Russia puts building bricks on T-90M Proryv tank as an armor

Nov 09, 2024

In the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the spotlight once again falls on Russia’s military technology, specifically its much-touted T-90M “Proryv” tank, hailed by President Vladimir Putin as one of the best tanks in the world. But recent reports, backed by images shared on Telegram and later circulated on social media platform X, reveal a stark and unsettling truth—this symbol of Russian military strength was reduced to a barely recognizable wreck.

These images, which surfaced at the end of September, have cast doubt on the tank’s supposed superiority, with widespread questions now raised about its protective systems and overall readiness for battle.

The tank’s destruction was so complete that it challenges everything we know about Russian engineering, particularly its armor systems. Although the exact cause of the tank’s demise—whether a powerful anti-tank mine or a guided missile—remains uncertain, the extent of the damage and the locations of the hits suggest severe vulnerabilities in the tank’s defense mechanisms.

Most alarmingly, the photos reveal a disturbing modification: instead of the expected explosive reactive armor [ERA] tiles, simple construction bricks were seen in their place. The irony is clear—this tank, which was supposed to be a fortress on the battlefield, had been sabotaged long before it ever reached the frontlines. Its armor, made of mere bricks, condemned it to certain destruction.

There are additional unsettling details from the photos. Key components of the ERA system, such as those on the turret and the critical front upper hull, were noticeably absent. Whether Russia simply ran out of proper ERA tiles or had to divert them elsewhere, possibly to other tanks, remains speculative. However, the presence of construction bricks as a stand-in for specialized armor suggests this tank was effectively deprived of the necessary upgrades to fight and survive on the modern battlefield.

One particularly telling image shows the cuvette—a critical element of the “Relikt” module’s upper side sections—empty. To remove or install these sections, the module itself must first be unscrewed, but the bolt head blocks the process.

The stark image of an unmodified tank, stripped of essential protection, raises the inevitable question: were there cuts in the modernization budget, and if so, where did the funds go? It’s unclear if the crew survived the attack, and while we can’t know for sure, one can’t help but imagine the horrors of soldiers trapped in a tank stripped of its most vital defenses.

But this particular T-90M may not be alone in its misfortune. If one tank had to undergo such a cost-cutting modification, it raises the troubling possibility that other Russian tanks on the battlefield may have faced similar fates. It seems unlikely that only one tank would be sent into battle without the necessary upgrades—especially given the strategic importance of the T-90M.

Could it be that several tank crews are sitting on a “barrel of gunpowder,” waiting for the inevitable? The deeper question remains: how many more T-90s—once touted as the backbone of Russia’s armored forces—are similarly exposed, vulnerable to modern anti-tank weapons?

The T-90 series, which has long been lauded for its high combat capabilities and advanced protective technologies, is known for incorporating ERA [Explosive Reactive Armor] systems. ERA is designed to protect tanks from cumulative and armor-piercing projectiles by using explosive panels that disrupt the penetration of incoming rounds.

These panels are composed of an explosive layer sandwiched between two metal plates, which detonate upon impact, scattering metal fragments to neutralize the incoming threat. When functioning properly, this system provides a robust defense, greatly enhancing the tank’s survivability against modern anti-tank weapons.

The T-90’s ERA system includes versions such as “Kontakt-5,” which was widely used in earlier models of the tank, and “Relikt,” a more advanced and effective version that provides enhanced protection against new, sophisticated threats like tandem warheads and modern kinetic energy penetrators.

The main advantage of ERA lies in its ability to reduce the likelihood of penetration by cumulative warheads, a critical feature for modern tanks. This makes the T-90 a formidable opponent on the battlefield, particularly in contemporary conflicts where high-explosive and anti-tank ammunition is common.

However, as with any system, ERA is not without its weaknesses. It is vulnerable to multiple hits in the same spot, which can significantly diminish its effectiveness over time. Moreover, the explosive reaction triggered by ERA can cause collateral damage to nearby infantry or friendly vehicles, making it a double-edged sword in certain combat scenarios.

Additionally, newer, more advanced anti-tank munitions, such as tandem warheads and advanced kinetic projectiles, are capable of bypassing ERA defenses, proving that it is not a flawless shield but rather part of a layered defense strategy.

The T-90 is undoubtedly a powerful machine, combining passive armor with active protection like ERA, which provides multi-layered defense against a wide range of threats. But the ongoing conflict has highlighted a crucial point: modern military technology must continuously evolve to counter ever-more sophisticated weapons. Without constant upgrades and maintenance, even the most advanced systems can quickly become obsolete on the battlefield.

The presence of construction bricks in place of ERA on this particular T-90 is far from an isolated incident. Russian military hardware in Ukraine has often raised eyebrows due to the use of civilian-grade components in place of military-grade materials. In some cases, Russian armored vehicles and tanks have been found to contain electronic circuits and resistors typically used in civilian applications, which are not built to withstand the harsh conditions of warfare. This has resulted in unreliable systems, prone to failure and malfunction under combat stress.

Moreover, Russia has resorted to using cheaper materials for critical parts of its military equipment. For instance, the metals used for armor plating in some Russian tanks and armored vehicles are reportedly less durable and resistant to ballistic impacts than the specialized alloys used in Western or Ukrainian vehicles. These lower-quality materials reduce the overall effectiveness of the tanks’ armor and compromise their survivability against modern anti-tank weapons.

There is also evidence that Russian tank engines have been built with technologies borrowed from agricultural machinery, such as tractors and combine engines, rather than specialized military-grade propulsion systems. This leads to frequent mechanical failures and operational breakdowns in the field, which further weakens the combat readiness of Russian armored forces.

Lastly, the Russian military’s decision to replace high-performance composite materials with cheaper plastics and other cost-cutting substitutes has led to a significant drop in the durability and efficiency of key vehicle components. Under extreme battlefield conditions, these inferior materials can fail more quickly, rendering the vehicles less effective and less reliable.

The plight of the T-90M is a sobering reminder of the fragility of military power when corners are cut and critical systems are neglected. As the war in Ukraine continues to unfold, it is clear that Russia’s once-vaunted tank forces may be facing a much greater challenge than anyone initially anticipated. And for the crews entrusted with these compromised machines, the question remains: how long can they survive when their vehicles are little more than rolling death traps?

***

Follow us everywhere and at any time. BulgarianMilitary.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news, follow our Google News, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook pages. Our standards: Manifesto & ethical principles.