T-90 Main Battle Tank

Don't know about US practise but most other places they normally use practise rounds and also fire off a few old stock rounds to give the crews experience in handling the real thing... or are those 400 flight hours per year for USAF pilots all on the simulator?

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

Clearly shows they have both Uranium and Tungsten APDSFS rounds and that the current best known is not DU.

The German military decided to fit a longer gun to their tanks to equalise the difference in performance.

The US has upgraded the performance of its rounds to match the improved performance, but the improved gun improves performance of all rounds fired through it, so the Germans can have better performance simply by using the improved US rounds if that were necessary.

You really don't know anything about "experience" do you? Flying in a plane for 400 hours, doing maneuvers, and occasional firing missiles gives you experience. It doesn't matter what the missile is or does as it's LOAL, and thus, is mostly care free for the pilot.

Same can be said for a Tank crew. Driving a tank, doing maneuvers, and occasionally firing rounds gives you experience. It doesn't matter what the round is or does as the ballistic computer compensates for all the rounds the tank can fire, thus ensuring accuracy as long as the Gunner ain't an idiot.

Anyways, if you knew anything about Tanks, you'd realize that the Soviet DU APFSDS were very "Russian", short and fat. Penetrator design, like I've said plenty of times, contributes more to penetration than sheer muzzle energy or penetrator material contributes. That's not to say shooting something at the speed of light or making the penetrator out of Admantanium won't improve it's penetration, but generally speaking, a long, thin, dense and hard, fast and accurate APFSDS is what to look for. So far the Russians are getting close to Western APFSDS but are still a ways off.

That's not to say shooting something at the speed of light or making the penetrator out of Admantanium won't improve it's penetration, but generally speaking, a long, thin, dense and hard, fast and accurate APFSDS is what to look for. So far the Russians are getting close to Western APFSDS but are still a ways off.

Amusing you talk about long and thin being the only solution...

It is a western solution... common sense would dictate that that solution was arrived at after studying the problem... which would be Russian Armour structures.

Couldn't possibly be that the Russians come to a different solution because they are not trying to penetrate Russian Armour structures but western armour structures... which are different...

I remember reading research done in the west about the impossibility of an effective rocket propelled torpedo because the amount of thrust required exponentially increased drag and was therefore wasted energy that limited the speed of the weapon to levels already achieved with other propulsion methods.

The paper was obviously written before Shkval was revealed to the west.

...but of course if western experts think it can't be done it must be impossible or wrong.

BTW 200 years ago the very idea of an energy weapon that could be used to kill someone was preposterous because the energy needed to kill someone at a distance would surely kill the person using it first.

[quote="GarryB"]

That's not to say shooting something at the speed of light or making the penetrator out of Admantanium won't improve it's penetration, but generally speaking, a long, thin, dense and hard, fast and accurate APFSDS is what to look for. So far the Russians are getting close to Western APFSDS but are still a ways off.

Amusing you talk about long and thin being the only solution...

It is a western solution... common sense would dictate that that solution was arrived at after studying the problem... which would be Russian Armour structures.

Couldn't possibly be that the Russians come to a different solution because they are not trying to penetrate Russian Armour structures but western armour structures... which are different...

I remember reading research done in the west about the impossibility of an effective rocket propelled torpedo because the amount of thrust required exponentially increased drag and was therefore wasted energy that limited the speed of the weapon to levels already achieved with other propulsion methods.

The paper was obviously written before Shkval was revealed to the west.

...but of course if western experts think it can't be done it must be impossible or wrong.

BTW 200 years ago the very idea of an energy weapon that could be used to kill someone was preposterous because the energy needed to kill someone at a distance would surely kill the person using it first.

Ha nope. Western armor technologies have in fact, surpassed Soviet technologies. They both feature pretty much the same types of multi-layered arrays, but the Russians generally use Mass-effective materials while the West uses Thickness-effective materials. Generally speaking, yes, a long, thin, and DU penetrator will fair far better than some short and fat DU penetrator v.s. muli-layered arrays. The only reason to have short and fat penetrators would be against ERA, but after that's dealt with, the penetrator becomes far more degraded v.s. the main armor than a long and thin one doing the same thing. Hell, DU in fact, is the best material to use v.s. ERA, as it's resistance to the sheer forces (which is ERA like K-5's main kill mechanism) is what allows it to safely defeat said ERA. Simply said, the Russians have came to the same conclusion that they need longer and skinnier and denser/harder rounds, there's nothing wrong with that, but they're still behind.

