Nope they just lowered acceleration and max speed cause of weight
And why would the introduce the original SE#1 and SE#2 upgrades as part of the SEP+ programs when by then, they’d already be horribly outdated? Especially with the SEPv2 that, when it entered service, ~16 years passed since the SE#1 and SE#2 had been conceived. Like, I’m not even saying armour upgrades hadn’t happened, I’m saying that when they did happen, it wasn’t by using the armours developed under the original M1A1 Block II program.
Also I’m assuming that it entirely ignores the presence of the almost 11 ton mine roller, since otherwise literally no service M1 configuration does not fail to come in under the 72 ton limit, let alone failure of the later SEPs to remain below it.
SEPv1 saved up ~1.4 US tons via replacing components & plating with titanium.
AND EVEN THEN, they still needed to shave off 5 tons more to make the armouring of the M1 as specified under SE#1 & 2 a reality:
M1 configuration does not fail to come in under the 72 ton limit
3 Likes
I’m not saying they would have used that specific configuration, but those layouts were an already developed & certified solution and would remain an improvement over the existing hull array so could be used to save money or be used as a surrogate / alternate to hedge against developmental risk since further development may not meaningfully improve efficacy over the existing or projected installation.
It wouldn’t really matter how old they were since we know they constitute an improvement over the Common Array.
Which is why BRL developed the TCA armour as an alternative to the armours that they had “developed” (did they ever, actually…) under the Block II program? Which was newer, tested & largely based on already proven concepts.
Actually, SE#1 has been fully cancelled now that I think about it, seeing as no Abrams, not even the SEPv3, has any improvements to top attack protection.
Because NATO makes better ammunition then Russia.
This is exactly what I am talking about. People who lack information making logically flawed statements.
This is the ONLY thing it has that’s better. And it costs it everywhere else.
What’s the Top Speed of the T-90M? Significantly less
It’s a lighter tank yet goes significantly slower in Forward AND Reverse.
And nothing you mentioned has anything to do with it’s biggest weakness. The Carousel Autoloader. It’s crap. Pure and simple. It’s a terrible, stupid design and it is three decades past showing the error of it.
I’m not really going to quibble with you much more on this. The Historical record is incredibly clear. T-Series tanks? Get stomped. Abrams tanks? Do the stomping. From Desert Storm to the fight in Ukraine, no war, battle, or engagement has shown anything but Russian tanks being garbage and the Abrams being a superlative tank.
You are allowed to put your faith into whatever you want. Just don’t expect people to respect it.
Curious by the way? If the T-90 is so great why is India dumping them?
India Finally Ditches Russia’s T-90 Tanks, Opt-in For French Leclerc MBT – Global Defense Corp
By all publicly available accounts India was so disappointed in their T-90 contract the reinvested in their Arjun program and settled on buying NATO
If the T-90 is so great why do Independent nations choose NATO tanks over them unless they are poor?
Finally, Again, if Modern Russian equipment is so great why is Russia, which has vastly more resources than Ukraine (well at the start of the war anyway) failing so spectacularly in their “special military operation?”
The answer to all of these questions is obvious. When you escape the sphere of Russian Propaganda you find that Russia makes crap. Just look at Russian Military Sales BEFORE the war in Ukraine. They were steadily and consistently losing market share. Remember Rule number 1. It’s all about the money. And if the world is not spending money on it after decades of doing so, it can only mean one thing. Even at their cheap prices Russian and Chinese stuff is crap.
1 Like
They, apparently, can’t.
I too wish they would stop with the hubris. They know nothing. The community KNOWS little more. It’s just a giant group of toddlers arguing about things they know nothing about. I’m not trying to insult anyone. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of it all. We KNOW a few Abrams hulls were built with DU in the LFP. The documents for this have been provided for many times. They shouldn’t need anything else. Not giving it to Abrams is just obstinance at this point. They should just stop with the whole “realism” angle and just make each nation as fun as possible.
1 Like
Dumping what way? By producing even more T-90S and even upgraded version Bhisma Mk3 first batch of which arrived this year?
4 Likes
Well put ,totally agree.
Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.
That is finishing out the existing contract from 2019
Instead of sticking with it, they are going to be buying LeClercs
It was a long time ago!..India planned to replace 1,700 pieces of T-72M1…
Today the realities are as follows…
https://rostec.ru/media/pressrelease/rostekh-organizoval-proizvodstvo-vystrelov-mango-v-indii/
That’s you just reading some random news written by third-rate news agencies about India that’s has zero relation to actual situation out of tons of such fake Indian news. And no single actual news from Nexter, French or Indian government, except that France has export proporsals and India having “Make in India” project (which home made T-90 and Arjun are already part of). There are tons “India doesn’t love X amymore, they will swap to Y blah blah” and they continue to buy/produce X.
1 Like
I’ve replied to you with an entire paragraph dedicated to that topic.
I’d suggest to go back and read that portion.
Here’s an interesting question for you: How do you explain the fact that Ukrainian units equipped with T-64BV’s are out-performing units equipped with the Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A6?
I personally have a strong feeling as to what the answer is, but I’d just like to see you say it out loud.
I’m fairly certain India is still purchasing the vast majority of it’s equipment from Russia.
But regardless, if that’s true it might be for numerous reasons, firstly that they are the oldest models and least capable, but also because there are now supply chain issues with Russian export failing deadlines and failing the required numbers.
