T-90 VS Leopard 2

[Panzercracker]

Wasn't the RPGs such as as they were done by the Metis-M. This I give credit for. It's been used, it has worked.
The next time Russian hardware does that, I'll give it due credit.

Its nice to see you're giving credit to something Russian made, ofc Russian fighters also worked, so did Russian subs and tanks but there's progress i guess.

About the T-80.
"The explosive reactive armor does not provide any added protection against APDS or APFSDS attack."

Which is ok since it was released western tanks used 100-105mm guns and could do squat frontally sabots or no sabots.

"The Russian Defense Ministry made a selection of a single MBT in 1995. The fighting in Grozny had been shown around the world and the reputation of Russian tanks was sullied

Of course, they sent their tanks without any infantry at all, zip support! No tank no mother how modern will survive something like that.

Although many casualities were due to bad tactics

No sh*t! Sending tanks into an urban enviroment without infantry!

This is alleged to have tipped the balance against the T-80 in the selection. The T-80 was already more expensive and its delicate, fuel-hungry turbine engine was still giving problems. "

Of course it could be because Russia had the T-90 on the roll which is a vastly superior tank so why would they invest in a T-80U if they can have something better?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/t-80.htm
One shot one kill for the M1A1 Abrams. T-80 sucks.

With 200mm heavily sloped composite armor i doubt it, current Abrams versions are better but T-80 is still a challenging opponent and at its time was vastly superior.

 

[A Can of Man]

How can you prove that a 105mm APFSDS round couldn't destroy a T-80 frontally?
And you know how resilient M1 series tanks are to even the 155mm APFSDS.

 

[Panzercracker]

How can you prove that a 105mm APFSDS round couldn't destroy a T-80 frontally?

I dont need to prove it, US army proved it by replacing their 105mm with 125 exactly expressly because the basic 105 was inadequate.

And you know how resilient M1 series tanks are to even the 155mm APFSDS.

Insanely which is completely irrelevant since i'm not claiming newer M1 tanks are inferior, they're not they're significantly superior, the basic M1 tank before being uparmored could and was penetrated by Russian guns which is why they uparmored and upganned it, basic M1 was inadequate.

 

[A Can of Man]

Woops made a big boo boo. I meant the 120mm APFSDS round.
Surprised you didn't pick up on that.

Don't know if I fully buy that the 105mm was ineffective and therefore replaced, but otherwise, fair enough. The T-80 may have been a pretty good tank. But like I said, Russian hardware always comes with high claims and impressive stats on paper and always manage to do nothing but get blown up.

South Korea bought some T-80Us but the ones in South Korean service are heavily modified and upgraded far beyond those in Russian inventory. The basic package proved that the basic K1s had a far better FCS package. The heavily modified South Korean T-80Us however, were better than the basic K1s. The T-80U isn't good enough to even be considered a replacement for the K1A1 even though South Korea could acquire the Russian for a fraction of the K1A1's cost (in fact, the ones in service right now were acquired practically for free).

 

[Panzercracker]

Don't know if I fully buy that the 105mm was ineffective and therefore replaced, but otherwise, fair enough. The T-80 may have been a pretty good tank. But like I said, Russian hardware always comes with high claims and impressive stats on paper and always manage to do nothing but get blown up.

Yet US claims no M1 were lost in military actions (when they did, lots of them) and their claims are not overblown? Stop basing your opinion on Rambo movies.

South Korea bought some T-80Us but the ones in South Korean service are heavily modified and upgraded far beyond those in Russian inventory.

South Korea didnt buy a single T-80U, it was given 30 something vehicles as part of debt repayment and they were neither heavily upgraded nor modified, whatever Koreans did with them later is another issue.

 

[A Can of Man]

The modifications were done with the Russians. Probably in South Korea though. They had to upgrade it because the FCS was pure crap.
Yeah it was practically for free, but if the T-80U was simply that good, odds were they would/could have ordered more of them. Lots of M48s still need to be replaced, it's an expensive deal and they're doing it with K1s, K1A1s and soon, K2s. No plans for T-80U.
As for claims that the M1 hadn't been lost in combat, that was probably prior to 2003. If they made such a claim after 2003, it would simply not be true. If they meant to another tank other than another M1, it would still be true.

Other Russian gear that South Korea uses include Mil and Kamov transport helicopters, BMP-3 and the Metis-M (after seeing how good it was).
The BMP-3 got good reviews as well (but I've heard some bad things about the armor) and I'm actually quite a fan of the Mi-8/17 series and Ka-27. I don't think a transport helicopter needs to be very expensive or fancy. It just needs to be reliable with lots of room for cargo. Ka-27 is small, but still, it's a nice little utility helicopter for ships.

I don't think Russian stuff is all total junk.
Just with the tanks, I gotta see something better than them getting blown up left and right as hopelessly as they have so far. You'd think with all their hype they'd be able to take out something.

 

[Panzercracker]

The modifications were done with the Russians. Probably in South Korea though. They had to upgrade it because the FCS was pure crap.
All i know is it was shipped as used by Russian army.

Yeah it was practically for free, but if the T-80U was simply that good,

Its not, notice the past tense, T-80U was that good, today its a good tank able to give a run for its money against even the best Western tanks but inferior to them.

Since quoting specifications failed to give you a picture, compare German Panther to British Firefly, the Firefly could destroy the panther and thus was a serious threat it was ultimately inferior in every respect.

odds were they would/could have ordered more of them. Lots of M48s still need to be replaced, it's an expensive deal and they're doing it with K1s, K1A1s and soon, K2s. No plans for T-80U.

See up, they can develop their own better ones, thats one reason, the other reason is Russia no longer produces T-80s which means any tank Korea would buy would be used, heavily.

As for claims that the M1 hadn't been lost in combat, that was probably prior to 2003. If they made such a claim after 2003, it would simply not be true. If they meant to another tank other than another M1, it would still be true.

They've lost a number during "Desert Storm" there were pictures of M1s including shot up by T-72s but the official count said something else.

Other Russian gear that South Korea uses include Mil and Kamov transport helicopters, BMP-3 and the Metis-M (after seeing how good it was).
The BMP-3 got good reviews as well (but I've heard some bad things about the armor) and I'm actually quite a fan of the Mi-8/17 series and Ka-27. I don't think a transport helicopter needs to be very expensive or fancy. It just needs to be reliable with lots of room for cargo. Ka-27 is small, but still, it's a nice little utility helicopter for ships.

Russian helis are all the way up there with the best, BMP-3 is an economy class IFV, better than previous Russian designs but weaker than serious customers like CV, Puma or Bradley.

I don't think Russian stuff is all total junk.
Just with the tanks, I gotta see something better than them getting blown up left and right as hopelessly as they have so far. You'd think with all their hype they'd be able to take out something.

Problem is that Russian busted tanks have nothing to do with their technical inadequacies and everything with absolutely inept use of armor.

Americans typically bomb an area, shell an area, send a recon force and only then enter with tanks, Russians just happily drove their machines into Grozny, of course they got slaughtered no tank in the world is going to survive urban warfare on its merry own.

 

[A Can of Man]

They've lost a number during "Desert Storm" there were pictures of M1s including shot up by T-72s but the official count said something else.

Could you provide me with a source on this one?
Because what I knew about losses were largely either hits in the engine compartment (which is inevitably vulnerable regardless of what tank you use). So it's not a complete writeoff but instead damage taken that can be repaired.
The vast majority of M1 write offs seem to be from extremely powerful IEDs.

 

[IIyx]

t 90 is maby a good tank but honestly Leopard is the best tank in the world.

 

[darkgreensoldier666]

Both tanks are greate !!
and don't forget when you comparing that all the tank built for its own climatique and landscape conditions ..

it is like you cannot compare T90 with Merkava mk4 because T90 will stuck or will be immobile in israel landscape and climate ... and Merkava would stuck or be immobile in Russian wheather and landscape conditions most of all in russian mud 65t tank will get it as a first hit ...

lets retturn to T90 and Leopard in my oppinion leo i a bit better but I think T90 is more protected because of Stora/Arena ... but I read before that Leo2 can shoot Russian tanks at much longer range ... so in the battle field like was in WW2 they have aproximatelly equal chances to survive...

And I think there is Better Russian tanks then T90 .. (not really remmeber correct me if i wrong);

 

[darkgreensoldier666]

T 90
acctually a T-72-b gear and T-80-u turret
with much defended hull then T-80 ..
It says (in the book according to Millitary ordinance) that T-90 armour can withstan almost all the cummuliative shells and it also protected by "Tsu2"-Shtora and "Tsu1" (making it hard to aim the tank using semi automatic tow(anti tank guided missiles)) and defence system called "Kontakt-5"

quite protected no ?
and a other russian tank have to be compared with 4generation tanks is a black eagle .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbocwdpJI_g

 

[Panzercracker]

quite protected no ?
and a other russian tank have to be compared with 4generation tanks is a black eagle .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbocwdpJI_g

Black Eagle does not exist, this is a vid from 1999 which shows an elongated turret on a lenghtened T-80U chassis, a very early prototype at best, a mock up hoax at worst.

 

[darkgreensoldier666]

Black Eagle does not exist, this is a vid from 1999 which shows an elongated turret on a lenghtened T-80U chassis, a very early prototype at best, a mock up hoax at worst.

So will it come out or it is abandoded project /??

npt really T80u ,but yes there is a lot of unifications (that what says in my book)

 

[Panzercracker]

So will it come out or it is abandoded project /??

npt really T80u ,but yes there is a lot of unifications (that what says in my book)

No idea, my take on it is that they have some basic elements and the concept but its been stuck there for years now, we should probably see something more tangible by 2015 but i doubt Russia will be getting a new tank till 2020, they got enough to spend on already.

