T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

galicije83 wrote:In Russia they have OMSK Mash they can build T80 tanks...in UVZ, they have 3 line for tank production,one they use for made T90Ms, one for rebuild and modernized T72tanks and third one they made what they want...its amde for T14, so probably they also made T90Ms on this line...

OMSK also have two lines for made 80s, but for now they just modernized and rebuild old BVs they have it almost 2500 in stock ready for quick modernization and rebuild/repaire....and probably ~1000 witch they can use for easy spare parts for BVs who just go for rebuild/repair not modernisation...

I don't think Omsk has made any new tanks since the 90s or even the Soviet period, so I'm not sure they have the capacity to build new ones from scratch, at least not without all new equipment, investment and so on.

Besides which the T-80 series has not particularly stood out in this conflict, the whole range from the T-80Us in service with the Kantemirovskaya division to the latest T-80BVMs seem to have gotten regularly disabled or immobilized and abandoned throughout the conflict, although presumably preserving their crews and that's definitely a plus.
Still, to me the most survivable tank seems to be the T-90M, and given its considerably better value for money than the T-14 nevermind any of the NATO-standard tanks - it's the best tank of the war so far. Offloading extracurricular activities from Uralmash such as building trams and rolling stock to make way for more T-90M production and T-72 upgrading makes perfect sense.

ALAMO wrote:This conflict gives us the impression that the western tank building school is fuked up for real.
And it is not my private opinion, but a professional one.
All of them are way too heavy, bulky, and overcomplicated for war.
The logistics effort is enormous. Even planning a simple route is a challenge.
Too heavy for Ukrainian soil in Spring. - that would be a great joke, if not talked seriously.
Too heavy for Ukrainian soil in Autumn. - yeah, very funny, but why do you repeat that again, my two stars friend?
Perform bad in Winter, tracks get frozen to the ground. Like fukin serious?
Cooling system is ineffective and engine overheats in Summer conditions. No fukin kidding me!

And here comes T-72B3M and gives a fuk if that is Summer, Winter, Spring, or Autumn. Just drive&shoot. Magic!

It's not. If for no other reason than that at the time these tanks were all designed, the Western tank building school and wider NATO was definitely still sane and grounded in reality.
These tanks are designed for use as mobile bunkers facing one direction and with their superior thermals/optics allowing them to target advancing Soviet tanks at longer ranges, as well as targeting helicopters and all sorts of things. They have good reverse speeds so that they can leave these prepared positions when it becomes necessary without exposing their sides and back. They would have spent most of their time dug in or concealed and not moving about everywhere and becoming obvious targets for artillery and helicopter gunships.

That's the scenario they were designed for, and that's what they're going to be good at. Highly good at in fact.

Not for mobile warfare, long range travel over bridges and roads and everything else, all-seasons use, long periods between maintenance, moving around in conditions of fuel-economy, or fighting in Russian/Ukrainian terrain.

The Iraq experience kind of spoiled NATO war-planners as it convinced them that their hardware was really just that much more superior than the Soviet one and that it can be used well outside its actual use-case and that it could even act as a game-changer when pitted against Russian armour. And that things such as monstrous fuel-consumption and logistics costs were taken for granted too as the US simply had the resources to cope with it in Iraq, or in Afghanistan where the resources were all shared to other NATO members. Not a thought was spared for smaller players trying to go it alone independently of NATO's infastructure, such as the Ukraine.
Now they've been humbled and brought back to reality

No matter how good your tanks are they need support at all levels. Part of the T80's problem seems they ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned. 404 doesn't have any air support and probably very little logistical support. They have enough infantry support but artillery is a bitch.

Put APS on any tank and problem is solved for any FPV and ATGM...

galicije83 wrote:Put APS on any tank and problem is solved for any FPV and ATGM...

Not quite. Any currently used FPV can beat Arena-3 for example simply by making a slower final approach.

One thing i have noticed during the SMO is that often the T-90M's arent equipped with a KORD. Any thoughts on why? I would assume there is no need for it most of the time, but better have it and not need i always think.

The Kord is attached to the pano sight for the commander on the T-90AM so would be even more useful for being able to shoot what you see straight away without needing to turn the turret.

