You made the claim that the T-90 is overhyped by Russians, you made the claim that the T-90 can not withstand 700mm penetration even with ERA. That was proven to be a lie, the T-90 withstood hits from a Kornet that according to the manufacture can penetrate 1200mm armor. Even without ERA the T-90 withstood anti tank weapons capable of 650mm RHA. Clearly you lied.
As for your claim that "no apfsds penetrators were used", open your eyes and read my source again, they were used:
APFSDS
- T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
- T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun.
Your other point about the T-80UD having superior armor to the T-90--the T-80U in that test uses the same armor as the T-80UD and it was clearly inferior to the T-90 in armor penetration testing. I don't care about the "478BE", your tactic is simple, you make a claim where you outright lie then start either avoiding proving your claim with sources or you tap dance around your claim and change the subject into something else, you never mentioned anything about a Ukrainian built 478BE.
You mentioned T-80UD, so top trying to tap dance your way out of a lie by mentioning another tank altogether.
Also in your picture of a supposed hit to the Al-Khalid proves nothing, we can't even see if it really is an Al-Khalid, lets even say that it is true, your tactics are deceitful, on one hand you posted pictures of a T-90 with damage where you claimed the T-90 was penetrated even though you provided no proof, on the other hand you posted pictures of a hole in a supposed Al-Khalid that never penetrated. There is also a question of APFSDS penetrators, Pakistani APFSDS rounds are less then spectacular.
