Originally posted by Tank2/8
9M119M Refleks ATGM should be equipped as a standard in all T-90s. I don't know its exact precision ratio, but it's laser targeted and has a range
of 6km. If I remember correctly, standard procedure is to shoot one or two 125mm HEAT rounds at an enemy armor and if it still stands to next fire a
Refleks. Also, Refleks can be used as a SAM in desperate situations against helicopters.
T-90 primary armor is a Kontakt-5 ERA, which probably isn't as overall effective as Abram's armor which is made of depleted uranium for maximum
weight, Abrams being 80tonnes heavy tank and T-90 being around 50tonne medium tank range. The ERA is pretty much designed to take a beating and at
the end of the day, be replaced so the T-90 can fight the next day. Besides that, T-90 has composite armor on the turret and a detection and active
defense systems, for instance Shtora-1 active protection system (I think it is also called ARENA?). According to wikipedia, a T-90 with Kontakt-5 was
able to survive RPGs, ATGMS and even sabot rounds like those the Abrams uses.
As for the Georgia campaign, Russia only sent in older T-72 variants and some T-80s for their tank groups and Georgia was lucky Russia felt mercy
before they finished raping their unprepared forces. From what I know, T-90s were not even involved though they were tested extensively in Chechen
conflict (IMO they put up a better fight than Georgians who proved to be sitting targets if not running away).
Here are some good numbers near the middle of this
wikipedia
article. Holy crap, notable points being equipment Russia captured (65 T-72s) and their artillery used (100 units, even Iskanders and
Tochkas).
T-90 is designed to be a fast and offensive tank, as opposed to the more defensive T-80 that Russia uses within its boarders. Armor was sacrificed
for speed and various sensor equipment. Abrams can no doubt take a few hits from a 125mm HEAT and Refleks, but in terms of cost effectiveness (T-90
at ~$1.5m, Abrams at ~$4.3m), it should be three T-90s vs one Abrams in combat in which case I gave the T-90s a 70% chance of success easy.
Keep in mind that we are only considering T-90S vs M1A2 here and not all the other factors that could be involved in the fight (aircraft, ATGM
platforms, etc). If we consider the entire theater of war, then one would have to consider American command and control supremacy vs Russian field
tactics and artillery support.
What I meant by Abrams being designed for urban warfare is that they are pretty much heavily armored tanks that can handle RPGs and .50cals while
packing more than enough firepower to destroy any threat posed by insurgents. They aren't designed to fight tanks anymore, at least not modern ones
that have the specific AT equipment like the T-90. Just to be honest, T-90 isn't all the effective in urban combat as proven in Chechnya. They are
meant to fight in tank on tank action in rural environments.
By the way, my bad with "T-35", I meant T-34. I keep messing up names of military hardware that I once knew so well before I found my love in vodka
T-95 is nothing but a concept and doesn't exist. Russia simply can't afford to make an entire new tank. Also a 150mm cannon??? Did you make that up
LOL......
If it doesn't exist, then why does it have the official name "Nizhny Tagil MBT"? And I was wrong, it's not a 150mm cannon that's just silly...
It's actually 152mm smoothbore. Some old rumors say it was finished testing in '99 but official production is limited due to funding issues (which
are passed by now)...
[edit on 9-8-2009 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]
[edit on 9-8-2009 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]
