 "If NATO was so superior like you say, then why they didn't stick their noses in the Georgian conflict ? Scare of something..."
You have no common sense. Why would NATO want to stick up for Georgia? Especially when considering all the US did was approve of 2 large loans for them, sell them satellite photos of Russia, and did some minor joint training together.
Where was Russia in Libya? Nowhere insight, that's where.
@Nickael7 My original comment already answered your question. Maybe if you weren't a 14 year old kid you would understand. And for you to call me a Nazi when you dismembered people is unreal.
@Nickael7 no because we didn't have to are you asking why don't we jump into every thing that ever happens that's violent ever??? No, the T-90 is not meant to fight tanks like the Abrams, it would be suicide.
The T-90 is meant to be a bullet stopper, that is, its meant to be used in large numbers to overcome a superior enemy.
@lordnocts Its armor is built to withstand common weapons, but the US arms its troops with extremely good weapons that would make easy work of a T-90.
The Idea is that nobody but the US has large numbers of these weapons, so it can still overcome every other country on earth.
@Nickael7 The gun is good enough to take out just about every other tank it is likely to come across. Out of the hundreds of thousands of tanks worldwide, the T-90 can defeat over 95 percent of them. That is more than acceptable.
When it comes down to other features, besides pure performance, the T-90 is very poor compared to the Abrams.
@Nickael7 , but its still one of the best besides the Abrams. The crew is very cramped and the ride is terrible. Its really an exhausting vehicle to operate. Its still better than those 95 percent of other tanks.
you claim the Khrisantema ATGM can penetrate 1800mm of rolled homogenous armor? 1800mm? a whopping inches of steel plate? the germans had guns in WWII that could do that. (granted they werent missles, but penetrating 7 inches of steel really is not that spectacular) you can penetrate all the steel plate you want, but the only country in the last 35 years to produce a tank that has regular RHA armor is russia with the T-72 and T-80. the reactive armor on the T-80 is add-on armor that
@Nickael7 was designed to stop RPG rounds, not high velocity anti-tank rounds fired from guns like on the Abrams. and even if the T-90 was superior to the Abrams, it would never get the chance to engage one since the U.S. air force would be ruling the sky and Marine and Air Force A-10s would be tearing a new asshole in your little toys. your russian SU-25 might scratch the paint off an abrams, but thats about it. Russia lives off the "just update it, we dont need anything new" hats why all their
@Nickael7 combat military vehicles and firearms lag behind other super powers by about 5 to 10 years. also, how would you know if the ATGM "fucked up the M1A2 SEP TUSK in one round" when 1. you have probably never even seen an abrams other than in pictures and on World Of Tanks 2. the Russians have never engaged an Abrams 3. the only armored combat involving an Abrams you know about is on Battlefield 3. exactly, YOU KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT THE ABRAMS.
@vfFokker You're dreaming dude, Krysanthema doesn't damage it fucks up armor beyond 1800mm+ of Chobham armor with DU. The Abram has 1200mm of protection in the front only. And the Javelin missile isn't built to penetrate heavy armor, is meant to destroy the lightly armor upper side of the turret, but T-90A equipped with ARENA APS, Javelin missiles becomes totally useless.
@SuperRatchetclank I think many if not all of the APS systems need to be battle tested before they can be recognized as fully effective against any type of anti tank munition. I'm not arguing with you by any means, I'm just saying that most of this is speculation and not proven fact. Well, unless you shot at Abrams all day with said weapons system or shot at a T-90 all day with an Abrams or Javelins.
@graham1996 well there was a case in iraq where a rpg7 peairced trough a abrams side thats why us army now puts reactive armor on that side of the tank
ПРОПАГАНДОЙ ЗАНИМАЕТСЯ ТОЛЬКО АМЕРИКОНСКОЕ МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБОРОНЫ!ЧТОБЫ ВОРОВАТЬ ИЗ БЮДЖЕТА ДЕНЬГИ.А ВАМ ГОВОРИТ ЧТО АБРАМС САМЫЙ ЛУЧШИЙ ТАНК.АБРАМС ТОЛЬКО И МОЖЕТ ВОЕВАТЬ С ТАНКАМИ 50-Х ГОДОВ.КОНЕЧНО ОНИ ЕГО НЕ ПРОБЬЮТ А СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ СНАРЯДЫ РАЗОРВУТ ЕГО В КЛОЧЬЯ
@johnnyrckt With of all, of course T90 is too old already, you cant compare it to M1A3.
But you can compare T90MS which is newest version of T90. It's better in everything. Of course RPG-7 cant take any modern tank. First version T90 took seven RPG-7 shots, and still was alright. But can modern tank take shot of latest RPG-32? I dont think so.
This is the russian version of american propaganda...Those downed abrams in the video were downed from IEDs 500 lb exploding underneath the tank..no tank can take that..not even a T-90...or it was friendly fire from hellfire missiles..once again no tank can tank that...the abrams can take rpg fire almost any modern tank can take rpgs..well not tadems (look it up)...AT4s can take out any tank (M1 and T-90 included)...The abrams can fire guided missiles,the M1 TUSK (look it up) has a smooth bore
I don't have anything with russians, but for record I must say that depleted uranium sabot is superior to tungsten sabot because of the pyrophosphoric qualities of uranium. the density is the same so only wheight and speed of the sabot matters...
yeah that is a very super tank that even indians say it is a crab. India is regarding to restart production or arjun or purchase of another tank and cancel t-90 joint production.
it is a wise decision, when checked all combats in last 3 decades. In the last 30 years no russian weapon abondoned country had any succes on real combat against western warfare.
T90 will destroy abrams easily at distance of 5.5km. Its faster, has lesser profile, faster fire rate. Abrams is a good tank but its big, slow, massive target.
i still love the Abrams.my father was an Abrams rider and went to the first gulf war.been around them for most my life.still a badass tank.it was designed to take on masses of T-72s.its behind by 2 generations.maybe if they have a A3 coming out,we can get back in the game.Maybe,heard it might be canceled.
remember WWII the German Panzers and Tigers could rip through an American sherman no problem but could it go through twenty,fifty,TWO HUNDRED MILLIONS........
they said that the t-90 had internal reactive armour but the abrams has little square reactive tiles that can pretty much be ductaped onto the tank if necesary, in my opinion that is a VERY important when on the offense
@solowingpixy2571 Yes, the T-90 possesses NERA beneath the main armor, it is made of a special plastic blend and aluminum, which reacts when a projectile hit it. That NERA has a deformation compartment, so the gases expands and fragments are dispersed all over the ceramic, Tungsten alloys and superalloys (i.e. inconel, titanium nitride) to avoid a penetration.
