Russian T-90 main battle tank

Videos like this make me think about what WWIII would have looked like with thousands of these beasts (along with M-1s, Challengers and Leopards) streaming through the Fulda Gap. Just the thought is awe inspiring and really, really, frightening. :eek:

p.s. Yes not this particular tank in the 80's but you know what I mean.
 
bobbymike said:
Videos like this make me think about what WWIII would have looked like with thousands of these beasts (along with M-1s, Challengers and Leopards) streaming through the Fulda Gap. Just the thought is awe inspiring and really, really, frightening. :eek:

p.s. Yes not this particular tank in the 80's but you know what I mean.
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean. I remember being a teen reading Team Yankee and Soviet Military Power.
 
What on earth is that little hatch that appears to pop open after the main gun fires??? Is it some way of venting fumes from the crew compartment?
Regards
 
JohnR said:
What on earth is that little hatch that appears to pop open after the main gun fires??? Is it some way of venting fumes from the crew compartment?
Regards
Click to expand...
Propellant stub casing ejection port.
 
Also - for the really observant some type of insect flies under the firing machine gun at 1:58... I wonder if it is deaf now?
 
bobbymike said:
Videos like this make me think about what WWIII would have looked like with thousands of these beasts (along with M-1s, Challengers and Leopards) streaming through the Fulda Gap. Just the thought is awe inspiring and really, really, frightening. :eek:

p.s. Yes not this particular tank in the 80's but you know what I mean.
Click to expand...
nice target for CBU-97 lol?
 
donnage99 said:
bobbymike said:
Videos like this make me think about what WWIII would have looked like with thousands of these beasts (along with M-1s, Challengers and Leopards) streaming through the Fulda Gap. Just the thought is awe inspiring and really, really, frightening. :eek:

p.s. Yes not this particular tank in the 80's but you know what I mean.
Click to expand...
nice target for CBU-97 lol?
Click to expand...
from a A-10 lol? ;)
 
Based on what I have seen here and elsewhere the logic of this upgrade is inescapable. When financial burdens get as high as with the F-35/22 and the T-14 Armarta etc, there are only ever going to be a small number. The rest of the capability will need to be more realistic in terms of capability and cost. This will also allow for lower threat levels in certain environments.

There is nothing so old it is completely broken. Even the Chariot would be useful in certain circumstances.
 
Heres a Ukraine break down of a Capture T-90M one of the Newest Versions from 2017.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVh3D_RzRJE


Have a Translation.
Key points from the briefing
1. Big focus on propaganda – especially "high-tech" factor
2. Even official specifications for the tank (3:40) bring the russian claims in questions
3. T-90M is de facto an extensive modernization of T-72B obr. 1989 with some design solutions borrowed from NATO tanks (including "Nakidka")
4. AFU got a chance to analyze a T-90M captured in September 2022
5. Basically, T-90M is the maximum of what the russian MIC can squeeze out of the old soviet tank designs, in some regards even exacerbating the issues in some areas
6. The engine of the tank (V-92S2F) is largely directly a direct ancestor of the V-2 (1937), that was on the T-34
7. In hot climates (like Ukrainian steppes in summer), the engine loses 1/3 of its power
8. Armor arrangement is very similar to what it was on T-72B
9. The only design decision russians took to improve the armored protection of the tank, was to bolt the addon armor. This decreased mobility of the tank in real work scenarios
10. First T-90M was destroyed by a guy from Kharkiv TDF wielding Karl Gustaf
11. Research uncovered big shortcoming in tank electronics
12. "Kalina" FCS doesn't have Russian components except for markings
13. Commercial-grade electronics in tanks, procured in dubious ways
14. T-90M can't be produced at any large scale without the imported electronics. Without them, it becomes a somewhat worse T-72B
15. 15 T-90M's have been visually confirmed lost to date (probably the Oryx number). Real loses are likely to be substantially higher
16. Almost no T-90M are to be seen in the in the frontline area at the moment.
17. The T-90 "Vladimir" might have been called this way to mimic the precedent set by "IS" series of tanks, named after Stalin

Q&A:
Russian media frequently positions the T-90M as a competitor to Leopard 2's. Does this hold any water?
No. Testing and battlefield use confirmed that it is susceptible to common AT weapons. In comparative testing against the T-64 "Bulat". Despite being adopted in 2004, it is better in some regards. If we speak about Leo 2A6 or A7, they are substantially better in all regards, specifically maneuverability, which is key on the modern battlefield. T-90M can't compete against western AT, less so western tanks.

How well do T-90M's intercom systems work?
We discovered they often doesn't work. For the longest time, we didn't quite understand why do russians have communication problems when in use. During testing we learned that it's afraid of moisture, as it's not hermetically sealed. There are big temperature drops inside the tank. The moisture condenses on electronics resulting in all sorts of problems. Even the new ones look like they've been in use since the 70's.

Is it possible to fully stop T-90M production?
We know for sure, that they've produced at least 10 tanks since Feb 2022. They try their best to avoid sanctions to procure new commercial-grade chips to use in production on the vehicles. There is clear distinction in quality between the old + commercial chips and the ones they make themselves. Complete cessation of production hinges largely on how well the sanction "holes" on electronics can be plugged.

Were there any APS on destroyed/damaged T-90M's? Did they help at all?
The specific tank we examined didn't have APS.

The open sources clam that the T-90M was supposed to have new autoloader and turret ammo bustle. Were they implemented?
The autoloader is largely identical to the one on the T-72. 22 rounds in the carousel and 18 additional rounds in the turret bustle. BUT THE BUSTLE ISN'T CONNECTED TO THE CREW COMPARTMENT. A CREWMAN HAS TO PHYSICALLY GET OUT OF THE TANK TO PASS THE AMMUNITION INSIDE (translator's note: LMAO). This is unrealistic to do during battle, de facto forcing the tank to retreat to reload the carousel. There are also concerns about the autoloader reliability, considering it's an old design with minimal changes.

It's impossible to talk about the T-90M without mentioning another Kremlin's "supertank" project – Armata. Can they mass produce them by this point?
The realities of war show that they can't even produce the T-90M or any other "high-tech" modification of the soviet designs at scale, including the aforementioned Armata. The only differences between T-90M and T-72B is newer electronics and addon armor. Without electronics, it's the same soviet tank. They can't produce their own electronics themselves; they get minimal quantities of smuggled electronics. They can't scale beyond artisanal quantities. Furthermore, battlefield use of these tanks largely disproved their stated effectiveness, likely contributing to their withdrawal from frontline service and absence of Armata. Hope we get our hands on one regardless.

Did you get a chance to examine the "deconserved" russian T-62s and T-72? How well can they modernize those before shipping them to the frontline?
They experience problems there as well. The question there is – how exactly can you even modernize them? Probably add some electronics and protection. We think they have problems with (dynamic?) protection, due to constant large losses and use. And the aforementioned problems with electronics. All their modernization comes down to slapping some ERA and whatever sight they can find. There have been cases where the "deconserved" T-80s were given the sights from T-62s. It's preposterous.


Communication devices on T-90M's have FSB stickers. What's up with that? Speaking about T-90M's armor and ammunition, are there any foreign components there?
At first we thought that the FSB checks the communication equipment. But the analyzed systems aren't secure enough to transmit secret information. By common sense, they shouldn't be checked by them. It might be a potential indicator of mistrust of FSB towards the Army. A lot of electronics that shouldn't have them, do still have them. As to the armor and ammo, those aren't high-tech products, so they are able to produce them on their own.
Click to expand...
TLDR is basically that the T90M is a slightly uparmored, T72B odj 1989 with its "Russia" sourced Electronics actually coming from the West outside of Russia, with its Kalina FCS being entirely made of Western sourced parts. Most being barely commercial grade apparently. With its engine being basically an direct design of the T34 and it loses nearly a third of it power in warm weather.

With this painting very bad things for the likes of the T14 and other new gear.

So yeah... Thats happening...
 
Firefinder said:
Heres a Ukraine break down of a Capture T-90M one of the Newest Versions from 2017.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVh3D_RzRJE


Have a Translation.
Key points from the briefing
1. Big focus on propaganda – especially "high-tech" factor
2. Even official specifications for the tank (3:40) bring the russian claims in questions
3. T-90M is de facto an extensive modernization of T-72B obr. 1989 with some design solutions borrowed from NATO tanks (including "Nakidka")
4. AFU got a chance to analyze a T-90M captured in September 2022
5. Basically, T-90M is the maximum of what the russian MIC can squeeze out of the old soviet tank designs, in some regards even exacerbating the issues in some areas
6. The engine of the tank (V-92S2F) is largely directly a direct ancestor of the V-2 (1937), that was on the T-34
7. In hot climates (like Ukrainian steppes in summer), the engine loses 1/3 of its power
8. Armor arrangement is very similar to what it was on T-72B
9. The only design decision russians took to improve the armored protection of the tank, was to bolt the addon armor. This decreased mobility of the tank in real work scenarios
10. First T-90M was destroyed by a guy from Kharkiv TDF wielding Karl Gustaf
11. Research uncovered big shortcoming in tank electronics
12. "Kalina" FCS doesn't have Russian components except for markings
13. Commercial-grade electronics in tanks, procured in dubious ways
14. T-90M can't be produced at any large scale without the imported electronics. Without them, it becomes a somewhat worse T-72B
15. 15 T-90M's have been visually confirmed lost to date (probably the Oryx number). Real loses are likely to be substantially higher
16. Almost no T-90M are to be seen in the in the frontline area at the moment.
17. The T-90 "Vladimir" might have been called this way to mimic the precedent set by "IS" series of tanks, named after Stalin

Q&A:
Russian media frequently positions the T-90M as a competitor to Leopard 2's. Does this hold any water?
No. Testing and battlefield use confirmed that it is susceptible to common AT weapons. In comparative testing against the T-64 "Bulat". Despite being adopted in 2004, it is better in some regards. If we speak about Leo 2A6 or A7, they are substantially better in all regards, specifically maneuverability, which is key on the modern battlefield. T-90M can't compete against western AT, less so western tanks.

How well do T-90M's intercom systems work?
We discovered they often doesn't work. For the longest time, we didn't quite understand why do russians have communication problems when in use. During testing we learned that it's afraid of moisture, as it's not hermetically sealed. There are big temperature drops inside the tank. The moisture condenses on electronics resulting in all sorts of problems. Even the new ones look like they've been in use since the 70's.

Is it possible to fully stop T-90M production?
We know for sure, that they've produced at least 10 tanks since Feb 2022. They try their best to avoid sanctions to procure new commercial-grade chips to use in production on the vehicles. There is clear distinction in quality between the old + commercial chips and the ones they make themselves. Complete cessation of production hinges largely on how well the sanction "holes" on electronics can be plugged.

Were there any APS on destroyed/damaged T-90M's? Did they help at all?
The specific tank we examined didn't have APS.

The open sources clam that the T-90M was supposed to have new autoloader and turret ammo bustle. Were they implemented?
The autoloader is largely identical to the one on the T-72. 22 rounds in the carousel and 18 additional rounds in the turret bustle. BUT THE BUSTLE ISN'T CONNECTED TO THE CREW COMPARTMENT. A CREWMAN HAS TO PHYSICALLY GET OUT OF THE TANK TO PASS THE AMMUNITION INSIDE (translator's note: LMAO). This is unrealistic to do during battle, de facto forcing the tank to retreat to reload the carousel. There are also concerns about the autoloader reliability, considering it's an old design with minimal changes.

It's impossible to talk about the T-90M without mentioning another Kremlin's "supertank" project – Armata. Can they mass produce them by this point?
The realities of war show that they can't even produce the T-90M or any other "high-tech" modification of the soviet designs at scale, including the aforementioned Armata. The only differences between T-90M and T-72B is newer electronics and addon armor. Without electronics, it's the same soviet tank. They can't produce their own electronics themselves; they get minimal quantities of smuggled electronics. They can't scale beyond artisanal quantities. Furthermore, battlefield use of these tanks largely disproved their stated effectiveness, likely contributing to their withdrawal from frontline service and absence of Armata. Hope we get our hands on one regardless.

Did you get a chance to examine the "deconserved" russian T-62s and T-72? How well can they modernize those before shipping them to the frontline?
They experience problems there as well. The question there is – how exactly can you even modernize them? Probably add some electronics and protection. We think they have problems with (dynamic?) protection, due to constant large losses and use. And the aforementioned problems with electronics. All their modernization comes down to slapping some ERA and whatever sight they can find. There have been cases where the "deconserved" T-80s were given the sights from T-62s. It's preposterous.


Communication devices on T-90M's have FSB stickers. What's up with that? Speaking about T-90M's armor and ammunition, are there any foreign components there?
At first we thought that the FSB checks the communication equipment. But the analyzed systems aren't secure enough to transmit secret information. By common sense, they shouldn't be checked by them. It might be a potential indicator of mistrust of FSB towards the Army. A lot of electronics that shouldn't have them, do still have them. As to the armor and ammo, those aren't high-tech products, so they are able to produce them on their own.
Click to expand...
TLDR is basically that the T90M is a slightly uparmored, T72B odj 1989 with its "Russia" sourced Electronics actually coming from the West outside of Russia, with its Kalina FCS being entirely made of Western sourced parts. Most being barely commercial grade apparently. With its engine being basically an direct design of the T34 and it loses nearly a third of it power in warm weather.

With this painting very bad things for the likes of the T14 and other new gear.

So yeah... Thats happening...
Click to expand...
Don't forget that the ammo in the turret bustle is literally not accessible from the inside; the bustle is just a box added to the turret for holding extra rounds that you have to chuck in through the loader's hatch.

Much advancement, such ingenuity.
 
MihoshiK said:
Don't forget that the ammo in the turret bustle is literally not accessible from the inside; the bustle is just a box added to the turret for holding extra rounds that you have to chuck in through the loader's hatch.

Much advancement, such ingenuity.
Click to expand...

Question about the Russian/Ukrainian/Soviet and Chinese tanks that have been modified to store ammo in the turret bustle
I think so far the T-90M T-90MS, T-80-120, Type 99, etc
are all of them like that? a bustle that has ammo that is not accessible from the inside?
or do some of them actually feed into the autoloader?
 
helmutkohl said:
MihoshiK said:
Don't forget that the ammo in the turret bustle is literally not accessible from the inside; the bustle is just a box added to the turret for holding extra rounds that you have to chuck in through the loader's hatch.

Much advancement, such ingenuity.
Click to expand...

Question about the Russian/Ukrainian/Soviet and Chinese tanks that have been modified to store ammo in the turret bustle
I think so far the T-90M T-90MS, T-80-120, Type 99, etc
are all of them like that? a bustle that has ammo that is not accessible from the inside?
or do some of them actually feed into the autoloader?
Click to expand...
We know that the Ukranian OPLOT has a true bustle fed autoloader. My guess is that the Chinese has a true bustle rack too, although IIRC it still has the old autoloader. The turret is IIRC all new, not an old turret they upgraded like the Russians did with the T-90.
 
MihoshiK said:
helmutkohl said:
MihoshiK said:
Don't forget that the ammo in the turret bustle is literally not accessible from the inside; the bustle is just a box added to the turret for holding extra rounds that you have to chuck in through the loader's hatch.

Much advancement, such ingenuity.
Click to expand...

Question about the Russian/Ukrainian/Soviet and Chinese tanks that have been modified to store ammo in the turret bustle
I think so far the T-90M T-90MS, T-80-120, Type 99, etc
are all of them like that? a bustle that has ammo that is not accessible from the inside?
or do some of them actually feed into the autoloader?
Click to expand...
We know that the Ukranian OPLOT has a true bustle fed autoloader. My guess is that the Chinese has a true bustle rack too, although IIRC it still has the old autoloader. The turret is IIRC all new, not an old turret they upgraded like the Russians did with the T-90.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, only the T-84-120 Yatagan prototype with a NATO-compatible 120 mm smoothbore gun has a bustle autoloader first developed for the T-72-120 prototype in the early 1990's and modelled on that of the Leclerc. The 125 mm T-84's still utilise the koržyna (basket) autoloader of the T-64/T-80 series. To my knowledge, no ZTZ-99 variant utilises a bustle autoloader, instead featuring a Chinese copy of the casette-style autoloader of the T-72. The only Chinese tank to my knowledge which has a bustle-mounted autoloader is the ZTQ-15 which employs an improved version of the venerable L7 cannon.
 
Topi said:
MihoshiK said:
helmutkohl said:
MihoshiK said:
Don't forget that the ammo in the turret bustle is literally not accessible from the inside; the bustle is just a box added to the turret for holding extra rounds that you have to chuck in through the loader's hatch.

Much advancement, such ingenuity.
Click to expand...

Question about the Russian/Ukrainian/Soviet and Chinese tanks that have been modified to store ammo in the turret bustle
I think so far the T-90M T-90MS, T-80-120, Type 99, etc
are all of them like that? a bustle that has ammo that is not accessible from the inside?
or do some of them actually feed into the autoloader?
Click to expand...
We know that the Ukranian OPLOT has a true bustle fed autoloader. My guess is that the Chinese has a true bustle rack too, although IIRC it still has the old autoloader. The turret is IIRC all new, not an old turret they upgraded like the Russians did with the T-90.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, only the T-84-120 Yatagan prototype with a NATO-compatible 120 mm smoothbore gun has a bustle autoloader first developed for the T-72-120 prototype in the early 1990's and modelled on that of the Leclerc. The 125 mm T-84's still utilise the koržyna (basket) autoloader of the T-64/T-80 series. To my knowledge, no ZTZ-99 variant utilises a bustle autoloader, instead featuring a Chinese copy of the casette-style autoloader of the T-72. The only Chinese tank to my knowledge which has a bustle-mounted autoloader is the ZTQ-15 which employs an improved version of the venerable L7 cannon.
Click to expand...
That's what I said. Old loader, but a bustle rack. IOW, you can reload the autoloader FROM the rack, only indoors, instead of outdoors like the T-90.
 
Stinks of propaganda. Russia tests their vehicles pretty hard and before that the factory itself goes over many tests so that the state tests run more smoothly. Some reasons why armata has not started serial production is because they were having issues with the power pack and also supposedly the APS did not fulfill all criteria and had some issues as well. Also apparently some of the priorities changed in the process which led to other revisions.

Much of what they mock about the tank was already known. Every goofy osint expert knew about ten rounds of ammo were stored outside the tank. Also the fcs has been changed. Indeed Russians can produce the bolometers though in fairly small batches annually. Their fire control system with auto tracking is theirs. I have heard that foreign processors are utilized but apparently this is happening less and less.

I utterly distrust this kind of nonsense from Ukrainian sources. It smells of odious propaganda. Worst thing is many of us in the west genuinely go about thinking we are not propagandized ourselves. Foolishness. Disappointed to constantly see anti russian biases impacting the minds of those posting here.
 

Attachments

  • photo_2023-04-13_13-37-51.jpg
    photo_2023-04-13_13-37-51.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 99
  • photo_2023-04-13_12-41-53.jpg
    photo_2023-04-13_12-41-53.jpg
    97.7 KB · Views: 97
Last edited:
Oh yeah. I have always wondered if the t-90a and m variants have recieved some sort of updates armor wise, maybe some kind of replacement of the nera plates. I have heard that some kontakt 5 equipped tanks have gotten more modern explosive sheets which are more sensitive to fin ammo. Not sure if this is true, tho.
 
TMA1 said:
Stinks of propaganda. Russia tests their vehicles pretty hard and before that the factory itself goes over many tests so that the state tests run more smoothly. Some reasons why armata has not started serial production is because they were having issues with the power pack and also supposedly the APS did not fulfill all criteria and had some issues as well. Also apparently some of the priorities changed in the process which led to other revisions.

Much of what they mock about the tank was already known. Every goofy osint expert knew about ten rounds of ammo were stored outside the tank. Also the fcs has been changed. Indeed Russians can produce the bolometers though in fairly small batches annually. Their fire control system with auto tracking is theirs. I have heard that foreign processors are utilized but apparently this is happening less and less.

I utterly distrust this kind of nonsense from Ukrainian sources. It smells of odious propaganda. Worst thing is many of us in the west genuinely go about thinking we are not propagandized ourselves. Foolishness. Disappointed to constantly see anti russian biases impacting the minds of those posting here.
Click to expand...
The "engine loses 1/3rd its power in the summer" point was hilarious. Can't believe they actually claimed this shit.

As for "engine is based on T-34's engine"...well AVDS-1790 still runs and it's a design developped in 1943, and the French Unidiesel, British CV12 and Italian FIAT tank engine are all based on 50's boat diesels, their point? Using old block designs while changing everything else is perfectly reasonable. The Russians haven't even reached the maximum potential of the V-2 block yet (and IIRC it doesn't even really use that block design, I think they changed it on one of the later V-XXs).
 
TMA1 said:
Stinks of propaganda. Russia tests their vehicles pretty hard and before that the factory itself goes over many tests so that the state tests run more smoothly. Some reasons why armata has not started serial production is because they were having issues with the power pack and also supposedly the APS did not fulfill all criteria and had some issues as well. Also apparently some of the priorities changed in the process which led to other revisions.

Much of what they mock about the tank was already known. Every goofy osint expert knew about ten rounds of ammo were stored outside the tank. Also the fcs has been changed. Indeed Russians can produce the bolometers though in fairly small batches annually. Their fire control system with auto tracking is theirs. I have heard that foreign processors are utilized but apparently this is happening less and less.

I utterly distrust this kind of nonsense from Ukrainian sources. It smells of odious propaganda. Worst thing is many of us in the west genuinely go about thinking we are not propagandized ourselves. Foolishness. Disappointed to constantly see anti russian biases impacting the minds of those posting here.
Click to expand...

My favorite bit is "T-90 'Vladimir' is copying the Iosif Stalin series because Putin," when in reality it's named for V. Potkin who was the chief designer of the UVZ Design Bureau, and has an entire book about his ingenuity in developing and putting into production the T-90-series tanks.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1352303592930226177
View: https://twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1352303592930226177


"Vladimir" is about as common a name in Russia as "Joe" is in the United States but so I guess "average Joe" must refer to the POTUS? Some people might say so perhaps.

Wild times to be alive.

TMA1 said:
Oh yeah. I have always wondered if the t-90a and m variants have recieved some sort of updates armor wise, maybe some kind of replacement of the nera plates. I have heard that some kontakt 5 equipped tanks have gotten more modern explosive sheets which are more sensitive to fin ammo. Not sure if this is true, tho.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be terribly uncommon to be fair. Most Western tanks, such as Leclerc, Ariete, Challenger, and Leopard 2A4, have not received armor updates in several decades either. The only vehicles to receive consistent, fleet-wide updates to armor package (or at least partial fleet-wide) have been the Merkava and the Abrams I think.

Maybe the fabricated Jane's article/chain forum post will finally stop doing rounds.
 
I read his comments and realized that his view is very biased and that he is a clown. The tank is more than 20 years old, the tank participated in combat operations and not in the desert of Iraq where it is dry. And in a continental climate under snow and rain. His M1 tank in Iraq was hardly more than 10 years old.
 
BBCRF said:
I read his comments and realized that his view is very biased and that he is a clown. The tank is more than 20 years old, the tank participated in combat operations and not in the desert of Iraq where it is dry. And in a continental climate under snow and rain. His M1 tank in Iraq was hardly more than 10 years old.
Click to expand...
Still speaks bady of the Russian military as a whole.

Like Iv been in vehicles that stayed in similar conditions before in the States. Which in certain areas are far wetter thrn Russia ever could be.

Some of which I know was older then I was going by the serial numbers and like. And stayed in those vehicles for multiple months on end.

None of them looked any where NEAR as bad as that poor T90 did.

And we are not allow to paint them or anything to touch them up.

No matter how you try to slice it.

This slows how bad off Russia actually is military wise.
 
That's what I don't like about the philistine of the Western bloc.So it's the lack of objectivity. The car drives, shoots, destroys infantry, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, is easy to repair
 
ie he looked inside. Is the tank dirty so it's shit? where is the logic?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom