T-90 main battle tank

[reza12]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t90_3.jpg

The T-90 main battle tank, the most modern tank in the army arsenal, went into low-level production in 1993, based on a prototype designated as the T-88. The T-90 was developed by the Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau at the Vagonka Works in Nizhniy Tagil. Initially seen as an entirely new design, the production model is in fact based on the T-72BM, with some added features from the T-80 series. The T-90 features a new generation of armor on its hull and turret. Two variants, the T-90S and T-90E, have been identified as possible export models. Plans called for all earlier models to be replaced with T-90s by the end of 1997, subject to funding availability. By mid-1996 some 107 T-90s had gone into service in the Far Eastern Military District.

Derived from the T-72, the GPO Uralvagonzavod T-90 is the most modern tank currently in service with the Russian Army. Of conventional layout, the T-90 represents a major upgrade to every system in the T-72, including the main gun. The T-90 is an interim solution, pending the introduction of the new Nizhny Tagil MBT which has been delayed due to lack of funding. Produced primarily mainly due to its lower cost, the T-90 it will probably remain in low-rate production to keep production lines open until newer designs become available. Several hundred of these tanks have been produced, with various estimates suggesting that between 100 and 300 are in service, primarily in the Far East.

The T-90 retains the 125-mm 2A46-series main gun of the T-72 and T-80 which is capable of firing APDS, HEAT and HE-FRAG projectiles as well as time-fuzed shrapnel projectiles. The Refleks 9M119 AT-11 SNIPER laser-guided missile with a hollow-charge warhead is effective against both armored targets and low-flying helicopters. The missile, which can penetrate 700-mm of RHAe out to 4000 meters, gives the T-90 the ability to engage other vehicles and helicopters before they can engage the T-90. The computerised fire control system and laser range-finder, coupled with the new Agave gunner's thermal sight, permit the T-90 to engage targets while on the move and at night. However, this first generation system is probably not as capable as current Western counterpart systems. The tank is fitted with precision laying equipment and an automatic loader to guarantee a high rate of gun fire. Secondary armament includes a coaxial 7.62mm PKT machine gun and 12.7mm machine gun mount to for air and ground targets.


The T-90 features the low silhouette of the earlier Russian tanks, with a low rounded turret centered on the hull, and is fitted with combined passive and active defenses which make the T-90 one of the best protected main battle tanks in the world. The glacis is covered by second generation explosive reactive armor [ERA] bricks, as is the turret. This ERA gives the turret an angled appearance, with the ERA bricks forming a "clam shell" appearance. ERA bricks on the turret roof provide protection from top-attack weapons.
The T-90 is equiped with the TShU-1-7 Shtora-1 optronic counter measures system which is designed to disrupt the laser target designation and rangefinders of incoming ATGM. The T-90 is also equipped with a laser warning package that warns the tank crew when it is being lased. Shtora-1 is an electro-optical jammer that jams the enemy?s semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) antitank guided missiles, laser rangefinders and target designators. Shtora-1 is actually a soft kill, or countermeasures system. It is most effective when used in tandem with a hard kill system such as the Arena. During the International Defense Exposition (IDEX) held in Abu Dhabi in 1995, the system was shown fitted to a Russian MBT. The first known application of the system is the Russian T-90 MBT that entered service in the Russian Army in 1993. Shtora-1 is currently installed on the T-80UK, T-80U, T-84 and T-90 MBTs.

The Shtora-1 system comprises four key components, the electro-optical interface station, which includes a jammer, modulator, and control panel; a bank of forward-firing grenade dischargers mounted on either side of the turret that are capable of firing grenades dispensing an aerosol screen; a laser warning system with precision and coarse heads; and a control system comprising control panel, microprocessor, and manual screen-laying panel. This processes the information from the sensors and activates the aerosol screen-laying system. Two infrared lights, one on each side of the main gun, continuously emit coded pulsed infrared jamming when an incoming ATGM has been detected. Shtora-1 has a field of view of 360-degrees horizontally and -5 to +25-degrees in elevation. It contains 12 aerosol screen launchers and weighs 400kg. The screening aerosol takes less than 3 seconds to form and lasts about 20 seconds. The screen laying range is between 50-70 meters.


The T-90 is powered by the V-84MS 618 kW (840 hp) four-stroke V-12 piston multi-fuel diesel engine, which can also run on T-2, TS-1 kerosene and A-72 benzine. This engine results in a power to weight ratio of only 18.06 hp/ton, considerably less than that of the T-80. The tank crew can prepare fording equipment within 20 minutes to negotiate 5 meter deep water obstacles. The tank is also fitted with the NBC protection system and mounted mineclearing equipment.

Iran Should Buy Russian T-90 Tanks.

[Kilo877]

I agree, the T-90 should fill in the gap until the Zolfiqar-3 MBT is ready for service. Also the T-90 is based on the T-72 which Iran already operates so this should make it easier for them to incorporate it into their inventory.

Here are some videos of the T-90 in action (in Russian!).

http://www.army.lv/video/32.wmv

http://www.army.lv/video/135.wmv

http://vlobin.narod.ru/t90.WMV

[reza12]

I agree.:)

[persian armed forces]

cool :confused:

[G-Capo]

Buy the production rights to the T-90,Also order a batch of 200 plus simulators and have Iranian crews train in India and Russia.

Should be good to repel any attack.

[Hmmmmm....]

The T-90 blows up as nice as the T-72.

[Kilo877]

The T-90 blows up as nice as the T-72.
How do you know in what fashion either of these tanks blow up? are you a Chechnyan who fights against the Russian army or something?

Well the T-90 hasn't been used in combat so nobody knows if it "blows up nice" as you put it.

however here a couple of pictures of the US M1 abrams which certainly looks like it "blows up nice"........
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/images/war/usloss/abrams2.jpg
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/images/war/usloss/abrams1.jpg

[Hmmmmm....]

How do you know in what fashion either of these tanks blow up? are you a Chechnyan who fights against the Russian army or something?

Well the T-90 hasn't been used in combat so nobody knows if it "blows up nice" as you put it.

however here a couple of pictures of the US M1 abrams which certainly looks like it "blows up nice"........
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/images/war/usloss/abrams2.jpg
http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/images/war/usloss/abrams1.jpg

The Rounds that are Stored in the Autoloader of all T-72, T-80 and T-90 Type tanks will ignite in case of Penetration killing the whole crew and blasting the turret off.
That is a well known effect, this is why new russian Prototypes like Black Eagle have a Similar Turret design to the M1 with blast openings.

[meteor]

When India evaluated the T90, it has proven ineffective under hot and dry climate. Especially their gasturbine-engine had massive overheating-problems.
But it is unclear if this statement by the Indian Army was politically motivated.

I personally doubt that the T90 would be that great step forward...

[shida pistool]

T-90 is a good tank but why Iran is not going to buy Chinese tyupe -98/99 the latest one or Al-khalid by Pakistan.........????
I had read some time ago in a report by some westren defence anylasists that around 38 or 42 % of the Tank Exports will be covered by T-90,Al-Khalid and Israel's Merkeva tanks for the next 15 years.........

[MiG 31]

T-90 is a good tank but why Iran is not going to buy Chinese tyupe -98/99 the latest one or Al-khalid by Pakistan.........????
I had read some time ago in a report by some westren defence anylasists that around 38 or 42 % of the Tank Exports will be covered by T-90,Al-Khalid and Israel's Merkeva tanks for the next 15 years.........

type-98/99 hold the same 125mm gun like Zulfiqar-3MBT so theres no need into buying new tanks.

[Hmmmmm....]

T-90 is a good tank but why Iran is not going to buy Chinese tyupe -98/99 the latest one or Al-khalid by Pakistan.........????
I had read some time ago in a report by some westren defence anylasists that around 38 or 42 % of the Tank Exports will be covered by T-90,Al-Khalid and Israel's Merkeva tanks for the next 15 years.........

Sounds not likely, the Merkava hasnt been exported anywhere so far and T-90 and Al-Khalid are completely outdated because they are T-72 based.
The performance shown by T-72 in Iraq has effectively stopped export success of this line of tanks.

[Hoosier34]

Iran is a pretty big country. I would think there best bet would instead of buying tanks, work on imroving the equipment of the everyday soldier, and improving communications so that they can survive sustained bombardment. The forces attacking Iran would be generally light and engaged in the cities. So Iran if it were attacked by say China, or India, or the Russians should rely on what I outlined above. Tanks mentioned above are all good. But if you have 600 in great condition, then thats better then having say 2000 in not so good condition with not well trained crews. Go for smaller, more effective forces that are higher trained and this will serve Iran better then relying on massive units of poorly equiped and trained forces.

My 2 cents!

Cya
Brad

[Hmmmmm....]

Any attacker Iran would face will most likely have complete Air superiourity and win the war within days. Nobody in the west fears the Iranian army, Airforce or Navy to be honest.
What they fear is a largescale Insurgency like in Iraq, it would be much more costly in Iran because its bigger and more populated.

Defeating Iran is a matter of hours, but holding it is nearly impossible.

[Hoosier34]

I don't think there will be a war though honestly. I also think the Iranians have more experience with independence to be honest then the average Iraqi had. Iran may have a president I totally disagree with but there are alot of different ethnic, and religous groups that are not subjected to ( from what I hear ) the same types of trouble groups in Iraq were subjected too. However women, and people who are interested in more democratic institutions sure still catch alot of trouble.

So I do think, that if the time comes when push comes to shove, it wouldnt surprise me if the more moderate members of the Iranian government divide with the current president and we see an easier transition for Iran. On the other hand like I said the current president could just as easily lighten up a bit and everything would probably be alright. The United States is having a slow go of it in Iraq because the United States is not really a country that likes to do the martial law thing. We like to go in and then rebuild and leave. We arent there despite what alot of people wrongly think to try to disrespect Islam, convert the people to our culture ect. We just went in to fix a problem we helped start and to end the mass killings by an evil man ( Sadamn ).

Cya
Brad

[attitude]

http://www.irandefence.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=309&stc=1&d=1140343394



Al-Khalid is one of the newest and one of the most deadliest tanks in the world, its a result of the advanced technology available in the world today. It meets severe desert conditions, with high performance. It represents the ideal integration of firepower, mobility and protection. This tank is created In Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) Pakistan. Pilot production is underway since November 2000.

Al-Khaild Tanks Unique Abilities

Al-Khalid is capable of targeting the enemy in the dark of night. It is the only tank that has the ability to auto-track the enemy's tanks. Only French tanks have this capability. It is also as powerful as the German tank Leopard in terms of movement. The Al-Khalid tank's performance is much better than the Russian T-90-S tank, since its designed extreme temperatures.

Features & Fire Power

Al-Khalid has been designed with a 125mm (48 caliber) smooth bore, auto-frettaged and chrome plated gun which can fire APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FS conventional ammunition and missiles. It is equipped with muzzle reference system, and bi-axis stabilization. Elevation and azimuth control is achieved by electro-hydraulic power drives. The tank is also equipped with a 7.62 mm-coaxial MG, 12.7mm externally mounted MG that can be fired with the hatch closed and grenade launchers.
The gunner is provided with a dual magnification day sight and the commander with a panoramic Hunter Killer sight for all around independent surveillance. Both sights are bi-axis image stabilized and have independent laser range finders.

Multi-Target Engagement Abilities

The commander has the ability of acquiring a target independently while the gunner is engaging a previously selected one.

Rate Of Fire

The automatic ammunition handling system, with 24 round ready-to-fire magazine further supplements the Hunter-Killer capability of the tank which can load at a rate of 8 rounds a minute. The presence of automatic target tracking system enables the tank to achieve a very high first round hit probability even while firing on a moving target while moving itself.
Night Vision
Night vision for the gunner and commander is achieved through a dual magnification thermal imaging sight. The powerful fire control system computer processes all the firing information, which includes inputs from its ten sensors and is integrated to both sights.
Fire Control
The ballistic computation time is less than one second. For accurate fire control, third generation gating facility has been provided. The result of such a modern fire control system is, routine first round hits on standard (8 ft x 8 ft) targets at ranges in excess of 2000 meters.
The tank with its 125mm gun has a remarkably stable platform, which is provided by a combination of soft recoil and an excellent suspension.

Wrapped around the fire control system are the ergonomic crew positions and controls. The tank commander, gunner and driver can virtually reach all their controls with little movement.
Engine
A 1200 horsepower super charged, diesel engine and semi-automatic transmission, provides mobility. An under Armour auxiliary power supply unit provides a significant reduction in fuel consumption during 'Silent Watch' and maintenance operations, as auxiliary functions can be performed without main engine power. The highly reliable suspension consists of torsion bars, hydraulic dampers and buffers that afford a high level of comfort for its crew.
Combat Weight & Speed
Besides a low silhouette, it is considerably smaller as compared to other modern tanks. Its maximum weight of 46 tons provides a double advantage; it is strategically easily deployed and is more agile. Its power to weight ratio, in excess of 26 HP/ton, gives the vehicle a maximum speed of around 70 km/h, acceleration from 0~ 30 km/h in less than 10 seconds.

Its low mean maximum pressure and the excellent ride given by its suspension make Al-Khalid an ideal vehicle to fight in any theatre of operation.
Armour & Protection
Al-Khalid has been designed to provide maximum protection and efficiency for its 3 men crew. Protection is afforded by use of modular composite Armour and explosive reactive Armour. Al-Khalid also offers enhanced protection through NBC, an effective Thermal Smoke Generation, Automatic Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Suppression Systems.
Limited Under Water Capabilities
The submerging system allows it to operate 5 meters under water. Navigation is assisted by the use of Global Positioning and Inertial Navigation Systems.

Al-Khalid & Arjun Tank

Al-Khalid is far more modern than India's Arjun, which took 25 years to be developed and is still not completed. Pakistan already has an edge over India in an armed conflict, but after the addition of Al-Khalid, Pakistan would be invincible in a land war.

[-Cobra-]

Now, I do not think that Iran interest in it have new tanks types to buy, because Iran already tinkers at the Zolfaghar, and beside with also T-72 tank freshly produces, thus Iran would like to be independently, also because of the ore sentence parts, Iran by the war learned!

EDIT:All T-72 tank in Iran to be produced, is modernized T-72 MBT

[hanjarsoldier]

finally somebody has showed american tanks destroyed. in early 2004 an abrams tank was pulvarised it got out that it was a anti-tank missile later on the badr resistance said it done it with a kornet missile. the good news is iran is said to have up to 800 missiles maybe they were testing it.

[Snauhi]

al Khalid advanced tank? Pakistan have no supercy vs India on ground India just bought T-90's in large numbers. khalid is full of Ukranine iquipment, notihing new there.. this tank is almost build by Ukraine with some chinees help.. and again your source is very pro-pakistani...

[attitude]

i wasnt trying to be pro anything. Im an aussie so i guess that makes me pro Australian. I did that post late at night and copied and pasted from the site because i found some info and pics on the al-khalid and shared it with all. I should have read it first i admit because yes it is a crap tank and so is the Arjun so if the 2 met in battle it would be even and fair lol.
Im not pro anything dude. I believe that the french Leclerc is the worlds best tank at the moment

http://www.pakistanidefence.com/PakArmy/AlKhaildMBT2000.html

[Snauhi]

i wasnt trying to be pro anything. Im an aussie so i guess that makes me pro Australian. I did that post late at night and copied and pasted from the site because i found some info and pics on the al-khalid and shared it with all. I should have read it first i admit because yes it is a crap tank and so is the Arjun so if the 2 met in battle it would be even and fair lol.
Im not pro anything dude. I believe that the french Leclerc is the worlds best tank at the moment

Nah, i belive its LEO-2A6

[RPG-29]

finally somebody has showed american tanks destroyed. in early 2004 an abrams tank was pulvarised it got out that it was a anti-tank missile later on the badr resistance said it done it with a kornet missile. the good news is iran is said to have up to 800 missiles maybe they were testing it.
Hello all.
Kornet is a very good anti-armour rocket Russia has had lots of problem because of expots and them used in Iraq,and thats what iran should start to manufacture as soon as possible.It has good anti-tank weapons but it lack something for medium ranges maybe even a french eryx that will give its infatry a big edge in any american tank assault and with A.A. Misagh it would complete the circle because tanks by u.s. army doctrine ara followed closely by attack helicopters.Anyway,both tandem cumulative rockets can slice any modern tank in half no matter how much depleted uranium,chobbam armour,reactive armor,electric armour....u put on it.

[uppal340]

Al-Khalid is capable of targeting the enemy in the dark of night. It is the only tank that has the ability to auto-track the enemy's tanks. Only French tanks have this capability. It is also as powerful as the German tank Leopard in terms of movement. The Al-Khalid tank's performance is much better than the Russian T-90-S tank, since its designed extreme temperatures.
The engine compartment fire protection system has been designed to detect and extinguish engine fires caused by fuel leaks or overheating of the engine. Several seconds are typically available to suppress the fire and, generally, temperature detection is sufficiently rapid. A typical engine compartment system consists of a control unit, fire sensors (either continuous linear thermal or infrared optical fire/explosion) and an extinguisher distribution system. Engine compartments can be protected by installing linear thermal sensors, optical infrared sensors or an optical/thermal hybrid system to suit the specific application requirements. The control unit provides a warning signal if the fire is detected within the engine compartment. Extinguishing is achieved using an electrically or mechanically actuated high rate discharge system. AS90, CRARRV, Challenger, Leopard, T90, Al-Khalid, C1 Ariete MBT and Chunma are just some of the vehicles which have been fitted with such a system.

[uppal340]

The engine compartment fire protection system has been designed to detect and extinguish engine fires caused by fuel leaks or overheating of the engine. Several seconds are typically available to suppress the fire and, generally, temperature detection is sufficiently rapid. A typical engine compartment system consists of a control unit, fire sensors (either continuous linear thermal or infrared optical fire/explosion) and an extinguisher distribution system. Engine compartments can be protected by installing linear thermal sensors, optical infrared sensors or an optical/thermal hybrid system to suit the specific application requirements. The control unit provides a warning signal if the fire is detected within the engine compartment. Extinguishing is achieved using an electrically or mechanically actuated high rate discharge system. AS90, CRARRV, Challenger, Leopard, T90, Al-Khalid, C1 Ariete MBT and Chunma are just some of the vehicles which have been fitted with such a system.

[Pure_sunni]

You guys kidding my the T-90 owns abrams when i play BF 2 i own with my T-90 all tanks :cool: ;)


hahah

[MiG 31]

You guys kidding my the T-90 owns abrams when i play BF 2 i own with my T-90 all tanks :cool: ;)


hahah


do you play as jetaircrafts? i swear man im so good with the F-18 its not even funny... but I must say.. im very dissapointed in J-10... what a sh*t plane :(.

[Janbaz]

Guys, Iran did test the Al-Khalid Tank in 2003. The results were so disappointing that Iran discontinued with testing. Paskistan on the other hand, bought back the three Al-khalid tank from Iran in the promise of not publishing the results of Iranian testing to Gulf Arab nations, so Pakistan can go ahead with the sales to those countires.

My 2 cents.

[shida pistool]

any link??????? Mr Janbaz........

[attitude]

if one tank has seen more combat than any other tank in the world it is the T-55
Russian's build them well
Black Eagle should be great

[uppal340]

This is simply a big lie cause as soon as pakistan launched its
al-khalid tank,first
one to arrive for deal is saudi national gaurds its a big **** **** by janbaz.
where as MBT zoulfiquar is concern it is piece of junkyard being build
by iran mixing
all the old bloody junkyard tanks.

[extern]

Eurasian tanks smash the Westerns ;)

Dean Lockwood, a weapons systems analyst at Forecast International, notes that in terms of sheer numbers, Pakistan’s Al-Khalid, the Type 98 of the People’s Republic of China, and the Russian Federation’s T-90 represent the most significant new-production main battle tanks on the international market. Said Lockwood, “We expect production of these three tanks to account for nearly 43 percent of all new tanks rolling out worldwide, worth nearly 38 percent of the market in value, through 2014.”

In terms of new production, the days of U.S. and European domination over the international main battle tank market appear to be long gone. http://www.forecastinternational.com/press/release.cfm?article=58

[Janbaz]

This is simply a big lie cause as soon as pakistan launched its
al-khalid tank,first
one to arrive for deal is saudi national gaurds its a big **** **** by janbaz.
where as MBT zoulfiquar is concern it is piece of junkyard being build
by iran mixing
all the old bloody junkyard tanks.

Please go and check the ACIG forum. You should see the smiliar posting there. This is not a ****, it is a FACT and truth. You look at it how ever you want to look at it. I am not here to fight or argue. You stated your point, and your point very well taken, but Fact is Fact no matter how you look at it.

[tankerjones]

To those here dismissing the T-90 as no threat have obviously never heard a 125mm round impact the hull of an Abrams.

Speaking as someone who has survived such an impact from a T-72, I would be indeed very nervous going up against a T-90 with a well trained crew. Moreover, from what I know, Iran has a very well trained army. Conquering Iran would not at all be a matter of hours, no matter how carefully planned and executed. In my opinion, the Iranian airforce is a force to be reckoned with, and without air superiority, the US has no major advantage.

The Abrams is a great tank, I know, I crew one. That doesn't make it the say all end all in MBT's. I would surely rather take an M1 into battle than a T-90, but that's mostly because the M1 was designed around keeping the crew alive at all costs, wheras the T-90 was mostly made to destroy the M1.

Ammo cookoffs are very scary to a tanker indeed.

[PHC12]

Al Khalid was made by China not Pakistan.

[extern]

Al Khalid was made by China not Pakistan.
- Not exact. It is common project of Pakistan, China and Ukraine (the last gave engine, transmission, active armor, laser jamming sistem etc).

[extern]

The Abrams is a great tank, I know, I crew one. That doesn't make it the say all end all in MBT's. I would surely rather take an M1 into battle than a T-90, but that's mostly because the M1 was designed around keeping the crew alive at all costs, wheras the T-90 was mostly made to destroy the M1.
Yaar, Abrams is good. But its better passive armor advance is overhelm by active measures like Shtora and Arena. Also T-90C - is more agile and has lesser silhuette, that pretty helps to avoid hits. Please take into the account that if Abrams crew is die - it mean dead 4. If T-90C crew dead - it's means only 3 (25% safely for man). I like Abrams, but I think, the time of big tanks gonna end. Now even in USA the more light tanks are under development.

[tankerjones]

extern, you're totally right. the age of big tanks is definately over. wars move too fast anymore for my lumbering beast to be effective. however, the abrams is going to be outfitted with a full compliment of reactive armor, that will definately help it's survivability against ATGMs.

lets just see how fast the army actually equips them with it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/03/mil-050309-arnews01.htm

[extern]

I saw it before, but now it will takes years for the Americans to close the gap with the Russian in active armor technologies. If you'l look on the american reactive armor blocks, they seem like russian or ukranian one generation before.

[tankerjones]

from what ive been told they do ok against smaller projectiles, like the RPG-7 and RPG-9, but they're useless against anything up to date.

you'd think with the amount of money america spends on it's military, they'd be able to stay current with russia :-D

[extern]

from what ive been told they do ok against smaller projectiles, like the RPG-7 and RPG-9, but they're useless against anything up to date.

you'd think with the amount of money america spends on it's military, they'd be able to stay current with russia :-D
THe Newest ERA like Kontakt-5 or Kakatus, is good against both ATGM and last generation APFSDS sabots. The explosion of ERA brokes the sabots:
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/1938/obps2lx.th.jpg (http://img164.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obps2lx.jpg)
The Active defence systems like Drozd, Drozd-2 or Arena, are ultimative effective against both RPG and high precision munition. Look here: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html

Also the US now gonna reduce the budget of Abrams and Breadley modernisation for something like 60 bil$. They need its money for the war against Islamic World in Iraq, Afghanistan and now - with Iran. US losed time being occupied by 'massive passive armor' phylosophy, and now the american ERA seems to be more massive and less advanced than Russian ERA:
http://img430.imageshack.us/img430/4460/upgradebig9zv.th.jpg (http://img430.imageshack.us/my.php?image=upgradebig9zv.jpg) http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/2905/25fe.th.jpg (http://img395.imageshack.us/my.php?image=25fe.jpg)

[Janbaz]

Zolfaqar


Reports suggest that this Iranian MBT bears a close resemblance to the American M1 Abrams.
One of the features of the Zolfaqar tank which has drawn the attention of the Defense Ministry is that indigenously-made parts have been used in it. The testing prototypes of the tank were tested in 1993. Six semi-industrial prototypes of the tank were produced and tested in 1997.
In April 1997 Acting Commander of the Ground Forces of the Iranian Army, Lieutenant General Mohammad Reza Ashtiani announced that the mass production of Zulfiqar tanks, which began in 1996, was still in progress. He stated that the manufacture of 520 different kinds of tank parts, 600 artillery parts, repair of 500 tanks and armored vehicles have been carried out. In late July 1997 Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani of Iran formally inaugurated a production line for the domestically manufactured Zulfiqar main battle tanks and Boragh tracked armoured personnel carriers. The facility, the Shahid Kolah Dooz Industrial Complex, will also produce the BMT-2 personnel carrier identified.
The Iranian tank is armed with a 125mm smoothbore gun fitted with a fume extractor which may be fed from an automatic loader. It is known that the Zulfiqar uses suspension like that fitted to Western MBTs such as the M48/M60 MBT. The diesel engine is not taken from the T-72 since this has a distinct exhaust outlet on the left side of the hull. This feature is absent on the Zulfiqar.
The most recent T-72 is the 'S' version. The T-72S MBT weighs 44.5 tonnes and is armed with the latest stabilized 125mm smoothbore 2A46M gun, IA40-1 computerised fire-control system (FCS) with laser rangefinder and day/image intensification night sighting system. As well as firing the normal types of 125mm separate-loading ammunition (projectile and charge), the T-72S can also fire a Svir 9M119 (NATO designation AT-11 'Sniper') laser beam-riding guided projectile to a range of 4,000m. The T-72S is powered by the V-84MS diesel engine, which develops 840hp and, with a combat weight of 44.5 tonnes, a power-to-weight ratio of 18.87hp/tonne is obtained. For greater cross-country mobility, the suspension has also been upgraded and mine protection improved.
T-72Z An upgrade has been developed in Iran called the Type 72Z in order to extend the operational life of the T-54/T-55 MBTs, and the similar Chinese Type 59 equivalent used by Iran, all of which are armed with a 100mm gun.
The existing 100mm gun has been replaced by a 105mm M68 rifled tank gun in service with Iran on the M60A1 MBT. The Armament Industries Division of the DIO probably makes this weapon because for some years it has had the capability to bore tank and artillery barrels, such as the 122mm Russian D-30.
To improve first-round hit probability, the Type 72Z has a Slovenian Fontana EFCS-3 computerised FCS. According to the manufacturer, installation of the EFCS-3 FCS enables stationary or moving targets to be engaged while the Type T72Z MBT is static or moving.
The 7.62mm co-axial and roof-mounted 12.7mm machine guns have been retained as has the ability to lay a smoke screen by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust outlet on the left of the hull. In addition, four electrically operated smoke-grenade dischargers have been mounted on each side of the turret.
At least one example of the Type 72Z has been fitted with a roof-mounted laser warning device, probably coupled to a commander's display and the electrically operated smoke-grenade launchers either side of the turret.
Iranian sources say the upgraded Type 72Z is powered by the V-46-6 V-12 diesel engine developing 780hp. This engine has been integrated into a new powerpack, which also includes the SPAT 1200 transmission for use in automatic or semi-automatic modes. The V-46 V-12 diesel engine is also installed in early production T-72 series MBTs, such as the T-72 and T-72A, and Iran could obtain these from various sources besides Russia.
The Type 72Z's combat weight is quoted as 36 tonnes, power-to-weight ratio 21.66hp/tonne and maximum road speed is 65km/h. This compares with the T-55 MBT, which has a power-to-weight ratio of 16.11hp/tonne and a maximum road speed of 50km/h.
Last year, the Shahid Kolah Dooz Industrial Complex revealed it had developed a new ERA package that can be rapidly fixed to the T-54/ T-55, T-72 and other MBTs to improve battlefield survivability against chemical energy (CE) and kinetic energy (KE) attack. This Iranian ERA package is similar to that being made and marketed by Russia and has been installed on Russian MBTs, such as the T-80BV, for some years. The Iranian ERA armour system comprises one composite layer. This protects against KE and CE projectiles and an extra energetic material that provides protection against KE attack. Iranian sources said this system can be dropped from a height of 5m; will not be activated from small arms fire up to 30mm in calibre or grenades; and is resistant to napalm type weapons.

Zolfaqar 1

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic1-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic1.jpg) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic2-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic2.jpg) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic3-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic3.jpg) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic4-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic4.jpg) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic5-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar1-pic5.jpg) Zolfaqar 2

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar2-pic1-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar2-pic1.jpg) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar2-pic2-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar2-pic2.jpg) Zolfaqar 3

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar3-pic1-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar3-pic1.jpg) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar3-pic2-s.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/zolfaghar3-pic2.jpg)

[tankerjones]

That armor is crazy! We don't have anything even approaching that. Honestly, I really dont understand why the US doesn't just buy the technology from Russia. Why spend more money developing something that probably will be just as good, if not not quite as good. I know it would look bad politically, but honestly, the cold war has been over for 15+ years, lets move on and spend less money.

[extern]

That armor is crazy! We don't have anything even approaching that. Honestly, I really dont understand why the US doesn't just buy the technology from Russia. Why spend more money developing something that probably will be just as good, if not not quite as good. I know it would look bad politically, but honestly, the cold war has been over for 15+ years, lets move on and spend less money.
Which cold war you mean? The First Cold War finished in 1973 by West defeat (Vietnam, Energy supply crisis). After that was detente and regrouping (SIno-American antisoviet pact, Soyuz-Appolo program, Helsinky Conference etc). After detente period the Second Cold War was started (Afghanistan, Olympic boycot etc). The East was defeated. Now - the new detente and new strategic regrouping still continue, I hope.

Nobody responsible in Russia even think to sell for US the most sensitive technology, like ERA. New tanks (Black Eagle and especially T-95) - are highly secretive projects. After all blah blah blah the new Soft War allready begun...

[tankerjones]

Haha, you're right, I should have specified. I wonder where the cuban missile crisis would fall into that timeline....

Honestly, these days America and Russia are practically allies. Might not like eachother all that much, but nevertheless, Russia knows America would never ever go to war with them, it wouldn't be reasonable. And they do need the money....

So what's a Soft War?

[isr agent]

Soft war= a war fought with air soft guns :D
My type of war :cool:

[tankerjones]

Hahaha, hell yes. I love my airsoft.

[AK-101]

Hahaha, hell yes. I love my airsoft.

ME TOO!

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7924/uncm4marinetanbig3ny.jpg
this is what I've always wanted but too much money for my taste.

[extern]

So what's a Soft War?
The soft war is war, that being conducted with use of so calld 'soft power' (look for definition in 'The Decline of America's Soft Power' By Joseph S. Nye http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.html) but the aim remain untouched: the destruction of the foe. However, the 'foe' definition is gonna be changed a bit: now it is 'foe civilisation' as a concentration of hostile soft power.

What is the place of tanks in that Soft War - is a big & non-trivial question...

[Egyptian Pharaoh]

extern, you're totally right. the age of big tanks is definately over. wars move too fast anymore for my lumbering beast to be effective. however, the abrams is going to be outfitted with a full compliment of reactive armor, that will definately help it's survivability against ATGMs.

I think the whole age of tanks not big tanks is over. With the incredible development in rotary crafts and the anti-armour missiles (Hellfire), it is useless to lumber a 70 ton hulking monster to kill a T-90 while you can fly an Apache (or a future Comanche) that takes it with precision from 8km. And if it ain't knocked down, give it another Hellfire :). The Abrams is pretty much being decommissioned now and the only active production/assembly line now is in Egypt. The Egyptian government is stupid enough to spend billions on assembling a 70 ton tank that needs its weight maintenance and fuel.

[tankerjones]

you're probably right pharaoh. i hate to see it considering one of my MOS' and my favorite MOS is being a tanker. however, sometimes it is nice to have something that thick skinned in combat. the abrams is pretty much impervious to RPG's and with proper reactive armor, might even survive a hellfire. this makes it invaluable in urban warfar, simply because it is so hard to kill.

but you are definately right that the days of massive tank battles across open plains are over. with airpower at the level it will, the war will be decided long before the tanks even meet, by who manages air superiority.

[extern]

I think the whole age of tanks not big tanks is over. With the incredible development in rotary crafts and the anti-armour missiles (Hellfire), it is useless to lumber a 70 ton hulking monster to kill a T-90 while you can fly an Apache (or a future Comanche) that takes it with precision from 8km. And if it ain't knocked down, give it another Hellfire :).
U r very right regards to Apache vs. Abrams, but U r probably wrong, Paroh, if u think the same about T-90S: the newest active defence systems of T-90, like Arena (http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html ) effectively conter Hellfire or any other high precision weapon from distance. Also as like as a helo can fire Hellfire onto the tank, the tanks like T-90 can hit the helo by guided missile like Refles-M ( http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/atgm/ammo.html ), & helos dont have any armor, active or passive as u know. It is only a traditional game between sword and shield...

[isr agent]

Yeah the merkava tank can take out helicopters with the LAHAT missile, it has been on the merkava mk 4 video.

