Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Share
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 472
    Points : 504
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun May 13, 2018 8:41 pm

    miketheterrible wrote: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.

    Oh yea it has definitely porved itself against all of thoes leopard 2's and m1a2s that its been fighting.

    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7079
    Points : 7175
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun May 13, 2018 8:52 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote: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.

    Oh yea it has definitely porved itself against all of thoes leopard 2's and m1a2s that its been fighting.

    T-90 fighting Leo-2s and Abrams? And when did this happened?
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 832
    Points : 832
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Hole on Sun May 13, 2018 9:38 pm

    Thing, you know, that nearly all this Leo2´s and M1´s were build in the 80`s and later modernised? There basic armor is even worse than that of the T-90A.
    Since Russia developed there ERA, all their tanks are designed to be fitted with it. With the latest ERA the T-90 has an armor level of around 1.100 mm RHA. That´s good enough to survive against 95% of everything it could encounter on a battlefield.

    In the end, there is now 100% protection. Ask the Amis with their "invincible" M1. For nearly 30 years they were shouting, that ERA is shit. Dangerous for Infantry and so on. After a few M1´s were destroyed by old RPG´s in Iraq, they fitted the M1´s with ERA. Ups!

    You are right with the APS. Don´t know why the didn´t fit one into the modernisation package (T-90M). Maybe they wait until the Afghanit is in service on the T-14 and then start mass production.


    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 472
    Points : 504
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun May 13, 2018 9:40 pm

    If i recall correclty it heppend in operation "dawn of sarcasim" where it killed ten million nato tanks... bat that was a T-90BMUK model 2022 delux edition.

    Although the T-14AKMMU model 2025 super extreeme ultra delux supreme gaurd of the Russian Union of kill all globalists edition was by far superior.. it even 360 noscoped the
    entire US navy from the other side of the planet. lol!

    WARNING SARCASIM OVERLOAD IMINENT!

    If its not clear I was just refuting the previous staement about the T72B with the welded turret *cough* T-90As armor.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18090
    Points : 18650
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 14, 2018 3:03 am

    If its not clear I was just refuting the previous staement about the T72B with the welded turret *cough* T-90As armor.

    Yeah, making shit up does not refute anything...

    Replacing ERA tiles is quicker and cheaper and easier than fixing main armour structures... in fact replacing ERA could be done while reloading is taking place near the front line...
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 472
    Points : 504
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon May 14, 2018 10:39 am

    You do realise that ERA leaves the main armor exposed when it is hit don't you? If you are going to use ERA you should not rely on it for your tank to survive.

    Oh and ERA does not detroy incoming munition it only reduces thier effect so you will actually need to worry about main armor repairs ontop of ERA replacemnt.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5268
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 14, 2018 10:54 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:You do realise that ERA leaves the main armor exposed when it is hit don't you?  If you are going to use ERA you should not rely on it for your tank to survive.

    Oh and ERA does not detroy incoming munition it only reduces thier effect so you will actually need to worry about main armor repairs ontop of ERA replacemnt.

    It does not matter much how thick or effective your armor is when any round will damage your composite armor layers. The ERA blocks reduce the depth or neutralize entirely older warheads, meaning you will not have a deep penetration and damaged composite layers. That reduces risk of penetration, cost for replacement of costly composite armor tiles and replacement after penetration of just ERA tiles is a huge plus.

    The only one here arguing that ERA tiles is the only armor on russian tanks that is you. Same discussions we had with other advocates of how effective western armor is and how ineffective russian armor is were here before. Usually the brigade of polish fanboys and advocates of M1 Abrams.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 472
    Points : 504
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon May 14, 2018 2:25 pm

    I do not view western tanks as superior (western designers are retards who just have less pointles design restrictions like not being allowed to make tanks weing over 50-55 tons)

    Anyway the reason I hate the T-90 is because it fails miserably at fulfilling the holy trinity of Soviet tank design by completely abandoning survivabilty along with other abominations like the Leopard-1 and vikers MBT.

    The T-90 was only ever supposed to be a stopgap measure to serve as a cheaper alternative to the T-80U untill the next generation of Russian tanks were ready to enter service and the T-90A is a derivative of the T-90S which was designed solely for export.

    Oh and it seems that the Russian army agrees that the T-90 is inadequate for thier needs as they have long since ceased production of it and are gearing up to build Armatas albeit slowly but atleast they are doing it.

    Anyway they only have 300 T-90As it would probably be better in the long run to sell or canabalize them than to waste any more money on the damned things.

    Maybe they could use the chasis as the basis for some kid of self propelled artillery vehicle or to make more BMPTs and TOS-1As.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18090
    Points : 18650
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 15, 2018 6:46 am

    You do realise that ERA leaves the main armor exposed when it is hit don't you?

    You do realise that main armour is layered like laminated wood and when it gets penetrated the layers can separate under the armour greatly reducing their performance at stopping a second hit?

    Do you think it would be easier to replace one ERA brick or replacing an area of base armour?

    The first requires five minutes with a spanner and a replacement brick, the second requires it to be sent to a factory for 6 months or more...

    If you are going to use ERA you should not rely on it for your tank to survive.

    If the threat is an APFSDS round or HEAT round it has to get past the APS system first and then the ERA further reduces its performance... the hull armour likely wont even be touched... and all you have to do is replace a few ERA bricks and reload the APS munitions when you load up more main gun rounds.

    Oh and ERA does not detroy incoming munition it only reduces thier effect so you will actually need to worry about main armor repairs ontop of ERA replacemnt.

    If there is a 200mm penetration behind the ERA brick once you replace that brick the next penetrator will also only penetrate 200mm but once the brick is replaced where is the 200mm penetration? Do you know? What are the chances of hitting the exact same brick in exactly the same place and penetrating the exact same hole?

    Especially after the APS system intercepts the round in the first place and makes it yaw and reduces its penetration to near zero before it hits the ERA brick...

    Anyway the reason I hate the T-90 is because it fails miserably at fulfilling the holy trinity of Soviet tank design by completely abandoning survivabilty along with other abominations like the

    It is the most heavily armoured tank Russia has in service, or has ever had in service.

    The T-90 was only ever supposed to be a stopgap measure to serve as a cheaper alternative to the T-80U untill the next generation of Russian tanks were ready to enter service

    So what are you saying, the T-90 IS a cheaper alternative to the T-80U and has better protection and also many other features better than any model T-80U.

    and the T-90A is a derivative of the T-90S which was designed solely for export.

    The T-90A, called Object 188A was developed in 1999... it was not ordered by an export customer until the Indian order in 2001... it had the welded turret of the Object 187 and the new Catherine Thermal sight... Of course the T-90S was solely for export... it was an export variant... Duh.

    Oh and it seems that the Russian army agrees that the T-90 is inadequate for thier needs as they have long since ceased production of it and are gearing up to build Armatas albeit slowly but atleast they are doing it.

    They are buying T-90AMs...

    Anyway they only have 300 T-90As it would probably be better in the long run to sell or canabalize them than to waste any more money on the damned things.

    Are you really that stupid or are just winding us up...

    If they don't have many WTF would they canabalise them for? To keep their fleet of Shilkas operational?

    Maybe they could use the chasis as the basis for some kid of self propelled artillery vehicle or to make more BMPTs and TOS-1As.

    Or put horns on them and call them Unicorns... because some kid on the internet does not like them...
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Interlinked on Tue May 15, 2018 8:59 am

    @GarryB I don't know where you learned that stuff, but I can assure you that replacing the base armour of practically all modern tanks only takes hours, not 6 months. In Western tanks with integrated composite armour arrays, the armour section can be dismantled in the field and the composite armour can be removed with basic tools. For example, this burnt-out Abrams tank had its barrel cut off and its side armour was removed in the field. The full story is not available (it was scuttled and dismantled to prevent capture), but you can already see that you don't need depot-level facilities to dismantle composite base armour.



    And here's a T-72B as another example. You can see the weld seams outlining the armour cavities on either side of the turret, and the other pictures show the spaced NERA plates inside the cast armour cavities. You also see the internal plates taken out of the cavity and displayed. They used a torch to cut along the weld seam and then removed the cavity cover plate. After that, extracting the individual components of the armour is a trivial task.



    All you need is a acetylene torch and a MIG welding machine. This stuff is carried on recovery and repair vehicles like the BREM-1. You can take out the damaged armour, replace it, and then just weld the cavity shut again. You don't even have to replace the armour every time it gets hit, since NERA panels can sustain multiple hits. Many other forms of composite armour don't degrade from multiple hits either. Replacing ERA is simpler, yes, but replacing composite armour isn't too difficult either, although it does take a longer time to do so. Still, the longer time needed to replace composite armour packs is balanced out by the fact that it can resist multiple hits before needing a replacement whereas ERA is destroyed in a single hit.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Interlinked on Tue May 15, 2018 9:22 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:You do realise that ERA leaves the main armor exposed when it is hit don't you?  If you are going to use ERA you should not rely on it for your tank to survive.

    Reliance on ERA is perfectly acceptable if the size of the gap can be limited to a reasonable degree. For many vehicles, there is no way to take a direct hit from an RPG without ERA and that includes the side armour of most main battle tanks. IFVs have to rely on ERA as a rule, of course. In Chechnya, the number of hits that were recorded on the frontal armour of Russian tanks were just a few percent. The vast majority of hits were recorded on the sides and rear of the tanks, plus a few on the roof. There is no practical way for any tank to withstand that kind of punishment without ERA.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 472
    Points : 504
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue May 15, 2018 12:13 pm

    Garry The T-90A is not equipped with a hardkill APS which is one of my problems with it.

    And secondly Russia is upgrading its T-90As to T-90AMs not buying new ones. That they are giving the upgrade of antiquated T-72Bs a higher priority speaks volumes fo the T-90s effectiveness.

    And would you all just stop bringing up Chechnia and Syria as examples of the T-90As alleged survivability It has never sustained a hit from modern APFSDS and until it does you have no argument.

    Actually Russia should not give any contracts to Uralvagonzavod unless they involve the making of new vehicles and bring back the Kirov plant.

    What inprovements have Ural made to the T-90A in thier shitty modernization package? The ERA is form NII Stali, The ammunition is form NII Satli too I think?, The gun is from the Spetstekhnika Design Bureau and the optics are from all over the place.