Or is it the west that is behind?

Tank on Tank warfare is actually very rare and most of the time a tank is not dealing with enemy tanks it is dealing with other threats and problems.

Air power is a much greater threat to a Tank than another tank is, and there are plenty of tactics that can be applied when facing different threat level tanks.

The basic and simple reality is that Russia wont be facing Western tanks in combat any time soon, the greater threat is from former Soviet Republics and the Chinese.

NATO tanks will be dealt with using tactical nukes.

Very interesting test done on T-90 and T-80 with K5 ERA and RPG-29 has penetrated the frontal arc of T-90 tank with ERA

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

Right now i would not speculate on what Armata , Boomerang and Typhoon could come with unless they officially show it and its still few years from now.

Right now they should buy T-90AM which is a good tank and they should promote it actively to armies around the world , countries that use T-72 and T-80 can be one big customer base for T-90AM as it really matches western MBT on all paramaters and its cheaper compared to them , so its really a great opportunity and they should not loose it.

They should buy 500 off T-90AM so that its easier to promote it as it is operated by host army which gives the customer confidence and then try to promote to IA which is a big customer of T-90.

If they do small things right then they have good chance to export T-90AM globally till such time by end of decade Armata is available for export and is mass produced.

Very interesting test done on T-90 and T-80 with K5 ERA and RPG-29 has penetrated the frontal arc of T-90 tank with ERA

That test was a decade ago and likely applied to the T-90, not the T-90A which entered production in late 1999 and would have been called T-90A at the time.

Right now they should buy T-90AM which is a good tank and they should promote it actively to armies around the world , countries that use T-72 and T-80 can be one big customer base for T-90AM as it really matches western MBT on all paramaters and its cheaper compared to them , so its really a great opportunity and they should not loose it.

It would appeal to current users of the T-72, but not so much the users of the T-80 as it is a rather different tank with different components even if it looks similar from the outside.
For users of the T-80U they could offer an upgrade package based on the V-99 1,200hp engine. A drop of 50HP but a huge increase in torque and large reduction in fuel consumption and operating costs... plus a few thousand extra vehicles for service or cannibalisation.


What do you make of this:

Isaikin also sees a new opportunity for expanding Russian sales with the introduction of a new type of armored vehicle for the army — referred to as the Machine — for the support of tanks in the battlefield. He described it as a highly protected and heavily armed vehicle that can survive threats from mines and anti-tank missiles. It would interact with main battle tanks to clear the way for mainstay forces in the battlefield, he said.
“Russia has developed prototypes of such a vehicle. The use of such systems will allow
a reduction in loses of personnel, and that’s the most important factor for any army.”
During recent conflicts in Afghanistan, Iran and Lebanon, “classic” tanks — even
the heavily-protected Abrams and Merkava — fell prey to anti-tank systems, and not
even necessarily the most advanced missiles available. If the new vehicle finds customers, it will help UralVagodZavod — the largest Russian manufacturer of tanks — to survive the current business crisis that has badly hit this huge enterprise. “UVZ has orders, and talks with foreign customers are ongoing on further contracts for the plant,” Isaikin explained.

Anti tank missile proof and protected from mines. An armoured vehicle that helps tanks on the battlefield, and performs roles infantry lose soldiers doing...

Sounds like BMPT but it is mentioned in airfleets 2011 no.1 issue.

http://www.airfleet.ru/files/shaman/airfleet/Airfleet-2011-1%20light.pdf

On page 51.

The protected from mines comment is something I have never seen associated with the BMPT however. Is this an upgraded design with new requirements?
The mine protection is certainly new... have they added mine scoops/rollers?
What other specs have changed?

GarryB wrote:That test was a decade ago and likely applied to the T-90, not the T-90A which entered production in late 1999 and would have been called T-90A at the time.

May be but that takes nothing from RPG-29 and T-90 duel which it could penetrate breaking K-5 ERA , thats really WoW , a mobile RPG could penetrate frontal protection of a good tank.

I have herd of RPG-29 doing exceptionally well against Israel Merks , Do you know or have any performance figures of Merck versus RPG-29 ?

I read Israel was so frustrated with RPG-29 and Kornet that they actually flew in to Russia with the evidence on Kornet missile which they say was procured from Syria and told russia to stop its sale to Syria.

It would appeal to current users of the T-72, but not so much the users of the T-80 as it is a rather different tank with different components even if it looks similar from the outside.
For users of the T-80U they could offer an upgrade package based on the V-99 1,200hp engine. A drop of 50HP but a huge increase in torque and large reduction in fuel consumption and operating costs... plus a few thousand extra vehicles for service or cannibalisation.

I think T-90AM assuming it cost around ~ $4 Million would still appeal to all those who seek to replace ( not upgrade ) T-72 , T-80 since this is the first tank that can take on any western heavy and have isolated the key problem of ammo and crew , plus many new stuff in there.

I just hope they market it aggresively as logical replacement for T-72 and T-80 , but heck there are still many countries that would vouch for upgraded T-72 ,80 , 90 , BMP.

Sounds like BMPT but it is mentioned in airfleets 2011 no.1 issue.

Yes its BMPT , I have a feeling they would port the existing BMPT configuration with improvement to the much bigger Boomerang Chasis and like Coaltion-SV the BMPT project will continue development and is not killed

May be but that takes nothing from RPG-29 and T-90 duel which it could penetrate breaking K-5 ERA , thats really WoW , a mobile RPG could penetrate frontal protection of a good tank.

The RPG-29 is a very powerful individual weapon but it has the same limitation of the old Bazooka. It is a 105mm calibre tube so larger diameter warheads are simply not possible.

Multiple full calibre warheads are difficult due to weight problems... heavier rocket warheads need more powerful rocket motors or have shorter ranges.

There are small mechanical devices that are attached to the sight mount on an RPG-7 that adapts the original optical sight and increases its elevation so 105mm rockets can be fired to greater ranges. ie without the device the 105mm rocket similar to the round fired by the RPG-29 has a range of 200m. With the device fitted the range is 500m.
The thing is that in the disposable RPG rocket range the RPG-27 has the same warhead and rocket as the RPG-29 at 105mm with a large precursor charge for ERA.
The RPG-28 is a very big disposable rocket but fires a 125mm calibre warhead... the penetration of a HEAT is generally given as a ratio of the warhead calibre because along with the material used in the warhead lining the diameter determines penetration performance.

Personally I think the RPG-32 shows the most promise in being a multi calibre system using both 105mm and 72mm rockets. An RPG-33 hypothetical rocket system with sight and ballistic system that could use 72mm, 105mm and 125mm and larger rockets would be an extremely powerful weapon system that is flexible and capable. Being unguided it is fire and forget but with a decent range finder and ballistics system in the sight it could be reliably accurate if used properly.

Edit: I should add that they are working on guided rounds for the RPG-32 which would be interesting too. Perhaps a cheap diving top attack model analogue to Javelin?

I have herd of RPG-29 doing exceptionally well against Israel Merks , Do you know or have any performance figures of Merck versus RPG-29 ?

Not much really except that they were a real threat.

I think T-90AM assuming it cost around ~ $4 Million would still appeal to all those who seek to replace ( not upgrade ) T-72 , T-80 since this is the first tank that can take on any western heavy and have isolated the key problem of ammo and crew , plus many new stuff in there.

The problem is that most T-72 operators are not rich and previously relied on hand outs or freebies. I think for many a small purchase of T-90AMs and a much larger upgrade of existing T-72s plus more T-72s from Russia will likely be the most common transaction. For many operators facing new western tanks is rather unlikely and an upgraded T-72M1M has something like 80% of the performance for 20% of the cost.

I just hope they market it aggresively as logical replacement for T-72 and T-80 , but heck there are still many countries that would vouch for upgraded T-72 ,80 , 90 , BMP.

The issue is that if all goes to plan the Russian Army will have a lot of orders to keep UVZ busy, and the work UVZ does to build new and to upgrade existing vehicles will release a lot of vehicles that are no longer needed by the Russian Army. It might be a political decision to release thousands of T-72s for export, or to offer them for free to allies as rewards for orders of other products... with the potential for future sales of parts and support. By offering T-72s it means there is more to offer for upgrades and the effect locally will be minimised in terms of arms races. For instance Venezuela buying T-72M1M tanks doesn't sound as threatening as Venezuela buying T-90AM tanks... even though the T-72M1M is just an upgrade away from 90% of T-90AM performance.

Shame the Iraqis are getting Abrams as that would have been a huge market for T-72s... which would perform much better with Catherine thermals and newer ammo options.

Afghanistan could be the ideal place to donate a few thousand T-54/55s and T-62s with modest armour upgrade packages.

Yes its BMPT , I have a feeling they would port the existing BMPT configuration with improvement to the much bigger Boomerang Chasis and like Coaltion-SV the BMPT project will continue development and is not killed

I hope they change from the twin 30mm 2A42 cannon armament to something more substantial with a 100mm rifled or 120mm gun/mortar weapon in addition to a 30mm gun and proper front mounted gun turrets with better fields of fire.

The Ataka is a good missile but such a vehicle will need to deal with more than four point targets before reloading. The standard load of the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 includes 4 laser beam riding missiles plus about 34 HE shells.

If size is an issue then even an external mount with a belt fed automatic 82mm mortar like the Vasilek would do. The fact is that a target beyond about 5km that needs to be hit right away like an ATGM team or hard point even at the top of a building a 125mm HE frag shell from a tank will do the job. The real problem is threats that are much closer that the 125mm guns of tanks can't elevate to engage so an 82mm calibre externally mounted gun/mortar with a belt feed and perhaps 120 rounds in an armoured turret bustle loader could engage targets at very close range and high up in tall buildings or on steep cliffs nearby and with rounds in the 3-4kg range the hitting power should be good enough for most targets. The low velocity should be good for dropping rounds over frontal cover and hitting targets behind buildings and vehicles and structures.
The 12-14km range of the 120mm gun/mortar with gun rounds and mortar shells and guided missiles would be first choice, but the 100mm gun with HE Frag rounds to 7km and guided missiles to 6km would also be a good choice, and if they were not possible then the 82mm gunmortar would be lower because currently AFAIK there are no guided round programs for 82mm calibre weapons... perhaps it lacks payload for a reliable fuse, guidance and control surfaces to manouver the round onto the target AND a good warhead payload in that calibre.

I just think in the original design the 30mm calibre weapons are useful for what they are useful for (ie in the BMP-2) but not useful for other tasks that require heavier shell weight where rate of fire is not so important as shell weight (BMP-1/BMP-3).
I also see the 30mm grenade launchers in the front corners of the hull and I think of the tiny front claws of T Rex flailing around but not actually being useful for very much because of their limited range of movement. Ironically with the GPD-30 grenades they have a reach of 2.1kms so the lack angle of fire, not range of fire... but then to reach 2.1kms they would need to elevate to at least 45 degrees and I don't know if they can in the BMPT design revealed so far.

Not related to russia but found out there is IA RFI that would want to upgrade their existing BMP-2/2K TO BMP-2M standards and guess what the RFI asks for exactly what the two link shows you , So we would eventually have a BMP-2M upgrade

That is excellent news... I am very glad this model will see service.
The Kornet is a step above the AT-3 and AT-4 and AT-5 missiles previously used on BMPs.

With no trailing wire it can be fired on the move which greatly increases the survivability of the launching vehicle.

Also because it does not drag a wire the missile flys at significantly higher speed which greatly reduces the time the opposition has to dive for cover.

Will be interesting to see what sort of terminal seeker they are working on for the Kornet and Krisantema... your Army will likely be interested in at least buying a few fire and forget models in addition to the beam riding models.

This upgrade was proposed in the early 2000s and was included in a book I have from 2004 though it didn't have a name then.

Here is the manufacturers page on the subject:

http://kbptula.ru/eng/bron/light/bmp2.htm

Enemy helos will have a much more difficult time with this vehicle driving around with modern thermal sights it can fire its Kornet missiles on the move on the darkest night at targets 5.5km away.

Also keep in mind the extra work for UVZ.

In a current heavy brigade there are tanks and IFVs and APCs and all sorts of chassis including the chassis for Tunguska and TOR etc.

Once the Armata design is finalised then they will need to make Armata chassis for most of the armoured vehicles in the heavy brigade... not just the tanks... and seeing as how lighter armoured vehicles outnumber tanks usually by 8-10 to one that is a lot of extra vehicles.

Using tank numbers as a rule of thumb with about 2,000 tanks in operational use and about 5-6,000 in reserve that is a lot of extra vehicle chassis that need to be built.

Other armour factories will be busy too with the medium and light brigades no doubt needing tens of thousands of vehicles, not to mention new vehicles for interior ministry forces and border patrol though they will likely benefit from a wide choice of BTR-82 vehicles and recently upgraded other BMP models.

Something on Ammo Storage of T-90AM

http://zelezki.ru/articles/1690-moderniz.html

In developing the UBM a very important aspect of raising survivability of crew, UBM and tank as a whole was taken into consideration. For that purpose, the ammunition is divided into three groups. Two groups are located within the tank in the least hit zones: mechanized group is located in the autoloader conveyor in the lower part of the hull (22 pieces), non-mechanized group - near the transmission cover. The third group of ammunition (10 rounds) is put into a isolated compartment located in the rear of the turret. This ammunition is used to supplement the AL conveyor and the non-mechanized ammunition.

Some interesting information from Damian90 on T-90

T's are offensive design and build for manouver warfare link

T-90 protection level similar to Western Type link

Well I was rather suspicious towards T-90AM having isolated compartments for munition but now this settles it at 10 with other 22 being in safe within hull at autoloader conveyor. Perhaps thats batter than in having all round in one isolated compartment.

Half of the problem is that western countries invade third world countries operating Soviet anti tank weapons from the 1970s.

The Russians have had to confront Chechen forces who... due to conscription probably all served in the Soviet Armed forces and were military trained, who were supplied by local military depots recently ransacked with pretty new and capable weapons which they were likely trained to use.

Add a bit of incompetence like going to war with no explosive in your ERA blocks and having ammo in the crew compartment and all of a sudden you get a very bad impression of the gear.

Some dick head who happens to be a general blames the design only... when in actual fact there were lots of things that could be blamed... like security measures at weapon and ammo storage sites, the way armour was misused, and of course the "error" of "forgetting" to load the ERA block properly.

The second Chechen conflict showed that against the same trained people with largely the same kit but used rather more sensibly (ie don't send armoured columns into cities like they are on a parade, plus only put ammo in the autoloader and not loose rounds in the crew compartment) and the results were quite different.

I have herd of RPG-29 doing exceptionally well against Israel Merks , Do you know or have any performance figures of Merck versus RPG-29 ?

[quote]

If I remember correctly, in Iraq in two cases RPG-29 penetrate frontal armor of British Challenger 2 tank and one driver lost his leg because of it and Challengers 2 frontal armor is not weak, but is one of the strongest in the World.

Much as I like weapons I feel no joy in seeing them used... just a terrible waste really.

Not to mention the DU armour of the Abrams becomes incredibly dangerous in a fire because the DU burns and the resulting ash is fine enough to be ingested... see a burning Abrams... run away and don't go anywhere near it.

Having said that I remember during the Chechen conflict the western news agencies were falling over themselves to get footage of dead Russian soldiers and it was only after some footage of dead American soldiers were put on TV that there was a change in policy over playing such film.

Bad news for the T-90AM:

http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/quoting-tolya/

Tanks for Nothin’

“We met the designers who proposed their preliminary work to us. 60 percent of what was proposed is old work. Therefore, we still declined these proposals.”

