What's new

Russia’s T-90 tank - winner or loser?

RPG-7 can't pentrate chobam armour almost anywhere.Only hope is to hit tracks or top.
 
.
iraq was complete disaster for T-90 tank .abrams showed complete superiority in the battle or iraqi's were incompetent .
 
. . .
iraq was complete disaster for T-90 tank .abrams showed complete superiority in the battle or iraqi's were incompetent .

LOL..that were T-62,Local version of T-72(Asad Babli) and Chinese Type-69 and Type-59 and most of them were inferior export version.most of them neither had night vision equipments,nor the capability to fight against advanced tanks like Abrams.The Iraqi crews used old, cheap steel penetrators against the advanced Chobham Armour of the U.S. and British tanks, with ineffective results.they failed to execute a proper battle plan and thats why their loss was so great.and most of the kills were credited to Aircrafts,which was used extensively against this kind of targets.eg. Highway of Death.
 
. .
LOL..that were T-62,Local version of T-72(Asad Babli) and Chinese Type-69 and Type-59 and most of them were inferior export version.most of them neither had night vision equipments,nor the capability to fight against advanced tanks like Abrams.The Iraqi crews used old, cheap steel penetrators against the advanced Chobham Armour of the U.S. and British tanks, with ineffective results.they failed to execute a proper battle plan and thats why their loss was so great.and most of the kills were credited to Aircrafts,which was used extensively against this kind of targets.eg. Highway of Death.
ok thanks .i though iraqis had T-90's in their lineup .
 
.
Orders were instead placed for continued deliveries of the T-90 tank, an upgrade of the classic T-72, which does not have a distinguished service record. It was overwhelmed by American Abrams tanks in the Iraq war.

Have they ever heard of "monkey models"?

But the core question remains the one asked by a Western industry analyst writing about the problems of Russian auto production: ’If the country can make really good tanks, why can’t they make quite a competitive car?’

Perhaps the answer is that Russian manufacturers no longer make very good tanks, either.

Similar question:
Since the Americans produce the mighty M1 Abrams, why can't their cars be at the same level of global competitiveness as their European and Japanese rivals?

See how stupid and irrelevant that question sounds?
 
.
Excellent post.Ya i think abrams has slight advantage even over latest t-90ms mainly because of firepower,i would protection is equal and speed t-90 has slight advantage.But in penetration is more imp than mobility so i give advantgae to abrams even over late t-90ms.Otherwise russians wouldn't be developing armata.
Given the cost/weight difference,that by no means makes t-90 a 'failure' as thread tries to portray,ostensibly a indirect barb at the indian army tank force.
In indo-pak-china scenario t-90 is about as good as anything coz there are no abrams or leopard here.

For anyone who said T-90 or any tank is rubbish should be strap to a tank gun for a days while the tank are doing exercise on it.

Tank is developed to counter a specific problem, it uses with your own troop. Most of all, your own terrain.

You cannot say since this tank did not do good on some foreign battlefield, then it's rubbish for you. Well, this statement is simply not valid, unless you are Iraqi or Chechen people, then the T-90 or Abrams battle record in Iraq or Chechnya is related to you. If you are not even in the same continent, then why go ahead and compare these combat record??

Put in the fact that most armoured combat is not going to Tank vs Tank anymore, not anymore after the age of attack helicopter is coming into play. There are no real value on compare armoured vehicle to armoured vehicle.

Have they ever heard of "monkey models"?



Similar question:
Since the Americans produce the mighty M1 Abrams, why can't their cars be at the same level of global competitiveness as their European and Japanese rivals?

See how stupid and irrelevant that question sounds?

I don't think Abrams is popular to begin with, I think Abrams lost to Leopard 2 in term of global competitiveness..........
 
.
I wonder why Russia has no car industry?!!!! this is something I can't understand!!!!>
 
. . .
I wonder why Russia has no car industry?!!!! this is something I can't understand!!!!>

My dad once owned a Lada :yay:

images
 
.
@AUSTERLITZ, T-80U performed poorly in Chechen wars because ERA cassettes were not filled with explosives. T-90 had not entered service then. T-72B performed as bad as T-80U but everyone ignores that fact and blames gas turbines. T-80U's basic protection is outclassed by T-90A "Vladimir", T-80UD of Ukraine is thought to have more protection than "Vladimir" and T-90AM is completely superior to T-80UD but only equal to T-84 "Oplot-M" or "Yatagan".

Ob'yekt 195 significantly outclasses all these lightweights by simply having an unmanned turret, latest Russian composites, mammoth 2A83 152 mm gun with decent ammunition load and reliable new autoloader and powerful 1500 HP engine when all the while weighing in at just 55 tons. It's all round as well as frontal protection is acknowledged to be significantly superior to even the big three: M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2.

3147bc4623f1.jpg


Notice that the gun is covered and also the new small turret with Western-style hull

2A83 makes Rh 120 L/55 look like a pop gun and Rh NPzK 140 mm look like little jealous brother :lol:

b555bd1ec4ad.jpg


Notice huge size (comparable to M1A2 actually) and fat, incredibly long gun.

And Ob'yekt 195 was simply too big of a logistical problem for Russian Army which was cash-strapped, so they decided to scale down Ob'yekt 195, redesign armour to weigh less, and mount the 2A82 125 mm gun which is little brother of 2A83 and superior to Rh 120 L/55 according to Russian sources and call this new unmanned turret tank as "Armata", make it modular from the start and have created superb platform.

Armata is a good design. T-90? Just the little kid on the block who is going to be replaced because he simply isn't useful enough.

Gur Khan (Alexey Khlopotov) tried to make 3D model of Armata basing it on Ob'yekt 195 with professional artists and below is the result.

7-2-10.jpg.896x604_q90.jpg

0-angar-Ps_01.jpg.896x604_q90.jpg


Gur Khan is known to be basically one big advertisement for Rosoboronexport :lol:, so the images could have been provided by the Russian government.

Note small, compact Unmanned turret with RCWS, Western style long hull, thick NxRA?? added to side skirts and hull front and also large roadwheels. Turret resembles larger one from Ob'yekt 195, hull is modular and slightly different.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Proof that Ob'yekt 195 is not too big:

From Otvaga forum

8jtjt.jpg


Slightly underestimated gun length, height is correct. But other than that, the picture is accurate, Ob'yekt 195 has similar length to Western tanks, height is more because of massive turret (even if unmanned) and huge mantlet that is required for 2A83. Fume extractor is absent on the gun.

Also, RCWS, hatches are missing due to lack of information :)

Also, Ob'yekt 195 and Armata both have been opened for export for main "strategic partner" who has many "Joint venture" according to interview of Russian tank designing bureau's head. Surprise surprise, only country with Joint Ventures with Russia even now is India.

I want some Ob'yekt 195 for the garage in my house :)

@alimobin memon @DARKY @AUSTERLITZ

Your valued opinions on the T-90AM and Ob'yekt 195 and Armata.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Back
Top Bottom