What's new

T90 Compared with Al Khalid

Oh God , you and your pretty imagination, care to prove proof that Indian T-90 comes with lower then 1000 HP? or take back your words

of again like one of your imaginative dreams :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: ( like kargil story)

Have you gone though the links , their are enoughf evident that T-90A is with 1000 HP and and was in production in 1999 / 2000 .

Even blind can read that ... the same engine is also used in BMPT in 2000


kid, if you lack knowledge, better learn.. the development of t-90A didnt start before 2004 and here we have a tees maar khan claiming indian t-90 had 1000hp engine...just lol

From Steve Zaloga's book, here is a excerpt for you..

For deliveries abroad (export) it developed export version of the T-90S with advanced features. Since 2004 began production of an improved T-90A.

AND, the t-90A was sold to you as t-90M export version with 1000hp V-xx engine, the tanks sold before 2004 housed 840hp engines with inferior mobility with the tank reaching 46 tonnes while peak speed on the road remained mere 65 kms, offroad mobility is mere 35-40 km.
 
.
kid, if you lack knowledge, better learn.. the development of t-90A didnt start before 2004 and here we have a tees maar khan claiming indian t-90 had 1000hp engine...just lol

From Steve Zaloga's book, here is a excerpt for you..

AND, the t-90A was sold to you as t-90M export version with 1000hp V-xx engine, the tanks sold before 2004 housed 840hp engines with inferior mobility with the tank reaching 46 tonnes while peak speed on the road remained mere 65 kms, offroad mobility is mere 35-40 km.
lol , books, even Mush write book on kargil claims pak won .... lol ...,. link from authentic sources.....

lol you didn't now 1000 HP engines was available in 2000 , Do you even know what is T-90 A ( "A " stands for ?)
 
.
lol , books, even Mush write book on kargil claims pak won .... lol ...,. link from authentic sources.....

lol you didn't now 1000 HP engines was available in 2000 , Do you even know what is T-90 A ( "A " stands for ?)

you r an absolute douche, he is among the foremost authorities in armour segment. Why am i arguing with a kid? The A version is the modification of the M version which was in use with the Russian Armour corps since 1992. Even their early versions lacked 1000hp engine. Lastly, dont say it stands for Arjuna :rofl:


Steven Zaloga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


read him up if you dont understand anything, do ask
 
.
in terms of fire control and other systems, the t-80ud is the closest rival of t-90, heck they even feature the same FCS, sensors and optics, even the gun and ammo...


The t-80ud tank is equipped with a fire control system 1A45 in the composition of which includes:

fire control system includes a day sight:

  • 1G46 day sight gunner with an independent stabilization in two planes of sight and laser rangefinder;
  • stabilizer arms, consisting of an electro-hydraulic actuator HV (vertical guidance), electromechanical actuator GN (horizontal guidance), the stabilizer control unit and sensors;
  • 1V528-1 ballistic calculator to calculate ballistic corrections automatically takes into account the signals coming from the sensors including tank speed, the angular velocity of the target, the roll angle of the axis of pins guns, the transverse component of the wind speed, target range, and course angle. In addition, to calculate manually enter the following parameters: air temperature, charge temperature, barrel wear ambient air pressure and others. The calculator also calculates the time to undermine high-explosive shells over the target.
  • sensor kit shooting conditions, consisting of sensors cross wind, roll, speed tank azimuth (cosine potentiometer)
  • gunner night sight TPN-4E with dependent stabilization of the visual field in two planes (the device is connected to the gun parallelogram, stabilization of the field of view provided by the stabilization of the gun and the tower, guidance is carried out in the field of gun and turret controls). The sight is equipped with a mechanism for manual measurement range with a "base for purpose" and MDI-range ballistic scales in sight. Shooting is only switched off ballistic computer;
  • day-night sight TKN-4S commander with independent stabilization of the visual field of the HV and dependent stabilization of the visual field of GBV (stabilization of the field of view provided by the stabilization of the tower). TKN-4S is equipped with a mechanism for manual measurement range with a "base on purpose," MDI-range ballistic scales in view, which is produced by firing a ballistic computer automatic shutdown mode (DOUBLE);
anti-aircraft sight PZU-7.

