panzersaurkrautwerfer

Having lived in Korea...eh.  The government is so in the pocket of those businesses I think you'd be hard pressed to see a shift left to a meaningful degree.  And the nationalism of South Koreans (Koreans in general!) is something to behold.  
 
And you're really underestimating how BAD DPRK is these days.  It's not simply a matter of giving them several dozen Type 98s, and some rations and you're good to go.  The primary use of many military formations is not training or even military tasks, but has been more or less turned over to fishing, harvest tasks, or mining.  Reports from defectors indicate that 10-20 rounds per soldier per year is the accepted training standard for rifle marksmenship, and much of the "advanced" gear claimed exists in a secure magic bunkers that their commanders swear exists hidden under the base that no one is allowed to see ever.  
 
You would really have to see a disastrous catastrophic fall with an equally meteoric rise from the North before you see anything sort of resembling parity.
 
When I was over there what we worried more about wasn't them coming down, it was the more likely possibility that we would have to go North.  There's no happy ending to a sudden collapse of the DPRK government, and the reality is someone would have to go in, secure the dangerous stuff like nuclear or chemical weapons sites, restore order, put down the various "True Korean Republic" or "Juche State of Joy and Love" fiefdoms set up by the various DPRK generals, and do it all in a country so improvised that simply dealing with all the disease and total lack of functional infrastructure was going to be a bigger roadblock to mission success than the former DPRK forces.  
 
Also just the reality of working with a population and infastructure so badly degraded and managed to be called maldeveloped vs underdeveloped.  There's virtually nothing remaining in terms of efficient or practical industry, and the people's education is amazingly poor which precludes a rapid handover of much of anything advanced.  Most estimates show that in the event of a ROK takeover, the best way to keep running the country would basically be the same, only without deathcamps for several years simply because it's too hard to change so much so fast, so it's going to have to run very badly for some years to avoid having everything just collapse into dark(er?) ages.  
 
This is really the question of what China would do comes in.  China hates the DPRK.  With a passion of a thousand suns.  However right now they're happier to have it contained and on a sort of leash than in a state of turmoil.  If the DPRK starts a war, China is almost certainly not coming in to help the DPRK (and depending on the circumstances may actually fight nominally allied to the ROK and US).  In a collapse situation thought it might be something modest, like invading in a few KM into the DPRK to secure a buffer zone, to a more ambitious plan to go all the way to Pyongyang while the US and ROK try to claw through the DMZ, install a recently discovered son of Kim Il-Sung who's shockingly pro-Chinese and call it good.  
 
China is pretty opaque about what it would do.  I think the  buffer state option is most likely though as it presents lowest risk to China, offers a high degree of control, but leaves the cost of putting North Korea back together again in the hands of the US and ROK.  

The scenerio I always used for when I played microarmor was that the DPRK had a fairly quick coup, before the ROK and US could intervene (basically the ROK gets 80% mobilized, additional US troops arrive, enough to call them both war mongerers), new DPRK government gets snuggly with Russia, exchanges goods (labor really) for weapons claiming it needs to protect itself from American imperialism.  Russia obliges as it has more than enough tanks and semi-obsolete (but way better than North Korean's current fleet!) equipment and could use the manpower to work in Siberia (which is already a thing).  DPRK brings in outside investors, plays the "we're authoritarian but business friendly!" card, and then a year or so later launches itself across the DMZ because reunification is the divine mission, but hey suckers, thanks for the tanks and money!
 
Old habits die hard and all.
 
*Edit* I consider the scenario well below Battlefront's standard.  Basically it was an excuse for me to play with the newer GHQ miniatures South Korean tanks, and fight out battles in places I knew of.
 
 
Me too!  I'd love to have a circa 2018ish fight in Korea, largely because the equipment wouldn't be so changed from when I was there, and it'd be fun to play at "if it really did go down"  I'm just picky about the scenario for obvious reasons.
 
 
 
Oh god are they angry at everyone for everything.  Also huge racists (read "The Cleanest Race" for a good summary).  They hate pretty much everything that's not North Korean, and the mythical legions of South Koreans longing to be North Koreans.
Nope.  Camp Casey is in the less adventurous part of Korea in terms of cuisine.  Think like...the sort of stuff farmers make.  Mostly hearty, not especially sophisticated, but delicious (eat you some bulgoggi son, and you'll agree).
 
