Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Share
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 773
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:56 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:Weren,t the T-90s given to Syria the T-90S export variant with its severeley downgraded armor and not the T-90A Russian army variant?

    Yes Russia only gives out export grade equipment generally. Unless the tech is so outdated they don't really care
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:35 am

    The thing about binary propellants is that they are separated into two different substances for storing.

    The idea is to split it into two components that are not dangerous on their own... ie they will burn and they might be rather poisonous, but individually they wont explode.

    Once you have these two propellant components you can then store them separately in the vehicle.... say one component in a tank near the driver at the front of the hull and the other in the rear near the engine... if either tank is penetrated and leaks everywhere it might burn quietly but wont explode.... most fire suppression systems should put it out.

    It is only in the gun breach that the two components are mixed and the highly explosive clean burning fluid forms a high power propellant.

    Propellant is highly flammable.... one of the great design flaws of the T-64/80 series tanks was that the propellent stubs for the 125mm rounds are made from highly combustable cardboard so they don't leave crap in the barrel after being fired.... there is just a metal stub left which is ejected after firing.

    If the turret is penetrated even a spark or super hot metal fragment landing on that cardboard can ignite it and then all the other propellant stubs at once... usually removing the turret.

    From the design stage you could create cavities inside the armour and fill them with one component of the propellant including the front and the rear of the turret... as long as the two components can't mix there wont be an explosion even if the vehicle catches fire.

    This would mean you can vary the power of the propellant depending on the target and distance and projectile type. The chance of a propellant fire is almost eliminated, yet could be pumped into the vehicle to rapidly load the system.

    Temperature and other factors could be used to optimise the propellant load and liquid or gel propellants can be rather more powerful than solid or powder ones.

    The issue is developing a propellant you can split into two stable components and can be stored for long periods and yet burns in a predictable way.

    You could keep the same gun if you want and the same ammo and just remove the propellant block on the APFSDS rounds so then have HE and HEAT rounds in the underfloor autoloader and long rod penetrators with sabots in the rear turret bustle.

    You could have small propellant tanks behind the turret crew.... one on each side separated by a fire wall from the crew and each other and a larger tank in the hull near the engine and either side of the driver.

    You could have 15-20 shots worth of propellant in the turret tanks... they could reach back into the turret bustle loader and fill each side of the turret as an extra layer of protection but firewalled half way down so if the side of the turret is penetrated all the propellant does not leak out entirely... and another 60-70 shots worth of propellant in the hull tanks that can be pumped into the turret tanks at a stop with the turret forward or something.

    With no live exploding propellant anywhere in the tank except in the gun breach the vehicle and crew would be much safer even when the vehicle is penetrated.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 102
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Interlinked on Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:12 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Many Abrams have been lost by the Saudi's against the Yemen's who are vastly weaker.

    Many have been lost in Iraq.

    Interlinked seriously drop the crap. I dislike biased western fanboys just as much as Russian ones.


    Absolutely true, but the examples given so far are invalid.

    sheytanelkebir

    Posts : 512
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:24 pm

    I posted this on the arms export for iraq thread.

    https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/656716.html


    is this an Iraqi T90? Seems to have features from both T90S and T90MS

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 281
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Cyrus the great on Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:11 am

    GarryB wrote:The thing about binary propellants is that they are separated into two different substances for storing.

    The idea is to split it into two components that are not dangerous on their own... ie they will burn and they might be rather poisonous, but individually they wont explode.

    Once you have these two propellant components you can then store them separately in the vehicle.... say one component in a tank near the driver at the front of the hull and the other in the rear near the engine... if either tank is penetrated and leaks everywhere it might burn quietly but wont explode.... most fire suppression systems should put it out.

    It is only in the gun breach that the two components are mixed and the highly explosive clean burning fluid forms a high power propellant.

    Propellant is highly flammable.... one of the great design flaws of the T-64/80 series tanks was that the propellent stubs for the 125mm rounds are made from highly combustable cardboard so they don't leave crap in the barrel after being fired.... there is just a metal stub left which is ejected after firing.

    If the turret is penetrated even a spark or super hot metal fragment landing on that cardboard can ignite it and then all the other propellant stubs at once... usually removing the turret.

    From the design stage you could create cavities inside the armour and fill them with one component of the propellant including the front and the rear of the turret... as long as the two components can't mix there wont be an explosion even if the vehicle catches fire.

    This would mean you can vary the power of the propellant depending on the target and distance and projectile type. The chance of a propellant fire is almost eliminated, yet could be pumped into the vehicle to rapidly load the system.

    Temperature and other factors could be used to optimise the propellant load and liquid or gel propellants can be rather more powerful than solid or powder ones.

    The issue is developing a propellant you can split into two stable components and can be stored for long periods and yet burns in a predictable way.

    You could keep the same gun if you want and the same ammo and just remove the propellant block on the APFSDS rounds so then have HE and HEAT rounds in the underfloor autoloader and long rod penetrators with sabots in the rear turret bustle.

    You could have small propellant tanks behind the turret crew.... one on each side separated by a fire wall from the crew and each other and a larger tank in the hull near the engine and either side of the driver.

    You could have 15-20 shots worth of propellant in the turret tanks... they could reach back into the turret bustle loader and fill each side of the turret as an extra layer of protection but firewalled half way down so if the side of the turret is penetrated all the propellant does not leak out entirely... and another 60-70 shots worth of propellant in the hull tanks that can be pumped into the turret tanks at a stop with the turret forward or something.

    With no live exploding propellant anywhere in the tank except in the gun breach the vehicle and crew would be much safer even when the vehicle is penetrated.


    Thanks for this very insightful post, Garry.  If the latest T-90 variant had such an arrangement, it would be the 2nd safest tank after the T-14 Armata. I read that the Burlak turret would increase weight by 3 tons but that would still be well worth it because the T-90 would then only be 51 tons and would have 53 rounds at its disposal.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 281
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:43 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:They are going to put the 2A82/82M on these tanks but because of hull floor they will have to keep same autoloader (thus same rounds).



    This only means that hull will get stretched or gutted. More weld feuds to come clown

    I take it that you prefer the Burlak turret; it's great because it would not impose any limits on the length of the sabot rounds and would provide a whopping 53 round capacity. I also like the idea of stretching the hull by a mere 20cm so that it could hold the longer Vacuum-1 sabot rounds; all the rounds would be completely under armour, and could be made even safer with the use of binary liquid propellants.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1654
    Points : 1654
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:49 pm

    What exactly is the Burlak turret?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5639
    Points : 5680
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Militarov on Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:14 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:What exactly is the Burlak turret?

    http://btvt.info/7english/640a/640.htm
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:08 am

    The Burlak turret is much like the black eagle turret, but it is for the T-72/90 family while the Black Eagle is for the T-80 family and removed the underfloor autoloader and moves it to the rear turret bustle.

    The Burlak keeps the 22 round underfloor autoloader, but adds a rear turret bustle loader with a further 31 rounds that can include much longer penetrators as there is no rotating of rounds... just straight ramming into the breach.

    Reportedly it was rejected because turret bustle rounds are considered to vulnerable to enemy fire.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:44 am