T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[Chrom]

I had someone tell me that you could not place Relik on the T-90 due to turret design configuration but I do not see what the difference that would make, if they are going to keep them for a couple of decades I would think that they would want to place their best armor package that is designed.

ERA bricks are easely replaceable. In fact, they MUST be replaced after 10-15 years due to age issues. ERA bricks holders are somewhat harder to replace due to possible interference with optics, APS, etc. So i'm almost sure newly produced T-90 have Relict ERA bricks inside.

 

[eckherl]

Then there was a big WWII staging in the Russian tank-building capital (N-Tagil) - of Prokhorovka tank battle near Kursk. The 'German' tanks were amazing :

Extern

What a big bummer - before I opened the pictures and read your post I thought that you were giving me a glimpse of a new turret configuration that Russia was researching and testing, and as a added bonus for my let down when I clicked on the pictures to open them I see that it is a Russian bum job of trying to replicate a German tiger. I would think that with all the war booty that Russia got during the war that you had quite a few of them in running order and could of really put on a show. If the British and even the bloody French have working tigers why not Russia, heck - France even has a operational tiger 2. Some T-34/85s and JS 2s would of been nice to.

 

[eckherl]

ERA bricks are easely replaceable. In fact, they MUST be replaced after 10-15 years due to age issues. ERA bricks holders are somewhat harder to replace due to possible interference with optics, APS, etc. So i'm almost sure newly produced T-90 have Relict ERA bricks inside.

Then we may be facing a different beast sporting that type of protection, how much Russian information is out there on Relik.

 

[FutureTank]

Extern

What a big bummer - before I opened the pictures and read your post I thought that you were giving me a glimpse of a new turret configuration that Russia was researching and testing, and as a added bonus for my let down when I clicked on the pictures to open them I see that it is a Russian bum job of trying to replicate a German tiger. I would think that with all the war booty that Russia got during the war that you had quite a few of them in running order and could of really put on a show. If the British and even the bloody French have working tigers why not Russia, heck - France even has a operational tiger 2. Some T-34/85s and JS 2s would of been nice to.

Somewhere out there there are several hundred WW2 German tanks that were towed off for target practice. Few were used though, and are probably just sitting in open air parks rusting away.
Why would the Red Army refurbish tanks that proved to be inadequate for the kob they were designed for?
There are plenty of T-34-85s around still, but to get them all in one place is logistically difficult. There is a company of them in Moscow for parades.
IMHO there are JS-2s also somewhere, if only those dug in in the Far East.

 

[FutureTank]

Nah - most likely a biased opinion after getting on a ROK T-80U and getting on a former East German T-72 located at Fort Irwin, I will leave out the Iraqi T-72s. You could tell that the T-80 was the Russian flagship of tanks over the T-72. But what the T-72 was designed for, a tank that could be massed produced during a war time footing is enough to make you wonder on how many of them that Russia could pound out over western designed tanks.

The estimate is that three T-72s could be manufactured in the time it took to make one Challenger. Probably fairly applicable to the M1 and L2 also, if not at a worse ratio.
Of course its not that simple as straight tank numbers.
I think this topic has been revisited so many times on different forums that I can recite the arguments by heart!
Cheers
Greg

 

[Chrom]

Then we may be facing a different beast sporting that type of protection, how much Russian information is out there on Relik.

Relict is installed on russian T-72B upgrade and claimed to be effective both against APFSDS and tandem HEAT warheads. This is sure.
There are rumors what Relict bricks are also installed on last T-90 batches - but this is not confirmed yet.

 

[eckherl]

Relict is installed on russian T-72B upgrade and claimed to be effective both against APFSDS and tandem HEAT warheads. This is sure.
There are rumors what Relict bricks are also installed on last T-90 batches - but this is not confirmed yet.

That is some very good information for me to know, thanks Chrom.

 

[eckherl]

Somewhere out there there are several hundred WW2 German tanks that were towed off for target practice. Few were used though, and are probably just sitting in open air parks rusting away.
Why would the Red Army refurbish tanks that proved to be inadequate for the kob they were designed for?
There are plenty of T-34-85s around still, but to get them all in one place is logistically difficult. There is a company of them in Moscow for parades.
IMHO there are JS-2s also somewhere, if only those dug in in the Far East.

Having fully operational tigers and panthers is a very rare occasion, collecters and museums would pay top dollar for them. i was just having a little fun with Extern.

 

[eckherl]

The estimate is that three T-72s could be manufactured in the time it took to make one Challenger. Probably fairly applicable to the M1 and L2 also, if not at a worse ratio.
Of course its not that simple as straight tank numbers.
I think this topic has been revisited so many times on different forums that I can recite the arguments by heart!
Cheers
Greg

I agree Greg - we know what they could do during the cold war era, but it would be interesting to see how many they could produce at the present time.

 

[extern]

They are pulling alot of these out of storage correct, what type of upgrades are they planning if any at all.

T-80B - indeed remains the Russian backbone tank model considering low-rate character of T-90A production (60 tanks a year). There are about 3000 T-80B tanks on service. Those on the picture - have their ERA in the regiment storage before wartime. Their modernisation program was started this year, while 15 vehicles were modernized in Omsk till now. They'r planing however up to 150 modernized T-80's a year in near future. The modernisation kit is common with the last T-72 modernisation and includes 'Relict' ERA installation , the new sight, the auxiliary engine etc. This is a rare pic of modernized T-80B:

 

[eckherl]

T-80B - indeed remains the Russian backbone tank model considering low-rate character of T-90A production (60 tanks a year). There are about 3000 T-80B tanks on service. Those on the picture - have their ERA in the regiment storage before wartime. Their modernisation program was started this year, while 15 vehicles were modernized in Omsk till now. They'r planing however up to 150 modernized T-80's a year in near future. The modernisation kit is common with the last T-72 modernisation and includes 'Relict' ERA installation , the new sight, the auxiliary engine etc. This is a rare pic of modernized T-80B:

I have seen that photo before, are you stating that this vehicle in particular is set up with Relict.

Yes - I was told that Russia has alot of T-80s in inventory but do they have alot of spare parts for them and are they setting it up so that they will be able to inter change some of the automotive components. How long do you think that we will see T-80s soldiering on in Russia.

 

[Chrom]

I have seen that photo before, are you stating that this vehicle in particular is set up with Relict.

Yes - I was told that Russia has alot of T-80s in inventory but do they have alot of spare parts for them and are they setting it up so that they will be able to inter change some of the automotive components. How long do you think that we will see T-80s soldiering on in Russia.

Russia have just as much spare parts for T-80B as for T-72. After all Omsk plant produced T-80... I guess spare part is non-issue here.

 

[FutureTank]

Yes, I am also confused by the T-80BV, and I think it may simply mean that the B or third production variant had been brought up to the V or fourth production variant engineering specs.

Ok, I had to look up the 80s to realise that I had made a mistake (kind of). Cyrillic B (Latin V) when following the type designates production version.

Cyrillic B (Latin V) when it follows production version, designates use of ERA armour as vzrivnoy - explosive, hence T-72BV (latin).

I have to say that the identification of Soviet/Russian tanks online is incomplete and a mess since no single site offers clear and well illustrated type and version description!

Cheers
Greg

 

[eckherl]

Ok, I had to look up the 80s to realise that I had made a mistake (kind of). Cyrillic B (Latin V) when following the type designates production version.

Cyrillic B (Latin V) when it follows production version, designates use of ERA armour as vzrivnoy - explosive, hence T-72BV (latin).

I have to say that the identification of Soviet/Russian tanks online is incomplete and a mess since no single site offers clear and well illustrated type and version description!

Cheers
Greg

The BV versions carry the older explosive ERA tiles, which are still used by Russia, Iran, Ukraine and India just to name a few. With the newer generations of ERA tiles they seem not to carry the BV designation, is this due in part because the explosion is contained with in the newer tiles not causing a major safety issue/concern with the exposed crew and infantry. support.

 

[Chrom]

The BV versions carry the older explosive ERA tiles, which are still used by Russia, Iran, Ukraine and India just to name a few. With the newer generations of ERA tiles they seem not to carry the BV designation, is this due in part because the explosion is contained with in the newer tiles not causing a major safety issue/concern with the exposed crew and infantry. support.

Of course it is not due to any safety issues. The main reason seems what ERA becam pretty standard feature - so there is no reason to give special letter for it.

 

[extern]

Of course it is not due to any safety issues. The main reason seems what ERA becam pretty standard feature - so there is no reason to give special letter for it.

Indeed the first variants of the T-80 linage (T-80/T-80A/T-80B/T-80BK) were without ERA like one from the museum of Sankt-Petersburg. T-80BV - was the first T-80 model who got ERA (Contact-1). The first T-80B's were also upgraded with Contact-1 at late 80th. So, 'T-80B' - is often designation for all models with ERA Contact-1 before T-80U/T-80UD came with Contact-5.

 

[extern]

do they have alot of spare parts for them and are they setting it up so that they will be able to inter change some of the automotive components. How long do you think that we will see T-80s soldiering on in Russia.

The intention of the army became clear when the goverment allow to the bancrupted Omsktransmash (the serial T-80 building plant) to be sold for OKBTM tank design house. Now they together are merged with the UralVagonZavod (UVZ) - the prosper T-90's producer. So, the state owned monopolist in the Russian armor industry is built now. It has all documentation, copyright and patents for building and repairing any kind of Russian tanks including T-80. As I said before, the modernisation work for T-80 is already started this year after the long time of hesitation and economical confusion in Omsk tank-buildng fascility. The armor chiefs, GABTU etc. like Gen. Maslov said in their last interviews that the russian army still needs tanks with gas-turbine engine (T-80's) in the North due to its climatic conditions (extremally low temps) that complicate diesel use. Also the estimations said future Russian tanks also will have two power-pack variants (diesel and gas-turbine) although with high degree of tech commonality.

 

[eckherl]

The intention of the army became clear when the goverment allow to the bancrupted Omsktransmash (the serial T-80 building plant) to be sold for OKBTM tank design house. Now they together are merged with the UralVagonZavod (UVZ) - the prosper T-90's producer. So, the state owned monopolist in the Russian armor industry is built now. It has all documentation, copyright and patents for building and repairing any kind of Russian tanks including T-80. As I said before, the modernisation work for T-80 is already started this year after the long time of hesitation and economical confusion in Omsk tank-buildng fascility. The armor chiefs, GABTU etc. like Gen. Maslov said in their last interviews that the russian army still needs tanks with gas-turbine engine (T-80's) in the North due to its climatic conditions (extremally low temps) that complicate diesel use. Also the estimations said future Russian tanks also will have two power-pack variants (diesel and gas-turbine) although with high degree of tech commonality.

Interesting - they still have a concern with the diesel fuel jellowing at low temps, I had it happen to me in South Korea during a field exercise, never realized that it could get that could until I experienced it.

Why do they not just have a engine that can handle booth types of fuel, M1 series engines will burn both, but diesel is the preferred fuel to use.

 

[eckherl]

Of course it is not due to any safety issues. The main reason seems what ERA becam pretty standard feature - so there is no reason to give special letter for it.

So when did they stop using the abbreviation for it. The older style ERA from booth Russia and the west was a hazard to exposed soldiers when first introduced.

 

[Chrom]

Interesting - they still have a concern with the diesel fuel jellowing at low temps, I had it happen to me in South Korea during a field exercise, never realized that it could get that could until I experienced it.

Why do they not just have a engine that can handle booth types of fuel, M1 series engines will burn both, but diesel is the preferred fuel to use.

Russian engines are multifuel to even higher degree than M1 engine. But here we are speaking about complety different things - i.e. diesel vs turbine. Turbine engines are much easer to start in cold conditions.