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

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
As a Cavalry vehicle,I would have made a Track more similar to the Merkava tank that was armored like an M1 no amphibious capability,with an unmanned hyper velocity 70mm turret,Mortar tube in back and a 2 man crew and a minigun coax. A retractable sensor mast with GSR capability,with laser designation tech and thermals.It would also be able to slave intelligent munitions.It too wouldn't carry but ......4 as rear dismounts.
I wouldn't field it until it could beat an M1 with minimal support.




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIVONIC
 


Agree with the first response. Too many intangiables. For example, if the US would have not had their thermals and night sites, then likely they wait until clear weather (much of the 91 offensive was fought in fog/bad weather) But for fun........ The Iraqis would have faired better in so far as scoring more kills on the Americans., but the training in combined arms operations the US has would be the defining factor. In fact 3 things would factor the most.

1 Battalion sized simulators. Most US armored bases have upwards of a battalion of M-1/M-2 simulators that are interlinked. A battalion at Fort Hood, can "Fight" a battalion stationed at Grafenwher Germany. It's online gaming to the extreme. They experience battalion and brigade sized coordination of movement and engagement routinely with "major" sim exercises normally held 2-3 times a year for each unit. This isn't including officer command post and map type exercises, or the entire unit going to the field for extended training, or gunnery (which itself is usually monthly if not more often). No other army spends the time or money doing such exercises at the higher unit levels. It's one thing to get a platoon or company out in the field, it's another to move battalion upwards of divisions, in fact studies of gulf war I indicate the Iraqi's, when they did try to maneuver, had extreme difficulties at or above the brigade level. Primarily because they just never practiced it..

2. NTC, the national training center. The NTC would take a while to explain. This is the "top gun" of armored warfare, with an entire regiment "playing" a roughly russian style armored regiment in the field. .VISMODs make up the enemy force (and in some cases actual russian equipment) and they use Russian tactics. A Russian general that once visited the base said the 11th US Cav was probably best russian regiment in the world. The "Russians' routinely beat the US units in their M-1s. Primarily due to experience. Rather then explain the whole concept I will refer you to this link, which has several others.


en.wikipedia.org...

The US has a similar center JRTC at Fort Polk (mostly light infantry) and another at Grafenwher Germany.




3. AirLandBattle 2000, the primary doctrine for US armored warfare since 1980. While much of it is classified, unclassified breakdowns of this doctrine and it's tactics are an essential part of US successes. While technically replaced by the new "full spectrum" doctrine. For armored warfare the basic tactics are still rooted in AirLandBattle.

en.wikipedia.org...



Other factors abound as well. Western soldiers typically are well trained in basic maintence of their vehicals. This isn't the case in all armies, especially arab armies. Logistics and supply is of HUGE emphasis in the US Army, both of these are not highly valued in many armies (even some western armies struggle with this).

Finally I will refer you and any interested parties to this document. It's very interesting. Essentially it is a breakdown of a several day discussion between two German generals who fought the Russians on the Eastern Front and their modern NATO counterparts in the early 80's. It goes into the differences in the western soldier and the russian soldier. The document discusses how the differences would effect the battle, and they even discussed how a fight between NATO/Warsaw Pact in the 80's would go down. Interesting stuff.

wi.informatik.unibw-muenchen.de...

So, US soldiers in the T-72s and Iraqi's in export M-1s, US still wins but suffers potentially higher casualties. They would likely get in on the flanks during the day and use the weaker side armor as an advantage.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoRemorse762
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.


Terrain, weather, time day/night disposition of forces would be the same as it was during Desert Storm, the only difference is the AFV's in question. I'm curious as to what exactly you're basing your assessment of kill ratios on. Do you feel the M1's armor would give the Iraqis that much of an actual advantage against the American's 125mm DU APFSDS rounds?



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIVONIC
 


The problem is like saying who would win, Luke Skywalker or Anakin Skywalker. You know both are awesome but there is no real point of reference. The soviets tanks never really squared off with Sabot rounds against the M1's ceramic armor. I'm not sure we every publicly published specifics on ballistic thresholds of the Abrams armor. The real idea behind a Sabot round is to just punch a whole in enemy armor while spitting molten armor metal throughout the cabin of the vehicle. I have heard stories about Sabot rounds going straight through homogeneous rolled steel armor, in one side and out the other, and sucking everything including the occupants out the very small exit hole. I even heard stories of Bradley's punching holes in Iraqi tanks with their Bushmasters using sabot rounds.

Edit: As for the T-90, it looks very comparable to the M1-A1/A2 in all important respects. Comparable weapons suites, similar composite armor, and maybe even cheaper(not sure about that one).
edit on 11-6-2012 by NoRemorse762 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRemorse762
 


This question was proposed to me years back before I had even a basic understanding of Soviet armor. Any attempt to draw conclusion about the capabilities of either side based on performance during the first Gulf War is a faux pas.

