New T-90 for DCS

[Peyoteros]

Here comes all knowing GG... Whatever Russians do is crap, all American stuff is Holy awesome...

[GGTharos]

Show me in my post above where I said that.

 

Here comes all knowing GG... Whatever Russians do is crap, all American stuff is Holy awesome...

[Peyoteros]

Most of the posts where Russian and American stuff is discussed...

[GGTharos]

Show me above where I said that.

 

Most of the posts where Russian and American stuff is discussed...

[wasserfall]

Maybe it's time to consider tanks as Battleships, powerfull but obsolete in modern warfare.

[Revelation]

Tanks are not obsolete! The reason tanks haven't seen much use as of late: Air superiority, Jungles in Vietnam, not a huge use in the desert against insurgents. Tanks were used in Iraq, I conceded that fact.

 

If you take out Air Superiority, tanks are going to be of the utmost importance during a war.

[wasserfall]

You just sad the reason for it: Airsuperiority

[maturin]

Cheap is almost never better, and probably never will be.

Videogame logic right there. 'Better' is situation-dependent. Suicide bombs are better, cheaper and faster than GBU-12s, plenty of the time.

 

You have to have some incredible breakthrough to make something cheaper AND better, and frankly the Russians just aren't there (nor is anyone else).

Being cheaper can make things better on a strategic scale, or even tactically if you're facing a hail of countermeasure-resistant Vikhrs that cost 1/5th of a what a Hellfire does.

 

There are no incredible secrets or magic to tank manufacture. You get out of it what you put in.

All those RHA estimates that place Western resistances as double that of Russian tanks seem to suggest a wide belief in incredibly secret magic armor.

 

As for US tanks lacking these active defenses, it might be because their probability of intercept is not great (who knows?) in some situations and at the same time, they present a risk to your own troops.

Or maybe the military has been neglectful of them. But that would suggest a less-than-rational decision by the US to match the less-than-rational decisions of the Russians! Peyoteros reacts to your attitudes, not your words.

 

Russian doctrine got a lot of their tanks destroyed in Czecznya ... so we know there's nothing special about T-80's, T-72's, and there won't be anything special about the T-72 upgrade known as the T-90.

I thought their doctrine was to blame? Shove a conscript force into chaotic urban fighting against skilled opponents trying their utmost to ambush your armor, and you will lose a lot of tanks. The U.S. lost a lot of armored vehicles in Iraqi cities too, without ever facing a situation comparable to Grozny. The only reason we had so much trouble in Fallujah is because so many of the Chechens migrated over to show us the same sort of fight. And I'm not sure how you conclude that an upgrade will be ineffective based on the worst-case-scenario performance of the earlier model.

 

I don't really disagree with your assessment of the facts that much, your post is just full of annoying, slipshod reasoning that isn't making this thread any better.

 

there are only two things that make the Abrams better than the T-90. The real battle actuation and the shield,

I've never heard any informed source, Russian or otherwise, state that the T-90 has armor as good as the Abrams. Neither have I ever heard anyone say that Russian APFSDS ammo is a good at penetration. On the two basic points of attack and defense, the T-90 is behind, and has to make up ground through add-on solutions like ERA and Shtora.

Edited August 7, 2012 by maturin

[Invader ZIM]

Have to agree, tanks aren't obsolete, as long as an army has to capture and secure ground you need a tough vehicle supported by infantry to help achieve that goal.

 

Regarding the T-90, I'm looking for more info to compare it with the M1A2 in this sim. Does the T-90 have a muzzle cant sensor, muzzle reference system, wind sensor, atmospheric temperature and pressure sensors that would allow it to make accurate shots out to any range like the M1A2 has?

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=M1A2_(SEP)&diff=6017&oldid=prev&chappeep_sbvbforum_wiki__session=646d4977a3db0ea1dcec2ed950f7729a

 

The Abrams is equipped with a ballistic fire-control computer that uses user and system-supplied data from a variety of sources, to compute, display, and incorporate the three components of a ballistic solution - lead angle, ammunition type, and range to the target, to accurately fire the tank. These three components are determined using a YAG rod laser rangefinder, crosswind sensor, a pendulum static cant sensor, data concerning performance and flight characteristics of each specific type of round, tank-specific boresight alignment data, ammunition temperature, air temperature, barometric pressure, a muzzle reference system (MRS) that determines and compensates for barrel droop at the muzzle due to gravitational pull and barrel heating due to firing or sunlight, and target speed determined by tracking rate tachometers in the Gunner's or Commander's Controls Handles. All of these factors are computed into a ballistic solution and updated 30 times per second. The updated solution is displayed in the Gunner's or Tank Commander's field of view in the form of a reticle in both day and Thermal modes. The ballistic computer manipulates the turret and a complex arrangement of mirrors so that all one has to do is keep the reticle on the target and fire to achieve a hit. Proper lead and gun tube elevation are applied to the turret by the computer, greatly simplifying the job of the Gunner.

