Military Review

In the USA, they compared Abrams, T-90 and Chinese Type-99

167
Sebastian Roblen, military analyst at The National Interest, compares performance tanks T-90 (MS), M1 Abrams and Type-99.


According to the author of the publication, each of the armored vehicles has unique qualities. For example, the newest Chinese tank "Type-99" is far ahead of its competitors in speed and is capable of accelerating to 80 kilometers per hour along the road. Since "Abrams" with a horsepower 1400 motor can accelerate to 68 kilometers per hour, and T-90MS - to 72 kilometers per hour.

In the USA, they compared Abrams, T-90 and Chinese Type-99


In addition, the American tank has the "most voracious" power plant: its characteristics allow you to drive 390 kilometers before refueling. Competitors are able to drive more than 480 kilometers. At the same time, the gravity of the Abrams can be considered its advantage. According to the analyst, the 120-millimeter cannon of this tank with M829 shells with uranium cores is capable of penetrating more armor on the 15-20% than the X-NUMX mm T-125 guns.

But at the same time, Russian and Chinese tanks are capable of firing Refleks anti-tank missiles through the barrel of their gun, while the Abrams does not have such capabilities. The T-90 and Type-99 also installed a Soviet-style carousel automatic loader, while the fourth member of the Abrams crew is precisely loading the gun. Therefore, additional space is needed for the loader, which makes the Abrams М1 tank more massive and heavier.

In general, "Abrams, with reservations, have the most firepower, whereas Type-99 machines are probably best protected by their multi-level systems. In addition, they are faster and have a longer range
- suggests Roble.

The Russian T-90 (MS) tank, in turn, is equipped with the Relict protection system, an improved telescopic sight and a more powerful engine, due to which it is able to compete with American and Chinese vehicles, the analyst concludes.
Photos used:
Ramil Sitdikov / RIA News
167 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 264
    264 27 January 2018 19: 02 New
    +5
    Leopard is the best !!! Let's be honest with ourselves ...
    1. svp67
      svp67 27 January 2018 19: 06 New
      28
      Quote: 264
      Leopard!!!

      While showing a NOT HIGH RESULT. And here, the terribly expensive Leclerc is doing great, and today it has the smallest amount of losses.
      1. 264
        264 27 January 2018 19: 08 New
        +6
        Leclerc is good too ... hi These two are worth choosing the best TANK. wink
        1. svp67
          svp67 27 January 2018 19: 12 New
          58
          Quote: 264
          These two are worth choosing the best TANK.

          No ... With all due respect, but every country produces the tank that it needs and certainly, our T-90MS doesn’t seem like an outsider in the list of “best tank” awards
          1. Kasym
            Kasym 27 January 2018 20: 51 New
            38
            For some reason, everyone forgets to write about the amount. Well, there are three hundred Leopards, or the same ang. Challengers with Leclerks against several thousand Russian? Therefore, "small wholesale" consider it makes no sense. And Merkava with KAZ is not a gift.
            USA may 3 thousand. set, but they still need to be thrown to the theater of operations from another continent. Chinese Type-99 I wonder how many are released? That's who really can push down.
            In my opinion, Abrams is already too outdated to be called the best (there is no AZ at all, two defense systems: armor and dynamo. Defense). Chinese did not fight. The leader remains T-72 (90) (if desired, 4 defense systems: + KAZ + Shtora, due to missiles, combat power is higher, AZ and less crew).
            1. Star
              Star 27 January 2018 22: 15 New
              +7
              Well, now the Americans are slowly transferring their equipment to our continent.
              1. IL-18
                IL-18 28 January 2018 09: 21 New
                +6
                Then they will abandon it during the retreat, like the Germans in 1944-45. If you think of something disgusting.
            2. BABAY22
              BABAY22 27 January 2018 22: 35 New
              25
              Allow your five cents to be inserted.
              Why would the Abrams be thrown to another continent before the theater? 90s have passed. It's time to move away from these stereotypes and return to the thinking of the 70s.
              This T-90 will have to be thrown to another continent before the theater of operations.
              1. Alex-a832
                Alex-a832 27 January 2018 23: 43 New
                16
                Forget about thinking 70. In the case of TMV, the island behind the puddle will not differ much from the lunar landscape, it will not make sense to throw something somewhere. The rest will be engaged in survival, not war.
              2. Kasym
                Kasym 27 January 2018 23: 46 New
                11
                Star. Last year, US Armed Forces in the EU were detailed in Arguments of the Week. 3 brigades (two light, one on the Stryker armored personnel carrier; and 1 recently thrown heavy with 8 des. Tank + 200 dr. Mshin) + 80 aircraft (F-16 and 15 - 4 escd.) + Maintenance and transport. And threw 1 heavy. brigade for one year. That is why Trump is demanding money from EuroNATO if they want to strengthen American forces on the continent.
                BABAY22. The Russian Federation has a defensive development strategy for the armed forces. And why is Russia and its territories still something? The United States actually risks staying on the periphery of world trade, which is moving to Eurasia. That kindle wars on the Eurasian continent in order to split it from the BV to the Balkans, Poland, the Baltic states. Including the Chinese Silk Road project. Therefore, rather, they will transfer their Abrams. The only trouble for them is that at the moment they cannot mass-produce them - 1 tank per month - therefore they will repair the used ones from stocks. hi
                They play out to the military-political alliance of the Russian Federation and China. Moscow needs to think about drawing up such an agreement with Beijing for a period of special "complications" with Western countries - I think that many hotheads in NATO will have to cool off with the Cold War - 2.
                1. BABAY22
                  BABAY22 28 January 2018 00: 57 New
                  +2
                  And what changes the presence of a defensive strategy? In the case of TMV, the Earth will not split in half and even the lunar landscape will not arise with the current number of warheads. So there are only two scenarios: either the Abrams crawl along the Russian plain, or the T-90 is looking for survivors on the stub of the Big Apple.
              3. Nikolai Grek
                Nikolai Grek 28 January 2018 00: 59 New
                +3
                Quote: BABAY22
                This T-90 will have to be thrown to another continent before the theater of operations.

                recourse recourse recourse if it comes to that, then "Poplars" will be "thrown" there !!! wassat wassat lol lol lol
                1. BABAY22
                  BABAY22 28 January 2018 01: 35 New
                  +9
                  And after Topol what? Of course, Poplars and Voivods will cover the main goals, but the territory of the likely enemy is huge and special ammunition cannot be sent to each village. In the USSR, there were 40000 warheads to guarantee unacceptable damage to the enemy. Now there are only 1500. You want to say that fools served in the Union at the General Staff. And then missile defense systems by the way were not fancy. Why is it asking you to have 40000?
                  So Poplars without the T-90 do not guarantee any victory. And the "Berlin" will again take the ordinary infantry Vanya. Or do you think that victory over an adversary is not included in Gene’s plans. Headquarters?
                  1. poquello
                    poquello 28 January 2018 03: 38 New
                    +1
                    Quote: BABAY22
                    In the USSR, there were 40000 warheads to guarantee unacceptable damage to the enemy. Now there are only 1500 of them.

                    now the weapon has changed a little
                  2. Grim Reaper
                    Grim Reaper 28 January 2018 06: 43 New
                    +4
                    1500 is enough to change the government, and the former rulers were sent to the count. Do they need it? Deterrence is not necessarily a threat to lunar landscapes
                  3. Grits
                    Grits 28 January 2018 14: 04 New
                    +4
                    After all the "special ammunition" will land in the New World, then there will be no time for local residents to transfer tanks overseas. And not even to repair the remaining ones. since a multi-colored population, crazy about a sharply falling standard of living, will be preoccupied with how to take away something more from their neighbors.
                  4. RobertZone
                    RobertZone 28 January 2018 20: 29 New
                    0
                    Russia does not have 1500 warheads, but 9000
              4. Misha Honest
                Misha Honest 28 January 2018 09: 10 New
                +5
                Quote: BABAY22
                This T-90 will have to be thrown to another continent before the theater of operations.

