T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

It is nothing to do with the engine, it is the transmission and gearing that determines speed in each gear depending on the torque capacity of the engine and the gear ratios and transmission.

BTW the Panther had a vastly more sophisticated transmission than a T-34 which was also why when they were first used they lost more to breakdowns than they did to enemy action.

Having the better transmission didn't really improve its performance and led to a lot of unnecessary loses and problems in battlefield use.

This seems to be a much better set up than the first model with that radar tower arrangement... it looks like those munitions are designed to cover a rather wide area each so there are probably only a dozen munitions fitted there with a bit of overlap.

The original ARENA launched munitions up in to the air into the path of an incoming missile with the fragments directed down in to the ground to prevent damage to friendly forces nearby with stray fragments.

I see no reason why the munitions could not be designed to launch fragments directly up as well as directly down to engage top attack weapons as well as direct fire weapons too, but against weapons using IIR seekers I would suspect some sort of laser based optics damaging system makes more sense than hard kill munitions...

And these systems are going on to Russian tanks, not Ukrainian tanks so the Ukrainian Javelins really don't matter in this regard.... I am sure a few Ukrainian soldiers will make money selling these missiles to the Ukrainian rebels and I suspect that Russian intell would be interested in a few copies... perhaps a trade deal with the Ukrainian rebels... 100 Metis M1 missiles for each Javelin... the Metis missiles will be vastly more useful to the rebels and I think the Russians might like another look at those Javelins... but I suspect they have had opportunities to look in the past...

Why would they have hard-kill systems on the T-72B3, but not T-80BVM or T-90M

Perhaps it makes more sense to have hard kill systems on the numbers tank?

Or perhaps this is the cheaper less capable option for the numbers tank and the better models might have simplified variants of the systems going on Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang.

Of course putting it in to service and mass production should iron out any bugs and make it perhaps cheaper to produce and use.

It is often during mass production that shortcuts are found to simplify production and make the product more affordable and more capable.

DIRCM could blind the camera but it is not used on tanks.

What do you think SHTORA is?

Tanks won't know they are targeted by such missiles unless they have MAWS or radar from arena sytem.

In the late 1980s they had an optical system called PAPV or something similar, that detects optics and directs a laser beam to "defeat" the optics. Used against optic guided munitions and snipers using rifle scopes.

Older missiles like tow or metis proved to be effective against syrian t-72 which also has smoke grenades ... but they ended up destroyed.

Konkurs proved effective against Abrams and Leopard IIs too, what is your point?

Current model Hinds have thermal optics systems that give them a seamless view around the helicopter of targets and threats within 2km of the aircraft... something similar for tanks has probably been developed too... in addition to IR and radar screens like Nakidka...

The missile is wire (optical fiber) connected to the launcher. There is no jamming possible. If it is launched at your tank and you have no APS you better leave it as fast as you can.

Optical jammers are widely deployed in Russia including on their naval vessels, and on armoured vehicles in the 1990s we saw Shtora... with the advent of a lot of western missiles that use optical or thermal guidance do you think they suddenly stopped?

Recall that smoke no matter how good it is can be defeated by a human guided missile since the human can use intuition to
punch through the smoke to the where the target is likely to be.

Not 100% true... with SACLOS guidance the launcher tracks the missile via an IR coded beacon on the missile tail and sends commands to the missile to correct its flight to move that emitter closer to the centre of the field of view which for the operator has a crosshair which they keep on target during the engagement.

If the missile passes through smoke and the launcher can no longer see the beacon then control of the missile is lost and normally they fly into the ground fairly quickly without constant commands to continue flying level.

With optically homing missiles like Javelin then that takes away its party piece, which is fire and forget. Assuming the operator can guess where the target is the seeker in the missile can't so flying an optically guided missile into a wall of white trying to guess where the target is wouldn't really work very well either.

At best you have turned a half a million dollar per shot ATGM into a 1970s level performance Dragon ATGM which is to say very ordinary and taking a very long time from launch to impact making the operator very vulnerable to return fire to upset the manual guidance.

Ironically for a missile like Kornet where the optical sensor is looking back at the launcher for the laser beam even if the smoke does block the signal the missile flys in level flight by itself and uses the laser beam for course corrections so if it suddenly loses the guidance beam it wont just immediately plunge in to the ground and like will be guided several metres into the smoke and because it is moving more than twice as fast as a Javelin then it has a much better chance of actually hitting something.

The easier way to deal with Javelin of course is simply directing intensely bright lasers into its optical port... like shining a spotlight in some ones eyes when they are in the dark...

The vaunted Javelin is a US dick stroking delusion. To put on the same level as the Metis is simply ignorant.

I agree with your assessment, but they are in the same category so comparisons make sense.... similar range, similar speed, huge differential in costs, both have thermal sights when deployed, on paper the Javelin is superior, but in practise the Metis is just more practical, and the new model with 3km range even more so.

The missile is wire (optical fiber) connected to the launcher. There is no jamming possible.

The fibre optic cable relays the image captured by the camera in the nose of the missile... Shtora and DIRCM type systems can blind the sensor in the missile nose, so the only image that can be used to guide the weapon comes from the camera on the launcher and if it can't see through smoke or has no line of sight then you are screwed... your very expensive super missile is no better off than a SACLOS Metis which was in service in large numbers in the mid 1980s... it was always intended as a cheap simple numbers weapon you could effectively use on anything... enemy snipers or MG nests, bunkers or small buildings or light vehicles etc etc... the sort of thing most ATGMs are used against in the real world.

Almost not used. And still not proven in combat.

AFAIK used in Chechnia.... and there are upgraded versions with different sensors and different emitters...

But germans and US had no aps back when they made their tanks, russia had and didn't use it.

Clearly made the choice to produce more vehicles instead with the available money... just like the UK decided it couldn't afford flak jackets for all its armoured vehicle soldiers in Afghanistan...

Shtora is used on t-90A. What similar system other vehicles have ?

The T-90AM also has a related system but the external equipment looks different apparently... no reason to think they don't have something new on Armata and Boomerang and Kurganets... it is apparently effective enough.

APS isn´t combat-proven either.

Drozd-1 was used in Afghanistan and was found to be 70% effective... of course Drozd-1 only covered the front of the turret and moved with the turret so rockets fired at a tank when the turret is facing elsewhere would not be covered.

Drozd-2 offered much better coverage and was developed from experience in Afghanistan, as was ARENA.

There were about half a dozen competing APS systems that were tested and developed... some became Ukrainian after the breakup of the SU, but most were either Russian, Ukrainian, or from Belarus AFAIK.

Yes it was used in Afghanistan by soviets increasing tanks survavibility

To be clear it was used on Soviet Naval Infantry tanks of the upgraded T-55 and T-62 type mostly... just like their artillery were experimenting with drones and no one else, the APS development seems to be a Naval Infantry thing to start with.

To be fair the Israeli solution to ATGMs at the time was mounting three machine guns on the roof of their tank so the gunner, the loader and the commander can pour machine gun rounds in the direction the missiles are coming from in the hope to put them off.

I would say development of APS systems in Israel was probably spawned by certain professional people arriving from Russia in the early 1990s... the ideas at the time ridiculed in western military circles... up until they had their own experience in an Afghanistan type conflict and then they started taking an interest too.

Was the same with the SVD deployment in platoon level... they scoffed at the idea... till they ended up fighting in mountains and realised their assault rifles simply don't have the reach for the job...