T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[STURM]

Heh, I do agree the T-90 is not the best tank that it can be, as it's only a hyper modified T-72 and only an intermediary MBT for when the T-95(now cancelled) and Black Eagle(again cancelled) comes out.

I've got no complains about the T-90, it is what it is. Sure in terms of armour protection you can't compare it against much heavier MBTs like the Merkava 4 or Challenger 2.
I posted the excerpts from the blog as I thought some of the comments might be of interest to the rest here. I would be very interested in any comments made by folks like waylander and eckerl about the FCS on the T-90.

 

[Saiga]

The T90m owns a panoramic sight :
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2715/t90m01.jpg

T-90s destroyed in combat

Not a single T90 was destroyed, once one of them received 6xRPG but reamaind fully operational and was not penetrated either.

Heh, I do agree the T-90 is not the best tank that it can be, as it's only a hyper modified T-72 and only an intermediary MBT for when the T-95(now cancelled) and Black Eagle(again cancelled) comes out.

Take a look at the upper one.
Btw it's not for sure if these project are 100% canceled.
And if, it's only better for the army in conclusion they will not get the T95 but the next gen tank. This was the idea behind the canceling of such a project that the project is maybe already obsolete due to new operational requirements of tanks.

 

[klrajiv]

The only test of a weapon systems effectiveness is combat. I am sure that everyonw here is aware of all the positive press the T72 got when it first appeared, in fact that tank caused a lot of worry in NATO until..you guessed it, The Bekaa Valley in 1982, and the Gulf War part I. So, lets keep this all in perspective shall we, every Russian MBT that has made an appearance on the battlefield has been defeated by western MBT's for the last 50 plus years.

Where is the Battlefield evidence? Where are the facts, not Hyperbole?

The Russians learnt their lessons from the 67 War, when their MBTs fell into Western hands. Since then, their main MBTs have never been exported to any country. The T-72s were not their MBT, they had the T 84s. Similarly the T 90 is not their their MBT, the T 95 is. Regarding the upgrades, they learn their lessons and put the upgrades on their MBTs!!! That way they get simulated combat exposure for their MBTs!!

 

[klrajiv]

When we compare tanks of the West with the Russian Tanks, we need to keep their philosophy of employment also in mind. The Russians do not give individual targets or an area to control to each tank, as in the West. Hence they do not need the 'hunter-killer' systems as in vogue in the Western tanks! They work in numbers - while each Western tank has independent targets to acquire and engage, the Russians work with 11 tanks, i.e., 11 tanks do the job of 1 x Western Tank!! Where is a need for a 'hunter-killer' system, even a 'semi hunter-killer system' will do wonders!!
Now the countries that buy these tanks have to employ them in the 'Russian' manner or else suffer the same fate as the ones in the Bekaa Valley and in the Gulf War - 1

 

[STURM]

Where is a need for a 'hunter-killer' system, even a 'semi hunter-killer system' will do wonders!!

There are those who will disagree with you on this.

Now the countries that buy these tanks have to employ them in the 'Russian' manner or else suffer the same fate as the ones in the Bekaa Valley and in the Gulf War - 1

Are you saying that to succeed on the battlefield, armies that operate Russian armour have to solely apply Russian tactics and operational doctrine? There were many factors involved in the Bekaa Valley and the 1st Gulf War that led to the Syrians and Iraqis taking heavy lossess, namely - MBT crews that were not trained to maneuver and the problem of facing opponents who were much better trained. The Syrians and Iraqis DID apply Soviet tactics, the problem is they applied it too rigidly, they took good Soviets tactics and made it bad. Soviet tactics did not call for MBTs to operate without maneuvering or exploiting any mistakes or enemy weaknessess, Soviet tactics did not call for infantry too remain huddled up in their BMP when they were meant to dismount - this is exactly what the Syrians and Iraqis did.

The T-72s were not their MBT, they had the T 84s. Similarly the T 90 is not their their MBT, the T 95 is. Regarding the upgrades, they learn their lessons and put the upgrades on their MBTs!!! That way they get simulated combat exposure for their MBTs!!

The T-84 is a Ukranian tank based on the T-80 and was not the main Russian tank. The T-90 is still the main Russian MBT not the T-95. I'm not claiming to be an armour expert so if I'm wrong here please correct me .......

When we compare tanks of the West with the Russian Tanks, we need to keep their philosophy of employment also in mind.

More importantly we need to keep their philosphy of design in mind.

''The issue of whether Soviet/Russian weapon systems are inferior to their European/North American/Scandinavian/Israeli counterparts is not the issue here. What has to be borne in mind is that Post World War II Soviet/Russian weapons were designed purely for one reason: to enable the Warsaw Pact to win a full-scale conventional or nuclear war within a very finite period (not exceeding one week). This in turn meant that all Soviet weapons design bureaux were not obliged to develop superlative systems, instead they were required to develop the weapons to certain performance standards that were totally in sync with the Warsaw Pact's operational requirements. Therefore, while in Soviet parlance the battlefield lifespan of the MBT was not meant to be more than 48 hours at most (with the lowest being 11 minutes when located in the Fulda Gap in Germany) and was considered sufficient enough to enable the Soviet General Staff to comfortably attain the operational campaign objectives on the ground, this is not the case when it comes to India. In other words, what was perfectly applicable for the Warsaw Pact-specific operational requirements does not automatically mean that the same applies to India.''

By Prasun Sengupta, Trishul blog.

 

[IronsightSniper]

The Russians learnt their lessons from the 67 War, when their MBTs fell into Western hands. Since then, their main MBTs have never been exported to any country. The T-72s were not their MBT, they had the T 84s. Similarly the T 90 is not their their MBT, the T 95 is. Regarding the upgrades, they learn their lessons and put the upgrades on their MBTs!!! That way they get simulated combat exposure for their MBTs!!

The T-84 was a Ukrainian MBT, d'oh. But the Soviets had a two MBT policy, one of quality and the other of quantity. The T-72 was the quantity, and the T-80 was built for it's quality(it's better Fire Control System and Gas-Turbine engine). The T-72 originated from the T-62 and the T-80 from the T-64. Both T-62/64 came from the T-54/55.

 

[Baker]

Meh....

Hey, all.

On russian website I've seen too many sayings like "Abrams' piece of crap - T-90 the best". So I was just wondering, is T-90 that great? Because I have a hard time believing it. I'm not saying it's not a good tank - it is. But is it, like the russkies say, best of all?

TIA.

Take what theRussians say with a grain of salt. Well actually, take it with a grain of sand. They're known to exagerate how goodtheir tech is to scare us. Plus, the T90 hasn't seen any combat, and we don't know whether the government is lying to us or not.

 

[Chrisious]

A reasonably up to date tank exercise from 2009 included below (looked back a few pages couldn't see so posted) quite interesting to see the use of snorkel wading gear.

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPRvskiAIqw[/nomedia]

 

[Feanor]

Here's a shot of allegedly the T-90M.

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5163/6ac9ce5105fd7493d622cf6.jpg

 

[blinky123abc]

Plus, the T90 hasn't seen any combat.

"The T-90A saw combat action during the 1999 Chechen invasion of Dagestan. According to Moscow Defense Brief, one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets but remained in action. The journal concludes that with regular equipment T-90A seems to be the best protected Russian tank, especially if Shtora and Arena defensive protection systems are integrated in it."

Russians tend to be secretive with the majority of there military technology. Russians export shoddy versions of there tanks without modern equipment and then when these exported tanks get slaughtered by western tanks, the west then underestimates Russian technology. They call this a Maskirova the russians are sneaky bastards.

 

[Feanor]

The T-90 baseline model saw combat in iirc both Chechen wars. The T-90A may have seen combat in the second Chechen war and/or the recent Georgian war. (there are unconfirmed rumors, but it's possible that observers confused the T-72BA with the T-90A, due to the similar K-5 arrangement)

 

[IronsightSniper]

That reminds me, has any T-90 been destroyed yet?

 

[Waylander]

Probably early ones in Chechnya.
No losses in Georgia I know of but there even participation of T-90s is not sure.

 

[Feanor]

There's some rumors that the 136th or 131st MRBdes had a T-90 btln in them shortly prior to the war. But I have found no photos. Also the 131st MRBde became the 7th MilBase in Abkhazia, and they were fully re-equipped with T-90s in 2009.

Overall it's unlikely but possible.

 

[dgour]

Non explosive ERA

Have seen a number of articles saying many tanks were running around without explosives for their ERA installed. Is this possible? Common? Is it the kind of thing that gets installed only prior to imminent action? In Depot or field installable?

Thanks.

 

[bruceb1959]

Take what theRussians say with a grain of salt. Well actually, take it with a grain of sand. They're known to exagerate how goodtheir tech is to scare us. Plus, the T90 hasn't seen any combat, and we don't know whether the government is lying to us or not.

This is a sweeping generalisation. In many cases, particularly with regard to SAM and radar equipment, russian tech stats have tended to err on the pessimistic side, as has been revealed by subsequent western analysis following 'acquisition'. After the fall of the Iron curtain it was discovered/proven that western analysis of russian ( then soviet) capabilities and weapons effectiveness was worryingly inaccurate and pessimistic.

 

[eckherl]

"The T-90A saw combat action during the 1999 Chechen invasion of Dagestan. According to Moscow Defense Brief, one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets but remained in action. The journal concludes that with regular equipment T-90A seems to be the best protected Russian tank, especially if Shtora and Arena defensive protection systems are integrated in it."

Russians tend to be secretive with the majority of there military technology. Russians export shoddy versions of there tanks without modern equipment and then when these exported tanks get slaughtered by western tanks, the west then underestimates Russian technology. They call this a Maskirova the russians are sneaky bastards.

No Russian T-90A has fought in any Chechan conflict, that story is nothing more than propaganda.

 

[eckherl]

The T-90 baseline model saw combat in iirc both Chechen wars. The T-90A may have seen combat in the second Chechen war and/or the recent Georgian war. (there are unconfirmed rumors, but it's possible that observers confused the T-72BA with the T-90A, due to the similar K-5 arrangement)

There is the problem, because of the K-5 arrangement people tended to report on the wrong vehicle designation. No T-90A has been used period.

 

[eckherl]

Have seen a number of articles saying many tanks were running around without explosives for their ERA installed. Is this possible? Common? Is it the kind of thing that gets installed only prior to imminent action? In Depot or field installable?

Thanks.

Yes, the Russians did have whole tank units running around without the explosive filler for their reactive armor, this happened primarly during the first conflict. During this time frame I could envision logistical support for the Russians being an issue due to the turmoil amongst their defense force structure due to the end of the cold war.

 

[Feanor]

There is the problem, because of the K-5 arrangement people tended to report on the wrong vehicle designation. No T-90A has been used period.

Iirc the baseline T-90 saw combat use though, from the 10th Gds TD, which among others sent a temporary rotation of iirc ~regiment strength into the conflict zone.

Have seen a number of articles saying many tanks were running around without explosives for their ERA installed. Is this possible? Common? Is it the kind of thing that gets installed only prior to imminent action? In Depot or field installable?

Thanks.

This occurred during the first Chechen war mainly.