T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour
- Status
Yes, I agree, any sensor/networking capability of the T 95 can be fitted with the BE, but that's not where my opinion differs in respect to the BE. Based from speculation, it would seem that the T 95 crew may depend on sensors more than the BE because they wont have the traditional turret?
What is the actual weight of Black Eagle in production form, no one really knows.
I think design wise, it has been stated that the BE will be a heavier than current Russian tanks, in the 50+ ton category. When you see the enlargement hull with 7 wheels, more thicker basic armour, larger gun, it does show that the tank is heavier from a russian perspective.Nevermind the weight of the T-95...
We're comparing X to Y without knowing clearly what either one is.
Don`t tell the Russians that it is a upgraded T-72B, they most likely will not agree with you.
Welcome, but please be nice.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Even Russian Wikipedia says so, although as T-72BU
But does it matter? Its not the tools one has, its what one does with them that counts, right eckherl?
In any case, I have an idea for automatic fire extinguishing in the fighting compartment without use of Holon or the like systems, and just wanted to see if you are still around to bounce it off you.
Cheers
Oh my a ghost from the past, welcome back FutureTank.Even Russian Wikipedia says so, although as T-72BU
Its not the tools one has, its what one does with them that counts, right eckherl?
In any case, I have an idea for automatic fire extinguishing in the fighting compartment without use of Holon or the like systems, and just wanted to see if you are still around to bounce it off you.
Cheers
Not according to a few Russians that I have talked to, to them T-90 is such a improvement in potential future armored skirmishes that it is not even worthy to mention anything about a T-72.
PM me on the fire suppression system and please start making it a habit of dropping in us from time to time.
What is left on it to deem that it should still be called a upgraded T-72, the hull.
The turret bears a small resemblance if you take off the ERA.What is left on it to deem that it should still be called a upgraded T-72, the hull.
The T90 turret is much thicker and more hexagonal if you ask me but there is a resemblance.
This maybe in the wrong topic but here :
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/T72/T72M1M/t72m1m8.jpg
A modernized T-72M1. Are those ERA bricks sloped the wrong way up or are those the ARENA-E Countermeasure launchers?
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/T72/T72M1M/t72m1m8.jpg
A modernized T-72M1. Are those ERA bricks sloped the wrong way up or are those the ARENA-E Countermeasure launchers?
FutureTank
Banned Member
Well, yes, the hull. The hull is fairly important you know.What is left on it to deem that it should still be called a upgraded T-72, the hull.
However, you are likely both right. This is why the M-60 remained a Patton just like the M-48 although they were very different tanks. Maybe the US Army just didn't like calling the next Patton upgrade M-48A8E10 of something
There is no shame in calling it a T-72 upgrade. I think they have it to the T-80 performance almost by now, so it is a very good tank for what it was designed for. It should not be compared to the M-1.
To understand that, just read the last two chapters of Tank Tactics by Jarymowycz.
Cheers
I can't say anything to your question, but by looking at it I'm almost sure it's a T-72B and not a T-72M1
lancejackCF
New Member
one thing, the main problem with the t-72(besides cheap armour) is the gun elevation, they sacrificed gun range for low silhouette(hence cheap armour) anyways the gun isnt that bad, enough to mess up an abrams have they given it atleast comparable range now
Marsh Again
New Member
Hi,
By using a low silhouette the T-72 has not sacrificed range for its gun. You are talking about a flat trajectory weapon, the effective range of which is governed by many factors including ammunition, propellent, sophisitication of the FCS, availability of thermals, hunter-killer system for commnder and gunner, etc, etc, not elevation. What the T-72 lost out on was the ability to depress its gun to the same extent as Western tanks. It is easier to fire from behind berms etc if you have a higher silhouette. You don't have to expose as much of the MBT to track and engage a target.
I would hardly rate Soviet or Russian armour as cheap. Some of their laminates and composites were as good as any produced by the West. In recent years you can argue that the West has the lead in some composite materials, but the Russians compensated for this by the use of integral ERA on their more recent MBTs and in the case of theT-72 add-on ERA effective against both HEAT and KE rounds.
The T-72 is not as effective a fighting machine as the Abrams, for a number of reasons. However you are deluding yourself if you believe a T-72 can not penetrate an Abrams to its flanks and rear. Given an appropriate range and the availibility of suitable ammunition, it should be possible to penetrate the Abrams turret armour and glacis as well. Do please remember that the T-72 is also capable of firing ATGM rounds from its gun which also improves its lethality.
cheers
Marsh
Last edited:
The greatest flaw in the T-64 to T-90 (the T-64 and T-72 families including the T-80, T-84 and T-90 and other tanks) IMHO that doesn't appear to have been mentioned here (or at least not in the last few pages) is target acquistion. These ex Soviet tanks still being manufactured in Russia and the Ukraine lack a thermal imaging system and the integrated battle management system (for target geolocation and sharing) that are common in non-Soviet tanks (M1, Leopard 2, Challenger, Merkava, K-1, K-2, Type 88, etc). While some T-90s have been upgraded with an add-on thermal sight virtually all T-64 to T-90 and derivatives are still reliant on IR illumination for night vision. This is akin to a death sentance on the modern battlefield when the sun goes down. Also their lack of thermal vision severally hampers their target acquistion and even basic situational awareness during the day when there is a lot of smoke, dust, etc around - which is most battlefields.
Last edited:
Neither T-64s nor T-72s are being manufactured. The T-90 all include thermal sights as far as I know, with the exception of the initial batch of baseline T-90 models from the '93-'94 tranche. T-64's are currently being modernized in Ukraine to the BM standard, and T-72s are modernized in Russia fairly regularly (for example Iranian ones and Algerian ones were done recently), but those upgrades don't include thermals as far as I know.
- Status