Re: MBT's
 

Going back to the posts associated with the T-90 series tanks You Tube video, one of the major improvements is in the sensor area both the T-90/T-90A (And some countries export version T-90S as submitted last year as well.) have the SHOTORA warning/jamming system onboard, they look like the "eyes" of the those tanks mounted on both sides of the turret.

Still a very good warning/jamming system but, as you can see vulnerable to weapons or heavy shell firing where mounted.

Now look at the pictures I posted for consideration (As I've stated before I like to see equipment moving/or doing something vice being static.) for the T-90M from my last post.

On the forward leading edge on each corner of the turret (You'll see this looking at both pictures.) you'll see the "bump" that's for the APS/Warning system. Good luck taking that out without pretty much a direct hit. It's also supposed to be equipped with the same gun and quite possibly also the same FCS (This bears further investigation but, would make perfect sense that it does to me.)as on the T-14/ARMATA , better more powerful engine etc. etc.

Those are probably the most important differences along as well being better protected (Almost forgot about that!) from the T-90/T-90A/T-90S and finally the closest to it but, "no cigar" the T-90MS.

Well I did say had more input on Suhiir's video.

Later this week why the T-50 renamed SU-57 might need to be put in the "non game user" category or deleted.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

One point he raised in the video (at 0:38) it that the bese armor of the T-90 (1992) had the same armor as the T-72B (1989), which has the same armor as the T-72B (1985).

Unit#036 T-72B (88-92), #077 T-72B (88-25),#494 T-72B KMT-6 (85-25), and #495 T-72B KMT-7 (88-25)
VS
Unit#049 T-90 (93-99), Unit#564 T-90 KMT-6 (93-25), and Unit#858 T-90 (93-99)

This is most definitely not the case. In fact it's armor is better then the T-72BM (1997).

Also the active protective system effectively negates the reactive armor on the turret front facing.

Additionally at 1:42 he says the original T-90 had no thermal sights, again not the case in the OOB. Also most T-80s didn't start getting thermal sights till 1992.

At 2:08 he states the T-90 used the same engine as the T-72B, again most definitely not reflected in the OOB.

ALL these points are why I brought this video up in the first place.


Isn't it nice how we Marines insure Sailors doesn't get bored :D

Re: MBT's
 

Just because someone posts a video and makes a claim does not mean it is gospel truth without some other source to back that claim up. ALL armour values in this game for active units are guesstimates because no nation anywhere posts honest, verifiable stats. It could be we have overstated the protection of the T-90 but it could also be the T-72B's values are understated. It could also be that what we have is as good as it gets

So........"he says the original T-90 had no thermal sights, again not the case in the OOB"...... that's nice now get me another source that agrees with him. It could be that the original T-90 prototype did not have thermal sites.....or not...... prove it with sources that backs up this claim and don't expect someone else to do the work for you......if you want to question something like this do your own leg work. He also has less than complimentary comments about the Abrams Sep and the T-14 and the Merkava should we knee-jerk OOB changes based on those videos too ?

If you dig into " Redeffect"

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAN...XQ6M1Jdg/about

It shows Location: North Korea

That could be true or not or posted like that just for a giggle-----just like all the info presented

Re: MBT's
 

I know, and that's exactly why I dropped it into Fastboat's lap. He has access to sites/sources I certainly don't, and a passion for tanks. My original question was ... Is this reliable? Because if it is it calls for some unit revisions.

Re: MBT's
 

Here's an minor example of the kind of conflicting information we have to deal with

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...0887aeed9a75e4

BHISHMA

https://post-phinf.pstatic.net/MjAxN...png?type=w1200

BHEESHMA


Most sources report the name as Bhishma, None report T-90 bheeshma except that photo

Re: MBT's
 

Guys for now and BE CAREFUL HOW YOU READ THESE PLEASE I take from the best I have on these tanks again for now. I have tires to get for my car and the daughter and family just left to go back to Virginia which leaves me with an emotional CINCLANTHOME right now.

I ask your patience but in the meantime I provide some light reading all of which I spent a couple of hours into the early morning already reading myself and still "digesting".
http://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/T-90S.htm
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
Very technical data he gives real numbers.

Both the T-72BU and T-80U gave "birth" to the T-90 so next is the best I found when considering the "depth" of the issue so far.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...a/T-90_MBT.php

The next is falling into line with the rest, but understand, I just now gave this a "quick read" please take this into account.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm
(Don you will note in here concerning INDIA (SURPRISE/SURPRISE!! :rolleyes: they use both names. I also believe I brought this up for the last Patch submissions for all the Indian tank adjustments I submitted. Refer to my last post in the Jet Thread for the specific Posts.)

What I see now is...
1. Possibly STEEL (T-90) probably is the same as the T-72BU which at the time appears to have been the "pinnacle" of T-72 development when they moved onto the T-90.

2. T-90 did have thermal NV sites that falls somewhere between 800M to 1000M effective range.

3. Does the game T-90 reflect the KONTACT-5 values we use for that particular ERA? If not we have an issue there quite obviously.

I gotta get myself together and get going!!!!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Good luck, and happy (information) hunting!

I'd like nothing better then to have you prove the guy has no idea what he's talking about, because if is correct there's a lot of work needed.