                Purely theoretically, without the participation of nuclear weapons in the conflict. What are we going to throw 90 matches for - Russia has nothing left for BDK and MDK? And the commissioning of a new such ship is almost a holiday ...
                The IL-76 is also a dubious option, especially considering NATO’s superiority in the air and low payload ...

                Defense strategy, so that it was empty ... Ours rely too heavily on the deterrent factor of nuclear weapons. (At that time, it was the Starship Stripes at our borders who were accumulating equipment. So I somehow won’t flatter myself on the topic: “On whose land will the hostilities take place.” Consider now that the situation is about the same as in 39 -40gg Only worse.
                1. BABAY22
                  BABAY22 28 January 2018 12: 35 New
                  +4
                  Misha honest
                  Yes, of course you are right. Here is such a disappointing alignment of forces. We can’t even theoretically defeat the enemy. Only hold back. Of course, there is a hope that allies will appear in our country - they will fly from Mars or sail over the Yellow Sea (the probability of one and the second is approximately the same).
                  But life does not stand still. Let's see what happens in the 20s.
                  1. Misha Honest
                    Misha Honest 28 January 2018 18: 59 New
                    +1
                    Quote: BABAY22
                    Only hold back.

                    Yes you are an optimist ...
                2. poquello
                  poquello 28 January 2018 13: 38 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Misha Honest
                  especially considering NATO’s air superiority

                  ett what nonsense?
                  1. Misha Honest
                    Misha Honest 28 January 2018 19: 06 New
                    +1
                    Quote: poquello
                    Quote: Misha Honest
                    especially considering NATO’s air superiority

                    ett what nonsense?

                    What moon have you fallen from?
                    Wikipedia: Air Force Stripes.
                    Strength
                    318 415 people
                    68 reservists
                    61 383 auxiliary
                    94 597 guardsmen
                    5573 aircraft
                    450 ICBMs
                    32 satellites

                    The composition of the Russian Air Force
                    The size of the air fleet of the Russian Air Force is second only to the US Air Force. According to expert estimates, as of 2010, the number of personnel of the Russian Air Force is about 148 people [000]. The Air Force operates more than 20 units of military equipment [3], as well as 600 in storage [20].

                    According to the statement of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel General A.N. Zelin, in November 2010, the Russian Air Force and Air Defense consisted of a high command, seven operational commands, seven air bases of the first rank and eight air bases of the second level, as well as 13 aerospace defense brigades . In addition, eight army aviation bases were handed over to the United Strategic Command, but the Air Force is still responsible for their combat training. The total number of personnel of the Air Force is about 170 thousand people (including officers - 40 thousand, contract servicemen - about 30-40 thousand).

                    After the reform, the air regiments were reduced to airbases, with a total of 60–70 air forces (including 25 air forces with tactical aircraft, of which 14 were “fighter” air bases).

                    Tactical (front-line) aviation includes squadrons:

                    32 fighter aviation squadrons: 8 - MiG-29 (various modifications), 8 - MiG-31 (various modifications), 12 - Su-27 (various modifications), 2 - Su-30SM and 2 - Su-35
                    14 bombing aviation squadrons: 9 - Su-24 (various modifications), 5 - Su-34 "Duckling" [21] [22]
                    10 attack aviation squadrons: 10 - Su-25 (various modifications)
                    8 reconnaissance aircraft squadrons: 8 - Su-24MR
                    13 training and test aviation squadrons:
                    The deployment of tactical (front-line) aviation airbases:

                    Kaliningrad Special District - 2 AB (of which 1 is fighter)
                    Group of Russian troops in the Caucasus - 1 AB (fighter)
                    ZVO - 6 AB (of which 4 are fighter)
                    Southeast Military District - 5 AB (of which 2 are fighter aircraft)
                    CVO - 4 AB (2 of them fighter)
                    BBO - 7 AB (4 of them fighter)

                    And this is only the USA, and not all NATO countries. (
                    1. poquello
                      poquello 28 January 2018 19: 33 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Misha Honest
                      And this is only the USA, and not all NATO countries. (

                      super, you have given an advantage in people and planes, this is not air superiority, there may be no planes at all, but this is not a reason for enemy flights)
                      1. Misha Honest
                        Misha Honest 28 January 2018 23: 14 New
                        +1
                        Quote: poquello
                        Quote: Misha Honest
                        And this is only the USA, and not all NATO countries. (

                        super, you have given an advantage in people and planes, this is not air superiority, there may be no planes at all, but this is not a reason for enemy flights)

                        Are you really so naive or pretending to be?
                        The fact is that NATO has air superiority 2-4 times. And this is already at the moment. And they also increase it.
              5. Graz
                Graz 28 January 2018 09: 10 New
                +2
                you are also wrong, it’s easier to send several missiles with nuclear filling there than to send an army, this is the most correct answer
            3. Leeds
              Leeds 28 January 2018 11: 34 New
              0
              A few thousand. How many of these thousands of T-90s, and how many of these T-90s are equipped with Curtains and Arena? ... Immediately another picture emerges.
          2. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 28 January 2018 05: 38 New
            +7
            Quote: svp67
            Quote: 264
            These two are worth choosing the best TANK.

            No ... With all due respect, but every country produces the tank that it needs and certainly, our T-90MS doesn’t seem like an outsider in the list of “best tank” awards

            That's for sure. Turtle "Merkava" is the best for Israel. Narrowly designed for creeping desert operations. But in China or Russia, nobody needs him.
            T90 - weight 46 tons, and Abrams - already 63 tons, gained. Only T34 with the Tiger or Panther can have more id ... otism in comparison.
            “Leopad” also gained 63 tons of weight. Stupid, heavy tank for the same stupid "Lovers of inflatable rubber toys."
            Once again - each tank is created for its own theater. But our "main" one is more basic! hi
        2. avt
          avt 27 January 2018 19: 24 New
          47
          Quote: 264
          Leclerc is good too ...

          wassat And where was Eclair able to fight on a scale, if not T-72, then at least Abramos ?!
          Quote: svp67
          And here, the terribly expensive Leclerc is doing great, and today it has the smallest amount of losses.

          That’s why it keeps itself, like Leoperd, who was invincible at all before entering Suria. Yes, and this is all nonsense
          The combat vehicle is not so terrible, its cheerful crew is worse
          bully
          1. svp67
            svp67 27 January 2018 19: 42 New
            +3
            Quote: avt
            And where was Eclair able to fight on a scale, if not T-72, then at least Abramos ?!

            It is enough that he is now fighting next to them in Yemen and many countries have already thought about buying it.
            1. poquello
              poquello 27 January 2018 19: 48 New
              +7
              Quote: svp67
              Quote: avt
              And where was Eclair able to fight on a scale, if not T-72, then at least Abramos ?!

              It is enough that he is now fighting next to them in Yemen and many countries have already thought about buying it.

              Where are they fighting in Yemen?
              1. kapitan92
                kapitan92 27 January 2018 20: 07 New
                10
                Quote: poquello
                Where are they fighting in Yemen?

                AMX-56 Leclerc - pronounced "Le Claire" - named after a French general whose armored division liberated Paris in 1944 ....
                So far, there is no evidence of the destruction of Leclerc tanks in Yemen, while the loss of 9 M1A2 Abrams by the Saudi armed forces has already been confirmed. In addition, at least five M-60 Pattons and two AMX-30 were shot down during the battles with the Hussites. In general, in general, UAE tankers are satisfied with Leclerc tanks and thank France for the supply of high-quality weapons. Success in Yemen led to the fact that in January 2016, the Saudi government turned to the French company Nexter, the manufacturer of Leclerc, to express their interest in buying several hundred French tanks ....

                https://inforeactor.ru/34344-chto-delaet-leklerk-
                super-tankom
                hi
                1. poquello
                  poquello 27 January 2018 20: 12 New
                  +5
                  ) I read similar until a specific question arose, and now they are still in Yemen?
                  1. kapitan92
                    kapitan92 27 January 2018 20: 23 New
                    25
                    Quote: poquello
                    ) I read similar until a specific question arose, and now they are still in Yemen?

