M1A2 Abrams vs T90s - Military Tank Comparison

M1A2 Abrams vs T90s - Military #TankComparison
► Subscribe to Facts Box: goo.gl/UYzU9H
America’s #M1A2 Abrams and #T90-S are two of the worlds most advanced and deadliest war machines. And even though some of the specs of these tanks including armor composition are kept in high secrecy. We thought it would be cool to compare M1A2 Abrams with T90-S and try to determine which would win a real battlefield scenario.
1. Brief History
Developed in the 1970s, the Abrams main battle tank has been the mainstay of the U.S. Army’s armored forces for 45 years. In the decades since the M1 entered service, the tank has been upgraded many times. The latest variant of Abrams is M1A2 SEP V3, which is highly digital and networked MBT.
On the other hand, T90-S is the latest variant of T90 which is based on older T72. T90-S adds a new laminated armor package, explosive reactive armor and an electronic countermeasures suite. Overall it’s a pretty formidable tank with a significant improvement over previous tanks.
2. Specifications
Around 10,288 Abrams have been built so far with per unit cost of $9.61M. Operated by crew of 4, M1A2 comes in at whopping weight of 74tons. The tank is powered by multi-fuel gas turbine engine capable of generating 1,500hp. Abrams can reach at top speed of 45mph. M1A2 comes with 120mm smoothbore gun with manual loading mechanism. Secondary armament includes a 12.7mm heavy machine gun and two 7.62mm machine guns. The operational range of M1A2 is around 265mi.
In contrast, more than 3,200 T90-S have been built so far. Currently, the cost of latest variant is around $5M. Operated by a crew of 3, the tank comes in at weight of 51tons. The tank is powered by V-12 piston engine which produces 1250hp. T90-S can reach at top speed of 37mph. The tank is armed with 120mm smooth bore gun. The tank is loaded with 12.7mm and 7.62mm machine guns. The operational range of T90-S is around 340mi.
3. Engine Power & Mobility
Abrams are powered by a gas turbine engine, which generates 1500 hp. Even though the Abrams is heavy and bulky, but it is surprisingly nimble due to its powerful engine…
On the other hand, T-90S has a liquid-cooled V-12 piston engine which produces 1250hp. This engine can be fuelled by kerosene, benzine and diesel. The tank can carry up to 1,600 liters of fuel in the main fuel tanks and fuel drums…
4. Armor & Crew Survivability
The Abrams is considered one of the most protected tanks in the world. It uses composite armor, reinforced with depleted uranium armor mesh..
Although the T90-S is much lighter than its American counterpart, it does have good armor and a fairly strong self-defensive suite. First, there is T90-S's armor made up of composite material. The
T90-S armor is relatively light, not as effective of the incredibly robust armor of Abrams…
5. Firepower
The Abrams is armed with a 120mm smoothbore gun which can fire advanced kinetic energy and multi-purpose rounds. The gun is accurate and has effective firing range of more than 2.5mi. The gun is loaded manually by the gunner. The M1A2 Abrams was one of the first tanks with a hunter-killer engagement capability…
In contrast, T90-S armament includes 125mm smoothbore gun, stabilized in two axes. The gun can fire a variety of ammunition including Armor Piercing, anti-tank, high-explosive fragmentation and shrapnel projectiles…
So what are your thoughts that which tank is better? M1A2 Abrams or T90-S. Let us know in the comments section. Also be sure to check out our other military videos. Thanks for watching and as always don’t forget to like, share and subscribe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW us on Social Media:
► Facebook: thegrid88
► Twitter: grid_88
► Become a Patreon
/ factsbox99
Playlists
► Military, Army, Navy & Air force
• Military
►US Army
• Playlist
► SUBSCRIBE so you never miss another video: goo.gl/UYzU9H
Credits
1) “Volatile Reaction" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
2) US Department of Defense
3) Минобороны России
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
The appearance of US DOD visual information does not imply or constitute their respective endorsements. All footage and images are owned by their respective owners.

[@dsmorse1]

As a former tanker I'll have to nit pick one part. The Abrams main gun is not loaded by the gunner, its loaded by the loader

[@memer9491]

In the T-90s you don't need to load ammo at all. The autoloader does it for you.

[@KatyushaWarThunder]

memer Autoloaders tend to break and if they do the T-90 will have to rely on crew to reload it, and since they don’t have a loader it makes it way less effective.

[@Wartredis]

@@KatyushaWarThunder autoloader is great advance. Also turbojet engine has problem with air filters. Iraq showed it. T-90 Turbodiesels much better. Also t-90 better defense systems and better ammo with guide rockets. So t-90 is true battle beast and abrams just bulky target with built-in macdonalds and troubles with offroad.

[@KatyushaWarThunder]

Alexander Kilochek Battle of 73 easting, nuff said.

[@FusionC6]

@@Wartredis when has the t-90 seen battle? lol explain how its better.. im not even american and i know abrams is better overall. t-90 has its advantages too no doubt, it would be a really shitty battle for both sides

[@tanyajelks2140]

That m1a2 drifting was amazing

[@shohaneborna7217]

Fact-The music is more dangerous then both tanks

[@buddydry3183]

I find the music annoying

[@janrichrodriguez6851]

Lol

[@Sniper-he5jh]

Fucking music

[@einundsiebenziger5488]

... more dangerous than* ...

[@influence262]

All are capable of killing each other, but i guess it goes down to the crew skills and reliability.

[@armadillo3454]

In tank on tank warfare its more of who sees who gets the first shot off

[@Engr.Projects]

And combat scenarios

[@lordgrey3749]

@Peter J Mallia your in drugs bro

[@laplander8583]

T-34 beats all

[@velvetwatermelon2647]

Lap Lander oh hell yeah

[@leoshane9118]

During WW2 German Tiger 2 tank was the most advanced in the world but it was defeated by Soviet T34 tanks. Wars don't win by machines wars win by men who control those machines

[@sovietchadster907]

Leo Shane it wasn't, might have had better armor but that's useless when you have a severely underpowered engine and problematic gearbox, not to mention the lack of fuel by the end of the war. The tank was practically useless, one got killed by a light M5 Stuart with a 37mm gun

[@grumpycat6429]

Unless it’s skynet

[@dataman6744]

The Tiger may have been advanced but its high tech-ness was its undoing in WW2. When the Tiger and Panthers were first used at the Battle for Kursk they were so inefficient, engine overheating, catching fires, breaking down it was terrible. the Tiger and Panthers had overlapping road wheels which tool lots of man power and tools to to change the tracks when they were blown off, this led to many tanks just being abandoned for minor mechanical problems. In war hightech is not the best, ruggedness and being able to stand the test of battle is the key. In the end, the T34 was in fact the better tank...T34 is thus widely believed to have won the war for USSR not because it had fancy mechanisms but because it was just the better tank for the war.

