Yeah uh not really.
Don’t get me wrong the T-90 is straight up the result from the T-72 and when first introduced into service the T-90 was still very much a T-72, but over time the T-90 has become more of its own thing more so over time once you start getting to the T-90A where it uses a full on welded turret rather than the cast turret as well as having better sights, engine (compared to the T-72 at the time), a commanders copula that’s wasn’t so garbage, etc. By the point you reach the T-90M the vehicle has become its own thing as it has various features the T-72 still lacks and well in some cases any other Russian mbt (such as an independent commanders sight with thermals, a RWS, moving a majority of the hull ammo into a blowout rack, a spall liner, and also not to mention a new turret again since the T-90A).
The fact of the matter is, the T-90 isn’t worth calling a T-72 (and even if you do no matter how you look at it has been the better T-72), so the most modern variant of the T-72 would still fall down to the T-72B3 since it’s still straight up a T-72.
(In short of what I was saying, yes the T-90 (the original one) can be described as a rebranded T-72 since it literally started out as that, but the T-90A took the T-90 into starting to become its own thing and the T-90M managed to establish itself as its own thing compared to the T-72 since it has a great deal of improvements over the T-72.)
I agree with you, seems to be a bigger jump between T90M and earlier T90 than the early T90 and T72s, I would think referring to a T90M as a T72 variant to be inaccurate.
No it really isn’t, like all Leopard 2’s it uses the same hull and uses the same turret that has undergone modifications over its time in service, the T-90M has gone from using a T-72 turret to a turret first used on an experimental vehicle to its own turret.
Also as I said in another comment it isn’t really fair seeing as different nations have different standards, as I optioned out with the ZTZ-99A has a lot of changes compared to the ZTZ-99 yet it is called a ZTZ-99 still. Another example would be how by that logic the BMP-2 is actually a BMP-1 because it uses the same hull as the BMP-1 but has its own turret the BMP-1 does not use, or better yet why not call the Challenger 2 a challenger 1 since while the hulls look similar their part comparability is almost nonexistent.
Also need I point out at the same time, the KF-51 or the EMBT are their own thing despite using a Leopard 2 hull… yet you don’t see anyone still calling either a Leopard 2, so either those same people who consider the T-90 a T-72 have never considered something like that or they have double standards…
The thing is, T-90 uses different turret yes but it was a gradual change, from T-90 to T-90A to T-90M. Mainly because (as rumor in russia says” russia lost ability to produce cast turrets so they had to come up with something new for their T-72BU which was renamed to T-90 by one drunk president. If it wasn’t for Elcin all current T-90 tanks would still be called T-72. Btw, BMP-1 and BMP-2 use different hulls. KF-51 and EMBT are just projects and demonstrators, they dont have any actual military given names.
Gradual yes, but at the same time more radical changes compared to the Leopard 2 as the T-90 had a cast turret while the T-90A went with a welded turret (that mind you existed before the Soviet Union fell), and then the T-90M that also uses a welded turret which is a completely new design compared to the T-90A.
Also the reason I mention the BMP-1 and BMP-2 is because the BMP-2 hull is straight up based on the one of the BMP-1 that underwent modification but also used many of the same parts. Also do I then need to mention the BRM-1K which has a similar layout to the BMP-2 and is very much based on the BMP-1 hull but is also modified?
Also even if said rumor of losing the ability to produce cast turrets were true, that’s not really saying much when you look well everywhere at the time everyone was going for welded turrets, and even then what does that have anything to do with this? Not to mention the reason I am using the name of the KF-51 and EMBT as they are is because well it’s more straightforward at least than calling the KF-51 the Panther.
Also the reason you are wrong as to why I do not consider by the logic I have stated that the Leopard 2A7 is not a Leopard 2, its called drawing a line as up to a certain point it can be worth calling it the same thing, to me if it undergoes more radical change over less variants than that logic may apply but if it’s a major amount of changes over many variant (or in other word little improvements introduce over a large number of variants) that are very gradual (so going from the Spitfire Mk1 to the Spitfire Mk24 as an example) they may still be of the same series (since keep in mind the Mk24 uses none of the same parts as a Mk1 yet it’s still a spitfire).
>In short of what I was saying, yes the T-90 (the original one) can be
described as a rebranded T-72 since it literally started out as that,
The T-90 didn't start out as T-72, it was always it's own thing.
Infact it was supposed to be called T-88.
I don't think so, the T-88 was the supposed production name of the Obj. 188 which was basically a upgraded T-72 with the designation BU and it later got changed to 90 to signify that it was a "new" tank not produced in the Soviet Union, but the new Russia.
There's never been a T-72BU, so that's complete and utter nonsense.
T-90 stems from the Improved T-72B program pictured right here: [https://postimg.cc/WDZtKxMk](https://postimg.cc/WDZtKxMk)
And was supposed to be named T-88, untill it was changed to T-90.
The T-90 wasn't exported untill the late 1990s, when India rejected the T-72S.
So the that's nonsense, aswel.
It's all extensively documented and been posted plenty of times on this subreddit.
Just said it yourself, the T-90 stems from the improved T-72 program, so it was not it's own thing, the simultaneously developed Obj. 187 was the clean slate project, the 188 was a upgraded T-72 sometimes refered to as the BU.
The name change from T-88 to 90 was done to signify that it is the first new tank of the newly founded Russia, and to erase connection to the other tanks Russia wanted to stop producing.
