Indian Army T- 90 (Bhishma) and T- 72 (M-1) Tanks

blackjack

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
2,477
Likes
5,313
Country flag

T-90/90S first appeared in 1993. It was not however a good time for Russian tanks. Iraqi T-72s badly underperformed in the Desert Storm, and even modern M-84 suffered badly in the Yugoslav wars. T-80BV was also blasted for its performance in Chechenya. Because of this, large export orders for modernized T-72 and T-80U MBTs failed to materialize.

T-90 tank itself is a further development of the T-72B Main Battle Tank. It was developed at the Kartsev/Venediktov Bureau, “Vagonka” at Nizhnyi Tagil. Tank was officially adopted by the Russian Government in 1992 and the initial production began in the same year. In 1993 tank was adopted by the Russian MoD, and low-rate series production began in 1994.

Tank was shown outside Russia for the first time in March 1997, when it was demonstrated at Abu Dhabi. By September 1997, some 107 T-90 tanks had been produced, located in the Siberian Military District. By mid-1996 some 107 T-90s had gone into service in the Far Eastern Military District. In 2007, there were about 334 T-90 tanks serving in the Russian Ground Forces’ 5th Guards Tank Division, stationed in the Siberian Military District, and seven T-90 tanks in the Navy.

The tank is the last mass-produced Russian MBT, and was considered to be among the ten best tanks in the world. T-90 is the most successful export tank on the market, being operated by Algeria (572), Azerbaijan (200 delivered, some were lost), Iraq (75), Syria (40), Turkmenistan (40), Uganda (44), and Venezuela (50~100). India is the largest export operator, having ordered 1 657 T-90S tanks. Indian order included 248 tanks delivered from Russia, 409 tanks assembled locally from knock-down kits and another 1 000 tanks license-produced in India. Some T-90s have been lost in Ukraine, with a number captured and pressed into service against their former owners.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/09/19/7420499/index.amp leopards sound like a pain in the ass maintenance wise going against t-72s and t-64s around the same generation performance of the t-72 in iraq was based on the monkey models they received and further modifications showing they lacked access to manufacturing ERA to support most of their tanks.
 

Picard

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
332
Likes
758
Country flag
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/09/19/7420499/index.amp leopards sound like a pain in the ass maintenance wise going against t-72s and t-64s around the same generation performance of the t-72 in iraq was based on the monkey models they received and further modifications showing they lacked access to manufacturing ERA to support most of their tanks.
Serbian M-84s were not monkey models, and they still suffered from the same flaws - though Croatian troops did consider them dangerous opponents, so there's that.
 

blackjack

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
2,477
Likes
5,313
Country flag
Serbian M-84s were not monkey models, and they still suffered from the same flaws - though Croatian troops did consider them dangerous opponents, so there's that.
Unironically the mi-84 is based off the t-72m which is the worst T-model variation whatever Serbian magic was used on the T-72m is based on them. Ukrainians got pissed off about additional leopard orders because of the maintenance and general zaluzhny last August said he preferred getting T-64s over the western tanks they were receiving based on this war.

I know you shill leopard tanks and bash t-72 models but Ukrainians who are not best friends with Russians prefer t-72 models with its flaws over the flaws they were given from western tanks particularly the leopard models
 

Blood+

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
2,641
Likes
4,169
Country flag
Serbian M-84s were not monkey models, and they still suffered from the same flaws - though Croatian troops did consider them dangerous opponents, so there's that.
Dude, the M-84s were nothing other than T-72Ms in Yugoslav colors, arguably the worst variant of the T-72 series of MBTs.
 

Picard

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
332
Likes
758
Country flag
Dude, the M-84s were nothing other than T-72Ms in Yugoslav colors, arguably the worst variant of the T-72 series of MBTs.
Unironically the mi-84 is based off the t-72m which is the worst T-model variation whatever Serbian magic was used on the T-72m is based on them. Ukrainians got pissed off about additional leopard orders because of the maintenance and general zaluzhny last August said he preferred getting T-64s over the western tanks they were receiving based on this war.

I know you shill leopard tanks and bash t-72 models but Ukrainians who are not best friends with Russians prefer t-72 models with its flaws over the flaws they were given from western tanks particularly the leopard models
Wrong. T-72M was indeed the base on which M-84 was designed, but M-84 was significantly improved compared to T-72M. Compared to T-72M, M-84A and later variants have improved fire control system (including laser range finder and improved gun stabilization in two planes), significantly improved armor (e.g. composite turret vs T-72Ms simple cast steel), far more powerful engine (1 000 hp vs 780 hp of original), improved situational awareness (better periscopes in particular) and several other things I don't remember.

