T-90

[mechastalin 0]

If you ask me all will be as it was in OFP where you couldnt simulate era.

Dont think theres any ArmA vehicle that has anything like a additional protection in its config so no clue where we would get a example of how to do it if its even possible.

Custom armor selections with very high values that are deleted on contact.

[Guest]

Very nice work. Looking very good.

Looking forward to some progress shots

[Törni 0]

Quote[/b] ]Custom armor selections with very high values that are deleted on contact.

Interestingly there is little something called "damage resistance" which made appearance since 1.07 betas to BIS model configs.

[LordNeuro*Serbia* 0]

Great thing. I cant weit to u put this to raid.

And hire is the vid of t90. The maschine is evil. And i think is the supirior then the m1a1.

http://www.rusarmy.com/video/bronetech3/video_brone.htm

Keep up the good work.

[Commando84 0]

sweet looking model, i wish i was that good at modeling

im trying to learn but stuff like that takes time :P

cant wait to have something that puts up a decent fight agains the m1a1's

[BraTTy 0]

On the topic of era

Also have the problem of blast radius.For example in OFP someone wanted to make a bunker that would protect soldiers inside.

Have the problem of a bombs blast radius maybe 10 or 20 meters

You wouldn't be able to save the soldiers inside.

Don't quote me yet as I haven't further checked Armas scripting commands

[mechastalin 0]

On the topic of era

Also have the problem of blast radius.For example in OFP someone wanted to make a bunker that would protect soldiers inside.

Have the problem of a bombs blast radius maybe 10 or 20 meters

You wouldn't be able to save the soldiers inside.

Don't quote me yet as I haven't further checked Armas scripting commands

Check the nuke addon thread, I think somebody managed to get past this with a bunker.

[HamishUK 0]

iirc a smooth bore loses its velocity quicker then a rifled gun, therefore less Penetration

about the m1, i though the L/44 was rifled??? i guess i was wrong

Also i don't know the weight of the M1A1 but the T-90 is about 50 tons, which is way less then the 65-70 ton beasts of Nato(leopard, Chally, M1A2),that extra weight is Armour

The only major NATO tank with a rifled gun I can think of is the Challenger.

And the weight isnt pure armor, I remember early T-80s had comparable armor to early M1s against SABOT rounds but the T-80 weighed far less. But the big thing with Russian tanks in ERA which can completely deflect a SABOT round and makes most HEAT rounds nearly useless.

The current M829A3 Sabot was designed to pierce the current Kontakt-5 armour with little problem at effective range. Also Kontakt-5 only covers 60% of the T-90's front arc.

Kaktus is Russia's 'claim' to have superseded Kontakt-5 but has only been seen mounted on the 'Black-Eagle' prototype tank and even then has not been seen since the company that manufactured the Black Eagle went bankrupt in 2002.

T-90 is currently armed with Kontakt-5 on recent exercise photos. Not to say that Kaktus does not exist but with the current cost cutting being employed by Russia on it's military expenditure and poor maintanence pool I doubt that Kaktus will appear in any great number anytime soon.

As for Armour the T-90 does use composite armour but lacks crew survavivility with ammunition not being stored in blow out panels. The T-90 is a modernised T-72 by all accounts and design. Her armour although an improvement is still no way near the Challengers or Abrams armour levels. The Indian army has already passed on a T-90S Bhishma to the US Army for evaluation.

Soviet doctrine is still one of speed and manpower over technology. Something that has changed very little since WWII and served them so well in their huge country.

[H00t74 0]

Commando84 check out 3dbuzz.com. They have some GREAT VTMs on Modelling and a great community.

[BlackScorpion 0]

iirc a smooth bore loses its velocity quicker then a rifled gun, therefore less Penetration

about the m1, i though the L/44 was rifled??? i guess i was wrong

Also i don't know the weight of the M1A1 but the T-90 is about 50 tons, which is way less then the 65-70 ton beasts of Nato(leopard, Chally, M1A2),that extra weight is Armour

Most modern tanks use mainly APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) rounds nowadays, which are basically arrows, few kg metallic ones. Due to the lenght-diameter ratio of the projectile rifling would provide little or no advantage, and thus isn't used. Brits use mainly HESH rounds IIRC so they still got the rifled gun. Dunno how rifling affects velocity if the stabilizing effect is not considered, after all it somewhat provides a way for the gasses to escape. Not that much, though, it's mainly to prevent the round from tumbling.

As far as I know Russian tanks are somewhat small. While lacking the uranium plates Abrams has, T-90 still has the ERA which apparently has somewhat a Chobham/layer effect and is, to some extent, effective against both kinetic and explosive rounds. Hard to tell when they haven't been put into combat with equally trained crews.

[m1013828 0]

gotta love HESH! sorry I didnt have anything more intelligent to add, but the only tracked vehicle in service in my country is the wheelbarrow Mk8!

[343rdBadger 0]

Whats the status of this puppy??

[tpM 478]

about 90%

[MehMan 0]

Got any screenshots or renders?

[tpM 478]

At the moment no :\

I maybe post some in the next days

[Baff1 0]

Soviet doctrine is still one of speed and manpower over technology. Something that has changed very little since WWII and served them so well in their huge country.

Right......

So no Sukohoi's

No laser guided artillery

No Foxbats

No nuclear submarines

No ICBM's.

No SAM's, no Strella's

No AK-47's

No T34's

No JS 1's.

JS-2's were the most advanced tanks of WW2.

NATO doctrine is that through superior equipment they could fight a Soviet force 8 times their number.

"The troops you will be fighting are all old men and children".

Nuclear weapons were the equaliser nothing but nukes.

NATO forces have had a significant tech disadvantage to Soviet on many fronts.

Most especially the tank.

Tech adavantages don't last, they are consistently superceded.

Chobham armour mimics the Soviet design.

Abrams armour is predominantly just rolled steel with a Chobam bit added to the front turret around the main gun when it was updated to 120 mm.

The 120mm maingun has been abandoned by the British for the Challenger tanks because it was deemed to small to be effective against the T80.

While the Americans may have had a lok at the T90, they have not yet had the opportunity to refit and redesign their armour to counter any of it's improvements.

The Soviets on the otherhand have also seen the M1 Abrahms and have twice since completely redesigned, refitted and replaced their tanks to counter it.

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

Are you suggesting the Challenger is no longer fitted with a 120mm maingun? As far as I know, just about all Western tanks utilize a 120mm maingun, and it has yet to be proven that it cannot defeat any current or proposed Russian MBT.

If given the choice of having to operate a modern Western MBT or the Russian equivilant, I'd choose the Western MBT without hesitation. There's ample reason to assume the Western weapon and armor combination will prevail over the Russian tank- and if that's not enough, there's the additional factors of tactical intelligence, net-centric warfare, training and crew skill, logistics, and support.

Besides, the simple fact is, the Russian tanker shouldn't be worried about the enemy's tank. He should be worried about all the types of advanced robotic anti-armor weapons that will be launched in swarms against his tank by the West's aircraft and artillery, long before he even sees a Western tank.

As inexpensive as the Russian's best MBT is in comparison to the best of the West, smart anti-armor weapons are cheaper and far more plentiful. A single cluster bomb/missile/shell like the WCMD, SFW, JSOW, LOCAAS, and ATACMs can devour an entire tank column's worth of armor with a single attack. One B-52, B-1, or B-2 fully loaded with WCMD, or SFW could effectively wipe out an entire tank battalion with one sortie.

Realistically speaking, the most effective, and safest use of heavy armor these days, is to employ them against an enemy that doesn't possess a massive array of advanced anti-armor weapons.

[LordNeuro*Serbia* 0]

Yes but the problem is the b52 or any ader plane need too get the t 9o. Dont forget thet the nato and us doctrine is a air superiority, but the Russia have the air and anty air power too stop the us and nato forces. And then is all on tanks crew, ther expirence and there knolig of there maschins.

[VIPER SHIVA 0]

Once again, the West has proven it's capability of penetrating dense air defenses, destroying those air defenses from stand-off range, thus allowing the heavy bombers to attack with relative impunity.

Using low-observable aircraft, unmanned platforms, and cruise missiles, there are no known cost-effective defenses against that kind of attack.

Cruise missiles, stealth, and offensive electronic countermeasures defeats the SAMs and radar. Low-observable fighters defeat the MiGs and Sukhoi interceptors, And stand-off range attack munitions, and ARMs defeat the short-range/low-altitude systems.

Wash, rinse, and repeat until air superiority/dominance is achieved. These are not unpracticed, immature tactics and technology- the West has gotten VERY good at this power projection game. One might argue that this is what they do best.

One must assume that a number of aircraft and missiles WILL get through, and eventually, they will knock out the air defense network. So, that means the tanks themselves must be made more survivable versus the inevitable horde of weaponry that will be sent to kill it.

The tanks can be up-armored, and upgraded with defensive technologies that may lessen the impact of anti-armor attacks, but then the tanks become larger, heavier, more complicated, and MUCH more expensive.

So, in conclusion, all the effort to produce and field world-beating MBT's, can only be achieved at very great cost, with the inevitable result of diminishing returns for the enormous national investment required.

[Panda-PL- 0]

The model looks very cool. But I think modelling rivets etc. is an overkill, you need something to put in normal maps.

It's going to look very kickass.

Well, T72 was ment to be beast. The russians scared NATO to death. IT was supposed to be fast, low silhuette, well armoured and deadly armed. And it was... in a way. Low silhuette became a problem when the time came to mount an engine, low horsepower is a wraith of T72 and any derivatves.

Challanger might be heavy but still maintatins good power-to-weight ratio, just like Abrams.

The turret is one of smallest ever, totally different from Abrams. The tankers have to be short to fit in.

And the deadly equipment was a bit not safe to work with. The autoloader ment a round was pushed trougth cabin, which brougth a risk - should the round miss the gun chamber it will be squashed and detonate. And due to small space inside the turret the gunner had to be extra carefull for the round and loader arm not to grabb his uniform on the way.

Yup, low crew survivability. T72 was known as the first ever tank with ejection seats .

Well, I am 182cm high, I just couldn't fit into the turret, so no matter what wonders T90 has to offer the fact I have to bow my head all the time wouldn't allow me to use them.

And yeah, reactive armour does not stopp high-velocity kinetic shells. It is ment to stopp HEAT rounds - used by AT launchers. Althougth there are allready missiles that have double warhead - the first stream of gasses is dispersed, but the second heat lance is formed and since reactive armour can disperse only one...

[da12thMonkey 1943]

The 120mm maingun has been abandoned by the British for the Challenger tanks because it was deemed to small to be effective against the T80.

Don't want to get into this pissing contest about east vs west but your information about the re-arming of Challenger is incorrect (firstly, it's Challenger 2, a completely different tank to Challenger).

Challenger 2 still uses 120mm gun and it will continue to do so. The only difference is that we're planning to use a smoothbore L55 120mm gun instead of the current L30 120mm rifled gun.

The reasons for this are to obtain greater compatibility with NATO partners operating Leopard 2 and M1A1/A2 Abrams, and to allow us to assist in the development of advanced munitions with Germany and the US, since it's cheaper than adapting current munitions ourselves. The decision has little to do with the perceived threat of any other tank on the battlefield.

The T90 model looks good. I look forward to being able to use it in ArmA.

[sdoc 0]

i'm getting a bit weary of the constant discussions of modern nato vs russian tanks. in the hope to muffle them i'll try to take some thought and sense to those.

Firstly, how realistic is a conflict between the US and Russia?

US, NATO and allies account for about 3/4 of the worlds military spendings. Russia, China, and the rest of the world are together only at about 1/4. If we neglect nuclear weapons, wich already prohibit war between nuclear powers, all of the countries accounting for this last quarter would be suicidal if they'd seek conventional warfare with the US.

An attack by the US or NATO on russia is also not very likely, firstly it would be to costly, and secondly, in all it's history the US never attacked democratic nations.

second, proliferation:

Russia is one of the biggest weapons exporters in the world. however russia usually exports weapons inferior to their own armies. (This has been very important for CCCP in warshaw pact times...)

A scenary is possible where russian proliferated tanks are fighting against modern US tanks. However in this case the war would be, like the conventional phase of the iraq war, very onesided. Overpowering the enemies forces is the most important thing to keep own losses low.

Reasons for a country to buy a russian or an US tanks are mostly based on logistics. A Canon photographer can't switch to Nikon, just for one better lens. A country can't easily replace it's tankforce with an incomaptible design. (this means also that russia exports a lot to US allies. (even north korea does this: ethopia) US/german/french equipment is often, if not subsidised by the US pretty expensive

An argument like, that country prefered this tank and not the other one is therefore not an indicator of quality or capability.

This boils it down to a few possible scenarios:

- two poor countries with old US or Russian hardware fight each other (like Ethopia vs. Eritrea)

- two rich countries with partial modern, but second class equipment war each other. (India, Pakistan)

- NATO attacks old western or russian weapons, with crushing power.

- russia fights countries with very very outdated western tanks, or more likely their own tanks.

A consequence is for the designers it is more important how to make the tanks as survivable as possible against the equipment one generation older than the most modern weapons of nato or russia.

So, as a consequence for ArmA, comparison of t-90 and abrams is not necessary. However the T-90 should possibly equally strong as the Abrams for replacement packs. Replacing the opfor with Russians is unrealistic, however Replacing the US with Russia is a good choice. (particulary if you also swap racs and sla)

ps.: maybe some day in the future, US will sell their antique Abrams to some poor buggers in africa, and they'll fight some other poor buggers who bought russias old t-90s. then we'll see wich tanks are better. With bad maintenance, and considerable wear. (in this case i'd prolly bet 5 bucks on the t-90 :-P)

[Jarvis 0]

wow that's a very good model, keep up the good work. Hope your normal mapping skills and skinning skills are as good as your modeling skills, as a good skin can make even a bad model look good. But on this model, a good skin will make it look great! great job.

[Törni 0]

Quote[/b] ]Firstly, how realistic is a conflict between the US and Russia?

We'll judging human race in the perspective of history we still wait for the final contest for the rule of the globe.

We are currently living in an extraordinary long period of peace as a general. It has been nearly 70 years since the last all-out World War.

The main problem is not the military campaign itself, but how to maintain the rule over such a vast area. One thing that the Nazis never bothered even to think about. Not that they were such a brilliant strategists anyway. Picking up a fight with opponents who's societies they had little or no way of influencing while Germany was devastated all over. And a German soldier outnumbered by 100:1. Thumbs up - what were they thinking?

EDIT: What was the subject again - yeah the ArmA T-90   T-90 is more likely tank to be found in Saharani than the T-80 since it has been exported. Do not know how do the exported T-90s differ from the Russian ones.

[9mm 0]

Quote[/b] ]A consequence is for the designers it is more important how to make the tanks as survivable as possible against the equipment one generation older than the most modern weapons of nato or russia.

Hail to that, as it's quite frustrating when ArmA AI T72s are kickig ARMA AI M1A1s' ass....

Anyway, great model, loooking forward to see it in game.