[RPG-29]

I think the whole age of tanks not big tanks is over. With the incredible development in rotary crafts and the anti-armour missiles (Hellfire), it is useless to lumber a 70 ton hulking monster to kill a T-90 while you can fly an Apache (or a future Comanche) that takes it with precision from 8km. And if it ain't knocked down, give it another Hellfire :). The Abrams is pretty much being decommissioned now and the only active production/assembly line now is in Egypt. The Egyptian government is stupid enough to spend billions on assembling a 70 ton tank that needs its weight maintenance and fuel.
No it is not.The tanks can make smoke screens that improve survivability,can dig in,rotate the front most armored part to incoming missile.More sensors are added.Aircraft and missile detection systems are getting better,also speed and good acceleration helps,tanks are by doctrine followed by infantry [with portable manpads] and\or mobile AA systems like thor,pantsyr...Anyways tank will never dissapear but they will almost never attack alone but together with other weapons of war combined.
Commanche stealth attack-helicopter program has been canceled like 2-3 years ago with billions of dollars wasted.

[Egyptian Pharaoh]

U r very right regards to Apache vs. Abrams, but U r probably wrong, Paroh, if u think the same about T-90S: the newest active defence systems of T-90, like Arena (http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html ) effectively conter Hellfire or any other high precision weapon from distance. Also as like as a helo can fire Hellfire onto the tank, the tanks like T-90 can hit the helo by guided missile like Refles-M ( http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/atgm/ammo.html )

Now we're describing helos against air defence. You can carry the anti-helo missiles on a donkey cart not a 40 ton hulking tank. I think that the confrentation is basically missile technology as it is going to be in air battles. The Hellfires come from ABOVE and they just smack the turret on the head. In this sense, you don't need much armor in the front or on the sides.

RPG, if you depend on tank's maneuverability to dodge supersonic radar guided fire-and-forget missiles, you should think twice

[RPG-29]

Now we are getting somewhere.
If u launch it from lets say 3-6 km away [because the good sensores on tank will spot the big attack helicopter if any closer-it depends on configuration,vegetation,also other factors and Iran is good ambush country],and if missile like u say is flying 300+--600 m/sec in that case u have 5-10 seconds to respond.That is enough time with quality CPU and software that detects fast incoming missile warns crew and automatically respond by smoke-screen than moving tank left or right few methers and if crew wants then it allowes CPU rotating the front armor turret to incoming lets say hellfire projectile that comes almost on horizontal path not vertical.Black eagle thanks to superb manuevrability+heavily sloped armor performed very good.

[Egyptian Pharaoh]

That is enough time with quality CPU and software that detects fast incoming missile warns crew and automatically respond by smoke-screen than moving tank left or right few methers and if crew wants then it allowes CPU rotating the front armor turret to incoming lets say hellfire projectile that comes almost on horizontal path not vertical.Black eagle thanks to superb manuevrability+heavily sloped armor performed very good.
Hellfire comes from above. It is fire-and-forget. The helo pops up, locks the tank, spits the Hellfire, and escapes. The Hellfire thrusts upward to evade any vegetation or terrain obstructions. It homes itself to the tank and smack it from the sky and it never follows a horizontal trajectory. It's a tough test for anti-missile defences, but NOT for smoke blankets or tank maneuverability. It's ridiculous to depend on any ground moving object to evade guided supersonic missiles by the virtue of its speedy turret or maneuverability.

[RPG-29]

Do you know just how much 5-10 seconds mean?Half a second in war can be life saving.
New CPU-s are extremely fast unlike crews [crew fatigue is usually their worst enemy] when they act on their owh to evade.
Helo is locking the tank.
O.K.
And the tank is doing what?
If it has laser sensores warns ....crew and CPU knowes.
If it uses heat-seaking the new larg area smoke screens confuses it totally.
If helicopter pop-up with quality IR-detection sensores [it has bigger heat exaust signature than tank] and it is detected,incoming missile is detected...
Hellfires trajectory is not vertical but at 30-60 degree from horizont.
Can you specify your questions?
Oufcourse i am talking about the newest generation tanks here.

[Egyptian Pharaoh]

Let's be simple. My question is:
An Apache cruising at 180 km/h showed on a radar for 5 seconds and disappeared. There is a Hellfire (Laser/radar guided + 1.3 Mach (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-114.html)) that will smack the Tank in 10 seconds. You have excellent early warning systems that will continue screaming for the next 10 seconds. Sort all your effective defences against this threat.

[RPG-29]

Look i dont have anything against you and i dont wanna fight you,im looking for constructive argumented talk that helps us both gain...
The 1991 was 15 years ago and CPU era then was 286,386 DOS OS,not even pentium 1.The iraqi tanks lagged even more they were imported from old S.U. and had even worse electronics and crews were not well trained.
Now we have dual-core,64mhz,pentium,7,8...
Can you understand that.
So the tanks are not dumb bricks on battlefield anymore.
The full,complete answers i can give you in new topic.
I think i answered to infrared,laser-guided.
Now radar seems more complicated but its not.The smoke-screen is also of a metalic aluminium compound spread around to confuse radar...Radar reflective that makes lots of clutter to confuse radar. and low profile of new tank helps.The Attack helicopter has been spoted as you say and probably fired upon thanks to improved reaction time and auto-loaders of the tank.Or the infantry or close support AA self-propelled systems depending on the situation have attacked it,or are starting to attack the incoming missile.And if it passes all that tank has moved,thats the point SURVIVABILITY,you and i dont know if it will smack the tank or miss it.And last-if it hits it will be on new and improved frontal armor not sides or rear to improve chanse of survival of tank and crew.
I am not saying it is indestructible but that the things have changed.

[Egyptian Pharaoh]

I can elicit these defences:
1. Special smoke blanket that inhibits radar tracking. (This one is new to me)
2. CPU controlled AA artillary.

This is the first time I knew that a smoke blanket can effectively inhibit radar tracking. If so, a tank can spew a large flume of smoke that distracts the inbound missile. Please give a link for this defence.

[AK-101]

I can elicit these defences:
1. Special smoke blanket that inhibits radar tracking. (This one is new to me)
2. CPU controlled AA artillary.

This is the first time I knew that a smoke blanket can effectively inhibit radar tracking. If so, a tank can spew a large flume of smoke that distracts the inbound missile. Please give a link for this defence.

I hight doubt that smoke can do that to radar, the radar signals would pass right through it and bounce off the tank.

[tankerjones]

Smoke screens that can break up radar screens are achieved by putting flakes of metal (very small and thin) into the smoke mixture. this can only be done with traditional smoke grenades, not from pouring diesel into the engine, the most popular way for a M1 at least to make a big smoke screen.

however, smoke screens that can break up IR scans are completely new to me.... i would like to see a link on how they work...

frankly, if a longbow is hunting a tank, without any reactive armor at all, the tank is dead. no passive armor known in the world can defeat a hellfire. period. abrams in testing have been hit with the hellfire and not been -completely- destroyed, but all simulated crewmembers were very very dead.

even with reactive armor, the angle of attack on a hellfire missile is so extreme (almost as much as a javelin, which is pretty much verticle) that is is almost impossible to defeat.

currently, a longbow with hellfire II's is the most potent anti tank force known to man aside from say, a nuke.

[Tbagger]

currently, a longbow with hellfire II's is the most potent anti tank force known to man aside from say, a nuke.

I believe the AT mine is the most effective anti tank weapon.

[AK-101]

you're probably right pharaoh. i hate to see it considering one of my MOS' and my favorite MOS is being a tanker. however, sometimes it is nice to have something that thick skinned in combat. the abrams is pretty much impervious to RPG's and with proper reactive armor, might even survive a hellfire. this makes it invaluable in urban warfar, simply because it is so hard to kill.

but you are definately right that the days of massive tank battles across open plains are over. with airpower at the level it will, the war will be decided long before the tanks even meet, by who manages air superiority.

I've heard stories from people in Iraq that the insurgents are using laser guided anti-tank missiles from neighboring countrys like old Soviet spandrels and such.

[Egyptian Pharaoh]

Smoke screens that can break up radar screens are achieved by putting flakes of metal (very small and thin) into the smoke mixture. this can only be done with traditional smoke grenades, not from pouring diesel into the engine, the most popular way for a M1 at least to make a big smoke screen.

however, smoke screens that can break up IR scans are completely new to me.... i would like to see a link on how they work...

frankly, if a longbow is hunting a tank, without any reactive armor at all, the tank is dead. no passive armor known in the world can defeat a hellfire. period. abrams in testing have been hit with the hellfire and not been -completely- destroyed, but all simulated crewmembers were very very dead.

even with reactive armor, the angle of attack on a hellfire missile is so extreme (almost as much as a javelin, which is pretty much verticle) that is is almost impossible to defeat.

currently, a longbow with hellfire II's is the most potent anti tank force known to man aside from say, a nuke.
tankerjones, are you amateur like me or a professional/veteran?

[Benzeen]

T-90 is Iran best bet for now!

[hammerfast]

rocketry and nuke tech is iran's best bet for now, zolfaqar s enough for armor

[Snauhi]

T-90 is Iran best bet for now!
?? what do you mean?? Iran have no T-90's....

And tanker jones is a M1 tanker i think..

[seraosha]

The best anti-tank weapon in the world is a 19-D with a radio and a pair of binoculars.

[RPG-29]

Smoke screens that can break up radar screens are achieved by putting flakes of metal (very small and thin) into the smoke mixture. this can only be done with traditional smoke grenades, not from pouring diesel into the engine, the most popular way for a M1 at least to make a big smoke screen.

however, smoke screens that can break up IR scans are completely new to me.... i would like to see a link on how they work...

frankly, if a longbow is hunting a tank, without any reactive armor at all, the tank is dead. no passive armor known in the world can defeat a hellfire. period. abrams in testing have been hit with the hellfire and not been -completely- destroyed, but all simulated crewmembers were very very dead.

even with reactive armor, the angle of attack on a hellfire missile is so extreme (almost as much as a javelin, which is pretty much verticle) that is is almost impossible to defeat.

currently, a longbow with hellfire II's is the most potent anti tank force known to man aside from say, a nuke.
Diesel is poured into specialy designed exaust chamber......havent you done testings with other liquids injected together with diesel to make IR-fog.
Reactive armour is very good for stopping speedy projectiles.

[RPG-29]

I can elicit these defences:
1. Special smoke blanket that inhibits radar tracking. (This one is new to me)
2. CPU controlled AA artillary.

This is the first time I knew that a smoke blanket can effectively inhibit radar tracking. If so, a tank can spew a large flume of smoke that distracts the inbound missile. Please give a link for this defence.
It is a Aluminium compound.I found right word its streghtened foil.
As i said sensors have picked up thermal /optical sight helicopter alerted crew and waits instruction the commander decides and orders CPU to aim and keep it at sights,turret automatically aims at enemy and calculates interception point and then you just fire at him:).
Ods were higher for hellicopters because they were 90% trained and equiped to fight tanks and other vehicles.Tanks on the other hand didnt have weapons against helicopters and the crews were 90% trained to fight other tanks,....

[tankerjones]

RPG-29 - No, we never did. They might have done something since I went infantry and joined the Sniper Corps :-D But who knows.

Seraosha - What have we here? A 19D? Cause only a scout would try and say he is more useful than a tank... :) Kidding of course, my cousin is a scout.. I cant give you too much **** since I have a job now that is even more boring than your guys'.

Pharaoah - I am in the service, though get some alcohol in me and I'm hardly proffessional. :-D I also served a tour in Iraq, so I guess that would make me a veteran as well.

Tbagger - Yes, at the moment, the most potent weapon being used against the M1 is an AT mine packed in with several 155 or 152mm shells and a couple lbs of C4. I've seen those go off, it was a bad day. Lost a good crew and it looked like G-d reached down and took a bite out of the tank. The blast velocity was that high.

AK-101 - We never got hit with any sort of ATGM, only RPG-7's and 9's. Even if they were to attack us with a spandrel, that isn't too big a deal. The M1's passive armor can defeat that pretty easily. Same with the songster.

[seraosha]

Seraosha - What have we here? A 19D? Cause only a scout would try and say he is more useful than a tank... :) Kidding of course, my cousin is a scout.. I cant give you too much **** since I have a job now that is even more boring than your guys'.


Guilty as charged...and I wouldn't go so far as to say more useful than a tank, but as to finding them, painting them, and killing them? Oh yea, I stand by my statement. And the only job more boring than a screenline in BFE or urban security for a convoy must mean you are a sniper.
that or work in the finance office back in the rear.:D

[tankerjones]

Hey you pegged it with the sniper. Boy I thought I would have so much fun, be billy badass. Yeah, I thought wrong. *Yawn* Oh well, I do enjoy playing with the 50 cal :) The new Ralfus ammo is scary ****.

And hey, I had some exciting convoy details when I was over. What unit you with?

[seraosha]

1/2 ACR out of Fort Polk, they're now at Fort Lewis playing with Strykers.

I got out back in '96 when we were light CAV with hummers in SCAT formation with the 11-H and their TOW vehicles. (2 UN deployments in three years & Polk was enough for me)

If you ever get a chance, play with the MK19...automatic grenade launcher (40mm just like the M203)

What unit you with?

[passing by]

I am new here, and I am out of here.

This forum seem to be full of immature know it alls, engaged in fierce pissing contests. Particularly the bitter Jewish and defeated Ex-Military Old Fogy Texan contributors.

I wonder if the “moderators” are in fact Iranians, or alternatively just pretend to have loyalty to Iran.

Anyone with a little knowledge would’ve made this forum a bit more interesting.

Rather pathetic I think. So, I leave you kids to this PITIFUL forum and to your bickering

Here is a video of the brave Americans winning in Iraq:

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/1920_revolutionary_brigades_ied_attack_on_a_humvee_Jan_16_20 06.html

[seraosha]

I am new here, and I am out of here.

This forum seem to be full of immature know it alls, engaged in fierce pissing contests. Particularly the bitter Jewish and defeated Ex-Military Old Fogy Texan contributors.

I wonder if the “moderators” are in fact Iranians, or alternatively just pretend to have loyalty to Iran.

Anyone with a little knowledge would’ve made this forum a bit more interesting.

Rather pathetic I think. So, I leave you kids to this PITIFUL forum and to your bickering

Here is a video of the brave Americans winning in Iraq:

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/1920_revolutionary_brigades_ied_attack_on_a_humvee_Jan_16_20 06.html

:rolleyes: n00bs.

Always wonder about the three hundred "guests" with no balls that don't post but just lurk...have fun lurking.

Anyway, back to the thread...

[RPG-29]

AK-101 - We never got hit with any sort of ATGM, only RPG-7's and 9's. Even if they were to attack us with a spandrel, that isn't too big a deal. The M1's passive armor can defeat that pretty easily. Same with the songster.
If i may ask now what about the top engine compartment and hits into it from buildings and hights no tank is 100% rpg-resistant.What about auxilarry doors at rear of tank for ammo to get out how thick are they?;)

[tankerjones]

An excellent point. The design of the armor on the vents for the engine is in fact only maybe 6 inches thick, which is penetrable by an RPG and is generally considered the weak spot of the tank. However, due to the venting, it actually helps defeat shaped charges somewhat, by spreading the blast out and robbing it of a major focal point. Granted, it doesnt take much to **** up a gas turbine engine, but they're more resiliant to incoming fire than you would think.

As for the blow off panels, trust me, those are plenty thick. I saw an ammo cookoff test video in which the panels were bolted on (an experiment they tried) and the blast ended up venting out the back! Now they're just held on with gravity, but trust me, nothing shy of a modern top attack ATGM is going to penetrate that.

Acknowledging these weaknesses, tanks will never advance in between buildings that have not first been cleared by infantry. We cover them while they clear the house, they make sure it's clear for us to move. It works :)

[AK-101]

An excellent point. The design of the armor on the vents for the engine is in fact only maybe 6 inches thick, which is penetrable by an RPG and is generally considered the weak spot of the tank. However, due to the venting, it actually helps defeat shaped charges somewhat, by spreading the blast out and robbing it of a major focal point. Granted, it doesnt take much to **** up a gas turbine engine, but they're more resiliant to incoming fire than you would think.

As for the blow off panels, trust me, those are plenty thick. I saw an ammo cookoff test video in which the panels were bolted on (an experiment they tried) and the blast ended up venting out the back! Now they're just held on with gravity, but trust me, nothing shy of a modern top attack ATGM is going to penetrate that.

