Are modern Russian tanks like the T-90 and T-14 any good?
Are they to par with any Western tanks like the Americans, British or Germans deploy?
Would their older refitted tanks like the T-72B3, T-80BV and T-80U hold up in combat against Western forces?
yes
The T-14, assuming it works like they say it does, has armor on par with or superior to anything currently fielded in the west due to effectively having double-thickness in the glacis from relocating most of it from the turret. All other Russian tank models have inferior armor than the M1A2, which ranges from "on par with Italy's MBT" to "Can't even reflect WWII munitions" in the base of the older T-72s which have yet to be upgraded.
All tank models can certainly take out a western MBT from the sides, but they'd be at a disadvantage due to more primitive fire control, which is really why you see them jobbing all the time more than anything.
T80U can definitely hold up in combat against western modern tanks
russia cant mass produce so if WW3 started theyd just use old t80s upgraded t70s and t55s,
The T-90 turret armor is not as thick as Abrams, because when it got too thick, the turret got off balance due to most of the weight is up front and there nothing on the bustle.
Meanwhile the T-14 have almost no armor on the turret.
They really don't need to mass produce tanks at this point, if they can just upgrade some of the 7,937 tanks then they should be fine
Those tanks aren't suitable for full modernization. You'd have to replace so much you're basically building a new tank already.
Their old Soviet Built tank can received new power pack and more fire power, but their base armor are 80s technology. And there is no evident that Russian actually replace the composite on those tank. At best they bolt on some Relikt and call that a day.
The armor on the newer T-72 and T-80 tanks is pretty good but has some awful weak spots. Around the mantlet, in front of the drivers periscope and the entire lower front plate have only a limited amount of steel for armor. The drivers periscope one is pants on head retarded, it's basically right in the middle of the tank, shooting it decapitates the driver then blows up the ammo in the autoloader. Why they couldn't just make the hull slightly longer instead of cutting a hole in the frontal armor I don't know.
The challenger 1 and 2 have a similar absurd frontal weakpoint, the entire very large lower front plate is only 80mm of steel, it has to stay hull down or have masses of applique armor else even ww2 tanks could kill it from the front.
>russia cant mass produce
Welp, that's where you're wrong, kiddo. UVZ has working conveyor. While US build all their tanks in 1980th and now just uses old hulls in a manual assembly process.
This. Slavs are too retarded to do anything intelligently.
They can't even build proper 5th gen aircraft.
The T-80U could hold it's own against western modern tanks in the 80s and early 90s but after that the improvents of armor, shells, tactics and etc the T-80Us became obsolete (against fighting western MBTs).
>could hold it's own against western modern tanks in the 80s and early 90s but after that the improvents of armor, shells, tactics
which never happened
What's the consensus on sensor-fused munitions? They seem to be popular as a DPICM replacement in the west, but I hear tank roof armor has them in mind nowadays.
Armata blows Abrahams out of water. Meanwhile the US is just now developing an autoloader and increasing gun caliber by 5,0mm.
Maybe armour wise, but the T-80U still uses the 2A46-M4 gun instead of the M5 that is found on the T-90 and cannot use its more modern penetrators.
Kontakt-5 or Relikt would actualy help out a lot to help the tank survive initial contact and able to return fire while rushing to get into some kind of cover.
Like i said before, T-80's use the older M4 version of the 2A46.
Moron, its ABRAMS. Spell it correctly.
Also the T-14 is untested in combat so you cannot state with certainty that it is better or not.
>modern Russian tanks
>T-90
Stopped reading. The T-90 is nothing but a kit on a T-72B. At best, it's mid-80s technology.
I wouldn't call it mid-80s technology maybe early-mid 90s technology, the latest T-72s variants where still "effective" at that time and the parity between the west and the east wasn't that big yet.
Also i must admit that the Russian ministry of propaganda is very good at it's job.
And Abrams is late '70s technology.
>He doesn't know about M1A2
Lol fixed your spelling I see
>What is sep v3
>What is T-90MS?
if it has an autoloader it's automatically shit
It is irrelevant if they can only make 12 of it. Also, tanks are useless without air cover against a parity enemy. Russia's air force is in an even worse state.
An overrated piece of shit that M829E4 will chop thru.
>hurr durr rusiyan military equipments are shit
You do realize nato+usa spends giga trillions just to counter what ivan makes in potato shed.
You bet m1a3 will copy t14 autloader design.
Why would anyone want to challenge the turret throwing champions?
>what are percentages
USA spends 3.1% on defence. Russia spends 4.3%.
So in grownup math, USA is spending 3/4 the outlay for a better product, thanks to an economy that's nearly 10x superior.
We spend gigatrillions to maintain a constant worlwide military presence, Russian can't even compete.
autoloaders are SHIT
Eh. Don't hate 2much, user. The T14 was a logical step forward. Problem for Russians ofc is that America has good enough kit now that it can afford to take bigger next-steps, pic related. The current conops on next gen tank plts is 4 of these semi-autonomous unmanned FCS clones (armroed vs autocannons, with APS to kill HEAT and destabilize sabot) trailed by a pair of heavy APCs that carry the pilots and handle maintenance, breaking track etc. The net weight is the same.
The T-14 could be a Lada with a body kit and really strong brakes for all we know. Until it sees combat, there's not much to say about its capabilities.
Note the bigass eyeball on top. That's an all-purpose scanning and targeting optic that doubles as the beam director for a counter-UAS fiber laser.
Pic related as proof I'm honest. This was the early version with sub-30t tanks ("tank destroyers" to avoid aggro from armor branch lol) but they'll be modular up to
They replaced that after desert storm, Challenger 2 has Dorchester armor all over including the lower glacis of the hull. The only time a Challenger has ever been lost in combat was a blue on blue, so the only thing ever capable of getting through it's armor was it's own gun, not bad going tank wise desu
That's a retarded metric that only retards use.
Sorry about the res on this one, but you can still see the XM360E1 gun with deep basket remote turret.
>only retards go off combat effectiveness
Who the hell is making these powerpoints? This looks nothing like what SAIC is building right now, and nothing like what the Army actually wants- 40/50 tons wouldn't cut it for 2 per C-17.
If it's shit in combat then it's a shit tank, user. The whole point of a tank is to fight stuff.
>They replaced that after desert storm, Challenger 2 has Dorchester armor all over including the lower glacis of the hull.
No it doesn't, they have to add applique armor to an already overweight tank and even then it's pretty limited compared to the huge slab of composite the M1 and Leo2 have on the lower hull.
The base chassis is 27t. You might think that A and B kit systems are retarded, but that's big army for ya.
The US spends gigatrillions on defense because we can, not because we have to.
didn't also get shredded by an A-10 Thunderbolt once?
not stating that that's a bad thing to say about the tank, since the A-10 can shred every land vehicle, just wondering.
I don't know about an A-10, but I do know some British armor got chewed up by American Apaches.
Americans cant make a proper aps let alone one like an afghanite capable of intercepting APFSDS
>since the A-10 can shred every land vehicle
Can't even pen t-62 roof
>t80u
>photo is t80bv
>A-10 can shred every land vehicle
yes like western tanks m1a2 and challenger 2 but t90 survived a tow hit on top armor, i doubt a tiny 20mm could even scratch the era plates
>All other Russian tank models have inferior armor than the M1A2, which ranges from "on par with Italy's MBT" to "Can't even reflect WWII munitions" in the base of the older T-72s which have yet to be upgraded.
Lol, fatnik delusions.
>Source: My Ass (2018)
If you hide your tanks behind HESCO barriers and never fight in an open battle or deploy almost meaningless numbers, it desn't matter. Exports also matter and who handles the tank.
>A tank designed for Algerian use that the Russians adopted after they realized the T-14 actually cost money.
>Kontakt-5 or Relikt would actualy help out a lot to help the tank survive initial contact and able to return fire while rushing to get into some kind of cover.
Kontakt-5 and Relikt is powerful enough that their blast can fuck up the main gun and tank sight.
>Taking IS propaganda as face value
With Russian crew and with full russian version, T-72 can easily take on the Abrams. There's a slight, a very slight technological advantage but nothing that can't be overcome with a good crew, a good commander and terrain.
The T-72 is the best tank of the modern age in the same way the Sherman was the best tank of WW2. Easy to maintain, fast and good enough. It doesn't have to be technically the best, it just has to be good enough and produced in sufficient numbers. War isn't a design competition. The Abrams and Leo 2 etc are the Panthers and King Tigers of the modern age. Overengineered to the point of near worthlessness, packed with delicate parts, logistically a nightmare and they spend like 60% of their time being made ready for combat. In both gulf wars almost no American armored battalion rolled out with greater than 50% strength ready to go when the starting gun fired, FACT.
T-72 has a bad reputation because of monkey models sold abroad (inb4 HURR RUSSIAN EXCUSES) and shitty Arab crews.
The T-14 on the other hand will simply rekt anything it comes across, and represents a split in Russian armored doctrine. Before tanks were considered an expendable reource, like hand grenades. If you were going to lose x tanks to take an objective, then you manufactured x+10 went the strategic thinking. Stupid West thinks it can win wars without taking casualities, which is why they can't win wars anymore. But with the T-14, there's now a second,more elite armored group withing the armored groups. T-14s will operate to support regular tank forces, essentially being concentrated into "fire brigade" teams that will roll around the battlespace, destroying concentrations of enemy tanks and troops. I imagine that's the thinking behind it anyway, since they don't plan to replace all the older tanks with T-14.
Well this was an "interesting" piece of bout. I'm not sure where you get your information from, but you may want to reevaluate.
>L-lies
>Get better information, I dont like these informations
Classic mutt
>you can't believe the Assad regime
>here's a totally not scuttled completely fully upgraded T-72a I-I mean T-72B3 with some parts that definitely weren't from a scrapyard
Facts aren't altered by opinions mutt
m.youtube.com
Go back to primary school
Samefag harder.
Cope status : Failed
>implying anyone but the triggered original author would have answered to that post
You never learn.
>I cant even for a seconds refute his original argument
>L-l-lol I was just trollan
Ok muttling, ok
If you insist I go through all of it, then fine.
>The T-72 is the best tank of the modern age in the same way the Sherman was the best tank of WW2. Easy to maintain, fast and good enough
We're past the age of "wars of production". Any modern war will be over before you can produce replacements for hardware you've lost, such is the tempo of modern operations and the complexity of modern equipment.
>The Abrams and Leo 2 etc are the Panthers and King Tigers of the modern age. Overengineered to the point of near worthlessness, packed with delicate parts, logistically a nightmare and they spend like 60% of their time being made ready for combat
I'm not sure where you're getting your information that the Leopard and Abrams aren't reliable from, but it isn't true. The Abrams has the issue of being rather fuel hungry, but this isn't a big problem when American logistics are taken into account.What specifically is unreliable on these tanks?
>T-72 has a bad reputation because of monkey models sold abroad (inb4 HURR RUSSIAN EXCUSES) and shitty Arab crews.
No, it has a bad reputation because of the design compromises that it took which, in the end, proved to be bad ideas in practice.
>The T-14 on the other hand will simply rekt anything it comes across
According to what exactly?
>But with the T-14, there's now a second,more elite armored group withing the armored groups
This is not true about the T-14, nor has it been true about any Soviet/Russian tank. It is the intention of the Russian military to replace their active armor units with the Armata, as they have been trying to replace the T-72/80 for 3 decades now. Budgetary woes have kept them from it, however.
>Mom, look! I said mutt again!
You never learn.
And you need to make a post less of a total shitshow before people even can consider refute your "arguements".
Those are all OPINIONS. What I said were FACTS. Learn the difference.
Let's see:
>The T-72 is the best tank of the modern age
This is an opinion, and certainly not one based in fact.
>The Abrams and Leo 2 etc are the Panthers and King Tigers of the modern age. Overengineered to the point of near worthlessness, packed with delicate parts, logistically a nightmare and they spend like 60% of their time being made ready for combat
If this was a fact, you'd have sources backing it up, but you don't.
>The T-14 on the other hand will simply rekt anything it comes across
Opinion
>But with the T-14, there's now a second,more elite armored group withing the armored groups
Just flat out wrong
You are the one that's posting opinions and labeling them as facts here.
>We're past the age of "wars of production".
Opinion
>Any modern war will be over before you can produce replacements for hardware you've lost
Opinion
>such is the tempo of modern operations and the complexity of modern equipment.
Hahaha, opinion
>the Leopard and Abrams aren't reliable from, but it isn't true
Opinion, many accounts from American mechanics ddiffer. Also Saudis regret buying Abrams. Egypt too. Both say too difficult to maintain.
>No, it has a bad reputation because of the design compromises
There is no perfect tank, every single tank has compromises. anyway that's opinion not backed up by fact. The T-72 failed in mideast because of monkey models and monkey crews, that is a fact.
>According to what exactly?
Better technology thany anything else. Better gun. Impenetrable to NATO ground weapons.
>This is not true about the T-14
Opinion
>nor has it been true about any Soviet/Russian tank
Oh my god an actual fact. It's old and outdated and military doctrines change, but sure a fact. Sort of.
> It is the intention of the Russian military to replace their active armor units with the Armata,
Speak to you about it on the regular do they? Russian high command has you on speed dial? Otherwise, that's an opinion.
Vatnik bait is bait thus
Sage goes in all fields
Is Armatard having a stroke again?
>We're past the age of "wars of production".
Outside of outliers like the Iran-Iraq war, every modern conflict has been over in less than a year, if we're talking about state-level conflicts.
>Opinion, many accounts from American mechanics ddiffer. Also Saudis regret buying Abrams. Egypt too. Both say too difficult to maintain.
Like I already said, you'd have sources to back this up if it were true. Also, why would the Saudis order more Abrams, and why is Egypt upgrading theirs if they don't like them?
>The T-72 failed in mideast because of monkey models and monkey crews, that is a fact
No, it isn't. There is also little to suggest that a Russian conscript crew would be better than a middle-eastern one.
>Better technology thany anything else. Better gun. Impenetrable to NATO ground weapons.
So you have classified data on the Armata now, cool.
>Speak to you about it on the regular do they? Russian high command has you on speed dial? Otherwise, that's an opinion.
rbth.com
You can find numerous sources that state the Russian army's intent to buy several thousand Armatas.
>So you have classified data on the Armata now, cool.
125mm is bigger than 120. One number is bigger thasn the other, do you see how this works?
>A-10
>20mm
umm... no
would you prefer something else then?
or how about this one?
122mm is bigger than 120mm. Are you implying the D-25T is more effective than the Rheinmetall 120 mm gun?
Anyone want a take a bet, that you would laughed about such way of argueing, when he had argued with something like that?
>T-64BV and T-72AV are the same as a T-90 stuffed with explosive and used as IS propaganda.
I'm not really sure where you got the idea that I was talking about the T-90 specifically. I was just saying that russian tanks are world champion turret-tossers. Then again, I'm not the guy you were initially replying to, so...
We still have to wait for other tanks doing something exceptionally like this.
>I imagine that's the thinking behind it anyway, since they don't plan to replace all the older tanks with T-14.
That's slav speak for can't afford to, user.
>T-72 can easily take on the Ab-
Your "facts" are delusions.
His facts are facts.
You are having a very serious and deep episode of psychosis, please leave the internet and seek medical attention. It's not healthy to live with untreated psychosis.
This tank was supposedly taken out by an artillery round striking the lower hull. Kinda feel like an Abrams or Leopard 2 would have survived the same hit.
They have made like 2000 of export T-90
>They have made like 2000 of monkey model T-90
>exported T-72A given to goat countries
>less effective NERA
>country probably has trouble procuring enough diesel for it when mutts start diddling fuel depots
>goats been given mild steel export APFSDS rounds
Clearly an inferior tank judging by its combat performance with export models.
And still russians have thought their tanks would perform way better than they acutally did.
>less effective NERA
This is a common misconsception and one that needs dispelling. The USSR never offered downgraded armor on export models- most of the downgrades occurred in optronics and fire control systems.
Blacktail Defense made a great series of videos citing figures and statistics that PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Abrams is a piece of junk anf Muttsharts were ripped off and BTFO. He proves that the M60 was in fact a better tank.
So sorry Muttsharts, you wasted all your money so funny.
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
Those are M1A1s and downgraded M1A2s used by the Iraqi army which is very well-known for being incompetent and generally un-trained
>They are monkey models driven by monkeys.
Weren´t russians ridiculed for this excuse for years?
Now that abrams got into arabs hands suddenly those woes are valid.
>blacktail defense
>proving anything except how retarded he is