LOL,...like i said bud,go talk to a russian tanker without his arms or fingers and tell him its a myth.im sure he'll listen.and your an absolute fuckin idiot.the proven track record of the Abrams definitely shows how unreliable it is LOL...man your a fuckin idiot. go ahead and go back to sleep and keep dreaming.it'll be ok ....
Does America need to go to war with Russia to settle this debate over which is better? They probably both kick some serious ass and god help us all!!!
Why does everybody think the Abrams looks better? I don't get it. It looks like a fat pancake with some butter on it. The T-90 in my opinion looks a lot cooler.
you know what,...i'll go ahead and say the t-90 is a better tank(its not) than the abrams. the abrams WOULD STILL WIN!!! the abrams crews are just better.have you people ever seen the inside of soviet bloc tanks and the abrams.the abrams is like a 1 bd. apartment compared to theirs.fatigue and prolonged discomfort do have its affect on the crew abilities.also,the auto loader is a hinderance.don't even get me started on that.russian tanks are shit
@shoobee101 you, sir, have no clue of moderm MBTs. noone can clearly say who would be the better tank until both fight each other in real combat. both have their advantages and disadvantages.
so, please, do not make such offense comments proving nothing except your opinion is entirely based on patriotism.
@angelking231 you sir are an idiot.as a cavalry scout,i served in an armored cavalry regiment.it is a soldiers job to train,learn his equipments strengths and weaknesses as well as those of his possible enemies.the soviet equipment is known for being very cramped.also,if you think the auto loaders are that good,go ask many of the russian tank crewman who are missing limbs from from it.im sure theyll agree with you.also, you do realize the auto loader has to reset to reload right. (cont.)
@angelking231 (pt.2)what that means is,the gun has to be moved off target to reload.if its a miss or not a kill,the other tank has time to return fire.as to where the tank with the autoloader must reacquire the target. seconds can be an eternity in combat not to mention life or death.
@shoobee101 No problemo the gun goes back to the last fireing position after reloading. the guner only has to make minor adjustments if the tank has moved just as the abrams would shooting on the move or at a moveing target......
@kamphwagon1 you just supported what i stated.the Abrams gun does not move of target during reload.not to mention the gun stabilizer. tanks with auto loaders have to go to a reset position and reacquire target.this is a handicap in battle.
@shoobee101 The reaquireing is automatic , once the gun is reloaded it goes back to following the gunners sight I don't see any handicap to that at all , esp on the move over rough ground where as the abrams loader is going to be the one handicaped when moveing over rough ground , he or she will have to mantain their ballance while fetching and loading ...
@kamphwagon1 that is where training comes into play.however,i would rather have a loader than a machine thats gonna cut my arm off and requires a shit load of maintenance.
@shoobee101 Being a abrams bot you ought to know about maintenence , a tank thats so un relieable the army legalized fraud for availability reports ROFL.. Haveing your arm cut off by the auto loader is a myth , unless your dumb enough to stick your arm in there while it's operateing !...
@shoobee101 kids like you learned nothing during all the wars russians had.Russians build always the better tanks, T34/85,T43,T54/55,T62/64,T72 and yes T90 is very powerful resists all kind of modern KE/HEAT,THEAT rounds,M1 never faced modern KE/HEAT 125mm tank shells, only the useless solid steel KE rounds from Iraq war thats like to spit on Klitschko it hasnt chance.M1 was even destroyed completly through RPG7 warheads with 330mmRHA M1 is shit only front is good rest is shit
@Talshet LOL,...that was funny.i hope you werent being serious.see,what i learned about the Russian war machine is that you need to deploy 3X the size force necessary because alot of your equipment breaks down on the way to the front.i'm sure you can find the photos that show all the Russian equipment on the side of the road during the invasion of Georgia.they're a joke,just like you.
@shoobee101 Ohh kid you are just 16 years old please shut up and dont spread your idiotism trough internet.We defeated Georgia in 6 days, and this bitches was trained by US military, this shows how ineffective US training is.Next time go straight to Russia and dont push other countries like Georgia to provocate russians, like pussies.No balls in pants to do this job on yourself fucking retarded pussies always afraid of Russians, you are ridicouls.
@dunavidrava Maybe the WW2 german propaganda keep influence today too.Tiger was overrated, the german propaganda was fatal for germans because the own Tank crew was brainwashed through this propaganda and thought often that the Tiger is absolutly invincible,with that imagination lot of Tiger tanks get into urban and Tank battlefields and lost their lifes.T34 was capable to destroy Tiger frontal on 400m-1,5km ranges.Panther was more relaible and had more succes than Tigers in battles
@Talshet You have no idea what youre talking about. Ive seen actual WWII vets talk about engaging Tigers, and one guy even shot one at literally POINT BLANK range with his main gun 3 shots with no penetration. The Tiger turned its turret, and blew off the Allied turret clean off with one shot. Tell me Im lying, so I can prove you wrong.
@Talshet during the Iraq war, one Abrams was hit with over 70 RPG rounds and a MILAN ATGM. The tank was disabled, but the crew sat inside completely safe & no penetrating hits were made.
No Abrams tank has ever been "completely destroyed" by an RPG 7, maybe disabled, but never destroyed.
Oh, and when the M1A2 SEP was being developed, 125mm DU-KE & HEAT fired from the Sprut mod guns on T-80 tanks (which were bought from Ukraine[T90 uses same]) were tested against it, with no penetration
@controlusplease1 I think its realy doesnt matter if tank is completly destroyed or so much damaged that the crew cant drive or react on fire, tank was so hard destroyed that 12 M1 was completly useless. And maybe you have no idea of RPG7 the warheads in Iraq war was PG7 the 50 years old warheads has only 330mm RHA.They cant penetrate turret front but side of pan and turret backside.That had happen and new warheads have more power than Javelin 850mm RHA and 1100mm RHA.
@controlusplease1 T90 was tested and shot 6 times from 500 meter with 120mm and M829A3 DU sabots without penetration.Americans always underrate russian tanks and history showed more succes for russian tanks than western tanks.the Iraq downgraded T-72 with half protection and power of usual soviet T-72 shot all M60-A3 without any problem.The ammonition of Iraqi T72 was only steel sabots absolutly useless against composite armor cant even scratch this type of armor.
@Talshet hmm, fair enough. regardless, i think if Russia & America were ever get into a war (which i highly doubt), the tank war would depend on disabling/mobility kills from ATGMs, rather than killing shots from KE rounds. when it come down to it, we have two tanks that are largely invulnerable to each others main guns, at least for the first hit/frontal armor, unless the combat is really close.
i've always dreamed of Russia and American tanks working side by side in some war, thatd be awesome
@RedStormRising250 Both Russia and USA have been buying stuff from one another, mostly indirectly. Both countries always defeat each other in terms of armor and penetrators. You would always see journals stating "A3 USA's answer to the Kontakt-5 Armor" and years later "Relikt-1 Russias answer to A3".And so on. Plus about the RPG-29, its built for double penetration, meaning any ERA armor is useless against it, as the first charge always deceives the ERA. The second charge is the real thing.
А по поводу M1A2 Abrams его можно поразить обычным РПГ-7, и это факт
лёгкая броня по бокам и брюхо.Да и защиты двигателя нету,тот радиатор который у M1A2 Abrams легко пробивает крупно калиберный пулемёт) тоже факт...... Так о каком сравнении идёт речь? Т90 и Т90с безусловно лидер!
Надо для полного сравнения поставить их в бою один на один)))
howis that true when the abrams is faster bigger gun and thickerbetter armor. you consider the t90 to be better when theonly advantage it has is its cheaper? in a 1 on 1 fight the abrams wuld win quite literally every single frikkin time 1shot kill. plus, its not even that expensive. it only costs 2 million to produce one from scratch. we have over 1000 of themand in seious war time conditions that number would grow exponentiallyWe have huge numbers of them stop being a russian propaganda child
@IKEELYOUNOW Eh wtf. The abrams is not faster than the T-90 and has smaller gun, yes T-90 has 125mm. Bigger is not an advantage. It is easier to move something that has 25 tonnes less, don't you think? And of course T-90 range earns 200 kms that are quite important, especially for a country that imports 70 per cent of her oil, ah yes that's always america.