The T-80 is not as good as the T-90AM or T-14 but that does not make it a bad tank and in some situations it is a rather good tank... I would say in cold conditions the gas turbine would be rather better than a diesel.

It would burn a lot of fuel, but tanks are not known for not burning a lot of fuel.

The mesh screens would be excellent for stopping drone dropped hand grenade type weapons from getting too close to the crew hatches or inside the turrets... modelling it so APS systems still work would be a good thing too, but nothing is going to be perfect... no matter what defence you install they will come up with something else... ground based remote control vehicles with land mines for instance...

Suffice to say Russias problems with Armour are much smaller than HATO problems with their armour... which are not particularly bad either, but they are facing excellent anti tank defences and failing to the point of making them ineffective.

Equally Russia struggles with enemy drones, but everyone does and Russia has the advantage of having decent widespread air defence capacity and ground forces that don't expect their air power to solve air threat issues for them.

Integrated power packs with more than1 reverse gear are the future. The chinese have been using them for a decade. The russians still havent. No integrated power pack= less reliability, more complexity. russian engines and transmissions are complex and less reliable than the leopard 2's, K2's and type 99A's power packs.

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2023/03/08/vaunted-t-90m-tank-uses-outdated-power-units-inherited-from-t-72/

Except Russian tank engines are mature designs with decades in service and well-established servicing and supply chains and more importantly are in mass production now with massive stocks just waiting to be cleaned of cosmoline.

You want to talk reliability - fucking illiterate Syrian rebels managed to run a captured T-90 for months.

When the Russians complain about problems with the T-14 Armata's powerplant bear in mind that that is their standard for what makes a reliable tank engine.

Lets be honest. I can see that a good reverse speed can help you out of certain uncomfortable tactical situations but with the modern age of drones all over the place it's not really going to help much. You will still feel the stinging heat of a Krasnapol up your ass.

Just ask those two Challengers

ALAMO wrote:Let me guess - chimp made one more attempt to shit on Russkie tanks for low reverse speed?

yes. Slightly less trash reverse speed is the only reason T-80s are planned to be produced again. Id rather be in a PT-91 with 20km/h reverse speed or type 99A with 40km/h reverse than be in a T-72 exposing its rear..

Mir wrote:Lets be honest. I can see that a good reverse speed can help you out of certain uncomfortable tactical situations but with the modern age of drones all over the place it's not really going to help much. You will still feel the stinging heat of a Krasnapol up your ass.

Just ask those two Challengers

If you are facing a well-trained opponent who knows how to camouflage his position well and has good trigger discipline let's face it, no amount of reverse speed is going to save your ass from getting skewered in the cross-fire.

Even APS can only do so much. Just add more shooters to saturate.

Thankfully someone already worked out that massive artillery barrages are an excellent way to provide cover for troops attacking and disengaging. The only real enhancement here is if there is also a way to automatically catalog all the enemy shooters so you can have artillery actually land killing hits instead of merely suppressing them.

The T-14 has an unmanned turret crammed full of sensors that can do just the thing.

you can have artillery actually land killing hits

Artillery? In the not so distant future these babies will saturate the battlefield with loitering ammo. 


T-14s will send the target data back to them.

Reverse speed is critical as proven in World of Tanks and War Thunder because everyone knows if you can zip backwards at 20km/h you can hide behind a building that will stop any AP round known to man.

I mean obviously driving down a long straight road that runs along side trees on the side of the road your main priority in tank design is to be able to roll back up that 1km long road at a slightly faster speed of 20km/h because that will save you.

When the enemy have ATGMs that penetrate your frontal armour then presenting your frontal armour is no protection at all...

T-80 has a better reverse speed than t-72 and any tanker will tell you it's an advantage.

T-72 was thought for soviet union who operated 7000 of them. If not more. The tactic was to push abd overwhelm.

Now they have far less tanks so they have to make them better.

Hole wrote:

you can have artillery actually land killing hits

Artillery? In the not so distant future these babies will saturate the battlefield with loitering ammo. 


T-14s will send the target data back to them.

Just like hermes and koalitsiya was supposed to saturate the battlefield?