Military Review

T-90 inferior in mobility to the American M1

52

India recently ordered another 235 tanks T-90, reports Strategy Page October 12th. Under license, these tanks are manufactured in India, taking into account the price of the license, each tank costs $ 4,9 million. By the end of the decade, India hopes to have around 1400 tanks of this type in its arsenal.


The first T-90 entered service with the Indian army in 1993, since then India has become the world's largest operator of tanks of this type. The T-90 is an upgraded version of the T-72, of which there are about 1900 in the Indian Army (production under license from 1980 of the year). T-90 weighs on 15% more than T-72, is equipped with an advanced fire control system, night vision devices (1500 range m) and electronic anti-tank anti-tank missiles. The automatic loader is more reliable than on T-72, which allows a crew of three (commander, gunner, driver) to perform their duties better. The T-90 also has dynamic protection in addition to the combined armor.

The T-90 is not as mobile as the T-72 and moves more slowly on the battlefield than the American M1 (the specific power of the T-90 is just 18 hp / t, while for the M1 this figure is 24 hp / t). The characteristics of the 125 mm guns are basically the same as on the T-72, but if more effective projectiles are used, this tank has a chance to counter the M1.

The most likely enemy of India, Pakistan, is equipped mainly with tanks of the 1950 era (Chinese T-59 is a licensed copy of the Soviet T-55). Pakistanis are also armed with about 700 T-69 and Ukrainian T-80 tanks, which are superior to T-90.

By 2020, India plans to have an 21 tank battalion (according to the Indian classification - a regiment) with T-62 90 tanks each. In fact, each battalion has only 45 combat tanks, the remaining 17 are designed for crew training and reserve.
Originator:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kars
    Kars 14 October 2013 13: 04
    23
    What will begin now))))
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 14 October 2013 13: 10
      +3
      Kars How are Ukrainian T-80s different from our T-80s?
      1. Kars
        Kars 14 October 2013 13: 19
        +4
        Quote: Marrying
        Kars And how are Ukrainian T-80 different from our T-80?

        Put a space, I do not mind on You. But I do not need to change the gender.
        1. Zhenya
          Zhenya 14 October 2013 15: 09
          +1
          Kars It happens. Well, I think it's not worth poking, and yet, I personally did not see the answer to the question. What is the difference between the Russian T80 and the Ukrainian model T80.
          1. Kars
            Kars 14 October 2013 15: 16
            +2
            Quote: Marrying
            It differs the Russian T80 from the Ukrainian model T80.

            I didn’t notice the monograph? Download it and read it, everything is described in detail there. The same is true about Pakistani T-80 / 84
          2. Cynic
            Cynic 14 October 2013 17: 01
            +1
            Quote: Marrying
            What is the difference between the Russian T80 and the Ukrainian model T80.

            At the time of birth, essentially nothing.
            But we can say about our T-80 tank
            What he was, remained so
            and the Ukrainian machine, at least for 20 years, has evolved to the T-84 / Bulat and continues to do so.
            request
            1. Alexander D.
              Alexander D. 14 October 2013 20: 31
              +2
              Quote: Cynic
              and the Ukrainian machine, at least for 20 years, has evolved to the T-84 / Bulat and continues to do so.
              request

              BM Bulat is a T-64, and you most likely meant BM Oplot.
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 15 October 2013 15: 42
                0
                Quote: Alexander D.
                BM Bulat is a T-64, and you

                Thanks for clarifying, as always hurry up ...
                Right of course
                UkrainianIE machinesЫ ... evolved to ...

                Only the T-72 is evolving here, maybe the same 64, but I don’t remember something.
                hi
            2. Basarev
              Basarev 9 February 2014 21: 43
              0
              And what, the T-80UM1 Bars does not exist?
          3. Alexander D.
            Alexander D. 14 October 2013 21: 18
            +1
            Quote: Marrying
            Kars It happens. Well, I think it's not worth poking, and yet, I personally did not see the answer to the question. What is the difference between the Russian T80 and the Ukrainian model T80.

