Why Is Russia's T-90M Performing So Bad?

No sponsor... times are hard
Check Out Project Owl on Discord
/ discord
For Business Inquiries - [e-mail]
Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
----------------------------------
Credits:
Footage:
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
The NATO Channel
Ministry of Defence of Estonia
Department of Defense (US)
"The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
KCNA - North Korea State Media
Music:
BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
T-84-120 Image
Author: VoidWanderer
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
2003 Iraq War Protest
Author: Kafziel
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

[@JR-gp2zk]

It is amazing that you can probably walk faster than a T90 in reverse.

[@skepticalmagos_101]

It's wild considering that you have to shoot and scoot sometimes.

[@rock3tcatU233]

The Italian Ariete C1 is as fast in reverse as going forward. :D

[@nemiw4429]

​@@skepticalmagos_101its no built for that. Soviet army was built to iverrun the West snd push them out of Europe and they would have succeeded to 1980, after that probably less and less. NATO planed to use yow yield nukes in Europe, bad decision, "only use small nukes" wont work. It will escelate.

[@WimsicleStranger]

@@nemiw4429Russia were the ones that planned to use low yield nukes, that’s why they still plan their entire doctrine around using nuclear weapons, despite never actually using nuclear weapons in anger 😅

[@Ass_of_Amalek]

unless you're disabled, you certainly can. most people normally do.

[@Ianmundo]

it’s a T-72 in a skirt, save yourself 8 minutes

[@user-bb7yi8vl1m]

Sure. Shoygu stupid minister

[@erichammond9308]

It's a piece of junk, made for offensive firepower to the exclusion of survival. Like always does, "soldiers are cheap, equipment is expensive", whereas the West has always been the opposite.

[@mba2808]

@@user-bb7yi8vl1mthank god.

[@eliososa6878]

Thanks

[@robotnikkkk001]

......NOT EXACTLY,NOWADAYS ALL TANKS ARE STRUGGLING AGAINST ANTI TANK ROCKETRY AND MAYBE JUST ARTILLERY .......IT'S NOT TANK THAT BAD,THAT'S TIME CHANGED.........UKRAINE DOES NOT HAVE SO MANY TANKS TO DESTROY DO MANY RUSSIAN ONES............

[@pieter-bashoogsteen2283]

I once heard a saying and it goes like this: Russia has a large modern army, but the large part aint modern and the modern part aint large. Seems pretty applicable to the current situation now.

[@danielm5551]

Whats the current situation? Beating nato and Ukraine all at once? Destroying supposedly the best tank in the world leopards 2, killing 101st airborne troops in a pizza place without them even seeing the frontline or hypersonic missiles destroying patriot systems like it’s nothing?? I guess you’re right lol

[@planetcaravan2925]

​@@danielm5551sorry ivan to tell you, you are done

[@Bigglesworthicus]

@@danielm5551 The Russian MOD is not a reliable source.

[@vortolex]

Common sense imagine you have a 1000 soldier and you have only specific budget you spend it you will only give 100 high quantity sword to the best warrior, the rest moderated or at best good sword for your regular (standard) issue sword for the 900. To avoid enemies getting better weapon that would be the optimal time option.

[@dannykeuerleber7419]

​@danielm5551 ya but your forgetting nato equipments ability to reform after destruction, after all russian is at 45/15 patriot systems destroyed and was destroying time traveling Bradley's fighting before being delivered.

[@vojtechpribyl7386]

In Russia you also had the matter of servicing a MASSIVE tank fleet. They'd have to have a new construction and logistic chain to set up and we've seen with the T-14 that it might be above their financial means to support along with their legacy tank fleet unless everything was just stolen.

[@santiagorestrepo2000]

But Russia is trading massively with asia, and with the increase in oil prices, some tech sharing with their partners, and the experience gained from the ongoing conflict, surely they can improve their tank designs. You can never underestimate your opponent, less so a great eurasian power.

[@marcbuisson2463]

@@santiagorestrepo2000 Hello, my name is Santiago restrepo, I believe in russian propaganda, and do whatever I can to fool myself. Oil prices are not increasing, and it won't deal with the biggest problems of the T90 production. Aka a complete lack of advances machine toolings, funds and competences. As well as either a doctrinal use or practical use quite underwhelming.

[@gerritvalkering1068]

@@santiagorestrepo2000 Maybe. They weren't able to pump out a lot of T-90M when they weren't sanctioned on a lot of its more modern components, let alone more than a few T14-Armata. There is little tech sharing with China. China is happily selling inferior tech at steep prices and buying oil at a massive discount. Can't say I blame them. Add an ongoing war and I'd say it's not the best time for Russia to design a new modern tank and take it into production. I'm not going to grant calling Russia a 'great power'. The one thing I grant you is to not underestimate an opponent. Look at what happened to Russia and learn from the example.

[@gusramos3620]

They chose to have a massive fleet of tanks instead of upgrading their logistics, air force etc. and despite lacking the funds. The fact is that russian military is flawed and outdated by design and it needs massive reforms to function properly which might as well include the replacement of current tanks.

[@highdefinist9697]

@@santiagorestrepo2000 Yeah, Russia sells its oil to India, and gets rupees in return which they can... only use to invest in India, since rupees are a controlled currency, unlike for example the Euro or Dollar, which can be spent anywhere. Really, the EU and the USA know what they are doing. We might not be able to prevent Russia from exporting its oil, but we are certainly able to make sure it is extremely unprofitable, and that's what really matters.

[@piotrd.4850]

Malaysian PT-91M ( derivative of polish T-72 upgrade ) can manage 30-33 kph on reverse and almost 70 kph forward....

[@phunkracy]

Yeah but it has an entirely new and french power pack. It aint cheap

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

one just died i think

[@theimmortal4718]

With most tank kills being either victims of artillery or ATGMs, the ability to outgun other tanks is less relevant than being able to move fast and see far, while being able to fire lots of programmable HE rounds

[@Biden_is_demented]

This guy (the channel owner) is talking out of his arse. What he said about two piece munition demonstrates it. Having 1 piece shell is what restricts the amount of variability, as it can´t be too big that it becomes unwieldy inside the turret! A two piece shell allows for bigger propellant charges, which is what is allowing russian tanks to fire at 10km targets! It also allows them to fire missiles, and shells with auxiliary rockets to reach even further, something that 1 piece CANNOT DO! And he needs to be reminded that 90% of the tanks even today still carry ammunition inside the turret, and even Abrams has been seen blowing the turret sky high. It is not a problem inherent to just russian designs. And saying it is doing bad, having lost 23 of them in a year and a half of war, when the Leopard 2 have been in the field for less than a month, and has already lost more than that! This all reeks of russophobia, which has been the norm with western channels. If at times this channel has been on point, at others it has failed miserably, allowing politics and emotions to seriously cloud the work. As it is, this video is just cheap propaganda, trying to denigrate russian machines. Especially considering that the west has not fought in a war as deadly as this one, it is folly to think western designs would fare any better. The images out of Ukraine prove it, as dozens of Bradleys, Leopards, CV-90, Krabs, Caesers and M109 rust in the steppes.

[@RedbadvanRijn-ft3vv]

@@Biden_is_demented I'm going to prepare the garden for winter. So I was able to buy a Russian T72 turret. They are now dirt cheap, due to the huge supply. And has flown only once. Very nice with winter perennials in it

[@Biden_is_demented]

@@RedbadvanRijn-ft3vv Did you buy a brain? Oh right... out of stock in your S size...

[@kevinhank17]

​@@Biden_is_dementedstop swallowing Russian propaganda, five leopards have been lost at this point.

[@quadgod8111]

@@Biden_is_dementedno only 13 leopard 2s have been destroyed so far you can check orynx. Also most western tanks store ammo outside the turret on the other side of a blast proof door only being open when the loader opens it to grab a round if the ammo is struck it’s designed to cook off upwards through the burn out panel. You look stupid now.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Some corrections: 1) The reason why is simple: the main tank killer in this (or any other conflict) is not the other tank. Here, it is ATGMs, artillery, drones, mines... And they make no difference between new or old tanks. Modern ATGMs are rather powerful and will go through most tank armor. Others attack from above (Javelin, NLAW) where armor is rather thin on any tank. Pretty similar with drones and artillery. In those conditions, the type of tank is irrelevant. Just look at Leopards; they performed about the same as T-tanks and Abrams wouldn't be an exception, that is for sure. Oh, and mines? They either tear tracks and immobilize the tank or pierce through floor. Once again - tank type makes no difference... 2) Carousel is less of an issue than first thought. For example, destroyed Leopards in Syria. They have blast door and no carousel, and yet when you look at the photos, you see turrets popped up on them, too. How? Well, additional ammo stored inside the hull. That got hit and cooked off. Same here. T-72 carries maximum of 45 rounds, but 22 are in the carousel while the rest are all over the interior. So, both Russians and Ukrainians came to the conclusion that carousel is rarely hit directly. Instead, that additional ammo is hit, that ammo cooks off and then the chain reaction reaches the carousel and you have a popped turret. And let's be honest: when any ammo cooks off, does it matter whether the turret flew away or not to the crew? As a result, both sides in this conflict now go to battle with only 22 rounds in the carousel and 0 additional ammo inside the hull. And what do you know... Pictures of popped turrets are now very rare... So, the reason is the nature of this war and anti tank weapons used, not any design flaw or whatever.

[@jetjockey18]

Thank you for articulating this so well.

[@carlgustafemilmannerheim9360]

Finally a man of knowledge

[@dennisbosse4981]

thank you for your explanation, makes totally sense if you try to compair leopards and t-tanks in the ongoing fights. The videos seems like western propaganda if you factor in your information.

[@handsomeivan1980]

I was gonna post an almost identical comment, wonderful

[@CS-px9rr]

Thanks, now I don't have to say it. You did a better job articulating it anyway

[@the7observer]

I'll play devils advocate to the caroussel autoloader: it was designed before top attack munitions and accordding to WW2 data, most hits were to the turret of the tank. So it made sense to put most ammo in the hull (just like a lot of later WW2 tanks like the sheman, Tiger II had spots to put ammo in the turret but the germans decided to just put ammo in the hull to reduce change of ammo getting hit). Then ATGMS like NLAW and Javelin became more and more common. Then that's where I'll stop being devil advocate: Russia Knew about the fricking top attack munitions and had enough time to develop a new design or redesign existing tanks to mitigate or eliminate the issue of the ammo storage safety

[@92HazelMocha]

To be fair, there isn't a tank that could survive a Javelin (or equivalent like HJ12 or Spike etc) anywhere in the world. Even hard-kill aps systems have elevation limits so ATGMs that fly in parabolic arcs would be basically impossible to defeat realiably.

[@phunkracy]

They had time to develop a new design and they did, its called T-14 armata

[@the7observer]

@@phunkracy LMAO they have only a handful that can barely replace 1% of their existing tanks. The T-14 is too expensive to be compared to the T-90 or T-72. What Russia could have done was to use the "burlak" turret that promised to separete the crew to the ammo and the goal was to be put in the T-72/T-80/T-90 tanks, so no need to create an entirely new tanks. But the project was shelved and the armata suffered hundreds of delays (also has a very weak turret armor, which means the gun can be easily disabled)

[@phunkracy]

@@the7observer burlak turret is not new, but a derivative, that's one, second, if youre getting rid of autoloader you run into other problems to the point that you may just as well build a new tank. Finally, it is true that Armata is expensive and difficult to produce, but it doesnt mean its a bad design, it just means its better for Russia to modify already existing tanks as they are currently at war. It isn't even a purely Russian problem, USA had a stealth attack helicopter aka Commanche which was better in every way than Apache, but decided in favor of AH-64 because they could get more of them cheaply. Doesnt mean Commanche was bad or anything. The US could also easily produce an entirely new tank instead of M60 derivatives, but for the very same reasons decided to stick with M60. It was good enough. Same story with Sherman, they kept on pumping them out even though they had M26 and T20 tanks both superior to Sherman.

[@phunkracy]

@@the7observer meanwhile Armata adresses all of the issues of older T-series tanks: larger, spacious, modern FCS, APS, strong armor, new gun, very well protected crew, separated ammunition etc. Its a fundamentally good tank.

[@daniel_dumile]

I was hoping he'd show the picture of Wagner troops getting a T90 stuck between buildings in an alleyway

[@StrangerHappened]

It was not stuck, as it has turned out. It was blocking the way. After the mutiny was over, it went away with no issue, with no damage to the buildings

[@DigitalDiskette]

Link?

[@daniel_dumile]

@@StrangerHappened even so ramming your tanks ERA into some building posts is not very smart. It was right up against the tracks/sideskirts too. I know tanks are supposed to be tough but they could have thought that out a bit more. It was obviously powerful enough to get itself out though.

[@donr444]

That was a T-72 and it wasn't stuck. You could clearly see the gap between the tank and the building.

[@agoodpfplayer232]

@@StrangerHappened bro, wagner does not have t90m's

[@deaks25]

I wonder if the T90M is also being singled out as a priority target similarly to how after D-Day in WWII German tank crews were instructed to identify and target Sherman Firefly’s before other models; we’ve seen video of T90’s defeating Ukraine’s T64 mainstay, because it’s more modern optics give it the first shot advantage, so it would make sense to target T90s.

[@ssglbc1875]

Same for any modern Russian weapon system. Same with western tanks sent to Ukraine like leopards 2s and Bradley’s. They were priority target now we barley even see them in combat anymore

[@davogeorge4525]

Yes, I think so.

[@para_magnus2200]

@@ssglbc1875 probably because most of them got blown up quickly in the initial phase of the failed counteroffensive

[@wc2195]

@@para_magnus2200 ukraine has taken 253 square kilometers of territory in 1 month 17 days since the start of the counteroffensive, the same amount that took russia the past SIX MONTHS to gain. Imagine losing all of your gains in essentially 1 month of a counteroffensive. Also ukraine still retains 80% of all the western vehicles and weapons that were sent in for the offensive. Try again.

[@thesupreme8062]

​@@wc2195ukraine probing attacks have been very effective for being just probing attacks, theyre probably qaiting for the f16s because the war isnt goinf to last roll next year seeing how the russian armt has been collapsing more each day

[@21kiwi24]

The autoloader turret toss meme is really beiny thrashed to death. The effectivness of modern AT weapons is the moat significant factor. Dying, vs dying with your turret being tossed makes little difference to the dead crew and decimated hull. Kornet or jav, which MBT is survivable from a hit?

[@tnminhkhoi1398]

None

[@21kiwi24]

@@tnminhkhoi1398 exactly

[@name18745]

Yeah it’s a huge strategy issue and crew issue

[@Maverick966]

I could say the same thing of the Leopard 2A6s destroyed in Ukraine

[@hummingbird9149]

No tank is invincible, but atleast in the case of the Leopard 2's the crews made it out, incl. in the single one that later cooked after having been struck again and again during the entire day. Meanwhile Russian tanks tend to immediately flare up or go boom, leaving little to no chance for the crews to escape.

[@Blessedcurse515]

@@hummingbird9149 show me 1 video of the destroyed t90m where the crew did not survive

[@rohampasha9667]

​@@hummingbird9149theres tons of videos of Russian and Ukrainian Crews jumpibmng out of burning T-64BVs, T80s and T72s from the last year

[@Vexas345]

​@Blessedcurse515 I can dig up a video where the whole crew survived. Granted, they were on fire, but they were still moving, so I guess the T90m truly is a great tank. Lol

[@mirzasufi9204]

@@Vexas345 yep that one that got hit by the arty 3 crew manage to get out but the driver got burn

[@carpinchosexenjoyer1893]

>top of the line technologically advanced mbt t-90 >look inside >it's just a refurbished t-72

[@caracallaavg]

>look further >it's turbocharged T-34 engine

[@phunkracy]

Its literally not lmao. It has modified hull od T-72 but completely new turret, which is where most systems are.

[@phunkracy]

@@caracallaavg its not

[@u2beuser714]

​@@caracallaavg Just because lazerpig said that, it doesnt mean its true. Especially if lazerpig said it

[@voidwalker9223]

@@phunkracy Why couldnt they make a whole new hull? does Russias small poor people budget not able to afford that?

[@Tommy1977777]

It sounds more like a doctrinal problem.

[@tellyboy17]

It's a conceptual obsolescence problem.

[@shingshongshamalama]

In that their weaponry is designed for doctrine that isn't relevant any more because modern battlefield weaponry renders soviet massed armor attacks obsolete.

[@vasilzahariev5741]

Seperate ammo storage and blow out panels? UNKNOWN TECHNOLOGY BLYAT!!!

[@vortolex]

There was a report about the German leopard tank got blown up way higher than the Russian counter part, breaking new records.

[@stuff1044]

D-d-d-d-decent reverse speed????? WESTERN PROPAGANA BLED, YOU WILL ATTACK AND DIE WITH HONOR TOVARICH, NO RETREAT.

[@jebise1126]

brain in your head... UNKNOWN ORGAN BLYAT!!!

[@goldenalbatross9462]

@@vortolexa report? As supposed to the many videos and images of T90 M turrets going to space

[@schutzanzug4518]

@@goldenalbatross9462it wasn’t a report, there is footage of part of the turret flying dozens of meters in the air. 😂😂 would love to see your false t-90m “blow up to space” theory.

[@vanishingfolklore]

The tank has always been vulnerable - even in ww1 and ww2 -combined arms is always a must.

[@SadekZiad]

Tanks are less vulnerable nowadays than back in Ww2, it’s just that tens of thousands of tanks in Ww2 compared to just a couple thousand tanks nowadays.

[@gusramos3620]

There's a difference between having a cremated crew and the one which managed to get away with minimal losses. This is why Sherman was the best tank of WW2

[@nson__]

The Germans, Americans understood this very well. The Soviets however and now the Russians still think that tanks can manage on their own (Ukrainians too, funny thing, there was a battle recently where they lost a lot of tanks). I've seen videos of lonely advancing Russian tanks, and I can't understand how they can do that.

[@SadekZiad]

@@gusramos3620 Lol, are you kidding? The Shermans would burn everyone inside.

[@gusramos3620]

@@SadekZiad Uh, no

[@akramkarim3780]

The combination of surveillance drones and very accurate artillery made tanks easy targets in modern warfare. Tank capabilities and the professionalism of its crew, although important, are no longer sufficient to ensure the survival of tanks in modern warfare

[@petrsukenik9266]

Not realy, tanks were allways getting destroyed Ukraine does not suffer as high looses simply because of tactics used

[@iMost067]

@@petrsukenik9266 they do

[@Oldsmobility98]

@@petrsukenik9266 Hasn't Ukraine lost a higher percentage of its armor than Russia?

[@akramkarim3780]

​@@petrsukenik9266 When Ukraine went on the offensive we saw an increase in its losses in tanks even the German Leopard 2 tanks

[@liestricks]

@@Oldsmobility98 Bit of a irrelevant comparison. Yeah percentage wise Ukraine might lose more but total numbers are still worse for Russia. The bigger issue is that most of Russia's reserve tanks are just junk with no value on the battlefield and no crew

[@dagever7]

When your slogan is "no step back" you dont need reverse speed

[@vortolex]

Precise words 🤓

[@martinsmith9054]

The best idea the Russians had was the Burlak universal turret with a bustle autoloader designed to drop into all T72/80/90 variants. The project was canned in favor of the T14 Armata, which proved to be a white elephant.

[@tomasmisek5598]

I'll be devil's advocate. If t-14 was ready to go in 2015 with all its systems working at the levels the russians claimed, it would have been really powerful. Now tho, stuff like the abrams x, kf51 and challenger 3 are just better

[@paulcrusse7800]

Thank you for all of your hard work.

[@andie_pants]

0:28 _"Reportedly"_ Key word there. Russia is that loser who holds up the convenience store pointing his finger in his jacket pocket saying it's a gun.

[@sergiom9958]

I would say that the main advantage of the T90M is the use of French Thales thermal sights and other instruments. So, if they use a T90M inadecuatelly (in regards to tactics, doctrine, maintenance, etc) as they have use so many older T72 or T80 or T90 that advantaje dissapears. Also, if they receive a direct impact of a TOW or Javelin or KornetE, it doesnt matter if you are in a T90M or Leo2A6 or what ever becuase that chemically formed penetrator will pass through.

[@kuunoooo7293]

It uses russian thermal sigths

[@commiemeth]

​@@kuunoooo7293there's been differences in variants, I know the T90SA mainly uses French sights. Not sure on the M tho

[@B.D.E.]

​@@kuunoooo7293Incorrect, they use French made thermals and optics. Russian versions are crap, that's why they buy Western gear. That means that all future models of T-90 will be made without superior Western tech, and will be downgraded versions of the T-90.

[@B.D.E.]

Actually the frontal armour of any of the latest western MBTs + their ERA will stop a Kornet.

[@commiemeth]

@@B.D.E. trueee specially the recent versions of Abrams and Challengers

[@rickc4317]

Excellent info, thanks CC.

[@NahIdWin995]

1:06 the carousel auto-loader design is not the flaw, Russian conducted a study which showed that majority of carousel ammo explosion's is caused by other ammo stored else where in the tank that gets hit and detonates which detonates other ammo in the tank. Which is why T90M has a new turret design which stores additional ammunition at the very back of the turret with blow out panels to increase survive ability. Your right about the reverse speed and i wont slander that part as it is true the reverse speed is fucking awe full, but at least we are seeing T80BVM getting a new reverse speed of 25km/h which is disappointing that it is not being sorted in their best tank in service. I think the reason why Russia does not do anything about the reverse with the T72 and T90 family is due to not seeing any future with the v tole engine and is more focused with gas turbine engine which is more reliable in Russian climate. But still would be awesome to at least do something with the T90M as it will probably serve Russia much longer then T80 and T72 will. 3:34 this is true however Russian are pretty creative in solving these types of problems to reduce cost, its more of a future problem as their rounds now are more then capable piercing any NATO tank. The drivers hatch would very rarely get penned as its a very small target and is any tanks weakness in general. the only issue i would say in the tanks defensive capabilities is no APS (active protection system for those who don't know) even tho Russia has one built and produced. But not for long as Russian's do plan to install it in 2025. 4:30 i don't understand the logistic part as T90M does not have any logistic problems in contrast to Abrams tank, u cant judge the crew because crew training is a hit or miss and i mean in general, also i don't think they would let an newbie drive such a tank they would more likely be trained to use other T series tanks. 5:00 please don't get political in videos its usually what sparks most you-tubers criticism. 5:50 reason why carousel is still used is because it is reliable and cheap, but even if they wanted to change it it would need few design changes which would cost money and in my opinion their approach with the carousel with the tank is great so there really isn't any reason to change. Now to actual reasons why this modern tanks is lossed (even tho every NATO tank is being treated the same) is because of tank mines, artillery, ATGM'S, and drones, which shows how modern battle field seems unfavorable for tanks and i mean any tank. Reason why NATO in their wars didn't suffer similar losses in tanks is because they never went up against a competent opponent and would out number any nation they went up against. Anyways u still do better job informing people then lazerpig.

[@T-90M]

my man. I dare you to send out a damn Abrams into that hell of artillery fire. Lets see how an Abrams deal with an actual threat.

[@ThePhiphler]

I imagine that tanks will drop trying to defend against any direct 120 mm anti armor munition, and instead focus on surviving mines, artillery, ATGMs and drone carried bombs. Direct tank on tank action has been very scarce this war.

[@martinjrgensen8234]

For a reason. Ukriane never had the numbers for this

[@92HazelMocha]

Honestly we should just move to light tanks; cheaper and easier to field and produce in numbers, can boast the same protection agaisnt shape charges and autocannons along with the same firepower. The only downside would be protection agaisnt MBT's, but seeing as actual engagements with them would be relatively rare and the fact that the guy who shoots first usually wins, it wouldn't be a big issue.

[@ThePhiphler]

@@92HazelMocha At that point just go with with a heavily armed IFV. 30 mm autocannons have been destroying MBTs this war, there exists small IFVs armed with 40 mm. I believe there are even programs to arm IFVs with 120 mm cannons, but then they basically become light tanks I guess.

[@little_lord_tam]

​@@92HazelMochaLight Tanks somehow always fail Tests. Especially the US is having that thought every couple years and every time they try, they fail. Light Tanks seem to have a big Problem, my expertice on them however isnt there to know why they fail exactly

[@herptek]

One could imagine light tanks becoming more common asset to supplement MBT:s, but it simply does not make sense to down armour the the tip of the spear of your forces, since they can be dealt with by lighter armed counterparts as is normally the case.

[@volairn70]

People on the internet like to flex their chosen side's strengths and flaunt their chosen opponent's weaknesses. It has become something of a lethal football match, with everyone taking a side. Part of this is glorifying the capabilities of their chosen side, and this leaves this perceivable notion that one tank is far superior to another. But there are a few things to consider. While they *do* happen in Ukraine, tank v tank engagements are not very common in this war, and in video evidence seem to go to the side which lands the first accurate rounds. Neither side seems to have protection enough to last for two hits. One and done. Most tanks are being killed by indirect fire and mines, or immobilized by indirect fire or mines, and finished with improvised drone munitions. Even antitank guided missiles are not as common. There probably isn't a tank from any nation in the world that can withstand mines or accurate indirect fire, which are problems dealt with by means other than armor. No tank is going to survive on a battlefield where enemy artillery is not neutralized, and mines aren't cleared. Effective combat engineers, counter battery operations, and air cover/superiority/dominance are probably more important to your armor's survival than any technical aspect of the tank itself these days.

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

javelins were used pretty widely in this war but then we no longer heard of them

[@zloymyx2486]

@@ligmasurvivor5600 Because the Russian army has changed tactics, and now tanks are mainly used outside the effective range of anti-tank systems. In the first weeks they were quite effective in dense urban areas, but not now. Now is the time for aviation, which the Ukrainians do not have.

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

@@zloymyx2486 that is true, the fighting has graduated from urban areas to more open fields and slightly forested areas

[@ligmasurvivor5600]

@@zloymyx2486 shows they they can adapt also

[@zloymyx2486]

@@ligmasurvivor5600 They can, but large open spaces allow the Russian army to realize technical superiority in fortified positions.

[@lexslate2476]

Hard to get experienced tankers when your vehicle is prone to incinerating its crew when it's hit.

[@paulthomson2466]

The T90 may be a superior tank but I suspect crew training...if you have Beavis and Butt-head driving it, well that explains a lot!

[@Negativvv]

You might take Beavis and Butthead over the average RU conscript crew... You'll have a laugh before you're detonated for sure anyway!

[@spartanrating8210]

They don't put morons in jail for t90m! Russia has an excellent selection of tankers, they are well trained. Not all, but in the general number is good crews! There are 10k+ tanks in the country. Constant training, tank biathlon and the like, the experience of other conflicts. Just such a war, the tank is not so survivable well on the battlefield as it was 10-20 years ago because of the drones, and even more so in such an intense war, which was not for a long time.

[@alienorificeinvestigation]

Beavis and Butt-Head drive every tank in the world. 😂

[@ktms1188]

Your channel has become a hitpiece on the Russian military, when you used to be just non-biased military reporting. I guess you got to do what you Gotta do to feed the algorithm.

[@Joaquin546]

It's like you don't know that russia has lost 4100 tanks in this war.

[@christianjunhoffman9142]

T90 is not working so bad. Dude its a tank. No tank is invisible. Lets say russia has the leopard as their main battle tanks. It will have similar outcome

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

All the ruski snowflake bots are propperly triggered by this video. I approve.

[@mba2808]

The funniest thing 90m still has manual gearbox with 4km reverse. In presentations it had automatic ones. I guess it helps with logistics though. Also recently we see many more refurbished T-80s with better reverse speed, tho bigger chance to blow, as rounds are placed verticaly

[@tomk3732]

T-80 is a different design tank - it has a turbine not diesel and thus has higher reverse speed.

[@mba2808]

@@tomk3732 Ukrainian versions have 6TD diesels. They are pretty bad tho. I think 10km reverse speed is achieveable only thanks to transmission. It was however reportedly much more expensive than t-72

[@pacivalmuller9333]

@mba2808 „Ukrainian“ (Soviet) T-64 had also problems with transmission, often breaking down. This is why high command of the Union chose the T-72 as the MBT.

[@mba2808]

​@@pacivalmuller9333 T-64 is not T-80 though and has tranmission with similar design to t-72 and 4kph reverse.

[@pacivalmuller9333]

@@mba2808 What (Ukrainian) T80 are you talking about? DO you mean the Oplot? There are no Oplots left, no Oplots will be produced. Ukraine does not have a tank production, nor deep modernization. They had an aircraft carrier, a fleet, tanks, etc. But Ukrainian corruption (capitalism) destoyed what the communists left.

[@nobsoares6041]

1:14 the reason why the turrets of Russian tanks fly when the ammo cock off IS NOT because of the carousel, its because of the extra ammo being stored there (the ammo that is not on the autoloader). the T-90M have its extra ammo located on the back of the turret with blowout pannels in the top of it, thats why we dont see its turret flying when the ammo cock off about the limits of the autoloader, the T-90M uses the 2A46M-5 which is longer than the 2A46M-4, M-3, M-2 and M-1 making it able to fire longest projectiles, but the cannon is not the only that has been changed, the autoloader of the T-90M also is able to receive longer projectiles with a better penetration. the T-90M uses the Relikt ERA which have a better protection level when compared to the Kontakt 1 and 5, it can stop tandem shape rounds, HEATFS round and even reduce the penetration of APFSDS rounds in 30 to 50% (i dont remember the exact number now) and also offfers a better cover, you can easily see that the main frontal plate of the T-90M is totally covered in ERA with just some parts at the top being not covered, and about the exposed turret ring, the T-90M has a net on the turret that goes all the ways down covering the turret ring preventing from HEATFS and tandem shape rounds from hiting the turret ring, but the T-90M isnt the only tank that suffers from this, the US M1 Abrams still suffers from this problem too since the M1 even to the actual days with the M1A2 SepV3 the gun mallet on the T-90M haves ERA around it, it doesnt have composite armour on it, thats true but it haves ERA around it on the sides and top. it was already said that the Russian MoD is planing to start planting their hard kill APS Arena-M on their T-90M tanks and this procces will start by 2025 or 2024. so, the real problem is tanks tactics. oh, and also, the soviets focused both in great numbers with a huge production of tanks and also on their individual capabilites and abilities. just for y'all knowledge, the soviets were the ones to first introduce smoothbore cannons with the 2A46 and composite armour with the T-64. T-64, T-72 and T-80 were the real beasts at the time when they were introduced, no tank was able to face them until the 80s with the Leopard 2 and the Challenger 1, the Abrams just arrived much later with the M1A1HC in the late 80s, but the Soviets werent behind the T-80U and T-80UK which were a challenge for the Western tanks.

[@SadekZiad]

Finally, someone who knows their stuff and researched very well. But also it is important to mention that the only weakness of Soviet/Russian tanks are the reverse speed. The autoloader carousel is literally the best and safest place in a T-series tank. The reason why some might have a catastrophic explosion is due to the ammunition type, Russian tankers choose HEAT-FS rounds which are heavily flammable and explosive because they are deadly against infantry, the reason they choose their rounds is because they fight against mostly Ukrainian infantry. If these same HEAT-FS rounds were in Abrams tank, if it was ignited it would also kill the crew regardless of the blowout panels.

[@nobsoares6041]

@@SadekZiad the reverse speed is not even possible to deny, but the T-14 Armata have a new automatic transmission giving it a huge reverse speed so probably Russians could install a automatic transmission in T-90M, who knows…

[@nobsoares6041]

@@SadekZiad that’s also true, the Russians aren’t using the APFSDS rounds that much since most of Ukrainian tanks are T-72M and A without any ERA coverage or with Kontakt-1 and T-64BVs which have also Kontakt-1 or 5 and have first generation composite armour which means that Russians can use HEATFS against both, infantry and armoires vehicles.

[@nobsoares6041]

@@SadekZiad and also I forgot to talk about side armour since the so loved Abrams don’t have composite armour on its sides making it more vulnerable while the Russians use composites + ERA and cage armour on the sides of their tanks. The US already place ERA packages on some of their tanks to solve this problems and are placing ERA on the side armour of their M1A2 SepV3.

[@tomk3732]

Vice of reason? You are wasting your time on anti Russian fan boys.

[@paulfairchild8942]

Very informative. Love your videos

[@pieter-bashoogsteen2283]

The infamous shot with the 8 destroyed Bradleys, destroyed leo 2a6 and bremm mineroller has been often pointed to as a failure in tactics on the Ukrainian side and that may be the case, but I don’t know how much we can blame Ukraine for these painful losses. They did have infantry support of course they were loaded into the Bradleys. What they did not have which could have saved them is air defense and air support. The sad fact is that until Western aircraft are supplied to Ukraine, the Ukrainian air force is in no way able to give significant air support and air superiority to troops on the ground; that would be suicidal. As for air defense one might think that the gepards Ukraine was supplied with might have been a good help in this assault. What people don’t realize however is that these shorad systems are in such high demand that Ukraine doesn’t even have nearly enough to defend their own cities and they are way too precious to risk in frontal assaults. This explains why it’s so important to deliver Western aircraft and shorad systems to Ukraine in significant numbers. It is a good thing that Ukraine will significantly expand its fleet of gepards and other shorad systems in the near future though it still won’t nearly be enough. Likewise the F16 training efforts and chatting around Australian Hornets is really promising though still far off.

[@vortolex]

Still the question remained why send military aid to a Ukrainian gov who still is loose precious materials gone to waste. Instead end this atrocious war and send humanitarian aid.

[@thehusketeers4319]

In the near future Ukraine will cease to exist

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

Air support doesn't solve the minefield problem.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​​@@vortolexBut it's not "precious". First, the scrounging for materiél is a greater indictment of European divestment of the military than anything else. Second, most of that equipment existed to fight the Soviet Union/Russia. What's so precious about something that's going to lose its value if Russia loses? Withholding aid will not end the war. It will prolong it and cause morr Ukrainian losses. Sending aid will actually even save Russian lives, because losing the war sooner will spare them from combat.

[@vortolex]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD All is by design with a purpose.

[@user-qn3xu5ee3t]

If the video was called "Why is Germany's leopard performing so bad" the guy would've said "well, no tank is invincible, all tanks have weak spots" and so on

[@little_lord_tam]

No, he would actually said, aside from the majority of losses beeing very old 2a4 (Most losses are the weaker polish 2a4 Tanks) its impossible to field the tanks according to their doctrin. UA lacks the capabilities to support the tanks against air born threats killing the Tanks in higher numbers than they should or otherwise could. The footage of the "Bradley parking lot" Shows that very well. Russia managed to strike deep, the crews didnt expect to be engaged. They were not yet on the frontline. They got intercepted early, which worked because UA lacks defensive capabilities against the KA-52

[@F.R.E.D.D2986]

I love how with the West, Ruskies laugh. But then they shrug off the 2400 losses and say, eh, we have enough. Despite the fact that the Leopard is performing better than every single Russian tank

[@user-qn3xu5ee3t]

@@F.R.E.D.D2986 "Despite the fact that the Leopard is performing better than every single Russian tank" Maybe somewhere in Germany, lol

[@georgeleon1263]

Considering that this is largely an artillery war with saturation of drones and ATGMs on both sides, I don’t think the T-90M has performed any better or worse than any other MBT as we have seen now with the Leopards and are likely to see with Abrams and Challengers if or when they’re deployed. 24 T-90Ms destroyed in around a year of active warfare sounds pretty small considering the scale and intensity of the fighting, to their credit Uralvagonzavod appears to have been able to slowly but steadily ramp of production of more T-90s along with the T-72B3 Obr 2022 which was unexpected considering the sanctions. The T-90M does have major technical issues, some of which are easy to fix while others not so much. Reverse speed is the most serious one but can be corrected considering French company RENK developed a transmisión for T tanks capable of a reverse speed on par with most western tanks so in theory Russia should be able to do the same. Side protection and the gaps between the Relikt ERA is perhaps the easiest to fix right now since mounting external blocks of 4S22 ERA blocks as they have been doing with other tanks would largely solve the issue. APS is also a most considering hundreds of Leopards and Abrams have already been retrofitted with the Trophy, Arena-M should be able to address this issue since it has already completed state trials but when will it enter active service and in what numbers remains an open question. The most complex flaw to fix however would be the carrousel auto loader, although in the T-90Ms case this one has been reinforced with plating and the ammo outside the carrusel has been moved to the bustle compartment in the turret’s rear to reduce the risk of ammo detonation, it doesn’t completely removes the risk but it is something The need for larger projectiles however is a more pressing reason to remove the carrousel auto-loader in favor of a bustle one. The T-90M is the most suitable for this switch of all the Russian MBTs in active service since it already posses a turret bustle that could in theory accommodate an auto-loader like the the Black Eagle prototype. Interestingly the BM Oplot also suffers from this issue which is surprising considering Ukraine did develop a proper bustle auto loader for the Yatagan model kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6K8f5pmlpKKf7s All in all the T-90M is a pretty decent tank in light of its capabilities but it has issues to that unless are fixed will keep it inferior to western tanks kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5TccqaLhM-jj68

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

"In theory"

[@diltzm]

Based on ammo storage alone it'll never be a decent tank.

[@Rssika]

@@diltzm By this logic, Leopard 2 will never be a decent tank as it has even more vulnerable ammo storage than T-90 or T-72.

[@Kefuddle]

I agree. I think this war has shown how vulnerable tanks are. They are also powerful, but it really makes no difference if it is a T55, T90 or Abrhams. They can all be killed by a squad of two with an ATGM from kilometres away.

[@johnmay4803]

The sad thing is the problems with T90 will never be fixed because of poo-tin being a war monger! 90% of the T90's tec that was any good was made with western micro chips and because of sanctions they are having to use old tec from the cold war and most of it wasn't any good then! The funny thing is the best night vision the T90 ever had was from the mk1 leclerc mbt from the 90's! The same 1 that was fitted to the T14! What a thing to brag about! Night vision the French don't even want anymore lol good luck Russia not

[@michaelscruton7270]

They limit the reverse speed to discourage any thoughts of retreating lol

[@dustin628]

Omg this was the very first covert video I've ever seen that didn't cut for a sponsorship right at the beginning!! Ahhh it's so beautiful being able to just sit and watch and relax. Finally not being told to buy something yet again. It gets too much and makes binging covert videos impossible. Maybe you could at least put your ads at the end of your video instead of 15 seconds in when people already start to chill

[@DigitCitizen]

If only russian tanks could perform as good as any western, like Leopard 2...

[@highdefinist9697]

As the video states, it's not like the T-90M is necessarily "badly designed" - it just serves a different function. Western tanks are more expensive, but also safer to operate, and offer a greater variety of use cases. Russian tanks, by contrast, are designed for offense, and an expendable crew, while keeping "quantity over quality" in mind.

[@sooryan_1018]

Well, we saw how Leopards did in Ukraien when they faced Russian drones/artillery Doesnt matter if its NATO or Russian, no tanks can survive artillery and good ATGM

[@kostyantynlabunsky4933]

It's time for "invincible " Abrams to show up Right after Bradley & Strikers

[@realspeed1944]

literally everyone in the west thinks that western tanks are "invicible" yeah sure

[@kirillholt2329]

sarcasm ?

[@abohemo9714]

Many times T90M can't return behind a cover with that very slow reverse speed

[@SadekZiad]

Yes it can though. It just needs to sit next to a house or building for cover and slowly move upwards so it’s gun is out, shoot, then just move back to cover in just 2 seconds. You don’t need 30 km/h reverse speed for that.

[@jtb3797]

70 T-90M 😂 As an American in Europe im amazed how many people are still drinking the “Almighty Russia” Kool-aid

[@Cherb123456]

Thank you!

[@samisuhonen9815]

Some people think that it doesn't matter that the T-72 family of tanks blows up so easily. And that argument has a few supporting points. Such as: -It doesn't matter if the tank blows up when penetrated, it would still be more than likely to lose effectiveness. -This design makes the tank smaller, and according to the survivability onion, it is more important to not be seen or hit, than it is to survive the hit. However that analysis forgets a few very important points. -One of the jobs of the tank is to draw fire and attention. And the core rule against tanks, is to keep shooting at it until it blows up or you see the crew exit. This is because even if you land an ATGM hit, you have no way of telling it it penetrated, or if any key systems were disabled. So it is common doctrine to fire again until you can be sure. If your tank blows up on the first hit, it saves so many resources, time, and attention from your enemy, that they can now focus towards other units of yours. A good example of this, was the challenger tank that took like 100+ hits from ATGMs and RPGs without blowing up. The enemies just kept wasting their attention, time and ammo on it. -Crew survivability is massively important. At least if you believe that crew training and competence is important. It takes years and a bunch of money to train competent tank crews. Sometimes even more money is invested in training good crews, than in the actual tanks themselves. So you would preferably have as much of the crew survive a hit, as possible. Even if the vehicle is out of that battle, if the crew can be evacuated they can just be given a new vehicle. -Morale takes a huge hit when you see one of your tanks blow up into a massive fireball and toss its turret 200 meters. That is a serious emotional event to witness, compared to the tank just stopping and being disabled.

[@thesupreme8062]

​@@mitchellcouchman6589the t72 will always toss the turret but that is not the issue, the issue is that upon tossing the turret everyone inside is dead.

[@thephoenix756]

The idea that the Challenger took 100+ ATGM and RPG hits is laughable; I can believe the account if they claimed that 100+ RPG-7 anti-personnel rounds (instead of HEAT) were used against the Challenger 2

[@Nuinwing]

My uneducated guess is that the worst part is the abysmal reverse speed.

[@milsimmaniac711]

but have we seen any get destroyed because of low reverse speed?

[@Nuinwing]

@@milsimmaniac711 seen a video where one is in a bad spot and has to retreat and to do so fast it turns around to drive away and gets shot in the rear and destroyed. Could have been a T-72 or T-90, cant remember for sure as it was last year, either way both tanks have the same problem.

[@piccolo917]

“You don’t need tank reverse speed if you only advance” -Russian galaxy brain

[@jloiben12]

Because the lazerpig loop is real

[@Dragonblaster1]

It has the same engine and gearbox as the WWII T34.

[@taddyllaneta2020]

Is the leopard doing any better? 😂😂😂

[@Pusahispidasaimensis]

Yes it is 😂😂😂

[@nathanielalaburgDelhi]

keep it up! we don't always have the same exact view but you release some quality content!

[@chrislehner9849]

Thanks!

[@johnallen7230]

Note: Due to horrible ergonomics, maximum heights of a Russian tanker is ~ 5'8".......Due to disassembly and reasssembly, it takes several hours to simply check ✔️ the engine oil level. **Stalin said, "Quantity has a Quality all of it's own. " NATO code name: "IVAN COOKER" 😂😂

[@mrmakhno3030]

How about Volodymyr Cooker like Bradley, Maxx Pro and Leopard 2? xD Imagine being the world biggest superpower and watching your vehicle being destroyed by 40 years old Soviet anti tank mine.

[@gusramos3620]

@@mrmakhno3030 Last I checked, Leopards and Bradleys didn't have a radar for mine detection. That's like shooting down a cargo aircraft and saying "look, pathetic technology, it didn't even dodge my missile!" (even though most cargo aircraft don't have missile detection systems)

[@schutzanzug4518]

Serbian operators of the t-72 are not subject to height limitations, this isn’t a issue. And it’s not horrible ergonomics, there is a height limit for Abrams drivers.

[@anngo4140]

Here after seeing 2 Bradleys ganking a T-90M

[@definitelyfrank9341]

Does 'gangking' translate to 'damaging optics'?

[@mikska]

I don’t see the leopard performing any better lol

[@larrysherk]

This is not approximately right. The T-90M has been outperforming everything in the field, including American and British tanks. That is partly because all Russian weapons are networked and connected to satellite and drone views everywhere, and partly because Russia has the best range of shells and the best tank armor.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

It hasn’t even fought American or British tanks yet bud…..

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

@@nobodyherepal3292hard for the t90m to destroy western tanks when those could not even reach the front before being destroyed.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

@@Phantom-bh5ru hard for a T90 to even face a western tank,when it keeps getting wrecked by Javelins and Drones…

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

@@nobodyherepal3292 24 in over a year. Leopards got like what? 13 in 2 weeks? LMFAO cope harder

[@nobodyherepal3292]

@@Phantom-bh5ru imagine losing more tanks over the course of a year then all of NATO has combined and think I’m the one coping 🤣

[@davidshapiro292]

-Tones of new videos and pictures of destroyed western Bradleys and Leopard2s -Why is the T90 performing so bad Ahhhh the projection.

[@wesjohn2]

Russia has lost over 2000 tanks, cope harder vatnik.

[@MinhLe-vj9ij]

It is a good show. Thank you.

[@goldengoat1737]

Dude I am totally being a fan boy but I have been into military history and equipment since I was a kid and your videos are by far the best

[@djraythefurry0420]

1:20 just remember that 4 humans would've died in a instant during this type of explosion. Being a tanker is important but scary , especially visibility wies , I want to attempt to help build a extremely good camera system that is for 360 degrees of view that could be seen from within the Gunner seat and Commander seat which also will have thermals

[@mrmakhno3030]

lol that's a Russian MBT and you said it has 3 crew members? Disgusting. Learn more before commenting.

[@djraythefurry0420]

@@mrmakhno3030 Pardon? I'd strongly suggest you watch cone of arc or the chieftain also I said it had 4 , also also lmao 🤣 it's hilarious that you're telling me that I'm wrong when I never said anything wrong , I just simply stated that tankers died inside of a tank and that I want to develop a 360 camera that has thermals wth increased range so that way soldiers can see out of all sides of their tank without having to expose themselves along with being able to see through low-visibility situations because of the thermal imaging .

[@scatterlite2266]

its weapon test footage lol.

[@djraythefurry0420]

@@scatterlite2266 some of it is (on this specific video yes I'm also taking other footage into accountability)

[@realnapster1522]

It’s not real combat footage. And real Russian tanks have ERA which deflect many shots. Many times tank crews bail out and then Ukraine posts videos of blowing up old tanks.

[@mrpocock]

Anti-tank munitions are overkill. If they can kill a t72, they can kill a t90. And probably an Abrahams. So then it comes down to if you get hit at all and if your crew can walk away.

[@vortolex]

There has been reports in Ukraine of how some of their most current versions of the Russian tanks and modern tanks (not all them, depends of the version of the tank) were impacted and survive between 4 to 6 hits before blowing up (obvious because of the armor and explosive armor…). The few explanations are are they using correctly the laws rockets. Javelin is different story it would one hit KO a tank by direct impact if the tank doesn’t have some sort of trophy system.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

"Abrahams"

[@vortolex]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Metal Slug 🐌

[@92HazelMocha]

​@@vortolexTrophy won't even go high enough in elevation to counter Javelins in most scenarios, so even then the tank is out of luck.

[@LScrofoIII]

Regarding the reverse speed, as a commander said on another channel “you want to be out of there as quick as you got in”.

[@carlosbernard7614]

Currently 27 T-90M visually confirmed lost/damaged/abandoned vs 29 Leopard 2s visually confirmed lost/abandoned/damaged. Are they doing bad or is this just an environment deadly to armour?

[@zloymyx2486]

Even the most meticulous expert is unlikely to tell how many T-90M tanks on the territory of Ukraine (taking into account the fact that any equipment breaks down on its own and is taken out for repair), and no more than a hundred Leopards were delivered to Ukraine.

[@ingloriuspumpkinpie9367]

Because even with my arthritic joints I can outwalk it in reverse, next question.

[@richardvaldes3959]

By what metrics do you consider " doing badly "

[@jonskowitz]

I think the poor reverse speed is a bigger issue than the carousel

[@balls9052]

Other than the Abrams every modern tank has hull ammo.

[@wardasz]

The main question is - is it really perform bad? You said they lost 1/3 of them, same as T72... but you counted pre-war T90m and compare them to pre-war PLUS REACTIVATED T72. Wtf is this comparison? You should also include new T90m, build during the war - hard to say how many they manage to build, but we might made some guesses. First T90m was delivered to the army in 2020, so those 70 tanks they have pre-war is 2 years of production - so they made 35 per year. Than, they INCREASE the production during war, despite sanction (partially using lower tier parts, like older termals). And there was more than a year of those increased production - I would guess they made at least 50 new ones - maybe more. So they lose only 1/5 of them or less. Also all this talk about lack of air cover, infantry support and other - on the one side, true. On the other - you can have best equipment, super skilled crew, masterfull support of artilery, recon, air and air deffence ect, made no mistakes... and still suffer casualites. It is a simple fact of war.

[@92HazelMocha]

From what I've read Russia is producing over 100 T90M tanks a year (current production rate) so with that in mind they're losing them at a much slower rate than T72's. Although it should be said with data sets this small you can't identify trends properly. For instance Russia has only lost one BMPT but deployed 40, by the video's logic this means the BMPT is the best combat vehicle ever built, which is probably not the case.

[@ssglbc1875]

@@92HazelMochaaccording to oryx they had 69 confirmed t90s destroyed but like 1100 t72s.

[@realhorrorshow8547]

The ammo cook-off isn't the problem. For the ammo to blow, a munition must have already penetrated the crew compartment. In that case, the crew are dead before the cook-off occurs.

[@FS-wd3hu]

I think there is videos that show the opposite

[@free_at_last8141]

Munition penetration into the crew compartment of a Tank doesn't mean that the crew is killed in all tanks. Most armor piercing munitions manage to punch through armor with relatively small jets of molten metal or kinetic energy projectiles. When that strikes live ammunition stored in the crew compartment and it cooks off, there's no surviving that.

[@realhorrorshow8547]

@@FS-wd3hu What, 'is they' videos that show a crew emerging happy and healthy from a crew compartment penetration?

[@skeetrix5577]

I think it's funny they call a tanks ammo exploding 'cooking off' like it's a Sunday bbq or some shit lol and that's all the relevant information I have to share on this topic 😶

[@realhorrorshow8547]

@@free_at_last8141 Let's sit you in a small steel compartment which is penetrated by a jet of molten metal or a high velocity projectile and see how you do. What do you imagine the purpose of penetrating a tank's armour is?

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks very much 👍 Shoe🇺🇸

[@usun_politics1033]

As opposed to fucking what? Leo2 is burning just fine as well

[@jaymac7203]

Corruption? Incompetence?

[@stupidburp]

Primarily because the active protection system either doesn’t work or isn’t installed. Cook offs have been primarily caused by extra loose ammunition, not those in storage.

[@ostwelt]

Really? You were in the crew compartment to observe this?!?! 😂

[@phunkracy]

@@ostwelt that was the conclusion of numerous wars, it is common knowledge at this point. Its quite hard to hit the ammo carousel with anything other than top attack which aims at the center of the tank. But with flat trajectory ATGMs and apfsds rounds the ammo carousel is actually a small target, situated low on the hull floor.

[@JAnx01]

Active protection systems won't start being installed until late 2025 or 26. Manufacturing was delayed by 10 years due to sanctions.

[@ferky123]

​@@JAnx01 corruption not sanctions.

[@JAnx01]

@@ferky123 Nonsense. Corruption is everywhere.

[@MoskusMoskiferus1611]

You said it was performing bad, but the truth is they performs a lot better than many of the remaining Tanks Russia has used

[@alexnderrrthewoke4479]

All Russian tanks performing good in Ukraine. T-90 yesterday a viral video showed t-90 destroyed 8 Ukrainian armored vehicles.

[@mahdizizou1164]

Bro was high af and uploading this video while being like that 😂

[@pawnap666]

How to know someone doesn't know anything about tanks and tank combat ? "The design problem is autoloader..." The real answer is that no modern tank is invulnerable. And the advance in MAPADS systems that got them smaller made them even more vurnurable. Any hit that gets to autoloader is instant KIA for all crew regardless if there was autoloader or not. Another great example of idiocy is when people spotted so called "cope cages" and instantly laughed at russian tanks having them. Fast forward to Israel-Palestinian war and Israelis sport cope cages as well now becuse drone warfare changed battlefield a lot. And this wasn't some unknown design issue. The designers behind autoloaders knew exactly what they were doing and what were advantages. If your tank gets hit without autoloader you have mostly 4 people dead with autoloader you have 3 people dead because autoloaders require one less crew. That is 1/4 reduction in KIA and 1/4 more tanks you can field with same crew.

[@naksachaisaejane1982]

Except...that wasn't the case. Tank crew losses depends on ergonomics, how easy they can get out, how the ammo are arranged, etc.. Citation on tank crew loss from the chieftain WOT, US tank myth, the ergonomics and hatches in T-34 are so bad every tanks lost in combat from polish tank brigade averaged out at 1.8 crew killed out of 5. In case of Sherman in US service, it averaged out at about a third of a man killed per tank lost. So where does this apply? The arrangement of ammo in modern Russian tanks suck. Autoloader design plays in part of it. Meanwhile, many tanks, notably M1, have blast door separating the crews out of the ammo in case it cooks off. There are footages of M1 cooking off and then crews leaped out somewhat unharmed. It certainly doesn't help that tanks are no simple machine that more hands to help is better. Adding autoloader means less repair man to maintain the more complex system. And even if you want more tanks, can your logistics support it? Tanks are huge supply strain when used. The early war in Ukraine showed that poor logistics hit the tank hard.

[@pawnap666]

@@naksachaisaejane1982 Autoloader sits directly beneath gunner and leader behind steel plate. Any damage that damages autoloader ammo means it had enough force to kill crew. You can't hit autoloader without killing crew.

[@naksachaisaejane1982]

@@pawnap666 but the ammo arrangement is tied to loading system and/or loader's comfort. The whole things go together from design choices.

[@vehx9316]

I would point out that the designers are not stupid, the idea here is that since the ammo compartment is located what is in theory the most safe and secure part of the tank, it can also be made further safer by an armed storage. If an attack is so fatal as to breach the ammo storage, it would in all likelyhood cause fatal damage to the tank and the crew compartment itself already. As to regards of a lack of blow out panels, yes that is an issue. But it is important to note that the basis of the design of the T-90 stems all the way back with the T-64, back in the 1950s. Yeah that is how old the basic design is. Back then blow out panels weren't at thing yet. And there is the survivor's bias to consider here. Ammo blow out makes for a spectacular image, but how many destroyed T-90M tanks that we see suffered that kind of damage ? There are more T-90s loss due to more mundane things like blown out tracks and crew compartment penetration, NOT ammo blow out. In short, yes the positioning of the ammo storage is a weakness on the T-90 but not is not as serious a thing as many would believe.

[@supa3ek]

The same can be said of Abrams if they ever get there. Just look at the leopard2 getting destroyed as well. Its not the tanks but the new wave of anti tank measures combined with drones ! Tanks are like battleships and soon air craft carriers........they are obsolete !!!

[@shinsaber2109]

I think you made a mistake. Conscripts are mean to build the reserves force, that is the reason why they only serve 2 years. Also, conscripts are trained as infantry only. If you want to be a tanker, you will have to enrol in military academy for amour force where they teach you from the basic. The final point is that conscript or volunteer does not matter, the training is what matter. Whether you are a conscripted or a volunteer one, you are still a greenhorn and need to be taught and trained until you are qualified to be a soldier.

[@ssglbc1875]

Volunteers tend to do better than conscripts

[@904_noah]

Russian tankers can't even properly wear their tanker hats. 😂

[@terrysparrow2180]

I saw a memorial post for a Russian tank driver who was killed when an AT-4 rocket hit a weak spot on the T-90M armor. That was a shock because the AT-4 is only a single warhead and isn't rated as being able to pierce the frontal armor of modern tanks. The T-90M is lacking in so many ways.

[@borregoayudando1481]

invinvibility isnt a thing in our universe's game engine

[@winzyl9546]

​@@borregoayudando1481makes no sense

[@nekko5778]

The T-90M was never destroyed by an AT4. The only video where this appears to be the case, the tank was destroyed by another Russian tank since it was abandoned. The T-90M is highly praised by both Russian and Ukrainian troops, and it's performing far better than anything else on the battlefield in this role.

[@Fab1us]

cool story, taras.

[@Maximilien1794]

The low amount of T-90M destroyed as opposed to other Russian tanks is enough to dismiss the claim that it's performing poorly.

[@ssglbc1875]

I was surprised only 61 confirmed

[@alanweir887]

Only if you ignore the numbers they deployed.

[@Maximilien1794]

@@ssglbc1875 Confirmed by whom?

[@DiggingForFacts]

@@Maximilien1794 Oryx usually. They tend to keep conservative lists, although 61 is closer to the amount of total T-90 losses (all models)

[@Maximilien1794]

​@@DiggingForFacts Oryx has a pro-ukrainian bias and the data coming from Oryx includes tanks that are abandoned and not destroyed. So only half T-90 destroyed approximately and 14 out of 23 T-90M. I don't even understand how they can identify a T-90M on some of the bad quality pictures. Overall that's indeed a very low amount of T-90M destroyed as compared to other Russian tanks, and also if you compare to the losses of German tanks... Moreover one must take into account the cost of the tank. Costs win wars.

[@TheAmerican1963]

Oh, you mean why is the Abrams and the leopard doing so badly. There. I fixed it for you. 🙂

[@KayratM]

Do you have similar video covering Leopards? I guess all the tanks performance is bad due modern antitank systems.

[@jmaarc3518]

Not only Russian tanks but also Germany Leopard and NATO tanks.

[@N.Eismann]

Hey, make a video how Ukraine is severely hampered by being shit on with 47373 different armor, vehicle and ammo types :)

[@honkhonk8009]

Looking back at how the Abram's and Leopards performed, this video is even more relevant. The insides of the burnt out Abram's especially, is borderline pristine. Almost as if nothing happened. Meanwhile T90M's get instantly ammo racked. I think it goes without saying that vehicles regardless of armour, technology, APS, or any other arrangement, is gonna go boom. In the same ratios aswell. It makes sense why the Americans and the Chinese dont seem to be upgrading or focusing on their tanks as much as Russia. As a matter of fact, most of their fleet consists almost entirely of lighter vehicles such as LAV's.

[@Dahblackrussian]

Ukraine is being descimated

[@piotrd.4850]

Well, that might have something with people manning it and people planning its usage....

[@Matt-yg8ub]

It’s not performing that badly….it’s just that Ukraine has access to the most advanced antitank missiles on the face of the Earth, in massive numbers far beyond their own ability to manufacture AND every western weapons contractor on the planet is chomping at the bit to try out their latest and greatest tech against the Russians Ukraine is only in this war, because NATO is funding them, and providing them with advanced weaponry to keep fighting

[@Balrog2005]

Lol Javelin is mostly 90s early 2000s tech...and the anti tank missiles of Ukraine are based on soviet stuff...and many of the weapons are obsolote or reserves from the US and the Euro countries, only things like Caesar and Himars are really new...

[@mouhssineali1520]

the leopard is Performing so great

[@warriorson7979]

Probably the same reason the Leopard 2 is also performing so bad...🤔 Modern anti-tank weapons are just very effective.

[@neiljohnson6815]

Ex Tank company commander in the US army here. Poor performance caused by: 1. Poor maintenance, 2. poor training, 3. poor tactics and 4.corruption - stealing and selling electronic, optics spare parts and even fuel and ammunition.

[@dhowe5180]

This is probably why AFU is advancing with infantry rather than tanks, and slowly at that. Nearly all the territory that Russia has seized and kept since 2022 has been in the south where UKR chose not to defend in strength initially preferring to defend their capital. Neither side has been able to seize much territory in the face of any sizable defensive formation. The only breakthroughs have been through targeting weak points and routing the enemy as happened near Kharkiv. I’ll bet the AFU will eventually unlock the Russian defense and rout them

[@tomdemay6147]

lol what a joke. pipe dream

[@dhowe5180]

@@tomdemay6147 it’ll happen, bot

[@stephen4121]

@@dhowe5180 LMAO even after 2 months of failure to breach the 1st line you are clinging to your BS? Grow up

[@pacivalmuller9333]

@dhowe5180 Most people that call other people bots are either stupid or bots themselves.

[@user-xh3wr1do7k]

@@stephen4121Two months later and you’ve been proven wrong 🤡. 😂

[@Captain_Frank_Abagnale]

Going by the thumbnail. It’s really not performing any better or worse than its Ukr opponents. It’s the crew that makes or breaks a tank no matter what it is

[@winzyl9546]

Yeah and destroyed T-90 tanks have charred crews.

[@tylerlewis2766]

So far it's outperforming Leopard 2A6s lmao, they're also producing 1500 T90Ms a year so the loss of 23 isn't a big deal

[@stc3145]

1500 a year. Sure..

[@alexsvilla7962]

why the 4 m1 abrams lasted three day when they got sent to the front?

[@mahdidehghan7437]

I dont really think any tank will do great in the current war seeing how most have being distroyed so far. Ukraine thought the leapords and the Bradley's would be a game chnager and they were wiped out. The challengers and the rest have been put to storage for now. Artillery and mines is whats being used atm.

[@toby9999]

Massive exaggeration. They weren't wiped out. A few were destroyed due to poor planning, poor strategy or just bad luck. It's war. Nothing is invincible.

[@mahdidehghan7437]

@@toby9999 no I meant the ones that were sent. And yes nothing is invisible

[@elgenerico6263]

Truism incoming: MBTs require a system to be built around them, with infantry and IFVs supporting them in close encounters, artillery and air support suppressing hostile AT capabilities, engineers clearing paths through minefields and so on… tanks without that system are just big steel boxes waiting to be fired at until they go out of commission.

[@little_lord_tam]

Tanks are a specialised unit. As such they have incredible capabilities meeting hillarious weaknesses. Just like everywere else in life and history, specialists need others to counteract their weaknesses. Its a Team dependand situation. Theres nothing scarier than a tank with back up. Because it will tear your whole position appart and you cant do anything about it in time

[@zloymyx2486]

You are now describing ideal conditions. As it should be in the textbook. But war is chaos. You can act strictly according to the instructions, as in the picture, until they start shooting at you from everything that is at hand.

[@SashaFoxfort]

Ehhh do people understand that in full scale war no tank is indestructible?

[@sinclair2469]

slow reverse speed is such a mayor design flaw for tanks

[@fedclementi]

Regarding loss ratio it seems the video is not accounting for the batches of t90m delivered post war, shown on pictures. They alone are much higher than the initial war stock. That would imply a loss rstio that is much much lower than older tanks. That said there was an interview from ukr officials themselves that said these are much superior and take roughly double the effort to disable them. I agree the reverse speed is a strong, almost inexplicable, linitation of this tank. But the rest is comparable to leopards a6, in a much more efficient and smaller package. The carousel also serve the function to require one less crew, thus allowing a much smaller frame. And the additional armour seems to work, as we are seeing less catastrophic ammo explosion compared to other tanks. In any case in modern day warfare tanks are much much more vulnerable. And with javelins, atgms, copters, drones, the quantity of them would be a quality. If russia can produce 1500 yearly, at a quarter of a cost of an abrams it will make much sense. 1 m1 abrams vs 4 t90m vs 2 leos...

[@wesjohn2]

It's hardly inexplicable, it's a t-72 renamed because the reputation they got when America steam rolled Iraq.

[@fedclementi]

@@wesjohn2 It seems you are confusing the plain t-90 with the t-90m. There is more difference between a t-90m and a t-90 than between a t-90 and a t-72

[@schutzanzug4518]

⁠@@wesjohn2are you stupid? T-90 was designed before america invaded iraq. T-72 in iraq was model ural export, with 3vbm-3 apfds, which is a export version. This round was made in the late 60’s. Mind you that ural is the first ever version of the t-72, and export at that, with projectiles that stood no chance at all with their tu tipped cores which were immedetly replaced when Soviet Union realized they were useless againsed RHA. So imagine that the first version of Abrams, m1 fought a defense war afainsed t-90ms, that had full Air Force Support. Mind you that the first Abrams variants didn’t have thermals, and actually had much worse optics then the Soviet tanks at the time. Anyways the Abrams would be completely and utterly decimated. No way that the m774 apfds would have done anything to the t-90m’s and t-80bvms. Now imagine that the latest version of the abrams with thermals, much better cannon and armor is being held to the same standard as the one that was marketed to the HS military in the mid to early 70’s. Iraq is ALWAYS a piss poor argument anyways, because Iraq military was the most disorganized army in the world. Would it be fair to compare the Ak to the m1a4, for example? In Baghdad the Iraqi army had some 70 dead for every one American. No way that the ak is THAT much worse then the m1a4, right? Now imagine that but if it was the most early ak model too. Like I said, a piss poor argument.

[@mariobadia4553]

Yeah but he did that this wouldn't be a very good propaganda video now would it

[@kostyantynlabunsky4933]

You're right especially abt price And capacity could be over 500 T90 per year, no one could beat that