T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

Werewolf wrote:
The russian tank designation actually tells if it has kontakt (ERA) or not, T-72B no ERA, T-72BV (V = Vzriv which means Explosion), even tho in the common soldiers and common people like us we do not use always this exact russian designation, for example there are no Mi-35M in russian military they are called Mi-24VM2 or Su-27SM2/3 (Su-35S).

That's a misnomer actually - while the T-64, T-80 and T-72A appended "V" to tanks equipped with Kontakts ERA, this was in fact never done with the T-72B. So "T-72BV" doesn't actually officially exist.

T-72B2 was already reported to have relikt, most probably not all but some.

Don't think there are any T-72B2s (Rogatka) in service. Never seen one, in any event.

Nii Stali states Relikt was put into active service in 2006.

http://www.niistali.ru/security/armor/relict?start=1

It also says BMPT has relikt and T-72B2/3.

The NII Stali link? BMPT isn't in Russian Army service, so Relikt can only be considered in service in the countries that have BMPTs (Kazakhstan I believe). Second that article refers to T-72M upgrades - as in their export upgrade options. That's not the same thing as T-72B3.

Relikt could have been accepted into service (i.e. certified as acceptable by the state) but I've seen no definitive indication that it yet equips a single vehicle in the Russian arsenal. I assumed when Armata tanks appear we'll see it in actual service.

Yes, they took all sorts of T-72Bs, including k-1 equipped ones, for the B3 programme.

The ERA present is a minor consideration to the otherwise state of the tank anyways.

TR1 wrote:Yes, they took all sorts of T-72Bs, including k-1 equipped ones, for the B3 programme.

The ERA present is a minor consideration to the otherwise state of the tank anyways.

Ah good, thought so. Better to overhaul a T-72B w/Kontakts in good condition as opposed to a T-72B w/Kontakts-V in worse condition I figured.

Some of the speculation I have read about the T-95 suggested they were working on MMW radar and IRST sensors that gave a 24/7 360 degree all weather day/night view around the tank that was linked to certain ERA blocks that were double layered... the idea was that the outer block could be fired manually before an incoming munition hit the tank but the ERA block underneath would still react as an ERA block so the effect was the combination of APS and ERA to defeat incoming threats.

the fact that they have new APS systems for armata and the other lighter vehicles (Afghanistan and Standard respectively) suggests to me they would likely also have upgraded the ERA too.

My suspicion is that there is less explosive used and it is designed to be deformed by the incoming projectile to use up its energy on impact while not destroying itself so it can absorb multiple hits.

GarryB wrote:My suspicion is that there is less explosive used and it is designed to be deformed by the incoming projectile to use up its energy on impact while not destroying itself so it can absorb multiple hits.

Garry,

It should additionally be noted that some of the Russian reactive armor designs use nonexplosives, and some use energetic materials which, in this context, fall somewhere between nonexplosives and explosives.

It should additionally be noted that some of the Russian reactive armor designs use nonexplosives, and some use energetic materials which, in this context, fall somewhere between nonexplosives and explosives.

Very true, and for several reasons this is important including the lack of a "flying metal plate" as portrayed in western circles that represents a danger to friendly forces.

Second these deforming plates absorb energy of the penetrator as they deform and can continue to deform with multiple hits to the result of hits on NERA or Non Explosive reactive Armour where it can continue to reduce the effectiveness of multiple hits without requiring replacement.

This is not new technology... the T-64 had an early form of deforming main armour that reduced the performance of standard penetrators.

GarryB wrote:
My suspicion is that there is less explosive used and it is designed to be deformed by the incoming projectile to use up its energy on impact while not destroying itself so it can absorb multiple hits.

Sounds like a hybrid ERA/NERA plate, if I had to make a guess how that can be implemented I would say that the hybrid plate would have a charge that wouldn't explode because of penetration but would explode by electronic command. The sensor suite of the tank would have sophisticated radar to determine the danger of a fast flying object to prepare the tank to react and sensitive pressure senors that would set off partial set amounts of ERA. The hybrid plate would actually consist of many tiny micro plates (possibly in a squarish/rectangular or hexagonal pattern) attached to the tanks electronic computing and sensor network, ready to electronically fire off set amounts of ERA.

GarryB wrote:

Very true, and for several reasons this is important including the lack of a "flying metal plate" as portrayed in western circles that represents a danger to friendly forces.

Well as far as western sources go, any suggestion that K-5 ERA is dangeorus to nearby friendly forces is totally wrong - the detonation is contianed completely within the "box", there's no shrapnel at all (apart from what the round's impact may ordinarily cause)

That is actually not true- Fofanov recanted that claim.

That being said if you are in a position to be hit by the ERA, you are in the line of fire of a serious projectile in any case...life probably isn't going to be too good either way.

