T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

This perspective and "a model" shows perfectly well the physical LOS of this beast.
I would say it is approx. 1.5m
Supported by a heavy new ERA package, I guess that this can hold every single projectile NATO has at the moment.
How they did that retaining a mass in a reasonable value is unimaginable.

Another one getting ready:

As the Vedomosti newspaper reported in an article by Alexei Nikolsky and Ilya Lakstygal, “The armed forces will receive 1,500 tanks in 2023. This number will also include modernized vehicles removed from storage,” Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev became the first leader since the beginning of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine to name the annual production of one of the main types of combat platforms actively used in hostilities - the main battle tanks.

“Our enemies believed that our industry would choke, that is, we would spend everything—these were their endless conversations. “We ran out of shells, ran out of tanks, ran out of rockets,” etc. We will make 1,500 tanks alone this year,” Dmitry Medvedev said in an interview with Russian news agencies and users of the social network VK. “The military-industrial complex has become hot, it works actively, most enterprises (I’m talking about this firsthand, but because I drive around them) work in three shifts, they work, as they say, from wheels - they directly give everything to the troops, produce the most modern Russian types of weapons, and even in a situation where they are really trying to deprive us of components, cut off oxygen in certain areas,” Medvedev said. The new T-90M tank, according to Medvedev, "is the best tank in the world and surpasses the Western Leopard,

Dmitry Kornev, editor of the Military Russia portal, believes that it is unlikely that we are talking about 1,500 new tanks. Most likely, a significant part will consist of modernized Soviet vehicles, removed from storage and equipped with new means of communication, dynamic protection, electronics, etc., suggests Kornev.

According to a source close to the Ministry of Defense, it is indeed planned to produce several hundred new T-90M and T-14 tanks, and most of the rest will be modernized T-72 and T-80 tanks taken from military equipment storage bases. A number of older T-62 tanks will also be upgraded. In the fall of 2022, visiting the 103rd armored repair plant in Chita, State Duma deputy Andrey Gurulyov said that the company had a contract for the modernization of 400 T-62s. In the 80s. Soviet factories produced more than 2,000 new tanks a year. Only "Uralvagonzavod" (UVZ) in 1985, at its peak, according to the book "T-72 / T-90. Experience in creating domestic main battle tanks”, produced 1559 T-72 tanks. In the post-Soviet period, the maximum rate of production of T-90 tanks was achieved in the 2000s.

According to the editor-in-chief of the Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, Viktor Murakhovsky, it is necessary to increase the production of new T-90M tanks, and the corresponding decisions have obviously been made. These tanks will be able to effectively withstand such strong Western tanks as the German Leopard 2A6, the British Challenger 2 and the American Abrams, which are planned to be delivered to the Ukrainian Armed Forces this year.

Apparently, the total production of new tanks for the Russian Armed Forces in 2023 will be adequate to the announced deliveries of third-generation Western tanks to Ukraine, such as the Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and Abrams, believes Mikhail Barabanov, an expert at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

From the bmpd side, we indicatethat the data that the notorious “1500 tanks” will be mostly non-new production vehicles was actually confirmed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, in an interview with Russian television on March 25, said: “[Western] arsonists plan to send 420-440 tanks to Ukraine. During this time, we will produce new ones and modernize over 1,600 existing ones. The total number of Russian tanks will exceed three times the number of tanks in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Even more than three times.”

https://bmpd-livejournal-com.translate.goog/4676984.html?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en#cutid1

Middle East Update
@islamicworldupd
·
11h
A #Russian T-90A tank captured last year in #Ukraine has been spotted in the #US state of #Louisiana

A #Russian T-90A tank captured last year in #Ukraine has been spotted in the #US state of #Louisiana

there needs to be a directive that abandoned vehicles be booby-trapped with high explosives so systems are captured intact.

Russia needs to extract a payback by recovering Abrams tanks and displaying them in war monuments in the newly liberated areas in the former Ukraine

It's a T-90A.

Nothing they haven't had access to before, per the rumour mill (being that they got one in the early 2000s during the 2nd Chechen war or shortly before it)

I just did some rough estimation for the minium value of protection for the T-90M's turret based on that of the late model T-72B's. It would seem it should stop a projectile with 615mm penetration assuming it uses an 1980s style NERA array, likely meaning it would have somewhat better protection than my estimate. It would also have the ability to stop an 800mm penetrating KE round on the thickest part of it's armour.

Then if we include Relikt it could and advances in technology, it could likely stop a 1200mm long penetrator, albeit not if it hits a detonated ERA tile.

This should help

On the T-90M the arrays are a little thicker around the gun mantlet area, about 560-720mm around the gun mantlet as opposed to 450-560 on the T-90A

Modern armor is designed with specific armor effects in mind to destroy rather than withstand anti-armor threats.

Raw physical prerequisites like metallurgy and dimensions matter to a point, but it is design that really determines if the penetrator makes it or breaks on the armor. And you can't design an effective armor without accurate intel on enemy anti-tank shells, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately the T-90M has been compromised so the latest NATO ammo should have no trouble piercing its armor. Russia then has no choice but to accelerate T-14 development and replace the T-90 in active units as quickly as possible.

How was the T-90M compromised? After all, it is currently one of the best tanks that can be compared to the Leo A6 or M1A2 Sepv3? Of course, the T-14 outclasses everyone.

so the latest NATO ammo wrote:

Is it the M829A4 ammo?

It is not as simple a situation as knowing what is inside the enemy's armour array and concocting a silver bullet that will simply penetrate it, often a completely new caliber and gun needs to be introduced.

The current 120mm rounds are pretty much at the limit of how much they can be improved, perhaps it could be further optimised against Relikt and maybe even the array behind it aswell, but that does not mean it will be enough to penetrate both at once, it may make vehicles like the T-80BVM more vulnerable though.

It is also very easy for the Russians to replace their current arrays and modify the content of Relikt or fully replace it, ERA is a modular addon by nature, not something inherent to a tanks structure. Simply adding a little bit of DU or HHA and equipping the T-90s with some variation of the T-14's ERA would likely make it resistant to the new 130mm.

Adding a decent APS system and all APFSDS rounds will fail because their penetration performance going sideways will be poor.

The T-90M upgrade was chosen precisely because its the simpler and cheaper one over the competing Burlak upgrade. Further integration of Armata systems would completely defeat the point of a stopgap. The Russians are completely fine with taking some short term hits to their armored force since in exchange they would be securing overmatch for decades with the Armata.

Their strategy was dual focused to upgrade as quickly as possible but also start taking serious steps forward.

Upgrade existing designs as far as practically possible without a complete redesign was one focus expected to actually effect the deployed fleet of weapons quickly and faster than part two which is design from scratch a better system that eliminates the flaws and problems in existing types so you start from a better baseline.

A very smart way of doing things that has led directly to results.

Another feature of their design and planning is to try everything.

In the west they went for composite armour structures and ignored ERA (except Israel) and APS systems (except Israel).

When these things first came out their performance was not amazing, but over time they have been improved and developed so Russia now has tanks with everything... they have electronic EW suite, they have ERA and NERA and had composite armour since the T-64 as well, and of course APS systems.

When the ERA was new it only worked against HEAT rounds but new stuff offers better coverage and is less likely to all blow up and is effective against APFSDS rounds as well, and it keeps getting better while remaining relatively cheap and simple to replace.

APS systems were relatively limited but they have also improved, so combining all the different types of systems and probably a few we don't know about like laser dazzlers and EM jammers for IEDs and even EM systems to set off explosives near the vehicle, and you end up with a much better protected tank than if you tried to use only one or two types of defence.

Add to all of that Nakidka and new types of smoke grenades and you have a potent vehicle that is not so easy to eliminate from the battlefield... with high power long range fire power against ground and air targets.

I guess you are massively overinterpreting the case of compromising.

Again, it is not rocket science.

For the last 60 years, the principal layout of tank protection didn't change much and is based on the very same solutions.
Every single serious tank producer is following very similar concepts, as there is no technological breakthrough.

Inspecting some of the armor packages one can create a specialized penetrator to be effective against this exact species, yet it won't have a huge difference.
And by applying only minor changes to the array, you can disturb the whole process.

As lyle6 said, modern armor is constructed not to resist penetration, but to physically disturb the penetration tool.
But with a 800 mm heavy tungsten rod traveling at 2km/s, not much of voo doo can be applied.

With Arena



https://fips.ru/registers-doc-view/fips_servlet?DB=RUDE&rn=1310&DocNumber=136227&QID=125F504C-11C1-4F06-BD1D-A6AA2AC498C8&TypeFile=html

Source is Sturgeon.

>fitted for but without
Anti-tandem ERA too good, now UVZ is suffering from success. 

Post lyle6 Today at 8:16 pm

>fitted for but without
Anti-tandem ERA too good, now UVZ is suffering from success. Razz

There is one thing more hilarious than that.
If you climb onto M1 ...
And L2A4 ...
And L2A5 ...
And L2PL...
And Ch2...
And Leclerce...
And K2...
Only to figure that those bloody Russkie bastards managed to make a turret profile that is 30% smaller, yet the LOS from the fukin main direction is 30% longer.
If you sneak into it, only to find out the 90s displays, with 256* resolution ... if you are No. 1 superpower
Or 512*, if you are the EU No. 1 eco power ...

And to see a happy faces of the tank commanders, who don't even know the difference for ammo load, as they have three : "sabot", "empat" and "cannister" - and that is all they fukin' gather
Brilliant!

ALAMO wrote:
Only to figure that those bloody Russkie bastards managed to make a turret profile that is 30% smaller, yet the LOS from the fukin main direction is 30% longer.
!

The T-90M turret is just above half the LOS thickness of the newest abrams, granted that with denser arrays it could attain almost as much protection vs KE. This is likely too considering that the west uses low density arrays that are designed primarily to stop HEAT streams rather than APFSDS rounds, but it is still silly to claim that it is 30% thicker, that would put it at 1.3m LOS when in reality it is only around 600mm LOS.

Sure.
Make it 2m.
Because why not.

ALAMO wrote:Sure.
Make it 2m.
Because why not.

You were claiming that the T-90M's array was 30% thicker than that on the abrams, which is utter nonsense even if the T-90M's turret might be as effective. LOS=/=RHAE and even then the T-90M could only achieve 30% greater RHAE with a much denser array likely including DU elements in combination with the ERA.

The LOS thickness of the T90M turret front array is about 550-600mm at its thinnest and 780-900mm at it's thickest.