T-90 Main Battle Tank

Werewolf wrote:I wanted to ask about the feature that the side ERA on the hull front can be extended. I assume to have better protective capability, to predetonate incoming ATGM's, RPG's and HEAT tank rounds before they actually can reach the hull, for threats to the tank that are to an angle to the tank that the enemy can see the side of the tank. Is this system automated or does this system adjust the Angle of ERA Tiles to the threat via Gunners sight/commanders sight to always have the highest possible coverage of side armor and not open gaps for enemy?

what you are describing seems very complex- and they'll probably reserve those for the armata. and afaik relik, which is the best ERA on any T-90 variant, is not remote detonated, and the Relikt lite on the hull which i assume is what you are talking about should'nt be any different.

But for armata it would be very possible, the rounds would now occupy the entirety of the middle hull so it has to be protected very well esp for situations that expose the tank to much closer threats like in urban combat where precision hits aren't very uncommon. however while possible i think
a predetonating ERA tile would be redundant against HEAT based weapons(western HEAT based weapons that is, since they are generally weak as p!ss- see peasant single charge copper(rpg-7 more like) m830 vs triple charged and possibly DU/W 3BK29M) with an effective APS in place, and of more use against APFSDSs and EFPs.

AFAIK it was only ever used on early T-72s and also from memory didn't include ERA, so these were just sheets of metal with rubberised material in support that could be angled forward in combat to act as stand off armour from frontal fire aimed at the sides of the tank.

Never really saw it on later tanks so I suspect ERA works better.

GarryB wrote:AFAIK it was only ever used on early T-72s and also from memory didn't include ERA, so these were just sheets of metal with rubberised material in support that could be angled forward in combat to act as stand off armour from frontal fire aimed at the sides of the tank.

Never really saw it on later tanks so I suspect ERA works better.

hy. i am a civilian and i watch whit interest what army is about. i wanna ask you did AFAIK was user ever whit ERA? mean a mix of this 2

and i wonder .....a armour of a tank can be simullated on computers ? i mean whit all caracteristics of the metals involved ....maibe even at atomic level

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:I wanted to ask about the feature that the side ERA on the hull front can be extended. I assume to have better protective capability, to predetonate incoming ATGM's, RPG's and HEAT tank rounds before they actually can reach the hull, for threats to the tank that are to an angle to the tank that the enemy can see the side of the tank. Is this system automated or does this system adjust the Angle of ERA Tiles to the threat via Gunners sight/commanders sight to always have the highest possible coverage of side armor and not open gaps for enemy?

what you are describing seems very complex- and they'll probably reserve those for the armata. and afaik relik, which is the best ERA on any T-90 variant, is not remote detonated, and the Relikt lite on the hull which i assume is what you are talking about should'nt be any different.

But for armata it would be very possible, the rounds would now occupy the entirety of the middle hull so it has to be protected very well esp for situations that expose the tank to much closer threats like in urban combat where precision hits aren't very uncommon. however while possible i think
a predetonating ERA tile would be redundant against HEAT based weapons(western HEAT based weapons that is, since they are generally weak as p!ss- see peasant single charge copper(rpg-7 more like) m830 vs triple charged and possibly DU/W 3BK29M) with an effective APS in place, and of more use against APFSDSs and EFPs.

I did not mean predetonating those ERA tiles as planned by crew or a subsystem of the tank, but that the tiles are angled to an enemy tank/RPG or whatever so when the round HEAT,RPG,ATGM hits the ERA tile that there is still enough space of the angled ERA and the actual hull armor, so the space between extended Tile and hull leaves the Shaped charge to deform more from the ERA and weaken its penetrative ability before it can hit the hull.


I just wondered because some time ago i saw a picture of a tank that had angled its side chassis ERA tiles towards the front and have never seen this before but didn't ask back then.

