T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[eckherl]

You say a big gun isn't everything but you go on about western designers putting a a huge gun on to their existing tanks and so on. The T-90 has little competition and the is Markeva Mk.4 isn't one of them (neither is the current Abrams tank). And the T-95 is completely new design that doesn't involve putting huge guns onto existing or outdated tanks.

Again - a broad statement on your part, I did not say that we are putting a bigger caliber on western tanks, only that we have the capabilities to do so.
Seeing past history inregards to Russian armor I find it hard to believe that they got it right with the T-90, matter of fact they still have the same issues as before and this I can state with confidence.
Chrom stated it correctly that you will not see the T-95 any time soon, there really isn`t any reason to roll out such an expensive design without proper justification right? and right now Russia has other priorities as far as weapons procurements. Again I will state that a Ukrainian T-84 is a better tank over a T-90 and it doesn`t rate as good as a Merk 4/Leo2a6/Challie2 or a M1A2SEP this I know because I have been on a T-84, Russian T-80U and many different T-72 models.

 

[Waylander]

@T-95
Eckherl is right.
Maybe you should elaborate your statements. Just saying that T-90 is in another league than a Merk IV or a M1A2SEP is really a very optimistic statement.
What are your points? One cannot make such statements without at least backing them up with some hard facts.
Is it mobility, armor protection, crew survivability, firepower, optics, FCS,...?

About T-95 the others here said enough. We don't really know a s*** about it.

 

[DaBunny]

The M1 series tanks make a lot of sense, if you are going to fight Russia. You'll be needing a tough tank.

The T-80/90 series makes a lot of sense, if you are fighting in Russia. Russia is vast and muddy. The T-80/90 can hide from infantry in a corn field.

The US could use a good medium tank.

 

[Chrom]

The M1 series tanks make a lot of sense, if you are going to fight Russia. You'll be needing a tough tank.

The T-80/90 series makes a lot of sense, if you are fighting in Russia. Russia is vast and muddy. The T-80/90 can hide from infantry in a corn field.

The US could use a good medium tank.

There is some confusion: T-90/M1A2/Leo2 - are all MBT's. They are not heavy or medium tanks, and weight means nothing in they classification. "Medium" tank implies what it is somehow less protected or armed than MBT. In that sense PUMA/BMP-3M/FCS could be called light or medium tanks. However, past expirience showed what medium/light tanks with sole tank role wasnt worth using.

 

[DaBunny]

There is some confusion: T-90/M1A2/Leo2 - are all MBT's. They are not heavy or medium tanks, and weight means nothing in they classification. "Medium" tank implies what it is somehow less protected or armed than MBT. In that sense PUMA/BMP-3M/FCS could be called light or medium tanks. However, past expirience showed what medium/light tanks with sole tank role wasnt worth using.

What I am saying is that the US could use a good 50 ton tank with armor optimized for shaped-charge warheads. A tank that could move across unimproved ground, with wide treads and a 90-105mm main gun that could defeat T-55/62 tanks that it would come across in the third world.

Or a 75mm gun with an ATGM for unimproved T-72s.

Something simpler and lighter than an M1A2.

 

[Chrom]

What I am saying is that the US could use a good 50 ton tank with armor optimized for shaped-charge warheads. A tank that could move across unimproved ground, with wide treads and a 90-105mm main gun that could defeat T-55/62 tanks that it would come across in the third world.

Or a 75mm gun with an ATGM for unimproved T-72s.

Something simpler and lighter than an M1A2.

You mean, US need to field NEW TANK, SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to defeat 40 years old 3rd world country tank? LOL!

 

[DaBunny]

You mean, US need to field NEW TANK, SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to defeat 40 years old 3rd world country tank? LOL!

Yes, actually.

At over 70 tons, the M1 series is limited by it's size and weight, and it's a gas hog, as well. For all it's armor, it has a thin roof and isn't well suited for urban combat. They can still get knocked out by RPGs. It needs a dual purpose HE round.

Now that I think about it, the BMP3 would be a good place to start. The Merkava has some good ideas, too.

 

[Waylander]

The Merk is as heavy as every other western MBT.

In the end today every ready briogade of the US (Be ist 82nd, 101st, or 10th,...) is able to cope with everything that a 3rd world country could mobilize against them.

And the hiding factor is as questionable as always. You can hide an Abrams or a Leo II nearly as good as a T-90 or T-80.

In nearly real situations there is even no real difference between a MBT or an IFV.

 

[eckherl]

Yes, actually.

At over 70 tons, the M1 series is limited by it's size and weight, and it's a gas hog, as well. For all it's armor, it has a thin roof and isn't well suited for urban combat. They can still get knocked out by RPGs. It needs a dual purpose HE round.

Now that I think about it, the BMP3 would be a good place to start. The Merkava has some good ideas, too.

I have a better idea - don`t use tanks in a urbanized setting at all, that is not what they are designed to do. There is currently no tank that is built that you could call fully urbanized including the Merkava series.
A BMP 3 is not a tank but a infantry fighting vehicle thus being poorly armored for conducting thunder runs inside of cities and that doesn`t matter on how much reactive armor protection that you put on it.

 

[Chrom]

The Merk is as heavy as every other western MBT.

In the end today every ready briogade of the US (Be ist 82nd, 101st, or 10th,...) is able to cope with everything that a 3rd world country could mobilize against them.
IFV.

That is exactly what i meant - USA dont need anything "extra" to take on next poor 3rd wold country.
Also, tanks/IFV while not ideal, are still infinitly better even in urban setting than just nacked infantry. Remember, an ATGM can just as well kill your infantry squad. In fact, your squad will die much easer to ATGM/RPG than average tank.

1 thing i agree however - you need a specialized heavy "support" vehicle for urban enveronment. BMP-T is a good start here. And the weight dont matter much - be it 40t, 50t, or 70t - all will be more or less ok.

 

[eckherl]

That is exactly what i meant - USA dont need anything "extra" to take on next poor 3rd wold country.
Also, tanks/IFV while not ideal, are still infinitly better even in urban setting than just nacked infantry. Remember, an ATGM can just as well kill your infantry squad. In fact, your squad will die much easer to ATGM/RPG than average tank.

1 thing i agree however - you need a specialized heavy "support" vehicle for urban enveronment. BMP-T is a good start here. And the weight dont matter much - be it 40t, 50t, or 70t - all will be more or less ok.

You are going to fire a ATGM at a infantry squad, kinda of a waste if they are dispersed like they should be. It sucks but clearing out villages and cities belong to the ground pounders and the only time that armor should be involved is after contact has been made and your infantry needs additional firepower, not when a enemy combatant is sitting hunched in a basement window with a RPG 7 waiting to shoot your tank in the ass. The best mobile weapons platform that the U.S is using in urban settings is the Stryker, it offers enough protection from small/medium arms fire and it is fast, thus good mobility.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What I am saying is that the US could use a good 50 ton tank

A Leo 1 is 55 tonnes - I can't see the US picking up a capability merge from Leo1 to M1.

Tonnage does not define classing either. In the case of Leo1 its also an MBT.

you need to define the capability vacuum - and then its an issue of what sympathetic systems can fill that requirement before you even consider buying another platform.

 

[jamesteo320]

is there any ammo resupply vehicle for pzh 2000 artillery?

 

[extern]

What I am saying is that the US could use a good 50 ton tank with armor optimized for shaped-charge warheads.

50t is too heavy. They want 40t for FCS tank. Something more agile than T-80:

 

[eckherl]

50t is too heavy. They want 40t for FCS tank. Something more agile than T-80:

Which at the current time is difficult to achieve due to armor protection levels.

 

[Waylander]

And in the end agility of vehicles like Abrams or Leo II is for sure enough for nearly every possible situation.
It is more like that you can normally not even use their full capability because of environmental restrictions or because you have to stay in formation.

As for FCS. This nice project is getting heavier and heavier the more the project goes on.
First they wanted something which can be transported by a C-130...

All out of a sudden they realize that they don't have the tech to develop such a small and light vehicle with the needed protection and firepower.
The same with the Brits. They went out of the Boxer project because they got stucked with the "everything has to be airmobile" idea and now boxer is back in the race.

Gary got it exactly right. It is not about pure weight but about capabilities.

And I also have to agree with Chrom. Everytime anybody starts the old argument that AFVs got so vulnerable most people just tend to forget that naked infantry is even more vulnerable to nearly everything on the battlefield. While a tank is for sure in danger when it comes to modern RPGs and ATGMs as well as big mines/IEDs and well planned traps pure naked infantry is much more vulnerable.
Use your AFVs in MOUT operations for supporting your infantry and you will get better results than by using only light infantry or going in with your AFVs first.


@Jamesteo320
We use no special vehicles. Our ammo support for combat troops in the field is done by unarmored and lightly armored trucks from normally 7-15 tons. Lighter trucks are used for transporting other not that bulky material, food, etc.

 

[extern]

FCS tank. I also saw a video of Discovery chennel about this tank's working prototype 2 months before , but it was removed from youtube site due to author rights violation.

 

[Waylander]

As long as I know this is not the FCS project.
There is no working prototype of the MBT part of the FCS project.
And I know this docu. It is so bad...

NCLOS is the only thing which actually works (a little bit )

 

[Chrom]

You are going to fire a ATGM at a infantry squad, kinda of a waste if they are dispersed like they should be. It sucks but clearing out villages and cities belong to the ground pounders and the only time that armor should be involved is after contact has been made and your infantry needs additional firepower, not when a enemy combatant is sitting hunched in a basement window with a RPG 7 waiting to shoot your tank in the ass. The best mobile weapons platform that the U.S is using in urban settings is the Stryker, it offers enough protection from small/medium arms fire and it is fast, thus good mobility.

Due to drasticaly decrease of RPG and ATGM price, and increase of "human price", firing ATGM's and RPG's at infantry squad and even at single soldier become possibilty. In fact, most modern armies doctrines call for it. For example, soviet army realised it 30 years ago, and now ATGM/RPG with thermobaric warhead constitute a fair share of all ATGM's and RPG's in service.
The some could be said about NATO - while NATO weapon is a bit behind in that respect, still NATO soldiers dont hestigate using ATGM's against any single enemy soldier if they think its worth it. Infantry is infinitly more vulnerable than tanks even in urban enveronment, and it is better to lose 30 tanks than 100 soldiers - keep in mind most of these tanks will be repaired, while most of the soldiers will end under ground.

 

[eckherl]

With modern technology that is out there for the naked infantry man clearing out urban areas is by far a hell of alot better than having to use tanks to flush out your opponent, again after contact has been made if you need some additional heavy armor support then use your tanks, Russia, U.S and Isreal have paid a heavy price for trying to thunder run tanks into urbanized settings. This is a price that is not acceptable by any of three mentioned above reasons why two of the above mentioned countries are trying to field specialized vehicles for this purpose. You will see the U.S depending more and more on the Stryker series vehicles for occupying urban streets in Iraq.