Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+94
miketheterrible
0nillie0
Cyrus the great
sheytanelkebir
Interlinked
BM-21
Tingsay
T-47
Big_Gazza
JohninMK
PapaDragon
SeigSoloyvov
Cheetah
A1RMAN
x_54_u43
Isos
KoTeMoRe
franco
KiloGolf
Benya
VladimirSahin
TheArmenian
kvs
ult
galicije83
Bankoletti
AK-Rex
Pinto
Project Canada
zepia
chicken
Acheron
Morpheus Eberhardt
Akula971
Shadåw
GunshipDemocracy
OminousSpudd
Walther von Oldenburg
Arctic_Fox
max steel
Glyph
volna
Godric
k@llashniKoff
xeno
AttilaA
Book.
putinboss
cracker
AlfaT8
flamming_python
mack8
victor1985
Vympel
Mike E
higurashihougi
Asf
magnumcromagnon
Werewolf
Vann7
George1
indochina
sepheronx
Regular
nemrod
a89
dino00
collegeboy16
ricky123
KomissarBojanchev
Stealthflanker
Zivo
Dima
Bthebrave
ali.a.r
Pugnax
Russian Patriot
TR1
Acrab
Admin
coolieno99
KRATOS1133
Cyberspec
Mindstorm
ahmedfire
medo
Austin
GarryB
Andy_Wiz
runaway
nightcrawler
IronsightSniper
Hoof
Viktor
98 posters

    T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Cyberspec Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:33 pm

    Austin wrote: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

    He's talking about protection levels (approximate figures)....just like your friends at MP.net said Smile

    The exact protection levels are not available but good estimates from experts have been published....they vary slightly depending on the source but you can get a an idea how protected the tanks are.

    The requirement for the T-90A(S) was to be resistant to the M829A1/2 rounds which was reportedly proven during the state tests, although, there are weak zones (see previous pic)

    Here's some estimates for the T-90S:

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Th_775695299_t90aj_122_115lo

    Here you have protection without ERA as well as with K-5 and Relict ERA
    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Th_728434753_32582598_122_351lo


    The angle at which the shell hits also plays a role..
    T-72 example
    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Th_775700248_T_72_122_180lo
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Cyberspec Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:44 pm

    T-90MS Promotional Video (animation)
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40397
    Points : 40897
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:33 am

    Garry you might want to read this on turret protection figures for T-90MS

    And after reading that I would say two things... they released the figures for the T-90MS because it is for export. I don't think Mindstorm has to remind us that perhaps the T-90AM or MA or whatever they might choose to call that will be for domestic use only might have even better armour arrangements.
    Second the concept that western tanks and now presumably the latest Russian tanks are impossible to kill from the front is just silly. A Kh-25 with a 90kg warhead will kill all the crew members even if it doesn't penetrate the armour. A Kh-29 with its 317kg shaped charge warhead designed to undermine the foundations of bridges and also for use against armour would just leave a smoking hole in the ground.

    When someone says invulnerable referring to tanks think about these two missiles.
    (note the Kh-25 has almost double the warhead weight of the anti armour Maverick).
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40397
    Points : 40897
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:36 am

    The requirement for the T-90A(S) was to be resistant to the M829A1/2 rounds which was reportedly proven during the state tests, although, there are weak zones (see previous pic)

    Exactly. And the T-90AM will have a requirement to be protected from the front against the latest round... M829A3.

    And the ammo the T-90AM will carry will likely be designed for use against current western tanks, with plans for new ammo likely for Armata with a future improvement in performance to match any increase in armour between now and when Armata enters service.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:42 am

    T-90MS Upgrade Booklet ( via http://gurkhan.blogspot.com)

    Page-1
    Page-2
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Cyberspec Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:36 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The requirement for the T-90A(S) was to be resistant to the M829A1/2 rounds which was reportedly proven during the state tests, although, there are weak zones (see previous pic)

    Exactly. And the T-90AM will have a requirement to be protected from the front against the latest round... M829A3.

    And the ammo the T-90AM will carry will likely be designed for use against current western tanks, with plans for new ammo likely for Armata with a future improvement in performance to match any increase in armour between now and when Armata enters service.

