This is a discussion on T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I always seen the T-90 as more of a replacement for the PT-76 then the T-64s and T-72s. The thing ...
I always seen the T-90 as more of a replacement for the PT-76 then the T-64s and T-72s. The thing is its better than the T-72 by that much that it has become their MBT until the black widow or T-95 programs get going again.
There is no way that a Russian T - 90 or a T - 80 can compare to a MIA1 or a M1A2, export or not. The only thing out there that can compare would be a German Leopard 2 A 5 or A 6. This is coming from someone who has alot of experience in this field. What happened to all those wonderful T - 80`s when the Russians decided to go in to their own backyard. (Chechney). I keep bringing up the T - 80 because it has alway`s been a far more advanced tank. All the Russians are trying to do is perform a T - 72 upgrade so that their Middle Eastern friends will buy them.
During Checheny times T-80 where used incorectly - even the best tank in the world could not perform batter when send in the city in whitch tanks where shoot at with RPGs, ATGM and antitank guns from often three different sides and from above - do you consider M1A2 strong enough to survive such enviroment??
I dont think so.
During first Russian-Chechen war constripct with only 1 year of military training where sent in the combat - total inexpirience unlike Chechen fighters who where led by former Soviet general whitch had expirienced and motivated fighters.
I would not say Merkava 4 or 3 is a bad tank just because some of them where eliminated by Hez fighters. Hez intercepted comunications, tanks moved in small pairs, did not have any APS protection itd.
Each tank performs well in a role for whitch is constructed for - any other limits its efficiency.
Point well taken, you are right in the fact that tanks do not do fairly well in a urbanized war setting, I should also added that some of the Russian armored units did not have the explosive inserts for their reactive armor and this could of contributed to some of the losses. I would like to ask you this, which tank does the Russian army prefer, the T-90 or the T-80. This is a little off track but does the Russian army plan on adding more BMP 3`s to their inventory, The South Korean amry has a sizable batch of them and are quite satisfied with it`s performance.
I would like to ask you this, which tank does the Russian army prefer, the T-90 or the T-80. This is a little off track but does the Russian army plan on adding more BMP 3`s to their inventory, The South Korean amry has a sizable batch of them and are quite satisfied with it`s performance.
- The BMP-3 program is going further as well, each year some tens of this vehicles are entering service.
T-90 - is a single model of tank, that is in production untill T-95 will come. So no new T-80 will be built, but an active modernisation of the big storage (~4000) of T-80 models with the new secret FCS and ERA Relikt is under way in Omsk (Sibiria). This is a pic of a modernised T-80B:
Last edited by extern; September 30th, 2006 at 08:43 AM.
Great picture, it looks like that it has the same type of reactive armor package that is on the T-90.
Untrue. The T-90S has Kontakt-V ERA that useless against tandem warheads. Relikt kit makes the tank defended against the most advanced tandem ATGMs. Thus, this ERA is more advanced that on T-90S.
Apart the T-80 modernisation, the same ERA and FCS kits are used for T-72 modernisation under the name 'Rogatka'. Some 180 T-80 and T-72 are modernised this year:
Untrue. The T-90S has Kontakt-V ERA that useless against tandem warheads. Relikt kit makes the tank defended against the most advanced tandem ATGMs. Thus, this ERA is more advanced that on T-90S.
Apart the T-80 modernisation, the same ERA and FCS kits are used for T-72 modernisation under the name 'Rogatka'. Some 180 T-80 and T-72 are modernised this year:
Have you any information about Relikt ERA. I have heard of it only recently and Im quite astonish by its ability to take out tandem warhead. How well Relikt stands against kinetic penetrators?
Have you any information about Relikt ERA. I have heard of it only recently and Im quite astonish by its ability to take out tandem warhead. How well Relikt stands against kinetic penetrators?
Relikt is 5 time better then K-5 against APFSDS. However on real tank ERA - is only the part of whole armor, then the effect of putting Relikt instead K-5 apply will naturally be diminished slightly. With K-5 its effect on the real tank will multiply the capability of a round by coeff 0.81 (APFSDS)-0.5(cummulative), with Relikt - by 0.65 (APFSDS) -0.47 (Cummulative). For example, when M829A2 penetrating capability for steel is 750 mm , it will penetrate only 0.65x750=487mm of T-72 armor with Relikt ERA. Source: NII Stali article http://www.niistali.ru/article/article_04.htm (Russian only, sorry)
From the same site:
"At RUSSIAN EXPO ARMS 2006 exhibition held in Nizhniy Tagil on July 11-15 a new multi-purpose ERA package made by NII Stali was demonstrated on an upgraded T-72B tank (“Sling-shot”).
At RUSSIAN EXPO ARMS 2006 exhibition held in Nizhniy Tagil on July 11-15 a new multi-purpose ERA package made by NII Stali was demonstrated on an upgraded T-72B tank (“Sling-shot”).
The new ERA package is almost twice as effective as Contact-V ERA system.
It is called multi-purpose not only because it defeats both HEAT-warhead and KE ammunition, but also because it is made as a number of separate modules, which makes it possible to fit the package to any tank types using standard modules and attachment fittings."
also:
"INTEGRATED MODULAR ERA SYSTEM FOR T-72 M1 MBT
The kit consists of a glacis plate ERA module, quickly removable ERA boxes fitted to the turret roof and sides and on the hull sides; and rubber-fabric screens for the hull sides.
The kit ensures increase of counter-APFSDS and counter-HEAT protection level of the MBT in the fire angles of ±20° (the hull) and ±35° (the turret).
Counter-APFSDS protection increases by factors of 1.5-1.6;
Counter-HEAT protection increases by a factor of 2.0;
Coverage of the turret and hull surface: 60-68%;
Weight of the kit: 2,300 kgs.
The ERA tiles do not detonate when hit by small arms bullets (up to 12.7mm), fragments of 125mm HE rounds or when exposed to incendiary mixtures (napalm).
The ERA kit can be installed and repaired by the Army field repair groups." http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/t72_en.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eckherl
Was the upgrades due to the war in chechnya.
- It is the second modernisation program after the 2nd ChW. It includes new FCS with TV-IR gunner-commander site subsystem, RELIKT ERA, anticummulative grids, 'Nakidka' kit for IR emision and radar observability reduce, the remote controlled new highly improved mashingun, new stabilisation system for the MG allowing fire on the move (for 'classic T-72's it didnt exist before), tank launched ATGMs compatibility, new highly improved and very economic engine for T-72 (V99 with 1250 hp instead of V46 with 780 hp) of the same dimension and the new tracks from T-90 (for T-72 however). The modernised T-80 however is remain with its current powerplant - 1000 gas-turbine engine and with its original trachs. The contemporal program (Rogatka) - partially fits also the russian T-80 fleet. Before Rogatka was another modernisation with K-5 integrated ERA like on the T-90 (under the name "T-72M1" - for T-72 only):
Last edited by extern; October 1st, 2006 at 06:55 AM.
Thanks for such detail reply. What do you know about Kaktus ERA - as I heard of it it supšosed to be double Kontakt-5 to defeat M829A2 and M829A3 rounds.
Thanks for such detail reply. What do you know about Kaktus ERA - as I heard of it it supšosed to be double Kontakt-5 to defeat M829A2 and M829A3 rounds.
Kaktus ERA is a contemporal generation ERA and it's lighter that Relikt (`2.3t). Its kit weights like Contact-V (K-5) with 1.5t, and it intially was intended for T-80 modernisation including the most advanced variant - T-80M2 (Black Eagle). But it dosent got all the features of Relikt like protection against tandem warheads. Thus, at the end the standartisated T-72/T-80 modernisation with Relikt ERA was chosen and is going on now. However, an ERA on Kaktus technology is offered for instalation on the light armored vehicles like BMP-3 and BMP-2 , its characteristics are as follow (according to the developer NII Stali
All-round protection against PG-9S grenades:
- with і 0.8 probability in the areas covered by ERA tiles;
- with і 0.5 probability in the areas covered by grill screens.
No breach of the main armor when hit by AT grenades.
Protection against AP bullets:
- 12.7mm B-32 AP bullets - point-blank;
- 14.5mm B-32 AP bullets - at 50m.
Hull protection against 30mm AP ammunition at firing angles of ±30° at 0m.
Reduction of irretrievable losses of vehicles by a factor of 5
Increase of possibility of vehicle combat efficiency restoration by a factor of 8
Reduction of irretrievable losses of the crew and troops by a factor of 12
Total weight of the kit: 4,150 kg.
- I think, its weight is so big because they use the foam-plastic filler in the boxes to keep buoyancy.
(see the pics):
Last edited by extern; October 1st, 2006 at 08:30 AM.
Excellant information, due you think that it will stop the M829A2 and A3 rounds. Do you have any penetration information on the extended lenght German 120mm that is on the Leopard A6. Looking at the size of the up armor package that is on the BMP 3 and 2 it looks really bulky. I would think that even if a shaped charged war head in the gun size of 105mm or 120mm would still due some major damage due to the velocity and impact, that goes for any infantry fighting vechicle.
Excellant information, due you think that it will stop the M829A2 and A3 rounds. Do you have any penetration information on the extended lenght German 120mm that is on the Leopard A6.
I dont sure about the quikness, but the armor-shell race will follow as usually. Russian tank-building phylosophy says that the tank must be defended with rationality and cannot be over-defended because it blemishes the mobility and rises the price. If you comprehend the phylosophy, you will better understand the Russians why they do some things that seem strange for superficial look. For example, why they only put K5 on T-90 when the much older T-72s and T-80s get Relikt as well? It is a bit strange, no? But it lies good on the bed of their philosophy: T-90 with K5 provides sufficient defence against any exist APFSDS (say with 85% probability) then it's good. They dont seek for 'wonderwaffen' thus a T-90 with Relikt - will be overkill from their point of view. Relikt is only needed for T-72 and T-80 because with Relikt ERA these tanks will be defended (with reasonable probability) against any current threat.
I think such philosophy is not casual. I remember the case when the Hitler's military intelligence Abwer desinformated the russians before the war about the armor of german tanks: they spreaded a rumor that the geman tanks with super strong 100mm armor will enter the service very soon. Indeed the most german tanks had the armor of less that 50mm and were vulnerable for antiarmor rifles as well. But the rumor worked, and the russians made some thousands havy antitank 75mm guns instead of million antitank rifles. I think, it was a hard lesson for russians to distinct well between the truth and psiops.
hey guys indian army is acquiring 1000 more t-90's to supplement the 310 tanks already acquired(these 1000 t-90 tanks will be built in india under tot from russia),the t90 tanks had some initial problems ,but these seem to have been resolved now.
india is also upgrading its t-72's under the project rhino with polish,israeli and russian assistance.
hey guys indian army is acquiring 1000 more t-90's to supplement the 310 tanks already acquired(these 1000 t-90 tanks will be built in india under tot from russia).