Acknowledging these weaknesses, tanks will never advance in between buildings that have not first been cleared by infantry. We cover them while they clear the house, they make sure it's clear for us to move. It works :)

yeah for ammo cook offs doesnt the m1a2 have that thick door protectin the rounds? I heard its practically impossible to destroy the tank through an ammo cook off, I personally think its the most crew safe thank I know of; I dont know too much about the leo or the challenger II

[tankerjones]

yeah for ammo cook offs doesnt the m1a2 have that thick door protectin the rounds? I heard its practically impossible to destroy the tank through an ammo cook off, I personally think its the most crew safe thank I know of; I dont know too much about the leo or the challenger II

actually the blowoff panels and sliding blast doors have been integral to the M1 design since before it was even called the M1, back in the days of the IMP1. i wouldnt say for sure that the M1 has the -best- crew protection in the world, but it's definately up there. the merkava, leo II and challenger series are amazing vehicles, no denying it. different philosophies toward crew protection sometimes, but none are not without merit.

you should check up on the latest iteration of the merkava. they chose to mount the engine in the front, in addition to an extremely shallow glacias angle. it allows them to put a 60mm (i believe) mortar in the back of the tank. it's cool **** :)

[AK-101]

actually the blowoff panels and sliding blast doors have been integral to the M1 design since before it was even called the M1, back in the days of the IMP1. i wouldnt say for sure that the M1 has the -best- crew protection in the world, but it's definately up there. the merkava, leo II and challenger series are amazing vehicles, no denying it. different philosophies toward crew protection sometimes, but none are not without merit.

you should check up on the latest iteration of the merkava. they chose to mount the engine in the front, in addition to an extremely shallow glacias angle. it allows them to put a 60mm (i believe) mortar in the back of the tank. it's cool **** :)

yeah the merkava is sweet. my buddy in the armor corps told me that it took several hits from ATGMS during test trials and it was still operational 100%.

[extern]

yeah for ammo cook offs doesnt the m1a2 have that thick door protectin the rounds? I heard its practically impossible to destroy the tank through an ammo cook off
What do u think it was if not the cooking off: http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/8695/m128en.th.jpg (http://img111.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m128en.jpg)

[Snauhi]

that one went on a mine

[Tbagger]

What do u think it was if not the cooking off: http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/8695/m128en.th.jpg (http://img111.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m128en.jpg)

If I remember correctly, three large mines detonated under the tank.

[extern]

No mine can bring to decapitation of a tank turret unless it brings to the ammo detonation first.

[isr agent]

No mine can bring to decapitation of a tank turret unless it brings to the ammo detonation first.
Really? because from the most cases i have seen that what happend.

[AK-101]

Really? because from the most cases i have seen that what happend.

ammo cook off could have caused it but the story is that it ran over mines, the mines would have caused the ammo to explode, the door was probably ripped open by the mine.

[tankerjones]

first of all, it was an AT mine with several 155mm artillery shells underneath it. they use it a a lot.

second of all, the blowout panels on the M1 are designed to force the blast rearward and up. it's physics ladies. the reason the turret would pop off during an ammo cook off with the old m60's, t-62, t-72 is that they stored a lot of extra rounds facing with the projectiles up. so of course the turret is going to pop. even if they werent, the pressure buildup would be enough to do the job.

but the M1 is designed entirely differently for that reason.

[AK-101]

first of all, it was an AT mine with several 155mm artillery shells underneath it. they use it a a lot.

second of all, the blowout panels on the M1 are designed to force the blast rearward and up. it's physics ladies. the reason the turret would pop off during an ammo cook off with the old m60's, t-62, t-72 is that they stored a lot of extra rounds facing with the projectiles up. so of course the turret is going to pop. even if they werent, the pressure buildup would be enough to do the job.

but the M1 is designed entirely differently for that reason.

They just want to show that the m1a2 is a bad tank, I dont think a lot of people on this forum studied physics. no offense.

[Tbagger]

They just want to show that the m1a2 is a bad tank, I dont think a lot of people on this forum studied physics. no offense.
The M1A2, along with the Leo 2A6 and Challenger 2 are in a class of their own. All three exhibit an excellent combination of firepower, mobility and protection.

[hammerfast]

nice avator tbag , is that u ? btw r u tbagging to prepare for iraq or afghanistan?

[Tbagger]

nice avator tbag , is that u ? btw r u tbagging to prepare for iraq or afghanistan?
lol, that's not me and I'm too young to go to war.

[extern]

first of all, it was an AT mine with several 155mm artillery shells underneath it. they use it a a lot.

second of all, the blowout panels on the M1 are designed to force the blast rearward and up. it's physics ladies. the reason the turret would pop off during an ammo cook off with the old m60's, t-62, t-72 is that they stored a lot of extra rounds facing with the projectiles up. so of course the turret is going to pop. even if they werent, the pressure buildup would be enough to do the job.

but the M1 is designed entirely differently for that reason.
I still dont see any reason for pop up the turrets of t-72 if it doesnt do it in Abrams in the same event of AT mine. I only do answer to the person, that says Abrams' ammo cannot 'cook off' in ANY condition. However, I can agree, that in certain conditions, like projectile intrusion, Abrams has a bit more chance than T-72 or T-90 to avoid ammo's blow . Its isolated fact still doesnt make Abrams' more safely for the crew than last generation T-xx, because tank defence also depends of a lot of other parameters (like passive and active armore, active protection systems like Arena, jamming measures, the number of crew members in one tank, tank's dementions etc).

[isr agent]

Speaking of active armor, RAFAEL is providing the TROPHY (http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/homepage.aspx?FolderID=281&docID=963&searchText=trophy) system to the US that is conducting tests as a part of the Sheriff project, the testing vehicle is the Stryker APC.
On the same matter, the TROPHY or in its israeli name "Wind Coat" has been tested 2 weeks ago in israel, the test was a succes for the system, heres a picture for taking down the AT missile:
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2006/03/01/57555318.jpg
It is unknown and highly classified what is the current armor for the israeli modern MBT's and APC's.

[hammerfast]

lol, that's not me and I'm too young to go to war.
oh sorry that was tankerjones

[extern]

Speaking of active armor, RAFAEL is providing the TROPHY (http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/homepage.aspx?FolderID=281&docID=963&searchText=trophy) system to the US that is conducting tests as a part of the Sheriff project, the testing vehicle is the Stryker APC.
On the same matter, the TROPHY or in its israeli name "Wind Coat" has been tested 2 weeks ago in israel, the test was a succes for the system, heres a picture for taking down the AT missile
It is unknown and highly classified what is the current armor for the israeli modern MBT's and APC's.
It is 'classified' only from the Israelis :cool: In Russia is well known what is "Meil'-Ruakh" aka "Wind Coat". :D The same or even better systems exist in Russia and even Ukraine already 20 years: Drozd ( http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/drozd.html ), Drozd-2, Arena ( http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html ) etc. The development of such systems in Israel and USA pretty proves that they are aware of passive armor limitation and now want to catch up the Russians in this area.

[tankerjones]

extern - an ammo cookoff in an M1 Abrams will result in a blowing out of the panels and also possibly a deformation (or possible destruction) of the rear side turret armor). that's all. you are obviously well versed in military hardware, so I dont need to tell you that when a shell explodes the blast is channeled in the easiest opening direction, launching the projectile. the ammo storage system in the M1 was deliberately designed with that in mind, so all the shells sit facing rearward. with the exception of the hull storage of course, but we wont discuss those here as they are rarely if ever used.

thus the blast from an ammo cookoff would have only one place to go, other than out the front of the shell, which would naturally occur first. after that the pressure would blow off a panel and would push DOWN on the turret. not up. it is physically impossible for an ammo cookoff, no matter how large, to pop the turret of an abrams. it is much harder for a loader to pull a shell out of the ammo storage racks and get it into the breech because of the rounds facing rearwards, trust me, i did that motion several thousand times :)

on that subject, it is interesting to me that the new black eagle has adopted a horizontal armored storage system with an autoloader. funny how even with all that technologoy, id still feel safer in a abrams than a black eagle (which isnt even in production yet) simply because of the lower risk of cookoff getting to me (in the black eagle all the shells are pointed inward to make it work with the autoloader).

[Shohad]

It is 'classified' only from the Israelis :cool: In Russia is well known what is "Meil'-Ruakh" aka "Wind Coat". :D The same or even better systems exist in Russia and even Ukraine already 20 years: Drozd ( http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/drozd.html ), Drozd-2, Arena ( http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html ) etc. The development of such systems in Israel and USA pretty proves that they are aware of passive armor limitation and now want to catch up the Russians in this area.
:eek: I knew it - фсб!

No but seriously it annoys me that in every single defense\arms forum Russian dudes come and say that the prototype they developed in the late 60s showed much better results then the.. you get the picture. I don’t know why but it always happens! Nothing personal of course, but all these systems are not combat proven so we can’t compare them.

Russia has ingenuity, but most of it’s equipment is lacking in some aspect. It has been the case since Soviet times due to economic and political reasons and it is the case today.

[isr agent]

It is 'classified' only from the Israelis :cool: In Russia is well known what is "Meil'-Ruakh" aka "Wind Coat". :D The same or even better systems exist in Russia and even Ukraine already 20 years: Drozd ( http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/drozd.html ), Drozd-2, Arena ( http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html ) etc. The development of such systems in Israel and USA pretty proves that they are aware of passive armor limitation and now want to catch up the Russians in this area.
Yeah meil ruakh, it is "classified" because i dont want to get into trouble with the authorities :p everything about the armor of the merkava is plain classified, we israelis are too proud to have that tank to just give up secrets like that although it seems there is alot of classification when it comes to the IDF...
Does any of the arab armies or iran's tank have those systems yet that i should be worried about?

[tankerjones]

actually, all modern composite armor's exact makeup, dimensions, and layers are classified. of course.

if you know -exactly- what you have to defeat, you can kill it far more easily. my first tank commander said if we ever got a hole punched through our turret, to hang a calendar over it and pretend like it never happened, to avoid the questioning :)

[hammerfast]

my first tank commander said if we ever got a hole punched through our turret, to hang a calendar over it and pretend like it never happened, to avoid the questioning :)
huh? sorry i dont think if i get it correctly, what questioning?

[tankerjones]

the US government would interrogate us if we ever saw the inside of the armor. to make sure we didnt know what it was made out of. lord knows what they would do with us if we DID know :)

[extern]

yeah. Its obvious of course. T-95 wasnt shown any time despite it seems to be ready, & Black Eagle (export oriented project from its start!) was exhibited only from the distance. I think, the russian top commanders are satisfted with T-90S right now and keep the russian bests 4 the future race with the american FCS. According to some interviews with tham they think T-90S as a whole is comparable with the treats (Abrams, Leo-2, Leclerk etc).
tankerjones, I said I agree with that that Abrams is more safe in case of ammo cookoff. But it is not the single cause 2 worry for its crew. If a tank is penetrated by projectile or by cumulative missile, the crew will be dead before something happing 4 the ammo storage. Anyway, I never said Abrams is bad. I onlee pointed its value is overhyped.

[isr agent]

Sorry for bumping this thread, i just have a few pictures of wind coat/ meil ruach/ or in its marketing name- Trophy.
The pictures are from a year ago in the LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) convention in israel, first public presentation of the Trophy:
Two vehicels covered in camo net before the presentation:
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/77126827.jpg
Revealing the vehicels:
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/76755095.jpg
The vehicels are, Stryker APC:
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/19973945.jpg
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/38413528.jpg
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/87537850.jpg
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/29931136.jpg
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/98959917.jpg
And Merkava Mark 3:
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/46059827.jpg
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/13116453.jpg
System's ad:
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/13760766.jpg
Setup simulation on Merkava Mark 4:
http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2005/03/09/25489416.jpg

Credit: fresh.co.il

[extern]

Yeah... 'Meil-Ruakh' is 'tov' :D . However for close anti aircraft/helo support the tanks allwees need something more, for it will move with a regiment. Like Tunguska-M1: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images-Tunguksa.html
- It's really Apach-killer :cool: Some tens of such weapons Russia now gonna supply for its traditional islamic ally Algeria.

[isr agent]

Yeah that is a kick ass weapon, i have a video clip of it shooting, that thing is insane! the rate of fire is amazing...
Curretly israel has the Machbet- http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/m-113/Machbet.html
Regardless, i dont think israel will start buying millitary equippment from russia.

[4X-IL]

the Machbet is only close - ground to air weapon, and i highly doubt it can effect on the late 20 century and the 21 century planes.

for this we have the Spyder.

[isr agent]

But, thats what extern said, against apache and helos, so against such threats it is the best.

[Shohad]

The tangusta with its 30mm canon is deadlier, but Apaches can deal with that threat if they are low, many and far away.

[extern]

The tangusta with its 30mm canon is deadlier, but Apaches can deal with that threat if they are low, many and far away.
The main problem of a helo is that it has no passive/active armor, like Tunguska has. If some helo's pilot can see and hit the armored Tunguska, believe me, the Tunguska shooter can do the same with the helo double time (more gun power, better armor, better radar). Tunguska however is not cheap weapon: each one like 2-3 T-90S.

[abdou]

so is the price like 4.2million$ to 6.4million$ ? i think that is kinda cheap compared to an apache! in stead of pushasing one apache long bow worth around 30million$ u can buy 6 tunguska which can probably take down fleets of helicopters if they can get camuflaged in some way!!

ty

[panzer1029]

Apache if flying close to the ground even man with 12 gauge shotgun can shot down it to the gound.

[extern]

so is the price like 4.2million$ to 6.4million$ ? i think that is kinda cheap compared to an apache! in stead of pushasing one apache long bow worth around 30million$ u can buy 6 tunguska which can probably take down fleets of helicopters if they can get camuflaged in some way!!

tyTunguska is allready obsolet. Now the same developer offers Pansir http://www.shipunov.com/eng/zencom/panz.htm (was supplied for UAE and Syria). Mobile antiaircraft system with Up to 20 km range. Can follow with tanks regiments and make roastbeef from any Apach well before the pilots see it. If Iran has something like this, it will probably take not more then 2 days for the Iranian tank regiments to engage the American occupational forces near Baghdad. However, Tehran can do it in case of US air attack...

[Night]

Apache if flying close to the ground even man with 12 gauge shotgun can shot down it to the gound.

Unless its within 20 ft, good luck ;)

[Tbagger]

Unless its within 20 ft, good luck ;)
lol, shotguns won't pierce the Apache's hide.

[panzer1029]

shot at the back rotor not the pilot

[extern]

lol, shotguns won't pierce the Apache's hide.
...but IR fire'nd-forget missile with initial gyro guideness why not?

[ThePuss]

The Apache was originally designed to fight in the German plains against Soviet armour. If you look the Longbow version, the intention is to remain hidden behind a hill, trees, buildings, etc. It then uses its targeting system in the mast to lock on to a target and launch the Hellfires. By doing this it does not have to expose itself to enemy AA units. The thing is it all depends on the terrain, nothing to hide behind means the Apache is vulnerable but if there are hills and the like, well the hunter comes into its own.

[extern]

It then uses its targeting system in the mast to lock on to a target and launch the Hellfires. By doing this it does not have to expose itself to enemy AA units. The thing is it all depends on the terrain, nothing to hide behind means the Apache is vulnerable but if there are hills and the like, well the hunter comes into its own.
- The emission of its radar and laser rangefinder is enough to disclose itself and expose for missile attack.

[Night]

The main problem of a helo is that it has no passive/active armor, like Tunguska has. If some helo's pilot can see and hit the armored Tunguska, believe me, the Tunguska shooter can do the same with the helo double time (more gun power, better armor, better radar). Tunguska however is not cheap weapon: each one like 2-3 T-90S.
Not always. Apaches can remain so low that the Tungusta's radar will confuse it with ground clutter, and the apache has many different ways of killing the tungusta.

[CallMeRussian]

Unless its within 20 ft, good luck ;)

The apaches maximum altidude is15,895 ft, I doubt it can hunt at that altidude so it must drop a few thousand. Line it up with a Tor-M1 and see what a russian sam wold do to the Apache.

It will Turn into a shooting star.

[Night]

The apaches maximum altidude is15,895 ft, I doubt it can hunt at that altidude so it must drop a few thousand. Line it up with a Tor-M1 and see what a russian sam wold do to the Apache.

It will Turn into a shooting star.

Try using the TOR-M1 to shoot an apache at 10ft above the ground ;)

Even better, try keeping a TOR-M1 in your arsenal long enough to even get a chance at shooting an apache ;)

[CallMeRussian]

Try using the TOR-M1 to shoot an apache at 10ft above the ground ;)

How good is an apaches skills at 10 000 feet, Pretty crap id say


Even better, try keeping a TOR-M1 in your arsenal long enough to even get a chance at shooting an apache ;)


A good operater would make it very difficult for the enemy to get a good harm shot in. These aint syrian SA-6s

[Night]

How good is an apaches skills at 10 000 feet, Pretty crap id say
I said, try taking out an apache at TEN feet.




A good operater would make it very difficult for the enemy to get a good harm shot in. These aint syrian SA-6s

Yes, but this isn't Bosnia or Russia. Theres no place to hide. Even if they turn off their RADAR systems, their heat signatures can still be seen.

[attitude]

The TOR-M1 has to my knowledge never been used in combat yet
Its unrealistic to say it can shootdown anything because all it has shotdown to this point would have been drones

[CallMeRussian]

I said, try taking out an apache at TEN feet..

Ok i see your just being childish now,






Yes, but this isn't Bosnia or Russia. Theres no place to hide. Even if they turn off their RADAR systems, their heat signatures can still be seen.

Where , Where is not Bosina or Russia,

If Iran

People can make places to hide, Iran is a huge place, It is easy to hide units there. Unless the US is gonna take out ever large rock on the face of Iran i doubt they will take out the SAMS.

Secondly, There will be Units that are hidden that well, That they could not bee seen from the SKy.


So good luck

[CallMeRussian]

The TOR-M1 has to my knowledge never been used in combat yet
Its unrealistic to say it can shootdown anything because all it has shotdown to this point would have been drones

Why dont you vomit up the rest of the statement,

Its also unrealistic to say that the apaches would survive or evade the

Tor-m1,

[attitude]

Why dont you vomit up the rest of the statement,

Its also unrealistic to say that the apaches would survive or evade the

Tor-m1,

:roflmao3:

I stated a fact and you cant handle it
It is 100 per cent true that the TOR-M1 has never ever fired a shot in combat ever
Where as the Apache has over 15 years combat experience

[CallMeRussian]

:roflmao3:

I stated a fact and you cant handle it
It is 100 per cent true that the TOR-M1 has never ever fired a shot in combat ever
Where as the Apache has over 15 years combat experience

I failr to see the humor,

You also faield to use Continues Logic, It is true thw Tor-M1 has never been used in combat, But it is also true the Apache has never been in combat while there was A Tor-M1 Opertation in the areana.

The 15 years of combat experionce means nothing in this debate, When ithas had 15 years service ina battlefield where the Tor was operational then id agree.

There you have it, We agree to disagree, Only time will tell,

[attitude]

I failr to see the humor,

You also faield to use Continues Logic, It is true thw Tor-M1 has never been used in combat, But it is also true the Apache has never been in combat while there was A Tor-M1 Opertation was in the areana.

The 15 years of combat experionce means nothing in this debate, When ithas had 15 years service ina battlefield where the Tor was operational then id agree.

There you have it, We agree to disagree, Only time will tell,

The humour is directed at how you started the reply rudely
Vomit up the rest of you statement is what you said
Still doesnt change the fact that the apache has destroyed everything form the ZSU to Roland SAM batteries in Iraq
The apache has the aid of modern sattelite navigation, avionics and radar that are superior to anything found in the TOR-M1
The Apache could easily detect and destroy the TOR-M1 before it even knew what hit it.
The TOR-M1 will be a good system and is well capable of taking an apache but it is up against the most modern attack helicopter ever built that has a wide range of systems available to detect and destroy weapons systems like the TOR-M1

[CallMeRussian]

The humour is directed at how you started the reply rudely
Vomit up the rest of you statement is what you said

Yes and i will say it agian, Your reply was incomplete and deceptive,


Still doesnt change the fact that the apache has destroyed everything form the ZSU to Roland SAM batteries in Iraq

Oh please, You could not have gotten a more incompetent lazy silly army to use as your example.


The apache has the aid of modern sattelite navigation, avionics and radar that are superior to anything found in the TOR-M1
The Apache could easily detect and destroy the TOR-M1 before it even knew what hit it.


Really, Its funny how your talking like the Tor-M1 is an attack helicopter, Its a SAM, It could be used in conjunction with state of the art Rdar systems, Nohthing fancy there,

Your doing a great job at expressing your lack of maturity, Do you think the operator is gobba have his Tor-M! parked in a drive through in the locak Macdonalds,

The exact opposite of what your saying is true. The apache will get blown to simtherines before it knows what hit it.



The TOR-M1 will be a good system and is well capable of taking an apache but it is up against the most modern attack helicopter ever built that has a wide range of systems available to detect and destroy weapons systems like the TOR-M1

As i said, IMO it will come down to the Operator, As the SAM has a clear advantage thast its not the one attacking,

[attitude]

Yes and i will say it agian, Your reply was incomplete and deceptive,



Oh please, You could not have gotten a more incompetent lazy silly army to use as your example.




Really, Its funny how your talking like the Tor-M1 is an attack helicopter, Its a SAM, It could be used in conjunction with state of the art Rdar systems, Nohthing fancy there,

Your doing a great job at expressing your lack of maturity, Do you think the operator is gobba have his Tor-M! parked in a drive through in the locak Macdonalds,

The exact opposite of what your saying is true. The apache will get blown to simtherines before it knows what hit it.




As i said, IMO it will come down to the Operator, As the SAM has a clear advantage thast its not the one attacking,


Your doing a great job showing that you have absolutely no military knowledge what so ever and proving without a doubt that you have lost the argument and cannot counter so you resort to personal attacks about my maturity, and saying im being deceptive when i stated a clear and precise fact that you couldnt counter :roflmao3:
The apache is aided by sattelite recon as well as UAV support
Your TOR-M1 is detected long before the apache even enters the battle field and is destroyed by the apache at maximum range long before the TOR-M1 knows what hit it
TOR-M1 may get a lucky shot occasionally but it is totall outclassed by the systems available to the apache and would be left a smoking pile of scrap metal

[CallMeRussian]

Your doing a great job showing that you have absolutely no military knowledge what so ever and proving without a doubt that you have lost the argument and cannot counter so you resort to personal attacks about my maturity, and saying im being deceptive when i stated a clear and precise fact that you couldnt counter :roflmao3:

Ok, I have replyed many times and gave you accurate answers as to why i replyed like i did, But anhow The blind can not see,



The apache is aided by sattelite recon as well as UAV support

Give me one weapon in the uS army that is not,


Your TOR-M1 is detected long before the apache even enters the battle field and is destroyed by the apache at maximum range long before the TOR-M1 knows what hit it

HOW is it detectable. Whats gonna detect it.

Getting a good HARM shot on a mobile system is difficult; getting a radar operator to cooperate by leaving his radar up long enough to give you good information is nearly impossible.

A good SAM operator will be getting his target acquisition data from a different system, waiting for the target to enter his lethal range. As it gets close, he'll come up, launch a missile or two, and then go down, all within the space of 8 - 10 seconds.

Defence-update

Debating with you is pointless cause you dont take the variables into consideration, EG, Terrian, Operator, Camo.


TOR-M1 may get a lucky shot occasionally but it is totall outclassed by the systems available to the apache and would be left a smoking pile of scrap metal

No you are mistaken, You seem to be thinking of the SA-6.
As i said, Its pointless, We have yet to see a competent millitary use this klind of hardware, When it does your super apache will be nothing but a helicopter good for fighitng farmers with Ak-47s, Only time will tell

[attitude]

Ok, I have replyed many times and gave you accurate answers as to why i replyed like i did, But anhow The blind can not see,




Give me one weapon in the uS army that is not,



HOW is it detectable. Whats gonna detect it.

Getting a good HARM shot on a mobile system is difficult; getting a radar operator to cooperate by leaving his radar up long enough to give you good information is nearly impossible.

A good SAM operator will be getting his target acquisition data from a different system, waiting for the target to enter his lethal range. As it gets close, he'll come up, launch a missile or two, and then go down, all within the space of 8 - 10 seconds.

Defence-update

Debating with you is pointless cause you dont take the variables into consideration, EG, Terrian, Operator, Camo.



No you are mistaken, You seem to be thinking of the SA-6.
As i said, Its pointless, Only time will tell

Yes its pointless and you just proved it with another post of pure nonsense that shows you are the blind one
Im am a 9 year Australian army veteran who knows more abut the military than you ever will
Its detectable by UAV and sattelite which i stated before but you seem to be the blind one and not to mention the apache's radar and infared and now days the radar doesnt have to be on to ensure its detected. Just look at how many SAMS were destroyed in Iraq as proof. This army was trained and armed by Russia so are they still incompetent and lazy.
In any war with Iran the US is likely to send in scores of UAV's which is why Iran needs to continue the mass production of shoulder launched sams as well as getting Russian missiles
In a war with Iran just like in Iraq it will be ambushes with shoulder launched sams that will take down the apache.
The TOR-M1 is a nice target for a hellfire
Different system or not doesnt change the fact that the TOR-M1 will still be destroyed as its systems are no where near as good as an apache
And not to mention the second the TOR-M1 launches it will ultimetely sign its death warrent as it will be destroyed if it wasnt already
The TOR-M1 has nothing on the Apache and time will definetely tell.

[CallMeRussian]

Yes its pointless and you just proved it with another post of pure nonsense that shows you are the blind one
Im am a 9 year Australian army veteran who knows more abut the military than you ever will.

Thats good, I suppose you got to shoot the Styer a few times, And every now at then end of the financial year you got to waste as much ammo as you
liked. Oh and a few leasons on how to shoot the 50.cal at kapooka,
Great stuff. They should make you the Commandeer of the SAS or the 4RAR.

Its detectable by UAV and sattelite which i stated before but you seem to be the blind one and not to mention the apache's radar and infared and now days the radar doesnt have to be on to ensure its detected. Just look at how many SAMS were destroyed in Iraq as proof. .

How many times do i have to tell you. Stop useing Iraq as proof, There hardware was pre-historic, there men were not loyal, Iran is twice the sizer of Iraq, They are gonna hve alot of trouble trying to figure out whats a rock whats a sam and whats a tree useing satelites, Useing UAVs, As l0ong as the US uses 20 billion units to cover every square of IRan first then id have to agreew with you,

This army was trained and armed by Russia so are they still incompetent and lazy..

No duhh, YEs they are, They were opressed, They were unloyal, They only reason they followed instructions was out of fear, They were porrly treained, and lacked new technology, And dont forget it was over 10 years of US survalenceover Iraq to find out where all there sams were hidden, It was not done ion a year.


In any war with Iran the US is likely to send in scores of UAV's which is why Iran needs to continue the mass production of shoulder launched sams as well as getting Russian missiles..

Agree


In a war with Iran just like in Iraq it will be ambushes with shoulder launched sams that will take down the apache...


The TOR-M1 is a nice target for a hellfire
Different system or not doesnt change the fact that the TOR-M1 will still be destroyed as its systems are no where near as good as an apache
And not to mention the second the TOR-M1 launches it will ultimetely sign its death warrent as it will be destroyed if it wasnt already
The TOR-M1 has nothing on the Apache and time will definetely tell.


Getting a good HARM shot on a mobile system is difficult; getting a radar operator to cooperate by leaving his radar up long enough to give you good information is nearly impossible.

A good SAM operator will be getting his target acquisition data from a different system, waiting for the target to enter his lethal range. As it gets close, he'll come up, launch a missile or two, and then go down, all within the space of 8 - 10 seconds.


I have stated my opinion, you have stated yours i dont agree and you dont agree.
Takle care

[extern]

to night, attitude :
Your assumption about allegedly 'Apache advantage' over Tunguska (Tor-M or Pantzir) is lying down on a very week hypothesis that Apache sees SAM complex but the last doesnt see it. supposition like this is too risky IMO. Being ground complex, mobile SAMs usually have better sensor kit that any fly 'bird' just because the former have pretty more space for better aperture radar, IR sensors, digital signal processing complex, more crew, more armory storage, better armor etc. Any helo has its naturally weight/space limitation that prevent its designers from putting the most advanced toys there.

Apropos, the last generation SAMs also can be used with UCAVs and satelites for better intelligence.

[Night]

to night, attitude :
Your assumption about allegedly 'Apache advantage' over Tunguska (Tor-M or Pantzir) is lying down on a very week hypothesis that Apache sees SAM complex but the last doesnt see it. supposition like this is too risky IMO. Being ground complex, mobile SAMs usually have better sensor kit that any fly 'bird' just because the former have pretty more space for better aperture radar, IR sensors, digital signal processing complex, more crew, more armory storage, better armor etc. Any helo has its naturally weight/space limitation that prevent its designers from putting the most advanced toys there.

The apache is not the TOR-M1's main threat. The TOR's threat is F-16's or other USAF aircraft.

There are many many ways to detect vehicles, and the USAF has become very adept at detecting them no matter how well hidden, especially SAM systems.

Besides, Iran would most likely place the TOR's near S-300 sites to protect them from low level attack and cruise missiles. After taking out the S-300 RADAR stations using stealth bombers, the TOR's could be taken out by using a couple F-16 wild weasels.

1. One or two wild weasels fly high above target sites, waiting for any RADAR transmissions. Once one is recieved, another wild weasel is tasked to the area to wait for another, pretty soon you have 5 weasels in the air in the general vicinity of SA threats.

2. The weasels will wait for another transmission. Once one is recieved, they are close enough to lock on to the threat, and fire HARM's. Even if the transmission is short (3-10 seconds) the F-16 can still get an accurate lock on the location of the target.

[Tbagger]

Russian, you realize a SAM is pretty much useless if the operator shuts off the radar, right? In Bosnia, a lot of HARMs missed because the SAM operators shut off their radars, but by doing so, allowed NATO aircraft to simply fly over them and complete their missions.

[extern]

There are many many ways to detect vehicles, and the USAF has become very adept at detecting them no matter how well hidden, especially SAM systems...

The same about aircraft detection... Why do you think, the aircrafts are shooting first? The contemporally SAMs have all the toys aircrafts have, but much more advanced. 'Stelth''... oh, to make an armored vehicle 'stelthy' is much easy that an aircraft. There are a lotof measures for it, like cheap and effective Nakidka. Citation: 'The visitors could see T-72M1 MBT fitted with "Nakidka" kit (on the photo). At our stand we demonstrated unique radar-absorbing performance of that material with the help of a laboratory-scale equipment; we also showed a film about operational and combat potentials of "Nakidka" kit. For the first time we exhibited new "stealth" helmets and body armor undetectable by radars.///" http://www.niistali.ru/index_en.php

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

Swedish prototype stealth tank:

http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/sweden/prototypes/TD2.png

AMX-30 stealth prototype:

http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/france/amx30/Aircooledstealthvariant.png


~~~~

Unfortunately, stealth doesn't help much against laser range finders. o.O

[Jordan]

Swedish prototype stealth tank:

http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/sweden/prototypes/TD2.png

are they built from legos??

:laugh4:

Is it wise to build a stealth tank? What if it's commandeered? Wouldn't they pretty much be giving away the technology?

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

I'm guessing that this specific tank is build out of wood. And well, I think that would be true for any technology on a tank; the idea is not leave any behind. The United States doesn't leave any knocked out M1 tanks behind, and most of them have been knocked out by blue on blue fire. :worried2: I've seen pictures of M1A2s in Iraq penetrated by Maverick missiles. Normally they tow 'em back to base so that they can be sent back home for repair, IIRC. Anyways, back on track - any technology can be stolen, as far as that is concerned. No reason not to show it off. :P

[Jordan]

Still. Stealth technology is one of those things you don't want 'other people' to have. It just doesn't sound like a great idea to me. I am sure that the 'enemy' whoever that might be would love to build a stealth tank or other stealth equipment. Having a piece of technology would further their understanding of developing stealth military equipment.

Stealth technology is great advantage. Far more of an advantage then anything on modern european/u.s. tanks. Tanks are built in quite large numbers and is a ground force which increases risk of the other side obtaining it without great damage.

Ships and aircraft are different. They're much harder to destroy and obtain in the end. It is a matter of time before a lot of countries to develop stealth technology, but no need to give it away.

At risk of being repetitive, it sounds like a bad idea to me. If it was great idea then why is no one else developing stealth tanks that know how to? None with the technology are to my knowledge. Am I wrong?

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

Still. Stealth technology is one of those things you don't want 'other people' to have. It just doesn't sound like a great idea to me. I am sure that the 'enemy' whoever that might be would love to build a stealth tank or other stealth equipment. Having a piece of technology would further their understanding of developing stealth military equipment.

And I'm sure that there are various people that would love to know the technology behind the Merkava IV's electromagnetic warning system, and the high powered gun system. Or the technology behind the M1A2 Abram's battlefield control system, as well. There are various technologies that people want, but can't have - there are ways to keep the most important things secret, you know.

Stealth technology is great advantage. Far more of an advantage then anything on modern european/u.s. tanks. Tanks are built in quite large numbers and is a ground force which increases risk of the other side obtaining it without great damage.

Yes, but Sweden doesn't necessarilly go into war very often, and so there's no real threat that Sweden will ever lose a stealth tank prototype in the battlefield. And I'm sure that this specific prototype has not been built in overly large numbers - neither the Swedish tank, or the AMX-30 variant.

Ships and aircraft are different. They're much harder to destroy and obtain in the end.

Aircraft are just as easy. You just have to shoot one down! And it's as easy to shoot down an aircraft like the F-117, as it is to knock out an American M1A2 or a British Challenger 2. Take into consideration that only eight of the former have been lost since 2003.

It is a matter of time before a lot of countries to develop stealth technology, but no need to give it away.

Given the fact that France is working on stealth technology, as well as Sweden, I'll put $20 on the table that so is Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia.

At risk of being repetitive, it sounds like a bad idea to me. If it was great idea then why is no one else developing stealth tanks that know how to? None with the technology are to my knowledge. Am I wrong?

They probably are; I just haven't stumbled on an article dealing with it yet. o.O

[Ayyash]

Swedish prototype stealth tank:

http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/sweden/prototypes/TD2.png

AMX-30 stealth prototype:

http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/france/amx30/Aircooledstealthvariant.png


~~~~

Unfortunately, stealth doesn't help much against laser range finders. o.O

The first looks like the polygonal tank from that really old internet game, tank hunter.
whats up witht the trapazoidal barrel?

