T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

Where did you guys ever see an official Russian military claim of 2300 T-14 tanks?

The original statement was 2300 modern tanks...

To Franco; that there were bombastic statements, yes, but the Russian MOD has never officially confirmed the figure. This was 2015 after all.

In Russia 23:41, September 14, 2015
Uralvagonzavod to supply the Russian army with over 2,000 Armata tanks

Moscow. September 14th. INTERFAX.RU - The State Armaments Program provides for the supply of 2,300 tanks and combat vehicles based on the Armata armored platform to the Russian army, Oleg Sienko, general director of UVZ, said on Monday.

"It was approved, including by the arms program, 2,300 units until 2020," Sienko said in an interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio station, answering the question of how many tanks and other combat vehicles based on the Armata armored platform are planned to be supplied to the Russian army.

At the same time, the general director did not rule out that, while maintaining the planned volumes, the terms for the delivery of "Armata" to the Russian army will move "closer to 2025."

Commenting on the information that the Armata tank costs 500 million rubles, the general director said that it "costs almost half" the indicated amount.

Sienko said that the first experimental batch of Armata tanks, made in a short time for the May 9 parade on Red Square, would be handed over to the troops in 2016. "This year we will hand over the machines for testing," he said.

The general director specified that at first it was planned to transfer a batch of T-14 Armata tanks in 2015, but due to the intensive preparation of equipment for the parade, the transfer dates had to be shifted to 2016.

He noted that in the course of preliminary tests, the new equipment not only confirms the declared performance characteristics, but also surpasses them.

"Armata" is a unified armored platform that can be used to solve various problems.

According to the UVZ press service, the T-14 tank, created on the Armata armored platform and first presented at the Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9, 2015, is unique. "The T-14 is the world's only tank of the third post-war generation. According to military experts, the Armata is a new word in tank building and has no analogues in the world. This is a fundamentally new and completely Russian development. Unprecedented design solutions were used in the vehicle, in particular , the T-14 tower is uninhabited," the press service said.

For the first time in the world, the crew is placed in an armored capsule, separated from the ammunition. This measure makes it possible for tankers to stay alive even with a direct hit on the turret and ignition of the ammunition," the press release says.

"The original silhouette, combined with the use of a special coating, significantly reduces the vehicle's visibility in the thermal and radar observation spectra," the report says.

According to UVZ, "Armata's armor is capable of withstanding hits by any existing anti-tank weapon. The tank is equipped with active and dynamic protection, equipped with a remotely controlled weapon station with a powerful cannon and an automatic reloading system. Optoelectronic surveillance and aiming devices are installed along the perimeter of the turret and hull and threat detection.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwidsIjek9n7AhUe_bsIHXC5DrQQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.interfax.ru%2Frussia%2F466679&usg=AOvVaw3tmo1abCd6Am2WUz4dFeYV

Post franco Yesterday at 8:15 pm
Where did you guys ever see an official Russian military claim of 2300 T-14 tanks? dunno
The original statement was 2300 modern tanks...

It is even better, as the mysterious "2300" number was about all of the Armata programs, which means T-14, T-15 and T-16 altogether.
An opinion that a country that fields some 500+ new and refurbished heavily armored vehicles each year will struggle to make 2300 pcs in a total of three different yet same-based pieces is not even dumb. It is agenda driven bullshit.

With thermal sight he has much batter awareness and in exercises he find much faster threats and targets then it was with old M-84 with no thermal sight. Those fractions of a second sometimes mean life or death.

I would agree, but I would also say that these T-62s will have most to fear from enemy infantry with anti armour weapons, where the threat might step out from a corner and fire and then disappear meaning those thermals might let you know what hit you but not give you enough time to turn the turret to do anything about it before the weapon impacts your vehicle.

Tanks don't operate on their own and work together with other tanks and infantry... my understanding is that the commander can see what the gunner sees through his thermals but obviously being the gunners sight they are essentially pointed where the turret points so to get full view of the battlefield you would need to keep spinning the turret which is not practical.

Recon forces and drones and infantry calling out targets should be valuable too.

These vehicles are unlikely to come up against enemy armour.

Unfortunately they carry extra ammo on their combat missions...this is biggest problem and that is why T-90M is batter with this new turret....

Well they shouldn't.

Just resupply more often.

Yes it is....Because you can put ERA blocks much batter on welded turret then on cast one, and therefore you have better coverage of it...which gives us better tenacity in battle...

ERA isn't perfect... even with full coverage a round hitting a join between two ERA panels might not set either panel off properly and offer no protection at all for the tank...

Any APS is much cheaper then made new tank any type....so I was convinced they will go on that pat, because any of their tank frontal have enough armor against any APFSDS Ukrainias have it...this isnt problem at all.

It is, but the problems of the detection and tracking systems needs to be solved or you just become an attention magnet.

It is logical that this increase will go towards the acquisition of new equipment that was lost, and that is a significant amount of everything. Also to made new missiles, artilery rounds and ect...

True, but the used stuff wont be replaced with old stuff, they will more likely produce new stuff, some of which will go straight back into battle, but also old stock ammo should continue to be used up.

Experience will also tell them what types of ammo will be useful and can be stored for long periods retaining their value, and which things need to be used first.

People here justify that the arena isnt needed because its too expensive, also say mass production reduces cost. if arena M was installed on 40% of T-72s and T-80s, it would cost 7 times less than 300K, 500K or whatever number is thrown around here.

It is currently not suitable for widespread deployment till they can solve the problems of its emissions.

I would say that it would be best in Russia's capabilities and needs is to upgrade the T-72's they have upgraded already and future ones to be pretty much on par with the T-90M. Bring the T-72 to a final standard to match as best as it can to T-90M so giving Russia the best possible of the platform and hold it till the Armata is finished and able to roll off the production line and in sufficient numbers.

If you could upgrade old stuff to be as good as new stuff there would be no point in new stuff, or the costs of the upgrade would be higher than the cost of the new stuff so again it isn't worth it.

I'm of the opposite mind. I think further investment in legacy platforms beyond servicing the needs of the current conflict is just unneeded extravagance at this point.

They need a balance which is what they are trying for... for many jobs they don't need T-14s, they don't even need T-90s. they just need a decent gun on a mobile platform and that is what the upgraded T-72s and T-62s are.

This is exactly the reason why T-90A/M provide better armor protection even without ERA. It is easier to place an ERA on that dome.

But even on the best turret design there will be joins where two ERA plates meet... will the ERA work properly if hit there? Probably not... so do you go for bigger plates with fewer joining areas but that means fewer protection elements, so smaller plates, but that will effect their performance and also increase the number of join areas.

Damn reality sucks...

It is even better, as the mysterious "2300" number was about all of the Armata programs, which means T-14, T-15 and T-16 altogether.

If they were producing them right now it should include Coalition, as well as T-14, T-15, T-16, and the BREM engineer model too, but by 2030 it should include command vehicles and air defence and artillery and an ATGM vehicle something like this with LMUR missiles in the back:

Podlodka77 wrote:Uralvagonzavod to supply the Russian army with over 2,000 Armata tanks

Moscow. September 14th. INTERFAX.RU - The State Armaments Program provides for the supply of 2,300 tanks and combat vehicles based on the Armata armored platform to the Russian army, Oleg Sienko, general director of UVZ, said on Monday.

"It was approved, including by the arms program, 2,300 units until 2020," Sienko said in an interview with the Ekho Moskvy radio station, answering the question of how many tanks and other combat vehicles based on the Armata armored platform are planned to be supplied to the Russian army.

Oh, yes, because Echo of Moscow has never been engaged in spreading fakes or distorting information
And I should add that the Director General of UVZ is not a representative of the Ministry of Defense. This is the case when the forecast (made with reservations, because even in that interview it was announced that the goals of the state armament program are probably subject to adjustment) is given out as some official plans.
That's just the Ministry of Defense has not officially confirmed plans to purchase so many armored vehicles on the Armata platform by this date.

P.S. At the moment, it is known about the conclusion of a contract for the production of about 140 armored vehicles on the Armata platform - and this is already more than the amount of equipment of this class in an average European country. And after all, the platform has not yet been adopted, so we are not talking about mass production yet.

Uralvagonzavod handed over to the Russian Ministry of Defense a batch of upgraded T-72B3M tanks

https://www-gazeta-ru.translate.goog/army/news/2022/12/02/19174711.shtml?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

Shit, negro. Top of the line Western MBTs don't even get half of that fit and you expect the Russians to pull it off on their budget build?

No they don't.

Why cant the T-72B3 get top firing smoke grenade launchers from the armata, to spoof its thermal signature?

That would be useless without all the other electronics and systems the Armata has to know when to fire those smoke grenades and in which direction.

While we all talk about APS and the advantages it brings, theres an even simpler, tried and proven solution: MORE SMOKE GRENADES

You can't hit a tank you can't see, so smoke grenades nearly always save a tank thats being targeted by an ATGM or RPG.

Blinding your own tanks is a double edged sword... an RPGs are not effected by smoke because they are not guided, and you need to detect an ATGM launch before you can deploy a smoke screen to hide behind... and if your fire enough RPGs you can hit a tank you can't see...

Ive always wondered why russian tanks don't have a MAWS like on the Ka-52 and Mi-28.

The new ones essentially do to a degree, but most don't and certainly western tanks don't either.

ATGMs like the stugna have their rocket motor working for the duration of their flight time. Also stugna rocket motors are annular, firing from the side. The javelin motor fires from the back, but both ATGMs have no thermal reduction measures installed. A MAWS detecting UV or IR emissions can easily detect them 1-2km out.

On a battlefield such systems would detect all sorts of things firing and things burning... what are you expecting to achieve?

The T-90A already has LWRs that automatically launch smoke grenades when the tank is lased. Why cant russian tanks also have MAWS that also launches smoke grenades automatically, just like how russian helos launch flares automatically when a missile approaches them?

A tank is in combat for much longer periods than any helicopter so the number of smoke grenades they would need and would use would be enormous... and that would effect what they could see too... having blind tanks is not useful.

Cant Russian tank commander periscopes be jury rigged with cheap civilian FLIR scopes? Their range doesnt have to be very long, only enough for the TC to detect infantry trying to ambush in ruins or bushes, and in this war, infantry ambushes at around 100-600m out.

Or perhaps for the command tank it might have a tethered drone... they are working on drones with IIR and MMW radar antenna that would be good for detecting targets nearby... but will need some work still.

The core problem is that zoomed back you will see hotspots but the time it takes to zoom in on each to identify what it is and then zoom back out and look a the next target takes an enormous amount of time in a large volume of ground like that around a stationary or moving tank.

All NATO tanks have integral LWRs with automatic smoke dispensers, as well as CITVs. The T-90A costs 2million and has almost all of this. T-90M costs 3million. Idk how much the MAWS on the Ka-52 costs but it shpouldnt be that expensive. Tank MAWS dont need to have very long range. The vitebsk UV MAWShas 8-9km range, a tank MAWS needs 2km at most.

MAWS on the ground wont work like a MAWS in the air... sitting on the ground there will be lots of obstructions which means you wont detect some things till they are far too close for you to do anything about... rendering your multimillion dollar MAWS worthless half the time.

Makes more sense having troops and vehicles and drones and air power providing support to the tanks and overwatch to protect them.

Those mast mounted optical balls on the upgraded T-62s look interesting, but imagine that optic when it is driving cross country on uneven ground.... it would be swinging like a hockey stick during a hockey game... useless.

A drone on the other hand might provide the over watch you want, especially if it flys at 3km or so and is big enough to carry good optics and MMW radar and IIR sensors... with some decent electronics you could get it to look in wide angle in radar and IIR frequencies looking for hotspots and moving things which could be zoomed in from another sensor ball that looks close in to ID each moving thing... software would ID and keep track of any hot spot or moving thing near your vehicles, while the other ball turret with highly magnified TV and IIR optics for identifying the targets one at a time.

New variant of T-72B3M version 2022. Much better protected turret and body of the new tanks.
https://t.me/milinfolive/94105?single

Lessons learned i see.

Corner cutting on your upgrades have consecuences.

One thing is not clear to me, and that is that the T-80BVM has "Relict" ERA in the front projection of the turret, while even on this model T-72B3 they kept "Kontakt-5".
Both tanks have a cast turret, while the T-90A and T-90M have a turret welded from sections.


T-80BVM

However, it can be seen that the armor has been strengthened and that new ERA sections have been added along the gun barrel, as well as in the middle and in the rear of the tank turret..





Is it just me or is there a protective net added to the front lower projection of the turret like on the T-90M tank? Look at the tank that is in the close-up, that is, on the nearest wagon in the picture..

Corner cutting on your upgrades have consecuences.

No corner cutting. Different stages so the upgrades are affordable in large numbers.
We can talk about it if had been better to spend more money from the beginning and
turn each T-72 into a close relative of the T-90M.

I guess they will. Some od the early b3's will go for mid repair anyway soon. So nothing stops pimping them up in a proces.

Turret of T-80BV has less protection that turret on T-72B any model, so they put Relikt ERA to T-80BVM to gave him more protection. This lvl of protection with Relikt ERA is same as T-72B mod 1989 have it with K5 on it...


Btw, T-72B3M has also Relikt, but they use cassettes from K5 instead of cassettes for Relikt.. Why is that you can always asked Russians...

Still they do not put panoramic commander sight on this T-72B3M obrazac 2022...for frack sake why?

Better reverse speed is much more needed than CITV. Tank carousel tactics are retarded. This isnt 1622. Tanks aren't cavaliers with pistols

Do you know what is situation awareness on modern battle filed? Gunner has only one job an that is to take out target, commander gave him. Wiht panoramic sight and thermal channel in it commander have 80% batter chance to find on time target and forward the same to the gunner. Especially at night when IR light is outdated in late 80s with its range.

I have friend who are commander on Serbian T-72MS1 tanks, before that he was commander on Yugo M-84A tank, with IR sight..the difference is huge in the time it takes to find targets, and especially in observing the space compared to the M-84 tank....quick finding of targets means quick destruction of them...he tells me that many times till day...still Russians do not upgraded ter T-72B3Ms with this sight for commander...

They are putting K1 ERA on side od turret...come on K1 ERA is outdated and work only against old ATGMS from 80s...they added great protection....