t-90 is a piece of shit. it is nothing but an upgraded t-72 with a different name.the world came to know the design flaws of t-72 during the first gulf war.the russian came to know that their entire armoured force is full of crappy tanks during the first and second chenchyn war when even rpg-7 fired by terrorists penetrated even the frontal armour of t-72,t-90,t-80.t-90s is a product of 70's(with some electronic of 90s) wherea.s arjun is a 21st century tank.even the russian have admitted their problems by not ordering any more t-90.also arjun can compete with any nato mbt.the fact is that in iraq the invincible challenger and abhrams have been penetrated by rpg-29 is a clear example to show their weakness.arjun's kanchan armour(in the 2000s) had withstood direct point blank hit from the 125mm main gun of t-72 and t-90.i dont think any nato mabt have experimented that.
Regarding the T-72 in the Gulf War:
The Iraqi army operated different models of the T-72, the earliest model (just called T-72), the T-72M and the T-72M1. Of these tanks the T-72M1 is the best, but it is still based on the T-72A, which was first produced in 1979.
The Iraq imported only 1,028 T-72s and did probably not finish manufacturing their own versions (at least according to Zaloga) and it is known that some of the T-72s were lost or captured during the Iran-Iraq war. So the total number of Iraqi T-72s was very likely below 1,000, with only a small amount of them being the T-72M1 model. All other tanks of the Iraqi army were more or less T-54 and upgraded versions of it (Type 59, Type 69, T-55 and as second best Iraqi tank the T-62).
The Iraqi army did operate at the time of the Gulf War something about 6,000 tanks, probably less than that. At the time of the American invasion of the Iraq the Iraqi forces still had something greater than 1,000 tanks. This means that a maximum of ~5,000 tanks were destroyed in the Gulf War, with less than 700 being T-72s. The M2 and M3 Bradley are claimed to have destroyed more tanks than the M1 Abrams used (very few 105 mm armed IPM1s from 1981/2, M1A1s first produced 1984 and M1A1HAs first produced in 1988), which means that the U.S. tanks destroyed less than 2,500 tanks. Given the fact that other coalition forces tanks also destroyed Iraqi armour and that aircraft, ATGM carriers and artillery should also have knocked out some tanks and that a lot of Iraqi units simply surrendered it seems
very unlikely that the M1s destroyed more than 2,000 tanks, probably just some 1,000 or less. A total of 1,956 M1A1 tanks was used in U.S. combat units, which about 3/5 of them being Heavy Armour versions (1,233 M1A1HA). According to Zaloga a further 528 M1s was attached to reserve and non-combat units. The British deployed 180 Challenger 1 tanks, the French deplyed some 44 AMX-30 with the Qatari using a similar number of tanks. The U.S. marine corp used more than 100 M60 tanks, while the Kuwaiti army used more than 100 M-84 tanks.
The Gulf War might be one of the rare examples of a "modern war", but it does not show any surprising or amazing tank-vs-tank combat, I personally believe that less than half of the Iraqi tanks was destroyed by other tanks, so ~2,500 Iraqi T-55s, T-62s and T-72s vs ~ 2,500 M1A1s, Challengers, AMX-30s, M60s and M-84s.
The best T-72 of the Iraqi army, the T-72M1 had composite armour at the turret front and the hull front. The older models have still cast turrets without any composite filling.
The T-72M1 had less armour, less mobility, weaker rounds, a less sophisticated fire control system and an inferior gun with export rounds from the 1970s. The T-72B and T-80U of the Soviet forces were more comparable tto the M1A1 and M1A1HA in terms of firepower (the T-72B still got a real crappy FCS, but the T-80 got a rather nice one), anti-tank rounds and armour protection (T-72B has something about 520 - 560 mm base armour vs KE + 50 mm for Kontakt-1 = M1A1 with 600 mm armour vs KE, T-72B or T-80U with Kontakt-5 are roughly equivalent to the M1A1HA).
second chenchyn war when even rpg-7 fired by terrorists penetrated even the frontal armour of t-72,t-90,t-80.t-90s is a product of 70's(with some electronic of 90s) wherea
1. There were no terrorists in Chechen War.
2. The frontal hull or turret armour was not penetrated by RPG-7s, as it is too thick for them. The side and roof armour is penetratable by the RPG-7.
s arjun is a 21st century tank
The time of introduction does not allways mean greater technical sophistication. The Arjun has quite a few problems already mentioned dozen times in this forum.
the fact is that in iraq the invincible challenger and abhrams have been penetrated by rpg-29 is a clear example to show their weakness.arjun's kanchan armour(in the 2000s) had withstood direct point blank hit from the 125mm main gun of t-72 and t-90.i dont think any nato mabt have experimented that.
1. M1A1/2s and Challenger 2s have been penetrated in the less or unarmoured parts only; the thicker armoured parts are immune to RPG-29s.
2. The statement "Kanchan can resist 125 mm rounds point blank" does not mean anything. The weakest 125 mm APFSDS penetrates less than 300 mm steel armour at 2,000 m, the strongest available for India from Russia does penetrate only 450 mm steel armour at 2,000 m. At the same time modern German, Isreali or U.S. ammunition will penetrate more than 650 mm steel armour at 2,000 m. The latest rounds are claimed to penetrate more than 700 - 750 mm steel armour at 2,000 m.
3. The T-72M1 can survive hits from the oldest 125 mm APFSDS or HEAT rounds at point blank too.
4. NATO tanks have been tested against 125 mm ammunition quite often.
