BTR Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) While most of the **** is contained inside "Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS" thread (sorry OP), allow me to make a first thread of my own. This is a case-study about what is T-90MS with a bit of speculation of what T-90AM could be if it enters service. So, what what we know about T-90MS? General: -Mass 48+ tons. T-90MS: Armament -2A45M-5 -Main gun linked PKT -22 rounds in the autoloader with increased protection -10 round stowage bin with blowout panels -8 round internal storage -PKT in T05BV-1 unmanned turret -Ability to use longer rounds in the autoloader -Most recent rounds available: 3BM-48 “Svinets-1” APFSDS round (guaranteed 650mm KE at 0 at 2km); 3VOF-36 HE round (3.1kg of explosive); 3USh-3 “Ainet” AB round (500-400m radius at 9°pellet incidence) 3VBK-25 HEAT round (600mm HE at any range) 3UBK-20M “Invar-M” TGM round (850mm HE after ERA, 900mm HE without ERA at any range) Breakdown of ammo storage, green is the relative positioning of the engine. FCS Kalina. No current information on sights is available, therefore I used available information on current export sights with comparable characteristics. I have Sosna-U, but I am currently searching for PK PAN commander sight, as soon as I find it, I will update the charts. -Integrated tank information system -Integrated, automatic battalion-level CnC control system (with or without a plug-in to Constellation-2M) -Friend or Foe target spotting; -Hunter-Killer capability; -Automatic target tracking capability; -Digital image enhancing for both commander and gunner sights. -Improved stabilizer that can handle 40°/sec. -(tentative) 4 perimeter cameras that feed visuals to both driver and commander -Agat-MDT Independent two-channel (TV + Thermal) commander’s panoramic sight with integrated laser rangefinder. Stabilisation accuracy of 1° min. Day channel sight view angles 1x magnification at 7°15’ x 27°40’ and 8x magnification at 6°10’x7°15’. Effective day “tank” target type acquisition in clear weather is up to 4km. Thermal channel with 320x256 matrix with digital image enhancing with 1x magnification at 2°10’x2°40. Effective night “tank” target type acquisition in any weather is up to 2.5km with. Laser rangefinder capable of calculating from 0.2 to 4km in automatic mode. Approximate ranges and angles for commander: -Irbis-K two channel, twin-axis independently stabilized (Optical + Thermal) gunner’s sight with integrated laser rangefinder with a laser beam for TGM control. Stabilization inaccuracies no more than 50’’. Thermal channel at 4x288 with wide view angle of 6.8°x9.0° and centered view angle of 2.3°x3.0°. Capable of automatic range-finding, adjusting for weather and compensating for gun stabilization inaccuracies including gun canting and thermal bending. Soft-adjusting from 2.7x to 12x. Commander can also fire the gun in manual mode. Effective day and night all-weather range at 3.2km. Effective day range of target acquisition not less than current Sosna-U sights on T-72B3. Approximate ranges and angles for gunner: -Digital ballistic calculator with a 32 channel exchange-booth, I estimate it’s built on Elbrus-4C CPU architecture: 65nm tech level with 4 cores at 800mHZ and 64 gFLOPS. -Additional power-unit integrated to support emergency FCS operations. Protection -Relikt ERA on glacis, turret and sides. -Protection increase estimates: 2 times for CE (~800mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.9~2 times for CE 1.5 times for KE (~350mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.2 times for KE -BTVT estimates T90A at 800-830 versus KE and 1150-1350 versus CE. with K-5 for thickest turret parts. Please note - btvt is likely to underestimate the T90A performance due to strong anti tagil bias -With relikt, those numbers would be 1000-1038 KE and 1150-1350 for CE on the thickest part of the turret over what K-5 can offer. -Relikt is Estimated to dissipate >0.6 (60%) of KE Rod energy -RPG “nets” on engine and rear (turret and chassis) roof has a good slope, which increases both LOS thickness and ERA effectiveness. Below is the approximate armoring breakdown for frontal projection. R: ~1000-900mm KE O: ~890-660mm KE G: ~650->400mm KE W: Inert Countermeasures -Shtora system is present on T-90MS, however optical jammers are not included in the demo version we all have seen -Both Arena and Afganit are possible. Arena is however an export system with Afganit geared towards RA use. Since there is no idication of how Afganit looks and performs, going with Arena is the only option for CMBS. -That said, Arena-E is also functional as demonstrated on RAE-2013 and is more compact than regular Arena. -Kalina FCS supports TShU-1-2M automatic smoke launcher integration (currently present in CMBS I believe) Powertrain -V-92S2F2 engine with 1130hp (23 hp/t) -Assisted gear-changing (not fully automatic) transmission -(tentative) chassis management system as a function of ITIS (CLICK as it's found on T-72B3M) What we anticipate from T-90MA (speculation) Appart from Agat and Irbis sights, one basic change that begs the question is armament change. Re-gunning T-90AM from 2A46M-5 to 2A82 seems like a logical step because: It is available and has been in development for nearly 25 years. It fits the caliber, and weight requirements of T-90 platform. The autoloader capable of longer rounds is installed in T-90MS. Ready rounds have been declared (Grifel-1(2) APFSDS rounds/ Grifel-3 HE round) while 9M119 