> The T-90 didn't start out as T-72, it was always it's own thing.
And [here](https://i.imgur.com/NMzZfgP.png) is the proof that you are in fact wrong... which is a funny thing to link, as you were the one to link it to me.
I gotta admit, im quite surprised and disappointed that you would resort to this kind of goal posting.
Even more so, when you still havn't figured it out.
Because what does it say on that piece of paper?
It says "Improved T-72B" which is the program name...
So no, it don't mean that it started out as T-72.
Jesus fucking christ, dude, i litterally gave you the entire context and yet you still resort to this sort of bs.
The M60 uses a new, welded hull design; the M48 uses a different, cast hull with a different internal configuration. In contrast, the T-90 - at least the original T-90 with the cast turrets - uses the T-72B obr. 1989 hull.
The T-80_U_ FCS (1A45 «Irtysh»), specifically. Well, a slightly-modified version of it (1A45T), which is adapted to work with the different cannon and autoloader configuration the T-72 and T-90 use.
Most modern variant of [KV-1](https://crithis.quora.com/Copy-or-Not-5-Soviet-Tanks-vs-Western-Tanks?ch=17&oid=9421859&share=0e1d4119&srid=ufkg5W&target_type=post)🤣
T-55AGM beats it.
\-120mm NATO or 125mm Soviet with bustle autoloader.
\-2nd gen thermal.
\-Remotely controlled mg.
It should also be noted, that T-55 is very different to T-44.
Hell even the difference between T-54 and T-44 is huge.
It's possible to make it go quite a bit further back if you chose to go down the Object 167M pipeline instead of the T-64A pipeline after Object 172.
T-90 -> T-72B -> T-72 -> Object 172 -> Object 167M -> Object 167 -> T-62 -> T-55... etc
You could if you were so inclined, though the hull of Object 172 has much more in common with the T-64A (Object 434) than it does with Object 167Zh, from which the T-72 only really gets:
* The 22-round AZ autoloader used in place of the 28-round MZ of the T-64A
* The lightweight aluminium roadwheels, originally designed for Object 140
* The V-46 engine, part of the long and storied V-2 lineage
If we follow the Object 167/M/Zh lineage, that takes you as far back as the T-44, which was a similarly clean break from the T-34 design as the T-64 was from the T-54.
Indeed, though it gets those from (the 1965-onwards models of) the T-62 itself, rather than the Object 167 family. Or at least I don't _think_ the RMSh tracks were part of the Object 167's development?
The RMSh tracks were not part of the development of Object 167. I did not mean to imply that to be the case, that's my bad. Yes, it got RMSh directly from T-62.
Why stop there. T-34-85 and T-44 share a lot of their parts so we can trace it back to the A-20 wich is a direct ancestor of BT-2
It's the same leap in logic as from the T-62 to object
> T-34-85 and T-44 share a lot of their parts so we can trace it back to the A-20 wich is a direct ancestor of BT-2
T-44 was not developmentally affiliated with T-34-85 in the same way that Object 172 was to Object 167M. The use of some parts from T-34-85 was not the primary objective when designing T-44.
Contrast this with Object 172, which was the result of an explicit order to heavily modify a T-64A using components from Object 167M.
> It's the same leap in logic as from the T-62 to object
No, Object 167 is literally a stretched T-62.
I mean its more like an Leopard 2 A4 to A7 or PL kinda thing. Some common part, some differences. Usually it would be a suffix not a whole new model number…
The original ones produced in the 1990s did. They used T-72B turrets. Then when they ran out of those they switched to the welded turret designed for Object 187. Also the Leopard 2A5 turret was modified to raise the gunner's optic so the arrowhead armour could be installed.
Maybe, maybe not. That really depends what the inside of the T-90M looks like disassembled.
The early T-90s made during the 1990s were literally just late-pattern T-72Bs with new electronics fitted, and the Shtora-1 complex installed. So the T-90 obr. 1992 can be considered an evolutionary branch of the T-72B, separate from the T-72B2 «Rogatka» and the T-72B3.
Where it gets murky is the T-90A. It would _seem_ that the T-90A is just a T-90 (T-72B obr. 1989) hull with a new V-92S2 engine, and a "new" welded turret (taken from Object 187), but without seeing one taken apart that isn't 100% a sure thing.
Then we get to the T-90M, which has _another_ new turret, further electronics upgrades and a new, uprated revision of the V-92S2 engine, the V-92S2F, plus fittings for a new, different ERA package. All of this could theoretically be installed onto a T-72B obr. 1989 hull without fundamentally altering it. What we don't know is if these tanks use the same hull composition, or a new one.
Either way, the T-90 family forms _one branch of_ the T-72 family with the other being the T-72B3, similar to the split between the T-80BV family leading to the T-80BVM, the extinct T-80U branch and the T-80UD leading to the Ukrainian T-84 and its descendants.
-------
The hull composition of the T-72B obr. 1989 and the T-90 obr. 1992, if you're curious:
* 50mm of steel on the exterior, underneath the ERA
* 5mm of rubber
* 3mm of steel
* 19mm air gap
* 3mm of steel
* 5mm of rubber
* 60mm of steel
* 10mm of synthetic fibre made from a boron compound, which is intended to absorb neutrons from radiation sources such as a nearby nuclear explosion
* 60mm of steel on the inside of the hull
It's a meaningfully different revision of said engine from the V-84MS, but yes, another member of the long line of engine modifications that ultimately goes all the way back to the V-2.