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

For the angle, so that it will reflect the radio wave in a different direction, as opposed to straight back.

[Xerxes]

For the angle, so that it will reflect the radio wave in a different direction, as opposed to straight back.

johnatton, is this forum on your sig a new forum. i went there to check it out. it was bit lonely there :(

[Power_Serj]

Does anyone know how T-90 armor compares to Western tank armor?

[Tbagger]

Does anyone know how T-90 armor compares to Western tank armor?
It's supposed to be some sort of composite armor, but I seriously doubt it's as good as the armor of, say, the Leo 2. Western tanks are larger and heavier than Russian ones, thus they have superior protection levels.

[Pylyp Orlyk]

The only T series of tanks that can even compare with western armor is T-80/84... T-90 is inferior in this regard.

[Khaybar]

You have some serious issues with the Oplot, Pylyp, it's just a tank.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Pylyp Orlyk]

You have some serious issues with the Oplot, Pylyp, it's just a tank.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

Considering I have substantial investments in KMDB is it really a suprise?

[Khaybar]

KMDB is the manufacturer of the Oplot right?

I hope for your money's sake that we don't see on tv a destroyed Oplot someday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

johnatton, is this forum on your sig a new forum. i went there to check it out. it was bit lonely there :(

Yes it is! You should join and help make it active! We just hit over 1,000 posts too. :D


Does anyone know how T-90 armor compares to Western tank armor?


The armour of the turret and upper glacis is probably superior to, say, the T-72BV with Kontakt-5, which has ~670-710mm on the glacis plate and around 700-740mm on the weakened zone [normally one of the highest ratings on the tank]. It's probably not much more - maybe high 700s now. On the other hand, Western tanks like the Challenger 2E and Leopard 2A5 and the M1A2 SEP tend to have 900mm+ RHAe [rolled homogenous armour equivalent]. Nevertheless, that means that tanks like the T-72 and T-90 are very well armoured for their size, given that they are ~10-15 tonnes lighter than their Western counterparts.

[ThePuss]

Considering I have substantial investments in KMDB is it really a suprise?
Oh Pylyp you puppet of the capitalist system, why are you forsaking your socialist values. Most likely the same as the rest. If you can make some money through corporate ownership then why not. It is reassuring to see the Ukraine embrace a free market/share ownership economy.

[arteshi]

The Rounds that are Stored in the Autoloader of all T-72, T-80 and T-90 Type tanks will ignite in case of Penetration killing the whole crew and blasting the turret off.
That is a well known effect, this is why new russian Prototypes like Black Eagle have a Similar Turret design to the M1 with blast openings.

Hi,
good said, unless T90 get new Russian upgrade with the new turret and new automatic loader positioned in the turret, it is doomed like the Iraqi T72's. The Iranian Zulfigur does not appear to have the old Russian/Soviet autoloader. Does it?

[GunnySmith]

Damn! I gotta hand it to you guys, you sound like you really know your tanks. The only thing I know is that you shouldn't trust me to command one.

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

Hi,
good said, unless T90 get new Russian upgrade with the new turret and new automatic loader positioned in the turret, it is doomed like the Iraqi T72's. The Iranian Zulfigur does not appear to have the old Russian/Soviet autoloader. Does it?

It would depend. Given it's inspiration from the T-72 it's possible, and the fact that the new turret may have been inspired by the Type 98 turret it only makes it more possible. The key would be to find out how many crew members this tank has.

[Power_Serj]

Damn! I gotta hand it to you guys, you sound like you really know your tanks. The only thing I know is that you shouldn't trust me to command one.


I haven't read everything here, but becareful, don't believe everything you hear here, because a lot of people spread misinformation here because they use invalid and biased sources such as Wikipedia and they get info from other people who get their sources from an invalid, or biased source.

[GunnySmith]

Tanks and foreign policy... I make the distinction, but thanks for the heads up. :) I'm with ya.

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

Well, you'd be able to tell disinformation easily on a forum like this, given the fact that you can tell more or less the lack of authority in what the person is talking about - or lack of information, for example, as well.

[GunnySmith]

Or the overdone fad known as "American bashing" that seems to have swept over the globe. It's in vogue now, but don't say anything bad about "them"... "DEATH TO ALL!" is what they shout as they saw off someones head because they are white.

[apple_fritta]

Uncle sam is only gonna need its humvees to kill the nobs sitting inside that......HOW?.....u see that massive machine gun sitting on top of thier humvees? it shoots 50cal bullets with explosive warheads if need be....believe me those bllets rip a hole through the metal then killl your man inside.
Their snipers use em too.....
go to the folllowing link and you'll knwo0 what i mean...
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=8809727426000045704&q=future+weapons
Apple_fritta

[Pylyp Orlyk]

Uncle sam is only gonna need its humvees to kill the nobs sitting inside that......HOW?.....u see that massive machine gun sitting on top of thier humvees? it shoots 50cal bullets with explosive warheads if need be....believe me those bllets rip a hole through the metal then killl your man inside.
Their snipers use em too.....
go to the folllowing link and you'll knwo0 what i mean...
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=8809727426000045704&q=future+weapons
Apple_fritta

Apple, no rifle is going to pierce a T-90 at any range.

[apple_fritta]

Apple, no rifle is going to pierce a T-90 at any range.

did u even watch the video???? cos the video gived evidence that the freaken bullet can and WILL go through armour. Just gotta hit near the same spot a few times.... 50 caliber bullets are the size of a freaken nokia 3310 with explosive arhead. SO YES IT WILL GO THROUGH.

[Pylyp Orlyk]

did u even watch the video???? cos the video gived evidence that the freaken bullet can and WILL go through armour. Just gotta hit near the same spot a few times.... 50 caliber bullets are the size of a freaken nokia 3310 with explosive arhead. SO YES IT WILL GO THROUGH.

It will go thru HUM-V armor, not MBT armor...

[apple_fritta]

It will go thru HUM-V armor, not MBT armor...

ten bullets in the same spot with in 10 secs?

[Pylyp Orlyk]

ten bullets in the same spot with in 10 secs?

They won't all hit the same spot... not even if it was the .50 cal browning machine gun would that happen... quit grasping at straws

[apple_fritta]

They won't all hit the same spot... not even if it was the .50 cal browning machine gun would that happen... quit grasping at straws

if u say so :tired1_24:

[Pylyp Orlyk]

GAH who cares about these stupid bulletsjust us a freakin RPG...i think we can both agree on that eh?

That's what I say...

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

The chances that ten bullets will hit the same spot is impossible. You have to take into consideration that the second bullet would have to penetrate where the first bullet leaves off, and the chances that it will perfectly enter the nick is implausible, if not impossible. There are projects for segmented penetrators which would basically be two or more penetrators hitting in the same spot to increase penetration, but the problem of hitting at the same spot has thwarted any attempts at the technology.

Even an RPG doesn't have a good chance against the T-90, unless it's coming from the rear or the top. If the Arena systems works as well as they say they do, and it should given the fact it was widely installed after Grozny, you'd have to hit it from the rear, or multiple times to overwhelm Arena [which only has a 300 degree arc where it can work]. Even then, an RPG-7 or RPG-29 would have to hit perfectly to penetrate the armour of the T-90 along the frontal arc, and this is assuming that the HEAT warhead doesn't have a kink in it, which it probably does, hits at the perfect angle, et cetera. There are a lot of factors you'd need to take into consideration. But, yes, generally I would prefer an RPG over an anti-material rifle.

[Pylyp Orlyk]

Considering RPG-29 went thru M1A1 from one side into the other I think it can handle T-90.

[Ayyash]

Considering RPG-29 went thru M1A1 from one side into the other I think it can handle T-90.
When was this?

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

Considering RPG-29 went thru M1A1 from one side into the other I think it can handle T-90.

Proof? I really doubt this. I know there was a case in Iraq where it did something similar, but it went through the thin lower hull plating behind the roadwheels, and then through thin plating on the other side. The tank was not put out of action, and none of the crew were hurt.

[Pylyp Orlyk]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

Yea, there are doubts it was an RPG-29. A member on another forum who has contacts within the Russian armed services and Ukrainian armed services denies the idea of RPG-29s in Iraq, even though Janes reported there were. That particular penetration refers to this, and it was the one I referred to. None of the crew members were killed:

http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/usa/Abrams/magic1.jpg

http://pdfdirectory.modernwarstudies.net/images/usa/Abrams/magic2.jpg

Nevertheless, even that article explains it pretty well:

[Power_Serj]

How would an RPG-29 shot be so small? That clearly isn't an Rpg-29 shot. Looks like a lucky shot by an Ak-47 or sniper.

[Pylyp Orlyk]

How would an RPG-29 shot be so small? That clearly isn't an Rpg-29 shot. Looks like a lucky shot by an Ak-47 or sniper.

I guess you don't know how a HEAT round works.

[Sajjad]

What are the status of the T-90 of Russia? Are they to export this beautiful tank to other countries?

Who else have T-90? How good is this tank?

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

How would an RPG-29 shot be so small? That clearly isn't an Rpg-29 shot. Looks like a lucky shot by an Ak-47 or sniper.

Why would it be any larger? Technically the less the diameter the better. How a HEAT munition works is that the liner collapses after the explosive is set-off. A wave shaper then forms waves perpindicular to the armour and helps initial penetration of the liner, which is now collapsing while the jet tip picks up to around ~10,000m/sec+. Ideal penetration happens when the penetrator is moving faster than the speed of sound through its own medium and the medium of the armour, and that's why low mass penetrators like HEAT penetrators penetrate so well. It's not a liquid, like some people think, it's simply a solid copper or molybdenum penetrator constantly getting longer penetrating in a hydrodynamic relationship to the armour. So, technically, the thinner it is, the longer it is, the more it's going to penetrate. I've read a few papers that they've increased jet tip velocity by decreasing mass, and that achieves a jet tip velocity of ~13,000m/sec.

The problem, as I've stated before, is that post-penetration power is so low that it rarely kills the crew of the tank. This, of course, isn't this case in examples like Chechnya where they penetrated the relatively thin top armour, or they hit the casette autoloader.


What are the status of the T-90 of Russia? Are they to export this beautiful tank to other countries?

Who else have T-90? How good is this tank?


Algeria purchased ~300+ T-90S', and India made an original order of ~300 T-90S', and now with the Arjun project either lagging, or some claim even cancelled, they have ordered another 1,000 to be indegenously produced inside India. The T-90S is an improvement over the T-72, using aspects of both the T-72 [AFAIK, the chassis] and the T-80 [the turret?]. Armour protection is not higher, or barely is higher, than these two former tanks, and I think it's an interim tank until the T-95 is released to keep at least one of two remaining Russian tank plants in business.

[arteshi]

Damn! I gotta hand it to you guys, you sound like you really know your tanks. The only thing I know is that you shouldn't trust me to command one.

Actually I am in the infantry, I do like all things military though.
Regards
Arteshi out.

[crod]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnySmith
Damn! I gotta hand it to you guys, you sound like you really know your tanks. The only thing I know is that you shouldn't trust me to command one.

LMAO

[arteshi]

I don't think there will be a war though honestly. I also think the Iranians have more experience with independence to be honest then the average Iraqi had. Iran may have a president I totally disagree with but there are alot of different ethnic, and religous groups that are not subjected to ( from what I hear ) the same types of trouble groups in Iraq were subjected too. However women, and people who are interested in more democratic institutions sure still catch alot of trouble.

So I do think, that if the time comes when push comes to shove, it wouldnt surprise me if the more moderate members of the Iranian government divide with the current president and we see an easier transition for Iran. On the other hand like I said the current president could just as easily lighten up a bit and everything would probably be alright. The United States is having a slow go of it in Iraq because the United States is not really a country that likes to do the martial law thing. We like to go in and then rebuild and leave. We arent there despite what alot of people wrongly think to try to disrespect Islam, convert the people to our culture ect. We just went in to fix a problem we helped start and to end the mass killings by an evil man ( Sadamn ).

Cya
Brad
I agree 100%, Us policy towards Iran has been very soft lately, maybe they wait til the people revolt. I don't think we would have any trouble fighting their military, the issue is who is going to stay there. I don't see Europe sending in any troops any time soom.

[apple_fritta]

The Bullet I Was Talking About Had An Explosive Friggin War Head....the Explosion Would Have A Freakin Radius....and Other Rounds Can Hit Near The Dam Radius...far Our......read And Watch The Loink I Gave Yous A Little Erlier.

Hezballah...i Can Tell U That India Had T-90...others I M Dont Know

[apple_fritta]

The Bullet I Was Talking About Had An Explosive Friggin War Head....the Explosion Would Have A Freakin Radius....and Other Rounds Can Hit Near The Dam Radius...far Our......read And Watch The Link I Gave Yous A Little Erlier.

Hezballah...i Can Tell U That India Has T-90...others I DONT KNOW

[Pylyp Orlyk]

The Bullet I Was Talking About Had An Explosive Friggin War Head....the Explosion Would Have A Freakin Radius....and Other Rounds Can Hit Near The Dam Radius...far Our......read And Watch The Loink I Gave Yous A Little Erlier.

It doesn't matter if they have HE rounds out of a .50 cal, it's too small to do any damage to an MBT. That's why it takes 120mm rounds to do the job.

[apple_fritta]

ok what ever u say

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

The Bullet I Was Talking About Had An Explosive Friggin War Head....the Explosion Would Have A Freakin Radius....and Other Rounds Can Hit Near The Dam Radius...far Our......read And Watch The Link I Gave Yous A Little Erlier.

Hezballah...i Can Tell U That India Has T-90...others I DONT KNOW


Umm, that's irrelevent. The only explosive warhead that really has an effect on tank armour is HESH given the fact that its based off the shockwaves of the explosion, not the explosion itself, and it specially directs these waves into the steel armour [forcing it to collapse]. An explosive by itself won't do anything against armour, and if buttoned up a tank can survive very near naval shell bombardments.

[utelore]

hello all,
Acutely there is a .50 round that can kill a tank. Its a .50 SLAP (special load armour penetrator) which is a High velocity depleted uranium sabot round fired from a U.S Barret 50. Whe I was in Iraq I have talked to guys who have engaged T-55 and T-62 in Iraq during GW-1 and they were used with great effect in destroying those tanks even against the frontal aspect.

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

IIRC, the SLAP uses a tungsten penetration, not dU, and SLAP stands for 'saboted light armour penetrator'. The armour protection between a T-55 and a T-90 is incredibly different. Furthermore, there were no T-62s in Iraq - only T-55s and T-72s. Armour penetration for the SLAP is only around 35mms, which is not nearly enough to penetrate any of the T-90s armour where it would kill the crew, or mission kill the vehicle.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

[utelore]

negitive hit on target Mr Finegold, I engaged a multi T-62 just south-west of Basra in 91. I am a former member of the 1st cav Div "Iron Horse brigade" 2/8 cav. 19K armour crewman on a M1A1. I was also the platoon OPFOR ID specialist and there were many T-62 in Iraq THIS IS A FACT!!!.... As far as the DU with the .50 you should do some more open source research.....cheers ute.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/interactive/ground.weapons/content.2.html

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

You're right, apparantly they had 1,500 in 1990. o.O

The fact remains, this bullet will not penetrate the armour of a T-90.

[utelore]

yes , from what I understand the .50 DUslap will not defeat the frontal aspect of the T-90 nor T-80 or upgraded versions of the T-72. But the SF boys I have talked to had no problems killing T-54/55 or T-62 with this round. This may also interest you fellows but we set up a T-72 after the war and at 300-500 meters the 25mm AP of the Bradley penetrated the frontal aspect of the turret and hull of the T-72 with no problems. At the time I thought it was kind of funny. We kept getting reports of Bradleys killing T-72 with its gun and we just set up a test to see if the 25mm could realy do this and IT DID.

[mehrzad]

When India evaluated the T90, it has proven ineffective under hot and dry climate. Especially their gasturbine-engine had massive overheating-problems.
But it is unclear if this statement by the Indian Army was politically motivated.

I personally doubt that the T90 would be that great step forward...

i thought they fixed that by repalacing all the parts for new and upgraded ones.

[Tbagger]

i thought they fixed that by repalacing all the parts for new and upgraded ones.
The T-90's upgraded thermal sights also had problems in the Thar Desert.

[Universal]

I think that Iran should buy the T-90CA or at the very least buy a T-80UM1.

[Xerxes]

Iran should no buy any thanks or fighters ... rather it should invest heavilly in a mobile formidable air defense .... and i mean real air defense not anti-aircraft artillary (AAA)

[Khaybar]

Iran should no buy any thanks or fighters ... rather it should invest heavilly in a mobile formidable air defense .... and i mean real air defense not anti-aircraft artillary (AAA)

I think they've already started doing that, when they signed a contract with Russia to buy the Tor anti air missile launcher, who are by the way mobile.

But if a war should happen in the near future, without a considerably effective anti-air defense system, the Army's tactics should be the same as the Vietcong, or Hezbollah, "ride out the bombs, and engage the ennemy when they get near".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Xerxes]

I think they've already started doing that, when they signed a contract with Russia to buy the Tor anti air missile launcher, who are by the way mobile.

But if a war should happen in the near future, without a considerably effective anti-air defense system, the Army's tactics should be the same as the Vietcong, or Hezbollah, "ride out the bombs, and engage the ennemy when they get near".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام


Well during the Vietnam war there were two armies fighting the US forces. One was the regular North Vietnamese Army and the other was Viet-minh renamed Viet-Cong.

In an event of a hypothetical land invasion, I think the IRGC will assume the role of Viet-Cong if anything while the regime's black sheep, Iran's regular army, will just sit tight.

[Universal]

Iran already has the S-300PMU series.

[s-300]

theres no prof iran as s-300 or any of newest series and they like to show what the got as for apache have you already forget the iraq farmer that was hunting and saw a apache bang like a duck

[Jonathan M. Finegold]

If Iraq received S-300Ps then I'm sure Iran has them as well.

[jawwal]

theres no prof iran as s-300 or any of newest series and they like to show what the got as for apache have you already forget the iraq farmer that was hunting and saw a apache bang like a duck

Iran recieved four batteries of S-300 two years ago, as a part of a deal, not know the exact amount of all the deal.

[crod]

has this new battle tank being tested and if any lads attached to the MBT units have thoughts, pics etc can they post them please as i would love to see them in use. is it possible to compare against other tanks yet or still to early to do so???

[EinsatzGruppen]

aa **** jewish tanks merkava sux t-90 its go **** it in cutted jewish *** }:D

[Ayyash]

What was the last post?

[Khaybar]

What does the t-90 have to do with Iran purchasing the S-300?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
تزول الجبال ولا تزل عض على ناجذك اعر الله جمجمتك تدفى في الارض قدمك ارم ببصرك اقصى القوم و غض بصرك و اعلم ان النصر من عند الله سبحانه
امير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام

[Mujahid786]

Sounds not likely, the Merkava hasnt been exported anywhere so far and T-90 and Al-Khalid are completely outdated because they are T-72 based.
The performance shown by T-72 in Iraq has effectively stopped export success of this line of tanks.

al khalid is not based on t72 neither pakistan or china have t72!!!!:frown3:

[Din]

Iran recieved four batteries of S-300 two years ago, as a part of a deal, not know the exact amount of all the deal.

So... it has just 12-16 S-300's? [assuming similar "Battery" doctrine of 3 else 4 weapon systems linked to a radar station]

Mind, considering the Iranian Air-defence's set up of just 3 positions in an Anti-air triangle plus radar van I can see how people think there's more of them than there is.


Anyhow, the T-90 I beleive has seen some action in Chechnya and, indeed, includes many technologies etc made during the Second Chechnyan war when various tanks proved ineffective against the Chechnyan rebels armed with explosives and Anti-tank weapons.

[Tallgeese]

When India evaluated the T90, it has proven ineffective under hot and dry climate. Especially their gasturbine-engine had massive overheating-problems.
But it is unclear if this statement by the Indian Army was politically motivated.

I personally doubt that the T90 would be that great step forward...

Actually the French designed IR-/laser range finding equipment was found to be ineffective in the hot climate. Finally you're confusing the T-80U (which uses the gas turbine) with the T-90. The T-90 uses as multi-fuel engine, thus has less power but added flexibility as its engine has the ignition for any fuel type. Thus if the enemy is using gas (such as the M-1A1 which uses a gas-turbine) you can capture enemy depots of gas & proceed where diesel only engines are superflous. However, there is a 1,250 hp engine (with a 1,500hp on option) for the T-90, & to be fair, a 18.5 hp/tonne p/w ratio is acceptable,

Besides, a T-90 can blast the hell out of the Al-Khalid MBT 2000, T-80UD or Type-85 operated by Pakistan, it uses the same 125mm round, but a much higher velocity (& longer) barrel than the T-72 plus newer versions of the 125mm round. I have also found that it can fire up to 12 rounds in the first minute (with a penalty of six rounds every minute after) or sustain eight rounds per minute.

[Wajhee]

why don't u guys go 4 AL-khalid....its best in the bussiness....infact better than M1A1/2 and leapord...
ITs the lightest tank with 46 tonnes and great maneuverability ....
its power/weight ratio is 26 hp.....its the highest in world....
The Al-Khalid has modular composite armour and explosive reactive armour, nuclear-biological-chemical defences, an effective thermal smoke generator, internal fire extinguisher and explosion-suppression system.
The gunner is provided with a dual magnification day sight and the commander with a panoramic sight for all-around independent surveillance. Both sights are dual-axis image stabilized and have independent laser range finders. The commander has the ability to acquire a target independently while the gunner is engaging another one. The automatic target-tracking system is designed to work when tank and target are both moving. Night vision for the gunner and commander is achieved through a dual-magnification thermal imaging sight. Both sites are integrated with the fire-control system.

The Norinco fire-control system has inputs from ten sensors. The ballistic computation time is less than one second. The manufacturer claims routine first round hits on standard 8 ft Ũ 8 ft targets at ranges over 2,000 meters.

Effective range: 200 m to 5,000 m
Sensor: laser ranging from 200 m to 9,990 m
Auto-tracking, firing four types of munitions, gunner's thermal imaging sight, commander's image intensification night vision sight, gyro-stabilized and UPS power supply system.

[mustavaris]

why don't u guys go 4 AL-khalid....its best in the bussiness....infact better than M1A1/2 and leapord...
.

Better than M1/Leopard... give me a break. Itīs only better when you consider price, and just price.

Wait til it gets into competition with other MBTs and youīll see where the truth lies.

One thing to add is that 46t weight tells pretty clearly that it will go boom when its hit by anything modern as ERA ainīt a miracle shield.. And 2K engagement range aint that special either, never to mention the inferior ammunition it uses.

[ironbar]

the t-90 is really junk its is an upgraded t-72 that is all
it has alot of era on it but that doesnt protect it as much as people think
it can fire missles but it has to be sitting still and in communication with a foward observer for that
its infr red missle blinding system makes it an easy target for infrared seeking missles like the javelin

[Relikt]

the t-90 is really junk its is an upgraded t-72 that is all
it has alot of era on it but that doesnt protect it as much as people think
it can fire missles but it has to be sitting still and in communication with a foward observer for that
its infr red missle blinding system makes it an easy target for infrared seeking missles like the javelin
You dont know nothing about tanks. This post prove it. And it is not strange you said that modern western tank cost 40 mln $.

At begin of T-90 life (1992) it was upgraded T-72. But in 1996 it was selected to be MBT(main battle tank) of Russian army. So Russians invest time and $$$ in it. In 1999 they show T-90A Vladimir which have welded turret and new autoloader. Russians had many experience in tank danger points. First in A-stan later in Chechenia (in Chechenia they fight most modern Soviet ATGM and Russian tank core bleed) to situation be even worse much expensive T-80U show bad performances. T-80U is tank of Red Guard units (Soviet elite troops with elite hardware). So decision was made. T-90 will became better tank than T-80U and will be only tank in production.
With new welded turret arrived new western like composite armor busting T-90 kinetic protection. Data is classified but I could estimate that T-90A have 3 times stronger turret than Iraq's T-72 against KE round.
Against HEAT (RPG, ATGM) T-90A is one of best protected tanks in world. And there is new ERA called Relikt which have two times better performance than Kontakt-5.
Autoloader in T-90A can use shorter(old)rounds and longer(new) rounds. This is something that T-72 cant. With new round T-90 will hurt Abrams on same distance from which Abrams can hurt T-90A.
About AT-11 ATGM. It is laser guided so you dont need forward observer you just need powerfull optics in fact our T-72 (M-84) can hit moving tank on distance of 5km it was show in Kuwait and Kuwait army was very pleased with that because they cant do that with Abrams. Also T-90A can fire it ATGM and run away. Targeting will do point man or chopter or UAV or plane.
What is problem? Cost of AT-11: 45.000$.
Dont get me wrong T-90A or T-90S isnt best tank in world but is very close to best tanks of world and for price of one western beast you can get 2 or 3 T-90A.
And active defence systems like jammers on T-90A work very good. It will make very hard time to infrared self guided missiles like FGM-148 as you write Javelin. T-90 defence create hot smoke with special gases and create hot screen which is 4 time larger than T-90. It would be hard to find tank in that situation for fire and forget missiles. Same smoke reduce laser energy so laser guided missiles (Hellfire) would also had hard time to hit T-90 and T-90 can launch it own missile which can attack helicopter have they need to do is create optic guided wire missile because screen will disable use of T-90 laser marker.
So right now we have tank which can kill M1A2 with sabot round from normal distance. It would be old thing:"First see, first kill".
Also it is not so important to have best tank more important is logistics and rest of your army. Germans had Panther tanks in France(half of Leer tanks in France were Pz-V) and didnt stop D-day. Why?
Their air force sucks. Pz-V move by night and hide by day while Allies with it s inferior but faster tanks take strategic positions.

[Technicaldeathstrike]

I agree for first comment..Iran should buy T90.

[Power_Serj]

T-90 is the crappiest "modern" MBT in the world. It is only considered "modern" because of the time period is was made. If you're hit, you're screwed and there's no doubt about it. Russia tanks aren't made for survivability, but manueverability, and low price. Also, they are small and uncomfortable for the crew. It's the last tank I'd ever want to be in.

[Relikt]

T-90 is the crappiest "modern" MBT in the world. It is only considered "modern" because of the time period is was made. If you're hit, you're screwed and there's no doubt about it. Russia tanks aren't made for survivability, but manueverability, and low price. Also, they are small and uncomfortable for the crew. It's the last tank I'd ever want to be in.
A. T-90S India pay each for 2.5 mln $. Compare that to 500.000 which is cost of new T-72. So T-90S isnt cheap tank.
And India get lower price because of large number of ordered tanks and cooperation in production.

Really price if you buy one tank is 3 to 4 mln $.

B. T-90S as I said xy times isnt T-90 from 1992. It was build on T-90A Vladimir prototype build in 1999. And first T-90S come in 2001. So one of the youngest modern tank.

C. As I said earlier T-90S have round and gun similar to US M1A2. This is said to me one us tank man. He dont think that T-90S is danger to M1A2 only because US have huge AF to support Abrams. But T-90S would be much danger opponent than Iraq T-72 because it is capable to kill M1A2 on same distance from which M1A2 can kill it around 1.5km distance. Over that range T-90S can use AT-11 ATGM but it must hit M1A2 from side or on top turret to make damage will M1A2 can only drive in reverse to escape but this is why AH-64 is there.
AT-11 can attack helicopters too what other tank can that.

D. And T-90S isnt jack in box like T-72. If it get hit it wouldnt cook turret munition and turret wouldnt pop up like jack in box.
Turret of T-90S is welded so it now can use advanced composite armor which is already use on Mi-28 (strong steel + ceramics). On top of that it have world best ERA(kontakt-5) and its successor(Relikt).
After all do you really think that India would by T-90S of it is only upgraded T-72.

E. Western tanks are more accurate and more mobile, because of better electronics and bigger place for engine which allow them to pack more HP per tonne. So you are wrong even about mobility but it is common mistake around army forums that Soviet tanks are faster than modern western one. And ground which can hold 45 or 50 tonne tank can hold 60 tone tank without problem, but 70 tone (Merkeva or super added armored Leopard 2) will have problems. Like Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 in WW2. Tiger 1 didnt had big off road problems even it was near 60 tones but Tiger 2 had big off road problems and it was close to 70 tone.

[KingoftheHill]

I agree for first comment..Iran should buy T90.

No they shouldn't

Tanks are obsolete in today's environment.

[Tbagger]

Tanks are obsolete in today's environment.
Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom says otherwise.

[KingoftheHill]

Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom says otherwise.

Desert Storm? :roflmao3:

What about M1s getting destroyed by Daisy Chains and the Mujahadeens?

The Stryker-class is the future, they are more agile, adaptive and can pack a punch too.

[SuperSixOne]

No they arn't, most of the Abrams were lost from friendly fire, the strykers are a Piece of crap, they get stuck in the mud and are too lightly armored. Plus their tires have too high of a ground pressure and get shot out too easy.

Plus they are very expensive. Tracks are the way to go,

[Relikt]

Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom says otherwise.
And what about Lebanon war last year?
M1A1 or M1A2 in Desert storm and Iraq freedom didnt saw any state of the art ATGM. O yes in Iraq freedom it was strike by (or they think) RPG-29 and crew get lighter damage, but it is RPG not ATGM. So RPG man must came close and be very cool to get good shot.
Answer what I get on other us forum from Panama veteran is that any modern tank in urban combat against well train and equip enemy is sitting duck. And this answer was before Lebanon war 2006.

[Tbagger]

What about M1s getting destroyed by Daisy Chains and the Mujahadeens?

The Stryker-class is the future, they are more agile, adaptive and can pack a punch too.
You pit Strykers against MBTs and they'll be blown to bits. The Stryker was made to support heavy forces, not replace them.

People have been raving about the tank's demise since the 60's, when ATGMs started coming into play.

No other platform matches the tank in firepower, protection, and mobility.

[KingoftheHill]

You pit Strykers against MBTs and they'll be blown to bits. The Stryker was made to support heavy forces, not replace them.

People have been raving about the tank's demise since the 60's, when ATGMs started coming into play.

No other platform matches the tank in firepower, protection, and mobility.

Urban combat is the future, and last time I checked the tanks haven't been wildly successful as you make them out to be.

[Ayyash]

Well, tanks have no tactical purpose in counter insurgency i.e. iraq. It does though have plenty of strategic value. And you forget that there are plenty of conventional foes, i.e. iran tat fields a large armor force.
The tank would also play an invaluble role to the indians and pakistan should anothwe war break out in kashmir

[Tbagger]

Urban combat is the future, and last time I checked the tanks haven't been wildly successful as you make them out to be.
Look at Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm.

Fast moving, heavy forces still rule the battle field.

Show me one system that can out-perform a tank in firepower, protection, and mobility. Only a tank can provide that level of battlefield dominance.

[KingoftheHill]

Look at Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm.

Fast moving, heavy forces still rule the battle field.

Show me one system that can out-perform a tank in firepower, protection, and mobility. Only a tank can provide that level of battlefield dominance.



There won't be battlefields, it's gonna be lopsided matches, guerrilla combat or MAD.

[Relikt]

Look at Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm.

Fast moving, heavy forces still rule the battle field.

Show me one system that can out-perform a tank in firepower, protection, and mobility. Only a tank can provide that level of battlefield dominance.
For god sakes when you yanks will stop using DS and Iraq freedom as standard for war. In DS Iraq was attack with so big alliance and mission was only liberation of Kuwait. In Iraq freedom you attack coutnry which were under sactions for 12 years. You face army which didnt want to fight. Tech level '60 and '70. In fact only 15% of Iraq army really fight. And what is happen now? You are fighting urban guerrilla with M1A2. It is stupid. Guerrilla use RPG not DU sabots. Styker would be much more efficient in that role. With its slat armor and possible ERA defence it could done same task as tank but would be more mobile and much less oil dependent it is smaller then tank so it can use in street combat easier.
I dont say that tanks are doomed in future wars. On open battlefield good tank is excellent war machine but when it get in city and face with well train,well equip and fanatic defenders it would smoke very fast.

[Ayyash]

For god sakes when you yanks will stop using DS and Iraq freedom as standard for war. In DS Iraq was attack with so big alliance and mission was only liberation of Kuwait. In Iraq freedom you attack coutnry which were under sactions for 12 years. You face army which didnt want to fight. Tech level '60 and '70. In fact only 15% of Iraq army really fight. And what is happen now? You are fighting urban guerrilla with M1A2. It is stupid. Guerrilla use RPG not DU sabots. Styker would be much more efficient in that role. With its slat armor and possible ERA defence it could done same task as tank but would be more mobile and much less oil dependent it is smaller then tank so it can use in street combat easier.
I dont say that tanks are doomed in future wars. On open battlefield good tank is excellent war machine but when it get in city and face with well train,well equip and fanatic defenders it would smoke very fast.

Strykers can still get bogged down, look wehat happened in the battle for nasiryah in the opening of OIF, 3000 fedayeen held off 6000 marines+armour and air for quite a few days.

[mustavaris]

Urban combat is the future, and last time I checked the tanks haven't been wildly successful as you make them out to be.

Bagdad 2003 was a great success which was doomed a failure by many before it happened. Americans have conducted many succesfull operations in Iraq, Israeli casualties have been light and far from failure. Last time MBTs have failed big time has been in Chechnya, and then it was a general failure + solid opposition that guaranteed high losses, but yet werent enough to gain victory from the hands of (relatively) modern armoured foe.

