If you mean comparing a T90S with a VT4 then I’d disagree. One is from the early 90s and one is from Post 2010. T90MS is more comparable to VT4 but those are not in service with the IA. VT4 is Almost a generation ahead of the T90S.A fairer comparison would be with VT-4
Especially when used in a team with land and air based EW systems like KORAL etc. Pak has got TB2s. I am pretty sure some form of KORAL is also available. It means an asymmetric advantage over the Indian armored within a vast region for an extended period of time at a miniscule cost.....It is a great disruptor in future armor planning.
I think you’re significantly overrating the T90 then. Why do you think it outclasses those tanks? I don’t see any redeeming quality In it in 2022, and that’s not its fault, it’s from the early 90s being compared to modern tanks and the fact that it holds up shows how revolutionary it was when it came out. China has not started making third generation tanks until a decade later.I think T-90 outclasses Al-Khalid and Type-96/Type-96A.
ignored fact that 65% of all T-90 parts are still identical to first generation T-72The T-90 is just an upgraded T-72. The general design, structure, armor, etc...
Blown like crackers recently in the Ukraine-Russian war...
The T-90 would have been a good tank if they kept the ammo in a separate compartment and not underneath where the crew is sitting if the ammo gets hit.T-90 was initially seen as upgraded T-72 whats biggest difference was welded turret.
Some earlier Indian T90S models came with a leaner version of the Shtora (just the LWRs and automatic retaliation systems and not the Dazzlers). Those were the ones delivered directly from Russia. But most of them don’t have it, you’re correct.
I mean no offense but this has a lot of contradictory and sometimes just straight up false information, and a suggestion would be to lower the word count of your posts, they’re generally very informative but a chore to read with all the repetitions.Type 96 is a pretty rubbish tank though and Al-Khalid is like Type 96 isn't it? Or 96A? From looks, it is like a slightly modified (internally and maybe instruments) Type 96 from 1990s rather than 96A with wedged armor section add on. Sure that section is spaced armor providing a rigging for ERA on top or modular type NRA/ERA and can be packed further if necessary but it is definitely a big improvement to protection compared to 96/Al Khalid.
96A itself is still having shit protection from sides and even angled shots. Frontal is decent and possibly better than T-90S (but not T-90MS) but side is just as bad if not worse and angled is worse simply. Russian modernized ones have okay angle shot protection. All of these lighter tanks are poor in protection. One is marginally better/worse than the other.
In electronics and instruments the Al-Khalid probably is better than PLA service 96. PLA has thousands of 96 and 96A in service, It is just focused on only frontal angles armor and taking that main gun to battle. It is designed to be used in their hundreds at a time so that sides are basically covered by dozens more tanks at least facing another direction. All this is supposed to be further covered and already pre-prepared with artillery and air superiority. These tanks are not designed to be charge into well defended enemies tanks hahaha but depending on who and how defended, it can really even do so since it does have decent front armor (for Type 96A).
Anyway pretty old and shitty tank vs pretty old and shitty tank lol. In context of PA vs IA though, IA has mostly very old, very shitty tanks. Arjun should have good protection but it doesn't move well compared to these, can't mobilize as easily, needs heavy duty infrastructure and bridges but it works in certain Pakistan - India environments. The others are all very old and very shit. Arjun's firepower side of things is simply very shit with that rifled gun, FCS systems if western then maybe workable, it does have more gizmos than these other tanks though ... mostly because 96 is very shit lol and so is Al Khalid OG. Basically Arjun isn't good in firepower's aiming and delivery side and not good in the gun itself or the ammo I would imagine. India struggles to design and manufacture a workable rifle.
China doesn't bother as much with modernizing tanks. Type 15 is for high terrain low oxygen environments and more versatile for transporting/mobilization and urban environments e.g. Taiwan. They mostly just wanted a tank to also not use that carousel style autoloader. Otherwise, 99A is modernized 99 and that's just an okay tank, more gizmos than 96A and better protection and much more engine power and so on. Nothing impressive but can be considered all things as good or at least good enough. Side armor for PLA doesn't matter. If you see PLA tanks, you already somehow got through cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, thousands of drones of all types and artillery fire from 100s different vehicles and guns types. If that's the situation, you don't have much around you to be destroying even a Type 96 let alone a 99A, much less from the side.
99A's frontal armor is something beastly. Again absolute shit in side protection though lol. And to add in case anyone's thinking, top protection also next to meaningless like all tanks. Rely on APS for countering ATGMs from soldiers, drones, or helicopters. Artillery or bombers then tank is fucked anyway.
PLA commanders basically have said, the way PLA applies tanks in genuine high risk of real war situations is in such a way that if you even do see it either through your rifle scope or whatever, your buddies and all your heavy weaponry hardware are all in pieces. Referring of course to land war and really in this case only India and North Korea region land war. Side and top armor is just there for tank's structural ability to withstand multiple frontal shots of the latest and best anti tank rounds. Russian tanks still distribute armor to angles which is good but at the cost of putting that just to defeat frontal shots. Designed for different environments, opponents and possible wars. In low risk of real confrontation, tanks used more carelessly just to be placed somewhere to hold positions. If they are lost, they are lost. Serious full scale war would involve thousands of tanks and a few lost during initiating exchanges is nothing because other side will lose at least as much if not much more.
India and China bordering regions are very tank unfriendly except for type 15. Pakistan and India is quite tank friendly and so both buy and deploy a lot of tanks. Arjun would be the only tank to properly give PA tanks trouble because if they can be deployed to those heavy weight friendly landscapes, then they can sit in place and exploit their not great but more modern than Al Khalid's equipment. T-90S I think modern Chinese rounds will destroy even in frontal shots, certainly the latest ATGMs will make easy work of every tank discussed here except the ones after 2010 with modern APS.
Pure tank group vs tank group is too outdated but with Pakistan and India we may see it with less involvement of other branches. If it were India vs China, China would employ drone swarms and various gunship and UAVs to CEC guided long range anti tank artillery. Basically ATGM to 100km or so. Helicopter or UAV as sensors and forward lookouts and artillery firing dozens of guided rounds 100km away to land on top of Indian tanks all within 20 seconds of each other. This would be the most economical solution, More expensive would be 15 MALE drones taking out 50+ tanks but the sortie to guarantee safety of 15 MALE drones from IAF would be more demanding and require countering IAF. One UAV to perform CEC spotting, targeting, and guidance for 50 rounds is easier and cheaper. Especially since China has many types of stealth UAV and high altitude UAV just for this sorts of purposes.