@sultankraver not really. its cannon is not better at all. bigger does not mean better. it fires far inferior rounds, it could not possibly pierce an M1 abrams frontal armor and it has little chance of pierceing even the side armor unless in close range. when the M1a2 could use a SABOT round and pierce its FRONTAL armor from 2 MILES basically 4kilometers away. The T90 is not better in any way, the Abrams Mobility is legendary.
@Xiia0Sn00pY The problem is if the tank has more disadvantages than advantages. Tanks like the T-90 have alot of advantages by only sacrificing 1 aspect which is crew work space, which is small.
@IKEELYOUNOW Abrams is not that good, even my marine friend told me it wasnt. It was built for European theatre. He says its too heavy and it gets stuck in sand. The engine is useless since the Abrams has to follow the speed of the rest of the army while rolling, and the engines chokes with sand.It also has a stupid service range. The Abrams 120 mm round M829E3 suprisingly didnt even penetrate the T-90's ERA armor. I really looked up to the M1 :(, but I started to research...
@999cheetos999 dude. yeah it does. Your reading propaganda and outright lies. whered you get that info a from? lol retard. its the SABOT round can pierce any tank armor on the planet, INCLUDING the M1 Abrams FRONTAL 1 FOOT THICK ARMOR. there is currently no tank armor that can stop it. where are you getting your information from a forum? dude, only get it off established websites.
@IKEELYOUNOW Okay first of all I didnt specify. The Sabot round didnt PENETRATE. It slid when it hit the armor instead of direct contact. Make research on Relikt-1 Armor, it was specially made for recent sabot rounds.
HAHAH there is NO such thing as an "RPG-9". That was an RPG-29 "Vampir", A REAL tank killer. The same weapon that penetrated the Challenger 2's armor in ONE SHOT fool, as well as known to take M1A2 down(accrding to my marine uncle). And that weapon DOESNT SHOOT SABOT ROUNDS :(
@IKEELYOUNOW Yes I got info from a forum, books, real websites, real soldiers(I have friends that sometimes gets shipped to Iraq), and common sense. Comparing all the info I knew that the Abrams wasnt anything special
@999cheetos999 also the t90s armor was found to be pierced 3 out of 5 times by a RPG9, it is little better than steel. it has no chance against a SABOT round.
T 90 good movement, simple to use, easy to product huge numberof it, good anti person weapons, designed to moderate and cold climate, low cost of maintenance ABRAMS good firepower, good fire control equipment d/n, designet to moderate and desert climate, design tested on the battlefield a few times
@ProthSteriel remember the abrams is faster and has far more machine guns, it also has one of the most effective anti-personnell weapons in existence, it basically turns the gun into a giant, 120 milimeter shotgun that fires over 100 3 inch shots. try to tell me the abrams is bad in the antipersonnell role. youl find no ground.
The T-90 is a piece of junk. Freeking auto-loader's jam or break down all the time, not a whole lot of thought to crew comfort (that makes a huge difference in uptime for the crew) and inferior fire-on-the-move capability. The T-90 is(was to be) an intermediate design until something better could be produced. The 2 programs that were to replace it were both canceled in 2008-2010. Now, that being said, the T-90m is a decent piece of kit. I still would rather have a M1A2 then this POS.
@FeelFree3 You will loose the 3 "extra" tanks you get by skimping on quality fairly quickly on any modern battlefield. The M1A2 is a modern all weather tank, the T-90's FCS breaks down in humid or hot climates. Just ask the Indian Army. They are adopting their own MBT design (the Arjun) for just those reasons. That reduces your strategic area of operations to temperate and cold desert climates. Not good. Low cost does not equal a better deal.
@Sunmocker if you dont mind my asking where do you get your info? The M1A2 is definatly superior to the T-90 for purposes of a direct tank battle but while I am an infantryman I do have friends who are tankers and the abrams is not well known for its reliability in the desert where as the T-90 is a modernized T-72 and we fownd a T-72 in afghanistan that still worked autoloader and all, though if there is one thing the Afghanies are good at its keeping machines running in defiance of all logic
@wild50gunner The t90 uses the same FCS as the t80(u), the 1A42, which is a piece of junk at high temps. At high temps, the electronics break down and require a stream of chilled air to be run over them.
Now, the t90(s) has a updated and modern FCS. Not the t90( original production model). Bit of a differance there. The rest of the tank (excepting the original autoloader) is a ok piece of kit. Also: You can still aim and fire the main gun using manual sights. Cont.
@wild50gunner Part 2: The t90's basic mechanics (engine etc) are all lightweight, easy to maintain and fixable in the field and all from the t72. I never said it couldn't drive places. Most of my information comes from globalsecurity. and other declassified sources that I can find. Also, from examining remains of t-72's on the battlefield in Kuwait and Iraq. I am also a former 19k who happens to love tanks, even the bad things about them. I will have to keep digging on the autoloader.
If what I'm reading is correct, the T-90 is a slightly upgraded T-72 turret on a lengthened T-80 hull. This should address some of the problems with the T-72, a longer hull will better handle the weight of an up-armored late T-72 turret and will be able to accomidate a more powerful engine. On the downside, the T-90 will use the same auto loader and ammo storage system as the T-72, making it a death trap if either the hull or turret is penetrated. Not a vehicle I'd like to serve on...
Ammo storage is still below the turret and the gun still goes out of battery to reload. The mechanism maybe different the flaws remain.
From personal experience, I can tell you I've never seen a T-72 survive a hit anywhere between the first road wheel and the final drive, turret top to bottom of the hull. Spall sets hit the ammo carousel and thats it.
What the new Russian tank needed, and didn't get, was ammo storage out of the armor envelope. Until it gets that its a death trap.
a basic ratio. for every abrams they can kill only tank to tank about 10 t90s. that will give enough time for t90s to hit it over and over and the abrams crew will abandon. DOESNT MEAN A KILL. its not completely destroyed so they recycle it. a thousand dollar bike will beat a walmart bike. basic quality. russia doesnt care about crew and tech but only how much they have and how big the gun
@vnck25 True but only on a T 90 not equiped with Arena APS, RPG 29 is one nasty mo fo that is called ''Vampire" for a reason it'l suck the blood right out of your armord forces, just ask the IDF how well their Merverkas stood up to it along with kornets. Lets not forget the T90 shoots their improved version of the AT-11 with improved range
There was a battle between Iraqi tanks and US tanks. There were less than 1000 Abrams. It was confirmed that over 3000 Iraqi tanks were destroyed. One Abrams was hit but was not destroyed.
wow look at all of you little bitches moaning and whining over who is better russia or america i bet more than half of you idiots havent left moms basement yet, so now you type up all this bullshit which you copy and pasted from wikipedia to sound like weapon masters e.g. "fuck you russia our abrams have a 12.4 mm 4inch diameter high velocity explosive rounds that contain enough explosions to rip open a black hole" yeah obviously you guys learned that in pre school *sarcasm*
Why is it that the Russian TV hosts are always some young dude with black hair wide eyes and a black leather jacket? It seems every due in Russian must look like that.
Hey guys, I don't get why do you compare T-90 with Abrams... It's not correct, T-90 was created as a cheap, 'low-end' version of more sophisticated and effective T-80... It's just because my country doesn't have money to invest into development and production of a new T-95 (a kind of descendant of the dumped Black Eagle).
@TSAMoloTOFf T-90 is an improves version of the T-72 not T-80 which is derived from the T-64.but having a cost effective tank does have its advantages.sometimes the person with more equipment has more problems
wow! You guys who think that the T-90 could beat the M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams are uneducated! The Abrams is bigger, Stronger(faster), tougher(way thicker armor) and is alot more advance and it has had ALOT more experience than the T-90!
