Comparison of the main characteristics of the T-90 and Leopard-2A tanks

A modern army cannot exist without the constant updating of military equipment and weapons. This statement applies to heavy armored vehicles. Despite expert forecasts that in the near future Tanks generally disappear from the battlefield, at the moment they play, sometimes, a decisive role in armed confrontations. A good example is the war in Iraq, when it was precisely due to the firepower and mobility of its tank units that the US army was able to advance rapidly from the country's borders to its capital.

Russia has the most advanced technology in the development of space weapons, but what can its army oppose in a ground confrontation? Quite often in various media you can find critical statements that the T-90 tank in its current form does not meet the requirements for a modern combat vehicle. The Germans believe that their modern “Leopard” is the best in the world and in opposition it has no equal, and certainly not a competitor to it the Russian T-90. Unfortunately, not only the Germans claim that our tank is morally and technically outdated, said Alexander Postnikov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Land Forces, said this. In a statement in early March, he spoke in an extremely dismissive manner about the technical data of the tank, in which there is nothing modern, and in reality it is just another modification of the Soviet T-72, which was created in the distant 1973 year. Of course, such words and even from the mouth of a high-ranking official give reason for reflection, and is T-90 so good against the background of foreign samples of similar military equipment? To get the answer, let's consider the basic data of the T-90 and the German Leopard, as one of the main competitors.

Comparison of the main characteristics of the T-90 and Leopard-2A tanks

Tank protection
T-90 has a sharply differentiated anti-shell armor protection. The main material used for the manufacture of the hull of the tank is armor steel. To protect the frontal part of the tower, as well as the frontal hull plate, multi-layer composite armor is used. The form of the armor case of the car and its layout in comparison with T-72 practically did not change, but security in comparison with the predecessor increased due to the use of modern composite armor. Accurate booking information remains classified. The stability of a reservation against shelling by subscaling armored piercing shells with the built-in modern dynamic protection is estimated to be equivalent to 800 — 830 mm of armored steel. The durability of the hull and turret booking during shelling by cumulative ammunition is estimated at 1150 — 1350 mm. These data refer to the maximum level of reservation, namely, the frontal part of the hull and turret, but the tank also has weakened zones: a section of the driver-mechanic's viewing device, as well as sections of the tower on the sides of the gun embrasure. In addition to traditional armor and dynamic protection, the tank is equipped with an active protection system, which consists of the modern blind-1 electronic-optical suppression system. The main purpose of the complex is to protect against destruction by anti-tank guided missiles. It consists of a station of electron-optical suppression and a system for installing curtains of external masking.

"Leopard" unlike T-90 has a much lower degree of protection. First of all, it is connected with the requirement of the army leadership in terms of maintaining the total weight at the level of 50 tons. The increase in the level of protection has been achieved through the use of modern welded structures of the tower and the hull using multi-layered armor, as well as a set of advanced structural-layout measures. By reducing the level of reservation of the roof of the hull and the tower, as well as the sides, the thickness of the armor on the frontal fragments was increased. The upper frontal sheet of the tank hull has a significant angle of inclination (81 °), the tower is made in a wedge-shaped form. Frontal armor provides the equivalent of sheet armor around 1000 mm when shelling with cumulative ammunition and 700 mm when shelling an armor-piercing under-caliber ammunition. The tank is equipped with a high-speed automatic complex of NGOs, smoke grenade launchers, the charges of which are painted with special dyes. One of the recognized advantages is a high degree of crew protection in the event of armor damage. This is due to the fact that the ammunition and fuel are securely isolated from the crew. Combat laying is equipped with folding plates that bring the explosion energy to the outside. A number of elements used in the design also serves as an additional protection. The fuel tanks are located in the front, the most protected part of the fenced shelves, which reduces the chance of hitting the driver-mechanic during shelling from the sides. The sides of the hull are additionally protected by rubber screens, reinforced with armor plates.

The main armament of the Russian T-90 a smoothbore 125-2A46M mm gun with a barrel caliber 48 / 6000 mm, which is arranged in front of the tower in paired with a heavy machine gun mounted on trunnions and stabilized in two parallel planes 2E42 system-4 «Jasmine". The gun is equipped with an automatic loader and has the ability to drive shots with guided weapons. When firing armor-piercing cumulative and sub-caliber ammunition, the maximum targeting range is set up on a computer, guided missile ammunition - 4000 m, high-explosive fragmentation ammunition - up to 5000 10 m. Missiles are launched using the main gun, missiles are guided by a laser beam in manual or semi-automatic mode. The guided weapons system allows you to fire with the probability of hitting the target close to one by moving at speeds up to 000 km / h or fixed targets at a distance from 9 to 119 m, in the static position of the tank or in motion at a speed of no more than 70 km / h. For aiming fire in conditions of poor visibility and at night in the tank, the “Essa” sight is used in which the Catherine-FC thermal imaging camera is integrated. The sighting system consists of a thermal imaging camera, which is stabilized in two planes. Using the camera, the tank commander and gunner can continuously monitor the terrain from individual screens, as well as produce precise weapon control using the standard shot control system.

The main armament "Leopard" is the 120 mm smoothbore gun. The length of the barrel 5520 mm. Shooting range: in a static position - 3 500 m, in motion - 2 500 m. The main sight is EMES-12, which was specially developed for this model of the tank by Zeiss. The sight consists of integrated laser and stereoscopic rangefinders. The combination of two different range finders allows you to improve the accuracy and reliability of measuring the distance to the target. The gunner can use a monocular periscopic sight model - TZF-1A as auxiliary equipment. The tank commander has a periscope panoramic sight of the model PERI-R-12, in which the line of sight is stabilized. The tank commander has the ability to independently direct the gun, for which the synchronization mechanism of the gun barrel axis and the optical axis of the sight is used. Observation devices with opto-electronic amplifiers and active IR night-observation devices are used for observation in conditions of poor visibility and at night. FLER-H computer fire control systems produce firing data based on the distance to the target, atmospheric conditions, the spatial position of the tank, and the type of ammunition. For accurate aiming from the gunner is required only to choose the target and impose a marker on it. To detect camouflaged targets serves a special sensor that responds to their thermal radiation.

On the T-90 a diesel engine with a capacity of 840 hp is installed (in some modifications the engine power has been brought to the 1000 hp) liquid cooling B-84MS. These diesel engines are truly multi-fuel and can work not only on diesel fuel, but also on kerosene and gasoline, and without loss of power. On the B-84MS collectors, special bellows are installed, which allow the exhaust gases to be mixed with air, which not only improves the temperature regime for reliable operation of the collectors, but also reduces the thermal visibility of the tank.

Power point "Leopard" combined into a single structural complex. The engine in the engine compartment is located along the hull of the tank, and between the compartment itself and the fighting compartment there is a fireproof partition. The tank is equipped with a multi-fuel V-shaped 12 cylinder four-stroke MB 873 diesel engine with 1500 horsepower.

The characteristics listed above allow a small comparison between the widely advertised German Leopard and the Russian T-90. Obviously, in terms of protection and armament, our tank is far superior to the main German tank. The only thing T-90 loses is in the power plant. This is due not only to the advantage in power, but also in the amount of time needed to replace the engine. So, when repairing a T-90, mechanics would need about 6 hours to do a replacement, and in a German tank, 15 minutes are sufficient for this.

The advantage of the Russian tank is obvious, and taking into account the fact that the aimed fire of the T-90 can lead at a distance of 5000 m, and the Leopard only 3000 m, that is, there is little doubt that the German tank in general can approach the Russian on the battlefield. In commercial terms, the T-90 also looks more attractive, its price is two times lower than the Leopard.

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Owl
    April 5 2011 10: 48
    It looks like preparations for Russia's entry into NATO, NATO is doing much better, so there is no need to support domestic designers and manufacturers, it is easier and more profitable to finish off and forget Russian manufacturers and developers. The fish rots from the head.
  2. +2
    April 5 2011 11: 30
    I also forgot to mention one important point, T-90 is not only cheaper, it is also Russian-made, and this is our scientific potential, our production facilities, personnel training, etc.
  3. Alexander
    April 5 2011 12: 11
    The "Leopard" has more "rollback", and this is the most important modern characteristic for our Defense Ministry.
  4. +4
    April 5 2011 12: 18
    Roll back a leg away and on the very laces in a fat ass to fly to America itself ...
  5. turnip
    April 5 2011 13: 07
    now arrange in MO 37, then after 30 years so a new maize will say destroyed the color of the army
  6. Drcoks
    April 5 2011 15: 56
    Almost agree =)
    By the way, why exactly a leopard? because of the saying?
    And why didn’t they mention the active protection system? or they don’t put it already?
  7. darth
    April 5 2011 18: 40
    What the hell is written here? Leo 2a5 weighs 62 tons, and there are big doubts about the T-90s cool reservation - just look at the tank tower at the time of video 0.56 (seem) -where the tankers got out of the tower and estimate (approximately) the wall thickness - there are no declared meters with hook (in equivalent), the article is explicit agitation in order to buy the T-90 ...
  8. genosse
    April 5 2011 18: 42
    If, however, seriously compare, it turns out a completely different picture. Let's start with the guns. Because of the automatic loader, our ammunition is limited in length and in terms of penetration is generally not suitable in comparison. That is why in Western tanks there is an infectious, which can push the armor-piercing core of any length. Western ammunition has the potential of breaking through T 90 in the forehead, ours does not have such a potential or with a very limited probability. As for target designation and detection and location by the speed and accuracy of firing, one can imagine that there is parity with Thales devices, although there are big doubts ... The aiming range also raises doubts (2500 versus 4000?), Let's be honest here all is about the same. Firing missiles at 5000 may be a small advantage, but given the penetrative ability of these types of missiles, counter-guidance and other active protective measures, this is not a decisive factor! In general, it can be said that the T 90 corresponds to its price and is a dangerous tank, but inferior in combat capabilities to the Leopard about 1 to 1,5. Everything is relative and decisive will be the situation of the meeting. The fact that we do not need a new model, the T 90 is sufficient in this regard in comparison with Leopards and the like.
    1. mvkot120669
      9 January 2012 03: 16
      You wrote everything approximately correctly .... there is only one thing, but NOBODY can say, where tank battles can take place at a distance of 5 km))) Definitely not in Europe! In the smooth open desert chtoli ??? But ... the duel will not reach - the tanks of one of the sides (we will not specify which one) simply will not reach the collision site ... For in the clean open desert they will simply be destroyed from the air - those who will own the "air" ..
  9. Kettle
    April 5 2011 20: 53
    Explain to me, illiterate, how to compare the power-to-weight ratio in the ratio of the mass of the T-90 to 48 tons and Leo - 62 tons. This time. How will the fact that the T-90 is half a meter BELOW Leo affect in real combat? How did they manage to calculate the ratio of the effectiveness of tanks as 1: 1,5. How to understand then that 800 T-34-76 near Prokhorovka defeated 700 high-tech "Tigers" and "Panthers", against which according to those. characteristics did not have a single chance ???
    1. svvaulsh
      29 July 2011 15: 52
      The power ratio in this context is the engine power divided by the mass of the tank. About 1: 1,5 - rubbish sucked from the finger by another room strategist.
  10. Fell from the moon
    April 5 2011 20: 54
    Where is the tank - 95?
    Good tryndet about the old!
    WHERE IS NEW ???

    I, penny, consider this a betrayal.
    As ekranoplans, as well as trimarans ZelPKB ...
    Carrots - at the helm. Taki demand from them.
  11. Escander
    April 5 2011 21: 29
    Well, it started ... One woodpecker blurted out about Leoperd and the people already know more about him than the Germans themselves.
    The point is not in the Leopards and others like him, but in relation to the military-industrial complex.
    You look at the British, they hurt the same. How difficult were the birth of Challenger, although they could have purchased the Abrams offered by the brothers. However, no, the Prime Minister himself took up the tanks. And the scandal was that England had bad tanks due to the lack of competitors at the manufacturer in the domestic market. It’s just that people understand that collapse means getting addicted, being left without technology and work.
    T-90, of course, son of a bitch. But this is OUR son of a bitch!
  12. Maksim
    April 5 2011 23: 07
    I believe that our T-90 is a little mafia. The best tank will work. I’m deeply disappointed with the policies of Serdy-govnyukov and Zhopovkin. Of course, I’ll roll back. What else. Buy the Leopards for that kind of money — feed Germany. Take our tanks — leave our hungry people! Better Leopard, because he is German. Ugh !!! Where is the iron hand of the government? Where is the support of the Russian defense industry?
  13. Satric
    April 5 2011 23: 07
    Quote: Kettle
    How in real combat will the fact that the T-90 is half a meter BELOW Leo?

    Theoretically: lower silhouette - harder to get.

    Quote: Kettle
    How to understand then that 800 T-34-76 near Prokhorovka defeated 700 high-tech "Tigers" and "Panthers", against which according to those. characteristics did not have a single chance ???

    Can you imagine what a cloud of dust raises such an amount of equipment?)
    Therefore, effective fire did not start from 2km, but much closer, i.e. the range of the German guns was no use. And far from 700 there were Tigers and Panthers :)

    Quote: Kettle
    How did you manage to calculate the ratio of the effectiveness of tanks as 1: 1,5.

    This question needs to be asked directly. genosse, he probably personally simulated a tank battle, so he knows why "approximately" such a coefficient.
  14. 0
    April 6 2011 01: 21
    Greed !!! These renegades already grab money with their mouth and sphincter. What is their homeland! Their homeland, where the money lies and the pitchforks stand. IN SPRAY OF ALL OF THEM !!!!!
  15. Mao Zedong
    April 6 2011 20: 30
    The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Ground Forces is a man who once betrayed his family.
    Postnikov (in girlhood, sorry for the marriage of Streltsov) Alexander Nikolaevich, married the daughter of the chief of staff of the Kiev military district, Colonel General (later Army General) Stanislav Ivanovich Postnikov, and therefore took the double name of Postnikov-Streltsov, Postnikov. Source
    If yesterday the family was not nice to please something unknown, today it’s tanks, it’s clear that it will be sold tomorrow. And in general, it makes you think
  16. genosse
    April 7 2011 20: 38

    Quote: Kettle
    How did they manage to calculate the ratio of the effectiveness of tanks as 1: 1,5. How to understand then that 800 T-34-76 near Prokhorovka defeated 700 high-tech "Tigers" and "Panthers", against which according to those. characteristics did not have a single chance ???

    1 to 1,5 is from Western forums (competent), of course it is impossible to accurately determine the ratio without a real battle, or rather several fights.
    And as for Prokhorovka, I don’t want to upset anyone, but there really our people leaked a lot of tanks and practically did not destroy the nifig! Lost something like 150 cars, knocked out less than ten. This is me, this is a bitter truth. Of course, it concerns only the battle under the Prokhorovka and not all the battle of Kursk
    1. svvaulsh
      29 July 2011 16: 04
      There are archival documents on concerning the Battle of Kursk. You first familiarize yourself with them, and then comment, and do not carry any nonsense. Although, judging by the nickname, you protect your own. Then learn history so that you know what the Red Army-SA did with the Nazis.
  17. genosse
    April 8 2011 05: 14
    Quote: Kettle
    How in real combat will the fact that the T-90 is half a meter BELOW Leo?

    in a real battle, it will tell whether the crew knows before contact where the enemy is, what forces are ahead and how quickly targets will be detected upon contact.
  18. Flanker66
    April 14 2011 16: 47
    Quote: Kettle
    Explain to me, illiterate, how to compare the power ratio in the mass ratio of T-90 to 48 tons and Leo - 62 tons.

    The t-90 has 48 horsepower per tonne of weight, the leopard has 41,3 hp / t ... It turns out the T-90 looks preferable! )))
    1. Winchester
      25 June 2011 14: 22
      840 / 48 = 17,5
      1000 / 48 = 21
      1500 / 62,5 = 24
  19. Banzai
    April 17 2011 20: 52
    IMHO, tanks, as a kind of weapon, have become obsolete. For example, ANY tank (along with a trained crew) for millions of dollars can destroy an illiterate Palestinian with a Cornet missile for 5 thousand bucks.
  20. Alex
    April 20 2011 21: 46
    The people and what it is about. Heard about Chrysanthemum - 3-4 of these machines hit up to 16 tanks, and the thickness of the armor is not taken into account. And more recently, I saw RPG 32 Hashim made specifically for the Arabs on the principle of the tandem warhead.
    I'm not talking about Msta S - although there are enough brainstorming with it no less than with tanks But in general IT is promising - I even saw it with twin trunks - such as to increase the rate of fire and work on the area ...
    In general, think for yourself what toy to play with ....
  21. Joker
    April 21 2011 09: 16
    It is very fashionable to talk about the disadvantages of our tanks, but do not forget that "competitors" also have them.

    I decided to make my contribution.

    Leopard-2A (1-6) / Abrams cons:

    - Weak armor of the roof, side and stern;
    - Weak frontal armor Leopard2 / For Abrams, the presence of weakened zones of about 40% of the area / For Leopard2A5 / 6 options, a tightened front part (i.e., the reliability of the chassis is low, low maneuverability);
    - Manual loading of guns;
    - Lack of a remotely controlled ZPU (to use a machine gun on the tower, you need to half lean out of the hatch);
    - The impossibility of firing guided missiles (the real range of fire against moving targets is limited in the region of 1500 meters, T-90 missiles to 5000 meters);
    - Overweight 65-70 tons offhand, i.e. an average aircraft can translate two T-72 / T-90 tanks, but only one Leopard-2A / Abrams1A;
    - Very low reliability, especially compared to the T-72 / T-90;
    - For Abrams gas turbine engine, high fire hazard, low reliability in especially in deserts and semi-deserts, strong thermal footprint (very hot exhaust);
    - The driver can leave the tank only through the tower hatch (in combat conditions, with a high degree of probability it’s a corpse, for an abrams, the driver can get out only with the tower turned back);
    - Lack of a manhole hatch (in the bottom);
    - Lack of serial warning systems for laser irradiation (pointing anti-tank missiles at the tank, the T-90 has a curtain system);
    - They have a low power reserve offhand, 350 kilometers, in our area of ​​700 kilometers;
    - Large area of ​​the side projection of the tower;
    - Placement of part of the ammunition (Leo) or the entire ammunition in the tower (abrams) - based on the statistics, the tower has the largest number of hits;
    1. mvkot120669
      9 January 2012 03: 12
      In whom and at what theater of operations the T-90 can shoot for 5 km ??? Where is this area ???
  22. Phaeton
    14 May 2011 12: 29
    can not
  23. MichaelVl
    9 June 2011 08: 15
    People, do you really believe that our leadership can replace the T-90 with Leoprada (or even some tanks) ??? I think that’s all nonsense! And, by the way, there was an article about the fact that a decision had already been made to purchase the T-90s. Our tanks are great cars and everyone knows that. The fact that the hype around Postnikov (or whoever blurted out the nonsense about the T-90 and Leoperada there), does not mean that we have “removed” at the top. Everything will be fine! :)
  24. MichaelVl
    9 June 2011 08: 25
    The Germans say that their tank is the best, the Americans - what they have, and the Chinese generally said that their "Type" is more modern and perfect than all Abrams leopards combined (And they made it, by the way, based on our tank :))) )). So let the critics criticize, but so far there will be no replacements. We have a good tank and we will fight on it!
    1. 0
      9 June 2011 12: 09
      We have a good tank and we will fight on it!
      yeah, on t64-72-80 ... wink
  25. Redfox71
    18 June 2011 00: 26
    Just something no one likes to remember the level of crew protection in any T-Series tanks!
    And as he was, he remained at level 2 of the Second World War! When breaking through the armor, and this is not a problem for modern anti-tank weapons, any T: that 90, that 80, that 72 turns into a mass grave, because the ammunition is in the fighting compartment in the automatic loader, and even in the control compartment, and nothing separated from the crew (which is actually more expensive than any equipment)
    The sad result is the explosion of the ammunition and there is no tank (there are two parts that cannot be restored from it: the hull - separately, and the tower - separately) or a trained crew ... :(
    1. Joker
      18 June 2011 01: 19
      First find out where the ammunition at the Leopard is located.
      1. Redfox71
        2 July 2011 18: 38
        What Leopard, are you our writer ?! A1? A2? A3? A4? A5? Or as in your lengthy reasoning - "offhand"? Look in the reference books for differences in the series, in particular for the placement of ammunition. And yet, for general development, a unitary shot is much less prone to simultaneous detonation than an AZ conveyor with powder charges.
        And here's a link for you, which shows in detail why the layout of ALL "T" is the level of the Second World War ...
        1. Joker
          6 July 2011 11: 32

          As far as I understand, we are talking about Leopard 2.
          According to my information, the stock of shells there is not only in the tower but to the left of the fur. water.

          In theory, regardless of modification, or do you have information on the development of inflatable shells that can be stored in your breast pocket?
          1. Redfox71
            6 July 2011 19: 41
            I’m already tired of repeating the same thing more than once. Leopard 2 has modifications that are very different, even in appearance!
            Not to mention the differences inside! If you write dozens of comments on each topic, then you need to know the basic things. About Leopard "just" 2 - you are talking about it, I ask: WHAT modification are we talking about ?!
            1. Joker
              7 July 2011 09: 38
              Appearance differs in a weather-cloth, an arrangement of knots and units as a whole is similar.
          2. svvaulsh
            29 July 2011 16: 10
            Well done. Made a fox!
  26. +2
    22 September 2011 17: 35
    Judging by the links in various articles to the statements of Mr. Postnikov, this is a very painful and very unfair injection in the direction of the t-90.
    Links to the fact that the t-90 is a new modification ... baby talk. All currently existing tanks are modifications of models of the 80s.
    For me personally, after this statement, it became absolutely clear that the aforementioned Mr was in deep commercial and technological insanity and his tenure as a Defense Minister characterized his leaders as amateurs and temporary workers.
  27. 0
    10 November 2011 20: 28
    "The armor is strong and our tanks are fast ..." - is it possible that this phrase is now being pronounced with more and more irony recourse !
    15 December 2011 21: 47
    Firstly, the respected author Leopard among tanks is worse than Merkava and Challenger 2. Well, if we talk about the Russian T-90, there’s nothing to compare here. Talking about Russian weapons can be long and triumphant, but the tanks were always out of reach, believe the old ATGM. If any tank can be nibbled like seeds, then you’ll grind off the T-90.
  29. mvkot120669
    26 December 2011 15: 52
    A delightful article ... Especially the last part about the alleged battle ... It's all Fiction just because there is no theater of war where the T-90 allegedly fired at 5 km, supposedly hitting the Leopards ... At least this is definitely not Europe ! And somewhere in a flat, open desert, the tanks simply won’t reach each other — either those or those will be destroyed from the air ... By the way, don’t be deceived here either, air supremacy is not about our Air Force ... Conclusion: our designers boast not to understand what .. Tank battles go maxim at 2.500m
  30. wk
    9 January 2012 03: 38
    And even so, the Leopard's "puschenka" is cooler, and the loader is more powerful than an assault rifle, and an extra crew member will not interfere with combat conditions for minor repairs, for example, for good reason, at the later modification of the T 34 the crew was increased to 5 people, and this is with an obvious lack of manpower ... I think this is no coincidence. On the contrary, today's talk about saving on a crew member I believe is from the evil one.
  31. Patos89
    20 January 2012 02: 08
    Shopping do nada see what the leopard has armor optics shells and by the way the latest modification of the leopard 2 A7. By the way, I’m interested in how, with bullshit optics and a T-90 thermal imager, it detects a leopard at a distance of 5 km, that's the opposite, I believe more
  32. 0
    12 February 2012 23: 13
    I do not want to drive on any of the tanks, but the T-90 was developed a decade later and at the time of creation, the Leopard had 5 modifications (Leopard2А5). the experience would be interesting if they calculated the battle without using ATGM, i.e. when the leopards reached the shot area
    PS It's time for them to think for a long time about the Leopard3 winked