If the Americans had T-72BA or even B's which would have been used during the timeframe and fought against stripped down Iraqi M1's which in the spirit of fairness to the Gulf War argument as a whole would need to lack NV, thermal sights, and even range finders, the Americans would have slaughtered them. This itself is being kind to the Iraqis, a more realistic comparison would be American T-80s against Iraqi M60s.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIVONIC
 

I'll theorize that we may have won 70/30 or 60/40 using Iraqi armor. We smoke-checked them all because of our technology, or rather their lack there of. We were gunning them down beyond their weapons range at night. They had no chance. Obviously training had a lot to do with it but your scenario is so hypothetical that it is almost moot to speculate about it in the first place.

Edit: The T-72 vs M60 is a more "comparable" scenario, as far as abilities are concerned. The M-60 is based off the Patton tank which is post WWII technology. Old as hell. Tank design really didn't change for the US until the use of the M1 in the 80's.
To be honest, the US may never again field a MBT style of tank again. I think the M1 was the last of the big tracked heavily armored tank killers. Now it's all BLOS tank killing. JDAM's from nowhere, cruise missiles, and drones.
edit on 11-6-2012 by NoRemorse762 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRemorse762
 


I'd disagree on T-72 >>> M60, as IMO both tanks are very close in capability as long as it isn't a 72B model.

I think it's safe to say the MBT might be a dead concept in the west, Russia will continue with Armata, but even that isn't an MBT like what we see today.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZIVONIC
reply to post by NoRemorse762
 


I'd disagree on T-72 >>> M60, as IMO both tanks are very close in capability as long as it isn't a 72B model.

I think it's safe to say the MBT might be a dead concept in the west, Russia will continue with Armata, but even that isn't an MBT like what we see today.

I was saying the M60 was equal to the T-72. I was just pointing out the 60's Dinosaur heritage.

I think you need to find an actual 19K and get their advice for the hypothetical here, maybe an older one at that.

Edit: Over the past 30 years Russia has followed our lead pretty closely, even before then. Look at Izhmash, they are no longer making the AK-74. They are now making the new variant(AK-12) that looks like a M4 and AK had a drunken love child. Izhmash is about to go out of business because they have made so much cold-war era junk that no one wants. The Russian government is paying them to melt down stockpiles of the other AK variants so they can stay in business to make the AK-12. They want what we have.
AK-12

edit on 11-6-2012 by NoRemorse762 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRemorse762
 


The hypothetical is meant to draw discussion on the Gulf War faux pas that is far to overused. So many people view soviet armor as total crap based on that war. When In reality, it was many other variables that determined the outcome.

Regarding Izhmash, Norinco undercut them, and the AK-12 has little in common with its western counterparts other than rails. It shows clear lineage from the 100 series, AEK and AN-94.



Anyways on topic of the new T-90, found the old link I was looking for. Over 300 close up photos of the new tank. Scroll to the bottom of the page and click the pics to get into the galleries.

www.otvaga2004.narod.ru...
edit on 11/6/12 by ZIVONIC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


M1 is a thousand times superior to Merkava.Merkavas were blown left ,right and center in the 2006 lebanon war that israel lost.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
To be fair, we have also lost a lot of M1s due to enemy fire. Both tanks have their pluses and minuses.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZIVONIC
To be fair, we have also lost a lot of M1s due to enemy fire. Both tanks have their pluses and minuses.

Your right about that. It's more a statement of survive-ability. Any tank can be knocked out of combat, but how does the crew fare after the tank in knocked out? M1's do have a very, very high crew survive-ability.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


I was speaking of my theoretical optimal design,I like the engine forward with a low slung chassis and the troop compartment in the back.Of course the armor would be the same as the M1.The Bradley is a bad idea and I felt my design idea was superior to it,the Merkava is not in the same league as the M1.
I can kill a tank with a thermite grenade even an M1.
edit on 12-6-2012 by cavtrooper7 because: finished my point



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


I've read into UAZ's research into the forward engine arrangement. They concluded that the forward arrangement actually decreases survivability of the AFV. Do to the almost guaranteed chance of fire if the front hull is breached. Another thing that was mentioned was the engine block itself adds very little armor across the frontal arc. The only advantage of such an arrangement is the rear crew compartment to hold infantry, but even the Israelis have replaced the extra crewmen with ammo racks. I wish I could find the study, but I don't speak Russian and cannot remember what it was called. I read it way back.


I have been following the Armata project closely, which is Russia's new modular combat vehicle. It's like the GCV concept that didn't get anywhere, but is correcting the problems we had by making more hull varieties. The interesting thing about the AFV/heavy IFV concept is that the AFV will have rear mounted engine with all three crewmen up front and the IFV will use the same parts and electronics but have a front mounted engine with the crew and infantry squad in the back. It should look something like the Namer IFV the Israels made from their merk 4s.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


did you know that The Т-90С maintains 30 kiloton nuclear explosion

the video is in russia but a picture is worth 1000 words

PLZ show me a US TANK JUMPING DOWN 10 FEETS plz

The t90 can blind any missile that comes towards it



Ya for sure i would like to see the US hardware starts is engines at -70 degrees can't even start at -20


edit on 27-7-2012 by knowneedtoknow because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-7-2012 by knowneedtoknow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I can assure you most western Tanks will NOT stand up to the T-72 upgrades/T-80's and especially this T-90S





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join