Is the Russian T-90 Tank Legendary? | MOST TALKED ABOUT TANK

[@cherrypoptart2001]

Saw one T-90M with a cope cage taking 9 kamikaze drone to get destroyed , didnt even popped .

[@denniskrenz2080]

Maybe ran out of ammo. 😆

[@ivorynargie]

I mean, cope cage doing its work perfectly

[@Analitique]

It was the one with the very well done cope cage where it was spaced from the hull perfectly to keep a low silhouette but stop any shaped charge from directly connecting. Russia has studied some cope cage designs and this is one that should probably get picked since that video was very very popular among Russian military bloggers.

[@Sevenspent]

If I remember right the cope cage is finding its way onto Ukraine tanks because there is lack of anti drone anything on the battlefield and Russians are catching on.

[@leonleeoff2216]

I've seen them with cope cages get hit once and blow the turret soo...

[@RlsIII-uz1kl]

The T90 seems to be a fairly good tank, at least in the role and tactics it was created for.

[@ashleygoggs5679]

its ok, i wouldnt say its good. It gets the job done but thats about it. Its still killing the crew when its hit by any penetrating ordanance and still suffers the major issues that the other russian tanks have. The only tank taht russia can use that will change the tide of war is T14 but we know how that is going.

[@YorkshireFlea]

​@@ashleygoggs5679Recon is too widespread and effective for expensive high tech tanks to be worth while, all tanks are easily spotted and equally vulnerable. Theres no point producing a handful of T-14s when you can produce lots of T-90 and T-72 with the same money and time.

[@brianphillips7696]

I would say that it poses a significant threat on the battlefield but has some serious flaws.

[@aps1138]

Yeah, no other tank in the world can launch its turret tens of meters into the sky.

[@DV-oy4gz]

@@brianphillips7696, as every modern tank. There are just too many ways to destroy or immobilise today

[@Stealth86651]

Part of the problem with covering stuff like this is you really can't avoid delving into the Russian mindset and specific use case they have in mind for their vehicles and gear. When you understand that, a lot of their decisions suddenly make sense at least from why they did what.

[@tehgerbil]

Yes, exactly. Russia has a very different set of criteria and use cases to the west. The doctrine is totally different, in multiple facets. Too many people approach their equipment trying to force it into western doctrine, where it just doesn't work. A perfect example of doctrinal difference was the Ukrainian counter-offensive, where they almost perfectly executed soviet defensive doctrine, and it worked well, to a level that honestly surprised me. I didn't expect such competence from what we'd seen previously.

[@JinTeutonic53]

they are poor

[@MrKekus-o3l]

@@JinTeutonic53 your brain is poor

[@WinyPouh]

@@JinTeutonic53 They have their own land, crops, oil, gas, uranium yet they are poor. Just another western lie about Russia.

[@WinyPouh]

You have to deal with the wastern lies all the time. Even that story about Bradly taking out ont T-90 is a lie. There were 2 bradleys, it was an ambush, t-90 was hit by a drone before Bradleys' fire and its crew finally survived.

[@longtimelurker2022]

i remember when the first T-90s came out. they called it a t-72 hull with a t-80 turret.

[@alexanderstordeur9434]

Don't forget Stuck in a kick ass eat twelve diesel engineStuck in a kick a** V-12 Diesel engine.

[@artruisjoew5473]

it was literally a T72BU, they had to change the name because the golf war gave T72s such a bad rep.

[@tasman006]

It had tech from the T80 but was a T90 but in reality an improved T72 tank.

[@mariepotts9351]

@@artruisjoew5473 the tank was supposed to be called the T-88. they changed it as the new decade, 1990, approached. BU is a myth.

[@T-90AK]

@@artruisjoew5473 There's no such thing as "T-72BU". Zaloga confused the T-72BM and "Improved T-72B". He did a similar thing with the T-80U with Drozd and a T-80UM-1. Which was named T-80UM2 according to him.

[@Xeemix]

Honestly its legendary status feels a lot less these days, T-90A certainly had a mythical status back in the day though. Those signature red shtora "eyes" are still iconic even today. But these days I feel in comparison the T-34, IS-7 or even the T-80 still hold onto a stronger image than the T-90 today.

[@guaposneeze]

Some things are legendary because they are so great they seem better than real. Some things are legendary because they only work in myths and legends but don't have much reality to them. T90 is... let's call it "Type II Legendary."

[@williamzk9083]

The Soviet Union maintained a propaganda department to promote the superiority of the T 34 until it’s collapse in the 1980s. It was only after this that we were able to examine the two performance of this weapon and it wasn’t that good. This propaganda persist this day. Russia by which I mean both Cyrus Russia and the current Russian Federation always had powerful government run propaganda that boasted their military capabilities. This was a strategy to intimidate their neighbours and of course the T 90 has to be exaggerated in order to gain overseas. Sales everyone is to an extent guilty of exaggeration For the purpose of Sales but in the case of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation it’s a political strategy to intimidate neighbours and get them to surrender before there is even a war. Many of the T 90s features were useless ability to supposedly jam missiles with its infrared eyes since all western missiles had switched to electronically encoded tracking

[@brianphillips7696]

There is also the state of being legendarily bad.

[@joshuarooney8614]

The t90m is actually pretty lethal .

[@guaposneeze]

@ Being lethal to the guys inside of it doesn't count.

[@BaronEvola123]

It travels in reverse at 4 kms per hour. Legendary !

[@UnfollowYourDreams]

That's a feature, not a bug. It's much harder to run from the battlefield an drive over your infantry screen with this reverse speed.

[@vixx-kun7686]

Order 227 still applies, but the mustache man didn't say anything about tiptoeing back😂

[@viniciusdemichei]

if it hits 5km/h it literally becomes god

[@andan2293]

yes, but it can fly really high!

[@Neeboopsh]

yeah, russia needs to retrofit, or at least move all their new t90m production to a different transmission that goes at least 15kph in reverse. its crazy that their only tank that goes any faster in reverse is the t80. and apparently modernized new t80s are now over 20kph in reverse, but the OG ones are like 11? or so kph. which is still WAY better than 3 or 4 ;)

[@thesixth2330]

it would be so awesome if you and red effect could get a weekly podcast going... we can dream can't we?

[@_Matsimus_]

I’d be down for that!

[@gothamgoon4237]

Why do people keep going on about that bradley vs t90 video? The T90 got it's turret jammed, the crew panicked, ran into a large tree which stopped it and they bailed. The T90 was never "taken out" by bradleys 25mm. That was all due to poor crew training, lucky shots by the bradley crew which jammed the turret and surprise. That video proves nothing except what I just laid out. Can happen to any vehicle. Time everyone grew up and realized NOTHING is invincible as has been proven in Ukraine. Nothing and no one is safe from modern tech. As Matsimus said, much heavier armoured vehicles like the Abram, Leopard and Challenger have also had their a$$es handed to them. Only proves nothing is safe.