And the main flaws which caused losses of T-72 and M-84 in Croatia (ammunition storage design, side armor) have never been fixed. Never, not until Armata.

Reason Ukrainians prefer T-72 over Leopard 2 are nothing I haven't expected and have absolutely nothing to do with tank's combat performance.

Basically:
- They had T-72 variants for a long time and that is what they are used to.
- Leopard 2 is large, heavy and a fuel hog. All these factors will cause issues in Ukraine.
- Rasputitsa and Ukrainian terrain in particular. Leopard 2 is massive.
- How many Ukrainian bridges can even carry Leopard 2?

Best tank is useless if you can't get it to fight in the first place. But that doesn't change the fact that if it gets to the fight, Leopard 2 is far more dangerous than any Russian T-variant.
 

blackjack

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
2,477
Likes
5,313
Country flag
Wrong. T-72M was indeed the base on which M-84 was designed, but M-84 was significantly improved compared to T-72M. Compared to T-72M, M-84A and later variants have improved fire control system (including laser range finder and improved gun stabilization in two planes), significantly improved armor (e.g. composite turret vs T-72Ms simple cast steel), far more powerful engine (1 000 hp vs 780 hp of original), improved situational awareness (better periscopes in particular) and several other things I don't remember.

And the main flaws which caused losses of T-72 and M-84 in Croatia (ammunition storage design, side armor) have never been fixed. Never, not until Armata.

Reason Ukrainians prefer T-72 over Leopard 2 are nothing I haven't expected and have absolutely nothing to do with tank's combat performance.

Basically:
- They had T-72 variants for a long time and that is what they are used to.
- Leopard 2 is large, heavy and a fuel hog. All these factors will cause issues in Ukraine.
- Rasputitsa and Ukrainian terrain in particular. Leopard 2 is massive.
- How many Ukrainian bridges can even carry Leopard 2?

Best tank is useless if you can't get it to fight in the first place. But that doesn't change the fact that if it gets to the fight, Leopard 2 is far more dangerous than any Russian T-variant.
As I said serbian magic, whatever modifications they have done with the tanks was not done by the russians. I dont even know if these modifications you speak of are better than what modifications the russians have made for their T-72s.

Yes the worst T-72 variations were put into battle, when I say the T-72M is the lowest of the low it is the lowest of the low in regards. The Iraqis have made modfications on the T-72 that made it worse with their lack of access to ERA. Ammunition storage on the leopard didnt help the tank from blowing up and sending ukrainians to space

What kind of cope is this? They were literally trained to use western tanks for this war and had to get use to them like they got use to T-72s. They announced the tanks for being too maintenance required as expected of all German engineering. And your basically admitting the weight of the tank is the problem as a flaw for the Leopard tanks but Ukraine is suited right now for the counteroffensive they have launched and they do not even have to cross bridges in most cases for the directions they have launched for their offensives.

I do hope leopard 2a6s fight t-90s but they are getting blown up all over Ukraine that I am scared that this chance wont happen once the t-90 breakthroughs begin to get sent to the operation zone.
 

blackjack

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
2,477
Likes
5,313
Country flag
1695669818785.png

1695669854631.png

1695669881851.png
the antenna on the right back of the turret top is a drone radio channel suppression system. Tanks are visually shown having two parallel anti drone jammers on hand.
 

Picard

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
332
Likes
758
Country flag
Ammunition storage on the leopard didnt help the tank from blowing up and sending ukrainians to space
It actually did. Leopard 2 does have hull ammunition storage, and if that is hit it will donate its turret to the space program, but unlike Russian tanks, it actually does have at least a portion of its ammunition in a separate storage. So if turret is hit, Leos are safe:

And Leopard's hull storage is about as safe as carousel storage on Russian tanks. So basically the least safe ammunition storage on Leopard 2 is as safe as the safest place you can store ammunition on Russian tanks. Rest of the ammunition in most T-series tanks is literally all over the tank, meaning that anywhere you hit, it is tank bye-bye.

