T-90 Tank
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
What is so official about it, do you think that it is such a big Russian secret, surely if it was the greatest thing to stop KE penetrators they sure in the hell would not give it to the Algerians. For your question, I have attended seminars hosted by the U.S and a few other countries on Russian armor capabilities. Russia claims that it does offer better protection over standard designed K5, are you one of many who have come to the conclusion that Relikt is a multi layered form of K5.
One of the biggest differences between K5 and Relikt is the design of a back plate for Relikt blocks, this is supposingly, by Russian acounts able to give better stopping performance of newer shape charged tandem warheads and KE penetrators. The word on the street from good sources have been that Relikt is being tested on T-72 series up to T-90 designations with current and future Russian T-90 builds rolling out of the factories with it already in place. Algerians were sold on the Relikt concept that it offers better protection, I guess that this may of helped sweeten the pot over just going with a T-72 upgrade package.
Ok. Are there any sources other then word on the street? I'm not trying to belittle your sources, it's just that the Russian MoD is usually advertising things like that quite widely. Iirc relikt was the ERA package for the Rogatka program, but as far as I know that program hasn't taken off the ground yet.
EDIT: Visually relikt should be rather different from K5. Do we have photos of the T-90A with relikt ERA?
EDIT: Visually relikt should be rather different from K5. Do we have photos of the T-90A with relikt ERA?
Target, ceasefire Waylander.
I will see what I can dig up photo wise on a Algerian T-90 model, alot of the ones coming out of Algeria show them covered up.
You say u got pics of Algerian T90's covered up. Could u at least post those pics? I would like to see what they are trying to hide.
And you claim the Relikt is not a russian state secret, that they are willing to sell to Algerians. Then how come they are planning on building newer T90's with Relikt themselves? Can you clarify?
I would not say that Russian Mod is a reliable source for current accurate information on new weapons platforms or armor upgrades and they are not alone, everyone plays the game. My street rumor mongers come from the mean streets of General Dynamics and a few others that I will not disclose.
Also the Rogatka program does have a series of testing under its belt, you should be able to find a few photos circulating around somewhere, should not only been tested on T-72 series, word has it that it has also included T-62 and T-55.
And how should Relikt be different in appearance of K5, are you thinking panel size.
All countries armor capabilities are deemed state secrets or classified information, think about this, T-90S sales have gone pretty much good for India but there were some issues pointed out with the tank, not saying who is the blame be it Russia or India, other countries on the market for new tanks know some of the issues between Russia and India be it true or false, do you not think that it is a good for Russia to sweeten the pot and offer a much improved design in certain capabilities, because of this not only have they sold T-90SA to Algeria but look for Libya and Morroco to also purchase. I would bet the house that Russia more than likely has at least two or three advancements over Relikt and who knows what they will show up to a major tank gun fight with, the game will go on and on. Here is a couple of photos.
Last edited:
Yes I know it's been tested, and have seen some photos. The Rogatka program ERA tiles look notably different in physical appearence. The program, however, to my knowledge has not been implemented in line units.
Yes. Physical difference in the appearence of the tiles.
EDIT: To simplify it, when looking at a T-90A photo how can we tell whether it's carrying K-5 or Relikt?
EDIT2: Is it just me or is that cover unnaturally tall? It looks almost as if there is a turret twice the height under there....
Last edited:
ya that makes sense. Anyways, those pics are fully covered uselessness. Anyways thanks for posting it for me though. What are they trying to hide anyways when its hard to distinguish what ERA is on it?
This is a quote from a soldier in a tank division from some board.
Technically speaking, the electronics in the M1A1 are inferior to both the M1A2, LeoIIA5(A6), and the newest version of the Leclerc. Not to mention the latest itteration of the Challenger II. However, it is my personal opinion that your government made the wisest possible choice in their purchase. The reason all those newer tanks could be considered superior to the M1A1 is their electronics, optics, and firecontrol systems. Sticking to what I know, I can tell you that in proper weather conditions, the M1A2SEP is nothing short of a marvel of modern technology. Tank commanders have a touch screen LCD in which they can literally drag and drop different firing solutions to the tanks in their platoon or to their gunner's station, giving the respective gunners a firing solution with which they need only pull the trigger. Whole companies of tanks can essentially operate as a single unified group. It's amazing really. We were using those at Ft Hood right when I went infantry.