@MrJosephguy a simple RPG 29 already put down a challenger and an abrams.A bigger tank means it is easier to hit.Thicker means that it is heavier,Fastest means that it consumes the most gas.And more experience meaning that they have the most aggressive leaders!
ваш сраный абрамс может только бороться с устаревшими танками т-64 т72, и выдерживает попадания старых снарядов. но вот если по абрамсу стрельнуть из т80\90 пизда ему
@durin23 show proof of this the t90 is a peace of shit our abrams have better armore better fire controll better eveything and this video is nothing but propaganda the t90 is just like the t72 t80 a peace of shit
Iraq had the Russian tanks in both "wars" . The problem that they ran into was the M1A2 's were popping them open from almost a full mile further than their radar had the capability of picking the M1As up. Numbers don't really matter if your dead before you ever even see a target.
American tank shoots further and more accuratley. Russians admit expecting to take vast casualties before getting into fireing range of american tanks. and in real life, and not a video game, i would say, american tank wins.
actually, russia was getting raped very very hard untill hitler was suprised with the SIZE of the american/british invasion of the west coast of europe. Thereby he had to take a two front war, and make an entirely new 3rd front in the first week, by the second week he had 4 and then five fronts to base his forces around and the advance on russia stalemated and all depended on joint cooperation and strangulation by all sides.
The Russians probably fared more Panzers at Kursk than the Allies did in the entire war. 2/3rds of the wehrmacht were deployed against the russians including the most of the panzer SS divisions, new tanks and TDs saw service first in the eastern front (like Sturer Emil which the western allies never got to see).
Also, what do you mean with 5 fronts? There was western and eastern, as well as the fighting in italy. What were the other 2 fronts?
@ElCdt666 Yeah, I can only assume the Russians are far more capable with their tanks than the iraqis. I'm assuming the T-90 is at least on par with the M1 but until it sees any action other than crushing tiny Georgia then who knows. I think the best the iraqis had was T-72s so it was basically live target practice. Russia may be in a rebuilding process but I'll never underestimate them like Hitler and Napoleon. The size, weather and numbers of Russia DEMANDS respect.
la argentina neceita almenos 100 de esos tanques abrams a2 esta re bueno el tanque unos de los mejores esperon que abran la billetera los argentinos y los compren cuantos antes
They actually play propoganda like this in Russia still? What a bunch of wanna be's. You don't know what would hit you when Allied M1A2 and Leopard 2 tanks would be knocking on your door. Crap tastic russian engineering at its finest. They do know how to make them cheap, howerever I would rather have 4 awesome tanks than 8 mediocre.
You obviously don´t know your history. Germany also had superior tanks, but the russians just had more of them. In an all out war, Russia would have access to thousands upon thousands of tanks. The USSR built over 90k T-72s. That´s 90 THOUSAND! They sold most of them, but Russia still has the biggest armored force on the planet. As they once said:"Quantity is a form of quality too".
@ElCdt666 General winter and sheer quantity are a quality all their own and the Russians have long exploited them well but the kill ratios between T-72 and M1 in the Iraq wars is steep to put it mildly. I assume there's a difference in training and equipment quality between Iraq and Russia and one would hope the Russians can handle their own tanks better but who knows. Until Russia and the US go at it...
@Yakko77 You can´t use Iraq war as a comparison tool. The M1 was a modern tank, going against an aged one, manned by crews with no will to fight. Infact, most tanks destroyed were actually empty. Plus you have the surveillance factor. The US had satellites pinpointing every tank long before they got into visual range. The odds were stacked heavily against them.
Against Russia things would be diferent, because they have access to the same battlefield reconaissance tools as the US.
@ElCdt666 ya they still have the biggest armored force but i think we know that the t72s are nothing but junk and the t90 is nothing but a upgraded t72 t80 the t90 is just like every other russian weapons useless compared to what the u.s has
Wrong. That figure is the number of estimated T-72s still in active duty today, though a little lower, around 20.000. The T-72 was manufactured throughout the USSR under license. Many former soviet satellite states still use the T-72 as its armored mainstay. It is still manufactured under license in Croatia and Romania. Russia itself still has around 5000 T-72s, awaiting replacement with newer models.
@ElCdt666 Just to ask, where are you getting these numbers? Russia only has 17,000 tanks, while the US comes in 2nd with 7,000 (all M1A2 SEP's and M1A1's awaiting upgrades). Considering how old some tanks are, quality and quantity don't necessarily work correct?
@ModelbuildingTANKS welp the abrams system does alow it the find and get somthing else to kill it cheat code with the hole wired to everything mode lol transports air craft etc
A tank is only as good as it's crew though. The Iraqis had hundreds of T-72s and their own locally produced versions the "Lion of Babylon Tank", and they were wasted by the Americans in the gulf war, inflicting only two Casualties.
Like I said, a vehicle or a weapon is only as good as it's Operator.
The Soviets did not build anything near 90 thousand T-72s.
However they did make over 95,000 T-54/55 Series tanks, however they are quite frankly a peice of shit by today's standards. But still allow some countries with less advanced militaries have some form of armoured corps.
@ElCdt666 The great dictator sadam lined up 4,000 t-72 tanks to fight off 2,000 American abrams. One of the greatest tank battles in history. 3,986 t-72s were confirmed destroyed while a total of 4 abrams were destroyed by enemy infinitry with anti tank missles. That is what the t-72 is capable of....
@Redbatray Wrong. Saddam´s tank force was majorly composed of T-54/55s, not T-72s. Most of them were hulled down in the desert, left empty by deserting crews. With the exception of the Battle of Medina Ridge, almost all the iraq losses were due to air power, not direct tank-on-tank confrontation. And you can´t compare a T-55 to a modern (at that time) M1A1. There´s a 30yr gap between them.
@ElCdt666 stop listening to russian propaganda. you do realize a t-90 can be pierces 3 out of 5 times by RPGs right? while an M1 abrams can go 0 out 150 times. this is not military channel statistics, those are confirmed events. look it up if you dont believe me. the only conventional weapons capable of piercing an M1 abrams armor is 150 mm heavy artillery or up, and it can withstand an indirect hit from even that. t-90 would be blown to pieces. not to mention M1's faster with a bigger gun.
@ElCdt666 LOL there was engaugements aganst the t-72. Yes air power took out alot of armor. But you can not compare the 72 vs the m1 either. Known fact the m1 was built with the cold war in mind it is heavlier armored in the front for the head to head battles that could of taken place.
@ElCdt666 Although most of the Iraqi tanks were T-54/55's, there was still no major difference in battles that occurred. Also, most of the Iraqi losses were from ground operations, whether it was from the Abrams or the Bradley American air power did not have a significant impact on the whole force. One Iraqi officer went on to say, "At the start of the war I had 39 tanks, after the 40 day air war I had 30. After 20 minutes in action against the Abrams I was down to 0." That says it all.
"The great dictator sadam lined up 4,000 t-72 tanks to fight off 2,000 American abrams. One of the greatest tank battles in history. 3,986 t-72s were confirmed destroyed..."
Hmmm thats an interesting claim by you, considering the fact that the Iraqi army fielded no more then a few hundred T-72s, did you really think you were going to fool someone with that kind of claim kid?
@vtkrey I can back that claim you fucktard. Dont just say that im wrong when i have evidence. God your retarted, its not fooling people, its giving people facts, which you obviously dont know about. Maybe you should learn about what tank battles happend in irag before you come talk to me.
No it those not prove what you said, which was to remind you - "4,000 t-72 tanks..." what the video you linked me to claims is "4,500 Iraqi tanks were lined up..." not one mention of how many of those tanks were actually T-72's, now let me remind you AGAIN - Iraqi army only fielded few hundred T-72 tanks, out of those 4,500 tanks only a small fraction were actually T-72s, the rest were older generation highly outdated chinese tanks, so what now genius? gona run find another source?
