T-90 Main Battle Tank

Some details on the new tank out here, will have to use translator

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post_10.html

Some details on the new T-90MS

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post_10.html

1> Has a new Turret with enhanced protection of frontal projection, roof and sides.
2> Has new ERA "Relic" It has an improved ability to withstand modern sabot projectiles and HEAT rounds
3> Can withstand current and future anti-tank weapons , The level of protection of the new tank exceeds any competitor
4> Weight increased by less than 2 Tons , Tanks weighs a little more than 48 T
5 > T-90MS new fire control system "Kalina" is equal to the best world samples
6 > Has implemented auto tracking of Targets
7> The gunner has combined thermal sight, laser and optical channels. The commander has a panoramic multi-channel scope.
8> The tank has a single automated control system at the tactical level. it is able to exchange information and receive indication from other machines Battalion ( BMS )
9> Has satellite navigation system GLONASS-GPS and modern means of communication.
10> T-90MS can be fitted with an existing gun or new gun of high power 125 mm caliber
11> Has ammunition capacity of 40 rounds , in secure underfloor loader and rear bustle reducing the risk to the crew
12 >T-90MS has a new 1130 horsepower engine
13> Has electronic automatic gear change and motion control using the steering wheel

Does this mean that T-90MS will be exported to Algeria and Turkmenistan

Вчера под Нижним Тагилом главе правительства показывали всю танковую мощь российской армии. Если сравнить выставку оружия с показом мод, то можно сказать, что демонстрировали коллекции прошлых лет. Новинкой можно назвать разве что модернизированный танк Т-90С. В феврале этого года на испытаниях наш танк показал себя лучше иностранных аналогов. Хотя есть эксперты, которые утверждают, что комплекс защиты и на этом новом танке уже устарел.
В любом случае на поставки этого российского оружия заключены контракты с Алжиром и Туркменией. По оценкам экспертов, стоимость одной такой машины 70 млн. рублей.

http://usa.kp.ru/daily/25751/2737477/
Can anyone help me with a translation please

Cyberspec wrote:What's this box like container at the rear of the T-90MS? ...the APU

At mp.net some one confirmed that its an APU

KRATOS1133 wrote:В любом случае на поставки этого российского оружия заключены контракты с Алжиром и Туркменией. По оценкам экспертов, стоимость одной такой машины 70 млн. рублей.
http://usa.kp.ru/daily/25751/2737477/
Can anyone help me with a translation please

The quoted line says that contracts with Algeria and Turkmenistan have been signed. I wonder however if the journalists haven't mixed up the previous contracts with Algeria and Turkmenistan (ordered a small number of T-90S in 2010).

What's this box like container at the rear of the T-90MS? ...the APU

Could be, but the rear hatch sort of reminds me of those external phone systems so ground troops can communicate directly with the tank commander... a bit dangerous to use if the tank suddenly decides to reverse out of its position of course, but it means ground troops can talk directly to the commander of the tank and direct fire where the ground force want it.

Can anyone help me with a translation please

Yesterday at Nizhniy Tagil head of the government showed the entire tank strength of the Russian army. If you compare the show with a fashion show of weapons, we can say that exhibited a collection of past years. Novelty can be called unless the upgraded T-90S. In February this year to test our tank proved to be better than foreign analogues. Although there are experts who argue that the complex of protection and this new tank is already outdated.
In any case, the supply of Russian arms contracts with Algeria and Turkmenistan. According to experts, the cost of one such machine 70 million rubles.

There are experts that state Adolf Hitler is still alive on a base on the dark side of the moon and that in return for rocket technology the allies let him escape to there...

I disagree with those experts and the ones saying the T-90MS is not cool...

If smooth bore gun of T-80 tank can fire HE-Frag round against bunkers, fortification etc why do they specially need rifled bore to fire HESH round ?

The British are conservative and prefer rifled guns.

Rifled guns are actually a pain for APFSDS rounds and HEAT rounds as you can't spin a long narrow APFSDS round fast enough to stabilise it... it needs fins, and the spin from a rifled barrel reduces the penetration effect of a HEAT round because centrifugal force spreads the plasma beam of penetrating material.

Well the main reason why India went for rifled bore of Arjun was it could fire HESH round.

Blind tradition.

The quoted line says that contracts with Algeria and Turkmenistan have been signed. I wonder however if the journalists haven't mixed up the previous contracts with Algeria and Turkmenistan (ordered a small number of T-90S in 2010).

I agree... the T-90MS hasn't been tested yet... and most of its net centric stuff will not work efficiently without a network to work within.

IMO, that's the British influence coming to the fore. The British Army is the only one that insisted on rifled gun/HESH round capability in the whole of Nato.

I remember the British bleeting on about how inaccurate the 115mm smoothbore gun of the T-62 would be without rifling. Then everyone started adopting them...

BTW have you seen Igors page recently Austin?

{quote]
- He said 850 mm for APFSDS and 1200 mm for cumulative.[/quote]

source: http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2011/09/90ms-in-dynamics.html

GarryB wrote:

BTW have you seen Igors page recently Austin?

{quote]
- He said 850 mm for APFSDS and 1200 mm for cumulative.

source: http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2011/09/90ms-in-dynamics.html

[/quote]

Thanks but what does that mean ?

He means the export 125mm ammo of the T-90MS has that performance...

At 2,000m at zero degrees impact the APFSDS rounds will penetrate 850mm of armour and the HEAT round will penetrate 1,200mm of armour.

GarryB wrote:He means the export 125mm ammo of the T-90MS has that performance...

At 2,000m at zero degrees impact the APFSDS rounds will penetrate 850mm of armour and the HEAT round will penetrate 1,200mm of armour.

Is that good for both rounds ?

I think the latest Kornet has 1300 mm penetration capability for heat

Kornet is 152mm calibre...

The comparison would be previously known or estimated rounds... for APFSDS that is the 3BM-44M codenamed Lekalo with a 650mm penetration performance at 2,000m, and for the HEAT the 3VBK-27 round with the exotic triple charge and 800mm penetration...

So 850 vs 650, and 1,200 vs 800... yup, that is improved.

GarryB wrote:Kornet is 152mm calibre...

The comparison would be previously known or estimated rounds... for APFSDS that is the 3BM-44M codenamed Lekalo with a 650mm penetration performance at 2,000m, and for the HEAT the 3VBK-27 round with the exotic triple charge and 800mm penetration...

So 850 vs 650, and 1,200 vs 800... yup, that is improved.

Nice , Thats indeed an improvement , considering it needed 650 mm of RPG-29 to penetrate the side Armour of M1A2

T-90S



Source: Lenta.ru

That chart shows vulnerable points of weak armour areas in the frontal area of a tank... it shows that the T-90MS or AM or whatever now only has the same weak areas every tank has... ie the turret ring and the main gun area.

This picture however makes things interesting...



Clearly shows three hatches...

So there is very easy access to the contents of the turret bustle for maintainence and plenty of weak spots in case of an internal explosion... which are both very good things.

The weak spots will mean any explosion will blow out the doors and reduce internal pressure levels so internal armoured doors are less likely to fail and expose the crew to the explosion.

I think the problem with T-90MS or T-90S is that there is space between turret and the chasis which will allow rounds to penetrate and blow the turret , while for other tanks there is no space between turret and the chasis , what do you think ?

Another point i realised on a russian board is the presence of new autotracker on T-90MS means the missile can now be automatically guided with the tracker without any human intervention , this would probably leave the gunner to do other task.

what is the penetration figures of Western Heat and APFSDS round ?

I think the problem with T-90MS or T-90S is that there is space between turret and the chasis which will allow rounds to penetrate and blow the turret , while for other tanks there is no space between turret and the chasis , what do you think ?

I think there is space between turret and chassis on every tank ever made except the ones without turrets.

Turret ring hits are a problem for all tanks and there is simply no easy solution because that area needs to be left so that nothing stops the turret from turning.

Another point i realised on a russian board is the presence of new autotracker on T-90MS means the missile can now be automatically guided with the tracker without any human intervention , this would probably leave the gunner to do other task.

The new auto tracker is to make the gunners job easier. Very simply before the gunner put the cross hair on the target and lased it to get the precise range. They would then manually enter that information along with other numbers like air temperature and wind direction etc etc into the ballistics computer and then the ballistics computer would generate an aim point or circle in the gunners sight. The gunner would then place this aim point or circle onto his target and fire. Obviously it is very easy when the target is stationary and your tank is stationary, but when you are moving and the target is moving it becomes much harder even with your stabilised sight and stabilised gun.

The auto tracker means he can set the target and the system will automatically track the target optically. When he feels like it he can lase for ranging which will likely be automatically entered into the computer. The commander also has a laser range finder and might lase a few targets which based on his position in the navigation system on the vehicle could be used to automatically work out their position on a map and then send those coordinates to HQ or just the other tanks in his unit.

Note tanks with tube launched missiles already had autotrackers for guiding missiles.

The gunners task is to kill the target he has been given from his commander. He might not need to control missiles, but he will keep a close eye and determine whether the target is damaged or killed and whether another shot is needed or not.

what is the penetration figures of Western Heat and APFSDS round ?

No idea...

Garry I have made the list features from Gur Khan for T-90MS , Can you add to this list or rectify if you find any thing odd , adding new point 14 and 15 to the list


http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post_10.html

1> Has a new Turret with enhanced protection of frontal projection, roof and sides.
2> Has new ERA "Relic" It has an improved ability to withstand modern sabot projectiles and HEAT rounds
3> Can withstand current and future anti-tank weapons , The level of protection of the new tank exceeds any competitor
4> Weight increased by less than 2 Tons , Tanks weighs a little more than 48 T
5 > T-90MS new fire control system "Kalina" is equal tothe best world samples
6 > Has implemented auto tracking of Targets
7> The gunner has combined thermal sight, laser and optical channels. The commander has a panoramic multi-channel scope.
8> The tank has a single automated control system at the tactical level. it is able to exchange information and receive indication from other machines Battalion ( BMS )
9> Has satellite navigation system GLONASS-GPS and modern means of communication.
10> T-90MS can be fitted with an existing gun or new gun of high power 125 mm caliber
11> Has ammunition capacity of 40 rounds , in secure underfloor loader and rear bustle reducing the risk to the crew
12 >T-90MS has a new 1130 horsepower engine
13> Has electronic automatic gear change and motion control using the steering wheel
14> Chrome plating barrel which will increase barrel life by 70 %
15> Penetration of 850 mm for APFSDS and 1200 mm for cumulative.

Austin wrote:I think the problem with T-90MS or T-90S is that there is space between turret and the chasis which will allow rounds to penetrate and blow the turret , while for other tanks there is no space between turret and the chasis , what do you think ?

The people from the UVZ marketing department don't agree...

Weak zones:

Abrams - Leopard - T-90S - T-90MS

Garry Check previous page last post and let me know your views.

Here is something I found on Armour Penetration Figures for Western and Russian sabot

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=27662

Steve Duncan

Sorry, I should have specified that those are Line of Sight numbers. Actual armor thickness would of course be half that at 60 degrees.

First I should have used Perforate and not Penetrate, since L-O was derived from putting holes thru finite thickness armor and not depth of penetration into armor blocks.

The L-O equations do actually have a term for slope. The figures Odermatt gave on this forum was COS(angle) to the -0.225 power to get Line of Sight perforation. This was derived from the tungsten alloy rods used in his testing.

I generalized it to cover all the rounds I calculated because I don't know the nose geometry or ductility of the ones used in his data points, nor for that matter the nose geometry or ductility of the ones I calculated. Blunt noses penetrate better on slopes and pointy noses better against vertical.

Most long rods will perforate thicker (Line of Sight) sloped armor than vertical armor. The armor having more effective resistance side to side than front to back (usually) will tend to bend the path of the projectile toward the back of the plate thus on a 60 deg plate angle the path may be closer to 45 deg. Again the path depends on too many things to think about without getting a headache.

So for actual armor thichness the numbers are:

Round...........Length.....L/D.....MV.......Perforation @ 2km (0deg-60deg)
M829...............441......17.3...1670........470mm - 275mm
DM33..............503......20.1....1650.......480mm - 280mm
M829A1...........684......31.7....1575.......600mm - 345mm
DM53 L/44.......643......27.6....1675.......620mm - 365mm
M829A2...........700......32.5....1680.......630mm - 370mm
DM53 L/55.......643......27.6....1750.......650mm - 380mm
M829A3...........859......39.3....1555.......710mm - 415mm

The Russian rounds all come out with much lower penetration than claimed when I run them through the Odermatt equation. They tend to be shorter and fatter than their western counterparts.

From Vasiliy Fofanov's Modern Russian Armour Page:

Round...........Length.....MV.......Pen @ 2km (Certified-Maximum)
3BM-32...........380........1700......500-560.......equiv to M829 or DM33
3BM42............420........1700......450-500
3BM-42M........570........1750.......600-650.......equiv to M829A1
3BM-46..........546........1700.......600-650.......equiv to M829A1

All of the Russian rounds should probably penetrate the front of a Leopard 2A4 from around 2000m, the later ones from farther.
Given the shorter fatter rounds are likely to be less affected by the wedge armor on the Leopard 2A5/A6 I would say that the 3BM-42M and 3BM-46 might have a chance against it from under 2000m, the other rounds probably not from any range.

I don't buy into all the hype about Kontakt-5 making any tank indestructable. After all most of it comes from sources either tryong to sell it or get money to develop new rounds to defeat it. That said, I do think it adds greatly to the protection. Testing seems to indicate that a T-72 is vulnerable to an M829 class penetrator, but with K-5 is virtually immune.

My best guess:

Tank......................inneffective................marginal....................effective
Early T-72 no K-5.......................................DM13.....................all the rest
Late T-72 no K-5.....DM13...........................DM23.....................all the rest
Early T-72 + K-5.....DM13,DM23..............M829, DM33................all the rest
Late T-72 + K-5.....M829, DM13-33..............M829A1...................M829A2,A3, DM53
T-90 + K5.............M829,A1, DM13-33...M829A2, DM53(L44)........M829A3, DM53(L55)

GarryB wrote:He means the export 125mm ammo of the T-90MS has that performance...

At 2,000m at zero degrees impact the APFSDS rounds will penetrate 850mm of armour and the HEAT round will penetrate 1,200mm of armour.

Igor say thats the characteristics of T-90MS frontal armour , which i doubt becuase no one will speak about the protection level of ones own armour.

The stuff on the previous page looks fine to me.

Regarding this new stuff:

The Russian rounds all come out with much lower penetration than claimed when I run them through the Odermatt equation.

All equations make assumptions and when you get figures that are wrong, it is fairly unlikely the makers got their measurements wrong... normally it is that the assumptions in the equations are wrong.

A projectile might be made of a Tungsten alloy which will effect its penetration over... say hardened Steel or depleted uranium... or chocolate pudding. Different alloys of tungsten and other materials will have different properties which will not be allowed for in most equations.

They tend to be shorter and fatter than their western counterparts.

Well DUH, the length to diameter ratio is important for aerodynamics and penetration, but if you are limited in length by the autoloader in use then the only way to get a required projectile mass is to make it thicker.

Thin penetrators of course penetrate better... you can test that yourself by comparing the energy needed to drive a needle into butter and compare that to the effort needed to drive a blunt pencil into butter. Material and weight in this case have little to do with it unless the butter is frozen.

However you need mass to retain velocity and to force its way through armour... otherwise everyone would be making their projectiles as light as possible.

If you can get the speed high enough then very light projectiles are better than heavy ones... for instance in EM guns the propellent is a super heated plasma which is ionised (ie it has a magnetic charge so you can move or contain it with a magnetic field) the projectile will be travelling at several kilometres a second so normally it is a light piece of plastic with a small amount of aluminium at its base. The goal is speed, because the energy of the impact is mass times speed times speed so any increase in speed multiplies itself.

As you can see that the modified autoloader allows longer penetrators which gives the Russians a slight current advantage in performance.

I don't buy into all the hype about Kontakt-5 making any tank indestructable.

Like the hype that western tanks are all indestructable?

Testing seems to indicate that a T-72 is vulnerable to an M829 class penetrator, but with K-5 is virtually immune.

Translation is that testing seems to indicate that a tank that is derided as crap in the west, when fitted with K-5 most western ammo wont penetrate it, except ammo that has been designed since especially to penetrate K-5.
That is a bit of a revelation isn't it?

Really kind of embarrassing for the west in fact considering the new Russian tank upgrade seems to do away with all its faults and in 3-4 years their next generation tank will be entering service... and their tank industry now seems to be properly funded... and what we have been shown is basically an export vehicle.

Igor say thats the characteristics of T-90MS frontal armour , which i doubt becuase no one will speak about the protection level of ones own armour.

I believe he was translating from the video above the text, so if you speak Russian just play the video.

I don't think he would be mistaken however...

Garry I dont understand Russian but may be Cyberspec can do it for us.

Cyberspec if you understand Russian can you translate the third video and tell us what does it say on penetration figures ? You can find the video on Igor blog linked below

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2011/09/90ms-in-dynamics.html

"I don't buy into all the hype about Kontakt-5 making any tank indestructable. After all most of it comes from sources either tryong to sell it or get money to develop new rounds to defeat it."

Austin i too believe that you should'nt buy that claim , instead much more simply you should buy.....Jane's International Review n Vol 29, n. 7 July 1996 and read "Russian tanks immune to attack says German expert " on the initial series of tests conducted in the ex east Germany by the recently passed away Manfred Held and after buy Jane's International Review Vol. 30,n. 7 July 1997 and read "Impenetrable russian tanks stand up to examinations" ,on the series of tests commited urgently by the same Pentagon to Leland Ness's equipe to validate the fearful results of the experimentation conducted by M. Held (and of course not only them was totally validated but this absurd resilience was finded valid for almost the whole arsenal of main anti-tanks weapons present in NATO arsenal at the time !!); extensive experimental evidence from equipe lead by two authenticate titans of the sector Held and Ness is ,in my opinion a much more efficient employement of your "buying power".

What should cause your alarm's bell to sound even more soundly is that in open media sources and in particular on internet, PR mercenaries and obviously false experts for years and years have attempted in any way,coming even to the point of total self-emebarassing impudence , to litterally "bury" the results of those experimentations showing what was the huge difference between the Soviet Army standard fopr level of protection of MBTs and the export immensely downgraded products, under a deep blanket of silence and negation.

Only to give you an idea from personal experience ,image that on a well know site (defencetalk) before this February, when i literally crashed in few minutes years and years of comical covers, ridiculous lies and low level myths cretaed by who have exposed themselves as obviously completely false experts and insiders(and more likely no more than dishonest PR mercenaries), the idea "selled" was that the article cited was .....not existing !!!!!
Image that was common habit among those PR mercenaries to sanction or quicly ban anyone citing the very famous second article (simply because majority of persons not evben know of the existency of the first !!) only in the concerted ,compulsive attempt to cancel from public imaginary any trace of the empyrical,verifiable elements capable to completely shatter the horrible platitudes them sell on those subjects.

Note that those type of PR mercenaries when pressed by a technical knowledgeable person or simply to adapt to some dangerous information unluckly popped-out (as my link to the shortcut of the.....not existent Jane's Defence article ha ha ha) them change tone ,but atempt to do that in the less "exposed" way possible.

Take at example the response gived just to you by Prasun Sengupta in the article named "T-90AM: Latest Avatar Of The T-90 MBT " on trishul-trident site.
When you say in the comment section:

"Your Conversation with Vasiliy Fofanov is really nice and informative and Vasiliy has given many good points that would throw light on many of rather wrong belief on this tank."

perceiving the clear danger that ,in case of umpteenth idiocies on those subjetcs (over the typical low level false picture already provided in the "article") V. Fofanov would intervne another time and expose it to another poor showing, or that someone could easily point to it the experimental results of the two capital experimental series of live tests previously mentioned in direct conflint with the naive ideas it propose on the phylosphy of russian MBT's design,Prasun Sengupta change suddenly the tone and the content of its reasoning and respond:

"Therefore, post-1991, when Russian ‘experts’ began comparing MBT design/performance characteristics of Soviet/Russian and Western MBTs, they have often tended to refer to the model-type in service with the Red Army during a particular timeframe, rather than referring to the export model-type, which is obviously inferior to what was serving with the Red Army. So yes, in terms of vehicle protection levels and crew survivability, the Red Army did possess assets capable of standing up to their NATO counterparts, but this ruling did not apply to those MBTs that were exported as frontline MBTs for the customer countries.And India was no exception either."

Now anyone is perfectly capable to realize that this position it take quickly in the comment section ( which it is forced to assume when in peril ...but which it attentively avoid to express in any visible articles, all centred around platitudes aimed at put in bad light anything russian related in the mind of the average ignorant reader ) is in direct collision with the whacky idea it attempt to sell : that Russian MBT afetr WWII was constructed around an hit avoidance concept

Mindstorm Point taken , Yes I am aware of the discussion at trishul-trident blog and the blog owner is Prasun Sengupta and not Pushpinder Singh.

Indeed Vasiliy Fofanov chat was a learning experience for me as well and a well informed one , Yes I think Prasun Sengupta has many misgivings on this subject and you will find many Indian on forums who would buy into Western PR and are generally not well informed on Russian Tanks or qualities associated with it.

Obviously goes without saying any thing Western is always deemed as superior

...the blog owner is Prasun Sengupta and not Pushpinder Singh..

My bad, of course i refer to Prasun Sengupta.

It has been a typical Freudian slip, in fact i was debating yesterday on another "hot topic" on which the reality distorption has reached legendary levels : the result of Red Flag 2008 ,completely subverted in the private "encounter" of Col. Fornov with the Deadalians.
After having showed with a video

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZYu7LGLBQ ]www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZYu7LGLBQ [/url]


that IAF and indian media was celebrating openly the achievements and the outstanding results of Red Flag 2008 (instead that closed in a private meeting among old american ex-pilots,believing that never what said would have gone out of those four walls....) with the words of the same pilots and officials involved i have pointed the article writed by Pushpinder Singh on the subject providing the real picture of what happened so i have mixed the names ,a big mistake considering the immense difference in authoritativeness between the two .

I will quickly edit my previous post .