    Ural has absolutely nothing to do with any of the T90s good characteristics and is responsible for all of its major flaws.

    Russia really needs to send some people over there to weed out the corrupt elements in the management.

    And bring back the Kirov plant so Ural cannot get away with these scams.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue May 15, 2018 5:40 pm

    Interlinked wrote:@GarryB I don't know where you learned that stuff, but I can assure you that replacing the base armour of practically all modern tanks only takes hours, not 6 months. In Western tanks with integrated composite armour arrays, the armour section can be dismantled in the field and the composite armour can be removed with basic tools. For example, this burnt-out Abrams tank had its barrel cut off and its side armour was removed in the field. The full story is not available (it was scuttled and dismantled to prevent capture), but you can already see that you don't need depot-level facilities to dismantle composite base armour.



    And here's a T-72B as another example. You can see the weld seams outlining the armour cavities on either side of the turret, and the other pictures show the spaced NERA plates inside the cast armour cavities. You also see the internal plates taken out of the cavity and displayed. They used a torch to cut along the weld seam and then removed the cavity cover plate. After that, extracting the individual components of the armour is a trivial task.



    All you need is a acetylene torch and a MIG welding machine. This stuff is carried on recovery and repair vehicles like the BREM-1. You can take out the damaged armour, replace it, and then just weld the cavity shut again. You don't even have to replace the armour every time it gets hit, since NERA panels can sustain multiple hits. Many other forms of composite armour don't degrade from multiple hits either. Replacing ERA is simpler, yes, but replacing composite armour isn't too difficult either, although it does take a longer time to do so. Still, the longer time needed to replace composite armour packs is balanced out by the fact that it can resist multiple hits before needing a replacement whereas ERA is destroyed in a single hit.

    Actually it doesn't, it indeed takes weeks, because you need to recondition and reseal the outer turret. That Abrams had been hit with DU as such the turret was deemed irrecoverable, which is why it was cut open on the side panel to move out the DU inserts and remove HazMat risk.

    Same for the cut out of the T-72B, you can see that the cut wasn't supposed to be the norm, and re-welding a spot is structurally rendering it weaker. For an operational repair the best way is not touch the armor but seal the impact & return it.

    For the Abrams up to the M1A1HA the logic is different, you need to make sure the DU isn't hit or shattered up front, then check the bolt on module, then reseal. Rear, side, and hull plates, this isn't done easily. It needs a depot repair, especially since the front units don't go around with 15 tons worth of elements.

    But you're free to think what you like.

    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Interlinked on Tue May 15, 2018 6:05 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Actually it doesn't, it indeed takes weeks, because you need to recondition and reseal the outer turret. That Abrams had been hit with DU as such the turret was deemed irrecoverable,  which is why it was cut open on the side panel to move out the DU inserts and remove HazMat risk.

    Same for the cut out of the T-72B, you can see that the cut wasn't supposed to be the norm, and re-welding a spot is structurally rendering it weaker. For an operational repair the best way is not touch the armor but seal the impact & return it.

    For the Abrams up to the M1A1HA the logic is different, you need to make sure the DU isn't hit or shattered up front, then check the bolt on module, then reseal. Rear, side, and hull plates, this isn't done easily. It needs a depot repair, especially since the front units don't go around with 15 tons worth of elements.

    But you're free to think what you like.


    Holes in the steel cavity of the turret isn't that big of a deal especially if it is a hole from a shaped charge. The entry hole can be up to a centimeter in diameter but the penetration channel can be less than half of that. Sure, it is a structural weakness but it doesn't matter much unless another round hits the exact same spot or hits within a few centimeters of it. Needless to say, this is not very likely. Tanks fighting in Chechnya were often returned to battle after a few days of repairs, still with holes in the hull, usually on the engine compartment.

    The reduction of structural strength in the cavity covers of the T-72B with repeated cutting/rewelding is meaningless. It's a depressed part of the turret roof that cannot be hit from level ground. Besides, the people at the depot or factory are also going to need to access the armour by the same method anyway, as there is literally no other way to insert or replace the internal plates without cutting open the cover.

    The point about the Abrams was that its side armour could be dismantled in the field, and if your guess that it was dismantled for health/environmental reasons is true, so be it. That's irrelevant to my point.

    However, I can't resist pointing out that the M1A1HA only has DU in the front turret armour and only late versions got it in the front of the hull. There is none of that on the turret side armoue. It's the same with the M1A2 as far as anyone knows, so there would be nothing to remove from the turret sides because of a supposed "HazMat risk".


    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue May 15, 2018 7:19 pm

    Uuuh exactly, why they opened the whole seal, as not to cut two pieces of RHA for the same task, in order to salvage the DU inserts, they went through the already peeled seal. The Turret as such, is deemed irrecoverable for now, that's because the turret was hit by DU, The turret would have been already separated from the gun if the tank was to be returned within days to the frontline.

    Again, you may read and watch a lot of stuff on the internet, you just don't seem to know how things work IRL. Entry hole from Sabot can be from 3 to 6 cm depending on the quality of sabot and exit hole can give up to 10 cm+. The seal can be patched, although it is not preferred, especially if it is the frontal arc seal, but usually it is simply peeled and replaced with ad hoc shapes.

