T-90 Main Battle Tank

Well played Mindstorm, well played

@ Mindstorm why do the Russian army operate T-90S or T-90C when in fact it is the export version of T-90A? Apat from modifications by the user is there a difference between domestic T-90S and exported T-90S?

Russian Army does not operate T-90S... the new upgraded for export tank is the T-90SM, the Russian Army equivalent of the T-90S is the T-90A, while the new upgraded domestic model is the T-90AM.

I was not attempting in any way to attack the value of Pantsyr-S1 (it is more that 2,5 times more lethal and over 7 times more survivable than the best not-export version foreign equivalent Wink ), what instead i was attempting to point out is that it will never be inducted in Russian Federation service for the same reason that no T-90MS or RVV-SD/MD/BD will be ever inducted : the technical and performance requirements dictated by МоРФ are significantly higher.

I agree to a point, except with the Pantsir-S1 things were a little different... the makers offered a slightly upgraded Pantsir, which the Russian military accepted which basically consisted of a Pantsir with all its bits upgraded and improved quite a bit. The UAE rejected this upgrade, even though the Russian military accepted it and asked for... and paid for all new radars and electronics and missiles and other software and hardware improvements that resulted in a very much more capable system.

The resulting Pantsir-S1 is significantly better than the original domestic model, though no doubt the money spent will result in a greatly improved system for Russia too.

Equally the RVV-AE was better than the domestic model because there was no domestic model because it didn't enter service in the Russian military in the 1990s.

However on the whole I agree with what you are trying to say...

T-90A Armour Rating

Wow, so that's how the tank's protection more or less looks like. Is there a similar image based on the the T-90MS? Anyways good job to the dude who made this(his name's dejawolf isn't it?).
Also @Garry and Mindstorm: Is Nozh better than Relict?
BTW I hope we get to see a similar image of the T-95 or Armata, If so I would bet that it would be hilariously simple; blue diagonal lines for turret and track sponson and dark purple for the hull

Why the hull thickness difference?

Some of that chart is.......curious.
Some parts really ovverated, some underrrated.
Layout doesn't make sense in some cases either.

I got to agree with TR1 on this.

What's this from, a simulator or something?

Most tanks have equipment and bits and pieces under their frontal armour and so there are weak points on every tank.

Part of the effort of the T-90AM/SM tank upgrade was to improve the frontal armour... in other words remove weak spots.

The whole purpose of the Armata design is to protect the crew and ammo below the turret ring so I would expect fairly low protection figures for most of the turret, but high figures for upper and lower hull.

I rather suspect that the angle of the frontal hull armour will mean very little of the lower hull will even be visible and both upper and lower hull will be angled so steeply that the penetration figures will be very high even without active protection systems and ERA/NERA/NxRA etc.

Keep in mind these figures are estimates... in different temperatures some materials used in the armour structure might increase or decrease in effectiveness and different angles will result in different penetration path lengths too.

The difference in protection levels just seems rather extreme across the glacis and lower hull.

You are absolutely right about Armata though. The hull's going to be a highly angled thick slab. The only thing above the turret ring from the frontal aspect would be the mantlet, everything else would would have diagonal blue lines with "inert" branded across it. If it has a bustle & horizontal auto-loader that may change.

If it has a bustle & horizontal auto-loader that may change.

It wont.

They already rejected the Burlak upgrade of the T-90 because of its Black Eagle like turret bustle autoloader, which together with the under floor autoloader would have meant a tank with about 53 rounds in autoloaders ready to fire. (31 in the bustle and 22 in the underfloor magazine).

It was rejected because the ammo in the bustle was deemed to vulnerable to enemy fire.

That wont have changed with armata, kurganets, or boomerang. All main gun ammo will be stored below the turret ring for protection from the front by the heavy frontal armour.

TR1 wrote:Why the hull thickness difference?

Some of that chart is.......curious.
Some parts really ovverated, some underrrated.
Layout doesn't make sense in some cases either.

The chart is I got from here Interesting discussion between Arjun and T-90

I asked the same question it seems the Hull chassis Front has better protection because behind it it has fuel , Although it seems from the discussion the export model T-90S is made from different armour and its as good as T-72B while the T-90A has higher armour protection.

Dont know what to make of it.

Austin wrote:

TR1 wrote:Why the hull thickness difference?

Some of that chart is.......curious.
Some parts really ovverated, some underrrated.
Layout doesn't make sense in some cases either.

The chart is I got from here Interesting discussion between Arjun and T-90

I asked the same question it seems the Hull chassis Front has better protection because behind it it has fuel , Although it seems from the discussion the export model T-90S is made from different armour and its as good as T-72B while the T-90A has higher armour protection.

Dont know what to make of it.

Well at the end of the day it's just internet users speculating with open sources, I would not put that much stock into it - even if the numbers are vaguely close.

GarryB wrote:

If it has a bustle & horizontal auto-loader that may change.

It wont.

They already rejected the Burlak upgrade of the T-90 because of its Black Eagle like turret bustle autoloader, which together with the under floor autoloader would have meant a tank with about 53 rounds in autoloaders ready to fire. (31 in the bustle and 22 in the underfloor magazine).

It was rejected because the ammo in the bustle was deemed to vulnerable to enemy fire.

That wont have changed with armata, kurganets, or boomerang. All main gun ammo will be stored below the turret ring for protection from the front by the heavy frontal armour.

Right now I'm fairly sure Armata wont have a bustle. However, It's hard to look past what has been proposed for future MBTs before. The newest T-90 upgrade also features one, granted it's there to store the loose propellant charges that we strewn around the hull.

The T-90SM does not really have a turret bustle... in the same sense that having boxes of 50 cal ammo strapped to the sides of a turret doesn't increase ready to fire ammo either.

The bustle on the T-90SM is separated from the crew compartment... to use the ammo in there you need to get out of the tank, open the roof of the bustle area and manually hand load each round one piece at a time through a roof hatch and into the underfloor autoloader to use the ammo.

In comparison the armata will have an unmanned turret so even that wont be an option really...

Personally I think they are being silly and I think the Burlak idea of a turret bustle with an autoloader was brilliant because it doubled the amount of ready to fire ammo, with the bustle containing the long rod penetrators they will be faster loading as they would be straight rammed and while the ammo inside would be more vulnerable to enemy fire it adds another layer of protection to the rear of the turret which is often under protected normally anyway.

It also adds weight to the rear of the turret which counter balances the heavy frontal armour and the weight of the main gun sticking out the front so the weight balance on the turret ring is more evenly spread out.

The potential for having the turret bustle autoloader as a module that could be loaded in one piece like a rifle magazine offers enormous potential... especially if it could be modified to load ammo through the mechanism into the under floor magazine too.

If the rear turret is penetrated and the ammo catches light the turret could be turned 90 degrees so the bustle over hang is sticking out to the side of the hull and the damaged/burning ammo loader ejected onto the ground.

The T-90SM does not really have a turret bustle... in the same sense that having boxes of 50 cal ammo strapped to the sides of a turret doesn't increase ready to fire ammo either.

IMO, the protrusion from the rear of the T-90SM's turret is a bustle, in contrast to side storage baskets on almost every tank which hold gear.

Personally I think they are being silly and I think the Burlak idea of a turret bustle with an autoloader was brilliant because it doubled the amount of ready to fire ammo, with the bustle containing the long rod penetrators they will be faster loading as they would be straight rammed and while the ammo inside would be more vulnerable to enemy fire it adds another layer of protection to the rear of the turret which is often under protected normally anyway.

The huge problem with bustles is that +/- ~30° from the center of the turret the bustle is exposed to enemy fire. In other words, it's a vulnerability from the frontal arc and more so on the flank. This problem becomes more severe during turret rotation. So I see were Russian designers are coming from.

If the rear turret is penetrated and the ammo catches light the turret could be turned 90 degrees so the bustle over hang is sticking out to the side of the hull and the damaged/burning ammo loader ejected onto the ground.

I doubt in a battle that would be possible, ammo cooks off too fast. Blowout panels don't really work either in practice. There's just too much energy being released at once. Even the much vaunted M1 lights up when the bustle's hit, if the explosion doesn't take out the tank, the resulting engine fire will.

Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of turret bustles, but the trade off has to be worth it. IMO, it was done right on Object 640.

IMO, the protrusion from the rear of the T-90SM's turret is a bustle, in contrast to side storage baskets on almost every tank which hold gear.

I disagree.

The bit attached to the rear of the T-90SM/AM turret is not really a turret bustle as it is not part of the turret... it is just bolted on and people inside the turret have no access into it.

A turret bustle is an extention of the turret... on the T-34 it held ammo and a machine gun. With no access through to the turret the T-90AM/SM merely has an externally mounted ammo box.

The huge problem with bustles is that +/- ~30° from the center of the turret the bustle is exposed to enemy fire.

Not a huge problem as it is not a part of the turret and is not connected to the crew compartment, so a penetrating hit is not significant.

In other words, it's a vulnerability from the frontal arc and more so on the flank. This problem becomes more severe during turret rotation. So I see were Russian designers are coming from.

It adds armour and empty space to an area that will be vulnerable to enemy fire no matter what you do to it.

I doubt in a battle that would be possible, ammo cooks off too fast.

Actually in real combat it doesn't. Normally it is hot burning material that starts a fire that often burns for several minutes before the ammo has a sympathetic detonation.

Blowout panels don't really work either in practice. There's just too much energy being released at once. Even the much vaunted M1 lights up when the bustle's hit, if the explosion doesn't take out the tank, the resulting engine fire will.

They work fine for propellent fires... for the same reason guns work.

A round in a chamber is not a bomb because propellent burns under pressure, while explosives explode. With propellent as it ignites the pressure builds and the gasses expand at a steady rate... the shell case supported by the bolt face and chamber walls prevents expansion in all directions except down the barrel... though the gas must push aside the bullet before it can escape... and that it what it does.

Replace the propellent with explosive and the walls of the chamber would shatter as would the bolt face... the explosion would be near spherical and the weapon would be destroyed.

The point is that without a detonator a HE round in a turret bustle will simply burn rather than detonate... the most dangerous thing would be the propellent which will all try to burn rapidly and will burn more fiercely when kept at high pressure and temperatures. Blow off panels relieve that pressure and direct the blast and heat away from the crew compartment.

Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of turret bustles, but the trade off has to be worth it. IMO, it was done right on Object 640.

I would say as long as the ammo is separate from the crew compartment the crew are safer, and if the bustle autoloader gives the vehicle another 31 shots then it is worth it.

Actually aiming for a turret bustle is much easier said than done... I would think the extra risk would be well worth it for the extra shots at the enemy and the greatly speeded up reloading times and the increased number of shots on target.

Actually in real combat it doesn't. Normally it is hot burning material that starts a fire that often burns for several minutes before the ammo has a sympathetic detonation.

The rate and severity at which ammunition ignites after penetration depends on the ammo density of the effected area. Bustles, like that of the M1A1 have very high ammo density in a rather small area.

The point is that without a detonator a HE round in a turret bustle will simply burn rather than detonate... the most dangerous thing would be the propellent which will all try to burn rapidly and will burn more fiercely when kept at high pressure and temperatures. Blow off panels relieve that pressure and direct the blast and heat away from the crew compartment.

Blowout panels are based on the principle that energy travels on the path of least resistance. So they are theoretically sound. However, with so much energy being released in such a small area, it just finds its own paths, including through the thin floor of the bustle, right over top of the engine.



Like I said earlier, I like bustles, I like the idea of them. They work of the kind of warfare tanks face today. However, contemporary russian tanks were built for a different battlefield. Having ammo low in the hull, behind the front armor is a distinct advantage vs. having it exposed on the highest point of the tank, even if it is more isolated from the crew. Another issue that seems to be overlooked is that bustles put the magazine in the most vulnerable area for aerial threats, mortars, artillery, and steep diving ATGMs.

Armata and 195 are purpose built to face modern combat, and bring the principle of crew isolation to a level unseen in previous tank designs from the east and west.

The rate and severity at which ammunition ignites after penetration depends on the ammo density of the effected area.

Not really. Put some gunpowder on a table top and drop a burning match into it and it will flash and burn rapidly but there will be no bang, and a lot of powder will simply be blown off the table without burning.

Put the same amount of powder in a confined space like the chamber of a rifle and the pressure will build to much higher levels, the powder will burn more thoroughly and a supersonic shock wave will be created. A boom instead of a phfuff.

Putting all the ammo in one place does concentrate it into one area, but then having it spread over the vehicle just makes it more likely that a penetrating hit will ignite some of the ammo anyway.

By concentrating it into an area that is separated from the crew you make the vehicle safer.

Blowout panels are based on the principle that energy travels on the path of least resistance. So they are theoretically sound.

It is perfectly valid for most types of explosives and propellents... for a small land mine a heavy pair of boots can reduce the damage done to your feet, but with modern mines wearing sandals can cost you your toes while heavy boots can cost you most of your lower leg. The power of the mine has an influence too... wearing sandals might lead to you just losing toes but your legs might have to be amputated because of the damage if the mine is powerful enough.

However, with so much energy being released in such a small area, it just finds its own paths, including through the thin floor of the bustle, right over top of the engine.

The bustle in the Abrams is connected to the turret so weak exit points in the roof and floor of the bustle mean less hot gas go back into the turret... even if it reaches the engine... who cares... they can make lots of engines.

From the perspective of the crew of an armata there is no crew in the turret so explosions and engine fires are not that big a deal.

Another issue that seems to be overlooked is that bustles put the magazine in the most vulnerable area for aerial threats, mortars, artillery, and steep diving ATGMs.

Very true, but then putting them under the turret ring leaves them exposed to mines and IEDs... which do you think third world countries have most access to?

I agree with the protection of the ammo by putting it in the turret below the turret ring, I just think that having even more ammo, admittedly in a more exposed place is worth it for the extra ammo options it offers.

Sure it is more vulnerable, but it can be made expendible... if the enemy want to waste their first shots trying to take out your turret bustle instead of killing your crews then the design has already done its job because by going for the ammo they have already admitted they can't kill the tank outright and are trying to weaken it as best they can... in the mean time your crew can be picking them off as they reveal themselves when they fire.

Zivo wrote:
[youtube]Ay7bOG2nD6k

Hmmm, how does the two crewmen get out of the vehicle in case the bustle explodes? I don't think they can just get out of the turret hatches, they'll get a full brazilian on their asses if they did. I also don't think they can shimmy through to the driver's compartment and get out through his hatch in time.

Also, if only propellant(integral charge included) is stored there would it burn as vigorously or just go boom?

Propellent only goes boom when it is kept under pressure... like in a gun barrel.

In a T-80 where all the ammo propellent stubs are sticking up out of the under floor autoloader the sparks from a penetration land on them and when one bursts into flame then it ignites the others immediately like matches in a match box. Without blow out panels it will lift the whole turret off the tank, but if both hatches are open then it will just burn like a blow torch for 3-5 minutes incinerating everything inside. The heat will start the HE rounds to burn but without a detonator they will just burn, so the real danger is the propellent stubs.

In the Abrams the ammo is stacked in the bustle but each round has a metal case separating each propellent load which will take a while to heat up and ignite in a fire. The T-90SM has 10 rounds of ammo separated so the ignition and burning of one round will not immediately ignite the other rounds stored there.

In a new design you could make the turret bustle and mechanical ammo handler like the magazine in a rifle. Each ammo position could be lined with nomex or other fire proof material with blow out panels in the roof and the rear of each round to direct the direction of any explosion away from the turret.

Nothing you can do will totally protect a tank from everything... even not carrying any fuel or ammo in the tank will not save them from a massive IED or mine.

Hmmm, how does the two crewmen get out of the vehicle in case the bustle explodes? I don't think they can just get out of the turret hatches, they'll get a full brazilian on their asses if they did. I also don't think they can shimmy through to the driver's compartment and get out through his hatch in time.

Very quickly. Frankly, it's an all bad situation if the ammo cooks off.

Also, if only propellant(integral charge included) is stored there would it burn as vigorously or just go boom?

It would rapidly burn. A lot of sparks and some pressure, but no shock wave.

By concentrating it into an area that is separated from the crew you make the vehicle safer.

True, but something always is traded off. In the case of bustles it's increased vulnerability on the flank and against aerial threats. Is a turret bustle safer than having ammo strew about the hull or exposed like a T-80? Yes. Is it safer than having ammo stored only in the T-72 or 90's autoloader magazine? Probably not.

even if it reaches the engine... who cares... they can make lots of engines.

The issue isn't the destroyed engine, it's the massive fire that will result from the damage. An inferno the crew will have trouble escaping.

Very true, but then putting them under the turret ring leaves them exposed to mines and IEDs... which do you think third world countries have most access to?

They also have access to nearly unlimited RPGs, flanking ambushes, and rooftops.


I think Armata offers the best solution I've seen yet. I actually would be very pleased to see a small bustle that stores maybe 10 shots and loads strait into the breech to rapidly put more rounds down range if needed. That way if the turret bustle gets hit, there isn't so much ammo burning at once. This obviously would supplement the regular ammunition stored in the hull.

I think we've covered all the pros and cons of turret bustles.

Just had a question the current Reflex-M ATGM fired from T-90 tanks tubes have tandem warhead and guranteed 900 mm HEAT penetration capability , what effect will this ATGM have if it hits the front turret of modern western tank like Abrams or Leo or Challenger 2

Just had a question the current Reflex-M ATGM fired from T-90 tanks tubes have tandem warhead and guranteed 900 mm HEAT penetration capability , what effect will this ATGM have if it hits the front turret of modern western tank like Abrams or Leo or Challenger 2

It could destroy optics or the gun.

In a lofted flight path it could probably penetrate the glacis. The big advantage to them is obviously the range, they could disable a significant percentage of hostile tanks before they're even able to fire back with APFSDS.

Austin wrote:Just had a question the current Reflex-M ATGM fired from T-90 tanks tubes have tandem warhead and guranteed 900 mm HEAT penetration capability , what effect will this ATGM have if it hits the front turret of modern western tank like Abrams or Leo or Challenger 2

It won't penetrate, turret armor is too thick and you can't really guarantee 900mm pen. AFAIK.
I don't have a crystal ball. If there's one thing the last decade has shown, it's that nothing is "very unlikely".

Russia needs to be able to face modern threats with something other than nukes to prevent the continued encirclement of it's territories and allies by NATO.

True, as the Creed states: "Nothing is true, Everything is Permitted". However if the threat of being turned into parking lots don't deter nato then I am sure their tanks can cut it. Its not that they would have magically gained enough funds to turn each and every 30 year tank they have into wunderwaffes. What the hell, the Russians could even bring meter-long APFSDS rounds made of DU and have them sit on their laps in case of war since any penetrating hit that does manage to go the crew compartment would have killed them anyway.

Austin wrote:Just had a question the current Reflex-M ATGM fired from T-90 tanks tubes have tandem warhead and guranteed 900 mm HEAT penetration capability , what effect will this ATGM have if it hits the front turret of modern western tank like Abrams or Leo or Challenger 2

Depends where. Plenty of weak spots could injure crew/damage parts of tank.
That goes for any half modern round hitting any tank of course.