If that. The main reason for the re-designation was for marketing purposes. The T-72 obtained such a dismal reputation after ODS that the Russians renamed it to make it seem like a different tank.
“We?” Are you Indian? That explains your partisanship in favor of the T-90, I guess. [:)]
Anyway, please keep the political discussions out of this. They have no place on this board.
… and what’s with that lousy photoshop T-90 pic? can’t we get a reasonable photo of the damn thing?
All arguments aside, one fact remains: The best armor in the world only buys you some time.
Okieboy
the one i posted is NOT photoshop. it’s a mobility test run. do some research and you will see this is true. [|)]
search google for T-90 and you come up with quite a few. I also have the Reference book on the T-90 from concord publications and there are many more pics of the “flying” T-90S. Not a photoshop.
Oh, Larry, BTW born and brought up in the US of A but parents come from India. [:)]
Actually the Iraqis used the T-72M1 which is completely different. The T-72BM is a direct ancestor of the T-90 however. The T-90S is a T-72BM with SHTORA jammers added. The T-90 may not be as good as the modern wetsern tanks but to question whether it is different from the T-72 at all is foolishness…
The point is that it is just an upgraded T-72. The hull, turret, running gear, even the 125mm main gun are all the same as the T-72. It may have a better engine, more armor, upgraded optics and fire control system, anti missile device, etc, but it is still basically a T-72 with all that added on. I can take a VW bug and put a Porche engine in it, Bose stereo, digital dash, new body work, etc., etc. But it is still a VW Bug.
More evidence, from Global Security website,
“To further improve the T-72’s export prospects and its chances of being selected as Russia’s sole production MBT, the T-80U’s more sophisticated fire control system was also added to produce a vehicle designated T-72BU. Finally, since worldwide news coverage during Desert Storm had firmly established the image of the T-72 as a burning Iraqi tank, the new model was renamed T-90.” … “Initially thought by Western observers to be an entirely new design, the production model is in fact based on the T-72BM, with some added features from the T-80 series.”
You admit that it may not be as good as modern western tanks, but itsn’t that the point of upgradeing it. If it is Russia’s and other nation’s front line tank, shouldn’t it be as good as, or better than, western counterparts. I know if I was a tanker in the Russian or Indian army, I would want it to be.
Of course, it should be, but the modern western tanks tend to be rather pricey. The T-90 is cheaper and hopefully we can agree that it isn’t a piece of cr*p. I think the Russians still folow their old Soviet doctrine of massed cheap tanks that are easy to use and overwhelm in numbers. For example, 1 M1A1 vs. 30 T-55s Id lay money on the T-55’s. [:D]
My response was actually to Larry’s questioning whether the T-90 was even revamped compared to the T-72.
BTW, is any more info available on the chiorny oriol?
The one modifier we have not dumped into the soup is the training and skill of the crew. Many countries cannot afford to train their crews regularly leading to lower skill levels. What if, wo is be, that your country is not industralized to the point where maintiance of machines and electronics is a common skill? What if it is a belief amoung your countrymen that prevenative maintiance is not well valued, that if it breaks it was because it was part of a devine plan? These things limit what equipment can effectively be deployed. Most countries can field T 55s, but how many can effectively field Leo 2’s, M1A2’s or Challangers? Not many. Too expensive to buy, maintain and to train crews. And who would you be defending against, probably a country that has T 55’s or T 72’s. Give me an M1A2 and a well trained crew against 30 T55’s any day. I would not sit there at 1000m and go head to head. Fight at night, on the move, and use my mobility so they don’t get behind me. Keep them at 2500 m and you will run out of T55s before you run out of ammo. Now a tight urban environment would be considerably more challanging. I know it sounds arrogent and thats not how its ment. Any top line industrial country with top of the line equipment and training is exponentually better than those who are not. The only thing that can off set this is politics and topography. Greg.
More T-90S info: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-90.htm
I totally agree with Greg’s statements above as well. The training of the crew and maintainers is just as important as, and an integral part of the quality and effectiveness of the tanks. Russia and other eastern block countries may still use the flawed Soviet Doctrine of mass numbers of inferior tanks, but I too would still rather be in that M1A2 in the fight you describd above. We proved in Iraq that within a few minutes, a PLT of M1A1s can destroy an entire Bn of T-72s before we even come into their main gun range. Doesn’t sound like a viable plan to me.
