Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

LaVictoireEstLaVie wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:Reality is that super-extensive production of the Armata program isn't really a priority. Why? Because what Russia fields currently will easily hold its own and then some against anything that NATO can throw at them on their own turf. The only truly threatening MBT in the NATO arsenal is the Leopard 2A6, but they exist in pitiful numbers, and suffer largely from typical European over-engineering and logistical ineptitude (US corporate MIC sabotage). Like Werewolf detailed, the Abrams suffers from being a complete logistical nightmare, unseen since Nazi Germany's heavy tank programs, and in saying that it makes for a terrible MBT even when running. As many have pointed out, it's a mediocre tank destroyer (when there is a coherent strategy and battle line), but a terrible tank.

The Abrams is superior in terms of overall survivability and firepower to the German Leopard 2A6. The threatening tanks in terms of capabilities are the British Challenger 2 and French Leclerc Serie 2 and 3. In terms of NATO KE lethality the M829A3 leads the pack, followed by the German DM53/63, the French/German DM43/OFL120 and last and least the UK L27A1 CHARM 3.

French Leclercs would be a threat if they weren't so insanely expensive, leading to the same problems as the rest of NATO's European MBT woes. The only reason the Abrams is "better" than the hodge podge selection of Euro-tanks is it has atleast been in production long enough to iron out some of the operational issues. As for the M829A3, yes it is a good KE round, but that simply makes the Abrams a good tank destroyer, not a good tank. It also has good FCS and thermal optics.

LaVictoireEstLaVie wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:Reality is that super-extensive production of the Armata program isn't really a priority. Why? Because what Russia fields currently will easily hold its own and then some against anything that NATO can throw at them on their own turf. The only truly threatening MBT in the NATO arsenal is the Leopard 2A6, but they exist in pitiful numbers, and suffer largely from typical European over-engineering and logistical ineptitude (US corporate MIC sabotage). Like Werewolf detailed, the Abrams suffers from being a complete logistical nightmare, unseen since Nazi Germany's heavy tank programs, and in saying that it makes for a terrible MBT even when running. As many have pointed out, it's a mediocre tank destroyer (when there is a coherent strategy and battle line), but a terrible tank.

The Abrams is superior in terms of overall survivability and firepower to the German Leopard 2A6. The threatening tanks in terms of capabilities are the British Challenger 2 and French Leclerc Serie 2 and 3. In terms of NATO KE lethality the M829A3 leads the pack, followed by the German DM53/63, the French/German DM43/OFL120 and last and least the UK L27A1 CHARM 3.

Firepower is an entire category for any plattform that has different offensive capabilities such as different types of ammunition, secondary armament, means of other weaponary. In that regard Abrams is the weakest. It lacks dedicated HE-Frag rounds which cripples its Anti-Personal, Anti-Helicopter and lack of Airburst ammunition, no GLATGM. That puts it automatically behind every tank that has such systems like all chinese tanks, russian, Merkawa mk4 and T-90/A lead in that regard followed by Chinese tanks (ZTZ96/99A) and Leop2A6. One type of ammunition does not make an entire category "Firepower". Before any tank meets another Tank it will have different threats and targets to engage and neutralize which are far greater threat to it then tanks.

Mike E wrote:Challenger 2....threatening? 




It's easily the worst designed of the modern NATO MBT's.

Yet the fanboys will defend its mediocrity tooth and nail !!!

Truth to that. There is nothing like the Chally lovers out there. 

"But it took 70 RPG's"

"The RPG that penetrated it really richoheted out the LFP, then richoheted off the ground, then penetrated the bottom!" 

Etc etc, and I'm not joking about the last one.

Leclerc would be a threat if;
1) It didn't belong to France, who isn't a full NATO member, and has connections to Russia. 
2) It had access to superior APFSFS ammunition, the OFL 120 is a DM-43, and IIRC, it would need modifications to support the DM-53 or 63. All while its replacement round (PROCIFAC or something like that) was supposed to be finished years ago.

That being said, the Leclerc is a great vehicle and IMHO, is the current front-runner of NATO MBT's.

SEP v2 is a good tank that honestly doesn't deserve the flack it gets. Perfect, no, but it gets the job done. Not to mention that outside of the T-14 and Merkava 4, the M1 platform is still the most survivable out there.

Tactics...

If the enemy has lots of powerful tanks then start the engagement with diving top attack munitions fired from 120km away via a Smerch battery.

don't meet the enemy on equal terms and slog it out... use your advantages and maximise your ability to inflict hurt without exposing yourself unnecessarily...

What the Chechens did to Russian armour is what the Soviet army trained to do with NATO armour except the current range of Russian weapons is better than anything the NATO armour has ever faced before... wielded by an army well equipped and trained to use that weapon set.

BTW @LaVictoireEstLaVie it is a forum rule that you post an introduction in the rules and introductions section... while there also please read the rules.

Garry.

Could Iskander missiles be used to attack armored formations? During ww2 exploding shells fired from Soviet battleships were powerful enough to hurl German tanks into the air.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Garry.

Could Iskander missiles be used to attack armored formations? During ww2 exploding shells fired from Soviet battleships were powerful enough to hurl German tanks into the air.

That's exactly what happened in the 8/8/8 war, I believe an Iskander-M missile destroyed 28 Georgian tanks.

Mike E wrote:Truth to that. There is nothing like the Chally lovers out there. 

"But it took 70 RPG's"

"The RPG that penetrated it really richoheted out the LFP, then richoheted off the ground, then penetrated the bottom!" 

Etc etc, and I'm not joking about the last one.

Leclerc would be a threat if;
1) It didn't belong to France, who isn't a full NATO member, and has connections to Russia. 
2) It had access to superior APFSFS ammunition, the OFL 120 is a DM-43, and IIRC, it would need modifications to support the DM-53 or 63. All while its replacement round (PROCIFAC or something like that) was supposed to be finished years ago.

That being said, the Leclerc is a great vehicle and IMHO, is the current front-runner of NATO MBT's.

SEP v2 is a good tank that honestly doesn't deserve the flack it gets. Perfect, no, but it gets the job done. Not to mention that outside of the T-14 and Merkava 4, the M1 platform is still the most survivable out there.

M1 is the most survivable based on what?

OminousSpudd wrote:M1 is the most survivable based on what?

A lot of different things. 

- It has completely isolated ammunition, separated to the crew with a blast door, along with having blow out panels. 

- The turret sides have 350-400 mm of armour, which can be invaluable in certain scenarios (this includes the bustle). 

- Large and compartmentalized crew compartment. The driver is mostly isolated from the turret crew and vice-versa, and the turret is large enough to where a penetration may not kill all the crewmen inside of it.

As 'non-complex' as this may seem, the M1 is one of very few tanks that has all of the above. 

For ex;

Leopard 2 stores most of its' rounds in a non-isolated, hull mounted box (exposed to the crew). Same with the Leclerc. 

T-64/72/80/90 all have a small crew compartment, with ammunition scattered almost everywhere in full capacity. Even with excess rounds eliminated, there is still a danger there (note that the MS pretty much corrected this).
-----------------

T-14 jumps ahead via complete compartmentalization, full ammunition isolation, by having a lesser exposed crew capsule. It also has fire extinguishing systems in each capsule, IIRC.

OminousSpudd wrote:

Mike E wrote:Truth to that. There is nothing like the Chally lovers out there. 

"But it took 70 RPG's"

"The RPG that penetrated it really richoheted out the LFP, then richoheted off the ground, then penetrated the bottom!" 

Etc etc, and I'm not joking about the last one.

Leclerc would be a threat if;
1) It didn't belong to France, who isn't a full NATO member, and has connections to Russia. 
2) It had access to superior APFSFS ammunition, the OFL 120 is a DM-43, and IIRC, it would need modifications to support the DM-53 or 63. All while its replacement round (PROCIFAC or something like that) was supposed to be finished years ago.

That being said, the Leclerc is a great vehicle and IMHO, is the current front-runner of NATO MBT's.

SEP v2 is a good tank that honestly doesn't deserve the flack it gets. Perfect, no, but it gets the job done. Not to mention that outside of the T-14 and Merkava 4, the M1 platform is still the most survivable out there.

M1 is the most survivable based on what?

Ammo isolation and horizontally emphasized armor just thick enough to shrug off basic RPG's.

