Weight
47.5 tonnes (46.7 long tons; 52.4 short tons)
Length 9.63 m (31 ft 7 in)
Width 3.78 m (12 ft 5 in)
Heigh 2.22 m (7 ft 3 in)
Crew 3
Weight 67.6 short tons (60.4 long tons; 61.3 t)
Length Gun forward: 32.04 ft (9.77 m)[4]
Hull length: 26.02 ft (7.93 m)
Width 12 ft (3.66 m)
Height 8 ft (2.44 m)
Crew 4 (commander, gunner, loader)
Not enought differance in size to account for differance in weight,
And now also try to find data about internal volume and compare.
The Russians desperately needed to mount a response after the 1991 Gulf War, when the Americans stormed through the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. The Russian economy's defense sector was reeling, after the American military's Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles left the battlefield littered with literally hundreds of burnt-out and charred carcasses of once mighty Russian T-72 and T-80 tanks. As if the Russians weren't already in bad enough shape after the collapse of the Soviet Union, now the international image of their largest defense export, the T-72 tank, and their newest model, the T-80, as no more than a flaming hulk of metal on the battlefield. Not good PR for the second largest weapons exporter in the world. Something had to be done. The Russian's solution: rename the tanks. By combining elements of the T-72 and T-80 together, the Russians were able to create the T-90, and have successfully duped the market ever since.
Again it is not truth, you better learn at least a bit of Russian and learn about history of Soviet tanks.
T-90 history begun in the 1980's in reality, as it was one of the competitors for the T-72B replacement. UKBTM (the design bureau that designed T-72 series among some other tanks) was working on two vehicles that were candidates to replace T-72B (and earlier variants), these tanks were designated Object 187 and Object 188.
Here starts to be interesting, the Object 188 was more or less completely new tank, with only overall design based on T-72, although hull, turret, engine, transmission, suspension was completely new.
Object 188 was actually very advanced tank, it is not known what protection it would have, however avaiable sources says that protection was codenamed "Malachit".
Here are several photos of several still existing Object 187 prototypes, you can clearly see the difference compared to T-72 series.
As you can see, at least one prototype have a hull design actually typical for NATO 3rd generation MBT's.
However as it is truth that at this time, in the period between late 1980's and early 1990's, Soviet economy was weakening, and in the end after the break up of the Soviet union, there was no money to finish rather expensive Object 187, the same fate shared even more advanced and radical design the Object 477/477A Boxer/Molot from KMDB design bureau.
So the Russians needed to focus their funds and cheaper and simpler Object 188, what was Object 188? Initially it was named T-72BU, but someone though it is good idea to rename vehicle and this is how T-90 born.
This is the T-72B (Object 184) with 4S22 "Kontakt-5" ERA...
... and here the original T-90 (Object 188), also with 4S22 "Kontakt-5" ERA, striking similarity isn't it?
However this was not an end of the T-90 evolution. Because original T-90 use a cast turret, it is known fact that cast armor is by 5 to even 15% weaker than rolled armor of the same thickness and hardness, also the factory making cast turrets, closed it's production line (I do not know when actually), so someone smart have idea to use a welded turret, but wait, what welded turret, no Soviet tank manufactured after WWII had such turret... but at least a single prototype had such turret design, the Object 188, designed by the same design bureau.
So the turret was again taken for R&D work, it was slightly redesigned, and this is how a new T-90 born, the T-90A (Object 188A).
Isn't it very similiar to the Object 188?
I strongly recommend to learn about history of Soviet tank for people that wan't to talk about them, as it seems not many knows this history, even if it is rather avaiable for wide public.
Oh and of course there were also other T-xx tanks from the now former soviet union with welded turret, the family of Object 478's (various variants), but their story is a different story, non less interesting, I must say even more interesting.
Despite the fact that the T-90s design aspects are nothing new, the newest production models do include some major upgrades to the existing designs. A new gun being one of the biggest improvements, the newest T-90s coming off the lines can be fitted with Explosive Reactive Armor, laser rangefinders, an electromagnetic pulse generator to combat magnetic mines, and laser warning recievers. There is also a new type of radar jamming system to scramble the guidance of incoming radar-guided anti-tank missiles. Basically, you get early 70"²s mechanics with 90"²s electronics.
Again, you know nothing. The Explosive Reactive Armor is a standard for T-90 series, as it is integral component of the vehicle protection. Laser rangefinder is a standard equipment, the electromagnetic mine plough is avaiable but not mounted as standard, laser warning receivers are standard as they are part of the TShU-1-7 Shtora-1 active protection system, as well as IR dazzlers are. The fire control system is derived from T-80U/UD series.
Don't get me wrong though, Russia's output capacity for producing these tanks can skyrocket if they wish it to.
No, it can't, there is such thing as economy.
To start mass production in "skyrocket" scale there would be need for a very serious threat to Russia, like another World War, and even then I doubt that T-90 would be manufactured in huge quantities.
Never forget the inferior US Sherman tanks swarming the superior German Tigers.
And how do you know that M4 series were inferior? It was actually in some aspect very advanced design, besides this, comparing medium tank with heavy tank is just plainly stupid... a habbit typical for the Discovery Channel and co.
Technical sophistacation found with the likes of Western MBTs such as the German Leopard, French Leclerc, British Challenger 2, and the American Abrams M1, are expensive and time-consuming to produce and repair, while the Russians have never shown a sensitivity to losses in great numbers of mass-produced war machinery.
And what makes you think that they are so complex machine? Or difficult to repair? Actually in terms of mechanical complexcity M1 or Leopard 2 are simpler than the T-90, or even old T-72. It is also easier to repair them, replacement of engine in Leopard 2 and M1 in avarage takes 30 minutes, in T-72 it takes even 24 hours.
So again, you know nothing about tanks.
You call this a source?
Not even another M1 Abram has been able to take out a M1 Abram that I am aware of.
Wrong, there were friendly fire accidents, or destroying immoblized tank for purpose to prevent it's capturing intact and breaking OPSEC. Read about Thunder Run and M1A1 named Cojone Eh.