    Once again, NERA inserts on the core armor, are first bolted on springloaded inserts and then locked in place by the sealing process.

    https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.be/2017/01/early-m1-abrams-composite-armor.html

    It's just NOT what you thing it is.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Interlinked on Tue May 15, 2018 7:59 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Uuuh exactly, why they opened the whole seal, as not to cut two pieces of RHA for the same task, in order to salvage the DU inserts, they went through the already peeled seal. The Turret as such, is deemed irrecoverable for now, that's because the turret was hit by DU, The turret would have been already separated from the gun if the tank was to be returned within days to the frontline.

    .. What are you rambling on about? What are the "seals" you speak of? And did I not just show you that there is no DU in the turret side armour? I also made no mention that the tank was supposed to go back to the frontline. I said that it was scuttled and the barrel was cut, nothing more. If you have more information to continue your story, then please share a link or something. I simply do not know what you are trying to say after I just showed you that there is no DU in the side armour. Still, you seem to have lots of details so it looks like you have lots of info. How about sharing some of it in another thread?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Again, you may read and watch a lot of stuff on the internet, you just don't seem to know how things work IRL. Entry hole from Sabot can be from 3 to 6 cm depending on the quality of sabot and exit hole can give up to 10 cm+. The seal can be patched, although it is not preferred, especially if it is the frontal arc seal, but usually it is simply peeled and replaced with ad hoc shapes.

    Once again, NERA inserts on the core armor, are first bolted on springloaded inserts and then locked in place by the sealing process.

    https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.be/2017/01/early-m1-abrams-composite-armor.html

    It's just NOT what you thing it is.

    Hahahaha okay Mr. Expert, whatever you say.  Wink  You don't have to be such a meanie about it. I was taking about HEAT entry holes and you shift the conversation to APFSDS holes. Of course, it is true that for a modern heavy metal long rod projectile with a diameter of 20-30mm, the entry hole into a flat or nearly flat armour plate is only slightly larger than the diameter of the projectile itself. That's still quite small, and the exit hole size and penetration channel size is difficult to pin down because of the wide variations of composite armour designs. It also depends on the degree of overpenetration. For serious work where the armour is penetrated fully and the interior is breached, factory level reworking is usually needed. Not only must the turret be seriously overhauled or replaced completely, but the internal equipment must be replaced as well. However, I am not talking about this kind of scenario. I am talking about the repair/replacement of composite armour modules on tanks that sustained hits or multiple hits that do not knock out the tank.

    This is what the equipment on recovery vehicles are for. The BREM-1 carries cutting and welding equipment specifically to deal with servicing tank armour and other tank-related problems in the field without needing to send the tank back to a depot. The BREM-L based on the BMP-3 also carries an argon welding machine for inert gas welding so that the aluminium armour of the BMP-3 can be worked on in field conditions, and it has to be an argon welder because aluminium requires different welding equipment than carbon steel. Sending your tank to the depot is preferable if you can do it, sure, but in war that is not always possible and sometimes it might not be necessary. Even so, the turnaround time is not 6 months as Garry said.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed May 16, 2018 1:37 am

    [quote="Interlinked"]
    KoTeMoRe wrote:Uuuh exactly, why they opened the whole seal, as not to cut two pieces of RHA for the same task, in order to salvage the DU inserts, they went through the already peeled seal. The Turret as such, is deemed irrecoverable for now, that's because the turret was hit by DU, The turret would have been already separated from the gun if the tank was to be returned within days to the frontline.

    .. What are you rambling on about? What are the "seals" you speak of? And did I not just show you that there is no DU in the turret side armour? I also made no mention that the tank was supposed to go back to the frontline. I said that it was scuttled and the barrel was cut, nothing more. If you have more information to continue your story, then please share a link or something. I simply do not know what you are trying to say after I just showed you that there is no DU in the side armour. Still, you seem to have lots of details so it looks like you have lots of info. How about sharing some of it in another thread?

    The image you showed is a de-sealed turret side. The Seal is the Sheet of metal that locks the NERA into the primary plate. The tank you proposed had been hit with at least one DU APFSDS which on contact vaporizes toxic dust. The fact the gun was torched, means the tank has been already moved to parkway/Pool. As I told you when the tank are to be salvaged, the barrel is always recovered first, here it wasn't. It was gun. Most probably because the tank is deemed irrecoverable.

    They opened the side seal to get to the front inserts, instead of cutting the front seal, because it is easier that way.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Again, you may read and watch a lot of stuff on the internet, you just don't seem to know how things work IRL. Entry hole from Sabot can be from 3 to 6 cm depending on the quality of sabot and exit hole can give up to 10 cm+. The seal can be patched, although it is not preferred, especially if it is the frontal arc seal, but usually it is simply peeled and replaced with ad hoc shapes.

    Once again, NERA inserts on the core armor, are first bolted on springloaded inserts and then locked in place by the sealing process.

    https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.be/2017/01/early-m1-abrams-composite-armor.html

    It's just NOT what you thing it is.