On the other hand, go to Seoul if you're visiting.  It's full of insanity and awesome.  Stay out late, if you're anglo with short hair, you'll get an extra special prodding from the US and Korean MPs to make sure you're not a soldier breaking curfew, but you'll see some epic stuff.   

Having lived in Korea...eh.  The government is so in the pocket of those businesses I think you'd be hard pressed to see a shift left to a meaningful degree.  And the nationalism of South Koreans (Koreans in general!) is something to behold.  
 
And you're really underestimating how BAD DPRK is these days.  It's not simply a matter of giving them several dozen Type 98s, and some rations and you're good to go.  The primary use of many military formations is not training or even military tasks, but has been more or less turned over to fishing, harvest tasks, or mining.  Reports from defectors indicate that 10-20 rounds per soldier per year is the accepted training standard for rifle marksmenship, and much of the "advanced" gear claimed exists in a secure magic bunkers that their commanders swear exists hidden under the base that no one is allowed to see ever.  
 
You would really have to see a disastrous catastrophic fall with an equally meteoric rise from the North before you see anything sort of resembling parity.
 
When I was over there what we worried more about wasn't them coming down, it was the more likely possibility that we would have to go North.  There's no happy ending to a sudden collapse of the DPRK government, and the reality is someone would have to go in, secure the dangerous stuff like nuclear or chemical weapons sites, restore order, put down the various "True Korean Republic" or "Juche State of Joy and Love" fiefdoms set up by the various DPRK generals, and do it all in a country so improvised that simply dealing with all the disease and total lack of functional infrastructure was going to be a bigger roadblock to mission success than the former DPRK forces.  
 
Also just the reality of working with a population and infastructure so badly degraded and managed to be called maldeveloped vs underdeveloped.  There's virtually nothing remaining in terms of efficient or practical industry, and the people's education is amazingly poor which precludes a rapid handover of much of anything advanced.  Most estimates show that in the event of a ROK takeover, the best way to keep running the country would basically be the same, only without deathcamps for several years simply because it's too hard to change so much so fast, so it's going to have to run very badly for some years to avoid having everything just collapse into dark(er?) ages.  
 
This is really the question of what China would do comes in.  China hates the DPRK.  With a passion of a thousand suns.  However right now they're happier to have it contained and on a sort of leash than in a state of turmoil.  If the DPRK starts a war, China is almost certainly not coming in to help the DPRK (and depending on the circumstances may actually fight nominally allied to the ROK and US).  In a collapse situation thought it might be something modest, like invading in a few KM into the DPRK to secure a buffer zone, to a more ambitious plan to go all the way to Pyongyang while the US and ROK try to claw through the DMZ, install a recently discovered son of Kim Il-Sung who's shockingly pro-Chinese and call it good.  
 
China is pretty opaque about what it would do.  I think the  buffer state option is most likely though as it presents lowest risk to China, offers a high degree of control, but leaves the cost of putting North Korea back together again in the hands of the US and ROK.  

Statements like this make me question your expertise tbh.  

Even using the daysight.  When you're "scanning" in thermals (which is to say moving the optics back and forth looking for a target), a tank will be pretty obvious, hey look a bright spot, better look at that now.  When you're doing it in daylight, even with moving targets it can be tricky You're looking at something like 8 degrees of area at a time, with the optic in motion, unless the tank is hauling and throwing up a roostertail, at 2.5+ KM you might not see it.  
 
If we're in a race between spotters, the one that has effectively illuminated "hullo!  I am a tank!" type targets vs "I'm looking for something green in a field of green." the thermal will tend to win, and the thermal equipped platform will shoot first, and given the nature of AT weapons kill first.  
 
Really the abject last thing you want to do against an Abrams if you're using Russian MBTs is get in a fight at ranges over 1 KM.  

Having lived in Korea...eh.  The government is so in the pocket of those businesses I think you'd be hard pressed to see a shift left to a meaningful degree.  And the nationalism of South Koreans (Koreans in general!) is something to behold.  
 
And you're really underestimating how BAD DPRK is these days.  It's not simply a matter of giving them several dozen Type 98s, and some rations and you're good to go.  The primary use of many military formations is not training or even military tasks, but has been more or less turned over to fishing, harvest tasks, or mining.  Reports from defectors indicate that 10-20 rounds per soldier per year is the accepted training standard for rifle marksmenship, and much of the "advanced" gear claimed exists in a secure magic bunkers that their commanders swear exists hidden under the base that no one is allowed to see ever.  
 
You would really have to see a disastrous catastrophic fall with an equally meteoric rise from the North before you see anything sort of resembling parity.
 
When I was over there what we worried more about wasn't them coming down, it was the more likely possibility that we would have to go North.  There's no happy ending to a sudden collapse of the DPRK government, and the reality is someone would have to go in, secure the dangerous stuff like nuclear or chemical weapons sites, restore order, put down the various "True Korean Republic" or "Juche State of Joy and Love" fiefdoms set up by the various DPRK generals, and do it all in a country so improvised that simply dealing with all the disease and total lack of functional infrastructure was going to be a bigger roadblock to mission success than the former DPRK forces.  
 
Also just the reality of working with a population and infastructure so badly degraded and managed to be called maldeveloped vs underdeveloped.  There's virtually nothing remaining in terms of efficient or practical industry, and the people's education is amazingly poor which precludes a rapid handover of much of anything advanced.  Most estimates show that in the event of a ROK takeover, the best way to keep running the country would basically be the same, only without deathcamps for several years simply because it's too hard to change so much so fast, so it's going to have to run very badly for some years to avoid having everything just collapse into dark(er?) ages.  
 
This is really the question of what China would do comes in.  China hates the DPRK.  With a passion of a thousand suns.  However right now they're happier to have it contained and on a sort of leash than in a state of turmoil.  If the DPRK starts a war, China is almost certainly not coming in to help the DPRK (and depending on the circumstances may actually fight nominally allied to the ROK and US).  In a collapse situation thought it might be something modest, like invading in a few KM into the DPRK to secure a buffer zone, to a more ambitious plan to go all the way to Pyongyang while the US and ROK try to claw through the DMZ, install a recently discovered son of Kim Il-Sung who's shockingly pro-Chinese and call it good.  
 
China is pretty opaque about what it would do.  I think the  buffer state option is most likely though as it presents lowest risk to China, offers a high degree of control, but leaves the cost of putting North Korea back together again in the hands of the US and ROK.  

It would require the ROK to be doing very, very badly, and the DPRK to have secretly disguised itself as Greece, and taken all the loan money from the EU and funneled it strictly into building a time machine to go back and undo everything that happened about 1985-present before the DPRK would be a serious threat again.  

Having lived in Korea...eh.  The government is so in the pocket of those businesses I think you'd be hard pressed to see a shift left to a meaningful degree.  And the nationalism of South Koreans (Koreans in general!) is something to behold.  
 
And you're really underestimating how BAD DPRK is these days.  It's not simply a matter of giving them several dozen Type 98s, and some rations and you're good to go.  The primary use of many military formations is not training or even military tasks, but has been more or less turned over to fishing, harvest tasks, or mining.  Reports from defectors indicate that 10-20 rounds per soldier per year is the accepted training standard for rifle marksmenship, and much of the "advanced" gear claimed exists in a secure magic bunkers that their commanders swear exists hidden under the base that no one is allowed to see ever.  
 
You would really have to see a disastrous catastrophic fall with an equally meteoric rise from the North before you see anything sort of resembling parity.
 
When I was over there what we worried more about wasn't them coming down, it was the more likely possibility that we would have to go North.  There's no happy ending to a sudden collapse of the DPRK government, and the reality is someone would have to go in, secure the dangerous stuff like nuclear or chemical weapons sites, restore order, put down the various "True Korean Republic" or "Juche State of Joy and Love" fiefdoms set up by the various DPRK generals, and do it all in a country so improvised that simply dealing with all the disease and total lack of functional infrastructure was going to be a bigger roadblock to mission success than the former DPRK forces.  
 
Also just the reality of working with a population and infastructure so badly degraded and managed to be called maldeveloped vs underdeveloped.  There's virtually nothing remaining in terms of efficient or practical industry, and the people's education is amazingly poor which precludes a rapid handover of much of anything advanced.  Most estimates show that in the event of a ROK takeover, the best way to keep running the country would basically be the same, only without deathcamps for several years simply because it's too hard to change so much so fast, so it's going to have to run very badly for some years to avoid having everything just collapse into dark(er?) ages.  
 