            First of all, with an engine: Leningradsky has a gas turbine engine, while Kharkov has a diesel engine.
    2. Armata
      Armata 14 October 2013 13: 43
      +6
      Quote: Kars
      What will begin now))))
      Hey. Nothing will start. You need to argue not unfoundedly. And everyone has evidence only from the Internet. Or what do you think many here tried T80 and T90 under the same conditions?
      1. Kars
        Kars 14 October 2013 13: 50
        +3
        Quote: Mechanic
        tried T80 and T90 here

        By the way, I haven’t gotten along with the tankers using the T-90A, while frankness is mainly coming from an older generation.

        And I’m not so much for T-84 T-90, how much for comparison with Abrash - it’s like a red rag. I’m surprised that no one has posted about burning the last of the DShK.
        1. Armata
          Armata 14 October 2013 13: 58
          +5
          Quote: Kars
          . Surprised that no one has yet posted about burning the last of the DShK.

          DShK is an unrivaled champion among heavy machine guns. From it you can set fire to any tank. Weaknesses = so far no one has been able to remove all 100%. And about bias, forget it. Now a lot will come out.
          1. Ezhaak
            Ezhaak 14 October 2013 14: 52
            +2
            Quote: Mechanic
            And about bias, forget it

            Here's an amer discussion of the article, and just about maneuverability.
            The T-90 is not as lively as the T-72 and is actually slower on the battlefield than the US M-1 ... "
            Which T-90 variant? Which M1 variant? All of the T-90s are governed at 40mph. The M1A1 and M1A2 are governed at 41mph and 42mph, respectively. That's not a meaningful advantage

            "... (which has a horsepower to weight ratio of 24: 1, compared to only 18: 1 for the T-90)."
            The T-90S weighs 52.4 short tons and has 1000hp, while the M1A1 Abrams weighs 70 short tons and had 1500hp. That's 19hp / ton versus 21.42hp / ton --- a power / weight lead of only 12%. And what about torque / weight, which also affects acceleration? The with 1000hp at 2000rpm, T-90S develops up to 2626lb / ft of torque. And guess what 1500hp at 3000rpm develops? The SAME 2626lb / ft of torque. Given that the T-90S weighs 30% less, that's a colossal advantage.
            1. POCC
              POCC 15 October 2013 23: 41
              0
              A translate drinks
          2. kirieeleyson
            kirieeleyson 15 October 2013 00: 05
            0
            Hi Zhen. Can Dasha burn our new multilayer?
          3. Basarev
            Basarev 9 February 2014 21: 42
            0
            Isn't CORD? (Extension cord)
        2. DEfindER
          DEfindER 14 October 2013 15: 39
          12
          Quote: Kars
          And I’m not so much for the T-84 T-90, but for the comparison with Abrash - it’s like a red rag.

          The article indicates some mythical figures about mobility, we consider ourselves:
          T-90 weight 46.5 t, Power 1000 hp
          specific power 21.5 hp / t
          Abrams mass 63.1 t. Power 1500 hp
          specific power 23.7 hp / t
          The advantage is minimal, and it will be noticeable only on asphalt, on the ground, a machine weighing 20 tons more will have such pressure on the ground that it will not only write off all these advantages in power, but will aggravate the matter even more ..
          In general, what's the point of arguing, invitations to tank biathlon have been sent to NATO countries, we are waiting for guests, there everything is decided :)
          1. Kars
            Kars 14 October 2013 16: 19
            +2
            Quote: DEfindER
            T-90 weight 46.5 t, Power 1000 hp
            specific power 21.5 hp / t
            Abrams mass 63.1 t. Power 1500 hp

            Well, I'm a layman - but it’s quite possible to take not the most advanced Abrams, he will be a little easier.
            Quote: DEfindER
            it will be noticeable only on asphalt, on the ground, a machine weighing 20 tons more, will have such pressure on the ground,

            I never knew that a tank’s specific ground pressure varies depending on the type of soil — asphalt, dirt, etc.
            Quote: DEfindER
            that this will not only write off all these power advantages,
            if I honestly don’t know what it’s writing off, what about the transmissions?
            about dirt there is a button accordion on YouTube.


