Jump to content
John Kettler

T-90MS, PT-16 and Griffin Video

Recommended Posts

This video is full of treadhead goodness and lots of wonderful crystal clear imagery. Eighteen minutes of information and analysis of the above AFVs and related matters, with much of it new to me. Gets into armament, ammo, protection, DAS, powerplants, vetronics, electro-optics and more. PT-16 is seven kinds of cool, or so I think. Unfortunately, Polish Army won't get any! Arresting to look at! Both T-90AM and T-72B4 or T-72B3M directly mentioned. T-90MS autoloader is apparently highly classified.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT-16 is just another cardboard mockup - not a real prototype. It's supposed to be a demonstrator of PT-91 Twardy modernization. Luckily this time none in Polish army got fooled and they just ignored it altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt some of the claims in that video.  You cannot just slap 2A82 and autoloader for the new 2A82 ammo into a T-90.  Maybe you could swap the gun out, but an autoloader capable of handling the much longer ammo would require a substantial redesign of the tank.  Every T-90MS demonstrator has had the same gun, 2A65, as will the versions going into production for export.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

akd and Ivanov,

Uralvagonzavod has said the T-90 AM will have a new pattern autoloader already in the basic T-90S, which is evidently the basis for the T-90AM. It would need one if fitted with the 2A82, for otherwise the gun couldn't use the far more penetrating KE Vacuum-1 round. Army Guide's piece on the T-90AM lists a bunch of new things, starting with the turret, which will be welded, rather than cast. The Russians have already had a minimum of one T-90AM armed with the 2A82 gun running tests at Nizhniy Tagil. Both Army Guide and survincity indicate the export T-90AM will have the 2A46M5, while the homeland version will have the 2A82. I don't know how they fit a more capacious autoloader into the T-90S and the T-90AM, but it's clear that they did and that the 2A82 is the gun for Russia's exclusive use. That said, the 2A46M5 is a considerable improvement over its predecessors. 

Turning now to the PT-16, it would appear the tank is real or there is outright falsehood being reported on Defence Blog. If it isn't real, then why would an unnamed Middle Eastern country want to buy it? Pakistan Defence has an article with considerable amount of information on the PT-16 and related matters, and the subsequent discussion is a grog fest of military technical information not confined to T-72s, including photos, line drawings and color technical illustrations. From what I can tell, this is a real tank and also an upgrade package for nations already owning some flavor of T-72. Seems to me that if there's fooling going on regarding the PT-16, a lot of defense pubs are falling for it wholesale, not to mention that Middle Eastern country. Poland is going with the Leopard 2PL, upgrade seen here in digicam. Additional details are on military-today Leopard 2PL entry.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT-16 was shown at Poland's MSPO defence exhibition late last year as a concept / demonstrator - subsequently it was a blogged upon and in turn was picked by other military blogs. Because photos and info are repeated between the blogs doesn't make it truer that production is assured. 

Motorcycle Industry has similar shows where Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki and Yamaha show off concept bikes to gauge consumer / trade / market interest and demonstrate new tech that might or might not directly feed into production models down the line.

Edited by Wicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wicky said:

PT-16 was shown at Poland's MSPO defence exhibition late last year as a concept / demonstrator - subsequently it was a blogged upon and in turn was picked by other military blogs. Because photos and info are repeated between the blogs doesn't make it truer that production is assured. 

+1

PT-16 isn't real. The additional armor and gun on this "demonstrator" are cardboard mockups. It's supposedly equipped with a Serbian engine ( Poland doesn't have the technology ) but it's not. People are falling for it, just as they were falling for the "stealth tank". It's just another attempt of Bumar Labedy of putting their hands on some state's money. I have to say they are really good in producing cardboard models. 

The Leopard 2PL modernization, which is made in a collaboration with Rheinmetall is real and promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, akd said:

I highly doubt some of the claims in that video.  You cannot just slap 2A82 and autoloader for the new 2A82 ammo into a T-90.  Maybe you could swap the gun out, but an autoloader capable of handling the much longer ammo would require a substantial redesign of the tank.  Every T-90MS demonstrator has had the same gun, 2A65, as will the versions going into production for export.

