Not so long ago, most Russian news and military analytical agencies were seriously alarmed by the absurd situation around the replenishment of the Russian Tank Forces with such controversial vehicles as the T-72B3 of an early modification and the T-72B3M of the 2016 model. The real commotion in the media space was caused by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation for the defense-industrial complex Yuri Ivanovich Borisov, who in an interview with journalists on July 30 made the following statement: “Well, why flood all the armed forces with Armata? in demand on the market, everyone takes it, it significantly surpasses them in price, efficiency and quality compared to the Abrams, Leclercs and Leopards”.
The range of emotions in relation to this statement was impossible even to describe in words, because it is well known that our T-72B3M is unlikely to be able to effectively resist the same modernized Abrams of the M1A2 SEPv3 modification for a number of technological reasons. Firstly, this is the use of a standard cast turret on tanks, the frontal armor plates of which have an equivalent resistance to armor-piercing feathered subcaliber projectiles of only about 540 mm. Taking into account the installation of obsolete elements of the DZ 4S22 "Contact-5", the durability increases to only 650-670 mm, which is not enough to protect even from the already outdated American 120-mm armor-piercing shells of the M829A1 and M829A2 types, which easily penetrate steel armor plates with a thickness of 700 and 740 mm, respectively, at a distance of 2000 meters and at an angle of 0 degrees to the normal. And this is not to mention the huge 50 - 70 - mm design gaps between the elements of the 4С22 reactive armor, hitting which even the cores of the first modification of 120 mm M829 armor-piercing shells (produced in the 80s) will definitely lead to the defeat of the tank and the death of the commander and gunner. …
Secondly, this is the presence of areas of the frontal projection of the tower in the area of the gun mask, unprotected by the remote sensing modules, where the equivalent durability barely reaches 350 mm. In this case, our T-72B3 / B3M can be destroyed even with 105-mm armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles of the M774 type, developed back in the late 70s. And, finally, thirdly, the tanks are not even thinking of equipping the Arena-M active protection systems, which could save the vehicles, as well as their crews in an emergency (when firing with FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank guided missiles, anti-tank missiles AGM-114L "Hellfire-Longbow" and other means). The only advantage of the T-72B3M can be considered only the modern 125-mm 2A46M-5 cannon with a 1, 2 times higher accuracy of firing, as well as a 70% reduced total dispersion when firing immediately, which is achieved by using additional backlash-selecting devices and a barrel bending meter … But unfortunately, this gun retained the main disadvantage of the earlier 2A46M and 2A46M1 guns, which consists in the use of only such armor-piercing feathered shells as Lekalo and Lead-2, capable of penetrating the frontal armor plates of enemy tanks with a durability of no more than 670 and 770 mm respectively.
A very comforting moment, against the background of Mr. Borisov's discouraging statement, was the news about the "viability" of the contract between the Russian defense department and JSC "Scientific and Production Corporation" Uralvagonzavod ", providing for the delivery of the first batch of 132 combat vehicles on the Armata platform (MBT T-14 and heavy BMP T-15). This was announced by the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Alexei Krivoruchko during the Army-2018 International Military-Technical Forum. We are talking about a deal concluded back in 2015 for the supply of an experimental military batch of vehicles to the Russian army.
But even despite the fact that common sense prevailed, and the Ministry of Defense realized that the price for one T-14 at $ 4 million is not so high against the background of the Leclerc (7 million), only a few dozen promising vehicles of this type, combined into mixed tank brigades with the T-72B3M, will not be able to bring the combat potential of the Russian Tank Forces to the highest level in all operational areas of the European theater of military operations without exception. Moreover, in 2018, the Ground Forces of the Russian Federation will be replenished with only 9 units of vehicles on the multifunctional heavy tracked platform "Armata", which is not enough for a radical "jump" in combat capabilities even in the extremely tank-hazardous Baltic direction, the escalation on which may begin even before the 20s. years in connection with the actively aggravated military-political situation. In view of these circumstances, it is advisable to think about which MBT is actually capable of at least temporarily ensuring parity with the mechanized brigades of the US Army being transferred to Poland and the Baltic states, which have the latest M1A2 SEPv3 / 4 tanks at their disposal.
