Skip to comments.International Debut for the Russian T-90MS Tank Upgrade at DefExpo 2012
Posted on 03/29/2012 9:23:35 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
International Debut for the Russian T-90MS Tank Upgrade at DefExpo 2012
The centerpiece of the Russian display at Defexpo 2012 is undoubtedly the T-90MS upgrade program developed by the Russian Uralvagonzavod corporation. The T-90MS upgrade was unveiled August 2011 at Nizhny Tagil, Russia following the demise of the T-95 program. It is making its international debut here in New Delhi. India is likely to be the most interested in the the Russian upgrade, put forward by Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport as a possible upgrade path for the Indian Brishna (T-90S) tanks.
India is the largest operator of the T-90S, along with Russia. The Indian Army has fielded about 450 of these tanks, with 300 more on order. Other T-90 operators are Azerbaijan, Cyprus (45) and Venezuela (92). Earlier in 2012 it was announced that Algeria has bought 120 of these tanks.Additional 30 were acquired by Turkmenistan. These small deliveries could be the result of the collapse of the Libyan order, which was never fulfilled.
The Indian Army had planned to equip its 59 armored regiments with 1,657 T-90S main battle tanks, 1,000 of which were to be Indian-made. However, production and import of T-90S tanks has been slow, hence, the opportunity to improve the T-90 through the manufacturing line, maintaining the T-90 effectiveness for upcoming years. The T-90MS offers improvements in every important element protection, mobility and firepower, in addition to improving sustainability and reliability while reducing operating cost. Since the contract was signed back in 2001 the Indian Heavy Vehicle Factory (HVF) in Avadi, Chennai has assembled only 150 T-90S (of a thousand planned). Implementing the T-90MS package will enable future production series to deliver better, more capable main battle tanks instead of gradually obsoleting platforms.
The proposed tank upgrades include improved automotive components, enhanced protection by
(Excerpt) Read more at defense-update.com ...
Looks like a sweet tank. Esp. like the remote weapon station.
Do you still have to be 5’6” to be Russian tank crewman, though?
The Israelis repaired and renovated captured and KO’d T-55s and T-62s so they can’t be complete crap; Israelis can’t afford crap. They ended with so much experience that they market upgrades for these tanks...
I suspect the main reason Americans wouldn’t serve in Sov, er, Russian armor is that they’re too tall. Read somewhere that Soviet Armor crews had to be 5’6” or shorter. Same thing for BMP crews.
No Hitler didn’t think so. The T-34 was originally a design by America designer Walter Christie who wanted to sell it to the US Army but they didn’t buy and it the Russkies did. It certainly was a good tank, the first to use sloping frontal armor, a lower track base and wider-width tracks. Nice speedy little tank until it met the Panther Mk.5 and later the Tiger Mk.6 and then the Russkies had to catch up with the JS-2. We didn’t fare any better either. The Sherman was also a piece of junk. Read Capt. Belton Coopers book on the subject, “Death Traps’’. Believe me I’ve had the honor of knowing many WW2 veterans who had to go up against the Panthers and Tigers with their high velocity 75ms and 88’s and to this day those men still talk with a chilling mixture of fear and respect for those tanks, that gun and the over-all fighting ability of those German tankers. Hate to keep belaboring a point but I don’t think any American soldier or Marine tanker would want to fight in any Russian made tank. Do you think they would?
The reason for the low design of Russian tanks is just that- a low, hard to spot profile . The draw back is the crew compartment is cramped and the ammo is stored all around that compartment. In the days of the ‘’workers paradise’’ Russians didn’t give a crap what quality they put into anything. “The State pretends to pay us so we pretend to work’’. If your quota is fifty tanks today, tomorrow its sixty. So you just slap something together. Never mind you have to use a hammer to change gears, never mind if the gear-box falls out, “Glory to the Socialist State, we will win the battle of production’’. ‘’And if you don’t fill your quota comrade we haul your ass off to the gulag.’’ And my wife is standing three f**king hours in line to maybe get a loaf of bread or a pair of shoes that don’t fit.’’ You think a system like that is going to produce quality equipment? I don’t imagine things are quite like that today in Russia but one thing hasn’t changed about Russians and that is human life in Russia is next to worthless and that’s the reason American soldiers wouldn’t want to go to war in the crap Russians make because we value human life.
The Soviets built tanks according to their philosophy - attack! attack! attack! and “There is a certain quality to be found in quantity.”
The Soviets also had huge areas, east and west, to defend (or attack). They had to have lots of tanks and they had to be highly mobile. That’s why they’re such lightweights.
Yes, the Soviet economy sucked (i.e. standing in line for lousy bread and crummy shoes) so they couldn’t afford all all the bells and lights and gizmos we mounted on our tanks. And their QA sucked, too.
But the darn things are ubiquitous. They’re all over the place and they seem to last forever.
They last until they meet a depleted uranium round or a Hellfire missile. Yes, “Quantity has a certain quality all it’s own’’ but with the Russians the former never matched the later.
Considering that their planned tactic was to shoot at our individual tanks with an entire platoon, it might have worked. We’ve never been outnumbered in the same way we would have been in Germany, and we’ve never been up against Soviet crews. Dunno how well trained the would have been, but I bet they were better than Iraqis.
And the T-34 managed a pretty good “quality through quantity” against the Wehrmacht. Dunno how that would have worked for T-62s and T-72s against M-60s and M-1s. But an entire platoon of of T-72s firing APDSFS against against a single M-1, as fast as they can shoot, might have turned the trick. They Soviets could afford to trade one or two T-72s per M-1 at a decisive point.
It also helps to remember that we were up against “home-brew” rounds in Iraq. They weren’t firing Russian HEAT or APDSFS at our tanks. That might be why they bounced.
I’m just glad “The End Of The World As We Know It” scenario was never played out.
If you wanted to know how good the Russkies would have been look at the Iraqis, that’s who trained them. The Russians wouldn’t have only been met by M-60’s or M-1s coming through the Fulda Gap but A-10 Thunderbolts and Apache helicopters. The one thing more than American military hardware that scared the poop out of the Russkies(besides the West Germans) was that they would have had to travel through alot of their satellite states who would have turned on them in a heartbeat.
Well, the various Arab armies that fought the Israelis also had Western tanks in their arsenals. These included up-gunned Egyptian M-4 Sherman tanks, Jordanian M-47 and M-48 Pattons, and British Centurions that saw use by the armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq. And as it was stated earlier, the Israelis employed captured T-55s.
As for this discussion about the problems with Soviet army doctrine and training, well, we aren’t talking about that. Or poor Soviet-era industrial practices. We’re talking about modern Russian equipment, the T-90MS in particular, and whether or not it is scrap metal. And I never said that the US military should purchase and employ T-90s.
Didn’t say you did. I asked you do you think any American soldier would want to fight in a T-72 or T-90?
I don’t know that that is a good indicator. Look at how the Iraqis WE train are. Nothing to write home about.
Ground support aircraft would have to survive in an intense ADA environment and under contested skies. It wouldn’t be like today where the worst that happens is some savage has an SA-14 to shoot at you that he doesn’t really know how to use.
Mind you, hovering around savages in RPG or AK-47 range is not a good idea either as they found out in Somalia.
I don’t just play this scenario - I lived and trained for it with 11 ACR in Fulda and Bad Kissingen back in the 80’s.
I respect your service. How willing would any army be to fight for a system that oppresses them and views their lives as so much cannon fodder?
Same reason the Kims are still in charge in North Korea: They don’t know any better.
You need to read some Russian history. Its very depressing (just like Russian literature...).
Russians and other former subjects for the Russian Empire were not treated any differently by the Soviets than they were by any Russian government before them. Some of them might have actually been treated somewhat better.
Add to that, the natural paranoia of a country that has been repeatedly invaded (including by us) and taken millions (yes, MILLIONS) of casualties, and, well, it makes sense.
Ridiculous. Basing performance on the US vs the Iraqis is like comparing an NBA team with the sisters of mercy girls highschool basketball team! Absolutely no comparatives.
However, if one wants to play that game one can use the India vs Pakistani scenario, where one Indian MiG-29 sent two Pakistani F-16s fleeing when it lit them up. I guess that makes F-16s crap, right? Or how the Indians, with Russian equipment, smote the hell out of the Pakistani military several times over a couple of decades, whether it is a naval attack with Russian ships and missiles (and the first use of a naval attack missile on land targets), to the splitting of Bangladesh from Pakistan, or the recent Kashmir episode. That means American equipment is crap, since every time Indians using Soviet/Russian weapons came up against Pakistanis using American weapons the Pakistanis lost. Right? Or maybe it is because the Indians were facing Pakistanis and not the US, which has far more sense because the US Vipers, compared to the Pakistani Vipers at the time, are BVR capable when all the Pakistani's had were short-range IR missiles compared to the Indians developed BVR capability. Kind of similar to Iraqis flying monkey-model MiG-29s that didn't even have radar-warning receivers.
Anyways, if the US (and the assembled Allies) beating Iraq/Somalia/Afghanistan makes something crap, does that also mean India beating Pakistan makes the equipment Pakistan was using crap?
The Russians wouldnt have only been met by M-60s or M-1s coming through the Fulda Gap but A-10 Thunderbolts and Apache helicopters.
Interesting because it is said there used to be a bet between Apache and Warthog pilots on who would survive longest if the stupid Soviets ever came through the Fulda. I know the Warthog is seen by some on FR as a magical weapon - after all it has a titanium bathtub - but it is not invincible. During the Gulf War the A-10 had a very good record until it was sent forward past the front-line units where it came up against the Republican Guard (who were generally better equipped than the normal Iraqi military). Result? One of the highest loss rates of GW1. I wonder how the A-10, an aircraft one FReeper once said is all the US needs as opposed to the Raptor, would do against a foe with real capability (e.g. say a China as opposed to an Afghanistan, Bosnia or Iraq). Even with its titanium bathtub (tm).
Ask any American tanker if theyd want to use Russian armor and theyd refuse. Quite frankly Im a little surprised an American such as yourself would be so impressed with the crap the Russians make. Their hulks of their T-55s, T-62s and T-72s are still rusting away in the desert where our guys destroyed them. Notice and M-1s out there?
No, no American tanker in his right mind would want to fight in a T-72 if he had access to an Abrams. He would have to be mad since the Abrams is far better than the '72 (a tank that has been around for a long time), and is better for the American armored doctrine than the '90. In the same way a British tanker wouldn't trade the Chally-2 for an Abrams (you should hear what they say), or a German tanker wouldn't trade a Leo-2 upgrade for any Abrams, ever. Also, if an Abrams couldn't destroy a T-55 or 62 or 72 then something would have to have gone terribly wrong. Maybe a direct meteorite strike on the Abrams from outerspace.
However, again, there is the component of who you are facing. During GW there was an American tanker who said (as another FReeper had posted) that you could have switched tanks and the result would have been the same.
Anyways, I think a lot of your posts on the thread can be summed up by what you said here: Quite frankly Im a little surprised an American such as yourself would be so impressed with the crap the Russians make. This was in response to a FReeper who only said he found it interesting that the tank has the extra fuel tank to increase range. That is not even impressive, and I doubt the FReeper was impressed. However, if someone is not calling foreign equipment 'crap' he is wrong, and you use engagements between the US and the likes of Iraq et al as a measuring stick to prove how it is crap.
There is no problem with that. After all this is a niche internet forum where the views seldom count (goodness, even it seems within the GOP the true conservatism found on FR is 'strange' and unacceptable, which is why someone like Romney is ahead of all sorts of people that are truly better than him). My hope is that the people who have real influence do not think that everything out there is crap, because a very real (and nasty) surprise could be waiting for them. The Abrams is better than any Eastern tank out there, and is one of the best Western tanks (in the top 3 by most rankings). It is indeed better than the latest Russian T-series on aggregate (even if you account for the Active Defense Systems). Also, it is clearly evident that any engagement between American forces and third-world countries using Soviet equipment has led to a lot of burning hulks of twisted metal, and charred flesh, that is not American due to the superiority and training of the American soldier and equipment. No arguments there. Interestingly however, to use the example of India again, engagements between the Indian airforce/navy/military using Soviet equipment versus the Pakistanis using American equipment has led to the opposite result (to the extent of Pakistan losing half their territory to create what is now known as Bangladesh). Does that mean American equipment is crap? No way, just that in the hands of Pakistanis against a force that has superior equipment and training it is crap.
But then again, who cares!
Ray I’ve read lots of Russian history, LOTS of it. More then most Americans, trust me.You want a good one, read Harrison Salisbury’s “The 900 Days’’ dealing with the siege of Leningrad .Human life in Russia is worthless and one thing becomes apparent, Russians take a perverse pride in not taking responsibility for themselves. And yes they are roundly hated by Poles, Germans Chechzs, hell they even treat each other like something on the bottom of their shoe. And I agree Russian literature IS depressing... and pretentious too.
You misunderstood me pal. I said the tactics taught by Russians to the Iraqis, meaning Soviet-era style combat techniques. Other than that thanks for making my argument, sincerely.
Do not label them. Russians are different. There are scores of potent open minded people. Labeling them in common makes an upper hand for backward part of their population.
Yep, a place near Assal Uttar there the battle took place known as ‘Paton Negar’ among Pakis (Patton’s graveyard).