Iraq and Vietnam are purchasing T-90 tanks. Looks like the o

>>34489605
>when you waste all the US' stripped Abrams fighting ISIL and they won't sell you more


I guess downgrading is fun

>>34489894
Iraqis, like most third world and developing nations without a national arms industry, like to buy the same types of shit from multiple providers as a hedge against being held hostage by arms sales. Having multiple open contracts also offers more opportunity for more people to make money via corruption, which is very popular the ruling classes.

>>34489894
>125mm>120mm
>better protection and mobility
>autoloader
>downgrading
hah yeah no

>>34489972
enjoy dying with tank

>>34489972
>Thinking 5mm makes a difference
>Thinking autoloaders are superior
>"better protection and mobility"

Ayy lmao

File: T-90A driver seat.jpg (64KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x520px

>>34489972
>>125mm>120mm
>2A46M max chamber pressure : 6500 bars, M256 : 7100
>125 mm APFSDS unfortunately remain shorter due to two-parts ammo

>>better protection
>1980s Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor
>uncompartmentalized ammo stowage

>>and mobility
>old transmission with manual gearbox with no torque converter and power-assisted steering.
>old T-72 suspensions with inferior vertical travel
>inferior torque and power to weight ratio.

File: 15236710520_ca9209d55a_b.jpg (370KB, 997x665px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 997x665px

>>34489605

It's not a bad option for Vietnam, they need something small and nimble with a lot of firepower and tanks like the Thai Scorpion simply have no protection.

The T-90A isn't much better than a late T-72B, and the new T-72B3s surpass it in terms of capability, will be interesting to see if the Viets insist on any special configuration.

Say what you want about the T-72 family, but they are true war horses.

>>34489972
>better protection
So many armor gaps it's not even funny. Other than the ERA blocks that barely cover about half of tank, there is just basic steel that won't even save you from an RPG-7 hit.

>>34489894

Abrams is designed for an army with a deep and long logistical train and nice, air-conditioned workshops etc.

Only 4-5 armed forces could really support such a vehicle.

>>34490183
The T-72 is certainly the most popular and have seen the most combat in the history of tanks it seems
Although to be honest, I've also seen many dead T-72s

Even Egypt going to buy a T-90.

No one really wants to have deal with the shitty abrams who can be destoyed by 14.5mm or even by the 50s ATGMs.

>>34490562
UVZ wants to sell T-90's to Egypt, Egypt hasn't asked for T-90's.

>>34489972
>gun
The difference that 5mm makes is marginal; so little that it is really irrelevant without also considering all the different round types available. The guns on the Leopard 2, M1A2, and Chally 2 are all of superior construction as well and able to handle greater pressures and launch rounds at higher velocity than the russian guns.

And let's just not even get started on optics and fire control systems...

>protection
"Better"... If the Russians had the ability to use composite armors like the chobham they would.. ERA is a cheap fix to lacking the knowhow or funds to fabricating superior materials. Once that ERA has detonated btw, its gone. Then the only thing stopping all those rounds the crew is literally sitting on from detonating after another hit is a aluminium based composite and some fervent prayers.

>Mobility
Still the same transmission and shit tier suspension of the T72. Plus the engine is weaker than comparable NATO tanks.
All that aside, the T90 is simply an unproven system in battle whose predecessors historically fare quite poorly against the NATO tanks. You are a silly person if you truly believe out of hand that it is a superior system.

>>34490625
> UVZ wants to sell T-90's to Egypt, Egypt hasn't asked for T-90's.

Egypt asked UVZ to open local assembly factory. Probably it will be the same factory that assembled Abrams in Egypt.

oh the irony.

>>34490676
[citation needed]

>>34490686
http://tass.com/defense/954764

>UVZ will also work on a project to establish a facility to license assemble T-90S/SKs in Egypt and another to establish repair facilities for the T-90S/SKs already delivered to Algeria.

http://www.janes.com/article/72090/russia-s-t-90-makes-inroads-in-middle-east-market

>>34490183
True, but don't hold a candle to NATO MBT's like the Chally and Abrams. Older generation MiG's and Sukhoi's are popular too, but even extensively upgraded one's like China's and Syria's are no match for the fighters NATO was fielding two decades ago.

>>34490283
What a silly and fallacious statement; you think the T90 performs better without substantial logistical support because.....?

>>34490711
Your citations show UVZ wanting to build T-90's to Egypt, not Egypt asking for T-90's, per UVZ's own words.

>>34489605
Good for Vietnam. They are still rocking t-55s.

>>34490740
Because it's a rusty piece of russian steel designed for paper performances rather than field performance.

It will have the best armor, the best gun, the best engine, the best anything by any metrics until the first war it will fight.

At that point, the russians will zerg the enemy with overwhelming forces, sweep any losses under the rug and then brag about how their shit is the best shit because they won a surprise war against one of their own proxy equipped with their own older shit.

So yeah, the T90 doesn't need a long supply chain because the battles he is designed to wage are over before he can reach the frontline anyway.

>>34490907
>designed for paper performances rather than field performance.
That's not abrams

File: DisNiggaSerious.jpg (62KB, 544x517px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 544x517px

>>34490907
What happens if they start throwing tracks? You still need a logistical component.

>>34489894
Didn't the Iraqis lose like 30 of them?

I heard they were getting like a 100 additional abrams too though to replace losses and supplement their armored divisions.

T-90 UNDEFEATED

>>34490907
This was actually a clever response. I like how first two responding didn't get it.

>>34490907
Why do people always say this shit? Russian =/= cheap reliability. It's more like Russian == Cheap Shit.

>>34491115
See, now I read the rest and I feel stupid.

BUT TO BE FAIR, fags here are obsessed with cheap russian shit for some reason. So it was to be assumed... ah fuck it.

>>34490879
nope T-54

they even consider T-55 and T-62 as modern tank

File: 1455309342742.gif (320KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 400x400px

>>34489605
>one day these tanks will be sitting pretty at a cool price of 100k in a gook junkyard

>>34490088
If you're going to misuse the equipment to the extent that its still vulnerable to the threats the better tank is supposed to stop, you might as well buy the cheaper option.

>>34489972
Who's got the webm of the Syrian t90 shooting that puller of flames out the hatch after its hit?

Have fun with that auto loader

>>34489972
>autoloader
Notanks fag.

