Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=779&p=2
Good photos of T-72B1/3 in service. Just scroll through the thread!
Good photos of T-72B1/3 in service. Just scroll through the thread!
+96
caveat emptor
diabetus
andalusia
walle83
Shaun901901
Broski
x_54_u43
TMA1
mnztr
ALAMO
Mir
Russian_Patriot_
mavaff
The_Observer
lancelot
lyle6
ahmedfire
limb
Big_Gazza
marcellogo
Mindstorm
kvs
calripson
Hole
PhSt
AJ-47
bolshevik345
Walther von Oldenburg
The-thing-next-door
miketheterrible
dino00
JohninMK
LMFS
General
KomissarBojanchev
Peŕrier
kopyo-21
wilhelm
Interlinked
BM-21
Book.
Cheetah
0nillie0
SeigSoloyvov
franco
Isos
MMBR
KiloGolf
Benya
airstrike
galicije83
VladimirSahin
DerWolf
nemrod
d_taddei2
PapaDragon
hoom
higurashihougi
KoTeMoRe
sepheronx
Mike E
Kimppis
cracker
Kyo
akd
runaway
Morpheus Eberhardt
zino
Pugnax
xeno
Vann7
Werewolf
magnumcromagnon
Asf
Zivo
collegeboy16
George1
volna
zg18
flamming_python
TR1
Regular
a89
Vympel
AlfaT8
Stealthflanker
Dima
TheArmenian
medo
Cyberspec
BTRfan
Viktor
IronsightSniper
Austin
GarryB
Admin
100 posters
T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-02
I still can't get used to the weird ERA placements on this tank.TR1 wrote:http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=779&p=2
Good photos of T-72B1/3 in service. Just scroll through the thread!
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Yeah its weird, other stupid thing is the non-automatic sight cover.AlfaT8 wrote:I still can't get used to the weird ERA placements on this tank.TR1 wrote:http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=779&p=2
Good photos of T-72B1/3 in service. Just scroll through the thread!
Good summary of T-72B3 upgrade:
-overhaul of T-72B or B1
-new autoloader(for "Svinets" APFSDS)
-new 125mm 2A46M5 gun
-new FCS, and new gunner main sight "Sosna-U"(same sight on T-90MS) 1A40 used as a backup
-new radiostation R-168-25U-2
-commander sight TKN-3MK with "duplication" mode
T-72B4 as we know will add the commanders panoramic sight (same as T-90MS) as well as battle management systems.
zg18- Posts : 888
Points : 958
Join date : 2013-09-26
Location : Zagreb , Croatia
About 30 (31?) T-72B3 bacth sent to southern MD
http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/44627/
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
I think we had that picture posted here already about T-72B3?!?
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Yeah that is an older pic, not the exact same T-72B3s.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9759/94845085.d6/0_a8977_d6e8063d_XL.jpg
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9759/94845085.d6/0_a8977_d6e8063d_XL.jpg
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
http://www.itar-tass.com/politika/825084
The Ground Forces received more than 250 T-72B3 tanks in 2013.
I have to say, it is not a bad figure, at all.
Now if they would work out the last kinks of the B3....without increasing price too much...well we will see with B4 next year.
The Ground Forces received more than 250 T-72B3 tanks in 2013.
I have to say, it is not a bad figure, at all.
Now if they would work out the last kinks of the B3....without increasing price too much...well we will see with B4 next year.
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
TR1 wrote:http://www.itar-tass.com/politika/825084
The Ground Forces received more than 250 T-72B3 tanks in 2013.
I have to say, it is not a bad figure, at all.
Now if they would work out the last kinks of the B3....without increasing price too much...well we will see with B4 next year.
Excellent. Thats more than I thought.
But look at this:
Land Forces of the Russian Federation to the end of the year will receive an additional 20 T-72BZ
20 more T-72BZ ??? what is this?
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Bad translation, but 20 more B3 yeah.
Hmmm, 270 seems really high considering the kind of contracts I saw UVZ looking at several years ago (330 tanks over 3 years or something).
Maybe it includes missed deliveries from 2012, who know.
Some overhauled T-72Bs were delivered to units operating T-80B, but they were not fully upgraded to B3 standard. I have a feeling the Colonel included these in the numbers...but I could be wrong.
Will be very intersting to see how many follow up next year.
I need to add up all T-72B1, B3, BA numbers one of these days.
Hmmm, 270 seems really high considering the kind of contracts I saw UVZ looking at several years ago (330 tanks over 3 years or something).
Maybe it includes missed deliveries from 2012, who know.
Some overhauled T-72Bs were delivered to units operating T-80B, but they were not fully upgraded to B3 standard. I have a feeling the Colonel included these in the numbers...but I could be wrong.
Will be very intersting to see how many follow up next year.
I need to add up all T-72B1, B3, BA numbers one of these days.
medo- Posts : 4343
Points : 4423
Join date : 2010-10-24
Location : Slovenia
Good news, I also hope they will modernize part of their T-72 to BMPT-72.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
When you read too much of this stuff, you forget what you even posted earlier 
http://twower.livejournal.com/797603.html#comments
Found this again:
So first contract was in 2011 was for 170 T-72B1 modernizations.
In 2012 another contract warded for 360 modernizations (all B3, maybe?) by 2015.
The timescale is confusing, I guess it is feasible that many were done this year....looks like they are hurrying T-80s into the reserve by taking out T-72s from reserve and capitalizing or modernizing them.
http://twower.livejournal.com/797603.html#comments
Found this again:
So first contract was in 2011 was for 170 T-72B1 modernizations.
In 2012 another contract warded for 360 modernizations (all B3, maybe?) by 2015.
The timescale is confusing, I guess it is feasible that many were done this year....looks like they are hurrying T-80s into the reserve by taking out T-72s from reserve and capitalizing or modernizing them.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnoZwKBfC8w
New T-72B3 in the 20th Army of the Western Military District.
New T-72B3 in the 20th Army of the Western Military District.
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
100 T-72B3 is transfered to Russian Army today 
thus finishing state defense order for 2013.
2013 state defense order for the supply of T-72B3 is made
So 1100 modernized T-72 tanks up to now
"To enhance the combat potential of the combined arms formations and units of the Land Forces troops re-completed with T-80 tanks T-72. To this end, the troops were delivered more than 1,100 T-72 tanks, including after extensive modernization, which increased share of modern machines tank park "- said Bulgakov.
- latest generation of communication tools
- latest fire control system
- digital ballistic computer
- Thermal channel
- 400 officers retrained
and here is excellent summary of T-72B3 by TR1 LINK
thus finishing state defense order for 2013.2013 state defense order for the supply of T-72B3 is made
So 1100 modernized T-72 tanks up to now
"To enhance the combat potential of the combined arms formations and units of the Land Forces troops re-completed with T-80 tanks T-72. To this end, the troops were delivered more than 1,100 T-72 tanks, including after extensive modernization, which increased share of modern machines tank park "- said Bulgakov.
- latest generation of communication tools
- latest fire control system
- digital ballistic computer
- Thermal channel
- 400 officers retrained
and here is excellent summary of T-72B3 by TR1 LINK
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
Viktor, there is no way that number is modernized T-72s.
They are including basically "kapremont"ed T-72s that they took from reserves, and used to replace T-80s in service (RIP sweet prince). And yes, in some units that is essentially a downgrade...
The upgraded numbers are still around what we estimated before, this is just Mod and reporters confusing everyone.
However if that figure is anywhere near reality (could be, they started en masse several years ago) then the T-80s future in Russia is numbered indeed.
They are including basically "kapremont"ed T-72s that they took from reserves, and used to replace T-80s in service (RIP sweet prince). And yes, in some units that is essentially a downgrade...
The upgraded numbers are still around what we estimated before, this is just Mod and reporters confusing everyone.
However if that figure is anywhere near reality (could be, they started en masse several years ago) then the T-80s future in Russia is numbered indeed.
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
Tnx for clarification TR1.
GarryB- Posts : 40559
Points : 41061
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Sorry but the replacement of T-80s with upgraded T-72s is not a downgrade.
The autoloader of the T-80 is fundamentally flawed and despite better armour with the new communications/thermals/guns and ammo/battle management systems the upgraded T-72s will have longer sight, better communications and better hitting power and at the same time will be much safer for the crew.
The autoloader of the T-80 is fundamentally flawed and despite better armour with the new communications/thermals/guns and ammo/battle management systems the upgraded T-72s will have longer sight, better communications and better hitting power and at the same time will be much safer for the crew.
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 28
Location : Roanapur
hmm, why dont they just refit the tanks with T-72 autoloader? afaik t-80 hull is slightly wider than t-72/90 hull.
GarryB- Posts : 40559
Points : 41061
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The T-64/80 might look similar to the T-72/90 but they have completely different components.
Why spend money on the T-80 to make it more like a T-90 when you have lots of left over T-72s that are compatible with most of the upgrades applied to make the T-90?
Why spend money on the T-80 to make it more like a T-90 when you have lots of left over T-72s that are compatible with most of the upgrades applied to make the T-90?
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
GarryB wrote:Sorry but the replacement of T-80s with upgraded T-72s is not a downgrade.
The autoloader of the T-80 is fundamentally flawed and despite better armour with the new communications/thermals/guns and ammo/battle management systems the upgraded T-72s will have longer sight, better communications and better hitting power and at the same time will be much safer for the crew.
It is more vulnerable in an urban scenario yes, but that is not to say the T-72 is proof from side penetrations detonating carousel either.
Just less likely due to lower profile, and the bigger wheels (compared to T-80) covering up the hull sides.
Mind you most tank units in Russia are not supposed to do urban combat anyways. Hell we could make an argument the new K-5 armored T-72B3s are worse for urban combat than good old T-72B due to the better all around K-1 coverage! The T-80s autoloader is a bit faster loading as well, an advantage in tank-vs-tank combat.
Regarding downgrade, Kapremonted T-72 does not offer everything a T-80 does. Remember, I am not talking about B3, but simply overhauled T-72Bs.
Most notable downgrade:
1.) Fire control. T-80 has a system, T-72 basically does not aside from rangefinder.
2.) Mobility. To make situation worse supposedly some T-80s received GTD-1250 upgrade, the disparity obviously becomes even worse. I am not even going to talk about the T-80U conversions that were made until recently (T-80U turret on top of T-80B hull).
Obviously the T-80 will have higher fuel consumption, but that is the price you pay for such a drag racer of a tank.
The T-72B3 does have the obvious advantage of K-5, new gun + ammo, Sosna-U, but mobility wise it has nothing on the T-80.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
collegeboy16 wrote:hmm, why dont they just refit the tanks with T-72 autoloader? afaik t-80 hull is slightly wider than t-72/90 hull.
MOD wants to get rid of T-80s, due to rejection of gas turbine.
zg18- Posts : 888
Points : 958
Join date : 2013-09-26
Location : Zagreb , Croatia
OK here is a Zvezda video , 100 or more T-72B3 being delivered to West MD
http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201312191000-2zid.htm
http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201312191000-2zid.htm
zg18- Posts : 888
Points : 958
Join date : 2013-09-26
Location : Zagreb , Croatia
Images
GarryB- Posts : 40559
Points : 41061
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
It is more vulnerable in an urban scenario yes, but that is not to say the T-72 is proof from side penetrations detonating carousel either.
Combat experience shows lower side hits are rare and hits to the turret are much more likely... any penetration of the turret from any angle showers hot burning sparks onto armour plate in a T-72 or t-90, but directly onto propellent impregnated cardboard in the T-80...
The T-80s autoloader is a bit faster loading as well, an advantage in tank-vs-tank combat.
The upgraded T-72s will have new guns with new design autoloaders... we don't know how fast they operate but we can assume they are rather more powerful.
Regarding downgrade, Kapremonted T-72 does not offer everything a T-80 does. Remember, I am not talking about B3, but simply overhauled T-72Bs.
The point of choosing the T-72s over the T-80s is so that the B3 upgrade can be properly applied to them fairly soon if not right away.
Fire control. T-80 has a system, T-72 basically does not aside from rangefinder.
With the upgrade the T-72s will have better FCS and thermals than the T-80s had.
Obviously the T-80 will have higher fuel consumption, but that is the price you pay for such a drag racer of a tank.
The T-72B3 does have the obvious advantage of K-5, new gun + ammo, Sosna-U, but mobility wise it has nothing on the T-80.
The T-72 doesn't have bad mobility and the cost in terms of fuel consumption and enormous IR signature are very undesirable... the IR plume of a gas turbine is impossible to mask.
MOD wants to get rid of T-80s, due to rejection of gas turbine.
And to have one tank family in service.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
GarryB wrote:
The upgraded T-72s will have new guns with new design autoloaders... we don't know how fast they operate but we can assume they are rather more powerful.
They allow for longer rounds, but I have seen nothing to suggest they are any faster in operation. But most of the T-80s are replaced by nonupgraded T-72s, so they don't even have that going.
The point of choosing the T-72s over the T-80s is so that the B3 upgrade can be properly applied to them fairly soon if not right away.
That is assuming they all even get T-72B3 upgrade...this is over 1 thousand tanks we are talking about. To put it mildly I am not holding my breath for all of them to be upgraded, and in any case it will take several years. Until then, its a downgrade.
With the upgrade the T-72s will have better FCS and thermals than the T-80s had.
Well yeah T-80B did not have any thermals, but we are back to the non-upgraded vs B3 circle. Given how big the T-72 fleet is now (with the replacement of ANOTHER 1000+ tanks by the T-72, not including the well over 1000-1500 T-72s already in service I don't think the prospects are exactly inspiring. Plus let's not forget B3 includes a major kapremont, so they won't be sending back T-72Bs that have been recently overhauled into upgrading at least until the service life runs out again.
The T-72 doesn't have bad mobility and the cost in terms of fuel consumption and enormous IR signature are very undesirable... the IR plume of a gas turbine is impossible to mask.
T-72B is considered a bit underpowered by the army, the difference is pretty substantial when compared to the T-80. B3 does nothing to improve this this MOD cheaped out on the engine.
And to have one tank family in service.
Absolutely, but I think this is a backwards step. T-80 has spares all over Russia, and training facilities as well, they could easily have been kept in service till both it and the 72 are replaced by new tanks. There are a number of excellent T-80 upgrades as well that the MOD shelved. I don't think the units exchanging their T-80s for T-72Bs are going to be too happy about it.
10 characters.
GarryB- Posts : 40559
Points : 41061
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
They allow for longer rounds, but I have seen nothing to suggest they are any faster in operation.
Better penetration is more useful than high rate of fire. The difference in rate of fire is not that big anyway... we are not talking about a rifle where suppressive fire could be used. The practical rate of fire where a target is located, ammo type selected and loaded and then fire opened till the target is confirmed killed by the gunner while the commander looks for other threats and targets would be not comparable to max mechanical rate of fire.
But most of the T-80s are replaced by nonupgraded T-72s, so they don't even have that going.
T-80s were deployed to fairly important units... I rather doubt they will want such units equipped with old T-72s will old radios and no thermals... they will want to practise night fighting and net centric communications and use of battle management systems so they will need to be upgraded soon enough.
Needless to say they are changing to T-72s because they can be upgraded when needed, unlike the T-80s which might need less of an upgrade but have a dead end development path.
That is assuming they all even get T-72B3 upgrade...this is over 1 thousand tanks we are talking about. To put it mildly I am not holding my breath for all of them to be upgraded, and in any case it will take several years. Until then, its a downgrade.
The Purpose of the B3 upgrade was that it was relatively cheap and simple yet provides the basics they need... ie night vision, new comms, net centricity, new gun for new ammo. If they were going to replace them with the T-90AM then I would agree with years, but if it does take years for this simple upgrade then someone has made a mistake.
(with the replacement of ANOTHER 1000+ tanks by the T-72, not including the well over 1000-1500 T-72s already in service I don't think the prospects are exactly inspiring.
Like I said.. B3 was chosen because it was the cheap and simple option to upgrade the fleet as rapidly as possible... do we assume that is no longer the case because the T-80s are going to be replaced permaturely?
Perhaps it is because the other upgrades have gone so quickly they have decided they can rapidly upgrade more T-72s and remove the extra different vehicles from the vehicle pool earlier?
T-72B is considered a bit underpowered by the army, the difference is pretty substantial when compared to the T-80. B3 does nothing to improve this this MOD cheaped out on the engine.
Not replacing the engine makes it cheaper and quicker to implement the upgrade now. Later on a new engine can be introduced to replace the old models... new thermals, new comms, new gun, new ammo make rather more sense to me than a whole new engine and new drive train to take that extra power.
Absolutely, but I think this is a backwards step. T-80 has spares all over Russia, and training facilities as well, they could easily have been kept in service till both it and the 72 are replaced by new tanks. There are a number of excellent T-80 upgrades as well that the MOD shelved. I don't think the units exchanging their T-80s for T-72Bs are going to be too happy about it.
I like the T-80 too, but as you point out separate spares and support and training equipment is kept for a tank that might be superior to old model T-72s but not upgraded ones and are inferior to new model T-90s. They can't afford to keep every tank type in service just because it works. There are likely lots of upgrades for the T-80, but at the end of the day the T-90AM is the same size and superior performance.
It is a bit like the Su-27 vs Mig-29, except with a Mig-29 that is in the same size and weight class as the Su-27.
The Mig-29M is a capable design but not as good as the Su-35 will be... if the Mig-35 was the same size as the Su-35 then there would be no point... keep in mind that just like those planes each weapons platform has their own contractors and parts companies... the T-80 uses optics and engines and equipment from one group of companies (that will rely on this work), while the T-72/90 family have different companies supplying different engines and optics and systems. Dropping the T-80 means those companies need to be absorbed by the T-72/90 companies or they need to develop new products for different platforms that will be adopted.
(Plus you know I am a fan of the Mig-29 family too).