This is really the question of what China would do comes in.  China hates the DPRK.  With a passion of a thousand suns.  However right now they're happier to have it contained and on a sort of leash than in a state of turmoil.  If the DPRK starts a war, China is almost certainly not coming in to help the DPRK (and depending on the circumstances may actually fight nominally allied to the ROK and US).  In a collapse situation thought it might be something modest, like invading in a few KM into the DPRK to secure a buffer zone, to a more ambitious plan to go all the way to Pyongyang while the US and ROK try to claw through the DMZ, install a recently discovered son of Kim Il-Sung who's shockingly pro-Chinese and call it good.  
 
China is pretty opaque about what it would do.  I think the  buffer state option is most likely though as it presents lowest risk to China, offers a high degree of control, but leaves the cost of putting North Korea back together again in the hands of the US and ROK.  

Quoted because I am just that worth quoting:

 
 
We keep acting like there's tiny little digital mens in the tank, and their behavior is largely regulated by tiny digital eyes and brains, when in reality it's a whole mess of numbers and systems that are trying to replicate inherently chaotic, non-system results.
 
That said:
 
1. The T-90 in a treeline will be as obvious as it would be in the open with thermals.
2. T-90AM optics are still pretty "Eh."  The engagement range you selected is beyond the range of the Cathrine FC to be able to tell a M1 and a BMP-2 apart, but well within the M1's ability to tell you if the commander is out of the hatch and wearing sunglasses or not.
3. The GSR on the Russian vehicles sees really well through fog, and dark, but has a lot of problems with pretty much anything else. Trees, piles of trash on the ground, buildings, exposed rock faces, the target even being partially masked by terrain can all result in a "something is there!" but not a confirmed target*
 
 
So basically this is sounding like someone is rageful their Russian stuff is performing like Russian stuff performs.
 
*GSR is best used as a sort of tripwire, like it's your first warning something is there, but generally ground mounted radars are best to let you know where you look, vs the be all end all of spotting

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear.
 
Re: K1A1
 
It's a pretty good tank.  The thing that takes getting used to is while the M1 was scaled to fit a 6'1 American type person without discomfort, the K1 was built around a 5'7 Korean tanker as the average crewman, so it looks, and feels tiny if you're a yankee imperialist like myself. It's still big when you're out and walking around it because it's a tank after all, but once you get up close, or even on top of the tank and around the hatches you realize you're dealing with a compact.
 
In terms of performance it's by easiest and most direct comparisons, about on par with a late 90's early 00's M1A1HC.  It does suffer from a lower ammo count due to smaller vehicle size, although the suspension will let you do some cool tricks (like letting the tank lean backwards to shoot higher up, or drop to get behind lower cover).  Optics and weapons package are again around that vintage, it lacks the crazy-heavy armor of the Abrams but has more than enough protection to ward off the 115/100 MM guns that represent the primary weapons of the DPRK's armor branch.  Nice tank, appears popular with the crews.
 
K2 is a bit more squirrely.  It offers some amazing capabilities on paper, but when I was active in Korea they were still having major issues with the drive train, both in reliability and longevity that kept it out of mainline service.  I used to ask our ROK counterparts if they were going to see a K2 in their battalion soon, and they'd just laugh.  It could also be their BN was the literal bottom of the upgrade order though.
 
Re: Type 99
 
I'd like to have a chance to operate one, and then hit it with various weapons systems.  Chinese claims and internet dwellers seem to think it's the mightiest tank on the planet, but what is known smells fishy (claims of 1000 RHA against KE, the ERA panels are HUGE for real ERA, there's a mysterious "magnum" ammo they claim is in operation that somehow still uses the same basic weapon and autoloader from a T-72).  If I was giving an educated guess I'd put in on par with late model pre-B3 T-72s, but from what I've heard/seen of Chinese hardware (one of our exchange officers from Ghana back at Career Course refered to the APCs he'd used from China as "utter garbage" and other choice words, from what I've seen it looked really good, but usually concealed some crippling QA/QC faults) I'm not unconvinced it won't fall apart if it leaves the motorpool.
 
Re:Arjun
 
Everything I've seen indicates it's "INSAS Rifle: The tank!" which is why the Indians are heavily invested in T-90s.
 
