Tank battle: T-90 vs "Abrams"!




Not so long ago, in the foreign edition, Defense Revue published a frankly biased rating, where the American tank Abrams was named “the best model of armored vehicles in stories all of humanity. " Americans are always cunning. Our T-90 tank in almost all characteristics is not inferior to, but even much superior to the "star-striped" enemy, primarily in terms of body protection tank.

The invulnerability of the tank on the field depends on how strong his armor. On the T-90, the case was enhanced with a new built-in dynamic protection. Americans add depleted uranium to the armor of their tanks, and this is extremely harmful to the health of people inside it, which still does not save them on the battlefield.

“As the Americans assure,” said Colonel Sergei Suvorov, a researcher at the tank museum in Kubinka, “the frontal armor of their tank was able to prove its reliability during the hostilities in Iraq, when it withstood the exact hit of the old Soviet one hundred and twenty-five millimeter shells. However, they do not say that these munitions were removed from service in the USSR back in the distant 1973 year. The newest shells against Abrams in Iraq have not been used, since Saddam Hussein did not have such weapons in the army’s arsenal. ”

But in our T-90 such shot. This took place at the Uralvagonzavod testing ground in Nizhny Tagil, where tanks are being made. They bombarded it with the latest projectiles, similar in power to the latest ammunition used in the Abrams. At a distance of two hundred meters 6 shots were fired at the tank. After this, the "shot" T-90 tank successfully reached the necessary test site on its turn, where the tests were continued.

Now she was subjected to fire on board the tank. The fire led from new grenade launchers using advanced technologies. The result was predictable: only protective shields were damaged on the armor. At the same time, according to experts, during the clashes in Iraq in 2003, the boards of the Abrams easily penetrated from the Soviet-made RPG-7, even the very first samples of grenades.



“Also in Iraq, another major weakness of the Abrams was revealed - the external power plant of tanks (APU), which ensures the operation of all electronic equipment while the engine is muffled,” the colonel said. - In the American tank, this system was brought out, so it can easily be damaged from any large-caliber weapons, while the tank will instantly go blind. And on our tank, the APU is installed inside the main armor, and nothing is scary to it. ”

By the way, the T-90 tank, even in the minimum version, is equipped with the optical-electronic “Shtor” suppression system. This smartest system easily leads an enemy missile flying toward a tank aside. The American tank does not have such a miracle. Therefore, experts think, in a duel, the Abrams will most likely not be able to resist the T-90 guided missile, which is launched through the barrel. Thanks to these smart rockets, our T-90 has the title of “longest-handed tank” in the world. The average range of a tank shot is five kilometers, and its accuracy is almost absolute. Moreover, the gunner T-90 does not necessarily have any professional shooting skills.

But, nevertheless, in battle, the tank needs to destroy not only the enemy's armored force, but also manpower that is dangerous for tanks. That is, the calculations of ATGM and grenade throwers. And in this T-90 also greatly exceeds Abrams. The combat kit of our T-90 includes fragmentation shrapnel shells specially designed for it with the possibility of remote detonation. They can be undermined over the heads of enemies. Even Abrams has no similar ammunition.

For a long time it was believed that the electronic filling and optics of our tanks, compared with the west, to put it mildly, not very. There is some truth in this. But now the gap is completely destroyed, - says Sergey Suvorov. For example, the fire control complex of our tank is in no way inferior to its American counterparts. In addition, the Russian tank holds the world record for firing speed and accuracy.

So, at one of the foreign demonstrations, the gunner of our tank for 54 seconds hit seven targets, which were at a distance of one and a half to two and a half kilometers. At the same time he shot on the move, at a speed of thirty-five kilometers per hour. Past achievements belonged to the German "Leopard-2". Under the same conditions, he hit one less goal. Americans have a much lower figure.

Do not compare our equipment and the American patency. Tankers even laughed at the Abu Dhabi exhibition. On the demonstration run, the American tank simply lost the caterpillar. And it was just a training ground! To us, no off-road is scary. Once at the Malaysian trials, our tank overcame the entire route, although the other competitors did not reach the finish line. Malaysian military, who laid the route, were one hundred percent sure that no tank will not overcome it. But the T-90 easily moved around the area where the rest were stuck.

The only time that a breakdown occurred was in the Thar desert with 50 degree heat. At first the engine began to boil, and soon the car stopped altogether. Hindus wanted to send a special tractor for evacuation. But they were told: "No, thank you, we ourselves, somehow." With the help of two trees and a strong cable, the crew pulled the engine out of the tank, repaired it and installed it back into the tank, continuing movement. All repairs took on the strength of three hours. Later, they confessed that they had done this on purpose to show how quickly our tank is being repaired.