            And there already ask tankers how they relate to specific power.
            1. DEfindER
              DEfindER 14 October 2013 16: 51
              +6
              Quote: Kars
              I never knew that a tank’s specific ground pressure varies depending on the type of soil — asphalt, dirt, etc.

              And where I said that the pressure is changing, I said that with a pressure like that of Abrams on the ground, its power (to overcome the soil resistance) is lost much more than the T-90, there will be not a straightforward but curvilinear dependence, the deeper it falls into the ground the more specific power is needed. Is it like walking on asphalt or knee-deep in mud, where you spend more energy and where weight affects more?
              1. Kars
                Kars 14 October 2013 16: 55
                +1
                Quote: DEfindER
                And where did I say that the pressure is changing

                Quote: DEfindER
                and it will be noticeable only on asphalt, on the ground, a machine weighing 20 tons more, will have such pressure on the ground,

                Well then, you should build a phrase differently.
                Quote: DEfindER
                Or do you want to say that you spend the same energy when you walk on asphalt or knee-deep in mud?

                In fact, the caterpillars just came up with the idea that they wouldn’t walk in a mud. And a figure such as the specific pressure on the ground was invented and calculated for good reason.

                Abstract example.
                we take the crane and on the same ground we set Abrams and T-90A for how many meters))) Does Abrams sink deeper?
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 14 October 2013 17: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  we take the crane and on the same ground we set Abrams and T-90A for how many meters))) Does Abrams sink deeper?

                  I already have tears of emotion come out _ And at least someone will remember such a parameter as specific pressure on the ground ?!
                  There is a difference in tenths and hundredths, and the design?
                  Zn-n-natoki!
                2. DEfindER
                  DEfindER 15 October 2013 10: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  In fact, the caterpillars just came up with the idea that they wouldn’t walk generationally in the mud.

                  How to say :)
                  [media = www.youtube.com / watch? v = BovIbTwS6GQ]
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 15 October 2013 13: 01
                    +1
                    Quote: DEfindER
                    www.youtube.com/watch?v=BovIbTwS6GQ





                    And so what?
                    I already posted where Abrams for some reason does not fail to the granite layer.

                    Quote: Kars
                    .And a figure such as specific ground pressure was invented and calculated for good reason.

                    All the same, take an interest in leisure.
            2. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 15 October 2013 12: 22
              0
              Well, I'm a layman - but it’s quite possible to take not the most advanced Abrams, he will be a little easier.

              It’s true, because from year to year the Americans are fusing and casting iron on the abrashka, just like the tankers of this very abrash hamburger are fusing themselves on their sides.
            3. POCC
              POCC 15 October 2013 23: 48
              0
              cool movie, let the train go so fast in the battle — a burnt tank with a crew filling drinks Plus
          2. POCC
            POCC 15 October 2013 23: 42
            0
            Believe the theory by practice, catch plus the bench press will not come drinks
      2. Victor
        Victor 14 October 2013 14: 32
        +4
        Quote: Mechanic
        And everyone has evidence only from the Internet. Or what do you think many here tried the T80 and T90 in the same conditions?

        A very fair remark, for example, I’ve wound up all the service on the landing technique, I can judge and argue, and in the tank theme I prefer to read the opinion of specialists, and not Internet bombers.
    3. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 14 October 2013 22: 09
      +2
      Quote: Kars
      What will begin now))))


      Still :) On the site armor.kiev.ua, an article on this nonsense has already been made. And right - a fairy tale, not an article.
    4. kirieeleyson
      kirieeleyson 15 October 2013 00: 02
      0
      AAAA !!! What nonsense, fly guys !!!!!!))))))))))))))))))
  2. Ruslan Bear
    Ruslan Bear 14 October 2013 13: 05
    +6
    delirium 125mm gun and so superior to 120mm gun abrashi and mobility in general is nonsense. and I wonder what the T90 is inferior to the Ukrainian T80
    1. UVB
      UVB 14 October 2013 14: 00
      14
      It is superior in some ways, inferior in some ways, but in general it is approximately equivalent. (T-80, T-90). Only which Russian, which Ukrainian? Both are SOVIET!
    2. Hon
      Hon 14 October 2013 16: 24
      0
      Quote: Ruslan Medved
      delirium 125mm gun and so superior to 120mm gun abrashi and mobility in general is nonsense. and I wonder what the T90 is inferior to the Ukrainian T80

      It’s not true that amers have a more powerful gun, since they use longer projectiles, we have limitations on the length in connection with the use of AZ. However, the difference is small, and this is relevant only for BPS. In general, when using modern cannon shells, we have parity.
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 14 October 2013 16: 55
      0
      It does not exceed the same 10 MJ class, but the shells are shorter due to the design of the AZ and the muzzle energy is slightly less.
    4. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 14 October 2013 20: 42
      +1
      Quote: Ruslan Bear
      delirium 125mm gun and so superior to 120mm gun abrashi and mobility in general is nonsense. and I wonder what the T90 is inferior to the Ukrainian T80

      Who told you that a 125 mm gun is superior to a 120 mm ?! More powerful is not a cannon, but a projectile ... and right here Abrams has armor-piercing and HE shells much more powerful than any Leads and Hairpins.
  3. Basileus
    Basileus 14 October 2013 13: 06
    +1
    Straight eyes opened, listen! Only the meaning of the article does not quite coincide with what is written in it.

    By the way, they said about specific power, but forgot about the box ...
    1. Oskar
      Oskar 14 October 2013 13: 11
      +3
      Power still needs to be transferred - as much as possible!
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 14 October 2013 14: 09
        0
        That's why I remembered the box. We also have a transmission problem.
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 9 February 2014 21: 49
          0
          Don’t say that Abrams surpasses Volodya in absolutely all respects ...
  4. neri73-r
    neri73-r 14 October 2013 13: 06
    +7
    tanks of types T-69 and Ukrainian T-80, which are superior to T-90.


    I'm rushing, rushing me because the snow is falling !!! Nothing more to say on this opus!
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Victor
    Victor 14 October 2013 13: 12
    +1
    Article-constipation of thoughts, diarrhea of ​​words! From the series ".. and my toy is better ..."
  7. olegff68
    olegff68 14 October 2013 13: 12
    +9
    T-90 inferior in mobility to the American M1

    It would be interesting to see how the M1 grandebule surrounds the T90 in mobility in cramped urban areas, in mountainous, wooded areas and on fragile soils.
    And in which universe
    about 700 tanks of types T-69 and Ukrainian T-80, which are superior to the T-90.
    quite good "Indian" version?!?!
  8. Jrvin
    Jrvin 14 October 2013 13: 28
    +8
    The T-90 may be inferior on the asphalt, but it will not give anyone a descent on an intersection =) and such an indicator as power density is generally more for the world of motorsport where the struggle is for every gram of weight, for a tank this indicator is not critical, it is better to drive slowly in swamps, mud, deep snow, than it is good to stand in the same places with a "super" high power density =)
  9. Altona
    Altona 14 October 2013 13: 35
    +6
    What is the article about? What criteria were used for the assessment? Is speed so relevant for India? So there are wheeled tanks of the Centaur type ... Let them even compare with them ... The fighting qualities of the tank are cumulative, and you don’t have to stick out one criterion — it's the effectiveness of the weapon in breaking through the armor of modern BTTs, the endurance of its own armor and active protection against modern ammunition ; survivability and maintainability; mass and dimensional characteristics for transportation by all types of available transport, mainly railway and air; communication and informational content of devices; convenience and comfort of the crew; speed and maneuverability ... So rely on one speed ... Modern aviation will still catch up with any tank and turn its wrinkled tin ...
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 9 February 2014 21: 52
      0
      And here we have absolute world superiority - after all, only we have flying tanks with the name Mi-28N ... And American Apache rafts were repeatedly wounded from AK.
      1. alone
        alone 9 February 2014 22: 01
        0
        MI-18N. Yes, these are very good helicopters. But they have one big drawback. The disadvantage is that there are no helicopters of this brand. There is only MI-28N. You probably mean it. I don’t know about the Apaches why they injured him, but Apaches have one advantage. Apaches really participated in the fighting, but I did not hear anything about the Mi-28.
  10. Andrew 447
    Andrew 447 14 October 2013 13: 44
    +6
    And what is the coupling coefficient of the track with the ground at the T90 and Abrasha? Perhaps the engine on the T90 is quite enough. Abrashi sit very easily on the belly in the sand or on soft soil. The lad probably wrote an article from the Malyshev factory, because the T80 pearl suggests such an idea.
    1. Jrvin
      Jrvin 14 October 2013 13: 54
      +4
      Ground pressure:
      T-90 (from early to late): 0,938-0,97 kg / cm2
      М1-М1А2: 0,96-1,07 кг/см2
      Leclerc: 0,98 kg / cm2
      Oplot: 0,97 kg / cm2
      We draw conclusions gentlemen.
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 14 October 2013 17: 29
        +1
        Quote: Jrvin
        We draw conclusions gentlemen.

        What kind ?
        In terms of parameters, a turbine is better than diesel, but in life? There are so many interrelated indicators that only the operational way it was possible to identify all the nuances.
    2. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 14 October 2013 14: 44
      0
      Quote: Andrey 447
      the article was written by a lad from the Malyshev factory

      Probably not. This is a translated article from Aglitsky.
      http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20131012.aspx
  11. Norady
    Norady 14 October 2013 13: 47
    +4
    Author, tell me, please, is it humor, provocation, or just vyser?
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 14 October 2013 14: 59
      0
      Quote: Norady
      please tell me, is it humor, provocation, or just vyser?

      I am not an author, but an Amer article. Draw conclusions yourself. Link to the original article above the forum.
      One or two mistakes is one thing, but SEVEN? And why hasn't anyone else seen this and pointed it out yet?
    2. 6 sunrise 9
      6 sunrise 9 14 October 2013 15: 53
      0
      Quote: Norady
      Author, tell me, please, is it humor, provocation, or just vyser?


      This is all taken together)
  12. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 14 October 2013 13: 51
    -1
    It may be weaker in terms of specific power T-90, but in terms of range it almost doubles.
    1. Jrvin
      Jrvin 14 October 2013 14: 03
      +6
      Power reserve
      T-90: 550 (700 with mounted tanks) on the highway
      345-520 cross country
      M1A2: 440-480 on the highway, the value is not indicated along the intersection, but it will be lower than 345 for the tank mass is 62-63 tons versus 46,5 for the T-90 (those who drive through mud know that the engine often threshes for the whole and fuel consumption huge, and if you consider that the mass of the tank is almost 20 tons more, it will look sad ...
  13. Ruslan_F38
    Ruslan_F38 14 October 2013 13: 56
    +2
    No matter what they say, our tanks are still the best in the world.
  14. 6 sunrise 9
    6 sunrise 9 14 October 2013 15: 51
    +1
    About abrms I will not say anything laughing

    700 tanks of types T-69 and Ukrainian T-80, which are superior to T-90.

    What? On what damn basis was this statement made?

    PS Ukrainians, you are ours, I don’t need to say anything to me, I know that the best tank in the world is the "stronghold", because Thailand needed only 2 such tanks to defend the country lol
    1. netishunUA
      netishunUA 14 October 2013 16: 08
      +1
      C'mon, the author made a vile conclusion, because it’s now in fashion drinksWe close our eyes to this.
      1. 6 sunrise 9
        6 sunrise 9 14 October 2013 16: 31
        +1
        of course drinks
    2. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 14 October 2013 21: 11
      +1
      Quote: 6Sunrise9
      About abrms I will not say anything laughing

      700 tanks of types T-69 and Ukrainian T-80, which are superior to T-90.

      What? On what damn basis was this statement made?

      PS Ukrainians, you are ours, I don’t need to say anything to me, I know that the best tank in the world is the "stronghold", because Thailand needed only 2 such tanks to defend the country lol

      Judging by your comment, you are a Ukrainophobe or a chauvinist who believes that Ukraine is a technologically backward country and we still ride horses here ?!
      1. 6 sunrise 9
        6 sunrise 9 15 October 2013 05: 35
        0
        So far not advanced, but in 10 years it will be backward with such a rate of development and such leadership. But it's really a pity, by uniting the military-industrial complex of Ukraine and the Russian Federation it would be possible to restore the former power of the army much faster. But in the meantime, you go to the EU and NATO. Apparently, to finish off the remnants of the legacy of the "bloody scoop" and this is sad crying

        In general, netishunUA correctly said that this part of the article is designed for srach between citizens of the Russian Federation and Ukraine. And judging by your komenty you just want to arrange this srach.
  15. major071
    major071 14 October 2013 16: 19
    +4
    The article is written for advertising indicating the minimum performance characteristics that can be found on the internet. The rest is all about nothing. stop
  16. Bober
    Bober 14 October 2013 16: 36
    +1
    A modern battle is often the first to shoot. Therefore, it would not be bad to see other characteristics: target recognition, guidance time, projectile selection, etc. And the article on formula 1 must be assumed.
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 14 October 2013 21: 14
      +1
      Quote: Bober
      A modern battle is often the first to shoot. Therefore, it would not be bad to see other characteristics: target recognition, guidance time, projectile selection, etc. And the article on formula 1 must be assumed.

      As for whoever sees the enemy earlier, here the combatant Abrams A2 of the US Army is, of course, "eyed" more than the combatant T-90A of the Russian army.
      1. Bober
        Bober 15 October 2013 05: 31
        0
        For example, I believe in "of course and big-eyed", but no one canceled the elements of performance from the moment of serif + counteraction to the fact of a shot. The correct choice of projectile, the work of the automatic loader. A little off topic, but for example, there is no automatic loader on the Merkava, and a person fusses there, which reduces the number of shots per minute. + NATO caliber standard will increase from 120 to 140. This can also cause more complex work of this mechanism, for example. In general, a lot depends on the crew.
  17. Avenger711
    Avenger711 14 October 2013 17: 01
    0
    Dill Propaganda. Yes, and the V-92 engine per 1000 liters. with. EMNIP on the T-90A is the only one used, the old 840-horsepower on earlier versions. What the Indians do not know, perhaps both.

    And yes, the T-90 is by no means 15% heavier than the T-72, since the T-72 itself has a weight spread of 41 tons for earlier models, up to 44.5 for T-75B.
  18. DMB87
    DMB87 14 October 2013 17: 15
    +1
    Analysis of this shit - The American media continues to lie about the Russian tank T-90С - http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-6285.htm
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. alone
    alone 14 October 2013 19: 07
    +4
    those t-90s that were sold to us show just the same good results.
  21. My address
    My address 14 October 2013 21: 38
    +5
    The article is illiterate.

    A normal tank in a battle does not go faster than 40km / h.
    And it is also interesting to look at the reaction of the T-90 and M-1 to the actions of the mechanical drive. M-1 is late and this is a feature of the tank / engine.
    And it is even more interesting to look at the Abrams undercarriage and at the American battalion deputy engineer after the mobility contest with the 90.

    In fact, the 90 is more mobile, which is important for survival. It is more mobile, not faster. These are different concepts.
  22. Clueless
    Clueless 14 October 2013 21: 44
    +3
    Here is the current for the Indians to power the power, in their climate there the current Russian technology can work. I can’t imagine Abrams in the jungle :) There, all the monkeys will die laughing when they see him
  23. tolyasik0577
    tolyasik0577 15 October 2013 12: 41
    +1
    and I recently read right there that Abram’s burn in the bosom is a good old RPG through smile
    1. Jrvin
      Jrvin 17 October 2013 14: 48
      0
      Abrams as a tank is sharpened for the most part for attack, ("big forehead" is proof of that) but why make large sides if everything is thrown on the attack, so they burn from RPG7 =)
  24. vahatak
    vahatak 15 October 2013 13: 22
    -1
    Guys, why are you arguing? The best tank in the world is Leo-2. wink