Day and night sights are located on the site of a gunner, and day-night - on-site commander.

HOWEVER, the t-80ud features thicker, dual composite cavity fro high hardened steel plates separating the composite reinforced blocks. This features is NOT PRESENT in the Russian T-90S.M, or MS mbts..


for comparisons, here is the chart,,,


t-80ud turret dual cavities for armour..

kern.jpg






t-90S, M single cavity for armour inserts...

fYbpL.jpg




not to mention, the t-80ud is better protected overall compared to t-90 models..
 
. .
t-90 is inferior to Alkhalid no doubt about that. in three categories at least...

fire control system as i have proved unless you are blind or something..

engine power (1000hp/ 1200hp), transmission, manual vs auto+ multiple reverse speed for upto 35 km backward movement for Alkhalid.

Anything else?.




An automatic transmission equals "superior"? You obviously have no experience with transmissions or driving, an automatic transmission is easier for the driver but is usually considered inferior. Manual transmissions deliver better fuel consumption and usually better acceleration(not always), not to mention they last longer and are easier to repair. There is a reason heavy haul vehicles such as semi trucks all have manual transmission and not automatic. As for 1000hp being superior to 1200hp, yes it is better to have 200 more hp but that in no way means that the engine is better. There is a thing called power curve, usable power, and torque. For a heavy vehicle torque is very important, it is what what gets tanks to pull out of heavy mud, ascend steep hills and pull it's weight. Being a 6 cylinder, i very much question how much torque the Al-Khalid has especially because it uses a supercharger which delivers power throughout the rpm range but also robs engine power just to power the supercharger. Think about it, a 6 cylinder engine drawing a good percent of power just to power the supercharger. The 1200hp is at the top end of the engine, it is not often usable, most tanks will not break 1000ph often, so what matters is where the power curve lies with both hp and torque. Ever heard the term gutless engines, it is in reference to engines that have little usable power in the lower RPM range, believe it or not vehicles with less power can often times beat vehicles with more power due to one car having a linear power curve while the other has a higher RPG power curve that is less often used, or in other words the weaker engine creates more power in certain ranges.






my two cents...

firstly, the topic was about t-90 being inferior than Alkhalid right? When on earth did i say that??



You can't even remember what what you argue, every time you even mention T-90 you boasted of Al-Khalid being superior in the last thread, and you did it just above where i quoted you.







After a little intro, let me come to the t-90, though the story goes well before the first t-90, or the 72 BU that was simply renamed as 90 since the horrid reputation earned by its inferior S variant that was nothing more than a t-72 manufactured with inferior armour and way inferior ammo to fire. This mbt didnt even have a ballistic computer but a simple calculator and no fire control rather the a coincidence range finder, an obsolate IR lamp with range no more than 200 meters.





You are using a T-72BU from 20+ years ago as a basis to judge the T-90--this is an example of your dishonest and or effort to distract the readers. One can simply research your claims to establish that your claims are empty. The basic T-90s definitely has and had a fire control, it's called the 1A4GT but of course you knew this since later on you admitted that much yourself, so the tactic of mentioning the T-72 is just to distract the readers and woo people by longer post when in reality your posts are empty. Also mind providing a source backing your claim that the T-90 or T-72 used a "simple calculator"?

I won't hold my breath, in the mean time even a simple calculator is a computer. A ballistics computer calculates range, elevation, windage, cant, ect. This is how all ballistic computers work, something you clearly did not know. So don't forget, provide a credible source about this "simple calculator".







next is the crampy interior, this one is BIG FLAW in my opinion and its good to see the issue finally addressed in the latest MS variant, though the image i posted still shows it is crampy.





