T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2511p500-russian-army-atgm-thread#292381

Post number 511.

Nice shots by different platforms including T-72 on vehicles of mock terrorists

https://www.facebook.com/mod.mil.rus/videos/309470863648134/?t=3

I don't get it. I thought they were switching to the T-72B3M.
Are these plain T-72B3s? The upgraded engine talk suggests these are T-72B3Ms.

lancelot wrote:I don't get it. I thought they were switching to the T-72B3M.
Are these plain T-72B3s? The upgraded engine talk suggests these are T-72B3Ms.

It is the Obr 16 instead of Obr 11.

People were misled by the special TB model and think the M has a second independent TC viewer.

franco wrote:I don't think they either care or bother with explaining the difference. There seems to be a good chance that that the first 300 or so of what are called the T-72B3 may actually have been the T-72B2, which may be more in line with the T-72B3M. It is never simple tracking these changes.

B2's would have been very characteristic. No B2 ever made it to serial.

"By the end of this year, more than 800 units of armored vehicles are planned to be delivered to the formations and military units of the ground forces of the RF Armed Forces," the RF Ministry of Defense said in a statement.
The military said that the military-industrial complex will transfer to the Ministry of Defense modern and modernized models of armored vehicles, which have proven themselves in various climatic zones.
"The troops will receive more than 90 modern T-72B3, T-72B3M tanks, about 80 T-80BVM units with a gas turbine power plant, a batch of T-90M" Proryv "tanks, some of which will be transferred by the manufacturer to the Kazan Higher Tank Command School for training future tank officers, "- the message says.
"More than 120 BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles, over 280 modernized BMP-2 with a Berezhok fighting compartment, as well as about 300 armored personnel carriers BTR-82A and BTR-82AM will be delivered to formations and military units," the Russian Defense Ministry said.

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=545964&lang=RU

lyle6 wrote:In what way is the Ayy'Brapps any better? It has most if not all ammo sitting within the turret, a location far more likely to be hit than any other on the tank. Any penetrating hit through the frontal armor has a very high chance of punching through the measly thick ammo doors immediately behind, allowing the crews a nice hot dose of propellant gases as the ammo vents after being set alight by the outgoing projectile. M1 crews should be thanking their lucky stars the Russians never made it a habit of exporting their very best ammo to their clients or even non-neutered domestic articles, as those would have surely gave a lot of them very, very bad ends.

Name me a single case of the cookoff in an abrams bustle killing crew. not destroying the engine, tank, or whatever, but specifically killing crew. Name. one.  

So far I have never seen an iota of proof that blowoff panels dont work. Also prove that if an APFSDS round penetrates the T-72 compartment, the spalling wont cause a cookoff.
AFAIK, only the T-90M has any resemblance of RHA or antispall protection on its carousel autoloader.


Also one thing thats never mentioned is that in conventional warfare any penetration of a T series tank is a guaranteed catastrophic ammo explosion because half the rounds wont be in the autoloader, and just 22-20 rounds is far too low a number for battle.

Now that doesnt mean that blow off panels are the be all end all. The russians are correct in focusing on reducing weight, in order to allow tanks be as available and reliable as possible, and APFSDS penetrations leads to enormous amounts of spalling anyway, which will likely kill most if not all the crew, even without a cookoff.

But its completely disingenous to imply that blow off panels are ineffective, because there simply is zero evidence to prove theyre not effective. Even russians proved theyre effective.

AlfaT8 wrote:

I can't be bothered to watch a video with such a BS title. The Ukr T-64 was bar none the worst Soviet tank (*).
This was actually a pattern. Ukr-stan had a strong influence in the Soviet hierarchy which steered development
projects to itself by claiming they could do the job better. In the end, they sabotaged viable projects with
dead end "superior" ones.

The T-72 was a response to the T-64 disaster that bypassed Ukr-stan. It's funny how all sorts of Russia hating
maggots, such as Trotsky and Brzezhinski, harped about Russia being nothing without Ukr-stan. What a sick joke.
Ukr-stan was a yoke on Russia's neck and the best thing to have happened to Russia in the last 200+ years is to
finally unload this steaming POS. And we can see how fast the POS is swirling the toilet bowl. It is Ukr-stan
that is nothing without Russia that is why they have so much resentment and hate towards Russia.

(*) Adjusted for time. Comparing the 1930s to 1960s is nonsensical.

The T-72 was a superior design for sure. T-80 was supposed to be an upgrade of T-64 fixing the issues of T-64. And while it was a good tank, it was expensive and not much necessarily better. Also I heard a maintenance hog.

lyle6 wrote:

limb wrote:
Name me a single case of the cookoff in an abrams bustle killing crew. not destroying the engine, tank, or whatever, but specifically killing crew. Name. one.
 
[...]

But its completely disingenous to imply that blow off panels are ineffective, because there simply is zero evidence to prove theyre not effective. Even russians proved theyre effective.

Its completely disingenuous to misrepresent the position of the person you are talking to and shift the argument to a different point entirely, either.
I'm sorry, but I can't really do a rebuttal to a response to a point that I haven't made.

kvs wrote:

I can't be bothered to watch a video with such a BS title.   The Ukr T-64 was bar none the worst Soviet tank (*).
This was actually a pattern.   Ukr-stan had a strong influence in the Soviet hierarchy which steered development
projects to itself by claiming they could do the job better.   In the end, they sabotaged viable projects with
dead end "superior" ones.  

The T-72 was a response to the T-64 disaster that bypassed Ukr-stan.    It's funny how all sorts of Russia hating
maggots, such as Trotsky and Brzezhinski, harped about Russia being nothing without Ukr-stan.  What a sick joke.
Ukr-stan was a yoke on Russia's neck and the best thing to have happened to Russia in the last 200+ years is to
finally unload this steaming POS.    And we can see how fast the POS is swirling the toilet bowl.   It is Ukr-stan
that is nothing without Russia that is why they have so much resentment and hate towards Russia.

(*) Adjusted for time.   Comparing the 1930s to 1960s is nonsensical.

The people behind the T-64 were egotistical and selfish jackasses who intentionally designed a product only they make and maintain just to shit on the other Soviet tank factories. The T-64 is a marvel of technology for sure with lots of novelties but the machines were capricious pieces of crap as a result. They didn't care that the Soviet Army would want a tank that wasn't entirely alien to extant logistics, nor one that could be produced and supported by all the other tank bureaus, they just wanted to enforce their own monopoly. Too bad the Soviet MoD were wiser to their BS and had UVZ make a tank that is about as good but without much of the difficulties associated with the T-64 line and ever since then Kharkovites have always had suffered from a severe case of butthurt when it came to the subject of Russian tanks.

You said

lyle6 wrote:It has most if not all ammo sitting within the turret, a location far more likely to be hit than any other on the tank. Any penetrating hit through the frontal armor has a very high chance of punching through the measly thick ammo doors immediately behind, allowing the crews a nice hot dose of propellant gases as the ammo vents after being set alight by the outgoing projectile.

Implying separate ammo compartments with blowout panels don't work, when there is 0 evidence from both russians and westerners that they don't.

It was meant to face m1 abrams and leopard 1 on european countryside head on.

It was not meant to face m1a2 with total air domination with thermals with outdated rounds and no optics in a storm in the middle of the desert. Even less designed to face ATGM on a buildings in the middle of a city.

Correct. The T-64 and its replacement T-80 were the expensive high tech tanks that would take on HATO tanks, the T-72 was an affordable simplified tank that was reliable and cheap and made in enormous numbers to try to replace the T-54/55 and T-62 from the inventory and move them into storage.

It was the good enough tank that would be the numbers tank that would support the T-64 and then T-80.

In that sense it should be compared with the M60 and Leopard I and AMX30.

It was constantly upgraded and got better armour and new ERA as it became available and generally matched western upgrades of vehicles and equipment.... most of the time it was ahead of the game and even the best western tanks would struggle to defeat it easily, while it would be superior to previous generation tanks in numbers in service in HATO.

Technically speaking it has some bad points however. Crew sitting on ammo. Rear speed very bad. Not very powerfull engine. Compact so any hit would make the ammo explode. T-80U was much better. And they didn't correct those mistakes on first t-90, only on t-90MS.

Of course it wasn't perfect... the ammo in the autoloader was as safe as it could possibly be... a penetrating hit there on any tank would likely kill the crew anyway, because that is where the crew was.

Reverse speed wasn't great but this is an attacking tank with the NBC system turned on driving forward through radioactive rubble. The engine was not that powerful but it also was not a very heavy tank. Better to be a smaller target... not so important now with ballistic computers and auto tracking aiming systems.

Actually the autoloader on the T-80 and T-64 proved to be much worse... any penetration of the turret sent a shower of sparks onto the propellent stubs igniting them almost immediately.

As found in Grozny with the T-72 and T-90 if you only had ammo in the autoloader it had protection from small fragments and sparks and protected the propellent stubs, which were the primary cause of tanks brewing up when hit. It was the loose rounds in the turret and beside the driver that were the problem... with ammo in the autoloader only it was a vastly safer tank to operate.

It has most if not all ammo sitting within the turret, a location far more likely to be hit than any other on the tank.

Because of its shape the side and rear of the Abrams turret is an enormous target most of the time and is very vulnerable once you know where to aim even with old anti armour weapons.

Also prove that if an APFSDS round penetrates the T-72 compartment, the spalling wont cause a cookoff.
AFAIK, only the T-90M has any resemblance of RHA or antispall protection on its carousel autoloader.

The T-72 and the T-90 have both the rounds in the autoloader and the propellent stubs lying horizontal in the autoloader... 22 rounds in each.

The autoloader of the T-64 and T-80 have horizontal projectiles and vertical propellent stubs, and the propellent stubs are vulnerable to sparks and flame inside the turret with any penetrations.

Also one thing thats never mentioned is that in conventional warfare any penetration of a T series tank is a guaranteed catastrophic ammo explosion because half the rounds wont be in the autoloader, and just 22-20 rounds is far too low a number for battle.

Most conflicts since the first experience in Grozny Russian T-72s go into combat with 22 rounds, which is one autoloader full... which is plenty.

If fully loaded when those 22 are fired they need to find a quiet space to then hand load rounds from elsewhere in the vehicle into the Autoloader, which is a rather slow process... heading back to a rear area to rearm is just as easy so it makes no sense to carry the extra ammo.

Now that doesnt mean that blow off panels are the be all end all.

The problem for the Abrams isn't the blow off panels... even if they work the crew has to abandon the tank because the fire is going to go on for several minutes and the tank will be burned out and totally destroyed.

Having the ammo stored in the turret bustle makes it easy for enemy forces to target as an easy to aim at weakpoint.

It does not require a powerful weapon to penetrate...

APFSDS penetrations leads to enormous amounts of spalling anyway, which will likely kill most if not all the crew, even without a cookoff.

Most crew wear body armour including anti spall vests... unless the round goes through the crewman most of the time they should be OK if they can get out fast enough.

Even russians proved theyre effective.

Did they?

The T-72 was a superior design for sure. T-80 was supposed to be an upgrade of T-64 fixing the issues of T-64. And while it was a good tank, it was expensive and not much necessarily better. Also I heard a maintenance hog.

The T-64 and T-80 at the time were much better tanks on paper than the T-72 that was being used at the time respectively, but the T-64 was terribly unreliable and had lots of problems and teething issues. The T-80 generally solved most, but was expensive while being capable.

The T-72 evolved over time and got better and better with more armour and new systems and equipment that pretty much kept pace with tanks available anywhere.

Implying separate ammo compartments with blowout panels don't work, when there is 0 evidence from both russians and westerners that they don't.

Ammo storage in a turret bustle exposed to enemy fire is a bad idea... the Black Eagle (T-80) had a turret bustle autoloader with the underfloor autoloader removed to lower the turret and turret crew by about 20 cms and the Burlak had both a turret bustle and underturret autoloader to allow long rod penetrator rounds to be loaded into the turret bustle autoloader and straight rammed into the gun.

Both designs were rejected because carrying ammo exposed in the turret bustle was too vulnerable to enemy fire.

The Abrams has done rather well in some conflicts but once it became clear how vulnerable the turret bustle is it has suffered a lot more in combat than perhaps you imagine, because it is very hard to hide the rear of your turret... not to mention the back of the turret means the guns are pointed away from you which makes it an even more attractive thing to fire at.

Anyway I find it hilarious that Abrams fans always always mention that the blowout panels are the path of least resistance for the gas when it comes to explaining if and how they work, but ignore that in the case of a battle damage a gaping hole in the ammo doors would be that path of least resistance instead. Double-think much?

And an obvious problem with gas taking the line of least resistance.... how do hand grenades work... surely when it explodes all the gas would blow up through the fuse and out through the handle that is screwed on to the grenade... that would be much easier than shattering the sheet metal shell and throwing the metal fragments out sideways.

Except a propellent fire and a HE explosion are different things... when a tank is penetrated normally the propellent fire happens first which can blow the turret off any tank BTW. Eventually that propellent and other material in the tank will keep burning and getting hotter and hotter and the HE either in HE rounds or HEAT rounds will explode, but if the penetrating round hits one of those HE rounds then there is no time to get out... it is just boom and blow out panels and fire wall doors wont stop it...

Interesting info on the old T72 tested by Nato after USSR collapse.
Got link from Scott Ritter's tweets when arguing with a guy..

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION"

By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz

Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US.

Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons.

In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons. Explosive reactive armour was valued by the Soviet Union and its now-independent component states since the 1970s, and almost every tank in the eastern-European military inventory today has either been manufactured to use ERA or had ERA tiles added to it, including even the T-55 and T-62 tanks built forty to fifty years ago, but still used today by reserve units.

"During the tests we used only the weapons which existed with NATO armies during the last decade of the Cold War to determine how effective such weapons would have been against these examples of modern Soviet tank design. Our results were completely unexpected. When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A1 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles.

The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own. The myth of Soviet inferiority in this sector of arms production that has been perpetuated by the failure of downgraded T-72 export tanks in the Gulf Wars has, finally, been laid to rest. The results of these tests show that if a NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation had erupted in Europe, the Soviets would have had parity (or perhaps even superiority) in armour” – U.S. Army Spokesperson at the show.

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.

Despite the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Tank industry has managed to maintain itself and its expertise in armour production, resulting in modern designs (such as the T-90, the T-95 and mysterious Black Eagle) to replace the, surprisingly, still effective Soviet era tanks. These tests will do much to discount the argument of the “Lion of Babylon” (the ineffective Iraqi version of the T-72M) and export quality tanks being compared to the more sophisticated and upgraded versions which existed in the Soviet military’s best Tank formations and continue to be developed in a resurgent Russian military industrial complex."


https://www.forumdefesa.com/forum/index.php?topic=6365.0;wap2

The Lion of Babylon did not even have the composite inserts let alone the ERA.
Plus the Iraqis had crap ammo.
To me the major fault of the T-72 design is the antiquated FCS and sensor suite.
It was ok when it came out but it did not get upgraded properly in Soviet times.
The expectation was that T-80 tanks would be the tip of the spear and mitigate this.

The T-72 was a numbers tank that was simple and reliable and carried a big gun with decent armour.
It lacked super optics and night vision equipment, but it was made in enormous numbers and was clearly superior to the tanks it was replacing in service like old T-54/55 and T-62 models.

It was designed to continue with further upgrades to remain useful, which the T-72 upgrades for their tank competitions shows... modern optics and new ERA and it is still a very good vehicle.

The purpose of the T-90 was to replace the elite expensive tanks with the best new armour and ERA and the best new FCS and optics and equipment, so it costs more but it is also comparable to anything any other country might send against it.... it is the best the T-72 could get to.

The Armata is a design revision for best protection of the crew and best potential for upgrades like a 152mm gun etc.