T-90M vs M1A2 SEP V3 - In depth comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лис 2021
- Two tanks, from two greatest military powers, United States and Russia, T-90 and Abrams, are often compared to each other. In this video we will take a look at their most modern variants, and compare them, in detail.
Patreon: / redeffect
As a former Abrams tank systems maintainer in the US Army, I thought I'd let you know the AGT-1500C gas turbine engine is GOVERNED at 1,500 hp. In initial speed testing, the prototype got to 70 mph before the track exploded.
Goddamn.
I bet the prototype crew shat themselves from the sound alone when the tread decided to put itself in a pack lmao-
@@shnek5143 they get about 0.5 mpg, but have increased mobility from the extra power as well as the lower volume taken up by the engine which is also lighter than a diesel. They are also extremely quiet and don't smoke like a russian aircraft carrier, so you are much less likely to be noticed by a nearby enemy, which is a potentially clutch advantage in armored warfare where whoever sees the other guy first is almost guaranteed to score the kill. The extra soft-skinned fuel trucks required to keep them going is a potential disadvantage, but for a country like America with robust logistical capabilities and the means to protect their assets, it's not a big deal. If you're Russia, probably better stick to diesel, or switch to solar-powered golf carts considering the shitshow on display in Ukraine.
Every tank crew gangsta till the track decides to take a forever nap.
@@sneakyfeats2353 don't forget to mention they can run on nearly anything combustible, so enemy territory can provide fuel in a pinch, no problem.
I've seen test at 100+
All the tech and armor don't mean squat if the crew can't stay proficient or abandon the equipment.
Or forget to bring gas
@@nizloc4118 😂
That's why the Sherman did well against the T-34 in Korea. Training and crew ergonomics.
Apparently they had plenty of fuel in Belarus. But decided to trade it all for vodka and munchies.
I was in Saudi working a CTR Terrorism Mission and saw multiple video feeds of SANG soldiers abandoning M1s when they came under small arms fire by Houthi light forces!!!...unbelievable. So yes, the tank is important...so is leadership...and technical and tactical proficiency...and of course, having some balls.
I've driven a Leopard 1A5 with a steering wheel and a T-72M1 with tillers, I think the tillers give you more control over the tank than a steering wheel does.
T-90M using steerring wheel. Would that a mistake then?
@@redemissarium The T-90M has tillers because Russia wanted to make it cheaper to produce
edit: The picture of the drivers position could be a T-90A that is being upgraded to a T-90m but the drivers station was not finished
tillers take a toll on the driver. with steering wheels as long as you know how to drive you can adjust to the steering control to your tank. plus you have better reverse speed.
Everything Russian and Soviet is a mistake. Just like overall in general, a big mistake
Russians and Americans arguing about our tanks is my favorite tradition we hold between our two nations. It has become quite wholesome which is very ironic.
No offense to rest of world but Russians and American set the trends of Tank development. Everybody else is cutting their tank programs to nothing. Hell the British will cut their tank force by two thirds to afford the Challenger 3 leaving them a tank force that not even the size of tank brigade.
Russian and US, best frenemies
@@Cavalier1645 I would say the germans are pretty far ahead when it comes to tanks, I wouldn't say a Leopard is better than an Abrams or T-90 but they are definitely up there
@@therealmp40 Agreed. The Leo 2A7, Challenger 3 and the latest model of the Leclerc are excellent tanks on par with T90M and M1A2SEPv3. The only thing is all those countries are slowly cutting their tank programs into non existent. The British are the worst cutting their number of tanks by a third and have tank production that produces a handful tanks a year.
@@therealmp40 Germans only have a token force, in a case of an all out war, their numbers are meaningless. No point having a sophisticated tank if you can't roll them out on any numbers. 2 T-90 will always beat 1 Leo2. And the ratio is far greater than 2:1 even. More like 5:1 and that's only when we count the T-90's, there's T-80's, modernized T-72's, and if the war lasts for a long time, they can roll out their surplus cold war T-64B's and somewhat modernized T-55AM1's (yeah they're not match for a modern MBT but are still potent to everything else and at that point we can already assume the enemy is likely using sticks and stones too) - the numbers exceed that of the whole EU combined.
History has taught us time and time again - the war is won by numbers, not sophistication.
I think it would be dangerous to underestimate either tank. Both are deadly and top of their class. I'm not convinced the Abrams or the T-90 are obsolete
@@bensmith6868 Pretty much sums up tank combat in general.
@@bensmith6868 finally someone with common sense. Even if the armor absorbs the fired shot, the crew inside won't be having a good time.
Neither are obsolete
History tells us to never underestimate russian tanks
there was a french defense company that propose engine upgrade of t-72/90 with automatic gear and engine cooling system. they said that the reverse is the same of the forward one. if i find it i will leave the link
M1 has certainly come a long way since its 105mm rifled gun days..
but still uses some slave to load a gun
They didint managed to make capable cannons and opted for the 120 mm Rheinmetal German cannon which at that time outperformed all competition
@@allena5545 That would be possible with autoloader as well
@@allena5545 it can, have blowout panels:
- put armour all around the carrocel, (making a square around it for simplicity), put the blown out panels on side hull or bottom, in the zone of the carrocel. Put blast door/hatch in the place were rounds are lifted to load. Done
16:37 17:13 something like this
@@allena5545 dont3 gave a good answer.
As an Abrams gunner I'm not allowed to tell you the exact number of penetration for the apfsds but I can say you have a very low estimate
as i know, "penetration" in russian and american army different, in russian penetration is when shell goes through armor, in american - in armor on other side bended. this is why javeline count in USA as 800mm ap, and same charge in russian sources count as 600mm.
Same with armor - same level of protection in USA will count higher that in Russia. In usa "less that 50% bullet penetrate armor" in russia "not a single bullet penetrate armor" to be count as protected against some king of bullets
I'm guessing it's about 800-1000mm
@@trololoev yea and now we see the super russian tank school in action. Russian tanks, tank docktrine and tank school is totaly crap. Its working again wermacht in 43/44/45 but now he fight again modern weapon and He Loose heads
@@roberttoscani7690 well, why you think it didn't work? Russia slowly winning war, destroying 10 times more that lost and all this despite Ukrainian using civilians as human shields.
@Robert Toscani anyone making blanket judgements concerning any party in this war is a fool. The fog of war is so thick and thr propaganda so strong than anyone who pretends to know anything is ideologically deluded.
Discussing tank vs tank stats is fun to kill time, but since the tanks are part of an overall force package, it's ultimately pointless. Can an Abrams kill a T-90? Yes. Can a T-90 kill an Abrams? Yes. Will two solitary tanks ever duel to the death on neutral ground? No, so ultimately it doesn't matter and they're both good at what they are intended to do. Tanks these days will never fight without supporting air cover, indirect fire assets, and supporting troops including a robust logistics capability, and that's going to influence the outcome more than anything. No tank can survive in an environment where the enemy controls the skies and there are substantial ATGM capabilities in the area. Doesn't matter how good the crew is or how great the tank is.
This is the correct answer. Nailed it. The success of the tank is going to be reliant on how well its deployed, supplied and supported. You could say the same for anything in the military I suppose.
Exactly, specially when there is a ocean between the two!
Never say never
@@pashapasovski5860 как мы видим, океан уже не помеха)
With anouncement of Abrams being donated to Ukraine and seeing how in this Russo-Ukraine war we have seen footage of tank on tank battles with mere 500 m distance ....i fear your comment might not age well lol.
I'll compare the 2 once it gets into Pain T-
Excuse me,(ehem) War Thunder
ruSsiAN BiAS!!!!11!!!!
Open the game.
I work on the abrams, and our master gunner has given us a class on stuff to come. A sep v3 is to replace all a1s and a sep v4 is coming in the future that will utilize the data link ammunition. It's basically for ballistics computing. But what's real special is the HEMP round [no joke it's called hemp] it's to replace HEAT/MPAT, CAN and OR. He said the new sabot's anti ERA capabilities are classified but he gave off the impression of yes it can go through sloped contact 5 at least. But I didnt remember to ask about RELIKT
ALSO, UNLIKE HEAT and MPAT, HEMP doesnt have a copper penetrator. It uses 5 pounds of explosive and tungsten shrapnel matrix. So for PCs, it uses pure explosive force to inflict damage. It DOES penetrate concrete. That's the use for the different fuses [used in the data link. The data link will allow the gunner to select air burst, obstacle reduction [bunkers] and personell carriers [light vehicles]. But the data link stuff is for the SEP V4. The SEP V3 is already out and used so this upgrade is be on the SEP V4. But my master gunner isnt worried about russian ERA. But take that with a grain of salt
If u ask me, I think the abrams could do with heavy ERA and a simpler APS. The russians have some good ideas and it would be wise to use what works
Most crews don’t know most things of their tanks anyways. Even if, I don’t think he can tell you anything about it that isn’t public, otherwise he is committing a crime.
@Чёрный Волк ATGM's are hard for any tank to stop. TOW II can defeat T-90 armor
@Чёрный Волк nah Russian training standards are pretty low, an the moral sucks.. the stupid cheapness of Russians undermines their effectiveness .. Beside our Great Ally Israel, a very advanced tech centric nation that really gives civil rights to mass murdering Arabs , (who's yours Syria !! hahahha).. sold us the new active system that should handle most things thrown at it.. Cheers , an Happy days..
@Чёрный Волк maybe you should re read your initial comment. Comes off as you are claiming that only Russian atgms are what he should worry about. When in reality it's all modern atgms any tanker should worry about. Thats like someone talking about the f35 and flight proformance. Then you come and say yeah but watch out for the s500 hurrdurrr.
Abrams is supported by a fully integrated combined arms team, to include electronic warfare and surveillance. I'd say that factors in pretty big in any "competition".
Bruh you coping.
@@niksonrex88 lol. are you agreeing or just in denial?
@@mitchrichards1532 im telling you youre coping cause the M1 is kinda whack.
@@niksonrex88 You sound like you would know. 🤣🤣🤣
@@niksonrex88 A 70 ton heavily armored war-machine with a 120mm main gun and near 50 mph top speed is whack? *I THINK NOT*
The beauty of the Abrams design is that the initial Hull and Turret were foreseen to be updated and upgraded well into the future of the original manufacture and release. Going from one variant to another did not require a total redesign and remanufacturing of a new Hull and Terret.
Adaptability, classic for american tanks
They regularly build new hulls and turrets. Some tanks are "upgraded" but many of them are just new tanks.
@@Bitchslapper316 That is true; sum hulls and turrets are just too used or damaged to reuse in an upgrade or refit. Thus new turrets and hulls are manufactured from scratch. If you strip the hull and turret down to the bare depleted uranium-enriched steel, they are all the same. For the most part, the hull and turret are die-cast. If that portion is still reusable too make an M1A3 X..... The Abrams M1A2 SEPV3 is a stop-gap until large enough M1A3 tanks are built. But that will be the last of the M1 series. Yes, The Abrams X will have a totally different hull and turret configuration and it too will be made to upgrade threw its lifespan. I loved working on that weapon system. :) The US military has all 3 variants in its arsenal, M1A1 xxx, M1A2 xxx, and the M1A3 xxx. They are working on the production facilities to mass produce the newer Abrams X and I am sure it will be renamed once it starts to show up in the US arsenal.
@Marc Damon It is a tracked vehicle cleaning station and sub-freezing temperatures will play hell on the water spray hoses water ponding up. No vehicle with standard tread wheeled or tracked will do well on a smooth icy slope. Winter cold weather trends will do fine. I have been there and done that. Cleaning a vehicle in the winter is a bitch, regardless of the vehicle unless outfitted with the proper tread pads. That is a training video regardless. An armored crew must learn and know the limitations of their vehicles. Tank recovery vehicles must also know the limits of the vehicle in those conditions.
@@thecamocampaindude5167Its true for any tank bro. Take m60, it was a whole other tank from the 1st version to the most modern, same with 1st leopard 2 and most modern leopard 2, and 1st T64 and latest T80 (yes T80 is basically upgraded t64), and 1st t72 to latest t72/t90, first T54 is whole other tank compared to latest T55.
How does a main battle tank differ from its ww2/early cold war predecessors? Versatility.
Versatility also means upgradeability. Versatility means capability to adapt to current situation: If facing tank you must be able to deal with tank, if facing infantry you must be able to deal with infantry, if facing modern threat, you must be able to modernize. That is why USA, Germany, USSR/Russia still use tanks developed in 1970s/80s, because their versatility has been great.
Now, T64 and T72 is older that both Leo2 and Abrams, that is why Russia needs something like Armata, because they are soon about to exhaust the potential of the bare T64/T72. Bare Abrams and Leo2 were at first more modern to begin with. For a good while this was a non issue, until the 90s USA did not have the ammo to go through even T72B. The Silver arrow could (obvios from various Iraq expeditions), but at that time most Soviet/Russsian T72 was already with Kontakt-5, which once again was great.
Then, Russia had the 90s and early 00s, basically 15 years of a shrinking military capability while NATO kept developing. This created the Russian defecit in tank capability we see today. Now, T80BVM and T90M "Breakthrough" are great vehicles, but being the best of the best that Russia has, they are still a bit behind the NATOs best Leo and best Abrams. The fact that Russia caught up as much as she did though, especially comparing defence spending, is crazy.
But yeah, it is obvious that Russia needs to move on and that is why Armata was born.
Is Armata the be-all end-all? No. But it is a new generation MBT that honestly will do well 50 years into the future. The possibility to upgrade the 125mm gun (that already is more powerful than newest 120mmL55) to 152mm is already there, new ERA will always be developed, APS is on its way to be better and better...
Sure T14 is as of yet not even mass produced, but also it was more than 50 years ago since USSR/Russia designed a new tank completely from scratch, the same goes for USA and Germany. The T64 took extremely long to be mass produced to good reliability, but even if it took many years, the T64 was unmatched from its beginning until the late 80s, almost 20 years.
Would be cool if T-90 or Russian MBT in general finally have decent reverse speed
@Чёрный Волк Order 227 Comrade!
Only forward to Berlin uraaaa
T-90M and 80 have 10km/h reverse, but Once a Polish tanker told me that T-80 could go 35Km/h reverse, also you can just turn around
For retreat? Never. NOT ONE STEP BACK.
for?
„but there is another“
*Superior Arjun noises.
Arjun jokes will be with us for the next 50 years.
@@tomk3732 Of course. This Tank will be for ever in the History books as the strongest Tank in the world. Like the Bob semple
Indians being Indians, "we r the BEEESSSSSSST!!!!!!"
@@tomk3732 hahaha your ass Still on fire 😂😂
@@arnold2004 no one ever said that Arjun is great ...
They said it has problems but most of the problems dictate by Your Daddy Red effect was wrong 😂
But you'll support your Daddy 😜 you have the best Daddy like Johnny Sin 😂
Well, the problem with the T90M is if Russia can field them
From the pics coming from Ukraine it seems that even the ERA panels in many of Russian tanks are empty and without the explosives those were supposed to contain. Quite possible that the person who was supposed to buy ERA just pocketed some of the money...
Another problem for Russia is that they can´t produce good quality micro chips. At the moment all modern Russian electronics use imported micro chips and so now that they can´t get them it´s impossible for Russia to keep upgrading tanks with new fire-control, thermals etc.. It was already few weeks ago when the plant that produces T-90 halted production due to "logistical issues".
@@henrihamalainen300 Yeah true, ive heard about the ERA thing, someone must be burning a lot of papers.
Ive also seen the microchip thing for the drones aswell, my civvilian handmade drone is even more sophisticated then the small observation drones they use
@@henrihamalainen300 Have you seen the Videos made by Perun by any chance? :D
@@henrihamalainen300 ahh yes the infamous cardboard pics yeah dont trust everybody axtualy many pictures and videos of damged russian tanks with exploded era or entirly missing era that means it worked.
Also no that poat is a lie the era is there those things that actualy look like cardboard are part of the era.
@@henrihamalainen300 Actual ERA could be sold in the international arms black market.
The engine of the Abrams did receive an upgrade ~2009 which while it didn't increase its Horsepower as far as I know it did increase its fuel efficiency by 2-3%
if that update is called tiger. increases service life from 700 hours to 1500 hours
nice to see some more in-depth content from you RedEffect, love the video and have been watching for around 3 yrs now.
You can't deny how good T90M looks. It looks thick, compact, and complete. I wonder what the APS on it looks like.
Amen to that id buy one of theses before a Abrams any day
Well uh... the APS isn’t really being installed on any Russian tanks, except “experimental stuff” (special versions of T90M and Armata included).
So... it currently looks like “nothing” :D
Genuinely one of the best looking tanks i think, after the Leopard 2A6 - And this is just based on looks, nothing about their capabilities.
@@Robert-hr6sh AFAIK no T-90Ms have been taken out yet, but otherwise i agree, Russian armour has been like rolling coffins for them in Ukraine.
And now Ukrainian destroyed it hahaha
No question that given the choice of being a crew member of the M1 vs T-90, I would pick the M1 a 100% of the time. Just based on the survivability alone. Throw in the fire control, main gun lethality, active protection, engine reliability and torque and overall fit and finish and it really is no contest.
If you're larger than 1.70m / 5'7" you wouldnt want to be in any russian tank with the exception of maybe the T-14. I'm around 6'3" and tried to hop into a former east german T-72, and I can tell you that wasnt a pleasant experience. Leopard 2 on the other hand (which I think should be roughly similar to an abrams, I think even a bit more cramped) was doable. I could even get to the drivers spot without much hassle.
M1 has atrocious engine reliability. You have to buy a couple spare engines for every tank.
@@Ilamarea Incorrect, the reliability of the AGT1500 is very good and the engine is well liked by its operators, and since turbine engines are usually very simple in terms of part count, its also very easy to repair. The common critique which has some validity to it is the fuel efficiency of that engine, which is under average in comparison to most contemporary tank engines, albeit still very operational for the U.S doctrine, which is very much based around having more fuel trucks available for their tank force then other nations armies. Anyways, I recommend checking out Spookston's youtube video "Why The M1 Abrams Uses A Turbine Engine" he may be American, but his content is usually well researched and unbiased.
The T-90M has great survivability; only 6 (out of 200) have been taken out.
@@thephoenix756those six were the ones that went off to war
I'm not sure how accurate your sources are about the Abrams having 2nd gen thermals. I'd venture to argue that point. The optical zoom is 10× and digital zoom is 25× and 50× and is only used for spotting, identification, observation, and similar operations. Firing is never done using digital zoom because it is digital and the reticle can be out of place. The commander has even better thermals than the gunner and can fire the gun just as accurately using his display and CITV without having to piggyback off the GPS.
Another thing that came to mind was the shrugging way he mentioned that 3rd generation is automatically better than 2nd. Russian production of said optics is very new (read: low quality and lots of teething problems) and what information I found on the topic seems to point that the accuracy and effectiveness increase by the generational leap is a line drawn in water. Totally depends on who makes it and for what purpose.
@@castor3020 well red effect is russain so he's gonna say everything that's not russain is obsuleye
@@elitewavez4768 he doesnt do that and he isnt Russian lmao.
@@niksonrex88 he's a commi
@@elitewavez4768 you're a fool
All Abrams just look almost the same from the outside, I'm excited for the new variants of T-72,T-80,T-90 more. It never bored me XD
You get to take the new T44M2 to war.
Well if we change every aspect on the Abrams is it really an Abrams then?
I love the Abrams. It looks sexy to me.
But maybe I'm just a "Freeaboo"
@@theepicjs5541 Tank of Theseus
Look up the abrams with tusk
Is it just me, or does the abrams keep getting uglier with every upgrade while the t-90 keeps looking better with every upgrade?
Both of them are nice
The tanks between T-72A to T-90M are quite ugly in my opinion. The T-90M is such a massive glow up.
The Abrams are quite futuristic from the start but the Trophy APS makes every tank it is on looks retarded.
I've never liked the Abrams' aesthetic. And the one tone desert camo ia quite ugly. The European one is okay
@@hanhphuc166 i dunno i kinda like the aps, makes it look like it has those big ass balls on the metal gear from mgsv lol. The leopard's trophy though? Yeah thats definitely retarded looking.
@@user-sg6zh6vr7h Argg, Colonel, I'm trying to pass ths street but my active protection system is dummy thicc, the clank of metal keep alerting the gaurds..
great video dude, well done! especially your ability to concisely and clearly communicate the hard stats of the tank, that can be dry content, but you did a great job!
thank you for keeping the video as objective as possible, and extreamly well made video! Nice to see someone actually going deep into the tanks and finding reliable sources aswell as taking the given information to use. Many on youtube try to be very subjective, and end up making their videos very little informative as well as very uninteresting. Good job
So glad to see the CROWS is getting a height reduction. Taller vehicles are vehicles that get hit more often and junk festooning turret tops are begging to get sprayed with autocannon.
Like in warthunder ?
@@Mungobohne1 sufferthunder*
Thought we'd learned our lesson with the m60s ffs lol
I mean, I guess if you want to waste ammo and give your position way on a .50 cal machine gun...
@@cstgraphpads2091 When they were testing the 30mm on the BMP-2 they found just by spraying the deck of a tank they could pierce the periscopes, turret top garbage and gun tube at combat ranges making it a mission kill. Really, the only reason to have that much clutter on top of your armour is is that you don't need to worry about detection from another AFV.
I saw in the news that a T90 had driven off a bridge and ended up on its top under water, the same thing happened to an Abrams in Iraq. What a horrible way to go.
no doubt...
Do the tanks not have crew-escape exits in the belly? I understood earlier tanks did. I can understand removing such things to increase protection from mines and IEDs and the like, but given the emphasis on the importance of highly-trained crew and the recovery of same where-ever possible, it seems weird that at least the Abrams wouldn't do everything possible to give the crew a chance to get out.
@@michaelccozens given the prevalence of IEDs and anti tank memes and the rarity of a tank rolling into the water I think a hatch at the bottom might be worse for the crew.
Why the f would you design a tank around the a singular case where it fell upside down in a river@@michaelccozens
A few days ago we got our first images of a destroyed T-90M. No signs of effective APS unfortunately for the crew.
Yup APS is showing its need in this war. Doesnt matter how good your armor and ERA is when someone can use even an RPG at your rear and disable/destroy you.
I heard rumors that the T-90 was hit with a artillery shell. Has anything been confirmed yet?
@@terrymassie9796 there was a video released, Ukrainians claim to have knocked of out with a Carl Gustav but in the video it is obvious that retreating Russians destroyed it. You can infer that it had been disabled, then a retreating t-72 shot it to deny the propaganda/ technical win for ukr.
it was deliberately destroyed by friendly russian tank from rear as it got immobilized.
@@terrymassie9796 ua-cam.com/video/mjx_GMLF--Y/v-deo.html
that protection against top attack aged badly....
Same can apply to other modern mbts regardless, results would’ve been the same if it hit other mbts, t90s and Abrams went up against obsolete weapons and poor nations if we’re being honest, not against a more powerful nation with more modern weaponry
yes but one thing. IN UKRAINE T90M HASN'T BEEN USED. Your comment is stupid by itselft
I recall The Chieftain mentioning that the Abrams has some sort of speed limiter or a speed governor on it's engine to prevent the tank from going too fast. If the weight of the tank rose to 70+ tons, do you think it would be possible to remove this speed limiter/speed governor to improve the power to weight ratio?
Wouldn't you want the limitor working the other way? Increased weight places greater stress on components if speeds stay the same or increase. Abrams engine hasn't been upgraded and it entered service with a fighting weight of 55t. 15tonnes on each suspension component, plus increased speeds is asking for trouble, but perhaps I'm wrong.
@@a.m.armstrong8354 Well. Yeah, if suspension, transmission and other supporting components werent upgraded and they werent overbuilt in the first place, then you would be correct. The limiter would have to work harder to limit the stress placed on these potentially overworked components.
On the other hand, if these components are "within spec" for the weight they are working with, limiting the use of speed limiter could improve the power to weight ratio.
The speed limiter doesn't reduce the power, it just electronically prevents the tank from going over a certain speed, and having more weight you definitely wouldn't want to have the same tank going even faster.
@@antimatter4733 I see, so it doesnt affect acceleration, or torgue for example?
@@FrantisekPicifuk yep, just limits the top speed so the suspension and tracks aren't damaged on rough terrain
Came here because a T-90M was recently destroyed in Ukraine. It was a smoldering wreck with the turret popped off just like any other T-type tank. It just goes to show that even Russia’s shallow attempts at modernization can’t save this inherently obsolete design.
Bad crew
@@ntks6720 crew was literally tank biathlon champions
and there are tons of ukraine wrecks also...its a real war not some bullshit peasant army with AKs and ieds
T-90M was destroyed from a Carl Gustav shot to its engine. Thats the weak spot for every tank , T-90M is well protected and for now there is not evidence that denies that
@@ntks6720 you think they’d give one of their best tanks to a bad crew?
Looking back at this video, the breakdown of both tanks have been very informal and great observation of their perks and their discrepancies. A skilled tank crew rely on a well equipped tank to match their own threats of today. But a tank relies on a well trained crew to perform at its fullest. Excellent tanks to never underestimate, God speed to all.
I’m just here for the comments
2:15 The toxicity of tungsten is still quite unclear, but from some of the available studies it does indeed seem like it is less toxic than uranium. *However* uranium is about as toxic as lead, and yet this does not stop lead from being used abundantly in small arms ammo. Ultimately the point is to reliably destroy your target, why would you choose the *second* best tool for the job?
The round indeed may be for export, Russia is known for having downgraded variants of its equipment for export purposes. It could also be a backup type of ammo, although as far as I know uranium is much cheaper than tungsten; perhaps manufacturing limitations could apply.
Toxicity and radiation comes into play with DU rounds.
Tungsten is just a heavier metal than steel, but it is not radioactive.
Also, lead is a lot cheaper than steel, tungsten, or uranium, which is why it's used everywhere in small arms. It is also denser than steel.
Uranium ex reactors emit radioactivity and will remain radioactive even when they vaporized to nothing.
@@MrGreghome Uranium radioactivity is negligible compared to its toxicity, so it is rather unimportant. Toxicity is important of course, but it is comparable to lead, so if it is acceptable to use lead as ammunition, it is also acceptable to use uranium.
Yes, lead is much cheaper, of course. But for APFSDS you aren't going to be using it.
This lead comparison is to be honest… quite dense..
The same reason why Germany refuses to use depleted uranium ammunition.Tungsten is safer for the environment
Oooh, this hasn't aged well. I love the part where he says, "So this (video of turret blowing off) is a part of history for the T90 tanks."
Turns out everything Russia had was overhyped, and everything the US has is under hyped, creating a huge disparity in actual effectiveness.
humvees humvess mraps mraps all destroyed nothing about the US army is good
abrams is over hyped it only fought againsts insurgents
@@tafdiz and they will be blown up like every tank
Вся натовская техника очень хорошо горит. Это подтверждено всеми конфиликтами созданными сша. Америка будет гореть в адском огне. Этого желает большая часть мира
Tell me u know nothing without telling me u know nothing
Fascinating work, RedEffect. A friend recommeneded your channel. Keep it up!
Idk which one is better, but you can definitely tell that US tank crews are better trained
US tank crews also tend to have more actual battle experience.
@@Slavic_Goblin can you let us know when and how many times USA had tank to tank battle?
@@acentrixes1380 Hey, just cause they were seal-clublings, doesn't mean they don't count.
@@acentrixes1380 a shitload in the 90s and early 2000s
Are we sure that the T-90M weight is the all-up weight? The small increase from the previous variant make me wonder if these are sales brochure numbers that leave out crew, ammunition, and fuel.
The new redesigned turret on the T-90M probably cut down on a lot of weight employing more up to date composite armor
There are photos of the T-72B3 with CITV, is this supposed to be a special commander variant like the T-80UK or it's a modernization for Russia entire T-72B3 fleet or for export?
picture source?
It's for their tank competition games.
T-72B3M ?
That's T-72B3M.
People no... the t72 b3m does not have citv... the t72b3 version for the tank biatlon has it... and that is mostly the old version of t72 b3, not b3m
I've never seen them with the turrets on before.
🤣🤣🤣
😂😂
Another very informative tank video from you Red Effect, thank you and keep up the good work 👍
Love the fact that these are sent into oblivion with Javelin these days 😃
Yeah but these tanks don't die before sending a few Ukrainians into oblivion too. And that's according to volunteers that return home after their first encounter with Russian forces.
@@xD3MONxIxSOULx 😆😆🤡
@@97MrBlues why are they grabbing ukie civilians off the streets then? A surprise party? surely they must have lots of infantry since only russia takes losses, right?
lol that top attack not being effective and the turret not going to the moon aged about as well as expired milk.
It also has a turret ejection system
...every single video has this joke over a dozen times in the comments section. All tanks with armor in the turret is susceptible to the turret flying off. Abrams is one of the few that has all its ammo stowed behind blowout systems.
ua-cam.com/video/sn0v1Tu1Nig/v-deo.html&ab_channel=HolyToleto
And the Abrams has a "burn down if hit by anything" system as well as the Saudi's showed us
Again, one awesome material. Different schools, different solutions and approaches. Th truth is, the only real test is the military conflict, I guess that is the reason to keep small wars going. The sad, yet necessary fact in the current world. Thank you. Reading comments below, the audience grows significantly and appreciates the quality. That's inspiring
Turned out, the biggest weakness of the T-90 are its supply trucks...
I would argue it's Ukrainian farmers.
@@BlackICMenace which is a result of the suply trucks
@@your_waifu_hates_you Are you saying supply trucks are immune to being hauled away via Ukrainian farmers? I personally dare the Russians to leave any equipment unattended to test your theory.
@@BlackICMenace nope. Im saying why do you think those tanks are abandoned hmmm could it be because there are little to no suply trucks or any logistics supporting them??? 🤔🤔🤔
I think a good measure for the increase in the hull armor upgrade for the SEP V3 is by looking at the amount of weight simulators for the test vehicle.
Both are beautiful machines.
And just as deadly. Each in their own way.
I don't think any soldier that sees either one on the horizon would say " well, at least it's not a ...."
That claim that relikt defeats top-attack missiles has proved to be a bit wishful, in hindsight
it proved to be completely false
They didnt specify what kind of top-attack missiles
it may stop some old ones
Another T90M destroyed it. The Ukrainians only immobilised it.
Given how poorly the Javelins have performed and how they didn't even work I would say the opposite
It seems to have worked for the T-90M; the Ukrainians released a video of a T-90M surviving a Javelin hit; and it seems that the crew was able to bail out of the tank
If I had to choose between the two im going for the Abrams.
In a video game like scenario yeah, but if you were a commander planning an operation against near peer adversary you'd pick the t90 for logistical reasons, Abrams is almost twice the weight of the T90 and consumes a lot more fuel these are limiting factors in the real world to actually get them on the battlefield firstly and then how far they can go before needing a convoy of fuel trucks to refuel. These problems were evident during 2nd gulf war when Abrams couldn't cross bridges and needed to refuel and slowed down the whole push.
@@myopicthunder the abrams has similar range to all other MBTs. Big ass fuel tank and alot of upgrades keep it competitive.
@@myopicthunder Your comment didn't age so well. It comes down to the army using the tank. The US Army has displayed it has the logistic capability to keep it's vehicles rolling. The Russian Army has shown the opposite. Fuel efficiency only goes so far, if you can't fuel the vehicles at all you're in trouble.
@@Rampant16 yeah nothing exists in a vacuum without other factors
I would choose the T-90 personally
12:25 "So this, is a part of history for T-90 tanks"
Are ya sure about that?
The Rock giving an inquisitive glare at the camera meme
There not in Ukraine
he ment its gonna be a part of history once it gets aps
I've seen so many T-90's ammo carousels light up after something kissed it, that I've taken to calling them "Putin's Ovens".
and how many of the cooked up?
7. and those were t90As, not the modern T90Ms
@@arandomperson7713sure pal
Does the T90 even really exist?
yes, it does.
How good is Trophy (or any present active protection system) against supersonic ATGMs like 9М114 «Кокон» or 9М120 «Атака»?
9M120 Атака speed is around 500m/s and hard kill APC like russian can detect and degree penetration of APFSDS rounds that travel 2000 m/s so yes.
@@jaroslavdudas7227 thats wrong, trophy is too slow to engage apfsds. Afghanit can engage apfsds up to 2000ms i think not sure on this one tho
@@JjjCDsjsjshs yeah im sure that afganit can engage APFSDS but idk how about trophy
@@jaroslavdudas7227 tropthy can engage any threat incoming with speed of 1000 ms which is way less than velocity of apfsds,so tropthy can,t engage apfsds
@@aliarham6209 yeah I didn't know the actuall speed of threat that can trophy engage.
The specificity of the T-90M charging machine solution is the requirement to charge two types of cartridges, differing in the length of the bullet and cartridges. These are the subcaliber cartridges 3VBM69 "Vakuum-1" and 3VBM70 "Vakuum-2" whose assuits of penetration subcaliber rounds are 900 mm long and the introduced penetration subcaliber rounds (and other types of rounds) for which the maximum length of the bullet or bullet assembly is not more than 740 mm (project S pooch). They also differ in the length of the cartridge.
In order to fire both the penetration subcaliber cartridges 3VBM69 "Vakuum-1" and 3VBM70 "Vakuum-2" and all types of introduced ammunition of caliber 125 mm, a dual-flow system was required. For the penetration subcaliber hubs 3VBM69 "Vakuum-1" and 3VBM70 "Vakuum-2", a counter-automatic charging device (from the Black Eagle project) was used to shoot a splunching, a cumulative and programmable spledug ammunition, or even penetration subcaliber cartridges with a "short" bullet set, used an established carousel automatic charging device system (T-72, T-90). The dual automatic charging system thus consists of two functionally independent automatic charging systems, a counter and a carousel automatic charging device.
The counter-automatic charging device is stored in a cabinet that is mounted at the back of the tower. In the counter tray, the cartridges are stored horizontally, the shell and the cartridge behind each other in one bed. The retractable mechanism inserts the bullet and cartridge together into the barrel at one stage. Charging the barrel is easier and faster (up to 12 rounds per minute). Such an arrangement of storing the bullet and cartridge set in one bed increases the rate of fire to the same value as achieved when automatically charging a single charge, making it more effective to fire on the opponent's armored vehicles. This solution is based on the knowledge of the Black Eagle counter-automatic charging device.
A carousel automatic charging device (T-72) placed at the bottom of the tank hull was left in the turret combat area to store cumulative, three-tearing and programmable splint ammunition, or even armor-fighting subcaliber rounds with a "short" set of "Sviněc" projectiles. The "Vacuum" assertive subcaliber cartridges can only be used with the 2A82-1M tank cannon, because only it can fire with both a "short" and a "long shot". That's why the idea of how to solve automatic charging devices began to work out so that the 2A82-1M tank cannon could be installed in standard tank turrets (T-72, T-90).
The designers came to a simple and elegant solution during the solution of the OKR development program "Proryv-2", which was ideologically similar to what the Kharkiv designers did on the T-64A in their time.
If the set of penetration subcaliber cartridges "S porch-1 3BM59" and "Pore-2 3BM60" with a length of 740 mm fits into the rotary magazine of the automatic charging device, what must be done to store the set of penetration subcaliber cartridges "Vacuum" with a length of 900 mm in the rotary magazine? The difference in length between these assoulings is 160 mm. The thickness of the T-72 and T-90 hull in the tower storage area is 80 mm. So 80 + 80 = 160, that is the desired 160 mm. Small cut-outs were made in the sides of the hull, which were then covered with matching armor plates from the outside. The solution received is simple and elegant. This is exactly how the designers in Kharkiv proceeded, pro-prolicing the side of the T-64A in the area of the automatic charging device, which they then covered with armor plates. However, in the case of tagil's automatic charging device, there is only a minimal overlap, which can be clearly seen in the pictures.
In this way, the 2A46M tank cannon can be easily confused with the 2A82-1M cannon, since all the contact dimensions and design of the joints are the same.
In order to charge the penetration subcaliber bullet "Vacuum", the charging position angle was increased mainly to 12°. Other changes to the automatic charging device are as follows. First of all, the diameter of the rotating magazine increased. This is because the original design was designed for a 740 mm long penetration subcalibration bullet. The cassette lifting mechanism and the retractable mechanism have also been modified. To charge a 900 mm armor-on subcaliber, the cassette lifting mechanism bracket has been shaped curved to change the trajectory of the lifting of the bullet cassette so that the design and dimensions of the turret itself do not have to change. The automatic charging device can thus be inserted into the existing dimensions of the combat space of the unified combat module - turret.
That is the largest comment ever
Fantastic video! Thank you for your work!
appreciate that you talked about power to weight raitio!
Hey, Red effect! I was wondering if you would review the JGSDF type 90 and type 10, as they are my favorite tanks.
There's barely any info about them on the internet, since Japan never exported their weaponry or used them on any war after ww2
T90 is just an upgraded T72.
Yup!
Yep, still inferior to upgraded T-80. T-90M is supposed to be cheaper to produce than the expensive T-80.
They look the same not gonna lie lol
@@alessa9464 They kinda do. The T90 is a somewhat modified/modernized T72 which is a cheaper, mass-produced version of the T64 which went on to become the T80. :D
And explode like a roman candle just the same, killing the entire crew. The most valuable and hard to replace part of a tank.
Interesting how the manufacturer's claims that the T-90 ERA will stop top attack weapons has turned out to be more hype than reality.
Russian tanks in Ukraine do not use Relikt tho
@@WorldlyCoronet7 Some do, but not in wide order, but it is possible the t-72b3m 2016 tanks are outfitted with relikt on the sides.
@@voidtempering8700 On the sides tho, how are they going to protect against top attacks? :/
@@WorldlyCoronet7 Nothing can unless you have APS systems.
with superior combined arms training , and advanced training on the individual level i would bet on a us army mechanized division over a Russian one any day , they cant even run fucking coms , dont have maps of the AO, and are getting their shit pushed in by man portable weapon systems so looks like they didnt get that upgrade.
I need another tank arena series
We already know the life expectancy of the T-90 is about 35 seconds once itis sighted in by an NLAW or Javelin
No it wasn’t
Well same could be said if the Javelin was used against the Abrams.
Russia now on day 100 of glorious Russian 14 day special operation...
All going according to plan......................??????
@@jaggerfoxland8103l yea but russia doesnt have the javelin now do they?
@@bear76009 that doenst really matter becaus it would still blow up against javelins, its about the tank not the enemy's equipment, mabye abrams would never face top attack munitions but that doenst mean it wouldnt blow up
Great comparisons RE!
Super Informative vid. Thank You Red Effect !!! Greatly Appreciated !!!!! Bravo 👏 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
The comment about the very slow 5-6 km/h reverse speed of T-72s and T-90s is very interesting (in light of recent videos from the Ukraine war), particularly when contrasted with the 12 km/h reverse speed of the T-80... The T-80/T-64 branch always appeared to me to have been better tanks generally than the T-72/T-90 branch... Many, many basic features seemed to have been better, all the way back to the T-64. The T-64 factory was lost for Russia upon the dissolution of the USSR, as it was in Ukraine, if my understanding of this is correct?
The t64 is more similar to t72 than t80, it has 4 km/h reverse as well
the T64 chassis is not reliable and starts to break down after 42 tons.And the engine is weak. The best was t80u and t80ud.
Fun fact, that bag ERA is really a canvas sack filled with egg cartons
Actually, according to Vitaly Kuzmin, who interviewed some Russian soldiers on the bags, they are supposed to be filled with sand, and the "egg cartons" are supposed to keep the sand in place. Apparently the troops in the invasion of Ukraine didn't bother to fill the bags.
IDK if the ERA bags really exist as a separate object though.
no that is not a fact
Those egg looking Cartoons were the place were the explosives of the era is placed
The engine on Abrams is a multi fuel, it can run lots of things, I just forgot on which ones, but it can use almost anything to fuel the engine and let the tank get back on tracks, which means that in case it rans out of fuel in a dire situation, if you can manage to get...dunno...almost anything that might make it run, it will run then and save you.
it also isnt that fuel inefficient. Its fuel range is on par with other modern MBTs.
Most tank engines are multi fuel. its a myth only the abrams has that capability.
Flex fuel isn't a rare feature. It is an inherent quality of diesel and turbine engines across all applications. You can run vegetable oil in a diesel engine if you wanted. Anything that is a flammable liquid will work.
Including Russian vodka
The only thing an M1 cannot destroy is a petrol station 🤣🤣🤣
@12:28 you stated that launching its turret was part of history now. I mean yeah, the T-90 that launched its turret yesterday it is technically history.
I think we have to accept that russia is a massive mafia state. I would guess someone was tasked with installing blow-out panels into the T-90s and just didnt do it and just pocketed the money. Or installed sub-par material.
Whats also possible is that the existence of some of the upgrades is only propaganda in the first place. Or the upgrades simply do not work. With a state like russia everything is possible.
The T-90M never blew its turret into the air based on the footage, you have no idea what you are talking about
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here it was a joke. Refukinlax
T-90 and T-90M are completely different
Ukrainians are taking them out with AT-4s- lololololol
Well, that aged poorly. There is no "superpower" as Russia anymore. The scary "bear" was a paper cutout all this time.
Ain’t that the truth. You’ve seen the videos of the rusted AKs that the Russians are giving their conscripts?
@@baneofbanes I don't know about rusted AK's, but I know that the equipment of their foot troops is real shit, like expired rations, boots that don't match, helmets of WW2 era, and etc. I'm not even talking about Lugansk and Donetsk "republics" conscripts, as those guys are just canon fodder with no protection whatsoever, and Mosin nagants rifles. Russia will lose this war, the question is only when, as the psycho from the kremlin will now ruthlessly throw tens of thousands of untrained, poorly equipped mobilized conscripts into the shredder of Ukraine Artillery, raking up the body count on both sides exponentially.
This whole mobilization stunt is just plain stupidity, and reminds me of old soviet tactic, where hundreds of thousands soldiers just being thrown into meatgrinder to achieve a meager "wins".
well said
@Milk Guzzler Well for one Korea saw absolute massive Chinese casualties compared to American losses and Afghanistan was military victory.
Russia is no longer a superpower because they lack the army, economy and cultural influence they used to have.
@Milk Guzzler Well for one i'm not American you silly boy. Secons of all, that is no counter argument to my point, militarily the US always came out on top.
The latest M1A2 would have no problem against anything Russia can throw against it.. I think the only tank that would give it a run for its money is the leopard C2A7.. the t90s are basically an upgraded T72 ... although Russian officials will disagree and say it's a totally new platform but lol just look at its hull and turret superstructure
T90's are basically Russian Arms exporters looking at Gulf War and the absolutely embarrassing amount of T-72 losses, drawing air between their teeth, and re-branding T-72's with upgrade packages as 'T-90's in order to not drive away tank sales for India and China who also looked at the Gulf War and then took a serious look at the same T-72's that they had bought from Russia.
@@Warhamer116 yup the m1 crews from the 1st gulf War said it was no competition was like shooting ducks.. the fire control systems the ammo the training everything just surpasses the Russian tanks and crews ... I feel sorry for tankers in them thinking they are superior modern MBTs when they are tinder boxes
cope
@@NKVD_Enjoyer 2022 Bolshevik tanks in ukraine couldn't even hide from Javelins and NLAWs in their cope cages 😛
@@LyonPercival There is no tank that can hide from Javelins except the ones with APS if only said APS has top protection
Red, do you have any documents on the stabilization system used on 2S25M-SDM1.
I can't imagine that I really have the same vertical target speed like tanks from the 80s.
It is modelled with the same targeting speed like T-80U (around 4 degree per second) etc right now.
The question is if 2E58 is build in it.
Couldn't find a primary source it, and using the very cool tank together with BVM at 11.0 is not fun with its vertical targeting speed.
Some hints, for a report, would be cool.
Great video, thanks. Great information.
9:35 If there is no bypass, they'll be vulnerable in urban combat since it can't see through glass. On top of it, auto glass usually has additional anti-IR treatment.
Might have to update this video in the ERA part lol. Turns out it's rubber who knew.
*Amazing!!, thanks for sharing these videos!!! Liked & Subcribed!!!*
Javelin Missle just dropped by my place to say "Cope"
said missile that never knocked a t90M?
@@arandomperson7713 like he said, cope.
Now in Ukraine, we know that Russian tanks (including t-90m) are made of butter.
There is a single T-90M destroyed in Ukraine with a shot to its engine . Maybe the propaganda your watching has made your brain into butter
@@user-ru3tu5rw9j If you have ever eaten cow brains you would know that brains are "buttery". But I digress.
Actually, two T-90m have been destroyed in Ukraine. Only two. You know why? Because Russia does not have many T-90ms. Because Russia is a poor third-world country that cannot afford many of the weapons that a modern army needs. You know, Russia spends hundreds of millions on propaganda because it cannot afford to spend hundreds of billions on R&D and production. Very simple, really.
Based on what exactly?
@@slavicemperor8279 Videos on UA-cam. The best news source on earth, mate.
@@BlancaLLopez Sorry, but based on what exactly did you conclude that T90M is bad?
Yeah, let's compare m1a2 sep3 which is nearly 1000 produced , to T-90 that only produced in 350-400 in ALL modifications , so T90M is like half of it maximum, I am sure it's less than 100 tanks T90M, but it could be 150-200. But, 1000vs200 ? Really? It's like F35 can not destroy squadron of russian SU57 (best russian fighter), because there are not enough SU57 to create one squadron
Every video where someone reads off the Russian approved specs of their equipment should have that epic titanic flute playing in the background.
Well done. Interesting and informative.
All I can say is that US Javelin missiles are popping the tops off Russian tanks in Ukraine right now.
Ye, but are the chances there just throwing junk at the situation and saving the good stuff for a final push once the Ukrainians are softened up
@@leeofthevoid looks like it's the Russians who are getting softened up actually 🤣
@@michaelschleckser3027 like 10 T90's and 100 T72's sent and another 10000 tanks waiting to be deployed.
@@Luis150697 nowhere near 10k tanks. that's absurd. in any case though, the javelins and other AT missiles are being delivered at a faster rate, and the russians are being held as well as pushed back.
@@laggedoff do your research, Russia had an estimate of 12000 tanks in his power.
And Im talking about 12000 MBTs, like the Abrams type of tank.
The down part of that is most numbers are cold war era tanks. And only T72s upgraded like the T72B3 and upwards are capable of use in modern war.
But believe that Russia has a lot more of his power still in reserve. Why is it having such a difficult time invading a country with half of its power? That is the real question.
Orcs will run anyways. It don't matter what tank they live in.
boy this didnt age well lol
Since the T-90 has seen combat in Ukraine, how about an update regarding its performance against Javelin and NLAW? Seems like it still has that turret "popping" problem.
It doesn’t only 1 has been destroyed and it was by another Russian tank
That an issue for T-72, and T-80 tank in general in Ukraine, maybe the issue still exist on the T-90C, but the T-90M is basically a new and kinda different tank that at least fixed many issue from the previous tank generation, since they start to care for putting protection for their ammunition load, so they would not to pop like a bottle soda. It is still not the best tank, but at least T-90M meets the requirement for a modern standard tank.
@@Ilyas-ty6cy It's my understanding that the additional armor to protect the ammunition carousel on the T-90M is on the sides of the tank not on the top. If your tank is vulnerable to top down ATGMs then you would place additional armor on the top of the turret. Otherwise you have not mitigated the problem.
Even the one T-90M that was destroyed had an intact turret. You're talking about the older T-90?
@@alfredwhite7773 Seems that some turrets pop and some don't. I believe that russian tank turrets don't pop because 1) ammo has been expended or 2) the propellant burns without detonating the projectile. My question is "do Javelin or NLAW hits exacerbate turret popping."
the anti rpg nets on the T-90M looks so mean, kinda like something out of doom or a futuristic shooter
Funny thing is Ukraine finally captured a T-90M so I guess we'll know the real answer soon
"Has not aged well!" The JAVELIN accurate comment on UA-cam.
I would only look to the current situation in Ukraine and determine how well the T-90 is. Guessing China has some reservations on what they bought. Javelin is kicking ass and taking names. Bring on the Armada, like to see it dissected also.
This didn't age very well.. Bakmut is toast.
Lazar pog has a good video on the t-14
@@RichMalishefski Ok thanks
@@canadianoctopus1479 hey, how's bahkmut doing?
@@ashleywenner1050 97% percent Russian
The tactics of abrams is good its very difficult to know the model because it has the same features of older versions.
M1A2 SEP v3 is a powerful MBT, as is the T-90M. However, both of them are developments of aging platforms, which limits the overall effectiveness of the vehicles in a modern conflict.
This is why I'm fascinated by T-14 and the new US Decisive Lethality Program. New MBTs that have been needed for nearly a decade or more are finally on the way.
A modern conflict is barely any different than those of the 90s.
Developments of aging platforms, yes, but not as old as their original designs. These are newly manufactured tanks with young armor and systems (as far as wear-and-tear goes). They also have new systems that far surpass their older M-1IP's and M-1A1's capabilities. Like evolution, combat systems evolve more and more into each generation of combat need and technology. These are young platforms, at the current height of their development.
I mean you could argue the effectiveness of tanks nowadays. Nothing more than what specialized infantry can. Not to mention tanks being just a huge bullseye and bullet magnet.
The country vs country battlefield is a thing of the past. Do you really think 770 billion in US defense is land warfare? Own the sky own the battlefield. Tanks are drone candy.
@Mark Allen none of their tanks since then have been actually good.
I was unaware that the newer SEP models were still using such old thermal sights. Thankfully the difference between 2nd and 3rd generation thermal imaging isn't as big of a gap as 2nd and 3rd generation night vision, but still. They should've upgraded the thermal sight to a newer generation if they're dropping all this time and money on upgrades.
I'm guessing it's something that will be integrated into M1A3, potentially? I know there has been speculation of using fiber optic cabling which will save a few tons of weight and allow for much more data/bandwidth. Seems like a good opportunity to put in newer electronics to me, including a newer generation thermal imaging sight.
To my knowledge, the idea of a “3rd gen thermal” doesn’t really have a definition and is mostly a buzzword.
@@jonathanpfeffer3716 d00d I need my 3rd gen Thermals so I can sync with my 4K OLED iBone.
Now myths of T-90 is dying with Russian arm forces on Ukrainian roads.
There's no T-90s anywhere near the Ukrainian front the vast majority of Russian tanks is there are T-72B3s and T-80 BVMs.
@@IceAxe1940 T80bvm has pretty much the same protection as the T90m, so no difference really.
@@sdrkrm t80bvm has far lower base armor than the t90
@@pabcu2507 lol, no it's not. T90 is t72 with an armor upgraded to t80 specs.
@@sdrkrm Still T-90A is another tank,not same turret,not same composition of ERA,modernized cannon, APS,etc,etc...
I think driving anything that is skid operation would be easier with the twin levers over a steering wheel. It just feels more natural. But hey that's just me
Driven both the wheel is waaay nicer, gives you a free hand to eat snacks and flip off your crew
@@TheAZchambers lol definitely see the advantage for the non verbal communication and hands free for other things. Didnt think of the creature comfort side of things at the time, was only thinking of a pure driving aspect
@@WhatTrigger yea its VERY natural to drive with a wheel as well it takes way less time to train, less accidents, easier to drive if your injured too, over all superior method for modern vehicles
After seeing the Russians performance in Ukraine. In my opinion the M1 Abrams can easily defeat the T-90. This is my opinion. I would love to here your thoughts.
I heard somewhere that a senator explained the m1 is going to get an unmanned turret. So they may end up making the OMT with upgraded and hardened m1 hulls.
RedEffect you encourage me to follow my passion, and it's to become a "Tanker"🥰 even tho it seems impossible for me.
The biggest upgrade would be a fix for reverse speed... just a little upgrade like double the speed would help a lot xd
They’d need to use a different transmission system because tracks are separately powered, and there’s no space for it in the hull. A hull extension doesn’t make sense and soviet tanks don’t need an amazing reverse speed since the driver can’t see behind the tank someone from the turret has to guide him
@@maplearrow1842 there is a T72 or T-80 doesn't really matter which... that WAS indeed extended... i saw it... it's Nightmare fuel...
Let me describe it... it was turned essentially into a TOG II by Ukranians... to meet NATO standards
It's real and built... and dogshit xd
So yeah... plz no hull extension... or atleast not by that much xd
Crazy Ukranians xD
But yeah it doesn't need AMAZING reverse speed... just atleast double ... which is 4 x 2 = 8kmh
Would be cool if it had T-80 reverse speed tho... it helps a lot... even without driver not being able to see behind... if you got shot just reverse and hope you don't hit anything or get stuck xD
And if driver is good he can have better awareness of surroundings so he could reverse even without seeing because he can remember the path... atleast for short range
@@kajmak64bit76 and that hull modification probably isn’t cost effective, Russia is better off spending their money in other cheaper ways to keep t-72s and t-90s in service for as long as possible since t-14s will replace them eventually. Yeah the t-80 has a better reverse but that’s because of the gas turbine.
@@maplearrow1842 An improved gearbox for better reverse speeds is something that the T- series tanks have been lacking for a long time. Compared to German or even French transmissions for tanks, Russian gearboxes have been at least 10-20 years behind the curve and it shows. It would be a relatively expensive upgrade though, which is probably why it won't happen for a while; if at all. Given the huge and varied inventory of the Russian army's tank forces, each with their own engine and gearbox variants, it would be a nightmare to even keep them maintained at all.
As for reversing, the new rear view camera in the T-90M has been implemented so the driver can in fact see behind the vehicle.
If Russia wants to keep its tank inventory as it is, it would be better to try to rationalise all the running gear for the UVZ tanks and produce a unified engine and transmission for all T-90 and T-72 variants. As it stands though it looks more like it is just giving make work projects for Omsk so that they don't go bankrupt while UVZ takes on the lucrative contracts of T-90 modernisation and T-14. If Omsk could be reoriented towards producing unified engines, transmission, suspension and running gear it would help solve some of the logistical problems of maintaining a tank fleet spanning some 50 years apart in production runs.
@@kajmak64bit76 visibility can be easily fixed by a reverse camera
for example the strv 122 has had a reversing since it first entered service in 1996
What experience does Red Effect have with tanks? Was he a tank crewman or maintenance guy?
He talks a lot of smack for someone who's never operated a military vehicle. I thought his data was off a bit.
playing video games while sipping mountain dew, that's his experience
War thunder commander experience
@@eldoncurrey2124 You dont need to be a Tank crewman to know about tanks
There information about tanks in the internet, books, he can ask people who is a tank crew.
veri nice, well made video man 😊
I’m surprised you didn’t mention the M830A1 round for the Abrams or the fact that the multi-function HE-I round for the T-90 was hardly it ever used (like you said in your reaction to Laserpig’s video on the T-14 Armata). Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t there some technical issues with the M1147 AMP around that are still being worked out (and according to the source I read this from, these issues delayed procurement of the new round)?