T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

Strange ERA set up on a T-72B...K-1 added to K-5

As per this article, it takes 9 months to rebuild the T-72B3. The old T-72B's are completely disassembled and then totally rebuilt.

https://altyn73.livejournal.com/1413249.html#cutid1

T72B3 with Arena system

http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=152&p=15

Did they improve the reverse speed of the last variants like B3M ? The first variants were very slow.

Because they only have one reverse gear. Western tanks have more. Cowards.

Hole wrote:Because they only have one reverse gear. Western tanks have more. Cowards.

They have new engines so I supposed they worked on that. 7 km/h in reverse can be dangerous because once it fired it needs to go back into cover. I'm not saying they need to copy the western tanks but increase to a decent speed like 20km/h.

It is nothing to do with the engine, it is the transmission and gearing that determines speed in each gear depending on the torque capacity of the engine and the gear ratios and transmission.

BTW the Panther had a vastly more sophisticated transmission than a T-34 which was also why when they were first used they lost more to breakdowns than they did to enemy action.

Having the better transmission didn't really improve its performance and led to a lot of unnecessary loses and problems in battlefield use.

Tank T-72B3 with a complex of active protection T09-06

An interesting shot of the T-72B3 tank equipped with the T09-06 active defense complex (Arena-M). Presumably, this is a prototype of the T-72B3 tank with the T09-06 active defense system, which is currently undergoing proving tests.


The prototype of the T-72B3 tank with the active protection complex T09-06 (Arena-M) (c) einsatz_nt (via "Military Informant" / vk.com/milinfolive)


Recall that a demonstrator of the modernized T-72B3 tank, equipped with the prototype APS Arena-M, was demonstrated at RAE exhibitions in Nizhny Tagil in 2013 and 2015.

In January 2017, the TASS news agency reported with reference to a statement by the general designer of JSC Scientific and Production Corporation Engineering Design Bureau of Engineering (KBM, Kolomna). Valery Kashin, that the new Arena-M active defense complex (KAZ) will be installed on T-72 and T-90 tanks and that “the active defense complex is currently undergoing tests, which are being monitored by Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Colonel-General Oleg Salyukov ". It was pointed out that KAZ Arena-M is a system installed on a combat vehicle, which includes a multifunctional radar station with high noise immunity, detecting targets. The shells are struck by protective ammunition of narrowly targeted action, located along the perimeter of the tank tower in special installation mines. "

In June 2018, a notice on the purchase of JSC Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (UKBTM, as part of NPK Uralvagonzavod JSC) from a single supplier (apparently KBM) of elements worth 5 million rubles for the modernization of the T tank was posted on the government procurement website -72B3 by installing a KAZ of type T09-A6 to secure state contract No. 1719187317821452241002092 of December 27, 2017 under the development and development OK-Improvement A as part of the State Defense Order.








Demonstrator of the modernized T-72B3 tank, equipped with a prototype APS Arena-M, in the exposition of the RAE-2015 exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in 2015 (c) Alexey Khlopotov. / Gurkhan.blogspot.com

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3839517.html

One would hope they designed this system to be effective against top attack weapons like Javelin and that the intercept distance is sufficient to prevent damage to the tank. The US has already provide hundreds of Javelins to Ukraine.

calripson wrote:One would hope they designed this system to be effective against top attack weapons like Javelin and that the intercept distance is sufficient to prevent damage to the tank. The US has already provide hundreds of Javelins to Ukraine.

Javelin isn't what its cracked up to be. It struggles with background thermal radiation of the landscape, and it couldn't dream of being able to pierce through the PPS (lazer dazzler + smoke grenades). It's also a grotesquely overpriced ATGM with overall across-the-board inferior cardinal characteristics compared to Metis-M (a vastly cheaper system).

Why would they have hard-kill systems on the T-72B3, but not T-80BVM or T-90M

This seems to be a much better set up than the first model with that radar tower arrangement... it looks like those munitions are designed to cover a rather wide area each so there are probably only a dozen munitions fitted there with a bit of overlap.

The original ARENA launched munitions up in to the air into the path of an incoming missile with the fragments directed down in to the ground to prevent damage to friendly forces nearby with stray fragments.

I see no reason why the munitions could not be designed to launch fragments directly up as well as directly down to engage top attack weapons as well as direct fire weapons too, but against weapons using IIR seekers I would suspect some sort of laser based optics damaging system makes more sense than hard kill munitions...

And these systems are going on to Russian tanks, not Ukrainian tanks so the Ukrainian Javelins really don't matter in this regard.... I am sure a few Ukrainian soldiers will make money selling these missiles to the Ukrainian rebels and I suspect that Russian intell would be interested in a few copies... perhaps a trade deal with the Ukrainian rebels... 100 Metis M1 missiles for each Javelin... the Metis missiles will be vastly more useful to the rebels and I think the Russians might like another look at those Javelins... but I suspect they have had opportunities to look in the past...

Why would they have hard-kill systems on the T-72B3, but not T-80BVM or T-90M

Perhaps it makes more sense to have hard kill systems on the numbers tank?

Or perhaps this is the cheaper less capable option for the numbers tank and the better models might have simplified variants of the systems going on Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang.

Of course putting it in to service and mass production should iron out any bugs and make it perhaps cheaper to produce and use.

It is often during mass production that shortcuts are found to simplify production and make the product more affordable and more capable.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

calripson wrote:One would hope they designed this system to be effective against top attack weapons like Javelin and that the intercept distance is sufficient to prevent damage to the tank. The US has already provide hundreds of Javelins to Ukraine.

Javelin isn't what its cracked up to be. It struggles with background thermal radiation of the landscape, and it couldn't dream of being able to pierce through the PPS (lazer dazzler + smoke grenades). It's also a grotesquely overpriced ATGM with overall across-the-board inferior cardinal characteristics compared to Metis-M (a vastly cheaper system).

Trust me, if you are poor SOB in that tank or armored vehicle, you will wish you had an effective active protection system.

calripson wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

calripson wrote:One would hope they designed this system to be effective against top attack weapons like Javelin and that the intercept distance is sufficient to prevent damage to the tank. The US has already provide hundreds of Javelins to Ukraine.

Javelin isn't what its cracked up to be. It struggles with background thermal radiation of the landscape, and it couldn't dream of being able to pierce through the PPS (lazer dazzler + smoke grenades). It's also a grotesquely overpriced ATGM with overall across-the-board inferior cardinal characteristics compared to Metis-M (a vastly cheaper system).

Trust me, if you are poor SOB in that tank or armored vehicle, you will wish you had an effective active protection system.

You aren't even addressing the flaws of the Javelin ATGM. It couldn't even dream of penetrating a PPS system, the optical seeker gets confused with background thermal radiation, and it's several times more expensive and but also less capable (in several ways) than Metis-M.

Optical guided top attack ATGM like french MMP won't be confused by anything and the only way to defeat them is hard kill systems. Javelin isn't the main atgm out there but export version of russians systems, Tow missiles, french ones and serbian too. From the side or rear any tank will get destroyed like we saw in Syria.

Arena should have been installed on all t-90 from the begining.

Isos wrote:Optical guided top attack ATGM like french MMP won't be confused by anything and the only way to defeat them is hard kill systems. Javelin isn't the main atgm out there but export version of russians systems, Tow missiles, french ones and serbian too. From the side or rear any tank will get destroyed like we saw in Syria.

Arena should have been installed on all t-90 from the begining.

Predictably (like usual) your grotesquely misinformed:

1.) The Russian smoke grenades are made up of microscopic aluminum-silicate spheres, that completely blocks the radiation of the whole electro-magnetic spectrum, and it's utterly useless to deploy IR seekers against it.

2.) This electro-magnetic obscuring smoke has been so successful that other branches of the Russian military has adopted it. The engineering troops of have a dedicated smoke generating machine to mask the presences of bases and equipment from IR/Radar seekers of PGM's. The ground portion of the Strategic Forces Triad also incorporates a similar machine to mask the presence of ground mobile ICBM's, and even the Topol-M warheads have a electro-magnetic opaque aerosol dispersal system built in to them.

