A Deadly Lesson: What the T-90 can teach the US

[Oldman1]

At first i thought it will be just another hype creating article, but reading about the Abrams fuel thirsty engine problems really impressed me. Its the Achilles heel noone talks about. Abrams need a MASSIVE line of fuel trucks presenting to the enemy a lot of soft targets and the beasts under belly.



Firing missiles from the Main gun is nothing new for soviet tanks. They have been doing it since 1976 when they armed their T-64B's with the Kobra.
Its a concept Western armored commanders never accepted or fully understood. My conclusion is that Americans have never been able to comprehend armored warfare since its inception. Even in WW2 they were stubbornly sticking to the concept of Cavalry and Infantry tanks while Germans and Soviets were making T34s and Panthers. And now they dont understand the importance of missiles fitted in tanks, greatly out ranging their opponent.
That said, Missiles saw some use in the now retired Sheridans and Starships tanks.

Guess you never heard of the M551 Sheridan tank. Been done since the 60s.

The U.S. understood the concept of tank warfare and had real tanks based on WW1, but remember that the U.S. was a in Great Depression from the 30s and was not at war til 1941. Most of our tanks were medium tanks fighting against Germany with heavy tanks and experienced crews.

 

[SipahSalar]

Guess you never heard of the M551 Sheridan tank. Been done since the 60s.

Meh, i did mention your sheridan and starship tanks at the end of my post. Read your own quoted text.

 

[500]

My conclusion is that Americans have never been able to comprehend armored warfare since its inception. Even in WW2 they were stubbornly sticking to the concept of Cavalry and Infantry tanks while Germans and Soviets were making T34s and Panthers.

Its Brits who made Cavalry and Infantry tanks, not the Americans. BTW, Germans and Soviets also made heavy and slow tanks and medium fast tanks. Just called them differently.

And now they dont understand the importance of missiles fitted in tanks, greatly out ranging their opponent.

The main reason why Soviets made missiles is because of their poor FCS and innacurate rounds. Western tanks dont need it simply.

In Israel sniper tanks are training to hit targets up to 8 km with regular rounds.

 

[Oldman1]

Meh, i did mention your sheridan and starship tanks at the end of my post. Read your own quoted text.

Sorry, didn't see that last sentence. In any case the U.S. is developing rounds that fires beyond 12km in terms of range.

 

[SipahSalar]

Its Brits who made Cavalry and Infantry tanks, not the Americans. BTW, Germans and Soviets also made heavy and slow tanks and medium fast tanks. Just called them differently.

They had heavy and medium tanks but that designation is different from Infantry and Cavalry tanks. Cavalry tanks were meant to fight tanks and were light armored and infantry tanks were meant to fight lead wave attacks, were more armored and lacked armor penetration capability. And this concept was accepted and used by the Americans most of the war if you look at the tanks they made and how they used them.

The main reason why Soviets made missiles is because of their poor FCS and innacurate rounds. Western tanks dont need it simply.

In Israel sniper tanks are training to hit targets up to 8 km with regular rounds.

You still cant out range a missile no matter how expert of a gunner you are, that's just wishful thinking! As for taking out targets at 8 km, ill believe it when they do it in active combat while being shot at, till then words are air.

 

[Selous]

The T90 ties in well with the overall Russian war philosophy. The same philosophy which has served them relatively well over the years. However the true test of this tank will be on the battlefield and I think we might see them in action sooner rather than later.

 

[500]

They had heavy and medium tanks but that designation is different from Infantry and Cavalry tanks. Cavalry tanks were meant to fight tanks and were light armored and infantry tanks were meant to fight lead wave attacks, were more armored and lacked armor penetration capability. And this concept was accepted and used by the Americans most of the war if you look at the tanks they made and how they used them.

Well if u check Soviet IS-2 its gun was not well suited to combat other tanks - veruy slow loading and only 28 rounds. German Tigers were on contrary had very anti tank design.
Both are not suited for blitzkrieg style.

The main power in all armies were medium tanks:

Pz-4 in German army
T-34 in Soviet army
Sherman in US army
Crusader and Cromwell in British army.

All these guys have quite similar characteristics.

You still cant out range a missile no matter how expert of a gunner you are, that's just wishful thinking! As for taking out targets at 8 km, ill believe it when they do it in active combat while being shot at, till then words are air.

Actually in 1965 we hit a target at 11 km. And during 1982 wars there were two cases when tanks were destroyed at ranged beyond 5 km.

 

[SipahSalar]

Well if u check Soviet IS-2 its gun was not well suited to combat other tanks - veruy slow loading and only 28 rounds. German Tigers were on contrary had very anti tank design.
Both are not suited for blitzkrieg style.

The main power in all armies were medium tanks:

Pz-4 in German army
T-34 in Soviet army
Sherman in US army
Crusader and Cromwell in British army.

All these guys have quite similar characteristics.

IS2 was made to counter heavy german tanks like Tigers and Tiger 2s. Even the tiger 1 had problem penetrating its armor. Ironically Tiger 1 was made to counter Soviet KV1s. It was an arms race. But my point is about how they were utilized. Both the tanks could perform adjust to any other role as well.

As for the medium tanks. Again its about how they were deployed. T34 and P4 were deployed to fight both tanks and perform other battlefield roles equally well. Whereas the Crusader was a cavalry tank as I mentioned. Its main job was to fight tanks along with infantry tanks like Matilda. Cromwell arrived much later in the war but i think even it was a cavalry tank used to fight alongside the infantry tank Churchill.

The same concept goes for Shermans. Although much later in the war, the Sherman could fight other tanks with the 76.2mm gun, throughout the war the task of fighting tanks was left to M18 and M10 tank destroyers. You see the Americans did use the concept of fast moving lightly armored cavalry tanks. In fact these cavalry tanks were much worse than the British cavalry tanks due to mediocre armor and being open turreted.

Actually in 1965 we hit a target at 11 km. And during 1982 wars there were two cases when tanks were destroyed at ranged beyond 5 km.

Again those are the exceptions and not the norm. Even the tanks designer will not site those as the normal ranges the tank is meant to fight at. These 4 or 5 incidents in 70 years of warfare cant be used to argue that the tanks can fight at ranges of ATGMs which REGULARLY hit targets at extremely long ranges.

 

[500]

IS2 was made to counter heavy german tanks like Tigers and Tiger 2s.

No it was made to destroy fortifications. 100-mm gun would be much better for anti tank role.

The same concept goes for Shermans. Although much later in the war, the Sherman could fight other tanks with the 76.2mm gun, throughout the war the task of fighting tanks was left to M18 and M10 tank destroyers. You see the Americans did use the concept of fast moving lightly armored cavalry tanks. In fact these cavalry tanks were much worse than the British cavalry tanks due to mediocre armor and being open turreted.

75-mm gun of Sherman had better penetration than 76-mm of T-34. 76-mm was about same to 85-mm of T-34.

Again those are the exceptions and not the norm. Even the tanks designer will not site those as the normal ranges the tank is meant to fight at. These 4 or 5 incidents in 70 years of warfare cant be used to argue that the tanks can fight at ranges of ATGMs which REGULARLY hit targets at extremely long ranges.

How many incidents do u know with tank missile? Israel fought more tank battles than any other country since WW2, we have anti tank missile fired from canon, but we dont adopt it. Why? Because its not needed. Tank is direct fire weapon, the instances when you need to fire at ranged beyond 3-4 km are extremely rare, but even those can be handled with main gun.

 

[SipahSalar]

No it was made to destroy fortifications. 100-mm gun would be much better for anti tank role.

It was made to fight tanks but could destroy fortifications as well to some extent. ISU 152 was prefered for destroying fortifications as it could fire indirectly and directly, both. As both ISU 152 and IS2 are based on the same chasis, it raises the question as to why was there a need for ISU 152 when IS 2 could do the job as you claim.

75-mm gun of Sherman had better penetration than 76-mm of T-34. 76-mm was about same to 85-mm of T-34.

You have to be the first person in history to say that the 75mm gun of sherman had better armor penetration than the 76mm High velocity gun upgrade. Please give me your references. I can site several!

Here is a chart depicting the penetrations:
USA Guns 75mm and 76mm calibre

I hope i have you persuaded.

How many incidents do u know with tank missile? Israel fought more tank battles than any other country since WW2, we have anti tank missile fired from canon, but we dont adopt it. Why? Because its not needed. Tank is direct fire weapon, the instances when you need to fire at ranged beyond 3-4 km are extremely rare, but even those can be handled with main gun.

Again, Israel may not need the anti tank missile because of its own situational needs. Mostly it gets to fight RPG 7 wielding guerillas, and sometimes bombs Lebanon and Syria. Nations hardly comparable to modern armies deploying a modern tank force.

 

[he-man]

without a doubt T90 is the best bang for your buck tank in the world.

take for instance the K2 Black and Type 10 from Japan, both tanks are well over $8 million a pop while the T-90 is a half to a third cheaper each.

some might prefer a 1,000 T90s over 300 K2/Types10s

India

Again, Israel may not need the anti tank missile because of its own situational needs. Mostly it gets to fight RPG 7 wielding guerillas, and sometimes bombs Lebanon and Syria. Nations hardly comparable to modern armies deploying a modern tank force.

True,,israel will not face a modern army/tank force.
Other nations have much more dangerous and well armed threats.

 

[500]

It was made to fight tanks but could destroy fortifications as well to some extent. ISU 152 was prefered for destroying fortifications as it could fire indirectly and directly, both. As both ISU 152 and IS2 are based on the same chasis, it raises the question as to why was there a need for ISU 152 when IS 2 could do the job as you claim.

As I said 100-mm is much much better suited for anti tank role. 122-mm is too slow to load and has very little ammo.

You have to be the first person in history to say that the 75mm gun of sherman had better armor penetration than the 76mm High velocity gun upgrade.

Read carefully. I said that 75-mm gun of Sherman had better penetration than 76-mm gun of T-34.

Again, Israel may not need the anti tank missile because of its own situational needs. Mostly it gets to fight RPG 7 wielding guerillas, and sometimes bombs Lebanon and Syria. Nations hardly comparable to modern armies deploying a modern tank force.

No we fought against much larger armies, biggest tank battles since Kursk. 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 wars - all had large tank battles. And we have Egypt with over 1000 Abrams tanks as potential adversary.

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary - What do you think ?

What do I think?? I think it's useless to compare.

First, one need to realise Tank made for their own country doctrine. One thing I never get about selling arms is, if you buy our arms, you probably need to follow our attack philosophy behind why that particular weapon exists.

As I said on another threads, we run tanks a lot different than the other side of the world. Our armoured doctrine is modelled after the German after WW2. Which would be a combine arms version of blitzkrieg. What it means is, when US Armoured fight foreign nation armoured, we need to pin point the spearhead of enemy position, then call in interdiction airstrike to soften up or confuse their rank, then we RAM our Abrams inside the enemy formation as fast as we can.

For this to work, we would need precision gunnery and speed in our tank. Also manuverability for our tank to turn around and head back and help the mechanical infantry for their objective, once they destroyed the enemy front line. Hence we have the Abrams

The Russian, on the other hand, uses their tank as a single giant roll over, they know in an offensive war, they most likely would not enjoy global air dominance, they could, at best do local air superiority, but that's it, so they cannot afford to send in gunships and bomber to disrupt their enemy lines, and they have to roll their tank against their enemy and hope they can be push back by their sheer number. Pretty much what they did during WW2.

For that to work, they would need a tank that is easy to make with high survivability, probably fast to reload too if they are to overwhelm their enemy with fire power.. Hence the T-90.

So, if you ask me, we would have fail spectacularly if we were to use the T-90, and the reverse is also true. You cannot compare two tank design that suit different purpose.

 

[Hyperion]

Nice thread buddy!

@SvenSvensonov

 

[SipahSalar]

As I said 100-mm is much much better suited for anti tank role. 122-mm is too slow to load and has very little ammo.

I don't think it is so, but even just for arguments sake we accept that it is better, so what? You still cannot deny the fact that IS-2 was made to counter the German heavy tanks and provide fire support. Read any historical information of the IS-2. You will find why was there a need for a heavy tank like the IS-2. And even then the later versions of IS-2 (summer 44 onward) had MUCH improved fire rate which seems to be the judge-all factor for you in tank vs tank battles.

Read carefully. I said that 75-mm gun of Sherman had better penetration than 76-mm gun of T-34.

I am sorry for misreading you, after I read 76mm I got into rage mode because it sounded insane.
Can you give me your reference on that information.
Regardless of that, you have to take T-34's F-34 gun in context. When the T-34 appeared on the battlefield in 1940 the F-34 was MORE THAN SUFFICIENT. It could penetrate any tank on the battlefield. Name one tank that its gun couldn't beat that was on the battlefield.. And when the gun became obsolete due to appearance of Tigers and Panthers, they simply came out with T34-85, armed with the 85mm gun.
Whereas the Sherman was obsolete the moment it stepped into the field. Kind of puts things in perspective.

No we fought against much larger armies, biggest tank battles since Kursk. 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 wars - all had large tank battles. And we have Egypt with over 1000 Abrams tanks as potential adversary.

I don't know how to navigate around your argument that "Tanks with ATGMs are useless because Israel doesn't use them". It seems kind of ridiculous. That's not even considering the fact that you are distorting the Suez Canal skirmish as a major tank warfare battle, that too one in which effective ATGMs did not exist and the rivals were fielding obsolete tanks (T34!!!) , forget ATGMs. I can make similar argument for the other battles, but again, its pointless.