merakava vs t90

No clue, I hope we get to find out someday. I feel like the Norks and Kikes are the last two flashpoints capable of causing a real war between real countries.

File: 1464934938388.jpg (553KB, 1592x1592px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1592x1592px

>>31050215

Merkava, duh.

It has active protection and a panoramic sights and thermals, and its armor is optimized for protection against advanced HEAT warheads.

The T-90 is just a T-72 and has a thermal imager if you're lucky to have one of the newer models and some very old ERA.

Pretty sure a 125 mm DU sabot round can still fuck up a Merkava however.

>>31050295
Sure it'll fuck up the merkava, but it'll probably blow the top off the T-90.

Merkava crew will probably survive to man the next tank, T-90 crew will be barbeque

Depend what they're doing. If it's a 1 on 1 then the T-90 will probably win because it's a true MBT. If it's supporting infantry then the Merkava will win.
Kind of hard to compare the Merkava to other MBTs because it's not built or used others.

>>31050361
Merkgunner sais otherwise.

Its a MBT and nothing else. They never carry people in them anyway.

>>31050361
What makes a T-90 a MBT and the Merkava not one?

>>31050295
>It has active protection and a panoramic sights and thermals, and its armor is optimized for protection against advanced HEAT warheads.
>The T-90 is just a T-72 and has a thermal i
Trophy is only good against HEAT rounds. not hypervelocity APFSDS rounds.

>The T-90 is just a T-72 and has a thermal imager if you're lucky to have one of the newer models and some very old ERA.
The original T-90 which are basically renamed T-72BUs are not in active service afaik. The ones that do are T-90As with welded turrets and much improved composite arrays- you would require the very best ammo to crack those behind a Kontakt-5, not even to speak of Relikt ERA. (Kontakt-5 equipped T-72Bs resist M829A1 for reference)

>Pretty sure a 125 mm DU sabot round can still fuck up a Merkava however.
Doesn't need to be DU, even a dinky Tungsten Mango round can fuck up the Merkava 4 and lower. The Merkavas simply have the weakest glacis of all modern tanks aside from having much bigger front hull projections. And when you have nonisolated ammo almost spanning the width of the vehicle at the back, any penetration from the front is sure to be disastrous.

>>31050215

If I want to go places...T-90.

If I want to defend the homefront...Merkava.

>>31050411
No T-90 has Relikt and welded turrets are a product of the split of manufacturers after the fall of the Soviet Union.

>>31050344
>Merkava crew will probably survive to man the next tank, T-90 crew will be barbeque
Have you seen the storage racks for ammo in the Merk 4? Its about the width and height of the hull with a gap in the middle for the hatch, much easier to hit with penetrations to the armor. At least with the T-90 you can remove the loose stowage rounds and just have the ammo in the AL which is both protected from indirect penetration effects like shrapnel and sparks from its thick steel shell but sits at the hull floor where its unlikeliest to be hit.

File: N1DzLWzlLu0XVOwPkhs4yfY_SgQpYCA7aPp-z-cUNes.jpg (245KB, 1024x725px)

245KB, 1024x725px

>>31050215
There's two categories of tank today:
>[1]actual decent tanks with vented ammo isolation
Abrams, Leo 2(partial credit), T-14 Armata
>[2]human barbecues waiting to happen
Challenger 2, any Merkava, any T-72 variant including your T-90, the Ariete, and older generation tanks

Okay I jest, ammo safety is not the end-all be-all, but seriously WHAT THE FUCK are people thinking to design, create, and deploy a tank with the squishy humans in the same compartment as a fuckload of propellant? It's the current year for crying out loud!

And yes, this is a relevant combat factor: [1]we've seen plenty of videos of Arabs hopping out of brewed-up Abrams after the jets of flame shooting up from the rear of the turret
[2]most of the very few Merkavas lost in 2014 were lost to huge IEDs. But one was lost to an ATGM hit to the rear doors. Do you know what's right behind those doors in a combat-loaded Merkava? Ammo. A big fucking honeycomb of Ammo cells. The predictable results followed.

Kind of stupid, Israel presumably designed the thing to survive irregular warfare and hybrid warfare, so hits to the rear are a much bigger consideration than a tank designed more exclusively for regular linear battle. Yet there's all that ammo in a big wall against the thinnest armor on the tank.

I'll reply to myself with a more serious answer in a second, and we'll talk about why the Merk is pretty damn good despite my criticisms.

>>31050508
The T90 uses the same ammunition storage system as the T-72s and the T-72s ammunition will cook the crew if you as much as fart on it. There is plenty of videos on that topic.

>>31050508
>Have you seen the storage racks for ammo in the Merk 4?