[@autisthicc9229]

it was the most advanced, granted that the tank had fuel to run to begin with and the drive train didn't disintegrate within five minutes

[@Cruor34]

The "it's the man not the machine" argument is so tired and lame. You understand only like 1300 Tiger 1 were built, and even less Tiger 2, right? That means it was out numbered like 50 - 1 by T 34s. One Tiger 2 (assuming its working right) would easily kill 10 T34s at once if it spotted them 2 miles away. The machine matters a whole lot. If you put the best tank crew in the world in a T-62, and then trained them for another year in the T 62, then took 4 guys of the street and gave them 2 weeks training in an M1A2C Abrams, and had them fight in open terrain like Kursk, The Abrams crew would win 100 out of 100 times. Training matters of course but claiming the machine doesn't matter is just stupid. If you use an example like Israel vs it neighbors in the 1967/1973 wars you see Israeli training mattered, but you also see how much machines mattered. If you gave the same Israeli army of 1973 Leopard 2A7s or M1A2 Abrams or T90s a lot less of them would have died and they would have won even faster.

[@killerabdenour1409]

Currently, when comparing tanks and their capabilities, each one has unique characteristics, but in combat it is up to the crew

[@user-ni5go8zq9h]

Russians constantly invite American tankers to the World Tank Biathlon Championships, which are held every year in Russia. Americans constantly refuse. Here's the answer to which tank is better.

[@GOD_O_WAR]

Ok bother

[@pugasaurusrex8253]

Sure comrade

[@Wartredis]

Rofl these two guys upper have "pain in the ass" after your words))

[@championknife]

t -90 is the modernization of t-72 And in total t-72 produced more than 35 thousand .... The speed of t90 is higher, 70 km per hour. Abrams has 67 km an hour. The firing range of t90 guided projectiles is twice as long as conventional Abrams shells. The T 90 tank itself on rough terrain is half as much as Abrams as a target for a gun, it is more difficult to get into it. The ammunition storage in Abrams in the tower niche is safe only if all the shells are armor-piercing pins. If you store shells with explosives there, there is no difference with the t-90. At the same time, 90% of targets on the battlefield require shots with a powerful explosion and not armor-piercing.

[@viktororlovic2083]

Well, mostly you're gonna hull break the vehicle or disable it, thats why they use sabot rounds as the main tank round.

[@alqueswan7164]

@@viktororlovic2083 the first task of the tank is to support infantry, fight against enemy tanks is rather the task of helicopters, rocket launchers, attack aircraft and drones.. If the tank it is necessary to engage in battle with another tank then all the rest is weapons tanks destroyed. Most likely, the war is already lost.

[@viktororlovic2083]

@@alqueswan7164 Agreed, thats what tanks have been used for and still are. I didnt say that they arent used for infantry support

[@leewood331]

HE, HEAT, & HEP are used on soft skinned targets and fortifications (and there are more of them than tanks) and they save the armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (rods) for tanks. Reactive armor does defeat explosive types rounds but not penetrators; they defeat reactive armor by flying faster and using more kinetic energy than the reactive armor can safely deflect from the armored vehicle and the penetrator is through the reactive armor before it can fully detonate. (when we engaged Soviet tanks with recoiless rifles we tried hitting the tracks before followup against turret//hull.)

[@leewood331]

@@alqueswan7164 It depends on doctrine-in WW-2 the US used tanks as infantry support-the Germans were different in using them tank on tank.

[@jhill4874]

Which is better? Depends on (a) the manufacturing quality; (b) the battle doctrine; (c) the crew.

[@michaelmyers764]

t90m is the most modern t90 not this t90s

[@Viper6-MotoVlogger]

Very well presented video. In the end, a hit from either tank would be a bad day.

[@TankManTim]

Some comments have aged like fine wine while others aged like milk from your grandmas refrigerator

[@quentinsmith3278]

As a former Tank PSG, Abrams better by far. The crews lethality are impeccable, time and precision will win any battle.

[@akaredcrossbow]

I like how the Abrahams has more smooth areas to allow a thicker armor, and much better for ricochets/deflections.

[@davidbarrois3959]

15L per minutes .... you cant fuel them at high intensity.

[@divoulos5758]

Richochets? Are you on ww2?

[@critter3673]

Active armour, now the Russians have it...go figgure, and chinese

[@MILENEO3]

If I would be in a tank, I would like to be in the best protected tank, and that is the M1A2 Abrams.

[@stormdesertstrike]

Hahaha, you gotta be fucking kidding me right

[@SatThuVoBui]

Leopard 2A6 says hi. :)

[@KPX-nl4nt]

Hardjaxx - Storm Desert No, he’s not kidding. Superiority speaks for itself, not a marginally upgraded inferior T-72. The M1A2 is battle proven and far superior. The German Leopard 2 is the only main battle tank that even comes close! Next I guess you’ll say that the Kuznetsov is the greatest aircraft carrier ever constructed!😂😂😂

[@KPX-nl4nt]

Skinhead Larry I wasn’t speaking to you armchair general. I was speaking as an actual military veteran.

[@SatThuVoBui]

@@KPX-nl4ntDoesn't matter who you think you are; a veteran status doesn't excuse making blatantly false claims or using cherry-picked facts to make a misleading argument. You, like everyone else, are accountable for the things that you say, and when you spout bullshit, you will be called out on it. It's not my fault you're afraid of peer review. And by the way, a 19K is not a mechanical or a chemical engineer. I don't know where you got that idea from, but you can stop pretending as if being trained in how to fight in an armored vehicle makes you an expert on tank design. My point stands. The M1A2 SEPv3, the particular vehicle being discussed in this video, is NOT combat tested, and neither is a T-90 a "marginally upgraded inferior T-72." You pulled both of those arguments from out of your ass. The most advanced Abrams to have seen combat is the M1A2S, the export Saudi version, and not the SEPv3.

[@nonormies2605]

This is very informative now

[@hyhhy]

Soviet/Russian tanks are significantly lighter than western tanks like Abrams. Therefore, it would be expected that Abrams has somewhat higher combat capability. However, Abrams is also much more expensive logistically.

[@mikek9297]

Yeah... because it works.