“Now it’s more expedient to modernize our country’s tank inventory than to buy new ones, for example the T-90.”

So upgrades but no significant new build tanks... till presumably Armata is ready in 2015.

Makes financial sense for the army I guess, but I would think keeping UVZ working is more healthy than saving some money in the short term.

I guess an overhaul of all the tanks they will have in storage and operational would mean an upgrade for 7-8,000 tanks which should be enough to keep UVZ busy till 2015... if they even bother with that.

I dont think its bad news , the T-90AM is being developed taking into account Army view on what needs to be improved on existing T-90A , its not a private development but one that has the army feedback to it.

You will perhaps see in September they would demonstrate the T-90AM and would order those machine , what they would stop ordering is older T-90A or other modification.

The upgrade of older tanks , I presume T-72 and T-80 is good news.

Garry a rare video of RPG-29 blowing up M1A2 in Iraq

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1e_1263769845

Now the next video is of frontal hit where it has not done much damage except to what looks like some damage to guns

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fcc_1304114951

We are having discussion here link

Regarding Abrams hits... I find it amusing that some criticise the latest Russian Kornet and RPG-29 for not demolishing an Abrams from the front... especially after reports the US attempts to destroy immobilised Abrams tanks with Hellfire and even Maverick were not overly successful either.

RPG-29 was developed in the late 1980s and normal tactics with AT weapons is to ambush the tanks from the side or rear anyway.

There is a reason why Javelin is a top attack weapon... frontal armour is generally effective for most Heavy vehicles.

Regarding the other matter hopefully existing T-90s will be upgraded to T-90AM standard as the extra electronics for the BMS will need to be fitted to all vehicles for it to be effective.

Upgrading T-72s and T-90s makes sense but how can you justify spending on T-80s with their thirsty engines and largely foreign component base. I suspect a large sale to the Ukraine and South Korea and Cyprus might be on the cards... that would be a good use for them and the money earned and saved could be used on upgrading more T-72s.

GarryB wrote:Regarding Abrams hits... I find it amusing that some criticise the latest Russian Kornet and RPG-29 for not demolishing an Abrams from the front... especially after reports the US attempts to destroy immobilised Abrams tanks with Hellfire and even Maverick were not overly successful either.

IIRC, the first video, the PG-29 whacked the turret and killed the gunner, but did not set off the ammunition (obviously). The second video, the PG-29 whacked the DU, so, no hope there.

Suppose to be the new T-90AM

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img828/434/f8c6a301f0febb9720cd125.jpg

check this thread http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=406&p=20

Interesting.

The Commanders panoramic sight is fitted behind and above the commanders position and appears to have an MG position fitted to it.

The gunners sight is mounted in front of the gunners hatch and there appear to be at least three distinctive poles around his hatch too.

Wind sensor + attachment for a 50 cal? + mount for sensors for ARENA-2?

The grenades are of a low angle which suggests they are designed to set up a smoke screen further away from the tank.

There is clearly some sort of sensor replacing a cell of ERA next to the main gun barrel... seems to be a laser sensor.

There is clearly a turret bustle though it is clearly shaped to minimise its visibility from the front.

ERA and rail protection seem better layed out and appear to offer better coverage especially of the turret front area.

Looks good to me so far, though I would be interested in new ammo developed and new active protection defence systems but I suspect they are in no hurry to divulge that sort of stuff any time soon.

Considering that the new T-90AM upgrade includes all sorts of new electronics like a BMS which presumably includes data transmission equipment and data link stuff I would have thought that this upgrade would have been necessary to complete before completion of the other upgrades for T-72s for example.

Assuming a total of around 6,000 tanks including in service and in ready storage, along with the production of Armata in 2015 it would seem to me that the best way to spend money right now would be small scale production of T-90AM to allow production facilities to be used, manufacturing facilities to retain staff and of course to get net centric capable vehicles into service so that units can start practising operations using data sharing.

