T-90 Main Battle Tank

Austin,

it's all explained in the link you posted http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/09/t-90ms-tagil-protection.html

They chose to have the external storage area isolated to avoid a weak spot in the turret armour (apparently the reason why the Burlak turret was rejected). Khlopotov (Ghur Khan) says they took into account studies from Iraq where it was shown that the most vulnerable place on the Abrams was the rear of the turret where the ammo is stored.

Khlopotov claims the T-90MS hits the target 19-20 times out of 22 - guaranteed, compared to the Soviet era T-72B which had a average hit rate of 14 times. Therefore he says, the only reason for the extra 10 external rounds are army regulations which specify 40 rounds per tank.

Void at mp.net said this about the 8 additional ammo

These 8 additional ammo pieces are located between the auto loader carousel and the engine bay. There was a diagram somewhere where it was shown. It is a very well protected part of the tank.

That's what it says on the blog. Apparently the explosive charges are also stored in fire resistant material to reduce the chance of them going off.


P.S.

I'm a little biased but I think this is definitely an A-league tank

I'm a little biased but I think this is definitely an A-league tank

I am always suspicious of people who claim to be unbiased...

I think one problem with sliding door between rear turret and bustle is that it creates weak spot , something might not want to see on the turret rated at 550 mm CE protection.

The thing is that the large sliding door is dictated by the use of a human loader and a non automated ammo rack.
In other words a human has to be able to reach into the bustle and reach all the rounds stored there from top to bottom and from left to right so the sliding door needs to be large enough for them to reach all the ammo.

My suggestion for an inline autoloader with a straight rammer would not need a large sliding door... the door just needs to be large enough for a round to be pushed through on a supporting ramp straight from the rear turret bustle straight into the breach... at most it would be 30cm by 30cm and would only need to open as the round is loaded.... it is actually less of a weak point than the actual main gun position at the front of the turret because it will not need thin armour around it for the stabilisation system like the gun does.

It would mean much longer penetrator shells could be used and 32 rounds of ammo would be ready to use without any crew activity, with 8 more rounds stored inside the vehicle to be manually loaded into the underfloor loader at an opportune time.

GarryB wrote:My suggestion for an inline autoloader with a straight rammer would not need a large sliding door... the door just needs to be large enough for a round to be pushed through on a supporting ramp straight from the rear turret bustle straight into the breach... at most it would be 30cm by 30cm and would only need to open as the round is loaded.... it is actually less of a weak point than the actual main gun position at the front of the turret because it will not need thin armour around it for the stabilisation system like the gun does.

Oh where were you when they were designing the tank

Jokes apart they must have though about the autoloader solution in rear bustle and i think the only issue is they would have ended up with two autoloader and a much more complex solution then what they have right now.

I think what they went for was which was simple and flexible approach , considering the background from Gur Khan statement that UVZ first thought to just keep 22 ready to use ammo since the FC was good enough for 20 hits out of 22 and the ammo was powerful to do it job but MOD mandated them to keep 40 rounds.

Considering the bustle is not welded but bolted they can always remove the rear bustle and carry just 30 ammo without the need to ever get out to load it.

I think another consideration would have been to maximise the upgrade potential with existing T-90A/S turret with MS solutions , a rear bustle autoloader with integrated bustle/turret would have made the upgrade job much more demanding and complex.

I like their keep it simple silly approach , you can blame me for being old fashion person but Soviet/Russian approach has been best is the enemy of good enough.

T-90MS solutions are good enough and many small good enough solutions ended with a good solution of the new tank.

So,to arrange our papers

It has 40 shell:

22 in autoloader.

10 behind the turret in aseparate box ( is it well protected ? it may be targeted by ATGMs ).

8 in the turret ?

................

about protection numbers :

1200mm vs HEAT

850 mm vs KE
....

RWS with CITV

As Austin said ,anew round(L=740 )will be used ,(M829A3 is 800 mm long) ,But using DU will give akill shot.

So we now are talking about apowerful tank that can do anything western tanks do,and has all capability to face them all, nice step from russian army ,nice modifications.

ahmedfire wrote:
So,to arrange our papers

It has 40 shell:
,
22 in autoloader.

Yes

10 behind the turret in aseparate box ( is it well protected ? it may be targeted by ATGMs ).

Its not as protected as the turret ones but it has blow off panels and the ammo placement is such that would blow the ammo off away from the turret , keeping the turret safe.

8 in the turret ?

................

These 8 additional ammo pieces are located between the auto loader carousel and the engine bay. There was a diagram somewhere where it was shown. It is a very well protected part of the tank.

about protection numbers :

1200mm vs HEAT

850 mm vs KE
....

Approximate frontal protection levels the exact figure would be classified , 550 HEAT in side and rear.

