Talk:T-90/Archive 1

Reverted Edits
''All specialists are recognize that the T-90S the best anti-tank in the world. He's also named "flying tank".''

Reverted this edit by 194.246.112.83 to the last edit by User:Mzajac. Besides poor grammar, this editor does not specify who these ‘specialists’ are that consider the T-90S the best anti-tank in the world. Also, this editor says that “he’s” also named the flying tank. Who is he? Do you mean the tank? oo64eva (AJ) 19:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a literal translation from Russian, referring to the tank. The attribution of "all specialists" is certainly wrong, and I don't think the nickname is correct, either.  The T-80/T-84 are called flying tanks, because of their very high power-to-weight ratio.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-9 22:07 Z 

India has procurred some 400 T-90's and some 300 more are under construction for India. Russia has some 400 operational T-90's though many of these are T-72B bodies upgraded with T-90 turrets. Some of you are downright clueless. There is an entire tank division worth of T-90's in service with the Russian army at this point.


 * Division? Which one? I know of a regiment only. --jno 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well put, and may I point out that the T-90 is based very similarly to previous soviet armored designs, I seriously doubt it will turn out to b ea poor tank in combat.


 * Sure, T-90 is a major upgrade of T-72. However, I cannot realize, why it will turn out to b ea poor tank in combat?. --jno 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Flying tank" was used after once on a show that tank jumped flying more than 9 meters in the air. In the midjump it makes a shot, succesfully hitting the target. There also was a foto of that shot. --Oleg Str 08:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like Zaloga's caption (2000:9) for a photo of a T-80U in mid-jump, at the 1993 IDEX trade exhibition: "Flying tank! The T-80U has the highest power-to-weight ratio of any current tank, and this is often demonstrated at exhibitions by having the tank jump off an embankment. Seconds later, this tank fired its main gun while in flight, an awesome display even if not very accurate!" (Although the tank in the photo is flying off of a ramp much lower than nine metres—I doubt that any tank crew would be conscious and unbroken after dropping from that height)


 * Regardless of individual photo captions, it's the T-80 and T-84 which are nicknamed flying tank, not the T-90, whose version Russian service has much less horsepower.


 * Steven Zaloga and David Markov (2000) Russia's T-80U Main Battle Tank. Hong Kong: Concord. ISBN 962-361-656-2


 * By the way, YouTube has a video of a Leopard tank firing in flight. —Michael Z. 2006-10-10 16:17 Z 

Verifiability (original research??) of this section
"Survivability

While the T-90 continues the Soviet tradition of strong and weight-efficient protection (the Soviets used combination armor before the West, as well as anti-APFSDS effective ERA), as an evolutionary follow-on to the T-72, it lacks the survivability features that are built in Western MBTs that will keep its crew alive after suffering penetration by enemy projectiles. For example, spare ammunition is stored in the main compartment, rather than separate compartments with blow-out panels. This caused many Soviet-designed tanks' ammo to detonate in a "catastrophic" kill after being penetrated, with legends of turrets being thrown 50 feet into the air.

In the Gulf War, this lack of survivability excarberated the obsolescent protection of the Iraqi armor, which can be easily penetrated by modern Western ammunition. Russian tanks proved so vulnerable to almost any kind of anti-tank fire that some battles witnessed American or British units allowing Iraqi crews to bail from their vehicles and clear out, allowing destruction of the highly-flammable vehicles without unnecessary loss of life.

With its improved armor, the T-90 is relatively safe from attacks on the front, where its protection should stop most attacks from penetrating and exposing its survivability weaknesses. However, a side (or top) attack will likely turn the tank into a deathtrap."

Since the T-90 has not been fielded in any combat situation and incorporates significant upgrades from its predecessor's and the fact that no sources are citied for this section in which the T-90 is claimed to be inferior to Western MBTs. The comparison and claim made here will be considered non-verifiable and original research unless someones cares to cite a reference confirming the authenticity of the information presented in this section within a week. The information may hold for academic debate and such but no Public Wiki. Chuglur 04:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This section wasn't really my idea. It was from an un-named IP. I hastily reworded the whole thing to make it less POV, but I figure that he has a point.
 * The problem with the T-90's survivability is what was not upgraded, because it is really a T-72 variant. The problem discussed here is that the T-90 and the T-72 use the same basic ammo layout - ammo lying freely in the main compartment. Try this site. Even the Russians know that the current ammo layout is a disaster in the event of any penetration, which is why they are going to a new layout in the truly new tanks. Kazuaki Shimazaki 08:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Current Russian tanks rely primarily on ERA for their protection. Without the ERA the T-90 or the latest versions of the T-80 would be destroyed just as easy as Iraqi T-72s were. Russian conventional armor is inferior when compared to most western composite designs such as Chobham or Dorchester armor. -Interested Reader —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.180.187 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Nonsense - hindus, fired old T-90С with cast turrets without ERA (!), using various shells (including M 829A1) and thus have not achieved any penetration from front. Do not compare obsolete bastardazed variants of old T-72A with T-90 (A or C).


 * That means it is quite well PROTECTED. However, AFAIK survivability in a tank refers to how well you do after you get penetrated, and I see no evidence the evolutionary T-90 made revolutions in this area. Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The carousselle autoloader is in the most protected area of the tank, which has statistically the lowest possible hit chance and covered by terrain plications for the typical terrain. Contrary the turret is the most probable hit area. On the newest T-90 there is many upgrades for surviveability.


 * The article is about the t-90, not the t-72 they are 2 different tanks designed 30 years apart. No t-90s have been in iraq not in the gulf war and not in this new war, the article about the t-90 should only be about the t-90 and not 30 year old t-72s66.246.72.108 08:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The name "T-90" is a marketing exercise. The tank was going to be called the T-72BM.  Because of the poor performance of old, monkey-model tanks in the Persian Gulf, it was renamed T-90 to look better (to satisfy the pride of the Russian army, or to improve the prospects of potential exports, I wonder).


 * According to the Sewell reference, p 45, "however, the T-72 garnered its own share of problems in the Gulf War, as the less capable T-72M and T-72M1 tanks were easily destroyed by first-line US and UK tanks. This is one of the main reasons that the last model, the T-72BM, was hastily redesignated the T-90 to try and shake off the stigma from Iraq."


 * Sewell also mentions that Russian T-72s were built with better materials than the Iraqi tanks, and the T-72A had superior survivability in Chechnya (note 4). But he also calls ammunition storage in the fighting compartment, which the T-72/T-90 also share, a "fatal flaw" of the T-80. —Michael Z. 2007-02-14 17:14 Z 


 * T-90 never was T-72BM, but T-72BU (Obyekt 188). Originally the designation T-90 was given to another prototype (50 tonnes Obyekt 187 with welded turret, changed hull and new gun).


 * References? —Michael Z. 2007-02-18 16:27 Z 


 * On english? Nothing, but on russian - Obyekt 187 and btvt.narod.ru.


 * Regarding the text quoted above, it should mention the nature of the Iraqi T-72s: the fact that we are comparing new apples to crappy, old apples. And of course, adding references would improve it.  The specific mention of the effects of side and rear hits seems to be pure speculation, and, without any reference, should be removed.  The article can compare the T-72 and T-90, pointing out what is similar and different about the tanks, and let readers draw their own conclusions (or quote experts' conclusions, if they are available). —Michael Z. 2007-02-14 18:10 Z 


 * Despite what the Russians may claim I would trust the M829A1 APFSDS-T round to punch through a T90 without reactive armor. Saying that they have yet to find a shell able to penetrate the front armor is a load of nonsense unless they are just testing ammunition that is quite outdated. Regarding improvements to this article I suggest that a quick list of the different T90 production models be added similar to the one in the T80 article. This list could show updates and changes specific to that model. -Interested Reader.


 * They CAN`T penetrate "stripped" (without ERA) old T-90 with cast turret with the M829A1. Why do you think the latest M829A3 will penetrate the newest T-90A with welded turret (with new composite fillers) and NEW ERA?!


 * Let's stick to planning the article, with facts based on published references. Speculation belongs in a milfan forum somewhere else. —Michael Z. 2007-02-18 16:26 Z 


 * Am I supposed to believe you now just because you repeated your claim? Why don't you show some proof or support for this nonsense? To answer your question I would trust the M829A3 to penetrate the latest T90 with ERA because the M829A3 is a major improvment over the M829A2, which is already excellent APFSDS ammunition.

The blow out boxes on the back tanks,such as the Abrams,are usually not well protected,and can be penetrated by heavy machine gun fire. When the ammo blows out,the crew has much less offensive capability.

If the ammo was better protected,the blow out box might make more sense. Dudtz 2/18/07 3:38 PM EST


 * The ammo compartment on the Abrams is just as well protected as the rear turret of any other MBT. There is no way it could be penetrated by HMG fire.

Not even 14.5mm? Dudtz 2/23/07 5:10 PM EST

I believe the minimum armor requirements on both the Abrams and the Bradley require protection from 14.5mm ammunition. Fire from a 14.5mm machine gun would still be able to damage optics and other parts of the tank, it just would be unable to penetrate the turret and hull. A heavier weapon such as a 25mm or 30mm autocannon with good quality ammunition may be able to penetrate the rear turret of the Abrams. So a BMP2 may have caused the ammunition to go off once.

Well if so,then thats ok protection. Dudtz 3/2/07 9:40 PM ET

Survivability revisited
On the other hand, as it has been shown in the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflict, the effectiveness of the survivability features to limit crew casualties may have been overrated considering the increased power and precision of anti-tank weapons.

on the local blacklist''
 * http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrussia-t90s-battle-tank-peruvian-army
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

North Korean M2002 tank?
According to www.globalsecurity.org North Korea expressed interest in purchasing a T-90 and was reported as testing a new tank remarkably similar to the T-90 labelled M2002 in 2002. This may be of interest to those investigating the T-90, but as it is merely a rumour (though one that seems plausible), I decided to post this here. Anyobdy else know anything about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.56.200.33 (talk • contribs).


 * It can be mentioned in the article with a link to the item at the Global Security site. —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 23:03 Z 

M-2002 is the upgraded version of P'okpoong-Ho--80.235.55.64 (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

M1A2 fact check.

No M1 Abrams have been destroyed by 23mm ZPU fire. You may be thinking of an incident where two M1A2s were reported to be disabled by a 100mm gun firing into the rear of the tanks.

Well, there is a case when some 25mm Bushmaster rounds disabled an M1, read da page, man.


 * One M1A2 was destroyed by 12.7mm DShK heavy machinegun. How? The machinegun hit the additional gas turbine on the turret rear, fuel has spilled on hot motor section, result - fire and loss of the tank.


 * It was acually a hit to the rear from a recoiless rifle that caused a fuel leak which lit the engine on fire. The tank was not destroyed then however, it took a USAF AIM65 missile to do that. Also those Bushmaster 25mm SABOT rounds fired into the rear of the tank just disabled the engine. That is alot different than HE ammunition from a 23mm ZPU destroying an Abrams by hitting it in the sides. The engine of any tank is rather vulnerable.

^^ Can we see references for above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.126.114 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

any Abrams tank has armor from behind 12.5 (fuel tanks) or 25 mm steel sheets (motor) such armor breaks easily the most powerful machine guns caliber of less than 20 mm. 23 caliber and the fact that it is a gun. it is easy break through and from afar. the same thing about the roof. roof also very vulnerable to large-caliber mortars. Cassette bombs and anti-tank (special), part of the roof is vulnerable to grenades. just as vulnerable to each tank. however T72 has a much thicker lateral and the roof of the tower. T90 practically no breaks for all of this (only in the rear of the roof breaks). and by the way. former type of tanks T-34 or T-55 have a much thicker armor top, bottom and rear than contemporary, sometimes 200 or even 400% (and completely without more subtle). if you are interested in the link, then it is not difficult. If you are new were looking details on the of different the armor of tanks. you already to know them.

http://ww2history.ru/3891-srednijj-tank-t-34-85-boevoe-primenenie-istorija.html

You can see a detailed diagram (thickness + tilt angle), and make sure that it is much more than any contemporary. and even the thickness bottoms 20 mm it as a modern Leopard 2A5 (almost the entire bottom of any leopard is 20 mm, and only the most modern front thicker) and so this means that the combination of several of heavy grenades might still break through the bottom. like the 70 years ago. or do you think that the anti-tank mines have not effective? oh no .. their are still keep in warehouses. these mines are not heavier than of those that have done before 89.105.158.243 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifications - Armor (Sources)
Hi,

These sources are used for the Armor Specifications but they don't seem to be verifiable?

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html http://gurkhan.blogspot.kr/2011/09/rea-2011-t-90ms-mbt.html http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-240.html#post576023

It might be best to find other sources.

Cheers,

Mattwheatley (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Those sources are unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards. There's no way they're staying on this page. Khazar (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And now you are not admitting the source which is acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. Shame.M60a3tts (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

T-90 armor
Please discuss. There are contradictions from the available sources. Khazar (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-90.htm This website claims T-90A protection as follow; vs APFSDS: 550 mm + 250-280mm with Kontakt-5 = 800-830mm vs HEAT: 650 mm + 500-700mm with Kontakt-5 = 1,150-1,350mm. This means that against APFSDS, 550mm is for T-90A Basic Armor, without Kontakt-5, and 250~280mm is for Kontakt-5. If you add this up, the sum is 800~830mm for the whole T-90A Armor. Khazar doesn't know anything about what ERA is and how it works. And now he is the one who vandaling the article.M60a3tts (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize that your own source is unreliable. Global Security had shown many errors before. Khazar (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Prove it. And also prove why T-90AM's protection(KE 850/CE 1200) is not credible, even when it was said by Russian engineer who was explaining about T-90AM to Putin in EXPO ARMS 2011.M60a3tts (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Khazar Your source for the T-90A armor is; "T-90". btvt.narod.ru. Retrieved April 11, 2014. "Модернизированный танк Т-90С "Тагил" во всей красе". Retrieved 15 November 2014. John Pike. "T-90". Retrieved 15 November 2014. However last two have same figure as global security, and BTVT is not reliable source for Russian armour protection, although it does have a lot of information about Russian armors. For example, BTVT claims that the protection of M1 abrams and M1A1 abrams is 380mm / 530~550mm KE, but in reality it was 450~470mm / 600mm according to Steven Zaloga and the Soviet Intelligence.M60a3tts (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sick of re-editing the T-90 page. Khazar don't you think this is reliable enough? Page 125 M60a3tts (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. You've already been blocked before. If you continue this, you will be blocked again. Learn to differentiate between a reliable source and an unreliable source. Khazar (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This book is written by Andrew W. Hull, David R. Markov and Steven J. Zaloga, and they are all experts in this field. This was even adviced by Marine Corps Intelligence Activity and Christopher F. Foss, who is the editor of IHS Jane's. You are the one who believes that internet shit is much more credible than specialty publication.220.76.25.116 (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Khazar http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=arm&no=375286&page=1 These photos are all taken from the book I mentioned before. Yes, I was banned before, but does that doesn't matter at all. You are the one who doesn't know how to differentiate between a reliable source and an unreliable source. Learn to read English, and use your eyes.M60a3tts (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)