T-90 best in the world... maybe in a world without Leo 2s or M1A2s. If you could ever get Arjun to work right it would be superior.
Indian Army News and Discussion
- Thread starter aaaditya
- Start date
FutureTank
Banned Member
I was kind of expecting a reaction/comment something like that.
Leo 2 is being practically given away. It was not achieving sales beforehand largely because of the price tag. It is only produced in Germany.
M1A2 is a very limited upgrade of a very limited number within the US fleet (primarily). The only sales it achieved were to Saudi Arabia and Egypt (the later also being funded by Saudis).
Both of the above tanks were designed as an answer to the T-64/T-72, and arrived a decade late. In the case of M1 it took two years to get production tanks into operational units. The tank required an upgrade five years later as a way to deal with T-80.
Both Leo2 and M1 are conventional designs that took their operators well and truly into heavy tank fleet operation requiring ever greater expenditure on fuel in an age of rising fuel prices.
The Leo2 and M1 designs lack any innovation in their design, as opposed to the T-90 which is a member of an evolutionary tank design which incorporates new weapon design (a gun which has an automated loader and is capable of firing a mix of munitions that includes guided weapons), new engine design (the M1 engine is much bulkier in attempting to offer same power-pack solution), and new means of defending the tank through active countermeasures.
Besides that T-90s have been sold in large numbers and the production is not outside of the manufacturing capability of user countries.
No doubt you will note that I have not mentioned that none of the tanks have been tested in combat against each other.
Yes, the M1s have inflicted casualties on the Iraqi T-72s, but what one would expect given the T-72 was a 20 year old tank, using 20 year old ammunition, engaging a much upgraded electronics, and having complete air superiority, in perfect tank terrain.
Now I hope you appreciate that I didn't say T-90 is the best tank in the World because I wanted to spite you, or anyone, or because of any agenda, but simply on pure logical assessment of a tank if I faced a decision of purchasing a fleet of new tanks for my 'country'. All in all, with everything considered in terms of technical-tactical qualities, economic and support factors, and impacts of procurement on personnel and training, the T-90 just comes up a much better tank. Not only that, but it also offers opportunity to upgrade the T-72 fleets to a standard almost as good in all these terms.
It’s just a commercial decision, and that is what it always is.
(what's Arjun has to do with T-90?)
All you do is make excuses for the T-90 without any evidence. Leo sales FAR outway that of the T-90. There are more M1A1/2s sold than T-90s to boot.
The T-90 is not a new tank but an evolution of the T-72 and offer little advantage over tanks coming out of the end of the CCCP. Considering the original name of the tank was the T-72BU! After GW1 they wanted to distance themselves from that name as much as possible.
The T-90 is not a new tank but an evolution of the T-72 and offer little advantage over tanks coming out of the end of the CCCP. Considering the original name of the tank was the T-72BU! After GW1 they wanted to distance themselves from that name as much as possible.
Have you forgotten what thread your in?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
There are plenty of customers who paid market price for their Leo II's Holland, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland...
Greece also paid market price for their new tanks, & had a competition with T-84, Leclerc, Challenger 2 & M1A2 participating in trials. And it's built under licence in Spain, so not only built in Germany. Other Leo 2 buyers also had competitive trials before deciding, e.g. Sweden. Now let us consider the process by which India decided to buy T-90.
powerslavenegi
New Member
swerve that is not the way defence deals are done
1.The buyer and seller countries need to be at good terms with each other.Can you imagine Russians buying American weapons systems or vice versa.
2.From a cost and manpower (unit price + maintainance + crew compliment)point of view one can afford to put 2 T-90's against a M1A2 or a Leo-II .And only a Don quixote would say the latter would win.
1.The buyer and seller countries need to be at good terms with each other.Can you imagine Russians buying American weapons systems or vice versa.
2.From a cost and manpower (unit price + maintainance + crew compliment)point of view one can afford to put 2 T-90's against a M1A2 or a Leo-II .And only a Don quixote would say the latter would win.
FutureTank
Banned Member
I hadn't forgotten the thread. It seems to me that Arjun is a perfect example of how hard it is to initiate a tank building program.
What excuses did I make? I thought I gave logical reasons to qualify and quantify my statement.
Leo 2 has sold 3924 vehicles total, according to my calculations (excluding support vehicles). Of these 1215 were transfers from German Army stocks (57% of its fleet). Most of the sales have been in Europe, and most at bargain price that includes manufacturer's support, along with a change in name to Euro-Leopard
. Chile and Singapore have been the only purchasers outside of Europe, and it is not clear why these two countries would buy these tanks other then the price of the package.M1 is in the same boat. Outside of Australia, which got a very good price and package (waiting 10 years to do so) for a very small quantity, only the very rich Arab states have bough M1. However they buy almost anything. Egypt is an exception due to its reliance on US aid package. I suspect there are oil money behind the Egyptian production pland in any case.
T-90 is to be produced in India in thousands, while also being sold to Pakistan and Algeria. However the tank has only recently gone into production. The fact that it is an improved, a very much improved, version of T-72, the possibility is there to offer significant upgrade to current T-72 operators. Wiki lists T-72 models to have been employed by Algeria, Angola, Armenia (102), Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada (display,tests), Croatia(40), Czech Republic, the former East Germany (scrapped or sold for a song), Finland (195), Georgia, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq (largely scrapped, but reintroduced from former East German fleet), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Poland (597), Romania, Russia (9,944), Serbia (238), Slovakia, Slovenia (54), Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the United States (display, tests), and Uzbekistan. To this can be added the Chinese Type 98 and the Polish PT-91. Adding value to these is a far more profitable business in the age when countries just don't buy, never mind build tanks. Even those interested in new tanks are likely to think twice about purchasing NATO's last generation given fuel prices and technology intensive support they require. The Russian tanks are built for conscripts, and not just the pick of the best as is the case in Germany.
And T-90 has been on the market only a decade.
A successful design is one that sells, and sells again. If I was a tank salesman I would want to sell T-72/90s.
Why would the T-72 designers and builders want to distance themselves from it after GW1? (I really prefer Kuwait war)
If I was selling tanks, I would tell every potential buyer to consider their defeat, and buy the whole suit of systems that make up a national armed force
Consider that the Kuwait and Iraq wars have made poignant lessons to most countries, and even dictators now know better then to appoint military leaderships for their loyalty rather then ability.
FutureTank
Banned Member
I think 'build' actually largely means 'assemble' in the case of Leopard 2 and M1. I believe same is true for Indians?Greece also paid market price for their new tanks, & had a competition with T-84, Leclerc, Challenger 2 & M1A2 participating in trials. And it's built under licence in Spain, so not only built in Germany. Other Leo 2 buyers also had competitive trials before deciding, e.g. Sweden. Now let us consider the process by which India decided to buy T-90.
Ok, let's consider the process in India.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #290
t-90 is not being sold to pakistan,pakistan has ukranian t80's,which are completely different from the t-90's.I hadn't forgotten the thread. It seems to me that Arjun is a perfect example of how hard it is to initiate a tank building program.
What excuses did I make? I thought I gave logical reasons to qualify and quantify my statement.
Leo 2 has sold 3924 vehicles total, according to my calculations (excluding support vehicles). Of these 1215 were transfers from German Army stocks (57% of its fleet). Most of the sales have been in Europe, and most at bargain price that includes manufacturer's support, along with a change in name to Euro-Leopard
M1 is in the same boat. Outside of Australia, which got a very good price and package (waiting 10 years to do so) for a very small quantity, only the very rich Arab states have bough M1. However they buy almost anything. Egypt is an exception due to its reliance on US aid package. I suspect there are oil money behind the Egyptian production pland in any case.
T-90 is to be produced in India in thousands, while also being sold to Pakistan and Algeria. However the tank has only recently gone into production. The fact that it is an improved, a very much improved, version of T-72, the possibility is there to offer significant upgrade to current T-72 operators. Wiki lists T-72 models to have been employed by Algeria, Angola, Armenia (102), Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada (display,tests), Croatia(40), Czech Republic, the former East Germany (scrapped or sold for a song), Finland (195), Georgia, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq (largely scrapped, but reintroduced from former East German fleet), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Poland (597), Romania, Russia (9,944), Serbia (238), Slovakia, Slovenia (54), Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the United States (display, tests), and Uzbekistan. To this can be added the Chinese Type 98 and the Polish PT-91. Adding value to these is a far more profitable business in the age when countries just don't buy, never mind build tanks. Even those interested in new tanks are likely to think twice about purchasing NATO's last generation given fuel prices and technology intensive support they require. The Russian tanks are built for conscripts, and not just the pick of the best as is the case in Germany.
And T-90 has been on the market only a decade.
A successful design is one that sells, and sells again. If I was a tank salesman I would want to sell T-72/90s.
Why would the T-72 designers and builders want to distance themselves from it after GW1? (I really prefer Kuwait war)
If I was selling tanks, I would tell every potential buyer to consider their defeat, and buy the whole suit of systems that make up a national armed force
Consider that the Kuwait and Iraq wars have made poignant lessons to most countries, and even dictators now know better then to appoint military leaderships for their loyalty rather then ability.
+ algeria that's 3
Do they operate them yet? I don't think so... And that was the BIGGEST poltical buy of them all.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Yes, sorry about that.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #295
hey guys,interesting news here,seems the drdo employees may get a pay hike and improvement of service conditions.
here check out this link and article:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=7921
In a bid to stem rising attrition rate in the Armed forces and DRDO employees, the sixth Pay Commission would be moved seeking better pay packet and service conditions for them, Defence Minister A K Antony, said today.
Expressing concern over the attrition rates, Antony said the salary drawn by armed forces and DRDO personnel is "very meagre" compared to the fabulous pay packet offered in the private sector.
"We will take up the issue with the Pay Commission", he said as he stressed on improving service conditions and salaries of these employees. "We have to have a second look (at their salary and service conditions).
"You can't compete with the pay packet of the private sector", he said after inaugurating the new campus of Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the DRDO complex here. "Whatever is humanly possible to improve service conditions we will do".
Director General of DRDO M Natarajan said the average attrition rate in DRDO was 15 per cent while in its centres in Bangalore it's a "little higher". Antony said the government's vision is to expand the role and scope of DRDO and help it in its endeavour to equip the defence force with cutting-edge technology in defence systems.
here check out this link and article:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=7921
In a bid to stem rising attrition rate in the Armed forces and DRDO employees, the sixth Pay Commission would be moved seeking better pay packet and service conditions for them, Defence Minister A K Antony, said today.
Expressing concern over the attrition rates, Antony said the salary drawn by armed forces and DRDO personnel is "very meagre" compared to the fabulous pay packet offered in the private sector.
"We will take up the issue with the Pay Commission", he said as he stressed on improving service conditions and salaries of these employees. "We have to have a second look (at their salary and service conditions).
"You can't compete with the pay packet of the private sector", he said after inaugurating the new campus of Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the DRDO complex here. "Whatever is humanly possible to improve service conditions we will do".
Director General of DRDO M Natarajan said the average attrition rate in DRDO was 15 per cent while in its centres in Bangalore it's a "little higher". Antony said the government's vision is to expand the role and scope of DRDO and help it in its endeavour to equip the defence force with cutting-edge technology in defence systems.
Hmm - I find that interesting that Russia is going to dole out 300 T-90`s when they barely have that many.
The T-90S or M versions are at the end of their development, all the neat counter measures haven`t even been tested in combat and I have my doubts on how effective they are, didn`t Pakistan just Purchase a improved Tow 2 missile package?
The M1A2 , LEO2A5 or 6 and the Challenger are the most heavily armored vehicles in the world and they do offer better armor protection over the T-90 series bar none. If the T-90 shows up for a gun fight, she better be sporting the best DU penetrator that Russia has.
And Egypt doesn`t have M1A2`s, they are export M1A1`s.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Why countries buy tanks
It seems to me that discussion of tank purchases needs to be seen within a larger strategic view.
Tanks are purchased for various reasons, but primarily because:
Offensive - there is a an expected operational use not satisfied with existing models
Status quo - the existing fleet is obsolescent (and therefore ineffective/inefficient to operate)
Defensive - there is a significant improvement in the fleet of the expected enemy which needs to be countered
Doctrinal - there is a change in the overall doctrine requiring increase/different model of tanks
Some countries do not base their purchasing decisions on above, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Others are only too obvious in their intentions, such as Egypt who's only enemy (and for which purpose they were sold M1s) remains Libya.
For India however all three apply.
Aside from seeking to replace the T-55 and Vijayanta fleets, and realising that Pakistan sought to purchase from Ukraine a tank the Russians would not sell to anyone (South Korea excepted), and in view of Chinese ongoing tank building program, India seems to be taking fairly logical decisions in its acquisition program.
By standardising on a single type over a fleet expected to number in the 4200+ by end of this decade, they are also introducing significant economies of scale in maintenance, support and training. Producing the T-90 domestically also allows them to gain the necessary experience to conduct their own upgrade program for the existing fleet of T-72s, and maybe even T-55s (even if with Israeli help).
Eventually they may be able to get an indigenous design into production in the next generation fleet based on the experience gained in this venture.
This last objective is considered very important for Indian decision makers, and would have been impossible to achieve if M1 or L2 selected due to restrictions on technology transfer.
All of the above are strategic objectives considered in purchasing a tank fleet, and come way before those of armour, speed and gun size.
It seems to me that discussion of tank purchases needs to be seen within a larger strategic view.
Tanks are purchased for various reasons, but primarily because:
Offensive - there is a an expected operational use not satisfied with existing models
Status quo - the existing fleet is obsolescent (and therefore ineffective/inefficient to operate)
Defensive - there is a significant improvement in the fleet of the expected enemy which needs to be countered
Doctrinal - there is a change in the overall doctrine requiring increase/different model of tanks
Some countries do not base their purchasing decisions on above, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Others are only too obvious in their intentions, such as Egypt who's only enemy (and for which purpose they were sold M1s) remains Libya.
For India however all three apply.
Aside from seeking to replace the T-55 and Vijayanta fleets, and realising that Pakistan sought to purchase from Ukraine a tank the Russians would not sell to anyone (South Korea excepted), and in view of Chinese ongoing tank building program, India seems to be taking fairly logical decisions in its acquisition program.
By standardising on a single type over a fleet expected to number in the 4200+ by end of this decade, they are also introducing significant economies of scale in maintenance, support and training. Producing the T-90 domestically also allows them to gain the necessary experience to conduct their own upgrade program for the existing fleet of T-72s, and maybe even T-55s (even if with Israeli help).
Eventually they may be able to get an indigenous design into production in the next generation fleet based on the experience gained in this venture.
This last objective is considered very important for Indian decision makers, and would have been impossible to achieve if M1 or L2 selected due to restrictions on technology transfer.
All of the above are strategic objectives considered in purchasing a tank fleet, and come way before those of armour, speed and gun size.
Yep - and the Pakistan T-80 is a better tank.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Of course. This is what I'm saying. Russia would nopt export the T-80, but Ukranians needed the cash. Russia tried to stop the export deal by restricting parts, so Ukraine finished the T-80s off on their own. So India is building three T-90s for every T-80. I actually don't think the T-80s Pakistan got are THAT superior to the T-90s India is to build, but obviously Indian General Staff does