T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[extern]

If you are still interested, please check YTPO.ru: Â öåíòðå Ìîñêâû ðàçâàëèëîñü çäàíèå - they had a pst yesterday , quoting a Russian general saying that "THE Georgian trophy tanks were taken just for evaluation in order to find out how they work with Western upgrades...."

The real link to the article is as follow:
link

 

[kilo]

P.S. Honestly, i also dont think what soviet designers considered small size as big battle advantage. Probably the driving point was to make cost & weight smaller, which could be considered tactical and strategical advantage. You know - bridges, frozen rivers & lakes, air & railroad transportability, fuel consumption, etc.

I realize this discussion ended long ago but I would like to add that the lighter weight would fit well with the Soviet practice of capturing & rapidly securing as many bridgeheads as possible (i.e. they could establish more bridgeheads by being able to make use smaller bridges) as was seen in their tank battles of WWII. I don't know if this was still a part of their doctrine when designing the later T-series of tanks, but I don't see why it would have changed. maybe others who know more about Soviet/Russian could enlighten us.

 

[Waylander]

This aspect wasn't that important for the main battlefield west germany.
Even most of the smaller bridges are able to carry MLC60. Add to that the proliferation of modern bridge laying systems as well as the ability to drive underwater and the idea of a 55 ton tank having a severe disadvantage compared to a lighter one becomes wrong.

 

[kilo]

No I certainly would not say that it is a very big advantage but if i was a commander tasked with establishing a bridge head I would want every advantage possible.

It would be an interesting to have a discussion of the best tank/doctrine combination for forming bridgeheads.

Would such a thread be against the rules because of the "best..." rule?

 

[eckherl]

No I certainly would not say that it is a very big advantage but if i was a commander tasked with establishing a bridge head I would want every advantage possible.

It would be an interesting to have a discussion of the best tank/doctrine combination for forming bridgeheads.

Would such a thread be against the rules because of the "best..." rule?

I think that it would be a good topic, we could discuss the merits of former Warsaw Pact and NATO doctrine on establishing or capturing key strategic bridgeheads along with military assets to achieve this. The discussion of MBT fording capability between both alliances could also be open for debate.

 

[Waylander]

I'm in.
Any ideas for a good topic name?

 

[ewen55]

I think that it would be a good topic, we could discuss the merits of former Warsaw Pact and NATO doctrine on establishing or capturing key strategic bridgeheads along with military assets to achieve this. The discussion of MBT fording capability between both alliances could also be open for debate.

A quick question concerning Quality Control. I saw T-72 turrets in Iraq that had been penetrated completely by 25mm Bushmasters mounted on AFV's. The metal splashed away from the holes like cold rolled steel. I have pictures if anyone would like to see it. I had been told, supposedly on information from Israeli sources, thet T-72's were often brittle either side of the gun trunnions, so I was suprised to see the opposite problem with Iraqi tanks during Desert Storm, i.e., completely soft rather than over hard.

I was told the "Monkey Models" for export were often the recipients of inattention, but would also be somewhat suspect if I were a Russian or Ukrainian tanker forced to serve in tanks of similar vintage. Has the situation improved?

 

[dragonfire]

A quick question concerning Quality Control. I saw T-72 turrets in Iraq that had been penetrated completely by 25mm Bushmasters mounted on AFV's. The metal splashed away from the holes like cold rolled steel. I have pictures if anyone would like to see it. I had been told, supposedly on information from Israeli sources, thet T-72's were often brittle either side of the gun trunnions, so I was suprised to see the opposite problem with Iraqi tanks during Desert Storm, i.e., completely soft rather than over hard.

I was told the "Monkey Models" for export were often the recipients of inattention, but would also be somewhat suspect if I were a Russian or Ukrainian tanker forced to serve in tanks of similar vintage. Has the situation improved?

Please post the pictures for the benefit of the forum - Tnks

 

[raider1]

The T-90 is only called the T-90 for political and export reasons. It is, at it's core, an upgraded T-72, with protection and fire control upgrades from the T-80. The only reasons it was named T-90 are #1, "partly" due to the upgrades, and #2 "partly" due to the poor showing of the T-72 in GW1 and other earlier conflicts. The Russians were scared they wouldn't be able to sell anything named T-72 to export customers, so they renamed the tank, and played it up as a whole new tank, which it isn't. Their own Army didn't even want them, they wanted the T-80. Also, in Chechniya "Large numbers of virtually identical (to the T-80) T-72s were lost in the conflict, and there is nothing to say the T-90 would have fared any better." The T-90 was forced on the Russian army because they are cheaper than the T-80, and were only intended as a "stop-gap" until a new tank could be designed and tested. The T-90S, which is the main version in use now, has "similar offensive and defensive capability as the T-80." The only basic difference is the T-90 has a diesel engine instead of the turbine in the T-80.

* Above information and quotes from "Tanks" Chris Chant, Summertime Publishing Ltd.

In essence, the T-90 is still at least a partial generation behind the M1A1 and Leopard 2, and most likely a full generation behind the M1A2 (especially the SEP) and the newest Leopards, and most likely, the newest Merkavas...

The Russian tank that should be compared to those is the new T-95 they are working on, although it is still in the design stage the last I saw...

T-95 (Objekt 775)

Here's one fact that I find fascinating: During the Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams. This is from Wikipedia, but I have seen similar statements in other publications... This doesn't have anything to do with the T-90, I know, but I just thought it was one of those "Wait... What?" pieces of trivia...

 

[eckherl]

A quick question concerning Quality Control. I saw T-72 turrets in Iraq that had been penetrated completely by 25mm Bushmasters mounted on AFV's. The metal splashed away from the holes like cold rolled steel. I have pictures if anyone would like to see it. I had been told, supposedly on information from Israeli sources, thet T-72's were often brittle either side of the gun trunnions, so I was suprised to see the opposite problem with Iraqi tanks during Desert Storm, i.e., completely soft rather than over hard.

I was told the "Monkey Models" for export were often the recipients of inattention, but would also be somewhat suspect if I were a Russian or Ukrainian tanker forced to serve in tanks of similar vintage. Has the situation improved?

The 25mm projectile known as M919 is a minature DU sabot round that works along the same lines as its bigger brothers fired from tanks, DU is pyrophoric when involved in high velocity impact, and what you more than likely noticed from the impact markings is what we call in the industry as adiabatic shear bands. Yes - this projectile does have enough power to penetrate heavy armor, especially turret flank and rear areas. As far as the vicinity of the maingun trunnions go yes, this has been a past issue along with a weak turret race ring. Russian quality control standards and metallurgy have improved over the years, please also keep in mind that new current Russian and Ukrainian turret designs are all welded now versus cast, this process is actually alot stronger and cheaper and opens the door for future armor protection upgrades.

 

[Feanor]

The T-90 is only called the T-90 for political and export reasons. It is, at it's core, an upgraded T-72, with protection and fire control upgrades from the T-80. The only reasons it was named T-90 are #1, "partly" due to the upgrades, and #2 "partly" due to the poor showing of the T-72 in GW1 and other earlier conflicts. The Russians were scared they wouldn't be able to sell anything named T-72 to export customers, so they renamed the tank, and played it up as a whole new tank, which it isn't. Their own Army didn't even want them, they wanted the T-80. Also, in Chechniya "Large numbers of virtually identical (to the T-80) T-72s were lost in the conflict, and there is nothing to say the T-90 would have fared any better." The T-90 was forced on the Russian army because they are cheaper than the T-80, and were only intended as a "stop-gap" until a new tank could be designed and tested. The T-90S, which is the main version in use now, has "similar offensive and defensive capability as the T-80." The only basic difference is the T-90 has a diesel engine instead of the turbine in the T-80.

