Talk:T-90/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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. —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."[1]

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.

This paragraph has been added, removed and restored. Regardless of the citation, the sentence is not only speculative, but relatively content-free.

The cited article merely says that Merkava tanks are vulnerable because Hezbollah may be getting the latest Russian antitank weapons from Syria, and that this is part of an arms race between the designers of tanks and infantry antitank weapons that has been going on since at least 1973. It cites no casualty figures, says nothing about the effectiveness of particular tank survivability features, or whether they have been overrated, and doesn't compare Soviet-style tanks to western types. It says nothing about ammunition storage, cooking-off ammunition, or the T-90. To sum up: it merely says that tanks are not invulnerable.

What is this paragraph doing here? —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 06:09 Z

Note that reservists are counted among the dead tank crewmen. That means that some of the tanks destroyed were infact "Magachs", old tanks being phased out by the israelis. In short, the paragraph in question is founded on a baseless inference. See http://www.mfa.gov.il for casualty figures. - 65.37.28.154 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Survivability

The following is the a proposed draft for the survivability section, the part that raised disagreements is shown in italic text: --C1010 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While the T-90 continues the Soviet tradition of strong and weight-efficient protection (the Soviets used combination armour before the West, as well as anti-APFSDS effective ERA), as an evolutionary follow-on to the T-72, it by design does not include some survivability features present in some Western MBTs that may keep the 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. As a result, if the tank is hit in the right spot under the right angle and the charge is strong enough to penetrate the armor, the ammunition may cook off, killing the crew members.

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 significantly overrated considering the increased power and precision of anti-tank weapons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794829.stm

I wanted to make it completely clear why C1010's addition of the BBC article ref and associated section are not acceptable. The BBC article discusses the Merkava and recent doubts about its ability to survive infantry anit tank weapons. It is in no way related to the survavibility section on the T-90 page which discusses possible short comings in the T-90 crew protection specifically the lack of blow off panels. Using a source that mentions neither blow off panels nor the T-90 to infer that the blow off panels might be ineffective on T-90 is clearly WP:SYN. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your position, for Mercava MBT was praised for its survivability features, including the blow-out panels, yet Merkava's recent combat record makes the section's claim highly questionable. One can't hope to maintain credibility when discussing survivability features and, at the same time, removing all evidence showing those features have highly questionable impact on the crew's ability to survive. --C1010 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the source you are trying to insert does not mention any survivability features. All it indicates is that the Merkava's armor was not as good at stopping ATGMs as hoped and there were some crew casualties. It does not in anyway back up the claim that you are trying to assert, "The Merkava's failure in Lebanon indicates that blow off panels are ineffective and thus the T-90's lack there of is inconsequential." Find a source that says that and we can add it. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly false. Have you actually read the referenced article? It specifically mentions, for example, that Merkava's "unique feature is the extent to which crew protection figured in its design." Additionally, you completely misquoted me. When setting up a straw man, at least put a better effort into it or one may get the impression your position is biased or poorly informed or both.

Anyway, the article specifically mentions Merkava's crew protection features and notes that "a significant proportion of Israeli casualties have been among tank crews." The article also cites "the apparent vulnerability of Israeli armour to Hezbollah anti-tank rockets." All of the above directly supports the change of the section in question, see above, and thus I see it as a good reason to restore it in its current form. --C1010 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

However it still doesn't mention the blow off panels... - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't have to, for:

1) The article doesn't have to address every single point of the section to be relevant. The article specifically mentions Merkava's crew protection features, the casualties sustained by tank crews and modern anti-tank systems. This makes the article highly relevant to the section as supporting/counter evidence.

2) The section in question is titled "Survivability", NOT "Blow off panels". The survivability is discussed in the article and I quote: "Crew protection was a key element in the Merkava tank's design."

3) Merkava does have blow-off panels even though they aren't specifically mentioned in the article.

Thus I see the above as a good reason to restore the section in its current form. --C1010 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I take offense to the straw man argument claim. The passage you wish to insert implies, as I have said before that blow off panels are ineffective. The source you are using does not mention blow off panels or any specific survivability feature, end of story as far as I can tell. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong, again. The article does mention specific survivability features. Please read the source and stop substituting what I actually wrote with what you think the article implies. --C1010 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But the main protection problem in T-90 is the lack of blow off panels. In the article it doesn't say that the Hezbollah anti-tank weapons caused the blow off panels to fail. As we know Merkava has a dozen of protection systems (making it the safest tank in the world) and any of them could fail. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's a problem or not is subject to debate. Blow-off panels viewed by some designers as a weak point in the armor that goes straight to the ammunition, a separate ammunition compartment may require adding a loader to the crew thus increasing the number of potential casualties, some gunners/loaders keep the internal door between compartments permanently open and so on.

In any case, the section is about SURVIVABILITY, not just blow-off panels. My change to the section does not remove data about the panels but adds a sourced note related to the survivability features, anti-tank weapons and casualties, see the linked article, "Crew protection was a key element in the Merkava tank's design... a significant proportion of Israeli casualties have been among tank crews... the apparent vulnerability of Israeli armour to Hezbollah anti-tank rockets." --C1010 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This arguement is going in circles. The survivability section is about the T-90's lack of blow off panels, you can't add a counterpoint that doesn't mention the T-90 or blow off panels, period. I will request comment from WP:WEAPON. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It mentions "Western MBTs" and their survivability features. Both my note and the linked article are related to that. Please make sure you copy me on your comment request to WP:WEAPON. --C1010 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While the section is titled survivability, all it mentions are blow off panels. The article you wish to add does not discuss blow off panels. It mentions the failure of the Merkava and its survivability systems some of which the T-90 shares like active defense. It does not effectively provide a counterpoint to the fact that the T-90 does not have blow off panels. If you wish the survivability section could be expanded, but I doubt the reference in question would be much use as it only discusses Israeli armor. Also please don't add your comments out of order and without looking at the format it makes it very hard for others to follow the debate. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed and I've explained above why your line of reasoning cannot be accepted. During this rather short discussion you completely misquoted my position and repeatedly made false statements about the source article. At this point I have enough evidence to disregard your position as it is based on misrepresentation, falsifications and blind bias. --C1010 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Protection/Armament/Fire Control Updated

Slightly re-jigged the wording in the armament section, removed odd referance to a Fragmentation-FS round? and added information on the autoloader and fuse setter. Also tweaked the stats around the 9M117M so that they match up with the manufacturer's material and added material on T-90 fire control system. Re-wrote protection to mention composite filler used in T-90 armour and added to info on Shtora-1, mine sweeps, fire fighting equipment. Also removed unreferanced armour test vs M1 rounds (probably false) and replaced with note to referanced (and actually more impressive) article on 1999 Russian armour tests.--Typhoon9410 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue

The main image in this article has been proposed for deletion due to possible copyright infringment. Can anyone source another image as good that has an open source license? Dhatfield (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

India

The news paper, china dot com, says that India will buy another 350 tanks, so that means that the number of T-90 tanks India has should be increased by 350

http://english.china.com/zh_cn/news/international/11020308/20070527/14123553.html

"MOSCOW, May 26 (Xinhua) -- Russia will sell about 350 tanks to India according to a contract to be signed later this year, Russian news agencies reported on Saturday. "India intends to buy in Russia new tanks T-90 in order to equip the division. This is about 350 tanks," Vladislav Polonsky, chief of the main tank forces management department of the Russian Defense Ministry, was quoted by Itar-Tass news agency as saying. The contract is expected to be signed in autumn, Itar-Tass and the RIA Novosti news agencies said. India has become a major importer of Russian military equipment. It has bought 310 Russian T-90S tanks, RIA said. "

And from RIA Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070526/66134359.html

" BRONNITSY (The Moscow Region), May 26 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and India may sign a contract on the deliveries of 350 Russian battle tanks T-90 to India in the fall of this year, a Russian Defense Ministry official said Saturday.

"India intends to purchase from Russia about 350 T-90 tanks for its tank division," Colonel General Vladislav Polonsky said.

In 2001 India purchased from Russia 310 T-90S tanks, which included 120 completely manufactured tanks, 90 in semi-knocked down kits, and 100 in completely-knocked down kits. "

Hroupsixty 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any information on the T-90M[2] tank to add it into the article.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela

I've removed Venezuela from the Operator's list, and updated their status for potential orders. It was only speculation that Venezuela may buy T-90s. This does not make them an operator, and they should not be listed as such until an actual deal is finalized. As of Sept 14, 2009 Venezuela signed a deal for T-72s only. - Jonathon A H (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the sources given are only speculation. All more recent sources given only state '100 T-72s and T-90s', this is meant to mean a total purchase of 100 tanks - with 92 T-72s confirmed as purchased, there is no additional room left in the buy for T-90s. Furthermore, additional sources(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Venezuela-Buys-2B-of-Russian-Tanks-Rockets-05800/), including the Associated Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iinxDYgnWUl7_0BTMZxJkRZd1JRQD9APU0NO0), confirm only T-72s. Furthermore, this article: http://www.rusbiznews.com/news/n521.html confirms that the T-90s were indeed rejected due to their high price tag. This has ventured into edit war territory, so I will not revert the changes again, but I will please ask for these articles, logic, and honest statement of fact in the article to be considered. -Jonathon A H (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and fix the operators list again unless there are any reasonable objections. Looking at things logically: Venezuela was buying up to 100 tanks, a deal was confirmed for 92 T-72s, this does not leave room for the purchase of T-90s. Additionally I've pointed to a source which not only confirms that Venezuela did not purchase T-90s, but also explains why they did not (see links above). -Jonathon A H (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If Venezuela did plan to buy up to 100 tanks than that means that they could have bought eight T-90 tanks which fit's what all of my sources have said which is that Venezuela would purchase a large number of T-72s and a small number of T-90 (most likely just so Venezuela can say they have some and use them in parades). And your source does not explicitly prove that Venezuela has not purchased any T-90 it only says that T-72 were purchased then the rest is just someones theory on why they think Venezuela may not have purchased the T-90. Venezuela always does this kind of thing when the buy weapons, first they under-state the equipment that they purchase usually not fully discloseing what they have purchased until Venezuela wants to show that it's powerfull then they end up revealng it. They've done this several times lately with there purchases of Igla anti air missiles and helicopter purchases. Venezuela most likely bought 92 T-72 and bought 8 T-90 without making a statement of it since the Venezuelan president himself stated that was the plan to buy a large quantity of T-72 and a small quatity of T-90. The reasoning behind this is purely to show off that he bought the best, most modern Russian tank even though he only bought a small number because he didn't want to pay full price for all of those 100 tanks. Another reason is that if they have a lot of T-72 then any enemy force would expect to fight T-72 then they could suprise them with a small strike force of the much more capable T-90. Rahlgd (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove that a sale of T-90s has been made. At this time no T-90s have been purchased. Please look up the definition of operator. Please look up the definition of owner. Venezuela is neither an owner or operator of T-90 tanks at this time. It is misleading to list them as an operator when no deal has been made. Your argument is based entirely on your own speculation. My edits have been based on news articles which only confirm the sale of T-72s. The only mention of T-90s is in older articles predating the sale, or articles which parrot the earlier articles without providing any of the actual sale details. Please provide some actual proof of sale and not a personal view on what you think may be happening. I'm going to change it back one more time, and ask that consensus on this issue be reached here before further edits on whether or not Venezuela operates the T-90s are made. If we can't reach a conclusion, then we'll ask for an official third opinion and let that resolve it. -Jonathon A H (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Limited Service?

And if it is permissible for an objective observer to interrupt the sales pitch here, it is appropriate to note that, #1, the T-90 has never been used in combat, and #2, only a handful have actually been built, probably fewer than one hundred since the late 1980s. It seems to be more of a limited-service test bed project for new design ideas than an actual weapons system, just as the T-64 was. Given the sad current state of the Russian economy and Russian industry, it is by no means certain that they would be able to manufacture a significant number of these tanks even if they got an order for them.

I'd be inclined to suggest that that's more inaccurate than objective. The T-90 has been kept out of combat deliberately because it would undoubtedly be destroyed in combat in Chechnya, as were the old T-80BVs deployed there (no tank is invincible, after all. . . witness the destruction of several M1 series tanks in Iraq by 23mm AAA fired at the sides and rear. This would look bad for the design and the factory, and while it's nothing out of the ordinary for tanks to be destroyed, when your opposition in the market is routinely successful at painting your product as inferior despite the desadvantages of their own offerings, you can hardly be blamed for being antsy about the whole deal, given the state of your economy.

The T-90 is employed in small numbers by mainly guards tank units in Russia, and is is indeed considered even in Russia to be merely a stopgap interim solution to keep production lines open and workers at their jobs until the government can afford to purchase newer tanks, which are in fact based on the T-80 chassis. While the T-90 is the most advanced production tank in Russia, it isn't by any means the most advanced tank available.

The writer of the italicized comment is demonstrably 5 to 10 years behind the curve in his understanding of Russian and Ukranian tank technology, and even in that regard has a lot of facts mixed up, backward, and affected by the opinions and assumptions of a vocal group of 'analysts' who would prefer to presuppose their opponent's kit is inferior to theirs, rather than investigate the matter objectively. It may very well be that Russian kit is inferior, but the method of arriving at an informed understanding of the matter is to explore it fully and without bias, rather than to assume it based on half-understood and outdated notions.

---

Placed here as placeholder until someone rephrases them to a form suitable for main article.

And if it is permissible for an objective observer to interrupt the sales pitch here, it is appropriate to note that, #1, the T-90 has never been used in combat, and #2, only a handful have actually been built, probably fewer than one hundred since the late 1980s. (note: the T-90 went into service in 1993, and several hundred have been built to date for Russian service) It seems to be more of a limited-service test bed project for new design ideas than an actual weapons system, just as the T-64 was (note: the T-64 was not a test-bed, it was a production tank which was viewed as too complex to be produced in large numbers during the cold war, and the design became the T-80). Given the sad current state of the Russian economy and Russian industry, (note: Rosoboronexport, the new Russian state-run arms company currently turns out billions of dollars in arms exports every year, and is one of the largest arms suppliers in the world.) it is by no means certain that they would be able to manufacture a significant number of these tanks even if they got an order for them. (note: the factory recently produced 124 T-90 tanks for India, with a further 184 to be assembled there from parts manufactured at the factory.)

If it's further permissible to interrupt the western party line to legitimize the 'sales pitch', an informed objective observer might be inclined to suggest that that's more inaccurate than objective. The T-90 has been kept out of combat deliberately because it would undoubtedly be destroyed in combat in Chechnya, as were the old T-80BVs deployed there (no tank is invincible, after all. . . witness the destruction of several M1 series tanks in Iraq by 23mm AAA fired at the sides and rear). This would look bad for the design and the factory, and while it's nothing out of the ordinary for tanks to be destroyed, when your opposition in the market is routinely successful at painting your product as inferior despite the disadvantages of their own offerings, you can hardly be blamed for being antsy about the whole deal, given the state of your economy.

Alex.tan 14:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also I wish to remind you that Russia has been fielding the T-90. There are currently, in the Russian Army, 241 of them in use. There are 7 in use by the Navy (most likely Naval Infantry). Then there is 310 T-90S used in the Indian Army. Russian economy may be in a worse state however it's Military Industry is as good as ever, being it's number one export. -Anon

An interesting article here about the Indian T-90's http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20100401.aspx Safn1949 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

russian version of chobham?

I think it is more appropriate to call chobham a british version of Combination-K, rather than call russian composite armor a chobham version. After all, it was russians who invented composite armor and used it on a tank (t-64 was the first tank with composite armor). --99.231.50.255 (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Interesting, cite source(s)?

Chobham_armour#Development_and_application Gives a fairly well cited discussion of both armours. I think it's fairer to say that Combination K and Chobham/Burlington/Dorchester are different approaches to composite armour, rather than one being derived from the other. I'm not sure if we can get accurate dates on when each was invented, possibly deployment though. None of which is relevant to whether the armour on the far later T-90 is based on Chobham or not. Your current edit makes sense though. Hohum (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad we agreed. Thanks for Chobham reference, I shall read it.--99.231.50.255 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

I'd like to briefly ad that composite armor is an American invention, but was first put to use in Russian tanks commercially. The first tank to actually use composite armor was the American experimental tank T95. See the article here for further information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_armor <span style="font-size: smaller;" AloDuranium (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cost and pricing

The T90 is acclaimed to cost 2.23 million USD. For the reference, it said you had to subscribe to the Magazine. Just for thefuture, it would be nice if we could get a source you don't have to pay for. If we could either change the ref. or find a more accurate pricing, that would be a good add on to the cost, as I am dubious to the cost of such acclaimed hardware wich is worth more than it sells for. 71.217.53.84 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fact check

Plans called for all earlier models to be replaced by the T-90 by the end of 1997, but this objective remains unachieved due to lack of funding

I'll remove this, unless someone can cite a reference. The Soviet Union and Russia have never replaced all earlier models of tanks, retaining older ones in second-line units and still older ones in war stores. —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 06:34 Z

I would say remove it, because even now there is money in the budget there are no plans to replace all older tanks with T-90s even if they could afford it. Current plans seem to be upgrade T-72s, build a few more T-90s and then switch to Armata in 2014. GarryB.

With Russian, French and Israeli assistance, India developed an improved version of T-90M, known as the Bhishma

This is hilarious. T-90S was sold as a complete Russian product even though under the license manufacturing agreement. India never had the liberty to DEVELOP the tank on its own as claimed above without any reference. All India did was to acquire French Catherine optics (second generation TI) along with Israeli weapon and sensor assistance. T90M Vladimir is a strictly Russian product which is not exported to anyone. Only T-90S is exported and modified in case of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabil 05 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This requires a reference too, I don't see it in the ones cited. The sources seem to assume that the T-90S tanks bought from Russia are also called Bhishma. —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 06:41 Z

It is a bit confusing. Some sources indicate that India modified the T-90S to suit its needs. In that case, the indegenously manufcatured Bhishma tank is not the same as the T-90S tank; in other words is a different version of the T-90. The French thermal sights used in the Indian version cost 30 to 40 million INR; 25% of the total cost to manufacture a T-90 in India. Accroding to Bharat-Rakshak.com, "The T-90S [Improved] is the export version of the Russian T-90M and features a welded turret, the V-92S2 engine and an ESSA thermal viewer. The Indian Army's T-90S is not to be confused with the simplified T-90S export version."

This is what fprado.com has to say aout the differences between the T-90S and the T-90M: "The T-90 "Vladimir", with a welded turret, is also referred to as T-90M, but it is not an official designation. The official designation for those tanks were T-90A, or T-90SM. Actually, all production T-90s from 2001 onwards have welded turrets, so it only seems logical to assume that the official designation now is T-90S (or "C") - what is confirmed by the fact that all T-90S MBTs sold to India have welded turrets. There are also occasional references to a T-90E, but these appear to be unsubstantiated." --Incman|वार्ता 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like all Indian T-90s have more powerful engines than tanks in Russian service and welded turrets, both developed in Russia, and their own selection of electronics and fire control (I think the "simplified" T-90S refers to an 840-hp T-90 being offered for export, but not bought by anyone). I suppose the Indian tanks may have changes for indigenous industrial production, too. I don't see any evidence that India improved the design, or that the tanks to be built in India constitute a new model. Keep in mind that they haven't been built yet, so information about them is speculative anyway.

The sentence should be reworded to reflect what is known and what may be speculative. I don't see the point in putting much stock in designations like T-90M and T-90E—which the sources appear to admit are speculative—except to note that they are sometimes used. Bhishma appears to be an adequate and verifiable name for the T-90S tanks in Indian service. —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 15:52 Z

The armour bit of this article, what is it actually refering to? The hull or turret armor.

In the production and service section there seems to be a bit of confusion. First the T-90MS is not Armata. Armata is a brand new design from scratch that will come in two forms. One with the engine in the front and one with the engine in the rear, and both will be the standard chassis in heavy Russian brigades. The T-90MS is the export version of the best upgrade for the T-90. The domestic version of this tank with a new gun and other different components is called T-90AM. The T-95 is the T-95 and is cancelled. The T-99 one would assume is the Armata. GarryB.

Speed and Range

As far as I have read, the T90's speed is not 40 MPH, but 38.25 MPH. I'm going to change this first off, because the forementioned resource is unreliable. Second of all http://warfare.ru/?lang=&compare=true&linkid2=2066&linkid=1778&catid=244 states the T-90 has a speed of 60 km/h which safely agrees with T-72 speed standards. AloDuranium (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Deep Fording capabilities?

Any specifications available for the T-90's deep fording? Speed, max depth, how long it takes to ready it before and after? Because there's two pictures of either fording or the snorkel on the article yet no mention is made of it in the mobility or other sections.Dr. Lobotomy (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ARENA/active defenses

Does the T-90 fit/can it be fitted with the ARENA/DROZD/other active defense systems? Comments, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.29.1 (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The T-90 can technically be fitted with the Arena active protection system, but out of the 400 T-90s in service, only 1 of them has had it equipped, and this was for testing purposes. - Heaney555z (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Price

There are two sources giving two numbers fo the price:

• $5-7 million (in 2009)[3]
• $2.23 million (in January, 2007)[4]

Why was I reverted when I tried to replace the older on with the newer one? I don't understand. Offliner (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, although one could be an export price, and the other internal, or with different features. I suggest using both prices and references.

$price1 (date1)^[1] to $price2 (date2)^[2]

Hohum (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since inflation in Russia has been pretty big in last years, I think the 2007 figure doesn't correspond to reality anymore anyway, so I'd suggest using just the newer number. I just don't understand why I was reverted when I inserted it. Offliner (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't revert it if you only have the 2009 figure, but it wasn't me who reverted it the first time. It's hardly damaging the article to have both. Hohum (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• $5-7 million (in 2009)[5] - Is quoting Venezuelan currency. The whole point of this tank is to offer a lower cost solution. Do you really think this tank would sell if its cost 50%+ more than its western counter part?

As for inflation, its been at approx. 9% for the last 2 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.84.122 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is obviously using US dollars. I really don't see what the problem is with this number. It's quite realistic that Uralvagonzavod, because of rising wage and energy costs and because their production has obviously been running at full capacity for some time, has increased its prices. Offliner (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A newspaper article, a Russian newspaper reporting on Venezuelan affairs reports in United States Currency. I'm pretty sure something got lost in translation. Here's a hint; Convert 5-7 million bolivars (Venezuelan currency) into US dollars and you get the $2.3-2.8USD million that i provided in the references above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.84.122 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

They use the same figure again in http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090909/156068044.html, so it's unlikely to be a mistake. Offliner (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe a newspaper all you want. If you really think that's an accurate price, then why does the wiki article state

         "The Russian Defence Ministry made a selection of a single Main Battle Tank (MBT) in 1995. The T-80
          was more expensive and its delicate, fuel-hungry gas turbine engine provided a questionable advantage."
     

$5-7 million USD is a heck of a lot more than the T-80 (Ref> go to the T-80 wikipedia page and read its references. I'm too lazy to post a direct link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.84.122 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions about the prices quoted are irrelevant. Please tell us why www.indiadefense.com is a reliable source and RIA Novosti isn't, otherwise I'm reverting it back to the number reported on a known news site in preference to a very unprofessional looking, possibly self published one. Hohum (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? It's not my opinion on price. You can't have a wiki article stating one thing (price) then say the item is cheaper (T-90) than the other (T-80) when it's not.

As for india defence... I don't know why, look here and decide for yourself if it's worthy: http://www.india-defence.com/about

Now as an additional reference, it cost India in buy it's 310 Import T-90S tanks for Rs 3625 Crore which is 785 Million USD or 2.5 million per tank . And according to these references it costs india roughly 3 million to make their own licensed T-90S Bhishma Tank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.84.122 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious. Read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RELIABLE, these are cornerstones of what should be included. If you can't be bothered to read them, here is the gist of it:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

What the sources say, and their quality, is what is important on wikipedia, not unreferenced opinion. It is your opinion that one tank must be cheaper than another, sources say otherwise. Making comparisons and drawing conclusions is original research or synthesis. The bona fides of india-defence are sketchy at best. If respectable sources differ, then both should be cited, not your personal favourite. Hohum (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're reading but it's obviously not the references, the discussion or the main article. At no time did I give my opinions. Ever. Everything I stated I gave I cited references that contradicted the '$5-7 million price' reference. As for a 'favorite', get off your high horse, I cited 8-9 different references in this discussion. And not once did I say one was better, more reliable, or my favorite. The last change contributed by Offliner to the article that cites $2.23 Million, to me, (and here is my first opinion) makes the most sense so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.186.84.122 (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

{outdent) 66.186.84.122 - "$5-7 million (in 2009)[6] - Is quoting Venezuelan currency." No, it was in dollars, corroborated in different articles. Your opinion seems to be that they made a mistake, yet you don't have a conflicting source for the Venezuelan pricing in order to justify removing it. It's quite possible that India gets bargain basement prices while Venezuela gets inflated ones for whatever reasons. Both of which should be included in the article. Hohum (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"118 million rubles per unit [7]" which is about $4 million in current conversion rate, 2011 year. Mator (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Number in Service

Someone keeps adding that there are currently 400 in Russian service without adding a reference. I read personally that it is closer to 1200 (including 300 modified T-72s). Now I don't mind the edit but could you please source the figure. -AnonymousD 01:54 4th November 2009

That works both ways, though. If you say that there are 1200, you need to have a source. You can't keep changing it without having some information to back it up. If there's a reliable, verifiable source that states they have 1200, then by all means, change it and cite the source. Until proven otherwise, it makes sense to stick with the lower number. -Jonathon A H (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonathon, I was in the Armed Forces for 6 years. There are 1,200 T-90's in service. In 2005 there were upwards of 670+ and some 127 were produced in 2006, and 183 in 2007. Reportedly, 94 were made in 2008. We don't know how many have been made in 2009 yet. But you need to stop changing it to 300~ because that is just rediculous. The T-90 is replacing the T-72B in Russian service. There doesn't have to be a source for everything under the sun. Sometimes a persons personal experience is the source. user:Russian-Reaper

You misunderstand the requirements for information to be included in wikipedia. WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE are very clear policy requirements. You may disagree with it, but it's the way it is.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Here, an editors personal experience is not the source.

Hohum (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thats absolutly rediculous Hohum... Which is exactly why wikipedia is a joke. If you're looking for accurate information, I can tell you from monthes of correcting idiots here that wikipedia is about 30% accurate and the rest is trash. user:Russian-Reaper

It's a shame that you feel that way. Surely, you must have got your very specific numbers from a verifiable, reliable source. Perhaps you might like to consider what state wikipedia articles would be in if its policies allowed any editor to include information based on their assurances. That would be truly ridiculous. Hohum (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably alot better off. Atleast then we could have [some] reliable information. Jonathan's source on the T-90's operational numbers is from Warfare.ru which I am looking at, as we speak. Which also states that there are only 1,100 Abrams tanks, and only 1,200 T-72's in service with Russia. His "source" is (if it can so be called) is nothing but (for lack of better words) bullshit. Warfare.ru has no idea what their talking about. Which is why I have tried to correct this problem on the T-90 page, but Jonathan is appearently a little girl and wants [his] word and no one else's. user:Russian-Reaper

Actually, no, "my" (and it's only 'mine' in so much as I added it to the page - I have no connection to the author beyond familiarity with his site) source was Vasiliy Fofanov's site. The Warfare.ru link was already on the page well before I ever started editing it. If you have questions on his sources or methods, feel free to email him - his contact information is readily available at www.russianarmor.info. I'm sure he'll be happy to respond. In addition to the policies that Hohum has cited, you may want to take a look at WP:NOR. I'm quite happy to accept a higher number of in service T-90s, but it needs to have a reliable source. - Jonathon A H (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your discussion WP:CIVIL. Many of the sources in use in this article are very poor. I have begun to audit them. Hohum (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have found a "source" that was published in 2004-2005 saying there were 400~ in service then. And it's now up. user:Russian-Reaper

Your source, which is rather poor, like many others in the article, doesn't appear to mention 2004 or 2005 anywhere. You seem to be plucking things out of the air, which is completely unreliable, and does nothing for your credibility. Hohum (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The site does not mention 2004 or any other year for that matter. But the artical does mentioned the latest export to Algeria. Which took place in 2005-2006. So through logic it would make sense that the artical was published in 2004-2005 at some point. And that artical even mentions that there are probably closer to 1,000 in serivce. user:Russian-Reaper

If you look at the page information, you'll see it was last updated in November, 2009. The copyright notice at the bottom of the page also states 2006-2009 It makes no claim that there are 'probably closer to 1,000' it makes the same vague claim that you do, that 'some sources say'. The page makes no claim that Algeria is the 'latest' operator, and it's a highly speculative way to come up with a date for the article. The page also mentions Venezuela as an operator - this hurts the credibility of the page as we now know that Venezuela purchased T-72s, not T-90s. The oldest mention of Venezuela even considering the purchase of T-90s that I can find dates to 2008, and the only serious consideration of Venezuela purchasing T-90s dates to late 2009 when most sources said a deal for T-90s was in the works (which turned out to be the aforementioned T-72s, not T-90s when the deal was finalized and made public). This also invalidates basing the date of the article on the mention of Algeria. -Jonathon A H (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a link to an English source, but in a Russian article the 1st deputy of the MOD - colonel-general Alexander Belousov - is quoted, saying that in 2006, there were 200 (two hundred) T-90 tanks in service with the Russian armed forces. There was also a listing of T-90 production over the years in Moscow Defense Brief but I can't find it anymore. dendirrek (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

well i found this atlast.. and it seems new so il just share it hope it gives som help if you look at the bottom it gives som number estimate. http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20100914/160584285.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.173.69 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There are around 400 T-90s in service, to say 1200 is absolutely and utterly ridiculous.
The bulk of Russian tanks are still T-72s and T-80s, the T-90 is available in relatively small numbers (compared to the T-80 and T-72)
- Heaney555z (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think 1,200 is massively ridiculous if upgraded T-72s are included but it is a very dubious claim and lower 400-500 estimates are generally much more common and reliable. Though it is arguably as ridiculous for anyone to assert that there is around 400 for sure unless you've been to every military base in Russia and counted them. 86.134.227.155 (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

To say that there are 1200 T-90 without any sources is just bs. Warfare.ru states that 266 T-90 are in service as of 2011. That is the source I will add.Walle83 (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think on a lot of these Russian military equipment articles it should be specified what Warfare.ru means by service. 266 is the number actually active rather than in either storage or standby. Therefore numbers are probably quite a bit higher (i.e. it gives 1176 for the Abrams despite the U.S. having 9,000 of them). However as its the only reliable number out there so I think it should be added. 217.43.185.227 (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in T-90

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of T-90's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Warfare.ru":

• From BMP-1: Warfare.ru
• From PT-76: "Warfare.ru"
• From 9K22 Tunguska: "SA-19 Grison / Tunguska". Warfare.ru. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
• From T-80: Warfare.ru
• From T-62: "T-62 MBT". Warfare.ru. Retrieved 13 December 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Missile

This allows the T-90 to engage other tanks outside of their weapons range, with the exception of the Israeli Merkava and Indian Arjun tanks, which field the LAHAT missile, with a range of 8 km.[8]

This is simply incorrect. This does not allow the T-90 to engage other tanks outside of their weapons range, because many of them fire the same 9M119 missile, with exactly the same range. This includes, for example, the Pakistani Al-Khalid and T-80UD, as well as the T-72, T-80, T-84, Type 98, M-84, &c. —Michael Z. 2007-08-31 01:10 Z

I think that western tanks were meant in this comment.--99.231.50.255 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

The LAHAT can be fired by many guns, including the 120mm Rheinmetall (as employed by the Leo2 and the M1 Abrams). -- DevSolar (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrussia-t90s-battle-tank-peruvian-army

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b 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 ^Notify_Online 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 125M60a3tts (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)

References