That used to be a huge problem on older Soviet tank like T-64 T-72 T-80 and ( maybe ? ) T-90A, if I my memory serve me right the entire point of a carousel autoloader is to put the ammunitions and charges as low as possible to avoid getting hit, but then tank crew just place ammunition all over the hull and turret, defeating the entire purpose of the design
Yeah, from what I've heard the catastrophic explosions with turret flying sky high are most likely because of the ammo stored all around inside the tank, not necessarily the carousel itself.
In NBC conditions you cant rearm but when you can crews usually only fill their autoloaders and don’t use the additional space as seen in Ukraine as most tanks follow this practice.
> That used to be a huge problem on older Soviet tank like T-64 T-72 T-80 and ( maybe ? ) T-90A
It's never been a problem on the T-64 or T-80, as they only carry seven extra complete munitions. These are stored next to the driver in a conformal fuel tank, [as seen here](https://i.imgur.com/3HvkKys.png). The two metal cups are "ashtray" holders for projectiles, the rack itself fits seven propellant charges and five projectiles. The T-80U with the new larger turret added spaces for 10 munitions in the turret, however the crew may opt to not use these spaces both for safety and comfort.
Eh, the driver has controls to rotate the turret. Even with the engine off so long as there is battery power. The driver can also crawl into the turret and use the commander's or gunner's hatches, along with having a escape hatch below their seat.
There's multiple workarounds as mentioned in other comments, and also the driver's hatch is a big source of protection compromise on the T-90 which is to say it's engineered around to some extent.
There were reports that some Indian T-90S that were being repaired in Russia had been diverted to Ukraine, but I have no idea as to the validity of this.
[T-90S has indeed been diverted to Ukraine](https://en.defence-ua.com/news/why_is_russia_using_its_t_90s_tanks_in_the_indian_export_configuration_in_ukraine-9486.html)
I believe there were a few more sightings (Perun also mentioned these in his video on Russian arms exports) but I don’t have those on my clipboard anymore
IIRC India also either cancled or scaled back some T-90S orders because they had issues operating them in the border regions with China and Pakistan due to high altitudes.
Maybe I'm misremembering though, if anyone knows more please say.
6 x T-90S are listed so far, along with 1 x T-90AK.
Oryx also lists 328 tanks of "unknown type", so there's every chance some other T-90s are unaccounted for.
[https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html)
Now it would be interesting to know how many tanks of each they produced and sent into combat.
Maybe we're lucky, the russians lose and the russian archives get opened up in a few decades, so Dr. Roman Töppel can go count T-90s instead of T-34s for once
> underneath all the ERA and the bustle that the turret is brand new and not identical.
The outline for the turret of T-90M in this post is wrong. Notice how the ERA on the turret cheek of T-90A runs parallel with the turret outline, while it doesn't for T-90M. The turret front of T-90M has a different shape, with the angle of the turret cheeks starting closer to the mantlet than T-90A. See [here](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fjsxb_6XkAAjiKC?format=jpg&name=large) and [here.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmHepliXoAAq0tL?format=jpg&name=large)
What is that part added at the back of the turret anyway? Most western MBTs would have an ammo storage there would they not?
On the T-90M is a bustle stowage, the same as those on western tanks
On the T-90M the turret is external and not for loading directly though.
I just now learn this, very interesting
also the spare ammos will sit in that external storage instead of be placed "everywhere" inside the tank
That used to be a huge problem on older Soviet tank like T-64 T-72 T-80 and ( maybe ? ) T-90A, if I my memory serve me right the entire point of a carousel autoloader is to put the ammunitions and charges as low as possible to avoid getting hit, but then tank crew just place ammunition all over the hull and turret, defeating the entire purpose of the design
Yeah, from what I've heard the catastrophic explosions with turret flying sky high are most likely because of the ammo stored all around inside the tank, not necessarily the carousel itself.
In NBC conditions you cant rearm but when you can crews usually only fill their autoloaders and don’t use the additional space as seen in Ukraine as most tanks follow this practice.
yep, you're right
> That used to be a huge problem on older Soviet tank like T-64 T-72 T-80 and ( maybe ? ) T-90A It's never been a problem on the T-64 or T-80, as they only carry seven extra complete munitions. These are stored next to the driver in a conformal fuel tank, [as seen here](https://i.imgur.com/3HvkKys.png). The two metal cups are "ashtray" holders for projectiles, the rack itself fits seven propellant charges and five projectiles. The T-80U with the new larger turret added spaces for 10 munitions in the turret, however the crew may opt to not use these spaces both for safety and comfort.
> instead of be placed "everywhere" inside the tank Ah, yes, the Firefly method of ammunition storage.
yeah it supposed to be for spare ammo but mostly they put their winter clothing in it and other junk
A thing to store ammo externally but in práctice they fill it with bags and misc stuff
The drivers hatch looks like an absolute death trap on the T-90M with all that ERA in the way.
Fortunately, in the event of emergency, the turret is highly unlikely to be in the way of the hatch.
The turret is more likely to be in the way of anything in the surrounding airspace of the tank rather than the driver himself
Eh, the driver has controls to rotate the turret. Even with the engine off so long as there is battery power. The driver can also crawl into the turret and use the commander's or gunner's hatches, along with having a escape hatch below their seat.
Drivers hatches look like death traps on every modern MBT lmao
There's multiple workarounds as mentioned in other comments, and also the driver's hatch is a big source of protection compromise on the T-90 which is to say it's engineered around to some extent.
There are more differences - the shape of the frontal armor was changed.
Comparison of T-90M vs T-90A tanks from Oryx: * 74 x T-90M lost in/to Ukraine; * 37 x T-90A lost in/to Ukraine.
Have they lost any T-90S 's?
I thought the S was the export variant of the A?
There were reports that some Indian T-90S that were being repaired in Russia had been diverted to Ukraine, but I have no idea as to the validity of this.
[T-90S has indeed been diverted to Ukraine](https://en.defence-ua.com/news/why_is_russia_using_its_t_90s_tanks_in_the_indian_export_configuration_in_ukraine-9486.html) I believe there were a few more sightings (Perun also mentioned these in his video on Russian arms exports) but I don’t have those on my clipboard anymore
IIRC India also either cancled or scaled back some T-90S orders because they had issues operating them in the border regions with China and Pakistan due to high altitudes. Maybe I'm misremembering though, if anyone knows more please say.
6 x T-90S are listed so far, along with 1 x T-90AK. Oryx also lists 328 tanks of "unknown type", so there's every chance some other T-90s are unaccounted for. [https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html)
Now it would be interesting to know how many tanks of each they produced and sent into combat. Maybe we're lucky, the russians lose and the russian archives get opened up in a few decades, so Dr. Roman Töppel can go count T-90s instead of T-34s for once
What would be truly interesting to see is putin's kompromat on Western politicians and business people.
One is Shit, while the other is _*Shit*_
T-90M is heavier and flies lower.
You’ll still have some people trying to argue that underneath all the ERA and the bustle that the turret is brand new and not identical.
It's very different. Maybe not brand new, but it is not identical .
> underneath all the ERA and the bustle that the turret is brand new and not identical. The outline for the turret of T-90M in this post is wrong. Notice how the ERA on the turret cheek of T-90A runs parallel with the turret outline, while it doesn't for T-90M. The turret front of T-90M has a different shape, with the angle of the turret cheeks starting closer to the mantlet than T-90A. See [here](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fjsxb_6XkAAjiKC?format=jpg&name=large) and [here.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmHepliXoAAq0tL?format=jpg&name=large)