[@Archer89201]

Turret was jammed by a FPV hits, the 25mm damaged the optics though

[@kentstructures4388]

The bradley didnt jam the T90 gun.. It was drones that hit that T90 moments before

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

Yes and no. People need to just watch the interview that was done with that Bradley's driver, but if they did that they'd have to question why this Bradley story was presented to them the way it was. Then if they did that, they'd have to question everything else they've been told, and they wouldn't want that.

[@jussi8111]

mayby not legendary, but damm does it look good

[@geoffreydunne7422]

ya i will give ya that one, it looks good. lol

[@ponz-]

It is a good looking tank 😂

[@Artman1]

Looks on a tank are about as useful as looks on a woman. Useful for attracting buyers but that's about it.

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

T-90? Nah. T-90M with that elongated angular turret does.

[@Tischa1994]

Id say the most legendary tank in modern history.

[@tevin4006]

It is a very cool looking tank, I'll give it that, especially when it does it's "red eyes" motifs. Hope you do the T-84 next, those tanks and their past variants are fascinating.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

The Ukraine conflict has proven that a tank is a tank. Every tank used there has been destroyed, on both sides. Leopard 1 and 2, Challenger, Abrams... And on the other side, T-72, T-80, T-90... And "common" soviet era tanks both sides use... Abrams had more mythical status and it was also destroyed in numbers. That is just it; a tank is a tank, once again, and if you fight a capable and well equipped opponent, losses are guaranteed. As for Shtora jammers (red eyes), they have been removed. They were very effective against early ATGMs of certain types. We've seen videos from early days in Syria where you see a TOW-1s going towards T-90s and then suddenly go stupid and either fall to the ground or go for the skies. But that doesn't work on modern ATGMs, so it was removed and that space they took was better used for ERA (there wasn't any there with Shtora). A bit of trivia: T-72 was officially never made in Yugoslavia though Yugoslavia did buy license to make it. What the Yugo army did was - they modified it and called it M-84 tank. Gun was the same and autoloader. Engine wasn't. M-84 has multi-fuel engine, though with less power. Armor composition was a bit different; according to some, some models used granite tiles instead of ceramics and textolite. Fire control system was completely different and M-84 had laser rangefinder from the very start and incorporated ballistic computer was 100% different from T-72. M-84 also has self-entrenchment tool as a standard. And a couple of more differences, though on the outside it was very hard to tell the difference between it and T-72. Later modifications changed more. So, current modifications in Serbia, M-84AS1 and AS2 are totally different and don't even look like a T-72 variant, not even close, not even from external appearance. A lot of people when they see them simply say "no way this is a T-72 version".

[@TheTryingDutchman]

i learned more from your comment than from this stupid video.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

This conflict has proven 99% of you don't know what a tank actually is, how it is constructed, and how it functions. 98% of you still don't, and that 1% that learned something is acting like they knew all along.

[@AdamSchadow]

The brutal reality is that a 20mil costing western tank has to on average kill 4 5mil costing T90Ms just to break even which most people completely ignore. Also we will see a massive shift away from the kind of tanks we know today due to small guided drones being able to attack them from any angle and thereby invalidating even the best armor.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

You should look at the composite coverage of a Merkava, it is interesting how accidentally near perfect it is to counter drones. Most drones are just kamikaze with conventional explosive strapped on to them. This talk of dropping shaped warheads from RPGs can crap isn't actually very common. The Merkava has nearly 100% composite coverage from the top. The engine deck which is the primary target for a drone is entirely armoured.

[@draganjagodic4056]

For a weapon system to be legendary, it either has to decisively contribute to the victory in war, or to actively last for many decades. Or to bring some lasting technological innovation. So far, T-90, though fine and beautiful tank, is still rather an average tank. Not to be underestimated whatsoever, but not a "silver bullet". And again, back in 1990es, we were happy to have old T-55 during our Liberation war.

[@Tischa1994]

To be fair its been outperforming Leopard 2A6s and Abrams in Ukraine.

[@Ranyick]

@@Tischa1994the T-90M in a tactical sense is pretty much equal to the Leopard 2A6 and M1A1 SA Abrams sent to Ukraine, however given it’s much lighter and cheaper it has big operational and strategic advantages

[@MentulPanda]

@@Tischa1994 by being defeated by a. Bradley? 🤡

[@MentulPanda]

@@Ranyick and disadvantages when it folds to even just one fpv

[@Ranyick]

@@MentulPanda I follow the war quite closely, and I can confidently say not a single T-90M has been destroyed by a single FPV drone. A number has been taken out by drones, sure, but it’s just the same for Leopard 2s and Abrams’s

[@andyfriederichsen]

I would say it's not legendary but definitely good.

[@Pigeon_Birb]

At turret tossing for sure

[@andyfriederichsen]

@Pigeon_Birb Okay, but jokes aside it is a decent MBT. Can't be any worse than what, say, Chy Nah (YT censors) has.

[@ozone-xv7hk]

@@Pigeon_BirbTrue, but that’s when they get destroyed just like any other mbt’s. They may not have had such spectacular explosions, but abrams and Bradleys have been knocked out as well, and those are considered the pinnacle of military engineering.

[@cherrypoptart2001]

@@andyfriederichsen Chinese tanks are honestly better than russian ones now tbh, well, im more comparing type 99s to T-90M/T-72B3M

[@Pigeon_Birb]

@@ozone-xv7hk did not say other tanks cannot be knocked out, however other tanks are not known specifically for blowing up when you hit ammo. The other tanks also have false safes like blow out panels or wet storage. You don't have any mitigation for a wall of munitions and propellant surrounding gunner and Commander. It's a Big problem. Yes other tanks can get their munition hit and turret toss but it's not as likely unlike a t series tank with an auto loader. Why is it that the wester tank philosophy places an auto loader behind the turret and at times separates from the crew compartments.

[@craftsman40]

For WW2 T-34. Presently T-90.

[@Mortablunt]

2HR crew reporting in. I'm going to wait a while for the comments to get really fun.

[@Canoby]

It has set some turret toss world records, that's for sure EDIT: funny how you Z types can’t find video viewable outside Muscovy of Challenger 2s tossing their turrets

[@von_dusenhain2523]

@_Matsimus_ Video Idea: Analyse and rank tanks for their turret toss capability :P

[@andyfriederichsen]

@@von_dusenhain2523 I wonder how high the turret of one of Turkey's Leopard 2s went flying.

[@rajaydon1893]

The crews wont stop putting ammo around hull storage areas which is not supposed to be used in the t90m but i guess the crew just say more ammo the better

[@Neonblue84]

not so far like the challenger 2 turret (in kursk oblast)

[@skvUSA]

@@andyfriederichsen It is really unlikely that modern Western MBTs would throw turret. Russian tanks are design for this. They introduced mechanical auto-loader and kept ammo around turret and hull floor... Latest generation of Western MBT keep ammo in separate compartment behind armor wall with blow out panels.

[@borissljukic1470]

The T 90 is not the best tank, but it has the best price-performance ratio. The crew pays the price. That story is well-known about the Sherman from WW2.

[@ZeroDi]

Sherman is known for рroраgаndа Hollywood and Brad Pitt.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

"The crew pays the price." Substantiate this.

[@CommandoTM]

How can it be legendary when it DOESN'T EVEN HAVE LEGENDS?! has me asking just from the title alone

[@CommandoTM]

Yeah, I pretty much agree on what you've said. Now for actual legends: Soviet: T-34, KV-1 German: Tiger, Panther British: Mark 4, Firefly US: E8 Sherman, Abrams Now those are legends. I argue that it requires to have an actual combat record to prove itself to back up the mental images we have just by the mention of the word "tank", not just speculation and imagined what-iffery like we have with IS-3 and Maus.

[@vasilijevukadinovic6843]

The t90m poroyv is a 3+ generation tank that does compete with those u have listed. They took the cannon,electronics etc. from the t14 and put it in the t90m. It cost them 2 million each instead of 6-7 million for t14. They also could produce them quickly for this conflict witch is obviously need with how fast all tanks there are being knocked out. Today the only 4th gen. Tanks are the t14, k2 and type 10. With many others in development like the Abrams x. The t90 has performed well and the operators are very happy. Lots of reports anfld video of being struck several times and continuing. The surprising reports coming out are that the t80bvm are probably performing the best on the field. There is a cool story about a plant manager keeping everything for the line and operations when it was shut down and gone with no plan on producing it any more. When word came of its success he came and production was restarted.

[@Goodfellow6082]

Putin thimzelf ordered prodaction of t 80 bvm )) after battles in ukraine

[@vasilijevukadinovic6843]

@Goodfellow6082 yes he would be the one to do that.

[@bhishmaMbt]

Thank you Matsimus for tue video. You are by far the only tank youtuber with non bias documentry ❤

[@_Matsimus_]

Wow, thank you!

[@andyfriederichsen]

You say it's portrayed as well-armored in games but I keep thinking about the European levels in CoD: MW3 (the original one) where you can somehow destroy a T-90M with a single shoulder-fire rocket (then again, the game won't let you destroy BTR-82A APCs with an AC-130's 25mm rotary cannon).

[@RAVEN_SPRING_]

Love you dude keep up the nice videos ❤

[@_Matsimus_]

Thanks! Will do!

[@flemishlion69]

It's an icon from the past nothing more nothing less.

[@nikola_tomic]

My man, you've been pumping those videos out, like a machine hehe. So happy for you bro, stay with it 💪💪💪

[@_Matsimus_]

Appreciate it!!

[@leonleeoff2216]

A ruzzian tank that preforms very well in ruzzian video games.. imagine that! 🌻 🌻

[@WinyPouh]

cockholes at its best

[@elusive6119]

The T-90 was originally an Ersatz tank, in the form of a body and layout of the late serial T-72B model of 1989 and filling from the T-80U. The most widespread and simple + the most modern at that time. Just a minimally sufficient ob.187, which could be produced in the conditions of the disintegrating country of the 90s, instead of the more advanced ob.188, which was supposed to become the T-90. There are also many questions about this chassis, because unlike the new T-90M "Breakthrough-3" turret, they were not going to produce it, only modernize the existing 350-400 T-90A, and the history of the T-72B chassis was supposed to end there. But, this chassis was the easiest to produce, simply because several thousand of them had already been made for export to India and Algeria. It was enough to use the available solutions. He's simple... not bad and sufficient. However, now the T-90M is perhaps the third largest tank in active use, after the T-72B and T-80B, as well as their modifications.

[@nickjohnson4923]

As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all of its own.....

[@dougcoombes8497]

The same guy that placed absolutely no value on human life. It doesn't take much more effort and resources to provide at least a little more survivability to a tank, but Russian command still doesn't seem to care in the slightest about the lives of their soldiers.

[@Tischa1994]

@@dougcoombes8497 Contrary to the average redditors belief russian tanks have show more survivability in Ukraine than western ones. There are multiple videos of t-90s driving thorugh a sea of mines or a rain of fpvs and still going after almost a dozen hits. Never seen anything like this for a leopard 2 or abrams, not to mention challenger.

[@cvgodd1432]

@@Tischa1994yes they’re using some old Soviet armor that protects the tank. I forget what it called but it’s nothing new but very effective.

[@dmknght8946]

@@cvgodd1432 did you mean Kontak-1 ERA?

[@Coqumel]

​@@Tischa1994Your real bold to claim that after the thousand or so instances of Russia T-72/80/90 tanks instantly vaporizing its crews due to a ammo strike.

[@mc94.]

Has the world record of the highest turret toss when destroyed in Ukraine 120 meters into the sky 🤣

[@tankdriver67m64]

It’s an evolution of the T-72. The Russians changed its designation so they could sell after the T-72 proved less than effective.

[@Archer89201]

T-72 is still one of the most effective tank in Ukraine, Iraqi export models were export models of export models like the M1A1s without DU inserts in Ukraine

[@cardboard_shaft]

@@Archer89201 LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[@Archer89201]

@@cardboard_shaft well atleast it is doing its job and Russia is gaining ground , tanks are meant to take losses hence they produced thousands of these and despite taking atrocious losses they are still fighting. Forget Russia ,Ukraine alone has taken more tanks losses than the entire UK/France/Germany/Belgian and Dutch tank fleets combined

[@joebiggs135]

In Ukraine/Kursk , the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 toss turrets just like the T-90s. Only Abrams has not tossed a turret so far in this conflict. However, they run into their own issues. Any tank that gets spotted on the modern battlefield is going to get destroyed eventually. The T-90 is a jack of all trades master of none when it comes to firepower, detection, manuverability, survivability, ease of maintenance, and ease of production.

[@Mortablunt]

The main problem is they can't get the Abrams to the battlefield with it being so heavy.

[@thesixth2330]

its about survivability. Western tanks are designed to save the crew, Russian could care less since they have more men then they need if a total war breaks out. Russian tanks are cheap tanks, in life you get what you pay for. Andhow many western tanks have lost turrets compared to their Russian counterparts? Who cares about a single incident or 2? If a tank is hit by a huge mislle, the turret will blow off.

[@ashleygoggs5679]

@@Mortablunt Another bad comment from yourself, if Challenger can get to frontlines so can Abrams, Challenger is the heaviest of the 3 tanks without added armor.

[@ashleygoggs5679]

Difference is it takes multiple hits for challenger 2 to toss a turret both challengers destroyed have shown signs of multiple impacts, challengers biggest issue is fires, if a fire breaks out this is enough to cook the ammo charges to cause a detonation. Usually by this point the crew had time to evac.

[@rogerc6533]

Abrams dont turret toss because they weigh as much as a King Tiger tank, but they are jet fuel powered and barbecue harder than any other tank.

[@rezoanmahmud5165]

If they had improved T90`s horrible reverse speed , some of the losses could have been avoided.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

It is a trade off, no. The Russians know how to make transmissions they've made significantly faster ones in reverse before the second world war. It was a choice.

[@evanbrown2594]

I remember my first time hearing about it. I opened up my M1TP2 manual and there it was imposing as hell.

[@hamster8449]

The fact is that a subcalibre projectile, a shaped projectile, a high-explosive projectile, and a full-caliber blank have varying increasing weights. And if we increase the caliber of the cannon more and more, eventually we will get a gun perfectly optimized for only one type of projectile, sub-caliber uranium, and all other projectiles for convenient high-speed loading will have a reduced filling. The T90 decided to have the maximum filling for all types of projectiles, from here separate loading and compensation of such a solution in the form of a autoloader. There are few shells in the machine, about 20 pieces, and manual loading gives 1 or 2 rounds per minute.. Naturally, the subcalibre will be shorter and have less penetration. In the USSR, there were slides and descents for choosing a more technically advanced machine or a simpler one - T64 > T72, T80 > T90. In the USA, it is convenient to have only 1 type of tank, but it is expensive both in terms of money, maintenance and transportation. A simple question. Abrams is fueled with what kind of fuel - always different, diesel, gasoline, gas, or only special aviation?

[@ADobbin1]

The abrams can be fuelled by pretty much anything they can find from jet fuel to diesel and I'm pretty sure it could even run on alcohol or crude oil if they had to though the oil would be really dirty and inefficient.

[@Chass3urTV]

I believe you covered this machine a few years back. It's nice to see it covered again years later.

[@_Matsimus_]

Hope you enjoyed it!

[@catmus1506]

Great video. I like the Russian tanks, just don’t like the powers using them. My favourite Russian tank has got to be the T-62MV from Steel Panthers 2. The hours I sank into that game…. 😅

[@_Matsimus_]

Fair enough!

[@WinyPouh]

'just don’t like the powers using them' You was told to dislike Russian for so many times that you now think it's your own decision.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

Given enough time, you'll eventually realise you were wrong. Of course just like everybody else you'll act like you always knew the truth, but you'll come around.

[@Po6om_Bepmep]

It's just a good tank with good 125-mm cannon and nice HE shell (not all tank cannons have HE shell in our time). But as any other thing, this tank has its pluses and minuses. Both of them! And the main minus is backward movement speed. And one more thing. When engineers make a project of ane war machine, they have to remember that this machine will interact with all this environment. They have to take into account max weight of machine - to make it able to ride on most briges, to be easily put on a railway platform and so on. Even not said yet about logistics, spare parts and so on and so on... Any machine also is not floating in a vacuum. It's also a part of particular war doctrine. And when you understand all this things, you can take a bit different look on the same machines =)

[@DarkRendition]

Wow! You are producing AMAZING content!!! I love it so much. 🙂

[@imsobaasik8709]

T-72BU is COMPLETELY different from the T-90. They are not related at all. One was a project by the soviets to get their T-72B 1989 tanks up to par with the T-80U's. After the collapse of the SU, the russian federation ordered the making of a tank for the 90's (the T-90). T-72BU and T-90 dont even share the same gun, systems, engine, or anything other than the hull and turret of a T-72B.

[@dochammer3047]

The only tank that when you sign up for Crew, you are already to be a cosmonaut!

[@Neonblue84]

ask the cremated ukrainian abrams, leopard 2 and challenger crew. they are smoked up.

[@kaneworsnop1007]

​@@Neonblue84 the Ukrainian Challenger 2 crew all survived and set charges to deny the tank to the enemy. Also the Ukrainians have repeatedly praised all the western tanks due to high crew survivability compared to their Soviet tanks.

[@fennoman9241]

@@Neonblue84 wääwää cope orc Leopard 2 has 20% lower loss ratio compared to T-90M

[@MentulPanda]

​@@Neonblue84 they're alive to ask unlike the russians or their armor. Cop harder lmao

[@Neonblue84]

@@MentulPanda yep alive in heaven😄

[@StephenDaniel-p8l]

That was a very good and unbiased video. It was very informative. Thank you Matt! I also subscribe to red effect. Please keep the videos coming.

[@_Matsimus_]

Thanks! Will do!

[@brosefmalkovitch3121]

So long as vehicle contain all the modern, necessary technologies(rangefinders, digital FCS, thermals, etc) and don't have major flaws they're all acceptable on the battlefield. What really makes or breaks a vehicle is how reliable it is, how easy it is to maintain, how logistically demanding it is. In terms of fielding, I think the autoloader for the T-series tanks is a big plus, allowing you to field more tanks for the same number of tankers as compared to tanks requiring a 4th crewmember for loading. While there are obvious disadvantages to autoloaders and the loss of a crewmember for tanks we're starting to see more western designs include autoloaders, the advantages of volume savings and needing fewer crew seem too good to pass on.

[@drgonzo305]

Armor so effective it barely needs a barn built around it… but it definitely does need the barn armor 😂

[@rogerc6533]

most barns are built over older T-72 models.

[@drgonzo305]

@ T-72, T-90, T-90M, it’s all the same tank, the only difference is ERA placement and type. They all use the same hulls, same sensors, same engine, same transmission, same autoloader/turret ejection system. Turret is a little different and the T-90 gets a slightly better gun

[@rogerc6533]

@ Some important upgrades, a lot of the same, that is true; just like all Nato mbts who are also half century old descendants of the Cold War.

[@JeffGordon-ph4vz]

@@drgonzo305Sit down armchair general. Go back to HOI 4.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@drgonzo305 "T-72, T-90, T-90M, it’s all the same tank, the only difference is ERA placement and type." M1, M1A1, M1A2, all the same tank.

[@Vkat696]

11:50 - a lot more armored how? Most modern tanks are roughly equivalent from the front, while soviets have always been better protected from sides (abrams' turret being the exception). Regardless none of the MBTS have sufficient protection from apfsds/atgm fron the side. A side note about “turret tossing”. Leos and Chally toss turrets just the same. Abrams bustle - while it is meant to save crews from deflagration, it won't save from catastrophic HE-FRAG rack detonation (mind you, there are images of the bustle and sliding door completely wrecked in Iraq). The only reason Abrams doesn't blow up spectacularly is because it is a glorified tank destroyer that doesn't carry He-FRAG. Which makes it nigh useless in ukraine as there's nearly zero tank on tank engagements (quote - 'we took 13 shots at one building, yet it was still standing')

[@barry7608]

Thanks seems a well balanced review.

[@_Matsimus_]

Glad you think so!

[@cordellmohawk8408]

Legendary by just talking about it good or worst available in mass numbers I like it

[@filipbrecelj669]

it is well represented in the armored warfare game in all its variants

[@fuze3107]

T-90A had a legendary sleep deprivation hence the red eyes. And Finally in T-90M russian engineers felt sad for it and put the thing to sleep.

[@John-mq9fx]

Thanks for the vid Mat. lol I'm working on a digital cammo scheme for a 1/16 R/C T-90. Your video helped with some direction.

[@ElectricArrowRifle]

I'd still be worried if they out numbered you 3 to 1

[@DeaconBlu]

Killer intro… Nicely done cat. 😎👍❤

[@warmeggtm]

Turret ✅ Hull ❌

[@brianv1988]

Did you use GTA V modded T90 tank in your video that's hilarious

[@MeshFrequency]

I approve of this assessment! :)

[@_Matsimus_]

Yay, thank you!

[@Lenzabi]

I play with several variants in Armored Warfare. They tend to do well enough so far toughest is T-90M proryv. All have ukraine markings and Ukraine/US flags.

[@1977Yakko]

I'm guessing the vehicle vs. vehicle games are skewed in that there is none of the infantry support required for tank survivability on a modern battlefield. Maybe issuing the crew semiauto shotguns when manning the machineguns on top of the turret might enable the shooting down of some of the FPV drones.

[@bartweijs]

The Ukrainians (I got this from an active soldier) prefer facing the T90 over the T80 or T72 variants for 2 reasons. 1. T90's are usually found alone; while the others are usually in packs. 2. The visibility from inside the tank is more limited, especially close to the ground.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

I don't believe this. Why would a T-90M which is what is in mass production now not the T-72, be intentionally deployed alone but not a T-72?

[@Analitique]

The T 90M has proved amazing actually. From the beginning when it was deployed with Russian forces in the Kharkov front the tank made work of local Ukrainian forces and the Russian bloggers in the early war expressed very satisfactory results with the T 90M, unfortunately they were very very few at the beginning of the war. Now the T 90M is still very appreciated by its crew though the T 80BVM is probably more appreciated for its higher maneuverability. But what the T 90M tank has over the T 80BVM is ease of production and the Kalina fire control system with the new cannon. So the firepower is a bit better but there’s also the fact that GLONASS and 360 degree camera systems offer better awareness and visibility further enhanced by the thermals available to both commander and gunner.

[@athiftsabit1208]

Enjoy grinding all the T series tanks sir

[@selimdasci6247]

Great video Matt..Can you review Turkish "Altay"tank in another video please?

[@dhanu_4539]

I'd say the hero of the Ukraine conflict is probably the T-80 it just happens to be involved in a lot of interesting situations. Leopard would be the other one, but did it underperform compared to the hype.

[@RailLifeSriLanka]

Is there any hard kill active protection system in indian t90 or russian t90?

[@guyva_unito_sree3]

i think you said, whoever gets spotted first gets destroyed first, doesnt matter much how armored. or that's just general tank doctrine. not that it matters anymore. in ww2 they sent the equivalent of drones/mosquitos/aircraft with bombs on them to kill the yamato, russia also sends mosquitos/drones instead of going head to head tank on tank which even in video games they tell you fight smart instead of exchanging hits.

[@Mr.Moe...]

The animated bits are from a GTA5 mod.

[@sleepingninjaquiettime]

I imagine that when they "jumped" the T-90 only the driver was in the tank. I'd at least hope so, lol. As someone who served as a tanker i think even the modern abrams would be in the same spot as the T-90 in ukraine. Its designed for tank on tank combat, all the armor is in the front. I think a lighter tank that has mobility with all around armor that can engage drone targets. A 90mm flak specialized for drones sounds useful. It was useful against kamikaze's, matter fact it was one of the allies secrets weapons.

[@smackzombie4707]

I don’t understand why they didn’t choose the t80 to upgrade over the t72

[@BaronEvola123]

Numbers and production line. There were thousands of t 72's and factories that could be altered.

[@kaneworsnop1007]

T80's we're too expensive so even after it's introduction far more T72's we're still constructed, both for domestic use and export.

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

Just look what the Russian economy looked like in the 90s and early 2000s and you'll uderstand. It's a little miracle that they even chose a tank.

[@Mortablunt]

Economics. The USSR, later Russia, considers systems for building on a massive scale, complete with cost-benefit analysis including combat survivability and replacement capacity. As we're seeing with M1 in Ukraine, there's really no point to building a 3x as pricey tank in just cost before manhours when it still dies all the same to the same stuff just as quickly. For a bit of illustration, in a very crude analysis I did a long time ago with a buddy of mine, it takes the US 3.5 days to produce 1 M1 tank for $8.6mil. It takes the RF 0.8 days to make 1 T90M for $2.6mil. They both have ~120mm guns, ~1100mm effective armor thickness, night fighting, gun stabilization, thermals, reactive armor, and commander sights. Yet the M1 takes 4.5x longer to make in time, and requires 3.3x more money. All for not much more power, and not much greater survival. And when you fight a scale conflict, those edges in cost and production massively accumulate.

[@smackzombie4707]

@@Mortablunt ah true I suppose Russia won’t be changing much of their strategy’s then

[@nicolasorin922]

Tancul are tot ce-i trebuie, depinde de comandat cum le folosește, ce am văzut unul la unu au cam învins și am văzut și challenger cu turela sărită și are cred vreo 30 tone.

[@Gabberag]

but its the T90 ARENA thats legendary.

[@ghostfacen745]

Legendary? God no. It doesnt look so Legendary in Ukraine. With it's Turret having more Air Time than the Orc's Airforce!

[@Kiyuja]

In the video you said exactly what I would've said. When I think of legendary Russian tanks, I think T-72. That thing put fear into the allied forces. IIRC it was the first tank with composite armor, making the then popular weapon, HEAT, effectively useless, it came with a powerful auto loaded gun, small silhouette, competent armor, decent mobility and was affordable. Only the ergonomics werent great vision and going backwards werent its forté

[@greenyoshi777]

I must admit? Although its fairly reliable from a strictly mechanical standpoint? I was hoping for more. The Russians are regretting NOT spending more on upgrading a few things, especially NOT having a fully reversible transmission and the optics took a minute to get up to a higher standard. STILL CAPABLE of dishing out the pain but far from what many people thought it would be.

[@elusive6119]

Actually, I like the T-80B better because it allows for a lot more... however, he is more vulnerable. But, the speed and capabilities of the cannon... they atone for all his flaws. Especially if the tank has been completely repaired and upgraded. Any tank is needed for exactly one purpose - to break through the defense and develop the offensive. In most cases, it has no alternative as support for infantry and reinforcement of defense. Just because there is nothing as secure and with such a cannon close to the front line. You can say that tanks are outdated, yes it is, but there is no alternative to them.

[@system_philosophy]

For me problem of T-90/80/72/55/54s are top attack advanced Anti-Tank Missile, more than drones. Because Drones is not only a problem for tanks, its a matter of battlefield tactics and operation.

[@rogerc6533]

They fare much better against top attack than western tanks than you may expect. Just look at the top cross section of these vehicles. With western tanks, the weakspots are massive boxy sections where the ammo bustle and fuel loaded engine decks are. Lightly tap these parts with even a drone and the tank is totally engulfed in flame. With Russian tanks, the actual turret roof is a tiny circle whilst the engine deck itself is also far more compact. When you factor in the additional era and spaced armor of Russian tanks and also how they will be moving about; its quite difficult for top attack weapons to hit any critical component. They are surprisingly drone resistant and even against powerful missiles, there is a decent chance of the crew surviving even if the tank is crippled.

[@dmknght8946]

@@rogerc6533 I remember I watched a video from Ukraine's side (Civ something. He's a foreign soldier joined Ukraine war). His unit used Javelin to attack Russian's armored vehicle (it was BMP i think). The vehicle got hit but it wasn't destroyed.

[@rogerc6533]

@ You see that fairly often with APCs and IFVs, alot of its interior is empty space for carrying infantry. Sucks for any infantry actually riding inside but hitting the troop compartment doesnt actually cripple any mechanical functions. Russian ifvs genuinely have shit survivability though, this BMP was "lucky". Their crampedness makes it hard for troops to rapidly evacuate and the ammo is packed far closer together with everything else so one shots; not so much from top attacks but from direct frontal or flank penetration do often happen. Thats why they are shifting to more heavily armored IFVs in the western vein.

[@phbrinsden]

T90 seems to be just a tarted up T72 but a lot more expensive. And now Russia is cut off from European technology it is probably moving even closer to a T72.

[@Vadim-p1d]

T90 means the year of adoption. If your memory has not changed yet and you have not forgotten the history, then at that time there was the USSR, a technologically self-sufficient country.

[@matttaylor2009]

What happened to the iskander vid? Love this new one though, keep the channel going!

[@growndown3358]

He probably removed it because most of the footage was not of the Iskander

[@_Matsimus_]

@growndown3358 yeah I totally screwed that video up. Starting again lol

[@brianv1988]

​@@_Matsimus_thank you appreciate you removing the video looking forward to the new one

[@blackmagnetica8714]

A big misconception about Russian MBTs is that people blame the carousel autoloaders for the turret pop offs. T-62 despite having a manual loader still suffers the same fate of turret pop offs, even today you fan still see it from Challengers despite having no autoloaders. Carousel autoloaders are actually quite difficult to hit because of how low it is placed on the tank, let alone Russian MBTs are usually low profiled compared to western MBTs. So the main problem for turret pop offs was the fact that crews kept storing extra ammo in the turret, outside of the carousel. Another reason is that no Russian MBT in service even today has ever been designed to counter against top attack ATGMs.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

Big misconception is whether or not it even matters if a turret pops. The carousel is within an armoured encasing. This carousel is right in the middle of the crew compartment. To detonate this carousel you need to directly hit it thus going through the crew compartment. Now replace this mental image with the internals of a NATO tank. Sabot goes through the crew compartment, no carousel, crew is vaporised by the sabot anyway. Irrelevant.

[@saidakhmadsaidaskharov7386]

two bradleys in hiding

[@Hortifox_the_gardener]

"How many Russian bots and paid trolls do you want to appear in the comments?" Matsimus: "Yes"

[@_Matsimus_]

@@Hortifox_the_gardener lol

[@andyfriederichsen]

@@Hortifox_the_gardener Russian bots/trolls and NAFO brainlets who hate anything Russian.

[@brianv1988]

Yeah that last video had a lot of them they were also posting links to Russian propaganda channels glad he took it down to redo it

[@alexzima6963]

@@brianv1988 What video was it ? I think i missed it.

[@brianv1988]

@alexzima6963 iskander vid

[@saint_penrose512]

I hate this "quantity over quality" propaganda. T-72 appeared when the US had M60s and Britain had Chieftains. How's M60 over T-72 is a "quality over quantity"? Crew feels more comfy and cozy? 5-star hotel compared to a 3-star? French and German tanks of the time are even more hilarious.

[@rogerc6533]

Agreed. Western medium tanks were always INFERIOR to their Soviet counterparts. With their advanced Mbts the west is essentially making heavy tanks and boasting that these heavy tanks are stronger than Russias medium Mbts. Of course a heavy tank is marginally stronger but heavy tanks only being marginally more powerful despite costing far more of everything to produce and field is the whole reason the Russians abandoned the heavy tank concept in the first place. It was clearly the correct decision; the Soviets learned from defeating Nazi heavy panzers and the west learned how to become the Nazis.

[@saint_penrose512]

@rogerc6533 M60's not even a heavy tank, it's armor is almost non-existant to anything armor-piercing from its' era

[@rogerc6533]

​@ If anything the T-72B had enough firepower and armor to be like a Tiger tank compared to the M-60 despite being a cheap, light mass produced tank. Soviet tank technology was so mindblowingly ahead of NATO that they had to make heavy MBTs like the Abrams and Leopard II just to compete.

[@ikoiko5311]

@rogerc6533 I would doubt that ,,way ahead" way of thinking but in fact the russian tanks od the time had a few adwentages here and there not even taking in to account the sheer numbers of the ussr tank forces.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@ikoiko5311 They were objectively superior and you will not find anybody of the time who would tell you otherwise. It was a wakeup call.

[@azogthedefiler1513]

A beast of a tank

[@ebukanwoye4316]

Mat, what happened to the P 800 oniks costal defense missile instead of the iskander missile?

[@_Matsimus_]

@@ebukanwoye4316 I really screwed up. I’m sorry.

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

Very good tank, legendary, I dont know, I dont think I'd rank the Abarams as legendary.

[@mastathrash5609]

Legend… mabey some of its predecessors, as you said, but it’s only as good as the tactical use and doctrine and equipment. (Not a tanker , so armchair opinion😅). but it is a good tank I’m sure, I just don’t think any more than a fully modernized one of its predecessors.

