T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour
- Status
HA HA, told you so.Ok, over at TankNet found his hard copy of the mentioned article from July 1997.
Only the first two paragraphs are real. The rest of this text floating through the net is just fake.
Mmmmh...
How do they load it, is it magazine fed.
Interesting - thanks for the information.OK, i asked. It have (among other variants) 6-rounds magazine fed, with autoloader imitation. The 14.5 ballistic is very close to standard HEAT round.
They dont shot each other in traininga with 14.5 mm
And thats comforting to know for the sake of the Russian tank crew members that they do not shoot at each other.
There are laser variant of this taining device in development. I think some countries already fielded (or close to field) similar things. The biggest benefit would be what tanks will be able to "shot" each other in training of courseInteresting - thanks for the information.
And thats comforting to know for the sake of the Russian tank crew members that they do not shoot at each other.
Yes - we use a system called miles matched up with a gun fire simulation system called a Hoffman device originaly designed by the Germans. The miles system is pretty cool if you can get your hands on a shaved key, turns one into a supertanker.There are laser variant of this taining device in development. I think some countries already fielded (or close to field) similar things. The biggest benefit would be what tanks will be able to "shot" each other in training of course
On a one on one basis, western MBTs are bound to win. Superior armor that does not rely on ERA is the main reason. However, it is not often one finds an isolated T90A, as they are to work together as dictated in Russian Tank Doctrine. The BK29M and BK31M HEAT round are of Tandem design and can crack open these composite alloy tanks.
In an open fight (like central Germany, plains and grass), the chances of the T90A (yes, only this particular model because it has SHTORA) are significantly increased. The AT-11 can target western MBTs that lack active protection systems at a range of 5km. True, APS is being introduced to NATO tanks (albeit very late), but most of it seems experimental at best.
The Abrams have a MCD, which I am unaware of the way it works. Is as at all similiar to SHTROA that they emit an IR signature or does it just knock out the guidance system to make the missile go haywire?
And besides that, the T90 is easier to replace. It costs only 1.3 Million USD to make, that is with the SHTORA and ERA. Add an ARENA-E, it'll be about 1.6 million USD. That is way cheaper than modern NATO tanks. Abrams can cost up to 6 mil depending on what you put on it. (2 million is the base price) I'm unsure of Challi 2 and Leo 2 though; I'd like to think I am more of a post-Soviet and Soviet tanks afficianado. I absolutely despise NATO for reasons I shouldn't explain.
In an open fight (like central Germany, plains and grass), the chances of the T90A (yes, only this particular model because it has SHTORA) are significantly increased. The AT-11 can target western MBTs that lack active protection systems at a range of 5km. True, APS is being introduced to NATO tanks (albeit very late), but most of it seems experimental at best.
The Abrams have a MCD, which I am unaware of the way it works. Is as at all similiar to SHTROA that they emit an IR signature or does it just knock out the guidance system to make the missile go haywire?
And besides that, the T90 is easier to replace. It costs only 1.3 Million USD to make, that is with the SHTORA and ERA. Add an ARENA-E, it'll be about 1.6 million USD. That is way cheaper than modern NATO tanks. Abrams can cost up to 6 mil depending on what you put on it. (2 million is the base price) I'm unsure of Challi 2 and Leo 2 though; I'd like to think I am more of a post-Soviet and Soviet tanks afficianado
. I absolutely despise NATO for reasons I shouldn't explain.
On a one for one basis it's impossible to compare because of many additional factors. You correctly note that this is irrelevant because in reality a tank fights as part of an army. You then however completely ignore the particularities of the situation. We (Russian) currently have ~300 (slightly less then ) T-90A, and maybe another ~120 T-90 with another ~250 T-90A to be delivered in the next few years. These tanks form only a fraction of our total armored forces. The majority remains with the T-72, with the T-80in second place. Even if the 2015 state armaments program is fulfilled fully in regards to the T-90A, only 1400 will be produced. And that program has long since become unfulfillable. Not to mention that individual training is likely to be worse, and air support is certainly going to be lacking. Finally how do you propose to deliver our non-existent T-90As to East Germany?
