VladimirSahin wrote: KiloGolf wrote:
VladimirSahin wrote:T-72B3s are already mediocre, why spend money on the T-80s when we could have allocated that money to atleast upgrade B3s to B3Ms... The only tank worth upgrading in the T-80 series is the T-80U, and even with that I'm sure these upgrades will be just as mediocre as the T-72B3...
There's mediocrity and mediocrity.
Upgrading and keeping the T-80U in active service or upgrading some T-72B is way better than having the largest country in the world with less than 2,000 operational MBTs.
This is true
B3's aren't mediocre at all. At this point there are very few tanks that "aren't mediocre". There has been such a change in tactics from the crazy company that I don't see why any world power is going to think their AFV's are safe. The whole SVBIED logic is going to cough up Goliath-style suicide drones on wheels. Specially when you see how successful that crap is on a worn down opponent. So what is needed is firepower even without the full spectrum defense. Which can be retro-fitted on tanks like the T80./quote]
Well you know T-72B3s compared to western heavy tanks are pretty mediocre in a few categories. The US operates thousands of M1A2s and M1A1s that have thermal systems for the command and gunner, and even the loader! Optics wise those tanks are lacking... For God's sake a 2012 upgrade with a 80s commander sight? No just no.
That's my main issue with this upgrade. It isn't mediocre in the sense of being a tank, as the gunner operates a goodish thermal sight, has a good FCS, protection is goodish.
My problem with upgrading the T-80s are that these tanks need to have their autoloaders upgraded so they can shoot the newer rounds, they need to have thermals installed onto them, they need to do a whole lot of stuff. For the T-80U this is totally worth it IMO, the armor on them are already pretty good, and if we could get relikt in service with those they'd be quite capable, but again alot of this stuff we could have got with the T-72B3M upgrade, where the commander also gets a thermal optic.
In what categories do the T-72B3's fall short (there are 2 of them actually, but none are exactly slam-dunks).
B3 has a new stabilizator and new TIS. While Rostec claims 5km detection for Sosna-U, 3000/3500m would be more than enough for Europe.
The loader has TIS on Abrams? Since when? The only TIS available to the loader is whenever the TUSK is on and the loader is needed to man the roof machine gun. He has a slaved dispaly with the main TIS, but not his own. Actually the Sosna-U makes sure the T-72's are relevant. 80's sight? Even the darn grand-mother of the Sosna, the Catherine-ER/X was introduced specially for non-Stanag tanks in order to win modernization contracts vs the TURMS upgrade. And Both TURMS and Catherine were both rated at 4km daysight/2500m night sight.
While the TC can have its own sight, the T-72/80 cannot be butchered further for a single reason, it wold cost as much as to recast new turrets all together. So the obvious solution was an overriding solution, in which the TC would take over from the gunner.
Plus there's always the surgical option like the T-72B4's we've seen for the Tank Biathlon.
Also as I have explained on the T-90 thread, T-80 autoloader is actually the easier to upgrade by simply taking out the mono-arm and reducing the shot count. The problem though is that by doing so the rammer needs to become a solid one instead of the actual chain rammer.
The main problem is the depression angle and lack of proximity awareness. In which pretty much most Western tanks score even worse (Leopard is a grave offender once buttoned up).