[@Rek1emMScar]

I don't see anyone with knowledge. Said that the T-90 Is the best tank. Yea Putin has said that it the best tank and shit like that. But that its mostly for marketing. The tank has always being the mediocre and cheap option. It was compare with T-80. And it wasn't even close to the Obj-187. Yea the tank has gone substantial modernization to keep it update. But before the WAR/SMO. most of these upgrade where done to appeal the export market. T-90MS/SM. Yea before 2014 Russian plan was to get rid of the T-90 in stock and sell them. And instead fill the rank with Armata. The plan at that time was for 2300 Armata to be build. After the 2014 maidan in Ukraine. The thing change and Putin knew that THAT would end in war. So Russia almost totally hold the production of the Armata and instead decide to Upgrade every piece of gear in their Arsenal. That its where T-90M pr3/T-72b3 and T-80BVM come from. Also 2:34 its totally false. The Bradley only managed to dmg the optic. If you want to said that THAT was a mission Kill, sure it was. That its also a mayor concern with Tank like Armata that mostly Relied in stuff like cam for vision.. But the Bradley it self did literally nothing to that T-90M. That tank was Hit by 3 FPV drone. The first dmg something in the turret or aim mechanic. The second hit the engine bay after the crew ram into the tree. And the last drone just Secure the kill AFTER the 3 crew of the tank leave. Westernoid Copium a lot that THAT T-90 was "kill" by the Bradley. But the 3 crew running a way from the tank. Just prove that the bradley couldn't penetrate the T-90M. If the 25mm autocannon in the Bradley would have penetrate the T-90M the commander or Gunner would be death. Or the Driver when the Bradley where hitting the cleavage in the frontal armor.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

"I don't see anyone with knowledge. Said that the T-90 Is the best tank." The only people who declare an objectively best tank are propagandists. And you're telling me quantity of people telling you Abrams is the best is what makes it credible? "Yea Putin has said that it the best tank and shit like that." He didn't. "The tank has always being the mediocre and cheap option" Why. "Yea before 2014 Russian plan was to get rid of the T-90 in stock and sell them. And instead fill the rank with Armata." Well duh. Armata was a standardisation project for entirely of the armed forces. They intended to get rid of everything that wasn't based on an Armata platform. Armata isn't a tank, it is a platform. This doesn't say anything about the T-90M, why would they keep it?

[@An1Kum]

Its a good tank unless you are a washington bot.

[@leonidnikityuk9460]

A brief overview of current tanks: T-64 was a cutting-edge machine of its time, but due to its compact size and limited payload capacity, it lacked potential for significant upgrades. T-72 was originally developed as a simplified version of the T-64, designed for mass production in wartime. However, the T-72 is a larger tank with more internal volume, allowing for the integration of modern equipment and extensive upgrades. As a result, modern T-72 variants outperform the T-64, offering more space for electronics and higher payload capacity for additional armor and systems. T-80 was designed as a response to contemporary NATO tanks and became the best tank produced by the USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine used the T-80 as the basis for developing the T-84, followed by the BM Oplot as its further evolution. (Both the T-64 and T-80 were originally developed in Kharkiv, and at that time, Ukraine had not yet lost its Soviet-era technical legacy.) In Russia, there were plans to create a new tank that would serve both as a combat unit and a symbol. This role could have been filled by either the "Black Eagle" project or the new T-90. However, the details of this period remain unclear. The T-90 was initially conceived as a completely new machine, and 1-2 prototypes were built. However, due to the economic challenges of the 1990s, the project was not realized. Instead, it was decided to modernize the existing T-72 fleet by equipping the T-72 chassis with a turret developed for the T-90 project, resulting in the creation of the new tank. It is worth noting that there are two versions of the T-90 turret: The early version features slightly wider "cheeks" to accommodate the Shtora active protection system (the famous "eyes" of the T-90A) but offers inferior armor protection. The later version is not designed for the Shtora system and provides better protection. P.S. I tried to explain everything as briefly as possible, I’m not an expert, I’m just interested in military equipment

[@leonidnikityuk9460]

I’d like to add my own observation: I’ve heard that Russia has resumed production of the T-80. From my point of view, a good solution would be to use the T-80 chassis and mount the T-90 turret on it. For those who don’t know, the modern T-80 has had its reverse speed significantly improved - it can now drive in reverse at speeds of up to 20-24 km/h. There are videos online confirming this. This solves one of the major issues with Soviet tanks - their limited reverse speed. The only remaining issue is the gun depression angle, but this is not as critical given how modern tanks are used in combat. Implementing such an upgrade for the T-72 chassis is much more difficult due to the design of its transmission, which would require a complete redesign.

[@leonidnikityuk9460]

By the way, before the war in Ukraine, I used to think NATO tanks were superior to Soviet ones. But now their weaknesses have become apparent. As far as I know, NATO tanks were designed more as anti-tank vehicles. They perform well in prepared positions, in defense, where they can take advantage of their strong frontal armor, excellent reverse speed, and greater gun depression angle. However, they also have significant drawbacks. These include maintenance complexity, higher weight that limits their mobility in certain terrains (65-75 tons compared to less than 50 tons for Soviet tanks), a smaller safe maneuvering angle (around 20 degrees compared to 30 degrees for Soviet tanks), and larger dimensions, which make them harder to conceal and easier to detect. Another major issue is the lack of powerful high-explosive shells. Soviet tanks, on the other hand, were designed as assault vehicles, and this concept is proving to be more effective now. Regarding protection against drones, I believe that "cages" (roof screens) are a temporary solution, as is electronic warfare (EW). The best solution would be a dedicated air defense turret, such as an automatic belt-fed shotgun, integrated into the tank’s active protection system.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@leonidnikityuk9460 "From my point of view, a good solution would be to use the T-80 chassis and mount the T-90 turret on it." This is not a good idea. The T-80 never ceased production, it was not an inferior or superior production, it is a different tank with a different purpose entirely. The Russians don't want all their tanks or even a majority of them using turbine engines.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@leonidnikityuk9460 "The best solution would be a dedicated air defense turret, such as an automatic belt-fed shotgun, integrated into the tank’s active protection system." Detecting small low flying drones is not so easy. Maaaybe proximal APS systems can be made to target drones I don't know, I don't see why they couldn't be, but outside of Israel APS systems aren't in widespread use yet. EWar systems are just cheaper, simpler and more reliable for now.

[@AJAtcho]

The only legendary thing about the T-90 is the horrible reverse speed.

[@kskeel1124]

Armata tank is still in the testing and developmental stage...

[@Neeboopsh]

the russians really need to at least go back to the t80's reverse speed. or, the upgraded (alleged) t80s 20+km/hr reverse speed. though the original speed is like 11km/hr but most other t series are like 5 or less. which is way too slow.

[@ikoiko5311]

Sadly this film is more about games than a tank itself 😑

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

Oddly enough, if they just played War Thunder they'd probably actually learn that tanks don't work the way they think they work. Imagine telling half these people that an Abrams can easily be penetrated by a 20mm from the side. Impossible they'd say, best tank in the world. They don't even know that the steel is not the armour.

[@SeattleJeffin]

If we do a comparison of legendary Soviet Tanks like the T-54/55 and T-62 I do not think the T-90 makes the cut. Perhaps the entire T-72 with all it variant's does, but in my opinion not the T-90 on it's own merit.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

PERHAPS the T-72? Do you know what NATO was rocking when the T-72 came out? They had Leopard 1's and M60s.

[@dbell1016]

Thanks!

[@_Matsimus_]

Thank you!! 😃🥰

[@nicolasorin922]

Dacă urmărești, uită-te în Siria și vezi un leopard ce a rămas din el și sunt 4 oameni în el, asta nu arătați,de ce?

