T-90 Main Battle Tank

The thing about binary propellants is that they are separated into two different substances for storing.

The idea is to split it into two components that are not dangerous on their own... ie they will burn and they might be rather poisonous, but individually they wont explode.

Once you have these two propellant components you can then store them separately in the vehicle.... say one component in a tank near the driver at the front of the hull and the other in the rear near the engine... if either tank is penetrated and leaks everywhere it might burn quietly but wont explode.... most fire suppression systems should put it out.

It is only in the gun breach that the two components are mixed and the highly explosive clean burning fluid forms a high power propellant.

Propellant is highly flammable.... one of the great design flaws of the T-64/80 series tanks was that the propellent stubs for the 125mm rounds are made from highly combustable cardboard so they don't leave crap in the barrel after being fired.... there is just a metal stub left which is ejected after firing.

If the turret is penetrated even a spark or super hot metal fragment landing on that cardboard can ignite it and then all the other propellant stubs at once... usually removing the turret.

From the design stage you could create cavities inside the armour and fill them with one component of the propellant including the front and the rear of the turret... as long as the two components can't mix there wont be an explosion even if the vehicle catches fire.

This would mean you can vary the power of the propellant depending on the target and distance and projectile type. The chance of a propellant fire is almost eliminated, yet could be pumped into the vehicle to rapidly load the system.

Temperature and other factors could be used to optimise the propellant load and liquid or gel propellants can be rather more powerful than solid or powder ones.

The issue is developing a propellant you can split into two stable components and can be stored for long periods and yet burns in a predictable way.

You could keep the same gun if you want and the same ammo and just remove the propellant block on the APFSDS rounds so then have HE and HEAT rounds in the underfloor autoloader and long rod penetrators with sabots in the rear turret bustle.

You could have small propellant tanks behind the turret crew.... one on each side separated by a fire wall from the crew and each other and a larger tank in the hull near the engine and either side of the driver.

You could have 15-20 shots worth of propellant in the turret tanks... they could reach back into the turret bustle loader and fill each side of the turret as an extra layer of protection but firewalled half way down so if the side of the turret is penetrated all the propellant does not leak out entirely... and another 60-70 shots worth of propellant in the hull tanks that can be pumped into the turret tanks at a stop with the turret forward or something.

With no live exploding propellant anywhere in the tank except in the gun breach the vehicle and crew would be much safer even when the vehicle is penetrated.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Many Abrams have been lost by the Saudi's against the Yemen's who are vastly weaker.

Many have been lost in Iraq.

Interlinked seriously drop the crap. I dislike biased western fanboys just as much as Russian ones.

Absolutely true, but the examples given so far are invalid.

I posted this on the arms export for iraq thread.

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/656716.html


is this an Iraqi T90? Seems to have features from both T90S and T90MS

GarryB wrote:The thing about binary propellants is that they are separated into two different substances for storing.

The idea is to split it into two components that are not dangerous on their own... ie they will burn and they might be rather poisonous, but individually they wont explode.

Once you have these two propellant components you can then store them separately in the vehicle.... say one component in a tank near the driver at the front of the hull and the other in the rear near the engine... if either tank is penetrated and leaks everywhere it might burn quietly but wont explode.... most fire suppression systems should put it out.

It is only in the gun breach that the two components are mixed and the highly explosive clean burning fluid forms a high power propellant.

Propellant is highly flammable.... one of the great design flaws of the T-64/80 series tanks was that the propellent stubs for the 125mm rounds are made from highly combustable cardboard so they don't leave crap in the barrel after being fired.... there is just a metal stub left which is ejected after firing.

If the turret is penetrated even a spark or super hot metal fragment landing on that cardboard can ignite it and then all the other propellant stubs at once... usually removing the turret.

From the design stage you could create cavities inside the armour and fill them with one component of the propellant including the front and the rear of the turret... as long as the two components can't mix there wont be an explosion even if the vehicle catches fire.

This would mean you can vary the power of the propellant depending on the target and distance and projectile type. The chance of a propellant fire is almost eliminated, yet could be pumped into the vehicle to rapidly load the system.

Temperature and other factors could be used to optimise the propellant load and liquid or gel propellants can be rather more powerful than solid or powder ones.

The issue is developing a propellant you can split into two stable components and can be stored for long periods and yet burns in a predictable way.