Vympel wrote:
That's a misnomer actually - while the T-64, T-80 and T-72A appended "V" to tanks equipped with Kontakts ERA, this was in fact never done with the T-72B. So "T-72BV" doesn't actually officially exist.

You are wrong, grau index is the military designation on paper and they have all designation for everything. T-55 which were equipped with Drozd APS were called T-55AD, T-72,T-72A,T-72AV than came T-72B and T-72BV, T-72B2 which on paper is still T-72BV2. Grau index has designations for absolutley everything to give by latters about the tanks equipment information. There are not a single Su-35 or Mi-35M in russian aviation they are all called Su-27SM2/SM3 and Mi-24VM2. Those are the advertizement designation of Sukhoi company and Mil company to indicate a further upgraded airplane/helicopter. Also T-72M are refered to export variants usually of A/B, the problem with the M comes that westerner really thought this were M like Modernized in Iraq while they were monkey models, downgraded and watered.


T-90 upper glacis ERA configuration



BMPT which we know has Relikt armor compare upper glacis ERA



T-72B2 have this glacis configuration too, but are mostly covered by nakidka.

Vympel wrote:The NII Stali link? BMPT isn't in Russian Army service, so Relikt can only be considered in service in the countries that have BMPTs (Kazakhstan I believe). Second that article refers to T-72M upgrades - as in their export upgrade options. That's not the same thing as T-72B3.

Relikt could have been accepted into service (i.e. certified as acceptable by the state) but I've seen no definitive indication that it yet equips a single vehicle in the Russian arsenal. I assumed when Armata tanks appear we'll see it in actual service.

You completley missed the point, Relikt exists for upgrading T-72B2/3,s T-90MS/AM, BMPT, meaning it doesn't matter if it is T-72 or BMPT Relikt can and is already in service since 2006.

TR1 wrote:That is actually not true- Fofanov recanted that claim.

That being said if you are in a position to be hit by the ERA, you are in the line of fire of a serious projectile in any case...life probably isn't going to be too good either way.

Standing next to the tank when it's hit by HEAT is not healthy as well. Danger exists, but I believe it to be overblown by armchair experts. Infantry isn't always fighting shoulder to shoulder with tanks, even according Soviet doctrine there should be operational gap of no less than 15 meters between BMP and motostrelki IRC.

someone who gets torn to shreds by ERA prolly deserves it- in combat its expected that a tank would move/ fire anytime w/out warning.
Also the APS/ERA hybrid sounds good- its also very doable, afterall ARENA is basically fused claymore/bouncing betty.
Intercepting the threat from a distance greatly amplifies the destabilizing effects- HEAT rounds would prematurely if not at all form the jet, and APFSDS would come at fugly angles- or even sideways.
It would be very interesting how the other side would react to such protection- the current best which is m829a3 and dm-53 wont cut it.

Werewolf wrote:
You are wrong, grau index is the military designation on paper and they have all designation for everything. T-55 which were equipped with Drozd APS were called T-55AD, T-72,T-72A,T-72AV than came T-72B and T-72BV, T-72B2 which on paper is still T-72BV2. Grau index has designations for absolutley everything to give by latters about the tanks equipment information. There are not a single Su-35 or Mi-35M in russian aviation they are all called Su-27SM2/SM3 and Mi-24VM2.  Those are the advertizement designation of Sukhoi company and Mil company to indicate a further upgraded airplane/helicopter. Also T-72M are refered to export variants usually of A/B, the problem with the M comes that westerner really thought this were M like Modernized in Iraq while they were monkey models, downgraded and watered.

I don't see what the above aircraft designations have to do with tank designations. What evidence do you have of their actually being such a thing as "T-72BV"? The only sources I've ever seen claim that are Western sources - every Russian source I've seen has indicated there's no such thing.

I know full well that the T-72M and T-72M1 are designations for export variants.  That's why I said:

"that article refers to T-72M upgrades - as in their export upgrade options"

That's why a proposed modernization of the T-72M1 is called T-72M1M for example.

As an aside, its bizarre for an Su-35S to be called Su-27SM3. Su-27SM3 is a seperate aircraft so far as I know - an upgraded version of fresh Su-27 airframes originally intended for China.

T-90 upper glacis ERA configuration

BMPT which we know has Relikt armor compare upper glacis ERA

Yes, they're obviously quite different. The T-90 has K-5, the BMPT has Relikt.

T-72B2 have this glacis configuration too, but are mostly covered by nakidka.

T-72B2 hasn't been purchased so far as I know.

You completley missed the point, Relikt exists for upgrading T-72B2/3,s T-90MS/AM, BMPT, meaning it doesn't matter if it is T-72 or BMPT Relikt can and is already in service since 2006.

I didn't say Relikt doesn't exist for upgrading, I said that so far as I was aware, no vehicle actually in service in the Russian army uses it yet. So if its "in service", that's only in the sense that its been accepted for service. There's no vehicles that actually use it yet, as far as I know.

Of the vehicles you mention:

T-72B2 "Rogatka" was never purchased;
T-72B3 is clearly equipped with K-5, not Relikt;
T-90MS/AM will (probably) not ever be purchased by Russia; and
BMPT not purchased by Russia, but purchased by other countries.

The first time Russia gets a tank with Relikt ERA will either be a new T-72B upgrade (T-72B4?) or when the Armata enters service.

Vympel wrote:
I don't see what the above aircraft designations have to do with tank designations. What evidence do you have of their actually being such a thing as "T-72BV"? The only sources I've ever seen claim that are Western sources - every Russian source I've seen has indicated there's no such thing.

It is called GRAU Index the military designation for military equipment, what you know are the advertizment designations for the vehicles, research before down voting a post where it is clearly described what this designation means. Russia has no such thing as T-72B3 they all have GRAU Index designations T-72BM3V or T-72BV3 one of these designations is the actual grau index designation and not T-72B3, that is common designation around soldiers and developers. BV (V stands for Vzryv, explosions) AD like on T-55AD the A is the serial first model protection designation and the D stands for Drozd the APS and all designations have their letters which indicates what equipment they use. Commanding vehicles with special combat management systemes and communication systemes are mostly designated with K = Kommanda, like T-90AK and T-72AK. But of course you have no plan about Grau index.

Vympel wrote:I know full well that the T-72M and T-72M1 are designations for export variants.  That's why I said:

"that article refers to T-72M upgrades - as in their export upgrade options"

That's why a proposed modernization of the T-72M1 is called T-72M1M for example.

That is also not always true. M means modernized and there are two batches of M models like the export Monkey Models Arabic countries usually have and the actual M versions that were used inside Russia they were labeled as M both export models which were built buy Poland and Czech., the designation was used as an advertizement for export while the fact was that the russian M's were really modernized and the export variants were watered models.

Those M's today are actually upgraded and on A+ status of T-72A/B and in some cases depends on orders of customer they even have TIS which most russian older A models don't have.

Vympel wrote:As an aside, its bizarre for an Su-35S to be called Su-27SM3. Su-27SM3 is a seperate aircraft so far as I know - an upgraded version of fresh Su-27 airframes originally intended for China.

Wrong, Su-35 is the designation from the company sukhoi, while Su-27SM2/SM3 are the Grau index designation, research grau index designations before commenting.

Vympel wrote:T-72B2 hasn't been purchased so far as I know.

I've read that says there are some, not many but some in forces, maybe on gurkhans site.

Vympel wrote:I didn't say Relikt doesn't exist for upgrading, I said that so far as I was aware, no vehicle actually in service in the Russian army uses it yet. So if its "in service", that's only in the sense that its been accepted for service. There's no vehicles that actually use it yet, as far as I know.

Of the vehicles you mention:

T-72B2 "Rogatka" was never purchased;
T-72B3 is clearly equipped with K-5, not Relikt;
T-90MS/AM will (probably) not ever be purchased by Russia; and
BMPT not purchased by Russia, but purchased by other countries.

The first time Russia gets a tank with Relikt ERA will either be a new T-72B upgrade (T-72B4?) or when the Armata enters service.

Relikt is in use and not just accepted.

Algeria has already relikt on ther T-72M1.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.de/2014/03/blog-post_8.html
Algerian T-72M1 with Relikt, can be seen on upper glacis ERA configuration.

Another point there is a IFV version of Relikt already in use of BMP-3's., so your claim is clearly wrong that relikt is not in use.

BMP-3 relikt grau index designation is 4S24M /4S25

http://gurkhan.blogspot.de/2012/01/5-2011-90.html

The specialists of the Research Institute were tasked to develop the appropriate armor protection complex. As a result, the RELIKT complex of the frontal armor protection was developed and entered service. Also developed were the reactive-armor special modules which were initially developed to protect the thin-armored BMP-3 infantry combat vehicles against RPG, and which well protect the side projections of the hull and turret of the tank against the widespread close combat weapons of type PG-9S.

http://salis3.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/grau_indexes__ver327__2011_03_22.pdf

Grau Index with designations and meaning of specific designations letters and numbers for military equipment.

Werewolf wrote:
It is called GRAU Index the military designation for military equipment, what you know are the advertizment designations for the vehicles, research before down voting a post

?? I didn't "down vote" anything. I don't even know what that is.

That is also not always true. M means modernized and there are two batches of M models like the export Monkey Models Arabic countries usually have and the actual M versions that were used inside Russia they were labeled as M both export models which were built buy Poland and Czech., the designation was used as an advertizement for export while the fact was that the russian M's were really modernized and the export variants were watered models.

The context of the NII Stali website is clearly talking about modernization of export T-72M tanks. To be clear - I'm not saying that Relikt isnt' available. It is. But its not on any vehicles in service with the Russian Army, at this stage.

Wrong, Su-35 is the designation from the company sukhoi, while Su-27SM2/SM3 are the Grau index designation, research grau index designations before commenting.

Research them where? And how do you account for Su-27SM3s being the China airframes?

I've read that says there are some, not many but some in forces, maybe on gurkhans site.

Well, seeing is believing. The fact they have never been photographed leads me to be believe they aren't in service. Pictures of the T-72B3 appeared very quickly.

Relikt is in use and not just accepted.

Algeria has already relikt on ther T-72M1.

I'm talking about Russia, not Algeria.

Another point there is a IFV version of Relikt already in use of BMP-3's., so your claim is clearly wrong that relikt is not in use.

No, you're just not reading what I'm saying properly. I'm talking about the Russian army - not that of Algeria, or any other country. Russia. The only thing we've seen in Russia are prototypes/ test articles / upgrade samples.

http://salis3.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/grau_indexes__ver327__2011_03_22.pdf

Grau Index with designations and meaning of specific designations letters and numbers for military equipment.

That index doesn't refer to "T-72BV" you know.

Vympel wrote:
Research them where? And how do you account for Su-27SM3s being the China airframes?

China can not get Su-27SM3 bu Su-35BM/S, actually same aircraft but with export radar and software variants.

Vympel wrote:The context of the NII Stali website is clearly talking about modernization of export T-72M tanks. To be clear - I'm not saying that Relikt isnt' available. It is. But its not on any vehicles in service with the Russian Army, at this stage.

And i already have proven Relikt is in the russian service at least on BMP-3's.

Werewolf wrote:
China can not get Su-27SM3 bu Su-35BM/S, actually same aircraft but with export radar and software variants.

No, you're misunderstanding me. The Russian Air Force has aircraft called Su-27SM3 in service, which are seperate from their Su-35S aircraft. They are Su-27 airframes meant for China, but not delivered, that were upgraded to Su-27SM standard.

And i already have proven Relikt is in the russian service at least on BMP-3's.

I don't see how. You can only prove that by showing a BMP-3 in actual line service equipped with Relikt.

http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201404170851-fxxf.htm#

T-72s mucking about.

Some fresh images from otvaga.

I have really come to dislike the twin 30mm armament, especially with individual feed.

I think the Bahcha 100mm + 30mm combo is more useful for the role. A grenade launcher would not hurt either, though I guess the 100mm with the right ammo is more than enough.

AGLs are better in for covering fire.

Are there plans for T72B4 purchases for the Army? Never heard of it

I agree... even a twin 30mm like the one fitted to the side of the Hind would be an improvement with its long barrels generating high velocity and its very high rate of fire making it ideal for use against aircraft too.

I really do believe that the weapons shown on the Armata BMT would be best with the separate compartment for the turret allowing HE rounds of large calibre to be carried the 120mm gun/mortar would be devastating in direct fire with unguided rounds and in long range indirect fire with a range of guided 120 and 122mm rounds.
The 6 barrel GSh-23-6 is a small compact fairly light weapon with a heavy projectile and an astonishing rate of fire... plus a 40mm grenade launcher to round out the armament for targets that simply don't need a 120mm round.

Note Israeli tanks often had 60mm mortars to engage soft targets without using precious 120mm or 105mm ammo.

Add in a couple of 30 cal and 50 cal MGs and you have a decent choice of weapon and formidable firepower to deal with a wide range of targets in direct and indirect positions.

The T-72 sideskirts are really thick, wonder whats inside... maybe relikt. tho i find it a bit funny that the T-72 uparmoring is still lacking with the glacis- other modernizations got it correct with the glacis, this one got the sideskirts and more importantly the turret coverage done well.

TR1 wrote:I have really come to dislike the twin 30mm armament, especially with individual feed.

I think the Bahcha 100mm + 30mm combo is more useful for the role. A grenade launcher would not hurt either, though I guess the 100mm with the right ammo is more than enough.

I think the different variations all have their place, the twin 30mm combo would work well in Dagestan, while the 100/30 combo would work well in Grozny circa 1996/99.

The twin 30's are adequate. Are there better preforming configurations? Yes. However the 2A42 is a proven weapon, it can operate in practically every environment reliably and the ground crews are already familiar with it. The 30mm is also safer for the crew compared to 57mm, 100mm, or 120mm rounds. Although this point is irrelevant with Armata, it still pertains to conventional layouts.

Keep in mind, this design was selected after numerous varieties of BMPT configurations were actually built and tested. So we're not talking about a paper tank, the BMPT-72 actually has a evolutionary lineage.