Soviet tanks called the most adapted to modernization

One of the most important characteristics of armored vehicles is its adaptability to modernization. As it turned out, this figure is the highest among Soviet and Russian military vehicles.

Such conclusions can be drawn by studying the world ranking compiled by the American publication National Interest.

Its authors believe that some models of armored vehicles have remained popular for decades not because of thick armor, powerful guns, excellent driving performance or other technical characteristics. Only the ability to modernize allows for a long time to adapt military equipment to changing realities.

The ability to efficiently deploy new guns, armor, turrets and sensors can keep the tank on the front line for decades, saving the costs of the military and industry.

Having studied many military vehicles manufactured by different countries at different times, American researchers came to unexpected conclusions. They put in first and second place among the most adaptable tanks world T-55 and T-72, created in the USSR. Another five of the best included the English Centurion, as well as the American M4 Sherman and M60.

Since the T-55 was constantly improved, it continued to be used in different countries of the world for several decades. In particular, it was on this tank that the system of active protection was installed for the first time in the world. T-72 is also well suited for modernization. He did not come to first place only because he began to be produced later than the T-55.

Comments

[knn54]

Not only tanks. Although praise from the National Interest of the Yankees is doubly pleasant

[Insurgent]

Quote: knn54

praise from the National Interest of the Yankees is doubly pleasant

Soviet tanks called the most adapted to modernization

And not only for modernization, but also for a radical alteration, as was the case with the “Ahzarit” (Hebrew אכזרית - “cruel”) - an Israeli heavy tracked armored personnel carrier based on captured T-54 and T-55 tanks captured during several Arab-Israeli conflicts.

[Thunderbolt]

Quote: knn54

praise from the National Interest of the Yankees is doubly pleasant

What other Yankes are there ..? The publisher and gender of "The National Interest" is the star of Russian political shows Dmitry Konstantinovich Simis / Simes /.
Why would not the hirelings go wild, just to justify the absence of the planned "Armatat" platforms in the boxes of our battalions! .What is the record? Dmitry Simes wants to assure the reader that the latest modernization under the RF Ministry of Defense is cool, and the Syrian experience proves that such means of strengthening the base T-72 are insufficient if they are insufficient in combat contacts with partisans on Toyota and T-72, but with a strong rifle and ATGM, then what will win the domestic tank, with an improved reservation system, but without systems for active destruction of ATGMs, while Syria has already shown that the next big war will not skimp on the use of missiles on tanks.

[poquello]

Quote: Thunderbolt

Syrian experience proves that such means of strengthening the base T-72 are insufficient.

failure please open

[Thunderbolt]

deficiency can suddenly reveal itself during a battle with NATO brigades. They have been sharpened in anti-tank bias since the times of the USSR. They did not lose these abilities, but rather strengthen them, adopting promising weapons for fighting tanks. And ours are all worried. Ah, his frontal armor is weakly covered by DZ! But a year ago, Azerbaijanis showed how NATO will operate. Spike burned an Armenian tank.
So, the article is very mediocre, without examples and analytics --- this should never be expected from NI, because. purely propaganda resource.

[poquello]

Quote: Thunderbolt

a year ago, Azerbaijanis showed how NATO would operate. Spike burned an Armenian tank.

Duc if some showed, others didn’t show, it’s not a reason, as it was with the curtain)

[Doccor18]

This is confirmed by the glorious service of the T-72 for over 40 years.

[Paul Siebert]

The ability to modernize is in the blood of our tank builders since World War II.
She helped us defeat the Wehrmacht - the most powerful army in Europe.
Russian ingenuity and folk wisdom always came to our aid.
But, in addition to modernization, one should not forget about breakthrough technologies in the construction of tanks.

[Insurgent]

Quote: Paul Siebert

The ability to modernize is in the blood of our tank builders since World War II.

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Paul Siebert

But, in addition to modernization, one should not forget about breakthrough technologies in the construction of tanks.