Well, that was the conventional thought process regarding protection, shrugging off small RPG-7's in close quarters. However, after Syria and Yemen, I'm thinking that the M1 isn't as survivable as a T-90A, as the T-90 has at least some active defense against ATGM's. Bustles don't seem do shit when old 9k111 ATGM's can just punch holes through the blast doors from side hits on the turret, and kornet's can score through-and-through's on the turret face.

Mike E wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:M1 is the most survivable based on what?

A lot of different things. 

- It has completely isolated ammunition, separated to the crew with a blast door, along with having blow out panels. 

- The turret sides have 350-400 mm of armour, which can be invaluable in certain scenarios (this includes the bustle). 

- Large and compartmentalized crew compartment. The driver is mostly isolated from the turret crew and vice-versa, and the turret is large enough to where a penetration may not kill all the crewmen inside of it.

As 'non-complex' as this may seem, the M1 is one of very few tanks that has all of the above. 

For ex;

Leopard 2 stores most of its' rounds in a non-isolated, hull mounted box (exposed to the crew). Same with the Leclerc. 

T-64/72/80/90 all have a small crew compartment, with ammunition scattered almost everywhere in full capacity. Even with excess rounds eliminated, there is still a danger there (note that the MS pretty much corrected this).
-----------------

T-14 jumps ahead via complete compartmentalization, full ammunition isolation, by having a lesser exposed crew capsule. It also has fire extinguishing systems in each capsule, IIRC.

Aye, but all that you mentioned is combat related. Logistically, and mobility wise, it is not anywhere near as survivable as say, a T-72B. Survivability is quite a broad term is what I'm getting at. Like the F-35 sacrificing everything to achieve BVR superiority (which it hasn't, but that was the goal). Just because your MBT is better armored (broadly speaking) than your enemy's, doesn't necessarily make it better if your enemy's tank is superior in terms of mobility, camouflage (kinda irrelevant today), sustained combat, firepower and attrition. I know you know all this, but I'd be interested to see how "survivable" you consider the M1 platform given all these factors.

If this helps, I use the term 'survivable' as in how well it fares against being penetrated. 

I agree with what you are saying.

Mike E wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:M1 is the most survivable based on what?

A lot of different things. 

- It has completely isolated ammunition, separated to the crew with a blast door, along with having blow out panels. 

Every advantage has its own disadvantage small or big.

The disadvantage is the all the ammunition is one place that means that very ammunition bustle gets very big, meaning a big target, high volume and lot of armor needed to cover it. (Disadvantage size, form and weight)
The other disadvantage is that it can not survive or protect crew from HE-Frag shells detonating in that ammunition bustle. The US lacks them in service at least did so for very long time through the use of it and the low content and low hazardous HEAT shells M830 they have allways face backwards away from crew compartment the amount of explosive is low and directed outwards. As soon as it loads real HE-Frag rounds it won't have great survivability in case of cook off.

Mike E wrote:
- The turret sides have 350-400 mm of armour, which can be invaluable in certain scenarios (this includes the bustle). 

The turret side may have such a LOS the armor itself is far lower and it only advantage comes from angle when attacks come from angles and are useless for anything that is newer than PG-7 and it will most probably penetrate when coming in from 90° angle.

Mike E wrote:
- Large and compartmentalized crew compartment. The driver is mostly isolated from the turret crew and vice-versa, and the turret is large enough to where a penetration may not kill all the crewmen inside of it.

That is something that should never be seen as an advantage because the disadvantages outweight anything possitive from a big internal volume. It is true that internal volume minimizes injuries or lethal injuries to the crew but a bigger, more heavy, less optimal shaped turret opens alot of problems (weight, very well recognizable even from distance that size also limits its means of camoflauging of the surroundings like using trenches, trees and so on. The T-64/72/80/90 have smaller size they suffer higher casualty rates in case of penetration but are less likely to be hit, to be seen, much easier to camoflauge not to mention their "self-digging" capability.

The tank designs are made on Prevention of penetration not on minimizing After Armor effects on crew by more internal volume. Wrong philosphy means a tnak is a failure if it would rely on such philosophy of tank design. It was no concern in any tank design.

Mike E wrote:
As 'non-complex' as this may seem, the M1 is one of very few tanks that has all of the above.

Why only post positives in a very unfair way like for the internal volume as source of minimizing after armor effects on crew and with it casualties? Why not state from start on the advantages and disadvantages not to make it seem unfair comparision.

Mike E wrote:
Leopard 2 stores most of its' rounds in a non-isolated, hull mounted box (exposed to the crew). Same with the Leclerc.

Where are the most rounds that are hitting tanks? Turret, UFP or LFP?

The tank designs are very well thought through. Thinks are here presented as some "archilles heel" when they are not. The ammunition that the Chally, Leopard, T-80/90, Leclerc and all the others store it right after the frontal main armor which is not that easy to penetrate. They are organized in a way to make a very low target from most angles which are always protected from main armor or at angles. The ammunition is also always isolated from spalling or hot fragments, so only a direct hit to the ammunition itself can cause a cook off, excluding T-80.

Mike E wrote:
T-64/72/80/90 all have a small crew compartment, with ammunition scattered almost everywhere in full capacity. Even with excess rounds eliminated, there is still a danger there (note that the MS pretty much corrected this).

Very easy to correct that the T-90 eleminated most of the problem and i am not talking about MS version. The ammunition of paperlike casings are isolated from fragmentation, hot material, fuel fire or spalling so only a direct hit can cause cook off just like on any other tank. The thing is you can refrain from arming your tank of the free rounds in the turret and around the turret which the russians already did in chechnya and it helped significantly. Hell even Chechnya 1 where the tanks faced worst conditions of enemy with training, capable weaponary, even tanks and Anti Aircraft arsenal, with T-80's without ERA used in a disasterous way have seen much less "cook offs" than what the propaganda of the Abrams is telling. This propaganda of how disasterous the cook offs are comes only due the Abrams isolated ammunition without any mention of the actual rate of cook off which is very low even in very bad conditions.

Zivo wrote:Ammo isolation and horizontally emphasized armor just thick enough to shrug off basic RPG's.

Well, that was the conventional thought process regarding protection, shrugging off small RPG-7's in close quarters. However, after Syria and Yemen, I'm thinking that the M1 isn't as survivable as a T-90A, as the T-90 has at least some active defense against ATGM's. Bustles don't seem do shit when old 9k111 ATGM's can just punch holes through the blast doors from side hits on the turret, and kornet's can score through-and-through's on the turret face. No

We could indeed see after Houthis destroyed M1A2S in Yemen with the Konkurs that the design is exactly what quite a few critics have expected and which busted the myth or believes that many fanboys have pushed forward. That the ammunition bustle will always prevent the fire from killing the crew. That Konkurs was a very lucky hit or the Operator was trained to know the weak points of the Abrams tank. The Konkurs ATGM has hit the ammunition access door exactly with an angle to ignite the ammunition and by that causing total destruction of tank and crew except one guy who is probably tank driver who was closest to the bottom bail out hatch.

That of course is highly situational destruction of a tank and not the general rule and case on the battlefield, but it is no worse than the myths of russian autoloader and carousel ammunition always causing a total destruction in case of armor penetration where Chechnyan first campaign has shown T-80's which are adknowledged to be inferior in survivability due their design of autoloader and ammunition storage which fared far better than someone would expect in such an unorganized and blatant way the tanks were used in that war. That and the point that the ERA tiles were not fitted with explosives to enhance their protection despite all that the tanks did not suffer catastrophic "cook offs" in the amount western propaganda wants us to believe. 6 T-72 (Ural/A/BV) were destroyed with cook offs after penetration by AT weapons from 45 total that is 13.33% under worst conditions with bad tactics, no ERA and urban warfare and bad morality of conscripts. The numbers of T-80 are even lower due their use and participation in zones.

T-90A would fare much better as long ammunition in turret are kept out of the arsenal. It has among the best protection overall from better degrees and much less prone to situational destruction as long urban warfare is planned properly and executed in such a way.

Put the ammunition on the turret, exposed to enemy fire is NOT safe and NOT increase survivability.

An explosion of the ammunition chamber is violent and it's not like the crew can be safe from the generated concussion even if you put the chamber behind the turret.

The ammunition is something must be covered no matter what.

So many cool things for Russian Army.. but unfortunately too slow the acquisition of new armata units. Russia needs to have Armata already in big numbers in the many hundreds and in this year, because it face potential land wars in several fronts already.

Vann7 wrote:

So many cool things for Russian Army.. but unfortunately too slow the acquisition of new armata units.  Russia needs to have Armata already in big numbers in the many hundreds and in this year, because it face potential land wars in several fronts already.

Why? First Russia already have enough Excellent Tanks, T-90-A is shown his real capability, in Syria, where in first year of civil-terrorist group war, so many older Tanks, whit out few most important features, was easily lost, they have not proper R.A second they not have proper F.O.S(or Fire operation system) especially when we talk about modern gadgets for finding targets and see threat's and it is big question what kind of a munition they have, does it that was old models of a munition(which also was dearly cost Iraqi T-72 ) like fact old one piercing sub munition, made to the somewhere around 1975. cant be compare whit present armor piercing,where between those years and present day Russian army was have for sure three modernization of a munition, same story was whit cumulative one, like whit Bunker buster a munition, whit out two types of guided AT, and again guided Fortification buster rockets.
My point is that T-90-A actually is capable to fight against any Abrams, le'clerc, or Challenger or LEO2. Then their is T-80 UD which are also excellent tank, whit Night and Thermal vision, very good Protection , both tanks, by mobility is around 40% better then western counter part, while T-90-A have significantly lower top and globally is significant smaller target.
Second ARMAT already coming earlier then that was planed, but she must go thru "torture" of testing of every single mechanical assemble,, especially power train as a whole, and of course Testing of Hardware and Software in cockpit is also extremely important, But Russian is famous by one school of making military hardware, where first Upgrades coming almost right a way after first making series.There is some problems, whit the emergence of matching the frequency of vibration, engine, transmission and chassis thin where there is an undesirable effect of amplification when whole tank start to vibrate, of course that is happened only two times when driver go thru speed and R.P.M of engines.....That are is words of main constructor , where he said that util know, only serious problem which emerge during the tests until know, because such kind of vibration, can significantly shorten the proper working time of the whole transmission or other mechanical assemblies, but that's just the effect that they had not met before, and therefore did not do specific calculations. And he is emerge only on T-14, why because different weight distribution and Inner space on T-15(Barbaris) probably simply is made that such sync of small vibration(can't happened), which when rich full "harmony" amplified and become something not desirable and possible for Serial TANK.By his words on which that problem(first serial tranche) will be "cured" from that "childhood illness".
So Armata coming significantly before then that was planed, Barbaris T-15 in second serial tranche will get different turret whit gun of 57 mm, Kurganec will get same (variant for heavy fire close support for infantry and, Only problem will be how many cars per Year they can assemble , But UVZ is purposely for Armata program will made(if already isn't finished) brand new Assembly line, because they wish to separate places when they made Armata Program, and they other cars.Because, Armata will be changed, whit features and capability,every year and half, that is guaranteed, and it is a Russian school Tenko-strojenja, until she simply become Tank which use 99% of her true capability, like imagined modular concept of modern Tank. and So do not worry, warmongering statement of new Commander of NATO forces in EU, is nothing more then chip collecting of political points, nothing more, because he like every General in Pentagon knows, that full scale war whit Russia, only will bring Misery over whole Europe, and also US generals which do not wish to Dream American Dream. Knows that Russia have means and capability to deliver just enough nuclear heads on USA soil, and to change American way of life for next 1000 years. And no body of them is prepare to carry such burden. From other side, in Military always was exist enough high ranks Lunatics, which calculated whit billions of dead people. And in they crazy heads they somehow come to the result that America will be partial destroyed by nuke's, but Americans will have greatest chance . that right after 50-60 years become to rebuild old way of life. Like, until Others such is Russians will be practical fully destroyed, and then Americans can freely start to use wast natural resources of Russia...around which and reason why all this fuss and pressure on Russia is happened.
Sorry on little longer post.

T-90 tanks in the Russian army are not prepared to deal with Top Attack weapons or face
NATO tanks and guarantee a win in a one vs one.  The only tanks Russia have that
can guarantee a very high probability to win ,even if taken by surprise is the armata tank.

If Russia face a major war with Turkey , and the madman do something really stupid like sinking
a Russian submarine with american help or atacking Russian military base in Syria and many die.The retaliation of Russia will have to be full scale war. means Russia will have to invade Turkey and at least capture Istanbul  to guarantee the movement of their ships over the strait to the mediterranean.

So its means that Russia needs to be very well prepared for the unthinkable .
Even to the case that ISIS takes control of Turkey with CIA help and later start a war
against Russia.  So if Russia needs to invade a major power like Turkey is.. it will be far better
if Russia do it in armata and not in T-90. Good enough tank is not enough. Russia needs a tank
that can guarantee the maximun security possible to their soldiers and that is Arma. and not t-90.

Also Russia face a threat of a war with Ukraine ,with NATO mercenaries very well armed with state of the art modern weapons . So this is why to be fully prepared and avoid taking risk ,
and minimize as many casualties as possible in Russian army ,it will be better that Russia army is fully armed with Armata and all their latest weapons. because when it comes to a fight against countries well armed by NATO ,good enough military hardware is not enough. Russia needs simply the best technology they can and deployed in big numbers.

yes i know t-90 is capable but it will not guarantee the level of safety Russian army needs to fight major powers. Missiles like Spike or Javeline can cause a lot of trouble used in numbers
against a T-90.

And yes Russia have nuclear weapons ,but they are not enough deterrence for crazy leaders
like Erdogan. or ISIS. So conventional military also needs to be very state of the art and
strong too.

Vann7 wrote:
And yes Russia have nuclear weapons ,but they are not enough deterrence for crazy leaders
like Erdogan. or ISIS. So conventional military also needs to be very state of the art and
strong too.

Against Erdogan they are. Look how he was afraid when the Su-24 accident happend, he run in NATOs arms like a 10 years old run in his parents arms when he is afraid.

Russia doesn't need to invade Turkey if a war happen, just destroy their navy and their airplanes. A major ground batlle wouldn't happen.

They don't need to go in Ukraine. And even if they do so, the war would be similar to the georgian war. One week and it's finish. Nato will do nothing and their mercenaries will have to fight against a modern army not some african with simple gun. Your SAS or SEALs will not go in because they use them only when they have atvantages on evry aspects of the war.

Vann7 wrote:T-90 tanks in the Russian army are not prepared to deal with Top Attack weapons or face
NATO tanks and guarantee a win in a one vs one.  The only tanks Russia have that
can guarantee a very high probability to win ,even if taken by surprise is the armata tank.

Russian tanks the only onces that are protected from such weapons to some degree with special designed ERA bricks that cover the weakest parts aswell what Mindstorm has posted about the most famous US american top-attack weapon "Javelin" which is only effective against T-90 tanks to achieve mobility or firepower kill not a destruction of the target in a military terms of effective, meaning only a minority of engagements with Javelin 2 would achieve a kill.

Vann7 wrote:
If Russia face a major war with Turkey , and the madman do something really stupid like sinking
a Russian submarine with american help or atacking Russian military base in Syria and many die.The retaliation of Russia will have to be full scale war. means Russia will have to invade Turkey and at least capture Istanbul  to guarantee the movement of their ships over the strait to the mediterranean.

You seem to have very little understanding of the geopolitical and military matter on that. No such scenario will be fueled by US, they are not ready yet for a direct confrontation, not in 20 years.The US would only go high and direct war after they believe they can decapitate russia in matter of very short time that is why they deploy "ABM" or better to say direct attack posts with IRBM's in eastern europe, that is why they are constantly trying to get allies or friendly countries against Russia (Ukraine, India and soon attempts Belarus/Kazakhstan). Such a scenario like you suggest is not realistic and a major fuck up is the plans they are having with the influx of dubious masses and origin of "refugees" that are not controlled and checked who this people are what they are traffiking over the borders and what they purpose actually is. Enough terrorists already arived and more need to fullfil two plans, destruction of indogene folk aswell steer up problems between them and indogenes so they can declare draconian laws like they are trying now or better suggesting it to destroy all cash money and hand out only plastic money, for the "rafugees" aswell which will directly be on our pockets, which will give them direct legalisation in the long run to buy stuff that is not legal for non citizens aspecially for asylum seekers that have no chances to get asylum like 90% of all refugees that aren't refugees but coming from all over the place and are only interested in money. The bigger geopolitical picture is against your scenario, it will do different.

Vann7 wrote:
So its means that Russia needs to be very well prepared for the unthinkable .
Even to the case that ISIS takes control of Turkey with CIA help and later start a war
against Russia.  So if Russia needs to invade a major power like Turkey is.. it will be far better
if Russia do it in armata and not in T-90. Good enough tank is not enough. Russia needs a tank
that can guarantee the maximun security possible to their soldiers and that is Arma. and not t-90.

ISIS already has the control over turkey they are called USA. That just a different name via a proxy of the same master, you actually know that so don't play shizophrenia here.

Vann7 wrote:
Also Russia face a threat of a war with Ukraine ,with NATO mercenaries very well armed with state of the art modern weapons . So this is why to be fully prepared and avoid taking risk ,
and minimize as many casualties as possible in Russian army ,it will be better that Russia army is fully armed with Armata and all their latest weapons. because when it comes to a fight against countries well armed by NATO ,good enough military hardware is not enough. Russia needs simply the best technology they can and deployed in big numbers.

NATO can not deploy anything of matter in europe in technology terms for mercs that would affect or change the scale of big upfuck of ukro-orcs.

Vann7 wrote:
yes i know t-90 is capable but it will not guarantee the level of safety Russian army needs to fight major powers. Missiles like Spike or Javeline can cause a lot of trouble used in numbers
against a T-90.

I would say you have little understanding about that matter.

Vann7 wrote:
And yes Russia have nuclear weapons ,but they are not enough deterrence for crazy leaders
like Erdogan. or ISIS. So conventional military also needs to be very state of the art and
strong too.

I aggree russia has not put a foot on the ground and needs to wipe out some of the NATO terrorist assets to make a statement. Kalibr launch against US proxies haven't had enough of a effect. Now it is time to standardize the use of FOAB's for everything of their assets, if they bitch around, announce GOAB Grandfather of all Bombs to be deployed due to NATO expansion and aggression, if those cunts again bitch around announce INF and Start treaty to be vaporized to assure a factual M.A.D. and keep up that game regardless of some stupid one sided treaties and militarize the space if necessary to assure the M.A.D. That is all it needs.

^^^ what werewolf said
Javelin wouldn't fare well even when it comes to mobility or firepower kills because of weak punch and it would only effect sensors and optics on turret, but since most of the tanks secondary sights it wouldn't make tank unoperational. What is more dangerous - TOW-2B.
And modern tanks are not very numerous in NATO arsenal too. Tanks are not the best platforms to fight other tanks (mobile AT platform like Khrisantema is superior to any tank when it comes to range, detection, targeting and killing power) and I would be rather worried about NATO dominance in air theatre than on land.
Russia would have upper hand there as they have better tactical strike capabilities and decent cover from enemy from air. But that have said even limited war against NATO would look like a meat grinder for all involved. I do believe Russian leadership and soldiers are more combat ready then western ones. Although Russian scare is rising readiness in NATO these days.

How many in service top attack weapons do NATO have... and please don't include Javelin as it can only be used in top attack fire and forget mode if it has a thermal lock on the target, which means it is optically guided... hense SHTORA and indeed Nakidka will adversely effect their performance to the point of making them useless.

Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.). I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent. Look at the Abrams. In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank. Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other. Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

Tanks were, and never will be "safe place". Even first WW1 tanks fell victims to direct fire from field guns very soon after they got breath after first shocks of them appearing in first place.

Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

Yep, safest place in conventional war against Russia and USA would be in attack class submarine. I can't imagine other assets having long lifespan.
Sorry for off topic

Elbows wrote:Hasn't armour almost always been at a disadvantage to anti-tank weapons (be it MBT rounds, ATGMs etc.).  I don't recall a time when any tank has been "safe" short of perhaps the heaviest tanks back in WW2 and even then aircraft could take them out.

I appreciate that we, as countries, have to design tanks to be as survivable as possible, but I don't think any army plans on tanks surviving very long in open combat against a similar opponent.  Look at the Abrams.  In the hands of a well supplied, well trained crew it's an excellent tank.  Put in the hands of poorly trained Iraqis it becomes a battlefield trophy for ISIS.

In a real engagement with top of the line modern tanks (T-90's, Armatas, Abrams, Leopard II's etc.) it'd be a matter of serious attrition, and that's assuming opposing aircraft didn't flatten most of them before the tanks even started engaging each other.  Sure we might have crews which survive, but in the modern battlefield, the tank is still a dangerous place to be.

Basically this, a pity the like option has gone the way of the mohicans.