T-90

[xendance 3]

Are you planning on doing a hi-poly version for normal mapping procedures?

[Jezz 0]

Quote[/b] ]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.

The T-80 varients have been exported more than the has T-90

T-80/84 = russia/ukraine/south korea/pakistan/cyprus/belarus

T-90 = russia/india/algeria

[mechastalin 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.

The M1A1 wasn't a super tank, the Abrams series didn't really have a decent amount of KE armor until the M1A1HA

[Baff1 0]

I think the M1 was the super tank of it's day. (It has a proven history Vs the T72). Each new tank tends to be.

But it's been superceded.

It was a super tank, in it's day so was the M60. It's not anymore.

The T80 stole it's thunder.

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.

My understanding is that the M1A2 uses the shorter and less capable 120mm gun (L44). The L30 surpassed this in shoot out trials even versus the very latest in US Depleted Uranium rounds. Rounds that will now be compatable with the L55.

The M1A2's gun was deemed not powerful enough so next generation tanks such as Leopard, Leclerc and Challenger all have bigger guns.

I concur about the ammo sharing and the upgrade to the L55 which is also a bigger gun than that used on the Abrams.

@ sdoc

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.

No one deliberately designs a second rate tank. The arms race is progressive, not regressive.

[D-scythe 0]

I think the M1 was the super tank of it's day. (It has a proven history Vs the T72). Each new

The M1A2 uses the shorter and less capable L44 version of the gun.

It's deemed not powerful enough so current generation tanks such as Leopard, Leclerc and Challenger have bigger ones.

I concur about the ammo sharing.

Less capable? You're basing this on the one, single parameter where the L55 gun can impart greater energy onto its KE rounds?

There are obviously many more factors at play For example, there have been concerns that upgrading the M1 Abrams with an L55 gun would negatively affect the M829A3 penetrator (IIRC, it was something about high velocities screwing with its flight). Furthermore, depleted uranium isn't like tungsten, it doesn't draw as much an increase in penetration with increasing velocity.

And even if we neglect all this, it is widely accepted publically that the L44/M829A3 combination still punches through more armor than a L55 gun shooting any APFSDS round, despite the KE energy advantage of rounds being shot out of an L55. Yes, the L55 does lob DM63 rounds with 12.5% greater muzzle velocity, or about 26% more energy. But it's shooting a smaller round faster - the DM63 is 25% shorter, 14% less thick and 40% lighter than the M829A3, for the advantage of less than 200m/s increase in velocity (1750 m/s vs 1555 m/s). These characteristics of the APFSDS rounds are important, "other" factors in defeating that T-80 with K-5 armor.

[Baff1 0]

Widely accepted by who?

The one single parameter I am deeming it less capable by is the field test.

They parked the two tanks next to each other and had a shoot out. Charm won.

Increased velocity negatively affects a KE round? Not really very likely, is it.

Of course the APSFDS type of munition has not been well favoured by British on the battlefield. It might be the most effective anti-armour round the Abrams fires, but the Challenger has it's own set of high tech munitions.

As well as APSFDS-T they also use HESH and DU by preference.

I agree that the US uses very advanced munitions.

It's not just gun technology that has advanced.

But likewise, it's not just munition technology that has advanced either.

It is not lost on me that the Charm upgrade has not chosen the L44/M829A3.

In fact they didn't choose it for the original fitting either.

It was readily available for them to buy had they wanted it.

[D-scythe 0]

Widely accepted by who?

Civilians that actually make a living in such engineering practices. Obviously, it's still public information so should taken with a grain of salt, but it's the best data we've got to go on.

If you got a military source that says the DM63/L55 achieves better penetrance than the M829A3/L44, I'd love to see it.

Increased velocity negatively affects a KE round? Not really very likely, is it.

Very likely. The behavior of the penetrator with the armour it's penetrating is everything. Factors like muzzle velocity are simply factors that deliver the SABOT round on target so that when it does hit, the conditions are favorable for penetration.

Yes, in most KE cases, especially regarding non-DU munitions, extra energy is good for the rod. But if your KE round destabilizes a bit in flight due to higher velocities, it might experience forces/conditions that negatively affect the KE rod once it hits its target. If the conditions are bad, the penetrator rod might not achieve maximum penetration, or it might even break up.

Faster is not always better. It's a good general rule, but there are obviously exceptions. Take the M829A2 vs. the M829A3 for example - despite being a generation newer, the A3 is 100 m/s slower. Or even better, which would you expect to withstand the shearing that K5 ERA uses to defeat APFSDS penetrators: a thinner, lighter, faster DM63? Or a heavier, thicker M829A3?

Of course the APSFDS type of munition has not been well favoured by British on the battlefield. It might be the most effective anti-armour round the Abrams fires, but the Challenger has it's own set of high tech munitions.

As well as APSFDS they also use HESH and DU.

You're probably right. But I'm not talking about just the Brits here. Just because the L55 worked out for them doesn't mean it would work out for everyone.

[Baff1 0]

So if a Frenchman, a German or a Canadian fires the same round from the same gun at the same target he can expect it to behave differently?

Quote[/b] ]Or even better, which would you expect to withstand the shearing that K5 ERA uses to defeat APFSDS penetrators: a thinner, lighter, faster DM63? Or a heavier, thicker M829A3?

I would think you are firing the wrong type of munition to defeat the armour type. You should be firing HESH.

[D-scythe 0]

So if a Frenchman, a German or a Canadian fires the same round from the same gun at the same target he can expect it to behave differently?

Since when did the German and the French use the same gun/ammo? The French Leclerc uses CN120-26 120mm smoothbore cannon, firing customized French rounds. The Canadians only recently bought surplus Leo 2s, and only a handful of them were of the 2A6 type (with L55 guns).

Thus, your statement is incorrect because none of the countries you listed used exactly the same gun or the same type of ammunition.

I would think you are firing the wrong type of munition to defeat the armour type. You should be firing HESH.

What? HESH rounds typically have extremely slow muzzle velocities - something on the order of sub-1000m/s, IIRC. If you're gonna be firing HESH rounds, what's the point of upgrading to an L55 gun? Your HESH rounds don't even need all that extra muzzle velocity.

If the Brits upgraded their Chally 2s with L55 cannon just to shoot HESH rounds, then that's a waste of money. Nobody else in the world uses HESH rounds to attack T80/90 threats.

Just a thought - but perhaps you got it wrong, and people don't actually use HESH rounds to attack frontline MBTs?

[Marus 0]

Any update about the WIP status of T90?

[echo1 0]

I would think you are firing the wrong type of munition to defeat the armour type. You should be firing HESH.

What? HESH rounds typically have extremely slow muzzle velocities - something on the order of sub-1000m/s, IIRC. If you're gonna be firing HESH rounds, what's the point of upgrading to an L55 gun? Your HESH rounds don't even need all that extra muzzle velocity.

If the Brits upgraded their Chally 2s with L55 cannon just to shoot HESH rounds, then that's a waste of money. Nobody else in the world uses HESH rounds to attack T80/90 threats.

Just a thought - but perhaps you got it wrong, and people don't actually use HESH rounds to attack frontline MBTs?

I remember reading that HESH requires a rifled tank gun. The L55 is a smoothbore so it would not be able to use HESH, or not as effectively as the old gun. I think the HESH rounds were for use against lightly armoured targets (old tanks, AFVs etc) in the same role that the Americans and others use HEAT rounds. If they were targeting T-80s, they'd use the DU round, or Sabots.

Love to see more pics though...any textures?

[tpM 478]

Hey,

Here are some DX9 shots with textures :

[plasman 0]

Awesome mesh, awesome textures, we are in for an awesome addon. Congrats it's really a great work.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Looks beautifully realistic; can't wait.

[ubernoob 0]

Looks great!...there are dints but a bit more worn-out look would be nice, exhaust fume marks, maybe a little rust here and there...

Keep up the good work!

[Väinämöinen 0]

Very beautifull and scary machine at the same time Everything seens to be in place. Cant wait to try....

[DaRat 0]

Incredible! Cannot wait for this baby

[malick 0]

Woaaa !

Formidable machine and great model. Looks good !

Malick

[RogueSnake 0]

Looks great guys. BTW awhile back I started work on a hi-res photo-skin for "SteelBeasts" Pro's T-72M1. I never really finished it, but I did do some of the really hard parts "hard to get to look right" And your free to use them, these two parts are common components on both tanks. These were done from real pictures and pieced together aka alot of work Hate to see them go to waste as I most likely will not continue work on that subject.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/RogueSnake79/sprocket.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/RogueSnake79/roadwheel.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/RogueSnake79/track.jpg

what they looked like on the skin

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/RogueSnake79/721.jpg

lol I wish I could copy and paste this one over BIS's horriable M1 skin

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/RogueSnake79/highnoon.jpg

[FriX 0]

I can almost feel its power... and it feels good

[Average Joe 0]

Damn where have I been!? This looks awesome!

[JBâ„¢ 1]

Great work!

Any chance of a wireframe shot?

[tpM 478]

@all : Thanks for the kind words.

@RogueSnake: Thanks, we will use your wheel

renders and wireframes:

[wika_woo 182]

Those textures give it a big realism feel.

This is gonna be awesome.

[Gedis 0]

i don't know, but something with your model is not correct...

like kontact-5 era armor plates on turret's frontal possition, mud covers in front...

it just needs some more tweaking and this T-90 would be perfect. Keep up the good work

P.S. checking what i got about T-90s in my HDD...

Here it is