T-90 Tank

[carman1877]

Is the T-90 better than the :M1A2 and Challenger 2?
What kind of weapon systems does the T-90 Have?
What kind of armor does it have? Opinions welcome.

[Feanor]

Better for what? It's logistically less taxing, and lighter weight gives it higher mobility. However in a tank on tank battle, it would probably lose to M1A2's.

[f-22fan12]

A moderator should close this thread. There are plenty of other T-90 threads.

[eckherl]

Is the T-90 better than the :M1A2 and Challenger 2?
What kind of weapon systems does the T-90 Have?
What kind of armor does it have? Opinions welcome.

Please check out some of the older threads inregards to this, also we tend not to get into topics that start out with my gun is bigger and better than yours, it will pretty much end in nationalistic chest thumping and alot of misty eyed pissed off fellow forum participants.

[Feanor]

I disagree with that. You can reasonably compare two tanks, you just have to compare them in a certain context. Within that context one tank may be better or worse then another.

[eckherl]

I disagree with that. You can reasonably compare two tanks, you just have to compare them in a certain context. Within that context one tank may be better or worse then another.

I am quite confident that if you can keep and maintain the subject where there is minimal hostilities then you should be okay. Most of the time though these types of threads end up closed over hurt feelings.

[Feanor]

That's just a sign of two things: lack of maturity and lack of objectivity. I would love to have a serious discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of a T-90A style tank vs a M1A2 style tank. After all they both reflect the culmination of two different schools of thought on armored warfare, and large scale military operations in general.

[extern]

Hi to all brothers in weapon! :D

Some new pictures are proving that the last batches of T-90's have un-isolated power compartment, so they are immune to the classic T-72\T-90 family illness - overheating duiring median fording:

[eckherl]

Hi to all brothers in weapon! :D

Some new pictures are proving that the last batches of T-90's have un-isolated power compartment, so they are immune to the classic T-72T-90 family illness - overheating duiring median fording:

Hi Extern, nice photos, surely this is not the only reason for this modification, you wouldn`t happen to have a photo of the left side of this vehicle would you. :)

[extern]

Hi Extern, nice photos, surely this is not the only reason for this modification, you wouldn`t happen to have a photo of the left side of this vehicle would you. :)
The next must be from the same batch:

[Eeshaan]

I dont think the T-90 can have armor like or surpass the Chobham armor of the M1A2s. Aside from that, both tanks can be made to fire depleted Uranium shells, as far as I know.

[eckherl]

I dont think the T-90 can have armor like or surpass the Chobham armor of the M1A2s. Aside from that, both tanks can be made to fire depleted Uranium shells, as far as I know.

There is really nothing that needs to be done to a tank to fire DU projectiles, ensure that you have the proper ammunition projectile type ammunition card for the ballistic computer to comphensate for super elevation and true deflection aim off and you should be good to go.

[eckherl]

The next must be from the same batch:

Thank you, to clarify, did they actually place the exhaust outlet at the rear of the vehicle as a permanent fix for all mobility purposes or is this a by pass to serve when the vehicle is on a fording movement.

[Chrom]

There is really nothing that needs to be done to a tank to fire DU projectiles, ensure that you have the proper ammunition projectile type ammunition card for the ballistic computer to comphensate for super elevation and true deflection aim off and you should be good to go.
Soviet and later russian tanks always had DU rounds in inventory. They just dont fire them in simply conflicts to avoid barbaric radioactive pollution when it is not nessesary.

P.S. I still find the thread should be closed.

[eckherl]

Soviet and later russian tanks always had DU rounds in inventory. They just dont fire them in simply conflicts to avoid barbaric radioactive pollution when it is not nessesary.

P.S. I still find the thread should be closed.

Chrom, I was making commment to the gentleman who felt both tanks could be made to fire DU projectiles, I was just pointing out to him that any tank can fire a DU projectile with very little modifications, I have been tasked to swap out or add ammunition cards to ballistic computers, it is pretty much a easy thing to do.

And of course Russia uses DU projectiles, 3BM 42 and 46 are nasty rounds.

[Chrom]

Chrom, I was making commment to the gentleman who felt both tanks could be made to fire DU projectiles, I was just pointing out to him that any tank can fire a DU projectile with very little modifications, I have been tasked to swap out or add ammunition cards to ballistic computers, it is pretty much a easy thing to do.
As with any round.

And of course Russia uses DU projectiles, 3BM 42 and 46 are nasty rounds.

It is not fired. Even in exercises.

[Eeshaan]

OK, for comparison of basic stats, heres some technical data for both tanks :

M1 :

Type Main battle tank
Place of origin United States
Service history
Used by United States, Australia, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
Wars Kosovo War, Gulf War, Iraq War
Production history
Designer Chrysler Defense
Designed 1970s
Manufacturer General Dynamics
Unit cost US$4.35 million (M1A2)[1]
Produced 1979–present
Variants M1A1, M1A2, M1A2 SEP
Specifications
Weight 67.6 short tons (61.4 metric tons)
Length Gun forward: 32.04 ft (9.77 m)
Hull length: 26.02 ft (7.93 m)
Width 12 ft (3.66 m)
Height 8 ft (2.44 m)
Crew 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor Chobham, RHA
Primary
armament 105 mm M68 rifled cannon (M1)
120 mm M256 smoothbore cannon (M1A1, M1A2, M1A2SEP)
Secondary
armament 1 x .50-caliber (12.7 mm) M2HB heavy machine gun
2 x M240 7.62 mm machine guns (1 pintle-mounted, 1 coaxial)
Engine AGT-1500C multi-fuel turbine engine
1500 hp (1119 kW)
Power/weight 24.5 hp/metric ton
Transmission Allison DDA X-1100-3B
Suspension Torsion bar
Ground clearance 0.48 m (M1, M1A1)
0.43 m (M1A2)
Operational
range 465.29 km (289 mi)
With NBC system: 449.19 km (279 mi)
Speed Road: 67.72 km/h (42 mph)
Off-road: 48.3 km/h (30 mph


More detailed info on M1A2 :

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/


T-90 :

Type Main battle tank
Place of origin Russia
Production history
Designed 1993
Produced 1995 - Present
Specifications
Weight 46.5 tonnes
Length 9.53 m (31.27 ft)
Width 3.78 m (9.12 ft)
Height 2.22 m (7.28 ft)
Crew 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor Classified
Primary
armament 125 mm smoothbore gun with ATGM capability; mainly 9M119 Svir
Secondary
armament 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun, 12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun
Engine Model 84 V-84 12-cyl. diesel[1]

V-92 12-cyl. diesel[1]
V-96 12-cyl. diesel[1]
840 hp (626 kW) for Model 84 V-84 12-cyl. diesel engine[1]
950 hp (708 kW) for V-92 12-cyl. diesel engine[1]
1,100 hp (820 kW) for V-96 12-cyl. diesel engine[1]

Power/weight 18.1 hp/tonne (13.5 kW/tonne) for Model 84 V-84 12-cyl. diesel engine

20.4 hp/tonne (15.2 kW/tonne) for V-92 12-cyl. diesel engine
23.7 hp/tonne (17.6 kW/tonne) for V-96 12-cyl. diesel engine

Suspension torsion bar
Operational
range 650 km[2]
Speed 65 km/h[3]



More detailed info on T-90 :

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/


I hope that helps.

[eckherl]

As with any round.


It is not fired. Even in exercises.

Of course - due to environmental concerns, stocked for war time use.

[Feanor]

Soviet and later russian tanks always had DU rounds in inventory. They just dont fire them in simply conflicts to avoid barbaric radioactive pollution when it is not nessesary.

P.S. I still find the thread should be closed.

Tungsten is also a dangerous chemical. I wonder why it was used in Russian kinetic penetrator rounds. :)

EDIT: Are any tank experts on here more intimately familiar with the tactical (and hopefully strategic, keeping my fingers crossed here) though behind he design of the M1?

[extern]

Thank you, to clarify, did they actually place the exhaust outlet at the rear of the vehicle as a permanent fix for all mobility purposes or is this a by pass to serve when the vehicle is on a fording movement.It's not exhaust. It's new cooling system with open fan-radiator circle. The exhast remained on the old place, as you can see on Algerian variant too. In this case, the radiator outfow was covered:

[extern]

I dont think the T-90 can have armor like or surpass the Chobham armor of the M1A2s. According to the most reliable estimation, the T-90S armor is equivalent or practically equivalent (in passive armor) for M1A1 and Leo-2A4 modification. However Shtora adds something too. It's enough good in practice considering relative few numbers of M1A2 and Leo-2A5-6 in the world. How M1A2's are already produced, anybody knew? The next Russian tank, which supposely will be produced starting from 2011 will have better defence than M1A2.

[eckherl]

It's not exhaust. It's new cooling system with open fan-radiator circle. The exhast remained on the old place, as you can see on Algerian variant too. In this case, the radiator outfow was covered:

Got it - Thanks,

Any word on a new APU design.

[eckherl]

According to the most reliable estimation, the T-90S armor is equivalent or practically equivalent (in passive armor) for M1A1 and Leo-2A4 modification. However Shtora adds something too. It's enough good in practice considering relative few numbers of M1A2 and Leo-2A5-6 in the world. How M1A2's are already produced, anybody knew? The next Russian tank, which supposely will be produced starting from 2011 will have better defence than M1A2.

Plans are in place to at least upgrade 60% of existing M1 series to M1A2 SEP standard, that is the plan at the current time.

[eckherl]

Tungsten is also a dangerous chemical. I wonder why it was used in Russian kinetic penetrator rounds. :)

EDIT: Are any tank experts on here more intimately familiar with the tactical (and hopefully strategic, keeping my fingers crossed here) though behind he design of the M1?

How is Tungsten dangerous to the soldiers that are using it, I cannot waite to hear this.

[extern]

Plans are in place to at least upgrade 60% of existing M1 series to M1A2 SEP standard, that is the plan at the current time.BTW, what the planned total number of tanks, US expect to have in next 10 years? If it isnt classified of course.

The Russian tank chief now declared Russia till 2020 plans to have T-90's in relatve number of 50% tank fleet . It's in different modifications, including the future upgrades. The rest 50% - will be allocated for 'the new gen tank' and old T-72/T-80 inventory till its lifespan is gone. The planned annual production of T-90 is as 150-250 starting from 2009. The planned annual
production of 'T-95' (or how it will be named) is unclear. So in my crude estimation and regards 25 years of avarage tank life, it might mean between 5,000 and 7,500 tanks in active service (now as 13,000). Also Russia is certainly going towards 'high-low' combination, while T-90s and older T-80/T-72 with mimimal upgrade will be used against low-tech enemy, supposedely as 'anti-infantry' tanks with anti shaped charge and mine defence.

In addition some T-90 pics from Malaysian tender:

[Waylander]

Are they finally going to ramp up production of T-90?
With the current rate of production they are nowhere able to achieve the disred numbers and I am still sceptical if the follown on to T-90 (T-95 or whatever it will be named) is going to come without major delays.

While there is defenitely more money available now I am also sceptical if Russia has enough breathing space in it's budget to increase T-90 production and introduce a totally new tank to their inventory.

[extern]

Are they finally going to ramp up production of T-90?
With the current rate of production they are nowhere able to achieve the disred numbers and I am still sceptical if the follown on to T-90 (T-95 or whatever it will be named) is going to come without major delays.

While there is defenitely more money available now I am also sceptical if Russia has enough breathing space in it's budget to increase T-90 production and introduce a totally new tank to their inventory.YOur doubts are very understandable. However, my calculations also worth something. Indeed, last 3 year the rate of T-90s production for Ru Army (not counting export) was 31 units a year (1 batalion). This year - 2008 - they gave a budget for 62 units. Next year if to believe for gen. Maslov for T-90s building is allready allocated sum equivalented to $250 mln. In future this sum is planned to grow up to $350 mln. This is why I estimated an avarage annual production rate planned for next 10 years as 150-250 units. It's a rate very corresponding to UVZ manufacturing capability. Appart with that the rumors appeared that the little number (25 units) of more advanced IR cameras were bought from THales, 75 more are contracted (Catherine-XP if I dont mistake in classification). Previosely contracted Catherines have less advanced characteristics. IMHO It can be first sign for initial pre-serial production of the 'next gen tank'.

At the end as usually - some pictures, now the experimental T-90 variant with 152 mm gun:

[eaf-f16]

How is Tunsten dangerous to the soldiers that are using it, I cannot waite to hear this.

DU isn't harmful until it is in a burning tank and the smoke from that burning tank is inhaled by friendly troops.

Being near or handling DU rounds isn't going to harm you at all.

IIRC, most Gulf War 2 veterans that came back sick either had inhaled that type of smoke from Iraqi tanks or had inhaled air contaminated with the chemicals that were thrown up in the air after the US Air Force bombed an Iraqi chemical weapons cache (the contaminated air spread over a good portion of Northern KSA).

[extern]

More one interesting photo: the legend of Russian tank history, T-72's chief designer Kartzev (left on the center) speaks with the provincial guvernor on the DefExpo-2008 exposition.

[Chrom]

DU isn't harmful until it is in a burning tank and the smoke from that burning tank is inhaled by friendly troops.

Being near or handling DU rounds isn't going to harm you at all.
This part is (almost) true.

IIRC, most Gulf War 2 veterans that came back sick either had inhaled that type of smoke from Iraqi tanks or had inhaled air contaminated with the chemicals that were thrown up in the air after the US Air Force bombed an Iraqi chemical weapons cache (the contaminated air spread over a good portion of Northern KSA).

Yes, the problem is however - almost any tank (and A-10) round fired, if hit anything solid - will leave a lot of particles which pollute environment. This hurts both own troops, and more importantly - everything around hit point ;(
This very barbaric and unnecessary use of DU ammo present very major ecological and medical problem in both Iraq and Serbia.

[eckherl]

BTW, what the planned total number of tanks, US expect to have in next 10 years? If it isnt classified of course.

The Russian tank chief now declared Russia till 2020 plans to have T-90's in relatve number of 50% tank fleet . It's in different modifications, including the future upgrades. The rest 50% - will be allocated for 'the new gen tank' and old T-72/T-80 inventory till its lifespan is gone. The planned annual production of T-90 is as 150-250 starting from 2009. The planned annual
production of 'T-95' (or how it will be named) is unclear. So in my crude estimation and regards 25 years of avarage tank life, it might mean between 5,000 and 7,500 tanks in active service (now as 13,000). Also Russia is certainly going towards 'high-low' combination, while T-90s and older T-80/T-72 with mimimal upgrade will be used against low-tech enemy, supposedely as 'anti-infantry' tanks with anti shaped charge and mine defence.

In addition some T-90 pics from Malaysian tender:

We were rumored at one point in having the need for 3,600 M1A2 SEPs to fit into the the new force structure but who knows what will happen with the constant flip flopping for our FCS program. Only time will tell and this will be most likely when we are out of Iraq and the U.S Army can rethink what is needed for future high and low tensity battle doctrine.

I think that you may be a little optimistic on the T - 90 numbers, but I have been informed that Russia for the last five years or so has been modernizing and retooling alot of their military defense building facilities. I guess I will just have to waite and see.

[eckherl]

YOur doubts are very understandable. However, my calculations also worth something. Indeed, last 3 year the rate of T-90s production for Ru Army (not counting export) was 31 units a year (1 batalion). This year - 2008 - they gave a budget for 62 units. Next year if to believe for gen. Maslov for T-90s building is allready allocated sum equivalented to $250 mln. In future this sum is planned to grow up to $350 mln. This is why I estimated an avarage annual production rate planned for next 10 years as 150-250 units. It's a rate very corresponding to UVZ manufacturing capability. Appart with that the rumors appeared that the little number (25 units) of more advanced IR cameras were bought from THales, 75 more are contracted (Catherine-XP if I dont mistake in classification). Previosely contracted Catherines have less advanced characteristics. IMHO It can be first sign for initial pre-serial production of the 'next gen tank'.

At the end as usually - some pictures, now the experimental T-90 variant with 152 mm gun:

Are you sure about that, I was told that few T - 90s have 135mm guns shoe horned in for testing and evaluation purposes. You photo looks like a 135mm to me, do you have a full vehicle flank shot, either way, kudos to you for having a photo of this beast.:D

[eckherl]

DU isn't harmful until it is in a burning tank and the smoke from that burning tank is inhaled by friendly troops.

Being near or handling DU rounds isn't going to harm you at all.

IIRC, most Gulf War 2 veterans that came back sick either had inhaled that type of smoke from Iraqi tanks or had inhaled air contaminated with the chemicals that were thrown up in the air after the US Air Force bombed an Iraqi chemical weapons cache (the contaminated air spread over a good portion of Northern KSA).


Gee - you do not think that I would know this, I have killed tanks with the bloody things first hand, and yes, I was a good Master Gunner who informed his tank company not to go near battle kills solely for this purpose, the golden rule was to stay at least 300 meters away from all battle killed vehicles, the surrounding soil is possibly contaminated also.

Also my question was directed towards him due to what he stated in regards to Tungsten projectiles.

[Feanor]

How is Tungsten dangerous to the soldiers that are using it, I cannot waite to hear this.

If you swallow it, bad things happen. :)

On a serious note there is evidence showing correlation between tungsten levels in blood and disease like leukemia.

The planned annual production of T-90 is as 150-250 starting from 2009.

Do you have a source?

So in my crude estimation and regards 25 years of avarage tank life, it might mean between 5,000 and 7,500 tanks in active service (now as 13,000).

13000 is a high estimate. 3 tank divisions and ~13 motor rifle divisions. 3 tank regiments per tank division, 1 tank regiment and 3 battallions in each motor rifle (3 btls=1 rgt). So ~35 tank regiments. 35 times 93 gives us ~3555. Now this doesn't include independent brigades, regiments, and machine gun artillery divisions. I don't know their make up, but even if we assume that they contain as many tanks as the ones we counted, we still fall well short of your numbers. Does your estimate include storage bases and mothballed equipment?

[extern]

Are you sure about that, I was told that few T - 90s have 135mm guns shoe horned in for testing and evaluation purposes. You photo looks like a 135mm to me, do you have a full vehicle flank shot, from the flank have only 152 mm prototype on T-80:

[Przezdzieblo]

Tank from that photo is not T-90 variant, nor with 152 mm gun. It is Object 187 (like said name of file), experimental T-72 development, which finally would have chance to became new Soviet tank (T-88, later T-90), but was abandoned for cheaper are more conservative Object 188 --> real T-90.

[extern]

13000 is a high estimate. 3 tank divisions and ~13 motor rifle divisions. 3 tank regiments per tank division, 1 tank regiment and 3 battallions in each motor rifle (3 btls=1 rgt). So ~35 tank regiments. 35 times 93 gives us ~3555. Now this doesn't include independent brigades, regiments, and machine gun artillery divisions. I don't know their make up, but even if we assume that they contain as many tanks as the ones we counted, we still fall well short of your numbers. Does your estimate include storage bases and mothballed equipment?
Including storage for reserve forces of course. So called 'storage bases' (TsBRT - in Russian classification) is indeed a reserve tank division with as 300 tanks at minimum and other equipement enough to 1 division at least. The TsBRT's known for me: Kozulka (Barnaul), Topchikha (Krasnoyarsk), Shilovo (near Novosibirsk), Verkhnyaya Pyshma (Yekaterinburg region), Ulan-Ude (near Baikal).

Also how you counted only 3 tank division? I know at least 6: 4 Guardian TD (Naro-Fominsk near Moscow), 16 Guardian TD (Markovsky near Perm), 15 Guardian TD (Chebarkul), 10 Guardian TD (Boguchar, Voronezh district), ??? donno number TD (Nizhneudinsk), 5 Guardian TD (Kyakta, near Mongolian border).

What Russian TD's you know? May be you know something, I didnt conted yet.

For amusement pics of course :D

[extern]

Tank from that photo is not T-90 variant, nor with 152 mm gun. It is Object 187 (like said name of file), experimental T-72 development, which finally would have chance to became new Soviet tank (T-88, later T-90), but was abandoned for cheaper are more conservative Object 188 --> real T-90.
What photo you meant? The last photo is T-80 with 152 mm gun for sure. You could see the added massa from the rear of turret for counter-balance heavy barrel.

[Przezdzieblo]

Sorry, sure, I was reffering to post #27 from page no 2.

As for last photo, yes, it is T-80-based Object 292.

[extern]

Sorry, sure, I was reffering to post #27 from page no 2. As for last photo, yes, it is T-80-based Object 292.
As regards to Object 187 (or how else call it), according to my information it had variant with 152 mm gun too presented on the picture. The gun on the picture is in no way a regular 125 mm burrel . If you have another pictures of this object, I'll be glad to look.

[Przezdzieblo]

As regards to Object 187 (or how else call it), according to my information it had variant with 152 mm gun too presented on the picture. The gun on the picture is in no way a regular 125 mm burrel . If you have another pictures of this object, I'll be glad to look.

I cannot remember if know any other picture of it. But there are photos of scale model, 3D visualization and diagram.
http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/history/178-1.gif
http://www.meshwar.vistcom.ru/tech/ob187.htm
http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w4/021_187.htm - the most valuable site about this tank
And yes, gun from your picture is not regular gun. But it is still 125 mm (compare with Object 292 pic!). It`s designation was 2A66 and it was said to be more potent than 2A46/2A46M family.

[eckherl]

If you swallow it, bad things happen. :)

On a serious note there is evidence showing correlation between tungsten levels in blood and disease like leukemia.



Do you have a source?



13000 is a high estimate. 3 tank divisions and ~13 motor rifle divisions. 3 tank regiments per tank division, 1 tank regiment and 3 battallions in each motor rifle (3 btls=1 rgt). So ~35 tank regiments. 35 times 93 gives us ~3555. Now this doesn't include independent brigades, regiments, and machine gun artillery divisions. I don't know their make up, but even if we assume that they contain as many tanks as the ones we counted, we still fall well short of your numbers. Does your estimate include storage bases and mothballed equipment?

Ah, I see - well then we really may have some cause for concern due to the fact that it is under research to replace small arms ammunition in the U.S, it is not good either to leave all those lead filled projectiles laying around either.:rolleyes:

[eckherl]

from the flank have only 152 mm prototype on T-80:

Well - that one I can believe, the one on the T-90 photo no.:D But still, do you have other photo shots of this vehicle, looks like one heck of a counter weight on the rear of the turret, or is it something else all together.

[eckherl]

Including storage for reserve forces of course. So called 'storage bases' (TsBRT - in Russian classification) is indeed a reserve tank division with as 300 tanks at minimum and other equipement enough to 1 division at least. The TsBRT's known for me: Kozulka (Barnaul), Topchikha (Krasnoyarsk), Shilovo (near Novosibirsk), Verkhnyaya Pyshma (Yekaterinburg region), Ulan-Ude (near Baikal).

Also how you counted only 3 tank division? I know at least 6: 4 Guardian TD (Naro-Fominsk near Moscow), 16 Guardian TD (Markovsky near Perm), 15 Guardian TD (Chebarkul), 10 Guardian TD (Boguchar, Voronezh district), ??? donno number TD (Nizhneudinsk), 5 Guardian TD (Kyakta, near Mongolian border).

What Russian TD's you know? May be you know something, I didnt conted yet.

For amusement pics of course :D

These are photos of Algerian T-90s correct.

[eckherl]

I cannot remember if know any other picture of it. But there are photos of scale model, 3D visualization and diagram.
http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/history/178-1.gif
http://www.meshwar.vistcom.ru/tech/ob187.htm
http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w4/021_187.htm - the most valuable site about this tank
And yes, gun from your picture is not regular gun. But it is still 125 mm (compare with Object 292 pic!). It`s designation was 2A66 and it was said to be more potent than 2A46/2A46M family.

Good information, I can tell that it has a muzzle brake but could not make out too much more of the photo due to the photo angle.

[Przezdzieblo]

One more view at 152-mm tank (based n T-80).

[extern]

One more view at 152-mm tank (based n T-80).wow holy $ht! Now I see :D

[Feanor]

Including storage for reserve forces of course. So called 'storage bases' (TsBRT - in Russian classification) is indeed a reserve tank division with as 300 tanks at minimum and other equipement enough to 1 division at least. The TsBRT's known for me: Kozulka (Barnaul), Topchikha (Krasnoyarsk), Shilovo (near Novosibirsk), Verkhnyaya Pyshma (Yekaterinburg region), Ulan-Ude (near Baikal).

They're not currently active tank divisions. They would take quite a bit of time to mobilize and organize. Only a major war would bring them out of non-existence. With the upcoming professionalization of the army (at least at the rate it's currently progressing it) they will become useless in 20-30 years even if their equipment is updated. If it's not, they will be useless much sooner.

Also how you counted only 3 tank division? I know at least 6: 4 Guardian TD (Naro-Fominsk near Moscow), 16 Guardian TD (Markovsky near Perm), 15 Guardian TD (Chebarkul), 10 Guardian TD (Boguchar, Voronezh district), ??? donno number TD (Nizhneudinsk), 5 Guardian TD (Kyakta, near Mongolian border).

What Russian TD's you know? May be you know something, I didnt conted yet.

I know of the 10th tank in Moscow MD, 4th tank Kantermiskaya, also Moscow, and 5th tank division in the Siberian MD. Also just fyi there is no Voronezh Military District. It's part of the Moscow MD. I don't know, maybe you meant Voronezh district as in Voronezhskaya Oblast' . The 16th Guards I think has become the 5967 Storage Base. Warfare.ru lists it as a storage base. I don't know about the rest. How dated is your info?

[extern]

They're not currently active tank divisions. They would take quite a bit of time to mobilize and organize. Only a major war would bring them out of non-existence. With the upcoming professionalization of the army (at least at the rate it's currently progressing it) they will become useless in 20-30 years even if their equipment is updated.
Proffesionalisation doesnt deny strong reserve forces, see US etc countries reservists.
Also just fyi there is no Voronezh Military District. It's part of the Moscow MD. I don't know, maybe you meant Voronezh district as in Voronezhskaya Oblast' . Who said 'military district'? I put it location, southern from Voronezh in the same 'oblast' (governor district or region).
The 16th Guards I think has become the 5967 Storage Base. Warfare.ru lists it as a storage base. I don't know about the rest. How dated is your info?
2007

[Feanor]

The Russian Army is rather large in proportion to the population. One of two things, Russian population will grow, or Russian Army will shrink. Both will only allow the Russian Army to preserve it's current soldier to pop. ratio. I don't think there is room for strong reserves in this setup.

As for the 16th tank, it looks like it has the opposite happening to it. It's being increased up to size, from a reserve unit to a active size unit, for the Stability-2008 exercises. Even reservists are being called up. Here's an interesting article on it (in Russian). http://www.beriki.ru/2008/07/18/peintbol-dlya-nastoyashchikh-soldat

Maybe it was contracted in size earlier, and now is being blown up to size again for the war game.

[extern]

The Russian Army is rather large in proportion to the population. One of two things, Russian population will grow, or Russian Army will shrink. Both will only allow the Russian Army to preserve it's current soldier to pop. ratio. I don't think there is room for strong reserves in this setup..The soldier to population ratio in Russia isnt different than in US, enough to compare 1.1 mil strong Russian forces with 2.5+ mil American's. So, I cannot see Russian forces below 1 mil in visible future. The reservour for reformation is existing however in reducing secondary stuff and high rank stuff officers in favor of more battle soldiers and officers.

BTW thanks for this article: it's very new information, from July, 18.

[ThierryLachapelle]

T-90 at Russia Expo Arms 2008

[Waylander]

The soldier to population ratio in Russia isnt different than in US, enough to compare 1.1 mil strong Russian forces with 2.5+ mil American's. So, I cannot see Russian forces below 1 mil in visible future. The reservour for reformation is existing however in reducing secondary stuff and high rank stuff officers in favor of more battle soldiers and officers.

BTW thanks for this article: it's very new information, from July, 18.

But there is the problem of nearly all armed forces around the world.
It is not the staff personal which gets cut first but the boots on the ground when an army is reducing in size.
A lot of militaries tend to get more and more top heavy after the end of cold war.

[extern]

T-90 at Russia Expo Arms 2008Thanks, ThierryLachapelle! Your pics from this exhibition were just awesome on different fora.

For those who still doesnt believe in 13,000 tanks on Russian service (including reserve units of course), I can recomend the article (english) of the prominent Russian tankman expert Sergey Suvorov, there he writes about 22,000 tank, but this number of course including the tanks in any condition, base storage etc. This is it:
russian tanks.pdf - 1.03MB (http://www.zshare.net/download/1560040628b6e7b1/)
Those, who try to count this number via. current units list have understand, that an avarage tank division has much more tanks than 300 'crewed'. It because in peace period they use for training the 'training storage' tanks to save lifspan of 'war period storage'.

[ThierryLachapelle]

T-90S - Russia Expo Arms 2008

[ThierryLachapelle]

Thanks, ThierryLachapelle! Your pics from this exhibition were just awesome on different fora.



Thank you very much

[DavidDCM]

Yes, your pictures are great, ThierryLachapelle!

Are those three big armor tiles on the side of the hull that one regularly sees on T-90 ERA? They seem a little too thin to contain any explosives.

[ThierryLachapelle]

Yes, your pictures are great, ThierryLachapelle!

Are those three big armor tiles on the side of the hull that one regularly sees on T-90 ERA? They seem a little too thin to contain any explosives.

Thks man..........I think that the three armor tiles can't to contain more than 7,62mm, but i'm not sure

[ThierryLachapelle]

All of these pics were been taken during VTT OMSK 2007

[ThierryLachapelle]

T-90S River crossing

[extern]

I will also add something from the internet collection :)

[Feanor]

The soldier to population ratio in Russia isnt different than in US, enough to compare 1.1 mil strong Russian forces with 2.5+ mil American's. So, I cannot see Russian forces below 1 mil in visible future. The reservour for reformation is existing however in reducing secondary stuff and high rank stuff officers in favor of more battle soldiers and officers.

That's wrong. The U.S. military is 1.5 million strong, not 2.5 million. And the U.S. has a 13 trillion economy to back it up with. Russia has a 1.3 trillion economy. One tenth of the USA. The size of the Russian Army is also more tied to population due to the draft. Finally the current planned reduction will bring the Russian army from 1.1 million to one million by 2011. Further reductions are possible, which would bring Russia under one million. ;)

[extern]

That's wrong. The U.S. military is 1.5 million strong, not 2.5 million. And the U.S. has a 13 trillion economy to back it up with. Russia has a 1.3 trillion economy. One tenth of the USA. The size of the Russian Army is also more tied to population due to the draft. Finally the current planned reduction will bring the Russian army from 1.1 million to one million by 2011. Further reductions are possible, which would bring Russia under one million. ;)
You are wrong about US. The numbers are rather different, and more that you imagine. See Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States)
Reaching military 2,143,873 males (2005 est.),
Active personnel 1,426,713
Reserve personnel 1,458,500

Total GDP - is a bad instrument to estimate a military potential. In fact the effectiveness of military budget in Russia is tens time more than in US. With 10- times less budget (in market prices) Russia held Nuclear forces as US have, will you deny it? Also must we noted, that the purchase ability of Russian currency at home is higher than dollar in US (see 'Hamburger Index' and purchasing-power-parity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity) issue), so if you want to buy something in US and Russia, you will spend as twice more money in US than in Russia. Thus you better use GDP in purchasing-power-parity (GDP PPP) value than GDP in current prices for such comparisons.

In GDP in purchase value Russia has 6th world economy after US, China, Japan, Germany and India. In terms of World GDP the Russian GDP part is as high or even higher than GB's (3,244% World GDP or 2,274 trill international dollars (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2013&ssm=1&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=922&s=NGDP_R,NGDP_RPCH,NGDP,NGDPD,NGDP_D,NGDPRPC,NGDPP C,NGDPDPC,PPPGDP,PPPPC,PPPSH,PPPEX,PCPI,PCPIPCH)) and will grow even further in next 5 year (up to 3.435%). In next 5 years the development trend will put Russia on 4-5 place in the world economy after China, US, Japan and India, while US part is progressively reduced from 20.882% to 19.22% (see IMF prognosis here (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2013&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=111&s=NGDP_R,NGDP_RPCH,NGDP,NGDPD,NGDP_D,NGDPRPC,NGDPP C,NGDPDPC,NGAP_NPGDP,PPPGDP,PPPPC,PPPSH,PPPEX,NID_ NGD)). Unlike US Russian budget 5 last years is closed with great annual surplus. So I cannot see any financial limitation for holding million-size military in Russia.

And also Russia still spend as 2.5% of its GDP on military, while US - as 4.5%. Now guess, whom is more easy to rise the military budget if needed for? :D
Really I know they want to cut some military vacancies and transfer them to civilian companies till 2011, so the total number of Russian military will be something reduced without damage for fighting capability, but not fall below 1 mln.

[extern]

An interesting Russian article with simple calculation methodology of a tank's technical advance. Leclerk is on the first place. Second and 3rd are T-80UM and T-90 tanks:

[f-22fan12]

You are wrong about US. The numbers are rather different, and more that you imagine. See Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States)
Reaching military 2,143,873 males (2005 est.),
Active personnel 1,426,713
Reserve personnel 1,458,500

Total GDP - is a bad instrument to estimate a military potential. In fact the effectiveness of military budget in Russia is tens time more than in US. With 10- times less budget (in market prices) Russia held Nuclear forces as US have, will you deny it? Also must we noted, that the purchase ability of Russian currency at home is higher than dollar in US (see 'Hamburger Index' and purchasing-power-parity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity) issue), so if you want to buy something in US and Russia, you will spend as twice more money in US than in Russia. Thus you better use GDP in purchasing-power-parity (GDP PPP) value than GDP in current prices for such comparisons.

In GDP in purchase value Russia has 6th world economy after US, China, Japan, Germany and India. In terms of World GDP the Russian GDP part is as high or even higher than GB's (3,244% World GDP or 2,274 trill international dollars (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2013&ssm=1&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=922&s=NGDP_R,NGDP_RPCH,NGDP,NGDPD,NGDP_D,NGDPRPC,NGDPP C,NGDPDPC,PPPGDP,PPPPC,PPPSH,PPPEX,PCPI,PCPIPCH)) and will grow even further in next 5 year (up to 3.435%). In next 5 years the development trend will put Russia on 4-5 place in the world economy after China, US, Japan and India, while US part is progressively reduced from 20.882% to 19.22% (see IMF prognosis here (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2013&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=111&s=NGDP_R,NGDP_RPCH,NGDP,NGDPD,NGDP_D,NGDPRPC,NGDPP C,NGDPDPC,NGAP_NPGDP,PPPGDP,PPPPC,PPPSH,PPPEX,NID_ NGD)). Unlike US Russian budget 5 last years is closed with great annual surplus. So I cannot see any financial limitation for holding million-size military in Russia.

And also Russia still spend as 2.5% of its GDP on military, while US - as 4.5%. Now guess, whom is more easy to rise the military budget if needed for? :D
Really I know they want to cut some military vacancies and transfer them to civilian companies till 2011, so the total number of Russian military will be something reduced without damage for fighting capability, but not fall below 1 mln.

Nope, your wrong. You say Russia spends 2.5% and the U.S. 4.5% the U.S. is a bit less when you take out the wars. But for the most part you are right about those numbers. Problem is that the U.S. government's expenditures are 2.7 TRILLION dollars. Russian's government spent only 262 billion. They are not cutting military jobs to help the civil sector. Instead, they're doing it because they are only finnally realizing that after the Cold War, it's best to have a high-tech, mobile army, like the one we had to fight and win the first Gulf War. As I have said a thousand times before on this website in forums on Russia: Most of Russia's military equipment was reaserched, designed, built, and paid for during the Soviet Union. Whether its T-72s,T-80s,Su-27s, or a huge part of Russia's naval fleet, none of that is from modern day Russia. The point being when Russia rearms, as it's trying to do know, they are never going to be able to build a force as big as the one they have now.
Total GDP is a good way to estimate the potential of a country's military, not their current capability. The larger one's economy is, the more they can build and the more the can spend. Russia's economy may be predicted to grow but what about their shrinking population. What about the fact that the U.S. economy is still much, much bigger.

[Waylander]

Why do you include Reservists in the US active personal and doesn't do the same with Russias reserve (in the end most conscripts after their service time)?
I agree that the US reserves are called up more frequently right now.
Nevertheless they active forces consist of the said 1,4 million soldiers.

BTW, the CIA world factbook gives a russian budget of 3,9% of GDP (2005 data).

One cannot argue that Russia helds nuclear forces comparable to that of the US.
Alot of Russias ICBMs reach end of their servic life with not enough coming into service to replace the lost ones. That may change with the proposed acceleration of production.
And it lies not that far in the past that Russia started to do boomer patrols again. Especially the comparison of the US and Russian SSBN forces reveals the difference in capabilities right now.
All this may change (or may not) but right now and since the end of the sovjet union the nuclear forces are in a much faster decline than the ones of the US even in the light of american peace dividend.

BTW, what makes you think that Russias conventional forces are on par with US capabilities? Because that's what you make it look like with your statement of Russia spending it's budget 10x more effective.

And while it is right that Russia right now has the fortune to benefit from high prices for raw materials it is also the case that wages are also climbing in Russia.
So when somebody speaks of the good growing statistics of the Russian economy one should always include this problem into his thinking.

[extern]

The larger one's economy is, the more they can build and the more the can spend. Russia's economy may be predicted to grow but what about their shrinking population. What about the fact that the U.S. economy is still much, much bigger.
Yes, US economy is times higher, but the nation efforts are nailed in Iraq and A-stan and the advanced technology programs are cut. Despite 90th years crisis Russia kept its R&D alaive and now it is starting to invent it for serial production (T-95, PAKFA programs, new nuclear subs, ships etc). Russian population is indeed srinking but not in such degree, as used to think. Russian demography is still better than in Western Europe, when the indigenous and educated European population is changed by North Africa migrants. And yeah, the technology advance will make the combatant number less important in near future.

[extern]

BTW, the CIA world factbook gives a russian budget of 3,9% of GDP (2005 data).

One cannot argue that Russia helds nuclear forces comparable to that of the US.
Alot of Russias ICBMs reach end of their servic life with not enough coming into service to replace the lost ones. That may change with the proposed acceleration of production.
And it lies not that far in the past that Russia started to do boomer patrols again. Especially the comparison of the US and Russian SSBN forces reveals the difference in capabilities right now.
All this may change (or may not) but right now and since the end of the sovjet union the nuclear forces are in a much faster decline than the ones of the US even in the light of american peace dividend.

BTW, what makes you think that Russias conventional forces are on par with US capabilities?
I dont think, the conventional forces of Russia is even near equal to US. But if speak about nuke triad, it's so: the parity is kept. Do you know how US nuclear force are shrinked during Bush prezidency? Two folds. Unlike US concentrated on fighting 'terrorism' and dubious AMD, Russia is pushing to serial 3 totally new strategic system simultaneousely: Bulava for totaly new class of subs, Yarts (RS-24) for ground complex and unnamed still classified long range cruise missile with low RCS for strategic aircrafts. Isnt enough? What US or GB do in same aspect?
And no, I dont offer to believe blind to CIA reports regarding Russia. They allways were wrong about it. My number is from the Russian sources. The Mil budget is keeping rather low so it has a span for growing for sure.

And for your knowing Russia canceled to make patrol near US border in 2001 after the Tween attacked and Bush asked Putin to cancel it. It's no relation to economic status in Russia, at least last 8-10 years.

[f-22fan12]

Why do you include Reservists in the US active personal and doesn't do the same with Russias reserve (in the end most conscripts after their service time)?
I agree that the US reserves are called up more frequently right now.
Nevertheless they active forces consist of the said 1,4 million soldiers.

BTW, the CIA world factbook gives a russian budget of 3,9% of GDP (2005 data).

One cannot argue that Russia helds nuclear forces comparable to that of the US.
Alot of Russias ICBMs reach end of their servic life with not enough coming into service to replace the lost ones. That may change with the proposed acceleration of production.
And it lies not that far in the past that Russia started to do boomer patrols again. Especially the comparison of the US and Russian SSBN forces reveals the difference in capabilities right now.
All this may change (or may not) but right now and since the end of the sovjet union the nuclear forces are in a much faster decline than the ones of the US even in the light of american peace dividend.

BTW, what makes you think that Russias conventional forces are on par with US capabilities? Because that's what you make it look like with your statement of Russia spending it's budget 10x more effective.

And while it is right that Russia right now has the fortune to benefit from high prices for raw materials it is also the case that wages are also climbing in Russia.
So when somebody speaks of the good growing statistics of the Russian economy one should always include this problem into his thinking.

Very well said. I couldn't agree more with your way of thinking.

Once again, well said.:)

[extern]

Something more related to tanks: the paintful lesson of Korea or how three poor destroyed countries with mediocre socialist economy defeated the coalition of 'all civilized mankind'. :D
English pdf-book
tank warfare in korea 1950-53.pdf - 40.51MB (http://www.zshare.net/download/15691206864a587d/)

[Feanor]

The korean war is a whole different issue. An industrial super power that had ample experience in producing tanks, and ample experience in winning a tank-based war was supporting the DPRK. And the thousands of Chinese "volunteers". So again the USA has 1.4 million active forces, Russia has 1.1 million. The USA has 300+ million population and growing. Russia has 140 million and shrinking (though for those not paying close attention, this trend is on the verge of being reversed with the recent situation). Russian economy at 1.3 trillion, U.S. at 13 trillion. Where do you see room for Russia to retain the huge army in existence right now? The Russian Army might reach this size again in the future, after many years of steady economic growth, and possible territorial expansions (like URB finally becoming a reality etc.).

EDIT: Russia may be able to re-arm the current armed forces at their present size. It's not out of bounds. But the cost would be tremendous.

[extern]

The korean war is a whole different issue. An industrial super power that had ample experience in producing tanks, and ample experience in winning a tank-based war was supporting the DPRK. And the thousands of Chinese "volunteers". So again the USA has 1.4 million active forces, Russia has 1.1 million. The USA has 300+ million population and growing. Russia has 140 million and shrinking (though for those not paying close attention, this trend is on the verge of being reversed with the recent situation). Russian economy at 1.3 trillion, U.S. at 13 trillion. Where do you see room for Russia to retain the huge army in existence right now?
After WW2 the half of Russia industry was destroyed, the old center of tank-building - Ukraine, Kharkov was destroyed totally, the second - Leningrad was after blockade recovery, 1946-47 years was starvation. Where you see 'industrial superpower' then? Now Russia is much more advanced in all aspects, Russian science then in 40th - was a joke against what Russia has now including of course the access to foreign technologies for reducing R&D cost.

The same situation was repeated in 1983, when the Russian T-72's were the best tanks on the market. No round from Israeli 105 mm MG could penetrate their armor even from zero distance. Thus they started rearmed their forces with 120 mm. I could bring for you some sources about this, but they are in Russian. So I give you a book in English about Lebanon-1 War. Give your attention for heavy Israeli loses in tanks:
tank battles on the meadle east wars2.pdf - 15.65MB (http://www.zshare.net/download/15704792cdcc257e/)

[Chrom]

After WW2 the half of Russia industry was destroyed, the old center of tank-building - Ukraine, Kharkov was destroyed totally, the second - Leningrad was after blockade recovery, 1946-47 years was starvation. Where you see 'industrial superpower' then? Now Russia is much more advanced in all aspects, Russian science then in 40th - was a joke against what Russia has now including of course the access to foreign technologies for reducing R&D cost.

The same situation was repeated in 1983, when the Russian T-72's were the best tanks on the market. No round from Israeli 105 mm MG could penetrate their armor even from zero distance. Thus they started rearmed their forces with 120 mm. I could bring for you some sources about this, but they are in Russian. So I give you a book in English about Lebanon-1 War. Give your attention for heavy Israeli loses in tanks:
tank battles on the meadle east wars2.pdf - 15.65MB (http://www.zshare.net/download/15704792cdcc257e/)


Extern, dont run blind. It is wrong to say what current russian army have same capability as US army. Even man-by-man and tank-by-tank - obviously, US army is way superior. Basically, Russian army is greatly degraded USSR army, with only token improvements in some isolated areas.

Whereas US army already made 2 generations since 80x. This include everything - from military technic to strategy and training. The only semi-comparable to US force in russian army is nuclear strategic force. Everything else, as i said - degraded remains of USSR military.

[extern]

Extern, dont run blind. It is wrong to say what current russian army have same capability as US army. Even man-by-man and tank-by-tank - obviously, US army is way superior. Basically, Russian army is greatly degraded USSR army, with only token improvements in some isolated areas. .I didnt say about 'same capability' in conventional forces. But Russia has no international obligations in many world areas as US have now. So US have to have more. However, how tanks etc has US in 1990 and how they have now? Isnt there is 10 time or so less?

BTW, in many aspects especially in armor area US during last 15 year only closed the gap with Soviet level of technology. After all now Russia is less behind US in tank-building than US were behind Russia in 1993. And seemingly the first tanks of the next generation will be manufactured in Russia ;)

[Chrom]

I didnt say about 'same capability' in conventional forces. But Russia has no international obligations in many world areas as US have now. So US have to have more. However, how tanks etc has US in 1990 and how they have now? Isnt there is 10 time or so less?

No, more like 2 times less. By that, ALL M1x tanks are still there, and most of them even 2 times upgraded since then. Compare it to ex-USSR Russia, which had 1/4 USSR active tank force, and almost all tanks are still mid-80x tech at best.



BTW, in many aspects especially in armor area US during last 15 year only closed the gap with Soviet level of technology. After all now Russia is less behind US in tank-building than US were behind Russia in 1993. And seemingly the first tanks of the next generation will be manufactured in Russia ;) Is some isolated areas like ERA or ATGM - yes, but in almost any other area (especially FCS and BM) - 1-2 generations ahead. Remember, there are very few T-90 in russian army.

We can argue what in 70x - 80x USSR tanks were probably best in the world. But now - they are still mid 80x tanks. Whereas Abrams, Leo's or Challies - generally end 90x-early 2000x upgrades.

[extern]

No, more like 2 times less. By that, ALL M1x tanks are still there, and most of them even 2 times upgraded since then. Compare it to ex-USSR Russia, which had 1/4 USSR active tank force, and almost all tanks are still mid-80x tech at best..You are joking, they hardly have 5000-5500 Abrams of now. Only in the 5 years between 2001 and 2006 they dismissed as 1300 tanks, as 22% of whole their tanks fleet without a single new tank been manufactured. It's during two ground wars simultaneousely! So who is in decline? :p:

Someday I have allready brough here the officially US report to UN about heavy weapons. This is it: (http://disarmament.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf) 8,971 (1997) 8,133 (1999), 8,087 (2001) 6,323 (2006). let's remember 14,000 Abrams's were produced since 1979. Only as 1174 between the manufactured are M1A2's that undisputely could be rated above T-90. Yes the most of M1's needed urgentely upgrade since with their 105 mm they could not take on even T-72 from zero distance, dont speek about T-90.

The US Navy was reduced twice or trice after Cold War despite growing in international obligations. Aviation was reduced many folds too. So both power reduced their forces drastically after Cold War resolved. The only difference: US is over their apogee and have no other direction in visible future but down (I mean weapons issue and US economy overstretch) .

[eckherl]

You are joking, they hardly have 5000-5500 Abrams of now. Only in the 5 years between 2001 and 2006 they dismissed as 1300 tanks, as 22% of whole their tanks fleet without a single new tank been manufactured. It's during two ground wars simultaneousely! So who is in decline? :p:

Someday I have allready brough here the officially US report to UN about heavy weapons. This is it: (http://disarmament.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf) 8,971 (1997) 8,133 (1999), 8,087 (2001) 6,323 (2006). let's remember 14,000 Abrams's were produced since 1979. Only as 1174 between the manufactured are M1A2's that undisputely could be rated above T-90. Yes the most of M1's needed urgentely upgrade since with their 105 mm they could not take on even T-72 from zero distance, dont speek about T-90.

The US Navy was reduced twice or trice after Cold War despite growing in international obligations. Aviation was reduced many folds too. So both power reduced their forces drastically after Cold War resolved. The only difference: US is over their apogee and have no other direction in visible future but down (I mean weapons issue and US economy overstretch) .

Are you sure about the numbers inregards to M1A2s manufactured or upgraded, there are plans and funds approved for General Dynamics to upgrade additional M1s to not only A2 standards but to SEP also so that they can be augumented into the FSC program and technologies, this is not even including the possible build of a M1A3 model and the FSC tank platform that will be built for rapid deployment.

Stop using the economy and the drain from Iraq war excuse, It will take Russia and China at a minimum, 20 years to get to a fighting level to even think about locking horns with us, botom line, Russia better start to worry about its newly energized neighbor that it shares a accasional hostile border with, surely you guys dont really believe in all that we are friends and all is forgotten BS do you.:D

Extern - you know very well that you can fight smarter and leaner wars with todays and tomorrows technologies.

[extern]

Russia better start to worry about its newly energized neighbor that it shares a accasional hostile border with, surely you guys dont really believe in all that we are friends and all is forgotten BS do you.:D

Extern - you know very well that you can fight smarter and leaner wars with todays and tomorrows technologies.
Sure we are not enemies today of course, just competitors ;)
And I agree about technology input with future reduce in number. So, I predict 5,000-7,500 tank in Russia as a target for current reformation. Anyway the tanks is allmost useless in deterrence against USA or China, but still needed for force projection in near border and abroad. Like US on the sea Russia as a continental power needs mightful ground 'navy'.

I repeat also (according to the Russian general) in 10 years as a half of the tanks in Russia will be T-90 with futher upgrades, and the remained will include the older versions of T-serials and the 'next generation tank' (after 2010). They are reducing the old stock very quickly: only in 2007 near 4000 tanks from the noted above 22,000 were utilized.

[Chrom]

You are joking, they hardly have 5000-5500 Abrams of now. Only in the 5 years between 2001 and 2006 they dismissed as 1300 tanks, as 22% of whole their tanks fleet without a single new tank been manufactured. It's during two ground wars simultaneousely! So who is in decline? :p:
Russia. As i said, in much sharper decline than US forces. Besides, official figures for US tanks numbers - 16.000. This however includes tanks in storage.


Someday I have allready brough here the officially US report to UN about heavy weapons. This is it: (http://disarmament.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf) 8,971 (1997) 8,133 (1999), 8,087 (2001) 6,323 (2006). let's remember 14,000 Abrams's were produced since 1979. Only as 1174 between the manufactured are M1A2's that undisputely could be rated above T-90. Yes the most of M1's needed urgentely upgrade since with their 105 mm they could not take on even T-72 from zero distance, dont speek about T-90.

This is number of tanks in active tanks units. Almost all of these 6000 tanks are upgraded to at least M1A1/A2 standard, with 120mm weapon.
Dont forget M1A1HE, M1A2SEP, etc. There are only few T-90 in russian army Also, dont forget real armament equipment in service - all US tanks have access to M829A2/A3 rounds and can penetrate all russian tanks at all ranges (except may be T-90), whereas russian tanks really have only BM-42 in service, which cant reliable penetrate even M1A1HE armor.

And again, these M1 upgrades installed much better FCS and BM systems than currently being installed on even T-90, not to speak ancient T-72.

The US Navy was reduced twice or trice after Cold War despite growing in international obligations. Aviation was reduced many folds too.
Yes, but to much, much, much lesser degree than USSR/Russian army. Besides, this is natural thing reducing aircrafts / ships numbers while increasing they capabilities. An F-15 / F-18 of 2008 origin is not nearly the same as F-18 of 80x. Whereas russian Su-27 is still an 80x vintage Su-27. And i dont even speak about F-22 and (soon) F-35 here.

So both power reduced their forces drastically after Cold War resolved. The only difference: US is over their apogee and have no other direction in visible future but down (I mean weapons issue and US economy overstretch) .
Undoubtedly, both powers reduced they forces. But Russia is only 1/4 of USSR forces at very best, whereas US army actually increased its capabilities if we count actual firepower and strengths, not pure numbers. And this is even not taking in account Warpac vs NATO relation, which is now NATO vs Russia relation and is changed like 10-fold (Russia now being 5-10 times weaker than NATO)

[Feanor]

After WW2 the half of Russia industry was destroyed, the old center of tank-building - Ukraine, Kharkov was destroyed totally, the second - Leningrad was after blockade recovery, 1946-47 years was starvation. Where you see 'industrial superpower' then? Now Russia is much more advanced in all aspects, Russian science then in 40th - was a joke against what Russia has now including of course the access to foreign technologies for reducing R&D cost.

Wrong. During the 40's Russia was manufacturing the cutting edge in tank technology. The major tank producing center had moved to Stalingrad, and further east (remember Tankograd?). The Russian military, despite demobilization, was still capable of rolling through Europe, and the military consisted of battle hardened veterans. Modern day Russia is far behind in relative terms.

The same situation was repeated in 1983, when the Russian T-72's were the best tanks on the market. No round from Israeli 105 mm MG could penetrate their armor even from zero distance. Thus they started rearmed their forces with 120 mm. I could bring for you some sources about this, but they are in Russian. So I give you a book in English about Lebanon-1 War. Give your attention for heavy Israeli loses in tanks:
tank battles on the meadle east wars2.pdf - 15.65MB (http://www.zshare.net/download/15704792cdcc257e/)

I read Russian fluently. Much better then English. So feel free to give me Russian sources.

[Chrom]

This is quite widely known fact - in early 80x USSR tested captured tank with m111 round against T-72A. Only glacis were penetrated from less than 1000m range (3 from 5 hits). As result of this trial 20mm steel appliqué was added on glacis to all T-72A in russian service. T-72B / T64B / T80 had better protection, so obviously they were safe.

[eckherl]

This is quite widely known fact - in early 80x USSR tested captured tank with m111 round against T-72A. Only glacis were penetrated from less than 1000m range (3 from 5 hits). As result of this trial 20mm steel appliqué was added on glacis to all T-72A in russian service. T-72B / T64B / T80 had better protection, so obviously they were safe.

And who conducted these tests, who confirmed these tests, is the engagement range realistic.

[Feanor]

Yes Chrom if you have detailed information on the test, it would be appreciated.

EDIT: Though I think we all know the results of the testing on T-72B's with all types of 1989 NATO ammunition.

[extern]

Russia. As i said, in much sharper decline than US forces. Besides, official figures for US tanks numbers - 16.000. This however includes tanks in storage.

This is number of tanks in active tanks units. Almost all of these 6000 tanks are upgraded to at least M1A1/A2 standard, with 120mm weapon.
Dont forget M1A1HE, M1A2SEP, etc. There are only few T-90 in russian army Also, dont forget real armament equipment in service - all US tanks have access to M829A2/A3 rounds and can penetrate all russian tanks at all ranges (except may be T-90), whereas russian tanks really have only BM-42 in service, which cant reliable penetrate even M1A1HE armor.
Good to know about 16,000. :) Any source?
About BM-42 you are right, but you dont take in to account that the new APFSDS round with 20% better penetration was developed already some years ago. In what degree it's in serial production dont ask because it's classified. I cannot see a cause why not.

About aviation, 5th gen planes etc - I also agree, but we speak about tanks yes. US have no next gen tank even in project, do they. I repeat: never I said Russia is as US in conventional forces.

for feanor:
If you read Russian I can offer you Suvorov's book about T-72. He writes about T-72 battle experience very broadly including rare English sources.
t-72_optimised.pdf - 17.45MB (http://www.zshare.net/download/15797998faf34a65/)

[Waylander]

One could count the XM1202 Mounted Combat System which is part of the FCS program. It is not really a new tank and I am scepticle about it's true capabilities but nevertheless it is a new step.

And you said that russia uses it's 10 times smaller budget 10 times more effective. For me this makes it look like they are in the same level which they are defenitely not.
You also mentioned the reduced size of the USN and USAF as if Russia comes even close to the capabilitiesmof these two services.
And do you really think that Russia is on the way to the same level as the US? Russia would have never been able to pull a stunt like the conventional phase of OIF with the same amount of troops and in the same timeframe from Kuweit to Bagdad nor are they reaching this capability in the near future.

BTW, while alot of Abrams are also upgraded to M1A1 AIM2 level instead of M1A2SEP this upgrade makes them also a lot more capable than most of the current tank fleet of russia.

[Chrom]

Good to know about 16,000. :) Any source?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_tan-military-tanks
as example, the numbers are taken from Tom O’ Connor, “Intelligence Analysis,” http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/427/427lects - but now the article is removed and i couldnt find any copy.


About BM-42 you are right, but you dont take in to account that the new APFSDS round with 20% better penetration was developed already some years ago. In what degree it's in serial production dont ask because it's classified. I cannot see a cause why not.
There are a lot of things developed in Russia. For example, we also all know there are Su-30MKI and Su-35BM developed, which are at least equal to latest F-15. But we are speaking about fielded equipment. Entirely different matter...

About aviation, 5th gen planes etc - I also agree, but we speak about tanks yes. US have no next gen tank even in project, do they. I repeat: never I said Russia is as US in conventional forces.
US have next gen tank in project, research study. But right now they have no needs to really speed up development - there are no competitors. IF Russia actually starts fielding new gen tank - then we will surely quickly hear something definitives about next-gen US tank.

[eckherl]

Good to know about 16,000. :) Any source?
About BM-42 you are right, but you dont take in to account that the new APFSDS round with 20% better penetration was developed already some years ago. In what degree it's in serial production dont ask because it's classified. I cannot see a cause why not.

About aviation, 5th gen planes etc - I also agree, but we speak about tanks yes. US have no next gen tank even in project, do they. I repeat: never I said Russia is as US in conventional forces.

for feanor:
If you read Russian I can offer you Suvorov's book about T-72. He writes about T-72 battle experience very broadly including rare English sources.
t-72_optimised.pdf - 17.45MB (http://www.zshare.net/download/15797998faf34a65/)

We do not have 16,000 tanks in inventory nor storage, the only way that anybody could get to that number is if we could include M-60A1/A3 model tanks, we have gone through great pains to get rid of them to a point that we darn near are just giving them away for nothing including throwing a bunch of them in the ocean. What is left is pretty much earmarked for Iraq.

Why BM42, your focus should be on Russian BM42M and BM46, the question is how many of these rounds have made it into storage and if any of them have been sold off to Russian clients. Russians are concerned Extern on the capabilities of the latest KE projectile model when it comes to engagement ranges and performance against the likes of M1A2.

[eckherl]

Yes Chrom if you have detailed information on the test, it would be appreciated.

EDIT: Though I think we all know the results of the testing on T-72B's with all types of 1989 NATO ammunition.

You have brought up a good point inregards to 1989 performace tests, thus the reason why the U.S scrambled for getting the M829A2 designed. I keep telling you guys that range is one of the things that plays a important aspect on what gets fielded.

M829A2 is designed for K5 protection level tanks.
M829A3 is designed for K6 and future protection level tanks.

[eckherl]

One could count the XM1202 Mounted Combat System which is part of the FCS program. It is not really a new tank and I am scepticle about it's true capabilities but nevertheless it is a new step.

And you said that russia uses it's 10 times smaller budget 10 times more effective. For me this makes it look like they are in the same level which they are defenitely not.
You also mentioned the reduced size of the USN and USAF as if Russia comes even close to the capabilitiesmof these two services.
And do you really think that Russia is on the way to the same level as the US? Russia would have never been able to pull a stunt like the conventional phase of OIF with the same amount of troops and in the same timeframe from Kuweit to Bagdad nor are they reaching this capability in the near future.

BTW, while alot of Abrams are also upgraded to M1A1 AIM2 level instead of M1A2SEP this upgrade makes them also a lot more capable than most of the current tank fleet of russia.

You will all see our future FSC tank alot quicker than originally anticipated, the U.S Army was pretty much told to get it produced along with some of the other models/platforms or the whole bloody project will get scrapped all together, the money and time spent on this project for our army is something else to be pissed about, hey - could this be another example of how a countries top brass that is rubbing elbows with defense contractors can muck things up, kinda like the Arjun debacle.:D

[Waylander]

Hey at least the US army releases one shiny new FCS commercial video every year or so. :D

[Chrom]

We do not have 16,000 tanks in inventory nor storage, the only way that anybody could get to that number is if we could include M-60A1/A3 model tanks, we have gone through great pains to get rid of them to a point that we darn near are just giving them away for nothing including throwing a bunch of them in the ocean. What is left is pretty much earmarked for Iraq.
Of course M60 are included - after all only less than 9000 Abrams were produced.

Why BM42, your focus should be on Russian BM42M and BM46, the question is how many of these rounds have made it into storage and if any of them have been sold off to Russian clients. Russians are concerned Extern on the capabilities of the latest KE projectile model when it comes to engagement ranges and performance against the likes of M1A2.
Thats why i specifically talked about fielded equipment. There are almost no such rounds in russian inventory - same as there was almost no R-77 until about 3 years ago when Su-27SM / Mig-29SMT program started.

In very near future we will likely see quite big rearmament of russian army regarding projectiles and missiles used - i.e. buying new tank rounds, new AA missiles, etc.

[Feanor]

Good to know about 16,000. :) Any source?
About BM-42 you are right, but you dont take in to account that the new APFSDS round with 20% better penetration was developed already some years ago. In what degree it's in serial production dont ask because it's classified. I cannot see a cause why not.

For the same reason the R-77 never entered serial production. :rolleyes: No money, no productino facilities equipped for it.

About aviation, 5th gen planes etc - I also agree, but we speak about tanks yes. US have no next gen tank even in project, do they. I repeat: never I said Russia is as US in conventional forces.

There probably is one inn project, just hasn't been publicly presented yet.

If you read Russian I can offer you Suvorov's book about T-72. He writes about T-72 battle experience very broadly including rare English sources.
t-72_optimised.pdf - 17.45MB (http://www.zshare.net/download/15797998faf34a65/)

Suvorov is not a good source. I've read his books on WWII. He constantly falsifies quotes and makes many, many errors of omission. While he's a talented author, he's a bad researcher. I'll read it. But I doubt it will majorly expand my horizons, or change the way I think.

[extern]

There probably is one inn project, just hasn't been publicly presented yet.
.They did present but after that they closed it:

[eckherl]

Of course M60 are included - after all only less than 9000 Abrams were produced.

Thats why i specifically talked about fielded equipment. There are almost no such rounds in russian inventory - same as there was almost no R-77 until about 3 years ago when Su-27SM / Mig-29SMT program started.

In very near future we will likely see quite big rearmament of russian army regarding projectiles and missiles used - i.e. buying new tank rounds, new AA missiles, etc.

Again Chrom - we do not have 16,000 tanks laying around that are activated or in storage.

And how do you know what Russia has in storage as far as KE projectiles.

[eckherl]

Hey at least the US army releases one shiny new FCS commercial video every year or so. :D

Yep - and that will not keep congress going much longer, the U.S Army has been told to produce or can the whole concept due to cost. We will soon see how great the SPH portion of the project will be.:)

[eckherl]

They did present but after that they closed it:

You are so so wrong, M1A3 is in the final design stages, and the photos you presented is just one of the many proto types that have emerged.

[Chrom]

And how do you know what Russia has in storage as far as KE projectiles.

Rumors and some data (also not official) about BM-46 and newer rounds production. Seems rather very believable to me compared to other facts - like already mentioned almost non-existent R-77.

[extern]

You are so so wrong, M1A3 is in the final design stages, and the photos you presented is just one of the many proto types that have emerged.Hmm... I read about M1A3, but allways thought it's a tank with a still conventional design, or according to last rumor in internet - unmanned turret on Abrams chassis. If the americans followed it , it's just great! It means, the stupid gready Kremlin-walkers will give money for T-95 production and Russia will have a new tank too :D

[extern]

Suvorov is not a good source. I've read his books on WWII. He constantly falsifies quotes and makes many, many errors of omission. While he's a talented author, he's a bad researcher. I'll read it. But I doubt it will majorly expand my horizons, or change the way I think.Suvorov - is the best Russian source about tanks! He is a professional tank officer and further - the military researcher and an academic instructor in the Russian tank academy. Many things he knows not from the books but from the field. For example, he was an eyewitner of the field tests of american 105 mm vs T-72, and he writes it could not penetrate T-72 from the front even from zero distance. Now I send you the article about Merkava and its clashes with T-72s in Lebanon, were Suvorov writes about this fact.
merkava_suvorov_2.pdf - 4.57MB (http://www.zshare.net/download/1588834453542941/)

[eckherl]

Hmm... I read about M1A3, but allways thought it's a tank with a still conventional design, or according to last rumor in internet - unmanned turret on Abrams chassis. If the americans followed it , it's just great! It means, the stupid gready Kremlin-walkers will give money for T-95 production and Russia will have a new tank too :D

M1A3 will not come equipped with a unmanned turret, FSC platform yes.