[c_of_red]

I got side tracked. The solution is to not play the Russians. MBT has many other nations. Avoid playing the ones where the equipment values were lifted off a sales brochure.
The fact is that the T-90 is just a renamed T-72. That was done because the Russians were losing sales to the Ukraine, which was selling renamed T-72's (T-80). It worked, since the Indians bought 300 of them to counter the 320 T-80's the Pakis bought.
You can argue that the T-72, T-80 and T-90 are different tanks. I can argue that they are not. Same tanks, a few different bits bolted on them.
In the end, the only thing that really counts is how the perform on the battlefield. The T-72 didn't do any better then the T-62. The T-80 didn't do any better then the T-72. I doubt that the T-90 will do any better then the T-80. You can make excuses all you want, in the end I can point to pillars of smoke raising to the sky from burning Soviet MBT's.
Or as we say in the West, 'the proof is in the pudding'.
Russian designers have to start with a clean sheet of paper. They have to realize that a low profile means nothing in an age of radar and infrared guided weapons. That crew comfort is the single most important part of a crews ability to fight their weapon. That crew survivability is even more important then anything else.
American MBT's did "Thunder Runs" thru Baghdad because the crews knew that even if they got hit, they wouldn't get hurt. That gave them the confidence to be very aggressive, which is what you need in a tank crew.
compare that to the Soviet tankers in Chechnya(sp?) who knew they were dead as they climbed into their steel coffins. Brave men all. It's just a pity and a crime that they had to die proving their bravery.
As Patton said; 'The idea is to make the other poor SOB die for his country.'