Pal, the Al-Khalid interior is itself cramped, who are you trying to kid, the Al-Khalids turret is not even in the same league as Abrams or Leopard in the size compartment, it's not even in the same league as the T-90SM. As for the T-90SM interior--the commander has about the same room as a Abrams commander, so i'm not sure where you are getting at with "(it) still shows it is crampy"






Te reason why a small interior matters, is that it leaves little room for the crew to move around, and even less room for installation of necessary equipment such as an environment control system, a battle management system, integrated fire control support measures.Look at the western tanks, and even the japanese type-90, which is still a 50+ behemoth, but has quite an advanced fire control system and autotrack+ auto lock mechanism.






The T-90 crew can move around just fine, each individual does a job located in their compartment, obviously there is disadvantages to large turrets such as weight penalties and being a large target, but i digress, the Al-Khalid has a small turret so i'm not sure why you keep bringing up the size of turrets as if the Al-Khalid has any bragging room in this regard especially when compared to the T-90AM. As for the Type-90 being a 50+ "behemoth"-----it weighs 50 tonns, :rolleyes1:







Same is with the French Leclerc. Another issue is the lack of a panoramic sight and the hunter killer capability which is still not so common even in some modern mbts. The fact is that these two features gives such an advantage to your mbt that you literally hold an upper hand every time you face the enemy and the first shot comes from you, not him. Unfortunately, the t-90S, M versions still lack that feature.





Technically the T-90 does have a hunter-killer mode and panoramic site, remember when you said the T-90 is just a T-72, well the T-72B3 has this ability, but why bother, your tactics are easy to see, you quote T-72s and the oldest T-90 when debating the T-90 only when it suits you, this is called selective arguing. It's well known that Indian and Russian T-90s have considerable upgrades over the base T-90.






my friend, what have you gotten yourself into @Dazzler :)

Seem like a thread started to milk some information. I am glad that all that is being shared here is information from the internet. May be this is the disappointment that made out OP disappear altogether. :)


Remember, this tread was started by one @ptldM3 who is no where to be seen. I would have appreciated if you could have shown some respect for all the time all these members have spent addressing your questions. There is no harm in accepting that and you wont lose any respect by doing so.



I just got off a 12 hour shift after doing this thing called sleeping. :rolleyes1: As for dazzler, please keep appreciating him, while he makes fanboy claims such as the Al-Khalid is better because it has automatic transmission and 200hp more. While i explain in detail the actual differences in transmission types and the usable power bands/torque of engines.




@ptldM3 How many times are you gonna change the heading of you post?




Only moderators are aloud to change titles after a thread is posted, if you actually bothered reading threw the thread, and checking the first post you would see that it was a moderator that changed the title.

in terms of fire control and other systems, the t-80ud is the closest rival of t-90, heck they even feature the same FCS, sensors and optics, even the gun and ammo...




HOWEVER, the t-80ud features thicker, dual composite cavity fro high hardened steel plates separating the composite reinforced blocks. This features is NOT PRESENT in the Russian T-90S.M, or MS mbts..


for comparisons, here is the chart,,,


t-80ud turret dual cavities for armour..

kern.jpg






t-90S, M single cavity for armour inserts...

fYbpL.jpg




not to mention, the t-80ud is better protected overall compared to t-90 models..



Yes the T-80 has thicker armor then the T-90 :rolleyes1: hence you posted a picture with i diagram that you can not even read, and the second diagram has nothing to do with armor thickness, typical tactic, you are flooding the thread with information you do not even understand in an attempt to look smart.



t-80.jpg
 
Last edited:
.
Do you have a source? It would be helpful

I was under the impression the T-90 is heavier but still consisting of power pack size i'd think the T-90 is packing more frontal protection. Still there is no major difference in armor protection other than an over glorified ERA from Russia which has yet to be field tested.