They can refine the design and improve systems with real practise, but making the 5,000 odd T-90AMs would be too expensive, so perhaps making 500 T-90AM tanks might be a goal for the next 5 years (ie 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) which works out at 100 tanks a year... now that might sound like a lot, but in 2015 they are supposed to have Armata ready and each heavy brigade is going to need all tank chassis so that is going to need extensive production facilities. 2011 is mostly through so for the years 2012 to 2015 that is 120 tanks per year, but perhaps it can be better scaled so perhaps 30, 60, 160, 250, with 2016 changing to Armata chassis at perhaps 200 that year and then doubling or tripling for the next few years.
In addition they could also be upgrading existing T-90s to T-90AM standard because unless all the in service tanks have the BMS and extra electronics and communications stuff then net centric really doesn't work the best if half your tanks are not part of the system.
And of course the remaining 5,000 tanks will need to be upgraded T-72s.

The alternative is to do nothing till 2015 which may make starting full scale production of Armata difficult as there will be little capacity to work with heavy armour by then if they have done little work till 2015.

I think the best compromise is to produce a few T-90AMs to upskill the workforce and get it working and also get the Russian Army used to using tanks with that sort of C4IR equipment fitted, plus upgrade a few thousand T-72s because that upgrade should be relatively cheap yet will be good for the UVZ in terms of work force and tooling to get the max number of tanks into service between now and 2015. By 2015 of course they should have about 1,500 T-90AM or equivalent tanks plus perhaps 2,000-3,000 upgraded T-72s, so the Armata vehicles can be put straight into mass production and replace the 2,500 odd T-80s that will have still soldiered on with minimal upgrades and of course the Armata will be replacing Msta and BMP and BTR and other vehicles in the heavy brigades.

One could argue that to get Armata tanks into service quickly that BTR-T vehicles to replace BMP and BTR troop transports could be built with upgraded older tank chassis, but I suspect that it would make more sense logistically to create Armata brigades as one with all Armata chassis to reap the benefits of the same chassis within the unit as they become ready in sufficient numbers.

Certainly the medium and light brigades will be both cheaper to equip and to operate in the field. They will likely be produced faster and in greater numbers too.

Each of the four military districts will likely get a certain number of heavy brigades each and larger numbers of lighter units too, as well as specialist units where appropriate... like mountain and Arctic units.

Can T-90 face the new american M829E4 (A4) ,some articles said no ,including russian ERA will be defeated using that 120mm cartridge.

E4 is designed to defeat hit to kill APS and any ERA out to 4km.

I doubt anyone could give you the right answer there.

At what range?

At what angle?

Do we assume perfect workmanship on the part of the maker of the ammo or the tank or both?


The penetration figures for penetrators are generally given as equivalent penetration of steel armour plate.

A modern tank has anything but plain steel armour plate.

The problem is that each protection solution is met with a penetration solution and vice versa and the various combinations don't translate well.

Think of it this way:

I have an armoured car with 5mm thick steel armour plate and you have a standard rifle with standard ball ammo and you decide to work out whether your bullets will penetrate my armoured car without actually getting your hands on one of my armoured cars of course.
You test your ammo and find that at no range will your rifle ammo penetrate so you need to develop new types of ammo or go for a bigger gun.
Lets say you go for the cheaper option of new ammo and you develop a high velocity full calibre round with a hardened tip and penetrator core that will penetrate the armour of my vehicle from 800m.
I learn about your new ammo so I adopt some add on armour plates that cover the vulnerable areas of my vehicle. The armour plates are spaced out from the original armour and tend to make your full calibre penetrators yaw and greatly reduce their ability to penetrate the remaining armour. You develop a new type of penetrator that does not yaw so I have to go for heavier armour.

The point is that you don't want to go to the expense of a new calibre if you don't have to, and I don't want to increase weight because that also means new suspension and transmission and new engine to get that mobility back.

The point is that now that you are using long rod penetrators of a known material and a specific velocity I can work out what sort of arrangement of barriers I can erect to stop them in the front 60 angle of the tank at least.

An important point often currently missed by western defence experts now is that the commander of a T-90 equipped with all the bells and whistles is better off than an Abrams commander simply because Nakhidka will reduce the range at which the Abrams commander can see the T-90 to the point where it will be like Desert Storm... except in reverse.