T-90 Main Battle Tank

Interlinked wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Probly the one that got captured?

You mean it's the one the SAA recaptured from Nusra?

For reals, dang, now i wish there were more pics to find out what hit it.

Doesn't really matter what hit it, but if it was the captured T-90 that didn't seem to turn its turret much wasn't it hit in the side of the turret by a T-72 of the Syrian Army?

It blew its top which suggests the crew made the mistake of storing ammo in the turret...

There's a bunch of possible ways it might have gotten destroyed, but you don't have to stow ammo in the turret for the whole thing to blow. Having ammo low down in the tank hull in the carousel makes it less likely to be hit, but it doesn't mean that it is impossible to hit. I don't recommend wild speculation, because no details have been released yet.

Khlopotov is speculating that it was blown up by an air strike, and says that a guy from Facebook that was "familiar with the situation" said that it was destroyed by Russian aviation after the crew abandoned it due to a power failure.

Personally, I think that the extra shells stowed at the rear left corner of the hull was detonated from a hit to the side of the tank, because the turret ring is bent at the 8 o'clock position and the turret landed at the 2 o'clock position from the tank hull. What set off the ammo - no way to know.

I would think an air strike would involve at least a 250kg bomb which means that building right next to the tank would have been more damaged.

It is amusing that you suggest we should not speculate and then you make your own guesses...

I also think a captured tank is not going to be operated with the same discipline as a vehicle operated by the Syrian army or Russian advisors and that their supply network wont be as efficient or effective as the Syrian support network so carrying a few extra shells inside the turret might make enough sense to them for them to do it.

Of course a heavy ATGM launched from a Havok that hit from the rear low down that also hit the autoloader probably could have resulted in the destruction of the vehicle and the turret landing where it has.... the helo approaching from behind at an angle not anticipated by the tanks crew... a slightly downward angle of impact leading to penetration of the autoloader.

I did not speculate what destroyed the tank, I am merely pointing out that it's likely that the ammo at the rear left corner of the hull went off based on the evidence of the bent turret ring. The fact that the ammo detonated is obvious, and the right side of the tank could not have been hit because there's a building in the way, so it's quite likely that the tank was hit from the left side, and the ammunition at the rear left corner was probably hit. Why should this be considered "wild speculation"?

Why should this be considered "wild speculation"?

You said we should not speculate before we have more information and then you speculated as to what you thought happened based on what you can see in the image.

You are the only one who said anything about wild speculation?

The turret is some distance away from the hull and clearly didn't just move there on its own.

The angle of the photo seems to suggest an impact or explosion in the direction the turret has travelled from the hull but the whole vehicle is not rubble so I doubt it was an aerial bomb that did this.

I would say the vehicle was hit and ammo inside it blew the turret up and forward from the point of penetration/explosion.

Perhaps I should claim Russian Hackers did it...

GarryB wrote:

You said we should not speculate before we have more information and then you speculated as to what you thought happened based on what you can see in the image.

You are the only one who said anything about wild speculation?

The turret is some distance away from the hull and clearly didn't just move there on its own.

The angle of the photo seems to suggest an impact or explosion in the direction the turret has travelled from the hull but the whole vehicle is not rubble so I doubt it was an aerial bomb that did this.

I would say the vehicle was hit and ammo inside it blew the turret up and forward from the point of penetration/explosion.

Perhaps I should claim Russian Hackers did it...

speculation
ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/Submit
noun

The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

All my observations are based on evidence.

The turret is detached - that is not speculation. It's literally detached.

The ammo blew up - that is not speculation. The turret ring is bent upward and the turret is detached.

The tank was hit from the left - that is not speculation. There is a building blocking the right side of the tank. Nothing could possible hit it from the right.

All this can be seen in the photo

In this context, speculation would be saying that an ATGM hit it, or an RPG hit it, or a PGM hit it. There is nothing to confirm or deny any of these guesses.

There is no need to antagonize me, Garry. We are all tank enthusiasts here.

Interlinked wrote:All my observations are based on evidence.

The turret is detached - that is not speculation. It's literally detached.

The ammo blew up - that is not speculation. The turret ring is bent upward and the turret is detached.

The tank was hit from the left - that is not speculation. There is a building blocking the right side of the tank. Nothing could possible hit it from the right.

All this can be seen in the photo

In this context, speculation would be saying that an ATGM hit it, or an RPG hit it, or a PGM hit it. There is nothing to confirm or deny any of these guesses.

There is no need to antagonize me, Garry. We are all tank enthusiasts here.

Apparently after tasting some revenge on watching incompetent Turkish crews getting their Leos shish kebabed by IS, the fanboy base thought the T-90 was some sort invincible machine not prone to the classic T-series ammo cook-off and turret detachment.

Alas for them, the time for T-90 came and it wasn't enemy air support, etc.

Well kilo, its when people laughed about T-72 and T-90 not being able to survive simple hits then all of a sudden glorious M1A1's and Leopard 2's were getting smoked and crews becoming BBQ, then T-72's getting hit multiple times and surviving in Syria from TOW hits, is what made people cocky.

In this context, speculation would be saying that an ATGM hit it, or an RPG hit it, or a PGM hit it. There is nothing to confirm or deny any of these guesses.

there was a report of the T-90 in ISIS hands being taken out recently by a Syrian Army T-72... do you have any reason to believe this is not it?

In which case it would not be a missile or rocket but a 125mm round... which therefore becomes another possibility that this photo does not rule out.

GarryB wrote:

there was a report of the T-90 in ISIS hands being taken out recently by a Syrian Army T-72... do you have any reason to believe this is not it?

In which case it would not be a missile or rocket but a 125mm round... which therefore becomes another possibility that this photo does not rule out.

That was a different case from some time ago.

KiloGolf wrote:

Interlinked wrote:All my observations are based on evidence.

The turret is detached - that is not speculation. It's literally detached.

The ammo blew up - that is not speculation. The turret ring is bent upward and the turret is detached.

The tank was hit from the left - that is not speculation. There is a building blocking the right side of the tank. Nothing could possible hit it from the right.

All this can be seen in the photo

In this context, speculation would be saying that an ATGM hit it, or an RPG hit it, or a PGM hit it. There is nothing to confirm or deny any of these guesses.

There is no need to antagonize me, Garry. We are all tank enthusiasts here.

Apparently after tasting some revenge on watching incompetent Turkish crews getting their Leos shish kebabed by IS, the fanboy base thought the T-90 was some sort invincible machine not prone to the classic T-series ammo cook-off and turret detachment.

Alas for them, the time for T-90 came and it wasn't enemy air support, etc.

You don't think it's fair at all that T-series fans get their chance too? Doesn't that make you a fanboy of western tank then?
Problem is that your not being fair.
Let them laugh at the Leos and Abrams when they get a chance. You act like T-series haven't been made fun off 10x more.
Fanboyism justifies the opposite fanboyism.

Meh but turret in invincible Arbams stay after AGTM Malyutka hits them



or here









oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably

GunshipDemocracy wrote:oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably

Those must be some God-level hackers, but seriously what hit this thing, was there an Msta-S or a Khrizantema nearby?

AlfaT8 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably

Those must be some God-level hackers, but seriously what hit this thing, was there an Msta-S or a Khrizantema nearby?

It was in Iraq as far as I remember.  Unfortunately not manned by US forces.  Previous 2 for Yemen according to pics subtitles.

Houti hackers here



iscussion is sweet though:



Sim Salabim
1 year ago
Information:
It's NOT an export version of Abrams, it's M1A2SEP, the best Abrams there is.
It's NOT a kornet ATGM, it's Konkurs, a very old soviet ATGM.

So, you have an old outdated ATGM penetrating America's latest tank.





GTA Cleveland
GTA Cleveland
2 years ago
Saudi Abrams tanks were sold with out the depleted uranium armor layer. So this is a dramatically weaker Abrams tank than the ones used by the US.
REPLY
11



Devilsigh
Devilsigh
2 years ago
+gtaclevelandcity They are M1A2s, and do have DU layers of armor.
REPLY
18



GTA Cleveland
GTA Cleveland
2 years ago
+Louie The Logic Gremlin No they are certainly not. Not even the M1A2's own 120mm gun can pierce its armor. That was demonstrated in Iraq when other tanks tried to destroy a disabled abrams, to no avail.
REPLY
2



Devilsigh
Devilsigh
2 years ago
+gtaclevelandcity You're talking to someone who has served 4 years in the Army on the vehicle. I think I know a thing or two more about the vehicle than those who randomly troll YouTube videos with little knowledge of the tank outside of wikipedia articles. 
REPLY
21



Devilsigh
Devilsigh
2 years ago
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/rslf-equipment.htm

Many of their current serving vehicles are M1A2 SEP V1s. 

Weren,t the T-90s given to Syria the T-90S export variant with its severeley downgraded armor and not the T-90A Russian army variant?

AlfaT8 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably

Those must be some God-level hackers, but seriously what hit this thing, was there an Msta-S or a Khrizantema nearby?

US airstriked some disabled M1 MBTs so as not to fall to the wrong hands.
Saudis, like Egyptians and Iraqis, operate the monkey version and their tanker skills (the Saudis) are nothing worth noting.

EDIT: Double post.

Isos wrote:They have the record for the disstance of the turret and the tanks after seperation        (it was an IED)

Was a huge IED, IIRC. Something like 200kgs detonated directly under the hull belly. I have photos where you can see the steel of the belly bent upward like jagged fingers. Not really the best example...

Kilogolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:oh no this must be fake right? Russian hackers probably

Those must be some God-level hackers, but seriously what hit this thing, was there an Msta-S or a Khrizantema nearby?

US airstriked some disabled M1 MBTs so as not to fall to the wrong hands.

You're all talking out of your asses. That is a screenshot from a propaganda video by IS. They stuffed explosives inside and blew it up.

I'm curious; how come none of you do any investigation whatsoever? You guys just post photos of destroyed Abrams tanks and jerk off over it without knowing the story behind it.

How viable would a binary liquid propellent set-up be in the T-90sm underfloor loader? Would it present any toxicity issues? What Gary said about it last time really piqued by interest. If the T-90 is going to remain in Russian service then they should go all out by introducing a turret similar to the Burlak turret.

The Burlak turret would allow the T-90 to store the long rod sabot rounds that will be used in the T-14 Armata. The binary liquid propellent HE and HEAT rounds could then be stored in the underfloor autoloader, and would thus not explode. The Burlak turret would apparently enable the T-90 to carry a whopping 53 ready to use rounds.

Many Abrams have been lost by the Saudi's against the Yemen's who are vastly weaker.

Many have been lost in Iraq.

Interlinked seriously drop the crap. I dislike biased western fanboys just as much as Russian ones.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Weren,t the T-90s given to Syria the T-90S export variant with its severeley downgraded armor and not the T-90A Russian army variant?

Yes Russia only gives out export grade equipment generally. Unless the tech is so outdated they don't really care