T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[extern]

Great picture, it looks like that it has the same type of reactive armor package that is on the T-90.

Untrue. The T-90S has Kontakt-V ERA that useless against tandem warheads. Relikt kit makes the tank defended against the most advanced tandem ATGMs. Thus, this ERA is more advanced that on T-90S.

Apart the T-80 modernisation, the same ERA and FCS kits are used for T-72 modernisation under the name 'Rogatka'. Some 180 T-80 and T-72 are modernised this year:

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

Was the upgrades due to the war in chechnya.

 

[Viktor]

Untrue. The T-90S has Kontakt-V ERA that useless against tandem warheads. Relikt kit makes the tank defended against the most advanced tandem ATGMs. Thus, this ERA is more advanced that on T-90S.

Apart the T-80 modernisation, the same ERA and FCS kits are used for T-72 modernisation under the name 'Rogatka'. Some 180 T-80 and T-72 are modernised this year:

Have you any information about Relikt ERA. I have heard of it only recently and Im quite astonish by its ability to take out tandem warhead. How well Relikt stands against kinetic penetrators?

 

[extern]

Have you any information about Relikt ERA. I have heard of it only recently and Im quite astonish by its ability to take out tandem warhead. How well Relikt stands against kinetic penetrators?

Relikt is 5 time better then K-5 against APFSDS. However on real tank ERA - is only the part of whole armor, then the effect of putting Relikt instead K-5 apply will naturally be diminished slightly. With K-5 its effect on the real tank will multiply the capability of a round by coeff 0.81 (APFSDS)-0.5(cummulative), with Relikt - by 0.65 (APFSDS) -0.47 (Cummulative). For example, when M829A2 penetrating capability for steel is 750 mm , it will penetrate only 0.65x750=487mm of T-72 armor with Relikt ERA. Source: NII Stali article http://www.niistali.ru/article/article_04.htm (Russian only, sorry)

From the same site:

"At RUSSIAN EXPO ARMS 2006 exhibition held in Nizhniy Tagil on July 11-15 a new multi-purpose ERA package made by NII Stali was demonstrated on an upgraded T-72B tank (“Sling-shot”).


At RUSSIAN EXPO ARMS 2006 exhibition held in Nizhniy Tagil on July 11-15 a new multi-purpose ERA package made by NII Stali was demonstrated on an upgraded T-72B tank (“Sling-shot”).


The new ERA package is almost twice as effective as Contact-V ERA system.

It is called multi-purpose not only because it defeats both HEAT-warhead and KE ammunition, but also because it is made as a number of separate modules, which makes it possible to fit the package to any tank types using standard modules and attachment fittings."

also:

"INTEGRATED MODULAR ERA SYSTEM FOR T-72 M1 MBT
The kit consists of a glacis plate ERA module, quickly removable ERA boxes fitted to the turret roof and sides and on the hull sides; and rubber-fabric screens for the hull sides.

The kit ensures increase of counter-APFSDS and counter-HEAT protection level of the MBT in the fire angles of ±20° (the hull) and ±35° (the turret).
Counter-APFSDS protection increases by factors of 1.5-1.6;
Counter-HEAT protection increases by a factor of 2.0;
Coverage of the turret and hull surface: 60-68%;
Weight of the kit: 2,300 kgs.

The ERA tiles do not detonate when hit by small arms bullets (up to 12.7mm), fragments of 125mm HE rounds or when exposed to incendiary mixtures (napalm).
The ERA kit can be installed and repaired by the Army field repair groups." http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/t72_en.htm

Was the upgrades due to the war in chechnya.

- It is the second modernisation program after the 2nd ChW. It includes new FCS with TV-IR gunner-commander site subsystem, RELIKT ERA, anticummulative grids, 'Nakidka' kit for IR emision and radar observability reduce, the remote controlled new highly improved mashingun, new stabilisation system for the MG allowing fire on the move (for 'classic T-72's it didnt exist before), tank launched ATGMs compatibility, new highly improved and very economic engine for T-72 (V99 with 1250 hp instead of V46 with 780 hp) of the same dimension and the new tracks from T-90 (for T-72 however). The modernised T-80 however is remain with its current powerplant - 1000 gas-turbine engine and with its original trachs. The contemporal program (Rogatka) - partially fits also the russian T-80 fleet. Before Rogatka was another modernisation with K-5 integrated ERA like on the T-90 (under the name "T-72M1" - for T-72 only):

 

[Viktor]

Thanks for such detail reply. What do you know about Kaktus ERA - as I heard of it it supšosed to be double Kontakt-5 to defeat M829A2 and M829A3 rounds.

 

[extern]

Thanks for such detail reply. What do you know about Kaktus ERA - as I heard of it it supšosed to be double Kontakt-5 to defeat M829A2 and M829A3 rounds.

Kaktus ERA is a contemporal generation ERA and it's lighter that Relikt (`2.3t). Its kit weights like Contact-V (K-5) with 1.5t, and it intially was intended for T-80 modernisation including the most advanced variant - T-80M2 (Black Eagle). But it dosent got all the features of Relikt like protection against tandem warheads. Thus, at the end the standartisated T-72/T-80 modernisation with Relikt ERA was chosen and is going on now. However, an ERA on Kaktus technology is offered for instalation on the light armored vehicles like BMP-3 and BMP-2 , its characteristics are as follow (according to the developer NII Stali
All-round protection against PG-9S grenades:
- with і 0.8 probability in the areas covered by ERA tiles;
- with і 0.5 probability in the areas covered by grill screens.
No breach of the main armor when hit by AT grenades.
Protection against AP bullets:
- 12.7mm B-32 AP bullets - point-blank;
- 14.5mm B-32 AP bullets - at 50m.
Hull protection against 30mm AP ammunition at firing angles of ±30° at 0m.
Reduction of irretrievable losses of vehicles by a factor of 5
Increase of possibility of vehicle combat efficiency restoration by a factor of 8
Reduction of irretrievable losses of the crew and troops by a factor of 12
Total weight of the kit: 4,150 kg.
- I think, its weight is so big because they use the foam-plastic filler in the boxes to keep buoyancy.
(see the pics):

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western

Excellant information, due you think that it will stop the M829A2 and A3 rounds. Do you have any penetration information on the extended lenght German 120mm that is on the Leopard A6. Looking at the size of the up armor package that is on the BMP 3 and 2 it looks really bulky. I would think that even if a shaped charged war head in the gun size of 105mm or 120mm would still due some major damage due to the velocity and impact, that goes for any infantry fighting vechicle.

 

[extern]

Excellant information, due you think that it will stop the M829A2 and A3 rounds. Do you have any penetration information on the extended lenght German 120mm that is on the Leopard A6.

I dont sure about the quikness, but the armor-shell race will follow as usually. Russian tank-building phylosophy says that the tank must be defended with rationality and cannot be over-defended because it blemishes the mobility and rises the price. If you comprehend the phylosophy, you will better understand the Russians why they do some things that seem strange for superficial look. For example, why they only put K5 on T-90 when the much older T-72s and T-80s get Relikt as well? It is a bit strange, no? But it lies good on the bed of their philosophy: T-90 with K5 provides sufficient defence against any exist APFSDS (say with 85% probability) then it's good. They dont seek for 'wonderwaffen' thus a T-90 with Relikt - will be overkill from their point of view. Relikt is only needed for T-72 and T-80 because with Relikt ERA these tanks will be defended (with reasonable probability) against any current threat.

I think such philosophy is not casual. I remember the case when the Hitler's military intelligence Abwer desinformated the russians before the war about the armor of german tanks: they spreaded a rumor that the geman tanks with super strong 100mm armor will enter the service very soon. Indeed the most german tanks had the armor of less that 50mm and were vulnerable for antiarmor rifles as well. But the rumor worked, and the russians made some thousands havy antitank 75mm guns instead of million antitank rifles. I think, it was a hard lesson for russians to distinct well between the truth and psiops.

