Discussion: will Egypt replace its old T-55 and T-62 with the T-90MS

[Frogman]

I have explained what the T-90MS will add to the Abrams..

Nothing that is based on Egypt's operational needs. While an ATGM and APS would be "nice to have" they do not justify an entirely different tank.

and the American Tanks are too heavy for the mistral..

They are bloody not. The United States Marine Corps and the Australians both use the M1 for amphibious operations from their LHDs.

The T-90 is affordable on top of being a good Tank

Affordable compared to what exactly? Certainly not the M1.

The tank is a turd (T-72) that has been repeatedly rolled in glitter.

M-60 s will need replacement too and that will be done with other American Tanks either more advanced versions of the Abrams or a completely new US Tank..

Again, this isn't a game of pokemon cards, you aren't supposed to collect them all. There's a reason anyone with an idea of what they're doing relies on one MBT.

That is left to be seen.. the Abrams are just too heavy for a rapid force deployment carried by the Mistral..

Again they're not and weight isn't the largest obstacle for rapid deployment, it's logistics. The more systems you're running the more systems you have to support from the very top downwards.

So if you introduce the T-90 in a formation with US/NATO equipment everything will be different;

- ammunition for the HMG and GPMG
- have to specifically plan for different systems rather than have commonality
- 3 man crews instead of 4
- more responsibilities for the 3 man crew meaning more fatigue
- 3 man crews usually require a supplementary security platoon to work effectively
- meaning you are going to need more people for a rapid deployment force
- different recovery and logistic vehicles
- different fuel
- different bloody everything leading to a mess

In the end what you will have is a force that isn't very rapid and not that deployable.

Anyway, they are talking about a 400-500T-90MS deal for now with the possibility of local manufacture.. it is always good to diversify its weapon sources..

No it isn't and we've covered this a million times before. It is a political decision not one based on capability. With the M1 Abrams being perhaps the most secure big ticket US item in the inventory.

 

[The SC]

Nothing that is based on Egypt's operational needs. While an ATGM and APS would be "nice to have" they do not justify an entirely different tank.



They are bloody not. The United States Marine Corps and the Australians both use the M1 for amphibious operations from their LHDs.



Affordable compared to what exactly? Certainly not the M1.

The tank is a turd (T-72) that has been repeatedly rolled in glitter.



Again, this isn't a game of pokemon cards, you aren't supposed to collect them all. There's a reason anyone with an idea of what they're doing relies on one MBT.



Again they're not and weight isn't the largest obstacle for rapid deployment, it's logistics. The more systems you're running the more systems you have to support from the very top downwards.

So if you introduce the T-90 in a formation with US/NATO equipment everything will be different;

- ammunition for the HMG and GPMG
- have to specifically plan for different systems rather than have commonality
- 3 man crews instead of 4
- more responsibilities for the 3 man crew meaning more fatigue
- 3 man crews usually require a supplementary security platoon to work effectively
- meaning you are going to need more people for a rapid deployment force
- different recovery and logistic vehicles
- different fuel
- different bloody everything leading to a mess

In the end what you will have is a force that isn't very rapid and not that deployable.




No it isn't and we've covered this a million times before. It is a political decision not one based on capability. With the M1 Abrams being perhaps the most secure big ticket US item in the inventory.

Although I do agree with you on many points, here are some facts that do not lie:

M1 Abrams vs. T-90: Top US General Admits Russia Has Achieved Tank Parity

"I think the Abrams is still towards the top of its class in terms of combat systems, in terms of tanks," Murray said. "I think we have parity, I think there is parity out there." Still, he warned that Russia has closed the gap it had with the US since the end of the Cold War. "I think the T-90 is probably pretty close," he told one senator.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201703261051984261-us-general-t90-vs-abrams/


What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank

The T-90 is one logically mean machine. She cuts a low profile and is a marriage of classic soviet simplistic reliability and high tech features. In fact a good, way to explain the T-90 is that it is somewhat of a hybrid concept, combining the reliable and proven chassis of the T-72 with the more advanced turret of the T-80, including its more modern fire control capabilities and support sub-systems. The T-90 is lighter and more nimble than her American counterpart, with the A1 Abrams weighting in at 68 tons compared to the T-90's 48 tons. You read that right, the T-90 is a whopping 40,000lbs lighter than the M1A1 Abrams! The T-90's lower mass results in a smaller, less expensive package, that can do some fairly spectacular maneuvers, whether it be on the open range or in tight urban environments.

