At least one of Russia’s most advanced tanks, the T-90M, has been destroyed by Ukrainian troops the British Ministry of Defence has said today.

According to an intelligence update from the British Ministry of Defence:

“At least one T-90M, Russia’s most advanced tank, has been destroyed in fighting. The T-90M was introduced in 2016 and includes improved armour, an upgraded gun and enhanced satellite navigation systems.

Approximately 100 T-90M tanks are currently in service amongst Russia’s best equipped units, including those fighting in Ukraine. The system’s upgraded armour, designed to counter anti-tank weaponry, remains vulnerable if unsupported by other force elements.

The conflict in Ukraine is taking a heavy toll on some of Russia’s most capable units and most advanced capabilities. It will take considerable time and expense for Russia to reconstitute its armed forces following this conflict.

It will be particularly challenging to replace modernised and advanced equipment due to sanctions restricting Russia’s access to critical microelectronic components.”

More about the tank

According to 19fortyfive here:

“Russia’s T-90 Main Battle Tank – A History – Originally developed as the export version of the Russian T-90 main battle tank (MBT), which first entered production in 1992, the T-90S was also adopted by the Russian Armed Forces as the T-90A. This MBT was a further development of the Soviet Red Army’s T-72.

Manufactured by Uralvagonzavod in Nizhny Tagil, Russia, the T-90 had its origins in the Soviet-era program, which was created to develop a new MBT that could replace the T-64, T-72, and T-80 series. These tanks have often been described as a mix of old and new, relying on traditional Russian tank designs that have been standard since the Second World War, yet featuring true 21st century advances into the automatically loading cannon that reduced the size of the crew and resulted in a small and compact weapon platform.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

79 COMMENTS

  1. There’s nothing wrong with Britain because traditional tank believers think they can solve this problem with latest a better tank.

        • So long as the new upgraded tank has taken the lessons of what it will face on the battle field and been developed accordingly, tanks are great weapons.
          To use tanks they need to be integrated with infantry, infantry fighting vehicles, air defence systems etc etc. This is more tactics than having superduper weapons.
          A tank should be moving under an air defence bubble if required where recon units already have a good idea of where the enemy roughly is and what it’s composed of.
          Russia just seems to send tanks out on there own and they get blown up. Even for holding ground a tank should have an infantry screen out to the range of man portable missiles and air defence with artillery systems supporting

          • The tank must significantly increase its current weight, cost, and volume to survive. 

            The side effects of this are the performance improvement due to the aforementioned sacrifice, but uncertain viability and difficulty in being placed on the battlefield in an uncertain situation on the battlefield. (due to large area and large weight) 

            Already, the latest tank is heading for a price of 10M and 100 tons. 

            What’s next? 

            The upgrade of tanks brings about a larger increase in costs than ordinary people think 

            There can be no tanks that are lightweight and small but can withstand any ATGM 

            Obviously, tanks have to have a tactical breakthrough and a survival guarantee for infantry in an uncertain battlefield, right?

            However, large weights and large areas can make it difficult to deliver or deploy on the battlefield,that can caused resulting in infantry having to enter instead of tanks. irony situaiotn 

          • Even if F-16 fighter jets are priced in one tank, tank believers will say that there is no problem at all because they can increase the defense budget.

            While it is small and light, and all of the upper , the side, the rear active protection systems are applied, at the same time, a tank with strong protection against the sabot ammunition may emerge. However, this upgrade will cause the tank to cost between 20M and 100M or more. Of course, it should have protection against IED = down. 

            Nevertheless, it is clear that advanced intelligent ammunition will become cheaper and less responsive to intelligent ammunition and future tank-only drone ammunition (present similar example-switchblades) due to limitations in the size and performance of active protective sensors 

            It is more difficult and more expensive than developing drones to simultaneously develop armor and sensors in tanks and to coordinate them.

          • Mate, what are you on about?

            Active Protection Systems (APS) will get more effective in time and at some point will not only defeat both high explosive anti-tank (HEAT), but also armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS/Fin) rounds.

