What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The New Russian T-90 Battle Tank - Not That Advanced After All

McRib

Diamond Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
5,901
Points
1,940
Location
Midwest - Trumplandia
There newest main battle tank remains quite vulnerable, and if you think that technological advancements in this tank will actually work, then you are probably expecting a lot. Reliability? Very unlikely. It remains a soft target.



As of 2018, more than 2,700 T-90 tanks or vehicles built on its chassis have been produced for the Russian army, as well as several former Soviet republics, India and Algeria, among others. Some 100 are believed to have been deployed to the eastern offensive in Ukraine, but for all its touted innovations, the T-90 has been doing little better than the T-72s and T-80s that it has joined there.

First contact was reported on April 25, when Ukrainian infantry encountered a T-90 outside of Kharkiv and destroyed it with a Javelin antitank guided missile, along with an MT-LB prime mover and an infantry fighting vehicle that accompanied the tank.

While a single encounter is nothing from which to draw general conclusions, the outcome has parallels with the fates of scores of the T-90’s predecessors. For one thing, the electronic counter weapons have not worked consistently. For another, the American FGM-148 Javelin, German Panzerfaust 3 and other antitank missiles have tandem warheads, one to pre-detonate the active armor and the second to penetrate the tank’s hull. A third factor is an option in the Javelin’s repertoire to turn upwards as it approaches its target and then dive almost vertically on it from above, where the armor is thinner.

A final weakness is tactical: a penchant of the Russian tankers to advance independently, rather than in concert with accompanying infantry. Given the way Soviet combined-arms tactics had been perfected by the end of World War II, this retrograde tendency seems inexplicable, but it has denied the Russian tanks, regardless of model, critical infantry support and left them vulnerable to Ukrainian tank-killing teams.


 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
244,914
Reaction score
66,960
Points
2,190
Not surprising

Russia has technology, but it is inadequately tested and they have no concept of doctrine and how to use it
 

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
59,708
Reaction score
24,387
Points
2,320
Location
Patriotic American Muslim
The Javelin missile has proven to be largely ineffective against the Russian T-90 main battle tank.
As the valiant Russian army continues to steadily advance across Ukraine.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
244,914
Reaction score
66,960
Points
2,190
The Javelin missile has proven to be largely ineffective against the Russian T-90 main battle tank.
As the valiant Russian army continues to steadily advance across Ukraine.

Seems to be a lot of burning Russian tanks out there
Not counting the ones where the crew just ran away

As an aside, there is a lot of Russian military hardware out there that we can examine and determine vulnerabilities
 

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
59,708
Reaction score
24,387
Points
2,320
Location
Patriotic American Muslim
For weeks the media talked about the new U.S. made Switchblade suicide drone being a game changer, and hyped it up as the ultimate hi-tec tank killer.
But it turned out to be an abject failure against the Russian T-90 tanks chobham composite and reactive armour.
 
Last edited:
OP
McRib

McRib

Diamond Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
5,901
Points
1,940
Location
Midwest - Trumplandia
For weeks the media talked about the new U.S. made Switchblade suicide drone being a game changer, and hyped it up as the ultimate hi-tec tank killer.
But it turned out to be an abject failure against the Russian T-90 tanks chobham composite and reactive armour.
Dumbass, you just proved how little you know. If I was paying you, you wouldn't get all your rubles this paycheck.

The Switchblade is NOT a tank killer! It is a lightweight drone meant to kill someone sticking their head out a hatch, or to disable an unarmored vehicle. Its main purpose is targeted kills of senior level officers.
 

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
59,708
Reaction score
24,387
Points
2,320
Location
Patriotic American Muslim
Dumbass, you just proved how little you know. If I was paying you, you wouldn't get all your rubles this paycheck.
The Switchblade is NOT a tank killer! It is a lightweight drone meant to kill someone sticking their head out a hatch, or to disable an unarmored vehicle. Its main purpose is targeted kills of senior level officers.
^^^^^ You are such a silly nitwit. .... :cuckoo: :laugh::laugh:

 
OP
McRib

McRib

Diamond Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
5,901
Points
1,940
Location
Midwest - Trumplandia
^^^^^ You are such a silly nitwit. .... :cuckoo: :laugh::laugh:

The Switchblade 600 is a next generation drone that has a larger warhead, but they are not in Ukraine yet.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
3,169
Reaction score
1,358
Points
198
Location
State of Jefferson
^^^^^ You are such a silly nitwit. .... :cuckoo: :laugh::laugh:


The problem is that you are using a "mainstream media" definition of what a weapon system is. And the Switchblade is not an "anti-tank weapon".