The T-90's 125mm can also fire the 9M119 "Refleks" anti-tank guided missile. This laser guided missile can strike ground based and low flying aerial targets at close to double range of the T-90's main gun. Yes, you read that right, the T-90 can shoot guided missiles out of its main gun and can even take down helicopters with those missiles under certain conditions. The T-90's predecessors also had similar capabilities as well, although the system is said to be better refined in the T-90, especially the latest versions. Unlike the hand-loaded Abrams, the T-90 uses an auto loading system for its main gun. Russian tankers have been heard saying that the Abrams is a bolt action while the Russian T-90 is a semi-automatic.

In addition to the T-90's big cannon, like the Abrams she packs a .50 cal and a 7.62 cal machine gun, but these are both externally mounted, whereas the M1 packs one of its 7.62 caliber machine guns in an internal coaxial mount right next to her main gun. The T-90's .50 cal can be remotely operated from within the tank, a feature that has only recently been added to the Abrams' capability via the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station (CROWS) upgrade.

...

This came to fruition with the inclusion of the French-built Thales "CATHERINE" target sight installed on later T-90 models. This site, when paired with the T-90's upgraded fire control system and laser rangefinder/designator, gives gunners and commanders the ability to detect targets beyond the range of their weapons, allowing them to have increased situational awareness and the ability for enhanced "fire and maneuver" capability which is crucial for winning on the modern battlefield.

SURVIVABILITY

Although the Russia's main battle tank of choice is much lighter than its American counterpart, it does have good armor and a fairly robust self defensive suite. Different configurations of the T-90 exist, but generally the tank relies on a triad of defense measures to stay alive in combat.

First, there is the T-90's basic armor, made up of varying composite and metal materials sandwiched together. The current mix of materials Russia is using in its armor is said to be very effective and relatively light, albeit not as effective of the incredibly robust armor the Abrams. Seeing as the T-90 weighs almost a third less, this is hardly a surprise. Russia has learned that "layering" a tank's survivalability measures is more cost effective, and in some cases more operationally effective, than relying almost entirely on one single concept of exotic, expensive and heavy armor plating alone.

The T-90's second tier of defenses relies on explosive reactive armor (ERA). ERA consists of two armor plates with an explosive charge core sandwiched in-between. This type of armor works against a multitude of attack weaponry, including missiles and rockets that carry high explosive anti-tank warheads, as well as the dreaded sabot round. Sabot rounds are basically cannon shells that separate after leaving the tank's smoothbore barrel, what remains is a thin fin stabilized rod made of dense material like depleted uranium, flying through the air at high speed and into its target. Once the sabot round penetrates a tank's turret, the kinetic force of the dense sabot dart dumping its energy into a small point creates a stream of lava-like molten metal that pours into the tank's cabin. This instantaneously increases the tank's cabin pressure via heating the inside of the sealed turret, thus killing, or should I say cooking, everything inside.

The idea behind ERA armor is that it explodes outward destroying an incoming munition, or at least greatly depleting its killing potential, just as it is hitting the tank. The whole string of events happens in a fraction of a second. It may sound extremely violent, setting off a bomb on the outside of your own vehicle, but it works, and the charge is designed to fire outward, away from the hull or turret of the tank.

The T-90's ERA "bricks" give the tank a distinctive, and intimidating look. Additionally, these units have also been added to the roof of the T-90. This is a good thing seeing as modern anti-tank missiles often work in an "indirect attack" mode, where they pop up high just before reaching their target, then dive back down, or detonate while cruising overhead, striking the tank where its armor is usually the thinnest, on its top side.

Finally, the T-90 packs a robust countermeasure system that is oriented at defeating western style attacks shortly before or as they happen. Known as "Shatora" or "Curtain" in English, this system has a series of laser warning receivers positioned around the tank. Laser range finders and/or laser target designators are key targeting components of modern tanks and attack aircraft. These lasers supply a tank's fire control system the info it need to produce a firing solution during combat. In the air, and even on the ground in some cases, laser designators provide a point in space for a missile or bomb to fly towards and hit.

Once the T-90's threat warning system detects that it is being "painted," or was "squirted" by a laser, a series of countermeasures aimed to defeat an enemy's targeting process get activated either automatically or manually. First, infra-red and optical dazzlers, located on the front of the tank's turret, are slewed in the direction that the laser energy originated from, in an attempt to blind the enemy tank's targeting sensors. These dazzlers appear red during combat operations and make the tank seem like it has sinister red "eyes" on either side of its main gun. Smoke grenades with a very specific chemical makeup can also be fired off from the turret in an attempt to conceal the T-90's exact location and thus break or keep an enemy from maintaining a weapons lock.

The T-90 also sports a magnetic mine detection system that uses an electromagnetic pulse to disable mines before the tank runs them over. Additionally, at least some of Russia's T-90s are fielded with the "Nakidka" signature reduction application. This surface treatment is said to greatly reduce the tank's radar and infra-red signature via the use of radar absorbent material (RAM) and infra-red reducing paint and insulation. Seeing as tank detection is more and more reliant on radar, both of a standoff (E-8 J-STARS) and a tactical (AH-64D/E Longbow Radar) variety, applying RAM to the outer surface of Russian main battle tanks could make some sense. Nakidka's infra-red reduction properties are of high value as well seeing as the majority of tactical targeting is done via IR sensors these days. Multi-spectral imagine sensors are slowly eliminating this reliance on strictly IR target systems, as these sensors offer greater resistance to IR suppression and masking.

When you look at the T-90's unique mix of capabilities and adherence to a clear and conservative design philosophy, the weapon system really does makes great sense. By taking the best attributes of two "legacy" systems, roughly the turret of the T-80 and hull and drivetrain concept of the T-72, and combining that mix with more modern technology, the T-90 represents a truly well rounded solution to the main battle tank equation. It packs reliability, relative simplicity, a comparatively light footprint, a capable main gun and guided missile system, relevant speed, and layered defenses, all at a price that is roughly less than half that of an M1 Abrams.


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-america-can-learn-from-russias-cheap-but-deadly-t-1540829820

Mistral
Displacement:

• 16,500 tonnes (empty)
• 21,300 tonnes (full load)

Wasp-class amphibious assault ship
Displacement:

• 40,500 long tons (empty)
• 41,150 tonnes (full load)

 

[Gomig-21]

I personally view the T-90 MS as another ugly b!ich with tons of make up to make it look more apealing to costumers, eastern armour still hasn't caught up to its westren counterpart's level of quality and as an ex-tanker i'd sugget to the one that is the head of military procurment of the Egyptian armour corps to take a look at the latest version of the Abrams tank - the SEP. V3 by GD the only tank that could probably match my own Merkava MK. 4.

Seriously? 3rd version SEP? You're not familiar with US weapons sales restrictions to Egypt, huh?

What's this thing firing at, SC, a helicopter? lol

 

[ptldM3]

I personally view the T-90 MS as another ugly b!ich with tons of make up to make it look more apealing to costumers, eastern armour still hasn't caught up to its westren counterpart's level of quality and as an ex-tanker i'd sugget to the one that is the head of military procurment of the Egyptian armour corps to take a look at the latest version of the Abrams tank - the SEP. V3 by GD the only tank that could probably match my own Merkava MK. 4.

Last i recall even old T-90s in Syria have withstood powerful ATGMs while the Merkavas became scrap metal in Lebonon. As for looks, no one cares what your opinion is, looks don't win wars, but all Merkavas are ugly as sin. Why do you keep hyping the Merkavas? Its performance in Lebonon was poor despite the hype of 'the most protected tank in the world'. There is nothing ground breaking about it, it has a crew compartment.

 

[Ilay]

Last i recall even old T-90s in Syria have withstood powerful ATGMs while the Merkavas became scrap metal in Lebonon. As for looks, no one cares what your opinion is, looks don't win wars, but all Merkavas are ugly as sin. Why do you keep hyping the Merkavas? Its performance in Lebonon was poor despite the hype of 'the most protected tank in the world'. There is nothing ground breaking about it, it has a crew compartment.

Wow, you clearly don't understand too much about tanks do ya? The Merkava's performance in Lebanon was so outstanding that the IDF has decided to produce the MK. 4 by the hundreds more. The fact that so few tanks were destroyed in that war in comparision to how many were actually hit is remarkable and I attest to it's quality for I have served as a gunner of such a beast for 3 whole years and fought inside of it.
P.S. the T series of tank has always been the ugly family of tanks in this world only good for mass production for back-water 3rd world countries.