Werewolf wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:I wanted to ask about the feature that the side ERA on the hull front can be extended. I assume to have better protective capability, to predetonate incoming ATGM's, RPG's and HEAT tank rounds before they actually can reach the hull, for threats to the tank that are to an angle to the tank that the enemy can see the side of the tank. Is this system automated or does this system adjust the Angle of ERA Tiles to the threat via Gunners sight/commanders sight to always have the highest possible coverage of side armor and not open gaps for enemy?

what you are describing seems very complex- and they'll probably reserve those for the armata. and afaik relik, which is the best ERA on any T-90 variant, is not remote detonated, and the Relikt lite on the hull which i assume is what you are talking about should'nt be any different.

But for armata it would be very possible, the rounds would now occupy the entirety of the middle hull so it has to be protected very well esp for situations that expose the tank to much closer threats like in urban combat where precision hits aren't very uncommon. however while possible i think
a predetonating ERA tile would be redundant against HEAT based weapons(western HEAT based weapons that is, since they are generally weak as p!ss- see peasant single charge copper(rpg-7 more like) m830 vs triple charged and possibly DU/W 3BK29M) with an effective APS in place, and of more use against APFSDSs and EFPs.

I did not mean predetonating those ERA tiles as planned by crew or a subsystem of the tank, but that the tiles are angled to an enemy tank/RPG or whatever so when the round HEAT,RPG,ATGM hits the ERA tile that there is still enough space of the angled ERA and the actual hull armor, so the space between extended Tile and hull leaves the Shaped charge to deform more from the ERA and weaken its penetrative ability before it can hit the hull.


I just wondered because some time ago i saw a picture of a tank that had angled its side chassis ERA tiles towards the front and have never seen this before but didn't ask back then.

with the angle beeing more sharpen the resistence of the this mobile plates increase. if the interior angle is lets say 30 degrees is more probability that the spike-like projectile to be deviated. a vertical plate like a wall has the most chances to be penetrated. you got the ideea.

Werewolf wrote:
I did not mean predetonating those ERA tiles as planned by crew or a subsystem of the tank, but that the tiles are angled to an enemy tank/RPG or whatever so when the round HEAT,RPG,ATGM hits the ERA tile that there is still enough space of the angled ERA and the actual hull armor, so the space between extended Tile and hull leaves the Shaped charge to deform more from the ERA and weaken its penetrative ability before it can hit the hull.


I just wondered because some time ago i saw a picture of a tank that had angled its side chassis ERA tiles towards the front and have never seen this before but didn't ask back then.

well, arent most new heavy ERA like that- see the clamshell on the T-90. if you strike at the lip or edge of the clamshell it wont be as effective as when you hit it near base of the clamshell where the moving plate would devastate the whole round. however to offset this you now have to travel some empty space. this and the fact that you offset the HEAT round from center axis (tandem or multiple charges would sequentially activate but they would not hit the same spot ever) would siginificantly weaken the penetrating potential of the round as you said.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1208010.html

News to me- but looks like the hushed up order of 44 T-90s to Uganda actually happened.

Am i completely bonkers or there was an article (or just a post?) few days ago stating that the T-90s in russian army service might be upgraded to T-90AM standard? Did anyone seen such an article, i could swear i've read something like that but i can't remember where...

PS: That's the closest i could find about T-90AM for russian army (either new or upgraded T-90)
http://fortruss.blogspot.ae/2015/03/3182015-normal-0-false-false-false-en.html

mack8 wrote:Am i completely bonkers or there was an article (or just a post?) few days ago stating that the T-90s in russian army service might be upgraded to T-90AM standard? Did anyone seen such an article, i could swear i've read something like that but i can't remember where...

PS: That's the closest i could find about T-90AM for russian army (either new or upgraded T-90)
http://fortruss.blogspot.ae/2015/03/3182015-normal-0-false-false-false-en.html

The original article is here: http://tvzvezda.ru/news/krasnaya_zvezda/content/201503181455-i3x4.htm

I posted it a few days ago in the Ground Forces news thread....apparently there's speculation that existing T-90's will be brought up to T-90AM standard

Cyberspec wrote:

mack8 wrote:Am i completely bonkers or there was an article (or just a post?) few days ago stating that the T-90s in russian army service might be upgraded to T-90AM standard? Did anyone seen such an article, i could swear i've read something like that but i can't remember where...

