Military Review

A batch of new T-90M "Breakthrough" tanks delivered to the Ministry of Defense

77
A batch of new T-90M "Breakthrough" tanks delivered to the Ministry of Defense

Uralvagonzavod handed over to the Ministry of Defense another batch of new tanks T-90M "Breakthrough", the equipment has already been sent to the customer. This was reported by the UVZ press service.


Uralvagonzavod sent a batch of T-90M Proryv tanks to the customer

- said in a statement.

The number of tanks transferred has not been reported.

The concern stressed that the T-90M tank is the most advanced vehicle in the T-90 family and the most adapted to the conditions of modern combat. Tanks are supplied to the troops with an already installed ESU TZ tactical echelon control system, which allows tanks to be combined under a single control.

The T-90М tank was developed as part of the Breakthrough-3 development work and is a deep modernization of the T-90 with increased combat and operational characteristics.

In the course of modernization, a new turret module with a 90-mm gun of increased survivability and accuracy was installed on the T-125M. A remote-controlled machine gun installation caliber 12,7-mm is installed on the turret. In addition, the new tank is equipped with a highly automated digital fire control system that provides search, recognition, auto-tracking and hitting targets.
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 2 March 2021 08: 10
    -2
    A batch of new T-90M "Breakthrough" tanks delivered to the Ministry of Defense
    More new and different! And the old ones "to the warehouse" will fit later .... repeat
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 2 March 2021 08: 13
      +10
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      More new and different!
      Different? As if there are already two modern types, the T-90 and Armata are deployed, where is even more different.
    2. Orange bigg
      Orange bigg 2 March 2021 08: 15
      +6
      The new is always better than the old. good Faster would be the T-14 went to the troops.
      The T-90M tank supplied to the troops is equipped with a new combat tower module "with a powerful 125-mm tank cannon, which provides the use of new high-power ammunition, as well as a guided missile that can destroy enemy tanks at a distance of up to 5 kilometers." At the same time, the security of the vehicle was significantly increased, the internal booked volume was increased, which made it possible to accommodate newly introduced equipment and improve the working conditions of the crew.



      . The press service of Uralvagonzavod said that the high speed characteristics of the T-90M tank, fuel efficiency and power reserve, including at extremely high ambient temperatures, are provided by a 1130 horsepower diesel engine manufactured by ChTZ-URALTRAK LLC. "The combination of high combat and technical characteristics allows the crew of the T-90M tank to effectively conduct combat operations at any time of the day, in various climatic conditions and achieve success in the confrontation with the most modern types of weapons," the press service of Uralvagonzavod concluded.

      https://rg.ru/2021/03/01/v-vojska-postavlena-partiia-novejshih-tankov-t-90m-proryv.html
      1. seregin-s1
        seregin-s1 2 March 2021 10: 32
        -9
        Judging by the video, the party is two tanks.
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 2 March 2021 11: 00
          +1
          There are no such parties))) it all depends on which part. Or 10 or 30.
        2. Piramidon
          Piramidon 2 March 2021 12: 03
          +4
          Quote: seregin-s1
          Judging by the video, the party is two tanks.

          It is not a fact that the locomotive is carrying the whole batch in the video and, in general, that these shots relate to this news.
  2. Victor_B
    Victor_B 2 March 2021 08: 13
    +10
    Sensible modernization, qualitatively changing combat capabilities.
  3. mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 2 March 2021 08: 14
    +6
    This is news so news. Tanks in any way will go to units and formations located closer to the western border. The only question is how much this batch of tanks is in pieces. Such a tank (taking into account the good experience of using and defeating the old T-90A in Syria and their resistance under fire, the survival of the crew) will give advantages and reliable protection to the crew. People will be able to control and participate in a battle more confidently, knowing that they are covered with reliable armor ... In any case, no T-62, T-80 (stronghold) is certainly no match for it. But Javelin or Bayraktar is an open question.
    1. Graz
      Graz 2 March 2021 08: 37
      0
      to meet modern challenges, the tank must have a KAZ
    2. mvg
      mvg 2 March 2021 10: 35
      -6
      no T-62, T-80 (stronghold) is certainly no match for him

      Not a bad phrase ... you can immediately see that the tanker, not the uryapatriot
      1. mojohed2012
        mojohed2012 2 March 2021 12: 49
        +2
        Well, you understand that the Ukrainian "Oplot" is a slightly modernized T-80 hi
        1. mvg
          mvg 2 March 2021 13: 42
          -6
          modernized T-80

          T-84, new welded tower, new 6TD-2, 1200 strong engine, dynamic protection KNIF, which is better than Contact-5, which is on Breakthrough, French MSA (by the way, we bought thermal matrices from France before the sanctions), new communication system etc., and why is it worse?
          By the way, at Leclerc, the most advanced MSA was until recently.
          Well, with the T-62 they missed completely. He has nothing to do with T-64BM Bulat. By the way, here (on VO) Bulat and T-72B3M were compared, and the comparison is not in favor of the latter. Compared by a knowledgeable person.
          Well, Ukraine has a 6TD-3 with a capacity of 1500 l / s, but Russia does not have such a capacity of B-84. There is simply no quantity ..
          1. Quadro
            Quadro 2 March 2021 14: 53
            +4
            Quote: mvg
            modernized T-80

            T-84, new welded tower, new 6TD-2, 1200 strong engine, dynamic protection KNIF, which is better than Contact-5, which is on Breakthrough, French MSA (by the way, we bought thermal matrices from France before the sanctions), new communication system etc., and why is it worse?
            By the way, at Leclerc, the most advanced MSA was until recently.
            Well, with the T-62 they missed completely. He has nothing to do with T-64BM Bulat. By the way, here (on VO) Bulat and T-72B3M were compared, and the comparison is not in favor of the latter. Compared by a knowledgeable person.
            Well, Ukraine has a 6TD-3 with a capacity of 1500 l / s, but Russia does not have such a capacity of B-84. There is simply no quantity ..

            A stream of delirium, mythical 6td-3, which do not stand anywhere, dz knife, which has not been brought to mind in any way, and all this is on a stronghold that is not in the troops and which is stuffed with imports to the eyeballs. And yes, bastard, engines from the T-64 are complete trash (as well as the subsequent ones), because it is much harder to maintain it than the B-84. And yes, a lover of ukrov, do you even know that a relic has been placed on b3 since the age of 16?
            1. mvg
              mvg 2 March 2021 15: 29
              -4
              Delirium flow

              Ukrov have no money, they have brains. 6TD-3 appeared in 2011 at the exhibition in NTagil, in 2016 it was tested.
              http://www.alexfiles99.narod.ru/engine/6td/6td-3.htm
              Imports are not bad, they are not sanctioned. After the sanctions, we have covered many high-tech areas. T-64 with 5TDFA no trash. It works in normal hands.
              T-72B3 (object 184) with Contact-5, since 16 with Relic. No one will say that the Knife is worse. And Contact-5 is definitely outdated.
              And yes, Bulat is definitely not worse than B3, although they have no dough, and we are investing.
          2. venik
            venik 2 March 2021 15: 04
            +6
            Quote: mvg
            dynamic protection KNIFE, which is better than Contact-5, which is on the Breakthrough,

            =======
            Uh-huh! "Better" ..... This is how the DZ "Knife" works, which is "better than" Contact-5 ":

            The tank immediately had to be dragged by a tanker to the repair plant ...
            By the way, on the T-90M there is a DZ "Relikt", not a "Contact-5" !! It is on your T-64s they put "Contact" (and not only "Contact-5", but even "Contact-1", out of poverty, because somehow it didn't work out with your" famous "" Knife "(including with mass production) .....

            PS Learn materiel and you will be happy!
            1. Old tanker
              Old tanker 2 March 2021 17: 37
              0
              Maybe the tank was immediately taken to the repair plant, but the "Knife" fulfilled its task. No armor penetration, the crew is alive. The fact that the "Knife" has an excess charge is a problem. After triggering, a significant part of the vehicle is exposed, making it vulnerable. On "Knife-2" they tried to cope with this problem, but there is no information on how effectively it turned out.
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 2 March 2021 22: 28
                +1
                Quote: Old Tankman
                Maybe the tank was immediately taken to the repair plant, but the "Knife" fulfilled its task. No armor penetration, the crew is alive.

                But the tank is out of action, the crew has a severe concussion and is also out of action ...
                And it's not a fact that that RPG charge would have pierced the armor in this place ...
                1. Old tanker
                  Old tanker 3 March 2021 07: 01
                  -2
                  And where did you get the information about the severe concussion of the crew?
                  1. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 4 March 2021 00: 02
                    -1
                    Quote: Old Tankman
                    And where did you get the information about the severe concussion of the crew?

                    From the same place where there was information about the behavior of "Nizha" - the APU officers themselves complained that even when a small-caliber projectile hits, several adjacent blocks of this DZ detonate at once, causing serious damage to the tank due to their detonation (tearing fenders, for example) , the crew gets shell-shocked. Even VO published articles, a long time ago - about 2015-16 years.
                    1. Old tanker
                      Old tanker 4 March 2021 06: 32
                      -1
                      Clear. From tyrnet it is known. No more questions.
                      1. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 4 March 2021 22: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Old Tankman
                        Clear. From tyrnet it is known. No more questions.

                        And you information, a question, do not take "from the tyrnet"? If not from his birthmark, then please share the sources ...
                      2. Old tanker
                        Old tanker 5 March 2021 06: 54
                        0
                        In many ways, personal communication with the participants in the events.
                      3. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 5 March 2021 20: 10
                        0
                        Quote: Old Tankman
                        In many ways, personal communication with the participants in the events.

                        You will not be enough for all the events of the participants ... This is me to the fact that I am happy for you, not all participants in the events are close friends ...
                      4. Old tanker
                        Old tanker 7 March 2021 08: 08
                        0
                        Do not have 100 rubles, and have 100 friends.
                    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Constanty
    Constanty 2 March 2021 12: 37
    0
    In terms of armor, the T-80 - "Oplot-M" variant is at least similar to the T-90M armor.
    The advantage of the Russian tank manifests itself in other aspects, not to mention its capabilities or production capacity.
    1. Quadro
      Quadro 2 March 2021 14: 48
      0
      Quote: Constanty
      In terms of armor, the T-80 - "Oplot-M" variant is at least similar to the T-90M armor.
      The advantage of the Russian tank manifests itself in other aspects, not to mention its capabilities or production capacity.

      Stronghold - m? Does this exist outside of cartoons and one experimental sample?
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 2 March 2021 15: 13
        0
        Even if it is in one copy, it means that it exists. There is also Oploi-T with the same level of armor.
        You can find photographs of the towers made 5 years ago, according to the shape and degree of protection of the T-90M.
        1. Old tanker
          Old tanker 2 March 2021 17: 39
          +1
          But they have problems with welding of armor. Cracks in welds cannot completely defeat them.
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 2 March 2021 19: 17
            0
            As far as I remember, this concerned the armor of the armored personnel carrier, which was made of low-quality steel from Finland, purchased under unknown circumstances through a Polish company.

            Although close-up the seams on Oplot-T look bad
          2. venik
            venik 2 March 2021 19: 50
            +1
            Quote: Old Tankman
            But they have problems with welding of armor. Cracks in welds cannot completely defeat them.

            ========
            Not only with welding! Not only! With the most armored steel - also problems! And very big !!! By the way - this is one of the reasons for the problems with welding armor!
            Paradox: at the time of the Union, the Ukrainian SSR produced armored steel almost more than the RSFSR, and today it is forced to purchase it in Poland, Finland, etc. request
            1. Constanty
              Constanty 2 March 2021 23: 12
              +1
              Full agreement - this republic of the USSR had a developed industry and great opportunities - now they have a problem to build one tank for the United States in several years - defeat
        2. Albert1988
          Albert1988 2 March 2021 22: 31
          +1
          Quote: Constanty
          in form and degree of protection T-90M.

          In shape - T-90A, but what about the protection - you can't say much in appearance - if the steel sucks and there are no normal materials for multilayer combined protection (and Ukraine does not have all this), then the shape will give nothing ...
          1. Constanty
            Constanty 2 March 2021 23: 14
            0
            I rely on information from the site:
            https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/654560.html
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 4 March 2021 00: 04
              0
              Quote: Constanty
              I rely on information from the site:

              Well, you can write anything on the site, the main thing is what is the result of the work "in the field", but it is such that Ukraine simply does not have the ability to mass-produce products / materials necessary for the production of tanks, including the stronghold ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • prior
    prior 2 March 2021 09: 00
    0
    The delivery, as well as the quantity, might not have been reported either.
    There will be a surprise, who needs it and when it needs it.
  • Esaul
    Esaul 2 March 2021 10: 03
    +1
    Nice tank. Modern, but not cosmic. Maybe in 10-15 years it will become the most massive in the army.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 2 March 2021 11: 28
    +2
    Quote: Esaul
    Nice tank. Modern, but not cosmic. Maybe in 10-15 years it will become the most massive in the army.

    Is everything all right with the tower? winked
    1. Constanty
      Constanty 2 March 2021 13: 02
      +1
      The T-90M turret is a new welded structure compared to the T-72.

      In my opinion, this is the implementation of the project of the Soviet universal tower from the program "Improvement-88"


      We see a tank-like Oplot - not surprisingly - both have the same Soviet roots.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 2 March 2021 22: 33
        0
        Quote: Constanty
        In my opinion, this is the implementation of the project of the Soviet universal tower from the program "Improvement-88"

        Please do not get confused - this tower has nothing to do with the Improvement-88 program, which was used to create a new promising tank Object 195 (popularly T-95).
        1. Constanty
          Constanty 2 March 2021 23: 37
          0
          The T-90M has nothing to do with the T-95, as does the tower shown. Please read what this Enhance-88 program was - - its effect was, for example, Object 187A, not 195
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 4 March 2021 00: 11
            0
            Quote: Constanty
            The T-90M has nothing to do with the T-95, as does the tower shown. Please read what this Enhance-88 program was - - its effect was, for example, Object 187A, not 195

            I know perfectly well what "Cultivation -88" is, here's an example:
            http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/t-95.htm
            or
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-95
            Or read an interview with General Sergei Maev
            And what you say was a completely different program - namely, "Improving the T-72B", was held under the leadership of Potkin since 86 (http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-310.html).

            So I repeat - please don’t be confused smile
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 2 March 2021 17: 45
      +2
      Quote: Radikal
      Is everything all right with the tower?

      Made as ordered. It could have been a little less, but the military insisted on the amount of ammunition carried and it is located in the rear of the tower.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 2 March 2021 22: 34
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Made as ordered. It could have been a little less, but the military insisted on the amount of ammunition carried and it is located in the rear of the tower.

        It was he who was removed from the building, where now only ammo in AZ, which, by the way, received additional anti-fragmentation protection.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 2 March 2021 22: 47
          +1
          Quote: Albert1988
          It was he who was removed from the building, where now only the BC in AZ
          As I understand it, they removed the additional ammunition, which was previously crammed arbitrarily, and it was he who reduced the survivability of the tank. They left ammunition not only in the conveyor, but also in the storage tanks, to which there were no complaints.
          Quote: Albert1988
          AZ, which, by the way, received additional anti-fragmentation protection.
          so on the T-90 it was initially additionally protected by armor, which goes around the drum with ammunition + internal tanks with filler (like in the Su-25).
          View from the driver's seat towards the fighting compartment:
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 2 March 2021 22: 53
            0
            Quote: Bad_gr
            As I understand it, they removed the additional ammunition, which was previously crammed arbitrarily, and it was he who reduced the survivability of the tank. They left ammunition not only in the conveyor, but also in the storage tanks, to which there were no complaints.

            Exactly! That's right - now the bookmaker, which does not fit in the AZ, lies in a pedestrianized niche.
            Quote: Bad_gr
            so on the T-90 it was initially additionally protected by armor, which goes around the drum with ammunition + internal tanks with filler (like in the Su-25).
            View from the driver's seat towards the fighting compartment:

            If we consider that when describing the T-90M they additionally rested on increasing the protection of the AZ, it means that additional measures were introduced in addition to what you described)
            There, they could even increase the armor of the sides ...
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 2 March 2021 23: 13
              +2
              Quote: Albert1988
              That's right - now the bookmaker, which does not fit in the AZ, lies in a pedestrianized niche.
              Not all ammo in the conveyor, only the one that was arbitrarily placed on the combat was removed from the combat one. The storage tanks remained, but no one complained about them.
              These ones:

              Quote: Albert1988
              and the armor of the sides seemed to be able to build even ..

              The armor of the sides is unlikely, but the protection of the bulwark is yes. In addition to armor, there is also DZ.
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 2 March 2021 23: 25
                +2
                The BC, which was arbitrarily spaced around the battlefield, was brought here:

              2. Albert1988
                Albert1988 4 March 2021 00: 13
                0
                Quote: Bad_gr
                Not all ammo in the conveyor, only the one that was arbitrarily placed on the combat was removed from the combat one. The storage tanks remained, but no one complained about them.
                These ones:

                About him and speech)
                Quote: Bad_gr
                The armor of the sides is unlikely

                Over time, the information will become clearer, so it's interesting for yourself)
                Quote: Bad_gr
                but the protection of the bulwark - yes. In addition to armor, there is also DZ.

                It's easier to say - there is generally a completely new side screen)))
  • megavolt823
    megavolt823 2 March 2021 11: 54
    +2
    The tank is primarily the concept of its use. Action theater multiplied by tasks. There are no invulnerable tanks, but there are heavy and expensive ones. A tank is an artillery piece on tracks. It is not a moving wall or an infantry delivery vehicle. As soon as people stop understanding that tanks are the ideology of war. And they begin to see a tool in the operation. So the loss of equipment and crews immediately begins. Tanks should be classified according to their nature of use, and not by model or year of manufacture. There is no general concept. All this is empty.
  • Konnick
    Konnick 2 March 2021 14: 51
    0
    I wonder if the results of the shooting at the Army-2020 forum were taken into account or not?

    Half of the missiles missed the target: the web is disappointed by the shooting at the "Army-2020"


    https://topwar.ru/174472-polovina-raket-ne-popala-v-cel-v-seti-razocharovany-strelbami-na-armii-2020.html

    Of the 16 starts, 8 misses are exactly half. And this, we note, in polygon conditions and for stationary targets! What to expect in a much more complex combat situation, where targets will constantly move, and the tanks themselves will be under enemy fire?


    And these were the best crews.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 2 March 2021 22: 36
      +1
      Quote: Konnick
      I wonder if the results of the shooting at the Army-2020 forum were taken into account or not?

      You need to have good hands, without this nothing works, alas ...
      1. Konnick
        Konnick 2 March 2021 23: 20
        -1
        There were the best hands of the central district ... the principle "it was not in the reel" does not work. Selected crews ...
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 4 March 2021 00: 14
          0
          Quote: Konnick
          Selected crews ...

          But this is also a big question, were there really elite ...
    2. Quadro
      Quadro 2 March 2021 23: 37
      -2
      What does the t-90m have to do with it if there was a t-72?
      1. Konnick
        Konnick 3 March 2021 05: 15
        -2
        You have to read it first. T-72, on the contrary, did not miss. 2 misses out of 3 for the T-90M.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 4 March 2021 00: 17
          0
          Quote: Konnick
          You have to read it first. T-72, on the contrary, did not miss. 2 misses out of 3 for the T-90M.


          Quote from the article:
          "In the video that appeared on the Web, we see (presented below) how the position is taken by a tank T-90A... The first launch of a tank guided missile ends with an undershoot, the second missile also misses the target, but the third launch turns out to be more successful - the missile hits a stationary target. In total, we get 2 misses and 1 hit.

          Then we see a tank in position T-80U... For some reason, the barrel of the gun is shaking violently at the tank, after the launch of the TUR 9M119M, you can see how the rocket goes up. The second launch is the same situation, and the third launch, as in T-90Aturns out to be successful. That is, the results are similar - 2 misses and 1 hit out of 3 starts.

          In position - a tank T-80UE-1... The first missile goes up, and the second and third hit the targets. Total 3 starts with 1 miss and 2 hits.

          A tank moves into position T-80BWM... All three launches end in misses, although the target, we note, is motionless.

          In an amicable way, only the crew showed the real class T-72B3... All four launches of the tank guided missile ended in target hits. "

          Question - where is the T-90М???? Considering that the T-80 has long been in storage for the most part, and many T-90A have also been idle for a long time, so it is not surprising - if the machines were pulled out of the warehouses and did not have time to properly debug, it is not surprising, and the T-72B3 just actively used in combat units and they are in good condition.

          And again the question - where is the T-90M?
          1. Konnick
            Konnick 4 March 2021 05: 17
            -2
            again the question - where is the T-90M?

            Romanian ... Bulgarian ... what's the difference?
            What's the difference in weaponry?
            The difference between the T-90M and the T-90 is mainly in terms of protection. Missile weapons are the same.
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 4 March 2021 22: 07
              0
              Quote: Konnick
              What's the difference in weaponry?

              Awesome!

              Difference number 1: different control systems, on the T-90M a fundamentally new system at the level of the best world samples, on the T-90A - old production systems of the 90s - early 2000s, which do not fundamentally differ from the old Soviet ones, the same with other machines ...

              Difference # 2: the different novelty of the machines - the T-80, I repeat, for the most part were in storage, the T-90A were also in storage in large quantities, and if they were removed from storage, then their condition will not be so hot - in the article said that the 80's "gun shakes violently" - that's the difference for you. T-72B3 was from the combat unit, new (in the sense of recently modernized and debugged)

              Py.Sy .: You still do not see the difference between "Romanian" and "Bulgarian"?
  • Radikal
    Radikal 2 March 2021 18: 15
    +1
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: Radikal
    Is everything all right with the tower?

    Made as ordered. It could have been a little less, but the military insisted on the amount of ammunition carried and it is located in the rear of the tower.

    I'm not talking about that, but about the lower tier of dynamic protection units, which are angled upward, forming a so-called "lure" for, say, armor-piercing shells. Curiously, a test attack was carried out, or as usual .... sad
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 2 March 2021 22: 37
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      Curiously, a test attack was carried out, or as usual ....

      What do you mean "as usual"?
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 2 March 2021 23: 34
      +1
      Quote: Radikal
      on the lower tier of dynamic protection units, which are angled upward, forming a so-called "lure" for, say, armor-piercing shells.
      smile Do you suppose that an armor-piercing projectile will ricochet down from a tin box with a remote control?
      Quote: Radikal
      Curiously, a test attack was carried out, or as usual ....
      Usually it is like this (in the pictures of the T-90)
      :
  • Radikal
    Radikal 2 March 2021 23: 42
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: Radikal
    on the lower tier of dynamic protection units, which are angled upward, forming a so-called "lure" for, say, armor-piercing shells.
    smile Do you suppose that an armor-piercing projectile will ricochet down from a tin box with a remote control?
    Why not - explain. There is an acute-angled obstacle, there is a projectile, or the same PG-7V shot (from above), the tin box, as you put it, is deformed, but does not detonate, the blow falls on the base (shoulder strap) of the tower ... Has this option been researched?
    P.S. Your pictures are incorrect. Ancient T-72, it looks like shots in the lower projection (in the body) ....
    hi
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 3 March 2021 00: 07
      +1
      Quote: Radikal
      Your pictures are incorrect. Ancient T-72
      And so the vertical corners of the welded tower are normally visible?
      Are you talking about the T-72?
      Quote: Radikal
      Why not - explain. There is an acute-angled obstacle, there is a projectile ...
      About the tin box, I said this in an exaggerated way, but the meaning is the same: for a sub-caliber projectile, for which the thickness of penetration of solid armor is indicated, for example, the American M829A3 BOPS - 800 mm - that there is a box with a remote control, that it is not, no difference. It is the box itself. Another thing is that when a modern remote sensing device is triggered, the crowbar itself can slightly unfold, but then it breaks itself from hitting the main armor, there will be no penetration (the towers have a strong forehead). Another question is that the modern version of the DZ tower is placed far from the shoulder strap. I do not understand this, since there have been cases of RPG grenades hitting the pagon of the tower in Chechnya, which means that such cases may be repeated.
      I'm not talking about the T-90m, which has more or less (covered with a net from cumulative), but about this option
  • Radikal
    Radikal 2 March 2021 23: 49
    +2
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: Radikal
    on the lower tier of dynamic protection units, which are angled upward, forming a so-called "lure" for, say, armor-piercing shells.
    smile Do you suppose that an armor-piercing projectile will ricochet down from a tin box with a remote control?
    Quote: Radikal
    Curiously, a test attack was carried out, or as usual ....
    Usually it is like this (in the pictures of the T-90)
    :

    And shots into the dead skeleton, I see - into the tower, the remnants of the remote control - I do not see. Hit markers - so what? winked As far as I understood, this is not a test of the capabilities of the tank, but probably of anti-tank weapons.
  • Radikal
    Radikal 3 March 2021 03: 46
    +2
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: Radikal
    Your pictures are incorrect. Ancient T-72
    And so the vertical corners of the welded tower are normally visible?
    Are you talking about the T-72?
    Quote: Radikal
    Why not - explain. There is an acute-angled obstacle, there is a projectile ...
    About the tin box, I said this in an exaggerated way, but the meaning is the same: for a sub-caliber projectile, for which the thickness of penetration of solid armor is indicated, for example, the American M829A3 BOPS - 800 mm - that there is a box with a remote control, that it is not, no difference. It is the box itself. Another thing is that when a modern remote sensing device is triggered, the crowbar itself can slightly unfold, but then it breaks itself from hitting the main armor, there will be no penetration (the towers have a strong forehead). Another question is that the modern version of the DZ tower is placed far from the shoulder strap. I do not understand this, since there have been cases of RPG grenades hitting the pagon of the tower in Chechnya, which means that such cases may be repeated.
    I'm not talking about the T-90m, which has more or less (covered with a net from cumulative), but about this option

    First, it’s not just a breakout, but a rebound and subsequent breakout — is there a difference? Secondly, a snapshot of a part of the tower from the remote sensing is generally shameful! The gaps between the DZ blocks - all authors and performers should be shot for this !!! angry
    And stop defending the villains who think not about the defense of the country, but about their own pocket! Do you have doubts? In a personal to me! sad
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 4 March 2021 00: 21
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      firstly, it's not about just breaking through, but about ricochet