 

[Glass]

how much does t90ms cost

 

[Frogman]

"I think the Abrams is still towards the top of its class in terms of combat systems, in terms of tanks," Murray said. "I think we have parity, I think there is parity out there." Still, he warned that Russia has closed the gap it had with the US since the end of the Cold War. "I think the T-90 is probably pretty close," he told one senator.

Sweet talking politicians into funding the latest System Enhanced Package is not exactly something new and notice he did not specifically say the Russians were on par with the US only that they are pretty close. Even if true, which it isn't, it still means that the T-90 for Egypt is a tank that is both inferior and more expensive than the M1.

Like the MiG 35/29M it is not a procurement that could be explained logically in terms of raw capability and integration.

The T-90's lower mass results in a smaller, less expensive package, that can do some fairly spectacular maneuvers, whether it be on the open range or in tight urban environments.

Specifically: a more expensive package for Egypt!

The unit price of the T-90 is irrelevant when it has to contend with M1s that are procured through US Aid (FMF) so are virtually (but not actually) free. A platform that we already build, repair, overhaul, logistically support, train for, and use on a massive scale.

Absorbing more Abrams would not have been a problem at all. Absorbing the T-90 will divert funds to run a second tank platform and its relevant support/facilities proving for a mixture that is more expensive, less capable, and far more logistically demanding. Also, if you intend to use ATGMs on the thing then that will be an extra rather serious cost as well.

The T-90 is capable of doing fairly spectacular maneuvers but like many Russian pieces of kit the jumping and dancing is not applicable to operations. The fact is despite its weight and size the T-90 is less maneuverable than an Abrams. The Abrams despite its weight is faster in a straight line and traversing terrain by several mph than the T-90 and is actually limited in order not to damage the tracks. It will also do that speed moving backwards (with two reverse gears) whilst the latest T-90 still has one reverse gear limiting it to 20kph, how fast you go backwards is just as important as how fast you go forwards as anyone in a Russian tank has found out.

While the Abrams' engine does guzzle fuel (which you can plan your logistics around so it isn't as big a problem as it's made out to be) it gives it several other advantages including an immense amount of torque meaning it changes direction more aggressively than the T-90. A large part of why it guzzles said fuel is that the engine spools at idle meaning once it moves it does so with more acceleration than conventionally powered MBTs.

The M1s size also isn't just a long list of drawbacks, it also has its advantages. As I've already mentioned the number of shells it carries is perhaps the biggest but also in terms of crew space it's better (as well as crew protection) and more comfortable. It's height also gives it better clearance for obstacles or traps and much better performance in getting over trenches and breaking through dug in infantry (the tanks original purpose).

In the end what they have done if the procurement has actually happened is made a political decision without much strategic vision or an emphasis on capability. Just think about the mixed unit nature on the battlefield where we would have Armour working with Mechanised formations and having both MBTs unable to share information with each other about the field. It's ridiculous.

Mistral
Displacement:

• 
  
  
  • 16,500 tonnes (empty)
  • 21,300 tonnes (full load)

Wasp-class amphibious assault ship
Displacement:

• 40,500 long tons (empty)
• 41,150 tonnes (full load)

Again you're focusing on weight. The M1 has proven its suitability for expeditionary warfare as part of an amphibious force while ironically your choice for the very same role has not.

How many tanks you field are dependent on the size of formation on the Mistral which at capacity means a Battalion which can vary from 5-9 tanks which the ship can take.

 

[The SC]

Sweet talking politicians into funding the latest System Enhanced Package is not exactly something new and notice he did not specifically say the Russians were on par with the US only that they are pretty close. Even if true, which it isn't, it still means that the T-90 for Egypt is a tank that is both inferior and more expensive than the M1.

Like the MiG 35/29M it is not a procurement that could be explained logically in terms of raw capability and integration.



Specifically: a more expensive package for Egypt!

The unit price of the T-90 is irrelevant when it has to contend with M1s that are procured through US Aid (FMF) so are virtually (but not actually) free. A platform that we already build, repair, overhaul, logistically support, train for, and use on a massive scale.

Absorbing more Abrams would not have been a problem at all. Absorbing the T-90 will divert funds to run a second tank platform and its relevant support/facilities proving for a mixture that is more expensive, less capable, and far more logistically demanding. Also, if you intend to use ATGMs on the thing then that will be an extra rather serious cost as well.

