I was reading about the T-90 on Wikipedia and came across a statement that according to a Russian test, 5 M1 Abrams rounds were fired at the T-90 and NONE of the rounds penetrated it! Can this be true? I didn't really think that ERA was all that great, kinda like a poor man's substitute to composite armor.

Did they say what size? 105 or 120mm? It would be interesting to know.

No, it didn't give the size or type of round. I'm assuming it was just a plain ol' SABOT round though.

Many people have told me that Wikipedia isn't that trustworthy. Afterall, anyone can add content to an article.

I would like to know how the Russian Army got hold of an Abrams gun to fire the 5 rounds, whether it's the M68A1 105 mm or the M256A1 120mm.

Steve

Hello Dave,

I wouldn't characterize the Kontakt-5 ERA as poor. I don't know anything about the test with the T-90, but it has been confirmed by Jane's, that a soviet/russian T-72BM equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA couldn't effectively penetrated by the US M829A1 round. Today, the US tank troops have the more powerfull M829A3 round, and the russians responded with the Relikt ERA. I must agree with Steve, wikipedia is not always a reliable source.

Yea I was skeptical about that so I figure I'd ask the experts here at Armorama.

I read that article. Actually, it was more of a blurb paragraph. Jane's has really thinned since the end of the 1991 Gulf War and most info is now a paragraph or two and written by freelance writers. This is not to say that their info's not legit, just that it's no longer in-depth.

I don't know the specifics of the test except that the rounds fired were regular Sabot rounds, not the depleted uranium rounds. Now the Russians claim their latest ERA can defeat depleted uranium rounds and they say they developed rounds that can defeat the Chobham frontal armor of M1A1s and M1A2s.

The latest ERA does have better protection against Sabot rounds since the plates have a different metal density and act to yaw and blunt the tip of a Sabot rounds. Just because it's ERA doesn't mean that the plates have to be plain cheap steel.

Obviously submitted by the Soviet military.....LOL!

This might get more attention over in the Soviet/Russio forum!

Also, this has been discussed for some time over on Tanknet .

The CLAIM is that the Russians have used the most current rounds available in Iraq to test with, and have hinted that some of the more experimental ones have gotten to them as well. Take it for what it is worth. In this globalized free-market world, i am willing to believe they could bribe the right people to get their hands on top line US Military kit...maybe even a M1A2 tank!!! The US is able to do it too, we (The US) bought 3 T-80UD with K5 and all the most modern FCS upgrades from the Ukriane in the 1990's complete with top-line ammo.

The only question I have is what are the chances of Top-line US equipment having to go at it with Top-line Russian kit? Probably not too high right now, so it is more sensationalism and a lot less worrisome.

I am pretty skeptical about it. I have seen first hand what a SABOT round can do to a T-72, goes through it like hot butter. A T-90 is just an upgraded T-72 with some extra armor. Additionally, ERA blocks are pretty ineffective against SABOT rounds as well. They were designed for HEAT and shaped-charge projectiles.

Actually, the T-90 features 2nd generation (heavy) Kontakt-5 ERA. It's the first type of reactive armor which is able to effectively defeat APFSDS rounds. Today, more powerful ERA have appeared such as the ukrainian "Nozh", russian "Relikt" or "Kaktus". Furthermore, the T-90 armor differs from the basic T-72 and not to mention the iraqi "monkey models" in (composite) armor qualitiy. Besides the cast turret, there is a welded one which provides even better armor protection.

More Information about the K-5 armor:
http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html/

I hear you Gino, but wading through the technical stuff (since everyone keeps for getting to invite me to the live fire exercises ) I cannot deny that the 2nd and 3rd Generation ERA will SIGNIFICANTLY degrade even SABOT penetration. Obviously not from all aspects, but the Russians found a way to keep their small, compact designs AND still give it some really good armor protection in the range of the M1A2. Might not be what we all want to hear, but the theory is sound. Go to Tanknet and check it out, info is all over the place.

Briefly, the idea is using shaped charges in the ERA to shoot into the SABOT and cut it into pieces and induce yaw or else just induce yaw, which massively lowers its penetration capability. This does not make the tank invincible, but it means that 2 or more shots may be required to "kill" it and wouldn't that be fun?

The Russians seem to love to make these wild claims that everything they make is better than the American equal and cheaper. Personally I think it's all about money they just want to make sure their stuff gets exported after the disasterous showings of all their hardware in various conflicts. If the Russian stuff was as fantastic as the Russians claim it to be I'm pretty sure Israel wouldn't exist right now. Russia just wants to matter in the world, it's cute really all they want is some attention!

While I will diasgree with Gary that ALL the russians have is takeknowledgy (I mean the initial B-1 bomber radar was a "stolen" copy of the Russian MiG-25 radar, for example) I do agree that they have tended to be in the catch up position for a while now and that they have had to become global marketers very quickly, with all the quirks.

I also agree that it is the level of training of your troops that provide any real advantage on the battlefield rather than tech. Tech is usefull, if you have the soldiers trained to take full advantage of it. MOST arab armies that went up against Isreal used very poorly trained troops and relied more on mass waves than on the use of the tech they had. But then, look at the Govt's that they represent and you can see why they do not want a well trained military anywhere near them! Egypt in particular is the exception and they really gave the Isreali's fits. It was close.

So looking down on Russian equipment may not be the wisest way to overcome the enemy. Had the Iraqi's had M1A2's with their minimally trained crews and the US been fielding T-72's with our extreemly well trained crews, the outcome would have been the same. When you train well, you know your weakness' and strengths, as well as the enemies, and then you can plan for victory in a rational way. Too much Hoorah will only put you in a body bag.

I find it funny, that every single data from Western sources are taken at face value, and every single Eastern is discarded as propaganda (from how great the Wermacht was to how kick-ass the F-15* is...)
First, ALL the arab countries got the "export" versions of the t-72. It doesn't have composite armor, just homogeneous steel. Those tanks were about 20 years older technology, with no air cover, and employed with no sensible tactics.
I think that the lack of composite armor affects performance significantly. (If not, somebody should tell them not to bother.) Furthermore, as it was mentioned, training and tactics have enormous effect. A well-managed army with up-to-date T-72s (and air cover...) is still formidable. Add to this the tank-hunters, the fighters and fighter-bombers employed in an organized manner, and you have something to worry about. None of the first-class equipment went to the Arabs. (The Israelis success had a great deal to do with the fact that they did the attacking, and they had the element of the surprise in most of the wars. '73 was a big shock for them.)
Don't forget that until the Leo2 and M1A1 the Russians did have an edge in equipment... (Not to mention numbers.) One thing is for sure: they probably need to come up with a radically new MTB.



*Funny, I don't see people discussing that exercise between the USAF and Indian Airforce. Do you think the US Army would advertise if their penetrators would not be able to knock out the up-armored Russian models? I guess the US arm industry has no financial interest whatsoever in the market. (It would be nice to know for sure, though.)

Rumor told dozen times over. Wikipedia is one man's opinion and is useless unless author really knows what he/she is talking about. All tanks produced in RSFSR and post soviet Russia are subjected to harsh tests with broad variety of weapons. T-90 had been tested against RPGs, AT missiles big stick rounds on several occasions but it has never been fired upon with 120mm munition. The test "author" refers to is one when T-90 with cast turret and T-80U were shot upon with several BM42M rounds, RPG-29 and advanced munition for RPG-7 when Army officials tried to blame minister Grachev and his staff's incompetence and downright treasonist decisions in first Chechen campaign on the vehicles and their designers. Vasily Fofanov' page describes this test objectively pointing out advantages and disadvantages of protection solutions for both MBTs. You can even see that test was biased in favor of T-90. T-90S had been also tested solo against BM42 and later BM44 when Indian reps needed assurance that if things go hot with Pakistan, there won't be a New Year's Grozny storm reenactment. Furthermore Kontact-5 doesn't just add certain armor value against sub-caliber ammunition, it uses round's kinetic energy for sever degradation of round's integrity, if not destruction. K-5 and Relikt are definitely not quick solution due to lack of advanced composite armor; don't really know what you are talking about since T-80B glacics plate is rated 900mm of steel against HEAT produced at the time. In fact, design of advanced ERA is a move toward effective modular protection that can be quickly changed in the field if damaged or expended.

Hello Gary,



I actually don't want to launch a discussion about west tech vs. soviet/russian and/or what tank were or is better. But I must agree with Andras. In this case, non NATO tank could match the armor and firepower capability of the soviet T-64 and T-72 tanks, except the british Chieftain. In that period, the Chieftain was the only tank in NATO which was comparable to the soviet T-64 tank in terms of armor and firepower. But the appearance of M1A1 and Leo-2 have eliminated the advantages of the T-tanks.



IIRC, no known T-72 versus Merkava encounters took place, only T-55, T-62.

There ARE still rumors of Syrian T-72's facing Merkava's, but nothing confirmed. And no one form Isreal or Syria is talking about it either.

Gary, I would imagine you would know the difference between a export T-72 and a made-for-home-consumption Russian T-72. Not that THAT is the reason the Arabs lost, but if you get low end equipment as well, it certainly does not help. As you said, training and professionalism are the keys to a great military. But your tools can be the deciding factor when both sides are well trained. In which case M1A2's will kick the crap out of T-72M1's every time.

There are indeed unconfirmed reports of the Russians getting ahold of US Ammo...why is this hard to believe? Did the US Supply system black market suddenly dry up? Noone thinks that all of the misappropriated equipement in Iraq could end up in Moscow? VERY easy to imagine that they would get ahold of and use this ammo for proving ground work. And not for the Defense Minister to see, it would be very hush-hush. Remember, the Russians think EVERYTHING needs to be a secret.

It's not an excuse. It's the truth.




They still had downgraded equipment. And I seem to recall mentioning the effect of training. (As did others.) So what's the point here?
(You still can read in history books that during the Polish and French campaign, the Germans won using top-notch armor with Blitzkrieg tactics, though they used mainly the PnzI-II, which were, well, unsuitable for fighting. The tactics, the training made all the difference.)





Well, it's just a statement, with nothing to support it. It's hard to argue with statements.


Jacques,
There's more than a decade difference between the T-72 and the M1A2/Leo2. It's comparing apples and oranges. But as was mentioned: there's a chance that the T-72 might be able to sustain a direct hit from SABOT, not to mention it's range is substantially bigger using wire-controlled missiles. But it'd be probably a very uneven-sided engagement, if you take air-power out of the equation.
(Though even a ragtag army could take out M1A2s in Iraq. It's far from invincible.)

Strictly speaking, a T-90A m2004 and a T-72BM are comparing Apples and Oranges. Comparing a T-72 and a M1A2 is not too far a stratch if you think along the lines of all tank history...comparing a German Mk IV WWI tank and a M1A2 is a MUCH farther stretch. The T-72/M1A2 are actually fairly close in the fact that teh T-72 COULD defeat a M1A2 under fairly normal circumstances much along the lines that M4 Sherman's could defeat Panther tanks.

I know, it is a bit of a stretch.

This is a good discussion to have, but in isolation it essentially becomes a shouting contest. The most important piece of the puzzle is how well trained the soldiers are. But that is not enough to ensure victory, so things like logistics, tech level, and motivation are also important, just not the bedrock.

Maybe the better question is if the statement first proposed, could the Russians have gotten ahold of current use US tank rounds and that a T-90 could have survived them being shot at it. Not getting into all the details, and like I said above Tanknet has alot of the documentation and theories in detail, I have stated that yes, both are entirely plausable and possible.

More than that would probably require a security clearance!

oh in that article I was referring to the machine gun