T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You really think that they concealed the los of thousands of Abrams?
That would be in the same league like the losses of Humvees.

A little bit hard to believe. Especially in the time of digital cameras were you find thousands of photos of destroyed vehicles in Iraq but only a minor part of them are Abrams.
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I would not rate the normal rate of wear and tear for such operations as battle damage.
For sure they are losses forcing the US to use its resources for replacing them with new ones from the stocks and the wear and tear of equipment in Iraq and to a lesser extend in Afghanistan is a serious source of trouble not only for the US.
But it is normal and not an indicator for the Abrams being a less capable AFV.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Waylander said:
I would not rate the normal rate of wear and tear for such operations as battle damage.
For sure they are losses forcing the US to use its resources for replacing them with new ones from the stocks and the wear and tear of equipment in Iraq and to a lesser extend in Afghanistan is a serious source of trouble not only for the US.
But it is normal and not an indicator for the Abrams being a less capable AFV.
Click to expand...
Doh! I meant to say that it would not be right to consider wear and tear as a battle loss. Of course tanks that have rumbled around in Iraq for two years would be the ones furthest away from operational status in the inventory, and also that the average availability of the entire stock goes down...
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
extern said:
Hmm... interesting find. It means the greatest reduce in number was between 2003 and 2005 , while the decision for Anrams' reduce was made only in 2005. Does somebody tries to cover the Iraq losses by such 'retroactive reduce'? So they wrote in 2005 without numbered elaboration: "Due to the high use in theater (Iraq), these operations may accelerate the aging process of the tank fleet". Anyway thanks for the good info, Grand Danois!
Click to expand...
The reason for the reduction is that we are looking at going with combat vehicles more suited for a urbanized settings, we have only lost a handful of
M1 series tanks that had to make it to the scrap yard, and it is actually lower than the thirty (actually alot more than this) that you state Russia lost in their debacles, so the reason why Russia is trying to make the ultimate infantry support combat vehicles specializing in urbanized settings.
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
kızılsungur said:
Chinese T-90s are more powerful. They have anti-lazer system. I mean lazer agitator. :vamp
Click to expand...
Are you referring to Chinese Type 98/99, having a anti laser device doesn`t make it more powerful when you have the technology to defeat it. They suckered the Iraqi military into purchasing some for their tanks, (Dazzlers), they did not work.;)
 
L

layer3

New Member
eckherl said:
Are you referring to Chinese Type 98/99, having a anti laser device doesn`t make it more powerful when you have the technology to defeat it. They suckered the Iraqi military into purchasing some for their tanks, (Dazzlers), they did not work.;)
Click to expand...

I think Laser System is an option which can be fitted on any tank. The strength of a Tank is it mobility, Engine thrust, weight ratio and fire power.
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
layer3 said:
I think Laser System is an option which can be fitted on any tank. The strength of a Tank is it mobility, Engine thrust, weight ratio and fire power.
Click to expand...
Really?

Wow - thanks for clearing that up with me, I never realized that after fighting and working on them.;)
 
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Ha Ha guys

I was quite stunned though in the mid eighties when I went on my first tour of South Korea, we were still using the M48A5 up until 6 months into my tour then we switched to M60A3, I thought that I was caught up in a time warp.
 
Last edited:
E

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It looks like Thales lands systems from France has signed a big contract with Russia to place thermal gunner sights into the T-90 MBT. They could even possibly set up a production line located inside of Russia.:)
 
M

mic of orion

New Member
guys type T90 in youtube, you might find some nice vids of interior shots of T90, just to tell you, it is quite disappointing tank.

Optics are totally rubbish, and poor quality, I'd be really scared using t90 against any modern western tank. M1A2, Challenger 2 or Leo 2A6. T90 is not even comparable to some ungraded T72's I've seen, Czech latest version, Polish PT91 Tvrdy, Croatian M84D even T72 Moderna (Slovak) are in my opinion better at least when it comes to optics than T-90.

my 2 cents..
 
X

XaNDeR

New Member
The best tank will most certainly be T-95 if it ever comes to production.
It also depends how far is the US prepared to go with the M1A3
 
W

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I don't think we should start speculating about T-95 yet. There are not very many infos about it.

There are some speculations about the M1A3 too. And it is defenitely needed.
Give the Abrams fleet a new smaller diesel powerpack, a lightweight 120mm L/55 gun, new optics, an upgraded FCS, an autoloader (Without going from 4 to 3 crewmen), one or two RWS, active and passive protection systems and network it. With these upgrades you are going to enhance its capabilities in a big way without the need for a totally new vehicle and without hoping for any big technological breakthroughs.

FCS is in my eyes not dead but we are for sure not getting to see them as soon as expected and I am sceptical if they will be able to reach their targets. How much of the revolutionary tech needed for FCS program is ready yet? Was it under 10%...?

Just have a look at NLOS-C. What advantage does it offers compared to modern SPHs around the world despite strategical mobility? Nothing. It is in fact inferior to them.
I like some of the ideas of the FCS family. Highly networked, integrated UAV capability, common parts (Easier logistics/maintenance), advanced active and passive protection systems, etc.
But I don't see them staying with the weight restrictions IF they want to get highly protected and mobile vehicles without compromising firepower.
They already skipped the C-130 requirement...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top