RWS with CITV

Yes

As Austin said ,anew round(L=740 )will be used ,(M829A3 is 800 mm long) ,But using DU will give akill shot.

Yes but not released for export yet.

So we now are talking about apowerful tank that can do anything western tanks do,and has all capability to face them all, nice step from russian army ,nice modifications.

It would be on par with modern western tank like M1A2SEP or Leo A6

Jokes apart they must have though about the autoloader solution in rear bustle and i think the only issue is they would have ended up with two autoloader and a much more complex solution then what they have right now.

An automated ammo rack is used on self propelled artillery already and is not a new or particularly complicated thing (if you think reaching and grabbing 125mm shells weighing a total of 20kgs is bad, try sitting in an artillery vehicle and trying to handle 45kg projectiles plus propellent bags...)

I think what they went for was which was simple and flexible approach , considering the background from Gur Khan statement that UVZ first thought to just keep 22 ready to use ammo since the FC was good enough for 20 hits out of 22 and the ammo was powerful to do it job but MOD mandated them to keep 40 rounds.

I think it is also a case of no longer having much respect for the MOD, as they worked on the T-95 for well over a decade, yet the MOD suddenly said it was not what they wanted and canned it. What is the point of spending time and effort making it perfect if the MOD can say... it is a warmed over T-34 we will wait for Armata instead.

Considering the bustle is not welded but bolted they can always remove the rear bustle and carry just 30 ammo without the need to ever get out to load it.

Well the Bustle is supposed to contain some electronics and also kit is fitted around the outside of it too, so it is more likely to be a case of not bothering to load the extra ammo and head to the rear when the internal ammo is used up. In its current form it is no use "in an emergency" it might as well be bolted to the rear like the external fuel tanks as I have said before.

I think another consideration would have been to maximise the upgrade potential with existing T-90A/S turret with MS solutions , a rear bustle autoloader with integrated bustle/turret would have made the upgrade job much more demanding and complex.

Why? It could still be a bolt on job. It would just require a hatch.

Look at the rear roof of the T-90 and you will see a small hatch in the roof where the empty metal stub case is ejected. That is pretty much all it has to be lower down in the turret rear... in fact you could make the hatch three times thicker than the rear turret armour and make it so that the hatch has a centre that fills the entire cavity of the hole in the armour for the ammo to be fed through, with the hatch itself extending several cms into the bustle so the area around the hatch is actually better protected than the rest of the rear turret. With extra long penetrators in the rear turret most of the time the tank will likely be firing ammo from its underfloor autoloader as most of the ammo carried by Russian tanks is actually HE shells rather than AP or HEAT.

I like their keep it simple silly approach , you can blame me for being old fashion person but Soviet/Russian approach has been best is the enemy of good enough.

Well they wanted to keep is simple and cheap when they had 30,000 tanks. Now they are talking about the worlds best and high tech. They need to get their sht sorted... do they want cheap and simple or do they want high tech and capable?

Seems to me that they would get much more capability from a little increase of complication... because right now the token 10 extra rounds in the turret bustle are pretty useless.

T-90MS solutions are good enough and many small good enough solutions ended with a good solution of the new tank.

I think claiming it is what the MOD wants is a cop out... the MS is not for the Russian MOD... THIS IS AN EXPORT TANK. The AM is for the MOD.

GarryB wrote:An automated ammo rack is used on self propelled artillery already and is not a new or particularly complicated thing (if you think reaching and grabbing 125mm shells weighing a total of 20kgs is bad, try sitting in an artillery vehicle and trying to handle 45kg projectiles plus propellent bags...)

I think its not needed in the context of the fact that it carries a low ( 10 ) number of ammo , had it carried 20 or above ammo constituting half or more then half of the total capacity an automated rack would have been necessary or for that one even a simple sliding door approach with integrated welded bustle.

I think it is also a case of no longer having much respect for the MOD, as they worked on the T-95 for well over a decade, yet the MOD suddenly said it was not what they wanted and canned it. What is the point of spending time and effort making it perfect if the MOD can say... it is a warmed over T-34 we will wait for Armata instead.

Remember the suggestion for 22 ammo came from UVZ and MOD said it was low and keep it higher which UVZ relied on stastics comparing to T-72B hit probability , MOD wanted more ammo as more is always better and I think 22 is low even if were to be 100 % hit probability.

The T-95 program was paid for by MOD and T-95 had it flaws.

Well the Bustle is supposed to contain some electronics and also kit is fitted around the outside of it too, so it is more likely to be a case of not bothering to load the extra ammo and head to the rear when the internal ammo is used up. In its current form it is no use "in an emergency" it might as well be bolted to the rear like the external fuel tanks as I have said before.

The Bustle contains no electronics and its a simple ammo storage but a well designed one with some safetly features and decent protection.