However. When we got deployed to Iraq, the tanks we got ready to go first were not the A2SEP's. They were the A1's. See, all the computer equipment they loaded in there makes a lot of heat. I mean, a -lot.- So much that in order to keep it even working, let alone comfortable for humans, they had to put in an auxilary air conditioning unit in the bussel rack. A1's are still mostly mechanical compared to the newest generation, and are much more reliable in the desert. Trust me, your A1's would embarass Germany if they were on your soil and your crews were trained worth a damn.
The Leopard IIA5 has all that. Plus, they have the new L55 tube. Which is really just stronger and longer, but the increased compression yields almost 600 feet per second more muzzle velocity or something rediculous like that. They are capable of AT kills with APFSDS ammo at over 5.5 miles! An Abrams gets AT kill shots at 5 miles in a wet dream. We can hit them, but the slugs just arent going fast enough by then.
I was wondering what is the AT tank kill distance of the T 90?
Technically speaking, the electronics in the M1A1 are inferior to both the M1A2, LeoIIA5(A6), and the newest version of the Leclerc. Not to mention the latest itteration of the Challenger II. However, it is my personal opinion that your government made the wisest possible choice in their purchase. The reason all those newer tanks could be considered superior to the M1A1 is their electronics, optics, and firecontrol systems. Sticking to what I know, I can tell you that in proper weather conditions, the M1A2SEP is nothing short of a marvel of modern technology. Tank commanders have a touch screen LCD in which they can literally drag and drop different firing solutions to the tanks in their platoon or to their gunner's station, giving the respective gunners a firing solution with which they need only pull the trigger. Whole companies of tanks can essentially operate as a single unified group. It's amazing really. We were using those at Ft Hood right when I went infantry.
However. When we got deployed to Iraq, the tanks we got ready to go first were not the A2SEP's. They were the A1's. See, all the computer equipment they loaded in there makes a lot of heat. I mean, a -lot.- So much that in order to keep it even working, let alone comfortable for humans, they had to put in an auxilary air conditioning unit in the bussel rack. A1's are still mostly mechanical compared to the newest generation, and are much more reliable in the desert. Trust me, your A1's would embarass Germany if they were on your soil and your crews were trained worth a damn.
The Leopard IIA5 has all that. Plus, they have the new L55 tube. Which is really just stronger and longer, but the increased compression yields almost 600 feet per second more muzzle velocity or something rediculous like that. They are capable of AT kills with APFSDS ammo at over 5.5 miles! An Abrams gets AT kill shots at 5 miles in a wet dream. We can hit them, but the slugs just arent going fast enough by then.
I was wondering what is the AT tank kill distance of the T 90?
thelast I've read was that missiles have range 5 km (it's launched from main gun tube) and has laser targetting system.
there were rumors about new managed shells for tanks and artillery of different calibre. I can't say more because I've read this in some article and there were only several lines about it. nothing real.
there were rumors about new managed shells for tanks and artillery of different calibre. I can't say more because I've read this in some article and there were only several lines about it. nothing real.
You cannot use size or armor angle layout for comparison purposes, K5 can be designed either large or small panel configuration as the same holds true for Relikt, any visual difference if you can get photo shots of the rear portions of both panels should show diffentely with Relikt due to the back plate placement.
Algerian T-90SA are supposed to have a countermesure radar device installed, maybe this is what they are trying to hide.
All depends on what bullet they are bringing for a gunfight
, also you do realize that LEO2A5 doesn`t sport a L55. Please do not put much stock on what he wrote inregards to a 5.5 mile killing range, Sighting L.O.S currently will not support this for direct fire tank projectiles. A L44 has just as much killing power as a L55 at any tank to tank engagement range up to 3,000 meters, difference lays with KE projectiles, DU versus Tungsten. Any type of armor skirmish between modern tanks beyond this range is doing nothing but give away their positions.
Last edited:
There are so many inaccuracies in this article that I also wouldn't put too much faith into it.
-Eckherl already mentioned that the Leopard IIA5 doesn't have a L/55 but the normal L/44. (Not that this gun isn't a deadly beast too...)
- A plain normal Leopard IIA5/A6 is defenitely not superior when it comes to electronics and optics compared to a M1A1. It has an upgraded FCS and the TC got a new independent TI (just a normal optical periscope before).
Nevertheless one can order additional upgrades for the Leopards like done with the Leopard IIE/HEL/A5DK and Strv122. Not that this isn't possible with the M1A1 (AIMv1 and v2).
There are electronic upgrades from Rheinmetall which should be equal to what a M1A2SEP has (TI, FCS, optics, battlefield management system, navigation system, digital diagnostic systems,...).
Ist just depends on how much money you are willing to pay.
- While the L/55 gives you better accuracy over every distance (Not that it matters at low ranges) it is not possible to hit targets at more than 4 klicks with a plain normal A6. The FCS is limited to 4 kilometers and while it is possible to remove this software limit it is not done in a normal german A6.
Not to talk of what Eckherl already mentioned. Fighting distances over 2km are more than rare and are only possible under ideal conditions (like open flat desert). One shouldn't use the circumstances of 73 easting to be normal...
During maneuvers in our northern plain we more than often had no engagements at more than 1km. And this terrain is normally considered to be good tank terrain.
-Eckherl already mentioned that the Leopard IIA5 doesn't have a L/55 but the normal L/44. (Not that this gun isn't a deadly beast too...)
- A plain normal Leopard IIA5/A6 is defenitely not superior when it comes to electronics and optics compared to a M1A1. It has an upgraded FCS and the TC got a new independent TI (just a normal optical periscope before).
Nevertheless one can order additional upgrades for the Leopards like done with the Leopard IIE/HEL/A5DK and Strv122. Not that this isn't possible with the M1A1 (AIMv1 and v2).
There are electronic upgrades from Rheinmetall which should be equal to what a M1A2SEP has (TI, FCS, optics, battlefield management system, navigation system, digital diagnostic systems,...).
Ist just depends on how much money you are willing to pay.
- While the L/55 gives you better accuracy over every distance (Not that it matters at low ranges) it is not possible to hit targets at more than 4 klicks with a plain normal A6. The FCS is limited to 4 kilometers and while it is possible to remove this software limit it is not done in a normal german A6.
Not to talk of what Eckherl already mentioned. Fighting distances over 2km are more than rare and are only possible under ideal conditions (like open flat desert). One shouldn't use the circumstances of 73 easting to be normal...
During maneuvers in our northern plain we more than often had no engagements at more than 1km. And this terrain is normally considered to be good tank terrain.
If that is what he wrote then yes, also just how much training has he conducted with a French tank division.
Here's an interesting video on the BMPT. In it they mention that the Russian military is now trying to think of how best to use the vehicle. I think that's probably the most accurate guess as to what the situation really is.
http://rian.ru/video/20081114/155161156.html
http://rian.ru/video/20081114/155161156.html
there are a few problems.
- the longest tank kill is not 5.5 miles...
- the french don't have any tank divisions....
- he's confused about calibre per platform
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226&page=5
As the others said.
There are some fundamental wrong informations in this article.
Just because somebody is a soldier or has been at some time during his life doesn't mean that everything he tells is right.
Everybody makes mistakes, everybody can be ill informed and in the end there are as many lame ducks in the army as in every other company.
We highlighted the problems we have with this article.
Counter them and tell us that were we are wrong.
It is easy for somebody to confuse the different versions of the actual tanks in existence. Currently there are maybe a dozen different versions of Leopard II and Abrams in service with several countries not to talk of the versions of the past and proposed future upgrades.
I don't even want to start with eastern designs...
Heck even if you are really into it it is difficult to get it right.