    They claim that the thickest part of the T-90A is already resistant to the M829A3

    This is from a few years ago - Ukranian source (A. Tarasenko)
    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Th_579478044_tabl11od_122_118lo


    BTW, Kazakhstan has shown interest in the T-90MS

    http://www.rusbiznews.ru/news/n1120.html
    KRATOS1133
    KRATOS1133


    Posts : 28
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2011-08-11
    Location : Algeria

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  KRATOS1133 Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:42 am

    Austin wrote:WoW Nice , Any picture of the specs board of T-90AM ?
    Spoiler:
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:54 am

    Nice picture of the Turret of T-90MS , Its a beefy turret

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 S7558182
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:54 pm


    T-90S needs to be further developed- General Nikolai Makarov

    "The tower T-90 makes us a serious respect, it is comparable to leading foreign counterparts, and a number of characteristics superior to them," - he said.

    Makarov said that the T-90S yet "has many flaws, which will soon be remedied."

    "Development activities to improve the tank will continue," - he said.
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire


    Posts : 2354
    Points : 2536
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  ahmedfire Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:55 pm

    Developments on T-90 variants are good ,but still there are questions about the firepower compared to abrams especially U.S developing the A4(APFSDS ),russia doesn't took steps to equalize U.S firpower....

    The autoloader still limits the ratio L/D "diameter/length " of the ammunition,because of the round turret..

    Russian 125mm BM-46 "Svinets" DU 650mm at 2km (1991) (22:1 L/D)

    Russian 125mm BM-42 "Mango" tungsten alloy 520mm at 2km (1986) (16:1 L/D)

    Russian 125mm BM-32 "Vant" DU 560mm at 2km (1985) (13:1 L/D)

    Russian 125mm BM-29 DU 470mm at 2km (1982) (12:1 L/D)

    Russian 125mm BM-26 "Hope" (1983) tungsten alloy 450mm at 2km (extended BM-22 13:1 L/D)


    U.S M829A3 has aratio of 35:1(D=23 ,L=800 mm ) ,,A4 seems will be arevolution..

    and
    what about the problems of floor storing ammunation?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40397
    Points : 40897
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:36 am

    Developments on T-90 variants are good ,but still there are questions about the firepower compared to abrams especially U.S developing the A4(APFSDS ),russia doesn't took steps to equalize U.S firpower....

    The autoloader still limits the ratio L/D "diameter/length " of the ammunition,because of the round turret..

    Russian 125mm BM-46 "Svinets" DU 650mm at 2km (1991) (22:1 L/D)

    Russian 125mm BM-42 "Mango" tungsten alloy 520mm at 2km (1986) (16:1 L/D)

    Russian 125mm BM-32 "Vant" DU 560mm at 2km (1985) (13:1 L/D)

    Russian 125mm BM-29 DU 470mm at 2km (1982) (12:1 L/D)

    Russian 125mm BM-26 "Hope" (1983) tungsten alloy 450mm at 2km (extended BM-22 13:1 L/D)


    U.S M829A3 has aratio of 35:1(D=23 ,L=800 mm ) ,,A4 seems will be arevolution..

    and
    what about the problems of floor storing ammunation?

    First of all you ask the wrong question regarding guns.

    It matters little what the performance of the 125mm rounds are compared with the performance of 120mm rounds.
    What matters is the performance of the 125mm rounds against western armour, and the 120mm rounds against Russian armour.

    Having the best penetration and range figures is otherwise amateur fan boy crap.

    There are no problems of storing ammo in the armoured underfloor autoloader. That has been proven in combat time after time after time.

