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; Originally Posted by danger7
In response to anyone who writes on the t-90, it is a signifigant upgrade from the ...
In response to anyone who writes on the t-90, it is a signifigant upgrade from the t-72 series tank. I have served on all variants of the M1 (M1, M1IP, M1E1, M1A1, M1A1HA, M1A1HC, M1A2 SEP v2) and I promise that this is without question the GREATEST main battle tank in the world, bar none, not even the Leo 2A6 or the Challenger II come close. This is speaking on actual combat experience, If anyone disagrees, you probably don't really know what you are talking about. My experience: Tank driver, loader, gunner, commander, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, operations sergeant, sergeant major. 21 yrs of active service.
Do you have some evidence to back up these claims? I ask the question with respect, but at DT we generally expect people who express claims of military service to provide some proof, so they can be given a blue handle and added to the Defence Professionals group. Thanks mate.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volod
you're wrong - it's two different projects
at the foto you can see two T-90 (1st and 2-d) and two T-72UMG - Urainian modernization, machines are practically equal in its capabilities, besides the cost, of course ..))
What exactly am I wrong on? The T-90SA and the T-72UMG were both bought in small trial parties. After comparing the two the decision was made in favor of the T-90, with the variant being negotiated for right now. They may end up with SA, or MS.
Out of curiosity, what goes into the UMG package? I doubt they replace the armor on the hull, meaning at the very least the UMG has inferior protection levels.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by danger7
In response to anyone who writes on the t-90, it is a signifigant upgrade from the t-72 series tank. I have served on all variants of the M1 (M1, M1IP, M1E1, M1A1, M1A1HA, M1A1HC, M1A2 SEP v2) and I promise that this is without question the GREATEST main battle tank in the world, bar none, not even the Leo 2A6 or the Challenger II come close. This is speaking on actual combat experience, If anyone disagrees, you probably don't really know what you are talking about. My experience: Tank driver, loader, gunner, commander, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, operations sergeant, sergeant major. 21 yrs of active service.
Just on a clarification note, you do understand equipment exists within a context, right? An Abrams and a T-90 don't duke it out one on one in a big empty field. So that having been said, and any context lacking in your claim, you do realize you're not making much sense right? For example a country that has operated MBTs with 3-man crews (T-72s) and is looking for a new tank, but has a requirement for 1 000 MBTs, would need to massively increase numbers of tankers to meet this requirement, if they were to switch to the M1. This alone might be an insurmountable obstacle to an M1 being the "best" tank for that country.
There are also other things to consider. Egypt's price tag for M1A1 kits assembled in Egypt has been iirc close to 10 million USD (1.3 bln contract, when you include all the components, for 125 tanks). This is 4 times the price of a new T-90SA. And these aren't even new build kits, these are rebuilds, from storage. With those kinds of prices, is it really the best tank for a country to acquire? Or is it just the best tank to be sitting in on the battlefield? Because those are two very different things.
Just on a clarification note, you do understand equipment exists within a context, right? An Abrams and a T-90 don't duke it out one on one in a big empty field. So that having been said, and any context lacking in your claim, you do realize you're not making much sense right? For example a country that has operated MBTs with 3-man crews (T-72s) and is looking for a new tank, but has a requirement for 1 000 MBTs, would need to massively increase numbers of tankers to meet this requirement, if they were to switch to the M1. This alone might be an insurmountable obstacle to an M1 being the "best" tank for that country.
There are also other things to consider. Egypt's price tag for M1A1 kits assembled in Egypt has been iirc close to 10 million USD (1.3 bln contract, when you include all the components, for 125 tanks). This is 4 times the price of a new T-90SA. And these aren't even new build kits, these are rebuilds, from storage. With those kinds of prices, is it really the best tank for a country to acquire? Or is it just the best tank to be sitting in on the battlefield? Because those are two very different things.
Not really sure on how I'm not making sense. I am not speaking of thoughts, speaking on knowledge. I have fought that tank in different terrain against different enemies and I STILL say it is the best tank out! The kit M1A1 tanks that Egypt has are M1 series clones aka garbage. Regardless of any factors you put in the equation (firepower, mobility, armor) it is the top tank. Sometimes you need to do more than read books to get a good understanding.
What exactly am I wrong on? The T-90SA and the T-72UMG were both bought in small trial parties. After comparing the two the decision was made in favor of the T-90, with the variant being negotiated for right now. They may end up with SA, or MS.
upgrade T-72 continues and is not affiliated with the decision to purchase the T-90
All fleet of T-72 will be upgraded to UMG
Quote:
Out of curiosity, what goes into the UMG package? I doubt they replace the armor on the hull, meaning at the very least the UMG has inferior protection levels.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volod
upgrade T-72 continues and is not affiliated with the decision to purchase the T-90
All fleet of T-72 will be upgraded to UMG
A link would be nice. A link proving that a contract has been signed, or that pre-contract negotiations are underway. Also the entire fleet? So they plan to expand their tank force with the T-90 purchase? Or are some of the T-72s getting replaced with T-90?
EDIT: Your link did not mention this, does the UMG variant come with TIs standard? And if so which ones? Also does it including a panoramic sight upgrade?
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by danger7
Not really sure on how I'm not making sense. I am not speaking of thoughts, speaking on knowledge. I have fought that tank in different terrain against different enemies and I STILL say it is the best tank out! The kit M1A1 tanks that Egypt has are M1 series clones aka garbage. Regardless of any factors you put in the equation (firepower, mobility, armor) it is the top tank. Sometimes you need to do more than read books to get a good understanding.
Are you just ignoring everything I wrote? Or do you not understand what I'm trying to say?
A link would be nice. A link proving that a contract has been signed, or that pre-contract negotiations are underway. Also the entire fleet? So they plan to expand their tank force with the T-90 purchase? Or are some of the T-72s getting replaced with T-90?
EDIT: Your link did not mention this, does the UMG variant come with TIs standard? And if so which ones? Also does it including a panoramic sight upgrade?
As a rool,contracts with foreign customers is a very taboo subject in our country.
First, make, and then show and try to use a smaller PR in terms of customer service. Turkmen contract is one example. The data in the public domain only appeared after the parade has been demonstrated BMP-1U, BTR-80 with RCWS Grom (Thunder) and T-72UMG. But the Kiev armored repair plant continues to modernize the next party of the Turkmenistan tanks.
As for T-90, Turkmenistan bought only 10 tanks at present for expanding tank fleet
Ukrainian TI - sights are made on Photopribor plant Products
I don't know, TI is set to T-72UMG Turkmenistan or not.
But I know that Photopribor does not do anything without money. And at the same time Turkmnistan contract for its site appeared a product Skat-M “SKAT-M” Thermal Tank Sighting Complex
Just on a clarification note, you do understand equipment exists within a context, right? An Abrams and a T-90 don't duke it out one on one in a big empty field. So that having been said, and any context lacking in your claim, you do realize you're not making much sense right? For example a country that has operated MBTs with 3-man crews (T-72s) and is looking for a new tank, but has a requirement for 1 000 MBTs, would need to massively increase numbers of tankers to meet this requirement, if they were to switch to the M1. This alone might be an insurmountable obstacle to an M1 being the "best" tank for that country.
There are also other things to consider. Egypt's price tag for M1A1 kits assembled in Egypt has been iirc close to 10 million USD (1.3 bln contract, when you include all the components, for 125 tanks). This is 4 times the price of a new T-90SA. And these aren't even new build kits, these are rebuilds, from storage. With those kinds of prices, is it really the best tank for a country to acquire? Or is it just the best tank to be sitting in on the battlefield? Because those are two very different things.
I understand what you're trying to say I think. It is not necessarily the best tank for a country to buy. M1s are much more expensive and require more personnel. So a country's best choice may be to purchase the T-90 in order to expand their armor fleet. But what he's saying is that vehicle to vehicle, the Abrams is a better tank. I don't think he's arguing it's always better for a country to invest in M1s. If he is, then there is a whole lot more to consider than just performance.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LloydTasiD
I understand what you're trying to say I think. It is not necessarily the best tank for a country to buy. M1s are much more expensive and require more personnel. So a country's best choice may be to purchase the T-90 in order to expand their armor fleet. But what he's saying is that vehicle to vehicle, the Abrams is a better tank. I don't think he's arguing it's always better for a country to invest in M1s. If he is, then there is a whole lot more to consider than just performance.
That's the distinction I tried to point out to him. I think I made it fairly obvious when I said: "With those kinds of prices, is it really the best tank for a country to acquire? Or is it just the best tank to be sitting in on the battlefield? Because those are two very different things."
And even then I don't think just because one operated a certain tank one can also be sure about it's absolute superiority compared to all the other tanks out there.
One can have an argument for or against certain design features, especially with the bigger difference between the Ts and western designs.
But trying to find enough advantages on a western design to mark it as "The Best™" of the lot is IMHO not possible.
The most modern versions of the Abrams, Leclerc, Challi 2, Leo II, Merkava IV (one could arguably add the K2 and the Types 90 and 10, too) all feature advantages which give them an edge in a certain area.
Weighting these advantages is difficult enough in a clean laboratory environment which in itself is far away from the individual threat matrix every country uses to base a good decision on.
I see it like this it all what a individual country wants or needs. The T-90 could be what some country need such as cost. Everybody don't have big money so they got to get what it can. With that did being said other find way to get the high price stuff. If you do invest in modernize your tank fleet and you can buy western or the T-90 do it right in your training and study the tactic of your military that you going to go against. One thing I remember the most in the US military is the training we did it mean alot. When we train we had other acting as the enemy using there tactics we learn from what just happen. I use to play sport practice means alots the ones who did the best practice makes it look so easy but it not, that how a good military do.
Last edited by surpreme; December 21st, 2011 at 06:41 PM.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
And even then I don't think just because one operated a certain tank one can also be sure about it's absolute superiority compared to all the other tanks out there.
One can have an argument for or against certain design features, especially with the bigger difference between the Ts and western designs.
But trying to find enough advantages on a western design to mark it as "The Best™" of the lot is IMHO not possible.
The most modern versions of the Abrams, Leclerc, Challi 2, Leo II, Merkava IV (one could arguably add the K2 and the Types 90 and 10, too) all feature advantages which give them an edge in a certain area.
Weighting these advantages is difficult enough in a clean laboratory environment which in itself is far away from the individual threat matrix every country uses to base a good decision on.
If he's not even willing to consider that the M1 may not be the best procurement option, he certainly isn't about to be persuaded by the argument that he can't compare every other tank, because he doesn't even know every other tank.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Interesting news Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan both signed contracts for T-90 tanks. Numbers and specific variants are unclear. There's no news from Kazakhstan or Tadjikistan yet. It will be interesting to see if either of those countries opts for the T-90MS, or if this will be more T-90S/A variants. This does mean that UVZ will be continuing to put out huge production volumes despite loss of state defense order for new tanks.
EDIT: Or maybe not. It appears that Turkmenistan only ordered about 1 btln worth of tanks (so ~30). The contract with Azerbaijan hasn't been signed yet, but is about to be. Another contract however was signed in 2011, the customer country has not been disclosed.
EDIT2: Apparently the second contract is with Algeria, for an additional 120 or 150 or 180 tanks (different sources name different numbers).
Last edited by Feanor; February 15th, 2012 at 03:39 PM.