If I’m not mistaken, the automatic loader is only on our tanks

[Paul Siebert]

Quote: Lipchanin

Quote: Paul Siebert

But, in addition to modernization, one should not forget about breakthrough technologies in the construction of tanks.

If I’m not mistaken, there is an automatic loader only on our tanks

There is more on the French "Leclerc". And the Chinese comrades ...

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Paul Siebert

And the Chinese comrades ..

Well, about China everything is clear
Just yesterday on "Zvezda" almost all day there was a program about tanks in the USSR and Russia. So I heard out of my ears that there is still no automatic loader in the west. Perhaps this applied to tanks from the last century.

[Paul Siebert]

Quote: Lipchanin

Just yesterday on "Zvezda" almost all day there was a program about tanks in the USSR and Russia.

Yeah, I looked too.
A very good show. "The history of the Russian tank" is called ...

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Paul Siebert

"The history of the Russian tank" is called ...

Well yes. I learned a lot of interesting and new things.
For example, about floating tanks. Particularly struck as 300 tanks on the bottom, it seems the Dnieper crossed.
Imagine how NATO put on their pants

[orionvitt]

Quote: Lipchanin

the Dnieper seems to have crossed the bottom

In the Dnieper, depths are more than five meters. If the bottom is forced, then only in the upper reaches, somewhere near Smolensk.

[MA3UTA]

In order to choose a place with acceptable depths for underwater driving, this miracle was in service.


https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ИПР

[Grits]

Quote: Lipchanin

Particularly struck as 300 tanks on the bottom, it seems the Dnieper crossed.
Imagine how the NATO put on his pants

Plus, it was not a secret that it was an imitation of crossing the Rhine.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Lipchanin

So I heard from the corner of my ear that in the west there is still no automatic loader

there, and very good. It’s just that some countries (and leading tank powers such as Germany or the USA) do not knowingly put AZs, believing that the presence of a loader is more justified

[Lipchanin]

Quote: Gregory_45

It’s just that some countries (and leading tank powers such as Germany or the USA) do not knowingly put AZs, believing that the presence of a loader is more justified

Clear.
Thank you

[venik]

Quote: Gregory_45

It’s just that some countries (and leading tank powers such as Germany or the USA) do not knowingly put AZs, believing that the presence of a loader is more justified

========
There is one more nuance: It is extremely difficult from an engineering point of view to combine an automatic loader with a "turret" placement of ammunition. By the way, the French succeeded in this, but the design turned out to be very complicated, expensive and cumbersome!

[Grigory_45]

The funny thing is that the conveyor belt in the likeness of the French Leclerc and Japanese Type 90 was on the US-German MBT-70. However, when the paths parted, both Abrams and Leopard refused AZ

[Grits]

Quote: Gregory_45

AZ is not set deliberately, considering that the presence of a loader is more justified

Performance pitching - Negro is still highly regarded.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Gritsa

Performance pitching - Negro is still highly valued

An experienced loader can fire a projectile into a cannon every 3-4 seconds when firing from the spot, thereby providing a pace greater than the best AZ allows. At least the first shots
Plus - an additional crew member involved in the maintenance of the tank.
Apparently, this is the logic

[Doliva63]

Quote: Gregory_45

Quote: Gritsa

Performance pitching - Negro is still highly valued

An experienced loader can fire a projectile into a cannon every 3-4 seconds when firing from the spot, thereby providing a pace greater than the best AZ allows. At least the first shots
Plus - an additional crew member involved in the maintenance of the tank.
Apparently, this is the logic

Here is one of the "tricks" of the machine - the rate of loading for the offhand drops with each shot, but the machine does not.
And where did you get 3-4 seconds? Do you imagine the process? Zakidny is sitting on the seat to the right or just standing there, holding on to the handle. Shot. Without releasing the handle, you need to reach the lock button, press it, rush to the styling, open it, get the shell, take 2 steps back with it, stick it in, push it by hand, turn to the lock button, press, rush into place, report. And it's all on the go, when time is running out and to maintain balance. The first such shot takes about 6 seconds, but the next (if in a row) will take a little more than 7 seconds, and the third - far in 8 seconds. Let me remind you that OF18 weighs a little over 30 kg. - 3 sec. You only have to open the stack, get the shell and unbend I don’t remember the standard, but at school we did everything a lot faster - everything is not 6 months of training, but 4 years

[Grigory_45]

I did not think that the comment-reasoning "on the topic" would have to be explained.

