Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "How does M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams compare with its main rival T-90MS?" video.

The T90 is getting wrecked in Ukraine by an army that doesn't have modern tanks. Can't imagine how screwed the T90 would be facing actual NATO tanks.
5
@colonelradec8268 NATO tanks are junks. If T90 is bad their tanks will be twice more bad. If you believe that to be true then that's your opinion, but one thing that's true is that if I'm a crewman in a tank I would choose Abrams over a T90 10/10 times if I value having a chance at surviving if my tank gets hit. If you're in a Russian tank, you're pretty much dead when the turret goes flying. At least in an Abrams they have built in safety features to try and save the crewmen if their tank gets hit. If it was so good they already should send this NATO tanks to Ukraine but like I said it will ruin their reputation Why do you think the Ukrainians are constantly asking for Abrams and Leopards to be shipped to them? Because they know they're good and would make a major difference on the battlefield. The main reason they haven't been shipped to Ukraine yet is political and to a lesser degree the logistics of supplying and maintaining such tanks as well as training on them. The funny thing is its the Russians who have been completely exposed in this war. I have to admit before the war started I really believed that even though the Russian army was inferior to NATO and especially to US forces, I still believed they were a pretty strong opponent that would crush Ukrainian forces within a few weeks from when the invasion started. I really thought their airforce would devastate Ukraine's airforce and gain air superiority early in the war and that Russian armored forces would defeat the UA forces with their numbers when the Ukrainians had far fewer tanks and armored vehicles. In reality none of this happened because the Russian airforce is nowhere near as powerful as I thought and Russian logistical support was horrible and really slowed down their advances greatly. They have made so many strategic and tactical mistakes in this war that they're lucky to have gained the territory that they have and it remains to be seen if they will be able to hold much of it and not lose more as this war keeps going on.
4
The Abrams would wreck any Russian tank easy with its superior fire control systems, optics, electronics etc. and its biggest enemy would not be Russian tanks, but Russian ATGMs. But one thing you don't mention is that if an Abrams gets hit at least the tank crew will have a decent chance of surviving and it won't have its ammo cooking off and its turret launching off into space.
4
Well the T90 isn't looking very good in Ukraine when its getting popped by UA soldiers. Abrams is a heavy tanks for a reason because of all the protection it provides to the crew. If I were a crewman in an Abrams I wouldn't worry too much about Russian tanks, I would worry most about Russian ATGMs.
2
@nikitatarsov5172 Armor didn't make it up as fast as weapons, so almost no matteer how thick your armor is - you'll exposed. That's the point though. The Abrams armor isn't just about thickness, its about what's INSIDE the armor the that also makes a huge difference. That's a big reason why the Abrams is 14 tons more than the T-90 and its not because the US likes its tanks to be big and heavy for no reason. So in modern tank warfare, all are vulnerable, and due to smaller mobility and number, Abrams would face higher casultys and lower results in the same situations. This one situation didn't make one tank more or less bad, but individually unsuitet for this situation. Of course there is no such thing as a invulnerable tank, but the fact is the Abrams has a much higher survival rate than any Russian tank. Also 10,000 Abrams have been built since it went into production so I don't know what you mean by smaller numbers? We're really in a time where doctrines of a long gone past colides with halfe modernised material and no idea what a 'tank' should really be. The tank is still what its always been which is a good offensive and defensive weapon that is used to support soldiers on the frontlines just that in today's modern battlefield with more threats that can damage or destroy a tank, an army needs to be smarter in how it deploys its tanks to try and minimize losses. So far the Russians have shown that they haven't been very smart in how they deployed and used their tanks and they also didn't take into account how many supplies their armored forces needed to keep going and its why they lost so many vehicles both to being damage and also to being abandoned and captured by the Ukrainians.
2