      Firstly - BOPS and cumulatives - DO NOT ricochet! Secondly, the ricochet can only be from a powerful obstacle, here the strength of the structure on which the DZ is attached will not allow ricochet - it will rather bend inward and crumple. Secondly, on impact, the DZ will detonate, and the DZ is installed so that, regardless of the angle of its location, the gard is taken away in the safest direction ... And only large-caliber bullets can ricochet from such an inclination without detonation of DZ - just done so that they ricocheted and did not cause detonation of DZ)))
  • Radikal
    Radikal 4 March 2021 01: 25
    +3
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: Radikal
    firstly, it's not about just breaking through, but about ricochet

    Firstly - BOPS and cumulatives - DO NOT ricochet! Secondly, the ricochet can only be from a powerful obstacle, here the strength of the structure on which the DZ is attached will not allow ricochet - it will rather bend inward and crumple. Secondly, on impact, the DZ will detonate, and the DZ is installed so that, regardless of the angle of its location, the gard is taken away in the safest direction ... And only large-caliber bullets can ricochet from such an inclination without detonation of DZ - just done so that they ricocheted and did not cause detonation of DZ)))

    Firstly, I have never said about cumulatives (intentionally), and secondly, I consider it incorrect to discuss this issue in general. Are there results of shelling the tower, or not? That's all - the final answer will tell us the result. hi
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: Radikal
    firstly, it's not about just breaking through, but about ricochet

    Firstly - BOPS and cumulatives - DO NOT ricochet! Secondly, the ricochet can only be from a powerful obstacle, here the strength of the structure on which the DZ is attached will not allow ricochet - it will rather bend inward and crumple. Secondly, on impact, the DZ will detonate, and the DZ is installed so that, regardless of the angle of its location, the gard is taken away in the safest direction ... And only large-caliber bullets can ricochet from such an inclination without detonation of DZ - just done so that they ricocheted and did not cause detonation of DZ)))

    It’s strange. I, according to my close understanding and education, believed that according to the laws of physics, objects / objects directed by any force, in accordance with the position in space, when meeting with an obstacle, are able to change their direction at the moment of contact ... what
    In this case, we are not talking about a trolley for a pensioner, but about military equipment - who calculates these things? Have you ever fired a simple RPG-7V? On level ground, in the mountains, from bottom to top, or vice versa? And how, and where does a grenade come when it meets a stone, a boulder, or who knows what else, and at what angle, when the detonation occurs? There are many factors, that's what I wanted to say, and you mean a tin .... Are we in a car service? bully
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 4 March 2021 11: 48
      +1
      Quote: Radikal
      It’s strange. I, according to my close understanding and education, believed that according to the laws of physics, objects / objects directed by any force, in accordance with the position in space, when meeting with an obstacle, are able to change their direction at the moment of contact ...

      They have been engaged in the ricochet of shells since the post-revolutionary times: ".....

      Oblique blow to the armor: a - sharp-headed projectile; b - blunt-headed projectile; in - swept sub-caliber projectile

      Armor-piercing shells are divided not only into chamber and solid, but also into sharp-headed and blunt-headed. Sharp-headed projectiles pierce thicker armor at right angles, since at the moment of meeting the armor, all the impact force falls on a small area of ​​the armor plate. However, the efficiency of sloped armor is lower for sharp-headed projectiles due to a greater tendency to ricochet at high angles of encounter with the armor. Conversely, blunt-headed projectiles penetrate thicker armor at an angle than sharp-headed projectiles, but have less armor penetration at right angles. Take, for example, armor-piercing chambers shells of the T-34-85 tank ... At a distance of 10 meters, the BR-365K sharp-headed projectile penetrates 145 mm at a right angle and 52 mm at an angle of 30 °, and the BR-365A blunt-headed projectile penetrates 142 mm at a right angle, but 58 mm at an angle of 30 °.

      In addition to sharp-headed and blunt-headed projectiles, there are sharp-headed projectiles with an armor-piercing tip. When faced with an armor plate at a right angle, such a projectile acts as a sharp-headed projectile and has good armor penetration compared to a similar blunt-headed projectile. When hitting the sloped armor, the armor-piercing tip "bites" the projectile, preventing the ricochet, and the projectile works like a blunt-headed one. ...... " https://www.fanatsporta.ru/protivotankovye-snaryady-i-ih-raznovidnosti-voennoe-obozrenie/
    2. Albert1988
      Albert1988 4 March 2021 21: 55
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      Are there results of shelling the tower, or not?

      It is a priori - without this, NOTHING will be adopted))))
      Only here, like me, no one will show these results - this is secret information, so that you can be shown it - you need a security clearance, there is no security clearance - that's all ...
    3. Albert1988
      Albert1988 4 March 2021 21: 58
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      In this case, we are not talking about a trolley for a pensioner, but about military equipment - who calculates these things? Have you ever fired a simple RPG-7V? On level ground, in the mountains, from bottom to top, or vice versa? And how, and where does a grenade come when it meets a stone, a boulder, or who knows what else, and at what angle, when the detonation occurs? There are many factors, that's what I wanted to say, and you mean a tin .... Are we in a car service?

      What are you talking about now? What does an RPG have to do with it? Which cumulative head does it have? Or are we still talking about cumulatives? Moreover, any armor is designed so that guests will arrive from certain directions and at certain angles. And what have some "car services" to do with it?
    4. Albert1988
      Albert1988 4 March 2021 22: 01
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      It’s strange. I, according to my close understanding and education, believed that according to the laws of physics, objects / objects directed by any force, in accordance with the position in space, when meeting with an obstacle, are able to change their direction at the moment of contact ...

      Then I advise you to read about how BOPS work, what mass and kinetic energy they have, how they ricochet and ricochet at all (I give a hint - to achieve a modern BOPS rebound - the task is often more difficult than flying to the moon), what kind of armor is used to protect against BOPS, how BOPS interact with remote sensing ...
  • Radikal
    Radikal 5 March 2021 01: 25
    +2
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: Radikal
    Are there results of shelling the tower, or not?

    It is a priori - without this, NOTHING will be adopted))))
    Only here, like me, no one will show these results - this is secret information, so that you can be shown it - you need a security clearance, there is no security clearance - that's all ...

    Dear friend, we would like it so much, but as a matter of fact ....
    sad
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 5 March 2021 20: 15
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      Dear friend, we would like it so much, but as a matter of fact ....

      In fact, he is my favorite dad, who has worked in the defense industry for about 50 years ...
      He was the chief designer of the optical component of the "curtain" system.
      So - according to him, without testing, as he said with a "sledgehammer", not a single weapon system is accepted!
      Roughly speaking, all the systems being developed and being adopted for service undergo a series of tests during which they are thoroughly broken down, and if it did not work out, the tests continue until they break / break through / burn / blow up (underline the necessary) finally. This gives an idea of ​​the limits of stress / damage that the system can experience.
      So don't worry good
  • Radikal
    Radikal 5 March 2021 20: 28
    +2
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: Radikal
    Dear friend, we would like it so much, but as a matter of fact ....

    In fact, he is my favorite dad, who has worked in the defense industry for about 50 years ...
    He was the chief designer of the optical component of the "curtain" system.
    So - according to him, without testing, as he said with a "sledgehammer", not a single weapon system is accepted!
    Roughly speaking, all the systems being developed and being adopted for service undergo a series of tests during which they are thoroughly broken down, and if it did not work out, the tests continue until they break / break through / burn / blow up (underline the necessary) finally. This gives an idea of ​​the limits of stress / damage that the system can experience.
    So don't worry good

    Everything that you have reported is worthy! However, there is other, far from optimistic information. hi
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 6 March 2021 18: 00
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      Everything that you have reported is worthy! However, there is other, far from optimistic information.

      There is, unfortunately, and extremely not optimistic. But I will repeat again - even now (even in the Yelitsin times!), Without a specific complete program of tests, nothing is accepted for service ...
  • Radikal
    Radikal 5 March 2021 20: 31
    +1
    Quote: Albert1988
    Quote: Radikal
    It’s strange. I, according to my close understanding and education, believed that according to the laws of physics, objects / objects directed by any force, in accordance with the position in space, when meeting with an obstacle, are able to change their direction at the moment of contact ...

    Then I advise you to read about how BOPS work, what mass and kinetic energy they have, how they ricochet and ricochet at all (I give a hint - to achieve a modern BOPS rebound - the task is often more difficult than flying to the moon), what kind of armor is used to protect against BOPS, how BOPS interact with remote sensing ...

    Who tested it? Where and when are the results?
    winked
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 6 March 2021 18: 02
      0
      Quote: Radikal
      Who tested it? Where and when are the results?

      ABOUT! Well, you asked - it was checked since the appearance of BPSs and then BOPSs, both at test sites and in real databases, in the same Arab-Israeli conflicts there were many real checks.