According to the Russian military expert Alexei Leonkov. They are going to slap the 2A82-1M gun from the Armata, into the T-90M.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/russias-mordenized-t-90-gets-new-gun/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Russian military expert" is somewhat meaningless, but "going to" is very different than claiming that the 2A65 on the T-90MS shown a year ago was actually a 2A82 although it appeared identical to the 2A65, and that the interior had somehow been completely reconfigured to accept a radically different autoloader designed to fire the latest much longer ammunition.

We can give credence to "going to" when we actually see a T-90 with 2A82, and even then, it might still be restricted to ammo within the current limits of the autoloader (already upgraded in the T-90A, T-90SM and T-72B3 to accommodate the maximum possible length for the design, e.g. Svinets-2).

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, akd said:

 

We can give credence to "going to" when we actually see a T-90 with 2A82

That is for sure, entirely correct.

I just wanted to give some ammo into the debate, since you "highly doubt it would happen". I myself, have no idea how they will make it happen, or if they will make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, all this reporting on T-90M traces back to sputniknews, so huge grain of salt necessary.  Basically, if some Russian weapons manufactures says "theoretically we could put lasers on sharks' heads" a story will appear in Sputnik saying "Russian military acquiring 400 sharks with lasers on their heads."  However, sometimes they get things closer to correct by dart-throwing enough nonsense (I mean "expert opinions") in the general direction of plausible.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely. I know that Sputnik and RT is Russian propaganda channels, and i have always a bathtub of salt around when reading their "news". But sometimes, though rarely. They are spot on, It´s just that you never know when they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, akd said:

Define "mainstream."

Anything he disagrees with.

Russia is capable of making perfectly good hardware, it's just:

1. The stated performance values are virtually always inflated, or purposefully vague.
2. The process in which equipment transitions from "idea" to "test concept" to "limited fielding" to "actually in common use" is both opaque and likely not understood by the parties navigating it themselves.  Various bits of kit have 100% been selected as the next generation Russian something or other...only to never reach fieldings, or the entirely of one Brigade has a complete set, and no one else.
3. Russia's limitations are well known in broad strokes but poorly understood in detail, while the official statements broadcast nothing but strength and the impending amazing something or other.  This is intentional on the part of the Russian government, but it makes it hard to gauge actual outcome.  A complete revamp of the Russian armor fleet appears unlikely in the short term, but there's a possibility we might still see low number updates, or a wider, more modest project.

When watching armor, and really especially armor for the Russians it needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt.  Here's my rules of thumb when dealing with Russian armor, but could still totally be applied across the defense industry:  

1. Never ever ever take press releases as factual.  Some of them may actually still be correct, but enough of them are internal politics, fluffed up to gain interest in proofs of concepts, or simple falsehoods that you cannot take them at face value.

2. Watch the numbers in service vs the capabilities of systems.  Part of Russia's information operations is presenting their cutting edge equipment as representative of the common Russian military formations, when in reality they're only found in limited fieldings.  

3. Always ask why you're being given information when dealing with anyone's military capability claims.  You're being exposed to information with the intention of getting you to come to conclusions and outcomes supported by the body releasing the information.  This is especially true with Russia given the absolute absence of separation between media and state.  

As the case is Russian armor updates are something that certainly appear to be taking their time, and barring dramatic changes in world situation, will continue at a slow pace.  It's premature to assume anything about future T-90 models, because we've seen at least a half dozen T-90 upgrade packages, all of which were totally happening, none of which have actually occurred.  We're all prone to grab onto whatever bits of information come over the fence, but again, a skeptical curiosity is really the only way to approach this field, let alone the Russian corner of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

because we've seen at least a half dozen T-90 upgrade packages, all of which were totally happening, none of which have actually occurred.  

Shouldn't be so hard to name at least three out of half a dozen then right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BTR said:

Shouldn't be so hard to name at least three out of half a dozen then right? 

Easy.

The T-90AM alone has gone through several weapons "changes" on paper (2A46M, 2A46M+, 2A82), several different layers of protection (K-5, Relikt, Afganit etc) all depending on the press release.  You only need to look at Antaraess73's posting history to see how many times a "Definite" T-90AM was announced as heading into production.  

Then toss on the T-90M for giggles and you've got enough "models" to make up a half dozen easily.

But as the case is I was using a common idiom for a unfixed number beyond one or two.

Russia's concept of warfare is inherently linked to the concept of disinformation and less than truthy statements.  Basically the point of having many tanks "in production" is that the information effect targets the following audiences:

1. For domestic consumption, or not especially savvy external observers it gives this image of a rapidly gaining strength armored foe.  The fact that deadlines are never met is simply overridden with a newer more dramatic announcement (the T-90AM shift to T-90M is a good example of that), which basically continues to give an image of improvement despite stagnation or very little practical improvement.

2. For external observers of limited collection means, it creates some doubt to what Russia's actual course of action is.  By Russian information, the Armata is happening as we speak, the T-90 is being massively modernized across the entire fleet, the T-72 is going to be totally upgraded, there's a plan to make the T-80 modern etc, etc, etc.  Without an inside view, which is something Russia obviously denies or controls access to extensively, it's difficult if you are say, not a major intelligence agency, to reliably read Russian intentions  in regards to military production.

3. Even for external observers with reasonable collection means, it still plants doubts and forces those collection assets to basically spread around more than needed.  While obviously fake programs get discarded, instead of simply being able to dogpile collection assets on tank progam A because we know A is the next tank, there's still a need to make sure B isn't also being done, confirm C isn't happening, and that D isn't the low budget thing Russia is actually doing because A's ambitious design just won't stop having catastrophic issues with the sensor system, and B relies on systems that are not working on A.  

Given the role of the Russian media, and various content generation sources in this information warfare, it's right to doubt pretty much anything that cannot be reliably sourced or verified from external sources when referring to content releases from Russian or Russian managed sources.  Further along that line, some of that content may even prove to be accurate, but it's generated intentionally in a way to be Texas Sharpshooters, that "correct" data is intentionally released amid an ocean of "incorrect" data with the intention of making the correct data appear equally wrong, or at a future date to build credibility of the content generator while ignoring the times it stated blatant falsehoods.  

Which again gets to the Russian concept of warfare as it is, the conventional aspect is entirely secondary to the information-political spectrum of options, and is only to be employed once the "battlefield" as been adequately prepared to allow for a conventional effort to succeed (dismembering NATO by fostering nationalist-populist political movements, fostering pro-Russian seperatists etc).

In this regard the Russians are ahead in a meaningful way because their information generation is not bound by law or truth, and given the historical basis of strength in disinformation and deception is operating at a point that is rapidly becoming something that will need to be dealt with, although that means of warfare has not been without its own setbacks to Russia itself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Easy.

The T-90AM alone has gone through several weapons "changes" on paper (2A46M, 2A46M+, 2A82), several different layers of protection (K-5, Relikt, Afganit etc) all depending on the press release.  You only need to look at Antaraess73's posting history to see how many times a "Definite" T-90AM was announced as heading into production.  

Then toss on the T-90M for giggles and you've got enough "models" to make up a half dozen easily.

But as the case is I was using a common idiom for a unfixed number beyond one or two.

Russia's concept of warfare is inherently linked to the concept of disinformation and less than truthy statements.  Basically the point of having many tanks "in production" is that the information effect targets the following audiences:

1. For domestic consumption, or not especially savvy external observers it gives this image of a rapidly gaining strength armored foe.  The fact that deadlines are never met is simply overridden with a newer more dramatic announcement (the T-90AM shift to T-90M is a good example of that), which basically continues to give an image of improvement despite stagnation or very little practical improvement.

2. For external observers of limited collection means, it creates some doubt to what Russia's actual course of action is.  By Russian information, the Armata is happening as we speak, the T-90 is being massively modernized across the entire fleet, the T-72 is going to be totally upgraded, there's a plan to make the T-80 modern etc, etc, etc.  Without an inside view, which is something Russia obviously denies or controls access to extensively, it's difficult if you are say, not a major intelligence agency, to reliably read Russian intentions  in regards to military production.

3. Even for external observers with reasonable collection means, it still plants doubts and forces those collection assets to basically spread around more than needed.  While obviously fake programs get discarded, instead of simply being able to dogpile collection assets on tank progam A because we know A is the next tank, there's still a need to make sure B isn't also being done, confirm C isn't happening, and that D isn't the low budget thing Russia is actually doing because A's ambitious design just won't stop having catastrophic issues with the sensor system, and B relies on systems that are not working on A.  

Given the role of the Russian media, and various content generation sources in this information warfare, it's right to doubt pretty much anything that cannot be reliably sourced or verified from external sources when referring to content releases from Russian or Russian managed sources.  Further along that line, some of that content may even prove to be accurate, but it's generated intentionally in a way to be Texas Sharpshooters, that "correct" data is intentionally released amid an ocean of "incorrect" data with the intention of making the correct data appear equally wrong, or at a future date to build credibility of the content generator while ignoring the times it stated blatant falsehoods.  

Which again gets to the Russian concept of warfare as it is, the conventional aspect is entirely secondary to the information-political spectrum of options, and is only to be employed once the "battlefield" as been adequately prepared to allow for a conventional effort to succeed (dismembering NATO by fostering nationalist-populist political movements, fostering pro-Russian seperatists etc).

In this regard the Russians are ahead in a meaningful way because their information generation is not bound by law or truth, and given the historical basis of strength in disinformation and deception is operating at a point that is rapidly becoming something that will need to be dealt with, although that means of warfare has not been without its own setbacks to Russia itself.  

Maybe they Will be fielded in small numbers and you are right. CMBS is not wwii and historical accuracy and OOB realism is less important. Its what if. I would like these versions available in a family extension pack with educated guesses as to capabilities. Much like the Abrams has LWR , ERA and Trophy in the game. I want to explore what added capabilities it would bring the Russians. I dont care much about the real world. On a tactical level they would Make a difference in some part of the Battlefield which is the focus of CMBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, antaress73 said:

Maybe they Will be fielded in small numbers and you are right.

Given what @panzersaurkrautwerfer is saying - that we don't have a clear picture of the capabilities or what is actually going to be fielded I am sure he is right :D

 

10 hours ago, antaress73 said:

CMBS is not wwii and historical accuracy and OOB realism is less important. Its what if. I would like these versions available in a family extension pack with educated guesses as to capabilities. Much like the Abrams has LWR , ERA and Trophy in the game. I want to explore what added capabilities it would bring the Russians. I dont care much about the real world. On a tactical level they would Make a difference in some part of the Battlefield which is the focus of CMBS.

The in game T90 variants already have capabilities that were predicted / imagined, so, the two sides already have hypothetical near future capabilities. I'll pass on a pack of fantasy vehicles thanks. Unless something actually gets fielded for real (not trials) and we can get some kind of idea of what their actual capabilities are I see no point in turning the game into a total fantasy land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, antaress73 said:

Maybe they Will be fielded in small numbers and you are right. CMBS is not wwii and historical accuracy and OOB realism is less important. Its what if. I would like these versions available in a family extension pack with educated guesses as to capabilities. Much like the Abrams has LWR , ERA and Trophy in the game. I want to explore what added capabilities it would bring the Russians. I dont care much about the real world. On a tactical level they would Make a difference in some part of the Battlefield which is the focus of CMBS.

I and others here do care about the real world. There's some conjecture in the game they hadn't panned out. I was okay with that because they were semi reasonable bets, or at least feasible looking forward from 2015 or so.

Russia has unveiled a lot of gear recently that has gone nowhere especially fast. I'm not saying this to be combative, but there is little argument for more advanced Russian armor in game because the odds of large T-90M or AM, or AMKS1, or T-14 fieldings in time for a 2017 war are very low. 

As I've said before, the tank programs Russia has revealed now may be something to think about 2020-2025, but the only new tanks, I feel belong in game are US, Russian, or Ukrainian are ones that better reflect what's in service right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely there's an issue regarding whether BF are now modelling the actual Ukraine conflict or continuing with their hypothetical one? 

Personally I think it's a good idea good to include some of the 'future AFV designs', but I'd also like to see all the historical bases covered too.....It's a game I'd be happy to see massively expanded, perhaps widening the scopeof the game  (in both time and locale) might defuse some of the 'political issues' that break out here too?

LLF's CM:SF II 'Crescent Of Chaos' is a brilliant idea (see page 2):

IMHO a future war in Korea should be at least a candidate for consideration too.....The chances of arguments breaking out with disgruntled North Koreans seem pretty remote and the Chinese don't seem to have a particularly heavy presence around here either as far as I can tell.  ;)

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Surely there's an issue regarding whether BF are now modelling the actual Ukraine conflict or continuing with their hypothetical one? 

Personally I think it's a good idea good to include some of the 'future AFV designs', but I'd also like to see all the historical bases covered too.....It's a game I'd be happy to see massively expanded, perhaps widening the scopeof the game  (in both time and locale) might defuse some of the 'political issues' that break out here too?

LLF's CM:SF II 'Crescent Of Chaos' is a brilliant idea (see page 2):

IMHO a future war in Korea should be at least a candidate for consideration too.....The chances of arguments breaking out with disgruntled North Koreans seem pretty remote and the Chinese don't seem to have a particularly heavy presence around here either as far as I can tell.  ;)

 

Again, if I wanted a science fiction game, I'd be all aboard, and we could have an M1A4 Abrams with laser APS and the early run M6's with the 35 MM electromagnetic cannon and 40 MM coaxial chainguns, and the T-33 Orgre with quadpack tracks and the over and under 152 MM and 115 MM missile-cannon!

But as the case is the T-90M, the "for real!" AM are both unlikely to be deployed in the near future, and for a game taking place in alternate reality 2017, with fairly modest jumps of faith in technological advancement (M1A2 with LWRs/APS, T-90AM, BMP-3M etc), they're just pie in the sky.  


Re: Korea

Korea is such an interesting can of worms.  "Realistically" it'd look something like a humanitarian aid mission that shoots back, but a super-Korea scenario (in which the NKPA is still pretty functional, or China finds a reason to get involved on behalf of the DPRK*) could be fun if really unrealistic.

*Most of the tealeaf readers I know seem to think China would invade the DPRK in the event of war to maintain some sort of status quo, or alternately establish a buffer zone to keep North Korean refugees out, and otherwise like the ROK deal with all the terribleness leaking out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ways things are going a future CM might see Putin deciding that flogging off Alaska was a regrettable mistake and the 1.4% of folk with Russian heritage still living there provide the pretext for a subtle invasion across the slush to claim it all back... Ice Lobsters of Doom has a nice ring to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wicky said:

The ways things are going a future CM might see Putin deciding that flogging off Alaska was a regrettable mistake and the 1.4% of folk with Russian heritage still living there provide the pretext for a subtle invasion across the slush to claim it all back... Ice Lobsters of Doom has a nice ring to it.

Russian sailors made it to Washington State (the farthest Northwestern corner of the "mainland") before shipwrecking and getting enslaved by the natives.  Clearly the historic barbaric Nazi-like treatment of those brave Russian sailors must be avenged! (of course, those sailors were rescued by Americans but that's a bit of a different story).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2017 at 10:45 PM, antaress73 said:

Maybe they Will be fielded in small numbers and you are right. CMBS is not wwii and historical accuracy and OOB realism is less important. Its what if. I would like these versions available in a family extension pack with educated guesses as to capabilities. Much like the Abrams has LWR , ERA and Trophy in the game. I want to explore what added capabilities it would bring the Russians. I dont care much about the real world. On a tactical level they would Make a difference in some part of the Battlefield which is the focus of CMBS.

 

Someone has been playing CMBS.

1st Bn., 66th Armor Regt. Install Abram Reactive Armor Tiles

(Source: US Army Europe; issued March 02, 2017)

181614_1.jpg
Soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment install M1A2 Sep V2 Abrams reactive armor tiles at the Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany. (US Army photo)

GRAFENWOEHR, Germany -- U.S. Soldiers installed Abram reactive armor tiles at the 7th Army Training Command's Grafenwoehr Training Area, here, Feb. 28. 

The installation of the Abram reactive armor tiles will enhance the tank's defensive capabilities, providing a greater deterrent against aggression as the unit maintains a persistent presence in central and eastern Europe. 

The Soldiers, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, are part of a continuous rotation of armored brigades deploying to Europe from the United States as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve. 

Since April 2014, Army Europe has led land forces efforts on behalf of the U.S. military, by conducting continuous, enhanced multinational training and security cooperation activities with allies and partners in eastern Europe. 

These multinational training and security cooperation activities are taking place in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. These training events improve interoperability, strengthen relationships and trust among allied armies, contribute to regional stability, and demonstrate U.S. commitment to NATO. 

U.S. Army Europe is uniquely positioned in its 51 country area of responsibility to advance American strategic interests in Europe and Eurasia. The relationships we build during more than 1,000 theater security cooperation events in more than 40 countries each year lead directly to support for multinational contingency operations around the world, strengthen regional partnerships and enhance global security. 

-ends-

Very interesting picture, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...