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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   




posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Wrong. Talk to officers at the United States Army Armor School at Fort Knox. They'll tell you off the record that the Merkava is the best tank in the world.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Honestly, what a bunch of useless comments out there.
First: when comparing tanks, their capabilities vs other tanks are always secondary. That's the painful lesson Germans learnt in WW2, and what any qualified armo designer knows, yet forgotten by many 'forum tank experts'.
Second, don't rely on ANY official armor penetration data.
I don't want to write a long article on that, just google some facts
-Challenger 2 penetrated by RPG-29
-Kornet ATGM (9M133) stable penetrating (45 confirmed penetrations) Merkava's during 2006 Lebanon War (Israelis even went angry at Russians, accusing of supplying Hezbollah with those).
etc.

That's the modern, state-of-art tanks getting penetrating by man-portable weapons.
Also look at how brutally combat helicopters demolish tanks.

In fact, when facing a competent enemy, tank will be more often subject to AT-teams attacks (using newer versions of RPG/Javelin/Konkurs/... weapons) or attack helicopters (Apache/Ka-50/...) than to fire of other tank.
Tanks were never that good AT(anti-tank) assets, sure they can engage other tanks, but there are military units better suited to this role.

So when comparing tanks in hands of competent crew and in even battle (not like US vs. Iraq), scrap the stupid tank-vs-tank scenario, and better look onto protection from relevant threats, as well as tank's capability to fullfill designated tasks (assaults, holding ground, etc.)

Also remember there's cost/efficiency consideration. If tank A is 10% 'worse' than tank B, but 50% cheaper, tank B may be a better choice.

As for T90 vs Abrams, well that's a very long and unfortunately useless discussion going on US (hyping Abrams), Russian (hyping T90) and international forums (mixed, or hyping Leo).

Both tanks endured extensive trials in various countries. Both are being built and sold on market (India, for example, has a definite love for T-90).
As for combat tests, unfortunately there's little to no tests of those vs. worthy enemy. Iraq doesn't count; even Hezzbollah in abovementioned 2006's conflict have 'battle-tested' Merkava (and shown it's quite vulnerable) than Iraqis during all the years of Iraq war.

Some few more things:

T-90 has active ('hard' countermeasures system (ARENA) while Abrams didn't (since US rejected Israel-made TROPHY; btw, Israelis decided to go for the system exactly when they saw how vulnerable tanks can be to modern AT-weaponry, not the Iraqi junk). Also, Russian ERA Kontakt-5 has been proven to be better.

Abrams has a far better chassis (by nearly all prameters save for weight). T-90 is, in fact, T-72BU renamed; and T-72s chassis was always meant to be mass assault cheap tank to be deployed in large numbers (Soviet military doctrine). nterestingly, many bridges in Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe were build so lighter T-72 can pass while M1 can't.

So, to put it short, when USSR collapsed and military doctrine changed, Russians started to slowly re-make their newer tanks into 'Western-like' type with increased cost and survivability. Having no cash in 90s to develop worthy chassis, they kept looking for better ERA, active countermeasures, improved autoloader etc.

Historically, before "steamroller" ideas went in, Soviet tanks were better than American (that means period during and about 10 years after WW2). Even T-62 was a formiddable tank for its time; it's T-72 that was designed with faulty assumption of 'quantity has a quality on its own', being (w/o upgrade) inferior even to the T-62.

What will happen next? Russians seem to get cash to finally fund developing a worthy chassis. With all the 'gadgets' already developed, and finally understanding buying some-tech aren't bad (French thermal sights anyone?), their new T-95, or whatever it will be called, has a great chance to be the best tank overall; though ofc some European tanks development (Leo) seems to have such chance too. As for M1'a future, honestly it's hard to tell where it is heading with TROPHY rejection. We'll see.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Honestly, what a bunch of useless comments out there.
First: when comparing tanks, their capabilities vs other tanks are always secondary. That's the painful lesson Germans learnt in WW2, and what any qualified armo designer knows, yet forgotten by many 'forum tank experts'.
Second, don't rely on ANY official armor penetration data.
I don't want to write a long article on that, just google some facts
-Challenger 2 penetrated by RPG-29
-Kornet ATGM (9M133) stable penetrating (45 confirmed penetrations) Merkava's during 2006 Lebanon War (Israelis even went angry at Russians, accusing of supplying Hezbollah with those).
etc.

That's the modern, state-of-art tanks getting penetrating by man-portable weapons.
Also look at how brutally combat helicopters demolish tanks.

In fact, when facing a competent enemy, tank will be more often subject to AT-teams attacks (using newer versions of RPG/Javelin/Konkurs/... weapons) or attack helicopters (Apache/Ka-50/...) than to fire of other tank.
Tanks were never that good AT(anti-tank) assets, sure they can engage other tanks, but there are military units better suited to this role.

So when comparing tanks in hands of competent crew and in even battle (not like US vs. Iraq), scrap the stupid tank-vs-tank scenario, and better look onto protection from relevant threats, as well as tank's capability to fullfill designated tasks (assaults, holding ground, etc.)

Also remember there's cost/efficiency consideration. If tank A is 10% 'worse' than tank B, but 50% cheaper, tank B may be a better choice.

As for T90 vs Abrams, well that's a very long and unfortunately useless discussion going on US (hyping Abrams), Russian (hyping T90) and international forums (mixed, or hyping Leo).

Both tanks endured extensive trials in various countries. Both are being built and sold on market (India, for example, has a definite love for T-90).
As for combat tests, unfortunately there's little to no tests of those vs. worthy enemy. Iraq doesn't count; even Hezzbollah in abovementioned 2006's conflict have 'battle-tested' Merkava (and shown it's quite vulnerable) than Iraqis during all the years of Iraq war.

Some few more things:

T-90 has active ('hard' countermeasures system (ARENA) while Abrams didn't (since US rejected Israel-made TROPHY; btw, Israelis decided to go for the system exactly when they saw how vulnerable tanks can be to modern AT-weaponry, not the Iraqi junk). Also, Russian ERA Kontakt-5 has been proven to be better.

Abrams has a far better chassis (by nearly all prameters save for weight). T-90 is, in fact, T-72BU renamed; and T-72s chassis was always meant to be mass assault cheap tank to be deployed in large numbers (Soviet military doctrine). nterestingly, many bridges in Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe were build so lighter T-72 can pass while M1 can't.

So, to put it short, when USSR collapsed and military doctrine changed, Russians started to slowly re-make their newer tanks into 'Western-like' type with increased cost and survivability. Having no cash in 90s to develop worthy chassis, they kept looking for better ERA, active countermeasures, improved autoloader etc.

Historically, before "steamroller" ideas went in, Soviet tanks were better than American (that means period during and about 10 years after WW2). Even T-62 was a formiddable tank for its time; it's T-72 that was designed with faulty assumption of 'quantity has a quality on its own', being (w/o upgrade) inferior even to the T-62.

What will happen next? Russians seem to get cash to finally fund developing a worthy chassis. With all the 'gadgets' already developed, and finally understanding buying some-tech aren't bad (French thermal sights anyone?), their new T-95, or whatever it will be called, has a great chance to be the best tank overall; though ofc some European tanks development (Leo) seems to have such chance too. As for M1'a future, honestly it's hard to tell where it is heading with TROPHY rejection. We'll see.



omg, dude that bullzeye. Couldnt done it better. Good post..



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



You are comparing the T-72 as it was an 80's tank as the Abrams?, well the first Abrams (M-1) was not impresive at all, it actually had an armor equal of the T-72's and lower armor than the T-80 (the SU 80's tank),also it 105mm weapon was not impresive at all

Was not until 1986 that the new production batches rolled out and the M1 become a tank with armor and a weapon at the same standars of the soviet union

After the fall of the soviet union, the russians were on a difficult situation, because their tanks were produced in ukraine, also they found the gas turbine was not a wise idea, so they went for the T-90, instead a further evolution of the T-80

BTW the late 80's projected T-80's had an armor comparable of the mid 90's M1's, but the fall of the SU stopped further improvements



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
The Russian T-90 is often comperable to the M1A1 although it lacks certain techs.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Not sure who will be using the T90 but lets say its the Russians and or Ukraines
it should be one hell of tank as long as it gets the first shot it should do well
all modern tanks in the last 20 years are incredibly deadly


Despite American Pride I still see
the Abrams as second to Challenger II despite the Engine problems for Challenger II
The all over armour and caliber of the gun is just devasting.
Abrams is produced in larger numbers so If production number is part of the equation yes then Abrams is number 1
Leo II would make a close 3 although its number are up there too.
LeCleric solid 4 very few made
Either Russian T-90 or Isreali Merkava as 5th both in good numbers.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
T-90 with relikt ERA is no doubt superior to M1A2 SEP or most western tanks , with the exception of leopard2A6



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Poster Kozzy is knowledgeable but he uses alot of wrong or unknown specifications. I just watched a show on tanks today and they clearly said alot of Abrams specs are classified such as armor thickness and someone else said penetration here. Someone exposed his posts on the last page and showed that T90 can penetrate the Abrams and vice versa. The truth is no one can tell for certain because alot of the numbers are classified or intentionally fudged. From the videos I've seen of T90's they seem too agile for the Abrams but I know that the Abrams has the best optics and sights in the world.
In the end I feel that they are of comparable quality that it would come down to the crew and to the actual commanders and battlefield oversight. I don't know in particular enough about how well trained each respective side is in TANK combat though I know U.S. is well trained and probably the best in the world in that department but I can't say for certain.
My guess is that it would depend on the particular circumstance.
For example there's no such thing as just a pure tank vs tank battle in an open vaccuum anyway, you can't compare to the joke that was Gulf War 1 where there was no challenge to u.s.'s air superiority. Obviously any tank battle between 2 super powers like Russia and US will have enormous use of air assets and whoever in the end wins air superiority will win the tank battle as well as they will have free reign for their air assets to ground and pound the other sides tanks. U.S. has a slight edge in the air for now as their latest generation planes are the best (this can be argued) but on the other hand Russia has the best anti-air assets in the world which would equalize this so it's hard to say but personally I would go with the T90 just because it's a little beast. At almost half the damn tonnage of a Abrams it is agile and quick yet has good armor and firepower while the Abrams is a big bulky beast that is limited in how it can engage and breaks down like hell in treacherous environments.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I'm sure soon US Abrams will meet T90 whether their maned by Koreans or CHinese then we can settle this.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


actually the bars radar...on the su-30 is said to have stealth tracking capabilties if yoy get my drift. no plane is invisible....remember that..it depends alot on the type of radar being used and how modern it is.
russiatoday.com



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


best optics and tracking sights? lol the t-90 has one of the most modern optical tracking sights in the world..well assumptions are assumptions lol.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
can M1A2 use Laser Dazzler against ATGM of T-90?

there are notes or sites online on ability to penetrate Kontakt armour with sabot-du to 3000 m range ? with ERGM, can M1A2 damage T-90 with CE ?

what is the useful range to penetrate abrams armor with Refleks ? and t-90 can damage with APFSDS to 1600 m ?

when M1A2 will have ERGM ? 2010?2015?

there is advantage with autoloader on Abrams servant ?

can T-90 use system fire with engine off? and can M1A2 view T-90 with engine off on night ?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussiaUSA
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


actually the bars radar...on the su-30 is said to have stealth tracking capabilties if yoy get my drift. no plane is invisible....remember that..it depends alot on the type of radar being used and how modern it is.
russiatoday.com
WOW do you have a link to that claim



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
Poster Kozzy is knowledgeable but he uses alot of wrong or unknown specifications. I just watched a show on tanks today and they clearly said alot of Abrams specs are classified such as armor thickness and someone else said penetration here. Someone exposed his posts on the last page and showed that T90 can penetrate the Abrams and vice versa. The truth is no one can tell for certain because alot of the numbers are classified or intentionally fudged. From the videos I've seen of T90's they seem too agile for the Abrams but I know that the Abrams has the best optics and sights in the world.
In the end I feel that they are of comparable quality that it would come down to the crew and to the actual commanders and battlefield oversight. I don't know in particular enough about how well trained each respective side is in TANK combat though I know U.S. is well trained and probably the best in the world in that department but I can't say for certain.
My guess is that it would depend on the particular circumstance.
For example there's no such thing as just a pure tank vs tank battle in an open vaccuum anyway, you can't compare to the joke that was Gulf War 1 where there was no challenge to u.s.'s air superiority. Obviously any tank battle between 2 super powers like Russia and US will have enormous use of air assets and whoever in the end wins air superiority will win the tank battle as well as they will have free reign for their air assets to ground and pound the other sides tanks. U.S. has a slight edge in the air for now as their latest generation planes are the best (this can be argued) but on the other hand Russia has the best anti-air assets in the world which would equalize this so it's hard to say but personally I would go with the T90 just because it's a little beast. At almost half the damn tonnage of a Abrams it is agile and quick yet has good armor and firepower while the Abrams is a big bulky beast that is limited in how it can engage and breaks down like hell in treacherous environments.
Actually Russia has the best Fighters/ SAMS in the world not U.S.A.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The Russian T-90 is often comperable to the M1A1 although it lacks certain techs.
What does it lack, it has:
1. NightVision/Thermal Imaging
2. DU Rounds
3. A.E.A. (Active Explosive Armor)
4. Autoloader
5. L.R.F. (Lazer Range Finder)
what


[edit on 30-10-2008 by 1000hanz]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by 1000hanz]

[edit on 30-10-2008 by 1000hanz]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 

The RPG-29 that hit the Challenger2 didn't penetrate the armour, it bounced of the floor and detonated underneath the tank sending shrapnel through the weakest part of any tank, the belly.
This issue has been solved by adding a new passive armour package to the toe of the CR2 that protects the belly against mines and IED's.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Teh_Gerbil
 


no sorry not at all
Russian technology has always been a bit of a mess
You only build a huge pile from all of that stuff and try to compete that way
Seriously nothing against russia but in terms of technology you never stood a chance against western country's
sral



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join