"Is the T-90 any good?" Topic

A question for the modern tank buffs out there – how good would the T-90 be? I'm preparing for a Cold War Commander game, and was surprised to note that, at least by the standards of that game, the T-90 is actually superior to a British Challenger II. That doesn't seem quite right to me.

Has the T-90 seen any action? Is it really that good? I would appreciate hearing from the tank afficianados on TMP!

Regards,

Greg

It hasn't seen any shooting yet. Russia makes claims as to its performance based on their tests. Having been somewhat involved with US combat development testing, I would keep a large shaker of salt handy--for anybody's claims!

Do you think it would be best to dial the stats back a bit then (perhaps only slightly better than a late model T-80, for example)?

Depends on what the other team has.

The T-90 (formally called the T-72BU) is nothing more than an upgraded T-72. It has dropped the T-80's gas turbine engines and reverted to the engine of the T-72. So from a tactical mobility standpoint, it is inferior to the T-80. It has the same gun and ammo as the T-80, although some may be getting French designed thermal imagers. The T-90A (with the welded turret) is assessed to have better composite armor than the T-80, but earlier (and export) models are no better.

Agree with onomarchos, the T90 seems to be basically a bombasted T72… it also seems that T80U and T80U2 are a bit better according to russians with favored units ending with T80U (and that T90 is mainly ending as an export tank).

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Maybe the Cold War Commander folks should review their stats – the T-90 in that game has got to be the best tank out there!

Depends on the model.
The bog standard T90 is an upgraded T72b… Turret is the standard cast with active inserts… (steel, rubber, aluminum). Hull is also upgraded and is probably multiple steel plates of varying hardness with rubber sandwiched in between (vs the steel/Glass Fiber/steel of the earlier T72 series).

Some newer marks will have had the turret upgraded with titanium in place of the aluminum. The very latest T90s have a welded turret and a new armor insert. No public info about this one.

Almost all T90s now would be fitted with heavy reactive armor. The newest marks are excellent.

The gun is an upgraded 125mm model. Fire control is good.
Ammo varies. The newest best Russian ammo requires an reconfiguration of the autoloader (the round is much longer). Very few have this modification. Most will shoot a bullet more like the American 829A2 in penetration than the latest A3. They still have the problem with longer ranges as the fins ride the bore… less parasitic mass (the rounds hit harder), but the rounds lose velocity and accuracy faster (more drag). Newest rounds don't. Some will be equipped to fire a missile at long range.

The T90 still suffers from having rounds stored in the fighting compartment….though most crews will ditch them.

Autoloader is weirdly still behind the T80 in speed. though most folks exaggerate this.

Joe Collins

Joe (or someone else) – as someone who has only really observed armour through books and pictures etc., can you tell me why it would be a problem to have rounds in the fighting compartment? Where else would they be (a stupid question, probably, but still wondering)?

problem to have rounds in the fighting compartment

as opposed to behind blast door with blow out panels like an M1 has (crew protection issue).

*Real* tankers can deal with rounds in ready racks in the turret (they've accepted that their life expectancy is negligible), and can dance over hot expended casings as if they weren't littering the turret floor.

I've read many studies of the new T-90 versions with the improved reactive armor which can defeat our best penetrator at any range – at least the first hit on an area. I don't know how accurate those statistics are, but if true it would be impressive. The T-90 isn't the tank that Iraq had during the gulf war.

India isn't too pleased with theirs.

I'd say "better than a Challenger 2" is more ad gimmick than truth.
-Kle.

If you are penetrated then rounds in the fighting compartment tend to burn. All the T72 brewups you see are from rounds burning in the fighting compartment. The rounds in the autoloader carousel are actually fairly well protected. They are placed very low in the tank and have a fairly thick plate on top of them. The combustible cased rounds in the hull and turret are a problem. After the first Chechen war the Russian crews began fighting with only the rounds stored in the carousel. You have less rounds (22 I think)… but the tanks don't brewup.

A couple of T90s suffered multiple penetrating side hull hits. Only one crewman was injured.

Joe Collins

"I've read many studies of the new T-90 versions with the improved reactive armor which can defeat our best penetrator at any range – at least the first hit on an area."

reactive armor only works on shaped charge projectiles not on hard penetrators

In what sense(s) do you judge the T-90 superior to the Chally-2 in Cold War Commander?

Collins – by several sense(s) I judge the T-90 superior to the Challenger II in CWC. In CWC, here is the comparison:

Challenger II has a move of 25cms, has 6 attacks with a range of 120cms, takes 6 hits, and saves on 3+. It has composite armour (can save against ATGW), thermal sights and stabilized gun system (one less shot if you fire on the move). All in all, a tough cookie, priced at 235 points in the game.

The T-90 moves faster at 30cms, has 6 attacks at less range (100cms), takes the same number of hits (6), has the same armour save (3+), has composite armour that gives a 4+ save against ATGW from the front (not as good as the Challenger on that point) PLUS gets a bonus to evade ATGW from the Shtora system, and is able to use the AT-14 ATGW, giving it an attack value of 8 out to 200 cms so long as it doesn't move. It has thermal sights (same as Challenger), stabilized guns (same as Challenger). It has a restricted fire arc (Challenger does not, but this is a minor hindrance in most games). All of this for 280 points.

In balance (again, in Cold War Commander), the T-90 has better firepower (thanks to the ATGW), better mobility, similar armour, is actually harder to hit with ATGW (even if its save against that is slightly worse). And it will probably outnumber the Challengers on the table!

Obviously they account for this with a higher points cost, I just sense that the T-90 stats are overloaded.

Greg B

*Sips his German beer and thinks about Grafenwohr…*

"Them Russkies can't built ANYTHING WORTH A that my old M60A3 and my crew couldn't take out with steel on target!!!!!"

Harrrumph Indeed!!!!

Heavy reactive armor is effective against both KEP and CEP. First fielded in 1986….yes, 1986…. it worked by using much heavier and thicker flyer plates and slower burning explosive. It had two major problems.

1st. The Sovs felt confident against our KEP rounds. When your average Nato round would have troubles vs a bog standared T72… why spend the money? Remember the American 883 round was slow coming on line. The German 120mm round was scary, but underperforming. The Brits were too few to worry about. Few M1A1s in 1986.

2nd. The tuning of the armor against KEP limits the effectiveness vs CEP. The SOvs were worried about their existing tank park.

End of lecture on ERA.

The T90 is a great tank. Not near as good as the Challenger 2 though. Armor is much less consistant. ERA coverage is only 60%. Large weak spots over the drivers hatch, around the gun, and on the upper turret are problems. The Anti missile defenses are unproven in battle. Finally the tank has a tendency to brewup.

Joe Collins

Never played CWC…
But here goes some suggestions… they are worth what you paid for them…

Move is good.. should be faster… Chally2 is a 70 ton beast.

I would give it 5 attacks. The autoloader is a bit slower.

Armor is good, but I would give it 5 hits. It is a 50 ton tank vs 65-70 tonners.

AT14 can be shot from the move.

Joe Collins

Well does the Russian economy have the rubles to produce these in numbers needed, or just mostly for exports ? And I'm sure if the Russkies go to war (again) there will be a lot of T-72s and T-80s rolling around …

I'm not going to comment on the points cost issue, as I think GregB is asking whether the portrayal of the T-90 is accurate.

Mobility: difficult to comment on, not owning CWC and so not knowing the spread of tank movement rates in the game. All but the earliest T-90 have a V-92 diesel engine that is more powerful than the engine of the T-72, but T-90 also weighs more. P-to-W ratio of a bit more than 20hp/t for T-90 is better than T-72, but significantly less than turbine-powered tanks like T-80. It is only about five percent better than Chally-2 of 19.2 hp/t. Hence, game ratings seem a bit off.

