"The T 90 isn't even comparable to tanks like the Challenger 2, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2!!!"
yeah u damn right T-90 with it's active defence system, automatic recharging and being able to shoot misiles throw the barrel is much better toy than those 2.. ;)
then how many years is it bewin abrams and t-90.. come on...
Abrams sucks, Challenger 2 even worse...U(english people) don't know how to fight...look at all that u created even for WWII I soo lol'ed at Cherchil tank, or at Sherman...man, how some one can created that kind of trash?!)))
@Konabis If we Designed harder to produce tanks and germany made easier to produce the oucome may have been different....Oh and Dont say we dont know how to fight because Both KDs for english and Americans were higher than the Axis Americans 10 jap kills for 1 death brits had 5-6 kills on the japs...ours on germany we killed 2-3 for every german that killed us...Oh and germany got its ass kicked....so I lol at that...You cant take on the world and hope to win
everyone knows that british engineering sucks hard
and dont start that abrams vs challenger shit, abrams has done all the dirty work in middle east, so obviously most of the destroyed tanks are americans.
british engineering sucks hard ? you are a comidien indeed.ever heard of the channel tunnel or the typhoon fighter plane ?.we also have the best armed forces in the world.without britain there would be no telephone,tv ,internet,tanks,motorbikes,submarines,do i need to go on ?
The T-90 shoots laser guided rounds. The T-90 just needs a spotter to hit its targets out of view. Only Israel has an active system that does that too. The U.S. is developing a round that can do that. Europe, China and Japan have no system like that. A T-90 could be putting round into a Challenger with the Challenger unable to respond, except maybe with a smoke screen if it survives the first hit.
@Iggy82xl they did a test where they shoot a sabot round at a t-90 and it could still move around without any damage while a abrams was totaly fucked up..
You obviously don't know anything about tanks, the Merkava is an infantry support tank, it does not even have composite armor, wereas the British INVENTED the composite armored used by MBT's today, and the Challanger 2 has a newer, more advanced version of it.
a lack of thickness of that armor still is not as effective as the thickness of armor on the merkava and also if a challenger is destroyed you are dead and in a merkava your not and theres even an escape hatch. Merkava 4 is using the Steel depleated Uranium the M1A2 SEp uses.
JBBlitz said, quote: "a lack of thickness of that armor still is not as effective as the thickness of armor on the merkava"
The composite chobham armor used in Modern British, and American main battle tanks is ~ 3 times more effective than steel plate, so the armor would need to be MUCH thiner on the Chalanger2 for the Merkava to be better armored.
Continued: JBBlitz said, quote: "also if a challenger is destroyed you are dead and in a merkava your not and theres even an escape hatch"
This makes no sense at all, are you saying that if a Challanger gets hit and taken out of action, the crew will die every time, and if a merkava gets hit by a nuke, the crew will survive?
There are documented cases of Challanger2's, in Iraq, being hit by anti tank weapons 30+ times, tracks destroyed, engine, maing gun, spoting scope etc, ...continued
The T-64 did not use the advanced Composite armor used on western tanks today, and it was not the first to use the primative spaced armore either, I dont really see your point.
You compared them in the wrong way. The Russians have a philosophy to never put too much effort in their military machines. Their machines must be good enough but never too good so that they can spend the resources elsewhere like building another tank.
These machines are to be used in overwhelming numbers. And in times of war simplicity means rapid production and rapid deployment and easy field maintenance.
All of yall praising the autoloader are idiots if it was so great, why is the next russian tank not planing to have an auto loader. A human loader is proven to be faster then an autoloader also. If you have seen inside the tank it is acramped death trap.
Not more so than M1 Abrams. Russian tanks have escape hatches at the bottom of the tank, M1 doesn't.
Also human loader cannot keep up the constant loading speed as he will get tired. Lugging 30kg shells inside a tank is a very tiring job. Autoloader will keep the same loading speed at all times.
Head on, probably won't do so good, unless the T-90 crew fires at the body instead of the turret. Abrams has a heavily armoured turret, because it was built for fighting from hull down position. Also if T-90 flanks Abrams it's a turkey shoot. T90 has better side armour, is faster and more manoeuverable.
T90 is not faster at all the Abrams has a gas turbine engine making it faster and better aceleration also the Abrams has more accurate weapons and more advanced armor
M1 Abrams weight: 63.0 metric tonnes Road speed: 42 mph (67.7 km/h) Off-road speed: 30 mph (48.3 km/h) power to weight ratio: 24.5 hp/metric ton T-90A (1250hp diesel engine) weight: 46.5 metric tonnes Road speed: 72kph Off-road speed: 60kph power to weight ratio: 26.9 hp/metric ton Top speed doesn't make a tank more mobile and manoeuverable. T-90 has better acceleration because of it's weight. His engine gives more power for the given weight than on M1.
T-90can make sharper turns and can navigate obsticales faster, because forces excerted by inertia on the tank are less powerful than on M1.
T-90A were upgraded to use the ESSA thermal imaging sight, which allows for accurate firing to a range of 5000-8000 m using the CATHERINE-FC thermal camera produced by Thales Optronique.
The gunner is also provided with the 1G46 day sighting system which includes a laser range finder, missile guidance channel and allows tank-sized targets to be detected and engaged at a range from 5000 m to 8000 m.
And the new T95 tank will have an autoloader because the crew will be in a compartment separated from the turret and cannon. It will use a low silhouete turret that will not be able to hold any crew at all and an autoloader will be a must have.
We, Russian, understand that the best tank cannot be. Choosing one, you refuse another. And Т-90 is "golden mean" on indicators of passableness, fire force and security. Security concerns not only the reservation but also the lowest profile among tanks.
russians tank is the best in the world!english boys everytime writing what they weapons are better then russian,but you know what if you dont know better dont write comment,becose then i reading funnily enough sound.
Russians still cant get away from the autoloader. A fourth crew member is much more reliable, and another pair of hands is always useful for ordinary maintenance. Plus with autoloader the rounds are stored in the turret, very dangerous. The only advantage to this is a smaller profile, but it is constantly shown with todays gun systems that their tanks will still be hit---and killed. Germany, UK, USA, Israel---no autoloader. There are other reasons too, but these are the best tanks in the world
4 man in crew its more armoured dimension, more armoured dimension its more weight and high profile, more weight its low bobility, high profile its easy aiming, thats why russian tanks have autoloader! You dont have it cose your engineers dont have enought brain to make good autoloader ;-) thats all
Having a fourth crew member will need a whole new tank. There is not enough space for a loader as the tanks are now.
By having an autoloader russians saved 12-13 tonnes of weight. Adding that ammount of armour on a new tank will degrade it's speed and manoeuverability when compared to their contemporary tanks. That is something russian military head hunchos don't want to loose.
FYO having autoloader allows to shoot at any speed over any terrain. I'd like to see you try to move accurately heavy rounds while tank is bouncing all over the place. I promise you, it will be a VERY hard task. Autoloader has no such worries and is reliable. Rounds in Russian tanks are NOT in the turret. They are inside the tank hull.
Yes, inside the tank hull in the crew compartment, if there is a front hull penetration that will make an ammunition cock off blowing the turret out, thats why you saw some T-72 with the turret blown off.
I warned you my fellow Christians, THE END IS COMING! Depart now from all form of unrighteousness such as fornication, homosexuality, pornography, watching violent entertainment, drug abuse, smoking, gambling, cursing, bullying, revelries, pursuit of money and idolatry etc. LEST YOU BE FOUND NOT WORTHY TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
A volcano situated in the US will erupt not far from now, when this happen you will know that this warning is from God.
best tank ever!!!! russian weapon is best starts with guns best gun ak 47 and finish with helicopter best in the world ka 50/52 and alien plane su 35 and su 47,t 90 russles best of the best
hahaha dont tell my ur point is that Canada would beat russia in War???? Let's talk if nuclear war would happened... All todays americas tanks, aircrafts and shit mostly depends on modern technology and russian dont, they are basicly pure machinery. But with nuclear bombs blowing up u will have alot of EMP and all that tech crap wold mean a BIG FUKING 0
T-90A in the production much easier and cheaper than the M1A2, but that the T-90A more reliable, secure, agile and has more firepower ... If the war started, I would have fought on the T-90A, the best tank
The T-90 is nothing special it is an overpriced underpowered tank that can not outrun or outrange the abrams and for the record the M1A1 is only operated by marines and National guard units in the US the army uses M1A2's and one unit is fielding the A3 the Israelis just bought the M1A3 and the aussies the m1a1
lol u think everyone around the world has to kiss americas ass? wake up the majority of people in the world are sick and tired of americas bullshit warmongering policies.
you are the dumbest mofo i have ever seen on the face of youtube, i am not going to lie. we go to war because everyone else is too pussy to stand up and fight.
fuck off none of this was about oil. i dont suppose you can read the papers or anyhting, but gas prices have gone up since the war started. so go suck another cock
lol thats funny...coz donald rumsfeld admitted they were there to secure the oil supply....and i dont think it was about weapons of mass destruction as they havent found any have they...maybe u should stop reading the papers coz ur government and the jews control what is written in the papers and what they want you to think u dumbass.
he admitted helping to SECURE as in protect the oil there. retard. 75% of the worlds oil supply passes through the persian gulf, posibly more u moron. if the Regime isnt their to defend it, someone needs to. its not just the US defending it. its a joint coalition task force made up of NATO and others. so dont try and blame the US on everything. we are the only ones that reacted when a crazy mofo said he had a nuke. he didnt, but at least we responded and did something about it instd of readnews
80 percent of the shit you use every day from mobile phone to clothes is made in a country that has 1/3 of the world population and you still think the jews control the whole world?
USA is run by jews? Hmmm can you name a single one? I mean Obama surely is not a jew!
lmao are u kidding? firstly in the bush administration there was donald rumsfeld, ari fleisher, paul wolfowitz thats just a few. Now the Obama administration: rahm emanuel, david axelrod, james steinberg, jack lew, lee feinstein, mara rudman. Ever heard of AIPAC? look them up, NO U.S president has been elected without their approval. Americans need to wake up to what is going on in their own country before they worry about what is happening in other countries.
Abrams originaly were disigned in the late 80s, but latest modification were installed in 2004. And for each t90 tank produced, USA produces 5 abrams.
true but u need to support this with facts so every one can believe u i know this bec the u.s has the abrams in mass production the russians have their t-90 in low level production
what facts are you looking for ? the mass production numbers of Abrams, or the low production numbers of T-90 ?
PS. The comma and the period is a valuable, useful punctuation device because it separates the structural elements of sentences into manageable segments. It is not your enemy :)
yea i know my typing is atrosious as well as my spelling but i usauly have a lot to write so i dont think to use them and i only stated that russia is producing few t-90s so far but the americans are mass producing the abrams
The reason for this, is because prior to USSR collapse in 1991, Russia had produced so many tanks, that they have stockpiles of T-64, T-72 and T-80. And as we all know T-90, its just a better version of troublesome T-80. So as you see, there is no real need for production of anymore tanks for russian military.
Not t-80....t-72,and its not troublesome,t-72 not just some latest modification, its a tank with nevest self defense tools like dinamic armor, "штора" and others... compared to t-90 american abrams is already old and need modifications.
T-90 is nothing, T-72 is older and is better than the T-90 any time. T-90 has nothing out of the ordinary, the only thing is that the T-90 is newer then abrams. but the abrams model has been modernized since then, is old but new, i guess we can say it like that, has new high tech composite armor, new computers, it has everything, there's no need to change a perfectly awesome tank, who defeated T-72 tanks in iraq, T-90 is nothing that the M1A1 can't handle.
ale91613, you are the first person I have seen to suggest, that the T-72 is superior to the T-90, what have you got to back that?, I dont think you know much.
T-90 is basically updated (newer version) of t-72 tank. and t-90s engine is basically updated version of troublesome t-80 engine. Nothing special about t-90.
T-90 is an improved version of an already improved version of the T-72 (T-72BM), with some T-80 features and additional new features, I do not know what you mean by "nothing special", what do you consider "special"?
Dont get me wrong, t-90 is a great tank, just as t-72 and some might even say same thing about t-80. But i dont think that t-90 stands even near to be the best tank in the world.
We will not know until it faces the current western claimed best tanks in the world, but I do not see anything to suggest it is inferior to western designs, unless you have something I do not know about, I dont see how you can be right, so why do you think it is not even near to the best tank in the world?, apart from the fact that the T-90 has no official combat history.
Whatevers tank is on your side and giving you effective support is the best tank in the world! However, as experience in the previous wars and WW2 amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the battlefield. And in war it is also matters how fast you can get these tanks off of assembly line into a bettle field. Because in modern world it is first shot first kill.
We were talking specifically about the T-90 tank and its specifications compared to other modern tanks, not ww2 tanks, best use of a tank or crew experience, but I agee with what you said and I also agree with 123SerGeY321, Russian tanks are easier to produce.
While most of M1A2 tanks are basicaly upgraded samples of existing M1A1 - T-90 is not upgraded T-72 - it is """"T-72 based"""" NEWLY built tanks with COMPLETELY new armor and other built in systems
Just a little correction: T-80 uses a turbine engine while T-90 uses diesel. T-90 has all-new armor, suspension, electronics, driveline, engine, rounds. The only similarity is layout. Make no mistake the T-90 is a totally different tank to T-80. They are even designed and made in different towns and on different plants.
Both T72 and T80 were made to compliment T-64 as "lower-tech". If I could I'd translate some videos for you but it'll take too long. T-72 and T-80 were made at roughly same time.
well yeah...always ll be a prototipe..always...but our 1st's tanks was created in our country))) while someone's(u know what I'm saying))) ) tanks was prototipe of Tigers and panthers)))
@Konabis and look whose tanks have fewer casualties? panthers and tigers, or shermans? just think about that before you brag about how creative you are.
that's where you are wrong, the T-90 was created in 1995, by 1997 they had 107 tanks, until now, there's been known that Russia only created about 100 more, so until now present day, they might have a little over 200 T-90 tanks, NO STOCK PILE THERE MORON. when USSR broke down, they operated almost 5,000 different T-80 model tanks, we operate over 8,000 M1 and M1A1 tanks. so yes they really need to produce more tanks.
before you start throwing word like MORON, why dont you go back and read my comment over once again. You basicaly said the same thing i was trying to get through about a month or so ago...........all i said that t-90 is nothing special, and nothing that abram cant handle.........
Thats correct, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Russians sold all their old equipment for huge sums of money, saving them the trouble of getting rid of their obsolete and outdated equipment. They could then start producing their new military gear.
The thing is, that most of those money whent into Russians oligarh's pokets reather then russian economy, So money is still not there, to start producing new military equipment. As metter effect, they just closed one of the main tank plants in Ural, because lack of funding.
The afghans were trained by the Pakistani ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) and supplied with american weapons. In afghanistan gun powder was cheaper than flour.
actionman17: It has few reasons. First and main is that high amount of cash pumped into projects of military lobby, doesn't ensure any effectivity. Not to mention high corruption for this or that project. Another reason are much higher prices for military research or production in the US or west (from salaries,to materials). Research, production and other costs are much higher than in the Russia or China, you get the point. So amount of money spent, is very false indicator which means nothing.
In actuality, tank warfare is becoming obsolete with the development of more mobile units such as Strykers. Also foot mobile infantry are becoming more advanced enough where a team of 3 can take out a tank with one hit. In the next 20 years I predict that tanks like the Russian Black Eagle are going to be mobile command centers.
Very true. If you look at the US Future Weapons Systems program, (although it's just at concept stage at the moment) the heaviest vehicle they have is a 25-30 ton tank with a 75mm HV gun or something. It's only designed to support infantry assaults, because artillery and airstrikes are supposed to take out enemy heavy armour first. So yeah, the Main Battle Tank is becoming a thing of the past, unless they start fitting them with rail guns or something.
what tank are u talking about the abrams has a 120 smooth bore cannon the new stryker mobile gun system has a 125mm cannon self loading the same with the Self-Propelled Howitzer version but the sph has a 105mm howitzer
Yes,that's right, but the tank I'm talking about is only at concept stage. Its part of a family of vehicles designed for the US Future Weapons Systems progeram. There's a whole family of vehicles built on the same hull; artillery, mortar, APC, repair, and there's a tank configuration. I was saying that it's only 30 tons and much lighter armoured and armed than an M1 or other modern MBT, which backs up what APacilli is saying (that heavily armoured tanks are becoming obselete as weapons)
Americans spending 20 times more money on military than Russians, their weapons should be better, but they're not that much better, if at all. Russian military are behind only because of lack of money, and still manage to be 3rd or 2nd in the world. Whith such low budget they still one of the tuffest army, that's respectful.
U are seriously crapping. Learn more before u start crapping. It is far superior than the Shillelagh that the sheridan fires, shilleaghs are obsolete but not the reflex.
For a very good reason. The main difference between Western and modern Russian tanks (I'm talking T82/T90 nothing older) is Western tanks have good protection and are relatively slow, Russian ones are faster, more agile and not so heavily armoured. Also they're much lighter, smaller targets, cheaper to build and run and easier to maintain. They still may not be the equal of an Abrams or Challenger one on one, but they're still up there with the best.
The funniest thing about T-90 is that russian don't have it themselves, they built them for India :) as for being best, well the same was said about T-80, which Chechens manhandled with simple RPGs and Molotovs :)
The Russians have T-90's, over 1000 of them I believe, as for the losses in Chechnya, the rebels had more than just "simple RPGs and Molotovs", and the rebels developed a technique of knocking out Russian tanks, by getting behind and firing several AT weapons simultaneously.
american weaponry are made with contract manufacturer from china and other cheap manufacturer. thats why they cant go out of their base in irak an 'bring' the democracy...
Russians the best at making weapons.......that kill its operators.
