Posted on 03/29/2012 9:23:35 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
International Debut for the Russian T-90MS Tank Upgrade at DefExpo 2012
The centerpiece of the Russian display at Defexpo 2012 is undoubtedly the T-90MS upgrade program developed by the Russian Uralvagonzavod corporation. The T-90MS upgrade was unveiled August 2011 at Nizhny Tagil, Russia following the demise of the T-95 program. It is making its international debut here in New Delhi. India is likely to be the most interested in the the Russian upgrade, put forward by Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport as a possible upgrade path for the Indian ‘Brishna’ (T-90S) tanks.
India is the largest operator of the T-90S, along with Russia. The Indian Army has fielded about 450 of these tanks, with 300 more on order. Other T-90 operators are Azerbaijan, Cyprus (45) and Venezuela (92). Earlier in 2012 it was announced that Algeria has bought 120 of these tanks.Additional 30 were acquired by Turkmenistan. These small deliveries could be the result of the collapse of the Libyan order, which was never fulfilled.
The Indian Army had planned to equip its 59 armored regiments with 1,657 T-90S main battle tanks, 1,000 of which were to be Indian-made. However, production and import of T-90S tanks has been slow, hence, the opportunity to improve the T-90 through the manufacturing line, maintaining the T-90 effectiveness for upcoming years. The T-90MS offers improvements in every important element – protection, mobility and firepower, in addition to improving sustainability and reliability while reducing operating cost. Since the contract was signed back in 2001 the Indian Heavy Vehicle Factory (HVF) in Avadi, Chennai has assembled only 150 T-90S (of a thousand planned). Implementing the T-90MS package will enable future production series to deliver better, more capable main battle tanks instead of gradually obsoleting platforms.
The proposed tank upgrades include improved automotive components, enhanced protection by
(Excerpt) Read more at defense-update.com ...
And we still put drop-tanks on our jet fighters.
The idea makes sense: you use the fuel in the drums to get to the battlefield, and then dump them when you get to where the shooting is. It extends range.
Thanks and appreciation for that.
They put them there out of poor design. The interior of Russian tanks is very cramped. The auto-matic loader they use is more likely to load the poor loaders arm into the breach. The Russkies put fuel tanks in the rear doors of their APCs. Generally Russian armor is crap.
Ask any American tanker if they’d want to use Russian armor and they’d refuse. Quite frankly I’m a little surprised an American such as yourself would be so impressed with the crap the Russians make. Their hulks of their T-55s, T-62s and T-72s are still rusting away in the desert where our guys destroyed them. Notice and M-1s out there?
Many years ago, I was working on the design of the M-1062 tanker for the military. It was needed because the smaller tankers they had at the time could not keep up with the fuel consumption of the relatively new M-1 Abrams tank. Jokingly, I suggested to one of the military people that they should put a 5th wheel on the back of the tank and have it tow the tanker directly. He did not think it was funny. Looks like the Russians took me more seriously.
Stereotypes and myths. Youtube has a lot of videos of Russian tanks’ interior. Just look at it to find you only may load your arm on purpose.
Generally Russian and American tanks are made with different operational requirements in mind. It leaded to absolute alternative design strategies.
True, T-72 is inferior to Abrams but it came out more than a decade earlier.
It was designed to defeat M48s&M60 (again came a decade and more earlier) and it could kill scores without breaking a sweat.
Russian legacy tanks are still as comparable to Abrams as apples to oranges but pretty adequate to engage it.
They may have a bit weaker armor and artillery but it won’t make difference because they aren’t trained to rely on artillery in tank to tank engagement, let alone the fact their main purpose is not taking on Abrams.
An idea is both Russian and American tanks are about as adequate for real NSW. They are all as good to support infantry and both are as easy food for enemy airpower.
Not buying it for a second, sorry. Russian tanks are crap. As I said, the deserts of Kuwait and southern Irag are a graveyard for the supposed best ever produced in the Ural Mash.The ‘’apples and orange’’ bs is just that, bs.You ask any American tanker to fight in one of those things and they’d refuse.
You mean ‘’cfts’’(conformal fuel tank) yeah but they produce a certain drag. Why use the damn things anyway when you have in-flight refueling capability? My point is the Russkies make crappy armor.