 

[aaaditya]

hey guys indian army is acquiring 1000 more t-90's to supplement the 310 tanks already acquired(these 1000 t-90 tanks will be built in india under tot from russia),the t90 tanks had some initial problems ,but these seem to have been resolved now.

india is also upgrading its t-72's under the project rhino with polish,israeli and russian assistance.

 

[extern]

hey guys indian army is acquiring 1000 more t-90's to supplement the 310 tanks already acquired(these 1000 t-90 tanks will be built in india under tot from russia).

Good. Now some history: construction and the tests in India, negotiations. Video: http://www.webfile.ru/1138902

 

[JBodnar39]

Here's my reply

Okay, i have taken the time to look at waht sepcs I could find on the T-90, and it appears to me to be just anothe rupgraded T-72. Aside from upgraded armor, firecontrol, and some untested defensive measures, what is the difference. The leap in the US arsenal form the M-60 to the M-1 was generational; the move from the T-72 to T-80 to T-90 has been incremental improvements.

Albiet, the T-90 has improvements in armor and Firecontrol, it still has some inherit deficiences in its design compared to machines like the M-1, Challenger, or Leopard II:

It still usees the 125mm russian gun that is flat out inferior to the 120mm guns on the ewstern tanks.

You can add what ever reactive armor you want but the T-72/T-90 class is still much more vulnerable to catastrophic damage because of its more cramp crew compartment

4 tank crew members is ALWAYS better than 3. With four crew, you have an extra guy to help repair and maintain the tank, take over for a wounded crewmate, operate a MG or rifle from the turret, and with four guys you do not have the auto-loader which is slower and more prone to disruption than its human counterpart.

 

[extern]

Okay, i have taken the time to look at waht sepcs I could find on the T-90, and it appears to me to be just anothe rupgraded T-72.
It still usees the 125mm russian gun that is flat out inferior to the 120mm guns on the ewstern tanks.
....4 tank crew members is ALWAYS better than 3. With four crew, you have an extra guy to help repair and maintain the tank, take over for a wounded crewmate, operate a MG or rifle from the turret, and with four guys you do not have the auto-loader which is slower and more prone to disruption than its human counterpart.

M60 is 2nd postwar gen tank, like the russian T-55/T-62. T-64/T-72/t-80/T-90 - is really belong to the next 3th gen just, like Abrams. And when you speak about the autoloader, just remember that it is planned to be on the 4th gen american FCS armored vehicles program. Also the last western (Leclerc) and Japanese 3th gen tank (Type-90 MBT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1XY9xSURR4 ) have autoloader as well. Thus, the Russian way in tank-building when an autoloader is obligatory has won. And if you really need 'extra guys' why to employ him for such low quallificated work like loading? Just give him additional weapons channel, like in BMPT with 5 crewmen:

 

[aaaditya]

russian battle tanks have all been of evolutionary nature ,right from the t-34,the russians never realy discard a concept ,they take a proven concept and retain them in their next tank projects(they may modify them) ,that is the reason why russian battle tanks are light weight,rugged,easy to operate and relatively low cost than the western tanks.

russian save a lot of amount on the research aspects ,for example a t90 would cost between 2 - 3 million dollars ,whereas abrahms or the leopord would cost anywhere between 5-6 million dollars.

this is also the reason why russian battle tanks or the battle tanks based on the russian design concepts(like the chinese) are very popular since they do not require major infrastructural changes,for example the indian tank factory changed from t72 to t90 production in a very short period of time without extensive retooling,thus saving both time and money.

 

[Waylander]

In these days an autoloader makes more sense to western armies than in the past. The armed forces are much smaller.
The autoloader in the Ts haven't won the race with its round being free in the carussel and with the turret tending to play space rocket after a penetrating hit.

The argument of the Ts being cheaper is an argument for big armys with limited budgets. But for small armys like most western ones it makes more sense to operate more expensive tanks because they operate so small numbers that superiority by sheer number is not an option.
And I really doubt that the Ts tend to be much easier to maintain.
My father served on T-55 and T-72 and his storys about their tanks are not different from our stories.