Why? It could still be a bolt on job. It would just require a hatch.

Look at the rear roof of the T-90 and you will see a small hatch in the roof where the empty metal stub case is ejected. That is pretty much all it has to be lower down in the turret rear... in fact you could make the hatch three times thicker than the rear turret armour and make it so that the hatch has a centre that fills the entire cavity of the hole in the armour for the ammo to be fed through, with the hatch itself extending several cms into the bustle so the area around the hatch is actually better protected than the rest of the rear turret. With extra long penetrators in the rear turret most of the time the tank will likely be firing ammo from its underfloor autoloader as most of the ammo carried by Russian tanks is actually HE shells rather than AP or HEAT.

I think extra thick hatches would be some redesign of turret which is not needed , its a well thought out decision not to have a hatch which would have been simple to do , the sliding door in abrams for ammo has a tendency to jam too.

Well they wanted to keep is simple and cheap when they had 30,000 tanks. Now they are talking about the worlds best and high tech. They need to get their sht sorted... do they want cheap and simple or do they want high tech and capable?

I was talking in context of rear turret bustle approach of having a bolted and modular design for ammo storage

Seems to me that they would get much more capability from a little increase of complication... because right now the token 10 extra rounds in the turret bustle are pretty useless.

It can be very useful to useless would depend on the situation , at worst they would have to retreat if the situation does not permit loading of ammo and if not loading 25 % of reserve ammo is leading to a serious situation for them then they are already in deep shit in case of a war.

Probably the tank commander better retreat to fight for another day.

I think claiming it is what the MOD wants is a cop out... the MS is not for the Russian MOD... THIS IS AN EXPORT TANK. The AM is for the MOD.

The AM wont be radically different from MS , from what i get from gur khan blog it will have better protection level and new 2A82 gun , rest remains the same.

via mp.net

The right arrow in the picture points to where the 8 additional ammo is placed in T-90MS

I seriously think that continue to turn over and over around this question of the 10 rounds stored in the rear turret separate compartment is totally pointless and ,overall a detail much less interesting than others; something say to me that, if a T-90AM/MS will ever see the employment in a real conflict, 90% of times this compartment will remain completely empty (maybe also attracting some wasted enemy fire upon it in urban warfare or close range ambush situations) and the remaining times it will mostly contain HE-FRAG rounds because the operative tasks requiring the employment of extra rounds of this type will almost certainly allow also a safe recharging operation outside the MBT by part of the tank's crew.


Here we have a MBT with pratically the better level of armoured protection now available worldwide (and that without even taking into account the effect of "Relikt" ERA !! ), improved new version of the previous soft kill APS of T-90 series [Shtora-2],a MBT capable to employ APFSDS with 740 mm core length ,equipped -at least in the internal version- with a main gun [2A82] with ballistic capabilities superior to the German L-55 main gun, a more powerful and fuel-efficient engine, less ground pressure , new FCS "Kalina" with full day/night panoramic sight, computerized motion control system ,totally remotely controlled machine gun, GLONASS/inertial navigation , integrated BMS etc..etc.. all of that without any substantial increase in weight and internal volume with the related huge advantage in the armoured mass to volume ratio ,logistical burden ,off road terrain limits and ,of course ,significantly reduced probability to hit of enemy APFSDS and HEAT rounds in long range tanks vs tanks mobile engagements .

This last is another of those critical elements in a MBT's design which is, very often, accurately "buried" in the usual comically biased analysis and debates on those subjects; almost always ,in fact, in those discussions -in particular in western open media- anyone attentively "forget" to mention that a modern FCS has surely increased capabilities to hit a target with reduced target area's projection....but only against fixed targets or those changing position with uniform motion .
In any other instance the Probability to Hit of an APFSDS or HEAT round are described by a purely probabilistic model of representation within which the surface area projection of the target represent one the most important and influencing factor and will remain so independently from increase of sophistication of electronic components of FCS (at least until someone will successfully develop a future-reading FCS ).

What sincerely arouse my curiosity is receive any type of more precise,not speculative information on the Shtora-2 APS , at now a system strangely covered by a thick layer of fog and silence even in official presentations of the T-90MS.

Think you made a valid point , in all the 50 good thing we humans have the tendency to search for one bad thing and I was now searching for Blow Up Panel for the turret may be I need some rest

Mindstorm wrote:
Here we have a MBT with pratically the better level of armoured protection now available worldwide (and that without even taking into account the effect of "Relikt" ERA !! ),

Hmm call me a spoil sport but I think the protection level will be comparable to any modern western tanks like M1A2 SEP , which itself is an achievement for a tank that weight less than 50 T but affords the same protection as a 60 plus ton tank.

improved new version of the previous soft kill APS of T-90 series [Shtora-2]

Hmm even I am keen to know about the new Shotra-2 counter measure , any detail from you will be nice plus any new development in APS.

a MBT capable to employ APFSDS with 740 mm core length ,equipped -at least in the internal version- with a main gun [2A82] with ballistic capabilities superior to the German L-55 main gun, a more powerful and fuel-efficient engine,

You bet , I am thinking of frontal armour protection of Western Tank with 2A82 and new APFSDS.

new FCS "Kalina" with full day/night panoramic sight

Kalina is impressive too ,Gurkhan mentioned 21 hits out of 22 is guaranteed.

off road terrain limits and ,of course ,significantly reduced probability to hit of enemy APFSDS and HEAT rounds in long range tanks vs tanks mobile engagements .

What do you mean by off road terrain limits sir ?

Can you throw more light on how is the probability to take hit from enemy APFSDS and HEAT round is reduced with new T-90MS

Hmm call me a spoil sport but I think the protection level will be comparable to any modern western tanks like M1A2 SEP , which itself is an achievement for a tank that weight less than 50 T but affords the same protection as a 60 plus ton tank

Austin you are a very informed person ,therefore i image that you are perfectly aware of the huge difference between a figure representing the absolute armoured mass of a particular MBT and ,instead ,the specific armoured mass to surface index of a vehicle ,representing the real level of armoured mass at disposition of that particular platform for protect its internal volume.

As a fatal result you have that for MBTs with 19,6 M3 (Leopard 2 2A5) and 21,3 M3 of internal volume (like the M1A2SEP you have cited) is incredibly difficult to mantain a good armour level coeffcient in respect to one with 11,7 M3 of internal volume like T-90A.
That history of "tank more heavy = better armoured" (predating on a naive,low level, deceiving "common idea") and that the increase in weight and in parasitic volume - two factors deeply influencing negatively almost any other constructive element in a MBT's design - was accepted or even fruit of a deliberate choice among western designers, are as spreaded as completely false.

The first "myth" ,obviously in direct conflict with any stringently rational approach, was an idea selled with the strong "aid" of the results of Gulf War (paradoxically an effect desired and in a certain sense even programmed by the same Soviets !!) where M1A1 Abrams frontal armour was exposed to iraqi...3BM17 APFSDS -the downgraded export version of the 3BM15 round not used in URSS since 1973 even only for training purpose !! - and the M829/M829A1 APFSDS "silver bullet" was successfully employed against .....the armor of the iraqi export versions of T-55 , Type 59/69 ,T-62 and "Lion of Babylon".
The reality is ,as ever, much more simple and ,of course, perfectly in line with the parametrical elements previously mentioned : both Leopard-2 and M1 Abrams programs borned from the ashes of the ambitious MBT-70 project aimed at develop an highly advanced ,mass produceable MBT, including in its design all the foundative elements codifying for a superior tank : low silhouette,small internal volume,low weight (a mass within 50 tons), autoloader and capability to fire both HEAT /APFSDS rounds and long range ATGMs from its main gun ....i know ,i know somewhere you have already heard those characteristics...; but the project failed, mostly for the emormous problems caused by the attempt to integrate in the design too many high risk ,not proved technologies.

After this crucial point, in the by now separate german and american MBT projects, western designer was forced to pay with an horrible spiral of ever increasing weight the handicap of a compromised, makeshift design accepting an huge fraction of parasitic volume.

If you read "Will the USA have a tanks in 2020? " of Lieutenant Colonel Dennis J. Szydlosky of the US Army, you will realize that the immnense weigth and volume of western MBT design is considered by insiders a sort of horrible "curse" deeply affecting operational capabilities of armoured ground forces ,at the point that almost any solution proposed ,even only at level of R&D, have weight as the main development-influencing factor. (you should point the content of some of those serious publiations to Prasun Sengupta,maybe it will feel ashamed to continue to sell the idea that the increase of weight and volume to monstrous levels was a deliberate choice by part of western designers )


I will continue tomorrow (if i will have time before go at work) with the question of Probability to Hit of tanks with saller target area projection in mobile engagements .

A. Tarasenko (uses the nick Baron Harkonen on forums) posted a report on his blog a year or two ago that the Abrams tanks had considerable trouble being moved from one point to the next at a deployment/exercise in Eastern Europe due to it's weight. Only a limited number of bridges were able to handle it's weight and it was found difficult to move on smaller side roads in hilly mountanious terrain. In the end the tanks had to be mounted on rail platforms on several occassions to complete their march.

Mindstorm wrote:
I will continue tomorrow (if i will have time before go at work) with the question of Probability to Hit of tanks with saller target area projection in mobile engagements .

Very interesting Thanks , would like to hear more from you.

