T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour
- Status
You obviosly know nothing about history except some common widespread western public myths.
For the tanks part:
1. APFSDS was invented and first fielded in USSR - and, in fact, on T-62 tank.
1a. PS. APDS was developed by french enginiers, was shortly fielded in 1940 before collapse. But trully widespread became by 1944 in UK, where said enginiers was evacuated.
2. Composite armor was invented and appeared on USSR tanks decades before it was used in western tanks
3. ERA (so much mocked by west jokeyes on the forums before, now they prise it as a "excellent high-tech future system what will stop our tankers die in Iraq!")
4. Active protection systems
5. Gun-launched ATGM's ...
6. FCS, LRF, gun stabilizers, nighvision devices - in later 60x and early 70x USSR was ahead in fielding these. Only in later 70x-early 80x west got ahead by fielding thermals.
7. Read serious books from serious researchers and stop making generalized political/racial/ideological whatever statements based on the worsest western myths.
Last edited:
I agree with you on some of your list except the following:
Gun stabilazation was designed by who and what was the first tank to field it.
night vision devices, lets stay with infra red, who first fielded this concept.
Laser range finders, who was the first to field this technology on a tank.
With N6 it is mainly not who developed or fielded them first, but rather who fielded them in greater numbers and all-in-same-tank. If we take for example 60x T-64 vs M-60/Centurion, or 70x T-64 vs M-60A/Centurion/Leo... we will see what T-64 have all said gizmos, and all 1st-rate quality, while other tanks lacking one or another.I agree with you on some of your list except the following:
Gun stabilazation was designed by who and what was the first tank to field it.
night vision devices, lets stay with infra red, who first fielded this concept.
Laser range finders, who was the first to field this technology on a tank.
That is true but you also forget 1 major thing why american people think soviet and russian things suck , because like you said country's that use it have bad training and tactics , but also 1 major factor is also , did you ever hear about Monkey models?
Monkey model was the unofficial designation given by the Soviet Military to versions military equipment (armored vehicles, airplanes, missiles) of significantly inferior capability to the original designs and intended only for export.
The monkey model was exported with the same or a similar designation as the original Soviet design but in fact it lacked many of the advanced or expensive features of the original.
Performance and capabilities of monkey model equipment were so degraded from the original as not to be in any way representative of the original design capabilities.
The fact that most Soviet-designed tanks and aircraft engaged by western forces during the last decades were actually monkey models must be kept in mind when trying to assess the capabilities of real Soviet-era equipment versus those of contemporary western designs.
A good example of this is the dismal performance of Iraqi T-72 models during the Gulf War and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Iraqi T-72 failed to destroy a single M1 tank. On the other hand experts believe that the T-72's 125 mm 2A46 main gun is capable of destroying any modern main battle tank in the world today. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the Iraqi operated a mix of monkey models and their own locally produced version, the Lion of Babylon tank, and used substandard ammunition (it has been claimed that in some cases even training ammunition was used) for their guns.
According to Sewell (1998), Russian T-72s are built of superior materials than the eight export models, and T-72A tanks in Chechnya were more survivable than the T-72M and T-72M1 tanks which were easily destroyed by modern US and UK tanks in Iraq.
Monkey-model aircraft were downgraded in a manner similar to that of tanks. The MiG-23 MS 'Flogger-E' , for example, was an export variant the original Mig 23 developed because the Mig 23 was considered too advanced to be exported to Third World countries. The 'Flogger-E' lacked the most advanced features of the original. Infra-red search and track and Beyond Visual Range missile capabilities were removed and its avionics suite was very basic. This variant was widely sold during the 1970s to Soviet allies in the Middle East.
"Monkey modell" is partially true, but contrary to you believe the practice of downgraded export equipment is not restricted to USSR export - all countries did similar things.
But in the Iraq T-72 case the loss cant be attributed to monkey models but rather to old models and equipment. The said 2A46 MG on Iraqi tanks are just as capable as 2A46 on russian tanks. The Iraqi BM-12 rounds are just as capable as russian BM-12 rounds - the only problem what russian stopped to use them 30 years ago.
Sorry for the comments I don't know much about tanks. I do know alot about planes though.
What makes it so good is the people who operate it. American tank crews get great training and probobly have more combat experience than any other country's tank crews. Also The U.S. has a very goo overall battlefield command/communication/integration system.
I meant good sorry
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats true US army has very nice training , but I was just talking about the tank not the crew.
Laser range finders were not in use on the initial T-64`s, they copied our coincidence range finder technology found on the M-60, T-64B model was the first to have a laser ranger finder.
Gun stabilization has been around since WW2 on American armor.
By the way - I like the upgrade package found on the Ukrainian T-64`s, I wonder if they will try to sell some of them.
If you wish so, lets compare the whole equipment package of 60x T-64 and M-60. Or mass produced 70x T-64 with mass-produced 70x M-60.
Ukraine trying to sell everything, the whole purpose of they defence industry is export contract. Another question if they successed - i think it is unlikely. Ukraine is appears to be unstable country what is heavely influenced by both Russia and USA (especeally USA). They packages useally lack self-sufficiency and most countries will not buy something from Ukraine when they can get they same thing from much more stable and independed Russia (or from West, if they have good relations).
There is nothing to compare - the T-64 was a better tank, M60 series really did not start to shine until the M60A3 came on to the scene, and even then it was only good for defensive scenarios, under a good debate it was most likely the most accurate tank in a night time defensive posture until the mid eighties.
Some interesting review of the famous Kotsch about T-90 FCS: http://www.kotsch88.de/f_t-90s.htm . (It's German but easy being translated to English by http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr )
.
the mobility of the T-90 is questionable though !!
while something like the v LECLERC has a power: weight ratio of 28hp/ton, the T-90 has an abysmal power: weight ratio of 21hp/ton
considering that it weighs only 46-tonnes, more was expected from the russians.
i mean even the Type-99 tanks of china has a power:weight ratio of 27hp/tonne.
.
the mobility of the T-90 is questionable though !!
while something like the v LECLERC has a power: weight ratio of 28hp/ton, the T-90 has an abysmal power: weight ratio of 21hp/ton
considering that it weighs only 46-tonnes, more was expected from the russians.
i mean even the Type-99 tanks of china has a power:weight ratio of 27hp/tonne.
.
For better mobility T-90 needs different transmission. With its old transmission T-80U with 1250 hp turbine only 5% more quick on the ground than T-90 with 1000 hp diesel. With new transmission and automatic gear the modernised T-90UM1 has 15-20% more avarage velocity on the open ground.
When compare engine with different hp power, one should remember, the number of hp is related to the 'ideal conditions' i.e working on the stand. In real work (inside the tank) the diesel losses 7-15% of its power for number of causes. For example 1200 hp 6TD-2 diesel on Al-Khalid losses about 13% of its nominal power, while V2-92 - only 7%. Also the torque back-up of the T-90S engine is extremally high (25%), that adds to fluently driving as well. The torque backup of an everage western tank diesel is up to 15% only.
So, you're partially right about power/weight ratio of T-90, but insulated rizing of diesel power is near useless in such situation. The new 1250 hp V2-99 diesel on T-72/T-90 was over all test however and is ready for serial production.
Last edited:
Engine HP have nothing to do with max speed. Simply as that. Absolutly NO relation whatsoever.
Interesting... There I was thinking that the power of the engine was what rotated it's drive shaft providing torque to the transmission which rotates the drive sprocket that turns the tracks... and the faster those tracks spin the faster the tank will move?
It would appear that it’s something else altogether? Please tell us what it is? And while you're at it the entire automotive industry would appreciate the update…
- Status