T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour

[eckherl]

Sources please,AFAIK the Warefare.ru ,globalsecurity,wiki and all say only 2 axis stabilisation using 2E42M armament stabilizer.and this from the manufacturer of T-80 series (Kharkiv Morozov) here while the T-90s uses the newer 2E42-4 Zhasmin stabilizer.Also Konkat-5 is not a part of T-80UD or T-84 (Russinas had stopped all the aid to Ukraine in wake of latter's deal with Pakistan).

T-90 overheating issues were only pertaing to the malfunctioning ESSA TI (Thales) (most probably due to absence of AC which is not the case for western tanks).The problem is said to have been sorted out.M1 being a GT is a sheer gas guzzler and does not suit IA tank doctrine (something which T-90M too had encountered when was brought to Thar for field trials).

They have placed a 3 axis stabilization system on the T-84 as part of a marketing tool, they will even give you one with a L-44 if you want it.
Why would Ukraine not have the resources to place Konkat - 5 era, they can very easily manufacture it just like Russia, they can probably even manufacture kaKtus era also, the information was let out a long time ago.
At what positions on the T-90S does the stabilization system draw it`s information from when entering the ballistic computer.
You do not need to take anything I say to heart, this was part of my job within the U.S Army.
The gas guzzler deal is very correct, it takes 5 gallons of fuel just to get the engine to turn over.

Question for you in regards to T-90S that India is using - at what range do they conduct a precision boresight from, this is the alignment of all tank sights.
Also are they using DU type KE penetrators on the T-90S.

 

[eckherl]

Tested or not, they are advantage. If we concentrate on things what ARE tested then we cant even judge about armor protection, gun and APFDS figures.
ATGM's are good even against tanks. Firstly, M1A1 heat protection wasnt THAT good - if we speak about 80x timeframe. Second, now HEAT rounds are designed to deal with composite and ERA armor, so i wouldnt bet what a modern HEAT warhead with 900 RHA listed figure wouldnt penetrate 1200 composite armor HEAT equiualent. E.G. for example we can see frontal armor penetrations of Merkava 4 in Lebanon. And third, there are always weaker zones. plus missile can damage optics, tracks, etc.
Mobility is NOT even. Allthought ground pressure and PS/KG are even, still in many cases its overall weights what counts. For example, when riding throught sand, sumpf or ice - overall weight is sometimes more important than track pressure. As for strategical mobility - its obvious what 42t are much easer to relocate than 60t.

As much as i know true remote controlled MG was introduced in later generations.
Huh? Why you bring range here? We speak about ARMOR protection. If its better at 100m than its better at 10000m also.

Autoloader started to limit the enlarging KE penetrator only recently - i.e. in the last 4-5 years. Prior to that it wasnt a problem. Dont you think what after 40 years it MIGHT BE need to upgrade autoloader??? And it can be done quite simply and rather cheap if needed. Such proposals were shown long ago - but were deemed unnessesary.

Sorry I brought up the ammunition issue, I was trying to bait someone, we both know that Russia and the U.S have very potent DU rounds, just that ours are better.
It`s not that easy with the auto loader due to room inside of turret, Black Eagle looks like a good one with crew protection.

On the thermal sight what is the max range that it can detect a target.
Do you think that Russia`s newer Maingun anti tank missiles can take out a M1A2 or a M1A1 heavy and if so why.
Can the T-90M comphesate for cant of the vehicle now and what is the max angle that it will make up for.

 

[Chrom]

Sorry I brought up the ammunition issue, I was trying to bait someone, we both know that Russia and the U.S have very potent DU rounds, just that ours are better.
It`s not that easy with the auto loader due to room inside of turret, Black Eagle looks like a good one with crew protection.

On the thermal sight what is the max range that it can detect a target.
Do you think that Russia`s newer Maingun anti tank missiles can take out a M1A2 or a M1A1 heavy and if so why.
Can the T-90M comphesate for cant of the vehicle now and what is the max angle that it will make up for.

Hard to say as noone can provide reliable source of how much composite armor both APFSDS and HEAT rounds can pentetrate. Hell, even simply RHA penetration figures are hard to come by. Add to that what we dont know exact armor compostion and RHA equivalent for both T-90 and Abrams and you are set to judge in any direction you like. Btw, there is zero doubt what guided missiles can hit a target 5km away - it was proven numerous times in numerous exercises. 12x optic is not as bad as you might think for this task - just try your own 12x binocular - i have no problem recognizing small truck 5km away with it. Of course it will be harder than from 3 km but definitly possible.

 

[eckherl]

Hard to say as noone can provide reliable source of how much composite armor both APFSDS and HEAT rounds can pentetrate. Hell, even simply RHA penetration figures are hard to come by. Add to that what we dont know exact armor compostion and RHA equivalent for both T-90 and Abrams and you are set to judge in any direction you like. Btw, there is zero doubt what guided missiles can hit a target 5km away - it was proven numerous times in numerous exercises. 12x optic is not as bad as you might think for this task - just try your own 12x binocular - i have no problem recognizing small truck 5km away with it. Of course it will be harder than from 3 km but definitly possible.

Russia definetly has fine tuned this type of projectile, makes you wonder what the exact amount of technology that we have placed in our experimental model comes from Russia.

 

[powerslavenegi]

They have placed a 3 axis stabilization system on the T-84 as part of a marketing tool, they will even give you one with a L-44 if you want it.

Hm.. interesting ,but dont you think calling a tank T-84 after fitting it with a German gun and I guess that 3 axis stabilisation you talk about comes with the gun itself is a bit unfair for comaprasion studies vis a vis T-90s.

You do not need to take anything I say to heart, this was part of my job within the U.S Army.

Oh no issues what so ever , infact I am on the forum just as an enthusiast.

Question for you in regards to T-90S that India is using - at what range do they conduct a precision boresight from, this is the alignment of all tank sights.
Also are they using DU type KE penetrators on the T-90S.

Would find out and let you know .

 

[eckherl]

Hm.. interesting ,but dont you think calling a tank T-84 after fitting it with a German gun and I guess that 3 axis stabilisation you talk about comes with the gun itself is a bit unfair for comaprasion studies vis a vis T-90s.


Oh no issues what so ever , infact I am on the forum just as an enthusiast.



Would find out and let you know .

Look - I was just pointing out to you that Ukraine will place anything you want on a T-84, if you do not think that they have the capability to place a better stabilization on their tanks so be it.
Here is some more tid bit info for you, they will also place a 120mm on a T-72 if you would like, that all a T-90 really is right?

Dont worry about the info I was looking for, I have it for some research that I am conducting, thank you for your time and effort if you were trying to come up with any information on this.

 

[lobbie111]

I had heard of a version of the T-90 possibly a prototype to carry a 130mm Smoothbore and two 30mm cannons Ive seen pictures of it but I can't seem to find them

 

[eckherl]

I had heard of a version of the T-90 possibly a prototype to carry a 130mm Smoothbore and two 30mm cannons Ive seen pictures of it but I can't seem to find them

They will not carry a 130mm in a T-90 due to clearance issues of the auto loader, they have proto types vehicles designated as T-95 with different turret configerations, no one really knows what new main gun caliber that they will enter. Yes they do already have a vehicle called BMPT that carries twin 30mm cannons for infantry support. The pictures in regards to the T-95 are purely speculation on what it may look like. Either way Russia doesn`t have the funds to mass produce at the present time.

 

[aaaditya]

They will not carry a 130mm in a T-90 due to clearance issues of the auto loader, they have proto types vehicles designated as T-95 with different turret configerations, no one really knows what new main gun caliber that they will enter. Yes they do already have a vehicle called BMPT that carries twin 30mm cannons for infantry support. The pictures in regards to the T-95 are purely speculation on what it may look like. Either way Russia doesn`t have the funds to mass produce at the present time.

hey buddy what is the designation and the intended role of the vehicle in the first thumb(the one with two cannons and 4 missile launchers)?