@vtkrey Theres no evidence that sadam bought any T72s from russia,they were polish M knock down modles ,no era no auto loaders and fire control computers,your talking about tanks that had little more that WW2 tech,besides most of the Iraqe tanks were destroyed from the air not tank to tank fights. Had the Iraqes been equiped with Russian T72Bs these abrams french frys might have somthing to crow about,it's all dick waveing LOL
@KHfreak7526 90% of this french fry dick waveing was started by Swartskoff ,when he made the remark " that we have some realy tough T72s to contend with" he knew different, this was the begining of all the chest beating dick waveing tooting your own horn propaganda crusade,that carrys on to this day even after it's been de-bunked,the same shit as with the patroit missile & Reathon, most likley the reasons Poland backed out of the ABM deal,it's not nearly as good as claimed !
@KHfreak7526 Im a retard? You stupidass, we live in the same country and saying that the abrams is far superior to the t-72 and the t-90 and you call me retarted? FUCK YOU
@Redbatray facts? hahaha if you can bring me actual footage that iraq had 4k t 72's at that time and that 2k overrated abram shits destroyed those 3986 tanks ill fucking lick ur balls if have grown a pair by now cos srsly i doubt so , it is not a question of nationalism but a question of ACTUAL facts you know stuff that doesnt happen in your retarded 6 year old mind
@feos9 HAHA i feel bad for you, because you would be considered a fag. I HAVE PROOF! watch this video fucker "M1 v Iraqi T72" It doesnt give the exact details of the fighting. thats on a video called "Top Ten Tanks- #2: M1 Abrams" And thats the battle ok jackass? Watch those videos first before jumping to conclusions! BOTH OF THE VIDEOS ARE ON YOUTUBE.
пендосам сцука баяца........
pahen42 1 month ago
LOL,...like i said bud,go talk to a russian tanker without his arms or fingers and tell him its a myth.im sure he'll listen.and your an absolute fuckin idiot.the proven track record of the Abrams definitely shows how unreliable it is LOL...man your a fuckin idiot. go ahead and go back to sleep and keep dreaming.it'll be ok ....
shoobee101 2 months ago
COMPARE TO THE NEW T-90MS i see pictures of him has most technologie than abrams i see inside
TATARSTAN59500 5 months ago
yes but this is old t-90 HEY YANKEE COMPARE ABRAMS TO T-90MS NOW IS GOOD
TATARSTAN59500 5 months ago
Does America need to go to war with Russia to settle this debate over which is better? They probably both kick some serious ass and god help us all!!!
SuhkaSlayer 6 months ago
Why does everybody think the Abrams looks better? I don't get it. It looks like a fat pancake with some butter on it. The T-90 in my opinion looks a lot cooler.
nomad403 6 months ago 2
you know what,...i'll go ahead and say the t-90 is a better tank(its not) than the abrams. the abrams WOULD STILL WIN!!! the abrams crews are just better.have you people ever seen the inside of soviet bloc tanks and the abrams.the abrams is like a 1 bd. apartment compared to theirs.fatigue and prolonged discomfort do have its affect on the crew abilities.also,the auto loader is a hinderance.don't even get me started on that.russian tanks are shit
shoobee101 7 months ago
@shoobee101 you, sir, have no clue of moderm MBTs. noone can clearly say who would be the better tank until both fight each other in real combat. both have their advantages and disadvantages.
so, please, do not make such offense comments proving nothing except your opinion is entirely based on patriotism.
angelking231 7 months ago
@angelking231 you sir are an idiot.as a cavalry scout,i served in an armored cavalry regiment.it is a soldiers job to train,learn his equipments strengths and weaknesses as well as those of his possible enemies.the soviet equipment is known for being very cramped.also,if you think the auto loaders are that good,go ask many of the russian tank crewman who are missing limbs from from it.im sure theyll agree with you.also, you do realize the auto loader has to reset to reload right. (cont.)
shoobee101 7 months ago
@angelking231 (pt.2)what that means is,the gun has to be moved off target to reload.if its a miss or not a kill,the other tank has time to return fire.as to where the tank with the autoloader must reacquire the target. seconds can be an eternity in combat not to mention life or death.
shoobee101 7 months ago
@shoobee101 No problemo the gun goes back to the last fireing position after reloading. the guner only has to make minor adjustments if the tank has moved just as the abrams would shooting on the move or at a moveing target......
kamphwagon1 4 months ago
@kamphwagon1 you just supported what i stated.the Abrams gun does not move of target during reload.not to mention the gun stabilizer. tanks with auto loaders have to go to a reset position and reacquire target.this is a handicap in battle.
shoobee101 4 months ago
@shoobee101 The reaquireing is automatic , once the gun is reloaded it goes back to following the gunners sight I don't see any handicap to that at all , esp on the move over rough ground where as the abrams loader is going to be the one handicaped when moveing over rough ground , he or she will have to mantain their ballance while fetching and loading ...
kamphwagon1 4 months ago
@kamphwagon1 that is where training comes into play.however,i would rather have a loader than a machine thats gonna cut my arm off and requires a shit load of maintenance.
shoobee101 2 months ago
@shoobee101 Being a abrams bot you ought to know about maintenence , a tank thats so un relieable the army legalized fraud for availability reports ROFL.. Haveing your arm cut off by the auto loader is a myth , unless your dumb enough to stick your arm in there while it's operateing !...
kamphwagon1 2 months ago
@shoobee101 kids like you learned nothing during all the wars russians had.Russians build always the better tanks, T34/85,T43,T54/55,T62/64,T72 and yes T90 is very powerful resists all kind of modern KE/HEAT,THEAT rounds,M1 never faced modern KE/HEAT 125mm tank shells, only the useless solid steel KE rounds from Iraq war thats like to spit on Klitschko it hasnt chance.M1 was even destroyed completly through RPG7 warheads with 330mmRHA M1 is shit only front is good rest is shit
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet LOL,...that was funny.i hope you werent being serious.see,what i learned about the Russian war machine is that you need to deploy 3X the size force necessary because alot of your equipment breaks down on the way to the front.i'm sure you can find the photos that show all the Russian equipment on the side of the road during the invasion of Georgia.they're a joke,just like you.
shoobee101 2 months ago
@shoobee101 Ohh kid you are just 16 years old please shut up and dont spread your idiotism trough internet.We defeated Georgia in 6 days, and this bitches was trained by US military, this shows how ineffective US training is.Next time go straight to Russia and dont push other countries like Georgia to provocate russians, like pussies.No balls in pants to do this job on yourself fucking retarded pussies always afraid of Russians, you are ridicouls.
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet russian tanks during WW 2 could never stand against german tanks one on one...
dunavidrava 2 months ago
@dunavidrava Maybe the WW2 german propaganda keep influence today too.Tiger was overrated, the german propaganda was fatal for germans because the own Tank crew was brainwashed through this propaganda and thought often that the Tiger is absolutly invincible,with that imagination lot of Tiger tanks get into urban and Tank battlefields and lost their lifes.T34 was capable to destroy Tiger frontal on 400m-1,5km ranges.Panther was more relaible and had more succes than Tigers in battles
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet You have no idea what youre talking about. Ive seen actual WWII vets talk about engaging Tigers, and one guy even shot one at literally POINT BLANK range with his main gun 3 shots with no penetration. The Tiger turned its turret, and blew off the Allied turret clean off with one shot. Tell me Im lying, so I can prove you wrong.
TheMedievalMan 3 days ago
@dunavidrava The T-34/85 was the most succesful tank during WW2.
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet i dont think so.. the reason is that it was mass produced.. but one on one russian tanks have no chance
dunavidrava 2 months ago
@Talshet during the Iraq war, one Abrams was hit with over 70 RPG rounds and a MILAN ATGM. The tank was disabled, but the crew sat inside completely safe & no penetrating hits were made.
No Abrams tank has ever been "completely destroyed" by an RPG 7, maybe disabled, but never destroyed.
