How good is Russian T-90 tank?

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Tanks have been central targets in the last two gulf wars. Tanks have much less use against terrorists because they can't hit targets from numerous miles away and they can't conduct house to house searches. Maybe they will be useful on the open battlefield but those sorts of battles won't happen for a while.

Wrong. Very very wrong. Read anything about the first Gulf war and you'll see a very big Abrams success story.

In OIF there were no tank battles, but that did not stop the Abrams from being effective. It has a helluva lot of anti-infantry firepower (MPAT, 3 machine guns) in one heavily armored package that is immune to most of the # thrown at them. Read "Thunder Run" if you want to find out.

Maybe this is offtopic but do a search for Yugoslav M-84 MBT and its modifications including M-84AB1 and tell me what you think... It looks like a good tank.

All Rus's tanks can't stand up to M1A1/A2/A3 but T-95 will be RADICALY different it will be the best MBT in the world.

Off topic a bit too but...
The Chinese Type 98 tank. Is it actually any good?

THe T-95 eh? Hmm, whens it due into production exactally? And is it an Update on the old design like the T-80 and T-90 or all new stuff here? Most Russian tanks that are new tend to be awesome.

the chinese type-98G is shaping up to be fairly potent... though it's armour still only consists of steel plating with bolt on explosive-reative sections

It is essentially an upgraded t-72 chassis with a redesigned turret and advanced targeting equipment and upgraded cannon fitted.

It also sports the "dazzler"... a chinese invention that blinds or destroy's optical enemy targeting systems that try to lock on to the tank

The Type-96G is inferior to most other tanks in the realm of armor protection and survivability. Penetration of the tank results in the same catastrophic ammo cook off that Russian tanks face.

One thing the Type-98G gots going for it is the 3rd Gen Chinese DU APFSDS. This can penetrate 810mm of RHA at 2km, which is very good.

I don't know much about the gun's accuracy or the fire control.

The T-95 is a new design. It will apparently carry a 152mm gun/missile launcher in a new turret designed to lower the silhouette even more than the current low slung T-72 series of tanks. The main gun will carry more of a punch than the 125mm gun used on current Russian tanks. This is a result of lessons learned from Desert Storm, when 125mm armor-piercing rounds bounced off M1A1 Abrams tanks, even when fired from as close as 400 meters. The other major advance will include systems designed to decoy anti-tank missiles (like the Hellfire, Javelin, and TOW). The goal is to jam the sighting systems and to confuse the aim. This also is intended to work against the sighting system for tank guns. Tanks often spend time fighting each other, and their sights work much like the sights used to target and guide anti-tank missiles. The real question is whether the T-95 will see production beyond a few prototypes. Its main competitor, the T-80UM2 �Black Eagle,� has the advantage of being cheaper and an upgrade of the T-80, which is currently in service. The T-95 will need time to have all the kinks worked out of its design. Much of that has already been done with the basic design of the T-80, and the �Black Eagle� will not need as much time to be ready for deployment. The T-95 has improved crew survivability over the T-72, T-80, and T-90 tanks that the Russians currently use, but that is really not saying much, given the fact that the T-72 and its successors provided practically nothing in that area.

www.strategypage.com...

Hey, how the tanks protect themselves from infantrymen? I mean, a soldier could sneak and go to the top of a tank, somehow open the hatch and throw a grenade inside...

Originally posted by santigwar

"swastika India got them too".

I dont know if you know this but the swastika is a religous symbol that Hindus and Buddhist use. The Nazi party stole that symbol and used it for evil. I would just like you and the rest of the world to know that the swastika is a religous symbol.

Originally posted by Killak420

Originally posted by santigwar

"swastika India got them too".

I dont know if you know this but the swastika is a religous symbol that Hindus and Buddhist use. The Nazi party stole that symbol and used it for evil. I would just like you and the rest of the world to know that the swastika is a religous symbol.

Yeah, I always wonderd WHY Hitler took it. Meh.

Originally posted by Killak420

Originally posted by santigwar

"swastika India got them too".

I dont know if you know this but the swastika is a religous symbol that Hindus and Buddhist use. The Nazi party stole that symbol and used it for evil. I would just like you and the rest of the world to know that the swastika is a religous symbol.

U are right. in Hindu and Buddhist religions the "swastika" means peace.

Taking the absolute air-superiority of the Americans in account and the more than just slight advantages the M1 has over the T-90 it on the ground, combined with being backed up by the very long range MRLS artillery, I wouldn't bother buying tanks at all, complete waste unless you plan to use them to invade your neighbouring country who also has submaximal tanks and no significant airforce.


Instead, for a defensive posture, for the large sum of money that buys/maintains a tankfleet try to get a whole lot of shoulder fired (or from a remote tripod as not to give away the snipers position) Javelin missiles (or some foreign version, wich will be produced soon no doubt) and hand them out to very dispersed and hidden infantery (like only 1 or 2 man covering the range of the missile and also controlling a bunch of remotely detonated traps or metalstorm boxes to deter enemy infantery trying to seak and smoke you out)

This way , the M1 find no T-90's to shred with its sabot rounds and the very low density of your infantery does not justify extensive/expensive carpet bombing from the air. The infantery would have to relie on an extensive network of tunnels/stealth rather than thick armour.




[edit on 30-11-2004 by Countermeasures]

Yes the T-98 is a very good improvement to any tank available to the Chinese. Dazzler is a equipment that could revolutionize tank defence although I believe an additional CIWS type of defence might be needed. Tank weapons and helicopters use an extensive amount of laser technology and the dazzler could render them useless.

Originally posted by COWlan
Yes the T-98 is a very good improvement to any tank available to the Chinese. Dazzler is a equipment that could revolutionize tank defence although I believe an additional CIWS type of defence might be needed. Tank weapons and helicopters use an extensive amount of laser technology and the dazzler could render them useless.

Yeah that dazzler looks good, I was wondering how effectively it would work though. If it works fully, then that will more than make up for the other weaknesses of the tank. The enemy will actually have to AIM the missiles now. That'll sort out the men from the boys who rely on homing devices. You have to aim now, fellas!

Just so you also know, the swastika of the Nazi party was "rotated" in the opposite direction of the normal religious swastikas. To most people, a swastika is a swastika, but an educated eye can spot the difference between a Nazi swastika and the religious ones.

I forget which rotates which way though (or spirals, whatever you wanna say).

reply to post by WestPoint23


Look at Iraq, too many Abrams getting laid to rest over there by amateurs with RPG's and rigged artillery shells. If that's what shop keepers can do - I'd hate to see what a serious - well trained asymmetrical army could accomplish.

All and all, the Russians are excellent at designing tanks - many of the Abram's proponents will site the Battle of Medina Ridge as the triumph of the West over Russian technology, but fighting Iraqi T-74's with complete air superiority and facing say, a Chinese force of T-90's with your air advantage mitigated, are two different things.

But I have an open mind, so if an Abrams proponent can explain why the M1A1 or A2 would outmatch a T-90, all other tactical equations being equal, I'd certainly like to read it.

Originally posted by Kozzy
The T-90's (and other tanks) ability to launch missiles is overrated and not much of an advantage.

The AT-11B has a 4km range. 90% of battles take place at 3km or less, well within the Abrams firing range. 51% of the battlefields in Europe had a visibility of 800m or less. This is where the T-90 is decent, where it's penetrator actually works.

It can barely penetrate 800mm of armor. All varients of the Abrams have 1200mm+ of armor vs. HEAT on their turret front. The glacis and lower hull would be resistant to this attack, possibly disabling the tank but not destroying it.

The flight time of the AT-11B is 12 seconds to maximum range. In this time a Abrams crew can see the missile launch (with thermal, day sights, or the naked eye) and fire an aimed shot (2 if really good) at the firing T-90. The tank can also go into defilade, perform evasive maneauvers, and pop off smoke grenades. This makes the chance of the AT-11 hitting the target not good. Playing Steel Beasts, I have spotted tanks by their missile firing and killed them well before the missile hits me, of course this is just a simulation and not real life.

The T-90 has to stay exposed and track the target during this flight time. This is a big "HI I'm OVER HERE PLEASE KILL ME AND CALL DOWN ARTILLERY ON ME!!"

The T-90 cannot fire on the move with the AT-11B, this makes it good only as a defensive weapon. But it has to stay exposed to fire it.

All the while an M1A1 can fire an M289A3 with 960mm of penetration at 2km, this would blow through a T-90's armor kill the tank completely.

This is not to say, of course a well trained and well positioned company of T-90s cannot attrit an force of Abrams. The missile is just not as big an advantage as everyone says.

Armor for M1A2SEP
Turret Front: 960mm KE 1400mm HEAT
Glacis: 500mm KE 800mm HEAT
T-90
Turret front: 800mm KE, 1200mm HEAT (with ERA)
Glacis: 600mm KE 950 HEAT (with ERA)

Please include all your links with these statements to sound more reliable!

AT-11 Svir has range of 4000m which is fired primarily from T-72's
AT-11 Refleks has range of 6000m which primarily used in T-90's
Penetration: 950 mm of RHA
Time of flight to 5000 m: 17.6 s
en.wikipedia.org...
russianarmor.info...
Lets put T-90 closer to "90% of battles take place at 3km or less, well within the Abrams firing range." according to you ... how many seconds will that be now... yeah thought so...
T-90 tanks have been modified to take advantage of newer ammunition such as the 3BM-44M APFSDS
Penetration: Classified
T-90s Armor as far as I know is still classified

Oh and by the way
"All the while an M1A1 can fire an M289A3 with 960mm of penetration at 2km, this would blow through a T-90's armor kill the tank completely."

M829A3
The M829A3 is a 120 mm APFSDS round developed from the current service M829A2 round. The M829A3 was slated to be supplied to units in 2003. It is a further improvement on the M829A2.

Very little is known about the round. It is heavier than the M829A2 and uses a more efficient propellant, RPD-380, giving it a boost in muzzle velocity. It is designed specifically to defeat modern types of (ERA) such as Kontakt-5. It has a combustible cartridge case with an overall length of less than 986 mm and weighs less than 56 pounds.

It can penetrate approximately 680 mm RHA at 0 degrees (NATO) and 790 mm RHA at 60 degrees (NATO), at a range of 2,000 m
en.wikipedia.org...

Where did you get that 960 number? Again when posting your information please include some valid source. Thank you!

Originally posted by Kozzy
No it's not. It's a beefed up T-72, in fact a renaming of the T-72BU.

Quite correct, done largely to get away from the T-72's poor 'brand image' after their dreadful performance in Iraq.

The T-80 is a beefed up version of the T-64.

This is not.

The T-80 and T-64 projects were very much seperate, and the T-64 was actually the better tank up until the T-80B, which was the early-mid 1980s.

The T-64 was the Russian (and I say Russian on purpose, it was never exported, not even in 'Monkey Model' versions) tank in the 1970s, being faster than the T-72, roughly as well armoured, and with a superior fire-control system and stabiliser.

The only place it was deployed outside of Russia itself was in East Germany in a couple of forward tank batallions of the Russian Land Forces, if I recall correctly.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by jBrereton]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by jBrereton]

How good is Russian T-90 tank?

Only as good as the crew manning it.

reply to post by (^_^)



I wouldn't exactly call Wiki a valid source as any idiot can edit anything they like.

"It can penetrate approximately 680 mm RHA at 0 degrees (NATO) and 790 mm RHA at 60 degrees (NATO), at a range of 2,000 m"

This statement here is also wrong, a round hitting a target a 0 degrees will penetrate more armour than if it hit at an angle.
Isn't T-80UM2 a better tank than a T-90??? Also IMO the Ukaranian T-84 Oplot/Yatagan is the best Slavic tank.