Compare:


I do hope leopard 2a6s fight t-90s but they are getting blown up all over Ukraine that I am scared that this chance wont happen once the t-90 breakthroughs begin to get sent to the operation zone.
So are T-90s. Fact is, for a tank, enemy tanks are likely the least dangerous opponent.
 

blackjack

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
2,477
Likes
5,313
Country flag
It actually did. Leopard 2 does have hull ammunition storage, and if that is hit it will donate its turret to the space program, but unlike Russian tanks, it actually does have at least a portion of its ammunition in a separate storage. So if turret is hit, Leos are safe:

And Leopard's hull storage is about as safe as carousel storage on Russian tanks. So basically the least safe ammunition storage on Leopard 2 is as safe as the safest place you can store ammunition on Russian tanks. Rest of the ammunition in most T-series tanks is literally all over the tank, meaning that anywhere you hit, it is tank bye-bye.
why am I getting a 2 paragraph explanation about ammunition storage? A tank has to be destroyed before whatever ammunition gets set off, is this important as the tank crew chooses a less painful way to die without the ammunition going off? Most of the wars except the ukrainian war had the worst T-72s with the weakest armour and sabot rounds, it would make sense that the latest up to date western weapons would physically destroy them which would also allow their ammunition to go off. As far I know there are no leopard crew survivors in the ukraine war so why should the ammunition storage matter when most of Russias arsenal is filled with weapons that can destroy leopards? The T-14 armour re-enforces the crew with a 900mm RHA capsule if the malachite and energy armour monolit gets destroyed for the tank crew to escape, are you also saying leopards also have protective capsules?
Not trying to be funny but Ukrainians as far as I know are not talking about leopards having better ammunition storage, they are bitching more about the maintenance of the leopards in the battlefield instead.

So are T-90s. Fact is, for a tank, enemy tanks are likely the least dangerous opponent.
I have no idea if T-90, T-90As or T-90MS were used but i have only seen very few in the war and some tried to claim some T-72s were T-90s. I dont see any EW systems present on leopards to suppress drones. I dont think the latest leopards even have a hardkill APS if a T-90 was to shoot a 7km ATGM at it.
 

Picard

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
332
Likes
758
Country flag
why am I getting a 2 paragraph explanation about ammunition storage? A tank has to be destroyed before whatever ammunition gets set off, is this important as the tank crew chooses a less painful way to die without the ammunition going off? Most of the wars except the ukrainian war had the worst T-72s with the weakest armour and sabot rounds, it would make sense that the latest up to date western weapons would physically destroy them which would also allow their ammunition to go off. As far I know there are no leopard crew survivors in the ukraine war so why should the ammunition storage matter when most of Russias arsenal is filled with weapons that can destroy leopards? The T-14 armour re-enforces the crew with a 900mm RHA capsule if the malachite and energy armour monolit gets destroyed for the tank crew to escape, are you also saying leopards also have protective capsules?
Not trying to be funny but Ukrainians as far as I know are not talking about leopards having better ammunition storage, they are bitching more about the maintenance of the leopards in the battlefield instead.



I have no idea if T-90, T-90As or T-90MS were used but i have only seen very few in the war and some tried to claim some T-72s were T-90s. I dont see any EW systems present on leopards to suppress drones. I dont think the latest leopards even have a hardkill APS if a T-90 was to shoot a 7km ATGM at it.
Because your statement:
Ammunition storage on the leopard didnt help the tank from blowing up and sending ukrainians to space
Is wrong. It did help the tank from blowing up and sending Ukrainians to space. And keep in mind, tank is actually easier to replace than a trained crew, even today. So to say that the only thing that matters is whether tank is destroyed or not is wrong. It also matters how it is destroyed.

Yugoslav M-84s, which are far from the worst T-72 variants even today, showed themselves vulnerable even in 1990s. Specifically, carousel autoloader meant that they were particularly vulnerable to antitank mines (which hit from below) and flank attacks which could penetrate the thin side armor behind the road wheels. These flaws are common to all T-72 family tanks, monkey models or not.

T-14 is likely better protected than Leopard, but question here isn't T-14, it is T-90. Also, we haven't seen T-14 in Ukraine at all, so discussing T-14 in context of war in Ukraine is useless.

And Leopard being heavy and difficult to maintain is something I have already acknowledged, so you are barking into space here:
Reason Ukrainians prefer T-72 over Leopard 2 are nothing I haven't expected and have absolutely nothing to do with tank's combat performance.

Basically:
- They had T-72 variants for a long time and that is what they are used to.
- Leopard 2 is large, heavy and a fuel hog. All these factors will cause issues in Ukraine.
- Rasputitsa and Ukrainian terrain in particular. Leopard 2 is massive.
- How many Ukrainian bridges can even carry Leopard 2?

Best tank is useless if you can't get it to fight in the first place. But that doesn't change the fact that if it gets to the fight, Leopard 2 is far more dangerous than any Russian T-variant.
 

Longewala

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2016
Messages
1,394
Likes
7,432
Country flag
Because your statement:


Is wrong. It did help the tank from blowing up and sending Ukrainians to space. And keep in mind, tank is actually easier to replace than a trained crew, even today. So to say that the only thing that matters is whether tank is destroyed or not is wrong. It also matters how it is destroyed.

Yugoslav M-84s, which are far from the worst T-72 variants even today, showed themselves vulnerable even in 1990s. Specifically, carousel autoloader meant that they were particularly vulnerable to antitank mines (which hit from below) and flank attacks which could penetrate the thin side armor behind the road wheels. These flaws are common to all T-72 family tanks, monkey models or not.

T-14 is likely better protected than Leopard, but question here isn't T-14, it is T-90. Also, we haven't seen T-14 in Ukraine at all, so discussing T-14 in context of war in Ukraine is useless.

And Leopard being heavy and difficult to maintain is something I have already acknowledged, so you are barking into space here:
So basically an average tank that makes it to the battlefield (T-72) versus a great tank on paper that stays in the maintenance depot (Leo 2)
Only one winner here, it seems.
 

Picard

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
332
Likes
758
Country flag
So basically an average tank that makes it to the battlefield (T-72) versus a great tank on paper that stays in the maintenance depot (Leo 2)
Only one winner here, it seems.
Yes. Honestly, something like M-95 Degman or Leclerc would be far better for Ukrainian conditions than Leopard 2. Unfortunately, former never reached actual production while latter was not produced in large numbers.

Leopard 2 is excellent for what it was designed to do: stopping Warsaw Pact armor from rolling through the Fulda Gap. But the war in Ukraine is very different from that scenario.
 

blackjack

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
2,477
Likes
5,313
Country flag
Is wrong. It did help the tank from blowing up and sending Ukrainians to space. And keep in mind, tank is actually easier to replace than a trained crew, even today. So to say that the only thing that matters is whether tank is destroyed or not is wrong. It also matters how it is destroyed.
there is not a single ukrainian in this entire war that went thank god my ammunition was on the side because all the leopards tanks used in this war were blown up lol. HOWEVER I would not want to go into a battlefield where my tank stalls because of some maintenance issues ukrainians have complained about it regards to leopard tanks. I think the Abrams problems will overshadow the leopard next.

Yugoslav M-84s, which are far from the worst T-72 variants even today, showed themselves vulnerable even in 1990s. Specifically, carousel autoloader meant that they were particularly vulnerable to antitank mines (which hit from below) and flank attacks which could penetrate the thin side armor behind the road wheels. These flaws are common to all T-72 family tanks, monkey models or not.
Any tank that is upgraded to be better than the T-72M is not a milestone achievement. Do you have any information or sources as to what the armour protection of the M-84 is and which T-72 variation is better or equal to? I dont think yugoslavs had better technology and ERA access than the soviets. I dont get the thin side armour part when there are T-72 variations that had thicker armor is it because your assuming that every T-72 variation has the same armour protection as the T-72M lol?

T-14 is likely better protected than Leopard, but question here isn't T-14, it is T-90. Also, we haven't seen T-14 in Ukraine at all, so discussing T-14 in context of war in Ukraine is useless.
The characteristics of the T-14 sounds like the Abrams X Wishlist in regard to what features it will get. For starters does the leopard even have a hardkill APS or EW system attached for drones (apparently not from lancet footage)? how will leopard 2s deal with getting sniped by ATGMs 7kms away by the latest T-90s?
 

Longewala

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2016
Messages
1,394
Likes
7,432
Country flag
Yes. Honestly, something like M-95 Degman or Leclerc would be far better for Ukrainian conditions than Leopard 2. Unfortunately, former never reached actual production while latter was not produced in large numbers.

Leopard 2 is excellent for what it was designed to do: stopping Warsaw Pact armor from rolling through the Fulda Gap. But the war in Ukraine is very different from that scenario.
I am not sure about Leclerc, lovely bit of equipment but that engine and sophisticated fire control would be a nightmare to maintain for the Ukrainians I suspect.

The problem with Leo 2 is that it may save the tanker lives, but it apparently isn't more survivable as a vehicle especially against artillery and modern ATGMs.
 

Picard

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
332
Likes
758
Country flag
there is not a single ukrainian in this entire war that went thank god my ammunition was on the side because all the leopards tanks used in this war were blown up lol. HOWEVER I would not want to go into a battlefield where my tank stalls because of some maintenance issues ukrainians have complained about it regards to leopard tanks. I think the Abrams problems will overshadow the leopard next.
Uh, they weren't. First, not all Leopard tanks were destroyed (yet). Second, not all destroyed Leopard tanks got blown up.

Any tank that is upgraded to be better than the T-72M is not a milestone achievement. Do you have any information or sources as to what the armour protection of the M-84 is and which T-72 variation is better or equal to? I dont think yugoslavs had better technology and ERA access than the soviets. I dont get the thin side armour part when there are T-72 variations that had thicker armor is it because your assuming that every T-72 variation has the same armour protection as the T-72M lol?
LOL, all tanks have relatively thin side armor, and lower hull is always thin in absolute terms as well. You simply cannot armor it because that is where wheels and suspension are.

Yugoslavs didn't use ERA at all at the time, but neither did Soviets really.

The characteristics of the T-14 sounds like the Abrams X Wishlist in regard to what features it will get. For starters does the leopard even have a hardkill APS or EW system attached for drones (apparently not from lancet footage)? how will leopard 2s deal with getting sniped by ATGMs 7kms away by the latest T-90s?
Yes, and neither T-14 nor Abrams X are in service.

I am not sure about Leclerc, lovely bit of equipment but that engine and sophisticated fire control would be a nightmare to maintain for the Ukrainians I suspect.

The problem with Leo 2 is that it may save the tanker lives, but it apparently isn't more survivable as a vehicle especially against artillery and modern ATGMs.
Agreed. Especially since modern tanks have so many sensitive parts which can end up in them being mission-killed even if the armor is not penetrated.
 

nongaddarliberal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
3,815
Likes
21,448
Country flag
India's use case for T 90's will be on the Punjab and Thar plains against Pakistan, or in the Ladakh sector against China. Both theatres will have a shitshow of thousands of ATGM's, drones and artillery strikes from both sides. At this stage, it's quite irrelevant what the particular armour, ammunition storage or firepower of the tanks are like on either side, and more important are the thermal sensors, interconnectivity with infantry, air support, and air defences that will determine how these tanks will do.

The meme of 73 eastings of advanced M1 Abrams against low quality Asad Babils (monkey model T 72's) is now irrelevant for India, since both opponents have comparable tanks. Or the 80s NATO fulda gap strategy of having higher quality tanks with thermals and composite armour, to duke it out against numerically superior but lower quality soviet tanks, supported by NATO air forces which had excellent precision strike capabilities vs the soviets who didn't.

India's situation now can be summed up as "tank is tank". All current tanks are equally susceptible to ATGM's, enemy drones, artillery strikes, and precision airstrikes from fighters, whether that's type 99, M1 Abrams, or T 90. India can give it to the other side the same way as it'll have to take it. So the questions boil down to

1) How many modern tanks with good thermal imagers and precision fire control systems does each side have.
2) How will drones be used
3) How will infantry be used to support armoured operations
4) What is the artillery strategy

If India had 1600 Leopard 2's instead of 1600 T 90's, it would not make any real difference to India's security situation as it stands.

The two things Ukraine is teaching regarding tanks is that they need much better infantry support, and that India needs a LOT more modern tanks than it currently has.
 
Last edited:

Longewala

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2016
Messages
1,394
Likes
7,432
Country flag
India's use case for T 90's will be on the Punjab and Thar plains against Pakistan, or in the Ladakh sector against China. Both theatres will have a shitshow of thousands of ATGM's, drones and artillery strikes from both sides. At this stage, it's quite irrelevant what the particular armour, ammunition storage or firepower of the tanks are like on either side, and more important are the thermal sensors, interconnectivity with infantry, air support, and air defences that will determine how these tanks will do.

The meme of 73 eastings of advanced M1 Abrams against low quality Asad Babils (monkey model T 72's) is now irrelevant for India, since both opponents have comparable tanks. Or the 80s NATO fulda gap strategy of having higher quality tanks with thermals and composite armour, to duke it out against numerically superior but lower quality soviet tanks, supported by NATO air forces which had excellent precision strike capabilities vs the soviets who didn't.

India's situation now can be summed up as "tank is tank". All current tanks are equally susceptible to ATGM's, enemy drones, artillery strikes, and precision airstrikes from fighters, whether that's type 99, M1 Abrams, or T 90. India can give it to the other side the same way as it'll have to take it. So the questions boil down to

1) How many modern tanks with good thermal imagers and precision fire control systems does each side have.
2) How will drones be used
3) How will infantry be used to support armoured operations
4) What is the artillery strategy

If India had 1600 Leopard 2's instead of 1600 T 90's, it would not make any real difference to India's security situation as it stands.

The two things Ukraine is teaching regarding tanks is that they need much better infantry support, and that India needs a LOT more modern tanks than it currently has.
Good points, and one should add that
a) Leo 2 costs 2x the T-90 and 3-4x T-72
b) Also more likely to be under maintenance

So the choice is rather 1,600 T-72/90 versus 400 Leo 2.
 

blackjack

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2021
Messages
2,477
Likes
5,313
Country flag
Uh, they weren't. First, not all Leopard tanks were destroyed (yet). Second, not all destroyed Leopard tanks got blown up.
I am not hearing any news of these leopard 2s getting recovered if you sayng not all got blown up lol, dont seem to be serviceable either to move forward.
1695771893514.png

LOL, all tanks have relatively thin side armor, and lower hull is always thin in absolute terms as well. You simply cannot armor it because that is where wheels and suspension are.

Yugoslavs didn't use ERA at all at the time, but neither did Soviets really.
This is basically our conversation, you: the T-72 side armor is weak. Me: actually the side armor on the T-72 variations have better armour than the T-72M. You: lol, all side armors on tanks are weak........ T-72 urals had composite armour the T-72Ms lacked this for their light weight T-72As and T-72Bs along with later variations have been upgrading the side skirts the front and back of the tanks for more ERA protection and had composite armour. I can literally see the protection cases for these tanks but what I cant figure out is how good the variations of soviet block countries have in regards to their armor for their T-72s other than them giving them different names. 1st of all what wars are you even referencing your experiences from? I definetly know its not the ukrainian war because they are too busy bitching about the maintenance of leopards lol

Yes, and neither T-14 nor Abrams X are in service.
So just to be sure, I take it that you are completely ignoring my questions of does the Leopard 2 have a hardkill APS, what can it do to deal with 7km ATGMs and how it can deal with suicide drones is it lacks countermeasures for these threats therefore inferior to T-90s because of it? there are 132 T-14s and production of it based on the experiecnes of the operation zones will put it back in production for the 1st quarter of 2024 after the engines and new electronics will get replaced(from the looks of it 20km high resolution optics and GaN AESA radar from what I got on the ruselectronics.ru news from this august and september). I am not shitting on the Germans for not makiig a next generation tank but if they are giving the best leopard 2s to Ukraine than they should give a fuck about how to protect those ukrainians from suicide drone attacks, ATGMs, etc. the latest T-90s get these new sabot rounds that are skinnier versions of Vacuum-1 rounds, T-14 armour and atleast optical sights that are comparable to most 2nd gen optics of other western tanks but key difference is it has ATGMs that support the max range of their optics and got a hardkill and softkill APS.
 
Last edited:

binayak95

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
2,432
Likes
8,352
Country flag
India's use case for T 90's will be on the Punjab and Thar plains against Pakistan, or in the Ladakh sector against China. Both theatres will have a shitshow of thousands of ATGM's, drones and artillery strikes from both sides. At this stage, it's quite irrelevant what the particular armour, ammunition storage or firepower of the tanks are like on either side, and more important are the thermal sensors, interconnectivity with infantry, air support, and air defences that will determine how these tanks will do.

The meme of 73 eastings of advanced M1 Abrams against low quality Asad Babils (monkey model T 72's) is now irrelevant for India, since both opponents have comparable tanks. Or the 80s NATO fulda gap strategy of having higher quality tanks with thermals and composite armour, to duke it out against numerically superior but lower quality soviet tanks, supported by NATO air forces which had excellent precision strike capabilities vs the soviets who didn't.

India's situation now can be summed up as "tank is tank". All current tanks are equally susceptible to ATGM's, enemy drones, artillery strikes, and precision airstrikes from fighters, whether that's type 99, M1 Abrams, or T 90. India can give it to the other side the same way as it'll have to take it. So the questions boil down to

1) How many modern tanks with good thermal imagers and precision fire control systems does each side have.
2) How will drones be used
3) How will infantry be used to support armoured operations
4) What is the artillery strategy

If India had 1600 Leopard 2's instead of 1600 T 90's, it would not make any real difference to India's security situation as it stands.

The two things Ukraine is teaching regarding tanks is that they need much better infantry support, and that India needs a LOT more modern tanks than it currently has.
Or to sum it up in one phrase: COMBINED ARMS WARFARE is the only viable game in town
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top