Jump to content


T-90 MS


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
72 replies to this topic

ravenarh #1 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 04:48

    Private

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    03-11-2011

September 11. 2011, Russia Unveiled T-90MS At Nizhny Tagil Arms Show.
source: http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/

T-90MS has frontal protection 850мм against armor-piercer, 1200 mm against cumulative shell. Armed with guided missile with range of shooting to five kilometers.
Better 2-axis stabilized remote controlled machine-gun with FCS compatible with any 3rd party weapon including grenade launcher, automatically target tracking,
3-channel driver view with electronic imaging, 4 video cameras including rear view, place for 10 rounds in the bustle.
At Nizhny Tagil Arms Show Putin said that 3 trillion rubles for military-industrial complex development will be invested till 2020.

General Information:
Combat weight, t______________________________________48
Crew_________________________________________________3
Length with gun, mm:
Gun forward________________________________________9430
Gun model______________________________________2А46М-5
Bore size, mm_______________________________________125
Rate of fire, rounds/min__________________________________7
Fire Control System:
Double control of the fire from the commander’s station__Available
Gunner’s night sight___________________Thermal Imager ESSA
Night identification range of tank side projection, m_________4000
Loading:
Ammunition allowance (incl.automatic loading gear)_____40 (22)
Missile guidance system:
Maximum range of fire, m_____________________________5000
Protection:
Armour guard, type______Combined turret from the rolled armour
Explosive reactive armour, type_________________Multipurpose
Opto-electronic suppression system_________________Available
NBC protection system_____________________Crew protection
Mobility and Cross-Country Ability:
Max highway speed, km/h______________________________72
Fuel distance with barrels, km__________________________550
Trench, m_____________________________________2.6 ... 2.8
Obstacle ability, m___________________________________0.85
Power Plant:
Engine type_______________________________В-92С2 (diesel)
Number of cylinders, pc________________________________12
Cylinder arrangement_________________________V-type, at 60°
Gross horsepower, kW (hp)___________________________1130
Power Train:
Type____________automatic transmission (reserve mechanical)
Number of gears ____________________7-forward and 1-reverse
Running Gear:
Suspension, type_________________________________Torsion
Shock absorbers, type____________Hydraulic, vane-type (6pcs)
Crew friendliness______________________________conditioner

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

_____________________________________________________________
discussion:Can a Russian 125mm APFSDS defeat a Leo 2 Frontally?

ttt17 #2 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 04:56

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
hmm so its a modified t-72, glad the russsians went all out...and no the 125 wont be able to defeat the leo or abrams frontally...sorry...

Top_Gear_UK #3 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 05:32

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 0 battles
  • 2,510
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010
Again, a modified T72. Russia needs to retire this design altogether, its not bad, but the magizine autoloader is horribly vunerable. Reactive armor works real well against shape charges and rpg style rounds, what it is nearly useless against is depleated uranium sabots like the Challenger 2, Abrams and Leopard 2A6 are using. Russia is well capable of building a great MBT (the Black Shark was a good start, just a bit too ambitious) so retire the worn out T72s and lets see some real Russian steel!!!

hurimirshugu #4 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 08:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 26
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

View Postmetalgod, on Sep 14 2011 - 05:32, said:

Again, a modified T72. Russia needs to retire this design altogether, its not bad, but the magizine autoloader is horribly vunerable. Reactive armor works real well against shape charges and rpg style rounds, what it is nearly useless against is depleated uranium sabots like the Challenger 2, Abrams and Leopard 2A6 are using. Russia is well capable of building a great MBT (the Black Shark was a good start, just a bit too ambitious) so retire the worn out T72s and lets see some real Russian steel!!!

Strictly speaking, the autoloader magazine in the T-72-derived tanks is no more vulnerable than the reserve ammo boxes in the Leo 2 (located in left section of front hull) or that of the Leclerc (drum magazine in right section of front hull) or the Merkava (rear hull left and right sections). All these ammo storage schemes hold the same dangers because they are not isolated from the crew by bulkheads and their compact arrangement increases the possibility of sympathetic explosions in the event of a hull penetration. What makes the ammo storage scheme of the T-72 family truly horrible are two factors:

1. The rest of the ammo. <_<  In all variants of the T-72 and T-90 to date every single piece of ammo not in the autoloader magazine is stored all over the hull and turret floor area and all are horribly exposed. There are two charge cases under the seats of the turret crew! This basically means that a single spark falling into the turret has much greater potential to ignite a charge than in Western tanks. The autoloader itself is well protected and has an armored cover. In most cases of autoloader carousel detonation identified, the actual explosion starts with one of the exposed reserve charges and results in sympathetic detonation of ammo inside the carousel, so it's not usually the carousel itself that causes disaster.

2. The inherent inability to isolate any ammo from the crew. :Smile-izmena:  In the Leo 2, Leclerc, and Merkava, there is always the option of simply emptying the reserve ammo boxes (which is done by Leos in Afghanistan and Merks in most recent conflicts) and relying on the ready ammo rack, which is isolated from the crew by armored bulkheads and located in the turret bustle, thus equipped with blowoff panels. In the T-72 family, the carousel is by definition necessary for normal tank operations and must always be loaded with ammo. This means that there is always going to be a giant powderkeg underneath the crew with no way to vent overpressure in the event of charge detonation, let alone HE round explosion.

The Black Eagle (T-80UM2) MBT resolves some of these issues by having a turret bustle autoloader and (in one variant) a lengthened hull with additional frontal armor and a special section of the hull for storing the reserve ammo. The problem with the design isn't that it was too ambitious but rather that it used the T-80 hull as a basis. The T-80 was mostly produced in Russia by the Kirov and Omsk factories and in the Ukraine by the Malyshev (now Kharkiv-Morozov) factory. The costly gas turbine engine caused cash-strapped Russia to stop production after the Soviet collapse and the T-80UD diesel-engined version designed by Morozov bureau (of T-34 and -54/55 fame) was produced mainly in the Ukraine so is now basically another country's product. The T-72, on the other hand, is quite numerous and production capacity remains in Russia. The T-90 being an upgrade of the -72 gives it a lot of logistical and political advantages over the T-80-based Black Eagle tank. The T-80 simply went out of favor in Russia, and the Black Eagle shared its fate. Then Omsk Transhmash went bankrupt due to financial mismanagement and development stopped completely.

There are proposals for a bustle autoloader for the T-90 derived from the Black Eagle's autoloader, so hope is not lost yet. Future generations of T-90 might incorporate this scheme.

As for reactive armor effectiveness against sabot round, it is true that traditional flying plate type reactive armor is useless, but modern Russian reactive armor like Kontakt-5 and Relikt actually use a shearing plate mechanism, which is why they are always angled on the tank's front hull. In this scheme, the reactive plate is not thrown against the impacting projectile but rather shears its way at an angle to the body of the projectile. With long sabot rounds, this would impart a tangential velocity component to the body that may cause it to break. This would separate the round into a shorter sharp-edged penetrator and a longer blunt-edged shaft (or even more pieces). The sharp-edged penetrator can stab through armor but lacks the mass to impart significant momentum to the tank's body. The blunt edged shaft has the mass, and therefore ability to impart momentum, but lacks the sharp edge that would allow it to stab through. With some luck both segments would be stopped by the static armor behind the reactive armor. This is why Russians claim that their modern reactive armor adds 200-500mm rha-equivalent to protection against kinetic energy rounds. Another way to look at it is that the reactive armor splits a round into a wimpy arrow and a clumsy battering ram, neither of which can punch through the steel wall behind it.

With that said, the US M829E3 sabot round is probably too long to be stopped by this mechanism.

IronsightSniper #5 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 10:16

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    01-18-2011

View Postmetalgod, on Sep 14 2011 - 05:32, said:

Again, a modified T72. Russia needs to retire this design altogether, its not bad, but the magizine autoloader is horribly vunerable. Reactive armor works real well against shape charges and rpg style rounds, what it is nearly useless against is depleated uranium sabots like the Challenger 2, Abrams and Leopard 2A6 are using. Russia is well capable of building a great MBT (the Black Shark was a good start, just a bit too ambitious) so retire the worn out T72s and lets see some real Russian steel!!!

The reactive armor that the T-90M uses is more advanced then the ERA the west issues to our tanks (Russians use Relikt now I think). It's supposedly good enough to disturb the M829A3 and DM66 KE penetrator enough for the T-90M's main armor to stop it out right at 2 km. And yes, the 125 mm gun with the right APFSDS round can penetrate the Front Glacis of the Abrams and Leopard 2A6 from 2 km, but just the Glacis.

Lunaris #6 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 10:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View Postmetalgod, on Sep 14 2011 - 05:32, said:

Again, a modified T72. Russia needs to retire this design altogether, its not bad, but the magizine autoloader is horribly vunerable. Reactive armor works real well against shape charges and rpg style rounds, what it is nearly useless against is depleated uranium sabots like the Challenger 2, Abrams and Leopard 2A6 are using. Russia is well capable of building a great MBT (the Black Shark was a good start, just a bit too ambitious) so retire the worn out T72s and lets see some real Russian steel!!!

I believe US try to test their lattest APSFS ammo on East Germany t 72 with ERA and It fail to penetrate the armor, so ERA works on US uranium AP sabot. Oh don't put Iraqi Asad Babil with the real Russian t 72. The Iraqis don't put ERA on their tanks.

Nodbugger #7 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 16:07

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 634
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostLunaris, on Sep 14 2011 - 10:58, said:

I believe US try to test their lattest APSFS ammo on East Germany t 72 with ERA and It fail to penetrate the armor, so ERA works on US uranium AP sabot. Oh don't put Iraqi Asad Babil with the real Russian t 72. The Iraqis don't put ERA on their tanks.


A round doesn't need to penetrate to kill the crew.



Wooterten #8 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 16:34

    Private

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    09-10-2011
Epic post with lotsa info thanks for posting this!

Top_Gear_UK #9 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 17:17

    Major

  • Community Contributor
  • 0 battles
  • 2,510
  • Member since:
    09-10-2010

View Posthurimirshugu, on Sep 14 2011 - 08:10, said:

Strictly speaking, the autoloader magazine in the T-72-derived tanks is no more vulnerable than the reserve ammo boxes in the Leo 2 (located in left section of front hull) or that of the Leclerc (drum magazine in right section of front hull) or the Merkava (rear hull left and right sections). All these ammo storage schemes hold the same dangers because they are not isolated from the crew by bulkheads and their compact arrangement increases the possibility of sympathetic explosions in the event of a hull penetration. What makes the ammo storage scheme of the T-72 family truly horrible are two factors:

1. The rest of the ammo. <_<  In all variants of the T-72 and T-90 to date every single piece of ammo not in the autoloader magazine is stored all over the hull and turret floor area and all are horribly exposed. There are two charge cases under the seats of the turret crew! This basically means that a single spark falling into the turret has much greater potential to ignite a charge than in Western tanks. The autoloader itself is well protected and has an armored cover. In most cases of autoloader carousel detonation identified, the actual explosion starts with one of the exposed reserve charges and results in sympathetic detonation of ammo inside the carousel, so it's not usually the carousel itself that causes disaster.

2. The inherent inability to isolate any ammo from the crew. :Smile-izmena:  In the Leo 2, Leclerc, and Merkava, there is always the option of simply emptying the reserve ammo boxes (which is done by Leos in Afghanistan and Merks in most recent conflicts) and relying on the ready ammo rack, which is isolated from the crew by armored bulkheads and located in the turret bustle, thus equipped with blowoff panels. In the T-72 family, the carousel is by definition necessary for normal tank operations and must always be loaded with ammo. This means that there is always going to be a giant powderkeg underneath the crew with no way to vent overpressure in the event of charge detonation, let alone HE round explosion.

The Black Eagle (T-80UM2) MBT resolves some of these issues by having a turret bustle autoloader and (in one variant) a lengthened hull with additional frontal armor and a special section of the hull for storing the reserve ammo. The problem with the design isn't that it was too ambitious but rather that it used the T-80 hull as a basis. The T-80 was mostly produced in Russia by the Kirov and Omsk factories and in the Ukraine by the Malyshev (now Kharkiv-Morozov) factory. The costly gas turbine engine caused cash-strapped Russia to stop production after the Soviet collapse and the T-80UD diesel-engined version designed by Morozov bureau (of T-34 and -54/55 fame) was produced mainly in the Ukraine so is now basically another country's product. The T-72, on the other hand, is quite numerous and production capacity remains in Russia. The T-90 being an upgrade of the -72 gives it a lot of logistical and political advantages over the T-80-based Black Eagle tank. The T-80 simply went out of favor in Russia, and the Black Eagle shared its fate. Then Omsk Transhmash went bankrupt due to financial mismanagement and development stopped completely.

There are proposals for a bustle autoloader for the T-90 derived from the Black Eagle's autoloader, so hope is not lost yet. Future generations of T-90 might incorporate this scheme.

As for reactive armor effectiveness against sabot round, it is true that traditional flying plate type reactive armor is useless, but modern Russian reactive armor like Kontakt-5 and Relikt actually use a shearing plate mechanism, which is why they are always angled on the tank's front hull. In this scheme, the reactive plate is not thrown against the impacting projectile but rather shears its way at an angle to the body of the projectile. With long sabot rounds, this would impart a tangential velocity component to the body that may cause it to break. This would separate the round into a shorter sharp-edged penetrator and a longer blunt-edged shaft (or even more pieces). The sharp-edged penetrator can stab through armor but lacks the mass to impart significant momentum to the tank's body. The blunt edged shaft has the mass, and therefore ability to impart momentum, but lacks the sharp edge that would allow it to stab through. With some luck both segments would be stopped by the static armor behind the reactive armor. This is why Russians claim that their modern reactive armor adds 200-500mm rha-equivalent to protection against kinetic energy rounds. Another way to look at it is that the reactive armor splits a round into a wimpy arrow and a clumsy battering ram, neither of which can punch through the steel wall behind it.

With that said, the US M829E3 sabot round is probably too long to be stopped by this mechanism.
This is an intelligent, well tought out rebuttal to my post, I wish everyone would be this eliquent in there disagreements, I even learned something from this post. When my +- resets today...+1

teegee #10 Posted Sep 14 2011 - 23:48

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 70
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View Postmetalgod, on Sep 14 2011 - 05:32, said:

Reactive armor works real well against shape charges and rpg style rounds, what it is nearly useless against is depleated uranium sabots like the Challenger 2, Abrams and Leopard 2A6 are using.

http://btvt.narod.ru...es/image010.jpg

that is what ukraine's noz era did to sabots in testing.

neither were hardly new ammo but era can degrade the ability of sabots to penetrate.


anyways, the t-90ms, or whatever name they finally pick for the thing, is a marked improvement over the t-90a with modern electronics, new tandem resistant era, a more armored and wider(so it can fit longer sabots) cassette loader, as well as add on armor on the front hull and around the gun barrel similar to those found on the leopard 2a6 and later variants. as well as all loose ammo being moved into the bustle with blowout panels.

Lunaris #11 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 00:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostNodbugger, on Sep 14 2011 - 16:07, said:

A round doesn't need to penetrate to kill the crew.

What? They die because hearth attack?

One M1A1 was hit with Iraqi sabot in 1991, no penetration no crew casualty. Recent South Ossetia war Russian T 72 was hit by another T 72 from Geogian side. No penetration no crew casualty.

It seems future Tank will move from manual loader to auto loader. The latest Japanese, Chinese and Korean tanks already use auto loader. On western MBT only French use auto loader. And modern tanks with manual loader haven't face its proper opponent that can cause injury or kill the loader.

Dominatus #12 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 01:22

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 11,753
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostLunaris, on Sep 15 2011 - 00:56, said:

What? They die because hearth attack?

One M1A1 was hit with Iraqi sabot in 1991, no penetration no crew casualty. Recent South Ossetia war Russian T 72 was hit by another T 72 from Geogian side. No penetration no crew casualty.

It seems future Tank will move from manual loader to auto loader. The latest Japanese, Chinese and Korean tanks already use auto loader. On western MBT only French use auto loader. And modern tanks with manual loader haven't face its proper opponent that can cause injury or kill the loader.

The US, Germany, and Britain conciously decided not to use an auto-loader for a variety of reasons. The auto-loader can also be damaged in combat. Spalling (or whatever it is without rivets but pieces still fly around) can still kill the crew even without penetration.

Nodbugger #13 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 01:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 634
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostLunaris, on Sep 15 2011 - 00:56, said:

What? They die because hearth attack?

One M1A1 was hit with Iraqi sabot in 1991, no penetration no crew casualty. Recent South Ossetia war Russian T 72 was hit by another T 72 from Geogian side. No penetration no crew casualty.

It seems future Tank will move from manual loader to auto loader. The latest Japanese, Chinese and Korean tanks already use auto loader. On western MBT only French use auto loader. And modern tanks with manual loader haven't face its proper opponent that can cause injury or kill the loader.

As the poster above me said, things like spalling. Where there is such a deformation of armor that it breaks apart on the inside shooting shrapnel inside the tank.

Not to mention the shock caused by the hit. Just firing your own gun bounces the crew around a decent amount. Add that force into the vehicle getting hit and not expecting it with spalling and of course equipment on the inside coming lose and hitting the crew. Penetration isn't always necessary.

I've met foreign officers whose tanks have auto loaders. My friend from South Sudan who uses a mixture  of different T-72 variants hated the auto loader and preferred the manual loading. He said the auto loaders always broke and when they did it was very difficult to manually load the round. Especially as the commander. Not to mention manual loading is actually faster. After a few minutes of training I was able to load the 120mm in an M1A1 in under 5 seconds, experienced loaders can do it in 3-4 seconds.

Not to mention the one thing many forget to mention. The addition of a crew member. When things break and you need to do maintenance, or when loading it, doing a PMCS, breaking track, having a 4th man helps tremendously. Having a soldier that can leave the tank to pick stuff up or move things around or even working as a temporary OP to spot targets is invaluable.

Lunaris #14 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 01:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
Have you ever take a peek on USA latest prototype tank? the 40 tons ACV with automatic turret?

T 90MS use relict armor. It has unique shape different than previous kontact 5 armor. And acording to wiki it can stop M829E3 sabot, according to wiki.

Edit: Risk of spalling is reduced on latest MBT since unlike T 72, T 90 already use rolled armor and with a lot electronic on board it will reduce the chance that the crew will be harmed from armor fragments.

Nodbugger #15 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 02:02

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 634
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostLunaris, on Sep 15 2011 - 01:59, said:

Have you ever take a peek on USA latest prototype tank? the 40 tons ACV with automatic turret?

T 90MS use relict armor. It has unique shape different than previous kontact 5 armor. And acording to wiki it can stop M829E3 sabot, according to wiki.

I haven't seen that yet, but I have seen the M1A3 and lets just say it is beautiful.

Lunaris #16 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 02:12

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
Havent seen M1A3. I have problem with google. It says M1A3 will be lighter than M1A2. Some even say that it will use autoloader and it will be intended for export since M1A2 will be in service up to 2050.

teegee #17 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 02:42

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 70
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostLunaris, on Sep 15 2011 - 01:59, said:



T 90MS use relict armor. It has unique shape different than previous kontact 5 armor. And acording to wiki it can stop M829E3 sabot, according to wiki.

that is a load. no ERA can stop any kinetic shell by itself.

if you look at the image I posted earlier, you can see that ERA just slices a sabot in half and the armor still has to contend with the 2 halves of a sabot moving 1500m/sec or so. ERA degrades a sabot's penetration and acts like a multiplier to the effective thickness of a tank's armor against kinetic rounds.

Dominatus #18 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 02:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 11,753
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View Postteegee, on Sep 15 2011 - 02:42, said:

that is a load. no ERA can stop any kinetic shell by itself.

if you look at the image I posted earlier, you can see that ERA just slices a sabot in half and the armor still has to contend with the 2 halves of a sabot moving 1500m/sec or so. ERA degrades a sabot's penetration and acts like a multiplier to the effective thickness of a tank's armor against kinetic rounds.

Could just be wiki being unclear though, so the basic idea is there.

Lunaris #19 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 06:20

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 996
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
Its say Relict works different than Kontact 5. Contact 5 cut the tip of the sabot, Relict reduce the kinetic power by exploding before impact. I dont know how its work. Its much more complicated than Kontact 5. I dont know how it recognize the incoming projectile is HEAT or AP.

hurimirshugu #20 Posted Sep 15 2011 - 07:24

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 26
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

View PostNodbugger, on Sep 15 2011 - 02:02, said:

I haven't seen that yet, but I have seen the M1A3 and lets just say it is beautiful.

Photographs circulating in the net of what some claim to be M1A3 have been debunked as actually being either the "Thumper" 140mm M1 prototype from long ago being moved from storage or the CATTB prototype. Are you perhaps referring to a completely different vehicle? Can you leak it a bit?  :Smile-hiding: