Talk:T-90

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the T-90 article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

The phrase "Flying tank" was used after once on a show that tank jumped flying more than 9 meters in the air. In the midjump it makes a shot, succesfully hitting the target. There also was a foto of that shot. --Oleg Str 08:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like Zaloga's caption (2000:9) for a photo of a T-80U in mid-jump, at the 1993 IDEX trade exhibition: "Flying tank! The T-80U has the highest power-to-weight ratio of any current tank, and this is often demonstrated at exhibitions by having the tank jump off an embankment. Seconds later, this tank fired its main gun while in flight, an awesome display even if not very accurate!" (Although the tank in the photo is flying off of a ramp much lower than nine metres—I doubt that any tank crew would be conscious and unbroken after dropping from that height)
Regardless of individual photo captions, it's the T-80 and T-84 which are nicknamed flying tank, not the T-90, whose version Russian service has much less horsepower.
  • Steven Zaloga and David Markov (2000) Russia's T-80U Main Battle Tank. Hong Kong: Concord. ISBN 962-361-656-2
By the way, YouTube has a video of a Leopard tank firing in flight. —Michael Z. 2006-10-10 16:17 Z

[edit] 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


[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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
The armour bit of this article, what is it actually refering to? The hull or turret armor.

[edit] 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

M-2002 is the upgraded version of P'okpoong-Ho--80.235.55.64 (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

M1A2 fact check.

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 gun firing into the rear of the tanks.

Well, there is a case when some 25mm Bushmaster rounds disabled an M1, read da page, man.

One M1A2 was destroyed by 12.7mm DShK heavy machinegun. How? The machinegun hit the additional gas turbine on the turret rear, fuel has spilled on hot motor section, result - fire and loss of the tank.
It was acually a hit to the rear from a recoiless rifle that caused a fuel leak which lit the engine on fire. The tank was not destroyed then however, it took a USAF AIM65 missile to do that. Also those Bushmaster 25mm SABOT rounds fired into the rear of the tank just disabled the engine. That is alot different than HE ammunition from a 23mm ZPU destroying an Abrams by hitting it in the sides. The engine of any tank is rather vulnerable.

[edit] Verifiability (original research??) of this section

"Survivability

While the T-90 continues the Soviet tradition of strong and weight-efficient protection (the Soviets used combination armor before the West, as well as anti-APFSDS effective ERA), as an evolutionary follow-on to the T-72, it lacks the survivability features that are built in Western MBTs that will keep its crew alive after suffering penetration by enemy projectiles. For example, spare ammunition is stored in the main compartment, rather than separate compartments with blow-out panels. This caused many Soviet-designed tanks' ammo to detonate in a "catastrophic" kill after being penetrated, with legends of turrets being thrown 50 feet into the air.

In the Gulf War, this lack of survivability excarberated the obsolescent protection of the Iraqi armor, which can be easily penetrated by modern Western ammunition. Russian tanks proved so vulnerable to almost any kind of anti-tank fire that some battles witnessed American or British units allowing Iraqi crews to bail from their vehicles and clear out, allowing destruction of the highly-flammable vehicles without unnecessary loss of life.

With its improved armor, the T-90 is relatively safe from attacks on the front, where its protection should stop most attacks from penetrating and exposing its survivability weaknesses. However, a side (or top) attack will likely turn the tank into a deathtrap."

Since the T-90 has not been fielded in any combat situation and incorporates significant upgrades from its predecessor's and the fact that no sources are citied for this section in which the T-90 is claimed to be inferior to Western MBTs. The comparison and claim made here will be considered non-verifiable and original research unless someones cares to cite a reference confirming the authenticity of the information presented in this section within a week. The information may hold for academic debate and such but no Public Wiki. Chuglur 04:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This section wasn't really my idea. It was from an un-named IP. I hastily reworded the whole thing to make it less POV, but I figure that he has a point.
  • The problem with the T-90's survivability is what was not upgraded, because it is really a T-72 variant. The problem discussed here is that the T-90 and the T-72 use the same basic ammo layout - ammo lying freely in the main compartment. Try this site. Even the Russians know that the current ammo layout is a disaster in the event of any penetration, which is why they are going to a new layout in the truly new tanks. Kazuaki Shimazaki 08:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Current Russian tanks rely primarily on ERA for their protection. Without the ERA the T-90 or the latest versions of the T-80 would be destroyed just as easy as Iraqi T-72s were. Russian conventional armor is inferior when compared to most western composite designs such as Chobham or Dorchester armor. -Interested Reader —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.180.187 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Nonsense - hindus, fired old T-90С with cast turrets without ERA (!), using various shells (including M 829A1) and thus have not achieved any penetration from front. Do not compare obsolete bastardazed variants of old T-72A with T-90 (A or C).
That means it is quite well PROTECTED. However, AFAIK survivability in a tank refers to how well you do after you get penetrated, and I see no evidence the evolutionary T-90 made revolutions in this area. Kazuaki Shimazaki 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The carousselle autoloader is in the most protected area of the tank, which has statistically the lowest possible hit chance and covered by terrain plications for the typical terrain. Contrary the turret is the most probable hit area. On the newest T-90 there is many upgrades for surviveability.
The article is about the t-90, not the t-72 they are 2 different tanks designed 30 years apart. No t-90s have been in iraq not in the gulf war and not in this new war, the article about the t-90 should only be about the t-90 and not 30 year old t-72s66.246.72.108 08:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The name "T-90" is a marketing exercise. The tank was going to be called the T-72BM. Because of the poor performance of old, monkey-model tanks in the Persian Gulf, it was renamed T-90 to look better (to satisfy the pride of the Russian army, or to improve the prospects of potential exports, I wonder).
According to the Sewell reference, p 45, "however, the T-72 garnered its own share of problems in the Gulf War, as the less capable T-72M and T-72M1 tanks were easily destroyed by first-line US and UK tanks. This is one of the main reasons that the last model, the T-72BM, was hastily redesignated the T-90 to try and shake off the stigma from Iraq."[1]
Sewell also mentions that Russian T-72s were built with better materials than the Iraqi tanks, and the T-72A had superior survivability in Chechnya (note 4). But he also calls ammunition storage in the fighting compartment, which the T-72/T-90 also share, a "fatal flaw" of the T-80. —Michael Z. 2007-02-14 17:14 Z
T-90 never was T-72BM, but T-72BU (Obyekt 188). Originally the designation T-90 was given to another prototype (50 tonnes Obyekt 187 with welded turret, changed hull and new gun).
References? —Michael Z. 2007-02-18 16:27 Z
On english? Nothing, but on russian - Obyekt 187 and btvt.narod.ru.
Regarding the text quoted above, it should mention the nature of the Iraqi T-72s: the fact that we are comparing new apples to crappy, old apples. And of course, adding references would improve it. The specific mention of the effects of side and rear hits seems to be pure speculation, and, without any reference, should be removed. The article can compare the T-72 and T-90, pointing out what is similar and different about the tanks, and let readers draw their own conclusions (or quote experts' conclusions, if they are available). —Michael Z. 2007-02-14 18:10 Z
Despite what the Russians may claim I would trust the M829A1 APFSDS-T round to punch through a T90 without reactive armor. Saying that they have yet to find a shell able to penetrate the front armor is a load of nonsense unless they are just testing ammunition that is quite outdated. Regarding improvements to this article I suggest that a quick list of the different T90 production models be added similar to the one in the T80 article. This list could show updates and changes specific to that model. -Interested Reader.
They CAN`T penetrate "stripped" (without ERA) old T-90 with cast turret with the M829A1. Why do you think the latest M829A3 will penetrate the newest T-90A with welded turret (with new composite fillers) and NEW ERA?!
Let's stick to planning the article, with facts based on published references. Speculation belongs in a milfan forum somewhere else. —Michael Z. 2007-02-18 16:26 Z
Am I supposed to believe you now just because you repeated your claim? Why don't you show some proof or support for this nonsense? To answer your question I would trust the M829A3 to penetrate the latest T90 with ERA because the M829A3 is a major improvment over the M829A2, which is already excellent APFSDS ammunition.

The blow out boxes on the back tanks,such as the Abrams,are usually not well protected,and can be penetrated by heavy machine gun fire. When the ammo blows out,the crew has much less offensive capability.

If the ammo was better protected,the blow out box might make more sense. Dudtz 2/18/07 3:38 PM EST

The ammo compartment on the Abrams is just as well protected as the rear turret of any other MBT. There is no way it could be penetrated by HMG fire.

Not even 14.5mm? Dudtz 2/23/07 5:10 PM EST

I believe the minimum armor requirements on both the Abrams and the Bradley require protection from 14.5mm ammunition. Fire from a 14.5mm machine gun would still be able to damage optics and other parts of the tank, it just would be unable to penetrate the turret and hull. A heavier weapon such as a 25mm or 30mm autocannon with good quality ammunition may be able to penetrate the rear turret of the Abrams. So a BMP2 may have caused the ammunition to go off once.

Well if so,then thats ok protection. Dudtz 3/2/07 9:40 PM ET

[edit] relation

Is this tank related to the T-90 mentioned in the article for the T-70 tank?

No. —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 05:51 Z

[edit] India

The news paper, china dot com, says that India will buy another 350 tanks, so that means that the number of T-90 tanks India has should be increased by 350

http://english.china.com/zh_cn/news/international/11020308/20070527/14123553.html

"MOSCOW, May 26 (Xinhua) -- Russia will sell about 350 tanks to India according to a contract to be signed later this year, Russian news agencies reported on Saturday. "India intends to buy in Russia new tanks T-90 in order to equip the division. This is about 350 tanks," Vladislav Polonsky, chief of the main tank forces management department of the Russian Defense Ministry, was quoted by Itar-Tass news agency as saying. The contract is expected to be signed in autumn, Itar-Tass and the RIA Novosti news agencies said. India has become a major importer of Russian military equipment. It has bought 310 Russian T-90S tanks, RIA said. "

And from RIA Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070526/66134359.html

" BRONNITSY (The Moscow Region), May 26 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and India may sign a contract on the deliveries of 350 Russian battle tanks T-90 to India in the fall of this year, a Russian Defense Ministry official said Saturday.

"India intends to purchase from Russia about 350 T-90 tanks for its tank division," Colonel General Vladislav Polonsky said.

In 2001 India purchased from Russia 310 T-90S tanks, which included 120 completely manufactured tanks, 90 in semi-knocked down kits, and 100 in completely-knocked down kits. "



Hroupsixty 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survivability revisited

On the other hand, as it has been shown in the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflict, the effectiveness of the survivability features to limit crew casualties may have been overrated considering the increased power and precision of anti-tank weapons. [1]

  1. ^ Apparent vulnerability of Israeli armour to Hezbollah anti-tank rockets

This paragraph has been added, removed and restored. Regardless of the citation, the sentence is not only speculative, but relatively content-free.

The cited article merely says that Merkava tanks are vulnerable because Hezbollah may be getting the latest Russian antitank weapons from Syria, and that this is part of an arms race between the designers of tanks and infantry antitank weapons that has been going on since at least 1973. It cites no casualty figures, says nothing about the effectiveness of particular tank survivability features, or whether they have been overrated, and doesn't compare Soviet-style tanks to western types. It says nothing about ammunition storage, cooking-off ammunition, or the T-90. To sum up: it merely says that tanks are not invulnerable.

What is this paragraph doing here? —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 06:09 Z

Note that reservists are counted among the dead tank crewmen. That means that some of the tanks destroyed were infact "Magachs", old tanks being phased out by the israelis. In short, the paragraph in question is founded on a baseless inference. See http://www.mfa.gov.il for casualty figures. - 65.37.28.154 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Indonesia

Flag of Indonesia Indonesia, After buying a number of Russian military aircraft, vehicles and submarines in 2006, Indonesia will order the T-90S for Indonesian Army Corps (TNI-AD). [7]

  • [7] ANGKASA No. 12, Edisi September 2006 (page 79).

Indonesian plans to by T-90 were added with a refernce and then mostly removed from the article, without much comment.

I'm restoring. Please remove and comment if there's a reason to do so. —Michael Z. 2007-07-11 18:04 Z

[edit] Missile

This allows the T-90 to engage other tanks outside of their weapons range, with the exception of the Israeli Merkava and Indian Arjun tanks, which field the LAHAT missile, with a range of 8 km.[2]

This is simply incorrect. This does not allow the T-90 to engage other tanks outside of their weapons range, because many of them fire the same 9M119 missile, with exactly the same range. This includes, for example, the Pakistani Al-Khalid and T-80UD, as well as the T-72, T-80, T-84, Type 98, M-84, &c. —Michael Z. 2007-08-31 01:10 Z

[edit] Survivability

The following is the a proposed draft for the survivability section, the part that raised disagreements is shown in italic text: --C1010 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While the T-90 continues the Soviet tradition of strong and weight-efficient protection (the Soviets used combination armour before the West, as well as anti-APFSDS effective ERA), as an evolutionary follow-on to the T-72, it by design does not include some survivability features present in some Western MBTs that may keep the crew alive after suffering penetration by enemy projectiles. For example, spare ammunition is stored in the main compartment, rather than separate compartments with blow-out panels. As a result, if the tank is hit in the right spot under the right angle and the charge is strong enough to penetrate the armor, the ammunition may cook off, killing the crew members.

On the other hand, as it has been shown in the recent Israeli-Lebanese conflict, the effectiveness of the survivability features to limit crew casualties may have been significantly overrated considering the increased power and precision of anti-tank weapons. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794829.stm

I wanted to make it completely clear why C1010's addition of the BBC article ref and associated section are not acceptable. The BBC article discusses the Merkava and recent doubts about its ability to survive infantry anit tank weapons. It is in no way related to the survavibility section on the T-90 page which discusses possible short comings in the T-90 crew protection specifically the lack of blow off panels. Using a source that mentions neither blow off panels nor the T-90 to infer that the blow off panels might be ineffective on T-90 is clearly WP:SYN. --Daniel J. Leivick 06:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your position, for Mercava MBT was praised for its survivability features, including the blow-out panels, yet Merkava's recent combat record makes the section's claim highly questionable. One can't hope to maintain credibility when discussing survivability features and, at the same time, removing all evidence showing those features have highly questionable impact on the crew's ability to survive. --C1010 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the source you are trying to insert does not mention any survivability features. All it indicates is that the Merkava's armor was not as good at stopping ATGMs as hoped and there were some crew casualties. It does not in anyway back up the claim that you are trying to assert, "The Merkava's failure in Lebanon indicates that blow off panels are ineffective and thus the T-90's lack there of is inconsequential." Find a source that says that and we can add it. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This is certainly false. Have you actually read the referenced article? It specifically mentions, for example, that Merkava's "unique feature is the extent to which crew protection figured in its design." Additionally, you completely misquoted me. When setting up a straw man, at least put a better effort into it or one may get the impression your position is biased or poorly informed or both.
Anyway, the article specifically mentions Merkava's crew protection features and notes that "a significant proportion of Israeli casualties have been among tank crews." The article also cites "the apparent vulnerability of Israeli armour to Hezbollah anti-tank rockets." All of the above directly supports the change of the section in question, see above, and thus I see it as a good reason to restore it in its current form. --C1010 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
However it still doesn't mention the blow off panels... - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't have to, for:
1) The article doesn't have to address every single point of the section to be relevant. The article specifically mentions Merkava's crew protection features, the casualties sustained by tank crews and modern anti-tank systems. This makes the article highly relevant to the section as supporting/counter evidence.
2) The section in question is titled "Survivability", NOT "Blow off panels". The survivability is discussed in the article and I quote: "Crew protection was a key element in the Merkava tank's design."
3) Merkava does have blow-off panels even though they aren't specifically mentioned in the article.
Thus I see the above as a good reason to restore the section in its current form. --C1010 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I take offense to the straw man argument claim. The passage you wish to insert implies, as I have said before that blow off panels are ineffective. The source you are using does not mention blow off panels or any specific survivability feature, end of story as far as I can tell. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong, again. The article does mention specific survivability features. Please read the source and stop substituting what I actually wrote with what you think the article implies. --C1010 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
But the main protection problem in T-90 is the lack of blow off panels. In the article it doesn't say that the Hezbollah anti-tank weapons caused the blow off panels to fail. As we know Merkava has a dozen of protection systems (making it the safest tank in the world) and any of them could fail. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's a problem or not is subject to debate. Blow-off panels viewed by some designers as a weak point in the armor that goes straight to the ammunition, a separate ammunition compartment may require adding a loader to the crew thus increasing the number of potential casualties, some gunners/loaders keep the internal door between compartments permanently open and so on.
In any case, the section is about SURVIVABILITY, not just blow-off panels. My change to the section does not remove data about the panels but adds a sourced note related to the survivability features, anti-tank weapons and casualties, see the linked article, "Crew protection was a key element in the Merkava tank's design... a significant proportion of Israeli casualties have been among tank crews... the apparent vulnerability of Israeli armour to Hezbollah anti-tank rockets." --C1010 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This arguement is going in circles. The survivability section is about the T-90's lack of blow off panels, you can't add a counterpoint that doesn't mention the T-90 or blow off panels, period. I will request comment from WP:WEAPON. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It mentions "Western MBTs" and their survivability features. Both my note and the linked article are related to that. Please make sure you copy me on your comment request to WP:WEAPON. --C1010 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
While the section is titled survivability, all it mentions are blow off panels. The article you wish to add does not discuss blow off panels. It mentions the failure of the Merkava and its survivability systems some of which the T-90 shares like active defense. It does not effectively provide a counterpoint to the fact that the T-90 does not have blow off panels. If you wish the survivability section could be expanded, but I doubt the reference in question would be much use as it only discusses Israeli armor. Also please don't add your comments out of order and without looking at the format it makes it very hard for others to follow the debate. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed and I've explained above why your line of reasoning cannot be accepted. During this rather short discussion you completely misquoted my position and repeatedly made false statements about the source article. At this point I have enough evidence to disregard your position as it is based on misrepresentation, falsifications and blind bias. --C1010 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection/Armament/Fire Control Updated

Slightly re-jigged the wording in the armament section, removed odd referance to a Fragmentation-FS round? and added information on the autoloader and fuse setter. Also tweaked the stats around the 9M117M so that they match up with the manufacturer's material and added material on T-90 fire control system. Re-wrote protection to mention composite filler used in T-90 armour and added to info on Shtora-1, mine sweeps, fire fighting equipment. Also removed unreferanced armour test vs M1 rounds (probably false) and replaced with note to referanced (and actually more impressive) article on 1999 Russian armour tests.--Typhoon9410 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue

The main image in this article has been proposed for deletion due to possible copyright infringment. Can anyone source another image as good that has an open source license? Dhatfield (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)