                    About 80 Leclair tanks were introduced. The coalition claims that there are no losses. In various sources of the Hussites, there are from 10 to 15 of these French destroyed “Lions”. Who to believe? ...
                    The figure announced by the Hussites is quite high so that not one of the affected Leclerc’s will appear on the video ....
                    But there is no smoke without fire. Although Abu Dhabi is silent about the losses in the press, the military still acknowledges at least four cases of attacks on the Leclerci, all of which coincide with the declared “trophies” of the Hussites. Two were blown up by landmines, one was attacked by RPG-7, but KAZ worked, another tank was attacked from the Russian Kornet anti-tank system - the tank remained on track, but the commander of the vehicle was killed. Given such data, we can conclude that other unrecognized losses can be quite real ....
                    On the modern battlefield, neither German genius, nor French wastefulness, nor American brutality will save. Like a hundred years ago, like a thousand, the outcome of the battle is decided solely by the skill and motivation of the soldiers with talented commanders ....
                    1. Alex-a832
                      Alex-a832 27 January 2018 23: 55 New
                      +5
                      Statistics - false stuff. Perhaps they were very lucky in terms of activity and weapons of the enemy in their areas of operation. When the combat conditions are completely comparable for different tanks, then it’s worth comparing. In the meantime, a good advertisement was sent out for the French.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 27 January 2018 19: 50 New
              15
              Quote: svp67
              many countries have already thought about buying it.

              And the funny thing is that they only think about him. And others will buy. For it is at the moment the most expensive tank in the world. Outperformed even traditionally expensive “Merkava”
              Regarding the "Abrams" almost a third more expensive. And three times more expensive than the export version of the T-90.
          2. poquello
            poquello 27 January 2018 19: 47 New
            +4
            Quote: avt
            And this is all nonsense

            exactly
        3. Kent0001
          Kent0001 27 January 2018 19: 49 New
          +5
          Where did they show themselves in battle? HOW TO ABRAMS OR T-90? They do not burn, are not happy with anti-tank systems, etc. Your statements are not confirmed by anything. Where did these tanks successfully fight?
        4. DMB_95
          DMB_95 27 January 2018 19: 55 New
          +2
          Quote: 264
          Leclerc is good too ... hi These two are worth choosing the best TANK. wink

          Yes .. Just choose - which of the two between them best, not at all laughing .
        5. Hanokem
          Hanokem 27 January 2018 20: 10 New
          +6
          And what is there to puzzle? T-90 is better by definition, because it is Russian
          1. 264
            264 27 January 2018 20: 16 New
            +5
            good Exactly!!! laughing laughing laughing What Leopards, Leclerci, Merkavas are all sorts of different ........ T-34 hi laughing laughing laughingI haven’t laughed like that for a long time .......
            1. sabakina
              sabakina 27 January 2018 20: 52 New
              +8
              Quote: 264
              good Exactly!!! laughing laughing laughing What Leopards, Leclerci, Merkavas are all sorts of different ........ T-34 hi laughing laughing laughingI haven’t laughed like that for a long time .......

              Well, laugh, and we're just going to laugh, because he laughs well ...
              1. starpom
                starpom 27 January 2018 21: 28 New
                +2
                Quote: sabakina
                for he laughs well ...

                who laughs without consequences
            2. DMB_95
              DMB_95 28 January 2018 17: 50 New
              +1
              Quote: Hanokem
              And what is there to puzzle? T-90 is better by definition, because it is Russian

              Quote: 264
              good Exactly!!! laughing laughing laughing What Leopards, Leclerci, Merkavas are all sorts of different ........ T-34 hi laughing laughing laughingI haven’t laughed like that for a long time .......

              What else Merkava did they themselves offer to choose from the other two ?? Although .... Merkava is "better by definition, because she is" God's chosen. fellow
        6. Kars
          Kars 27 January 2018 20: 15 New
          14
          Well, yes, because Leclerc is not the best to let him in Emen anymore))
        7. kapitan92
          kapitan92 27 January 2018 20: 58 New
          +6
          Quote: 264
          Leclerc is good too.

      2. Separ DNR
        Separ DNR 27 January 2018 19: 40 New
        19
        Quote: svp67
        terribly expensive Leclerc, well done, and today he has the smallest amount of losses.

        And if the losses correlate with the number of units produced and participated in the battles?
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 27 January 2018 21: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: Separ DNR
          And if the losses correlate with the number of units produced and participated in the battles?

          Why is it pulling a condom on the globe?
          1. Separ DNR
            Separ DNR 28 January 2018 11: 15 New
            +3
            Quote: Separ DNR
            And if the losses correlate with the number of units produced and participated in the battles?


            Quote: KaPToC
            Why is it pulling a condom on the globe?

            Sorry to touch your globe. hi
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 28 January 2018 11: 16 New
              0
              Quote: Separ DNR
              Sorry to touch your globe.

              That is, in essence - why do you fit the facts to the answer you need - you have nothing to say!
              1. Separ DNR
                Separ DNR 28 January 2018 11: 27 New
                +4
                Quote: KaPToC
                That is, in essence - why do you fit the facts to the answer you need - you have nothing to say!

                Well, from you, I have not yet seen a comment on the topic ...
                Therefore, it was not necessary to answer you. Moreover, the user gave an exhaustive answer Kyrgyz
                Quote: KaPToC
                Why is it pulling a condom on the globe?

                Because without this, the best will be Japanese Korean and Chinese tanks, they have zero losses, and the worst will be Russian and American, they burned the most
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 28 January 2018 11: 43 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Separ DNR
                  Because without this, the best will be Japanese Korean and Chinese tanks, they have zero losses, and the worst will be Russian and American, they burned the most

                  Non-combatant tanks produced in small prints do not make sense at all and no one compares them. In fact, only five Abrams, Leopard2, T-72, T-64 and T-90 tanks are worthy of comparison.
                  1. Separ DNR
                    Separ DNR 28 January 2018 11: 45 New
                    +3
                    Quote: KaPToC
                    Non-combatant tanks produced in small prints do not make sense at all and no one compares them. In fact, only five Abrams, Leopard2, T-72, T-64 and T-90 tanks are worthy of comparison.

                    Bravo! I admire you! Finally, a comment on the topic ...
                    1. KaPToC
                      KaPToC 28 January 2018 20: 49 New
                      0
                      Quote: Separ DNR
                      Bravo! I admire you! Finally, a comment on the topic ...

                      it would be funny if it were not so sad ...
      3. poquello
        poquello 27 January 2018 19: 46 New
        13
        Quote: svp67
        Quote: 264
        Leopard!!!

        While showing a NOT HIGH RESULT. And here, the terribly expensive Leclerc is doing great, and today it has the smallest amount of losses.

        hehe, the amount of losses of leklerk is directly related to the minimum participation in the database
        1. BARKHAN
          BARKHAN 27 January 2018 21: 53 New
          +9
          Quote: Separ DNR
          And if the losses correlate with the number of units produced and participated in the battles?

          Quote: poquello
          hehe, the amount of losses of leklerk is directly related to the minimum participation in the database

          Voooot ... and, if they are used to their full potential, like the Syrians, for example .... then some scumbags will be ... 4 episodes are described -3 sad. And if there are 20 episodes ... 100?
          Already even the partisans fail to drive with impunity ... RPG-7, ATGMs, land mines, crews from Arabs ... and it turns out like Ranevskaya ... under each peacock tail is an ordinary chicken w ... pa ...
      4. Monarchist
        Monarchist 27 January 2018 20: 00 New
        +8
        My friend, can you name a lot of military conflicts where the Leclaires participated?
        All these theoretical comparisons are akin to fortune-telling on chamomile or coffee grounds. The surest and most terrible way of comparison is participation in the battle and not episodic, but mass battles.
        In fact, the T90 was used sporadically and by poorly trained crews, and the “Chinese” in my opinion has never participated
      5. RASKAT
        RASKAT 27 January 2018 20: 14 New
        +5
        This is because the Husits ​​do not have grenades on the RPG-7 and normal ATGMs with a tandem warhead in sufficient quantity. Iranian Tufans (aka TOU) and our old Bassoons. So it’s too early to compare, the forces are not equal, So far bully
      6. alexmach
        alexmach 27 January 2018 22: 04 New
        +2
        Has he even fought somewhere? Where does he show this good result, in Yemen or something?
      7. intuzazist
        intuzazist 28 January 2018 08: 55 New
        +2
        The less the tank participates in the hostilities, the better the loss rate ..........
      8. Omskgasmyas
        Omskgasmyas 29 January 2018 07: 19 New
        0
        And where are the Leclercians fighting and in what quantity?
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 27 January 2018 19: 13 New
      +6
      These characteristics need to be compared with wrecked tanks. Here, in terms of the number of crashed “abrams,” he will have no equal. lol
      1. Giant thought
        Giant thought 27 January 2018 19: 18 New
        10
        In military operations, and this is still the most reliable criterion for evaluating all weapons, our T-90 is still ahead of Abrams in terms of survivability in Syria and Iraq, which is a big plus.
      2. Kent0001
        Kent0001 27 January 2018 19: 49 New
        +1
        So he fights a lot.
    3. figwam
      figwam 27 January 2018 19: 23 New
      15
      Quote: 264
      Leopard is the best !!! Let's be honest with ourselves ...

      Tell us his battle path.
    4. Kent0001
      Kent0001 27 January 2018 19: 47 New
      +9
      You can be honest with yourself. The Turks burned them right on the first day.
      1. 264
        264 27 January 2018 20: 04 New
        +4
        The Turks did not translate the instruction. wink
    5. New
      New 27 January 2018 19: 59 New
      +3
      Strange, do we have any shells with a uranium core? Believed to lie in warehouses in the event of a third world war.
      1. Kerensky
        Kerensky 27 January 2018 23: 19 New
        +1
        We blew them at the test site with drawers. I personally found cores in the funnels. Two fields plowed into the ponds. But maybe somewhere they lie.
        1. akims
          akims 27 January 2018 23: 54 New
          +4
          You are raving. And if not, write a will.
          1. Kerensky
            Kerensky 28 January 2018 01: 27 New
            +1
            Come on! Each hedgehog has its own photo album with bare priests! Have you seen these cores?
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 28 January 2018 00: 10 New
        +3
        Quote: New
        Strange, do we have any shells with a uranium core? Believed to lie in warehouses in case of a third world

        there is, of course)) It is in case of a major war and in store. This is the Yankees let them sleep in an embrace with their uranium shells day and night) They still have no other BOPS
      3. Omskgasmyas
        Omskgasmyas 29 January 2018 07: 22 New
        +1
        There is. The troops will be issued in case of war. In the meantime, they are in special warehouses.
        Radioactivity requires careful and special handling. A meeting with conscripted soldiers is contraindicated for them.
    6. Sergey Medvedev
      Sergey Medvedev 27 January 2018 20: 03 New
      10
      Quote: 264
      Leopard is the best !!! Let's be honest with ourselves ...

      Let them put their "best" tanks at least for biathlon. But they are drifting ... Be honest with yourself.
      1. My doctor
        My doctor 27 January 2018 21: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: Sergei Medvedev
        Let them put their "best" tanks at least for biathlon. But they are drifting ... Be honest with yourself.

        What for. They have their own competitions. And I can bet the t-90 hitting them will take the last place.
        1. poquello
          poquello 27 January 2018 22: 38 New
          +9
          Quote: MyVrach
          Quote: Sergei Medvedev
          Let them put their "best" tanks at least for biathlon. But they are drifting ... Be honest with yourself.

          What for. They have their own competitions. And I can bet the t-90 hitting them will take the last place.

          You would have watched their competitions first, a very sad sight.
          1. Omskgasmyas
            Omskgasmyas 29 January 2018 07: 23 New
            +1
            Why watch? Zmagar already knows that the pan has the best of everything.
        2. Midshipman
          Midshipman 27 January 2018 23: 08 New
          +6
          Even the Ukrainian T72 in these competitions was far from the worst
          1. Grits
            Grits 28 January 2018 14: 57 New
            +1
            Even the Ukrainian T72 in these competitions was far from the worst
            If the memory serves, there were still the T-64. More ancient. But they showed themselves very well
    7. NF68
      NF68 27 January 2018 20: 29 New
      +2
      Quote: 264
      Leopard is the best !!! Let's be honest with ourselves ...


      Leopard Leopard discord. For example, A4 and A7 +.
      Even better would be the Leopard 2A7 + with Europack, where the MTU MT 883 engine develops power up to 2038 hp.
    8. RASKAT
      RASKAT 27 January 2018 20: 31 New
      +6
      and T-90MS - up to 72 kilometers per hour
      Yes, at least 120 km / h, I would like to see that battlefield where tanks will rush at that speed.
      M829 shells with uranium cores capable of punching on 15-20%
      It seems to me personally that at the current level of technology, at least in our army, no one will send tanks anymore in WWII for oncoming frontal tank attacks. If only enemy tanks appear on the horizon, large forces, such as a battalion or more. There, either the MLRS will immediately work there, with cassette, or self-aiming warheads, or aviation or helicopters. Or a tactical missile will fly Iskander for example. (Although a conventional Grade warhead is enough for any tank for the eyes).
      It seems to me that this will most likely be.
      And the smaller forces of the enemy’s tanks will be burned from a great distance by concentrated fire from anti-tank missiles and anti-tank systems, since now our troops are saturated with this good. From the Tigers with Cornets to STURM-S and Chrysanthemums.
      1. BARKHAN
        BARKHAN 27 January 2018 22: 00 New
        +4
        Quote: RASKAT
        It seems to me personally that at the current level of technology, at least in our army, no one will send tanks anymore in WWII for oncoming frontal tank attacks. If only enemy tanks appear on the horizon, large forces, such as a battalion or more. There, either the MLRS will immediately work there, with cassette, or self-aiming warheads, or aviation or helicopters. Or a tactical missile will fly Iskander for example. (Although a conventional Grade warhead is enough for any tank for the eyes).
        It seems to me that this will most likely be.
        And the smaller forces of the enemy’s tanks will be burned from a great distance by concentrated fire from anti-tank missiles and anti-tank systems, since now our troops are saturated with this good. From the Tigers with Cornets to STURM-S and Chrysanthemums.

        Plus, the infantry will please with the good old sevens and boots, different land mines and anti-tank mines, the Russian infantry is generally funny and inventive ... the Germans can confirm ...
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 29 January 2018 01: 26 New
        0
        "as in the Second World War on tanks head-on head-on strikes will no longer send tanks" ////

        It depends on how confident the parties feel. For example, in Iraq in 2003, the Americans specifically sent Abrams to the T-72 of the Iraqi Guard. Neither aviation nor ATGMs helped them. They wanted a clean check: how strong Abrams was in the oncoming “tank-against-tank” battle. And were satisfied. Through penetration of frontal armor. Wins with a dry score. As Abrams thought, that was what happened.
        It was later that the partisans began to burn them from the sides with ATGMs and RPGs ....
    9. sabakina
      sabakina 27 January 2018 20: 43 New
      +4
      Quote: 264
      Leopard is the best !!! Let's be honest with ourselves ...

