The T-90M main battle tank is Russia’s most polarizing long-serving postmodern armored combat vehicle today. Nicknamed “Proryv,” or “Breakthrough,” it’s designed to demonstrate that Moscow can still make a tank that holds its own against the world’s best designs. It’s a gun. It’s also a symbol—something which stands for the fact that there is still giant armor on the battlefields of today.
It’s not some retired Soviet tank from the days of old. The T-90M is a development of the design of the older tanks in pretty much everything except for a few aspects. It’s centered around the 125mm 2A46M-5 smoothbore cannon that can fire whatever amount of ammunition, including and starting at the 9M119M Refleks missile, up to five kilometers.
The Kalina fire control system contains a thermal imager and a laser rangefinder in the same package to give day-and-night capability to the tank’s fire. It is armored around its 1,130-horsepower V-92S2F diesel engine and can travel around 45 miles per hour with an operating range of perhaps 340 miles—close enough and far enough to maintain pace without constant re-fueling.
Armor has been upgraded as well. Relikt explosive reactive armor protection against novel anti-tank rounds, and the turret is redesigned with new electronics and digital fire control. Additional room for crew inside and a superior automatic loader reduce fatigue on lengthy operations. It is paper-for-paper equal to Western competitors such as the M1 Abrams or Leopard, 2 lagging in advanced sensors and battle networking.
Obviously, a tank is something that can’t be tested on paper. In the Syrian and Ukrainian theaters, the T-90M has been pretty well beaten, p—but it has a defect. Perhaps the most critical flaw is an anachronism of the old Soviet tank autoloader school of design, having ammunition in front of the crew deck.
If it is penetrated by such a round—especially from the top, by weapons like the Javelin or small attack drones—it has a high likelihood of actually causing cataclysmic chain reactions, Tank and crew smitherized. Military commentator Isaac Seitz simply said, “It’s just as susceptible to ammo cook-offs as the older models.”
Drone warfare also caused difficulties for tank troops. Inexpensive, lightweight FPV drones were unexpectedly effective at locating soft targets. The initial T-90Ms had no adequate countermeasures against them, and kamikaze missions—ramming into isolated tanks without electronic warfare support—posted astronomical casualty lists. As Seitz later put it, “even the best tank is a dead tank if it’s sent in alone.”
At the same time, Russia increased production at the Uralvagonzavod factory in Nizhny Tagil. The plant is now running around the clock, producing dozens—if not dozens—of T-90Ms annually, compared to a paltry 60–70 in 2022. Though copious defense expenditures subsidize this, sanctions have rendered it a difficult proposition for factories to obtain high-tech components, and factories have had no option but to rely more and more on indigenous production. They need very skilled engineers and machinists in bulk tkeepin the manufacturing process active.
Meanwhile, the vehicle itself has been upgraded. In the past three years, perhaps 200 upgrades have been fitted, from electronic warfare pods to anti-drone netting and extra armoured plates. Some models have even been equipped with the Arena-M active protection system, which will strike incoming missiles even before they reach the vehicle. The factory claims that today’s T-90Ms are barely comparable with what it was making two or three years ago.
Price is also a determining factor in popularityCostingng about $4.5 million per tank—a cheaper tank than an M1 Abrams—it has drawn the attention of the likes of India and Algeria. Its foreign export earnings fund production as well as filter into overseas markets.
Finally, the T-90M is a weapon, but Russia sees the future of theb. It is a reminder that body armor will never be an antiquated technology in this era of drones, guided missiles, and cyber warfare. Its value tomorrow will be determined by whether or not it has the ability to keep on innovating. If the CTO is keen on having an advantage over damage, then it is a good weapon. But otherwise, it is a letter to the reality that steel cannot do everything, ie, c contemporary warfare.
