SAA T-90A tank chasing Islamic state thugs in the desert

T-90A entered service in 2004. Crew of 3. 125 mm main gun. Kontakt 5 ERA. Hand me down from Russia army as Russia army switches to T-14. One of the most advanced tanks in the Middle East.

www.facebook.com...

a reply to: allsee4eye

what the vid really shows :

one tank driving across the desert - following the tracks of another tank

a reply to: ignorant_ape

What has ATS come to ...soundbytes of nothing....facebook snippets

......sigh

originally posted by: allsee4eye
T-90A entered service in 2004.

... and entered service with the Syrian Army in 2015, courtesy of the Russians.

The T-90 has shored up Syrian armour capability and covered the losses of T-72 variants that have proved vulnerable to RPGs and other weapons. The T-90 is a neat tank, albeit outclassed by Western models.

Edit to add that I agree with the above. A one-liner and a FaceBook vid does not make a worthwhile post. Noting that I won't view Facebook vids.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: allsee4eye
T-90A entered service in 2004.

albeit outclassed by Western models.

On the contrary. T-90A is more advanced than M1A2.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
On the contrary. T-90A is more advanced than M1A2.

Yet the fact is that the T-90 is just an upgraded T-72. Putting aside the specifications and the country-love, the ultimate test of a tank's effectiveness is on the battlefield. Personally, I would not like to be in any tank with an Apache flying around, or a Tornado armed with Brimstone.

a reply to: allsee4eye

No. No it isn't. The T-90 is a T-72 that has systems from the T-80U, and replaced the gas turbine with a diesel. It has a horrible power to weight ratio, especially compared to the Abrams.

The T-90 has good armor and EW, but the Abrams will run rings around it, has a better fire control system and rangefinder, along with a slightly better gun. Throw multiple T-90s at an Abrams and they have the advantage. One vs one, the Abrams has the advantage.

a reply to: paraphi

T-90A is evolved from T-34 just as M1A2 is evolved from M4. Is T-90A a version of T-72? No it's not.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Yes, it is. The T-90 used many of the basic parts of the T-72 to start with. That makes it an upgraded T-72.

The T-90 Main Battle Tank (MBT) is a further development of the T-72. It was accepted to service with Russian army in 1993 and its low-rate production commenced in 1994

The T-90 MBT uses a well proven chassis of the T-72 and turret with all weapon systems of the T-80U.

www.military-today.com...

Unlike in your example, neither tank you cited uses parts of the earlier tanks. The T-90 used many parts from the T-72.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The T 14 is all new I think right?
How does that compare to an M1 A1?

a reply to: ZaneDog

If they can solve the development problems they've had, the T-14 will turn into a hell of a tank. It's got s few features that are somewhat questionable, but that's largely either a personal choice for the people that question them, or a philosophical difference between the way Russia and the West choose to fight.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Same chassis as T-72, basically a Pimp my ride T-72 with some legit goodies.
The M1 is almost twice as expensive to produce, M1 definitely has the advantage.

a reply to: ZaneDog

T-14 is a generation ahead of any M1. T-14 has unmanned turret, crew compartment in the hull, AESA coupled with active defense.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Once again, you put way too much stock in the "Russia great" argument. Just because something is newer doesn't automatically make it better. The T-14 is a complete departure from any armor system ever built by Russia.

It has features that the M-1 doesn't have, but it's the first truly high tech tank they've built and, especially right now, it's at best on par with the Abrams. It may eventually be a far better system, but they have work to do on it right now.

a reply to: Zaphod58

T-90 is on par with M1A2. Gunner's FLIR. Commander's hunter killer independent sight. T-90 has Shtora IR jammer M1A2 lacks. Not to mention auto loader adopted by Russian tanks since the early 70s that American tanks never adopted.

T-14 has driver's FLIR. M1A2 does not have driver's FLIR.

a reply to: allsee4eye

And that makes it better? Uhm no.

The T-90 uses a 1,000 hp diesel engine compared to the gas turbine in the M1 family. That gives it poor fuel mileage and a very poor power to weight ratio. That makes the M1 faster with a more efficient engine. Add in the other advantages, such as the gun, fire control system, and others and it still beats the T-90.

The T-14 may eventually beat the M1s on a one for one basis, but right now it's a paper tiger, until they fix the issues it has.

a reply to: Zaphod58

T-90A weighs 48 tons powered by 1000 hp. M1A2 weights 70 tons powered by 1500 hp. The power to weight ratio is quite similar. Tanks these days are mostly used as mobile arti in urban combat. Mobility is not that important.

a reply to: allsee4eye

A gas turbine engine is far more efficient than a diesel engine. It gets up to speed faster, it has a higher top speed, and it's more fuel efficient, which means they have longer range. Mobility is ALWAYS important. If you have a force that can average 20 mph over one that can average 15, guess who gets there first and sets up an ambush. Or if things go wrong, guess who successfully withdraws from the fight.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Good point. T-90A and M1A2 both have pros and cons. They are in the same class and generally on par. It's like comparing MiG-29 and F-16. Some people like one better than the other. The differences are minor and they are in the same class and generally on par.