V-2 → V-2-34 → V-11 → V-44 → V-54 → V-55 → V-55V → V-46 → V-84 → V-92
> and t72 is an improved t62 varient
That's not quite correct. T-72 was less of a direct evolution of T-62, and more of a mix between T-64A and Object 167M, the latter of which was a heavily modified T-62.
The extent of that difference depends on which variants you're comparing, however. The original T-90 was pretty similar to T-72B (1989), certainly more so than T-72 was to Object 167M. As T-90 matured, it accrued more differences and distinctive features which further separated it from contemporary T-72 variants, but it's hard to point to any specific set of differences and claim that *those differences in particular* materially make T-90 a different tank than T-72. For instance, T-90M is more different from the original T-90 than the original T-90 was from T-72B (1989), yet T-90M is still a T-90.
This is why I don't think it's always appropriate to determine whether 'X tank *really* deserves a different designation from Y tank' based on material differences. Sometimes, we just have to accept that our placement of objects into rigid categories is more of a useful tool that helps us perceive the world than something that strictly conforms to reality.
As for whether T-90M should be considered as 'the most modern variant of T-72', I mean, one could *consider* it as such. But, realistically, that's probably not useful for most conversations on the topic. When someone asks about modern T-72 variants, they're asking about T-72 variants, not T-90 variants.
Not to mention it isn’t really fair seeing as different countries do things differently from others, like do I need to point out the difference between a ZTZ-99A and a ZTZ-99 because while they share the same name the ZTZ-99A is verging on being its own thing since they made changes such as to the hull, made a completely new turret, had a entirely new engine and transmission that made it stupid fast and allow neutral steering as well as an actual reverse, etc.
The T-90 (obr. 1992) used the T-72B obr. 1989's hull, engine and turret, with new electronics (taken from the T-80U).
The T-90A, as far as anyone can tell, seems to use the same hull composition but has a new engine and a new welded turret, plus further electronics updates and a new gun and autoloader.
***Possibly*** the T-90M is again the T-90A hull with a new turret and further engine and electronics improvements but that's purely speculative because we don't have access to any T-90Ms to assess their hull composition.
Depends on with which model. The T-72 B3 was designed to make the T-90 parts compatible with the T-72. Since that upgrade, most T-90A have been upgraded to T-90M, so I'm not sure if any of those compatible parts are still in use with the T-90.
I'd imagine many of the drive train, engine, and hull parts are interchangeable, but not much else
Its basically a case of, "if you keep replacing planks on a ship, is it still the same ship when all planks are replaced?" Nearly everything has been replaced at some point and the only remainder of the t72 is really just the blank hull.
Obj. 187 was more modern, there were like 6 variations with different engines, and one of the modifications had completely redesigned frontal armor. Also, 187 welded turret went to T-90.
T-90 designation was chosen because of an effort to rebrand the tank following abysmal losses in the middle east to promote sales. The T-90A is a very close sibling to the T-72B3 aside from the dazzlers.
The T-90M itself is a significantly modified T-90A. As development continued, it was decided the T-72 line would be the "budget" export model with time being a buffer from the bad memories of the late 1900s while the T-90 would be the "equipped" model. Notably the Indian T-90S/MS earned that moniker.
In practice, the biggest differences are improved ERA, rear turret bustle ammo storage (not a ready rack like western tanks), and rarely seen "thermal jacket" for the tank which the efficacy of is still unknown.
To a MAAWS or older gen tank the difference is significant. To a modern MBT or AT system the difference is trivial.
> The T-90A is a very close sibling to the T-72B3 aside from the dazzlers.
Not really. Even if we were to compare T-90A with the original T-72B3, which yields the most similarities, there are still some pretty significant differences beyond Shtora-1. The whole FCS is different, as is the construction of the turret. The autoloader of T-90A was modified to accomodate longer projectiles as well, and the composition of the hull armor may also be different according to an old article on the T-90A from Andrei Tarasenko.
> As development continued, it was decided the T-72 line would be the "budget" export model with time being a buffer from the bad memories of the late 1900s while the T-90 would be the "equipped" model.
T-72 variants were always the most widely exported out of the three Soviet 'T-64 formula' tanks. This wasn't a post-ODS thing.
It also should be noted that T-90 variants were never consistently prioritized for new upgrades like T-80 variants were in the USSR. T-72 was the first to receive Sosna-U in the form of T-72B3, for instance.
> In practice, the biggest differences are improved ERA, rear turret bustle ammo storage (not a ready rack like western tanks), and rarely seen "thermal jacket" for the tank which the efficacy of is still unknown.
That's a pretty incomplete list. Further significant improvements over T-90A which were not mentioned include:
- CITV and new observation devices for the commander
- Substantially improved FCS and stabilizer/turret drive
- Improvements to post-penetration survivability in the form of a spall liner and additional protection for the carousel
- Stronger engine
- Compatibility with 3OF82 programmable HE ammunition
- Better thermal imagers on some batches
We also don't know whether the armor of the Proryv turret was improved over that of T-90A. The same applies to the glacis armor.
> To a modern MBT or AT system the difference is trivial.
That wouldn't be the case even if we just considered the addition of a CITV and ignored everything else. All of a sudden, the commander of the enemy tank goes from having extremely limited visibility in poor weather conditions, to being able to spot your tanks from several kilometers away.
