T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[kato]

Can it move independantly in deflection from the maingun on the AMX-30.

Nope. Elevation only, needs to traverse the turret for a change in deflection.

Also why did they remove the 20mm from the PZ61 and go with a 7.62.

Apparently it was deemed "not needed".

The Pz61 requirements (with 20mm gun) were also different from those for the Pz68 (with MG) due to a slight doctrine change made in 1966. The old doctrine emphasized decentralized attacks by mechanized divisions on enemy forces trying to attack through breaches cut by nuclear weapons. The new doctrine focused more on infantry defense lines, with mechanized troops used primarily for counterattacks. The dropping of the 20mm gun might be related to that.

Ammunition, as alluded in this thread for other tanks, definitely wasn't the problem, even though the modified Pz61 carried more ammo:

- Pz 61 (original): 52x 105mm, 240x 20mm, 3200x 7.5mm (1 MG), 16x 80mm smoke grenades (6 launchers)
vs
- Pz 68 (original): 52x 105mm, 5200x 7.5mm (2 MG), 16x 80mm smoke grenades (6 launchers), 12x 71mm flares
vs
- Pz 61 AA9 (upgrade): 56x 105mm, 5400x 7.5mm (2 MG), 11x 80mm smoke grenades (6 launchers), 12x 71mm flares
vs
- Pz 68 AA5 (upgrade): 52x 105mm, 4000x 7.5mm (2 MG), 12x 76mm smoke grenades (6 launchers), 12x 71mm flares

Interestingly, btw, all Pz68 carry the coax 7.5mm MG in the original baffle of the 20mm gun, which looks slightly weird.

After they acquired the Pz68 series, socalled "change actions" were performed to make the Pz61 as close to the Pz68 as possible, to simplify training and maintenance. Among these actions were the addition of a flare launcher, replacing the communications gear, changing instrumentation and sights to Pz68 gear, and replacing the 20mm gun with a 7.5mm MG. Additionally, by the early 80s, when this particular change was made, Switzerland was phasing out 20mm caliber guns in general.

 

[eckherl]

Nope. Elevation only, needs to traverse the turret for a change in deflection.



Apparently it was deemed "not needed".

The Pz61 requirements (with 20mm gun) were also different from those for the Pz68 (with MG) due to a slight doctrine change made in 1966. The old doctrine emphasized decentralized attacks by mechanized divisions on enemy forces trying to attack through breaches cut by nuclear weapons. The new doctrine focused more on infantry defense lines, with mechanized troops used primarily for counterattacks. The dropping of the 20mm gun might be related to that.

Ammunition, as alluded in this thread for other tanks, definitely wasn't the problem, even though the modified Pz61 carried more ammo:

- Pz 61 (original): 52x 105mm, 240x 20mm, 3200x 7.5mm (1 MG), 16x 80mm smoke grenades (6 launchers)
vs
- Pz 68 (original): 52x 105mm, 5200x 7.5mm (2 MG), 16x 80mm smoke grenades (6 launchers), 12x 71mm flares
vs
- Pz 61 AA9 (upgrade): 56x 105mm, 5400x 7.5mm (2 MG), 11x 80mm smoke grenades (6 launchers), 12x 71mm flares
vs
- Pz 68 AA5 (upgrade): 52x 105mm, 4000x 7.5mm (2 MG), 12x 76mm smoke grenades (6 launchers), 12x 71mm flares

Interestingly, btw, all Pz68 carry the coax 7.5mm MG in the original baffle of the 20mm gun, which looks slightly weird.

After they acquired the Pz68 series, socalled "change actions" were performed to make the Pz61 as close to the Pz68 as possible, to simplify training and maintenance. Among these actions were the addition of a flare launcher, replacing the communications gear, changing instrumentation and sights to Pz68 gear, and replacing the 20mm gun with a 7.5mm MG. Additionally, by the early 80s, when this particular change was made, Switzerland was phasing out 20mm caliber guns in general.

Good information.

Do know how it is set up on the gunners control handles or FCU on the AMX-30 to comphensate for the additional elevation if needed for the 20mm after the Maingun has reached max elevation.

 

[mic of orion]

Basing opinion on yutube.. lol. Optics is on the level of any other modern tank. Besides, Polish, Croatian, etc. versions are worse - you can ask peoples who served on both versions.

I'd like to see where you get your information from about M84D, PT91 or T72MCZ, and I asked few ppl who are serving in both tanks, after all I know loads of Poles, Czech and Croatian ppl I meet in RL and on forums, from all walks of life and many of them served or are serving in the armed forces.

this is Croatian M84D Degman, still under development but Kuwaiti seem to prefer this tank over T90. Few upgrades are still missing on this picture but you get the idea.
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7863/m95degmanlj4.jpg

Polish Pt91 - not as advanced as M84D but still better optics than T90.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Pologne/vehicules_lourds/PT-91/PT91_Pologne_06.jpg

and nice Czech sample - superb optics.
http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/5051/26uk0.jpg

I do not need to argue here, my case closed.

PS, I am basing my opinions on Russian Army tests posted on the you tube, not on you tube itself. although lately it is pretty interesting place to see all kinds of stuff.

 

[eckherl]

I'd like to see where you get your information from about M84D, PT91 or T72MCZ, and I asked few ppl who are serving in both tanks, after all I know loads of Poles, Czech and Croatian ppl I meet in RL and on forums, from all walks of life and many of them served or are serving in the armed forces.

this is Croatian M84D Degman, still under development but Kuwaiti seem to prefer this tank over T90. Few upgrades are still missing on this picture but you get the idea.
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7863/m95degmanlj4.jpg

Polish Pt91 - not as advanced as M84D but still better optics than T90.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Pologne/vehicules_lourds/PT-91/PT91_Pologne_06.jpg

and nice Czech sample - superb optics.
http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/5051/26uk0.jpg

I do not need to argue here, my case closed.

PS, I am basing my opinions on Russian Army tests posted on the you tube, not on you tube itself. although lately it is pretty interesting place to see all kinds of stuff.

Yes - all these tanks have better optics versus T-90 at the present time, this should change though with France helping the Russians out with thermals. All these countries have been able to tap into Western technology and put it to good use. It will be interesting to see how Kuwait rates the Degman, with their prior use of the M84 they were quite content with them.

 

[Chrom]

I'd like to see where you get your information from about M84D, PT91 or T72MCZ, and I asked few ppl who are serving in both tanks, after all I know loads of Poles, Czech and Croatian ppl I meet in RL and on forums, from all walks of life and many of them served or are serving in the armed forces.

this is Croatian M84D Degman, still under development but Kuwaiti seem to prefer this tank over T90. Few upgrades are still missing on this picture but you get the idea.
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7863/m95degmanlj4.jpg

Polish Pt91 - not as advanced as M84D but still better optics than T90.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Pologne/vehicules_lourds/PT-91/PT91_Pologne_06.jpg

and nice Czech sample - superb optics.
http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/5051/26uk0.jpg

I do not need to argue here, my case closed.

PS, I am basing my opinions on Russian Army tests posted on the you tube, not on you tube itself. although lately it is pretty interesting place to see all kinds of stuff.

You know peoples what served on both T-90 and M84D ? Despite it being under development?
You want to to tell us PT-91 have better optic than T-90, despite being based on T-72M1? Well, i have no doubt PT-91 have better optic and FCS than T-72M1, but comparing it to T-90 is a little to much i think. Early PT-91 FCS by Polish origin are considered inferior to T-72B. New one i cant compare but probably about some level as T-90. Armor - they are full generation apart in armor.
Gun - PT-91 gun is based on 2A46 gun, thereas T-90 have 2A46M4 gun - a quite upgraded version. Polish ERA believed to be comparable with old Kontakt-1 ERA, with new variant may be close to Kontakt-V. I cant say much about optic and FCS becouse there are at least 5 different variants installed by varios suppliers e.g. Sagem, some Israel company, and by Polish themselfes.
Sagem and Israel optic might be (or not) slightly better than native russian T-90 or T-90A optic - but then again, noone complained about low quality T-80/T-90 optic - becouse it is more than adequate.

Remember, M84D is just prototype made from foreign components, with unknown cost. Thereas T-90A is costeffective, produced in hundreds serial tank.

BTW, what should show all these photos? I cant see how you can base ANY opinion on them - they dont show any optic qualties besides most basic ones.

 

[Chrom]

Yes - all these tanks have better optics versus T-90 at the present time, this should change though with France helping the Russians out with thermals. All these countries have been able to tap into Western technology and put it to good use. It will be interesting to see how Kuwait rates the Degman, with their prior use of the M84 they were quite content with them.

I think TI counted separate from optic. But even if we include it, still T-90A have same 2th generation TI as Sagem or Israel version PT-91.

 

[eckherl]

I think TI counted separate from optic. But even if we include it, still T-90A have same 2th generation TI as Sagem or Israel version PT-91.

Isn`t a TI a night time viewing optic, this sight most likely will be the primary viewing sight in war due to battlefield conditions, this is what I relied on in day and night time conditions. Other than maybe this T-90 weak point all these tanks do not offer anything over the T-90. As for the PT - 91 goes, another fellow forum reader pointed out that the Polish tankers preferred the LEO 2 A4 over the PT-91 because of the FCU and sights.

 

[Waylander]

I can just agree with Eckherl.
TI is also used heavily during daytime.
In germany we for example switch often between TI and daytime channel while scanning while the use of TI is increased the less good the environmental conditions are.
And yeah, the polish tankers are happy with their Leo II A4.

 

[Chrom]

Isn`t a TI a night time viewing optic, this sight most likely will be the primary viewing sight in war due to battlefield conditions, this is what I relied on in day and night time conditions. Other than maybe this T-90 weak point all these tanks do not offer anything over the T-90. As for the PT - 91 goes, another fellow forum reader pointed out that the Polish tankers preferred the LEO 2 A4 over the PT-91 because of the FCU and sights.

Most likely he refered to base PT-91 version of polish origin. It is nothing more than a slightly upgraed T-72M1, which itself is export version of T-72A mid 70x origin. Of course, Leo 2 A4 would have better FCS.

PT-91M should have comparable/better FCS than Leo2A4. But i dont think there are many peoples who sat inside that tank.

 

[eckherl]

Most likely he refered to base PT-91 version of polish origin. It is nothing more than a slightly upgraed T-72M1, which itself is export version of T-72A mid 70x origin. Of course, Leo 2 A4 would have better FCS.

PT-91M should have comparable/better FCS than Leo2A4. But i dont think there are many peoples who sat inside that tank.

What is the future of the PT-91 in Poland, do they plan on keeping it in any type of sizable numbers or are they wanting more LEO2A4s.

 

[scarey1989]

I think that it is important not just to comare the T90 to the abrams in this thread. Leo2A4, FV 4034 Challenger 2, Leclerc and Merkava are all extremely respectable tanks and many experts on armour rate the Le02A4 as the best mbt int he world.:lul

 

[kato]

Good information.

Do know how it is set up on the gunners control handles or FCU on the AMX-30 to comphensate for the additional elevation if needed for the 20mm after the Maingun has reached max elevation.

Phew. Bit complicated.

In "AA mode", the 20mm gun is controlled by the commander.
In "anti-ground mode", the 20mm gun is controlled by the gunner (like the 105mm gun, both of course overridable by commander).

The commander controls the 7.62mm AA MG on the roof via a sight prism elevating to +45° degrees max (same as the MG). When necessary, the commander overrides the gunner's controls for the 20mm gun, decouples it from the 105mm gun elevation, and activates an electric servo which couples his AA sight prism into the hydraulic elevation system of the 20mm gun (i'd presume that entire thing takes a single switch or two). The commander can then elevate the 20mm gun with the same controls as the coupled AA sight prism and the 7.62mm AA MG.
In "anti-ground mode", the 20mm gun is limited to +20° coupled to the main gun.
It'd be interesting to know though if the AA override system semi-automatically traverses the AA cupola to line up with the 20mm gun first (doubt it with 60s technology), or if the commander gets some kind of warning about this or something - the AA cupola with sight prism and MG is fully traversable over 360° separately from the turret.

On the modernized AMX-30B2, the commander has a computerized observation sight which can be used to aim 7.62mm MG, 20mm gun and 105mm gun for AA purposes with similar overrides/decoupling, however (unlike in anti-ground mode) only in "direct" fire without ballistic computer aid; he has to aim the 105mm gun (and 20mm gun?) via angle modification from the 7.62mm gun in that case.

 

[eckherl]

Phew. Bit complicated.

In "AA mode", the 20mm gun is controlled by the commander.
In "anti-ground mode", the 20mm gun is controlled by the gunner (like the 105mm gun, both of course overridable by commander).

The commander controls the 7.62mm AA MG on the roof via a sight prism elevating to +45° degrees max (same as the MG). When necessary, the commander overrides the gunner's controls for the 20mm gun, decouples it from the 105mm gun elevation, and activates an electric servo which couples his AA sight prism into the hydraulic elevation system of the 20mm gun (i'd presume that entire thing takes a single switch or two). The commander can then elevate the 20mm gun with the same controls as the coupled AA sight prism and the 7.62mm AA MG.
In "anti-ground mode", the 20mm gun is limited to +20° coupled to the main gun.
It'd be interesting to know though if the AA override system semi-automatically traverses the AA cupola to line up with the 20mm gun first (doubt it with 60s technology), or if the commander gets some kind of warning about this or something - the AA cupola with sight prism and MG is fully traversable over 360° separately from the turret.

On the modernized AMX-30B2, the commander has a computerized observation sight which can be used to aim 7.62mm MG, 20mm gun and 105mm gun for AA purposes, however (unlike in anti-ground mode) only in "direct" fire without ballistic computer aid.

JEEZ - I would love to hear the fire commands for multiple air and ground targets for a engagement sequence. Interesting set up, thanks for the info.

 

[eckherl]

I think that it is important not just to comare the T90 to the abrams in this thread. Leo2A4, FV 4034 Challenger 2, Leclerc and Merkava are all extremely respectable tanks and many experts on armour rate the Le02A4 as the best mbt int he world.:lul

Agreed - all the tanks that you mentioned are first class all the way, the LEO 2A4 is a good tank with everyone grabbing them up at bargain prices and rightfully so, but I would have to give the LEO2A6 the top honor badge for western designed tanks and give the T-84 the best for eastern designed.

 

[Grand Danois]

JEEZ - I would love to hear the fire commands for multiple air and ground targets for a engagement sequence. Interesting set up, thanks for the info.

I thought the idea with a single turret and main gun was to mount the largest possible gun. Also only one main weapon because of the coordination horror it creates for the crew. A tank like the Soviet T-35 is a tank that has suboptimal armament which can only be employed suboptimally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35

Just not a fan of machine cannon on a MBT. It diverts purpose away from the main task. And MG's are sufficient in secondary roles imhv.

 

[eckherl]

I thought the idea with a single turret and main gun was to mount the largest possible gun. Also only one main weapon because of the coordination horror it creates for the crew. A tank like the Soviet T-35 is a tank that has suboptimal armament which can only be employed suboptimally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35

Just not a fan of machine cannon on a MBT. It diverts purpose away from the main task. And MG's are sufficient in secondary roles imhv.

I am not a fan either, a tank turret in a war time scenario after contact is made is nothing more than complete chaos as it is, that will not change, if you give a tank crew way too many options they will not use them, they will take the most easy route every time. A good example of this would be the hunter killer device on the M1A2, it makes a good tool for a table eight gunnery qualification, but in war most tank commanders prefer to be unbuttoned to do their fighting.

 

[eckherl]

@Chrom

This is the inner plates on the T-72B, is this the same configuration found on the T-90S.

 

[Waylander]

I am also not proposing a real machine cannon, especially not as a coax.

But a lightweight 25mm in a RWS (With good optics/TI) is going to improve your ability to work in very tight environments (MOUT, etc.).

It is defenitely adding to your situational awareness in a MOUT environment as well as giving you additional 360° cover/firepower.

And in open field engagements it can be used in the same way the US uses its .50cal on the M1.

 

[extern]

@Chrom
This is the inner plates on the T-72B, is this the same configuration found on the T-90S.

IMHO wrong, all reliable sources say T-90's armor is different from T-72 and most close to the T-80's althought with a number technologic improvements. However, the exactly constructive points are classified, so I cannot exclude some inner plates but rather different from T-72.

Besides, today in Russia - is the national Tankman Day

 

[eckherl]

IMHO wrong, all reliable sources say T-90's armor is different from T-72 and most close to the T-80's althought with a number technologic improvements. However, the exactly constructive points are classified, so I cannot exclude some inner plates but rather different from T-72.

Besides, today in Russia - is the national Tankman Day

Are these improvements part of the welded construction of the turret, also if I may ask, isn`t a small portion of the T-90M turret cast.

PS: nice poster - I wish my country would have a national Tankman day.