Oh, and when the M1A2 SEP was being developed, 125mm DU-KE & HEAT fired from the Sprut mod guns on T-80 tanks (which were bought from Ukraine[T90 uses same]) were tested against it, with no penetration
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 I think its realy doesnt matter if tank is completly destroyed or so much damaged that the crew cant drive or react on fire, tank was so hard destroyed that 12 M1 was completly useless. And maybe you have no idea of RPG7 the warheads in Iraq war was PG7 the 50 years old warheads has only 330mm RHA.They cant penetrate turret front but side of pan and turret backside.That had happen and new warheads have more power than Javelin 850mm RHA and 1100mm RHA.
Talshet 2 months ago
@controlusplease1 T90 was tested and shot 6 times from 500 meter with 120mm and M829A3 DU sabots without penetration.Americans always underrate russian tanks and history showed more succes for russian tanks than western tanks.the Iraq downgraded T-72 with half protection and power of usual soviet T-72 shot all M60-A3 without any problem.The ammonition of Iraqi T72 was only steel sabots absolutly useless against composite armor cant even scratch this type of armor.
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet hmm, fair enough. regardless, i think if Russia & America were ever get into a war (which i highly doubt), the tank war would depend on disabling/mobility kills from ATGMs, rather than killing shots from KE rounds. when it come down to it, we have two tanks that are largely invulnerable to each others main guns, at least for the first hit/frontal armor, unless the combat is really close.
i've always dreamed of Russia and American tanks working side by side in some war, thatd be awesome
controlusplease1 2 months ago
@RedStormRising250 in the first tanks battles of desert storm only 4 abrams were lost.Over 200 enemy tanks were lost
1bearcatf8f 7 months ago
@legofan1100 man dud you are right
sylvaticalexpro 7 months ago
I don't know which one is better, but I prefer the Abram
TheRitchardgaleHater 8 months ago
@RedStormRising250 Well said
vector150 10 months ago
@RedStormRising250
The ammo in the T-90 is low in the well protected turret,
South Ossetia is free from you fascist idots.
Sismiques 1 year ago
@RedStormRising250 Both Russia and USA have been buying stuff from one another, mostly indirectly. Both countries always defeat each other in terms of armor and penetrators. You would always see journals stating "A3 USA's answer to the Kontakt-5 Armor" and years later "Relikt-1 Russias answer to A3".And so on. Plus about the RPG-29, its built for double penetration, meaning any ERA armor is useless against it, as the first charge always deceives the ERA. The second charge is the real thing.
999cheetos999 1 year ago
@999cheetos999 - built for double penetration...sounds hot.
AlienZygote010 11 months ago
@AlienZygote010 :D Haha..Yes
999cheetos999 11 months ago
Samiy lucsiy tank v mire LEOPARD samiy mosniy. Nemci vseqda 1
pitbull040s 1 year ago
т90 это ещё не конец))) есть и Т90с.
А по поводу M1A2 Abrams его можно поразить обычным РПГ-7, и это факт
лёгкая броня по бокам и брюхо.Да и защиты двигателя нету,тот радиатор который у M1A2 Abrams легко пробивает крупно калиберный пулемёт) тоже факт...... Так о каком сравнении идёт речь? Т90 и Т90с безусловно лидер!
Надо для полного сравнения поставить их в бою один на один)))
Devil7350 1 year ago
LOL there are Tv shows like that in your country? <3 guns
Sufffrimiento 1 year ago
Russian T-90 vs Abrams M1 tank . or PR vs Reality (English sub).
MegaZiglo 1 year ago
abrams is a league higher then the t90 so you cant compare it, it would be unfair for the t90 xD
88ABRAMS88 1 year ago
@88ABRAMS88
Only in your dreams...
AG658 1 year ago
howis that true when the abrams is faster bigger gun and thickerbetter armor. you consider the t90 to be better when theonly advantage it has is its cheaper? in a 1 on 1 fight the abrams wuld win quite literally every single frikkin time 1shot kill. plus, its not even that expensive. it only costs 2 million to produce one from scratch. we have over 1000 of themand in seious war time conditions that number would grow exponentiallyWe have huge numbers of them stop being a russian propaganda child
IKEELYOUNOW 1 year ago
@IKEELYOUNOW Eh wtf. The abrams is not faster than the T-90 and has smaller gun, yes T-90 has 125mm. Bigger is not an advantage. It is easier to move something that has 25 tonnes less, don't you think? And of course T-90 range earns 200 kms that are quite important, especially for a country that imports 70 per cent of her oil, ah yes that's always america.
Zukhov1945 1 year ago
@IKEELYOUNOW
well the t90 has a better cannon and it has the advantage of mobility so a target that is fast and powerful
would put some challange to the M1
sultankraver 1 year ago
@sultankraver not really. its cannon is not better at all. bigger does not mean better. it fires far inferior rounds, it could not possibly pierce an M1 abrams frontal armor and it has little chance of pierceing even the side armor unless in close range. when the M1a2 could use a SABOT round and pierce its FRONTAL armor from 2 MILES basically 4kilometers away. The T90 is not better in any way, the Abrams Mobility is legendary.
IKEELYOUNOW 1 year ago
@IKEELYOUNOW
The rounds are plenty good.
Plus, how is an Abrams going to engage a T-90 4000m away, when the T-90 is firing ATGMs at the Abrams within rage?
Sismiques 1 year ago
@Sismiques
4000+ ^
Sismiques 1 year ago
@IKEELYOUNOW dude. Simple there isnt a good tank. Each tank has its disadvantage. U cant have something good with sacificing another
Xiia0Sn00pY 1 year ago
@Xiia0Sn00pY True.
Sufffrimiento 1 year ago
@Xiia0Sn00pY The problem is if the tank has more disadvantages than advantages. Tanks like the T-90 have alot of advantages by only sacrificing 1 aspect which is crew work space, which is small.
999cheetos999 1 year ago
@sultankraver well it is cheaper i guess u cud say thats an advantage
IKEELYOUNOW 1 year ago
@IKEELYOUNOW
yeah you're right cost efficent FTW! lol
sultankraver 1 year ago
@IKEELYOUNOW Abrams is not that good, even my marine friend told me it wasnt. It was built for European theatre. He says its too heavy and it gets stuck in sand. The engine is useless since the Abrams has to follow the speed of the rest of the army while rolling, and the engines chokes with sand.It also has a stupid service range. The Abrams 120 mm round M829E3 suprisingly didnt even penetrate the T-90's ERA armor. I really looked up to the M1 :(, but I started to research...
999cheetos999 1 year ago
@999cheetos999 dude. yeah it does. Your reading propaganda and outright lies. whered you get that info a from? lol retard. its the SABOT round can pierce any tank armor on the planet, INCLUDING the M1 Abrams FRONTAL 1 FOOT THICK ARMOR. there is currently no tank armor that can stop it. where are you getting your information from a forum? dude, only get it off established websites.
IKEELYOUNOW 1 year ago
@IKEELYOUNOW Okay first of all I didnt specify. The Sabot round didnt PENETRATE. It slid when it hit the armor instead of direct contact. Make research on Relikt-1 Armor, it was specially made for recent sabot rounds.
HAHAH there is NO such thing as an "RPG-9". That was an RPG-29 "Vampir", A REAL tank killer. The same weapon that penetrated the Challenger 2's armor in ONE SHOT fool, as well as known to take M1A2 down(accrding to my marine uncle). And that weapon DOESNT SHOOT SABOT ROUNDS :(
999cheetos999 1 year ago
@IKEELYOUNOW Yes I got info from a forum, books, real websites, real soldiers(I have friends that sometimes gets shipped to Iraq), and common sense. Comparing all the info I knew that the Abrams wasnt anything special
999cheetos999 1 year ago
@999cheetos999 also the t90s armor was found to be pierced 3 out of 5 times by a RPG9, it is little better than steel. it has no chance against a SABOT round.
