T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

Israeli merkava MK4 did shit in Lebanon 2006. ATGMs made short work of them. Hence why Israel realized electronic countermeasures are great protection.

Syria did same thing with their passive protection on T-72.

Since people love YouTube videos, I might as well use a source that is more honest and proven in their knowledge (for warfare and equipment. Not economics where they suck badly at):

bolshevik345 wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Specifically designed to defeat. Now has it?  Is there evidence it actually works as intended? What range?  Would it be able to defeat it before a T-72B3 Fielding thermal imaging able to strike it from 3km away?  No. Unless crew of the T-72B3 are mental morons.  And would that M1 survive? Or Leopard 2A4? Probably not.

You see, tank on tank battle is a thing in the past.  It may happen but not like previously depicted it would.  The inner casings anyway aren't the same as older K5 as these ones are more compact. There also seems to be more passive protection added to the current T-72B3 upgrades.

To say it is obsolete is stupid. Beyond imaginable.  All tanks are obsolete then.

It isn't like Russia sat still for ammunition or guidance systems ffs.

We know theyre effective at defeating K5 because the americans captured and tested some in the 90s. Also do you have a source saying that the K5 has been inproved? It seems plausible but  it probably is classified.

It was posted here years ago. Someone had images of it being more compact inside than previous models you may have to do some digging. Don't know of it would be anymore effective if more compact. And so what if they captured some K5? Design a round is wonderful but that doesn't change anything how the situation unfolds in the battlefield. Russia can easily knock out the opponent tank before they knock the T-72B3 anyway thanks to reflekt alone.

What is even more funny with this claim is that they had access to test against yet Tow 2B failed to work well enough against it in Syria when it would have had a significantly better chance at knocking out the T-90 (not a model) used in Syria.

Kontakt-5 was actually tested against M829A1around 1994 with good results in favor of Kontakt-5.

Unfortunately, I don't know the details of the test. It was probably this test that spurred development of M829A2 and DM53.

What the T-72 really needs is an APS that can nock out the jevelin and a teletank kit. A nuclear round would be nice too.

^^' There is no point in installing expensive APS on a tank that is going to be in reserve soon.

T-14 has all the good stuff - hull armor of 900 mm, Malakhit ERA that reduces performance of all known APFSDS by at least 50% and AFghanit APS with AESA radar on top of that. ALl for a price of 50% of Abrams.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:^^' There is no point in installing expensive APS on a tank that is going to be in reserve soon.

T-14 has all the good stuff - hull armor of 900 mm, Malakhit ERA that reduces performance of all known APFSDS by at least 50% and AFghanit APS with AESA radar on top of that. ALl for a price of 50% of Abrams.

Why even spend hundreds of millions of $ and 10s of 1000s of workers on a tank that's already obsolete? By that logic why doesn't the russian navy upgrade its sovremennys?

In fact the russian navy upgrading its old big ships makes much more sense because they can't build new ones, while Russia can build hundreds of T-90Ms.

Russia can build hundreds of newly made old tanks but why would it...

Russia is not running short of tanks, and the range and depth of Russian systems able to take out NATO tanks I am pretty sure Russian tanks will be the least of their problems.

The T-72 in its upgraded forms is a numbers tank... it will be using HE shells more than its anti armour shells most of the time because most of the time it will be used against relatively weak opponents like Georgia, ISIS, the Taleban, or the Ukraine.

Any tougher enemy will face T-90 or T-14.

As they expand the use of APS systems their price will decrease and their performance will improve, while the systems will be simplified and modularised and deployed more widely.

Pretty soon the primary tank round for Russia will likely be a lofted scramjet equipped guided round with top attack performance... even 120mm mortar launched versions would be interesting and very effective against a range of targets and threats.

Why even spend hundreds of millions of $ and 10s of 1000s of workers on a tank that's already obsolete?

Because compared with western tanks it is not obsolete... it is twenty tons lighter and with a better gun and similar engine performance and modern optics and communications equipment for a fraction of their price... it remains the ideal numbers tank.

Is there a way to move the engin to the front of the tank and make it more like an IFV?

Would be cheaper to build a new vehicle.

The Armata design comes in two versions... tank model with rear engine and IFV model with front engine.

It simply would not make a lot of sense to try to move the engine in a T-72 to the front and make it an IFV... the costs involved would mean it would be cheaper just to build new vehicles with that design... like the T-15.

