Jump to content
John Kettler

T-90 tank documentary (2014 in Russian)

Recommended Posts

This looks like serious work, and this is very clear from the high production values. Sky Mods will want to take notes, for some of what I'm seeing is breathtakingly beautiful. Who knew the Poligon could be an art piece? The treadhead stuff is great, and it's interesting to see a Russian encampment with the troops in tents, camo fencing around what look to be HQ or other sensitive elements, but what I like already, less than 2.5 minutes in, is seeing the tank crews themselves. Whatever this is, it has subtitles, but they're in Russian!  Also, I noticed something remarkable and rather cool. When the tank fires, the shock (pretty sure it's not the muzzle blast) on the chassis is so great it shakes a lot of dust off the tank, something akin to what a dog does. Clearly, we need a dust mod for this!  Russian tankers are tough. I see these guys driving through great clouds of dust, yet not a man is wearing goggles. Sure wish I could see all the footage that went into this.

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that T-90 will one day be able to prove itself in real tank to tank combat hopefully against the Leopard 2,
If the T-90 beats the Leopard 2 that will shut up the Leo Fanboys up for awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that T-90 will never be able to prove itself in a real tank to tank combat, because that will mean a war against a country operating that tank.

The T-90 is allowed a few victories but Western science will overcome it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stagler,

 

So it really is a documentary? Are there more? If so, I'd love to see them. I was unsure, since I don't speak Russian, whether or not it was, but it sure looked like a documentary to me. Was very impressed, despite being able to pick up only the odd word here and there.  I noticed some BMD-4s were shown briefly, and at the very end,a BTR-82A.

 

I thought it was funny when they gave him some Mike Rowe ("Dirty Jobs") things to do like bore swabbing, tank washing and such, likely for humor. To say he wasn't a good fit for the tank is understating it considerably. Don't mind telling you I feared for the LWR when I saw him using it to support himself while the tank rolled and pitched on the move.

 

Speaking of movement, the amount of nose pitch, thus, the time to get the gun tube back down after firing could, based on what I saw, directly affect ROF. Granted, it's not like the automatic cycling of a T-62 gun to max elevation after firing, in order to reload, but the recoil forces appear to create something like that, though not as severe. By way of contrast, notice how little hull movement there is at all in the Abrams tanks firing here. I suspect a lot of what we're seeing is the sheer effect of all that extra mass that the T-90S doesn't have.

 

 

I was fascinated to watch all those men busily sewing on fresh collar liners, exactly as Suvorov/Rezun (T-55 company commander before going into intel) and other Russian veterans have described. Something else which really struck me is that nowhere can't I recall seeing so much as a single soldier smoking, even at chow. Has there been some sort of crackdown which prohibits smoking altogether, or is this MOD image management?

 

Badwolf66,

 

I can't speak for the rest of the people here (though I believe many will agree) that I deem what you said in your #4 to be extremely ill advised, thoughtless and uncool. To in essence say "I hope there's a war in which T-90s fight Leo 2s and win, just so it shuts up the Leo 2 fanboys" makes you look both heartless and clueless. Pixel war is one thing, the real kind, horrible beyond belief. Even for the winners. We have combat veterans here. They can tell you.

 

Kieme(ITA),

 

With you on that!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this game highlights anything, it is the ability of man portable weapons like the Javelin and others to turn these bad ass tanks into so much burning junk. Only countries with deep pockets and high industrial output would be able to sustain the high materiel losses that would occur in a showdown between two or more modern land armies.

 

Look at the 1973 battles beteween Israel, Egypt and Syria, or Gulf War 1 and 2. The destruction of armor and aircraft happened at high rates and very quickly. Hopefully we will never see large scale armored conflicts ever again.

Edited by Nidan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I can't speak for the rest of the people here (though I believe many will agree) that I deem what you said in your #4 to be extremely ill advised, thoughtless and uncool. To in essence say "I hope there's a war in which T-90s fight Leo 2s and win, just so it shuts up the Leo 2 fanboys" makes you look both heartless and clueless. Pixel war is one thing, the real kind, horrible beyond belief. Even for the winners. We have combat veterans here. They can tell you."

 

Non of us want WW3 John but haven't you noticed that most times you may read comments on Youtube concerning tanks it could be any tank the Leo 2 always comes up as "The Best" yet it hasn't even been tested in any theatre of war concerning tank on tank combat as of yet.

It irritates me sometimes that they blindly worship something which could turn out to be a total failure.

Maybe I worded it wrong but you know what I mean.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"I can't speak for the rest of the people here (though I believe many will agree) that I deem what you said in your #4 to be extremely ill advised, thoughtless and uncool. To in essence say "I hope there's a war in which T-90s fight Leo 2s and win, just so it shuts up the Leo 2 fanboys" makes you look both heartless and clueless. Pixel war is one thing, the real kind, horrible beyond belief. Even for the winners. We have combat veterans here. They can tell you."

 

Non of us want WW3 John but haven't you noticed that most times you may read comments on Youtube concerning tanks it could be any tank the Leo 2 always comes up as "The Best" yet it hasn't even been tested in any theatre of war concerning tank on tank combat as of yet.

It irritates me sometimes that they blindly worship something which could turn out to be a total failure.

Maybe I worded it wrong but you know what I mean.

 

 

I would wager that most of those comments professing "worship" for a tank of all things are posted by 12 year olds.

Edited by Nidan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally a lack of warfare is preferred in both polite, and professional circles.  

 

Re: Leo 2

 

I do hate the fan club.  It's a good tank.  Not even a "good" tank, nope, it's quite well designed and capable.  But it has this following wherein simply repeating Deutch qualitat at increasing volumes, and talking about German armor in World War Two is enough to prove the Leo 2 is the best tank to ever tank.  

 

Statement: "Best Tanks"

 

Entirely depends on who you are, and what you're doing, and what your military is capable of supporting.  The Abrams is awesome, but I wouldn't want to try to support an Abrams fleet as Columbia or something.  The Merkava is a great example of something that's very powerful in its niche, but pretty "eh" outside of it (granted, 100% it's going to do all its fighting in said niche, so that rather makes sense).   The more practical reality is if the Leo 2 was the M2A5 Leopard, and the M1 was the <insert german name here>, in the hands of similar personnel, the US Army wouldn't be stronger or weaker for having Leos, or the German Army much worse off for being M1 users (Green party objections to DU, and fuel consumption excepted)   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alexey K,

 

Indeed. the kind of male commonly characterized as being "a great bear of a man," with extra points for invoking the vernacular for Russia. I thought briefly they might try to shoehorn him into the driver's position, but he tried and gave up. Couldn't help noticing how small and like whippets almost all the tankers looked, practically skeletal. Would've liked to have seen what they ate, as well as other activities the director time lapsed through. Evidently Shtora gets very hot when running, for its exterior is covered with heat dissipating fins. Decontaminating that must be loads of fun. Indeed, compared the T-55 and T-62, decontam for tanks these days is a nightmare.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are those Tanks in the beginning of the video kicking up dirt rooster tails as they drive? Or are the engines generating brown smoke? It looks alot like brown smoke is being forced into the air from the engine deck.  0:42 second mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that T-90 will one day be able to prove itself in real tank to tank combat hopefully against the Leopard 2,

If the T-90 beats the Leopard 2 that will shut up the Leo Fanboys up for awhile.

I sincerely hope for all T-90 tank crewmen that you are wrong. It's a good tank but very outclassed by challenger/leopard 2/ m1a2 as well as crew training. Russians are very tough and very competent soldiers but they simply don't have the equivalent training and tanks to match up. They have relied on numbers which is fine for the overall strategy...not for the individual crewman.

Sorry, it's not being a fanboi, Russia has been innovative and superior in a number of weapons systems throughout history current modern battle tanks is not one of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope for all T-90 tank crewmen that you are wrong. It's a good tank but very outclassed by challenger/leopard 2/ m1a2 as well as crew training. Russians are very tough and very competent soldiers but they simply don't have the equivalent training and tanks to match up. They have relied on numbers which is fine for the overall strategy...not for the individual crewman.

Sorry, it's not being a fanboi, Russia has been innovative and superior in a number of weapons systems throughout history current modern battle tanks is not one of them

Links?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Links to what? If you don't believe that an M1a2 SEP 2 isnt an overall superior tank to a t-90, then nothing I post will change your mind. If I was a T-90 crewman. I wouldnt be excited about attacking an M1a2 or Challenger.

It's an opinion and since they haven't foughy, anything anyone links to is the same. BElieve what you want

The M1/challenger/leapard 2 tanks were very innovative.

Do you think a russian tank crew receives the same training via simulator and operations against "professional OPFOR trained to mimic US tactics? That is unbelievably expensive. U.S. NCOs attend various schools from leadership academies to staff NCO academies. Nothing I have read would indicate that Russia is economicly capable of trainimg its tank crews to that level...not just the tank but operation with other arms.

I can't prove a negative or something that hasn't happened. My response was directed to the comment that the poster wished the T-90 could go up against the Leopard 2 to show its superior...I think that would get a lot of T-90 crews killed

Edited by mikeCK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Links? 

 

The T-90A in its current incarnation is...basically the ultimate T-72.  It is a good tank, compares well to many mid-90's tanks.  However:

 

1. It still has issues with the autoloader effectively limiting the length of main gun rounds which ensures it will have inferior conventional gun performance compared to similar western guns.

2. The armor array heavily leans on which ERA is equipped.  Newer ERA like Relikit or whatever it is still offers some good performance, but the majority of it is kontakt of various vintages, which largely has been surpassed by modern AT systems.  The base armor array under the ERA is not effective against most threat systems.

3. Russian optical systems are based on a French downgrade system.  This is not a positive sign. It also means while it has hypothetical stand-off capabilities with the through the gun ATGM, it will not be as able to leverage that range because it does not have the systems to readily acquire targets in battlefield conditions at that 4 KM+ distance.

4. As is common with Russian vehicles, it has packed a lot of stuff into a tight space.  Any penetration stands a fair chance at causing either loss of vehicle or at the least mission kill level damage.

5. While the commander has his own optic, it is not as capable as western CITV style systems.

6. As with most Russian vehicles, god help you if you're tall.  Even if  you're small crew comfort is limited, which detracts from being able to conduct long duration operations (such as the US march to Baghdad in 2003).  

 

To the positive end of things:

 

1. It is fairly cheap for what you get.  You should not expect it to perform miracles, but if you're India and you're staring down the finest Chinese export tanks from Pakistan, it is a very potent tank.

2. While it is not magically more reliable, it is however designed to be repaired and maintained by a much lower standard of maintenance.  This should not be confused with better readiness (see the various Arab military forces and how their Russian hardware is broken as often as the western stuff) but the "replace the whole unit and put in a new one" design is well suited to forces that lack a large pool of mechanics.

3. It is quite light for its performance, and its small size has its advantages.  While disastrous in a penetration, it does mean that it is a smaller target, and better able to cross bridges and somesuch.

4. It can hypothetically scale protection with ERA packages, which is to say unlike western tanks, which need depot level work at the least to upgrade their armor (see the M1A1 to M1A1HA conversions in Kuwait 1991 for a good example), mounting better ERA blocks is much easier as long as the blocks are similar to the previous generation.

5. Respectable firepower.  While it does not stack up to western MBTs, it does hold its own against peer tanks, and there isn't much short of a western MBT that it cannot defeat through firepower

 

It's not a bad tank, there's just a false understanding that it is a one for one peer for western tanks, when the reality is that the current generation of in-service T-90s lag somewhat behind the other top tier tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much more eloquent than mine. I would also add crew training. Russian soldiers are conscripted for 1 year. U.S. army troops voluntarily enlist for a minimum of 4 years and often re-enlist for bonuses. Generally, this provides a service that has an opportunity to spend far more time training it's members who operate in complex environments, like armored warfare. NATO nations have spent a lot of time developing realistic and extensive training for it's units and can do so due to the length of time the average private serves.

As a t-90 platoon commander I wouldn't be "excited" about engaging a western tank platoon tank for tanks. As stated above though. One advantage of the t-90 is that it doesn't HAVE to be 1 for 1...it is easier to produce and maintain

Edited by mikeCK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stagler,

 

So it really is a documentary? Are there more? If so, I'd love to see them. I was unsure, since I don't speak Russian, whether or not it was, but it sure looked like a documentary to me. Was very impressed, despite being able to pick up only the odd word here and there.  I noticed some BMD-4s were shown briefly, and at the very end,a BTR-82A.
 

 

Yes there are plenty of others.

 

Look in the Polygon 2 channel on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM-z1vR7XbTThPvEjKZSM2Q

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non of us want WW3 John but haven't you noticed that most times you may read comments on Youtube concerning tanks it could be any tank the Leo 2 always comes up as "The Best" yet it hasn't even been tested in any theatre of war concerning tank on tank combat as of yet.

It irritates me sometimes that they blindly worship something which could turn out to be a total failure.

Maybe I worded it wrong but you know what I mean.

 

Honestly, who gives a **** about YouTube comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

I've read, both from our Russian members and elsewhere that the force composition of the Russian Army has shifted dramatically from the practically all conscript force we're used to, to closing in on 50% contract soldiers. This should help combat performance quite a bit. From what I can tell, though, other than the title, there is almost no comparison between a worked up from enlisted American sergeant and a Russian one who enters a school fresh into the Russian Army and in short order is a sergeant. That is a critical deficiency in the Russian Army for which there is no quick fix, and it is the NCOs who are the heart and soul of the US Army, indeed of the western militaries in general.  I have no idea how to quantify that edge, but it has to be significant.

 

Training deltas and facilities (though the US warriors can but envy the practically limitless, region appropriate training grounds the Russians have at their disposal) have already been discussed, but it should be mentioned that morale is likely to be a strong negative on the Russian side. In an increasingly unpopular war in which soldiers are unknown even to themselves shipped to the border at night, then ordered to cross, this has to be a big factor. It's better to be the outraged defender of a thoroughly violated sovereign nation now subjected to outright invasion than it is to be the almost universally condemend and reviled invaders. Suvorov/Rezun makes this telling point in his trenchant book The "Liberators," based on his own direct experience in the Czechoslovakian Invasion in 1968, where he talks about the progressive unraveling of the Red Army as the Russian soldiers see people who are happy, well fed and prosperous, so why do they need liberation? Much the same thing seems to be happening to the Russian Army regarding Ukraine, and a full-on invasion would only exacerbate the problem.

 

Were I NATO leaders political and military, I'd be very worried were, say, the Kremlin to be bombed (by the FSB) or some other outrage be perpetrated within or outside of Russia which could galvanize domestic support for moves to "punish" those responsible, starting with the "fascist Nazis" next door and expanding from there. Failing some such event, I think Putin's got a huge troop motivation and morale problem on his hands.

 

Over on the very good defense blog Foxtrot Alpha, there is a worthwhile T-90 supportive article in which Tyler Rogoway, a defense journalist and photographer who runs the site, talks about the virtues imbued in the T-90, the amount of capability packed into a much lighter and cheaper tank, and its lessons for US defense planners. As I see it, and I don't have any idea what else may be up MOD's sleeve, I believe the US has the tank edge in armor protection, firepower, sensors, training and crew professionalism. There is no doubt the T-90 can run rings around the much heavier M1 Abrams, and it's tough to beat the observer impression formed by watching a tank fire, in a whole new definition of "on the move" while in midair, and hit the target. Shtora and Arena-E are both impressive and highly capable systems, which, even if they can't deal with Javelin in top attack mode, are able to defeat most ATGMs presently in service. The T-90 undoubtedly has greater operational and strategic mobility than the Abrams. It uses nowhere nearly as much fuel per unit distance traveled, can easily use bridges the Abrams can't, is rapidly deployable by rail and able to pass through railway tunnels for which the Abrams is far too wide. And last I checked, the Abrams doesn't have special narrow tracks, a la the Tiger 1, which could squeeze through Russian tunnels because of them. 

 

I think the T-90 is a cool and impressive tank, to the point where my jaw dropped when I watched it perform, but for all the reasons the others and I have named, in a straight up engagement tank on tank, with equal numbers in a face to face fight, I see no way for the Russians to in aggregate prevail. While I doubt we'd see anything remotely like what the US did to the Iraqi's eleite Republican Guard in ODS, on the whole, I'd expect the US to win most of the engagements and for the US to sustain far fewer crew casualties. The record is quite clear. The Abrams does a tremendous of protecting the crew. Pretty much come what may. By contrast, when the T-90 gets hit and penetrated by the M829A4, the net result is going to be exactly the same as for ODS--tank K-Killed and toasted crew.

 

I don't know how the tank balance and respective tank pools by type on a given side shake out, but the Russians better have numerical superiority in tanks, good ones, or they're done before the fight even starts. Nor do I know the force ratios modeled in the game. And on top of everything else, we have Armata. It could potentially be a veritable super tank, but it might turn out to be a tracked F-35! If we stipulate the tank is in fact real and it works as advertised, there's still the matter of producing it. Will there be enough made, in terms of CMBS, to have any really significant impact on the events depicted in the game? If the tank meets the criteria and really is the business, then in the games as we see them, Armata might be a big deal as nasty as the M1A2 SEP V3, the apex predator of the CMBS battlefield, a predator equipped with a hide so hard and tough a rhino would die of embarrassment. I'm not holding my breath. If we do have Armata, it might come with rarity and concomitant cost that would make a Tiger tank in CMBB seem readily available and cheap by comparison.  

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...