>>34489894
it costed them 12 mil for a monkey model Abrams

UVZ will change them 4 mil for a top of the line T-90S

Iraqi Army's Abrams price is so high that it look like US black mail them into buying Abrams

File: 1454191732662.jpg (106KB, 800x614px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 800x614px

>>34491170
le Clerc have an auto loader
and it is the king of combat

File: C5Eja2FXAAEEdEt.jpg (100KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 960x720px

>>34490907
>So yeah, the T90 doesn't need a long supply chain because the battles he is designed to wage are over before he can reach the frontline anyway.

according to your shitty logic all the T-72 and T-90 SAA are operating right now should be out of service

but in reality, SAA T-90 are kicking USA proxy butt to Iraqi boder

>>34491175
>no sources

Love it

>>34491213
So export t90s are fighting export m1a2s?

>>34491223
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/iraq-m1a1-abrams-tanks
2.4 billion contract
175 M1A1
15 M88A2

12 million for an shitty Abrams

>>34491241
>So export t90s are fighting export m1a2s?

WUT?

>>34491188
ph wow lets compare the differences between the leclerc's autoloader and the t90s autoloader

leclerc has ammo stored in an armored compartment at the back of the turret

t90 has ammo stored in an open ring underneath the turret where a single hit will blow the turret off and deep fry the crew

File: 14613312044260.jpg (143KB, 1080x810px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1080x810px

>>34491340
post a picture of a T-90 with popped turret and i will consider your comment relevant

with T-90 have seen heavy use in Ukraine and Syria, that should be easy right?

T-64, T-72, T-80 pic is not count

>>34491311
>didn't read spare parts and training

It's okay.

>>34490388
>The T-72 is certainly the most popular and have seen the most combat in the history of tanks it seems
that title really belongs to the T-55

>>34491398
Neither ukraine nor Syrian rebels have anything that can defeat modern armor.

>>34491398
The ammunition is in the same fucking place you dingus. A penetrating hit to it will have the same effect as on a T-72

>>34491161
No one got this webm because it's actually just something burning on top of t90

>>34491410
>didn't read spare parts and training
Morocco contract is 222 M1A1SA for 1.5 billion

Saudi contract is 133 M1A2S and 20 M88A1 / A2 for 1.7 billion

>It's okay.
keep up your damage control but you can't change the true

>>34491428
Lol wut?
Let alone backed by USA """"""""""Rebels"""""""""
But ukrainians have SU25s, shitton of atgms, t80s

>>34491428
are you saying Kornet and TOW 2 can't defeat modern tank?

>>34491129
T-54/55 are the same tank series and Vietnam does have 55s. Do some research before trying to correct someone.

>>34491494
Syriain rebels have shitty old tow missiles that cannot defeat modern era for the most part. Last I heard Ukraine was still begging for modern atgms but hasn't gotten any. The most powerful modern atgms youll see in the middle East are actually Russian supplied kornets

File: 11705408_904095252996618_8122905723047579751_o.jpg (130KB, 1601x768px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1601x768px

>>34491510
>T-54/55 are the same tank series

T-55 have better night vision, a working stabilizer and a more powerful engine

Vietnamese T-55 are bought in 70s and 80s

their T-54 are from Soviet army surplus or Type 59, some of them was built in 1950. They are old as fuck and in terrible condition

BTW new paint job doesn't count as good maintenance, only good upgrade can save those old as fuck tank

>>34491507
I was under the impression the tow missiles were old. Kornet yes can fuck shit up. Are kornets being used against the t90s?

File: file.png (610KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 1024x576px

>>34491582
USA supply Syria terrorist with TOW 2A, they are as modern as Kornet.
>Are kornets being used against the t90s?
nope, no confirm hit yet

>>34491428
Syrians snackbars killed a T90 with an older model TOW
Also, weird how the Russians and Ukrainians keep managing to blow up each others tanks since they don't have anything capable of defeating "modern" armor.

>>34491398
They have not been used extensively, but they've the same old aluminium base composite armor as the later model T72's and the ammo is still stored, un-shielded, in the crew compartment.... a penetrating hit on the turret will certainly make it's top pop off if ammo is ignited. Crew survivability follows time honored soviet traditions....

We should not forget that the T90 is just a T72 with some doodads taken from the T80

>>34491241
No...?

>>34491609
>USA supply Syria terrorist with TOW 2A, they are as modern as Kornet.

The 9M113-1 Kornet was first introduced into service with the Russian Army in 1999.

The mass-production of the BGM-71E TOW 2 began in 1987.

>>34491609
Well then. Fuck me. Didn't know that had the tow2a. I'm sure they are rarer but those will fuck shut up. Javelin when?

>>34491494
The air war didn't last long. SU25 piloted by that savechenko chick and a airliner shot down by russians early on and both sides just kinda stopped using fixed wing.

>>34491575
Ok. Is there a point to this post anon?

>>34491664
When I said defeat modern armor I should have been more clear... Defeat modern armor from the frontal arc reliably.

>>34491483
Don't worry mate I got it. It might be a t72, but really no difference in cabin design. Definitely ammunition incinerating crew because the fuck-yeah auto loader has them in the same compartment


https://youtu.be/m-vAXFiYt8U

Russki coach warrior here

Let me tell you about T-90. In short: It's a piece of shit if you compare it with M1A2. But everything changes on battlefield (in theory).

You see, T-90 (which is just modification of T-72B) made to be effective and simple as fuck. It's like AK of tanks. Simple engine, not so powerful as M1A2s, but it also consumes much less fuel (4 liters/km T-90, 15 liters/km M1A2). T-90 is much lighter, and it can shoot ATGMs. T-90 can drive up to 5m deep under water. Most of bridges wont collapse under T-90.
But yeah protection is shit, true.

I think M1A2 was made for tactical battles in small conflicts. It needs good logistics and maintenance.
T-90 was made for strategic battles and large scale conflicts, where you can expect lack of supplies, communication and logistics.

>>34491664
>They have not been used extensively
how so?
they have been used from late 2015 to the fall of Aleppo in 2016 and sill being used in east Aleppo and east Palmyra.

>>34491689
the point is T-55 and T-54 are not the same tank especially the one in service with Vietnam Army

>>34491678
Kornet should be in service sooner if the Soviet didn't fall

>>34491731
still no pic of T-90 with popped turret

I wonder why the US army doesn't have a light tank? something like the Bradly but not as shitty and a bigger main gun and not a tall. I can see where a lighter faster and smaller tank than the Abrams could come in handy for street fighting on innawoods. granted I don't know the finer aspects of utilizing tanks in modern combat so if I'm wrong I'm sure Ill get told.

>>34489972
T-90, not T-80.

>>34491731
Goddamn Arabs really do suck at war. Look at that hot fucking mess. Just sitting there in the open, no one watching their sectors. Those insurgents were maybe 50-100 yards away and no one say them skylining themselves before they shot. After the shot hits there's no reaction from the other 2 tanks present, if those insurgents had 2 more RPGs those tanks would have been dead also.

>>34489605
Welp, Iraq used both T-72s and M1A2s, so they are kinda better know what they need. As for Vietnamese - tank with autoloader, build for manlets - perfect. I highly doubt that Vietnamese conscript can provide same RoF that Mark I "Nigger Joe" loading system on american tanks.

>>34491793
Shit forgive the shitty grammar and probably spelling I need to get some coffee I had a long night.

>>34491793
Because our doctrine doesn't call for one. In the U.S.'s take on combined arms, if you have a problem tbat needs a tank to solve, you need an actual MBT. If it's just obstical clearing or mass crunchy killing, a brad or mgs stryker will do just fine.

>>34489605
Considering how urban warfare is going to be the future of major war fighting instead of open territory gains, it makes me wonder if large caliber (delete whole building instead of single floor) slow moving but extremely heavily armored (beyond current infantry portable AT capabilities) assault guns have a place again.

File: 14796403263562.jpg (113KB, 960x528px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 960x528px

>>34491808
the footage was 2013, when the SAA was facing with mass desertion and total chaos

today, Syria 4th armored division is pretty much god of urban warfare

>>34491793
>US
>light
Only light thing US can produce is a Coke.

>>34491750
>same tank
>same series

Pick one anon.... There is a difference.

>>34491836
makes since I guess.

>>34491816
>Iraq used both T-72s

And their only type of ammo was soviet 3VBM6 with ~300mm penetration. In that case autoloader sucks cuz you need to make short APDS.

>>34491850
>today, Syria 4th armored division is pretty much god of urban warfare
I would hope so. 6 years of constant urban fighting should have killed off the dumb ones like that.

>>34491793
>I wonder why the US army doesn't have a light tank?
not really a need for one especially when they have Strykers and this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

File: 14990914987222.jpg (106KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 960x540px

>>34491845
>large caliber extremely heavily armored assault guns

too slow for modern urban warfare where mobility is the key

pic related is more suitable

>>34491868
>Pick one anon.... There is a difference.
T-55 and T-54 is not the same series
especially 1950 T-54 and 1970 T-55

File: C50VITBWQAAwwQU.jpg (54KB, 958x538px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 958x538px

>>34491894
>should have killed off the dumb ones like tha
i kek, but that true

>>34491908
>not the same series

Believe what you want but it doesn't make your beliefs fact.

>>34491952
>Believe what you want but it doesn't make your beliefs fact.
that is my line, retard

>>34491764
So what design flaw did the t90 improve on that would have prevented that?

File: wg_brdm_3_vs_m1a2.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34491879
In modern anty-guerrilla warfare it's not a top priority. Tank today is a universal armored high-explosive package delivery device, not an AT machine to stop Soviet armored waves. They need a good HE shells more than MUH 1M ARMOR PENETRATION. As for Gooks - they're up against Chinese. T-90S provides quite enough AP against their paper armor.
Anyway, best APDS is an ATGM on helicopter.

Also, don't forget, that Russia now is like only large weapon manufacture who delivers in any political situation.

>>34492002
>So what design flaw the t90 improve on
the operator

>>34491868
>>34491908
>same series
You mean same "family"?

>>34492016
Iraqis aren't more talented tankers than Syrians.

T series suck

>>34491793
We're buying one in a few years mate.

>>34491700
Fair enough, but doesn't change what I am saying. There are lots of "modern" tanks by any reasonable definition that have been or are being regularly damaged and destroyed in both Ukraine and Syria.

So what is "modern" to you? Are T-80's and upgraded T-55, 62, and 72's not modern? What about the T90's the Syrians are using right now? There is one well known instance of one getting smoked by a TOW, an older TOW at that, and later being recovered.

>>34491750
A single conflict, in very limited numbers where they are only facing infantry or drastically inferior tanks. We're talking like two dozen of them, and well protected because they are expensive to lose. There is evidence that they are actively kept out of the hottest areas to prevent destruction or capture.. the one that got disabled by the two TOW missiles for example. Would it have been deployed there if the known risk of ATGM's was higher? From what I read, I think probably not.

>>34491816
M1A1's. Iraq has never had A2's, only older refurbished A1's.

>>34491793
Like... a stryker MGS?

What does a light tank do that can't be done by other equipment or platforms? They really don't offer a significant advantage more of the time since infantry can carry boom boom and for the past thirty years precision airstrikes and artillery are a call away.

>>34491969
>T55 uses the same chassis as the T54 but has parts updated here and there
>thinks this qualifies it to be a completely different and new tank not within the same production series
>probably confused by Soviet nomenclature, numbers are hard

And you call me retarded.

>>34492041

You could use "family" but series is the more appropriate and commonly used term in this situation.

>>34492400
Hogwash. Next you'll try to say T90's are just modified T72's!

>>34492400
>thinks this qualifies it to be a completely different and new tank
they are like Iphone 5 and Iphone 5SE

shits are not the same, T54 is not NBC protected

File: 04-03-15-TopGun02.jpg (217KB, 1210x1014px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1210x1014px

>>34492117
>>34491899
The M1128 is a self propelled 105mm gun for Stryker BCT's, not a light tank. MPF on the other hand will be one.

>>34492579
Ok, uh, thanks. So what's a "light tank" do that other systems cannot? Why have such a thing?

>>34492512
So NBC protection is your go to argument? Kek. Sounds like an "update".

>>34492651
What is the functional difference between a tank and an assault gun?

>>34492763
If you're going to ask that, why even draw the distinction between the MGS and some hypothetical "light tank"? Do you have anything to add or were you just enjoying an opportunity to go "aaaacccckkkktually..."?

>>34492793
Can you answer the question or are you just going to hand wring?

>>34492672
>Sounds like an "update".
find me a T-54 with NBC protection
i we can talk

>>34492810
You answered my question with a question, there's no hand wringing here.. you really just don't have anything to add do you?

T-90 is an excellent tank. Sure it's protection is not top-notch and it's ammo placement is unfortunate but you can get 2 of them for one (monkey model) Abrams. And that's before logistical costs, where T-90 also trumps Abrams.
Finally, Russians will sell to anyone at any time while Americans won't.
Leclerc is expensive as fuck, so is newest Leopard, and both Germany and France fail at being reliable exporters.
T-90 also has cool stuff like APS and barrel-launched ATGM.