 

 

For those interested, here's the link for the T-90 thermal sight with it's information.

 

 

Interesting that it can see to 3km to detect a tank sized target, and even then can only recognize the target as a tank at 2km.

 

It also mentions that their sight will do a digital magnification up to 25x. The M1A2 has up to 50x digital magnification by contrast and a 2nd gen thermal sight with a staring FPA.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a2.htm

 

The 2nd Generation Forward Looking InfraRed sighting system (2nd Gen FLIR) will replace the existing Thermal Image System (TIS) and the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer. The incorporation of 2nd Gen FLIR into the M1A2 tank will require replacement of all 1st Gen FLIR components. From the warfighter perspective, this is one of the key improvements on the SEP. The 2nd Gen FLIR is a fully integrated engagement-sighting system designed to provide the gunner and tank commander with significantly improved day and night target acquisition and engagement capability. This system allows 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification will increase lethality and lessen fratricide. The Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides a hunter killer capability. The 2nd GEN FLIR is a variable power sighting system ranging from 3 or 6 power (wide field of view) for target acquisition and 13, 25 or 50 power (narrow field of view) for engaging targets at appropriate range.

 

Counter the thermal with an M1 painted with this thermal paint:

 

http://www.defensereview.com/intermat-anti-thermalir-camo-tech-for-infantry-and-special-operations-forces/

 

Or using multispectral smoke, or using the laser blinder system Tharos mentioned above. I think the M1A2 will be able to hold it's own. To compensate for Eastern Tank guns, you would want to close to within 1500m against the M1A2 to ensure better penetration of your round, and to better see the target. The M1A2 is better if it keeps it's opponents at 1500m and further, same holds true with other Western tanks like the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2's.

 

And it does seem that everyone likes to tout the Kontakt-5 ERA armor as the primary defense of the T-90, but what happens to the M1A2's already upgraded 3rd gen depleted uranium armor when you decide to put ERA on top of that? Would it not make the M1A2 even more survivable against HEAT type warheads fired from the T-90? And would it not have a greater chance to break the Kinetic energy rounds fired by the T-90, even more so at ranges exceeding 2000m? As well, the Extra ERA on an M1A2 would make it even tougher within the 1500m range I mentioned above, as that range is quoted for Western tanks without any ERA applied to them.

[Grizzly1606688174]

T90 costs somewhere between 2 and 4.5 million USD.

M1 abrams costs between 6 and 8.5 million USD with inflation adj.

 

(numbers based on wikipedia)

 

Who cares what is better.

Theres between 2 or 4 t90's for each abrams so they need alot of ammo if it comes to that.

 

 

post #0

Great that the T90 is being added, and its looking beautifull aswell. Looking forward to be tearing that one up with my air superiority. :thumbup:

[maturin]

Theres between 2 or 4 t90's for each abrams so they need alot of ammo if it comes to that.

T90s outnumbering Abrams? You mean in the fantasy land where the US and Russia have equal defense budgets? The T90 is cheaper and outnumbered, and always will be.

 

But I rather suspect Russia's strategists no longer base their development on a massive land war against NATO in Europe anyways. The T-90 will do a great job standing up to the AT weapons of 2nd tier militaries, and polishing off the USSR's own export tanks. The same sort of fight, I might add, which the Abrams faced in the Gulf War.

 

And it does seem that everyone likes to tout the Kontakt-5 ERA armor as the primary defense of the T-90, but what happens to the M1A2's already upgraded 3rd gen depleted uranium armor when you decide to put ERA on top of that?

I have never heard of the Abrams ever carrying ERA on anything other than the lower side skirts.

[GGTharos]

I don't really disagree with your assessment of the facts that much, your post is just full of annoying, slipshod reasoning that isn't making this thread any better.

 

I understand; you used a bunch of video-game logic to show me how my video-game logic is bad. Thanks.

[Invader ZIM]

M1A2 with ERA, noticed it's on the side of the turret too. Seems to also have spaced armor under the ERA

 

 

 

 

Not reactive in the photo below, but they are armored slats, effective at stopping penetration from HEAT rounds at the rear of the turret, and engine.

 

[GGTharos]

I was going to ask - is that actual ERA or just spaced armor? Spaced armor should be effective against HEAT and maybe KE if done right - HEAT because of the spacing, KE because it can cause the round to tumble.

[wasserfall]

Death comes from above, you can increase side armor, but the top of the tank stays relatively a weak spot.

[Invader ZIM]

Well, you might be right Tharos, but for the M1 there is the Explosive reactive armor as listed here:

 

http://www.eba-d.com/products/xm-19-abrams-reactive-armor-tile-arat/

 

Photos of the ERA armor on M1's that prevented penetration in the field.

 

 

From the description, you can put it on the roof on the M1 to increase against a top attack. But from what I can find the T-90 does not fire any top attack rounds.

 

 

Edit: apparently the curved addon armor is the later TUSK-2 ARAT-2, details are that it's a combined armor from these images.

 

 

 

 

So it's a spaced armor combined with ERA behind it, the curved plates degrade performance of sabot rounds, while the spaced area degrades HEAT, even before they reach the ERA plates behind it. Then behind that is the M1's standard, but still impressive armor.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Invader ZIM

[maturin]

Damn, pretty soon all AT weapons are going to need to be top-attack. It doesn't seem like ERA or spaced armor would work against EFP.

[Invader ZIM]

According to this article:

 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/defense_reactive_armor_070413/

 

It does work against EFP's and multiple warheads. It's a sort of American version of Kontakt-5

 

But the article mentions that U.S. vehicles will need active protection too.

 

There's a video of "Iron Curtain" for light vehicles:

 

Trophy:

 

Better Trophy video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IqZhonKzU

 

Raytheon Quick Kill:

 

 

And for fun: BAE's passive thermally camoflaging technology:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkkWya-oun0&feature=related

 

There's a lot more to ground warfare than I once thought, it's getting really complex.

[maturin]

ERA on Strykers, wow.

 

Remember all those years of scoffing at such Russian extravagance? One wonders why people worry about collateral damage from ERA when an entire missile is going to be exploding on top of the tank whether the block is there or not.

 

Wasn't Arena developed and deployed long before Trophy, unlike the video's claim? The 'blast only' tech the Israelis use is much better, though.

[GGTharos]

They do actually worry about collateral damage from ERA to own troops, since the ERA will be shooting towards them. The impact of the rocket against the tank isn't as likely to affect them since it usually uses a shaped charge.

 

Newer ERA designs aim to minimize such a thing. US tanks (I don't know about other NATO countries, but I doubt it was any different) and other armor have used various armor designs, such as spaced or slat, dating back to at least Vietnam. ERA was always under consideration, but there are practical issues with such armor sometimes. In an urban environmant you can easily kill your own troops with such, especially if they are subject to firing off due to being hit by bullets etc - you might notice that the newest ERA is insensitive to such things.

Edited August 7, 2012 by GGTharos

[Invader ZIM]

GGTharos is correct, but one thing to consider is that Russian Tanks like the T-80 and T-90 were built with ERA out of the factory.

 

The advantage to this is that such armor allows for a lighter weight and smaller tank. The disadvantage is that you can't put heavier armor behind the ERA easily, so your design literally depends on the built in ERA protecting the tank. Another disadvantage if the opposing side has specialized kinetic energy rounds meant to defeat such armor like the M829-A3 and A4, or DM53. As mentioned in this Russian article, the above rounds don't activate the Kontakt-5 because of their lower velocity, not allowing the plates to move in front of the KE round to dissipate it's power. It's as if the T-80 and T-90 didn't have any extra armor with the Kontakt-5 against these rounds.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA323948

 

The Western tanks were built with their own various armor designs, almost none of which incorporated ERA because of the considerations of infantry near the tanks.

 

The ERA being used by Western tanks still has safety issues. I found a public army document that says the ARAT-2 equipped vehicles need to keep the troops at least 100 yards from the vehicle just in case. It mentioned that the ARAT-2 plates are facing downward to help the explosive charge fire downward toward the ground, but that ricochets are almost certain under battlefield conditions.

 

The advantage of this bolt on ERA is that it's extra protection over armor that was already meant to defeat kinetic energy and Heat rounds without the added benefit of the ERA.

 

The cat's eye active jammer for U.S. vehicles is called the AN/VLQ-7 Stingray. Info on it used in the 1991 war is below along with a photo of it on a Bradley:

 

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA323948

 

[wilky510]

M1A2 with ERA, noticed it's on the side of the turret too. Seems to also have spaced armor under the ERA

 

 

 

 

Not reactive in the photo below, but they are armored slats, effective at stopping penetration from HEAT rounds at the rear of the turret, and engine.

 

Those upgrades look really effective. I hope they can pull some money to get those upgrades. I'm also really hopeful for that rumor of them switching to a high powered diesel engine too.

 

 

Here comes all knowing GG... Whatever Russians do is crap, all American stuff is Holy awesome...

Even 'IF' GG is doing that, the street goes both ways. That's the problem with forums sometimes. You can't blame one person for it, I've seen plenty of stuff on these forums talking down to American stuff.

 

Who cares what is better.

Theres between 2 or 4 t90's for each abrams so they need alot of ammo if it comes to that.

Not even close in numbers - The T-90 is just too new to keep up in numbers with the M1A1s, M1A2s, and as some people suggested out there. Why do you need more tanks when you've already got triple the numbers than a military that has more of a budget than you? (T-72s, T-80s + upgrades of these).

[OutOnTheOP]

Er.... No. The US has 8,700 M1 tanks, mostly M1A1 (armor upgraded to M1A2 standards). Russia has about 700 T90, about 4,500 T80, about 5,000 T72, and a thousand or so probably-rusted-out T64s. Total of 11,200 give-or-take. Hardly three times the number; not even quite twice. And the US didn't ALWAYS have that huge budgetary advantage (like, say, around 1975 when Russia was cranking out thousands of T72?).

 

Agreed, though, there's plenty of sacred cows on both sides of all the arguments around here. I've found GG to be generally fair in his treatment of things: he tends to favor the US stuff, but only when there's proof to back it up

Edited August 10, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[EtherealN]

I've found GG to be generally fair in his treatment of things: he tends to favor the US stuff, but only when there's proof to back it up

 

And let's not forget that if we compare continuous spending on development between 1990 and now, the fact that Russia is still competing at all is absolutely fantastic. Expecting them to be better or even overall "equal" when not spending even close to what the US and it's allies have spent in those development cycles is rediculous.

 

Personally, I consider US equipment to generally be superior, but I greatly admire the russian arms industry for what it has been able to do with the resources it was given. It speaks very highly of the engineers and scientists that work in russia.

[Invader ZIM]

I agree with EtherealN, I like to stick to the facts and be objective, and find it fun to learn more about differnt military vehiles and such by putting together info I can find out there. I learn a lot by playing these sims and questioning what I'm seeing in the sims.

 

Putting down or brushing off another countries military power or showing a lack of respect for another countries competing or opposing military force is a recipe for disaster on the battlefield.

 

wilky510, it's not a matter of getting the money, it's the fact that these are the actual fielded upgrades. From the article posted below, and back in 2004:

 

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/defense_reactive_armor_070413/

 

Senior Army leaders decided in late 2004 to start sending more reactive armor to forces in Iraq, Sorensen said April 13.

In 2004, they decided to put reactive armor tiles on all of the service’s Abrams tanks, Bradley armored personnel carriers and Stryker fighting vehicles, he said.

“We had a number of reactive armor tiles that had been built, so we had to go back and buy them and put them on,” Sorensen said.

Today, all of the roughly 1,000 Bradley vehicles in Iraq have received the armor, he said. General Dynamics has made reactive armor for the Bradley since 1995; over the years, its orders have totaled $500 million for 1,450 sets.

GD also is making 500 sets of tank-armor tiles under a 2006 $59 million contract with Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. The first 100 tank sets have been delivered to the Anniston Depot, Ala., and will soon be shipped to Iraq.

The first set of Stryker reactive armor tiles has been completed, said Sorenson.

 

so that's at least 1,000 Bradley's with the armor and according to the contract it's at least 600 M1's, but claims that ALL M1's have recieved the armor upgrade that were in Iraq. These tanks are a result of lessons quickly learned on a battlefield with a lot of city fighting and threats that can get close to the vehicles.

 

And for the T-90, watching the video on the first page of this thread I noticed something rather telling, when the T-90 jumps, you can see it's side skrits flop and bounce with the tank, indicating that the side skirts aren't heavy armor, or are perhaps a combination of rubber with some ERA plates in them near the front. Definately more vulnerable than the ERA armored M1's on the sides.

 

And watch how the gun in some of the moves isn't able to stabilize adequately.

 

I'd like to see a similar test of the T-90 compared with any Western tank, like this glass of water on the barrel of a moving German Leopard 2A6 at 3:54 into the video here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0et5e3fGoto&list=FLUbMa9kEYoLP3_Zlc2nzVPA&index=31&feature=plpp_video

 

That shows you how stable the 2A6 gun platform is, and how accurate the system might be. Also want to see the T-90 go into reverse, how fast or slow is it in getting to a hull down position.

 

There's no doubt the T-90 is a step up from the previous generation of Russian tanks, but when you compare the details of the system with Western systems there's a difference in how they are to be deployed. Going by weight alone, in the West the T-90 would be considered a medium tank, versus the Western designed Heavy tanks.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Invader ZIM