Russia's Tank Evolution: The Case for T-90M Over T-72B3

T-72B3M is significantly cheaper than the T-90M, that factors into the mix the Russians are currently producing. I suspect Russia may be running out of serviceable T-72's in storage and the move towards more T-90M's is just a natural progression. Usage of storage tanks gave the Russians the time needed to boost production of T-90M.

It's quite simple: The T-72B3 is a T-72 from storage that is refurbished and upgraded with modern sights, a new gun and improved ERA. The T-90M is a newly built tank with all the bells and whistles. Costwise, a T-72B3 probably costs a third of a T-90M. Performance-wise, the T-90M has better protection and since they share the same gun, the firepower is the same. However, the T-90M will have better accuracy owing to its newest generation sights and fire control system. T-90M also has a slight more powerful engine.

I move to ban the words "game changer" for anything having to deal with the Ukrainian conflict

It's name is just "Proryv" and not "Proryv 3". "Proryv 3" was the name of the development program. "Proryv 1" had no name. "Proryv 2" was named "Tagil". And "Proryv 3" was named "Proryv".

I would like to see the T-14 produced instead of the T-72. Integrate changes into the T-14 based on combat experience. I believe Russia can do this.

In the meantime, the UK has yet another Defense Review, and reduces its main battle tank force by a third. And my old regiment, is reequipped with 40mm Ajax toy tank death traps. All this talk about British defense is all mouth and no trousers.

A tank is just as good as its crew. Better crew better tank

Nice washing machines there

They need to add a new transmission with better reverse speed.

This has to be a joke. These things are getting man handled

It seems the presenter just learned about tanks today

I don't like the comparison between the T-90M and the M1. First of all, the T-90M is literally just a T-72 with a new turret. The ERA enhancements, thermal sights, engine and hull, upgraded or not, are all part of the T-72B3 family. The M1 was built as a reaction to the vast armored superiority of the Soviet Union in the Cold War; when they came out with the T-64 and later the T-72, nothing in the West could stand against it. The standard NATO tank, the M-60, was obsolete from the appearance of the 64/72 series and before long the Soviets had way more tanks than we did. So we built the M-1 as a counter to the massive armored attacks we were expecting to receive in Europe if the war ever went hot. The top-attack precision munitions, such as TOW-2, Javelin and Hellfire were also reactions to this problem. The M-1 has two distinguishing features - the turret is much more armored than the hull, which makes it exceptionally survivable in a defensive hull-down position (which has led to the rational but incorrect conclusion that the Abrams was designed as a purely "defensive tank") and a digital fire-control system that allows it to range, fire, switch targets and repeat as fast as possible. The thing people miss is that the T-72 and its derivatives were never meant to counter the M-1; the M-1 was built to counter the T-72. The Soviets designed and prepared to build an anti-Abrams tank, Object 477A "Molot", which never made it past the prototype stage before the Soviet Union fell. The design of this tank was later altered and became the T-14. But because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians were left without a tank as advanced as the west and vast numbers of T-72s which were available for upgrade. This means that rather than produce a tank that could compete with Western designs, the Russians simply took what they had and designed an upgrade program that would be cheaper than producing new tanks altogether - the lesser formations of the Russian army received either the T-80 or the T-72B3. The more elite divisions received the most extensive upgrades, the T-90M and T-80BVM - all of them are relatively cheap upgrades on an outdated design that were meant to keep the underfunded Russian army with at least something that would have a chance against a peer-adversary. I would say, as others had, that the Russians are now running out of T-72s in storage, and as the production lines are all set to T-90M production and because this T-90 is really just a T-72, specifically designed for quick, easy production, that is what they have decided to stick with. They still can't produce the T-72s successor in any adequate numbers and they will need to re-equip as quickly and cheaply as possible once they have won the war.

The most experienced tank in 21st history. It battle different kind of tank from countries in a span of few years.

The 4 man crew was an intensional design feature of the Abrams, the US army tested auto loaders in their tanks in the 80s and concluded that in an actual battle scenario having a dedicated loader increased the fire rate and was significantly safer for the crew should a hostile round penetrate the tank hull or an internal fire or combustion should occur. The Soviets knew this also in the 70s but it played with their battle doctrine of superior numbers, having a smaller population but a strong industrial base they could at the time "overwhelm the technologically superior west". The main problem is that in this era there are too many threats to a tank but the basis of the t55/54 tank is still inherent in all modern Russian tanks it would take too much time to redesign and changes to the factories that produce them to field new and improved tanks that would address these issues. It would take a massive amount of resources that Russia can’t afford at this time, their best bet is to modernize the tanks they are currently fielding, pretty much what the newest t-90 is, just a heavily modified t-72. The Russians shot themselves in the foot back in the 60s and 70s it is what it is.

Regardless of everything Russia should perfect the turtle tank, to many it looked funny but we all saw that it works, I believe it was made in some workshop near the front but if it were done in the Ural wagon institute I think it could be much more compact and efficient. It is enough that every 50 tanks have armor that could have cameras from all sides and where at least 6 soldiers could be pulled in, who instead of on engines much safer would reach the trenches or other

Drones approved this....

4:40 "Innovative", sure try, "having their turret blown 50 feet into space, when the ammo cooks off"

During war time, it’s all about parts and repair time. Russia also produces tanks for war, not for profit, huge difference.

..what is missing from this presentation is the burning wreck, at the end

This tanks ability to see everything all around itself and above itself is extremely useful. This also makes it able to see drones coming to attack from the air much more easy as well. Where the all around vision makes having a sort of accurate buck shot side gun a very viable option for knocking down many drones for a single tanks air defence.