Quoted Text

---

The quality of equipment is directly equivalent to the manufacturing capabilities of the home country. Would you drive a car made in Japan, or the USA, or Germany? How about one made in North Korea, China or Russia?

---

The question of "manufacturing capabilities " its not so easy. In the first place, the USSR invested billions and billions of dollars, to be precise the half of it's GDP, in Defense Industry.
Secondly, Russian equipment always had a good reputation. For example, I would just remind you T-34, that was absolutley the best tank in 1941, much better than German T IV or T III, as Guderian and other wermacht generals wrote in memoirs.

To George Keseyan: I don't see any photo in your post, just small box with the red cross inside Is that all that remains after welded turret testing?

First off, send the aircraft stuff to the aircraft forum, please? It is an drude to jack the thread. At least get this excited about the T-90 in this thread. Otherwise I will just lock it up so you have to go there.

As for ammo cook off, I assume you are talking about the M1 series?

As for the T-90 and its successor the T-95 (If we ever see it) there is more and more evidence that the Russians are keeping much tighter control over their Military info ever since the Ukraine sold off 4 top line T-80UD's with 2nd Gen ERA to the US Intelligence Service, and several other secrets were obtained by the British in the ealry 1990's. Coupled with the extreem lack of military funding and they also have nothing to show. But they are finally starting to get their military game on track and they are ralizing how far behind they have fallen over the last 20 years so they are starting to put a LOT more ephasis on new land units. And ammo. And gun systems. Etc.

So, I would be MORE shocked to find out that the Russians do not have a tank round that can penetrate the M1A2. And that the T-90 is "more" survivable (ie it would take 2 or more shots to kill it) to CURRENT USE M1A2 rounds. I have also confirmed that the US does indeed have rounds developed but not produced that can defeat the current armor levels of a M1A2 at 2000M. Why not produce them...what for? Why not upgrade the M1A2 to survive those rounds? Again, why? we do not forsee a enemy that has those capabilities as the Russians sure as heck are not selling those high-end rounds to anyone.

But the tech exists.

Quoted Text

---

First off, send the aircraft stuff to the aircraft forum, please? It is an drude to jack the thread. At least get this excited about the T-90 in this thread. Otherwise I will just lock it up so you have to go there.

As for ammo cook off, I assume you are talking about the M1 series?

As for the T-90 and its successor the T-95 (If we ever see it) there is more and more evidence that the Russians are keeping much tighter control over their Military info ever since the Ukraine sold off 4 top line T-80UD's with 2nd Gen ERA to the US Intelligence Service, and several other secrets were obtained by the British in the ealry 1990's. Coupled with the extreem lack of military funding and they also have nothing to show. But they are finally starting to get their military game on track and they are ralizing how far behind they have fallen over the last 20 years so they are starting to put a LOT more ephasis on new land units. And ammo. And gun systems. Etc.

So, I would be MORE shocked to find out that the Russians do not have a tank round that can penetrate the M1A2. And that the T-90 is "more" survivable (ie it would take 2 or more shots to kill it) to CURRENT USE M1A2 rounds. I have also confirmed that the US does indeed have rounds developed but not produced that can defeat the current armor levels of a M1A2 at 2000M. Why not produce them...what for? Why not upgrade the M1A2 to survive those rounds? Again, why? we do not forsee a enemy that has those capabilities as the Russians sure as heck are not selling those high-end rounds to anyone.

But the tech exists.

---

Couple questions:

* If I'm correct (if not correct me) the T-90 is the same thing as the "black eagle," right? Have no idea what a T-95 is (or is it the 'blackeagle'?) The track looks like a T-72 hull with an M-1 turret on it. Complete with blowout ammo storage and all. They are building it in India as I write this. If the U.S.A. has four T-90's I suspect two are in KY and maybe the others are out in AZ. I may have seen the powerpac out of one, and the gearbox in a zillion pieces. If it's the right one, it's similar to a Renk, but the machine work is not as good (all late 70's tech). The one I got to see pics of was gas turbine powered, and for sure wasn't German.

* lets touch on the armor plate a sec. Give credit where credit is due; as the Russian invented Chobam armor. The brits stole it from them (how nobody knows, or is talking). But what is known is that the Russians couldn't figure out how to machine it, let alone weld it (not a state secret). The Brits had fits with it as well, and pretty much set it aside. We (TACOM) and two of the big tool companys (don't ask) made a project out of it, and finally got it done. No two tool companys know how are have actually seen their products work the metal. They've never even seen the chips of metal after machining. Same holds true for the welding processes. But sooner or later everybody learns (once again I assume the Russians are using their invention). Will a SABOT from a T-72 penetrate the turret of an M-1 tank? Probably with a good square hit. Will a SABOT from a 105mm round round do the samething to the T-72 or T-80? Go ahead and bet the farm on this one. They'll all do it, so really that's a mute point.
gary

As promising as it seems, the design was stalled along with its designers in times of mass turbine phobia and general economic degradation;
variety of other factors have also determined dim fate of the project.