T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants #2

I know for sure (100%) length of Yugoslavian made 3BM-15, because we have them on our M-84s. Length of Projectile not of gunpowder case is 435mm, alone dart or sabot or what ever you call it is around 420mm maybe 2-3mm less.

So when I say the biggest problem for using latest 3MBs on older tanks with older type of autoloader (stop right there, becasue they do not made changes on hull of T-72s, only they made it on new T-90M tanks) they cannot use it in T-80BVMs or T-72B3/B3Ms tanks for now. 3BM59/60 are much longer and they cannot put this round in older autoloaders. Still good old MANGO or Lakalo is enough to penetrate every WEST tank frontaly, becasue they are only 30% protected against this type of rounds.... only 30%...

"Many of those one line posts were attached to entire conversations and consisted mainly of flamebaiting..."

I hope you understand that after you grossly misinterpreted my post here that this statement is no longer credible.

galicije83 wrote:So when I say the biggest problem for using latest 3MBs on older tanks with older type of autoloader (stop right there, becasue they do not made changes on hull of T-72s, only they made it on new T-90M tanks) they cannot use it in T-80BVMs or T-72B3/B3Ms tanks for now. 3BM59/60 are much longer and they cannot put this round in older autoloaders. Still good old MANGO or Lakalo is enough to penetrate every WEST tank frontaly, becasue they are only 30% protected against this type of rounds.... only 30%...

This makes zero sense. These tanks have new optronics, new digitized FCS, and new gun. Why wouldn't they upgrade the autoloader as well?

It make sense because you do not have space for this new loader for new ammo...its simple as that. They use new guns but old type of Kinetic projectiles...if you wanna put new autoloader same as in T-90M you need to chop side of hull, make more room and this is still on limit...

Its easier to make new T-90M then do this job on old T-72, and because of that the to not do that...It is good because they will get more and more T-90M witch is much batter tank then any T-72 period..but they need 100s of tanks so they are stuck with modernization of old T-72.. As we can see lst batch of T-72B3M do not have SOSNA-U gunner sight and do not have meteo sensor...they use gunner sight from T-62Ms. Why is that, probably Minks couldnt made more SOSNA Us as Russians need new tanks...

As i sad, bigest problem is that they have peace production of tanks and anything and today they cannot produced in large quantities gun sights, observation station for all their vehicles. They use what they have rigth now...ist not good and its not bad...it is, what it is

BOTH AZ-172 and AZ-184 can hold cartridges much longer than you have said.
It is just a fact.
There is nothing more to add, honestly.

Dot.

Russkie carried out a series of theoretical studies on how to increase the max ammo length, and they came - and patented - two different solutions.
The first was making the carousel mount smaller in diameter. They did that for T-72B when they needed extra space for 9M119 rocket.
Since then, they have presented at least two new electric servo systems, each of those being smaller.
The second was changes applied to the autoloader rack, yet I am not sure what kind of - I saw only the patent description and number, yet couldn't find the document. Probably it is still a secret.
But the side effect was the charge deck extraction mechanism that changed for T-72B3, and now it is the same or very similar as for T-90A. It is not for no reason, so my guess is that both changes were applied to the existing autoloaders without changing the carousel itself. Small and subtle changes were visible in each of the presented modifications, for example, it is hard to find when the ammo computer changed for the digital one from the disc driven.
There are multiple serious records that it was not the autoloader that caused the issues with longer and more powerful rounds, but the gun chamber and a barrel. I will just remind you that the difference between 2A26, 2A46, and 2A46-5 is 50 years of technology development. Those are principally new guns, even if look alike and are called alike.

Back on topic the longest rounds you are going to put in the autoloader are the APFSDS which have very very narrow front ends and full calibre bases, which makes me wonder if they could be angled up and to either the right or the left which would mean they could overlap other penetrators sticking though in the middle and actually go beyond the centre if needed...

