Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Share

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    FIrst photos of T-95 and T-90

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:24 am

    Hanging hats on an old design, T-95 old ,new american tank will be out to show you the path,1 brigade cut through an army with tac air ,no russian response unless the peasants are suposed to shoot crews with moisin nagant 91/30 .ak rounds bounce off kevlar.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:48 am

    Never said build them ,i intended the engineers to learn to build crew friendly vehicles,not pyroclastic death traps.

    There is nothing wrong with the T-72 design as such, the real problem is the combustible propellent stubs the 125mm gun uses.
    The solution is separating those propellent stubs from the crew compartment.
    The solution is not found in a Leopard 2 because 120mm NATO rounds use one piece ammo with metal shell casings.
    The solution is not found in post WWII British tanks that were in several ways not even superior to the contemporary T-54/-55 series.

    Check crew survivability,Russia cant afford to squander crews any.longer.

    Making tanks smaller so they are less likely to be hit is squandering crews?
    At the time the T-72 entered service Soviet infantry were transported in BTRs and BMPs, while western troops were in M113s and trucks... or they walked. Who cares about whose people?

    Soviet era engineers ,hence Russian engineers with tenure are plodding
    out 3rd world war stuff when thats not even an option unless you
    consider China

    Right, and the Challanger and Leopard II are post cold war 21st C designs?
    Please tell me what NATO country has a true 21st C tank... because most actually date from the early 1980s or before.

    guarentee ,if china goes west Nato be there before Russian main forces,ministry or interior will stall them an hour or two

    Why would China go west? Its economy is going well... invading a nuclear armed neighbour is not good for any ones economy.
    Suggesting that Russia needs Cold War Soviet levels of military power is just silly and would lead to Russia squandering a huge opportunity.
    They have managed to shed all the hanger-ons that just bludged and did little.
    It has resources and land and enough of a population to get by... BTW western countries have a problem with an aging population too.

    Kiwi ,i understand you want to defend your reputation

    What reputation?
    You have claimed Russian tanks are deathtraps and suggested they swallow their pride and copy British or German tanks.
    I have replied that they got the lesson that combustible ammo stubs are dangerous in tanks, they cancelled T-80 production and development because the way the ammo is stored even though it is better armoured than early model T-72s it is more vulnerable to exploding when penetrated because the design of the underfloor carousel offers no protection to the propellent stubs.
    The T-72 and T-90 design autoloader however does protect the propellent stubs from flames and sparks inside the tank from penetrations and makes the vehicles much safer in combat zones.
    They don't need you to tell them to buy foreign... the problem has been identified and the solution is the topic of this thread... the T-90AM and the T-95.
    The T-90AM will likely go into production, while the T-95 was deemed too expensive.

    so admit GRU or that a western soldier knows just how good the sovs were
    and what the rusians are at...billions spent to tach canninbals and
    muslims oops we were wrong, politburo

    Don't really understand what you are saying here.

    Hanging hats on an old design,

    With the threat of ammo inside the vehicle removed the T-90 is actually a very good tank. How old the design is is really unimportant. Look at the B-52. The job of the tank hasn't really changed in the last 50 years or so, so a brand new tank just for the sake of it is a waste of time and money.

    T-95 old ,new american tank will be out
    to show you the path,1 brigade cut through an army with tac air ,no
    russian response unless the peasants are suposed to shoot crews with
    moisin nagant 91/30 .ak rounds bounce off kevlar.

    American tank will only engage third world country, Taliban IED blow up super merican tank. Tac air useless against IED, but very expensive for taxpayer in form of F-35. US force ends up killing more of the people it goes in to save than it goes in to kill.

    Result poor country gets bombed and made poorer. Merican taxpayer spends lots more money but is no safer. People with dark skin die because the white man needs his oil supplies. And of course new industry created in the US around artificial limb development and production.

    Should add the only "new" US tank had its funding cut and the next US tank will be the M1A3.


    Last edited by GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:04 am; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:50 am

    The funny thing of course is that because of the strength of NATO there are two areas where the Russians really are very strong and they are air defence weapons and anti tank weapons... good luck with that armoured charge into Russia BTW... hope them new uber US tanks have anti radiation lining.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:50 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    A 670 mm long penetrator (100 mm longer than current ones)

    http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
    "Lekalo" (3BM-42M? projectile; 3BM-44M? projectile assembly) (DOI 199-?)

    Research topic "Svinets-1". A brand new round with extremely high
    elongation tungsten alloy penetrator, utilizing a 4-petal finned
    composite sabot with two areas of contact, and subcaliber stabilizing
    fins. This round has a total length of 740mm and so does not fit in
    traditional T-72 autoloaders. The autoloader upgrade is straightforward
    and is assumed to have been carried out on newly built T-90 tanks that
    are therefore compatible with this round. The indications
    3BM-42M/3BM-44M are unconfirmed: even though this is what is written on
    the body of the round in the released picture, it is unclear if the
    round has been fielded and therefore already awarded a GRAU designation;
    Rosoboronexport sales literature still refers to it simply as
    "high-performance APFSDS round".

    This happens a lot :v

    You are referring to the round's total length.

    I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:35 am

    MBT new generation of T-90AM declassify in September

    However, according to Lieutenant-General Yuri Kovalenko, who in his time for the development and introduction of the T-90 has received the state award, the Urals designers managed to address these shortcomings. "We have Uralians studies for removal of ammunition from the body of the driver's compartment. There is also a loading mechanism that can protect the crew from explosions of ammunition. Also, they have developed some of the things that eliminate explosive new tank "- said Kovalenko.

    "Now, for the protection and survivability, we are ahead of other countries - and the complex of active protection and explosive reactive armor T-90 definitely a lot better and safer for all Western models. In these matters, we are superior to potential enemy at times "- so praised T-90 general.

    "While lacking the command handling, to ensure that the controls can be quickly and efficiently allocate target and promptly set targets for destruction of enemy firepower. In this direction is actively working, if we achieve the results we will achieve the most advanced level in the world "- concluded Kovalenko.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  medo on Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:58 pm

    The funny thing of course is that because of the strength of NATO there are two areas where the Russians really are very strong and they are air defence weapons and anti tank weapons... good luck with that armoured charge into Russia BTW... hope them new uber US tanks have anti radiation lining.

    Don't forget artillery.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:11 pm

    medo wrote:
    The funny thing of course is that because of the strength of NATO there are two areas where the Russians really are very strong and they are air defence weapons and anti tank weapons... good luck with that armoured charge into Russia BTW... hope them new uber US tanks have anti radiation lining.

    Don't forget artillery.

    That's debatable.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:15 pm

    This happens a lot :v

    You are referring to the round's total length.

    I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter.

    Nope.

    The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant.
    The important length is the length of the projectile within its own propellent charge which has to fit in the radius of the turret ring because being circular a round has to fit opposite it in the autoloader so it has to be less than the radius of the turret ring to fit.
    With a turret bustle autoloader there is no practical length limit for projectiles except the limit imposed by the length of the autoloader chamber for ammo storage.

    All the propellent stubs are a standard size and weight and would never have problems fitting in any T series tank designed to use 125mm ammo.

    The only component of the round that varies in length is the projectile which also has a propellent component in the case of the APFSDS rounds. It is the component that can be too long to fit in an autoloader because it doesn't bend.

    "Now, for the protection and survivability, we are ahead of other
    countries - and the complex of active protection and explosive reactive
    armor T-90 definitely a lot better and safer for all Western models. In
    these matters, we are superior to potential enemy at times "- so praised
    T-90 general.

    Which suggests they have fitted the newest ERA, newest Shtora and presumably the newest ARENA available... whatever models they are. (ERA most likely Relickt).

    "While lacking the command handling, to ensure that the controls can be
    quickly and efficiently allocate target and promptly set targets for
    destruction of enemy firepower. In this direction is actively working,
    if we achieve the results we will achieve the most advanced level in the
    world "- concluded Kovalenko.

    So the battle management system isn't fully functional yet... that sort of thing doesn't work if only a hand full of newly introduced tanks have a system... it needs to be applied to all vehicles and especially recon platforms and HQ and comms vehicles before it can work properly.

    Don't forget artillery.

    That's debatable.

    Actually he has a point.

    The Russians/Soviets didn't move to self propelled artillery as quickly as NATO did, but their rocket tube artillery is clearly superior... from 122mm rockets with the same range as MLRS through the Smerch 300mm rockets with more than double the range of MLRS all on cheaper wheeled vehicles.

    The Smerch rockets were more accurate than MLRS rockets because they had inertial guidance to keep the volleys relatively close.

    Regarding tube artillery the best were probably South African, but the Russian artillery made up in numbers and range of calibres and systems what it lacked in some minor areas.

    Also keep in mind that many of the laser beam guided artillery shells are not post cold developments.

    The most important thing was that they were the only branch of the Russian Military that used UAVs seriously.

    Another important factor was that when they introduced rocket artillery it was not at the expense of tube artillery.

    The rocket artillery was seen as expensive artillery but artillery that was best able to shoot and scoot because of the rate of fire. It was also seen as the best way to deliver chem or bio weapon agents due to the rapid build up of agent for a given target area.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:38 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    This happens a lot :v

    You are referring to the round's total length.

    I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter.

    Nope.

    The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant.
    The important length is the length of the projectile within its own propellent charge which has to fit in the radius of the turret ring because being circular a round has to fit opposite it in the autoloader so it has to be less than the radius of the turret ring to fit.
    With a turret bustle autoloader there is no practical length limit for projectiles except the limit imposed by the length of the autoloader chamber for ammo storage.

    All the propellent stubs are a standard size and weight and would never have problems fitting in any T series tank designed to use 125mm ammo.

    The only component of the round that varies in length is the projectile which also has a propellent component in the case of the APFSDS rounds. It is the component that can be too long to fit in an autoloader because it doesn't bend.

    I don't see the problem here?

    A penetrator's capability is very much so dependent on it's potential KE but it's also dependent on penetrator design. Typically, longer and skinnier penetrators will go through more armor, which is what I was referring to in my post.

    Don't forget artillery.

    That's debatable.

    Actually he has a point.

    The Russians/Soviets didn't move to self propelled artillery as quickly as NATO did, but their rocket tube artillery is clearly superior... from 122mm rockets with the same range as MLRS through the Smerch 300mm rockets with more than double the range of MLRS all on cheaper wheeled vehicles.

    The Smerch rockets were more accurate than MLRS rockets because they had inertial guidance to keep the volleys relatively close.

    Regarding tube artillery the best were probably South African, but the Russian artillery made up in numbers and range of calibres and systems what it lacked in some minor areas.

    Also keep in mind that many of the laser beam guided artillery shells are not post cold developments.

    The most important thing was that they were the only branch of the Russian Military that used UAVs seriously.

    Another important factor was that when they introduced rocket artillery it was not at the expense of tube artillery.

    The rocket artillery was seen as expensive artillery but artillery that was best able to shoot and scoot because of the rate of fire. It was also seen as the best way to deliver chem or bio weapon agents due to the rapid build up of agent for a given target area.

    I was referring to tube arty too. The Smerch only has it's range due to it's size. The M270 MLRS has comparable range with the BM-27 Uragan, which is of comparable calibers. Also; the guided rounds of the M270 far surpasses any guided round for Russian tube arty that we know of, it's accuracy is comparable to that of a JDAM. Also, the Russian 122, 220, and 300 mm line of MLRSs lack a system that allows for quick reloading of said rockets (that has been fixed now), but the M270 has had it for quite a while.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:22 am

    The report on T-90AM quoting the general says it will have an engine with more 130hp.

    So I am assuming it will have more power over existing T-90A engine by 130 hp.

    What is the power of existing T-90A engine in Russian service ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:38 am

    A penetrator's capability is very much so dependent on it's potential KE
    but it's also dependent on penetrator design. Typically, longer and
    skinnier penetrators will go through more armor, which is what I was
    referring to in my post.

    Skinnier penetrators are also easier to break up. The longer a penetrator is the more weight it concentrates on the tip on impact. Obviously too thick and it is like trying to punch a hole in paper with the blunt end of a pencil, but then that is what the sharpened end is for... to start the penetration.

    What I was saying in my post was that now they have a turret bustle autoloader they don't need to turn each component of the ammo 90 degrees to load it into the breach, it can be simply a straight ram from storage.

    They can intentionally make their penetrator longer than what can be fitted in a western tank to gain an advantage.

    I was referring to tube arty too.

    They have their eccentrics in tube artillery as well... the 2S7 152mm gun, the 2S9 203mm gun, the 240mm mortars, the MSTA. Most of their units now have 120mm mortar vehicles able to fire 120mm shells and 120mm mortar bombs (including western mortar rounds BTW), and they have laser guided shells for pretty much every calibre above 82mm. Does the west even today have anything like the Vasilek automatic mortar?

    The Smerch only has it's range due to it's size. The M270 MLRS has
    comparable range with the BM-27 Uragan, which is of comparable calibers.

    Both SMERCH and URAGAN have had sensor fused sub munition rockets since about 1987.
    Lets look at URAGAN compared to MLRS... similar range, similar payload, URAGAN is mounted on a truck which was widely used amongst WP forces, MLRS based on the Bradley... much more expensive to buy and operate and not used by any other NATO partner. URAGAN has 16 tubes, while MLRS has 12. URAGAN rockets have basic gyros in each rocket to help keep the volleys tighter than they would normally be... obviously you don't actually want all the rockets to hit the same point of ground.
    I would say even URAGAN is better than MLRS, and even the current model Grad can match it in range and with 40 rockets on board despite the fact that it carries less munitions per rocket it can actually carry more sensor fused submunitions per launcher.
    Smerch is a level above.

    Also; the guided rounds of the M270 far surpasses any guided round for
    Russian tube arty that we know of, it's accuracy is comparable to that
    of a JDAM.

    M270 is not tube artillery why would you compare it?

    The Tochka and Tender are the direct Russian equivalent of ATCMS and they really are as good if not better in some aspects.

    They are used at ranges artillery is not normally used and would require other recon assets to find targets for them.

    The Russians separate that capability out of artillery support units and have it at a higher level.

    Also, the Russian 122, 220, and 300 mm line of MLRSs lack a system that
    allows for quick reloading of said rockets (that has been fixed now),
    but the M270 has had it for quite a while.

    Hahahahahahahahaha... you are joking right?

    I remember in the 1980s a western defence expert writing in their book in artillery comparing the Grad to a Warsaw Pact copy. The Warsaw Pact copy had a complete reload on the back of the vehicle in front of the launcher so a second volley could be delivered in about 3 minutes after the first volley have been fired.
    This western expert claimed this made the copy much better than the original.

    Absolutely hilarious.

    When you fire a volley of rockets whose launch can be seen from hundreds of kms because of the smoke and IR signature the last thing you will do is a quick reload and fire again.

    The first thing you will do is lower the launchers raise the stabilisers and drive to the next launch position as fast as you can.

    Once you get to the new launch position you can reload as much as you like.

    And by the way the new rocket artillery system called Tornado uses a smaller lighter truck that uses pallet based rocket launchers and it can be fitted with 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rocket pods.

    Cheaper, lighter, and much more flexible than MLRS.

    The report on T-90AM quoting the general says it will have an engine with more 130hp.

    So I am assuming it will have more power over existing T-90A engine by 130 hp.

    What is the power of existing T-90A engine in Russian service ?

    Yes, the General said 130hp more than the 1,000 hp engine fitted to the T-90.
    They were working on a 1,200hp engine (V-99)so I guess a 1,130 hp engine is close enough.

    Alarm signal can be considered, and the loss of T-90 in the Malaysian
    tender Polish Main Battle Tank PT-91M (based on the Soviet T-72).

    It probably lost on price rather than anything else.
    Perhaps a cheaper tank should have been put forward like a T-72BM instead of the top of the line T-90... I rather doubt Malaysia wanted a tank to go toe to toe with an Abrams or Leclerc.

    Russian Defense Ministry with respect to it is still uncertain, and it
    is not clear whether the machine will develop, says the analyst.

    The alternative is much worse than nothing.

    This machine had the location of the crew in an isolated compartment in
    the body, issued placement of weapons (152 mm and 30 mm gun), new
    surveillance systems and fire control, tank management information
    systems, active protection systems, motors promising types. Prototypes
    of the tank were tested, but in 2010 research and development program
    was stopped the Russian Defense Ministry on the pretext of excessive
    cost and complexity of the tank.

    I suspected there would be a 30mm cannon fitted.

    To be perfectly honest I think the best solution is what they appear to be doing now.

    Upgrade the T-90 to remove its obvious problems and give it all the bits it needs like Shtora and Arena and new ERA, and actually produce some for the Russian Army and get rid of all the obsolete stuff... sell the T-80s to Cyprus and South Korea and even the Ukraine if they want them.

    For the future develop light, medium, and heavy vehicle families as planned... the irony is that it covers itself... if the world trends go for heavy to stay, then the replacement for the T-90AM can be a heavier tank, but with lots of new innovations perhaps including external gun, unmanned turret etc. If the world goes for lighter tanks then the medium brigade vehicle can be made of exotic new plastic armours with electric armour and high mobility and good protection. And the light brigades family will offer a range of protected lighter vehicles that will be suitable for COIN type operations and UN policing duties as well as roles in larger conflicts as more mobile forces.
    The Naval Infantry and the Airborne forces can pick and mix their vehicles depending on the conflict.
    For air dropping light vehicles will be needed, but for naval deployments medium and heavy stuff is an option.

    The family idea even extends to air defence vehicles... imagine a HARM simply not being powerful enough to kill an air defence vehicle unless it gets a direct hit?

    Most of the time they miss by quite a distance even when they are effective, but that doesn't matter because they destroy the soft van and the huge antenna above it with the blast wave.

    Imagine an armoured hardened AESA on a tank based chassis with a 57mm gun and IR optics which when it detects a HARM shuts covers and directs a beam of energy at a nearby rock face to attract the missile seeker so that the missile impacts 100m from the vehicle...

    Probably easier just to shoot it down with a TOR.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:56 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    A penetrator's capability is very much so dependent on it's potential KE
    but it's also dependent on penetrator design. Typically, longer and
    skinnier penetrators will go through more armor, which is what I was
    referring to in my post.

    Skinnier penetrators are also easier to break up. The longer a penetrator is the more weight it concentrates on the tip on impact. Obviously too thick and it is like trying to punch a hole in paper with the blunt end of a pencil, but then that is what the sharpened end is for... to start the penetration.

    What I was saying in my post was that now they have a turret bustle autoloader they don't need to turn each component of the ammo 90 degrees to load it into the breach, it can be simply a straight ram from storage.

    They can intentionally make their penetrator longer than what can be fitted in a western tank to gain an advantage.

    Right. But like I said, the latest Russian APFSDS is the BM-42M projectile, I have not heard of any further developments. I also doubt that Russian tanks can now load longer penetrators than Western tanks. The M829A3 projectile is over 830 mm long, almost a full feet longer than the latest Russian projectiles.

    I was referring to tube arty too.

    They have their eccentrics in tube artillery as well... the 2S7 152mm gun, the 2S9 203mm gun, the 240mm mortars, the MSTA. Most of their units now have 120mm mortar vehicles able to fire 120mm shells and 120mm mortar bombs (including western mortar rounds BTW), and they have laser guided shells for pretty much every calibre above 82mm. Does the west even today have anything like the Vasilek automatic mortar?

    I've noticed this is typical of your arguments. You list all the 'unique' objects that the Russians have that it seems apparent no one else does. This is a fallacious thought, as having more isn't necessarily better. The U.S. in particular has a habit of producing multi-purpose equipments, something the Russians haven't done too often until recently.

    The Smerch only has it's range due to it's size. The M270 MLRS has
    comparable range with the BM-27 Uragan, which is of comparable calibers.

    Both SMERCH and URAGAN have had sensor fused sub munition rockets since about 1987.
    Lets look at URAGAN compared to MLRS... similar range, similar payload, URAGAN is mounted on a truck which was widely used amongst WP forces, MLRS based on the Bradley... much more expensive to buy and operate and not used by any other NATO partner. URAGAN has 16 tubes, while MLRS has 12. URAGAN rockets have basic gyros in each rocket to help keep the volleys tighter than they would normally be... obviously you don't actually want all the rockets to hit the same point of ground.
    I would say even URAGAN is better than MLRS, and even the current model Grad can match it in range and with 40 rockets on board despite the fact that it carries less munitions per rocket it can actually carry more sensor fused submunitions per launcher.
    Smerch is a level above.

    Like I've said, I'd disagree. Notice that I said, "comparable" range. The M30 Guided munition has 25 km more range than the Uragan while having a precision strike capability, something all ex-Soviet MLRSs don't have. It is true that the Uragan is built on a more "common" chassis, but cost is no matter to capability, to which the M270 out-preforms the Uragan and the Smerch to some extent. The Grad is a joke compared to the M270.

    Also; the guided rounds of the M270 far surpasses any guided round for
    Russian tube arty that we know of, it's accuracy is comparable to that
    of a JDAM.

    M270 is not tube artillery why would you compare it?

    The Tochka and Tender are the direct Russian equivalent of ATCMS and they really are as good if not better in some aspects.

    They are used at ranges artillery is not normally used and would require other recon assets to find targets for them.

    The Russians separate that capability out of artillery support units and have it at a higher level.

    Uh...I hate to break this to you but the M270 is tube arty. The problem with the Tochka/Tender is that, for example, with the M270, you can fire a volley of GPS guided unitary-HE warheads out to 60 km, relocate, then load it with ATACMS, and then preform anti-counter battery fire. With the BM series of MLRSs, you can't do that, you have to have at least 2 vehicles which complicates logistics.

    Also, the Russian 122, 220, and 300 mm line of MLRSs lack a system that
    allows for quick reloading of said rockets (that has been fixed now),
    but the M270 has had it for quite a while.

    Hahahahahahahahaha... you are joking right?

    I remember in the 1980s a western defence expert writing in their book in artillery comparing the Grad to a Warsaw Pact copy. The Warsaw Pact copy had a complete reload on the back of the vehicle in front of the launcher so a second volley could be delivered in about 3 minutes after the first volley have been fired.
    This western expert claimed this made the copy much better than the original.

    Absolutely hilarious.

    When you fire a volley of rockets whose launch can be seen from hundreds of kms because of the smoke and IR signature the last thing you will do is a quick reload and fire again.

    The first thing you will do is lower the launchers raise the stabilisers and drive to the next launch position as fast as you can.

    Once you get to the new launch position you can reload as much as you like.

    And by the way the new rocket artillery system called Tornado uses a smaller lighter truck that uses pallet based rocket launchers and it can be fitted with 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rocket pods.

    Cheaper, lighter, and much more flexible than MLRS.

    Like I've said, the problem of rapid-reload has been fixed. Why you didn't catch part, I don't know.
    Regardless, I am not joking. The BM series of MLRSs require roughly 20 minutes to reload all rockets. While the M270 only requires 3 minutes. This is very important for a shoot and scoot scenario. For example, a single M270 can eliminate a grid square in less than 40 seconds. Then, it can relocate to avoid it's grid square being removed. In it's new local, it can reload in just 3 minutes, fire another volley, and then relocate further. While the BM-27, has to fire it's volley, relocate, than doodle for about 20 minutes, fire again, and then relocate.

    The simple end result is that the M270 can lay more pain in less time than the Uragan, which makes it, at least IMO, clearly superior.

    Also, this is off topic.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:Yes, the General said 130hp more than the 1,000 hp engine fitted to the T-90.They were working on a 1,200hp engine (V-99)so I guess a 1,130 hp engine is close enough.

    I dont think the current russian T-90S uses 1000 hp engine more like 840 or latter variants 950HP.

    Only the export variant of IA T-90 Bhishma uses 1000hp engine

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:53 pm

    Right. But like I said, the latest Russian APFSDS is the BM-42M
    projectile, I have not heard of any further developments. I also doubt
    that Russian tanks can now load longer penetrators than Western tanks.
    The M829A3 projectile is over 830 mm long, almost a full feet longer
    than the latest Russian projectiles.

    Do you think the latest Russian APFSDS would be known about?

    Tell me all about all the types of ammo developed for the T-95.

    (If you don't know anything about the types of ammo developed for the T-95 why would you know more about new rounds being developed now?)

    Existing Russian tanks have to store their ammo in an under floor autoloader that limits the length each of the two components can be and still be loaded.

    This new tank modification (T-90AM) removes that restriction on ammo design... do you think they are going to keep the penetrators shorter or start making them longer?

    I've noticed this is typical of your arguments. You list all the
    'unique' objects that the Russians have that it seems apparent no one
    else does. This is a fallacious thought, as having more isn't
    necessarily better.

    They inherited a lot of stuff. Stuff that included a wide variety of very capable artillery. Do you think that makes them weak in artillery or does it mean they have experience and choice when it comes to different capabilities and features.

    The U.S. in particular has a habit of producing multi-purpose
    equipments, something the Russians haven't done too often until
    recently.

    The US has a habit of taking a good idea like rocket artillery and making it really expensive.
    The whole idea of a precision strike with an MLRS is a joke isn't it?
    The Soviets went for gyro and inertial guidance to keep the volleys close together over long distances (90km) so they were as effective at 90kms as they were at 40km.
    The US used their MLRS to try to replace Honest John and Lance type weapons and they really are different roles which artillery units shouldn't be getting into.

    The M30 Guided munition has 25 km more range than the Uragan while
    having a precision strike capability, something all ex-Soviet MLRSs
    don't have.

    The Russian forces have tactical precision strike capability. They don't waste time trying to make rocket artillery into a Lance II unit and vice versa.

    It is true that the Uragan is built on a more "common" chassis, but
    cost is no matter to capability, to which the M270 out-preforms the
    Uragan and the Smerch to some extent. The Grad is a joke compared to the
    M270.

    How many NATO countries decided to buy M270?
    How many more would they have bought if they were truck mounted?
    I hear the US military has introduced a light truck model for MLRS so it seems its does matter.

    And in what way does M270 outperform even Uragan?
    Grad can reach targets out to 40km these days.

    Point targets are dealt with CAS and Tochka and Tender (Iskander).


    Uh...I hate to break this to you but the M270 is tube arty.

    You might like to alert the rest of the world about that... tube artillery is gun artillery and rocket artillery is something else.

    Check out:
    Rocket artillery vs tube artillery


    at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_artillery#Rocket_artillery_vs_tube_artillery

    The problem with the Tochka/Tender is that, for example, with the M270,
    you can fire a volley of GPS guided unitary-HE warheads out to 60 km,
    relocate, then load it with ATACMS, and then preform anti-counter
    battery fire. With the BM series of MLRSs, you can't do that, you have
    to have at least 2 vehicles which complicates logistics.

    With Tornado you can fire anti tank guided submunitions to 90km and while the unit is relocating any counter battery fire can be dealt with using Tochka and Tender units much further back.

    In the hour it takes to reload and relocate to a new firing site how is the MLRS going to monitor the airspace and detect and track artillery rounds headed for its previous firing position... and then fire quickly enough before the enemy unit moves?

    It isn't.

    Like I've said, the problem of rapid-reload has been fixed. Why you didn't catch part, I don't know.

    Thought I pointed out pretty clearly rapid reload is a useful feature but not actually that important unless the unit is supporting lots of different units at once.

    In it's new local, it can reload in just 3 minutes, fire another
    volley, and then relocate further. While the BM-27, has to fire it's
    volley, relocate, than doodle for about 20 minutes, fire again, and then
    relocate.

    The higher costs of operation and to procure mean that MLRS units generally replace tube artillery units. SMERCH is cheap enough to operate in larger numbers and can operate much more safely because being up to 90km from its targets (they are working on extending that to 120km for standard rockets) it is well out of enemy tube artillery range.

    The Tornado has pallets that reduce reload time to a few minutes too.

    The simple end result is that the M270 can lay more pain in less time
    than the Uragan, which makes it, at least IMO, clearly superior.

    But that is the point it is not just the M270 against the Uragan... it is up against the Uragan, the Grad, the Smerch, and even the Buratino and the Tochka and the Tender.
    I dont think the current russian T-90S uses 1000 hp engine more like 840 or latter variants 950HP.

    The Russians don't use the T-90S, that is the export version of their T-90A... which also uses a 1,000hp engine.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:29 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Russians don't use the T-90S, that is the export version of their T-90A... which also uses a 1,000hp engine.

    No ,the original T-90A uses 840hp engine and newer T-90A's uses 950hp.

    I just hope the MOD orders more T-90AM while they work on Armata project , ordering it would also help in export of Russian tank compete globally , plus the AM model seems to have every thing that would make it competitive for the next 10 years against western peers , the BMS should not be a problem.

    I wonder if AM has APU.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:06 pm

    The T-90A has an APU. The T-90S doesn't.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:11 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:The T-90A has an APU. The T-90S doesn't.

    If what you say is true then its surprising Bhishma did not opt for an APU.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:25 am

    The Bhishma opted out for many things :v

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:33 am

    What is the name of this 950hp engine?

    The V-92 fitted to T-90A tanks is a 1,000hp tank engine.

    The T-90AM is hardly going to be fitted with an 840hp V84MS engine fitted to old T-72s when they are exporting 1,000hp V92S2 engines.

    They were working on the V-99 which was supposed to be a 1,200hp diesel engine, so if they say they increased engine performance by 130hp I personally think it will be a 1,130hp engine they are using.

    If you want to think that they are using a 1,070 hp or 1,080 hp engine that is completely up to you.

    BTW I looked up wiki and it describes the V-92 engine as being 950hp and gives Jedsite as the source.
    Don't know about you, but I had never heard of JEDsite before.

    Every other site I go to and the V-92 is a 1,000hp engine...

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:11 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:The Bhishma opted out for many things :v

    Its a pity , we ordered 1600 T-90 can you imagine those figures it is substantially more then any country or even Russia has it.

    I am just hoping they move to T-90AM as it would be logical to go for an improved variant considering the big numbers.

    I think T-90AM would be the best bet considering it eliminates most of its weakness and improves on most of its strength.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:30 am

    GarryB wrote:What is the name of this 950hp engine?

    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-294.html

    4
    ) T-90 later series, T-90A, T-90S - V-shaped 12-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel diesel V-92S2 turbo (upgraded B-84, different setting turbokonagnetatelya and improved design) production by CTZ (Chelyabinsk).
    Power - up to 1000 liters. с. with at 2000 rpm (950 hp - In-92)
    Dimensions - 1458 x 895 x 960 mm
    Weight - 1020 kg
    Working volume - 39 L
    Specific fuel consumption - 170 g / hp. в час per hour
    Coefficient of adaptability - 1.25

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:05 pm

    I see your blog site and raise you the makers of the tank:

    http://uvz.ru/product/70/3

    Scroll down to the section on the engine and it says:

    Тип двигателя В-92С2 (дизель)
    Максимальная мощность, кВт (л.с.) 736(1000)
    The (1000) is the horse power rating. 736Kw of power.

    Its a pity , we ordered 1600 T-90 can you imagine those figures it is substantially more then any country or even Russia has it.

    It is probably because the T-90 is your numbers tank that they didn't spend money on all the extras. They didn't buy Shtora either did they?

    I am just hoping they move to T-90AM as it would be logical to go for an improved variant considering the big numbers.

    The Russian Army will likely buy it because there is no current alternative.
    The Indian Army is rather unlikely to buy it because it costs twice as much as the tanks they have bought so far.

    I think T-90AM would be the best bet considering it eliminates most of its weakness and improves on most of its strength.

    If the Russian Army orders it in enough numbers the price might be reduced and the Indian Army might consider adopting some of the features like the enlarged turret and bustle autoloader.

    Would assume any exported model with T-90AM upgrades will be called T-90SM.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 6087
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:I see your blog site and raise you the makers of the tank:

    http://uvz.ru/product/70/3

    The (1000) is the horse power rating. 736Kw of power.

    Believe the T-90C is an export model.

    It is probably because the T-90 is your numbers tank that they didn't spend money on all the extras. They didn't buy Shtora either did they?

    T-90Bishma is a frontline tank will be used in offensive formation , even Arjun is put in defensive role.

    They didnt buy Shotra or APS becuase they wanted to go for global tender on those system.

    The Russian Army will likely buy it because there is no current alternative.
    The Indian Army is rather unlikely to buy it because it costs twice as much as the tanks they have bought so far.

    Indian Army keeps in upgrading tanks and goes for upgrade model , like they are upgrading the T-72 about 600 off them and going for Mk2 model of Arjun , they well might go for T-90AM considering its being lic built here.

    If the Russian Army orders it in enough numbers the price might be reduced and the Indian Army might consider adopting some of the features like the enlarged turret and bustle autoloader.

    Yes it would help , but tank warfare in India is mostly in Indo-Pak context , so as long as Pakistan Army does not qualitatively upgrade its tank , we might see less incentive to upgrade existing one if its already good to meet its match like in case of PA it is T-80UD , the existing T-90 will have a edge over it and so will Arjun.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:26 pm

    we might see less incentive to upgrade existing one if its already good
    to meet its match like in case of PA it is T-80UD , the existing T-90
    will have a edge over it and so will Arjun.

    I would think the turret bustle upgrade would be worth it alone for the improved crew safety of not having loose ammo in the crew compartment.

    Believe the T-90C is an export model.

    Look at the engine designation... Тип двигателя
    В-92С2 (дизель)

    V-92S2.

    Are you suggesting there are two V-92S2 engines in production in Russia... one for Export T-90S tanks with 1,000 hp, and one for domestic T-90A tanks with 950 hp that are both called V-92S2?

    Or perhaps that blog is wrong.

    Power - up to 1000 liters. с. with at 2000 rpm (950 hp - In-92)

    What does the In-92 mean?

    Does it mean that in 1992 the V-92 had a rating of 950 hp... the V-92S2 is the second improvement and has 1,000hp?

    This would suggest that the current rating is 1,000hp and that increasing its performance by 130hp to 1,130hp when they were aiming for 1,200 makes sense. A 1,130hp engine is close enough to 1,200 hp to not bother further development to get the extra 70hp.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:35 pm

    http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product893.html

    and from the horses mouth...

    http://chtz-uraltrac.com/catalog/items/19.php



    • Military Parade"
    • Date:01-01-2000(MPD-No.001)
    • Size:4,818 Kb.
    • Words: 724



    V-92S2 NEW TANK DIESEL


    The Military-Technical Council of the Defense Ministry of the Russian
    Federation has adopted an armor development and upgrading program. It
    focuses on upholding the high standards of operational readiness of
    armored forces, radical modernization of equipment (latest specimens
    above all), creation of a new auspicious tank that would have an edge in
    performance over existing foreign vehicles, and the gradual rearming of
    army units with the new tank.
    These tasks cannot be resolved unless an up-to-date engine is developed,
    because the tank's effectiveness and mobility heavily rely on it.
    The core of the Russian Army's armored forces and of the armored forces
    of some foreign countries is the T-72 tank powered either by the 780hp
    V-46-6 or 840hp V-84 MS diesel engine. Some time ago, these engines were
    considered to have high performance characteristics.
    Presently, the development trends lean towards enhancing the specific
    power rating of tank engines in order to increase mobility of armored
    vehicles and units.
    A demand arose for a more powerful engine adapted specifically for the
    T-72 tanks being modernized. The Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant JSC, which
    has vast experience in designing and manufacturing diesel engines, took
    on this project and in 1999 a new 1,000hp engine, designated V-92S2, was
    created.
    The new engine has already been put through all types of
    tests.
    In June - July 1999, installed in the T-90S tank, this engine underwent
    successful precontractory assessment tests in India. The tests were
    carried out in arduous desert conditions, where the dust content in the
    air was high and temperature rose up to +47 oC. The engine demonstrated
    high reliability and good traction qualities.
    Development work on more powerful auspicious engines is currently
    underway at the plant. It is worth mentioning that for the T-72 tank
    modernization, the V-92S2 diesel engine is unrivaled. To install it,
    minimum modification of the vehicle's engine compartment and minimal
    funding are required.

    source: http://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/167893


    Last edited by George1 on Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:30 pm; edited 4 times in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:10 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:10 am