Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Share

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:30 am

    GarryB wrote:

    I believe the myth revolves around T-72s losing their turrets instantly after being hit. These vehicles could have been burning half an hour before the ammo exploded.
    Of course you also need to take into account that storing ammo in the crew compartment, whether in the turret or the hull exacerbated the problem. The last tank to have such a bad reputation was the Sherman which the Germans called Ronson. Ronson made cigarette lighters and their motto was "lights first time every time". Great motto for a lighter, bad one for a tank.

    No they couldn't burn half an hour before they exploded. When the cabin is filled with molten copper it doesn't take but a couple seconds to set the ammo box ablaze.

    What are you expecting? Live video feeds from Putin to each individual grunt on the ground. You might not want to hear this but not having a high band width might actually be a good thing. Sending video back to commanders in Desert Storm led to commanders in the rear playing video games and micro managing battles they really should not have. The purpose is to let commands flow down to the troops in the field and information flow up to command.

    Eventually the bandwith can be expanded and the upload and download speed can be increased but while limiting as to what sort of info can be transmitted it really shouldn't effect the performance of the system as a force management system. It will make it a crap video game, but it is not supposed to be that anyway.

    Desert Storm? There wasn't much bandwidth to play with back in 1991. France has already addressed the problem of too much information for the soldier by keeping the tactical maps down to platoon leaders and up. The unit leaders filter any data they want to upload to command echelons so they don't get a bunch of random nonsense. ROE really determines how much control the individual units have. Loosen it up and they are allowed to make the decisions they see as fit, make them too strict and opportunity slips through your fingers... aka Osama at Tora Bora. The idea of it is to bring situational awareness to the commanders on down to the units in the field. The more informed your decisions the better they will be.


    I know a few soldiers and what that basically means is that their LAN parties will be better than yours.

    Hardware won't take any new software without the source code... sorry no games.

    Upgrades will likely reduce and the focus will be on new build T-90s. As Medvedev said, why waste money upgrading old stuff that costs a large fraction of the new stuff. Why upgrade T-72s when you can make T-90s?

    Medvedev never said that. The government wants to modernise them and they don't really want more T-90s. They only build them because we don't have a next generation tank available. Serdyukov wants the best but modernisation is the only stopgap available. We are limited by are options as T-95 is a dud.

    It will be a turret redesign with modern Russian equipment. It is well known what is in the market to put on these tanks and it won't be anything expensive.

    The turret upgrade you are talking about is the T-90AK I think and is for export.
    The Burlak is for new build T-90s for the Russian Army. It is to be finalised at the end of this year, that is why only 60 something T-90s were ordered this year. Next year or the year after order numbers will increase for the finalised upgrade of the T-90. Or that is what they are planning.

    The turret we are talking about is Burlak and it was for upgrading old T-72/80/90. If you haven't been keeping up with this thread it is cancelled.

    http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1350456

    90% of electronic devices work fine on 90nm technology. It is that 10% that requires high processing power that requires better and that can be delivered with parallel processing. Look at personal computers... they are not getting faster, about 4 GHz is the limit. They are going to multicore processors.
    The reality is that a serious issue with personal computers is bottlenecks. Just putting on faster CPUs will not make the computer faster by the same amount. Sometimes distributed processing is a much better solution.
    An example is an aircraft. You could put the latest multicore chip to manage all the functions on an aircraft, or you could use 100 486 processors in a network.
    One system will have a huge bottleneck sending information to and from the single processor chip while the other system will have much more slow processors that are used more because they are not doing everything but are not two controller chips away from the hardware.

    You talking about PC bottlenecks yet you left out RAM. Not going to waste time networking more processors.

    That is kinda harsh. I would suggest you lost a lot of those engineers to higher paying jobs in the west simply because there was no paying work in Russia... perhaps the real solution would be to start buying what there is and they can use that money to improve. Your experience with what you buy can be used to direct them to what needs to be improved, but if you buy nothing they have no money to improve and develop.

    There is no argument our curriculum and facilities for electronics engineering are outdated, we must first fix the core of the problem before we offer more money to people unqualified for the work.

    I rather doubt it is all the computer chips making up the 36kgs weight.
    I suspect it would have more to do with battery weight and possibly body armour weight too.
    The difference in weight of a GPS receiver chip the size of your little finger nail and one the size of the palm of your hand would be very little, maybe a few grammes.

    36kg is the current weight of kit, there are no computer chips in that. I'm talking about the addition of. The better the die technology the less power required to run means smaller batteries and smaller gear.

    In the picture thread Seph has posted a photo of the Shakhin thermal weapon sight to be issued to the VDV. It is Russian made and will hopefully be mass produced in the future.

    You mean the Shaheen...

    http://www.cyclone-jsc.ru/shahin.html

    They have been showing this off at DefExpos for the last 4 years.

    Certainly would improve night fighting capability from nothing, but you aren't going to be running through the woods with your scope to your face all night. I'm talking about basic night vision goggles. Something that needs to be distributed to all infantry soldiers, not IR scopes only a few select units are going to receive. Once we all get night vision, then we can worry about thermal scopes. This thing is only going to end up in special purpose units just like our best assault rifle. Too expensive to manufacture is always the excuse.

    It is supposed to be the new production standard Russian service T-90. It might be applied in upgrades to some older vehicles but mainly for compatibility reasons.
    Upgrading older vehicles (for Russian use) is going to decline and new tanks will become the focus.

    See the kommersant link above... no Burlak.

    Buying from Russia invests Russian money in Russia. Buying Russia gear is also investing in Russian R&D. It is also providing employment in Russia. It is upgrading factories. I agree where the gap is enormous like with Thermal sights that it makes sense to do what Russia did with Thales, with Catherine, Metis, and Damocles pods. Now however Russian companies are catching up with regard to thermal sights, at least at the prototype level if not production but that requires hard real orders.

    Would have said the same thing about the auto industry. It isn't any harder to make a modern car but we failed to do that. Now we can thank France for saving 180,000 jobs at AvtoVaz. The same will happen throughout our ailing defence enterprises... they already save a thousand jobs at Ural Optics. They will also save tens of thousand jobs at Shipbuilding JSC if we get license for Mistral. In the long run it may save hundreds of thousands. There is method to this madness, it is all about jobs. If we don't manufacture modern products NOW these companies will go out of business tomorrow. We don't have 10 years to never waiting on products that are obsolete 15 years before they hit the shelf. We really have no choice. As far as catching up to their thermals, Sheheen is nowhere near their thermals. It is second generation, French are on third and developing 4th. FAMAS infrared has twice the range and 6X the battery life.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:30 am

    No they couldn't burn half an hour before they exploded. When the cabin is filled with molten copper it doesn't take but a couple seconds to set the ammo box ablaze.

    Supposedly in the second Chechen campaign the tank crews only stored ammo in the armoured autoloader, so yes the interior could burn for 5 minutes before getting to the ammo and exploding. With ammo stored within the crew compartment, like a Leo or Leclerc then yes it can be ignited immediately or after a short period of time depending on where the tank is hit and what hit it.

    The idea of it is to bring situational awareness to the commanders on down to the units in the field. The more informed your decisions the better they will be.

    Yes, I understand the concept and the potential pitfalls.
    The key however is timely accurate relevant information. If you get it too late or it is misleading, or not relevant then it is noise.
    The issues with the battle management are not bandwidth, they are data handling and processing that turns it into useful timely accurate relevant information.

    If your problem is bandwidth then you have a small problem that is straight forward to fix.

    Hardware won't take any new software without the source code... sorry no games.

    Never underestimate the power of the dark side... Twisted Evil

    Medvedev never said that. The government wants to modernise them and they don't really want more T-90s. They only build them because we don't have a next generation tank available. Serdyukov wants the best but modernisation is the only stopgap available. We are limited by are options as T-95 is a dud.

    Sorry but can you explain why the T-95 is a dud?

    Actual facts about the vehicle are rare, and all we have is the word of one guy who is a rocket and aircraft guy who sat in a T-90 and compared it with a T-34.

    Sounds like an idiot to me.... or is the T-50 like the Wright flyer because it used wings too.

    Medvedev said last year that upgrading old material when new models were ready was a waste of money, so we get orders for Mig-35s and Su-35s instead of orders for Mig-29SMTs and Su-27SMs.
    Upgrades will still be paid for at a lower rate but the focus is to get new equipment into service.

    The turret we are talking about is Burlak and it was for upgrading old T-72/80/90. If you haven't been keeping up with this thread it is cancelled.

    It was a new standard that could be applied to T-72/80/90 tanks and would be adopted as the new build standard to try to get some uniformity in Russias tank fleet. The T-72 and the T-80 and the T-90 tanks are actually rather different things despite external appearances so the point of the upgrade was to unify and consolidate the types in service to improve logistics and save money.

    Posts like this:

    http://www.russiandefenseblog.org/?p=997

    suggest to me that the program is real and that those working on the programs don't know they are cut yet.
    Until I see more information on this I don't believe it.

    As I said before too the Hermes was cancelled too.

    You talking about PC bottlenecks yet you left out RAM. Not going to waste time networking more processors.

    Indeed newer chips have more on chip RAM which helps them go faster, but distributed processors usually have a memory controller chip with its own RAM.
    The normal PC computer setup has two such controller chips called the chipset, and they consist of a memory controller chip called North bridge that is close to the CPU that connects the RAM and graphics card to the CPU. South Bridge is the other controller chip that handles I/O for stuff like PCI slots and hard drive and legasy floppy drive connections.
    A distributed CPU setup will have RAM colocated with the CPU with a North Bridge chip for communication. In the example I gave a CPU might be used to manage one engine control, which means that the CPU will be connected to a north bridge chip that connects it to however much RAM it needs and that North Bridge chip will be connected to a South bridge chip that connects all the input devices the engine system needs. It wont need a graphics card so north bridge will just handle RAM. It might have a few sensors connected to south bridge like temperature and pressure sensors, fuel flow rate sensors etc etc and a network connection so the numbers can be fed to the cockpit computer that will have a graphics component to display information from the other network nodes to display on the MFDs.
    Most of the functions of a digital engine control system do not require even pentium level processors let alone modern multicore chips that generate huge amounts of heat and use lots of power and are vulnerable to damage or dust or interference.

    The better the die technology the less power required to run means smaller batteries and smaller gear.

    Really? Cause my old 486 didn't need big complicated water cooling contraptions and enormous heat sinks like the new chips need. These days there are 1kW power supplies being sold for gaming computers because of the power requirements.

    This thing is only going to end up in special purpose units just like our best assault rifle. Too expensive to manufacture is always the excuse.

    The West has spent billions on its military to get where it is today, you think you can get it for free? You think this is going to happen overnight?
    Even with all the right choices it will take time, which is why it annoys me they might be dropping the Burlak upgrade. It makes a lot of sense to improve the best thing you have and delay the replacement till the technology to make it work well matures. What doesn't make sense is to cut everything because that is just a dead end.
    Sounds like this guy learned nothing from Russian tank experience and wants Russian tanks to carry a total of 22 rounds of main tank ammo because carrying more in a T-90 without a Burlak upgrade just kills crewmen.
    Great way to save money.

    I hope what they mean is that the Burlak upgrade will not be applied to T-72 and T-80 tanks and will just be the new production standard T-90 tank.

    Would have said the same thing about the auto industry.

    Not really the same thing. Buying foreign cars is not the same as buying foreign tanks.

    It isn't any harder to make a modern car but we failed to do that.

    Well clearly it is just as hard... or everyone would be making their own cars.

    If we don't manufacture modern products NOW these companies will go out of business tomorrow.

    But who will buy them? The Russian government can't afford to buy everything now, let alone the state of the art now. How many S-300V were sold on the international market? Is it a sh!t system? Why aren't those poor third world countries that accepted free SA-2s and SA-3s buying SA-10s and SA-20s?
    The sad reality is that most of your client states barely have money to upgrade what they have let alone buy brand new state of the art.
    All of a sudden your market has disappeared because you have become westernised, yet the western markets will reject your products on political grounds.

    We don't have 10 years to never waiting on products that are obsolete 15 years before they hit the shelf. We really have no choice. As far as catching up to their thermals, Sheheen is nowhere near their thermals. It is second generation, French are on third and developing 4th. FAMAS infrared has twice the range and 6X the battery life.

    I have read that Russian companies are working on cheaper QWIP technology that could lead to cheaper NVGs of better quality than even third gen II.
    Equally regarding getting stuck with an outdated design... Europe is just putting into service the Typhoon, which is not a stopgap modification 4++ fighter like the Su-35, but their future fighter... their T-50. Talk about behind!

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Austin on Sat May 08, 2010 2:52 pm

    Couple of question on T-90M

    1 )The new Long Rod APFSDS anti-tank dart on T-90M capable of penetrating Western Frontal armor specially M1A2 armor ?

    2 ) In terms of FirePower and Protection how does T-90M compare with US M1A2 tanks ?

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sat May 08, 2010 9:01 pm

    Austin wrote:Couple of question on T-90M

    1 )The new Long Rod APFSDS anti-tank dart on T-90M capable of penetrating Western Frontal armor specially M1A2 armor ?

    2 ) In terms of FirePower and Protection how does T-90M compare with US M1A2 tanks ?

    Don`t know much about new APFSDS but I think that the T90A can already compete with the M1A2 in terms of firepower and mobility.

    The T90`s gun is much bigger than the licenced L44 copy in both length (120mm vs 125mm width and 44 vs 51 calibres length)and it can fire ATGM`s making it much more effective at long ranges
    T90`s armor thickness may be lower, (although armor/volume ratio is higher) but not less capable. To compensate the T90 has an layer of advanced K-5 ERA under main armor which also protects against APFSDS (as proved in US Army-Bundeswehr joint exercises when an earlier K-5 version mounted in a T72 defeated the DU M829 penetrator every time) and the countermisures systems, like Shtora . At last, but not least the T90 has an EMP minesweeper AND AUTOMATIC FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM

    Can an M1A2, Leo2A6, Callenger-2 or Leclerc jam the guidance system of an ATGM? Obviously the answer is no, but T90 can
    Can an M1A2, Leo2A6, Challenger-2 or Leclerc fire a guided missile with a range up to 5km and pinpont accuracy? Obviously no, but T90 can

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Austin on Sun May 09, 2010 4:54 am

    Don`t know much about new APFSDS but I think that the T90A can already compete with the M1A2 in terms of firepower and mobility.

    From what I have read the current APFSDS round of T-90A is capable of penetrating the frontal armor of M1A1 and not the M1A2 the new long rod ammo of T-90M is designed to penetrate M1A2 armor.

    The M1A2 certainly has better armour and crew protection than T-90.

    The T90`s gun is much bigger than the licenced L44 copy in both length (120mm vs 125mm width and 44 vs 51 calibres length)and it can fire ATGM`s making it much more effective at long ranges

    From what I know the Russian APFSDS Ammo is inferior to Western rounds in penetration and L/D ratio. The ATGM is subsonic though it has range but needs the target to be lased which can be jammed.


    T90`s armor thickness may be lower, (although armor/volume ratio is higher) but not less capable. To compensate the T90 has an layer of advanced K-5 ERA under main armor which also protects against APFSDS (as proved in US Army-Bundeswehr joint exercises when an earlier K-5 version mounted in a T72 defeated the DU M829 penetrator every time) and the countermisures systems, like Shtora . At last, but not least the T90 has an EMP minesweeper AND AUTOMATIC FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM

    True I read the Kaktus ERA doubles the K-5 ability , but by and large the Western Tank are well protected and heavily armoured and do not need ERA , but the tandem shaped charge of 3rd Gen Fire and Forget Missile like European Trigart , Indian Nag and US system and Russian Kornet can penetrate most modern armour.

    Can an M1A2, Leo2A6, Callenger-2 or Leclerc jam the guidance system of an ATGM? Obviously the answer is no, but T90 can
    Can an M1A2, Leo2A6, Challenger-2 or Leclerc fire a guided missile with a range up to 5km and pinpont accuracy? Obviously no, but T90 can

    Chances are Western APFSDS can hit the T-90 much faster at longer range when alerted being lased by LWS then the subsonic missile reach the target.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Austin on Sun May 09, 2010 4:56 am

    The new T-90 variant "T-90 Burlak" should offer new Turret with new characteristics as I have read , Does any one have any info on T-90 Burlak program ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 09, 2010 9:21 am

    From what I know the Russian APFSDS Ammo is inferior to Western rounds in penetration and L/D ratio. The ATGM is subsonic though it has range but needs the target to be lased which can be jammed.

    Accuracy and performance of the current 125mm guns is greatly improved over previous guns and I would expect current ammo is better too.
    There might still be a gap, but it wont be as big as most westerners would like to pretend it is.
    The ATGM fired through the 125mm gun gets to 4km in about 10 seconds so it is actually just supersonic, though when it hits a target at its max range of 5km it will probably be just subsonic.
    Would be impressed to find out how it could be jammed.
    The system directs a very low powered laser beam at the target and when the missile is fired a rear cap falls off and the laser sensor looks back at the tank that launched the missile to detect where the laser beam is and the missile manouvers itself into the centre of the beam and maintains that position to impact.
    With SALH or semi active laser homing where a laser beam is reflected off the target and the missile homes in on the reflection the colour of the target and its reflectivity effect the range of the system. With laser beam riding missiles the laser is 10,000 times less powerful because the sensor is looking directly at the beam source.
    Even with 10 seconds warning at 4km an M1A2 does not have a powerful enough main gun to reliably destroy a T-90 from the front.
    It can pop smoke, which for a SALH would work well because the laser beam would reflect from the smoke and not the surface of the tank.
    Assuming the smoke grenades land 100m in front of the tank and generate a thick wall of smoke the missile wont be effected till it hits the smoke wall.
    By that time the missile should be centred on the beam and will likely continue straight into the target anyway.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Austin on Sun May 09, 2010 9:31 am

    GarryB i was indeed thinking of the IR smoke jammers , as soon as the tank knows its being lased it will try to release the IR smoke wall and maneuver away from laser giving it the split second needed to defeat the missile.

    The key is to develop Fire and Forget Missile the Tank Carries its own small MMW radar like you see on Mi-28N once the target is detected from the radar or received off-board from other sources it fires the ATGM (IIR/RF seeker ) from MG and manouver away while missile does the homing even if the target tank is manouvering.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sun May 09, 2010 11:45 am

    Austin wrote:

    From what I know the Russian APFSDS Ammo is inferior to Western rounds in penetration and L/D ratio. The ATGM is subsonic though it has range but needs the target to be lased which can be jammed.[/quote]

    Unlike T90, no western tank actually uses jammers so they can not jam the ATGM guidance at all


    [/quote]True I read the Kaktus ERA doubles the K-5 ability , but by and large the Western Tank are well protected and heavily armoured and do not need ERA , but the tandem shaped charge of 3rd Gen Fire and Forget Missile like European Trigart , Indian Nag and US system and Russian Kornet can penetrate most modern armour.[/quote]

    Kornet can not penetrate the frontal armor of an ERA equuiped T90. 5 Kornets were fired to a T90 during a test and none of them could penetrate the target. Only one was able to penetrate the T90 without ERA

    [/quote]Chances are Western APFSDS can hit the T-90 much faster at longer range when alerted being lased by LWS then the subsonic missile reach the target.[/quote]

    T90 uses the most modern APFSDS currently in production in the Russian federation. APFSDS are much less effective at long ranges then ATGM rounds.

    ATGM advantage is REAL. The Israelis proved that when Merkava`s firstly meet "monkey models" T72M (which on the other hand did not have ATGM capability at all). LAHAT ATGM proved to be very effecive at long ranges.
    I know that M1A2`s armor is much better than the T72M`s but the 125 Refleks-M is also much better than the 105mm LAHAT (better warhead and more-resistent to jamming guidance system


    If we had 1 M1A2 vs T90, T90 would have an edge, but in a high-intensity battlefield a 10+ M1A2`s will have a slight advantage over 10+T90`s thanks to their networking capability

    Note that I was talking about the original T90 and T90A models, not T90M or whatever it`s called

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Austin on Sun May 09, 2010 12:14 pm

    Here is a nice website on T-90

    T-90 Tank

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 10, 2010 7:30 am

    GarryB i was indeed thinking of the IR smoke jammers , as soon as the tank knows its being lased it will try to release the IR smoke wall and maneuver away from laser giving it the split second needed to defeat the missile.

