T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

Some more Telnik details :




General composition of a round and subsystems needed for it to operate.
Forgive me for my laziness, I can't translate it now - will do it tomorrow or asking now some good Samaritan to do it in the meantime.

Электронный дистанционно контактный взрыватель - electronic contact remote fuze for remote detonation

блок с готовыми поражающими элементами - Block with ready made sub munitions

привинтная головка - separate warhead

корпус со стабилизатором - stabilization housing

It seems this round will shower the enemy with fragmenting submunitions that can be detonated remotely, with good effectiveness against infantry and ATGM

Prefabricated fragments replace shell body in some range, so you might be right.

limb wrote:
Russia absolutely never put ainet in service, let alone used it. 100% of all 125mm rounds that have been used in the SMO have the 3OF26 contact fuse round.  

3OF26 is the HE round. I'm assuming you're saying here that in all of the SMO the Russians exclusively used contact fuses for all their HE shell needs at least for the 125mm caliber. In which case I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit because 1) Reputable sources have established that the Ainet airburst fuse setting system is installed on several T-80/90 variants; 2) multiple video evidences of airbursting ammunition that may or may not be Ainet fused 3OF26 are demonstrated; 3) claims by actual operators on the ground of their usage; and 4) lastly, because you have no way of accessing the information required to declare that and I quote: "100% of all 125mm rounds that have been used in the SMO have the 3OF26 contact fuse round" and anyone who says so that are not a senior ranking officer of the Russian Army is just blatantly lying.

limb wrote:
The US have been instensely using the M830A1 MPAT since 1994 which is laser rangefinder timed fuse.

Sounds impressive until you realize the M830A1 has an 80mm subcaliber HEAT warhead. The armor penetration of shaped charges is directly proportional to the liner cone diameter - thus the bigger the better. The most basic PG-7L has a 93mm diameter HEAT warhead.

I take it back. I'm actually impressed they managed to **** it up so bad a tank shell performs worse than a shoulder fired rocket. That takes real talent ... at fucking up  

As an airburst munition it probably is just as shit. Unlike proper high explosive fragmentation shells which use the energy of the explosion to shatter the shell body into supersonic shrapnel, shaped charge warheads concentrate most of their energy towards collapsing a liner into a super high pressure metal jet - exactly the opposite of the former. They are not nearly as effective as airburst munitions which is probably why the M830A1 is designated against airborne targets that are very rarely armored to begin with.

limb wrote:
South korea and france have the  timed airburst K280 and Nexter EXPL F1 in full scale service since 2008 and 2011 respectively.

K280 is a clone of the M830A1. Same caveats applies.

I have no information on the French round to comment apart from that it apparently exists as a single row in a table in wikipedia. But consulting Nexter Arrowtech's product brochure for 2023 an airbursting HE shell can be found in the HE IM3M that is still listed as in development. Unless of course, you know more than the manufacturer when it comes to their own products.  

limb wrote:
Russia is 10 years behind in programmable airburst tank rounds compared to NATO nations and South Korea.

NATO fanboys will swear up and down their shit is lightyears more advanced, but when shit falls to classic Soviet weapons they go into all sorts of contortions trying to explain why its just a fluke and the real NATO weapons were never really tried.

Belisarius wrote:Russia is 10 years behind what it should be if it weren't for what happened in the 90s, and yet it is 10 to 15 years ahead of NATO and South Korea when it comes to hypersonic technology and anti-aircraft defense.

That means they are still at least 10 years ahead from the rest of the planet in armor technology. NATO blew up all chances at catching up when they went full retard and spent all their money on blowing up brown people in shitholes most people barely heard of.

Sometimes I wish I had more nerves, as caging those apes cuts me off from such hilarious things ...

Ainet is not a specified type of tank round, only a system consisting of fuze setter and electronically controlled fuze. It can be used with any type of ammunition with fuze. So you can use a 3Sz7 canister projectile with the fuze, making a 125 mm shotgun with a predestined detonation point. Or use it for 3OF36.
What makes an issue here, is the fact  that it was originally fielded only with T-80UK tanks, which number totaled some three dozens. System was later adopted for T-90, but not from the beginning.  

M830A1 has a standard, electrically ignited fuze of M774 type. It is not programmable, and the round itself is considered of very low effectiveness.
The ape has no idea what is talking about, and the only bell that rings out there is a new M1147 that is supposed to replace a whole line of M830/908/1028. It's distribution at the moment is homeopathic.

Belisarius wrote:Russia is 10 years behind what it should be if it weren't for what happened in the 90s, and yet it is 10 to 15 years ahead of NATO and South Korea when it comes to hypersonic technology and anti-aircraft defense.

They are a decade ahead in tank business as well, and not sure if not more than that.
It is enough to see what are the NATO ideas for "new" tanks that will be made in metal in the next decade.

With Ainet it is set before loading the round into the chamber. It is actually a small port with an electric circuit.
For this new Telnik, on a chart, there is some subsystem already where the ammunition computer is located. As I can't figure the shorts of the subsystems, I am not sure what do they operate - one of them can be the autoloader control panel. What does not fit is the fact that there should have been two of them, for the gunner and commander, while there is only one on the drawing.

Don't know if this has been posted here before but here is an episode from Combat Approved on the T-90M mostly filmed back in 2018 already. From 33.40 you can see the effect of this new round on the testing ground.

The problem with the apes is, that some of them won't realize that there is a lion until it will bite their heads off.
What is the very first observation anyone with some clue will made, is the fact that the most distinguished change to the more or less modern concepts presented by the west is a serious weight reduction.
We don't consider SEP3/4, or L2A8, or Ch3 a new tanks as none of them is, so the only two that apply at the moment is M1X and Panther.
In both cases, the end effect is a smaller tank with reduced weight.
As long as it can be considered some serious proposal for M1, Panther is just a dead horse beaten.
Both approaches have clear cons, and none of them gets even close to T-14.
Maybe M1X tries.
Both of them, will be a mature product in a decade if we are going to be optimists.
In both cases, the unit price will kill everybody.
So what we have here, is a whole of NATO being capable to finally design a tank that gets somehow close to the Russkie design, only TWO DECADES after.
And in both cases, tanks are already compromised and inferior to T-14 as it is even today. None of them represents a modular family of vehicles, and to pretend something similar, a usual voo doo is applied. MF51 is "modular concept", you know

And you can unlock extra parameters with a monthly subscription
Hitting a target will be the most expensive one
Our gamer-breed sofa marshalls will feel at home!

... not to mention a dedicated charger, otherwise system will reboot in a loop

... at random occasions

The best part about this tank is you can just pull the plug on it