3.) AFV PPS works on the similar basis of DIRCM's on aircraft. Here's the President-S DIRCM available for Russian aircraft:

 

You have no arguments but I will try to answer.

MMP is guided by the operator which sees from the inboard camera the tank from the top. It doesn't emmit any signal. Your first point is totally useless against such missiles as smoke grenades are launched far away from the tank and a top attack missile like MMP which doesn't lock on the tank won't be affected. It shows how informed you are.  






Your 2nd point has nothing to do with the subjet.

DIRCM could blind the camera but it is not used on tanks.

Tanks won't know they are targeted by such missiles unless they have MAWS or radar from arena sytem.


Older missiles like tow or metis proved to be effective against syrian t-72 which also has smoke grenades ... but they ended up destroyed.

MMS is both infrared seeker and tv guided. So infrared is blocked that just leaves tv guided to work which is usually effective except for if smokescreen is deployed, it greatly reduces the missiles guidance since the Gunner may have trouble correcting flight path of missile since it relies on it.

The missile is wire (optical fiber) connected to the launcher. There is no jamming possible. If it is launched at your tank and you have no APS you better leave it as fast as you can.

Recall that smoke no matter how good it is can be defeated by a human guided missile since the human can use intuition to
punch through the smoke to the where the target is likely to be. It is not 100% but infinitely better than dumb autonomous
missile guidance that fails if the conditions aren't right. In the future, AI maybe will give such guidance systems more effectiveness.

The vaunted Javelin is a US dick stroking delusion. To put on the same level as the Metis is simply ignorant. Those T-72s in
Syria were not being taken out by Javelins if they had the protection systems. The jihadis had Metis missiles and used them.


https://www.stalkerzone.org/the-javelin-rips-apart-the-t-72-the-attempt-at-deception-failed/

Yanqui fakers and their second rate wunderwaffen,.

DIRCM could blind the camera but it is not used on tanks.

What do you think SHTORA is?

Tanks won't know they are targeted by such missiles unless they have MAWS or radar from arena sytem.

In the late 1980s they had an optical system called PAPV or something similar, that detects optics and directs a laser beam to "defeat" the optics. Used against optic guided munitions and snipers using rifle scopes.

Older missiles like tow or metis proved to be effective against syrian t-72 which also has smoke grenades ... but they ended up destroyed.

Konkurs proved effective against Abrams and Leopard IIs too, what is your point?

Current model Hinds have thermal optics systems that give them a seamless view around the helicopter of targets and threats within 2km of the aircraft... something similar for tanks has probably been developed too... in addition to IR and radar screens like Nakidka...

The missile is wire (optical fiber) connected to the launcher. There is no jamming possible. If it is launched at your tank and you have no APS you better leave it as fast as you can.

Optical jammers are widely deployed in Russia including on their naval vessels, and on armoured vehicles in the 1990s we saw Shtora... with the advent of a lot of western missiles that use optical or thermal guidance do you think they suddenly stopped?

What do you think SHTORA is?

Almost not used. And still not proven in combat.

Konkurs proved effective against Abrams and Leopard IIs too, what is your point?

Yes it is. Tanks needs APS against the atgm threats. But germans and US had no aps back when they made their tanks, russia had and didn't use it.

Optical jammers are widely deployed in Russia including on their naval vessels, and on armoured vehicles in the 1990s we saw Shtora

Shtora is used on t-90A. What similar system other vehicles have ?

APS isn´t combat-proven either.

Hole wrote:APS isn´t combat-proven either.

Yes it was used in Afghanistan by soviets increasing tanks survavibility and israeli trophy made Kornet missiles useless.

Recall that smoke no matter how good it is can be defeated by a human guided missile since the human can use intuition to
punch through the smoke to the where the target is likely to be.

Not 100% true... with SACLOS guidance the launcher tracks the missile via an IR coded beacon on the missile tail and sends commands to the missile to correct its flight to move that emitter closer to the centre of the field of view which for the operator has a crosshair which they keep on target during the engagement.

If the missile passes through smoke and the launcher can no longer see the beacon then control of the missile is lost and normally they fly into the ground fairly quickly without constant commands to continue flying level.

With optically homing missiles like Javelin then that takes away its party piece, which is fire and forget. Assuming the operator can guess where the target is the seeker in the missile can't so flying an optically guided missile into a wall of white trying to guess where the target is wouldn't really work very well either.

At best you have turned a half a million dollar per shot ATGM into a 1970s level performance Dragon ATGM which is to say very ordinary and taking a very long time from launch to impact making the operator very vulnerable to return fire to upset the manual guidance.

Ironically for a missile like Kornet where the optical sensor is looking back at the launcher for the laser beam even if the smoke does block the signal the missile flys in level flight by itself and uses the laser beam for course corrections so if it suddenly loses the guidance beam it wont just immediately plunge in to the ground and like will be guided several metres into the smoke and because it is moving more than twice as fast as a Javelin then it has a much better chance of actually hitting something.

The easier way to deal with Javelin of course is simply directing intensely bright lasers into its optical port... like shining a spotlight in some ones eyes when they are in the dark...

The vaunted Javelin is a US dick stroking delusion. To put on the same level as the Metis is simply ignorant.

I agree with your assessment, but they are in the same category so comparisons make sense.... similar range, similar speed, huge differential in costs, both have thermal sights when deployed, on paper the Javelin is superior, but in practise the Metis is just more practical, and the new model with 3km range even more so.

The missile is wire (optical fiber) connected to the launcher. There is no jamming possible.

The fibre optic cable relays the image captured by the camera in the nose of the missile... Shtora and DIRCM type systems can blind the sensor in the missile nose, so the only image that can be used to guide the weapon comes from the camera on the launcher and if it can't see through smoke or has no line of sight then you are screwed... your very expensive super missile is no better off than a SACLOS Metis which was in service in large numbers in the mid 1980s... it was always intended as a cheap simple numbers weapon you could effectively use on anything... enemy snipers or MG nests, bunkers or small buildings or light vehicles etc etc... the sort of thing most ATGMs are used against in the real world.

Almost not used. And still not proven in combat.

AFAIK used in Chechnia.... and there are upgraded versions with different sensors and different emitters...

But germans and US had no aps back when they made their tanks, russia had and didn't use it.

Clearly made the choice to produce more vehicles instead with the available money... just like the UK decided it couldn't afford flak jackets for all its armoured vehicle soldiers in Afghanistan...

Shtora is used on t-90A. What similar system other vehicles have ?

The T-90AM also has a related system but the external equipment looks different apparently... no reason to think they don't have something new on Armata and Boomerang and Kurganets... it is apparently effective enough.

APS isn´t combat-proven either.

Drozd-1 was used in Afghanistan and was found to be 70% effective... of course Drozd-1 only covered the front of the turret and moved with the turret so rockets fired at a tank when the turret is facing elsewhere would not be covered.

Drozd-2 offered much better coverage and was developed from experience in Afghanistan, as was ARENA.

There were about half a dozen competing APS systems that were tested and developed... some became Ukrainian after the breakup of the SU, but most were either Russian, Ukrainian, or from Belarus AFAIK.

Yes it was used in Afghanistan by soviets increasing tanks survavibility

To be clear it was used on Soviet Naval Infantry tanks of the upgraded T-55 and T-62 type mostly... just like their artillery were experimenting with drones and no one else, the APS development seems to be a Naval Infantry thing to start with.

To be fair the Israeli solution to ATGMs at the time was mounting three machine guns on the roof of their tank so the gunner, the loader and the commander can pour machine gun rounds in the direction the missiles are coming from in the hope to put them off.

I would say development of APS systems in Israel was probably spawned by certain professional people arriving from Russia in the early 1990s... the ideas at the time ridiculed in western military circles... up until they had their own experience in an Afghanistan type conflict and then they started taking an interest too.

Was the same with the SVD deployment in platoon level... they scoffed at the idea... till they ended up fighting in mountains and realised their assault rifles simply don't have the reach for the job...