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.
@@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.
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
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
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.
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
@@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.
To all the Russian tank haters - Russian tanks will win any turret throwing contest, any day of the week. I'd like to see an Abrams turret fly a solid 300 meters! Ha! Never gonna happen! Wait... these were designed for WAR? Oh, never mind. Carry on.
@@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
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.
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.
@@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 😂
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.
@@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..
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.
@@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.
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 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.
I reckon their military is like, top 20? Reckon they could take Singapore if you put them side by side? I think Singapore would shred their airforce and then just bomb them into the dirt tbh.
@@NKVD_Enjoyer for almost a month russian children cannot even defeat one of the poorest country in region, that’s a fact everyone around the world sees. Your propaganda only works inside your decrepit state.
@@manojkumar-jt3fwsure, 8 months ago it looked good, but the last 6-7 months they’ve just been losing more and more territory, and I imagine when the weather settles it’ll happen again. They’re very poorly organised and spread out.
@@MrYaxalot not mote overstated than the abrams the leo, the puma the a 10 and pretty much every other piece of western military equipment. Just for an example russian equipment is so overstared that a 60 year rocket launcher (rpg 7) is still able to destroy modern armour
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.
T-90's already taken out in significant numbers in Ukraine. Most Russian equipment is overrated, but also exacerbated by poorly trained crews, an overwhelmed supply system, and poor maintenance.
@@isaacstretch106 Completely not true! You are uneducated on the matter and yet you still talk. What a troll you are! The most active tank on the Russian tank is the latest 2016 modification of T-72 or in other worlds RUSSIA'S LATEST TANK!
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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".
they only took out 7 of them and the only t90M (the modern version) was destroyed by friendly fire at pont-blank range by a friendly tank to prevent capture after its immobilisation
right lol, not to mention, america can adapt their systems to the war far faster than any russian models can as such the fact russia hasnt created anything to defeat the javalin/Nlaw (literally the only major threat in ukraine) shows how little they care about updating things for a current war
@@rogue__agent5884 T-14 is not even close to mass production on the abrams production level and even then the way it works isnt a 360 system, turret itself has to full rotate to activate th3 system. But from what ive seen is that the russians are more willing to throw on metal cage above the tank lol. Nlaw yes but the argument is how high the system can activate and if it can consistently defeat a javalin coming straight down as they have shown zero evidence it defeating one. NLaw for sure but not a javalin or something of its sort. Bringing up the T-14 is pointless because its not even close to mass production
@@bigchungus6320 There are actually dead t90m in Ukraine. Ive also doubted that there were any, but there are vidz out there from burnet out t90m, but i could also only find 2. 1 was about 10 days ago and the other 3 days ago.
@@Thor_Asgard_ 2 / 3 were t80 BVM from angles where they look like t90..... but its clearly an t80bvm only one t90m was destroyed for 3 months of war and ukrops brag about it
Lol, Are there any Y-tube "Fanboy" idiots left that think the (Paper Tiger) Soviet/Russian JUNK Tank is better than the US M1 Abrams with all our Combat experience and Superior real world Tactics !!! ? 🤔 Sgt, Semper Fi
@@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".
@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.
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
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 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.
*Correction:* All tanks without an active protection system are crushed by top-attack ATGMs and there's nothing unique about Russian tanks in that regard. How do you expect anything with 50mm roof armor to survive a warhead that can pen 800mm of RHA?
T 54/55 are very good tanks, they were cheap, reliable, had good firepower, good mobility and armour, that made this Tank series to be one of the most used tanks World wide! Not only but its also the most produced tank in the world
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.
@Adam of Good Every person with an IQ above 15 knows that Russia can bomb and return Ukraine to stone age. But unfortunately, it is written in our task that as few innocent civilians as possible should suffer. It is logical that with such a task, Russia will move slowly, especially considering the fact that ukro-fascists use peaceful civilians as a living shield and hiding in schools, kindergartens and hospitals.
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.
Вся натовская техника очень хорошо горит. Это подтверждено всеми конфиликтами созданными сша. Америка будет гореть в адском огне. Этого желает большая часть мира
I guess the "elves" from Usraine use alien technology, right? Oh wait, they useD soviet T-62s and T-72s. Now they use whatever trash the "white massa" is generous to ditch there...
Another video where the Abrams will come out on the short end of the stick. When this guy assess the Abrams it's inferior to the Russian tank.dosnt he realize that the U.S. doesn't tell you everything about the armor of the Abrams that would be suicide.The Abrams is so well protected they tested the armor by shooting another Abrams and the outcome was it could not go through the Abrams armor. Not bad considering it rips through mose Russian armor in Afghanistan yes they were import and older tanks but come on look what happened 😉
Russia turned out to be a paper dragon. Sure it is large and can be considered a regional power, but comparing it with the US is a joke, no matter how you look at it. Also, Glory to Ukraine! Glory to its Heroes! Destroying the Russian flagship was badass
@@amalgama2000 i wonder how much glory will be left for the rest of the world's heroes when hundreds of thermonuclear bombs flatten the globe.Not much.
@@4и1 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.
India romanticizes russia its sad and hilarious. Especially since their biggest threat is china, which is close to russia! completely insane. Not the smartest bunch. Hopefully they can still shift it around before its too late.
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
@@soumyajitsingha9614 it wasn’t even destroyed by Karl Gustav It only disabled the tracks The Russian tank behind it destroyed it So do some research before speaking nonsense
@@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
Looks like most of your research could do with a bit of update since all of your assumptions with the t90 have been proven to be bull thanks to the brave men and women from Ukrain.
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.
but also, if you cant bother to look it up yourself, then there is no reason to share the reddit, twitter posts showing a T-90m without its turret in a convoy. I'm just here to have a laugh and wish every Russian invader a very Merry Dead.
@@Turist-22 don’t talk about yourself like that! You typed all this and yet you still haven’t googled T-90M Turret toss Video Reddit Twitter. Being that you aren’t looking for it yourself, YOU don’t want to see it because you believe that the video author is correct, and see no point in looking for evidence to the contrary. That and also its fun to see you get all BENT outta shape. How is Rogozin BTW?
How can the Russian tank be as good with armor if it weighs 48t and the M1 is 70t I don't think you have enough information to do this video and the M1 destroyed every t72 it faced in Iraq in 1991 and I'm sure it is even better now and I'm sure you have seen the new t90 blow up in Ukraine this week from the US javelin missile that's been on all the news and internet but thanks for the video I don't think that Russia will ever be able to stand against a good army they don't have enough training and logistics and they have to answer to their superior officer before doing anything in the US military it's a fire at will take out the enemy strategy where each group has free range to take out as many targets as possible the only thing Russia has is it's nuclear weapons without them a good army would destroy their armed forces in a few weeks God bless America and Ukraine 🇺🇦🇺🇸👊
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
Before the war the channel was not exactly pro russian but he took the russian claims of their equipment and power at face value; after the invasion and we got to see how they actually used them and how it is going he made new videos talking about the downfalls and problems with RU tanks
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.
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
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
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.
@@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 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%
Abrams crews just laughing and cringing at T-90 deployment and Russia's inability to combined arms or logi right against a much smaller nation. Wasteful loss of lives and poor planning. Shitposting at the Russian Army: "Bet that turret wouldn't have chucked if you had an Abrams." "Bet you could have exploited that hill if you had an Abrams" "Bet your son would still be alive if he had -just gone home- an Abrams ammo rack. "Bet that updated auxiliary power unit is not looking so bad right now." "LMFAO, what is gun handling and integrated systems" "Basic quality control LMAO" "What is combined arms" M2 > NSVT "Ran over an IED today, only popped my turret clips" **shows Abrams turret ripped off but not exploded vs T-90 explosion compilation** "Nice non-encrypted channel you have there, how much you pay for that BAOFENG?" "Logistics, LMFAO" "Nice grill, is that for the crew?"
@@oliverheller7209 Cities aren’t designed to resist explosives. Tanks are. Not only is that a dumb comparison, you look like a ghoul who thinks civilian deaths are funny.
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.
@@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.
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.
What about training? The tank isn't worth a damn if the crew isn't trained on that piece of equipment. I guarantee you the American M-1 crew has had countless hours of training in both simulation and real world. Plus time on the range getting to know that piece of equipment. God bless America 🇺🇸!
This aged well, all the comments about T90M not having catastrophic explosions and being protected from top attacks. And them we see smashed T90M without turret destroyed by Javelins... RedEffect just loves Russian tanks more 😀
