Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
GarryB, Cyberspec, George1, dino00, Big_Gazza, kvs, tanino and like this post
Arrow wrote:https://youtu.be/qREtY2bZYUI
George1 likes this post
GarryB, franco, dino00, Big_Gazza and Russian_Patriot_ like this post
flamming_python, dino00, kvs, PapaDragon and LMFS like this post
Broski wrote:Who the hell abandons a T-90? That's like losing a Ferrari F40.
x_54_u43 and Broski like this post
GarryB wrote:It is likely what happens when bean counters change numbers to match the actual count rather than get off their asses and work out where the missing vehicle is...
It is like that teacher at school who, on field trips would say.... is everyone here? And when everyone says yes except for those that are missing and obviously don't hear him, and then the group moves on to the next thing...
With a kid there will be parents wanting to know where their child is, but with an armoured vehicle... it must have been a miscount before and this one does not exist... so delete it from all lists and it wont be missed.
You would not believe what goes missing from military stores...
1. Sosna-U for gunner and another panoramic sight for commanderwilliam.boutros wrote:Any information about the final configuration of the T-90MS breakthrough?
1- Which sights
2- Stabilizers
3- Active protection system
4- Gun. Did the Armata gun finally fit?
http://www.kotsch88.de/al_T-90SM_FCS.htmwilliam.boutros wrote:Any information about the final configuration of the T-90MS breakthrough?
1- Which sights
2- Stabilizers
3- Active protection system
4- Gun. Did the Armata gun finally fit?
Russian_Patriot_ wrote: 2A46M-5 gun. Installing 2A82 will require reworking the automatic loader, and this is expensive
The-thing-next-door wrote:Russian_Patriot_ wrote: 2A46M-5 gun. Installing 2A82 will require reworking the automatic loader, and this is expensive
Well in that case why even bother producing the damned thing, especially when the Armata is almost ready for service.
The t90m might have made sense back in 2015 if it had an improved autoloader and APS but now it is just a joke.
Broski likes this post
Exactly. And it is also possible to improve the T-72 to the level of the T-90M, it seems to meIsos wrote:The-thing-next-door wrote:Russian_Patriot_ wrote: 2A46M-5 gun. Installing 2A82 will require reworking the automatic loader, and this is expensive
Well in that case why even bother producing the damned thing, especially when the Armata is almost ready for service.
The t90m might have made sense back in 2015 if it had an improved autoloader and APS but now it is just a joke.
Because buying 2500 t-14 and 3000 t-15 and 4000 Bumerang to replace the thousands of t-72, bmp-3 and btr-82 is a wet dream.
They have to modernize older vehicles.
The-thing-next-door wrote:Russian_Patriot_ wrote: 2A46M-5 gun. Installing 2A82 will require reworking the automatic loader, and this is expensive
Well in that case why even bother producing the damned thing, especially when the Armata is almost ready for service.
The t90m might have made sense back in 2015 if it had an improved autoloader and APS but now it is just a joke.
flamming_python, xeno and x_54_u43 like this post
Isos wrote:
Because buying 2500 t-14 and 3000 t-15 and 4000 Bumerang to replace the thousands of t-72, bmp-3 and btr-82 is a wet dream.
They have to modernize older vehicles.
Russian_Patriot_ wrote: T-72 to the level of the T-90M, it seems to me
It doesn't? The T-90M we've seen thus far only had the 2A46M(5) gun, bore evacuator and all.Mindstorm wrote:
T-90MS is export tank and has obviously reduced characteristics in all cardinal parameters and lack sensitive technology now entering in service among domestic forces such as the ЕСУ ТЗ or the new barrell main gun, new armor composition new APS etc....
Federation's T-90M "Прорыв-3" mount 2А82-1М gun ,but it ,at today, still cannot be exported and therefore is not included in the T-90MS MBT.
Either side of the driver are massive fuel tanks. Unless you plan on halving the operational time of your vehicle its not really a viable option.The-thing-next-door wrote:
Well if the BMPT is any indication it should not be too difficult to mount an unmanned turret on a T-72 chassis, one could simply place the gunner and commander along side the driver in the positions that the grenade launcher gunners occupy in the BMPT and then slap on some hugely thick composite armor and ERA using the freed up mass from removing the turret.
The T-14's turret sports the most sophisticated fire control system you can fit on a tank today. Its never going to be cheap even if you skimp on the high performance gun.The-thing-next-door wrote:
It may be possible to modify the Armata's turret to use the 2a46m5 or an improved variant while they get the 2a82 into production and in this case you would have a very cheap and yet still very capable rear echelon tank.
Broski likes this post
Well since they are producing new T-90Ms they could have given it new composite arrays along with a revised autoloader and the new 125mm for little extra cost or at least allowed for it to have longer projectiles and integrated the turret bustle into the autoloader so that it is more than just a liability in combat.
It also lacks any APS system whatsoever and the plans to equip it with Arena will result in a lack of compatibility with the Armata's Afganit in addition to the the incompatibility with the T-14's gun and ammunition.
Well if the BMPT is any indication it should not be too difficult to mount an unmanned turret on a T-72 chassis, one could simply place the gunner and commander along side the driver in the positions that the grenade launcher gunners occupy in the BMPT and then slap on some hugely thick composite armor and ERA using the freed up mass from removing the turret.
Either side of the driver are massive fuel tanks. Unless you plan on halving the operational time of your vehicle its not really a viable option.
The T-14's turret sports the most sophisticated fire control system you can fit on a tank today. Its never going to be cheap even if you skimp on the high performance gun.
lyle6 wrote:
It doesn't? The T-90M we've seen thus far only had the 2A46M(5) gun, bore evacuator and all.
The earlier renders of the 2A82 gun for the T-90 lacked the bore evacuator too. And its not for nothing that they were deleted. The fume extractor requires holes to be drilled through the barrel of the gun to create that pocket of pressure differential. Obviously this deliberate weak spot imposes some limit on the amount of pressure that your gun can tolerate, which is no bueno if you are maxxing APFSDS performance.The-thing-next-door wrote:
The T-14 uses the 2a821m which has the fume extractor removed, the base model 2a82 was designed to be used on upgraded T-72s.
I don't see any issue. With near peer opponents you position the most modern T-14 and T-90M tanks to guard against. Why would second-tier tanks worry about firing the most capable ammo when their most likely opponents would be mostly un-upgraded cold war relics that available ammo would cleave through like a hot knife through butter anyway?The-thing-next-door wrote:
The thing is that if they stick with the current autolader and gun for the rear echelon tanks those tanks will be stuck with current ammunition and the army will have to deliver two separate types of ammunition and gun barrels to their tank armies. Their rear echelon tanks would also not benefit from any new ammunition developed for the T-14 either, at this point they may aswell have gone for the 152mm.
kvs likes this post
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
