T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

Isos wrote:You have no arguments but I will try to answer.

From the other comments here, looks like you've been completely schooled...again! 

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Isos wrote:You have no arguments but I will try to answer.

From the other comments here, looks like you've been completely schooled...again! 

Can you be more precise ? Because no one proved my arguments sucks. Garry talks about DIRCM and shtora but they are not used or in very little use. He talked about similar system on new vehicles but named none of them because they stoped producing shtora and invested in afganit.

Shtora is facing the front of the turret and can't go up and down so it is useless against a top attack missiles.

MMP is controled by a man all the way. It's a top attack missile and your wonderful chaff/flares grenades are useless against it. The tank won't even know it is fired at by such missile, it even won't detect a javelin being fired at it becayse it uses IR image of tank to track it there is no emission of any signal. The only way to detect them is either have a radar from an APS or a MAWS system like on aircraft.

And older missiles destroyed syrian t72 which had those grenade launchers, they also destroyed leopard a24 that also had grenade launchers. Russian t-72 won't do better. If you want to use those chaffs you need to know that you're being engaged by those missiles and have a constant 360° awerness.

None of the tanks destroyed in syria included turkish or even in yemen saudi M1A1 knew they were being engaged by atgm. You can see on videis that none reacted before being hit.

Maybe you could provide some facts and datas to support your opinion because right now you looks like a child.

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

Chechnya is the exemple of how to lose tanks including t-90 to infantry. You are using the badest exemple possible.

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.

MMP is not SACLOS. It's a man in the loop connected to the missile trough a cable that can hit from the top. Russian tanks won't detect it and even if they do their chaff are useless because they launch them on the ground not in the air and 20m away. From the top MMP will still see the tank.

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

Again they don't use shtora anymore. Only on old t-90A and they don't face upward but only horizontaly.

DIRCM is not used. MMP >>>> SACLOS. You won't see it coming, you can't jam it and even most APS don't cover the top.  It's expensive but deadly.

Isos wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Isos wrote:You have no arguments but I will try to answer.

From the other comments here, looks like you've been completely schooled...again! 

Can you be more precise ? Because no one proved my arguments sucks. Garry talks about DIRCM and shtora but they are not used or in very little use. He talked about similar system on new vehicles but named none of them because they stoped producing shtora and invested in afganit.

Shtora is facing the front of the turret and can't go up and down so it is useless against a top attack missiles.

MMP is controled by a man all the way. It's a top attack missile and your wonderful chaff/flares grenades are useless against it. The tank won't even know it is fired at by such missile, it even won't detect a javelin being fired at it becayse it uses IR image of tank to track it there is no emission of any signal. The only way to detect them is either have a radar from an APS or a MAWS system like on aircraft.

And older missiles destroyed syrian t72 which had those grenade launchers, they also destroyed leopard a24 that also had grenade launchers. Russian t-72 won't do better. If you want to use those chaffs you need to know that you're being engaged by those missiles and have a constant 360° awerness.

All your points are valid. Any tank or IFV built without an effective APS system is a metal coffin for its crew. Since Russia knows the atgm of their potential enemies, one would think they would design an APS system with that in mind. An APS system that doesn't work against top attack weapons is not adequate.

None of the tanks destroyed in syria included turkish or even in yemen saudi M1A1 knew they were being engaged by atgm. You can see on videis that none reacted before being hit.

Maybe you could provide some facts and datas to support your opinion because right now you looks like a child.

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

Chechnya is the exemple of how to lose tanks including t-90 to infantry. You are using the badest exemple possible.

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.

MMP is not SACLOS. It's a man in the loop connected to the missile trough a cable that can hit from the top. Russian tanks won't detect it and even if they do their chaff are useless because they launch them on the ground not in the air and 20m away. From the top MMP will still see the tank.

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

Again they don't use shtora anymore. Only on old t-90A and they don't face upward but only horizontaly.

DIRCM is not used. MMP >>>> SACLOS. You won't see it coming, you can't jam it and even most APS don't cover the top.  It's expensive but deadly.

All your points are valid. Any tank or IFV built without an effective APS system is a metal coffin for its crew. Since Russia knows the weapons of their potential enemies, one would think they would design an APS system with that in mind. An APS system that doesn't work against top attack weapons is not good enough.

AFAIK, there were two or three T-90 tanks lost in 2nd Chechnya war. Check the videos of second war - tanks were used as mobile pilboxes and they helped cover BMP-2s. It was infantry and artillery war.

Garry talks about DIRCM and shtora but they are not used or in very little use. He talked about similar system on new vehicles but named none of them because they stoped producing shtora and invested in afganit.

In the 1980s they had the PAPV...





Which was an optical jamming system to attack anyone pointing an optical device at you... a sniper scope, a thermal imager, a set of binoculars, etc etc, and it directed a high energy laser to make you stop...

The Anti sniper system derived from that is Binocular sized and was used to protect Chavez at one time in the 2000s.

SHTORA-1 is a soft kill passive defence system intended to deal with laser homing weapons, and semi automatic command to line of sight missiles.

It uses smoke grenades, IR dazzlers and a laser warning system. The smoke grenades are angled low and are intended to create smoke screens quite a distance away from the tank. The IR dazzlers are intended to confuse the launcher on a SACLOS ATGM. Something like TOW or Milan or HOT, or Javelin when fired in manual mode track the outgoing missile with an IR beacon... the IR dazzlers on SHTORA mean it can't see where the missile is and therefore cannot direct it properly and the missiles just fly in to the ground.

They stopped Drozd-1 and Drozd-2, but the T-14 clearly has Drozd tubes around the turret, so we can assume it uses Drozd-3. It also uses Afghanit, but that does not mean it does not also use an upgraded improved Shtora.

Just look at their aircraft... they have mature in service DIRCMs and the west is introducing optically guided anti armour missiles in greater and greater numbers... can you not put two and two together and come up with four?

Shtora is facing the front of the turret and can't go up and down so it is useless against a top attack missiles.

When it was designed and put in service the only top attack missile is Bill and Bill 2, and they fly a couple of metres above line of sight and have downward firing warheads rather than diving top attack munitions.

MMP is controled by a man all the way. It's a top attack missile and your wonderful chaff/flares grenades are useless against it. The tank won't even know it is fired at by such missile, it even won't detect a javelin being fired at it becayse it uses IR image of tank to track it there is no emission of any signal.

During exercises they have banks of dozens of hair dryers used on tank targets to heat them up so they can get a lock... with nakidka and similar systems they might need to come with a set of hair dryers too...

The only way to detect them is either have a radar from an APS or a MAWS system like on aircraft.

A missile with a rocket exhaust shows up quite clearly on thermal sights...

And older missiles destroyed syrian t72 which had those grenade launchers, they also destroyed leopard a24 that also had grenade launchers.

Of course.... SHTORA is just grenade launchers and a couple of IR dazzlers... why not fit it to every vehicle if it is just grenade launchers and IR dazzlers?

The Saudi air defence couldn't detect cruise missiles or small drones so Patriot is therefore useless along with Crotale and those 35mm guns they had...

If you want to use those chaffs you need to know that you're being engaged by those missiles and have a constant 360° awerness.

Well obviously SHTORA only works when the enemy sends you an email to tell you they are going to launch an attack and from which direction the threat will come... usually a days warning is required, but if you get that warning it works really good.

None of the tanks destroyed in syria included turkish or even in yemen saudi M1A1 knew they were being engaged by atgm.

AND THAT IS WHY SHTORA IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE IT WARNS YOU THAT YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED...

Maybe you could provide some facts and datas to support your opinion because right now you looks like a child.

Insults... thank you.

Chechnya is the exemple of how to lose tanks including t-90 to infantry. You are using the badest exemple possible.

The first conflict in Chechnia didn't involve any T-90s. The second conflict zero T-90s were lost.

But of course the Chechens were idiots with weak equipment who didn't really know what they were doing...

Again they don't use shtora anymore.

Of course not... when ERA worked they stopped making advanced armour, and now APS works they will stop using ERA too, and next they will replace everything with some new technology cause that is what they do and have always done...

Only on old t-90A and they don't face upward but only horizontaly.

The SHTORA on the T-90 were designed to defeat SACLOS missiles and the IR dazzlers are supposed to point at the ATGM Launcher... like on the TOW and Milan and HOT... when they were introduced nobody had Javelins.

DIRCM is not used. MMP >>>> SACLOS. You won't see it coming, you can't jam it and even most APS don't cover the top. It's expensive but deadly.

They climb up quite high in to the air and are very very slow... I would suspect most would be shot down by TOR before they get anywhere near the tanks or armour.

But most importantly they need a thermal contrasting target to get a lock, and as I have been saying... Drozd-1 has evolved into its probably third version on the T-14, and is used together with Afghanit with the smaller launch tubes. The ARENA-2 is being deployed on new model T-72s. But you are telling us that Shtora is dead and has not been replaced or developed further.... those are serious claims... do you have any evidence?

Do please stop using abbreviations though because it hurts my little child head...

MMP is not SACLOS. It's a man in the loop connected to the missile trough a cable that can hit from the top. Russian tanks won't detect it and even if they do their chaff are useless because they launch them on the ground not in the air and 20m away. From the top MMP will still see the tank.

SHTORA is a soft kill system... they clearly have hard kill systems on their vehicles... T-14 has been shown with Drozd and Afghanit... as I keep saying... ARENA-2 as fitted to T-72s is a new generation version of ARENA... perhaps they might have adapted these to destroy top attack munitions per chance?

AFAIK, there were two or three T-90 tanks lost in 2nd Chechnya war.

That is news to me... there were a few that got multiple hits, but I don't recall any being actually knocked out.

It was infantry and artillery war.

Actually they did it more like the Americans do... more fire power less care about collateral damage...

In the 1980s they had the PAPV...
Which was an optical jamming system to attack anyone pointing an optical device at you... a sniper scope, a thermal imager, a set of binoculars, etc etc, and it directed a high energy laser to make you stop...

I'm talking about in service systems. Not prototypes.

And it is not the same point that device at a missike flying fast and something not moving on the ground.

During exercises they have banks of dozens of hair dryers used on tank targets to heat them up so they can get a lock... with nakidka and similar systems they might need to come with a set of hair dryers too...

MMP has both IR/Visible camera. Naditka doesn't make the tank invisible.

A missile with a rocket exhaust shows up quite clearly on thermal sights...

Thermal sights don't cover 360°. Even if it detects it, the tank can't do anything. It can launch it grenade and try to cover under it but the missile will be fatser and even if it succeed the operator of the missile can still see it or guess where it is.

Of course.... SHTORA is just grenade launchers and a couple of IR dazzlers... why not fit it to every vehicle if it is just grenade launchers and IR dazzlers?


Well obviously SHTORA only works when the enemy sends you an email to tell you they are going to launch an attack and from which direction the threat will come... usually a days warning is required, but if you get that warning it works really good. Rolling Eyes

AND THAT IS WHY SHTORA IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE IT WARNS YOU THAT YOU ARE BEING ATTACKED...

It has also laser detectors but new missiles don't use laser.

Shtora is outdated. It was made to counter nato systems in big tanks battle where enemy forces would be in front of them. New threats are what you see in Syria and Ukraine, some guerillas that attacks by surprise from the rear or the top. And for than they need an APS that covers 360°.

What warns you that you are being attacked by laser atgm are laser detectors. Leopard 2a4, M1A1 should have had such system (I'm not sure) and they didn't detect them.

Insults... thank you.

It wasn't meant for you but for the other idiot that doesn't argue but only talks.

But most importantly they need a thermal contrasting target to get a lock, and as I have been saying... Drozd-1 has evolved into its probably third version on the T-14, and is used together with Afghanit with the smaller launch tubes. The ARENA-2 is being deployed on new model T-72s. But you are telling us that Shtora is dead and has not been replaced or developed further.... those are serious claims... do you have any evidence?

New t90, t14 and upgraded t-72 that will be the backbone of their forces don't use them. Isn't that a proof that shtora is dead ?

SHTORA is a soft kill system... they clearly have hard kill systems on their vehicles... T-14 has been shown with Drozd and Afghanit... as I keep saying... ARENA-2 as fitted to T-72s is a new generation version of ARENA... perhaps they might have adapted these to destroy top attack munitions per chance?

T-14 uses ERA and hard kill afghanit. Afghanit launchers are on the side so they don't cover the top maybe some of the launchers on the top are also from afghanit system IDK. But they clearly need an APS that cover 360° for new threats.

I'm talking about in service systems. Not prototypes.

What makes you think it was not in service... that is an advert from the 1990s when it was already ten years old...

And it is not the same point that device at a missike flying fast and something not moving on the ground.

Something flying directly at you doesn't move very much at all... high speed just means it is getting closer to you faster and does not make it more difficult to track.

MMP has both IR/Visible camera. Naditka doesn't make the tank invisible.

PAPV could detect optics from about 3km in the 1980s... do you think they might have improved that.

The anti sniper equipment used to protect Chavez consisted of a large set of binoculars...

Thermal sights don't cover 360°. Even if it detects it, the tank can't do anything. It can launch it grenade and try to cover under it but the missile will be fatser and even if it succeed the operator of the missile can still see it or guess where it is.

SHTORA had coarse and precise trackers located around the vehicle to detect threats and to precisely track them... but of course a more modern replacement could never manage that too... I mean it is just impossible... they are developing new armour but they would never consider the current in service weapons their opposition might be using against them... instead they are working on proper door seals to protect them from chocolate blancmange weapons the French are working on...

Shtora is outdated.

SHTORA is exactly what they need in Syria right now. To say it is outdated is just ignorant... outdated for T-14... who said T-14 was using SHTORA?

SHTORA is a rather old system and was developed more than 30 years ago do you not think updated versions and versions integrated into other systems might not have been developed?

It was made to counter nato systems in big tanks battle where enemy forces would be in front of them.

Bullshit. It was developed to deal with the SACLOS ATGMs that proliferate on the battlefields of today... the 360 degree sensors detect a threat and automatically rotate the turret to point the main gun directly at the Milan or TOW or HOT launcher... this points the main jamming IR boxes at the sensors they are intended to jam and allows the gunner and commander to fire the main gun and the main threat to the tank... I realise the American and French and German and British systems are way better.... oops... no... they don't even exist, but lets call it obsolete because when was the last time a tank was fired at by a TOW or other command guided ATGM... what do you mean repeatedly over the last few decades or so... don't be silly.

New threats are what you see in Syria and Ukraine, some guerillas that attacks by surprise from the rear or the top. And for than they need an APS that covers 360°.

The SHTORA system is not an APS for fucks sake, it is a totally separate soft kill counter measures system. APS is different.

What warns you that you are being attacked by laser atgm are laser detectors. Leopard 2a4, M1A1 should have had such system (I'm not sure) and they didn't detect them.

Laser sensors generally don't detect Kornet because it is a beam rider, not a marked target seeker like Hellfire.

New t90, t14 and upgraded t-72 that will be the backbone of their forces don't use them. Isn't that a proof that shtora is dead ?

Shtora is used on T-90S tanks which are in service, their new vehicles use APS systems... which by definition require 360 degree surveillance to actually work.

The new vehicles also have smoke grenades which will be linked to the 360 degree surveillance system... which is also pretty much what SHTORA did too, the only obvious difference is the lack of IR transmitters, but these tanks have lasers to guide missiles and measure range in the optics of the commander and gunners sights... could it not be possible that SHTORA is not officially replaced because it does not need to be?

With 360 degree sensors for the APS system that works with both the APS system and the smoke grenades, and can turn the turret and commanders sight towards an incoming threat that might allow a laser to be directed at a very slow incoming missile like a Javelin to defeat its optics... well perhaps that is why they don't need SHTORA any more because they already have it built in.

BTW the air defence vehicles operating with the tank units should easily detect and track these slow flying Javelins anyway and could distribute target data directly to the tanks in the field in real time...

Afghanit launchers are on the side so they don't cover the top maybe some of the launchers on the top are also from afghanit system IDK.

The small tubes on top are for covering the top obviously. The cheek mounted large tubes are Drozd and are pretty normal standard setups.

But they clearly need an APS that cover 360° for new threats.

Wow, if only they knew as much about tanks as experts on the internet...

What makes you think it was not in service... that is an advert from the 1990s when it was already ten years old...

Then it shoukd be easy to bring some pictures of in servuce tanks withthis system on them as a proof instead of suposition.

PAPV could detect optics from about 3km in the 1980s... do you think they might have improved that.

I don't really believe that 3km figure. They beged french for cameras that could see tanks 5km away in the 90s but had something that could see tank's optics 3km away in the 80s...

SHTORA had coarse and precise trackers located around the vehicle to detect threats and to precisely track them... but of course a more modern replacement could never manage that too...

Had. They don't upgraded it and don't use it anymore. Their t-90 that use it are upgraded to M version where it is removed and there is ni analogue system in t-14, t-80BVM or t-90/t-72.

If they use something like that provide picture of tanks because it is an exterior mounted system and all those new tabks are already produced.

nstead they are working on proper door seals to protect them from chocolate blancmange weapons the French are working on... Rolling Eyes

Funny you say that because the only time a vehicle equiped with shtora being targeted by a tow was a syrian t-90 and shtora "didn't" work because the commanders "door" was open.

I realise the American and French and German and British systems are way better.... oops... no... they don't even exist, but lets call it obsolete because when was the last time a tank was fired at by a TOW or other command guided ATGM... what do you mean repeatedly over the last few decades or so... don't be silly.

I never said they were better in terms of protection against new atgm.

SHTORA is a rather old system and was developed more than 30 years ago do you not think updated versions and versions integrated into other systems might not have been developed?

Is it that hard to accept that their new tanks don't use it. Shtora works only against laser guided missiles, it is a dead system because new missiles use different homing guidances. APS isn't "specialized" against one type of missile, it doesn't care about what sort of missile is coming it just shot it down.

SHTORA is exactly what they need in Syria right now. To say it is outdated is just ignorant... outdated for T-14... who said T-14 was using SHTORA?

And what is going to do against a side rpg-7 shot ? Rpg-7 is the most common threat out there and the new warhead can go through any tank's sides/rear.

The SHTORA system is not an APS for fucks sake, it is a totally separate soft kill counter measures system. APS is different.

I never said it was the same. If you can't argue with my opinion stop creating some fake one and puting them in my mouth.

Thanks.

The new vehicles also have smoke grenades which will be linked to the 360 degree surveillance system... which is also pretty much what SHTORA did too, the only obvious difference is the lack of IR transmitters, but these tanks have lasers to guide missiles and measure range in the optics of the commander and gunners sights... could it not be possible that SHTORA is not officially replaced because it does not need to be?

That's only a "maybe". They gave details about afghanit, they wouldn't be hiding the fact that they kept shtora too.



The thing is that new missiles are more versatile and shtora was too much specialized. Like you said the kornet's laser guidance, even being a laser, is hard to detect. An APS will shot anything and if I were in the tank I would't trust the tor or tunguska in the back to shot those missiles. I would want a huge frontal protection, be seperated from munitions and an APS to destroy anything coming from the side, top and rear and.That's what the t-14 provides.

Then it shoukd be easy to bring some pictures of in servuce tanks withthis system on them as a proof instead of suposition.

Of course... the only vehicles on a battlefield are tanks and IFVs and there are no other vehicles there at all....

For every tank or IFV in any force there are dozens or hundreds of other types based on BMPs and BTRs and BRDMs etc etc How often do you see those other vehicles? Look closely at the images provided... it has handles on it.. it is designed to be vehicle mounted and would operate together with an armoured force detecting sniper scopes and optical systems.

But no, you must be right... they developed it and offered later versions for export but never used it themselves and when they deployed brand new much better technology versions based on what look like enlarged binoculars it was all just invented brand new from scratch and it entered service because it was used by people working with Chavez...

I don't really believe that 3km figure. They beged french for cameras that could see tanks 5km away in the 90s but had something that could see tank's optics 3km away in the 80s..

Please... are you taking the piss... honestly?

PAPV is a system that uses active laser beams to shine out and laser return sensors to detect a reflection from that laser from an optic pointed at or near the system... so yes... it think 3km is the effective range and that against some larger optics they could probably work further away.

It does not detect the target and identify it... it just determines the location of a reflection for the user to look at zoomed optics to determine if it is a real threat or someones eye glasses or something... at night or in bad weather in a combat zone they would likely just send a high energy laser burst to disrupt the optics no matter what they are.

Had. They don't upgraded it and don't use it anymore. Their t-90 that use it are upgraded to M version where it is removed and there is ni analogue system in t-14, t-80BVM or t-90/t-72.

Hahahahaha... of course.... because the systems it is designed to be effective against like HOT and TOW and Milan and Hellfire are no longer used anywhere...

Funny you say that because the only time a vehicle equiped with shtora being targeted by a tow was a syrian t-90 and shtora "didn't" work because the commanders "door" was open.

Shock... horror... a super high trained Syrian commander not following procedure... it was not intended to work in such situations and so there is no surprise that it didn't.

I never said they were better in terms of protection against new atgm.

Better? Their equivalent doesn't even exist... not even on paper...

Is it that hard to accept that their new tanks don't use it. Shtora works only against laser guided missiles, it is a dead system because new missiles use different homing guidances.

Why are you being so willfully ignorant... you said above that a Syrian T-90 with SHTORA was hit by a TOW... is TOW a laser guided missile?

Their new tanks don't use Drozd-1 or ARENA-1 either are they dead systems too?

APS isn't "specialized" against one type of missile, it doesn't care about what sort of missile is coming it just shot it down.

The key is A... active... Shtora was never intended to replace ERA or APS systems it was developed together in conjunction with them.

I realise you have a mental block... let me explain in terms of a fighter aircraft. There is no aircraft equivalent of ERA, but for SHTORA... it is the radar warning receivers and the IR and laser detectors on the aircraft that detect when the aircraft is under attack... it is the chaff and flare dispensors that are used to decoy threats, and it is the active radar and IR jammers that break the lock of guided incoming missiles. SHTORA combines all these things into a single unified system which means it does not require manual control... it is fully automatic as long as the hatches are closed of course.

The APS systems you keep talking about are anti missile missiles... so 9M100 and R-77 are reported to have anti missile self defence capabilities.

Obviously with new technology in aircraft they have developed small laser turrets for use as DIRCMs... ie Directed IR counter measures.... something that can be pointed at a specific threat and deliver a blinding IR signal.... WOW oh WOW.... doesn't that sound like the IR dazzlers on the SHTORA from way back?

You don't think maybe the IR dazzlers have not been upgraded to lasers in sight mounts on the turrets of standard vehicles... remember in the 1980s the T-80s that carried beam riding anti tank missiles needed a separate guidance and control box mounted on the top of the turret, but now they are integrated into the standard commander and gunner sight...

TOW and HOT and Milan and a range of other copies or knockoffs and indeed Konkurs and Fagot and other Russian systems are very widely deployed on the worlds battlefield but Russia should ignore all that because of one system called Javelin?

And what is going to do against a side rpg-7 shot ? Rpg-7 is the most common threat out there and the new warhead can go through any tank's sides/rear.

You really are taking the piss... you say SHTORA should have been effective against TOW and then bitch because it wasn't when the hatches are left open, then you say SHTORA is only effective against laser homing missiles and now you whine because it wont stop unguided rockets...

Perhaps your next statement is that it is useless because it is totally ineffective against land mines and IEDs.

New Russian tanks have rail armour and ERA, and they also have APS systems to protect them from RPG attack... not to mention tactics that make approaching a tank to launch an attack suicidal...

I never said it was the same. If you can't argue with my opinion stop creating some fake one and puting them in my mouth.

Thanks.

Please... you have been saying APS replace SHTORA multiple times in this thread alone, and from your comments it seems you have no idea what it is and what it is for.

SHTORA is an ESM soft kill system that connects smoke grenades and active jammers to protect the tank from laser and SACLOS guided ATGMs... new vehicles clearly do not have the large box shaped IR dazzlers that were used in the first model, but that only proves they are not using the old model any more... which is no great surprise as they are not using old ERA or old APS systems either.

That's only a "maybe". They gave details about afghanit, they wouldn't be hiding the fact that they kept shtora too.

Because it might not be a separate system any more and might be integrated into other systems.

The thing is that new missiles are more versatile and shtora was too much specialized.

Too specialised!!! for fucks sake... the vast majority of ATGMs used in combat right now on this planet are SACLOS or their derivatives... It is like saying APS is redundant now because most are only effective against RPGs... so why bother?

How many opposing forces use RPGs?

Like you said the kornet's laser guidance, even being a laser, is hard to detect.

Kornet is a laser beam riding, which is different. SHTORA was developed at a time when Hellfire was a serious issue and the model at the time was laser homing which was easy to detect BTW.

An APS will shot anything and if I were in the tank I would't trust the tor or tunguska in the back to shot those missiles.

The Soviets and Russians weren't interested in a single super technology to rely on to protect everything... they were happy to use advanced armours AND ERA AND SHTORA soft kill systems AND APS systems of several types AND Nakidka camouflage material AND anything else that would help.

I would want a huge frontal protection, be seperated from munitions and an APS to destroy anything coming from the side, top and rear and.That's what the t-14 provides.

T-14 almost certainly also has smoke grenades which will be automatically triggered when needed... which is half of what SHTORA was... some sort of IR interference system could be mounted on a separate vehicle... the Soviets experimented with a range of IR dazzler vehicles during the 70s and 80s... but current trends suggest to me that they either integrated it into the gunner or commanders sight, or they have gone for more power and there is another vehicle dedicated to the job with a much more powerful laser perhaps intended to destroy the seeker in the missile or the launcher...

You provide no facts Garry. You provide a picture of a system and then "maybe this... maybe that..."

Shtora is used only on t-90 which will be upgraded to M version and won't have it. T-14 has an APS that is effective against any atgm/rpg while Shtora was useful against laser guided ones.

Why do you talk about your ideas and your "maybe"s. They are not facts. I provide you facts that shtora is barely usefull against new threats, being removed of service.

PAPV is a system that uses active laser beams to shine out and laser return sensors to detect a reflection from that laser from an optic pointed at or near the system... so yes... it think 3km is the effective range and that against some larger optics they could probably work further away.

Yeah and other will see a tanks carrying this system from further away. This sucks. Maybe why it isn't deployed.

Of course... the only vehicles on a battlefield are tanks and IFVs and there are no other vehicles there at all.... Rolling Eyes

There are pictures or references of every vehicle on the web and forums. Again find one to prove it is useful and in service because I don't care if you think the system is good or not, It should be easy.

GarryB wrote:

Isos wrote:Is it that hard to accept that their new tanks don't use it. Shtora works only against laser guided missiles, it is a dead system because new missiles use different homing guidances.

Why are you being so willfully ignorant... you said above that a Syrian T-90 with SHTORA was hit by a TOW... is TOW a laser guided missile?

Their new tanks don't use Drozd-1 or ARENA-1 either are they dead systems too?

And where did I say new missiles will replace older ones in terrorist arsenals ?

Tow is still used but newer missiles replace them. Shtora can defend against a tow but certainly not against a new nonlaser guided missile. An APS can defend against both.

Arena doesn't seem dead, they exposed it on the t-72. Picture at the begining of this discussion.

The key is A... active... Shtora was never intended to replace ERA or APS systems it was developed together in conjunction with them.

Too specialised!!! for fucks sake... the vast majority of ATGMs used in combat right now on this planet are SACLOS or their derivatives... It is like saying APS is redundant now because most are only effective against RPGs... so why bother?

How many opposing forces use RPGs?

You really are taking the piss... you say SHTORA should have been effective against TOW and then bitch because it wasn't when the hatches are left open, then you say SHTORA is only effective against laser homing missiles and now you whine because it wont stop unguided rockets...

Perhaps your next statement is that it is useless because it is totally ineffective against land mines and IEDs.

I know. When developing the t-14 they had to chose and selected APS. Both are not cheap. APS is better as it can destroy any type of missile and rocket. Shtora is specialized against laser homing systems.

You are confusing "used in combat in asymetrical conflict by poor guys" and "produced". Franch stoped Milan production for MMP that doesnt use lasers. Israeli also have similar things. Javelin doesn't use laser. And probably others are in development. Even Serbia offers a similar missile as MMP.

Ho and yes RPG is a common weapon in any conflict. And it is an unguided rocket against which chaffs and shtora don't work but APS work. Another proof that shtora is limited and specialized and APS is a better option.

You don't think maybe the IR dazzlers have not been upgraded to lasers in sight mounts on the turrets of standard vehicles... remember in the 1980s the T-80s that carried beam riding anti tank missiles needed a separate guidance and control box mounted on the top of the turret, but now they are integrated into the standard commander and gunner sight...

Maybe ... don't you think maybe if the IR dazzlers have been upgraded to lasers in sight mounts on the turrets you would have have a proof ?? No ? If you have a proof or ref for that t-80 stuff you should have one for shtora being integrated inside the tank? If you have one proof, provide it I will accept it and say I am wrong.

TOW and HOT and Milan and a range of other copies or knockoffs and indeed Konkurs and Fagot and other Russian systems are very widely deployed on the worlds battlefield but Russia should ignore all that because of one system called Javelin?

That's exactly what they doing. Shtora is removed.

Please... you have been saying APS replace SHTORA multiple times in this thread alone, and from your comments it seems you have no idea what it is and what it is for.

Well I said "they should have used arena on all their tank since when they had the system". Only t-14 has an APS right now. And shtora is removed from all their tanks. There is no replacement done yet.

But contrary to what you say I didn't say it was the same.

T-14 almost certainly also has smoke grenades which will be automatically triggered when needed...

And how this "automatically" works ? That's the question. Shtora is centered around laser detection. New missiles are no more using radars but older one are usung radars. So you need a new way to see them. For the t14 it is its radars which will see anything coming close to him and it will be effective against the range of missile types and rpg.

Isos wrote:Had. They don't upgraded it and don't use it anymore. Their t-90 that use it are upgraded to M version where it is removed and there is ni analogue system in t-14, t-80BVM or t-90/t-72.

Isos that is simply not true

"Штора" has been upgraded 3 times since its inception in service (with the last program, the Штора-2М, in 2008 remaining without production because the same Institute involved in its R&D and test for the Federation's Ministery of Defense, the ОАО Вниитрансмаш, was contemporaneously developing the multispectral - adding radar interference- guidance's interference defensive system for the new generation families of armoured vehicles of class "Армата" and "Курганец" and because the program received also a legal procedure by part of MoD for the breaking of the cost limits imposed by the contract for the development of one of its elements).

Штора-1, Штора-1M and Штора-2 has been all serially produced (the first and second has been also successfully exported with a sharp growing of interest by customers happening just after the participation of a group of about 30 T-90 in the Syrian conflict) and a sizeable reserve for potential use in a conflict against an advanced oppponent created.

What changed in domestic procurement is the elemental composition of the system : in substance the frontal IR/near-IR modulators has been removed because not more efficient against the most updated competitors ATGM's guidance; this do not apply obviously to the screening aerosol formation capable to effectively divert or render ineffcient Laser-IR and optically guided ammunition with man both in and outside the loop.

About the use in conflicts data from ground, both in Syria and Ukraine (where some of the least advanced Штора iterations found theirs way in the Donbass area on some T-72 and give birth to the metropolitan legends ,among Ukraine ATGM's operators, of the presence of T-90s in that theatre and the supposed "magical shield" of those tanks that caused theirs Конкурс and Конкурс-M to divert suddenly in the ground or in the air just before hit) have provided results above test models expectations and as said this has significantly increased the interest of international partners and theirs export potential.

the first and second has been also successfully exported

Exported where ?  india and Algeria bought t-90 without the IR jammers.

What changed in domestic procurement is the elemental composition of the system : in substance the frontal IR/near-IR modulators has been removed because not more efficient against the most updated competitors ATGM's guidance; this do not apply obviously to the screening aerosol formation capable to effectively divert or render ineffcient Laser-IR and optically guided ammunition with man both in and outside the loop.

Smoke grenades will always stay on tanks. They were there before shtora. They don't effectively work on munition optically guided and certainly not against top attack ones.

Isos wrote:Exported where ?  india and Algeria bought t-90 without the IR jammers.

Algeria first ordered batch without the system , then as said, after Syrian successful employment of this defensive system on the T-90 in the ongoing conflict, ordered it for the new batch.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/algerian_t-90_tanks_receive_shtora-1_jammer_53005161.html







Same story with Vietnamese T-90S







Naturally in those instances the system has also retained the frontal IR modulator emitter component, but the most modern version, as previously said, today often lack this component because is the multispectral masking aerosol dispenser that retain a defeating capability against the most modern foreign ATGM.

Isos wrote:Smoke grenades will always stay on tanks. They were there before shtora. They don't effectively work on munition optically guided and certainly not against top attack ones.

Smoke granade dischargers used to interrupt LOS of enemy tanks, artillery and infantry is a thing.....






A completely different thing is a multispectral, very long-standing ,wide area , obscurant veil formation programed at the moment of delivery defensive system conceived to block terminal guidance systems of inbound missiles and bombs with laser, IR, near-IR and TV homing system both athonomous that with man-in-the-loop

(from 2:43 you can observe the veil formation of an upgraded Штора-1M)



The tank in the video would be missed with a very, very high probability by anything ranging from a TOW to a Javelin or also an optically guided Spike; at the impact the T-90 would be some dozen of meters away.


The following is a western attempt to create something similar for NATO armoured formations (ROSY system by German Rheinmentall)

(from 2:43 you can observe the veil formation of an upgraded Штора-1M)

I already answer to that. The smoke screen is 50m away. A top attack missile controled by a man won't be affected. It can affect a javelin missile but it needs first to detect the launch of the javelin which is guided passivly. It is still specialized against laser missiles.

Isos wrote:

(from 2:43 you can observe the veil formation of an upgraded Штора-1M)

I already answer to that. The smoke screen is 50m away. A top attack missile controled by a man won't be affected. It can affect a javelin missile but it needs first to detect the launch of the javelin which is guided passivly. It is still specialized against laser missiles.

Any OTA operated and carried by infantry has one big issue. Range limitation. Tanks seldom operate alone, in average forward units including artillery radars would be in the forward units. The idea that any OTA ATGM will make the bed of the AFV is something that proved short sighted. Infantry on foot using ATGM is as powerful as it is vulnerable. They have little spare ammo, they are mostly unprotected and their rate of employment is limited. They need far more dumps and a far bigger log chain than what Tanks can organically carry.

The US sees this each and every time it pits similar intelligence equipped troops in its NTC. The light troops can delay the advance but they get ultimately overrun.

ATGM units can be decisive in local delaying actions when the other side has not access to good intelligence. And still despite all the ATGM use in Syria the ATGM teams were silenced.

Egyptian infantry destroyed hundreds of israeli tanks during Yom Kipur war with atgm alone and modern armies have less than that, only some have still huge tank formations. A helicopter with 16 atgm can destroy theorically 16 tanks, 2 of them 32, 10 o them 160. Those number increase rapidely but not the number of helicopters. Add some losses to ground launched atgm ... then it depends of overall tactics and you air defences and so on.


Anyway that wasn't the subject. I was just saying missiles evolved and APS are needed because older systems can't protect against all the type of missiles in service. Russia has the advantage of having arena since tens years ago.

Egyptian infantry destroyed a range of vehicles during YK due to tactical and strategical miscues from the IDF and pretty deep planning. However the tide turned as soon as the Egyptians lost their mobility and their Air cover. If anything the IDF pummeled the same Egyptian infantry into submission once they lost their mobility as range was already crappy (under 1km for malyutka).

Ironically the Syrian HOT equipped gazelles in 1982 were also disruptive but they failed to turn the tide due to the simplest solution found by the IDF. Air superiority.
Once again the Hizballah used the ATGM’s in a very intelligent manner, but once again with tactical superiority the best positions were lost due to lack of mobility. The issue in modern warfare isn’t hardware but intelligence and mobility. Good intelligence in Ukraine allowed the Russians to pretty much defang Ukraine with minimal losses although the Ukrainians fired over 140 ATGM’s in 17 days in August.

On Helicopters you are wrong, they are the least effective way to try and take armor head on in a Battalion/Brigade level. You guys are mystified by US BS during the Gulf War. Meanwhile goat herders with ManPads go all Biji/Al Mawt on NATO helicopters casually. Shield & Spear etc etc

It wasn't air superiority that made israel won but arab's stupidity. They send their tanks against israeli ones which had better position and better depression of the gun. They used the terrain efficiently. Then destroyed egyptian sa-6 on the ground. Back in the day they had only unguided bombs and rocket to attack and egypt had a very good amount of mig to deny them the possibility to make ground attack above egyptian armies.

Hezbollah is a militia not a real army. They mostly fight on foot.

Helicopters will either support ground forces and use their atgm at max range or go behind the line at low altitude and take out enemy armor from behind.


Anyway that's not the subjet. I'm done with this discussion.

You provide no facts Garry. You provide a picture of a system and then "maybe this... maybe that..."

You don't even consistently talk about what SHTORA even is, but I am wrong because I don't have the facts... OK.

It is OK... I don't care if you don't understand and continue to think what you think... the world wont end... not really a big deal...

Shtora is used only on t-90 which will be upgraded to M version and won't have it.

Please list all the facts you have supporting this claim...

T-14 has an APS that is effective against any atgm/rpg while Shtora was useful against laser guided ones.

T-14 also has ERA, which is probably more accurately described as NERA.... the fact that T-14 has an APS system is irrelevant... the T-90 could be fitted with ARENA as well as SHTORA if they wanted to... fitting an APS system does not mean they can't or wont fit SHTORA or its replacement.

Why do you talk about your ideas and your "maybe"s. They are not facts. I provide you facts that shtora is barely usefull against new threats, being removed of service.

But you offer no facts. ARENA never entered service, but is being adopted on the upgrade of the T-72 but is is not ARENA they are adopting... it is ARENA 2.

The equivalent is you saying there is no radar tower on the upgraded T-72 so the upgraded T-72 is clearly not getting ARENA, but we know it is, they have just changed the way it works and the way it is designed.

Yeah and other will see a tanks carrying this system from further away. This sucks. Maybe why it isn't deployed.

What makes you think that? There are plenty of BTRs that have turrets with unusual optics mounts... there is a VDV variant of the BMD that operates as standard with VDV forces but you never see photos of it because they don't show it very much... it has no gun but a standard turret with a roof mounted radar and a side mounted optical port thing for thermal and LLTV optics. Do you think it would be impossible for them to have another vehicle with a roof mounted optical port with the PAPV system mounted in it? Most MBT gunners sights are smaller than this...

There are pictures or references of every vehicle on the web and forums. Again find one to prove it is useful and in service because I don't care if you think the system is good or not, It should be easy.

You are the one making the claim... show me a photo of every single vehicle type in a VDV division and I will point out which could have been fitted with PAPV in the 1980s... as I said the technology means that today such systems can be mounted in an enlarged set of binoculars...

The west calls it Lidar... it uses a laser beam to detect targets, but it is a primitive version that doesn't try to create an image of the environment like a radar does... it just tries to located optical lenses directed at the sensor. Why is that so hard to believe?

And where did I say new missiles will replace older ones in terrorist arsenals ? Rolling Eyes

Tow is still used but newer missiles replace them. Shtora can defend against a tow but certainly not against a new nonlaser guided missile. An APS can defend against both.

You said SHTORA is obsolete and dead, but you admit the systems it was designed to work against are still very widely deployed in enormous numbers...

Arena doesn't seem dead, they exposed it on the t-72. Picture at the begining of this discussion.

But the new vehicles fitted with it don't have the radar tower the original ARENA system had... you claim SHTORA is dead because new vehicles don't have the IR dazzlers... using the same logic ARENA is dead too.

I know. When developing the t-14 they had to chose and selected APS. Both are not cheap. APS is better as it can destroy any type of missile and rocket. Shtora is specialized against laser homing systems.

For fucks sake SHTORA IS NOT AN APS... they are different things with different uses and different goals and are not mutually exclusive... you can have both...

Even without the IR dazzler emitters having a system that detects when you are marked with a laser that automatically turns your turret to the laser source and fires smoke grenades to hide your tank is a good thing and should be part of the tanks avionics suite anyway.

You are confusing "used in combat in asymetrical conflict by poor guys" and "produced". Franch stoped Milan production for MMP that doesnt use lasers. Israeli also have similar things. Javelin doesn't use laser. And probably others are in development. Even Serbia offers a similar missile as MMP.

TOW, MIlan, HOT, and plenty of Soviet ATGMs like Konkurs and Fagot and Metis use guidance systems that use IR signals to detect where their missiles are so they can correct their flight path and move them back on target... SHTORA blinds the gionometer that keeps track of where the ATGM is.

The IR dazzlers do nothing to laser guided missiles... the smoke grenades are to deal with laser guided missiles or laser ranging systems... you don't even have a basic understanding of what the system is and what it does for goodness sake.

Ho and yes RPG is a common weapon in any conflict. And it is an unguided rocket against which chaffs and shtora don't work but APS work.

Which is why modern tanks should have both...

Another proof that shtora is limited and specialized and APS is a better option.

Shtora... when used correctly... renders all TOW and Milan and HOT and BILL and Sagger and Fagot and Konkurs and all Chinese and Iranian and Turkish variants of those missiles ineffective... which probably equate to 90 percent of the ATGM used world wide at the moment, but yeah, you are right... it is fucking useless... the T-14 wont even need smoke grenades or laser sensors... they are just pointless wastes of space and money... do you work for Boeing?

Maybe ... don't you think maybe if the IR dazzlers have been upgraded to lasers in sight mounts on the turrets you would have have a proof ?? No ?

Of course... if a turret with Shtora is turned automatically to point in the direction of an incoming threat to lase the threat to defeat it.... of course you want your enemies to know that is what happening... I can see it now... Greenpiss demonstrating against T-14 and its system for blinding people who are innocently looking at them through the optical sight on an ATGMs... it needs to be banned...

If you have a proof or ref for that t-80 stuff you should have one for shtora being integrated inside the tank? If you have one proof, provide it I will accept it and say I am wrong.

I don't care if you are wrong... not my problem.

Well I said "they should have used arena on all their tank since when they had the system". Only t-14 has an APS right now. And shtora is removed from all their tanks. There is no replacement done yet.

Why do you keep talking about APS systems? They have nothing to do with Shtora... the fact that you don't know the difference between arena and afganit and shtora... well... why don't I counter your APS reason with ERA? Why weren't Russian tanks fitted with ERA in the first conflict in Chechnia... does it not work?

And how this "automatically" works ? That's the question. Shtora is centered around laser detection. New missiles are no more using radars but older one are usung radars. So you need a new way to see them. For the t14 it is its radars which will see anything coming close to him and it will be effective against the range of missile types and rpg.

Of course... Shtora can't see anything any more, but Arena APS on upgraded T-72s and Afghanit on T-14s will see things... have you been asleep the last 30 years?

Even in personal combat equipment they are developing integrated systems, but you don't understand that a system from last century that detected lasers and set off smoke grenades to counter them is now useless... tell me... you thought it was designed to be used against TOW... what sort of laser guidance does TOW use? Do you think if it can detect a TOW missile launch optically that it could also detect a Javelin launch from much closer... because Javelin doesn't reach to 3.5km in range...

But no... ignorance is bliss is it not?

(from 2:43 you can observe the veil formation of an upgraded Штора-1M)

No surprise that SHTORA means curtain.

I already answer to that. The smoke screen is 50m away. A top attack missile controled by a man won't be affected. It can affect a javelin missile but it needs first to detect the launch of the javelin which is guided passivly. It is still specialized against laser missiles.

It is supposed to be 50m away if it set off a smoke screen 1m away from itself any missile entering the screen would likely still hit the tank... the gap and then moving the tank means the tank wont be hit. Javelin being controlled by a man doesn't fly that high that smoke screen so more than 100m high within a few seconds... Javelin doesn't climb that high and would be blocked by the smokescreen in direct or top attack mode.

Egyptian infantry destroyed hundreds of israeli tanks during Yom Kipur war with atgm alone and modern armies have less than that, only some have still huge tank formations.

They used a cheap mass produced ATGM that SHTORA would defeat. Javelin is too expensive to deploy in those numbers.

A helicopter with 16 atgm can destroy theorically 16 tanks, 2 of them 32, 10 o them 160. Those number increase rapidely but not the number of helicopters. Add some losses to ground launched atgm ... then it depends of overall tactics and you air defences and so on.

For every tank engaged by an ATGM or RPG there are 10,000 other targets they are used against in the modern battlefield.

The few landing vehicles the Argentines had in the Falklands was were taken out by LAWs, but when the British army arrived with their Milan ATGMs they used them against MG and sniper positions most of the time.

How many tanks did the US destroy in Afghanistan with Javelin?

Russia has the advantage of having arena since tens years ago.

They are only putting it in to service now. In comparison they will likely be making Shtora 3 for T-14 eventually... even if the first system is not perfect... as it evolves it creates a new capability that other systems simply lack.

Isos wrote:It wasn't air superiority that made israel won but arab's stupidity. They send their tanks against israeli ones which had better position and better depression of the gun. They used the terrain efficiently. Then destroyed egyptian sa-6 on the ground. Back in the day they had only unguided bombs and rocket to attack and egypt had a very good amount of mig to deny them the possibility to make ground attack above egyptian armies.

Hezbollah is a militia not a real army. They mostly fight on foot.

Helicopters will either support ground forces and use their atgm at max range or go behind the line at low altitude and take out enemy armor from behind.


Anyway that's not the subjet. I'm done with this discussion.

In Yom Kipur the iDF was on it s heels. Mostly because the Egyptians took the initiative and inflicted serious losses while having to focus only on one front. Their preparations were good and their planning deep. They had only one issue. Their log chain and movement pace were utterly unsifficient. They relied on AAA that had a lmited scalability. Basically they got out of their air defences range and stretched their lines too long. Text book self-defeat.

Isos wrote:I already answer to that. The smoke screen is 50m away. A top attack missile controled by a man won't be affected.

I do not understand what should be the answer (except the supposed capability of the ATGM's operator to "guess" the position of the vehicle aiming at blind in the area behind the multispectral curtain)

Isos you can easily see that the Штора system in the video is activated at minute 2:42 (when the tank just approach the curve) then aerosol barrier form in less than 3 seconds to a size more than sufficient to completely mask the position of the tank for more than 20 seconds.

You can easily understand that ,let put a Spike ATGM, even if manually guided would have a truly negligible chance -if any- to hit that T-90.

The ATGM operator at 10-12 seconds from impact (the unified battle management system after the initial transfer of the alarm to the units potentially target of the attack ,transfer the command for countermeasures employment at about within this time window for subsonic menaces) would see the soft kill system activate, at 5-6 seconds from impact it will find itself aiming literally at blind behind the exapndin curtain formed by one or two tanks.



This has been fully confirmed in the Syrian operation even with very low proficient tank crew alerted only through much more primitive radio comm-link alert.


Obviouly all this do not cancel the centrality of new generation hard-kill APS (and dynamic defenses) to defeat the perspective menaces to armoured units in the future battlefield and ,in facts, you probably have noticed that the new generation of armoured ground vehicles has been realized with hard and soft kill APS already integrated in theirs design from the beginning.

Theirs performances and key technical parameters leave far behind the foreign counterparts (mostly Israeli built) that western Armies are now attempting to integrate in theirs outdated MBTs and IFVs.

Mindstorm wrote:

Isos wrote:I already answer to that. The smoke screen is 50m away. A top attack missile controled by a man won't be affected.

I do not understand what should be the answer (except the supposed capability of the ATGM's operator to "guess" the position of the vehicle aiming at blind in the area behind the multispectral curtain)  

Isos you can easily see that the Штора system in the video is activated at minute 2:42 (when the tank just approach the curve) then aerosol barrier form in less than 3 seconds to a size more than sufficient to completely mask the position of the tank for more than 20 seconds.

You can easily understand that ,let put a Spike ATGM, even if manually guided would have a truly negligible chance -if any- to hit that T-90.

The ATGM operator at 10-12 seconds from impact (the unified battle management system after the initial transfer of the alarm to the units potentially target of the attack ,transfer the command for countermeasures employment at about within this time window for subsonic menaces) would see the soft kill system activate, at 5-6 seconds from impact it will find itself aiming literally at blind behind the exapndin curtain formed by one or two tanks.



This has been fully confirmed in the Syrian operation even with very low proficient tank crew alerted only through much more primitive radio comm-link alert.


Obviouly all this do not cancel the centrality of new generation hard-kill APS (and dynamic defenses) to defeat the perspective menaces to armoured units in the future battlefield and ,in facts, you probably have noticed that the new generation of armoured ground vehicles has been realized with hard and soft kill APS already integrated in theirs design from the beginning.

Theirs performances and key technical parameters leave far behind the foreign counterparts (mostly Israeli built) that western Armies are now attempting to integrate in theirs outdated MBTs and IFVs.

 

Apparently Arena-M was designed to defeat top attack munitions, with charges that correct the trajectory of the blast of shrapnel (post launch) with impulse correction thrusters built in to them (24:30)

The upgrade for the T-72 called T-72B3 and it get new engine with 1130 H/P. The T-90's upgrade called Proryv-3 get engine with 1,300 H/P and automatic transmission.
My question is why the T-72 didn’t get the same upgrade as the T-90?

AJ-47 wrote:The upgrade for the T-72 called T-72B3 and it get new engine with 1130 H/P.  The T-90's upgrade called Proryv-3 get engine with 1,300 H/P and automatic transmission.
My question is why the T-72 didn’t get the same upgrade as the T-90?

T-90 is heavier. A more powerful engine will burn more fuel. T72 will still be their main tank so it's better to not transform into something similar to a western tank (huge, not that well protected for its mass and burning tons of fuel every two meters).

And I'm not sure t-72 engine compartement is the same. Maybe they use the same bases for tge two engine and make some parts bugger for the t-90.