>>34492928
I am trying to find out if you have even a basic understanding of how vehicles like these are used. The answer is apparently no.

>>34492978
Qatar Leopard 2A7 Plus is 20 mil per tank
and it doesn't save them from starvation

>>34492995
Says the guy dodging questions. What's a "light tank" do that can't be done with other equipment or methods? Why does the US need a "light tank"?

>>34489605
It's not the tank, it's the crew. I don't care if X tank can outrange Y tank or X tank has thicker armor in certain spots, it still ALWAYS comes down to the crew manning it and knowing their opponents weaknesses vs their own and knowing how to exploit those weaknesses.
You can have the best tank in the world, but if your crew isn't scanning their sectors, working together and the TC can't orient himself to his map, then they're all fucked.

>>34493262
I can't answer your question if you don't know the bare minimum to understand what your question is asking.

>>34491213
>SAA

I guess I have to concede you that :
The T90 can definitely destroy a bunch toyota technicals.
This is a proud achievement for a modern tank.

And it doesn't invalidate the fact that they don't need a lengthy supply chain :
They are fighting basically next door to their own backyard, with Syria advancing at such a sluggish pace than the french in WW1 would find it slow.

Why is Vietnam buying tanks? I thought the main issue that the US had in the Vietnam war was their inability to properly use tanks thanks to the jungle limiting their use.

File: 14989477240570.gif (410KB, 800x662px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 800x662px

>>34494714
>>34494714
>The T90 can definitely destroy a bunch toyota technicals.
>This is a proud achievement for a modern tank.
implying that is not what every modern AFV was designed for
are you saying tank on tank battle is something that popular in today battlefield?
>Syria advancing at such a sluggish pace than the french in WW1 would find it slow
you literally don't know anything about Syria

>>34490740
Engine and the fact that a T-72 could be maintained by backyard mechanics rather than having a specialized depot-level maintenance centre

File: T-90MS-e1333045493106.jpg (85KB, 960x424px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 960x424px

>>34491462
Not anymore
>Another feature contributing to the T-90MS survivability is the separation of ammunition from the fighting compartment.
>Part of the ammunition is stowed in special compartments separated from the turret by a blast door
>The ammunition is manually loaded into the magazines, from where they are automatically served by the autoloader.

http://defense-update.com/20120329_international-debut-for-the-russian-t-90ms-tank-upgrade-at-defexpo-2012.html

>>34494913
Anon... they have been at it for SIX YEARS !!

And despite all that heavy equipment, russian direct support and even its enemies fighting among themselves, the regime hasn't got even half of the country back.

The progress your gif is showing is basically the SAA advancing a whomping 300km in a desert on the East while barely advancing 30km in the North.

And it took them 6 years and more than dozen of thousands of deads for that.

>>34494913
WW1 was literally over in less time than the SAA has spent fucking around.

In fact, I'm not 100% unconvinced that the SAA would win a fight with the WW1 entente.

>>34494913
>implying that is not what every modern AFV

Using a 4 millions $ MBT to fight a 5000 $ car isn't exactly cost effective, you know.
That's what IFV are for :
Lightly armored vehicules with enough firepower to punch through most opposition, safe for the few case you need a MBT for.

Russians can afford to just zerg with MBT full of soldiers paid in loot against whatever small country they decide to bully to make themselves feel relevant this month.

Syria can't afford that.
Not with the shit it could buy for that price.
Not with how shitty they are at fighting.

>>34494913
>That small red spot Deir ez-Zor

The poor guys stationned there have to be both the most badasses and unlucky soldiers of the whole syrian army.

>>34490664
>gun
true that 5mm makes is marginal but Russian KE rounds have similar muzzle velocity to western counterparts.

>optics and FCS
they are now fitted with French made thermal sights and newly developed ballistic computers
at least seems better than current Leopard2 tbqh
>absence of composite armor
false
and, utilization of ERA isn't synonymous with shitty composite armor and we don't have any accurate proof of "shitty composite armor" cause military intelligence.)

>mobility
top speed of 37mph isn' that bad compared to decent tanks tbqh (though their engine output has unfavorable horse power but has been improved indeed.)

>shit tier transmission and suspension
source?

>>34495292
that is 6 week

And burgers still haven't posted the popped turret of a T-90 that was taken on a Russian training field with what presumably were cadets and was branded on twitter as taken in Syria.

>>34495292
What if they bought Abrams instead. Would the conflict have ended faster? INB4 Yes because buying Abrams will include A-10 strafing runs and MOABs on bakeries and hospitals without the political consequences.

>>34490715

The Russian 125 main guns can kill NATO vehicles.

The problem is spotting and laying the gun, and Soviet FCS were inferior. Now the gap has been bridged, and whomever is spotted first, generally dies.

Don't kid yourself on the ability of any MBT to withstand a 120/125 mm shot and be able to drive away.

File: (((Western_MBT))).jpg (314KB, 1280x726px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1280x726px

>>34491170

Every modern tank (as in not designed in the 70s) has an autoloader with the exception of that shitty ass Turkish thing.

Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, these are all 1970s relics.

File: C36hxVzW8AA5K5T.jpg (239KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1200x1200px

>>34491539
>Syriain rebels have shitty old tow missiles

The US supplied the terrorists with TOW-2A tandem warhead and totally passive systems. It's a nightmare for any vehicle crew.

But since the Syrians installed the IR dazzlers on some of their tanks, it seems the effectiveness of the TOW threat has gone down.

>>34489972
>T-90
>Better protection than any Abrams other than the 1st model
inb4 muh active countermeasures

File: Was+getting+caught+part+of+your+plan+_6572d8e9ace907ec6e521a7cb72b4bbc.jpg (60KB, 608x648px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 608x648px

>>34491145
Can't argue with you there
>mfw the Iraqi army loses multiple tanks against unorganized shits with ancient rpgs

>>34495928
You missed the whole point of the discussion, didn't you ?

>>34495689
>true that 5mm makes is marginal but Russian KE rounds have similar muzzle velocity to western counterparts.

The 5mm is irrelevant, and having a similar muzzle velocity doesn't make them equal.

>they are now fitted with French made thermal sights and newly developed ballistic computers

The thermal sight on the T-90A, T-72B3 and the coming upgrade for old T-80's is probably one of the single biggest upgrades for Russian tanks in a long time.

>at least seems better than current Leopard2 tbqh

The 'current' Leopard 2 uses 3rd gen thermal sights, not French export sights from a decade ago.

>shit tier transmission

He is referring to the inability to neutral steer and abysmal reverse speed.

>>34495904
You mean burgers are less likely than vatniks to post pictures of destroyed tanks claiming them to be something other than what they were?

>>34495954
Have fun breaking track with three men, nigger.

>>34496656
thermal sight on T-72B3 and the T-80BV are Belarus made, only the laser range finder on the T-72B3 are baguette

>>34491816
Vietnam don't have conscription, or at least not enforced because last I checked I didn't get a draft card
However the training for land forces are pretty shit, but that might change now that they have budget for new toys
t. viet

Having a tank that can blow up buildings and soak up small arms fire is better than none.

>>34496902
Proofs.
[spoiler]No, really.[/spoiler]

>>34491131
Already today
http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/products/tanks-2#currency=USD

What's all this jazz about T-90MS/T-90M/T-90SM or whatever the fuck it's actually called.

>>34496001
TOW-2 and above is completely immune to dazzlers.
The flare in the ass of the missile is a xenon bulb, polarized and frequency modulated with a randomized pattern generated by the launch unit.
Muh Shtora and whatever space heater used by tankers only ever work against old slavshit.

>>34492995
>>34493959
>nuh uh, you're the dumb one!

>>34493959
Try me.

>>34495083
>into the magazine

Auto loader has a capacity of what.. five rounds? So the improvement is that the crew are now sitting on a smaller magazine?

>>34495036
>Things people believe

>>34492117
Stryker has a higher profile than the Abrams and lesser rough terrain crossing ability for less firepower. The M8 AGS is weighs the same, but is armed with a higher-caliber weapon, is better protected than the Stryker, is a smaller target, and has better mobility. AND is air-deployable in certain configurations. This all serves to make it a superior pure AFV than the Styker which is more an IFV built for specific scenarions.

>>34498647
T-90MS (''Proryv-2'') is a designated export model, while the T-90M (''Proryv-3'') is intended to be the upgrade to the current A standard fleet, to compliment the Armata platform tank which is, at least supposed, to be the standard MBT of the Russian Army in the (un)foreseeable future. Basically if it has ''S'' in the name it's intended for export (in T-90MS, it's mainly for India and perhaps some Middle Eastern nations). The local model is supposed to incorporate lessons learned from Syria, to make it more proficient in urban settings. I think the main difference between the two versions are sights, electronics, FCS, and the M version, at least in current state is intended to have cage armor hanging from the turret's wedge armor. Oh, and the log, you can't have a proper Russian experience without THE log.

Basically T-90M is to T-90A what T-72B3 is to T-72B. Compared to the A model, both M and MS have better protection in the front, better electronics, sights (especially for the commander) and marginally better ergonomics, as well as an automatic transmission, a first time ever for the Russian production-line tanks. And the Kontakt-5 has been switched with the newer Relikt ERA.

damn this thread made me want to play syrian warfare again, the expansion can't come soon enough

>>34495689
>gun

All available data is to the contrary. Russian guns shoot at lower pressure than Western ones and their ammunition is inferior to that of the UK, US, etc. Prove me wrong there, I beg you.

>Optics

French sights and computers that they have been unable to import since invading Ukraine and getting slapped with sanctions. They lack the technical capability to produce or maintain such systems on their own... and they have not been able to update their entire inventory of even just modern mbt's. Not even close.

Further, extensive testing by the Indian Army of their T90's has found the computers, cameras, LRF's, etc. to be unreliable in the field. Maybe partially because they are retarded Indians, but given the much touted accessability and simplicity of the tank and Russian shit in general... I find this fairly telling.

>Armor
All that is publicly available on the T90 says it is using the same sub-par aluminium/rubber or titanium/rubber composite armor, or a different version of that same armor, used in the T72. The problem with layering and sandwiching metals and rubber is that it does fuck all against HEAT rounds and the aluminium version proved itself hilarious ineffective against UK and US sabot rounds in both Iraq wars, and development of ammunition for NATO tanks since has been dedicated to producing rounds that will be just as effective against titanium composites.

You can say "you don't know that because you can't!" but the sword is double edged. YOU can't say it isn't true, definitively, however I can point to a plethora of information online confirming my claim.

>Mobility
It is a slower tank with a weaker engine. They use it because the attempt at a turbine engine (the T80) proved that they couldn't afford to keep them running in a hot conflict. There is really no way around this.

>>34495940
>can

Maybe. What is known right now is that the Russians are behind in gun/ammo design by a decade+ and that their 125mm guns shooting 80's and 90's era rounds were totally ineffective against US and UK tanks. What is also known is that in a gunfight the guy who shoots first usually wins, and until the Russians are able to produce and maintain THEIR OWN optics, ballistic computers, and FCS they will be at an incredible disadvantage.

I don't have to kid myself about anything stud. Russian guns gone up against modern Western armor and been found seriously wanting.

>>34498998
Better answer than the other guy but my counterpoint:

>Stryker is faster, we can agree to disagree on "mobility"
>Shares commonality of parts with the rest of the vehicles it is deployed with
>If you mean "can be flown around" to mean air deployable, the stryker family is.

I am not seeing how the M8 is superior.

>>34496879
There are no niggers in Vietnam, dog.

>>34499074
Cheers, Bill. Does the M have any hard contracts with the Russian army?

>it's an /sg/ BTFOs Amerilard bastards thread

Kek the Abrams is shit, Russia makes the best weapons in the world

>>34499087
Same here. Gonna boot it up and try to nab a Shilka. I've put 70 hours into already but the mission are getting old.

>>34489605
>Wasting money on a piece of shit

Wooooooow

>>34499295
Not that I'm aware of, though that does not exclude the possibility it will in the near future. The primary attention seems to be towards upgrading their existing (and fairly massive) T-72 fleet to the B3 standard. AFAIK, the only hard contract to the M/MS series is currently India, which ordered 463 MS tanks to buff up their Pakistan border divisions, and a contract for the same model has been made last December with an, as of yet, unnamed Middle Eastern nation. I'd say Iraq, but their contract is for the S and SK (basically the export version of the original T-90 1993 standard command tank) versions.

Oh and I forgot to mention one thing about the M version, probably the most important offensive characteristic is the implementation of the 2A82-1M smoothbore canon, same one grafted to the Armata platform tank.

>>34499145
How do we know their rounds are totally ineffective?
Where did Western tanks face present-day standard-issue ammo?
If you are refering to Iraq war(s) Iraqis used 3BM17, which was inferior export version of a 1972 3BM15.
Western tanks never faced Soviet 80's, let alone Russian 90's 125 mm rounds. Thus we don't know anything and you're full of shit just like 90% of this awful thread.

