T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

I've been reading up more on liquid and gel propellants and I wonder if it's possible to incorporate a gel propellant into the hull of the current T-90M Proryv-3; gel propellants have all the advantages of solid propellants -> storage and portability and the advantages of liquid propellants -> safety increase, reduced volume requirements, reduced sensitivity, reduced flammibility, increased velocity and improvements in logistics in the ammunition re-supply system.

U.S. studies on the feasibility of incorporating such a propellant into the M1 Abrams conclude that it would increase the ready rounds from 17 to 48 and increase the amount of stowed rounds from 40 to 56.

If there was room in the hull of the T-90M Proryv-3 to store binary liquid or gel propellant on opposite ends of the tank, you could remove propellant explosions altogether and could conceivably double the rounds in the carousel autoloader from 22 to 44. By separating and placing the fuel and the oxidizer on opposite ends of the T-90M, Russia would have the safest tank crews in the two safest tanks. Liquid propellants are (by weight) less than 1% combustibles whereas solid propellants are 40%.

I also like the idea of including a small bustle autoloader (with 16 sabot rounds) in the turret -- bringing the ready to fire rounds to 60. Is any of this possible for the T-90? And would it be worth the investment?

They developed a bustle autoloader for an upgrade of the T-72/90 vehicle family based on that of the Black Eagle design.

On the black eagle it was supposed to replace the underfloor autoloader, but they ended up deciding that placing ammo in such an exposed location would make it too vulnerable to enemy fire.

Of course removing all propellent and HE content and just having sabot rounds there with the propellent stored in tanks elsewhere inside the tank... perhaps with some sort of microwave priming of the propellent so it might not even burn if hit where it is stored would make all the difference.

The original turret bustle autoloader had 31 rounds in it, but that included propellent stubs, so 62 sabot rounds in the turret bustle, and 44 more rounds in the underfloor autoloader that could be HEFRAG and HEAT and of course missile rounds... in two layers, with the propellent stored separately inside the tank would be rather interesting...

Making it fully fluid and only thicken to a gel inside the chamber would make pumping it around the tank much easier and quicker, and with a binary fluid that can be pumped into the chamber and then primed perhaps with a microwave beam to activate it, it should be rather useful and safe and you could probably boost MV by 20% or more with the more powerful propellent.

GarryB wrote:They developed a bustle autoloader for an upgrade of the T-72/90 vehicle family based on that of the Black Eagle design.

On the black eagle it was supposed to replace the underfloor autoloader, but they ended up deciding that placing ammo in such an exposed location would make it too vulnerable to enemy fire.

Of course removing all propellent and HE content and just having sabot rounds there with the propellent stored in tanks elsewhere inside the tank... perhaps with some sort of microwave priming of the propellent so it might not even burn if hit where it is stored would make all the difference.

The original turret bustle autoloader had 31 rounds in it, but that included propellent stubs, so 62 sabot rounds in the turret bustle, and 44 more rounds in the underfloor autoloader that could be HEFRAG and HEAT and of course missile rounds... in two layers, with the propellent stored separately inside the tank would be rather interesting...

Making it fully fluid and only thicken to a gel inside the chamber would make pumping it around the tank much easier and quicker, and with a binary fluid that can be pumped into the chamber and then primed perhaps with a microwave beam to activate it, it should be rather useful and safe and you could probably boost MV by 20% or more with the more powerful propellent.

Garry

Thanks for this detailed and useful response, mate. I just looked up information on microwave shell priming systems, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that this is already in place with the Koalitsiya-SV - so this certainly can be incorporated into the T-90M. The papers I've read point out that "most BLLPG which have overpressured and led to a failure have been blamed on errors in ignition."

This issue can be removed now that Russia has a working microwave shell priming system. I like the turret size of the 22 capacity Leclerc tank, and I don't think it would affect the center of gravity of a T-90M. The Black Eagle tank had a turret that seemed a little too large, even if it could hold 62 sabot rounds and I'm not sure there would be enough propellant for a combined 106 rounds.

The other issue with liquid propellant is contamination, but I'm certain that this can be rectified. I'm just not sure where liquid propellants could be placed into the T-90M - as there is little space inside MBTs; I suppose one liquid propellant tank could be put where the 8 hull stored rounds are right now.

I just think that the T-90 has more potential than even its latest variant, and this is why I think they should include an APS, the 2a82 gun, the T-14 Mission computer, data links, BMS, third generation thermals and a liquid or gel propellant.

A critical point regarding safety is that if you have a HE round inside a tank loaded in an auto loader system it needs to have a fuse system.

Something that will make the main HE charge go boom.

The problem is that generally to make HE go boom you need low explosive.

You need a boom to get a boom from a high order explosive.

The problem for a tank that has been hit is that all its HE rounds... including HEAT rounds as well, is that if you set fire to a HE round the HE will actually just burn and be less of a problem than propellent actually.

It is the fuse that contains a low explosive like gunpowder that readily explodes that will set off the main charge that is the problem because if the fuse catches fire or is heated beyond a certain rather low temperature then when it explodes it will set off the main HE charge explosion, which in turn will set off other HE and HEAT rounds nearby and of course any propellent in one big explosion.

Without the fuses a stack of HE shells will just burn for quite some time... the temperature would need to get to rather high levels before it actually explodes.

Having a microwave system of setting off the propellent and an electric fuse for setting off the explosives on impact greatly reduce the risks in handling the rounds and in case the vehicle is hit.

Of course even diesel will explode when it gets heated to a high temperature, but removing the propellant and keeping it separate from the ammo should make it much safer.

Equally with Sabot rounds in the turret bustle... you could offset their positions so their sabots overlap and greatly reduce the space they take up as they wont need to be surrounded by propellent... in fact it would be better if they didn't have propellent around them to make them lighter and more compact in storage.

Generally modern Sabot rounds have bore width petals at the front and the back to align the projectile with the barrel but in between they can be as narrow as the round itself... about 60-80mm for a projectile about 40-50mm across, so you could stack them so that they interlock and you should be able to get quite a few in there.

BTW from memory I think the Burlak turret bustle autoloader had 31 positions for rounds... projectiles and propellent stubs... one in front of the other in each tube so the 31 tubes would have 31 projectiles and 31 propellent stubs. This new design with liquid propellent could do away with the propellent stubs and just have perhaps 32 APFSDS rounds of about half the bustle length but the same width.

Regarding the location for the propellent if you separate it into two separate liquids that are relatively inert on their own you could create layers inside the armour with cells of the different propellent types... say 8 separate fuel compartments in the front of the hull... upper and lower... so that any penetration wont take out all of one propellent component... and it would act like spaced armour rendering rounds like HESH useless.

Then of course having the other component in the rear of the hull in the position between the turret and the engine where the upgraded T-90 carries an extra 6 rounds of ammo... a tank there with tubes to pump it into the gun chamber and perhaps secondary tanks in each side of the turret bustle for redundancy... turn the turret forward and pump 20 litres or so into the turret tanks... you could even put the tanks under the commander and gunners seats moving around with the turret so with fixed pipes from the seats to the rear of the gun... with further pipes leading from the rear bustle to the gun where the two chemicals are mixed and prepared for firing...

The liquids would not necessarily be pleasant, but separately they might not even burn let alone explode.

You might mix 300mls of one liquid with 1,000mls of the other for a high energy APFSDS round shot, whereas HE and HEAT rounds might only need 100mls of one liquid and 600mls of the other... depending on the condition and the situation the computer could probably alter the mix to improve performance in different situations...

When reloading the tank you could have an external cap to load into the hull and turret tanks rather quickly... make the hose connectors specific to the tank so mistakes are not made... but even hosing the wrong material into the wrong tank it would still need to be microwaved to work properly....

GarryB wrote:A critical point regarding safety is that if you have a HE round inside a tank loaded in an auto loader system it needs to have a fuse system.

Something that will make the main HE charge go boom.

The problem is that generally to make HE go boom you need low explosive.

You need a boom to get a boom from a high order explosive.

The problem for a tank that has been hit is that all its HE rounds... including HEAT rounds as well, is that if you set fire to a HE round the HE will actually just burn and be less of a problem than propellent actually.

It is the fuse that contains a low explosive like gunpowder that readily explodes that will set off the main charge that is the problem because if the fuse catches fire or is heated beyond a certain rather low temperature then when it explodes it will set off the main HE charge explosion, which in turn will set off other HE and HEAT rounds nearby and of course any propellent in one big explosion.

Without the fuses a stack of HE shells will just burn for quite some time... the temperature would need to get to rather high levels before it actually explodes.

Having a microwave system of setting off the propellent and an electric fuse for setting off the explosives on impact greatly reduce the risks in handling the rounds and in case the vehicle is hit.

Of course even diesel will explode when it gets heated to a high temperature, but removing the propellant and keeping it separate from the ammo should make it much safer.

Equally with Sabot rounds in the turret bustle... you could offset their positions so their sabots overlap and greatly reduce the space they take up as they wont need to be surrounded by propellent... in fact it would be better if they didn't have propellent around them to make them lighter and more compact in storage.

Generally modern Sabot rounds have bore width petals at the front and the back to align the projectile with the barrel but in between they can be as narrow as the round itself... about 60-80mm for a projectile about 40-50mm across, so you could stack them so that they interlock and you should be able to get quite a few in there.

BTW from memory I think the Burlak turret bustle autoloader had 31 positions for rounds... projectiles and propellent stubs... one in front of the other in each tube so the 31 tubes would have 31  projectiles and 31 propellent stubs. This new design with liquid propellent could do away with the propellent stubs and just have perhaps 32 APFSDS rounds of about half the bustle length but the same width.

Regarding the location for the propellent if you separate it into two separate liquids that are relatively inert on their own you could create layers inside the armour with cells of the different propellent types... say 8 separate fuel compartments in the front of the hull... upper and lower... so that any penetration wont take out all of one propellent component... and it would act like spaced armour rendering rounds like HESH useless.  

Then of course having the other component in the rear of the hull in the position between the turret and the engine where the upgraded T-90 carries an extra 6 rounds of ammo... a tank there with tubes to pump it into the gun chamber and perhaps secondary tanks in each side of the turret bustle for redundancy... turn the turret forward and pump 20 litres or so into the turret tanks... you could even put the tanks under the commander and gunners seats moving around with the turret so with fixed pipes from the seats to the rear of the gun... with further pipes leading from the rear bustle to the gun where the two chemicals are mixed and prepared for firing...

The liquids would not necessarily be pleasant, but separately they might not even burn let alone explode.

You might mix 300mls of one liquid with 1,000mls of the other for a high energy APFSDS round shot, whereas HE and HEAT rounds might only need 100mls of one liquid and 600mls of the other... depending on the condition and the situation the computer could probably alter the mix to improve performance in different situations...

When reloading the tank you could have an external cap to load into the hull and turret tanks rather quickly... make the hose connectors specific to the tank so mistakes are not made... but even hosing the wrong material into the wrong tank it would still need to be microwaved to work properly....  

OMG, Garry

There is really nothing I can add to your response... it's perfect. I really do appreciate the lengths you have gone to in explaining how this could be put into place. Thanks, mate.

Well two things... first of all, this is mostly speculation from a guy who has spent the good part of his life reading about military stuff... I have a serious interest but I am no expert.

Second you mentioned balance regarding the T-90M turret... actually a turret bustle would be good for it because at the moment with that big long gun sticking out and some quite heavy front turret armour it is already a bit nose heavy with regard to the turret itself.

Adding a bit on the back with perhaps angled armour protection to protect it from light cannon rounds and slap 50 cal rounds, you could use the extra top space for a remote weapon station on the back, or more munitions for your APS system or perhaps a 40mm grenade launcher like the BMP-2 upgrade where the grenade launcher is fixed facing forward and can elevate up and down and rotates with the turret so the gunner or commander can aim and fire it... if it was put on the gunners side of the bustle it would not be in the way of the commanders pano sight and the entire bustle area to the side of the grenade launcher could be a huge ammo box for 4-500 grenades ready to fire.

Explosives take the line of least resistance... so if you put an explosive outside a tank the armour will direct most of the explosion back on itself... you have to focus the explosive (HEAT) or just use a huge amount (250kg aerial bomb) to defeat the armour. Inside a tank the armour actually works against you because instead of deflecting the explosion away, it contains it and reflects it around inside the tank multiplying the force of the explosion by repeating it several times.