StrainXv 11 months ago
@StrainXv What do you mean by that?
realIBeliX 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The T 90 isn't even comparable to tanks like the Challenger 2, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2!!!"
yeah u damn right T-90 with it's active defence system, automatic recharging and being able to shoot misiles throw the barrel is much better toy than those 2.. ;)
then how many years is it bewin abrams and t-90.. come on...
shaklob 1 year ago
Leopard 2 and M1 ftw
abbiss89 1 year ago
It don't have Trophy...
SapperK9 1 year ago
m1a1!!!!!!
mank4500 1 year ago
The T 90 isn't even comparable to tanks like the Challenger 2, M1 Abrams and Leopard 2!!!
DocRoe92 1 year ago
@DocRoe92
Only Leo 2 is better...
Abrams sucks, Challenger 2 even worse...U(english people) don't know how to fight...look at all that u created even for WWII I soo lol'ed at Cherchil tank, or at Sherman...man, how some one can created that kind of trash?!)))
Konabis 1 year ago
@Konabis i agree with your leo placement, but the abrams is 20 years older than the challenger.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13
chellenger sucks as merkava...
Konabis 1 year ago
@Konabis If we Designed harder to produce tanks and germany made easier to produce the oucome may have been different....Oh and Dont say we dont know how to fight because Both KDs for english and Americans were higher than the Axis Americans 10 jap kills for 1 death brits had 5-6 kills on the japs...ours on germany we killed 2-3 for every german that killed us...Oh and germany got its ass kicked....so I lol at that...You cant take on the world and hope to win
SuperPandawan 1 year ago
@SuperPandawan
Yeah...Nuked japs, burned Vietnam and Korea....It's not war or fight...
Konabis 1 year ago
@SuperPandawan Thats not what was included and trying to change the subject made you look like a jackass.....
SuperPandawan 1 year ago
@SuperPandawan 5 germans could kill more than 100 americans and brits
barraki150 8 months ago
You know, at this tank there is a system against proslipping of wheels and a safety pillow. They are established at additional expense.
GafIldarS 2 years ago
Comment removed
zettelmeyerin 2 years ago
Abrahms death, greating gentelmen....
ehzalim 2 years ago
@challenger fanboy
challenger will never be the best
t-90, Abrams and leopard are better
everyone knows that british engineering sucks hard
and dont start that abrams vs challenger shit, abrams has done all the dirty work in middle east, so obviously most of the destroyed tanks are americans.
bogoid 2 years ago
british engineering sucks hard ? you are a comidien indeed.ever heard of the channel tunnel or the typhoon fighter plane ?.we also have the best armed forces in the world.without britain there would be no telephone,tv ,internet,tanks,motorbikes,submarines,do i need to go on ?
MrOutofthis 2 years ago
yes, go on
thoose are british inventions (except internet) but im sure that german or japanese or russian or american engineering TODAY, is better.
Cars for example, Porsche and Honda are better than jaguar, everyone with knowledge in cars knows that.
And "our army is the best" that's pride boy. Stronger than my army, yes i recognize it, but still not the best imo
bogoid 2 years ago
The Challanger 2 is the best armored tank in the world. It would make easy meat out of an T-90.
AK49Gunner 2 years ago
bullshit
bogoid 2 years ago
The T-90 shoots laser guided rounds. The T-90 just needs a spotter to hit its targets out of view. Only Israel has an active system that does that too. The U.S. is developing a round that can do that. Europe, China and Japan have no system like that. A T-90 could be putting round into a Challenger with the Challenger unable to respond, except maybe with a smoke screen if it survives the first hit.
orlock20 2 years ago
t90 as good as challenger 2 ? hes obviously a comedian.thats better than a peter kay gag lol
MrOutofthis 2 years ago
You know that the whole lower front hull is made from cast homogenous steel armour and not Dorchester?
That's a huge weak point and a bullseye waiting for a sabot rounds.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
@Iggy82xl Not muddle;confuse T-90s and T-72 Iraqi.
megawolthaus 1 year ago
@Iggy82xl they did a test where they shoot a sabot round at a t-90 and it could still move around without any damage while a abrams was totaly fucked up..
shaklob 1 year ago
Not only as good as, but superior in some ways.
vtkrey 2 years ago
T-90 would obliterate a challenger tank. M1 abrahm could stand a chance as well as the Merkava.
JBBlitz 2 years ago
You obviously don't know anything about tanks, the Merkava is an infantry support tank, it does not even have composite armor, wereas the British INVENTED the composite armored used by MBT's today, and the Challanger 2 has a newer, more advanced version of it.
AK49Gunner 2 years ago
a lack of thickness of that armor still is not as effective as the thickness of armor on the merkava and also if a challenger is destroyed you are dead and in a merkava your not and theres even an escape hatch. Merkava 4 is using the Steel depleated Uranium the M1A2 SEp uses.
JBBlitz 2 years ago
JBBlitz said, quote: "a lack of thickness of that armor still is not as effective as the thickness of armor on the merkava"
The composite chobham armor used in Modern British, and American main battle tanks is ~ 3 times more effective than steel plate, so the armor would need to be MUCH thiner on the Chalanger2 for the Merkava to be better armored.
...Continued.
AK49Gunner 2 years ago
Comment removed
AK49Gunner 2 years ago
Continued: JBBlitz said, quote: "also if a challenger is destroyed you are dead and in a merkava your not and theres even an escape hatch"
This makes no sense at all, are you saying that if a Challanger gets hit and taken out of action, the crew will die every time, and if a merkava gets hit by a nuke, the crew will survive?
There are documented cases of Challanger2's, in Iraq, being hit by anti tank weapons 30+ times, tracks destroyed, engine, maing gun, spoting scope etc, ...continued
AK49Gunner 2 years ago
continued: in short; the tank was crippled, unable to move, see, or fire, totally taken out of action, but the crew survived totally unhurt!
Quote: " in a merkava your not and theres even an escape hatch"
There was an escape hatch on the M4 Sherman also...and I'd assume theres one on the Challanger2 aswel.
AK49Gunner 2 years ago
The first tank to really make use of composite armour's advantages was the Soviet T-64, this tank made the advantages clear.
vtkrey 2 years ago
The T-64 did not use the advanced Composite armor used on western tanks today, and it was not the first to use the primative spaced armore either, I dont really see your point.
AK49Gunner 2 years ago
@AK49Gunner you're completely wrong. T-64 DID
MrAndyye 2 years ago
Challanger 2
Weight: 62.5 Tonnes
Engine: Perkins CV-12 Diesel 1200hp
Speed: 60kph(Road) 40Kph (X Counrty)
Wpns: 1 x 120mm rifled gun; 1 x7.62mm EX-34 Chain gun; 1 x 7.62 machine gun
Armour: Chobham, the best in the world
Sights: TOGS II, Laser Ranger finder(200m to 10km) Sagem VS 580-10 gyrostabilised sight.
I think you will find that this tank IS the best in the world.
ArmyAir 2 years ago
T-90A
weight: 46.5 tonnes
engine: V-92S2 Chelyabinsk V12 turbocharged diesel 1000hp
speed: 70kph(road) 45kph (off road)
armament: 1 x 125mm 2A46M-5 smoothbore gun, 1 x 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun, 1 x 12.7mm NSV(T) machine gun
armour: combination of composite armour (steel, ceramics, NERA, tungsten) and Kontakt-5 2nd generation ERA giving it a RHe thickness of 1350mm
sights: ESSA (Thales Optronique Catherine-FC TI), 1A43 rangefinder/sight with 1G46 day sight, 9S517 missile guidance...
Iggy82xl 2 years ago 2
other equipment: Shtora-1 EOCMDAS electro-optical counter-measures defensive system, EMT-7 electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generator for the destruction of magnetic mines, "Nakidka" thermal/radar/optical shroud
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
How would T90 fair against British Challanger 2 tank? Not so good I suspect.
ArmyAir 2 years ago
You compared them in the wrong way. The Russians have a philosophy to never put too much effort in their military machines. Their machines must be good enough but never too good so that they can spend the resources elsewhere like building another tank.
These machines are to be used in overwhelming numbers. And in times of war simplicity means rapid production and rapid deployment and easy field maintenance.
MichaelWithstand 2 years ago
All of yall praising the autoloader are idiots if it was so great, why is the next russian tank not planing to have an auto loader. A human loader is proven to be faster then an autoloader also. If you have seen inside the tank it is acramped death trap.
GoldyLax29 2 years ago
Not more so than M1 Abrams. Russian tanks have escape hatches at the bottom of the tank, M1 doesn't.
Also human loader cannot keep up the constant loading speed as he will get tired. Lugging 30kg shells inside a tank is a very tiring job. Autoloader will keep the same loading speed at all times.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
wrong. Next tank with autoloader and 2 man crew. Every tank crew die if ammo detonated. And panel not ever save the crew
Goldrag 2 years ago
Admittidly I am an unabashed fan of all things русскии. But how would the t90 do against the m1a2 abrams?
pitbull040 2 years ago
Head on, probably won't do so good, unless the T-90 crew fires at the body instead of the turret. Abrams has a heavily armoured turret, because it was built for fighting from hull down position. Also if T-90 flanks Abrams it's a turkey shoot. T90 has better side armour, is faster and more manoeuverable.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
T90 is not faster at all the Abrams has a gas turbine engine making it faster and better aceleration also the Abrams has more accurate weapons and more advanced armor
GoldyLax29 2 years ago
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
T-90can make sharper turns and can navigate obsticales faster, because forces excerted by inertia on the tank are less powerful than on M1.
T-90A were upgraded to use the ESSA thermal imaging sight, which allows for accurate firing to a range of 5000-8000 m using the CATHERINE-FC thermal camera produced by Thales Optronique.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
The gunner is also provided with the 1G46 day sighting system which includes a laser range finder, missile guidance channel and allows tank-sized targets to be detected and engaged at a range from 5000 m to 8000 m.
And the new T95 tank will have an autoloader because the crew will be in a compartment separated from the turret and cannon. It will use a low silhouete turret that will not be able to hold any crew at all and an autoloader will be a must have.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
It would get destroyed
GoldyLax29 2 years ago
T-90 have anti-tank rocket with range 5km. M1a1 cad destrou T-90 at range only 2,5km.
Goldrag 2 years ago
although t-90 is a very good tank but not the best tank
Leopard is the best tank
web2baba 2 years ago
We, Russian, understand that the best tank cannot be. Choosing one, you refuse another. And Т-90 is "golden mean" on indicators of passableness, fire force and security. Security concerns not only the reservation but also the lowest profile among tanks.
Goldrag 2 years ago
LONG LIVE RUSSIA!
kallyjbf 2 years ago
Like everything Russian, it will turn out to be nothing near what they say it is...
CaptainAmerica322 2 years ago
russians tank is the best in the world!english boys everytime writing what they weapons are better then russian,but you know what if you dont know better dont write comment,becose then i reading funnily enough sound.
KostasJakubovskis 2 years ago
Russians still cant get away from the autoloader. A fourth crew member is much more reliable, and another pair of hands is always useful for ordinary maintenance. Plus with autoloader the rounds are stored in the turret, very dangerous. The only advantage to this is a smaller profile, but it is constantly shown with todays gun systems that their tanks will still be hit---and killed. Germany, UK, USA, Israel---no autoloader. There are other reasons too, but these are the best tanks in the world
deutschschoen 2 years ago
4 man in crew its more armoured dimension, more armoured dimension its more weight and high profile, more weight its low bobility, high profile its easy aiming, thats why russian tanks have autoloader! You dont have it cose your engineers dont have enought brain to make good autoloader ;-) thats all
Jacquinot1982 2 years ago
Having a fourth crew member will need a whole new tank. There is not enough space for a loader as the tanks are now.
By having an autoloader russians saved 12-13 tonnes of weight. Adding that ammount of armour on a new tank will degrade it's speed and manoeuverability when compared to their contemporary tanks. That is something russian military head hunchos don't want to loose.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
FYO having autoloader allows to shoot at any speed over any terrain. I'd like to see you try to move accurately heavy rounds while tank is bouncing all over the place. I promise you, it will be a VERY hard task. Autoloader has no such worries and is reliable. Rounds in Russian tanks are NOT in the turret. They are inside the tank hull.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
Yes, inside the tank hull in the crew compartment, if there is a front hull penetration that will make an ammunition cock off blowing the turret out, thats why you saw some T-72 with the turret blown off.
Moution23 1 year ago
t-90 is not the best lol.
eric88eric88 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"best tank in the world" HA-HA-HA
Russianhater22 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
I warned you my fellow Christians, THE END IS COMING! Depart now from all form of unrighteousness such as fornication, homosexuality, pornography, watching violent entertainment, drug abuse, smoking, gambling, cursing, bullying, revelries, pursuit of money and idolatry etc. LEST YOU BE FOUND NOT WORTHY TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
A volcano situated in the US will erupt not far from now, when this happen you will know that this warning is from God.
.
conceil8 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Save the planet ! Kill yourself ! ;)
SectorSos 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How is the t-90 the best? Leo 2, Chally 2 and abrams are all better by a lot.
Baconbits32 2 years ago
How are they better?
vtkrey 2 years ago
Russia easy make new tank , then good car for people .
bearName 2 years ago 9
@bearName if everybody in Russia gets this tank oh dam. Hardest country to invade.
alexvasilenko14 1 year ago
@bearName
In Russia, we have a saying:"What ever we(Russians) making, It ll be always a tank(Weapon)"
Konabis 1 year ago
best tank ever!!!! russian weapon is best starts with guns best gun ak 47 and finish with helicopter best in the world ka 50/52 and alien plane su 35 and su 47,t 90 russles best of the best
tonijocevski 2 years ago 14
Lal, get ur facts straight, look it up.
OsomoMojoFreak 2 years ago
@tonijocevski You get the 125 russian gun out of your ass and look at the other world tanks
SuperPandawan 1 year ago
Canada has way better tanks than the Russians, they have brand new Leopard 2's
DanielandCam 3 years ago
hahaha dont tell my ur point is that Canada would beat russia in War???? Let's talk if nuclear war would happened... All todays americas tanks, aircrafts and shit mostly depends on modern technology and russian dont, they are basicly pure machinery. But with nuclear bombs blowing up u will have alot of EMP and all that tech crap wold mean a BIG FUKING 0
darkomerc0806 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yet time and again in wars all over the plant the US comes up against Russian built weapons...and the technology wins out every time....
shellback1970 2 years ago
100% correct :]
bigpoopa11 2 years ago
T-90A in the production much easier and cheaper than the M1A2, but that the T-90A more reliable, secure, agile and has more firepower ... If the war started, I would have fought on the T-90A, the best tank
123SerGeY321 3 years ago
The T-90 is nothing special it is an overpriced underpowered tank that can not outrun or outrange the abrams and for the record the M1A1 is only operated by marines and National guard units in the US the army uses M1A2's and one unit is fielding the A3 the Israelis just bought the M1A3 and the aussies the m1a1
Blacklung27 3 years ago
Overpriced? it costs 1/3 of what an Abrams costs.
vtkrey 3 years ago
A perfect victim for a A-10 Thunderbolt !!!
cyberarmy007 3 years ago
which is a perfect victim for the S300 anti-aircraft missiles =]
Moqawame 3 years ago
Look here! An Australian Russians friend! The enemy is all over the world. Shame on you! Stupid Aussie!
cyberarmy007 3 years ago
lol u think everyone around the world has to kiss americas ass? wake up the majority of people in the world are sick and tired of americas bullshit warmongering policies.
Moqawame 3 years ago 2
American do not care what world thinks!
You fly planes in are buildings . We will hunt you down .
raymondwr 3 years ago
your previous corrupt government organised the whole thing so maybe u should hunt them down. The U.S created Al-Qaeda so live with it.
Moqawame 3 years ago
you are the dumbest mofo i have ever seen on the face of youtube, i am not going to lie. we go to war because everyone else is too pussy to stand up and fight.
bigpoopa11 3 years ago
you go to war because your country is run by warmongering oil thirsty greedy jews...don't confuse what the u.s is doing now with bravery.
Moqawame 3 years ago
fuck off none of this was about oil. i dont suppose you can read the papers or anyhting, but gas prices have gone up since the war started. so go suck another cock
bigpoopa11 3 years ago
lol thats funny...coz donald rumsfeld admitted they were there to secure the oil supply....and i dont think it was about weapons of mass destruction as they havent found any have they...maybe u should stop reading the papers coz ur government and the jews control what is written in the papers and what they want you to think u dumbass.
Moqawame 3 years ago
And you are a dumb faggot brainwashed gay nazi moron arab butt kisser with no future!
You know these jews are surely responsible for stupid people like you brought to life every day in this world supposedly controlled by them!
MirceaBv 3 years ago
he admitted helping to SECURE as in protect the oil there. retard. 75% of the worlds oil supply passes through the persian gulf, posibly more u moron. if the Regime isnt their to defend it, someone needs to. its not just the US defending it. its a joint coalition task force made up of NATO and others. so dont try and blame the US on everything. we are the only ones that reacted when a crazy mofo said he had a nuke. he didnt, but at least we responded and did something about it instd of readnews
bigpoopa11 2 years ago
Ahhahahaahaahaah fail
shabut 3 years ago
80 percent of the shit you use every day from mobile phone to clothes is made in a country that has 1/3 of the world population and you still think the jews control the whole world?
USA is run by jews? Hmmm can you name a single one? I mean Obama surely is not a jew!
MirceaBv 3 years ago
lmao are u kidding? firstly in the bush administration there was donald rumsfeld, ari fleisher, paul wolfowitz thats just a few. Now the Obama administration: rahm emanuel, david axelrod, james steinberg, jack lew, lee feinstein, mara rudman. Ever heard of AIPAC? look them up, NO U.S president has been elected without their approval. Americans need to wake up to what is going on in their own country before they worry about what is happening in other countries.
Moqawame 3 years ago
who cares if their jewish? i mean really?
FallschirmjagerX 2 years ago
A 30mm might be better for the task,countermeasures can be a pain.
Dudtz 3 years ago
Абрамс никакой конкуренции Т90 не составляет, единственный конкурент русским это немецкий леопард
avegalucas07 3 years ago
i believe Abrams, T90, Leopard and British Challanger are all in the same category.
SectorSos 3 years ago
T90 is very old tank. There are some new better tanks.
onlinehilz 3 years ago
Lol abrams is from the 80s
MystExil 3 years ago
t-90 is made on the basic of t-72 which is like 35 years old.
The T-90 should be cald T-72E or something.
darthgotica 3 years ago
No it isn't the same like T-72. Watch russian docus with translate and yu will see that it isn't the same!
MystExil 3 years ago
T-90 has new original turret.
But the body of the tank is essentially T-72.
darthgotica 3 years ago
No it isn't the same!
MystExil 3 years ago
Abrams originaly were disigned in the late 80s, but latest modification were installed in 2004. And for each t90 tank produced, USA produces 5 abrams.
SectorSos 3 years ago 3
true but u need to support this with facts so every one can believe u i know this bec the u.s has the abrams in mass production the russians have their t-90 in low level production
puremilitary101 3 years ago
what facts are you looking for ? the mass production numbers of Abrams, or the low production numbers of T-90 ?
PS. The comma and the period is a valuable, useful punctuation device because it separates the structural elements of sentences into manageable segments. It is not your enemy :)
SectorSos 3 years ago
yea i know my typing is atrosious as well as my spelling but i usauly have a lot to write so i dont think to use them and i only stated that russia is producing few t-90s so far but the americans are mass producing the abrams
puremilitary101 3 years ago
Dude russia doesn't produce t-90 for russia (for now).They produce it for export, for instance for india.Thats why it has low numbers!
vimpel360 3 years ago
The reason for this, is because prior to USSR collapse in 1991, Russia had produced so many tanks, that they have stockpiles of T-64, T-72 and T-80. And as we all know T-90, its just a better version of troublesome T-80. So as you see, there is no real need for production of anymore tanks for russian military.
SectorSos 3 years ago
Not t-80....t-72,and its not troublesome,t-72 not just some latest modification, its a tank with nevest self defense tools like dinamic armor, "штора" and others... compared to t-90 american abrams is already old and need modifications.
vimpel360 3 years ago
It is very debatable subject. whole world agrees that Abrams is much more superior to t-90. but every body has their point of views.
SectorSos 3 years ago
T-90 is nothing, T-72 is older and is better than the T-90 any time. T-90 has nothing out of the ordinary, the only thing is that the T-90 is newer then abrams. but the abrams model has been modernized since then, is old but new, i guess we can say it like that, has new high tech composite armor, new computers, it has everything, there's no need to change a perfectly awesome tank, who defeated T-72 tanks in iraq, T-90 is nothing that the M1A1 can't handle.
ale91613 3 years ago
ale91613, you are the first person I have seen to suggest, that the T-72 is superior to the T-90, what have you got to back that?, I dont think you know much.
vtkrey 3 years ago
T-90 is basically updated (newer version) of t-72 tank. and t-90s engine is basically updated version of troublesome t-80 engine. Nothing special about t-90.
SectorSos 3 years ago
T-90 is an improved version of an already improved version of the T-72 (T-72BM), with some T-80 features and additional new features, I do not know what you mean by "nothing special", what do you consider "special"?
vtkrey 3 years ago
Dont get me wrong, t-90 is a great tank, just as t-72 and some might even say same thing about t-80. But i dont think that t-90 stands even near to be the best tank in the world.
SectorSos 3 years ago
We will not know until it faces the current western claimed best tanks in the world, but I do not see anything to suggest it is inferior to western designs, unless you have something I do not know about, I dont see how you can be right, so why do you think it is not even near to the best tank in the world?, apart from the fact that the T-90 has no official combat history.
vtkrey 3 years ago
Whatevers tank is on your side and giving you effective support is the best tank in the world! However, as experience in the previous wars and WW2 amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with superior crews will rule the battlefield. And in war it is also matters how fast you can get these tanks off of assembly line into a bettle field. Because in modern world it is first shot first kill.
SectorSos 3 years ago
We were talking specifically about the T-90 tank and its specifications compared to other modern tanks, not ww2 tanks, best use of a tank or crew experience, but I agee with what you said and I also agree with 123SerGeY321, Russian tanks are easier to produce.
vtkrey 3 years ago
While most of M1A2 tanks are basicaly upgraded samples of existing M1A1 - T-90 is not upgraded T-72 - it is """"T-72 based"""" NEWLY built tanks with COMPLETELY new armor and other built in systems
MarshallJukov 3 years ago
Just a little correction: T-80 uses a turbine engine while T-90 uses diesel. T-90 has all-new armor, suspension, electronics, driveline, engine, rounds. The only similarity is layout. Make no mistake the T-90 is a totally different tank to T-80. They are even designed and made in different towns and on different plants.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
T-90 is derivated from T-72 and the T-80 from the T-64.
Moution23 1 year ago
Both T72 and T80 were made to compliment T-64 as "lower-tech". If I could I'd translate some videos for you but it'll take too long. T-72 and T-80 were made at roughly same time.
Spetsnazovets 1 year ago
@Moution23
well yeah...always ll be a prototipe..always...but our 1st's tanks was created in our country))) while someone's(u know what I'm saying))) ) tanks was prototipe of Tigers and panthers)))
Konabis 1 year ago
@Konabis and look whose tanks have fewer casualties? panthers and tigers, or shermans? just think about that before you brag about how creative you are.
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
@TheRamthor13
well sherman prob. the suckiest tank of WWII
Konabis 1 year ago
@Konabis i forget what the nickname was, but it had something to do with burning tank crews, and i saw it on some other comment thread...
TheRamthor13 1 year ago
that's where you are wrong, the T-90 was created in 1995, by 1997 they had 107 tanks, until now, there's been known that Russia only created about 100 more, so until now present day, they might have a little over 200 T-90 tanks, NO STOCK PILE THERE MORON. when USSR broke down, they operated almost 5,000 different T-80 model tanks, we operate over 8,000 M1 and M1A1 tanks. so yes they really need to produce more tanks.
ale91613 3 years ago
before you start throwing word like MORON, why dont you go back and read my comment over once again. You basicaly said the same thing i was trying to get through about a month or so ago...........all i said that t-90 is nothing special, and nothing that abram cant handle.........
SectorSos 3 years ago
well, I apologize, I didn't read your comment, over a month ago. so were cool. my bad.
ale91613 3 years ago
no problem.
SectorSos 3 years ago
Thats correct, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Russians sold all their old equipment for huge sums of money, saving them the trouble of getting rid of their obsolete and outdated equipment. They could then start producing their new military gear.
brendonnz1964 2 years ago
The thing is, that most of those money whent into Russians oligarh's pokets reather then russian economy, So money is still not there, to start producing new military equipment. As metter effect, they just closed one of the main tank plants in Ural, because lack of funding.
SectorSos 2 years ago
Ofcourse like the T-105
imperat 3 years ago
remember afeghanstan guys, the russian had the best weapons, but...
termoso 3 years ago 3
Just for the record have you ever actually sat down to study the Afganistan war? Answer truthfully plz.
nemis010 3 years ago
The afghans were trained by the Pakistani ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) and supplied with american weapons. In afghanistan gun powder was cheaper than flour.
xjehadix 3 years ago
Remember Iraq guys, the american had the best weapons, but how much Abrams they lost...
klopmutant 3 years ago
actionman17: It has few reasons. First and main is that high amount of cash pumped into projects of military lobby, doesn't ensure any effectivity. Not to mention high corruption for this or that project. Another reason are much higher prices for military research or production in the US or west (from salaries,to materials). Research, production and other costs are much higher than in the Russia or China, you get the point. So amount of money spent, is very false indicator which means nothing.
ScourgeX 3 years ago
Totally correct.
brendonnz1964 2 years ago
One advantage Russian tanks have over many others in the world is that they can still function in the Extreme cold of Northern russia
Flatline89 3 years ago 2
Very cool indeed... still no match for the M1A2 Abrams though.
klm607 3 years ago
In actuality, tank warfare is becoming obsolete with the development of more mobile units such as Strykers. Also foot mobile infantry are becoming more advanced enough where a team of 3 can take out a tank with one hit. In the next 20 years I predict that tanks like the Russian Black Eagle are going to be mobile command centers.
APacilli 3 years ago
Very true. If you look at the US Future Weapons Systems program, (although it's just at concept stage at the moment) the heaviest vehicle they have is a 25-30 ton tank with a 75mm HV gun or something. It's only designed to support infantry assaults, because artillery and airstrikes are supposed to take out enemy heavy armour first. So yeah, the Main Battle Tank is becoming a thing of the past, unless they start fitting them with rail guns or something.
thegreatchimp 3 years ago
what tank are u talking about the abrams has a 120 smooth bore cannon the new stryker mobile gun system has a 125mm cannon self loading the same with the Self-Propelled Howitzer version but the sph has a 105mm howitzer
puremilitary101 3 years ago
Yes,that's right, but the tank I'm talking about is only at concept stage. Its part of a family of vehicles designed for the US Future Weapons Systems progeram. There's a whole family of vehicles built on the same hull; artillery, mortar, APC, repair, and there's a tank configuration. I was saying that it's only 30 tons and much lighter armoured and armed than an M1 or other modern MBT, which backs up what APacilli is saying (that heavily armoured tanks are becoming obselete as weapons)
thegreatchimp 3 years ago
USSR army and weapons were the best in the world... Russia nowadays is rising...
troyanec85 3 years ago
Americans spending 20 times more money on military than Russians, their weapons should be better, but they're not that much better, if at all. Russian military are behind only because of lack of money, and still manage to be 3rd or 2nd in the world. Whith such low budget they still one of the tuffest army, that's respectful.
actionman172 3 years ago
good point
friendlygun93 3 years ago
thats not true . An they are much better than russian .
raymondwr 3 years ago
Wow, reflex missiles. Congratulations Russia, you have caught up with the Vietnam era M551. Almost an obsolete technology nowadays.
OnThe23rd 3 years ago
U are seriously crapping. Learn more before u start crapping. It is far superior than the Shillelagh that the sheridan fires, shilleaghs are obsolete but not the reflex.
Tupolev202 3 years ago
These Russian tanks are so small and crappy looking.
How are these even classified as tanks?
3Dinvent 3 years ago
Are u an idiot?
Tupolev202 3 years ago
For a very good reason. The main difference between Western and modern Russian tanks (I'm talking T82/T90 nothing older) is Western tanks have good protection and are relatively slow, Russian ones are faster, more agile and not so heavily armoured. Also they're much lighter, smaller targets, cheaper to build and run and easier to maintain. They still may not be the equal of an Abrams or Challenger one on one, but they're still up there with the best.
thegreatchimp 3 years ago
Yea thats makes preety good sense. Then it comes to tactics how are those tanks used.
ScourgeX 3 years ago
crap, crap, crap,
diabetic233 3 years ago
The funniest thing about T-90 is that russian don't have it themselves, they built them for India :) as for being best, well the same was said about T-80, which Chechens manhandled with simple RPGs and Molotovs :)
giog999 3 years ago
The Russians have T-90's, over 1000 of them I believe, as for the losses in Chechnya, the rebels had more than just "simple RPGs and Molotovs", and the rebels developed a technique of knocking out Russian tanks, by getting behind and firing several AT weapons simultaneously.
vtkrey 3 years ago
dude... get some info before posting...
yadinx 3 years ago
i think the germans and the americans have better military things than the russians...!
roflinator22 3 years ago
us tanks are way better but you also need big gas pumps.
jarfz 3 years ago
1 LAW Missile is enough on this Tank...because it's armor is thin....
pocholo300 3 years ago
the armor on it might be in Par with western tanks but what if they added ERA to western tanks i think western tanks whould be superior
Boinkmakr 3 years ago
american weaponry are made with contract manufacturer from china and other cheap manufacturer. thats why they cant go out of their base in irak an 'bring' the democracy...
nabuchodonosor9 3 years ago
M1 Abram still the best it uses Gas Turbine Engines like Harrier Fighter Planes haha
pocholo300