Can Indian T-90, T-72 MBTs be considered obsolete?

[Beny Karachun]

Not good against decoy missiles ? To deplete your APS stock. Any way the big problems is that the anti tank weapons are advanced beyond the capabilities of modern armour. If you want a tank armoured enough to be impervious to the latest armour piercing weapons, it could weight nearly 80tons , have terrible mobility and cost a lot

What do you mean "decoy missiles"?
Would make way more sense to just fire a bunch of missiles at a tank, but that makes it a much harder task that requires way more coordination.

Merkava Mk4 survived a few Kornets to the front.

Not good against decoy missiles ? To deplete your APS stock. Any way the big problems is that the anti tank weapons are advanced beyond the capabilities of modern armour. If you want a tank armoured enough to be impervious to the latest armour piercing weapons, it could weight nearly 80tons , have terrible mobility and cost a lot

The Trophy has another aspect no one is talking about, the obvious one is that the tank has a much better survival rate, the less obvious one is that the ATGM operator has a much worse survival rate. You fire a missile at the tank, the system knows where you fired from, before the missile ever hits the Merkava, the Merkava already shot a much faster APAMS shell at the operator, disrupting the guidance.

 

[Abid123]

We have a massive militarty budget

We are bankrupt lol...

 

[Hellfire2006]

What good would be covering a large frontier if all those tanks could easily be destroyed?


Nah, combined arms efforts aren't enough to protect tanks, you need APS.

If you execute a good combined arms maneuver then tanks are better off traversing across hostile ground . The infantry and Gunships hunt enemy anti tank nests and sappers prepare operational tracks. Effective application of combined arms warfare can reduce tank losses to a great extent. Signallers provide communications between the arms and provide situational awareness in the battlefield for coordination between the different elements.

And you simply can't substitute Quantity with Quality.

 

[Hellfire2006]

Priority should be to fast track low cost Archer armed UAV with a 10 km range ATGM.

And what damage would it deal in a AD dense environment ? UCAVs are vulnerable, it is better to invest in loitering munitions and smaller kamikazee drone swarms, they are far less vulnerable. And autonomous drone swarms can't be jammed too since they are capable of identifying and engaging the target by themselves without the need for an operator

 

[Skull and Bones]

And what damage would it deal in a AD dense environment ? UCAVs are vulnerable, it is better to invest in loitering munitions and smaller kamikazee drone swarms, they are far less vulnerable. And autonomous drone swarms can't be jammed too since they are capable of identifying and engaging the target by themselves without the need for an operator

Long range ADs can be taken out in pre-emptive strikes, only risk will be short range mobile ADs and shoulder fired MANPADs.

 

[Beny Karachun]

If you execute a good combined arms maneuver then tanks are better off traversing across hostile ground . The infantry and Gunships hunt enemy anti tank nests and sappers prepare operational tracks. Effective application of combined arms warfare can reduce tank losses to a great extent. Signallers provide communications between the arms and provide situational awareness in the battlefield for coordination between the different elements.

And you simply can't substitute Quantity with Quality.

If. Battle is chaos, advanced battle management systems are needed for combined arms maneuvers and even then it's not nearly as effective for protecting tanks against ATGMs as APS are, especially since there are non-line-of-sight weapon systems that cannot be stopped simply by "good tactics".

Again, once you have a qualititve edge, you can make it too costly for the enemy to advance no matter how many forces he throws at you. Look at German Panzer 3s against superior Soviet KV-1s, the Soviets took out dozens of German tanks for every KV-1 destroyed, same with Israeli training-quality superior Shot-Kal tanks against Syrian and Egyptian T-62s and T-55s.

 

[iLION12345_1]

How is al khalid superior to T90S exactly ? I'm not talking about AK 1 here
And from what I know most of the 2000 T72s in indian service are upgraded to Combat Improved Ajeya standard

Al Khalid has Commanders independent panoramic sight, hunter killer capability, automatic target tracking, Air conditioning, auxiliary power unit, muzzle reference system, anti-thermal paint coatings, better ammo storage, a 24 KM/H reverse speed (4 KM/H in the T90S), longer engagement ranges and higher accuracy due to its comparatively newer 16 Bit FCS and a bunch more things that T90S doesn’t have, it does however have a better armor profile.
In indias case, the best ammo their T90S have is the BM42, which is Soviet ammo from the 80s that india bought post 2015 (Pakistan had it in the 90s). Al Khalid meanwhile Carries ammo with 650MM of penetration at 2KM compared to BM42s 460MM.

And there are still newer photos of IA T72s in stock form, according to online sources only half of the fleet was upgraded, and even then some of those are still being upgraded with new sights. however these sources could be outdated so I may be wrong, have not looked into the program for a while now.

 

[serenity]

What good would be covering a large frontier if all those tanks could easily be destroyed?

It forces your opponent to also have larger coverage or if they are invading, be able to cover greater ground as well. It's not like 10 tanks with APS and anti tank infantry will slowly but continuously destroy 100s of tanks without APS as they move into a territory.

If it's two large countries, they would want lots of tanks in different regions of their country. Not all countries are easily covered quickly by their military assets. Let's use the example of India since it fits this thread. Can India choose to go without 3000 tanks and use 300 with the best stuff and APS? Then they can only cover 10% of what they would otherwise. Okay the coverage of the 10% would be 10 times better than with large number of weaker tanks but you are going to let go of the 90%? Would you drive around everywhere to fight all over the country with your 300 super tanks? There is clearly a balancing job at hand and the military planners and leaders would have decided that this is the best route considering the available import tank options, budget, and costs.

 

[serenity]

Russian tanks have survived hits in Ukraine. Some have even been recorded on video surviving hits. But yes generally Russian tanks have almost 20 tonnes less armor than NATO tanks 60T+. That's a lot less armor and clearly they traded range and speed for protection in many ways. Russian smaller tanks are also smaller targets and that much harder to hit compared to NATO tanks. So the drawback of less armor comes with its own slight compensations. Not to mention 45T tank require less material and resources to make.

As for NATO tanks in this sort of conflict. They will get absolutely annihilated if used in the same way. Guided artillery shells, ATGMs of all kinds from any direction. Top attack ATGMs, IEDs, other tanks. NATO tanks have fared poorly too (although less poorly) against much, much, muchx100 less well trained and less well equipped foes. So please. Spare us the NATO tanks would crush all.

Leopard 2s and Leclercs have been destroyed by basically unarmed farmers. Basically unarmed compared to a proper military. The Russians are using their tanks like they are there to take hits and there to be lost. NATO applies tanks in a much less brazen way.


T-72 not blowing up after a direct strike from ATGM I think this might be Syria?

example from Ukraine

Syria example of T-90

 

[Beny Karachun]

It forces your opponent to also have larger coverage or if they are invading, be able to cover greater ground as well. It's not like 10 tanks with APS and anti tank infantry will slowly but continuously destroy 100s of tanks without APS as they move into a territory.

If it's two large countries, they would want lots of tanks in different regions of their country. Not all countries are easily covered quickly by their military assets. Let's use the example of India since it fits this thread. Can India choose to go without 3000 tanks and use 300 with the best stuff and APS? Then they can only cover 10% of what they would otherwise. Okay the coverage of the 10% would be 10 times better than with large number of weaker tanks but you are going to let go of the 90%? Would you drive around everywhere to fight all over the country with your 300 super tanks? There is clearly a balancing job at hand and the military planners and leaders would have decided that this is the best route considering the available import tank options, budget, and costs.

APS only cost 1/4th of the tank to purchase, and 1/8th of the tank to produce for yourself (4 million dollar tank as baseline)

It wouldn't be 300 tanks instead of 3000 tanks.
It would be 2400 tanks instead of 3000.
What are the advantages? Virtually zero tanks would be taken out by ATGMs.
Without APS, hundreds, of not thousands of tanks could be destroyed by ATGMs like we see happening in Ukraine.

