First of all there is little real difference between most modern tanks in service around the world.
Each different tank has different capabilities and different features, based on different technologies and different design choices.
The Abrams is a powerful tank with excellent armour and a very good gun, but you need to be a super power to keep it running, and not every country has the infrastructure to operate a 70 ton tank.
The Arjun is supposed to be an indigenous Indian tank, which I think is technically a failure in the sense that it is an amalgamation of too many foreign parts.
If its purpose is to be Indian designed and produced then, by all means licence produce foreign components to make it a capable vehicle, but you also need to invest a lot of money developing those components in new ways... make them Indian components.
The Arjun wont be an Indian success story till about Arjun III or IV, but that is OK... the Russians and the west have also spent a lot of time and money to get where they are today.
As is shown with UAVs... it takes time and experience and money to get it right.
In the real world the best tank is not necessarily the tank with the thickest armour, or the best gun, or the biggest engine.
Look at the tanks that made up the bulk of the German army in 1940 for the invasion of Europe. Western history books like to go on about how easily the Soviets were pushed back to Moscow in 6 months, and how many soldiers and how much equipment was captured yet largely ignore the fact that the German Army had already done that to most of western europe with pretty much the same forces that had less combat experience at the time.
Early model panzers were actually pretty pathetic in terms of armour and fire power compared with Russian and French tanks of the day, but it wasn't their armour or guns that made them so effective in the field.
Communication and tactics were critical, as well as correctly using support like air power as a powerful mobile artillery were features that made the Germans so successful. Also the operation of the tanks where each crewman had a specific role, so the commander was directing the driver from cover to cover, and looking for targets and threats. When targets were found a loader loaded the gun and a gunner fired on the target till it was taken out, while the commander continued looking for targets and threats and directing the driver from cover to cover.
It was called hunter killer mode and was fully implemented by the Germans in WWII before ballistics computers and night sights and gun stabilisation were fitted as standard on tanks.
To this end I would like to make clear that just because you like one tank or another is no excuse or reason to call another tank rubbish or crap.
The Russians showed in Afghanistan and in South Ossetia that even a T-62 with certain upgrades is adequate as a tank in certain situations as at its heart a tank is a direct fire large calibre gun platform with the mobility and protection to operate with troops to support them. In situations where the enemy lacks effective anti armour weapons you could even substitute the BMP-3 for a tank where its amphibious capability might actually make it more useful than a MBT.So my message... with my moderators hat on, is to think about the words you use. A rubbish or crap tank is a tank that cannot do the job at all. Experience has shown that even a T-34 right now is better than no tank at all, so really there is no such thing as a crap or rubbish tank... just a fanboy thinking he is making his tank sound cooler by putting down someone elses tank. Dick measuring contests are pointless as the winner ends up with a dick so big he would only be able to service cattle.
Also keep in mind this thread is about the T-95 and the T-90AM. Discussions about different tanks can be started in new threads.
Yeah, if you like looking at a piece of crap.
When talking about aesthetic looks there is no such thing as right or wrong, but if your stool looks like Arjun I tanks I think you need to urgently contact your doctor.
The Arjun is clearly the biggest failure and money waster in modern tank history.
Clearly indicated that they buy and manufactur more than 1200 T-90S.
If you dont agree, read about it, then argue. But i dont think anyone will.
You are obviously not familiar with tank history... the French, Germans, and Americans started a joint program to build a new tank and they spent a lot of money that didn't result in a single tank entering service. The result was the Abrams, Leopard II, and Leclerc. The British were lucky in that the Shah of Iran spent a small fortune getting the British to design and build them a state of the art tank, but after the revolution they kept them and called them the Challenger... which I am sure you will agree is a potent tank... and one of the cheapest in the sense that Iran footed the bill for its development.
The T-95 has had a very long development period and has had quite a bit of money spent on it and it will never see service.
In comparison the Arjun might not be perfect, but it is not totally useless and did at least enter service.
It seems the T-90 makes more economic sense, but then the Russians have been making tanks for quite some time and know what they are doing.
I for one is eager for news of the T-95`s replacement. That is, news with any ground and reality to it.
And iam not sure the Armata will be it, maybe.
The Armata is the project name, its operational codename will likely be T-99, and based on criticisms of the Burlak upgrade of the T-90 (which had the Black Eagle autoloader in the turret bustle and the under floor autoloader with 22 rounds underfloor and another 31 rounds ready to use in the turret bustle autoloader that is 53 rounds ready to use in combat) and the new design of the T-90AM where the ammo in the turret bustle is only 10 rounds with very well protected storage separate from the crew compartment, that the Russians don't like ammo in the turret bustle.
The Armata will likely have three crewmen in the hull front and an unmanned turret in the centre of the vehicle with an external gun and ammo in the turret below the level of the turret ring for protection, and the engine to the rear.
The Armata chassis will also be used for other vehicles in the heavy units and will include rear and front mounted engine options... ie rear for the tank and MSTA replacement, and front for a heavy BTR-T type vehicle.
But there will certainly be a need to replace the T-62 and early T-72`s still in formations. Heck, i`m not sure the
T-55 is taken out of service completely. Maybe there still are some in naval or infantry briagdes? But i saw for sure some T-62`s in video clips from 2008 war with Georgia.
The plan is to have about 8,000 tanks in total in the inventory, with about 2,000 in operational units and 6,000 in storage.
They have about 2,000 T-80 tanks which they will gradually retire,and the rest will be a mix of 6-800 T-90s and the rest will be upgraded late model T-72s. After 2015 when the Armata chassis will be in production the numbers of other tanks will decline over time and be replaced by Armatas. Of course to accelerate the upgrade they might start making T-90AM2s... which will basically be T-90AMs with any upgrades they decide on between now and 2015... they might have new systems like ARENA 3 or Drodz 5 or SHTORA 3 or whatever.
The point will be to get their tanks upgraded with the new communications and data sharing equipment and the battle management systems (BMS) that will connect the tanks to the battle net... initially that will be upgrades of the T-90s and T-80s already in service, and the T-72 upgrade, but the Armata and the T-90AMs will already have such electronics installed so in 2015 hopefully the tank units will already have some experience in using BMS to improve communication and coordination.
The problem with this is that when low tech threats appear they wont have any cheap T-62s to send in and use up some old 115mm HE shells.
The Advantages of course is that they will remove the 100mm rifled tank calibre and the 115mm smoothbore tank calibre from their inventories, and they can use basically T-72 engines and components for the majority of their tank fleet with a 125mm gun as standard.
They will safe enormous amounts of money not having to store all those extra tanks and ammo and the extra money spent on new tanks and ammo can be reinvested in making it even better.
Training and maintainence and operation will be simplified and support structures and logistics will be standardised and simplified and the tail shortened.