Found an interesting video: M1 Abrams vs. T-90
A
lthough, it's in Russian. Maybe a Russian speaker can translate some of the dialogue?
Here's the translation I found from Tanknet:
The Abrams is the arguably most well-known Western tank. War and war-equipment-themed magazins write about it, it is shown on TV news shows. It is the TV star of the tank world.
The most up-to-date Russian tank is the T-90. It hardly gets any attention, especually in the West. NATO experts branded it as "obsolete". Is it really so?
The Russian T-90 and the American "Abrams". A layman might think they are machines of different class. T-90 is significantly lighter than the American machine, 47 metric tons versus 64. It is also way more compact, and doesn't have the impressive look of the Abrams. On the world's weapons market, however, these machines are in direct competition. This is because of their similar battle capability.
Today, you cannot compare protection offered based on armor thickness only. You must know what it is composed of. Abrams is known for depleted uranium in its armor composition; the T-90 for its integrated reactive armor.
According to American sources, front armor of the Abrams has proven its protective capability during the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003. It withstanded hits of Russian armor-piercing tank rounds of the 125 mm calibre. It is, however, usually omitted that we're talking of rounds withdrawn from (Russian) service in 1973. No truly modern anti-tank round was fired then.
During tests, the front armor of the T-90 was hit with the newest subcalibre(APSDFS) and hollow charge rounds, up to the level of modern armor piercing rounds for the 120 mm gun of the Abrams. From a distance of 200 meters, six rounds were thus fired at the tank. Thereafter, the machine drove to the demonstration area. Then, without repairs, the sides of T-90 were subject to hits of modernized RPG rounds, to the same result: The armor has not been penetrated. The only components damaged were the protective side skirts.
On the other hand, 2003 in Iraq, the sides of Abrams were penetrated by RPG-7 rounds even of the earliest modification. Iraq also showed the vulnerable side of the Abrams: Its auxiliary power unit powering all electric systems on board when the main engine is shut down. It is easily hit by fire of heavy machinegun. On the T-90, the APU is put under main armour. Apart from that, all T-90 come ready equipped with "Shtora(Curtain)" electro-optical suppression system. This system lures away enemy rockets fired at the tank. Abrams lacks such equipment. In combat, the American tank would hardly withstand the guided missile fired by T-90 from smoothbore gun. The working distance of T-90 is 5 km. The gunning precision in this situation borders on absolute. The missile can be fired both from standing position and on the move. It requires no additional skills from the gunner.
Main gun power of T-90 and Abrams is roughly equal. Penetrating capability of the domestic(i.e. Russian) armor-piercing round with wolfram penetrating rod is in no aspect inferior to its competitor, the American round with DU penetrating rod. Comparable rounds were also developed domestically(e.g., in USSR), but they are highly hazardous to the crew's health, and their serial production was delayed to days of severe need.
A tank should not only be able to destroy enemy tanks, but also enemy personnel dangerous to tanks - RPG and ATGM teams. In this aspect, T-90 is way ahead of Abrams: Its loadout includes a proximity-fuzed(or says he remotely fuzed?) frag/shrapnel round that can be detonated both over enemy infantry and near enemy helicopters. Such rounds lack on the Abrams.
Thanks to Western military magazins, it was long time believed that electronics and optics on Russian tanks are imperfect, to say the least. In reality, the fire control system of T-90 is in no way enferior to its NATO counterparts. What's more, this tank holds the unofficial record of gunning precision and speed. During a demonstration to Western delegations, the gunner of T-90S destroyed seven real targets over distances ranging from 1,5 to 2,5 km in 54 seconds only - on the move with a speed of 25 km/h. The official record holder, the German Leopard 2, hits one target less under comparable conditions. Also, thanks to its guided missiles, the T-90 has the longest arm of the tank world.
Early modifications of T-90 had worse mobility than the Abrams. With its new 1000 hp engine, the T-90 is now equal of the Abrams with respect to this most important indicator, for all practical purposes. As to cross-country capability, the two tanks cannot be compared. At the armament exhibition in Abu Dhabi in 1993, Abrams threw a track climbing over a banal hill side of the exhibition tankodrome.
The Russian tank, on the other hand, has cleared almost 3000 km heavy terrain of the Malayan jungle where all of its competitors bogged down. It showed itself from its best side during the march through the Tar(sp?) desert in India during heat over 50 degrees Celsius.
Unavoidable requirement to any future combat machines is high informatization. In the near future, T-90 is to be equipped with the most modern satellite navigation suite. This way, the Abrams will lose its last advantage it has over the Russian tank.
As of today, T-90 surpasses Abrams in most aspects. However, their competition is very near its end: Modernization capacity has been all but used up for both machines. New-generation tanks are soon to roll onto the battlefield.