Of course a much smaller and more compact engine design like a Gas Turbine that just generates electricity rather than moving the vehicle itself could be crammed into one side of the rear of the vehicle with an exit ramp on the other side for rear entry and exit with wheel mounted electric drive motors to propel the vehicle around the battlefield, but again starting from scratch would probably be cheaper too.

The problem is the law of diminished returns.

You can take any old item and replace most of its features with new features to make it almost like a new thing... in this case you can upgrade the gun and the fire control system and the engine and the ERA and you can put APS systems on it and battle management systems, but at the end of the day it is an upgraded T-72.

Most of the expensive components that make the T-90 more expensive than the T-72 are the things you are adding to T-72s to upgrade them so you are not getting a cheap T-90, you are making an expensive T-72.

You can upgrade pretty much everything but at the end of the day it is a T-72 so eventually you get to the point where the upgrade of the T-72 costs about the same as the cost to buy a brand new T-90 that will be easier to maintain and operate and is better protected and only costs a little bit more than a frankenstein T-72/90...

Of course there are a lot of roles and uses for tanks where the full capability of the T-90 is not needed so a T-72 is cheaper and easier to use and good enough without much more risk.

And to be honest if the enemy have RPG-18s then a T-72s are good enough, but if they have Kornets and are clever in their use of them then T-90s wont be that much safer unless they have APS fitted too.

Upgraded tanks are vastly better than non upgraded tanks of the same type... new optics and communcations means they can work in a more net centric environment... new aircraft and new soldier systems include all sorts of C4IR systems that find and plot targets on a shared map system so upgrading your T-72s so they can not just see the map but also add targets to it based on what it can see or detect makes the tanks much more valuable... the location of enemy forces could be provided to you by UAVs operating in the area so you know where they are before you can see them or they can see you...

New night vision systems means training at night is totally different and much more valuable.

Is there any logic behind the idea to buy new T-90 instead of new T-14?
IMO, I would put my money for buying the T-14 and upgrade to a certain level the T-72.
The upgraded T-72 will get out much faster than the T-14 and with the right formula we can figure out the right numbers relation between the upgrade tanks and the new tanks.

AJ-47 wrote:Is there any logic behind the idea to buy new T-90 instead of new T-14?
IMO, I would put my money for buying the T-14 and upgrade to a certain level the T-72.
The upgraded T-72 will get out much faster than the T-14 and with the right formula we can figure out the right numbers relation between the upgrade tanks and the new tanks.

Most of the planned 400 T-90M will actually be upgraded T-90A or T-90AM. However the biggest advantage is the foreign sales generated by the "new Russian army tank".

Think of it in terms of computers... I have a Spectrum ZX-81, I have a Commodore Amiga 500, and about 12 PC based computers... the oldest of which is a 486, but most are post late 1990s Pentiums.

The Spectrum and Amiga are not really upgradable but all the ATX based PCs could very easily be upgraded with new hardware and brought up to a quite decent standard... but it depends on what I want to do.

A brand new super fast computer is not much good for playing command and conquer, or Doom or Solitaire.

What I would do is determine what games I still want to play and therefore which machines I keep, but I also want a computer I can connect to the internet and download stuff, and a media centre I can connect to my TV and store my DVDs on is useful as well... each job has different requirements and different specifications.

I could throw it all out and just buy all new machines for the job, but for a fraction of the cost I could get exactly what I want... and to be honest I like upgrading computers.

For the Russian military they are not going to have Armatas everywhere... the final plan is to have a mix of heavy, medium tracked and medium wheeled, and light wheeled formations or units... most units will likely be wheeled so wont have Armata based vehicles as tanks in their structure.

There will be tanks based on Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon and also the Sprut light tank as well... but in reserve units they wont be based on the new model designs to start with.

Upgraded T-72s are relatively cheap and available but can also be exported to allies as gifts... They could get the country that receives them to pay for any upgrade they want, so they get rid of old vehicles that they no longer have to store and maintain, and they get work to upgrade them to the level the customer wants... a win win for both sides.

Upgraded T-72s are good to use for training and for exercises because together with simulation equipment they have bought it reduces costs in terms of fuel and ammo and wear and tear on the vehicles themselves.

If you are building new tanks then it makes sense to build newer models, but then previous gen models can be upgraded simply by installing the components of the new vehicles to improve their performance... it standardises parts and simplifies training and support and improves performance.

They wont need Armata based tanks on every border... buying enough brand new tanks to fill the operational inventory and the reserves would be rather expensive... especially with the next step of replacing all the vehicles in each unit with family vehicles.

This article is from last year,but has some nice details about the T-72B3

RUSSIA First Post Syria Move Stronger T72 Battle Tanks

The T-72B3M upgrade is a relative bargain for the capability the vehicle is expected to deliver.

By Dave Majumdar

While the world has been focused on Russia’s air campaign in Syria, Moscow continues its military modernization closer to home. The Kremlin is planning on modernizing one hundred and fifty additional Soviet-era T-72B main battle tanks to the T-72B3M standard. The upgraded vehicles would offer performance comparable to the much more modern T-90, but for a fraction of the price.

While Russia operates well over five hundred modern T-90A and T-90AM main battle tanks, the bulk of Moscow’s ground forces rely on the venerable T-72 and its numerous derivatives. In order to upgrade its land forces quickly, especially during a time of economic distress, the Kremlin is modernizing the older main battle tank even as work continues on the newest T-14 Armata tanks.

According to Uralvagonzavod deputy general director Alex Zharich, who spoke to the Russian-language daily Izvestia, Russia plans to spend 2.5 billion rubles to upgrade one hundred and fifty T-72Bs to the new B3M standard for an average of 17 million rubles per tank. In U.S. dollar terms, that’s a total of $35 million for an average of $234,000 per tank—which means the T-72B3M upgrade is a relative bargain for the capability the vehicle is expected to deliver.

According to Izvestia, the upgraded tank will get a new 2A46M5 125-millimeter smoothbore gun along with a new sighting system called the Sosna-U, which will be paired with the 1A40-4 fire-control system. The tank will also receive a new ballistics computer to help increase its accuracy. Perhaps more significantly, the T-72B3M will receive an independent PK PAN sight for the tank commander, which has its own thermal imaging system.

The T-72B3M is also getting the new Relikt explosive reactive armor (ERA) package that was first introduced on the T-90AM. The Relikt replaces the older Kontakt-5 ERA package, and is allegedly twice as effective as the older system. It’s not clear if the Russians are modifying the vehicle’s passive armor package—but it would make sense it they did. Further, while some sources suggest that the T-73B3M might be equipped with the Arena-E active protection system, it’s not clear that the production variant does.

The T-72B3M will also receive a new 1,130hp V-92S2F to replace its original 780hp diesel engine. The new engine is coupled with a new automatic transmission system and improved drivetrain, which should improve the T-72’s mobility. The driver will also receive a new rear-view camera display to improve his situational awareness.

According to Izvestia, the first batch of thirty-two upgraded vehicles should be delivered sometime this year. Russia already has more than five hundred older, slightly less capable version of the T-72B3 tank in service. Potentially, the new upgrade could be exported to the numerous T-72 operators around the world.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Vitaly V. Kuzmin.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...tle-tanks-15500

T-72B3 with MMK-B3 camouflage and TMT-K mine roller

AJ-47s post above seems to suggest that all the new features of this white eagle tank that guy was talking about, are being added to the T-72B3 anyway... post number 516.

And for less than 250K dollars per tank, which is astounding... that is probably how much a service and oil change costs for an Abrams...

AlfaT8 wrote:

Uh, quite a few things wrong with that video:
- Kontact 5 proven to work against modern ammo. As seen in Syria
- t-72B3 does have a battle management system via commander

Those two alone discredits the video.

I would not take red effect too seriously his sources are questionable at best and he does tend to pander to the typical crowd of clueless morons on the internet.

Oh yes and he always uses a .ua website for info on Russian tanks and ammunition made post 1990s while taking us claims on ammunition and armor at face value.

He is not as bad as lets say binkov but that is like saying hitler is not as bad as satan, both can stay in hell!

I wonder how the new net-centric structure of the newest upgraded T-72's affect its' offensive capabilities? I wonder if it'll allow Refleks GLATGM to push beyond it's destructive scale/envelop? Will it be able to allow a 3rd party armored vehicles to pass information to the T-72 firing Refleks, to extend the max range of it's GLATGM? Will it allow precision target triangulation of OPFOR at odd/dead angles of attack (outside OPFOR's line of sight), like at elevated positions (up hills/mountains) to help counteract OPFOR's PPS defenses (like popped smoke grenades), to target OPFOR where they're more visible and less obscured by smoke?

The problem there is that Reflex is a beam riding missile so information about a hidden enemy does not help except to allow the vehicle to manouver in to a better position to open fire...

It should allow the crew of the T-72 to be more aware of enemy forces in the area and enable them to mark new targets on the map for all to see via their network.

It should also allow them to receive digital video from UAVs overhead.