T-90 Main Battle Tank

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

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:



Here you have protection without ERA as well as with K-5 and Relict ERA



The angle at which the shell hits also plays a role..
T-72 example

T-90MS Promotional Video (animation)

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

Page-1
Page-2

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)



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

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

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

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.

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?

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...)

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 ?

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

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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/

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

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