T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

Status
Not open for further replies.

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.

This is also becoming a major issue with U.S forces also for a large scale conflict scenario. This becomes a major issue when you do not have sufficient light forces augemented into your military ground forces that can specialize in police style actions and urbanized conflicts which the U.S and UK for the most part had to learn the hard way on how to conduct such operations.
Hopefully this will change with the U.S adding two to three light infantry divisions.
 

steve33

Member
@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.
The point i am trying to make is that a lot of people debate what is the better tank but the fact is that all these modern tanks are evenly matched with powerful 120mm guns and can take each other out it is just a matter of who gets in first.

Tanks in a war with the modern weapons that are available air launched and ground launched will be in for a rough time but you still need them,i read a report a while back from the third infantry division and they were rapt with there Abram Tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles fighting to Baghdad.

In the desert war in WW2 the New Zealand Division was overrun several times after they had taken there objectives by German armour because they had none in support and the anti tank guns proved by themselves vunerable to being picked off.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Ok, than we are on the same road and I didn't notice it. Sorry for that. :)

You are defenitely right with your points. In the great sheme it is nearly unimportant if you perform an operation like ODS or OIF while sitting in the most modern version of an Abrams, Leclerc, Leo II or Challi II.
 

T-95

New Member
Well, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to start any political discussion. I am actually trying to understand if the T-90 is AS good as they say it is. I know it's a good tank, but I hardly believe it doesn't have any cons. And being an Israeli, I'm especially interested to know if T-90 is better than the Merkava Mark 4 (at least on the datasheet, as we can make only assumptions about T-90 in an actual war), as IMO there's a good chance the IDF might meet the T-90 one day on the ground.
there is a chance Israel might see it combat one day as the Saudis are discussing buying 1,500 T-90 with the Russians(again i really dunno how the hell they're gunna get the guys to operate this equipment). And if i had to say it is definitely better than Markeva Mk.4. But then again the Merkeva Mk.4 is one of the best (probably in the top 3) and is combat proven.
 

Chrom

New Member
there is a chance Israel might see it combat one day as the Saudis are discussing buying 1,500 T-90 with the Russians(again i really dunno how the hell they're gunna get the guys to operate this equipment). And if i had to say it is definitely better than Markeva Mk.4. But then again the Merkeva Mk.4 is one of the best (probably in the top 3) and is combat proven.
In that sense (against 30-years old tanks and ATGM's) all modern tanks are "combat" proven. Merkava, T-xx, Abrams - they all leaved fair share of burned wrecks when faced ATGM's.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
No, Leo II is not. :D

In the end very interesting for a tank which is the most successfull export of the western world.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
there is a chance Israel might see it combat one day as the Saudis are discussing buying 1,500 T-90 with the Russians(again i really dunno how the hell they're gunna get the guys to operate this equipment). And if i had to say it is definitely better than Markeva Mk.4. But then again the Merkeva Mk.4 is one of the best (probably in the top 3) and is combat proven.
That is a broad statement saying that a T - 90 (modified T - 72 ) is better that a Merkava 4, can you explain in what areas. Mobility yes, but with the terrian layout in the regoin that you will be facing Merkavas this will not be that big of a factor.
 

T-95

New Member
That is a broad statement saying that a T - 90 (modified T - 72 ) is better that a Merkava 4, can you explain in what areas. Mobility yes, but with the terrian layout in the regoin that you will be facing Merkavas this will not be that big of a factor.
Sorry, I made a mistake (read the article a long time ago), the Saudis are actually evaluating the T-95 suitability in desert conditions. And i know for sure that the T-95 is better than anything else right now, but were not talking about the T-95 are we.

link to the article: http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=September2006&file=World_News2006091022545.xml

Look it up if you want more sources.
 

Chrom

New Member
Sorry, I made a mistake (read the article a long time ago), the Saudis are actually evaluating the T-95 suitability in desert conditions. And i know for sure that the T-95 is better than anything else right now, but were not talking about the T-95 are we.
Lol. We dont even know what T-95 is and how it looks now. And you know for sure..
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Isn't it a next gen tank made for the Russian army and meant to be better than the T-90 (which is a temporary gap filler till the T-95 is ready for production)? and already the T-90 is one of the best in the world if not the best.

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw000329_04_n.shtml
So what will the T-95 have over western designed tanks that is better, a bigger gun doesn`t mean everything, besides major western tank designers have already tested a 140mm that can be fitted in U.S, French, German and UK current designed tanks with some modifications. I will give a T-90 a rating as one of the best, but with some of the same issues as is the case with the T-72 series I will not rate it as the best out there, best T series out on the market will have to go to the Ukrainian T-84.
 

T-95

New Member
So what will the T-95 have over western designed tanks that is better, a bigger gun doesn`t mean everything, besides major western tank designers have already tested a 140mm that can be fitted in U.S, French, German and UK current designed tanks with some modifications. I will give a T-90 a rating as one of the best, but with some of the same issues as is the case with the T-72 series I will not rate it as the best out there, best T series out on the market will have to go to the Ukrainian T-84.
You say a big gun isn't everything but you go on about western designers putting a a huge gun on to their existing tanks and so on. The T-90 has little competition and the is Markeva Mk.4 isn't one of them (neither is the current Abrams tank). And the T-95 is completely new design that doesn't involve putting huge guns onto existing or outdated tanks.
 

Chrom

New Member
Isn't it a next gen tank made for the Russian army and meant to be better than the T-90 (which is a temporary gap filler till the T-95 is ready for production)? and already the T-90 is one of the best in the world if not the best.

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw000329_04_n.shtml
It is one of many prototypes what may or may not go into production. Besides, even IF something with the name T-95 will enter production it will be surery quite different from what is described in that article.

The situation is very close to PAK-FA 3-4 years ago when noone (even designers themselfes) knew how true PAK-FA will look. Becouse there was not clear what requirements will be issued by RuA, how much money could be spend on developing, and even what can be developed.
 

T-95

New Member
It is one of many prototypes what may or may not go into production. Besides, even IF something with the name T-95 will enter production it will be surery quite different from what is described in that article.

The situation is very close to PAK-FA 3-4 years ago when noone (even designers themselfes) knew how true PAK-FA will look. Becouse there was not clear what requirements will be issued by RuA, how much money could be spend on developing, and even what can be developed.
There were two deigns in the competition , the Black Eagle and the T-95, and I'm pretty sure the T-95 design won. As for the PAK-FA I'm sure they knew what they were doing but unlike the westerners they didn't not show pictures and gave all the details (I think the only specs about the F-22 that secret are the climb rate and the radar specs).

And how do you know that this was the situation with the designers? Were you in a room with all those designers deciding to take off the forward-swept wing design off the Su-47 or were you working with Mig. at the time? And how do you know that no specific requirements issued, by the RuA?

If you haven't noticed they already have prototype that's scheduled to fly by the end of the year. But I don't think you see picture of it everywhere on the internet and the ones you see on the internet aren't credible even the ones that were issued by the engine manufacturer because it had another picture of the PAK-FA that looked very different at the same time.

So honestly you don't know whether this was the case you were just assuming. The Russians are probably sure about the T-95 design, otherwise why would they be offering it to a customer? And its not like they were just offering it and gave the Saudis a whole bunch of brochures, the T-95 actually went to Saudi and it's undergoing evaluations there.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Should either the Black Eagle or T95 materialise on the battlefield I would still give the edge to the current operators of Western tanks such as the Chally II, Leo II, Abrams etc., simply because of tactics, training and infrastructure. Most buyers of Russian armour are looking for a quantity over quality solution with no strings attached. If nations can afford western products they will buy them, as demonstrated by the number of former Eastern Block countries switching to western manufactured equipment or retro-fitting western manufactured (include Israel in this category) fire-control systems to soviet era kit.

The Black Eagle / T95 tanks may be great in theory, but if they are operated by poorly educated crews, conscripted man-power who have had little or no range time, zero experience in modern battle-group simulators, zero combined arms live firing, aren’t lead by well educated experienced NCO’s and officers the outcome will be fairly predictable – they will suffer regardless of a 135 or 125mm tank gun.

Look at the Arab / Israeli historical tank battles. The Arab armies had overwhelming numerical superiority in soviet armour, however they were beaten by better trained, better lead (in most circumstances) better motivated opponents fielding an ad-hoc mix of western tanks (Centurions, M48 etc.).

Even if Saudi buys the T95 in bulk and decided to take on Israel’s military in a conventional battle along similar lines of the earlier Arab / Israeli engagements I would still give the edge to Israel, even after the loss of several Markerva’s in recent asymmetrical engagements with Hezbollah. Reason – tactics, training, experienced leadership, tried and most importantly tested logistics tail.
 

DoC_FouALieR

New Member
Besides, even IF something with the name T-95 will enter production it will be surery quite different from what is described in that article.
Just for information, in the early development of the Leclerc MBT, several architectures were studied, among them what is described as the T-95 architecture. But having only the gun as a turret adds lot of drawbacks, first of all the necessity to traverse and elevate the gun back for reloading...
Plus the difficulty to compensate the recoil force of a 135mm gun in such a design.

In the case of the Leclerc, this design was eliminated quickly.
 

Chrom

New Member
Just for information, in the early development of the Leclerc MBT, several architectures were studied, among them what is described as the T-95 architecture. But having only the gun as a turret adds lot of drawbacks, first of all the necessity to traverse and elevate the gun back for reloading...
Plus the difficulty to compensate the recoil force of a 135mm gun in such a design.

In the case of the Leclerc, this design was eliminated quickly.
This only mean what Leclerc designers couldnt eliminate/avoid/dampen these drawbacks or couldnt exploit benefits enouth to justify these drawbacks. Other developers may have better luck...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top