You could keep the same gun if you want and the same ammo and just remove the propellant block on the APFSDS rounds so then have HE and HEAT rounds in the underfloor autoloader and long rod penetrators with sabots in the rear turret bustle.

You could have small propellant tanks behind the turret crew.... one on each side separated by a fire wall from the crew and each other and a larger tank in the hull near the engine and either side of the driver.

You could have 15-20 shots worth of propellant in the turret tanks... they could reach back into the turret bustle loader and fill each side of the turret as an extra layer of protection but firewalled half way down so if the side of the turret is penetrated all the propellant does not leak out entirely... and another 60-70 shots worth of propellant in the hull tanks that can be pumped into the turret tanks at a stop with the turret forward or something.

With no live exploding propellant anywhere in the tank except in the gun breach the vehicle and crew would be much safer even when the vehicle is penetrated.

Thanks for this very insightful post, Garry.  If the latest T-90 variant had such an arrangement, it would be the 2nd safest tank after the T-14 Armata. I read that the Burlak turret would increase weight by 3 tons but that would still be well worth it because the T-90 would then only be 51 tons and would have 53 rounds at its disposal.

KoTeMoRe wrote:They are going to put the 2A82/82M on these tanks but because of hull floor they will have to keep same autoloader (thus same rounds).



This only means that hull will get stretched or gutted. More weld feuds to come

I take it that you prefer the Burlak turret; it's great because it would not impose any limits on the length of the sabot rounds and would provide a whopping 53 round capacity. I also like the idea of stretching the hull by a mere 20cm so that it could hold the longer Vacuum-1 sabot rounds; all the rounds would be completely under armour, and could be made even safer with the use of binary liquid propellants.

What exactly is the Burlak turret?

miketheterrible wrote:What exactly is the Burlak turret?

http://btvt.info/7english/640a/640.htm

The Burlak turret is much like the black eagle turret, but it is for the T-72/90 family while the Black Eagle is for the T-80 family and removed the underfloor autoloader and moves it to the rear turret bustle.

The Burlak keeps the 22 round underfloor autoloader, but adds a rear turret bustle loader with a further 31 rounds that can include much longer penetrators as there is no rotating of rounds... just straight ramming into the breach.

Reportedly it was rejected because turret bustle rounds are considered to vulnerable to enemy fire.

George1 wrote:Upgraded T-90M tank to enter service soon

The first consignment will be enough to rearm one battalion

MOSCOW, January 31. /TASS/. The Russian army within months will get the first batch of the upgraded T-90M main battle tank, the research and industrial corporation Uralvagonzavod told TASS, adding that the first consignment will be enough to rearm one battalion.

According to the official structure one battalion of a tank regiment has 31 vehicles, and the tank battalion of a mechanized infantry regiment, 40.

"Within months we will be able to say that T-90M will be authorized for service. The first batch will be enough for rearming a tank battalion. The state program for armaments envisages the acquisition of these tanks throughout the period it will be effective in amounts determined by the customer," Uralvagonzavod said.

The testing of the new tank was proceeding in compliance with the schedule authorized by the Defense Ministry.

What is new

The corporation emphasized such new features of the upgrade vehicle as the new turret module, which, in combination with a powerful weapon complex and automatic fire control system, considerably enhances the tank’s combat capabilities.

The tank owes the highest effectiveness of its weapon system to automatic target tracking in the sight’s thermal vision channel. The gunner and commander have the same target search capabilities, which enables the fire control system to operate in the highly effective hunter-gunner mode.

The tank has a new level of protection.

"Its new modular dynamic protection enhances resistibility to modern means of attack and is highly reparable. The electromagnetic protection is a safeguard against magnetometric fuse mines," Uralvagonzavod said.

The tank’s 125 mm gun is capable of firing any modern types of ammunition, while the remote controlled machinegun stabilized in two planes of movement enables the tank’s commander to conduct effective fire separately from the main weapons when the tank is still or on the move.

Uralvagonzavod and the Defense Ministry declared the signing of the contract for the supply of the new version of the T-90 main battle tank - T-90M at the international military-technical forum Army-2017.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/987833

So how many T-90 will be uppgraded, it seems that the old T-90 and T-90A is on plan? And how many T-90 does russia have in all, the figure 550 is in wiki but russian mod says it will have 1400.

runaway wrote:

George1 wrote:Upgraded T-90M tank to enter service soon

The first consignment will be enough to rearm one battalion

MOSCOW, January 31. /TASS/. The Russian army within months will get the first batch of the upgraded T-90M main battle tank, the research and industrial corporation Uralvagonzavod told TASS, adding that the first consignment will be enough to rearm one battalion.

According to the official structure one battalion of a tank regiment has 31 vehicles, and the tank battalion of a mechanized infantry regiment, 40.

"Within months we will be able to say that T-90M will be authorized for service. The first batch will be enough for rearming a tank battalion. The state program for armaments envisages the acquisition of these tanks throughout the period it will be effective in amounts determined by the customer," Uralvagonzavod said.

The testing of the new tank was proceeding in compliance with the schedule authorized by the Defense Ministry.

What is new

The corporation emphasized such new features of the upgrade vehicle as the new turret module, which, in combination with a powerful weapon complex and automatic fire control system, considerably enhances the tank’s combat capabilities.

The tank owes the highest effectiveness of its weapon system to automatic target tracking in the sight’s thermal vision channel. The gunner and commander have the same target search capabilities, which enables the fire control system to operate in the highly effective hunter-gunner mode.

The tank has a new level of protection.

"Its new modular dynamic protection enhances resistibility to modern means of attack and is highly reparable. The electromagnetic protection is a safeguard against magnetometric fuse mines," Uralvagonzavod said.

The tank’s 125 mm gun is capable of firing any modern types of ammunition, while the remote controlled machinegun stabilized in two planes of movement enables the tank’s commander to conduct effective fire separately from the main weapons when the tank is still or on the move.

Uralvagonzavod and the Defense Ministry declared the signing of the contract for the supply of the new version of the T-90 main battle tank - T-90M at the international military-technical forum Army-2017.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/987833

So how many T-90 will be uppgraded, it seems that the old T-90 and T-90A is on plan? And how many T-90 does russia have in all, the figure 550 is in wiki but russian mod says it will have 1400.

Could you please link this of the Russian MoD saying they have 1400 T-90's? Thanks...

franco wrote:

Could you please link this of the Russian MoD saying they have 1400 T-90's? Thanks...

.

Ahh i tried to find it, its gone but iam sure i read it. Hm or else i had some shitstorm to the brain...

runaway wrote:

franco wrote:

Could you please link this of the Russian MoD saying they have 1400 T-90's? Thanks...

.

Ahh i tried to find it, its gone but iam sure i read it. Hm or else i had some shitstorm to the brain...

There was an article from the Tank Manufacturer in 2017 that they were expecting to upgrade around 400 at some point in the future. There are only ~200 of the old T-90 in storage along with ~350 of the more modern T-90A in active duty.

an Iraqi T-90SI in Baghdad.

showing the "hybrid" combination of parts of the T-90S and T-90MS.

Question:

Suppose the underfloor autoloader of the T-90am only housed sabot rounds and it was penetrated... how dangerous would the propellant explosion be? The reason I ask is because the Burlak turret is an incredible innovation that would permit the use of 53 ready-to-fire rounds; 22 would still be in the underfloor autoloader - posing a very remote danger to the crew in the event of a penetration.

To enhance the safety of the crew I would place the 740mm sabot rounds in the underfloor autoloader and use the turret bustle to house longer sabot rounds and heat shells - minimising the prospect of a sympathetic explosion.

The biggest threat to the tank is the propellent which will ignite with a spark, so I would suggest the opposite...

Having the the Burlak setup you could load APFSDS penetrators as long as you want them to be in the turret bustle with an in line straight rammer to load them, plus propellent stubs at the rear so if they are hit the explosion can be vented up and away from the crew.

The rest of the ammo and propellent stubs in the underfloor autoloader are the least likely to get a direct hit so as long as they are armoured to prevent sparks or hot material setting off the propellent stubs they should be fine... to penetrate the armour and explode to set off the HEAT and HE rounds means the crew are fucked anyway... anything exploding inside a tank magnifies the explosion dramatically... with shockwaves and fragments bouncing around off walls and flat surfaces... basically soft organic material is stuffed in such a situation, so whether the ammo explodes or not is not really important anymore.

Propellent burns rapidly... it does not technically explode but it is actually hard to tell the difference when a tank blows its lid.

Simply if the turret blows off and lands on the ground that was propellent burning.

If the whole vehicle shatters into lots of tiny fragments then the HE payload of all the ammo has exploded.

They use propellent in rifles because pressure builds up over time, if they used a small block of HE then the breach would shatter and there would be bits of rifle and shooter all over the place.

GarryB wrote:The biggest threat to the tank is the propellent which will ignite with a spark, so I would suggest the opposite...

Having the the Burlak setup you could load APFSDS penetrators as long as you want them to be in the turret bustle with an in line straight rammer to load them, plus propellent stubs at the rear so if they are hit the explosion can be vented up and away from the crew.

The rest of the ammo and propellent stubs in the underfloor autoloader are the least likely to get a direct hit so as long as they are armoured to prevent sparks or hot material setting off the propellent stubs they should be fine... to penetrate the armour and explode to set off the HEAT and HE rounds means the crew are fucked anyway... anything exploding inside a tank magnifies the explosion dramatically... with shockwaves and fragments bouncing around off walls and flat surfaces... basically soft organic material is stuffed in such a situation, so whether the ammo explodes or not is not really important anymore.

Propellent burns rapidly... it does not technically explode but it is actually hard to tell the difference when a tank blows its lid.

Simply if the turret blows off and lands on the ground that was propellent burning.

If the whole vehicle shatters into lots of tiny fragments then the HE payload of all the ammo has exploded.

They use propellent in rifles because pressure builds up over time, if they used a small block of HE then the breach would shatter and there would be bits of rifle and shooter all over the place.

Hi, Garry

Thanks for this post, mate. I really like the Burlak turret and the firepower overmatch it provides. Can the underfloor autoloader be modified with armored bulkheads and underfloor blow off panels? I don't know if it's possible, but it would certainly put the T-90am behind only the T-14 Armata if it had this feature.

How expensive would it be to create a hull matching the dimensions of the T-14 Armata (with the Armata turret) but using the armour and electronics of the latest T-90AM? Would this T-14 Armata lite be reasonable in terms of cost?

It would still need the engine of the T-14 Armata but everything else would be from the T-90AM. The T-90AM has advanced electronics that match or surpass the best Western tanks and is only one of two operational tanks with video processing.

I would say it is pointless.

If you go paying for brand new hulls, get the real thing and be happy with it.

T-90, and T-72B3 as well, are obviously quite outdated as primary MBTs.

Putting aside for a moment crew protection issues, they suffer from substandard.not fully automatic transmissions, not powerful enough powerpacks, and an internal geometry limiting APFSDS penetrator' lenght.

About APFSDS very little could be done, but transmissions and powerpacks, determining tactical mobility, agility and driver's performances, could still vastly improved.

At least most recent iterations could be made a wonderful tool for motorized divisions, upgrading sights, tranmissions, APS at a reasonable cost.

Peŕrier wrote:I would say it is pointless.

If you go paying for brand new hulls, get the real thing and be happy with it.

T-90, and T-72B3 as well, are obviously quite outdated as primary MBTs.

Putting aside for a moment crew protection issues, they suffer from substandard.not fully automatic transmissions, not powerful enough powerpacks, and an internal geometry limiting APFSDS penetrator' lenght.

About APFSDS very little could be done, but transmissions and powerpacks, determining tactical mobility, agility and driver's performances, could still  vastly improved.

At least most recent iterations could be made a wonderful tool for motorized divisions, upgrading  sights, tranmissions, APS at a reasonable cost.

It may well be pointless for Russia but considering that Russia will not be selling the T-14 Armata for at least another 10 years... a foreign military would find that a T-14 Armata lite  significantly surpasses tanks like the M1A2 Abrams.

The T-90AM is not "outdated"; it has an autotracker, a video processor and makes use of ERA that provides comparable armour protection of significantly heavier Western MBTs. The T-90AM already has greater off-road speed than the Abrams.

All it needs now is 3 axis stabilisation, a fully automatic transmission, underfloor blow out panels and the Burlak turret; the Burlak turret would allow it to use the longer and obscenely powerful Vacuum sabot rounds. Components from the T-14 Armata including APS, mission computers, tactical data-links and the BMS would take it to yet another level.

I read somewhere that the "blast proof" sliding doors on the M1A2 are not that thick.

Question: How thick could the underfloor armour on a T-90AM be by comparison? IEDs could cause the ammunition in the underfloor autoloader to explode up into the crew compartment but I imagine that explosive charges would direct the exploding ammo downwards.

No tank is safe against large IEDs, so this is not much of a concern.

Can the underfloor autoloader be modified with armored bulkheads and underfloor blow off panels?

Hard to say... you would have to calculate the explosive force of all the ammo exploding... as I said if it is HE rounds and they actually detonate then blow out panels are of no use.

If it is a propellent explosion then having blow out panels either to the sides and or to the rear would allow the propellant force be directed away from the crew... but I suspect such an arrangement would make the vehicle more vulnerable to explosions under the hull from IEDs and mines... equally the ammo would have to be fully sealed off from the crew compartment... which would make loading or unloading rather harder than it already is.

An advantage of the Burlak arrangement is you could potentially open the top and just place rounds into that autoloader... then run the autoloader and move them from the turret bustle autoloader to the underfloor autoloader... once that is filled you can just top up the empty spaces in the bustle and also load up the extra long penetrators that don't fit in the underfloor cells and you are ready to go.

If this was the case the entire area around the underfloor autoloader could be sealed off from the crew, which would be safer for the crew.

The whole purpose behind the underfloor autoloader is that this is one of the safest places in the tank... they normally don't get hit there so it is a very safe place to put the ammo.

In comparison, a turret bustle autoloader is exposed to enemy view and fire and is not normally very well protected... but in this case can be considered expendable.

With no loose rounds in the crew compartment having ammo in the underfloor autoloader and the turret bustle autoloader such a T-90 upgrade would have lots of ready to use ammo and a rather decent separation of ammo and crew... the only practical improvement would be a binary liquid propellent system with tanks in the rear hull and either side of the driver... with the underfloor autoloader and the rear turret autoloader no longer holding propellent stubs the auto loaders could carry twice as many projectiles... 44 underfloor and 62 in the rear turret autoloader... 106 ready to fire rounds....

How expensive would it be to create a hull matching the dimensions of the T-14 Armata (with the Armata turret) but using the armour and electronics of the latest T-90AM? Would this T-14 Armata lite be reasonable in terms of cost?

I am not privy to Russian tank building programmes, but I would suspect each project feeds off the other... I suspect advances in the armata would be applied to the T-90AM and indeed vice versa where appropriate.

In such a case I suspect systems developed for the Armata might already be being used in a smaller or simpler form for the T-90AM and any new technology found to work with the T-90AM might also be further upgraded and adapted for the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon for that matter.

What I do suspect will be the next step is robot T-90AM... which means serious weight reduction for the turret and hull because there is only ammo and fuel to protect... the issue will be giving situational awareness for the crew so they can operate it effectively... some sort of helmet mounted 3D simulator based on real time camera video feed to allow the crew to feel like they are in the vehicles they are driving... without the bumps and bruises of course...

T-90, and T-72B3 as well, are obviously quite outdated as primary MBTs.

Quite true but perfectly adequate with APS and modern ERA to operate in environments where RPGs and TOWs are the main threat.

Even in a conflict with NATO not all NATO members are created equal and a mix of manned and unmanned vehicles would be fine.


In fact their comments about hanging on to old stock could be a reference to using rather older tanks... in a remote control mode, you could run them up to an enemy position... I don't think the enemy will notice the difference between a 125mm main gun or a 100mm rifled 2A70 gun with a couple of hundred shells in its unmanned turret. (100mm HE rounds are very compact... even a BMP-3 can carry 40 rounds just in its turret ring autoloader... a further 8 guided missiles are also carried in a tiny BMP-3 turret... in a big turret in an old T-72 they could carry rather more ammo. and being unmanned... who cares if it explodes... from 7km it can rain shells on target positions if need be. In closer it can be quite accurate.

Putting aside for a moment crew protection issues, they suffer from substandard.not fully automatic transmissions, not powerful enough powerpacks, and an internal geometry limiting APFSDS penetrator' lenght.

The new model T-72s have 1,100hp engines and the T-90s have 1,300hp engines which is plenty for tanks that weigh less than 50 tons... the upgraded vehicles also have modern transmissions too and considering more than half the ammo they carry are HE rounds then I don't think there would be a problem with long rod penetrators... BTW the internal geometry of every tank limits is penetrators length... the question is, does that limit performance...and the answer would have to be no because there are no 125mm rounds that are too long to be used in the T-90AM, so it does not effect performance.

About APFSDS very little could be done, but transmissions and powerpacks, determining tactical mobility, agility and driver's performances, could still vastly improved.

None of those problems exist with the T-90AM... the T-90AM was intended to fix all the problems of the vehicle and they did... the mobility and agility of the tank is not in question...

They don't call it the flying tank for nothing.

It may well be pointless for Russia but considering that Russia will not be selling the T-14 Armata for at least another 10 years... a foreign military would find that a T-14 Armata lite significantly surpasses tanks like the M1a2 Abrams.

The T-90AM is not "outdated"; it has an autotracker, a video processor and makes use of ERA that provides comparable armour protection of significantly heavier Western MBTs. The T-90AM already has greater off-road speed than the Abrams.

Used sensibly the T-90SM export model of the AM is every bit as good as anything you could get from a western country... and that is what it is for.

All it needs now is 3 axis stabilisation, a fully automatic transmission, underfloor blow out panels and the Burlak turret; the Burlak turret would allow it to use the longer and obscenely powerful Vacuum sabot rounds. Components from the T-14 Armata including APS, mission computers, tactical data-links and the BMS would take it to yet another level.

No.

It is already good enough... if you are going to make it like an Armata you might as well sell armata.... and they should hang on to that themselves.

The T-90SM is perfectly good enough for any country on the planet... on its own it wont help Fiji invade the US, but in decent numbers it would be perfect for countries like India or Iran or Iraq for anything they might want it for.

Like I said if Fiji wants to invade the US then the T-90SM is not up to scratch but then no tank would get them what they wanted from anywhere.

At least most recent iterations could be made a wonderful tool for motorized divisions, upgrading sights, tranmissions, APS at a reasonable cost.

What is this shit about faulty transmissions?

They already have upgraded sights and systems and their transmissions are fine.

I read somewhere that the blow-out panels on the M1A2 are not that thick.

They can't be... their purpose is as a release valve to let pressure out of the turret before it builds to dangerous levels.

A rifle bullet dropped on the fire... when it heats up to a point where the propellant ignites and pop the projectile is pushed out of the shell case and the gas escapes... the weight of the projectile and light weight of the shell case normally means the shell case pops off the projectile... it might move a few centimetres...

For a real bang you need a rifle chamber and barrel where the burning powder can build up pressure and there is a bang when the expanding gas blows past the projectile as it leaves the muzzle...

Question: How thick could the underfloor blow-out panels on a T-90AM be by comparison? IEDs could cause the ammunition in the underfloor autoloader to explode up into the crew compartment but I imagine that explosive charges would direct the exploding ammo downwards.

Explosives and propellant are different things... an IED under a vehicle will shatter light plate... an explosion will go through a blow out panel... that is what a blow out panel is for to release pressure and reduce the effect of the expanding gas cloud.

Present transmissions seen working into any T-72 and T-90 model are not fully automatic, it is proven by the fact they cannot rotate around their central axis with a track rolling forward and the other rolling backwards.

At most, they can rotate quite around the internal track.

By itself, rotating around the central axis sounds as it could be just a stunt, but it speaks about the capabilities of the transmission to manage power variations and wrong manouveurs by the pilot, in this way relieving him from a lot of workload.

Driving a tank in a battle, it is just too easy to ask a transmission too much in terms of braking, reversing or turning, up to the point to stop abruptly the tank altogether.

An advanced, fully automated transmission, will apply any input just up to the maximum extent it could manage, superseding any input potentially dangerous.

T-72 and T-90 present engines are quite powerful, but far from being all that dependable, to the point that in peace time they are downrated  to prevent too much tear and failures, again it has to be rectified with an engine able to provide all the full power for all of its standard life expectancy.

If the standard for a tank engine should be like 50,000 running hours before total overhaul and rebuild, than it has to work at full settings for 50,000 hours, with no compromise being acceptable.

About APFSDS, together with the alloy properties and its molecular structure, penetrator length is the real performance defining factor.

Penetration with APFSDS occur through mutual ablative process with the target's armor.

Hitting the target at speeds greater than the sound's speed characteristic for the target armor's building material, at the point of contact both the penetrator and the armor instantaneously lose their molecular crystalline structures.

As soon as the penetrator is spent, or its advancing speed falls under the sound's speed relative to armor's material, there is simply no longer penetration.

So, given as defined the alloy used for the penetrator, and given as defined the building process with the resulting internal molecular structure, the only real way to boost penetration capabilities is to design longer penetrators.

Even boosts in speed are of limited usefulness, without an appropriate increment in penetrator's length.

Garry:

Thank you so much for the wealth of information you have shared with me.

