Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2436
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Isos on Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:35 pm

    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 ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:01 am

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

    The T-72 is not compatible with either the T-64 or T-80... you are basically saying that the F35 is an F-16 with different internals and gun and optics.

    The T-72 and T-90 are different... they have different armour and equipment and both are totally different from the T-64/80 family of vehicles.


    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.

    There are rather more ATGMs and RPGs on the modern battlefield than there are tanks let alone APFSDS rounds.

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

    Why not bolt on some butterfly wings and make it fly too...


    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?

    Why just 1,000mm... why not a million mms?

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

    You are right... why not get rid of ERA completely and just make a really fucking heavy tank like the stupid fucking westerners do...

    That way they can keep them all in their bases in Russia because they are too heavy to transport on their aircraft, ships and trains...

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

    They are exactly the same... just like the F-14 and F-15... just different structure and different engines and different electronics and weapons... and made by different designers in different factories... you know.... exactly the same.

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

    Exactly... a Tokarev Kalashnikov special...

    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:36 pm

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

    You are right... why not get rid of ERA completely and just make a really fucking heavy tank like the stupid fucking westerners do...

    That way they can keep them all in their bases in Russia because they are too heavy to transport on their aircraft, ships and trains...

    You can have all the stategic modbilty you want it does not chane the fact that you tank has no survivability Russia does not need danm light panzy tanks.

    Russia is connected directly the fuck to europe strategic mobilyity is completely irellevant if Russia were lets say in the middle of the oceon with no military threat bordering it like a certain country just so happens to be then light tanks would make sense but being surrounded by threats calls for tanks that actually have armor.

    A 55 ton tank is better than a destroyed tank is it not?

    As for "but the T-90s in Syrian service are doing very well" maybe you should consider that the Syrian army is one of the few entities in the middle east that arent fucking braindead.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Interlinked on Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:53 pm

    Can't tell if joking or not.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:08 pm

    Interlinked wrote:Can't tell if joking or not.


    not joking
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:59 am


    You can have all the stategic modbilty you want it does not chane the fact that you tank has no survivability Russia does not need danm light panzy tanks.

    For every M1 Abrams tank on the battlefield, the US military has hundreds or thousands of other vehicles with nothing like its level of protection in a conflict zone... what makes you think having invincible tanks means anything at all?

    Even a 200 ton super tank is screwed if you damage its main gun and then shoot off both tracks. A tin of paint would make it blind and the locals from the stone age could cover it in firewood and barbeque the damn thing.

    Russia is connected directly the fuck to europe strategic mobilyity is completely irellevant if Russia were lets say in the middle of the oceon with no military threat bordering it like a certain country just so happens to be then light tanks would make sense but being surrounded by threats calls for tanks that actually have armor.

    So for Russia to invade Spain they can just drive through all of eastern europe and western europe and just get there in a few days right?

    They can't even get to Syria by land and that is a fraction of the distance...

    In comparison a Kurganets div with excellent night vision equipment and optics and state of the art weapons and systems and communications systems could easily be landed... to land Armata vehicles would require an Il-476 for each vehicle and at 120 ton payload the An-124 might carry two Armata tanks... but the important thing is that it will also only carry two armata IFVs and only two armata APCs and only two of any type of armata based vehicle...

    What exactly is so special about MBTs... why do you think they need more armour than an IFV for example?

    Russian MBTs only have three people on board... and IFV has rather more... you can't operate without infantry, but you can easily operate without tanks... ATGMs can deal with enemy tanks... that has been shown pretty clearly... Russian air power could deal with enemy tanks...

    A 55 ton tank is better than a destroyed tank is it not?

    And what if the destroyed tank was 200 tons but ran over a particularly large mine... is your 55 ton tank totally invincible?

    As for "but the T-90s in Syrian service are doing very well" maybe you should consider that the Syrian army is one of the few entities in the middle east that arent fucking braindead.

    But the Russian military is so it can't use T-90s?

    What are you talking about?

    Tanks will never operate alone, they are part of a war machine where all the parts work together... think of it as a game of chess.., some games you can win without using all of your pieces, sometimes the unique capabilities of some pieces make them not replaceable. But not having all your pieces limits what you can or cannot do... playing like an idiot means even having all your pieces is no help.

    70 ton MBTs are no good if your support system cant support them... when the local infrastructure is destroyed by them passing by... roads, bridges, etc etc.

    It is no accident that the west is talking about new light MBTs in the 40 ton weight range.... smaller and lighter is often better.

