T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[FutureTank]

I would say there is no simple answer to the question. It largely depends on the location and the scenario of the combat. T-90 is lighter and much smaller probably a little better in mobility, however I personally think that M1A2 has better electronics. if correctly used both tanks can destroy the other and this also depends largely on the training of the crew.

Technical wise, the 120mm Rheinmetal gun is superior to the 125mm from Tula. Russian tanks use shorter ammos -> less powerful. In my opinion the armor protection of T-90 is inferior to M1A2 but not much, both of them can be penetrated by RPGs from the side. Inside T-90 is very cramped and there is a high risk of ammo detonation after penetration.

Yes, I agree on the 'location and scenario'. Comparing guns is a waste of time. With very few exeptions, most of Earths land surface is undulating, and does not allow 3-4000m LOS. The average is 500-2000m. 1250m either gun would be deadly with the current ammunition choice.

 

[FutureTank]

Greg, tanks are never designed as "artillery system" the are designed to move in front of infantry and destroy strong enemy fire points. Note that tanks main gun elevation are never more than +15 degree. The M109 are artillery system designed to SUPPORT the front troops. I hope this give you a better idea.

Hudi...never say never
The original tanks were SP guns.

Some will tell you that tanks are designed to assume hull-down position and wait

However I was reflecting on the artist's impression of the 130mm armed Russian tank...looks likeSP artillery to me, and the 130mm is an artillery gun. Traditionally since T-34/85 Russians have not used atrillry guns for tanks anyway.

Cheers

 

[eckherl]

Hi eckherl,

Can I ask when an AFV stops being a tank and becomes a heavily armoured artillery system? After all, if there was a 155mm APFSDS round, Paladins would make for awsome 'tank'. Give the M109 a gun-launched ATGW, and it becomes an even more awsome platform. Of course it will lack armour and speed, but it goes to design priorities and the tactical environment it is being expected to perform in.

Cheers
Greg

Hey Future Tank - welcome back, technically the M109 does have a gun launched ATGW, it is called a Copperhead. Cannon cockers are trained to fire point blank at targets in emergency situations with HE.

 

[FutureTank]

Hey Future Tank - welcome back, technically the M109 does have a gun launched ATGW, it is called a Copperhead. Cannon cockers are trained to fire point blank at targets in emergency situations with HE.

Not really back, still busy, but thought I'd look in...
Do M109s have their own laser designators? I thought Copperhead had some sort of minimum range limitation that prevented it brom being fired in LOS.

Yes, I remember in another forum a Vietnam vet was saying he was in a convoy which included an M109, and this thing fired a HE into an ambush from about 200m. The firing actually stopped for a few seconds, and the clump of trees the round landed in "just went up, and up, and up". I remember his saying it this way

How have you been eckherl?

 

[eckherl]

I don't think there is a 130mm canon in existence.

Welcome to the forum hudi82 - that is the thousand dollar question for everyone at the present time, will they go with a 130 or 135, if they even decide to go with it with something bigger. if they go with a different configurated turret they could just enlarge the auto loader and stay with the 125mm.

 

[eckherl]

Not really back, still busy, but thought I'd look in...
Do M109s have their own laser designators? I thought Copperhead had some sort of minimum range limitation that prevented it brom being fired in LOS.

Yes, I remember in another forum a Vietnam vet was saying he was in a convoy which included an M109, and this thing fired a HE into an ambush from about 200m. The firing actually stopped for a few seconds, and the clump of trees the round landed in "just went up, and up, and up". I remember his saying it this way

How have you been eckherl?

Negative on the laser designator, still have to depend on the FISTV or recon elements who would paint the target for them.

I have quite busy myself lately, plus where I am located in the states we have had a steady snowfall for the last 7 days making things real mess for everyone. But other than that life has been good.

 

[eckherl]

Hudi...never say never
The original tanks were SP guns.

Some will tell you that tanks are designed to assume hull-down position and wait

However I was reflecting on the artist's impression of the 130mm armed Russian tank...looks likeSP artillery to me, and the 130mm is an artillery gun. Traditionally since T-34/85 Russians have not used atrillry guns for tanks anyway.

Cheers

Russians are really good at designing dual purpose guns.

 

[Waylander]

A 155mm round with max. propulsion charge should be enough to give every enemy tank something to think about in case of an emergency.
The problem is reaction time.
With its optimized FCS a tank is much faster at tracking and engaging an enemy than a SPH.

And if you want to use SPHs as tanks this is not a good idea imho.

You would need to uparmor them (protection against 14.5mm is normal for SPHs) give them a secondary FCS or enlarge the old one and give them a better engine.
I would think this would turn out in a vehicle with roughly a min. of 80 tons.

This is also again a try to put all eggs in one basket and to create a wondervehicle which is able to do everything needed. Why not just put some AA guns onto it and a room for infantry in the back. Than you have melted a whole brigade into one vehicle.
Leave the different roles to different vehicles.

Also a welcome back from me.

 

[hudi82]

Hudi...never say never
The original tanks were SP guns.

Some will tell you that tanks are designed to assume hull-down position and wait

However I was reflecting on the artist's impression of the 130mm armed Russian tank...looks likeSP artillery to me, and the 130mm is an artillery gun. Traditionally since T-34/85 Russians have not used atrillry guns for tanks anyway.

Cheers

can you tell me where a 130mm gun is used now? I don't know any gun fielded now with such a caliber. all I can think of is the old Soviet katiuszas and maybe some old gun like kingkong(?)

 

[hudi82]

Welcome to the forum hudi82 - that is the thousand dollar question for everyone at the present time, will they go with a 130 or 135, if they even decide to go with it with something bigger. if they go with a different configurated turret they could just enlarge the auto loader and stay with the 125mm.

Thanks, but I thought they'll go with the 152 with a horizontal loader like in the western tanks, unless they want to go with a unmanned turret. If they choose an intermediate caliber can you tell me about the ballistics of these calibers? I seriously haven't head anything like a 130mm gun.

I mean an increase of 5mm doesn't seem to give much advantage, they might as well just go with a longer barrel and longer rounds with separate cartridges. a 152mm would give some kick hehe

 

[eckherl]

Thanks, but I thought they'll go with the 152 with a horizontal loader like in the western tanks, unless they want to go with a unmanned turret. If they choose an intermediate caliber can you tell me about the ballistics of these calibers? I seriously haven't head anything like a 130mm gun.

I mean an increase of 5mm doesn't seem to give much advantage, they might as well just go with a longer barrel and longer rounds with separate cartridges. a 152mm would give some kick hehe

They pretty much have gone as far as they can length wise for the 125mm for the size of the turret, Yes they have worked with a152 mm gun but just of the size of the rounds, I cannot see them going this route.

 

[swerve]

can you tell me where a 130mm gun is used now? I don't know any gun fielded now with such a caliber. all I can think of is the old Soviet katiuszas and maybe some old gun like kingkong(?)

The old Soviet M-46 130mm gun is still in widespread use. Thousands of them around the world.

 

[hudi82]

The old Soviet M-46 130mm gun is still in widespread use. Thousands of them around the world.

Ha, interesting, but as I've read, the guns are long been out of service in USSR. I mean what is the improvement of 130mm over 125mm? I mean whats the point of an increment of only 5mm? a better penetrator with a more powerful cartridge and a longer barrel probably would do better and I don't mean retrofitting the existing tanks but I mean a complete redesign of the turret for something like Blakc Eagle or the new gen tanks.

 

[extern]

130mm - is the Russian navy and shore arty system standard. Never heard about such plan for a tank. Some rumors were about 135mm for future Rusian MBTs, but it remains all but on the level of rumors .

 

[shimmy]

End of Tanks ?

Do any of you believe that weapons such as the NLOC-C signal the end of main battle tanks? How far away is the NLOS-C from filed readiness ? Is it just a nice idea or is it workable? With the possible ability of UAV's precisely locating a tank column and then sending the intel to a positon of NLOS-Cs , do the tanks have a chance?
Is the availablility of ordinance such as the SFMs also a signal that tanks are on their way out of modern warfare? Or is it just that tanks are useless against an enemy with the ability to launch SFMs ?
I feel that the develpment of UAVs will trastically change much about the battlefields of the next conflicts.

 

[Waylander]

I do not even see the NLOS-C much more capable than a current PzH 2000 despite its weight.

It won't even be able to have the same range with its 38 calibre 155mm like a PzH2000.

It will for sure have a good mobility (both tactical and strategical) but everything else?

I won't even bet on the PzH2000 being superior during counterfire duels due to better armor and longer range (Maybe less fire speed).


As for the combination UAV/indirect fire.

Maybe the US could get away with this against not that modern enemies.

But try to imagine this against an enemy which fields a modern and well layered (For example ---> EFs, Patriots, Rolands, Gepards, MANPADs ) air defence. If your UAVs get killed and your NLOS-C receives counterfire the mech/tank columns could stand on your doorstep very soon.

As always it comes down to a well combined arms strategy aka full air/land/sea warfare.

 

[eckherl]

130mm - is the Russian navy and shore arty system standard. Never heard about such plan for a tank. Some rumors were about 135mm for future Rusian MBTs, but it remains all but on the level of rumors .

If I was a betting man, I would pick the 135mm as their choice, have you seen the new chassis they are working with yet, it looks like they have gone to seven roadwheels on each side now instead of six.

 

[swerve]

Ha, interesting, but as I've read, the guns are long been out of service in USSR. ....

They were using them in Chechnya not long ago. Maybe because they had lots of ammunition which was going to be time-expired if not used soon. Also, it'd save barrel wear on newer guns.

Russia still has a lot of M-46 in inventory (650 according to IISS estimates), & declares those in the relevant areas for the CFE, but I think most are in reserve.

 

[extern]

There are systems in active service, that can exploit the old 130mm shells, like 130mm coastal arty system Bereg http://www.rusarmy.com/video/bronetech3/BEREG.wmv . So it must not be tanks/

http://topgun.rin.ru/cgi-bin/units.pl?field=8&unit=2353&lng=eng

 

[eckherl]

They were using them in Chechnya not long ago. Maybe because they had lots of ammunition which was going to be time-expired if not used soon. Also, it'd save barrel wear on newer guns.

Russia still has a lot of M-46 in inventory (650 according to IISS estimates), & declares those in the relevant areas for the CFE, but I think most are in reserve.

Agreed - it is also still popular in Eqypt, India and China.