T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[Waylander]

Another problem was that NATO's only chance would have been a flexible defense. We trained for it but there is just not enough territory which could have been sacrifized.

And if the war would have been started without mobilization on both sides I would not have given a penny for NATO, especially on weekends.
The overall peacetime readiness was higher in the east.

The problem of many countrys who use Ts these days is that they are not able to use them like the sovjets/russians doctrine says it.
There are few countrys who are able to field them together with the necessary artillery, AA, infantry, air and intelligence support.
And none of these countries has the same abilities like the sovjets had.

 

[JBodnar39]

So it doesn't make sense to compare capability of Soviet tank to Western Tanks without taking in to account the doctrine they were designed for. In addition Soviets were ready to take more casualities and prepared for it.



Well said

 

[kams]

The problem of many countrys who use Ts these days is that they are not able to use them like the sovjets/russians doctrine says it.
There are few countrys who are able to field them together with the necessary artillery, AA, infantry, air and intelligence support.
And none of these countries has the same abilities like the sovjets had.

While I agree that none of the countries using Ts have the soviet capability (Arty, AA and air), they are not facing NATO either. I don't think many of them are planning to fight mighty US war machine(lets forget about Saddam for a moment here ) . The Ts they have may be suited for the their conflict scenarios and they have developed the tactics accordingly. I don't think no one will ever have the Arty, AA and Air support Soviet had.

As I understand it takes lot of time, effort and resources to develop effective Tank warfare tactics to achieve good coordination with with Infantry, Engineer, artillary units. For a country who are used to lighter Ts, its not an easy task to switch to Western tanks. India's Arjun is one such case. Arjun is drastically diferent from Ts in firepower, Mobility, technology. Apart from the technical glitches, Arjuns technolgy would mean that IA having to adopt drastically different tactics, meaning whole lot of retraining, development of doctrine etc. and the what Arjun is offering in return (Firepower, Armour protection, Technology) may not be required by IA in the conflict scenario of the region (Pakistan, China to a lesser extent). Hence Arjun is as good as dead, however good technically advanced it might be.

I am not a Defence professional, what I am writing is based on the discussion I have had with various (ex)service men and professionals like yourself. There are huge gaps in my knowldge, but that helps me to maintain an open mind and absorb the wisdom you guys share so generously. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

North Korea has a huge amount of artillery, AA, and armor even though it is based on the technology of the 1960`s and they use soviet style tactics, What is alarming is the growth of China`s military with the technology to boot, with in 5 to 6 years they will pretty much have a reach out and touch you anywhere in the world type military. Air/Land/Sea.

 

[Chrom]

The Ts they have may be suited for the their conflict scenarios and they have developed the tactics accordingly. I don't think no one will ever have the Arty, AA and Air support Soviet had.

.

I dont think it would make any difference for these countries if they had T-90 or M1A2 or Leo-2. All these tanks cant fight NATO alone. For example, do you think it would turn any different for Iraq if they had M60 instead of T-72? Do you think it would turn any different for Yougoslavia if they had 10 F-16A instead of 10 Mig-29? All modernt tanks are quite comparable in capabilites, and particulary M1A2 and T-90 match quite well each other, both having some advantages against adversary but without any major weakness.

 

[kams]

I dont think it would make any difference for these countries if they had T-90 or M1A2 or Leo-2. All these tanks cant fight NATO alone. For example, do you think it would turn any different for Iraq if they had M60 instead of T-72? Do you think it would turn any different for Yougoslavia if they had 10 F-16A instead of 10 Mig-29? All modernt tanks are quite comparable in capabilites, and particulary M1A2 and T-90 match quite well each other, both having some advantages against adversary but without any major weakness.

What I wrote was,

While I agree that none of the countries using Ts have the soviet capability (Arty, AA and air), they are not facing NATO either. I don't think many of them are planning to fight mighty US war machine(lets forget about Saddam for a moment here ) . The Ts they have may be suited for the their conflict scenarios and they have developed the tactics accordingly. I don't think no one will ever have the Arty, AA and Air support Soviet had.

Neither Saddam nor the Serbs planned to fight US/NATO nor they have the capability. Their forces were configured to fight other threats and the equipment they had suited those scenarios.

T90's and M1A2 have comparable capabilities? In what way?

