Rostec's UVZ Introduces Radical T-90 Modification Without Rotating Turret, Overcoming Critical Vulnerabilities Identified in Modern Warfare Scenarios

Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), a key Russian tank producer operating under the state-owned Rostec corporation, has revealed a significantly altered version of its T-90 main battle tank.

Developed using insights gained from recent combat experiences, including the conflict in Ukraine, this new variant represents a major design evolution by removing the rotating turret, a standard feature on Soviet and Russian tanks since the T-64 model.

According to statements from UVZ, the necessity for future tanks to possess powerful main guns remains, but the traditional rotating turret concept is being phased out. The manufacturer argues that its design limits battlefield survivability and overall effectiveness.

UVZ observed that the capability to rapidly switch targets while the tank is moving, a key advantage of a rotating turret, is less crucial in contemporary combat situations. The priority has now shifted towards enhancing the tank's protection and firepower delivery from more stabilized positions.

The rotating turret design presented specific drawbacks, according to UVZ. It complicated the integration of advanced protective measures, such as Active Protection Systems (APS) like Russia's Arena-M, which are designed to intercept incoming threats.

Furthermore, removing the turret eliminates a significant structural weak point. Combat footage from recent conflicts has shown tanks, including the T-90, suffering catastrophic explosions ("turret toss") when ammunition stored in the turret area is hit, leading to the turret being blown off. An expert associated with UVZ, Alexey Ustyantsev, noted that the turret's placement effectively created a major vulnerability within the T-90's structure.

UVZ reaffirmed the primary function of tanks on the modern battlefield: to engage and eliminate enemy forces using direct fire while being robust enough to survive hits from advanced anti-tank weaponry.

The company envisions future armoured vehicles maintaining the core strengths of tanks – good mobility, strong armour, and the ability to traverse difficult terrain – but with significantly improved survivability features and enhanced offensive capabilities, potentially through alternative weapon mounting systems.

This innovative design direction highlights a potential shift in Russia's philosophy regarding armoured warfare, placing a greater emphasis on crew survival and vehicle resilience over traditional design elements. By eliminating the turret, UVZ is addressing critical vulnerabilities observed in high-intensity conflicts.

This move aligns with some international trends exploring unmanned turrets or heavily protected crew capsules, signalling a possible transformation in how future main battle tanks are designed and employed globally.

 

Defence Minister lauds DRDO, IAF for boosting air power via indigenous Gaurav LRGB's successful 100km trials

From MiG-21s to Rafales, IAF Confronts Multi-Vendor Logistical Burden of Seven Jet Types, Eyes Radical Shift Towards Streamlined Commonality

[Gururag Kalanidhi]

Firing while on the move just took a massive hit. What a ridiculous design.

 

[Anant]

Have they gone crazy? This is literally harking back to World War 1-era heavy tanks and self-propelled anti-tank guns from the World War 2 period.

Someone tell these absolute muppets that the reason their tanks blow up so easily is because of their design. It was evidently too much of a jump of logic for these folks to realise that if you put ammunition in a ring around your turret which is poorly protected, then a shot which causes said ammunition to cook off will also see the turret blow upwards.

That doesn't mean the concept of firing while moving isn't important. Heck, at this point, the Russians are just trolling, it seems. Instead of this Mark 1 tank (look it up) from the 2020s, you may as well use a 155mm self-propelled howitzer to much better effect, because all the Russians have made here is a damned expensive underpowered howitzer!

 

[Anant]

Firing while on the move just took a massive hit. What a ridiculous design.

Looks like the Ukrainians managed to switch out their vodka with something that causes the designers to go mad.

 

[Prince singh Rawat]

Looks like the Ukrainians managed to switch out their vodka with something that causes the designers to go mad.

This is russian tank.

 

[Abs29]

Looks like the Ukrainians managed to switch out their vodka with something that causes the designers to go mad.

Not quite that design is quite sound and is an just an refreshed WW2 era German Sturmgeschütz III concept. The Swedish worked on it and evolved into the Stridsvagn 103. Both were turret less armored vehicles and very very good tank destroyers especially when used defensively. The Idea itself is not new its a very old concept.

 

[Abs29]

Have they gone crazy? This is literally harking back to World War 1-era heavy tanks and self-propelled anti-tank guns from the World War 2 period.

Someone tell these absolute muppets that the reason their tanks blow up so easily is because of their design. It was evidently too much of a jump of logic for these folks to realise that if you put ammunition in a ring around your turret which is poorly protected, then a shot which causes said ammunition to cook off will also see the turret blow upwards.

That doesn't mean the concept of firing while moving isn't important. Heck, at this point, the Russians are just trolling, it seems. Instead of this Mark 1 tank (look it up) from the 2020s, you may as well use a 155mm self-propelled howitzer to much better effect, because all the Russians have made here is a damned expensive underpowered howitzer!

Except Swedish bested the concept and produced by far one of the most remarkable turretless tank design - the Stridsvagn 103. When used defensively as it was originally developed for, it was a terrifying weapon in ambush tactics.

 

[Kira]

So basically they are reviving the tank destroyers widely deployed during the WW2, but quickly abandoned in the cold war.

 

[Kira]

Not quite that design is quite sound and is an just an refreshed WW2 era German Sturmgeschütz III concept. The Swedish worked on it and evolved into the Stridsvagn 103. Both were turret less armored vehicles and very very good tank destroyers especially when used defensively. The Idea itself is not new its a very old concept.

It's a great vehicle in defensive roles, but a rotating turret tank is far better in an offensive and much more dynamic.

Also, tanks are almost always used in big offensives since WW2, as the main rationale for the Germans for developing tank destroyers was a dearth of resources and the fact that they were on constant retreat by 1943, so it made sense to develop a low profile and cheap turret-less tank.

While today that is not true as great anti-tank guided missiles exist, plus recently drones that have become the bane for tanks on the modern battlefield.

 

[Avada kedavra]

People who believe in compromising a rotating turret are retards of the highest order.
thats why the turtle tank design was mocked so much

 

[Anant]

This is russian tank.

I know. My comment means the Ukrainians managed to switch out the vodka supplied to the Russian tank designers.

 

[Abs29]

It's a great vehicle in defensive roles, but a rotating turret tank is far better in an offensive and much more dynamic.

Also, tanks are almost always used in big offensives since WW2, as the main rationale for the Germans for developing tank destroyers was a dearth of resources and the fact that they were on constant retreat by 1943, so it made sense to develop a low profile and cheap turret-less tank.

While today that is not true as great anti-tank guided missiles exist, plus recently drones that have become the bane for tanks on the modern battlefield.

Yes its not really useful for slugging out in open field and its inability to traverse the turret is a major limitation that hinders multi-quadrant defense. But on other hand, with advent of FPV suicide drones, the role of tanks itself is any way changing drastically and its practically a sitting duck even with all cage armor and 360 degrees traversable turret.

While it remains to be seen, how future of Main battle Tank evolves, one thing is certain the days of huge tank armies slugging out in open terrain is a thing of past. We may as well see development of a totally autonomous MBT concept or even revival of turretless tanks.

 

[Provocateur Extraordinaire]

Except Swedish bested the concept and produced by far one of the most remarkable turretless tank design - the Stridsvagn 103. When used defensively as it was originally developed for, it was a terrifying weapon in ambush tactics.

The Swedes took their inspiration from the German Wehrmachts's tank destroyer of the second ww...the Stug. With the introduction of atgms on tanks, they can very well proceed with the concept of turretless tanks. The atgms can do the job of taking out enemy tanks that are off boresight rather than relying on the fixed cannon. In any case the russian tank company would know better than any armchair straegist on this fluff website.

 

[Mc Addy]

WW1 type design where you adversery is a still tortoise .

 

[Karan Gogoi]

Firing while on the move just took a massive hit. What a ridiculous design.

Sweden already has a successful design in use; it's called Stridsvagn. Look it up.

It does however hint at a philosophy of use shift in RF. It's an excellent design in defensive roles. The entire hull has to be rotated in order to shoot (achievable), but the lower profile means it's that much harder to hit, is lighter (excellent for the terrain in question), faster, less complex so easier to maintain, and can carry more ERA or ablative armour for increased defence.

 

[Mc Addy]

That tank sits and shoots or where it turns .

 

[Karan Gogoi]

Looks like the Ukrainians managed to switch out their vodka with something that causes the designers to go mad.

Everyone says that....... But a few months down the line everybody copies it. 😉
Tale as old as time.

Btw it's a successful design already in use with Sweden....called Stridsvagn. Look it up. Roles are different but can be effective.

 

[Anant]

Except Swedish bested the concept and produced by far one of the most remarkable turretless tank design - the Stridsvagn 103. When used defensively as it was originally developed for, it was a terrifying weapon in ambush tactics.

You are correct in what you say. However, there is a reason such tanks were not used widely. In fact, from memory, there were literally only two such designs after WW2: The Strs 103 and a German tank destroyer that was, in part, a modernised Jagdpanzer IV.

Now, the Strs 103 was intended, as you said, a defensive ambush weapon. The idea was that a tank such as this could hide and ambush enemy armour, and then move to a different position and attack again.

The Russians haven't exactly been engaging in that kind of warfare. A lot of their fighting in Ukraine has been over open-ish areas, where such a design loses a good chunk of advantages.

See, the only viable benefit this design brings is that it arguably improves protection. However, beyond that, the ability to not be able to engage in multiple directions means you'd need other tanks or vehicles to support you. Vehicles such as these are good when used in the second line of advance, or are used en masse.

 

[Anant]

Not quite that design is quite sound and is an just an refreshed WW2 era German Sturmgeschütz III concept. The Swedish worked on it and evolved into the Stridsvagn 103. Both were turret less armored vehicles and very very good tank destroyers especially when used defensively. The Idea itself is not new its a very old concept.

Boss, no one said the idea isn't sound in theory. However, think about it: If it was still so relevant today, why doesn't anyone use it now? The Strs 103, while being an excellent tank, was still a weapon designed in the 1960s, and intended to be used in defensive actions to ambush enemy armour. Russia's actions in Ukraine are more offensive than defensive, and there isn't too much territory in Ukraine to afford large ambushes. Moreover, with FPV drones and the like, that kind of attack is even more difficult now.

 

[Anant]

Everyone says that....... But a few months down the line everybody copies it. 😉
Tale as old as time.

Btw it's a successful design already in use with Sweden....called Stridsvagn. Look it up. Roles are different but can be effective.

Boss, the Strv 103 was designed in the 1960s and was intended to be used in defensive actions to ambush enemy armour and then hightail it to a different location. The Russians face somewhat different situations in Ukraine.

 

[Abs29]

Boss, no one said the idea isn't sound in theory. However, think about it: If it was still so relevant today, why doesn't anyone use it now? The Strs 103, while being an excellent tank, was still a weapon designed in the 1960s, and intended to be used in defensive actions to ambush enemy armour. Russia's actions in Ukraine are more offensive than defensive, and there isn't too much territory in Ukraine to afford large ambushes. Moreover, with FPV drones and the like, that kind of attack is even more difficult now.

Thats why I said perhaps we may see a totally different line of development in Tank. We may yet see return of purpose built tanks like light tanks, heavy tanks and such specialized turretless ambush tanks as well. But one thing is for sure the concept of tanks as was known till now will change and so will be the way they would be deployed in combat.

 

[Abs29]

You are correct in what you say. However, there is a reason such tanks were not used widely. In fact, from memory, there were literally only two such designs after WW2: The Strs 103 and a German tank destroyer that was, in part, a modernised Jagdpanzer IV.

Now, the Strs 103 was intended, as you said, a defensive ambush weapon. The idea was that a tank such as this could hide and ambush enemy armour, and then move to a different position and attack again.

The Russians haven't exactly been engaging in that kind of warfare. A lot of their fighting in Ukraine has been over open-ish areas, where such a design loses a good chunk of advantages.

See, the only viable benefit this design brings is that it arguably improves protection. However, beyond that, the ability to not be able to engage in multiple directions means you'd need other tanks or vehicles to support you. Vehicles such as these are good when used in the second line of advance, or are used en masse.

Yes agreed. But the concept of Main Battle Tank (MBT) which stressed one standard tank fills all roles has surely flopped. There is never one size fits all and Ukraine war has proven it abundantly. Even Challenger has failed so have the M1A1 and so have the Leopards the idea that one large MBT could undertake missions in all scenarios has been debunked. We may now see return of purpose built tanks like light tanks for mountainous terrain, medium tanks with short barrel main guns and relatively compact chassis for forested terrain and relatively heavy tanks with superior armor protection and standard Active Protection System which may as well double up as a CIWS with an integrated Radar, FLIR and IRST targeting system due to threat from ubiquitous ever present FPV drones. In such a scenario, we may as well see a return of such ambush tanks again.

 

[Kira]

Yes its not really useful for slugging out in open field and its inability to traverse the turret is a major limitation that hinders multi-quadrant defense. But on other hand, with advent of FPV suicide drones, the role of tanks itself is any way changing drastically and its practically a sitting duck even with all cage armor and 360 degrees traversable turret.

While it remains to be seen, how future of Main battle Tank evolves, one thing is certain the days of huge tank armies slugging out in open terrain is a thing of past. We may as well see development of a totally autonomous MBT concept or even revival of turretless tanks.

Yup, large-scale blitzkrieg style probably won't happen now due to the availability of high-quality intelligence, highly accurate artillery fire, and cheap small drone swarms that can hoodwink air defences and modern tank units. Large-scale fighting with large conventional armies would resemble small action engagements between Russia and Ukraine for small pieces of territory, or it might provide enough of a deterrence to avoid a general war between two roughly matched adversaries.

 

[Rokuth]

Not quite that design is quite sound and is an just an refreshed WW2 era German Sturmgeschütz III concept. The Swedish worked on it and evolved into the Stridsvagn 103. Both were turret less armored vehicles and very very good tank destroyers especially when used defensively. The Idea itself is not new its a very old concept.

The Soviets had similar tank destroyers in WW2. There was the SU-122, SU-85, and the ISU-122 as examples. So, not a new concept to the Russians.

 

[Karan Gogoi]

Boss, the Strv 103 was designed in the 1960s and was intended to be used in defensive actions to ambush enemy armour and then hightail it to a different location. The Russians face somewhat different situations in Ukraine.

Bud, what difference does it make if it was designed in the 1960s, if the design works and it's still being successfully deployed by Sweden?

Also, not really. Ukraine has shown that no MBT can fully accomplish the offensive task it was designed for. Be it Russian or Western. The RF faces its own fair share of defensive scenarios and setbacks regularly, and in a brewing escalation with NATO/EU directly, Russian doctrine would always favour successful defence with minimal armour loss rather than offence, as it always has been.