IKEELYOUNOW 1 year ago
мдааааа...... абрамс говно.
MorZanRUS 1 year ago
T 90 good movement, simple to use, easy to product huge numberof it, good anti person weapons, designed to moderate and cold climate, low cost of maintenance ABRAMS good firepower, good fire control equipment d/n, designet to moderate and desert climate, design tested on the battlefield a few times
ProthSteriel 1 year ago
@ProthSteriel remember the abrams is faster and has far more machine guns, it also has one of the most effective anti-personnell weapons in existence, it basically turns the gun into a giant, 120 milimeter shotgun that fires over 100 3 inch shots. try to tell me the abrams is bad in the antipersonnell role. youl find no ground.
IKEELYOUNOW 1 year ago
The T-90 is a piece of junk. Freeking auto-loader's jam or break down all the time, not a whole lot of thought to crew comfort (that makes a huge difference in uptime for the crew) and inferior fire-on-the-move capability. The T-90 is(was to be) an intermediate design until something better could be produced. The 2 programs that were to replace it were both canceled in 2008-2010. Now, that being said, the T-90m is a decent piece of kit. I still would rather have a M1A2 then this POS.
Sunmocker 1 year ago
Perhaps M1A2 has better quality but T-90 is more cost effective, with the same amount of money you can buy a stronger tank forces by purchase T-90.
M1A2 about 4 million US dollars.
T-90 about just 1.3 million US dollars.
FeelFree3 1 year ago
@FeelFree3 You will loose the 3 "extra" tanks you get by skimping on quality fairly quickly on any modern battlefield. The M1A2 is a modern all weather tank, the T-90's FCS breaks down in humid or hot climates. Just ask the Indian Army. They are adopting their own MBT design (the Arjun) for just those reasons. That reduces your strategic area of operations to temperate and cold desert climates. Not good. Low cost does not equal a better deal.
Sunmocker 1 year ago
@Sunmocker T-90 is not reliable? Where you get your source from?
FeelFree3 1 year ago
@FeelFree3 The FCS is unreliable at high temps. Check out the Indian Army tests.
Sunmocker 1 year ago
@Sunmocker if you dont mind my asking where do you get your info? The M1A2 is definatly superior to the T-90 for purposes of a direct tank battle but while I am an infantryman I do have friends who are tankers and the abrams is not well known for its reliability in the desert where as the T-90 is a modernized T-72 and we fownd a T-72 in afghanistan that still worked autoloader and all, though if there is one thing the Afghanies are good at its keeping machines running in defiance of all logic
wild50gunner 1 year ago
@wild50gunner The t90 uses the same FCS as the t80(u), the 1A42, which is a piece of junk at high temps. At high temps, the electronics break down and require a stream of chilled air to be run over them.
Now, the t90(s) has a updated and modern FCS. Not the t90( original production model). Bit of a differance there. The rest of the tank (excepting the original autoloader) is a ok piece of kit. Also: You can still aim and fire the main gun using manual sights. Cont.
Sunmocker 1 year ago
@wild50gunner Part 2: The t90's basic mechanics (engine etc) are all lightweight, easy to maintain and fixable in the field and all from the t72. I never said it couldn't drive places. Most of my information comes from globalsecurity. and other declassified sources that I can find. Also, from examining remains of t-72's on the battlefield in Kuwait and Iraq. I am also a former 19k who happens to love tanks, even the bad things about them. I will have to keep digging on the autoloader.
Sunmocker 1 year ago
The M1A2 SEP Abrams has better Firepower & better Armor than the T-90M
Just the Mobility isnt better than the T-90s.
TankNutJohn89 1 year ago
If what I'm reading is correct, the T-90 is a slightly upgraded T-72 turret on a lengthened T-80 hull. This should address some of the problems with the T-72, a longer hull will better handle the weight of an up-armored late T-72 turret and will be able to accomidate a more powerful engine. On the downside, the T-90 will use the same auto loader and ammo storage system as the T-72, making it a death trap if either the hull or turret is penetrated. Not a vehicle I'd like to serve on...
Waltham1892 1 year ago
@Waltham1892
Incorrect, Autoloader and ammo storage are different,
By the way - Ammo storage is in the bottom-centre hull, A turret penetration will not result in an ammo cook-off.
vtkrey 1 year ago
Ammo storage is still below the turret and the gun still goes out of battery to reload. The mechanism maybe different the flaws remain.
From personal experience, I can tell you I've never seen a T-72 survive a hit anywhere between the first road wheel and the final drive, turret top to bottom of the hull. Spall sets hit the ammo carousel and thats it.
What the new Russian tank needed, and didn't get, was ammo storage out of the armor envelope. Until it gets that its a death trap.
Waltham1892 1 year ago
t 90 the best fast and stronger
Gate31ful 1 year ago
a basic ratio. for every abrams they can kill only tank to tank about 10 t90s. that will give enough time for t90s to hit it over and over and the abrams crew will abandon. DOESNT MEAN A KILL. its not completely destroyed so they recycle it. a thousand dollar bike will beat a walmart bike. basic quality. russia doesnt care about crew and tech but only how much they have and how big the gun
nunchuck19 1 year ago
РОССИЯ Уби САЩ
БРАТУШКИ сащ е лайно
crazyfabio1 1 year ago
YEY!!!!! ABRAMS wins against Russian junk for the 60's!!!!! YEY!!!!!!!!
forazitalian 1 year ago
@forazitalian the kid doesnt even know what he is talking about.
1st T-9-0 won
2 M1 was made in 1871 then
TheK1ll0 1 year ago
t-90 super!!!!!!!!!!!
CKAT33 1 year ago 19
so abrams wons.'Nuff said.
Deathuntneki4 1 year ago
This video was interesting, however the guy's opinion was a bit biased imo.
Broiler12345 1 year ago
T-90 has been penetrated by RPG 29 , AT-15 and the legendary Lapan-2
vnck25 1 year ago
@vnck25 True but only on a T 90 not equiped with Arena APS, RPG 29 is one nasty mo fo that is called ''Vampire" for a reason it'l suck the blood right out of your armord forces, just ask the IDF how well their Merverkas stood up to it along with kornets. Lets not forget the T90 shoots their improved version of the AT-11 with improved range
kamphwagon1 1 year ago
SAY WHAT YOU WANT, IT WILL ALWAYS BOIL DOWN TO WHO HAS THE BEST TRAINED AN M0TIVATED CREWS.
rjclo 1 year ago
Makes me wanna play Battlefield: Bad company 2
1031mackan 1 year ago
There was a battle between Iraqi tanks and US tanks. There were less than 1000 Abrams. It was confirmed that over 3000 Iraqi tanks were destroyed. One Abrams was hit but was not destroyed.
Eversman1 1 year ago
@Eversman1 ya but only 1000 tanks were t-72s the rest were chinese made t-55 and t-62 not to mention the t-72 were downgraded iraqi built models
KHfreak7526 1 year ago
wow look at all of you little bitches moaning and whining over who is better russia or america i bet more than half of you idiots havent left moms basement yet, so now you type up all this bullshit which you copy and pasted from wikipedia to sound like weapon masters e.g. "fuck you russia our abrams have a 12.4 mm 4inch diameter high velocity explosive rounds that contain enough explosions to rip open a black hole" yeah obviously you guys learned that in pre school *sarcasm*
louiscarr899 1 year ago
@louiscarr899 Thanks for telling us that *sarcasm* Honestly we really don't care about what you say. Who knows maybe you haven't left moms basement.
AC130EMPYREAL 1 year ago
who the fuck won???\
42warman 1 year ago
This is like arguing about apples and oranges or chocolate and peanut butter. They are both first class tanks.
skyvilla 1 year ago
Why is it that the Russian TV hosts are always some young dude with black hair wide eyes and a black leather jacket? It seems every due in Russian must look like that.
samolet900 1 year ago
Hey guys, I don't get why do you compare T-90 with Abrams... It's not correct, T-90 was created as a cheap, 'low-end' version of more sophisticated and effective T-80... It's just because my country doesn't have money to invest into development and production of a new T-95 (a kind of descendant of the dumped Black Eagle).
TSAMoloTOFf 1 year ago
@TSAMoloTOFf T-90 is an improves version of the T-72 not T-80 which is derived from the T-64.but having a cost effective tank does have its advantages.sometimes the person with more equipment has more problems
999cheetos999 1 year ago
wow! You guys who think that the T-90 could beat the M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams are uneducated! The Abrams is bigger, Stronger(faster), tougher(way thicker armor) and is alot more advance and it has had ALOT more experience than the T-90!
MrJosephguy 1 year ago
@MrJosephguy a simple RPG 29 already put down a challenger and an abrams.A bigger tank means it is easier to hit.Thicker means that it is heavier,Fastest means that it consumes the most gas.And more experience meaning that they have the most aggressive leaders!
999cheetos999 1 year ago
no matter wat armor or any tank or any country, they would be a way to destroy their armour
Notherncalifas 1 year ago
lol you fags abrams get fucked by 40yrs old RPG-7
pR05t0 1 year ago
Subtitles would be nice.
TehEggy 1 year ago
ваш сраный абрамс может только бороться с устаревшими танками т-64 т72, и выдерживает попадания старых снарядов. но вот если по абрамсу стрельнуть из т80\90 пизда ему
mishanya99 1 year ago
Ха! Лоховской, оказывается, ваш грёбанный Абрэмс! Т-90 рулит!!!
Deonisiy1 1 year ago
t90 kills the abrams in every aspect,thats the truth no american is willing to admit...
durin23 1 year ago
@durin23 show proof of this the t90 is a peace of shit our abrams have better armore better fire controll better eveything and this video is nothing but propaganda the t90 is just like the t72 t80 a peace of shit
1bigtarget 1 year ago
Iraq had the Russian tanks in both "wars" . The problem that they ran into was the M1A2 's were popping them open from almost a full mile further than their radar had the capability of picking the M1As up. Numbers don't really matter if your dead before you ever even see a target.
MrCW73 1 year ago
American tank shoots further and more accuratley. Russians admit expecting to take vast casualties before getting into fireing range of american tanks. and in real life, and not a video game, i would say, american tank wins.
MrAmericanAce 1 year ago
actually, russia was getting raped very very hard untill hitler was suprised with the SIZE of the american/british invasion of the west coast of europe. Thereby he had to take a two front war, and make an entirely new 3rd front in the first week, by the second week he had 4 and then five fronts to base his forces around and the advance on russia stalemated and all depended on joint cooperation and strangulation by all sides.
MrAmericanAce 1 year ago
@MrAmericanAce
The Russians probably fared more Panzers at Kursk than the Allies did in the entire war. 2/3rds of the wehrmacht were deployed against the russians including the most of the panzer SS divisions, new tanks and TDs saw service first in the eastern front (like Sturer Emil which the western allies never got to see).
Also, what do you mean with 5 fronts? There was western and eastern, as well as the fighting in italy. What were the other 2 fronts?
panzerfaust777 1 year ago
@MrAmericanAce Yeah, Russia couldn't have gotten to Berlin without Normandy.
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
I hate the humans ability to destroy rather than create :(
CookieMonzta1995 1 year ago
Abrams is a little faster and is more tough than T-90.
joaofga123 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 Yeah, I can only assume the Russians are far more capable with their tanks than the iraqis. I'm assuming the T-90 is at least on par with the M1 but until it sees any action other than crushing tiny Georgia then who knows. I think the best the iraqis had was T-72s so it was basically live target practice. Russia may be in a rebuilding process but I'll never underestimate them like Hitler and Napoleon. The size, weather and numbers of Russia DEMANDS respect.
Yakko77 1 year ago
hahaha fuk the markava...practice targets for abrams
theusapride 1 year ago
t90 vs abrams,, hmmmn
markava is better
Rimmon1000 1 year ago
@Rimmon1000
markava is to heavy and to clumsy ^^
his movements are realy bad..
but he have the best protection in my opinion..
well markava was designed for israeli terain (desert)
if you put it into a jungle or on a wet ground
his protection will be his biggest con, because of its heavyness
gazakind 1 year ago
all people arguing here about m1a2 vs t90 we just wait and we will see who is better if they will face in the future of tank warfare...
helmetBETTY 2 years ago
So let me get this strieght .
The Russian's are saying they have a better tank with the Black Eagle than any other tank in the world ????
And yet Western tank's hold ALL the world records in tank warfare !
Sound's like age old propoganda to the rest of us .
DA, DA, DA, russian tank is best in warld nothing can beat great black eagle, most mighteist tank warld !
Herbymac0811 2 years ago
lol at the geniuses arguing on Youtube
reg074 2 years ago
Ok does any body know what they are saying about the tanks? I dont speak Russian and there is no subs, sooo what that fuck is being said?
thenomadrhodes 2 years ago
fail dude. Fail. M1a2 destroys Black eagle. Period
IKEELYOUNOW 2 years ago
Maybe you dream, nobody fails here other then you.
vtkrey 2 years ago
la argentina neceita almenos 100 de esos tanques abrams a2 esta re bueno el tanque unos de los mejores esperon que abran la billetera los argentinos y los compren cuantos antes
9argentino 2 years ago
They actually play propoganda like this in Russia still? What a bunch of wanna be's. You don't know what would hit you when Allied M1A2 and Leopard 2 tanks would be knocking on your door. Crap tastic russian engineering at its finest. They do know how to make them cheap, howerever I would rather have 4 awesome tanks than 8 mediocre.
seboldc2393 2 years ago
"You don't know what would hit you when Allied M1A2 and Leopard 2 tanks would be knocking on your door."
I guess they play pretty good propaganda where you are too...
vtkrey 2 years ago
@vtkrey Hell, just tune in the History Channel any day of the week.
NVanWendy 2 years ago
Ah Yes, I have noticed the history channel here on youtube...
vtkrey 2 years ago
@seboldc2393
You obviously don´t know your history. Germany also had superior tanks, but the russians just had more of them. In an all out war, Russia would have access to thousands upon thousands of tanks. The USSR built over 90k T-72s. That´s 90 THOUSAND! They sold most of them, but Russia still has the biggest armored force on the planet. As they once said:"Quantity is a form of quality too".
ElCdt666 2 years ago 16
@ElCdt666 General winter and sheer quantity are a quality all their own and the Russians have long exploited them well but the kill ratios between T-72 and M1 in the Iraq wars is steep to put it mildly. I assume there's a difference in training and equipment quality between Iraq and Russia and one would hope the Russians can handle their own tanks better but who knows. Until Russia and the US go at it...
Yakko77 1 year ago
@Yakko77 You can´t use Iraq war as a comparison tool. The M1 was a modern tank, going against an aged one, manned by crews with no will to fight. Infact, most tanks destroyed were actually empty. Plus you have the surveillance factor. The US had satellites pinpointing every tank long before they got into visual range. The odds were stacked heavily against them.
Against Russia things would be diferent, because they have access to the same battlefield reconaissance tools as the US.
ElCdt666 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 good post - exactly my thoughts.
Nackenzwei 1 year ago
@ElCdt666
nice to hear something of a person, who have his information not of videogames or wikipedia...
^^
gazakind 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 yea quantity the Germans had nowhere near any numbers of the Russians both in forces and causality count .
IID3IVI0NII 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 ya they still have the biggest armored force but i think we know that the t72s are nothing but junk and the t90 is nothing but a upgraded t72 t80 the t90 is just like every other russian weapons useless compared to what the u.s has
1bigtarget 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 90K? Where did you get your numbers? The Russians only built over 26,000?
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
@ModelbuildingTANKS
Wrong. That figure is the number of estimated T-72s still in active duty today, though a little lower, around 20.000. The T-72 was manufactured throughout the USSR under license. Many former soviet satellite states still use the T-72 as its armored mainstay. It is still manufactured under license in Croatia and Romania. Russia itself still has around 5000 T-72s, awaiting replacement with newer models.
ElCdt666 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 Just to ask, where are you getting these numbers? Russia only has 17,000 tanks, while the US comes in 2nd with 7,000 (all M1A2 SEP's and M1A1's awaiting upgrades). Considering how old some tanks are, quality and quantity don't necessarily work correct?
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
@ModelbuildingTANKS you talking about the tanks that r combat ready and active or r u including training takes damaged tanks
tonydeadlock 1 year ago
@tonydeadlock Combat ready, not damaged or reserved.
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
@ModelbuildingTANKS o wow only dat much but the russian tanks r quality mostly $_$
tonydeadlock 1 year ago
@tonydeadlock Nah, most are reserve or old, but a good third are modern. :) just the airforce would kill....... That gives the Abrams an advantage.
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
@ModelbuildingTANKS welp the abrams system does alow it the find and get somthing else to kill it cheat code with the hole wired to everything mode lol transports air craft etc
tonydeadlock 1 year ago
@tonydeadlock Mind explaining a bit more? Don't entirely understand what you're getting at.
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
@ModelbuildingTANKS
Only 1200 M1A2s? rest is older variants?
vtkrey 1 year ago
@vtkrey Kind of. The M1A1 are upgraded to an M1a1SA, basically a SEP variant. Most have been upgraded to modern status, number is unkown though.
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 That Quantity quote is from Lenin.
A tank is only as good as it's crew though. The Iraqis had hundreds of T-72s and their own locally produced versions the "Lion of Babylon Tank", and they were wasted by the Americans in the gulf war, inflicting only two Casualties.
Like I said, a vehicle or a weapon is only as good as it's Operator.
Kastrenzo74 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 Also your information is false.
The Soviets did not build anything near 90 thousand T-72s.
However they did make over 95,000 T-54/55 Series tanks, however they are quite frankly a peice of shit by today's standards. But still allow some countries with less advanced militaries have some form of armoured corps.
Kastrenzo74 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 The great dictator sadam lined up 4,000 t-72 tanks to fight off 2,000 American abrams. One of the greatest tank battles in history. 3,986 t-72s were confirmed destroyed while a total of 4 abrams were destroyed by enemy infinitry with anti tank missles. That is what the t-72 is capable of....
Redbatray 1 year ago
@Redbatray Wrong. Saddam´s tank force was majorly composed of T-54/55s, not T-72s. Most of them were hulled down in the desert, left empty by deserting crews. With the exception of the Battle of Medina Ridge, almost all the iraq losses were due to air power, not direct tank-on-tank confrontation. And you can´t compare a T-55 to a modern (at that time) M1A1. There´s a 30yr gap between them.
ElCdt666 1 year ago 28
Comment removed
MrSandynigger 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 stop listening to russian propaganda. you do realize a t-90 can be pierces 3 out of 5 times by RPGs right? while an M1 abrams can go 0 out 150 times. this is not military channel statistics, those are confirmed events. look it up if you dont believe me. the only conventional weapons capable of piercing an M1 abrams armor is 150 mm heavy artillery or up, and it can withstand an indirect hit from even that. t-90 would be blown to pieces. not to mention M1's faster with a bigger gun.
IKEELYOUNOW 1 year ago
@ElCdt666 LOL there was engaugements aganst the t-72. Yes air power took out alot of armor. But you can not compare the 72 vs the m1 either. Known fact the m1 was built with the cold war in mind it is heavlier armored in the front for the head to head battles that could of taken place.
vector150 10 months ago
@ElCdt666 Although most of the Iraqi tanks were T-54/55's, there was still no major difference in battles that occurred. Also, most of the Iraqi losses were from ground operations, whether it was from the Abrams or the Bradley American air power did not have a significant impact on the whole force. One Iraqi officer went on to say, "At the start of the war I had 39 tanks, after the 40 day air war I had 30. After 20 minutes in action against the Abrams I was down to 0." That says it all.
franknbeans4761 7 months ago
@Redbatray
"The great dictator sadam lined up 4,000 t-72 tanks to fight off 2,000 American abrams. One of the greatest tank battles in history. 3,986 t-72s were confirmed destroyed..."
Hmmm thats an interesting claim by you, considering the fact that the Iraqi army fielded no more then a few hundred T-72s, did you really think you were going to fool someone with that kind of claim kid?
vtkrey 1 year ago
@vtkrey I can back that claim you fucktard. Dont just say that im wrong when i have evidence. God your retarted, its not fooling people, its giving people facts, which you obviously dont know about. Maybe you should learn about what tank battles happend in irag before you come talk to me.
Redbatray 1 year ago
@Redbatray
Ok, I am sorry, go ahead, source your claims, back your claims, work your magic, ill wait patiently.
vtkrey 1 year ago
@vtkrey watch this video "Military Channel: Top 10 Tanks (M1 Abrams) NO.2" It proves what i said. And it will now make you shut the fuck up.
Redbatray 1 year ago
@Redbatray
No it those not prove what you said, which was to remind you - "4,000 t-72 tanks..." what the video you linked me to claims is "4,500 Iraqi tanks were lined up..." not one mention of how many of those tanks were actually T-72's, now let me remind you AGAIN - Iraqi army only fielded few hundred T-72 tanks, out of those 4,500 tanks only a small fraction were actually T-72s, the rest were older generation highly outdated chinese tanks, so what now genius? gona run find another source?
vtkrey 1 year ago
@vtkrey Theres no evidence that sadam bought any T72s from russia,they were polish M knock down modles ,no era no auto loaders and fire control computers,your talking about tanks that had little more that WW2 tech,besides most of the Iraqe tanks were destroyed from the air not tank to tank fights. Had the Iraqes been equiped with Russian T72Bs these abrams french frys might have somthing to crow about,it's all dick waveing LOL
kamphwagon1 1 year ago 2
@kamphwagon1
I know that.
vtkrey 1 year ago
@kamphwagon1 finally someone who knows fact
KHfreak7526 1 year ago
@KHfreak7526 90% of this french fry dick waveing was started by Swartskoff ,when he made the remark " that we have some realy tough T72s to contend with" he knew different, this was the begining of all the chest beating dick waveing tooting your own horn propaganda crusade,that carrys on to this day even after it's been de-bunked,the same shit as with the patroit missile & Reathon, most likley the reasons Poland backed out of the ABM deal,it's not nearly as good as claimed !
kamphwagon1 1 year ago
@vtkrey ah dont talk to this damned kid he never can prove nothing
TheK1ll0 1 year ago
@vtkrey iraq had 1100 t-72 the rest of its tank force were t-55 and t-62 plus the t-72s they did have were downgraded :)
KHfreak7526 1 year ago
@Redbatray No offense u forget its american show
TheKillerblake 1 year ago
@Redbatray u are a retard
KHfreak7526 1 year ago
@KHfreak7526 Im a retard? You stupidass, we live in the same country and saying that the abrams is far superior to the t-72 and the t-90 and you call me retarted? FUCK YOU
Redbatray 1 year ago
@Redbatray facts? hahaha if you can bring me actual footage that iraq had 4k t 72's at that time and that 2k overrated abram shits destroyed those 3986 tanks ill fucking lick ur balls if have grown a pair by now cos srsly i doubt so , it is not a question of nationalism but a question of ACTUAL facts you know stuff that doesnt happen in your retarded 6 year old mind
feos9 1 year ago
@feos9 HAHA i feel bad for you, because you would be considered a fag. I HAVE PROOF! watch this video fucker "M1 v Iraqi T72" It doesnt give the exact details of the fighting. thats on a video called "Top Ten Tanks- #2: M1 Abrams" And thats the battle ok jackass? Watch those videos first before jumping to conclusions! BOTH OF THE VIDEOS ARE ON YOUTUBE.
Redbatray 1 year ago