 

[darkgreensoldier666]

No idea, my take on it is that they have some basic elements and the concept but its been stuck there for years now, we should probably see something more tangible by 2015 but i doubt Russia will be getting a new tank till 2020, they got enough to spend on already.

Yes Russia is out of budget for such projects .. I think when it will come out it already will be "OLD" in compraison to newer western armour that will appear in 2020

 

[darkgreensoldier666]

back to the topic I think
Leo 2 for defense T 90 for atack

 

[Pale Rider]

Both tanks are greate !!
and don't forget when you comparing that all the tank built for its own climatique and landscape conditions ..

it is like you cannot compare T90 with Merkava mk4 because T90 will stuck or will be immobile in israel landscape and climate ... and Merkava would stuck or be immobile in Russian wheather and landscape conditions most of all in russian mud 65t tank will get it as a first hit ...

lets retturn to T90 and Leopard in my oppinion leo i a bit better but I think T90 is more protected because of Stora/Arena ... but I read before that Leo2 can shoot Russian tanks at much longer range ... so in the battle field like was in WW2 they have aproximatelly equal chances to survive...

And I think there is Better Russian tanks then T90 .. (not really remmeber correct me if i wrong);

Russian T-90 series nor export models are equipped with Arena, Shtora does not have a big enough power supply to effectively counter newer generation missiles so basically all this system is good for is the crew having the capability of knowing when they have been painted by a laser designator or laser range finder, if painted by the latter they will be toast before they even realize what is going on.

 

[redwood]

i do agree tht the russian T-90 will be infirior to the pimp my tank T-90 but still,u cannot foresee the result of a tank battle.

Before the first Gulf War there were experts touting Iraq's berms and Migs and hordes of tanks. I shocked a few friends saying the US+Brits would not lose a total of 10 tanks in the war and the Iraqi air force would soon cease to exist.

M-1 vs T 72.....the M-1 has a better armor piercing round,much better armor,better overall design,it's turret traverses better and faster,the stabilization is better the night vision a lot better,better communications and a lot more speed. There's noplace to really hide in open desert. The T 72,on the defensive can get partial cover from a sand berm but if it pops up to fight...it gets killed.

EACH of those advantages MULTIPLIES the others. Unlike Europe, the terrain does not allow for a surprise ambush. My estimate proved too conservative as no M-1 or Challenger was destroyed by an Iraqi tank in the whole war.

How much better is a T90? Is the armor piercing round better? Has the stabilization and fire control improved/ Does it have air conditioning? Is the running gear really reliable? The Leo II has the reputation of being very well engineered with high grade detailing. Even if the T90 is even in firepower and armor...I suspect the Leo has an edge in a dozen subtle things that add up.

 

[Zastava-Arms]

Before the first Gulf War there were experts touting Iraq's berms and Migs and hordes of tanks. I shocked a few friends saying the US+Brits would not lose a total of 10 tanks in the war and the Iraqi air force would soon cease to exist.

M-1 vs T 72.....the M-1 has a better armor piercing round,much better armor,better overall design,it's turret traverses better and faster,the stabilization is better the night vision a lot better,better communications and a lot more speed. There's noplace to really hide in open desert. The T 72,on the defensive can get partial cover from a sand berm but if it pops up to fight...it gets killed.

EACH of those advantages MULTIPLIES the others. Unlike Europe, the terrain does not allow for a surprise ambush. My estimate proved too conservative as no M-1 or Challenger was destroyed by an Iraqi tank in the whole war.

How much better is a T90? Is the armor piercing round better? Has the stabilization and fire control improved/ Does it have air conditioning? Is the running gear really reliable? The Leo II has the reputation of being very well engineered with high grade detailing. Even if the T90 is even in firepower and armor...I suspect the Leo has an edge in a dozen subtle things that add up.

Yeah, i wonder why Iraq got so badly owned? Their T-72's were monkey models which didnt have GPS, couldnt fire on the move, had poorly trained crews and fire training rounds at the Americans who had total air superiority.

 

[19kilo30K4]

T 90
acctually a T-72-b gear and T-80-u turret
with much defended hull then T-80 ..
It says (in the book according to Millitary ordinance) that T-90 armour can withstan almost all the cummuliative shells and it also protected by "Tsu2"-Shtora and "Tsu1" (making it hard to aim the tank using semi automatic tow(anti tank guided missiles)) and defence system called "Kontakt-5"

quite protected no ?
and a other russian tank have to be compared with 4generation tanks is a black eagle .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbocwdpJI_g

what is a semi automatic TOW? I've fired TOW 2 missiles before and they are all hand loaded. If you know of an American military vehicle that can fire them some other way please let me know. The Stryker ATGM, HMMVW with TOW mount, the M2/M3 Bradley are all hand loaded into the launcher one at a time. I just don't know what you mean.