British terminology is Tankie, not tankers. Same in Kiwi army.
I don't know why I used that word... I would normally have said tank crew... it really annoys me when I hear such aberrations of English... the worst is going to the gas station to get some gas but when they get there they get petrol instead of LPG...
BTW a bit redundant having a word for Tank crew in New Zealand now isn't it?
Journalists ofc had to say something stupid-now this T-72 is better than brand new T-90!
Well in a way that is sort of true as an upgraded T-72 with full thermal night vision systems and new air conditioning and navigation and communications and battle management hardware and of course with Relict ERA would only have slightly inferior protection to the T-90S but would be slightly cheaper.
Obviously the T-90MS is far superior to the upgraded T-72 but it is also more expensive.
Hopefully there will be new contracts signed with India to supply upgraded T-90MS tanks for the Indian Army too...
I think it really comes down to how much the Armata will cost, because in the future brigade structure of the Russian Army only the heavy brigades will need tank level protection vehicles, though any artillery support units separate from brigades might have tank based vehicles for 152mm calibre artillery vehicles, they are replacing their 122mm SPA with 120mm mortar vehicles, but it is largely unknown what they will do with their longer barrel 152mm gun vehicles and of course their heavy 203mm and 240mm weapons. The rocket artillery will be getting MZKT vehicles it seems which is standardised with the Iskander units, but with tube artillery you have to wonder what their plans might be.
Currently they have in 152mm calibre the MSTA and the 2S5 with an external mount gun, the 2S3 as the older vehicle being replaced by the MSTA. The thing is that if Coalition is expensive they might want to keep an older cheaper model vehicle... perhaps a 2S5 with the Coalition barrel on it with a limited traverse gun instead of the turret.
Also there is the 2S7 Pion with a 203mm gun which uses a big shell but it lacks the range of the Coalition...
Will the new Russian Frigates and Destroyers have 152mm guns with 80km range and Glonass guided shells while the upgraded cruisers get a new 203mm gun with perhaps a much heavier shell that is also guided with a range of 100km?
If that is the case it might be worth combining development as with the Coalition and making a few units of 203mm calibre weapons.
I would think that against certain targets the plunging fire of a mortar would be useful, so a weapon like the 2S4 could become a useful specialist weapon for mountain warfare where its guided shells using laser homing or even Glonass guidance could make it a very effective weapon.
The question is, do they want to keep several calibres, or streamline and concentrate on a few (ie they are getting rid of 122mm calibre, but keeping 120mm 152mm. The question is are they also keeping the 203mm and 240mm.
203mm shells would be very effective for shore bombardment and with the combination of guided shells and UAVs to target things and indeed find targets they might be very effective for their standoff range alone.