Realistically there is no situation currently where large scale armored warfare between us and NATO is possible. Not to mention the Russian military doctrine (last I read it) clearly states that Russia has a first-use policy on nuclear weapons.
Realistically there is no situation currently where large scale armored warfare between us and NATO is possible. Not to mention the Russian military doctrine (last I read it) clearly states that Russia has a first-use policy on nuclear weapons.
2015 is a long way to go still. How can you be so sure that it won't happen? I can understand the current Russian economy may not be able to handle war preparations as much as their Soviet predecessor. However, we have six years between 2009 and 2015. Anything could happen.On a one for one basis it's impossible to compare because of many additional factors. You correctly note that this is irrelevant because in reality a tank fights as part of an army. You then however completely ignore the particularities of the situation. We (Russian) currently have ~300 (slightly less then ) T-90A, and maybe another ~120 T-90 with another ~250 T-90A to be delivered in the next few years. These tanks form only a fraction of our total armored forces. The majority remains with the T-72, with the T-80in second place. Even if the 2015 state armaments program is fulfilled fully in regards to the T-90A, only 1400 will be produced. And that program has long since become unfulfillable. Not to mention that individual training is likely to be worse, and air support is certainly going to be lacking. Finally how do you propose to deliver our non-existent T-90As to East Germany?
Realistically there is no situation currently where large scale armored warfare between us and NATO is possible. Not to mention the Russian military doctrine (last I read it) clearly states that Russia has a first-use policy on nuclear weapons.
Who knows? Maybe the Arab oil-wells may deplete faster than expected. A civil war or dissent could break out in Saudi Arabia. With nowhere else to get oil, the Westerners may need to rely on Russian fuel instead. As I see it, Russia is one of the major energy powers in the world.
Let's also remember that the T90 was more of a stop-gap measure until Russia can make the projected so-called T95. All previous tanks will cease to be built and whatever remains will not be modernized. That's why it's essentially an up-gunned and up-armored T72B that provides similar performance to T80 models above the U standard.
There is no point denying that it is clear the Russians have a disadvantage when it comes to quantity terms for the T90. I agree, too few of these tanks won't be able to make a difference.
And, Central Germany was just a reference. They are not the only ones with open plains in the world. Central Germany was just an example of where the T90 would operate best. I'll admit that the T90 would greatly suffer in cities like Berlin, like any other tank would.
And, I think in any case, the only reason to use a nuke would be Mutually Assured Destruction. You can't use a nuke on a strategic target, that would complicate things a lot. But then again, I really don't know how Russian tacticians think, but they can't be that crazy to use nukes right? They'd suffer as much as their enemies.
You are also right about a conventional war breaking out. And the air support thing, well Russia's got to think of a way to get there. But, as I hear the S300 and S400 are quite capable as AA missile systems.
Through 2011 only 9 bltns are planned to add. Slightly under 300. Are you suggesting that in the 3 following years, average annual production will be tripled?
I suspect it's a limiting factor of the facilities as much as the funding.
The current T-90A will be around past the 2020 timeframe. Stop-gap or not, it's a long term acquisition.
Tactical nuclear weapons in my opinion are a viable option.
Again, those are only some of the complicating factors. My point was that your analysis was far too simple to account for the complexity of the actual situation.
nikola_281
New Member
This is not exactly about tanks but it is still a very useful article about one operation (Battle for Height 776) that took place during during the Second Chechen War.
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug01/JulAug01/bobja01.pdf
Before, I had some more articles on my old HD and there is no way that I can find the damn thing now. I'll see if I can dig up something useful.
I guess I've still got a lot to learn. Hehe. Thanks for telling me as due.
Is this how the original T 90 was supposed to look like?
Article is in russian though.
http://meshwar.vistcom.ru/tech/ob187.htm
Article is in russian though.
http://meshwar.vistcom.ru/tech/ob187.htm
Ic, I think it is said to be superior, coz the base armour seems to be much thicker than the T 90's. But perhaps it meant increased weight which led to power problems and losing out to the T 90?
Other than protection, and mobility, I'm not sure how else it is supposed to be superior, coz it looks like it still doesn't have an independent ammo compartment.
- Status