jts,

Hi Guys!! I found something at russian site NTV channel video (on russian) about T-90 vs Abrams.
Offscreen commentary below (very sorry about bugs in translating from ru to eng, no time to correct)
Source: http://forum.hayastan.com/index.php?s=6e5052048e9697adcaf204dab0f7c76e&showtopic=32045&pid=703052&st=0&#entry703052
video here:
http://rutube.ru/tracks/5733.html?v=5e48c3225e150600e06127702917e730
Offscreen commentary (translated, sorry for some bugs):
---- begin /translated from russian/ ---
Abrams, probably, most well-known western tank - about it is written by the western magazines, it show in releases of news, it the main telestar of the tank world.

The advanced Russian tank - &<058;-90, about it, especially in the west, often do not recollect. Experts of NATO have put on &<058;-90 a brand - "has become outdated". Whether And so it actually?

Russian &<058;-90 and American Abrams - the person uninitiated can think, that it is machines of different classes, &<058;-90 it is much easier than the American - 47 tons against 64. It is much more compact, and looks not so amazing. However, these machines - direct competitors and it speaks the weapon world markets in their similar battle potential.

Today to estimate hardening of the machine simple comparison of a thickness of the armor - it is impossible, it is necessary to know from what it consists. In armor Abrams'a the impoverished uranium, and on &<058;-90 the built in dynamic protection is used. Under the statement of Americans - front armor Abrams'&<072; has proved the reliability during wars in Iraq 91 and 2003 - it maintained hits of the Soviet armour-piercing shells of calibre 125&<084;&<084;, thus is not said that is a question of an ammunition removed from arms in 73 year. Moreover - modern shells then on Abrams'&<091; did not shoot.

At front armor &<058;-90 during tests fired the newest &<087;&<086;&<076;&<082;&<072;&<083;&<080;&<073;&<077;&<088;&<085;&<099;&<084;&<080; the cumulative shells equal by efficiency to the advanced shells 120&<084;&<084; of gun Abrams. From distance 200&<084; on the tank 6 shells after that the machine the course has arrived on an observation platform have been let out. Then, without repair carrying out, edge &<058;-90 have substituted under blow of advanced grenade launchers, the same result - the armor onboard filters are not punched, damaged only. At the same time, during battles in Iraq in 2003, edges Abrams'&<072; made the way from &<056;&<055;&<043;-7/PRG-7/ grenades even the very first samples. In Iraq weak place Abrams'&<086;&<074; - an auxiliary power-plant of the tank (&<042;&<057;&<059;), ensuring functioning of all electronics during the moment when the basic engine is muffled has come to light. It is easy to strike it from a large-calibre machine gun. At &<058;-90 - &<042;&<057;&<059; is under the basic armour. Besides, &<058;-90 even in standard execution it is equipped with a complex of optiko-electronic suppression - "Curtain", this system withdraws rockets of the opponent aside. At Abrams'&<072; such equipment is not present, in &<076;&<091;&<101;&<083;&<100;&<085;&<086;&<081; to a situation the American tank &<074;&<088;&<103;&<076;&<083;&<080; can resist to guided missile &<058;-90 launched through a smoothbore gun. Working distance &<058;-90 = 5&<082;&<084;, accuracy of fire in this case comes nearer to the absolute. A rocket it is possible to shoot from a place and in movement, besides for its use it is not required what or special skills of the gunner. Capacity of guns &<058;-90 and Abrams'&<072; is approximately equivalent, the armour penetration of a domestic shell with the core from tungsten concedes nothing to the competitor - to the American shell with the core from the impoverished uranium. Similar shells have been developed and at us, but they are extremely harmful to crew, and their batch production has been provided against a rainy day.

The tank should be able to strike not only the armour purposes, but also - as military men - &<090;&<072;&<085;&<082;&<086;&<086;&<087;&<072;&<089;&<085;&<091;&<102; speak live force, that is grenade launcher operators and remote control antitank rockets crews. In it &<058;-90 considerably surpasses Abrams - into an ammunition load of our tank enters splinter-shrapnel a shell with remote undermining - it can be blown up directly over heads of enemy soldiers or even near to the battle helicopter. Similar shells at Abrams'&<072; are not present.

Long time, not without the aid of the western military magazines, was considered that electronics and optical devices of our tanks, to put it mildly - are imperfect. Actually - the complex of fire control &<058;-90 - concedes nothing to NATO analogues. Moreover - this tank posesses an informal record in accuracy and rate of fire of shooting. On one of demonstrations to foreign delegations, gunner &<0