    Hahahaha okay Mr. Expert, whatever you say.  Wink  You don't have to be such a meanie about it. I was taking about HEAT entry holes and you shift the conversation to APFSDS holes. Of course, it is true that for a modern heavy metal long rod projectile with a diameter of 20-30mm, the entry hole into a flat or nearly flat armour plate is only slightly larger than the diameter of the projectile itself. That's still quite small, and the exit hole size and penetration channel size is difficult to pin down because of the wide variations of composite armour designs. It also depends on the degree of overpenetration. For serious work where the armour is penetrated fully and the interior is breached, factory level reworking is usually needed. Not only must the turret be seriously overhauled or replaced completely, but the internal equipment must be replaced as well. However, I am not talking about this kind of scenario. I am talking about the repair/replacement of composite armour modules on tanks that sustained hits or multiple hits that do not knock out the tank.
    Suure because PG-7 war heads never vary in their penetration line, quality, type, nope they are all 73mm warheads from the 60's. The hell is wrong with you? Even a line cut charge from an EFP would leave a substantial mark...Sometimes I'm like, does this guy understand that there are people out there that can ruin your day with the most basic stuff?

    Now that ATGM's have officially become a sensitive and prevalent threat to armor, there's no "1cm" entry hole..

    This is what the equipment on recovery vehicles are for. The BREM-1 carries cutting and welding equipment specifically to deal with servicing tank armour and other tank-related problems in the field without needing to send the tank back to a depot. The BREM-L based on the BMP-3 also carries an argon welding machine for inert gas welding so that the aluminium armour of the BMP-3 can be worked on in field conditions, and it has to be an argon welder because aluminium requires different welding equipment than carbon steel. Sending your tank to the depot is preferable if you can do it, sure, but in war that is not always possible and sometimes it might not be necessary. Even so, the turnaround time is not 6 months as Garry said.

    6 months is typically the refurbishment rotation for foreign clients. Saudi Arabia had a 6 months period when its tanks were turned into M1A2SA's. Emirati upgrades have been done in 3to 5 months from France. Maybe he construed from that. Theoretically a frontline repair should take at least a week with both proofing and correctly refitting the KO tank. A full refurbishment in War time should take 3 to 6 weeks. Now the problem with the US is that a lot of their delay is due to transfer. Mass transfer takes at least 3 weeks. Because Sea shipping. It can be cut down by flying out and back the tanks, but it would take way longer to transfer whole brigades. So again it all depends what the actual issue is with the KO'd tank.

    Again reality and shit.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18090
    Points : 18650
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 16, 2018 5:29 am

    The full story is not available (it was scuttled and dismantled to prevent capture), but you can already see that you don't need depot-level facilities to dismantle composite base armour.

    How many armour structures would a normal division carry around with it to replace armour arrays during a conflict?

    I suspect bugger all.

    Which means uber western tank gets hit and damaged the damage would be assessed and it will either be withdrawn from combat or will continue fighting with the hole covered over.

    Super inferior eastern tank gets hit and damage is mostly taken by ERA which can be removed and replaced in minutes and sent back into battle... as I said it could probably be done while the crew is reloading the main gun ammo.

    In Chechnya, the number of hits that were recorded on the frontal armour of Russian tanks were just a few percent. The vast majority of hits were recorded on the sides and rear of the tanks, plus a few on the roof. There is no practical way for any tank to withstand that kind of punishment without ERA.

    The Chechens were familiar with Soviet military equipment and trained on it themselves, so they knew all the weak points and areas of vulnerability.

    Ambushes are planned to expose the most vulnerable parts of enemy vehicles...

    Garry The T-90A is not equipped with a hardkill APS which is one of my problems with it.

    That is right it was not... but then no western tanks were fitted with APS systems either except a few Israeli vehicles... go figure...

    And secondly Russia is upgrading its T-90As to T-90AMs not buying new ones.

    And what makes you think this upgrade does not include an APS system?

    That they are giving the upgrade of antiquated T-72Bs a higher priority speaks volumes fo the T-90s effectiveness.

    No, it speaks volumes for the availability of T-90 chassis and their cost effectiveness.

    Do you think it would be a good idea to arm every Russian solider with an SVD... the extra reach and fire power would be interesting, but being able to exploit that fire power means extra training and SVDs are more expensive than AK-74s so the costs will be higher.

    At shorter range combat the lack of full auto and the 10 round mags instead of 30 round mags would be limiting.

    With better command and communications a few hundred upgraded T-72 could be a much better weapon of war than a couple of Armata tanks in one division... it is simply much better value for money at the moment.

    Over time the cost of the Armata will come down but Armata will just be one of at least three tank types... so Armata wont replace the T-72s or T-90s... the majority of Russian tanks will likely be Boomerangs and Kurganets based tanks.

    And would you all just stop bringing up Chechnia and Syria as examples of the T-90As alleged survivability It has never sustained a hit from modern APFSDS and until it does you have no argument.

    What is your fixation with APFSDS rounds? New ERA and APS systems can deal with such threats now... the vast majority of dangers on the battlefield will be HEAT equipped RPGs and ATGMs.

    And bring back the Kirov plant so Ural cannot get away with these scams.

    Ural delivers a product that the customer has signed off on... any problems with the product then it is the fault of the customer.

    The point about the Abrams was that its side armour could be dismantled in the field, and if your guess that it was dismantled for health/environmental reasons is true, so be it. That's irrelevant to my point.

    Well my point is that if it is dismantled in the field... by say Konkurs, then WTF difference does it make... one member is squealing about the T-90 not having enough base armour and suggesting that ERA is just a cop-out...