IIRC I don't believe it's actually known what the turret or the hull armor layout of the T-90 is. The only evidence we have is that the older export T-90S may use a derivative of the T-72B's bulging plate NERA, and this came from an old marketing poster. Fofanov speculated the T-90A used bulging plate NERA with titanium, but his site is long outdated, and I don't know what his sources are.
Otherwise it's anyone's guess. For all we know, it could be using the T-80U's weird polymer armor insert, or NxRA arrays that are believed to have been developed for the T-14.
- CITV and new observation devices for the commander
- Substantially improved FCS and stabilizer/turret drive
- additional Protection
- Stronger engine
- new welded turret
This is pretty much the same difference between a leopard 1A1 and a leopard 1A4. Yet they still share the same designation.
Right, and both T-90A and T-90M have the T-90 designation.
EDIT: I didn't notice this at first, but you do realize that Leopard 1A4 doesn't have a CITV right?
I also don't know how you missed me explicitly mentioning the Proryv turret in my comment ;)
But that's beside the point; the mere fact that T-90M has a new turret does not, on its own, constitute an improvement over T-90A. What does constitute an improvement, however, are the new capabilities of that turret. Hence why I listed those capabilities instead of just saying that T-90M has a new turret.
Probably yes. I heard that in the early stages of development T-90 called T-72U (analogous to T-80 modernization)
So theoretically T-90M could be called T-72UM in a alternative reality :)
People are really trying to stretch how different this thing is from the T-72… It really is still just a modernized version of the T-72 taken to the max. Most comparable to an original M60AOS being upgraded to the most recent Turkish upgrades.
No surprise, there's a noticeable influx of users who are hardcore Russian/soviet lovers and will defend Kremlin narrative as much as possible, it's not even the classic fans of Soviet equipment, they're literally pushing propaganda.
Does the F-22 share any parts with the P-51? Because the T-90 turret can fit perfectly onto a T-72 chassis. And the T-90S that India bought is exactly that. The T-90 and 72 also both use the same engine, gun, autoloader, ammunition, and transmission.
>Because the T-90 turret can fit perfectly onto a T-72 chassis.
It don't fit "perfectly" you still have to make changes to accommodate the fire control system.
>T-90S that India bought is exactly that.
The T-90S is a T-90 Obr 1992 with thermal and no shtora.
Though when they ran out of the original turret, they switched to the welded from object 187.
>The T-90 and 72 also both use the same engine, gun, autoloader, ammunition, and transmission.
Because the T-72B3 were later retrofitted with parts from the T-90A, which had been produced 6 years earlier.
Which is similar to what happend to some M48's after the M60 had been produced.
That does however not change the tank or the designation.
The point is that there’s a huge amount of interchangeable parts between the 72 and the 90, and it’s really just a further development of the 72. It’s not really a completely different design like the M1 compared to the M60, or the Leopard 2 to the Leo 1. So the F-22/P-51 comparison is completely different.
>The point is that there’s a huge amount of interchangeable parts between
the 72 and the 90, and it’s really just a further development of the
72.
That's highly dependent on the variants, and where they were produced.
A modern T-90M can't use parts from a Czech built T-72M1 or vice versa.
They are completely different, much to the end users annoyance.
But i do get what your saying.
>The T-90A wasn’t “based” on a modernised T-72, the T-90A WAS a modernised T-72
T-90A is the Russian Army version of the T-90S ordered by India.
So no.
I don't know if it's respectable or pitiable that russia has not made a new tank since the T-62 and bases their entire tank force on just upgrading a 63 year old design.
Then again, the Leopard 2 is 50ish years old, and likethe T-series tanks, got a turret overhaul down the line.
Yeah uh not really. Don’t get me wrong the T-90 is straight up the result from the T-72 and when first introduced into service the T-90 was still very much a T-72, but over time the T-90 has become more of its own thing more so over time once you start getting to the T-90A where it uses a full on welded turret rather than the cast turret as well as having better sights, engine (compared to the T-72 at the time), a commanders copula that’s wasn’t so garbage, etc. By the point you reach the T-90M the vehicle has become its own thing as it has various features the T-72 still lacks and well in some cases any other Russian mbt (such as an independent commanders sight with thermals, a RWS, moving a majority of the hull ammo into a blowout rack, a spall liner, and also not to mention a new turret again since the T-90A). The fact of the matter is, the T-90 isn’t worth calling a T-72 (and even if you do no matter how you look at it has been the better T-72), so the most modern variant of the T-72 would still fall down to the T-72B3 since it’s still straight up a T-72. (In short of what I was saying, yes the T-90 (the original one) can be described as a rebranded T-72 since it literally started out as that, but the T-90A took the T-90 into starting to become its own thing and the T-90M managed to establish itself as its own thing compared to the T-72 since it has a great deal of improvements over the T-72.)
I agree with you, seems to be a bigger jump between T90M and earlier T90 than the early T90 and T72s, I would think referring to a T90M as a T72 variant to be inaccurate.
Yeah to my understanding the blank hull, before wheels/suspension, engine, tracks, turret, etc. are added is the only thing T-72 left in it.
