T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[eckherl]

Well, that might sound over confident or arogant, but yes, i'm pretty sure i could defeat a experienced street fighter who is tough and fast, but has no MA education. After all, MA was invented to defend yourself against tough and fast attackers and there would be no point in all those centuries of people inventing and evolving MA if it wouldn't give you an advantage.

The most effective MAs are based on real science and basic principles. In the Wing Tzun system and some modernised Karate systems, you rather learn how to utilize those basic principles instead of just training ritualized movements.

One of that principles is, for example, not to block fists, but to block ellbows. When somebody tries to hit you, his ellbow moves 2.5 times slower than his fist. So if you use your full speed to intercept not his fist but his ellbow, you have a hughe speed advantage.
And if you are good enough you don't block anything, but divert the energy of your opponent's movement into a direction that suits you, without needing much energy. That way you can even defeat people who are not only stronger but even faster than you.
It's things like that you don't learn in street fights and pub brawls.

It's applied science and the experience generations of people made in fist fights before you that makes up the things you learn and train in a decent MA school.

And here we got the similarity to military training. Sure, experience is a good thing, but in the end every single soldier can only accumulate a very limited amount of experience, even if he sees many battles. Every situation is different and what one soldier learned by his own experience is different from what another has learned.
Training means to learn and to profit from the experience of many soldiers that came before you.

I think the main advantage of battle experience is less that seasoned soldiers really know so much more about what to do in a battle than a well trained but inexperienced soldier, but more that they are more used to the stress and terror of combat and keep a cool head. But i think the way very well trained soldiers tend to do the things they have learned in a state of being somehow emotional detached, compensates for that. You somehow slip into "the zone" and it's a bit as if you would step outside yourself and watch what you are doing from the outside when you apply what you have learned in a lot of training.
I guess you know how that feels too, from work or maybe from playing a computer game very often till you are able to do things without thinking about it anymore.

I have a Korean brother that weighs approx 150 lbs soaking wet, I have seen what he could do to a 240 man when he gets pissed due to his extensive background in Tae Kwon Do.

 

[Manfred]

There was nearly no experience in mechanised/tank maneuver warfare in the west since 40 years (Except from looking at the Israeli-Arab wars).

Our men got some good experiance during the first Gulf war, and the Infantry are still getting more practical experiance there now.

 

[Waylander]

I talked about ODS.

Prior to ODS there was no real life experience of mech/tank warfare in the west except learning from the Israelis.

 

[eckherl]

I talked about ODS.

Prior to ODS there was no real life experience of mech/tank warfare in the west except learning from the Israelis.

And following armor tactics on the Eastern front during WW 2 conducted by Germany and Russian forces.

 

[eckherl]

There was nearly no experience in mechanised/tank maneuver warfare in the west since 40 years (Except from looking at the Israeli-Arab wars).

Our men got some good experiance during the first Gulf war, and the Infantry are still getting more practical experiance there now.

Our tankers are getting experience also in fighting with the infantry in urbanized settings.

 

[radiosilence]

Not to diminish training but nothing compares to real fighting experience. For the most part training is conducted in a control enviroment.

 

[TrangleC]

I think that depends on the training.

And even if the situation is highly controlled, that alone doesn't have to be a disadvantage. After all you learn more from mistakes than from success and in training you can make mistakes and still live to learn from them.

An combat experienced soldier is always an soldier who was lucky till now. Surviving in a hostile combat situation is always more luck than skill. In medieval times, when battle still meant man on man with swords, skill did make a big difference. Today it's different. You can't dodge a bullet, no matter how good you are and you can't always take perfect cover and even if you got perfect cover, some weapons will still kill you and usually you don't even see or hear them coming. It doesn't require mistakes or stupidity to get killed in modern combat. Usually the one who dies just had bad luck because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time or because he has only two eyes and can't see everything that is going on around him all the time.
The fact that somebody did survive a battle doesn't mean he is the better soldier than his comrade or enemy who died or an equally trained soldier who didn't see battle till then.

In training you can collect experience even when you have no luck. If this experience will help you much in real combat is another question.

 

[Tasman]

I think that depends on the training.

And even if the situation is highly controlled, that alone doesn't have to be a disadvantage. After all you learn more from mistakes than from success and in training you can make mistakes and still live to learn from them.

An combat experienced soldier is always an soldier who was lucky till now. Surviving in a hostile combat situation is always more luck than skill. In medieval times, when battle still meant man on man with swords, skill did make a big difference. Today it's different. You can't dodge a bullet, no matter how good you are and you can't always take perfect cover and even if you got perfect cover, some weapons will still kill you and usually you don't even see or hear them coming. It doesn't require mistakes or stupidity to get killed in modern combat. Usually the one who dies just had bad luck because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time or because he has only two eyes and can't see everything that is going on around him all the time.
The fact that somebody did survive a battle doesn't mean he is the better soldier than his comrade or enemy who died or an equally trained soldier who didn't see battle till then.

In training you can collect experience even when you have no luck. If this experience will help you much in real combat is another question.

Training and experience are both important. There will always be an element of luck and there will always be the chance of a 'silver bullet', but good training can at least minimise the risks and increase survival chances. That's why my old infantry unit spent so much time rehearsing ambush drills in jungle warfare situations (at the time Australia was involved in Malaysia and Vietnam). When reactions became instinctive and everyone knew what everyone else was doing and trusted them to do it, the chances of winning and surviving improved. Experience then adds to what has been taught. I think air combat has provided plenty of examples that have demonstrated that the most dangerous combat missions are the first ones flown and I am sure that applies in all combat situations, including tank warfare. That's what makes it so hard to compare equipment like tanks without taking into account the training and experience of their crews to make the best use of their speed, firepower, armour, manoeuvrability, etc.

Cheers

 

[Turk]

What about compharasion between Leopard vS T-90 ?

 

[eckherl]

What about compharasion between Leopard vS T-90 ?

The Leopard 2 series will stack up nicely against a T-90, both are very capable tanks and both will be quite deadly on the modern battle field.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Hey, all.

On russian website I've seen too many sayings like "Abrams' piece of crap - T-90 the best". So I was just wondering, is T-90 that great? Because I have a hard time believing it. I'm not saying it's not a good tank - it is. But is it, like the russkies say, best of all?

TIA.

I doubt that T-90 Armour is any durable to Abrams armour or any NATO forces. But I doubt we will face Russian land forces anytime soon to truly test that theory.

 

[onslaught]

If the Russians are going to come up with anything to really match the Abrams, Challenger, or Leo, I'd look to the T-95 (objekt 775). The only problem is that not much has been released about it. I wouldn't believe everything that will be released anyway. Again, you'd have to wait for an actual war to really test a new weapon.

 

[FutureTank]

T-1?

In my humble opinion there is going to be a fairly drastic evolutionary change in the design of the next fleet of AFVs from Russia to conform with the changes in society, economy and the advances of the past 20 years in technology (T-90 is really an 80s design).
I think it will be like starting with a blank board and going back to the basics in the fit between design and doctrine...a T-1

Cheers

 

[steve33]

All these modern main mattle tanks are impressive but the fact of the matter is if two well equipped modern armies go up against each other these tanks are going to be cannon fodder against modern airpower.

 

[Waylander]

Yehaw, there it is the old argument.
For sure you are screwed if the enemy has total air superiority and the assets to wound and kill your mechanized forces.

But when you assume that two more or less equal countries go against each other why should their air forces and air defence networks not also make it very difficult for each other to cripple you with air power?

 

[eckherl]

If the U.S Air Force could have their way then the U.S Army would not have heavies any more, they think that they can do it alone and all we need is light forces to occupy. This debate surfaced after the first gulf war and it made alot of people laugh at the Armor branch. Even after all the munitions that was dropped on the Iraqi Army we still needed heavie armor to dislodge them to force them to react to our scheme of manuever.

I think that alot of folks out there do not realize that it is just more than tanks going at it head to head, there are many things out there that can and will kill heavie armor and when two modern day armies decide to go at it there will be massive casualties on both sides. It will not matter what kind of armor you are bringing to a gunfight. The military that takes control of the air and sea will win that war.

 

[steve33]

Yehaw, there it is the old argument.
For sure you are screwed if the enemy has total air superiority and the assets to wound and kill your mechanized forces.

But when you assume that two more or less equal countries go against each other why should their air forces and air defence networks not also make it very difficult for each other to cripple you with air power?

You also have to take into account the excellent ground based anti tank weapons that are available and combine that with air power and it doesn,t look good for the tank.

I,m not saying you shouldn,t have heavy tanks they have there place providing a lot of firepower in close support of infantry but they will pay are big price in a conflict involving two modern armies no matter how good these tanks are and that is the point i am trying to make people always debate what is the better tank but they will all be in for a rough time.

 

[eckherl]

You also have to take into account the excellent ground based anti tank weapons that are available and combine that with air power and it doesn,t look good for the tank.

I,m not saying you shouldn,t have heavy tanks they have there place providing a lot of firepower in close support of infantry but they will pay are big price in a conflict involving two modern armies no matter how good these tanks are and that is the point i am trying to make people always debate what is the better tank but they will all be in for a rough time.

Maybe a little ironic but infantry are there to support tanks in close quarter combat, the best war to fight is a lightning strike with heavy armor with good air assets and artillery.

 

[riksavage]

Reference the combat vs. training argument. UK army commanders are growing more concerned about the lack of training by UK combined arms battle-groups. With constant rotations through Afghanistan and Iraq, UK tank / infantry / artillery units are not getting the opportunity to train under realistic conditions normally practiced on a large scale in Canada and Poland. Activity in Iraq and Afghanistan though intense still revolves around patrolling, relatively small unit activity (platoon / company strength plus support) manning of key points etc., but does not involve large-scale coordinated battle-group activity associated with the early stages of Gulf War I&II.

Though combat experience tests equipment, tactics, resolve and leadership to the limit, it can also reduce the overall effectiveness of fighting soldiers if they are suddenly expected to take on a different role (conventional as apposed to counter-insergency) without having the opportunity to train as a cohesive unit first utilising revised tactics.

 

[Waylander]

@riksavage
Jup, well put.
The same goes for the US and for other countries with many oversea deployments.

@Steve33
I never wanted to make air assets or infantry AT weapons a small threat.
Everybody who runs head on into the enemy without air cover is dumb and nobody should underrate the danger from ATGMs.
But this is nothing new.
Lets assume that you AND your enemy are relatively equal in terms of air power (Not to talk of weather denying the air for both parties). Than you have a real problem if you rely heaviliy on light infantry with ATGMs.

ATGMs are there to give infantry some limited AT capabilities. They are not intended to make infantry able to perform the role of heavy armor.
Just some points:
- rate of fire is slower
- target aquisition is less advanced
- round travels less fast
- less ammo
- ammo is more expensive
- launcher is more vulnerable

And then the usual problems and benefits of infantry. In close quarter combat (urban areas, heavy wood, mountains) they feel at home and heavy armor is the supporting factor.
In a more tank friendly environment infantry has many big problems.
The biggest ones are speed and firepower.

While a mechanized unit under attack from another mech unit is able to perform a mobile defense where an infantry unit (With ATGMs) is screwed when the enemy reaches its lines. They just have the option to dig in and hope for the best. And this while the enemy has an edge in firepower and protection. An armored company reaches and open field and makes itself wide resulting in 14 120mm guns (1 round every 6-10 seconds) and many MGs ready to open fire. And infantry company has ca. 4 weapons which can hurt a tank with much less ammo and rate of fire. They cannot retreat and are overrun if the enemy closes the gap between them (And this happens really fast with mech units). And they are much more vulnerable to direct and indirect enemy fire of all kinds.
I just don't want to start with infantry in the attack. The picture of infantry advancing against dug in mech forces is just sad. Reminds me of WWI style running into enemy MGs.