The ones in fireproof containers? You know Israel uses insensitive munitions right?

If a T-90A somehow manages to core a Merkava 4 from the front to the back the crew has more pressing concerns.

>>31050540
>It's the current year for crying out loud!

The only MBT of those that isnt 30 years old or more is the T-14, so "CURRENT YEAR" doesnt really apply.

>>31050540
No Merkavas were lost in 2014. You probably mean 2006.

>>31050478
>No T-90 has Relikt
Considering Relikt reactive elements(the metal plates stamped with explosive) can be inserted in Kontakt-5 cassettes we can't really know for sure though I'm leaning more to the no operational tank employing ERA yet but provision exists.

>>31050566
If your standard is 'a tank is the same as its first iteration', then there are a lot of post cold war tank designs besides the T-14.

Leclerc, Challenger 2, Type 10, K2, ZTZ-96, ZTZ-99, Altay, Merkava 4.

>>31050398
They are both MBTs

>>31050478
>and welded turrets are a product of the split of manufacturers after the fall of the Soviet Union
The welded turret came direct from Obj 187, which was the presumed successor of T-72 and T-80 until budget issues forced the compromise of T-90.
I -speculate- that the Obj.187 turret was part of the intention for T-90, and original pre-A T-90s just kept using T-72 style turrets until manufacturing capability for the new turret came online.

File: vatnews.jpg (62KB, 567x438px)

62KB, 567x438px

>>31050582
Don't play the vatnik game of obfuscation, you even acknowledge that no tank in service uses Relikt.

>>31050543
>The T90 uses the same ammunition storage system as the T-72s and the T-72s ammunition will cook the crew if you as much as fart on it. There is plenty of videos on that topic.
Again that's the loose stowage. The T-90MS formally renounces the need for those with the introduction of an armored external ammo box.
>>31050550
>The ones in fireproof containers?
Fireproof or not will not mean a thing when a hypervelocity stub of heavy metal hits the round and its integral propellant sticks directly.

>You know Israel uses insensitive munitions right?
IM are for fires and added resistance to sympathetic detonation afaik. again same thing above.

File: 1468814101448.jpg (44KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x480px

>>31050361
>If it's a 1 on 1 then the T-90 will probably win because it's a true MBT.

>The semantics and abbreviations of words determines the merits of a vehicle.

Is /k/ literally mentally stunted?

>>31050550
>The ones in fireproof containers? You know Israel uses insensitive munitions right?
You have a severe overestimation of how "insensitive" those propellants and explosives are. You also have a severe underestimation of the violence of any kind of AT munition, HEAT or otherwise, hitting that "fireproof" honeycomb. It's not fireproof when it's getting shredded by a hot copper lance. It is neither fireproof nor insensitive enough for direct battle damage. It'll protect against indirect damage though, ie hot spall flying around after a hit to a different part of the tank

>>31050215
both tanks can kill eachother. merkava has better comms, optics, and situational awareness/target Acquisition hardware that the t-90 doesnt.

merkava will likely know about the t90 before the t90 knows about the merkava, given some rediculous "1v1 tank battle" scenario like /k/ uses to determine the worth of military assets

>>31050540
>implying t-14s actually exist

>>31050540

>Leo 2(partial credit),

It stores a fuckload of ammo literally right in the hull beside the crew. It's certainly not helping in that department.

>>31050633
>Again that's the loose stowage. The T-90MS formally renounces the need for those with the introduction of an armored external ammo box.

List of countries that use the T-90MS;
End list.

>Fireproof or not will not mean a thing when a hypervelocity stub of heavy metal hits the round and its integral propellant sticks directly.

It means a lot when it keeps your tank from turning into a blowtorch from sparks and spall.

>IM are for fires and added resistance to sympathetic detonation afaik. again same thing above.

One of the things that qualifies a explosive as IM is resistance to impact setting it off, manufacturers literally shoot the rounds in testing.

File: 1457281293853.jpg (260KB, 867x1300px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 867x1300px

>>31050411
>Trophy is only good against HEAT rounds. not hypervelocity APFSDS rounds.

That may very well be, but at least the Trophy protects the Merkava from approx. 90% of existing ATGMs in the hands of garden variety sand niggers (thanks Hillary/State Department).

Whereas the T-90 crew has to pray to the Gods that the ERA will defeat tandem warheads hitting head-on.

And the Merkava still has the better sensors, meaning superior detection and first hit capability.

The first one to hit is the first one to kill, so Merkava wins in a 1-on-1.

>Doesn't need to be DU, even a dinky Tungsten Mango round can fuck up the Merkava 4 and lower.

I'd like to know the factual basis for this statement.

>The Merkavas simply have the weakest glacis of all modern tanks aside from having much bigger front hull projections.

And ditto.

Didn't know the Merkava 4 armor was public domain knowledge. And how do you compare it to the T-72B hull armor because that is what the T-90 is, unchanged.

File: 1449193060477.jpg (563KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 798x1200px

>>31050633
>Again that's the loose stowage. The T-90MS formally renounces the need for those with the introduction of an armored external ammo box.

The T-90MS is a showroom tank that no one has even remotely considered buying at this time. The criticism is perfectly valid against ALL existing T-90 and T-90A tanks.

>>31050727
>List of countries that use the T-90MS;
>End list.
Then don't fucking carry rounds in the loose stowage, that so hard of a concept?

>It means a lot when it keeps your tank from turning into a blowtorch from sparks and spall.
Which is good and all but I am speaking of a penetrator stub or a HEAT jet piercing the armor and crossing into the crew compartment and hitting the ammo racks, which are again much more exposed than a carousel AL recessed to the hull floor.

>One of the things that qualifies a explosive as IM is resistance to impact setting it off, manufacturers literally shoot the rounds in testing.
It won't set off it will deflagrate, and last I checked the ammo racks don't have blast doors and blast panels to divert the hot jets of flame from the crew compartment.

>>31050835
>Then don't fucking carry rounds in the loose stowage, that so hard of a concept?

Still vulnerable to spall and sparks, and Russia doesn't use IM tech (yet).

>Which is good and all but I am speaking of a penetrator stub or a HEAT jet piercing the armor and crossing into the crew compartment and hitting the ammo racks, which are again much more exposed than a carousel AL recessed to the hull floor.

If a kinetic penetrator is able to go through the frontal armor, through the engine, through the crew compartment and impact the ammunition stored to either side of the hull rear, then the crew has more immediate concerns than whether the ammunition will cook off.

>It won't set off it will deflagrate, and last I checked the ammo racks don't have blast doors and blast panels to divert the hot jets of flame from the crew compartment.

Just like a T-90, only the fire will cause a sympathetic reaction there.

I wonder how well T-90's protect their ammunition from IED's and mines.

The Leopard 2A6M removed the bottom row of hull ammunition storage to do so.

>>31050391
>Guy who works with Merks for a living says otherwise

what a shocker.

>>31050215
Merkava has shit tier front armor protection. Front located engine ruins it and engine itself is not a additional protection, even otherwise. >>31050810
>The T-90MS is a showroom tank that no one has even remotely considered buying at this time. The criticism is perfectly valid against ALL existing T-90 and T-90A tanks.
So what? Russia abandoned T-90s. It is not primary Russian MBT and it now newest Russian MBT. It's a meme tank for pictures. Anyway, UVZ provides any possible options for your money. >Hurr-durr T-90 does not have panoramic thermals.
You want panoramic thermal vision - they will install panoramic thermal vision for you, like for Nicaragua. They will recieve T-72B1 with additional optics.
You want APS? Sure. Shtora? Of course. APS? Choose whatever model you want. UVZ will make special modification for anybody. If some country does not have something on their tanks means that they did not required that in their order.

>>31050893
>Still vulnerable to spall and sparks
Again its not like you are reading my posts except for some parts that make your knee jerk. There is steel cover on top of the carousel that serves as the false floor for the turret. Unless you are aiming at the literal bottom of the tank's hull you aren't hitting what is beneath it.

>Just like a T-90, only the fire will cause a sympathetic reaction there.
>Then don't fucking carry rounds in the loose stowage, that so hard of a concept?
>>31050810
>The T-90MS is a showroom tank that no one has even remotely considered buying at this time.
>Algeria will sign a deal with Rosoboronexport for the licensed production of 340 more T-90MS in 2017
>A ₹10,000 crore (US$1.5 billion) purchase of 354 new T-90MS tanks for six tank regiments for the China border has been approved
You were saying?

>The criticism is perfectly valid against ALL existing T-90 and T-90A tanks.
Its not like you are even reading. You then take out the loosely stowed rounds, that too hard?

>>31050961
>So what? Russia abandoned T-90s. It is not primary Russian MBT and it now newest Russian MBT.

Yeah, you're right, the primary MBT of Russia is still the T-72B and a few upgraded B3 and B1 vehicles.

>>31050835
>Then don't fucking carry rounds in the loose stowage, that so hard of a concept?
>My tanks ammo will not cook off if it doesnt carry ammunition

No shit vatnik. The same applies for the Leo 2, Merkava or any other tank with any form of internal ammunition storage.

>>31050931
>>Guy who works with Merks for a living says that the Merkava is a MBT

>what a shocker.

