T-90 vs. Abrams

150 952 36


General information



Tanks The T-90 and M1A1 Abrams are typical representatives of the Soviet and Western schools of tank building, which incorporate various design and technological ideas. The T-90, a deep modernization of the reliable and well-proven T-72 tank, was created after the collapse of the USSR and incorporated all the best features of Soviet tanks. The tank is armed with a modernized version of the 125 mm 2A46M4 smoothbore gun as its main weapon. The tank's armor has increased almost threefold compared to the first modifications of the T-3 and includes both powerful passive armor, with special "semi-active" type armor, and built-in "active" dynamic protection, which ensures a high level of armor without exceeding the weight restrictions determined by strategic mobility indicators.



The tank is powered by an economical and reliable diesel engine B92S2. With the transition to the production of a new type of welded turret, the possibilities for enhancing the armor have increased even more. The T-90 layout is characterized by high density, typical of the domestic school of tank building. This has both advantages and disadvantages. The dense layout allows you to create a highly protected vehicle with a low silhouette and a small area of ​​​​the longitudinal and transverse section with a relatively low weight. Accordingly, a smaller internal volume (for the T-90 tank 11,8 m3 and 13 for the T-90S) requires less armor. The disadvantage of the dense layout is the cramped crew members, it is difficult for crew members to replace each other if necessary.



The M1 Abrams tank was created primarily not as a breakthrough tank, but as an anti-tank weapon, the task of which was to stop, or at least delay the waves of Soviet tanks rushing to the English Channel. The tank was created in close cooperation with German tank builders, but with American specifics. As the main weapon on the tank, starting with the M1A1 modification, a 120 mm M-256 cannon is installed, which is a slightly modified version of the German Rh-120 cannon. The armor of the first modifications of the tank includes multi-layer composite armor "Chobham" created in Great Britain. On later modifications, armor using uranium ceramics of the first and second generations is used.


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.

Today, the main anti-tank weapons of the M1A1 Abrams are the M829A1 and M829A2 armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles. Production and delivery to the troops of the new M829A3 projectile, which poses a serious threat to the T-90 tank, has also begun. Developments are underway to create the TERM guided projectile, however, they are still far from complete.

T-90 vs. Abrams

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 rounds per minute

The main anti-tank weapons of the T-90 also include armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles (3BM-42 and 3BM-42M) and the Reflex-M guided weapons system with rockets 9M119M and 9M119M1 which ensure the destruction of M1A1NA tanks in all areas of the frontal projection at a distance of up to 5000 m. The destruction of the M1A2 tank is ensured only in weakened zones, which make up to 40% of the frontal projection. Modeling of a head-on battle of tank companies (10 T-90 tanks against 10 M1A1 tanks) showed that, starting to fire TUR from a distance of 5000 m, the T-90s manage to destroy up to 2000-2500% of enemy tanks by a distance of 50 - 60 m. Naturally, this is possible only 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 against 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.

The T-90 tank turret armor is of the "semi-active" type. In the front part of the turret there are two cavities located at an angle of 55 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the gun, in which special armor packages of the "semi-active" type are placed. The structure of the armor with reflective sheets is a barrier consisting of 3 layers: a plate, a gasket 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 uses a complex of built-in dynamic protection "Contact-5" this type of ERA works both against cumulative weapons (KS) and against armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles (BPS). The complex provides a powerful lateral impulse, allowing to destabilize or destroy the core of the BPS before it begins to interact with the main armor.

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 the hull and turret armor. The gap is so large that it is possible to hit the Abrams turret even at a great distance. To do this, you can aim at the upper frontal plate located at a very large angle - if a ricochet occurs, then it will definitely hit the turret. In this case, neither the high armor of the frontal part of the hull nor the thick armor of the turret will help. Weak armor of the sides in the area of ​​the engine-transmission and fighting compartments makes the tank vulnerable to small-caliber fire artillery, for example, the distance of confident destruction when using the BP projectile "Kerner" at an angle of 38 to 90 degrees will be up to 2000 meters (500 m for the BT projectile).

T-90

The vulnerable areas in the T-90 armor are the areas on both sides of the gun that are not covered by built-in dynamic protection and do not have special armor (in the place where the machine gun paired with the gun is installed). There is also a weakened area on the upper frontal part of the hull in the area of ​​the driver's observation device. This is a design feature of all domestic tanks, starting with the T-64.

36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 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.
  2. 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 can’t believe that a T-90 guided missile can disable an Abrams when it hits the frontal projection.
    A comparative battle between these tanks, judging by the results, suggests that the T-90 was on the defensive. Otherwise, how could the T-90 crews have used the guided weapons system? And what 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 enemy's moving, counteracting tanks (they may have hit some, but to disable 60%). As they say, I don't believe it.
    But in general, the article is interesting.
    Gentlemen. There will be no super tank in the near or distant future. And how can you fit a ground-to-air weapon system with all the ammunition into a tank hull, especially a T-90 with its dense layout? And the chassis and engine are poor. The anti-aircraft machine gun is now part of the weapon system. And with luck, a guided missile can destroy a target like a helicopter.
  3. 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.
  4. 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!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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!
  8. 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. The following can be said. The peculiarity of the carousel-type automatic loading mechanism. Installed on all Soviet (post-Soviet) tanks, is common with the T-64. It leads to practically zero survivability of our tanks and crews in case of armor penetration. On the American A1M2, damage to 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 ...
  9. 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 ...
  10. 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. +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 Why isn't Iraq defending itself? The T-72s there 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. +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? winked
        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 .....
  11. 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 also, the first M1 (Abrams) was manufactured in 1980. And the Leopard-2A was accepted into service in 1979. Iraq was armed not only with the T-55, but also with the T-72A (the T-72A is a modernization of the T-72 "Ural" of 1973), the development of which was completed in 1979.
  12. 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 also, SOLDIERru forgot, or is it a revelation for him, that Iraqi T-72As should not be compared with Soviet ones? That we supplied deliberately weakened weapons to third countries, and Iraqi T-72s, for example, had cast turrets, without multi-layer armor, etc.
  13. SOLDIERru
    0
    25 March 2011 20: 56
    Escander,
    I won't lie that Abrams has some technical feature as a result of which it can be knocked out with a Berdanka, I didn't know. It is quite possible that simplified modifications of T-72A were delivered to Iraq without reinforcing the frontal projection with non-metallic inserts. But combined armor fundamentally increases resistance only to the cumulative damage factor. And NATO's seventies were mainly hammered by sub-caliber. The British diluted the sub-caliber with their proprietary BFS. So, the original T-72A would not have had it 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!
  14. 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
      send you military photos of German tank aces with tigers, whose barrels are completely decorated with rings along their entire length, and the worst thing is that at the base of the barrel one ring corresponded to one destroyed tank, there are no more than ten such rings, and then the ring corresponds to 10 Soviet tanks, and so on along the entire length of the barrel...that's the price of victory... but TIGERS appeared late T34... and only 1500 tigers were produced. and T34s were definitely more than 10000... And don't tell me about Russian super tanks... modifications of the T34-85 that are shown in the movies... they appeared like the KV (late modification) already in 1944, when the Germans could be driven away with kicks... KV (early) also did not pose a particular threat to the TIGER... but with the siege of Leningrad there were also very few of them...
      1. Winchester (vertical)
        0
        24 June 2011 20: 42
        We are talking about 41. PC 3 and PC 4 are not comparable to the T-34 and KV. What guns were on the PC 3 and 4? 37 mm? And on the T-34 and KV? Not 76 mm? I won't even mention the armor - the standard PC 3 had bulletproof armor. Or compare German gasoline engines with Soviet diesels? And most importantly - in 41 the fascists had less than 4000 tanks against 24000 Soviet (of which T-34 and KV were 3000).
        1. +2
          14 May 2012 20: 57
          I read this information and immediately feel dissonance, 4 thousand against 24 thousand and with such a loss the Germans started a war? They say the same about the planes. Were they even there? It's strange somehow, with such a ratio even the most brilliant strategist would never have started a war, and the Germans even planned a blitzkrieg.
          1. +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?
            1. 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. 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
      rate. During the entire war, 1500 Tiger 1s were produced, while the T 34s
      1000 knock every month from the assembly line went. From here and draw conclusions.
      1. +3
        14 May 2012 21: 14
        You are confusing warm with soft - the Tiger, Panther and Ferdinand were created precisely as a means of fighting Russian tank hordes (whose main task was to support troops, not fight enemy tanks), accordingly, they usually surpassed mass-produced Soviet tanks in the required properties - gun, optics, armor, that's why they have such achievements. Yes, the T-34's classmate Panther (the Tiger is a completely different class, then it should be compared with the IS) surpassed it in terms of shot characteristics and optics (as intended), but was poorly suited as a breakthrough tank due to its weak running gear and fragile armor, which generated a large number of fragments in the armor part (information from the memoirs of our tankers who fought on captured Panthers). 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 !!! laughing 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
  15. samil191279
    -1
    12 June 2011 15: 21
    I am a builder myself and from everything I have seen and read on this topic I understood one thing, that the T90 is definitely better... and the Abrams is just a code for showing off... it is cool to drink beer in it and watch MUZTV on LCD displays and shoot at natives with Kalashnikovs in between... and even crush bone shards, I have seen how the Americans do it on YouTube, and the fact that it cannot reload on the move is all bullshit... that is how you should fight... and the Russians rush at the Abrams and blow themselves up... Great Russian patriots say that the Americans do not know how to fight... and in general... weaklings... For example, I would rather sit on the Abrams with beer than on a 20x20 cm plywood chair (figuratively speaking) in the T90... and in general I cannot fit into the T90 with my weight now.. ))) Call me whatever you want, but I like it Americanism... and their army is super... I would gladly go and serve in such an army... than beat ass in ours...
    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
  16. 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. 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
  17. mitrich
    0
    14 June 2011 18: 32
    Interesting self-esteem from the previous commentator.
  18. 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 king tiger in real life? I had a chance to see it in a 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? That's a bit weak! Who told you that armor is better? Are you an expert in this field?
          And about the streamlining, clumsy work.
      3. +1
        14 May 2012 22: 44
        Take a look at the IS7 - it's like a space alien even by our standards.
        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
  19. -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.
  20. 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)
  21. Campo731
    0
    5 January 2015 03: 58
    What is Abrams?