So you think T-90 has better protection coz its packing a smaller engine hence in theory more weight > more armour ?
Going by the same logic AK still wins . Even if it's engine weights 2 tons :lol: ..


Besides take a look at @Dazzler. Post on AKs armour and AORAK MKII ERA!


See thats interesting. DU rounds leave radiation and have other side effects but still question is why? AK and T-90 can be mission killed for the most part with HEAT rounds or well placed HESH and these rounds are usefull against fortifications and do not rely on range. Target doesn't have to be close. And then development of 2 types of armour piercing ammo is another question. Because we can is not answer to cash strapped civilian government...but then again I may have answered my own question.

Why does US use DU Aswell as tungsten ? Coz they are effective as fuk!

As for HESH or HEAT .. (Definetly not indian made rounds).. And to mission kill a tank with HESH for example you will have to be really lucky .. Unless off course you are gunning russian export/monkey models.

[/QUOTE]
Yea good, FCS and decent thermal imagers are important as well as training to use these. Hunter Killer is over rated. What it does is just take over the job of gunner and I'd imagine such a system is not necessary in all situations. Also all these things you've mentioned are the easiest things to change in tanks and they keep evolving as well which is why I don't bother with them. They are revolutionary but the technology is pretty widely disbursed so nothing bleeding edge.[/QUOTE]


FCS,and imagery systems are the main shit of a tank!

As for Hunter Killer really ? The ability to lock n target multiple targets at the same time is nothing "bleeding edgy" ? That's nothing short of AWESOME .. That's why tanks like Lecrec also use the tech !


Really, repeat that bull shite agian because The Type 90 is based on 88 85 models whom are also based on Type 59 and so forth and the orginal arguement was to clarify the similarity between AK and T-72 which they have including size.


T-90 is literally a T-72 upgrade (very bodu agrees on that)... As for AK as I said before it has its "basis" on the type 90 series (but shares nothing with them).. A type-59 or T-55 has nothing on AK .. And that's exactly why I asked you to prove the claim .. Even I it uses 1 similiar system used in 59!

Ah see. I wouldn't disagree but I wouldn't agree either. ERA is bullsh!te blocks. It works but its not radically different from other forms. However placement of ERA blocks seems to be more important to its use.
AK is still better protecte than a T-90 even if we leave the ERA out of it !

Which again is better from the K series india uses... Also can you point out the flawed placement onERA on the AK?



You ever drive a pick up?

I own a Vigo... More power/weight ratio ... More power of AWESOME!

I'd like a source because that seems like bullsh!te again why again? well Buraq UAC recently was said to be of Pakistan design and indegnious and so forth, turns out it was bought off the shelf from China. Also is there other pictures of this APS actually in use or on tanks other than a floor model? And why is this tank missing ERA?


Do you know Burraq itself is based on a proven design? Same design whih india is also "copying" for its Rustam 1...!!?????


The surv payload,it's protective measures tech etx is all based on already existing Pakistani systems ised in other UAVS!!?? Evn the missile is different than the chinese FT?

Anyways that's not the topic...

As for the source I would gladly have posted is but I'm using my cell.. And wasn't much successful is googling it (or didn't try much).. But here is a screenshot from ministry of defence production. Or you can google Al Technique Corps,Pakistan or ATCOP and its products!

image.jpg

image.jpg



And i'm not going to look for source for you its BR information. There is no APS on Indian T-90s because of 2 reasons, 1 its disfunctional the moment the tank takes the first hit because its out in the open. I'd imagine your tank would have the same problem. 2. The swedish / southafrican system provides the same kill methods for the most part. Automated gernade launches, awarenesses etc... but the soft kill wia gernade launchers is the only tried method.

BS!... Because it doesn't employ any ! The so called Swedish APS was looked at for your arjun Mk 2 tank (I don't even know if that employs it or not!! )!!!

Indian T-90 employs nothing !

CREW survived? I'd like a source.


You will find many .. Try googling !

