T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

Theres no mention of a faster reverse speed. Only faster change to reverse gear, therefore the reverse speed is of the original T-72,T-72A,T-72B, etc.

How about you show reliable documentation that the T-72B3M model 2017 has more than 1 reverse gear.

What I would like to know is that if reverse speed is so damn critical, why are the Russian tankers themselves not making these demands, and why is the Russian military and the Russian MIC ignoring these demands?

Even a simple two speed transfer case could boost the reverse speed and forward speed by allowing an extra gear ratio.

@limb

It literally took me 30 seconds to find.

https://www.techinsider.ru/weapon/564174-bronya-krepka-luchshiy-rossiyskiy-tank-vstupaet-v-stroy/
https://ria.ru/20181123/1533252591.html

What bold part means? - Автоматизированная коробка переключения передач существенно повышает скорость заднего хода

повышает скорость заднего хода and позволяющей быстрее давать задний ход
mean different things. All the primary sources for this claim, well, 1 primary source, zvezda, say the latter.

Also why wouldn't the article GIVE A NUMBER for the reverse speed, like it does for forward speed, if its about improved reverse speed than speed of switching gear?

What I would like to know is that if reverse speed is so damn critical, why are the Russian tankers themselves not making these demands, and why is the Russian military and the Russian MIC ignoring these demands?

Russian tankers prefer the T-80BVM because of its reverse speed.  Also why would the MoD listen?  When has the MoD listened to russian tankers in the last 10 years?

We're not going to do any of those. Nobody listen to you anyway.

Then stop asking me for sources.

The T-80 has the same reverse speed since 1978, so I doubt that. Also T-80s are in very limited numbers compared to T-72Bs and arent newly built, so tankers dont have achoice to use them. I was wrong about the MVD not taking any inputs from tankers, regarding installing thermals and ERA coverage, but mobility is not one of those areas where the MoD listens to tankers.

The reason Im so disgusted by the T-90's reverse speed is that its couldve been the best tank in the world. it has everything making it extremely versatile and surviveable, but the reverse speed throws most of this surviveability in the trash because russian tankers when doing fire support and shooting and scooting, they always turn around to show the back armor to the enemy.

The T-14 might be many things, but its not being used en masse. T-72s are being used en masse. They need reverse speed. the fact that the MoD brags about the new automatic gearbox shifting gears faster than the manual one, shows that it tried a tiny bit to improve rear mobility, yet they never gave the supposed speed increase. Neither UVZ, nor zvezda tv has ever given a number for the reverse speed for the T-72B3M obr.2017 or T-90M, DESPITE them giving new forward speed values ofroad and onroad. The simplest explanation is that it stayed the same, no matter how many secondary sources reword it.


Here's a video of a T-90M in the zaporozhian front firing from a position. When its scooting, instead of reversing, it turns around and shows the rear towards the enemy. If its reverse speed was usable(lets say 10km/h instead of 4-5km/h), why would it turn around instead of reversing?
Ive seen videos of T-80BVs and BVMs from march and april where their crews reverse from a position instead of showing the tanks backside.
https://t.me/warhistoryalconafter/79903

@limb
First source I posted clearly states reverse speed. Not that it is that important to begin with. You are just nitpicking to prove your point.

Sounds like Lyle doesn't know much if anything about armored warfare.

If you don't think reverse speed is important, you're just ignorant about armored warfare. No other way around it.

Also why wouldn't the article GIVE A NUMBER for the reverse speed, like it does for forward speed, if its about improved reverse speed than speed of switching gear?

Even without a synchromesh gearbox needing to double de-clutch to select reverse gear how long do you think it takes to select a reverse gear, and why do you think speeding that process up would make any difference at all?

Is it a 20 step five minute procedure to select reverse?

Also why would the MoD listen?

Obviously... they ignore their military troops in the field and just do what they like or what gives them the biggest profit... or is that the western military?

When has the MoD listened to russian tankers in the last 10 years?

You are the one making the claim... when have they not listened?

Lots of innovation and new equipment going into service all the time... it is easy to say they ignore them because they don't put APS into service, but that is just ignorant... they will put APS systems into service when they are ready.

The T-80 has the same reverse speed since 1978, so I doubt that.

The T-80 has a gas turbine engine with a completely different transmission... to get faster reverse speeds with a diesel engine which has a very narrow power range of between 1,800 and probably 2,000 rpm you would need to make the gearbox more complicated by adding more gears which will make it more complex and expensive and less reliable or change the gear ratios which would reduce top speed... pretty clear they would prefer not to do either.

The T-14 might be many things, but its not being used en masse. T-72s are being used en masse. They need reverse speed.

In the future armour make up the T-72s will be replaced by Boomerang and Kurganets based tanks with T-14 turrets, so the problem will solve itself.

the fact that the MoD brags about the new automatic gearbox shifting gears faster than the manual one, shows that it tried a tiny bit to improve rear mobility, yet they never gave the supposed speed increase

That is what you are claiming, but no actual numbers to prove it.

Neither UVZ, nor zvezda tv has ever given a number for the reverse speed for the T-72B3M obr.2017 or T-90M, DESPITE them giving new forward speed values ofroad and onroad. The simplest explanation is that it stayed the same, no matter how many secondary sources reword it.

No, the simplest explanation is that it is a secret or not considered important to mention.

Here's a video of a T-90M in the zaporozhian front firing from a position. When its scooting, instead of reversing, it turns around and shows the rear towards the enemy. If its reverse speed was usable(lets say 10km/h instead of 4-5km/h), why would it turn around instead of reversing?

Because moving to a new location, turning around and accelerating to a much higher speed gets you there faster.

Ive seen videos of T-80BVs and BVMs from march and april where their crews reverse from a position instead of showing the tanks backside.

Perhaps the difference is that when they turn and drive away, they do so because they are not under fire by anything substantial, whereas when they reverse they are.

If you don't think reverse speed is important, you're just ignorant about armored warfare. No other way around it.

Yeah, cause running away backwards wins wars... right...

When firing at enemy position from a relatively fixed positions, the Russians generally get positions engineered with ramps where they can drive up and shoot and the withdraw a few metres and drop down the ramp out of sight exposing only the optics to find another target or to move to a different ramp to take another shot.

Reversing speed is not critical in such a situation.

Spending long periods in the enemy field of view is more dangerous than exposing your rear because in this day and age most things will penetrate some part of the front of a tank and reversing essentially presents a stationary target that could be hit from enormous distances by modern tanks... in comparison an enemy tank turning around and withdrawing at 50km/h that is not driving straight would be a rather more difficult target.

"Yeah, cause running away backwards wins wars... right..."

As i said, no other way around it.

"comparison an enemy tank turning around and withdrawing at 50km/h that is not driving straight would be a rather more difficult target."

Potential enemy tanks can reverse at nearly that speed, making it that much harder to kill them.

First source I posted clearly states reverse speed. Not that it is that important to begin with. You are just nitpicking to prove your point.

Are you absolutely sure thats a more reliable source than zvezda tv? Before you say it must be true, you need to think if theautomatic  transmission design of the T-72  would actually allow from an engineering standpoint for increased reverse speed. Some random article just throwing around 15km/h is as valid as the drive claiming the F-35 has a frontal RCS of 0.0000....000#m^2

Even without a synchromesh gearbox needing to double de-clutch to select reverse gear how long do you think it takes to select a reverse gear, and why do you think speeding that process up would make any difference at all?

2 seconds are a matter of life and death when being targeted by ATGMs and artillery.

. to get faster reverse speeds with a diesel engine which has a very narrow power range of between 1,800 and probably 2,000 rpm you would need to make the gearbox more complicated by adding more gears which will make it more complex and expensive and less reliable or change the gear ratios which would reduce top speed...

So you believe it would be impossible to give the T-72 and T-90 transmission an extra reverse gear in a cost effective way without compromising other qualities?

Nobody, not the Russian tankers in particular, seem to care that their tanks have slow reverse. Only you. So take your meds, schizo, and stop using this forum as your therapy. kthxbie

This isnt pol. Go cope, seethe and dilate there.

diabetus wrote:Potential enemy tanks can reverse at nearly that speed, making it that much harder to kill them.

Simply not true! Only if the tank can somehow disappear behind a hill or a building. Other means of protection are much more important.

Simply not true! Only if the tank can somehow disappear behind a hill or a building. Other means of protection are much more important.

Or a treeline. Or bushes. or a fence. or a pile or rubble. Or a tank berm. All of which happen to be ubiquitous in the donbass. This isnt a salt flat. This is a massive industrial zone with lots of hills and treelines.

limb wrote:Or a treeline. Or bushes. or a fence. or a pile or rubble. Or a tank berm. All of which happen to be ubiquitous in the donbass. This isnt a salt flat. This is a massive industrial zone with lots of hills and treelines.
LIKE

If you drive a few meters behind a bush, the rocket will fly further and exactly in the same path and guided missiles will continue to be guided. Doesnt matter if the tank drove 2 m or 10 m. Unguided anti-tank weapons are fired at close range anyway and the crew doesn't have time to react.

The tank needs cover only then it is safe. Tree lines and bushes do not provide cover! The only thing that really helps is a tank's protection systems...there are enough pictures of destroyed Leopard and Abrams tanks

ATGMs typically need guidance all the way to impact. It's easy to miss at the last second, from what I've seen in videos, and presumably breaking line of sight will lead to that outcome a lot as it would interrupt the laser painting or the sighting by the gunner.
So yes even if cover is the more full-proof option, even moving into concealment can potentially prove a boon.

flamming python wrote:ATGMs typically need guidance all the way to impact. It's easy to miss at the last second, from what I've seen in videos, and presumably breaking line of sight will lead to that outcome a lot as it would interrupt the laser painting or the sighting by the gunner.
So yes even if cover is the more full-proof option, even moving into concealment can potentially prove a boon.

Yes...this is what I mean. The tank needs full cover! Driving a few meters back in a treeline wouldn't help.

But it could if it breaks the line of sight for a weapon that relies on an uninterrupted line of sight

Potential enemy tanks can reverse at nearly that speed, making it that much harder to kill them.

Reversing back behind cover is one thing but just reversing backwards is an easy kill... from the front you are stationary but increasing distance... You might not realise but APFSDS rounds move fast and have a flat trajectory and moving 50km per hour backwards wont outrun that round, nor will it out run a missile.

The Russians are going eat them alive, and no amount of technical wizardry is going to stop it from happening:

A very important video... notice neither side was driving cross country.... they stuck to roads or the edge of forests for cover... no turning frontal armour towards the enemy because at 500m frontal armour doesn't save you.

Are you absolutely sure thats a more reliable source than zvezda tv? Before you say it must be true, you need to think if theautomatic transmission design of the T-72 would actually allow from an engineering standpoint for increased reverse speed.

The engines currently fitted are more powerful than engines fitted to the T-72 30 years ago, improved transmission would allow the increased power of the engine to be better used to create speed in both directions without changing the gear ratios.

2 seconds are a matter of life and death when being targeted by ATGMs and artillery.

Most tank crews are unaware of artillery or incoming ATGMs... that is why they are so dangerous... suggesting that the commander will see an incoming missile or even less likely an incoming artillery shell and order the driver to reverse directly backwards and he manages to do that and dodges an incoming threat... well he would probably be just as likely to drive in to an incoming threat as avoid one.

That is just hollywood bullshit.

So you believe it would be impossible to give the T-72 and T-90 transmission an extra reverse gear in a cost effective way without compromising other qualities?

I think it would be rather easy in fact, which is why I don't think it is very important... I think tank crew would rather be getting APS systems and panoramic sights and other goodies. If they want faster reverse speeds and they aren't getting them I don't think is because the designers or the military don't care.

Mounting machine guns on the hull of a vehicle suggests they are open to suggestions and new ideas.

Simply not true! Only if the tank can somehow disappear behind a hill or a building. Other means of protection are much more important.

Good point... normal tactics I would think would be for a tank to poke out of cover... look, perhaps shoot and then reverse back into cover... they don't venture 100s of metres out into the open when they do this so super high speed reverse is not critical...

Or a treeline. Or bushes. or a fence. or a pile or rubble. Or a tank berm. All of which happen to be ubiquitous in the donbass. This isnt a salt flat. This is a massive industrial zone with lots of hills and treelines.

So 50km/h reverse speed over a bank into a river could kill your crew... awesome...

So yes even if cover is the more full-proof option, even moving into concealment can potentially prove a boon.

Or launch a smoke grenade...

But it could if it breaks the line of sight for a weapon that relies on an uninterrupted line of sight

Like smoke does.

Besides the Russians are the dominant force here... sending a tank forward to get the enemy to open fire so a drone can locate them and they can be targeted before the force attacks is pretty normal isn't it?

If the problem in this war was the 10s of thousands of tanks the Russians have lost so far I think it might be worth a look, but it is the Ukraine that seems to be running out of them.

They have already shown T-72s they set up to operate robotically... perhaps it is robot tanks they are sending forward to attract enemy fire, and if they don't receive it they can shoot at likely enemy positions.

Or you can get better optics and a better transmission like the Czech T-72m4cz which has better optics than any Russian tank save for the t-90M and has a decent reverse speed.