T-90 Tank

[Waylander]

"without a heavy impact" said probably in a pretty soft form.

I used these words with a reason.
Any impact a dusty environment has on Abrams hasn't seriously affected it's performance over the last decades in desert environments. Certainly not in a way that it hindered the US to use them. A higher stress for the filters and some more maintenance is nothing spectacular and every vehicle suffers from this in a dusty environment.

that is absolutely not true...sorry

It is. Engine power, transmission and most important suspension plays a vital role in this as well.
As for weight. The M1A2 has a ground pressure of 0,9kg/cm². A T-90 has a ground pressure of 0,87kg/cm².
The Abrams has a power to weight ratio of 23,8hp/t. The T-90 has 22hp/t.

Were weight is an issue and that's were the T-90 has advantages is when it comes to crossing bridges with low weight tolerances.

ok then all the officers whom i knew served in some kind of "wrong" military so that they assume the same...right? by the way same people also used T55 series, and their opinion was more important for me as a people who used both type of tanks. (however T55 is not Abrams...but right now we are talking about autoloader or crew issue) What about disadvantages? Dont say please that autoloader can get malfunction.... cuz everything can...

Less crew means less men for pulling maintenance and security as well as one less pair of Mrk.I eyeballs and ears for situational awareness and radio control. Modern RCWS also get alot from a loader being able to control them.
The autoloader of the T-90 also restricts the length of the penetrator. The carousel exposes the ammo to after penetration effects.
There are better autoloaders and semi-autoloaders out there.
And a tank with a human loader still gets a shot out in the event of it's electronics being toast.

And I never stated that having an autoloader is completely negative. I just stated that it doesn't only has advantages.
The positive aspects are less crews needed and better loading times on rough terrain. One may also save some space but that depends on the autoloader.

And for sure crews were happy to transit from T-55 to T-72. I also know people who did that.
It was a new generation of tank design and offered several advantages over the older one.

No, i just said some facts...but u said anything to make them wrong, rather than to actually admit some of the real advantages of T90.

p.s.... when i see talks about tanks i see a lot of comparisons for Iraq... for example, some people begin immediately talking about how Abrams did kill T72 in Iraq from 5km (i even once heard from someone that Abrams destroyed two T72 with one shot [probably those T72s were made of plastic]). So... please., take in notice that Iraqi tank crew was actually a bad tank crew, and they were absolutely not a good tank operators at all. And another thing is, Iraq did not have high tech military systems to defend its tank eschelons from aviation and other threats. So, when talking about tanks its not a good idea to use Iraq war as example.

I never brought Iraq up as an example. I am fully aware of the Iraqi T-72s not having represented the state of the art T-72 version of the time as well as their crews and ammo not having been exceptional.

I have no problems with talking about the T-90 and it's advantages and disadvantages.
You were the one which stated the usual crap of nothing comes close...

 

[Duffy]

@Waylander Not change the subject. But how do reload times stack up between autoloader and having a loader. Stationary. I should look it up I'm just being lazy

 

[Waylander]

The autoloader of the T-90 should get a round out ca. every 7 seconds.
When stationary a good human loader should be well with 5 seconds.
There the restricting factor is more finding and lasing targets fast enough than loading a new round.
But a good crew in a tank with hunter-killer capabilities can achieve an amazing rythm of fire.

When driving over not so heavy terrain both are roughly the same while the autoloader has advantages when it comes to rough terrains as the human loader gets bounced around.

Interestingly the autoloader of the Leclerc is ready within 5 seconds in any terrain, has no exposed ammo and allows the use of long rod penetrators.

 

[PREDATOR]

well..stable time of T90 is actually minimum from 6 seconds to 7 seconds. i will emphasize again STABLE! And this thing is pretty robust and does not depend on a human.

and what i said is that any tank would have a hard time defeating T90, if the crew is experienced. is this a crap?

 

[Waylander]

Just as I said. I think I aknowledged more than once that an autoloader is faster in rough terrain.

And it is not crap that the T-90 is not an easy prey.
Nevertheless you let it sound as if it is the best development since sliced bread...
In order to discuss such a topic one needs to elaborate the pros and cons of certain aspects much more than what you did.

I never said that T-90 is crap. I also never stated that western MBTs are better in every aspect.
I just countered your statements.

You tend to get a little bit touchy when one says something critical of the T-90 but your arguments like the "the T has a 5mm bigger gun" or "it more mobile because it is lighter" as well as the others were simplified and often wrong.

And I have no problems with you having friends who operated different Ts. The big question is did they preferred the T-72 over the T-55 because they lost a crewmember and gained an autoloader or because the T-72 was an improvement in every aspect (mobility, protection, firepower).
I can tell you that the guys I know who transitioned from T-55 to T-72 loved it because of that but missed the 4th crewmember for the reasons I mentioned above (maintenance, security, situational awareness,...)

 

[PREDATOR]

as i already edited my previous message... i can say again, i knew one guy, who used T55, and who used to be in local conflict, he was a tank squadron commander, and on his score one destroyed T72(operated by russian crew), one supply truck, and a field cannon. He did this with his crew on his T72. during a local battle. He did not miss any crew in T72, and an autoloader was one of the primary things which he liked so much. And it is better to have a robust autoloader and know that it will definitely recharge after 6-7 seconds rather than rely on a human factor..

all the other aspects which i told about T90 are also real, and i think it would be wrong not to count them.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Just as I said. I think I aknowledged more than once that an autoloader is faster in rough terrain.

And it is not crap that the T-90 is not an easy prey.
Nevertheless you let it sound as if it is the best development since sliced bread...
In order to discuss such a topic one needs to elaborate the pros and cons of certain aspects much more than what you did.

I never said that T-90 is crap. I also never stated that western MBTs are better in every aspect.
I just countered your statements.

You tend to get a little bit touchy when one says something critical of the T-90 but your arguments like the "the T has a 5mm bigger gun" or "it more mobile because it is lighter" as well as the others were simplified and often wrong.

And I have no problems with you having friends who operated different Ts. The big question is did they preferred the T-72 over the T-55 because they lost a crewmember and gained an autoloader or because the T-72 was an improvement in every aspect (mobility, protection, firepower).
I can tell you that the guys I know who transitioned from T-55 to T-72 loved it because of that but missed the 4th crewmember for the reasons I mentioned above (maintenance, security, situational awareness,...)

Waylander, the reasons you mentioned - maintenance, etc - aren't very difficult concepts to evaluate for their merits (as far as the military tech strategists are concerned). And in general, I would accept such an argument if it meant an increase in technological sophistication and/or cost factor for the Russian armed forces, but in this case it seems to be the opposite, so I'm having difficulty understanding why they would proceed with the autoloader if it wasn't advantageous for the forces...

 

[Tavarisch]

Waylander, the reasons you mentioned - maintenance, etc - aren't very difficult concepts to evaluate for their merits (as far as the military tech strategists are concerned). And in general, I would accept such an argument if it meant an increase in technological sophistication and/or cost factor for the Russian armed forces, but in this case it seems to be the opposite, so I'm having difficulty understanding why they would proceed with the autoloader if it wasn't advantageous for the forces...

Because the addition of a 4th crew-member to the tank would create an unacceptable circumstance. The internal volume of the tank has to be increased to accommodate one extra person. By increasing the internal volume, it is a certainty that the height of the turret is increased, therefore presenting a larger target. It is a design philosophy of Russian designers to have low-hull tanks because they believe these kinds of tanks are harder to hit, though the Gulf Wars prove, to a certain extent, that this may not be true under different factors.

There was also a theory about T-series engines. It is said, in another forum (not the most reputable of sources, but I thought it to be logical in a sense), that the reason why Soviet and Russian tanks were so small because of their weaker engines. However, the credibility behind such statements are questionable at best.

 

[Waylander]

as i already edited my previous message... i can say again, i knew one guy, who used T55, and who used to be in local conflict, he was a tank squadron commander, and on his score one destroyed T72(operated by russian crew), one supply truck, and a field cannon. He did this with his crew on his T72. during a local battle. He did not miss any crew in T72, and an autoloader was one of the primary things which he liked so much. And it is better to have a robust autoloader and know that it will definitely recharge after 6-7 seconds rather than rely on a human factor..

As if one couldn't rely on a human loader. Sure he may make mistakes but if it is a well trained crew his mistakes happen so rarely that one could compare them with the mechanical failure of an autoloader.
I am not going to argue with you about your friend. I have one hell of respect for everyone who had to endure real combat. If he stated that he really liked the autoloader so be it.
I for one know nobody who would like to replace his human loader with an autoloader and the ones who did this when transitioning from T-55 to T-72 are also not enthusiastic about it.

Remember one thing. I already said that an autoloader has it's merits.
I can state them again if it makes you happy. Having it to load relatively fast even in heavy terrain is defenitely an advantage. Saving some space is one, too.
The biggest aspect is that one needs one crew member less.
There are two kinds of forces for which this is a huge advantage.
The first one is for a force like the old red army and to some extent the new russian one. These armies tended to field huge numbers of tanks in relation to their total size. Having only to put 3 men into every tank reduces crewing issues alot.
The second one are modern western armies. They costs for personal are so high and their manpower is reduced so much that having only 3 crewmembers is also benefitial for them.

This IMO is the biggest advantage of an autoloader.
This is also the answer to PhysicMan's question.
I believe that nearly every new developed MBT is going to have an autoloader exactly for these reasons and because they are getting quicker and saver.
The only thing which could prevent this is the amount of work new technologies present.
Additionally to fighting his tank and maybe his platoon/company a TC now or in the near future has to work with a modern and complex battlefield management system as well as operating an RCWS. Alot to do for just one person.

I already mentioned the Leclerc and it's autoloader. This autoloader is really fast and takes the rounds out of a fully seperated ammo bunker with blow out panels making it much more save than the one with the carusel in a T-72/T-90.
The same goes for the autoloader in the japanese Type 90.
Interestingly the Israelis are somewhere in the middle with the Merkava IV. They have a loading system which automatically shoves out the chosen sort of ammunition out of the ammo bunker but the loader has to do the rest of the loading process. Seems like they wanted to get the best out of both worlds.
They also reintegrated the loaders hatch after their experiences in recent conflicts.
The loader is not just the one who shoves in the rounds but he is an integral part of the fighting team a tank crew represents

all the other aspects which i told about T90 are also real, and i think it would be wrong not to count them.

What do you mean with real. I countered the very general statements you gave about performance of the T-90 (gun calibre, ERA, mobility,...).
Feel free to discuss them with me but just saying that they are real (I think you mean you are right) adds little to the discussion.

 

[Tavarisch]

Would it be possible to domesticate the T-80 Autoloader into the T-90? I mean, firing BM-42s won't give much in terms of firepower for the T-90 as opposed to the M829A2s and A3s.

 

[eckherl]

The autoloader of the T-90 should get a round out ca. every 7 seconds.
When stationary a good human loader should be well with 5 seconds.
There the restricting factor is more finding and lasing targets fast enough than loading a new round.
But a good crew in a tank with hunter-killer capabilities can achieve an amazing rythm of fire.

When driving over not so heavy terrain both are roughly the same while the autoloader has advantages when it comes to rough terrains as the human loader gets bounced around.

Interestingly the autoloader of the Leclerc is ready within 5 seconds in any terrain, has no exposed ammo and allows the use of long rod penetrators.

Think about the reasons why the Leclerc autoloader is quicker over the Russian T series:

T-90: hull/floor mounted matched with two part ammunition.
Leclerc: bustle mounted with one part ammunition.

After doing a visual in your mind I think you will see my point.

 

[Tavarisch]

Think about the reasons why the Leclerc autoloader is quicker over the Russian T series:

T-90: hull/floor mounted matched with two part ammunition.
Leclerc: bustle mounted with one part ammunition.

After doing a visual in your mind I think you will see my point.

What are the advantages of separating the shell and the propellant charge? Is it much safer or something?

I've always wondered why they had to separate them... Are the auto-loader arms too small to carry a full length round?

 

[eckherl]

Would it be possible to domesticate the T-80 Autoloader into the T-90? I mean, firing BM-42s won't give much in terms of firepower for the T-90 as opposed to the M829A2s and A3s.

They have already gone with a T-80 type auto loader for T-90, the major issue is still long rod penetrator length. This is why they have tested and will end up going to a bustle mounted system for future upgrades. Why would the BM42M not give the T-90 sufficent firepower, talking in respect to Russian combat load of course.

 

[eckherl]

What are the advantages of separating the shell and the propellant charge? Is it much safer or something?

I've always wondered why they had to separate them... Are the auto-loader arms too small to carry a full length round?

Safety played some factor, but having the capability to shoe horn more ammunition into a tight confined space was the main reasons why. How many fixed case rounds do you think that Russian T-72/80 series could carry in the vicinity of the floor versus a two tiered carousel loaded with two part ammunition. Russia has tested two bustle auto loading systems, one for two part and the other being fixed case, what they decide to go with wil be interesting to observe.

 

[Waylander]

Think about the reasons why the Leclerc autoloader is quicker over the Russian T series:

T-90: hull/floor mounted matched with two part ammunition.
Leclerc: bustle mounted with one part ammunition.

After doing a visual in your mind I think you will see my point.

I know that.
The Type 90 uses a one part ammunition autoloader and is said to be quick, too.
The bustle loader also helps extremely in keeping the ready ammunition safe from critical hits.

I always liked the Leclerc.
The french army is restricted by personal problems as is any other western army and they managed to build a really good tank with many interesting features.
And they managed to stay at roughly 55 tons. I think the Leclerc gets much less praise than it deserves.

 

[eckherl]

I know that.
The Type 90 uses a one part ammunition autoloader and is said to be quick, too.
The bustle loader also helps extremely in keeping the ready ammunition safe from critical hits.

I always liked the Leclerc.
The french army is restricted by personal problems as is any other western army and they managed to build a really good tank with many interesting features.
And they managed to stay at roughly 55 tons. I think the Leclerc gets much less praise than it deserves.

I knew you did.

Yes, Type 90 uses the same type of auto loader design configuration as Leclerc, we can add ROK K2 also.

 

[Tavarisch]

They have already gone with a T-80 type auto loader for T-90, the major issue is still long rod penetrator length. This is why they have tested and will end up going to a bustle mounted system for future upgrades. Why would the BM42M not give the T-90 sufficent firepower, talking in respect to Russian combat load of course.

Eckherl, the BM-42 and BM-42M are two distinct rounds. The original BM-42 is shorter and therefore penetrates less in comparison to the BM-42M which is longer. (570mm length vs 452mm length) In this case, I was referring to the BM-42, which penetrates only 450mm vs the BM-42M which penetrates a good third more, about 600-650mm at 2000 meters. Maybe the BM-42 would be effective against older tanks like the older 1st Gen M1 Abrams (which aren't in service in large numbers compared to their improved A1 and A2 cousins) or other Western tanks. (Namely the M-60 and the 1st Leopard) However, I don't think this round will do much to a Leopard 2A6 or an M1A2 SEP, both of which have good armor quality. Perhaps in a flank attack, the T-90 might do some damage with that round.

However, seeming as you have revealed that the T-90 does in fact have the T-80 auto-loader, then this isn't really an issue, considering the penetration capabilities of the nastier BM-42M. The original T-72 type Auto-loader cannot fit the BM-42M due to it's length.

I've read about a possible BM-48 Svinets-2 which penetrates 800mm, though sometimes it is better to question wikipedia than to believe it. Assuming that it exists, I don't think it's in service as of yet.
125 mm smoothbore rounds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bustle mounted loaders are definitely way better, though it does concern me why the Chinese are still stuck with carousel mounted auto-loaders for their own tanks. The Type 99 as far as I know still uses such abominations. Honestly, I believe that the T-90 should've done away with these carousel auto-loaders and moved on to the bustle-mounted ones. That way, the crew will have a little bit more leg space. Not to mention, the round obviously would load faster.

And I still wonder why the Russians still use semi-combustible propellant cases versus fully-combustible ones. I mean, it's really silly for the auto-loader to actually throw out the stub through a rear door. What if the bloody thing jams in combat? Someone has to touch the white-hot baseplate and manually throw it out.

 

[Waylander]

I bet that the russians just wanted to save money and effort.
Remember that the T-90 in the end is an upgraded T-72BM.
Designing a whole new autoloader including turret bustle ammo bunker might have been way more expensive.
So they stick with what they have and try to improve it withing it's limits.
No problem if one considers that originally the T-90 was meant as an interim tank. No need to out lots of money into it.

If the next generation russian tank still uses two part ammo than I would seriously question their decision (That's if we ever get to see it...).

 

[Tavarisch]

I bet that the russians just wanted to save money and effort.
Remember that the T-90 in the end is an upgraded T-72BM.
Designing a whole new autoloader including turret bustle ammo bunker might have been way more expensive.
So they stick with what they have and try to improve it withing it's limits.
No problem if one considers that originally the T-90 was meant as an interim tank. No need to out lots of money into it.

If the next generation russian tank still uses two part ammo than I would seriously question their decision (That's if we ever get to see it...).

Yeah, the T-95 (if that's what we're gonna call it until they come up with a GRAU name or something) doesn't look too promising. If that 135 or 152 mm gun is using 2 part rounds, I honestly wouldn't know what to say...

Russia's got lots of oil, and it's going practically nowhere save for only a few customers. If they get some buyers soon, I think the T-95 would be a reality. I doubt that the T-95 will be seen in public this year itself, let alone in the next decade. However, I still think TomClancy's EndWar T-100 Ogre looks pretty much what a T-95 would look like. Save for the large turret and the AA 20mm guns mounted on the turret sides.

 

[eckherl]

Eckherl, the BM-42 and BM-42M are two distinct rounds. The original BM-42 is shorter and therefore penetrates less in comparison to the BM-42M which is longer. (570mm length vs 452mm length) In this case, I was referring to the BM-42, which penetrates only 450mm vs the BM-42M which penetrates a good third more, about 600-650mm at 2000 meters. Maybe the BM-42 would be effective against older tanks like the older 1st Gen M1 Abrams (which aren't in service in large numbers compared to their improved A1 and A2 cousins) or other Western tanks. (Namely the M-60 and the 1st Leopard) However, I don't think this round will do much to a Leopard 2A6 or an M1A2 SEP, both of which have good armor quality. Perhaps in a flank attack, the T-90 might do some damage with that round.

However, seeming as you have revealed that the T-90 does in fact have the T-80 auto-loader, then this isn't really an issue, considering the penetration capabilities of the nastier BM-42M. The original T-72 type Auto-loader cannot fit the BM-42M due to it's length.

I've read about a possible BM-48 Svinets-2 which penetrates 800mm, though sometimes it is better to question wikipedia than to believe it. Assuming that it exists, I don't think it's in service as of yet.
125 mm smoothbore rounds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bustle mounted loaders are definitely way better, though it does concern me why the Chinese are still stuck with carousel mounted auto-loaders for their own tanks. The Type 99 as far as I know still uses such abominations. Honestly, I believe that the T-90 should've done away with these carousel auto-loaders and moved on to the bustle-mounted ones. That way, the crew will have a little bit more leg space. Not to mention, the round obviously would load faster.

And I still wonder why the Russians still use semi-combustible propellant cases versus fully-combustible ones. I mean, it's really silly for the auto-loader to actually throw out the stub through a rear door. What if the bloody thing jams in combat? Someone has to touch the white-hot baseplate and manually throw it out.

That is why I mentioned BM42M projectile for Russian inventory, BM42 is pretty much for export purposes now and represents the 1st design generation for this projectile. Both Russia and Ukraine offer BM42 for export to certain clients, the Indians do not seem too happy with the performance and have tapped the Israelis for assistance in projectile technologies. Mango comes at us in two forms, one with DU properties and the other with Tungsten properties, exactually how many of the 2 Mango series in inventory is not known due to the Russians being hush hush so to speak. BM48 does exist but where the Russians stand on fielding this projectile is not known at this time from a source that would be deemed reliable. The problem with older tank KE projectiles is there ability to effectively engage targets at longer extended ranges, they do not have the same energy and mass to take out newer MBTs with the latest armor protection values versus older generation MBTs, these projectiles can still be deadly though at closer ranges when fired at newer MBT models. I have just given you a clue on Russia`s concern on engaging targets at extended engagement ranges, this could be a issue due to projectile size even when sporting the T-80 auto loading system, we in the tanker world would rather engage a worthy opponent at 2,000 meters versus 800 meters, reaction times are a bugger when fighting that close and you are prone to getting your unit over run at that type of range especially during these modern times. This is not only Russia`s concern, look at how many M829 series rounds that the U.S is at, it is a never ending game.

China is testing bustle mounted auto loaders also, Ukraine has given them a wealth of knowledge in this area along with some other key issues.

Russia is fully capable of designing one piece combustable cartridges and we just may see them going to this when and if they decide to go to a bustle system. Russian gun accuracy will improve also when they go the one piece route also.

You will still have those nasty aft caps when you go to one piece combustable cartridges, its fun watching the loader throw them out the loaders hatch so he doesn`t burn his legs on the flash rods.