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

[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.

If anyone knows how to design tanks, Russians would be at the top few, and then considering the vast pool of knowledge and experience they have, including recently learnt battlefield lessons and changing asymmetric combined arms warfare techniques, Russian designers know what they're doing. They know more about it than you or I.

In any case, it's just a concept. Design teams make hundreds of those all the time. Doesn't mean it'll see the light of day. In the end, whatever can be produced efficiently, cheaply in large numbers with off-the-shelf tech and standardized spares/maintenance would be preferred.

 

[Varaaah]

It can work if continuously 4 such tanks operate together. The cannon of one will target the south, the others will target North, east, west. This will also provide better protection. But the terrain will decide whether this is possible or not.

 

[Abs29]

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.

Yes that they did, but even they had a comparatively taller profile with the main gun fixed in an armored casemet. This though seems bit different and has distinctly western European origins. Its resembles the German WW2 Sturmgeschütz III and the much newer Swedish Stridsvagn 103 from the 1970s than any Soviet origin assault guns/tank destroyers.

 

[Ryan Ellis]

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.

It's really kind of odd or telling how they abandoned the existing Soviet legacy tank destroyer appearance in favor of directly copying a fascist German one. I'd have expected them to maintain the traditional Soviet tank asthetic for patriotic reasons at least, this is Russia afterall.

 

[Calvinius]

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.

In the 1960s. There's a reason Sweden replaced the Strv 103 with a conventional turretted tank. The concept of a turretless tank no longer held up in the 21st century.

 

[Rex Montalban]

An adaptation from German WW2 tanks? Dunno bout this. In the modern battlefield staying put in one location's practical suicide.

 

[Jeff Roberts]

*Russians- gets rid of rotating turret because "it's like having a big bomb attached to your tank". Instead they do away with that so they can store 10-20 Jerry cans of gas on top of the hull!! Also looks like two fuel tanks at the back of the vehicle that aren't even covered by their cope cages 🤔