The MPAT is designated M830A1 and HE-OR is designated M908, both rounds will probably be replaced by the new Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) round currently under development.
T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour
- Status
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.
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.
Yes we have a problem.
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.
Yes we have a problem.
A source for your info would be nice, given that you're making some awfully specific capability claims.
peschernik
New Member
Methos, I know about all these developments which you mention. And I never wrote that NATO has only anti-tank rounds. I just meant that in Afghanistan and in Chechnya, 90% of ammunition of Russian tanks was high-explosive rounds. But in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of the ammunition Abrams was the anti-tank rounds, but I certainly know what Abrams also used and other types of rounds (like HE rounds). However, I believe that destroying the block of houses with enemy infantry inside, the Russian tanks can do better than Abrams. Because Russian tanks are equipped with autoloader who does not get tired (but a man on the spot of autoloader eventually become tired). Russian’s tanks can be engaging in the bombing in during many hours, only taking a break to recharge. (Autoloader not only not get tired, autoloader also not drop the HE rounds on the floor of the tank). I remember as Russian’s tanks bombarded the capital of Chechnya. (Note: the total weight of the Russian’s HE round and the charge to him is 56 kg.)
I believe that the size of frontal projection of tank give affect on his protection.
This picture has been shown to Putin by the designer-engineer of the T-90MS.
http://www.vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/files/Harkonnen/(110918145938)_122276-1-f.jpg
The equivalent of a frontal protection of T90MS which I see in internet, was 950 mm. But Feanor speak about 850mm. I don’t know.
About the protection of the tank T90.
According to NII Stali (Scientific Research Institute of Steel), who designed armor of T-90, defeat of the T-90 with the ERA Relikt by APFSDS M829A3 is possible from distance not more than 1.2 km.
Also, not only Relikt, for customers, to increasing the protection of the T-90, the Russian are ready to provide camouflage kit Nakidka.
(Nakidka not unique, but very good. The Russian Nakidka camouflage kit was designed to reduce the Optical, Thermal, Infrared, and Radar signatures of a tank, so that acquisition of the tank would be difficult. According to Nii Stali, the designers of Nakidka, Nakidka would reduce the probabilities of detection via "visual and near-IR bands by 30%, the thermal band by 2-3 fold, radar band by six fold, and radar-thermal band to near-background levels.)
About Shtora
Shtora-2 is able to withstand the most modern types of missiles. (Shtora-2 is a modern, modernized version of Shtora-1)
Also I see, some elements of the Shtora, is in T90MS.
Such as: When a laser beam is detected, the NBC protection system informs the crew with light and sound; it then launches laser defeating aerosol-smoke grenades, which enshroud the tank and break or degrade the lock. The tank commander can also press a button that will turn the turret front to the laser to meet incoming ATGM with the best protected section and to engage the laser beam source with the main gun.
About autoloader
Of course I know that the autoloader is a reason why Russian cannot do very long size APFSDS like M829A3.
And also I know Russian tray increase efficiency of their APFSDS as follows:
To increase the speed of penetrator, autoloader can use extra charge of gunpowder.
More longer APFSDS does not fit in traditional T-72 autoloaders. But the autoloader upgrade is straightforward and is assumed to have been carried out on T-90A tanks that are therefore compatible with 740 mm APFSDS. (The same autoloader I think also has T90MS.)
The new gun. The 2A46M-5 gun design made it possible to reduce technical dispersion of shells of all types by 15% in average and to increase effective range of fire. (2A46M-5 it is gun of T-90MS)
I believe that the size of frontal projection of tank give affect on his protection.
This picture has been shown to Putin by the designer-engineer of the T-90MS.
http://www.vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/files/Harkonnen/(110918145938)_122276-1-f.jpg
The equivalent of a frontal protection of T90MS which I see in internet, was 950 mm. But Feanor speak about 850mm. I don’t know.
About the protection of the tank T90.
According to NII Stali (Scientific Research Institute of Steel), who designed armor of T-90, defeat of the T-90 with the ERA Relikt by APFSDS M829A3 is possible from distance not more than 1.2 km.
Also, not only Relikt, for customers, to increasing the protection of the T-90, the Russian are ready to provide camouflage kit Nakidka.
(Nakidka not unique, but very good. The Russian Nakidka camouflage kit was designed to reduce the Optical, Thermal, Infrared, and Radar signatures of a tank, so that acquisition of the tank would be difficult. According to Nii Stali, the designers of Nakidka, Nakidka would reduce the probabilities of detection via "visual and near-IR bands by 30%, the thermal band by 2-3 fold, radar band by six fold, and radar-thermal band to near-background levels.)
About Shtora
Shtora-2 is able to withstand the most modern types of missiles. (Shtora-2 is a modern, modernized version of Shtora-1)
Also I see, some elements of the Shtora, is in T90MS.
Such as: When a laser beam is detected, the NBC protection system informs the crew with light and sound; it then launches laser defeating aerosol-smoke grenades, which enshroud the tank and break or degrade the lock. The tank commander can also press a button that will turn the turret front to the laser to meet incoming ATGM with the best protected section and to engage the laser beam source with the main gun.
About autoloader
Of course I know that the autoloader is a reason why Russian cannot do very long size APFSDS like M829A3.
And also I know Russian tray increase efficiency of their APFSDS as follows:
To increase the speed of penetrator, autoloader can use extra charge of gunpowder.
More longer APFSDS does not fit in traditional T-72 autoloaders. But the autoloader upgrade is straightforward and is assumed to have been carried out on T-90A tanks that are therefore compatible with 740 mm APFSDS. (The same autoloader I think also has T90MS.)
The new gun. The 2A46M-5 gun design made it possible to reduce technical dispersion of shells of all types by 15% in average and to increase effective range of fire. (2A46M-5 it is gun of T-90MS)
Last edited:
The APFSDS is known as 120 mm DM63 (i.e. DM = German ammo, 3 = AP round, 6 = sixth round of the type (AP) for this caliber).
I think we should not underestimate the capabilities of the new Relikt ERA, but also not the ones of 120 mm NATO APFSDS. Currently a number of countries have already their second generation APFSDS after Kontakt-5 - the first German APFSDS after Kontakt-5 was tested is the German 120 mm DM43, which has been descirbed to have "good" capabilites against modern ERA by Rheinmetall. The current German ammo is 120 mm DM53A1/63, which is specifically optimized against ERA and multi-layer armour. The same goes for the French and the U.S., both fielded another round after their direct counter for Kontakt-5 (the U.S. developed M829A3, but M829A2 was the direct anti-Kontakt-5 round, the French also have 120 mm OF 1 (DM43) but also a DU version with different penetrator diameter).
DM63 and M829A3 are, although they claim similar performance, very different rounds. M829A3 is very slow, but thick and long. DM63 is slightly shorter, but significantly faster and thinner.
Where does this value come from? Nii Stali or from some fanboy?
It is a very logical and reasonable assumption. The lastest 125 mm APFSDS can penetrate up to 650 mm RHA at 2,000 m and the hull armour of nearly every MBT including the Leopard 2A5/6 and M1A1/A2 is about 600 +/- 50 mm thick. Given the fact that most matierals are per weight more efficient than steel but not per thickness it seems to be very improbable that the armour has a protection level greater than 600 mm RHAe against kinetic energy.
Composite armour is designed to offer better protection at the same weight than steel armour, but not at the same thickness. Some people estimate protection level by calculating the weight/thickness ratio (i.e. the density) of the armour, then taking a look at the public available informations about the development of composite armour in the country (e.g. books, declassified documents, patents) and then basing their values for protection levels on this informations.
For the early models of M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 the weight/thickness ratio seems to be somewhere around 0.4 to 0.6 (i.e. that the thickness of a steel plate with the same weight is only 40 - 60% of the armour thickness).
Some rather uneducated people believe that DU APFSDS can penetrate more than 1,000 mm RHA and DU armour offers protection of more than 1,000 mm RHAe vs KE - both of these things are mathmatical impossible. Pure uranium/DU is in terms of tensile/yield strength and hardness inferior to RHA, while weighing more than twice as much. According to some posts on the TankNet alloyed DU offers per thickness 1.3 - 1.4 times the protection of normal armour steel, but still weights twice as much. Against shaped charges (were the penetration power is depending on the target density) DU can offer two to three times the protection of armour steel of the same thickness.
Some Leopard 2s (Strv 122, Leopard 2A5DK, Leopardo 2E, Leopard 2A6HEL) have been fitted with thicker glacis armour and will likely survive hits from 125 mm APFSDS. This armour was originally developed as part of the normal Leopard 2A5, but not fielded due to weight constraints. Still it is part of most Leopard 2A7 prototypes.
In Iraq the U.S. did at least carry M1128 carnister and M830A1 MPAT rounds with them, even though I don't know how much.
The U.S. operated tanks for the first time in Afghanistan from late 2010 on and bough German HE-ABM rounds in early 2011. At the time where the U.S. tanks arrived there were no enemy tanks, the government was already on NATO side. So they carried very few anti-tank rounds with them.
A human loader will become tired after some time, but for engaging tanks or houses you will only need a small amount of rounds (in worst case three for a house) - way to less to make a human loader become tired easily.
The image is just badly made, way to biassed. Yes, the size of a tank is relevant for protection, but not the total size but the size of the weak points. If we take a look at the armour thickness we will see that some areas are less armoured than others. E.g. the mantlet of most tanks is just 40 - 45 cm thick and can likely be penetrated.
In case of the M1 the mantlet and the drivers position (where the turret armour is thinner) are the weak spots. The mantlet seems to be about 40 cm thick, because the mantlet includes also the gun-mounting partially (i.e. a 15 - 20 cm steel block), so total armour protection will be ~ 30 cm composite armour + 20 cm steel armour. In case of the Leopard 2 the weak sposts are the EMES-15 location (there the armour is only 65 cm thick) and the mantlet (42 cm thick armour but the gu mounting is located behind that, so some 57 - 62 cm total armour thickness). The later Leopard 2A5/6 have thicker mantlet armour (about 20 cm thicker) and a different location for the EMES-15 (which means that the armour in front of the EMES-15 could be raised), so weak-spots are more or less eliminated.
This image is a comparision of weak spots of two contemporary tanks, the T-72B and the Leopard 2A4. The base images for T-72B and Leopard 2A4 are for scale!
NII Stali has designed various types of armour and often done reasonable estimates. Still I doubt that they can have proper datas for NATO APFSDS.
ERA does not have a fixed efficiency, it just decreases the efficency of the enemy APFSDS. So it's still possible that a hit at the turret center (where the armour is below the maximum thickness) can defeat a T-90.
NATO has Barracude MTS as equivalent. Can also be seen on current Leopard 2A7 protoypes (Duel Ops).
The amount of propellant in a NATO APFSDS and a Russian 125 mm APFSDS (both parts) is about the same.
That's all nice but still no advantage over the NATO. It just shows that the T-90 will reach the same abilites as NATO tanks.
Sorry for double posting, but I think this might match better here as stand-alone post.
This images compares the T-90S Bshima and the Leopard 2A4 in terms of armour thickness. The original drawing comes from andrei_bt, but he put purposely wrong values for the Leopard 2 in there, so I corrected them (but still left his values for the T-90 armour thickness). The second part of the image shows that the T-90's base armour is quite bad shaped in the front, leaving a huge part withe less than the normal armour thickness.
Comparsion image
About 1/2 of the frontal area of a T-90S have less than the maximum armour thickness, while only ~1/3 of the Leopard 2A4s armour is less than the maximum thickness.
This images compares the T-90S Bshima and the Leopard 2A4 in terms of armour thickness. The original drawing comes from andrei_bt, but he put purposely wrong values for the Leopard 2 in there, so I corrected them (but still left his values for the T-90 armour thickness). The second part of the image shows that the T-90's base armour is quite bad shaped in the front, leaving a huge part withe less than the normal armour thickness.
Comparsion image
About 1/2 of the frontal area of a T-90S have less than the maximum armour thickness, while only ~1/3 of the Leopard 2A4s armour is less than the maximum thickness.
Im fully aware of the capabilities of western tanks, my question was do you have a link about Russian ammo and its capabilities. I did not ask for a well educated guess I do this for a day job so dont treat me as some fan boy, no manufacturer knows for certain 100% the compostion of the armour there products are likely to face like you they are a well educated guess.
Like all academic discussions on capabilities you tend to remove the most important part from that system its human dimension, no APFSDS will penetrate anything if the crew are poorly trained so until you factor that into your disscussions then this is wiki vs wiki.
P.S this is the reason that this tank vs that tank are not allowed on defence Talk, read the forum rules be prepared to be challedged on some of your assumptions there are alot of Defence pros who either designed, make or use it as part of there day job on this site.
CD
Actually you asked me nothing, but you asked Heffcat.
I have a number of different links for the capabilities of Russian ammo, you may look at the pages of Stefan Kotsch (former tanker in service of the GDR and later the reunited Germany) and Vasily Fofanov, iirc. a former tanker of Russia/Soviet Union. They include the official values from their instructions on the pages.
Das Panzerdetail - Munition der Kampfpanzer (page in German)
125MM APFSDS ROUNDS
The values included their are for certified penetration (happens in 70% of all cases), which means that a small amount of APFSDS will still penetrate more. Svinets and Lekalo should have no problem to penetrate the glacis of an M1 or a Leopard 2.
This is no relevant point in a factual discussion but pure biass. It is not like tankers of the former Warsaw pact are somehow bad trained or that NATO tankers are better.
The U.S. managed to win CAT shootings once while participating seven times (i.e. 14%), while the German won seven times out of 17 times participating (41%)... does that mean that the Germans have better trained tank crews?
I am not doing any tank vs tank stuff, I am doing a senseful contributition based on real facts to this forum.
Btw: I have also written some articles on different websites... that doesn't make me a professional.
Sorry mate your right didnt look at the name my appologies.
Sweet ill look into them good to have a ballanced perspective
Das Panzerdetail - Munition der Kampfpanzer (page in German)
125MM APFSDS ROUNDS
The values included their are for certified penetration (happens in 70% of all cases), which means that a small amount of APFSDS will still penetrate more. Svinets and Lekalo should have no problem to penetrate the glacis of an M1 or a Leopard 2.
From my perspective training is every thing and that been proven many times on a few two way ranges over the last decade or so.
True but competing in a competion is not the same as full on Force on Force exercises it took two US Divisions to slice thru the Iraqis with an UK Div in support ive seen to many Military competions where the teams have been stacked with the so called elite from each country.
No but you were falling into a tank vs tank argument with hefcat dangerous ground here on Def talk.
Ill be glad to read them if you direct me to the link. mate once again I fell into the trap of speed reading your reply didnt cross my t or dot my i before I replied done the proverbial of shooting ones self in the foot.
CD
I don't recall making such claims. Are you confusing me with Heffcat?
Well...YES!
(Don't take me seriously, I just couldn't resist)
To come back to the topic at hand. I think it is also rather interesting to see how the armour profile of different design philosophies changes while the turret is moving. 100% frontal shots are rather rare due to position of the shooter and scanning/combat movements of the target. Soviet/Russian style turrets offer some interesting advantages there as they don't expose much of a relatively thinly armoured side and bustle.
As for training, Russian ground forces are only now starting to adopt the modern training centers which are standard in the West since decades. A fully rigged modern training center with all the bells and whistles a MILES style system offers (like NTC in the US or GÜZ in Germany) is IMHO a huge advantage.
BTW, no halfway trained human loader tires that much even when all ready rounds are fired in short order.
They've literally this year adopted some of those training methods, and are in the process of setting up a modern training center along those lines for both armored and infantry units at iirc 252nd Polygon.
No, but he does become fatigued over a period of weeks/months in a combat zone, suffering from sleep deprivation, and frequent engagements. It's not so much a matter of him under performing in a single given engagement, but the long term decline in performance.
True, but I've yet to see an autoloader break track, assist in reloading, pull radio picquet or for that matter make a brew...
I don't think that we should include "crew training" or "crew skill" as points in a comparision between tanks - crew skill is individual, there can be gunners being skilled better than others without being longer/more intensive trained. I think that most judgements of crew skill or the level of crew training when comparing NATO countries to Russia are more or less biassed. I'm from a NATO country and still I don't think that our men are somehow better - why should they be?
Training is done in different ways in different countries... modern training is often done in simulators, but is simulator training better than real fire training?
How often do people in countries like Germany or Austria use live-fire ammunition?
Even if we compare training methods in NATO countries we will see that there are some huge differences.
Would the Iraqi army have won the Gulf War if they were trained like the Americans and the Americans like the Iraqis? I doubt it - there are too many technical differences (armour penetration, protection, FCS, mobility). I think that the crew is an important factor in combat, but I doubt that we can make general statements about whole armies.
The Soviet/Russian turret design has some advantages but also some drawback - when we look at a typical tank engagment (which means we are only interested in tank round impacts from -30° to +30° from the turret center) then the armour is not thicker than the armour of most NATO tanks. Still the target is much smaller; while the (penetratable) frontal profile is more or less about the same (+/- 1 m² depending on tank maybe), the profile of a NATO turret seen from 30° from the turret center axis is twice as large.
In assymertical warfare (or when being ambushed by infantry or vehicles with RPGs/ATGMs) the T-90 will perform worse than most NATO tanks - the rear part of the side is only ~ 160 mm RHA when attacked from the side, in worst case (being attacked from 30° from the rear) the armour is only 80 mm RHA - every RPG and EFP will punch through that. Because of this the new T-90MS has a different turret layout with spaced composite armour screens at the side, but the changed turret layout decreases it's advantage in terms of 30° profile.
Training is done in different ways in different countries... modern training is often done in simulators, but is simulator training better than real fire training?
How often do people in countries like Germany or Austria use live-fire ammunition?
Even if we compare training methods in NATO countries we will see that there are some huge differences.
Would the Iraqi army have won the Gulf War if they were trained like the Americans and the Americans like the Iraqis? I doubt it - there are too many technical differences (armour penetration, protection, FCS, mobility). I think that the crew is an important factor in combat, but I doubt that we can make general statements about whole armies.
The Soviet/Russian turret design has some advantages but also some drawback - when we look at a typical tank engagment (which means we are only interested in tank round impacts from -30° to +30° from the turret center) then the armour is not thicker than the armour of most NATO tanks. Still the target is much smaller; while the (penetratable) frontal profile is more or less about the same (+/- 1 m² depending on tank maybe), the profile of a NATO turret seen from 30° from the turret center axis is twice as large.
In assymertical warfare (or when being ambushed by infantry or vehicles with RPGs/ATGMs) the T-90 will perform worse than most NATO tanks - the rear part of the side is only ~ 160 mm RHA when attacked from the side, in worst case (being attacked from 30° from the rear) the armour is only 80 mm RHA - every RPG and EFP will punch through that. Because of this the new T-90MS has a different turret layout with spaced composite armour screens at the side, but the changed turret layout decreases it's advantage in terms of 30° profile.
Constant combat ops are exhausting for crews because of the constant need for concentration, extreme stress, nearly no sleep and all the tasks which accompany keeping a tank in the field. Loading a couple of rounds every now and then has the smallest part in it.
As for training. Modern training gives an advantage as it is much more realistic than other training (I am talking of maneuver and combat training not live fire exercises). That doesn't only applies to armour/mech forces but also to other branches. Talk to an infantry soldier which kind of exercise provided better training. The one where everybody fires blanks and some referees sort out the casualties from time to time or the one where you see direct results of your fire due to laser systems while you can get a detailed feedback after the action due to the computerized GPS coverage of the training area.
As cor live fire. IIRC correctly Soviet tankers fired less live rounds a year than the major NATO nations and I don't think this changed much. What really hampers crew training is when whole tank bns get reroled to light infantry for deployments due to not enough crunchies being a a available.
I agree that crew training shouldn't be looked at when trying to assess the capabilities of a given tank. If you can't train good tankers no track is going to save your day. Put the 3rd Shock Army at the height of cold war into T-55s and other 2nd line stuff and they would still clean the floor with some ragtag 3rd world force of equal size but with modern equipment.
Where crew performance comes into play is when one looks at stuff like ergonomics, situational awareness and stuff like that. That's where T-Series tanks tend to suffer.
As for training. Modern training gives an advantage as it is much more realistic than other training (I am talking of maneuver and combat training not live fire exercises). That doesn't only applies to armour/mech forces but also to other branches. Talk to an infantry soldier which kind of exercise provided better training. The one where everybody fires blanks and some referees sort out the casualties from time to time or the one where you see direct results of your fire due to laser systems while you can get a detailed feedback after the action due to the computerized GPS coverage of the training area.
As cor live fire. IIRC correctly Soviet tankers fired less live rounds a year than the major NATO nations and I don't think this changed much. What really hampers crew training is when whole tank bns get reroled to light infantry for deployments due to not enough crunchies being a a available.
I agree that crew training shouldn't be looked at when trying to assess the capabilities of a given tank. If you can't train good tankers no track is going to save your day. Put the 3rd Shock Army at the height of cold war into T-55s and other 2nd line stuff and they would still clean the floor with some ragtag 3rd world force of equal size but with modern equipment.
Where crew performance comes into play is when one looks at stuff like ergonomics, situational awareness and stuff like that. That's where T-Series tanks tend to suffer.
Well yes. Small crews means there's less bodies for firewatch and working parties...True, but I've yet to see an autoloader break track, assist in reloading, pull radio picquet or for that matter make a brew...
Also 3 man tank crews require more rear-end support.There's a reason that they've increased the number of maintenance personnel to fighters in the new brigades. Prior to the reforms, each division had an MTO btln. Now each brigade does. They're not likely to help change tracks, but they can do other things to lessen the maintenance burden on the crews.
Absolutely, elite formations had better training grounds, more ammo to play with, better maintenance (allowing for higher training tempo), etc. Also more access to barrel-launched ATGMs.
T90S compared To Leopard 2A4 2A6
Hi Guys I am new to the forum, I read past postings and found many well informed people si I would like to ask how does the T90S compares to a 2A4 and 2A6.
The scenario is as follows:
1 dessertic environment with fine sand
2 very dry
3 geography mostly flat terrain with dunes
4 Equally trained tank commanders and crews
5 same ground and air support
6 equally numbered forces
Thanks
Hi Guys I am new to the forum, I read past postings and found many well informed people si I would like to ask how does the T90S compares to a 2A4 and 2A6.
The scenario is as follows:
1 dessertic environment with fine sand
2 very dry
3 geography mostly flat terrain with dunes
4 Equally trained tank commanders and crews
5 same ground and air support
6 equally numbered forces
Thanks
- Status