Not sure what you were trying to get out of that but whatever m8

>>31051014
>You were saying?

It doesn't exist as of today.

Not relevant to this discussion. None of the existing vehicles have separate ammo stowage. T-90s blow up just like T-72s.

>>31050961
>Merkava has shit tier front armor protection.

For all we know, it's still better than the T-72B and therefore T-90.

>>31050752
>That may very well be, but at least the Trophy protects the Merkava from approx. 90% of existing ATGMs in the hands of garden variety sand niggers (thanks Hillary/State Department).
Its as if the T-90 can't put an ARENA system...

>Whereas the T-90 crew has to pray to the Gods that the ERA will defeat tandem warheads hitting head-on.
They don't need to pray, they actually have their own tandem warhead missiles to test their ERAs with so its all good.

>And the Merkava still has the better sensors, meaning superior detection and first hit capability.
The T-90 has thermals too. Plus the Merk 4 has penalties in inconspicuosness. Who knew putting exhaust and heat sink at the front would elevate the tank's thermal sig. not to mention the much higher profile.

>I'd like to know the factual basis for this statement.
Its not like you can't google the glacis armor of a Merk can you... oh wait.

File: 523d16cce37c.jpg (178KB, 1024x768px)

178KB, 1024x768px

>>31050540
>I'll reply to myself with a more serious answer in a second, and we'll talk about why the Merk is pretty damn good despite my criticisms.
samefag, back again

Merkava vs T-90
--------------------------------------------------------------
tactical mobility:
Merk is good enough, T-90 is better and will be even better once they upgrade them with the engine from their silly little "tank biathlon".
operational mobility:
Merkava's 65 ton weight is worse to deal with than T-90's 45 tons, but how many flimsy bridges and nigger-rigged 3rd world flatbed transporters is it going to encounter anyway? Slight edge to T-90 again
strategic mobility:
the 45 ton T-90 wins hands down, but Israel is so tiny that it doesn't really matter. A strategic deployment could be 20 miles.
------------------------------------------------
continued...

File: 23922861863_630798acd1_o.jpg (221KB, 1369x871px)

221KB, 1369x871px

>>31051018
>few upgraded B3
About 800 and growing.

>>31051054
>For all we know, it's still better than the T-72B and therefore T-90
Not really.

>>31051019
>No shit vatnik. The same applies for the Leo 2, Merkava or any other tank with any form of internal ammunition storage.
You failed at the reading comprehension skill check. Again. When I meant loose rounds it mean the rounds not in the AL, or else I wouldn't have been waffling about the AL all this time.
>>31051039
>It doesn't exist as of today.
And this here kids is what we call goalpost shifting.

>Not relevant to this discussion. None of the existing vehicles have separate ammo stowage. T-90s blow up just like T-72s.
If it helps you could just type in lalalalalalala right after the period, I know that's what you're saying whilst pushing a finger in both ears anyway.

>>31051054
>For all we know, it's still better than the T-72B and therefore T-90.
Its visibly thinner than the T-72's glacis, and doesn't even have ERA on top.

>>31050637
>yes

>>31051125
>You failed at the reading comprehension skill check. Again. When I meant loose rounds it mean the rounds not in the AL, or else I wouldn't have been waffling about the AL all this time.

In the same way that I meant the rounds not behind blow out panels in the Leo 2, Merkava nad so on.

Speaking of tanks
When's America gonna get a new tank?

>>31051241
I'm sure they can squeeze another few SEP versions out of the Abrams. Probably when nations finally increase gun size to get better penetration out of APFDS, since we've already reached the point where penetration is no longer guaranteed against modern armour.

>>31050701
>implying t-14s actually exist
Implying Russians mastered hard light technology.

File: 8hAk7vL.jpg (59KB, 639x479px)

59KB, 639x479px

>>31051092
samefag continuing
----------------------------------------------
passive protection(including reactives):
actual levels are not published, so I will speak in vague generalities that must be taken with a grain of salt- Merk has decent protection against lower-capability HEAT warheads around a very wide arc(guesstimated 220-270 degree arc of heavy protection on the turret based on pics) but inferior frontal protection against higher-capability threats because they fell for the "engine as armor" meme and because the chance of Israel fighting major force-on-force armored combat dropped to near zero after the '70s. T-90 has excellent frontal protection and significantly improved side protection over previous T-72 generations, but the front is still the only part expected to actually take a hit from high-capability AT threats and survive. Overall the T-90 has a more traditional armor scheme than the Merkava, tl;dr Merkava decent over a big wide arc, T-90 good on a narrow frontal arc. Hard to pick a winner here since they were obviously designed for different use cases, and also because of a lack of actual public knowledge.
active protection:
Merkava has used a hard-kill "Trophy" APS to great success, and from what I hear they don't deploy without it any more. It is useful against missiles and rockets but not against APFSDS shot or HEAT shell delivered from a real tank gun because of the speed. T-90 has used a soft-kill APS to great success in Ukraine, with Ukrainians complaining of it's "invulnerability", but the record has been mixed in Syria with at least 2 failures that I can recall. Perhaps Arab retardation was involved. This system protects against optically-tracked SACLOS missiles only, and newer generations of optically-tracked SACLOS ATGM are hardened against this kind of soft-kill APS. Merkava is the clear winner here.

continued...