They Al Jazeera guys also interviewed em I think..



For a tank nut i'm suprised you don't know. Leave it be. Its tank and it has a cost effective laser warning system in place. try googling south africa sweden laser warning system or something.
source or it never happened !


Copy? DO you really think they copied or bought license production? If they did, they aint gonna sell to you unless Russia gets in on it.

As far is I know there are open bids underway to increase survivability of the t-90s present and future. Which is why i'd rather not compare such bling since they are accessories to 40 odd tons. Not sure whats been done and not done, but the transparency is there.
what? I've been hearing about it since years... Nothing .. Unless you can prove otherwise !

@Dazzler
Off-topic but r Saudis buying AK?
According to saudi members (who posted saudi news links)... They got a deal for 150 AK's.
 
.
I'm out. I can't write up so much expecially when this isn't strategic or even tactical.
I did what mattered to me which is price.
Saudi Arabia purchased 150 MBT 2000s, Norinco made for 600 MIL total, which equals to 4 million a piece.
Bangladesh purchased 44 tanks for 162 Million so 3.7 mill a pop.
T-90 is various pricing, seems license is more expensive or has hidden costs perhaps for logistics
turkmenistan purchased 10 T-90s for 30 mill for 3 mill a pop.
India
A follow-on contract, worth $800 million, was signed on October 26, 2006, for another 330 T-90M "Bhishma" MBTs that were to be manufactured in India by Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, Tamil Nadu.
so thats 2.4 mill a pop but i have yet to see T-90M in the army
A third contract, worth $1.23 billion, was signed in December 2007 for 347 upgraded T-90Ms, the bulk of which will be licence-assembled by HVF. The Army hopes to field a force of over 21 regiments of T-90 tanks and 40 regiments of modified T-72s. The Indian Army would begin receiving its first T-90M main battle tank in completely knocked-down condition from Russia’s Nizhny Tagil-based Uralvagonzavod JSC by the end of 2009.
thats 3.5 mill a pop.
Also said the initialy when India purchased the T-90 in the early last decate the tank cost is 2.6 million a piece which is 1 million cheaper than a basic T-72.
That being said, I can see that the T-90S in Indian service doesn't need to match the AK.
 
.
you r an absolute douche, he is among the foremost authorities in armour segment. Why am i arguing with a kid? The A version is the modification of the M version which was in use with the Russian Armour corps since 1992. Even their early versions lacked 1000hp engine. Lastly, dont say it stands for Arjuna :rofl:


Steven Zaloga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


read him up if you dont understand anything, do ask
:rofl::rofl: you people quoting Wikipedia, when anything goes against yo , you people tell wiki is not reliable , My dear friend , give me link of the book where this is all written? show the book. lol, you giving me link of Author , which may have written or not written , show me written content with multiple source.

T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol may be today's Gen kids have more knowledge then you. May you rely on one book , i produce enoughf links of in 2000's that 1000 bhp engine was ready. low let me tell you one major point ..

Read this Article : Moscow Defence Review :-
Russian Army Operations and Weaponry During Second Military Campaign in Chechnya

The use of T-90S tanks in Dagestan deserves mention. A group of these vehicles consisting of 8 to 12 units according to different sources was supposed to be delivered to India. Following a sharp aggravation of the situation in the Caucasus, however, the tanks were transferred to Dagestan. In the Kadari zone one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets8 but remained in action. This indicates that with regular equipment T-90S is the best protected Russian tank, especially if Shtora and Arena defensive protection systems are integrated in it.

Moscow Defense Brief

T-90S is the Export version of T-90 A which is armed with 1000 bhp engines.....