[@lanceluthor6660]

If I had to go to war inside one the Abrams is the obvious choice. If I am a general who has to deploy them the T90 is half the price and can be transported by plane. The comment comparing them to the Tiger vs T34 is an good analogy.

[@kareemabdulaziz9600]

But the usa has more m1a2 then russia has t90s. The usa also has APS sets in Europe, asia and the middle east. Allowing the general to only have to fly the soldiers.

[@yomamacrib3297]

@@kareemabdulaziz9600 yea more t-90s, you know how many variations there are?

[@sungodrah]

Your music score is as good as your videos ..SUBBED!

[@bejaminmaston1347]

M1A2 without a doubt

[@adewgloprado5009]

The t90 looks like a hunter at night.

[@leewood331]

Most MBT's have both night vision & thermal imaging systems.

[@NotLRK]

@@leewood331 no hes saying the t90 looks cool asf in the night

[@wessudol9708]

I think the T-90 looks more like a pray at night ha ha ha 😂

[@user-yh7rc4wb6r]

@@wessudol9708 чтоб враг успел помолиться...

[@destinationlunar]

m1a2

[@whereisyourbrain5334]

I am sure that 99% of the people that comment about war have never been to one as a soldier. And 99% of comments here are from people who have no clue how tanks in the battle actually feel like :)

[@Kostolom___]

Seriously everyone here is war thunder generals.

[@whereisyourbrain5334]

@@Kostolom___ Anywhere you go to comment area its all just experts :) Sometimes it makes me think that old times when you could not talk or comment on things you dont know :)

[@markqqq_]

I'm just hoping we don't see these tanks go against each other. If it came to that, it wouldn't matter which is better because we'd be either homeless or dead

[@habiburrahman1559]

Awesome post. Thanks

[@Grid88]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@DavidLee-xi1of]

It really comes down to the crews. Each tank is capable of knocking each other out. And if you really know. All tanks depends on other elements to support it. Air & Ground forces. 1 Soldier cab take out a Tank.

[@sbtimeport8]

🙏 T-90S my favorite tank of all time thanks for the video I liked and subscribed 💪😁💪

[@red_official_69]

mine is T-90M

[@webkeeper]

Location location location. If for instance, the area is marshy with heavy vegetation, the choice is T-90. If the area is empty of hiding places the choice is M1A1. No matter how strong the M1A1 engine is, if this machine gets stuck in the mud, it has no chance. If you plan an ambush in marshy areas, the T-90 will give you more options in maneuvers and choices of retreat or leading the enemy into a favorable position.

[@MrKnoxguy101]

They’re both highly capable tanks. Main difference in my opinion being the T-90 has some extra goodies to play with but seems awfully expensive, a luxury Russia hasn’t always given themselves in leu of higher production numbers. But the Abrams also retains unique attributes, mainly more to do with crew protection and survivability. Power to weight is mostly off-set, the extra 5 mm for the T-90’s gun means nil, it’s a multi-purpose cannon which is neat and all but the Abrams gun is a surgical tool, an attribute the British Challenger shares as well. Ultimately, both tanks are technologically advanced and highly capable. When it comes down to which tank would be victorious when going head to head would depend solely on the crew of the vehicle. Both tanks have more than enough capability. It is the capability of each individual crew that is the deciding factor.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

The "goodies" include a soft kill aps which has no effect on javlins spikes or tv missiles and ruins the front turret armour meaning you can get a direct shot on the spare ammo which they keep ON THE FUEL

[@ender1111]

Can you please explain how is the T90 S "awfully expensive"? Its twice as cheap as the Abrams...

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

@@ender1111 And russias econemey is a twentieth of americas you do the math

[@ender1111]

@@anguswaterhouse9255 We were talking about tanks, not the countries that happen to be producing them. The Israeli economy is even smaller than the Russian one, yet they have the Merkavas. Sweden also has a small economy, yet they produce the Stritsvagns, that are 1.6 times as expensive as the T -90s. It makes sense for countries to invest in expensive equipment, despite having a small economy, which is why so much countries do it. What doesn't make sense, is to make a tank that is slightly better, that even sometimes loses to the T90 (for example has shorter range), however is Twice as expensive. The Abrams maybe has a small advantage, but will always lose to the two T90s that will be produced for its price. The T90 is slightly worse, but much, much cheaper. *So basically, the T90 is more money efficient, which is why I consider it to be cheap.* Also, please go and learn some spelling in 3rd grade, before the next time you say some dumb statement online.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

@@ender1111 A, talking about a tank without talking about it's country is dumb because it ignores so many factors. B, We're not talking about Israel or sweden how do they matter at all? C, I'm not sure two base t-90's could beat an abrams given it's just a t-72 with a different name and it's armour ruined by the laser dazzlers that don't work on modern missiles. And it's newest variants autoloader being unable to fit the largest russian rounds is an issue to say the least. D, Tanks rarely fight other tanks most tanks fight infantry and bunkers or other buildings. The abrams is thus better than two t-90's because it has actual mobility in directions other than forwards, better gun depression and the same laser dazzlers without ruining the armour. It also features blowout panels. Basically, the T-90 is worse overall because to get a variant with any hope in hell of matching the Abrams in a 1v1 you lose the cost advantage, none of it's variants are better for close quarters fighting or fighting infantry in urban environments due to their awful transmission, reverse drive and gun depression. Also the US funds most of the israeli military so go figure why they have good tech. As for bad spelling i have a broken wrist and was on my phone so idk what to tell you. And if my statement was stupid your's was downright retarded. I mean really, you're response to the perfectly valid argument of russias weak econemy is to bring up Israel and Sweden, forgetting of course that both these countries have substantially smaller armies and us funding then you have the gall to call me the idiot? Fuck off

[@Salamo76]

I think the most important skill is interoperability between tanks, intel from flying drones ant technology. Russians are strong in asymmetric answers. USA have tons of usd for best in class war gear. So depends... and when Soviet collapsed there was hard 10-15 years of recovery and Soviets significantly delayed in development. So I would say us. Remember their collision in Syria

[@alexmcaruthur6966]

well lets look at this way, in the mbt weight class which tank is easily transportable and weighs less and has a bigger gun and can ford rivers? logistically its a nightmare to transport a 74 ton monster across the globe in time for theater operations. whereas t-90s is rapidly deployed in areas that are close to russia. in a ground war against ukraine abrams wont make it in time to save her but at least stall the advance long enough before reinforcements arrive. thats my 2 cents on this video thanks!

