It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How good is Russian T-90 tank?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 08:27 AM
link   
^^^ So the Su-30Ka is some of of their worst equipment aye??!!Damn I wonder what their best is then, coz the Su-30 is pretty mean...IMHO it can take on any fighter w/o stealth....




posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Some. Not eveyrhting they sell is bad. I'm just syaing that if they run out of storage space for tanks, planes, ships etc... then wouldn't it be logical to get rid of it, and earn some money by selling it to countires that ned it?



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nexus
The Russian T90 is not supposed to be put up against the Abrams, they're supposed to be against soldiers or other/weaker tanks. They can also employ fear into citizens if the T90 was to take to the streets.

No offence to Russia, but they do deal anyhting to anyone for any amount of money. Because they are such a large countyr, with lots of left over weaponry from the Cold War, they are selling it off to other coutnires that are in ened of such "technology".

Because really, the Russians aren't selling their best equitment, they're selling some of their worst...


The T-90 acts as a main battle tank, aka heavy cavalry. It's designed to fight everything.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
i know it is hust a beefed up T-80, and it is in service in really small numbers



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nexus
Because really, the Russians aren't selling their best equitment, they're selling some of their worst...


I disagree. Maybe only the black projects are standing in Russia. In fact today they are exporting better tech than for it's own army.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rowsdower
i know it is hust a beefed up T-80, and it is in service in really small numbers


No it's not. It's a beefed up T-72, in fact a renaming of the T-72BU.

The T-80 is a beefed up version of the T-64.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Most tanks have been marginlized since top kills are so easy. Just look at what an A-10 warthog or Apache helo can do.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The Black Eagle tank is export only that they are developing, no? And its a pretty damn mean tank if you ask me.

The T-90/Challenger 2/Abrams argument is an old one, and whoever fires first wins. They are all pretty equally matched. I would take a Challenger 2 if push came to shove though.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
The Black Eagle tank is export only that they are developing, no? And its a pretty damn mean tank if you ask me.

The T-90/Challenger 2/Abrams argument is an old one, and whoever fires first wins. They are all pretty equally matched. I would take a Challenger 2 if push came to shove though.


Not really. If a T-90 fires fires first with the latest Russian penetrator (600mm) is will not get through the frontal turret armor of either the Abrams or the Challenger. The Abrams would fire back with a M289A3 (960mm)or the Challenger with a CHARM3 (810mm) and penetrate the T-90. The ammo in the carousel auto-loader would explode and completely destroy the tank. If penetrated the Abrams and Challenger will be recoverable and most of the crew would likely survive.

Not to mention a T-90 has an inferior FCS and gun. Making a first round hit less then either an Abrams or Challenger.

THe Abrams also has a better chance of seeing the T-90 first as it has the most advanced thermal sight in the world. The x50 FLIR allows for higher ID ranges and better resolution.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Learn your topic before u open your mouth.

WestPoint32, you should not open your own mouth, why? Because I'm sure on more than one occasion, you have done the same exact thing.

So do not bash the guy for something you yourself have done often in the past.

So let us go back on topic. The T-90 is a good tank, nothing is invincible.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I'd say both are about evenly matched on todays battlefield. I've seen this question has been asked a lot on a lot of forums. Either way they're both vunerable to anti-tank missiles from infantry, aircraft, helicopters and other vehicles. It seems that the tank is no longer the invincible force on the battlefield.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Learn your topic before u open your mouth.

WestPoint32, you should not open your own mouth, why? Because I'm sure on more than one occasion, you have done the same exact thing.

So do not bash the guy for something you yourself have done often in the past.

So let us go back on topic. The T-90 is a good tank, nothing is invincible.

Shattered OUT...

Agreed.


Now I would love to see the new 150mm gun the Russians have been developed. Armor? What armor. The 150mm gun will cut through it like a knife through butter.


[edit on 28-11-2004 by COWlan]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
My personal opinion with Soviet class tanks is one of disdain.

Now let me explain…

After the 1st gulf war I was visiting Camp Lejeune, a major Marine Base for those who don’t know. The marines had just returned and each combat unit had a nice set of Iraqi tanks on display in front of the HQ buildings. In addition, they had a complete set of the latest Soviet armor on display in a open area.

Curious, since I have been inside an M1 Abrams, I decided to get up close and personal with the “advanced” T-80’s and Modern BMP’s.

I was shocked. Seriously shocked. Soviet armor and quality of workmanship was appallingly poor when compared to U.S. armor. It was like comparing a Ferrari with a beat up Volkswagen bug. I felt extreme pity for anyone asked to man these flimsy excuses of a tank against our armor.

They were MUCH smaller than their American counterpart, much more primitive in design and layout that the M1. You go inside the M1 and it looks smooth and well-organized compared to a soviet design.

Now the T-90 might be an improvement but nothing in the Soviet’s national mentality or industrial capability leads me to believe this is very true. The M-1 is not the same tank it was when I was a soldier so I expect it is a mature, capable, design. The T-90 is probably a poor second cousin.

Also recall tanks only make up a portion of any modern battlefield. I keep stressing in post after post that command and control is MUCH more important than having the latest gadget in your arsenal. Watching the USSR, India and China I’m struck by how little they seem to have learned this lesson. However, I then remember that their governments are not really capable (with perhaps the exception on India) of structuring their military in such a way as to employ modern command and control. India has some special problems of its own to overcome before they have a really effective military.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I'd say both are about evenly matched on todays battlefield. I've seen this question has been asked a lot on a lot of forums. Either way they're both vunerable to anti-tank missiles from infantry, aircraft, helicopters and other vehicles. It seems that the tank is no longer the invincible force on the battlefield.


They were never an invincible force on the battlefield. That's why all good military use infantry, cavalry, and artillery n'sync to defeat their enemy. Attacking with an Armor or infantry only force is a stupid idea



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I didn't really mean that they were invincible, it was sort of a figure of speach. Tanks used to be feared by all in it's early days. I think it if a tank is to stand a chance for survival it needs one of those laser point defense guns to defend against missiles. Remember how many tanks Iraq lost to US/British air strikes, thats why tanks need lasers to defend themselves.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Lasers as in particle weapons?



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Um, yes, they may be less well built, but that does not stop them being effective and ALOT better value for money for developing countries, not to mention how hard it is to get hold of a decent tank for them.

Also, were you looking at a Russian Military one or an Iraqi one, as you said Gulf war time. And Iraqi one would surely be held together with duct tape and good luck.


Hmm, the Tank is kind of obsolete as a main weapon now, this is the Time of the Anti-Armour aircraft, the Apache's, Ka-50's, A-10's and Su-25's of the world are the main weapons now. Look at Gulf War 2, we blasted them then rolled in to clear up.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The tank isn't obsolete. Just because things can destroy them doesn't mean they're useless on the battlefield.

The proliferation in anti-air weapons means aircraft are vulerable too. What are you going to do when my mechanized tank and infantry force is covered by good air defenses and it's own air forces?

[edit on 28-11-2004 by Kozzy]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Tanks have been central targets in the last two gulf wars. Tanks have much less use against terrorists because they can't hit targets from numerous miles away and they can't conduct house to house searches. Maybe they will be useful on the open battlefield but those sorts of battles won't happen for a while.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Which is my point. I think most government would now rather avoid the kind of "World War" stlye of heavy warfare against several equally matched nations as it is an incredible drain, and means one nation shall be stricken to poverty for a good while, which doesn't help the world economy.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join