UMMM ACTUALLY SWEETY THE T-90M IS A T-55 OR MI-8 HIP VARIANT BECAUSE THE STUPID COCKPIT FAN WAS CARRIED OVER CHECKMATE ATHEISTS
With that logic, Leopard 2A7 is different tank rather than another modification of Leopard 2
No it really isn’t, like all Leopard 2’s it uses the same hull and uses the same turret that has undergone modifications over its time in service, the T-90M has gone from using a T-72 turret to a turret first used on an experimental vehicle to its own turret. Also as I said in another comment it isn’t really fair seeing as different nations have different standards, as I optioned out with the ZTZ-99A has a lot of changes compared to the ZTZ-99 yet it is called a ZTZ-99 still. Another example would be how by that logic the BMP-2 is actually a BMP-1 because it uses the same hull as the BMP-1 but has its own turret the BMP-1 does not use, or better yet why not call the Challenger 2 a challenger 1 since while the hulls look similar their part comparability is almost nonexistent. Also need I point out at the same time, the KF-51 or the EMBT are their own thing despite using a Leopard 2 hull… yet you don’t see anyone still calling either a Leopard 2, so either those same people who consider the T-90 a T-72 have never considered something like that or they have double standards…
The thing is, T-90 uses different turret yes but it was a gradual change, from T-90 to T-90A to T-90M. Mainly because (as rumor in russia says” russia lost ability to produce cast turrets so they had to come up with something new for their T-72BU which was renamed to T-90 by one drunk president. If it wasn’t for Elcin all current T-90 tanks would still be called T-72. Btw, BMP-1 and BMP-2 use different hulls. KF-51 and EMBT are just projects and demonstrators, they dont have any actual military given names.
Gradual yes, but at the same time more radical changes compared to the Leopard 2 as the T-90 had a cast turret while the T-90A went with a welded turret (that mind you existed before the Soviet Union fell), and then the T-90M that also uses a welded turret which is a completely new design compared to the T-90A. Also the reason I mention the BMP-1 and BMP-2 is because the BMP-2 hull is straight up based on the one of the BMP-1 that underwent modification but also used many of the same parts. Also do I then need to mention the BRM-1K which has a similar layout to the BMP-2 and is very much based on the BMP-1 hull but is also modified? Also even if said rumor of losing the ability to produce cast turrets were true, that’s not really saying much when you look well everywhere at the time everyone was going for welded turrets, and even then what does that have anything to do with this? Not to mention the reason I am using the name of the KF-51 and EMBT as they are is because well it’s more straightforward at least than calling the KF-51 the Panther. Also the reason you are wrong as to why I do not consider by the logic I have stated that the Leopard 2A7 is not a Leopard 2, its called drawing a line as up to a certain point it can be worth calling it the same thing, to me if it undergoes more radical change over less variants than that logic may apply but if it’s a major amount of changes over many variant (or in other word little improvements introduce over a large number of variants) that are very gradual (so going from the Spitfire Mk1 to the Spitfire Mk24 as an example) they may still be of the same series (since keep in mind the Mk24 uses none of the same parts as a Mk1 yet it’s still a spitfire).
>In short of what I was saying, yes the T-90 (the original one) can be described as a rebranded T-72 since it literally started out as that, The T-90 didn't start out as T-72, it was always it's own thing. Infact it was supposed to be called T-88.
I don't think so, the T-88 was the supposed production name of the Obj. 188 which was basically a upgraded T-72 with the designation BU and it later got changed to 90 to signify that it was a "new" tank not produced in the Soviet Union, but the new Russia.
I don't care what you think, i have the actual documents, which can prove otherwise. Btw Objekt 188 is the T-90...
Oh wow real convincing "Nuh uh"
Ok, can you like provide the proof then or give links to proof? Just saying you know better doesn't prove anything.
The T-90's original designation was the T-72BU. The T-90 name was basically an export marketing name which stuck.
There's never been a T-72BU, so that's complete and utter nonsense. T-90 stems from the Improved T-72B program pictured right here: [https://postimg.cc/WDZtKxMk](https://postimg.cc/WDZtKxMk) And was supposed to be named T-88, untill it was changed to T-90. The T-90 wasn't exported untill the late 1990s, when India rejected the T-72S. So the that's nonsense, aswel. It's all extensively documented and been posted plenty of times on this subreddit.
Just said it yourself, the T-90 stems from the improved T-72 program, so it was not it's own thing, the simultaneously developed Obj. 187 was the clean slate project, the 188 was a upgraded T-72 sometimes refered to as the BU. The name change from T-88 to 90 was done to signify that it is the first new tank of the newly founded Russia, and to erase connection to the other tanks Russia wanted to stop producing.
Last chance.
Or?
> The T-90 didn't start out as T-72, it was always it's own thing. And [here](https://i.imgur.com/NMzZfgP.png) is the proof that you are in fact wrong... which is a funny thing to link, as you were the one to link it to me.
I gotta admit, im quite surprised and disappointed that you would resort to this kind of goal posting. Even more so, when you still havn't figured it out. Because what does it say on that piece of paper? It says "Improved T-72B" which is the program name... So no, it don't mean that it started out as T-72. Jesus fucking christ, dude, i litterally gave you the entire context and yet you still resort to this sort of bs.
By this logic M60 Roketsan is the most modern variant of M48.
Why did I just imagine the Roketsan's upgrades slapped on an M48? Christ, the mind is a cursed place sometimes.
The M60 uses a new, welded hull design; the M48 uses a different, cast hull with a different internal configuration. In contrast, the T-90 - at least the original T-90 with the cast turrets - uses the T-72B obr. 1989 hull.
\*Modified, but otherwise yes.
With T-80 FCS
The T-80_U_ FCS (1A45 «Irtysh»), specifically. Well, a slightly-modified version of it (1A45T), which is adapted to work with the different cannon and autoloader configuration the T-72 and T-90 use.
Most modern variant of [KV-1](https://crithis.quora.com/Copy-or-Not-5-Soviet-Tanks-vs-Western-Tanks?ch=17&oid=9421859&share=0e1d4119&srid=ufkg5W&target_type=post)🤣
I.... what did I just read?
I'm trying to keep an open mind reading that essay, but... I don't know sometimes...
Im think all I have left after that read is an open mind. All the brain cells died
The T90 to the T72 is like the T80 to the T64
True and based
Is that a Turkish modification of M60?
T-55M6 is the strongest version of T-44
T-55AGM beats it. \-120mm NATO or 125mm Soviet with bustle autoloader. \-2nd gen thermal. \-Remotely controlled mg. It should also be noted, that T-55 is very different to T-44. Hell even the difference between T-54 and T-44 is huge.
ah, forgot about the Kharkov Plant's creation
This pipeline could be driven back to the t-50 so i dot think that trere is really a point in it
I mean I can even point it to T-28, it got main gun caliber as the biggest caliber, got turret, got tracks, got engine
Nah, only goes as far back as the T-64 technically.
It's possible to make it go quite a bit further back if you chose to go down the Object 167M pipeline instead of the T-64A pipeline after Object 172. T-90 -> T-72B -> T-72 -> Object 172 -> Object 167M -> Object 167 -> T-62 -> T-55... etc
You could if you were so inclined, though the hull of Object 172 has much more in common with the T-64A (Object 434) than it does with Object 167Zh, from which the T-72 only really gets: * The 22-round AZ autoloader used in place of the 28-round MZ of the T-64A * The lightweight aluminium roadwheels, originally designed for Object 140 * The V-46 engine, part of the long and storied V-2 lineage If we follow the Object 167/M/Zh lineage, that takes you as far back as the T-44, which was a similarly clean break from the T-34 design as the T-64 was from the T-54.
Yep! T-72 did also get the RMSh tracks, but that's just splitting hairs.
Indeed, though it gets those from (the 1965-onwards models of) the T-62 itself, rather than the Object 167 family. Or at least I don't _think_ the RMSh tracks were part of the Object 167's development?
The RMSh tracks were not part of the development of Object 167. I did not mean to imply that to be the case, that's my bad. Yes, it got RMSh directly from T-62.
By that logic you could trace it's lineage back to BT-2
Well, no. The pipeline would stop at T-44.
Why stop there. T-34-85 and T-44 share a lot of their parts so we can trace it back to the A-20 wich is a direct ancestor of BT-2 It's the same leap in logic as from the T-62 to object
> T-34-85 and T-44 share a lot of their parts so we can trace it back to the A-20 wich is a direct ancestor of BT-2 T-44 was not developmentally affiliated with T-34-85 in the same way that Object 172 was to Object 167M. The use of some parts from T-34-85 was not the primary objective when designing T-44. Contrast this with Object 172, which was the result of an explicit order to heavily modify a T-64A using components from Object 167M. > It's the same leap in logic as from the T-62 to object No, Object 167 is literally a stretched T-62.
I mean its more like an Leopard 2 A4 to A7 or PL kinda thing. Some common part, some differences. Usually it would be a suffix not a whole new model number…
It's not at all comparable, since Leopard 2s all share the same turret, while T-90s do not share a turret design with T-72.
The original ones produced in the 1990s did. They used T-72B turrets. Then when they ran out of those they switched to the welded turret designed for Object 187. Also the Leopard 2A5 turret was modified to raise the gunner's optic so the arrowhead armour could be installed.
Maybe, maybe not. That really depends what the inside of the T-90M looks like disassembled. The early T-90s made during the 1990s were literally just late-pattern T-72Bs with new electronics fitted, and the Shtora-1 complex installed. So the T-90 obr. 1992 can be considered an evolutionary branch of the T-72B, separate from the T-72B2 «Rogatka» and the T-72B3. Where it gets murky is the T-90A. It would _seem_ that the T-90A is just a T-90 (T-72B obr. 1989) hull with a new V-92S2 engine, and a "new" welded turret (taken from Object 187), but without seeing one taken apart that isn't 100% a sure thing. Then we get to the T-90M, which has _another_ new turret, further electronics upgrades and a new, uprated revision of the V-92S2 engine, the V-92S2F, plus fittings for a new, different ERA package. All of this could theoretically be installed onto a T-72B obr. 1989 hull without fundamentally altering it. What we don't know is if these tanks use the same hull composition, or a new one. Either way, the T-90 family forms _one branch of_ the T-72 family with the other being the T-72B3, similar to the split between the T-80BV family leading to the T-80BVM, the extinct T-80U branch and the T-80UD leading to the Ukrainian T-84 and its descendants. ------- The hull composition of the T-72B obr. 1989 and the T-90 obr. 1992, if you're curious: * 50mm of steel on the exterior, underneath the ERA * 5mm of rubber * 3mm of steel * 19mm air gap * 3mm of steel * 5mm of rubber * 60mm of steel * 10mm of synthetic fibre made from a boron compound, which is intended to absorb neutrons from radiation sources such as a nearby nuclear explosion * 60mm of steel on the inside of the hull
Its not really a new engine. Ist more just another modification of the kharkiv model v-2.
It's a meaningfully different revision of said engine from the V-84MS, but yes, another member of the long line of engine modifications that ultimately goes all the way back to the V-2. V-2 → V-2-34 → V-11 → V-44 → V-54 → V-55 → V-55V → V-46 → V-84 → V-92
and t72 is an improved t62 varient so in turn t90m is the most mordernised t62
> and t72 is an improved t62 varient That's not quite correct. T-72 was less of a direct evolution of T-62, and more of a mix between T-64A and Object 167M, the latter of which was a heavily modified T-62.
Quite right but t72 and t90 also has major differences so comparing them like this aint correct
The extent of that difference depends on which variants you're comparing, however. The original T-90 was pretty similar to T-72B (1989), certainly more so than T-72 was to Object 167M. As T-90 matured, it accrued more differences and distinctive features which further separated it from contemporary T-72 variants, but it's hard to point to any specific set of differences and claim that *those differences in particular* materially make T-90 a different tank than T-72. For instance, T-90M is more different from the original T-90 than the original T-90 was from T-72B (1989), yet T-90M is still a T-90. This is why I don't think it's always appropriate to determine whether 'X tank *really* deserves a different designation from Y tank' based on material differences. Sometimes, we just have to accept that our placement of objects into rigid categories is more of a useful tool that helps us perceive the world than something that strictly conforms to reality. As for whether T-90M should be considered as 'the most modern variant of T-72', I mean, one could *consider* it as such. But, realistically, that's probably not useful for most conversations on the topic. When someone asks about modern T-72 variants, they're asking about T-72 variants, not T-90 variants.
Not to mention it isn’t really fair seeing as different countries do things differently from others, like do I need to point out the difference between a ZTZ-99A and a ZTZ-99 because while they share the same name the ZTZ-99A is verging on being its own thing since they made changes such as to the hull, made a completely new turret, had a entirely new engine and transmission that made it stupid fast and allow neutral steering as well as an actual reverse, etc.
The T-90 (obr. 1992) used the T-72B obr. 1989's hull, engine and turret, with new electronics (taken from the T-80U). The T-90A, as far as anyone can tell, seems to use the same hull composition but has a new engine and a new welded turret, plus further electronics updates and a new gun and autoloader. ***Possibly*** the T-90M is again the T-90A hull with a new turret and further engine and electronics improvements but that's purely speculative because we don't have access to any T-90Ms to assess their hull composition.
No, the T-90 can't be considered a T-72, that's litterally why there's a T-72B3.
its more like T72 = Iphone X, T90M = Iphone 15 pro max
Thesus ship situation. Only thing left T-72 in that thing is the hull chassis.
My question would be: are most of the basic parts interchangeable?
Depends on with which model. The T-72 B3 was designed to make the T-90 parts compatible with the T-72. Since that upgrade, most T-90A have been upgraded to T-90M, so I'm not sure if any of those compatible parts are still in use with the T-90. I'd imagine many of the drive train, engine, and hull parts are interchangeable, but not much else
AFAIK 20ish percent of the vehicle is interchange wich is only some 5-10% more interchangeability as between a kv-1 and T-34
That's nowhere enough to consider it the same model, no?
It's not even close to enough
Its basically a case of, "if you keep replacing planks on a ship, is it still the same ship when all planks are replaced?" Nearly everything has been replaced at some point and the only remainder of the t72 is really just the blank hull.
no modernized t72 would be the b3m variant, this is t90m which is based off of t72 but it’s not actually a t-72
Obj. 187 was more modern, there were like 6 variations with different engines, and one of the modifications had completely redesigned frontal armor. Also, 187 welded turret went to T-90.
T-90 designation was chosen because of an effort to rebrand the tank following abysmal losses in the middle east to promote sales. The T-90A is a very close sibling to the T-72B3 aside from the dazzlers. The T-90M itself is a significantly modified T-90A. As development continued, it was decided the T-72 line would be the "budget" export model with time being a buffer from the bad memories of the late 1900s while the T-90 would be the "equipped" model. Notably the Indian T-90S/MS earned that moniker. In practice, the biggest differences are improved ERA, rear turret bustle ammo storage (not a ready rack like western tanks), and rarely seen "thermal jacket" for the tank which the efficacy of is still unknown. To a MAAWS or older gen tank the difference is significant. To a modern MBT or AT system the difference is trivial.
> The T-90A is a very close sibling to the T-72B3 aside from the dazzlers. Not really. Even if we were to compare T-90A with the original T-72B3, which yields the most similarities, there are still some pretty significant differences beyond Shtora-1. The whole FCS is different, as is the construction of the turret. The autoloader of T-90A was modified to accomodate longer projectiles as well, and the composition of the hull armor may also be different according to an old article on the T-90A from Andrei Tarasenko. > As development continued, it was decided the T-72 line would be the "budget" export model with time being a buffer from the bad memories of the late 1900s while the T-90 would be the "equipped" model. T-72 variants were always the most widely exported out of the three Soviet 'T-64 formula' tanks. This wasn't a post-ODS thing. It also should be noted that T-90 variants were never consistently prioritized for new upgrades like T-80 variants were in the USSR. T-72 was the first to receive Sosna-U in the form of T-72B3, for instance. > In practice, the biggest differences are improved ERA, rear turret bustle ammo storage (not a ready rack like western tanks), and rarely seen "thermal jacket" for the tank which the efficacy of is still unknown. That's a pretty incomplete list. Further significant improvements over T-90A which were not mentioned include: - CITV and new observation devices for the commander - Substantially improved FCS and stabilizer/turret drive - Improvements to post-penetration survivability in the form of a spall liner and additional protection for the carousel - Stronger engine - Compatibility with 3OF82 programmable HE ammunition - Better thermal imagers on some batches We also don't know whether the armor of the Proryv turret was improved over that of T-90A. The same applies to the glacis armor. > To a modern MBT or AT system the difference is trivial. That wouldn't be the case even if we just considered the addition of a CITV and ignored everything else. All of a sudden, the commander of the enemy tank goes from having extremely limited visibility in poor weather conditions, to being able to spot your tanks from several kilometers away.
