T-90 Main Battle Tank

Supplies of modernized T-90M tank to military may begin in 2018

The supplies were contracted at the Army-2017 military show, the producer told TASS

NIZHNY TAGIL, September 9. /TASS/. Supplies of modernized T-90M tank to the Russian military may begin in 2018, head of the producing plant, Uralvagonzavod, Alexander Potapov told TASS on Saturday.

The supplies were contracted at the Army-2017 military show. The plant’s representative refused to quote the number of tanks to be supplied.

"We are not disclosing numbers, but we have signed a contract on supplies with the Defense Ministry," he said.

While speaking about possible export of the Terminator AFV (armored fighting vehicle), he said the plant is "open for a dialogue," though added this issue is responsibility of the Federal Council for Military-Technical Cooperation and of the Rosoboronexport defense-export authority. "Of course, we are interested in sales of our products, including AFVs," he said.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/964806

More comments at https://twitter.com/vpkivimaki/status/906629473252122627


Veli-Pekka Kivimäki‏Verified account @vpkivimaki 47m47 minutes ago

Interesting detail on the tower of the T-90M.
(via @Paxeuropaea)

Some more pics of T-90M tank





https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2838794.html

George1 wrote:Some more pics of T-90M tank
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2838794.html

Clearly, the image on the poster is NOT the vehicle being displayed. Is the designation T-90M correct?

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:Some more pics of T-90M tank
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2838794.html

Clearly, the image on the poster is NOT the vehicle being displayed.  Is the designation T-90M correct?  

They probably got the picture wrong, this development seems to be continually evolving. There are many differences between the photo and the tank standing next to it. Earlier T-90M prototype photos had a slat not curtain defence.

Thats T-90A in poster. I think the PR guy meant that, this tank is becoming this or something idk LOL

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:Some more pics of T-90M tank
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2838794.html

Clearly, the image on the poster is NOT the vehicle being displayed.  Is the designation T-90M correct?  

Everybody says check pci below As for T-90M what worries me it does not seem to so much be Proryv 3 with Armata gun ( 2A82-1M) but instead old 2A46M4?

I think the upgraded T-90M (or lets say AM) won't have new gun. Only new built T-90M will get the Armata gun with fume extractor added.

Another thing to note is that the RWS this time seems to be equipped with 12.7mm Kord rather than 7.62x54 PKT.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:

Shouldn't the "Net" be more rigid for it to work against ATGMs?

0nillie0 wrote:Another thing to note is that the RWS this time seems to be equipped with 12.7mm Kord rather than 7.62x54 PKT.

Well Kord is new standard so this is just keeping up with times.

Tingsay wrote:.........
Shouldn't the "Net" be more rigid for it to work against ATGMs?

Not really. It doesn't need to stop it, it just needs to change RPG trajectory angle.

This is why Armata APS will be able to deal with sabot rounds. Everyone thinks it is just advertising because sabot can't be stopped.

And it won't be stopped because you don't need to stop it, you just need to make it wobble a bit and it loses effectiveness.

A net is very efficient at stopping a ball, but if you think about it a penetrator caught in a net it will twist and tangle in the net and that is the best way to stop a penetrator.... apply a twisting or bending force... think of it in terms of hitting a nail in with one hit...any off angle and the nail bends and does not penetrate much at all.

For an ATGM it is the same and in both cases could potentially just shear off the tip... bad for a solid penetrator, and also bad for a missile or rocket with a nose mounted fuse or standoff probe.

Tingsay wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

George1 wrote:

Shouldn't the "Net" be more rigid for it to work against ATGMs?

If it's more rigid the projectile will just tear through immediately with the only force exerted against it being one pushing straight back against it. Only this force would be so miniscule relative to the speed of the projectile that it wouldn't do anything at all.

But a loose net on the other hand will exert only a little force/resistance in the beggining, and an angular one at that as the net will bend inwards and upwards as its pushed. The resistence won't be enough at that point for the projectile to tear the net off or punch through it, but enough to change its angle of attack. As the projectile proceeds furtherthe resistance from the net will increase and the projectile will in the end rip through it.. but by then it will be too late and the projectile would already be angled upwards and sidewards relative to its trajectory.

T-90M at front, T-80BVM behind

The Ministry of Defense disclosed the unique capabilities of the T-90M tank:

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201710190905-m462.htm

The designers managed to maximize the level of the main combat properties of the modernized T-90M tank. This was told in an interview with the "Army Standard" magazine by Russian Deputy Defense Minister Dmitry Bulgakov.

"The upgraded T-90M tank is currently being tested. The machine designers did their utmost to use the modernization potential of the T-90 completely and to maximize the level of its main combat characteristics. In particular, on the firepower of the tank: the tasks of increasing the commander's search and observation capabilities through the installation of a multi-channel panoramic sight have been solved, the probability of hitting targets through the installation of a highly effective fire control system has been increased, "he said.

In addition, Bulgakov noted, the situational awareness of the crew was improved through the installation of an outdoor video surveillance system with a 360-degree view in the sector, a second (independent) cannon was fired from a remotely controlled machine gun, and a loading device was added to accommodate new armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles.

Speaking about security, then, as the Deputy Minister pointed out, the protection of the frontal, side and aft projections of the tank was increased on T-90M by installing a new dynamic defense of Relic and screened screens, the area of ​​weakened zones was reduced and an active protection system was planned.

"In terms of mobility: increased engine power; a rear-view camera is installed; the display complex of the driver-mechanic with the functions of the current control of the technical state of the power plant systems was introduced; a diesel generator set was introduced; installed a programmable heater to ensure start-up of the main engine at negative temperatures, "- said Bulgakov.

As for the part of command controllability, a software and hardware complex was installed on the modernized tank, ensuring its integration into an automated system of tactical control.

"There are also other innovations. We believe that equipping the military formations with the modernized T-90M tank will at least ensure parity with foreign counterparts in the transition period, before reaching the planned level of the mass production of the Armata tank, "the deputy minister concluded.

George1 wrote:

If it's more rigid the projectile will just tear through immediately with the only force exerted against it being one pushing straight back against it. Only this force would be so miniscule relative to the speed of the projectile that it wouldn't do anything at all.

But a loose net on the other hand will exert only a little force/resistance in the beggining, and an angular one at that as the net will bend inwards and upwards as its pushed. The resistence won't be enough at that point for the projectile to tear the net off or punch through it, but enough to change its angle of attack. As the projectile proceeds furtherthe resistance from the net will increase and the projectile will in the end rip through it.. but by then it will be too late and the projectile would already be angled upwards and sidewards relative to its trajectory.

It's not about changing the striking angle of the ATGM/RPG. The little metal blocks at the corner of every one of those net squares is meant to hit the warhead and damage the liner so a shaped charge jet can't form when it detonates. It's basically the same as the QinetiQ Q-Net:

http://qinetiq-na.com/wp-content/uploads/Q-Net_DataSheet_LR.pdf

The "Mantle" system developed by NII STali does the same thing, except it uses fabric instead of netting in order to reduce the RCS and thermal signature of the tank it's mounted on. The fabric is too soft to trigger the fuze of a typical RPG, so it doesn't affect how it works. Based on the size of the squares for the netting on the T-90M, i'd say for certain that it's meant for RPGs only, not ATGMs. There's ERA on the turret, but not on the turret ring, after all. The three links below are about "Mantle".





Images from: http://topwar.ru/87861-proekt-sistemy-dopolnitelnoy-zaschity-bronetehniki-mantiya.html

Always loved Merkavas chains...

First popped T-90A in Syria. This time it's an SAA tank, apparently destroyed by ISIS forces near Deir ez-Zor according to Oryx.

Probly the one that got captured?

AlfaT8 wrote:Probly the one that got captured?

You mean it's the one the SAA recaptured from Nusra?

To damage the shaped charge warhead liner of an RPG so that it can't form a coherent jet when it detonates.

Interlinked wrote:First popped T-90A in Syria. This time it's an SAA tank, apparently destroyed by ISIS forces near Deir ez-Zor according to Oryx.

Any details? Like what ATGM and where it got hit and how many etc.

T-47 wrote:
Any details? Like what ATGM and where it got hit and how many etc.

No details so far.

Isos wrote:
Is it efficient ? Why not put them around the tank like an umbrella if it is good ?

The Swedes tried that, but abandoned it because it wasn't effective.



SAA took inspiration from the Israelis and installed such chains around their tanks, but stopped doing it since around 2014. No idea why, but if I were to guess, I would say that it's not used as an umbrella because chains will flail around when the tank is moving, but slat armour will not. Maybe the Swedes noticed the same problem? When the chains flail around, the size of the gap between each individual chain changes and might be too small to fit an RPG warhead or big enough that it passes through unmolested. Short chains would not flail much whereas longer chains would, so only short chains can be used with some effectiveness, and this would mean that chain + balls are only suitable for small gaps in the tank's protection, like the turret ring.