 

[Chrom]

. Arjun is drastically diferent from Ts in firepower, Mobility, technology. Apart from the technical glitches, Arjuns technolgy would mean that IA having to adopt drastically different tactics, meaning whole lot of retraining, development of doctrine etc. and the what Arjun is offering in return (Firepower, Armour protection, Technology) may not be required by IA in the conflict scenario of the region (Pakistan, China to a lesser extent). Hence Arjun is as good as dead, however good technically advanced it might be.
.

I dont see how Arjun is so drastically different from T-90 or Leo-2 or Abrams for that matter. I just dont see it. Firepower? I dont think Arjun's 120mm APFDS is any better than T-90's 125 mm. And HE round is for sure worse on 120mm. FCS? I also dont see how its so much better on Arjun. Protection? T-90 protection is believed to be at least as good as M1A2, with ERA it might be even better than that - and i dont see how Arjun with its 4-man grew could get better protection. After-penetration casualties? Yes, Arjun might be slightly better here, but on the example of Merkava we can see what if warhead penetrats to crew compartment then there are a lot of casualities. Mobility? Well, T-90 have faster cross-road speed, so it is at least as mobile in battle as Arjun. It also have lower siluette, which is still very important especeally in the days when RPG's and ATGM's are so common. T-90 also have much better tactical and strategical mobility being much lighter. But all that aside, these tank are not much different and could be (and would be) employed in the exactly same way. The only difference in technology with T-90 is what some of T-90 components are produced in Russia and most of Arjun's components are produced in Germany/France/Israel. Thats all.

 

[Chrom]

T90's and M1A2 have comparable capabilities? In what way?

In just every way. Firepower, protection, mobility, FCS. In all these areas they are at least comparable. T-90 even looks somewhat better as it have some distinct capabilites what is not found on Abrahms - e.g. ERA, ATGM's, AirNet rounds, Shtora and even Arena if needed. Of course, Abrams got its share of advantages - better ammo protection is most important of them.

 

[kams]

Well, if you consider Ts and Western tanks are similar, there is nothing more to discuss . May be experts like Waylander can help.

 

[kams]

The question was not whether Arjuns Armour, Gun, electronic Gizmos are superior/inferior to T90, but is the advantages it offered usefull to Indian Army, given the conflict scenario it faced. Another issue is Advantages vs Penalities of Arjun wrt to tactics of Indian army. In Indian Army's view, the penalties far outweigh the advantages given the conflict scenario and Tactics.

 

[Chrom]

Well, if you consider Ts and Western tanks are similar, there is nothing more to discuss . May be experts like Waylander can help.

They are similar. The difference between them is so small what almost in every case they can substitute each other without any problem.
I mean, is there any practical difference if ammo is loaded by human or by autoloader if they provide nearly some ROF? Is there any difference if armor impenetration is provided by sophisticated uranium bricks or ERA tiles? Practicaly, if they do some function equally well, there is no difference.

 

[Chrom]

The question was not whether Arjuns Armour, Gun, electronic Gizmos are superior/inferior to T90, but is the advantages it offered usefull to Indian Army, given the conflict scenario it faced. Another issue is Advantages vs Penalities of Arjun wrt to tactics of Indian army. In Indian Army's view, the penalties far outweigh the advantages given the conflict scenario and Tactics.

I fear what from Indian army POV Arjun have exactly 2 major penalties: Cost of aquiring and cost of maintainance. All other issues are very minor, and i'm sure if Arjun price would be half the current price then IA would have no problem with its weight, reliability( which itself is function of maintainance cost) , etc. There are no special tactic for Arjun in IA, as you hardly can imagine something what could be done by Arjun and couldn't by T-90, and vice versa.

 

[powerslavenegi]

'Quantity has a Qulaity of it's own' .Well for a moment lets give in to the fact that M1a2,Chally2 and Leo2a6 are far better protected than a T-90 or Arjun as a matter of fact.But when they would be outnumbered by at least a factor of 1.5 or more T's to each Abrams/Chally I guess one would see T's would defenitely would have an edge(and by the way a Chally/Leo2a6 costs more than two T-90's put together).

 

[powerslavenegi]

I fear what from Indian army POV Arjun have exactly 2 major penalties: Cost of aquiring and cost of maintainance. All other issues are very minor, and i'm sure if Arjun price would be half the current price then IA would have no problem with its weight, reliability( which itself is function of maintainance cost) , etc. There are no special tactic for Arjun in IA, as you hardly can imagine something what could be done by Arjun and couldn't by T-90, and vice versa.

Well Arjun in fact should have been far more cheaper than T-90 only if it was mass produced ,it's present cost price is a bit misleading since it includes all the money and time lost in hiccups and R&D cost(very similar to the JSF programme and mind you it's a project being pursued by all the veterans in the game).In India's case some how Army werent happy or confident of it (Primarily because it's design and make was more of a European app to tank making,while IA was more used to fast and light tanks of Soviet era).The problem was compounded by the fact that neighbour acquired T-80ud and Al-Khalid which were lighter but agile and hence capable of mounting fast attacks.And as always as a knee jerk reaction to the adversaries procurements T-90's were ordered(which both nations have indulged into in the past).I think both Armies believe that there aint any harm in compromising on a bit of armour for extra bit of agility and low selhoute for such a trade-off might reduce the probability of getting hit(primarily because they have apprehensions about their armour's effectiveness vis a vis Chobam or that on Leo2a6).

 

[Chrom]

Well Arjun in fact should have been far more cheaper than T-90 only if it was mass produced ,it's present cost price is a bit misleading since it includes all the money and time lost in hiccups and R&D cost(very similar to the JSF programme and mind you it's a project being pursued by all the veterans in the game).I).

The Arjun price DOES NOT include R&D price. Its go-away cost for entire batch of 124 tanks. And i pretty much doubt what Arjun will be any cheaper if produced in thousand instead of hundreds - after all, most of equipment is imported from France/Israel/Germany at hard price. The Arjun engine alone is half as expencive as entire T-90 with all gizmoz. And its rifled gun... Omg! What a nightmare from maintainance point of view! There is a good reason why ALL major nation stopped using rifled tank guns long ago, and even British about to retire it.

 

[powerslavenegi]

The Arjun price DOES NOT include R&D price. Its go-away cost for entire batch of 124 tanks. And i pretty much doubt what Arjun will be any cheaper if produced in thousand instead of hundreds - after all, most of equipment is imported from France/Israel/Germany at hard price. The Arjun engine alone is half as expencive as entire T-90 with all gizmoz. And its rifled gun... Omg! What a nightmare from maintainance point of view! There is a good reason why ALL major nation stopped using rifled tank guns long ago, and even British about to retire it.

Perhaps you misssed out on the fact that T-90 being sold to India is heavily customised like the uprated 1000 Hp engine (as against 840 Hp on T-90s export ver),similarly it has a specially welded turret instead of a cast turret on the original T-90.Apart from this it is supposed to feature a lot of sub systems from Israeli and french origin(these fitments and their cost is not the part of the deal).Engine yes and that is why India is already working on a domestic 1500Hp engine (for Germans hiked the price of MTU 838,this apart from the overheating probs it was facing in Indian desert conditions).At the end of the day If Arjun turns out to be 1.5 or so times as costly as T-90 it will still be worth it considering the fact that it is about 15 tonnes heavier and well protected too.As for the Rifled gun well it is something which has stuck up since it's design phase ,moreoever it's not maintanance cost that tilted the advantage in favour of SM's it was the advent of APFSDS that negated the advantages of rifled gun.Anyways still the longest range hit is scored by Rifled gun of the British Challenger at a range of 4kms.(Between in a war how many rounds would a tank get to fire ? 10-20-100 I think rifled guns can fire at least 300-400 rounds before being replaced and I guess that is good enough).

 

[Waylander]

You can not take one 4-5km shot as an example for greater accuracy at long ranges.

 

[Chrom]

Perhaps you misssed out on the fact that T-90 being sold to India is heavily customised like the uprated 1000 Hp engine (as against 840 Hp on T-90s export ver),similarly it has a specially welded turret instead of a cast turret on the original T-90.Apart from this it is supposed to feature a lot of sub systems from Israeli and french origin(these fitments and their cost is not the part of the deal).Engine yes and that is why India is already working on a domestic 1500Hp engine (for Germans hiked the price of MTU 838,this apart from the overheating probs it was facing in Indian desert conditions).At the end of the day If Arjun turns out to be 1.5 or so times as costly as T-90 it will still be worth it considering the fact that it is about 15 tonnes heavier and well protected too.

So it will be 15 tonnes heavier, which obviosly is NOT advantage, and cost 1.5 times more? Cant say it will help to convince IA prefer Arjun to T-90... Also , IA need tanks NOW, and not when (and may be) new *cheap* indian engine will be available.
As much as i know there is only thermal camera on T-90 what is not russian. Either way, even if i'm mistaken, then obviously all other non-russian componets are included in the price just as these thermal cameras are,

As for the Rifled gun well it is something which has stuck up since it's design phase ,moreoever it's not maintanance cost that tilted the advantage in favour of SM's it was the advent of APFSDS that negated the advantages of rifled gun.Anyways still the longest range hit is scored by Rifled gun of the British Challenger at a range of 4kms.(Between in a war how many rounds would a tank get to fire ? 10-20-100 I think rifled guns can fire at least 300-400 rounds before being replaced and I guess that is good enough).

I think any modern tank have fair chance to hit stationary target from 4km. Even basic T-72 ballistic computer and LRF give firing solution up to 4000m. For something like T-80 i would expect the probabilty to hit tank from 4km is at least 15-20%. One thing we know for sure: smoothbore guns fire APFSDS rounds more precise than rifled guns. Also i wouldnt bet on 300 APFSDS rounds for rifled guns, as even best smoothbore guns like Rheinmetal can fire in the order of 250 APFSDS shots before replaced - and rifled guns for sure wears with each APFSDS rounds fired much more than smoothbored guns. So i rather expect it to be in the order of 120-150 APFDS rounds fired at most before replaced. This might not be that bad in war times, but raise maintainance cost in peace times and somewhat limits the future upgrade option due to limiting muzzle velocity speed.

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

The Indian military has officially killed off the ARJUN tank project, There is no way that a T-90 is similar to a M1A2, Leopard 2A6 or a Challenger 2 I do not care how many neat little toys that you decide to place on one, ie: shiorta protection system, it is suspect that if this garbage does even work and even if it did after one drive thru inside a artillery barrage it`ll get blown off the vechicle along with every thing else. The T-90 is a good tank as far as mobility, firepower and shock effect when used with all aspects of the battlefield (Airland battle doctrine), with the Russians it was a matter of quanity versus quality, they new that they would go belly up producing tanks as good as NATO and could accept losing 5 or 6 tanks to every NATO tank destroyed, even the 125mm gun tubes are only designed to fire 200 to 300 rounds before having to replace them, they did not put to much emphasis on barrel wear because they figured that it wasn`t going to last long on the battlefield anyways.
The German M256 120 mm barrel is good for around 1200 rounds of combat ammunition. The Indian Army right now is very disallusioned with the T-90 because of the neat little toys that Russia is placing on these tanks, reason being they do not work properly, heres a example: the TTS night sight will not function properly when the temperature is extremely high because the air conditioning unit for the sight is way to small, they cannot place a bigger unit inside the turret because there is no room for it, because of the size of the vehicle this is the main reason that they are bristling with all these neat toys on the outside of the turret. An average ground pounder with a sizeable crew serve weapon is going to a have a field day shooting at this. You can rest assured that if Germany, England or America found any value with this stuff our vehicles would look real cool also.

 

[Chrom]

with the Russians it was a matter of quanity versus quality, they new that they would go belly up producing tanks as good as NATO and could accept losing 5 or 6 tanks to every NATO tank destroyed, even the 125mm gun tubes are only designed to fire 200 to 300 rounds before having to replace them, they did not put to much emphasis on barrel wear because they figured that it wasn`t going to last long on the battlefield anyways.
.

This is completely [Admin: txt deleted]. Show me ANY soviet document where its written what its somehow "acceptable" to exchange 6 soviet tanks for 1 NATO? You must be completely biased to even suggest what soviet generals would accept any tank what its so much worse. Moreover, we can safely conclude what in they height of SU (60x-70x-80x)soviet tanks were at least as good as NATO, and in many cases better in just every category - i.e. firepower, mobility, FCS, nightvision. Again - western propaganda [Admin: txt deleted], just as mythycal "east human wave hordes". As for 1200 rounds for german gun... thats true in some sence, but you are mistaken "general statistical round" for a very natural APFSDS round. IF you dont know, every round type have "wear coefficient" which shows how much barrels wear after that round shot. Most APFSFS rounds have wear coefficient near 4, most low-velocity HE and HEAT rounds near 1. Thats basicaly mean what a gun what is advertised as "1200 shots" gun can indeed do 1200 shots, but only with HEAT rounds. With APFSDS it will do only 1200/4 = 300 at most before replaced. In 80x produced 125mm russian tank guns have gun endurance for about 1000 rounds, which also meant they can fire only about 250 APSFDS rounds. Newer russian guns have somewhat better endurance, but newer rounds due to higher muzzle velocity also wears guns somewhat more.