T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

Road range for the T-72 and T-90 is about 500km or so I believe...

Refueling will be a big issue during war.

Rearming too... no value in having fuel if you don't have any ammo...

Refuel trucks can't be protected by air defence systems 24/7 or against enemy spetanaz attacks.

If Russia was planning to invade Europe then that would be a huge issue... but I would expect support units would be protected by air defence forces, just like other ground units are protected by them....

If HATO wants to piss away its special forces attacking logistics chains that is ok... I doubt Russia plans to advance deep into EU territory and then hold it... more likely to use armour to blunt an attack and then rocket and missile attacks into HATOs rear areas and command and control and communication centres...

Russias ability to defend from drones attacks is probably significantly better than HATOs... but HATOs real problem will be working out how to take their air conditioned temperature controlled tents for storing Leopard tanks so their electronics don't fail...

It is more variable than that... Russian tanks have APU upgrades so that if they are sitting somewhere for a long period they can run the APU rather than running the main engine which of course saves a lot of fuel as even in idle a big diesel burns a lot of fuel... but if you are in a tank to run all the electronics in the cold weather you need power.

Figures for the T-72A, t-72S, and T-90S are 180, 182, and 156 g/hp.h, with their HP ratings being 780, 840, and 1,000.

In comparison to the gas turbine of the T-80, the GTD-1250, the fuel figures are 225 g/hp.h and 1,250hp.

That means running at full power for a continuous hour the T-72A burns 180*780 per hour... about 140 litres of fuel per hour, T-72S burns 182 * 840... or about 152 litres of fuel an hour, T-90S burns about 156 litres per hour, and the T-80 burns about 282 litres of fuel an hour.

Of course even moving cross country it wont be running at full power top revs, but that is the most fuel the engines would burn running at full power.

It is funny that things like fuel and ammo are not often considered... during operation barbarossa a lot of the Soviet tanks hadn't been supplied with armour piercing rounds... sounds crazy now...

There is something off about those numbers. They cannot possibly apply to any diesel at idle. Trucking would go bankrupt if
diesel engines sucked over 100 liters per hour. Large truck engines are not that far removed from the ones in the tanks.
Even a 1000 hp diesel will consume very little fuel at idle. And tanks will not be endlessly maxing the engines. It will be
stop go and wait and go again. They probably will turn off their engines if they are sitting in ambush or acting like howitzers.

So those numbers are for full hp and engines do not run at full hp for long. Transmissions are part of the fuel savings.
Diesel engines achieve peak torque at relatively low rpm. The maximum hp rating is for the highest rpm. Using a gasoline
engine for towing sucks since you need to run at very high rpm and guzzle fuel.

There is something off about those numbers. They cannot possibly apply to any diesel at idle.

Those numbers are from the makers of the engines, but a better way to work out fuel efficiency as such would be to find out the total number of litres a tank has in its fuel tanks.

We know the average driving range for the vehicles... what we don't know is their fuel capacity... which would be a better indicator of how much fuel they burn normally.

Sitting in the snow and ice in Russia with the main engine running so all the electronics and optics and of course the heater are all working does not burn anything like the amount of fuel that is burned when at full revs and max engine power, but a tiny gas turbine APU designed to generate the required electricity to run the electronics and to directly provide the heat needed to keep the crew compartment warm uses a lot less fuel per hour and it also creates a much smaller IR signature while running. It can use the power it generates to keep the main engine preheated so it can start up pretty much straight away if needed.

Trucking would go bankrupt if
diesel engines sucked over 100 liters per hour. Large truck engines are not that far removed from the ones in the tanks.

Very true... buses as well... and most of the time when they stop they leave them running unless they know they will be away for a long time... like a food stop or whatever.

The 500km range is likely on the march so running on relatively flat firm terrain and open road speeds of perhaps 50-60km/s for 8-10 hours.

Most diesels redline at about 2,500 rpm and get their max power range at about 1,800-2,000rpm which means that is the max fuel burn engine rate... whether they are in first gear or 8th gear... across uneven terrain just continuously moving can require high fuel consumption, and that is when not in combat.

In real combat they will be moving at max speed from positions of cover to other positions of cover to fire at targets... when you fire, you give away your position so you generally move to another position that conceals you presence but enables you to fire on enemy positions or vehicles and then you move again... it burns a lot of fuel.

This stopping and starting and accelerating all the time burns a lot of fuel and is what makes gas turbines less efficient as power supplies.

Ironically GTs are normally very efficient if they can be run at optimum fuel efficient speeds, but moving a tank around a battlefield means they are not.

A Gas Turbine offers a small efficient power source and in the future with electric drive vehicles will be a much better choice for supplying energy as its growth potential is much better than with Diesels.... there are enormously powerful diesel engines on ships and in power stations but they are very big and heavy.

In comparison the 11,500hp engines of the Mi-26 are relatively small and compact...

Western tanks also have better Fire Control System (FCS) than Russian tanks.

Actually the Russian systems have had auto target trackers for quite some time... they use them for guiding tank gun fired missiles.

AFAIK the main area the Russian systems lack is magnification, but they are sorting that out too.

They are working on colour digital night vision devices that seem rather impressive, and they have some mind blowing digital video cameras with magnification capacities that are amazing...

The reason the Russians followed ATGM from longer range is their FCS are not as advanced as western ones and so their accuracy is also not as high as western MBTs.

The Soviets developed a missile tank... it was called the IT-1, but their tank gun launched missiles were never intended to make Russian or Soviet tanks in to missile tanks... it was always just supposed to be another round the commander could use if the situation made it the best choice.

People talk about the amazing western guns and their ammo... an example would be the British 17 pounder gun of WWII fame with its super ammo that could penetrate enormous amounts of armour... everyone points that out but they don't actually take in to account it uses a sabot that makes it rather inaccurate beyond about 500m.

Being able to see a target at enormous range only matters if you have a gun that is accurate enough to hit the target and also powerful enough to penetrate it.

U.S APFSDS have similar velocities. M1A2 firing 120mm fin-stab with tungsten carbide is ~ 1770 m/s.

And is a couple of kgs lighter and thinner...

FCS determines tank accuracies and firing rates and extend tank capabilities by enabling effective firing at night.

A fire control system determines an aim point for the main gun... in itself it does not work at night... you need decent thermal sights to collect accurate target data at night and current Russian thermals are based on French ones which are probably as good or better than American ones.

A shell fired from a tank’s gun will not travel in a straight line but will lose altitude due to gravity as it travels. So a gunner must know the distance of the target, and accordingly shoot higher to compensate for the fall. Also, crosswinds blow the shells away from the target.

The gunner will lase the target to determine range which the fire control system will use together with information like wind direction, and the ammo type currently loaded as well as the current droop of the barrel and the internal temperature of the barrel and the propellent being used.

The speed and direction the target is moving will have rather more effect than any cross wind but a decent FCS will compensate for all these things.

The point is that with any western fire control system after the round has been fired any chance in direction or speed of the target with a long range shot and you will miss. A long range shot from a Russian vehicle with a missile the fire control system will note the target has stopped because it has an auto tracker following the target and that will stop with them holding the laser beam the missile just fired is following will still hit the target... even if it stops and start to reverse...

Ballistic computer, electronic sights and the array of sensors on Western MBTs are far more superior than Russian ones.

The Russians export sniper scopes with ballistic computers and Thermal imaging sights using an array of gyros and temperature and humidity sensors and even GLONASS and lasing technology so you can send live video footage of the target to HQ before you fire to confirm the target... the GLONASS sensor on the scope locating you and the laser range finder determines the distance and direction and therefore also the coordinates of the target you are shooting which can be marked on the build in map. Once you have lased the target a spot will appear... place that spot on the part of the body of the target you want to hit and squease the trigger for a kill.
You can record the ballistic profile of dozens of guns and calibres and barrel lengths and bullet weights... select what you are using and you get hits every time.

Same with armoured vehicles including their APCs and BMPs and of course air defence vehicles and tanks.

Even INDRA upgraded the FCS of T 72s

Yeah, India also created a replacement rifle for the AK-47... they called it the INSAS, but it had a lot of problems and now they are replacing the AKs they still use with AK-203s and their INSAS rifles with American made ARs...

M1A2 is compatable to t-90 which has a very good fcs. T-72 is to be compared with older US tanks.

The upgraded T-72s are probably 90% the optics and communications of the T-90 and Abrams but much cheaper than the T-90 which is probably half the cost of the Abrams...

Most of the time engagement will benless than 2km away and then you don't really need it. It's really easy to aim with a gun that launches the round at 2000m/s. Just aim the top of the tank and it will hit.

An old unupgraded T-72 could probably kill targets at 2,000m fairly easily and regularly... with upgrades it could probably reliably kill targets to 2,500m while on the move... and long range using missiles much more effectively than any western tank simply because at long range the biggest problem is the target doing something unpredictable that no FCS can predict... like suddenly stopping or making a random turn after the round is fired and on its way... with an APFSDS round that means a miss... with a missile it means you can still get a hit.

If Russian fire control systems are shit why do you think they can shoot down drones that western air defence systems can't even see?

M1A2 already has that. The thermal imaging system (TIS) has a magnification of ×10 narrow field of view and ×3 wide field of view. The thermal image is displayed in the eyepiece of the gunner’s sight together with the range measurement from a laser range finder.

10 times magnification is simply not good enough for engaging targets that can be 5-6km away like a T-90 engaging a helicopter with a guided 125mm missile...

The Northrop designed Laser Systems eyesafe laser range finder (ELRF) has a range accuracy to within 10m and target discrimination of 20m. Far better accuracy than T-90.

My hand held laser rangefinder gets 1m +- accuracy out to 600m and it cost me about 150 bucks.

The Laser system on the MiG-35 can range targets to 30km and mark ground targets to 20km for itself or other platforms to engage with laser homing weapons (missiles, rockets or bombs).

The very flat shooting 125mm APFSDS doesn't drop more than the height of a tank over 2km and the difference between 2km and one metre and 2km and 20 metres is not enough difference in trajectory to really care... so even if the T-90s laser range finder is out by 50m it will still hit the target basically where it is aiming to.

The difference is that the T-90 can guided laser beam riding missiles out to 6km that have a chance of hitting their target even if the target stops moving the instant he fires... only guided rounds allow for that.

And did I mention 4 million dollars cheaper and 25 tons lighter with basically the same level of armour protection for the crew or better when APS are fitted.

India?? I said INDRA, the Spanish defense company. They upgrade FCS for MBTs. Did that for T-72s.

So they developed an upgrade for the fire control system of the T-72... they probably thought with all those new eastern european countries in HATO now there might be a market for them perhaps?

What do you think that means?

How about Israel chooses not to buy Abrams tanks and instead makes their own tanks so Abrams tanks must be shit if the Israelis don't want them...

It bounced and didn't hit correctly. There is no way for a tank to survive a direct and correct hit from the side by such missile.

It said it hit the ZIP box... the tool box.... which would contain some really heavy duty large tools to maintain the vehicle and keep it running... big heavy rods to change tracks and that sort of thing, which would actually be a rather hard target to penetrate because those tools are generally made of very hard metals so they last.

My understanding of the Abrams kill was because it hit the side of the turret and set the ammo on fire... this could have penetrated the hull side and set the engine on fire.

Few tanks can withstand a solid direct hit from an 800mm pen missile... that is a rather powerful missile despite its age... no wonder they keep using it.

I suspect the ERA blocks burned and probably in addition to the ZIP box stopped penetration... an APS would have meant it would have done even less damage of course so they need to get those deployed more widely.

The mark on the turret appears to me to be very much like a failed penetration hit from an RPG, but lack of ERA panels and the fact that the story says the missile hit the ZIP tool box which sits on the tracks on the side suggests to me that the missile hit the side and exploded and perhaps the plasma beam from the explosion was deflected up at the turret and clearly failed to penetrate but also clearly took out the ERA panels on the turret and the panels presumably on the ZIP box which also appears to be gone.

You can see the track and that bit of metal to the left on that hinge is what is left of the metal panels that are on the sides of the tank protecting the wheels and tracks... so the explosion took place there and destroyed the ZIP box and the ERA panels there and presumably redirected the primary charge of the missile up towards the turret which stopped it with its ERA blocks... looks like the tanks ERA protection worked even from the side... which is damned impressive.

ERA is of no use against a konkurs that has 800mm of penetration AFTER the ERA. The first chare is made to set off the ERA and is more powerfull than a 30mm round. It is also not the same effect. The 30mm rounds is a kinetic projectile while the first charge of the missiles is a hollow charge that burns metal and will of course burn the explosive in the ERA and make it explode.

ERA works by blunting the initial charge or penetrator, but hitting the ERA on the metal side skirt at an awkward angle and then with there being a ZIP tool box next the missile itself might have been twisted on impact so instead of the main HEAT charge hitting the thin side of the tank it was angled up at the turret front cheek panel which is the worst possible place to hit any tank and the worst angle and effectively all it could manage was to set off the ERA panels on the cheeks...

OR it could be that those ERA work against tandem warheads.

It think it was just bad luck hitting at an angle that it ended up going through the ERA panel on the metal side skirts and being redirected towards the ERA panel on the turret front and therefore also the tanks thickest armour and two sets of ERA...

The t-90 in Syria that was hit by a TOW that didn't penetrate. Not sure but some TOW have a tabdem warhead.

All modern TOW have tandem warheads and claims for much more penetration than they seem to be able to achieve...

Russian have also a 125mm HEAT round that has three warheads to deal with two ERA and then penetrate the tank. That may suggest they have ERA that deals with tandem warheads.

No, the purpose of the three HEAT warheads is to get good penetration from the calibre. Essentially the front HEAT is small and designed only to defeat ERA and start the penetration. The next two HEAT charges are full calibre full power and are intended to increase penetration to enormous thicknesses over what is normally achieved. The Hellfire missile for instance has two full calibre warheads because it is big enough for them to fit... the rear ones go first and punch a tiny hole through the front warheads and then the front warheads continue the penetration that the warhead right at the front tip of the missile started.

I have not seen or heard about double ERA modules, but I have seen a practical joke where multiple ERA blocks were attached in two or three layers on a normal tank. It would not have worked and was only disinformation AFAIK.

Nonsensical, the plasma jet from a HEAT warhead detonating is hypersonic. Konkurs missiles do not fly fast enough to rotate away (if bounced off angled armor) to have made a difference. The speed differential between the plasma jet detonation and the ATGM would mean if it did bounce off, it would only (at best) make a few millimetres difference....not in any way, shape or form capable of saving a tank!

The impact was against the side of the tank presumably the ERA blocks attached to the metal armour that is used as a side skirt on the tank... the initial impact likely set off the ERA brick on the metal skirt and penetrated through the ZIP tool box mounted above the tracks. As you point out on the face of the turret there is evidence of a failed penetration/explosion of a missile warhead... for both to be made by the same impact/explosion....

Shtora didn't work this time too ?

Shtora only works when it is turned on.

Looks like pretty good accuracy at 5km range against a stationary target.

No challenging cross winds or moving targets but ironically a guided projectile is better able to cope with crosswinds and moving targets than even the most accurate gun and ammo.