T-90 Main Battle Tank

sepheronx wrote:Provide me with substantial evidence with official data of both armors, and I will give you + at 12am.

I could care less about a +, it is the truth that matters.

72mm RHA + 12mm Air gap + 3mm RHA + 6mm Rubber + 10mm HHS + 12mm Air gap + 3mm RHA + 6mm Rubber + 10mm HHS + 12mm Air gap + 3mm RHA + 6mm Rubber + 10mm HHS + 12mm Air gap +  3mm RHA + 6mm Rubber + 50mm RHA


That comes from the link I already gave, and is by far the most accurate description of what the T-72B uses, and hence what the T-90A uses as well. 

As for Burlington, it seemingly was improved with the HAP armor package that also included DU.

Glyph wrote:

Mike E wrote:T-90A isn't even in the top 5, to be honest. Then again, there is no such thing as a "best tank", outside of T-14.

How is it not?

Armor to volume, height, turret geometry, available munition, upgraded potential(T-90AM), repair cycle, maximum tactical tempo, etc.

You know, the T-72(on which T-90A is very based on, originally given T-72 with subsequent letter designation), in original domestic variant, within devised concept of operational usage by Soviet planners,

as well in its placement in the force structure and built in numbers by USSR, was the most excellent machine, with a very large margin behind second most excellent, to both fightand win against a strategic world power, seen in the Chilly War.

Upgrade potential doesn't make it a "good tank", it makes it a "smart" one long term. T-90A is an adequate tank, T-90AM is a great one. 

Seph, that was sarcasm if you couldn't tell. 

T-72B3 is a fine upgrade, and if it gets Hawkeye and Relikt, it will be better than the B2 could have even been. B2 lacked a 360 commanders sight and the V-92S2F engine that the B3M has

---------------
Object-188 used an actual T-72B hull, and the T-90 modified it sightly. To you I ask, what else *could it * use?

Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to the use of DU in armor...but like you said, it does improve the armors' performance, at the expense of extra weight. DU itself isn't very radioactive, so the danger comes if it is penetrated, in which case toxic shards of the stuff could be ingested. It also is known to burn very hot, if powdered. 

Not sure if I linked it, but that doesn't matter. The reason there is a dissatisfaction with the vehicle is simple, it was a half-baked upgrade. There were no considerable changes to armor, or the commanders' sight for that matter. That is where, I hope, the next upgrade will come in.

Object-640 itself was half-baked, I'm not even sure they ever actually made a fully-functioning unit. I do like the design though... 

It's doubtful it could hold the A-85-3A, it is a beast of an engine in comparison to the turbines.

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:Object-640 itself was half-baked, I'm not even sure they ever actually made a fully-functioning unit. I do like the design though... 

It's doubtful it could hold the A-85-3A, it is a beast of an engine in comparison to the turbines.

Well, you are right, the Black eagle was half baked as well, but seemed more clear as to what was its intention in design, and would have been an improvement over the base T-80's.  That said, no, they didn't have a full working prototype.  Now the plant is making washers and dryers I think.

UVG owns the design company based in Omsk, and also the former repair facility. I hope they will repurpose it one of these days.

I think a UVG official said they could strip a few "goodies" off of Armata to make it cheaper, though that is doubtful. 

IMHO Russia can afford a few thousand of them, even if they are a bit above $5 million.

Hold your horses guys, ya'll seem to be forgetting a better investment would be to save money on the T-72 upgrades, so you could buy and procure Armata's in large quantities. The B3 upgrade is 'good enough' for a tank that is almost a 50-year old design, it makes very little sense to break the bank on upgrading T-72 and T-90's when the T-14 is almost ready for mass production. The more advanced T-72 and T-90 upgrades could have their place, specifically in the export sales market.

Indeed... why waste money on a deep expensive upgrade of existing vehicles when the replacement is almost ready. A minor upgrade that improves communication and optics so they can train to work in a net centric environment with a battle management system and night vision equipment for all weather day night operations, so when the Armata and other MBTs are ready they will be able to transition to the new vehicles easily.

Regarding T-72BM3s... put modern ERA plus a modern APS and it is every bit as good as any western tank but 20 tons lighter... what is not to like?

Use them foolishly and they will not last long on a battlefield, use them well and they should be able to deal with any enemy.

Once the new vehicles are ready the upgraded T-72BM3s could be passed on to Libya with all classified equipment removed of course.

Lol had a good laugh right now.

T-72B has the same armor as T-90A?

The T-72B had the same armor as the T-90 (1992) later the T-90 (1992) was upgraded with two additional layers of armor for turret and thicker upper glacis armor, which uses till this very day Ceramic plates in its turret armor which we know as the T-90A from a cast turret of round shape two a welded turret in almost diamond shape that uses several ceramic plates and additional material which we do not know. The armor of Obj 188 is not based on T-72B (Obj 172) but on Obj. 187 and its diamond shaped turret armor but improved. The armor LOS of T-72B turret is much lower than the T-90A.