The thing is valid only now, and that is a catch.
Till the 90s, APDS ammo was actually shorter than any other.
Much shorter in some cases.
For example the first projectiles of the 125mm caliber were just 425mm with 410 mm long penetrator - I guess that this is what galicje83 is addressing with Yugo production and M-84.
What is even more interesting, the penetrator size was ... decreasing in time. The proportions of cap, penetrator and the bodybuilding mass were changing.
For example, Vant, the 3BM32 uranium round, had a penetrator with only 380 mm width and the whole projectile was 480 mm only ...
While 3BK and 3OF rounds were 670-680 mm long for the very beginning.

As the longest round for T-72 family id 9M119 with 695 mm, we can easily consider that APDS round with penetrator of some 650-680mm length could easily fit.
And that is not bad.
Actually MUCH better than early 3BM48/Svinets and 3BM42M/44/Lekalo.



Those are two rounds made in Poland for Rh120 gun. The bottom one is newly developed, some 5 years ago only.

Why doesn't the T-723M model 2022 get the sosna U?

Currently, the production of T-90M has increased significantly, so Sosna-U is going to equip these tanks.

Why doesn't the T-723M model 2022 get the sosna U?
LIKEDISLIKE

Because Minsk cant produced SOSNA-U in large numbers as Russians need it right now. And they have priorities, for now its T-90M, not modernization of T-72/80s tanks..So they will get older staff. Unfortunately they do not put meteo sensors also, instead they go way back with classical tables with balistic ranges for rounds as they have it in 80s on their tanks..i guess they have stuck with old FCS instead modern one have it in T-72B3M obrazac 2016, only they put thermal sight for gunner, this is plus...

I remember when i was train first on T72M1 before i got in unit with M-84s...His FCS was junk compare to the FCS we have in M-84s wtich was all automated...

I remember when i was train first on T72M1 before i got in unit with M-84s...His FCS was junk compare to the FCS we have in M-84s wtich was all automated...

M-84 was a fine tank those days.
Sadly, no country of ripped apart Yugoslavia could produce the tanks after.
Gun and FCS was made in Slovenia if I remember - the factory was named Foton? Remember correctly?

I was assured that russia mastered mass production of the sosna completely, and now its suddenly in deficit? mass production started way back in 2011. What happened to the domestic 3rd gen TPK-3N thermals? Why no meteorological sensors even?

Why depend on the unstable likely future russophobic state of belarus completely for sosnas?

FCS for M84 was made in factory called Rudi.Cajevac, fotona from slovenia made different fcs, and it wasnt good as original. Texas instrumets made loto of components in original FCS...

T-90Ms take two thermal sights per tank. Make enough of them - and we're seeing more T-90Ms than any other tanks these days, make that of what you will; and you're bound to have issues with the supply of Sosna-U thermal sights. In which case a cheaper, mobilization thermal sight only makes a lot of sense.

Gun for M-84/84A was made in factory called Bratstvo, Novi Travnik, BiH....I think around 1300 factories was included in production of this tank 200+ directly included in production and ~1000 indirectly...it was one of the biggest project ever made in Yugoslavia. For this project we bought at that time finest machines around the globe. As i say Texas instruments made lot of parts for FCS, same factory witch made for M1 parts...We were first communist country who payed yanks to make for us some good staff....

M-84 in trail in Russia was 3 times batter then any T-72 tank and 1.5 times batter then T-80U. This was Russian estimation, not ours. Next step in evolution of M-84 tank was tank code name Vihor or whirlwind. I was big step ahead of any T-72 series in world at that time. Unfortunately Yugoslavia brakes up in civil war, most of this factories was sell and destroyed after war by their new owner, many of them just was closed because of war and no one wanna cooperate any more. Today we are stuck with them in future we need to replace them with new ones, but ones in past we made tanks in our country. Its sad what war and big power can do to the one country, because they have their interest here.

Because Minsk cant produced SOSNA-U in large numbers as Russians need it right now. And they have priorities, for now its T-90M, not modernization of T-72/80s tanks..So they will get older staff. Unfortunately they do not put meteo sensors also, instead they go way back with classical tables with balistic ranges for rounds as they have it in 80s on their tanks..i guess they have stuck with old FCS instead modern one have it in T-72B3M obrazac 2016, only they put thermal sight for gunner, this is plus...

I remember when i was train first on T72M1 before i got in unit with M-84s...His FCS was junk compare to the FCS we have in M-84s wtich was all automated...

No, they use the same 1PN-96MT-02 used for refurbishing the T-62M and T-80BMV tanks and it is still an HUGE improvement over the legacy optics (and it is actually more modern than SOSNA-U: less range performance but a completely digital optronics with sharper resolution).

T-72B3M (2022), ERA everywhere

There is some interesting thing behind that.

No matter what the western propaganda was trying to persuade the audience, the fact is that Soviet tanks presented unmatched survivability in the face of harsh and brutal battles.
Battles carried against phenomenally equipped and trained opponents.
We are talking about the first Chechen campaign.

Russian recruits representing a sad reality of dissolving Russia under drunken Yeltsin were facing determined defenders trained harsh & intensive by the Soviet army.
Operating the best AT weapon existing on the planet, and skilled in using it.

When Novichkov made the first attempt to summarize the effect of the armored warfare carried there, the outcome was as follows :

When he carried out his study the first phase of the conflict was over, leaving 62 Russian tanks knocked out.
Out of the number, 61 pcs were knocked out by hits avoiding the ERA covered parts.
The preferred Chechen tactics was engage a single tank with 5-6 rounds fired from the multiple directions by a dedicated AT teams.

The result was, that it took an average of SIX hits to destroy the tank.

The recordsmen of the 1st Chechen campaign received NINE hits with both ATGMs nad RPGs, yet withdrew from the fight with a living crew.

In the ongoing conflict with 404, for the last 9 years, we could witness multiple cases when Soviet breed tank, even of the older provenance, survived multiple hits and continued fighting.
In multiple cases when tanks are hit, the whole crew survives even the ammo ignition.
The same applies to the Syrian conflict, lots of cases when the crew evacuated itself even after the BK cooked off.

Now combine that with multiple "special reports" of how the Russie tanks are being involved without ERA coverage etc. Or Kontakt blocks replaced by rubber. Yeah, sure.

Is the ERA on thelower front plate Kontakt 1 or just using kontakt 1 casings?

Again, as some more mythology was unleashed on you ...
Let me show the principles.



This is a T-72B type carousel hub. In theory, the same one as for T-72B3/2016.

But here you have the one from new T-72B3M (?)



See the central hub diameter difference?

Now let's follow ...

Look here.



Do you see?

The carousel rack is made exactly the size to match the opening.
What you see in the middle, is ammo memory. This unit registers the ammunition load, and allows the fastest way to load it after. And - in general - load the round you ask on the selection panel.

Here is the same unit for T-72B3/2016 :



Do you see the difference? It is much smaller, so the rack opening is nit much relevant anymore. It can host a longer ammo.

And one more :





A loading sequence for T-64/80 series.

As you see, there is not a single issue with round length considering the carousel. It can host double the size round easily.
What is a case, is a gun breach, that blocks the longer round to be loaded.

That is why the patents of 2005, 2007 and 2009 carried the rack construction, not a carousel itself.

There is a space enough to put your mother in law there ...

In multiple cases when tanks are hit, the whole crew survives even the ammo ignition.

Saw a video a few days ago on Twitter, some Excalibur round (at least this was claimed by the guy posting the video) hit a tank.
Huge explosion. Still smoke in the air and the tank was moving again. Was damaged, but the crew survived and the tank was still
operational.

Not really.
The crew in each case is traumatized, and the tank is out of order.
They jump out of it on natural adrenaline.
Even a tank is a piece of engineering and it is only the question of where to kick.
That is why operating logistics is a matter.
Even a blown tank, can be used as a donor. Or as a base for a massive rebuilding - but that won't be carried by a field workshop for sure.
Anyway, you can make any vehicle run using two donors - that is a statistic.
As long as you control the battlefield and advance - almost no loss is permanent.

nd I was assured HATO was a mighty land power with thousands of modern combat ready tanks at their disposal, yet they offer their ally at best 100 tanks after a year of combat where their nazi ally lost thousands of tanks. wrote:

Over 180 old Leopard 1