S-400 delivery has also been delayed to India by at least 2026.
By this logic we could also bring up the fact that the Leopard 2 is very often chosen over the M1 Abrams in terms of export. Now I’m not going to pretend that a country’s sole criteria for their tanks is their technical capabilites.
Britain went with the Challenger 2 over the Leopard 2 for industry reasons, dispite the fact that they knew the Leopard 2 was the technically superior product.
Just because a country adopts a certain vehicle/replaces a certain vehicle doesn’t mean it’s automatically because of the vehicle’s inherent problems.
I get a strong feeling you didn’t bother to read my reply at all.
I literally said I don’t even think the T-90M is superior, let alone a T-90S that’s over 2 decades older and has SIGNIFICANTLY less technical sophistication.
You’ve also dodged my point regarding several thousand 125mm -armed tanks over a couple dozen Western MBT’s.
This gets into a massively more complex issue than just ‘‘Tank X is better than Tank Y, therefore invasion failed’’.
Similarly, this argument can also be debunked by the fact that Ukraine is using even older T-64BV’s yet still performs well with said equipment.
Anyways, to address your question:
-
It’s very clear to me now that Russia expected the Ukranian populace to welcome the Russian ‘‘liberators’’, hence why we saw border guards units leading the invasion with little more than MRAP equivalents.
-
False expectations as to what kind of war this would become, the expectation was that the Ukranian government would be decapitated by special forces within the first few days of the conflict. They also expected a large number of Ukranians (including in high positions) to switch sides.
-
Poor logistics and planning, especially when it became clear this wasn’t going to be over quickly. Many units out-ran their supply lines and we saw many vehicles abandoned/captured by farmers during those initial weeks. The fact that we saw many Air Defence systems without their RADAR’s powered up also implies they never expected significant resistance, and assumed anything flying would’ve been friendly.
-
Undervaluing the number of weapons and level of training the Ukranian armed forced has received between 2014 and then.
-
The fact that the the majority of the Russian armed forces (lower ranks, obviously) weren’t even aware they were about to invade merely hours before they did must’ve played a significant role as well, especially on morale. The West openly publicizing the fact that they knew Russia would invade might’ve also had a role.
Like I said, this is a massively complex topic, and there are multi-hour long discussions on this topic available.
I do however like to ask you a question in return: Do you believe Ukraine would’ve fallen by now had the Russian forces been equipped with M1A1 FEP’s?
4 Likes
Oh yeah, their domestic ballistic missile, R-77, Upgraded T-90S, even buy more license for some T-72 upgraded turret for old T-72, more plants for Su-series, upgraded AA system, new BUK version, …
Quite funny is their collection is more tent to return to Russia after some random deal with NATO.
The issue in Ukraine is mostly one of weight.The NATO MBTs are simply too heavy for the theater of war. At 70 tons they can’t cross bridges and are getting stuck in mud.
40 -50 tons is optimal over there.
Get stuck in that situation and you are a dead duck.
It’s odd that you have a similar situation to WW2 where the Tiger fought the T34 .It would be like Conte Baracca saying the T34 is shit because it’s not a Tiger and we
know how that panned out.
The issue is also one of numbers.The Ukraine has something like 12 Chally twos which is hardly a company.They have around 50 Leopards which is about enough for one Battalion and yet they form into a brigade to attack which is two battalions.
Quite simply the numbers are not there for any kind of serious attack and the terrain favours the lighter tank.
In fact the stuff the Ukraine Nato tanks need in Ukraine such as electronic warfare equipment adds even more weight.
Ukraine has raised a serious issue about NATO tanks being too heavy for European combat when attacking and the whole future of super heavy tanks in general.
Seems like the optimal weight will be under 60 tons,so the Russians have it right there.They just use old designs.
Fact is neither Ukraine or Iraq have any bearing on War Thunder .We have no weight issues ,terrain issues and can repair in field.
All of our experience means nothing in this game,pretty much why I play WW2 where ignorance is bliss.
NO way to know. But a lot more Russian soldiers would be alive.
i can also shoot the same position every time
I go across the rest of the glacis after the 30s mark
Uh. Just no. As a professional, I’m telling you no.
The reasons are complex. Things about ground pressure, logistics, doctrine, combat service support, and training.
The biggest threat to modern MBT’s right now are budget and drones. And since effective countermeasures have been developed for ATGM’s, mines, advanced long rod penetrators, and IED’s drones are just another thing that will get solved with DOTMLPF over time. The bottom line is nothing else can replicate the triad of firepower-mobility-protection anywhere nearly as well as a tank. When engaging in direct combat the tank is still the most powerful and capable asset. IDK what the future holds, but I do know that until something else can represent the triad better the tank is still the dominant force.
Also, you have to be careful drawing too many conclusions from the Ukraine conflict. The level of gross incompetence demonstrated by the Russian military cannot be overstated. They have proven incompetent at every facet of war except for digging trenches and laying minefields. And even then, the fact that they are resorting to trenches and minefields in long term static positions is another sign of incompetence.
The idea of Russian sophistication in weapon design or military proficiency has been demonstrably false for decades. In fact, other than the Georgia war, it’s been nothing but pathetic. And even with the Georgia war, one could argue that the Georgians didn’t really even put up resistance. It is a logical conclusion that the Georgians gave up before they even really tried.
8 Likes