Protection: There are weak spots on both T-90 and Chally-2 frontal arcs but overall they are both well-protected tanks (as Joe knows, by T-90 the significant upper front turret and lower front hull armour disparities apparent in early T-64/T-72s had been addressed). Effectiveness of Shtora is unproven, but I think the game is right to reflect the fact that T-90 carries such a system specifically intended to combat ATGMs, while Chally-2 does not. The fact that T-90 is liable to 'brew-up' more readily than Chally-2 after a major penetration to the fighting compartment is of marginal significance in a tactical wargame – both tanks are likely to be out-of-action in game terms from such a penetration. T-90A (and export T-90S) built after 2000 is better protected than original cast armoured T-90.

Firepower: T-90 does not carry an "AT-14" missile. The missile system is designated AT-11 by NATO – I'm not sure if this means it should be rated differently in the game. As Joe says, it can be fired on-the-move, at least in a cautious advance. Autoloader is accepted by Russians to be slower than that fitted to T64/T-80 series, maybe '5' is fairer ROF.

Conclusions: game should probably rate movement of T-90 and Chally-2 about the same. Protetction seems OK to me. Firepower needs sorting out a bit, especially if game thinks it really is an AT-14 that T-90 fires.

Wow – great info guys – thanks very much for all of the different perspective. I will fiddle with the stats a bit based on this discussion.

I believe that in the real world, Russia has relatively few T-90s (for reasons of cost, or otherwise). For game purposes, we will be playing a "what-if" scenarion where Russia and Belarus have invaded Poland.

As part of this imaginary setting, the Russians have kitted up to the point where a significant number of T-90s and BMP-3 regiments are involved. The French, Germans and Brits have all sent forces to help the Poles.

We have already played a couple of games – here are a few pics:

picture

picture

picture

I was struck by how strong the T-90s were in the games, which prompted my original post. Thanks again for the information!

Just a final note: I'll believe the T-90 is even half as good as a Western design when we see them perform to that standard in real life.

We've all heard Soviet/Russian military equipment claims before, and they sure talk a good fight.
-Kle.

I was a little surprised no one mentioned how quick it is to shoot. Western designs have sophisticated laser range-finders and automatic target trackers, so the next target can be locked on to before the previous target is engaged.

The T-90 has an on-board targeting computer, but judging from previous models, I wouldn't bet on it on a duel with a Chally 2.

We've all heard Soviet/Russian military equipment claims before, and they sure talk a good fight.

It's about differences in doctrine and how those doctrines develop over time. The Soviets/Russians never bought into the whole MBT concept sticking with the idea of medium tanks. Their tanks work well within their doctrines. I imagine that if you teleported ours into their structures they'd perform less than optimally and probably worse than theirs.

The typo in the title always gives me a laugh but this is a good high level view. link

I wouldn't bet on it on a duel with a Chally 2.

Direct comparisons are misleading. If the Russians go toe to toe with just a single T90 against a Chally 2 then something has gone seriously wrong and it's "become heroes" time. This is why so many Russians just look puzzled when we do the one-on-one comparisons or 'Best XXXXX' that we all love so much.

It's about differences in doctrine and how those doctrines develop over time.

Make it simple, make it work and make alot of it.

Make it simple, make it work and make alot of it.

Regrettably for the modern Russian player, that is definitely not the case for the subject of this thread, the T-90. Although it has been around since early 1990s, very few have entered Russian service. Only a few more than 400 in service, and they are of varying production standards (i.e. many absent TI for instance).

reactive armor only works on shaped charge projectiles not on hard penetrators

not so – reactive armour can help defeat KE rounds by shearing action of the 2 plates – Kontakt-5 is the lead ship for this "heavy" ERA – it requires heavier plates, but it can break a penetrator in half – see the wiki page at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5

The global security page on the T-90 is at link