T-90 Vs M1 Abrams #shorts

This simulation shows the new 3BM59 "Svinets-2" APFSDS-T being fired from a Russian T-90 tank at a range of 800m, targeting the front side of a US M1 Abrams NERA. The 3BM59 entered service in 2016, which uses a new sabot design and a new depleted uranium penetrator. Such a scenario could potentially occur in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine in the coming weeks.

Depleted uranium (DU) is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope 235 U than natural uranium. Natural uranium contains about 0.72% 235 U, while the DU used by the U.S. Department of Defense contains 0.3% 235 U or less. The less radioactive and non-fissile 238 U constitutes the main component of depleted uranium. Uses of DU take advantage of its very high density of 19.1 grams per cubic centimeter (0.69 lb/cu in) (68.4% denser than lead).

It's worth mentioning that the use of APFSDS rounds or any other type of ammunition is regulated by international laws and conventions, and their use must comply with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity.

[real]

This comment section fr full of tank experts 💀💀💀
Lets be 100% honest. Both tanks if shot by eachother would get destroyed no tank is invincible

[stevenbreach]

In reality whoever fired first would destroy the other first round

[Losowy]

So many people crying in the comments lol
Like kids "we are better!" - " No, WE are better!"

[steur]

I think think the t-90 is more likely to use the newer 3BM60 than the 3BM59 as it is more capable

[AtomDwarft]

“We have war thunder at home…”

Edit: Jokes aside that was an impressive simulation! Keep it up 👍

[thickboi]

Just coz your favourite tank got penned by the Ruski doesn’t mean you gotta cry in the comments…

[Ratstalgic]

Honestly, the penetration is not that important in reality. You just shoot the right place and you are more than done.

[LonelierWolf]

As a Russian I have to admit that the western mbts are more superior over the Russian tanks but western tanks also have downsides that Russian tanks don’t have
Simply because of the good protection they offer
where Russian tanks lack this kind of protection which is also why Russian tanks went from 5 tank crew members all the way to only 3 tank crew members. It is faster to built a tank than to train a tanker
HOWEVER western tanks (NATO) are horrendously expensive AND heavy and are more likely to get stuck in muddy terrain also they have a crew of 4
(Most of them) which means if a tank gets knocked out you just have lost 4 tankers compare that to Russians 3 crew members
For example the Leopard 2a4 was around 50 tons and this weight increased about 10-20 tons over the time with additional stuff that lead to the 2a6 2a7
A plus western tanks have (most of them) is blow out panels which increases crew survivability
Which Russian/soviet tanks don’t have

[FrogThunderOfficial]

The new War Thunder graphics update is crazy 😧

[Turkishgameinvader]

I dindt expect that but... *PENETRATION!*

[fabriziolucaaimettaenrique]

What are the steel cylinders on the NERA plates for? More tenacity?

[Ghostmaxi]

Das das durchgeht ist keine überraschung. Eine andere Simulation zeigte das gar die 12, 8 cm Pzgr. 43 die innenplatte erreicht und eindellt.

[BALLAIhavesh-onmydi-]

so both are capable of destroying each other, looks fair enough.

[temonglong]

What russian AP rounds lack the most is the physical length of the projectile. However the velocity is crazy, it can go between 1714m/s to 1904m/s which is more lethal than western counter parts.

[Falken-ur]

More like war thunder experience for me

[RymsKie]

all of these videos that ive been seeing dont shoot at the strongest part with tbe strongest shell for the gun the tank has but still rlly cool vid :D

[shothet]

It so hillarious that even now many american tank experts still cope about the blow off panel. It will only save crew if it being hit and explode. But how they gonna hit it ? Shot from the back ? No they hit each others from the font and imagine if a apfds or heat manage to go all the way through turret crew compartment and hit amno storage. First, sure if that happen the crew would dead because of fragment and heat. Second, that surely will create a hole in the seperate pannel between crew and ammno. That hole will make flame in back burn whole crew compartment. While on opposite, the t90 have amno storage store in low floor which can only being detonate if fire from top which can only possible for the Javelin. Look at design of abram, it's very similar to a soldier who carry his amno pack behind head. The only time they manage to shoot that amno is shoot through the head.

[TheAngriestGamer.]

that is the old M1A2 armor layer, which was about 480-560mm thick. so yes no shit a 780-840mm penetration dart can go through that.. no surprise.

the Sep Abrams finally got DU hull inserts raising the effective protection to about 684-720mm est, which frankly is a 70/30 chance in the russians favor of being penned by the russian DU dart assuming the russians didnt lie about its performance which frankly wouldn't surprise me..

now the Sep v1 and 2 turrets are nearly 1.2m thick vs APFSDS so they have no chance of penning the cheeks. Even russias best round wont beable to pen the 900 ish mm cheeks of the Older M1A2/M1A1 HA, so you have to go for hull shots like like this.

[-Ryan_Gasoline-]

I vote for an up-armor on the LFP and UFP of the abrams tank series, at least 65mm composite screen on the UFP and another 65mm on the LFP.

[realspeed]

bro so many wannabe "tank experts" in this comment section 💀💀💀💀