This is a discussion on T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Okay, i have taken the time to look at waht sepcs I could find on the T-90, and it appears ...
Okay, i have taken the time to look at waht sepcs I could find on the T-90, and it appears to me to be just anothe rupgraded T-72. Aside from upgraded armor, firecontrol, and some untested defensive measures, what is the difference. The leap in the US arsenal form the M-60 to the M-1 was generational; the move from the T-72 to T-80 to T-90 has been incremental improvements.
Albiet, the T-90 has improvements in armor and Firecontrol, it still has some inherit deficiences in its design compared to machines like the M-1, Challenger, or Leopard II:
It still usees the 125mm russian gun that is flat out inferior to the 120mm guns on the ewstern tanks.
You can add what ever reactive armor you want but the T-72/T-90 class is still much more vulnerable to catastrophic damage because of its more cramp crew compartment
4 tank crew members is ALWAYS better than 3. With four crew, you have an extra guy to help repair and maintain the tank, take over for a wounded crewmate, operate a MG or rifle from the turret, and with four guys you do not have the auto-loader which is slower and more prone to disruption than its human counterpart.
Okay, i have taken the time to look at waht sepcs I could find on the T-90, and it appears to me to be just anothe rupgraded T-72.
It still usees the 125mm russian gun that is flat out inferior to the 120mm guns on the ewstern tanks.
....4 tank crew members is ALWAYS better than 3. With four crew, you have an extra guy to help repair and maintain the tank, take over for a wounded crewmate, operate a MG or rifle from the turret, and with four guys you do not have the auto-loader which is slower and more prone to disruption than its human counterpart.
M60 is 2nd postwar gen tank, like the russian T-55/T-62. T-64/T-72/t-80/T-90 - is really belong to the next 3th gen just, like Abrams. And when you speak about the autoloader, just remember that it is planned to be on the 4th gen american FCS armored vehicles program. Also the last western (Leclerc) and Japanese 3th gen tank (Type-90 MBT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1XY9xSURR4 ) have autoloader as well. Thus, the Russian way in tank-building when an autoloader is obligatory has won. And if you really need 'extra guys' why to employ him for such low quallificated work like loading? Just give him additional weapons channel, like in BMPT with 5 crewmen:
Last edited by extern; October 7th, 2006 at 06:11 AM.
russian battle tanks have all been of evolutionary nature ,right from the t-34,the russians never realy discard a concept ,they take a proven concept and retain them in their next tank projects(they may modify them) ,that is the reason why russian battle tanks are light weight,rugged,easy to operate and relatively low cost than the western tanks.
russian save a lot of amount on the research aspects ,for example a t90 would cost between 2 - 3 million dollars ,whereas abrahms or the leopord would cost anywhere between 5-6 million dollars.
this is also the reason why russian battle tanks or the battle tanks based on the russian design concepts(like the chinese) are very popular since they do not require major infrastructural changes,for example the indian tank factory changed from t72 to t90 production in a very short period of time without extensive retooling,thus saving both time and money.
In these days an autoloader makes more sense to western armies than in the past. The armed forces are much smaller.
The autoloader in the Ts haven't won the race with its round being free in the carussel and with the turret tending to play space rocket after a penetrating hit.
The argument of the Ts being cheaper is an argument for big armys with limited budgets. But for small armys like most western ones it makes more sense to operate more expensive tanks because they operate so small numbers that superiority by sheer number is not an option.
And I really doubt that the Ts tend to be much easier to maintain.
My father served on T-55 and T-72 and his storys about their tanks are not different from our stories.
Last edited by Waylander; October 7th, 2006 at 08:43 AM.
A M60A1 tank is a dog, under powered and thin armor. With the M60A3 we at least had a better fire control system to fight in a defensive battle poster. My fellow tankers and I were quite worried about the capabilities of Russian T-72 and T-80 tanks. For the type of battle doctorine that the Russians used at the time they had excellant armor vechicles. When I fought during the 1st Persian Gulf war we were worried about the T-72`s that the Iraq Army had, we can only be thankful that the Russians did not give them the latest generation type Sabot ammunition. A Russian BR11 Sabot round will penetrate the frontal armor on a M1A1 at 1600 meters. Western tanks may be better on a one on one gun fight and the Russians figured it would take 5 to 6 of their tanks to get one of our great M1`s if their air arm or artillery did not get us first. Just like the Germans learned in WW2 with their Tigers and Panthers, you can have good tanks but if you do not have enough of them The Russians will eventually grind you to the ground. I will still have high respect for the T-90 and T-80 series tanks and it worries me what mother Russia has in store for us with their next generation of armor.
That's often the problem when people compare western tanks to Ts.
It is not one on one.
If you look at the '80s than you see the western tanks on the one side with M60s, M48s and Leopard 1s still forming a really big part of NATO forces.
I would not bet on the NATO air forces being able to gain total air superiority with all these layered SAM defences and sheer number of fighters on WarPac side.
And when your air force is not able to reduce the tank columns and artillery divisions on their way to the frontline you have to deal with an artillery barrage like never seen before and a huge amount of tanks which are better than everything you have except your Abrams and Leo IIs.
And there were enough maneuvers and simulations I saw were NATO was hit by the first arti firewall and so was just not able to retreat fast enough and even while being able to kill some OPFOR units they just closed the gap too fast and went into the infight which is the death bell for defending tank units.
The enemy brakes through, you loose cohesion, you have to retreat under heavy fire, the benefits of using defensive positions no longer exist and the red forces are crushing its way through your lines.
On the other hand if the OPFOR directes its first arti salvo onto the wrong position it could also result in a turkey shooting.
Did the Warsaw doctrine dictate Tank vs Tank battles? As I understand from various discussions, Warsaw/Soviet use massed artillary and Air power to crush enemy tank formations and use their own tanks as infantry killers.
It is right that WarPac doctrine was to crush enemy positions by using massive artillery and air force assets.
It is also right that the WarPac prepared their tanks better for infantry support by early giving them a usefull HE round.
But in the end the Ts were supposed to break through the NATO frontlines and kill the NATO tanks left after the artillery and air bombardement.
Just not one on one but one vs three/four/five.
It is right that WarPac doctrine was to crush enemy positions by using massive artillery and air force assets.
It is also right that the WarPac prepared their tanks better for infantry support by early giving them a usefull HE round.
But in the end the Ts were supposed to break through the NATO frontlines and kill the NATO tanks left after the artillery and air bombardement.
Just not one on one but one vs three/four/five.
So it doesn't make sense to compare capability of Soviet tank to Western Tanks without taking in to account the doctrine they were designed for. In addition Soviets were ready to take more casualities and prepared for it.
I may be going off-topic but what about use of tactical nukes by both sides? At what stage do they come in to play?
Even the Russians know that if you start lobbing tactical nukes that this is a no win situation, (Everyone Loses.) NATO wouldn`t do it because of the damage that would be brought on European towns and the casualties, I do not care what their battle docturine states, it would of been bad enough with all the artillery and air strikes with conventual type weapons. Russian artillery is very awesome and they are the masters at using it, when they come upon a large formation of enemy troops they will bypass it and cut it off and mop it up later, something that they learned from the Germans in WW2, their goal is to eat up as much territory as possible and after they punch a hole in your defensive lines your in a world of hurt if you do not have enough in reserves to stem this off which NATO did not have. This is why Russian armor is small, fast, good gun capabilities and can ford rivers and streams. Warsaw Pact forces could call on well over 50,000 tanks to battle while NATO could bring in around 12,000.
Another problem was that NATO's only chance would have been a flexible defense. We trained for it but there is just not enough territory which could have been sacrifized.
And if the war would have been started without mobilization on both sides I would not have given a penny for NATO, especially on weekends.
The overall peacetime readiness was higher in the east.
The problem of many countrys who use Ts these days is that they are not able to use them like the sovjets/russians doctrine says it.
There are few countrys who are able to field them together with the necessary artillery, AA, infantry, air and intelligence support.
And none of these countries has the same abilities like the sovjets had.
[quote=kams]So it doesn't make sense to compare capability of Soviet tank to Western Tanks without taking in to account the doctrine they were designed for. In addition Soviets were ready to take more casualities and prepared for it.
The problem of many countrys who use Ts these days is that they are not able to use them like the sovjets/russians doctrine says it.
There are few countrys who are able to field them together with the necessary artillery, AA, infantry, air and intelligence support. And none of these countries has the same abilities like the sovjets had.
While I agree that none of the countries using Ts have the soviet capability (Arty, AA and air), they are not facing NATO either. I don't think many of them are planning to fight mighty US war machine(lets forget about Saddam for a moment here ) . The Ts they have may be suited for the their conflict scenarios and they have developed the tactics accordingly. I don't think no one will ever have the Arty, AA and Air support Soviet had.
As I understand it takes lot of time, effort and resources to develop effective Tank warfare tactics to achieve good coordination with with Infantry, Engineer, artillary units. For a country who are used to lighter Ts, its not an easy task to switch to Western tanks. India's Arjun is one such case. Arjun is drastically diferent from Ts in firepower, Mobility, technology. Apart from the technical glitches, Arjuns technolgy would mean that IA having to adopt drastically different tactics, meaning whole lot of retraining, development of doctrine etc. and the what Arjun is offering in return (Firepower, Armour protection, Technology) may not be required by IA in the conflict scenario of the region (Pakistan, China to a lesser extent). Hence Arjun is as good as dead, however good technically advanced it might be.
I am not a Defence professional, what I am writing is based on the discussion I have had with various (ex)service men and professionals like yourself. There are huge gaps in my knowldge, but that helps me to maintain an open mind and absorb the wisdom you guys share so generously. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
North Korea has a huge amount of artillery, AA, and armor even though it is based on the technology of the 1960`s and they use soviet style tactics, What is alarming is the growth of China`s military with the technology to boot, with in 5 to 6 years they will pretty much have a reach out and touch you anywhere in the world type military. Air/Land/Sea.
The Ts they have may be suited for the their conflict scenarios and they have developed the tactics accordingly. I don't think no one will ever have the Arty, AA and Air support Soviet had.
.
I dont think it would make any difference for these countries if they had T-90 or M1A2 or Leo-2. All these tanks cant fight NATO alone. For example, do you think it would turn any different for Iraq if they had M60 instead of T-72? Do you think it would turn any different for Yougoslavia if they had 10 F-16A instead of 10 Mig-29? All modernt tanks are quite comparable in capabilites, and particulary M1A2 and T-90 match quite well each other, both having some advantages against adversary but without any major weakness.