As a result of these tests, there was a contract for the supply of our T-90 to India. The Indians called our tank, the second shield of deterrence after a nuclear bomb. About American tanks, no one will say that.

Experts from Sweden modeled an artificial battle of our tank against an American one. The result was predictable, the chance to survive at Abrams was just 36%. Fortunately for him it was just a virtual battle.

Our tanks are equipped with a modular type dynamic protection system, "Relic". In action, this innovation will show itself at the exhibition of military equipment in Nizhny Tagil from the eighth to the twelfth of September.

The basis of the protective complex was the newest element of the dynamic protection 4С23, which continued the line of the EHD of the developments of the Scientific Research Institute of Steel. In this element DZ was used a completely new composition of explosive substances, effectively working against armor-piercing, cumulative, as well as tandem ammunition. The new EDS is effective, as in high-speed projectiles, and low-speed ones.

Now the complex "Relic" has no analogues anywhere. It can be installed absolutely on any tank, thereby increasing their anti-cumulative resistance at least 2 times, and at least 1.5 times the anti-rigging. The complex weighs tons of tons.

But as “NII Steel” says, this complex has long passed a stage and soon there will appear fundamentally new developments that do not use explosives. They will use the latest energy compounds, which are many times safer and more effective than explosives. ”
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. DAGESTAN333 3 August 2011 09: 42 New
    • 16
    • 0
    +16
    It’s clear that Alexander was pissed off by the “Defense revue”, but anyway, before the fight, I would only get into our car. That would be more comfortable.
    1. His
      His 10 September 2011 21: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      on YouTube watch the video of broken abrams
      WAR IS HELL: A lot photos of M1 ABRAMS tanks destroyed in Iraq
    2. dmitri077
      dmitri077 28 January 2012 00: 47 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      favorite topic of many forums wink don’t feed bread, let me tryndet ... the answer is very short on all these disputes: tank to tank, today, incorrect comparison! dot! t-90 will be destroyed with the highest probability of air! main opponents: APACH and A-10. More precisely, HELLFIRE missiles. + on the way, another longer range (up to 16 km) + another whole arsenal of anti-aircraft weapons. so, friends, we must look for answers in something else ... the time of tank armies and divisions for Russia (USSR) has passed
      1. vallya
        vallya 20 March 2012 14: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But what at once is not an atomic / hydrogen bomb ??
        since then ????
        and by the way, not a single tank division will take part in the battle without air defense !!!!
        and at the expense of the missiles of the Americans in Africa, they deviated from the target by 16 degrees and fell in the desert (winged)
        and the usual ones probably will not fly out)
      2. Che
        Che 10 October 2012 15: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        dmitri077,
        By the way, and for amers. We have an adequate answer to them.
  2. Civil 3 August 2011 09: 50 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    Well, and how many t-90s, in the latest configuration, are in service ?! And if you consider that this year purchases are not planned at all. And why did they conclude an agreement with rheinmetal.
    1. Phlegmatic person
      Phlegmatic person 17 September 2012 16: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Civil,
      About 900.
  3. Superduck
    Superduck 3 August 2011 10: 01 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Once in the Malaysian tests, our tank overcame the entire track, although the rest of the competitors did not reach the finish line. The military of Malaysia, who paved the route, were one hundred percent sure that no tank would overcome it. But the T-90 easily moved around the terrain in which the rest were stuck.

    Deception, the T-90 in Malaysia sat very tightly, the Kharkov team offered to pull it out for a beer box using the BREM-84 that went along the route with the T-84, the Tagilites turned out to be proud dzhigits and drove a Japanese 5000-ton crane for 50 bucks which got the tank.
    Using two trees and a strong cable, the crew pulled the engine out of the tank, repaired and installed it back into the tank, continuing to move. The entire repair took three hours on the strength. Later, they admitted that they did it on purpose to show how quickly our tank is being repaired.

    Well, I don’t want to comment on this at all, delirium sprinkled with lies. This question has already been cooked among specialists 100 times. The T-90 engine cannot be installed in the field, all the more with the help of 2 palm trees and one camel.

    And yet, I really want when they write that the battle was modeled to get a link to a source of information about modeling, otherwise these modelers who were fired from the Young Technician magazine already got me.
    I have a feeling that a couple of zhurnalugs fed by the Ural distillery rivet such articles hundreds of weeks a week, which are recognized by the following points: a rocket with 5 km will hit earlier than .., unsurpassed maintainability, the Blind complex has no analogues in the world, and not a tank at all continuous anti-analog.
    By the way, similar systems (Shtore) are found on all modern MBTs, and if you recall the Greek tender, it turned out that for the t-90 it worked only when irradiated with a range finder with t-84, and for t-84 only when irradiated with t-90, she didn’t react to other tanks. For reference, there were also merkava, leopold 2 and seem to be an abram. However, they say that the sensors are now different on both the Russian and Ukrainian tanks, thank God that the wavelength of the laser from the NATO has changed, they learned at the tender and not in battle.
    1. Smirnov Vadim 3 August 2011 10: 06 New
      • 21
      • 0
      +21
      Well, why can the Americans and even the Ukrainians promote and embellish the capabilities of their tanks, and the Russian Uralvagonzavod cannot?
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 3 August 2011 10: 24 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Yes, because PR is necessary so that at least it looks like the truth. Well, and what relation should this couple have to a serious enough site with a specialized one like this, let them place banners next to "Lolita Milyavskaya lost 100kg with the help of a village diet." I have already said that these endless modelers remind me of British scientists. And I have not seen such vysers about T84 at all, here is an article in a similar tone http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t84vst90skr2.htm (very famous in narrow circles), but there the screw to the screw is dismantled, although its tonality matches this one.
        But I admit that the T-90 is a very good modern tank, which surpasses most modern MBT in many respects.
        1. g1kk
          g1kk 23 January 2012 10: 13 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          And PR Abrams is not the same as PR t-90? Look at the channels of discovery, there is a bit of Abrams uberfaffe, with rollers with burnt Abrams pond-pond. The same thing, PR is money, then everything is fair. By the way, can I refer to the fact that the T-90 was pulled out by a 50-ton Japanese loader? Otherwise, you also turn into the same writers.
    2. Odessa
      Odessa 3 October 2011 01: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      That's right. We put a lot in their place. Some new sensors are installed, but only on a limited number of cars. For example, in Ukraine, there are 10 newly built Strongholds recently.
    3. avdkrd 6 November 2011 21: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Regarding the failure of the Curtain, this is complete nonsense distributed by incompetent people or intentionally. Laser radiation sensors are not tuned to a specific wavelength but respond to the fact of irradiation, in addition, the parameters of western rangefinders are completely secret. Another thing is that the Blind is ineffective against the latest ATGMs, but this moment is on the conscience of our military-political leadership. Since such parameters and generally their presence should not fall to a potential adversary. If our aircraft were not led by a “manager,” I would suggest that we have something “more up to the line” than Shtora, but in reality even a tenth of the developments that can significantly improve the situation are not being implemented.
    4. ecdy
      ecdy 14 May 2012 20: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I'm just sick of lies, I completely agree with you.
      Just hear, there are no analogues in the world, etc., etc.
      And the fact that the LAHAT guided projectile, which is the same Leopard 2
      can shoot, it hits the target at a distance of more than 6000 m.
      What is the uniqueness of the T 90? Take a look
      Impact force transmission for example, just well, everything is unique,
      in the west, one does not even have to dream about it. I don’t know then
      where to put the noodles, there is already no place on the ears!
    5. Maksimov 5 March 2017 20: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, and even the Indians in the commission were blind, so they accepted a bad Russian tank for procurement, and not a good Ukrainian one.
  4. Rustam 3 August 2011 10: 23 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    T-90 IN ITS CURRENT VERSION OF THE VERSION A LESSES TO THE WESTERN SAMPLES

    WAITING AND ONCE AGAIN WAITING FOR EXHIBITION IN LOWER TAGIL WHERE AM VERSION WILL BE SHOWN

    BUT THE FACT THAT MIN DEFENSE WILL BE PURCHASED BY IT IS NOT RESOLVED
    1. ecdy
      ecdy 14 May 2012 20: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But the west does not stand still!
  5. Max79 3 August 2011 11: 47 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    It’s a shame that our army doesn’t see anything. We’re fighting with junk, but we’re selling it !? but with a skillful approach to modernization, rather than “cutting up” money, a truly masterpiece of tank building can turn out!
    1. Superduck
      Superduck 3 August 2011 11: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, if you remove from the article what he exaggerated, then there will remain an advertising booklet of the ural distillery.
  6. Jedi
    Jedi 3 August 2011 12: 00 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Whatever they say, it’s just low to buy leopards on state defense orders. Again, some sort of seperation with state contracts at the highest levels went, obviously with the real purpose of washing the loot here too. We still need to promote our Russian products!
    1. Superduck
      Superduck 3 August 2011 12: 14 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      quite precisely, if you bend the plant to at least the AM modification and the MO so that it would pay for it, then there will be nothing at all in the advantages of western tanks. And if the LAST factory is threatened, then that's it, then Russia will definitely be forward. And he fails instantly if you deprive him of the order.
      1. Splin
        Splin 3 August 2011 12: 39 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        In the second half of the 80s, the Soviet military came to the idea of ​​a single tank. Leningrad T-80 with a Kharkov engine and a new SLA and protection. T-80UD transition model. The tank was supposed to be the one that Ukrainians now call the Bastion. When we ran away, then we had a fight, it turned out that all the modern workings remained in Kharkov. And put on the Omsk 80-ku engine from 72-ki. it’s like shoving an engine from the Volga into Merce. The Ukrainians were able to establish the production of guns and machine guns, and the MTO Russians could not create the moral. Because now, undercover negotiations are underway to merge tank design bureaus.
        1. Superduck
          Superduck 3 August 2011 12: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Apparently, the merger in a favorable political situation is possible, at least they are trying to bring the plant to the cost of a vegetable warehouse right now. However, the Russian Federation is only interested in the design bureau of engine building, Russia has its own production capacities, but they do not need to delay production in Kharkov. There, the Chinese did not work out, bought a license for MTO Kharkov and built a plant, rivet their health. Apparently, prestige does not allow Russia to do the same and solve half the problems of its MBT in one fell swoop. And why arrange a Jewish combination with the purchase of a plant from which only one development is needed, but I don’t understand.
          1. Splin
            Splin 3 August 2011 13: 03 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            So it was said KB! And not only MTO are interested in them. The 80s Bars remained at the level of the beginning of the 90s, because the priority was given to the cheaper Nizhe Tagilsky, and he reached only the level of 80s. Therefore, the French sights and parts of the OMS are imported. There are a lot of Belorussian electronics .. And about the Chinese. They could not establish production of the Ukrainian MTO at home, and more powerful ones are going into their combat tanks. but unreliable Chinese, and in the export series that they wanted to sell in Peru, they bought directly in Ukraine.
            1. Superduck
              Superduck 3 August 2011 15: 12 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              In Peru, Kharkovites squeezed them, because the plant itself participated in a tender with an excellent modification of the 55s. And they built a plant, they are now supplying these machine sets to Pakistan at their al-Shahid or whatever. These MTOs also seem to be putting on their tanks that had been battling from the 72x, but the last one they look like on Leo, it seems that the imported doytsa put it rather its license. But the truth, as the factory workers who started production there, the struggle for quality at the beginning of the road only said. On the same scale, the 5TDs were not able to massively establish anything anywhere under the USSR, except in Kharkov, it was a very delicate contraption, the people at work in white coats worked, which was nonsense for heavy machine building. I worked (in practice) at a factory where satellite automation was done, and then there, only at the final assembly people were vomiting with dressing gowns, and in the shops as usual.
          2. megellano
            megellano 24 September 2011 19: 58 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            They buy the plant so that Ukraine is not able to sell equipment to the enemies of Russia.
          3. megellano
            megellano 24 September 2011 20: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They buy the plant so that Ukraine is not able to sell equipment to the enemies of Russia.
          4. megellano
            megellano 24 September 2011 20: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They buy the plant so that Ukraine is not able to sell equipment to the enemies of Russia.
            1. Vrangel
              Vrangel 6 February 2012 15: 40 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              megellano,

              For a long time I have not heard more nonsense.
        2. svvaulsh
          svvaulsh 4 August 2011 15: 24 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Do you think a gun is harder to make than an MTO? Then, this is not the merit of Ukraine, all these enterprises were built in the USSR and worked on the same defense. And all the developments from those times.
          1. Krylovets2000 (HVVKU) 30 August 2011 16: 35 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            tacida comrade svvaulsh, the current Khazaria of Tokma takes its people to root under the root ...
          2. g1kk
            g1kk 23 January 2012 10: 16 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            By the way, the Uralvagonzavod finally bought our ChTZ, so I hope that now another plant in the city will come to life, and what engines there can do))) So we are waiting for the version of Russian tanks with powerful engines
      2. Rustam 3 August 2011 12: 59 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        that's it !!!! mine defense in 2009 set harsh conditions for the Uralvagonzavod !!!! OR YOU ARE IMPROVING THE T-90 TOTO AND TOTO OR WE WILL NOT TAKE IT FROM 2011!

        AND ON THE PURCHASE OF LEOPARDS !! MAYBE AND RIGHTLY LET BE CHURCHED !!! THIS WHEN THE FIRST TALKS FOR TIGER REPLACEMENT Went !!! A friend from the VPC said LAUGHING, this is nonsense, and when the ass lit up and the purchase of jewels became reality, HOW AFTER AN INSTANT OF A MAGIC WAND TIGER-M APPEARED, FAST FINISHES. FOR THEIR ACCOUNT)

        - for example, Former Deputy Minister Popovkin was shocked when in 2009, when examining the T-90a, he found levers on it like on a tractor and the absence of an automatic box-AFTER WHERE THE Tough CONDITION FOR CARDINAL MODERNIZATION T-90

        And the price of the tank is growing NOT DAYS AND BY HOURS (I wrote about this earlier) I will repeat
        in 2007 the price of the T-90A tank, 42 ​​million rubles !! in 2011 103 million -NORMAL YES
        1. Professor 4 August 2011 09: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Where information about the gearbox and the cost? Please clarify.
        2. svvaulsh
          svvaulsh 4 August 2011 15: 49 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          By this video you can determine which box on the T-90?

