Talk:T-90

Copyright issue

GlobalSecurity.org and FAS.org both have roughly identical copies of this text. GlobalSecurity.org has a footer that says:

Copyright © 2000-2004 GlobalSecurity.org All Rights Reserved

As far as I can tell, Global Security has not released anything on their site to public domain (despite the copying by FAS.org) and therefore we are in violation of their copywrite. -Vina 19:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the infringing sections. Lupo 07:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Limited Service?

And if it is permissible for an objective observer to interrupt the sales pitch here, it is appropriate to note that, #1, the T-90 has never been used in combat, and #2, only a handful have actually been built, probably fewer than one hundred since the late 1980s. It seems to be more of a limited-service test bed project for new design ideas than an actual weapons system, just as the T-64 was. Given the sad current state of the Russian economy and Russian industry, it is by no means certain that they would be able to manufacture a significant number of these tanks even if they got an order for them.

I'd be inclined to suggest that that's more inaccurate than objective. The T-90 has been kept out of combat deliberately because it would undoubtedly be destroyed in combat in Chechnya, as were the old T-80BVs deployed there (no tank is invincible, after all. . . witness the destruction of several M1 series tanks in Iraq by 23mm AAA fired at the sides and rear. This would look bad for the design and the factory, and while it's nothing out of the ordinary for tanks to be destroyed, when your opposition in the market is routinely successful at painting your product as inferior despite the desadvantages of their own offerings, you can hardly be blamed for being antsy about the whole deal, given the state of your economy.

The T-90 is employed in small numbers by mainly guards tank units in Russia, and is is indeed considered even in Russia to be merely a stopgap interim solution to keep production lines open and workers at their jobs until the government can afford to purchase newer tanks, which are in fact based on the T-80 chassis. While the T-90 is the most advanced production tank in Russia, it isn't by any means the most advanced tank available.

The writer of the italicized comment is demonstrably 5 to 10 years behind the curve in his understanding of Russian and Ukranian tank technology, and even in that regard has a lot of facts mixed up, backward, and affected by the opinions and assumptions of a vocal group of 'analysts' who would prefer to presuppose their opponent's kit is inferior to theirs, rather than investigate the matter objectively. It may very well be that Russian kit is inferior, but the method of arriving at an informed understanding of the matter is to explore it fully and without bias, rather than to assume it based on half-understood and outdated notions.

---

Placed here as placeholder until someone rephrases them to a form suitable for main article.

And if it is permissible for an objective observer to interrupt the sales pitch here, it is appropriate to note that, #1, the T-90 has never been used in combat, and #2, only a handful have actually been built, probably fewer than one hundred since the late 1980s. (note: the T-90 went into service in 1993, and several hundred have been built to date for Russian service) It seems to be more of a limited-service test bed project for new design ideas than an actual weapons system, just as the T-64 was (note: the T-64 was not a test-bed, it was a production tank which was viewed as too complex to be produced in large numbers during the cold war, and the design became the T-80). Given the sad current state of the Russian economy and Russian industry, (note: Rosoboronexport, the new Russian state-run arms company currently turns out billions of dollars in arms exports every year, and is one of the largest arms suppliers in the world.) it is by no means certain that they would be able to manufacture a significant number of these tanks even if they got an order for them. (note: the factory recently produced 124 T-90 tanks for India, with a further 184 to be assembled there from parts manufactured at the factory.)

If it's further permissible to interrupt the western party line to legitimize the 'sales pitch', an informed objective observer might be inclined to suggest that that's more inaccurate than objective. The T-90 has been kept out of combat deliberately because it would undoubtedly be destroyed in combat in Chechnya, as were the old T-80BVs deployed there (no tank is invincible, after all. . . witness the destruction of several M1 series tanks in Iraq by 23mm AAA fired at the sides and rear). This would look bad for the design and the factory, and while it's nothing out of the ordinary for tanks to be destroyed, when your opposition in the market is routinely successful at painting your product as inferior despite the disadvantages of their own offerings, you can hardly be blamed for being antsy about the whole deal, given the state of your economy.

Alex.tan 14:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also I wish to remind you that Russia has been fielding the T-90. There are currently, in the Russian Army, 241 of them in use. There are 7 in use by the Navy (most likely Naval Infantry). Then there is 310 T-90S used in the Indian Army. Russian economy may be in a worse state however it's Military Industry is as good as ever, being it's number one export. -Anon

Reverted Edits

All specialists are recognize that the T-90S the best anti-tank in the world. He's also named "flying tank".

Reverted this edit by 194.246.112.83 to the last edit by User:Mzajac. Besides poor grammar, this editor does not specify who these ‘specialists’ are that consider the T-90S the best anti-tank in the world. Also, this editor says that “he’s” also named the flying tank. Who is he? Do you mean the tank? oo64eva (AJ) 19:41, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like a literal translation from Russian, referring to the tank. The attribution of "all specialists" is certainly wrong, and I don't think the nickname is correct, either. The T-80/T-84 are called flying tanks, because of their very high power-to-weight ratio. —Michael Z. 2005-04-9 22:07 Z

India has procurred some 400 T-90's and some 300 more are under construction for India. Russia has some 400 operational T-90's though many of these are T-72B bodies upgraded with T-90 turrets. Some of you are downright clueless. There is an entire tank division worth of T-90's in service with the Russian army at this point.

Division? Which one? I know of a regiment only. --jno 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well put, and may I point out that the T-90 is based very similarly to previous soviet armored designs, I seriously doubt it will turn out to b ea poor tank in combat.

Sure, T-90 is a major upgrade of T-72. However, I cannot realize, why it will turn out to b ea poor tank in combat?. --jno 07:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian Economy

I have been hearing that the economy in Russia is doing well toomany people are thinking of 10 years ago Russia probably doesn't want all of them destroyed in Chechnya It would be better to use an older tank in urban combat such as the T-55 Dudtz 7/20/05 2:38pm est

I found the official page of the Company that makes the tanks

I added the links and also made some changes to the characteristics screen

The officla page has its own characteristics scrren which can be found by clicking on http://www.uvz.ru/eng/ then clicking on ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES then clicking on MILITARY PRODUCTS then on t-90 c or just go here http://www.uvz.ru/eng/edata/euvz/eprodukt/mprod/t_90.htm

Also i have problems with adding new lines to wiki characteristics screen dotn know how to create a new line if someone could do that for me that would be great i added the to lines about FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM and GUIDED WEAPON SYSTEM

Deng 2005/11/28 02.05 CET

The format for the tank template is fixed, so you can't add new lines. The guided weapon is one of the capabilities of the main armament, and we don't list fire control in the infobox; such details and specs for different models (T-90/T-90S) can go in the main text. —Michael Z. 2005-11-28 01:56 Z

Picture

Would it be ok for me to take a picture of a book that has the picture of this tank in it,would it be legal? Dudtz 12/30/05 6:28 PM EST

Probably not, possibly unless it was a government publication, or reprinted an image which was in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for guidelines. —Michael Z. 2005-12-30 23:39 Z

Fact check

Plans called for all earlier models to be replaced by the T-90 by the end of 1997, but this objective remains unachieved due to lack of funding

I'll remove this, unless someone can cite a reference. The Soviet Union and Russia have never replaced all earlier models of tanks, retaining older ones in second-line units and still older ones in war stores. —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 06:34 Z

With Russian, French and Israeli assistance, India developed an improved version of T-90M, known as the Bhishma

This requires a reference too, I don't see it in the ones cited. The sources seem to assume that the T-90S tanks bought from Russia are also called Bhishma. —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 06:41 Z

It is a bit confusing. Some sources indicate that India modified the T-90S to suit its needs. In that case, the indegenously manufcatured Bhishma tank is not the same as the T-90S tank; in other words is a different version of the T-90. The French thermal sights used in the Indian version cost 30 to 40 million INR; 25% of the total cost to manufacture a T-90 in India. Accroding to Bharat-Rakshak.com, "The T-90S [Improved] is the export version of the Russian T-90M and features a welded turret, the V-92S2 engine and an ESSA thermal viewer. The Indian Army's T-90S is not to be confused with the simplified T-90S export version."

This is what fprado.com has to say aout the differences between the T-90S and the T-90M: "The T-90 "Vladimir", with a welded turret, is also referred to as T-90M, but it is not an official designation. The official designation for those tanks were T-90A, or T-90SM. Actually, all production T-90s from 2001 onwards have welded turrets, so it only seems logical to assume that the official designation now is T-90S (or "C") - what is confirmed by the fact that all T-90S MBTs sold to India have welded turrets. There are also occasional references to a T-90E, but these appear to be unsubstantiated." --Incman|वार्ता 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like all Indian T-90s have more powerful engines than tanks in Russian service and welded turrets, both developed in Russia, and their own selection of electronics and fire control (I think the "simplified" T-90S refers to an 840-hp T-90 being offered for export, but not bought by anyone). I suppose the Indian tanks may have changes for indigenous industrial production, too. I don't see any evidence that India improved the design, or that the tanks to be built in India constitute a new model. Keep in mind that they haven't been built yet, so information about them is speculative anyway.

The sentence should be reworded to reflect what is known and what may be speculative. I don't see the point in putting much stock in designations like T-90M and T-90E—which the sources appear to admit are speculative—except to note that they are sometimes used. Bhishma appears to be an adequate and verifiable name for the T-90S tanks in Indian service. —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 15:52 Z

North Korean M2002 tank?

According to www.globalsecurity.org North Korea expressed interest in purchasing a T-90 and was reported as testing a new tank remarkably similar to the T-90 labelled M2002 in 2002. This may be of interest to those investigating the T-90, but as it is merely a rumour (though one that seems plausible), I decided to post this here. Anyobdy else know anything about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.56.200.33 (talk • contribs).

It can be mentioned in the article with a link to the item at the Global Security site. —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 23:03 Z

No M1 Abrams have been destroyed by 23mm ZPU fire. You may be thinking of an incident where two M1A2s were reported to be disabled by a 100mm Soviet gun firing into the rear of the tanks.