Okay then /k/, how would YOU fix the T-90?

Scrapped.
You don't fix trash.

use something better than a T-72 as a starter

>>63813073
>>63813086
Try harder.

>>63813058 (OP)
Shoot FPV glider drones out of the cannon from 5km behind the front

>>63813123
Been tried, doesn't work.

>>63813058 (OP)
Take out the turret and turn it into a kangaroo APC.

>>63813058 (OP)
MBTs are tactically and strategically dead now. Man and drone portable warheads make them so. We are in a new era of WWI style warfare where the great powers have/had vast armies that are/were totally unfit to battle the contemporary technology. Just like machine guns and over-the-horizon artillery of WWI, drones and surface to air defenses today. The result is trench warfare and bodies.

>>63813168
/thread

>>63813168
Tanks are obsolete up until we get reliable, reusable interceptor drones (Oh wait we have those, we just don't have them cheap.)
We just won't need expensive long range thermal array sensors on them, we'll just use drone arrays instead, combined with expensive geoloc and drone linked FCS.

The tank will always be useful, but we may find it being use in a more indirect role, simply because they will be using drones to direct fire onto targets.

An armoured drone carrier that only launches drones (And ground drones like minitracks and doggos) is a future vehicle we will see more of soon. Ground assaults using drones will become commonplace too. Naturally, shitty conflicts in noname nations will still use humans for decades until everyone has their own personal skynet competing against one another.

We will also see airdroppable glide planes that leave behind robodogs with guns and a drone buddy behind the lines, to setup in ambush turret positions and all sorts of fun stuff.

Screenshot this post.

>>63813343
>battleships will always be useful…w-with drones!

No. MBTs had well over a half century as the premier land weapon. That’s a good run in the grand scheme of things, but that run is over.

>>63813148
That's not much like what I said at all.

>>63813058 (OP)
like a thousand 500mw lasers on top goin' pew pew pew every which way and 70 fibre optic strands flowing from the sides out little blast doors

>>63813381
The Sheridan tank shot missiles from its “gun”.

>>63813058 (OP)
Probably do what malaysian did with its PT-91M?
>Leclerc FCS
>Renk transmission which allows the tank to be serviced in couple hours and has actually decent reverse speed
>Leopard 2 tracks

>>63813117
It's a fucking bodykitted T-72. You have to start with something less shit than a T-72 if you want to fix the T-90.

>>63813058 (OP)
1. Ditch the carousel autoloader, preferably in favor of a cassette autoloader mounted in the turret bustle, but if not just get rid of it. The commander can double up as a loader. Sure, the rate of fire will be abysmal and the tank's already awful situation awareness will get worse, but it is what it is. Blast doors and blowout panels are probably asking for too much, but wet stowage shouldn't be.
2. A goddamn transmission that can do more than 5kph in reverse. This seems like something the Soviets should have fixed with the T-44, but it's 80 years later and here we are.
3. You're sanctioned to shit, so good quality optics, electronics, and sensors are out. I guess try to get the best of whatever dual-use stuff is available, but for the love of shit, install it correctly. You had access to the good Western shit prior to 2014 and still managed to waste it by letting alcoholic retards do the wiring. Hire foreigners if necessary.
4. Some sort of up-armor package. Like actual armor, not a cope shed. And designed by one of those engineering bureaus you guys love over there, with testing and math and everything. Nothing fancy, nothing cutting edge, just good ol' fashioned NERA and lots of it. The T-90 has a worse horsepower-to-weight ratio than the Abrams despite weighing 25 tons less, and adding additional armor isn't going to help but it's not like you're going to be doing maneuver warfare anytime soon. The automotive components won't like it, but the goal here is to get the tank to survive long enough that a broken torsion bar becomes an issue.
5. Oh, and cut a fucking hole in the back so the turret bustle can be accessed from inside the fucking tank. That Potemkin village shit you have going at the moment isn't even funny, just sad.

With all that, you should have a tank that's nearly the equal of an M1 Abrams baseline or Leopard 2A0

>>63813395
Cheap, FPV controlled loitering missiles which could be used for indirect fire and recon? If it's firing expensive missiles which need to be locked on within line of sight before launch then it's not the same thing at all.

>>63813395
and a super powerful ground penetrating radar equipped with downward screw missiles and a trunk connection to the temporarily underground reactor that maintains line-of-sight with fob 69 using masers to cut through the absolute mess of interference

>>63813058 (OP)
I'd imagine the Burlak is the best a T-90 can get. There's only so much you can do within a design, even the Abrams, for all its qualities, is showing its age, just as the Pattons and Shermans did before them.

I'd sell them at a stiff markup to India, and sink the funds into making the Armata real and functional.

>>63813058 (OP)
>modern optics
>new turret with bustle autoloader
>new transmission with better reverse speed
>20mm cannon with some fancy targeting and anti-drone munitions on top
>tons of ERA and applique armor
>some retarded EW kit that probably only is effective 25% of the time
there, I made it an alright tank

>>63813168
Bait post. Didn't even mention mines. Drones haven't done shit to make tanks obsolete, but the Ukraine lacking the operational art and assets to perform breaches has meant that the operations that tanks are meant to complete aren't even happening.
>>63813194
>>63813343
Shame for taking the bait.

Do what ukies did with one of those prototypes they had, i.e. replace the carousel auto-loader with a cassette one.

>>63813058 (OP)
The T-90/T-72 has a shit transmission with only one reverse gear (supposedly an improved version has been made but I haven't seen it), and a shit main gun/autoloader system that will blow the whole thing to bits along with the crew if penetrated. Unless the thing about the improved transmission is true, then making the T-90 not suck would require extensive modification or outright replacement of both the hull and turret, at which point you might as well make a whole new tank. I think the T-80 would be more viable for deep modernization.
>>63813431
>I'd imagine the Burlak is the best a T-90 can get
this
>>63813168
Talk to me when mobile armor and direct fire capability become obsolete. Tanks and other types of AFVs will stay relevant and actually gain utility, since you need vehicles capable of carrying non-man portable anti-drone equipment to protect infantry and your own drone forces. If anything is going to obsolete them, it's UGVs.

>>63813058 (OP)
Remove the Russians inside and replace them with Chimps so the tank has a greater chance against human operators.

>>63813058 (OP)
Crew it with Ukranians instead of Russians and feed it reliable ammo instead of Iranian stocks

>>63813474
>Taking the bait
Who the fuck cares, I came here to artistically sperg about the future of weapons and needed a reason.
>>63813364
This is just bad bait

>>63813421
At that point anon, you're designing a whole new tank from the ground up.

>>63813544
>.
xddd ebin

>>63813117
But there's literally not much more you could do.
The correct answer would be to not scrap the Black Eagle.

>>63813578
That's probably the best way to fix it

>>63813117
Do your own homework Shoigu.

>>63813528
Improved reverse BKP is vaporware AFAIK. The Ukrainians worked around the BKP by keeping it as is but making it so the final drive can reverse rotation giving it 1:1 reverse for the Oplots. The issue is if you want to go with the T-84 Yatagan approach the BKPs are all out of growth potential so when you see those plopping T-90M+1 Obr 2025+1 they've reversed on transmission life hard. DESU that's the story for the V-92 since they just boost the shit out of poor V-84s with a few upgrades which dropped interval and overall service life.

Growth potential is all tapped out for the Soviet lineage, the BKPs were supposed to push along lightweight T-64s before it got treated as the lego block transmission for the T-72 and T-80.

>>63813073
>>63813086
>>63813431
Yeah

>>63813528
>I think the T-80 would be more viable for deep modernization.
It's too bad the T-84 never took off.

>>63813474
>Drones haven't done shit to make tanks obso.... ACK!

>>63813058 (OP)
Like every tank now it needs reliable deep magazines drone interception system with low cost per kill.
>>63813343

Complete turret redesign that moves the ammunition storage outside of the crew compartment. New autoloader that can handle this. Redesigned ERA so one popping doesn’t sympathetically detonate that entire side. New communications package with Constellation 2/3 (Russian JBCP/BFT rip-off)

Done. Fire control and on paper protection for the T-90 isn’t bad; it just has classic T72 problems that were literally never addressed. This won’t make it ‘the world’s best tank’ but it’s a pretty solid set of upgrades.

>>63813421
>A goddamn transmission that can do more than 5kph in reverse. This seems like something the Soviets should have fixed with the T-44, but it's 80 years later and here we are.
Silly westoid. Tank only go forwards! To victory! B пyть!

>>63813117
The design already has an under-powered engine with a weak transmission that can't reverse for shit, the available internal volume is beyond claustrophobic and cramped and the existing armor is miserably insufficient while adding more armor packages would make the already overtaxed engine and transmission give you the ghost. The bustle autoloader isn't only a ticking timebomb, it also has the nasty habit of eating the arms and hands of the crew. Trying to fix it is an exercise in futility.

>>63813058 (OP)
>replace carousel with casette
>don't put the spare ammo under the commander's seat
>put amour between fuel and crew
>throw away engine and gearbox and replace them with something actually functional

>>63813421
>Soviets should have fixed
It's doctrine - the lower gear ratio let's the tank double as a recovery vehicle.

>>63813058 (OP)
Place a anti drone laser rifle on its top.

>>63814043
Tanks of all models have been used as recovery vehicles for ages, that's no reason to not give it two or more reverse gears for actual movement.
The Soviets should have just bitten the bullet on a bigger and more complicated transmission design.

>>63814073
>that's no reason to not give it two or more reverse gears
Too dangerous. Might give mobik silly idea like advancing backward in Good Will Gesture.

>>63813058 (OP)
>restart the obj 640 project and give it blow-out pannels and modern electronics
>stop being retarded and give your tanks actual armour instead of ERA
>make it slightly bigger for more crew comfort
That's literally it.

>>63813168
The MBT is more alive than ever. You will always need heavy direct fire support, and with how many low-yield warheads are being thrown around by drones and loitering munitions you need a baseline of armour that still gjves you some survivability. The only real problem with modern MBTs is the thin roof-armour which the modern leos already fixed.

What died wasn't the MBT but the light tank.

>>63813058 (OP)
>>63814228
Clean slate re-design

>>63814228
>which the modern leos already fixed.
You misspelled Merkava tank.
But if you strap/drop from drones something like PG-7VR there is no defense against that with armor. APS or bust.

>>63813058 (OP)
>how would you upgrade the T-72 orb. 2025
I wouldn't, they need a clean sheet design.

>>63813421
The T-90 has better armor than most MBTs if you include Relikt tiles. Only something like the latest Leopard 2 variants would be in the same ballpark. Now granted you probably want to extend the relikt on the sides all the way to the read as the actual side armor under those is only 70-80mm thick. The real need is to use a bustle autoloader and to apply anti mine composite onto the belly. The extra Relikt + belly composite + bustle autoloader would probably all increase the weight but at least your crews would be 75% less likely to get instantly vaporized with a penetrating hit from an FPV in the top rear

>>63813168
Yes, in brief: Aircraft Carriers are to Battleships as Drones are to Tanks.
>inb4 active defense systems like trophy

>>63813058 (OP)
Build an Abrams and call it a T-90

>>63813058 (OP)
New turret with an auto-loader fed from a turret bustle. New engine and new transmission with at least 4 rearward gears. And finally APS with a dedicated top-facing launcher for drones.

>>63813168
>Man and drone portable warheads make them so
that is only a quarter of it. Much bigger is the impact of situational awareness. EVERYTHING in x kilometers from the front is seen. So much so even rotating troops in and out of trenches or medivac are an ass. as you need to find a way to have covered approaches, as thanks to cheap thermals even night does not protect you anymore, or have robotic helpers carrying supplies or wounded in and out. Basically, at minimum, 15 kilometers to the front line trenches has to be on foot. No trucks, no bikes, even donkeys are simple drone bait

long range recon drones also neutralizes the famous german styles armored thrusts as those relied on outsmarting and overwhelming specific weak points in defense lines using armored columns and combined arms. But, most importantly, enemies surprise and unpreparedness. now they get immediately spotted and then peppered with long range precision strikes

The optimal thing my opinion would be to use any old or new build hulls to make purpose built turtle tanks. Get rid of the whole turret and replace it with a short-barreled 152mm howitzer to serve as a relatively low-weight HE lobber.

Remove most of the passive armor to save weight, leaving enough to shrug off autocannon fire. Add four layers of cage armor made of chain-link fences, each separated by 1 meter or something like that, with chains hanging underneath (the crew can enter and exit by crawling through the chains). Under the innermost layer of cage armor should be a layer of metal sheets covered in ERA, 1 meter from the tank, and the tank itself should be covered in ERA as well. Over the outermost layer of cage armor should be another metal sheet, 1 meter above the last fence layer.

The tank should also feature a drone jammer, mine plow or flail, cameras mounted on poles for visibility, as well as tethered drones for additional situational awareness.

>>63818499
The result is a vehicle perfectly suited for combat in Ukraine.

Its armor would probably not protect it against APFSDS from a modern MBT, but tank vs tank combat is fairly rare, and a direct hit from its gun would probably still be devastating.

It would be absolutely huge and unusable in any urban context, but being huge is not much of a detriment in the open fields of Ukraine, and the 6 spaced armor layers (2x sheet metal + 4x fences) could be stripped off for transport.

With 6 layers of spaced armor, 6 meters of standoff, and 2 layers of ERA, it would basically be invincible against FPV drones and ATGMs.

With its short-barreled howitzer, it could lob big HE rounds to demolish Ukrainian positions.

With its jammer, it could protect nearby infantry and other vehicles from any non-wire drones.

With the cameras on poles and tethered drones, it would have excellent situational awareness.

This vehicle would be very cheap and easy to build as well.

>>63818502
This would be useful for Ukraine as well.

Can MBTs in general be fixed or has their age passed?
>Loses to planes
>Loses to helicopters
>Loses to FPV drones
>Loses to Infantry with ATGMs or recoilless rifles
>Loses to infantry running up to them with DIY mines
>Loses to mines
>Loses to other tanks
>Loses to IFVs with ATGMs or sufficiently bold gunners
>Loses to C-Wire and other obstacles
Are MBTs used post 2022 going to be looked at the same way infantry rushing machine gun positions in WWI are now?

>>63818572

Infantry charges in WWI weren't necessarily as immediately deadly as commonly seen, and machine guns weren't as dangerous as artillery.

From what I've heard, you'd usually want to suppress the enemy with artillery before charging, and if you got to the enemy trench before they managed to come out of their dugouts, you could take the trench without that much difficulty. The attacker sometimes took less casualties than the defender.

The reason for the stalemate was less that everyone got mowed down while charging, and more that the troops that just captured the enemy trench had a harder time getting reinforcements and resupply over the gap between trenches by foot than enemies had via train, and they lacked the heavy weapons or coordination needed to call in accurate artillery strikes needed to defend against counterattacks, so they got overrun.

>>63818809
>Infantry charges in WWI weren't necessarily as immediately deadly as commonly seen, and machine guns weren't as dangerous as artillery.
>The reason for the stalemate was less that everyone got mowed down while charging, and more that the troops that just captured the enemy trench had a harder time getting reinforcements and resupply over the gap between trenches by foot than enemies had via train, and they lacked the heavy weapons or coordination needed to call in accurate artillery strikes needed to defend against counterattacks, so they got overrun
Yes to both. From what I recall battles in the early stage of WW1 were substantially deadlier than when the trenches became the main aspect of the western front.
Something which most militaries were aware of already before WW1.

>>63813985
>bustle autoloader
Anon.

>>63819068
Carousel, sorry, brain fart. Shit can't be fixed, period.

>>63818809
WHAT THE FUCK BRO WHO TAUGHT YOU THIS SHIT

NOT TRUE AT ALL THATS INSANE

>>63819101
>all caps
>tfw not sure if crash out or humorous attempt
Man I really lost the ability to tell.

>>63818809

WWI generals weren't morons. Aside from a very few limited instances, they weren't sending waves after waves of their own men into withering machine gun fire to get mowed down. They suppressed the shit out of the enemy with artillery barrages that would lift in a highly orchestrated fashion just ahead of the infantry advance, which would come at a time and place of their choosing.

More often than not, the attacker had a favorable casualty ratio as they overran the front line trenches.

The problem was that there was no good way to consolidate those gains once you've taken that initial foothold and turn it into a breakthrough. The men who've captured the enemy positions are going to be exhausted from combat, and you can't quickly resupply them with stuff like food or water or heavy weapons or ammunition to fortify their positions against counterattacks. Trucks or animal-drawn carriages can't cross no-man's land, so you're limited to sending guys forward on foot carrying what's in their packs. The tanks of the time were also too rudimentary and unreliable, and were far too slow and limited in range to be of much use, and you also couldn't easily bring your artillery forward into no-man's land to hit their positions further back, while the enemy could easily depress their own artillery to hit the positions you've recently taken, which they've also preregistered because they expect you to attack and take them.

To actually achieve a victory, you need to make a breakthrough past the entire trench system and to capture the enemy railhead. But once the attack starts, the enemy could pour reinforcements and materiel into the sector by train much faster than you can reinforce your captured position by guys on foot. So the inevitable counterattack would take back the captured positions and return to the status quo.

>>63813421
>Bustle-autoloader
>Gearbox
By far the most important updates since you get to take a hit without insta-exploding everything and more importantly roll up to peek and shoot and reverse away from danger. Too many early war footage of T-series firing, reversing at that dog-shit pace and getting absolutely skull-fucked into oblivion by a any type of ATGM.
>>63818021
The armor seems sufficient if they do not get side shot, it would be better to have it all around but the hp/weight ratio already seems fucked.