T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

There's really no pleasing you, is there? Of course eliminating weak points is a good thing, and this was achieved using a completely new armour layout in the Leopard 2 and Abrams, as well as in many experimental Soviet tanks. Is it necessary? Definitely not, especially since extra armour on the lower glacis would protrude beyond the track idlers. This is bad, bad, bad. Ever wonder why the front hull armour of the Abrams never got thicker even when the Abrams had the thickness of its turret increased drastically from the M1 to the M1A1 model?

T-72B uses completely different armour from the T-72 Ural and A model. There is no 30mm appliqué armour on the upper glacis, and the T-72B3 modernization does not touch the internal composition of the modernized tanks.

Eaverything has issues but some have more than otheres and some are more problimatic than others. However as may flaws as possible should be eliminated.

I do not think western design is superior I just think Russian tanks other than Armata need more armor this is not the 1970s tanks need upgrades has the concept of armor packages eluded you?

T-62M has additional armor why shouldn't the upgraded T-72B get some too ERA is nice but passive armor is better and you can have both at the same time.

Also where is the APS they developed the first hardkill APS in the 1980s and an APS is a cheap upgrade so why the hesitation?

And in this case, it is not possible to eliminate this particular weak point. Case closed.

The T-72 definitely needs more armour, but not in the way you think. It needs better reactive armour, but the Russian MoD didn't think it was necessary to use Relikt for the T-72B3. Do you think that they will put so much effort into eliminating a small weak point that is statistically insignificant compared to the 10 other major weakpoints of the tank like the turret ring, hull sides, cupola protrusions, and more? Heck, the entire tank is a weak point to DM53 or M829A3. There are much more serious problems than the lower glacis, and even if they were solved, it still won't be feasible to upgrade the lower glacis to the same level of protection as the upper glacis.

The T-62M didn't add armour to the lower glacis either, and APS is rather expensive. It would be very, very expensive to give Afghanit to 1000+ T-72B3.

Can the T-72B3 load the Vaccum 1 depleted urainium round? If so it can go througn the strongest armor of any nato tank at 2 km.

Does anyone know how many BMO-T are in service? And people's view on it? Could have been useful in damascus.

Nice read and nice pictre of the first bmpt.

[quote="https://www.facebook.com/tankchaser/?hc_ref=ARTkryOVL4bnco3Y25vILo8stJgKJT3ScY0UzLX_5d8XNgyMW77JIks2ofV8XN7WDNQ]
Object 787

The idea of creating a heavily armored dedicated anti-infantry vehicle was not exclusive to the Soviet Union but it was the Soviet industry that started working on it intensively as early as in mid-80’s.
Nevertheless, between 1985 and 1986, Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant started working on a program to develop a vehicle they called “mountain tank”, producing between 1987 and 1996 three distinct projects they thought suitable for the tanks support role –Object 781, Object 782 and Object 787 (sometimes referred to as Object 745 by certain Russian sources).
Even though the Object 781 research was cancelled, the war in Chechnya and the disastrous results of the tanks used in city environments re-started the development of the fire support vehicle in Russia. Once again, Chelyabinsk stepped up, developing a completely new vehicle between 1995 and 1996 called Object 787 (some sources refer to it as Object 754). One prototype was built in 1996. It was basically a T-72AV hull and turret (with the Kontakt-1 reactive armor as the tank designation suggests) but instead of the usual 125mm cannon, the vehicle was equipped with a pair of high-elevation 30mm guns, mounted on the sides of the turret (along with a pair of 12,7mm machineguns). The 30mm guns were paired with sets of unguided rockets (originally developed for helicopters) for added firepower. The vehicle was internally called “Gadyuka” (viper) by the designers.
The trials have shown excellent results of this vehicle (the trials were performed at Kubinka from 5.4. to 10.4.1997), but it too was to be cancelled – for the strangest of reasons. Initially, many high-positioned Russian officers were supporting the vehicle (including the chief of GABTU Colonel-General S.A.Maev, former Marshal of the Soviet Union, V.L.Kulikov and the main Ministry of Defense military advisor, Army General M.M.Zaytsev). The military started advertising the vehicle in television and radio, trying to gain as much support for the new vehicle class as possible. This did not sit well with the overseeing institutions, which accused the participants (including the vehicle designers themselves) of “publishing Russia’s military secrets”. An investigation was held and the entire process resulted in numerous personal changes in the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant company as well as in the cancellation of the Object 787 development (as the accused designers were forbidden from pursuing the project further). The only prototype was transferred to Kubinka.
The Object 787 farce did slow the development of this class of vehicle considerably, but it did not stop it. Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant was out of the picture now and stopped developing this type of vehicle altogether, focusing only on tractor building. The idea however did not die and was intensively discussed between I.N.Rodionov (the Russian minister of defense between 1996 and 1997) and other members of the military. In the meanwhile, designers from Uralvagonzavod from Nizhny Tagil started working on a prototype of their own, introducing the first Object 199 “Ramka” prototype to public in 2000.
[/quote]

Then we will just have to agree to disagree, and get back to the T-72. To kick it off: Does anyone know why the "Podboi" and "Nadboi" anti-radiation liner was removed in the T-72B3? It served a dual purpose, being a rather effective spall liner, but it wasn't replaced with an aramid fiber spall liner even though it got removed. To be clear, I'm referring to this stuff

The rearmament of the 21st Brigade on the T-72B3

According to the press service of the Central Military District of December 30, 2017, the Second Guards Combined Arms Army was reinforced by 16 deeply modernized T-72B3 tanks. They acted as part of the rearmament of the motorized rifle brigade stationed in the Orenburg region.

https://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/2154843.html

I have mentioned this on another thread but current bmpt could have an additional variant a heavy recce vehicle unit which would have additional dual manpad mounted the vehicle could also be used to find high pay off targets and snipe them with anti tank missiles. It's like the Belarusian 2T stalker concept

We have seen a mini missile with a new generation presumably fire and forget anti armour missile mounted on some new vehicles in addition to larger heavier missiles for the same purpose... such small shorter ranged missiles would be rather useful for a BMPT type vehicle in my opinion... the existing design lacks precision targeting capability at medium to longer ranges in that it only carried about 4 ready to fire ATAKA missiles.

Having pods of a dozen or more small missiles for use against shorter ranged targets would be most useful... of course I think the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 gives the best of both worlds... decent HE fire power out to 7km and the ability to tube fire ATGMs for anti armour use.

But having pods of guided mini anti armour missiles would also be useful.

GarryB wrote:We have seen a mini missile with a new generation presumably fire and forget anti armour missile mounted on some new vehicles in addition to larger heavier missiles for the same purpose... such small shorter ranged missiles would be rather useful for a BMPT type vehicle in my opinion... the existing design lacks precision targeting capability at medium to longer ranges in that it only carried about 4 ready to fire ATAKA missiles.

Having pods of a dozen or more small missiles for use against shorter ranged targets would be most useful... of course I think the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 gives the best of both worlds... decent HE fire power out to 7km and the ability to tube fire ATGMs for anti armour use.

But having pods of guided mini anti armour missiles would also be useful.

I agree with you on the bmpt issue. And your comments on bmp-3. My thoughts that it would be useful to have a series of recce/sniper vehicles based on the various platforms which would work as an almost special independent
Unit whose job would be to not only gather Intel snipe high pay off targets but call in and direct systems like 2S7 pion. The vehicle would be equipped with a multitude of weapons Inc verba not just for self defense but also if the opportunity arises of taking out an aircraft of course especially if the vehicle managed to penetrate behind enemy lines and got with range of an airfield. Imagine a Bmd or tigr armed with strelets and AT-15 air dropped at night got within range of an airfield fired off a multitude of missiles drove off to a evacuation point troops dump vehicle then pick up by heli.

We seem to be getting to the point where robotic vehicles with a 30mm cannon and various missile options seem to be becoming useful systems to explore and locate enemy assets and engage many of them.

The large ATGMs like ATAKA and Kornet and Krisantema and Vikhr are dual purpose anti armour and anti aircraft missiles in their own right, and combined with reduced sized missiles of this new Bulat design, plus potentially a rocket pod with standard 80mm unguided rockets with ugroza guidance packages the options expand for the types of targets that could be engaged effectively... 30mm with airburst claymore type rounds for UAVs or standard HE rounds for enemy helos, and 80mm rockets for light ground and air targets while Bulat takes on short range medium and light armoured threats from IFVs to bunkers, and the heavy missiles against longer ranged heavier threats... you could probably add a vehicle with MANPADS into the mix but I really don't think with that sort of dual purpose fire power that each vehicle would need MANPADS... especially in Russian forces... except fighting NATO they wont need too much air protection... besides remote air protection could be offered by the Russian AF and Russian Army helos and drones.

If it was a serious enemy and a well protected airfield then a VDV attack with BMD-4s would allow the rapid capture of the airfield so heavier forces could be landed to secure the airfield and take control behind enemy lines. (ie away from the front lines)

The-thing-next-door wrote:Can the T-72B3 load the Vaccum 1 depleted urainium round? If so it can go througn the strongest armor of any nato tank at 2 km.

Why has no-one answered this yet?

Can the T-72-B3 fire the Vaccum-1 round?

The-thing-next-door wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:Can the T-72B3 load the Vaccum 1 depleted urainium round? If so it can go througn the strongest armor of any nato tank at 2 km.

Why has no-one answered this yet?

Can the T-72-B3 fire the Vaccum-1 round?

no only T-80's (only the UM model and past that anything before the UM cannot) T-90's and T-14's can use the Vaccum 1's and 2's.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:Can the T-72B3 load the Vaccum 1 depleted urainium round? If so it can go througn the strongest armor of any nato tank at 2 km.

Why has no-one answered this yet?

Can the T-72-B3 fire the Vaccum-1 round?

no only T-80's (only the UM model and past that anything before the UM cannot) T-90's and T-14's can use the Vaccum 1's and 2's.

Don't the T-90 and the T-72-B3 have the same gun and autoloader?

Does anyone know how common the Vaccum-1 is in the Russian inventory? I heard they were stockpiling them since the late 90s.

I wonder if the Vaccum 1 can penetrate 900-1000 mm of armor when fired from the 2a46m5 how well will it do from the 2a82-1m?

Also is there any plan to create a new APFSDS for the Armata?

I would very much appreciate it if all these questions were answered I am saying this because most of the times someone here asks multiple questions only one is answered

The-thing-next-door wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:Can the T-72B3 load the Vaccum 1 depleted urainium round? If so it can go througn the strongest armor of any nato tank at 2 km.

Why has no-one answered this yet?

Can the T-72-B3 fire the Vaccum-1 round?

no only T-80's (only the UM model and past that anything before the UM cannot) T-90's and T-14's can use the Vaccum 1's and 2's.

Don't the T-90 and the T-72-B3 have the same gun and autoloader?

Does anyone know how common the Vaccum-1 is in the Russian inventory? I heard they were stockpiling them since the late 90s.

I wonder if the Vaccum 1 can penetrate 900-1000 mm of armor when fired from the 2a46m5 how well will it do from the 2a82-1m?

Also is there any plan to create a new APFSDS for the Armata?

I would very much appreciate it if all these questions were answered I am saying this because most of the times someone here asks multiple questions only one is answered

The same gun in name different internals really, T-90 was supposed to be able to use the ammo, never seen them actually use it but tjhat's what report stated it's possible they couldn't get it to work on the T-90 but T-80UM and beyond and the T-14's have fired them.

the Vaccum one entered service in 2005....so unless Russia invented time machine they have not been stockpiling those rounds since the 90's when they were going through economic hell in the 90's and the military was hit the hardest.

Some displays in the T-72B3M.

When will the Russian army have upgraded all of its T-72Bs into the T-72B3?

Surely the Russian army does nor have an infinte amount of T-72Bs and since the Russian army has no armor or gun upgrade plans for the vehicle they will move on to building the new T-14 Armata tanks.

Also does anyone know if the Russian army will develop actual armor packages rather than just more damn ERA. The T-90 could actually be a usefull vehicle if they were to just bolt some armor onto the damn thing.

ERA is utterly useless if you do not have any armor behind it.

Apperently this is called the T72B4.

The T-72B3M has got an improved fire control system over the previous T-72B3. It is fitted with new panoramic sight with thermal vision, which gives it a hunter-killer engagement capability. Tank commander uses a panoramic sight with thermal vision to search for targets. Once the target is selected the gun is laid on the target automatically and the gunner completes al the aiming and firing process. During that time commander looks for the next target. Such engagement method is present on all modern MBTs. The fire control system comes with a ballistic computer. Gunner uses Sosna-U sight with thermal imager. The T-72B3M has got day/night and all weather combat capability. The tank is also fitted with a digital radio system. So in terms of fire control system and electronics, the T-72B3M outperforms the T-90 tank, used by the Russian Army.

This MBT is operated by a crew of three, including commander, gunner and driver.

This tank is powered by the V-92S2F diesel, developing 1 130 hp. This engine was also fitted on some refurbished and upgraded T-72B3 tanks. It replaced the original 840 hp engine. As a result the T-72B3M is faster than its predecessor. This tank also comes with new tracks. With preparation this MBT can ford water obstacles up to 5 m deep. This deep wading feature is present on all Soviet/Russian MBTs. The T-72B3M also has a built-in blade for self-entrenching. The tank can prepare itself defensive entrenchment within 12-40 minutes, depending on the ground type.

Regarding the "Also does anyone know if the Russian army will develop actual armor packages rather than just more damn ERA. The T-90 could actually be a usefull vehicle if they were to just bolt some armor onto the damn thing."

As we know the T90A can take a TOW2 hit on the front, i would say its a rather useful vehicle already.... but this tread is about the T72. It surprise me how much this tank can be modernized.

runaway wrote:

Regarding the "Also does anyone know if the Russian army will develop actual armor packages rather than just more damn ERA. The T-90 could actually be a usefull vehicle if they were to just bolt some armor onto the damn thing."

As we know the T90A can take a TOW2 hit on the front, i would say its a rather useful vehicle already.... but this tread is about the T72. It surprise me how much this tank can be modernized.


 

The T-90 is just a renamed and modified T-72 wich itself is just an improved varient of the T-64 oh and how could I forget the T-90 is also one of the greates faliures in all of Russian tank desighn history for the country that ushered in countless innovations in tank building technology and has by far the best tank desighers on the planet to build half baked upgrades of a tank from the late 1960s is a dissgrace the incompetence of the leadership of the 80s and 90s was rediculous the Russian army resereve should be made up entirely of Object 195s.

I don't care how much you chane the name its still just a T-64 with difforent internalls, gun and optics.

As for being able to survive ATGMs well what can I say that will centainly be useful in an actual tank battle where teh main threat is APFSDS.

Would it really be that hard to just bolt on a fe extra tons of composite armor to the UFP and turret?

What is its armor now 600mm RHAE? (Russian standards) Would it really be a dissaster to increase the weight to 50 tons in order to give the tank 800-1000mm RHAE forntal armor?

Ther is a ton of space on the UFP so installing another 200-400mm RHAE of composite armor should not cause to many problems and it would elevate the protection level of the tank above any nato vehicle.

As for teh turret a storage compartment for spare parts an ammunition could be added to compensate for the increase in weigh on the turret front.

Lets not forget ERA only reduces penetartion of incoming APFSDS rounds and only once.

Quote
"The T-90 is just a renamed and modified T-72 wich itself is just an improved varient of the T-64.
I don't care how much you chane the name its still just a T-64 with difforent internalls, gun and optics."

I don't think the T-72 is a variant of the T-64.

wilhelm wrote:
Quote
"The T-90 is just a renamed and modified T-72 wich itself is just an improved varient of the T-64.
I don't care how much you chane the name its still just a T-64 with difforent internalls, gun and optics."

I don't think the T-72 is a variant of the T-64.

The T-72 is an improved and siplified version of the T-64 with the primary difforences being the frontal armor, engine and autoloader.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Quote
"The T-90 is just a renamed and modified T-72 wich itself is just an improved varient of the T-64.
I don't care how much you chane the name its still just a T-64 with difforent internalls, gun and optics."

I don't think the T-72 is a variant of the T-64.

The T-72 is an improved and siplified version of the T-64 with the primary difforences being the frontal armor, engine and autoloader.

What? It's like saying that AKM was improved and simplified version of SVT40...

The same gun in name different internals really, T-90 was supposed to be able to use the ammo, never seen them actually use it but tjhat's what report stated it's possible they couldn't get it to work on the T-90 but T-80UM and beyond and the T-14's have fired them.

the Vaccum one entered service in 2005....so unless Russia invented time machine they have not been stockpiling those rounds since the 90's when they were going through ...

Which rounds are mostly used by russian tanks ? Vaccum looks amazing but Svinets 1 and 2 are not bad too and they probably have more of them.

Do they had lot of them to use them or are they kept for first shot against nato MBT? Are they capable against nato tanks ?

What about t-72 rounds ? They have less capable gun but do they have new ammunition to be dangerous against nato tanks ?