T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[KGB]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but,

The priority of the T series is mobility. The russians recognize that their biggest fear would be a nuclear strike on their spearheads and second echelons so they wanted to stick close to their NATO opponents and drive really quickly towards their objectives. Like a running game in basketball. Cross country performance was important. NATO tanks are not as dangerous as NATO nukes. Now a heavy tank requires more gas; and that's the weakness of the tank push isn't it; the supply train. NATO's mobile defence will allow it to retreat towards prepared depots while the Russian spearheads supply lenghtens. They won't forget what Manstein did to them in the campaign that preceeded Kursk. He let them advance then hit their flanks when their supplies diminished. Their attitude is that taking many casualties in a short successfull campaign is better than taking more in a long one

Does this still apply in the post cold war age?

 

[extern]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but,

The priority of the T series is mobility. The russians recognize that their biggest fear would be a nuclear strike on their spearheads and second echelons so they wanted to stick close to their NATO opponents and drive really quickly towards their objectives. Like a running game in basketball. Cross country performance was important. NATO tanks are not as dangerous as NATO nukes. Now a heavy tank requires more gas; and that's the weakness of the tank push isn't it; the supply train. NATO's mobile defence will allow it to retreat towards prepared depots while the Russian spearheads supply lenghtens. They won't forget what Manstein did to them in the campaign that preceeded Kursk. He let them advance then hit their flanks when their supplies diminished. Their attitude is that taking many casualties in a short successfull campaign is better than taking more in a long one

Does this still apply in the post cold war age?

The strategic and tactic mobility issue is actual now as well. The americans are now developing 4th gen tank with 48-50 t weight. The old name of their project is FCS (singular - dont mess it with FSC plural) or FMBT. As a possibility, It will be equipped with 25-35mm combination multi barrel electromagnetic MG. It isnt BMP-2 : . It is FMBT:

 

[eckherl]

- 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.


- 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.



- 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:

Thank you for the information, question for you in regards to maingun wear - what is the muzzle velocity on a M829A1 and on a M829A2 KE tank round. Also what is your view point of the 140mm that the Germans are working on.

 

[Waylander]

The work on the 140mm is paused as well as the 140mm programm of switzerland.
For now the developers think that a 140mm does not gives you enough benefits compared to the problems a bigger caliber causes like weight, less ammo, longer loading time, more stress for the chassis, etc.

 

[eckherl]

The work on the 140mm is paused as well as the 140mm programm of switzerland.
For now the developers think that a 140mm does not gives you enough benefits compared to the problems a bigger caliber causes like weight, less ammo, longer loading time, more stress for the chassis, etc.

Does this also include all the ETC programs that they were working on with this caliber size, also Royal Ordnance and Giat Industries was working with Rheinmetall on this at some point as a joint venture I believe, have they also shelved the Idea.

 

[Waylander]

I never heard of Royal Ordnance or GIAT working together with Rheinmetall on this project.
Do you have further infos about this, would be very interesting.
GIAT worked together with Rheinmetall on a project which ended in the DM43 ammo.

That the project is paused is the official statement.

 

[eckherl]

I never heard of Royal Ordnance or GIAT working together with Rheinmetall on this project.
Do you have further infos about this, would be very interesting.
GIAT worked together with Rheinmetall on a project which ended in the DM43 ammo.

That the project is paused is the official statement.

It was a joint venture between the three with American involvement called RGR, they were investigating the technology for a 140 mm conventional gun platform and also looking at Electro-Thermal Chemical and Electro-Magnetic Gun systems. They were also looking at this latest technology with the L44 and L55 120mm. The American advancement into the technology level for Rail Guns, Coil guns and Electrothermal guns is there with the only set back in getting the systems down to a size that they can fit into existing armor platforms along with needing alot of electric energy consumption. We have been working on some of these gun systems now for well over 25 years.

 

[Waylander]

Very interesting.
I know that the US have been working on these railguns for a long time but I did not know that they had a project together with other nations.

 

[eckherl]

Very interesting.
I know that the US have been working on these railguns for a long time but I did not know that they had a project together with other nations.

From testing between a Rail gun, Coil gun and Electrothermal gun, the latter is the most promising given the other two involve a complicated barrel design.The Americans have really scored big with the technology of the Electrothermal gun system especially in the area`s of projectile and barrel technology. By 2012 we should be there if not sooner.

 

[extern]

Thank you for the information, question for you in regards to maingun wear - what is the muzzle velocity on a M829A1 and on a M829A2 KE tank round. Also what is your view point of the 140mm that the Germans are working on.

Now I have got only M829A2 specs: Initial velocity. m/s -1675. Deceleration/ 1000 m, m/s -59.5. Thus its velocity on the distance=1000m. will be -1615 m/s.

About 140 mm German MG - it is intended for their 4th gen MBT program that has a name NGP (Neue Gepanzerte Platforme). It will be 50 t class 2-3 crewmen machine with autoloader for 35-40 rounds, armor ERA/NERA/modular passive combination, diesel, 65 km/h gudron. They want intially to deploy it after 2009, and I think, its 140 mm MG prospect is depending of competing MBT armor progress. The new tank dimentions:

 

[Jezza]

how about using 155mm rounds and 155mm gun???????

 

[eckherl]

Now I have got only M829A2 specs: Initial velocity. m/s -1675. Deceleration/ 1000 m, m/s -59.5. Thus its velocity on the distance=1000m. will be -1615 m/s.

About 140 mm German MG - it is intended for their 4th gen MBT program that has a name NGP (Neue Gepanzerte Platforme). It will be 50 t class 2-3 crewmen machine with autoloader for 35-40 rounds, armor ERA/NERA/modular passive combination, diesel, 65 km/h gudron. They want intially to deploy it after 2009, and I think, its 140 mm MG prospect is depending of competing MBT armor progress. The new tank dimentions:

For the 829A1 the initial velocity is 1670 m/s, at 1000 meters it drops to 1608 m/s. Are you contributing barrel wear data from muzzle velocity levels firing kinetic energy rounds. Also Have the Russians decided on what main gun caliber that they want to officially start working with.

 

[eckherl]

how about using 155mm rounds and 155mm gun???????

Only when NATO artillery batteries start being over run by T-90`s and T-80`s

 

[extern]

For the 829A1 the initial velocity is 1670 m/s, at 1000 meters it drops to 1608 m/s. Are you contributing barrel wear data from muzzle velocity levels firing kinetic energy rounds. Also Have the Russians decided on what main gun caliber that they want to officially start working with.

Of course the sabot muzzle velocity must have relation with wear-and -tear. For M829A3 I remember, it's slightely below, may be to prevent excessive wear. It is like 1665-1670 m/s, but I have'nt got now exact number.

About future caliber for T's, many think over here that the full capability of 125mm is far from to be completely utilized. Its accuratness was rised significantly from 2A46M-1 to 2A46M-4. The known problem of 125mm always was its autoloader limitations , the T-72/T-90 type autoloader is limiting the APFSDS projectile lenght by 740 mm. Hovewer such limitation gives the option for some improvement/ Now with the last upgrading program for T-72BM ('Rogatka') they're starting to put there a modernized autoloader with oblique position of rounds. It gives the possibility of using more potent projectiles. The serial T-90S still comes with regular autoloader apropos, but I hope it will be rectified in near future. Thus the rumors about 135mm or even 152mm MG on T-80UM-2 (Black Eagle) and T-95 were remained rumors...

More important thing for T's is 30mm autumatic gun adoption IMHO:

 

[Waylander]

And for what do you need this?
Against infantry 7,62mm and 12,7mm should be enough and against fortifications, buildings, vehicles, etc. the 125mm with KE and HE rounds is the weapon of choice.

 

[extern]

And for what do you need this?
Against infantry 7,62mm and 12,7mm should be enough and against fortifications, buildings, vehicles, etc. the 125mm with KE and HE rounds is the weapon of choice.

30 mm is pretty good against helos, UAVs and attack planes in addition to MG sticks. - the contemporal helos like Mi-28 slow-slow become to be resistent to 12,7mm.

 

[Waylander]

Don't you attack Helos with your main gun in the russian army? This is a normal part of our training. The AA 7,62 MG on our tanks is more for getting as much metal in the air as possible with your company and hope for the golden bullet and against ground targets.
A KE is much faster and is able to attack helicopters at bigger ranges than a 30mm.
And I doubt that you are able to use the 30mm against fast jets without radar assistance.

 

[extern]

And I doubt that you are able to use the 30mm against fast jets without radar assistance.

30mm has much greater potential because this caliber allready gives the possibility for distance explosion. It's not accidentely 30mm guns are broadly usefull in close range shipborn AAD/AMD. And in the future - yes, it will be radar guided and with automatic reaction. Why not, if the ADS's like Arena anyway have radar... It naturally can be a part of future tank ADS. All the needed technologies are already existing on the navy, it's only quastion of time to reduce the price and miniaturisate such system for tanks.

Now for close air defence of tank regiments 30mm Shilka or Tunguska are still used.

 

[aaaditya]

i believe that the 30mm guns are getting outdated ,it is the age of 40mm cannons,they have superior armour penetration,a decent fire rate and for anti helicopter roles a longer range.

 

[Waylander]

You cannot compare the radar used for ADS with a range of some meters with the radar used by AA-Vehicles like the Tunguska, CV90, Gepard, etc.

And another aspect is that there are already IFVs and APCs which are armored frontally against 30mm. The Puma und Boxer for example.