T 90 AM> a option better than t 90 for indian army?

[Bagee]

The power to weight ratio is nearly identical 23.7 v. 23.9 and sorry but the Arjun is heavier its track exert more pressure--simple physics.

Again u are again telling lie here dude the power to wt ratio of t 90 if ever it has 100o hp as claimed is 21.5 and let me assure u can test the engine on Indian t 90 any day on the best dynamo meter of the world and it won't give u more than 850 hp and as compared arjun has a power to wt ratio of 23.9 i am not saying 24 sand that is mk1 version i don't know what the army experts have to say on that dude my best wishes to t 90 have fun. the pressure exerted on ground by tracks of arjun is 11.9 psi and that of t 90 is 12.5 psi so what say know go check ur simple physics ow and u will come to know about some complicated physics
i got a link for u have a reading through out please and then come back i will be waiting

http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/1796701917IPCS-Special-Report-23.pdf

 

[Zabaniyah]

the t 72 tanks in the iraq army where not Chinese man they where made in Russia as u guys have custom of low quality exports and then they had added protection provided to them by some Yugoslavian company
and dude what about the Chechen war don't say the guerrilla warfare because NATO forces are facing much severe conditions in Afghanistan and irag but i don't think the damage is that much and if u claim that the tankmen where less trained then whose problem is that and about the six day war which we had with Egypt says thanks to America or there would not have been a single t left in the peninsula dude get some light and check some out some stats

During the Chechen conflict, the Russians apparently used T-80s to try to capture control points in an urban environment, something tanks aren't very well suited to do. It was not due to the fact that the tank is bad, it had more to do with inadequate planning. Also, gas turbine engines can be real gas-guzzlers, a potential logistical problem.

ptldM3 already explained about the Gulf War. I don't know how many times he has to explain it to you. The ones the Iraqis got were downgraded versions. Also, the ammo they used were very poor quality and not up-to-date.

They never updated the important features on their T-72s such as thermal sights, laser targeting, night vision, reactive armor, composite armor and most importantly, depleted uranium shells. There could even be more. The Americans had all that.

It also had a lot to do with Saddam's leadership.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli wars, remember - a good tank along with a good tank crew can make a big difference. I have heard from somewhere that the Arab cadets used to fall asleep during classes lectured by Soviet tank instructors.

I can fairly say that the Centurion is better than the T-62. Or any tank the Israelis used for that matter relative to the ones used by the Arabs. However, Russian anti-tank missiles were extremely effective against the Israeli armored divisions. The Israelis still fear those things even to this very day.

Although, T-64 onwards, those were good tanks.

And guess what? The Viets used exactly the same weapons against the Americans and the South Vietnamese Army. They made one of the world's superpower, and a technologically advanced one run like dogs with their tails between their legs.

Given that you have up-to-date weapons for the task (that is one thing), it is not what tank you are using, or any weapon system for that matter where ever it is from. It is the human element that counts a lot.

The Russians make good tanks overall.

 

[Bagee]

During the Chechen conflict, the Russians apparently used T-80s to try to capture control points in an urban environment, something tanks aren't very well suited to do. It was not due to the fact that the tank is bad, it had more to do with inadequate planning. Also, gas turbine engines can be real gas-guzzlers, a potential logistical problem.

ptldM3 already explained about the Gulf War. I don't know how many times he has to explain it to you. The ones the Iraqis got were downgraded versions. Also, the ammo they used were very poor quality and not up-to-date.

They never updated the important features on their T-72s such as thermal sights, laser targeting, night vision, reactive armor, composite armor and most importantly, depleted uranium shells. There could even be more. The Americans had all that.

It also had a lot to do with Saddam's leadership.

Regarding the Arab-Israeli wars, remember - a good tank along with a good tank crew can make a big difference. I have heard from somewhere that the Arab cadets used to fall asleep during classes lectured by Soviet tank instructors.

I can fairly say that the Centurion is better than the T-62. Or any tank the Israelis used for that matter relative to the ones used by the Arabs. However, Russian anti-tank missiles were extremely effective against the Israeli armored divisions. The Israelis still fear those things even to this very day.

Although, T-64 onwards, those were good tanks.

And guess what? The Viets used exactly the same weapons against the Americans and the South Vietnamese Army. They made one of the world's superpower, and a technologically advanced one run like dogs with their tails between their legs.