>>31050215
My money's on the Merkava, simply because it will be field-tested much more often that the T-90. The T-90 is, at best, a showroom piece that no nations have ordered yet.

>>31050540
The Challenger 2 solves the problem by not getting penetrated in the first place.

>>31051351
a $500 rpg fired by a sand nigger says otherwise

File: 1411339495512.jpg (42KB, 365x444px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 365x444px

>>31051116

>About 800 and growing.

It's still a T-72B which is only now capable of matching the performance of a Leopard 2A4 from 1985, and is still liable to include every crew member with the ammunition storage.

>Not really.

What does your picture supposedly prove?

>>31051304
samefag continuing

damage mitigation, ammunition:
Merkava's main ammunition magazine is an armored honeycomb forming a big wall at the rear of the crew compartment. It is protected by the honeycomb and by being at the rear of the tank where direct penetrations are less likely. However, the magazine's dimensions are so big that penetrations to the rear stand a high chance of catastrophe. T-90's main magazine is an armored carousel sitting low in the hull. It is protected by its low profile and low location and by its armor. However, if that magazine does get hit, the results are catastrophic. Additional ammunition stowage is unprotected, and Russia has learned by painful experience to stop using the additional stowage. Winner here is clearly the T-90. Shocking, a T-72 derivative being less of a deathtrap than a Western tank, who would have thunk it?
damage mitigation, ergonomic:
Merkava has significantly more internal volume for the squishy meat bags inside whereas T-72/T-90 operators have to wear the tank like a glove. Clear winner here is Merkava.
damage mitigation, other:
Merkava's engine in front combined with (relatively) weak frontal armor means hits frequently turn into a mobility kill complete with a burning engine. Better get evac before that fire spreads too far!

---------------------------------------

purchase cost:
Merk IV is 4.5 mil US, T-90 is 2.5 to 4.5(???)
T-90 reported cost varies so widely that I don't know what is going on.
operational costs:
How the fuck would I know? On the basis of no information at all I presume the Russian tank should be cheaper to run, but that cost may come back in shorter expected service life

-----------------------------------------------

firepower: they'll both fucking kill anything less protected than the front of an MBT, differences are not enough to argue over

conclusion follows

File: 1444533357833.jpg (6KB, 150x150px)

6KB, 150x150px

>>31051125

You seem a little.. stupid I guess is the best word?

Which part of "there isn't a single T-90 in service with separate ammo stowage" don't you understand?

Not a single one in the world, except for the mock-up that Uralvagonzavod has for demonstrations.

Does the T-90 have an integrated digital battle management system? I know the Abrams, Leclerc, and Merkava do, and i'm fairly certain the Challenger probably does.

File: t-72ag-rightviewl.jpg (223KB, 1600x1023px)

223KB, 1600x1023px

>>31051304
>T-90 has excellent frontal protection and significantly improved side protection over previous T-72 generations

Qualify this statement please.

What exactly gives a T-90 more flank protection?

File: 88972822ab67c0aa39d44c99a2137010.jpg (76KB, 736x531px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 736x531px

>>31051590
samefag continuing

conclusion:
they are very different tanks with differing qualities, and they are hard to compare head to head in a real meaningful way. Most world armies would do well with the lighter and more mobile T-90. But they should rip off the IR lamps like the Indians did, and they should also buy Trophy and integrate it.

File: 1433801253842.jpg (41KB, 680x793px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 680x793px

>>31051304
>T-90 has used a soft-kill APS to great success in Ukraine, with Ukrainians complaining of it's "invulnerability"

What the fuck am I reading?

When has the T-90 deployed to Ukraine?!

>>31051635
>What exactly
I don't know, I am just going off Russian statements about the changes between T-72 and T-90. It appears to have thicker hull wall probably with internal multiplate/composite modules, but that's just my guess. There's also the big ERA plates protecting the driver's side, but I've seen those on recent T-72B3 photos as well.

>>31051656
For like years now.

File: 3352915_original[1].jpg (103KB, 1200x675px)

103KB, 1200x675px

>>31051590
>T-90 reported cost varies so widely that I don't know what is going on
Buyer choose different options, UVZ sell it for different prices. Indians bought license for domestic assembly from kits - one price, Algeria buys ready-to-go machines - another price.
>>31051613
>Does the T-90 have an integrated digital battle management system?
It will, if you pay for it. T72B3 from 2016 contract will have that system for sure. It's need to be googled about early models.

File: wZjWF0l.jpg (71KB, 550x448px)

71KB, 550x448px

>>31051656
>When has the T-90 deployed to Ukraine?!
try to keep up with the news, it was covered here on /k/ and on all your favorite conflict blogs.

>>31050215

Depends how you judge it.

If you 1:1 compare them it's evidently the Merkava

If you consider their original design brief for each individual tank they're both level

If you're from the school of thought that having 85% the tank for 50% of the price is fine if you have more of them, then it's the T90.

>>31051674
>It appears to have thicker hull wall probably with internal multiplate/composite modules,

Bullshit

>>31051656
What's the weather like in St. Petersburg right now?

>>31051687
>>31051721
>>31051738

You niggas trolling?

>>31051738
Cold and wet.

File: 147468_original.jpg (165KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1280x960px

>>31051745
Summer 2014.

>>31051780
>>31051745
Nevermind, was a bit too hasty there. Ignore the photo.

>>31051745
>>31051656
Rule 11 also covers paid shilling, even if you pretend to be a regular commenter-user

>>31051745
Yes

File: 1414295712001.png (13KB, 473x454px)

13KB, 473x454px

>>31051780

But that's just an image of a T-90 and some crew, and nothing else...

I don't get it.. Is that some sort of "in" joke?

>>31051903
There is big history about one photo with Ukranian road sights and (possibly) part of that tank on it and then this photo of whole tank and crew.

>>31051865
Right. So to silence the shills, show them the proof they ask for

File: 127492731a65fbd3f99b_zps114c8fff.jpg (603KB, 1024x768px)

603KB, 1024x768px

>>31051486
really??

>>31051726
Those are the claims. I cannot independently confirm, of course.

Regarding Merkava's off-front protection: the hull sides are definitely weaker than those big fat turret side modules. This picture >>31051304
was caused by APAM. According to one blogger, it was an "almost-penetration",

>>31051921
>retard fires FRAG round at tank
Haha look no penetration!

File: 1274938295ea1b4ae23b_zps7b54a087.jpg (407KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1024x768px

>>31051935
It's from RPGs

>>31050931
>works with Merks for a living
I fucking wish.

>>31051958
Meant to say frag rocket, pardon.

>>31051920
You are the shill and you are trying to bait me into a never-ending cycle of me showing evidence and you denying it and demanding "better" evidence. We know how maskirovka works here, we used to call it "FUD". This is my last response to this reply chain.

https://informnapalm.org/en/russian-t-90-tanks-136th-motorized-rifle-brigade-luhansk-region/

>>31051932
>According to one blogger, it was an "almost-penetration",
It was caused by an inert HEAT round and that blogger has no idea what he is taking about.

File: russia stronk pt2.png (69KB, 811x623px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 811x623px

>>31050215
Pop tops a best at frying crew.

The T-90’s active protective system is the Shtora-1 countermeasures suite. “I’ve interviewed Ukrainian tank gunners,” said Karber. “They’ll say ‘I had my [anti-tank weapon] right on it, it got right up to it and then they had this miraculous shield. An invisible shield. Suddenly, my anti-tank missile just went up to the sky.’”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHFqxe8E2gw

File: 1414712458774.png (4MB, 1632x1837px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1632x1837px

>>31052048
>IR guided missiles
>current year

>>31050215
Isn't the frontal armor of the Merkava paper thin? Yea its really survivable for the crew but the engine would get hit and would start burning.

>>31052092
Welp, it works on pre-Tow2 missiles. Pretty nice stuff for modern counter insurgency warfare. Russians don't use it anymore not only because Shtora is kinda outdated, but because it creates weak spot in turret protection.

>>31051916

So a rumor like that allows this joker:>>31051304
to make statements that T-90s were in combat and somehow magically deflected ATGMs?

>>31051958
>all RPG warheads are the same
>anti-personnel RPG will hurt a tank

File: TriggersIvan.jpg (69KB, 600x338px)

69KB, 600x338px

>>31051656
>>31051745

How many times do I have to post this fucking picture...

>>31052152
Shtora does deflect earlier TOWs and Russian ATGMs quite effectively. It just doesn't work against modern ATGMs.

>>31052092
>SACLOS
>IR guided

Thanks for letting us know you have no idea what you are talking about.

Inb4 I knew what a lamp was.

File: 1470961689002.jpg (127KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 600x600px

>>31052048

Sounds like complete bullshit, tbph.

Like that one Ukrainian joker who claimed to have knocked out Russian armatas.. kek

>>31051116
>About 800 and growing.

"We are going to upgrade 800 T-72's." does not equate 800 have been upgraded as of when you made your post.

>>31052170
The system tracks the missile's IR signature and adjusts it accordingly. Put a strong IR signature by the target and the system doesn't know which one is the missile and sends it whereverthefuck. Thanks for letting me know you know nothing.

File: moreproofstotriggerivan.jpg (180KB, 981x807px)

180KB, 981x807px

>>31051916

File: 1470789886462.jpg (42KB, 600x600px)

42KB, 600x600px

>>31052165
>Shtora does deflect earlier TOWs and Russian ATGMs quite effectively.

If by "quite effectively" you mean pointing at almost the exact direction of the launcher, within 3 degrees of arc, which is 3-4 kms away, the probability of that scenario is highly unlikely.

Fact is, the Shtora sucks and is hardly effective at anything. The only good part of it is the laser warning receivers and they're barely useful because most ATGMs aren't coupled with LRFs.

File: original.jpg (171KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1024x576px

>>31052157
You can clearly see the driver's periscope in this one.

>>31052187

In his defense, they have upgraded nearly 800 T-72Bs by now to the new B1 and B3 standards. Few of those however have the new auto-loaders for the longer APFSDS DU rounds.

I think over 500 of those are B3s.

>>31050961
>So what? Russia abandoned T-90s. It is not primary Russian MBT and it now newest Russian MBT.

T-72's and T-90's are going to be the bulk of Russia's tank fleet for the next two decades.

>>31052201
Well, yes. You know where your enemy is, keep your front pointed at them and their shitty Soviet missiles (which probably would not penetrate frontally through Kontakt-5 anyway) fly off elsewhere.

>>31052202

So the Russians gave the DNR rebels old stocks of T-90s they were getting rid of?

How generous of the Ivans.

>>31052194
>Inb4 I knew what a lamp was.

IR guided means it uses an IR seeker, but thanks for reaffirming you do not know much about ATGM guidance.

File: 1469478942001.jpg (174KB, 605x1019px)

174KB, 605x1019px

>>31052221

In theory, this might have worked a few times, but in reality, as we saw in Syria, the only thing keeping the T-90 alive was the ERA.

File: артобстрел(1).webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>31052152
Dude, information about it is in pretty .mil - tier sources ("Lessons Learned" from the Russo-Ukrainian War. Personal Observations. by Phillip A Karber from Historical lessons Learned Workshop sponsored by Johns Hopkins Applied Physics laboratory & U.S. Army Capabilities Center). Photos are not rumours, it's "proofs" that any Russian will ask. It is well known, that Russians "North wind" intervened when Ukraine forces began to use heavy weapon against highly populated areas of Donetsks and its suburban. Northern wind was force that helped NVR forces to stabilize situation. Even NVR forces are not deny that. Most controversial part is did Russian began this shit or not? West sees it like Putin personally began invasion in NVR to capture more land, East sees it like Strelkov and it's team began their little war without support or orders from Moscow.

>>31052172
Actually there's video of that working pretty much as described. Someone have a link?

File: 1456939354503.jpg (295KB, 1280x980px)

295KB, 1280x980px

>>31052224
>getting rid of T-90s
Why would they dump their most advanced MBT that's in use?

>>31052248
Shtora wasn't even on, though. The missile could have been a TOW-1 for all we know as well, or one of the ex-Soviet ones.

>>31052201
>which is 3-4 kms away

You have never been in a TOW-unit have you?

We never deployed that far away from our intendet targets.

>>31051932
>Those are the claims. I cannot independently confirm, of course.
>I have nothing to back up an anecdote but I will treat it as fact anyway.

>>31052264
>Shtora wasn't even on, though.

A UVZ spokesman said that Shtora successfully deflected the missile )))

>>31052313
We must be talking of different things.

File: XDi0W.gif (2MB, 512x512px)

2MB, 512x512px

>>31051640
bumping for great justice and more damage pics thnx in advance

>>31050215
>slavshit
>better than anything
the yids take this one

>>31050215
Merk attacking the T-90 at distance? T-90.
Vice versa? Merk

File: impacts BSCC.jpg (190KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1280x1024px

>>31051981

Knowing what a 120 mm HEAT training round can do at combat range.

>>31052334
No, we aren't. It was PR/damage control after the video first surfaced.

>>31051590
>Shocking, a T-72 derivative being less of a deathtrap than a Western tank if it carries half the normal ammunition it can.

Funny how doing so would benefit the Merkava as well, but double standards and all.

>>31051921
are you seriously using a pretty much random photo as proof that a Chally never has been penetrated?

>>31052492
Chally didn't see a lot of combat, though. It is like Leo 2 .

File: iw_atgw_at14_m01.jpg (47KB, 640x480px)

47KB, 640x480px

> tanks
> 2016
Lol

>>31052544
doesen't matter a bit if it diden't see a lot of combat, the guy is using a single picture of an impact (that doesn't look like the result from HEAT anyway, but i'm no expert) as proof for his statement that a Chally 2 never has been penetrated by an rpg

>>31052601
grow up kid

File: 61.gif (2MB, 499x286px)

2MB, 499x286px

>>31050215
merkava, even without the gun. it would ram the t-90 to death

>>31052253

Yeah, there's a lot of shit flying around due to the information war.

I generally don't trust the US State Department, they lie about almost everything and laugh at journalists at their press conferences.

This thread is full of Rooskie and their goons and Jews and their goons.
In reality:
T-90:
+Bigger gun, Bette pen
+Lighter
+Doesn't look like shit
+Good ERA, NERA, and APS assuming you can afford them
+Front on, very strong
+Stronk Russian Turret
-most are cheap and dont get the good shit. So FCS, APS, and armor as well as almost any other feature can be shit
-Cannot survive a pen.
-ammo rack detonation is common and will kill the crew most of the time
-flanks are garbage. Will only protect against most shit weapons (think 1970 and before.)

Merkava
+Great crew protection. Engine is at the front, and can tank hits to keep crew alive while they escape out the back
+Good FCS
+Better engine.
+Decent APS
+Usually of high quality, few expenses spared
+More reliable than the t90
-looks like it has tank AIDS
-small gun is newer and more accurate, but pen is not as good at the 125 on the t90
-Armor Composite is meh at best. HEAT can pen the glacis, whether the Jews will admit it or not.
-interestingly susceptible to ATGMs from Lebanon who got them from Russia. And the T-90 can fire those missiles from it's main gun. Hmmmm...

I think they're pretty evenly matched. >This is just about the tanks themselves, not the army or their politics. Sure, you could just shoot the Merkava crew when they bail out the back, and sure you could just bomb the T-90 from the air. But that isn't about the tank.

>>31052261

That one staged demo in Kuwait?

There isn't a single video of actual combat footage showing the Shtora working remotely as advertised.

Would explain why even the stinky Indians didn't even want it on their tanks.

>>31052264
>Why would they dump their most advanced MBT that's in use?

Because it's not very advanced and the T-72B3 upgrade program gives you the same performance at almost a fraction of the price of a new T-90A...

>>31052265

Okay, 2 km away.

Still impossible to spot, especially with the shitty ass optics and displays on Russian vehicles.

File: 24.jpg (83KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x800px

>>31052224
They give them to SAA as well
https://twitter.com/bm21_grad/status/760091193384599552/video/1

File: 1435429658233.jpg (45KB, 737x758px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 737x758px

>>31052264
>Shtora wasn't even on, though.

Even if it was on, it would not have helped because the tank was not facing the missile launcher.

Shtora has no capability of detecting SACLOS missiles.

>>31052224
>>31052264
Because they're not dumping them, they're sending their own armored units into Ukraine under the guise of "volunteers"
How else would they know how to operate all the systems like Shtora and the newer FCS

>>31050727
>List of countries that use the T-90MS;
Considering they just entered ready for serial production phase.... yeah. Thou Algeria currently rocks T-90SA with contract to start getting T-90MS versions circa 2017.

File: XNK5XED.jpg (334KB, 960x847px)

334KB, 960x847px

>>31052801

This is babby-tier intro knowledge. Most of it incorrect cliches and memes.

You better not post again pretending to be authoritative.

File: 1428545674314.jpg (19KB, 500x500px)

19KB, 500x500px

>>31053100

What a load of shit mate.

They give out their tanks left and right, as evidenced by the irregulars using them in Ukraine and Syrian crews abandoning their new tanks, as per Arab tradition.

>>31052399
I participated in that exercise. The only damage it did was blowing away those 2 side skirt modules since it hit exactly where they connect to the hull.

>>31053314
irregulars in Ukraine meaning Russian active duty soldiers on vacation

>>31053508

Go to bed John Kerry.

>>31053553
I don't think Kerry knows how to surf Russian social media.

>>31051674

It's thicker side skirts and mounting better ERA.

>>31053292
Are you a Jew or a Rooskie?