FutureTank
Banned Member
But don't the early explosive packages had a 'shelf life'? Was that not the reason they were replaced?
Cheers
Greg
T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour
- Status
Cheers
Greg
Definitly one of the main reasons.
FutureTank
Banned Member
It seems to me this is a bit of an academic question since no country has the Cold War production capability these days. Even the Chinese manufacturing has been cut down because copying even the 80s models of T-72 is far more complex then the T-55s they used to do in the 70s.
I dare say that tanks are taking a back seat to more offensive weapon systems these days, mostly air delivered, and the nature of threats has changed for the European powers and the USA.
In fact the greatest possibility for use of armour has shifted rather dramatically from Europe to Asia, and the most significant additions to tank fleets have been there, with China, India and Iran all buying from existing manufacturers and attempting indigenous design and production programs.
I appreciate this is a bit off the topic, but in looking at the strategic situation today, it seems to me the situation is not a lot unlike Europe of 1930s with several large economic powerhouses that are seeking to express their political and ideological points of view.
Unfortunately for Europe and the USA the 'view' from the outside in(to Asia) is not quite the same as the 'view' from the inside out. The actual strategic mass of the regional participants can assume a velocity and trajectories of their own that may prove to be beyond control of most of their governments as happened in Europe in 1914 and 1939.
In Asia though the superiority of the air-delivered weaponry is not as challenging to the tank as it is in Europe, so we may yet see clashes of the 'steel beasts'.
I'm not sure if the T-90 will be involved, but it is of note that the only Russian division fully equipped with the T-90 is stationed in the Far East (Siberia).
Cheers
Greg
Yes - they had a shelf life, but they were Russia`s first generation explosive reactive armor that worked the same as Israeli blazer ERA but much better due to the size of the bricks. The major downfall to both styles were the detonations after the penetration sequence from heat round style warheads. Russia`s version was called Kontakt EDZ (english term - dynamic protection elements) Russia started fielding it around 1983 on the T-80 tanks even though they actually had it since 1978, after 1985 all Russian T-80s stationed in the former East Germany had it with a vehicle designation T-80BV with the V standing for explosive armor. They had two brick styles, the standard brick that had a double fixed reactive element and then you had the wedge brick with a single fixed reactive element, this brick was used for overlaping other bricks and used to cover null zones. Its odd that the Russians never used the V term on the T-72 series. Newer Russian tiles have been perfected to hold the explosion inside of the tile thus eliminating the blast exposer to exposed crewmembers or friendly dismounts, plus they have pretty much eliminated the short life span issue.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Yes, I believe the replacements were called Kontakt-3, and the current version is Kontakt-5 also used on other upgraded tanks.
...down the memory lane there!
Cheers
Greg
You never know - we may not see any type of new models coming out of Russia or the west, we seem to be content on just fine tuning the likes of the T-90, M1 series, Leo2 series and many others, alot of folks think that South Korea`s Black Panther is a new design and it isn`t, what everyone is looking at is a upgraded K1 series, it is sad for me but the reality may be that in a couple of decades you may not see them around anymore due to the advancements in technologies to destroy them.
Yes - it is interesting to see how many tanks that are being aquired in Asia, they seem to not be able to get enough of them.
With Russia stating that they are upgrading the tiles to Relict on their tanks what happened to the Kaktus tile package that I assume is Kontakt -6
@Chrom
What leads you to the assumption that Relikt may be being used on the T-90, I was told that the Relikt tiles have to be placed at a certain proper angle for it to work properly, thus the different designed turret on the discontinued Black Eagle project, apparently Kaktus tiles may have the same issue. Is there any type of information out there that would suggest other wise.
What leads you to the assumption that Relikt may be being used on the T-90, I was told that the Relikt tiles have to be placed at a certain proper angle for it to work properly, thus the different designed turret on the discontinued Black Eagle project, apparently Kaktus tiles may have the same issue. Is there any type of information out there that would suggest other wise.