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dUPftbN3QQ&feature=related

          Popovkin is a great strategist. But with a head it is obviously not in tune, offering to buy leopards.
        3. svvaulsh
          svvaulsh 4 August 2011 16: 01 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu1HAK9MUk&feature=related

          6 minutes 10 seconds, where are the tractor levers here?
          1. Phoenixl
            Phoenixl 5 August 2011 14: 54 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Contact an optometrist if you haven’t seen
        4. ecdy
          ecdy 14 May 2012 20: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The latest Leopard modification costs about 7 million euros
          Pants are not enough to buy these cars! Do not forget the same
          about spare parts
  7. datur 3 August 2011 12: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Advertising is the engine of commerce, but how many drill T-90s and so on are all these miracles.? // or only on the factory promotanka?
  8. Eric
    Eric 3 August 2011 12: 39 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Comrades! :) We have been surrendered for a long time and you are still sleeping ...
  9. cVM
    cVM 3 August 2011 12: 42 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    t-90 could not be better than M1A2 abramsa, it is stronger than abramsa M1A1 do not confuse these tanks
  10. ESCANDER
    ESCANDER 3 August 2011 13: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, they just got pendosy with their "very best ...". They’re publicizing their shit for the whole world, and the rest are hawking all this shit. It is true that our articles are written (you look - and they will start to do it). Better than nothing.
    PS.
    The APU in Abram was moved inside and the “Curtain” does not save from the core.
    1. Superduck
      Superduck 3 August 2011 15: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The arena in theory should save the core.
      1. Phoenixl
        Phoenixl 4 August 2011 01: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And the arena protects from ammunition attacking from above? From a kernel it seems rescues DZ KNIFE
        1. Superduck
          Superduck 4 August 2011 16: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          and why shouldn’t she protect her if she’s installed on top and sticks the roof around with a knife, it’ll be hard.
  11. Banshee 3 August 2011 15: 14 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I think the truth, as always, dangles in the middle. And the tanks are comparable. I even admit that ours has advantages. But as America is promoting everything “its own, the best in the world,” there is no point in saying. Clear and so. For states need to SELL, otherwise nothing. And our often sit on the ass exactly and wait until they buy what they have. The difference is significant. There, the market, no matter how cool, where any methods are good. And we have "contractual relations" and all kinds of offerings, connections, and so on. For the sake of justice, I will note that there is, of course, lobbying, but there is hardly anyone anywhere on the other side of the ocean who doubts that their technique is the best. Well, not p..dyat shamelessly as we have.
    1. Phoenixl
      Phoenixl 4 August 2011 01: 52 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Who else is PR constantly incomprehensible! 100500 times a day I hear about the uniqueness and lack of analogues of Russian technology
  12. slan
    slan 3 August 2011 20: 24 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Tired of measuring elephants with sperm whales in pipettes.
    In general, Abrams is a typical mouse, and even an American assembly, what is there to compare with it at all? Is there -removed- who bought American equipment for their hard-earned money? I, if life had treated me like this, it would be better if I chose Lada.
  13. Makl
    Makl 3 August 2011 21: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: SuperDuck
    And if the LAST factory is threatened, then that's it, then Russia will definitely be forward. And he fails instantly if you deprive him of an order

    Are you talking about a state defense order or what?
    Before telling tales, take an interest in what the plant still produces, and what is the share of state defense order in its production winked

    And I would also like to hear about the state of the Iraqi contract?
    1. Superduck
      Superduck 4 August 2011 00: 09 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: Makl
      Before telling tales, take an interest in what the plant still produces, and what is the share of state defense order in its production

      Combat wagons, combat tractors, combat drilling rigs.
      Quote: Makl
      And I would also like to hear about the state of the Iraqi contract?

      About btr-4? And what does one have to do with them, what does the Uralvagonzavod also do? Or do you want me to start asking how is it with Gorshkov and we will begin to die who lies down harder?
  14. Winchester
    Winchester 3 August 2011 22: 20 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And this material, one might think, is not tendentious?
    A simple example:
    Now the complex "Relic" has no analogues anywhere. It can be installed absolutely on any tank, thereby increasing their anti-cumulative resistance at least 2 times, and at least 1.5 times the anti-rigging. The complex weighs tons of tons.
    -------------------------------------
    It has no analogues, say?
    And BTVT.narod.ru wrote a couple of years ago:
    http://btvt.narod.ru/4/noz/noz.htm
  15. svvaulsh
    svvaulsh 4 August 2011 15: 25 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    And here, about the abrams.
    http://btvt.narod.ru/5/iraq2003/2003.htm
  16. svvaulsh
    svvaulsh 4 August 2011 15: 38 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAofuApy5sc&feature=rel

    The same article in the video.
  17. matolyan
    matolyan 4 August 2011 22: 57 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    do not compare the heavy tank "Abrams" (about 60 tons) with the main medium tank T-90 (48 tons), especially since the Abrams still does not have a loader, stabilizer art. weapons, its ephemeral advantage in target detection and aiming systems, leave for Hollywood films, all this will be written off in the first seconds of the battle. Its comfort and spaciousness for the crew, again leave it to limo lovers - it is better to live and win in a cramped but functional car than to burn in a heavy and comfortable hearse for limo lovers. REMEMBER Pindos - WAR IS LOVE FOR HOMELAND AND HIS PEOPLE, and not stupid earning "dough". You will ride in Pindos in such cars, you will have to burn in them in battle.
    1. Glory
      Glory 6 August 2011 14: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And with what, let me ask, an American medium tank, it is necessary to compare the T-90? Or what Russian heavy tank do you need to compare Abrams with?))
    2. Joker
      Joker 11 August 2011 09: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Then you really got excited. Since the adoption of the T-64, the development of heavy tanks has been stopped here, and the main and auxiliary (light, reconnaissance, anti-tank, etc., BMPT class are not provided) were provided for.

      Western countries also came to the same model with the “main” single tank (Abrams, Leopard 2, the British starting from Chiften).
    3. karnics
      karnics 12 August 2011 23: 45 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I put everything right + ...
    4. megellano
      megellano 24 September 2011 20: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If you are such a patriot, then share stories about your military exploits. Or are you just a computer hero?
      A tanker spends 99% of his time in a tank in peacetime. Like any person who wants to work in a convenient office, live in comfort, a tanker is also a person. and equipment, in addition to fighting qualities, must also have comfort.
      Nobody canceled fighting morality. And if a warrior is unhappy then he becomes cannon fodder.
      And the fact that not Hitler did not defeat Russia not the French was not the merit of the generals and soldiers, but the enemy’s problems with logistics and the distances to which they were not ready.
  18. Wall2
    Wall2 11 August 2011 03: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    An unknown author of the article, offended by the Defense revue, simply reiterated in words the low-profile television message from the Military Affairs program.

    Here is a more competent opinion and a good non-propaganda ARTICLE on the topic:


    "T-20 tank adopted by the troops 90 years ago is no longer new or modern"

    About the author: Mikhail Mikhailovich Rastopshin - candidate of technical sciences.



    http://nvo.ng.ru/printed/238805
  19. Wall2
    Wall2 11 August 2011 12: 21 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The unknown author of this article, offended by the Defense revue, is not at all literate, so he did not come up with anything better than to reiterate in words a low-grade television message from the Military Affairs program.

    Here is a much more authoritative opinion and non-propaganda ARTICLE on this topic:


    "T-20 tank adopted by the troops 90 years ago is no longer new or modern"

    About the author: Mikhail Mikhailovich Rastopshin - candidate of technical sciences.

    http://nvo.ng.ru/printed/238805
    1. Joker
      Joker 11 August 2011 12: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      An interesting man, with emotion, with arrangement and eloquent, says so, but if every detail is not discussed, he is fundamentally wrong about the impossibility of placing in the T-90 modern PBS's of greater lengthening:

      Link to the modified AZ at the T-90
      http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w7_2010/0045_t90.htm

      Rolled armor plates provided, with equal strength of protection, lower metal consumption and, accordingly, lower structural weight. In addition, the internal volume increased slightly, which subsequently allowed the use of new longer sub-caliber ammunition with 20% increased armor penetration.

      And one more jamb, in my opinion, unacceptable for a specialist:

      Active defense "Arena" with all its positive characteristics is not able to deal with BPS and shock nuclei.

      - It’s absolutely correct, because the Arena system is designed to repel ATGMs and irreversible anti-tank grenades, for example, to protect side and rear projections from anti-tank grenade launchers and ATGMs, and the forehead is therefore well protected.


      In general, IMHO, just a crap article, and the T-95 is certainly good but cheaper than the road, and one is not a warrior in the field, and other types of weapons need to be developed in addition to tanks.
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 11 August 2011 13: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It is not right to consider a tank as an anti-tank weapon; in modern wars such collisions are not frequent. Its main advantages should be combat survivability and artillery capabilities. And helicopters and anti-tank systems should fight with tanks in my opinion. Although of course the tank should not be deprived of the capabilities of anti-tank combat. The main enemies of the tanks are grenade launchers and helicopters, and this must first be fought. For a bad case, getting into any modern tank with a high explosive shell will take him out of battle before repairing, more from this crap is not particularly required.
  20. greenk19 12 August 2011 13: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I agree with the "Civilian" do not care that he is better, he is numb in parts, he was not in conflict, then Abrams is better. Revised "We were soldiers" and spit, Americans for a long time on turntables were transferring l / s in our Dagestan column and forward ... after a couple of hours to the battlefield dragging ... and look for they were here
    1. Joker
      Joker 12 August 2011 13: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I agree with the "Civilian" do not care that he is better, he is numb in parts, he was not in conflict, then Abrams is better.

      - Iron logic, are you going to mess around anywhere?
    2. Joker
      Joker 12 August 2011 13: 58 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: greenk19
      I agree with the "Civilian" do not care that he is better, he is numb in parts, he was not in conflict, then Abrams is better.


      - Iron logic, are you going to mess around anywhere?
    3. PSih2097 13 August 2011 00: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And you did not think, why not on turntables, but in columns? The Vietnamese in the film at that time did not have a sane air defense, so they flew on turntables, just compare the cost of the helicopter and the MANPADS ...
      1. greenk19 17 August 2011 11: 07 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Something I did not notice in the wah of a powerful air defense system. And at a cost, if we compare the life of a fighter, then generally no helicopters or armored personnel carriers are needed.
  21. raf
    raf 13 August 2011 00: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I’m reading and sitting, I don’t understand anything like a stump! Are there some advanced tankers gathered here?
  22. Pole 13 August 2011 01: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And why do not we see the real results of the "battle", where is the test bombardment? Do you think pendos don't have our T-80-90?
    But the results, except verbiage, no ....
    1. PSih2097 13 August 2011 01: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, because America did not officially sell abrams to us ... and publishing unofficial data is considered bad form ... for the state ...
  23. Sanzyro
    Sanzyro 17 August 2011 10: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    No, well, you’ve cheated ... winked It turns out that we can’t produce tanks either, and they can’t be promoted! You just have to take and make them! And to supply the troops in sufficient quantities, or better or worse, this is already being decided quite differently, with military equipment at least ... wink
  24. slan
    slan 17 August 2011 11: 50 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    IS certainly in all respects was better than the T-34, but for some reason the war won 34-kami. No one knows why? The concept of using the T-72 is based on the massiveness of its use and production. There is nothing special to compare with abrams, except that both are hopelessly outdated and in the 21st century are only suitable for wars with the aborigines of developing countries and depressed regions, and then they are very weak. But in the 80s, if there was a full-scale non-nuclear war, my subjective opinion was that Soviet tanks would have reached Lamans without serious resistance.
    1. Sanzyro
      Sanzyro 18 August 2011 12: 30 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      With proper use of the T-72, they can make such a rustle that "Mama Do not Cry ..." even in the 21st century.
      1. Superduck
        Superduck 18 August 2011 12: 57 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Considering the list ratio of the number of t-72 and t-55 in the SA and tanks in Western Europe, indeed the t72s could throw anyone with their caps even if they ran out of shells. slan, correctly noticed that most of the advantages and disadvantages of the 72nd series are due to the concept of their mass application. Rich Western countries in the matter of confronting the armored armada of the Warsaw Pact relied more on MANPADS and helicopters, rather than on their tanks, because they could create powerful tank formations to fight Soviet tanks only locally, and the USSR could allow this to be done on a fairly wide front .
        True, now the Russian Federation cannot operate with as many modern MBTs as the USSR could, so it turned out that the 72nd slightly past the ticket office and now they are trying to screw it up in the t-90 incarnation to the technological equipment of leopard 2. Well, it’s hard to say how it will turn out in the conditions of a real war However, the experience of Iraq, for example, suggests that the iron fist of tanks with a high concentration of armored vehicles does not guarantee an advantage over a modern enemy in the event of enemy dominance in the air and his advantage in detection, target designation and reconnaissance. But air supremacy is not a tank problem, of course, it is an air defense problem, and it is worth recognizing that the insufficient effectiveness of the T-72 (not even as a machine, but as an integral part of the armored forces as a whole) in Iraq is not so much a problem of a particular machine but a problem of US advantages in the field of aviation and imbalance in building the structure of the armed forces of Iraq, where the air defense did not solve the tasks assigned to it. Therefore, I think that if even the T-95 or the latest Abrams models (for the purity of the experiment) were in service with Iraq, the outcome would not be any different.
        1. Sanzyro
          Sanzyro 20 August 2011 10: 37 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Comparison with Iraq is incorrect. We are talking about hostilities, and not about how Iraqis left tank columns and scuffed around when they barely saw the enemy! They threw the T-72 with full ammunition. With such a “tactic,” even the T-90 is nothing more than a can.
        2. His
          His 23 August 2011 23: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Now the technology of war has changed. Aviation, drones, contactless war. Tanks for parades and wars between wild tribes
          1. Sanzyro
            Sanzyro 24 August 2011 19: 51 New
            • -4
            • 0
            -4
            Yes, yes, of course ... Monitors, buttons ... American propaganda in Hollywood films is doing its job! All these new means of destruction have occupied their niche without fundamentally changing anything !!! The war, as it was a war, remains so. And the idea of ​​hostilities as a computer game fits perfectly with the idea of ​​a teenager or elementary school student ... wink
  25. Makl
    Makl 21 August 2011 03: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: SuperDuck
    SuperDuck August 4, 2011 00:09


    Quote: MaklBefore telling tales, take an interest in what the plant still produces, and what is the share of state defense orders in its products And what does one have to do with them, what does the Uralvagonzavod also do? Or do you want me to start asking how is it with Gorshkov and we will begin to die who lies down harder?

    As they say better late than never
    1. That is, we will make a fool, I understand there is nothing else left.
    Now remove the word fighting from your antics, subtract the state defense order from the general products of the Uralvagonzavod and think whether it can work without it or not

    2. Well, you compared the opa with a finger, an enterprise which should produce similar machines by its profile (Kharkiv factory) and an enterprise that never did the work that it is currently doing (this is about Gorshkov)
    While you crap in person, and large.
    1. Superduck
      Superduck 23 August 2011 23: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Makl
      That is, we will make a fool, I understand there is nothing else left.

      On this our conversation is over. WHAT QUESTIONS ARE SUCH AND ANSWERS!
  26. merkawa
    merkawa 23 August 2011 23: 26 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It's like football fans, but if I were on the field, yes, I would say our tank is the best wink
  27. Superduck
    Superduck 29 August 2011 12: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I accidentally ran into a posh article on the topic, some of the statements are not entirely obvious, but for the most part they are quite reasoned.
    http://btvt.narod.ru/1/tank3.htm
    Here's another
    http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-90vsabrams.htm
    it's not bad too
  28. belf
    belf 29 October 2011 14: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is unfortunate that my dear colleagues, some of the attendees of Russian technology are forgetting about psychology. They forget that after reading to local gurus about the imperfection of equipment, tankers (conscripts) in a difficult combat situation will start to stupidly panic, instead of (knowing that the equipment will not fail) to complete the task. Thus, all rumblers, ordinary agents of influence and traitors. I think so with the RF Ministry of Defense more than specialists who know and are able to determine the requirements for technology. Well, to the tankers themselves, I would like to study the materiel better, and then the shortcomings will turn into advantages. And the existing equipment can bring a lot of troubles to adversaries if it is owned confidently, and not wait for the state to order an impenetrable wunderwafel.
  29. Gold coin
    Gold coin 15 November 2011 02: 51 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Well, I still don’t understand where some users get such pessimism from ?! After all, it is already known that our models of military equipment dominate the earth and it often happens that the equipment becomes old, but even after using the service life, some foreign units of new generation equipment are inferior to our outdated models in terms of characteristics.

    Already in what, than, but Russia cannot be blamed for armaments! You can not say about overseas competitors. What is Abrams designed by you, in your opinion? Brilliant hired people, but not the fact that this is the brainchild of Americans. The trouble of the former CIS is that many specialists and geniuses were lost abroad, where they created all the conditions.

    Rumor has it that the Abraham have communion and the Israelis are who can be considered a competitor in the military industry. Again, this is my opinion and do not categorically treat it. I express only my point of view.
  30. bubla5 30 December 2011 23: 25 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    They write, they write, well, agree to make a duel, here it will be seen who is worth what
  31. werr17
    werr17 4 January 2012 09: 33 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    almost word for word about the comparison of the T-90 and Ambrams spoke on NTV in the program of military affairs ....
  32. Grin
    Grin 15 January 2012 13: 04 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    It seems to me that Russia needs a lot of modern tanks.
  33. Andreitas 28 August 2012 16: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Leopard-2, that’s the best thing at the moment is mass-produced in the world of armored vehicles.
  34. Winddrake
    Winddrake 8 September 2012 19: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    You would have compared Patton1 with t90. Compare Abrams of the 80s, since 1999 there is already 3rd generation armor without uranium. And from 1994 to 2011 it was modernized several times, including electronics.
  35. kov
    kov 23 September 2012 20: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What can Abrams oppose the T-90 if he does not take out Soviet RPGs?

  36. никитР° 2321
    никитР° 2321 22 March 2015 11: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    our quality is better