            Current systems such as Rafael’s Trophy can currently defeat HEAT warheads used in anti-tank guided missiles, rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and tube fired shells. In its current form it cannot defeat Fin rounds, as Fin are solid bits of metal (tungsten carbide or depleted uranium). So the fragmented Tungsten that Trophy uses to hit the threat with, cannot set off or destroy the warhead’s detonator like it does with HEAT shells. The fragmented tungsten cubes do not have a superior mass to the Fin’s dart to cause significant damage.

            There are other forms of APS that may be more effective against both HEAT and Fin rounds. One is IMI’s Iron Fist, the other is through explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), which the T14’s Afghanit is supposed use.

            Iron Fist’s effector uses a concussive blast wave to crush the sensor/fusing/warhead of a HEAT ATGM/RPG/Shell. It has been shown in trials that it can also deflect a Fin round, so that its flight path is slightly angled away from the vehicle.

            Afghanit’s EFP works in a similar fashion to a HEAT round. In that an explosive charge transforms the shape of a cone into a high speed solid dart, not a molten plastic jet like HEAT does. Russia have claimed that the Afghanit system can target a Fin round and hit it with the EFP, causing it to loose much of its energy and deflecting it away from the vehicle. However, this has not been independently verified, but the theory is more or less sound. In that the density of the EFP dart must match or be close to the Fin round to make sure significant energy has been transferred. Otherwise the Fin round will just punch through the EFP. If the EFP can hit the Fin at a slight angle it may be enough to change its flight path enough to miss the vehicle.

            Leonardo DRS have gone into partnership with Rafael to further develop Trophy. They have made the system 40% lighter and increased the magazine for the remotely operated turret, as the original system only had two shots per turret, before it needed manually replenishing. Neither company have said how many shots it now has, clearly! But have stated it can provide multi-shot protection from just one turret.

            The next stage for Trophy would be the ability for a platoon of vehicles with it fitted, to be networked together to provide a greater level of situational awareness and protection. It can already pin point a shooter’s location, along with automatically aligning the turret and gun with the measured shooter’s position. The next step would be using Trophy’s X-band AESA radar to map out an area using synthetic aperture techniques. Thereby developing a real life map of the area around the tank. But also showing where other vehicles have travelled from and to. It could also be used for friend or foe identification, including using the radar to help visualize a potential threat day or night and in all weathers.

            If we look at Iron Fist’s effectors, they are much like a 60mm mortar shell, except their case is made from a combustible material rather than metal. From the available images, it doesn’t look like the effectors use proximity fusing. So must be either command detonated via a radio data link or have the fuse timing set up before firing. They are then fired towards the target ballistically, whereby the detonate as the pass the target.

            This could be improved by using a guided effector that can change its flight path depending on the type of threat. So for a HEAT threat, it explodes next to the target. But for a Fin round, it steers so that it explodes below the target, thereby trying to deflect the Fin round over the vehicle.

            If an Iron Fist APS can be perfected to defeat both HEAT and Fin. Then the vehicle will need substantially less armour. It will still require enough armour to protect the vehicle from autocannon fire, so possibly up to 76mm. As any larger, the rate of fire drops off significantly due to elevated barrel temperatures. Even then, a 76mm system much like Leonardo’s (OTO) 76mm system, will require water cooling.

            Today’s passive composite spaced armour can easily handle multiple 76mm sabot rounds. This means the weight of the vehicle, even with a 120mm size gun and sufficient ammo, can easily drop below 55t. Cost wise it would be in a similar ball park to an Ajax vehicle in terms of complexity and technology, plus using existing off the shelf items.

    • A lot of videos show single tanks operating all alone, no other vehicles, no infantry, on the move, attacking targets.

      Zero tactics.

      Dont let that fool you.

      With this logic, the situation would have also approved helicopters are equally useless.

    • Like the battleship the death of the tank will not be a result of its lack of protection but the utility of its main gun vs the logistical cost of getting it there. There are still a lot of Missions where a 120mm direct fire weapon is needed however given the capability of drones, long range precision fire, AirPower and man potable missiles they have been reduced. That being said even a battleship would be useful to modern navies if they could afford them however they would be an expensive niche capability. Tank cost are not yet anything like battleship costs so they are likely to be in service for a long time to come.

      • https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/poland-m1a2-sepv3-main-battle-tank

        The M1A2 SEPV3 is the latest tank with the highest counter ATGM specifications. 

        The price of the tank program per unit is 24M USD.

        Nevertheless, the trophy is still vulnerable to the top, rear, and tank DOWN. 

        More and more upgrades are needed to counter with Jabelin. 

        If Chinese-made Jabelin copies and Russian-made Jabelin copies or Ukrainian-made Jabelin copies are on the market, the lifespan of Western-made tanks will not be very long.

        • “Jabelin”?!?!

          You can’t just keep making tanks bigger or heavier. If you do that they become no-longer air, rail, or road, transportable, which makes their deployment to theatre much slower. You might also find roads and bridges in theatre can’t support their weight, limiting their usefulness. And then there’s the effect off-road…

        • The tank won’t die off, it still has its place.
          What will change is the tactics and how to use them will change. I sort of get what your saying about weight and cost, it’ll be practically improbable that a MBT will weigh 100t and cost £20M, what will change is APS will become standard and increasingly more advanced.

          P.s anyone who uses mbt’s without infantry and Vis versa is a fool.

      • I don’t think the logistic cost of deploying tanks has ever weighed heavily on anyone’s mind. We have deployed tanks overseas since 1916 and sucked up the cost. We have the HETs bought and paid for, rail flats surely don’t cost a fortune to hire and have to employ freight shipping for all the other vehicles and warlike stores.
        On your other point about drones, they are not wonder weapons. They can be jammed and shot down and do not carry as big an ammunition load out. A
        Heavy attack drones and their C2 and support package are not cheap. Drones cannot seize ground.

        • Not harsh at all. While nobody wants to see death, this is war and Russia is the aggressor. The only way Russians back home are going to find out Ukraine is not as great as there media tell them is through injury and deaths effecting every member of society. It’s already affecting every member of Ukrainian society

          • So Russian soldiers, invading a peaceful country, killing innocent, babies, children, women and men deserve to live and that we should hope that they do?

            JohninMK has some serious competition.

          • No they don’t and that is not what I was implying. If you really want to know I was an EU monitor in the former Yogoslavia believe you me I felt the same way as you do now. It’s all very well us armchair warriors making statements such as yours but it doesn’t solve anything. Those who butcher, rape and kill the innocent get what they deserve for sure. In reality in situations like this they will almost certainly get away with it. Enough said from me I have had my say.

          • Well, thank you for your service, I can only imagine that you may have seen some horrific scenes.

            I know my former colleagues did.

            Should my views offend you, please accept my apologies, having lived with Russians, they have a different code on life and death.

            Any tankers will be put back into the saddle and told to continue killing innocents, hence my views.

            Thank you once more for your service.

      • Not at all.

        1 they deserve it after the conduct of Russian troops
        2 the more misery heaped on the people of Russia the better the chance of them questioning why they suffer that misery
        3 the more deaths the lower Russian morale sinks
        4 the crew you kill today can’t be a threat in a different tank tomorrow
        5 the bastards should have stayed in their own country. End of.

  3. The key is no platform is invulnerable, if you run it stupid or the enemy is clever. I suspect there are a lot of dead infantry men but they are not out of date.

    This does not show the tank is irrelevant, but it does show the lighter tank,with poor fire suppression, ammo stowage, combined arms trading and reactive armour of the Russian army ( which is all soviet design and philosophy) is no longer effective.

    That does not mean western tanks with good combined arms, active defence systems and proper fire suppression and ammo storage are the same level of death trap.

          • Hi simon agree yes it’s completely different, There are a lot of people making inference that this proves the tank is no longer a useful weapon. But for my mind it only proves that the way Russia has used them is out dated not that the tank is outdated.

    • Also, none of their vehicle have effective top attack protection. If our vehicles had the Trophy APS fitted, then they would get top attack protection.

  4. The latest Russian tanks like t-90 and others are vulnerable not only to the top of the tank but also to the side and rear.

    Therefore, the advantages of Ukraine, such as drone reconnaissance, ambush, and surprise attack, can destroy Russian tanks that are sufficiently moving or deployed to the front.

    there’s no suprise

  5. Not much info on the T90M. so for those who want to know more:(cut and pasted from Miltary today)
    The T-90M is an improved version of the T-90 tank. Sometimes this tank is referred as “Proryv-3” (Breakthrough-3). It was first publicly revealed in 2017. It has a number of improvements over the original T-90. It follows the lines of the T-90MS tank, which was designed for export and uses some similar components. The T-90M was trialed by the Russian Army in 2017. During the same year a contract was signed to deliver a first batch of 10 newly-built T-90M tanks to the Russian Army and to upgrade another 20 T-90A tanks to a similar T-90AM standard. Deliveries of this first batch reportedly commenced in 2019. In 2021 it was announced that this tank is being delivered to the Russian army in quantity.
    https://i.postimg.cc/zDj5YbhB/i-Wj-Xd-CNx-X3.jpg
     The upgraded T-90M tank has improved armor protection. It uses Relikt built-in Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) in place of the previous Kontakt-5. It provides protection against tandem warheads and significantly reduces penetration of APFSDS rounds. The T-90M is fitted with rubber side skirts with built-in armor plates. Some areas of the tank are covered by a cage armor and special net, that improves protection against certain types of anti-tank weapons. This tank is fitted with NBC protection and automatic fire suppression systems. Interior is lined with spall liner.

     There is also a countermeasures system, which triggers smoke grenade dischargers once the tank is being illuminated by a laser beam. This system significantly reduces the chance of being hit by enemy anti-tank guided weapons with semi-automatic guidance.

     The T-90M is armed with a new 2A46M-4 gun, which has longer range and is 15-20% more accurate than the standard gun of 2A46M gun of the T-90. It uses the same 125 mm ammunition as other Russian main battle tanks. It fires APFSDS, HE and HE-FRAG rounds. The tank can also launch 9M119 Refleks (Western reporting name AT-11 or Sniper-B) anti-tank guided missiles in the same manner as ordinary munitions. These missiles have a range of 4-5 km and can also engage low-flying helicopters. A total of 43 rounds, including missiles, are carried for the main gun.

     The T-90M uses a proven carousel-type autoloader. A total of 22 rounds are stored in the autoloader and are ready to use.

     Secondary armament consists of a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun. There is a also a roof-mounted remotely-controlled weapon station, armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun. Both machine guns are operated under armor.

     The T-90M has a new fire control system and updated observation and aiming devices. This new Russian tank has a hunter-killer engagement capability. Tank commander uses a panoramic sight with thermal vision to search for targets. Once the target is selected the gun is laid on the target automatically and the gunner completes al the aiming and firing process. During that time commander looks for the next target. Furthermore target acquisition system tracks selected targets automatically. It is claimed that the new tank is 15-20% more accurate than its predecessor. The T-90M tank observed in 2021 has some kind of telescopic mast fitted with optical sensors, possible for surveillance when the tank is entrenched or behind the cover.

    • The above picture is from the Web site of Russian military photographer VITALY KUZMIN, yes he’s Russian, but he posts some of the best pictures of Russian military equipment going. He’s just uploaded a load of pictures regards the practicing of the military parade set for the 9th of May in Moscow

    • Lol, its more accurate because it takes account of barrel warping due to heat and has an integral gun layer. Cant believe it took Russia until 2017 to match those features.

    • It’s still a development of the T72 so it has the 6 road wheels of the T72 rather than the 7 of the Armata. It also still has the ‘Jack in the box’ flawed auto loader system which blows the entire turret 20ft in the air…

    • Russia field tested the T90M in Syria, with initially mixed results. The T90M was developed on lessons learned from sending T90As to Syria. The tank’s electronic countermeasures worked sometimes and sometimes it didn’t, against the same threat of ATGM. From memory, I believe one was even captured by the Free Syrian Forces and used against Assad’s, before it was recaptured.

      The T90M’s 2A46M-5 is the latest development of the guns used by the T72, T80 and T90A. It can handle a higher chamber pressure, and thereby develops a greater muzzle velocity. It is supposed to be the most accurate out of the series. There were plans for the T90M to use the same gun as the T14 Armata, the 2A82-1M. It uses a different autoloader and fires longer APFSDS rounds, compared to the ones uses in the 2A46M series of guns. They are much longer than standard Russian APFSDS rounds, but still quite shy of those used by Western tanks. Though they claim near equivalency to Western penetration values!

      Why was the better gun not used in the T90M, I’m not sure? It may be due to the autoloader not fitting into a smaller hull or it significantly drops the number of rounds it could carry. But using two part ammunition and a carousel autoloader, it limits the length of the APFSDS round’s dart. Which then limits the penetration value against spaced and composite armour. Unlike the other T series tanks (T72, T80 and T90) the T14’s shell/round is stored in the carousel vertically, whereas the older tanks store them horizontally. Which means the T14’s shell/rounds can be longer.

      The fire control computer, gunners and commanders optics were provided by Thales (France). Russia then purchased a licence to locally manufacture these parts. Only a month after Russia invaded Ukraine, due to Worldwide political pressure, did France finally stop supplying Russia components for them to produce these parts for the T90M.

    • Armata is their intended future tank but its a couple of years older than this T-90 variant and while they have managed to build 100 of this between refitting old tanks and new ones they have still only finished less than 20 T-14 in the 8 years since approved for service because its cheaper to upgrade an old tank than buy a new one…

      • Think there have been reliability issues with Armata as well. At least one caught fire in public as well so it’s probably been sent to a gulag in disgrace.

  9. Doesn’t matter how good the tank is if you drive it up a sand track in a forest with no infantry support. Same old, same old. It’s not how big it is, it’s what you do with it.

    • And yet, under it all it’s still just a warmed over T72…

      It’s like the UK still fielding and modifying Chieftain tanks!

      The news suggests that the Russians are loosing a considerable amount of tanks and APC’S every single day as the Ukrainians aggressively patrol forward, hit and run and create killing zones the Russians stumble into….

      One wonders how long Ivan can carry on taking this sort of hiding, day in day out..

      Wait until the western supplied 155mm Artillery gets fully fielded (along with NATO supplied targeting intelligence), the Russians will come to understand what it’s like to be under accurate and deadly sustained fire and their losses will only compound and increase!

      • Well they supposedly Russia had 10,000 tanks in total pre-war and in 2 months the Ukrainians claim to have killed/captured 800 tanks. So at that rate, in 2 years they won’t have a single tank left…

        The Ukrainians are facing a numerically superior force, so sensibly they’re fighting asymmetrically, with the technical edge of western weapons giving them a further advantage.
        This more than Afghanistan, will be Russia’s Vietnam.

        • Given what we have seen of the state of their kit and their tendency to not be entirely truthful (to say the least), I’d imagine they actually have half that number of tanks at best. Most of them will not be in good condition either. Unless they plan on moving them from the borders with China then they may well run out of deployable tanks before long.

        • considering most of their front line kit seems to be suffering from repair issues, I would imagine most of those numbers are just rotting lumps of metal.

          I agree that Ukraine are and will bleed the Russians although I’m not sure it’s really asymmetric warfare in the traditional sense, as they are fully engaging/defending and denying Russian and although smaller Ukriane has a large competent armed forces. Its not so much and irregular force fighting and bleeding an army that has taken possession, its a well trained army using a western way of war-fighting going toe to toe with a far larger but inferior army using the war-fighting paradigm of a large conscripted poorly trained force.

          So it’s even more interesting than the asymmetric conflicts as this is another proving ground for modern western war fighting doctrine vs the doctrine of the totalitarian armed forces. Why it’s really interesting it’s it pitting a smaller force with limited resources using western doctrine against a very large totalitarian state. Where as the gulf-wars always had the western forces with a massive force advantage in real terms.

          To be honest, the west will always be at a disadvantage in asymmetric warfare as it ROE and the general Moral drivers of the west mean we have difficulty with asymmetric warfare. Totalitarian states have an advantage in this, as the only real way to win an asymmetric war is convert the whole population to your way of thinking or murder, transport the whole population. If your not willing or able to do ethic cleansing your probably never going to win and asymmetric war ( it’s the main reason the west should never ever go around invading other countries).

      • Lobbing lots of accurate artillery fire back at 🇷🇺 forces can’t come soon enough. Hope it gives themm 🇷🇺 the absolute scary shits and finishes them off! If anything spare maybe 🇺🇦 can do the same around Mariopul and even Crimea. Continues strength to 🇺🇦 forces, the people and their President!

      • Hi John, this is what I aways point out to the “look at Russia’s new warships and how many missiles they have “ brigade.

        Everything Russia builds are essentially old Soviet projects even their latest SSNs are essentially Soviet ( 1980s) designs. You really have to drill down to the design pedigrees of Russian equipment and when you do you realise most of it is as the expression goes mutton dresses as lamb.

        • The thing is they were probably working on some very good designs in the late 80’s which got stalled after the collapse of the USSR. Eurofighter is based on a late-80’s demonstrator and is doing pretty well for itself now. Russia’s problem is that it cannot afford many of their most modern designs, partly due to an insistence on retaining mass by keeping many older models in service. It’s like if we’d kept a couple of squadrons of Tornados and Harriers with minor upgrades and bought half as many Eurofighters and probably zero F35’s. An important fact to remember when people argue that we should retain various pieces of kit to keep numbers up.

  11. Doesn’t matter how good the tank is. When employed by amateurs like the Russian Army they are useless. If the Russians had M-1A2s or Challenger3 it wouldn’t matter. They have no concept of armored warfare.

  12. According to liveuamap: “Admiral Grigorovich-class frigate of the Russian Navy Black Sea Fleet is reportedly on fire near Zmiiny island in Black Sea. Rescue operation ongoing, multiple aircraft, rescue vessels in the area”

  13. Russian tactics are still shocking to see but the one consistently utilised drill is common throughout, and well used by them all once under IDF. It’s the RLFA, or Run Like Fuck Anywhere! Seems effective, and especially amusing when benny hill type, or silly music attached to footage! Putin must be so proud of his new Benny Hill show!

    • It is the most advanced tank they actually deploy. The T-14 is beset by problems with only a small number making it off the production line. Given how long the program has been going it’s doubtful it will ever see anything other than token service, driving past the Kremlin in parades.

  15. Looking at pictures of T90s turret blown off does this indicate that stored ammunition has cooked off. I know Russian tanks have fairly low profiles and ammunition is stored in the turret with an auto loader. Western tanks have manual loaders with ammo stored in the hull. It does look like there needs to be a rethink of tank design given anti tank missiles. Perhaps we are seeing the demise of MTB.

  16. Kinda interesting that it’s only now, weeks into the war that one has been destroyed. Either Russia didn’t deploy them until recently or they are harder to kill than the hundreds of older models that are a burning mess, I wonder which it is.

    Even the best equipment can be destroyed, as the US and their stealth bomber over the Balkans.

    • Steve wrote:

      Kinda interesting that it’s only now, weeks into the war that one has been destroyed. Either Russia didn’t deploy them until recently or they are harder to kill than the hundreds of older models that are a burning mess, I wonder which it is.

      The reason why so few have been see, is simply down to the fact that only a few have been produced, with a figure of 100 tanks in total.

    • We can only make 2 assumptions, There are few T-90s deployed to Ukraine, and they are harder to knock out.

      AFAIK there are only 550 T-90s in the Russian inventory, some have been updated to ‘M’ about ~ 200 T90s not active (in storage)

    • FF or abandoned (see my post above in regarding your fav rapists skill set at running away) both are proof your russkie rapists, you know the ones you fully support, are garbage!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here