ACE has released one in 1/72 scale. I don’t know what quality it is or how accurate it may be, but I do have it on my list of tanks to get. They are a Russian or Ukranian company so I’d guess that they have enough knowledge and sources to make a reasonably accurate kit.
I built that kit. It is accurate, and the upper hull and turret are nice, but the running gear and tracks are atrocious to the point of being unworkable. Don’t buy it.
Right, and part of the doctrine is the requirement that the tanks be transportable throughout Russia, with its many light bridges, so the size of the tank is limited. I have no issue with the idea that the T-90 is a cheap tank. [;)] How different it is from the T-72 is up for grabs.
My point was, had it not been disgraced by its lousy performance opposing the Coalition in ODS, the T-90 would still be called the T-72 – the new developments would just lead to later version designations – like the M1A2 SEP.
Yeah. The Russians lack funding to make a true next gen MBT. So the T-90 is like a 1.6 gen. no T-90s have been sent to Chechnya either. They have a perfect kill to death record 0:0. lol.
The one modifier we have not dumped into the soup is the training and skill of the crew.
There is another modifier, which has not been considered yet: What is the role of a tank?
The problem with this sort of reproductive-appendage-measuring contest that we appear to have devolved this thread into is that it presumes solely one factor of tank capabilities: Tank-on-tank. Yet there is great debate even today as to if Tiger or Sherman was the better tank of WWII. If we were to apply solely the quantifiers mentioned so far in this thread, there would be no debate.
I would submit that the primary role of a tank is not to destroy tanks. It’s to support infantry. For that, you have to start to look at other factors, and I’d be willing to state that when it comes down to infantry support, the M1 is beaten hands-down by T-90, even before you go to the bang-for-buck analysis. The lack of a proper HE round is a serious shortcoming, the better strategic mobility of T-XX doesn’t hurt either.
Late cold-war doctrine, at least in NATO outside the UK has gone more to the concept that a tank is a tank destroyer primarily. Infantry support could be left to the IFVs. The Russians may not have ascribed to that theory. Indeed, I think their inteded tank-killers were assets other than tanks. I know, that then brings us back to WWII and the failed TD/Tank separation can then be brought up, but I submit that technological developments such as the ability to put capable tank-killing assets into platforms other than tanks renders the argument impotent. So then, is it fair to compare Russian-built tanks on the criteria on which Western-built tanks were designed to excel?
NTM
Only when you put them on the battlefield together can they truly be compaired.
I do agree we really need to expand our Ammo options for the 120 mm. The 105mm had a wide selection that made it very versitle on the battle field. Greg.
In regards to Manic Moran’s post, i think the Canadian Forces has the role of Armour sufficiently nailed down; “To engage and defeat the enemy through agressive use of fire power and battlefield mobility.”
On the thought of the original post, what about a HESH round? It is not designed to breach armour but to created a spalling effect on the inside armour surface of an AFV that would probably result in similar injuries (or worse on a thinner skinned vehicle) as described as experienced by the Abrams crew. Would Iraq have access to a HESH type projectile or it’s Russian equivalent?
HESH is not really effective on modern tanks and AFVs anymore. US AFVs have a spall liner of 1" thick kevlar blankets that stop just about all spalling on the inner walls. Modern armor, like Chobham on an M1 is too dense and absorbs the kinetic energy and spalling does not occur either. The M1 also has a spall liner on the inner layer as well.
yeah, but i don’t think if the A10 would kill his own teammate (well except in a friendly fire) ,but yeah i guess your right.
Just add bit more to what above repliers said, it is really hard to totally disable or blow away M1A1 into bits and pieces.
Read Tom Clancy’s book call Armored Cav (it talks about how 2nd ACR and 3rd ACR performed during first gulf war). It talks about how trapped M1A1 was fired by other M1A1’s 3 times (to disable it rather than being captured by Iraqi) and yet the tank was still in operation. Later on it was towed away by a heavy duty towing vehicle out of the sand trap.
504th PIR - Devils in baggy pants.