Re: Challenger
 
Not often seen due to budget cuts, but one of my soldiers got to mess with one during the pre-2003 Iraq invasion build up.  He described it as...like to summarize it's like getting into an opposite to your normal drive sided car.  Everything is 100% in the wrong spot, or in a way that is somehow painful or awkward if your heart doesn't flutter a bit when someone says "bangers and mash"
 
Combat record is good though so I imagine it's fine so long as you're properly English
 
Re: Leclerc
 
I was part of an exercise with the French.  It was a command post exercise so no actual vehicles, but being the tanknerd I am, I picked people's brains for information about AFVs.  Any positive comment I made about the Leclerc agreed to with "if she runs" or "when she works" following.  I get the impression it needs more love than normal.
 
Re: Merkava
 
The troop bay isn't really a troop bay, it's where something like 75% of the main gun rounds live.  The ammo racks can be removed to make room for troops.  All accounts are it's amazingly cramped even at just 3-4 soldiers.  The frontal engine is interesting too.  It does place some pretty major constraints on frontal armor though (as it liimts the amount of "dead space" you can include, and the practical weight of the portion covering the engine).  Good for crew survival.  
 
It's really a tank designed for Israel, top to bottom.  I can't think of anyone else who'd get much mileage out of her at this point.  
 
Re: T-34
 
It amuses me that despite being effectively just as "good" as the Sherman that it gets remembered as some sort of wondertank while the Sherman is panned as a rolling deathtrap.  Losses of both vehicles in Soviet use are entirely comparable, and the T-34/85 vs M4A3E8 fights in Korea all indicate the advantage is with the better crew rather than one of those tank being better. 

It works better if you offer the crews of two of them as blood sacrifices to Baal.  

I imagine it's just a matter of Ctrl+C from an undamaged model and then Ctrl+V.  Experienced operators can have that fixed right up.  

I imagine it's just a matter of Ctrl+C from an undamaged model and then Ctrl+V.  Experienced operators can have that fixed right up.  

I should have learned some basic 3d model computer software skills.  I could have made bank in Russia making new tanks.

I imagine it's just a matter of Ctrl+C from an undamaged model and then Ctrl+V.  Experienced operators can have that fixed right up.  

I should have learned some basic 3d model computer software skills.  I could have made bank in Russia making new tanks.

I imagine it's just a matter of Ctrl+C from an undamaged model and then Ctrl+V.  Experienced operators can have that fixed right up.  

Speak of the devil, and he shall appear.
 
Re: K1A1
 
It's a pretty good tank.  The thing that takes getting used to is while the M1 was scaled to fit a 6'1 American type person without discomfort, the K1 was built around a 5'7 Korean tanker as the average crewman, so it looks, and feels tiny if you're a yankee imperialist like myself. It's still big when you're out and walking around it because it's a tank after all, but once you get up close, or even on top of the tank and around the hatches you realize you're dealing with a compact.
 
In terms of performance it's by easiest and most direct comparisons, about on par with a late 90's early 00's M1A1HC.  It does suffer from a lower ammo count due to smaller vehicle size, although the suspension will let you do some cool tricks (like letting the tank lean backwards to shoot higher up, or drop to get behind lower cover).  Optics and weapons package are again around that vintage, it lacks the crazy-heavy armor of the Abrams but has more than enough protection to ward off the 115/100 MM guns that represent the primary weapons of the DPRK's armor branch.  Nice tank, appears popular with the crews.
 
K2 is a bit more squirrely.  It offers some amazing capabilities on paper, but when I was active in Korea they were still having major issues with the drive train, both in reliability and longevity that kept it out of mainline service.  I used to ask our ROK counterparts if they were going to see a K2 in their battalion soon, and they'd just laugh.  It could also be their BN was the literal bottom of the upgrade order though.
 
Re: Type 99
 
I'd like to have a chance to operate one, and then hit it with various weapons systems.  Chinese claims and internet dwellers seem to think it's the mightiest tank on the planet, but what is known smells fishy (claims of 1000 RHA against KE, the ERA panels are HUGE for real ERA, there's a mysterious "magnum" ammo they claim is in operation that somehow still uses the same basic weapon and autoloader from a T-72).  If I was giving an educated guess I'd put in on par with late model pre-B3 T-72s, but from what I've heard/seen of Chinese hardware (one of our exchange officers from Ghana back at Career Course refered to the APCs he'd used from China as "utter garbage" and other choice words, from what I've seen it looked really good, but usually concealed some crippling QA/QC faults) I'm not unconvinced it won't fall apart if it leaves the motorpool.
 
Re:Arjun
 
Everything I've seen indicates it's "INSAS Rifle: The tank!" which is why the Indians are heavily invested in T-90s.
 
Re: Challenger
 
Not often seen due to budget cuts, but one of my soldiers got to mess with one during the pre-2003 Iraq invasion build up.  He described it as...like to summarize it's like getting into an opposite to your normal drive sided car.  Everything is 100% in the wrong spot, or in a way that is somehow painful or awkward if your heart doesn't flutter a bit when someone says "bangers and mash"
 
Combat record is good though so I imagine it's fine so long as you're properly English
 
Re: Leclerc
 
I was part of an exercise with the French.  It was a command post exercise so no actual vehicles, but being the tanknerd I am, I picked people's brains for information about AFVs.  Any positive comment I made about the Leclerc agreed to with "if she runs" or "when she works" following.  I get the impression it needs more love than normal.
 
Re: Merkava
 
The troop bay isn't really a troop bay, it's where something like 75% of the main gun rounds live.  The ammo racks can be removed to make room for troops.  All accounts are it's amazingly cramped even at just 3-4 soldiers.  The frontal engine is interesting too.  It does place some pretty major constraints on frontal armor though (as it liimts the amount of "dead space" you can include, and the practical weight of the portion covering the engine).  Good for crew survival.  
 
It's really a tank designed for Israel, top to bottom.  I can't think of anyone else who'd get much mileage out of her at this point.  
 
Re: T-34
 
It amuses me that despite being effectively just as "good" as the Sherman that it gets remembered as some sort of wondertank while the Sherman is panned as a rolling deathtrap.  Losses of both vehicles in Soviet use are entirely comparable, and the T-34/85 vs M4A3E8 fights in Korea all indicate the advantage is with the better crew rather than one of those tank being better. 

M-36 is pretty much a must-include for anything that covers the post August 1944 timeframe.
 
After looking it up, the first time an T26E3 (as they were called until March) went into combat the last week of February.   If the Bulge module covered the final reduction of the Bulge itself and the follow on offenses, having them in would be pretty cool.  Of course the other thing would be figuring out just how they were supposed to be included, the ten or so tanks that went to 9th Armored were deployed in  platoon elements, while the 3rd Armored ones wound up being basically deployed as a replacement for one tank in an otherwise Sherman-ed up platoon.  
 
So I guess at that maybe it'd be something like a super high rarity upgrade for a platoon (much in the same way you can upgrade M4A1s to M4A3 76s or something), or an option to include it as a very expensive platoon with a rarity discount (basically you should either see one Pershing, or five, and nothing in between, or more)

I should have learned some basic 3d model computer software skills.  I could have made bank in Russia making new tanks.

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.

Statements like this make me question your expertise tbh.  

At this point, can we just vote Russia off the island?

At this point, can we just vote Russia off the island?

Quoted because I am just that worth quoting:

 
 
We keep acting like there's tiny little digital mens in the tank, and their behavior is largely regulated by tiny digital eyes and brains, when in reality it's a whole mess of numbers and systems that are trying to replicate inherently chaotic, non-system results.
 
That said:
 
1. The T-90 in a treeline will be as obvious as it would be in the open with thermals.
2. T-90AM optics are still pretty "Eh."  The engagement range you selected is beyond the range of the Cathrine FC to be able to tell a M1 and a BMP-2 apart, but well within the M1's ability to tell you if the commander is out of the hatch and wearing sunglasses or not.
3. The GSR on the Russian vehicles sees really well through fog, and dark, but has a lot of problems with pretty much anything else. Trees, piles of trash on the ground, buildings, exposed rock faces, the target even being partially masked by terrain can all result in a "something is there!" but not a confirmed target*
 
 
So basically this is sounding like someone is rageful their Russian stuff is performing like Russian stuff performs.
 
*GSR is best used as a sort of tripwire, like it's your first warning something is there, but generally ground mounted radars are best to let you know where you look, vs the be all end all of spotting