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

[Brainsucker]

Russian armor has not failed in Ukraine. Anyone can try sending Merkavas or Abrams there, in the same scenarios, they will suffer equal losses. Deployment pattern, terrain limitations, defender capabilities...all have their distinct effects.

Q1
Capability is always there. Their deployment pattern, along with force multipliers will decide.

Q2
Operations which should be primarily infantry heavy operations, shouldnt be entrusted to armor in any case. Shortage of highly trained infantry should not force someone to use armor as a last resort. Armor shouldnt be used that way. We should play on the strengths of armor instead of going for stop gap solutions.

Q3
Complex problems sometimes have very cheap solutions. A good , well placed hit by a cheap RPG-7/26/29 can ensure a decent M kill which can surely lead to a K Kill on armor.


Have mentioned before as well, APS in sub-continent terrain wont be of much use anyway......the terrain and doctrines of both countries dont allow that.

I agree. The adversary level that Russia face in Ukraine is way stronger than what US faced in Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

 

[MilSpec]

Alive and well bro, hope you're all right too.

Good. Same here.

 

[Hellfire2006]

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 however these sources could be outdated so I may be wrong, have not looked into the program for a while now.

Half of the fleet is being upgraded to ajeya Mk2 standard, which was first seen somehwere in 2020. But most of the fleet already has the Ajeya mk1 Upgrade which is just as good, if not better than AL Zarrar.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Half of the fleet is being upgraded to ajeya Mk2 standard, which was first seen somehwere in 2020. But most of the fleet already has the Ajeya mk1 Upgrade which is just as good, if not better than AL Zarrar.

I admit the Al-Zarrar is not good by any standards, but Something can’t be better than the Al-Zarrar when firing BM13 or BM42, no matter how much technology you put into it. Pakistans obsolete Type 59s have ammo with better penetration characteristics than the BM13s T72s often carry in the IA.

Also the Ajeya MK1 and MK2 are not modernized tanks, they are obsolete. Both are just T72M and M1s produced locally in India with different ERA and minor changes.
The combat improved Ajeya is the modernized version and to my knowledge there is only one said version, or was until 2020 as you say. That’s probably a combat improved Ajeya MK2.
according to online sources there are only 968 examples so far with further upgrades planned to bring the total to 1800 T72s. But I can’t say how many have already been upgraded past that 968. Plus wether these further upgrades are for the already upgraded models or the older ones I’m not sure. But again online sources can be outdated so I take them with a big grain of salt.

Probably all active service T72s are Ajeya MK1 and MK2 at this point in the IA, the older Soviet delivered ones are Likely in reserve. But the Ajeya is not a modernization and nowhere near the level of an Al-Zarrar, the combat improved Ajeya on the other hand is better, but still, obsolete ammo.

That being said, the Al-Zarrars are also receiving a new upgrade with thicker hull and turret armor, new FCS and possibly new sights as well.

 

[Hellfire2006]

I admit the Al-Zarrar is not good by any standards, but Something can’t be better than the Al-Zarrar when firing BM13 or BM42, no matter how much technology you put into it. Pakistans obsolete Type 59s have ammo with better penetration characteristics than the BM13s T72s often carry in the IA.

BM13 was replaced to a great extent by bm42 and israeli IWI APFSDS. Now we're getting new rounds produced by osho corps.

Also the Ajeya MK1 and MK2 are not modernized tanks, they are obsolete. Both are just T72M and M1s produced locally in India with different ERA and minor changes.
The combat improved Ajeya is the modernized version and to my knowledge there is only one said version, or was until 2020 as you say. That’s probably a combat improved Ajeya MK2.

. The upgrade includes a new 1000hp power-pack, TI camera, new fire control and stability system, a GPS based navigation system and a self defense suite utilising smoke grenades.
I don't call that a minor change.
That's like saying that T72B3 is obsolete.

 

[Hellfire2006]

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

Long range AD systems are the most well defended assets of the adversary, they are protected by layered defences, each of which is difficult to penetrate.
UCAVs are vulnerable, like we've seen baryaktars getting smashed in Ukraine, it's better to make small, cheap loitering drones and autonomous kamikazee drone swarms.

 

[LeGenD]

Russian armor has utterly failed in Ukraine, including its most advanced T-90 models which India is buying in large numbers.

Q: Considering that the Indian armor deployed against Pakistan mostly if not entirely comprises of the Russian export versions of T-72 and T-90 MBTs in various iterations, what does it mean for the Indian Army's capabilities to wage a short lightening war against a well armed, trained and entrenched adversary like Pakistan?

Q: What should Pakistan be doing in light of learnings drawn from Nagorno Karabakh and Ukraine conflicts, especially with regards to the use cases of armored formations in saturated threat environment?

Q: The Russian made armor has been mercilessly massacred by cheap anti tank solutions in Nagorno Karabakh, Syria and Ukraine, while some cases of German tanks in Turkish service being destroyed have also been noted. What sort of learnings can we draw from these trends?

Ukranian forces used ATGMs and UAVs to defeat Russian Armor in [some] locations. Ukranian forces also used artillery pieces to defeat Russian Armor in [other] locations.

Ukrainian forces receive valuable support from the NATO surveillance apparatus, and have used sophisticated artillery systems to devastating effect against Russian forces in numerous battles.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Russian Armor cannot survive in a seemingly demanding modern battlespace. This much is clear.

Turkish-owned Leopard 2A4 is also obsolete design with ammo stored in two separate compartments:

Ammo stored on the front can be breached.

Turkish forces also showed poor judgement in the Battle of Al-Bab:

How could Turkey lose so many Leopard 2 tanks near al-Bab?

Anonymous answer: Mostly because of Turkish Amy's incompetence. See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0BLSmum9B8&feature=youtu.be The happily rolling wobbling missile seems to be Russian made 9K111 Fagot. It only flies as the speed of 200 m/s, and it needed to be guided by laun...

www.quora.com

There are things that a military force learns from "experience."

- - -

For your questions:

It would be helpful to understand WHERE the battle is expected to be fought (geography factor), and composition of forces in the location of interest.

Satellites, AWACS, and UAVs can be used for surveillance in the location of interest.

Indians are developing and testing ASAT weapons to threaten and engage Pakistani satellites. Pakistan Army needs access to satellites of other countries to be safe in this domain.

Indian Army is inducting S-400 systems to threaten and engage AWACS from a distance. Indian Army is also looking forward to reinforce S-400 systems with additional Air Defense systems to reduce their vulnerability just in case.

Pakistan Army is inducting different types of UAVs for both ISR and strike missions. Some can be used to engage Indian Armor, but WHERE is important consideration. For perspective, Saudi forces lost multiple UAVs in Yemen including CH-4B.

Indian Army is also inducting different types of UAVs. But much of the inventory is suited for ISR role in the present.

Artillery pieces, tanks, IFV, APC, and helicopter gunships can be brought to bear to engage Indian Army in the location of interest. Pakistan Army has hundreds of artillery pieces and tanks that are good enough to engage and defeat Indian Armor in the present. Pakistan Army can also use IFV, APC, and helicopter gunships to engage Indian Armor with ATGMs. But Pakistan Army is LACKING in helicopter gunships in the present. Indian Army has inducted 22 AH-64E Apache helicopter gunships by now with 6 more on order - these are vastly superior to any helicopter gunship of Pakistan Army, and posit a significant threat to Pakistani Armor from a distance. Indian Army can also use other helicopters to engage Pakistani Armor with ATGMs. Pakistan Army can use Anza to threaten and engage Indian helicopters but Indian Army also has hundreds of artillery pieces that posit a significant threat to Pakistani armor.

I believe that a conventional battle can turn out to be costly to both sides on the ground.

Pressing question is this: Can PAF (or IAF) achieve air superiority in the location of interest for either side to capitalize on?

CAS might be the key to win a conventional battle between Pakistan and India in the location of interest.

I agree. The adversary level that Russia face in Ukraine is way stronger than what US faced in Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Let's see.

Do you think that USAF is incapable like VKS?

Do you think that USN is incapable like VKS and RN?

Do you think that American tanks are vulnerable like Russian tanks?

Do you think that American battle tactics are underdeveloped like that of Russian for conventional battles?

Sorry but WE cannot draw a conclusion like this based on Russian struggles in a conventional battlespace.

Ukraine is NOT really equipped to fight a conventional war with US at a closer look. US can do to Ukraine what it did to Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Libya if it comes down to it (hypothetically speaking).

How will Ukraine even fight a conventional war with US without access to continous flows of NATO-standard equipment and surveillance apparatus including Starlink?

Think about it.

Afghanistan is irrelevant example and case study to cite for a conventional war. US accomplished its primary mission in Afghanistan. But US had to keep Pakistan's interests in mind for political settlement in Afghanistan because Pakistan was providing access to Afghanistan. But time will tell about Pakistan's calculus for Afghanistan - situation is not good yet.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

And how do our Chinese tanks compare?

Russia has more experience in manufacturing and designing tanks than China, does that mean Chinese tanks are similar or at a level below in reality?

China weapons are always superior to Russian weapons as China rectifies Russian defects and ehances them with superior electronics.

 

[Brainsucker]

Ukranian forces used ATGMs and UAVs to defeat Russian Armor in [some] locations. Ukranian forces also used artillery pieces to defeat Russian Armor in [other] locations.

Ukrainian forces receive valuable support from the NATO surveillance apparatus, and have used sophisticated artillery systems to devastating effect against Russian forces in numerous battles.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Russian Armor cannot survive in a seemingly demanding modern battlespace. This much is clear.

Turkish-owned Leopard 2A4 is also obsolete design with ammo stored in two separate compartments:

Ammo stored on the front can be breached.

Turkish forces also showed poor judgement in the Battle of Al-Bab:

How could Turkey lose so many Leopard 2 tanks near al-Bab?

Anonymous answer: Mostly because of Turkish Amy's incompetence. See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0BLSmum9B8&feature=youtu.be The happily rolling wobbling missile seems to be Russian made 9K111 Fagot. It only flies as the speed of 200 m/s, and it needed to be guided by laun...

www.quora.com

There are things that a military force learns from "experience."

- - -

For your questions:

It would be helpful to understand WHERE the battle is expected to be fought (geography factor), and composition of forces in the location of interest.

Satellites, AWACS, and UAVs can be used for surveillance in the location of interest.

Indians are developing and testing ASAT weapons to threaten and engage Pakistani satellites. Pakistan Army needs access to satellites of other countries to be safe in this domain.

Indian Army is inducting S-400 systems to threaten and engage AWACS from a distance. Indian Army is also looking forward to reinforce S-400 systems with additional Air Defense systems to reduce their vulnerability just in case.

Pakistan Army is inducting different types of UAVs for both ISR and strike missions. Some can be used to engage Indian Armor, but WHERE is important consideration. For perspective, Saudi forces lost multiple UAVs in Yemen including CH-4B.

Indian Army is also inducting different types of UAVs. But much of the inventory is suited for ISR role in the present.

Artillery pieces, tanks, IFV, APC, and helicopter gunships can be brought to bear to engage Indian Army in the location of interest. Pakistan Army has hundreds of artillery pieces and tanks that are good enough to engage and defeat Indian Armor in the present. Pakistan Army can also use IFV, APC, and helicopter gunships to engage Indian Armor with ATGMs. But Pakistan Army is LACKING in helicopter gunships in the present. Indian Army has inducted 22 AH-64E Apache helicopter gunships by now with 6 more on order - these are vastly superior to any helicopter gunship of Pakistan Army, and posit a significant threat to Pakistani Armor from a distance. Indian Army can also use other helicopters to engage Pakistani Armor with ATGMs. Pakistan Army can use Anza to threaten and engage Indian helicopters but Indian Army also has hundreds of artillery pieces that posit a significant threat to Pakistani armor.

I believe that a conventional battle can turn out to be costly to both sides on the ground.

Pressing question is this: Can PAF (or IAF) achieve air superiority in the location of interest for either side to capitalize on?

CAS might be the key to win a conventional battle between Pakistan and India in the location of interest.



Let's see.

Do you think that USAF is incapable like VKS?

Do you think that USN is incapable like VKS and RN?

Do you think that American tanks are vulnerable like Russian tanks?

Do you think that American battle tactics are underdeveloped like that of Russian for conventional battles?

Sorry but WE cannot draw a conclusion like this based on Russian struggles in a conventional battlespace.

Ukraine is NOT really equipped to fight a conventional war with US at a closer look. US can do to Ukraine what it did to Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Libya if it comes down to it (hypothetically speaking).

How will Ukraine even fight a conventional war with US without access to continous flows of NATO-standard equipment and surveillance apparatus including Starlink?

Think about it.

Afghanistan is irrelevant example and case study to cite for a conventional war. US accomplished its primary mission in Afghanistan. But US had to keep Pakistan's interests in mind for political settlement in Afghanistan because Pakistan was providing access to Afghanistan. But time will tell about Pakistan's calculus for Afghanistan - situation is not good yet.

Do you ask what I think? My answer is YES! why? There are already a lot of proof about the US and NATO involvement in Ukraine. There was already a news about an American general got captured by Russian in Mariupol when it was captured by Russian.

Ukraine war is not a fight between Ukraine and Russia alone. It is a proxy war between NATO and Russia. Even if the invader is US and Ukraine get help by Russia from the east, the result will still the same. This is not the same as US attacked stand alone Iraq or Libya who didn't has the benefit of a near peer battle information, logistic, and even the involvement of big countries like Russia and China.

The last proxy war prior Ukraine that involve both side from East and West was Vietnam, and US couldn't even beat North Vietnam when US attacked the country back then. The situation of Ukraine is similar to Vietnam.

 

[Beny Karachun]

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.

Can, but unlikely to do so, but it doesn't matter as APS protects all sides.

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.

Well, the way Russia used those tanks is just abysmal.

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?

Spike NLOS was already operational in 1982 war but yeah I get what you're saying.
Simple, you use the money you maintain old tanks, decommission them, and start slowly procuring APS.

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.

Because they lacked the technology. Now they all buy the Trophy and Iron Fist, around 1000 units total were already purchased for IFVs and tanks.

 

[Super Falcon]

Performans of T 90 in Ukraine shows it is obselete tank but it not for Tb90 only but all tanks of past

 

[LeGenD]

Do you ask what I think? My answer is YES! why? There are already a lot of proof about the US and NATO involvement in Ukraine. There was already a news about an American general got captured by Russian in Mariupol when it was captured by Russian.

Ukraine war is not a fight between Ukraine and Russia alone. It is a proxy war between NATO and Russia. Even if the invader is US and Ukraine get help by Russia from the east, the result will still the same. This is not the same as US attacked stand alone Iraq or Libya who didn't has the benefit of a near peer battle information, logistic, and even the involvement of big countries like Russia and China.

The last proxy war prior Ukraine that involve both side from East and West was Vietnam, and US couldn't even beat North Vietnam when US attacked the country back then. The situation of Ukraine is similar to Vietnam.

I concur that Russia could have done much better in Ukraine if NATO had not intervened in this conflict.

Russia was able to degrade ICT infrastructure of Ukraine with its cyber warfare capabilities [early on] but Elon Musk addressed this problem by activating Starlink in Ukraine. Russia is unable to counter Starlink in response.

NATO is also training and providing equipment to Ukranian forces, to make it possible for Ukraine to fight a conventional war with Russia.

But NATO also had sufficient time to do something for Ukraine.

VKS is better equipped than its Ukranian counterpart but it was unable to achieve air superiority over Ukraine because it could not neutralize Ukranian A2/AD arrangements [in time]. By extension, VKS was much less effective in providing CAS to Russian forces on the ground.

Russian forces also FAILED to capture Kyiv [early on] - Whose fault is this?

Time is of the essence in a conventional war.

Vietnam War is NOT a good analogue as noted in here and here.

American military technology of the 1960s was not good enough to surmount Vietnamese geographical challenges and destroy Vietcong's infrastructure by extension. This problem was SOLVED in the American military technology of the 1970s and a significant blow was given to Vietcong in Operation Linebacker II in 1972 as a test case but Nixon administration chose to withdraw American forces from Vietnam because Public opinion of the war had shifted by then.

Nevertheless, US reviewed and revisited its military organization and technology in view of lessons that could be learned from the Vietnam War about HOW to fight a conventional war with another well-armed country if necessary.

Russian struggle(s) in a conventional war is NOT something new.

USSR suffered significant losses in a war with Finland in times of WWII.

Soviet's struggle in Finland convinced Hitler to take his chances with USSR in 1941. But he didn't realize that US will be willing to provide equipment to USSR to enhance its warfighting capacity and logistics.

Decades later, [modern] Russia struggled in Chechnya. And now in Ukraine.

One of the reasons is that Russian Armor is NOT survivable in a modern battlespace to the extent it should.

 

[Brainsucker]

I concur that Russia could have done much better in Ukraine if NATO had not intervened in this conflict.

Russia was able to degrade ICT infrastructure of Ukraine with its cyber warfare capabilities [early on] but Elon Musk addressed this problem by activating Starlink in Ukraine. Russia is unable to counter Starlink in response.

NATO is also training and providing equipment to Ukranian forces, to make it possible for Ukraine to fight a conventional war with Russia.

But NATO also had sufficient time to do something for Ukraine.

VKS is better equipped than its Ukranian counterpart but it was unable to achieve air superiority over Ukraine because it could not neutralize Ukranian A2/AD arrangements [in time]. By extension, VKS was much less effective in providing CAS to Russian forces on the ground.

Russian forces also FAILED to capture Kyiv [early on] - Whose fault is this?

Time is of the essence in a conventional war.

Vietnam War is NOT a good analogue as noted in here and here.

American military technology of the 1960s was not good enough to surmount Vietnamese geographical challenges and destroy Vietcong's infrastructure by extension. This problem was SOLVED in the American military technology of the 1970s and a significant blow was given to Vietcong in Operation Linebacker II in 1972 as a test case but Nixon administration chose to withdraw American forces from Vietnam because Public opinion of the war had shifted by then.

Nevertheless, US reviewed and revisited its military organization and technology in view of lessons that could be learned from the Vietnam War about HOW to fight a conventional war with another well-armed country if necessary.

Russian struggle(s) in a conventional war is NOT something new.

USSR suffered significant losses in a war with Finland in times of WWII.

Soviet's struggle in Finland convinced Hitler to take his chances with USSR in 1941. But he didn't realize that US will be willing to provide equipment to USSR to enhance its warfighting capacity and logistics.

Decades later, [modern] Russia struggled in Chechnya. And now in Ukraine.

One of the reasons is that Russian Armor is NOT survivable in a modern battlespace to the extent it should.

Ok, I agree with your Russian comment.

But for Vietnam, it is not the whole Vietnam War. It is about the American attempt to attacked North Vietnam at that war. They failed. China was also failed, but at least they could break United Vietnam's defense and approach Hanoi. They could do better if USSR didn't intervene with the conflict.

 

[That Guy]

Russian armor has utterly failed in Ukraine, including its most advanced T-90 models which India is buying in large numbers.

Q: Considering that the Indian armor deployed against Pakistan mostly if not entirely comprises of the Russian export versions of T-72 and T-90 MBTs in various iterations, what does it mean for the Indian Army's capabilities to wage a short lightening war against a well armed, trained and entrenched adversary like Pakistan?

Q: What should Pakistan be doing in light of learnings drawn from Nagorno Karabakh and Ukraine conflicts, especially with regards to the use cases of armored formations in saturated threat environment?

Q: The Russian made armor has been mercilessly massacred by cheap anti tank solutions in Nagorno Karabakh, Syria and Ukraine, while some cases of German tanks in Turkish service being destroyed have also been noted. What sort of learnings can we draw from these trends?

To me it shows less that the machines are junk and more that the Russian doctrine and soldiers are trash.

Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh wars have had Russian equipment on both sides. In Ukraine for example, the Ukrainians have completely outclassed the Russians while using mainly Russian equipment.

Keep in mind, despite all the propaganda we hear about Western weapons crushing Russia in Ukraine, 90% of the Ukranian equipment being used to kill Russians is still Soviet origin, almost the same equipment that Russia itself uses. Ukraine just happens to have better training, better logistics, better access to intelligence, and most importantly a better military doctrine at both a tactical and strategic level than the Russians do.

For those that don't know exactly what military doctrine actually means, Wikipedia actually has a great explanation on it, here check it out...

Military doctrine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Darth Vader]

Yes and No
We didn't see giant tank vs tank battles.
Mostly these tanks were fighting against infantry, drones, and Armoured vehicles with guide tank weapon systems.

Majority of modern anti tank weapon system are using Top attack.
I m not sure Pak currently has these modern systems in High numbers, nor will Pak get large free shipments of these against India.
Also i m not sure the drone acquisition of Pak, they have purchased different type of drones instead of building a large fleet with atleast some sort of local development but that project has gone to drain as well.

One key take away could be drones and Urban warfare which will take place at Punjab region as Pakistani side is heavily populated which can be used to slow down the indian push, but biggest issue with Pak military they are more busy with political adventures instead of focusing on its job, i have a very simple question Pakistan military with all the weapon systems in world couldn't fight TTP and after decade was forced to accept peace terms can we really expect to fight against a large military with lowest support from the people of Pakistan.
Never expected Pak army to go deep in Afghanistan so even after decade. I bet at the time of War generals with families will be the first one to leave this country.