Why does every one of these threads turn into a shit flinging contest?

Most of Iraq's combat is going to be urban nowadays and generally they don't need a tank designed for tank on tank combat. The T-90 is just better value

>>34499444
Once again, historically speaking. They isn't a way to know for sure right now, but the evidence at hand points to inferior ammunition and less powerful cannons. The T90 is using the same gun as the first T64's. It is possible that the Russians have developed a new and amazing tank round but the slow pace of their military modernization program, defense companies and factories going bankrupt, and deteriorating financial situation are all in line with the fact that the Russians simply don't have the money to spend that they did forty years ago. Tanks operated by the Iraqis in the first gulf war had the most modern Russian guns and rounds that were realistically available in quantity at the time. They were ineffective against the armor of US and UK tanks at the time. The West has had the resources, the money and technology, to continue improving their equipment across the board while the Russians have been struggling economically... it is therefor highly unlikely that they have made any great strides which place them on par with or superior to what has been and is being developed and produced in the West.

It is ridiculous to think that Russian arms have been keeping pace with Western arms development in the last three decades. They simply have less: Less money, less industry/production, less R&D, etc. means slower progress and advancement as well as less equipment. Russia still produces good tanks, jets, weapons etc... but compared to the West? They are a solid generation behind.

These are realistic conclusions to draw based on everything we know that is publicly available.

File: img9520.jpg (59KB, 500x428px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x428px

>>34499518
>money make better tech than brains
t.lockheed shill

>>34499570
Maybe you can give an example of a broke ass country technologically superior to a rich one?

>you cant

>>34499623
Rosatom over General Electric, Westinghouse and AREVA.
Sony Mobile over Apple.
SpaceX over LM and Boeing.

File: d-68.jpg (13KB, 930x144px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 930x144px

>>34499518
>The T90 is using the same gun as the first T64's
lol

>>34499623
NASSA uses russian shit and pump money into useless projects that would never come in reality

>>34498904
>TOW-2 and above is completely immune to dazzlers.

Meanwhile, in Syria, TOW-2s fly up into the sky/into the ground when fired at vehicles with Shtora.
The only thing that's immune to Shtora at the moment are laser-beam riders and IR guided missiles.

>>34499705
proofs

>>34499518
>historically speaking
Historically speaking Soviets had the edge in many ways until 80's.
>same gun
Means nothing. And it's not the same gun. It's an improved version.
>tanks operated by Iraqis
Were monkey models. Far from "most modern". And no they didn't have "most modern" rounds. I told you what kinetic pentrators they had. 3BM17, an inferior version of 1972 3BM15.
>realistic conclussion
Ah, from "we know" it turns out that's just your bullshit opinion. Should've stated that early on.
And pro-tip, try to get more acquainted with the topics you pretend to be an expert on.
And they are not a generation behind. In fact they are generation ahead. See T-14. They are introducing it into service.

>>34491340
So then the problem isn't the auto loader, it is where the ammo is stored.

>>34495083
>the crew will be fried only half as crispy now

>>34499819
>Historically
Re-read my post. I specify the last thirty odd years, and for good reason.

>Gun
What improvements? Educate me please.

>muh monkey model
excuses, excuses, excuses

Functionally identical to any other T72, as export model T90's are functionally identical to any other T90. The guns are the same, the engines are essentially the same, and the only functional differences are in the suite of technical doodaads.

>bullshit opinion
If we are calling any evidence based conjecture "bullshit opinion" then you're on even weaker legs than I am. Do you have a single shred of evidence besides "muh monkey model" and "nuh uh" to refute the claims I made in the previous comment regarding the weakness of Russian R&D and armaments industry or the performance of their tanks in the two most recent conflicts where they went up against Western tanks?

I don't think you do. But if you find it within yourself to expand your arguments past "no you" then I'll be glad to hear about it.

>T14 Armata

lmao. The only public display of that piece of trash should it breaking down while simply driving in a parade. If, IF, and when it is introduced into active service it will be in limited numbers and unlikely live up to the hype.

Here's a question you actually know the answer to. How's that slav dick taste?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg0Gd6AhqfE

The TOWs in Syria have been identified as BGM-71Es (TOW 2A), the tandem-warhead version.

>>34498489
Sosna-U is belarus Made

>>34499906
>armata stops for a while
>HAHAHAH BROKEN
pull mass media cock out of your mounth

>>34499906
>Functionally identical to any other T72,

Except for, you know, lack of composite armour filling (Iraqis poured sand and concrete into the armor cavities), smaller armour cavities than T-72As,
worse rangefinder, worse sights, worse fire control (which is saying something considering how much slower Soviet tanks were), thinner armor etc.

Saying an Iraqi T-72M is equivalent to a T-72B is like claiming an export M1A1 is equivalent to an M1A2 SEP V2.
It's intellectually dishonest and downright false.


But what can you expect from /k/, the board where any weapon/vehicle/subsystem isn't American, it's automatically shit regardless of the facts.

File: 02b.jpg (62KB, 1111x597px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1111x597px

>>34499962
>when your newest MBT stops and has to be towed off from the parade by a fucking CEV
Nothing to see here amerikanski
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgS9GA3nBco

>>34499986
>towed off from the parade by a fucking CEV
the BREM cann't towed the tank
after that the tank drive off it own
if you post a video, post the full video

>>34499993
Doesn't change the fact that it broke and they had to make repairs on the spot to get that piece of shit out of the red square by the morning

>>34500006
You people are just as bad as vatniks with your cherry-picking break-downs or wrecked vehicles.

>>34500013
Is it cherry-picking if i don't try?

>>34499906
>Versions include 2A46, 2A46M, 2A46M-1, 2A46M-2, 2A46M-4, 2A46M-5 and the Ukrainian KBA-3.
There, I spoonfed you, happy?
>functionally identical
Except worse armor, worse ammunition supplied, worse FCS, and other differences. But sure, it's "functionally same".
>conjecture
Nah you're just shitting out biased chauvinist opinions. Try leaving this board a while.
>breakdown
Even if the tank really broke down (it didn't) it wouldn't mean anything. As a concept Armata is next-gen and will enter service, though yeah numbers are debatable.

>>34499962
>stops for awhile
>breaks down and has to be towed away by a recovery vehicle

Two very different situations slavaboo.

>>34500019
It's not hard to find pictures of wrecked Abrams either, doesn't mean it isn't cherrypicking or deceiving.

>>34500030
Right. I guess i'll go find an Abrams that stopped dead in it's tracks for no apparent reason.
>oh wait

>>34499978
That is hardly an accurate comparison.