Given that you have up-to-date weapons for the task (that is one thing), it is not what tank you are using, or any weapon system for that matter where ever it is from. It is the human element that counts a lot.

The Russians make good tanks overall.

But the fact is that none of their tanks as seen war like conditions as may even in Afghanistan they had down graded version or may not enough trained crew or my be poor leadership but dude u need to win wars for that theses toy are made not for shooting vedios or for propaganda i guess Russian armory has less experience than Indian counter parts then they seemed have fought just in world war 2 and in Satanist with Armour battalions as in Chechnya they were sending dummies but they were called tanks and they didn't work there so it was flop show no matter what was the reason junk is junk u cannot deny the fact

 

[Zabaniyah]

But the fact is that none of their tanks as seen war like conditions as may even in Afghanistan they had down graded version or may not enough trained crew or my be poor leadership but dude u need to win wars for that theses toy are made not for shooting vedios or for propaganda i guess Russian armory has less experience than Indian counter parts then they seemed have fought just in world war 2 and in Satanist with Armour battalions as in Chechnya they were sending dummies but they were called tanks and they didn't work there so it was flop show no matter what was the reason junk is junk u cannot deny the fact

Why are you jumping into Afghanistan? lolz...

Afghanistan is not the best place to operate tanks due to the mountainous terrain. In fact, Soviet troops felt safer by walking on foot compared to being in an APC.

I don't know what propaganda you mention. I wouldn't really call Russian tanks junk seeing from their technical specifications.

But, it is true that the Arabs gave Russian tanks a bad name. I am sure there are far more capable armies out there, and many use Russian tanks. The Viets did fine.

The T-55s performed well during the 1971 Indo-Pak war on the Eastern front. Here's a pic

Indian T-55 tanks on their way to Dhaka.

 

[harpoon]

But the fact is that none of their tanks as seen war like conditions as may even in Afghanistan they had down graded version or may not enough trained crew or my be poor leadership but dude u need to win wars for that theses toy are made not for shooting vedios or for propaganda i guess Russian armory has less experience than Indian counter parts then they seemed have fought just in world war 2 and in Satanist with Armour battalions as in Chechnya they were sending dummies but they were called tanks and they didn't work there so it was flop show no matter what was the reason junk is junk u cannot deny the fact

After the Arab-Israeli war, Israelis incorporated the captured Arab tanks into IDF. Do you think that they will do that if Russian tanks were inferior.

If you want to bring in AF & Chechnya, pls also remember what happened to Merkava in Lebanon and Abrams in Iraq. Merkava was blasted by Hezbollah but 100s of their fighters had to die to take out one Merkava.Same with Abrams in Iraq. Tanks are not magic machines and has its own vulnerabilities.

 

[ptldM3]

it is not simple physics as it seems man just check it out on Google the pr square inch pressure of t 90 's tracks is much more due to better weight distribution

Where to begin. You can not simply make a tank put down less weight than it holds, this means that a 60 ton tank will always put down 60 tons of weight to the ground, 30 tons per track. What you can do is make softer suspensions but this does nothing in terms of eliminating weight between the two tracks. It comes down to weight distribution--more area, less weight per square inch.

the t 72 tanks in the iraq army where not Chinese man they where made in Russia as u guys have custom of low quality exports and then they had added protection provided to them by some Yugoslavian company
and dude

Wrong again, lets take a look.


Lion of Babylon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lion of Babylon or Asad Babil (Arabic: اسد باب&#1604 was an Iraqi-built version of the Soviet T-72 main battle tank, assembled in a factory established in the 1980s near Taji, north of Baghdad

The Asad Babil was generally credited as being the most common tank in Iraqi service during the Gulf War, but the bulk of the Iraqi armoured units were equipped with Type 69, produced in China

what about the Chechen war don't say the guerrilla warfare because NATO forces are facing much severe conditions in Afghanistan and irag but i don't think the damage is that much

NATO having it worse? Many Chechens were in the Soviet military, with that being said they not only had ATGM's, RPG's, and IED's they knew how to properly ambush and flank a tank or column.