 

[eckherl]

hey buddy what is the designation and the intended role of the vehicle in the first thumb(the one with two cannons and 4 missile launchers)?

This is called BMPT, it was designed after the Chechny wars to give a support role in urbanized warfare, cannons can fire at high angles, plus it is designed to fire the thermaboric missles. Here is another set of pictures of a the BTRT that they have also tested, this design was intended to carry infantry, I have not heard if they decided to field this, But they are fielding the BMPTs.

 

[Chrom]

This is called BMPT, it was designed after the Chechny wars to give a support role in urbanized warfare, cannons can fire at high angles, plus it is designed to fire the thermaboric missles. Here is another set of pictures of a the BTRT that they have also tested, this design was intended to carry infantry, I have not heard if they decided to field this, But they are fielding the BMPTs.

The initial order for BMPT-type design was issued after Afganistan war, but chaos during 90x prevented any work here besides paper sketches. Only in begining of 200x serious work began, and obviously Chechen War experience was also incorporated.

 

[eckherl]

The initial order for BMPT-type design was issued after Afganistan war, but chaos during 90x prevented any work here besides paper sketches. Only in begining of 200x serious work began, and obviously Chechen War experience was also incorporated.

Have they started producing BTRT`s yet, or this still being tested, I like the design layout of the BMPT, it will be a good urban fighter.

 

[Chrom]

Have they started producing BTRT`s yet, or this still being tested, I like the design layout of the BMPT, it will be a good urban fighter.

There are no buy orders given, so technically its in development stage. Its formally ready for production as soon as RUA show its interest, but the constant work to upgrade the design continues just as with other product already in production or development (T-90, T-95, BMP-T, etc). So when (if) RUA decides to buy BTR-T the final specs may well change. Allthought there are no signs what RUA will ever buy it.

 

[DesertFox]

Good thinking but much still left....

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.

Do you people want to do something about the TISSA and an APU for the malnurished AFV. Your DRDO will make a soup of it though!...(pun intended)! But I guess at the end of the day as long as the T 90 is utilised with a well motivated and skilled crew ...it'll take the cake in any asian conflict scenario. The only thing which can stop it is heavy integration of Medium Artillery and Air Strikes....typical of developed nation's strategy ( rightly so ) ...in a limited resource conflict , tactically sound utilisation by field commanders will ensure that the Cavalry Rules!!

 

[hudi82]

They will not carry a 130mm in a T-90 due to clearance issues of the auto loader, they have proto types vehicles designated as T-95 with different turret configerations, no one really knows what new main gun caliber that they will enter. Yes they do already have a vehicle called BMPT that carries twin 30mm cannons for infantry support. The pictures in regards to the T-95 are purely speculation on what it may look like. Either way Russia doesn`t have the funds to mass produce at the present time.

I don't think there is a 130mm canon in existence.

 

[hudi82]

hey buddy what is the designation and the intended role of the vehicle in the first thumb(the one with two cannons and 4 missile launchers)?

Hi: if you'd like, please read about these vehicles on my website:
http://hudi2.republika.pl/main.htm

Some are in English some in Polish, I'm trying to translate a very good article about T-90. hopefully I'll finish soon.

 

[FutureTank]

Hi eckherl,

Can I ask when an AFV stops being a tank and becomes a heavily armoured artillery system? After all, if there was a 155mm APFSDS round, Paladins would make for awsome 'tank'. Give the M109 a gun-launched ATGW, and it becomes an even more awsome platform. Of course it will lack armour and speed, but it goes to design priorities and the tactical environment it is being expected to perform in.