    As Ironsightsniper said here the most hit part of a tank is the turret front... the bottom of the tank is very rarely hit if every by enemy fire. Tank turrets have been blown off tanks long before the invention of the underfloor autoloader... explosives are basically pressure contained in a space. That pressure will press on all sides of that container to find the weakest spot, and when that weakest spot fails the pressure is directed through that spot. It is how rifle cartridges work... the bolt in the rear, the chamber on all sides represent strong structures that will contain the pressure of a rifle round.
    The weak spot is down the barrel but there is a small blockage in the way... the bullet.
    The resistance of the bullet blocking the explosion is much less than the resistance of the chamber of the gun and the bolt behind the round so the bullet "fails" first and is pushed down the barrel and out the muzzle.
    Once the bullet is out and on its way down range the pressure is greatly reduced so unless there is an obstruction down the barrel that stops the bullet the chamber and bolt wont fail.
    A blockage down the barrel... like dipping the barrel into water (water does not compress so when the bullet hits it down the barrel it can't push it aside because there is no room... it basically has to push the water that has come up the barrel back down the barrel, which is a lot of work... the bullet will slow down while the powder is still burning behind it creating more and more pressure. If the barrel behind the bullet fails or the chamber or the bolt then the bullet will stop moving in the barrel and all the gas pressure will exit where the gun failed.

    Most tanks are pretty much sealed and the gas generated by a large amount of tank ammo exploding will create very rapid pressure increases (explosives explode, propellents burn much slower) and if that pressure is enough a common weak point for all tanks is the turret that like a bullet is just sitting on the cartridge case (hull).

    The thing is however, to get the ammo to blow up you have to ignite it, which means you have to hit it with your penetration and an underfloor loader is only about 50 cm thick horizontally and is very low in the tank which makes it very hard to hit.

    In the past the T-72 has a bad reputation for exploding because of all the loose ammo in the crew compartment which means any penetration will shower the ammo with sparks leading to a fire and explosion. Ammo under the floor is safe, as is ammo in the turret bustle because it is quite simple to design both so that the weakest part covering the ammo directs the explosion away from the crew compartment so even if it is hit the crew will be safe.

    BTW length to diameter ratio for APFSDS rounds is no everything. A piece of fencing wire is very thin so a length of 400mm that is 2mm thick would result in a LD ratio of 200, but it would be pretty useless at penetrating hard targets... it would just coil up.

    Also the ammo info you give for Russian ammo is from 1991 at the latest... Perhaps a direct comparison with the inservice US weapon in 1991 would be more appropriate?

    That would be the M829A1 I believe... called a magic bullet except that NATO tests showed it would not have penetrated Soviet ERA at the time.
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1298
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Mindstorm Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:54 pm

    Personally I don't remember even Russia strong enthusiasts claiming K-5 made Russian tanks invulnerable.

    And that is a right assertion ,no MBT has been ,is or will ever be "invulnerable" it the etymological meaning of the word ; when a military analyst employ the term "invulnerable",in relation to a specific platform, it obviously refere to an istance in which in the normal (Gaussian) function of survivability of this specific system against its most common/effective battlefield counters you find the integral describing the "complete loss" ratio (damages beyond any repair and over) always included in the right tail of the normal function.

    In more simple terms this mean that in the two series of live tests previously cited the examined platforms (original Soviet T-72A/B with composite armor and K-5) gived proof of almost perfect resiliency (absorbing several hit without any significative loss of its operative potential) against pratically all the most common anti-tanks weapons present in NATO arsenal at the time ; an IED with 100 kg of explosive would ,naturally, still completely destroy it, as direct hit from a 1500 lb bomb, but those occurences would have represented instances statistically so scarcely probables to have an impact almost not-existent in a large scale conventional conflict.


    K-5 was wonderful stuff, because it was clearly underestimated by the main opponent yet was relatively cheap and could be applied to older vehicles to improve their performance with minimal cost.

    K-5 was a wonderful system for strictly technical reasons ;among those are worth a citation: 1) Western DU penetrators was several times more prone to plastic rupture/distruction for the effect of the enormous side/tangential forces exerted by K-5s' plates in respect to WC ones, (and western trend for longer and thinner penetrators render this effect even much more efficient) 2) it was designed to work in a synergistic way with the composite armor's structure of new-generation -for the time- MBT like T-72B and T-80U ,in particular in relation to the angle of incidence and interaction's momentum of chemical jet penetrator of the most common NATO anti-tank missile of the time, moreover it wast easily appliable mantaining an high mass to volume efficency even to outdated platform ,at example in the article of Armor Magazine of 1995 pag 9 by Major James M. Warford : " T-90/T-90S , an Old Dog With Some Dangerous New Tricks" is cited an information provided by Steven Zaloga in its “New Wares in Nizhni Novgorod: A Once-Secret City Opens Its Gates,” -Armed Forces Journal International ,November 1994,-


    If fitted to a T-55 MBT, KONTAKT-5 will increase the armor protection level against kinetic energy ammunition from the equivalent of 200mm of RHA to the equivalent of 480mm of RHA.
    If KONTAKT-5 does have the ability to significantly degrade the penetrating power of APFSDS and HVAPFSDS ammunition, the T-90/T-90S (and maybe the T-80U and T-72BM as well) may constitute
    the single most serious threat to U.S. and Western armored forces since the appearance of the T-64 Base Model in1967.



    That element alone allow us to realize that ,as usual for Soviet/Russian weapon systems, the fearful "surprises" coming out from live tests and experimentations on original Soviet military specimens was not related to underestimation, but to the heavy effects of an organic,large scale and attentively planned and executed disinformation strategy which was very successuful in corrupt the same foundations of analytical data flow and processing in western experts's community and with them,obviously the operative inferences and strategical and tactical solutions adopted.
    A commander of a tank squadron veteran of Gulf War would have discovered the hard way(for not say fatal),in an hypothetical large scale conventional conflict in Europe, directly on the battlefield what analysts succeeded to realize in safe laboratory tests several years later.
    The same class of weapons capable to easily pierce an Iraqi "T-72", superficially almost indistinguishable form one operative in East Europe, would have demonstrated themselves completely ineffective against the composite armor and the second generation ERA fitted to Soviet armoured brigades spearhead, the same effect would have obtained the employement of AT-8/11 against tank completely unprepared to remain for over 2 km outside theirs maximum main gun engagement range under heavy attack of those gun fired ATGMs or the immense difference in effciency between the main gun fitted to those "T-72s" or then HEAT/APFSDS rounds employed by them (a 3BM17,the downgraded export version of 3BM15 is immnensely different from a 3BM32/42 or 3BK21B...)

    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:50 pm

    Mindstorm good post.

    Is there any information on the armoured strength of T-90 composite armour with K5 ERA ?

    Did K 5 ERA underwent progressive update over time or where they the same since first came out in early 90's ?

    Is there information available on the new K6 ERA ?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40397
    Points : 40897
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:27 am

    BTW ahmedfire

    Austin posted this article in a different forum:

    In 2010 there were 18 in the development of new shots of the tank, ground and naval artillery.
    2010 marked by high productivity development.
    Completed the state tests of four samples of ammunition.
    A significant step in the development of tank rounds.
    Shot "Lead-1" with armor-piercing discarding sabot 40% higher than similar full-time shot Mango. This considerable progress has been made possible through new manufacturing technologies of high-uranium shells, creating a new type of master device, the development of new high-powders. In general the development of armor-piercing rounds and reached the world level came out to limit the possibility of a staff weapon.

    State tests developed shots as OCD "Bayonet" and the ROC "Lead-1" are completed, but the mass production of the Ministry of Defence for the next few years is planned. This is a general trend. Unfortunately, the decision genzakazchika OCD on a tank of high-caliber shots were closed.
    Meanwhile, in the tests was obtained by a breakthrough level of performance.
    Closed ROC "Saiga" significantly delayed the development of high-topics, although we have the unique results of working out a combination of radar and optical focal goals.

    Against the background of the virtual absence of the troops fired with a minimum shelf life, the level of purchases of almost zero, which puts a particularly difficult situation our production plant, our holdings and not only.
    Order new models at best delayed until 2015 or even 2017.
    So spelled in the LG-2020. The biggest concern of ours in these conditions - to preserve the productive capacity of enterprises of the holding.
    "Strengthening the firepower provided by the introduction of new ammunition, the so-called" long »(L = 740 mm) of BPS. 3VBM17 instead shot with BPS 3BM42" Mango "introduces high-power shots with BPS 3VBM22 3BM59" Lead-1 "and with 3VBM23 BPS 3BM60 "Lead-2." The use of these weapons gives rise armor penetration while increasing the distance of the actual shooting. " (CFV number 10 of 2009) Add: in GABTUshnyh Act of 2004 for these shots was registered 4ZH63 charge, but in the "open" then the T-90A - already 4ZH96.

    So in 2010 (not 1991) the Russian MIC had 18 different types of new artillery ammo in development 4 of which completed testing, one was called Lead-1 which has performance 40% better than Mango. It also mentions a Lead-2 but doesn't give details but based on the info you provided above Mango has a penetration of 520mm so 40% more can be simply determined... 520 x 1.4 = 728mm. That is quite competitive, and the fact that it is a uranium based round the post penetration effects should be very lethal as Uranium tends to burn at high temperatures.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:59 am

    Thanks Garry for putting that up , I was having hard times understanding that since translation sucks , So T-90MS can be expected to have L/D of 740 mm which is not bad at all
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40397
    Points : 40897
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:05 am

    As mentioned during chats with Ironsightsniper, the length of the penetrator is not necessarily the length of the projectile.

    Think in terms of the dart used in the game of darts... many of the cheap low cost darts have a metal weight and metal point but a cheap plastic or wooden rear as a light weight "tail" to ensure the whole dart moved point forward in flight.

    The information about the new penetrators being made of new alloys of Uranium is interesting too, though not very environmentally friendly.

    Still if the Americans don't care, why should Russia.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:32 am

    From the information I got here

    It seems Lead-1 actual core length is 650 mm if one subtracts tracer, tip, damper, etc.

    And another poster mentioned that in that case M829A3 700mm in the core

    Is that true ?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40397
    Points : 40897
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:50 am

    Is that true ?

    Could be.

    Remember that penetration is not only LD ratio, otherwise when you get to a length limit imposed either by internal space in turret or autoloader then narrow penetrators would be logically better.

    The simple fact is that total penetrator mass and the material it is made from is also important so thicker increases mass and harder materials are less likely to shatter on impact.
    Otherwise long thin rods of aluminium would be used... their light weight would allow higher velocities...
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:52 am

    BTW incase if you have missed it what the chief designer of the T-90MS tank was stating to Putin in the video was that its protection figure was in the range of 850 mm for KE and 1200 for CE for frontal turret and mentioned 550 mm protection for turret and hull sides.

    Which is quite good by any standards and i assume the actual figure will be more.

    Incase if you have not seen this before here are the official figures of Merkava loss during Lebanon campaign from Israel includes Merk 4

    http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000127813&fid=942

    For one I would appreciate the Israel for being bold to come with an official figure of loss ,I did not see any such figure from US for M1 loss in Iraq even though it was stated to be more than 100.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40397
    Points : 40897
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:05 pm

    Which is quite good by any standards and i assume the actual figure will be more.

    It is probably exactly in the range given.

    In the T-90AM it will be slightly more.

    I would be more interested in the details about the new ammo...

    The Russians tend to be a bit more conservative and sensible than the west.

    The gun launched missile is a case in point.

    They could have copied the west like the west claims they always do... which is strange of course because the Soviets had IFVs before the Americans and British did, and they were also the first to have a smoothbore main gun for their tanks, but they saw guided missiles as another tool a tank commander could use.
    They could have equipped every tank they had with only missiles if they wanted. Unlike the US equivalent their missiles actually worked so they could have had the super tanks the west seemed so desperate to get.
    They knew however that in the European theatre the normal combat range wouldn't be the same as in the deserts of Iraq and that their standard 125mm was perfectly adequate to deal with any NATO tank at the 2km or less most tank engagements would occur at... remember the M1 didn't really become numerically important till the mid 1980s and before then... well even a T-72 was more than a match for an M60 let alone a T-64.
    The tanks that were fited to fire guided missiles only had a normal load of 8 missiles, simply because they were just another type of ammo for them to use if the situation suited.
    A target appearing at 1.5km then hit it with a faster and cheaper APFSDS round or a HEAT round.
    Sitting on a small rise overlooking the Autobahn you might spot tanks 5km or more away and they wouldn't know what hit them.
    Tactics and opportunity.
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:13 pm

    Thinking about it the Reflex missile is indeed a nice weapon to have considering it lets you hit much before entering into an effective zone of all western APFSDS and most importantly it allows you to hit where you want even if the target is moving , so even so if you have no choice and the enemy frontal turret is all what you see you can still hit the weak spots between turret and chasis or chasis itself if the beam can spot it or the gun , gives you lot of flexibility over APFSDS in the same situation.

    Considering they had this since T-80 days makes it all the more impressive , it would give it the same advantage the IRST/R-73/HMS gave to Mig-29 during days when the west had none of that.
    Viktor
    Viktor


    Posts : 5796
    Points : 6429
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 44
    Location : Croatia

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Viktor Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:13 pm

    Austin take in consideration T-90 can guide two ATGM at the same time.

    In the Iraq mission where ground is mostly flat, it would be welcomed accessories Very Happy
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec


    Posts : 2904
    Points : 3057
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Cyberspec Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:05 am

    Re: export vs domestic armour protection...

    The word on Ru.net is that the export 'Relict' ERA will have the 4S22 inserts while the domestic one has the 4S23 inserts. However, there is an opinion that long term partners (like India and Algeria) could be given access to the latest version of 'Relict'


    @ Austin
    Considering they had this since T-80 days makes it all the more impressive


    The T-64B had the radio guided "Kobra" system in 1976

    AT-8 SONGSTER (9M112 Kobra)

    Year: 1976

    Diameter: 125mm
    Finspan: 375mm
    Weight: 23.2 kg
    Guidance: Radio Guided SACLOS
    Warhead: 4.5~ kg Shape Charge
    Penetration: 600-700mm RHA
    Average Speed: 400 m/sec
    Minimum Range: 100 meters
    Maximum Range: 4,000 meters

    Notes: Can also engage helicopters out to 4 kilometers which are moving less than 300 km/hr and at altitudes less than 500 meters.

    http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/Russian_ATGMs.htm


    Pics of the Kobra at this Czech site
    http://www.militarybox.cz/news/sovetsky-protitankovy-raketovy-komplet-9k112-kobra/
    avatar
    Austin


    Posts : 7617
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Austin Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:12 am

    Viktor wrote:Austin take in consideration T-90 can guide two ATGM at the same time.

    In the Iraq mission where ground is mostly flat, it would be welcomed accessories Very Happy

    Two ATGM but i assume at the same target becuase some one has to lase two target even if its on the turrent frontal arc
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 40397
    Points : 40897
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:56 am

    Indeed, the misconception in the west is that the guided missile rounds were developed to make up for lack of long range engagement capability of Soviet tanks... which would suggest that the 100mm missiles for the T-54/-55 and the T-62 in 115mm would have been developed first, but they weren't... the first tanks to use these missiles were the T-64s and then T-80s.

    The early Kobra was not credited with anti helicopter capability... mainly because the missile was deemed to be too slow by the Soviets.
    The laser beam riding Svir and Reflex on the other hand are described as having an anti helo capability due to their higher flight speed and improved agility.

    In Europe not having such weapons would not be a huge handicap, but having such weapons allows you to use tactics where you can use them to your advantage.

    For instance an M1 Abrams able to engage Soviet tanks at 4kms needs to position itself where it can see enemy tanks for 4km.

    Of course if we look at the time lines, those Soviet tanks will likely be fitted with ERA that protected them from US penetrators except at very close range so the so called superiority of guns and optics that allowed US tanks to engage Soviet tanks at long range is likely moot anyway, but if they did expose themselves like that they would be vulnerable to gun launched missiles and indeed artillery as soon as they started firing and revealed their positions.

    Two ATGM but i assume at the same target becuase some one has to lase two target even if its on the turrent frontal arc

    The missiles are beam riders... they look back at the launch platform... point the laser at a tank and fire a missile... while the missile is in flight reload another missile and fire again. The first missile can't see the target... it just follows the beam so the minor movement when the next missile is fired will cause the beam to wobble slightly but the missile will continue down the beam to impact... when the first missile impacts the gunner can then decide whether to move the beam onto a tank next to the first tank target, or to keep it there and hit the first tank again.

    The Vikhr uses the same laser beam riding guidance and its CEP at 8km is 80cm, or 0.8m.

    Sponsored content


    T-90 Main Battle Tank - Page 9 Empty Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:38 pm