Talk:T-90/Archive 2

Copyright issue
GlobalSecurity.org and FAS.org both have roughly identical copies of this text. GlobalSecurity.org has a footer that says:

Copyright © 2000-2004 GlobalSecurity.org All Rights Reserved

As far as I can tell, Global Security has not released anything on their site to public domain (despite the copying by FAS.org) and therefore we are in violation of their copywrite. -Vina 19:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have removed the infringing sections. Lupo 07:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Russian Economy
I have been hearing that the economy in Russia is doing well toomany people are thinking of 10 years ago Russia probably doesn't want all of them destroyed in Chechnya It would be better to use an older tank in urban combat such as the T-55 Dudtz 7/20/05 2:38pm est

I found the official page of the Company that makes the tanks
I added the links and also made some changes to the characteristics screen

The officla page has its own characteristics scrren which can be found by clicking on http://www.uvz.ru/eng/ then clicking on ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES then clicking on MILITARY PRODUCTS then on t-90 c or just go here http://www.uvz.ru/eng/edata/euvz/eprodukt/mprod/t_90.htm

Also i have problems with adding new lines to wiki characteristics screen dotn know how to create a new line if someone could do that for me that would be great i added the to lines about FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM and GUIDED WEAPON SYSTEM

Deng 2005/11/28 02.05 CET


 * The format for the tank template is fixed, so you can't add new lines. The guided weapon is one of the capabilities of the main armament, and we don't list fire control in the infobox; such details and specs for different models (T-90/T-90S) can go in the main text.  —Michael Z. 2005-11-28 01:56 Z 

Picture
Would it be ok for me to take a picture of a book that has the picture of this tank in it,would it be legal? Dudtz 12/30/05 6:28 PM EST


 * Probably not, possibly unless it was a government publication, or reprinted an image which was in the public domain. See Copyrights for guidelines.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-30 23:39 Z 

relation
Is this tank related to the T-90 mentioned in the article for the T-70 tank?


 * No. —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 05:51 Z 

Indonesia
🇮🇩 Indonesia, After buying a number of Russian military aircraft, vehicles and submarines in 2006, Indonesia will order the T-90S for Indonesian Army Corps (TNI-AD). [7]


 * [7] ANGKASA No. 12, Edisi September 2006 (page 79).

Indonesian plans to by T-90 were added with a refernce and then mostly removed from the article, without much comment.

I'm restoring. Please remove and comment if there's a reason to do so. —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 18:04 Z 

January 2009
Would someone please provide a reference for Algerian T-90s? —Michael Z. 2009-01-01 20:52 z 


 * Also, Venezuela and Lebanon. Someone please find a suitable source which clearly states that any of these countries has acquired T-90s, or this should all be removed.  This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. —Michael Z. 2009-01-02 22:58 z 

VIDEO: Entire regiment of T-90 battle tanks begin to arrive in Iraq from Russia
VIDEO: Entire regiment of T-90 battle tanks begin to arrive in Iraq from Russia https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-entire-regiment-t-90-battle-tanks-begin-arrive-iraq-russia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.207.61 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

T-90A vs T-90M
T-90A are NOT T-90M

T-90M are new modification released in 2008/2009 year It's get new 1200hp engine, new much improved turret (thats big one story, long to explain all changes), new reactive armor (Relict), new electronics (with integrated tactical system, sattelite navigation), new optical systems (thermal and night vision for every crewman). And most important: new main gun 2A82

Т-90М ("Объект 188М") – двигатель В-99 мощностью 1200 л.с., новая конструкции башни с всеракурсной защитой, значительно модернизированная СУО, новые автомат заряжания и пушка с улучшенными баллистическими характеристиками, улучшенная система пожаротушения, защищенная системы связи, система навигации, предусмотрена интеграция в АСУВ, модульная ДЗ третьего поколения типа "Реликт", усиленное комбинированное бронирование ВЛД, огнестойкий противоосколочный материал типа "Кевлар". Серия с 2010 г.

http://tank-t-90.ru/publ/novaja_svarnaja_bashnja/1-1-0-23

Serial production started in 2010

87.237.114.34 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The T-90M is NOT an Indian model either. -Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.129.38 (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

T-90M isn't equipped with 2A82 gun, it's still on proposed stage. The difference between the 2A46M-5 gun and the 2A82, is the fact that the 2A82 lack the bore evacuator (or, the things that sticks out in the middle of the barrel, just like the Abrams gun). And when you see the T-90M tank, you can see the gun had the Bore Evacuator. Kalashnikov413 (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Myth about the T-90M and the 2A82 gun
I've seen a lot of people saying that the T-90AM is different than the T-90M, due to the fact that the T-90M is equipped with the same gun as the Armata (2A82). But in reality, that myth was fake. T-90AM and T-90M are a same tank, don't get confused by people saying that T-90M is equipped with 2A82 gun. But no, there's not a single T-90M equipped with that gun. The difference between the 2A46M-5 and the 2A82 is the fact that 2A82 is appeared to be lacking a bore evacuator. There's a proposed plan to equipped the 2A82 gun to the T-90M, but it hasn't been done yet. T-90MS are the export variant. Both T-90M and T-90MS are similar, but they removed things that the T-90M have. For example, the cage armor below the turret, and the 7.62 mm remote controlled MG instead of 12.7 mm.Kalashnikov413 (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You contradict yourself in your own post. 75.70.153.208 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Production numbers
The info box on the right mentions the production numbers as 8500+, and an uncited "5,200 Units of T-90 Series in Storage (source: Kremlin News)"

The citations provided in the actual text gives the total number of Russian T-90s as less than 600, and a grand total for all operators of less than 4,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadWarWiki (talk • contribs) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022
Remove the daily signal as a source as it is highly partisan, remove the term 'cope cage' from this and all articles referring to Russian improvised Armour in ukraine, this colloquialism adds nothing to the factual information regarding the improvised slat Armour. If the authors wish to state its lack of effectiveness they can do so without attempting to sneak meme language into the article.


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. "Cope cage" is not being used in the article prose, and the source is fine for it's current use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @ScottishFinnishRadish cope AlphaHeartless (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War
On May 4 2022 in Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine, a T-90M Proryv-3 was destroyed in action, the first confirmed destroyed in the war; photographs of the destroyed tank, still smouldering after a direct hit from an anti-tank missile, began circulating in Ukrainian media outlets and online.[46][47] The tank, which had been sent to serve near Kyiv on 25 April, was destroyed by a Javelin missile.[better source needed]

It was destroyed by Carl Gustaf. https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3479715-russian-proryv-supertank-hit-by-carl-gustaf-recoilless-rifle.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.190.93.254 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Production number mismatch
The "Production History" in the sidebar is extremely unclear and out of sync with the rest of the article. I see two major issues here.

First, the sidebar claims claims 8,500+ units built. The main "Production" and "Operators" sections conflict strongly with this, listing ~3,500 accounted-for tanks. The 8,500 claim is uncited and I can't find any reference which supports it, much less a trustworthy source.

Second, the breakdown below the 8,500+ is extremely fuzzy and out of sync with the top-line number. It mixes stats for "units built by", "units delivered to", and "units in storage" (no location listed). The "built" and "delivered" stats actually appear too low, while the 6,500+ units in storage is again uncited and seems to exceed the real number of T-90 tanks ever built.

My proposal for a basic fix: lower the main sidebar number to the sum of the "operators" stats already sourced in the body, and simply delete the incoherent breakdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.56.188 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I cant even find 3500. Production figures never exceeded 50 a year by any listed source for domestic production. I find this on many wiki articles for Russian tanks, that propoganda figures are repeated, even without sourcing. in order for 8500 to have been built, they would have to have producted 300 a year on average. But for most years with figures it was in the 20-30 range.
 * So, obviously 8500 is imaginary and needs removing. I've seen it quoted by news articles and blogs and twitter users, all saying it means the Russians have lots of tanks in reserve, so the accuracy of this matters, as it calls Wikipedia's credibility into question quite seriously. 82.21.177.242 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Cope Cage style steel add on cage armour
This thread is for discussion of whether cope cage style armour (steel cages welded to the tank intended to prevent ATGM and LAW damage) should be included in the article

I am strongly in favour as it is the name most commonly used for this new type of armour colloquially in english, and this armour is very common in the ukraine conflict

Please seek consensus before removing references to the cope cage in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While Coping_(joinery) is a valid term in joinery (woodwork/metalwork), for "cope cage" to be included there needs to be a WP:RS citation otherwise it is original research WP:NOR. Ohsin  17:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Some quick original research suggests that it does seem to be the most common compound for describing these things, though I can't see RS mentioning it (yet?). On the other hand, the "colloquially known as / referred to as" bit might be OK without an explicit RS if there is sufficient usage. The term is definitely not limited to meme use. (Updated: https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/03/04/what-could-be-next-in-russia-ukraine-conflict/ contains this bit from the "Director of the Foreign Policy Center at Heritage Foundation": "... these Russian tanks where they put these metal cages over the top, thinking that’s going to protect from the Javelin. … The nickname is “the cope cage,” to allow the crew to cope with the Javelins." Phiarc (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone else added the bit already back in, I've added the source I mentioned with the relevant quote. If someone knows a better way than Template:Cite web to cite a podcast transcript, that'd be great, especially if it allows to attribute the quote directly to the person who said it. Phiarc (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One can use Template:Cite_AV_media within ref tags to cite audio/video reference. Ohsin  19:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've had another look around and found Template:Cite podcast as well, but that doesn't seem to have a clear way to specify guests, but Template:Cite interview fits very well here considering the structure of the piece, so I swapped "Cite interview" in. Phiarc (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont think the hyper partisan source of the daily signal is a good enough reason to add what amounts to a derogatory meme language to an encyclopedic article. Wikistevedore (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The source quote in full is
 * "You’ll see Russian turrets completely disconnected from the chassis of the tank and you see these Russian, they’re called cope cages, these Russian tanks where they put these metal cages over the top, thinking that’s going to protect from the Javelin. … The nickname is “the cope cage,” to allow the crew to cope with the Javelins. And they’re about as effective as wearing a cloth mask to stop the spread of COVID."
 * So on top of that you have covid information as well as propaganda, where the term 'cope cage' comes from isn't sourced, its clearly an invention of the internet. Wikistevedore (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it's 2022 and not 1996, the internet is now an integral part of society, so it's no surprise that modern OSINT for a modern war would be heavily intertwined with the internet. I don't particularly see this as justification that coinages are inappropriate simply because they've originally arisen on the internet. That's like complaining about selfies, mukbangs, and e-girls. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Difference being this layperson coinage is by people speculating on purpose of cage like apparatus which very recently emerged. Urban environment aids top-down attacks from RPG along innovations like drone dropped munition, and presumably these are effective against those including mortar. Presumptions that this is only for tandem charged missiles could be a stretch which is the basis of derisive meme to glorify certain weapons system. Terms like "Hajji armor" are colloquial and have emerged from field and hence have more credence for notability. Internet trends rise and fade and are more or less driven by misinformation/propaganda or limited understanding so have to be careful what is considered as notable so early. Ohsin  16:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the current interview cited as a source. I initially removed it once since it had no source and it looked like vandalism based on the series of edits/reversals done around the same time. That said, I'm totally fine with it as-is (though I think protecting the page as the admins have done is a good idea) AlchemistsFire 20:49, 7 March 2022
 * It's clear it shouldn't be described as simply slat armor because it is totally ineffective and appears to be designed solely to comfort the occupants of the AFV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.153.208 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you ever run across an article full of Bush-era material about whatever buzzwords were big in the blogosphere that week? It's really embarrassing stuff, and this is going to age just as well. 2001:48F8:4002:684:1510:771C:66FD:D97A (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just update them when I see that. If this doesn't stick then it can be updated. Frobird (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bush-era memes age like fine milk. Schierbecker (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't instead of cope cage it should just be improvised armor? There is already an article for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_vehicle_armour SiXiam (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Improvised armour works, and fit their intended purpose. These cages are purely for psychological reassurance, and do nothing to prevent NLAWs from penetrating. -- benlisquare T•C•E 07:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you certain they are "purely for psychological reassurance"? I mean wearing an amulet would be that but this is obviously an attempt to counter the attack perhaps by increasing distance between penetrator and turret regardless of how ineffective it might be. Ohsin  14:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * not all Improvised armour works by default, it can simply refereed to as improvised armour. Wikistevedore (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an insulting term but it's also the only one I've seen for it so I think it should stay. If there's a more specific term that comes about for improvised armor that doesn't do anything then it could be worth replacing it, but I haven't seen such a term used in any articles nor in the wild.Frobird (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget that these anti-tank missiles were tested against these "improvised armour" and they provide no protection. 78.96.150.187 (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm reluctant to just call it improvised armor or slat armor. The fact that it doesn't do anything and this has become widely known and discussed is part of what justifies the term for me. Frobird (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Cope cage' term came from internet communities and is basically a pejorative meme. With citogenesis at work it would get worse. So I suggest it is better to just call it as 'improvised armour' and do away with memes on an encyclopedia to maintain WP:NPOV while the effectivity of this clears up. Ohsin  15:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What else is there to call it then, without venturing into WP:OR territory? For better or for worse, the neologism has caught on as a common way to refer to it, and I don't see a competing term out in the wild that's used just as frequently. It's not "slat armour" because slat armour is functionally different, and "improvised armour" is not as specific. Until the available corpus of literature comes up with a better name, I'd suggest using what we currently have, even if it is pejorative in nature. -- benlisquare T•C•E 11:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't need to call it anything unless a term really emerges that is part of formal parlance worthy of notability here. Neologism have to go through test of time and have certain threshold of acceptability beyond internet communities. Unless such term emerges we should refrain from using insinuating terms that are going viral at the moment in certain spheres.  Ohsin  14:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect seeing many images of busted up tanks with grilles on top can cause survivorship bias to creep in and lead to speculative assertions. We don't know how effective it is, it has not been weighed in satisfactorily by experts. Ohsin  14:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This article about those tests casts few doubts about the manner in which those tests were conducted and how representative the target was to actual. Ohsin  18:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the claim, sourced to The Drive, that this type of armor is ineffective. The source does not support that claim. This was a story about a Ukrainian propaganda video, made in December, showing the use of a Javelin missile against a Frankenstein T-64/BTR with some slat armor that may or may not be comparable to the real Russian thing. Very few conclusions about the combat effectiveness of this armor arrangement can be drawn from such a flawed test. Schierbecker (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll potentially have to wait until there's mainstream reporting on Russian tank losses in detail, from news reports or by war analysts, before we'll be able to make a definite call on their effectiveness in the real world, which is fine and reasonable. Out in the wild, the skepticism towards these cages come from combat footage and aftermath photos of such tanks, such as those posted in OSINT threads on Twitter, but obviously these don't meet WP:RS requirements, so for now we'll just need to hold off. -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This debate has been immortalized on "war twitter," btw:. Schierbecker (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This term is WP:NEO being given WP:UNDUE importance perhaps in an attempt to make it mainstream. Of the cited references one is casual conversation in a podcast other clearly puts its origins in online communities, none satisfactorily rationalizing the term or its origins to field realities. The deriding rationales given so far about 'psychological assurance' are unfounded. While emergence of this type of improvised armour could be notable depending on its prevalence in current Russo-Ukraine war and its earlier examples (if any), this term so far is just a viral meme and not worthy to be included in encyclopedia. Ohsin 13:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It really seems like you guys are reaching to justify the term not being included. Also, if you're going to crusade against its inclusion you should probably excise the articles in the citation which specifically cite the term. 73.118.85.210 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm actually good with leaving "cope cage" in. The way it was worded made it plain that the term was being attributed to skeptics. This may be too much detail for this article, but on a page like slat amour, this may be fine. Schierbecker (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not on any 'crusade' but have looked at the term first as a valid technical term (see my comment about 'coping' tubes) but as it has became clearer the term is a just a pejorative meme from imageboards and social media and without much understanding of its functioning, experts have referred to it as improvised slat armor possibly for protection against loitering munition and other top down attacks like from specialized missiles with tandem charges and perhaps even with a thermal component. We need nuanced look into these on pages like Improvised vehicle armour and Slat armor as they appear to have unique characteristics avoiding giving undue importance to neologisms. As for pages like T-90, T-72, T-80 we can just briefly note the prevalence of structure and its make-shift nature without using any disputed term, there are many such terms by the way all with origins in online communities far from field realities.  Ohsin  07:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohsin, may I remind you about the WP:BRD cycle. You can't just simply revert every single revert that you don't like and tell everyone else to "seek talkpage WP:CONSENSUS first" like you have. As the one disputing the content, it is your responsibility to gain consensus to remove the content from the article. I will be putting it back in until there has been consensus here to remove it, please do not commence edit warring, it's an inane waste of everyone's time and effort. As for WP:UNDUE, even Washington Post has now reported on the neologism, how much more "due" weight are you asking for? A reminder that the wording on these Wikipedia articles, prior to your removals, stated that they were pejorative nicknames used online—from your perspective, is this statement not factual? The neologism clearly meets notability requirements. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It appeared to me as the disputed term was first inserted and then removed and then consensus was sought for its inclusion. Original posts clearly states that "This thread is for discussion of whether cope cage style armour (steel cages welded to the tank intended to prevent ATGM and LAW damage) should be included in the article". When a non-notable neologism especially with non-neutral connotations is being brigaded to be included you should be conservative about its inclusion until claims get backed up by reputable sources. Just trying to maintain order, while waiting patiently for any quality argument to emerge about notability of term. Ohsin  10:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This thread started on 7 March, following a long back-and-forth of edits where random anonymous IP editors were adding the term between 5-7 March (example1, example2, example3, example4, example5), completely unsourced. At the time, the term was relatively unknown, and only used among niche internet circles; thus, the term was removed, and justifiably so. However, between the 8th and 10th of March, more and more WP:RSes began picking up on the neologism, especially as the term had spread throughout mainstream social media websites, rather than the niche in-joke among tiny online communities, thus the situation had changed to the point where the term gained notability (which wasn't the case a few days prior); from this point onwards, inclusion in Wikipedia (if only a brief mention) became acceptable, as long as it clearly explained that it was used colloquially or pejoratively, and by whom. We now have Washington Post, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Fairfax New Zealand reporting on the usage of the term, meaning that we can no longer ignore the cat escaping from the bag anymore. -- benlisquare T•C•E 11:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it is still a niche joke as noted by WaPo article that just published and ABC article. I am still not in favor of giving platform to inside jokes that have not been in use in formal parlance or emerge from field itself. And if you go into these communities it is clear how Wikipedia is abused to push certain terms or phrases hoping it would get picked by journalists scouring WP. Pre-invasion articles call it exactly what it is as overhead makeshift slat armor. Sure terms stick and become notable but I don't agree this has reached such a level. Ohsin  11:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Should note that Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Fairfax New Zealand reporting are not independently noting this but using single source from TheConversation. Ohsin  11:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the Internets' primary driver for the term is not active hatred, as implied by 'pejoratively', but a certain degree of amused contempt, I would suggest 'scornfully' might be a better word. 2407:7000:8309:B900:D92E:6B5B:6522:80D6 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just find it strange the only places i can source the term 'cope cage' seem to be coming from are far right spaces and I already know the term 'cope' comes from there. I feel its nothing to do with 'coping' with the Javelin and that its a dogwhistle.
 * The article is supposed to be about facts, its slat armor or improvised armor. Wikistevedore (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RSes haven't made the link between the phrase and right-wing spaces; plus, from my understanding, the line "cope, seethe and mald" is originally used in Twitch streaming communities to describe someone who gets so upset and angry that they start "malding" (i.e. become "mad and bald"), but for me to make the connection between the two is purely WP:OR and completely at odds with verifiability requirements. And yes, most, if not all, Wikipedia articles are about verifiable facts, and WP:RSes are factually stating that there are many communities that refer to the improvised top-down grilles as "cope cages". -- benlisquare T•C•E 04:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The term has been used in somewhat mainstream settings, for example the british minister of defence used the term in a public briefing. See https://youtube.com/watch?v=iyx6XG3srHc?t=1100 . The term is no longer limited to memes and online message boards but has (for months now) had use by officials. Tamoraboys (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Two new articles have popped up yesterday and today: I'll progressively add them here if any more come up. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One new article appeared today:
 * Unfortunately, this one is paywalled. -- benlisquare T•C•E 03:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Today we have an article dedicated to the makeshift cages, albeit very brief and covers nothing new that we don't already know: -- benlisquare T•C•E 06:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * New article from yesterday: -- benlisquare T•C•E 05:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These are both old articles from 2021, but according to these two Russian articles, the attachments are colloquially called "козырек от солнца" (lit. "sun visors") by Russian tank operators. The first article states that their design is intended to enhance protection against new generation anti-tank missiles; the second article claims that "the Ministry of Defense reported that it is intended to enhance protection against various weapons" (orig: "В Минобороны сообщили, что оно предназначено для усиления защиты от разных средств поражения"). -- benlisquare T•C•E 16:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * New article today: -- benlisquare T•C•E 07:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * New article today: -- benlisquare T•C•E 07:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm here after watching a describing a minor edit war here on the use of the term cope cage.  Slat armor is somewhat effective against RPG's and it looks like they were hoping there would be some effectiveness against other shape charge warheads. Technophant (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

'Cope cage is a fully adequate POOMF term for these distinctive and quite specific add-ons. Weather they are intended to protect against Javelins (which they do not) or RPGs and light drone munitions (which they might) is this far mere speculation by various more or less qualified analysts, and the article(s) should reflect that. BP OMowe (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is now using the term 'cope cage'in officially recorded speeches. Safe to say it is no longer an online only term. 82.1.51.36 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Cope is a memetic term, that comes from 4chan's "cope and seethe" meme which is intended to insult the kind of people who make edits on wikipedia. Citing an adversaries usage of propagandistic terminology does not make the terms inclusion into a encyclopedic article proper or formal, it just displays overt western bias. This bias makes any proceeding information hard to trust given the source--"Coping" westerners. 96.19.63.90 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Operators
Just because it has been captured by UA it doesn't matter AFU actually operates it. No proof of them operating T-90s either. 89.132.11.182 (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarify "abandoned"...?
There are several reports on the status of tanks, eg: "destroyed", "captured", etc., but some are noted as "abandoned". Is there anyway to clarify and expand on that? For example, some abandoned tanks end up being captured by opposing forces. Is there anyway to find out more of these other abandoned tanks? Were they also captured? If not, does that mean they're just sitting there? If they were destroyed, that would be an answer, and a conclusion. But if they were left behind because of mechanical issues (eg: the T-90M that lost track), or were left behind because their forces were being overrun and the crew couldn't get to it... either scenario needs a conclusion. If there is a tank just sitting there that could very well be put into service, by who which ever army grabs it first, (not to mention the intel value to the opposing force), it would be good to have an outcome for these particular, wayward tanks. (jmho) - w o lf  06:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Foreign parts in production
I came to this article hoping to find a reference to the Russians using Austrian and Italian made barrels for their tanks. I spotted several references to this bit was looking for a citation. The story, as I have pieced it together, is that in the chaos after the fall of the Soviet Union production stopped and was restarted. At some point the Russian Federation decided to import technology from European manufacturers rather than get their artillery barrel production lines operating.

I gather this was could not be done as fast as they'd hoped because Russian steel of the quality needed could not be manufactured fast enough...so they provided the spec to the Europeans who hammer forged the artillery tubes for them.

Sometime during Putin's rise to power this all stopped but I still lack the details to put the time timeline together. It'd be an interesting addition to the article if citations for these details can be found, and, of course, if I am correct.

If someone who knows more than me could verify this sort of thing, that'd swell. If I'm wrong, well, it certainly won't be the first time.

Please and of corse, thank you. 174.93.241.216 (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Production and Service History
It says:

"The Russian-made thermal imaging device not only meant that Russian tanks would no longer need to be equipped with foreign parts, but it also meant that complete tank modernization was cheaper. The new tank gunner’s heat-vision sight Irbis-K and the commander’s combined sighting and observation system Agat-MDT can be supplied to T-90 upgraded version (T-90M), replacing ESSA system with Catherine-FC thermal imager from Thales".

This seems contradictory. The Catherine FC imager is a foreign part, because it is manufactured by the French company Thales. So this paragraph contradicts itself.

The paragraph is uncited, so I propose to remove it.

MrDemeanour (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Grammar
There are two errors on this page where "it's" should be "its". I can't fix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.75.242 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Operators
One seems to have reached the US:

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-latest-putins-forces-have-built-formidable-obstacles-for-ukraine-in-regaining-territory-12541713?postid=5767117#liveblog-body

https://t.me/gruntmedia/30674 217.250.0.50 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * We appear to have confirmation that it is heading to Aberdeen Proving Ground https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/destination-of-russian-t-90-tank-left-at-truck-stop-comes-into-focus
 * ©Geni (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Combat use
The T-90M shown under the section "Combat use" was not destroyed by ukranian forces, but only damaged by a recoiless rifle and then destroyed by russian forces in order to prevent the tank being captured. As explained by red effect https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mjx_GMLF--Y. I think it is justified changing the description Redstar1312 (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I already changed that again. If someone wants to show T-90M being destroyed by Ukrainians there are other examples but do not use this one because it was destroyed by friendly fire on purpose NVidk (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone has changed it again. 14:52, 9 September 2023‎

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023
change the Carl Gustaf man-portable anti-tank grenade launcher to Carl Gustaf man-portable anti-tank recoilless rifle Axisslayer (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The existing source uses the current wording, it doesn't absolutely have to be the official formal name as long as it's clear what is meant, which is also helped by the link to the weapon's own article. TylerBurden (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)