Talk:T-90

Renamed T-72

The article doesnt really explain T-90 was the T-72BU re-labelled, to remove this latest variant from the taint of the T-72s poor survivability in combat. It was originally to be renamed the T-88 (contraction of the internal design program); the designation T-90 was eventually adotped to imply it was the first 'new' tank design of the nineties. source: Zaloga: "T-90 Standard Tank" LoatesyJnr (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

T-72BU is actually another parallel development of the T-72 which used a completely different gun. 37.162.243.147 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The T-72BU doesn’t exist, it’s a made-up name based on the english translation of « Усовершенствованный танк Т-72Б » Upgraded T-72B.

The name T-90 is a reference to the manual of the Object 188TO-1, made in 1990. GrosTaga (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Spinning Turret Syndrome

This should be in the article somewhere: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2024/05/24/spinning-turret-syndrome-the-disastrous-bug-in-russias-most-modern-tank/?sh=4f4b9ee21ec0 Victor Grigas (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion to turn T-90s into turtle tanks to stop the turret from spinning seems deeply unserious. Schierbecker (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is under a "Senior Contributor", so that article's generally unreliable according to the reliable source list BarakHussan (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

Change of paragraph:

The T-90M features the 'Kaktus K-6' bolted explosive reactive armour (ERA) package on its frontal hull and turret-top (the T-90S has 'Kontakt-5' ERA), is fitted with an enhanced environmental control system supplied by Israel's Kinetics Ltd for providing cooled air to the fighting compartment, has additional internal volume for housing the cryogenic cooling systems for new-generation thermal imagers like the THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8–12 micrometre bandwidth). In all, India plans to have 2,080 T-90 tanks in service by 2020.[citation needed]

In the sense of the first sentence. "Kaktus K-6" is a fictitious protection system, with the T-90M using 4S23 Relikt instead of the 4S24 Kaktus explosive reactive armor. The only relevance to Kaktus is its soft-protection, also known as "bags" or "boxes" that are additional armor upgrades for the sides of the hull and turret, and that is only in the fact that it applies 4S24U.

No vehicle uses Kaktus. It was originally a prototype called Karkas-1 (4S24) in the 1990s, where it was found to be largely ineffective compared to the competitor in the market, being Relikt (4S23). It was only then applied to more lightly armored applications, as well as lightweight packages. This includes Karkas-2 (4S24U used on BMP-3M, T-90M, T-72B3, T-72BM2, and T-80BVM[-1]) in its soft form, typically called Relikt due to its design. The only change between 4S23 and 4S24U Relikt packages is its explosive insert, in which Kaktus would technically be the correct plastic explosive.

IN SHORT The T-90M features the 'Kaktus K-6' bolted explosive reactive armour (ERA) package on its frontal hull and turret-top -> The T-90M features the 'Relikt' explosive reactive armour (ERA) package on its frontal hull and turret-top TheArcticFoxxo (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TylerBurden (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s « Relikt » not « Kaktus » GrosTaga (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Section regarding the Russo-Ukrainian War is full of unreliable sources, and information that isn't backed up by the citation provided.

Bulgarianmilitary.com, and the LadBible should not be cited as reliable sources for articles relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, not only that, but the sources cited do not back up the statement that the T-90M has been destroyed by NLAW, and provides no evidence of T-90M being destroyed by Javelin either. The claim of Relikt being replaced by simple brick is also dubious considering Ukrainians have in the past shown T-80BVMs with "Rubber" replacing the Relikt inside, despite the fact that the Relikt had simply been removed. There is also the source which is citing a video on X by the Ukrainian MoD of a T-90M being destroyed by a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, this claim was debunked, the tank was disabled, and destroyed by another Russian tank behind it to prevent capture. The sources cited are tabloid journalism, and are a blight on the article. The entire section requires a full rewrite to actually denote the T-90Ms extensive service history in the conflict, and should be more impartial, as it stands it is essentially a "history of notable times T-90M has been knocked out in Ukraine". Itshavoc123 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2026

Proposing an update the Ukraine loss figures, more than a whole year difference. No new sources.

Present:

As of 9 May 2025, the Oryx blog had documented that Russia had lost at least 187 T-90s since the start of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (visually confirmed), including 42 T-90A (of which 29 were destroyed, 3 abandoned, 10 captured), 1 T-90AK (captured and later destroyed), 11 T-90S (9 destroyed, 1 abandoned, 1 captured) and 134 T-90M (80 destroyed, 17 damaged, 30 abandoned, 7 captured).

Proposed Change:

As of 13 May 2026, the Oryx blog had documented that Russia had lost at least 213 T-90s since the start of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (visually confirmed), including 46 T-90A (of which 33 were destroyed, 3 abandoned, 10 captured), 2 T-90AK (1 was captured and later destroyed, and another was captured), 11 T-90S (9 destroyed, 1 abandoned, 1 captured) and 154 T-90M (102 destroyed, 16 damaged, 29 abandoned, 7 captured). More may have been destroyed, but undocumented or be in the unknown category. Rajbarage (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: I updated the figures per your 1st proposed sentence. I did not add the 2nd sentence you proposed because it appears to be your own conclusion and not something stated directly by the source. Day Creature (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There are 581 Unknown tanks documented destroyed on Oryx, a number of which very well could be T-90s, and "This list only includes destroyed vehicles and equipment of which photo or videographic evidence is available. Therefore, the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here." (Oryx site itself). I just think it is best to acknowledge that when discussing losses, especially for context to someone who is new to the topic. Rajbarage (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Egypt as future operator

The part about Egypt contract needs to go.

It has two sources - first is article from 2017, sourcing Uralvagonzavod own report, where they state that they are "working on a project to create an enterprise to assemble T-90S". Obviously not a T-90MS, and obviously this work was fruitless, as we don't see any mentions of it now.

Second source has a "reportedly" caveat and mentions some "Russian sources" without providing any specifics. I tried to dig up the Russian sources from this time window i.e. June 2020, and they all seem to point to a report from ЦАМТО/armstrade, which itself cites Facebook post from Egypt transportation minister Kamel al-Wazir. Problem is, Egyptian ministry of transportation not so long ago issued a warning, where they state that al-Wazir has no Facebook page, and lists his impersonators in Facebook, one of which, account محبي كامل الوزير , appears to be the source for ЦАМТО report.

With that in mind, I propose considering these two sources unreliable and remove mention of Egypt contract from the article. Yaremer (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked the sources and what you said seems to check out, not to mention one of the sources is literally the notoriously unreliable Russian state source WP:TASS. Removing it for now, feel free to restore if better sources can be found. TylerBurden (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)