PS: That's the closest i could find about T-90AM for russian army (either new or upgraded T-90)
http://fortruss.blogspot.ae/2015/03/3182015-normal-0-false-false-false-en.html

The original article is here: http://tvzvezda.ru/news/krasnaya_zvezda/content/201503181455-i3x4.htm

I posted it a few days ago in the Ground Forces news thread....apparently there's speculation that existing T-90's will be brought up to T-90AM standard

Ah I hope so... It would be a great stepping stone from the T-90 to the Armata.

Sounds like a fat waste of money.

T-90s and T-72Bs are more than enough to ensure Russia's security and maintain an effective armoured force until Armata/Kurganets brigades get introduced in numbers. All they need are some iterative upgrades; nothing big.

flamming_python wrote:Sounds like a fat waste of money.

T-90s and T-72Bs are more than enough to ensure Russia's security and maintain an effective armoured force until Armata/Kurganets brigades get introduced in numbers. All they need are some iterative upgrades; nothing big.

Gotta go with FP on this one, an AM upgrade is overkill, but perhaps an A2 upgrade may be in order even if it's just for replacing the Kontakt ERA with new relict ERA.

They will have developed a sensor/weapon suite for the new vehicles Kurganets, Boomerang, and Armata, I would suggest that for some time the T-90s will be in service and if the new modular armour structures for the new vehicles can be adapted to older model vehicles then that would be good for existing domestic vehicles and also for export.

Obviously a BMP-3 wont have the level of protection and fire power as kurganets IFV, but with its APS and a new turret upgrade with its weapons and sensors it might be very competitive... you wont be able to just drop the newly developed turrets into the older vehicles obviously as they are unmanned, but the improved weapons and sensors and new modular armour could greatly improve existing vehicles performance and allow a smoother transition to the new vehicles and also reduce the price of systems by increasing commonality and production numbers.

Of course having said all that the cost of adapting the new systems and equipment to older vehicles would pay for quite a few new vehicles...

normally i would disagree with the upgrading of T-90/A to AM standard, but we have to remember new stuff esp. electronics would require a bit of time for the people to get used to. nerdy ivan fresh from his mother's basement would feel at home with the new screens and joysticks, but the veteran vlad might feel clumsy around it.

Cyberspec wrote:

mack8 wrote:Am i completely bonkers or there was an article (or just a post?) few days ago stating that the T-90s in russian army service might be upgraded to T-90AM standard? Did anyone seen such an article, i could swear i've read something like that but i can't remember where...

PS: That's the closest i could find about T-90AM for russian army (either new or upgraded T-90)
http://fortruss.blogspot.ae/2015/03/3182015-normal-0-false-false-false-en.html

The original article is here: http://tvzvezda.ru/news/krasnaya_zvezda/content/201503181455-i3x4.htm

I posted it a few days ago in the Ground Forces news thread....apparently there's speculation that existing T-90's will be brought up to T-90AM standard

Thanks Cyberspec, so i wasn't that bonkers.

quick question :3

can T-72M1 variant use track from T-90 without change of drive sprockets ? Looking at some image.. T-72M appears to use different type of track to T-90 or T-72B.

Planned 2015 Ground Forces equipment acquisition calls for almost 300 T-90AM and T-72B3. No idea of the breakdown between the two.

quick question :3

can T-72M1 variant use track from T-90 without change of drive sprockets ? Looking at some image.. T-72M appears to use different type of track to T-90 or T-72B.

Sorry to answer a question with another question... if you wanted to use T-90 tracks why wouldn't you change to the T-90 drive sprockets too?

Tracks are improved all the time to improve the distance a tank can drive without maintainence or replacement, and also to improve traction over rough areas and also reduce damage to roads and hard surfaces.

T series tanks used to be very hard to identify because as new things were developed they tended to be added to all tanks as they went in for overhaul/repair. Obviously base armour can't be changed but wheels and tracks etc can.

Planned 2015 Ground Forces equipment acquisition calls for almost 300 T-90AM and T-72B3. No idea of the breakdown between the two.

They might be buying some AMs for testing and training.

GarryB wrote:
Sorry to answer a question with another question... if you wanted to use T-90 tracks why wouldn't you change to the T-90 drive sprockets too?

Tracks are improved all the time to improve the distance a tank can drive without maintainence or replacement, and also to improve traction over rough areas and also reduce damage to roads and hard surfaces.

I'm doing a supposedly T-72 with French T-21 turret upgrade (Romanian cooperation with French) But what i have was T-90 Hull.

As of today how many were built? 1 T-90AM and 1 export variant T-90MS, right? That's 2.

I was really impressed as many people, by the T-90AM, a fantastic tank it seems. What should russia do with it, for example, modernizing 300 T-90A to AM? (i doubt any new built)

Imho it's vastly on par with NATO mbts, where the T-90A lacked in various areas.

It's still quite lightweight and much cheaper than the T-14.

How good is it? I would say it's probably the best tank russia ever came up with, behind T-14, at least the T-90AM is based on a rugged and proven chassis, retains classic crew arrangement, but has tremendous armor, optronics, ammo and mobility advantages over the T-90A.

I'd say russia should have ~1000 T-72B3/B4, 500 T-90A, 500 T-90AM (or 300-400) and finally as much as T-14 they can built (800 MBTs or even 1500 in the long run).... And will put in storage/canibalisation most of T-72 and T-90 variants. T-80 should be used until total exhausting imho, to save cost for training with new tanks and conserve them.

In any case, russia should promote T-90MS as its new export tank, and focus on the various markets interested in it, T-90MS is undoubtly the best tank any country could afford, for the package. T-14 should definitely stay a russian only tank, at least for 10 years.

I hear Iraq has ordered the T-90, not the export type either, the same one that the russian army will use, russia offered the export one but it was rejected by iraq, so russia will give them the T-90ms

putinboss wrote:I hear Iraq has ordered the T-90, not the export type either, the same one that the russian army will use, russia offered the export one but it was rejected by iraq, so russia will give them the T-90ms

S version is already export version russia does not sell domestic versions to anyone. There are of course different versions of export variants with different quality depending on costumer at least was in the past like that.

we havent seen the T-90AM yet, only the T-90MS- the modernization of the for export T-90S and currently the best T-90 model(until T-90AM, if ever there will be one)

cracker wrote:As of today how many were built? 1 T-90AM and 1 export variant T-90MS, right? That's 2.

I was really impressed as many people, by the T-90AM, a fantastic tank it seems. What should russia do with it, for example, modernizing 300 T-90A to AM? (i doubt any new built)

Imho it's vastly on par with NATO mbts, where the T-90A lacked in various areas.

It's still quite lightweight and much cheaper than the T-14.

How good is it? I would say it's probably the best tank russia ever came up with, behind T-14, at least the T-90AM is based on a rugged and proven chassis, retains classic crew arrangement, but has tremendous armor, optronics, ammo and mobility advantages over the T-90A.

I'd say russia should have ~1000 T-72B3/B4, 500 T-90A, 500 T-90AM (or 300-400) and finally as much as T-14 they can built (800 MBTs or even 1500 in the long run).... And will put in storage/canibalisation most of T-72 and T-90 variants. T-80 should be used until total exhausting imho, to save cost for training with new tanks and conserve them.

In any case, russia should promote T-90MS as its new export tank, and focus on the various markets interested in it, T-90MS is undoubtly the best tank any country could afford, for the package. T-14 should definitely stay a russian only tank, at least for 10 years.

Curious as to if the T-90AM is to be a modernization of the T-90's in storage or of the newer T-90A's of which there were only 350-400 received.
As for the T-80's, only the U and BV (upgrade, ~150) are still in service.
And with the economic slowdown would be happy to see 500 T-14 by 2020.