Yes and no. There is a significant improvement in terms of the FCS, the thermals, the main gun, and the engine. It's more then just an upgrade. It's a replacement of virtually every major system. This has been discussed in detail before so forgive me if I'm somewhat generalizing. What you say is relatively true of the T-90 baseline that saw service in the early 90s. However is largely untrue for the T-90S, and T-90A variants currently in production.

In essence, the T-90 is still at least a partial generation behind the M1A1 and Leopard 2, and most likely a full generation behind the M1A2 (especially the SEP) and the newest Leopards, and most likely, the newest Merkavas...

Now lets get to specifics. What areas do you think the T-90 is behind in, and what are you basing that assertion on?

The Russian tank that should be compared to those is the new T-95 they are working on, although it is still in the design stage the last I saw...

T-95 (Objekt 775)

I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed on us seeing this new beast in serial production any time soon.

 

[jaffo4011]

The T-90 is only called the T-90 for political and export reasons. It is, at it's core, an upgraded T-72, with protection and fire control upgrades from the T-80. The only reasons it was named T-90 are #1, "partly" due to the upgrades, and #2 "partly" due to the poor showing of the T-72 in GW1 and other earlier conflicts. The Russians were scared they wouldn't be able to sell anything named T-72 to export customers, so they renamed the tank, and played it up as a whole new tank, which it isn't. Their own Army didn't even want them, they wanted the T-80. Also, in Chechniya "Large numbers of virtually identical (to the T-80) T-72s were lost in the conflict, and there is nothing to say the T-90 would have fared any better." The T-90 was forced on the Russian army because they are cheaper than the T-80, and were only intended as a "stop-gap" until a new tank could be designed and tested. The T-90S, which is the main version in use now, has "similar offensive and defensive capability as the T-80." The only basic difference is the T-90 has a diesel engine instead of the turbine in the T-80.

* Above information and quotes from "Tanks" Chris Chant, Summertime Publishing Ltd.

In essence, the T-90 is still at least a partial generation behind the M1A1 and Leopard 2, and most likely a full generation behind the M1A2 (especially the SEP) and the newest Leopards, and most likely, the newest Merkavas...

The Russian tank that should be compared to those is the new T-95 they are working on, although it is still in the design stage the last I saw...

T-95 (Objekt 775)

Here's one fact that I find fascinating: During the Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams. This is from Wikipedia, but I have seen similar statements in other publications... This doesn't have anything to do with the T-90, I know, but I just thought it was one of those "Wait... What?" pieces of trivia...

i believe the 30mm cannons in the british warriors were equally effective against the russian made armour in gw2....

 

[Feanor]

Around 300 T-90 are to be delivered this year. This is granted that the entire annual production of the T-90 by UVZ was at around 350 tanks last year. This means both an increase in numbers produced, and a huge jump in domestic purchases (last year 123 were purchased). The bulk are headed for the NCMD, where they will be joining the previously delivered btlns for the bases in Abkhazia and Ossetia, and probably to the motor-rifles bgds that were formed based on the 42nd MRD.

ÀÐÌÑ-ÒÀÑÑ

It looks like the much talked about "T-95" is on the back burner.

EDIT: The figure cited by lenta.ru is 261 tanks.

http://lenta.ru/news/2010/02/25/tanks/

 

[eckherl]

Around 300 T-90 are to be delivered this year. This is granted that the entire annual production of the T-90 by UVZ was at around 350 tanks last year. This means both an increase in numbers produced, and a huge jump in domestic purchases (last year 123 were purchased). The bulk are headed for the NCMD, where they will be joining the previously delivered btlns for the bases in Abkhazia and Ossetia, and probably to the motor-rifles bgds that were formed based on the 42nd MRD.

ÀÐÌÑ-ÒÀÑÑ

It looks like the much talked about "T-95" is on the back burner.

EDIT: The figure cited by lenta.ru is 261 tanks.

Lenta.ru: Îðóæèå: Ãëàâêîì Cóõîïóòíûõ âîéñê ïðèçíàë íåíóæíîé ïîëîâèíó ðîññèéñêèõ òàíêîâ

Production will expand now seeings how India has picked up manufacturing.

 

[Feanor]

Also UVZ revenue from actual rairoad carriages is dropping. And the state defense order is rising in size. So yes it's a natural tendency. I was wondering what you made of the new tank btlns, at 41 tanks, 10 to a company? And of the new land forces structure that totals maybe 3000-4000 tanks (active and training) with another few thousand in storage?

 

[Waylander]

The question is if one thinks that the benefits of having 4 tank companies are bigger than the deficiencies of having only 3 platoons with 3 tanks each in every company.

IMHO the flexibility of the company and the platoon is too reduced with this organisation as well as their ability to deal with losses.
The russians want to become more flexible with their new formations.
This also means that current conflicts see more and more small company and platoon sized operations and attachements for which the 10 tank company and the 3 tank platoon are less well suited.

 

[Chrisious]

Russin Tanks

Not really a response regarding the T90, though did find an old video regarding a Warsaw Pact tank exercise believe in Poland. Noted some references to the soviet era T72 and tactics in this thread, though think most in the vid are T55's. Not sure how relevant except as a reminder, given some feel this type of war is over for the foreseeable future.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpmQ93buTrM&feature=related]YouTube - Russian Tanks attacking[/ame]

 

[eckherl]

Also UVZ revenue from actual rairoad carriages is dropping. And the state defense order is rising in size. So yes it's a natural tendency. I was wondering what you made of the new tank btlns, at 41 tanks, 10 to a company? And of the new land forces structure that totals maybe 3000-4000 tanks (active and training) with another few thousand in storage?

Russia has been using 3 tanks per platoon for quite some time now so that doesn`t surprise me too much, though I did think that there may of been the possibility of them going to a 4 tank per platoon force structure due to down sizing/modernization. At 4000 tanks in active units is about right given other weapons systems that will be tied into supporting Russia's ground forces and also due to the size of present and future small scale skirmishes. Light vehicles rule the present battlefield and Russia has big plans in getting them also upgraded for better performance.

Side note:
Do you know where Russia stands on where they want to be sitting at an actual strength level in regards to their Airborne assets

 

[Chrisious]

Tank Numbers

Quiet interesting to note the comments made recently believe by Russian officials, that they would like to see around half of Russia’s 20000 tanks scrapped(or at least the older ones). Think most are still T72's and T80's, the comments were mentioned regarding the recent reports of 200 tanks found unguarded (abandoned) in and around a forest somewhere in Russia. Also noted some comments that Russia would like to move away from using conscripts in favour of enlisted troops cutting it's head count down from just over a million active troops.

 

[Feanor]

Russia has been using 3 tanks per platoon for quite some time now so that doesn`t surprise me too much, though I did think that there may of been the possibility of them going to a 4 tank per platoon force structure due to down sizing/modernization. At 4000 tanks in active units is about right given other weapons systems that will be tied into supporting Russia's ground forces and also due to the size of present and future small scale skirmishes. Light vehicles rule the present battlefield and Russia has big plans in getting them also upgraded for better performance.

Well by my count only about `2000-2500 tanks are in active units. Another ~2000 are to be kept for training purposes. Finally another 5-6 thousand are to be put into storage bases (officially).

Side note:
Do you know where Russia stands on where they want to be sitting at an actual strength level in regards to their Airborne assets

Hmph. 7th VDV in Novorossiysk, 106th in Tula, 76th in Pskov, and iirc 98th in Ivanovo. There is also the 242nd training center is Omsk, which is a former training division (44th) that got renamed. There may also be some independent brigades floating around. I've heard of an 83rd VDV Brigade in the Far East, after the reforms, and of a 31st VDV Brigade in Ulyanovsk before the reforms. All the units should be at above 90% man-power levels. Additionally as far as I know all the units are contract soldiers only at this point.

Additionally a major re-armament program has been announced for the VDV, by it's new head Shamanov.