Indian Army News and Discussion

[eckherl]

Of course. This is what I'm saying. Russia would nopt export the T-80, but Ukranians needed the cash. Russia tried to stop the export deal by restricting parts, so Ukraine finished the T-80s off on their own. So India is building three T-90s for every T-80. I actually don't think the T-80s Pakistan got are THAT superior to the T-90s India is to build, but obviously Indian General Staff does

Russian government gave a bunch of them to South Korea, along with the BMP 3 and BTR 80`s to repay some debt between them. South Korea has placed this equipment along the DMZ. I have looked and gone inside of one and you can tell the difference between a T-72 and T-80 from a quality stand point, I havent had the chance to get in a T-90 and doubt if I ever will be afforded the chance .

 

[extern]

I dont think, T-80 and T-90 are two really different tanks. In the broad point of view theay are only the two development of T-64 line. And I think we'll not miss a point if the difference between T-72 and T-90 will compare to the difference between M1A1 and M1A2. And if one speaks about the potential of platform, it must be said it is very potent platform as a basis for contineous improvement, in most things better that M1 or Leo-2 took as a 'platform'. One simple calculation: the weight of the first modification of this line (T-64A) was only 38 t. The last modification has 8-10 t more with slightly improved chassis: T-90S=46.5 t and Al-Khalid 48.5t. If one compares their passive defence (passive armor +ERA) it's founded that T-90S not fall behind M1A2. Indeed the only thing that T-90S (may be) in some lag from M1A2 - is frontal armor. However T-90S frontal armor is still better that of M1A1 according to most relible source. The lateral defence of T-90S just as T-80 is way better that any Abrams exept M1A2 SEP, and if we speak about defence from atop attacks including roof firing RPGs, we must to recognise that even M1A2 SEP hardly has defence against such treats, while T-90, T-80 and modernised T-72's do. In conclusion: as a whole T-90S armor doesnt fall behind M1A2 . But there is an important difference in such calculation: M1 after M1A2 SEP almost has no room for 'grow', but on T-90S one can easy put 6-8 t of additional armor. One can ask, why we didnt do it before? The answer is simple: no need for now.

After all I remain with my opinion that T-90 - is the best choice if you want proved, well upgradeable platform for ur army for next 10-20 years.

Hovewer, it''s not means that one specific Rusian modification (T-90S) better that another one Western (M1A2 SEP). The last one (if one speak about Abrams SEP) has some important advance in commander controllability (net-centric system), more powerful APFSDSs, better shell-storade. BUT the most of such T-90's deficiencies (exepting storage) can be easy corrected on a next T-90 upgrade, while further upgrade after M1A2 SEP is very questionable. We discussed that much in T-90's thread.

In addition T-90 has a whole set of gadgets, that none western tank has, like MG lounched ATGMs, stelth kit Nakidka for IR and radar signature reducing, electromagnetic anti-mine device etc. And T-90S isnt 'worse' that T-80UD - it is also common mistake well discussed in neighbour thread.

 

[eckherl]

I dont think, T-80 and T-90 are two really different tanks. In the broad point of view theay are only the two development of T-64 line. And I think we'll not miss a point if the difference between T-72 and T-90 will compare to the difference between M1A1 and M1A2. And if one speaks about the potential of platform, it must be said it is very potent platform as a basis for contineous improvement, in most things better that M1 or Leo-2 took as a 'platform'. One simple calculation: the weight of the first modification of this line (T-64A) was only 38 t. The last modification has 8-10 t more with slightly improved chassis: T-90S=46.5 t and Al-Khalid 48.5t. If one compares their passive defence (passive armor +ERA) it's founded that T-90S not fall behind M1A2. Indeed the only thing that T-90S (may be) in some lag from M1A2 - is frontal armor. However T-90S frontal armor is still better that of M1A1 according to most relible source. The lateral defence of T-90S just as T-80 is way better that any Abrams exept M1A2 SEP, and if we speak about defence from atop attacks including roof firing RPGs, we must to recognise that even M1A2 SEP hardly has defence against such treats, while T-90, T-80 and modernised T-72's do. In conclusion: as a whole T-90S armor doesnt fall behind M1A2 . But there is an important difference in such calculation: M1 after M1A2 SEP almost has no room for 'grow', but on T-90S one can easy put 6-8 t of additional armor. One can ask, why we didnt do it before? The answer is simple: no need for now.

