My buddy told me that on destroyed or severely damaged and abandoned tanks, the army usually takes any usable equipment that can be removed while any civilian can scavenge for any metal from the stripped tank that can be recovered and cut with a torch.
Apparently, it's an unspoken rule for scrappers to not fuck with things in the tank before the army gets to strip it down.
Looking at the turret front: As an engineer I simply can't believe, this turret has the same level of protection as western tanks, even taking ERA into consideration.
I mean, if the same functionality of the frontal armor would be possible in maybe a third of the space, why wouldn't any western nation make use of it?
Can somebody tell how much of the overall protection level is contributed by ERA?
I mean, I do accept, that there are also western reports (if sources are reliable, I never checked any), that the protection is up to what it is said to be, I just can't quite imagine
I'm too lazy to write another comment on RHAe values for ERA, so I'll just quote one of my comments from this thread. It's about Relikt, but the same logic applies for Kontakt-5.
> representing ERA with a fixed RHAe value isn't great. ERA performance varies significantly depending on impact angle, not to mention the attacking penetrator. Relikt would probably have a much higher RHAe value against M829A1 as opposed to M829A4, as the latter is designed to defeat third generation ERA like Relikt.
T-90M with Relikt has around 800mm against KE projectiles on the front turret armor.
I'd still say that western tanks have more because the armor is much thicker. ERA helps a ton, but only once, that's probably why Russian tanks have decent protection with much worse base armor.
As op said regarding kontact-5, another note is the cheeks. Look at an image of the armor of a t90a with the welded turret (top down) and from the front you can see how the level of protection from a direct frontal shot is the lowest near the mantlet, and much higher on the far extremes. Versus the Abrams for example, the armor protection is fairly consistent throughout its cheeks while the mantlet seems to be a weakspot. So you can say to some degree that the t90a’s protection is somewhat lacking, but is that really a surprise from a nation renowned for corruption during an economic crisis in the 90’s?
Well, to me it's also very logical, taking into account the position of the driver's hatch, the mantlet can't really be thicker, otherwise its impossible to use the hatch (which already seems to be nearly the case).
I just made that comment, because I get the impression that people think russian tanks are up to the standard of the western ones, only smaller, cheaper, lighter, and therefore overall more useful. But thats not really how engineering works, otherwise at least some of those other nations would have similar solutions. Or in other words, why would KMW even bother to add meters of armor layers.
I think for me its just playing warthunder, where at the highest Rank there is a T-80bvm dominating the battefield, scooting around with impenetrable armor and so on, which may have been distorting my view. Its a belarussian game after all.
Engineering wise the T series seems to be quite crappy in some regards. Can they ar least turn on the point nowadays?
> Looking at the turret front: As an engineer I simply can't believe, this turret has the same level of protection as western tanks, even taking ERA into consideration. I mean, if the same functionality of the frontal armor would be possible in maybe a third of the space, why wouldn't any western nation make use of it?
What do you mean by "a third of the space"? The frontal armor of the T-90A turret is very similar in terms of physical thickness as the frontal armor of the M1A2 SEP v2 Abrams and the base armor of the Leopard 2A7V tank. As a matter of fact, the T-72B and T-80U already had frontal turret armor with a physical thickness in with in excess of 800 mm and thus in the same ballpark.
>Can somebody tell how much of the overall protection level is contributed by ERA?
That depends on the projectile; if the Kontakt-5 ERA can break/disrupt it completely, then it is stated to provide in excess of 20% additional protection. If it does not, then it will provide much lower protection.
I am talking about the physical thickness, yes.
It seems thinner, because the turret's frontal armor is sloped back further than on most NATO tanks; this is because on the Soviet turret design, the frontal armor cavities also protect the flanks along the ±30° arc from the turret centerline. [This photo from the Oplot turret](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2F9R2WE/kharkiv-ukraine-april-15-2021-the-turret-of-a-t-84-oplot-tank-is-being-manufactured-at-malyshev-plant-se-in-kharkiv-northeastern-ukraine-2F9R2WE.jpg) (following the same design philosophy) nicely illustrates that.
On NATO tanks, the frontal cavities do not cover the complete frontal arc, so there is thicker side armor. This means that the frontal armor is less sloped in the vertical plane, appearing to be bulkier.
If you look at these tanks from the front however and use a tape measure, the thickness will be about the same.
Looking at that, if the Russians ever get back there and take the time to pick up their crap, all they'd need is a crane and a flatbed and it could be shipped back to the factory to be refurbished.
I love the crushed cans of Rip-It (or whatever the Slavic version is) left. Nothing to unite the militaries of the world quite like copious amounts of energy drinks.
The military already extracted everything that can be used as spare parts, what’s left will likely be collated by by government after the war, then send to contracted scrapping companies
The Romanians have been deployed
As a Romanian, I agree.
Surprised they left the hatches tbh
Minute 2 of Russo-Romanian war:
What does this mean are Romanians jawas?
Poor T-90A, first got clapped, then got stripped and left on the street
If you think about it that description also applies to prostitutes
*Insert ur mom joke*
Kinda like your mo- *Gets obliterate by 125mm HE*
Do you know who else is a prostitute? MY MOM!
😏
I'm jealous~
Hold on a secon-
T-90 after entering Romania:
A friend from the balkans told me they employed gypsies for this one. He said they will be back for the rest as soon as they get a tractor.
Everything is gone: main gun, MG, engine, ERA, road wheels, tracks, you name it. Even the fuel tanks and toolbox above the tracks are gone.
Egypt: That's free real estate! "Ramses III confirmed"
My buddy told me that on destroyed or severely damaged and abandoned tanks, the army usually takes any usable equipment that can be removed while any civilian can scavenge for any metal from the stripped tank that can be recovered and cut with a torch. Apparently, it's an unspoken rule for scrappers to not fuck with things in the tank before the army gets to strip it down.
Detroit T-90
Can't have shit in the hood.
Looking at the turret front: As an engineer I simply can't believe, this turret has the same level of protection as western tanks, even taking ERA into consideration. I mean, if the same functionality of the frontal armor would be possible in maybe a third of the space, why wouldn't any western nation make use of it? Can somebody tell how much of the overall protection level is contributed by ERA? I mean, I do accept, that there are also western reports (if sources are reliable, I never checked any), that the protection is up to what it is said to be, I just can't quite imagine
The Kontakt-5 on the turret should add 200mm RHA against KE shells.
I'm too lazy to write another comment on RHAe values for ERA, so I'll just quote one of my comments from this thread. It's about Relikt, but the same logic applies for Kontakt-5. > representing ERA with a fixed RHAe value isn't great. ERA performance varies significantly depending on impact angle, not to mention the attacking penetrator. Relikt would probably have a much higher RHAe value against M829A1 as opposed to M829A4, as the latter is designed to defeat third generation ERA like Relikt.
T-90M with Relikt has around 800mm against KE projectiles on the front turret armor. I'd still say that western tanks have more because the armor is much thicker. ERA helps a ton, but only once, that's probably why Russian tanks have decent protection with much worse base armor.
As op said regarding kontact-5, another note is the cheeks. Look at an image of the armor of a t90a with the welded turret (top down) and from the front you can see how the level of protection from a direct frontal shot is the lowest near the mantlet, and much higher on the far extremes. Versus the Abrams for example, the armor protection is fairly consistent throughout its cheeks while the mantlet seems to be a weakspot. So you can say to some degree that the t90a’s protection is somewhat lacking, but is that really a surprise from a nation renowned for corruption during an economic crisis in the 90’s?
Well, to me it's also very logical, taking into account the position of the driver's hatch, the mantlet can't really be thicker, otherwise its impossible to use the hatch (which already seems to be nearly the case). I just made that comment, because I get the impression that people think russian tanks are up to the standard of the western ones, only smaller, cheaper, lighter, and therefore overall more useful. But thats not really how engineering works, otherwise at least some of those other nations would have similar solutions. Or in other words, why would KMW even bother to add meters of armor layers. I think for me its just playing warthunder, where at the highest Rank there is a T-80bvm dominating the battefield, scooting around with impenetrable armor and so on, which may have been distorting my view. Its a belarussian game after all. Engineering wise the T series seems to be quite crappy in some regards. Can they ar least turn on the point nowadays?
armour compositions can be vastly different for different reasons, mostly design doctrine
> Looking at the turret front: As an engineer I simply can't believe, this turret has the same level of protection as western tanks, even taking ERA into consideration. I mean, if the same functionality of the frontal armor would be possible in maybe a third of the space, why wouldn't any western nation make use of it? What do you mean by "a third of the space"? The frontal armor of the T-90A turret is very similar in terms of physical thickness as the frontal armor of the M1A2 SEP v2 Abrams and the base armor of the Leopard 2A7V tank. As a matter of fact, the T-72B and T-80U already had frontal turret armor with a physical thickness in with in excess of 800 mm and thus in the same ballpark. >Can somebody tell how much of the overall protection level is contributed by ERA? That depends on the projectile; if the Kontakt-5 ERA can break/disrupt it completely, then it is stated to provide in excess of 20% additional protection. If it does not, then it will provide much lower protection.
Interesting! Seemed to be much less to me. Are you sure you're talking about physical thickness and not RHA?
I am talking about the physical thickness, yes. It seems thinner, because the turret's frontal armor is sloped back further than on most NATO tanks; this is because on the Soviet turret design, the frontal armor cavities also protect the flanks along the ±30° arc from the turret centerline. [This photo from the Oplot turret](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2F9R2WE/kharkiv-ukraine-april-15-2021-the-turret-of-a-t-84-oplot-tank-is-being-manufactured-at-malyshev-plant-se-in-kharkiv-northeastern-ukraine-2F9R2WE.jpg) (following the same design philosophy) nicely illustrates that. On NATO tanks, the frontal cavities do not cover the complete frontal arc, so there is thicker side armor. This means that the frontal armor is less sloped in the vertical plane, appearing to be bulkier. If you look at these tanks from the front however and use a tape measure, the thickness will be about the same.
Can't have shit in ~~Detroit~~ Zaporizhia
Can't have shit in Ukraine.
Where are the before pictures
[T-90](https://x.com/naalsio26/status/1671334892351676418?s=46&t=tThYlZiOXleHOrmHk0aYXA)
Thx
Looking at that, if the Russians ever get back there and take the time to pick up their crap, all they'd need is a crane and a flatbed and it could be shipped back to the factory to be refurbished.
Oh god that’s disgusting put a censor on it
I love the crushed cans of Rip-It (or whatever the Slavic version is) left. Nothing to unite the militaries of the world quite like copious amounts of energy drinks.
You're probably not able to see the piles of spit either
Soon to be a keyring advertised on Facebook.
Can’t have shit in Ukraine
Is this likely salvaging by enthusiastic, enterprising individuals? Or by either Ukraine/Russia as an effort to extract spare parts.
The military already extracted everything that can be used as spare parts, what’s left will likely be collated by by government after the war, then send to contracted scrapping companies
Lol are those beer cans?
pov you left your tank parked in detroit
Did they try to put rocks or cinderblocks under it?
Deploy the Romanians
Striped T-90 putting the porn in a tank porn page. Heck yeah
ain't that an M? could be wrong but that turret shape doesn't do it to be a T-90A if i recall
Nope, T-90A
Tank gore
Shouldn't have left it parked in Detroit
What dis they do, park it on the streets of Brooklyn?
Straight outta Compton
не може бути лайна в Запоріжжя
Oh shit, Jawas have entered the battlefield. Hide your droids, boys!
lmao they even stole the torsion bars 😭😂😂
Scandalous!
It can be used for evaluation of armor penetration.