      Only saints are seen before them. We will look in front of you for now.
    10. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 28 January 2018 00: 14 New
      +4
      Quote: 264
      Leopard is the best!

      in order to call something the best, you must first determine the criteria. Best of what? The large mass, dimensions and price are clearly not listed in the list of "best" qualities)
    11. Yuriy_999
      Yuriy_999 28 January 2018 02: 05 New
      +1
      And that the leopards did not burn at the Turks? Or will you give other facts about the use of these machines in the database?
    12. free_flier
      free_flier 28 January 2018 09: 10 New
      +2
      In terms of burning better?
      IMHO - Kurds in Turkish have recently demonstrated ... Dekhanin with pturs and no Leopard ...
    13. Grits
      Grits 28 January 2018 13: 58 New
      +1
      Leopard is the best !!! Let's be honest with ourselves ..
      Say it to the Turks in Afrin
    14. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 29 January 2018 16: 18 New
      +1
      How many Leopard tanks burned down at the Turks? And how many complaints were caused by the vaunted German technology.
  2. svp67
    svp67 27 January 2018 19: 06 New
    12
    The Russian T-90 (MS) tank, in turn, is equipped with the Relict protection system, an improved telescopic sight and a more powerful engine, due to which it is able to compete with American and Chinese vehicles, the analyst concludes.
    Still ... Maybe it would be worth recalling that it is precisely on the “MS” modification that the 2A82 cannon can be installed and that means talking about any overwhelming fire advantage of the “Abrams”, then it is not necessary.
    1. just exp
      just exp 27 January 2018 20: 54 New
      +5
      nothing is put on the MS, because there is no such tank, there is a SM, that is, an export (C) modernized (M). and MS are journalists and webdesigners and a couple of bureaucrats crap.
      and by the way 2A82 is also not put on the SM, because it is prohibited for export. and it will only be on the T-90 in the AM version (AM also got three versions of the emnip).
  3. Lenivets2
    Lenivets2 27 January 2018 19: 07 New
    +5
    "At the same time, the severity of Abrams can be considered its advantage."
    The advantage, in this case, must be written in quotation marks. hi

    "the cannon of this tank with M829 shells with uranium cores is capable of penetrating 15-20% more armor than the 125-mm guns of the T-90 and Type-99"

    What is the difference by how many percent more or less, if this is enough with a margin to destroy an enemy tank? what
  4. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 27 January 2018 19: 12 New
    +6
    Cool feature from the "light elves". Well, at least there is no longer unconditionally victorious - our “Abrams” is the best and la-la-la
    1. avia1991
      avia1991 27 January 2018 19: 23 New
      +6
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      there is no longer unconditionally victorious - our “Abrams” is the best and la-la-la

      It’s hard to say so, with a passive hefty pile of armor lined around the world wink
  5. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 27 January 2018 19: 13 New
    +8
    80 km per hour for a tank is not an advantage, but suicide.
    1. Midshipman
      Midshipman 27 January 2018 23: 11 New
      +3
      T-80 on the highway, say 120 rod. The article here was recently.
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 27 January 2018 23: 49 New
      +5
      Quote: Vkd dvk
      80 km per hour for a tank is not an advantage

      The maximum speed for the tank is not an indicator at all. They never go with her - neither in battle, nor on the march. It looks even more funny when a high maximum speed is given as the advantage of one tank over another)
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Egorovich
    Egorovich 27 January 2018 19: 15 New
    +6
    As long as there are no fights between tanks on the battlefield, water can be poured long and hard, which tank is better, which is worse.
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 27 January 2018 19: 57 New
      10
      And if you consider that the tank is intended for combined arms combat, and not for duels, then there will not be enough water laughing drinks
      1. Svarog51
        Svarog51 27 January 2018 20: 03 New
        +3
        Adjust the AC and add wink
      2. Egorovich
        Egorovich 27 January 2018 20: 08 New
        +6
        hi Only real battles can show who is who and no other way. And there you can ask a question, and which crew is sitting in the tank and what their qualifications are, and so on ad infinitum.
    2. sabakina
      sabakina 27 January 2018 21: 10 New
      +6
      Quote: Egorovich
      As long as there are no fights between tanks on the battlefield, water can be poured long and hard, which tank is better, which is worse.

      Alexander, you can argue, but there is such a paragraph as the survivability of the tank. How about this? And the second one. Abrash is not a tank, but rather a tank.
      1. Egorovich
        Egorovich 27 January 2018 21: 43 New
        +7
        The survival of the tank on the battlefield: 1. Do not be detected. 2. If a tank is detected, avoid getting hit (1 and 2-active defense). 3. If the tank got hit, prevent penetration of the armor. 4. If the armor is broken, save the crew and the tank from fatal damage (3 and 4-passive defense). We need a fight, it will show who is who, what is capable of and what the crew is ready for, on which a lot depends.
  8. Chukcha
    Chukcha 27 January 2018 19: 17 New
    +4
    About nothing. Paper comparison.
  9. Vasilenko Vladimir
    Vasilenko Vladimir 27 January 2018 19: 24 New
    +5
    I’ve never been a tanker, but it seems to me that comparing high-speed tank driving on the autobahn is somehow not quite right, they seem to be for another
    1. Kent0001
      Kent0001 27 January 2018 19: 53 New
      0
      Well, yes, you need cross-country.
    2. oldzek
      oldzek 27 January 2018 19: 59 New
      +5
      in 68 we went to Prague at the highest possible speed. On the T-62 it was 60 km. the tank was like a cow on ice. I only saw the backs sticking out on the ditches. but nothing came of it.
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 27 January 2018 21: 13 New
        +2
        Didn’t guess to go on the ground? wink
        1. oldzek
          oldzek 27 January 2018 22: 30 New
          +1
          qigil qigil .... in the sense of time, we got from Tsitau to Prague overnight. By the way, the summer was very wet and if they moved along the ground they would get stuck on the belly, well, hell would have completed the task. I remembered again .. to the concentration area in forest at the border moved periodically pulling each other out (two of the third)
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 28 January 2018 20: 33 New
            +3
            Um. I remember that summer is sunny. In September, yes, it rained, but not very much. True, Krampnitz is a little northwest laughing But nonetheless - drinks
    3. BARKHAN
      BARKHAN 27 January 2018 22: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
      I’ve never been a tanker, but it seems to me that comparing high-speed tank driving on the autobahn is somehow not quite right, they seem to be for another

      This is until you need to briskly dump ...
    4. Doliva63
      Doliva63 29 January 2018 17: 26 New
      +3
      Learn the history of the 15th Rechitsa GvTP - only with a fast march on the autobahn the regiment was able to complete the task. Of course, force majeure, but, in theory, the war is not sweeter. So sometimes it can come in handy.
  10. Herculesic
    Herculesic 27 January 2018 19: 30 New
    +9
    For the hundredth time an empty concussion! If the United States hadn’t drifted, and pulled out their tank at a training ground against ours, followed by firing with real live shells, we would have seen with our own eyes which tank is really the best!
    1. oldzek
      oldzek 27 January 2018 20: 03 New
      0
      but this is by no means possible! if the business loses the whole thing will fly to that very mother. and so la la la and someone will buy. Such competitions are possible if I am confident in both technology and crew! IMHO
  11. Wolka
    Wolka 27 January 2018 19: 31 New
    +9
    but not a word about such an important indicator as price-quality ...
  12. Bullba
    Bullba 27 January 2018 19: 39 New
    +2
    Quote: Volka
    but not a word about such an important indicator as price-quality ...

    Price-quality, this is a sausage to evaluate, and the price-effectiveness technique.
    1. poquello
      poquello 27 January 2018 19: 52 New
      0
      Quote: Bullba
      Quote: Volka
      but not a word about such an important indicator as price-quality ...

      Price-quality, this is a sausage to evaluate, and the price-effectiveness technique.

      But what about dill sausage tanks?
  13. Fedorov
    Fedorov 27 January 2018 19: 43 New
    +5
    Who did not have time to see .. Or physically could not. A long time ago it was ...
  14. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 27 January 2018 19: 44 New
    +8
    I remember that in kindergarten while walking in the fresh air, classmates and I were engaged in an important business - we measured, who is cooler. First, on accuracy - who will not slip in the toilet in the right hole, then after a while, when again wants to go to a small distance. Who will send the "ammunition" farthest winked And I remember, we argued for a long time because of the results of comparisons
    Eh kids .... If we knew then that the real property of these weapons is manifested after decades in bed with girls, both strength, power, and endurance repeat

    And so these “experts” are like small children, measured on paper, and yet the time and experience of exploitation are able to take stock, who is actually the strongest, the roughest and most needed soldier
  15. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 27 January 2018 19: 53 New
    10
    Not a tanker, but an automatic loader, in the form of an additional crew member, looks like an anachronism))) the large mass of the machine, rather a disadvantage than an advantage, will tell anyone who is at least a little versed in technology. Well, the cost of the product .. WWII showed that this factor is one of the key
    It seems to me that this “expert” is an ordinary balabol, fulfilling someone’s order
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 27 January 2018 22: 00 New
      +6
      Quote: The Siberian Barber
      It seems to me that this “expert” is an ordinary balabol, fulfilling someone’s order

      And it is immediately visible! There is no comparison either in the armor penetration of the guns, or in the range of the enemy’s defeat, or in the profile and configuration of the tank, or in the specific pressure on the ground, etc., and the fact that the T-90MS at 5-7 km can get Abrashka anti-tank 3UBK20 rocket - not a word about this ... Notebook "expert" is also modestly silent about the price.
  16. Monarchist
    Monarchist 27 January 2018 20: 03 New
    +2
    Quote: wkd dvk
    80 km per hour for a tank is not an advantage, but suicide.

    I agree: the tank is not a racing car
  17. Altona
    Altona 27 January 2018 20: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: New
    Strange, do we have any shells with a uranium core? Believed to lie in warehouses in the event of a third world war.

    Of depleted uranium, there is, of tungsten. Uranium has the ability to condense from impact, due to which it has a punching effect ... Also, uranium armor works when a projectile encounters.
    1. Bypassed
      Bypassed 27 January 2018 21: 02 New
      +2
      Cadet! Outfit is not in line - the answer is incorrect.
      Depleted uranium has a sufficiently large number of electrons in the outer orbits of the atom.
      With a sufficient collision speed and the correct angle of attack, a sharp drop in the speed of the damaging core occurs and electron breakdown from the atomic lattice is observed. There is a phenomenon called the "explosion of the ionic lattice." At the same time, energy is released 3-4 times more in comparison with the caliber from tungsten. But the price of the projectile is more expensive.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 28 January 2018 00: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: PASSED BY
        At the same time, energy is released 3-4 times more in comparison with the caliber from tungsten. But the price of the projectile is more expensive

        Are depleted uranium core shells more expensive than tungsten alloy core fusion boilers? I always thought that on the contrary, tungsten is more expensive. Uranium - in fact, waste from the nuclear industry. They have a breakdown approximately equal (at meeting speeds of 1,5-1,7 km / s), but the uranium effect is higher - the pyrophoric effect makes itself felt.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 29 January 2018 00: 30 New
          0
          Uranium is more expensive. Uranium “pencils” have an important advantage: they self-sharpen as armor penetrates. And tungsten ones are dull.
      2. Vkd dvk
        Vkd dvk 28 January 2018 00: 38 New
        +3
        Quote: bypassed
        Cadet! Outfit is not in line - the answer is incorrect.
        Depleted uranium has a sufficiently large number of electrons in the outer orbits of the atom.
        With a sufficient collision speed and the correct angle of attack, a sharp drop in the speed of the damaging core occurs and electron breakdown from the atomic lattice is observed. There is a phenomenon called the "explosion of the ionic lattice." At the same time, energy is released 3-4 times more in comparison with the caliber from tungsten. But the price of the projectile is more expensive.



        You don't need to grind nonsense. Impact energies for the perturbation of electron shells (no more than 8 electrons spin on the outer shell of any material). Moving closer to the core fails in chemical high-temperature reactions. The bonds between the molecules are born only on the valence, outer shell. And then, if they are not there a complete set. Gold, for example, has all 8 electrons, so it is not included in any compounds. It is self-sufficient. And he does not give his own, and he does not need someone else's. The impact energy of an armor-piercing projectile from uranium alloys is associated only with its greater specific gravity and high hardness.
        Further, "Scrap" - the core of the American is longer than the Russian. They have separate charging there and the length of the projectile is not so important. We have automatic loaders, and long crutches are difficult to stuff with an automatic machine. Which also increases its mass, and, consequently, the kinetic energy of the impact. Further. The charge they have provides a speed of 10-12% more than ours. The kinetic energy formula has already been completely forgotten, or didn’t know? E = m * v ^ 2 * / 2
        Your statement about 3-4 times superiority using a mythical explosion of some kind of grate there would lead to through penetrations of the tank. Or, to reduce the caliber of the guns. Why the hell to have such a mallet that drowns out over 10 kilometers. It is better to put 76 mm with a million rounds of ammunition.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 27 January 2018 21: 31 New
      +5
      Quote: Altona
      Quote: New
      Strange, do we have any shells with a uranium core? Believed to lie in warehouses in the event of a third world war.

      Of depleted uranium, there is, of tungsten. Uranium has the ability to condense from impact, due to which it has a punching effect ... Also, uranium armor works when a projectile encounters.

      Upon collision with the armor, the uranium rod "self-sharpenes" and warms up to 3000 * C after penetrating the obstacle ... The ammunition stack detonates at the expense of "two" ... That's why depleted uranium shells have such penetrative power ...
      1. Vkd dvk
        Vkd dvk 28 January 2018 09: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Quote: Altona
        Quote: New
        Strange, do we have any shells with a uranium core? Believed to lie in warehouses in the event of a third world war.

        Of depleted uranium, there is, of tungsten. Uranium has the ability to condense from impact, due to which it has a punching effect ... Also, uranium armor works when a projectile encounters.

        Upon collision with the armor, the uranium rod "self-sharpenes" and warms up to 3000 * C after penetrating the obstacle ... The ammunition stack detonates at the expense of "two" ... That's why depleted uranium shells have such penetrative power ...