After all I remain with my opinion that T-90 - is the best choice if you want proved, well upgradeable platform for ur army for next 10-20 years.

Hovewer, it''s not means that one specific Rusian modification (T-90S) better that another one Western (M1A2 SEP). The last one (if one speak about Abrams SEP) has some important advance in commander controllability (net-centric system), more powerful APFSDSs, better shell-storade. BUT the most of such T-90's deficiencies (exepting storage) can be easy corrected on a next T-90 upgrade, while further upgrade after M1A2 SEP is very questionable. We discussed that much in T-90's thread.

In addition T-90 has a whole set of gadgets, that none western tank has, like MG lounched ATGMs, stelth kit Nakidka for IR and radar signature reducing, electromagnetic anti-mine device etc. And T-90S isnt 'worse' that T-80UD - it is also common mistake well discussed in neighbour thread.

I have heard a little about the stealth kit, big issue would be the engine coverage, I have my doubts, we tried this back twenty years ago with our camoflage nets and did not see a major advancement. The electromagnetic mine device was used by the former GDR forces along with Czechs and Poland correct.

 

[FutureTank]

Russian government gave a bunch of them to South Korea, along with the BMP 3 and BTR 80`s to repay some debt between them. South Korea has placed this equipment along the DMZ. I have looked and gone inside of one and you can tell the difference between a T-72 and T-80 from a quality stand point, I havent had the chance to get in a T-90 and doubt if I ever will be afforded the chance .

One never knows Eckherl
However since I have only seen pictures, I would sincerely like to welcome your impressions of the T-80s supplied to South Koreans.

My impression is that the T-80s were 'modified' for this deal, which was a very different type of 'sale' as you point out. Russia knew very well that the T-80s would not end up in any hands it didn't want them to end up in.

 

[eckherl]

One never knows Eckherl
However since I have only seen pictures, I would sincerely like to welcome your impressions of the T-80s supplied to South Koreans.

My impression is that the T-80s were 'modified' for this deal, which was a very different type of 'sale' as you point out. Russia knew very well that the T-80s would not end up in any hands it didn't want them to end up in.

My assessment was that it had a night time sighting capability on par with a M1A1, FCS seems a little crude for range finding capabilities, it seems to have a little more room than a T-72 inside of turret. I cannot discuss armor capabilities, in the hands of a well trained crew with proper ammunition it will be deadly on the battlefield. For what the ROK recieved they were told that they were from Russian war stocks, (thats what they were told anyways). It does compare to a T-80U.

 

[FutureTank]

My assessment was that it had a night time sighting capability on par with a M1A1, FCS seems a little crude for range finding capabilities, it seems to have a little more room than a T-72 inside of turret. I cannot discuss armor capabilities, in the hands of a well trained crew with proper ammunition it will be deadly on the battlefield. For what the ROK recieved they were told that they were from Russian war stocks, (thats what they were told anyways). It does compare to a T-80U.

I have been told by people who served in T-80s of various upgrades that it is a very good tank. Unfortunatelly the nature of tank fleet distribution means that hose who served in T-80 have never served in T-72, so comparison is difficult.

Soviet designers have always struggled with the acceptance process that required pre-production batch to be tested in an active unit selected at random, and conducting only a standard induction training. With the T-64 the consequences are well known where the testing resulted in casualties and significant redesign of some parts of the tank. The expression as was told to me is that "if a tank can survive the conscript, it can survive any enemy"

The T-80 was tested in the Leningrad MD, but for trials was taken to the Central Asian grounds to certify its turbine in that particularly particle saturated air environment.

 

[qwerty223]

I hadn't forgotten the thread. It seems to me that Arjun is a perfect example of how hard it is to initiate a tank building program.

What excuses did I make? I thought I gave logical reasons to qualify and quantify my statement.

Leo 2 has sold 3924 vehicles total, according to my calculations (excluding support vehicles). Of these 1215 were transfers from German Army stocks (57% of its fleet). Most of the sales have been in Europe, and most at bargain price that includes manufacturer's support, along with a change in name to Euro-Leopard . Chile and Singapore have been the only purchasers outside of Europe, and it is not clear why these two countries would buy these tanks other then the price of the package.

M1 is in the same boat. Outside of Australia, which got a very good price and package (waiting 10 years to do so) for a very small quantity, only the very rich Arab states have bough M1. However they buy almost anything. Egypt is an exception due to its reliance on US aid package. I suspect there are oil money behind the Egyptian production pland in any case.

T-90 is to be produced in India in thousands, while also being sold to Pakistan and Algeria. However the tank has only recently gone into production. The fact that it is an improved, a very much improved, version of T-72, the possibility is there to offer significant upgrade to current T-72 operators. Wiki lists T-72 models to have been employed by Algeria, Angola, Armenia (102), Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada (display,tests), Croatia(40), Czech Republic, the former East Germany (scrapped or sold for a song), Finland (195), Georgia, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq (largely scrapped, but reintroduced from former East German fleet), Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Poland (597), Romania, Russia (9,944), Serbia (238), Slovakia, Slovenia (54), Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the United States (display, tests), and Uzbekistan. To this can be added the Chinese Type 98 and the Polish PT-91. Adding value to these is a far more profitable business in the age when countries just don't buy, never mind build tanks. Even those interested in new tanks are likely to think twice about purchasing NATO's last generation given fuel prices and technology intensive support they require. The Russian tanks are built for conscripts, and not just the pick of the best as is the case in Germany.
And T-90 has been on the market only a decade.

A successful design is one that sells, and sells again. If I was a tank salesman I would want to sell T-72/90s.

Why would the T-72 designers and builders want to distance themselves from it after GW1? (I really prefer Kuwait war)
If I was selling tanks, I would tell every potential buyer to consider their defeat, and buy the whole suit of systems that make up a national armed force
Consider that the Kuwait and Iraq wars have made poignant lessons to most countries, and even dictators now know better then to appoint military leaderships for their loyalty rather then ability.

a little correction here. Malaysia doesn't not have any MBT before we ordered PT-91M. BUT rumor said that we have T-90 & T-80 1 each for test, maybe also T-72. And we did consider for T-90 before PT-91, unfortunately...

BTW, ADF stands for Amphibious Deploy Force? If so, they have few amphibious ship and trying to build a "world biggest craft". Should be trying hard on it.

 

[vedang]

Yep - and the Pakistan T-80 is a better tank.

Dont tell me thats TRUE!!!!I thought the version of T-80s pakistan acquired were slightly inferior to the original T-80s manufactured regarding the protection,engine performance,etc.Is it not????

 

[extern]

I have heard a little about the stealth kit, big issue would be the engine coverage, I have my doubts, we tried this back twenty years ago with our camoflage nets and did not see a major advancement. The electromagnetic mine device was used by the former GDR forces along with Czechs and Poland correct.

About a principle of working Nakidka you can read on the developer NIIStali page here: http://www.niistali.ru/science/snij_zametn_en.htm
About the engine emission - yeah, it's a problem. Hovewer, with T-80 rear exhaust and air-mixting its emission is 30% less promonent that with left-side T-72-type exhaust. Anyway, Nakidka reduces IR emission drasticly, also its designation is not for only reducing IR, but for completely radar stelthness.
And now about the electromagnetic remote detonator: its not only for magnetic mines detonation but also against radio-controlled IEDs. It makes a good jumming for them. Donno about Czechs, but US probly have no it , judging what happing in Iraq...

If one still speaks about a question what most promissing tank mainframe for adoption for independent-policy countries like India or Algeria (I dont speak about treaty-bounded NATO states like Turkey), I hardly can point out better that t-72/t-90 tank platform. May be it's only my national bias I donno, but one cannot deny the presence of big competitive world market of gadgets, services, upgrades, improvements and what no for T-72/T-90 line. Also one can see the existance of strong OEM (the Russian UralVagonZavod) guaranteeing ur 'baby' will not remain without 'mother and father'. Look how easy one can upgrade his tremendous (if yes) T-72 fleet up to T-90 level and higher with new longer autoloader, new long APFSDSs, new ERA Relict, new 1250hp power pack with auxullar power unit (on the pic), ne tracks and FCS etc:

 

[extern]

Dont tell me thats TRUE!!!!I thought the version of T-80s pakistan acquired were slightly inferior to the original T-80s manufactured regarding the protection,engine performance,etc.Is it not????

From the batch of total 310 units some 180 were took from the old soviet stock remained in Ukraine and 130 were breed new manufactured in Kharkov. K-5 ERA and other gudgets were took from the older stock by cannibalisation. The main problem of Ukrainian tanks - is their weak MG bcz they never done in Ukraine before. All 310 T-80UD came to Pakistan with only 1000hp 6TD-1 (not with 1200hp 6TD-2) engine contrary to what used usualy to think.

 

[eckherl]

a little correction here. Malaysia doesn't not have any MBT before we ordered PT-91M. BUT rumor said that we have T-90 & T-80 1 each for test, maybe also T-72. And we did consider for T-90 before PT-91, unfortunately...

BTW, ADF stands for Amphibious Deploy Force? If so, they have few amphibious ship and trying to build a "world biggest craft". Should be trying hard on it.

Then why did they not go for the T-90, was it the cost.

 

[eckherl]

Dont tell me thats TRUE!!!!I thought the version of T-80s pakistan acquired were slightly inferior to the original T-80s manufactured regarding the protection,engine performance,etc.Is it not????

Slightly inferior to what, Ukraine offered a package of a fully capable tank, surely Pakistan would not go for a vehicle that couldn`t go at it with India`s T-90S. Extern is right with the issue of the engines being unreliable, but the Russians and Ukraines have resolved this issue.

 

[qwerty223]

Then why did they not go for the T-90, was it the cost.

Don't have any official comment. Cost efficiency might be one of the reason.
But my point of view, most probably that M'sia is acquiring tech transfer that either Russian don't agree with or T-90 is to much for us to learn/produce.

 

[eckherl]

Don't have any official comment. Cost efficiency might be one of the reason.
But my point of view, most probably that M'sia is acquiring tech transfer that either Russian don't agree with or T-90 is to much for us to learn/produce.

Well if it is a cost issue, then M`sia recieved one heck of a good tank.

 

[qwerty223]

Well if it is a cost issue, then M`sia recieved one heck of a good tank.

WoW! Very informative pictures!
Do you have a complete version for the 1st one?

 

[kams]

Slightly inferior to what, Ukraine offered a package of a fully capable tank, surely Pakistan would not go for a vehicle that couldn`t go at it with India`s T-90S. Extern is right with the issue of the engines being unreliable, but the Russians and Ukraines have resolved this issue.

India ordered T-90 in February 2001, after Pakistan ordered T-80 from Ukraine, so the logic that Pakistan would not go for a vehicle incapable of facing T-90 is not valid.

 

[eckherl]

India ordered T-90 in February 2001, after Pakistan ordered T-80 from Ukraine, so the logic that Pakistan would not go for a vehicle incapable of facing T-90 is not valid.

Then what way is a T-90S superior over a Pakistan T-80?

 

[FutureTank]

aBTW, ADF stands for Amphibious Deploy Force?

ADF stands for Australian Defence Force :australia

 

[FutureTank]

Then what way is a T-90S superior over a Pakistan T-80?

More of them Eckherl

 

[kams]

Then what way is a T-90S superior over a Pakistan T-80?

I never said T-90 is superior to T-80 or vice versa. Fact is Pakistan has T-80s and India has T-90s. Both will design their Armour strategy based on the equipment available to them, terrain, etc. India's decision to extend their order to 1000 T-90's mean they are satisfied with what T-90 had to offer.