How do you guys think the T-90 would stack up against its Western counterparts?

[was_peacemaker]

From what I understand, the T-90 has not seen combat as of yet. So there is nothing to go by there. I know India has some of the export models and I thought maybe a few years ago they may have used some in clashing with the Pakistanis...but I don't think any were used.

I often wonder how it would stack up against the Abrams, Leopard, Le Claric, Merkavah, and Challenger. I have a strong feeling the Abrams and Leopard would smoke it...but not so sure about the French, Israeli, and UK tanks.

What do you guys think...T-90 even a on the same playing field with any modern tanks in the west?

[Infidelski]

It may be on the battlefield but its probably outclasssed by western designs.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Russian gear while usualy solid enough mechanically tends to lag behind the west in terms of technology. I.E. the targeting systems on an Abrams.

The EMP weapon developed for it is pretty interesting though...

...long as they don't use it anywhere near my Play Station...

:p

[gpwasr10]

Not quite as good tank for tank... but that really isn't the question. The question is... "Is the M1 4 times the tank that the T-90 is?" Seeing how it [M1] likely costs 4 times as much as the Russian tank. IN the right theater (Like Eastern Europe's rolling hilly terrain), with the right support and trained Russian crews... it might not be. The M1 requires a massive logistics train to operate in theater, mostly due to it's massive fuel consumption.

T-90 Advantages:
Cost
Simplicity/Ease of maintenance
Fuel efficiency
Parts commonality with the T-72 means there is a huge stockpile of spares

M1 Advantages
Firepower
Range
Armor
Speed

You could swap the list for disadvantages. The T-90 is kinda like the Sherman, where the M1 is a lot like the Panther or Tiger.

[Infidelski]

Give me an Abrams with full battery and tank of JP and it's good to go into a fight, IMHO thats what matters most. From a logistics stand point we're the best in the world so Abrams wins.

[Hobe Sound AK]

What happened after T-80?
by that I mean:
T-32
T-34
T-44
T-54
T-55
T-62
T-64
T-72
T-80
What was in the Void? Why dont we hear about any of the missing Tank's?
Wasnot the next Tank the T-82?
I often wondered why they skiped from T-72 to T-80.

The Russians have a Track Record of staying on a Pattern. I wonder why they skiped some Numbers.

The German's as an example are now on the Leopard L2A4, when I was in Germany between 83 to 85 The current Modern Tank was the L2A1. They have come along way.

[Hobe Sound AK]

I noticed in the news last Night. The Syrian's still using the T-62.

[Partisan1983]

This is kinda getting into sementics of a "tank" versus a "tank destroyer".....FWIW

[Ruskiegunlover]

I think the merkava could take a t-90. That and the standard of training of the average israeli tank crew is, I think, very high.

[Schuetzenman]

I'd bet on the M1A1/2 Abrams tank vs. any Russian gear. Wikki has an extensive page on the T90 which really is an up graded T72. Go read the Wikki page. I did a speed read on it. I see it has thermal sights but did not see the ability to target 5 enemy tanks and fire on the move like an Abrams.

[NAPOTS]

Will a Javelin take a T90 out?

[was_peacemaker]

Not quite as good tank for tank... but that really isn't the question. The question is... "Is the M1 4 times the tank that the T-90 is?" Seeing how it [M1] likely costs 4 times as much as the Russian tank. IN the right theater (Like Eastern Europe's rolling hilly terrain), with the right support and trained Russian crews... it might not be. The M1 requires a massive logistics train to operate in theater, mostly due to it's massive fuel consumption.

T-90 Advantages:
Cost
Simplicity/Ease of maintenance
Fuel efficiency
Parts commonality with the T-72 means there is a huge stockpile of spares

M1 Advantages
Firepower
Range
Armor
Speed

You could swap the list for disadvantages. The T-90 is kinda like the Sherman, where the M1 is a lot like the Panther or Tiger.

You know looking at this reply has made me re-think the reasons why they designed it the way they did. Maybe it is just a tank good enough for defensive purposes...and for that they don't have to worry as much about logistics.

[was_peacemaker]

I'd bet on the M1A1/2 Abrams tank vs. any Russian gear. Wikki has an extensive page on the T90 which really is an up graded T72. Go read the Wikki page. I did a speed read on it. I see it has thermal sights but did not see the ability to target 5 enemy tanks and fire on the move like an Abrams.

Yeah it seems like a T72 on steroids. I wonder if they fixed the ammo storage problem though.

[was_peacemaker]

Will a Javelin take a T90 out?


It does seem to have reactive armor, but I am not sure.

[NAPOTS]

Supposedly the Javelin can take out ERA because it has a two stage warhead

[gpwasr10]

I'd bet on the M1A1/2 Abrams tank vs. any Russian gear. Wikki has an extensive page on the T90 which really is an up graded T72. Go read the Wikki page. I did a speed read on it. I see it has thermal sights but did not see the ability to target 5 enemy tanks and fire on the move like an Abrams.
The T-72 had a gyroscopic stabilized main gun (Pioneered in the Sherman IIRC), I can assume the same goes for the T-90.

[was_peacemaker]

The T-72 had a gyroscopic stabilized main gun (Pioneered in the Sherman IIRC), I can assume the same goes for the T-90.

Is a gyroscopic stabilized gun a good thing or a bad thing?

BTW: What is your Avatar from? Its hilarious.

[was_peacemaker]

Supposedly the Javelin can take out ERA because it has a two stage warhead

Then I guess the next question would be if the T-90 has any electronic interference defensive measures against weapons like the Javelin.

[5.56NATO]

If the 90 can fire accurately at speed and in all wx it may be combat effective against western armor, but it still remains to be seen. None of the Soviet stuff has held up against western gear so far, but I expect a surprise or two in the next big war, Russia and China have had a few decades now in wich to closely examine western hardware in the middle eastern ao. You can be sure Russia and China are testing weapons there as fervently as we are, however theirs will be of the sigint/elint variety.

Also please note that we won ww2 by accepting, for just one example, a 500 percent attrition rate for Shermans in the ETO. Yep, 500 percent. Our guys in Shermans didn't stand a chance in a face to face fight with anything that had an 88 as the main gun The 88s could more or less shoot through one Sherman and penetrate the one just behind it. So in the next big one I feel it will come down to who can survive the attrition. Who can keep building and sending them into combat. We don't have a lot of armor to be messing around like that.

[gpwasr10]

Is a gyroscopic stabilized gun a good thing or a bad thing?

BTW: What is your Avatar from? Its hilarious.

A gyroscopically Stabilized Gun can hold onto a target even when the platform is on the move, going over bumps and rough terrain. It allows the tank to shoot while it scoots.

The Avatar is from a News Story that had some demonstrators in the 99%. ;-)



Also please note that we won ww2 by accepting, for just one example, a 500 percent attrition rate for Shermans in the ETO. Yep, 500 percent. Our guys in Shermans didn't stand a chance in a face to face fight with anything that had an 88 as the main gun The 88s could more or less shoot through one Sherman and penetrate the one just behind it. So in the next big one I feel it will come down to who can survive the attrition. Who can keep building and sending them into combat. We don't have a lot of armor to be messing around like that.

Depends on the Sherman. The German 75mm High Velocity Anti Tank gun found on Panzer IV's was also more than enough to blow through an Early Shermans cast front mantlet. However a normal PZIII or even a PZIV was no match for a M4A1 in a one on one engagement (A situation the German Tanker RARELY faced).

However it is important to note that there were MANY variants of the Sherman Tank. For instance an M4A3E8 (76mm) was pretty close to an even match against the Panther and more than a match for an up-gunned PZ IV (the same could almost be said for the M4A1(76)W) the British Firefly’s 17 Pounder was capable at Knocking out a Tiger at any range a Tiger could knock it out at.

Although they are popular, Tigers and Panthers (Hell, even Up-gunned PZ IV’s) were exceedingly rare for a US Tanker to run into, even in Germany proper.