T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

With thermal sight he has much batter awareness and in exercises he find much faster threats and targets then it was with old M-84 with no thermal sight. Those fractions of a second sometimes mean life or death.

Unfortunately they carry extra ammo on their combat missions...this is biggest problem and that is why T-90M is batter with this new turret....

Yes it is....Because you can put ERA blocks much batter on welded turret then on cast one, and therefore you have better coverage of it...which gives us better tenacity in battle...

Any APS is much cheaper then made new tank any type....so I was convinced they will go on that pat, because any of their tank frontal have enough armor against any APFSDS Ukrainias have it...this isnt problem at all.

It is logical that this increase will go towards the acquisition of new equipment that was lost, and that is a significant amount of everything. Also to made new missiles, artilery rounds and ect...

People here justify that the arena isnt needed because its too expensive, also say mass production reduces cost. if arena M was installed on 40% of T-72s and T-80s, it would cost 7 times less than 300K, 500K or whatever number is thrown around here.

I would say that it would be best in Russia's capabilities and needs is to upgrade the T-72's they have upgraded already and future ones to be pretty much on par with the T-90M. Bring the T-72 to a final standard to match as best as it can to T-90M so giving Russia the best possible of the platform and hold it till the Armata is finished and able to roll off the production line and in sufficient numbers.

I'm of the opposite mind. I think further investment in legacy platforms beyond servicing the needs of the current conflict is just unneeded extravagance at this point.

This is exactly the reason why T-90A/M provide better armor protection even without ERA. It is easier to place an ERA on that dome.

It is even better, as the mysterious "2300" number was about all of the Armata programs, which means T-14, T-15 and T-16 altogether.

Why cant the T-72B3 get top firing smoke grenade launchers from the armata, to spoof its thermal signature?

While we all talk about APS and the advantages it brings, theres an even simpler, tried and proven solution: MORE SMOKE GRENADES

You can't hit a tank you can't see, so smoke grenades nearly always save a tank thats being targeted by an ATGM or RPG.

Ive always wondered why russian tanks don't have a MAWS like on the Ka-52 and Mi-28.

ATGMs like the stugna have their rocket motor working for the duration of their flight time. Also stugna rocket motors are annular, firing from the side. The javelin motor fires from the back, but both ATGMs have no thermal reduction measures installed. A MAWS detecting UV or IR emissions can easily detect them 1-2km out.

The T-90A already has LWRs that automatically launch smoke grenades when the tank is lased. Why cant russian tanks also have MAWS that also launches smoke grenades automatically, just like how russian helos launch flares automatically when a missile approaches them?

Cant Russian tank commander periscopes be jury rigged with cheap civilian FLIR scopes? Their range doesnt have to be very long, only enough for the TC to detect infantry trying to ambush in ruins or bushes, and in this war, infantry ambushes at around 100-600m out.

All NATO tanks have integral LWRs with automatic smoke dispensers, as well as CITVs. The T-90A costs 2million and has almost all of this. T-90M costs 3million. Idk how much the MAWS on the Ka-52 costs but it shpouldnt be that expensive. Tank MAWS dont need to have very long range. The vitebsk UV MAWShas 8-9km range, a tank MAWS needs 2km at most.