T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

That's additional complexity the crew could do without.

It is nothing to do with the crew. In the Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang or Typhoon tank there wont even be any crew in the turret near the gun anyway...

Saying that will be a problem for the crew is like saying having backup power cables through the tank in case one power line gets cut by a penetration or battle damage will be a problem for the crew.... they likely will have no idea they are even there.

Aircraft have teams of maintenance crews working to keep everything up and running, while a tank only has one. Tank crews still need rest you know.

Formula one race car teams don't generally have a fuel line maintenance team that checks the fuel lines for cracks or damage after ever lap... most of the time fuel flow sensors and pressure sensors and other clues will tell the maintenance crew if there is something wrong and rather than using nano robots to crawl through the tubes they should be able to remove sections and replace them if there appears to be a leak in that section.

I am not suggesting it will be easy or trivial, but liquid propellent is already widely used for aircraft and motor vehicles for propulsion... they recently showed a truck that can pump fuel to about 24 aircraft at once.... imagine a similar vehicle that can arm 24 tanks at a time with propellent while the projectiles are being loaded...

Obviously it really comes down to the question... can they make the liquid propellent more powerful or more effective than solid propellent... it is certainly worth exploring just for the safety advantages.

The trick is its over-engineered for the kind of power contained in every ignition. Each explosion in an average motor vehicle is basically the work of one measly drop of gas so it won't ever reach more than a tiny fraction of allowable stress of the materials involved.

Firing missiles.... for which they have a special ejector that looks to me to just be a powerful spring, or HE rounds or HEAT rounds does not require max pressure max velocity. Obviously the variable propellent is vastly more useful for Coalition and of course Howitzers have always been using variable propellent charges because of the nature of how they are used, but in this case being able to vary propellent options might not be used except in the same sense that solid propellant is varied (ie extra for APFSDS rounds, less for the others).

The APFSDS rods are much lighter than the HE and HEAT rounds so clearly it accelerates faster and actually spends less time in the barrel...

Imagine being able to vary the mix of propellent components to better suit the different requirements.

To be clear I am not talking about infinite variability.

Think of it in terms of a swing wing fighter like the MiG-23.... it had three wing sweep options... a straight wing with no sweep that was used for takeoff and landing and medium speed ferrying flying long distances from one place to another. The fully swept back wing minimum drag for max speed flight at high and low altitude... at very low altitudes gave a much better ride than other aircraft with bigger wings and minimum drag meant max speed and max acceleration. And finally the half sweep which allowed speed but also best manouverability at combat speeds.

In the west it was criticised because it was not as sophisticated as the system on the F-14 and F-111 which used computer controlled continuously variable sweep to optimise the sweep for what ever the pilot was intending to so, but honestly I doubt the more complex western system was better.

I would trust the pilot to know what they intend to do and the set up meant they would never need to urgently change from one setting to another one...  a high speed takeoff will always only ever use a straight wing, perhaps the pilot could then decide which sweep to go to depending on what they were going to do next, but it would be unlikely they would be constantly fiddling with the angle settings to get it perfect.

The liquid propellent system would help cool the barrel when it is pumped in, but the amount of fuel and composition might just be three different loads... a light one for launching missiles and drones, a medium one for HE and HEAT rounds, and a heavy charge for APFSDS rounds.

With experience they might find adding information from the ballistics computer based on the range of the shot could allow some variation in pressures, but obviously there will be max limits with a significant safety margin that it would never get close to and you could also have a venting system and sensors in the gun in case pressures get too high.

A special gun barrel that allows fuel to be pumped through it could be used to cool the barrel and also preheat the fuel... but you could have injection nozzles along the barrel to pump extra propellent behind the round as it travels down the barrel to help keep the pressure up... like those German long range guns with added propellent charges along the barrel that were fired as the round passed them to boost speed and range.

Direct warfare between industrialized states is rather rare these times - your point?

My point is that APFSDS rounds are not the main killer of tanks these days most of the time.

In many conflicts APFSDS rounds are not used very much... in fact I would think a decent APHE round should be developed and deployed for conflicts where the enemy does not have modern tanks.

The west is very pro APFSDS rounds and always has, but the Soviets actually produced a lot of HEAT rounds in the 70s and 80s and tended to use them more as a more multipurpose round.

They also tend to carry more HE rounds than the western tank forces do, and their BMPs also carry HE focused weapons like the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 and the 100mm rifled HE gun of the BMP-3.

Only really applicable against enemies with inadequate air defences very few armies today even have. But that is no reason to act like the status quo is never going to change either.

You mean  like most of HATO... they barely have enough SAMs to shoot down Russian aircraft, but add drones and standoff missiles and they are in trouble.

Even when fully equipped with SAMs...

I think current nitrocellulose based propellants are what, 50 years old at least. There must have been developments in more effective propellants by this time.

The improvements in solid rocket fuel suggest as much.

A while back on a thread about small arms ammo propellant an expert from a Russian company said improvements in powder should allow an increase in muzzle velocity for most ammo types of about 30% without any changes to the fire arms, simply by improving burning rates and getting to pressure levels quickly in standard length barrels.

For the AK and AKM that means going from a 120 grain bullet moving at about 720m/s to a 120 grain bullet moving at about 930m/s... now that is a 7.62mm calibre round so aerodynamically it is not going to be as efficient as the Grendel round and other new rounds the west goes on about, so it wont have many of the range improvements the new smaller calibre variants would have, but it should flatten the trajectory quite a bit and increase energy of the round to do a bit more damage at the 200-300m range where it will be used.

The obvious drawback would be the iron sights will now be out, but getting extra velocity just increases the point blank range so leave the sights on 300m and aim for centre of mass.

To be clear introducing new tank gun propellent will be expensive and complex, but in an unmanned turret it could be as simple as having multiple propellent tanks around the vehicle acting as spaced armour that feed to the gun barrel... the different components might be mixed before going in to the chamber or mixed in chamber... I don't know... it might have enough propellent mixed for 4 to 5 shots ready to go so that if lots of enemy vehicles appear it can fire off those  4-5 shots quickly and while it is firing and using up propellent it can be mixing a new batch for 4-5 more shots so in effect it can fire continuously, but an enemy hit to the mixing container at worst will ignite only a small amount of propellent material that will not detonate like HE could and that could be vented upwards in a safe direction.

The venting design could allow the damaged tank to be removed and replaced and plumbed in with new roof mounted module that clicks into place.[/quote]

They would still have to perform maintenance. Just because the turret is isolated from the crew doesn't mean it doesn't require fixing from time to time.

Of course, just like any soldier is expected to look after their rifle and keep it clean, but if there is a problem with the rifle including battle damage, then it goes to the armourer for fixing... the soldier in the field does not have a go at fixing it.

Now that the tables are turned I expect Russian tanks to have more APFSDS and GLATGM ammo onboard while NATO tanks to take mostly HE shells.

I rather suspect that loadouts will depend on the situation and that Russia fighting an enemy with an overwhelming number of tanks is actually rather unlikely.

How many tanks do HATO actually have... sounds like not as many as they used to have...

I always thought the rounds stored in the back ofvthe turret were connected to the autoloader. Actually it's just an external storage and the crew must exit the tank to put them inside and be able to use them.

No. For the T-72/90 family that is Burlak, and for the T-80 that is Black Eagle.

The decision to put rounds in the turret bustle is to allow the vehicle to carry the required number of rounds without having loose rounds in the crew compartment... in the early model T-72s there were rounds next to the driver and on the walls near the gunner and commander... note it would be difficult to actually hand load the gun because of its position so once the 22 rounds in the T-72 and T-90 tanks in the autoloader are used up (28 rounds in the T-80) they would normally move to somewhere out of line of fire from the enemy and then reload the rounds stored in the rest of the tank to fully reload the autoloader to return to combat.

Having separate rounds in the turret bustle is no great problem because to reload the rounds near the driver would require the gunner or commander to get out of the tank and receive rounds from the driver and pass them up to the person in the turret to load them into the auto loader. The rounds inside the turret including stored clipped against the walls and also between the turret and the engine could probably be done from inside the vehicle.

With this version someone would have to leave the turret and take rounds out of storage in the bustle and hand them into the turret for loading into the autoloader.

Obviously if the enemy are everywhere then retiring behind friendly lines and reloading would make sense.

The point is that storing rounds in the crew compartment meant the crew would die every time the hull or turret were penetrated because loose rounds are horribly vulnerable and will burst into flames at the smallest spark.

If you look at the turret bustle location the area the rounds are stored can be flooded with water so even if penetrated the chance of a fire is greatly reduced.

Wet rounds fired in the gun probably increase the pressure a little, but should work OK.

That's bad. Having them connected to the autoloader would allow the use of long apfsds like Vaccum-1.

The T-90 has an enlarged autoloader that allows longer rounds to be loaded AFAIK. Having no opening between the turret bustle and the turret means if there is a fire the crew will have longer to safely escape.

Russian rounds has the advantage of higher speed which is important since kinetic enery depends on the square of the speed.

Length increases weight without increasing drag. The Soviet/Russian rounds tend to be thicker too.

Kinetic energy is not everything, having mass is important too otherwise shorter thinner projectiles would be better and they are clearly not.


BTW with fluid based binary propellents you could design the system to allow you to put soap and hot water through the propellent tubes and systems to clean them and also through the barrel when cleaning that... purge it will lots of very hot clean water under pressure and then load up propellants ready to go.

One thing that has always been a huge disadvantage of the T-64, T-72 and T-90 is the pathetic reverse speed of 4km, which is actually worse than the T-54 and T-62(the only exception is the T-80 with 13km/h reverse speed), and many times worse than the BMP-3. The supposed explanation for this pathetic reverse speed is russian tanks that they "don't need it" because they're made for armored assaults and not hit and run attacks, but that doesnt make sense. Regardless how specialized a tank is, there will always be combat situations  on all terrain in which it needs a quick retreat while still showing front armor, for example in ambushes, failed assaults, and retreating back to cover.  Its incredibly short sighted to expect tanks to just go forward in combat, especially in assymetrical warfare. Its just needless gimping of mobility. The claim that making the T-72/90 having better reverse speed would make it too expensive is also BS, since the T-54 has 7km/h reverse speed and its transmission is dirt cheap.



Also if 4km/h is enough, why make the T-80 with a better reverse speed than the T-72? I hope the T-90M and T-14 at least have better reverse speed(10-20km/h), especially given advances in transmission technology.

I also came along this picture. Svinets-1 is the same size as dm-53 which is the latest apfsds used in germany. It is used by t-90 only since t-80/72 autoloader are too small. Russian rounds has the advantage of higher speed which is important since kinetic enery depends on the square of the speed.

Does that mean the T-72B3 and T-80BVM still can only use the utterly obsolete 3BM-42 mango, which has even less penetration than the original M829?

T-90 / 72 type tanks can use vacuum-1 , by cutting 80 mm of their side armor and welding it from outside.
Svinets 1 is 740 mm long , V is 900 mm. So 80+80=160.

The thing is, Vacuum-1 is for 2A82 , which can be placed on T-90/72 but the russian MoD never ordered it.

"Both 3BM69 and 3BM70 rounds were tested with the 2A46M5 gun, presumably for the Burlak upgrade."

2A46M5 cannot handle the full pressure of V1. So it would end up as a softer version of it if they tweak it to carry the same rod with a manageable charge.

Can i have a link to the 2A46M-5 test? I remember seeing UVZ talking once about enhancing the ballistic capabilities of their export tanks' fire power without relying on exporting the 2A82 , which is banned.

Does that mean the T-72B3 and T-80BVM still can only use the utterly obsolete 3BM-42 mango, which has even less penetration than the original M829?

You can't work out if a round is obsolete by comparing it with the equivalent enemy round, that just does not make sense.

If Mango can penetrate the armour of the vehicles it will be facing then it is not obsolete... it is actually just fine.

We have seen Abrams tanks and Leopard tanks being defeated by weapons which on paper should not be able to threaten them, but of course paper normally involved comparing average armour penetration performance against the thickest armour...

Plenty of Ukrainian tanks rusting in the countryside with five finned kill shots, even the ones with supposedly excellent Ukrainian ERA. Pretty good shots as well, with hits to the sides, the decolletage, the mantlet, and the lower hull being pretty common, showcasing just how good some of the Russian gunners are.

Thats like saying that abrams is a good tank because it destroyed obsolete iraqi tanks. You're engaging in some nuclear level cope. Face it, The majority of the russian tank fleet can fire obsolete 80s APFSDS that can't even penetrate 500mm RHA at 2km , while all NATO tanks have 500+mm kinetic protection on both the turret and UFP.

You can't work out if a round is obsolete by comparing it with the equivalent enemy round, that just does not make sense.

If Mango can penetrate the armour of the vehicles it will be facing then it is not obsolete... it is actually just fine.

We have seen Abrams tanks and Leopard tanks being defeated by weapons which on paper should not be able to threaten them, but of course paper normally involved comparing average armour penetration performance against the thickest armour...

1. im comparing the round to frontal armor of modern NATO tanks, and the mango is obsolete against them.
2. If all russia will fight is islamists and ukrainians, why develop the zirkon, iskander, Su-57, T-14, S-500, Konteyner radar, Kurganets, vacuum1, T-90M, etc?
3. "armor penetration doesnt count cuz you can just hit abrams from the side". Idk how you dont realize how ridiculous this cope sounds.

lyle6 wrote:

limb wrote:
Thats like saying that abrams is a good tank because it destroyed obsolete iraqi tanks. You're engaging in some nuclear level cope. Face it, The majority of the russian tank fleet can fire obsolete 80s APFSDS that can't even penetrate 500mm RHA at 2km , while all NATO tanks have 500+mm kinetic protection on both the turret and UFP.

That's perfectly alright by me. The Germans are on record that their perfectly modern 2010s L/55 gun and DM-53/63 ammo would have similar difficulties dealing with upgraded Russian tanks, and thus are urgently working on replacements. The Abrams, working with a German derived gun and ammo system couldn't be that much better off as well. With both sides incapable of dealing with each other head-on they would just have to get creative and start thinking about how to outmaneuver and outflank each other, which is a lot easier if you possess an overwhelming superiority in deployed forces.

Wrong. The T-72B3 and T-90A still have obsolete kontakt 5 armor on the front, which can be penetrated by the M829A2. The T-90A admittedly has heavier turret armor, but AFAIK its hull armor is still terrible The T80BVM has relikt because its base armor is terrible(around 450mm hull and ~500mm turret against APFSDS), even worse than the T-72B.

Also where did you read that germans say their DM53 cannot penetrate the T-72B3 or T-80BVM from the front?

Even if we assume what you say is true, then you're basically claiming its OK for the Russian tank fleet to be armed with shitty 80s rounds because of quantity of quality, which is another stupid cope.

I hope that the T-80BVM can fire slightly longer APFSDS rounds than the 3BM42,like the 3BM48, because of its vertical autoloader.

limb wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

limb wrote:
Thats like saying that abrams is a good tank because it destroyed obsolete iraqi tanks. You're engaging in some nuclear level cope. Face it, The majority of the russian tank fleet can fire obsolete 80s APFSDS that can't even penetrate 500mm RHA at 2km , while all NATO tanks have 500+mm kinetic protection on both the turret and UFP.

That's perfectly alright by me. The Germans are on record that their perfectly modern 2010s L/55 gun and DM-53/63 ammo would have similar difficulties dealing with upgraded Russian tanks, and thus are urgently working on replacements. The Abrams, working with a German derived gun and ammo system couldn't be that much better off as well. With both sides incapable of dealing with each other head-on they would just have to get creative and start thinking about how to outmaneuver and outflank each other, which is a lot easier if you possess an overwhelming superiority in deployed forces.

Wrong. The T-72B3 and T-90A still have obsolete kontakt 5 armor on the front, which can be penetrated by the M829A2. The T-90A admittedly has heavier turret armor, but AFAIK its hull armor is still terrible The T80BVM has relikt because its base armor is terrible(around 450mm hull and ~500mm turret against APFSDS), even worse than the T-72B.

Also where did you read that germans say their DM53 cannot penetrate the T-72B3 or T-80BVM from the front?

Even if we assume what you say is true, then you're basically claiming its OK for the Russian tank fleet to be armed with shitty 80s rounds because of quantity of quality, which is another stupid cope.

I hope that the T-80BVM can fire slightly longer APFSDS rounds than the 3BM42,like the 3BM48, because of its vertical autoloader.

Yes the t80bvm and t72b3 both had upgraded autoloaders. They can use the long rod penetrators of extended length(svinets 1 and 2) They are the 2a46m-4 for upgraded t80's and 2a46m-5 for upgraded t70's and t90's respectively.

limb wrote:

Wrong. The T-72B3 and T-90A still have obsolete kontakt 5 armor on the front, which can be penetrated by the M829A2. The T-90A admittedly has heavier turret armor, but AFAIK its hull armor is still terrible The T80BVM has relikt because its base armor is terrible(around 450mm hull and ~500mm turret against APFSDS), even worse than the T-72B.

Also where did you read that germans say their DM53 cannot penetrate the T-72B3 or T-80BVM from the front?

Even if we assume what you say is true, then you're basically claiming its OK for the Russian tank fleet to be armed with shitty 80s rounds because of quantity of quality, which is another stupid cope.

I hope that the T-80BVM can fire slightly longer APFSDS rounds than the 3BM42,like the 3BM48, because of its vertical autoloader.

Wrong. Late T80BV tanks have same hull armor as T80U, with base armor protection of ~630mm +K5 give him more then 780mm of protection. Because of that T80BV late versions cant be penetrate with nato rounds, at this moment. Russians do mederniaation of this late T80BVs, many of them have same engine as T80u so they do not need to upgrade them to. Yes latest version of T80BVs have GTD 1200 engines, and first batch of T80U have GDT1100TF1 engines...

Turret protection is far less then on T80U but with this Relict ERA its enough to defeat any nato rounds at this moment.

On the other hand T72B and T90A have almost the same base protection as T80U when we speak about hull, turret protection is bigger on T90A then T72B or T80U...

T72 and T80U have ~ same turret armor protection, well T80U have slightly more armor against KE or Heat but differance is small.

They modifide autoloader on T80BVM and T72B3M and now they can use their latest svinets 1 and 2 rounds...as T90M can do...

PS. You have ERA Relict on T72B3M mod 2016, not K5...so this tank have even more armor protection...

Thats like saying that abrams is a good tank because it destroyed obsolete iraqi tanks.

The Ukraine didn't have obsolete Iraqi tanks, they had Soviet tanks with modern ERA.

Face it, The majority of the russian tank fleet can fire obsolete 80s APFSDS that can't even penetrate 500mm RHA at 2km bounce, while all NATO tanks have 500+mm kinetic protection on both the turret and UFP.

The chart shown above by Lyle6 shows in 2005 they introduced new 125mm calibre APFSDS rounds whose performance seems pretty good. Note it also shows Mango, which entered service in 1988...

1. im comparing the round to frontal armor of modern NATO tanks, and the mango is obsolete against them.

Mango could still be used against most non MBT HATO vehicles for an easy kill. Newer rounds have been introduced and are in service.... I would expect the types of rounds made available for use would depend on the targets likely to be faced.

2. If all russia will fight is islamists and ukrainians, why develop the zirkon, iskander, Su-57, T-14, S-500, Konteyner radar, Kurganets, vacuum1, T-90M, etc?

Mango entered service in 1988, and it is good enough for many threats on the battlefield even today.

3. "armor penetration doesnt count cuz you can just hit abrams from the side". Idk how you dont realize how ridiculous this cope sounds.

The frontal armour of a tank only matters if that is what you aim at. They also have a range of HEAT rounds and missile based anti armour weapons they can use to engage enemy armour.

Also where did you read that germans say their DM53 cannot penetrate the T-72B3 or T-80BVM from the front?

What makes you think their DM53 round will even get past the APS systems fitted to Russian tanks?

Even if we assume what you say is true, then you're basically claiming its OK for the Russian tank fleet to be armed with shitty 80s rounds because of quantity of quality, which is another stupid cope.

Why do you think they will be using Mango against HATO?

He just do not understand how KE or APFSDS works in real life. If you want to penetrate with tungsteen KE 700mm of armor at 2km at 0° you need to have almost 800mm long penetrator. More armor tank have it, you need longer and longer penetrators.

Many prowestern funboys think that M1A1 can bole frontaly penetrate, because he has angle of fron armor 83°...well if you shoot pint blank this sloped armor works perfectly but when you shoot at range longer ranges, uou have projectiles arc, so he hit armor at angle and easly can pent abrams or eaven Leo 2 a6, because that angle to not provide enough armor protection against modern APFSDS.

Russians solved this problem puting on their tanks ERA, NATO still do not use it, or use it on side of the tanks, because they still think that their tanks are impenetrable from front with old projectiles russian have it, or they think that Russians sleep and do no have modern ones in their arsenals..

Us was stuned when they tested their silver bullet in 1994 against T72B1 with K5 on it...tank was imune to silver bullet or M892 apfsds, with whom they desteoyed Iraqi armor 3 years earlier easly without any ERA...yes they made A1 later A2, and now A3 version of M892, but they do not know is this new rounds are able to penetrate new Relict armor, because they do not have this type.of armor yet to test them against it...

The fact that the fanboys talk about 700mm penetration at 2km at zero degrees angle says it all.

The Russian chart for ammo performance shows penetration at 2km but against armour at a 60 degree angle...

It makes the penetrator performance seem rather weaker, but actually gives a more realistic indication of performance and penetration potential.

The video posted above shows the upgraded T-90M hitting targets at 5km range and the impacts appear to impact within one metre of the centre of mass of the target... which is amazing performance.

Remember penetration is important, but actually hitting the target is actually critical and at longer ranges then using missiles makes accuracy attainable because accuracy with a dumb bullet means nothing if the target is manouvering at random so you can't work out a good lead for the shot.

With a missile you just let the autotracker follow the tank till impact.

lancelot wrote:AFAIK most NATO tank ammo can't penetrate those tanks with Kontakt-5. Let alone Relikt. Which they cannot penetrate at all frontally.
The T-72B3M AFAIK is supposed to have Relikt.
I personally think all the T-72 and T-80 tanks should be replaced with something else but I guess it does not make economic sense.

T-72B3 UBH still has kontakt-5 on the front.

limb wrote:

lancelot wrote:AFAIK most NATO tank ammo can't penetrate those tanks with Kontakt-5. Let alone Relikt. Which they cannot penetrate at all frontally.
The T-72B3M AFAIK is supposed to have Relikt.
I personally think all the T-72 and T-80 tanks should be replaced with something else but I guess it does not make economic sense.

T-72B3 UBH still has kontakt-5 on the front.

B3 does. B3M apparently is relikt modules in kontakt casing to keep up same design without any additional changes.