I can't even understand how such garbage can come from you Mike E, since that is usually that is spewed around by Abrams fanboys that equal iraqi Monkey Model T-72M and T-72M1 which were even worse than T-55AV in performance since they lacked things the T-55AV had not to mention Asad Babil made out of mild steel, all that propaganda is used to equal soviet and russian domestic tank models with performance of Monkey Models to have a self evident propaganda of how mighty the Abrams is, which in reality is among the worst tanks just alone due its unbearable logistics, it was not even bearable for the US and by now they are on third place with logistics for ground forces and russia and china out performe the US in logistics by far. The only thing that is identical in armor of the T-90A with T-72B is the side armor and rear armor, not even top armor is the same since the coverage of T-90A ERA of top is far more effecient and the higher amount and better quality of Anti radiation lining that is mounted on top of the turret provides better protection.

It is like saying MBT-70 has the same armor as the M1A2.

Mike E wrote:Lower doesn't mean it is harder to hit anymore, as guns have gotten far more accurate over time. 

As for thickness, generally it is lower than the Western competitors. Turret ranges from ~500 mm to ~900 mm LOS, and the hull is ~630 mm LOS. For comparison, an Abrams turret is almost uniformly ~900 mm LOS, and the hull ~620 mm LOS. It also need be known that Dorchester is a more advanced composite than the Russian NxRA.

It's not too off topic 

Actually the height does matter a bit. Lower parts of the tank was also "covered" by the shape of the ground, by grass, by bushes,... sorry my bad English, but it is harder to aim and hit.

That's why the turret has much thicker armour than the hull.

Abrams turret is not uniform. The front size is very thick. But the rear and the size is relatively thin. Russia once estimated that 30mm of BMP can penetrate the flanks of M1. And M2 Bradley 25mm did penetrate the rear armour.

All are my estimation, but considering the drastic difference between the T-90 and M1 turret, I believe T-90 design saves up a lot of weight and material, and it is not surprise if T-90 armour is thicker.

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:Lower doesn't mean it is harder to hit anymore, as guns have gotten far more accurate over time. 

As for thickness, generally it is lower than the Western competitors. Turret ranges from ~500 mm to ~900 mm LOS, and the hull is ~630 mm LOS. For comparison, an Abrams turret is almost uniformly ~900 mm LOS, and the hull ~620 mm LOS. It also need be known that Dorchester is a more advanced composite than the Russian NxRA.

It's not too off topic 

Wait, how do we know Dorchester is more advanced?  Where did you get that from?  Both are technically classified.  You nor I have the actual data.  Mike, don't make shit up.

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

Mike E wrote:T-90A isn't even in the top 5, to be honest. Then again, there is no such thing as a "best tank", outside of T-14.

Oh really?  That huge engine that the Chinese use is a whole lot of help if it breaks down.  T-90A has active protection that most tanks do not have, Type-99's active defense system doesn't look like it is close to the same.  Engines will produce what, speed?

Well don't get me wrong, the Type isn't up there either. T-90A has Shtora, but it can not really be classified as "an" APS, as it is more similar to a basic defense system.
 
 - T-90A might be top-5, actually, due to the lack of generally high performing MBT's out there.

Yes, it is an APS.  Don't try to change what it is.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtora

Shtora-1[2] is an electro-optical jammer that disrupts semiautomatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) antitank guided missiles, laser rangefinders and target designators. Shtora-1 is a soft-kill, or passive-countermeasure system.

Jesus guys, let this die. Abrmuz or Vludumbir don't really matter as of today. Inherently you could ride a freaking Vespa and have better chances to survive in battle. Look at Iraqis and thei toys. Look at the UAE and these news Leclercs were toasted (allegedly); look at the T64's deemed better than T72 yet recieving a beating from guys in 40 year old Ural trucks. Yes you are fearsome in a tank and yes you can pile up the bodies if properly trained, indoctrinated and supported. Bar that, you're bound to get victimized by bearded men of questionable hygiene and companionship.

Thank you.

Dorchester very impressive, for Western armor  

Fortunately for us, when confronted with reality coinciding with factual findings, this comes to surface.

Jane's International Review n Vol 29, n. 7 July 1996, by Manfred Held

Jane's International Review Vol. 30,n. 7 July 1997 by Leland Ness


I can only wonder what gap exist today.

Glyph wrote:Dorchester very impressive, for Western armor  

Fortunately for us, when confronted with reality coinciding with factual findings, this comes to surface.

Jane's International Review n Vol 29, n. 7 July 1996, by Manfred Held

Jane's International Review Vol. 30,n. 7 July 1997 by Leland Ness


I can only wonder what gap exist today.

Introduce yourself

Werewolf wrote:Lol had a good laugh right now.

T-72B has the same armor as T-90A?

The T-72B had the same armor as the T-90 (1992) later the T-90 (1992) was upgraded with two additional layers of armor for turret and thicker upper glacis armor, which uses till this very day Ceramic plates in its turret armor which we know as the T-90A from a cast turret of round shape two a welded turret in almost diamond shape that uses several ceramic plates and additional material which we do not know. The armor of Obj 188 is not based on T-72B (Obj 172) but on Obj. 187 and its diamond shaped turret armor but improved. The armor LOS of T-72B turret is much lower than the T-90A.

I can't even understand how such garbage can come from you Mike E, since that is usually that is spewed around by Abrams fanboys that equal iraqi Monkey Model T-72M and T-72M1 which were even worse than T-55AV in performance since they lacked things the T-55AV had not to mention Asad Babil made out of mild steel, all that propaganda is used to equal soviet and russian domestic tank models with performance of Monkey Models to have a self evident propaganda of how mighty the Abrams is, which in reality is among the worst tanks just alone due its unbearable logistics, it was not even bearable for the US and by now they are on third place with logistics for ground forces and russia and china out performe the US in logistics by far. The only thing that is identical in armor of the T-90A with T-72B is the side armor and rear armor, not even top armor is the same since the coverage of T-90A ERA of top is far more effecient and the higher amount and better quality of Anti radiation lining that is mounted on top of the turret provides better protection.

It is like saying MBT-70 has the same armor as the M1A2.

And...sources? 

Who says it has two extra plates? Never even heard of anything related to it being thicker.

"The most basic level is the passive protection of hull and turret. It is similar to the protection level offered by the later T-72B. Only difference is a strengthened hull bottom""

http://www.kampfpanzer.de/vehicles/t-72

The only change that came with the welded turret, is the use of titanium...and IIRC, Fofanov said that, without actually verifying it.

No Soviet tanks used ceramics in their turret, outside of the late model Object-478's. There is no evidence suggesting the T-90A does either. 

T-90A turret is based on Object-187, but the HULL is based on the Object-188, which in turn used a T-72B armor layout. The only armor change was an increased floor thickness, so the LOS will be the same. 

You can suggest otherwise, but please list some sources, or something.

T-90A in Dagestan, Gimry, firing at terrorists in mountain.

http://vk.com/video277246583_171643701?hash=e99d7a4a4a0b5389

It is rather clear that any serious military technology advantage of the USA over the USSR and now over Russia is cold war
relic propaganda. Some aspects and systems my have some advantage, but none that is overwhelming. And the same can
be said for Russian systems. Fighting Iraq proves zero about US superiority.

People should be careful to weed out the misinformation from their "knowledge". The information war achieves spectacular
results: your whole reference frame is constructed by it. I will mention the alleged superior accuracy of US ICBMs over Soviet
(and hence Russian) ICBMs. This is such unphysical rubbish but it is accepted wisdom. The USSR had solid state laser
gyroscopes by the late 1960s. You would think they only had mechanical gyros until the 1990s.

OT: I can't see the vast superiority of the Abrams in any form. It takes effort to fantasize that there is some vast superiority.
The discussion in this thread highlights this aspect quite well. Once you are down to arguing over ERA particulars the game
is over.

Russian Defense Ministry Plans to Upgrade Main Battle Tanks
20:49 09.09.2015(updated 20:52 09.09.2015)

More Here: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150909/1026794045.html

Russian Defense Ministry is planning to upgrade about 400 T-90 tanks which are in service with the Russian Armed Forces, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said Wednesday.

NIZHNY TAGIL (Sputnik) — The T-90 is the main battle tank currently in service with the Russian Army. It has been adopted by the Russian Armed Forces in the mid-1990s.

"We have got about [T-90] 400 tanks, which were ordered in the early 2000s. Some 12-15 years have passed since then. They need to be updated. Therefore, we are considering modernization of the tank park," Borisov told reporters at the RAE-2015.

Russia is currently pursuing a $325-billion rearmament program to modernize 70-percent of its military by 2020.
A T-90A main battle tank

The Defense Ministry will start to consider the issue "seriously" in 2016, Borisov said, adding that the task will be accomplished within current rearmament terms.

In 2011, the Russian Armed Forces stopped ordering the T-90, relying increasingly on the development of the advanced next generation Armata Universal Combat Platform that is expected to enter service in 2016.

Look like 400 T90 go

Eh, I was right all along. 

Thanks Book!

do we know any upgrade package for T-90?