Hi thanks; indeed i remembre reading on line that a soviet general said that they had 5:1 tanks ratio compared to western models because they needed 5 tanks do disabilate one western tank(30 years ago);

R” Destiny of a tank after being hit. I am yet to see a video of a tank being hit and continuing to operate as if nothing happened. Whenever a tank is hit, the crew bails out immediately. If the circumstances are favourable, it may be recovered later. It may also be recovered by the enemy. What I want to say is that a hit tank is anyway disabled for this combat encounter at the very least regardless of actual damage it has sustained. Well, I am not a tanker veteran, so this opinion is based solely on the many videos of tank hits I’ve watched and participants accounts I’ve read, so I may be wrong. So what I want to say is that if a tank doesnt cook after a hit and the crew is unscathed, it’s the best you can ask from any defence system. An Abrams or Leopard crew will bail-out after getting hit by an anti-tank missile just as fast as a t72 or t90 crew would. Which ones would be more repairable statistically after such hit a T90 or an Abrams? Hard to say righ now with so few acual hits on T90s”

I think t90 is more reparable, as abrhams is a logistic nightmare, neverthless a disabled tank is a lost tank in a real war scenario

Neverthless if you read full article in http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.it/2017/01/leopard-2-in-syria-part-2.html

You will find that one leopard hit by a TOW2 (not the destroyed one by hit on the roof) continued firing as nothing was happened, so what you say may not true 100 %

What do you know about those few T90 with turbine engine version? I know that turbine engine is more a weak heel the a strenght point for abrahams, and new leopard 3 gonna be diesel as well with sci-fi specs compared to 20 years ago western diesel engine.