I can I agree on that, but only because T-80 never achieved it's maturity. What Ukrainians are doing with T-80 tanks are nice, for example Oplot-M adresses all disadvantages of T-80 family. I can only imagine what Russians could do with that tank if they could make T-90MS. I'm not saying that T-90 is bad tank, but it's not the best too. So many years ago I was catching all the details about Black Eagle, who was considered T-80 on steroids. It happened to be just a mock up, but heart was in the right place. Not to mention FST projects that where way ahead of their time.GarryB wrote:
You are being unfair... the T-90 is a tank developed from a cheap mass production tank that turned out to be even better than the top line expensive tank it was produced in parallel with... ie the T-80.
I've heard that M1A3 will only get minor upgrades, new wiring/cables, new computers and other minor upgrades that will make tankers life bit easier. Nothing revolutionary, or maybe i'm missing something.The T-90 is the top of its evolutionary chart the same way the M1 Abrams in its current in service model is too. Just because the next gen vehicles will likely have unmanned turrets and perhaps even be completely unmanned does not mean they are bad tanks.
Soviet union already had unmanned tank turret in the 70ies. Army like always, objected something that was ahead of it's time and over their heads. Nowadays we have better control suites and over all smaller and better electronics, maybe it was lack of them that stopped west and east to use remote controlled tank turrets. Cause it looks like no brainer to me.
Again, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's bad, but it going for T-90 is like dating super models and marrying a plain looking girl next door only because she will cost You less. Sorry for this analogy, Soviet union had some very advanced tanks of it's time. Should I mention T-64? Having two tanks wasn't an option for Russia and they chose the cheapest one. Too bad :/..does not mean they are bad tanks.
Can't argue with that.The ability of a tank to leave the ground and not require to be immediately sent for repair is not a practical thing that would be useful in combat... much like a tail slide for a fighter, but it shows acceleration and a certain level of mobility... just as a tailslide shows robust engines that are not bothered even by reverse air flows... which is very significant in combat... no point fitting your plane with TVC systems if your engines stall when the airflow changes direction.
To hit something precisely over 1 km You have to be stationary.
Except with Refleks...
You still have to maintain line of sight to guide the missile so driver have to behave properly. But I believe ATGM gives You edge in longer distances like steppes in Russia or vast deserts in middle east. So instead of moving in I would rather keep my distance and try to score hits while enemy tanks will have to close in or evade. For example Brandleys with TOW wrecked havoc among Iraqi T-72. They scored more kills than tanks because of their longer missile reach. I expect no less from Reflex. Still not sure about it's performance in central European landscape where engagement distances are short.