Here at the very time to pay attention to another magnificent car that took part in the demonstration firing at the Alabino range within the framework of the military-technical forum "Army-2018". We are talking about a deeply modernized main battle tank T-90M, which received a "package" of updates in accordance with research and development work on the "Breakthrough-3" theme. Some commentators of such resources as militaryparitet.com, or observers of Western analytical agencies will excitedly argue that this machine is a "relic of the past", pointing to the constructive relationship of the chassis and MTO T-90M with the "ancient" T-72B. In fact, this relationship not only does not worsen the combat qualities of the tank, but also ensures full interchangeability of structural units on the battlefield with the T-72B3M tanks already in service. In particular, the T-90M is unified with the latter in terms of road wheels, the upgraded 1130-horsepower V-92S2F diesel engine and a number of other parts. The V-92S2F engine provides a 48-ton machine with a decent power-to-weight ratio of 23.55 hp / t, which corresponds to the performance of most M1A2 versions; in the same turn, it is much less capricious in conditions of high dustiness of the atmosphere and on the desert relief of the area.
The most important trump cards of the T-90M are hidden in the unique indicators of its armor protection. As in the earlier Nizhniy Tagil T-90A / AK "Vladimir", the "Object 188M" uses a modern welded tower with developed frontal armor plates of the tower (located at an inclination of 55 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the main gun barrel), the physical size of which reaches 980 - 1000 mm in the central part, 650 mm at the level of the multi-channel gunner's sight "Sosna-U" and about 420 mm in the area of the gun mask. Considering that the T-90M turret is covered by the "Relikt" explosive reactive armor set, represented by the 4S23 modules with the possibility of a 50% reduction in the penetrating effect of the cores of armor-piercing feathered subcaliber projectiles, the equivalent durability of the turret at ± 5-10 degrees of fire will be about 1450 mm in the central parts of the frontal armor plates, 950 - 970 mm in the area of "Sosny-U" and 650 mm in the sector of the gun mask (a relatively small area with a width of about 70 - 80 cm). Conclusion: most of the frontal projection of the T-90M turret is fully protected even from the most modern American BOPS M829A3 and M829E4, while the cannon mask can only withstand the hit of the outdated M829 BOPS (with the most favorable outcome, M829A1). The prospect is naturally alarming; but this is definitely better than in a critical situation with the T-72B3 and T-72B3M.
The equivalent durability of the VLD T-90M against BOPS due to the use of "Relikt" can be 900 - 950 mm, which will also confidently protect the mechanic drive from the M829A3 projectile (when using the EDZ "Contact-5", the VLD had a durability of about 830 mm). The ability to withstand tandem cumulative warheads allows the elements of the 4S23 reactive armor "Relikt" to fully protect the tank from ATGMs of the "TOW-2A" type even at safe maneuvering angles of ± 20 degrees along the hull and ± 35 degrees along the turret. Moreover, a 90-120% reduction in the penetrating effect of the cumulative jet due to the principle of "two-sided throwing" of armor plates will protect even the vulnerable zone near the gun mask from the TOW-2A ATGM.
Nevertheless, the situation with the protection of the new T-90M against tactical anti-tank missiles of the Hellfire-II family (including Brimstone and JAGM), as well as anti-tank missiles FGM-148 Javelin and BGM-71F (the latter is equipped with Warheads of the "shock core" type), capable of attacking tanks in the most weakened areas of the upper projection. The first strike, diving at large angles of inclination, BGM-71F - due to the flight directly over the target, projecting the dispersion of high kinetic energy striking elements onto the roof of the tower or the upper armor plate of the hull. To protect the tank from such an impact, active protection systems "Arena-M" or "Afganit" are needed. Official sources claim that the T-90M (like other tanks of the T-80BV / U and T-90A families) can be equipped with these protective equipment, but in reality we are only seeing the presence of remote-controlled combat modules with 12, 7-mm 6P49MT machine guns "Kord-MT", as well as additional multi-channel panoramic sights PK PAN "Falcon Eye", which in terms of protection against high-precision weapons "will not do the weather." Well, let's see if KAZs will appear on serial T-90M tanks.
The situation with the main tool is also not the best. If just a couple of years ago, military-industrial sources "broadcast" about the installation on the T-90M of the newest 125-mm cannon 2A82-1M, capable in the future of using promising BPS "Vacuum-1" with penetration of more than 1000 mm, capable of striking frontal armored plates M1A2 SEPv2 / 3, now we are talking only about a weapon of the 2A46M-5 type, which indicates the possibility of using only Invar-M tank guided missiles of the Reflex complex and armor-piercing shells Lekalo and Svinets-2 in ammunition, unable to penetrate into the forehead neither the Abrams, nor the Challenger 2, nor the Leopard-2A7. Little hope will be observed only if these shells hit the area of the gun mask and the turret ring. Conclusion: in a duel situation with the "Abrams", for example on the Baltic ON, the T-90M will be able to maintain combat stability even under the "dense" shelling of new M829A3 shells. At the same time, the T-90M crews will not be able to easily cope with the M1A2 SEPv3, since the above shells will not be able to overcome the barrier made of UO-100 uranium ceramics and AD-95 corundum ceramics with a total durability of about 970 mm.
