T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[Chrom]

its not crap at all, it is possible to interfere with a FCS - ewarfare is a proper disciplined element of force dislocation.

the US for example can, has and does use spoofing of an enemies e-systems to disrupt battlefield coherency.

i don't know why you insist on debating about warfighting issues which you are obviously oblivious about. both nato and warpac forces were intending to use ewarfare as a disruption technique when war started.

the greek test where interference was used was designed to disrupt competitors tanks. it is common knowledge within most blackhat circles...

You can pretend all you like what you have "divine knowledge" about greek trials, but showed no proof. As such, any unbiased reader will not believe the unfounded rumors. I'm not an expert in ewar, but i have technical education and know what its pretty much impossible to affect tank FCS with any ewar. The only thing i can possible imagine is jamming or spoofing LRF so it will give false range, but that will be too obvious for anyone involved and, again, still very, very hard to achieve against 3 different tanks.

 

[Chrom]

I have heard what something was not right with Greek trials, but mainly rumors was about crew quality , wrong ammo, wrong maintanance, etc.

 

[extern]

I don't know if T's have more armour per volume. But T's are much lighter, so probably not. The Western MBT's then have the advantage of more internal real estate.

It is just a point! T-xx's have armor per volume coefficient significantly higher that any western tank except may be Leclerk. You can calculate it by self:

Tank Mass Volume(м3) m/V
Т-80U 46 11.8 3.94
Leo2А4 55.2 19.4 2.84
M1A2 62.5 19.7 3.17

It is still without regard to comparable mass-effectiveness of western and russian armor, and ERA has mass-effectiveness MUCH higher that any passive armor.

 

[Waylander]

This is pure weight compared to m³ and not armor weight compared to m³.
As long as we don't know what the other things on the Ts weight we can't say it has a better armor per volume coeffizient, or do I get something wrong?

@chrom
I really do not understand why you insist on this 100% hitting capability and that we said that smaller tanks have NO advantage.
Nobody here said this.
I agree that you cannot compare training to real combat as real combat is for sure much more stress which may give you problems do perform as well as in training but live fire exercises, MILES/AGDUS training and simulators give you a good hint.

 

[Chrom]

This is pure weight compared to m³ and not armor weight compared to m³.
As long as we don't know what the other things on the Ts weight we can't say it has a better armor per volume coeffizient, or do I get something wrong?

@chrom
I really do not understand why you insist on this 100% hitting capability and that we said that smaller tanks have NO advantage.
Nobody here said this.
I agree that you cannot compare training to real combat as real combat is for sure much more stress which may give you problems do perform as well as in training but live fire exercises, MILES/AGDUS training and simulators give you a good hint.

I was speaking about 100% hit capability becouse only then you can start assuming what "size doesnt matter". If you FCS cant provide 100% hit chances, then size do play some role - how big and important will be depended from particular situation and range.

 

[Grand Danois]

It is just a point! T-xx's have armor per volume coefficient significantly higher that any western tank except may be Leclerk. You can calculate it by self:

Tank Mass Volume(м3) m/V
Т-80U 46 11.8 3.94
Leo2А4 55.2 19.4 2.84
M1A2 62.5 19.7 3.17

It is still without regard to comparable mass-effectiveness of western and russian armor, and ERA has mass-effectiveness MUCH higher that any passive armor.

I was speaking about 100% hit capability becouse only then you can start assuming what "size doesnt matter". If you FCS cant provide 100% hit chances, then size do play some role - how big and important will be depended from particular situation and range.

The question is if size is a real world advantage. To say that less than 100% implies advantage for the smaller target is true if taken out of context. In context it is a non sequitor.

Hypothetical example. You have 95% probability to hit a 10m2 target and 94% to hit a 8m2 target.

The question arises if it was worth it, reducing the silhouette of the tank from 8m2 to 10m2... You could argue that that 1% difference makes it worth it. However, it puts restrictions on construction, internal real estate, crew survivability...

So the tradeoff for that 1% is a lesser tank. And the advantage of size closes to zero as hit probability closes to 100%.


@extern
It would be interesting to see figures on how much armour constitutes of the entire vehicle weight...

 

[extern]

This is pure weight compared to m³ and not armor weight compared to m³.
As long as we don't know what the other things on the Ts weight we can't say it has a better armor per volume coeffizient, or do I get something wrong?

- Any part of a tank can be accepted as 'armor' with some defence coeff (less or more), even so the engine and the transmission. Assume, you dont think all kind of plastic things into the tank seize significant part of mass, do you? Thus the the shared weight of a tank gives good hint for its armor weight, doesnt it?.

@chrom
I really do not understand why you insist on this 100% hitting capability and that we said that smaller tanks have NO advantage.
Nobody here said this.
I agree that you cannot compare training to real combat as real combat is for sure much more stress which may give you problems do perform as well as in training but live fire exercises, MILES/AGDUS training and simulators give you a good hint.

- Also in Russian tank exersices they try to keep the probability 90% or better for hitting from 1500-2000 m distance or closer, - it's standart demand for tank training. Hovewer, not so exellent efficacy can be asked from the tankmen on high distance: say more that 4000 m. It's obvious, because on that range the probability of hitting will be way below 80%. Also, when a/t helos@planes work from distance 10-15 km, the dimentions of a target also have a big importance for its observability.

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

are you being intentionally obstructive or are you now letting peurility of behaviour enter the debate?

the subtle hint that was being flagged with the greek test example was that everyone knew that the tests were compromised because none of the results reflected battlefield or training data where a raft of real world geographical, topographical, historical and persistent data was available.

you trot out the greek tests as an example - when the greek tests were compromised from day 1 due to electronic interference by one of the bidding countries.

try not to be pithy, its not serving you well in here.

please make the effort to understand what is being said by a number of us rather than respond with what is becoming blatantly apparent - an increasing climb to sarcasm because you don't like the answers.

There are tankers in here, there are armourers in here, there are people who've been involved with ballistics programmes, and there are people (at least 3 of us) who've been part of a procurement assessment team. there is one person in here who is more than familiar with how FCS work because they evaluate them as part of their job.

we're more than aware of how data gets used and abused to serve a companies marketing spin.

the fact that you're still focussing on 100% kills as evidence of flawed statements shows that you haven't bothered to absorb what some of us have been persistently saying.

make the effort rather than see this as a knowledge competition.

I totally agree with you - Pretty much all companies out there like over rating capabilities of their equipment that they are trying to sell to different companies, case in point I helped support a live fire exercise in South Korea on the introduction of the Copperhead artillery round to the South Korean Army, When they fired it they set off explosives in the Vechicle too soon, about 3 seconds later the round landed about 50 meters from the target, if you could only see the look on everyones face.

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

- Any part of a tank can be accepted as 'armor' with some defence coeff (less or more), even so the engine and the transmission. Assume, you dont think all kind of plastic things into the tank seize significant part of mass, do you? Thus the the shared weight of a tank gives good hint for its armor weight, doesnt it?.

- Also in Russian tank exersices they try to keep the probability 90% or better for hitting from 1500-2000 m distance or closer, - it's standart demand for tank training. Hovewer, not so exellent efficacy can be asked from the tankmen on high distance: say more that 4000 m. It's obvious, because on that range the probability of hitting will be way below 80%. Also, when a/t helos@planes work from distance 10-15 km, the dimentions of a target also have a big importance for its observability.

I would assume that this is because of the battle sight range for their main gun capabilities, we are no different, are biggest push was between 1200 - 1600 meters for 105mm and 1600 - 2400 meters for the 120mm even though out in the desert environment we were destroying T-72`s alot further away. I should add that these were Russian export models.

 

[Chrom]

The question is if size is a real world advantage. To say that less than 100% implies advantage for the smaller target is true if taken out of context. In context it is a non sequitor.

Hypothetical example. You have 95% probability to hit a 10m2 target and 94% to hit a 8m2 target.

The question arises if it was worth it, reducing the silhouette of the tank from 8m2 to 10m2... You could argue that that 1% difference makes it worth it. However, it puts restrictions on construction, internal real estate, crew survivability...

So the tradeoff for that 1% is a lesser tank. And the advantage of size closes to zero as hit probability closes to 100%.

Of course, all that is true. However, we must remember what hit chance is greatly depended from distance, and so we should conclude what with increased distances size play bigger role in hit probability. We could estimate what for current FCS generation at distances 2500-3000m where APSFDS CEP is close to tank sized target the hit chances are directly related to tank sizes relation. We can also estimate what for ATGM's and especeally RPG's shots size starts playing major role at much lesser distance.
But i already said what the size advantage is not that important in the battlefield , but much more at tactical and strategical level where you need far less resourses to transport armor. Obvously, it also affects the price of the tank, without compomising its quality.

 

[Waylander]

It is an advantage in real bad terrain or while using smaller bridges but not for transporting. It is not more difficult to transport a T-72 by train or truck than to transport a Abrams, Leo II, etc.
But it is right that these smaller bridges could carry the day on some occasions.

And again, I think you don't want to understand our position. Nobody here said that it makes no difference to have a smaller silouette. We just said that it might be not that important like you think. Grand Denois described this in a very good way.
And again if there are much more advances than price because of the smaller dimension than why does the west builds bigger tanks even when using auto loaders.

 

[Grand Danois]

Of course, all that is true. However, we must remember what hit chance is greatly depended from distance, and so we should conclude what with increased distances size play bigger role in hit probability. We could estimate what for current FCS generation at distances 2500-3000m where APSFDS CEP is close to tank sized target the hit chances are directly related to tank sizes relation. We can also estimate what for ATGM's and especeally RPG's shots size starts playing major role at much lesser distance.
But i already said what the size advantage is not that important in the battlefield , but much more at tactical and strategical level where you need far less resourses to transport armor. Obvously, it also affects the price of the tank, without compomising its quality.

Yes, there is a relationship between size and hit probability. But it is not linear.

Besides, hits to smaller targets with kit cramped in less space, makes for higher probability of kill (or mission kill) when hit. And that is eventually the important figure.

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. western tanks

Yes, there is a relationship between size and hit probability. But it is not linear.

Besides, hits to smaller targets with kit cramped in less space, makes for higher probability of kill (or mission kill) when hit. And that is eventually the important figure.

So true - when you have fuel and ammo on the sides, back and below the vehicle even the spalling effect of tank rounds both shaped charge and kinetic energy rounds that do not penetrate can cause total destruction of that vechicle.

 

[extern]

And again if there are much more advances than price because of the smaller dimension than why does the west builds bigger tanks even when using auto loaders.

Bcz it's not simple thing: to make 'simple', cheap and little toy, it will work like big, expensive and 'sofisticated' one. It needs more engineering thought. Indeed to design a 'lesser' dimention MBT with the same characteristics like big one is very hard deal. The outsiders of tank design like Japan and SKorea simply cannot make contemporal MBT in T-72 dimention. Even the russian tank designers were pushed to rise the weight and the volume of the turret on T-90 relatively to T-72. The weight will be rising further with forthcoming upgrades of T-90 for sure. Regarding to Leclerk, the weight discrepancy between this tank and T-90 ensues mostly from the decision of its designers not to use ERA. The weight-effectiveness of ERA is way higher that any other kind of armor, and any T-90-level defended tank with only passive/NERA armor combination would be certainly close to 55 t.

Apart from the armor issue, some 2 t economy gives to T's their compact and highly effective engines: 1250 hp GTE on T-80U and turbo-charge diesel on T-90.

I would assume that this is because of the battle sight range for their main gun capabilities, we are no different, are biggest push was between 1200 - 1600 meters for 105mm and 1600 - 2400 meters for the 120mm even though out in the desert environment we were destroying T-72`s alot further away. I should add that these were Russian export models.

First of all and more accuratly saying it were mostly Iraq-made non-licension copies of T-72 with the name "Lion of Babylon". I assume, you understand the difference between 'made in Russia' armor and some steel 'made in Baghdad'. Anyway, they lacked the high-precise weapon like 'Sniper-M' tank launched ATGM that allow to hit the enemy tanks and helos on the distance up to 5.5 km. According to some computer simulations in a T's tanks vs Abrams engagement the bulk part (like 40%) of western tanks will be taken out (move, function or crew kills) on the long distance yet before they can use their APFSDSs rounds.

 

[eckherl]

T-90 vs. Western tanks

Bcz it's not simple thing: to make 'simple', cheap and little toy, it will work like big, expensive and 'sofisticated' one. It needs more engineering thought. Indeed to design a 'lesser' dimention MBT with the same characteristics like big one is very hard deal. The outsiders of tank design like Japan and SKorea simply cannot make contemporal MBT in T-72 dimention. Even the russian tank designers were pushed to rise the weight and the volume of the turret on T-90 relatively to T-72. The weight will be rising further with forthcoming upgrades of T-90 for sure. Regarding to Leclerk, the weight discrepancy between this tank and T-90 ensues mostly from the decision of its designers not to use ERA. The weight-effectiveness of ERA is way higher that any other kind of armor, and any T-90-level defended tank with only passive/NERA armor combination would be certainly close to 55 t.

Apart from the armor issue, some 2 t economy gives to T's their compact and highly effective engines: 1250 hp GTE on T-80U and turbo-charge diesel on T-90.


First of all and more accuratly saying it were mostly Iraq-made non-licension copies of T-72 with the name "Lion of Babylon". I assume, you understand the difference between 'made in Russia' armor and some steel 'made in Baghdad'. Anyway, they lacked the high-precise weapon like 'Sniper-M' tank launched ATGM that allow to hit the enemy tanks and helos on the distance up to 5.5 km. According to some computer simulations in a T's tanks vs Abrams engagement the bulk part (like 40%) of western tanks will be taken out (move, function or crew kills) on the long distance yet before they can use their APFSDSs rounds.

Agreed - some of them were Russian clones, but even if they were pure Russian we highly doubted that the Russians would have given them all the advancements that Russia had placed in their latest series of T-72 I for one alway`s kept that in the back of my head not to under estimate true Russian armor that we would be facing in the event of a armed conflict with Russia, Now I have a question that I would like to ask you, do you place that much value in the ATGMS that are main gun launched on Russian tanks, 5.5km is really out there for a shot, and I would assume that these are shaped charged wareheads so that they do not lose there effects by distance. As for the South Koreans - if they could of gone to a smaller vehicle that would be feasible to their battle doctrine they would of gone for it due to the terrian that is over there, they felt for crew survivability, comfort and the latest technology that the size of K-88 would be sufficent, the tank is smaller that a M1 tank, it also sports a adjustable hydraulic suspension for that terrian found over there.

 

[extern]

I have a question that I would like to ask you, do you place that much value in the ATGMS that are main gun launched on Russian tanks, 5.5km is really out there for a shot, and I would assume that these are shaped charged wareheads so that they do not lose there effects by distance. As for the South Koreans - if they could of gone to a smaller vehicle that would be feasible to their battle doctrine they would of gone for it due to the terrian that is over there, they felt for crew survivability, comfort and the latest technology that the size of K-88 would be sufficent, the tank is smaller that a M1 tank, it also sports a adjustable hydraulic suspension for that terrian found over there.

- About the tank-launched ATGM of course they have cummulative charge and jamming-resistant 'beam-riding' principle of guiding. They are a number of kinds like 'Kobra' (for 125 mm T-64, T-80), 'Bastion' 'Kan' (T-55 100mm), 'Sheksna' 'Arkan' (T-62 115 mm), 'Kitolov' (100 mm BMP-3), 'Svir' (125 mm T-72B), 'Reflex' (125 mm T-80, T-90, modernised T-72 ), 'Invar' (125 mm). CItation: "The modernized tank outperforms the conventional tanks in combat characteristics and can reliably destroy the targets like the M1A1 tank at ranges of up to 5 km. The computer simulation of standard combat battles on plain-desert territory demonstrates that with the automated fire control system and the guided armament the tanks combat effectiveness is improved by 2.4-3.6 times". http://www.shipunov.com/eng/bron/modern.htm

Regarding Korean tank development I also meant XK-2 tank program, the project with autoloader and 3 member crew. Obviously they try to mimic the Russian@Ukranian tank projects with external autoloading and Leclerc:

 

[eckherl]

- About the tank-launched ATGM of course they have cummulative charge and jamming-resistant 'beam-riding' principle of guiding. They are a number of kinds like 'Kobra' (for 125 mm T-64, T-80), 'Bastion' 'Kan' (T-55 100mm), 'Sheksna' 'Arkan' (T-62 115 mm), 'Kitolov' (100 mm BMP-3), 'Svir' (125 mm T-72B), 'Reflex' (125 mm T-80, T-90, modernised T-72 ), 'Invar' (125 mm). CItation: "The modernized tank outperforms the conventional tanks in combat characteristics and can reliably destroy the targets like the M1A1 tank at ranges of up to 5 km. The computer simulation of standard combat battles on plain-desert territory demonstrates that with the automated fire control system and the guided armament the tanks combat effectiveness is improved by 2.4-3.6 times". http://www.shipunov.com/eng/bron/modern.htm

Regarding Korean tank development I also meant XK-2 tank program, the project with autoloader and 3 member crew. Obviously they try to mimic the Russian@Ukranian tank projects with external autoloading and Leclerc:

Thank you for the information, it looks like a good round to use in a defensive posture, how will it stack up to a M1A2, LEO2A6. Why hasn`t everyone else involved in tank design not decided to go to a system like this, surely the Americans have some useful information on this along with the Germans, MBT70, Sheridian and M60A2. I suspect that this type of round was really designed for rotary type aircraft, that is only a opinion that I have due to the lack of information that I personally have with this type of round, but you have me hooked, I will start doing some research on the subject. As far as the XK-2 project goes the South Koreans are really off and on when if and when they want to start producing them, There is some folks over there that feel that the vehicle is too expensive and they really do not see a large world market out there for anyone interested in purchasing it from them, also on the homefront for them the North Koreans can`t even come up with a tank to compare to a basic K-88, Korea is not a ideal tank battle ground, ground pounder and artillery will rule the day over there. A little off subject but what is your feelings on the T-91 from Poland and how does it stack up with the Russian T-90.

 

[Waylander]

Isn't the right designation PT-91?

I also think that these tube launched ATGMs are a real threat for forces attacking Ts equipped with them in open terrain.
But I also think that the advantages in terrain like middle europe are not that big because you rarely find a 5km line of sight here.
Another thing are the sights.
It is not easy to lock on moving targets in 5km with a x12 sight.

 

[eckherl]

Isn't the right designation PT-91?

I also think that these tube launched ATGMs are a real threat for forces attacking Ts equipped with them in open terrain.
But I also think that the advantages in terrain like middle europe are not that big because you rarely find a 5km line of sight here.
Another thing are the sights.
It is not easy to lock on moving targets in 5km with a x12 sight.

Sorry - I left out the P, any good references that you guy`s have on these ATGMs would be much appreciated.

 

[extern]

Thank you for the information, it looks like a good round to use in a defensive posture, how will it stack up to a M1A2, LEO2A6.

- The penetration capability of the Russian last serial tank-launched ATGM 'Invar' ('Sniper-M') is only enough to penetrate M1A2 SEP and Leo2A6 in 'weak' zone of their frontal projection. However, the good possibility of 'move kill' or 'gun function kill' remain as well in the case of hitting. For crew lethal kill capability further modification of the missiles is needed to give them atop hit capability. Such kinda reserches are under way, but their results are still classified.

Why hasn`t everyone else involved in tank design not decided to go to a system like this, surely the Americans have some useful information on this along with the Germans, MBT70, Sheridian and M60A2.

- Last years the americans are involved in active R@D programs at this area, but their results are still far from serial. The Israelis are more advanced with their ready to use 120 mm smoothborn compatible "Lahat" tank-launched ATGM system http://www.defense-update.com/directory/lahat.htm , but they havent got enogh money to to implant it in their army.

However, the Americans try to develop tank-launched ATGM named TERM http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/erm.htm with significantly longer range that the serial Russian models have ( "The Tank Extended Range Munition Concept Study". Army RD&A, November-December 1997, p. 42 - 44.). It may be implemented on Abrams or FMBT futuristic american project of 40-50 t tank http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/art3pr1.html . The Russians also work on some longer range system but do it more secretely. In short, the interesting race of competition in this area is starting at present.

A little off subject but what is your feelings on the T-91 from Poland and how does it stack up with the Russian T-90.

- I was very impressed by their win on Malaysia's tank tender http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/pt-91.htm . To win with their T-72 mod. against the Ukranian T-80UD is near impossible in my eyes. However some claims they advertise are seem to me a bit overhyped. For ex. they say their indigenious ERA is capable against tandem warheads, it seems to me improbable: I wonder how a newcomer can start from 3th gen. ERA (successefull?) design without proven technologic background in this area. For ex. the Russians use tandem warhead defeating ERA ('Relikt') only for domestic models (T-72BM 'Rogatka' and T-80BM upgrades). Even T-90S still go for export with Contact-V 2nd gen ERA.

However their FCS is more proven. Their 'Drawa-T' FCS upgrade for Indian T-72 was characterised by Indians as 'unsatisfying' in 90th, but they have had a time for improving, and the situation is benign for it with a lot of COTS options for electronic parts avalible on the market.

PS: going back to discussion between Chrom and co. about MG wear@tear there is a good information sheet about barrel erosion. According to him M256 cannon sometime has 340 rounds limit : Its calculation is ensued from erision life condemnation depth of 120 mm M256 tank cannon = 5mm, and for M829A2 KE round the rounds to erosion condemnation occure on 340 rounds. Source: "Erosion EFC factor for kinetic energy rounds used in the 120 mm M256 tank cannon" http://www.webfile.ru/1153749

Pic FMBT: