T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

ALAMO wrote:That makes +/- 400 units, right?

16 battalions or so would make almost 500. World Military Balance for 2021 was claiming 570 T-72B3M end of 2020. That would represent another 2 battalions or so.

EDIT: I have read that the 2 battalions of the 21st Guards Motor Rifle brigades are also T-72B3M's.

franco wrote:

ALAMO wrote:That makes +/- 400 units, right?

16 battalions or so would make almost 500. World Military Balance for 2021 was claiming 570 T-72B3M end of 2020. That would represent another 2 battalions or so.

EDIT: I have read that the 2 battalions of the 21st Guards Motor Rifle brigades are also T-72B3M's.

can we have an update of numbers by type here?

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2p175-russia-tank-force-present-and-future-numbers

T-72B3M tanks of the 126th Coastal Defense Brigade

Loading ammunition into the T-72B3. It looks very uncomfortable. 

Loading ammunition into the T-72B3. It looks very uncomfortable.

Quite slow, and the propellent stubs are rather flammable so you handle them carefully by all accounts.

I seem to remember they are loaded into the auto loader from the commanders side so you can indicate which round goes where...

ie when loading a HE frag round you have to tell the system that a HE FRAG round is going to that carosel position so the system knows where each type of round is loaded so when the gunner selects a HE FRAG round it knows that this and all the other cells where HE FRAG rounds are loaded and can move to the nearest one to load that type of round.

They must have been really scared by the outcome of drone use against tanks in NK to quickly put those top protections.

IMO they are working on a 360° APS to counter them.

I wonder what nato tanks will look like. Probably put some more protection on the top and increase weight to 100t.

Don't be silly... the west uses drones against the bad guys... the bad guys will never use drones against HATO... until they do and they they will rush something into service... or not.

Russia has shown it has precision guided cruise missiles but HATO has done very little to develop IADS to counter them let alone developed air defence systems and long range SAMs to deal with them....

Isos wrote:Drones are more easily accessible than cruise missile.

All the ground vehicles are at risk against suicide drones.

It was already the case against rpg/atgm but drones are even cheaper.

What suicide drones ?

If you mean the really cheap and numerous ones (like the Zerbe-1K) is important to clarify that those UAVs, in the NK conflict have ,except for few instances of equipment losses (3 : two with the drone passing through the opened turret's hatch and one with fire originating from the engine ) and the obvious propaganda effect generated by the video recording of theirs hits, only caused cosmetic damages to Artsakh's tanks

Long range UAVs truly capable to destroy a MBT usually cost like a tank or even more.

Those metal grill domes are aimed mostly at top-attack ATGMs and precise guided munitions delivered by airborne platforms ,particularly laser guided ones. The position of the grill attempt to cover also area of major density of sensor suit of the tank.

Isos wrote:Suicide drones won't destroy a tank but can damage it badly, specially if they have HEAT warhead. The top is generally few cm armoured so even a small HEAT will go through.

But tanks are a small portion of armoured vehicles. Other lighter and not armoued ones will be easy prays for those small drones.

Suicide drones can also confidently destroy an MBT if it hit, at example an Harop UAV can surely destroy also a modern MBT if it would achieve a plain hit.

The problem is that class of UAVs cost on average 10-11 ml dollars at piece ......a T-72 like those operated by Artsakh forces is around 450-500 thousands dollars !!

Light suicide drones ,that are the unique really "cheap", have not the necessary warhead's volume and stand-off for an efficient HEAT and show truly minuscule amount of explosive that, except in very specific and very rare instances, is incapable to inflict noticeable damages on heavily armoured vehicles (the typical sign of an UAV's hit on an Artsakh's tank was usually a specific dent on the perimeter of turret's armor).

What instead those drones surely achieve is to impress the common viewer, that observing the video recording of the explosion of those UAVs after an hit on an armoured vehicle (susally in night vision mode), deduce a completely twisted idea of the outcome of those hits.

Emplpyment of those suicide UAVs against infantry squads in the open or against not-armoured transport trucks for artillery/infantry ammunitions is another history.

That´s why I prefer the concept of the Karnivora drone, which is like an RBK with wings and an engine, that can drop all kinds of submuitions on targets, over the common suicide drone. Cheaper and can be adapted to different targets.

Which would be why most modern armoured forces will be operating with EW units who can detect drone signals and tv or video feeds and not just jam them but locate both the drone and the operator for attention...

Isos wrote:Harop is a dual drone for recco or suicide attacks. That's it is expensive.

Russian kalashnikov's KUB for exemple will be far cheaper than a harop or a t-72. Its 3kg warhead if used for a HEAT charge is more than enough to go through the roof of any tank. And like we saw in NK the drone controller can choose wisely where to hit because it is very precise. Azeri used to hit t-72 hatches. So you can target the munition compartement easily.

And 3kg is fatal to any non armoured vehicle.

Any idea of the reason the makers of those light UAV have not integrated an HEAT warhead in theirs products ?......