>>>>>>Not buying it for a second, sorry. Russian tanks are crap. As I said, the deserts of Kuwait and southern Irag are a graveyard for the supposed best ever produced in the Ural Mash.The ‘’apples and orange’’ bs is just that, bs.You ask any American tanker to fight in one of those things and they’d refuse.>>>>>>>
Ask Russian tankers to ride Patton into battle nowadays and they’d refuse, too. And for that same reason.
You aren’t logical but it’s ok because you are under influence of myth which is always about prejudice and rejecting arguments.
In fact “Soviet junk myth” is one of the most blatant liberal lies. It is based on careful misenterpretation of Arab-Israely and Gulf War facts. An idea of this myth is defunding military development programs via persuading society into a thinking that there is no threats to cope with.
No friend, you’re the one suffering the delusion. First of all the M-48 Patton is no longer in use. I suggest to you to read Douglas Mac Gregors “Warriors Rage’’ and read how an American armored unit shot the Iraqi Republican Guard Talwakana Mech. Div. to pieces and the Iraqis were using the T-72. Again, go ask an American tanker if he’d fight in a T-72, ok? You do that and now say I’ll adios to you because you’re starting to piss me off.
Mileage don’t mean poop when you have a main gun(the M-1’s) that has a range of over two miles and a muzzle velocity of a mile a second and a GPS and laser-targeting system AND fires a depleted uranium round that kills whatever it hits. Further more go look at video and see what happens when any Russian tank is hit. Because the Russkies store the ammo around the hull when that dp round hits all that ammo cooks off in the blink of an eye and the explosive force is all funneled up through the crew compartment. How many times can I say it :RUSSIAN TANKS ARE CRAP!!! Read Major Douglas MacGregors “Warriors Rage’’ ok? Read it.
T-72 is a cheaper simplified version of T-64 which is a 1963 model tank. It came out in earlier 1970 being primary designed for third world operators. AFAIK M60 were phased in 1980s. Not that far from Gulf War. They are legacy tanks to T-72.
You are just turning things upside down. It is simply off-topic if American tanker want to ride T-72 or not. Why has he if he has more recent advanced platform?
And you still operating myths and opinions.
Russians tanks served Iraqis well against Iran using western tanks. So did Russian tanks to Indians vs Pakis.
Does it proves American tech is crap if Indian or Iraqi tankers won’t ride Patton vs T-72, let alone T-80&90?? To me it is not.
You can say adious as much as you want if you are pissed with written above but it can’t change facts.
I wasn’t admiring the tank as such, just giving some credit for taking extra fuel. It can’t hurt to be able to top off the tank (pun) before going into action.
Fact is Russian tanks are crap and you won’t admit it.
Did you ever think if it was such a hot idea the M-1 and the German Leopard and the British Challenger would have them?
Conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks are two different things, both are used in modern US fighters. The reason we use drop tanks when we have in-flight refueling is they allow the vulnerable in-flight tankers to stay further away from the shooting.
My point is the Russkies make crappy armor.
Hitler didn't think so. The Russians make inexpensive armor, which is a different thing. At about half the cost of an M1 Abrams, it's what you buy if you're not thinking of fighting against the US.
Yes, the the autoloader on early model T-64s had a habit of loading the tank-commander's arms into the gun breach, but that was solved on later tanks. The US never got the M-551 Sheridan's gun-launched anti-tank missile system to work properly either. Modern Russian equipment should be judged on its own merits.
Russian designs have generally improved since the fall of the Soviet Union, even if the ability of the Russian military to purchase new equipment hasn't. Comparing modern T-90 models with other Western tanks, it isn't so much a case of "Russian equipment is scrap metal" as "Russian equipment is inferior in certain ways, superior in others". I would hardly use the performance of Soviet equipment in the hands of Arab armies as a good example of their potential capability. For starters, most of the militaries that fought with such weapons were extremely incompetent, poorly led, poorly trained, and suffered from significant morale problems. I remember reading a quote by an officer who fought in the Gulf War that went something along the lines of how it wouldn't have mattered much if the Iraqi Army had the M-1s and the US military were the ones in the T-72s. Heck, often the Israelis and Egyptians were using the exact same vehicles. Aab armies employed imported Western tanks, such as modernized Shermans, Pattons, and Centurions, and the Israelis used captured Soviet-made tanks. The outcomes didn't differ all that much - it wasn't so much a matter of equipment in those early wars, as it was how inept the Arab armies tended to be. And furthermore, the tanks used by the various Arab armies were downgraded export versions, also known as "Monkey-Models", or poorly constructed indigenous knockoffs like the Iraqi Lion of Babylon tank, and their performance would have been significantly below that of the original designs. And like cunning_fish pointed out, by the time that many of these vehicles saw combat, such as during Desert Storm, they were obsolete. Saying that because the T-55 performed poorly in Desert Storm as proof that all Soviet or later Russian designed vehicles are garbage is a bit like saying that because the Sherman had a poor showing in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 when going up against more modern Vickers-Vijayanta MBTs, all American tanks must automatically belong on the scrapheap.
