Can Indian T-90, T-72 MBTs be considered obsolete?

[LeGenD]

West has not been tested in a battle where the enemy has the same access to firepower as Ukraine.

US-led forces fought and defeated the Wehrmacht much like any other opposing force around the world where they could execute armored thrusts and/or apply combined arms doctrine. Where the political intent aligned with good planning if not outright technological supremacy.

As pointed out in here and here, Russian struggle(s) in a conventional war is NOT something new. USSR suffered significant losses in its war with Finland and also in its war with the Wehrmacht in times of WWII. Soviet struggle in Finland convinced Hitler to take his chances with USSR in 1941, but he didn't realize that the US will be willing to provide massive amounts of equipment and valuable supplies to USSR to plug crucial deficiencies in its war-fighting capacity. Decades later, [modern] Russia struggled in Chechnya, and now in Ukraine as pointed out in here.

To be fair, Ukraine has put up a much better fight than any country that [modern] Russia chose to fight since 1991. If WE count Soviet history than Ukraine has put up a much better fight than any adversary [after] US-led forces in the Korean War.

But pressing question is this: could Ukraine fight a war with Russia by itself? Doubtful.

NATO is making it possible for Ukraine to fight a war with Russia by providing massive amounts of equipment and valuable supplies to Ukraine to plug deficiencies in its war-fighting capacity. NATO is also allowing Ukraine to access its surveillance apparatus to observe Russian military positions and plan their moves accordingly. NATO has the necessary industrial capacity and technological prowess to fight and defeat Russia in a conventional war. But WE are not going to witness a blitzkrieg on Russian soil like in Iraq in 2003 due to obvious reasons.

If you use drones against armour then the western tanks would be butchered too.

Russian Armor losses in Ukraine are largely attributed to use of ATGMs and artillery pieces as pointed in here.

Using drones to strike at armored vehicles is "alarming development" for sure. Militant forces such as ISIL also demonstrated this capability in clashes with US-led forces in Iraq in 2017:

Battle for Mosul: ISIS drone obliterates Iraqi army tank

Amaq News, which acts as a semi-official news agency for the ISIS has released a new video showing a drone striking an Iraqi tank from the air. The footage

english.alarabiya.net

But US-led forces were learning from these experiences:

How the Army Out-Innovated the Islamic State’s Drones - War on the Rocks

A few short years ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s improvised attack drones were widely believed to be a threat so grave they could become

warontherocks.com

While WE can assume that ISIL does not have sophisticated drones like Turkish TB2, US is developing and testing relevant countermeasures for sophisticated drones as well:

Americans have developed and demonstrated different types of weapon systems to detect and shoot down different types of UAVs in various live-fire trials at home, and also had the opportunity to do so in Iraq.

Video Shows Missile, Vulcan Cannon Fire Reportedly Shooting Down Drones In Iraq

There have been two unsuccessful suicide drone attacks in as many days targeting facilities in Iraq that host American troops.

www.thedrive.com

Americans have also developed some of the most advanced UAVs in the world but they are not willing to EXPORT these machines to other countries. These state-of-the-art autonomous technologies are crucial to ensure American technological supremacy in the years to come.

You might be of the view that Turkish TB2 is formidable. It is on par with American MQ-1B in technical aspects at most.

The TB2: The value of a cheap and “good enough” drone

The Turkish Bayraktar TB2 is an effective, low-cost tactical weapon on the modern battlefield. While invaluable for all wars, it is not a game-changing technology.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

US prepares itself to fight the most capable of foes out there - always. Do I have to mention American defense budget?

Iraq and Lebanon showed that tanks are particularly vulnerable.
The merkava is a very well designed and protected tank bug against a determined and well equipped enemy the tanks were butchered. Numerous Abrams have been taken out in Iraq.

It is important to look at developments in proper context. Israeli Armor suffered losses in its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. This experience motivated Israel to develop Trophy APS.

MBT losses are EXPECTED in modern battlefields, but the word "numerous" is stretching it for the M1 Abrams design standard in comparison to Russian MBT design standard when all manner of conflicts are taken into account. American M1 variants are also much better protected than the Iraqi M1A1M variant as pointed out in here.

 

[Trango Towers]

US-led forces fought and defeated the Wehrmacht much like any other opposing force around the world where they could execute armored thrusts and/or apply combined arms doctrine. Where the political intent aligned with good planning if not outright technological supremacy.

As pointed out in here and here, Russian struggle(s) in a conventional war is NOT something new. USSR suffered significant losses in its war with Finland and also in its war with the Wehrmacht in times of WWII. Soviet struggle in Finland convinced Hitler to take his chances with USSR in 1941, but he didn't realize that the US will be willing to provide massive amounts of equipment and valuable supplies to USSR to plug crucial deficiencies in its war-fighting capacity. Decades later, [modern] Russia struggled in Chechnya, and now in Ukraine as pointed out in here.

To be fair, Ukraine has put up a much better fight than any country that [modern] Russia chose to fight since 1991. If WE count Soviet history than Ukraine has put up a much better fight than any adversary [after] US-led forces in the Korean War.

But pressing question is this: could Ukraine fight a war with Russia by itself? Doubtful.

NATO is making it possible for Ukraine to fight a war with Russia by providing massive amounts of equipment and valuable supplies to Ukraine to plug deficiencies in its war-fighting capacity. NATO is also allowing Ukraine to access to its surveillance apparatus to observe Russian military positions and plan their moves accordingly. NATO has the necessary industrial capacity and technological prowess to fight and defeat Russia in a conventional war. But WE are not going to witness a blitzkrieg on Russian soil like in Iraq in 2003 due to obvious reasons.



Russian Armor losses in Ukraine are largely attributed to use of ATGMs and artillery pieces as pointed in here.

Using drones to strike at armored vehicles is "alarming development" for sure. Militant forces such as ISIL also demonstrated this capability in clashes with US-led forces in Iraq in 2017:

Battle for Mosul: ISIS drone obliterates Iraqi army tank

Amaq News, which acts as a semi-official news agency for the ISIS has released a new video showing a drone striking an Iraqi tank from the air. The footage

english.alarabiya.net

But US-led forces were learning from these experiences:

How the Army Out-Innovated the Islamic State’s Drones - War on the Rocks

A few short years ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s improvised attack drones were widely believed to be a threat so grave they could become

warontherocks.com

While WE can assume that ISIL does not have sophisticated drones like Turkish TB2, US is developing and testing relevant countermeasures for sophisticated drones as well:

Americans have developed and demonstrated different types of weapon systems to detect and shoot down different types of UAVs in various live-fire trials at home, and also had the opportunity to do so in Iraq.

Video Shows Missile, Vulcan Cannon Fire Reportedly Shooting Down Drones In Iraq

There have been two unsuccessful suicide drone attacks in as many days targeting facilities in Iraq that host American troops.

www.thedrive.com

Americans have also developed some of the most advanced UAVs in the world but they are not willing to EXPORT these machines to other countries. These state-of-the-art autonomous technologies are crucial to ensure American technological supremacy in the years to come.

You might be of the view that Turkish TB2 is formidable. It is on par with American MQ-1B in technical aspects at most.

The TB2: The value of a cheap and “good enough” drone

The Turkish Bayraktar TB2 is an effective, low-cost tactical weapon on the modern battlefield. While invaluable for all wars, it is not a game-changing technology.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

US prepares itself to fight the most capable of foes out there - always. Do I have to mention American defense budget?



It is important to look at developments in proper context. Israeli Armor suffered losses in its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. This experience motivated Israel to develop Trophy APS.

MBT losses are EXPECTED in modern battlefields, but the word "numerous" is stretching it for the M1 Abrams design standard in comparison to Russian MBT design standard when all manner of conflicts are taken into account. American M1 variants are also much better protected than the Iraqi M1A1M variant as pointed out in here.

Very well written.
In summary what you have said is the the battle field is ever evolving. The great tank vs tank battles of yesteryear don't actually happen today.

If you look at the article regarding iraqi army adapting to ISIL drones. It's was the yanks that provided it withe the equipment. The article says no American lives were lost due to drones. Well ISIL was always an American asset.
As for the Lebanon war and the Merkava. Its an excellent tank. My point was that there were many many losses and Israel claims only 5. U just have to check pictures. Russian anti tank missiles were effective. Certainly, that has given rise to systems protecting tanks.
The use of armour has certainly evolved significantly and I think in the future it may well be reduced

 

[renhai]

And how do our Chinese tanks compare?

Russia has more experience in manufacturing and designing tanks than China, does that mean Chinese tanks are similar or at a level below in reality?

Russian tanks have better metallurgy and design than Chinese tanks, definitely. But they doesn’t mean modern Chinese tanks are bad or anything. I would easily say the best Russian tanks are much better than the best Chinese tanks, but that’s not our problem, because india does not use the best Russian tanks, but we use the best Chinese tanks.

India has basically three tanks making up its entire armored Corps;

At the bottom are the stock T72Ms and M1s, those things are most definitely obsolete, just as the PAs Type 59s and 69s are obsolete. I’d rate both of these at similar levels, despite the Indian T72s being Second Gen MBTs, since PAs 59s and 69s do have some upgrades. Either way, they’re all death traps used out of necessity, and both nations have nearly a thousand of each in active or reserve roles.

The second is the modernized T72s, these fare a bit better, they are comparable to our Al-Zarrars. India has around 1000-1100 of these.

The last is the T90S, the only tank I’d consider not entirely obsolete in the Indian arsenal. They have 1168 of these, and at best they are comparable to PAs T80UDs. Inferior to AK, and nearly half a generation behind AK-1 (a full generation behind VT-4).

The biggest issue with Indian tanks is their ammo, no matter what tank, their entire 3000+ strong fleet uses obsolete Russian ammo from the 80s, while even the oldest of PAs tanks use modern Chinese and local ammo. Another issue would be the abysmal mobility of their tanks.

To put it shortly; yes, the Indian armored fleet is technologically far behind PAs, but that doesn’t mean the PA should celebrate just yet, The Indian armored fleet is much bigger, and it’s just one element of a combined arms warfare doctrine. PAs gunship helicopter fleet is nonexistent at the moment compared to Indias. PAs SP artillery fleet is much superior to Indias. But Indias Towed arty fleet is much superior to Pakistans. Pakistans UAV fleet is much superior to Indias. But IA has much better and more numerous ATGMs.

The list goes on and on, both sides have their strengths and weaknesses, but if we are to talk about tank fleets and tech particularly, PA has a very significant edge in quality, just not in quantity.

India has:
1168 T90S (with 464 more on order but their delivery is uncertain due to the war).
1000-1100~ T72 (modernized)
1000+ T72Ms and M1s both in service and reserve.
124 Arjun MK1s (lmao) and 118 Arjun MK1As on order (still lmao).

Pakistan has:
Unknown number of VT4s, but I’d assume somewhere between 150-250, with several hundred more on order, these numbers are going up fast.
120 AK1s, 320 AKs.
300-310 T80UDs
290~ Type 85UGs
700-750 AZs
And several hundred Type 59s and 69s in active or reserve, being retired actively as VT4s are delivered.

Russian tanks are better than Chinese tanks??? Please take a look at the gap between China and Russia in automobiles. Electronics. Chemistry. Materials and precision machinery!

I would like to endorse Russian tanks. But would you buy its car?

 

[SQ8]

Russian tanks are better than Chinese tanks??? Please take a look at the gap between China and Russia in automobiles. Electronics. Chemistry. Materials and precision machinery!

I would like to endorse Russian tanks. But would you buy its car?

The Russian automobile industry never progressed post the USSR so never evolved.
Its armored vehicle industry however was fully funded and progressed for 80 years. How long has China’s own armor industry produced indigenous designs? Until the Type 80 the leading ones were modified copies of the soviet tanks. So the Russians have a 50 year lead on tank design.

China will catch up and pass and is very very close - but not yet.

 

[kingQamaR]

Russian tanks are better than Chinese tanks??? Please take a look at the gap between China and Russia in automobiles. Electronics. Chemistry. Materials and precision machinery!

I would like to endorse Russian tanks. But would you buy its car?

Tanks look simple and yesteryears technology, however it is actually quite difficult to make that most nations cannot independently make own tanks. India for example buy their tanks from Russia while domestically researched Arjunk tank never entered services after decades of R&D. China has a few generations of domestic tanks. It turned out autoloaders , explosive reactive armours are easier than basic things like diesel engines and heavy load chassis.

 

[walterbibikow]

India for example buy their tanks from Russia while domestically researched Arjunk tank never entered services after decades of R&D

114(in service) + 118(on order)

Defence Ministry seals contract for 118 Arjun tanks

"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) placed an order with Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF), Avadi, Chennai for supply of 118 Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) Arjun Mk-1A for the Indian Army on September 23," the ministry said

www.businesstoday.in

 

[iLION12345_1]

114(in service) + 118(on order)

Defence Ministry seals contract for 118 Arjun tanks

"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) placed an order with Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF), Avadi, Chennai for supply of 118 Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) Arjun Mk-1A for the Indian Army on September 23," the ministry said

www.businesstoday.in

Which is likely it’s final order, and has only seen a total of 1 tank delivered so far, at least publicly. That order should have been done over a year ago if they were being produced at even half the capacity of the Indian factory. So where are they?

Russian tanks are better than Chinese tanks??? Please take a look at the gap between China and Russia in automobiles. Electronics. Chemistry. Materials and precision machinery!

I would like to endorse Russian tanks. But would you buy its car?

Where is the relation between a car and a tank? Chinese tanks are nowhere near modern Russian ones, but that doesn’t mean China cannot make a better tank than Russia, it simply doesn’t because it doesn’t need to, China doesn’t have as much use for tanks, their current fleet serves them fine, they spend their money elsewhere, on things they need, like jets and ships.

 

[renhai]

Which is likely it’s final order, and has only seen a total of 1 tank delivered so far, at least publicly. That order should have been done over a year ago if they were being produced at even half the capacity of the Indian factory. So where are they?


Where is the relation between a car and a tank? Chinese tanks are nowhere near modern Russian ones, but that doesn’t mean China cannot make a better tank than Russia, it simply doesn’t because it doesn’t need to, China doesn’t have as much use for tanks, their current fleet serves them fine, they spend their money elsewhere, on things they need, like jets and ships.

What is the evidence? What is the evidence that Russian tanks are better than Chinese tanks? Control system? Armor? Engine power?

Russia cannot even produce modern cars. It even needs to import key parts from India. Then you said its tanks are better than China?

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

As for TB2s' most effective usage (Syria or Karaba' style), they require "corridors" to be opened by ASELSAN KORAL like EW systems, which definitely aren't employed in Ukraine for obvious reasons....

As for the Indo-Pak scenario, I am pretty sure no Turkish systems will be out of the bound.....

At the end of the day, it's your "maestros" of the III-V semiconductor devices (design and fabrication) that would settle the course of the battles.....

 

[renhai]

The Russian automobile industry never progressed post the USSR so never evolved.
Its armored vehicle industry however was fully funded and progressed for 80 years. How long has China’s own armor industry produced indigenous designs? Until the Type 80 the leading ones were modified copies of the soviet tanks. So the Russians have a 50 year lead on tank design.

China will catch up and pass and is very very close - but not yet.

@SQ8 you said that Russia's tank armor technology is 50 years ahead of China. And Chinese tank technology is not even close to Russia?

OK. You want to tell us that Pakistan's VT-4 is 50 years behind India's T-90.

I don't have any questions.

 

[iLION12345_1]

What is the evidence? What is the evidence that Russian tanks are better than Chinese tanks? Control system? Armor? Engine power?

Russia cannot even produce modern cars. It even needs to import key parts from India. Then you said its tanks are better than China?

There’s enough evidence on the internet if you look with your eyes and not with your emotional patriotism. Otherwise you can go read the endless threads on this forum too, since I haven’t had to explain this to you before unlike some people on this forum. I’ll say it once more:

1. Cars are not tanks and therefore your example is entirely pointless.

2. Russia has better tank design philosophy than China. Chinas best tank, the ZTZ-99, is literally copied from T72 designs and manuals, all other Chinese tanks have hilariously bad basic design, including the VT-4, and there’s more than enough proof to support this claim.

3. Russian tanks have much bigger frontal armor arcs (something China has never included in its tank designs, despite copying T72), actual side armor (entirely missing on Chinese tanks), next Gen ERA (China is yet to employ that on any tank. FY-IV is not comparable to the latest Russian ERA) and better metallurgy.

4. Modern RWS systems (first one ever seen in China on a VT4, a tank they don’t use, and even then it’s not got it’s own sighting system).

5. Chinese tanks have absolutely no proper ammo isolation or protection, the ammo still lies about in the cabin like much like T72 and T90 and will suffer the same fate when hit. T90M takes some precautions in this case, T14 isolates It entirely.

6. China has not developed upgraded auto-loaders as in T90M or T14, or any modern APFSDS (long-rod penetrators).

I could go on.

Now let me clarify some things that for some reason a few Chinese members just simply chose to ignore every single damn time this topic comes up, because they’re too busy typing an angry reply about how I’m anti Chinese:

where did I ever say China could not make a better tank than Russia? I said they they currently do not make a better tank than Russia, because China doesn’t need better tanks. Why would China waste money on something it doesn’t need? If China wanted it could most definitely design a tank better than anything Russia has, I never said China doesn’t have the money or technology to do that.
But Nobody near China has better or comparable tanks to China, Taiwan has obsolete pattons and India has Russian tanks from the 90s.
China has no tank threats that it’s current armor cannot defeat, so why would it waste money on that instead of spending it on jets and ships that it actually needs? Clearly China is doing the smart thing here, and I totally understand that, yet you want to cry about what I said.

And when did I ever say Russia is actually outpacing Chinese industry? I am merely talking about the technologies themselves, Russian tank design fundamentals are stronger than China because it has more tank based threats, and it needs better tanks, but it is absolutely no secret that Russian defense industry has been on the decline and cannot actually produce the technologies it has developed. The T14 is very technologically impressive but Russia cannot produce it at all, meanwhile China can produce 10 times the tanks Russia can in a year if it really wanted to.

There are parts of tank design at which China has already surpassed Russia, specifically electronics, communication systems, sighting systems and FCS/GCS systems, this is because such technologies benefit from Chinas rapid advances in its electrical industry, and if China really wanted it could make a better tank than Russia, but as it stands, China does not make any tank that I would consider An actually good basic design. They simply have rather poor designs which are made capable using advanced technology and add-ons, because this is cheaper to do than designing an entirely new tank, and for China this is sufficient.

@SQ8 you said that Russia's tank armor technology is 50 years ahead of China. And Chinese tank technology is not even close to Russia?

OK. You want to tell us that Pakistan's VT-4 is 50 years behind India's T-90.

I don't have any questions.

VT4 has a worst basic design than a T72 and by extension a T90, that’s just a fact, but basic design and overall performance are two very different things. This poor design just means that the VT4 isn’t as good as it could be, if anything I believe the T90S despite being from the 90s has better protected sides and rear than VT4 simply due to its better design.

That being said, india is not a good case, india does not use modern Russian tanks, only old ones.
you cannot compare Indias Russian tanks to Russians own modern MBTs and use that as a point to call Chinese tanks superior. In fact, india having bad tanks is the reason China doesn’t invest in better ones, it already has a major lead.

Just because the VT4 has a bad design doesn’t mean the entire tank is bad, apart from the basic design, there is literally nothing the T90S does better than a VT4, simply because there’s a nearly 2k year tech gap between them. The T90S will be dead before it even sees a VT4, but what if we brought a T14 and put that against a VT4? Then the VT4 seems like it’s a last Gen tank. But that’s just when we compare tech, Russia cannot produce T14, that’s an industry issue, nobody is doubting that.

The best Chinese ammo is only comparable to western and Russian ammo from the 2000s, because China has not moved on to long rod penetrators (it’s tanks cannot accommodate those due to old auto-loading system design), but China is not fighting Western or modern Russian tanks, the ammo india has is even more obsolete, so compared to that Chinas ammo is leagues better.

It’s honestly a very very simple thing I’m trying to explain if you bothered to get your head out you patriotic rage and accept for once that China doesn’t need to be the best at everything.

 

[renhai]

There’s enough evidence on the internet if you look with your eyes and not with your emotional patriotism. Otherwise you can go read the endless threads on this forum too, since I haven’t had to explain this to you before unlike some people on this forum. I’ll say it once more:

1. Cars are not tanks and therefore your example is entirely pointless.

2. Russia has better tank design philosophy than China. Chinas best tank, the ZTZ-99, is literally copied from T72 designs and manuals, all other Chinese tanks have hilariously bad basic design, including the VT-4, and there’s more than enough proof to support this claim.

3. Russian tanks have much bigger frontal armor arcs (something China has never included in its tank designs, despite copying T72), actual side armor (entirely missing on Chinese tanks), next Gen ERA (China is yet to employ that on any tank. FY-IV is not comparable to the latest Russian ERA) and better metallurgy.

4. Modern RWS systems (first one ever seen in China on a VT4, a tank they don’t use, and even then it’s not got it’s own sighting system).

5. Chinese tanks have absolutely no proper ammo isolation or protection, the ammo still lies about in the cabin like much like T72 and T90 and will suffer the same fate when hit. T90M takes some precautions in this case, T14 isolates It entirely.

6. China has not developed upgraded auto-loaders as in T90M or T14, or ant modern APFSDS (long-rod penetrators).

I could go on.

Now let me clarify some things that for some reason a few Chinese members just simply chose to ignore every single damn time this topic comes up, because they’re too busy typing an angry reply about how I’m anti Chinese:

where did I ever say China could not make a better tank than Russia? I said they they currently do not make a better tank than Russia, because China doesn’t need better tanks. Why would China waste money on something it doesn’t need? If China wanted it could most definitely design a tank better than anything Russia has, I never said China doesn’t have the money or technology to do that.
But Nobody near China has better or comparable tanks to China, Taiwan has obsolete pattons and India has Russian tanks from the 90s.
China has no tank threats that it’s current armor cannot defeat, so why would it waste money on that instead of spending it on jets and ships that it actually needs? Clearly China is doing the smart thing here, and I totally understand that, yet you want to cry about what I said.

And when did I ever say Russia is actually outpacing Chinese industry? I am merely talking about the technologies themselves, Russian tank design fundamentals are stronger than China because it has more tank based threats, and it needs better tanks, but it is absolutely no secret that Russian defense industry has been on the decline and cannot actually produce the technologies it has developed. The T14 is very technologically impressive but Russia cannot produce it at all, meanwhile China can produce 10 times the tanks Russia can in a year if it really wanted to.

There are parts of tank design at which China has already surpassed Russia, specifically electronics, communication systems, sighting systems and FCS/GCS systems, this is because such technologies benefit from Chinas rapid advances in its electrical industry, and if China really wanted it could make a better tank than Russia, but as it stands, China does not make any tank that I would consider An actually good basic design. They simply have rather poor designs which are made capable using advanced technology and add-ons, because this is cheaper to do than designing an entirely new tank, and for China this is sufficient.

I have lost all patience. I only wish you to buy more Russian tanks.

Look. There are reasons why some countries have failed and fallen behind.

 

[iLION12345_1]

I have lost all patience. I only wish you to buy more Russian tanks.

Look. There are reasons why some countries have failed and fallen behind.

Me: China has very advanced industry and is making the right decision by not wasting money on tanks it does not need.

You: Wow you are so anti-china

Brother I am literally praising China not insulting it, i am sorry if I cannot explain that to you in a better way.

 

[renhai]

Me: China has very advanced industry and is making the right decision by not wasting money on tanks it does not need.

You: Wow you are so anti-china

Brother I am literally praising China not insulting it, i am sorry if I cannot explain that to you in a better way.

Don't get me wrong too much. I never said you were anti-China. I just disagree with your point of view.

 

[LeGenD]

T-90MS vs VT-4

- T-90MS has better armor package.
- Both are comparable in terms of firepower.
- Both are comparable in terms of electronics.
- VT-4 has better mobility.

T-90MS vs T-90M Proryv 3

- T-90M Proryv 3 has better armor package.
- T-90MS has better mobility.

In terms of protection:

T-90M Proryv 3 > T-90MS > VT-4

In terms of mobility:

VT-4 > T-90MS > T-90M Proryv 3

These MBT are comparable otherwise.

---

Type 99 is a departure from VT-4 in many aspects.

Type 99 has better turret design, technology, and mobility than VT-4 at a closer look:

But Type 99 125 mm main gun armor penetration capability is on the level of T-90A due to similar technology:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1200038117698392064

---

T-14 is a departure from T-90 series in many aspects.

T-14 turret design is different from that of any T-90 variant:

https://imgur.com/PkeLgzv

This turret is not heavily armored but Afghanit APS is used to compensate for said weakness:

T-90M Proryv 3 is equipped with Relikt ERA tiles:

T-14 is equipped with Malachit ERA tiles:

- YouTube

ÐивÑÑÑÑÑ Ð²Ñдео, ÑлÑÑайÑе ÑлÑÐ±Ð»ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¼ÑзикÑ, заванÑажÑйÑе оÑигÑналÑний конÑÐµÐ½Ñ Ñ Ð´ÑлÑÑÑÑÑ Ð²ÑÑм Ñим Ñз дÑÑзÑми, ÑÑм'ÑÑ Ð¹ ÑÑлим ÑвÑÑом на YouTube.

www.youtube.com

For perspective:

Malachit = Russian 4th generation ERA
Relikt = Russian 3rd generation ERA
Kontakt-5 = Russian 2nd generation ERA

Russians have REVISITED ammo compartmentalization, ammo shielding, and their approach to ammo loading in T-14 in comparison to any T-90 variant to improve crew survivability:

- YouTube

ÐивÑÑÑÑÑ Ð²Ñдео, ÑлÑÑайÑе ÑлÑÐ±Ð»ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¼ÑзикÑ, заванÑажÑйÑе оÑигÑналÑний конÑÐµÐ½Ñ Ñ Ð´ÑлÑÑÑÑÑ Ð²ÑÑм Ñим Ñз дÑÑзÑми, ÑÑм'ÑÑ Ð¹ ÑÑлим ÑвÑÑом на YouTube.

www.youtube.com

T-14 is equipped with a more powerful main gun than any T-90 variant:

Russians are also developing a new generation of ammo for T-14 to increase its armor penetration capacity yet further.

T-14 is equipped with better electronics than in any T-90 variant:

T-14 is equipped with a more powerful engine than in any T-90 variant:

- YouTube

ÐивÑÑÑÑÑ Ð²Ñдео, ÑлÑÑайÑе ÑлÑÐ±Ð»ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¼ÑзикÑ, заванÑажÑйÑе оÑигÑналÑний конÑÐµÐ½Ñ Ñ Ð´ÑлÑÑÑÑÑ Ð²ÑÑм Ñим Ñз дÑÑзÑми, ÑÑм'ÑÑ Ð¹ ÑÑлим ÑвÑÑом на YouTube.

www.youtube.com

T-14 power-to-weight ratio at 30+ is remarkable by extension.

---

T-14 seems to offer superior protection to crew, firepower*, and mobility in comparison to any Type 99 variant on the whole.

*In addition to being equipped with a more powerful main gun, its rate of fire at 10 rounds per minute is superior to that of any Type 99 and T-90 variant as well.

It would be interesting to see how T-14 will fare against Type 99 variants in combat situations, nevertheless.

@renhai

---

@iLION12345_1 - you may add to my observations to plug potential gaps in my assessment.