Quote: Doliva63

Here is one of the "tricks" of the machine - the rate of loading for the offhand drops with each shot, but the machine does not.

I know this very well. For meticulous readers, he even indicated the conditions under which the indicated values ​​would be valid.
The pros and cons of AZ are also known to me.

Quote: Doliva63

And where did you get 3-4 seconds?

from open sources, in relation to the Abrams tank. Neither you nor I sat in it, let alone operated on the loader's seat. Therefore, you have to build on the well-known figures. Indirect factors also indicate that they are more or less objective. In particular, the French made their own AZ for Leclerc, including with the expectation of catching up with the "live AZ" in cycle time. The French got a cycle of 4 seconds.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Gregory_45

I did not think that the comment-reasoning "on the topic" would have to be explained.

Quote: Doliva63

Here is one of the "tricks" of the machine - the rate of loading for the offhand drops with each shot, but the machine does not.

I know this very well. For meticulous readers, he even indicated the conditions under which the indicated values ​​would be valid.
The pros and cons of AZ are also known to me.

Quote: Doliva63

And where did you get 3-4 seconds?

from open sources, in relation to the Abrams tank. Neither you nor I sat in it, let alone operated on the loader's seat. Therefore, you have to build on the well-known figures. Indirect factors also indicate that they are more or less objective. In particular, the French made their own AZ for Leclerc, including with the expectation of catching up with the "live AZ" in cycle time. The French got a cycle of 4 seconds.

Open Sources - US Army Standards? I would agree with them, and so on - OBS.
Abrams’s practical rate of fire is 4 rounds per minute (what 3 seconds can you talk about?), Leclerc has 10, T-72 has 8. You only say that you never performed the duties of a loading / gunner / tank commander, and I immediately I will leave you

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Doliva63

Practical rate of fire

Have you noticed that this is a technical rate of fire? Which is always above practical (Leclerc is technically capable of firing 15 shells per minute)

[venik]

Quote: Lipchanin

Probably this refers to tanks from the last century

========
Just "with precision, but vice versa"! It was the very first AZ in serial tanks that was first used in the French AMX-13, produced in the 1950s, and then in the Austrian Steyr SK 105, produced since 1971. True, they were very primitive and had extremely limited ammunition.
And here are the first full tank automatic loaders were first introduced on the T-64 in 1972!

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Lipchanin

If I’m not mistaken, the automatic loader is only on our tanks

no, not only. In French Leclerc, in Chinese tanks (which is understandable - they are Soviet, or even direct copies), in Japanese Type 10 and Type 90, on the South Korean Black Panther K2

By the way, the first prototype of a fully automatic tank automatic loader was developed by the Rock Island Arsenal and manufactured by AAI Corp. in 1969. It provided up to 8 rounds per minute and allowed loading at the same time as the gun was aiming in both planes and was coupled with a gun stabilization system

[Lipchanin]

Thank you
I will find time and try to find something on this topic.
Interested

[Free wind]

Frenchman AMX-13, in '52 he was already with an automatic loader.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Free Wind

Frenchman AMX-13, in 52 was already with automatic loader

you can recall the Austrian Cuirassier. Nevertheless, this is not MBT, and it’s more correct to call the AZ on them a store

[venik]

Quote: Gregory_45

you can recall the Austrian Cuirassier. Nevertheless, this is not MBT, and it’s more correct to call the AZ on them a store

========
Yes, probably - it would be more correct to say "drum" (there were like 2 of them, there were 6 shots in each, as in "Smith-Wesson") ..... Not enough !!!

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Gregory_45

The first prototype of a fully automatic tank-mounted autoloader was developed by the Rock Island Arsenal and manufactured by AAI Corp. in 1969

What a great job, though the T-64 with the MH went into production no later than 68, but oh well.

[newcomer]

I wonder why Interest didn’t like the modernization potential of the 80s? Although, the publication has a kind of analytics.

[svp67]

Quote: newbie

I wonder why Interest didn’t like the modernization potential of the 80s? Although, the publication has a kind of analytics.

It is later released than the same T-72 and the number of upgrades is not yet large ... Although I agree, its potential is still very large

[Horst78]

Quote: newbie

I wonder why Interest didn’t like the modernization potential of the 80s? Although, the publication has a kind of analytics.

80tons are being upgraded only by Russia, Ukraine and Belarus in some way. 72yka was produced in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia. Therefore, they can fully modernize it (by attracting outsiders, in particular Israel). Without a fully-fledged production and repair base, substantial modernization is not possible (all kinds of thermal imagers, walkie-talkies and SLAs do not count.).

[newcomer]

Clearly understood. But from the article I realized that we are talking about the fact of modern potential, and not about a fait accompli.

[Strashila]

"Since the T-55 was constantly being improved, it continued to be operated in different countries of the world for several decades.", Can release the T-55 tank in a new version and using the latest technological advances.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Strashila

can release the T-55 tank in a new version and using the latest technology

and there will be such a non-tank cost as "Armata", and in terms of combat capabilities it will not come close to "seventy two".
The carrying capacity of the chassis and volumes is not enough for adequate armor and weapons.
Old tanks can make quite good armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles, which do not need powerful armor against BOPs, relatively relatively light in weight composite and DZ against anti-tank systems and grenade launchers

[Strashila]

"if such a non-tank will cost like" Armata "", the fact of the matter is that it will not cost like Armata, mass use reduces production costs and prime cost.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Strashila

the fact of the matter is that it will not cost as Armata

sure? Nothing remains of the T-55. Neither the hull (which needs to be thoroughly modified), nor the tower (which needs a new one if you change the gun), nor the motor (which is for replacement), nor equipment (completely for replacement). Despite the fact that you can’t put much on the 55th chassis. It is at the limit of barely 45 tons. Meaning?
Modernization of the 55th is carried out only by poor countries that cannot afford to buy something more worthy, such as Leopard, Abrams or T-72

By the way, there are a great many variants of T-55 alterations (but the lion’s part remained experienced), everyone chooses according to their capabilities.

[igor67]

from 30 seconds, Centurion is clearly visible

[rotmistr60]

Soviet designers worked hard for many years to come, always leaving the opportunity for the modernization of technology. Thank you very much for that. The current generation also takes this into account in their work.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: rotmistr60

Soviet designers worked hard for many years to come, always leaving the opportunity for modernization of technology

that’s how any professional designer, even German, even American

[Doliva63]

Quote: rotmistr60

Soviet designers worked hard for many years to come, always leaving the opportunity for the modernization of technology. Thank you very much for that. The current generation also takes this into account in their work.

The "current generation" has not yet created anything of its own, and is only using Soviet developments with might and main: T-90 is T-72, AK12 is AK, Tu-160M ​​is Tu-160, Su-35 is Su-27 and etc.

[poquello]

Quote: Doliva63

T-90 is T-72, AK12 is AK, Tu-160M ​​is Tu-160, Su-35 is Su-27, etc.

) so all AK after is AK, stagnation along the way for decades is costructural))))))))))))))))))))

[Atlant-1164]

in the USSR everything was done seriously and for a long time. 30 years have passed since there was no Union .. and its legacy in the Army still accounts for the lion's share of the weapons of our army.

[maxlog15]

Sorry, but this year there will be no Tank Biathlon. In the past I watched all races with great interest.

[Grits]

Quote: maxlog15

Sorry, but this year there will be no Tank Biathlon

Where does infa come from and why?

[Maks1995]

Russian National Interest Pushkova will certainly praise Russian technology.

And with the tanks, too, everything is clear. They were created under the body kit from the very beginning. Light, low, cramped, inexpensive.
The most for the country and for export. No wonder the T90 over the hill is much larger than ours.

Without a body kit, there are shots - here they laid out where the tower was pierced by roofing felts 30, or 56 mm shells, now I don’t remember exactly.

[poquello]

Quote: Max1995

Light, low, cramped, inexpensive.

)))))))))))
everyone dreams of light, low, inexpensive - then quality characteristics

[sanik2020]

Soviet designers worked hard for many years to come, always leaving the opportunity for the modernization of technology. Thank you very much for that. The current generation also takes this into account in their work.

Soviet tanks scolded all and sundry for not comfort, only these tanks were created for a single purpose, FIGHT. But in a battle with them, whoever can save themselves, because they can be improved for decades and in the battle they are still the best.

[Grits]

Quote: sanik2020

Soviet tanks scolded all and sundry for not comfort, only these tanks were created for a single purpose, FIGHT.

As they say: it’s better to serve on Abrams, and it’s better to fight on T-72

[Grigory_45]

Soviet tanks called the most adapted to modernization

I would not agree with the authors from NI. They confuse the modernization potential and the number of modernizations carried out (alterations, versions)
The modernization potential is just higher for Western tanks, for several reasons:
1. Larger reserved volume, less dense layout. It allows you to put guns of greater power without a significant alteration of the tower structure, allows you to use shots of greater power (more dimensional, which AZs of domestic tanks do not allow), makes it relatively easy to install more powerful engines, etc. The less dense the machine’s layout, the more you can squeeze into it.
2. Larger carrying capacity of the chassis. Allows relatively easy to increase armor protection, install more powerful guns.

So, Abrams gained over 10 tons over the years of his service (from 54 to 63-odd), and the T-72 - only 5 tons (from 41 to 46). The chassis does not allow more.

[Moon]

Quote: Gregory_45

They confuse the modernization potential and the number of modernizations carried out (alterations, versions)

as usual, quality is confused with quantity.
It is simply a matter of mass character and the number of possible options and the possibility to radically increase the quality of a unit.
T 55 is a very massive tank (Top 10 of the best tanks 5th place - mass / quantity of industrial production)
and of course there are many different options in the world.
Rich countries cannot afford endless upgrades. It is more expensive than creating a new machine or methods of warfare.

[alexmach]

Rich countries cannot afford endless upgrades. It is more expensive than creating a new machine or methods of warfare.

Well yes, nuda .. Just look at Abrams or Leopard ...

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Σελήνη

T 55 very massive tank

however, this is a medium tank

Quote: Σελήνη

Rich countries cannot afford endless upgrades

let me disagree. Abrams, Leopard 2 are examples of this. Tanks have dozens of options and have gone through several major upgrades, for decades remaining the main battle tank of the United States and Germany. And, apparently, they will not be replaced soon either

[Mebius]

Russian weapons have always been the main feature in the production of weapons .. Simplicity, reasonable suitability, rapid modernization and most importantly reliability! Convenience is of course not enough for crews, like its western counterparts, but when explosions thundered around, there are no amenities anymore, and most importantly, that the engine, chassis, gun, machine gun and armor do not disappoint .. And there it’s so lucky!

[Free wind]

Well then, the M-60, Sherman of 1942, here, from which side, then why there is no t-34 in the review.

[Mebius]

Quote: Free Wind

then why is there no t-34 in the review.

Well, with the legendary T-34 it all started ..

[Doliva63]

Quote: Mobius

Quote: Free Wind

then why is there no t-34 in the review.

Well, with the legendary T-34 it all started ..

Well yes. T-55 is a direct descendant of T-34.

[poquello]

Quote: Doliva63

Quote: Mobius

Quote: Free Wind

then why is there no t-34 in the review.

Well, with the legendary T-34 it all started ..

Well yes. T-55 is a direct descendant of T-34.

not really, t34 set the development canvas, t43 was significantly different but precisely in comparison with the landmark

[Nikolay2]

And Volga and Loaf have endless modernization potential.