3:57 The Abrams can only fight other armored vehicles with APFSDS and HEAT rounds. It does not carry explosive fragmentation shells for use against buildings, bunkers and soft-skinned vehicles.
@PrvtParapup Abrams Canister round is a -close range- ammo 500 meters or less(i.e. Shotgun shells).
T-90A T-90MS AINET system detonation HE-FRAG is a -long range- ammo 4000m or more that is remotely detonated on the targets.
BTW, Your Abrams only faced crappy Iraqi built pig iron Assad-Babyl T-72M, T-54-55, T-62 and Type-59 tanks that are 20-30 years old. My brother was also an Abram rider he got almost killed in the second gulf war by mercury switch IED
@SuperGeronimo999 M1 & M1A1 only faced 20-30 years decades old tanks. T-54-55, T-62, Type-59 and export model T-72M Iraqi built Assad-Babyl (Lions of Babylon). Your tanks to this present never faced a real modern tank.
And about MRM-KE so what, the Russian ATGM HERMES-M reaches 100km !!!
@Nickael7: M1 & M1A1 weren't the newest Tanks in 1991. The M1A2 was new in 1992. To compare: Other western Tanks as the Leopard 2A6 which were built in 2001. Unlike other Tanks the M1's had faced Tanks, who matters if the Iraqis couldn't buy export T-90's. The MRM-KE is a MID RANGE MUNITION ( MRM )
@SuperGeronimo999 The HERMES-K is also a midrange ATGM 15-18km range can be equipped with either tandem shaped charge or KE penetrators. So what's the fuzz. And I don't care care about your Abrams abilities against antiquated vehicles. Today its old news. And Again give me the sources about "Greece received 400 old Abrams as presents". You didn't give any.
@DisgorgeKILLusa3: There is no system to fire the MRM-KE, but the MRM-CE is chosen to be the ATGM for the upcoming Abrams Variant. Also the A6 is much different to the A4.
@Nickael7 naa i get that.i was just trying to point out that the Abrams is still a cool tank lol.just needs some upgrades or maybe a whole new design,like lower profile and auto loader.sense your bro used to ride them he must have also told you that a loader can load almost as fast as others auto loaders.i would like to see auto loaders on American tanks and use the forth man for some other job.maybe put some AA on it or AT/AP launchers.like a Javelin type of weapon.
Despite what the video says the Russians seem to be continuing their policy "of nearly as good quality with quantity becoming a quality in itself" the T-90 is an interesting design with many new features, although not as war tested as western designs I expect to see T90s in the tank parks of Russia's proxies & dictators everywhere - Russia knows a direct tank to tank fight on Russian soil is unlikely (despite Georgian's conflict) given its momentary strength is in oil & intel.
infokemp 6 hours ago
Well the video is right...T-90 has got Nakidka, Shtora, ATGMs. Sounds boring, but it makes it 5 km sniper tank with minimal IR and radar signature and ability to cancel out the most important part of fire system - IR rangefinder.
Abrams should stay at their standard opponents, post-WW2 tanks in 3world countries :-)
Ackreti 9 hours ago
and a missle strike and the crew were still inside, a recovery vehicle came a couple of hours after and the tank was fine, and the crew were unhurt, and the tank was back on the battlefield a month later.
prouty111 1 day ago
this is stupid, this guy is obviously russian therefore of course he will do a video on their tank being better than someone eleses. how about you compare the challenger 2 mbt with the t90? see what happens! our tank is the best in the world and will be for a very long time. we have not had one destroyed. compared to the american abrams. for example their was an point in the second iraq war 2003-2009, where a challenger was stranded due to a slipped track and it suffered 14 rpg 7 hits..
prouty111 1 day ago
@prouty111
1) Guy is russian so he says T-90 is best ... hmm and what exactly are you doing? Quoting you: "our tank (Challenger2) is the best in the world" Hypocrite.
2) "we have not had one destroyed" ... 2 damaged and 1 destroyed.
3) Ch.2 cannot match Abrams. The argument is Abrams or T-90? Not T-90 or Ch.2.
Ackreti 9 hours ago
I saw these tank burning hulks after the muslims blew them up with ease. I wish they were better so your country could defeat the radical muslims that are taking over your country.
As ALWAYS, don't believe everything you see on Russian TV. Some things never change.
Mchurchwell 1 day ago
"even in the T-90's most basic form" lol what, do dealerships offer them in V12 or V14?
SPHSdrumline 2 days ago
the m1 is not even the most modern US tank so i'm gonna ake a wild guess and say the t-90 is what has been said. Out of date.
Ameer18 4 days ago
Which Idiot said that the T90 is obsolete
PeaceKeeper271 6 days ago
t-90 upgraded t-72
The m1a2 Abrams destroyed the t-72 in the gulf war without a single tank lose and 1 man killed while destroying thousands of enemy personal and tanks.
lordnocts 6 days ago
@lordnocts just check monkey model on wiki
SovietBear91 5 days ago
@SovietBear91 don't trust wiki anyone can write whatever they want on any page.
lordnocts 5 days ago
@lordnocts i thought you get all your facts from wiki because they sound like western propaganda. so you trust americans that say iraqi army was fucking strong and that iraqis had hight-tech soviet and russian weapons. why USSR should eport weapons to an US allie in the 1980`s and yes USSR exported "monkey models" that is a fact.
SovietBear91 5 days ago
@SovietBear91 It still doesn't matter every military expert euro or american agree that when it come to every aspect of military technology america has a lead. You say western propaganda like lots of people who don't want to admit the truth but can you give me an example of this propaganda.
What makes this program in Russia better than a program in america. The same people who gave the m1a2 Abrams best modern tank in the world gave the ak47 best assault.
lordnocts 4 days ago
@lordnocts examples are monkey models USSR exported bad versions of weapons. what about the russian-georgian war in 2008 not a single russian tank was lost georgians had western ATGMs, RPGs and they had western(french) fire-control-systems in their tanks.
what kind of lead? USA bought and still buys soviet/russian weapons from (east)- germany and middle east countrys. you heard something about "Red Eagels" a USAF cold war secret squadon of MiGs?