    I am saying no tank has invulnerable base armour and especially from the side or rear there is no real case to answer for that the T-90 is not heavily armoured enough and is therefore some Leopard 1...

    The ERA plus existing base armour is perfectly adequate and the addition of an APS would make it one of the better protected vehicles available today.

    6 months is typically the refurbishment rotation for foreign clients. Saudi Arabia had a 6 months period when its tanks were turned into M1A2SA's. Emirati upgrades have been done in 3to 5 months from France. Maybe he construed from that.

    Actually I picked the 6 months from thin air.... for ERA you unbolt the remains of the previously set off brick and then you bolt on a new brick... very old bricks might blow up and take some neighbouring bricks with them but newer bricks barely look like they have been hit because they are much more localised and less sensitive to impact and damage.

    I suggesting 6 months to replace main armour damage to emphasis how easy replacing an ERA brick is... I would suggest in practical terms if you wanted the tank fixed you would not get it back for a week at least... if at all... unless the damage is judged to be superficial and an ERA brick is just placed over the area of partial penetration.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Interlinked on Wed May 16, 2018 7:45 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    The image you showed is a de-sealed turret side. The Seal is the Sheet of metal that locks the NERA into the primary plate. The tank you proposed had been hit with at least one DU APFSDS which on contact vaporizes toxic dust. The fact the gun was torched, means the tank has been already moved to parkway/Pool. As I told you when the tank are to be salvaged, the barrel is always recovered first, here it wasn't. It was gun. Most probably because the tank is deemed irrecoverable.

    They opened the side seal to get to the front inserts, instead of cutting the front seal, because it is easier that way.

    I am very curious about this Abrams that got hit in the front of the turret by DU ammunition, but back to the original point: The fact that you can remove the turret side armour by simply unbolting the "seal" is a good example of the ease of access to the composite armour. If your story is correct and they were accessing the front turret armour, nothing is changed. It is still an example of being able to access the composite armour and remove components without needing to send the tank to the factory or something.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Suure because PG-7 war heads never vary in their penetration line, quality, type, nope they are all 73mm warheads from the 60's. The hell is wrong with you? Even a line cut charge from an EFP would leave a substantial mark...Sometimes I'm like, does this guy understand that there are people out there that can ruin your day with the most basic stuff?

    Now that ATGM's have officially become a sensitive and prevalent threat to armor, there's no "1cm" entry hole..

    Average shaped charge jet diameter for a wide range of RPG-7 warheads is 3mm. Changes in diameter, liner material, liner thickness, etc, are responsible for differences in shaped charge jet diameter up to a few tens of percent, with the determining factor being the warhead diameter. In general, shaped charges with a diameter of 57-81mm produce jets with a diameter of 2-3mm for liners made from copper, steel and brass. For RPGs in particular, the variances in design can only account for less than a millimeter in shaped charge jet diameter. Aluminium liners produce large diameter jets (up to 200% the diameter of a steel or copper jet) but aluminium is not widely used in anti-tank weapons due to the poorer armour penetration capability compared to copper liners and they are not used at all in shoulder fired anti-tank weapons.

    When we move up to large anti-tank missiles, only then do we see a substantial increase in jet diameter. The shaped charge jet diameter for an anti-tank missile warhead up to 152mm is around 4-6mm with a jet tip velocity of up to 12 km/s. For reference, a molybdenum 152mm warhead developed by RUAG with a 146mm shaped charge cone diameter produces a penetration channel diameter of 1.8-2.0 cm. When your turret has a surface area of 2.0 m^2, holes of these sizes are just statistically insignificant. A hole of that size would occupy 0.000157% of the total surface area of the turret.


    Again reality and shit.

    Yeah, and Garry just admitted that he pulled 6 months out of thin air. Reality and shit. Yeah, right.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Interlinked on Wed May 16, 2018 8:15 am

    GarryB wrote:

    How many armour structures would a normal division carry around with it to replace armour arrays during a conflict?

    I suspect bugger all.


    You and I both know that this is a loaded question. Who even knows how many spare ERA panels are provided during a conflict?

    GarryB wrote:
    Which means uber western tank gets hit and damaged the damage would be assessed and it will either be withdrawn from combat or will continue fighting with the hole covered over.

    Super inferior eastern tank gets hit and damage is mostly taken by ERA which can be removed and replaced in minutes and sent back into battle... as I said it could probably be done while the crew is reloading the main gun ammo.

    Sure, ERA can be replaced in minutes by the crew themselves. I do not dispute that. However, the notion that composite armour requires weeks or even months to repair or replace is absurd. The tools and specialists are available along with mobile workshops in rear echelons.


    The Chechens were familiar with Soviet military equipment and trained on it themselves, so they knew all the weak points and areas of vulnerability.

    Ambushes are planned to expose the most vulnerable parts of enemy vehicles...

    That is perfectly true, but then again, all tanks have relatively weak armour on the sides, rear and top. Even the T-14 only has slat armour to protect the engine compartment when the rest of the hull gets ERA.



    Well my point is that if it is dismantled in the field... by say Konkurs, then WTF difference does it make... one member is squealing about the T-90 not having enough base armour and suggesting that ERA is just a cop-out...

    I am saying no tank has invulnerable base armour and especially from the side or rear there is no real case to answer for that the T-90 is not heavily armoured enough and is therefore some Leopard 1...

    I am not The-thing-next-door...
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 472
    Points : 504
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed May 16, 2018 10:38 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Ural delivers a product that the customer has signed off on... any problems with the product then it is the fault of the customer.

    Oh really so when I order an expensive new car that is claimed supposed to be top of the line and it is made to the lowest standards the manufacturer can get away with it is my fault?

    Ural are just putting new ERA made by NII Stali on thier shitty tank and pretending that they are overhauling it.

    GarryB wrote:The ERA plus existing base armour is perfectly adequate and the addition of an APS would make it one of the better protected vehicles available today.

    What is this APS you talk about? It is clearly not present on the T-90AM!

    And Relikt ERA uses very large bricks that can easily be striped of in a few hits while more durable methods of protection like NERA, BDD or other composite armors can survive dozens of hits to the same square meter of armor before protection is compromised.

    And ERA does not stop damage to the base armor it only reduces penetration.

    And I am not saying ERA is a bad thing just that the tank should not be completely relient on it for protection.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 832
    Points : 832
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Hole on Wed May 16, 2018 11:19 am

    Well, GarryB is not so wrong with his assumption. Most damaged M1 tanks were send per ship from Kuwait to Amiland for repairs. There was a large backlog.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed May 16, 2018 11:42 am

    Interlinked wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    The image you showed is a de-sealed turret side. The Seal is the Sheet of metal that locks the NERA into the primary plate. The tank you proposed had been hit with at least one DU APFSDS which on contact vaporizes toxic dust. The fact the gun was torched, means the tank has been already moved to parkway/Pool. As I told you when the tank are to be salvaged, the barrel is always recovered first, here it wasn't. It was gun. Most probably because the tank is deemed irrecoverable.

    They opened the side seal to get to the front inserts, instead of cutting the front seal, because it is easier that way.

    I am very curious about this Abrams that got hit in the front of the turret by DU ammunition, but back to the original point: The fact that you can remove the turret side armour by simply unbolting the "seal" is a good example of the ease of access to the composite armour. If your story is correct and they were accessing the front turret armour, nothing is changed. It is still an example of being able to access the composite armour and remove components without needing to send the tank to the factory or something.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Suure because PG-7 war heads never vary in their penetration line, quality, type, nope they are all 73mm warheads from the 60's. The hell is wrong with you? Even a line cut charge from an EFP would leave a substantial mark...Sometimes I'm like, does this guy understand that there are people out there that can ruin your day with the most basic stuff?

    Now that ATGM's have officially become a sensitive and prevalent threat to armor, there's no "1cm" entry hole..

    Average shaped charge jet diameter for a wide range of RPG-7 warheads is 3mm. Changes in diameter, liner material, liner thickness, etc, are responsible for differences in shaped charge jet diameter up to a few tens of percent, with the determining factor being the warhead diameter. In general, shaped charges with a diameter of 57-81mm produce jets with a diameter of 2-3mm for liners made from copper, steel and brass. For RPGs in particular, the variances in design can only account for less than a millimeter in shaped charge jet diameter. Aluminium liners produce large diameter jets (up to 200% the diameter of a steel or copper jet) but aluminium is not widely used in anti-tank weapons due to the poorer armour penetration capability compared to copper liners and they are not used at all in shoulder fired anti-tank weapons.

    When we move up to large anti-tank missiles, only then do we see a substantial increase in jet diameter. The shaped charge jet diameter for an anti-tank missile warhead up to 152mm is around 4-6mm with a jet tip velocity of up to 12 km/s. For reference, a molybdenum 152mm warhead developed by RUAG with a 146mm shaped charge cone diameter produces a penetration channel diameter of 1.8-2.0 cm. When your turret has a surface area of 2.0 m^2, holes of these sizes are just statistically insignificant. A hole of that size would occupy 0.000157% of the total surface area of the turret.

    Again, with a total penetration from an EFP (Jesus every single time we have almost a reducto ad minimalis with you) the turret will not be repaired but proofed and reconditioned. An EFP going through will cause a bigger path. Here an "ice cone" the first time it was seen, largely attributed to an RPG-29, now we now it was a EFP charge, 35mm liner. See what has to be replaced inside the tank.

    https://file.wikileaks.org/file/m1-penetration-iraq-2008.pdf

    Then we had bigger EFP's with a shorter range, mainly used as FF AT/AAr weapons. I could show you countless images of EFP carnage on lighter vehicles and on heavy ones. Then we can show the random entry path of a Konkurs on Merkavas or more lately on the 20 or so Abrams that were penetrated by Soviet ATGM's in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

    There at least 4 cases of PG-7VR penetration in Iraq vs Abrams, with whole cuts. It's simply a random result in size & shape but with the same principle. Good Hit will mean penetration.


    Again reality and shit.

    Yeah, and Garry just admitted that he pulled 6 months out of thin air. Reality and shit. Yeah, right.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18090
    Points : 18650
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 17, 2018 1:36 am

    You and I both know that this is a loaded question. Who even knows how many spare ERA panels are provided during a conflict?

    ERA bricks are like rounds of ammunition... you know you are going to use them so you keep the different shapes in stock and replace as needed.

    A hull penetration near the engine does that require the entire side hull replacement?

    It was said previously that plenty of vehicles in Chechnia rumbled around the place with holes in their rear simply because the location meant there was no real need to replace the armour section.

    In fact most of the time I suspect that a penetration of base armour that does not penetrate to the crew compartment is just as likely to have its ERA brick replaced and put back into service most of the time... unless they have plenty of temporary replacement vehicles in which case the damaged vehicle will be withdrawn and properly inspected and repaired and a substitute vehicle will immediately replace it on the battlefield.... of the force will operate with one less vehicle.

    Sure, ERA can be replaced in minutes by the crew themselves. I do not dispute that. However, the notion that composite armour requires weeks or even months to repair or replace is absurd. The tools and specialists are available along with mobile workshops in rear echelons.

    Unless it is a mobility hit the vehicle will withdraw from battle when it has run out of ammo... a hit that penetrates the ERA but does not penetrate to the crew compartment will likely continue fighting until it has run out of ammo or the battle ends and all vehicles are withdrawn for refuelling and rearming.

    In such a situation if every tank with a hit is sent back to rear echelons you might find you have no tanks available... situations in Chechnia where tanks were hit dozens of times by HEAT rounds of RPGs or other weapons and continued to fight... most of the time they would like not even be getting new ERA blocks... they just continued fighting... there is no World of Tanks auto repair kits and no bar showing current health... if there is a hole in the tank and it is full of fumes and hot fragments from a penetration everyone gets out. If you lose a track or the engine is hit you get out. If you run out of ammo, or the gun is jammed then you try to move back to get repairs... of if you complete your mission or are ordered back you fall back.

    When you get hit you move to a safer place and try to determine who hit you and kill them. If you retreat to get repaired the next tank to occupy your position will get hit too...

    That is perfectly true, but then again, all tanks have relatively weak armour on the sides, rear and top. Even the T-14 only has slat armour to protect the engine compartment when the rest of the hull gets ERA.

    Exactly, in fact there is no tank in existence that is safe from enemy fire... except from about 60 degrees of dead straight on... and even then safe means the crew is safe... any tank gun is vulnerable... The Armata is probably the safest because of its heavy frontal hull armour and APS system, but nothing will stop a hit from something like Kh-29 or Kh-25 or Kh-38...

    I am not The-thing-next-door...

    No, thankfully you are not... one is certainly enough. Smile

    Oh really so when I order an expensive new car that is claimed supposed to be top of the line and it is made to the lowest standards the manufacturer can get away with it is my fault?

    Not the same.

    If you ask this top of the line car maker for a car that meets these requirements for this price... they will create a prototype for you to test and evaluate... if you say it is good enough they will give you a contract to sign and expect payments and a schedule for delivery.

    You already said the T-72 upgrade was good enough... if you buy three cars they are not all going to be two seat sports cars now are they? A big SUV for sports trips or grocery shopping or taking the kids to sports, a little runaround that is cheap when someone is using the other vehicles and a nice sedan for dad or mom to take to work to look nice and professional.

    In the case of the tanks the T-72 upgrades are the gap fillers, the T-90s are for the best units, and T-14 and K-14 and whatever else the other tank models are called will eventually replace both T-90s and T-72 upgrades... and likely T-80s as well.

    As the new generation tanks arrive in service the T-72 upgrades will go into storage and be replaced most likely by T-90s that come from the important units that will be getting new generation tanks or the armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon designs.

    As numbers of the new tanks increase the T-72s will eventually move from storage to export to allies.

    With improved sensors and optics and command and communications systems these will be very good vehicles, and if the new users want better protection then add on armour packages and APS options are plenty and available...

    Ural are just putting new ERA made by NII Stali on thier shitty tank and pretending that they are overhauling it.

    The main upgraded features of the upgraded T-72s is full long range night vision and proper command and communications equipment... anything else is only minor in comparison.

    Even a new gun with new more powerful ammo is less important than better vision and new command and control equipment...

    What is this APS you talk about? It is clearly not present on the T-90AM!

    They have several APS systems that are mature and ready to be fitted to any tank...

    And Relikt ERA uses very large bricks that can easily be striped of in a few hits while more durable methods of protection like NERA, BDD or other composite armors can survive dozens of hits to the same square meter of armor before protection is compromised.

    Yes, because combat has proven that the enemy always hits tanks in one place and one place only and repeatedly hits them there, which is why next generation T-14M only has one ERA block in that location...

    And I am not saying ERA is a bad thing just that the tank should not be completely relient on it for protection.

    Then what I am saying is that all Russian tanks have something called BASE ARMOUR so when they fucking put ERA on their tanks they are not completely reliant on ERA then are they?

    If an enemy can fucking hit one ERA brick repeatedly then they can fucking hit the main gun from the front or any part of the side or rear of the tank... which is normally fatal on a western tank but not always with ERA plus base armour.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 472
    Points : 504
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu May 17, 2018 8:42 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Yes, because combat has proven that the enemy always hits tanks in one place and one place only and repeatedly hits them there, which is why next generation T-14M only has one ERA block in that location...

    What the bloody hell is the T-14M?

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:57 am