Sometimes ammunition will start to burn after several hours, sometimes it will immidietly burn or explode. besides this the problem is not autoloader itself but rest of ammunition stored inside hull, even T-90MS have still several rounds and propelant charges stored inside hull.That's a huge myth, that ammunution explodes immediatly after hit. In most cases, explosion occurs only after burning for quite some time. Did you see Georgian T-72s in Tshinvali? They burned for hour or so. T-72/90 autoloader is located near the bottom of hull.
Without complete isolation and blow off panels it is not safe, as many battles proved.This is a pretty safe place in tank-to-tank battles, when tankers use a terrain cover.
You completely not understand principle of safe manouvering angles and how side turret protection is achieved in both designs. In T series tanks side turret is made from max 80mm CHA or RHA this is why to achieve proper protection within safe manouvering angles it need to be angled in such a way that side turret armor is covered by frontal armor, this have advantage in smaller turret size and weight, but there are also disadvantages. In tanks like M1 there is ~360-400mm (or less depending on design) composite armor cavity, at hit angle of 30 degrees it should provide high level of protection. Actually western approach is far more versatile because besides good protection within safe manouvering angles, such armor provides higher degree of protection than thin CHA or RHA. Both can be reinforced by ERA but still Composite + ERA will have better protection than RHA/CHA + ERA. Tradeoff for higher side protection is bigger size and weight of vehicle, tradeoff for T series tanks is worser balance of turret that do not have rear counterweight for heavy front armor and main armament.
Wrong! Object 188 designated by Army as T-90 have thermal sight for gunner. Educate Yourself!Early T-90 doesn't have thermal sight, so their night combat capabilities was more limited.
Myth, gas turbine engine do not have higher thermal signature than a Diesel. I seen photos of Diesel and Gas turbine powered tanks in thermal sight from other tanks, no significant difference.BTW, Abrams thanks to it's gas turbine, has a way huge thermal signature than pretty much any diesel tank.
It is LOS weapon, no real advantage in Europe, even desert are not flat enough everywhere to use them. NATO is working on BLOS GLATGM's with much higher range (they can also be used in LOS).Moreover, T-90 have a "long arm" for tank-to-tank battle - barrel launched ATGMs.
Note: BLOS - Beyond Line Of Sight, LOS - Line Of Sight.
First things firts. If You would have some knowledge You would know that proper designation is 3BMxx (where xx is number) not some ZBM thing. Second M829A1 is long ago outdated, M829A2 also, currently basic APFSDS is M829A3 and M829A4 soon will be fielded. Gap closed only to level of M829A2 with new Russian APFSDS with penetrator ~740mm long, while M829A3 have 800mm penetrator long and the whole projectile is 900mm long (penetrator + ballistic cap).About APFSDS - In 1991, when M829A1 entered in service, Soviet tanks get DU shell ZBM-48 'Svinets' with same armor penetration as M829A1. But USSR collapsed, and previous generation DU APFSDS ZBM-33 'Vant' (M829 analogue) still more common. However, with strenghtening of economy, existing gap in capabilities would close.
Wrong! Again , For M1 there are several HE shells, M908 HEOR currently in use in US Army and USMC, USMC recently purchased DM11 programmable HE as interim solution before new AMP (Advanced Multipurpose) round will be fielded. AMP is highly advanced ammunition that will replace M830 HEAT, M830A1 MPAT, M908HEOR and M1028. AMP use programmable fuze, and is even capable to perforate front turret armor of T-55 tank (nice for HE ammunition eh?). There were photos somewhere in one of official documents after tests of this ammunition against T-55, I was impressed.Now only targets of Abrams tanks is an infantry and buildings. And against them Abrams doesn't even have HE shells
@Cyborn, please, read something serious not that crap that You feeding yourself.
These are not radiator grill but air intakes, so no thermal signature there. And gun is loaded by autoloader. You seems to know absolutely nothing about autoloader design from USA. And guess where was first project of carousel autoloader designed, yup in US of A.Yeah, nice design. Radiator grills tilted forward, so enemy can more clearly see them in thermal sight and more easily struck them. And how the **** they suppose to load the main gun?
In one of Richard Hunnicutt books there are drawing of proposed tanks designs from 1950's with carousel type autoloaders.
@Flamming_python, I never said that non Kornet was ever used against tank. This is some misunderstanding or mistake.Nonsense; both the Kornet and Metis were used to powerful effect against the Merkava Mk.3 & Mk.2 during the 2006 Lebanon War; although for the most part older ATGMs and RPGs were used against these older tanks.
There was a v. good link that I had, but I lost it.