        This is how ANY shell behaves. But subcaliber (with a small cross-section), especially hard and having increased speeds, made of very dense and hard materials, cause this effect to the maximum extent. The energy of the impact melts the harrow at the tip of the projectile in the form of a crater of small cross section, in the form of a lens. Which is pressed into the thickness of the armor and melts it to the entire thickness. Multilayer barriers keep such an impact well, but solid burn through like cumulative. The chemistry of the projectile metal does not play any role here. Tungsten does the same, but to a lesser extent. The kinetic effect is crucial here.
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 29 January 2018 00: 31 New
        0
        Did not notice your post - wrote the same thing. hi
    3. Dedall
      Dedall 27 January 2018 22: 26 New
      +1
      Sam saw in Kyzyl-Avat shooting such things. 33 years have passed since then, but I don’t think that all those shells spent.
    4. Yuriy_999
      Yuriy_999 28 January 2018 02: 15 New
      0
      There are also depleted uranium. From Needle to Lead. And this is just what is in the public domain.
  18. Altona
    Altona 27 January 2018 20: 21 New
    +2
    Quote: Monarchist
    Quote: wkd dvk
    80 km per hour for a tank is not an advantage, but suicide.
    I agree: the tank is not a racing car

    First of all, excessive fuel consumption.
  19. Altona
    Altona 27 January 2018 20: 23 New
    +5
    Quote: The Siberian Barber
    Not a tanker, but an automatic loader, in the form of an additional crew member, looks like an anachronism))) the large mass of the machine, rather a disadvantage than an advantage, will tell anyone who is at least a little versed in technology. Well, the cost of the product .. WWII showed that this factor is one of the key
    It seems to me that this “expert” is an ordinary balabol, fulfilling someone’s order

    The expert apparently forgot about bridges, tunnels, railways and highways, where such an “advantage” is especially relevant.
  20. Altona
    Altona 27 January 2018 20: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    And here, the terribly expensive Leclerc is doing great, and today it has the smallest amount of losses.

    This fellow must each time before the battle alignment of devices anew, otherwise it is all in vain.)))
  21. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 27 January 2018 20: 40 New
    +5
    Oh how ... Evaluation on the principle: "The result is ordered, let's customize the calculations."
  22. Altona
    Altona 27 January 2018 21: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: PASSED BY
    With a sufficient collision speed and the correct angle of attack, a sharp drop in the speed of the damaging core occurs and electron breakdown from the atomic lattice is observed. There is a phenomenon called the "explosion of the ionic lattice." At the same time, energy is released 3-4 times more in comparison with the caliber from tungsten. But the price of the projectile is more expensive

    -------------------------------------
    Pyrophoricity, the ability to spontaneous combustion, is the next step. Already in the reserved space. Depleted uranium is cheap.
    1. Bypassed
      Bypassed 27 January 2018 23: 05 New
      0
      The structural basis of any metal is a rigid crystal lattice, the nodes of which are occupied by positive ions. The space between them is filled with almost free negative electrons, the chaotic motion of which resembles an ordinary gas. The lattice retains its shape only due to the energy of the metal bond existing between these oppositely charged particles. By binding energy is meant the energy that is required for sublimation or separation of a solid into separate neutral atoms at its initial temperature of 0 K.

      according to quantum theory, if the cloud of electrons is somehow ordered, their kinetic energy will increase. In other words, it is worth at least part of the free electrons to group, "distract" from the role of glue, collecting, for example, in a directed flow, as the same charged ions instantly leave the lattice sites, repelling from each other. This is the constant readiness of the metal crystal to explode.
      Consider the projectile as a stopping coil. Its atoms are rigidly connected by a crystal lattice into a single array. When the projectile hits the armor, the lattice stops, but the free electrons continue to move by inertia. The kinetic energy of the directed electron flow in the projectile will be ten orders of magnitude higher than in copper. It is this energy, due to the localization of free electrons, that causes the partial decay of the projectile or the complete decay of the sub-caliber projectile.

      The signs that determine whether a metal will explode or not are the speed v of the body’s movement before the impact, the atomic mass A of the metal of which it consists, the kinetic energy W 10-8Av2 / 2 (in electron volts) of each of its atoms, corresponding to the speed of motion, particle binding energy in metal and their ratio a = W /.

      The kinetic energy of the projectile serves only as the "fuse" that upsets the energy balance of the metal crystal during the deceleration of the projectile.
      1. Bypassed
        Bypassed 27 January 2018 23: 21 New
        0
        It was on this principle of the “explosion of the ionic lattice” that the creation of the space weapons of the “arrow of God” was planned, when it was planned to drop tungsten rods from the satellite from the earth.
      2. Vkd dvk
        Vkd dvk 28 January 2018 02: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: bypassed
        The structural basis of any metal is a rigid crystal lattice, the nodes of which are occupied by positive ions. The space between them is filled with almost free negative electrons, the chaotic motion of which resembles an ordinary gas. The lattice retains its shape only due to the energy of the metal bond existing between these oppositely charged particles. By binding energy is meant the energy that is required for sublimation or separation of a solid into separate neutral atoms at its initial temperature of 0 K.

        according to quantum theory, if the cloud of electrons is somehow ordered, their kinetic energy will increase. In other words, it is worth at least part of the free electrons to group, "distract" from the role of glue, collecting, for example, in a directed flow, as the same charged ions instantly leave the lattice sites, repelling from each other. This is the constant readiness of the metal crystal to explode.
        Consider the projectile as a stopping coil. Its atoms are rigidly connected by a crystal lattice into a single array. When the projectile hits the armor, the lattice stops, but the free electrons continue to move by inertia. The kinetic energy of the directed electron flow in the projectile will be ten orders of magnitude higher than in copper. It is this energy, due to the localization of free electrons, that causes the partial decay of the projectile or the complete decay of the sub-caliber projectile.

        The signs that determine whether a metal will explode or not are the speed v of the body’s movement before the impact, the atomic mass A of the metal of which it consists, the kinetic energy W 10-8Av2 / 2 (in electron volts) of each of its atoms, corresponding to the speed of motion, particle binding energy in metal and their ratio a = W /.

        The kinetic energy of the projectile serves only as the "fuse" that upsets the energy balance of the metal crystal during the deceleration of the projectile.

        The impact of the body leading to the movement of electrons.
        Ravings of a madman. Electrons, by definition, cannot be at rest. Their sublight speeds, determined by magnetic, electric fields and projectile collision speeds, are millions of times more insignificant. Paranoia. Non-dislocation material prior to impact and the resulting dislocation, emitting a huge amount of thermal energy. The crystal lattice of positive ions. None of the psychiatrists talked to you?
  23. Fanat85
    Fanat85 27 January 2018 21: 29 New
    0
    but if you conduct statistics on how many military operations were carried out on this equipment and how many, with what losses, I won’t be surprised that the old hard worker t-72 will turn out to be better despite the fact that he is less protected than modern models.
    1. Yuriy_999
      Yuriy_999 28 January 2018 02: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Fanat85
      but if you conduct statistics on how many military operations were carried out on this equipment and how many, with what losses, I won’t be surprised that the old hard worker t-72 will turn out to be better despite the fact that he is less protected than modern models.

      More likely t 62
  24. K-50
    K-50 27 January 2018 21: 58 New
    0
    Russia also has cores for depleted uranium tank shells, they only lie in warehouses, because they are not good for health, but the Yankens can even sleep and hug with their own. Manure is not a pity. request laughing
  25. Simon
    Simon 27 January 2018 22: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: 264
    Leopard is the best !!! Let's be honest with ourselves ...

    Not sure! And where did he take part in the battles? Where did they check it? Polygon checks are nonsense! request fool
  26. Simon
    Simon 27 January 2018 22: 07 New
    +3
    Quote: K-50
    Russia also has cores for depleted uranium tank shells, they only lie in warehouses, because they are not good for health, but the Yankens can even sleep and hug with their own. Manure is not a pity. request laughing

    We still have shells with tungsten cores, they are not inferior to shells with uranium cores! stop
  27. Sedoy
    Sedoy 27 January 2018 22: 11 New
    0
    already pulled up such ANALTIKI ...
  28. Kyrgyz
    Kyrgyz 27 January 2018 22: 14 New
    +1
    Quote: KaPToC
    Quote: Separ DNR
    And if the losses correlate with the number of units produced and participated in the battles?

    Why is it pulling a condom on the globe?

    Because without this, the best will be Japanese Korean and Chinese tanks, they have zero losses, and the worst will be Russian and American, they burned the most
  29. Dedall
    Dedall 27 January 2018 22: 30 New
    +2
    Ours are the best because Westerners can only move if they are serviced by three engineers every day -
    weapons, engine and control systems. And we have a sergeant-contractor and a couple of conscripts coping with this.
  30. Mentat
    Mentat 27 January 2018 22: 31 New
    +2
    Quote: 264
    Leopard is the best !!! Let's be honest with ourselves ...

    Best than? The fact that you liked his appearance more in World of Tanks?
  31. Berkut24
    Berkut24 27 January 2018 22: 35 New
    +2
    A strange comparison. Tanks of what years and what modifications are compared? For reference: Shells with a uranium core show a mixed result for even T-72. In Iraq, there were cases when, when hit even on board, the projectile stuck without causing damage to the vehicle. And in general, the Iraqi desert on the site of past battles is simply dotted with these shells, and in such a quantity that it is many times greater than the number of all Iraqi tanks. But 80% of Iraqi tanks were hit from the air. At the same time, the latest modification of the T-90 has a cannon from the T-14 (surpassing the best NATO cannon from the Rheinmetal by 15%) and significantly exceeding the range of guided projectiles. The engine is also new for 1000 l / s and, accordingly, the speed also became higher. Not that it needs to be compared with the Chinese, but it’s really stupid to compare by the numbers that the Chinese give. Moreover, Type-99s are released in a limited edition and are not supplied anywhere. Therefore, in this regard, I have some questions about reliability, real protection, tank avionics, etc. There is no detailed information on any tank under discussion, only a comparison of brochures. Only war statistics put everything in its place. if we compare what we see in the Middle East now, it says that Abrams, in the modification of the beginning of the 2000s, practically merges the T-90 in the modification of the beginning of the 90s ... The Type-99 has never met a real enemy.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 29 January 2018 00: 38 New
      0
      "Iraq, there were cases when when hit even on board the projectile stuck without leading to defeat" /////

      These are small uranium shells fired by A-10 attack aircraft and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.
      (and the thousands that are dotted with deserts - these are exactly 30 mm shells.)
      And Abrams shells pierced the foreheads of T-71, like butter, went through the fighting compartment
      and stuck in the motor.
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 29 January 2018 10: 44 New
        +1
        Our guys quite a long time ago received a sufficient number of these shells for shooting. It would be strange if they did not fall into our landfills. The result was really far from unambiguous. In vain the Americans so blindly believe in them.
  32. Comrade Kim
    Comrade Kim 27 January 2018 22: 40 New
    0
    Quote: svp67
    And here, the terribly expensive Leclerc is doing great, and today it has the smallest amount of losses

    Statistics is an exact science.
    Kindly give a link to the number of Leclercies participating in the conflicts and the number of fighting losses.
  33. ljoha_d
    ljoha_d 27 January 2018 22: 46 New
    0
    able to compete with American and Chinese cars
    Our tanks should not be in competition, but should surpass all foreign counterparts.
  34. JD1979
    JD1979 27 January 2018 23: 09 New
    0
    That's just interesting: what a clever person thought of placing the BC in the tank so that it cannot be hidden from defeat from the word ABSOLUTELY. Even if you stand on the defensive burying yourself in the tower, the BC is accessible for defeat. There is only one way out - to dig into the hatches, or not to fight at all. And which tanks are so made? And in which tower without BC? And in which tank would you prefer to fight?
  35. Chaos
    Chaos 27 January 2018 23: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: RASKAT
    It seems to me personally that at the current level of technology, at least in our army, no one will send tanks anymore in WWII for oncoming frontal tank attacks. If only enemy tanks appear on the horizon, large forces, such as a battalion or more. There, either the MLRS will immediately work there, with cassette, or self-aiming warheads, or aviation or helicopters. Or a tactical missile will fly Iskander for example. (Although a conventional Grade warhead is enough for any tank for the eyes).
    It seems to me that this will most likely be.
    And the smaller forces of the enemy’s tanks will be burned from a great distance by concentrated fire from anti-tank missiles and anti-tank systems, since now our troops are saturated with this good. From the Tigers with Cornets to STURM-S and Chrysanthemums.

    You described the perfect war. That will not be. Surely something will go wrong. Therefore, they must prepare for frontal tank attacks.
  36. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 27 January 2018 23: 38 New
    +2
    At the same time, the severity of “Abrams” can be considered its advantage.

    I wonder how this is? The heavier - the steeper that eh? lol Drowning deeper in the mud and breaking more bridges?
  37. aszzz888
    aszzz888 28 January 2018 03: 17 New
    +1
    ... I think that the mericatos will not fight in tanks on the territory of China, just like the Chinese at the mericatos .., so all these comparisons are virtual, and you can paint anything ... bully
    1. Graz
      Graz 28 January 2018 09: 04 New
      0
      both sell export versions, so that someday they may push in battle
  38. Uneducated_General_DV
    Uneducated_General_DV 28 January 2018 04: 27 New
    0
    Pfff ... It is necessary to compare not according to characteristics.
  39. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 28 January 2018 05: 18 New
    0
    The newest Type-99 Chinese tank is far ahead of its competitors in speed and can accelerate to 80 kilometers per hour on the road.

    So it can run away. But only on the road and it pleases.
  40. Archon
    Archon 28 January 2018 06: 49 New
    0
    In general, in Russia they could buy Leclerc, leopard, merkava, Abrams, type 99 and compare them in an open off-road test.
  41. gla172
    gla172 28 January 2018 07: 01 New
    0
    ... it seems to me that it is not correct to compare these tanks .... at least the abrams are definitely not in cash there .....
  42. Nemesis
    Nemesis 28 January 2018 11: 43 New
    +1
    Another PSAKING, nothing more ... Shells with a uranium core are not know-how. Such shells were developed in the USSR and for China, they are probably no secret. Shells with a uranium core are radioactive, and they were abandoned in the USSR, in favor of cores made of victorious alloys, which are not much inferior to uranium cores, ate inferior. Uranium core shell technology in the USSR postponed for a rainy day
  43. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 28 January 2018 20: 15 New
    +1
    All, without exception, tanks have the same drawback - visibility.
    Based on this, those with the best maneuverability and firing range, with sufficient protection and of course with sufficient training, will certainly win the battle.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 28 January 2018 20: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Shaikin Vladimir
      All, without exception, tanks have the same drawback - visibility

      And they are trying to get rid of him. The Americans have long come up with the concept of designing military equipment not as an independent unit, but as included in the general information field. The concept of network-centric warfare. Physically, the crew didn’t see it themselves, and almost didn’t see anything (despite the fact that they had installed cameras), but it took a picture from those who could see it perfectly — from infantry, from another tank, from a UAV, from a satellite, etc. . It’s worth working in this direction. Situational awareness is no less important than crew training, armor or a tank gun.
  44. poquello
    poquello 28 January 2018 23: 51 New
    0
    Quote: Misha Honest
    Quote: poquello
    Quote: Misha Honest
    And this is only the USA, and not all NATO countries. (

    super, you have given an advantage in people and planes, this is not air superiority, there may be no planes at all, but this is not a reason for enemy flights)

    Are you really so naive or pretending to be?
    The fact is that NATO has air superiority 2-4 times. And this is already at the moment. And they also increase it.

    yes shozh you are so stupid
    means the achievement of such a position in the airspace, in which their sukhutnyh troops, the navy and aviation are provided with the opportunity to successfully fulfill their tasks without encountering organized and serious opposition from the air

    https://tactical_terms.academic.ru/531/
    what is their superiority in the air, if the bourgeois in most territories already fly, if something happens they can’t?
    you think all planes are ridiculous already, the Second World War was 70 years ago, adjustment from the air defense system from Vietnam has more than a serious impact
  45. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 29 January 2018 16: 21 New
    0
    About the combat power of the whole, “Abrams” is utter nonsense. All three conditionally compared tanks have similar approximate characteristics ..... minus Abrams - this is his severity, and he does not benefit from this in security