How many T-90 tanks does it take to defeat one Western tank?
Keep in mind T-90 is roughly $3M a unit vs +$9M for a Western Tank.
>>30526248
>Keep in mind T-90 is roughly $3M a unit vs +$9M for a Western Tank.
a $150 hi point will kill you just as dead as a $1200 AK
>>30526248
One.
Armour, scoring a direct hit on armour, will likely still result in a kill.
The western tanks will simply have more capabilities (ie limited aa or ai) which is what bumps the price tag up.
>>30526248
Why is that one tank different color than the rest?
>>30526317
Mixed battalions from different regions for training exercise.
You see it a lot with Leopards in joint-exercises in Europe.
Whichever side has most air support and recon.
So West curbstomps
>>30526248
It would take only one but the likelihood of victory decreases without numbers. 1v1 probably not even. Russia is about massive output to achieve throughput, not massive investment.
>>30526248
In 2000+16, America zergs you.
>>30526248
How many AP rounds does the western tank have?
>>30526248
>T-90 is roughly $3M a unit
Over a decade ago.
>>30526248
America was always going to lose a fulda gap in a conventional ww3.
Their main advantage lay in control of the sea to ensure an eventual logistical victory.
>>30526268
But if two equally trained men were to be in a gun battle, one with an AK and the other with a hi point, the AK will fucking win.
And now, consider that the guy with the AK is probably much better trained and more experienced.
Also, why are we using AKs to represent western tanks?
>>30526281
>simply have more capabilities (ie limited aa or ai)
Not really, its rather the opposite. Its the Russian tanks that both have guided missiles capable of engaging low flying helos as well as proximity fused HE-frag shells (AINET). Most Western tanks are not equipped to self-designate the Israeli LAHAT or the Swedish Nammo.
>>30526248
>How many T-90 tanks does it take to defeat one Western tank?
Depends on the scenario. Flat featureless expanse where both sides can see each other clearly most of the time Western tanks would stomp. Anywhere else with more cover and clutter and the Russian tanks can hide easily enough especially with multispectral Nakidka cammo. Then its just a matter of camping out for the other tank then sniping it with guided missiles. Sure the guided missiles won't penetrate the frontal array of Western tanks most of the time but anywhere else its pretty much a kill, especially since guided missiles are pretty precise enough you can target specific parts like the weakspots in the armor of the tank in real time.
>>30526387
Time and time again has shown airpower is not that effective, especially against an opponent that actually has modern IADS and or knows how to use what he has. When going up against such an enemy you want massed fires that can be done within minutes, not hours. What you want is artillery, especially rocket arty with DPICM munitions. That and make them organic to the tank units its supporting to achieve minimal reaction time and much more relevant targeting. So basically like how the Russians did it in Ukraine.
>>30526248
Just a bit of artillery spam.
>>30526317
He paid for the desert camo DLC
In good weather and open terrain the T-90 could kill the western tank with an ATGM before it could get into range.
Where visibility is poor the western tank will likely spot and kill the T-90 first because russia is always behind in thermal imaging and sensors.
The T-90 may have an advantage on certain terrain due to weight. It would come down to the country using them, a small country with limited resources is possibly better off with t-90s. For large western armies the price doesn't matter so much and a heavy more durable tank is worth the expense in logistics.
If you assume you have a battle between two small nations, one with monkey model, older M1 or old leo2s vs an opponent with more T-90s and comparable skill, I think the T-90 would win. The western tanks will suffer without access to the best US DU ammo.
>>30529227
Nammo is a manufacturer and AINET is a programmed airburst, not a proximity round. Both GL-ATGM's and AINET are limited in the types of tank that could use them.
A proximity round would be something like an M830A1 with an actual RF proximity fuze instead of something that times its flight.
>>30529301
Time and time again has shown airpower is very effective, even when an opponent actually has modern IADS and or knows how to use what he has.
Ukraine was a weaker air power than its adversary.
>>30529386
And DU armor mesh and newest sensor and FCS package
>>30529486
>Ukraine was a weaker air power than its adversary.
Russia didn't break the back of Ukraine's army using its air force.
>Time and time again has shown airpower is very effective, even when an opponent actually has modern IADS and or knows how to use what he has.
That why ISIS is still alive and kicking in Iraq and Syria battlespace?
>>30529450
>programmed airburst
If you get the range right(and its pretty much so with laser rangefinders) the difference is academic.
>>30530129
>Russia didn't break the back of Ukraine's army using its air force.
Russia kept Ukraine from using its air force, both with its own aircraft and by providing the separatists ground based air defenses far beyond what Ukraine's small and outdated airforce could handle.
>That why ISIS is still alive and kicking in Iraq and Syria battlespace?
That why almost all of the territory ISIS has lost has been by forces supported by coalition airstrikes?
>If you get the range right(and its pretty much so with laser rangefinders) the difference is academic.
Assuming nothing interferes with your ability to lase the target, and your tank is equipped to program airburst rounds. I would add the delay from needing to lase as well but unless you have old as fuck equipment that should be negligible.
>>30530129
>That why ISIS is still alive and kicking in Iraq and Syria battlespace?
Because the ground forces are incompetent and fight each other. Airpower works wonders to enable a victory on the ground, but sad victory cannot be won purely from the air. I'd also say something about interdiction being much more difficult when everyone is driving around in pickups.
>>30529227
Oh okay then, so western tanks are 6 million more because they are less useful. Makes sense mate.
Everyone in this thread is retarded and knows nothing about Armor warfare besides outdated meme tier shit.
Further discussion is useless
/thread
VATNIK ALERT ABANDON THREAD
>>30526248
Depends on crew. All Armor V Armor engagements rely on crew with some other features balancing them out like even an Ace Sherman crew would need numbers and at times terrain to fight a tiger with Volks crew but this is not a Medium tank vs a heavy tanks its 2 major MBTs brawling. In this case if the Russian crew was more experienced and had a lot more up their sleeve and was better trained on engaging NATO Armor, with the American crew being fresh out of high school then into boot camp and just learned the basics of being a 19K and how to operate their M! I'm fairly sure the M1 Would get Curb stomped and it would be embarrassing for armored crews of the US everywhere (This can be said if you flip the crews skill with the M1 or Leo curb stomping the T-90). All in all its up to the skill of the crew and if you have a shitty or not well prepared or trained crew chances are a better crew will come along in an equal tank and fuck them up. (This is of course were talking a fair fight in some lightly wooded flat terrain or something of the sort, and with no supporting units nearby.)
Depends on a number of factors, crew training, terrain, who has access to to latest ammunition and most importantly who fires first.
The latest T-90 variants are fine tanks, with decent armor, APS, thermal sights and RWS. However the design has some fundamental problems, namely the autoloader restricts shell length and therefor APSFDS velocity and penetration and the turret is shaped poorly for heavy ERA tiles. The big advantage is price, it comes with the basic elements of a modern tank at a low cost, even if it lacks the full ability of a western design.
>>30526317
Two are that color.
>Boris, good news, camo works
>>30529227
What is a "Swedish Nammo"?
>>30526248
that's like asking how many man does it take to defeat a man
So basically the West fucked up?
>>30526248
About one Googolplex
>>30526248
you realise that when you've purchased said tank, you still have to maintain, train crews and actually operate these tanks. In the long run, the western tanks are much superior.
>>30531812
Nammo is an arms manufactorer. Im guessing he's referring to something like the Bill 2 or NLAW, though neither is made by Nammo.
>>30530129
>That why ISIS is still alive and kicking in Iraq and Syria battlespace?
Thats because of American arms
>>30531812
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI6HeMMkZEk
>>30526248
Too many factors; crew, location, distance, variant, etc
Both have certain advantages but typically however a Western tank will have the advantage over the T-90, due to lack of development during its early years and the inherent inferior armor, being in a different weight class and all.
>>30531901
Which is why ISIS mostly uses Russian equipment.
I hope it does not boil down to crew skills.
>at the U.S. Army's 2016 Sullivan Cup. A tank crew consisting of an insurance adjustor, Pepsi truck driver, college student, and aspiring police officer beat fifteen other reserve and active duty tank crews to place first.
>>30530129
>That why ISIS is still alive and kicking in Iraq and Syria battlespace?
>being this casual
Airpower is decisive only when combined with competent maneuver elements that can take advantage of friendly air support, and neither the Iraqi army or the Kurds are capable of decisively engaging ISIS formations in concert with American aircraft. The same goes for artillery. Indirect fires are only useful if you take advantage of the destruction and confusion they cause--they aren't an end unto themselves. WWI demonstrated a century ago that merely raining hellfire on the enemy achieves very limited tactical results, and precision munitions aren't sufficient to overcome this inherent limitation.
>>30532649
Didn't even know the Sullivan Cup was a thing until just now. I'm going to ABOLC in a year, so that'll definitely be a goal I'll be shooting for once I get to my platoon.
>>30532649
team work makes the tank work
>>30532719
Seems like you have a bigger chance of winning when you just become a reservist instead and drive pepsoe deliveries every day.
>>30531201
same goes for basically everything on this board
>>je
>>30526248
Russia has 300 T-90s , they still mostly rely on T-72 and T-80 for the actual work , T90s are only for show (and getting rekt by arabs with ATGM)