Now, for your specific example, both tanks are immune in the frontal arc to conventional anti-tank rounds from the other. They'll also be immune to each other's fire from sabot rounds, the M1A2 due to its DU armor layers and the lower quality Russian ammunition, the T-90MS due to its advanced ERA systems designed to disrupt incoming kinetic sabot projectiles (well, at least for the initial hit on an individual panel). Both tanks have roughly the same speed, though the M1A2 will have better acceleration. Both have modern fire-control systems, with fire on the move capability and are broadly comparable. The US system might, might be superior, but likely the differences are fairly small. The M1A2's fire control systems are 20 years old at this point, and unlike some newer Leopard 2 or Merkeva models, haven't seen any upgrades over the intervening years. Both main guns have comparable ranges with conventional munitions, though the T-90MSs gun-launched missiles do have a significant advantage here. The US Army never developed comparable weapons, though the Israelis did. And the M1A2 has no active defensive systems against incoming anti-tank missiles like the T-90MS does. Basically put, both tanks are fairly comparable, with different advantages. The T-90MS is lighter, cheaper, easier to maintain, and probably better suited to survive attacks by guided anti-tank missiles. The M1A2 has tougher armor all-round (though simply by dint of being almost ten ton heavier, one would expect it to be better protected), has better quality ammunition, faster acceleration (not that it comes without a price - the Abrams's turbine engine tends to have a much larger IR signature than a diesel powered tank), and better crew survivability, due to its automatic fire suppression system and superior ammunition storage system.
Overall, yes, I would say that the M1A2 is the superior tank. But there certainly is a significant difference between moderately worse in some areas, and being worthless.
“Did you ever think if it was such a hot idea the M-1 and the German Leopard and the British Challenger would have them?”
Beats me. It must make sense to them or they wouldn’t do it.
I’ve only ever seen the Egyptians use Russian made tanks as they were a client state of the former U.S.S.R. What similar tanks are you talking about? In addition to buying Russian made crap you got the tactics and strategy that went with it and again when it came to that the Russkies stunk. In the old days Soviet soldiers weren’t taught how to read maps. The Russkies relied on a rigid central command system that eschewed individual initiative. Aside from some instances toward the end of the war the Germans would dig some of their tanks in the ‘’hull-down’’ position. In the old days this was standard Soviet tank doctrine. The Iraqis found out how stupid this was in 1991. The point about Russian tanks being crap appears to be lost on you and ‘’cunning fish’’ and forgive me for not stating it earlier is because up until 1991 Russian tanks were built by workers working in the ‘’workers paradise’’ i.e the unrewarding, soul-deadening , initiative-destroying oppressive police state that was the Soviet Union. Believe me I’ve read histories ad nauseum about drunken Russians and their ‘’the State pretends to pay us so we pretend to work’’. An atmosphere like that doesn’t produce good weapons.The Russians Army has not engaged in tank battles since WW2 so it remains to see how well they and their tanks would perform today. Of course one should never under estimate ones enemy but I stand by what I say and again I’ll tell no American soldier is going to want to go to war in a T-72 or T-90, count on it. Would you?
They have no choice. Friend I have read histories on Soviet era weaponry and the rotten, stinking system that was the U.S.S.R. Ever hear of Viktor Blenko? He was the pilot who defected with the MiG-25 “Foxbat’’. Read some of the stuff I did and you would be amazed to find we were afraid of a rotten, piss poor , oppressive drunken military that literally couldn’t have stopped an argument let alone fight a war.
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.