SovietBear91 3 days ago
@lordnocts WOW every military expert euro or american! sure they would admit if their weapons would be shit.
SovietBear91 3 days ago
@SovietBear91 Well they obviously have no problem giving soviets designs there credit by giving the soviet ak47 number 1 on the best assault rifle list over the m16. They gave the m1a2 Abrams number two and best tank and number 1 was the T-34 tank because for the time it was extreamly impressive.
lordnocts 3 days ago
@lordnocts i know what you mean but they only give credit to soviet weapons which are from WW2 or the early cold war. we are talking about the discovery channel top10 lists right? why is a tank like the Leo2 or pather G. not in the top 10 list. why are kirov-class battlecruisers or kresta-II-class cruisers not in the top 10 battleship list. why is the Mi-24 only no.6 on the top 10 helicopers list? i don`t blame d.-ch. for lists like that they make money with them, but i blame ignorant people.
SovietBear91 3 days ago
@SovietBear91 Because those pretty god dam unknown weapons. Because those battle ships suck they weren't impressive for there time and there not close to the best now. Because the mi-24 isnt that good of a heli its better than 90 percent of helicopters out there but not high grade modern military super copters it deserved lower in my opinion.
Though i do believe they should have had the leopard 2 and the panther.
lordnocts 3 days ago
@lordnocts ok you are blind man. why the fuck blackhawk was second on the top10 helicopter list? this is just propaganda.
it is my last post about this topic you and your brainwashed friends have posted too much BS under this video.
SovietBear91 2 days ago
@SovietBear91 I think you have a misunderstanding of what propaganda is and you just say it to sound smart or more likely sound diffident. Every form of news is propaganda every single information that is giving out is propaganda. just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its propaganda and just because you do agree with it doesn't mean its pure 100% untainted news.
lordnocts 2 days ago
@SovietBear91 You see people who wrote those lists are actually college educated there far more intelligent then you or me.
lordnocts 3 days ago
@lordnocts ok they are more intelligent then you, but this lists are just full of US propaganda. god knows i hate usa but i am not a blind and ignorent fanboy like you are.
just stop BS under this video. why the fuck you comment under this video if you know that M1A2 is better its your opinion but we don`t need pathetic comments.
SovietBear91 2 days ago
@SovietBear91 Plus the leo2 uses outdated Armour and besides that its the same as the Abrams. The panther isnt at all impressive either.
lordnocts 3 days ago
@SovietBear91 The reality is modern US army can take on anything that any country can throw at it. Single weapon systems that can be produced are irrelevant when compared to entire military industrial complex. Anyway it's nothing to be proud of, modern US army is a nation grinding machine used to destroy only for the sake of destruction hence it became what it was designed to fight- Soviet army.
Marine475 3 days ago
@Marine475 us army was designed for getting money trough wars, military industry and other aspects of a conflict. russia is leading in anti-air and anti-tank weapons and don`t overrate us army so much do they won a war in the last 100 years without allies?
SovietBear91 3 days ago
@lordnocts Because in Iraq, there were no real T-72, it was T-72M (Monkey model) and Asad Babil. T-72M doesnt have ATGM, reactive armour, IR, it was complete shit made by Hungarian and Polish license built.
And how T-90 is upgraded T-72? Tell me.
realIBeliX 3 days ago
@lordnocts
"The m1a2 Abrams destroyed the t-72 in the gulf war without a single tank lose"
Thats true. Lets not forget M1A2 is significantly newer and modern then basic T-72. All russian technology in 3rd world countries are at least 40 years old, with no upgrade, poorly maintained. It is not a mirracle to defeat those armies.
It is however stupid to compare T-72 to the T-90MS. M1 is quite old platform too.
Ackreti 9 hours ago
@Ackreti in the gulf war we used m1 Abrams not m1a1 or m1a2.
The m1 Abrams is only 10 years newer than the 7-72.
So the age difference is not at all significant.
The T-90 is nothing but and upgraded T-72 and the t-72 is and upgraded T-64/62.
lordnocts 8 hours ago
O YES SO WERE SUPPOSE TO BELIEVE THE RUSSIAN OVER THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW MILITARY STUFF. there not biased because they gave the soviet ak-47 number 1 on there best assault rifle list.
lordnocts 6 days ago
compare more the modern T-90 with the old Abrahms XDD
~ but really, no one cares about T-90 and Abrahms :D Leopard 2 is much better
lonelySires 6 days ago
Argument irrelevant: neither tanks will ever see eachother on the battlefield. Who gives a shit
Verena1720 1 week ago
yeah but I hear the t-90 hasn't any cupholders
slickslickerson 1 week ago
T-90 = no good
jumpinthedog 1 week ago
@Dedmaroz69 Second Chechen war was good, the First was terrible.
And what about the 2003 Invasion of Iraq in which there were 1,000,000 Iraqi combatants rather than the 30,000-50,000 in Chechnya?
Regardless of what you say, the First Chechen War was a complete failure for many reasons.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 you know that the big part of the chechenian fighters were veterans of GRU speznas and other soviet army units. they also had modern russian rpg`s and ATGM`s, SAM`s and modern soviet T-72 tanks not monkey models that were used in iraq. russians also had to fight them in forests and urban environment. the iraqi paper tiger army on the other had fought in the desert were US army had air superiority and much more modern tanks than the iraqis
SovietBear91 5 days ago
@SovietBear91 And the Iraqis had experience against US forces in 1991. They also numbered in 1,000,000 strong, not 30,000-50,000. Iraq also had SAM's and AT-14's, RPG-29's, foreign soldiers, etc.
And the US had to fight in major cities over and over again. Iraq was not a tough army but they were larger, had more artillery, had more AAA, had more SAM's, had more tanks, had more troops, had viable command and control, and viable logistics.
Iraq was severely harder than Chechnya.
franknbeans4761 5 days ago
@franknbeans4761 rpg-29 was not used by iraqi forces in 1991 i think you americans have some problems to remember facts. in the 1980`s iraq was supported by usa and not ussr. first rpg-29 were used by the soviet atmy in 1989-90 why they should export modern weapons to US allies in the 1980`s. the difference is iraqi army fought a conventional war against usa. they are morons compared to chechenian fighters (wepaons, tactics, leaders) look how pathetic usa army failed is afghan.
SovietBear91 5 days ago
@SovietBear91 just multiply the task US army faces in afghanistan by 20 and you will get the chechenian war szenario.
AT-14 Kornet is the newest russian ATGM maybe only used against Merkavas in 2006 libanon-war by HAMAS iraqis only had AT-5 and the majority of the iraqi SAM`s were SA-2 not a problem for modern jets. maybe i should write that chechenian fighters had nao-suites and tesla rifles, but I am not like you i will not ignore the facts.
SovietBear91 5 days ago
@SovietBear91 How did they fail in Afghanistan???? there still there.
lordnocts 4 days ago
@lordnocts soviet army was also 10 years in afghanistan and soviet intelligence services and special army units were about 20 years in afghanistan. i don`t think that they did something better. they established a pro soviet government but after the soviet withdrawal the pro soviet government was fucked really fast and now tell me how long hamid karzai will survive after the NATO withdrawal (maybe 2-3 weeks).
SovietBear91 3 days ago
@SovietBear91 outside winning afghan hearts and minds how exactly r they failing?
Ameer18 4 days ago
@Ameer18 talibans and mujas still rule afghanistan. NATO soldiers running away from demonstrators...if you call this a success than you are blind.
SovietBear91 3 days ago
@SovietBear91 I was talking about in 2003, not 1991. I said Iraq already experienced the US in 1991. The RPG-29 was used in 2003 by the Iraqi's.
The US did significantly better than the Soviets in Afghanistan and actually have a viable chance of defeating, while the Soviets did not at all.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
@franknbeans4761 And again, the Chechen fighters had terrible coordination and some units only followed direct orders form their leader and wouldn't follow other orders. They had terrible organization and couldn't even effectively take on an outnumbered and severely disadvantaged group of VDV soldiers on hill 776.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
@franknbeans4761 can i get a source which proves that chechenian fighters had terrible coordination. it is a well known fact that the majority of chechenian fighters were veterans of soviet army and special forces from afgahnistan.
SovietBear91 3 days ago
@SovietBear91 Let me search for you. Just because they were veterans doesn't mean the entire force had good command and control. They need to have good leadership to coordinate attacks and achieve viable goals.
In general terms, this talks about it:
h t t p : / / en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994-1995)#Tactics
Most soldiers only took orders from their area commander and Aslan Maskhadov had difficulties controlling them all. And most had limited heavy weapons.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
@franknbeans4761 ok wiki without a source for the articel is very useful, but yes your point is right. i talked about mujahideen which were armored to the teeth and trained in the soviet army. yes irregulars fought like douche bags but they were irregulars and not mujahideen.
you have the same situation in iraq today some insurgents are trained soldiers some are fathers, brothers and sons which want to take revenge.
SovietBear91 3 days ago
@SovietBear91 I know but it was a document that was clear about it.
But my main point was that 375,000 Iraqi's were in the active army and 650,000 in reserve and they had viable command and control contingencies and were able to put up a reasonable defense throughout the invasion. That is a force to be reckoned with.
True Chechens were reasonably trained and experienced, but there weren't enough of them to say they were better than a 1,000,000 man force on any level.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
@franknbeans4761 ok just pure numbers 70 000+ russian troops in first chechenian war.
coalition forces in iraq 300 000+ vs. 370 000+ iraqi army troops. where you get 1 mio. troops. on papaer russia has also 1mio. men in reserve but i doubt that they can arm them and bring the into battle. iraq was a paper tiger third largest army in the world but fought like second to last largest army in the world.
SovietBear91 3 days ago
@SovietBear91 In 2003, there were 148,000 US troops, 45,000 British troops, 3,000+ other foreign troops, and 70,000 Peshmerga.
The US and it's allies were outnumbered and those 650,000 Iraqi reservists were just that, reservists. Not available active men. They had weapons, units, and still had training.
The US went in & was massively outnumbered & fought against an enemy that had experience against them & completely won.
While in the 1st CW, Russia outnumbered it's enemy & had mixed results.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SovietBear91 Plus the leo2 uses outdated Armour and besides that its the same as the Abrams. The panther isnt at all impressive either.
lordnocts 3 days ago
Comment removed
SovietBear91 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@franknbeans4761 dude it is fucking pathetic. chance to win in iraq or afghanistan you can only win there if you kill every male it this country. soviet goal was to stop the radical islamisation of central asian soviet staates and at some point they reached this goal because of the afghan-civil war. without american help ussr would have won because they put up schools, hospitals, streets...if us army will win i will send you a victory cake.
SovietBear91 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@franknbeans4761 Plus the leo2 uses outdated Armour and besides that its the same as the Abrams. The panther isnt at all impressive either.
lordnocts 3 days ago
@franknbeans4761 yeah but russia never invaded afganistan they were asked to help,and better how, your still there and what changed nothing thats what,they just dont want to admit they failed the end !
murf503 1 day ago
@murf503 Well, Afghanistan is mixed results. Al Qaeda has been severely injured, possibly beyond repair. Osama Bin Laden has been killed, and so have many of those responsible for 9/11.
However, controlling Afghanistan is something that will probably not materialize, and most likely end in shambles.
There is not much you can do in that situation and it is hard to say just what exactly will happen. In the end, probably nothing too positive.
franknbeans4761 1 day ago
Эй блять америкосы дошли до берлина дойдем и до Нью - йорка Т-90 нахуй уничтожит ваш абрамс
obl1k163 1 week ago 2
Lets face it guys Abrams hasnt battle a tank thats build later then 1970 soo far and its normal to win vs 30+ years old machines. And yet we see how he gets owned by verry old RPG's.
plasheev 1 week ago
I would like to point out that without the U.S. funding them Russia wouldn't have the money to continue building t90s.
Hinnvondi 1 week ago
@Hinnvondi JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJ
Leedragonful 1 week ago
@Hinnvondi U.S. funding? what? are you kidding me? U.S. have no money to do such charity work. And why would they fund someone else's military machine? This makes no sense
Dedmaroz69 1 week ago
@Dedmaroz69 You are so naive it is absolutely astounding! I can't believe the quality of minds on Youtube, just incredible! I will forever remember this place when i need a laugh
mattmatt115 6 days ago
T- 90 is better than m1a2 abraham tank
aldin276 1 week ago
So how many can you afford? Is the ammo still stored in the open on the turret floor? one hit and off comes the turret like all the rest. Nice commercial but how much combat has it seen the M1 has been fighting since 1991. Its a 30 year old design still going strong. You use a missle because your gunnery system can't hit anything over 2500 meters. M1s kill at 3500.
tangocharlie11 1 week ago
The irony is that a light mid-40 ton T-72 would better fit the U.S. Army's want for a leaner more deployable tank then the now 70+ tonne M1.
VickersIndependent 2 weeks ago
@VickersIndependent Trololololol. And no, I stumbled across your comment. And the US Army never said they wanted a "leaner" tank, but a "leaner" force which means many things.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 "Trololololol. And no, I stumbled across your comment," you have some serious issues if you have to keep commenting on everything I say. Now I seriously suggest you stop following me or else I'll get Jukov.
VickersIndependent 1 week ago
@VickersIndependent Look at your page. As you can see, I stumbled across it. And if you want a biased, stubborn, ill informed lunatic to back you up; I will be waiting.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@VickersIndependent And since you always end up commenting on every video I do, but not specifically replying to me, and freaking out when I address you; I will keep responding to your BS comments.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 What are you trying to get out of this? Becuase the only thing you will gain by your lewd remarks is someone who no longer beleives in the U.S. military at all becuase I've found more redeeming traits of the Russain military then the U.S.
VickersIndependent 1 week ago
@VickersIndependent Really? I am surprised when considering how corruption is much more abundant in the Russian military than the US. And the quality standards are significantly less. And when looking at their poor overall performance in the First Chechen war, I am even more surprised.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
Lcpl glass, my own crew had sustained full function and power rotation after our starboard was decimated with emplaced copper heads the tank killing ieds that are said to go through one side and out the other so I dont care what Russia has my life and trust are in my 1st marine tanks divisions and our 2nd battalion crew all sending steel on target in our m1a2 death bringers.
Lcpl glass 1st tanks 2nd bat. Oorah!
Shitbird3249 2 weeks ago
No nation rivals what the Soviets/Russians have achieved in tank development. Years, decades of testing, correcting,improving,overhauling, and repeating the process 2, 3, or more times, is what produces truly effective weapons. No other nation has tested and produced as many tank models and variants as the Russians have. The M1 is surely a great tank, but it´s not perfect, nor it is #1, and it´s the first truly modern American tank. Look at the M60 it replaced that looked like old junk.
vonkaunaz 2 weeks ago
basically abrams can out manuever and win in desert territory which most of usa is coincedentally.
nobody2612 2 weeks ago
abrams has better weaponry but maneruvarbility is to teh russian tank. armor can be added more easily on t90s, as well armor is better for abrams unless its a direct hit to its sides
nobody2612 2 weeks ago
Hey anyone wonder what kind of tank the m1A3 Abrams will be like?
adudewatching 2 weeks ago
@adudewatching Here:
w w w . gdls . com/index . php/products/modernization/abrams
Remove the spaces. The most promising features are the diesel engine and active protection system.
franknbeans4761 1 week ago
@franknbeans4761 hey i wonder if there is a Challenger 3 being developed.
adudewatching 1 week ago
anyway it just comes down to that one tank which every country can adopt and stop worrying about their military budget, end of story to all your comparisons.
thundersaver 2 weeks ago
There's a new Abrams variant in development?
Geefee12 2 weeks ago
@Geefee12
No, Abrams is in service til 2050
ComboSlicer 2 weeks ago
This video has more bull shit then China has rice.
vfFokker 2 weeks ago
Wasted my time watching the fault ridden video. There are so many things wrong in it I wont even bother to start.
Atak31 2 weeks ago
The M1 and other western Tanks like Leopard or even Merkava working with Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 or 120mm L/55 gun HAVE! air burst ammuntion too. After loading, an electronic module programs the time-delay fuse to detonate at a specific point in the projectile's flight path: the round can be timed to explode for maximum effect either above, in front or inside of a target. Just google "120mm HE DM 11"
Greenvalve 3 weeks ago
The T-90 was developed during some of the worst years Russia has experienced - right at the fall of the Soviet Union. It was made in response to not being able to afford producing 2 tank lines at once. Russia needed something cheap, the T-90 was what they developed. Knowing this alone, do you really think the T-90 is in the same class as the Abrams?
OCofthe3 3 weeks ago
@OCofthe3 in view of installation of advanced FCS they are in the same class with M1A2, but the T-90s *not to mention the T-90MS* have a more effective firepower\protection, performance, air-transportability e t c in addition it's easier to service and repair than an Ambrams's ,,Russia needed something “cheap’’ - you dont understand.if the T-90 would be produced in the U.S. ultimately it would cost more than the M1s:))
ultrashkas 3 weeks ago
@ultrashkas You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig. Please tell me the muzzle velocity of the 125mm T-90 gun with its DU APFSDS round.
OCofthe3 3 weeks ago
@OCofthe3 I don’t understand your idiotic epithets fuckwit, what you mean? maybe your M1A2-SEP^^
ultrashkas 3 weeks ago
@OCofthe3 Let's face it’, published figures for the 3-gen the M829A2 APFSDS is a 1,555 ~ 1600 m/s it’s max/ taking into attention length and the limits @strength of the barrel. While for the 125mm gun 2A46M1-2 with barrel length L/48 uses 3BM-48 DU and 3BM-42M WC-APFSDS m^ v = 1750m/s. But now the length of the the barrel at the T-90A L= 51,2/55 calibers, respectively, and the speed penetrators increases exponentially.
ultrashkas 3 weeks ago
@ultrashkas This seems like a very good gun that's in the same league as the Abrams Rheinmetall gun, assuming the sub-cal sabot is around the same dimensions as the US sabot. In friendly fire incidents in the first Gulf war, the Abrams was able to survive hits from this gun. I'm sure its the same story for the Russian gun even though it has a 5% faster velocity which is pretty insignificant. But then again, the video says the DU rounds aren't really used.
OCofthe3 3 weeks ago
@ultrashkas I wonder how well the full-power DU APFSDS round shakes up the T-90 when fired. The 120mm on the Abrams moves that tank pretty well when that thing goes off. I would assume that the T-90, being a lighter tank, would be a violent experience for the crew when this round is fired. But I guess your tank is better because I'm a "fuckwit", and somehow that settles everything. Nice debate skills bro.
OCofthe3 3 weeks ago
Afghans have kicked both Russian and American arses for years with no tanks.. so they win.
DrRicharddym 3 weeks ago
@DrRicharddym phyrric victory... just find the ratio of death for mujahideen vs soviets and talibans vs ISAF. Tactically soviet and US totally overwhelmed the afgans
PATRONSKiii 3 weeks ago
They are already have it in Battle field 3 game. Both die if you get shot so many times. Done!!! stupid video show.
Vietboy1st 3 weeks ago
LOL. Americans vs Russians. im loving it :D
DakkonDS 1 month ago
The T-90 Does come with cup holders, AC, 80 Inch LCD Screens, msging chairs, free sub to Hooters Free beer the list goes on and on!!!! The Abrams isnt safe well for health needs more crew members to operate each others dildos idk what crazy shit Our US Army is in they even rape 14yr old girl pee on dead bodys and remind us of our mothers once in a while. (if you know what im talking about)
Falken36Osku 1 month ago
T-90MS "Tagil" is currently best tank in the world!!!!
normison69 1 month ago
The T-90 has built in cup holders the Abrams hasnt similar features.
legojoe12345 1 month ago
But both are no match for the Leo2 :)
FelixHD1 1 month ago
Plus what I'm concern is not the tank I see, but the one I don't see.
resolute54321 1 month ago
One advance the Russians have is that we Americans have been bogged down with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of that, the Russians have made many innovations to tank designs. Complains of TUSK package being ineffective to AP rounds of enemy tanks; look for every advancement there's always going to be a countermeasure. No single design is ever perfect. Also, what wins battles is not just technology, but many factors: training, supply, favorable conditions, etc.
resolute54321 1 month ago
Concern with no blast panels for ammunition explosion. Also states that tanks was able move in jungle; I'm assuming in restrictive terrain and even so all tanks are not design to move in restrictive terrain. Don't get me wrong the T-90 is and excellent tank; especial its anti-ATGM capabilities which current Abrams are not equipped with.
resolute54321 1 month ago
Error with that Americans doesn't have a proximity projectile that can hit rotary aircraft; its called MPAT. MPAT can also be used for ground purposes for bunkers and other fortifications.
resolute54321 1 month ago
all i got to say is yes the T-90 is a good tank but he didn't really pin point the T-90's flaws but he seemed pretty content on bagging on the U.S. abrams. lol maybe you should talk about the pros and cons of your tank and the U.S.A's tank rather than giving the T-90 nonstop pros and giving the abrams nonstop cons....
ncninja17 1 month ago
@ModelbuildingTANKS Abrams never seen real combat.The Iraqi military AFVs were T72M/1,Saddam and Asad Babils. Saddam and Asad Babils was made of steel that had only civillian porpose.That means this give less protection than pure iron.And the T72M and M1 were the downgrades of downgrades.Less armor 30% thick as original T72 and had no IR,Balistic computer or something else.Its like to bring Klitschko into kindergarden to beat little children.Thats not real combat situation.
Talshet 1 month ago
@PolishFactor You're really stupid Abram M1A2 SEP TUSK can't resist against a Krys. ATGM. End of the line. Keep smoking weed. 1800mm of penetration you're fucked and about U.S. ERA they don't have 3e gen. and 4e gen. ERA, they use 2e gen. ERA at max.
SuperRatchetclank 1 month ago
@SuperRatchetclank US dont have 2nd generation ERA only 1st.Russia has 3rd and 4th is coming and is nowdays in tests.
Talshet 1 month ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3 BTW, here in Canada a LEO 2A4 came out mangled, the tracks were stripped by prob. a mine, they were tranposting it in the military base in Montreal Hochelaga were I used to train as a combat engineer. I was able to look around, well at least there was no penetration but the bottom left side of the tank was upsetted inside, which means that the metals was badly bended inwards, if the IED was 5% more potent than penetration would have happen. O_o Skin of a tooth
Nickael7 1 month ago
Wer Wahlen fälscht, der fälscht auch experten tests^^ Nicht wahr medwediew und Putin?
AccordCH1TypeR 1 month ago
@AccordCH1TypeR Keine der falschen Deutschen und Hitler, wie sie es immer tat. Die Deutschen sind ein Volk von Lügnern und Wurst.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 1 month ago
@AccordCH1TypeR Das eine hat mit dem anderen gar nichts zu tun.Das MOD ist für Militär zuständig nicht Putin oder Medwedev.T90 existiert schon länger als einer der beiden in Politischen Positionen sind.
Talshet 1 month ago
@PolishFactor georgians soldier ran for their lives, not saying they couldnt resist the russian for a while but chechens with much less military equipment put a hell of a fight with the russian and acutally force them to retreat from the capital so they can reorganize while the only russian soldiers georgians killed was the outnumbered russian peacekeepers
meee2014 1 month ago
@meee2014 Грузины вместе с натовскими спецами воевали с русскими так здорово, что оставили свою новейшую технику на поле боя, драпали забыв о том какие кнопки в хамерах нажимать надо, по всему видно было что Российская Армия и Техника силно устарела и во всём уступает натовской......ДДДДД
camscha 1 month ago
@Nickael7 So you want to tell me of T90s fight superiority due to KRYSs danger using by support vehicles? Have you lost mind? 70% probability is shit man adding 5km long distances typical aiming problems with 3500m KRYS infrared sensors only, obstcles and all hiding tank tactics. I told You. For any new ATGM shit is good responce. This is Trophy and NATO Silver bullet any vehicle mounted system. Israel tested it on any Ru shit RPGs and ATGMs like Kornets with 100% accuracy too. Funny?
PolishFactor 1 month ago
@PolishFactor Jeez ! You,re full of crap man ! Both the Kornet and Krys. has a factor of Accuracy <5m. The only difference is Krys. flies at different speed and has increased lethality over the Kornet. BTW, ever heard of RPG-30 with decoy rocket ??? Seems NO.
SuperRatchetclank 1 month ago
@PolishFactor Like I say your dreaming dude !, The fact is you prob. got rape when you where a child. LOL. The ARENA system was accepted by the South-Koreans for their 4e gen. K-2 Black Panther tank. Why ?, Simply, because it is tested and work also against Sabot as well. If NATO was so superior like you say, then why they didn't stick their noses in the Georgian conflict ? Scare of something...
Nickael7 1 month ago 20
@Nickael7 Arena is old to Trophy big turret design destroying all T90 and any tank low profile characteriostics to hide. Using is contorversive due to too big blast dangering own forces. Second is slower and less react chance for simulatanously attack from many directions.Trophy can be mounted on every vehickle too. I gen difference! NATO react in Georgia very well sing simply threat in negotiations. Ru will fucked up if US will sent here only 400 Javelins like in Aphgan war Stingers.
PolishFactor 1 month ago
@Nickael7 "If NATO was so superior like you say, then why they didn't stick their noses in the Georgian conflict ? Scare of something..."
You have no common sense. Why would NATO want to stick up for Georgia? Especially when considering all the US did was approve of 2 large loans for them, sell them satellite photos of Russia, and did some minor joint training together.
Where was Russia in Libya? Nowhere insight, that's where.
Keep your trolling to yourself please.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 Then why you didn't help Georgia ? Scare of something...
Keep yourself trolling and stalking little Nazi.
Nickael7 1 month ago
@Nickael7 My original comment already answered your question. Maybe if you weren't a 14 year old kid you would understand. And for you to call me a Nazi when you dismembered people is unreal.
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 It is real dummy. ;-)
Nickael7 1 month ago
@Nickael7 I can't tell if you are legitimately reading my comments because your responses are so far off...
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@franknbeans4761 Like yours...
Nickael7 1 month ago
@Nickael7 no because we didn't have to are you asking why don't we jump into every thing that ever happens that's violent ever??? No, the T-90 is not meant to fight tanks like the Abrams, it would be suicide.
The T-90 is meant to be a bullet stopper, that is, its meant to be used in large numbers to overcome a superior enemy.
lordnocts 1 week ago
@lordnocts Its armor is built to withstand common weapons, but the US arms its troops with extremely good weapons that would make easy work of a T-90.
The Idea is that nobody but the US has large numbers of these weapons, so it can still overcome every other country on earth.
lordnocts 1 week ago
@Nickael7 The gun is good enough to take out just about every other tank it is likely to come across. Out of the hundreds of thousands of tanks worldwide, the T-90 can defeat over 95 percent of them. That is more than acceptable.
When it comes down to other features, besides pure performance, the T-90 is very poor compared to the Abrams.
lordnocts 1 week ago
@Nickael7 , but its still one of the best besides the Abrams. The crew is very cramped and the ride is terrible. Its really an exhausting vehicle to operate. Its still better than those 95 percent of other tanks.
lordnocts 1 week ago
@PolishFactor Dude, your brain is fried. Have you ever heard of the T-90MS and its new ammunition and gun...
Did you know that the old Khrisantema ATGM can penetrate more than 1800mm of RHA. It fucked up the M1A2 SEP TUSK in one round. :)
Now be happy like a jumping rage monkey.
Nickael7 1 month ago 20
Comment removed
wildchild77x 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you claim the Khrisantema ATGM can penetrate 1800mm of rolled homogenous armor? 1800mm? a whopping inches of steel plate? the germans had guns in WWII that could do that. (granted they werent missles, but penetrating 7 inches of steel really is not that spectacular) you can penetrate all the steel plate you want, but the only country in the last 35 years to produce a tank that has regular RHA armor is russia with the T-72 and T-80. the reactive armor on the T-80 is add-on armor that
wildchild77x 3 weeks ago
@Nickael7 was designed to stop RPG rounds, not high velocity anti-tank rounds fired from guns like on the Abrams. and even if the T-90 was superior to the Abrams, it would never get the chance to engage one since the U.S. air force would be ruling the sky and Marine and Air Force A-10s would be tearing a new asshole in your little toys. your russian SU-25 might scratch the paint off an abrams, but thats about it. Russia lives off the "just update it, we dont need anything new" hats why all their
wildchild77x 3 weeks ago
@Nickael7 combat military vehicles and firearms lag behind other super powers by about 5 to 10 years. also, how would you know if the ATGM "fucked up the M1A2 SEP TUSK in one round" when 1. you have probably never even seen an abrams other than in pictures and on World Of Tanks 2. the Russians have never engaged an Abrams 3. the only armored combat involving an Abrams you know about is on Battlefield 3. exactly, YOU KNOW JACK SHIT ABOUT THE ABRAMS.
wildchild77x 3 weeks ago
@Nickael7 And the Javelin will completely destroy ANY T-90, not just disable like your Khrisantema.
vfFokker 2 weeks ago
@vfFokker You're dreaming dude, Krysanthema doesn't damage it fucks up armor beyond 1800mm+ of Chobham armor with DU. The Abram has 1200mm of protection in the front only. And the Javelin missile isn't built to penetrate heavy armor, is meant to destroy the lightly armor upper side of the turret, but T-90A equipped with ARENA APS, Javelin missiles becomes totally useless.
SuperRatchetclank 2 weeks ago
@SuperRatchetclank I think many if not all of the APS systems need to be battle tested before they can be recognized as fully effective against any type of anti tank munition. I'm not arguing with you by any means, I'm just saying that most of this is speculation and not proven fact. Well, unless you shot at Abrams all day with said weapons system or shot at a T-90 all day with an Abrams or Javelins.
kyle9524 2 weeks ago
@kyle9524 Those are not speculations, those are mathematical probability variables...
SuperRatchetclank 2 weeks ago
russian video= BIAST
PLUS THE T90 IS A MEDIUM AND THE ABRAMS IS A HEAVY
AND A RPG7 CANT PERSE THE SIDE ARMOR.
graham1996 1 month ago
@graham1996 well there was a case in iraq where a rpg7 peairced trough a abrams side thats why us army now puts reactive armor on that side of the tank
meee2014 1 month ago
@johnnyrckt m-1 is old and outdated, m-1A3 does not exist fuck yourself
DisgorgeKILLusa3 1 month ago
2 dollars says RPG-32 will shit on both those tanks =p
Hatinonthehaters 1 month ago 2
ПРОПАГАНДОЙ ЗАНИМАЕТСЯ ТОЛЬКО АМЕРИКОНСКОЕ МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБОРОНЫ!ЧТОБЫ ВОРОВАТЬ ИЗ БЮДЖЕТА ДЕНЬГИ.А ВАМ ГОВОРИТ ЧТО АБРАМС САМЫЙ ЛУЧШИЙ ТАНК.АБРАМС ТОЛЬКО И МОЖЕТ ВОЕВАТЬ С ТАНКАМИ 50-Х ГОДОВ.КОНЕЧНО ОНИ ЕГО НЕ ПРОБЬЮТ А СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ СНАРЯДЫ РАЗОРВУТ ЕГО В КЛОЧЬЯ
MrVladimir730 1 month ago
@johnnyrckt With of all, of course T90 is too old already, you cant compare it to M1A3.
But you can compare T90MS which is newest version of T90. It's better in everything. Of course RPG-7 cant take any modern tank. First version T90 took seven RPG-7 shots, and still was alright. But can modern tank take shot of latest RPG-32? I dont think so.
RealNarod28 1 month ago
This is the russian version of american propaganda...Those downed abrams in the video were downed from IEDs 500 lb exploding underneath the tank..no tank can take that..not even a T-90...or it was friendly fire from hellfire missiles..once again no tank can tank that...the abrams can take rpg fire almost any modern tank can take rpgs..well not tadems (look it up)...AT4s can take out any tank (M1 and T-90 included)...The abrams can fire guided missiles,the M1 TUSK (look it up) has a smooth bore
WhiteRaven7278 1 month ago
@WhiteRaven7278 STFU and die troll
DisgorgeKILLusa3 1 month ago
I don't have anything with russians, but for record I must say that depleted uranium sabot is superior to tungsten sabot because of the pyrophosphoric qualities of uranium. the density is the same so only wheight and speed of the sabot matters...
RadioactivFallout 1 month ago
yeah that is a very super tank that even indians say it is a crab. India is regarding to restart production or arjun or purchase of another tank and cancel t-90 joint production.
it is a wise decision, when checked all combats in last 3 decades. In the last 30 years no russian weapon abondoned country had any succes on real combat against western warfare.
taximdriver 1 month ago
@taximdriver olololol trolling? Pure bullshit and lies you just said.
M1A2 cant even get close to T90MS, it would be destroyed already.
RealNarod28 1 month ago
T90 will destroy abrams easily at distance of 5.5km. Its faster, has lesser profile, faster fire rate. Abrams is a good tank but its big, slow, massive target.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
i still love the Abrams.my father was an Abrams rider and went to the first gulf war.been around them for most my life.still a badass tank.it was designed to take on masses of T-72s.its behind by 2 generations.maybe if they have a A3 coming out,we can get back in the game.Maybe,heard it might be canceled.
PrvtParapup 1 month ago
remember WWII the German Panzers and Tigers could rip through an American sherman no problem but could it go through twenty,fifty,TWO HUNDRED MILLIONS........
solowingpixy2571 1 month ago
they said that the t-90 had internal reactive armour but the abrams has little square reactive tiles that can pretty much be ductaped onto the tank if necesary, in my opinion that is a VERY important when on the offense
solowingpixy2571 1 month ago
@solowingpixy2571 Yes, the T-90 possesses NERA beneath the main armor, it is made of a special plastic blend and aluminum, which reacts when a projectile hit it. That NERA has a deformation compartment, so the gases expands and fragments are dispersed all over the ceramic, Tungsten alloys and superalloys (i.e. inconel, titanium nitride) to avoid a penetration.
Nickael7 1 month ago
3:57 The Abrams can only fight other armored vehicles with APFSDS and HEAT rounds. It does not carry explosive fragmentation shells for use against buildings, bunkers and soft-skinned vehicles.
kpadmirer 1 month ago
@kpadmirer Abrams has canister rounds though.lol
PrvtParapup 1 month ago
@PrvtParapup Abrams Canister round is a -close range- ammo 500 meters or less(i.e. Shotgun shells).
T-90A T-90MS AINET system detonation HE-FRAG is a -long range- ammo 4000m or more that is remotely detonated on the targets.
BTW, Your Abrams only faced crappy Iraqi built pig iron Assad-Babyl T-72M, T-54-55, T-62 and Type-59 tanks that are 20-30 years old. My brother was also an Abram rider he got almost killed in the second gulf war by mercury switch IED
Nickael7 1 month ago
@Nickael7: However... 4km long range ammo? The MRM-KE is a mid range ammo, 12km. The old Abrams ( M1 & M1A1 ) faced Tanks unlike T-90.
SuperGeronimo999 1 month ago
@SuperGeronimo999 M1 & M1A1 only faced 20-30 years decades old tanks. T-54-55, T-62, Type-59 and export model T-72M Iraqi built Assad-Babyl (Lions of Babylon). Your tanks to this present never faced a real modern tank.
And about MRM-KE so what, the Russian ATGM HERMES-M reaches 100km !!!
Nickael7 1 month ago
@Nickael7: M1 & M1A1 weren't the newest Tanks in 1991. The M1A2 was new in 1992. To compare: Other western Tanks as the Leopard 2A6 which were built in 2001. Unlike other Tanks the M1's had faced Tanks, who matters if the Iraqis couldn't buy export T-90's. The MRM-KE is a MID RANGE MUNITION ( MRM )
SuperGeronimo999 1 month ago
@SuperGeronimo999 The HERMES-K is also a midrange ATGM 15-18km range can be equipped with either tandem shaped charge or KE penetrators. So what's the fuzz. And I don't care care about your Abrams abilities against antiquated vehicles. Today its old news. And Again give me the sources about "Greece received 400 old Abrams as presents". You didn't give any.
Nickael7 1 month ago
@SuperGeronimo999 Leopard 2 A6 is very little different from the Leopard 2 A 4 fire control system is the same, is a cosmetic modification.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 1 month ago
@SuperGeronimo999 Sokol-1 have 24 km range, hypersonic speed, top attack, multispectral guidance, diffrent types of warhead.
MRM-KE and X-ROD is closed a long time ago, what's the point then discuss what is not and never will exist? M-1 lost the war in Iraq.
DisgorgeKILLusa3 1 month ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa3: There is no system to fire the MRM-KE, but the MRM-CE is chosen to be the ATGM for the upcoming Abrams Variant. Also the A6 is much different to the A4.
SuperGeronimo999 1 month ago
@Nickael7 naa i get that.i was just trying to point out that the Abrams is still a cool tank lol.just needs some upgrades or maybe a whole new design,like lower profile and auto loader.sense your bro used to ride them he must have also told you that a loader can load almost as fast as others auto loaders.i would like to see auto loaders on American tanks and use the forth man for some other job.maybe put some AA on it or AT/AP launchers.like a Javelin type of weapon.
PrvtParapup 1 month ago