T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

collegeboy16 wrote:The T-72 sideskirts are really thick, wonder whats inside... maybe relikt. tho i find it a bit funny that the T-72 uparmoring is still lacking with the glacis- other modernizations got it correct with the glacis, this one got the sideskirts and more importantly the turret coverage done well.

Non-Russian T-72 upgrade.

Zivo wrote:The twin 30's are adequate. Are there better preforming configurations? Yes. However the 2A42 is a proven weapon, it's can operate in practically every environment reliably and the ground crews are already familiar with it. The 30mm is also safer for the crew compared to 57mm, 100mm, or 120mm rounds. Although this point is irrelevant with Armata, it still pertains to conventional layouts.

Keep in mind, this design was selected after numerous varieties of BMPT configurations were actually built and tested. So we're not talking about a paper tank, the BMPT-72 actually has a evolutionary lineage.

One that the Russian Army has not adopted though, I think they realize the limits of the current model. Plus, these are the same people who accept T-72s with retarded ERA coverage, I would not put this twin 30mm individual feed nonsense past them.

I think the AP cannon is just useless for the vehicle. What is even the point? Shooting AP and HE at infantry is pointless. For armor it has the missiles.  It has no large HE slinger, something very useful for urban work.
Yes the 100mm shells take up space (but far less than the 125mms the tanks they are supporting do) and can detonate, but with modern insensitive propellant and the BMPT's excellent all round protection it should not be too much of a problem.

TR1 wrote:

Zivo wrote:The twin 30's are adequate. Are there better preforming configurations? Yes. However the 2A42 is a proven weapon, it's can operate in practically every environment reliably and the ground crews are already familiar with it. The 30mm is also safer for the crew compared to 57mm, 100mm, or 120mm rounds. Although this point is irrelevant with Armata, it still pertains to conventional layouts.

Keep in mind, this design was selected after numerous varieties of BMPT configurations were actually built and tested. So we're not talking about a paper tank, the BMPT-72 actually has a evolutionary lineage.

One that the Russian Army has not adopted though, I think they realize the limits of the current model. Plus, these are the same people who accept T-72s with retarded ERA coverage, I would not put this twin 30mm individual feed nonsense past them.

I think the AP cannon is just useless for the vehicle. What is even the point? Shooting AP and HE at infantry is pointless. For armor it has the missiles.  It has no large HE slinger, something very useful for urban work.
Yes the 100mm shells take up space (but far less than the 125mms the tanks they are supporting do) and can detonate, but with modern insensitive propellant and the BMPT's excellent all round protection it should not be too much of a problem.

Honestly, I think they just feel that the T-72 is good enough for the next decade and complete overhauls are not worth the cost. Who knows? The Russian MoD and MIC as a whole have a somewhat questionable decision making process.

I figure that 9/10 of the BMPT's targets will be infantry using concrete block, brick, or wood walls for cover. A burst of AP/HE will dislodge them in short order, which is what the BMPT is supposed to do. The tanks it's escorting would bring the HE power anyways, and offer more than the 100mm.

It has no large HE slinger, something very useful for urban work.

Autocanon AP rounds in unban areas are sometimes more useful than HE as it can penetrate concrete walls of buildings killing and injuring infantry beyong them with fragments. I don't know if a 100 mm HE shell can shatter a concrete wall as a 125 mm one.

Honestly, I think they just feel that the T-72 is good enough for the next decade and complete overhauls are not worth the cost.

T-72 will serve in a second grade motorised infantry units in any case. If you speak of Armata, it's for an elite shock units for now. It's seems to be very costly and really tough with countermesures, ERA, active defence and massive armor.
And T-72 has its bad sides, gearbox, for example, and AP shell length limitation due to autoloader construction.

Asf wrote:

It has no large HE slinger, something very useful for urban work.

Autocanon AP rounds in unban areas are sometimes more useful than HE as it can penetrate concrete walls of buildings killing and injuring infantry beyong them with fragments. I don't know if a 100 mm HE shell can shatter a concrete wall as a 125 mm one.

Honestly, I think they just feel that the T-72 is good enough for the next decade and complete overhauls are not worth the cost.

T-72 will serve in a second grade motorised infantry units in any case. If you speak of Armata, it's for an elite shock units for now. It's seems to be very costly and really tough with countermesures, ERA, active defence and massive armor.
And T-72 has its bad sides, gearbox, for example, and AP shell length limitation due to autoloader construction.

Russian 30mm HE-Frag rounds are in Urban theatre more worth than AP, they use a impact delayed fuze, so the rounds enter the bricks and explode inside and after a few rounds there is no wall to hide behind anymore.

Russian 30mm HE-Frag rounds are in Urban theatre more worth than AP, they use a impact delayed fuze, so the rounds enter the bricks and explode inside and after a few rounds there is no wall to hide behind anymore.

HE rounds of 2A42/2F72 don't have a stell core to penetrate brick or concrete wall. But you may be right, as the rounds has high velocity

Asf wrote:

Russian 30mm HE-Frag rounds are in Urban theatre more worth than AP, they use a impact delayed fuze, so the rounds enter the bricks and explode inside and after a few rounds there is no wall to hide behind anymore.

Any proofs? Never heard of it. Also HE rounds of 2A42/2F72 don't have a stell core to penetrate brick or concrete wall.

3OAF8U is the standard russian 30mm HE-frag round it has a impact delayed fuze for 0.25sec delation, this rounds were designed to be used against light armored vehicles and covers such as brickwalls.

Well here is an BMP shooting its 30mm HEfrag at a building, not sure what happened in that accident in Ukraine, but it was a very short burst against a very thick wall and you can see the result.



Rounds don't need steel core or anything like that, they have already a hard enough casing to penetrate bricks and concrete even without AP capability.

If he would should a few more rounds more of the wall would be gone.

I've already googled it, thanks))

Seems a bit strange at first glance, I've always thought time delay decreases effectivness of HE it shot in a dirt near the target (say, then an enemy infantry is in trenches). Most likely 2A42 isn't designed for taking out infantry in trenches, as there are mortars in every battalion. Actually, what's what 100 mm low velocity shells are good for. But still there are 125 mm HE-Frags and artillery for such tasks in a typical mechanized unit

I also thought that those delayed impact fuzes must have some pathetic anti infantry capabilities against soft ground, but the fuze is even shorter than i previously posted, because i missed one zero it is 0.025 seconds delayed, traveling with 920m/s it doesn't make big difference if it is side armor of an APC or brickwall or soft ground, it will travel about the same amount of distances into the object and detonate immidiatley. Those same rounds are used in Helicopters against ground targets and from videos of exercises it doesn't really seem that they are exploding deep underground more like 1 cm in it or on surface, the explosion radius of those rounds filled with 48.5gram AIX-2 has an effective radius against soft targets such as infantry up to 8 meters, lethal zone by 4meters.

There was also a video about Syria where some stupid terrorists were shooting with AK's out of a narrow side street at a BMP2, he fired than 2-3 rounds back against the next wall behind the shooter. The footage was very disturbing his face was gone, just the skull around it with a big crater where the face was and that was about 2-3 meters away from where the round impacted.

I'm not surprised, 30 mm HE-frag round have more equivalent explosive than an F-1 granade with heavier casing

Werewolf wrote:
There was also a video about Syria where some stupid terrorists were shooting with AK's out of a narrow side street at a BMP2, he fired than 2-3 rounds back against the next wall behind the shooter. The footage was very disturbing his face was gone, just the skull around it with a big crater where the face was and that was about 2-3 meters away from where the round impacted.

Sorry dude, can You share that video with us? Not that I want to see gore, but I want to see BMP-2 in action. Anna news seem to be gone..

I recall seeing that video, it's maybe a year old. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: I believe this is it. I have to warn you, the terrorist in question meets a gruesome end. When the video was first posted a while back, I remember it being associated with a BMP-2 impact, but it's hard to tell what actually got him.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b1c_1365801498

Anna news seem to be gone..

Anna new seems to be in People's Republic of Donetsk, or thatever it's called now

In an infantry suppression vehicle a range of weapons is useful with a range of calibres and different trajectories.

Just to reiterate the armament for the Armata BMPT was in my opinion the best because it combined the virtues of so many different weapons and capabilities in one vehicle.

Against hard bunker targets there was the 120mm shell or mortar bomb, which offers up to 16kgs or so of HE firepower delivered directly at the target or indirectly with third party guidance using a laser target marker.

Against many targets or fleeting targets that is not so efficient so the 6 barrel 23mm gatling compliments the heavy gun with a light high rate of fire weapon with low velocity rounds that are small and compact and can be carried in larger numbers. With 23m HE rounds the target wont notice if the rounds are coming in at 600m/s or 1,000m/s... what they will notice is that a burst of even 50 rounds will arrive very very rapidly with an effect much like a cluster bomb going off.

For targets behind cover the 40mm grenade launcher should deliver a good HE payload at a high rate of fire out to about 2.5km.

Using standard weapons (the gatling is an air force weapon but the Hind uses a twin barrel chin mounted 23mm cannon in its newest version) and standard in service ammo types this in my opinion is the best compromise of ammo types and capabilities.

The main problem is that the purpose of the vehicle is a fire support vehicle that has the same armour and mobility as a tank... so the IFVs don't get picked off leaving the vulnerable tanks to face infantry.

In Armata brigades the IFVs will have tank level protection and mobility so probably the best BMPT will be an Armata IFV with the troop compartment filled with extra ammo.

However as a fire support vehicle the T-90 based BMPT is interesting, but I would prefer a 100mm rifled gun with a twin barrel 30mm cannon from the Hind and Frogfoot and get rid of those silly external missiles. The 100mm gun can fire guided missiles and relatively heavy HE shells over reasonable distances much more cheaply. I would get rid of the limited angle bow guns and replace them with flat low turrets able to shoot over a much wider range of angles and elevations and fit both with a PKT and a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher each.

Reason why Russia will ALways need T-72 ,is because as you know they sale weapons and tanks.. and will be very bad promotion for T-90s if they go to a conflict and their tanks fail big time ,like the Israel Merkava IV in the lebanon 2006 war.that did not performed well against heavy anti armor weapons. and were penetrated many times killing/wounding more soldiers than what they will have liked.. Aside that NATO is not going to send tanks inside Russia territory any day. SO the tanks that Russia have the conflict they will face are most likely ,thousands of militants and Insurgents in Dagestan or probably in the far east. So it makes sense to use low level cheaper tanks with good enough protection to counter cheap rocket grenades for Rebels militia wars..  So a T-72BM with reactive armor last generation will be more than enough. For any potential territorial war Russia could face.. if they armed with Arena ever better ,albeit Arena is not cheap. For such Rebels wars.. computers ,air conditioner,automatic fighting and any fancy electronic feature is not needed.. Neither is important speed for Urban warfare . However things that help to clear roads obtacles and remove mines will be very useful.

here is a pic of the T-72 M1M.. that looks like a heavy upgrade..

http://www.armyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2895

Upgraded T-72Bs would be around for a long time. Tho if it were me i would like to replace them and their associated vehicles with kurg or boomerang 25 just for the amphibous capability and shorter logistics tail

Part of the problem is that most MBTs are optimised to fight other tanks, but in this day and age there are plenty of other ways to fight tanks including guided artillery rounds, man portable anti armour systems etc etc that are cheaper and lighter.

Nothing holds ground like a tank however so the tank is not dead, but in many operations where the enemy does not have any significant armour then other weapons become more useful and a vehicle like a BMPT becomes more interesting... though in actual fact I would think a BMP-3M with tank level protection would fit the role better than the T-90 based BMPT.

The T-72 with upgrades offers much of the performance of the T-90 but at a reduced cost because they are already built.

It is a bit like a situation where the replacement is ready that will be significantly superior to others of its type in service so there is no point in introducing more of the newest available now.

There is no point producing lots of T-90s now because first of all the number of heavy MBTs will become much lower because the number of heavy brigades will be rather smaller than the number of medium and light brigades... none of which will have heavy MBTs.

Light and medium brigades will be relatively cheap and quick to equip and operate because of the lighter vehicles and the standardised sensors, systems and weapons, so the transitional stage will have a lot of units rapidly equipped with new lighter vehicles so for a while there will be plenty of MBTs, but eventually as the units get their new vehicles the upgraded T-72s or brand new T-90s will suddenly become reserve units in storage... so it is rather better to spend less on T-72 upgrades than to buy brand new T-90AMs for 4 million each... because they will rapidly find themselves in storage or reserve units anyway.

The critical thing is that the T-72 upgrades include many of the new stuff being developed for the new tanks... now some of these tankers will be going from T-72 upgrades to Armata MBT, so net centric and battle management hardware and software will help them train... along with new digital communications and night vision capability to allow training at night and in bad weather.

For Tankers using T-72 upgrades that are going to Typhoon or Boomerang or Kurganets units the comms and night vision and other equipment should be the same though the main gun for the lightest vehicle might be a high velocity 57mm gun and the main anti tank weapon could be Kornet-EM missiles with a focus on speed and mobility.

The point is that spending money on T-90AMs would result in less funds available when the new stuff gets ready for production and right now that money would probably be better spent on new individual soldier kit and communications etc etc.

i would like to replace them and their associated vehicles with kurg or boomerang 25 just for the amphibous capability and shorter logistics tail

How to replace a tank with a light vehicle? What kind of unit would it be? Something shitty like a Stryker brigade? But the Russian army do have such units: air-assault divisions of VDV (airlifted, lightly armed, ect.)

There is no point producing lots of T-90s now because first of all the number of heavy MBTs will become much lower because the number of heavy brigades will be rather smaller than the number of medium and light brigades... none of which will have heavy MBTs.

Medium brigades will have tanks. Actually heavy brigades are supposed to have from two to three tank battalions, and only one tank battalions for medium ones. Light brigades will be for specific tasks only (like mountain infanty).

Still I think best way to fight tanks is with tanks. The qualities they posses makes them the best tool. Their mobility and protection is unmatched. You can't rely on artillery, air force or at teams especially in offensive.

Regular wrote:Still I think best way to fight tanks is with tanks. The qualities they posses makes them the best tool. Their mobility and protection is unmatched. You can't rely on artillery, air force or at teams especially in offensive.

I think you are right. ATGMs are a defensive tool most of the time. And aviation still has its limits.

Actually combined arms approach is for the win. That's why the USSR defeated Wehrmacht. You can utter many words about human waves and such, but soviets way of using tanks, infantry and artillary in an offensive operations of the mid- and late war was superior to the one of germans. To cut a long story short Red Army used tanks as a mobile reserve, breaching defencive lines with infantry and artillary and didn't rely on armoured flank advances which resulted in the massive loses of Wehrmacht's armoured corps.

Don't get me wrong... I am not saying tanks are obsolete... quite the opposite.

The thing however is that often the firepower of a IFV is more useful than the firepower of a tank in most low intensity conflicts and the armament of the standard modern MBT is optimised d largely to engage the one target they don't often meet on the modern battlefield.

That is why I like the new vehicle families which will create 4 levels or classes of tanks... a light wheeled Typhoon class likely with a high velocity 57mm gun and Kornet-EM long range missiles, while the medium tracked and wheeled Kurganets and boomerang respectively should be able to manage the 125mm gun like the 7 ton lighter Sprut does, and of course the heavy Armata based MBT will be what is traditionally seen as a MBT, but all its support vehicles will have similar levels of protection and mobility...

The Soviets/Russians used tanks in recon units and anti aircraft gun vehicles to increase the firepower of their units in different scenarios, but with these new vehicle families they can get the best of both worlds.

the US showed in Afghanistan that using relatively light forces on the ground against an elusive enemy can work where the enemy has the choice to either concentrate its forces and fight back, or withdraw. If they concentrate then they become an excellent target for air power or artillery or both... if they disperse then the small groups can be mopped up piecemeal.

Medium brigades will have tanks. Actually heavy brigades are supposed to have from two to three tank battalions, and only one tank battalions for medium ones. Light brigades will be for specific tasks only (like mountain infanty).

Heavy brigades will have all armata based vehicles from MBT through IFV to command and even air defence vehicles.

Medium tracked brigades will have all Kurganets vehicles including Kurganets based APC, IFV, MBT, etc etc.

Medium wheeled brigades will have all Boomerang vehicles including Boomerang based APC, IFV, MBT, engineer, etc etc.

Light brigades will have all Typhoon/Boomerang-10 based vehicles.

The electronics and weapons will be standardised across the service so the Typhoon MBT will have the sensors and equipment of the Armata though it might have a different gun because of its light weight. The Boomerang will have the 125mm gun of the Armata MBT and the sensors and equipment... it wont have the same armour and manouverability as the armata but it wont operate with armata vehicles anyway... it will operate with Boomerang based vehicles so the logistics chain will only need spares and components for the Boomerang family of vehicles.