Cheers
Greg

They will not carry a 130mm in a T-90 due to clearance issues of the auto loader, they have proto types vehicles designated as T-95 with different turret configerations, no one really knows what new main gun caliber that they will enter. Yes they do already have a vehicle called BMPT that carries twin 30mm cannons for infantry support. The pictures in regards to the T-95 are purely speculation on what it may look like. Either way Russia doesn`t have the funds to mass produce at the present time.

 

[hudi82]

Hi eckherl,

Can I ask when an AFV stops being a tank and becomes a heavily armoured artillery system? After all, if there was a 155mm APFSDS round, Paladins would make for awsome 'tank'. Give the M109 a gun-launched ATGW, and it becomes an even more awsome platform. Of course it will lack armour and speed, but it goes to design priorities and the tactical environment it is being expected to perform in.

Cheers
Greg

Greg, tanks are never designed as "artillery system" the are designed to move in front of infantry and destroy strong enemy fire points. Note that tanks main gun elevation are never more than +15 degree. The M109 are artillery system designed to SUPPORT the front troops. I hope this give you a better idea.

 

[FutureTank]

T-90 vs M1 comparison

I just had a difference of opinion in another forum in regards to the T-62 vs M60A1.

It seems to me that many people fail to make comparisons of weapon platforms in the 'apples and apples' way rather then 'apples and oranges'.

The M1 as it is employed by forward units of US Army in 2007 is a far cry from the tank deployed in 1984...20 years ago! It is however a mid-70s design. For those too young to remember, that was the age before Internet, cell phones, DVDs, personal computers, walkman, etc.

The T-90 is really a very major upgrade of the T-72 (as an alternative solution to the even earlier T-64). The very fact that the Russians were able to so significantly upgrade the 1969 design in itself says something about the quality of engineering thought that went into the T-72. The M60 could not be so upgraded, though the Israelis certainly tried. The fact that Israelis went on to design Merkava and the US went on to design the M1 confirms this.

The M1 and T-72 are therefore rough period contemporaries, and the T-90 is really just a very deep upgrade (in fact a virtual rebuild).

Comparing the M1 and T-90 can also be performed on subsystem basis.
Both had considerable electronic upgrades (since 1970s), but the T-90 features a countermeasures suite which is absent on the Army's M1 (?) but is to some degree incorporated on the USMC tanks.

The armour upgrade solution for the T-90 is a different one to M1, but both had their armour upgraded.

The T-90 had a poweplant upgrade (from T-72), but the M1 had the gun upgraded (from 105mm).

One feature of the T-90 that M1 has not so far emulated is the gun-launched ATGW ammunition, but this is also indevelopment.

So it seems that both tanks are 'work in progress' as designs.

Interestingly both have influenced design ideas of their opposites. The Black Eagle proposed to replace T-90 in Russia was said to be designed very much with Western layout in mind, while the US FCS concept reflects many Russian design ideas, including a significant reduction in weight and size.

It seems to me that in evaluating designs, it is important to remember that design engineers are under constraints during projects. US engineers were constrained by the requirement to ensure crew survival and comfort (consistent from WW2), while Soviet designers had to conform to a certain doctrinal tank employment (consistent from WW2).

These different imposed design philosophies obviously resulted in different vehicles, which to my mind are 'apples and oranges'.

Cheers
Greg

 

[hudi82]

I would say there is no simple answer to the question. It largely depends on the location and the scenario of the combat. T-90 is lighter and much smaller probably a little better in mobility, however I personally think that M1A2 has better electronics. if correctly used both tanks can destroy the other and this also depends largely on the training of the crew.

Technical wise, the 120mm Rheinmetal gun is superior to the 125mm from Tula. Russian tanks use shorter ammos -> less powerful. In my opinion the armor protection of T-90 is inferior to M1A2 but not much, both of them can be penetrated by RPGs from the side. Inside T-90 is very cramped and there is a high risk of ammo detonation after penetration.