WOW BUGS! i try again!
---------
Abrams, probably, most well-known western tank - about it is written by the western magazines, it show in releases of news, it the main telestar of the tank world.
The advanced Russian tank - T-90, about it, especially in the west, often do not recollect. Experts of NATO have put on T-90 a brand - "has become outdated". Whether And so it actually?
Russian T-90 and American Abrams - the person uninitiated can think, that it is machines of different classes, T-90 it is much easier than the American - 47 tons against 64. It is much more compact, and looks not so amazing. However, these machines - direct competitors and it speaks the weapon world markets in their similar battle potential.
Today to estimate hardening of the machine simple comparison of a thickness of the armor - it is impossible, it is necessary to know from what it consists. In armor Abrams the impoverished uranium, and on T-90 the built in dynamic protection is used. Under the statement of Americans - front armor Abrams has proved the reliability during wars in Iraq 91 and 2003 - it maintained hits of the Soviet armour-piercing shells of calibre 125mm, thus is not said that is a question of an ammunition removed from arms in 73 year. Moreover - modern shells then on Abrams did not shoot.
At front armor T-90 during tests fired the newest sub-&<089;aliber the cumulative shells equal by efficiency to the advanced shells 120mm of gun Abrams. From distance 200&<084; on the tank 6 shells after that the machine the course has arrived on an observation platform have been let out. Then, without repair carrying out, edge T-90 have substituted under blow of advanced grenade launchers, the same result - the armor onboard filters are not punched, damaged only. At the same time, during battles in Iraq in 2003, edges Abrams made the way from &<056;&<055;&<043;-7/PRG-7/ grenades even the very first samples. In Iraq weak place Abrams - an auxiliary power-plant of the tank (VSU), ensuring functioning of all electronics during the moment when the basic engine is muffled has come to light. It is easy to strike it from a large-calibre machine gun. At T-90 - VSU is under the basic armour. Besides, T-90 even in standard execution it is equipped with a complex of optic-electronic suppression - "Curtain", this system withdraws rockets of the pponent aside. At Abrams such equipment is not present, in duel to a situation the American tank scarcely can resist to guided missile T-90 launched through a smoothbore gun. Working distance T-90 = 5km, accuracy of fire in this case comes nearer to the absolute. A rocket it is possible to shoot from a place and in movement, besides for its use it is not required what or special skills of the gunner. Capacity of guns T-90 and Abrams is approximately equivalent, the armour penetration of a domestic shell with the core from tungsten concedes nothing to the competitor - to the American shell with the core from the impoverished uranium. Similar shells have been developed and at us, but they are extremely harmful to crew, and their batch production has been provided against a rainy day.
The tank should be able to strike not only the armour purposes, but also - as military men ? ?tank_danger? speak live force, that is grenade launcher operators and remote control antitank rockets crews. In it T-90 considerably surpasses Abrams - into an ammunition load of our tank enters splint-shrapnel a shell with remote undermining - it can be blown up directly over heads of enemy soldiers or even near to the battle helicopter. Similar shells at Abrams are not present.
Long time, not without the aid of the western military magazines, was considered that electronics and optical devices of our tanks, to put it mildly - are imperfect. Actually - the complex of fire control T-90 - concedes nothing to NATO analogues. Moreover - this tank posesses an informal record in accuracy and rate of fire of shooting. On one of demonstrations to foreign delegations, gunner T-90&<057; for 54 seconds has struck 7 real purposes arranged on distanses from 1,5 to 2,5 km. Delivering fire straight off, for the speed 25km/ch. The official champion - German Leopard-2, in similar conditions, amazes on 1 purpose less. Thanks to guided missiles T-90 possesses «the longest hand» in the tank world.
Early variants T-90 conceded Abrams on mobility. 1000 hp the engine our tank was practically made even to occurrence with Abrams on this major indicator. And on passableness these two tanks in general cannot be compared - at an exhibition of arms in Abu-Dhabi in 93 year - Abrams "was undressed" - has lost a crawler band on a usual slope exhibition of tank training area. Our tank - on competitive tests has passed almost 3000 km on impassable Malayan jungle - on impassability in which all its competitors have got stuck. It has perfec

Beware of propaganda friend.

The M-1 is proven in BATTLE.

The T-90 so far is parade ground pretty.

It isn't even designed to fulfill the same role.

Example- T-90 protection scheme is 120 degree frontal arc. The M-1 Abrams is 180 degree frontal arc.

Both tanks inherited their schemes from their Cold War forbears.

I also would not want to take a sabot hit from an M-1 maingun in a T-90. That is guaranteed dead crew from all aspects.

The Russian tank gun fired missiles show appallingly poor accuracy. Range advantage oif 800 meters means nothing if you can't hit anything. Plus most of those rockets just splash across the armor failing to explode and form their molten  penetrators properly.

Like I said, propaganda.

Herald 

Sorry, Herald, i dont think so.
Not propaganda only, but pride, because T-90C 'Vladimir' really good thing.
T-90 proven on many international military tests.
And about Iraq'91 and 03 campaign M1 proven... 1970's T-72 with obsolete ammunition? Not comparable, really.
You said about poor accuracy, but Msta artillery, for example, 90% hits the moving target from 20 km, also using gun and guided shells Krasnopol-M (1).
T-90 has SHTORA, ERA, good armor, may has ARENA 270 deg arc defense and so on.
M1 little faster than T-90, but not passableness.

"At front armor T-90 during tests fired the newest subcaliber the cumulative shells equal by efficiency to the advanced shells 120mm of gun Abrams. From distance 200m on the tank 6 shells after that the machine the course has arrived on an observation platform have been let out. Then, without repair carrying out, edge T-90 have substituted under blow of advanced grenade launchers, the same result - the armor onboard filters are not punched, damaged only defense screens. At the same time, during battles in Iraq in 2003, edges Abrams made the way from RPG-7 grenades even the very first samples"
Video 6.23 min  link:
http://www.webpark.ru/uploads35/31vid_11.wmv
Regards,
Max

I am aware of what metallurgically and ceramically is possible. What I said stands. Trade show films and propaganda are not COMBAT. A small tank like the T-90 does not matcgh up well against a behemoth like the Abrams nor are test shots with rockets tuned for the camera show worth a damn in the real world.

I can argue that Challenger  is superior to and Merkava IV  is at least equal to the Abrams in fulfilling their designed roles because I have COMBAT data to back that up. The T-90 like the Leclerc is a show tank until it is tested in battle.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the good combat data on hand for current Russian tanks including the  Chechyna fighting indicates that they still are very much inferior to their western counterparts

It just is the way it is.

Herald
.

It is very a pity to me, that my beautiful multi-coloured bubbles burst...
Keep your bubbles carefully!
-----
Bye!!!
Max

Abrams would be better, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to use T90's in ways that can cause many nasty suprises.