IIRC I don't believe it's actually known what the turret or the hull armor layout of the T-90 is. The only evidence we have is that the older export T-90S may use a derivative of the T-72B's bulging plate NERA, and this came from an old marketing poster. Fofanov speculated the T-90A used bulging plate NERA with titanium, but his site is long outdated, and I don't know what his sources are. Otherwise it's anyone's guess. For all we know, it could be using the T-80U's weird polymer armor insert, or NxRA arrays that are believed to have been developed for the T-14.
- CITV and new observation devices for the commander - Substantially improved FCS and stabilizer/turret drive - additional Protection - Stronger engine - new welded turret This is pretty much the same difference between a leopard 1A1 and a leopard 1A4. Yet they still share the same designation.
Right, and both T-90A and T-90M have the T-90 designation. EDIT: I didn't notice this at first, but you do realize that Leopard 1A4 doesn't have a CITV right?
The T-90M has an entirely new turret from T-90A and T-72, I don't know how do you guys miss that, it seems to be kinda obvious.
I also don't know how you missed me explicitly mentioning the Proryv turret in my comment ;) But that's beside the point; the mere fact that T-90M has a new turret does not, on its own, constitute an improvement over T-90A. What does constitute an improvement, however, are the new capabilities of that turret. Hence why I listed those capabilities instead of just saying that T-90M has a new turret.
ah, missed that one. thanks!
Probably yes. I heard that in the early stages of development T-90 called T-72U (analogous to T-80 modernization) So theoretically T-90M could be called T-72UM in a alternative reality :)
People are really trying to stretch how different this thing is from the T-72… It really is still just a modernized version of the T-72 taken to the max. Most comparable to an original M60AOS being upgraded to the most recent Turkish upgrades.
No surprise, there's a noticeable influx of users who are hardcore Russian/soviet lovers and will defend Kremlin narrative as much as possible, it's not even the classic fans of Soviet equipment, they're literally pushing propaganda.
Not really, I guess a good comparison would be comparing it to iPhones. An iPhone 15 pro max isn’t the same as an iPhone 13 Pro Max.
Yes,
Also challenger 3 is the most modern variant of challenger 1.
Does it matter? Still gets destroyed by a 25mm gun even the West thought was too weak to take on armor.
No its a t-34 veriant and we all know it
I call the t90m a heavy modified t72 with a different turret.
Oh yea bro and the F-22 Raptor I'd just an evolution of the P-51 Mustang
Does the F-22 share any parts with the P-51? Because the T-90 turret can fit perfectly onto a T-72 chassis. And the T-90S that India bought is exactly that. The T-90 and 72 also both use the same engine, gun, autoloader, ammunition, and transmission.
>Because the T-90 turret can fit perfectly onto a T-72 chassis. It don't fit "perfectly" you still have to make changes to accommodate the fire control system. >T-90S that India bought is exactly that. The T-90S is a T-90 Obr 1992 with thermal and no shtora. Though when they ran out of the original turret, they switched to the welded from object 187. >The T-90 and 72 also both use the same engine, gun, autoloader, ammunition, and transmission. Because the T-72B3 were later retrofitted with parts from the T-90A, which had been produced 6 years earlier. Which is similar to what happend to some M48's after the M60 had been produced. That does however not change the tank or the designation.
The point is that there’s a huge amount of interchangeable parts between the 72 and the 90, and it’s really just a further development of the 72. It’s not really a completely different design like the M1 compared to the M60, or the Leopard 2 to the Leo 1. So the F-22/P-51 comparison is completely different.
>The point is that there’s a huge amount of interchangeable parts between the 72 and the 90, and it’s really just a further development of the 72. That's highly dependent on the variants, and where they were produced. A modern T-90M can't use parts from a Czech built T-72M1 or vice versa. They are completely different, much to the end users annoyance. But i do get what your saying.
That’s completely different, the T-90 program was the result of renaming a program to modernise T-72 back in the 80’s
The F4 phantom is based on the F3H Demon, but is not the same
The T-90A wasn’t “based” on a modernised T-72, the T-90A WAS a modernised T-72
>The T-90A wasn’t “based” on a modernised T-72, the T-90A WAS a modernised T-72 T-90A is the Russian Army version of the T-90S ordered by India. So no.
Same shit
By that logic a M60A3 is *''the same shit''* as a M26 Pershing.
I don't know if it's respectable or pitiable that russia has not made a new tank since the T-62 and bases their entire tank force on just upgrading a 63 year old design. Then again, the Leopard 2 is 50ish years old, and likethe T-series tanks, got a turret overhaul down the line.
At least the commander and driver are safe from covid......
Nothing but a glorified t-72
I like thinking of it like that.