T-90 vs. Abrams

August 25 2010 36

General information

Tanks T-90 and M1A1 Abrams are typical representatives of Soviet and Western tank building schools, which contain various design and technological ideas. The T-90, a deep modernization of the reliable and well-established T-72, was created after the collapse of the USSR and incorporated all the best that was laid down in Soviet tanks. As the main gun on the tank, a modernized version of the 125 mm smoothbore gun 2A46M4 was installed. Reservation of the tank increased almost 3 times in comparison with the first modifications of the T-72 and includes both powerful passive armor, with special reservation of the "semi-active" type, and built-in "active" dynamic protection, which made it possible to ensure a high level of reservation, without going beyond weight restrictions due to indicators of strategic mobility.

An economical and reliable diesel engine B92C2 is installed in the tank as a power plant. With the transition to the production of a new type of welded tower, the possibilities for enhancing reservations have increased even more. For the layout of the T-90 is characterized by high density, characteristic of the Russian school of tank design. This has both advantages and disadvantages. Dense layout allows you to create a highly protected machine with a low silhouette and a small area of longitudinal and cross-section with a relatively low mass. Accordingly, a smaller internal volume (for the T-90 11,8 m3 and 13 for the T-90C) requires a smaller booking weight. The disadvantage of a dense layout is the constraint of the crew members, it is difficult to replace the crew members with each other if necessary.

Tank МХNUMX "Abrams" was created first of all not as a breakthrough tank, but as an anti-tank vehicle whose task was to stop, or at least hold back waves of Soviet tanks rushing to the English Channel. Creation of the tank was carried out in close cooperation with German tank builders, but with American characteristics. As the main gun on the tank, starting with the modification М1А1 installed 1 mm gun M-120, which is a slightly modified version of the German gun Rh-256. Reservations of the first modifications of the tank include the multi-layer composite armor "Chobham" created in the UK. In later versions, armor was applied using uranokramika of the first and second generations.

M-1-Abrams vs. T-90

The layout of the МХNUMX tank “Abrams” is typical for the western approach to tank building, as a result of which the reserved volume of the tank was 1 М19.7, which is almost 3 times the figure for T-2.
The gas turbine engine AGT-1500 installed in one is installed as a power plant of the tank.
block with automatic hydromechanical transmission.

The disadvantage of M1 is the limited ability of the commander to independently search for a target, the slight increase and the lack of stabilization of the field of view of the M919 sight do not allow to confidently detect and identify targets when the tank is moving.

This deficiency was eliminated only on the M1A2 modification. On the M1X2, the commander's panoramic thermal imaging device is installed, the T-90 tanks, like their predecessors, also possess such a panoramic device for searching for targets and pointing the weapon, however, without a thermal imaging channel.

Firepower and ammunition

M1A1 / M1A2

The main armament of the M1А1 / М1А2 is the МХNUMX 120-mm smoothbore gun. Starting speed when using the M256A829 2 shot m / s.

The rate of fire is up to 8 shots per minute.

To date, the main anti-tank armament МХNUMXА1 "Abrams" are armor-piercing sabot shells М1А829 and М1А829. Also began the production and delivery to the troops of the new projectile M2А829, which represents a serious danger to the T-3 tank. Developments are underway to create a guided projectile TERM, however, they are still far from completion.

М829А3

T-90

The main armament of the T-90 is the 125-mm upgraded smoothbore gun-launcher. 2A46M-2 (4)

Initial speed when using a shot 3BM-44М 1750 m / s.

Rate of Fire - 6-8 shots per minute

The main anti-tank equipment is T-90. М3А42 is provided only in the weakened zones, which are up to 3% frontal projection. Modeling the oncoming battle tank companies (tanks T-42 9 119 M9A119 against tanks) showed that starting firing range TOUR with 1 m, T-1 1 to manage the range - 5000 m hit to 1 - 2% of enemy tanks. Naturally, this is only possible if the terrain allows it.

In addition, the development of perceptual complexes that implement the principle of "shot and forget" and the defeat of the tank is not in a powerful frontal armor, but in thin sections of the roof of the tower and hull.

In terms of the development and introduction of new armor-piercing sub-caliber shells into the troops, there has been a lag in the last decade. The answer to the emergence of new threats was not given, so the defeat of the tank M1X2 at all distances from the first hit is not guaranteed. The industry is delaying the delivery to the troops of already developed ammunition, and the financing of work on new samples is disrupted.

Reservation

M1A1NA

Equivalent resistance to kinetic ammunition: 530-550 mm.

Equivalent resistance against cumulative ammunition: 750-800 mm.

M1A2 (1994)

Equivalent resistance against kinetic ammunition: 770 mm.

Equivalent resistance against cumulative ammunition: 1000-1200 mm.

The tower of the М1А1 tank consists of outer and inner steel armor plates connected by transverse stiffening ribs, between which special armoring packages of metallic and non-metallic materials are laid.

Due to the high density (density of uranium 19.03 g / cm3), these plates with extremely small thickness provide the “explosive” nature of the destruction of the elements of a cumulative jet.

T-90

Equivalent resistance against kinetic ammunition: mm 800-830 with Contact-5 protection

Equivalent resistance against cumulative ammunition: 1,150-1,350 mm with Contact-5 protection

Equivalent durability against cumulative ammunition is indicated for first generation monoblock combat units.

Reservations turret T-90 refers to the "semi-active" type. In front of the tower there are two cavities located at an angle of 55 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the gun, in which special-reservation packages of the “semi-active” type are placed. The structure of armor with reflective sheets is a barrier consisting of 3-x layers: plates, gaskets and a thin plate. The effect of using “reflective” sheets can reach 40% in comparison with monolithic armor of the same mass. In addition, the tank also used the built-in dynamic protection system Kontakt-5. This type of remote sensing works against both cumulative means (CS) and against armor-piercing projectiles (BPS). The complex provides a powerful side impulse that allows to destabilize or destroy the BPS core before it starts interacting with the main reservation.

For the first time, the T-90 T-1-7 complex of optical-electronic countermeasures of the TSHU-1-1 was installed on a serial basis "Blind-XNUMX" is designed to protect the tank from damage controlled weapons with command semi-automatic guidance systems such as Tow, Hot, Milan, Dragon, laser homing heads such as Maverick, Hellfire, Copper-head, as well as artillery systems with laser rangefinders.

Vulnerable areas

М1 "Abrams"

An unacceptably large gap between body and tower armor. The gap is so large that you can get under the tower of “Abrams” and at a great distance, for this you can aim at the upper front sheet located at a very large angle - if there is a rebound, then certainly under the tower. In this case, neither high booking of frontal hull details nor thick armor of the tower will help. A weak reservation of the sides in the vicinity of the engine-transmission and combat compartment makes the tank vulnerable to small-caliber artillery fire, for example, the distance of a confident defeat when using the Kerner projectile at an angle from 38 to 90 will be up to 2000 meters (500 m for BT projectile).

T-90

Vulnerable zones in the t-90 booking are areas on both sides of the gun that are not covered by the built-in dynamic protection and do not have special booking (in the place where the machine gun is paired with the gun). The weakened zone is also available on the upper front part of the body in the area of the driver's viewing device. This is a design feature of all domestic tanks, starting with the T-64.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Alexander

+1

27 November 2010 11: 09

On the basis of the T-90S, it was proposed to develop a ground-air weapon system, and after that any comparison would lose its meaning since it will be a car of a completely new type.
SOLDIERru

0

7 January 2011 12: 54

For me personally, an interesting article. I was especially intrigued by the moment about the rebound into the turret area. But this problem is quite easily fixed. Why the Americans did not accept any, it surprises me.
But I do not believe the magician that the T-90 guided missile launches Abrams when it hits the frontal projection.
A comparative battle between these tanks, judging by the results, provides that the T-90 was on the defensive. Otherwise, how T-90 crews could use a complex of guided weapons. And if, our heroes, in an open field, in a head-on collision, standing still, began to fight. At the same time, in less than 2 minutes, they managed to disable 60% of the moving, opposing enemy tanks (to hit, they might hit some amount, but to disable 60%). As they say, I do not believe.
But in general, the article is interesting.
Lord. Will not be in the near, and far future, nor any super tank. And how to push a ground-to-air weapon system with all the ammunition into the tank’s hull, especially the T-90 with its tight layout. A poor chassis and engine. The anti-aircraft machine gun is now included in the armament complex. And with a guided missile, with luck, you can destroy a target like a helicopter.
SOLDIERru

-1

11 January 2011 23: 28

Today I learned (January 12.01.11, 90) that the TXNUMX will not be produced. And at UVZ only tank repair production remains. So much for scolding and our tanks are fast. We will defeat ourselves, and an external enemy is not needed.
Escander

+4

2 February 2011 18: 38

Recently, a Pendos movie "The Top Ten of the Best Tanks in the World" was played in a zomboyaschik. Ours, as it should be, is in Zadnitsa, and “Abram” is the most!
The tankman (from theirs) said so:
“If I (God forbid) were an enemy of Pendostan and saw this tank, I would simply drop my weapon and run away!”
So keep in mind guys! See where "Abram" is - run up or give up! Better immediately and a lot ... IMHO storytellers!
SOLDIERru

-1

4 February 2011 18: 20

But Abrams is really a very good tank. Personally, I think the M1A2 is a more powerful machine than the T90. Is that a gas turbine installation sensitive to dusty air spoils the impression somewhat. But this is the Achilles pita of all machines with such a power plant. In particular, our T-80UD has similar problems.
Although it must be admitted, the Americans do not believe in Abrams; they BELIEVE in him.
Alex

+3

14 February 2011 11: 11

as you wish, the Abrams is no better than the T-90. as a target abrams gunner's dream.
Dmitriy

0

19 February 2011 12: 39

The Americans are so ancient that the main gun in the tank is manually charged

SOLDIERru
"But the Abrams is really a very good tank."
not better than our t-90!
SOLDIERru

0

20 February 2011 16: 08

The large dimensions of the Abrams, of course, are largely due to the features of the power plant. But it's not only that. The Western and American tank building schools are characterized by the desire for low crew fatigue. Which of course has a beneficial effect on combat effectiveness. And do not forget. The high profile of the Abrams is largely offset by more powerful armor.
As for loading a tank gun manually. We can say the following. Feature of the carousel type automatic loader. Installed on all Soviet (post-Soviet) tanks, honored with the T-64. It leads practically to zero survivability, of our tanks and crews, in cases of breaking through the armor. On the American A1M2, the defeat of ammunition does not lead to such dire consequences.
1. Ofellon
  
  -2
  
  April 27 2013 08: 52
  
  Abrash is only 15 cm above the T-90 ... at a distance of even 2 km this is nothing ...
Escander

+1

23 February 2011 21: 33

SOLDIERru
- The large dimensions of the Abrams are caused not by the features of the power plant, but by the traditions of Western tank building, which focus on mastodons and constantly go beyond the previously stated framework (the exception is the French, but they cannot bring their brainchild to mind with an automatic loader).
- “Western and American schools of tank building are characterized by the desire for low crew fatigue. Which of course has a beneficial effect on combat effectiveness. ” In the sense of fighting and not getting tired? Wow, multi-remotes! The winner is the one who is more hardy and less whimsical! And this is a Russian soldier and a T-90. Let’s see what their combat readiness will be after real buzz (when the air conditioners fail and the chisburger does not deliver on time) ...
- Although the high profile of Abrams, and compensated by more powerful armor, it does not have dynamic protection.
“On American A1M2, the defeat of ammunition does not lead to such dire consequences.” Only if the crew does not forget to close the armored curtain ... And so that in case of breaking through the armor there is zero survivability of our crews - this still needs to be got!
1. Ofellon
  
  0
  
  April 27 2013 08: 55
  
  - "In the sense of fighting and not getting tired? Wow, multi-console! The winner is the one who is more enduring and less whimsical! And this is the Russian soldier and the T-90. Let's see what their combat capability will be, after real buzzing (when the air conditioners fail and the chisburger won't be delivered on time ") is a typical vyser ololoa ..
  - "Although the high profile of the" Abrams "is compensated by more powerful armor, it does not have dynamic protection" - ARAT ... google to help you ...
  - "On the American A1M2, the defeat of the ammunition does not lead to such dire consequences." - according to statistics, the main losses of tanks in the Iraqi war from the explosion of landmines ... even at their bases the armored doors are open ... there is a case when a tank caught fire and tore the ammunition pack ... but the curtains were open ...
Alex

+2

16 March 2011 15: 42

guys, what is the bazaar about? The well-known cases of clashes between Russian and state weapons over the past 40 years clearly show that ours is better. no one argues that the Abrams is a good tank; only while he fought only with wild people and with those who did not really resist, he avoids really comparable opponents. machine "in Iraq, only the betrayal of the commanders of the Iraqi army ensured the victory for the states, and modern state tanks were opposed by Russian models of 34 years ago ...
well, the fact that they cannot fight without toilet paper is a separate song.
1. ecdy
  
  0
  
  14 May 2012 19: 44
  
  And that Iraq is not protected? There T 72 burned very well.
  What about Chechnya? These vaunted super tanks destroyed by the same
  savages. And T 90 is nothing but a deeply modernized T 72.
  What kind of Vietnam are you talking about? At that time, there was no mention of Abrams,
  there is such a pistonous terrain that no tank will pass. Probably
  a lot of fabulous shows like Shock Force
  where only technology is shown, which supposedly has no analogues in the world
  and in the near future will not be created anywhere. All this Russian equipment
  simple as a Kalashnikov assault rifle and that is where its superiority ends.
  1. lewerlin53rus
    
    +2
    
    14 May 2012 19: 56
    
    Well, yes, like Kalash. It’s the same simple, reliable, efficient, unparalleled that they are trying to copy unsuccessfully. Iraq is not an indicator. Shooting abandoned tanks a lot of intelligence and heroism is not necessary.
    1. ecdy
      
      0
      
      14 May 2012 22: 24
      
      Already have more advanced weapons and no need to tell old
      good tales about the white bull
  2. Vadim555
    
    0
    
    14 May 2012 20: 13
    
    Quote: ecdy
    ecdy Today, 19:44 new 0 And what Iraq is not protected? There T 72 burned very well.
    
    There T-72 were the first issues and with outdated shells.
    About the Abrams
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Sht-9mudc
    1. igor67
      
      +2
      
      14 May 2012 21: 30
      
      The heavy British Churchill tank and the T-34-85 were trophies of the American troops during the campaign in Iraq in 2003.
      1. Князь
        
        +1
        
        13 October 2014 16: 14
        
        I wonder how many T-34 Abroms knocked out?
    2. ecdy
      
      0
      
      14 May 2012 22: 23
      
      You can also do a lot of things about T ...... 72 ... find
      And probably the weather conditions were not the same ...
      In a word, something always hinders a bad dancer
    3. ecdy
      
      0
      
      15 May 2012 19: 57
      
      About T 72 .....
SOLDIERru

0

20 March 2011 18: 56

Alex,
The Viet Cong was a semi-partisan formation. And because of this, he didn’t have tanks. But the DRV (Democratic Republic of Vietnam) had a VNA (Vietnam People's Army) which already had armored vehicles in service. Initially, these were the T-34-85 and self-propelled guns SU-76M. Later, other armored vehicles were also delivered. In particular, in 1964 the T-54s were delivered. At the same time, given what losses the VNA suffered in armored vehicles, there is nothing to be proud of.
And yet, the first M1 (Abrams) was made in 1980. And the Leopard-2A was put into service in 1979. Iraq was armed with not only the T-55, but also the T-72A (T-72A is a modernization of the T- 72 Ural, 1973) whose development was completed in 1979.
Escander

+1

22 March 2011 19: 48

SOLDIERru
Very helpful information. That's just the T-72A, unlike M1 (Abrams), from the Berdank of 1812 can not be knocked out. You need to be a “technical genius” to position the APU along with the fuel lines from the outside of the tower exactly above the dvigl! So that it burns more efficiently in case of damage to the APU from a slingshot and a fuel spill. Excellent survivability.
And yet, SOLDIERru forgot, or is it a revelation for him that the Iraqi T-72A does not need to be aligned with the Soviet? That we supplied deliberately weakened weapons to third countries, and the Iraqi T-72s, for example, had cast towers, without multi-layer armor, etc.
SOLDIERru

0

25 March 2011 20: 56

Escander,
I won’t lie that Abrams has some technical peculiarity as a result of which I could not knock it out of a berdank I did not know. It is quite possible that simplified modifications of the T-72A were delivered to Iraq without reinforcing the frontal projection by non-metallic inserts. But combined booking fundamentally increases resistance only to the cumulative damage factor. But NATO seventies mostly pecked by sub-caliber. The British sub-caliber were diluted with their proprietary BFS. So that the original T-72A would not have been much easier.
Gentlemen, get me right. I do not think our tank school is bad. The same T-90 is a fully combat-ready machine, with its own advantages and disadvantages. But Western tank building is not worth keeping for degenerates.
We already sang "armor is strong and our tanks are fast." But the stalemate cried that the armor on the tanks was thin, low-powered guns.
1. ecdy
  
  0
  
  14 May 2012 19: 49
  
  Totally agree with you. So you listen, read, it seems that Western designers are just fools. So much money
  they’re not able to create anything worthwhile, but here it’s cheap and cheerful,
  they made candy out of shit and immediately there are no analogues in the world!
Escander

+3

26 March 2011 11: 08

About "thin armor and low-powered guns" sang our "commanders" like today's Postnikov, in order to justify their inept actions. For which they were shot. In addition to the quantity and quality of tanks, they must also be able to fight!
And in June 41, our new tanks were superior to the German in all performance characteristics. I do not remember the case that 1 German tank was able to destroy 20 of ours in one battle. What did the German generals send tear reports with complaints that when sending them to the Eastern Front they were not warned about Russian super tanks ...
1. samil191279
  
  -1
  
  12 June 2011 15: 44
  
  sweeten you military fotto of German tank aces with tigers in which the barrel is fully decorated with rings throughout the entire length and the worst thing is that at the base of the barrel one ring corresponds to one wrecked tank of such rings no more than ten, and then the ring corresponds to 10 Soviet tanks and so on the entire length of the barrel .... that’s the price of victory .... but the TIGERS appeared later in T34 ... and no more than 1500 were made in total. and the T34 is more than 10000 pcs for sure .... And there is no need to talk about Russian super tanks ... the T34-85 modifications that are shown in the movies ... they appeared like the KV (late modification) as early as 1944 when the Germans could be kicked and kicked ... HF (early) also did not pose a particular threat to the TIGER .... but with the blockade of Leningrad there were also very few of them ...
  1. Winchester
    
    0
    
    24 June 2011 20: 42
    
    We are talking about 41. PC 3 and PC 4 can not be compared with the T-34 and KV. What guns were on PC 3 and 4? 37mm? And on the T-34 and KV? Not 76 mm? I generally keep quiet about armor - the standard PC 3 had bulletproof booking. Or compare German gasoline engines with Soviet diesel engines? And most importantly - in 41, the Nazis had less than 4000 tanks against 24000 Soviet (of which T-34 and KV were 3000).
    1. Midshipman
      
      +2
      
      14 May 2012 20: 57
      
      So I read this information and I immediately have a dissonance, 4 thousand against 24 thousand and with such a loss did the Germans start a war? The same thing is said about planes. What were they all there? It is strange somehow, with such a ratio, even the most ingenious strategist would never start a war, and the Germans even planned a blitzkrieg.
      1. Kars
        
        +1
        
        14 May 2012 21: 02
        
        Quote: Midshipman
        4tys vs 24ty
        
        For starters, 5000 vs 10 000. Of which 30% minimum requiring factory repair.
        Quote: Midshipman
        with this ratio, even the most brilliant strategist would never have started a war, and the Germans even planned a blitzkrieg.
        
        Do you think Hitler knew this?
        
        Pessimist
        
        +2
        
        14 May 2012 21: 24
        
        Quote: Kars
        For starters, 5000 vs 10 000. Of which 30% minimum requiring factory repair.
        
        These are all not TE, normal numbers ... If we take into account the fact that the Germans had all the tanks ready and equipped for the start of hostilities, then in our army they were in peacetime, with a shortage of crews, repair parts, fuel and lubricants, and parts were in state of reorganization, etc., so that the real ratio was far from in favor of the Red Army ...
      2. Foxmara
        
        0
        
        7 June 2019 06: 26
        
        And you take an interest in the features of the blitzkrieg. When you create a powerful group on one site, the defense is forced through, the troops are taken in ticks - the boiler - hello. The enemy does not have time to apply everything that he planned.
    2. Pessimist
      
      0
      
      14 May 2012 21: 19
      
      Read less boulevard, friend! I recommend M. Svirin "The history of the creation of a Soviet tank", a real historical work with an analysis of the situation! Everything will become much clearer ...
2. ecdy
  
  0
  
  14 May 2012 19: 57
  
  Supertanks ?! Yes, it was scrap! Just the Wehrmacht tanks were expensive
  in manufacture, but at the same time they were of high quality. To this the Germans did
  bid. Throughout the war, 1500 Tigers 1 were released, while the T 34
  1000 knock every month from the assembly line went. From here and draw conclusions.
  1. Midshipman
    
    +3
    
    14 May 2012 21: 14
    
    You confuse the warm with the soft - the tiger with the panther and ferdinand was just created as a means of combating Russian tank hordes (the main task of which was to support troops, and not fight against enemy tanks), respectively, they have the necessary properties - guns, optics, reservations As a rule, they surpassed the mass Soviet tanks because their achievements are as follows. Yes, the classmate of the T-34 panther (the Tiger is generally a different class, then it was necessary to compare it with the IS) surpassed it in terms of its shot and optics (as it was intended), but it was poorly suited as a breakthrough tank due to the weak chassis and the fragility of the armor, which gives rise to large the number of fragments in the reserved part (information from the memoirs of our tankers who fought on captured trophies). And no matter what individual superiority the tiger had, it was the T-34 that made the war (as intended).
    1. ecdy
      
      0
      
      14 May 2012 22: 30
      
      5 Knock T 34 on one Tiger
  2. Pessimist
    
    0
    
    14 May 2012 21: 28
    
    Quote: ecdy
    Throughout the war, 1500 Tigers 1 were released, while the T 34
    1000 knock every month from the assembly line went. From here and draw conclusions.
    
    This is supertank, which can be made 1000 pieces per month !!! And it’s not the expensive German anti-tanks, with which they nevertheless purged the war, because they couldn’t do anything worthy under the cheap !!!
    1. ecdy
      
      0
      
      14 May 2012 22: 34
      
      You are absolutely right, the Germans made the wrong bet, namely on
      quality. As a result, tank designs were complex, expensive.
      Carrying out repairs was also not easy, it broke Hitler’s ridge.
      But this does not mean that their cars are bad, on the contrary
samil191279

-1

12 June 2011 15: 21

I’m a builder myself, and from everything I’ve seen and read on this topic I realized one thing, that the T90 is definitely better ... and the abrams is just a codilac for show-offs ... it’s fun to drink beer and watch MUZTV on LCD displays and shoot between the natives Kalash .... and even crush bone bones I myself saw how the Americans do it on YouTube, but the fact that he can’t reboot on the go is all garbage ... that's how to fight ... and the Russians rush into abrasures themselves .. .. The great Russian patriots say yes the Americans do not know how to fight .... and in general ... wimps ....... for example, I'd rather sit on an abrams with beer than on a plywood chair 20x20 cm (figuratively) in T90 ... and in general, now I will not fit in with my weight in T90 ..)))) Call me whatever you want but I like Americanism ... and their army is super ... I'd love to go to serve in such an army. ..that in our ass to tear ...
1. ecdy
  
  -1
  
  14 May 2012 20: 00
  
  That's right, Abrams is a Kodilak, and the T 90 tractor is Belarus, and maybe even worse
  1. Pessimist
    
    -1
    
    14 May 2012 22: 19
    
    Quote: ecdy
    Abrams is Kodilak, and T 90 Belarus tractor,
    
    Well, try them on the forehead !!!
    1. ecdy
      
      0
      
      14 May 2012 22: 38
      
      With a LAHAT guided projectile at a distance of more than 6000 m
      and no need to collide
pidaras with pussy

0

14 June 2011 18: 17

"М1А1НА

Equivalent resistance to kinetic ammunition: 530-550 mm.

Equivalent resistance against cumulative ammunition: 750-800 mm.

T-90 vs. Abrams

M1A2 (1994)

Equivalent resistance against kinetic ammunition: 770 mm.

Equivalent resistance against cumulative ammunition: 1000-1200 mm.

The tower of the М1А1 tank consists of outer and inner steel armor plates connected by transverse stiffening ribs, between which special armoring packages of metallic and non-metallic materials are laid.

Due to the high density (density of uranium 19.03 g / cm3), these plates with extremely small thickness provide the “explosive” nature of the destruction of the elements of a cumulative jet.

T-90

Equivalent resistance against kinetic ammunition: mm 800-830 with Contact-5 protection

Equivalent resistance against cumulative ammunition: 1,150-1,350 mm with Contact-5 protection
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
-------------------------------

There is one problem in this comparison:
the author here compares the t-90 with DZ, and the abrams without
1. Foxmara
  
  0
  
  7 June 2019 06: 28
  
  Quote: from letters
  the author here compares the t-90 with DZ, and the abrams without
  
  So they do not put DZ fundamentally. This is not covered by the concept. KAZ will be set, but no DZ
mitrich

0

14 June 2011 18: 32

Interesting self-esteem from the previous commentator.
Ziggg

+3

25 September 2011 19: 28

Yes, where does the Second World War? T-34 and KV were superior to all foreign tanks. In July of the 41st KV-1 pair drove a tank division !!! and successfully drove .... but the article is not about that, Abrams is an excellent tank, but t- 90 is better, but a little better
1. ecdy
  
  0
  
  14 May 2012 20: 03
  
  Have you ever seen a living royal tiger? I happened to him in the tank
  Museum to touch. At the mere sight of this mountain of metal weighing 68 tons
  you’ll do it in your pants.
  1. Vadim555
    
    +1
    
    14 May 2012 20: 07
    
    Quote: ecdy
    ecdy Today, 20:03 new 0 Have you ever seen a living royal tiger? I happened to him in the tank
    Museum to touch. At the mere sight of this mountain of metal weighing 68 tons
    you can do it in your pants
    
    And our grandfathers and fathers with this menagerie took off all the skin.
    1. ecdy
      
      0
      
      14 May 2012 22: 40
      
      That's right, they were released only 400 knock. Do they lie to them
      generally seen
  2. Pessimist
    
    +2
    
    14 May 2012 22: 18
    
    Quote: ecdy
    Have you ever seen a living royal tiger? I happened to him in the tank
    Museum to touch. At the mere sight of this mountain of metal weighing 68 tons
    you’ll do it in your pants.
    
    And you look at the IS-3 and touch! 47 tons, but what is its power! Streamlined, unified, incredible power in 47 tons !!! And better armor!
    1. ecdy
      
      0
      
      14 May 2012 22: 41
      
      47 tons? It will be weak! Who told you armor is better? Are you an expert in this field?
      And about the streamlining, clumsy work.
  3. Midshipman
    
    +1
    
    14 May 2012 22: 44
    
    See also IS7 - it is generally like a space alien even in our times.
    1. ecdy
      
      0
      
      15 May 2012 20: 04
      
      You excuse me of course, but it seems to me you have not seen the technology of other countries, so to speak live
Tatar-in

-1

5 July 2012 12: 59

The guys in modern realities in a real battle, the average life of the tank from 2 to 10 minutes. So I don’t see much point in comparing two tanks. Now he will play the role of stripping in the city, covering infantry, etc. Kursk - vryatli when it happens.
Князь

-1

13 October 2014 16: 11

It is not correct to compare these two tanks: if the T-90 (and its modifications) were designed to break through the enemy’s defense, deep tank raids and to act in isolation from the main forces, then Abrams is very suitable in concept to support and strengthen infantry, that is, an infantry tank, and T-90 cruising (according to the English classification)
Campo731

0

5 January 2015 03: 58

What is Abrams?