New T-90 for DCS

[Cedaway]

:clap::clap::clap:

 

And errr, is it me or those screens are made under the new terrain engine?

Anyway, this beast is amazingly reproduced.

 

ED, you rock!

[B25Mitch]

So now the Russians will have 3 tanks superior to the Abrams!:lol:

 

Seriously though, I'm looking forward to having it in the sim and the 3D model looks great.

[Keshman]

This is great news! And a great tank! :thumbsup:

Thanks.

(Ready new separate sounds: T90Engine, T90Move for this monster :) Just waiting for release.)

[Mechanist]

Great modell and excellent adition!

 

Question: The Shtora system will be modelled? It would be great to have some countermeasures in CA.

 

Here is a link what this system is capable:

 

[71st_Mastiff]

awesome new toy! :thumbup:

[gunterlund21]

this is excellent news. Hope to see this and many more ground vehicles in the future.

[tobaschi]

Probably for the next DCS World update, we will introducing this monster.

 

wonderful model : ) i also ask me if the Shtora - system will be working

[combatace]

Keep it coming.

[Skoop]

Has the T-90 ever seen action? Some contacts at Ft Irwin stated that Russians can't get T-90s operating in numbers due to typical Russian logistical snfu. This was relayed to me about the T-80 as well. It seems to me most Georgian war footy shows T-72s fielded by Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if the T-72 is still the predominant tank in Russian front line units.

 

The Opfor guys at Ft Irwin made the comment that the T-90 and T-80 seemed great on paper, but once in the field, their performance was subpar to western standards. They were essentially calling them paper tigers sort a speak.

[slug88]

I think it's hard to argue that Western armor (M1A2, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, etc) doesn't win in a head-to-head engagement against any of the current T series, even on paper. Western tanks are simply bigger, more heavily armored, benefit from a more developed high tech electronics industry, and in summary are just much more expensive.

 

However, I think Soviet and Russian tank design has always been driven by the consideration of warfare at the strategic scale, rather than the comparative focus on tactical effectiveness in the West. In other words, ease of production, maintenance, and crew training, and versatility and mobility at the operational scale trump one-to-one parity with opposing armor. See WWII, and their continual mass-production of the T-34 through the entire war, even though the design was clearly outmatched by the heavier German tanks that started appearing after the first year. Note that this served them very well in the end, ultimately helping them win Berlin, so they've had a good reason to continue this approach.

[maturin]

The T-90 fails pretty hard on the strategic scale, given that there are so few of them. But Russia is never going to fight American armor anyways, so the added protection against portable AT weapons and ATGMs should do nicely.

 

And on paper, the T-90 has an ATGM that can strike at Western tanks from beyond the range of their guns.

[Skoop]

@Slug88, good point, but what's up with CA then ? Seems like the Russian armor are like über super tanks.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Skoop

[pepin1234]

@Slug88, good point, but what's up with CA then ? Seems like the Russian armor are like über super tanks.

 

Well the t-80 and t-90 are really super tanks. They use missiles 6 km range through the cannon. Do you know some other west tank can do that?? Then come the countermeasure of the T-90. The T-90 is wonderful

[maturin]

The barrel-launched ATGM is a Abrams killer on paper, though. If a tank is going to sit around in place for the enormous amount of time it takes for a slow missile to cover 6km, it DESERVES to get blown up. And if the T-90 is actually in range of the Abrams' gun, it is going to get hit multiple times while it sits motionless, guiding that slow missile.

 

The truly fearsome weapon is the Ukrainian fire-and-forget top-attack barrel-launched ATGM for the T-80. That's a nightmare.

[Skoop]

Well the t-80 and t-90 are really super tanks. They use missiles 6 km range through the cannon. Do you know some other west tank can do that?? Then come the countermeasure of the T-90. The T-90 is wonderful

 

The t-90 and 80 are both unproven unlike the Abrams. Thats the message I got from armored warfare experts at Ft Irwin. The t-90 might seem that way on paper, but let's see what it does against a battle tested Abrams.

 

The crew might have alot to do about it too, most US tankers have combat experience as opposed to the conscripts operating those t90s and 80s.

[pepin1234]

The t-90 and 80 are both unproven unlike the Abrams. Thats the message I got from armored warfare experts at Ft Irwin. The t-90 might seem that way on paper, but let's see what it does against a battle tested Abrams.

 

The crew might have alot to do about it too, most US tankers have combat experience as opposed to the conscripts operating those t90s and 80s.

 

You dont say me nothing with that. The Abrams have been battle tested in Irak great!!! against T-60, wonderfull!!! great actuation AHAHA!!! and against The Iraqis forces with a 40% of traitors officers. All rigth is the Best!!

[Boberro]

At least it's confirmed in real environment.

 

On the contrary it seems most of the Russ equipment has been tested on the airshows. Sometimes unfortunately not ended well.

[Skoop]

You dont say me nothing with that. The Abrams have been battle tested in Irak great!!! against T-60, wonderfull!!! great actuation AHAHA!!! and against The Iraqis forces with a 40% of traitors officers. All rigth is the Best!!

 

And the conscripts operating the t-90s would fare better than the battle hardened Iraqi republican guard that spent a decade fighting Iran ? That war was a cake walk due to air power, not the quality of the enemy soldiers. Republican guard units did have the latest greatest at the time soviet equipment at 73 easting with ATgm firing t72s. We all know how that went.

[maturin]

That's not remotely true.

 

The Iraqi tanks were dumbed down exports and cheap knockoffs, without proper optics, reactive armor or countermeasures, utterly blinded in the sand storm conditions. And while the Republican Guard had many hardened soldiers, even those who trumpet the glory of the American victory speak at length on the inferior training of the tank crews. I would link an entire book-length study, but Scribd unfortunately just whacked it for copyright, along with the RHA estimate tables (noooooo).

 

I do agree with you that airpower won the war, of course. Just not before the Abrams proved itself. Not against its likely Russian competitors, but in a furious combat environment, and against the best American anti-tank weapons (upgraded sabot and maverick) in friendly fire incidents.

[OutOnTheOP]

Speaking of RHA equivalents, I've never understood how the pro-T80/T90 crowd have convinced themselves that the T90 has a superior armor package to the Abrams. The M1A1 clearly had a better armor package to the T72 (as shown through real combat experience), and the T90 is nothing more than an upgrade of the T72. In fact, the only reason it's known as the "T90" at all is because Russian export interests wanted to divorce it from the T72 in the minds of their potential buyers, because the T72 had performed so badly that it was a bad name!

 

Anyhow, somehow the T90 fans have convinced themselves that the armor upgrades have made it better than the Abrams, but totally ignore that the Abrams has ALSO been receiving upgrades for it's entire lifetime. Besides that, the Abrams armor package, as a flat panel hollow armor envelope, is much easier to upgrade.

 

When it comes to RHA equivalencies, every estimate I've ever seen lists the T90 and Abrams as roughly equivalent against chemical energy (HEAT) rounds from the frontal aspect, but lists the Abrams as significantly (20-30% greater) better against kinetic energy rounds. It also lists the Abrams (and, of course, T90) as virtually impervious to the warhead on the Reflecks and other 125mm tube-launched missiles (at least from the frontal aspect).

[GGTharos]

Also, I don't think there's anything stopping an M1 gunner from attacking a tank at 6km. You won't get a first-round hit, but you might be able to get enough rounds out to cover that 40% chance of a hit during the missile flight time.

[maturin]

Speaking of RHA equivalents, I've never understood how the pro-T80/T90 crowd have convinced themselves that the T90 has a superior armor package to the Abrams.

That's why you don't usually here the pro-T90 people talking about RHA at all, other than invoking the the fast-improving abilities of Russian ERA (they claim it can stop sabot now).

 

The buzz around the T90 is more centered around the countermeasures that for some stupid reason the US doesn't have. Shtora, Arena successors, etc. It has a lot of superior technology on an aging platform.

[pepin1234]

there are only two things that make the Abrams better than the T-90. The real battle actuation and the shield, the rest is nothing compare to the T-90. And please do not repeat the history that the russian systems are old. Still there are a lot of russian military systems that is impossible manufacture in USA. Is just simple, they can not, or the price became so high, while the Russian military technic is cheap and better.

[GGTharos]

Cheap is almost never better, and probably never will be. You have to have some incredible breakthrough to make something cheaper AND better, and frankly the Russians just aren't there (nor is anyone else). There are no incredible secrets or magic to tank manufacture. You get out of it what you put in.

 

As for US tanks lacking these active defenses, it might be because their probability of intercept is not great (who knows?) in some situations and at the same time, they present a risk to your own troops.

 

One countermeasure the US may be fielding is detection of enemy sights via the cat's-eye effect and counter-firing before it's really a 'counter' to fire.

 

Russian doctrine got a lot of their tanks destroyed in Czecznya ... so we know there's nothing special about T-80's, T-72's, and there won't be anything special about the T-72 upgrade known as the T-90.

Edited August 7, 2012 by GGTharos

[Krebs20]

I forgot what mod had this as there sig. It applies to the military very well.

 

Good, Fast, Cheap, <-- pick any two.