Garry B wrote: Hard to say... you would have to calculate the explosive force of all the ammo exploding... as I said if it is HE rounds and they actually detonate then blow out panels are of no use.

If it is a propellent explosion then having blow out panels either to the sides and or to the rear would allow the propellant force be directed away from the crew... but I suspect such an arrangement would make the vehicle more vulnerable to explosions under the hull from IEDs and mines... equally the ammo would have to be fully sealed off from the crew compartment... which would make loading or unloading rather harder than it already is.

An advantage of the Burlak arrangement is you could potentially open the top and just place rounds into that autoloader... then run the autoloader and move them from the turret bustle autoloader to the underfloor autoloader... once that is filled you can just top up the empty spaces in the bustle and also load up the extra long penetrators that don't fit in the underfloor cells and you are ready to go.

If this was the case the entire area around the underfloor autoloader could be sealed off from the crew, which would be safer for the crew.

The whole purpose behind the underfloor autoloader is that this is one of the safest places in the tank... they normally don't get hit there so it is a very safe place to put the ammo.

In comparison, a turret bustle autoloader is exposed to enemy view and fire and is not normally very well protected... but in this case can be considered expendable.

With no loose rounds in the crew compartment having ammo in the underfloor autoloader and the turret bustle autoloader such a T-90 upgrade would have lots of ready to use ammo and a rather decent separation of ammo and crew... the only practical improvement would be a binary liquid propellent system with tanks in the rear hull and either side of the driver... with the underfloor autoloader and the rear turret autoloader no longer holding propellent stubs the auto loaders could carry twice as many projectiles... 44 underfloor and 62 in the rear turret autoloader... 106 ready to fire rounds....

I read some of your other posts and it's become clear to me that dozens of exploding HEAT and HE shells cannot be held back by rather thin "blast-proof" doors. The "blast-proof" doors on the M1A2 Abrams are apparently only 10cm thick. As you pointed out, underfloor blow-out panels would make it vulnerable to IEDs and land-mines... threats that are now ever present. The Burlak turret would allow the T-90AM to use the 1 meter APFSDS of the T-14 Armata and I so I hope Russia makes use of this turret. I understand that a turret bustle is more exposed to enemy fire but it also increases the offensive qualities of the tank through the use of longer rounds.

Does the binary liquid propellant set-up reduce the chances of explosion or does it completely remove the possibility of that event? I presume that this binary liquid design enables the 62 rounds in the rear turret autoloader to consume the same space as 31 rounds.

Garry B wrote:I am not privy to Russian tank building programmes, but I would suspect each project feeds off the other... I suspect advances in the armata would be applied to the T-90AM and indeed vice versa where appropriate.

In such a case I suspect systems developed for the Armata might already be being used in a smaller or simpler form for the T-90AM and any new technology found to work with the T-90AM might also be further upgraded and adapted for the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon for that matter.

What I do suspect will be the next step is robot T-90AM... which means serious weight reduction for the turret and hull because there is only ammo and fuel to protect... the issue will be giving situational awareness for the crew so they can operate it effectively... some sort of helmet mounted 3D simulator based on real time camera video feed to allow the crew to feel like they are in the vehicles they are driving... without the bumps and bruises of course...

The T-90AM could certainly serve as a test-bed for systems in the T-14 Armata and would greatly benefit from the incorporation of advanced systems like the Afghanit APS. If the T-90AM essentially became roboticized, would it not be vulnerable to hacking - just like the drones currently in use?

Garry B wrote:No.

It is already good enough... if you are going to make it like an Armata you might as well sell armata.... and they should hang on to that themselves.

The T-90SM is perfectly good enough for any country on the planet... on its own it wont help Fiji invade the US, but in decent numbers it would be perfect for countries like India or Iran or Iraq for anything they might want it for.

Like I said if Fiji wants to invade the US then the T-90SM is not up to scratch but then no tank would get them what they wanted from anywhere.

I understand that the BMS and tactical data-link of the T-90AM is already very advanced, so there is actually no need to use the ones on the Armata, but an APS is absolutely essential. A fully automatic engine would enable the use of the engines full potential. Underfloor blow-out panels would not stop exploding HEAT and HE rounds from piercing up into the crew compartment, so I now see the folly of underfloor blow-out panels - especially in the age of asymmetric warfare. Is it possible to use NERA and NxRA in conjunction with ERA?

Thanks again for taking the time to answer the flurry of questions I directed your way.