Of course, if you look back through their archives, you will see they call things like the BMP a "tank", an uparmored HMMWV an "armored personnel carrier", a n M72 LAW rocket an "anti-tank missile", and a destroyer a "battleship". The problem is that you are taking the words of a political reporter as being accurate when describing a military weapon. Tell me, do you take the opinion of political reporters seriously when they discuss sporting teams?

And that article was by Mary Walsh, who is primarily a political reporter. To be honest, none of the media anymore really uses "military experts" in making their reports anymore. Over the years I see them getting more and more sloppy, with the reporters throwing in "buzz words" because it gets attention and makes the articles "sexy".

In essence, it is simply a weapon to be used against any non-fortified position. artillery, logistics depots, bridges, anything that would make a good target.

 

TeeDub

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
1,478
Reaction score
1,720
Points
1,938
The Javelin missile has proven to be largely ineffective against the Russian T-90 main battle tank.
As the valiant Russian army continues to steadily advance across Ukraine.
Are you blind or just stupid? They are laying all over the countryside in pieces.
 

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
59,708
Reaction score
24,387
Points
2,320
Location
Patriotic American Muslim
They are laying all over the countryside in pieces.
Ukrainian propaganda spin doctors keep photographing one damaged Russian tank from different directions, and then claim it's pictures of several tanks they've destroyed. Then they move the tank to other locations and take even more pictures of it. So the one damaged tank now becomes a hundred damaged Russian tanks.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
3,169
Reaction score
1,358
Points
198
Location
State of Jefferson
Ukrainian propaganda spin doctors keep photographing one damaged Russian tank from different directions, and then claim it's pictures of several tanks they've destroyed. Then they move the tank to other locations and take even more pictures of it. So the one damaged tank now becomes a hundred damaged Russian tanks.

Tell me then, why are the Russians no longer on the outskirts of Kiev? Why have they pulled out of most of k, other than the areas where separatists they control operate?

You say disinformation, fine. Then why has Kiev not fallen yet? Why have they retaken most of their country in the last month?

Something just does not match your claims.
 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
839
Reaction score
422
Points
883
Location
PacNW
Ukrainian propaganda spin doctors keep photographing one damaged Russian tank from different directions, and then claim it's pictures of several tanks they've destroyed. Then they move the tank to other locations and take even more pictures of it. So the one damaged tank now becomes a hundred damaged Russian tanks.
I don't take the Ukrainian or Russian official numbers seriously. They both make claims that are not supported by evidence- 200 planes shot down? um, no.

But the Oryx numbers are photo documented unique pieces of equipment. There are no duplicates there. They have caught a couple where pics were taken of the same kill from different angles, but they identify them and don't add them to the counts. There was also a BMP that they first counted as a kill, but later found it was repaired and in service with Ukraine, and it was switched to "captured".

It's a public list and easy to access, so any errors or duplicates can be identified by anybody. The careful checking of each new entry is the reason for their large backlog. They have to compare every new kill/capture to the already documented ones for the type. It takes longer and longer to do that.

They've also caught the Russians re-using TB2 wreckage in their propaganda. The last TB2 they shot down was April 4, and they used that wreckage later to claim another kill that didn't happen. That was posted on Oryx's twitter feed a little while back.

If the Russian report from the 1st GTA is real, the Oryx numbers can be checked by looking at the 4th GTD losses. Those are the T-80's. Based on the Russian report, Oryx captures between 76%-82% of Russian equipment losses. Yes, that is an extrapolation, but extrapolations are part of OSINT...

That report covered up to April 15. Other than the Debacle at the Donetsk, Russian losses are happening at a slower pace in the east than they were around Kiev and Sumy. That's due to the different nature of the Russian offense and the simple fact that there are fewer Russian tanks to shoot at today.

The majority of tanks killed today are older T-72's that probably came from reserves. Post-2010 modernized variants made up about 35% of the tanks lost before April 15, it's a lower fraction today. I think we also see more older types, since the LNR/DNR units in the east are more heavily engaged.

Oryx might not be capturing Ukrainian losses at the same rate. That relies a lot on what gets posted on Russian social media, the Ukrainian gov't is not any more forthcoming about battlefield losses than the Russians.
 

Sunni Man

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
59,708
Reaction score
24,387
Points
2,320
Location
Patriotic American Muslim

US Department of Defense - Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby Holds a Press Briefing - May 20, 2022: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcri... US Department of Defense - Senior Defense Official Holds a Background Briefing May 19, 2022: https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcri... TASS - Leader of Azov battalion transferred from Azovstal plant in armored vehicle - top brass: https://tass.com/defense/1454085 SouthFront - IN VIDEO: RUSSIAN DRONE, ARTILLERY DESTROY UKRAINE’S NEW M777 HOWITZERS: https://southfront.org/in-video-russi... Institute for the Study of War - RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, MAY 20: https://understandingwar.org/backgrou..
 

para bellum

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2022
Messages
839
Reaction score
422
Points
883
Location
PacNW
I keep seeing that clip of the miss on the M777, and it always says "US Howitzers destroyed" or something of the sort.

It's a little loitering munition that got promoted to "cruise missile", lol.

After they hitch up and move to a concealed position, the Russian artillery pounds the dirt where they were. Not one piece of equipment is shown destroyed or damaged.

Looks like some pretty feeble propaganda to me.

Even tactically it was uncoordinated. They had a spotting drone- all the little loitering drone did was warn the Ukrainians of the impending attack. The Russians should have just waited until the artillery was ready to fire, then use the drone to hit the truck that was still hitched to the other howitzer.

Use it on the soft target. You disable one tactical truck and possibly set off some ammo in the back. Let the artillery go after the howitzers which are a lot harder to take out than a truck, especially with such a small munition.
 

Sandisk

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
692
Reaction score
219
Points
143
Actually?
It appears that the Ukrainians just disabled the T-90M.
But the Russians themselves destroyed it as they retreated.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
3,169
Reaction score
1,358
Points
198
Location
State of Jefferson
Actually?
It appears that the Ukrainians just disabled the T-90M.
But the Russians themselves destroyed it as they retreated.

That is what is known as a "combat kill". And the US military does the exact same thing. If a piece of equipment is damaged so it can not operate, we destroy it ourselves so it can not fall into enemy hands.

But in actual combat, a disabled weapon system is the same as a destroyed one. Unless it can be recovered in short order and returned to a depot for repairs.
 

Sandisk

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
692
Reaction score
219
Points
143
That is what is known as a "combat kill". And the US military does the exact same thing. If a piece of equipment is damaged so it can not operate, we destroy it ourselves so it can not fall into enemy hands.

But in actual combat, a disabled weapon system is the same as a destroyed one. Unless it can be recovered in short order and returned to a depot for repairs.
No offense, but I could care less about who gets 'the kill'.

I care - from a weapons perspective - about what actually, destroyed the tank.
And, according to the video, the tank's armor was not penetrated by Ukraine.
The tank was disabled - and almost any, reasonably-sized explosive can do that by damaging a track.

The T-90M was then abandoned to be destroyed by the Russians from the rear (where it's armor is thinnest) at point-blank range.

This kill was good for Ukraine.
But I wouldn't get too thrilled about it, were I them.
Had the Russians not been retreating, they could have just retrieved the tank and repaired it.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
3,169
Reaction score
1,358
Points
198
Location
State of Jefferson
I care - from a weapons perspective - about what actually, destroyed the tank.
And, according to the video, the tank's armor was not penetrated by Ukraine.
The tank was disabled - and almost any, reasonably-sized explosive can do that by damaging a track.

But most tanks have skirting and other measures to prevent that from happening in the first place.

Case in point, two Abrams tanks in the Iraq War ended up getting stuck in the mud so badly that they crews bailed out and they were destroyed. Does that mean the mud destroyed them?

A combat kill is a combat kill. And many times vehicles have been "combat killed" multiple times. Rendered unable to function, recovered by one side or another and returned to service. You are confusing the two, and one does not mean the other. But any time a vehicle or piece of equipment is rendered inoperable in combat, it is a "kill". Who ultimately destroys it does not matter after that point.

And I am using the term as the military uses it, but "mobility kill" is also often used in the area of vehicles. You are confusing that with a "catastrophic kill", which is something completely different.
 

Sandisk

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
692
Reaction score
219
Points
143
But most tanks have skirting and other measures to prevent that from happening in the first place.

Case in point, two Abrams tanks in the Iraq War ended up getting stuck in the mud so badly that they crews bailed out and they were destroyed. Does that mean the mud destroyed them?

A combat kill is a combat kill. And many times vehicles have been "combat killed" multiple times. Rendered unable to function, recovered by one side or another and returned to service. You are confusing the two, and one does not mean the other. But any time a vehicle or piece of equipment is rendered inoperable in combat, it is a "kill". Who ultimately destroys it does not matter after that point.

And I am using the term as the military uses it, but "mobility kill" is also often used in the area of vehicles. You are confusing that with a "catastrophic kill", which is something completely different.
1) tank skirts are (usually) not thick. And they only cover part of the track. And they leave the lower part of the track bare.
59102_81952464_m1a2armor2hd.jpg


2) like I said - I don't much care what 'term' the military calls it.
I only care about what finally destroyed the tank and how was it destroyed.
And the video I linked to shows that the Russians actually destroyed the tank...not the Ukrainians (who only appeared to disable it).

You disagree?
Talk to the guy who made the video.

We are done here.
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$240.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top