The T-90 is capable of doing fairly spectacular maneuvers but like many Russian pieces of kit the jumping and dancing is not applicable to operations. The fact is despite its weight and size the T-90 is less maneuverable than an Abrams. The Abrams despite its weight is faster in a straight line and traversing terrain by several mph than the T-90 and is actually limited in order not to damage the tracks. It will also do that speed moving backwards (with two reverse gears) whilst the latest T-90 still has one reverse gear limiting it to 20kph, how fast you go backwards is just as important as how fast you go forwards as anyone in a Russian tank has found out.

While the Abrams' engine does guzzle fuel (which you can plan your logistics around so it isn't as big a problem as it's made out to be) it gives it several other advantages including an immense amount of torque meaning it changes direction more aggressively than the T-90. A large part of why it guzzles said fuel is that the engine spools at idle meaning once it moves it does so with more acceleration than conventionally powered MBTs.

The M1s size also isn't just a long list of drawbacks, it also has its advantages. As I've already mentioned the number of shells it carries is perhaps the biggest but also in terms of crew space it's better (as well as crew protection) and more comfortable. It's height also gives it better clearance for obstacles or traps and much better performance in getting over trenches and breaking through dug in infantry (the tanks original purpose).

In the end what they have done if the procurement has actually happened is made a political decision without much strategic vision or an emphasis on capability. Just think about the mixed unit nature on the battlefield where we would have Armour working with Mechanised formations and having both MBTs unable to share information with each other about the field. It's ridiculous.




Again you're focusing on weight. The M1 has proven its suitability for expeditionary warfare as part of an amphibious force while ironically your choice for the very same role has not.

How many tanks you field are dependent on the size of formation on the Mistral which at capacity means a Battalion which can vary from 5-9 tanks which the ship can take.

Food for Thoughts .. maybe and just maybe that Egypt has reached a dead end when it comes to upgrading its M1s, and saw that there were no possibilities(in time at least) to upgrade them to a more advanced variant.. hence the decision to go for the T-90MS.. The same applies to the Mig-35s, because the US won't provide the much needed or even necessary Aim-120C or upgrade the F-16 blk 40 to a more recent version Blk 50/52 or Viper_in enough numbers_..

 

[The SC]

how much does t90ms cost

M1A2 SEP Abrams (USA): 8.58 million USD.

T-90MS (Russia): 5.1 million USD

https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-common-battle-tank-cost

 

[ptldM3]

Wow, you clearly don't understand too much about tanks do ya? The Merkava's performance in Lebanon was so outstanding that the IDF has decided to produce the MK. 4 by the hundreds more. The fact that so few tanks were destroyed in that war in comparision to how many were actually hit is remarkable and I attest to it's quality for I have served as a gunner of such a beast for 3 whole years and fought inside of it.
P.S. the T series of tank has always been the ugly family of tanks in this world only good for mass production for back-water 3rd world countries.

I know more about tanks then you, the fact is dozens of Israeli tanks were penetrated. There is nothing that Indicates that the Merkava is one of the best tanks as you claimed.

As for Israel producing more MK4s, it has nothing to do with how good it is, the T-34 was an above average tank but the USSR had much better tanks; however, they decided to produce tens of thousands of T-34s. Israel had no other viable options other then the MK4, unless they wanted drastically redesigned the tank or add more armor to the tank which is already a heavy dinosaur.

 

[Zarvan]

Sisi is a puppet of USA I don't see he but Russian tanks

Do you have any idea How many weapons Sisi has bought from Russia. Starting from MIG 35 to KA 52 helicopter to other equipment

 

[CHACHA"G"]

T-90 is great and best option for replacing old Tanks mainly T-55 and T-62 of Egypt , This tank will add more firepower , protection and latest tech to Egyptian Armour .
T-14 is totally different thing and it will take over 10 years for first T-14 delivery to Egypt think how many years it will take for 500+

 

[HAIDER]

T72 is work horse of Syrian war. A brilliant machine. Medium size and very agile. Easy to maintained in the battle field.

Last i recall even old T-90s in Syria have withstood powerful ATGMs while the Merkavas became scrap metal in Lebonon. As for looks, no one cares what your opinion is, looks don't win wars, but all Merkavas are ugly as sin. Why do you keep hyping the Merkavas? Its performance in Lebonon was poor despite the hype of 'the most protected tank in the world'. There is nothing ground breaking about it, it has a crew compartment.

Markava is modified for urban war against very light weapon. It has layer after layer of iron sheets. Too heavy.
But Russia has long history of building tanks and non country can match them . Majority countries make bulky tanks , enemy has lots of option for effective anti tank weapon.

 

[Gomig-21]

- They will carry less conventional ammunition (Abrams 42 rounds vs T 90 22 rounds)

T-90 carries 40 conventional rounds, I believe. The 22 count is the automatic loader capacity, but it does carry 2 less than the Abrams in total. Not that it matters anyway, it's not a compatible tank to work with the Abrams in the most efficient way, regardless of what anyone feels about it's capabilities.

The one thing I would argue slightly with you about is the need for the APS. With Sina developing year after year, it's not a stretch to think there could possibly be some form of urban warfare where an APS would greatly benefit Egyptian tanks carrying operations against more capable enemies than terrorists. It won't be relegated strictly to rapid deployment in large scale, open battlefields although that is the primary tactic. There is a large chance that there will be tank battles in tight areas without infantry support, artillery or CAS where an APS would be crucial. If not for that, then at least for familiarizing where the army can learn the pros & cons of an enemy with APS and how to work around it. I would think those two reasons are justifiable for acquiring tanks with APS, but it needn't be 500 T-90's, that's for sure.

You would think that they either have a plan for this compatibility issue or are just reverting to the old mishmash concept, I hope it's the former and not the latter. Either way, there are A LOT of existing Russian systems, one might even argue that the Mistrals were designed to Russian specs, but that still doesn't justify a new tank in such large numbers, let alone local production. There's already the issue with the MiG-29Ms and the other aircraft as well as the Ka-52 working with the Apaches. I don't believe there is another air force that has the Apache and any Russian attack helo combination. That only separates them completely into two different working entities that don't get connected except by radio, unless they have a plan to integrate their coms structure, which is no easy task. So it is baffling and it makes me think maybe they either have an integration plan or are just reverting to the old school methods.

Even large scale battlefield engagements these days require the best information sharing and compatibility aspects which is very hard to achieve with technology that is pretty much diametrically opposed in compatibility.

 

[ptldM3]

The tank is a turd (T-72) that has been repeatedly rolled in glitter.

The T-72 is a fine tank that has had many improvements, you are too caught up in the Dessert Storm propaganda where most destroyed Iraqi tanks were Chinese T-54/55s or some kit built tanks.


T-90 is also very different from a T-72, the only thing they have in common is the shape of the chassis, other then that everything is different, different turret, gun, engine, armor, etc. its basically a different tank.

Again they're not and weight isn't the largest obstacle for rapid deployment, it's logistics. The more systems you're running the more systems you have to support from the very top downwards.

Yes you are right, weight is not the biggest problem for rapid deployment, it's actually logistics and chain of command.

But weight does play a role if you're using airlifts, next there is fuel, support equipment, etc.

- 3 man crews instead of 4
- more responsibilities for the 3 man crew meaning more fatigue

What is this extra responsible and fatigue? The 4th tanker is replaced by an auto loader. This isn't the 1960s, modern tank have sensors and cameras that provide much better situational awareness then a loader.

- 3 man crews usually require a supplementary security platoon to work effectively

Why would replacing loader require an entire platoon? What you're saying is lunacy. Much of the tanks around the world, be it French, Chinese, Japanese, Russian use auto loaders because it is more cost effective.

- meaning you are going to need more people for a rapid deployment force

Meaning you would not. 3 man tanks don't need platoons for protection. The fact is 3 man tanks require less people and nothing more that what a 4 man tank requires.

- different recovery and logistic vehicles

Recovery vehicles do nothing more then tow away tanks, if a recovery vehicle can tow an Abrams, then it can certainly tow a T-90.

- different fuel
- different bloody everything leading to a mess

Yes it would require some different things but you're over dramatic, large air forces around the world operate dozens of different aircraft efficiently and effectively. Having two different tanks is nothing unusual, many countries operate 2 or 3 different types of tanks. It's not the end of the world.

In the end what you will have is a force that isn't very rapid and not that deployable.

That's nonsense, Russia operates many different types of tanks and armored vehicles and they have a faster rapid deployment force then NATO in Europe. This is coming from NATO generals themselves.

That is because Russia does hundreds of snap drill and has very efficient and effective chain of command down to squad levels. Russia has dozens of aircraft, tanks, various air defenses, artillery, armored personnel carriers, mine clearance vehicles, recovery vehicles, fuel trucks, excavators, field hospitals, kitchens, ammunition depots, barracks, etc at their air base in Syria, it was brought in very quickly and they have atleast 2 other bases in Syria.