    I am not totally familiar with how Reflex works in actual practise but would suspect it can be aimed 20m above the target. At 4-5km the beam will be 5-10 metres across so the missile would fly a higher trajectory to the target. The speed of the missile is known and the range to the target can be determined by lasing something next to the target that is the same distance without alerting the target tank. When your missile gets to 1km away from the target you can drop your aim point onto the target and the missile will drop down into line with the target with only seconds.
    I would expect the target vehicle would pop smoke very quickly, but doubt it could move in time to evade the incoming missile.

    I know that some Russian laser beam riding missiles fly 7m above the beam to avoid ground clutter.

    Also you should be aware that because beam riding laser homing missiles look directly into the beam source the beam is dramatically weaker than SALH beams as used for old model Hellfire and Kh-25 and Kh-29 in their laser homing models.
    This means that the laser warning systems will constantly give false warnings on a modern battlefield because of all the laser reflections around the place. The reflections from a laser target designator will be as bright if not brighter than laser beam rider beams.
    The laser beam used for the Starstreak missile is described as so weak it will not trigger laser warning kit at more than 3km.

    Of course there is a good chance with Catherine and Metis Thermal sights that the T-90 might see through the smoke anyway.

    The key is to develop Fire and Forget Missile the Tank Carries its own small MMW radar like you see on Mi-28N once the target is detected from the radar or received off-board from other sources it fires the ATGM (IIR/RF seeker ) from MG and manouver away while missile does the homing even if the target tank is manouvering.

    Actually the better solution is to call up the SMERCH battery and request that 9N152 rockets be loaded up. They entered service in 1987 so there should be plenty in stocks. The 9N152 carries 5 sensor fused submunitions with IR and MMW radar seekers with top attack profiles with self forging fragmentation warheads. So 12 rockets from one vehicle should deliver 60 munitions on the target area... a battery could take on a large force.
    The advantage of laser beam riding technology is that it is cheap. Adding MMW radar and IIR seekers will make it rather more expensive.
    Of course the Hermes missile is entering service shortly so the terminal seeker options adopted for it could easily be applied to such a weapon, but I think money would be better spent making the electronics more durable to allow for a higher flight speed.

    If we had 1 M1A2 vs T90, T90 would have an edge, but in a high-intensity battlefield a 10+ M1A2`s will have a slight advantage over 10+T90`s thanks to their networking capability

    Actually I would say no as the thermal sights on the M1A2 are rather better than the early model T-90s.
    Also 10+ M1A2s increases its networking effectiveness, so a large force of M1A2s meeting a large force of pre Burlak T-90s I would expect the M1s to win, though certainly not as easily as against Iraqi T-72s of course.

    The fact is that a battle management system helps you see instantly where any detected threats are and where your own forces are.

    The Americans call it a force multiplier, but really it is the difference between operating as a team and operating as individual tanks working for the same goal but seperately.

    The Germans showed during WWII what good communications and good coordination of forces can do for an inferior force. Their tanks were initially crap yet they still did well. Against western and eastern forces. If US forces had been on the ground when the Germans rolled west into europe they would have found themselves on the beach at Dunkirk with the Brits.

    The new T-90 variant "T-90 Burlak" should offer new Turret with new characteristics as I have read , Does any one have any info on T-90 Burlak program ?

    I have a word document that I have put together based on various sources about what is involved in the Burlak upgrade.

    No guarantees, but here it is:

    Burlak features ‘Kaktus’ embedded explosive reactive armour (ERA) package on its frontal hull and Relict on and turret-top (the T-90S has ‘Kontakt-5’ ERA), is fitted with an advanced environmental control system made in Russia for providing cooled air to the fighting compartment, has additional internal volume for housing the cryogenic cooling systems for new-generation thermal imagers like the THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth and housed within the Peleng-built 1G-46 gunner’s sight) and the commander’s panoramic sight (which houses the Matis-STD thermal imager that operates in the 3-5 micron bandwidth), is fitted with an automatic gearbox, has an electro-hydraulic turret-drive-cum stabilisation system, and most importantly, has a new 2A82 smoothbore main gun barrel that also comes fitted with a muzzle reference system.
    The powerplant will initially be the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-built 1,000hp V-92S2 diesel engine but the 1,200hp V-99 is the expected final engine of choice, while a 1kW AB-1-P28 auxiliary power unit will provide back-up electric power when the engine is idling. The gunner’s sight-cum-laser rangefinder will be the 1A43 system, which will also house the Peleng-built 1G46 day sight and the ESSA module containing the Catherine-FC thermal imager and the 9S517 missile guidance module for the Refleks anti-armour/anti-helicopter round. The digital hunter-killer fire-control system will use the 1V528-1 ballistics computer and the DVE-BS meteorological sensor. Burlak will have a digitised battlespace management system and radio communications suite, with a fibre-optic gyro-based inertial land navigation system with GLONASS.
    RPZ-86M anti-radar paint coating will reduce the signature of the vehicle.
    New bigger turret without weakened frontal areas and with the all-aspect ERA covering.
    Additional roof protection against atop attacking munition.
    New additional autoloader, placed on the aft part of the turret and able using the new longer sub-caliber rods.
    All ammo storage in autoloaders separate from the crew area.
    Panoramic 3-channel IR commander site with improved anti-splinter/small arms rounds protection.
    7.62 mm automatic turret instead of 12.7mm.
    FCS with the net-centric module.
    New anti-splinter kevlar layer instead of the standard Russian anti-neutron layer.
    new fire suppression system.

    Being developed:

    - Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
    - Steering wheel control.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Mon May 10, 2010 9:05 pm

    To be honest I do not belive the Abrams will be able to win over Burlak`s, be it the M1A2Sep version
    I don`t think earlier M1`s (including M1A1) will be able to win against T80U`s either.
    Networking (just like ATGM capability and IR jammers) surely helps, but it not enough to win battles

    Probable scenarios (10 M1A2 vs 10 T90As)
    I am assuming the T90`s to use 3VBM17 penetrators and Catherine-FC thermal images, as seeen in the T90A and the M1A2`s to use M829A3.

    1-At long ranges the M1A2`s would get forced to retreat, short after T90`s start firing at them using Reflex missiles. Networking won`t help them anyway. If M1A2`s do not retreat half of them will be slaughtered (at the worst case, I am assuming a minimal hit chance of 20 percent over a moving Abrams, of 4 shots per each T90 and 2 shots requied to kill an Abrams) before even entering firing range. The remaining 5 M1A2`s will be easy to defeat for the T90`s. M1A2`s are eliminated and T90`s have little or no casualties

    2-Let`s suppose that somehow the T90`s could not get a lock on M1`s and none of them even saw each other at ranges not higher than 2km
    Speed is almost matched. M1 is 3km/h faster but that does not give him ANY advnatage. The combination of K-5 and composite on the T90 should be just as capable as the 1st gen. of Chobrum with DU mesh inside. Gun`s are not as matched as protection and mobility, cause T90`s gun is significantly bigger but that`s not a decisive advantage either. The number of shots fired per tank should not exceed -1/+1, except for some rare occasions. Well, then it`s all up to the crew as the tanks will have almost the same performance

    3-Suppose a high intensity battlefield when each tank is supported by infantry, IFV`s, gunships, etc. Here the networking advantage becomes more significant although the ability to jam ATGM`s fired by infantry and gunships, the ability to take down a gunship/tank/IFV etc using an ATGM round, the ability to destroy IED`s using electro-magnetic minesweepers etc are not less significant. Tank training is important too


    M1 are Leo2 stay are the most overrated tanks on the world by the way.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 11, 2010 1:56 am

    To be honest I do not belive the Abrams will be able to win over Burlak`s, be it the M1A2Sep version
    I don`t think earlier M1`s (including M1A1) will be able to win against T80U`s either.

    I think in a comparison directly tank for tank they are each quite comparable to each other. Lets face it each tank designer has the others tanks in mind when they develop their tanks and they largely succeed in their aim.
    Personally though I think it will not be very clear cut as to which is superior and the winner would have more to do with the quality of training, who has control of the air,and the terrain on which the combat is taking place.


    Networking (just like ATGM capability and IR jammers) surely helps, but it not enough to win battles

    Actually I would say Networking is not just having fancy computers in your tank, it is the current evolution of command control and communications.
    To put it in gamer terms it is the difference between "Call of Duty" tank warfare and "M1 Abrams" warfare. In M1 Abrams warfare you have a little map to look at that shows the area around your tank in real time. It shows all the enemy forces discovered by your tanks and your recon assets as they are found and identified. When you find and identify enemy tanks or aircraft or whatever you add them to your map and they appear on all your allies maps as well. Most importantly the location of your own forces appears on your map, when implimented fully it goes right down to individual soldiers. This means that individual soldiers can see a map showing where they are, where their forces are and where most of the enemy is.
    It isn't perfect. Sometimes targets get misidentified. Or targets are not even seen.
    Or you are operating as part of a coalition of forces that don't have the same level of tech that you have like in Desert Storm where some of your arab allies operate the same equipment and vehicles as your current enemy.
    Can you see how that would be useful to a tank commander?



    I am assuming the T90`s to use 3VBM17 penetrators and Catherine-FC thermal images, as seeen in the T90A and the M1A2`s to use M829A3.

    1-At long ranges the M1A2`s would get forced to retreat, short after T90`s start firing at them using Reflex missiles. Networking won`t help them anyway. If M1A2`s do not retreat half of them will be slaughtered (at the worst case, I am assuming a minimal hit chance of 20 percent over a moving Abrams, of 4 shots per each T90 and 2 shots requied to kill an Abrams) before even entering firing range. The remaining 5 M1A2`s will be easy to defeat for the T90`s. M1A2`s are eliminated and T90`s have little or no casualties

    Sounds like very open terrain... the US forces would probably use their net centric system to call in airstrikes and helicopter gunships, or artillery.
    If not available they can simply go for a systems kill and fire HE shells (that travel at about 900m/s or 3 times faster than Reflex) out to the 5km range of Reflex and try to smash the optics of the tanks that have fired missiles at the same time firing smoke and moving for cover.

    The Russians/Soviets never expected to make missile firing super tanks... that was the US idea with the Sheridan. The purpose of the missiles in Russian tanks was just another option for tank commanders... if you want to base your attack on missiles then Kornet and Krisanthema both have longer ranges than Reflex and better armour penetration performance and higher flight speed as well and they are about half the price.

    2-Let`s suppose that somehow the T90`s could not get a lock on M1`s and none of them even saw each other at ranges not higher than 2km
    Speed is almost matched. M1 is 3km/h faster but that does not give him ANY advnatage. The combination of K-5 and composite on the T90 should be just as capable as the 1st gen. of Chobrum with DU mesh inside. Gun`s are not as matched as protection and mobility, cause T90`s gun is significantly bigger but that`s not a decisive advantage either. The number of shots fired per tank should not exceed -1/+1, except for some rare occasions. Well, then it`s all up to the crew as the tanks will have almost the same performance

    The M1A2s high weight could count against it in some environments.

    3-Suppose a high intensity battlefield when each tank is supported by infantry, IFV`s, gunships, etc. Here the networking advantage becomes more significant although the ability to jam ATGM`s fired by infantry and gunships, the ability to take down a gunship/tank/IFV etc using an ATGM round, the ability to destroy IED`s using electro-magnetic minesweepers etc are not less significant. Tank training is important too

    Even in a low intensity battlefield tanks don't operate alone.


    M1 are Leo2 stay are the most overrated tanks on the world by the way.

    I agree in the sense that for a while the M1 was considered invincible, yet it was tactics, air superiority and the quality of the enemy that made it appear more so.
    The Leo2 is untested... but then AFAIK so is the T-90.

    No tank is perfect and with the right training and tactics there are no perfect tanks. Remember in the Arab Israeli wars there was a serious difference in performance of T series tanks in Arab hands and in Israeli hands with captured examples. Adding hand rails didn't improve the performance of the T-62 that much, but in combat it fared much better under Israeli control.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Tue May 11, 2010 2:10 pm

    That was not supposed to be symmetrical warfare, when both sides can call in airstrikes and artillery on each other`s position. If the M1`s could call in artillery at the T90`s position, then the T90`s can call in artillery in the M1`s position too.

    The chance of an HE round to hit is smaller than the one a Reflex missile has. Those HE rounds are likely to fly off-course, but Reflex is not. It will hit exactly when the laser designates
    T90`s have HE rounds too, which are better than those of the Abrams because of their remote-detonation (which is huge advantage in urban warfare)

    The computers inside an Abrams are much more likely to fail than those inside a T90.

    Bigger weight is not an advatage, but smaller silhouette is.

    As for the networking part, we all saw how all those "advanced" networking and targeting systems in which the americans rely so much were foolished with the highest ease in Serbia by old jammers (or obsolete if you prefer) and decoys

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 12, 2010 4:34 am

    If the M1`s could call in artillery at the T90`s position, then the T90`s can call in artillery in the M1`s position too.

    True, but one will currently be a voice communication, leading to much more voice communication. The other will all be computers talking to computers with encrypted data that can be intercepted but probably not read.

    In fact I would suggest that the Russian forces are more likely to call in artillery than the US forces.

    And dare I say it... the Russian artillery would probably be more effective.

    The chance of an HE round to hit is smaller than the one a Reflex missile has. Those HE rounds are likely to fly off-course, but Reflex is not. It will hit exactly when the laser designates

    I agree, though Reflex is not a laser beam homing missile, it is a laser beam riding missile so it will fly along the beam till it impacts the target which is in the way of the beam.

    T90`s have HE rounds too, which are better than those of the Abrams because of their remote-detonation (which is huge advantage in urban warfare)

    Again I agree, the remote detonation system ANIET is very impressive and gives the tank commander the capability to engage targets behind frontal cover but with little or no overhead cover. With their new Catherine Thermal sights they will see the distinctive rotating blades of a helo hovering behind a tree and the hot gas cloud that surrounds those powerful gas turbine engines and they can decide... lase the tree, add 10m and fire a ANIET round to detonate directly above that hovering helo, or simply fire an APFSDS round right through the tree and hope for a hit. The HE shot will more likely kill the helo... even if the fragments don't penetrate the blast will blow it into the ground anyway.

    The computers inside an Abrams are much more likely to fail than those inside a T90.

    I don't know how you can say that, the components are probably made by the same makers. Smile

    Bigger weight is not an advatage, but smaller silhouette is.

    There is no question that the weight of the Abrams is because of its armour.
    At the end of the day you can't deny it is a well protected tank.
    Sure it has its weak spots, but EVERY TANK EVER MADE HAD WEAK SPOTS.

    The worlds heaviest tank I have ever heard of was the German Maus. It had 240mm sloping armour front. It weighed 192 tonnes and had a top speed of 6km/h. If you drove it through a village all the windows in the houses would break, the road cracked to its foundations.

    The point is that the sides, rear, belly, and roof of the vehicle were not 250mm armoured so even this vehicle was not invincible. An enormous slow moving target for aircraft.
    BTW it had two main guns from memory and the smaller gun was actually an enlarged 75mm gun from a Panther, while the main gun was something like a 128mm weapon or something.

    Basic tank design principals for heavily armoured tanks is that the frontal armour should be resistant to the enemies main tanks main guns ammunition. The side armour should resist the cannon of the main enemys MICV. The rear should stop small arms up to HMG fire.
    Now we know that the Abrams is vulnerable to HMG fire from the rear, and RPG fire from the side, now I would suggest that this is quite normal for all tanks.
    Frontal armour is probably comparable through different means... with the T-90 using ERA to increase frontal protection to something approaching Abrams levels.

    As for the networking part, we all saw how all those "advanced" networking and targeting systems in which the americans rely so much were foolished with the highest ease in Serbia by old jammers (or obsolete if you prefer) and decoys

    Of course they can still be fooled, but for fighting a battle it is better to have a battle management system and occasionally be fooled (BTW the Kosovo war is not a good example because there were no ground forces involved... it is much easier to fool a plane at 20,000ft than a tank with modern optics from 2,000 ft.), than to have no management system and fight blind, or worse fight with the enemy listening in and hearing your commands as you give them.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Austin on Wed May 12, 2010 10:57 am

    The importance of BMS and Integrated Netcentric Warfare is that it gives you the crucial first look first kill advantage and gives you a good picture of tactical situational awareness.

    I think any one who fires the first shot accurately will either kill the target or disable it , so in a typical T-90 versus Abrams duel any one who gets the first shot will get the big kill advantage.

    A BMS on Abrams would do a lot good in giving here the first shot against T-90 plus the tank is likely better armoured and crew protection better even when hit.

    I hope the Burlak not only employs a new turret with Long Rod round so important against M1A2 but also employs BMS and better crew protection.

    Hopefully we would see a mini Hermes with supersonic and F&F capability in future tanks which will have its own MMW plus BMS eliminating the need for lasing and alerting the target.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6078
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Austin on Wed May 12, 2010 11:03 am

    GarryB wrote:Burlak features ‘Kaktus’ embedded explosive reactive armour (ERA) package on its frontal hull and Relict on and turret-top (the T-90S has ‘Kontakt-5’ ERA), is fitted with an advanced environmental control system made in Russia for providing cooled air to the fighting compartment, has additional internal volume for housing the cryogenic cooling systems for new-generation thermal imagers like the THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth and housed within the Peleng-built 1G-46 gunner’s sight) and the commander’s panoramic sight (which houses the Matis-STD thermal imager that operates in the 3-5 micron bandwidth), is fitted with an automatic gearbox, has an electro-hydraulic turret-drive-cum stabilisation system, and most importantly, has a new 2A82 smoothbore main gun barrel that also comes fitted with a muzzle reference system.
    The powerplant will initially be the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-built 1,000hp V-92S2 diesel engine but the 1,200hp V-99 is the expected final engine of choice, while a 1kW AB-1-P28 auxiliary power unit will provide back-up electric power when the engine is idling. The gunner’s sight-cum-laser rangefinder will be the 1A43 system, which will also house the Peleng-built 1G46 day sight and the ESSA module containing the Catherine-FC thermal imager and the 9S517 missile guidance module for the Refleks anti-armour/anti-helicopter round. The digital hunter-killer fire-control system will use the 1V528-1 ballistics computer and the DVE-BS meteorological sensor. Burlak will have a digitised battlespace management system and radio communications suite, with a fibre-optic gyro-based inertial land navigation system with GLONASS.
    RPZ-86M anti-radar paint coating will reduce the signature of the vehicle.
    New bigger turret without weakened frontal areas and with the all-aspect ERA covering.
    Additional roof protection against atop attacking munition.
    New additional autoloader, placed on the aft part of the turret and able using the new longer sub-caliber rods.
    All ammo storage in autoloaders separate from the crew area.
    Panoramic 3-channel IR commander site with improved anti-splinter/small arms rounds protection.
    7.62 mm automatic turret instead of 12.7mm.
    FCS with the net-centric module.
    New anti-splinter kevlar layer instead of the standard Russian anti-neutron layer.
    new fire suppression system.

    Being developed:

    - Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
    - Steering wheel control.

    Interesting Thanks ,this should be a good match for M1A2 and perhaps even M1A3

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Wed May 12, 2010 12:42 pm

    Nope, it`s because of it`s bigger size and human loader. A Leclerc and Abrams have almost the same size but Abrams is over 10 tonnes heavier. T90`s have much smaller internal volume than Abrams and Leclerc too

    See pictures below
    Those are T72`s by the way, but it should give an idea about how much smaller than M1, the T90 really is


    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed May 12, 2010 10:44 pm

    Austin wrote:

    Interesting Thanks ,this should be a good match for M1A2 and perhaps even M1A3

    You can forget what you read about battle management and net-centricity. MIC doesn't have the bandwidth.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-90 vs M1 Abraams

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 13, 2010 4:24 am

    You can forget what you read about battle management and net-centricity. MIC doesn't have the bandwidth.

