T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[FutureTank]

Now Greg - I always thought that the reason they changed the model designation to T-90 was due to bad survivabilty issues seen on the T-72 series during the Chechen conflicts and Iraqi war, it seems that Russia was concerned that a lot of countries were doubting the capability of the tank and orders were shrinking. I must add that it was unfair rap placed on the T-72, no tank during that time frame was going to survive that type of urban environment, the world found out the hard way that their multi million dollar iron chariots are not safe to the average ground pounder in certain environments.

No, there was nothing wrong with the T-72, or T-80 in Chechnya. Any tank would kill over if it had an RPG through the engine deck at 100m. The problem were crews, and overall operations of the formation they were with.
Same thing in Iraq. A tank unit is only a part of the whole even if it has the thick armour and big gun.

Cheers
Greg

 

[eckherl]

No, there was nothing wrong with the T-72, or T-80 in Chechnya. Any tank would kill over if it had an RPG through the engine deck at 100m. The problem were crews, and overall operations of the formation they were with.
Same thing in Iraq. A tank unit is only a part of the whole even if it has the thick armour and big gun.

Cheers
Greg

Agreed - but world perception on the losses did not even try to take this into account, the only thing they looked at were pictures of burning/burnt out tanks. It is truly amazing to me that we still have U.S officers and NCOs that base their evaluation of true Russian armor, not export models on the Iraqi and Chechen wars. They tend to get snapped back into reality when you explain things a little more in detail on lessons learned and how Russia tends to hold back a little on their MBT capabilities when exporting, the U.S does the very same thing.

 

[DavidDCM]

No, there was nothing wrong with the T-72, or T-80 in Chechnya. Any tank would kill over if it had an RPG through the engine deck at 100m. The problem were crews, and overall operations of the formation they were with.
Same thing in Iraq. A tank unit is only a part of the whole even if it has the thick armour and big gun.

Cheers
Greg

Exactly, that's the freakin' point that way too many people just ignore. A single system simply doesn't win a war.
Just imagine the tanks in 2003 iraq-war would be switched. The US Forces would have fielded the T-72, but these T-72's would be perfectly maintained, had brand new top-notch ammunition, and the crews had received the best training they could etc. The Iraqi forces on the other side would have fielded poorly maintained monkey-model Abrams, with old ineffective ammo and unprecise cheap guns, the crews had received hardly any serious training and were unmotivated and poorly led by their generals. Does any one really think that the Iraqis would have won the war or even a single battle, just because they'd have the Abrams, which so many people see as incredibly superior? Of course, the US T-72 tankers would have a harder task than they had in reality, but they would still munch the Iraqi Abrams, especially with the help of Apaches, Warthogs etc.

You simply cannot compare the quality of any single military equipment based on a war between on of the best militaries in the world and a poor third-world nation.

 

[FutureTank]

Agreed - but world perception on the losses did not even try to take this into account, the only thing they looked at were pictures of burning/burnt out tanks.

Come on. I have read of a US armour sergeant who started service during the Korean war and had an M-48 brand new from refit blown out from under him in Vietnam, and he had a good crew and did everything right. They got out of that with minor scraps.
I have read of Israeli tank crew that had very experienced crew, did everything right and still got taken out by an aviation bomb loosing the driver (who was driving with open hatch and was thrown out of the compartment and into a wall head first).
One Soviet tanker posted a story from Afghanistan after constant convoys for 8 months in his T-62 (loader), they got hit by satchel charges on the engine deck. They couldn't elevate that much, and the commander was picked off at the AA mount by a sniper (wounded), and only survived because the infantry behind them pulled him out and into a BTR, and they just moved out.

This is why I think that discussion of tank comparison without talking about the crews and the rest of the combat/organisational environment is not really adding to the understanding of armoured combat.

The T-90 is a good tank. The Abrams is a good tank. Put a professional crew in either one and they will give a good account of themselves. Assign them to a good professional combined arms team, and they will do great regardless of which army they are with. Case in point, one of the first two armoured units in Israeli service were crewed by veterans of the Eastern Front speaking Russian, using Shermans (only one had served in one during the war), and operating within a Hebrew/English speaking organisation in very different terrain. And yet they still did well.
Wasn't so easy for the Americans in the other battalion who had served in Shermans because they were not 'in Kansas' anymore if you know what I mean. And consider the British and French who served with Americans.

Cheers
Greg

 

[eckherl]

Come on. I have read of a US armour sergeant who started service during the Korean war and had an M-48 brand new from refit blown out from under him in Vietnam, and he had a good crew and did everything right. They got out of that with minor scraps.
I have read of Israeli tank crew that had very experienced crew, did everything right and still got taken out by an aviation bomb loosing the driver (who was driving with open hatch and was thrown out of the compartment and into a wall head first).
One Soviet tanker posted a story from Afghanistan after constant convoys for 8 months in his T-62 (loader), they got hit by satchel charges on the engine deck. They couldn't elevate that much, and the commander was picked off at the AA mount by a sniper (wounded), and only survived because the infantry behind them pulled him out and into a BTR, and they just moved out.

This is why I think that discussion of tank comparison without talking about the crews and the rest of the combat/organisational environment is not really adding to the understanding of armoured combat.

The T-90 is a good tank. The Abrams is a good tank. Put a professional crew in either one and they will give a good account of themselves. Assign them to a good professional combined arms team, and they will do great regardless of which army they are with. Case in point, one of the first two armoured units in Israeli service were crewed by veterans of the Eastern Front speaking Russian, using Shermans (only one had served in one during the war), and operating within a Hebrew/English speaking organisation in very different terrain. And yet they still did well.
Wasn't so easy for the Americans in the other battalion who had served in Shermans because they were not 'in Kansas' anymore if you know what I mean. And consider the British and French who served with Americans.

Cheers
Greg

When have I ever stated that the best tank and tank technology is the only deciding factor on the battlefield that wins wars, I was only stating one of the reasons why Russia changed the designation on the T-72.

 

[FutureTank]

When have I ever stated that the best tank and tank technology is the only deciding factor on the battlefield that wins wars, I was only stating one of the reasons why Russia changed the designation on the T-72.

It was a rhetorical 'come on'. I'm saying that many people are misinformed about a great many things because it makes them feel safe in their comfort zone. In this case the comfort zone is the belief that 'T-90 is just a rebadged T-72'.

Nothing personal.

Cheers
Greg

 

[Chrom]

BTW, the quote from Jane's article:

=======================================================

"Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."

==================================================

 

[Waylander]

Apart from the NVA equipment (Most modern tank was T-72M1 without any ERA) there were no tanks left in Germany after the Sovjets left.
On the T-72M1 we tested our DM33 and DM12 as well as 105mm. DM33 was much more than up to the task (excessive might be the right word...) and even DM12 penetrated most of the time over the frontal arc.
Every other test was done with stuff bought via several dark channels and is even less public available.

And the ERA protects against a GAU-8? From above?
I mean this weapon is not intended to go frontal against a MBT. It is going to strike from above and cut through the turret and engine compartment. And there is no ERA to protect against it.
The 30mm chaingun of the Apache was never considered a weapon with serious AT-capability.
I have no doubt that ERA was effective against early nineties ATGMs and ATWs without tandem warhead.

And now we are back to the old argument that Russia claims that Relikt is going to defeat every modern KE in NATO inventory and our companies claim that rounds like M829A3 and DM53 are not affected by modern ERA...

 

[eckherl]

Apart from the NVA equipment (Most modern tank was T-72M1 without any ERA) there were no tanks left in Germany after the Sovjets left.
On the T-72M1 we tested our DM33 and DM12 as well as 105mm. DM33 was much more than up to the task (excessive might be the right word...) and even DM12 penetrated most of the time over the frontal arc.
Every other test was done with stuff bought via several dark channels and is even less public available.

And the ERA protects against a GAU-8? From above?
I mean this weapon is not intended to go frontal against a MBT. It is going to strike from above and cut through the turret and engine compartment. And there is no ERA to protect against it.
The 30mm chaingun of the Apache was never considered a weapon with serious AT-capability.
I have no doubt that ERA was effective against early nineties ATGMs and ATWs without tandem warhead.

And now we are back to the old argument that Russia claims that Relikt is going to defeat every modern KE in NATO inventory and our companies claim that rounds like M829A3 and DM53 are not affected by modern ERA...

I can already confirm many loop holes in this article, and as you know the real test results would not be 100% given. It looks like the U.S and maybe some NATO Alliance countries may be looking for some additional funding.

 

[Chrom]

Apart from the NVA equipment (Most modern tank was T-72M1 without any ERA) there were no tanks left in Germany after the Sovjets left.
On the T-72M1 we tested our DM33 and DM12 as well as 105mm. DM33 was much more than up to the task (excessive might be the right word...) and even DM12 penetrated most of the time over the frontal arc.
Every other test was done with stuff bought via several dark channels and is even less public available.

And the ERA protects against a GAU-8? From above?
I mean this weapon is not intended to go frontal against a MBT. It is going to strike from above and cut through the turret and engine compartment. And there is no ERA to protect against it.
The 30mm chaingun of the Apache was never considered a weapon with serious AT-capability.
I have no doubt that ERA was effective against early nineties ATGMs and ATWs without tandem warhead.

And now we are back to the old argument that Russia claims that Relikt is going to defeat every modern KE in NATO inventory and our companies claim that rounds like M829A3 and DM53 are not affected by modern ERA...

According to that article at least in later 80 and mid 90x russians were right in they claims... Now, of course, ATGM's and APFSDS got slight upgrade - but russian ERA got another generation. K-5 already was designed to defeat tandem HEAT warheads - and Relict is even more so.

As for 30mm... well, ofc they didnt tested it against roof. But what you can say about other facts?

T-72B1 with ERA would be absolutely no problem to aquire for NATO - all ex-USSR republic have them, and many of them are strongly pro-western (ex. Georgia, Ukraina, Baltic states, etc).

 

[ROCK45]

Other factor

The other big factor is training. Can somebody give a breakdown on what training and schools an average tanker in the US goes through compared to a Russian tanker? I think just like air combat training is everything and the level of training. I think a good tank crew could operate in a T-90 or Abrams and be efficient if trained correctly. I watch part of a show about how American tankers train and the different task they must past before advancing. I don't think a lot of other countries have the funding for that. Wish I could have seen the whole show but I didn't. If your in a Iraqi T-72 or a Russian T-72, you'll be just as dead because you would have been hit first. And it's not just because the FCS picked up the target sooner it does help but because the crew knows what to do period. To me it's more of the training that gets that round round down range and on target then the machine itself. I think Russian equipment gets a bad rep in some cases and in other cases it performs good enough to do the job or task, its there training which isn't on the same level. I read these type of threads and always see in the hands of a Russian or a real Russian model not the scale down version that the situation would be different. I have to say I don't agree with that as much anymore because for 20/30 years it's been the Russians training the other countries that use there weapons. From what I read from you guys that are real you train like you fight, right? I rest my case it's what you put into your training that makes a better tankers or fighter pilot, or whatever. I'm saying this in a neutral tone I'm not trying to fight with anybody.

 

[eckherl]

The other big factor is training. Can somebody give a breakdown on what training and schools an average tanker in the US goes through compared to a Russian tanker? I think just like air combat training is everything and the level of training. I think a good tank crew could operate in a T-90 or Abrams and be efficient if trained correctly. I watch part of a show about how American tankers train and the different task they must past before advancing. I don't think a lot of other countries have the funding for that. Wish I could have seen the whole show but I didn't. If your in a Iraqi T-72 or a Russian T-72, you'll be just as dead because you would have been hit first. And it's not just because the FCS picked up the target sooner it does help but because the crew knows what to do period. To me it's more of the training that gets that round round down range and on target then the machine itself. I think Russian equipment gets a bad rep in some cases and in other cases it performs good enough to do the job or task, its there training which isn't on the same level. I read these type of threads and always see in the hands of a Russian or a real Russian model not the scale down version that the situation would be different. I have to say I don't agree with that as much anymore because for 20/30 years it's been the Russians training the other countries that use there weapons. From what I read from you guys that are real you train like you fight, right? I rest me case it's what you put into your training that makes a better tankers or fighter pilot, or whatever. I'm saying this in a neutral tone I'm not trying to fight with anybody.

Hmm - lets break it down U.S style.

Basic training and AIT combined for a 19k10 skill identifier.
PLDC - Primary leadership development course. Required for promotion
BNOC- Basis non commission officers course. Required for promotion
ANOC - Advanced non commission officers courcse. Have to be selected
Master Gunners School - Have to be selected
NBC warfare school - Have to be selected
Airborne school - you need to volunteer


Lets breakdown annual tank crew proficiency training

SQT test - Skills qualification test (written)
Common skills testing - hands on basic soldiering
UCOFT - tank simulator for TC and gunner
Table eight gunnery qualification as a crew. Busting big caps
Table 12 gunnery qualification as a platoon. Busting big caps as a platoon
CALFEX gunnery. Busting big caps as a company or battalion
M9 baretta qualification
NBC mask qualification
PT test
Could possibly be more, depends on what units that you are in.

Average U.S Armor Crewman shoots at least 300 training tanks rounds annually, Russians do not even come close to this, this even includes their more stellar Guards tank units based in around Moscow who have to train with T-80 BVs because their T-80Us are used up.

 

[mic of orion]

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.

totally agree, but I won't enter this discussion, often leads to even more arguments, I have bigger, NO, I have bigger, NO NO, I have bigger and I can prove it, and this can go on and on.

 

[Chrom]

Hmm - lets break it down U.S style.

Basic training and AIT combined for a 19k10 skill identifier.
PLDC - Primary leadership development course. Required for promotion
BNOC- Basis non commission officers course. Required for promotion
ANOC - Advanced non commission officers courcse. Have to be selected
Master Gunners School - Have to be selected
NBC warfare school - Have to be selected
Airborne school - you need to volunteer


Lets breakdown annual tank crew proficiency training

SQT test - Skills qualification test (written)
Common skills testing - hands on basic soldiering
UCOFT - tank simulator for TC and gunner
Table eight gunnery qualification as a crew. Busting big caps
Table 12 gunnery qualification as a platoon. Busting big caps as a platoon
CALFEX gunnery. Busting big caps as a company or battalion
M9 baretta qualification
NBC mask qualification
PT test
Could possibly be more, depends on what units that you are in.

Average U.S Armor Crewman shoots at least 300 training tanks rounds annually, Russians do not even come close to this, this even includes their more stellar Guards tank units based in around Moscow who have to train with T-80 BVs because their T-80Us are used up.

Now - yes. But back in the USSR time, when there were no fund shortage, the tankers training was very comparable.

 

[eckherl]

totally agree, but I won't enter this discussion, often leads to even more arguments, I have bigger, NO, I have bigger, NO NO, I have bigger and I can prove it, and this can go on and on.

But I gave the wrong barrel credit for no of combat rounds, and darn it, the Indian army has decided to build Arjun mbts, but they are then they are not, oops now they are, I tell ya its enough to drive you batty on what they want to do. :unknown

 

[eckherl]

Now - yes. But back in the USSR time, when there were no fund shortage, the tankers training was very comparable.

Really - was this the case with all Soviet tank units serving in tank guards and motorized rifle regiments. What type of specific training did they conduct on a annual basis.

 

[Chrom]

Really - was this the case with all Soviet tank units serving in tank guards and motorized rifle regiments. What type of specific training did they conduct on a annual basis.

Not all units recived equal training of course. A lot was depended from particular commander. But this is also the case with any other army.

For example tank units stationed in DDR conducted firing practice usually 1-2 times a week with practice rounds, tank crew usually fired 3-5 rounds each time. Each crew participated in "big" firing training with real rounds at least 2 times a year.

Of course, there were also "theoretical" classes every day.

The exact exercises composition (and theoretical classes studies) should be asked from someone who really served in that time in DDR.

 

[ROCK45]

Russian armor question

Hi Chrom
Do Russian units along China's border train more? Can I assume that units deployed near China are some of Russia's best? Thanks

 

[Chrom]

Hi Chrom
Do Russian units along China's border train more? Can I assume that units deployed near China are some of Russia's best? Thanks

Partially. Basically, in USSR time, most training, equipment, etc. recived units stationed in western part of WarPac - i.e. basically west of Moscow. However, units stationed near ANY border recived more training and equipment - just becouse commanders there had real "opponnent" in sight and could (partially) participate in border guard duty. But in such distant places training was even more depended from particular commander. Two equal (on paper) units could in reality have very different training just becouse of different commanders.

I think now it is the same situation, even more amplified. Plus, right now army (and airforce) certainly dont have enouth fuel for full training . Also add corruption and thieving within army. The situation get better every year, but still it is much worse than in USSR time.

 

[eckherl]

Not all units recived equal training of course. A lot was depended from particular commander. But this is also the case with any other army.

For example tank units stationed in DDR conducted firing practice usually 1-2 times a week with practice rounds, tank crew usually fired 3-5 rounds each time. Each crew participated in "big" firing training with real rounds at least 2 times a year.

Of course, there were also "theoretical" classes every day.

The exact exercises composition (and theoretical classes studies) should be asked from someone who really served in that time in DDR.

Yes Soviet forces in the former DDR trained more on a frequent basis over actual units in Russia, but are you sure that they practiced gunnery two times a week with live ammunition.