I'll let you judge what is the more economic option.

 

[serenity]

APS only cost 1/4th of the tank to purchase, and 1/8th of the tank to produce for yourself (4 million dollar tank as baseline)

It wouldn't be 300 tanks instead of 3000 tanks.
It would be 2400 tanks instead of 3000.
What are the advantages? Virtually zero tanks would be taken out by ATGMs.
Without APS, hundreds, of not thousands of tanks could be destroyed by ATGMs like we see happening in Ukraine.

I'll let you judge what is the more economic option.

With the 3000 -> 300 I didn't mean just installing APS. I mean the 10x price difference between a very basic older T-72 and the best and latest NATO tank with APS.

As for APS, yes it is critically important and increasingly important due to ATGM proliferation and improvements. But many militaries cannot afford to equip all their tanks with APS. Many tanks require new mounts and upgrades for the APS system to be mounted on and for the power units to be able to run the APS properly. Many older T-72s and even T-90s are just not capable of being mounted with APS. Would be similar to upgrading it with a remote weapon system.

The capability of the tank is not a substitute for numbers. That's the point. You cannot say you want all your tanks with APS or you want far fewer but better tanks. For India's case, they need lots of tanks to cover ground and in different regions. They cannot afford to have the same number required but much better tanks and with APS on them all. If they 5x their budget for tanks, maybe then. As for your suggestion of putting APS on existing tanks, that's not possible for many older tanks.

 

[Beny Karachun]

As for NATO tanks in this sort of conflict. They will get absolutely annihilated if used in the same way. Guided artillery shells, ATGMs of all kinds from any direction. Top attack ATGMs, IEDs, other tanks. NATO tanks have fared poorly too (although less poorly) against much, much, muchx100 less well trained and less well equipped foes. So please. Spare us the NATO tanks would crush all.

Guided artillery shells? Spike NLOS outranges artillery shells and would decimate enemy artillery.

Trophy and Iron Fist APS can deal with top attack ATGMs, and in Ukraine it was actually the rather crude Skif direct attack ATGM causing the most Russian casualties.

IEDs and enemy tanks are different stories, Ukraine shows us those scenarios are rare.

NATO tanks have fared way better, training has nothing to do with it, we are talking about stuff from an objective standpoint, a missile hitting a tank operated by a farmer would have the same result of a missile hitting a tank operated by an elite soldier. NATO tanks have blast vents, more armor and better sensors, that caused them a way better survival rate. Hundreds of newer NATO tanks have APS.

Leopard 2s and Leclercs have been destroyed by basically unarmed farmers. Basically unarmed compared to a proper military. The Russians are using their tanks like they are there to take hits and there to be lost. NATO applies tanks in a much less brazen way.

Only old Leopard 2A4, driven by Turkish crews were destroyed. They are definitely not the bulk of NATO's tank forces.
0 Leclercs have been destroyed, only 3 were damaged, and those were driven by UAE soldiers, not NATO.

T-72 not blowing up after a direct strike from ATGM I think this might be Syria?

example from Ukraine

Syria example of T-90

You give me 3 examples of Russian tanks surviving hits while there are thousands of examples in Ukraine when they're not.

 

[Beny Karachun]

With the 3000 -> 300 I didn't mean just installing APS. I mean the 10x price difference between a very basic older T-72 and the best and latest NATO tank with APS.

As for APS, yes it is critically important and increasingly important due to ATGM proliferation and improvements. But many militaries cannot afford to equip all their tanks with APS. Many tanks require new mounts and upgrades for the APS system to be mounted on and for the power units to be able to run the APS properly. Many older T-72s and even T-90s are just not capable of being mounted with APS. Would be similar to upgrading it with a remote weapon system.

The capability of the tank is not a substitute for numbers. That's the point. You cannot say you want all your tanks with APS or you want far fewer but better tanks. For India's case, they need lots of tanks to cover ground and in different regions. They cannot afford to have the same number required but much better tanks and with APS on them all. If they 5x their budget for tanks, maybe then. As for your suggestion of putting APS on existing tanks, that's not possible for many older tanks.

It's stupid. If your army doesn't have the funds, then invest in cost effective weapons to counter the enemy's abilities.
There's a 10x price difference between a T-72 and a NATO tank but the 10 T-72s would just blow up the first day of the war while the NATO tanks would largely stay intact.

For example, Israel knew it would have numerical disadvantage against Arab tank forces so we developed the Spike NLOS.
They will easily devastate entire tank brigades unprotected with APS with no effort.

If you can't afford an APS, don't use tanks. It's more cost effective to not have tanks in the first place and to invest in other stuff than to lose them.

 

[serenity]

Guided artillery shells? Spike NLOS outranges artillery shells and would decimate enemy artillery.

Trophy and Iron Fist APS can deal with top attack ATGMs, and in Ukraine it was actually the rather crude Skif direct attack ATGM causing the most Russian casualties.

IEDs and enemy tanks are different stories, Ukraine shows us those scenarios are rare.

NATO tanks have fared way better, training has nothing to do with it, we are talking about stuff from an objective standpoint, a missile hitting a tank operated by a farmer would have the same result of a missile hitting a tank operated by an elite soldier. NATO tanks have blast vents, more armor and better sensors, that caused them a way better survival rate. Hundreds of newer NATO tanks have APS.

Only old Leopard 2A4, driven by Turkish crews were destroyed. They are definitely not the bulk of NATO's tank forces.
0 Leclercs have been destroyed, only 3 were damaged, and those were driven by UAE soldiers, not NATO.


You give me 3 examples of Russian tanks surviving hits while there are thousands of examples in Ukraine when they're not.

My mistake, those leclerc tanks were only damaged. I mistook it with Leopard 2 being destroyed. Point is those tanks have never been used the same way Russians are using their tanks and certainly those NATO tanks have not been used against any adversary that is well equipped to perform anti-tanking like Ukrainian forces are against Russian tanks.

You said every second Russian tank would get turret blown off in a hit. My point is to show that Russian tanks can survive frontal ATGM hits. They are designed indeed to survive frontal hits.

It's stupid. If your army doesn't have the funds, then invest in cost effective weapons to counter the enemy's abilities.
There's a 10x price difference between a T-72 and a NATO tank but the 10 T-72s would just blow up the first day of the war while the NATO tanks would largely stay intact.

For example, Israel knew it would have numerical disadvantage against Arab tank forces so we developed the Spike NLOS.
They will easily devastate entire tank brigades unprotected with APS with no effort.

If you can't afford an APS, don't use tanks. It's more cost effective to not have tanks in the first place and to invest in other stuff than to lose them.

This is only more true today than it was in the 1970s and 1980s when those T-72s were designed and upgraded. They can be mounted with some APS but they aren't going to be well integrated and due to electrical design issues they will not be ideal either. The best APS upgrade would be for a new manufacturing block of tanks. I agree that APS is important. No one is disputing that. But you're saying the old T-90s and T-72s operated by India should be upgraded with APS. How? with what money?

Either the budget is increased so that those tanks can be upgraded with compromised APS upgrade (rather than new block of tanks designed for those specific APS) or they decrease the number of tanks and perform that. Same with anyone else in that situation.

Consider this. Most NATO Leopard 2 tanks and Leclercs and M1A1/A2 do not use APS. Some can be mounted with APS and some models of those tanks have integrated APS but most do not use them.

 

[Brainsucker]

Tanks are formidable when you have an air dominance...but they'll still be relevant for ground forces.

Yes, but air dominance today will be relevant, if you also have an orbit dominance.