I think its not needed in the context of the fact that it carries a low ( 10 ) number of ammo , had it carried 20 or above ammo constituting half or more then half of the total capacity an automated rack would have been necessary or for that one even a simple sliding door approach with integrated welded bustle.

I think they have become focussed on making the turret bustle ammo safe from enemy fire and to that end it needed to be small... which has resulted in it not really being as useful as it could have been.

You talk about weak spots in the turret rear... but the whole turret rear IS a weak spot and putting a large turret bustle actually improves rear turret protection.

If the enemy want to waste ammo trying to shoot at your turret bustle then that is a good thing because even if they hit it all it will do is explode upwards and not injure the crew in any way... the result will be a minor reduction in ready to use ammo.

When you are in a face to face gun fight you don't waste time trying to shoot the spare ammo out of his hand, you shoot to kill and a shot in the hand wont kill.

They have made decisions based on the situation and requirements they were given from their primary customer.

Their decisions solve the fundamental problems of loose ammo in the crew compartment. I would have preferred a more elegant solution, but this one works too.

They don't like turret bustles and never have and I don't think Armata will have a turret bustle either.

In WWII the tanks with turret bustles had HE packs placed under them in combat which often blew the turret off its turret race and rendered the tank fairly useless.

In modern tanks the bustle is often used to offset the increased weight of the gun and turret frontal armour, which is often good for the gun stabilisation gear, and of course to keep ready to use ammo separate from the crew compartment.

MOD wanted more ammo as more is always better and I think 22 is low even if were to be 100 % hit probability.

Any tank destroying 20 targets on a battlefield could certainly do with a short rest...

The T-95 program was paid for by MOD and T-95 had it flaws.

The problem with the T-95 was that it was a cold war design... its main failing was that it was custom designed to meet their exact needs. Now that their needs have changed it no longer meets those needs. You can hardly blame the T-95 or UVZ or the MOD really. It would be very stupid to put into production something that was designed for a conflict that is not likely going to happen.

I think extra thick hatches would be some redesign of turret which is not needed , its a well thought out decision not to have a hatch which would have been simple to do , the sliding door in abrams for ammo has a tendency to jam too.

It is not rocket science. Cut a square hole 30cm by 30cm in the rear turret in line with the gun. Design a hatch that is 40cm by 40cm that is 10cm thick and then wield on a piece of hardened steel that is 30cm by 30cm that is the same depth as the turret at that point. The result is a hatch that is 10cm thicker than the normal turret armour around it and for 10cm around the hole it is also 10cm thicker... with the addition of the automated ammo rack and all the ammo and the structure and fittings and slat armour and tool boxes all protecting the rear turret armour you take what you call a weak spot and make it better protected than the rest of the rear turret armour. The mechanism can be designed to pull out the door the distance equal to its thickness and then slide it sideways while the straight line rammer pushes a round with its support ledge in to the turret to ram a projectile and propellent stub directly into the open chamber of the main gun. The whole assembly retracts and the armoured door slides closed... all automatically and all at the push of a button. That cell on the ammo rack is now empty so the whole mechanism moves around one position so the next round is in line to be rammed... it just takes one push of a button to select the ammo type being carried in the turret bustle to load the next round.

The bustle as designed is far too small to allow a projectile and propellent stub to be stored in line in the bustle so it clearly was not an option anyway.

I was talking in context of rear turret bustle approach of having a bolted and modular design for ammo storage

They could have made the turret bustle totally modular with the outer part bolted on for easy replacement, but with the autoloader part in the middle they could have made it completely removable, so in combat they could have withdrawn to an area where a crane lifts off the old empty bustle and positions a new fully loaded turret bustle autoloader in a minute or two like the Black Eagle was designed to do. The Black Eagle has only a turret bustle autoloader with 31 rounds so it really is not that much different in terms of ready to use rounds.

It can be very useful to useless would depend on the situation , at worst they would have to retreat if the situation does not permit loading of ammo and if not loading 25 % of reserve ammo is leading to a serious situation for them then they are already in deep shit in case of a war.

Probably the tank commander better retreat to fight for another day

The thing is that if you retreat to a safe place to reload... you are only reloading 10 rounds... you can't go back into battle with only 10 rounds!

So the plan is to retreat to a safe place and reload 10 rounds and then retreat further to your support area to reload the rest of the ammo and then drive back into combat...

The AM wont be radically different from MS , from what i get from gur khan blog it will have better protection level and new 2A82 gun , rest remains the same.

Just seems to be half finished to me.

I seriously think that continue to turn over and over around this question of the 10 rounds stored in the rear turret separate compartment is totally pointless and ,overall a detail much less interesting than others; something say to me that, if a T-90AM/MS will ever see the employment in a real conflict, 90% of times this compartment will remain completely empty (maybe also attracting some wasted enemy fire upon it in urban warfare or close range ambush situations) and the remaining times it will mostly contain HE-FRAG rounds because the operative tasks requiring the employment of extra rounds of this type will almost certainly allow also a safe recharging operation outside the MBT by part of the tank's crew.

I agree, and please don't take my childish whining to mean I don't like this new vehicle... I just think it could have been much more with a little extra effort... perhaps what is needed is an export customer to make demands like with the Pantsir-S1, but as it is I think it fixes all the obvious flaws of the T-72/90 design and results in a competitive modern tank.

Think you made a valid point , in all the 50 good thing we humans have the tendency to search for one bad thing and I was now searching for Blow Up Panel for the turret Embarassed may be I need some rest

It doesn't need a blow out panel in the turret roof. The underfloor ammo will have the weak spots underneath so it will have blow down panels and the ammo in the turret bustle is not even part of the turret so it doesn't matter which direction it explodes the crew should be safe... though as a precaution I would insist on the HEAT shells being placed facing backwards in the turret bustle.

The roof hatches are likely the only opening in the turret bustle meaning any internal explosion will go in that direction first. so custom designed blow out panels are unnecessary.

What do you mean by off road terrain limits sir ?

Bouncing across rough country will reduce gun accuracy no matter how good your stabilisers are.

Of course targets travelling across rough ground will also be moving in 3 dimensions which makes for a more difficult target.

My personal view and my final word on this after debating on this on various board is ,the reason why they did not go for a sliding door or bulkhead or what ever they could is because it would create weak spots on the rear part of the turret.

And like in western tank like Abrams where armour protection level is similar for turret bustle like the side/rear protection of turret tanks because bustle is an integral part of turret and a sliding door does not create weak spots becuase the protection level extends to end of bustle but in T-90MS the bustle is a modular structure meant for storage of ammo and it does not enjoy the same protection level as turret.

So for just 25 percent of ammo capability which is 10 rounds there is no need to have a auto loader I would call that over engineering or even a manual sliding door with existing bustle configuration at the cost of crew protection.

I think what the T-90MS and even T-90A/S needs is well designed blowup panel on chasis since it carries ammo inside the turret and even in underfloor autoloader and in case of underfloor autoloader a blow up panel on the side.

Check one of the many Abrams blow up panel on the chasis

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img263/160/1220384467panel.jpg

The other are

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img88/8937/1223857814panels1.jpg

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img18/4524/m1a126of71.jpg

My personal view and my final word on this after debating on this on various board is ,the reason why they did not go for a sliding door or bulkhead or what ever they could is because it would create weak spots on the rear part of the turret.

And like in western tank like Abrams where armour protection level is similar for turret bustle like the side/rear protection of turret tanks because bustle is an integral part of turret and a sliding door does not create weak spots becuase the protection level extends to end of bustle but in T-90MS the bustle is a modular structure meant for storage of ammo and it does not enjoy the same protection level as turret.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

The M1 has a sliding door because it has a human loader and because most of the ammo carried by the tank is in the turret bustle (and it is one piece ammo) the loader needs a large door to reach all the ammo... which doesn't move... it stays where it is put so the loader needs to reach the top left and top right right down to the bottom left and the bottom right and everywhere in between. To reach all those rounds you need a large door and there is no room for it to swing open and closed so it slides like a wardrobe door because the loader doesn't need to access all the ammo at once.

The sliding door creates a weak spot if it is open because there is no protection between the crew compartment and the ammo stored in the bustle.

A sliding door in the T-90 would make no sense at all because there is no human loader with lots of room to stand behind the gun and reach in and grab rounds to manually load them into the gun.

So for just 25 percent of ammo capability which is 10 rounds there is no need to have a auto loader I would call that over engineering or even a manual sliding door with existing bustle configuration at the cost of crew protection.

But that is the point... if you fit an autoloader in the turret bustle, you make it wide enough to carry 18 rounds, which frees up the space between the bottom of the turret and the engine for electronics or other stuff... even room for the larger engine of the Armata family of vehicles. Making the turret bustle longer makes it more vulnerable to enemy fire but it makes almost double the number of ready to use rounds... so a hit the the turret bustle will not impair the combat capability of the tank much except that the longer bustle and the straight ramming method would allow penetrators of almost any length to be used. Straight ramming will be simpler and faster though the ammo will be more vulnerable it will also be potentially much faster and easier to reload as the whole bustle area could be lifted off and replaced while the tank is refuelled and rearmed.

I think what the T-90MS and even T-90A/S needs is well designed blowup panel on chasis since it carries ammo inside the turret and even in underfloor autoloader and in case of underfloor autoloader a blow up panel on the side.

They aren't blow up panels they are blow out panels as their role is to release pressure so that it doesn't get directed in a more dangerous direction (ie towards more ammo or fuel or the crew).

The roof hatches on the turret bustle are the "weak point". In the event of an explosion inside the turret bustle the roof hatches will give way first... it is like an explosion in a house... the windows blow out first and unless it is a really big explosion that might be all that happens... doorways will go next and then possibly the roof might be lifted off the walls.

The point is that the explosion doesn't need to be directed up, it can be directed down too.

Austin wrote:via mp.net

The right arrow in the picture points to where the 8 additional ammo is placed in T-90MS

Thanks Austin,nice picture..

Its not as protected as the turret ones but it has blow off panels and the ammo placement is such that would blow the ammo off away from the turret , keeping the turret safe.

But as Garry said crew have to climb out of the tank and manually transfer ammo from the turret bustle into the tank underfloor autoloader,

Disadvantage ?
or what is the philosophy here ?
[b]

But as Garry said crew have to climb out of the tank and manually transfer ammo from the turret bustle into the tank underfloor autoloader,

Disadvantage ?
or what is the philosophy here ?

Tanks don't operate in a vacuum, so in a desperate fight it might be possible for a tank to drive into an area protected from direct enemy fire (called dead ground as it is not visible to the enemy) and for ammo to be transferred from the bustle into the auto loader in the floor.
The alternative is to leave the battle and head for the rearming and refuelling point in the rear which could take too much time in some situations.

I don't think it would disadvantage the vehicle in the sense that if it is not safe to reload they don't have to do it if it is too dangerous, but they can do it if it is necessary.

details from gurkhan blog on T-90MS Kalina FCS

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/09/t-90ms-tagil-fcs.html

With the T-90 to T-72: Careless operation led to the replacement of equipment

Almost a hundred T-90 tanks in a brigade of the Eastern Military District (TSB), was replaced with a shot to the preservation of the Soviet T-72 tanks. Now, the tankers will have at least a few years to serve on this technique. Replacement of equipment was due to careless operation.

As the representative of the Ministry of Defence, the T-90 were produced from the first party. They were released from the plant in the mid-nineties. At that time there were some problems with spare parts for a new model of the tanks and the tanks of the cars had razukomplektovyvat for the repair of others, and some parts in short supply just stolen.

As a result, a portion of seized tanks will be sent to the factory for repair, the second - in training units.

T-72B tanks, which were produced in the late eighties, was transferred to the army after overhaul and modernization.

Among other things, it is worth noting that the military criticized the T-90 tank as too expensive, "17th modernization of the T-72." Already that year, the Russian Defense Ministry buys 63 to T-90 tank, adding custom services for overhaul and modernization of the armament of the T-72 to the level of T-72BA.

The military did not see the point in buying a large number of new T-90 (original index of T-72BU) at a price of 118 million rubles. per unit, which last year bought 70 million rubles. so instead of buying new "old" tanks, the Defense Ministry decided to increase the pace of modernization are in service T-72 tanks.

To date, the permanent readiness units, there are over two thousand T-72 tanks T-80 and T-90. The next year will be completed by the formation of several parts, and this number will increase to two and a half thousand.


Ksenia Kuznetsova

20 years of no money in the budget for horse care.

Now there is money to spend and they want to spend it... understandibly on the new shiny stuff not the old worn out stuff... not that the T-90s should be old worn out stuff.

Right now the focus seems to be getting upgrades into service while the new stuff is being perfected ready for production.

A lot of the existing stuff will be discarded when the new stuff arrives so perhaps they are neglecting it and working it into the ground.

A good example should not be the T-90s however... the example should be the T-80s which are going to get used till they are worn out and discarded.

It might be cheaper to give a T-90 currently in service an upgrade to T-90AM level than to build a T-90AM from scratch and if it is then the in service T-90s need to be looked after.

Russia wont buy T-90AM will upgrade T-72 at $1.1 million per tank

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/10/72.html

Gur Khan: about modernization of the T-72 is worth recalling that in modernizatsio include: new gun 2A46M-5, five-channel LMS with a view "Pine-U", the engine B-92S2 in 1000l.s., Transmission, gearbox, new digital communications etc.

Bit of a shame, but it is logical as I suggested quite some time ago... when you can get 3/4ths the performance for 1/5th the price it makes sense.

Remember of course a few things... first that T-90SM is an export tank and is still on offer for export.
Second that tanks are a relatively low priority in spending so even when the Armata is in production in 2015 its cost might be 4-5 million per vehicle, while the cost of the T-90AM might have dropped to 2-3 million due to improvements in technology, so now their cost cutting measure is to upgrade rather than buy all new because the Armata is coming.

When Armata is here a good cost cutting option will be that Armata will equip x number of heavy brigades, while the rest will have T-90 type vehicle chassis as standard, so the MBT for those brigades might eventually be T-90AM turrets with further upgraded chassis.

It is all together possible that because the Russian military are happy with the T-90AM turrets but not the chassis they might be waiting for the Armata chassis to buy T-90AM turrets with Armata chassis for production in 2015 onwards as a expensive/cheap tank partnership like the T-80/T-72 and T-64/T-72 before it.

The turret of the T-90AM is pretty much the best you can reasonably do to the T-90AM within the criteria given by the military customer.
It was driven by shot angles which dictated a small bustle. An export customer might want to spend the extra cash and have a fully dual autoloader system as reportedly fitted to the Burlak to allow 22 rounds in the under floor autoloader and 31 more rounds in the turret bustle autoloader based on the Black Eagle design... with another 8 rounds stored between the turret ring and the engine that would mean 61 rounds before needing a reload, and 53 rounds ready to fire.

The weakness in the rear of the turret where the autoloader feeds rounds is not really a weakness as all the rear turret will not stop much more than cannon fire anyway... if the small port for loading ammo is not there the enemy from that position could always target the engine instead for a mobility kill... the ability to intentionally put a round through the entire bustle autoloader and actually manage to get a round through the hole in the rear of the turret would be a miracle shot.
The Black Eagle design had the autoloader removable like a rifle magazine so reloading just involved the existing system to be popped out and replaced with a new full autoloader.
The criticism of the US system burning and destroying the vehicle when the ammo in the turret bustle burns can be overcome simply by having the capability to turn the turret sideways and dumping the external turret bustle autoloader if it catches fire. You still have the under floor ammo to keep fighting and when you go back to reload it will just be a case of a quick inspection and minor repairs and fitting a new full ammo cassette and going back into battle...

Garry, the below press release is interesting and will interest you as it is related to the upgrading of T-72.
Someone had earlier posted the Russian version of this news in this thread. The English version is here below.

http://eng.sozvezdie.su/news/archive1/software_and_hardware_complex_for_armoured/

Software and hardware complex for armoured vehicles in ATCCS complex will be headed by “Sozvezdie”

JSC “Concern”“Sozvezdie” is appointed as the head company for development of unified software and hardware complexes (SHC) for armoured objects operating in ATCCS composition. SHC creation is led within design project “Armata”. The project is realized for AWS design and orientation system of JSC “NKB VS” (Taganrog city) and ZAO “Signal” (Kovrov city). The design project “Armata” is the continuation modernization of ten tanks for 5 separate motor rifle brigades and development of unified SHC for tanks Т-90 and Т-72. The work for equipping T-72 and Т-90 of unified SHC is already realized in “Sozvezdie”. The task of integrating armoured vehicles in ATCCS system is being solved. “Before that tanks sections were independent and now they can be integrated into motor rifle brigade- concern’s designers tell. – Therefore, it is necessary that SHC of armoured objects function in the single system with SHC of different equipment of the brigade ”. “Armata” is supposed to develop in respect of unified SHC creation for ATCCS on new transport base. “Concern” designers need to develop five types of SHC for military equipment family which includes a tank, an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and infantry repair evacuation vehicle (IREV). The works volume is considerable taking into account that software and hardware complex composition includes radio sets, AVSKU, orientation systems and AWS.

The concern future perspectives are to finish the design project “Armata”, conduct state trials and deliver the units to the customer till 2015.

The center of information and public relations
JSC «Concern «Sozvezdie»

>>> The design project “Armata” is the continuation modernization of ten tanks for 5 separate motor rifle brigades and development of unified SHC for tanks Т-90 and Т-72.
The above para from the article is little hard to understand, mainly this --->>> “Armata” is the continuation modernization

What does that mean? Armata is a design/project that is continually evolved from the T-90? I personally don't have a problem with it as my personal opinion is that the basic T-72/90 is a good design and can evolve further.

Even if its the T-72 that is getting upgraded, it should not worry as that maybe cost effective for the Russians. Moreover, the T-72 upgrade (& T-90S upgrade) is having common systems. Or basically what UVZ developed for a complete/thorough upgrade of T-72 earlier are what got into the T-90SM/AM modernization, along with completely new turret for the T-90MS. If the upgrade of T-72 for Russian Army include the new turret then it would be great.

Even from the earlier pictures of the T-72 upgrade we can see few things that is on the T-90MS.
1) the new gun with muzzle reference.
2) rear hull mounted APU
3) armor slope on glacis make it look like it is with Relikt
4) a/c (hope so as it is covered)
5) full cover side skirts & Fence against RPGs

And its highly possible that the upgrade might involve the Kalina FCS & BMS that we see with the T-90MS.









and apology for the large picture (if it is causing trouble), else the barrel tip may not be visible