T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

limb wrote:
I mean every single other MBT tank in service other than the T-72 and T-64 has a better reverse speed than it(including the T-80 and T-14) because shooting and scooting matters.  4km/h  is pathetic. It's not 1965  anymore where Soviet  tanks are expected to suicidally charge and never reverse.

The T-55 and T-62 have better reverse speed. Let that sink in.

Russians see the tank as the modern cavalry. As such most tactics boil down to charging forwards, preferably at the rear or flanks of the enemy, and with speed and aggression to inflict decisive shock on the enemy and break through his line, like the cavalry of yore. Russians don't really do static defenses much, since even in a defensive posture they prefer to husband the majority of the tanks as a mobile reserve for counter attacks and the fact that a static target is an easy target for airpower and artillery.

In any case, the minority of tanks that do get allocated to hold static positions can make use of the integral dozer blade (standard for every Russian tank, a rarity in NATO ones) to dig several firing positions. They can then quickly cycle through said positions in a sort of caracole in defilade, appearing in a keyhole randomly and firing every now and then. This is vastly superior to the motionless hull down since a constantly moving target is exponentially harder to hit with artillery or air strikes, which the Russians do plan on using vigorously to punish their opponents that rely on such mundane tactics.

The T-14 is a special case. The MBT and the IFV were both required to have the same power pack and the IFV has to have the rear doors while the MBT the rear engine. The only real way to satisfy all requirements is to have a transmission with the same forwards and reverse speeds. Ironically with the T-14 there is zero need for a turret down position what with the unmanned turret anyway, so in theory it can just stay hull down indefinitely while patiently sniping at targets confident that at best the enemy can only disable the main gun or the optics, which are both very small and hard to hit anyway:

compared with the manned turret:

I do agree with Limb though - there is no harm in having a speedy reverse gear to quickly move out of trouble. Turning around in a fire fight is a very bad idea.

Mir wrote:I do agree with Limb though - there is no harm in having a speedy reverse gear to quickly move out of trouble. Turning around in a fire fight is a very bad idea.

Yes, its a nice to have. But my point is that equipment has to be optimized according to how you plan to fight. If you don't plan on conducting fighting retreats as the centerpiece of your tank tactics, you are probably better off deleting the speed requirements for reversing altogether.

It is not an engine issue, it is a transmission issue, so if they wanted faster reverse speeds they could have them simply enough.

AFAIK the T-72 has two reverse gears which makes it sound very unlikely that its max reverse speed is 4km/h.

But turning around in combat is normal and expected because it is the job of the Commander to order the gunner to fire on the most dangerous threat and the driver to keep hull down or the front hull armour pointed in the direction of the biggest threat too.

I am happy that the work on the T-72 upgrades are with new optics and new communications and electronics and new ERA and new APS being fitted... it also has a new engine and new transmission so the reverse speed might not be a problem anyway.

Nope, all 72 up to B3 retained the same scheme of a gearbox, that is 7 gears forward and 1 reverse. The automatic one is just the same.
It is Czech modernization using an Israeli powerpack that has 2 reverse gears.
Polish PT-91 gets the better RENK transmission later on, too.
Not sure where the 4 km/h came from, but it is a matter of gearbox ratios only.
Plain 72s has very high reverse gear ratios of 14+ if I remember correctly, which results in high torque yet limited maximal speed.
That means, it can jump backward very dynamic, still can't drive fast that way.
That is why Russkies never did, that maneuver is used for a static defense from the preorganized stands when a tank jumps backward after the shoot to hide behind the earth wall or engineered obstacles.
Take a look at the latest tank maneuvers in defense, they already mastered the Syrian experience of operating behind a massive hearth wall, with tanks driving in a circle at different speeds.

From 15:32 you can see dug in positions for tanks to fire from... when they are in position at the front of the earthworks they present their turrets with their hulls hidden... once they fire they reverse back and there is a ramp angled downwards so they are completely covered from the front and not visible at all.

Also in the video you will see a mix of T-72s moving forward in open fields in attack formations and also firing from dug in positions where the forward firing position is raised so that only their turret is exposed so they can fire but their hull is protected by earth, and they can reverse 2-3 metres and the ground has a ramp downwards so they can be completely hidden and then drive forward and expose only their turrets... look and fire if they need to and then reverse back and be behind cover again in seconds.

In urban conditions they would normally drive around to the front of a building and then reverse back into it so it partially collapses on them for cover.

When they fire and reveal their location they generally reverse through the building and out the back... which requires more torque than speed...

Nope, all 72 up to B3 retained the same scheme of a gearbox, that is 7 gears forward and 1 reverse. The automatic one is just the same.

The T-72 has had over a dozen upgrades since it entered service and any one of those upgrades could have had extra reverse gears for higher reverse speeds if they wanted that.... they clearly do not care.

The purpose of the T-90AM was to resolve and fix as many fundamental problems with the original as they possibly could before the from scratch new generation replacement entered service (T-14).

It was the same with the AK-12 and the Su-35 and MiG-35 and Mi-28NM and Ka-52M upgraded versions.

Some of which we have seen the next gen replacements (Su-57 and LMFS) and some we have not.

The point is that if the T-90AM does not reverse faster then it clearly is not seen as a problem...

A batch of 23 modernized T-72B3M tanks entered service with the tank unit of the ZVO combined-arms formation stationed in the Kaliningrad region

The military group in the Kaliningrad region is reinforced with new tanks
07.10.2021 13:29:45
      Moscow. October 7th. INTERFAX - The army corps stationed in the Kaliningrad region received a batch of 23 modernized T-72B3M tanks, the Russian Baltic Fleet said on Thursday.
      "A batch of 23 modernized T-72B3M tanks entered service with the tank unit of the ZVO combined-arms formation stationed in the Kaliningrad region," the message says.
      Earlier it was officially announced about the creation of a new motorized rifle division in the Kaliningrad region. The Russian military said the division was being formed in response to increased NATO activity near Russian borders.
      The T-72B3M is one of the new products that was demonstrated in 2018 at the Army military-technical forum. This is a deeply modernized version of the T-72 main battle tank.
      The T-72B3M is equipped with a new 1130 hp diesel engine, additional protection for the turret, side projections and bottom. The car is equipped with modern day-to-day fire control systems, digital communications and a number of other new systems.
      In recent years, Russia has strengthened its military infrastructure in the Kaliningrad region.

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=558391&lang=RU

I might be late to this but in this video from russian MoD shows t-72b3s with what looks like a thermal imager for the commander which to my knowledge wasnt on any t-72b3s[img][/img]

TMA1 wrote:That's just the gunner's thermal sight.

damn then im just retarded my bad

I think it is the T-72B3M which has the commander panoramic sight.

Doesn't look very panoramic though...

That item circled is the gunners primary thermal sight with the small hooded sight next to it being a backup sight.. AFAIK not thermal.

The commanders thermal sight would be mounted on his cupola with the HMG and be able to turn independently of the turret by turning the cupola... it might have one fitted and it happens to be pointed away from the camera.

There is a T-72B3M version with a separate panoramic sight for the commander that was specially made for the Tank Biathlon games.

With the upgraded T-72B3M (Obj.184-M3) the commander has a monitor that displays the thermal image from the gunner's sight.

In the latest upgraded T-72B3M (2016) the commander has an independent stabilized, panoramic, PK PAN sight with integrated thermal viewer.

Yes.

To be clear for those who are not familiar with how tanks work the commander is the only person in a Russian tank with all round vision and their job is basically to look for targets and threats... when they see a threat they might order the driver to move the tank so they present their strongest armour towards the threat and in a position that is perhaps hull down to minimise the target your tank represents.

The driver down in the hull has a poor view of the battlefield and often the commander has to tell them where to drive from his much better view up in the turret.

With a threat and targets the commander would prioritise the most dangerous and direct the gunner to engage that target first... if there is too much danger they might pop smoke and withdraw to a different position where only one target is visible at a time, or they might be operating from a dug in position, which for the Russians is normally a ramp they drive up to a trench wall that covers the hull of the tank but allows the gun to be aimed at targets exposing only the turret... you would drive forward and fire and then reverse back down a ramp so you are completely hidden from enemy view.

The gunner is in the turret but his sight only turns 30-40 degrees so the gunner can only see basically what the turret is pointing at.

As you can imagine then the commander being able to see the gunners view through a thermal scope is an improvement, but it is best for the commanders optics to be thermal for a complete 360 degree panoramic view of the battlefield.

In a modern tank with modern computers and processing equipment a hotspot in a thermal imager will be targeted like a face in a cellphone camera gets a box around it for focusing... the commander can then select that target and push a button and the turret... which might be pointed in any other direction will turn to that target with the gunner seeing the target already selected... the commander will order the gunner to engage the target till it is destroyed while the commander starts looking around for other targets or threats.

A commander using a gunners thermal would be ok for looking for targets but you would need to keep spinning the entire turret around to search which would make your tank stand out even from quite a distance, while the small panoramic sight for the commander would be hard to see spinning in comparison.

Crews of T-72B3 tanks worked out the "tank roundabout" method of increased rate of fire as part of a tactical exercise at the Alabino training ground.

Defense contractor delivers batch of upgraded T-72B3M tanks to Russian troops

The vehicles have undergone a full set of trials

YEKATERINBURG, December 27. /TASS/. The Uralvagonzavod enterprise (part of the state tech corporation Rostec) has delivered a batch of upgraded T-72B3M tanks to the Russian troops, the company’s press office reported on Monday.

"Uralvagonzavod (part of the state corporation Rostec) has delivered a batch of T-72B3M tanks to the Defense Ministry of Russia. The vehicles have undergone a full set of trials, have been accepted by the customers in compliance with technical specifications and are ready for their operational service in the Russian Army," the press office said in a statement.

The upgrade was carried out under the defense procurement plan that stipulates modernizing T-72B tanks to the T-72B3M level. Compared to the baseline version, the T-72B3M tanks being delivered to the troops feature substantially improved characteristics: they are outfitted with a new fire control system that comprises a sight with a modern thermal imager and also a digital ballistic computer that provides for automatic aiming and considerably enhances fire accuracy, the statement says.

The T-72B3M tank can destroy targets with missiles from the halt and on the move, day and night, at ranges of up to 5,000 meters with fire accuracy close to 100%. The tank’s automatic target tracker increases accuracy of fire against moving targets and substantially cuts the time of preparing for fire. The advanced communications equipment ensures secure jam-resistant radio communications.

The upgraded T-72B3M has received an effective protection system that boosts its efficiency both in combined arms warfare and in a combat environment with the massive use of anti-tank weapons, for example, in urban conditions.

Uralvagonzavod is Russia’s largest heavy machine-building enterprise that engineers and produces various types of railway high- and low-sided freight cars, load transporters and reservoirs.

https://tass.com/defense/1381325

lyle6 wrote:

limb wrote:
I mean every single other MBT tank in service other than the T-72 and T-64 has a better reverse speed than it(including the T-80 and T-14) because shooting and scooting matters.  4km/h  is pathetic. It's not 1965  anymore where Soviet  tanks are expected to suicidally charge and never reverse.

The T-55 and T-62 have better reverse speed. Let that sink in.

Russians see the tank as the modern cavalry. As such most tactics boil down to charging forwards, preferably at the rear or flanks of the enemy, and with speed and aggression to inflict decisive shock on the enemy and break through his line, like the cavalry of yore. Russians don't really do static defenses much, since even in a defensive posture they prefer to husband the majority of the tanks as a mobile reserve for counter attacks and the fact that a static target is an easy target for airpower and artillery.

his is vastly superior to the motionless hull down since a constantly moving target is exponentially harder to hit with artillery or air strikes, which the Russians do plan on using vigorously to punish their opponents that rely on such mundane tactics.

The T-14 is a special case. The MBT and the IFV were both required to have the same power pack and the IFV has to have the rear doors while the MBT the rear engine. The only real way to satisfy all requirements is to have a transmission with the same forwards and reverse speeds. Ironically with the T-14 there is zero need for a turret down position what with the unmanned turret anyway, so in theory it can just stay hull down indefinitely while patiently sniping at targets confident that at best the enemy can only disable the main gun or the optics, which are both very small and hard to hit anyway:

compared with the manned turret:

You just compared main battle tanks with gun ranges of 2km+ to heavy melee cavalry. This is an absolutely idiotic comparison. Tanks are not made for suicidal charges to close range and if you do, your gonna get them slaughtered in a kill zone with ATGMs. If you made a comparison between tanks and horse archers, this would be valid, but you used heavy melee cavalry. Tanks are not their to hold ground but to obliterate enemy mobile or static troops from direct fire at range. Russian tanks should always use their range advantage, and they're not expendable as in soviet times and AT weapons have become a lot more lethal and ubiquitous compared to the cold war so charges are a retarded anachronism.

They can then quickly cycle through said positions in a sort of caracole in defilade, appearing in a keyhole randomly and firing every now and then.

Yeah, while exposing side armor. Brilliant


The importance of reverse speed is that you never expose your weak side to the enemy while still being relatively mobile.

In any case, the minority of tanks that do get allocated to hold static positions can make use of the integral dozer blade (standard for every Russian tank, a rarity in NATO ones) to dig several firing positions.

And if these tanks have to retreat from their positions or move to another area for fire support, they cant do it in time due to a 4km/h reverse speed.

limb wrote:
You just compared main battle tanks with gun ranges of 2km+ to heavy melee cavalry. This is an absolutely idiotic comparison.  Tanks are not made for suicidal charges to close range  and if you do, your gonna get them slaughtered in a kill zone with ATGMs.  If you made a comparison between tanks and horse archers, this would be valid, but you used heavy   melee cavalry. Tanks are not their to hold ground but to obliterate enemy mobile or static troops from direct fire at range. Russian tanks should always use their range advantage, and they're not expendable as in soviet times and AT weapons have become a lot more lethal and ubiquitous compared to the cold war so charges are a retarded anachronism.

That they can shoot at 3 km or skewer people from 3 m or whatever doesn't matter - both tanks and heavy cavalry are designed for one thing: inflicting decisive shock on the enemy that destroys their capacity to resist. Heavy cavalry does this on a micro scale by literally trampling through the enemy formations and breaking their cohesion, tanks do this on an operational level through maneuvering to get to the enemy's vulnerable rear, cutting off vital lines of communication that no mechanized force can do without.

If there's anything closest to horse archers it would actually be the SPH: both engage their targets at range and inflict damage through attrition. Both are also heavily wedded to supply trains (the wagonloads of arrows for the horse archer and the trainloads of shells for the SPH).

limb wrote:
Yeah, while exposing side armor. Brilliant

The importance of reverse speed is that you never expose your weak side to the enemy while still being relatively mobile.  

Here's a secret about fighting in the open steppe: there's little to no cover (if you don't dig one yourself) - where are you going to reverse to? And unless you are reversing at the same rate as you are advancing its almost guaranteed the enemy's own mobile units would outrace and outflank yours - then you're back to getting shot from the sides and rear.

limb wrote:
And if these tanks have to retreat from their positions  or move to another area for fire support, they cant do it in time due to a 4km/h reverse speed.

These fighting positions are heavily dug in, as in glacis of earth several meters thick and at least as tall as the tank is high built using heavy earthmovers. The entrance and exit routes would be built over as well - there's no issue with throwing caution to the wind and putting your rear to the enemy's direction when under cover.

Russian troops serving in Tajikistan's mod of the T-72 in "Syrian Mad Max" style with the rest of the family!

If the surrounding area looks like in Mad Max... Why not?

If it looks stupid but it works... then it is not stupid.

The west weren't impressed with ERA a few decades ago... they thought it proved Soviet tanks didn't have enough armour...

Its tailored for the likely opposition - RPGs, SPGs, with the occasional Fagot or Konkurs. A short hop over to Afghanistan and what little tanks NATO bought were in some of the heaviest armor configurations deployed in combat as well. That's the problem with fighting in the mountains - lots of vantage points that bypasses the heavy front optimized protection so you are forced to up-armor just about every surface.