    The T-90 achieves comparable protection and performance to much more expensive much larger western tanks that are almost twice its weight.

    You can ignore that all you want.

    Please when you are joking, use the emoticons... like this: Laughing

    Note excessive use of emoticons is frowned upon.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2739
    Points : 2721
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:58 am

    I am still under the idea that a T-90M upgrade for T-72's would be ideal method to normalize all parts between others and reduce all other costs. Could make it a long term tank as well while Russia can slowly produce Armata's.

    Just a thought.

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 188
    Points : 190
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  kopyo-21 on Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:46 am

    Actually they launched a project to create an unified turret, active/passive protection & FCS for both T-72 and T-90 modernization. There were some tenders and what has been chosen is the turret & FCS of T-90SM now.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:46 pm

    kopyo-21 wrote:Actually they launched a project to create an unified turret, active/passive protection & FCS for both T-72 and T-90 modernization. There were some tenders and what has been chosen is the turret & FCS of T-90SM now.

    Active and passive protection upgrade? When will this enter service.

    Any info on this passive armor upgrade?

    Also I would just like to clarify to eaveryone that I do not have a high opinion of western MBTs I infact believe thier design to be inefficient and thier firepower and versitility to be lacking.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 288
    Points : 288
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    For every M1 Abrams tank on the battlefield, the US military has hundreds or thousands of other vehicles with nothing like its level of protection in a conflict zone... what makes you think having invincible tanks means anything at all?

    Even a 200 ton super tank is screwed if you damage its main gun and then shoot off both tracks. A tin of paint would make it blind and the locals from the stone age could cover it in firewood and barbeque the damn thing.


    So for Russia to invade Spain they can just drive through all of eastern europe and western europe and just get there in a few days right?

    They can't even get to Syria by land and that is a fraction of the distance...

    In comparison a Kurganets div with excellent night vision equipment and optics and state of the art weapons and systems and communications systems could easily be landed... to land Armata vehicles would require an Il-476 for each vehicle and at 120 ton payload the An-124 might carry two Armata tanks... but the important thing is that it will also only carry two armata IFVs and only two armata APCs and only two of any type of armata based vehicle...

    What exactly is so special about MBTs... why do you think they need more armour than an IFV for example?

    Russian MBTs only have three people on board... and IFV has rather more... you can't operate without infantry, but you can easily operate without tanks... ATGMs can deal with enemy tanks... that has been shown pretty clearly... Russian air power could deal with enemy tanks...

    Tanks will never operate alone, they are part of a war machine where all the parts work together... think of it as a game of chess.., some games you can win without using all of your pieces, sometimes the unique capabilities of some pieces make them not replaceable. But not having all your pieces limits what you can or cannot do... playing like an idiot means even having all your pieces is no help.

    70 ton MBTs are no good if your support system cant support them... when the local infrastructure is destroyed by them passing by... roads, bridges, etc etc.

    It is no accident that the west is talking about new light MBTs in the 40 ton weight range.... smaller and lighter is often better.

    The T-90 achieves comparable protection and performance to much more expensive much larger western tanks that are almost twice its weight.

    You can ignore that all you want.

    Please when you are joking, use the emoticons... like this: Laughing

    Note excessive use of emoticons is frowned upon.

    The point is that everybody operates several lighter vehicles alongside of MBTs, but MBTs are almost always there.

    What is special about MBTs, is that one-on-one, nothing could reasonally hope to survive an encounter with an MBT, except another MBT.

    All the fuzz about ATGMs is plain bullshit, apart plain incompetence like Libya showed in Tchad in the 80ies, a soft-skinned vehicle armed with ATGMs engaging MBTs will have one chance alone, at the very best, to actually shot at one of them before being destroyed with all of its crew without any chance at all to survive.

    If the soviet mounted ATGMs upon anything having an engine it was not because ATGMs were wunderwaffen, it was because they knew 90% of those soft-skinned vehicles would get destroyed far before having a chance to launch a single missile.

    The same applies for IFV: it is not the 25 tons of a Kurganet and not even the almost 40 of a Puma at its highest protection level that could put it on par with any MBT in the world.

    Neither in term of firepower, nor in terms of protection.

    The main armament of an IFV, whether it is a 30 CTA, a Bofors 40L70 or the future russian 57 mm, could at best inflict some damage to a MBT, its ATGMs could, just could after several seconds flight at around 300m/s destroy an MBT, while a 120 mm or 125 mm equipped MBT will require just a second of flight time to obliterate an IFV using just a poor man HEAT round.

    There is much fuzz about "light" tanks, still nobody want them.

    It is far more a try from defense industry to find something new to push into military throat than something military really want.

    There is a strict dichotomy between rapid deployable forces, where weight is always an issue and some light, heavily armed AFV could make sense, and the core of the fighting forces, where there is no place to any compromise to the favour of sheer mobility.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1445
    Points : 1606
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:51 am

    I think every single ruble going to modernize 1985 tier armored T-72s with some computers should go towards producing the T-90M proryv 3.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:24 am

    The point is that everybody operates several lighter vehicles alongside of MBTs, but MBTs are almost always there.

    That is true, but the whole concept behind vehicle families is to unify a div on one platform so the logistics tail is shorter... all use the same track links, same wheels, same transmissions, same engines, etc etc etc compared with a current div that will need track links and parts for BMP, T-90, T-80 (MSTA) vehicles, for air defence vehicles (TOR and Tunguska) as well as different engines and transmissions for 20 or 30 different vehicle types... not to mention different wheels etc... and the fact that while some vehicles will be amphibious, others will need fording equipment or bridging material etc etc.

    What is special about MBTs, is that one-on-one, nothing could reasonally hope to survive an encounter with an MBT, except another MBT.

    Well it all depends on where you are... in a build up area or uneven ground then enemy troops can get rather close... which is not ideal for a tank that likes to reach out and touch at a distance.

    Equally on flat open terrain like a desert or in the mountains the enemy might have 8.5km range Kornet missiles and other equally dangerous weapons systems that can make MBTs... even the most heavily armed ones not so safe.

    All the fuzz about ATGMs is plain bullshit, apart plain incompetence like Libya showed in Tchad in the 80ies, a soft-skinned vehicle armed with ATGMs engaging MBTs will have one chance alone, at the very best, to actually shot at one of them before being destroyed with all of its crew without any chance at all to survive.

    And what about man portable weapons fired from inside a destroyed building that you can't see until they fire... and when they fire from over 6km range will you even notice?

    There are also UAVs that could deliver ATGMs from the air in small low observable craft...

    Equally there are situations where a tank is simply not that useful... it smashes bridges and damages roads... I realise it is more useful in western armies but in the Russian Army where BMP-3s have a 100mm direct fire gun with a decent HE round, a tank is not so critical...

    The same applies for IFV: it is not the 25 tons of a Kurganet and not even the almost 40 of a Puma at its highest protection level that could put it on par with any MBT in the world.

    Neither in term of firepower, nor in terms of protection.

    I would argue that the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 is actually rather more use than a 125mm HE round most of the time as it is vastly more compact and cheaper and not so much overkill.

    In terms of protection a new Russian IFV has protection from most rockets and missiles with its APS system so really the main threat will be APFSDS rounds but then there are so few in "enemy" hands these days and when that is not the case then air power and artillery can certainly help anyway.

    The main armament of an IFV, whether it is a 30 CTA, a Bofors 40L70 or the future russian 57 mm, could at best inflict some damage to a MBT, its ATGMs could, just could after several seconds flight at around 300m/s destroy an MBT, while a 120 mm or 125 mm equipped MBT will require just a second of flight time to obliterate an IFV using just a poor man HEAT round.

    And in the major conflicts Russia has seen itself in the last few years how often have APFSDS rounds been a serious problem... compared with say ATGMs or RPGs or IEDs?


    There is much fuzz about "light" tanks, still nobody want them.

    Yet they continue to make Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon vehicles...

    Might tell the VDV and the Russian naval infantry to get rid of Sprut...

    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 375
    Points : 390
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  runaway on Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:29 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I think every single ruble going to modernize 1985 tier armored T-72s with some computers should go towards producing the T-90M proryv 3.

    I disagree, they should keep T-72 fleet combat worthy until they have enough numbers of T-14. I dont see the point in purchasing new T-90M when you have T-72B3-B4 at a much lower cost.

    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:49 pm

    runaway wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I think every single ruble going to modernize 1985 tier armored T-72s with some computers should go towards producing the T-90M proryv 3.

    I disagree, they should keep T-72 fleet combat worthy until they have enough numbers of T-14. I dont see the point in purchasing new T-90M when you have T-72B3-B4 at a much lower cost.


    Both lack passive armor and APS so it would be best to devote all money to building T-14 Armatas tanks that offer all round superiority and will serve on well into the futre rather than modernized tanks that will be scrapped by the late 2020s.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 288
    Points : 288
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Yet they continue to make Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon vehicles...

    Might tell the VDV and the Russian naval infantry to get rid of Sprut...


    Kurganet, Boomerang and Typhoon are respectively a tracked IFV, a wheeled IFV and a MRAP-like protected vehicle.

    None of them are light tank.

    A light tank mean what the term suggests: an armored fighting vehicle designed like an MBT, just way lighter and less protected.

    In the West several land armament industries have tried, some still are trying to sell IFV-derived light tank to the Armies, still with little to no success.

    It could be well effective, IMHO, to have a wheeled light tank given the specific capabilities of wheeled armored IFVs.

    An MBT would have an hard time trying to operate on very long ranges like wheeled IFV are able to do, and on the opposite a wheeled vehicle will find many cases where its cross country capabilities won't be enough to follow MBTs.

    But to operate together tracked armored vehicles, there is little need to have a light tank: a 60 tonnes MBT has almost the range and the cross country capabi,ities of a tracked IFV, and in combined arms operations are the IFVs that form the security perimeter of MBTs formations: they will be tasked to go first scouting a village along a combat team's route, just as they will be sent over a bridge too weak to sustain MBTs to flank them on the other side of a river or canal, to grant security against nasty surprises.

    The difference between an MBT and an IFV or a light tank?

    The first could be barely engaged by vehicles armed with ATGMs and other MBTs, the latters could be engaged almost by anything they encounter on the battlefield.

    There is no point in citing weakness and vulnerabilities of MBTs against antitank teams entrenched in Grozny like ghost towns.

    No IFV would fare better, but the real point is that MBTs and IFVs should never go forward into urban combat.

    It should always and exclusively the task of foot soldiers units to go forward, suffer 99% of the casualties and dug out the enemy.

    Or you have specialized battallions and regiments for urban combat, and are ready to take all the causalties a house by house fight in urban combat requires, or you will be better just to never enter any town where strong defences are waiting for you.

    Sending armored vehicles forward would always result in Grozny like scenarios, with tolls even worser and heavier than accepting to fight on foot only.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:57 am

    I am still under the idea that a T-90M upgrade for T-72's would be ideal method to normalize all parts between others and reduce all other costs. Could make it a long term tank as well while Russia can slowly produce Armata's.

    The problem is that when upgrading even late model T-72s you don't replace the frontal armour so even if you spend 99% the price of a new T-90AM, you are not going to get 99% of the performance of a T-90AM.

    Often a new engine and new turret is good enough... 40% the cost with 70% the performance so you can do an extra few hundred for the same price.




    Kurganet, Boomerang and Typhoon are respectively a tracked IFV, a wheeled IFV and a MRAP-like protected vehicle.

    None of them are light tank.

    So you think Armata is the MBT, Kurganets is the BMP, Boomerang is the BTR and the Typhoon is the BRDM?

    Armata is a vehicle family... Kurganets is a vehicle family, Boomerang is a vehicle family, and Typhoon is a vehicle family.

    Right now it is a mess, there are BMP and BTR and MTLB and tank based vehicles in a division... all different types of vehicles with different engines and different tracks and transmissions and levels of armour and mobility.

    The purpose of the new vehicle family is a unified vehicle family for each div so all vehicles in that div are based on the same vehicle... that means armata based BMPs, MBTS, BTRS, air defence vehicles missile and gun, artillery... rocket and tube, ambulance, engineer, transport, recon, BMPT, mortar, etc etc.

    It also means Kurganets vehicles of the same types and Boomerang of the same types and Typoon of the same types.

    There will be variations... there are armatas with front mounted engines for platforms where that makes sense, like APC and IFV where rear ramps make sense, but for the MBT and other types a rear mounted engine.

    The electronics and sensor and weapons systems will be standardised... the systems and equipment for the Armata MBT will be the same for the Kurganets but optimised for the lighter vehicle. The Typhoon will be a 6 wheeled vehicle family possibly with lighter four wheeled versions... the gun platform might be a 57mm gun or a 120mm gun/mortar... or it might have a 125mm gun as used on the Sprut.

    I dont see the point in purchasing new T-90M when you have T-72B3-B4 at a much lower cost.

    Right now the T-90 and T-72 are more comparable than the T-72 or T-90 and the Armata MBT... upgrades to the T-72 are cheap enough right now to improve quality while keeping quantity.

    New night vision and communications in the old tanks and they can start to train for net centricity and the use of UAVs and other crap so it wont be too much of a shock when they get T-14s.

    Even if they put the T-72s straight into storage they would give them upgrades so they would be useful if they ever had to draw on them...

    An MBT would have an hard time trying to operate on very long ranges like wheeled IFV are able to do, and on the opposite a wheeled vehicle will find many cases where its cross country capabilities won't be enough to follow MBTs.

    Where a wheeled Boomerang light tank is operating there wont be any MBTs... the Boomerang will have a 125mm gun, while it will be operating with boomerangs with 57mm guns (BMP) and 30mm cannon or perhaps 57mm grenade launcher (BTR), and all the other vehicles it will be operating with will have Boomerang chassis...

    There is no point in citing weakness and vulnerabilities of MBTs against antitank teams entrenched in Grozny like ghost towns.

    No IFV would fare better, but the real point is that MBTs and IFVs should never go forward into urban combat.

    It should always and exclusively the task of foot soldiers units to go forward, suffer 99% of the casualties and dug out the enemy.

    The whole point of an Armata div is that all the vehicles will have tank level protection and mobility and vehicles like the BMPT will be used for dealing with enemy troops so your troops wont need to suffer the 99% of casualties... even direct fire artillery will be part of the plan... armata based TOS...

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12166
    Points : 12645
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  George1 on Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:29 am

    T-72B3 tanks with additional protection in the 2nd Guards Taman Motorized Rifle Division



    Tanks T-72B3 of the 2016 model of the 2nd Guards Taman Motorized Rifle Division (presumably the 1st Guards Tank Regiment) at the Alabino training ground (Moscow Region), February 2018.





    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3109754.html
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Interlinked on Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:07 pm

    Does anyone know how thick the dozer blade on the T-72 is? Anyone ever bothered to measure it?
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:08 pm

    Interlinked wrote:Does anyone know how thick the dozer blade on the T-72 is? Anyone ever bothered to measure it?

    I think I remember you saying that it was 20mm think.

    Although I think it would be more important to know what type of steel it is. Does anyone?

    Also des anyone know of any possible composite or NERA armor packages in development?

    OH and.....

    @ moderators could yoe merege the T-90 thread into this one because it is after all just a poor modification of the T-72.

    Also just to clarrify the T-72 is a refined T-64 with some infulences taken from some previous Ural projects namely the autoloader.

    Denying that the T-72 is like saying that the KV-1 and KV-1S are not related or how the T-55 has nothing to do with the T-54 or maybe you would claim that the IS-2 model 1944 is a new tank and not an IS-122 with an imporved gun and revised armor layout.


    Anyway I think eaveryone agrees that the T-90 is a T-72 modernization... But the T-72 is a T-64 derivative so ultimatly the T90 is just a "modern" version of the T-64.

    Another thing to note is that the only good thing about the T-90 is its firepower.





    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:20 am

    Although I think it would be more important to know what type of steel it is. Does anyone?

    What sort of steel does it need to be to push snow and dirt?

    @ moderators could yoe merege the T-90 thread into this one because it is after all just a poor modification of the T-72.

    No.

    I am thinking of moving every post you make on this forum in a talking bollocks thread though.

    But the T-72 is a T-64 derivative so ultimatly the T90 is just a "modern" version of the T-64.

    There is no radical difference between a Sherman tank an an M1 abrams tank... more powerful gun, more powerful engine, better British designed armour, a German gun...
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Interlinked on Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:29 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    Interlinked wrote:Does anyone know how thick the dozer blade on the T-72 is? Anyone ever bothered to measure it?

    I think I remember you saying that it was 20mm think.

    Although I think it would be more important to know what type of steel it is. Does anyone?

    I don't think I ever said that. Previously I always assumed that it was a half inch thick but I would like to know for sure.

    High hardness steel is usually used for dozer blades meant to shift rocks and other abrasive material. Armox 400 is one example. For a tank-mounted dozer blades, it would serve as additional armor so it's rather likely that it's a lot tougher than mild steel. Confirmation would be nice though.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:24 am

    Well no matter what hardness or thickness it would offer 100% protection from HESH rounds the British persist with... and the primary reason they kept rifled main gun barrels all these years...

    It would act as spaced armour to any impacts on the lower hull...
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Interlinked on Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:25 am

    ~snip~


    Last edited by Interlinked on Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:31 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3982
    Points : 3999
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:40 am

    the integrated self-entrenching tool is 15mm thick. The PT-91 had it upgraded at 20mm thick.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 160
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Interlinked on Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:55 am

    Thank you very much. Any complementary photos or sources that I can use?

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:30 am