[@JoeSmith-iv3sf]

@@alexmcaruthur6966 that's why we have the 74 ton monsters everywhere already. The U.S. is the only country that has a military built to travel. Russia will have far more trouble relocating their ranks than the U.S. relocating the bigger heavier one. That's not a shot a Russia it's just a reality but also a wake up call to ppl thank Russia isn't really the tyrant our media and politicians make them out to be. .Russia like everyone else is built for defense. For the most part, any dispute Russia has had has been on their borders. Cutting out all the politics of it, Russia having issues w border states would be like the U.S. not having California or Florida. Those present weak spots.

[@yoinks9907]

@@JoeSmith-iv3sf the us military is everywhere yes but it’s in small amounts the us doesn’t have 1 million people in Asia Europe South America Africa and the Middle East all at once

[@rainbowsixODST]

@@yoinks9907 True. That’s a weakness that our European or Asian allies need to make up for. If war happens we will need time to ramp up and mobilize the needed numbers and assets.

[@miketaylor5212]

@@JoeSmith-iv3sf we alreadt have m1 abrams and other miltary predeployed at nato bases all over europe im sure there are rails all over europe that can transport the tanks where they are needed all we need is to transport the crews before we ever have to worry about crossing bridges there will be a battle for air dominance.

[@baddonkey6876]

3:39 he's talkin about a gas turbine but showing a diesel engine in a hummer lol

[@ambrose5448]

Oh yeah xD

[@jeffsmith4835]

The army switched to diesel decades ago so they could fuel most vehicles at the same time

[@betabilly]

@Da Big Kahuna Catfish I think the Abrams has a diesel auxilliary engine onboard to keep the tank's systems powered when the tank is not travelling because the main turbine is really a fuel hog when idling.

[@hosseinkarim9124]

Crew skill and sooner identification can determine the victorious one.

[@RouandSido]

I was hoping that you would answer that question. I've been reading and watching lots of documentaries about tanks and tactics I think that in a one on one dog fight the Abrams will prevail. However in a real battle this might or might not be the case as tanks are unlikely to act solely similar to what happened in WWII in some occasions T34 wasn't the best tank in WWII but it was the tank that won the war

[@Wartredis]

Abrams will prevail as a good target, it has primitive concept with thick uranium armor(thats kills crew), also t-90 have improve defense systems better offroad capabilities and better maneuverability, start attack first because it has guided missles that hit to the top of tank and kill its anyway.

[@josephputinch3090]

I think the bob semple is be good enough for ww3

[@funkmonkeyfun]

It should also be pointed out the T90 presents a lower profile especially when it goes hull down Its also a case of a better gun (T90) vs better armor (Abrams)

[@nickdial8528]

Fyi, It's not actually a better gun. It has less range the 120mm. The 125mm shell is typically used by Russian tanks, and the reason for it over the 120mm was that the Russians weren't able to build as strong barrels as the West. ... Thus the Soviet 125mm shells are still less powerful than NATO 120 mm, Most modern western tanks use one-piece ammunition, where the dart is recessed in the cartridge (Challenger 2 is an exception). Soviet tanks that utilise an autoloader in their compact tanks have to break up their ammunition into two pieces.[4] This constrains their ability to use longer penetrators that have greater mass. Two-piece ammunition also suffers from greater non-uniform combustion of its propellant due to the bottom charge igniting first before the upper propellant does. In a NATO one-piece ammunition, the long primer pin ensures better uniformity in propellant detonation. also, The T90 only has a lower profile of around 14 inches which isn't that much.

[@stilpa1]

@@nickdial8528 actually not. T-90A can shoot ATGMs from 5km away, M1A2C can shoot it 2km with apfsds. Both can shoot HE and HEAT, but that would not really help. At least for the T-90A because it has ERA. Also, T-90A shoot Svinets 2 which is better than M829A3

[@minehffd2651]

The Soviet 125mm smooth bore isn't the same as the one on the T-90A or any of Russian T-90 variants.

[@stilpa1]

@@minehffd2651 T-90A has a 2A46M5 cannon, which is the second best, beaten by 2A82M1

[@minehffd2651]

@@stilpa1 I'm not comparing it. Just saying that the T-90A doesn't use the same 2A46 gun.

[@Pureblood1776]

US has air superiority which in turn nullifies tank usage. M1 is a beast T 90 is a great tank but a head to head battle will most likely never happen with the US air support.

[@acannon2700]

BRRRRT

[@robertmosher7418]

The fight is most likely going to come down to a matter of what time of day and what the weather is like due to the optics.

[@kareemabdulaziz9600]

you mean night.

[@patbrooks626]

Yup optics.

[@billymule961]

That and who fires first.

[@kareemabdulaziz9600]

Well since the T90 new optics are only good to 3300m. Compared to the 10,000m for the sep v2. Means it would be more likely that they would see the other 1st. Most times.

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

@@kareemabdulaziz9600 Except in endless random Arabian desert where else they can use 10.000m view range? It is simple, not useless, but overkill - unnecessary feature. The view range of the T-90 is 3.300m and it can independently fire a 9M119M with a range of 5,000m. So how can he shoot something that is 1.700m away from what he can see? Or, is its view range still greater than 5km?

[@Sid-bd5pt]

Patton tanks we're deemed invincible by Americans yet they failed in indo Pak war of 1965. The lesson , never underestimate an enemy just because you have slight edge in tech. Search for Patton nagar.

[@leewood331]

What "failed"was the tactics & manner in which they were deployed and used. Incompetence trumps technology.

[@cassu6]

Also those tanks were actually shit... The first good American tank after WW2 was the Abrams. The Soviets were dominating before that

[@caps918]

A single nuke beats everything

[@wulfleyn6498]

They can't really use them without everything going to shit tho.

[@caps918]

@@wulfleyn6498 but it can

[@irvsstella]

Kill em all, let God sort out the pieces.

[@imdough8838]

Bob semple tank can survive it u know?

[@arthas640]

Yes but a single death star defeats many nukes

[@brownman371]

Nice

[@brownman371]

God bless idol

[@pennilessjester211]

4:23 I never knew that and that’s awesome

[@sony5244]

the Abrams has the edge. I put my money on the Abrams

[@chrisklitou7573]

T90 is cheaper so it's overall better because you can by 2 T90 for the same price as 1 Abrams

[@sony5244]

@@chrisklitou7573 You have got a good point there and u r right to an extent, because in WW2, the Soviets had the T-34 and they managed to beat the German tanks even though the Germans had an technological superior tanks than the Soviets. But in a today's real battle scenario , I don't think , it will play by the same rule book as in WW2, becoz there are many factors to consider, so I will give the edge to the Abrams.

[@chrisklitou7573]

@Stickey Sickness Im not denying the Abrams is better but im saying I think have 2 T90 is better than 1 Abrams

[@casual_speedrunner1482]

@@chrisklitou7573 Yes, but the US has 10 times the defense budget. So potentially, it's a 5v1 in the US' favor.

[@cimpit5395]

@@casual_speedrunner1482 You are forgeting crew. In western tanks you have a 4 crew members one of them is loader. In tanks with autoloader you can from loader make a driver or leader or shooter.

[@firefox3073]

Tough choice.. M1A2 probably.

[@thatkidingym3122]

Hands down M1 Abram wins. It’s like betting against a Tiger(Abram) and a wolf(T-90)

[@paynezerfaust4282]

So, fire control and stabilization. Notice when the Abrams fires it barely moves?

[@WiliiamNoTell]

Ask the Iraq's what they thought about the Abrahams firing on the fly. Look up Medina Ridge.

[@paynezerfaust4282]

@@WiliiamNoTell Will do

[@imdough8838]

@@paynezerfaust4282 same thing for t90 it also has stabilizer

[@Balkancryptomining]

that is not matter if you have advance targeting like russian tank do

[@samuelsangliankhuma3863]

3:44 Tokyo drift:NAH American tanks:YES

[@poseidon8910]

T90 ❤❤

[@nickdial8528]

I see alot of people here thinking the 125mm on the T-90 must mean it's "better" over the 120mm because it's 5mm bigger. This is actually incorrect. The 125mm shell is typically used by Russian tanks, and the reason for it over the 120mm was that the Russians weren't able to build as strong barrels as the West. The larger barrel was to make make up for this, however the Soviet 125mm shells are less powerful than NATO 120 mm. Most modern western tanks use one-piece ammunition, where the dart is recessed in the cartridge (Challenger 2 is an exception). Soviet tanks that utilise an autoloader in their compact tanks have to break up their ammunition into two pieces.[4] This constrains their ability to use longer penetrators that have greater mass. Two-piece ammunition also suffers from greater non-uniform combustion of its propellant due to the bottom charge igniting first before the upper propellant does. In a NATO one-piece ammunition, the long primer pin ensures better uniformity in propellant detonation. The 120mm has higher pressure and velocity over the 125mm. It also fires a longer/larger penetrator sabot round. Fyi...

[@AshishVerma-dz9ug]

I heard 125 mm gun gave no better performance than 120 mm in tests

[@mr.waffentrager4400]

nick dial...no the nato 120mm has lower velocity its around 1530m/s for m829 projectile from 80's and soviet 125mm projectile 3bm42 from the 80's have 1700m/s velocity ...125mm 3bm9 projectile has 1800m/s velocity ..because they are lighter . i mean you are wrong about 120 mm having higher velocity ...though it has more muzzle energy than older 125mm 2a46 guns ...2a46-5 gun has higher muzzle energy ..,MAY be higher than 120mm nato

[@nickdial8528]

@@mr.waffentrager4400 Thats not correct. Since I am not a tank gunner, I'll use a quote from an actual Gunnery master and tanker, who is talking about this very subject. "Okay, I guess as a master gunner, I should answer this question and help with all the speculation. The Soviet 125mm gun (by the way, tank armament is a gun, not a cannon, for a bit of weapons trivia) is inferior in all aspects to the American M256 120mm gun. First issue is metallurgical technology, Russians are quite behind on that, and their main gun cannot fire a round equivalent to the sabot fired by an M1A1/A2. Because there is not as much propellant, the muzzle velocity is lower, decreasing accuracy. The advantage to a smoothbore gun is that you can fire rounds at very high velocity (upwards of 1600 m/s). This leads to a very stable ballistic trajectory. At lower velocities you are much better off with a rifled gun, where the spin will impart stability. Next issue is something very technical called parallax. Basically, the bore of the gun and the gun sights can only point at the exact same place at one particular distance. Think of the line of sight from the sights and the gun as forming an X. You boresight your gun for a specific parallax range. If the enemy target is not precisely at that range, then the round fired will miss the aiming point by a few inches. This is not a problem if the ballistic trajectory is very stable, like APFSDS fired by an M1. If, however, the ballistic trajectory is unstable (for example the Russian 125mm gun at ranges beyond 1000 meters) parallax introduces a major accuracy problem. The Soviet army did not consider this to be an issue since combat in Western Europe tends to occur at ranges of 1000 meters or less due to the density of the urban terrain and mountains and forests. Finally, as someone noted, kinetic energy, which is the primary means of killing a tank is determined by mass x velocity squared. But, the mass of a long rod penetrator has little do with the bore of the gun. The penetrator is typically no more than 40mm in diameter and 500mm in length. This basic design changes very little due to bore size. The American 105mm rifled gun fired a penetrator almost the same size as the American 120mm gun, albeit at a lower muzzle velocity. So, the reality is that the only way to increase the killing power and ballistic stability of the kinetic energy penetrator (sabot round) is by increasing the velocity. Since the Russian 125mm gun cannot withstand the amount of propellant required to do this it is at a disadvantage. This was seen clearly during Desert Storm in 1991 when American M1's engaged T-72's. The T-72 consistently missed targets beyond 1500 meters, while the M1 was successfully engaging beyond 3000 meters (I had first round hits at 3400 meters)."

[@mr.waffentrager4400]

@@nickdial8528 I can point out MANY mistakes in this quote...I respect him because he serves in the army but ... what's his name btw ? The first mistake is that he said the length of the penetrator is 500mm ..no it's like 900mm for latest apfsds ...it penetrates more than 800mm of Armor for sure ...and that would be impossible if it's only 500mm long . because apfsds can't pen Armor more than its length I think this quote is from cold war days .

[@mr.waffentrager4400]

@@nickdial8528 he didn't tell the velocity of 2a46 125mm or 2a46m-5 gun ... More than 1600m\s apfsds velocity for l44 gun ? ...he must say below 1600m/s I must say he has very good morale for a fighter.

[@Monkgalana]

T90 💪💪

[@johncollins4377]

The Abrams is loaded by the loader not the gunner

[@pnr4199]

@Vernon Quant THE AUTOMATIC LOADER TAKES LONGER TO RELOAD THEN THE ABRAMS xD

[@cimpit5395]

@@pnr4199 For a short time buddy. The loader get tired buddy. Autoloader cant be tired.

[@Wartredis]

@@pnr4199 bullshit)

[@arunjith9397]

Yes then main source of the deadlyesnous of a tank is on the hands of the crew inside it ande their performance on battle field

[@Nicholas-ej8zo]

The abram also uses depleted uranium rounds which is the densist round used in the world

[@nicm.z9868]

Tungsten is denser, and it's used in some APFSDS. (But less effective at penetrating armor anyway.)

[@robertbilka1542]

You need to lear much much more about active defense protection in T90S and also targeting-stabilization systems.

[@charlespanasewicz9774]

Some of your visual segments are screened with the image reversed. The Abrams loader’s position is on the LEFT side of the turret while the gunner sits on the RIGHT. This error occurs several times throughout the piece and throws doubt upon the overall accuracy of the presentation. Details matter.

[@duyhung2528]

maybe to avoid copyright claims?

[@leewood331]

@@duyhung2528 No not copyright claims-carelessness and inattention to details.

[@benphillips9229]

M1A2

[@tok4908]

Has any tank ever destroyed an Abram? Except for friendly fire.

[@PugilistCactus]

Considering no modern MBT's have fought each other on even ground (or even at all) since M48 and T-62? No.

[@startingbark0356]

Old french 155mm artillery did

[@anthonymolina7416]

ATGMS have I think it wasn’t US tanks though. But I’ve never heard of any

[@PANTSYRS1]

2 tanks with cool design

[@Grid88]

Glad you like it

[@john-michaeljuchau6372]

M1A2 SEP B3 by far

[@gooser7613]

depends on how theyre used in combat, but id rather crew an m1. better survivability

[@PugilistCactus]

Recent upgrades to Russian tanks have increased survivability. Everything from APS, better armor, and figuring out how to fix the turret ejection problem.

[@gooser7613]

Yeah, true. It's hard to really decide because I doubt these nations release 100% of the data, but I'd love to crew either of them, I just like the way the Abrams looks. Both are good tanks, I'm sure

[@Maperator]

@@PugilistCactus still i dont like the way ammo is stored in the t 90

[@Maperator]

@@gooser7613 i like the way t 90 looks best. In fact it is my favorite looking tank. BUT m1 will protect me better

[@sunnydlight2375]

@@PugilistCactus haha, the future has proven you are dumb and your double down was wrong. what say you now, keyboard warrior?

[@leeyk8006]

Abrams: I am your huckleberry T90: Fight not with you holliday... Blah Blah... I was just fooling about... Alright lunger... ;;...

[@SuperFoxGen]

He said nothing about the t-90's automatic machine. But this is a huge advantage.

[@williamstephens9945]

It can launch the turret High in the air for improved visibility.

[@arturbalakhnin9770]

T-90-S

[@bunhlsabunbunletssaveanima7953]

M1A2 Abrams is the best tank ever it has very powerful armor, cannon and high speed, i love it!❤❤❤

[@user-og9bg4rp7p]

Ну да, хорошо горят в Йемене.

[@njnikusha]

@@user-og9bg4rp7p your tanks were burning really nice in middle east so STFU

[@user-og9bg4rp7p]

@@njnikusha что с тебя взять, убогий? Иди с миром.

[@yaboyqmaga1125]

The T90 is a beautiful tank, but let’s be honest here, it won’t stand a chance head to head with an Abrams.

[@pacivalmuller9333]

First who hits, wins. T-90 is also really cheap.

[@timurwalles7496]

@@pacivalmuller9333 but Russian main battle tank is older T-72B3

[@kg6itc]

Who shoots first wins

[@knn059]

Well depends who you listen to. According to US tank general, Abrams are way heavier, worse on fuel consumption and from war experience only front is strong. Hand held RPGs can damage it at the rear and sides, also stands taller as a larger target. Would love to see them in Ukraine and than decide.

[@obamaninja_]

This man just said "The gun is loaded manually by the GUNNER" hahaha lol

[@Hello-dy6up]

It all comes down to positioning, if m1 is in a great position out ranging tye enemy then it wins, if t-90 out positions m1 and hets behind it it wins

[@karlzbatiao177]

the abrams is a beast. it was tested in the battlefield and continue to impress until now. the t90 is also a very good tank cheaper but by no means a push over. the real question now is at almost 2 times the cost, will a single abrams be able to handle 2 t90s? interesting if quality>quantity.

[@imdough8838]

Thats what the germans thought in ww2 Quality>Quantity though it would be interesting if war doctrines has changed benefiting quality

[@tulgatuvshin6344]

The rich Americans make money from war.

[@Python102]

@@imdough8838 If the Abrams is so cool as you write here, why won't United States show their superiority in any specialized tank competition, such as International tank biathlon for example? More than 30 countries took a part in 2020. Even China on its Type 96B tried to take a chance to win. But North Atlantic Alliance members year after year avoid to compete with USSR tanks, modified russian T90, even Chinese products. It looks like they're afraid to get fail and lose authority. Of course, competition exercises cannot simulate the real battle, but any way they show how every machine is good or not, if we use a well organized and qialified crews in all tanks. This seems to be more fair than destroing old T-55 tanks with poorly trained crews inside in Iraq and proudly declare that the Abrams is the best tank in the world. Sorry for any grammatic mistakes.

[@jerromedrakejr9332]

@@Python102 You are absolutely right. Abrams bases his superiority on the fight against the generationally weaker tank that happened 30 years ago. And the fiasco that is happening to the same tank these years, those who are the conspirators of Abrams' superiority, do not notice at all - as if time stopped them 30 years ago.

[@brendarizo3172]

@@Python102 idk probably to cool for those things or it’s just that y country don’t want to compete but most likely the second one

[@nicm.z9868]

Can we all agree that T-90s looks hot with the IR Dazzlers turned on Lmao?

[@user-rt5br1zi3u]

In case the 2 equipment at same level The crew will decide who win

[@disgustedvet9528]

T-90 is sexier but i'll take the Abrams in a battle.

[@casual_speedrunner1482]

@qwerty Hmm... no u.

[@gjp627]

I had an autoloader named Pvt James. He never failed and was upgraded to LCpl. That was in a M48, the US realized the best autoloaders were human....just sayin'

[@wttw4942]

It might be very interesting to see a good old battle tank between each other.

[@Enlightenchannel]

Looks like you're about to get your wish.

[@clobertrober4265]

can i just say its very silly to compare 1v1 becuase when these tanks were designed and chosen to be deployed there are far more strategic considerations.

