Russia to Showcase T-90S Tank at Paris Arms Show

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
RIA Novosti

So there is an upcoming defense expo in Paris on June 11-15.

It will host over 400 defense companies from 47 countries, including 14 Russian companies.


Anyways, they are showing off th T-90S (among other weapons and vehicles)and i thought some of you may be interested to know about it


Russia will showcase a record number of models of armored vehicles, including the fully upgraded T-90S main battle tank, BMPT tank support fighting vehicle, Kornet-EM anti-tank missile system mounted on a Tigr armored vehicle and a new Ural armored truck.


Here are some specs on the tank:

T-90S redesigned turret features a modernized 125-mm gun, new fire control, navigation and communications systems, and a remote controlled mounted 7.62-mm machine gun.

The modified T-90S is fitted with an increased power multi-fuel 1,130-h.p. diesel engine with gas turbine injection, which allows the vehicle to attain a top speed of over 60 km/h on the road and up to 45 km/h on rough terrain.


If you want to learn more, check out the Expo's website

www.eurosatory.com...

Its a whole Expo of killing machines ready to deployed in un-democritised countries for their oil.. errr i mean freedom

Thoughts?!




posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
They have finally adopted a western style suspension system I see.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I just looked up the BMPT and I think it is a really interesting concept. Apparently it is supposed to be an escort for MBTs, to defend against infantry using its twin 30mm cannons. In addition it has four launcher tubes for anti tank missiles. I would have expected the ability to put anti aircraft missiles in them as well, to defend against helicopters, but that wasn't explicitly stated in the article. I could see the 30mm guns being used to defend against helicopters as well, but Apaches typically don't expose themselves for long enough or close enough for that to work most of the time.

In urban environments the plan would be to have a ratio 2 of these things defending one main battle tank, while in open country they would be deployed with 1 protecting two MBTs each. I don't know how well this concept would work in reality, but if it proves useful and versatile enough it could be interesting.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mkoll
 


It works in our doctrine,that is a regimental battle formation from the 80s in US Armor.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 





They have finally adopted a western style suspension system I see.


I think you meant to say Stolen
This is an old tank with some upgrades
And will break down explode the same as the old one

Cran



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


Oh. Would it be the Bradley and other vehicles that fill that role in the US military?



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
A bit more on the T90S (Export Version).

T90S



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mkoll
I just looked up the BMPT and I think it is a really interesting concept. Apparently it is supposed to be an escort for MBTs, to defend against infantry using its twin 30mm cannons. In addition it has four launcher tubes for anti tank missiles. I would have expected the ability to put anti aircraft missiles in them as well, to defend against helicopters, but that wasn't explicitly stated in the article. I could see the 30mm guns being used to defend against helicopters as well, but Apaches typically don't expose themselves for long enough or close enough for that to work most of the time.


No need for any kind of AA mounted. The idea is to just jump out of the back with a shoulder fired AA missile. Though stingers and the like are good against slow low flying aircraft, usually enemy CAS, you would be screwed if they are using a JDAM like munition from 8 miles away at 50k feet.

Thats where the new BAE style thermal cloak would come in handy. Can't hit what you can't see.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mkoll
 

Yes, however the Bradley is a bad idea that we were stuck with by pentagon idiots. Unlike the M1which is death on treads.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   


Yup, looks like a Russian tank alright...

No offense to the Russians but they seriously need to get on the ball. Many Nations are fielding much more impressive vehicles IMO.

Main Battle Tanks



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Oddball agrees!!!

edit on 8-6-2012 by sonnny1 because: video wouldnt embed



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


What would you have done differently with the Bradley?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I saw the photo of the tank. It looks like the seam of the turret to the body of the tank would be an easy target. The shape of the turret and tank body appears to funnel in projectiles to this point. The better tank design seems like it would deflect rounds not direct them to the seam of the turret. Unconventional design from what I can see just from the photo. The armor could just be that good that it does not matter. I would be have to see the latest German Tanks to see if this design is typical.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


What would you have done differently with the Bradley?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


What would you have done differently with the Bradley?


CavTrooper probably would have better insight. But here are few things that could/would have been better on the Bradley. Its' armor is too thin. It's turret mounted firepower, while impressive and handy, kept growing due to the continual redesign. No biggie other then it everytime they did something new with it, it kept reducing the amount of troops it could carry. Originally the army wanted the thing to carry 9 to 12 troops, but the Bradley only carries 7. Which means a mech infantry platoon of 4 Bradley's carries 28 dismounts. Kind of small for a infantry platoon, which is normally 35 - 45 people.

They also wanted it to fight along side the M-1, but wanted it to be amphibious, which caused problems as well.

There was an HBO movie, "The Pentagon Wars" with Kelsey Grammer, which was based around the development of the Bradley and all it's problems. They took some artistic license in order to make it a comedy and watchable, so some of the "events' portrayed, while based on actual events, aren't quite as bad as they seem. But it would give you a pretty good idea of how the Bradley came to be, and all of the issues it has dealth with.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
A lot of hate for Russian AFVs in this thread.


I guess the low mobility, 70 ton ubertanks are just that much better.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ZIVONIC
 


Well based on the kill ratio's of Western Tanks vs Russian tanks (mostly in the mid east) I think it's pretty obvious.

Now I will give you the fact that the actual "russia" versions are better than the export versions. And that Russian tankers are probably better then the Arab tankers. But the M1, Merkava, Challenger, etc...have seriously wailed on T-72 variants since the early 80s.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
An expo where countries can show off what they'll use to kill each other with, I guess that makes more sense than tractors or energy efficient cars.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


One quick hypothetical if you don't mind.

If you swapped tanks, put the Americans in either Soviet T-72s or Yugoslav M-84's with top of the line training and ammo, and put the Iraqis in export version M1's without thermal or night vision equipment and inferior ammo. Would the kill ratios have been identical?

A simple yes or no will do, but an explanation for your reasoning would be nice.
edit on 11/6/12 by ZIVONIC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIVONIC
 


Not identical, so No... But the force with the superior training would more than likely come out on top. Like you said, it's hypothetical. What is the terrain, weather, time of day/night, disposition of forces, etc.. One of those "what if" questions. They will only get you so far.





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join