Problems With the Russian T-90M tank!

[@budatx09]

Russian tanks are still happy tanks despite the issues. They will always have no depression in all models.

[@QuackCrac]

LOL true

[@onerimeuse]

Oh Lord... Wow. Well done. Lol

[@gaijinmq-9when951]

Fucking gold

[@farrel2114]

War thunder joke lol

[@ukuskota4106]

???

[@greg.kasarik]

As a former tank soldier, I agree 100% with your assessment of just how bad having a poor reverse speed is on the modern battlefield. To this day, I remain stunned that this issue wasn't fixed on the T-90 and T-72 upgrades. Reverse is just that important. A good tank crew will use a turret down position to locate targets, drive forward into a turret up position, fire and quickly reverse out of that position and relocate ASAP. With slow reverse, you are really setting yourself up for death, as even an ATGM (which probably has about 5 seconds of flight time in this kind of scenario) can potentially get to you, before you've managed to get off the feature. Indeed, with this kind of reverse speed, a good opponent could potentially call indirect fire onto your position, before you can scoot off into safety.

[@InsanoBinLooney]

A tank should be as fast in reverse as it is in drive in my opinion.

[@DustyGamma]

Could get a pizza delivered during the wait.

[@williamzk9083]

German Army Leopard 2A7 crews have a reverse camera. They want them retrofitted to earlier models. I suppose by mirroring thew camera you won't even need to know that your going in reverse.

[@greg.kasarik]

​@@williamzk9083 With a vision block, you can drop it, clean it and have it back in within 20 seconds. The major problem I see with reverse cameras on tanks, is going to be keeping them clean. I still don't know how this can be reliably done, as tanks throw up a huge amount of dust at the rear, and it takes less than a KM to build up a significant pile. Very curious to know how they've managed that problem.

[@xela6349]

Problem is that T-72/90/80/64 turrets can't go that far down, so turret up/down is kinda not a thing for them the way it is for Western tanks.

[@MatoVuc]

The poor reverse speed is probably going to be addressed following this conflict, as it seems like it is one of the most important learned lessons. That said, just because it will be addressed, does not necessarily mean it will be adopted. Retrofitting thousands of T-72s, 80s and 90s with a new transmission that will likely require a partial rebuild at the factory sound like and expensive and time consuming process.

[@Pittigpiertje]

Honestly I don't think so, they have other shit to worry about

[@jebise1126]

they did give it new engine. honestly how they keep the same gearbox i dont know... or maybe its not as important as few videos show us.

[@Schnittertm1]

Well, the Russians are currently working on reducing the number of tanks needed to be retrofitted and they are quite successful, too. Over 800 MBT visually confirmed destroyed and over 500 visually confirmed "gifted" to Ukraine. That's already 1,300 tanks that you don't need to upgrade.

[@pekmenn]

@Wat slava urine*

[@MatoVuc]

@@Schnittertm1 yeah. It's a good thing the Ukrainians didn't lose any of their tanks, too...

[@pabcu2507]

The problem is that it still doesn’t have enough putinium armor

[@Andre-yy3en]

A yes from stalinum armor now putinium armor

[@Orcawhale1]

No, the problem is still the reverse speed, as described in this very video.

[@atankersview]

Most underrated comment

[@Orcawhale1]

@@gutsnav8641 Nope, if you want the solution just watch the video.

[@atankersview]

@@Orcawhale1 im guessing you dont spend a lot of time talking to actual people do you?

[@jeremyholland4527]

I don’t care how good or bad it is, the T-90M is a good looking tank!

[@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here]

Absolutely, my favorite tank aesthetically speaking

[@yaboyed5779]

Same. 😍😍

[@zulfanirich7594]

Russian design is always good looking

[@jeremyholland4527]

@@zulfanirich7594 it’s honestly just what the individual thinks looks good. I’m not a fan of the T-72s or T-80s but the more squared off look of the T-90M I gotta say looks good. I’m still in the middle on the T-14. My favorite visual design is between the German Leopard 2A7s, the Merkava MK2 and the T-90M. Those are just good looking tanks!

[@odalv316]

Soviet tech looks menacing.

[@NotTrenchify]

You know the reverse speed really sucks when RedEffect states that it's "pathetic".

[@Shadow25720]

They should have taken notes from french tanks, their reverse speed is even faster than their forward speed.

[@yobama8424]

@Rosie They had the biggest army at start of WW2 too

[@v.d6809]

@Rosie The best at reversing. All NATO countries on their own are shit. They just bark a lot when in a group.

[@diltzm]

Any army in France's position at the start of WWII would have been steamrolled by Germany. Nobody was prepared for that type of combined arms assault.

[@nemiw4429]

​@@Shadow25720 haha

[@starling6438]

There are two variations of the T-90M, one of them with a new automatic transmission and a relatively high reverse speed and a steering wheel for the place of levers. But most of the T-90ms have an old transmission as they were redesigned from the T-90S and T-90A

[@Mr.Dodo-]

The new steering wheel and auromatic transmission is russian propaganda. It never existed.

[@starling6438]

@@Mr.Dodo- Dude, I served on the T-90A and on the T-90M. The experienced T-90MS has a new transmission. Perhaps there is even a video on the Internet where the T-90MS will have a steering wheel-joystick for the place of levers

[@Mr.Dodo-]

@@starling6438 There is not even one photo I can find.

[@Mr.Dodo-]

@@starling6438 Even the chinese post photos of their tank with a steering wheel lmao.

[@unterhau1102]

​@@Mr.Dodo- bro youre huffing so much copium rn

[@piotrd.4850]

PT-91M also had new power pack with french transmission which fixed the problem.

[@nemanjasavic3389]

From what I was able to find, the Twardy still has a single reverse gear. I don't think it's much faster in reverse than a regular T-72.

[@tomk3732]

Yep, so it can be done! And reverse speed is half of forward speed - very good indeed.

[@sheevpalpatine7588]

@@nemanjasavic3389 he was talking about pendekar, the malaysian export variwnt of the twardy

[@nemanjasavic3389]

@@sheevpalpatine7588 I see. Will look it up. Thank you!

[@justjoking5841]

PT91M has superior "Advancing Backwards" speeds.

[@cunicularius2064]

Actually, -3km/h reverse speed is consistent with Russian armored doctrine, which is the best, greatest in the world, and there is no reason or need even for reverse gear at all.

[@Trisket]

Who needs a reverse? Just drive to Poland and defect.

[@hohenstaufen2345]

As kherson showed

[@Saiga-saiga]

This is not part of the doctrine, it's just that transmission engineering was poorly developed in the Soviet Union. You may remember the Is-2 tank, but it's better to read how it worked, it's very entertaining.

[@123456gordon]

Would it be too humiliating to contract someone outside Russia to do the transmission for them? I mean at the end of the day if you can't do it, have someone else do it for you.

[@Saiga-saiga]

@@123456gordon Soviet Union has been heavily sanctioned since 1922, it just didn't have the option. Its entire potential is based on the Great Depression, when it urgently tried to outbid any engineering innovations in the West.

[@noticing33]

Russia doesn't even use cold War doctrine for which these tanks were made for originally, properly

[@barbarapitenthusiast7103]

Of course they arent, they cant. They arent going to be storming through western europe any Time soon, they also dont have the economic and logistics capacity to use the doctrine correctly

[@napobg6842]

The whole war is pretty much based on WW2 and Cold War era tactics.

[@barbarapitenthusiast7103]

@@napobg6842 all modern wars are

[@napobg6842]

@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 No not necessarily. I mean both nations still use some modern tactics like launching missiles or using drones but not as much as for example the US is doing.

[@Tsaruk_V8]

@@napobg6842 Thé US are only waging war against small/poor countries that simply can’t defend themselves properly. Against a country that packs some punch, they won’t fare so well.

[@orkako]

Poland was working on T-72 tanks with high reverse speed. The work resulted in the PT-91M2A1 and PT-91M2A2. On KZbin you can find a presentation of one of these tanks and its reverse speed capability. Poland, as well as other users of T-72 tanks, has the option of replacing the drive train that will allow high reverse speeds, but this involves huge upgrade costs. The T-72s were highly optimized designs, which now makes them difficult to upgrade. If we modernize the T-72 to modern standards we get a vehicle that is inferior to the latest tanks, and more expensive on top of that. This is why Poland hardly ever modernized its T-72 and PT-91 tanks, because it preferred to buy modern tanks better suited for future modernization.

[@LooxJJ]

No, Poland ended up purchasing Korean K-2 Black Panther tank.

[@cryptarisprotocol1872]

@@LooxJJ Is that not what he said at the end already.

[@dimitrius8095]

Poland is no stranger to using reverse gear

[@TheoEvian]

An interesting question: The "T-72EA" czech upgrade for UA T-72s claims considerable upgrades to the propulsion of the tank, do you think they also fixed the reverse speed issue or is that above their paygrade? (Not that such informations might be confidential)

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

Only educated guess, but increasing reverse speed would mean AT LEAST completely new gearbox and most likely major redesign of transmission. Even if money wouldn't be an issue, time would probably is. So as far as I can deduce - no, it's the same

[@РостиславСеркіс]

we only changed support rollers to t-80, reverse speed is the same but for it cost it's good usefulity/cost we only upgraded it to atleast comfortable conditions for fight because we have many old not modernized t-72s it's not the complete new tank or concept...

[@georgedang449]

Changing the transmission is VASTLY more difficult compared to dropping in new a crate engine in a tank designed to minimize profile by squeezing a highly simplified transmission into as small a space as possible. The Chinese had to do a complete redesign of the Type 99 hull to get a decent reverse gear, and even then they had to add the NATO hump, suffering the drawbacks that entails. There's nothing left of Soviet vestiges after that point. Russians, with their current lack of funding, both for R&D and retooling their production lines, are not in a position to do this.

[@TADAMAT-CZ]

I doubt about that. The transmission remained completely same, and the engine god only a slight upgrade. Improvement of the reverse speed could be by few % at best, which would still mean 4km/h

[@radekskuhra9536]

it probably isn´t in their budget do such a radical upgrade, these tanks will be worse or on par with t72b3 tanks at most, however of course I could be wrong since Ukraine has bought about 80 of these varients I don´t believe they will be a massive step up

[@krisfrederick5001]

Turrets work better on tanks, not hovering into the lower atmosphere.

[@brandaoz]

Don't f#@ck with the russian space program...Roscosmos is reshearching...

[@handsomeivan1980]

Not many NATO tanks field APS either. The only country that can probably implement them in any timely manner would probably be the US

[@jebise1126]

no... no nato country can field any they are just buying from non nato country 🤣usa has about 500 in order i think... but not sure how many in active use

[@theprotagonist8755]

Hahaha sniff that copium commies

[@borkwoof696]

They’re definitely in the process of implementing them increasingly and in that regard they are way ahead of the Russians

[@kuunoooo7293]

@@jebise1126 why the laughing emoji

[@dominiksoukal]

For a few years now every deployed American tank has had a Hard-kill APS

[@станиславсорокин-ъ6т]

В моделе т72б3 2022 года изменена защита задней полусферы танка, теперь нет металлических навесов. Везде навесная броня. Так же усиленно бронирование передней части танка дополнительными пакетами ДЗ

[@maxxxon516]

Это Т72б3М

[@towarzyszbeagle6866]

100% with you on the bustle auto loader. It will be expensive and require a taller and heavier turret. However it comes with a raft of benefits like longer penetrators being possible, increased internal volume in the fighting compartment when the carousel is removed, crew and tank protection from catastrophic ammunition explosion. I think realistically the T-90 could be brought up to a very high standard with these upgrades, all of which except for the auto loader are off the shelf available; - Bustle auto loader. - TURMS-T integrated FCS and CITV. - Transmission upgrade with multiple reverse gears. - Arena APS. Just a matter of whether RU wants to pay for it really.

[@CloneDAnon]

Or just invest into T14 Armata instead and keep this as a stop gap.

[@Alvi410]

I dont see the TURMS-T being an option being it Italian made and well... Italy is currently on the other side of the conflict.

[@mattevans4377]

Well if they don't, they will soon run out of tank crews. But I guess human life is seen as cheap to them....

[@Tom_Cruise_Missile]

@@CloneDAnon I mean the t14 project basically doesn't exist, and that was because of the far lighter sanctions after Crimea..

[@CloneDAnon]

@@Tom_Cruise_Missile Maybe you should tell the Russians about the non-existing T14 that they have built 50-100+ units and keep producing, now rolling out an export version too.

[@VyarkX]

I saw on a video of a crewman giving a tour of a t-72b3 with relikt side skirts, and he mentioned that the plats are actually overlapped, meaning there isn’t a gap, but another plate below. Not sure how true this is though.

[@ukuskota4106]

can you tell the name of the video and the channel?

[@VyarkX]

@@ukuskota4106 kzbin.info/www/bejne/naXZdqp9jLqDndE at around the 10:40 mark

[@ukuskota4106]

@@VyarkX I found the scheme already pp.userapi.com/c846418/v846418337/1eb481/6QAuMoYXtjc.jpg

[@VyarkX]

@@ukuskota4106 ah so there is a gap. That is seriously strange why they would leave a gap there though.

[@ukuskota4106]

@@VyarkX Choice was a Gap or destroying both ERA elements: upper and lower. I think

[@Sevastous]

The elimination of the autoloader is basically imposiible. Just like the japanese the bridge weight limits and production costs means they have to cut corners even on modern designs

[@williamkao5747]

There is going to be a HUGE market for upgrade kits for Soviet gear, I would not be surprise to see Soviet tanks and planes with upgrade kits that cost more than the unit itself. It is totally possible when hover tanks are invented, it will be put on T-72, 62 chassis.

[@Reinhard_Erlik]

Are hover tanks worth the price?

[@53kenner]

Does anyone actually think that a hover tank can go uphill? Heck, can it stop on the side of a hill? How about go downhill at an controlled speed and direction?

[@sergeyshchelkunov5762]

The reverse speed problem really surprises me. I had a chance to operate a typical bulldozer in the Former Russia, and it had 14 gears to move forward and14 to move in reverse, backwards. And it was only a matter of throwing the lever which dictated in what direction the torque was applied. In other words, the reverse combination was the same as the forward. But there was that additional handle that dictated which way my bulldozer will go. Then the speed was equal no matter if you drive forwards or backwards. Well, I guess a well designed bulldozer or tractor is far above any average Russian tank.

[@stevebuckley7788]

This obsession with reverse speed is kind of dumb really. Driving a tank in reverse is a lot harder than your average gamer thinks and it's nearly always better to rotate the turret and drive forwards. Yes the armor is weaker but you can drive at full speed and perform evasive maneuvers with less chance of running into shit including your own support troops when driving forward. Reversing you are much more of a sitting duck even at 30km/h and really risking running over a squaddie or getting bogged, trapped on a rock etc...

[@shouhanyun8203]

@@stevebuckley7788 probably why Leo 2a7 got a reverse camera.

[@soumyadeepchoudhury3201]

@@stevebuckley7788 Fax

[@stevebuckley7788]

@@shouhanyun8203 try reversing your own car at 30km/h cross country.

[@pax6833]

@@stevebuckley7788 There are a lot of anecdotal accounts of both Russian and Ukrainian tanks turning around to leave a battle and getting shot in the rear. Reverse speed isn't an obsession, it's essential on a GOOD mbt. Turning around in battle in insanely risky. Saying you can perform "evasive maneuvers" is coping. It is not difficult to hit a moving target.

[@suphakornchan9086]

Why those tank crew not using smoke to disengage from immediate threat?

[@blacksidehd4220]

that my friend is a very good question

[@militaristaustrian]

Maybe they dont have any or they are useles since nobudy used em in this war till now, nither Ukraine nor russia

[@woodzwalk]

Most likely poor training or complacency. Israel had this problem a while back when their tanks got ambushed with ATGMs and none of the crews popped smoke since they had been mostly dealing with poorly armed insurgents and never needed to use smoke before that point.

[@tacticalpanther9745]

Maybe they think that in the current situation, setting off smoke might make other people in the convoy think they have been hit and start running away as quickly as possible. I mean... if I was a ruskie I would! Yikes. Ahahahaha!

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

fr tho using smoke wouldve saved so many tanks and their crews

[@Dazzxp]

Well the Arena-E is like half a million each pushing the tank cost from 4.5m to 5mil. Seeing how things are going i think it's a worth while upgrade lol. Orginally troops did not like to be around tanks with an APS cause of collateral damage but since it's very rare see troops near tanks i don't think it's an issue.

[@Alexander_Hodge]

I agree. Its more justifiable on Russian MBTs than NATO tanks unless they do a thunder run. from the footage I've seen has NATO soldiers seem to work closer and move with the tank more in comparison to the Russian army. But that is conclusions I've drawn and could be completely wrong.

[@plasmaoc]

@Shinshocks And if hearing protection is in short supply. Say bye bye to your ears.

[@Angstbringer18B]

Infantry have to be near the tank. If a tank is hatches closed they have no situational awareness and need infantry to help keep them from being flanked or otherwise destroyed. I think this is why united states don't use ERA and just starting to use APS now.

[@Dazzxp]

@@Angstbringer18B There lies the problem we have been seeing, there is no/very little infrantry support. ERA is safer to nearby infrantry if they keep a few meters apart APS uses explosive rounds away from the tank making it much worse than ERA to infantry. ERA only goes off when when a shaped charge hits so the chances are if ERA is a threat to infantry they are already under a threat of the missile. Since APS intercepts such weapons a meter+ away means infrantry can't be as close to the tank anyway. If inrantry are under attack the tank can open up with HE rounds, if the tank is under attack the missile team will be fire on by supporting infantry. Thats why combined arms works so well but Russia still struggles to adapt it.

[@EpicThe112]

You are correct but there is a problem with Arena APS Tow 2B Gen 1-3 warheads do come above it while a Javelin Missile comes too steep for Arena APS to Engage

[@AlphaAurora]

The #1 problem is that the Russian Ground Forces did not want the T-90 tank over multiple cost issues, and opted for T-72B3. Meanwhile, India purchased most of the T-90s in service today. This made complete sense for the Russian Ground Forces' doctrine, budgets and use. Unfortunately, they never had the mass in Ukraine to actually use their doctrine to its full extent, and now suffer for it

[@foshizzlfizzl]

You are talking about the T-90A. Or in India's case the T-90MS.. Which is based on the T-90A but not the tank you see in the video here.

[@saucyinnit8799]

My main question is how does the T90M have only 4 km/h reverse speed when back in ww2 Russia has the IS-2 which could reverse up to 14km/h.

[@grmasdfII]

They were only supposed to go forward.

[@user-tv7fg7wt2d]

Low speed = high torque It is said that the low speed was for reversing out of mud and such.

[@grmasdfII]

@@user-tv7fg7wt2d Sounds like BS to me. The design weak point is usually the clutch, because in low gear engines with this much torque would easily break other parts of the drivetrain. Besides, you can have more gears - Renk proves it.

[@user-tv7fg7wt2d]

@@grmasdfII Their engines have that much torque and they still haven't broken other parts of the drivetrain. They didn't have more gears probably because of some limitations or just to keep things simple or smth.

[@grmasdfII]

@@user-tv7fg7wt2d Well, duh - as I said, the clutch starts slipping or bypassing (if it's hydraulic) before something else gives. By design. Whatever the limitations are, it's not technical possibility. So yes, it is a decision that has been made, and it's a bad one for the modern battlefield.

[@unterhau1102]

It's also worth mentioning that it takes a fraction of the cost of modern western tanks to produce a T-90M

[@JanZizka-fk8im]

The fraction is just 60% of abrams... So what? Still expensive

[@jonny2954]

Modern western nations are also a lot richer than Russia though.

[@RaymondCollishaw-i1e]

​@JanZizka-fk8im the export price for a sep3 is like 24 million

[@TheArklyte]

The main problem with T-90M is the same as with the rest of russian tanks - they're maintained, supplied and produced on russian budget by russian factories, crewed by questionable in terms of skill russian crews and thrown away by russian commanders and regime that view them as expendable. But yes, better reverse speed and removing ammo from EVERYWHERE and leaving it only in autoloader with extra plating would have been nice too. At least it got thermals and is able to use longer penetrator in its 2A46M5 then normal 2A46 so that people like me would NOT look at Mango-M and M900A1 for 105mm gun used back on Centurion and ask out loud "wtf is wrong with that 125mm"?;) Edit: see that large NOT? Google keyboard decided that it was unimportant part of the word "don't" and comment as a whole. Thankfully I wasn't discussing politics or warcrimes:D

[@revolverswitch]

"The car is only as good as it's driver." Applies to this extent as well.

[@voidtempering8700]

The fact that you think the Mango and m900a1 is comparable says more about your knowledge than anything else.

[@Spectre4490]

@@revolverswitch not when enemy will have Lamborgine any u are having VW Golf At Iraq war M1 can destroy old T-72 faster than crew of T-72 can see them, poor optics can`t fixed by skill

[@revolverswitch]

@@Spectre4490 also doesn't help that those t-72s were stripped down to bare essentials for more quantity. So it's Lamborghinis vs Ferraris but with their transmission, gearbox, and tires removed and the driven by teenagers who just got their driver's permits. I'm also referring to the poor strategy and leadership when mentioning the driver and car analogy.

[@williamzk9083]

The problem with Russian equipment seems to be that everyone involved seems to believe the sales brochure talk. All the way to the top (Putin). The Russians invested heavily in nuclear weapons, ICBM, Submarines, hyper-sonic missiles and large long range surface to air missiles S400/S350/ BUK M3 as well as upgraded fighters and bombers. These all seems good weapons. They neglected : SHORAD (Pantsir is ill conceived rubbish) Modernizing their Tanks. Command and Control Logistics Humanity.

[@SuperIv7]

Actually stated reverse speed of T-90M was increased from 5km/h on previous T-72 models to 15km/h. Upgrade to a single power module with new auto transmission is stated to also help make repairs easier.

[@buttnutt]

So why haven't we seen any T-90M reversing at 15km/h?

[@JAnx01]

@@buttnutt For the same reason we haven't seen one moving at 60 km/h.

[@buttnutt]

@@JAnx01 because they can't. Gotcha.

[@Chiboza]

@@buttnutt Where did you see it anywhere in action? Only seen destroyed/disabled/abandoned tanks, but no battle footage.

[@cheeseybob190]

@@Chiboza if you actually watched the video it shows it going in reverse.

[@martialme84]

01:56 Renk? Brother, *Renk* is a German manufacturer and world fucking famous for their transmissions and gear boxes. The fact that Renk manages to pimp your T-72 ride does in no way suggest that the russians ought to achieve the same.

[@ArmorCast]

So in other words, what you’re saying is that… the T-90 sucks?

[@jerrymont2595]

Excellent points made during your above presentation regarding the Russian T90's weakness. Good call by you I may add. Keep up the excellent presentations!.

[@WwarpfirewW]

Its always easy to complain on the design, but more interesting thing is why those solutions arent adressed, there must be serious reason for that, especially since balancing overall good tank is important, it might be cost or manufacturing capabilities. But as we know from wars before, complex tanks are not worth it when met with masses, for example like Shermans vs. Panthers or tigers or T-34 etc... I still think that cost and manufacturing time as well as avability of components is main objective. Many western tanks face problems with too many parts being manufactured across Europe thus in real war hard for logistics to met manufacturing speed and repairs on demaged tanks. Also we must keep in mind, that modern tank designs came mainly from WW2 experience and were upgraded from experiences of specific conflicts where nature of war is different then large scale one, not even one in Ukraine, which is more simillar to WW1, showing adressed problems such as reverse speed, when tanks are used on small storming operations with almost no maneuver tactics thus not efectively supported by infantry or other complex means of cover. One or couple of tanks in open are always easy target. Another thing in this type of combat is absence of proper tank units where command vehicle is able to direct orders and cover disadvantages in limited view and overview on battle as a whole (Im here inspired by WW2 memoirs of tank leaders, where this type of awarness saved many combats). Overall Its learning curve in time for any millitary who didnt participate in any large scale warfare long time, technology progresses in such a hurry, that many ascpets are outdated and It takes long time to properly figure out what is a good tank in what situation today. I would myself like to see examples of a good tank use because everybody is interested only in failures and proper usage is overseen. EDIT: As I thought about this, we only look on one specific problem which is really hard to expand, tank survivability vs. extremely powerful weapons, but best solution to this is good combined arms warfare where threats are dealt with by other means, artillery suppression, smoke cover, aviation, reconessence...

[@MrPezsgess]

Cheapness is a big factor. The Leopard 2a7 is near 15 million US$ while the T 72 is less than 1 million US$. Just think about it. It's crazy even if they lose 10 tanks they still win. The biggest factor is the crew if they are well trained they can easily destroy any modern tank just as easily as everyone else. We see that most russian tanks were destroyed by a side shot or back not a head on. That's skill issue.

[@SingletonD]

Is the problem that it doesn't have a convenient ready to tow tractor trailer hook?

[@Draconisrex1]

The T-90 is the T-72 with a new turret, a T-80 gun, new fire control and some other basic improvements over the T-72B3. That's why it still has the same basic carousel, it still lights up from top-attack munitions, and can't backwards more than 4KPH. And it's not anywhere near modern NATO tanks. There is so much it doesn't have that you see on the Leopards, Abrams, etc.

[@piotrd.4850]

T-90M has all wielded turret, BMS and other stuff.

[@jebise1126]

yes one thing you dont see on leopards and abrams is auto loader 🤣but they come with nice ejection seats 🤣

[@kasualmechanic4854]

Want to correct some things: 1: the gun is the 125mm 2A46M, which is an improved variant of the 2A46 found on basically ever modern soviet tank (T72, T64, T80). 2: it is modern. It has got massively better optics and FCS, a better commander sight and heavily improved armor. There is this stupid idea going around that only and I mean only russian tanks get popped by top down attack weapons... they dont. Top down weapons will absolutely annihilate any tank, and in general, it's not that difficult to knock out an MBT nowadays. The most often reason for why the turrets on russian tanks get popped is due to the fact that the ammo carousel can only hold 22 rounds (on T80s the carousel can hold up to 28, but I cant find out which carousel the T90M uses), and thanks to this low ammo capacity, crews often take extra ammunition, putting it in other vacant spaces, and this unprotected ammo gets hit 90% of the time

[@Saiga-saiga]

@@kasualmechanic4854 It uses a carousel, like on the T-72, but with a protection with a steel 40mm cylinder, and not aluminum, as stated in the video. An aluminum cylinder is installed on the T-80BVM.

[@kasualmechanic4854]

@@Saiga-saiga yes, I did say it uses a carousel, but I couldn't figure out which one. The protection on the carousel varies regardless of model, and there are 2 different ones. One version is used on the T80/T64 where the ammo is stored vertically, while on the T72/T90, it is stored horizontally. And since this is a T90M, and considering how much they have changed on it, I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the carousel

[@holton345]

Everything they have is either a kludge, an improved kludge, a rotting, rusty kludge, a misappropriated kludge, or some future kludge that they can't even manage to kludge together without foreign technological hand-holding. EXCELLENT…

[@aaronpaul9188]

The T80 has a solid if unspectacular reverse speed, no? So it seems like they could have fixed it, and decided not to for some reason. I dont think its cost, i think there was a specific choice to have a poor reverse speed. Its stupid, and a bad idea. But i do think its an intentional one.

[@circassiannobleman4066]

В доктрине применения танков советским союзом не было нужды в хорошем заднем ходе. Т.к. не предполагалось, что танкам придется отступать. Только наступать большой армадой.

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

T-80's were built for the most part in Ukraine though, right?

[@lani6647]

@@circassiannobleman4066 Let’s be frank, that’s nonsense. Tanks, when retreating don’t do so in reverse gear. They just turn around.

[@thegenericguy8309]

@@lani6647 Yeah good reverse speeds are for tactical positioning and evasion, not for actual long movement

[@AndrewC6]

Yes it's a good tank for sure. I am baffled beyond words at the 4km. For reverse. I can walk faster. The anmo storage is the big issue for me. Scary sitting on a potential blow torch.

[@LapkaKutiapka]

If something can damage enough current ammo storage to cause an explosion, be sure, crew have no chances to survive in any way.

[@thephoenix756]

With the sole exception of the M1a2 Abrams, every Western tank stores at least 2/3rds of their ammunition in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels The Leopard 2 stores only 15 rounds behind blast doors; the rest of the rounds (27) are in the crew compartment, next to the driver. The Challenger 2 stores none of its rounds behind blast doors The Leclerc stores 22 rounds behind blast doors; and the rest (18) are located in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels The Merkava mk4 stores only 10 of its 48 rounds behind blast doors.

[@cayden2744]

​​@@thephoenix756 Pretty sure the ammo compartment next to the driver on the Leopards is never used in combat. Could be the same for the rest

[@thephoenix756]

@@cayden2744 No, it is used in combat; the Germans have never done away with those 27 rounds and I don't see that ever happening.

[@aa1944-k2r]

love the T90M, as a further development of the T72, I dont think there is a lot of room to do much better than this with money constraint. given the price of the tank, I think its a great tank.

[@marcbuisson2463]

The video does not speak about it. But my guess is, the biggest problem is not the tank, but how the russian army uses it and protects it.

[@grmasdfII]

​@@marcbuisson2463 The T-72 heritage of cheapness and mass-producibility still plagues this tank. Yes, it was supposed to have combined arms support. No, that alone won't fix it. Casualties were part of the design, which Russia can afford much less than the Soviet Union. It's hard to maintain, because it's essentially a throwaway tank. It's completely unsuited to the kinds of wars Russia did, does and is going to be able to fight.

[@Subhumanoid_]

Isn't T-90 a T=72 body with a T-80 turret thrown on top? (and then later thrown across the field)

[@Max_Da_G]

@@Subhumanoid_ Not really. original T-90 was a T-72B with Shtora APS, larger amounts of Kontakt-5 ERA, better engine and T-80U fire control system.

[@Subhumanoid_]

@@Max_Da_G So, a T-72 body with slightly different bling bolted on top. Okay, T-80 fire control in the turret, but not T-80 armor of the turret?

[@soothsayer2406]

Outsource the Transmission swap to the Chinese, They have the know how and large production capability to do so

[@LewisB3217]

Don’t think China will want to help Putler rn

[@kaijusushi8165]

Sure that will work, until the chinese factory does the old switch-er-roo and substitutes scrap metal from recycled patio furniture for the high grade steel called for in the specs.

[@soothsayer2406]

@@kaijusushi8165 lol same old racist trope...don't you know the Chinese make your smart phone...go throw out your phone and computer now since they probably filled with scrap metal which your head and logic are also filled with

[@kaijusushi8165]

@@soothsayer2406 who poisons babies to make an extra buck? who are the purveyors of fake food, fake pharmaceuticals, fake airline parts, fake bridges, fake auto parts exported to the word?

[@aceinternational4788]

@@LewisB3217 china and Russia are allies

[@dj1NM3]

The slow reverse speed seem like such a weird design choice, surely they weren't considering reversing into a maintenance garage or onto a transport vehicle as its only uses? It means that they can only shoot, but not scoot, when in combat.

[@alexfortin7209]

It’s a feature not a bug: Soviet tank doctrine has no use for a fast reversing tank and a tank being able to depress its main gun. During the Cold War on older designs, only the leader’s tank had a one way radio to receive orders which were passed on using flags. Soviet doctrine is top-down with no feedback or individual initiative - they don’t even have NCOs.

[@thebigone6969]

You’re the greatest tank expert in the history of the world fam!!!!!

[@webber4192]

A tank in modern warfare is a 1-shot task. In Ukraine, the war is being waged with the help of drones and artillery, 60-70% of all Russian tanks are destroyed by corrected artillery, it makes sense to talk about problems with tanks if, when they are detected, the probability of their death is 90%, even Abrams with 1000 mm armor in the Middle East were destroyed in the sides of rpg7, rpg-29, and the ATGM penetrates even the cheeks of the tower . Nowadays tanks are needed to break through the enemy in large numbers, the fact that 1 t90 tank is destroyed in an open field is a problem of the command, not the tank.

[@BBCRF]

да 70% брони выбито артиллерией

[@mungo7136]

Except - the reverse speed limit as explained limits the survival chances of the tank. Ammo storage limits survival chances of the crew. And so on. Probability of the death of the tank is not 90% because even for artillery it takes time to start firing mission and then hit the target. Further away, more time it even takes shell to fly to the target area and less accurate fire is - unless expensive guided munition is used. And penetration is not equal to destruction of the tank, especially for HEAT warheads when its energy was mostly consumed by the armor envelope.

[@alexfrey4828]

I'd love to see a video on the BMPT Terminator. I believe it was used in this conflict.

[@bastianstiefler3390]

yeah, it was a desaster ^^ russian armed forces do not have many of them and thereby they never got implemented into doctrine.

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

@@bastianstiefler3390 there was a picture of one near Bakhmut today.

[@bastianstiefler3390]

@@Just_A_Random_Desk Interesting if it was recently taken. But not totally surprising due to it's propaganda value. But I have my doubts they are making a real diffrence anywhere in Ukraine due to my statement above. Any Equipment is only as useful as it's integration

[@mbtenjoyer9487]

Russia only has 10 of them 💀 And barely been used ( I doubt they even cared about it and mostly focused on export to Algeria where they delivered 300 of them )

[@patclark2186]

I think task and purpose on YT had a video on the Terminator

[@avery4149]

When I was still a child, tank enthusiast was drawing what future Russian tanks would look like, and they look cool. Made me believe the Modern Russian tank are on par with the West. Now, the future is somewhat here, we got a couple of college students and a company that doesn't specialize in tank manufacturing, drawing and creating "futuristic" practical solutions, because the "modern" one was never good, it just works.

[@mill2712]

Hey, maybe one day these designs will improve future tanks. But first a bunch of changes have to happen in Russia for that to even be close to a possibility.

[@danielalexander799]

The problem with the T90M is that the turret is blown off, and the hull is a burnt wreck.

[@kanestalin7246]

I think when the war is finished they can probably do an upgrade with the t72s and remove there turret and replace it with that of the t90m, then they dont have to build as much hulls just the turrets, that could be a very cost effective method in my mind.

[@LewisB3217]

Who even knows if they’ll have tanks left by the end with the way it’s going

[@kanestalin7246]

@@LewisB3217 They can just make more

[@LewisB3217]

@@kanestalin7246 no? Lmfao ruzzia is poor rn, can barely afford to keep its army funded let alone build thousands of new tanks

[@dislikebutton543]

@@LewisB3217 nope

[@LewisB3217]

@@dislikebutton543 fitting name

[@Karolcz123]

will you do a video about the t 90 Burlak?

[@ezraleon6846]

interesting, since RENK is a subsidiary of MAN, which i believe is German, i wonder if they would be allowed to offer the upgrade to Russia or not? also find it odd that a company under Germany/France would develop something for T-type tanks

[@stupidburp]

There are a huge number of soviet style tanks in use outside of Russia.

[@dannyzero692]

@@stupidburp could be a huge market, but seeing that the Germans managed to make a better transmission for Russian tanks instead of Russia is a bad look for the Russian military industrial complex.

[@rollog1248]

Who needs a reverse when you're just getting sent forward to be javelin'd? No steps back comrade!

[@iamhighonair]

Thanks for actualy criticizing and not just shitting on T-90 as most of KZbinrs do nowdays, just because "its Russian".

[@Sunshrine2]

Again. What is the effectiveness of Relikt mounted on an unstable platform-mudguard, etc. Doesn't the KE protection get diminished by that?

[@purplehazer7231]

What is the effectiveness of a relic?

[@zhaunju]

Watch this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKW0fKyZft94hck

[@handsomeivan1980]

Might actually increase the protection because the block can potentially be pushed in allowing more time for the ERA to be in contact with said threat. But that's observation

[@thewolfcries8670]

@@purplehazer7231 hahahahaha

[@circassiannobleman4066]

@@purplehazer7231 в сочетании с основной бронёй защищает от тандемных боеприпасов и от современных бронебойных (например M829A2) на расстояниях от 1км.

[@zabdas83]

T90m is one GOOD looking Tank, I like the concept of stay with same design frame essentially. But modify it as you go, instead of building new Tanks, which cost way too much in modern times

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

In the end not building hulls will catch up with you though...

[@zabdas83]

@@Lancasterlaw1175 It works for Russia, T50s - T90s is basically similar Hull. But modified. Now they built the T14 Armata, which has been expensive, overdue, and limited production. They should just modify T90s to near or pass NATO standards!

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

@@zabdas83 The T-90 is a good tank, but to change the entire transmission is a big change, I mean the designers of the T-72 were certainly not intending for their tank to go toe to toe with NATO in the 2020's and 2030's. It is only a matter of time till your tank is starting to look like the ship of Theseus and it starts to make more sense to just build a new tank rather than endlessly pimping your ride so to speak. And while Russia has a LOT of T-72 hulls sitting around, it is only a matter of time until they run out at some point right? Last time you want that to happen is mid war.

[@shananagans5]

The biggest problem I see with the T-90 is the turrets aren't stable in the air. They seem to tumble in an uncontrolled manor once the altitude exceeds 50 feet.

[@죽은_시민의_사회]

They should probably add guidance fins to fix the issue

[@robert100xx]

Dynamic instability in the air. Lack of foresight in russian tank design. You can't fly it if the cabin crew get left behind.

[@robevans8625]

No t90 has been hit and lost the turret

[@bradenhagen7977]

Not a Tuesday before 2pm anyway...

[@mikeheinlein3746]

An easy solution for the poor reverse speed would be to get rid of the mechanical drive train, and switch to diesel-electric transmission. Not only would it have much faster reverse speed (it should be as high as the forward speed in fact), but much faster acceleration, no transmission or gearbox, which means fewer moving parts, greater reliability, lower weight, more room freed up for other things, and lower overall mechanical complexity. But this would require a fairly expensive overhaul of existing tanks, might be better to just implement it on the T-14, which it might have already.

[@petertreklas395]

We also can't forget the view port, any tank driver out there would appreciate having a 120 degree field of view making the driver move the tank more freely without having to rely so much on the rest of the crew. Imo t-80bvm>t-90m

[@mystictomato9466]

Considering that T-90Ms were sent in mass in this war and only two have been lost and both weren’t even destroyed by the Ukrainian armed forces but were instead destroyed or abandoned by Russain forces to prevent capture, that probably speaks by itself when it comes to how much better T-90Ms are than other Russian tanks.

[@casualgaming2570]

2 minutes of research tell me that your number are wrong and are probably Russian Propaganda.

[@wolfno.7558]

It is up to seven now but only two actually were destroyed, both in the kharkiv region. Two have been captured after being abandoned, two were abandoned (one after damage) and another is believed to be out of action but not destroyed after taking an artillery hit. This is still a really good performance from the tank considering they have been seen in heavy combat on the frontlines and in some of the fiercest fronts (they are now seeing use in Bahkmut) especially when you take into consideration the performance of other russian tanks. All and all it is one of the best tanks in the world and is proving itself with its combat record.

[@1KosovoJeSrbija1]

@@wolfno.7558 yea no those are oryx numbers based on every picture of a t90m missing a track

[@mystictomato9466]

@@wolfno.7558 Sources and links? Red effect showed one abandoned T-90S in this video and presented it as a T-90M. If that one is counted among those 7 than that would been that the total count of lost T-90Ms is no more than 6, if that number is correct of course.

[@techpriest5452]

@@mystictomato9466 I wonder how an export variant that russia does not use ended up in ukraine?🤔

[@diagatjl6096]

Here's what they need to: make a hatch unable to open without a platoon commander's decision, make sure that those who don't want to fight a war won't be able to claw their way out of their tank even if they want to, as it seems the crew abandoning the vehicle is far more common than actual destruction of it

[@tacticalpanther9745]

Yes please do this russia... this would be absolutely epic for the views. Bwahahaha.

[@diagatjl6096]

@Brian H A lot of them don't understand why they are sent there in the first place and have very little incencitive to fight for oligarchs and what's not

[@TheorientalAsianman]

Right so if a tank catches on fire and the crews need to escape, they have to first radio the platoon commander for permission to leave? Please follow this advice Russia, that way your tank crew attrition rate can go sky high and tankers definitely will not hate their platoon commander.

[@kanestalin7246]

Uh didn't the Ukrainians already do this.

[@LexxoID1]

low reverse speed is included in the general doctrine - only forward))

[@horatiodreamt]

Good vid. It seems that the T90 is also a great smoke belcher. Wow.

[@castsmith6783]

If russia plan on using crew capsule like in the armata, wouldnt the carousel system be more useful compared to the bustle autoloader? Since they can put something else in the bustle (ie. Drone, more ammo)

[@saucyinnit8799]

It would actually.

[@lotuscabage4755]

Yeah but that's need so much research, for now at least they improve the ammo rack location tho

[@viktoriyaserebryakov2755]

Carousel is not much of a problem as people think. As stated, most detonations occur because of the loose ammunition. A round going right through the fighting compartment and hitting the carousel won't matter if the crew dies either way. But a carousel does have other problems as mentioned.

[@Niko_rj]

I have a video with the T90M from 5-10 meters. video as he moves back. it actually has -4km/h.

[@namesurname624]

Post please

[@Niko_rj]

@@namesurname624 how? Do you have Telegram or Discord?

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

@@namesurname624 hehe time to spam with bot accounts >:D

[@namesurname624]

@@Just_A_Random_Desk day as usual then 😂

[@supersarge24]

@@Niko_rj I have discord, at least. RedEffect does too.

[@colonel_cookies_]

As a tank connoisseur and for the more a supporter of Russia, I have to say I totally agreed with what you said, this video is very objective. I personally don't know why Russian Federation Army don't improve their tanks aspecially the reverse speed because they could have the best tanks in the world if they do improve it, the main design of the T-72 is actually really good but there is change to do.

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

Maybe it is down the company which builds the transmissions? Maybe they'd have to get all new machine tools to build a new transmission at scale and it was never invested into?

[@colonel_cookies_]

@@Lancasterlaw1175 they have to invested, that's not my problem

[@viktorD4]

@@colonel_cookies_ the tankers were asked what you choose: a quick reverse or an instant dash forward. for 10 years they choose 2

[@Lancasterlaw1175]

@@colonel_cookies_ I am not sure if they have actually been buying brand new machine tools- I mean if the old ones worked and that is what your workers knew how to use, why would you? 2000's Russia when they could have made these long term decisions was not exactly cash strapped.

[@colonel_cookies_]

@@Lancasterlaw1175 true

[@coryfice1881]

Someone looked at the reverse speed of the T-90m and went "Ahhh it's fine."

[@les07derEroberer]

i like how he says that a cancelled tank "won't enter service anytime soon"

[@needtau4138]

Putin played too much warthunder, and the Russian bias got to him

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

how long until he sends all his mig29s to ukraine lmao

[@TheNicestPig]

If Putin played War Thunder he'd order the removal of the lower plate and driver optic weakpoint, replace the transmission to something with more reverse gear, and start developing a bustle autoloader

[@night7185]

@@TheNicestPighe'd also stop making tiny tanks with no gun depression and figure out what a blowout panel is

[@hphp31416]

@@night7185 no need for blowout panel if you have blowout turret

[@night7185]

@@hphp31416 facts

[@donaldhysa4836]

1:32 one could give a benefit of a doubt that the rough terrain didn't allow for a fast reverse or the tank was damaged from enemy fire. Still we have not seen these guys show any decent reverse speed in any footage

[@nebunezz_r]

No benefit of the doubt here. T-series tank reverse speed are just bad, T80 somehow fixed it with around 10kmh reverse speed.

[@죽은_시민의_사회]

@@nebunezz_r keep in mind 10kph reverse speed is still horrible compared to other tanks

[@Cobra-King3]

@@죽은_시민의_사회 especially western tanks which have reverse speeds comparable to that of top speeds on other tanks

[@manumanitas161]

The video says it is a T-72 ...

[@Cobra-King3]

@@manumanitas161 yeah, because the T-90 is nothing more than a rebranded T-72

[@Saiga-saiga]

0:16 This is not T-90M, but T-90S, these are different tanks ERA Relic has protection against tandem ammunition The danger of the carousel is one big speculation, in the event that the carousel is hit, the crew will not care. Western tanks, except for Abrams, also have no chance when they hit the ammunition load. At the same time, the turret ammunition becomes terribly vulnerable at course angles of attack, and since. Since most of the tank’s ammunition should be high-explosive shells, it doesn’t matter what explodes first, a carousel or a turret niche. But the survivability of the carousel can still be increased, this can be done by installing the most advanced systems for fighting fire and adopting new shell casings. It is shell casings that are the weakest point of Soviet vehicles. I have already seen a lot of videos where the tank starts to burn, it can be physically saved, but the danger of rapid ignition of the shells forces the crew to leave the tank, and the fire extinguishing system cannot cope.

[@Rururudenko]

T90S? you mean that exported variant? I don't think so.

[@jebise1126]

oh... i think you are right it does not have hanging balls in front...

[@Saiga-saiga]

@@Rururudenko yes, this is the export tank. There is a video where these tanks, which never went on sale, are driven out of the pits for further transfer to the Russian army. They are easy to distinguish from the T-90M in appearance

[@nabara6949]

Looks more like T-90M to me. About the ammo being hit, in western tanks there is always blast door in the rear ammo compartment (Italy's Ariete is an exception I think). Which means as long as you don't put ammo out of main (rear) ammo compartment you'll be safe from the blast.

[@Saiga-saiga]

@@nabara6949 this works in the case of gunpowder in shell cases, they will burn out. But when the shells themselves explode, no anti-explosive panels will save the tank, it will be destroyed just as you can see the T-64 with torn off frontal parts of the hull, because they were filled with high-explosive shells during their lifetime.

[@rael5469]

7:50 Holy cow ! That's a fancy bike.

[@tylerdurden4006]

It is so weird how bcoz everyone is easily trained with memes, that a tanks ammunition blowing up after being directly hit with an anti-tank missile and everyone is already dead that somehow the tank is weak. If the ammunition blew up on its own I could see it a problem, but I am pretty sure every tank in the world blows up after taking a direct hit from an anti-tank missile. 🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@purplehazer7231]

The difference is, you are supposed to use tanks properly... russia doesn't. But also, their armour is real weak. Let's speak frankly.

[@phunkracy]

@@purplehazer7231 speak of the devil, another one from the meme brigade

[@thewolfcries8670]

@@phunkracy meme brigade? Nah common sense brigade.

[@Pixilated]

Because when the ammunition explodes, the tank is destroyed and can never be used again as well as killing all the crew instantly. If the ammo is stowed behind a blast door, then the tank won't be completely destroyed in the explosion and can be refurbished, repaired and put back into service meaning you dont have to rebuild a brand new one. The crew also has a higher of living so they could bail out and run.

[@Pixilated]

Yes it will still blow up but it wont be completely destroyed and can be recovered

[@ubtech2938]

Even puting an ( APS ) on T-34 will make it a modern tank . every tank is better than arjun including T-34

[@MrJC1]

BRAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... uhhh....

[@SCH292]

"Arjun tank best!".

[@purplehazer7231]

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.... wait... you serious about your first statement?

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

just add a K to the end of "arjun" to give it an accurate name :D

[@jebise1126]

@@Just_A_Random_Desk what does it mean?

[@loremipsum962]

Thank you for a great video! Just want to admit that T-64 don't have a problem with reverse speed like it successors. T-64 have 2 forced reverse speeds even. If you want a closer look on Ukraine operated tanks see another nice channel "Shawshank Redemption". Author is an ukrainian tankman, there are a lot of videos on ukie and some trophy rus tanks.

[@mrmakhno3030]

2 forced reverse speed that usually don't work and make T 64 look like a decent praticing target for T 80BVM.

[@bradenhagen7977]

@@mrmakhno3030 cope

[@baryonyxwalkeri3957]

"Sir, the autoloader won't fit!" "Put it in sideways." "The APFSDS rounds won't fit!" "Cut a hole in the back and let 'em stick out the back!" "The reverse speed's no good!" "Take 5 car engines and put 'em together."

[@patrickmcglynn5383]

You mean the country that can't make a good car or dishwasher or TV can't make a good tank either?!

[@sinistersilverado965]

T-90's have proven to be the best at the Turret Toss in Ukraine

[@mrmakhno3030]

Oh, average Western braindead . T 90M is the least destroyed tank in all of the Russian tanks in Ukraine.

[@thewedge8823]

just wait til you see the abrams and leopard turret toss!!

[@sinistersilverado965]

@@thewedge8823 nope, Russian tanks are the best at tossing the turrets

[@Rubensflow]

@@thewedge8823 if you fill them with TNT probably

[@Cleon851]

@@thewedge8823 Abrams and leopards are advanced and not poorly made like Russian counter parts

[@DUKE_of_RAMBLE]

I suspect the reason for keeping the slow reverse speed is because it forces crews to keep pushing forward. As I see it then, your choices are: A) Push your opponent(s) and either hope it intimidates them into making a snap-judgement mistake, or let's you find cover while others provide cover fire; fairly good chance of you being destroyed. B) Engage, then reverse to avoid detection........ except, an elderly person using a walker can move faster; high chance of detection and therefore you bring destroyed. C) Rotate turret 180° and "reverse" into position, engage, then drive "forward" to avoid detecting; your armor now consists of an engine block, which if taken out, you're screwed, but either way it's a _very_ high chance you're destroyed no matter what. Verdict: brush up on Ukraine's methods for how to properly surrender, as that's more likely to save your life than your tank would!

[@TheShadowOfZama]

Russian tank commander: "Full speed reverse!" *Tank reverses extremely slowly.* "Russian tank commander: "I said FULL speed!" "Russian tank driver: "This is as quick as it will go sir." *Tank keeps going in reverse slowly.* Russian gunner. "You forgot this was the top speed when going in reverse didn't you sir?" Russian tank commander: "Heat of the battle alright. You know what I think we're far enough away now, turn this thing around and just drive normally again." "Russian gunner: "But sir, we've moved like 50 meters or so." "Russian tank driver: "Yes and I am already sick of it so I am turning the tank around now." *Ukranian soldier looking from afar.* Ukranian soldier: "They're such goofs." *shakes head*

[@jamesocker5235]

It seems also crew training and proper tactics would improve survivability

[@werwolfnate]

Having a crew survive multiple encounters, including attacks that total their tanks, serve to having not only having better trained units but experienced ones. It becomes a self improving loop were if a crew survives they can improve and even share their skills with others, which in turn would up survivability. Crews and pilots are the least repacable asset of any vehicle, because there's no fast way to replace them and their experience and knowledge.

[@KolyaNickD]

The training is on the job. A bit of combat experience is the best training of all, if you get through your first contacts that is.

[@1337wafflezz]

The lack of any hard kill is also pretty astonishing in the modern era

[@gregorysurovoi3968]

Apparently, according to Russia-24 news channel, it's got an "aerosol dispenser" to create a cloud above it that will confuse the FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile. It would be interesting to see how this works when the tank is moving or if a wind is blowing.

[@Tom_Cruise_Missile]

XD that's fucking hilarious! Next they'll tell us it has a big trampoline on top to bounce away the missiles!

[@maxo.9928]

Major takeaway: the worst soviet-designed tanks still in service (with a supposed major power) are the ones in Russia, just about everyone else has now either gotten rid of them or have upgraded them in a more comprehensive way. Russia doesn't even seem capable of maintaining a consistent Hi-Low mix of vehicles in meaningful numbers in it's inventory, if they could just settle on a package and upgrade even 1/4 of the T-72 fleet, they would be on the right track.

[@xXrandomryzeXx]

Bulgaria 💀

[@nickzila4641]

@@xXrandomryzeXx bulgaria aint no major power

[@xXrandomryzeXx]

@@nickzila4641 he wasn't talking about major powers, but about users of soviet era tanks. Also, Bulgaria is one of the biggest users of the T72 in NATO, especially after Poland donated more than 200 of their T72s.

[@thewolfcries8670]

@@xXrandomryzeXx 200 cat litter boxes :).

[@saint_alucardwarthunder759]

How's Ukrainian T-64 in whatever version is better than whatever version of T-72B3? Or Polish PT-91? There are tons of countries that not only operate T-72s, but also old-ass garbage like T-62 or M60 with some add-on armor slapped onto them.

[@NZobservatory]

The capabilities of Russia have been grossly overestimated for many decades. It's actually kind of hilarious.

[@NZobservatory]

@Artem And yet it has been grossly overestimated since 1945.

[@NZobservatory]

@Artem The Soviet Union was never anything more than just Russia and a few satellite states. Russia was always in charge and the rest did as they were told. But it's hilarious to think so many in the West believed Russia's claim about being a superpower. 😆😅🤣😂

[@NZobservatory]

@Artem It’s death. Nobody is going to let Russia have Ukraine.

[@dobridjordje]

​@@NZobservatory In the 50s/60s and 70s Soviet Union was a huge menace to every country in the world. It was the corruption of 80s and the 90s that ravaged throughout Russia that absolutely crapped their army and logistics. Your way of thinking would just get you KIA by an AK-74 in the head, learn to differ power of different nations then and now.

[@NZobservatory]

@@dobridjordje The USSR was just as overrated as present day Russia. The only difference is the USSR’s nuke force received some occasional maintenance. Russia’s nukes haven’t been touched since Gorbachev.

[@BigHistoryBuff44]

Honestly, I think T80 is a better tank than T90. Remember that T-72 was originally designed to be the economy tank, to be mass produced vs T-80 which was a more expense, higher end design initially. Obviously many upgrades have long since gone into both but the platform they began with does, at least in part, dictate how much they can do with them or the cost to bring those cheaper tanks to the higher standard. It is funny to think that the Soviet Union suffered from politics as much as western nations in the end when it comes to defense contracts.

[@ericerpelding2348]

Based on the October 8th Twitter video, the T-90m is a deathtrap.

[@bushsbakedbaby1374]

Only tank that comes with an ejector seat

[@thewolfcries8670]

Rumour has it that the ejector seat was removed to save on cost. ;).

[@jebise1126]

leopard a4 ejector seat is way better

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

@@jebise1126 debatable but it definitely has one lmao

[@thephoenix756]

With the sole exception of the M1a2 Abrams, every Western tank stores at least 2/3rds of their ammunition in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels The Leopard 2 stores only 15 rounds behind blast doors; the rest of the rounds (27) are in the crew compartment, next to the driver. The Challenger 2 stores none of its rounds behind blast doors The Leclerc stores 22 rounds behind blast doors; and the rest (18) are located in the crew compartment without the protection of blast doors or blow-out panels The Merkava mk4 stores only 10 of its 48 rounds behind blast doors.

[@Pew_Pew_TV]

The T-90M is a very potent tank. It is a tank that is underrated too much in my opinion. And about the APS, western tanks do not have them either, the leopard 2’s with APS aren’t in active service but are still in prototype fase. You also mensionned the poor reverse speed on the T-90M, that’s because the russians never go backwards but only forwards in battle, unlike the Nato tanks. The last thing that I want to mension is the T-90’s that were taken out in Ukraine. They were all taken out by top attack missiles and drones that impact on the top armor of the turret where it is the thinnest. All tanks have thin top armor, Leopards(~20 mm) and Abrams(25,4mm) included. If you would fire those exact same weapons on them, they would be taken out quick as well.

[@raider968]

"You also mentioned the poor reverse speed on the T-90M, that’s because the Russians never go backwards but only forwards in battle" Aka, charge in to die. 😂That is a stupid chest-beating justification. A terrible reverse speed in modern tank warfare is simply BAD. There are many videos of T-72 - 90s doing full U-turns to get back into cover. This is not only time-consuming (thus exposing the tank to more danger), but a single hit on the rear would disable the engine and render the tank inoperable. This is a major design flaw of the T-72 platform that the engineers still can't fix in their T-90M upgrade.

[@Pew_Pew_TV]

@@raider968 And the US was afraid to send its Abrams tanks because they know that they will be taken out by anti tank weapons. The russians are a complete different oppontent than the Iraqi’s. The US thinks because they can win against a lonely, small and badly equiped army like Iraq that their tanks will survive a battlefield with modern atgm’s. Look to what happened to those Turkisch Leopard 2’s who invaded Syria to fight ISIS, multiple got knocked out by ISIS atgm’s by rebels who never used those weapons before. The Russians do train with them, together with air- and missileattacks, they won’t last long.

[@angusmacgyver]

Even in this video was shown a Russian tank backing off, a few seconds, then it turned and decided to show its rear and flee that way.

[@Pew_Pew_TV]

@@angusmacgyver I understand what you mean but the Leopards who invaded Syria to fight isis DID have good reverse speed but they still got knocked out by pourly trained isis troops with atgm’s. I know it’s one of the biggest dawnsides on russian tanks, but it’s always the same and only argument you guys have against T-90M.

[@GhostArk71]

@@Pew_Pew_TV Btw you can’t compare the leopard 2 Tank losses in Syria cah that’s been poorly trained Turkish crews which Russia doesn’t have in the T90m aswell as the old leopard 2a4 version which can’t be compared to the brand new t90m and leopard 2a7v

[@davidpalmer4184]

Russia could look back to WWII for inspiration from French and Italian tank manufacturers. I believe that they had many more reverse gears than forward ones. It may help with them retreating in this bullsh#t war they started.

[@HATCH5T]

Lol the war was started by Ukraine in Ukraine

[@davidpalmer4184]

@@HATCH5T And it is logic like that which ensures your tanks can't reverse. You idi#t

[@HATCH5T]

@@davidpalmer4184 says someone who doesn't even know how the war started and keep blabbering shit

[@voidtempering8700]

@@HATCH5T Wow, cope is real with this one. Tell me, how did Ukraine start the war?

[@HATCH5T]

@@voidtempering8700 u know?the civil war? Donetsk and Luhanks? Looks like copium is real lol

[@johnsteiner3417]

When it comes to the T-90 I'll never not think of Armor Cast's merciless mockery of this machine.

[@aphelios9157]

Reverse speed is poor because they don't plan to retreat

[@_jagerceptio_2790]

This Conflict only showed one thing that Tanks without APS are just outdated. Send in any NATO Tank it would do the same. Noone have Laser Warning Recievers and most if not all besides the new SEPV3 have no ERA making them even more shittier. Tanks havent adapted and what you need in todays world is basically the T14 on Paper. Armored Capsules , Harddkill APS (Not the ye ye ass Trophy for RPG BS only the real Deal against APFSDS), ERA, Unmanned Turret, Laser Warning Recievers, Drones, Tube Launched ATGMS etc etc literally Millions of Shekels worth of Equipment and in the End you can still be spammed with Drones and Top Attack…. Edit. Answering the Question but what about Infantry Support or Air Coverage and the Possibility that Nato is better in those Aspects. 1. Infantry cant do shit if the Missile is fired Outside Engagement Range + to advance in the first place you need Tanks wich makes the whole Ordeal a Devil Circle. Infantry cant move up without the cover of Tanks. People tend to forget that Defence Lines are made up of more Units than just the AT Squad. It would already Help of the Tank knows its being fired upon aka Laser warning receiver since most mid range long range AT still uses Laser Guidance. The Russians rn are doing exactly the same thing a Nato Unit would do (No we arent better as my Experience as a Combat Engi GebPiBtl8 German Army) 2. As seen Airforce can be suppressed by literal Manpad Spam and for them to even engage the friendly Unit must know where the Enemy is and a AT Squad is made to be mobile or to expend their Ammo as quickly as possible and fuck off cause everyone and their mother knows they are a priority target. Also it is not easy to find out where a Rocket came from. (Also from Experience anything beyond 800m and with little camo is very fukin hard to make out) Excuse my bad Grammer am writing this while we have a smoke break

[@handsomeivan1980]

I like this comment, it should be pinned

[@jebise1126]

what tank needs is infantry support so that ambush does not happen. also you are right modern nato tanks did not do well in hands of gucci army in yemen

[@layneparker7408]

The main difference would be NATO tanks would have better air and infantry support which would affect heavy armor performance 10 fold regardless if NATO tanks are better or not. It's all about combined arms

[@stc3145]

Nato tanks would at least be supported by air power and infantry. Russians used to (maybe they still do?) send tanks in alone into built up areas

[@Jinhadascam]

Yeah, to be honest - no nation can afford even to produce APS serial. Its just too expensive.

[@azisandwich]

It's a good turret tossing competitor

[@pabcu2507]

Good competition involving t72s! (Though the Turkish leopard 2 tank did take a good height as well)

[@Orcawhale1]

No, not really. If anything, this is probably the worst, due to the armored ammo storage, and seperate compartment.

[@militaristaustrian]

Till now not one has yeeted its turret so its worse then Leos and m1a2s in this regard

[@dew7025]

@@Orcawhale1 the armor does nothing

[@Orcawhale1]

@@dew7025 It does as a matter of fact.

[@ТоварищМиша-х2э]

There is nothing Like a Perfect Tank

[@Subhumanoid_]

I like how nobody uses smoke canisters for ANYTHING!! I understand if you're under ATGM attack it is waaaay too late to do anything but THIS was the perfect situation for it.

[@Subhumanoid_]

@TEXOCMOTP You have some GREAT videos there!! You got yourself a sub from me!! Can you suggest where on the internet can I find some good _uncensored_ videos since any kind of bloody action gets blurred for KZbin?

[@MichaelGreen-dm2ov]

Perhaps addition of some anti drone upgrade detection that works with the automated machine gun. I know it sounds crazy but DARPA has probably already did this.

[@BenVaserlan]

A recent press release from the Russian MOD stated the T-90M has 'elements of' the Afghanit APS. Have you notice any and what do you think?

[@skeletonkey6733]

All main components that make the T90 what it is are no longer available. Thales France and Rhinemetal Germany will no longer sell to Belarus who then shipped straight to Russia

[@LewisB3217]

W

[@thephoenix756]

The Russians have already produced their own analogues to what Thales provided

[@noticing33]

Russian command is a fail

[@olegorlov1379]

What a surprise if USSR was devided to 15 parts it is hard to support tanks and etc as good as possible. What could happen with Abrams tanks in case US devided to 50 states?

[@MrJC1]

US doesn't divide, only conquers. :D. brahahahaha.

[@sectero9450]

Funny. Tanks were produced only in RSFSR and USSR, at Kiev and Kharkiv T-64 and T-80UD. RSFSR Leningrad T-80s, Tagil T-72. Others are small factories compare to those ones. Both of this countries have all materials needed to produce their tanks but Russians had ammunition and sights factories (NPZ). And the most important thing Russia have lot of cash. But because of corruption and imperialism they get dunk.

[@maxo.9928]

And yet the other post-soviet operators of T series tanks do a better job at maintaining and upgrading their fleets 🤔 russian problem 🤷‍♂

[@sectero9450]

@@maxo.9928 Kind of, Because Ukrainians have a lot of funny prototypes and got very little Money almost nothing from 1991 to 2014. They had no plants to maintain T-72, T-80 isn't cheap because of gas turbine only variant is T-64, which have more durable parts(as tracks for example) than T-72. For me these Soviet buro war and creation of T-72 was a huge mistake, because they wanted minimal effort and maximum number and T-64(but still better then any west tanks of this period) was garbage, T-64A as B pretty solid tanks

[@Rururudenko]

@@sectero9450 you don't know why the T-64 was delay, it mainly because it engine issue and suspension durability issue. all this get fix in T-72 ural or to be precise obj.172. but it just that later variant don't get good upgrade.

[@Hellfr4g]

lazerpig: "the rule of thum in russia is, if you don't see it, they don't have it. we´ve seen 8 t-14´s, they have 8 t-14´s" to increase penetration they could also increase the weight by using depleted urainium instead of tungston like the us

[@voidtempering8700]

The Soviet Union has been using depleted uranium since the 80s.

[@AFT_05G]

Depleted uranium doesn’t offer any meaningful advantages over tungsten rounds that’s a myth. It’s just cheaper with roughly the same performance.

[@Hellfr4g]

@@AFT_05G since uranium has a considerable higher atom mass than tungsten (u238 to w183) means that a 1x1x1 cm/inch cube made of uranium is a lot heavier than a tungsten cube with the same dimensions.. (depending on the crystalline structure, if the packing density of the tungsten crystal is considerably higher it might be closer but it should still be higher due to the massive difference in mass i guess) therefore a projectile with the same dimensions must have a higher penetration ability because its heavier and has a higher kinetic energy (all other parameters being the same...) only talking about penetration potential u must be wrong i never said anything about overall performance in combat [edit: actually the density of pure uranium is slightly less than pure tungsten so there must be a big difference in the crystaline structure and packing density but pure elements are not used in the projectiles instead its alloy and turns out due to a higher amount of uranium (99%) to tungsten (90%) in the final penetrator the uranium sabot is actually heavier :P]

[@Hellfr4g]

@@AFT_05G just did a little research: Does a tungsten dart penetrate armor better than depleted uranium? ares alecto@quora People with limited knowledge will say no. The real answer is: It depends on the velocity. The advantage of DU penetrators is that they have a self-sharpening behavior due to adiabatic shear bands aggregating on the sides of the tip rather than on the front. This is a unique behavior and very very useful in penetration. So far so good. Let's keep praising DU. Because of this effect, DU penetrators have up to 25% more penetration AT THE SAME SPEED than the Tungsten variant. Notice the bold written words. This is an important limiting parameter. The propellant arranged so that DU penetrators travel around 1500 m/s which is on the low level. To achieve the same penetration with Tungsten, you should have more speed. So let's accelerate DU more and achieve great penetration right? WRONG. Because DU ammo will act as frangible ammunition and penetration will be less than the penetration at low speed. This is because of the low strength and hardness of DU alloy. After a certain speed, they tend to fracture prematurely. So what is the real advantage of DU? There are 2. 1- By detonating a low energy propellant, you greatly extend the lifetime of the barrel and achieve great penetration at the same time. 2- DU is pyrophoric and will decimate enemy combatants. It will cause fires inside bunkers and vehicles, it will suffocate the crew, it will burn the crew and cause many other types of awful deaths on the enemy front. The advantage of Tungsten rounds is that it can travel with much higher velocities without losing so much penetration efficiency. This is also a significant tactical advantage in upcoming turret designs in the 21st century. Up to a point, the equation is simple; Higher the speed, the higher the penetration (unlike DU). Choosing a penetrator material is not a simple task. The availability of material and manufacturing techniques has as much importance as tactical superiority. Even politics play a role here due to battlefield contamination issues addressed in worldwide media.

[@Hellfr4g]

@@AFT_05G so ur not entirely wrong talking about overall combat performance that could be achived in the future but i am still right in my statement about penetration without even considering the adiabatic sheer effect the exit velocity of the current 120mm leopard 2 gun is 1750m/s so maybe the next 130mm rheinmetall gun might make tungsten more effective but currently DU penetrates a lot better the further the distance to the target also the pyrophoric effect makes it a lot more deadly for the crews inside, currently u often see russian crews exit the tank after being hit (and then being able to operate a new tank) so u are also wrong about combat performance in my opinion ok close combat urban fighting and the enemy being less than 50 m away tungsten might be superior ^^ best would probably be a uranium core and tungsten mantle to avoid fragmentation at high velocities or some other uranium alloy without that characteristic for maximum penetration

[@BBanzaj]

I dont think its that they are unable to make the reverse speed better, they just dont bother for some reason

[@Blazed_Operator]

Gets shredded by a Bradley

[@kyizelma]

it didnt lol it just got its optics shot out any tank can do that

[@Blazed_Operator]

@@kyizelma I’m pretty sure in the video it says it got destroyed by the Bradley dude

[@IceAxe1940]

​@@Blazed_OperatorBradley disabled the sights and damaged the turret mechanism but didn't destroy it, the T-90M was later destroyed by an FPV drone after the three crew members escaped and ran on foot.

[@Blazed_Operator]

@@IceAxe1940 so it was a mobility kill in my book

[@IceAxe1940]

@@Blazed_Operator It wasn't a mobility kill since the engine and tracks were still operable, the crew bailed out due to their sights being damaged but the tank itself until the FPV drone came was fully mobile.

[@Tonnkk]

Very cool video, i think that the t-90m is a step in the right direction for Russian tanks.