The current location of the most capable Russian tank regiments (except Kantemirov Div. near Moscow) is the consequence of Conventional arms agreement in Europe, and will be naturally review if Moscow retreat from this pact. However, unlike USSR era now they mostly have defencive role. The most severe ground treat for Russia is directed from the West due to overhelming advance of NATO in conventional forces. (before speaking about intentions let see the capabilities) Russia has permanent problem with our Konigsberg and Murmansk defence ring from a suddent ground attack. East Prussia belonging to Russia is permanent irritant for enlarged and confident New Europe. Murmansk and the main bases of teh Russian strtegic subs is also a sweet target at any thinkable conflict scenario.
At the East appart the Chinese border the little but very mobile armored regiments could play its role in costal defence against possible marine invasion. The Arctic issue and the climatic changing might make the need for armor at High Latitudes even more prominent.
Obviosly every ERA works best at "proper" angle. But again obviosly, it still works at every other angle. Else it would be only usefull against threat coming from single fixed angle - which is certainly not the case.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Russia's threat from the West
It seems to me this threat is overstated. Most of Eastern members of NATO have their own problems, and Germany still has not recovered from reunification. If France rejoins NATO, which seems likely, the position towards Russia is likely to be far more conciliatory. This is particularly true if Democrats win in the next Presidential elections.
In terms of capabilities Germany has sold off most of its tanks, and same has been done by other NATO nations. The expense of Iraqi operations has required most M1s from Europe to be rotated through Iraq and on to reconditioning in US. Today US Army Europe is a far smaller force. Even if Russia's tank fleet has been reduced to 20,000 and even if only a fifth of these are actually in working order, it is still not a force to be dismissed out of hand. I doubt NATO would consider Konigsberg worth the expense of a confrontation with Russia, particularly since not even East Prussians want to revisit the Prussin part of Germany's past.
Cheers
Greg
It seems to me this threat is overstated. Most of Eastern members of NATO have their own problems, and Germany still has not recovered from reunification. If France rejoins NATO, which seems likely, the position towards Russia is likely to be far more conciliatory. This is particularly true if Democrats win in the next Presidential elections.
In terms of capabilities Germany has sold off most of its tanks, and same has been done by other NATO nations. The expense of Iraqi operations has required most M1s from Europe to be rotated through Iraq and on to reconditioning in US. Today US Army Europe is a far smaller force. Even if Russia's tank fleet has been reduced to 20,000 and even if only a fifth of these are actually in working order, it is still not a force to be dismissed out of hand. I doubt NATO would consider Konigsberg worth the expense of a confrontation with Russia, particularly since not even East Prussians want to revisit the Prussin part of Germany's past.
Cheers
Greg
Obviously every ERA works best at "proper" angle. But again obviously, it still works at every other angle. Else it would be only usefull against threat coming from single fixed angle - which is certainly not the case.
Either way, i have information what starting from 2004 (Object 188A1) newly produced T-90A have "Relict" installed. On NII Stali site on direct question about T-90 and "Relict" it is said what "Relict" can be easely installed on any tank including T-90.
Last edited:
Getting it angled at the 60 degree frontal arc is still the most important for tank to tank encounters.
Thanks - can I gain access to this information on Relikt.
Last edited:
Some information is present on NII-Stali webstite. Partially in english, partially in russian. You can read the latter with f.e. www.translate.ru. For example answer about Relict being easely installed on T-90 is found in guestbook section. About T-90A i have only private information, that is why i call it rumors. Allthought i'm 99% sure about it.Getting it angled at the 60 degree frontal arc is still the most important for tank to tank encounters.
Thanks - can I gain access to this information on Relikt.
My information about new items in T-90A compared to T-90:
1. "Relict" instead of K-5.
2. "Refleks-M" (9M119M) instead of "Refleks" (9M119)
3. TI "ESSA" instead of "Agava-2"
4. Engine V-92S2 (1000 ps) first T-90A batches and possible V-99 (1200) in recent/new batches.
5. Remote controlled 12.7 MG
6. Improved AL speed (there are some information what max shell lengths is also increased).
7. Small improvments in fire proof and transmission/etc areas.
Last edited:
FutureTank
Banned Member
Relikt can be installed on the T-90A. The issue is that the mounting bolts were configured for Kontakt-V and this would require readjustment of either the bolts, or the mounting brackets on the Relikt itself.Getting it angled at the 60 degree frontal arc is still the most important for tank to tank encounters.
Thanks - can I gain access to this information on Relikt.