[@josels1292]

I would go with Abraham. They are proven on real war not just testing In friendly territory. Im sure they had some issues and they have been corrected.

[@Pureblood1776]

Everyone tends to forget this. US military has been actually using its weaponry since the gulf war.

[@BillP-kg1yp]

If both sides had 100 tanks each and fought to the death the "winner" would have maybe 4 tanks left and that unit would have to retire anyway.

[@Merok23]

I don't think even that is fair since the price of the T90s is almost half, I think the M1 is superior, but the price makes it even

[@luka1608]

@@Merok23 Price for one abrams is high. More countries will buy russian T-90, especially poorer countries

[@Grid88]

Guys help us to reach our goal of 100k subscribers.

[@aaboud123]

The difference is similar to the difference between Mercedes, Cadillac and Volga. Probably many people don't know what a Russian Volga car looks like, just imagine an ugly open hood sedan parked on the side of the highway and the driver has grease on his face and hands trying to fix it. This is very typical for the Volga owners. Even without enemy fire, the Russian tank is a cause of death for its crew.

[@jamescarneal8022]

Anyone who knows about the abrams knows the abrams would kick the T90 ass

[@karlmartin9022]

Do we really tho?

[@republican9320]

You seem alot like an american so makes sense but what if it faced the new T-14 armata?

[@karlmartin9022]

@@republican9320 Even though the video is hella biased towards the Americans, if u actually pay attention, turns out that the Russian tank is way better. U see in modern warfare Abrams armor barely matters and u mostly don't even see the enemy so the fact, that t90 has almost 80 miles longer range as well as better firepower, means that the Russian cheap trashcan is superior. Also even though he doesn't say it but the Russian armor is actually useful unlike the Abrams one (I mean the American one can still protect u from a terrorist with an rpg, but it sure as hell can't save u from an actual army).

[@Ranzoe813]

@@republican9320 same...

[@jamescarneal8022]

@@republican9320 I think it would be very close so it would all come down to the skill of the crew

[@juliodyarzagaray]

I think we now know their's no comparison. T-90s are suped up T-72s. An Abrams would obliterate a T-90.

[@danielphipps888]

The OBLITERATION was also what I was thinking too, the American tank has better armor which in REAL COMBAT CONDITIONS, would show up quickly. have to go with the M1A1 for now though.

[@JohnWick-qr4yc]

@J you mean like it’s obliterating the Ukrainian tractors? 😂😂 Russian military is such a joke

[@kevincheng5680]

the most ammo racked tank in the world. T-72 / T-90's design is similar to US's Sherman M4 in WW2. Thin side armor, easy direct hit to ammo rack.

[@kevincheng5680]

i think the chinese junk are the same....lol

[@dennislane853]

It's obvious the javelin has done a job on all of the Russian tanks. Question: would the javelin do the same on the Abrahams

[@brooks4048]

The Abrams can fight at night better than any other tank.

[@TheSpecter1990]

Leclerc ? Leopard 2 ? Merchava ? So many deadly tanks at night dude

[@_Peperek]

@@TheSpecter1990 yeah i think this guy forgor it's not desert storm, it's 2022 Tho it do be have nice optics

[@marapavlovic2177]

T 90S 👌

[@RealDigitalWar]

Tako je Maro! Pogledaj moj kanal za vise tenkova.

[@MrBot-xc2vi]

As a Battlefield 4 player. I personally like to drive the M1Abrhams, only thing I don't like it the bug hump on the back

[@weaselwolf8425]

Video games got nothing on the real shit my friends. The Abrams is the best yes, but I mean fiction doesnt deal well with realism. 😅😂

[@MrBot-xc2vi]

@@weaselwolf8425 yeah I know. 99% of things in games can't compare to real life vehicles

[@weaselwolf8425]

@@MrBot-xc2vi obviously. I mean Cod is worse.

[@MrBot-xc2vi]

@@weaselwolf8425 COD Ghosts 💀, Battlefield and WoT did good on tanks

[@startingbark0356]

@iwhdbid josksjbx tanks that are atleast 10 year older yes

[@ronpartain]

T90 is a solid and formidable tank. If we are talking head to head battle (T90 vs M1A2), give me the Abrams... but as infantry support, its a toss up. I like the automated loading system as long as it does not fail.

[@brianbrian9759]

We may find out soon, wich one is better.

[@dessirangelova2676]

Very interested how when theres no war people say both tanks are good but when there is war every one calls the t90 shft because it was destroyed by anti tank missiles

[@hamidious]

Well the Russian tanks cost almost half as much, that translates to more of them on the battlefield. The wars in the Middle East, especially the war in Yemen proved the Abrams are not invincible. So my guess is the T90 is better because of the cost advantage. But it's all theory, Let's hope these tanks never face each other and there will come a day when they just become museum or collector pieces.

[@michaelquintana157]

Ya true hamidious I like your thoughts. but what about cheaper tank killing weapons?

[@michaelquintana157]

@MARIO VALENTIN ZAMUDIO DOMINGUEZ u mean cheaper tank destroying weapons?

[@michaelquintana157]

Actually I am kinda surprised that the modern tank with turret is not abstolete.. obiously militarys still see them as useful...

[@michaelquintana157]

Also I am still thinking about aircraft carriers ...they seem very vulnerable to missiles..

[@mike3.0tt18]

They didn't use the same abrams in yemen.. do your home work before you speak kid

[@puteriperang9918]

t90s is tha best!

[@darkmeraldpvp6531]

Mech: im about to end this mans whole damn career - Advance wars

[@cyberspino6277]

Mechs are bad in real life warfare tanks are just superior

[@lordelectron6591]

@@cyberspino6277 Mechs will cause chaos

[@ingodwetrustgachatuber2747]

Always down to the user, in this case, the tank crew and some luck/grace.

[@Horible4]

This is plain wrong. Abrams would win because all of the real threats would be destroyed by aerial units. Russia has been busy blowing money on incredibly expensive concepts to try and make an upgraded tank, but in the process has ignored that a single A-10 can destroy 4 of those expensive tanks. This isn't even a new strategy. It's been known since World War 2 that controlling the skies wins wars and Russia is hopelessly behind in this modern tactic that only Russia seems to get wrong and or ignores. This isn't even an outlier for how poorly their resources are used. Russia has one of the most overrated combat forces on the planet.

[@AnshuOP69]

@@Horible4 cry

[@Horible4]

@@AnshuOP69 it's okay, you can dry your tears with the fact not even Turkey is scared of Russia anymore.

[@AnshuOP69]

@@Horible4 cry more cry russian su 35 and t14 amrata best tanks. T90 is shit tbh

[@Horible4]

@@AnshuOP69 it doesn't matter if they're the best if they're effectively useless. A tank won't beat a smart bomb.

[@djfouadkorgpa4x636]

T90s wow what a goest machine!!!!

[@major943]

As a former military tank repair technician and in light of Gulf 1, Gulf 2 and now Ukraine, the T90 is absolute garbage. It has poor engine reliability. The auto loader is prone to jams - not something you would want in a battle! Its target imaging systems are very poor compared to NATO tanks - this is vitally important. Its protective systems against light anti tank weapons is virtually useless. The M1A2 has none of the above problems. This is no contest.

[@Unit285]

@jerry calvert u sound triggered af

[@night7185]

@jerry calvert update on ukraine retard?

[@chrisklitou7573]

Do the Leopard Vs Challenger

[@savagecub]

Million dollar vehicles EASILY destroyed by 50k man portable anti armor weapons ! You do the math !

[@Native_love]

Abrams!

[@agostolabtic]

I think T90 Russia tank is better than Abrams...

[@nemanjapetrovic459]

Zanimljiv test, teško je odrediti pobednika ovde. Abrams je teže oklopljen tenk ali sa druge strane T-90 ima bolju aktivnu zaštitu, reaktivni oklop i mobilnost. Abrams ima opasan top ali T-90 poseduje top koji može da ispaljuje protivtenkovske rakete koje su efikasnije od bilo čega što Abrams poseduje. Ako poseduje dobro obučenu posadu T-90 S je u prednosti. Po meni je T-90 S sa ruskom posadom bolji tenk, ali ako ne poseduje dobro obučenu posadu ovaj tenk ima mnogo slabosti, što je već dokazano na terenu.

[@backaboki1926]

Sad su u Ural Vagon zavodu uradili od T.72 T.80 T.90 su mnogo bolji tako da sad T.72 je isti kao što je bio T.90 a dalje da nepričamo. Sve novo od do to sad nema niko. Znači nov senzori odbrana vatrena moć noću vidi bolje od svih dalje motori novi 1500ks.

[@rommelcruz3651]

Both are great tanks. But i think the Russian T-90 is sharper fighting machine. But then i guess it all depends on the skills of the personnel manning the tank.

[@dariusseibutis9269]

All russian technic is only for show in other words completely shit

[@startingbark0356]

@@dariusseibutis9269 so is american technic

[@washablejunk281]

Have they ever gone up against other armor?

[@cimpit5395]

@@dariusseibutis9269 Russian tanks are so good in combat than many other tanks. Russia is making their parade for increase they morale and save some respect to other countries. You are probably from country filled with western propaganda. Thats why are you saying this bullsh**.

[@dariusseibutis9269]

@@cimpit5395 I have served in soviet army and saw all tanks by my own eyes and they all are shit in comparison with The USA

[@edwardl.990]

The problem with Russian equipment is....reliability. That v12 has to start and the auto loader gun has to auto load.

[@imdough8838]

Bruh russian engineering is known for realiability since ww2

[@aSASa45454]

@@imdough8838 haahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[@lauravarona6717]

T 90 auto load 7.1 sec M1A2 Abraham manual load 6.7 sec 😂😂😂😂 is crazy

[@teranovski]

The best of the two is the one you can easyer mass produce, trandport, make idiot proof and provide the best logisticks for it. Even the best tank in the world (whicever it is) isn't worth shit if you cant supply it easily and teach people fast how to be atleast effective in maintenance and use.

[@steverock3718]

Smartest voice

[@duyhung2528]

Yeah, war is more about logistic than the weapon itself, but america is rich enough to bypass that problem.

[@user-pb5nt3vs4d]

@@duyhung2528 ага. россия продала америке аппараты для вентиляции легких, но американцы не смогли адаптировать их для своей электросети в течениии 6 месяцев. могли бы на aliexpress заказать

[@kitsune1594]

And that is why Russian army did not buy a single t90 since 2008.

[@miketaylor5212]

@@duyhung2528 the old saying in ww2 is the united states doesnt solve its problems it overwhelms them.

[@privatekareem6703]

I think the best is m1a2 Abrams

[@johnr7279]

The M1 has NOT been the mainstay US tank for 50 years. Gotta subtract about 10 years from that. M1s were introduced to US Army units in 1980. The fact that there was a badass, low-profile, and fast T-72 (early 70s tank) was one of the main reasons why there is an M1 in the first place. The T-72 greatly influenced the development of the M1 just like the BMP-1 and BMP-2 influenced the development of the Bradley. The difference is that while the US can certainly get inspired by the capabilities and designs of an adversary, they'll develop something unique on their own. If you juxtapose this against that the USSR did, they'd simply copy stuff if they could...and did in many military developments. Each side does what they have to.

[@uroskostic8570]

T72 was second class tank in USSR, and was biproduct of T64 and T80 , cheaper solution to those tanks for mass production, as one T72B was almost 4 times cheaper than one T80U... First M1s with 105mm wasnt even close to T80B or U which was faster, had better armour and better gun. T80U is on level of T90A

[@johnr7279]

@@uroskostic8570 yes, the US Army stuck with the 105mm concept for a very long time. A 105mm shell can't do what a 120mm can but it was kept for a long time due to accuracy. The 105mm has long since been replaced of course but that's essentially why it was kept for that extra time. The M1 was also a huge technology jump over the M60. The M60 was basically an M48. Really just a post-WWII tank. The M60A3 is still an awesome tank but it just pales in comparison to what the M1 can do. This is just one thing but the idea of putting a 1,500-plus hp helicopter engine in a tank was quite a jump.

[@arthas640]

Yeah, they started entering service in the 80s but they werent really a "mainstay" until late 80s/early 90s.

[@uroskostic8570]

@@johnr7279 yes. There is also modification M1 turret on M60 body, which Turkey uses. What people usually do is comparing Abramses to Iraqi T72 clones which were penetrated by 25mm from Bradley as they werent really tanks, but more like a T72 looking vehicle. As it was built of thin industrial steel, with barrels taken from older tanks, engine chinese and ammo it used was replaced by Soviets even in 70s ... T72B with ERA is nothing like T72M most of Soviet block countries had or others who bought it for export. There is also one variation of T72 that was built by former Yugoslavia. M84A which proved to be superior in combat conditions that T72S

[@tulgatuvshin6344]

Abrams loses because the tank is expensive. He saw the story in World War II.