RedEffect

On 9/20/2018 at 9:34 PM, LoooSeR said:

This graph also says that frontal ERA installation, side turret blocks are also "detachable modules".  And Krieger22's picture says that detachable modules have ERA. Look at it again. It even specifically says that side panels have built-in ERA.

Yeah, you are right, it does say they have built-in ERA, I will correct it in the original post

17 minutes ago, Krieger22 said:

This graphic on the -MS suggests that the side armor is indeed some sort of ERA:

It only states that those are "detachable modules", not that it contains any ERA, the panels with two plates can be detached simultaneously, whether they contain ERA or not.

19 minutes ago, Krieger22 said:

The first pic of the side armor also looks like the tank has the "bagged" ERA that's come in vogue lately strapped on:

Yes, the first picture is from T-72B3 obr. 2016 taken at Army 2017 forum.

11 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

 

T-72 was never meant to be cheap. (In fact, it was more expensive than the T-64, at least, until the T-64 variants with the Kobra appeared.) There was a bitter struggle between the tank design bureaus, all competed for their product accepted as the main tank of the army.

It wasn't meant to be cheap, but was favored for being cheaper initially, and it offered better reliability than T-64 had at the time, but again, it was based on T-64 and without it, it wouldn't be the same. Soviets wanted Nizhni Tagil, Omsk and Kharkov to all produce T-64 tanks, but after they were proposed with such ideas, Nizhni Tagil and Omsk refused and promised to deliver their alternatives, T-72, based on T-64 but with better reliablity and more simplified for production, and Omsk later presented their T-80 tank which was a failure at first, because it was comparable to T-64A at the time T-64B came out (T-80 and T-64B came out in 1976) but Omsk redeemed themselves in 1978 when they presented T-80B with better armor, mobility and firepower than any other tank USSR had. Now, I may be wrong about this, but iirc T-64BV was the first to offer steel+textolite+steel+textolite+steel hull composition which was later used on T-80BV and T-80U, I may be wrong, it could have been T-80BV 

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

It is not

Do you have some source to back up that claim, your own words aren't really enough for something like that.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

which is me, i do think that T-64 is not good. Also, using "you idiots" in your first post here gives bad impression about you.

 

Which T-64, T-64 is a broad term. Well, this is internet, people insult each other all the time, I don't see why is "idiots" such a big deal.

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

As i said, there would be another tank and another line of vehicles after it if there was no T-64. Object 770-based MBT would have been good attempt. Autoloaders were tested before T-64, layered armor was developed outside of Kharkov and could be used by other vehicles as well. Not using opposite piston diesel engine would have been a positive aspect. 

There definitely would have been, but after what time? I said that because you seem to glorify T-72 and T-80 and tend to give T-64 a hard time. If something like Object 770 came to light, T-72 and T-80 would be completely different, or wouldn't exist in the first place. I am aware of the issue T-64 had, especially with its engine, but my entire point is that T-64, being the first from the series, doesn't deserve all the hate it is getting here.

5 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

If this kind of crap is your first post, i suspect we will not see you much here later.

 

   I don't bash T-64 because it is Ukrainian (it isn't, it was Soviet), i bash it because it had number of features that are still a problem, like engine that you need to babysit before launching in temperatures lower than -5 degr C in such warn country as Soviet Union of Tropical Republics, or general low level of readiness and reliability. On top of that add here too cramped layout that makes significant upgrades of firepower or protection on this vehicle very hard.

 

   If it wasn't T-64, than other tank would have appear, as Soviet tank development was not concetrate only in Kharkov. Maybe that tank would have been better? 

 

   And "Kharkovites" is a half-serious joke.

Engine having issues starting at -5deg C? Is this a joke, I get this article was half joke, my comment was not directed to you, but to people who take all of that seriously. And I stand by what I said, if there was no T-64, there would have not been T-72 or T-80 tanks. Soviet tank development was not concetrated only in Kharkov, yes, but they Kharkov, with Morozov as a chief-designer of the project, were the first to develop such a tank, it is easy to modify an existing tank, but Morozov and his team came up with something completely new, with some outside help, but nevertheless, T-72 and T-80 were still modified T-64 tanks (not literally). T-72 was designed as a "cheaper" variant while T-80 was designed to be "best of the best" where first T-80 failed to deliver when T-64B that came out the same year was a better tank. I do agree that today, T-64 is not that good, but it was the first and as that should deserve some respect.
And dont worry you will see lot more of me in the future

The article is done, I will update it when/if new information about the tank is released.

Greeting everyone, many of you are familiar with this very tank, and why shouldn't you be, it's a pretty good tank. Nevertheless, I am here to give a better insight into what this tank has to offer.

Where should we start, I usually like to first start off with protection, if you don't mind.

PROTECTION

Unlike T-90A tank which we've seen enough in the past decade, T-90M has new "Relikt" Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) which offers much better protection when compared to Kontakt-5 present on T-90A tanks.

On top of having better ERA package, it is also much better covered in ERA, because those silly Shtora-1 dazzlers got removed and no longer take majority of space on the turret's front.

As you can see, dazzlers took up a lot of space, on top of that, those ERA blocks between the gun and dazzlers could not have been made the same size as regular Kontakt-5 blocks, because of... dazzlers.

T-90M only retained laser-warning receivers in the place of dazzlers, which gives a much better ERA coverage on the turret.

As you can also see on the picture, the tank now has a proper gun shield  which should protect the gun mantlet against unwanted visitors (projectiles, ofc).

The Upper Front Plate is also covered in "Relikt" ERA. 

The side of the hull is protected with panels with built-in ERA blocks. The sides can be additionally protected with 4S24 blocks mounted with bags.

The side of the turret is protected with 4S24 ERA blocks, side and rear of the engine compartment are protected with cage or "Slat" armor

On top of external protection, T-90M has some cool features to protect the crew. The insides of the tank are covered with non-flammable aramid fabric which serves to catch fragments formed by projectiles or perforated armor. The autoloader's carousel also received additional protection to protect it against additional fragments. Additional protection is also ensured by moving extra ammunition to safe ammo rack with blow-out panels placed on the rear of the turret which is additionally protected with cage armor.

FIREPOWER

The tank has 2A46M-5 125mm gun, which is the latest gun from the 2A46M series. The tank received a new feature which was not previously seen on Russian tanks, and that is Muzzle Reference Sensor (MRS) which takes the information of barrel changing its form in cold or hot weather condition and brings them to ballistic computer for more accurate shooting. The ammunition it can fire is of course the best Russia has to offer for the gun, and those are 3BM59 and 3BM60 APFSDS projectiles. There are also reports of 3VOF128 HEF projectile entering service with Russian army, which can also airburst and detonate after penetration. Other projectiles include HEAT and ATGMs.

The Fire Control System is really nice. It of course, has Sosna-U main gun sight, which has automatic tracking ability and uses 2nd generation Catherine FC Thermal Imaging System. The commander has much better time since unlike previous Russian tanks he now has his own Thermal Viewer  connected to the 12.7mm Kord HMG (unlike T-90MS (SM) domestic variant has 12.7mm). CITV incorporates Catherine XP Thermal Imaging System which is 3rd generation TIS, which is better than what most modern tanks have. In addition, both gunner and commander can access back-up sight located next to the Sosna-U sight. Commander has access to new multifunction display which on top of other things, show location of the tank. The tank has YeSU-TZ Battle Management System which allows communication with all units on the present battlefield, making warfare much easier. Another small, but important improvement is the commanders cupola, unlike older T-90A, commander now has full 360deg view with larger vision blocks all around the cupola. In addition, the hatch can be rotated for different purposes and there are 4 cameras for additional 360deg view.

MOBILITY

The tank weights 48t and it is powered with new V-92S2F 1130hp diesel engine, with 2000rpm and maximum torque of 4521Nm (pretty neat). In addition to such a good engine, the tank received automatic transmission APP-172  which is VERY NICE. On top of that, the tank received an APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) which reduces the fuel consumption when the tank is idle by powering the electrical systems.

That is it for this post, if I find more information I will add it in, and if I made a mistake I will also correct it.

T-64 did have issues initially, but most of it was later resolved, T-72 tanks served as a cheap version of the tank, you idiots are bashing something that was the best tank of its time, no tank was nearly as good as T-64 in the entire world. Without T-64 there would be no T-72 or T-80 or T-90, this entire thread is people hating on T-64 simply because it is Ukrainian...