[@joshuarooney8614]

Also look up the project black eagle tank or object 640 really interesting stuff

[@wigon]

The T-90 is I think a decent tank for the cost but only IF it is combined with Kontakt-5 or more advanced ERA. The shtora system has been removed from Russian tanks as it's been proven to be fairly useless against more modern variants of the TOW-2 ATGM and of course modern top-attack ATGM's like the Javelin and NLAW. More importantly, the shtora has no ERA behind it and as such gave the tank weak spots on the turret face that could be penetrated by the latest 120mm AP ammunition from Western tanks. All that being said, with the shtora removed and with proper ERA, I've yet to see one of them taken out by any Western tank in Ukraine. Those rare moments that they have been engaged by Western tanks, they were taken out by side hits or were disabled in some manner with frontal hits causing the crew to bail out. However that largely had to do with Western tanks managing to get the first shots on target which is what most modern tank duels boil down to. So in that context it is a very capable tank fully capable of destroying or at least disabling Western tanks forcing an end to the fight if they get first hits on target. As you say, drones are a game-changer however they do tend to cause more catastrophic damage to T-90's much faster due to the T-72 based ammo carousel used just below the crew compartment. They say that the carousel is armored but it doesn't seem to be heavily armored as drones still manage to set off that ammunition from hits on top of the turret. In thermal imaging their sights are not as advanced as the latest Western tanks, but on par with export versions used by the Ukrainian Army. So at the end of the day, it just boils down to training, numbers, and anti-drone tactics that wins the day. In that context, the T-90 is perfectly fine. Last I heard T-14 production was halted in order to concentrate efforts on producing more T90's. Makes perfect sense. Most of the ranges tanks are engaging are VERY close range for tanks. So they really don't need ultra fancy long range fire control systems if they produce variants strictly for close range infantry support and armored combat. That alone can drastically lower costs of production if they make simpler support versions with just a basic fire control system and basic thermal sights. More important are data links to video feeds from drones and good comms with infantry and other tanks to give the tank commander maximum battlefield awareness. Even better if the tank itself can provide a ECM resistant data feed to a company (or battalion) commander who's coordinating everyone so that the tank commander doesn't have to make all the decisions.

[@bryce4724]

I thought they cancelled the T-14

[@billwhoever2830]

According to the CEO of the manufacturer the T-14 is already in service with the Russian military but not used in the war in Ukraine because the T90 is sufficient and cheaper. They never said that they canceled the T-14, they made it clear it has never been used in Ukraine because there were some fake news. The CEO also said that the Russian government focused the funding on cheaper options, this is obviously because they are currently in a war. The T-14 is kept in whatever numbers it is available for use in the worse case scenario against more modern western tanks during a bigger war. The T-14 is actually being improved, after 2030 a new version with the 152mm is supposed to enter service, it will have the addition of thermobaric ammunition, fire and forget ATGMs and improved sensors for 6km identification range of enemy tanks.

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

@@billwhoever2830 The Armata project isn't even first and foremost an upgrade. It's just what armchair generals focus on the most trying to make direct comparisons between the T-14 and Western counterparts. Primarily the Armata project is just a standardisation for manufacturing purposes and future proofing modularity. Given that their industry isn't tooled to completely remake Armata based replacements for everything they have in their arsenal and given the circumstances, it is logical that the project is on hold.

[@chrisdavis3642]

No matter what it is or it's age .. if or when it shows up. It has to be delt with.. suppose a t34 shows up... ya got to do something about it??!! Right..

[@Alvarezpl]

IMHO, in today's war in Ukraine, looking from the Russians' perspective, T72/T90 tanks are a much better choice than some new super-duper MBT or comparably Abrams/Leopard tanks. 1. The fact is that any tank engaged in combat will sooner or later be damaged/destroyed by drones/artillery. So it makes sense to produce tanks that are cheaper to produce and repair, especially when they have existing production lines. When an Abr/Leo is damaged, the Ukrainians have to put it on a railroad car and send it to repair facilities in Poland, and then bring it back the same way. In contrast, 80% of damaged Russian T72/T90s are repaired in mobile repair shops located several kilometers from the front. 2. Unlike Western MBTs, they are lighter, faster, more mobile and fantastically capable of handling very difficult terrain. 3. Russian crews and mechanics are very familiar with this equipment, as it has been used for a long time. It also gives them access to a great pool of experienced veterans and reservists. 4. The tanks are mainly used (or at least that's what it looks like) for hit and run attacks or for conducting indirect fire. Aren't these tanks well suited for this type of task? 5. Tank-to-tank combat occurs only occasionally. And the better crew, better guided and supported by observers in drones, wins.

[@kieferkarpfen6897]

Western tanks are faster and more mobile though. 4kmph reverse speed is laughable.

[@Alvarezpl]

@kieferkarpfen6897 On German autobahns probably. Not on Ukrainian chernozem during snowmelt or rain.

[@mirandela777]

@kieferkarpfen6897 "more mobile though" sure, a 70 tons + tank sinking up to the turret in the mud, unable to cross most bridges, is "more mobile", sure... do you hit your head, kid ??

[@kieferkarpfen6897]

@@Alvarezpl If you mean the rumour that a leo can drive 100 kmh on the Autobahn I was talking about normal roads in ukraine

[@kieferkarpfen6897]

@@mirandela777 30 kmh reverse speed against 4. Your situation only applies in the mud season and the leopard 2 ukraine got only weights 62 Tons.

[@jonathanfalkman6041]

Im a little unaware, but why did the russians choose to only have a 4kph reversspeed on both their T-90 and T-72? as it has been shown in the war that its a massive flaw

[@elusive6119]

Because these are the features of the on-board gearboxes and its transmission, inherited from the T-64. It is impossible to replace the transmission in a reasonable time and cost, on thousands of tanks.

[@jonathanfalkman6041]

@elusive6119 was it a conscious decision to only have it at 4kph? Or is it like technologically limited for Russia?

[@kaneworsnop1007]

Whether it's true the reasons I've heard from multiple sources is because the soviets didn't want their soldiers to be able to retreat, high reverse speed isn't need to advance towards the enemy (or so they wrongly thought).

[@kopfstroh]

​@@kaneworsnop1007 It's because Russia has probably still thousands of transmissions lying around from Soviet times which they are using. Why bother make something new when you can use up old stocks that debatably still work well enough.

[@elusive6119]

@ In fact, the gearbox (which is the problem) in front of the on-board gearboxes in such a transmission is a necessary measure to unify the T-64, T-80 and T-72. It makes the production and repair of such a transmission the simplest, but imposes a limitation on mobility, which is partially corrected by automation of gear shifting.

[@АнтоновЯковлев]

Any tanker today the only thing they wish is to never be needed in an tank in an war. Ukraine special military operation have showed us how weak any tank is to modern solotions / drones etc its scarry how easy it is to destroy and stop an tank today!

[@mill2712]

Let's be honest though. I'd rather be in a tank than a foot grunt. And those guys will always exist.