According to the most reliable estimation, the T-90S armor is equivalent or practically equivalent (in passive armor) for M1A1 and Leo-2A4 modification. However Shtora adds something too. It's enough good in practice considering relative few numbers of M1A2 and Leo-2A5-6 in the world. How M1A2's are already produced, anybody knew? The next Russian tank, which supposely will be produced starting from 2011 will have better defence than M1A2.
T-90 Tank
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
Plans are in place to at least upgrade 60% of existing M1 series to M1A2 SEP standard, that is the plan at the current time.
How is Tungsten dangerous to the soldiers that are using it, I cannot waite to hear this.Tungsten is also a dangerous chemical. I wonder why it was used in Russian kinetic penetrator rounds.
EDIT: Are any tank experts on here more intimately familiar with the tactical (and hopefully strategic, keeping my fingers crossed here) though behind he design of the M1?
Last edited:
BTW, what the planned total number of tanks, US expect to have in next 10 years? If it isnt classified of course.
The Russian tank chief now declared Russia till 2020 plans to have T-90's in relatve number of 50% tank fleet . It's in different modifications, including the future upgrades. The rest 50% - will be allocated for 'the new gen tank' and old T-72/T-80 inventory till its lifespan is gone. The planned annual production of T-90 is as 150-250 starting from 2009. The planned annual
production of 'T-95' (or how it will be named) is unclear. So in my crude estimation and regards 25 years of avarage tank life, it might mean between 5,000 and 7,500 tanks in active service (now as 13,000). Also Russia is certainly going towards 'high-low' combination, while T-90s and older T-80/T-72 with mimimal upgrade will be used against low-tech enemy, supposedely as 'anti-infantry' tanks with anti shaped charge and mine defence.
In addition some T-90 pics from Malaysian tender:
Are they finally going to ramp up production of T-90?
With the current rate of production they are nowhere able to achieve the disred numbers and I am still sceptical if the follown on to T-90 (T-95 or whatever it will be named) is going to come without major delays.
While there is defenitely more money available now I am also sceptical if Russia has enough breathing space in it's budget to increase T-90 production and introduce a totally new tank to their inventory.
With the current rate of production they are nowhere able to achieve the disred numbers and I am still sceptical if the follown on to T-90 (T-95 or whatever it will be named) is going to come without major delays.
While there is defenitely more money available now I am also sceptical if Russia has enough breathing space in it's budget to increase T-90 production and introduce a totally new tank to their inventory.
YOur doubts are very understandable. However, my calculations also worth something. Indeed, last 3 year the rate of T-90s production for Ru Army (not counting export) was 31 units a year (1 batalion). This year - 2008 - they gave a budget for 62 units. Next year if to believe for gen. Maslov for T-90s building is allready allocated sum equivalented to $250 mln. In future this sum is planned to grow up to $350 mln. This is why I estimated an avarage annual production rate planned for next 10 years as 150-250 units. It's a rate very corresponding to UVZ manufacturing capability. Appart with that the rumors appeared that the little number (25 units) of more advanced IR cameras were bought from THales, 75 more are contracted (Catherine-XP if I dont mistake in classification). Previosely contracted Catherines have less advanced characteristics. IMHO It can be first sign for initial pre-serial production of the 'next gen tank'.
At the end as usually - some pictures, now the experimental T-90 variant with 152 mm gun:
DU isn't harmful until it is in a burning tank and the smoke from that burning tank is inhaled by friendly troops.
Being near or handling DU rounds isn't going to harm you at all.
IIRC, most Gulf War 2 veterans that came back sick either had inhaled that type of smoke from Iraqi tanks or had inhaled air contaminated with the chemicals that were thrown up in the air after the US Air Force bombed an Iraqi chemical weapons cache (the contaminated air spread over a good portion of Northern KSA).
Last edited:
This part is (almost) true.
Yes, the problem is however - almost any tank (and A-10) round fired, if hit anything solid - will leave a lot of particles which pollute environment. This hurts both own troops, and more importantly - everything around hit point ;(
This very barbaric and unnecessary use of DU ammo present very major ecological and medical problem in both Iraq and Serbia.
We were rumored at one point in having the need for 3,600 M1A2 SEPs to fit into the the new force structure but who knows what will happen with the constant flip flopping for our FCS program. Only time will tell and this will be most likely when we are out of Iraq and the U.S Army can rethink what is needed for future high and low tensity battle doctrine.
I think that you may be a little optimistic on the T - 90 numbers, but I have been informed that Russia for the last five years or so has been modernizing and retooling alot of their military defense building facilities. I guess I will just have to waite and see.
Are you sure about that, I was told that few T - 90s have 135mm guns shoe horned in for testing and evaluation purposes. You photo looks like a 135mm to me, do you have a full vehicle flank shot, either way, kudos to you for having a photo of this beast.
Gee - you do not think that I would know this, I have killed tanks with the bloody things first hand, and yes, I was a good Master Gunner who informed his tank company not to go near battle kills solely for this purpose, the golden rule was to stay at least 300 meters away from all battle killed vehicles, the surrounding soil is possibly contaminated also.
Also my question was directed towards him due to what he stated in regards to Tungsten projectiles.
If you swallow it, bad things happen.
On a serious note there is evidence showing correlation between tungsten levels in blood and disease like leukemia.
Do you have a source?
13000 is a high estimate. 3 tank divisions and ~13 motor rifle divisions. 3 tank regiments per tank division, 1 tank regiment and 3 battallions in each motor rifle (3 btls=1 rgt). So ~35 tank regiments. 35 times 93 gives us ~3555. Now this doesn't include independent brigades, regiments, and machine gun artillery divisions. I don't know their make up, but even if we assume that they contain as many tanks as the ones we counted, we still fall well short of your numbers. Does your estimate include storage bases and mothballed equipment?
from the flank have only 152 mm prototype on T-80:
Przezdzieblo
New Member
Tank from that photo is not T-90 variant, nor with 152 mm gun. It is Object 187 (like said name of file), experimental T-72 development, which finally would have chance to became new Soviet tank (T-88, later T-90), but was abandoned for cheaper are more conservative Object 188 --> real T-90.
Including storage for reserve forces of course. So called 'storage bases' (TsBRT - in Russian classification) is indeed a reserve tank division with as 300 tanks at minimum and other equipement enough to 1 division at least. The TsBRT's known for me: Kozulka (Barnaul), Topchikha (Krasnoyarsk), Shilovo (near Novosibirsk), Verkhnyaya Pyshma (Yekaterinburg region), Ulan-Ude (near Baikal).
Also how you counted only 3 tank division? I know at least 6: 4 Guardian TD (Naro-Fominsk near Moscow), 16 Guardian TD (Markovsky near Perm), 15 Guardian TD (Chebarkul), 10 Guardian TD (Boguchar, Voronezh district), ??? donno number TD (Nizhneudinsk), 5 Guardian TD (Kyakta, near Mongolian border).
What Russian TD's you know? May be you know something, I didnt conted yet.
For amusement pics of course
Last edited:
What photo you meant? The last photo is T-80 with 152 mm gun for sure. You could see the added massa from the rear of turret for counter-balance heavy barrel.
Przezdzieblo
New Member
Sorry, sure, I was reffering to post #27 from page no 2.
As for last photo, yes, it is T-80-based Object 292.
As for last photo, yes, it is T-80-based Object 292.
As regards to Object 187 (or how else call it), according to my information it had variant with 152 mm gun too presented on the picture. The gun on the picture is in no way a regular 125 mm burrel . If you have another pictures of this object, I'll be glad to look.