    And before electricity no country had a power grid to distribute power either.
    The introduction of even a basic system will create the need for more bandwidth... it is computer games that is pushing consumer computer hardware to get better... you don't get good hardware and then applications that push the hardware requiring an improvement in hardware... it happens the other way around.

    Interesting Thanks ,this should be a good match for M1A2 and perhaps even M1A3

    Hope we never find out.

    BTW in 1941 the T-34 was way better than any in service German tank... for quite some time it didn't help. The Sherman was inferior to the Panther and the Tiger. Didn't matter either.
    There are so many aspects that are more important than how big the gun is and how heavy the tank is. C4I is not an aspect that can be ignored. Tactics are important too. Air control is another important aspect... Armies do better when their air forces control the skies above the battlefield.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:55 am

    In the terms of Frontal Aspect protection against Armour/Infantry/Airborn targets, I'd say the T-90 has it better off against the M1A2 Abrams.

    Comparing the 2 in Protection:

    T-90
    ----
    Composite Armor
    Kontakt-5 or Relikt Heavy ERA
    Shtora Electro/Optical jammer
    Nakidka signature reduction suite
    ARENA Active Protection System possible

    M1A2 Abrams
    ----
    Chobham Armor
    Depleted Uranium Mesh
    ERA possible
    Electro/Optical jammer possible


    In perspective, Chobham v.s. modernized Combination-K, the M1A2 Abrams has the best baseline armor. However, because the T-90 is supplemented by advanced ERA and the Abrams is supplemented by a DU mesh, they are both comparable on the hard armor aspect of it. But, because Shtora comes standard on Russian T-90 tanks and the Missile Countermeasure Device isn't standard on the Abrams, against SACLOS guided ATGMs, the T-90 has it best.

    But, the U.S. doesn't use SACLOS guided Hellfires as much nowadays and have been making the move towards the Longbow Hellfires, that puts the challenge on the T-90. However, the T-90 has 2 things that can stop the Longbow Hellfires. The first of course, could be ARENA. Although ARENA isn't standard, it would knock out the Hellfire before impact. The second, is Nakidka. Nakidka would basically reduce the RCS of the T-90 by about 6 times according to their designer.

    A Longbow Hellfire v.s. an M1A2 Abrams is a different story. The Abrams does not have a signature reduction suite like the T-90 has. It also does not have an APS system ready. If a Longbow hellfire was used against the Abrams, there would be a high probability of impact, medium-high probability of penetration, and fair probability of lethal impact. Really, until Quickill is introduced in a few years, air attacks will remain the highest lethality threat to an Abrams.

    That was the airborn threat assessment, against Armored and Infantry, we should put something into perspective. The M1A2 Abrams can fire the M829A3 for Tank on Tank engagement schemes. The newest APFSDS round used by Russian tanks is the 3BM46, however, information on ti is limited. So for this comparison, I'll be comparing the 3BM42M against the M829A3.

    The 3BM42M is a long rod penetrator composed of WHA(Tungsten Carbide). It's Length to diameter ratio is 22 and thanks to the longer gun of the T-90, has a high muzzle velocity of about 1750 meters per second, with a muzzle drop of about 50-100 meters per kilometer. The projectile after the sabot is released weighs about 4.8 kilograms. Penetration estimates using the Odermatt formula comes out to about 600 meters RHA equivalent penetration at 2,000 meters with target slope of 0 degrees.

    Against the Frontal Armor of the M1A2 Abrams, I am not confident of a lethal penetration at 2,000 meters or more. However, WHA projectiles will almost always be more lethal than a DU projectile at ranges over 2 km. But, the heavy protection provided by the Abram's mix of Chobham and DU might eliminate that advantage. However, Chobham is notorious for having a bad multi-shot capability, so my guess would be that several 3BM42Ms fired accurately at an Abrams might produce a lethal penetration.

    The M829A3 is also a long rod penetrator. It is composed of a "super DU" alloy that is less prone to shattering. The L/d ratio of the A3 is estimated to be about 27, which means that it is longer, skinnier, and thus, more potent for penetration than the 3BM42M. Muzzle velocity is about 1555 meters per second and probably has a similar muzzle loss compared to the 3BM42M at 50-100 meters per kilometer. The projectile most likely has a similar mass compared to the 3BM42M, and tank nerds have estimated it to about the higher ends of 4 kilogram. Penetration estimates come out to about 790 mm of RHA, and I'm going to take a guess that the range was 2 km and the target slope was 0 degrees.

    The M829A3 is a good weapon, but I would have to say that if fired at the Glacis of a T-90 at 2 km out, there would be a small-medium probability of penetration and a small probability of lethal penetration. This is due mostly to the effects of Heavy ERA, which is only enhanced by even heavier ERA like Relikt. Robb McLeod(sp) estimates that Kontakt-5 would reduce the penetrative capabilities of APFSDS rounds by around 30%. However, that is not taking into question the super DU alloy used by the A3. But like the 3BM42M, if the Abrams crew does manage to land a few hits on almost the same places, that there would result in a penetration and possibly a lethal one.

    Against Infantry, assuming the Infantry are firing RPG-7s - RPG-29s - Kornet ATGM - Javelin ATGMs, I'd also have to say that the T-90 has a better chance of preventing a penetration compared to the Abrams. For this comparison, I will not take into account ARENA APS. The RPG-7 is a proven weapon that has been used in many places so this is the most common scenario. When fired on the Frontal aspect of either Tanks, expect no penetration. When fired at the Top/Side/Rear of either tanks, expect penetration. Although, the Abrams has been proven to withstand a hit or so on those aspects, it in general is not guaranteed protection against it.

    RPG-29 wise, expect penetrations on both tanks, all aspect, save Frontal aspect of T-90. The RPG-29 has penetrated the Glacis of 3 of the most advanced MBTs in the world, so it's quite battle proven. The T-90 would be saved by it's ERA, which(as stated by Nii Stali) provides 600 mm of RHA equivalence protection against HEATs and Relikt would provide double that or 1.2 meters of RHA equivalence of protection against HEATs. In case you're wondering why the Tandem warhead might not penetrate Kontakt-5, it's because Kontakt-5 has a thicker front metal plate, which means you'd need a bigger precursor charge.

    ATGM wise, the Kornet has penetrated(but not lethaly) the Armor of the Abrams during the Iraq war. It has also been used against the Merkava IV tanks but I cannot remember how successful it was. Now assuming that the Abrams does have the Missile Counter Measure device, I highly doubt that it would be able to jam the Kornet's guidance system as it is a beam rider. However, if the Abram knew it was being fired upon, it could simply shoot a smoke grenade which would most likely throw off the Kornet Gunner's Thermal sights leaving the Kornet to flabber around aimlessly.

    Against the T-90, Shtora also wouldn't be able to jam the Kornet, and a hit to anywhere other than the Frontal aspect might lead to a lethal penetration. However, Shtora would be able to realize it has been painted by the Kornet's gunner and would therefore automatically fire it's smoke grenades which has the same properties as the Abram's smoke grenades. One more thing to note is that Nakidka also reduces the thermal signature of the T-90 so there would be a smaller probability of engagement between the Kornet v.s. T-90 compared to Kornet v.s. Abrams.

    The Javelin would be a different story as it is a heat-seeking, top attack ATGM. In performance wise, it is similar to the Kornet in penetration but has a bit shorter range. However, it is considered more lethal due to the weakness of the roofs of tanks. This is where the advantages of the T-90's multi-layer protection system comes to play. Both Shtora and MCD would be inactive as both would not be able to sense that they have been targeted. The best defense would be to launch a smoke screen, as that would throw off the seeker warhead of the Javelin. But due to the tank's inability to sense that it has been targeted, that would be very difficult.

    When fired in it's Top Attack mode against the Abrams, I would have to say that it would result in a penetration, and most likely a lethal one. Against the T-90, it's very, very different story. The first thing would be that T-90's can be fitted with Nakidka, which does reduce the Thermal signature of the T-90, making it harder for the Javelin to effectively seek out and destroy it. The next thing is that the Russians also put Kontakt-5/Relikt ERA on the roof of the tank, which would severely dampen the penetrative attributes of the Javelin. Finally, if ARENA is installed, there's a high probability of intercept of the Javelin before contact with the T-90.

    So, here's the score card(in my opinion) of protection compared to both tanks.

    AIR-SURFACE
    -----------

    M1A2 Abrams v.s. Longbow Hellfire(fired at 8 km, open field, high visibility environment) - Fair-High probability of penetration/lethal penetration.

    T-90 Vladimir v.s. Longbow Hellfire(fired at 8 km, open field, high visibility environment) - Fair probability of penetration/lethal penetration.

    RESULT - T-90 has a better chance of escaping from an engagement with the Longbow Hellfire. T-90


    ARMOR v.s. ARMOR
    ----------------

    M1A2 Abrams v.s. T-90 Vladimir(2 km open field, frontal aspect engagement, high visibility weather, APFSDS rounds) - Fair probability of surviving 1st hits to Glacis armor for both Tanks - [bTIE[/b]


    ARMOR v.s. INFANTRY
    -------------------
    M1A2 Abrams v.s. RPG-7/RPG-29/Kornet/Javelin(Urban environment, AT weapons fired at maximum range, single shots, variable aspects) - Low probability of all aspect penetration/lethal penetration by RPG-7. Fair probability of Frontal aspect penetration/lethal penetration by RPG-29, High probability of Side, Top, Rear aspects penetration/lethal penetration by RPG-29. Similar probabilities of Kornet v.s. Abrams. High probability of penetration by Javelin, all aspect.

    T-90 Vladimir v.s. RPG-7/RPG-29/Kornet/Javelin(Urban environment, AT weapons fired at maximum range, single shots, variable aspects) - Low probability of all aspect penetration/lethal penetration by RPG-7. Low probability of Frontal aspect penetration by RPG-29, High probability of Side, Top, Rear aspect penetrations by RPG-29. Low-Fair probability of penetration, all aspect for Kornet(low probability on at Frontal aspect). Fair-High probability of penetration of Javelin, all aspect(High probability penetration, rear aspect).

    RESULT - T-90 has a better chance of surviving from an engagement with the Infantry AT weapons. T-90


    Of course, that wasn't a professional analysis and I'm probably missing somethings or wrong on others. Remember, this was analyzing each Tank's levels of protection. That is not to say that if a round does penetrate, both will survive. The T-90 has some risk of a catastrophic explosion if the round penetrates(although this is disputed). So, remember, that was only about protection, not survivability.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:06 am

    Not a bad assessment, though I would rate the current T-90 as below the level you give it credit for.
    The Burlak upgrade I keep harping on about is a very necessary upgrade that will fix some fundamental problems to improve survivability, including a few weak spots in the frontal armour and also allow a better coverage of ERA to be applied.
    Improvements in communications, navigation and battle management will also make a huge difference.

    Regarding Kornet however:

    Now assuming that the Abrams does have the Missile Counter Measure device, I highly doubt that it would be able to jam the Kornet's guidance system as it is a beam rider. However, if the Abram knew it was being fired upon, it could simply shoot a smoke grenade which would most likely throw off the Kornet Gunner's Thermal sights leaving the Kornet to flabber around aimlessly.

    The Kornet uses an extremely low power laser beam for guidance, in comparison the level of power needed for a laser homing Hellfire is something like 10,000 times more powerful because at a range of 8km the beam is travelling 16km and the surface the beam is shining on greatly effects how well it is reflected.
    With the Kornet the sensor looks back at the launcher to detect the beam and to position itself within the beam centre.
    At 5.5km the width of the beam will be about 6m across so a gunner could simply aim 10m above the target for the first portion of missile flight. This should allow the missile to avoid trees and shrubs and fences between the launcher and the target too.
    As the missile approaches the target the gunner can drop the crosshairs down onto the target.
    Assuming the target is alerted immediately and fires smoke the smoke cloud will form in front of the tank but the smoke does not effect the guidance of the missile till the missile enters the cloud to a depth where it can't see the launcher any more.
    Now the missile might just plunge into the ground or it might lock up the flight controls and fly straight, but for the half second it is in the smoke it will not have much room to manoeuvre so if it does fly straight or starts to wander off the aim point then there is a very good chance it will still strike the target.

    And of course there is the Krisantema.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:48 am

    Ah well, I can't get everything right Wink

    As for the Khrisantema, no Infantryman wants to haul around a radar!

    Neoprime
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2013-07-20
    Location : USA

    T-90AM/MS vs M1A2

    Post  Neoprime on Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:22 pm

    I want to know if the current ammo round from a T-90AM/MS 125mm 2a46M-5 were to hit a M1A2 Abrams from the front would it knock it out and visa versa.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3575
    Points : 3610
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:47 pm

    Neoprime wrote:I want to know if the current ammo round from a T-90AM/MS 125mm 2a46M-5 were to hit a M1A2 Abrams from the front would it knock it out and visa versa.

    Short answer NO. Both tanks are theoretically immune on frontal arc from current issue APFSDS.

    Theoretically. On sides, both Tanks can penetrate each other. On the back same thing.

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-90 comparison with M1A2

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:36 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:36 am