T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

Relikt works on different principles than k5. I heard they use the explosive from relikt which I think makes it more sensitive to fin, but that said it isn't the same as relikt from what I can gather.

Here is a neat simple little demonstration of how relikt works. The guy just started making videos I hope he makes more of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=zK77-8kJ69c&feature=emb_title

miketheterrible wrote:

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.

What would prevent the b3m from having actual relikt plates at least on the hull?

On a seperate note, was the T-90As and T-90M's base composite UFP array upgraded? Tbf, almost no NATO MBT other than the M1A2(which recieved DU in its hull armor, and Leopard 2A5, which recieved massive composite NERA upgrades from late 80s to late 90s) has recieved major upgrades in its base composite hull armor. However, Russians should upgrade base composite arrays as well.

B3M used Relict ERA, in cases of old K5. Why is that, asked Russians...

Well they can only uograde front glacis, turret its imposible, because its cast, not welded as its on T90A mod 2004....and with modern ERA they do not need to do that on old tanks as t72b or t80s are, as yanks do with their M1s....this is still much, much cheaper modernization with same effect of armor protection yanks do on their 80s M1s...

galicije83 wrote:B3M used Relict ERA, in cases of old K5. Why is that, asked Russians...

Well they can only uograde front glacis, turret its imposible, because its cast, not welded as its on T90A mod 2004....and with modern ERA they do not need to do that on old tanks as t72b or t80s are, as yanks do with their M1s....this is still much, much cheaper modernization with same effect of armor protection yanks do on their 80s M1s...

Does T-80BVMhave just early 1980s tier quartz core base turret protection?

TMA1 wrote:Here is a neat simple little demonstration of how relikt works. The guy just started making videos I hope he makes more of them.

I read that the DM63, 73, M829A4, and  M829A3 have steel caps that utterly negate anti APFSDS ERA, especially kontakt 5.

Also there is this concept of "plate feeding" which necessitates longer ERA modules. Does that mean that it doesnt matter what ,ind of explosives there are, but as long as the K5 casing is that short, it will be very ineffective against western 700+mm long APFSDS?


Also why dont russians insert DU armor on their tanks?

The T-14's protection is rated for next-gen threats: the very powerful 140/152 mm kind. As such you simply can't compare between it and the T-90M when it comes to withstanding NATO rounds from the front; its simply above the weight class of current NATO anti-armor rounds its not even funny. The fact of the matter is there

>Also why dont russians insert DU armor on their tanks?
Because its a short-sighted measure that makes clean-up and repair of damaged hulls significantly more expensive than it has to be? Or that Russia has the technology to reprocess spent DU to make even more fissile materials for electricity and nuclear warheads.

lyle6 wrote:The T-14's protection is rated for next-gen threats: the very powerful 140/152 mm kind. As such you simply can't compare between it and the T-90M when it comes to withstanding NATO rounds from the front; its simply above the weight class of current NATO anti-armor rounds its not even funny. The fact of the matter is there

>Also why dont russians insert DU armor on their tanks?
Because its a short-sighted measure that makes clean-up and repair of damaged hulls significantly more expensive than it has to be? Or that Russia has the technology to reprocess spent DU to make even more fissile materials for electricity and nuclear warheads.

And western pundits claim that both leopard 2A6 and M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams turret cheek armor has above 1200mm APFSDS protection and around 2000-2500mm HEAT protection, and that their mantlets are as well armored as their cheeks. And that the leopard 2 hull armor has been continuously upgraded and abrams hull has 600+mm protection against APFSDS. What makes their claims more legitimate than the claim that T-14 can and T-90M are light years ahead in protection compared to NATO 700+mm long APFSDS rounds?

If you believe any of those ridiculous numbers you are even dumber than the ones who parrot them. Just think about it for a second: why would NATO continuously revamp its armor throughout the years if they had such a comfortable lead in the first place? You only ever do such costly upgrades if the threat was neck-in-neck. Instead it appears that the race is so close that NATO has to squeeze a march on every developments in armor technology just to outpace enemy anti-armor capabilities and field new armor packages every few years. Does that sound like their armor actually boasts such numbers or is it all just hot air?

The T-14 is a clean sheet design that is a break from the traditional manned turret paradigm. That it has significantly improved protection properties should be of no surprise considering it has done away with a significant burden of protecting the turret internal space, and of course the emphasis and integration of active protection from the get go.

Also why dont russians insert DU armor on their tanks?

The problems outweigh the advantages.

Also for the Russians DU is not a waste product they want to use up or get rid of.

I read that the DM63, 73, M829A4, and M829A3 have steel caps that utterly negate anti APFSDS ERA, especially kontakt 5.

Wow... HATO have developed a counter to a technology introduced into service in 1985... that is amazing.... but does it work?

Because its a short-sighted measure that makes clean-up and repair of damaged hulls significantly more expensive than it has to be? Or that Russia has the technology to reprocess spent DU to make even more fissile materials for electricity and nuclear warheads.

That is another important factor... it is a big enough problem on a firing range in terms of keeping people safe, but when your armour includes DU and any impact on that armour could lead to damaged sections releasing the material in a very fine powder form (ie kinetically or from it burning) makes it a real nightmare to handle and be around.

The stuff is genotoxic and so when ingested it is one of the worst things you can have in your body.

And western pundits claim that both leopard 2A6 and M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams turret cheek armor has above 1200mm APFSDS protection and around 2000-2500mm HEAT protection, and that their mantlets are as well armored as their cheeks.

The claims of Leopard turret front armour being 2.5m of RHA equivalent against HEAT warheads is based on bullshit and fairy tales.

Their information about tank armour is like their information about the stealthiness of their aircraft... why does Israel use its F-35s in stand off attacks from outside Syrian airspace if those numbers are true?

And that the leopard 2 hull armor has been continuously upgraded and abrams hull has 600+mm protection against APFSDS. What makes their claims more legitimate than the claim that T-14 can and T-90M are light years ahead in protection compared to NATO 700+mm long APFSDS rounds?

The one area the west has always had a huge advantage over both the Russians and the Soviets was the ability to exaggerate performance by their marketing departments. Remember the Russian tanks are all junk and the Abrams is invincible claims of the early 1990s?

According to some documents from the german parliament the german army needs new ammo urgently because it´s current ammo can´t penetrate modernised russian tanks, which includes the T-72B3. They were shown in some thread here.

lyle6 wrote:If you believe any of those ridiculous numbers you are even dumber than the ones who parrot them. Just think about it for a second: why would NATO continuously revamp its armor throughout the years if they had such a comfortable lead in the first place? You only ever do such costly upgrades if the threat was neck-in-neck. Instead it appears that the race is so close that NATO has to squeeze a march on every developments in armor technology just to outpace enemy anti-armor capabilities and field new armor packages every few years. Does that sound like their armor actually boasts such numbers or is it all just hot air?

The T-14 is a clean sheet design that is a break from the traditional manned turret paradigm. That it has significantly improved protection properties should be of no surprise considering it has done away with a significant burden of protecting the turret internal space, and of course the emphasis and integration of active protection from the get go.

The weight of the T-14 demonstrates that getting rid of a manned turret is a substantial advantage. It is the first full sized (by western standards) Russian MBT
but with a weight 15-25 tons less than the M1 in any of its useful configurations. The other western MBTs are all over 60 tons and offer no more armour capability
than the T-14.

The manned turret is a dinosaur feature. Even though Russian design philosophy is conservative and emphasizes robustness, it was time to
use electronics and cameras instead of peep holes in the turret.

For last fking time. T80BV have different turret and its armor protection is batter then old one made till 1985..and worst then turret made for T80U....but as i said it has batter armorm protection and with Relikt ERA cant be penetrate with any western KE projectiles...it hase more then 850mm armor protection on turret with Relikt ERA and its enough to defeat any NATO rounds easly...

They know that and because of that they modernized BV tanks, and of course T72B to M or 3M standard...

T90M is overkill for any NATO tanks right now with 3BM59 Svinets 1...740mm pen at 0° at 2000m its enogh to kill any nato tank from front...

I will answer limb's questions:
APFSDS rounds with steel tips or other foms of segmentation like the DM series are not a universal counter every reactive armor. It is just that western media is very ignorant and tends to generalise a lot.  

ERA has always been far ahead above sabot rounds. It took more two decades for a counter to K5 to appear , since the M829A3 came in the early 2000s.
But then instantly, Relikt came up, and it took another decade for a round that is *claimed* to defeat it to appear. That is the A4.

As for the entirely new generation, such as monolith, then nothing is known about it.

Furthermore, these rounds actually sacrifice some performance to defeat ERA. Having a steel segment , sacrificing a segment for the sake of baiting ERA, and any similar solution , means that you are sacrificing mass, and thus energy, to defeat ERA.
And so , how would it deal with the composite armor behind? There is this ridiculous claim that russian passive armor is inferior, and is often disregarded , people must understand that ERA is a separate défense tier , passive armor also is given attention by UVZ. They just dont brag.
The entire point of making the tank as small and flat as possible id to concentrate as much weight as possible for the armor.

The reason why DU is not used is because there are several solutions that increase APFSDS protection without having a toxic material as part of the armor.

1200 mm vs APFSDS is literall bollocks. And has no source. Even the line of sight thickness does not reach 1200 mm let alone the RHA equivalent.

The T-14 is by far the best candidate for powerful passive Armor. Since it rids itself of the unnecessary turret Armor and thus can concentrate mass on the capsule area.

And then there's the fact that its armor is radically different, being able to destroy the round with electric impulses

https://youtu.be/FqbpauEVY7Q

32:50

Last, i highly advice you do not read what the idiots on youtube, reddit, and discord have to say about russian stuff. It is usually a bunch of nauseating nonesense that stands on no proof, repeats 'the russians are lying' argument all the time, and usually have little to no intellectual content apart from phony pseudo science.

The funny thing is if anyone can boast of such numbers, and the means to defeat it - it would be the Russians themselves . Object 195 ring any bell? Like literally, if they wanted to, they could, at any time, just push all the overkill capabilities from that vehicle to the T-14 and overnight end up with an even more of a monster tank than they have with the Armata. They haven't though, which can only mean that the threat they see from NATO armor is not that big and scary enough to justify a full measured response just yet, to the point that they could even relax the requirements for their next-gen tank a bit.

Atmosphere wrote:
And then there's the fact that its armor is radically different, being able to destroy the round with electric impulses

https://youtu.be/FqbpauEVY7Q

32:50

Combat approved is only good for the footage, not the commentary. Its almost certain that the T-14 does not use any form of electric reactive armor. The current level of technology can only allow for very much physical armors and effectors to defend against projectiles. Supposedly it has a system that does something against magnetic fuzes, possibly something to do with the very thick cables run around the tank, but that's not really far out of reach in comparison to electric armor.

kvs wrote:
The weight of the T-14 demonstrates that getting rid of a manned turret is a substantial advantage.   It is the first full sized (by western standards) Russian MBTbut with a weight 15-25 tons less than the M1 in any of its useful configurations.   The other western MBTs are all over 60 tons and offer no more armour capability
than the T-14.  

The manned turret is a dinosaur feature.    Even though Russian design philosophy is conservative and emphasizes robustness, it was time to
use electronics and cameras instead of peep holes in the turret.  

To add to that the conventional turret armor has quite a lot of gaps and weakspots: the mantle, the turret ring, and with some idiotic designs even a cutout to make way for the gunner's sight. These don't comprise an insignificant portion of the tank's frontal projection, and are large enough features to be targeted by a skilled gunner with a decent enough FCS. To compare the T-14's frontal hull armor is a veritable wall of solid composite armor, with a perfect ERA coverage.

Modern armor is also highly angle dependent; that is there are only small range of angles that the armor can receive hits from before the armor loses efficiency. Most ERA modules are set at an incline for the plate action to work effectively as an example. If you try to cover a larger approach the protection level would be similarly diluted. Most turret armors are designed to take on the entire 60 degree sector immediately ahead which often results in very wide variability between the protection from one angle to the next. The T-14 is not immune to this, but the designers have an ace up their sleeve: Afghanit. Since the Afghanit can cover the flanks effectively the solid wall of the frontal armor can now be optimized to mainly defend against head-on attacks, relying on the Afghanit APS to deflect attacks to the flanks and a similarly two tier armor system of reactive and hard armor to receive the leakers.

I also thought that it was a bit strange but keep in mind that combat approved was very specific about it.
They said something in the lines of ''armor plating". We're not taking their commentary about it but rathernthe fact that they supposedly asked the designers.
The fact that they used the term armor plating means it was not confused with the EMP or Monolith.

That is what made me lean towards that claim being legit, unless they were lying about asking the designers.

Atmosphere wrote:I also thought that it was a bit strange but keep in mind that combat approved was very specific about it.
They said something in the lines of ''armor plating". We're not taking their commentary about it but rathernthe fact that they supposedly asked the designers.
The fact that they used the term armor plating means it was not confused with the EMP or Monolith.

That is what made me lean towards that claim being legit, unless they were lying about asking the designers.

Probably the latter; what are the designers going to do? Sue the producers for lying? Its a TV show, accuracy takes the back seat compared to making bombastic comments and feats of showmanship as well as taking excellent eye candy.

Well we also need to be aware that things may not be as they seem.

I would think a plasma stream of metal HEAT liner in plasma form might be influenced by a strong magnetic field, so the idea of electric armour might not be exactly the same to them as it might be to others.

Have read some sources who appear to claim it is to stop APFSDS rounds by running a simply enormous current through it as it penetrates the armour, which heats and melts and vapourises the metal penetrator, which would negatively effect its ability to penetrate further into the vehicle armour... the contact points could be the inner and outer plates of ERA or an outer skin and an insulated inner skin with ERA and base armour between.

If it is intended only to effect HEAT plasma streams then an electrically induced magnetic field might flatten the beam or turn it into a spray rendering it useless at penetrating any armour protection.


Regarding Combat Approved... I do enjoy that programme but some comments are amusing and rather unlikely to be properly true...

Not the end of the world... they do have their moments.

ALAMO wrote:
In the last 30 years, Russia is the only country that worked on tanks for real.

Exactly. The West just... stopped. That's it, they just stopped working on next gen tanks the same way they reoriented from peer warfare to COIN ops. Russia, even during the poverty of the 90s and early 00s never stopped developing tanks - continuing the legacy Soviet projects even while the prospect of adoption remains bleak. The T-14 would never have been possible if the Russians haven't done all the groundwork during those two decades, and now its the West that is playing catch-up as a result.

Not a new occurrence either.... quite a few years ago lots of new aircraft designs were revealed by the Soviets including a mach 3 fighter... they looked at all the designs that had been revealed and decided that the MiG-25 was that fighter and so they copied the layout and made the best damn plane that their technology could achieve with the assumption that their better technology would lead to a plane that was better in every way... which of course ended up being the F-15.

Not a cheap aircraft by any means, but certainly a rather impressive aircraft at the time... only to find out that the swing wing design was the fighter and that the MiG-25 was an interceptor.

The point is that as long as there is respect then ignorance can create great steps forward, but during the 90s and the 00s there was certainly ignorance but no respect, so there was complacency instead of urgency... look at desert storm... we can beat all Soviet tanks with one hand tied behind our back it will take them 50 years to catch up and by then we will be even further forward so no pressure.