Russia’s T-90 tank - winner or loser?

[XTREME]

WHEN Moscow launched its massive State Armament Programme (SAP), covering the period 2011-20, a big question mark was raised over whether its military industries were good enough to meet the new demands.

The answer appears to be divided – especially when it comes to building tanks.

Emphasis in the 23 trillion rubles (US$741 million) programme was placed on upgrading the nuclear deterrent and the air force.

New ballistic missiles and a new generation of Borei class ballistic missile submarines will be built. Around 1,000 helicopters and 600 new aircraft - including the Sukhoi PAK-FA fifth generation fighter, with stealth capability – are promised.

However, the SAP also calls for a substantial upgrading of ground forces, including the delivery of some 2,300 tanks. This is where the question of technological standards becomes important.

Plans for a fourth generation main battle tank, the T-95, had been in the works since 2000, but when the SAP was launched, the military cancelled that project.

Orders were instead placed for continued deliveries of the T-90 tank, an upgrade of the classic T-72, which does not have a distinguished service record. It was overwhelmed by American Abrams tanks in the Iraq war.

In summer 2011, Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced a five-year moratorium on state orders for the T-90.

And in November 2011, General Nikolai Makarov, the chief of general staff, publicly called the T-90 ‘out of date’, claiming that its gun had barely half the range of the comparable Israeli Merkava MK4.

Following the subsequent dismissal, in November 2012, of both Mr Serdyukov and General Makarov, the airing of open criticism of Russian weapons has ceased.

But the core question remains the one asked by a Western industry analyst writing about the problems of Russian auto production: ’If the country can make really good tanks, why can’t they make quite a competitive car?’

Perhaps the answer is that Russian manufacturers no longer make very good tanks, either.

In the cases of civilian aviation and car making, the solution has been to engage in cooperation with Western companies.

But that is surely not going to happen with Russian tanks.

Prototype testing of a new, lighter T-99 ‘Armata’ tank will begin in 2013. Meanwhile, the Russian ground forces will have to make do with what they are given - upgraded versions of an outdated design.

Just how well the T-90 would perform in combat against Western-made rivals will hopefully never be known. But the brief period of public controversy did highlight important shortcomings of the Russian defence industry, ranging from inflated prices and poor quality to high-level political protection.

That protection has now been restored – which does not bode well for future quality.

Russia’s T-90 tank - winner or loser? | World Review - Russia

 

[BLACKEAGLE]

Since it's based on T-72, it inherited some of it's design flaws, a very good tank but it's no match to the American M1A2 or German Leopard 2A6 or British Challenger 2 or French Lecrec. Russians themselves are not satisfied with it, so that's why they have been trying to make a tank with a revoutionary design but failed so far. Moreover, Russia Settle for getting a couple hundreds of T-90 and upgrading the existing fleet of T-80 and 72 until they develop a new tank.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

T-90 tank-Winner or loser?Let's see.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"-Jane's

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design.Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
t-90M .

On the new composite welded turret of the t-90m BHISMA/vladimir [not the basic t-90s export version]-
In several tests conducted in front of Indian delegation using latest foreign ammunitions (APFSDS) of the M829A2/KEW-A2 type conducted from 250 meters against T-90S devoid of the normal built-in explosive reactive armor (ERA) Kontakt-5 (K-5) resulted in the turret being completely impenetrable. This absolute resiliency to enemy fire resulted at the end, as one of the most crucial selling point for T-90 Bhishma MBT to India

Now the 1300 odd t-90m of IA come equipped with RELIKT/KAKTUS.Try punching through that with ukrainian/local/ guns or new chinese guns which are mostly copy of 24a6 .Also LEDS150 APS system fitted.

These were upgrades done on basic t-90s model for IA to make T-90M bhisma.
Indian t-90s would be outfitted with
Swedish LEDS-150 APS,
Kaktus ERA,
israeli designed enhanced environmental cooling system,
Catherine-FC Gen-3 thermal imager,
Matis-STD thermal imager,
52-cal 2A46M-5 Rapira smoothbore barrel with muzzle reference system,
1,000hp V-92S2 diesel engine,
1A43 system gunner's sight *** laser finder,
1G46 Peleng day sight,
9S517 missile guidance module for refleks atgm,
1V528-1 ballistics computer,
DVE-BS meteorological sensor
licensed copy of elbit and tadiran's digitised battlespace management system & radio communications suite,
indigenous gyrobased nav system
RPZ-86M anti-radar paint coating.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

India lately also ordered 354 latest T-90MS TAGIL for chinese border taking total number of t-90 to 2011.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Armour improvements on t-90MS.Some were available in t-90m as well.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Interior of a t-90ms.Does it look anything like a soviet low tech tank?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Special MODULAR composite and relikt ERA packages,these will/can be applied to t-90m as well.Skat cage armour too.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Seperate compartment for AMMO.Plus APS system.IA uses LEDS-150 instead of shtora-1 or arena.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Check completely redesigned turret with angular arrowshaped armour on the t-90ms.The armour is modular composite with outer layer being KAKTUS K-6 latest ERA.
Now Considering russia also operates around 1000 t-90 don't see how its a loser.Especially alos since other countries have imported it too except india.

 

[Beast]

The seperated compartment addtional ammo is useless for autoloader since rounds already need to standby in the gun compartment in order for autoloader system to work.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The seperated compartment addtional ammo is useless for autoloader since rounds already need to standby in the gun compartment in order for autoloader system to work.

No its not,its far better than just dumping extra rounds on the floor which could explode in case of any small penetration.This keeps the extra rounds away from the crew's danger zone.

 

[Thirdfront]

The simple fact that 40 ton category tank is being compared to a 60 ton one should tell something...

 

[ptldM3]

The simple fact that 40 ton category tank is being compared to a 60 ton one should tell something...

It's over 52 tons. The weight of the tank is not always an indicator of armor protection. The T-90 weighs less because it is a compact design, the tank is literally smaller and crew compartments are less roomy as those spacious 60+ ton tanks.

The turret protection of the T-90 is estimated at over 900mm against Sabot rounds. The T-90 has been hit with Western M829A2 120mm rounds, and supposedly one tank sustained 7RPG hits in combat, neither time was the tank penetrated.

 

[Super Falcon]

well for me it is abram killer

 

[Koovie]

This tank has a low profile and can receive a decent amount of damage without falling into pieces.

During the Chechen wars several T 90s were hammered from all sides by RPGs and managed to survive these attacks.

One tank was even hit by 7 RPGs and managed to come back to base safely on its own power.

Meanwhile there are even reports of Iraqi insurgents who managed to knock our Abrams tanks with one RPG (it did not penetrate completely but killed its power).

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

This tank has a low profile and can receive a decent amount of damage without falling into pieces.

During the Chechen wars several T 90s were hammered from all sides by RPGs and managed to survive these attacks.

One tank was even hit by 7 RPGs and managed to come back to base safely on its own power.

Meanwhile there are even reports of Iraqi insurgents who managed to knock our Abrams tanks with one RPG (it did not penetrate completely but killed its power).

Meanwhile in chechnya,the t-80 performed horribly.Hundreds were destroyed,and its fuel consumption totally hampered logistics.Things were so bad that after the war,russian armour ministry recommeneded NEVER to build atank with gas turbine engien again.One of the reasons why project 640 black eagle recieved no additional funding as it was based on t-80 design.
The abrams that was knocked out got hit in rear by a rpg-29 very advanced rpg.That can happen to any tank.

 

[jhungary]

When you talk about Tank, judging how good, or bad, a tank is, you always go for a 3 point matrixes. - Armour, Gun and Agility.

When you talk about Armour, it's important for anyone to see NOT ONLY the RHA value (Or RHA equivalence) But also where the armour is inserted and how it shape to protect the crew. But most importantly the composition of the armour. With Direct hit and side hit, how quick you can rebuild an armour belt or how quickly you can replace the armour block etc.

When you talk about the Gun, it's not just the old rifled vs smoothbore talk, you also need to look at reloading system, firing control and fire solution computer is also compared as well as Gun range and accuracy, rounds that fire and rounds safety.

When you talk about Agility, not only speed was considered. You also need to put into account the incline angle, traverse speed, stopping distance, reverse speed and most of all, off road speed.

Well, how you want to think T-90 is up to anyone imagination, I only saw a T-90 once and did not climb on board, I personally did not see whatever test they done to the T-90. But I can say this for sure.

US does not use M829A2 rounds for ages, we changed to A3 rounds in 2003.
Depend on which type of ammunition in used with both 30 mike-mike, cannot say if the test they done is conform with the actual munitions we use in the US.
7 RPG Rounds hit could be something but again depend on where you get hit from.

Basically I will still rooting for Abrams instead of T-90, Abrams may not be very good at armour complexity but I believe it is the only tank that can fire accurate rounds when moving with its top speed, off road (Until 2006) no other country can do that, not even with German Leopard 2.

But then I am not going to say T-90 is rubbish. Just I would probably more incline to get in n Abrams and fight than get in a T-90.

This is just some personal thought, by no mean coming of anything.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

When you talk about Tank, judging how good, or bad, a tank is, you always go for a 3 point matrixes. - Armour, Gun and Agility.

When you talk about Armour, it's important for anyone to see NOT ONLY the RHA value (Or RHA equivalence) But also where the armour is inserted and how it shape to protect the crew. But most importantly the composition of the armour. With Direct hit and side hit, how quick you can rebuild an armour belt or how quickly you can replace the armour block etc.

When you talk about the Gun, it's not just the old rifled vs smoothbore talk, you also need to look at reloading system, firing control and fire solution computer is also compared as well as Gun range and accuracy, rounds that fire and rounds safety.

When you talk about Agility, not only speed was considered. You also need to put into account the incline angle, traverse speed, stopping distance, reverse speed and most of all, off road speed.

Well, how you want to think T-90 is up to anyone imagination, I only saw a T-90 once and did not climb on board, I personally did not see whatever test they done to the T-90. But I can say this for sure.

US does not use M829A2 rounds for ages, we changed to A3 rounds in 2003.
Depend on which type of ammunition in used with both 30 mike-mike, cannot say if the test they done is conform with the actual munitions we use in the US.
7 RPG Rounds hit could be something but again depend on where you get hit from.

Basically I will still rooting for Abrams instead of T-90, Abrams may not be very good at armour complexity but I believe it is the only tank that can fire accurate rounds when moving with its top speed, off road (Until 2006) no other country can do that, not even with German Leopard 2.

But then I am not going to say T-90 is rubbish. Just I would probably more incline to get in n Abrams and fight than get in a T-90.

This is just some personal thought, by no mean coming of anything.

Excellent post.Ya i think abrams has slight advantage even over latest t-90ms mainly because of firepower,i would protection is equal and speed t-90 has slight advantage.But in penetration is more imp than mobility so i give advantgae to abrams even over late t-90ms.Otherwise russians wouldn't be developing armata.
Given the cost/weight difference,that by no means makes t-90 a 'failure' as thread tries to portray,ostensibly a indirect barb at the indian army tank force.
In indo-pak-china scenario t-90 is about as good as anything coz there are no abrams or leopard here.

 

[Kompromat]

@500

Do you still have the pictures of pierced armored plates of the T-90s?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

@500

Do you still have the pictures of pierced armored plates of the T-90s?

Far as i know t-90 only participated in second chechen war which was crushing russian victory.No t-90A has ever been destroyed in combat.
However hundreds of t-80u were decimated in chechnya and also had massive logistics issue.It was so bad all gas turbine tank projects were abandoned,and no t-80 tanks were used in second chechen war or invasion of georgia.
So i'm quite pleased with the choice we made.

 

[GR!FF!N]

It's over 52 tons. The weight of the tank is not always an indicator of armor protection. The T-90 weighs less because it is a compact design, the tank is literally smaller and crew compartments are less roomy as those spacious 60+ ton tanks.

The turret protection of the T-90 is estimated at over 900mm against Sabot rounds. The T-90 has been hit with Western M829A2 120mm rounds, and supposedly one tank sustained 7RPG hits in combat, neither time was the tank penetrated.

well,I'd not mention RPG hits to show the capability of Tank armour as most of the time,RPG can't penetrate the modern tank's armour.there are reports that in Iraq(Basra) one Challenger 2 took many RPG hits(report said 70,but it might be exaggerated) and survived.you should mention its performance against ATGM and Anti Tank rounds.