  • T-90 – The first production version.
  • T-90K – Commander's version of the T-90,
  • T-90E – Export version of T-90 MBT
  • T-90A – Russian army version with welded turret, V-92S2 engine and ESSA thermal viewer. Sometimes called T-90 Vladimir.
  • T-90AK – Command version of T-90A.
  • T-90S – Export version of the T-90A. These tanks were made by Uralvagonzavod and were updated with 1,000 hp (750 kW) engines made by Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant.
  • T-90SK – Commander's version of the T-90S,
  • T-90S "Bhishma" – modified T-90S in Indian service.
  • T-90AM – Latest version of the T-90A. Other improvements include a new 1130HP engine,
  • T-90MS – New modernised (M) version of the export tank T-90S, with a 1130HP engine

Now i think , you will say Russia didn't fight in Chechnya

Now if you can bring more authentic source other then imaginary, then provide it or else live in self denial mode.

 
Last edited:
.
An automatic transmission equals "superior"? You obviously have no experience with transmissions or driving, an automatic transmission is easier for the driver but is usually considered inferior. Manual transmissions deliver better fuel consumption and usually better acceleration(not always), not to mention they last longer and are easier to repair. There is a reason heavy haul vehicles such as semi trucks all have manual transmission and not automatic. As for 1000hp being superior to 1200hp, yes it is better to have 200 more hp but that in no way means that the engine is better. There is a thing called power curve, usable power, and torque. For a heavy vehicle torque is very important, it is what what gets tanks to pull out of heavy mud, ascend steep hills and pull it's weight. Being a 6 cylinder, i very much question how much torque the Al-Khalid has especially because it uses a supercharger which delivers power throughout the rpm range but also robs engine power just to power the supercharger. Think about it, a 6 cylinder engine drawing a good percent of power just to power the supercharger. The 1200hp is at the top end of the engine, it is not often usable, most tanks will not break 1000ph often, so what matters is where the power curve lies with both hp and torque. Ever heard the term gutless engines, it is in reference to engines that have little usable power in the lower RPM range, believe it or not vehicles with less power can often times beat vehicles with more power due to one car having a linear power curve while the other has a higher RPG power curve that is less often used, or in other words the weaker engine creates more power in certain ranges.










You can't even remember what what you argue, every time you even mention T-90 you boasted of Al-Khalid being superior in the last thread, and you did it just above where i quoted you.













You are using a T-72BU from 20+ years ago as a basis to judge the T-90--this is an example of your dishonest and or effort to distract the readers. One can simply research your claims to establish that your claims are empty. The basic T-90s definitely has and had a fire control, it's called the 1A4GT but of course you knew this since later on you admitted that much yourself, so the tactic of mentioning the T-72 is just to distract the readers and woo people by longer post when in reality your posts are empty. Also mind providing a source backing your claim that the T-90 or T-72 used a "simple calculator"?

I won't hold my breath, in the mean time even a simple calculator is a computer. A ballistics computer calculates range, elevation, windage, cant, ect. This is how all ballistic computers work, something you clearly did not know. So don't forget, provide a credible source about this "simple calculator".













Pal, the Al-Khalid interior is itself cramped, who are you trying to kid, the Al-Khalids turret is not even in the same league as Abrams or Leopard in the size compartment, it's not even in the same league as the T-90SM. As for the T-90SM interior--the commander has about the same room as a Abrams commander, so i'm not sure where you are getting at with "(it) still shows it is crampy"













The T-90 crew can move around just fine, each individual does a job located in their compartment, obviously there is disadvantages to large turrets such as weight penalties and being a large target, but i digress, the Al-Khalid has a small turret so i'm not sure why you keep bringing up the size of turrets as if the Al-Khalid has any bragging room in this regard especially when compared to the T-90AM. As for the Type-90 being a 50+ "behemoth"-----it weighs 50 tonns, :rolleyes1:













Technically the T-90 does have a hunter-killer mode and panoramic site, remember when you said the T-90 is just a T-72, well the T-72B3 has this ability, but why bother, your tactics are easy to see, you quote T-72s and the oldest T-90 when debating the T-90 only when it suits you, this is called selective arguing. It's well known that Indian and Russian T-90s have considerable upgrades over the base T-90.










I just got off a 12 hour shift after doing this thing called sleeping. :rolleyes1: As for dazzler, please keep appreciating him, while he makes fanboy claims such as the Al-Khalid is better because it has automatic transmission and 200hp more. While i explain in detail the actual differences in transmission types and the usable power bands/torque of engines.









Only moderators are aloud to change titles after a thread is posted, if you actually bothered reading threw the thread, and checking the first post you would see that it was a moderator that changed the title.





Yes the T-80 has thicker armor then the T-90 :rolleyes1: hence you posted a picture with i diagram that you can not even read, and the second diagram has nothing to do with armor thickness, typical tactic, you are flooding the thread with information you do not even understand in an attempt to look smart.



View attachment 222801


First, i see plenty of knitpicking from my posts, which occus when you dont have answers, or intend to embrace an escape route.

i dont for a moment "mingled" the t-72 with that of the t-90, offcourse they are different projects where the latter is a heavy modernization of the former since this is what the original Objedt188 was about.

I never said the t-90 even early version had a simple ballistic calculator, i said the t-72 had that especially the export oriented models. Read the posts again, i clearly mentioned the t-90A/S/M all have the 1A45T fire control complex with 1G46 sights and laser range finder, Buran or ESSA sights with thermal imager, often the Catherine form France. Misquoting me on purpose hmmm.

However, the 1A45 FCS was already OPERATIONAL on Omsk T-80U prior to being used for the Object 188 onwards. I have proved that pakistani t80ud and indian t-90S/M variants both use pretty much the same fire control complex with similar characteristics. Offcourse the major difference is is the turret design which was earlier cast only, the UKBTM designed turrets for the A adn later M version feature medium hardness steel with angular shape and new frontal armour cavity for new types of fillers being experimented at Nii Stali and UVG by that time.

The difference however, is that this turret provides additional 10% strength compared to previous cast based turrets. However, the turret in the t-80ud is amde of high strength High Hardened Steel based Electro Slag Remelting (ESR) Steel which is more resilient than the UKBTM's turret which uses medium hardness steel ().

Regarding the comparison of engines, your argument is simply flawed and has little to no weight. Not only the 6-td gives better fuel economy compared to their V-xx series counterparts, it also possesses faster response time and acceleration.

Just look around you, we have Ukrainians entering the fourth generation of Malashev 6td series touching the 1800hp mark while Chelyabinsk is struggling to manage the 1250hp in the t-90S/M/MS variants. There are plenty of issues as the 1250hp engine needs more space due to being larger than the former engiens and size dimensions is something the t-90 chassis has always struggled..

Now, regarding the turret armour pictures, you said i have no clue. Well, that just rofl as i was the one who brought the issue in the first place, Buddy, the pics show the relative thickness of the armour at different angles such as 0 degree, 30 degree and onwards. What on earth do you think they would draw lines on the turret for? We can have more debate on the issue of armour modules, thickness are various levels, angles and stuff surely, do quote me when you are in a mood. :D

Regarding your point panoramic sight on the t-72B3, mate, the B3 upgrade lacks a proper fire control system hence it is given a panoramic site Sosna U to cope up with the lack of it.

17.jpg



Do quote me for more arguments, i am enjoying it ;)

:rofl::rofl: you people quoting Wikipedia, when anything goes against yo , you people tell wiki is not reliable , My dear friend , give me link of the book where this is all written? show the book. lol, you giving me link of Author , which may have written or not written , show me written content with multiple source.

T-90 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol may be today's Gen kids have more knowledge then you. May you rely on one book , i produce enoughf links of in 2000's that 1000 bhp engine was ready. low let me tell you one major point ..

Read this Article : Moscow Defence Review :-
Russian Army Operations and Weaponry During Second Military Campaign in Chechnya



Moscow Defense Brief

T-90S is the Export version of T-90 A which is armed with 1000 bhp engines.....

  • T-90 – The first production version.
  • T-90K – Commander's version of the T-90,
  • T-90E – Export version of T-90 MBT
  • T-90A – Russian army version with welded turret, V-92S2 engine and ESSA thermal viewer. Sometimes called T-90 Vladimir.
  • T-90AK – Command version of T-90A.
  • T-90S – Export version of the T-90A. These tanks were made by Uralvagonzavod and were updated with 1,000 hp (750 kW) engines made by Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant.
  • T-90SK – Commander's version of the T-90S,
  • T-90S "Bhishma" – modified T-90S in Indian service.
  • T-90AM – Latest version of the T-90A. Other improvements include a new 1130HP engine,
  • T-90MS – New modernised (M) version of the export tank T-90S, with a 1130HP engine

Now i think , you will say Russia didn't fight in Chechnya

Now if you can bring more authentic source other then imaginary, then provide it or else live in self denial mode.


goodness, who quoted wiki?? Just showed you who Steven Zaloga is and what is his profile. My word. do you even have a brain?

Regarding the list of t-90 models, there are several mistakes. The first export variant was NOT the A version, which was reserved for Russian armed forces and they dont sell things that are for their own use.Read it up, the indians received initial inventory of t-90s with CAST turrets and 840hp engine, lacking several features of the A/M or Vladmir mbt.
 
.
Regarding the list of t-90 models, there are several mistakes. The first export variant was NOT the A version, which was reserved for Russian armed forces and they dont sell things that are for their own use.Read it up, the indians received initial inventory of t-90s with CAST turrets and 840hp engine, lacking several features of the A/M or Vladmir mbt.

lol , i think you have problem in understanding English.... T-90 AM is the latest version of T-90A , it is with 1130 BHP engine while T90A is with 1000 bhp engine.

T90A is made for Russia and T90S is a export Version with 1000BHP and Russia used T90S in War . That also exported to India. I have provided enough Sources to bust your Myth and you can't even provided single source to back your Dream Myth.

Claim which you can provide Source . Tomorrow you will start claiming i read a book which said India Received T-60 and not T-90 ....lol
 
Last edited:
.
lol , i think you have problem in understanding English.... T-90 AM is the latest version of T-90A , it is with 1130 BHP engine while T90A is with 1000 bhp engine.

T90A is made for Russia and T90S is a export Version with 1000BHP and Russia used T90S in War . That also exported to India. I have provided enough Sources to bust your Myth and you can't even provided single source to back your Dream Myth.

Claim which you can provide Source . Tomorrow you will start claiming i read a book which said India Received T-60 and not T-90 ....lol

there is not such things as t-60. The t-90A was never meant for exports, the t-90E and S were, you surely seem to have an empty chamber up there. The Russian word "ES" is denoted by the English word S. There is also no tank by the designation t-90AM, rather the t-90MS is the accumulation of M's technology into the S exportable version, hence the name. don't buy too much on ill informed internet articles, and blogs.
 
. .
there is not such things as t-60. The t-90A was never meant for exports, the t-90E and S were, you surely seem to have an empty chamber up there. The Russian word "ES" is denoted by the English word S. There is also no tank by the designation t-90AM, rather the t-90MS is the accumulation of M's technology into the S exportable version, hence the name. don't buy too much on ill informed internet articles, and blogs.

Just for your knowledge their was T-60 Tanks , i know about Acronyms , I asked backup your claims about Engines with multiple sources.
 
.
Just for your knowledge their was T-60 Tanks , i know about Acronyms , I asked backup your claims about Engines with multiple sources.

t-60 was a more of a scout vehicle more than a tank genius, back in 1042, lol

hey empty head, you take your 1000hp equipped t-90s and run over my head since your chamber is empty. Go ask your army chaps or that Kunal guy in the not to be named forum if he has the guts he will tell you the first Bhishmas came with 840hp engines. In the mean time, i am here :rofl:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom