T-90.t94

[DodgeME 0]

Changes and improvements on the newer models. I need some info on these tanks and how could they compete with other new generenaion allied tanks.

[Guest]

Try at:

T90 info

and very little at :

T94 info

[Satchel 0]

The basic T-90 is an improved version of the T-72BM, designated as Objekt 188 it is constructed at Vagonka KB.

It is currently the only produced MBT for the russian army, which lacked a real standard in the past, as they were using T-64, T-72 and T-80 in many variants amongst older models.

Having such a huge variaty of types in many variants that undergo constant development and modifications, was becoming a problem, as critical parts were often not compatible/ exchangable between 2 tanks of the same type.

Also russian armored forces equipped with T-80U´s and T-80BV´s took horrible losses from shoulderfired light anti tank weapons in the first chechnya war. These points lend the russian army to declare the T-90 as "new" standard.

The T-80U however is still produced, but only for export purposes.

For the technical aspects:

It was designed with knowledge gathered from the deployment of the T-72 in many different environments, all critical parts had been reworked after this assessment.

The T-90 has greater firepower than it´s predecessors, the Firing system (1A45T) was in large parts adopted from the T-80U (1A45) with some improvements. The 1V528-1 fire control computer is a new integration and true improvement over the T-80. The gunner has a fully stabilized 1A43 optic with integrated laser range finder and AGAVE-2 Thermal optics. The TC´s cuppola is adopted directly from the T-80, it has a vertically stabilized TKN-4S Optic. The TC can search for and assign targets to the gunner and commence firing from his position  while overriding the gunner.

Additonally he has a PZU-7 Optic for deploying the AA MG from within the tank.

Main armament is the fully stabilized 125mm 2A46M-1 Smoothbore cannon with automatic loader.

The loader has a capacity of 22 rounds, additional 19 rounds are stored in the fighting compartemnt, which is a problem however, as a direct hit in the fighting compartment most certainly guarantees a fatal loss of the vehicle and crew.

Munition sorts available are APFSDS, HEAT and HE-FRAG.

Also 9m119 Refleks (AT-11 Sniper)/ 9M119M (tandem warhead) can be used against armored or slow flying targets at ranges of up to 5000m while moving, the gunner just needs to keep the crosshair on target, the calculation and sending of signals is done by the 9K119 steering complex.

The armament is completed by a 12,7mm NSVT AA MG and 7,62mm PKT coax.

Powered by an 850 HP V-84MS multifuel engine, that is normally operated with diesel, the T-90 has 350HP less than the T-80 while weighting nearly the same.

In addition the acceleration time of Diesel engines is naturally slower than that of turbines, resulting in less maneuverability in open terrain compared to the T-80.

 

The T-90 has better armor protection than it´s predecessors, it uses a reworked T-72B turret with additional armor components, that gives it more protection against both, APFSDS and HEAT. It is multilayered with inserts of plastics, kevlar, aluminium and titanium.

Additionally it is equipped with Kontakt-5 (reactive armor), modules are located on the turret and hull front, as well as on the roof.

The lower hull of the T-90 is identical to the T-72.

In October 1999 firing tests were made to test the armor protection of the T-80U and T-90.

Both tank types were fired upon with rocket propelled grenades, ATGM´s, HEAT, APFSDS and other munitions.

Respectively 2 tanks of each type were tested, one fitted with Kontakt-5 and one without.

Each munition type was fired 5 times on each of the tanks. The result was that the T-90 couldn´t be penetrated successfully by any of the munitions when fitted with Kontakt-5. Without Kontakt-5 penetration eventually was successful, but not often or always (3 RPG-26, 1 KORNET, 1 KE).

The T-90 is equipped with the E/O countermeasure /IR jamming system Shtora-1, which is effective against modern ATGM´s, it functions by blending the missile threats IR guidance system, or blocking a laser lock with fog.

"This system consists of two projectors, one on each side of the main gun, which continuously emit coded pulsed infrared jamming when an incoming ATGM has been detected, it also has a laser warning device."

Newest variant in russian army use is the T-90M

with reworked turret; instead of a round shaped it has a welded turret in the front section under Kontakt-5 ERA, a V-92S2 engine and ESSA thermal viewer.

other versions:

BREM-72 Armoured recovery vehicle

BRM-3M Combat Engineer vehicle

MTU-90 Bridgelayer

T90K- Command version

Export versions are:

T-90E

T-90S

T90-SK.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

Great post - informative!

Any educated guesses on how it would measure up to an Abrams?

[SPAEM 3]

na abrams is the best

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Nah, if even half the rumours about the T-94 are true, then i think thats gonna be the big daddy on the battlefield.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SPAEM @ April 03 2002,03<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">na abrams is the best<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 03 2002,03<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, if even half the rumours about the T-94 are true, then i think thats gonna be the big daddy on the battlefield.<span id='postcolor'>

/me saw this coming a mile away.

[SPAEM 3]

ß==>

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 03 2002,03:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, if even half the rumours about the T-94 are true, then i think thats gonna be the big daddy on the battlefield.<span id='postcolor'>

If the Russian goverment will have money.

[scout 0]

u know, i was there when they said BMP-3 was THE! APC.

then they found that it doesnt worth a damn.

so wait for some hard data, not stats, before u start to jerk off

oh, and btw, if they didnt improve the armament storage, u'll still have the "turrent rocket skyward" effect, which is impresive to the casual observer but i doubt it if the crew will be impressed

[Wobble 1]

Nah, if even half the rumours about the T-94 are true, then i think thats gonna be the big daddy on the battlefield.

well, we all know that the tanks rumors are what makes or breaks it

as for being the big daddy.. yea I see that.. as the gov could probably afford 1 ..

hehe, Im actually interested to see more about it, too bad it will be years before any real info about it comes around..  if it doesent get scrapped (lots of tanks prodjects get scraped these days, all over the world)

oh well, Im sure we will have plenty of dummies roaring the gov propaganda about long enough to take up the time untill some real data comes about..

real data? battle tested baby! the only way to go! LOL

there is an ever increasing consenous that the giant armored battleships are just too vulnerable to small man portable weapons..  you gonna drop $xxx million on a tank that can be destroyed by a single soldier and a $30000 weapons system?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The Soviet doctrine has always relied on large amounts of firepower, and high mobility, with sacrifices being made in armor and crew protection. This seems to have carried over to Russian doctrine for the T90. The T72 model which it is based on is simply too light to give the protection needed to crewmen while still maintaining a decent degree of mobility. Although the T90 would have been an excellent tank to have fielded against NATO in the late 70s and early 80s (especially because during this time the USSR could have fielded a sufficient number of tanks to make up for the lighter armor).

But, as I see it now, with the M1A2 and the newest Leopard variants (along with Britain and Frances independent tank designs), the T90 has already outlived its usefullness in modern warfare. The reasons for this are because although it has upgraded armor, it isnt well armored enough. At the same time, these armor additions have slowed the tank down. And so, by trying to acheive a compromise, they managed to create a tank that was neither suitable for medium tank or MBT use.

The T94, on the other hand, has yet to show its stuff, and given the state of Russias military and economy, I have some doubts as to whether the program will come to full fruition. Therefore I know very little about it.

[scout 0]

soviet tactics put a lot on fire power, artillery and attack choppers especially.

i dunno. in 3 wars it failed miserably.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 03 2002,05:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i dunno. in 3 wars it failed miserably.<span id='postcolor'>

What 3 wars? Only Afghanistan & Chechnya come to mind and those are pretty reminiscent of the US experience in Vietnam...and you can't really call Chechnya a failure since it is still ongoing

[scout 0]

i said russian tactics:

1956, 1967, 1973.

thats your answer.

maybe they guys who used it suck, but the tactics themselves proved to be costly.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Maybe he means the Persian Gulf War. The Iraquis were basically using the Soviet playbook there, albeit not exactly. And they were on the defense for the entire Desert Storm phase. And they got the shit kicked out of them.

[scout 0]

nah, desert storm wasnt the case, cause though they were soviet trained, they were semi-paralyzed cause of total air superiority.

and they were on the defensive which wasnt soviet style.

they actually learn somthing in the iran-iraq war. not thet it did any good to them

[Tovarish 0]

I don't think you can judge soviet tactics by how Iraq employed them...for example I'm fairly sure it wasn't part of the Soviet tactics playbook for half their pilots take their aircraft and run like hell with them to Iran as soon as the airwar got underway. Ive read  Western experts opinions that the Iraqi pilots were about the most incompetent bunch of people you could put in a cockpit, and I have a feeling that would apply to some extent to the rest of the armed forces.

*edit* None of these countries really followed the Soviet playbook, I remember seeing a doccumentary about the 1973 war...the Arab tank forces were beating the Israelis but they were so surprized by their early success and quick advance, that they decided not to "overextend" and gave the Israelis time to regroup, and the momentum changed.If you look at how the Soviets beat the Germans in WWII, they did it by advancing as much as possible, as fast as possible. This shows in that Western commanders were rated by the percentage of enemy forces they destroyed, whereas Soviet commanders were rated by how much ground they gained.

[scout 0]

and any way i was refering to the tactics of breaking through the front.

the advance tactics are super. heck the americans did just that in desert storm.

[USSoldier11B 0]

What about the improved M1A2?

The M1A2 program provides the Abrams tank with improvements in lethality, survivability and fightability required to defeat advanced threats. The M1A2 includes a Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer, and Improved Weapon Station, position navigation equipment, and a distributed data and power architecture, embedded diagnostic system, and improved fire control system. A radio interface unit allows the rapid transfer of digital situational data and overlays to compatible systems anywhere on the battlefield.

International sales of the Abrams tank are strong. Egypt has purchased 555 M1A1 kits. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia purchased and fielded 315 M1A2 Abrams tanks in the Royal Saudi Land Forces. The Government of Kuwait purchased and fielded 218 M1A2 Abrams tanks in the Kuwaiti Land Forces. All of these nations are considering additional orders. Currently General Dynamics is engaged in competitions for the sale of M1A2 Abrams to Greece, Turkey and Qatar.

Production of new Abrams tanks for the U. S. Army is complete. In lieu of new production the Army has a requirement to upgrade over 1,150 early model M1 tanks to the M1A2 configuration. A multi-year procurement for 600 M1A2 upgrades, awarded in July 1996, is in its fourth year of deliveries. Further M1A2 improvements, called the Systems Enhancement Package (SEP), are underway. These enhance the M1A2s digital command and control capabilities, and add a second generation forward looking infrared system to the gunner and commander thermal sights. An under armor auxiliary power unit, new computer mass memory unit, color maps and displays are included in the enhancement package.

A follow-on multi-year contract to deliver an additional 307 M1A2 Abrams upgrade tanks with the System Enhancement Package (SEP) was awarded in March 2001. Contract funding will be awarded in three yearly increments with a period of performance from August 2001 through December 2004.

-Courtesy of General Dynamics Land Systems-

Plus the GDLS has already began a project to replace the Abrams line. Fact is, the U.S. has a bigger defense budget, and will continue to produce MBT's with better survivability and more lethality, while Russia can't even afford to dry clean it's officer's uniforms.

[scout 0]

u must understand that russian designers sacrificed much in favor of a small, fast, agile tank, a theory that date to late 40's: in order to exploit success u need fast tanks.

its out-dated. but the concept stayed.

and something more. regretebly to say that the soviets were exactly crew oriented. in fact they didnt give a damn about them.

so: cheap, small tanks.

i dont want to get into the old "which is the best tank"

but think about this: all is well in the tank front, but there is no decent APC to escort it. not AFV, APC. i know one type of a good one but it was manufactured in small number.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The T72 model which it is based on is simply too light to give the protection needed to crewmen while still maintaining a decent degree of mobility<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, slap on some Kontakt-5 ERA and you have a stronger armour then the M1A2's.

The problem with the Soviet tactics is that they never realised that air power would become so importrant. The Americans did and that is why US attack choppers can take their time to blow up basically any tank, since they have the higher ground.

In just a tank vs tank battle, I would put my money on the Russkies, but that will never be the case. As long as you are the only one with air-support the other side is in serious trouble on the ground.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, slap on some Kontakt-5 ERA and you have a stronger armour then the M1A2's.

<span id='postcolor'>

Problem is no one that still uses the T-72 can afford ERA.

[Wobble 1]

Nah, slap on some Kontakt-5 ERA and you have a stronger armour then the M1A2's.

well.. the M1A2 already has MUCH MUCH stronger conventional armor than any soviet tank.. cant argue that.. PLUS it (and anything else) can be fitted with ERA aswell.. so? best conventional armor PLUS ERA.. kinda hard to beat..

you can speculate all you want.. but the M1A1 is battle tested.. and astonished the world with tis accuracy, speed and survivability.. in real combat..

not such can be said about the T-80, 90 or whatever else..

so untill those tanks perform in real combat as well as the abrams has.... the comparison is pure speculation.. nothing more..

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so untill those tanks perform in real combat as well as the abrams has.... the comparison is pure speculation.. nothing more..

<span id='postcolor'>

HOOAH!