A hand grenade outside a tank is nothing to worry about... especially with the optics ports covered by their covers. A hand grenade inside the tank could kill everyone and start a fire or a simpathetic explosion that destroys or burns out the tank.

The top of the grenade bin can be design to have blow out panels... in fact they could be hinged to make loading grenades much easier, so if they are hit the sheet metal container will increase the force of the explosion but not enough to penetrate the bustle and certainly not enough to injure the crew in the crew compartment... it would be quite a display, but just result in no more 40mm grenades.

Of course you ask... why bother with a grenade launcher... you are in a tank...

Well the same reason they fitted a 30mm grenade launcher to a BMP-2 that already has a 30mm cannon.

On paper it would make more sense to just forget the grenade launcher and just use the space for more main gun ammo, but the grenade launcher adds something new and useful.

An example would be the Merkava tanks Israel was using... they carried a 60mm mortar with them to launch flares to operate at night.... flares are brilliant (literally) because they light up the area where the bad guys are but you remain in the dark so you can see them and make it much harder for them to see you because you are in the dark looking into the light and they are in the light looking into the dark. Well it wasn't long before they started carrying HE bombs for those mortars because sometimes you don't need a 105mm shell to do the job and you can carry lots of 60mm bombs in the space of one tank shell... but most of all if the targets are hiding behind cover a high velocity weapon like a tank gun has to shoot through a wall or other cover, whereas a mortar or grenade launcher can lob rounds over the cover and kill the people hiding behind.

The same with the 30mm grenade launcher and the 30mm cannon shells... the 30mm grenades not so much but the new 40mm grenades carry a lot of HE and would probably have a better effect on target than a 30mm cannon shell... individually.

For the tank the new 40mm grenade launchers have a range of 2.5km which makes it useful well beyond the range of the PKT and even the Kord... accuracy wont be amazing but the explosive nature of the grenades means a burst of 4-5 rounds should be plenty for a target like a Javelin team...

Obviously BMP-3 units will have 100mm HE rounds for the job out to 7km and with their new 57mm guns... high velocity and grenade launcher, they should have direct and indirect HE firepower out to 12km or so for the HV gun and perhaps 6km for the grenade launcher... which would be plenty too.

Obviously seeing targets is the problem, but there is no point if you can't reach them...

If you spot a Javelin team at 2km range a spatter of Kord rounds might upset them, but the chance of actually killing them would be low, and that would be out of the range of the PKT too, so you only have 125mm HE rounds... which will certainly do the job, but you wont be carrying a lot of those.

In comparison a 40mm grenade launcher on the turret bustle with 400 rounds, you could burst fire 10 rounds and either kill them or scare them half to death...

They might be on top of a building popping their heads over to look at you... landing grenades on the roof makes more sense than trying to blow down the building...

Equally half way up a mountain with a hand built rock wall to hide behind... lobbing HE grenades over makes more sense than trying to shoot through it... if they are far enough back from the wall even hitting the wall with a 125mm round will be bad for the wall but they might survive... a delayed fuse HE round that penetrates through and explodes on the other side would be interesting though...

The point is that the grenades will come in near vertical with a good fragmentation pattern and is cheap and you can carry a lot of grenades for it without putting the crew at risk.

You might not even use it... in which case you could change the grenades to CS gas or illumination or anything you want... you could even try for a 57mm grenade launcher with much longer range and HE power with perhaps 200 rounds...  (the description of the 57mm grenade launcher is that it is as powerful as a 76.2mm gun in terms of HE... which is about 6kgs of HE... per grenade... which is pretty impressive.)

GarryB wrote:Well two things... first of all, this is mostly speculation from a guy who has spent the good part of his life reading about military stuff... I have a serious interest but I am no expert.

Second you mentioned balance regarding the T-90M turret... actually a turret bustle would be good for it because at the moment with that big long gun sticking out and some quite heavy front turret armour it is already a bit nose heavy with regard to the turret itself.

Adding a bit on the back with perhaps angled armour protection to protect it from light cannon rounds and slap 50 cal rounds, you could use the extra top space for a remote weapon station on the back, or more munitions for your APS system or perhaps a 40mm grenade launcher like the BMP-2 upgrade where the grenade launcher is fixed facing forward and can elevate up and down and rotates with the turret so the gunner or commander can aim and fire it... if it was put on the gunners side of the bustle it would not be in the way of the commanders pano sight and the entire bustle area to the side of the grenade launcher could be a huge ammo box for 4-500 grenades ready to fire.

Explosives take the line of least resistance... so if you put an explosive outside a tank the armour will direct most of the explosion back on itself... you have to focus the explosive (HEAT) or just use a huge amount (250kg aerial bomb) to defeat the armour. Inside a tank the armour actually works against you because instead of deflecting the explosion away, it contains it and reflects it around inside the tank multiplying the force of the explosion by repeating it several times.

A hand grenade outside a tank is nothing to worry about... especially with the optics ports covered by their covers. A hand grenade inside the tank could kill everyone and start a fire or a simpathetic explosion that destroys or burns out the tank.

The top of the grenade bin can be design to have blow out panels... in fact they could be hinged to make loading grenades much easier, so if they are hit the sheet metal container will increase the force of the explosion but not enough to penetrate the bustle and certainly not enough to injure the crew in the crew compartment... it would be quite a display, but just result in no more 40mm grenades.

Of course you ask... why bother with a grenade launcher... you are in a tank...

Well the same reason they fitted a 30mm grenade launcher to a BMP-2 that already has a 30mm cannon.

On paper it would make more sense to just forget the grenade launcher and just use the space for more main gun ammo, but the grenade launcher adds something new and useful.

An example would be the Merkava tanks Israel was using... they carried a 60mm mortar with them to launch flares to operate at night.... flares are brilliant (literally) because they light up the area where the bad guys are but you remain in the dark so you can see them and make it much harder for them to see you because you are in the dark looking into the light and they are in the light looking into the dark. Well it wasn't long before they started carrying HE bombs for those mortars because sometimes you don't need a 105mm shell to do the job and you can carry lots of 60mm bombs in the space of one tank shell... but most of all if the targets are hiding behind cover a high velocity weapon like a tank gun has to shoot through a wall or other cover, whereas a mortar or grenade launcher can lob rounds over the cover and kill the people hiding behind.

The same with the 30mm grenade launcher and the 30mm cannon shells... the 30mm grenades not so much but the new 40mm grenades carry a lot of HE and would probably have a better effect on target than a 30mm cannon shell... individually.

For the tank the new 40mm grenade launchers have a range of 2.5km which makes it useful well beyond the range of the PKT and even the Kord... accuracy wont be amazing but the explosive nature of the grenades means a burst of 4-5 rounds should be plenty for a target like a Javelin team...

Obviously BMP-3 units will have 100mm HE rounds for the job out to 7km and with their new 57mm guns... high velocity and grenade launcher, they should have direct and indirect HE firepower out to 12km or so for the HV gun and perhaps 6km for the grenade launcher... which would be plenty too.

Obviously seeing targets is the problem, but there is no point if you can't reach them...

If you spot a Javelin team at 2km range a spatter of Kord rounds might upset them, but the chance of actually killing them would be low, and that would be out of the range of the PKT too, so you only have 125mm HE rounds... which will certainly do the job, but you wont be carrying a lot of those.

In comparison a 40mm grenade launcher on the turret bustle with 400 rounds, you could burst fire 10 rounds and either kill them or scare them half to death...

They might be on top of a building popping their heads over to look at you... landing grenades on the roof makes more sense than trying to blow down the building...

Equally half way up a mountain with a hand built rock wall to hide behind... lobbing HE grenades over makes more sense than trying to shoot through it... if they are far enough back from the wall even hitting the wall with a 125mm round will be bad for the wall but they might survive... a delayed fuse HE round that penetrates through and explodes on the other side would be interesting though...

The point is that the grenades will come in near vertical with a good fragmentation pattern and is cheap and you can carry a lot of grenades for it without putting the crew at risk.

You might not even use it... in which case you could change the grenades to CS gas or illumination or anything you want... you could even try for a 57mm grenade launcher with much longer range and HE power with perhaps 200 rounds...  (the description of the 57mm grenade launcher is that it is as powerful as a 76.2mm gun in terms of HE... which is about 6kgs of HE... per grenade... which is pretty impressive.)

Hello, Garry

Thank you for this extensive reply to my many questions; apologies for the late response, mate. I like the idea of 57mm grenade launchers to neutralise anti-tank teams in urban environments

I also like the idea of including an additional autoloader turret bustle with 22 available rounds, but its vulnerability is still an issue - especially in urban combat; blow out panels are a great feature and ostensibly increase crew survivability but they render a tank defenceless by destroying the turret in the aftermath of its activation.

The Russian approach seems to make the most sense to me and this is why I like the profile of the T-90am so much.

I'm puzzled by the dimensions of the T-90M; I looked at the specifications of the T-90M Proryv-3 and the width is apparently 3.78m -- wider than the width of the T-14 -> 3.5m. Is this correct? The T-14 must be wider to accomodate the three crew members in the hull.

Would you consider a widening of the T-90M hull by 300mm (30cm) to be an improvement? You could conceivably then accomodate the Vacuum-1 APFSDS as well as the140mm propellant stub (attached) in one slot in the carousel without needing to separate the ammunition cassette and the propellant in the carousel. This would also speed up reloading.

You could then hold 44 rounds all under cover. What are your thoughts on an export customer of the T-90M specifying this "upgrade"? A wider hull might even make it possible to accomodate the 2a82 gun and the 1500hp engine of T-14 Armata. This would make the T-90M as wide as the Kurganets-25.

Or you could widen the hull by 160mm (16cm) and have an armoured turret bustle autoloader to just hold the 44 propellant stubs with the actual rounds (44) being in the carousel autoloader. The propellant stubs are only 140mm in length, so you could probably have a Leclerc size turret to accomodate them.

A direct hit to the carousel would no longer be dangerous as the propellant would be housed separately in the turret; survivability could be further enhanced if the HEAT and HE-FRAG rounds have electric fuses -- like you mentioned earlier.


These musings of mine might be incredibly stupid ideas, but I felt compelled to send them out there.

For the future however I think it will be largely the BMPs that will be focussed on ATGM teams and infantry threats to armour, but I suspect that the BMP and BTR components of any future Russian unit will be armed with a combination of high velocity 57mm guns and anti armour missiles for the BMP types and medium velocity 57mm guns and anti armour missiles for the BTR types.

For other vehicles I would suspect the addition of remote weapon stations with either machine gun or 40mm grenade launchers will become standard, so for a tank I think a 40mm grenade launcher is small enough and would carry enough rounds to be significant in combat... I suspect a 57mm grenade launcher might be too large and its ammo to big and bulky to carry a useful amount as a secondary weapon.

For the BMP and BTR platforms the high velocity 57mm gun would be complimented by a 40mm grenade launcher, while for the BTR with a 57mm grenade launcher the 40mm grenade launcher would be redundant.... so some sort of HMG or MMG mount might be better.

I also like the idea of including an additional autoloader turret bustle with 22 available rounds, but its vulnerability is still an issue - especially in urban combat; blow out panels are a great feature and ostensibly increase crew survivability but they render a tank defenceless by destroying the turret in the aftermath of its activation.

One of the features suggested for the Burlak design was for the rear turret bustle to be a tray that the autoloader ammo assembly was lowered on to... because it carried propellent and there was a risk or danger of explosion as it could also carry HEAT and HE rounds it was designed so it could be ejected in combat. As the turret bustle replaced the under floor ammo in the Black Eagle it wasn't really a useful design feature, but with Burlak you could simply put only APFSDS rounds in the bustle so any ignition would go out the blast doors in the top of the bustle and the whole magazine could be ejected with the tank then using ammo from the underfloor magazine instead.

Of course people object to that because you are essentially rendering the vehicle half armed... but 22 rounds is still a few shots and hitting a tank in combat is not that easy, while precisely hitting a turret bustle would be even harder. The Panther tank had horribly thin rear turret armour... but it remained a formidable tank because it is not so easy to hit the rear turret of any tank.

I'm puzzled by the dimensions of the T-90M; I looked at the specifications of the T-90M Proryv-3 and the width is apparently 3.78m -- wider than the width of the T-14 -> 3.5m. Is this correct? The T-14 must be wider to accomodate the three crew members in the hull.

My understanding is that the T-90AM needed to be made wider to accommodate new longer penetrator rounds in the autoloader... I believe the ammo storage in the Armata is different.

Would you consider a widening of the T-90M hull by 300mm (30cm) to be an improvement? You could conceivably then accomodate the Vacuum-1 APFSDS as well as the140mm propellant stub (attached) in one slot in the carousel without needing to separate the ammunition cassette and the propellant in the carousel. This would also speed up reloading.

The increase was to allow longer projectiles to be used, I doubt propellent charges could be stored in an extra 30cm space.

My understanding is that the projectile and stub are raised and rotated into the chamber together, rather than separately, so storing them at the same level would probably require a redesign because the thing that pulls out the projectile would then have to reach deep into the ammo position to get to the stub charge and pull it out too, whereas currently I believe the projectile is pulled out and onto the loading arm immediately followed by the stub charge and both are lifted and rotated together into the chamber.

You could then hold 44 rounds all under cover. What are your thoughts on an export customer of the T-90M specifying this "upgrade"?

There are already 44 spaces in the underfloor ammo magazine, but existing rounds and the new longer rounds fill those 22 spaces for rounds, and so the only space for the stub rounds are the remaining 22 positions for those stub rounds.

Short of removing the turret crew and adding a new layer of 44 spaces for rounds and charges, or adding the turret bustle autoloader I don't think they will be getting better than that... unless they develop a new EM gun that is 70mm or something that carries projectiles only as well as binary liquid propellent and magnetic accelerating coils in the barrel...

You could then hold 44 rounds all under cover. What are your thoughts on an export customer of the T-90M specifying this "upgrade"? A wider hull might even make it possible to accomodate the 2a82 gun and the 1500hp engine of T-14 Armata. This would make the T-90M as wide as the Kurganets-25.

Well even more interesting... with the automation and upgrades associated with the Armata tank... how about upgrading the T-90M into a two man tank with two crew in the front hull, and with no crew in the turret rearrange the ammo so they are stored in a spiral autoloader that allows the length of the rounds to overlap in a spiral pattern so that you could have effectively three carousel loaders... ie three layers of 22 projectiles spiralling upwards... the HE and HEAT rounds are relatively short so would fit in the original space no problem, but if you make it so the top two layers allow the tiny narrow projectiles to extend over past the centre of the autoloader allowing rather long penetrators without having to make the turret or the tank wider... the three layers for projectiles and one layer with three propellent stubs in each tube so as it reloads it uses the relevant projectile tube of which three are lined up with the bottom tube being the propellent tube, there being 22 of them but each one carrying three propellent stubs per tube. So from top to bottom you have three tubes with projectiles and one with three propellent stubs.

You could carry 66 propellent stubs and 66 projectiles... if you want more ammo than that you could have a rear turret bustle with another 30 rounds and propellent stubs.

the unmanned turret could also have grenade launchers and the main 125mm main gun and a coaxial MG.... the whole vehicle could weigh less than 40 tons because the Armata turret could be used which lacks the heavy frontal turret armour of the T-90AM... the standard 1,200hp engine would give it plenty of power and acceleration on the battlefield. Depending on the sensors and APS systems and ERA it could be quite cheap to buy and operate, yet rather potent in operation.

Or you could widen the hull by 160mm (16cm) and have an armoured turret bustle autoloader to just hold the 44 propellant stubs with the actual rounds (44) being in the carousel autoloader. The propellant stubs are only 140mm in length, so you could probably have a Leclerc size turret to accomodate them.

A direct hit to the carousel would no longer be dangerous as the propellant would be housed separately in the turret; survivability could be further enhanced if the HEAT and HE-FRAG rounds have electric fuses -- like you mentioned earlier.

The reason they rejected the Burlak design was that they think that a turret bustle storage idea is too vulnerable to enemy fire... from some angles a 50 cal SLAP round could potentially penetrate and start a fire for instance.

Personally I think the separation of ammo and fuel from the crew compartment is critical, but making the ammo a difficult target is also important, though ultimately protecting the crew is the priority.

If the ammo is set off in the rear turret bustle then the vehicle would then retire and the vehicle repaired or replaced while the crew would probably get another vehicle. Obviously if the enemy can hit your turret bustle easily then it stops being a useful place to store anything...

These musings of mine might be incredibly stupid ideas, but I felt compelled to send them out there.

That is exactly what I am doing myself... sometimes I think things but when I say them out loud I realise how absurd they actually are and have to reconsider what I think too.

Sometimes you don't know what will work or not until it is tried... I have plenty of British books on tanks from the 70s that claim that the 115mm gun of the T-62 is rubbish because it is so inaccurate... not based on results, but because it was a smoothbore gun.

For a very long time smoothbore guns were considered inaccurate, but for a tank they actually make a lot of sense.

The most important tank rounds are APFSDS rounds and HEAT rounds. Being a long narrow dart like projectile you can't spin one fast enough to stabilise it so the only way such rounds can be stabilised is with fins... like a throwing dart or an arrow... you just have to watch a bit of javelin throwing to see how terribly inaccurate they can be. The HEAT round creates a beam of plasma by superheating and super accelerating a thin layer of metal lining to penetrate armour... the centrifugal force of the round spinning ruins that beam and reduces penetration. Some HEAT rounds from rifled barrels have ball bearings to reduce the spin rate but generally fins are used to stabilise them in flight. The slow roll of a missile or rocket wont reduce performance much but the high revolution from a gun barrel will totally ruin its penetration performance.

All this means a smooth barrel is the best choice for a tank where APFSDS rounds and HEAT rounds with fins being the primary ammo for a tank.... fin stabilised HE rounds are not the primary round but with fin stabilisation are accurate enough.

A smoothbore barrel means higher velocities with the same barrel length or a shorter barrel for the same velocity... easier to make and easier to clean... and lighter than rifled barrels.

Iraqi t-90MS.

Upgraded T-90M may become Russian Army’s main battle tank

The first several dozen upgraded tanks are due to arrive for the Russian troops in 2019

MOSCOW, October 1. /TASS/. The upgraded T-90M may become the main battle tank for the Russian Army, Uralvagonzavod Special Representative for Military and Technical Cooperation, Army General Alexei Maslov told TASS on Tuesday.

"We have already prepared the T-90MS [the export version of the T-90M] for a foreign customer and tested it and by decision of Russia’s Defense Ministry we have held R&D work, as a result of which we have developed a good T-90M. And now, as far as I understand, the T-90M ‘Proryv’ [Breakthrough] will be the main battle tank in the army," the general said as Russia was celebrating Land Forces Day on October 1.

By its combat efficiency, the T-90M considerably outperforms its predecessor while its modular design allows engineers to build up its operational performance upon subsequent upgrades, the general said.

"The T-90M ensures parity with advanced foreign tanks," the army general stressed.

Uralvagonzavod defense manufacturer (part of the state hi-tech corporation Rostec) signed a contract with Russia’s Defense Ministry on the delivery of heavily upgraded T-90M tanks to the troops at the Army-2017 international arms show. As was reported earlier, the first several dozen upgraded tanks are due to arrive for the Russian troops in 2019.

The T-90M ‘Proryv’ has received a principally new turret that differs from the serial-produced module and a more powerful engine. The Proryv is outfitted with a new multi-channel sighting system that allows employing weapons at any time of day or night and, as its major advantage, it can exchange data with other vehicles in real time. The T-90M’s armor features special anti-slip coating similar to that used on the latest T-14 Armata tank.

https://tass.com/defense/1080691

Wasnt t-14 to be the main tank of Russian army?

DerWolf wrote:Wasnt t-14 to be the main tank of Russian army?

Not really. Main tank would indicate lots and lots in numbers. Right now Russian mod is unsure what is best options. They may be aiming for high/low in terms of elite tanks like Armata in smaller numbers (possibly to eventually replace all T-80's and T-90 for more cheaper rolls.

Or the Armata may get inducted in small numbers for a while and may not get high numbers for many years.

miketheterrible wrote:

DerWolf wrote:Wasnt t-14 to be the main tank of Russian army?

Not really. Main tank would indicate lots and lots in numbers. Right now Russian mod is unsure what is best options. They may be aiming for high/low in terms of elite tanks like Armata in smaller numbers (possibly to eventually replace all T-80's and T-90 for more cheaper rolls.

Or the Armata may get inducted in small numbers for a while and may not get high numbers for many years.

It seems a deeply modernized T-72B to near the level of T-90MS is the way to go as their main tank. I read that MOD is most interesting in integrating their T-72B's in to the net-centric structure. I'd love to see a new GLATGM that hits targets at extended ranges using inertial guidance, with other vehicles (using electrical-optical/IRST) updating the missiles in real time for improved accuracy.

DerWolf wrote:Wasnt t-14 to be the main tank of Russian army?

Yes it was but since whole thing is falling apart due to mismanagement and MoD refusing to pay for anything above bottom tier they are now rolling back on the narrative and presenting T-90 as some next level sh*t to avoid embarrassment

Basically they are taking the page out of Roskosmos' playbook: keep switching promises and talking crap hoping that people will forget what you originally said you will do and not notice your fu*kups

Makes you wonder if there is a technological issue related to import substitution or is it simply the Russian government being cheap. If the latter, there is no excuse. Putting your soldiers' life at risk in warmed over 50 year old technology is unforgivable when you have roughly a $100 billion surplus fund.

I think they will keep using the T-72, T-90 and T-14 together for at least another decade...the T-14 isn't ready and will be the platform for the next several decades....the first batch is suppose to enter trial service this year

DerWolf wrote:Wasnt t-14 to be the main tank of Russian army?

They can't afford it in the numbers they need. If they wait to much it will come outdated just like mig35. But the thing is that it's not only one tank but a family of ground vehicle that was to replace tanks, bmps, apc... eveb less affordable.

On the good side cheaper t-90M are more than enough against any actual tank army. Because MBT are not made to fight tanks but to push on a whole army. Anti tank will be made by choppers and bombers.

You guys talk about the Armata like it is a MBT.

It isn't.

It is an entire vehicle family... it simply does not make sense to take a current tank division and replace the current tanks... what ever they happen to be... with T-14s.

The whole point of the Armata design is that you have all the vehicles in the division being the same.... being Armata based vehicles... an Armata division...

They were never going to replace all their tank and motor rifle divisions with Armatas... the Armatas are going to be the hard core heavy tank and heavy rifle division vehicles... the majority of Russian armour will be the Boomerang based vehicles, with Kurganets being second in numbers and the minority being Armata heavy divisions.

It is going to take a long time to develop all the vehicles needed... in the mean time they can transfer the optics and communications systems and the weapons and ammo to existing vehicle types so they can improve night and bad weather training and learn to work as a networked force where basically everyone can add targets and threats to the shared map.

This is going to take a while and is not going to be cheap, but the forces created are going to be much more mobile and effective... most standard divisions have dozens of different vehicle types at the moment with dozens of different wheel and track and engine combinations... different levels of protection, different levels of mobility, etc etc.

The new divisions will have standard engines and standard wheels and tracks and standard chassis and standard transmissions.

They will have similar levels of protection and mobility too.

The MiG-35 is not outdated. In many ways it has all the best features of the F-35 except stealth, which is of dubious value when it costs so much in terms of actual expense and in performance limitations.

PapaDragon wrote:

DerWolf wrote:Wasnt t-14 to be the main tank of Russian army?

Yes it was but since whole thing is falling apart due to mismanagement and MoD refusing to pay for anything above bottom tier they are now rolling back on the narrative and presenting T-90 as some next level sh*t to avoid embarrassment

Basically they are taking the page out of Roskosmos' playbook: keep switching promises and talking crap hoping that people will forget what you originally said you will do and not notice your fu*kups

Use some common sense. Why would they spend extra money buying large quantities on Armatas, when they can spend that money buying large quantities of Zircon, Kinzhal, Nudol, S-500, Avantgarde, Murmansk-BM, Palatin-K, etc. Strategic weapons>>>>>>tactical weapons. BTW the Federation manages this with balanced budgets, budget surpluses, and while the debt is steadily being paid off...unlike it's main adversary couldn't dream of doing.

Papa said same shit about Su-57 then he had to eat humble pie after found out Russia ordered more than 12 because initially Borisov said that the Su-35 is more needed and would be ordered.  But the real king stepped in and ordered Su-57 too.

Lets look at things logically.

T-14 isn't finished yet and the first 100 (not all Armata's but my understanding some Armata's and some Kurganets) are to arrive this year.  So far its near the end of this year and they haven't arrived.  So I am only guessing its because they are finishing up the initial order and going to release them all in one batch.  At this rate, it will take a long time to get them in necessary numbers to replace any tank.  Lets recall that they were going to scrap all T-80's and previous tanks.  Now they decided not to.  They are modernizing T-80's as well as T-72's and T-90's (It would be better to modernize them all to same exact standards tbh).  And they may or may not modernize the T-62's in reserve that will be used for national guard.  Why? Because the enemy at the borders are drastically increasing their numbers and Russia doesn't have the fleet necessary to deal with such a threat and if they rely on just Armata's, then they will not have the necessary numbers for quite some time.  Armata will eventually replace all.  But lets recall, in Soviet Union when T-72 was introduced, that didn't stop T-55 and others still being in use and modernized.

calripson wrote:Makes you wonder if there is a technological issue related to import substitution or is it simply the Russian government being cheap. If the latter, there is no excuse. Putting your soldiers' life at risk in warmed over 50 year old technology is unforgivable when you have roughly a $100 billion surplus fund.

Import substitution for this happened long before sanctions. When developing it, the Armata was supposed to have all Russian components. Which it does. The only last component that was foreign for tanks was the thermal imaging Matrices which was Catherine FC. But that has been changed since some years back when Russia started to produce one similar to Catherine XP and started to use them in their T-72, T-80 and T-90 upgrades. That same matrices is being used for Armata tank as well. The AESA modules are theirs entirely (GaAS modules as GaN modules are only starting mass production now).

The thing is, Uralvagonzavod faced bankruptcy during development of Armata. Same with Kurganomash. Both have only recently (beginning of this year) had their bankruptcy accepted and then absorbed into Rostec corporation - which might I add, is one of Russias most successful and important companies. Now it owns the ability to produce the tanks while also producing the optics. All one company.

I think T-90M will be more numerous than T-14 but T-14 will be front line MBT. In Syria they use Su-35S, Mi-35M. They never use Su-27, Mi-24 in Syria.

ultimatewarrior wrote:I think T-90M will be more numerous than T-14 but T-14 will be front line MBT. In Syria they use Su-35S, Mi-35M. They never use Su-27, Mi-24 in Syria.

They did use them. The first combat helicopters in Syria were Mi-24P, which they later donate to Syrian AF. RuAF also use Su-27SM3 in Syria.

If you think about the current division in Russia, first of all on paper they should all be the same but they are not, because most will have some extra vehicles or be short of others because that was what was available.

In current Russian divisions they have tank and they have motor rifle divisions, which have a different ratio of vehicles, so a tank div will have mostly tanks but also some BMP and BTR troop transports, while a motor rifle div still has tanks but has more troop transports than tanks. There are also variations in support components like ATGM support and air defence etc etc.

The point is that currently a div or any kind will have an enormous range of different vehicles being used... the command vehicles are ACRVs, which are MTLB based vehicles, and there will be others towing weapons like mortars and towed guns, but there will also be tanks and tank based vehicles like the T-72 or T-80, including the MSTA artillery gun. There will be trucks for support roles, there will be engineer vehicles based on tanks and BMPs and BTRs and MTLBs, there will be light BRDM type vehicles of various different types.

It means that to make that division mobile you need spare engine parts for about 10 different vehicle types... and parts for 10 or more different types of vehicle transmission... lots of different wheel types including solid tank wheels and pneumatic tires, several different track types, and replacement parts for an enormous range of vehicle types... viewing ports, aerials, different types of ERA blocks.. as well as complete engines and replacement barrels and gun and missile components and testing equipment to make sure it all shoots straight.

The concept of vehicle families is to eventually replace all those platforms with vehicles based on the one type, so a heavy tank div will be armata based with armata vehciles performing all roles within the div where possible, so only armata components need to be carried. One type of ERA, one or two types of APS munitions, etc etc etc.

An Armata div is going to be expensive and pretty much overkill for many missions so of all the Russian Army likely less than 20% of divisions would be armata divisions, while the boomerang and kurganets divisions will be much lighter and cheaper and will likely be 45% for boomerang and 35% for kurganets forces.


Ohh no... I hear you say... they would be too weak to take on a serious opponent... but Kurganets with modern ERA and APS systems is probably not as well armoured as a current T-90, but every vehicle in the div will have the same level of armour so while the tank vehicle will be light and mobile and not quite as well protected as a current MBT it will have reasonable protection and excellent mobility amongst vehicles that share its good armour and mobility too... the ACRV command vehicle in a normal div could be penetrated with 14.5mm rounds... I doubt 30mm rounds would be a problem for Kurganets vehicles... so every vehicle will practically need to be treated like a tank and the same probably for boomerang.

More importantly with UAV support for many of the vehicles and access to all the vehicles of that video and radar and IR data feed each vehicle should have excellent situational awareness, and of course the lighter vehicles will all be amphibious too.

Add exceptional day night and all weather artillery and air support and they should be world class.

But of course to start with they will only have T-14 tanks and T-15 BMPs in Armata divs... it will be a few years before they have all the vehicle family nodes developed... but as I have been saying they will be standardised so the final T-15 turrets will be 57mm high velocity guns and small and bigger guided missiles... Bulats and Kornets respectively, and there will probably be another model with 57mm medium velocity grenade launcher and missiles where enemy armour is not a big threat. The high velocity 57mm gun will be used against forces with no tanks and also air targets like the 30mm is used in the BMP. The low velocity will be more effective against most battlefield targets with a big HE round like the 100mm gun of the BMP-3... but missiles for helicopters, aircraft, and tanks.

The current armata 125mm gun turret will be used on Boomerang and Kurganets for the tank version, and the two 57mm gun turrets (basically the same but with different 57mm guns in them) will also be used in all three vehicle families for the BMP version, while the troop transport model might have a fully external 30mm cannon armed turret for all three platfoms too, and the BRDM scout car turret with the HMG turret for each vehicle too.

Development will be slowed because each vehicle family needs large numbers of versions, but speeded up because the sensors and turrets and equipment and weapons will be the same... so the TOS versions and the TOR versions and the Pantsir versions and the ATGM versions and the engineer versions and ambulance versions and ditch digger versions and the mortar carrier versions and the 152mm gun artillery versions will all be standardised with the same weapons and electronics and sensors and equipment.

T-90M: fast past and great future

Just a few years ago, NPK Uralvagonzavod introduced a new version of the modernization of the main battle tank T-90A called T-90M. In the future, the new equipment was tested, interested the army and became the subject of a real contract. Recently it became known about the completion of the modernization of the first production T-90M and the transfer of this equipment to the troops.

Novelty in the troops

About the imminent start of the manufacture of the T-90M and the quick transfer of equipment to parts it became known a long time ago. Now there is information about the beginning of the service of such machines. This was told by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army General of the Army Oleg Salyukov in an interview with the Red Star, published on the last day of September.
The commander noted that various models of armored vehicles are now being purchased for motorized rifle and tank units. Among them, he called the modernized MBT T-90M. The re-equipment of the parts is intensive, and the high technical characteristics are confirmed by practice. The number of tanks already received and the units where they are sent to serve have not yet been specified. Perhaps this kind of information will appear later, for example, in the context of exercises.

Fast pace

Our tanks are fast not only in terms of mobility, but also in terms of the time required for the development and implementation of the project. From the start of design work on the T-90M to the launch of serial modernization, only a few years have passed. In this regard, the T-90M is one of the most successful modern developments in the field of MBT.
The development work "Breakthrough-3" to create a new version of the MBT T-90A started in the middle of the current decade. By the beginning of 2017, a prototype with a number of characteristic features was prepared, a photograph of which soon came into the public domain. During 2017, the T-90M tank repeatedly became the topic of various statements and publications.
As part of the Army-2017 forum, the first contract was signed for the production of 10 T-90M tanks from scratch and the restructuring of 20 T-90M cash. At that time, the equipment was tested, but there were already plans to launch a full-scale release. A little later it became known that the manufacturer will give the first samples in 2018. A similar contract was signed for Army 2018.
At the end of June this year as part of Army 2019, they signed an even more important agreement. According to this agreement, NPK Uralvagonzavod should receive significant quantities of T-90A tanks from the army and rebuild them according to the T-90M project. The Ministry of Defense and UVZ did not immediately disclose the details of the contract. The media featured unofficial information about the restructuring of 100 tanks. Both MBT T-90A and older T-90 base models can send for repair and modernization.
According to the latest news , the army has already received the first tanks of the new model. However, the quantity, specific operator and method of manufacture are unknown. However, it is clear that this is only the first step in the new phase of a larger program. The Breakthrough-3 project has been successfully brought to practical implementation and gives results in the context of updating the fleet of equipment.

Future future

According to recent news, there are three contracts for the supply of MBT T-90M. From official and unofficial sources, it is known about the desire of the Ministry of Defense to get armored vehicles of both new construction and redone from the existing one. In this case, the bulk of the T-90M should be produced precisely by rework.
According to reports, the three contracts of the Ministry of Defense and NPK "UVZ" provide for the delivery of 160 MBT of the new model. 10 armored vehicles from the 2017 contract should be built from scratch. The order of 2018 stipulated the construction of 30 new tanks. Thus, within a few years, the contractor must build 40 completely new MBT T-90M.
In parallel, cash modernization of the T-90 and T-90A will be carried out. Under the 2017 contract, 20 armored vehicles will undergo such procedures. Another 100 may be negotiated with the newest contract. However, the known details of the 2019 order have not yet received official confirmation, and we can talk about a larger batch of equipment. In addition, there is no information about the possibility of upgrading T-90 tanks.
Over the next few years, the Russian army will receive about 160 T-90M tanks. This will allow for the rearmament of several ground forces. In the future, the production of such MBTs may continue in the interests of other parts.
According to well-known data, about 350 MBT T-90 and T-90A are currently being operated in combat units of our army. About a third of this amount of equipment will undergo modernization; 40 tanks of new construction will also be added to them. The fate of the remaining 200-220 T-90 old versions is unknown. Probably, over time, repairs and modernization will reach them.
According to the results of the T-90M Proryv-3 project, the state of the armored vehicles fleet will seriously improve. At a minimum, a significant proportion of units will be transferred to updated T-90M and T-72B3 tanks that meet modern requirements. Thus, the army gets the opportunity to build the capacity of tank formations without the purchase of completely new equipment. The proposed modernization combines high technical characteristics and a reasonable cost of work.

Technical aspects

MBT T-90M, which was the result of the ROC "Breakthrough-3", is of great interest to the army. This modernization involves the use of a number of new components and assemblies that seriously increase the tactical and technical characteristics of the equipment. At the same time, the existing platform is undergoing the project, undergoing only the necessary changes.
The survivability of the T-90M is enhanced by refining the reservation and installing a set of attachments in the form of “Relict” dynamic protection and cutting screens. The layout of the internal compartments has been redesigned to reduce the likelihood of damage to the crew and important devices. In the future, it is possible to introduce an active protection complex - at the request of the customer. Mobility is enhanced by the 1130 hp V-92S2F engine. Attention is paid to the comfort of the crew, for which there is a heater and air conditioning.
The Proryv-3 project proposed replacing the 2A46 gun with a 2A82-1M 125 mm caliber gun. Also demonstrated was a prototype that retained full-time weapons. The Kalina fire control system with modern surveillance and guidance tools is used. Large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun transferred to a remotely controlled combat module.
According to the results of such modernization, the T-90M tank gains a number of major advantages over the basic MBT T-90A or over the older T-90. Provides higher mobility. Front projection is protected from modern anti-tank weapons; other parts of the tank are able to withstand shelling from infantry weapons. The new weapons in combination with an improved SLA ensures the use of any available shells and missiles in the entire range of ranges.

Exhibitions and troops

The general public learned about the existence of the Proryv-3 OKR and the T-90M tank only a few years ago. By this time, the project managed to go through some of the early stages, and in the near future the first order for the supply of serial equipment appeared. At the same time, experienced MBTs were demonstrated at exhibitions and other events.
The industry successfully copes with the orders of the military department and transfers the finished equipment to it. Fulfillment of at least part of the existing contracts will significantly increase the combat effectiveness of tank units and affect the potential of the ground forces. Apparently, the release of the necessary T-90M tanks will also not take much time, and the planned re-equipment will be completed within the next few years.

Author:
Ryabov Kirill

I'm dubious of any mention of putting old T-90's back into service. They have been in storage for 25 years after a short unsuccessful service life. Another article I have read indicated plans to put a total of 400 T-90M and T-90AM (A's upgraded to M standard) into operation.