Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Share
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:02 pm

    T-47 wrote:
    Any details? Like what ATGM and where it got hit and how many etc.

    No details so far.

    Isos wrote:
    Is it efficient ? Why not put them around the tank like an umbrella if it is good ?

    The Swedes tried that, but abandoned it because it wasn't effective.



    SAA took inspiration from the Israelis and installed such chains around their tanks, but stopped doing it since around 2014. No idea why, but if I were to guess, I would say that it's not used as an umbrella because chains will flail around when the tank is moving, but slat armour will not. Maybe the Swedes noticed the same problem? When the chains flail around, the size of the gap between each individual chain changes and might be too small to fit an RPG warhead or big enough that it passes through unmolested. Short chains would not flail much whereas longer chains would, so only short chains can be used with some effectiveness, and this would mean that chain + balls are only suitable for small gaps in the tank's protection, like the turret ring.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1427
    Points : 1428
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:25 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Probly the one that got captured?

    You mean it's the one the SAA recaptured from Nusra?

    For reals, dang, now i wish there were more pics to find out what hit it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:25 am

    Doesn't really matter what hit it, but if it was the captured T-90 that didn't seem to turn its turret much wasn't it hit in the side of the turret by a T-72 of the Syrian Army?

    It blew its top which suggests the crew made the mistake of storing ammo in the turret...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 962
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:36 am

    GarryB wrote:Doesn't really matter what hit it, but if it was the captured T-90 that didn't seem to turn its turret much wasn't it hit in the side of the turret by a T-72 of the Syrian Army?

    It blew its top which suggests the crew made the mistake of storing ammo in the turret...

    Or it was destroyed after being knocked out. Or maybe by a russian su 34.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Interlinked on Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:56 am

    There's a bunch of possible ways it might have gotten destroyed, but you don't have to stow ammo in the turret for the whole thing to blow. Having ammo low down in the tank hull in the carousel makes it less likely to be hit, but it doesn't mean that it is impossible to hit. I don't recommend wild speculation, because no details have been released yet.

    Khlopotov is speculating that it was blown up by an air strike, and says that a guy from Facebook that was "familiar with the situation" said that it was destroyed by Russian aviation after the crew abandoned it due to a power failure.

    Personally, I think that the extra shells stowed at the rear left corner of the hull was detonated from a hit to the side of the tank, because the turret ring is bent at the 8 o'clock position and the turret landed at the 2 o'clock position from the tank hull. What set off the ammo - no way to know.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:26 pm

    I would think an air strike would involve at least a 250kg bomb which means that building right next to the tank would have been more damaged.

    It is amusing that you suggest we should not speculate and then you make your own guesses...

    I also think a captured tank is not going to be operated with the same discipline as a vehicle operated by the Syrian army or Russian advisors and that their supply network wont be as efficient or effective as the Syrian support network so carrying a few extra shells inside the turret might make enough sense to them for them to do it.

    Of course a heavy ATGM launched from a Havok that hit from the rear low down that also hit the autoloader probably could have resulted in the destruction of the vehicle and the turret landing where it has.... the helo approaching from behind at an angle not anticipated by the tanks crew... a slightly downward angle of impact leading to penetration of the autoloader.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Interlinked on Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:56 am

    I did not speculate what destroyed the tank, I am merely pointing out that it's likely that the ammo at the rear left corner of the hull went off based on the evidence of the bent turret ring. The fact that the ammo detonated is obvious, and the right side of the tank could not have been hit because there's a building in the way, so it's quite likely that the tank was hit from the left side, and the ammunition at the rear left corner was probably hit. Why should this be considered "wild speculation"?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:53 am

    Why should this be considered "wild speculation"?

    You said we should not speculate before we have more information and then you speculated as to what you thought happened based on what you can see in the image.

    You are the only one who said anything about wild speculation?

    The turret is some distance away from the hull and clearly didn't just move there on its own.

    The angle of the photo seems to suggest an impact or explosion in the direction the turret has travelled from the hull but the whole vehicle is not rubble so I doubt it was an aerial bomb that did this.

    I would say the vehicle was hit and ammo inside it blew the turret up and forward from the point of penetration/explosion.

    Perhaps I should claim Russian Hackers did it...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 962
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Isos on Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:24 am

    Maybe it was destroyed by its crew to prevent its capture after a mobility kill by a ATGM. I don't think they would store additional ammo Inside the turret as they know what happens to their T-72 when hit with ammo inside ...

    And if they had no ammo inside, the turret would be on the tank even if it was penetrated.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Interlinked on Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:22 am

    GarryB wrote:

    You said we should not speculate before we have more information and then you speculated as to what you thought happened based on what you can see in the image.

    You are the only one who said anything about wild speculation?

    The turret is some distance away from the hull and clearly didn't just move there on its own.

    The angle of the photo seems to suggest an impact or explosion in the direction the turret has travelled from the hull but the whole vehicle is not rubble so I doubt it was an aerial bomb that did this.

    I would say the vehicle was hit and ammo inside it blew the turret up and forward from the point of penetration/explosion.

    Perhaps I should claim Russian Hackers did it...

    lol!


    speculation
    ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/Submit
    noun

    The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

    All my observations are based on evidence.

    The turret is detached - that is not speculation. It's literally detached.

    The ammo blew up - that is not speculation. The turret ring is bent upward and the turret is detached.

    The tank was hit from the left - that is not speculation. There is a building blocking the right side of the tank. Nothing could possible hit it from the right.

    All this can be seen in the photo Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

    In this context, speculation would be saying that an ATGM hit it, or an RPG hit it, or a PGM hit it. There is nothing to confirm or deny any of these guesses.

    There is no need to antagonize me, Garry. We are all tank enthusiasts here.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2204
    Points : 2220
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:38 pm

    Interlinked wrote:All my observations are based on evidence.

    The turret is detached - that is not speculation. It's literally detached.

    The ammo blew up - that is not speculation. The turret ring is bent upward and the turret is detached.

    The tank was hit from the left - that is not speculation. There is a building blocking the right side of the tank. Nothing could possible hit it from the right.

    All this can be seen in the photo Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

    In this context, speculation would be saying that an ATGM hit it, or an RPG hit it, or a PGM hit it. There is nothing to confirm or deny any of these guesses.

    There is no need to antagonize me, Garry. We are all tank enthusiasts here.

    Apparently after tasting some revenge on watching incompetent Turkish crews getting their Leos shish kebabed by IS, the fanboy base thought the T-90 was some sort invincible machine not prone to the classic T-series ammo cook-off and turret detachment.

    Alas for them, the time for T-90 came and it wasn't enemy air support, etc.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1558
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:04 pm

    Well kilo, its when people laughed about T-72 and T-90 not being able to survive simple hits then all of a sudden glorious M1A1's and Leopard 2's were getting smoked and crews becoming BBQ, then T-72's getting hit multiple times and surviving in Syria from TOW hits, is what made people cocky.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:38 am

    In this context, speculation would be saying that an ATGM hit it, or an RPG hit it, or a PGM hit it. There is nothing to confirm or deny any of these guesses.

    there was a report of the T-90 in ISIS hands being taken out recently by a Syrian Army T-72... do you have any reason to believe this is not it?

    In which case it would not be a missile or rocket but a 125mm round... which therefore becomes another possibility that this photo does not rule out.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Interlinked on Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:05 am

    GarryB wrote:

    there was a report of the T-90 in ISIS hands being taken out recently by a Syrian Army T-72... do you have any reason to believe this is not it?

    In which case it would not be a missile or rocket but a 125mm round... which therefore becomes another possibility that this photo does not rule out.

    That was a different case from some time ago.


    Tingsay

    Posts : 35
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2016-12-09

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Tingsay on Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:27 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Interlinked wrote:All my observations are based on evidence.

    The turret is detached - that is not speculation. It's literally detached.

    The ammo blew up - that is not speculation. The turret ring is bent upward and the turret is detached.

    The tank was hit from the left - that is not speculation. There is a building blocking the right side of the tank. Nothing could possible hit it from the right.

    All this can be seen in the photo Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

    In this context, speculation would be saying that an ATGM hit it, or an RPG hit it, or a PGM hit it. There is nothing to confirm or deny any of these guesses.

    There is no need to antagonize me, Garry. We are all tank enthusiasts here.

    Apparently after tasting some revenge on watching incompetent Turkish crews getting their Leos shish kebabed by IS, the fanboy base thought the T-90 was some sort invincible machine not prone to the classic T-series ammo cook-off and turret detachment.

    Alas for them, the time for T-90 came and it wasn't enemy air support, etc.

    You don't think it's fair at all that T-series fans get their chance too? Doesn't that make you a fanboy of western tank then?
    Problem is that your not being fair. No
    Let them laugh at the Leos and Abrams when they get a chance. You act like T-series haven't been made fun off 10x more.
    Fanboyism justifies the opposite fanboyism. Laughing
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1744
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:35 pm

    Meh but turret in invincible Arbams stay after AGTM Malyutka hits them Smile



    or here









    oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably




    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1427
    Points : 1428
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:07 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably


    Those must be some God-level hackers, but seriously what hit this thing, was there an Msta-S or a Khrizantema nearby?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1744
    Points : 1784
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:36 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably

    Those must be some God-level hackers, but seriously what hit this thing, was there an Msta-S or a Khrizantema nearby?


    It was in Iraq as far as I remember.  Unfortunately not manned by US forces.  Previous 2 for Yemen according to pics subtitles.


    Houti hackers here



    iscussion is sweet though:



    Sim Salabim
    1 year ago
    Information:
    It's NOT an export version of Abrams, it's M1A2SEP, the best Abrams there is.
    It's NOT a kornet ATGM, it's Konkurs, a very old soviet ATGM.

    So, you have an old outdated ATGM penetrating America's latest tank.





    GTA Cleveland
    GTA Cleveland
    2 years ago
    Saudi Abrams tanks were sold with out the depleted uranium armor layer. So this is a dramatically weaker Abrams tank than the ones used by the US.
    REPLY
    11



    Devilsigh
    Devilsigh
    2 years ago
    +gtaclevelandcity They are M1A2s, and do have DU layers of armor.
    REPLY
    18



    GTA Cleveland
    GTA Cleveland
    2 years ago
    +Louie The Logic Gremlin No they are certainly not. Not even the M1A2's own 120mm gun can pierce its armor. That was demonstrated in Iraq when other tanks tried to destroy a disabled abrams, to no avail.
    REPLY
    2



    Devilsigh
    Devilsigh
    2 years ago
    +gtaclevelandcity You're talking to someone who has served 4 years in the Army on the vehicle. I think I know a thing or two more about the vehicle than those who randomly troll YouTube videos with little knowledge of the tank outside of wikipedia articles. 
    REPLY
    Razz Razz Razz
    21



    Devilsigh
    Devilsigh
    2 years ago
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/rslf-equipment.htm

    Many of their current serving vehicles are M1A2 SEP V1s. 



    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 143
    Points : 169
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:06 pm

    Weren,t the T-90s given to Syria the T-90S export variant with its severeley downgraded armor and not the T-90A Russian army variant?
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2204
    Points : 2220
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:39 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably


    Those must be some God-level hackers, but seriously what hit this thing, was there an Msta-S or a Khrizantema nearby?

    US airstriked some disabled M1 MBTs so as not to fall to the wrong hands.
    Saudis, like Egyptians and Iraqis, operate the monkey version and their tanker skills (the Saudis) are nothing worth noting.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 962
    Points : 960
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Isos on Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:04 pm

    They have the record for the disstance of the turret and the tanks after seperation lol1 lol1 lol1 (it was an IED)

    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Interlinked on Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:04 am

    EDIT: Double post.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:06 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 91
    Points : 93
    Join date : 2017-11-07
    Age : 27

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Interlinked on Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:08 am

    Isos wrote:They have the record for the disstance of the turret and the tanks after seperation  lol1  lol1  lol1  (it was an IED)


    Was a huge IED, IIRC. Something like 200kgs detonated directly under the hull belly. I have photos where you can see the steel of the belly bent upward like jagged fingers. Not really the best example...

    Kilogolf wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably


    Those must be some God-level hackers, but seriously what hit this thing, was there an Msta-S or a Khrizantema nearby?
    US airstriked some disabled M1 MBTs so as not to fall to the wrong hands.

    You're all talking out of your asses. That is a screenshot from a propaganda video by IS. They stuffed explosives inside and blew it up.

    I'm curious; how come none of you do any investigation whatsoever? You guys just post photos of destroyed Abrams tanks and jerk off over it without knowing the story behind it.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 279
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:10 pm


    How viable would a binary liquid propellent set-up be in the T-90sm underfloor loader? Would it present any toxicity issues? What Gary said about it last time really piqued by interest. If the T-90 is going to remain in Russian service then they should go all out by introducing a turret similar to the Burlak turret.

    The Burlak turret would allow the T-90 to store the long rod sabot rounds that will be used in the T-14 Armata. The binary liquid propellent HE and HEAT rounds could then be stored in the underfloor autoloader, and would thus not explode. The Burlak turret would apparently enable the T-90 to carry a whopping 53 ready to use rounds.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 711
    Points : 715
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:54 am

    Many Abrams have been lost by the Saudi's against the Yemen's who are vastly weaker.

    Many have been lost in Iraq.

    Interlinked seriously drop the crap. I dislike biased western fanboys just as much as Russian ones.


    Sponsored content

    Re: T-90 Main Battle Tank

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:58 pm