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

[surya kiran]

I think many of you (or those posting so far) have missed the point. This is a bit about the capability and a lot about the cost, without the expense of capability. It's not that the T-90 is better then the Abrams, it's that the T-90 is almost as good, but at a fraction of the cost. The Abrams is probably the best tank in existence right now, but it's one hell of an expensive machine. The T-90 is much less expensive, but still offers a massive "bang-for-your-buck", just in a slightly more limited package. The design philosophy of both tanks is different, one's defensive the other offensive, thus differences are going to occur in their performance, but the cost of a platform should not get so high that losing a tank is akin to losing an aircraft, and this is the situation the US faces - we can't afford to lose our systems, it's too expensive! Russia has a history of making very good, but not the best gear and making it cost a whole lot less then that of the Americans.

In this respect, we have a lot to learn from our Russian counterparts.

The 2012 estimated cost of the M1A2 was 8.5 million USD, compared to the T-90s 4.25 Million USD.

Cost values taken from:

T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agreed, but at the end of the day, in a war the difference between 2 highly skilled opponents is equipment. If a gun can do 99% of the job, it will stil lose to the gun which does 100% of the job. Just like if the thermal can see 10 mts more it still gives 5 secs more time to fire and that makes all the difference.

 

[500]

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.

I dont know how u can much improve rate of fire. These are huge separately loaded shells in very cramped space.

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.

Thats data from official Soviet document (Справочник ЦНИИП ГБТУ КА, 1944):

http://www.battlefield.ru/images/stories/penetration.gif

As u can see, 75-mm Sherman gun can penetrate 80-mm from 1000 m (thats equal to front of Pz-4 or side of Tiger), while 76-mm T-34 gun could penetrate less than 60-mm.

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.

In 1942 T-34 gun sucked. In 1943 it sucked big time.

So during these years both Pz-4 and Sherman had huge advantage over T-34 (another big advantage was 3 men in turret in Sherman and Pz-4, since T-34-75 had only 2)

Whereas the Sherman was obsolete the moment it stepped into the field. Kind of puts things in perspective.

See above.

Sherman-75 was much better that T-34-76
Sherman-76 was about equal to T-34-85

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.

* Israel has largest post WW2 tank battle experience among all nations.
* Israel has tank launched ATGMs.
* Israel does not need them.

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!!!)

1956 was example of successful Blitzkrieg. Israel main tank was Sherman.

 

[SipahSalar]

I dont know how u can much improve rate of fire. These are huge separately loaded shells in very cramped space.

Thats data from official Soviet document (Справочник ЦНИИП ГБТУ КА, 1944):

http://www.battlefield.ru/images/stories/penetration.gif

As u can see, 75-mm Sherman gun can penetrate 80-mm from 1000 m (thats equal to front of Pz-4 or side of Tiger), while 76-mm T-34 gun could penetrate less than 60-mm.


In 1942 T-34 gun sucked. In 1943 it sucked big time.

So during these years both Pz-4 and Sherman had huge advantage over T-34 (another big advantage was 3 men in turret in Sherman and Pz-4, since T-34-75 had only 2)


See above.

Sherman-75 was much better that T-34-76
Sherman-76 was about equal to T-34-85


* Israel has largest post WW2 tank battle experience among all nations.
* Israel has tank launched ATGMs.
* Israel does not need them.


1956 was example of successful Blitzkrieg. Israel main tank was Sherman.

First lets step back a bit. We are having two arguments.

1. You say US did not believe in the concept of Cavalry tanks.
2. Tanks with ATGMs are no good.

First ill respond to your posts about T34.

When the T-34 appeared on the battlefield in 1940 the F-34 was MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.

I had to post this again, since you ignored it. T34's gun was more than sufficient in 1940 as i already pointed out. It was more than enough to take out P4. Which was the best tank germans were fielding.

Whereas the Sherman was obsolete the moment it stepped into the field. Kind of puts things in perspective.

Sherman came across German armor in 1942. It is ridiculous to compare the T34 in 1940 to the Sherman in 1942. They faced very different threats.

Although much later in the war, the Sherman could fight other tanks with the 76.2mm gun

And I already mentioned in a post long ago that it could fight other tanks with the 76mm, so you dont have to compare it with the T34 anymore.

Now unless you have some insight into US military history that the rest of the world doesn't, please tell me what makes you think the US did not believe in Cavalry tank concept.

US tank warfare concept was devised by Lt. Gen Lesley McNair.
Mcnair - The Ultimate History Project

Read about what he thought of the tank warfare. Tanks like Sherman were to avoid tank to tank engagement, that task was left to, as i mentioned ages ago, Tank Destroyers (Cavalry tanks).

It doesn't matter if Sherman is the best tank in the world ever, and could beat all that came before it and after it. The strengths and weaknesses of Sherman don't account for its use in battle.

As for Israel's lack of use of ATGM tanks. That comes down to the fact that Israel uses US hand-me-downs and As I pointed out, in one of the first posts on this debate, the US does not believe in Tank borne ATGMs, because of poor experience with Sheridan and Starship Pattons. Correlating Israel's lack of ATGMs doesnot add anything at all to the debate and is completely pointless.

 

[500]

I had to post this again, since you ignored it. T34's gun was more than sufficient in 1940 as i already pointed out. It was more than enough to take out P4. Which was the best tank germans were fielding.

T-34-75 was main tank till the middle 1944. And its gun sucked big time.

Sherman came across German armor in 1942. It is ridiculous to compare the T34 in 1940 to the Sherman in 1942. They faced very different threats.

Sherman in 1942 faced same threats as T-34 in 1942. But Sherman was way better.

And I already mentioned in a post long ago that it could fight other tanks with the 76mm, so you dont have to compare it with the T34 anymore.

I compare T-34-76 to Sherman-75. which were main tanks from 42 to first half of 1944. Sherman was better in all aspects.

As for Israel's lack of use of ATGM tanks. That comes down to the fact that Israel uses US hand-me-downs

Thats nonsense. Israel always heavily modernized their tanks, developed own rounds and since 1979 makes its own tanks.

and As I pointed out, in one of the first posts on this debate, the US does not believe in Tank borne ATGMs, because of poor experience with Sheridan and Starship Pattons.

No, because they have good FCS. So ATGMs are not needed.

Correlating Israel's lack of ATGMs doesnot add anything at all to the debate and is completely pointless.

Israel has ATGM which is better than Russian counterpart. But we dont use it because its not needed.

 

[SipahSalar]

T-34-75 was main tank till the middle 1944. And its gun sucked big time.


Sherman in 1942 faced same threats as T-34 in 1942. But Sherman was way better.


I compare T-34-76 to Sherman-75. which were main tanks from 42 to first half of 1944. Sherman was better in all aspects.


Thats nonsense. Israel always heavily modernized their tanks, developed own rounds and since 1979 makes its own tanks.


No, because they have good FCS. So ATGMs are not needed.


Israel has ATGM which is better than Russian counterpart. But we dont use it because its not needed.

It doesn't matter if Sherman is the best tank in the world ever, and could beat all that came before it and after it. The strengths and weaknesses of Sherman don't account for its use in battle.

As predicted you added nothing in regards to US armored warfare other than nitpicking the T34. Bring me something that counters my points against how US deployed its tanks in WW2. And not your opinion on how Sherman is just awesome but that of historians.

A good FCS does not replace an ATGM. The new Soviet tanks FCS is on par with Western counter parts. A tank with a good FCS and ATGMs will have an edge against a tank with just a good FCS.

 

[truthseeker2010]

this should also be lesson for pak army, because T-90 is and will remain the backbone of indian army.

 

[500]

And not your opinion on how Sherman is just awesome but that of historians.

FACT: 75-mm Sherman gun had way better penetration than 76-mm T-34 gun (80 mm vs 58 mm at 1 km).
FACT: Sherman has 3 men in turret while T-34-76 had only two,

That makes Sherman with 75 mm gun much better tank than T-34-76.

A good FCS does not replace an ATGM.

The range of Russian ATGMs is 4-5 km. It can be coped with good FCS.

The new Soviet tanks FCS is on par with Western counter parts.

No. I posted Greek tender report here.

 

[SipahSalar]

FACT: 75-mm Sherman gun had way better penetration than 76-mm T-34 gun (80 mm vs 58 mm at 1 km).
FACT: Sherman has 3 men in turret while T-34-76 had only two,

That makes Sherman with 75 mm gun much better tank than T-34-76.

I dont know what to say. Are you even reading what I am saying? We are arguing about US concept of armored warfare in WW2 isnt that right? Bring me evidence that US did not use the Sherman as i say it did, rather than how good the Sherman is, which is rather a first time i am hearing it.

You are saying the same thing over and over again like a recorder.

Also please open a new thread on the Sherman tank. WHat you are saying about the Sherman is completely wrong, i would respond but that lets you avoid the topic that how US used armored warfare. You ignore that fact and jump into factual searching in the sherman tank which is biased. I want to respond but I now see that you look at it as a way to duck the topic.

 

[Kamil_baku]

I think many of you (or those posting so far) have missed the point. This is a bit about the capability and a lot about the cost, without the expense of capability. It's not that the T-90 is better then the Abrams, it's that the T-90 is almost as good, but at a fraction of the cost. The Abrams is probably the best tank in existence right now, but it's one hell of an expensive machine. The T-90 is much less expensive, but still offers a massive "bang-for-your-buck", just in a slightly more limited package. The design philosophy of both tanks is different, one's defensive the other offensive, thus differences are going to occur in their performance, but the cost of a platform should not get so high that losing a tank is akin to losing an aircraft, and this is the situation the US faces - we can't afford to lose our systems, it's too expensive! Russia has a history of making very good, but not the best gear and making it cost a whole lot less then that of the Americans.

In this respect, we have a lot to learn from our Russian counterparts.

The 2012 estimated cost of the M1A2 was 8.5 million USD, compared to the T-90s 4.25 Million USD.

Cost values taken from:

T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You cant just compare their costs.. If USA try to make the same T90, it will probably cost them 6-7 million$. Think of this way...
Turkey produce its Altay tank for 5.5 Million $, WHich is in the same league with Abrams.. think it it that way as the cost of materials, workers and so on... Do you know how many workers you should have to produce Tanks? thousands of them..

 

[SipahSalar]

You cant just compare their costs.. If USA try to make the same T90, it will probably cost them 6-7 million$. Think of this way...

Cheap labor has its advantages.

 

[500]

I dont know what to say. Are you even reading what I am saying? We are arguing about US concept of armored warfare in WW2 isnt that right? Bring me evidence that US did not use the Sherman as i say it did, rather than how good the Sherman is, which is rather a first time i am hearing it.

You are saying the same thing over and over again like a recorder.

Also please open a new thread on the Sherman tank. WHat you are saying about the Sherman is completely wrong, i would respond but that lets you avoid the topic that how US used armored warfare. You ignore that fact and jump into factual searching in the sherman tank which is biased. I want to respond but I now see that you look at it as a way to duck the topic.

I brought u a solid poof that Sherman was much better than T-34 from 1942 to mid 1944. Yet you say that Americans did not know how to make tanks but Russians knew. What can I say.

 

[SipahSalar]

I brought u a solid poof that Sherman was much better than T-34 from 1942 to mid 1944. Yet you say that Americans did not know how to make tanks but Russians knew. What can I say.

Sherman wasnt better than the T34, ill get to that afterwards, Meanwhile what started the debate was:

Its Brits who made Cavalry and Infantry tanks, not the Americans.

Which you cleverly continue to avoid.

 

[Zarvan]

Well,I won't compare the latest Abrams models (barring the export models without the DU armor) with the T 90.The M1A2 SEP is head and shoulders above the T 90s in virtually every field from fire power to FCS to crew safety.The T 90 simply doesn't come near it.

Yes MIA2 is way ahead than T-90

 

[Omega007]

Yes MIA2 is way ahead than T-90

The latest SEP variants with TUSK upgrade and new DU armor.

 

[Omega007]

@500 is right.The T 34 was nothing like those extra ordinary beasts of war as they are told to be,it had more to do with communist propaganda than anything else and people,including those self proclaimed military experts and war historians still falling for it and the public following suit!!In fact the T 34 was a below average tank with shitty transmission and suspension and everything else which suffered frequent break downs.
There is more-for the American or German tanks,if their tanks were penetrated and suffered ammunition cook off,those who could make it out alive,could at least take cover underneath the tank because the propellants would deflagrate but would not blast.But is case of Soviets tanks,the ammo would explode and it was advised that under no circumstances,anyone would go near a burning Soviet tank,let alone take cover behind them.The reason why the T 34 rose to such fame was because the Germans including the legendary Heinz Guderian had mistaken the Soviet KVs as T 34s.The KVs were much better armord and quite naturally could deflect the hits from the Panzer IVs.

If you do not believe me,then find this book "T 34 Mythical Weapon" authored by a Polish military historian named Robert Michulec and you will get to know about this machine everything you need.