The composites in Russian tanks are made of aluminium and rubber. The very newest and most modern use titanium. I pointed this out already, and why the use of titanium is unlikely to make a difference to modern APFSDS rounds. The Russians are aware of this weakness as well.. it's why they've been slapping ERA on their tanks for so long. If they had the ability to use advanced composite like the US, UK, etc. have then they would.

If you think /k/ is overwhelmingly pro-american then you have either not been here long or don't do much reading.

>>34500006
>out of the red square by the morning
make up stuff again
why are you so pathetic

>>34499993
So from that, we get that the russians have :

- a brand new tank that "broke" on its big day, with the big heads calling a CEV to tow it away.

- russian soldiers (as in, the whole staff on parade) that couldn't make the difference between a broken engine and operator vladimir not finding the gear

- a engineer vehicle which cannot tow a tank during a parade, making you wonder how they'll salvage broken vehicules on the field.

That's like three different level of incompetence rolled into one.

Not that it's specific to Russia, mind you, but it's still hilarious.

>>34499978
No one is saying Iraq's tanks were on par with the best the Soviet Union had, but its better tanks were on par with the bulk of Soviet forces (T-72A).

Iraqi's did not cut open their tanks and fill the armor cavities with sand.

>>34500025
Iraqi T-72Ms didn't even have coincidence rangefinders, and they filled the empty armor cavities with sand.
Their perpetrator rounds were also worse than the original Soviet obsolete rounds they'd originally received, because they made them out of steel as tungsten was too expensive and in short supply.

>>34500045
>The composites in Russian tanks are made of aluminium and rubber.

In the 60's and early 70's, yes, in the 80's and onwards they began to make use of proper composites using ceramics.

>and why the use of titanium is unlikely to make a difference to modern APFSDS rounds.

It's not for increased armor effectiveness, it's for weight savings.

>The Russians are aware of this weakness as well.. it's why they've been slapping ERA on their tanks for so long. If they had the ability to use advanced composite like the US, UK, etc. have then they would.

Wrong, the Soviets & Russians have been slapping ERA on their tanks because it's extremely weight efficient compared to composite and easy to repair in the field. Not to mention simple to upgrade on existing vehicles.
Their composite armour isn't quite as good as Chobham/Dorchester, but it's still effective. If they were to only use composite armour their vehicles would be much heavier.

ERA is also highly effective against APFSDS rounds, showcased by Kontakt-5s effectiveness against M829A1. Modern APFSDS munitions can defeat K-5, which is why the Russians are now fielding Relikt on their new vehicles.

File: 1392451782878.jpg (156KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 800x800px

>>34500025
>guns

I'm glad you've convinced yourself, but naming a bunch of variants doesn't constitute proof they were upgraded in any meaningful way.

>functionally identical
Yes. Differences I have pointed out repeatedly here. Besides the suite of technical shit such as the FCS, ballistics computer, sights, etc. they are functionally identical. Judging by the fact that Syrian planes ran out of smart munitions over a year ago and have been using "dumb" bombs almost exclusively, I think it highly unlikely that their tanks are brimming with cutting edge or even modern ten years ago main gun rounds. Russia is simply too poor and technically handicapped these days.

>chauvinist

Good word, but dismissing my analysis as jingoism is unfortunate and misguided of you. You've yet to make or refute a claim with more than a snide remark.

It's almost like you have nothing of substance to add.

>breakdown

Yes, it broke down and had to be towed off the parade ground. You can google the video. The fact that it experienced such a failure on its great public debut is an embarrassment to Russia as it indicates that its supposed military modernization, which it cannot even afford, is a potemkin village style illusion meant to show a powerful and fearful posture outwardly.

>>34499145
>I am not seeing how the M8 is superior.

The M8 is better protected, has a larger ammunition capacity, has better mobility and is air droppable. Things that make it ideal for an Infantry BCT's.

The M1128 being a Stryker variant is ideal as an organic fire support vehicle for Stryker BCT's.

>>34495307
WW1 had massive supply trains from all over the world.
SAA has sanctions preventing international intervention against a larger military, tho less well equipped, military insurgency force being supplied by Saudis and Turks, who are using the conflict to expand their borders.

If SAA was getting supplied properly then they'd be doing alot better but hey ho international gubmints.

The fact US forces are striking SAA forces as well doesn't help.

>>34500077
>composites

Do you have anything to back that up? What do they call their ceramics? When did they start using them? The most recent T90's being sold by Russia are still offered only with aluminium/rubber composite armor. Can you link anything?

Russia's best armor is a titanium/rubber composite. They layer ERA over it and then add an IR dazzler. I've never read a thing about them switching to some new space age material like the US and UK use, and I'd love to read about it.

>titanium
Maybe, I wouldn't know. It's lighter and harder, so if they are using the same thickness then protection must be increased. That stands to reason. Regardless, my point stands. The best hard protection they are using in their tanks is behind the times as it were.

>ERA

Your opinion. I'll assume you came to it as fairly as I did mine, and we can agree to disagree. ERA is an inferior, but cost effective, alternative to using more material.

We don't know yet precisely how effective modern sabot are against the newest ERA Russia is using... but given the fact that as the Russians are producing newer ERA to protect against rounds the US was using twenty years ago and the US continues to develop rounds with the goal of defeating the heavy armor that they have yet encountered.. it seems to me that the Russians are playing catch up in armor design while the US is already working on weapons to defeat their next armor development.

>>34500139
I dunno. I've been in a Stryker unit and been in a light infantry unit. I don't see the need for a "light" tank. There's nothing it does that can't be done just as well or better by other systems.

>>34500185
What existing system can provide an IBCT with large caliber fire support and not impede its mobility?

>>34500122
>doesn't constitute proof they were upgraded in any meaningful way
Before I go into spoonfeeding you further, please define ''meaningful''. I have just shown you that there are several versions of 2A46. But tell me what ''meaningful'' is so I can answer you properly.
>Yes
No. No. A monkey model that has quite weaker armor, worse AMMUNITION (most important thing), worse FCS, as well as other differences is not functionally equivalent.
For fucks sake with the ammunition Iraqis had, they had no way of perforating Western armor at point blank, let alone at normal distances.
Furthermore deriving lessons from Iraq is a bad thing to do. It's a fucking desert and Western forces had air supremacy. Combine that with overall Iraqi inferiority in terms of equipment and manpower and you get lopsided results.
Iraqi conflicts demonstrated nothing really.
>You've yet to make or refute a claim with more than a snide remark.
I refuted several of your claims. For example, ''Iraqis had most modern widely available ammo''. No they didn't. They had inferior export version of a 1972 penetrator.
That's the only fact you ever mentioned in your posts for that matter. When you were explained that it wasn't like that, you went on a diatribe how Russians are decades behind and what not.
>on its great public debut
It was actually on rehearsal.
>embarrassment
Perhaps, but it means nothing. Unlike you I approach these subjects objectively and I observe bigger picture. You're clearly too stuck in ''inferior Slavs'' mindset to even consider opposing opinions.
>potemkin village
You are aware that's a myth, a slander of his opponents? Potemkin built many cities m8.
But it's nice you mentioned that, it just shows you have a very superficial knowledge about Russia.
Beyond all this, to even presume Russians can't make a round that can penetrate Western armor is preposterous.

>>34500216
>spoonfeeding

Nigga you ain't said shit.

You've offered nothing, you've got nothing. I have better things to do than argue with slavaboos. Goodnight.

>>34500216
Lies like sand filled armor is lazy and deflects from the real problem of Iraqi crew quality.

>>34500181
>ERA is an inferior, but cost effective, alternative to using more material.

It's inferior depending on which doctrine you approach from. If you don't mind heavier vehicles that are less friendly to field-repair, then yes it is inferior.
But if you value smaller, lighter vehicles that are easy to repair, then ERA is very valuable. Protection level estimates for the T-72B and T-80U with K-5 is surprisingly comparable to Challenger 1s and M1A1 Abrams, all while being 10-15 tonnes lighter.
The ERA brick expending itself upon being hit isn't as big of a problem as it appears, as even with composite armour if you were to hit in the same area, the armour has been compromised and is more likely to be penetrated.
But instead of having to be sent back to a repair depot (or factory), two men with a wrench and an hour or two can replace the spent brick and be back in action.

Even on Western vehicles ERA is beneficial, perhaps not the heavy, KE-penetrator defeating ERA the Russians make use of, but instead lighter HEAT-defeating ERA.
We see this today on "urban kits" for the Challenger and Abrams.

>>34500242
You know, that's actually a fair point. I can admit I am given to the assumption that multi-hit survival is the most important factor in how efficient an armor is. I also freely admit it is usually very useful against most HEAT projectiles or other EFP type weapons.

I have a hard time believing that ERA is superior as an alternative to chobham or the american variant though, when we are looking at protection anyway, or that the Russians are currently making ERA that will defeat the current US APFSDS rounds. Lot's of Saddam's T72's had good ERA (for the 80's anyway) during both Gulf wars and it did them little good against the sabot round the US and UK were using then. I'd be very surprised if the newest Russian ERA performed better against the newest APFSDS rounds NATO would be throwing at it, hypothetically.

>>34500242
ERA was rubbish in the gulf war, it was rubbish in chechnya, and so far appears to be rubbish in Syria if the number of tanks getting killed there over the past two years are any indication. I am betting that it's rubbish in Ukraine too.

>>34489917
Thank you for enlightening me. That's a pretty good idea for developing countries

>>34500006
Are you a Hillary supporter? You sure fall into the whole "if I say it enough, it will be true" category of tank discussioneer.

File: snowmobile.png (253KB, 450x576px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 450x576px

>>34500283
The few Iraqi tanks that had ERA were using the Kontakt-1 bricks, which were your basic anti-HEAT bricks. Very simple, cheap, and effective against non-tandem warhead HEAT shells.
So of course they did nothing to Western APFSDS rounds in the Gulf War. They had a tendency to set off adjacent bricks when hit as well. But they do work well against infantry-held weapons like RPG-7s or AT4s.

It's not so much ERA being an alternative to composite armour, but more as an augment to the existing armour. Russian doctrine in the past was to meet weight limit so that they could quickly & easily cross bridges in Europe.
Western vehicles, by comparison, either had to cross one at a time, bring in combat engineers to build a new crossing, or limit yourself to the few bridges that can take your vehicles.

What we're seeing with Russian developments today with the T-14 MBT and T-15 IFV is that they're moving towards the Western model of a heavier, more well protected vehicle.
They're aiming for protection levels similar to that of Western MBTs using just composite armour (it being less effective than Chobham/Dorchester probably explains their larger bulk), then adding the new "Malachit" heavy ERA ontop of that.
Even more intriguing is that they're pursuing hard-kill systems very seriously, they're a few steps ahead of us concerning those systems (except maybe for the Israelis).

Also, top kek captcha.

>>34500375
>What we're seeing with Russian developments today with the T-14 MBT and T-15 IFV is that they're moving towards the Western model of a heavier, more well protected vehicle.

I should clarify, while the T-14 is still lighter than Western MBTs, it is much, MUCH heavier than expected for an unmanned turret MBT. It's heavier than a T-90M. That weight practically all went into increasing the the armour protection level.
If it had been on or slightly above T-90M levels of protection, it would have been significantly lighter. It's nice to see them valuing crews compared to the Soviet era.

>>34500367
I want /pol/ to go back

>>34495954
>i know jack shit about tanks but im gonna post anyways

>>34499312
(you)

>>34491746
I'd say that's a fair enough analysis. Western MBTs are generally designed with the assumption of an effective supply system in place, which is not rarely the case for third-world shitcountries mired in civil war. If you're buying an Abrams or a Leopard you have to have proper logistical infrastructure and tactical training to exploit your advantages otherwise you end up with situations like the Iraqi Army losing Abrams to ISIS because they deployed them without infantry support into areas crawling with RPG-wielding madmen

>>34499957
It's assembled i Russia tho. And I'm about thermal camera, not whole sight.

>>34498333
Vietnam have a conscript duty, you idiot. Every able man, fit for duty, age from 18 to 27 have to serving in military for 18 months. If you're not fit for duty (shit eyes sight, manlet, junkie, etc) you will maybe have to transfer for local militia's duty. Local militia's duty only required a few day per week either for military training or do some errands for police.

The conscript ones would never have a chance to touch their hand over this new tank. There are two type of troops in Vietnam military, conscript and main force.

Seems like the VT-4 would be even cheaper then the T-90S.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBIEDH8x8ro

>>34493818
This a thousand times. We fought tigers and panthers with shit shermans

>>34490283
This is why there are more Abrams in need of repair than there are in active duty in the American Army

>>34502341
Why lie?

File: 2s23nona.jpg (167KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x768px

>>34491845
no they'll just rain down mortar fire on your building from 7 kilometers if you have AT capabilities. id want a heavy assault gun with a 200mm naval cannon though.

>34499312
>Begging for (you)s
You're not getting one from me.