The present cities have plenty of area for MBTs to operate, the cities aint what they used to be nor the MBTs as blind as they used to be. Besides that, urban armoured warfare is always a cooperative operation of infantry and armour. They supplement each other. MBTīs days aint numbered and the new sensors, UAVs and such give a lot more awareness than was available just a few years ago.

[mustavaris]

Strykers can still get bogged down, look wehat happened in the battle for nasiryah in the opening of OIF, 3000 fedayeen held off 6000 marines+armour and air for quite a few days.

And were obliterated/slipped away. How many Americans got killed? 176 from March 2003 to May 2003... majority of them werent killed by their enemies.. Numbers tell a lot. The fact that the opposition lasted few days tells about two things: Americans wanted to avoid losses and Americans avoided collateral damage.

[Ayyash]

The point is that in street fighting/urban combat, tanks do very little in terms of tactical (note the difference between tactical and strategical) gain.
Tanks and, to a lesser extent APC's are of little help for offense in the current iraq war.

[mustavaris]

The point is that in street fighting/urban combat, tanks do very little in terms of tactical (note the difference between tactical and strategical) gain.
Tanks and, to a lesser extent APC's are of little help for offense in the current iraq war.

Have you watched the US(MC) videos they shot in Fallujah? You can see there in many occasions how the armour is used in street figthing, esp. Bradleys and their missiles seem to be heavily used.

You are partly right though, the heavy armour is not at its best in COIN which represent most of the daily warring in Iraq- but in face to face figthing like in Bagdad, Fallujah, Nasiriyah, Basra, et cetera it has given quite a bunch.

[Ayyash]

But do tanks entrench a good or bad opinion of americans in the peoples mind? It is absolutely vital if america is to 'win' the war that iraqis not see abrabs going by, crushing the blacktop.
Simply put, armour cant do true-counterinsurgency tactics.

[mustavaris]

But do tanks entrench a good or bad opinion of americans in the peoples mind? It is absolutely vital if america is to 'win' the war that iraqis not see abrabs going by, crushing the blacktop.
Simply put, armour cant do true-counterinsurgency tactics.

Yes indeed. Thats why there is that "purge" going on. More significant than the few thousand xtra troops is the more aggressive foot patrolling and setting up new (small) operational bases to give the humane feeling to the occupation. That has given a lot more pressure on insurgents/terrorists and also contributed to the relatively high casualties Americans have taken during last couple of months.

[mustavaris]

Y

With new welded turret arrived new western like composite armor busting T-90 kinetic protection. Data is classified but I could estimate that T-90A have 3 times stronger turret than Iraq's T-72 against KE round.
Against HEAT (RPG, ATGM) T-90A is one of best protected tanks in world. And there is new ERA called Relikt which have two times better performance than Kontakt-5.

D. And T-90S isnt jack in box like T-72. If it get hit it wouldnt cook turret munition and turret wouldnt pop up like jack in box.
Turret of T-90S is welded so it now can use advanced composite armor which is already use on Mi-28 (strong steel + ceramics).




Previous stuff is from two Reliktīs posts-

Doesnt the T90 have 22 rounds carousel-loader? Pretty much the same as earlier Ts... the crew members have different compartments, but still there is 22 rounds in the turret... the turret bustle obiosuly holds the rest...

Btw: here is the video of T90 shooting 3 times in about 13 secs.

http://perso.numericable.fr/vfofanov/Tanks/IMAGES/t-90002.avi

[Ayyash]

Yes indeed. Thats why there is that "purge" going on. More significant than the few thousand xtra troops is the more aggressive foot patrolling and setting up new (small) operational bases to give the humane feeling to the occupation. That has given a lot more pressure on insurgents/terrorists and also contributed to the relatively high casualties Americans have taken during last couple of months.
Exactly, armour cannot be a substitute for boots on the ground. But thanks to ill-training and near inherant xenophobia on the part of the americans, tthe 'surge' you mention in doomed for failure. No thanks to the building of a big concrete wall in baghdad (strike any memories for anyone)

[mustavaris]

Exactly, armour cannot be a substitute for boots on the ground. But thanks to ill-training and near inherant xenophobia on the part of the americans, tthe 'surge' you mention in doomed for failure. No thanks to the building of a big concrete wall in baghdad (strike any memories for anyone)

You are tight about the need of the boots on the ground- but,

I am not sure about the failure: but the American surge will not beat the insurgency and as far as I know it isnt even the goal, they are just buying time for Iraqi government while killing as many insurgents as possible and while bringing some peace to secured areas. This combination could bring the end to the Sunni-insurgency as its going to be in its death throes no matter what comes within few years or before. If its not the Americans and Iraqi government that finishes them, itīs the Shiia death squads that will finish them and many of the ordinary Sunnis too.

The question about the end of Sunni-insurgency is how long it will take, who will crush them and how many will die. I do not see any chances for them to be victorious. The big Q is what they are going to do about Shiia-related problem, but if the Iraq government, dominated by Shias, is established this problem could be solved letting the Iraqis to take care of the radical elements + withdrawing the excessive US presence. But, against Sunni-insurgency, American withdrawal is not an option.

I think that if the surge is succesful, it will help the Iraqi forces to retake the areas and establish their presence. Without that happening, the Americans can keep on fighting like this for decades to come and nothing will happen.

The security wall in this kind of situation is understandable, though Iīm not convinced that it could work in this kind of urban situation (there is need for huge number of gates for example and the manned gates are pretty much sitting targets for the attacks).

In Israel the wall has worked, it has stopped most of the meatbombers. But in Iraq I cannot see such success ahead (no comments on the justification or implementation though).

[Ayyash]

You are tight about the need of the boots on the ground- but,

I am not sure about the failure: but the American surge will not beat the insurgency and as far as I know it isnt even the goal, they are just buying time for Iraqi government while killing as many insurgents as possible and while bringing some peace to secured areas. This combination could bring the end to the Sunni-insurgency as its going to be in its death throes no matter what comes within few years or before. If its not the Americans and Iraqi government that finishes them, itīs the Shiia death squads that will finish them and many of the ordinary Sunnis too.

The question about the end of Sunni-insurgency is how long it will take, who will crush them and how many will die. I do not see any chances for them to be victorious. The big Q is what they are going to do about Shiia-related problem, but if the Iraq government, dominated by Shias, is established this problem could be solved letting the Iraqis to take care of the radical elements + withdrawing the excessive US presence. But, against Sunni-insurgency, American withdrawal is not an option.

I think that if the surge is succesful, it will help the Iraqi forces to retake the areas and establish their presence. Without that happening, the Americans can keep on fighting like this for decades to come and nothing will happen.

The security wall in this kind of situation is understandable, though Iīm not convinced that it could work in this kind of urban situation (there is need for huge number of gates for example and the manned gates are pretty much sitting targets for the attacks).

In Israel the wall has worked, it has stopped most of the meatbombers. But in Iraq I cannot see such success ahead (no comments on the justification or implementation though).


Well, we are in agreement about the armour aspect, now onto the surge.
The surge will/is accomplishing the opposite goal of what i understand you a saying. The decrease of sectarian killings that has much been lauded on western news channels has been accompinied by a relatively large upswing in deaths of american troops. We can deduct from this that, those who had been killing each other, are now focused on killing the american; because instead of having shia's (or sunni's) in your neighborhood unwanted, it is now the americans and consequently the hatred to transferred from sectarianism onto the foreign occupiers.
The upswing of american deaths result in an even greater push from the general american public to bring the troops home (as in vietnam). This movement i speak of will almost certaindly be unilateral leaving for prescense in iraq to deal with the terrorists as you deem them. This then turns the initial advantage of giving time to the iraqi parliment.
Also, the parliment will never be ready in the short amount of time the surge intends to buy. Lets face it the highly divided cabinet we speak of is entirely imcompetant and near useless.
Now onto the end of the insurgency, i agree wth that, sort of, it will be the americans that finish them, but not in the way you speak of. Once the foreign occupiers leave (e.g. america and britain), the sunni lead resistance will simply cease to exist, there will still be sunni vs. shia, but only in the form of external forces that will also cease to exist once public sentiment does not grant them any leniancy and their excuse of jihad vs. the west is taken away.

I could argue with you about the degree of success 'the wall' has brought israel, but i am running out of battery on my laptop, so annother time and place perhaps. But i do agree with you on the issue of it not working in baghdad because of the reasons you listed.

[mustavaris]

I could argue with you about the degree of success 'the wall' has brought israel, but i am running out of battery on my laptop, so annother time and place perhaps. But i do agree with you on the issue of it not working in baghdad because of the reasons you listed.

Iīll answer the previous part of your post later, but now a short answer before going to bed: the Israeli wall has stopped most of the homicide bombers, that is itīs most important task in my opinion, but it has caused a lot of new issues and the way & route it has been build is wrongly chosen in my opinion. To put it short: I think that as a defensive construction it has been succesful, but from ethical and political point of view it has created many new problems and whether the overall balance is positive or negative remains to be seen.

My uneducated guess is that if/when the peace process starts again and bears some fruit, the wall, as its now build/being build will cause quite a bunch of problems and if the Israelis aint ready to bring it down then and/or reroute it, it could become a new and big obstacle for peace.

[sayenforever]

[QUOTE=mustavaris;164119]Iīll answer the previous part of your post later, but now a short answer before going to bed: the Israeli wall has stopped most of the homicide bombers, that is itīs most important task in my opinion, but it has caused a lot of new issues and the way & route it has been build is wrongly chosen in my opinion. To put it short: I think that as a defensive construction it has been succesful, but from ethical and political point of view it has created many new problems and whether the overall balance is positive or negative remains to be seen.
QUOTE]

homicide bombers? do you watch Fox News or something? all bombers are homicide bombers - homicides are the inevitable conclusion of bombs.

agree with the rest. isn't this thread about T90s?

[Relikt]

Previous stuff is from two Reliktīs posts-

Doesnt the T90 have 22 rounds carousel-loader? Pretty much the same as earlier Ts... the crew members have different compartments, but still there is 22 rounds in the turret... the turret bustle obiosuly holds the rest...

Btw: here is the video of T90 shooting 3 times in about 13 secs.

http://perso.numericable.fr/vfofanov/Tanks/IMAGES/t-90002.avi
Well as I said T-90 is tank build in 1992 as upgrade of T-72 which will have similar performance as T-80U.

But todaz T-90A Valdimir and it export variant T-90S (It is still unknown what is real code for new T-90 Russian army because as know they didnt get any of those new tanks but India buy large number and will have license production) is much different tank.
A.It can fire 740mm long rounds. This is impossible with old T-72 autoloader. So something is change with autoloader. Also turret is welded not cast (of course zou could order cast turret but why) so there is big chase of using matrix armor of perforated armor. India paid 2.5 mln $ for one unit. They bought 300 tanks so they get nice discount. I read somewhere that price for smaller orders is 3mln $ per one tank. This close to western prices for tanks. T-72B cost I think 500.000 $ and if you put ERA and better sensor it can reach 1.5 mln $ so for one T-90S you could by two upgraded T-72B. If I am right armor of T-72B is 350-500 mm RHA for KE penterator and against HEAT (RPG) it depend on ERA. So we can estimate that T-90S have around 1000 mm RHA for KE penetrator. It is not close to M1A2SEP but it give T-90 ability to survive long distance attacks or who I like to say it would be "first see first kill". So longest distance from silver bullet will kill T-90S is same longest distance from which BM-46 will kill M1A2SEP.

We dont count AT-11 ATGM which is capable to kill M1A2 SEP from top attack on distance of 5km. But AT-11 can be jam and there will be AH-64 longbow near by with even more deadlier hellfire 2.

So T-90S is first russian tank after 10 years that can compare with western metal beasts (Leopard 2, Abrams, Challenger 2 and LeClerc)

[mustavaris]

[QUOTE=mustavaris;164119]homicide bombers? do you watch Fox News or something? all bombers are homicide bombers - homicides are the inevitable conclusion of bombs.

agree with the rest. isn't this thread about T90s?

Well, yes I do watch Fox among other stuff.. I wouldnt call them homicide bombers if their targets were mainly military targets and theyīd target military targets and killed civilians in most cases only when failing/mistaking/etc. But those meatbombers target civilians and try to kill as many as possible so the word homicide bomber is right in my opinion. I didnt learn it from Fox though, the word was used to large extend in some distant part of the web I am not allowed to mention and someone at Fox picked up it, máybe from that very site, from Fox channel Iīve picked up just the word Islamofascist;)

The thread evolved to that point via usefulness of MBTs in COIN/recent surge/whatever..

[mustavaris]

Well as I said T-90...

But again: it still has 22 live rounds in the manned turret, just the rest are contained in bustle. Itīs the carousel reloader that makes the earlier Ts to blow up and I do not see any reason why it wouldnt do the same when talking about T90S if the armour is penetrated.

[extern]

But again: it still has 22 live rounds in the manned turret, just the rest are contained in bustle. Itīs the carousel reloader that makes the earlier Ts to blow up and I do not see any reason why it wouldnt do the same when talking about T90S if the armour is penetrated.Where do you think, the Leo2's round storage is disposed? ;) it's just near the gunner in the appartment. So, what difference from T-72?

[extern]

For those who whines here about 'vulnerability' of T-90 becouse its 22 ammo in the carusell, I propose to open your eyes and look how and where the ammo storage exists inside tanks like Leo2 or Merk4.

[mustavaris]

Yeah... Merkava & Leo have turret bustle for rounds (like the T90´s xtrarounds) which is separated from the crew compartment and the rest are contained beneath the heaviest frontal armour, if you manage to hit there the tank is gone anyway and if the bustle blows up, it blows up, not into turret. T90´s carousel is in the crew compartment.. .. The T90S hasnt been improved in that matter, even though Chechnya taught them about that in a hard way. The proposed new prototype tanks have shown improvements, but none of the present day Russian tanks that are fielded have taken care of this problem.

From http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1780&catid=244

The same can be found also from http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/b_eagle.html


Black Eagle MBT


It was originally planned to install a 152 mm gun that is being developed for a future Russian MBT. However, since this tank is not going to be fielded with the Russian Army, it will carry a 125 mm 2A46-series gun. Another innovation is a new automated ammo storage/loader, located in a turret bustle. It is separated from crew compartment by an armored bulkhead which greatly increases crew survivability. This design has several reasons. First, the Chechen war has shown that the carousel used in T-72/T-80/T-90 is too prone to ammo detonation when penetrated, invariably killing the crew. Second, adopted configuration also reduces Black Eagle's height by 400 mm by comparison with the T-80 (Perhaps a typo here, since this means that the tank is a mere 1.8 meters in height). Finally, horizontal ammunition arrangement in the turret bustle permits using longer (and therefore, more powerful) APFSDS rounds, simplified automatic loading process and increased rate of fire (expected to reach 10-12 rds/min). It may be worth noting that the latest 3BM42M round for a 2A46M 125mm gun of T-80 and T-90 MBTs has reached the maximum length allowed by current autoloaders. Black Eagle's on-board information system monitors all essential systems of the vehicle, and permits automated data exchange with other tanks and headquarters. The tank shall have a new 1200 hp 16-cyl. turbo-diesel engine and shall weigh around 50 tons. VTTV-Omsk-99 exhibition have finally revealed the complete vehicle (referred by KBMZ as Item 640) without any netting.


And you can find stuff on the Chechnya experiences from here: http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/so98/5warford98.pdf
(http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/so98/5warford98.pdf)

And on T-90S which clearly states that the armour is old school layered composite armour, not made of composites (though some are probably used as Russian composites are quite good). http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/5T90.pdf

[Relikt]

mustavaris

What about second Chechnya war?
I think Russians lose smaller number of tanks than Israelis in Lebanon. So something was change with T-72 autoloader what I dont know.

T-90S is classified tank so we even dont know what kind of armor it use. All we know is:
1.Welded turret
2.New autoloader which can use shorter (old) and longer(new) shells

This is to biggest advances about T-90S over T-90.
T-90S right now is export tank I dont think that Russian army bought them.
It is to expencive for them.

P.S. I dont respect FAS when they talk about non US hardware and especially when they write about T-90S classified armor. It is classified same as M1A2SEP and how they can know what are capabilities of classified armor.

[mustavaris]

The classified armour doesnt save this tank; the armour can be improved or not, but in any case it will be penetrated and in all likelihood its still lighter than the armour on Leos and M1s et al.. as the T90S is a lot lighter and if the armour is penetrated then its the carousel reloader that will pose the greatest danger.

The Russian tactics changed a lot in the second Chechen war and this has contributed to their lighter casualties besides the fact that then they actually trained their troops and didnt use that much of conscripts with just basic training.. those facts are far more important than some improvements in their tanks. Had they fought like they did in Groznyi during the first time, they would have littered the streets with destroyed tanks even if they had used M1s, Leos, Merkavas and whatever. Urban areas are dangerous for MBTs and need careful and well implemented joint operations.