T-90 Main Battle Tank

Вчера под Нижним Тагилом главе правительства показывали всю танковую мощь российской армии. Если сравнить выставку оружия с показом мод, то можно сказать, что демонстрировали коллекции прошлых лет. Новинкой можно назвать разве что модернизированный танк Т-90С. В феврале этого года на испытаниях наш танк показал себя лучше иностранных аналогов. Хотя есть эксперты, которые утверждают, что комплекс защиты и на этом новом танке уже устарел.
В любом случае на поставки этого российского оружия заключены контракты с Алжиром и Туркменией. По оценкам экспертов, стоимость одной такой машины 70 млн. рублей.

Cyberspec wrote:What's this box like container at the rear of the T-90MS? ...the APU

KRATOS1133 wrote:В любом случае на поставки этого российского оружия заключены контракты с Алжиром и Туркменией. По оценкам экспертов, стоимость одной такой машины 70 млн. рублей.
http://usa.kp.ru/daily/25751/2737477/
Can anyone help me with a translation please

GarryB wrote:

BTW have you seen Igors page recently Austin?

{quote]
- He said 850 mm for APFSDS and 1200 mm for cumulative.

GarryB wrote:He means the export 125mm ammo of the T-90MS has that performance...

At 2,000m at zero degrees impact the APFSDS rounds will penetrate 850mm of armour and the HEAT round will penetrate 1,200mm of armour.

GarryB wrote:Kornet is 152mm calibre...

The comparison would be previously known or estimated rounds... for APFSDS that is the 3BM-44M codenamed Lekalo with a 650mm penetration performance at 2,000m, and for the HEAT the 3VBK-27 round with the exotic triple charge and 800mm penetration...

So 850 vs 650, and 1,200 vs 800... yup, that is improved.

Austin wrote:I think the problem with T-90MS or T-90S is that there is space between turret and the chasis which will allow rounds to penetrate and blow the turret , while for other tanks there is no space between turret and the chasis , what do you think ?

Steve Duncan

Sorry, I should have specified that those are Line of Sight numbers. Actual armor thickness would of course be half that at 60 degrees.

First I should have used Perforate and not Penetrate, since L-O was derived from putting holes thru finite thickness armor and not depth of penetration into armor blocks.

The L-O equations do actually have a term for slope. The figures Odermatt gave on this forum was COS(angle) to the -0.225 power to get Line of Sight perforation. This was derived from the tungsten alloy rods used in his testing.

I generalized it to cover all the rounds I calculated because I don't know the nose geometry or ductility of the ones used in his data points, nor for that matter the nose geometry or ductility of the ones I calculated. Blunt noses penetrate better on slopes and pointy noses better against vertical.

Most long rods will perforate thicker (Line of Sight) sloped armor than vertical armor. The armor having more effective resistance side to side than front to back (usually) will tend to bend the path of the projectile toward the back of the plate thus on a 60 deg plate angle the path may be closer to 45 deg. Again the path depends on too many things to think about without getting a headache.

So for actual armor thichness the numbers are:

Round...........Length.....L/D.....MV.......Perforation @ 2km (0deg-60deg)
M829...............441......17.3...1670........470mm - 275mm
DM33..............503......20.1....1650.......480mm - 280mm
M829A1...........684......31.7....1575.......600mm - 345mm
DM53 L/44.......643......27.6....1675.......620mm - 365mm
M829A2...........700......32.5....1680.......630mm - 370mm
DM53 L/55.......643......27.6....1750.......650mm - 380mm
M829A3...........859......39.3....1555.......710mm - 415mm

The Russian rounds all come out with much lower penetration than claimed when I run them through the Odermatt equation. They tend to be shorter and fatter than their western counterparts.

From Vasiliy Fofanov's Modern Russian Armour Page:

Round...........Length.....MV.......Pen @ 2km (Certified-Maximum)
3BM-32...........380........1700......500-560.......equiv to M829 or DM33
3BM42............420........1700......450-500
3BM-42M........570........1750.......600-650.......equiv to M829A1
3BM-46..........546........1700.......600-650.......equiv to M829A1

All of the Russian rounds should probably penetrate the front of a Leopard 2A4 from around 2000m, the later ones from farther.
Given the shorter fatter rounds are likely to be less affected by the wedge armor on the Leopard 2A5/A6 I would say that the 3BM-42M and 3BM-46 might have a chance against it from under 2000m, the other rounds probably not from any range.

I don't buy into all the hype about Kontakt-5 making any tank indestructable. After all most of it comes from sources either tryong to sell it or get money to develop new rounds to defeat it. That said, I do think it adds greatly to the protection. Testing seems to indicate that a T-72 is vulnerable to an M829 class penetrator, but with K-5 is virtually immune.

My best guess:

Tank......................inneffective................marginal....................effective
Early T-72 no K-5.......................................DM13.....................all the rest
Late T-72 no K-5.....DM13...........................DM23.....................all the rest
Early T-72 + K-5.....DM13,DM23..............M829, DM33................all the rest
Late T-72 + K-5.....M829, DM13-33..............M829A1...................M829A2,A3, DM53
T-90 + K5.............M829,A1, DM13-33...M829A2, DM53(L44)........M829A3, DM53(L55)

GarryB wrote:He means the export 125mm ammo of the T-90MS has that performance...

At 2,000m at zero degrees impact the APFSDS rounds will penetrate 850mm of armour and the HEAT round will penetrate 1,200mm of armour.