And doing a little research would be recommended, you can find countless damaged or destroyed Abrams and the same for the Israeli Merkava.

and if u claim that the tankmen where less trained then whose problem is that and about the six day war which we had with Egypt says thanks to America or there would not have been a single t left in the peninsula dude get some light and check some out some stats

So if the tankman were less who's trained problem is that? That would be the militaries problem. If a tank crew is not properly trained than they will not succeed, try as they might. One US general claimed that the US would have had the same results if the Iraqi's used the Abrams and the US used Iraqi tanks.

Again u are again telling lie here dude the power to wt ratio of t 90 if ever it has 100o hp as claimed is 21.5 and let me assure u can test the engine on Indian t 90 any day on the best dynamo meter of the world and it won't give u more than 850 hp and as compared arjun has a power to wt ratio of 23.9 i am not saying 24 sand that is mk1 version i don't know what the army experts have to say on that dude my best wishes to t 90 have fun. the pressure exerted on ground by tracks of arjun is 11.9 psi and that of t 90 is 12.5 psi so what say know go check ur simple physics ow and u will come to know about some complicated physics

I can hardly make out what you are trying to say but if you are challenging the T-90s power to weight ratio than appearently you have not heard of the 1,250 HP diesel it uses. And what is your point about track 'PSI'? Do you even have one? What you are referring to is simple distribution. The more area something has (tanks track) the less pressure it will have per square inch. This is totally irrelevant in any context. And if that is not bad enough you are claiming superiority based on 0.6 of a pound. That is like one women telling another that she is more attractive because she is 0.6 lbs lighter.

 

[Bagee]

Why are you jumping into Afghanistan? lolz...

Afghanistan is not the best place to operate tanks due to the mountainous terrain. In fact, Soviet troops felt safer by walking on foot compared to being in an APC.

I don't know what propaganda you mention. I wouldn't really call Russian tanks junk seeing from their technical specifications.

But, it is true that the Arabs gave Russian tanks a bad name. I am sure there are far more capable armies out there, and many use Russian tanks. The Viets did fine.

The T-55s performed well during the 1971 Indo-Pak war on the Eastern front. Here's a pic

Indian T-55 tanks on their way to Dhaka.

Canadians do use these there leopard tanks in Afghanistan and never heard that there was a leopard causality
and anyways my friend it really does come on to this thing in how many battles have these soviet tanks especially t 72 t 80 and t 90 have proved them selves in war as compared to abharms and if u talk of abharms causalities they were far less more over not even a single Challenger was lost in the battle of fluja then how can one say soviet tanks are battle proven in which battle were they proven....... waiting for the reply dear friend got to reply to some other so keep reading

 

[Bagee]

After the Arab-Israeli war, Israelis incorporated the captured Arab tanks into IDF. Do you think that they will do that if Russian tanks were inferior.

If you want to bring in AF & Chechnya, pls also remember what happened to Merkava in Lebanon and Abrams in Iraq. Merkava was blasted by Hezbollah but 100s of their fighters had to die to take out one Merkava.Same with Abrams in Iraq. Tanks are not magic machines and has its own vulnerabilities.

ohh come on man u know that how many abharms where lost in the second battle which was fought over senia peninsula Israel lost some tanks but that was due to over confidence that they could overcome any attack after the win in six day war and one more important thing we were using centurion tanks not merkava merkava mk2 is fordable it is built to kill and never lost a single mk2 up till now and don't export inferior quality like Russians as they say it is the export version of this and that
And lastly about the Russian tanks being used in our armory because being a small nation we don't much resources and have to survive a hostile neighborhood with virtually every side of our border a potential war zone so for that we used those tanks and for how u know when merkava came evry thing was removed i guess some of the units still use m series tank of usa but it so because they can be used so when resources are limited u don't waste much

 

[Jango]

But the fact is that none of their tanks as seen war like conditions as may even in Afghanistan they had down graded version or may not enough trained crew or my be poor leadership but dude u need to win wars for that theses toy are made not for shooting vedios or for propaganda i guess Russian armory has less experience than Indian counter parts then they seemed have fought just in world war 2 and in Satanist with Armour battalions as in Chechnya they were sending dummies but they were called tanks and they didn't work there so it was flop show no matter what was the reason junk is junk u cannot deny the fact

Oh, so has your tank seen war like conditions. ??

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 PM ----------

But the fact is that none of their tanks as seen war like conditions as may even in Afghanistan they had down graded version or may not enough trained crew or my be poor leadership but dude u need to win wars for that theses toy are made not for shooting vedios or for propaganda i guess Russian armory has less experience than Indian counter parts then they seemed have fought just in world war 2 and in Satanist with Armour battalions as in Chechnya they were sending dummies but they were called tanks and they didn't work there so it was flop show no matter what was the reason junk is junk u cannot deny the fact

Oh, so has your tank seen war like conditions. ??

 

[Bagee]

Where to begin. You can not simply make a tank put down less weight than it holds, this means that a 60 ton tank will always put down 60 tons of weight to the ground, 30 tons per track. What you can do is make softer suspensions but this does nothing in terms of eliminating weight between the two tracks. It comes down to weight distribution--more area, less weight per square inch.






Wrong again, lets take a look.


Lion of Babylon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia












NATO having it worse? Many Chechens were in the Soviet military, with that being said they not only had ATGM's, RPG's, and IED's they knew how to properly ambush and flank a tank or column.

And doing a little research would be recommended, you can find countless damaged or destroyed Abrams and the same for the Israeli Merkava.













So if the tankman were less who's trained problem is that? That would be the militaries problem. If a tank crew is not properly trained than they will not succeed, try as they might. One US general claimed that the US would have had the same results if the Iraqi's used the Abrams and the US used Iraqi tanks.







I can hardly make out what you are trying to say but if you are challenging the T-90s power to weight ratio than appearently you have not heard of the 1,250 HP diesel it uses. And what is your point about track 'PSI'? Do you even have one? What you are referring to is simple distribution. The more area something has (tanks track) the less pressure it will have per square inch. This is totally irrelevant in any context. And if that is not bad enough you are claiming superiority based on 0.6 of a pound. That is like one women telling another that she is more attractive because she is 0.6 lbs lighter.

so let me explain it dude if the weight exerted by a tank on the ground per square inch does matter a lot and if it as huge as 0.6 lbs that show better weight distribution and help so keep tank moving in soft or muddy conditions got so this shows that t 90 begin lighter has poor weight destruction got it now

about the image which have shown of the abhram tank let me tell from where u have downloaded it if u would have read it then u would have got the knowledge that it was deliberately abondened by its crew because it has power train problems and the tank could not move so they destroyed it before abonding it. got it now

coming on to the t 72 being used by Iraq defense forces dude by that u mean if the Indian t 72 fails this means as they where produced in India so that's why they failed grt so the export versions are special in Russia i guess grt i like that and the licensed one are even greater..
so as a whole the tanks where t 72 being manufactured in Iraq and my dear friends excuses are always there but it is one's choice if u want to except the defeat and improve or just keep on saying no that was not us we are invencable

and yes i do agree that Israel and USA did suffer some tanks losses but we kept on improving not like as if no soviet tank was ever destroyed u guys really need to catch man just need to come from that 45 ton tank t 95 seemed nice with its turret and auto loader and improved crew protection but still need to catch up

 

[Bagee]

man we fight war on daily bases that is my our pilots are the best and our avonics as well and what about the aps which have developed we live in war zone dude fighting for our very existance

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

@ptldm3... lion of babylon was iraqi asembled not built(frm imported russian kits).


Also all of our T-80UDs have T-84 turrets,engines,modification n specifications... Bcoz T-80U(Modified T-80) hence it couldnt be old to PA without russian consent... hence we bought T-84s/T-80UDs.



@T-90 vs arjun... i agree with PtldM3.

 

[GORKHALI]

@ptldm3... lion of babylon was iraqi asembled not built(frm imported russian kits).


Also all of our T-80UDs have T-84 turrets,engines,modification n specifications... Bcoz T-80U(Modified T-80) hence it couldnt be old to PA without russian consent... hence we bought T-84s/T-80UDs.



@T-90 vs arjun... i agree with PtldM3

T90 VS Ak- I agree with myself
Arjun vs Ak- I agree with myself again

I added some more lines in your post mate,so you can sleep without nightmare ..

 

[IND151]

Gur Khan attacks!:

 

[IND151]

i think we should order T 90 AM instead of upgrading T 72s

upgrading T 90 s and T 90 M to T 90 AM standard would be costly