Re: MBT's
 

Who's Irish out here!?! Suhiir (Both these in good natured way I'm sure! ;) is basically doing what a tour bus Driver did to me in Dublin Oct. 2016. And as I have 7 tabs opened and the Russian OOB in hot standby well, you're all just going to have read the story now (This is the mandatory fun for all part from my last Jet Thread Post.) We are on a the tour bus in it's final run of the day to make the final tour of the day.

Me: Do you think you can make to Kilmainham Gaol (Pronounced: Jail.) before the last tour starts that we have tickets for? Driver: After a few seconds, Are ya challenging me mann!?! Well Are ya challenging me mann!?! Me: Yes I am challenging you!?! Driver: Well mann, DO YOU ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE then!?! Me: Why is he asking me this I'm thinking!?! Driver repeats the question again before I finally realise this is what they do here (Later confirmed.) so...Me: Mann, I ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE AND GOD HELP US GETTING THERE!!! We all had a good laugh, and God help the tourist that didn't get to the last 3 or 4 P/U points when the bus arrived. The tour had just barely begun with us having a final laugh, handshake and a Manley man bear hug! NOW with that memory I'm ready to go.

I ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE!!

So...

A lot of people out are going to have to decide whether to go with the "Video Guy" or my best analysis with the information I have at this point. I can't do better than that. :dk:

T-90:

1. "Video Guy" is wrong as I already noted the T-90 has the armor of the T-72BU (Which would later be designated T-90.) with parts of the FCS of the T-80U. What's he missing? Well 2 MBT's that were very important to the T-72BU (I should note Tank Encyclopedia has a picture of the T-72BU.) development.

These are the...
T-72B obr.1989g
The model 1989 had an improved Kontakt-5 ERA armor, and a “Dolly Parton” composite armor extended on the turret sides.

T-72B obr.1990g
Upgraded version with a new FCS coupled with a cross-wind sensor and the V-92S2 engine (not systematic). it also had an improved commander cupola sight. The T-72BU was developed from this version, giving birth to the T-90.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...oviet_T-72.php

It does have Kontakt-5 ERA as I noted earlier today.

Also Shtora-1 countermeasures system which as I mentioned last night/early this morning still a very effective system. Included is the
“Nakidka” thermal/radar/optical shroud.

Night Vision:
Early batches
TO1-KO1 Buran-PA with TPN-4-49-23 passive/active II (target id range 1.2/1.5 km) (Mine This has two modes of Operation. Also it's ONLY used and effective at Twilight and Dawn or if you will Ambient Skylight.
https://issuu.com/ufobject/docs/russ...ons_catalog/91

Later batches
ESSA (Thales Optronique Catherine-FC TI) (Mine: As used on the T-90A and the T-72 "White Eagle", check *Nicaragua*/Venezuela OOB when I submitted that MBT about 2-3 years ago, I believe with TI/GSR 45. Might be in Russian OOB as well from the same time.)

Commander (Mine so here's the PITA, I recommend TI/GSR 15 this is the average of two values given below for the T-90/ONLY.
PNK-4S complex
includes TKN-4S Agat-S day/night sight (target id range 800 m (day)/700 (night)

Driver
TVN-5 IR night viewer
(These above values are ALL OVER THE WEB for the T-90.)

So mister "Video Man" is wrong. He's failure to identify those two missing tanks was were he failed in his "video exercise" I will still give him the :p award however, though I'll concede depending on these two factors, 1. How did he conduct his "word" search and 2. What limitations does he have on web access. I know already not everyone is equal in their access or capability to gain access at the server or other equipment outside of their PC. Some the observations were good. I've seen occur in the Forum as well.

What's left is I need to see if a "break point" exists between the "earlier batch's" as noted above, to something before the T-90A.

See I'm not such a B**T**D after all. :angel

T-72:
*http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/co...oviet_T-72.php
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm

T-90:
*http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mo...a/T-90_MBT.php
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t90.htm
*https://world-defense.com/threads/t-...tle-tank.4380/
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

* Denotes best for armor values.

I used some of my other refs as well to include armyrecognition/armyguide etc, It's all come basically to the same conclusions.

I've spent almost 5 hours on this, I'm done. I have to figure out how my PELTOR TAC 300 noise canceling hearing protection works. After this exercise, I'll be more then ready to get that/maintain my expert qual again on the range starting in the morning!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: MBT's
 

Thanks for the clarification!

(This is why you should always seek out an "expert.)

Re: MBT's
 

As usual with issues like this I have to work within the code framework of the game or change the code and THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

There is one overall vision, not one for the gunner and one for the commander. When they differ we go with the best value no matter what nation it is

ok ...... "Early batches" target id range 1.2/1.5 km) in game terms that is exactly what the game has now for the T-72BM and
the T-80U from the same era...... the T-90 has been given a full 40 I assume because at the time it was assumed the flagship tank would get the best ..... that can change for the early T-90's easily enough but I want to make sure I'm not simply interpreting what you are suggesting

I have already given it the same FC as the T-80 from the same era....35 ( up from 30 )

Not too sure where "TI/GSR 15" fits in but there is no way I am giving 15 to a T-90