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western Tanks

A M60A1 tank is a dog, under powered and thin armor. With the M60A3 we at least had a better fire control system to fight in a defensive battle poster. My fellow tankers and I were quite worried about the capabilities of Russian T-72 and T-80 tanks. For the type of battle doctorine that the Russians used at the time they had excellant armor vechicles. When I fought during the 1st Persian Gulf war we were worried about the T-72`s that the Iraq Army had, we can only be thankful that the Russians did not give them the latest generation type Sabot ammunition. A Russian BR11 Sabot round will penetrate the frontal armor on a M1A1 at 1600 meters. Western tanks may be better on a one on one gun fight and the Russians figured it would take 5 to 6 of their tanks to get one of our great M1`s if their air arm or artillery did not get us first. Just like the Germans learned in WW2 with their Tigers and Panthers, you can have good tanks but if you do not have enough of them The Russians will eventually grind you to the ground. I will still have high respect for the T-90 and T-80 series tanks and it worries me what mother Russia has in store for us with their next generation of armor.

 

[Waylander]

Good post!

That's often the problem when people compare western tanks to Ts.
It is not one on one.
If you look at the '80s than you see the western tanks on the one side with M60s, M48s and Leopard 1s still forming a really big part of NATO forces.

I would not bet on the NATO air forces being able to gain total air superiority with all these layered SAM defences and sheer number of fighters on WarPac side.
And when your air force is not able to reduce the tank columns and artillery divisions on their way to the frontline you have to deal with an artillery barrage like never seen before and a huge amount of tanks which are better than everything you have except your Abrams and Leo IIs.
And there were enough maneuvers and simulations I saw were NATO was hit by the first arti firewall and so was just not able to retreat fast enough and even while being able to kill some OPFOR units they just closed the gap too fast and went into the infight which is the death bell for defending tank units.
The enemy brakes through, you loose cohesion, you have to retreat under heavy fire, the benefits of using defensive positions no longer exist and the red forces are crushing its way through your lines.
On the other hand if the OPFOR directes its first arti salvo onto the wrong position it could also result in a turkey shooting.

 

[kams]

Did the Warsaw doctrine dictate Tank vs Tank battles? As I understand from various discussions, Warsaw/Soviet use massed artillary and Air power to crush enemy tank formations and use their own tanks as infantry killers.

 

[Waylander]

It is right that WarPac doctrine was to crush enemy positions by using massive artillery and air force assets.
It is also right that the WarPac prepared their tanks better for infantry support by early giving them a usefull HE round.
But in the end the Ts were supposed to break through the NATO frontlines and kill the NATO tanks left after the artillery and air bombardement.
Just not one on one but one vs three/four/five.

 

[kams]

It is right that WarPac doctrine was to crush enemy positions by using massive artillery and air force assets.
It is also right that the WarPac prepared their tanks better for infantry support by early giving them a usefull HE round.
But in the end the Ts were supposed to break through the NATO frontlines and kill the NATO tanks left after the artillery and air bombardement.
Just not one on one but one vs three/four/five.

So it doesn't make sense to compare capability of Soviet tank to Western Tanks without taking in to account the doctrine they were designed for. In addition Soviets were ready to take more casualities and prepared for it.

I may be going off-topic but what about use of tactical nukes by both sides? At what stage do they come in to play?

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

Even the Russians know that if you start lobbing tactical nukes that this is a no win situation, (Everyone Loses.) NATO wouldn`t do it because of the damage that would be brought on European towns and the casualties, I do not care what their battle docturine states, it would of been bad enough with all the artillery and air strikes with conventual type weapons. Russian artillery is very awesome and they are the masters at using it, when they come upon a large formation of enemy troops they will bypass it and cut it off and mop it up later, something that they learned from the Germans in WW2, their goal is to eat up as much territory as possible and after they punch a hole in your defensive lines your in a world of hurt if you do not have enough in reserves to stem this off which NATO did not have. This is why Russian armor is small, fast, good gun capabilities and can ford rivers and streams. Warsaw Pact forces could call on well over 50,000 tanks to battle while NATO could bring in around 12,000.