Well this is the section design of an FGM-148 "Javelin" missile the staple sample of top-attack ATGMs

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/javelin.htm

The system has a range of a bit more than 2 km and require around 20 seconds only for its seeker to acquire the intended target in ideal conditions, the mass of its tandem warhead is 8,4 Kg and its penetration potential is, since several years, considered by the same US expert incapable to penetrate turrets of relatively modern Russian-built MBTs equiped with ,by now, largely surpassed ERA tiles, to the point that an urgent improvement was ordered (and never materialized).

Lockheed Martin engineers (but also ours...) must be truly incompetent not realizing that was possible to add to the design dozen of km of range , capability to maneuver, redirect or annull the attack, add several sensors for reconnaissance, reduce of 4 times the volume of the warhead and 3 times the mass eliminate completely the launcher cost and weight and easily destroy enemy MBTs and IFV......

Let a military force fully equipped with light suicide drones confront the assault of a mechanized/armoured force equiped with equipment costing 1/3 of that of the UAV side and afetr some hours you will find only the burning fragments of the corpses of those enthusiasts UAV's operators.

War respect only cold reality, not trendy ideas .

Isos wrote:Javelin has nothing tp do with drone.

And no one will send soldiers with drones against tanks. They will be there as a support force. There will be friendly tanks and atgm teams.

Those drones have 70km range and will attack girst and kill or mobility kill as many enemy vehicles as possible before they face your friendly tanks.

Did you not read?

Mindstorm informed you that your idea about a 3kg HEAT warhead on Kub is absurd given that Javelin has near 3 times heavier warhead and is not considered effective any longer against tanks

Isos wrote:

Yes I did and I said with drones you can target the part of the tank you want to hit contrary to javelin which hit randomly the tank. Russian tanks have that revolver loader right at the center so from the top you can just target the entrance hatches which can be penetrated easily and touch it.

Or you can target the top of the engine which isn't protected at all.

3kg is more than enough. PG-7 rockets are less than 3kg abd can pentrate some 300-500mm which is enough to go through any tank from the top if you don't hit the ERA.

ZERO in-service Russian tanks have revolver loaders, and your thinking about just magically targeting specific hatches and flying into the ammo storage at the bottom of the tank is some Death Star trench run shit dude. Hatches can't be significantly armored nowadays apparently as well, and it would also not work on Armata whatsoever.

Just bury this fantasy you have of tiny drones with 3kg HEAT warheads going around ammo detonating tanks dude, it's not a thing.

Engine decks also have significant armor as well, I doubt 3kg HEAT warheads would significantly impact them at all, nvm the diameter of this warhead and the UAV design.

Mindstorm put it very simply to you, and you should sit down and think about why there are no such kamikaze UAVs around with HEAT warheads that would just magically delete tanks for you.

The Russians have binoculars that have built in lasers to detect enemy optics of snipers and ATGM teams from several kms range and to direct a laser at the said target to damage them so they can't be used.

Do you think Russian Armour does not have something similar fitted with all those optical sensors and equipment?



This was being used in the 1980s or earlier AFAIK... the set that they used to prevent Chavez being sniped was based on a set of hand held binoculars.... I would think it would be easy to incorporate such laser dazzlers in a tank and an aircraft... they call them DIRCMs.

Isos wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

Isos wrote:Javelin has nothing tp do with drone.

And no one will send soldiers with drones against tanks. They will be there as a support force. There will be friendly tanks and atgm teams.

Those drones have 70km range and will attack girst and kill or mobility kill as many enemy vehicles as possible before they face your friendly tanks.

Did you not read?

Mindstorm informed you that your idea about a 3kg HEAT warhead on Kub is absurd given that Javelin has near 3 times heavier warhead and is not considered effective any longer against tanks

Yes I did and I said with drones you can target the part of the tank you want to hit contrary to javelin which hit randomly the tank. Russian tanks have that revolver loader right at the center so from the top you can just target the entrance hatches which can be penetrated easily and touch it.

Or you can target the top of the engine which isn't protected at all.

3kg is more than enough. PG-7 rockets are less than 3kg abd can pentrate some 300-500mm which is enough to go through any tank from the top if you don't hit the ERA.

Isos the problem is that you believe that is possible to mount an HEAT warhead, and even more a 3kg one, on this class of lightweight UAVs, while i instead are attempting to explain that this idea in your head is terribly difficult to realize in reality (mostly at cause of lack of standoff space ).

The result would be that in the same space of the common 3 kg warhead (with 800 gr to 1,2 kg of explosive) you would obtain a minuscle HEAT warhead with anti-armor penetration potential likely worse that the HE/frag mounted now.

The most advanced western attempt in this direction is the Switchblade 600 that employ a purposely adapted multipurpose warhead from FGM-148 Javelin that, by makers claims, is now capable to engage also light armoured vehicles.

https://www.avinc.com/tms/switchblade-600



That model increased the mass of the UAV (effectively now a guided missile) to 15 kg and the entire launcher system to 54,4 kg and obviously cost (it cost more than the БТР-70 destroyed in the presentation video).