The majority of units will be medium or light as they will be the most mobile and cheapest to buy and operate... which is not to say they will be cheap... they will have excellent weaponry/communications/battle management equipment and will allow far more effective use of artillery and air power in support.

The thing however is that often the firepower of a IFV is more useful than the firepower of a tank in most low intensity conflicts and the armament of the standard modern MBT is optimised d largely to engage the one target they don't often meet on the modern battlefield.

Modern conflicts showed usefulness of tanks. Russians used tanks during the second chechen war quite an effectively even during cityfights (it was a matter of tactics which was just plain horrible during the first war). I'm not speaking of the Russo-Georgian comflict in which russian motorised infantry battalion tactical groups of routed georgians with far supperior tank performance (even though 58th Army's tanks were worse than modernised georgian ones). Americans used Abramses quite an effectively, the syrian army don't start an operation against insurgents without the battle-proven T72's. It all was the low intensity conflicts where tanks didn't fight another tanks.
If we talk about MBT armaments, yes, you are mostly right, it is a legacy of Cold war. But still a 125 mm gun is a huge advantage against infantry of any kind. HE-Frag shells with programmed detonation of T-90s are a horrible weapon which negates most of the field fortifications. Even in a cityfight the direct fire of a tank is a must as it can devastate concrete buildings turned into fortresses. For example, it was common in Chechnia to fortify buildings for low-caliber shell protection, that's why most of the time storm groups were given tank assets as a fire support platform.
Modern IFVs are bad for cityfights due to low protection. Armata class IFVs must be better in that, but still big guns are needed in a cityfight

a light wheeled Typhoon class likely with a high velocity 57mm gun

Never heard of what. Typhoon is just a MRAP. I suppose it will be used by police and internal troops mostly, may be for supply convoys in the Army or a light brigade transportation, but still I never saw a Typoon-based IFV project.

while the medium tracked and wheeled Kurganets and boomerang respectively should be able to manage the 125mm gun like the 7 ton lighter Sprut does

It will be self-propelled AT guns, nobody would use it like tanks as the medium planforms are lightly armoured. Throw them into a city or on a spearhead of an advance and they will be burned. Upgraded T72s are now suppoed to be tanks for medium brigades. They will form tank battalions as medium platforms with 125 mm guns are supposed to be in a AT battalions in addition of ATGM carriers (instead of MT-12 towed AT guns). As is in VDV by now.

The Soviets/Russians used tanks in recon units and anti aircraft gun vehicles to increase the firepower

As did americans with their armored cavalry units

On a new brigade types (rumors from good sources but still rumors):

Heavy brigades will have all armata based vehicles from MBT through IFV to command and even air defence vehicles.

They supposed to be a successors of tank brigades. Plus will be a new type of motorised infantry brigane (two battalions of inf + two battalions of tanks) which will be classified as a "heavy brigade" also, it will be a completely new experience. Seems like an tank-heavy (atleast two tank battalions per a brigade) mechanised shock units.

Medium tracked brigades will have all Kurganets vehicles including Kurganets based APC, IFV, MBT, etc etc.
Medium wheeled brigades will have all Boomerang vehicles including Boomerang based APC, IFV, MBT, engineer, etc etc.

This will be successors of motorised infantry brigades, most numerous and tactically-flexible.

Light brigades will have all Typhoon/Boomerang-10 based vehicles.

And Tigr/Wolk based. Look at the Spetsnas in Crimea with their Tigrs and trucks, they are that is called "light brigades" (as some mountain troops units are). Still they supposed to fight on foot, not like heavy and medium brigades, which rely on their IFVs much. They are for specific tasks only, not for common combined arms battles.

Plus VDV seems to be on they own in case of organisation, not fitting in any of the brigade types (it seems that several "air-assault" brigades and regiments will be armed with boomerang class vehicles and will be a "russian Stryker brigades" as they are now).

And we have new T-72s (supposedly for the biathlon) show up!



Yes, that is a Panorama in the middle!



New monitor, chassis status?





Is that ERA around?



The panoramic sight.



V-93 engine! 1130 horsepower!

All that sexyness and same old ERA lol.

http://www.vesti.ru/videos?vid=601682&cid=1

Video about the new T-72.