Sosna-U is a sight or FCS? I thought it was only part of FCS. Am I right?
It is a complete FCS. In that T-72 it is used as primary, whike 1A40 is kept as secondary.
Sosna-U is a sight or FCS? I thought it was only part of FCS. Am I right?
a89 wrote:
It is a complete FCS. In that T-72 it is used as primary, whike 1A40 is kept as secondary.
Thank You for this finda89 wrote:I had a look around and maybe you are right. I referred to Sosna-U as FCS because it incorporates laser rangefinder and ballistic computer. I looked in my database and I found a message of Vasiliy Fofanov discussing the issue:
Here is my take on this. Consider. Sosna-U is not just a sight. It's a full FCS, with all associated devices (ballistic computer, rangefinder, etc). T-90 doesn't need all this, it already has it all, produced by Russia enterprises. All it lacks is the night channel. T-72B on the other hand doesn't have an FCS at all, so installing an integrated solution like Sosna-U in it makes much more sense. Generally speaking Sosna-U sure looks like a more elegant and efficient solution but it cuts the Russian suppliers out of the loop which is probably a highly sensitive issue. The governments don't like to read in newspapers that they are killing the nation's defense industry Besides, I doubt Sosna-U offers any advantage over 1A45+Essa to merit contention.
This the one with catherine xp right? If true then good, they would need next gen FCS and kalina though a bit late is a step towards that.TR1 wrote:Gur Khan mentioned rumor that from 2014, MOD is buying T-72s with Kalina FCS and panoramic sight, not just Sosna-U.
I'm not sure whether i missed it, but can someone give me the details on the improvements of the T-72B3.Viktor wrote:More than 150 T-72B3 received this year (who knows how many overall are planed)
Upgraded T-72B3 tanks entered service 20th Army
Sosna-U is the biggest change.AlfaT8 wrote:I'm not sure whether i missed it, but can someone give me the details on the improvements of the T-72B3.Viktor wrote:More than 150 T-72B3 received this year (who knows how many overall are planed)
Upgraded T-72B3 tanks entered service 20th Army
It's been brought up before - but why doesn't that new T-72 mod have a remote controlled machine-gun; instead of the current shielded machine-gun set-up?George1 wrote:Modified T-72 with additional protection kit for urban survival
It can be mounted if the customer chooses it, but at times having a set of eyes is irreplaceable.flamming_python wrote:It's been brought up before - but why doesn't that new T-72 mod have a remote controlled machine-gun; instead of the current shielded machine-gun set-up?George1 wrote:Modified T-72 with additional protection kit for urban survival
I suppose it can still probably be remote-controlled from inside like in the T-90 - the shield is just there in case the commander wants to pop-up.
One of the things that make the T-72 upgrade cheaper than a T-90...
It's been brought up before - but why doesn't that new T-72 mod have a remote controlled machine-gun; instead of the current shielded machine-gun set-up?
Indeed, it is not totally about being able to use the HMG... it is about visibility and having some protection while having a good look around.It can be mounted if the customer chooses it, but at times having a set of eyes is irreplaceable.
Oh boy. The T-72M is the export version of the T-72A. The M1 is closer to the T-72A in performance. Each T-72M and M1 variant changed depending on were they were exported, many were locally produced. Iraq, Poland, DDR, etc. The T-72B has the 2A46M gun, a new engine, a bunch of other FCS goodies, and most importantly Svir GLATGM.1) What is the the difference between the T-72M/M1/A/B?
Differences like FCS (cause info on this is impossible for me to find) , Armor, internal configuration, Armaments (particularly between the A and B model) and there autoloader.
Bustle magazines are highly exposed, too much so for conventional armored warfare between the superpowers. They're also more exposed to aerial attacks. Ammo stored deep in the hull is harder to hit.2) Why is the autoloader beneath the crew compartment and are they separated and if so what separates them (pics and Diagrams would be nice, cause i couldn't find anything useful with Google or Bing)?
Kontakt, Kontakt-5, Kaktus, and Relikt. At least that's what I remember. Regarding the variant NATO acquired, it completely defeated NATO's 120mm rounds from the same era, so I'm assuming it was the good stuff. Relikt is apparently a multitude better than kontakt-5. If they had trouble defeating Kontakt-5, Relikt should be a major hurdle to overcome. IIRC, with Relikt ERA, the increase in protection was achieved by the use of many alternating layers of explosives and inert material. Kaktus ERA is a complete mystery to me and I believe the only tank which used it was Object 640.3) How many different ERA armor were developed by the Soviets and Russians till now, and what was the difference between the Soviet Kontact-5 and the one sent to the Warsaw pact (and later NATO acquired), if there was one?
Please don't forget to ad your sources
Great pics Zivo, but from what i can see, it looks like the crew is sitting directly on top of the loader, isn't there suppose to be some armor separating the two?Zivo wrote:
The steel plate is the armor.Great pics Zivo, but from what i can see, it looks like the crew is sitting directly on top of the loader, isn't there suppose to be some armor separating the two?
I wish I had better descriptions. But, the info is scarce for a reason, there's a lot of "M" variants and not a lot of english literature on them.Any more details about there FCS, info on this is scarce especially of the M models, on that note any idea what the T-72 Saddam and Assad Babil have for there FCS, i doubt the Iraqis had the ability to make a capable FCS.