T-90 Main Battle Tank

Name a source or go to Russia and measure it for yourself.

Hole wrote:Name a source or go to Russia and measure it for yourself.

Just a question are you including estimates that claim to include the ERA?

Please don't there is no accurate was of measuring ERA effectiveness.

And it causes confusion as to what is armor and what is ERA.

All real infos are secret. Nobody knows the exact numbers, except for the army and the producer. This are estimates by guys with sources in Russia.

Yess but I was asking for the most relliable estimates for the T-90As armor without ERA.

Didn´t want to sound rude. Sorry, man.

T-90 as stated: basic / with ERA
T-90A is all inclusive. Book says it got "better composite armor" than the T-90. Something around 550 mm (APFSDS), 650 mm (HEAT).


"Go, measure it yourself" is a saying of a german lieutenant colonel, a engineer. After the german reunification he studied the NVA weapons, as some guys were still coming to him and stating: "It can´t be that the frontal armor of the turret of the T-72 is nearly half a metre thick and the tank weighs just 43 tons" he replied with this words.

The T90As turret armor seems to be quite alot thicker than the T-72Bs but it gets weaker the closer it gets the the gun mantlet so the value will vary.




Although if that is the case then the T-90 needs to go. 550mm of armor is nothing it should have atleast 700mm RHAE vs kinetic rounds to justify continued service.

They should not even waste paint on tanks with such low characteristics.

Why don't they just upgrade the armor to 750-900mm VS KE (before ERA) and equip it with the Afganit APS sytem? That could work.

Oh and I was't offended... Just annoyed. Combine that with the nubers I am hearing and well I am very annoyed. Thanks for the consideration though.

The turret of the T-90A will never be "nacked". It will always be fitted with ERA. The modernised version will be better armored than a Leo2A6.

The-thing-next-door wrote:The T90As turret armor seems to be quite alot thicker than the T-72Bs but it gets weaker the closer it gets the the gun mantlet so the value will vary.




Although if that is the case then the T-90 needs to go. 550mm of armor is nothing it should have atleast 700mm RHAE vs kinetic rounds to justify continued service.

They should not even waste paint on tanks with such low characteristics.

Why don't they just upgrade the armor to 750-900mm VS KE (before ERA) and equip it with the Afganit APS sytem? That could work.

Oh and I was't offended... Just annoyed. Combine that with the nubers I am hearing and well I am very annoyed. Thanks for the consideration though.

They already have that. It is called t-14 armata.

Interesting comparison, assume from model kits.


TRUFAULT
‏ @TRUFAULT
13h13 hours ago

Los señores maquetistas nos vuelven a mostrar las diferencias de tamaño, entre las torretas de un Merkava 4, Leopard 2 y un T-90.

Hole wrote:The turret of the T-90A will never be "nacked". It will always be fitted with ERA. The modernised version will be better armored than a Leo2A6.

ERA is active protection and as such can be depleted.

Actually it is qute lousy active protection as when the ERA equiped tank is hit that entire section is compromised.

The T-90AM needs an APS and some more amor for it to be even remotely effective.

The armor is there to protect the crew, after a tank is hit by a anti-tank weapon, most of the times he will need a repair. ERA is much faster refitted than the additional armor packages at the turret front of the Leo2A6.

You can´t just compare some numbers stated by one side or the other. Look at the reality.like Syria. According to the promotion a TOW should easily kill a T-62M. But it didn´t. The Leo2´s of the turkish army is officially one of the best protected tanks of the world, but an old Konkurs destroyed one completly.

The T-90A is a good tank, even before the modernisation.
The T-72B3M is good enough for most conflicts.

Well if the T-90As base armor was capable of protecting against modern ATGMs (you know thoes things that everyone has tens of thousands of) on its own I suppose it would be passable but as it is currently it is utter crap.

The T-90A is ony an incrimental improvement of the T-72B and has no real advantage over the T-80U.

Russia should actually scrap its tank forces and start over the T-90 is an insult to Russian tank design and should be erased form history.

For the country that has revolutionised tank design multiple times and made most of the best tanks in history to make a pice of utter shit like the T90 is juts insulting.

What?

T-90 earlier examples survived multiple rpg hits which T-80 didn't. And add in it's active protection system with later T-90A with better overall passive protection, was most ideal in situations we even see now in Syria. Only real issue it had was the old ammunition (Mango or whatever it was called) was horribly outdated and due to pressure being less than the L55, it needed new rounds. But it's ability to fire atgm was a huge plus.

Rather unfounded the hate for T-90A.

The T-90A can fire Svinets 1 DU round with "830mm penetration at 2km" (wikipedia numbers so maybe more?) and considering that it is measured by Russian standards that would be even more.

There is no doubt that the 2a46m5 is a great gun but again firepower is the only redeamable feature of the T-90A as its survivability is non existent.

The T-90A needs new composite armor and an APS. Then maybe a new engine to improve its overall unimpressive mobility.

What?

Mobility of the T-72B3 and modernized T-90A is rather fine. Protection is too. As evident in Syria, even it's APS which T-90A already has.

I think you are confusing yourself.

ERA is active protection and as such can be depleted.

Passive armour is made of multiple layers... do you think those layers will continue to function properly after multiple hits too?

Modern ERA is designed to not be set off by nearby impacts so any hit will likely destroy one or maybe two bricks... do you think two hits so close together in the base armour would also be unaffected by a hit nearby?

And it needs to get through the APS before it gets to the ERA.

Actually it is qute lousy active protection as when the ERA equiped tank is hit that entire section is compromised.

We have seen armour targets used in exercises... in no example were there hits on the same area an ERA brick would represent...

Era should stop dozens of hits before gaps become a realistic problem.

Well if the T-90As base armor was capable of protecting against modern ATGMs (you know thoes things that everyone has tens of thousands of) on its own I suppose it would be passable but as it is currently it is utter crap.

It was developed in the 1990s... why would you think 20 years later that its base armour should still make it invincible?

The T-90A is ony an incrimental improvement of the T-72B and has no real advantage over the T-80U.

It is in production and it uses a lot less fuel.

Russia should actually scrap its tank forces and start over the T-90 is an insult to Russian tank design and should be erased form history.

Yes, because no tanks at all is much better than a tank that works... BTW Kornet and Krisantema can both penetrate over 1.2m of armour from 8.5km and 6km respectively, so I guess all western armoured vehicles need replacing too.

For the country that has revolutionised tank design multiple times and made most of the best tanks in history to make a pice of utter shit like the T90 is juts insulting.

No T-90s were lost in the second Chechen conflict... against Chechens with state of the art Soviet anti armour weapons... if that does not tell the opposite story then the problem is with the reader...

I think you are confusing yourself.

Replace confusing with deluding and you might have something...