Posted on 03/29/2012 9:23:35 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
T-90MS offers an upgrade path for the Russian T-90 tank offering a balanced improvement in firepower, mobility and protection.
The Russkies are still putting those fuel drums on the back!
I’d bet it is not as good as our best or latest M-1 Abrams.
Am I correct?
I guess that gives them incentive not to turn around and retreat.
Not as good as an M1, but the Indians aren’t going to be fighting us. Should be pretty effective against Pakistan or China, where tactics and training will be decisive.
Nice looking target for the A10s.
I’d bet it’s pretty comperable actually. It has a laser range finder, thermal sights, and two axis stabilization. It also has automatic counter measures which make it hard to kill with fire and forget missiles. It remains succeptible to the TOW series of missiles however. It’s armor is comperable to any modern tank. I’m not sure how its drive train rates. This ain’t no T55.
if there is one thing Russians love to crank out, it’s tanks...lots of tanks. And you gotta see Trans-Siberian, a great movie as a metaphor on all things Russian.
umm... i believe 0failure started taking all the A10s out of service within the last month or so
i haven’t heard what’s supposed to replace them... he just decided we don’t need them anymore.
Meat for the beast! The A-10 is one scary plane.
“The Russkies are still putting those fuel drums on the back!”
Beats the heck out of running outa gas!
“T-90MS”
So if it had a female crew, would it be a T-90PMS ?
sorry
Well, from what I’ve read, it has weaker armor than the M-1 but that’s to be expected - it weighs almost 10 tons less then the Abrams. But it’s a bit hard to try and compare Soviet and Russian equipment directly with their Western counterparts - the designers had to work within a different set of constraints, as well as meeting a separate set of needs, and this often led them onto completely alternate paths of weapon development. Their focus on advanced anti-ship missiles for instance - for the US, focus on controlling the sea, the combat aircraft launched from a carrier was the main weapon. For the Soviets, focused on denying control of the ocean to a superior force, super-heavy antiship weapons like the P-700 Granit were the primary weapon.
Similarly, the T-90 has a lot of features with no real point of comparison on most (though not all) Western tanks. Things like the ability to fire long range guided anti-tank missiles (From what I’ve heard, in Russian doctrine, the ideal way to attack enemy tanks is at range from behind cover using gun-launched missiles, rather then engaging them with conventional rounds), or the focus on active-countermeasure systems and ERA rather then relying on heavy armor.
Well, it may be a bit crude, but those external tanks more then double the range of the T-90. External diesel tanks aren’t actually that dangerous, and if properly designed, actually pose less of a threat to a vehicle than internal ones. I’ve heard about some old plans to mount similar tanks for the M-1 in order to boost range - as it stands, the Abrams is pretty fuel hungry, and has almost 1/3rd less range than the T-90.
.
.
.
Ed
1week a month ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.