T-90 Tank

extern

New Member
I dont think the T-90 can have armor like or surpass the Chobham armor of the M1A2s.
According to the most reliable estimation, the T-90S armor is equivalent or practically equivalent (in passive armor) for M1A1 and Leo-2A4 modification. However Shtora adds something too. It's enough good in practice considering relative few numbers of M1A2 and Leo-2A5-6 in the world. How M1A2's are already produced, anybody knew? The next Russian tank, which supposely will be produced starting from 2011 will have better defence than M1A2.
 

eckherl

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It's not exhaust. It's new cooling system with open fan-radiator circle. The exhast remained on the old place, as you can see on Algerian variant too. In this case, the radiator outfow was covered:
Got it - Thanks,

Any word on a new APU design.
 

eckherl

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
According to the most reliable estimation, the T-90S armor is equivalent or practically equivalent (in passive armor) for M1A1 and Leo-2A4 modification. However Shtora adds something too. It's enough good in practice considering relative few numbers of M1A2 and Leo-2A5-6 in the world. How M1A2's are already produced, anybody knew? The next Russian tank, which supposely will be produced starting from 2011 will have better defence than M1A2.
Plans are in place to at least upgrade 60% of existing M1 series to M1A2 SEP standard, that is the plan at the current time.
 

eckherl

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Tungsten is also a dangerous chemical. I wonder why it was used in Russian kinetic penetrator rounds. :)

EDIT: Are any tank experts on here more intimately familiar with the tactical (and hopefully strategic, keeping my fingers crossed here) though behind he design of the M1?
How is Tungsten dangerous to the soldiers that are using it, I cannot waite to hear this.
 
Last edited:

extern

New Member
Plans are in place to at least upgrade 60% of existing M1 series to M1A2 SEP standard, that is the plan at the current time.
BTW, what the planned total number of tanks, US expect to have in next 10 years? If it isnt classified of course.

The Russian tank chief now declared Russia till 2020 plans to have T-90's in relatve number of 50% tank fleet . It's in different modifications, including the future upgrades. The rest 50% - will be allocated for 'the new gen tank' and old T-72/T-80 inventory till its lifespan is gone. The planned annual production of T-90 is as 150-250 starting from 2009. The planned annual
production of 'T-95' (or how it will be named) is unclear. So in my crude estimation and regards 25 years of avarage tank life, it might mean between 5,000 and 7,500 tanks in active service (now as 13,000). Also Russia is certainly going towards 'high-low' combination, while T-90s and older T-80/T-72 with mimimal upgrade will be used against low-tech enemy, supposedely as 'anti-infantry' tanks with anti shaped charge and mine defence.

In addition some T-90 pics from Malaysian tender:
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Are they finally going to ramp up production of T-90?
With the current rate of production they are nowhere able to achieve the disred numbers and I am still sceptical if the follown on to T-90 (T-95 or whatever it will be named) is going to come without major delays.

While there is defenitely more money available now I am also sceptical if Russia has enough breathing space in it's budget to increase T-90 production and introduce a totally new tank to their inventory.
 

extern

New Member
Are they finally going to ramp up production of T-90?
With the current rate of production they are nowhere able to achieve the disred numbers and I am still sceptical if the follown on to T-90 (T-95 or whatever it will be named) is going to come without major delays.

While there is defenitely more money available now I am also sceptical if Russia has enough breathing space in it's budget to increase T-90 production and introduce a totally new tank to their inventory.
YOur doubts are very understandable. However, my calculations also worth something. Indeed, last 3 year the rate of T-90s production for Ru Army (not counting export) was 31 units a year (1 batalion). This year - 2008 - they gave a budget for 62 units. Next year if to believe for gen. Maslov for T-90s building is allready allocated sum equivalented to $250 mln. In future this sum is planned to grow up to $350 mln. This is why I estimated an avarage annual production rate planned for next 10 years as 150-250 units. It's a rate very corresponding to UVZ manufacturing capability. Appart with that the rumors appeared that the little number (25 units) of more advanced IR cameras were bought from THales, 75 more are contracted (Catherine-XP if I dont mistake in classification). Previosely contracted Catherines have less advanced characteristics. IMHO It can be first sign for initial pre-serial production of the 'next gen tank'.

At the end as usually - some pictures, now the experimental T-90 variant with 152 mm gun:
 

eaf-f16

New Member
How is Tunsten dangerous to the soldiers that are using it, I cannot waite to hear this.
DU isn't harmful until it is in a burning tank and the smoke from that burning tank is inhaled by friendly troops.

Being near or handling DU rounds isn't going to harm you at all.

IIRC, most Gulf War 2 veterans that came back sick either had inhaled that type of smoke from Iraqi tanks or had inhaled air contaminated with the chemicals that were thrown up in the air after the US Air Force bombed an Iraqi chemical weapons cache (the contaminated air spread over a good portion of Northern KSA).
 
Last edited:

extern

New Member
More one interesting photo: the legend of Russian tank history, T-72's chief designer Kartzev (left on the center) speaks with the provincial guvernor on the DefExpo-2008 exposition.
 

Chrom

New Member
DU isn't harmful until it is in a burning tank and the smoke from that burning tank is inhaled by friendly troops.

Being near or handling DU rounds isn't going to harm you at all.
This part is (almost) true.
IIRC, most Gulf War 2 veterans that came back sick either had inhaled that type of smoke from Iraqi tanks or had inhaled air contaminated with the chemicals that were thrown up in the air after the US Air Force bombed an Iraqi chemical weapons cache (the contaminated air spread over a good portion of Northern KSA).
Yes, the problem is however - almost any tank (and A-10) round fired, if hit anything solid - will leave a lot of particles which pollute environment. This hurts both own troops, and more importantly - everything around hit point ;(
This very barbaric and unnecessary use of DU ammo present very major ecological and medical problem in both Iraq and Serbia.
 

eckherl

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
BTW, what the planned total number of tanks, US expect to have in next 10 years? If it isnt classified of course.

The Russian tank chief now declared Russia till 2020 plans to have T-90's in relatve number of 50% tank fleet . It's in different modifications, including the future upgrades. The rest 50% - will be allocated for 'the new gen tank' and old T-72/T-80 inventory till its lifespan is gone. The planned annual production of T-90 is as 150-250 starting from 2009. The planned annual
production of 'T-95' (or how it will be named) is unclear. So in my crude estimation and regards 25 years of avarage tank life, it might mean between 5,000 and 7,500 tanks in active service (now as 13,000). Also Russia is certainly going towards 'high-low' combination, while T-90s and older T-80/T-72 with mimimal upgrade will be used against low-tech enemy, supposedely as 'anti-infantry' tanks with anti shaped charge and mine defence.

In addition some T-90 pics from Malaysian tender:
We were rumored at one point in having the need for 3,600 M1A2 SEPs to fit into the the new force structure but who knows what will happen with the constant flip flopping for our FCS program. Only time will tell and this will be most likely when we are out of Iraq and the U.S Army can rethink what is needed for future high and low tensity battle doctrine.

I think that you may be a little optimistic on the T - 90 numbers, but I have been informed that Russia for the last five years or so has been modernizing and retooling alot of their military defense building facilities. I guess I will just have to waite and see.
 

eckherl

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
YOur doubts are very understandable. However, my calculations also worth something. Indeed, last 3 year the rate of T-90s production for Ru Army (not counting export) was 31 units a year (1 batalion). This year - 2008 - they gave a budget for 62 units. Next year if to believe for gen. Maslov for T-90s building is allready allocated sum equivalented to $250 mln. In future this sum is planned to grow up to $350 mln. This is why I estimated an avarage annual production rate planned for next 10 years as 150-250 units. It's a rate very corresponding to UVZ manufacturing capability. Appart with that the rumors appeared that the little number (25 units) of more advanced IR cameras were bought from THales, 75 more are contracted (Catherine-XP if I dont mistake in classification). Previosely contracted Catherines have less advanced characteristics. IMHO It can be first sign for initial pre-serial production of the 'next gen tank'.

At the end as usually - some pictures, now the experimental T-90 variant with 152 mm gun:
Are you sure about that, I was told that few T - 90s have 135mm guns shoe horned in for testing and evaluation purposes. You photo looks like a 135mm to me, do you have a full vehicle flank shot, either way, kudos to you for having a photo of this beast.:D
 

eckherl

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
DU isn't harmful until it is in a burning tank and the smoke from that burning tank is inhaled by friendly troops.

Being near or handling DU rounds isn't going to harm you at all.

IIRC, most Gulf War 2 veterans that came back sick either had inhaled that type of smoke from Iraqi tanks or had inhaled air contaminated with the chemicals that were thrown up in the air after the US Air Force bombed an Iraqi chemical weapons cache (the contaminated air spread over a good portion of Northern KSA).

Gee - you do not think that I would know this, I have killed tanks with the bloody things first hand, and yes, I was a good Master Gunner who informed his tank company not to go near battle kills solely for this purpose, the golden rule was to stay at least 300 meters away from all battle killed vehicles, the surrounding soil is possibly contaminated also.

Also my question was directed towards him due to what he stated in regards to Tungsten projectiles.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
How is Tungsten dangerous to the soldiers that are using it, I cannot waite to hear this.
If you swallow it, bad things happen. :)

On a serious note there is evidence showing correlation between tungsten levels in blood and disease like leukemia.

The planned annual production of T-90 is as 150-250 starting from 2009.
Do you have a source?

So in my crude estimation and regards 25 years of avarage tank life, it might mean between 5,000 and 7,500 tanks in active service (now as 13,000).
13000 is a high estimate. 3 tank divisions and ~13 motor rifle divisions. 3 tank regiments per tank division, 1 tank regiment and 3 battallions in each motor rifle (3 btls=1 rgt). So ~35 tank regiments. 35 times 93 gives us ~3555. Now this doesn't include independent brigades, regiments, and machine gun artillery divisions. I don't know their make up, but even if we assume that they contain as many tanks as the ones we counted, we still fall well short of your numbers. Does your estimate include storage bases and mothballed equipment?
 

extern

New Member
Are you sure about that, I was told that few T - 90s have 135mm guns shoe horned in for testing and evaluation purposes. You photo looks like a 135mm to me, do you have a full vehicle flank shot,
from the flank have only 152 mm prototype on T-80:
 

Przezdzieblo

New Member
Tank from that photo is not T-90 variant, nor with 152 mm gun. It is Object 187 (like said name of file), experimental T-72 development, which finally would have chance to became new Soviet tank (T-88, later T-90), but was abandoned for cheaper are more conservative Object 188 --> real T-90.
 

extern

New Member
13000 is a high estimate. 3 tank divisions and ~13 motor rifle divisions. 3 tank regiments per tank division, 1 tank regiment and 3 battallions in each motor rifle (3 btls=1 rgt). So ~35 tank regiments. 35 times 93 gives us ~3555. Now this doesn't include independent brigades, regiments, and machine gun artillery divisions. I don't know their make up, but even if we assume that they contain as many tanks as the ones we counted, we still fall well short of your numbers. Does your estimate include storage bases and mothballed equipment?
Including storage for reserve forces of course. So called 'storage bases' (TsBRT - in Russian classification) is indeed a reserve tank division with as 300 tanks at minimum and other equipement enough to 1 division at least. The TsBRT's known for me: Kozulka (Barnaul), Topchikha (Krasnoyarsk), Shilovo (near Novosibirsk), Verkhnyaya Pyshma (Yekaterinburg region), Ulan-Ude (near Baikal).

Also how you counted only 3 tank division? I know at least 6: 4 Guardian TD (Naro-Fominsk near Moscow), 16 Guardian TD (Markovsky near Perm), 15 Guardian TD (Chebarkul), 10 Guardian TD (Boguchar, Voronezh district), ??? donno number TD (Nizhneudinsk), 5 Guardian TD (Kyakta, near Mongolian border).

What Russian TD's you know? May be you know something, I didnt conted yet.

For amusement pics of course :D
 
Last edited:

extern

New Member
Tank from that photo is not T-90 variant, nor with 152 mm gun. It is Object 187 (like said name of file), experimental T-72 development, which finally would have chance to became new Soviet tank (T-88, later T-90), but was abandoned for cheaper are more conservative Object 188 --> real T-90.
What photo you meant? The last photo is T-80 with 152 mm gun for sure. You could see the added massa from the rear of turret for counter-balance heavy barrel.
 

extern

New Member
Sorry, sure, I was reffering to post #27 from page no 2. As for last photo, yes, it is T-80-based Object 292.
As regards to Object 187 (or how else call it), according to my information it had variant with 152 mm gun too presented on the picture. The gun on the picture is in no way a regular 125 mm burrel . If you have another pictures of this object, I'll be glad to look.
 
Top