T-90 Main Battle Tank #2

ALAMO wrote:

Mir wrote:Lets be honest. I can see that a good reverse speed can help you out of certain uncomfortable tactical situations but with the modern age of drones all over the place it's not really going to help much. You will still feel the stinging heat of a Krasnapol up your ass.
Just ask those two Challengers

You can't be serious commenting on that crap bro
The sole reason that  this particular chimp, along with his furry cohabitants is using that, is because it is something that can be, more or less, simply digitized.
Yes, 72 series sucks on reverse - objective thing.
Only 90M finally gets a brand new gearbox with more reverse switch modules.
But 90 had one, too - only not automatic.
And - suprice suprice - all 64s and 80s, had a different gearboxes, with much higher reverse speeds.
It is fukin irrelevant.
Only some bogus to hunt down and spread shit on the base.
Rage in the cages needs some pesticides, that's for sure

This is why I prefer paralay:people there don't get basic specs wrong. T-64 also has 4km/h reverse. The T-90M only has one reverse gear and uses same shitty gearbox as T-72B3. All footage shows it reversing at 4km/h.

Also reverse gear helps with avoiding ATGMs and RPG ambushes, which cause the vast majority of russian tank losses.

Ukrainian T-64 tanks apart from some “unicorns” are even slower reversers than Russian T-72 family tanks due to wear and tear and bad condition of their gearboxes. Paper statistics is one thing, what maintenance and condition of their equipment in reality is another thing. Ukrainian tankists themselves talk about it.

Just like hermes and koalitsiya was supposed to saturate the battlefield?

You can't fault them for not being ready for service yet, they are new systems and if you throw new systems into service without proper testing you end up with the shit the west has in service not properly tested except against natives trying to protect their land from the space marines that are the US.

How could the gunner have delayed the ignition of the rocket motor?

They're not shot out of the barrel, they don't have a powder charge; rather they're simply ejected out of the barrel as the rocket ignites and does the rest.

It seems more likely that the long range kill was achieved with a new propellant/updated missile.
Or perhaps the 5000m range was just a very conservative specification from the beginning, or misinformation. It's in any case common to design and construct systems for 30% above tolerance or specification, in any field of engineering. 30% above 5000m is 6500m, which is even greater than what we saw in the video, so it's quite plausible.

Later model Kornet ATGMs have increased their range by 60% on top of carrying a heavier warhead. Reflex-M is based on the same technology.

flamming_python wrote:How could the gunner have delayed the ignition of the rocket motor?

They're not shot out of the barrel, they don't have a powder charge; rather they're simply ejected out of the barrel as the rocket ignites and does the rest.

It seems more likely that the long range kill was achieved with a new propellant/updated missile.
Or perhaps the 5000m range was just a very conservative specification from the beginning, or misinformation. It's in any case common to design and construct systems for 30% above tolerance or specification, in any field of engineering. 30% above 5000m is 6500m, which is even greater than what we saw in the video, so it's quite plausible.

Actually, those do have a propellant charge, only a very small one. It is responsible only for ejecting the missile out of a barrel. The engine ignites outside the barrel only.

The description and speculation was not exactly sensible in my opinion.

The system uses a laser to point at the target, but the control system is not on the tank, it is in the missile.

The Tank does not tell the missile what to do other than pointing a laser in the direction of the target.

For such a long range shot I would think the laser might be aimed several dozen metres or even hundred metres above the target so the missile flies high so it clears trees and wires and fences etc and should also allow it to travel further, but I also suspect improvements in lasers and optics on the tank would allow it to precisely mark the target to much greater ranges.

The missile likely also has better propellent and could possibly be made lighter with more compact and lighter electronics to further improve performance with more room for rocket fuel.

After being fired the missile looks back at the launch tank and detects the laser beam and finds its position inside that beam.

A better way to describe it would be four lasers each of a different frequency, so lets use visible light frequencies and say top left is red and top right is blue and bottom left is green and bottom right is yellow. There is no colour mixing so the missile looking back seeing all four colours knows it is flying down the beam of the laser and that is all it knows and cares about. If it looks back and the laser is red it knows it is high and to the left of the target so the missile itself will turn to the right and downwards slightly. If it then sees red and blue then it knows it is aligned with the target but that it is flying high so it will stop turning right and keep descending till it sees green and yellow. When it sees all four colours it knows it is in the centre of the beam and it will stop turning and stop climbing or descending.

Of course the tank will be aiming the lasers high till the missile gets within about 1km of the target or less and then it will drop the laser down onto the target so the missile will see the change and manouver to remain in the centre of the laser beam.

The missile does all the work and processing but is not looking at the target so smoke and lasers wont effect the missile till it hits the smoke. The lasers being used can be 10,000 times less powerful than Semi Active Laser Homing lasers used to put a laser spot on the target for a laser homing missile to hit.

This missile is not a laser homing missile, it is a laser beam riding missile so the target can be shiny or dull and it can be any colour because the missile does not need to see a laser reflection from the target and the laser only travels to the target.

For a laser beam riding missile a 7km target means the laser travels 7km at most. For SALH the laser has to travel to the target and reflect back off the target so the missile you launch can detect it so a 7km shot would mean the laser sensor in your missile would see the laser going 7km to the target and reflect back 7kms so the laser travels 14km from a surface that might be dark and dull that absorbs light and does not reflect it well.

Tuning a laser warning system to detect the laser from a laser beam riding missile means even low powered laser emissions like reflections from your own laser range finders will set it off leading to lots of false warnings and to it normally being turned off.

The propellent stub for launching these beam riding missiles seems to have a small propellent charge with a big spring and effectively wadding to blow the missile down the tube but at a fraction of the energy and speed of a normal round.

ALAMO wrote:

flamming_python wrote:How could the gunner have delayed the ignition of the rocket motor?

They're not shot out of the barrel, they don't have a powder charge; rather they're simply ejected out of the barrel as the rocket ignites and does the rest.

It seems more likely that the long range kill was achieved with a new propellant/updated missile.
Or perhaps the 5000m range was just a very conservative specification from the beginning, or misinformation. It's in any case common to design and construct systems for 30% above tolerance or specification, in any field of engineering. 30% above 5000m is 6500m, which is even greater than what we saw in the video, so it's quite plausible.

Actually, those do have a propellant charge, only a very small one. It is responsible only for ejecting the missile out of a barrel. The engine ignites outside the barrel only.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Some wider perspective :





Do you see the antenna right back of the turret top? It is a drone radio channel suppression system. Like we have two parallel anti drone jammers on hand.

Do you see the antenna right back of the turret top? It is a drone radio channel suppression system. Like we have two parallel anti drone jammers on hand.

Looking at that image I would say both vehicles have three antenna sticking up out of the turret and from left to right the left most looks like the jammer antenna and the very long whip aerial is probably the communications aerial while the remaining aerial near the communications aerial appears to be the weather sensor with air pressure and wind direction and speed sensors.

Just a shame there is no mast mounted optics as shown on upgraded T-62s... but I guess drones probably perform that role.

Knowing the Russians I would think the antenna for jamming drones would also be used to communicate with friendly drones too or not?

Looking face-on, from the right you have FCS weather sensors, a communication antenna, and an ECM emitter.

https://t.me/milinfolive/107313

Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Oleg Salyukov reported on the pages of Krasnaya Zvezda that new Telnik shells have begun to be used in T-90M tanks.

The 3OF82 "Telnik" tank fragmentation-beam projectile is ammunition with ready-made submunitions, which is capable of being detonated at the required point when approaching the target, and you can choose the direction of expansion of the GGE - forward in a cone or a circular field.

Such shells make it very effective to hit infantry entrenched in trenches or lying in fields, which is extremely difficult to reach with a direct hit from a “classic” tank shell.

Similar ammunition with remote detonation has long been needed for our infantry fighting vehicles and air defense missile systems in 30-mm calibers, both for similar tasks of hitting hidden and lying infantry, and for more effective combat against UAVs.

The 3OF82 fragmentation shell has a multimode fuze with proximity/time/point/point-delay action.

The proximity mode is key here since it allows the shell to detonate at the perfect distance to the target for optimum dispersal of pre-formed Tungsten fragments.

Which makes it perfect for taking down targets equipped with APS, as the significant stand-off distance makes it impossible for most effectors to intercept before detonation, and when it does it will be raining 450 pieces of shotgun slug sized heavy metal fragments that can knock out exposed systems with ease.

So first you fire off a 3OF82 to strip their APS curtain and blind their sensors and then while they're still wondering what the hell just happened you finish them off with a 3BM69 to the face.

Nice.

So I am guessing it is not command detonated?

It lists its fusing options as proximity (which is interesting meaning it can be used against air targets), time, so at a given range, point (impact) and point-delay action (delayed impact fuse to explode inside a light structure like a building or soft vehicle).

That sounds pretty useful, the fusing system allows it to act like a claymore mine or AHEAD shell directing the fragments forward in a shotgun like blast or like a conventional bomb with fragments going in all directions.

Nice.

So first you fire off a 3OF82 to strip their APS curtain and blind their sensors and then while they're still wondering what the hell just happened you finish them off with a 3BM69 to the face.

That might work but I still think hitting them with APFSDS rounds to kill them with the first shot makes more sense and these sorts of rounds would be better for air targets or enemy troops n the open or in trenches.

GarryB wrote:Nice.

So I am guessing it is not command detonated?

It lists its fusing options as proximity (which is interesting meaning it can be used against air targets), time, so at a given range, point (impact) and point-delay action (delayed impact fuse to explode inside a light structure like a building or soft vehicle).

That sounds pretty useful, the fusing system allows it to act like a claymore mine or AHEAD shell directing the fragments forward in a shotgun like blast or like a conventional bomb with fragments going in all directions.

Nice.

Command detonation is not really an option without radars. You need very accurate range information of both the target and the projectile in real time - the laser rangefinder is not very good on very small and very fast moving objects.

GarryB wrote:
That might work but I still think hitting them with APFSDS rounds to kill them with the first shot makes more sense and these sorts of rounds would be better for air targets or enemy troops n the open or in trenches.

I'm assuming that NATO MBTs would eventually have hardkill APS like Afghanit that can intercept subcaliber arrows. Safer to assume the opfor is competent and not have have hubris **** you over.

Regarding the range of the kill in the video posted above, 6830 m, the cross hairs and the target do not overlap. I will assume the
range meter is tuned to the cross hair location. So what we see is target closer to the tank than the cross hair aligned point.

caveat emptor wrote:https://t.me/milinfolive/107313

Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Oleg Salyukov reported on the pages of Krasnaya Zvezda that new Telnik shells have begun to be used in T-90M tanks.

The 3OF82 "Telnik" tank fragmentation-beam projectile is ammunition with ready-made submunitions, which is capable of being detonated at the required point when approaching the target, and you can choose the direction of expansion of the GGE - forward in a cone or a circular field.

Such shells make it very effective to hit infantry entrenched in trenches or lying in fields, which is extremely difficult to reach with a direct hit from a “classic” tank shell.

Similar ammunition with remote detonation has long been needed for our infantry fighting vehicles and air defense missile systems in 30-mm calibers, both for similar tasks of hitting hidden and lying infantry, and for more effective combat against UAVs.

Wow, it took them what, 11 years to actually give a tank fired timed sirburst round to tanks, 1  year into a trench war? Potbelly mod boomer priorities are either retarded, or the russians are too incompetent to get a simple timed airburst round, which is much simpler than radar proximity fuses, to perform reliably in a timely manner.

https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/army-xm1223-multi-mode-proximity-airburst-round/ @limb if you are going to shitpost do a proper job.

Command detonation is not really an option without radars.

Radars would be most effective and might be used on something like the 2S38 vehicle or something, but considering one of the uses is against drones which might have a tiny RCS that renders such a system less effective I still think the idea has merit.

For time fusing the shells (as opposed to proximity fuse) you have to estimate the flight time to the target to set the time for the fuse to set off the explosive, so essentially what you do is you range the target... these days with a laser normally, so the computer on the vehicle knows the muzzle velocity of the shell and its drag and calculates the flight time to the target, which the gunner might modify... for instance if you are lasing a wall or barrier that enemy troops are hiding behind you might add a couple of metres to the range to the wall and then raise the gun to shoot just over top of the wall and fire so the shell explodes past the wall above the enemy troops (which might be watched by a drone to ensure you are not wasting a shell).

With a command detonated shell you can still do all the same calculations but this time the counting system can be on the platform firing the shell so you can spend a small fortune and get the most accurate timer you can afford at the time to send the detonation command at the most precise moment when it should be passing the target or have the target lined up or whatever.

The point is that the precision of the timer is critical to the effectiveness of the round and because you are observing the engagement you can see if it explodes early or late and correct that for the next shot... the point is that the timing system can be more expensive and more accurate and also more precise... a timer counting in four decimal places for fractions of a second gives you more flexibility in where your shell explodes than a shell with only two decimal places for fractions of a second.

For targets with little or no RCS or heat signature can still be lased and attacked and it means the round you are firing doesn't have a super expensive timing system in it... just a signal receiver to tell it when to explode.

For an air defence vehicle like the 2S38 I would say LIDAR might be better for detecting and tracking drones with small RCS and low IR signatures, but I would also say radar and IIR systems should also be used to detect targets too.

The combination of different systems with their results combined will be vastly more effective and efficient than any single system on its own.

I'm assuming that NATO MBTs would eventually have hardkill APS like Afghanit that can intercept subcaliber arrows.

I absolutely agree, but having other options or using different tactics for something they haven't got yet is a bit wasteful.

A cheap simple dumb artillery rocket with a flight range from 500km to about 2,000km with a decent warhead and terminal guidance makes sense, but also of course make versions of Iskander with similar range that can penetrate enemy air defences when needed too.

For most enemies you wont need the sophisticated missiles and where you do you can use them to take out their defences which means then you can use the cheaper simpler missiles for a much wider range of targets that can no longer defend themselves.

I think it would be rather interesting to test these new shells against mockups of western APS systems... they have versions of Krasnopol that can be carried and dropped by drones as a guided bomb... having a proximity fused shell like this you can drop on a tank with forward directed fragments like an AHEAD round would be interesting for hitting the top surface of western tanks. The upper front hull of the Abrams tank is very thin and is really only effective because it has a very shallow angle to line of sight weapons... a round coming down vertically should penetrate that protection very very easily, so PTAB 2.5 munitions would be very effective against the front hull and the turret top and the turret bustle top where the ammo is and of course that engine deck with that jet engine burning hot...

Regarding the range of the kill in the video posted above, 6830 m, the cross hairs and the target do not overlap. I will assume the
range meter is tuned to the cross hair location. So what we see is target closer to the tank than the cross hair aligned point.

I doubt the laser is continuously used as it would give the tanks position away... they are normally in the 950nm range which makes them visible in modern night vision equipment these days. I rather suspect the target was lased at 6.83km which appeared on the display and would not be replaced until another target was lased.

Wow, it took them what, 11 years to actually give a tank fired timed sirburst round to tanks,

No. they have had ANIET for some time but the timers were not amazingly precise so they were not exactly pinpoint accurate.

1 year into a trench war?

Getting it into service faster and having it not work because it was not properly tested is better how?

Potbelly mod boomer priorities are either retarded, or the russians are too incompetent to get a simple timed airburst round, which is much simpler than radar proximity fuses, to perform reliably in a timely manner.

Actually the opposite is true... a radar proximity fuse is basic... a module sends a radio frequency signal... it is not a scanned radar beam by any means... that radio pulse bounces off solid objects and as you get closer to that solid object the reflected signal becomes stronger. Most of the time the power of the shell is used to determine what strength of radio signal return for the shell to fuse and explode... a big powerful shell can be set to explode further away from targets than smaller shells... but most of the time they can be adjusted in the field for bigger or smaller targets.

With a tiny drone there might never be enough radio signal reflected from the target to activate the proximity fuse so you would probably have to rely on a timed fuse instead.

In comparison an electronic timer needs to be incredibly precise... if the enemy are hunkered down in a trench that is half a metre wide you pretty much have to detonate directly above for your fragments to reach down to the bottom of the trench to kill people lying there... after travelling 2-3km with cross winds and different temperatures and humidities getting that shell to explode in the perfect place means you will need to get accuracy or precision of four or more decimal places for your seconds measuring timer to even have a chance.

That is not cheap and because it is in the shell you fired it gets destroyed with every shot.

Moving targets are even more difficult and the claymore feature of these shells will make that more effective because a HE shell that blows forward a shotgun blast of fragments and a supersonic blast wave that just has to explode 5-10m in front of the target makes things much easier.

T-90M tanks used new Telnik shells during a special operation, by Alexey Moiseev for Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 10.02.2023.

Russian T-90M tanks operating in the special military operation zone have received modern ammunition, allowing them to carry out all combat missions assigned to them.

In his interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper , the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Army General Oleg Salyukov, mentioned the new Telnik high-explosive fragmentation shells. They have ready-made submunitions and are detonated in the air at specified trajectory points.

This weapon is very effective against enemy personnel, in particular operators of American-made FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank guided systems.

According to military experts, in the near future such equipment will become a mandatory attribute of all main battle tanks.

Back in the 90s, the T-90 and T-80UK began to be equipped with the Ainet complex, designed to perform similar tasks. However, "Telnik" is significantly superior to it in efficiency.

Also, domestic heavy tracked vehicles have guided missiles launched through the barrels of 125-mm guns with tandem warheads designed to destroy tanks equipped with dynamic protection. Thus, recently the T-90M destroyed an enemy object located at a distance of more than 6800 meters.

https://rg.ru/2023/10/02/tanki-t-90m-primenili-novye-snariady-telnik-v-hode-specoperacii.html

Interesting details.
Telnik can be operated only by T-90M at the moment, as no other tank has the programming module and required features of the FCS.
It carries 5,5 kg of prefabricated shrapnel.
That is A LOT.
Shocking lot for the ammo size, actually not sure if someone is not mixing the overall weight of the explosive material.
It is +/- 6 kg for 3OF26 round.