Unfortunately the cost would be high because the production Relikt is far more commercially useful in being adopted to other tank types of which there are tens of thousands (T-55, T-62, T-72 and T-80) then the several hundred T-90s. It is just not commercially viable to change production, so the Russian Ministry of Defense would need to allocate budget funds for mountings on the existing T-90 fleet if they wanted to change from Kontakt-V to Relikt.
The 60 degrees mounting angle is not an absolute in mounting of Relikt. Its just hat one set of figures provided in the Russian press suggested Relikt performance for the common testing angle of 60 degrees for comparative performance with other armour technologies. An example is the penetration data given for the M829A3 of approximately 680mm RHA at 0 degrees (NATO) and 790mm RHA at 60 degrees (NATO), at a range of 2,000 m.
Its not clear that the T-90 requires Relikt to improve its protection. With current Kontakt-V protection the T-90 can still take a hit from the М829А3 in the frontal arc. However as we all know the firing crew rarely takes the trouble to target the thickest armour on the target vehicle, so the question is academic.
I'm not sure what the chances of a tank using the М829А3 engaging a T-90 is given the tank is only in use by Russia and India, and as far as I know even Israel has not purchased this round as yet, and its issue to US Army has been limited.
Cheers
Greg
I don`t think that a tank suited up with either K5 or K6 Kaktus can take a hit from a M829A3 with in the 2000 meter range, this round was specifically designed to defeat both armor packages out to that range, Relikt could be a different matter though all together. We have placed a lot of confidence in the M829A3 as to where we don`t need to go to the L55, granted there is the DU environmental/health issue that Western Europe excluding France has when using this type of round, but the M829A3 is the premier performer that even Russia and Germany will admit to. No one uses the M829A3 except the U.S military due to some of the technologies that went into this round, some of that technology was shared with the Germans in the design of the DM63.
Israel doesn`t use it because they really do not need it and have ammunition that can take out any tank in the Middle East at the current time, including the Egyptian M1A1. I had someone on this forum state to me that Egypt had DU ammunition for the M256 and that is completely not true. The U.S has M829A3 stocked up, that order was filled many years ago but they have not been used in Iraq, we are still using the M829A2 round (in storage). You are correct when engaging other tanks, tankers are trained to aim at the most visible mass, and when engaging with TI sights day or night you pretty much are going to get a green blob at extended ranges.
Last edited:
FutureTank
Banned Member
Perfect shot vs perfect tank?
Far be it from me to tell you that with all the sophistication of the modern tank technology neither the protection nor the weapon mounted on tanks provide 100% performance 100% of the time.
Neither the US nor the Russian latest rounds have been tested in combat so far, and certainly not against the more recent armour packages, so we would be just speculating as to their success or failure. Whatever results achieved during tests can not be taken as proof of performance in combat.
Lets keep in mind that the A2 on the M1 has been largely due to the design of the Svinetz-2 round in Russia in the late 90s, and I expect that it has not been improved on in the last decade.
Cheers
Greg
Far be it from me to tell you that with all the sophistication of the modern tank technology neither the protection nor the weapon mounted on tanks provide 100% performance 100% of the time.
Neither the US nor the Russian latest rounds have been tested in combat so far, and certainly not against the more recent armour packages, so we would be just speculating as to their success or failure. Whatever results achieved during tests can not be taken as proof of performance in combat.
Lets keep in mind that the A2 on the M1 has been largely due to the design of the Svinetz-2 round in Russia in the late 90s, and I expect that it has not been improved on in the last decade.
Cheers
Greg
Some notes:
- The Remote controlled 12.7 mm allready was on the first batches of T-90's. Indeed, remote controlled 12.7 'Utes' appeared firstly on T-80UD (Bereza). Then at early 90th the 'Utes' designer, Kovrov's plant had designed a better 12.7 mm machine gun - 'Kord'. All T-90's have only 'Kord' 12.7 while the Ukranian developers remained with 'Utes'. Interstinly, T-80U/UK are still served and exported without remote-control mechanism for machine gun. About the last T-80B/BV modernisation I nothing can say.
- T-90A's were the first tanks with fire-proof round canisters started to be used. Although I expect other units will also use these since time is over.
Not quite. T-90S is indian modification.
- Status