TGM series can be installed to work as well 2A82 can be married into the FCS with software adjustments thanks to ITIS. What do we know about the 2A82? Not too much really, but plausible numbers for estimation. Muzzle energy is claimed to be 1.2 to that of Rh120 L/55. It is longer than 2A46M. How much can be estimated, however glancing over what’s available on the internet I’d think some 40~50cm or so. Why wasn’t it present on the T-90MS? As product placement for the MS has been geared towards export, the 2A82 could not be positioned since it is prohibited from export. What could prevent 2A82 from being placed on the T-90AM if such a thing goes into service? Cost. Not that 2A82 costs is any more prohibitive than 2A45M-5, but the cost of manufacturing new ammo set might be. Armata preferences. The reason T-90AM isn’t being looked for as a procurement item, is because the budget is being geared towards Armata series. If it goes to production alongside the estimated T-90AM, then spending preferences would not be in it’s favour. Another interesting point is the CPU unit used for FCS. Elbrus series is progressing forwards, releasing 8 core version for tests earlier this year with a 16 core version planned for production in 2017-18. So are the thermal matrices. Currently 768x576 and 1280x960 are available, but haven’t been utilized in any complexes Sourcing: http://topwar.ru/25379-tank-t-90ms-analiz-osnovnyh-harakteristik-i-vozmozhnye-puti-dalneyshego-povysheniya-boevyh-kachestv.html http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2014/317/tsvi29.jpg http://topwar.ru/7117-t-90ms-tagil-sistema-upravleniya-ognem.html http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apers/ammo_r.html http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo_r.html http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/heat/ammo_r.html http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/atgm/ammo_r.html http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1018#p469470 http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=439 http://www.mcst.ru/mikroprocessor-elbrus4s http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-90a/t-90A.htm http://btvt.narod.ru/4/tyr125.htm http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2012/07/blog-post_1710.html http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2014/07/blog-post_14.html http://www.youtube.com/atch?v=OMjPRF29sqE http://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut10/T-90Smod/T-90Smod007.htm http://vpk.name/images/i114931.html Edited January 22, 2015 by BTR 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danzig5 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Highly interesting, especially the estimated protection figures and the detailed breakdown of systems. I wouldn't mind seeing a 2a82 armed version appear in a future module, to give the Russian Federation a tank closer to SEPv2 capabilities. (Although I am more interesting in the prospect of a T-80U in a future module, even though its old its just cool!) In short, good work. Wouldn't mind seeing a write up like this for the Oplot-M as it is an even bigger mystery to most. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 BTR, Pretty impressive, to say the least, but I wish the source material was presented on the fly, rather than in the format you used. That was an enormous amount of highly detailed grog material you presented, and it would've been helpful to be able to eat it in manageable bites, rather than the whole elephant at once. Shall have to revisit this when my brain's not so tired! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weer Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) I wouldn't mind seeing a 2a82 armed version appear in a future module The thing is this text about downgraded export version called T-90SM, not the russian one called T-90AM (which never will be adopted to the army btw).. Edited January 22, 2015 by Weer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Weer, How do you know the T-90AM will never be adopted by the Russian Army, and what's BFC supposed to do about this rather dramatic change in Russian armored warfare capabilities? CMBS is awfully close to release, after all, never mind the real world impacts. What tank will serve instead of the T-90AM, and how does it stack up or not compared to it? If you've got solid evidence proving the T-90AM won't make the lineup, then please present your case. Am sure many here would be raptly attentive. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) T90AM would not be adopted b/c our MoD wants Armatas and not T90AMs. It is not ordered, there are no proposals to order/adopt it. Edited January 22, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weer Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 How do you know the T-90AM will never be adopted by the Russian Army T90AM would not be adopted b/c our MoD wants Armatas and not T90AMs This. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Thanks for this. Brings together a lot of disparate (but I think known) information into one place. Just so everyone is clear T-90AM in game = T-90SM. However, we are assuming use of latest 3BM60 "Svinets-2" penetrators in Russian tanks. It has been adopted for service and we are hypothetically assuming a ramp up in production before 2017. As long as the Armata program exists, T-90AM with 2A82 in Russian service would be wasted money and effort. But if Russia did go down that road, you can look at the implementation of the T-72B3 to see how it is perfectly realistic for a T-90AM to be introduced without the latest and greatest possible components. T-72B3 has been rolled out in stages, with the first versions having very modest upgrades. Same thing could happen with a T-90AM. We could assume that the first batch are simply upgrades of T-90As that already have 2A46M-5 in order to minimize expense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weer Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 May i ask why did battlefront include export version of BMP-2 in russian army list too? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) If you mean an export focused modernization, they did: BMP-2M (with Berezhok turret). Edited January 22, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) The 2A82 is a monster of a gun. ikalugin shared some images of the comparative shell sizes. Its a true beast Edited January 22, 2015 by Nerdwing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Edited January 22, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I doubt that the AM would happen, as it would require producing new tanks, not upgrading old tanks like with the B3s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 Weer, How do you know the T-90AM will never be adopted by the Russian Army, and what's BFC supposed to do about this rather dramatic change in Russian armored warfare capabilities? CMBS is awfully close to release, after all, never mind the real world impacts. What tank will serve instead of the T-90AM, and how does it stack up or not compared to it? If you've got solid evidence proving the T-90AM won't make the lineup, then please present your case. Am sure many here would be raptly attentive. Regards, John Kettler Yes, I though of that afterwards in order to get more credibility. However, as I just found out, you can't edit posts after 15 mins of their creation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 Thanks for this. Brings together a lot of disparate (but I think known) information into one place. Just so everyone is clear T-90AM in game = T-90SM. However, we are assuming use of latest 3BM60 "Svinets-2" penetrators in Russian tanks. It has been adopted for service and we are hypothetically assuming a ramp up in production before 2017. I believe S-1 and S-2 performance is comparable (S-2 might be better, I don't know as I don't have solid evidence), but I don't think depleted uranium would be used in Ukraine. Tungsten is bad enough as it is for the environment to throw around radioactive materiel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Isn't 3BM59 rather than 3BM48 called "Svinets-1"? Edited January 22, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/index_r.html "Svinets" (3BM-46 projectile; 3BM-48 projectile assembly) (DOI 1991) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) No, I mean: 3BM48 "Svinets" (short DU projectile) 3BM59 "Svinets-1" (long Tungsten projectile, requires autoloader upgrade) 3BM60 "Svinets-2" (long DU projectile, requires autoloader upgrade) Edited January 22, 2015 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 Hm, I'm not picking up those designations outside forum discussions which is why I put 3BM-48 for Svinets-1. In any case, I don't know if we have hard data on those or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Bringing this back, even now T-90MS shows 12.7mm (Kord) installment over 7.62 (PKT) here: Knowing requirements to down hovering helis, I think it would be safe to assume Kord would be on T-90AM if it entered service. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 BTR, This is some terrific stuff, but I happened to get back into this thread because someone made a new post here. That's how I noticed this item, which doesn't compute for me at all. "3USh-3 “Ainet” AB round (500-400m radius at 9°pellet incidence)" Something has to be wrong with the numbers there, for they are insanely large. A burst diameter of 1 km? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 A burst diameter of 500m at most optimal angle isn't really too much if you ask me. Weather it is effective at these spreads is a different thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 That has to be max fragment range. 50 meters is about accepted lethal burst for 152/155 mm artillery just for perspective. I don't think even Naval gunfire like the old 16 inch guns had a 500 meter lethal effect range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Thanks BTR! Good stuff. That has to be max fragment range. 50 meters is about accepted lethal burst for 152/155 mm artillery just for perspective. I don't think even Naval gunfire like the old 16 inch guns had a 500 meter lethal effect range. That was my assumption. I see nothing to the effect of "Effective range" or "lethal range". What is more impressive, in my mind, is the exact angle at which the fragments scatter. 9 degrees? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUSKER2142 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Bringing this back, even now T-90MS shows 12.7mm (Kord) installment over 7.62 (PKT) here: Knowing requirements to down hovering helis, I think it would be safe to assume Kord would be on T-90AM if it entered service. I will agree that T-90AM option with 12,7 antiaircraft machine gun, would be pleasant addition. Соглашусь что вариант Т-90АМ с 12,7 зенитным пулемётом , было бы приятным дополнением . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.