T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

Best defence against getting shot by a tank or a missile is smoke not reverse speed... moving quickly under cover of smoke decreases the chance of a lucky hit... remaining stationary or reversing directly back creates the equivalent of a stationary target which is the easiest type of target to hit.
LIKE1DISLIKE

Yes smoke is best thing you can deploy on battlefield if you wanna cover your tank or movement. But we have always this friking but...modern thermal sight of 2nd and 3th generation can see tanks trough the classical smoke cover. You need new type of this smoke cover and of course its made long time ago in soviet Russia. But i do not see that Russians use it, instead i see that new smoke cover for now only use South Korea, and ist mix of aerosalt and chops of rubber.. Thermal sight cant see trough the rubber and you can perfect cover...

2 T-90Ms firing while on a road while moving back and forth.

Look at that pathetic reverse speed. theyre basically on the same spot and are sitting ducks for artillery, atgms and guided MLRS.

They end up having to turn around, which takes 20 seconds, and expose their backsides to the enemy. They never fire smoke grenades either. No wonder stugnas easily destroy russian tanks.

https://t.me/warhistoryalconafter/84899

No matter how much you insult me, hundreds of T-90s and T-72s have been and are easily destroyed because of stugnas and rpgs penetrating their back armor, as well as artillery because of staying on roads and reversing too slowly. Also I bet the retarded pinoy didnt have the bravery to watch the video of that T-90M back and forth clownshow

What clownshow? The two tanks unloaded nearly the full complement of their autoloader and managed a speedy and safe extraction. Didn't get no scratch on the paint either. That's because they successfully identified and shelled enemy positions resulting in complete suppresion of enemy fire for the entire duation lf the attack. That's as good as a missiom gets.

Also I insulted him first so you can stop getting offended on my behalf. Thanks.

Now spending 3 minutes firing 125mm, 12.7mm and 7.62mm at enemy positions with impunity, without being attacked, hit or destroyed by the enemy is a clowshow?!

None of the tanks take 20 seconds to turn, in fact they take half that time, and why should they use smoke when the enemy position is covered in clouds of dust caused by T-90 attacks?

If getting away faster is the only thing that matters then why would a tank, with a reverse speed of 30km/h, should reverse instead of turning and moving at 60-70 km/h?

A tank reversing at 30 km/h will move 25m in 3 seconds, in that same time an ATGM at 550m/s will move 1650m, and an APFSDS shell at 1700m/s will move 5100m, good reverse speed is worthless against threats super/hypersonic.

In the end after 11 months of combat with a country that had tens of thousands of anti-tank weapons Russia only lost 4 of its more than 100 T-90M.
Funny isn't it?
Ukraine will need another 20 years to make Russia run out of T-90M despite it having a "pathetic reverse"...

No you cannot fool system by laser it only. !? He works when he see missiel in the air, radar see that. So after he see missiel he depliye counter mesures. You have ATGMs with out laser. AT-4 do not have it. So how will you get detect atgm crew when he use non guide atgm on you...this type of atgm are used from close distance. So laser worning system cant derect laser and wouldnt deploye smoke screen...

The Soviet system is SHTORA which does not just detect lasers and deploy smoke.

The original system has large dazzlers designed to stop SACLOS missiles like TOW and Milan and HOT and AT-4 and AT-5 and Metis type missiles that use IR sensors in the launcher to detect the outgoing missile and measure its deviation from the crosshair and send commands via wire to fly the missile back into the centre of the field of view.

The Dazzlers on Shtora blind the missile tracking component of most SACLOS ATGMs except the radio command guided ones like AT-2 and AT-6/9.

When lasers are detected for missiles like Copperhead or Hellfire Smoke is launched and the turret is turned towards the threat direction.

New vehicles likely have laser dazzlers for IR and IIR seekers and also optical seekers used in missiles like Javelin and Spike.

AT-4 managed to damage T-90M from the front? It should be able to eat any CG/AT4 warhead on frontal and even sides.

For all we know some burning Nakidka material might have fallen into the tank via a hatch of a crewman looking at the damage and the crew bailed because you can't stay inside a real tank and press a keyboard key to fix damage.

Also, you are calling it non guided anti-tank guided missile? I did fire CG and believe me, 200 meters and it’s guided mostly by the wind. Also, frontal arc (and side armour in this case) even with most modern munitions is no go. It’s not a tank killer, it’s a tank scratcher. Even BMP—2M were able to survive multiple, at least 5 hits frontally before getting knocked out.

Doesn't matter what the weapon or target is, there are always weak spots and lucky shots... especially when the information available is a bit confusing and not clear.

Idk how you guys gloat about how easy it would be hit the bustle of a leopard from the side, but think its no biggie if a T-72 or T-90 has to expose its back armor when retreating from a killzone, instead of reversing while showing only its frontal and side armor at the enemy..

Because the turret bustles on Leopards and Abrams tanks are freaken enormous and a group of tanks moving forward one is going to cover left and one is going to cover right and one is going to be wary of threats behind so even with all of them driving in the same direction turrets are going to be pointing all over the place...

Ambushes tend to occur from a flank too... or fake targets reveal themselves to get the attention of the tanks while the real attack takes place from another direction...

Mounting attacks where your fire comes in from different directions assures there are sides and rears to hit.

Idk how you guys gloat about how easy it would be hit the bustle of a leopard from the side, but think its no biggie if a T-72 or T-90 has to expose its back armor when retreating from a killzone, instead of reversing while showing only its frontal and side armor at the enemy..

Isn't it spraying diesel fuel into the exhaust manifold?

I know the B-52s use water injection of their jet engines to boost power at takeoff but that results in very black smoke coming from the engines...

They end up having to turn around, which takes 20 seconds, and expose their backsides to the enemy. They never fire smoke grenades either. No wonder stugnas easily destroy russian tanks.

Irrespective of reverse speed ATGMs will always have a good chance of hitting a tank whether it is moving or stationary, suggesting the T-72 is vulnerable because it is not fast going backwards is an interesting point of view...

But please enlighten us... what is the magic speed that will protect a tank from being destroyed by going backwards... is it 20km/h or 50km/h or 500km/h?

No matter how much you insult me, hundreds of T-90s and T-72s have been and are easily destroyed because of stugnas and rpgs penetrating their back armor, as well as artillery because of staying on roads and reversing too slowly.

Don't you mean millions of Russian tanks... and BTW ATGMs and RPGs penetrate the back armour of any vehicle ever made, because the back armour is the weakest armour... I am surprised you didn't know that.

None of the tanks take 20 seconds to turn, in fact they take half that time, and why should they use smoke when the enemy position is covered in clouds of dust caused by T-90 attacks?

Smoke is useful but is also a double edged sword in that it blinds your own tanks and support and drones... it should only be used if you come under direct fire or are being marked by laser for laser guided munitions.

I would say to most rational people you just got owned Limb, but I don't expect you to change your tune, Trolls don't learn.

I would say to everyone that verbal abuse is not OK, though I do understand the frustration of people taking a stance on information and beliefs that when proven to be wrong stick to those beliefs anyway... the opposite of logic and reason and evidence of zealotry.

Now spending 3 minutes firing 125mm, 12.7mm and 7.62mm at enemy positions with impunity, without being attacked, hit or destroyed by the enemy is a clowshow?!

Yes. A tank should never be in on position more than 30-40 seconds. Otherwise it can easily get destroyed by stugnas,excaliburs, and SmART 155 top attack EFP munitions.

A tank reversing at 30 km/h will move 25m in 3 seconds, in that same time an ATGM at 550m/s will move 1650m, and an APFSDS shell at 1700m/s will move 5100m, good reverse speed is worthless against threats super/hypersonic.

You clearly have 0 knowledge of ATGMs ukrainians use. The stugna flies at 300 m/s max, TOW at 270m/s, javelin is slower. At 4km it takes upwards of 12 seconds to get to the target. If russians had tanks that could reverse at 30-40 km/h, they could always get into cover before a missile or guided artillery munition hit them. A tank staying in one place for 3 minutes would be easily hit by them. But atank firing for 30-40s and reversing back at 40 km/h will be much less vulnerable.

But please enlighten us... what is the magic speed that will protect a tank from being destroyed by going backwards... is it 20km/h or 50km/h or 500km/h?

40km/h

Don't you mean millions of Russian tanks... and BTW ATGMs and RPGs penetrate the back armour of any vehicle ever made, because the back armour is the weakest armour... I am surprised you didn't know that.

If russian tanks could reverse at high speed instead of turning around, they would never be hit in the back armor, but the front.

Yes. A tank should never be in on position more than 30-40 seconds. Otherwise it can easily get destroyed by stugnas,excaliburs, and SmART 155 top attack EFP munitions.

And yet these tanks were not instantly destroyed.

It would take rather more than 40 seconds for an Excalibur or and other 155mm round to be used.

What you don't seem to appreciate is that the magic 40km/h you pulled from your arse is about 11m/s which is nothing for a guided round to still hit.

Do you think Kornets and Vikhrs fail when fired at targets moving more than 40km/h?

If igla can hit helicopters moving 5 times faster why do you thing moving at 40km/h in any direction would save a tank?

You do understand moving backwards at that speed is dangerous... Rolling a tank is no joke.

The very idea that being able to drive forward means you can never be hit in the rear is funny... Does that mean being able to drive forwards at 60km/h means your tank will never be hit from the front?

Most of the hohol wunderwaffe -Stugna, switchblade, NLAW, Javelin, Bayraktar, etc turned out to be drastically less than effective as advertised or outright dogshit.

ATGMs in particular were nullifidd to a large extent because the mass adoption of 2nd gen thermal sights on Russian mainline MBTs gave them an almost insurmountable detection advantage in range and discrimnation. Winter has been especially brutal because lack of foliage has rendered the treeline almost transparent to Russian thermal sights that even forests are no longer safe havens against armor.

OTOH the bayraktarks didn't fail expectations. Very easy prey for competent AD networks, not that anyone with a brain couldn't tell. The few that survived were used as spotters fpr artillery like glorified DJI mavics, only a thoudand timss mpre ezpensive.

Suicide and loitering munitions had some promise but the Switchblade drones were just garbage. If they copy the Lancet the Russians might sweat a little though.

So what is the greatest threat to Russian armor?

Turns out the deadliest anti-armor weapon is the humble DJI mavic spotting for artillery. They're not particularly hard to detect and destroy the problem is they are everywhere. And AD, EW can't be everywhere on the battlefield at all times. Dealing with the drones and their crew has been likendes to swatting mosquitoes. You will kill a lot but you will get some bites in the process.

Re: Drones
A lot of complaining now in Ukro circles that Russia is putting up Anti-Drone EW systems in trenches all around the frontlines.
They´re luring in drones, then jamming the connection and force it to land. Usual stuff.
That means the Ukros will be forced to keep a greater distance to the enemy lines.

Hole wrote:A lot of complaining now in Ukro circles that Russia is putting up Anti-Drone EW systems in trenches all around the frontlines.
They´re luring in drones, then jamming the connection and force it to land.

This a wonderful example how Russia adapted faster to a new situation than whole NATZO bloc. I expect soon drone jammer for tanks etc too...so NATZO would be in future unable to do what Russia is doing to Ukronazis now with Lancet 3.

This a wonderful example how Russia adapted faster to a new situation than whole NATZO bloc. I expect soon drone jammer for tanks etc too...so NATZO would be in future unable to do what Russia is doing to Ukronazis now with Lancet 3.

Only took it a year
What happened to all the man-portable anti-UAV jammer rifles that Russian companies were exhibiting for years now at every international arms fair, but that were to be found nowhere amongst their own troops?
It would have been enough to simply launch production and dole them out one per squad or at least one per platoon as soon as it was noticed that cheap Chinese quadrocopters which spot artillery for the Ukies are a problem.
No need to come up with some bespoke solution for trenches, tanks or whatever. These microwave beamers or whatever they are would have been sufficient for any off-the-shelf commercial drone in Ukrainian possession.

And the Ukro army is a NATO one, but also a budget one. They're not going to equip it with their latest technologies and most sophisticated armaments of any nature; maybe some experimental weapons by some curious arms manufacturers at most. So the fact that they don't have an effective anti-drone solution themselves is nothing to gloat over.

Portable Anti-Drone systems such as this one are apperaring anywhere now.
They´re "stronger" than those guns and no need to point at the unfriendly drone to jam it.


These jammers against IED´s are broadly used on armored vehicles, even on trucks.
Soon we will see anti-drone jammers used in a similar fashion.

The answer to your question is quite easy.
I suppose all that products included tons of electronics that was imported.
And hardly any was ordered by the army.
So when shit hit the fan, they were unable to deliver a big numbers.
As easy as that.
So "it took a year" is not serious.
Yes, it took them a year.
Unbelievable fast.

"Imported electronics?"

I think even Zimbabwe can put together some magnetrons and diodes to control it if pressed to, using just some scrap electronics or components ordered from China. You can pull one out from the microwave, and then amplify, direct it as needed if all else fails.

But here we're talking about Russia, a country with one of the largest and most sophisticated radio-electronic component manufacturing bases and level of expertise in the world. It's not the same as integrated circuits or electronics for satellites. Here Russia is itself a world leader.

Yeah I get that the fancy devices that are appearing now are better, but the troops needed anti-UAV means a year ago, not now. And if the problem was that the army didn't take the UAV threat seriously and never placed any orders; then this problem should have been corrected as soon as the necessity became clear.

Yes but not an imported one at any rate; don't want to wait a whole year for it

What happened to all the man-portable anti-UAV jammer rifles that Russian companies were exhibiting for years now at every international arms fair, but that were to be found nowhere amongst their own troops?

I have seen images of those jammer rifles and I would expect they were widely tested... and I rather suspect what they decided was that while such things are effective they rely on the operator knowing where the drone is and actually pointing the weapon accurately at the target to defeat it.

The jammer stations shown have multiple jamming elements covering full 360 degrees... if the problem is lack of components then it would be easier to make a gun with one sent of components than to make a ground station with multiple fixed sets of antenna pointing in all directions at once.

Equally I rather suspect extra range and therefore extra power would be useful so instead of carrying a portable battery that a larger set with rather more power would make more sense and be more effective in the field.

https://t.me/milinfolive/96821?single

The first confirmation of the presence in the ammunition of Russian tanks of new 125-mm armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles 3BM60 "Svinets-2" appeared.

Previously, in the BC of Russian tanks, basically, only significantly outdated 125-mm BOPS "Mango" were seen, which no longer met the necessary criteria for modern ammunition.  However, now, with the introduction of the newest Lead-2 rounds in ammunition, Russian tankers will be able to hit the supplied Western tanks in frontal projection from a much greater distance.

BOPS 3BM60 "Svinets-2" has a tungsten core and is used together with the propellant charge 4Zh96 "Ozon-T" as part of the 3VBM23 shot, providing an estimated penetration of about 700 mm of homogeneous steel from two kilometers at a right angle.  The projectile length of 740 mm, which is practically the limit for domestic automatic loaders, allows it to be used only from new tanks, such as the T-90A, T-90M, T-72B3, T-80BVM.

@milinfolive

NATO need not worry; Russia has extra spicy DU arrows cooked just for them, if ever they grew the balls to fight overtly.

OTOH every single foreign user of the 125 mm caliber just about creamed their jeans. Rosoboronexport is finally going to get the green light to ship subcaliber shells that aren't 3BM42 after close to 30 years.