    Quote: Patos89
    By the way, I'm interested in both bullshit optics and the t-90 thermal imager

    Optics works enough to shoot at 5 km. Another thing, active defense and the terrain to take advantage of this advantage - that is the problem.
  33. Patos89
    14 February 2012 10: 45
    By the way, of all the current tanks on Abrams and T-80 T-90 are guided missiles; they were primarily intended for helicopters and there are 1 of them in the tank; a smoke screen works well against them. everything will depend on crews who know their technique
  34. kov
    18 July 2012 20: 10
    Video from the Germans about Leopard 2
  35. +1
    9 November 2013 01: 27
    This article is another propaganda poppycock glorifying Russian tanks. Most of the data on the leopard presented in this article refers to the first modifications of the Leopard2
    It is simply not correct to compare the Leo2 and the T90, since the Leopard2 tank is a model that entered service in 1979, and the T90 in 1992 !!!! Leo2 is a t72 tank and you need to compare it with it! Leo2 is already outdated and is used only in some NATO countries. In service with Germany, for example, there are leopards of a series not lower than Leo2A4, but the main strike potential are tanks of the A5 A6 series and the A7 + that have already begun to enter service. It is these tanks that need to be compared with the miracle of the Russian T90 tank building, but the comparison will not be in favor of the latter. Leo is also equipped with a MUSS suppression system superior to Curtain 1, the frontal armor of the A6 and A7 series tanks is not penetrated by any tank guns in service with the countries of the world. The specific engine power per ton of the leopard is higher than 24 for the Leo versus 21,5 for the Teshka, as a result, the speed of the tank, so Leo is a more "flying" tank than the T90 ... electronic protection system. The only advantage of the Teshka is its price ... So the T90 is the best tank, but only in its price range!
  36. KoRSaR1
    23 July 2014 21: 54
    T-90 with a force of 7 people, the engine changes in 45-60 minutes, it is modular, the only problems are "where to throw the winch"
    1. former tanker
      25 January 2015 21: 07
      In a real battle, the t-90 can’t hit the target from 5000 meters even in a static position, but even if a miracle happened and the t-90 accidentally hits the target, there will be no damaging effect, it’s real when hit in the back of the tower further than from 2000 meters. Leopard2a4 destroys the t-90 without problems in the frontal armor from 3500 meters. T-90 is a complete anochronism, which is bought mainly by the poor countries of Africa.
  37. 0
    14 February 2017 15: 42
    Six years later ... The assault by the Turkish leopards of El Baba ... and the charred skeletons of the Turkish Leopards 2A4.
    Several months of use under the same conditions, the T-90 and only one conditionally lost machine (captured in a partially malfunctioning state).

    This is what the field conditions of a real war with the use of armored vehicles and anti-tank systems mean, which fully confirmed the theses expressed in this article. In a real battle, the T-90A of the 90s was much more tenacious and effective than the German Leopard 2A4. And I strongly suspect that, in principle, little will change in comparison if we replace the T-90A with the T-90M of our time and the Leopard 2A4 with 2A7.
    1. The comment was deleted.